yea more corporate new dem that did nothing to improve the state for his entire tenure in office, oh and he gerrymandered the state senate for republicans during his tenure and is the reason NY can't redistrict now. so arguably worse than a west virginia democrat
Which is why Cuomo has no right to whine about anything Republicans have passed or Democrats couldn’t pass (I.e. fixing salt cap). Without his redistricting commission or appointed judges, Dems would have controlled the House for the last three years. He did this and it should be rubbed in his face by other Democrats.
And *a lot* has happened to the Republican Party since 2002. It was sliding toward the abyss once Gingri(n)ch came to power in the early 1990s, but with the rise of Trump in 2015-2016 it was over the cliff. Moderate Charlie Baker (R) could be elected twice as governor of MA, in 2015 and 2019, but I doubt he could have survived a GOP primary in 2022. He wisely decided not to run for a third term (which would have been very unusual for any MA governor).
Nancy Mace needs to take some time off and deal with her mental health issues. She is clearly struggling with mental health problems right now and she needs professional help. John Fetterman also needs to do the same but I suspect that he is going to leave the Senate soon. He hasn't been fundraising for 2028, which is a big clue that he isn't running for re-election. I know that neither Mace or Fetterman are popular here, but they both clearly need help.
Nancy Mace is fighting a deeply entrenched good Ole boy network in SC. I have no idea how Nikki Haley broke thru it. It must be exhausting. I'm not voting for her in a general election, but she's right about the Epstein files. 9/10 when she's spouting off, it's about male pols deeply entrenched. I don't like her general politics, but I think she's getting the "shrew woman" treatment in the media while she's pointing out that women are 2nd class in SC.
Mace? Are you kidding me? She has been one of the most vocally, offensively vile individuals in Congress in terms of her personal conduct re: trans people, both strangers, and to a fellow trans Congressmember, Sarah McBride. Perhaps THE worst, in the House. How have you missed this?
She deserves zero respect. If she has been waging some sort of "good fight" against the patriarchy or whatever, its rendered completely moot by her other speech and actions.
I have not missed that. She's awful. But he R opponents are worse. And she's not getting beat up in the center or right media because of her trans comments, although she should be. She's getting beat up right now because she's pointing out that she is treated differently as a woman than her male colleagues.
Also, I suspect many of her male colleagues in Congress are just as awful to trans people generally and to the trans Representative (whose name escapes me at the moment). But Mace's bad behavior gets magnified to make her look worse and the men's bad behavior gets ignored as locker room talk or something. And she's still not as bad with what she's said as the president is, though that bar is so low you have to dig it out of the muck with dynamite.
Didn't even have the common courtesy to Google Sarah McBride's name, huh? I really don't care what Nancy Mace is, she's an unhinged racist scumbag who's making up false accusations against people.
Pam Evette, Ralph Norman (Also a Congressperson), Alan Wilson (current AG and good ole boy), Joshua Kimbrell (St Senator and Christian radio talk show host) are currently in race with Mace. I think Wilson and Norman are more competitive than Evette, who has no presence as LG.
Since there was a question about this in the weekend thread, the Virginia Department of Elections says that cities and counties are required to report all election results no later than 10 days after the election. So all of the provisional and post-election ballots have to be reported by this Friday, and I believe that includes assigning the early votes and mail-in votes to their precincts.
So we won't have to wait too much longer to answer the burning questions of what exactly Spanberger's margin was in VA-01, and whether Fluvanna and Caroline voted for her or not.
Votehub uses its own allocation, and VA-01 is mostly done, at a 2pt race of Gov.
VA-02 is also mostly done, at over 7pt. OTOH, VA-05 still misses some precincts’ mail votes, should end with -7~-8pt. VA-07 also waits for some allocation, and it is in high teens.
NOVA districts except Arlington co are mostly allocated. VA-10 is 20pt, VA-11 at 47pt, VA-08 with the unallocated in, is expected to be over 60pt.
That is why I mentioned, don’t jump to conclusions.
VA-02 margin bodes well for our chances against Kiggans. VA-01 definitely on the board as a possibility too, although Wittman is pretty entrenched. Hopefully this is all moot and we get to redistrict VA.
If Bruce enters he will win -- she has no statewide backing except for Trump. Lawler might reconsider if it looks competitive as well -- and Hochul is VERY weak. Would love to see someone like Pat Ryan or Josh Riley or even AOC -- they'd beat any of the republicans.
It is not going to look competitive. In this environment every Republican is wasting their time if their goal is to actually win against Hochul. She has improved her standing somewhat since 2022 and Trump at the top of the ticket ruins any chance of competing with her.
You think so? In the general, I can see Mamdani endorsing her (albeit reluctantly) and encouraging his base to vote for her because whatever issues they have with Hochul, the Republican would be 1000% worse.
Mamdani will have to face off against Albany to green light many of his proposals. In order to avoid confrontation with Hochul, Mamdani would either need to abandon his campaign promises or Albany would have to push them through. The most likely scenario is a pending grudge match with Hochul that will serve her badly in her reelection efforts.
Mamdani could also focus on the policies he can do without the state's agreement. That ignores a lot of his promises but not all of them, and might be sufficient for him to be considered successful by voters.
she could also just... green light some of it? they have a lot of commonality re: their focus on affordability. I don't know why you're so determined to manifest Hochul just shooting him down.
They've both said they want to do universal childcare, for example. And she's been wishy-washy on tax increases
I agree. Not endorsing him was a political decision (that may prove to be wise but it's too soon to tell) but I doubt she'd hold up funding out of some sort of grudge. I suspect they'll work reasonably well together.
I'm skeptical about that. Has the mayor of NYC ever really had much impact on a NY governor race? I'd be surprised if any Republicans except maybe Susan Collins won statewide in blue states the way 2026 is shaping up.
"plays out as expected" do tell the class what you think the expected outcome is. because both Hochul and Mamdani are purposefully downplaying their disagreements at just about every opportunity.
It's not complicated. New York City has to go through the state to get authorization for the funding mechanisms to pay for his agenda. Hochul and the legislature aren't gonna want those tax increases on their hands so there's gonna be a tug of war. Class dismissed!
i'm well aware of all of this, there's one slight problem: Hochul *has also committed to passing universal childcare*, which needs... guess what... a tax increase!
So there's no guarantee she is going to be inherently oppositional. Otherwise she wouldn't have endorsed the guy.
You feel like she's been a very effective and notably error-free governor? I still don't understand how she got away with lowering the congestion pricing toll set by legislation she signed.
I think she's been far better than people give her credit for in the face of rampant inflation and explicit undercutting/punishment from the federal government (e.g. the SALT deduction). Not arguing that she's Winston Churchill or anything but rather that she's been better than she gets credit for.
That's probably fair, but the federal government isn't to blame for her horrible court nominee that her own party had to quash or unilaterally decreasing those tolls, at the expense of the Metropolitan Transit Authority.
The court agreed Monday to hear arguments in RNC v. Wetzel, a lawsuit challenging Mississippi’s law allowing a five-day grace period for late-arriving ballots mailed by Election Day.
Huh? There are no constitutional issues here. Grace periods like that are purely a matter of statute. Some states have them, others don't, and that doesn't always line up with the partisan lean of the state.
The Fifth Circuit ruled against it. So they were pretty much obligated to take it. Unless they wanted states in the fifth circuit to be different than the rest of the country.
“Congress statutorily designated a singular “day for the election” of members of Congress and the appointment of presidential electors,” Judge Andrew S. Oldham, a Trump appointee, wrote in the court’s opinion. “Text, precedent, and historical practice confirm this “day for the election” is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials.”
Wonder how the decision will go. I'm willing to bet some of the conservative judges on SCOTUS have voted by mail and/or taken advantage of early in person voting.
If they rule against the RNC, it'll probably be due to a strong argument for overseas, military, disabled and elderly voters who rely on VBM to make their voices heard.
My guess, if they go strict textualism, they will ban all federal elections from receiving mail ballots post poll closing, probably only except overseas and servicing ballots which UOCAVA covers.
They would say nothing on state or local elections.
I know this court doesn’t need one, but what would the fig leaf of textual reasoning be to allow overseas military ballots to come in late but not others?
That would be SCOTUS writing state law. That would be good for reimplementing a grace period for red or purple states that abolished them, but not so good for states with 4-10 day grace periods.
Either of the other candidates will cause a meltdown over the forbidden issue and possibly cost us the seat. Also, Rogers has a huge name ID advantage because he ran for the Senate last year.
I'm not the least bit worried about either Stevens or McMorrow in the GE, pending a massive change in environment. Abdul-Sayed might be a bit dicier, but I suspect he'd wind up pulling it out in the end.
I'm highly skeptical about that poll. Rogers couldn't win an open seat in an extremely favorable GOP environment in 2024. Why would he win one in 2026 which is shaping up as a blue wave? Slotkin may be somewhat stronger than any of the 2026 candidates, but the difference between 2024 and 2026 is likely to be night and day.
Michigan has really bad statewide pollsters - really bad. Epic is the best and they’re just okay. But, these hacks are from Georgia - they don’t know the territory. After reading the release it is clearly setting up for Tudor Dixon to run for Gov again. I think most Dems would welcome that. The Senate numbers are bs and/or just a name ID poll - lots of undecideds. In short, nothing to worry about
When you look at the electoral pattern of Michigan in the trump era, it’s always super close and competitive in presidential years and pretty blue in midterm years. I don’t see any reason why that pattern won’t continue.
Electoral politics is not football where when you have it you need to score points. We are in the minority. We need to play hot potato instead and hand the issue off to Republians who we know won't do anything about it.
We can only have enough leverage to affect policy and play football when we control a lever of power which we currently do not. We need issues to give us power back.
This was orchestrated which is why the bare minimum Dems are all not up for years or are retiring.
If you believe Dems running for office or incumbents think this post-election shutdown is beneficial are protesting for purely altruistic reasons you are naive. They fully understand that prolonging this at this point will help nothing.
Those subsidies are gone. Trump will NEVER bring them back. And the longer this goes on the longer it gives Trump the time to come up with some populist nonsense like sending direct checks in order to portray himself as the problem solver.
The only way to keep the narrative and the issue is to let Republicans continue to fumble it, which we KNOW they will.
This was all by design and the right call to reopen at this time.
I agree. Republicans have set themselves up for a lose-lose situation. They will lose their House majority at minimum next year, and the Senate if things get really bad (which I think they will). And while losing ACA subsidies is awful, people still have to eat and pay their bills.
And yet a lot of leftists (especially some content creators) are unhappy that Dems are settling for a CR but with provisions that SNAP is fully funded, the federal workers TACO tried to fire during the shutdown get reinstated, et al. Plus a firm deal for a vote on a ACA bill that Dems pick in December.
And by forcing the House back into session to pass (or not pass) the Senate bill, Mike Johnson has no choice but to seat Rep Adalita Grijalva.
"that SNAP is fully funded, the federal workers TACO tried to fire during the shutdown get reinstated"
These are not some wins, gains or concessions that the Dems got from the GOP, but things which the f-ing courts ordered the admin to do already, but were simply ignored.... its infuriating.
“ Dems are settling for a CR but with provisions that SNAP is fully funded, the federal workers TACO tried to fire during the shutdown get reinstated, et al.”
That’s just the pre-shutdown status quo, how is that in any way a win for us? We gained literally nothing from this other than a symbolic vote on the subsidies that the House will never take up.
It shows voters that Democrats are willing to fight. You notice all the Democratic Senators who voted with Rs to reopen the government are either retiring next year or freshly reelected. The ones running for reelection next year like Ossoff did not vote for it.
A lot of Democrats unhappy with this need to realize that the GOP OWNS spiking healthcare costs and premiums now. The GOP Senators up for re-election next year are going to take a HARD vote -- and it will cost them in Ohio and Texas.
If this means that we get a 2006 sized blue wave next year (knocking Johnson and Thune out of their majority leader status), it means that the Dems will control things and hold TACO accountable.
Except they stopped fighting, and did so in exchange for de facto nothing because all the "wins" are either worthless (vote) or would have been the case if we had done nothing.
Backing down from a fight is not how you show that you are willing to fight.
None of that convinced me. The central argument is that the shutdown -> cave showed that democrats are willing to fight, which we should be happy about as an improvement. But, again, they stopped fighting.
Shutdown politics are never for low-info voters but those at least partially engaged. I also think the Trump administration vindictive actions during the shutdown contributed to his popularity decline. Voters have now been throughly reminded why Trump has never been popular outside his base. The anti-woke honeymoon he rode in on is thoroughly over.
I'm a high-information voter, and like many others, I feel completely betrayed and undercut by this spineless cave-in. The Democrats who did this share in making healthcare unaffordable for a large number of people and everything else that Trump does and does not spend money on, and they've shown again how a critical mass of them can be counted on to emulate the behavior of the Center Party in 1933 Germany. What will be left of American democracy and society next November? Trump is reigning unchecked by the Supreme Court, unchecked by Congress and unchecked by effective Democratic opposition, and as Bernie said last night, that will cause tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
“This was orchestrated which is why the bare minimum Dems are all not up for years or are retiring.”
That’s EXACTLY the problem. The establishment of the party getting incumbents safe from our voters potential consequences if they don’t like their choice to cave AGAIN and lay down and roll over for Republicans. They act like they are all above reproach and that only they know best. No accountability possible for these people if OUR voters have decided that the party’s elected officials AREN’T representing what we actually want.
Also, in case this didn’t occur to you, the fact that this was orchestrated solely by Senators not up for election already implies that THEY KNOW OUR VOTERS DON’T APPROVE! Aren’t you supposed to represent those who elected you in the first place? So why do you need to orchestrate it? Because again you’re going against what our party’s voters actually want in a representative. Who are they to tell us what’s best for us? No, fuck that.
WE DECIDE WHO REPRESENTS US. Period. The establishment doesn’t get that. It is us who puts them in power to use it. And it’s us who can take away that power if our elected officials no longer know how to battle the fascist GOP. They don’t deserve to get a lifetime gig just because they’re Democrats. I’m so sick of this “we got what we could” argument. You know what the GOP would do if this was the reverse situation? They’d keep the government shutdown until the midterms or until we gave them exactly what they wanted.
The party is once again trying to force our voters into eating a shit Republican sandwich in order to “go high” and “be the better people of good governance”. Fuck that. We don’t want that anymore. Why do you think our own voters are so unbelievably angry at our party leaders? They aren’t listening to us, they aren’t doing what we want them to do and they don’t understand how to win against the GOP.
A bully only backs down after they’re punched in the face and knocked to the ground. People here may or may not remember my years on DK and now TDB backing the establishment because I felt they knew how to win and who was electable. I was an establishment shill, I defended every move they did even with most candidates to the right of my preferences.
If someone like myself has had enough and wants our party leaders to be kicked out of office, imagine how the average Democrat feels? Enough with capitulation, enough with going along to get along, enough with the Democratic Party of old.
Every Safe Seat Dem should be up for a primary regardless of how they voted on this just to put the fear of the voters into them. I think it's clear that they don't care about their base because they think we'll always side with them.
Amen, I feel the exact same way: I have always carried water for the establishment Ds since I started seriously following down ballot politics around 2010, always assumed they understood better than myself…that’s done now. I remember you on DKE and feel 100% in the same mindset at this time…how can they be so bad at politics!?
MI-SEN: CNN uncovered a bunch of deleted tweets from Abdul El Sayed where he supported defunding the police. Not as bad as the Platner oppo dumps but it still raises questions about his viability in a GE.
I’m not even surprised, that was a popular position among some on the left circa 2020. I will say it is nowhere near as disqualifying as Platner having a Nazi tattoo though. (And I still support McMorrow for the record.)
Also is it just me, or is it a little weird that this, the Platner stuff, and the Talarico stuff all come out at the same time and for candidates the DSCC does not want while no comparable info happens for any DSCC candidates? I don’t want to sound conspiratorial but I’m concerned this is an attempt to get rid of DSCC-unapproved candidates — we know Gillibrand openly said they’d intervene in primaries, for one.
If the oppo were flawed or misleading then sure I could buy a conspiracy. But what's been released is completely fair oppo releases for voters to judge. And I'd much prefer this stuff get released now than in October next year.
The oppo itself wasn’t the problem though, it was that it has exclusively targeted Dems that the DSCC is known to dislike. Combined with the complete lack of oppo for DSCC candidates.
Cal Cunningham in NC, Iowa a decade back?? What's wrong with McMorrow? The establishment is the problem. Stevens' problems and House videos are very public.
Not surprised. I've long believed that El-Sayed is unelectable statewide. He'd do very well in Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, and Hamtramck... and get Virg Bernero numbers everywhere else.
I'm more concerned that he has never held elected office and should he be nominated it would be his first time ever facing a Republican and a general electorate. First time candidates can be very high risk or high reward, he is clearly on the high risk side.
What a nightmare if he somehow ends up as the nominee. Whitmer really needs to run or make a forceful endorsement of someone other than AES. If that senate seat is lost it will definitely affect her political future in a negative way.
I'd say the optics aren't good. Still, it's frustrating that people are getting cancelled for what was at the time a popular sentiment. Anybody reading the room in 2020 could reasonably figure that voicing support for defending the police was at the very least an option worthy of discussion. I know it's a third-rail right now, but unless El Sayed's posts were recently I'd really want to cut him some slack.
The problem with the phrase was that the ideas behind it weren’t bad, it was the phrase itself. The idea was to not send police to literally every possible problem — and to make use of solutions like mental health councillors for a mental health situation, for example. (Although given how many people’s idea of fixing that issue is just re-institutionalization complete with blatant ableist undertones, I’m not sure even that would work now.)
The phrase got mixed up with police abolition (which I don’t support) and led to the current problem. We should have called it something else.
Demilitarizing the Police. That would have been a better way of saying it. This was a yard sign I saw in Berkeley a few years back and it goes to the point of taking the militaristic influence off of police and making sure they are funded for the purpose of serving and protecting residents.
However, the implementation of the Defund the Police agenda in cities like Oakland and Portland has caused serious problems in managing crime. Oakland in particular is still trying to deal with damage control as a result of the implementation years ago only for it to be reversed by the City Council under pressure.
It is clear that whatever you call the agenda, it was not clearly thought through in Oakland, Portland, etc.
Back in 2021, the Oakland City Council voted to defund $17.4 million from the police department with the intention of reappropriating the funds to focus on other issues like affordable housing.
Problem is, Oakland doesn’t generate the revenue like cities such as Los Angeles, NYC, and San Francisco. Taking $17.4 million away from the police department presents serious complications as city government needs to ensure it also generates revenue. You can’t do this without addressing crime at the same time.
I understand that. And, like I said, this is probably going to hurt him in the primary. My point is more a normative one than a descriptive one; I don't consider it right that having had a viewpoint like this in the past is cancel-worthy. There needs to be a line between ideas that are unpopular and those that are cancel-worthy.
I never got how proponents thought how it was going to sound attractive to the median voter. People don't like crime and defunding the police sounds clearly like something that will increase crime. I immediately question the political instincts of anyone that supported this.
It was this sentiment that got us Republican DA's in places like freaking Seattle. How many DEEP blue cities straight up recalled their DA's due to perception of ignoring crime?
Yes there are absolutely abuses that need to be addressed with law enforcement. But politically, having policies of being permissive of crime, or even being seen as permissive of crime will get you voted out by even the most liberal jurisdictions. Even San Francisco, the closest thing the US has to being seen as a purely liberal political entity, being seen as not prosecuting criminals will get you thrown to the wolves.
This is a moderate to conservative country, and the DSA types really need to come to terms with that. Something that works in their deep blue pockets may not be palatable to the electorate at large so there needs to be some middle ground they come to, many won't do that.
Even though their heart is in the right place, the activist left is not very good at politics. The candidates that come with activist left support are often deeply flawed or out of touch ideologically with their jurisdiction. Politics is a contact sport and we can't afford to lose seats because we nominate weak candidates.
As a Minneapolis area resident, ground zero for the "Defund the police" movement, it was resounding rejected by one of the most liberal cities in the country by a wide margin. It is and was a fringe position. One that was held near and dear to maybe ~5-10% of the country tops, and absolutely toxic everywhere else.
It was rejected 56-44. That would be a "wide margin" in a Wisconsin Senate race but I was startled it was that close in Minneapolis on a vote of "defunding the police".
It was a stupid and thoughtless, if popular, sentiment that probably cost us a ton of downballot seats Biden may have saved…it should not have been that close. The police require reform, so why not just say “reform the police”?
There's a big difference between a republican with nazi-problems and a democratic with nazi-problems when it comes to the voters they need to win over.
How many democratic or democratic leaning voters did Robinson get? A general election Platner needs to win over democrats and especially democratic leaning independents that have continued to give Collins a pass.
Due to the party affiliations the situations are not comparable.
No moderates will vote for Nazis, thats kind of the point. The reality is ever having politically toxic viewpoints is disqualifying. Platner and El-Sayed both need to go away, because there is a 0% chance about either general election campaign being about policy, their Republican opponents, or literally anything other than the politically toxic thing.
I think El-Sayed is not a strong candidate for statewide office, at least right now. I'm not disputing that.
I'm disputing the idea that this is worse than a nazi tattoo in Maine. As you yourself just said, no moderates will vote for a nazi. Winning in Maine requires winning over moderates. Accepting that, it's straightforward to assess that the nazi tattoo is critically damaging.
I'd say that's a clear step worse than some deleted tweets that supported an unpopular position but could probably be mostly papered over with the right comments addressing it.
I don’t want either candidate to win their primary, but saying there’s 0% chance the election will be about anything, but political scandal is purely hyperbolic. This is like Democrats saying the 2016 election would be only based on Access Hollywood or in 2024 that it would be based on Project 2025/Trump’s danger to democracy. Or Republicans saying the 2025 VA AG election would be only based on Jones text supporting a political opponent and his children being murdered.
Scandals that once would sink candidates don’t anymore and if I’m a betting man, I bet the 2026 ME-Sen race will be based on affordability and/or the economy like almost every election result has been based on since ever in America, but hey maybe you end up right this one time.
I'm not convinced of that with Platner. If Collins sees the Nazi tattoo is getting no traction, the campaign will drop it as quickly as Democrats dropped the attack line of Trump disgracing POWs.
I think him saying it was a drunken decision in which he didn't know the context takes a lot of the sting off. It's not like there's any evidence he was a literal white supremacist.
Failing to realize "Defund the Police" was a horrible and counter-productive slogan is on par with failing to realize that Facebook was a brilliant data-mining scheme on Day One, when Mark Zuckerberg launched it. Seriously!
I was wondering that. Curious to see who progressives might nominate. I wonder if Wendell Gilliard would be interested, he’s a Bernie ally and progressive himself.
If ever there was a time to primary out the leader of our caucus and open it up to anyone in our party, now’s the perfect and likely only chance to do so. We have a lot of talented politicians just wasting away on the backbench or waiting decades for seniority to take their shot.
That doesn’t make logical sense and isn’t right, it’s the wrong way to do things: the best people is who we should be putting forward for the media and voters to see regardless of age or ideology. Now is the time to show Americans who they are and I bet they’d respond favourably.
I’m going to be very interested in following Ossè’s primary campaign in Jeffries district.
She mentions Zoe Lofgren might be considering it too (which would raise the question of why she clearly interfered in taking on more red turf to shore up neighboring districts...?)
If. We don’t know what SCOTUS will do yet. There was a poster on here a while ago saying that apparently the Court was against the VRA but was not swayed by Louisiana’s arguments that all race-based redistricting was unconstitutional — and that they believed there’d be a narrow ruling. (See also: the refusal to hear the gay marriage case.)
We’ll see. Also note that we don’t know when the ruling will come in — it may come too late to redistrict for 2026.
Elise Stefanik inaccurately calls Kathy Hochul the "Worst Governor in America." But who is? Kim Reynolds? Sarah Huckabee Sanders? Ron DeSantis? Greg Abbott? The competition is keen.
Jones didn't engage in the cruelty that Rolldemort and the FL meathead have done. He sent a stupid text to a VA GOP legislator, who rightly lost her seat.
Can we please not with nicknames like "Rolldemort"? Abbott is reprehensible enough that we don't have to attack his physical disability (and, by extension, others with physical disabilities).
I always like to split questions like this by party. We're naturally going to have a lot of partisan bias and this helps avoid that.
Would Hochul even count as the worst dem governor? I recall there being a lot of critique for McKee in Rhode Island, but I do not recall the specifics. He has the benefit of representing a state that gets far less coverage than New York.
Jeff "Ten Commandments" Landry is awful, but, unlike Abbott, he has not wasted millions in state funds by sending the state's National Guard to the Mexico border and to harass civilians in Chicago.
No, he invited Trump to send federal troops to fight crime In New Orleans, Shreveport, and other Louisiana cities, but he has not (yet) sent Louisiana forces to Chicago.
Ending speculation about running for Congress, Christine Pelosi (daughter of Nancy, and a DNC member) announces that she's running for California state senate district 11 currently held by Scott Weiner.
She’s just as smart as her mom. Starting at a lower level than Congress where she gets all the positives of being a Pelosi and none of the negatives in a year where there’s likely to be an anti-incumbent/establishment vote in our primaries is extremely shrewd. She can see which way the wind is blowing and where the energy in our party is. She’s also still very young so she can bide her time as a State Senator before jumping into the House.
And in case it wasn’t clear, yes, I think she wins the State Senate seat easily regardless of who ends up running. The money and ground muscle she has ready for her to unleash will be unmatched by anything any other politician can possibly create. A congressional bid would be far more risky as her first foray and can quickly turn a protege into a fallen star if she loses.
Depends on what your definition of too old is. 1 term under her belt and she’ll probably run for Congress after it ends, which means she’d be 64 entering Congress should she win the primary. While I think that’s probably right around the limit of age Democratic voters would accept and is higher than I’d prefer someone running for Congress, her name alone is gold to our party’s voters. So I wouldn’t at all be shocked if Democrats shoved away anny age concerns with her for someone they love deeply at any age: A Pelosi.
Very few names could do that in today’s political world, but a Reid from Nevada or a Pelosi in California would be the two exceptions to the rule where age is now a serious concern for most of our voters. They’d probably even vote for her as a 75 year old freshman. All she has to do is say she’s a Pelosi following in her mom’s footsteps and Democrats will be on board instantly. Rightly or wrongly, that name has unmatched power in our party.
And depends on what your definition of low is. California state senators have more constituents than representatives. All of San Francisco would be in her district and she would be one of 20 in a majority who govern the largest and most important state in the Union.
CA State Senate is a four-year term, with half of the 40 member Senate up each two-year cycle. It can get messy during redistricting. Some areas have two Sens temporarily while others have none.
Sanders had rarely endorsed against establishment candidates in Senate primaries before this year. I was a bit worried he wouldn’t back Warren-aligned Flanagan since she had asked for his endorsement months ago, which could have allowed Craig—who is considerably more right-wing than even the mainstream liberal Klobuchar—to win.
Angie Craig bootlicks the crypto industry, supports the same police organization that defended Derek Chauvin, opposes meaningful police reform, aligned with/funded by AIPAC, and takes PAC money from Big Pharma. Backs the Laken Riley Act, can’t go a sentence without mentioning “bipartisanship,” and is reportedly backed by Schumer behind the scenes. Endorsed by figures like Torres and Phillips, scaremongers about "permanent minority", hasn’t uttered a word about the public option since 2019, and founded the new neoliberal DLC-style group “Majority Democrats,” from which she’s also taken money.
This same seat once elected the late, great Paul Wellstone — the fiery progressive who defied the odds and won the general election in an upset a few decades ago. He embodied the belief that politics could still serve ordinary people. He was supposed to be the one to pull us back from the grip of oligarchy and neoliberalism. But for a drunken pilot....
Pretty much from what I can tell, they’re referencing right-wing in connection to our party. So to the right of the median voter in our party (which I think can be debated fwiw), but they’re not saying right wing compared to the US, which is a ludicrous statement.
She should be thrown out of public office! Anyone foolish enough to trust DJT’s loyalty, should not be entrusted to make policy!!!
Do you mean Stefanik?
"No Republican has won statewide in New York since 2002."
Unless, of course, we consider Andrew Cuomo a semi-Republican.
He's like a West Virginia Democrat
As governor, he was not.
yea more corporate new dem that did nothing to improve the state for his entire tenure in office, oh and he gerrymandered the state senate for republicans during his tenure and is the reason NY can't redistrict now. so arguably worse than a west virginia democrat
Cuomo certainly propped up the Republicans as Governor with all the support he gave to the (thankfully now defunct) IDC.
One of the many reasons I've hated him with a passion ever since.
Also pushing through the redistricting commission that was practically designed to fail.
He really wasn't.
Idk, with the redistricting commission push he might as well have been.
Which is why Cuomo has no right to whine about anything Republicans have passed or Democrats couldn’t pass (I.e. fixing salt cap). Without his redistricting commission or appointed judges, Dems would have controlled the House for the last three years. He did this and it should be rubbed in his face by other Democrats.
And *a lot* has happened to the Republican Party since 2002. It was sliding toward the abyss once Gingri(n)ch came to power in the early 1990s, but with the rise of Trump in 2015-2016 it was over the cliff. Moderate Charlie Baker (R) could be elected twice as governor of MA, in 2015 and 2019, but I doubt he could have survived a GOP primary in 2022. He wisely decided not to run for a third term (which would have been very unusual for any MA governor).
💙🩵💙
Nancy Mace needs to take some time off and deal with her mental health issues. She is clearly struggling with mental health problems right now and she needs professional help. John Fetterman also needs to do the same but I suspect that he is going to leave the Senate soon. He hasn't been fundraising for 2028, which is a big clue that he isn't running for re-election. I know that neither Mace or Fetterman are popular here, but they both clearly need help.
Nancy Mace is fighting a deeply entrenched good Ole boy network in SC. I have no idea how Nikki Haley broke thru it. It must be exhausting. I'm not voting for her in a general election, but she's right about the Epstein files. 9/10 when she's spouting off, it's about male pols deeply entrenched. I don't like her general politics, but I think she's getting the "shrew woman" treatment in the media while she's pointing out that women are 2nd class in SC.
Mace? Are you kidding me? She has been one of the most vocally, offensively vile individuals in Congress in terms of her personal conduct re: trans people, both strangers, and to a fellow trans Congressmember, Sarah McBride. Perhaps THE worst, in the House. How have you missed this?
She deserves zero respect. If she has been waging some sort of "good fight" against the patriarchy or whatever, its rendered completely moot by her other speech and actions.
I have not missed that. She's awful. But he R opponents are worse. And she's not getting beat up in the center or right media because of her trans comments, although she should be. She's getting beat up right now because she's pointing out that she is treated differently as a woman than her male colleagues.
Also, I suspect many of her male colleagues in Congress are just as awful to trans people generally and to the trans Representative (whose name escapes me at the moment). But Mace's bad behavior gets magnified to make her look worse and the men's bad behavior gets ignored as locker room talk or something. And she's still not as bad with what she's said as the president is, though that bar is so low you have to dig it out of the muck with dynamite.
Didn't even have the common courtesy to Google Sarah McBride's name, huh? I really don't care what Nancy Mace is, she's an unhinged racist scumbag who's making up false accusations against people.
Isn't one of her top opponents in her primary a woman?
Yes, LG Pam Evette is her main competition.
Pam Evette, Ralph Norman (Also a Congressperson), Alan Wilson (current AG and good ole boy), Joshua Kimbrell (St Senator and Christian radio talk show host) are currently in race with Mace. I think Wilson and Norman are more competitive than Evette, who has no presence as LG.
Since there was a question about this in the weekend thread, the Virginia Department of Elections says that cities and counties are required to report all election results no later than 10 days after the election. So all of the provisional and post-election ballots have to be reported by this Friday, and I believe that includes assigning the early votes and mail-in votes to their precincts.
So we won't have to wait too much longer to answer the burning questions of what exactly Spanberger's margin was in VA-01, and whether Fluvanna and Caroline voted for her or not.
Votehub uses its own allocation, and VA-01 is mostly done, at a 2pt race of Gov.
VA-02 is also mostly done, at over 7pt. OTOH, VA-05 still misses some precincts’ mail votes, should end with -7~-8pt. VA-07 also waits for some allocation, and it is in high teens.
NOVA districts except Arlington co are mostly allocated. VA-10 is 20pt, VA-11 at 47pt, VA-08 with the unallocated in, is expected to be over 60pt.
That is why I mentioned, don’t jump to conclusions.
VA-02 margin bodes well for our chances against Kiggans. VA-01 definitely on the board as a possibility too, although Wittman is pretty entrenched. Hopefully this is all moot and we get to redistrict VA.
And York County.
After counting the post election arriving votes, York and Caroline already flipped to Span. Fluvanna still pending.
Jack Schlossberg, JFK grandson, journalist, internet shit poster, will declare for NY-12 this week
that's going to be one crowded race!
If Bruce enters he will win -- she has no statewide backing except for Trump. Lawler might reconsider if it looks competitive as well -- and Hochul is VERY weak. Would love to see someone like Pat Ryan or Josh Riley or even AOC -- they'd beat any of the republicans.
As long as Stefanik has Trump's backing, she'll win the nomination.
Yes but given a choice between sycophants Trump will go against the woman every time
Disagree he loves Elise
To quote Will Salatan No One Matters to Trump But Trump
Blakeman isn't a sycophant, so his only choice is her
It is not going to look competitive. In this environment every Republican is wasting their time if their goal is to actually win against Hochul. She has improved her standing somewhat since 2022 and Trump at the top of the ticket ruins any chance of competing with her.
Don't be sure about that if the pending tug of war with Mamdani plays out as expected. A lot of base Democrats on Team Mamdani could sit it out.
You think so? In the general, I can see Mamdani endorsing her (albeit reluctantly) and encouraging his base to vote for her because whatever issues they have with Hochul, the Republican would be 1000% worse.
Mamdani will have to face off against Albany to green light many of his proposals. In order to avoid confrontation with Hochul, Mamdani would either need to abandon his campaign promises or Albany would have to push them through. The most likely scenario is a pending grudge match with Hochul that will serve her badly in her reelection efforts.
Mamdani could also focus on the policies he can do without the state's agreement. That ignores a lot of his promises but not all of them, and might be sufficient for him to be considered successful by voters.
she could also just... green light some of it? they have a lot of commonality re: their focus on affordability. I don't know why you're so determined to manifest Hochul just shooting him down.
They've both said they want to do universal childcare, for example. And she's been wishy-washy on tax increases
I agree. Not endorsing him was a political decision (that may prove to be wise but it's too soon to tell) but I doubt she'd hold up funding out of some sort of grudge. I suspect they'll work reasonably well together.
I'm skeptical about that. Has the mayor of NYC ever really had much impact on a NY governor race? I'd be surprised if any Republicans except maybe Susan Collins won statewide in blue states the way 2026 is shaping up.
"plays out as expected" do tell the class what you think the expected outcome is. because both Hochul and Mamdani are purposefully downplaying their disagreements at just about every opportunity.
It's not complicated. New York City has to go through the state to get authorization for the funding mechanisms to pay for his agenda. Hochul and the legislature aren't gonna want those tax increases on their hands so there's gonna be a tug of war. Class dismissed!
i'm well aware of all of this, there's one slight problem: Hochul *has also committed to passing universal childcare*, which needs... guess what... a tax increase!
So there's no guarantee she is going to be inherently oppositional. Otherwise she wouldn't have endorsed the guy.
I agree with you on this, but though I could be mistaken, I feel an unnecessarily combative tone.
my tone is no business of yours.
The health of this community is every community member's concern—and it's certainly mine. Cut out the snarky sniping at other posters.
Hochul is fine
Fine in what respect?
Electorally i don't think she's as weak as some think she is. The whole state moved right it wasn't just her in 2022.
You're talking about her ability to win a general election. Got it.
all of them
Hochul will be fine. it's a blue year and her approvals have been climbing.
put down politico playbook and go outside.
Zero chance that Hochul loses the GE, regardless of opponent, unless the environment changes dramatically between now and next November.
I could be wrong, but I think there's a better, albeit unfortunately low, chance for her to lose the primary than the general election.
Agreed that she's more likely to lose the primary than the GE. I part company with you on the "unfortunately" portion of your statement though :)
You feel like she's been a very effective and notably error-free governor? I still don't understand how she got away with lowering the congestion pricing toll set by legislation she signed.
I think she's been far better than people give her credit for in the face of rampant inflation and explicit undercutting/punishment from the federal government (e.g. the SALT deduction). Not arguing that she's Winston Churchill or anything but rather that she's been better than she gets credit for.
That's probably fair, but the federal government isn't to blame for her horrible court nominee that her own party had to quash or unilaterally decreasing those tolls, at the expense of the Metropolitan Transit Authority.
Looks like renowned horse trainer Dale Romans is gonna run as a Dem to replace McConnell: https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/S6KY00369/1924103/
That race is Likely R at *best* but I think he could be an interesting outsider candidate, especially going against McGrath in the primary
Safe-R.
you could also just not say anything if you don't have anything conversational to post in response, you know?
You could also not reply if you have nothing substantive to say.
Supreme Court takes ballot access case:
The court agreed Monday to hear arguments in RNC v. Wetzel, a lawsuit challenging Mississippi’s law allowing a five-day grace period for late-arriving ballots mailed by Election Day.
Huh? There are no constitutional issues here. Grace periods like that are purely a matter of statute. Some states have them, others don't, and that doesn't always line up with the partisan lean of the state.
The Fifth Circuit ruled against it. So they were pretty much obligated to take it. Unless they wanted states in the fifth circuit to be different than the rest of the country.
On what grounds did they rule against it?
“Congress statutorily designated a singular “day for the election” of members of Congress and the appointment of presidential electors,” Judge Andrew S. Oldham, a Trump appointee, wrote in the court’s opinion. “Text, precedent, and historical practice confirm this “day for the election” is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials.”
That same argument would ban early in-person voting as well. Ridiculous!
"By which."
Ig the argument is, it is possible to recall the mail after post-mark, thus one can change the vote even post election.
They could have summarily overruled that decision and not heard arguments.
Based on what precedent?
Lol this court doesn't need a precedent.
California's grace period is 7 days.
Wonder how the decision will go. I'm willing to bet some of the conservative judges on SCOTUS have voted by mail and/or taken advantage of early in person voting.
If they rule against the RNC, it'll probably be due to a strong argument for overseas, military, disabled and elderly voters who rely on VBM to make their voices heard.
If I had to predict, I'd say they'd uphold it but maybe limit to 3 days after. Mississippi is 5 days.
In North Carolina we had a VBM grace period of 3 days before the NC GOP gutted that. Same thing in Kansas.
My guess, if they go strict textualism, they will ban all federal elections from receiving mail ballots post poll closing, probably only except overseas and servicing ballots which UOCAVA covers.
They would say nothing on state or local elections.
I know this court doesn’t need one, but what would the fig leaf of textual reasoning be to allow overseas military ballots to come in late but not others?
"Because we said so."
That would be SCOTUS writing state law. That would be good for reimplementing a grace period for red or purple states that abolished them, but not so good for states with 4-10 day grace periods.
That would be basically writing a new law.
For Michigan Senate, I know that is a Republican pollster but it's a concerning poll for us. I've been worried in general about holding that seat.
Me too. I wish the Dems would back someone besides Stevens, I truly do not believe she can win.
Not a Whitmer fan but even I think she should just enter if the other candidates all implode.
McMorrow would win.
Agreed. Any doubts about that should've been wiped away by the election results last week.
I agree — and that’s why I said “should the other candidates implode”. Whitmer is a failsafe here — I have faith in McMorrow.
McMorrow is moderate enough to appeal to general voters, but she's no shrinking violet.
Either of the other candidates will cause a meltdown over the forbidden issue and possibly cost us the seat. Also, Rogers has a huge name ID advantage because he ran for the Senate last year.
*will* win. She can peel off squishy Stevens voters who aren't enthusiastic about her + run up the numbers among black communities in Detroit.
What is the evidence for the latter
why?
I'm not the least bit worried about either Stevens or McMorrow in the GE, pending a massive change in environment. Abdul-Sayed might be a bit dicier, but I suspect he'd wind up pulling it out in the end.
I'm highly skeptical about that poll. Rogers couldn't win an open seat in an extremely favorable GOP environment in 2024. Why would he win one in 2026 which is shaping up as a blue wave? Slotkin may be somewhat stronger than any of the 2026 candidates, but the difference between 2024 and 2026 is likely to be night and day.
Michigan has really bad statewide pollsters - really bad. Epic is the best and they’re just okay. But, these hacks are from Georgia - they don’t know the territory. After reading the release it is clearly setting up for Tudor Dixon to run for Gov again. I think most Dems would welcome that. The Senate numbers are bs and/or just a name ID poll - lots of undecideds. In short, nothing to worry about
When you look at the electoral pattern of Michigan in the trump era, it’s always super close and competitive in presidential years and pretty blue in midterm years. I don’t see any reason why that pattern won’t continue.
After Tuesday, I'd be shocked if McMorrow didn't beat Rogers by double digits.
That seems a bit extreme but either she or Stevens should win the GE by at least a few points, barring a big change in environment.
I'm betting the tariffs are quite popular in Michigan, including among many long-time Democrats.
I would take that bet.
Name rec poll. it'll be fine. boring Stabenow managed to clinch it in 2018, 2026 is going to be bluer, and that's all she wrote
(Abdul will not win the nomination)
Electoral politics is not football where when you have it you need to score points. We are in the minority. We need to play hot potato instead and hand the issue off to Republians who we know won't do anything about it.
We can only have enough leverage to affect policy and play football when we control a lever of power which we currently do not. We need issues to give us power back.
This was orchestrated which is why the bare minimum Dems are all not up for years or are retiring.
If you believe Dems running for office or incumbents think this post-election shutdown is beneficial are protesting for purely altruistic reasons you are naive. They fully understand that prolonging this at this point will help nothing.
Those subsidies are gone. Trump will NEVER bring them back. And the longer this goes on the longer it gives Trump the time to come up with some populist nonsense like sending direct checks in order to portray himself as the problem solver.
The only way to keep the narrative and the issue is to let Republicans continue to fumble it, which we KNOW they will.
This was all by design and the right call to reopen at this time.
I agree. Republicans have set themselves up for a lose-lose situation. They will lose their House majority at minimum next year, and the Senate if things get really bad (which I think they will). And while losing ACA subsidies is awful, people still have to eat and pay their bills.
And yet a lot of leftists (especially some content creators) are unhappy that Dems are settling for a CR but with provisions that SNAP is fully funded, the federal workers TACO tried to fire during the shutdown get reinstated, et al. Plus a firm deal for a vote on a ACA bill that Dems pick in December.
And by forcing the House back into session to pass (or not pass) the Senate bill, Mike Johnson has no choice but to seat Rep Adalita Grijalva.
"that SNAP is fully funded, the federal workers TACO tried to fire during the shutdown get reinstated"
These are not some wins, gains or concessions that the Dems got from the GOP, but things which the f-ing courts ordered the admin to do already, but were simply ignored.... its infuriating.
Dems got a promise of a vote, nothing else.
A vote? LOL. Without the House holding such a vote it's meaningless.
“ Dems are settling for a CR but with provisions that SNAP is fully funded, the federal workers TACO tried to fire during the shutdown get reinstated, et al.”
That’s just the pre-shutdown status quo, how is that in any way a win for us? We gained literally nothing from this other than a symbolic vote on the subsidies that the House will never take up.
It shows voters that Democrats are willing to fight. You notice all the Democratic Senators who voted with Rs to reopen the government are either retiring next year or freshly reelected. The ones running for reelection next year like Ossoff did not vote for it.
A lot of Democrats unhappy with this need to realize that the GOP OWNS spiking healthcare costs and premiums now. The GOP Senators up for re-election next year are going to take a HARD vote -- and it will cost them in Ohio and Texas.
If this means that we get a 2006 sized blue wave next year (knocking Johnson and Thune out of their majority leader status), it means that the Dems will control things and hold TACO accountable.
Except they stopped fighting, and did so in exchange for de facto nothing because all the "wins" are either worthless (vote) or would have been the case if we had done nothing.
Backing down from a fight is not how you show that you are willing to fight.
Please read this. I found this very helpful.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-quick-take-on-team-caves-big-win
None of that convinced me. The central argument is that the shutdown -> cave showed that democrats are willing to fight, which we should be happy about as an improvement. But, again, they stopped fighting.
The WH will ignore most of that - especially the federal worker language.
Following that logic, there was no point to the shutdown.
Exactly. Not one thing was accomplished since September 30....which was abundantly obvious on September 30.
I disagree. The healthcare cost issue is now firmly in the GOP's court, and Trump's approval has sunk to record lows for this term.
Puts a lot of faith in low-information voters' memories.
Shutdown politics are never for low-info voters but those at least partially engaged. I also think the Trump administration vindictive actions during the shutdown contributed to his popularity decline. Voters have now been throughly reminded why Trump has never been popular outside his base. The anti-woke honeymoon he rode in on is thoroughly over.
I'm a high-information voter, and like many others, I feel completely betrayed and undercut by this spineless cave-in. The Democrats who did this share in making healthcare unaffordable for a large number of people and everything else that Trump does and does not spend money on, and they've shown again how a critical mass of them can be counted on to emulate the behavior of the Center Party in 1933 Germany. What will be left of American democracy and society next November? Trump is reigning unchecked by the Supreme Court, unchecked by Congress and unchecked by effective Democratic opposition, and as Bernie said last night, that will cause tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
“This was orchestrated which is why the bare minimum Dems are all not up for years or are retiring.”
That’s EXACTLY the problem. The establishment of the party getting incumbents safe from our voters potential consequences if they don’t like their choice to cave AGAIN and lay down and roll over for Republicans. They act like they are all above reproach and that only they know best. No accountability possible for these people if OUR voters have decided that the party’s elected officials AREN’T representing what we actually want.
Also, in case this didn’t occur to you, the fact that this was orchestrated solely by Senators not up for election already implies that THEY KNOW OUR VOTERS DON’T APPROVE! Aren’t you supposed to represent those who elected you in the first place? So why do you need to orchestrate it? Because again you’re going against what our party’s voters actually want in a representative. Who are they to tell us what’s best for us? No, fuck that.
WE DECIDE WHO REPRESENTS US. Period. The establishment doesn’t get that. It is us who puts them in power to use it. And it’s us who can take away that power if our elected officials no longer know how to battle the fascist GOP. They don’t deserve to get a lifetime gig just because they’re Democrats. I’m so sick of this “we got what we could” argument. You know what the GOP would do if this was the reverse situation? They’d keep the government shutdown until the midterms or until we gave them exactly what they wanted.
The party is once again trying to force our voters into eating a shit Republican sandwich in order to “go high” and “be the better people of good governance”. Fuck that. We don’t want that anymore. Why do you think our own voters are so unbelievably angry at our party leaders? They aren’t listening to us, they aren’t doing what we want them to do and they don’t understand how to win against the GOP.
A bully only backs down after they’re punched in the face and knocked to the ground. People here may or may not remember my years on DK and now TDB backing the establishment because I felt they knew how to win and who was electable. I was an establishment shill, I defended every move they did even with most candidates to the right of my preferences.
If someone like myself has had enough and wants our party leaders to be kicked out of office, imagine how the average Democrat feels? Enough with capitulation, enough with going along to get along, enough with the Democratic Party of old.
Every Safe Seat Dem should be up for a primary regardless of how they voted on this just to put the fear of the voters into them. I think it's clear that they don't care about their base because they think we'll always side with them.
I support primaries only when there's an argument against the incumbent, not regardless of who they are.
Amen, I feel the exact same way: I have always carried water for the establishment Ds since I started seriously following down ballot politics around 2010, always assumed they understood better than myself…that’s done now. I remember you on DKE and feel 100% in the same mindset at this time…how can they be so bad at politics!?
The two times Republicans tried to do the same thing from the same vantage/leverage point they also folded with few concessions.
https://x.com/KFILE/status/1987880668165255203
MI-SEN: CNN uncovered a bunch of deleted tweets from Abdul El Sayed where he supported defunding the police. Not as bad as the Platner oppo dumps but it still raises questions about his viability in a GE.
I’m not even surprised, that was a popular position among some on the left circa 2020. I will say it is nowhere near as disqualifying as Platner having a Nazi tattoo though. (And I still support McMorrow for the record.)
Also is it just me, or is it a little weird that this, the Platner stuff, and the Talarico stuff all come out at the same time and for candidates the DSCC does not want while no comparable info happens for any DSCC candidates? I don’t want to sound conspiratorial but I’m concerned this is an attempt to get rid of DSCC-unapproved candidates — we know Gillibrand openly said they’d intervene in primaries, for one.
If the oppo were flawed or misleading then sure I could buy a conspiracy. But what's been released is completely fair oppo releases for voters to judge. And I'd much prefer this stuff get released now than in October next year.
The oppo itself wasn’t the problem though, it was that it has exclusively targeted Dems that the DSCC is known to dislike. Combined with the complete lack of oppo for DSCC candidates.
Its better for us to vet our own pre-primary than wait for Republicans to dump it when its too late in Q3 2026.
If Jay Jones had been vetted his primary opponent would be AG, probably after winning by about 10.
Instead, Jay Jones is AG in real life.
Maybe there is just less oppo on the DSCC candidates and that is why the DSCC endorsed them, because they have less baggage...
I know people think the DSCC backs candidates because they support the 'establishment' but sometimes it comes down to them being vetted.
That could be possible, but after what happened with Cal Cunningham I’m not sure I trust the DSCC’s judgement either.
Cal Cunningham in NC, Iowa a decade back?? What's wrong with McMorrow? The establishment is the problem. Stevens' problems and House videos are very public.
Also Pat Murphy in 2016.
I'm not remembering the House videos. What do they show?
Not surprised. I've long believed that El-Sayed is unelectable statewide. He'd do very well in Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, and Hamtramck... and get Virg Bernero numbers everywhere else.
He could maybe squeak it out, but I'd expect Stevens or McMorrow to win by at least 5.
I'm more concerned that he has never held elected office and should he be nominated it would be his first time ever facing a Republican and a general electorate. First time candidates can be very high risk or high reward, he is clearly on the high risk side.
The seats probably gone if he wins the primary but yay! those trump Arab voters in Dearborn might vote for him.
What a nightmare if he somehow ends up as the nominee. Whitmer really needs to run or make a forceful endorsement of someone other than AES. If that senate seat is lost it will definitely affect her political future in a negative way.
I'd say the optics aren't good. Still, it's frustrating that people are getting cancelled for what was at the time a popular sentiment. Anybody reading the room in 2020 could reasonably figure that voicing support for defending the police was at the very least an option worthy of discussion. I know it's a third-rail right now, but unless El Sayed's posts were recently I'd really want to cut him some slack.
Sorry, but defunding the police wasn't a popular sentiment even in 2020, and it undoubtedly cost Democrats votes that year.
The problem with the phrase was that the ideas behind it weren’t bad, it was the phrase itself. The idea was to not send police to literally every possible problem — and to make use of solutions like mental health councillors for a mental health situation, for example. (Although given how many people’s idea of fixing that issue is just re-institutionalization complete with blatant ableist undertones, I’m not sure even that would work now.)
The phrase got mixed up with police abolition (which I don’t support) and led to the current problem. We should have called it something else.
I think what you are describing is police reform. Pretty sure defund the police was about at least partial abolition from the beginning.
Yes, in the sense that social service issues are usually better dealt with without shooting people.
Demilitarizing the Police. That would have been a better way of saying it. This was a yard sign I saw in Berkeley a few years back and it goes to the point of taking the militaristic influence off of police and making sure they are funded for the purpose of serving and protecting residents.
However, the implementation of the Defund the Police agenda in cities like Oakland and Portland has caused serious problems in managing crime. Oakland in particular is still trying to deal with damage control as a result of the implementation years ago only for it to be reversed by the City Council under pressure.
It is clear that whatever you call the agenda, it was not clearly thought through in Oakland, Portland, etc.
They decreased funding for the Oakland Police Department as a matter of policy? If so, that's insane to do in a city with such crime problems.
Back in 2021, the Oakland City Council voted to defund $17.4 million from the police department with the intention of reappropriating the funds to focus on other issues like affordable housing.
Problem is, Oakland doesn’t generate the revenue like cities such as Los Angeles, NYC, and San Francisco. Taking $17.4 million away from the police department presents serious complications as city government needs to ensure it also generates revenue. You can’t do this without addressing crime at the same time.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/oakland-city-council-votes-defund-police-stripping-17-million-department-budget/
precisely
I understand that. And, like I said, this is probably going to hurt him in the primary. My point is more a normative one than a descriptive one; I don't consider it right that having had a viewpoint like this in the past is cancel-worthy. There needs to be a line between ideas that are unpopular and those that are cancel-worthy.
It will HURT him in the general if he's nominee, there's no question about it.
I think it shows an acute lack of judgement which is disqualifying in terms of being electable in a swing state.
Yeah I was posting on here in the summer of 2020 saying that phrase was electoral poison and II wasn't the only one.
I never got how proponents thought how it was going to sound attractive to the median voter. People don't like crime and defunding the police sounds clearly like something that will increase crime. I immediately question the political instincts of anyone that supported this.
It was this sentiment that got us Republican DA's in places like freaking Seattle. How many DEEP blue cities straight up recalled their DA's due to perception of ignoring crime?
Yes there are absolutely abuses that need to be addressed with law enforcement. But politically, having policies of being permissive of crime, or even being seen as permissive of crime will get you voted out by even the most liberal jurisdictions. Even San Francisco, the closest thing the US has to being seen as a purely liberal political entity, being seen as not prosecuting criminals will get you thrown to the wolves.
This is a moderate to conservative country, and the DSA types really need to come to terms with that. Something that works in their deep blue pockets may not be palatable to the electorate at large so there needs to be some middle ground they come to, many won't do that.
A modest proposal: That the DSA rebrands itself as the SDA – Social Democrats of America.
Even though their heart is in the right place, the activist left is not very good at politics. The candidates that come with activist left support are often deeply flawed or out of touch ideologically with their jurisdiction. Politics is a contact sport and we can't afford to lose seats because we nominate weak candidates.
As a Minneapolis area resident, ground zero for the "Defund the police" movement, it was resounding rejected by one of the most liberal cities in the country by a wide margin. It is and was a fringe position. One that was held near and dear to maybe ~5-10% of the country tops, and absolutely toxic everywhere else.
It was rejected 56-44. That would be a "wide margin" in a Wisconsin Senate race but I was startled it was that close in Minneapolis on a vote of "defunding the police".
And that was with a vague and poorly marketed message and big money opposition.
It was a popular sentiment online for some on the left but it was never popular in the country
It was a brain-dead slogan. Pure and simple. And it cost us dearly!
It was a stupid and thoughtless, if popular, sentiment that probably cost us a ton of downballot seats Biden may have saved…it should not have been that close. The police require reform, so why not just say “reform the police”?
In a GE this is worse than Platner's oppo stuff.
This is worse than a Nazi tattoo in a GE?
In a GE, yes.
A self-described Nazi got over 40% of the vote in North Carolina against the sitting Attorney General.
They're both terrible, absolutely.
There's a big difference between a republican with nazi-problems and a democratic with nazi-problems when it comes to the voters they need to win over.
How many democratic or democratic leaning voters did Robinson get? A general election Platner needs to win over democrats and especially democratic leaning independents that have continued to give Collins a pass.
Due to the party affiliations the situations are not comparable.
No moderates will vote for Nazis, thats kind of the point. The reality is ever having politically toxic viewpoints is disqualifying. Platner and El-Sayed both need to go away, because there is a 0% chance about either general election campaign being about policy, their Republican opponents, or literally anything other than the politically toxic thing.
Doesn't El Sayed live in MI-13? I would rather see him try to win his first elected office in a deep blue seat than statewide in Michigan.
I think El-Sayed is not a strong candidate for statewide office, at least right now. I'm not disputing that.
I'm disputing the idea that this is worse than a nazi tattoo in Maine. As you yourself just said, no moderates will vote for a nazi. Winning in Maine requires winning over moderates. Accepting that, it's straightforward to assess that the nazi tattoo is critically damaging.
I'd say that's a clear step worse than some deleted tweets that supported an unpopular position but could probably be mostly papered over with the right comments addressing it.
I don’t want either candidate to win their primary, but saying there’s 0% chance the election will be about anything, but political scandal is purely hyperbolic. This is like Democrats saying the 2016 election would be only based on Access Hollywood or in 2024 that it would be based on Project 2025/Trump’s danger to democracy. Or Republicans saying the 2025 VA AG election would be only based on Jones text supporting a political opponent and his children being murdered.
Scandals that once would sink candidates don’t anymore and if I’m a betting man, I bet the 2026 ME-Sen race will be based on affordability and/or the economy like almost every election result has been based on since ever in America, but hey maybe you end up right this one time.
I'm not convinced of that with Platner. If Collins sees the Nazi tattoo is getting no traction, the campaign will drop it as quickly as Democrats dropped the attack line of Trump disgracing POWs.
I think him saying it was a drunken decision in which he didn't know the context takes a lot of the sting off. It's not like there's any evidence he was a literal white supremacist.
LOL i wasn't sure who you were responding to, thought for a second El-Sayed drunkenly thought of defunding the police.
Who hasn't in a drunken stupor adopted far-left activist positions? :)
Failing to realize "Defund the Police" was a horrible and counter-productive slogan is on par with failing to realize that Facebook was a brilliant data-mining scheme on Day One, when Mark Zuckerberg launched it. Seriously!
It sank Mandela Barnes
Forgive the paywall.
SC-6:
https://puck.news/newsletter_content/a-shutdown-deal-breakthrough-tim-ryan-chatter-pelosi-succession-questions/
Jim Clyburn is potentially eyeing retirement.
Question: who might be interested in his seat now?
would Jaime Harrison be interested? Clyburn was his mentor.
I was wondering that. Curious to see who progressives might nominate. I wonder if Wendell Gilliard would be interested, he’s a Bernie ally and progressive himself.
State Rep Justin Bamberg has been endorsed by Bernie and is much younger so I could see him being the progressive candidate
ugh after his tenure as DNC chair Harrison should not be rewarded with anything. Ik Clyburn’s daughters have been mentioned tho
Good God, that would be such a nightmare. That feckless idiot should stay in DGA Group/SKDK world and away from elections for a generation.
A changing of the leadership all at once. Pelosi, and Clyburn, with Hoyer only a couple yesrs ago is a massive changeover at the top
Its very interesting to me that all 3 are thinking of stepping back at the same time. They must be really confident in Jeffries.
Haven't really seen a good reason why they should be thus far.
If ever there was a time to primary out the leader of our caucus and open it up to anyone in our party, now’s the perfect and likely only chance to do so. We have a lot of talented politicians just wasting away on the backbench or waiting decades for seniority to take their shot.
That doesn’t make logical sense and isn’t right, it’s the wrong way to do things: the best people is who we should be putting forward for the media and voters to see regardless of age or ideology. Now is the time to show Americans who they are and I bet they’d respond favourably.
I’m going to be very interested in following Ossè’s primary campaign in Jeffries district.
Bakari Sellers is also a possibility.
She mentions Zoe Lofgren might be considering it too (which would raise the question of why she clearly interfered in taking on more red turf to shore up neighboring districts...?)
I keep hearing CA State Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas wants the seat. Wouldn’t be surprised, Lofgren is quite old.
Depends on if the seat even exists after the Supreme Court obliterates the VRA.
If. We don’t know what SCOTUS will do yet. There was a poster on here a while ago saying that apparently the Court was against the VRA but was not swayed by Louisiana’s arguments that all race-based redistricting was unconstitutional — and that they believed there’d be a narrow ruling. (See also: the refusal to hear the gay marriage case.)
We’ll see. Also note that we don’t know when the ruling will come in — it may come too late to redistrict for 2026.
Elise Stefanik inaccurately calls Kathy Hochul the "Worst Governor in America." But who is? Kim Reynolds? Sarah Huckabee Sanders? Ron DeSantis? Greg Abbott? The competition is keen.
Abbott. He openly endorses murder as long as the victims are his political opponents.
Unfortunately liberals no longer have clean hands in that with Jones' election last week.
Jones didn't engage in the cruelty that Rolldemort and the FL meathead have done. He sent a stupid text to a VA GOP legislator, who rightly lost her seat.
Can we please not with nicknames like "Rolldemort"? Abbott is reprehensible enough that we don't have to attack his physical disability (and, by extension, others with physical disabilities).
But Jay Jones is attorney general-elect, not governor.
He's not a governor, so he's not under consideration for worst governor.
Oh please - have a seat on this one
But but but, didn’t Abbott eliminate rape in the state of Texas?
/s
I always like to split questions like this by party. We're naturally going to have a lot of partisan bias and this helps avoid that.
Would Hochul even count as the worst dem governor? I recall there being a lot of critique for McKee in Rhode Island, but I do not recall the specifics. He has the benefit of representing a state that gets far less coverage than New York.
Jeff Landry?
Jeff "Ten Commandments" Landry is awful, but, unlike Abbott, he has not wasted millions in state funds by sending the state's National Guard to the Mexico border and to harass civilians in Chicago.
Didn't Landry send National Guard to Chicago too?
No, he invited Trump to send federal troops to fight crime In New Orleans, Shreveport, and other Louisiana cities, but he has not (yet) sent Louisiana forces to Chicago.
He's too busy trying to pick LSUs next football coach.
Ending speculation about running for Congress, Christine Pelosi (daughter of Nancy, and a DNC member) announces that she's running for California state senate district 11 currently held by Scott Weiner.
She’s just as smart as her mom. Starting at a lower level than Congress where she gets all the positives of being a Pelosi and none of the negatives in a year where there’s likely to be an anti-incumbent/establishment vote in our primaries is extremely shrewd. She can see which way the wind is blowing and where the energy in our party is. She’s also still very young so she can bide her time as a State Senator before jumping into the House.
And in case it wasn’t clear, yes, I think she wins the State Senate seat easily regardless of who ends up running. The money and ground muscle she has ready for her to unleash will be unmatched by anything any other politician can possibly create. A congressional bid would be far more risky as her first foray and can quickly turn a protege into a fallen star if she loses.
Isn't she too old to start so low?
Depends on what your definition of too old is. 1 term under her belt and she’ll probably run for Congress after it ends, which means she’d be 64 entering Congress should she win the primary. While I think that’s probably right around the limit of age Democratic voters would accept and is higher than I’d prefer someone running for Congress, her name alone is gold to our party’s voters. So I wouldn’t at all be shocked if Democrats shoved away anny age concerns with her for someone they love deeply at any age: A Pelosi.
Very few names could do that in today’s political world, but a Reid from Nevada or a Pelosi in California would be the two exceptions to the rule where age is now a serious concern for most of our voters. They’d probably even vote for her as a 75 year old freshman. All she has to do is say she’s a Pelosi following in her mom’s footsteps and Democrats will be on board instantly. Rightly or wrongly, that name has unmatched power in our party.
And depends on what your definition of low is. California state senators have more constituents than representatives. All of San Francisco would be in her district and she would be one of 20 in a majority who govern the largest and most important state in the Union.
One of 40 Senators (each district is just under a million residents.) The CA Assembly has 80 members, so about a half-million people in each AD.
Disagree about 75-year old, but 64 is different.
why are we assuming she has to go as high as Nancy? nobody here can know for sure what her career ambitions are, lmao.
Honestly this seems almost like a tacit endorsement of Weiner? She can't run for it if it's not vacant.
I don't follow. Running for a position because it's open is no kind of endorsement of whatever the current occupant wants to do.
If Weiner doesn't win, the seat won't be open until 2028
Oh, I see. He gets to keep his seat if he loses; I didn't realize that.
yeah he gets a free shot, but he's termed out in 2028 anyway
CA State Senate is a four-year term, with half of the 40 member Senate up each two-year cycle. It can get messy during redistricting. Some areas have two Sens temporarily while others have none.
MN-Sen: unsurprising, but Sanders endorses Flanagan to join him in the Senate
Sanders had rarely endorsed against establishment candidates in Senate primaries before this year. I was a bit worried he wouldn’t back Warren-aligned Flanagan since she had asked for his endorsement months ago, which could have allowed Craig—who is considerably more right-wing than even the mainstream liberal Klobuchar—to win.
On what issues is Angie Craig "right wing"?
Angie Craig bootlicks the crypto industry, supports the same police organization that defended Derek Chauvin, opposes meaningful police reform, aligned with/funded by AIPAC, and takes PAC money from Big Pharma. Backs the Laken Riley Act, can’t go a sentence without mentioning “bipartisanship,” and is reportedly backed by Schumer behind the scenes. Endorsed by figures like Torres and Phillips, scaremongers about "permanent minority", hasn’t uttered a word about the public option since 2019, and founded the new neoliberal DLC-style group “Majority Democrats,” from which she’s also taken money.
This same seat once elected the late, great Paul Wellstone — the fiery progressive who defied the odds and won the general election in an upset a few decades ago. He embodied the belief that politics could still serve ordinary people. He was supposed to be the one to pull us back from the grip of oligarchy and neoliberalism. But for a drunken pilot....
Pretty much from what I can tell, they’re referencing right-wing in connection to our party. So to the right of the median voter in our party (which I think can be debated fwiw), but they’re not saying right wing compared to the US, which is a ludicrous statement.