Bellows pulling every stop to block that measure and it seems to have worked, awesome. That Senate primary may have been a mess, but it seems all Maine Dems are aligned on dignity for trans youth, which is terrific.
I’m just happy there’s been more support for trans people overall in the Dems. I was getting really worried for a bit, but it seems it’s dying out somewhat. Not totally, mind you - a recent ban on trans teachers (as far as I’ve heard) passed with a few Dem votes joining the GOP - but slowly, support for trans rights seems to be returning.
Incidentally, I saw a poll with Dems up a lot on trans issues favorability. And this is to say nothing of the fact that trans issues consistently poll near the bottom of what voters are actually concerned about. The economy is the main concern for voters now - and it’s the one I keep hearing from everyone I know personally. I don’t hear about trans issues from anyone, but I do hear about gas prices a lot.
Unfortunately I think it would’ve been a huge uphill battle to defeat the measure had it ended up on the ballot. I don’t think some procedural moves to disqualify it can tell us where voters are on the issue.
That trans teacher thing had 8 Democratic votes: Laura Gillen, Eugene Vindman, Cleo Fields, Henry Cuellar, Vicente Gonzalez, Marcy Kaptur, Marie Glusenkamp Perez and Don Davis.
Well, trans issues from a demographics sense can still be about the economy. Gas prices tie into this a lot.
Rights for trans people yes. But the economy still has to work for trans people just like every other demographics. Income inequality affects everyone.
Nevertheless, I also hope we see more trans politicians running for office and getting elected. That would help a lot.
No it isn't. There are procedural rules that have to be followed. You have to collect signatures the right way. The procedural rules are there to prevent fraudulent collection of signatures. They didn't follow the rules, the got caught, they lose. And, as a bonus, trans kids win
Of course, I am not against procedure. But this being celebrated or used as a political victory “bellows pulling every stop to block that measure” is pathetic
The last time a Democrat ran on abolishing the police, they lost a citywide election in Seattle, which voted 88-9 for Harris. Somehow I don't think this will go over well in Trump+1 Wisconsin.
The only good thing about this is that it gives the other Democratic candidates an opportunity to look reasonable by opposing this.
Luckly for her, she'll likely have an electorate that voted for Harris by several points. If turnout in the rural driftless is low and Madison and Milwaukee is off the charts, she can still get over the line. Reminds me a lot of the panicking over AES.
I thought we abandoned this shit, but apparently not. Even on left Bluesky support for police abolition has cratered. (I saw one particularly angry post asking someone what their alternative was once police were abolished.)
This is just sad. There’s other ways we can approach this issue too. Wasn’t suspected Oath Keeper/other far right group ties one of the problems with the police? Why not then classify those groups as terrorist organizations like Canada did and then go after police ties to them. That’s one possible idea I have - please tell me if it’s too naive.
The mechanisms to declare a domestic group a terrorist organization aren’t very robust in the U.S. (not a bad thing imo considering how the Trump admin has tried to do so against a bevy of liberal groups any ways) so that exact pathway wouldn’t quite be available - but it’s the right direction.
Because, no, “just abolish them” isn’t a solution. There’s no country without some kind of public safety force that monopolizes violence - not in Europe, not anywhere (hell police in France pack more heat on patrol than ours). There’s a bevy of police reform solutions that would actually help well short of any kind of abolitionist language which was just buzzy in group signaling that badly backfired
Really I think we just need to start thinking about how to approach groups like the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, etc. in general. These groups are clearly violent and extreme, and are becoming a public safety threat. Maybe we can’t go the terrorist route, but I do think we need to address this. Particularly as it concerns law enforcement.
Why can’t we go the route of declaring them terrorist groups? Sure, that’s unusual, but so is invading the Capitol. Let’s be proactive and do it, and make them defend themselves.
I wouldn’t normally call for this kind of action, but we’re in a situation , both in the narrow sense that applies to the invasion and the greater situation that the country faces, that they caused.
I actually wrote a pilot about this very issue. It's not about abolishing police departments entirely, but more so shifting resources to a Department of Mental Health and Social Services where they take 911 calls that might not require someone with a firearm. Traffic Cops are doing traffic stops but we still have police officers to take on more dangerous calls and investigations.
I think she can still win in November just based on the national environment alone. Low MAGA turnout and a blue wave could get her across, just like with other seemingly "unelectable" candidates like KLB/AES/Platner.
True, I'm not saying they're not risky bets, but in a D+8 environment I definitely wouldn't call the GOP the favorites in any of these races even with those opponents.
Wisconsin is a state where ideological extremism, whether it be of the left-wing or right-wing variety, is often rewarded, but Hong is *really* testing the limits of that.
Hong is benefitting from a split field in the Democratic primary, as well as only one of her main primary opponents (Kelda Roys) splitting the Madison-area vote (Brett Hulsey is also running, but Hulsey has enough of a checkered past that I wouldn't consider him a major candidate despite being a former state assemblyman), while at least four candidates are splitting the Milwaukee-area vote. This could be a big opening for Missy Hughes, as she's the only Democratic candidate of note who is not from the Milwaukee or Madison areas.
I'm surprised The Downballot didn't feature the 'ballot candy' measures pushed through by the NC GOP majorities (aided by backstabbers Carla Cunningham and Nasif Majeed) this week for the Nov 3 ballot. First is the idiotic measure to reduce the 7% income tax threshold to 3.5% and the second to require the state legislature to pass laws limiting property tax increases. They join the third ballot candy (pushed through in Dec 2024) to require photo ID for absentee voting.
I don’t like how negative the CO-08 dem primary is getting. I heard an interesting rumor that Bird texted Rutinel a few weeks ago and told him she was dropping out. Then she suddenly changed her mind and started attacking him. Now he has to respond because her attack ads were everywhere when I was in CO last week. Whoever gets out of the primary will probably still win the general, but it sucks that they’re beating each other up so much.
Perriello's the easy choice here, it seems. Assuming that Tracinski is genuine in his change towards more democratic progressive politics, he'll have plenty of other opportunities to express that.
He sat for a long interview with Liberal Currents. He comes across as a nice, slightly goofy guy, arguing that the Democrats are now the party for people with a belief in free markets and that he has a unique understanding of how to approach disaffected rural voters. However when asked about his time in the Tea Party he says unconvincingly that it was an authentic grassroots movement that got co-opted and that his experience was one of small-town Norman Rockwell-style local deliberation, not racism or bigotry. That just doesn't jibe with reality. You can find it here: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/the-constitutional-crisis-is-here-neon-liberalism-74-with-robert-tracinski/
I mean he’s not entirely wrong - Democrats are in favor of well regulated markets, Republicans are in favor of cronyism and kissing the ring. If you’re a capitalist then the choice is obvious
his tenure has been marked by the party winning up and down the ballot, with exception of fumbling georgia supreme court races. just seems like a waste of time to complain about martin when the results are solid
I'm seeing a pretty clear parallel with Michael Steele on the Republican side. He presided over the major 2010 red wave, but still was not well liked for his role as RNC head, and left in either late 2010 or early 2011. (Does anyone know exactly why his tenure wasn't seen as a good one?)
The Democratic Party is overperforming in elections because of the unpopularity of Trump and the GOP, not because of anything the party is proposing, and certainly not because of Ken Martin. If anything, the party is doing well IN SPITE OF the feckless Ken Martin.
If we win big in 2026 and 2028, it’s because of how unpopular Trump is not because people like our policies and we need to realize this. I feel like we didn’t after 2008 and that’s part of why the party made certain decisions that helped lead to them doing so horribly in 2010.
If we don't do something about this, not only are we not going to hold power for long, but we are also going to squander an opportunity to enact needed change.
I’m really tired of the Democratic Party having to typically get most of its wins amid an unpopular Republican POTUS like Bush Jr or Trump being in office and then lose badly when a Democratic POTUS is in office.
Democrats are also terrible at selling their accomplishments, so Republicans just fill that void with lies about what Democrats are doing and their intentions.
In a sense, what policies are we even offering voters? Not in a messaging sense, but in a real sense?
With the party still not onboard with removing the filibuster, with our reliance on a big tent that includes some centrists that want to do as little possible, with the expected continued narrowness of the senate and possibly the house as well... the real world policies we can offer people is not that much. That's not even touching on that we often implement things in a way that takes so long that we either don't get credit or it might go away (Obamacare would have died if Romney won!), or lets republicans repeal it early on (most of Biden's wins). Voters might not be actively aware of this problem, but I suspect it is fully internalized and plays a huge part in their negative perception of us.
People will think there's little reason to vote for democrats because we won't get anything done anyway. Party officials can point at procedural hurdles etc. until they're blue in the face, but those same voters will look at republicans right now, getting things done. Horrible, awful, unpopular things, but republicans actually are getting those things done. It makes the procedural obstacle argument look hollow, even if there's a lot of truth to it still (our agenda requires legislation more than republicans' agenda).
Voters want to know that if they vote a party that the party will do more than play prevent defense. The past few generations have given those voters little reason to think they'll get more than that low bar. And considering how many senate dems have been acting the past year, we don't even fully get that prevent defense either!
The party is completely broke. He's not raising any money, and that's really his primary job. There is no attempt at a nationally coordinated strategy or messaging to counter Trump and fascism. No central strategy on redistricting either, at least not from the DNC. The judicial races in Georgia this week were winnable if anyone had been paying attention. The autopsy is complete garbage (my opinion), but his handling of it was a complete disaster (a fact he acknowledged). The mess with Hogg was also very poorly managed and created an unnecessary rift. None of these things are completely Martin's fault, but he seems to be causing more problems than he's fixing.
The postmortem should have been released last Christmas when it would have been overlooked and soon forgotten. It will be soon forgotten anyway. Pretty sure we all discussed that here back then.
This is pretty despicable, considering what is happening to Black representation across the entire south right now. She could have just bowed out gracefully on that principle alone.
Hopefully she doesn't win with a small plurality in a fractured field.
Wasserman Schultz wouldn't run there. She isn't familiar with Hollywood and Dania Beach as she is with her native Weston (now in the 22nd iirc) and Sunrise.
I guess I’m in the minority here not *that* upset with her. She’s a politician who wants to stay in office, nothing underhanded. Blame the GOP legislature for this.
In Arizona, vote duties are split between the County Recorder and the Board of Supervisors. Maricopa County Recorder Heap is an election denying nutcase who is in civil war with the Maricopa County BOS over elections. They aren't agreeing on anything. The BOS is 4 to 1 Republican, but only 1 Republican is in Heap's camp.
They have already been in litigation over the Board usurping the Recorders turf which he's won. The BOS wants to keep drop boxes and vote centers as they have been since they have worked, and Heap wants to limit them. Heap is threatening to have the BOS and staff arrested for vote harvesting if they proceed .
Fortunately, I don't believe Heap will have prosecutorial support to do so, but Maricopa County elections could become a trainwreck and ripe for Trump interference.
While I agree with you, the Maricopa County attorney and the Arizona supreme court are in Republican hands. Fortunately, the Maricopa county attorney is more of a traditional Republican, and the courts held for us in 2020. I do, however, believe that election chaos opens up the door for interference, and Trump would likely take advantage of it.
I wondered about the quotation mark placement too, but Axios did the same thing. So I think the chartible/realistic interpretation is no one believes Gabbards stated reason for departing vs being forced out, but that no one is crass enough to doubt her husband's serious diagnosis. If she's lying about that, Bless her heart.
Gabbard has been on her way out for awhile, isolated from meetings, has plenty of enemies in MAGA world post-Iran etc., but there's no reason for the quotes there. Axios has a linked article in there to how she managed to narrowly hold on to her job in April when Trump considered firing her. No doubt that lingering risk to her position and uncertain favor with Trump was part of the decision making process, but we also have no reason to believe her husband's illness is fake.
A lot of “apolitical” people in the Trump coalition are Tulsi diehards so I wonder how much this turns some of them off. There’s a crank faction that is obsessed with her
There has been quite the Very Online Movement to make Tulsi happen, going back at least a decade. Heard it straight from the (former) lifetime best friend back in 2015-16 before she tried to redpill me with RFK as her "front" in 2024.
Was the entirety of the redpilling, and the sneakiness with how she tried it. It used a template, much like someone trying to get you to sell Amway. Showed a complete disrespect for me as a thinking human being.
Got a question for any MD-area posters here, or anyone else in the know.
Any idea who might win the Montgomery County Executive race? Or the other county executive races? I’m watching progressive Will Jawando in the former, and I’m curious to know in general who has a shot in the races. Thoughts?
I don't know who will win the MoCo Executive race, or even who my own vote will go to. I guess any one of Jawando, Glass, or Friedson could win, but haven't seen any reliable polling. But I may well be missing something. For day to day developments in county government this is a good site to follow.
Personally I'm leaning toward Glass but any of the three county executive frontrunners is acceptable to me. For County Council at-large I'm inclined to Scott Goldberg, Jim McNulty, Laurie-Anne Sayles, and someone else not named Marc Elrich. (Maybe Karla Silvestre from whom I got my first mailer today.)
Turek brings a rural/working-class vibe to the primary and could make the general election most competitive, and Wahls is seen as an urban liberal insider.
In actuality, Turek is probably more establishment and Wahls is more progressive, but ideology is not a main factor in this primary right now.
As an Iowan, I agree with your analysis. Zach Wahls has traveled around the state in the past on behalf of State Senate candidates trying to get them elected. I know we are a classic Trump state, but currently we only have 17 seats in the State Senate. Zach is going to do great things in his life, but I don't think he is a great messenger for Iowa Democrats. Full disclosure: I am a Turek supporter.
Turek has owned the airwaves here ahead of the primary it seems. He's slowly but surely gotten his name and message out there, and some prominent endorsements late have certainly helped. I think he's clearly the best option for Democrats in Iowa, so if this poll is accurate that would be fine with me. That being said, I do think he'll need an influx of cash after the primary to be able to get on the attack against Hinson.
Bellows pulling every stop to block that measure and it seems to have worked, awesome. That Senate primary may have been a mess, but it seems all Maine Dems are aligned on dignity for trans youth, which is terrific.
I’m just happy there’s been more support for trans people overall in the Dems. I was getting really worried for a bit, but it seems it’s dying out somewhat. Not totally, mind you - a recent ban on trans teachers (as far as I’ve heard) passed with a few Dem votes joining the GOP - but slowly, support for trans rights seems to be returning.
Incidentally, I saw a poll with Dems up a lot on trans issues favorability. And this is to say nothing of the fact that trans issues consistently poll near the bottom of what voters are actually concerned about. The economy is the main concern for voters now - and it’s the one I keep hearing from everyone I know personally. I don’t hear about trans issues from anyone, but I do hear about gas prices a lot.
Unfortunately I think it would’ve been a huge uphill battle to defeat the measure had it ended up on the ballot. I don’t think some procedural moves to disqualify it can tell us where voters are on the issue.
I was going off polling, for the record. I saw one poll (don’t remember where) that had us up +14 on trans issues.
Did they poll about the language in this proposal specifically?
Morning Digest: Conservatives qualify two anti-trans ballot measures in Colorado
https://www.the-downballot.com/p/morning-digest-conservatives-qualify
2 right-wing groups score anti-trans ballot measures to “stop the transgender plague”
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2026/03/2-right-wing-groups-score-anti-trans-ballot-measures-states-to-stop-the-transgender-plague/
I think we will defeat these.
A third state puts trans athlete ban on the ballot for November. It’s a trend.
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2026/02/nevada-just-got-now-one-step-closer-to-possibly-banning-trans-student-athletes/
That trans teacher thing had 8 Democratic votes: Laura Gillen, Eugene Vindman, Cleo Fields, Henry Cuellar, Vicente Gonzalez, Marcy Kaptur, Marie Glusenkamp Perez and Don Davis.
So mostly the usual swing seat suspects.
Wait, what's this about a ban on trans teachers? Was it literally a law banning trans people from being teachers?
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-condemns-house-passage-of-bill-censoring-teachers-and-forcibly-outing-transgender-students
It basically says teachers must out trans students to guardians, taking away their privacy.
Supreme Court forces California to allow teachers to out trans kids - LGBTQ Nation
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2026/03/supreme-court-forces-california-to-allow-teachers-to-out-trans-kids/
Supreme Court okays 'forced outing' of California trans kids | Advocate.com
https://www.advocate.com/news/education/supreme-court-forced-outing-transgender
Trump Judge challenges California bid to withhold students’ gender identity in suspected abuse cases | Courthouse News Service
https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-challenges-california-bid-to-withhold-students-gender-identity-in-suspected-abuse-cases/
Supreme Court blocks California schools' transgender policy | AP News
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-transgender-students-california-cca311ae39d267f31c1392a0bcf780cd
Well, trans issues from a demographics sense can still be about the economy. Gas prices tie into this a lot.
Rights for trans people yes. But the economy still has to work for trans people just like every other demographics. Income inequality affects everyone.
Nevertheless, I also hope we see more trans politicians running for office and getting elected. That would help a lot.
That is anti-democratic, just like the work of republicans in Ohio to block ballot initiatives
No it isn't. There are procedural rules that have to be followed. You have to collect signatures the right way. The procedural rules are there to prevent fraudulent collection of signatures. They didn't follow the rules, the got caught, they lose. And, as a bonus, trans kids win
Of course, I am not against procedure. But this being celebrated or used as a political victory “bellows pulling every stop to block that measure” is pathetic
It's not pathetic. It's fair politics.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/22/politics/kfile-francesca-hong-wisconsin-governor-race-defund-police
One of the top Dem Wisconsin governor candidates called for abolishing police departments and is standing by her stance.
The last time a Democrat ran on abolishing the police, they lost a citywide election in Seattle, which voted 88-9 for Harris. Somehow I don't think this will go over well in Trump+1 Wisconsin.
The only good thing about this is that it gives the other Democratic candidates an opportunity to look reasonable by opposing this.
Luckly for her, she'll likely have an electorate that voted for Harris by several points. If turnout in the rural driftless is low and Madison and Milwaukee is off the charts, she can still get over the line. Reminds me a lot of the panicking over AES.
I thought we abandoned this shit, but apparently not. Even on left Bluesky support for police abolition has cratered. (I saw one particularly angry post asking someone what their alternative was once police were abolished.)
This is just sad. There’s other ways we can approach this issue too. Wasn’t suspected Oath Keeper/other far right group ties one of the problems with the police? Why not then classify those groups as terrorist organizations like Canada did and then go after police ties to them. That’s one possible idea I have - please tell me if it’s too naive.
The mechanisms to declare a domestic group a terrorist organization aren’t very robust in the U.S. (not a bad thing imo considering how the Trump admin has tried to do so against a bevy of liberal groups any ways) so that exact pathway wouldn’t quite be available - but it’s the right direction.
Because, no, “just abolish them” isn’t a solution. There’s no country without some kind of public safety force that monopolizes violence - not in Europe, not anywhere (hell police in France pack more heat on patrol than ours). There’s a bevy of police reform solutions that would actually help well short of any kind of abolitionist language which was just buzzy in group signaling that badly backfired
Really I think we just need to start thinking about how to approach groups like the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, etc. in general. These groups are clearly violent and extreme, and are becoming a public safety threat. Maybe we can’t go the terrorist route, but I do think we need to address this. Particularly as it concerns law enforcement.
Absolutely!
Why can’t we go the route of declaring them terrorist groups? Sure, that’s unusual, but so is invading the Capitol. Let’s be proactive and do it, and make them defend themselves.
I wouldn’t normally call for this kind of action, but we’re in a situation , both in the narrow sense that applies to the invasion and the greater situation that the country faces, that they caused.
I actually wrote a pilot about this very issue. It's not about abolishing police departments entirely, but more so shifting resources to a Department of Mental Health and Social Services where they take 911 calls that might not require someone with a firearm. Traffic Cops are doing traffic stops but we still have police officers to take on more dangerous calls and investigations.
Mayor Mamdani is working on that in New York. It's very far from police abolition!
And it's even something I'd expect that police officers themselves would approve of, in overwhelming numbers.
Man. And I liked Hong. Would still probably support her, as I'm not a single issue person, but that brings her down a bit.
I think she can still win in November just based on the national environment alone. Low MAGA turnout and a blue wave could get her across, just like with other seemingly "unelectable" candidates like KLB/AES/Platner.
But none of those three are anti-police.
i don't think klb or platner are nearly as dicey as AES and i agree with AES' policy prescriptions by and large
True, I'm not saying they're not risky bets, but in a D+8 environment I definitely wouldn't call the GOP the favorites in any of these races even with those opponents.
Wisconsin is a state where ideological extremism, whether it be of the left-wing or right-wing variety, is often rewarded, but Hong is *really* testing the limits of that.
Hong is benefitting from a split field in the Democratic primary, as well as only one of her main primary opponents (Kelda Roys) splitting the Madison-area vote (Brett Hulsey is also running, but Hulsey has enough of a checkered past that I wouldn't consider him a major candidate despite being a former state assemblyman), while at least four candidates are splitting the Milwaukee-area vote. This could be a big opening for Missy Hughes, as she's the only Democratic candidate of note who is not from the Milwaukee or Madison areas.
Ok i guess we're going with Mandela Barnes
Sarah Rodriquez, the current Lt. Governor, is also running.
That contest against Ron Johnson still grinds my gears. I wish there was some way we could have gotten Barnes the victory there.
Seems like a good way to make herself a "former top candidate"
Let's hope
What do you mean by “let’s hope”? Are you not confident this statement is campaign ending?
I'm surprised The Downballot didn't feature the 'ballot candy' measures pushed through by the NC GOP majorities (aided by backstabbers Carla Cunningham and Nasif Majeed) this week for the Nov 3 ballot. First is the idiotic measure to reduce the 7% income tax threshold to 3.5% and the second to require the state legislature to pass laws limiting property tax increases. They join the third ballot candy (pushed through in Dec 2024) to require photo ID for absentee voting.
https://ballotpedia.org/North_Carolina_Reduce_Income_Tax_Rate_Cap_from_7%25_to_3.5%25_Amendment_(2026)#cite_note-bill-1
https://ballotpedia.org/North_Carolina_Property_Tax_Levy_Limit_Amendment_(2026)
I don’t like how negative the CO-08 dem primary is getting. I heard an interesting rumor that Bird texted Rutinel a few weeks ago and told him she was dropping out. Then she suddenly changed her mind and started attacking him. Now he has to respond because her attack ads were everywhere when I was in CO last week. Whoever gets out of the primary will probably still win the general, but it sucks that they’re beating each other up so much.
www.29news.com/2026/05/21/former-tea-party-figure-launches-democratic-run-congress-virginias-5th-district/%3foutputType=amp
VA-5: Rob Tracinski, an author and former Tea Party activist, will run as a Democrat here, facing former Rep. Tom Perriello in the primary.
I rarely trust any known conservative that switches to the left, so who knows about this.
Perriello's the easy choice here, it seems. Assuming that Tracinski is genuine in his change towards more democratic progressive politics, he'll have plenty of other opportunities to express that.
He sat for a long interview with Liberal Currents. He comes across as a nice, slightly goofy guy, arguing that the Democrats are now the party for people with a belief in free markets and that he has a unique understanding of how to approach disaffected rural voters. However when asked about his time in the Tea Party he says unconvincingly that it was an authentic grassroots movement that got co-opted and that his experience was one of small-town Norman Rockwell-style local deliberation, not racism or bigotry. That just doesn't jibe with reality. You can find it here: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/the-constitutional-crisis-is-here-neon-liberalism-74-with-robert-tracinski/
Anyone who claims that Democrats are the party of "free markets" is not someone I want in elected office as a Democrat.
I mean he’s not entirely wrong - Democrats are in favor of well regulated markets, Republicans are in favor of cronyism and kissing the ring. If you’re a capitalist then the choice is obvious
Wouldn't Elizabeth Warren say that?
thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5890506-rep-veasey-calls-dnc-chair-ken-martin-resignation/amp/
Outgoing Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX) is the first Democrat to say Ken Martin should resign from the DNC.
his tenure has been marked by the party winning up and down the ballot, with exception of fumbling georgia supreme court races. just seems like a waste of time to complain about martin when the results are solid
It's awfully convenient he started his tenure at a time like this though, with widespread condemnation of the administration.
All those wins had nothing to do with Ken Martin
I'm seeing a pretty clear parallel with Michael Steele on the Republican side. He presided over the major 2010 red wave, but still was not well liked for his role as RNC head, and left in either late 2010 or early 2011. (Does anyone know exactly why his tenure wasn't seen as a good one?)
Not excited to have someone Reince-like jump in if that similarity holds.
Reince presided over a midterm where they took back the Senate and winning an unexpected WH Victory. I'll take that.
The Democratic Party is overperforming in elections because of the unpopularity of Trump and the GOP, not because of anything the party is proposing, and certainly not because of Ken Martin. If anything, the party is doing well IN SPITE OF the feckless Ken Martin.
If we win big in 2026 and 2028, it’s because of how unpopular Trump is not because people like our policies and we need to realize this. I feel like we didn’t after 2008 and that’s part of why the party made certain decisions that helped lead to them doing so horribly in 2010.
If we don't do something about this, not only are we not going to hold power for long, but we are also going to squander an opportunity to enact needed change.
Exactly.
I’m really tired of the Democratic Party having to typically get most of its wins amid an unpopular Republican POTUS like Bush Jr or Trump being in office and then lose badly when a Democratic POTUS is in office.
Democrats are also terrible at selling their accomplishments, so Republicans just fill that void with lies about what Democrats are doing and their intentions.
And then once they clean things up (like in 2000 and 2016), voters think it’s safe to elect a Republican President again.
Which policies, exactly?
To be clear: civil rights, mostly, and otherwise, any macroeconomic conditions when they happen to hold the White House.
In a sense, what policies are we even offering voters? Not in a messaging sense, but in a real sense?
With the party still not onboard with removing the filibuster, with our reliance on a big tent that includes some centrists that want to do as little possible, with the expected continued narrowness of the senate and possibly the house as well... the real world policies we can offer people is not that much. That's not even touching on that we often implement things in a way that takes so long that we either don't get credit or it might go away (Obamacare would have died if Romney won!), or lets republicans repeal it early on (most of Biden's wins). Voters might not be actively aware of this problem, but I suspect it is fully internalized and plays a huge part in their negative perception of us.
People will think there's little reason to vote for democrats because we won't get anything done anyway. Party officials can point at procedural hurdles etc. until they're blue in the face, but those same voters will look at republicans right now, getting things done. Horrible, awful, unpopular things, but republicans actually are getting those things done. It makes the procedural obstacle argument look hollow, even if there's a lot of truth to it still (our agenda requires legislation more than republicans' agenda).
Voters want to know that if they vote a party that the party will do more than play prevent defense. The past few generations have given those voters little reason to think they'll get more than that low bar. And considering how many senate dems have been acting the past year, we don't even fully get that prevent defense either!
How do you figure he's a hindrance?
The party is completely broke. He's not raising any money, and that's really his primary job. There is no attempt at a nationally coordinated strategy or messaging to counter Trump and fascism. No central strategy on redistricting either, at least not from the DNC. The judicial races in Georgia this week were winnable if anyone had been paying attention. The autopsy is complete garbage (my opinion), but his handling of it was a complete disaster (a fact he acknowledged). The mess with Hogg was also very poorly managed and created an unnecessary rift. None of these things are completely Martin's fault, but he seems to be causing more problems than he's fixing.
Ok, that's a very clear argument. Thanks.
While I was disappointed in those races as well, Rankin came close.
It has been over 100 years since voters last ousted a GA SCT justice. 1922. I think calling it a fumble is a bit harsh, yes?
https://www.gpb.org/news/2026/05/20/rare-challenge-georgia-supreme-court-incumbents-falls-short
The postmortem should have been released last Christmas when it would have been overlooked and soon forgotten. It will be soon forgotten anyway. Pretty sure we all discussed that here back then.
As suspected, DWS will parachute into the black FL 20th - https://x.com/DWStweets/status/2057819286668812519?s=20
I bet the voters will reject her in the primary.
This is pretty despicable, considering what is happening to Black representation across the entire south right now. She could have just bowed out gracefully on that principle alone.
Hopefully she doesn't win with a small plurality in a fractured field.
gotta have the principles to begin with.
Her announcement video had me laughing, what with the Obama poster on the wall behind her.
Debbie, not even OBAMA likes you. Retire with dignity, take that pension, and touch some grass back home in Fort Lauderdale.
What a coward and wimp.
I guess that's good for Moskowitz in the 25th?
Wasserman Schultz wouldn't run there. She isn't familiar with Hollywood and Dania Beach as she is with her native Weston (now in the 22nd iirc) and Sunrise.
I guess I’m in the minority here not *that* upset with her. She’s a politician who wants to stay in office, nothing underhanded. Blame the GOP legislature for this.
The number of Black-majority House districts in the south will likely be in the single digits after 2028. DWS wants one of them for herself.
Tone-deaf and careerist at the very least.
I hope Benson is reaching out to Duggan for an endorsement.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2026/05/20/maricopa-county-board-supervisors-recorder-justin-heap-continue-elections-battle/90184187007/
In Arizona, vote duties are split between the County Recorder and the Board of Supervisors. Maricopa County Recorder Heap is an election denying nutcase who is in civil war with the Maricopa County BOS over elections. They aren't agreeing on anything. The BOS is 4 to 1 Republican, but only 1 Republican is in Heap's camp.
They have already been in litigation over the Board usurping the Recorders turf which he's won. The BOS wants to keep drop boxes and vote centers as they have been since they have worked, and Heap wants to limit them. Heap is threatening to have the BOS and staff arrested for vote harvesting if they proceed .
Fortunately, I don't believe Heap will have prosecutorial support to do so, but Maricopa County elections could become a trainwreck and ripe for Trump interference.
I don’t believe this will work. Dems still hold governor/SOS/AG and if they win big there’s not much Trump and Heap can do.
AZ AG Kris Mayes will rake Heap over the coals. She doesn't suffer fools.
While I agree with you, the Maricopa County attorney and the Arizona supreme court are in Republican hands. Fortunately, the Maricopa county attorney is more of a traditional Republican, and the courts held for us in 2020. I do, however, believe that election chaos opens up the door for interference, and Trump would likely take advantage of it.
What's Tavern Research's record? Feels like Ahlman could actually be vote-splitting to prevent a surprise flip of Mike Flood's seat.
They just had a poll last week showing Osborn winning, too.
Makes me feel like a Dem bias tbh.
Russian asset from Hawaii leaving TACO's administration due to husband's "bone cancer".
https://www.axios.com/2026/05/22/tulsi-gabbard-removed-trump-administration
Do you think the bone cancer is fake?
Reuters says that the White House forced her out, so yes, Gabbard's lying.
Well lying about the reason she's leaving is one thing, but the way you put your comment, are you doubting there is cancer at all?
She's likely using her husband's cancer as an excuse to bow out after all the unconstitutional things she's done.
I have no doubt that's true, just saying where you put the quotes implies you're doubting that the cancer exists at all.
I wondered about the quotation mark placement too, but Axios did the same thing. So I think the chartible/realistic interpretation is no one believes Gabbards stated reason for departing vs being forced out, but that no one is crass enough to doubt her husband's serious diagnosis. If she's lying about that, Bless her heart.
Gabbard has been on her way out for awhile, isolated from meetings, has plenty of enemies in MAGA world post-Iran etc., but there's no reason for the quotes there. Axios has a linked article in there to how she managed to narrowly hold on to her job in April when Trump considered firing her. No doubt that lingering risk to her position and uncertain favor with Trump was part of the decision making process, but we also have no reason to believe her husband's illness is fake.
I was figuring it was a direct quote from the article.
A lot of “apolitical” people in the Trump coalition are Tulsi diehards so I wonder how much this turns some of them off. There’s a crank faction that is obsessed with her
I doubt she has a very big constituency.
Thankfully, most of the left and left-adjacent sniffed her out as a phony.
But "most" is sadly not "all."
At this point it’s not really lefties anymore (like it was immediately post 2016) but more just the cranks
There has been quite the Very Online Movement to make Tulsi happen, going back at least a decade. Heard it straight from the (former) lifetime best friend back in 2015-16 before she tried to redpill me with RFK as her "front" in 2024.
I'm assuming her pushing RFK is not the only reason you don't remain friends.
Was the entirety of the redpilling, and the sneakiness with how she tried it. It used a template, much like someone trying to get you to sell Amway. Showed a complete disrespect for me as a thinking human being.
Got a question for any MD-area posters here, or anyone else in the know.
Any idea who might win the Montgomery County Executive race? Or the other county executive races? I’m watching progressive Will Jawando in the former, and I’m curious to know in general who has a shot in the races. Thoughts?
I don't know who will win the MoCo Executive race, or even who my own vote will go to. I guess any one of Jawando, Glass, or Friedson could win, but haven't seen any reliable polling. But I may well be missing something. For day to day developments in county government this is a good site to follow.
https://montgomeryperspective.com/
Personally I'm leaning toward Glass but any of the three county executive frontrunners is acceptable to me. For County Council at-large I'm inclined to Scott Goldberg, Jim McNulty, Laurie-Anne Sayles, and someone else not named Marc Elrich. (Maybe Karla Silvestre from whom I got my first mailer today.)
IA Senate. PPP for VoteVets:
Turek 52
Wahls 31
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2026/PPP_Iowa_May_22_2026.pdf
This is good, right? (I tend to remember names by the number of letters, so I get these dudes mixed up in my old, addled mind).
Turek brings a rural/working-class vibe to the primary and could make the general election most competitive, and Wahls is seen as an urban liberal insider.
In actuality, Turek is probably more establishment and Wahls is more progressive, but ideology is not a main factor in this primary right now.
As an Iowan, I agree with your analysis. Zach Wahls has traveled around the state in the past on behalf of State Senate candidates trying to get them elected. I know we are a classic Trump state, but currently we only have 17 seats in the State Senate. Zach is going to do great things in his life, but I don't think he is a great messenger for Iowa Democrats. Full disclosure: I am a Turek supporter.
Yeah, I think Turek will make the stronger GE candidate.
Turek has owned the airwaves here ahead of the primary it seems. He's slowly but surely gotten his name and message out there, and some prominent endorsements late have certainly helped. I think he's clearly the best option for Democrats in Iowa, so if this poll is accurate that would be fine with me. That being said, I do think he'll need an influx of cash after the primary to be able to get on the attack against Hinson.
District court dismisses indictment against Kilmar Abrego Garcia for vindictive and selective prosecution.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...