VA-06/VA-10: Former State Del. Wendy Gooditis has ended her campaign when her northern Shenandoah home got moved into VA-10, where she's now endorsed incumbent Suhas Subramanyan. Sam Shirazi notes the redistricted map is likely to have former US Rep. Tom Perriello v Beth Macy in the primary for VA-06, potentially with State Del. Sam Rasoul.
NJ-Sen: Former news anchor Alex Zdan is the first notable Republican to challenge Sen. Cory Booker. He was also previously considering challenging Rep. Herb Conaway, and ran for the open Senate seat in 2024.
State Sen. Mike Testa and comedian Vinnie Brand are considering.
I wonder if Booker can beat Menendez’s 2012 margin here, which I believe is the modern high water mark for Democrats in NJ. Could flip white whale counties like Hunterdon and Monmouth.
Here in WA state, they’ve implemented “Ranked Choice”, and I’m still not sure I like it. The idea that I’d end up with two candidates that I would never vote for on my ballot, raises my BP and almost makes me Not Want To Participate in the 2-party system anymore; And I’ve been voting since I was deemed old enough to vote for the first time back in the 80s. . .
Washington has a jungle primary system, not a ranked choice system.
Jungle primaries are bad because they allow the possibility of Democrats getting locked out of the general election. Ranked choice is better because it means that left-leaning independents can't act as spoilers for Democrats, which happened in Maine and in other states as well.
My preferred system would actually be top 2 with ranked choice. IMO a top 2 system helps voters focus on the difference between the two most viable candidates, and adding ranked choice to the primary would almost certainly prevent a majority (or at least competitive) party from being locked out of the general.
the huge disadvantage of a jungle primary in a blue state is the nightmare scenario the clickbait folk are pushing in California's Gov race: lots of Dems fracture the Dem vote resulting in a GOP lockout.
Nearly as huge a disadvantage for progressives: in blue states it's very, very hard for a progressive to beat a moderate Dem. The indy and GOP voters hold their noses and vote for the least offensive candidate. In 2018 I did an analysis of every Top Two Dem on Dem race that had occurred to date (we implemented it in 2014) and in 18 races the mod beat the progressive nearly every time.
Why would you describe it as clickbait when virtually every single poll in CA the past 2 months has had the 2 Republicans ahead? They're totalling about 35%, which is what you'd expect in the primary for GOP tunrout
Gene Ric nearly always overperforms any named candidate in nearly any race in any jurisdiction. The fact Cooper matches Gen Ric's performance is itself remarkable.
Well, from a NC voter's perspective, he is a generic Dem (and perfect fit for the seat). Democrats support him, moderate Republican voters know that he's a moderate & not AOC/Mamdani-lite like the NC GOP say he is. He nominates progressives to the state judiciary like Allison Riggs, so his credentials are solid.
I think he's almost a lock for this seat like Hickenlooper was for CO in 2020.
I said this last night.. I think Cooper will win, but he has yet to be at 50% in most polling. My guess is the swing voters there (unlike VA) are less suburban and diverse, and it's tough to dislodge them from their conservative ways in a federal race. I bet he wins by 5% or so.. which is great, but not what you'd expect in a blue year with a well-known, well-liked statewide official.
The poll writeup apparently does not list any candidates themselves. It's only a generic ballot for U.S. Senate, Supreme Court, U.S. House, and State Legislature.
Mentioned this yesterday, but these numbers would have huge downballot implications. Don Davis would have a real shot at re-election and Chuck Edward’s would be in trouble. Maybe even longer shots like Murphy, Rouzer, and Moore are in play. Also, the state house is in play, since the tipping point was around Trump+10.
The hard part would be the state senate. 7 and 11 should be easy in that environment, then 4 and 34 are longer shots but doable given they’re Trump+8-10. Seat 25 is the tough one. Might be district 24 around Robeson, which would probably involve a candidate who can pull of big numbers with Lumbee.
Kate Barr from Kate Barr Can't Win PAC is challenging Tim Moore in the primary. She's doing a reverse Cotham and actually giving voters a choice due to the gerrymandered district.
She's encouraged Democratic voters to become unaffiliated to vote for her and then switch back after March 3rd.
Democrats need a better slogan than “abolish ICE”. (Candidate in IL-8 is using it in this recap.)
I know it’s simple and that it speaks to the anger people have towards ICE as well as CBP, DHS, Noem, and Miller. But given the public’s suspicion about Democratic immigration goals and policies, we need to talk about what immigration enforcement we will support. How will we replace ICE? If you believe like me that we need to eliminate DHS, how will we replace CBP & ICE? It can’t seem to the public like we just don’t want to enforce immigration policy at all.
Some candidates are for it, others are not for it. The "party" itself, if Schumer is any indication, is for "reform ICE." There was immigration enforcement before DHS and ICE. We should go back to that. But while it's possible ICE would be eliminated, they'll never eliminate the DHS.
Sometimes we need our leaders to advocate for hard things.
I do think we will be entering a chaotic period in which unexpected shifts in politics and culture will emerge. Which to me, means we should envision what we want and what we think would work best, and then work backwards on how to make it political possible.
Not near impossible . .impossible. no-one will dismantle DHS and then risk the fallout if a terror attack happened afterwards. The party that did so would be in the political graveyard for YEARS.
Sounds like cowardice to me. Which we’ve come to expect from our leaders. Maybe we should demand some courage.
Make a much smaller anti-terrorism task force that draws from CIA, NSA, Defense Intelligence, and FBI and pools some of their intelligence gathering. Make it that workers there are on three year loan from their agencies so that different terrorism specialists are rotating in and out spreading the best practices and thinking from each organization into the others while reduces their natural desires to defend turf.
Right now DHS focus on lots of other things that aren’t terrorism and it doesn’t do them well.
It’s light on what that new agency would look like or how it would operate. And doesn’t say anything about CBP, whose agents have been just as egregious and maybe worse.
So I don’t think it’s sufficient to build something new. It’s mostly alleviating current harm.
Require at least 12 months (preferably 18–24 months) of training, and successful examination and graduation, in order to work in ICE or CBP, or the agency that replaces them. The agency needs to be professionalized.
None of this "47 days" or 6 months bullshit.
Also: disqualify members of extremist or racist organizations, or anyone with a criminal record – including January 6th insurrectionists who have been "pardoned".
One more thing: Limit the authority of ICE/CBP/new agency to within, say, 50 miles of the Mexican and Canadian borders. NO authority on the East or West coasts, or on the Gulf of Mexico, except in ports of entry.
If we're talking about making the government more lean and concentrated in immigration policy, we do not need to grow the size of government by $116 billion (the cost of DHS per Trump's recent request for FY 2026) in order to accomplish this.
As previously discussed, the immigration process was fine pre-9/11. However, in order to enforce immigration policy, we do not need a department like ICE in order to accomplish this.
Before 9/11 we had INS. It wasn’t like we had nothing.
Also, I disagree with the assertion that pre 9/11 our immigration system worked well.
It’s also possible that the pressure to leave many Central and South American countries may be higher now than pre 9/11. In many of them their agriculture has been severely impacted by how hot the last two decades have been. And that isn’t going to get better in the near or midterm future.
Perhaps saying the immigration system worked better than today is better than saying it worked well. However, I'm arguing this mainly from the standpoint of not having a police state in pre-9/11 to justify raids as opposed to sticking to a bureaucratic system that can be improved through legislation and other means.
Fixing the immigration process with a new INS system created similarly as it was before but with changes in place to ensure problems don't fall through the cracks is a start.
The last real budget INS had that I have seen was $4.8 billion for FY 2001. If this was the case, any improvements to INS would likely not need at least $100 billion or more to correct the problems.
Agree it worked better. Agree it shouldn’t require a $100B/year.
I do think that we haven’t done it very well since I was born in 1980. And maybe when I think of US history, we have never done it very well.
I do think we need to build something that can 1) allow for real political discussions of how much legal immigration do we want 2) treat potential immigrants with respect and dignity 3) make the legal immigration process efficient and clear 4) create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who have been here longer than 5? years that occurs fair to them and a significant majority of citizens. 5) invest in problem solving root causes of migration 6) make it difficult for companies to pay undocumented workers under the table 7) separate policing drug smuggling and other criminal activity from stopping people crossing the border without documentation
I also think we need to consider the pros and cons of some kind intermediate status. Right now some people are willing to endure tremendous hardship (financial, physical, acceptance of sexual violence ) to come to the US illegally. I’m not willing to escalate the cruelty so much that it doesn’t become worth it. But perhaps making it easier to come without citizenship and making it more beneficial for the American tax payer would be better for migrants and better for American society. Big risk of creating a permanent underclass. I’m not sure if this is a good idea. But it seems to me if people are willing to pay thousands, walk a thousand miles, and risk sexual assault then they would be willing to have an extra tax taken from their paycheck every month. (Which workers with fake social security numbers already are doing). Basically make what is already happening above board.
Bottom line- immigration is a topic that the actual discussions about have been sidelined by fear mongering, poisoned by racism and fear of racism, and utilized as a political bludgeon rather than aiming to achieve outcomes that we want.
The only benefit of it getting to bad now is the opportunity to sweep the past away and create something new.
As far as INS is concerned, the only reason it was ended was because the Department Homeland Security was created, which in turn merged INS and other departments together. DHS was started in response to 9/11, not because there was a need to reform immigration. Even back in the 2000’s, immigration was still a problem that never got fixed. Illegal immigration included.
On fixing the explosion of migrants and illegal immigtation these days, the Democratic Party makes a mistake by focusing too much of focusing too much on comprehensive immigration reform and compassion and not enough on working with other countries where migrants are coming from to improve their economies and coordinate on security. Frankly, I don’t know all the answers but that’s something Congress has the ability to fix.
Certainly focusing on the root causes of migration are essential. (Which was Harris initial portfolio that was distorted to be considered the border.)
Yes, DHS wasn’t about fixing immigration. And immigration and border security have been poorly served being lumped in with all the anti-terrorism (as has FEMA).
My point was perhaps not clear. If we eliminate ICE we will need to replace it with an agency that does its legitimate functions and/or give those legitimate functions to another agency. Same with CBP. I also didn’t write here, but I think that ICE and CBP need to be eliminated before of personnel and culture rather than specific policies. Everyone who is left and especially who has joined in the last year at best finds cruelty and illegal activity by their colleagues acceptable and at worst revels in it. Eliminate their positions and let any worthy ones apply to the new agency that is created.
And I wouldn’t just want to use the same playbook as in the 90s and 80s because I don’t think it worked well then either.
One thing that I think Dems should borrow from the GOP playbook is some version of "remain in Mexico". The notion that anyone, from anywhere in the world, could show up at the border and be allowed to stay indefinitely pending a hearing, which could take years, is rather unsustainable and certainly cost us votes.
For the outside, it seems to me that you could do a quick preliminary hearing which determines that those unlikely or uncertain to win an asylum case can’t enter, and only those highly likely to win a hearing are allowed to enter.
If we're going to be doing that, we need to be dang sure we understand the difference between fully legal, internationally recognized asylum claims, and "just showing up". The current admin does not see the difference.
Border Patrol used to be under the Department of Labor, which IMO makes intrinsically more sense than it's current location given the connection between employers and illegal immigration.
re: the Main(e) item in the digest, why aren't they just trying to amend the Constitution instead of trying to get a new advisory opinion? saying that "well, with exhausted votes it will be a plurality anyway" seems a bit like they're trying to be cute with it.
"TEXAS SENATE: Democrat James Talarico raised $7.4 million so far in the first quarter of 2026, bringing his amount raised for the cycle up to $20 million (Punchbowl News)
Imagine next term's Illinois delegation including ex-con Jesse Jackson Jr., three AIPAC moderates (Conyears-Ervin, Bean, and Laura Fine), and Patty Garcia, who believes she is above the democratic process.
anyone think that all this AIPAC vs Justice Dems/ PALPAC ends up helping Daniel Biss (and others such as Mike Simmons)? My group has endorsed Biss so I'm not objective, but I'm thinking that if Abughazaleh, Biss, and Fine are the 3 frontrunners (per polls and FR numbers), and 2 of them are sniping at each other...the 3d glides into the win. Biss is already in a strong position and he doesn't seem affected by the PAC wars.
and just like that, new poll. (I will try to remember to repost in morning for the benefit of East Coast folk.) Biss 31, Fine and Abughazaleh 18, rest single digits. https://x.com/mattheweadie22/status/2022086544815948116
"One NH GOP lawmaker recently admitted Republican lawmakers craft legislation specifically to drive Democrats out of state, rather than improving the lives of Granite Staters."
I just wish the state party would get its act together. There's no reason the state GOP should be winning the generic ballot for the state legislature more often than not. Seems like a messaging/branding issue.
Ray Buckley’s raison d’être is to say he’s been the NH Dem Party chair for 20yrs and screech about why it should be the first presidential primary state, not helping elect state and local Dems.
I wonder why organized labor is lining up behind Zach Wahls and not Josh Turek in the Iowa Senate primary? Laura Belin of the Bleeding Heartland wrote that they have identical voting records on labor issues. I also expected Schumer to use some of his muscle to sway those endorsements for Turek.
I think Zach has had long term contacts with labor. Josh Turek hasn't had time to grow those contacts. It came as a surprise to me that Josh was going to jump into this race to be honest. I thought it was a bit early for him to go statewide. That said, I am a Turek supporter.
I would concur with that. I think Wahls justifiably got anxious and felt like he had waited long enough to run statewide. I fully expected Joni Ernst to ultimately seek a third term and for her not to make some of the blunders that she did. Wahls got in knowing he wouldn't lose his State Senate by doing so, obviously the dynamics of the race have changed. Zach's political career and future bids will still be a possibility. Josh Turek is the one rolling the dice given that his House seat is up.
Haven't seen it discussed here yet, what are your thoughts about Gallup ceasing to conduct presidential polling after 88 years?
"Gallup has been a pioneer of presidential approval surveys since the 1930s, now pivoting its focus amid growing threats from President Donald Trump toward pollsters who publish unfavorable findings" ... “This change is part of a broader, ongoing effort to align all of Gallup’s public work with its mission," a spokesperson for the agency said. "We look forward to continuing to offer independent research that adheres to the highest standards of social science.”
Surely they weren't pressured to stop from above? It sounds like a very vague reason to stop putting out one of their premier, well respected, and reputation making-products....
I agree with Paleo’s take yesterday that the infrequency of their polling to begin with, and the fact that they stopped a lot of other polling types over the last fifteen years, does not immediately or necessarily suggest anything nefarious, just another unfortunate drip of established names suffering in a rapidly changing economy
Not doing H2Hs anymore made sense after they bombed 2012 made sense, but there's no reason to stop doing approvals. Unlike news orgs that have pulled back from polling, I'd imagine it's not a "lack of resources" issue for them.
"This Court has all it needs to conclude that Defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees."
Responding to Michael's question nearly a week ago about Mejia's electoral prospects: barring a severe personal scandal, any Democrat would win the NJ11 special and general elections this year.
Going forward, it depends on what she does in office. Apparently her campaign was mostly just pro-labor and anti-ICE. That basically sounds like what David Bonior used to do, and he held down a marginal (although more labor-friendly) district in the Detroit suburbs for eons. I don't see Mejia losing too many Sherrill voters over that sort of thing even in bad years. That said, if Mejia goes full bombthrower and starts talking like Tlaib or Omar in 2019 she could lose the seat in a bad cycle.
and we will have to see how morris county (the portion in her district) voters continue to evolve in their voting patterns. If morris county keeps slowly drifting left then I think she should be safe in anything but a 2010/2014 environment
It's possible she's not around in the district for long because I could see her be picked for a Senate vacancy if Booker or Kim were to get a job in a future Dem presidency. Or if a redraw happens I could easily see her moving into NJ-09.
I hadn’t thought of her sitting to the top of potential statewide contenders from the federal delegation. She, McIver and Menendez are the only younger members (and I don’t see Menendez being strongly considered with his parent’s baggage, fair or unfair). Not sure Mejia is a strong appointment possibility thus far, she’s from a different faction than Sherrill, who is a potential candidate herself pending her gubernatorial term ofc. But lots of time for their relationships to develop. My guess would by McIver or a non-federal candidate tbh.
I don't know a lot about Morelle from an ideological standpoint, but I remember he's been a strong advocate for a national right to repair bill so I definitely appreciate him for that
He voted for the Laken Riley Act & yes on a resolution thanking ICE and encouraging collaboration between it and local law enforcement so he's pretty moderate for a solidly blue district
Good to know! Yeah that's definitely a lot more moderate than I would like, to put it mildly. I'm curious what Rochester is like politically. Is it more traditional/moderate Democratic or is it more progressive?
it's not as blue as it looks, morelle was much more liberal when in the state assembly, the district in question almost went republican in 2014 when then incumbent democratic rep louise slaughter hung on by a percentage point. Morelle's only won 58% of the vote in 2018 wave. Has won roughly the same amount since then, in each subsquent election.
I agree we should expect more in semi safe seats, so if the challenge is on the basis of his collaboration with ice, my hope, at the very least, is that he recognizes he needs to stop paying homage and voting to fund trump's secret police
The 2014 scare was largely because Cuomo intentionally didn't campaign in Upstate NY and massively dragged down the ticket there. I also wouldn't attribute Morelle's mediocre election victories to the district; it's more because the machine nature of our politics causes a lot of people to disengage. Morelle isn't the worst and is kind of lowkey, but he's definitely a hack that deserves replacing.
I don't like Morelle and would love to see a strong challenge, but Robin Wilt ain't it. She ran when the seat was open in 2018 and again in 2020. She's a dismal fundraiser and doesn't seem to be a great campaigner. It's possible that the recent anti-incumbent fervor boosts her this time around, but I wouldn't count on it.
growing up splitting my time between the capital region of new york and maine, I never could understand why rochester, and syracuse weren't as reliably blue as Albany
A bit strange. Would have thought he’d be a prime candidate for Grassley’s seat in 2028. Maybe he thinks we’ll take 1-3 of the House seats this cycle and that one of them will probably win the nomination?
AZ-Gov: Former Arizona Board of Regents member (and 2022 candidate) Karrin Taylor Robson has dropped out of the Republican primary, leaving Rep. Andy Biggs as the frontrunner and Rep. David Schweikert behind.
VA-06/VA-10: Former State Del. Wendy Gooditis has ended her campaign when her northern Shenandoah home got moved into VA-10, where she's now endorsed incumbent Suhas Subramanyan. Sam Shirazi notes the redistricted map is likely to have former US Rep. Tom Perriello v Beth Macy in the primary for VA-06, potentially with State Del. Sam Rasoul.
https://x.com/samshirazim/status/2021633611150106944
Perriello v. Macy in VA-6, not 10.
I think Gooditis could have ran in the 11th and move, but I guess not.
Oops, corrected.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/newjerseyglobe.com/congress/alex-zdan-will-challenge-cory-booker-for-u-s-senate/amp/
NJ-Sen: Former news anchor Alex Zdan is the first notable Republican to challenge Sen. Cory Booker. He was also previously considering challenging Rep. Herb Conaway, and ran for the open Senate seat in 2024.
State Sen. Mike Testa and comedian Vinnie Brand are considering.
I wonder if Booker can beat Menendez’s 2012 margin here, which I believe is the modern high water mark for Democrats in NJ. Could flip white whale counties like Hunterdon and Monmouth.
i dont think monmouth is flipping but hunterdon imo will
Biden got close in Monmouth. A uniform swing from Harris to Menendez flips it. I agree Hunterdon does flip first.
Here in WA state, they’ve implemented “Ranked Choice”, and I’m still not sure I like it. The idea that I’d end up with two candidates that I would never vote for on my ballot, raises my BP and almost makes me Not Want To Participate in the 2-party system anymore; And I’ve been voting since I was deemed old enough to vote for the first time back in the 80s. . .
Washington has a jungle primary system, not a ranked choice system.
Jungle primaries are bad because they allow the possibility of Democrats getting locked out of the general election. Ranked choice is better because it means that left-leaning independents can't act as spoilers for Democrats, which happened in Maine and in other states as well.
My preferred system would actually be top 2 with ranked choice. IMO a top 2 system helps voters focus on the difference between the two most viable candidates, and adding ranked choice to the primary would almost certainly prevent a majority (or at least competitive) party from being locked out of the general.
the huge disadvantage of a jungle primary in a blue state is the nightmare scenario the clickbait folk are pushing in California's Gov race: lots of Dems fracture the Dem vote resulting in a GOP lockout.
Nearly as huge a disadvantage for progressives: in blue states it's very, very hard for a progressive to beat a moderate Dem. The indy and GOP voters hold their noses and vote for the least offensive candidate. In 2018 I did an analysis of every Top Two Dem on Dem race that had occurred to date (we implemented it in 2014) and in 18 races the mod beat the progressive nearly every time.
Why would you describe it as clickbait when virtually every single poll in CA the past 2 months has had the 2 Republicans ahead? They're totalling about 35%, which is what you'd expect in the primary for GOP tunrout
because most of us are mostly sure that there will be consolidation. Paul Mitchell is predicting an 80+ chance of a D vs R race. https://toptwoca.com/
Reposting that Catawba College polling of the U.S. Senate, state Supreme Court and Congressional races here in NC from last night:
https://x.com/ForwardCarolina/status/2021699596930756911
🔵 Cooper : 46%
🔴 Whatley: 38%
⚪️Undecided: 14%
Among Independents: 34% Cooper, 11% Whatley
US House generic ballot:
🔵Democratic: 46%
🔴Republican: 37%
⚪️Undecided: 14%
NC Supreme Court:
🔵Anita Earls (incumbent): 44%
🔴Sarah Stevens: 36%
⚪️Undecided: 16%
1000 NC voters, Jan 13-22, 2026. MoE 3.69%
Interesting that Cooper is not much different from the generic Dem.
Gene Ric nearly always overperforms any named candidate in nearly any race in any jurisdiction. The fact Cooper matches Gen Ric's performance is itself remarkable.
Well, from a NC voter's perspective, he is a generic Dem (and perfect fit for the seat). Democrats support him, moderate Republican voters know that he's a moderate & not AOC/Mamdani-lite like the NC GOP say he is. He nominates progressives to the state judiciary like Allison Riggs, so his credentials are solid.
I think he's almost a lock for this seat like Hickenlooper was for CO in 2020.
I agree with your assessment except for the Hickenlooper comparison. I agree Cooper is likely favored but CO is considerably bluer than NC.
CO is WAY bluer than NC, I agree.
But this state has come a long way after re-electing the racist POS Jesse Helms over the popular incumbent governor Jim Hunt.
I said this last night.. I think Cooper will win, but he has yet to be at 50% in most polling. My guess is the swing voters there (unlike VA) are less suburban and diverse, and it's tough to dislodge them from their conservative ways in a federal race. I bet he wins by 5% or so.. which is great, but not what you'd expect in a blue year with a well-known, well-liked statewide official.
The poll writeup apparently does not list any candidates themselves. It's only a generic ballot for U.S. Senate, Supreme Court, U.S. House, and State Legislature.
https://catawba.edu/news/all-news/2026/yougov-23/
Wait, all of these are generic ballot tests?
Mentioned this yesterday, but these numbers would have huge downballot implications. Don Davis would have a real shot at re-election and Chuck Edward’s would be in trouble. Maybe even longer shots like Murphy, Rouzer, and Moore are in play. Also, the state house is in play, since the tipping point was around Trump+10.
The hard part would be the state senate. 7 and 11 should be easy in that environment, then 4 and 34 are longer shots but doable given they’re Trump+8-10. Seat 25 is the tough one. Might be district 24 around Robeson, which would probably involve a candidate who can pull of big numbers with Lumbee.
Kate Barr from Kate Barr Can't Win PAC is challenging Tim Moore in the primary. She's doing a reverse Cotham and actually giving voters a choice due to the gerrymandered district.
She's encouraged Democratic voters to become unaffiliated to vote for her and then switch back after March 3rd.
Democrats need a better slogan than “abolish ICE”. (Candidate in IL-8 is using it in this recap.)
I know it’s simple and that it speaks to the anger people have towards ICE as well as CBP, DHS, Noem, and Miller. But given the public’s suspicion about Democratic immigration goals and policies, we need to talk about what immigration enforcement we will support. How will we replace ICE? If you believe like me that we need to eliminate DHS, how will we replace CBP & ICE? It can’t seem to the public like we just don’t want to enforce immigration policy at all.
Some candidates are for it, others are not for it. The "party" itself, if Schumer is any indication, is for "reform ICE." There was immigration enforcement before DHS and ICE. We should go back to that. But while it's possible ICE would be eliminated, they'll never eliminate the DHS.
I mean DHS is not even 25 years old. It was created in a time of panic and government overreach. Even before this it wasn’t efficient or effective.
It’s now been filled with autocratic leaning idiots and so many decent people have resigned in disgust.
What’s the good reason for keeping it?
I'd like to eliminate it. But politically it would be near impossible.
Sometimes we need our leaders to advocate for hard things.
I do think we will be entering a chaotic period in which unexpected shifts in politics and culture will emerge. Which to me, means we should envision what we want and what we think would work best, and then work backwards on how to make it political possible.
But, I agree, near impossible.
Not near impossible . .impossible. no-one will dismantle DHS and then risk the fallout if a terror attack happened afterwards. The party that did so would be in the political graveyard for YEARS.
Sounds like cowardice to me. Which we’ve come to expect from our leaders. Maybe we should demand some courage.
Make a much smaller anti-terrorism task force that draws from CIA, NSA, Defense Intelligence, and FBI and pools some of their intelligence gathering. Make it that workers there are on three year loan from their agencies so that different terrorism specialists are rotating in and out spreading the best practices and thinking from each organization into the others while reduces their natural desires to defend turf.
Right now DHS focus on lots of other things that aren’t terrorism and it doesn’t do them well.
I think Ro Khanna has the best proposal:
"Democrats must unify around an actual agenda.
1. Vote no on DHS funding bill.
2. Repeal the multi-year $75 billion funding for ICE.
3. End qualified immunity for ICE agents.
4. Investigate and prosecute every single ICE agent who broke the law.
5. Impeach Noem and Bondi.
6. End the Kavanaugh stops with racial profiling and end the militarization of ICE.
7. Codify a use of force standard so courts can enforce the law against rogue ICE agents.
8. Tear down and replace ICE with an agency that has oversight.
Trump is engaged in the SYSTEMATIC destruction of the rule of law."
https://x.com/RoKhanna/status/2015431358466712041
For all of this.
It’s light on what that new agency would look like or how it would operate. And doesn’t say anything about CBP, whose agents have been just as egregious and maybe worse.
So I don’t think it’s sufficient to build something new. It’s mostly alleviating current harm.
I’d imagine Khanna’s proposals would apply to CBP too.
That’s not enough! Democrats should also demand:
Require at least 12 months (preferably 18–24 months) of training, and successful examination and graduation, in order to work in ICE or CBP, or the agency that replaces them. The agency needs to be professionalized.
None of this "47 days" or 6 months bullshit.
Also: disqualify members of extremist or racist organizations, or anyone with a criminal record – including January 6th insurrectionists who have been "pardoned".
One more thing: Limit the authority of ICE/CBP/new agency to within, say, 50 miles of the Mexican and Canadian borders. NO authority on the East or West coasts, or on the Gulf of Mexico, except in ports of entry.
Certainly both agencies need an increase in professionalism.
If we're talking about making the government more lean and concentrated in immigration policy, we do not need to grow the size of government by $116 billion (the cost of DHS per Trump's recent request for FY 2026) in order to accomplish this.
As previously discussed, the immigration process was fine pre-9/11. However, in order to enforce immigration policy, we do not need a department like ICE in order to accomplish this.
Before 9/11 we had INS. It wasn’t like we had nothing.
Also, I disagree with the assertion that pre 9/11 our immigration system worked well.
It’s also possible that the pressure to leave many Central and South American countries may be higher now than pre 9/11. In many of them their agriculture has been severely impacted by how hot the last two decades have been. And that isn’t going to get better in the near or midterm future.
Perhaps saying the immigration system worked better than today is better than saying it worked well. However, I'm arguing this mainly from the standpoint of not having a police state in pre-9/11 to justify raids as opposed to sticking to a bureaucratic system that can be improved through legislation and other means.
Fixing the immigration process with a new INS system created similarly as it was before but with changes in place to ensure problems don't fall through the cracks is a start.
The last real budget INS had that I have seen was $4.8 billion for FY 2001. If this was the case, any improvements to INS would likely not need at least $100 billion or more to correct the problems.
Agree it worked better. Agree it shouldn’t require a $100B/year.
I do think that we haven’t done it very well since I was born in 1980. And maybe when I think of US history, we have never done it very well.
I do think we need to build something that can 1) allow for real political discussions of how much legal immigration do we want 2) treat potential immigrants with respect and dignity 3) make the legal immigration process efficient and clear 4) create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who have been here longer than 5? years that occurs fair to them and a significant majority of citizens. 5) invest in problem solving root causes of migration 6) make it difficult for companies to pay undocumented workers under the table 7) separate policing drug smuggling and other criminal activity from stopping people crossing the border without documentation
I also think we need to consider the pros and cons of some kind intermediate status. Right now some people are willing to endure tremendous hardship (financial, physical, acceptance of sexual violence ) to come to the US illegally. I’m not willing to escalate the cruelty so much that it doesn’t become worth it. But perhaps making it easier to come without citizenship and making it more beneficial for the American tax payer would be better for migrants and better for American society. Big risk of creating a permanent underclass. I’m not sure if this is a good idea. But it seems to me if people are willing to pay thousands, walk a thousand miles, and risk sexual assault then they would be willing to have an extra tax taken from their paycheck every month. (Which workers with fake social security numbers already are doing). Basically make what is already happening above board.
Bottom line- immigration is a topic that the actual discussions about have been sidelined by fear mongering, poisoned by racism and fear of racism, and utilized as a political bludgeon rather than aiming to achieve outcomes that we want.
The only benefit of it getting to bad now is the opportunity to sweep the past away and create something new.
As far as INS is concerned, the only reason it was ended was because the Department Homeland Security was created, which in turn merged INS and other departments together. DHS was started in response to 9/11, not because there was a need to reform immigration. Even back in the 2000’s, immigration was still a problem that never got fixed. Illegal immigration included.
On fixing the explosion of migrants and illegal immigtation these days, the Democratic Party makes a mistake by focusing too much of focusing too much on comprehensive immigration reform and compassion and not enough on working with other countries where migrants are coming from to improve their economies and coordinate on security. Frankly, I don’t know all the answers but that’s something Congress has the ability to fix.
Certainly focusing on the root causes of migration are essential. (Which was Harris initial portfolio that was distorted to be considered the border.)
Yes, DHS wasn’t about fixing immigration. And immigration and border security have been poorly served being lumped in with all the anti-terrorism (as has FEMA).
My point was perhaps not clear. If we eliminate ICE we will need to replace it with an agency that does its legitimate functions and/or give those legitimate functions to another agency. Same with CBP. I also didn’t write here, but I think that ICE and CBP need to be eliminated before of personnel and culture rather than specific policies. Everyone who is left and especially who has joined in the last year at best finds cruelty and illegal activity by their colleagues acceptable and at worst revels in it. Eliminate their positions and let any worthy ones apply to the new agency that is created.
And I wouldn’t just want to use the same playbook as in the 90s and 80s because I don’t think it worked well then either.
One thing that I think Dems should borrow from the GOP playbook is some version of "remain in Mexico". The notion that anyone, from anywhere in the world, could show up at the border and be allowed to stay indefinitely pending a hearing, which could take years, is rather unsustainable and certainly cost us votes.
Yes. Seems like low hanging fruit to me.
For the outside, it seems to me that you could do a quick preliminary hearing which determines that those unlikely or uncertain to win an asylum case can’t enter, and only those highly likely to win a hearing are allowed to enter.
If we're going to be doing that, we need to be dang sure we understand the difference between fully legal, internationally recognized asylum claims, and "just showing up". The current admin does not see the difference.
Border Patrol used to be under the Department of Labor, which IMO makes intrinsically more sense than it's current location given the connection between employers and illegal immigration.
re: the Main(e) item in the digest, why aren't they just trying to amend the Constitution instead of trying to get a new advisory opinion? saying that "well, with exhausted votes it will be a plurality anyway" seems a bit like they're trying to be cute with it.
May not have the votes. May require 2/3rds to amend.
Yep, looks like that's the case.
"The Legislature, whenever 2/3 of both Houses shall deem it necessary, may propose amendments to this Constitution"
"TEXAS SENATE: Democrat James Talarico raised $7.4 million so far in the first quarter of 2026, bringing his amount raised for the cycle up to $20 million (Punchbowl News)
https://punchbowl.news/archive/21226-am/"
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2021894762899636548
Talarico needs to drown Crockett on the airwaves with this money.
money printer go brrr
IL-9: Justice Democrats back Abughazaleh
I wouldn't really expect them to back Biss, but this seems like a great way for AIPAC-backed Fine to get through instead.
Exactly.
AIPAC flopped in NJ-11. I don’t expect Laura Fine to fare much better
The left had a single candidate to coalesce there. There are many progressives dividing the vote here. It's reverse Mejia and Goldman-Auchincloss 2.0.
The candidate they were trying to push wasn't particularly viable in the first place, and the IL-9 field is ever more split.
Not surprised but I was hoping they’d stay neutral rather than endorsing the carpetbagger.
Imagine next term's Illinois delegation including ex-con Jesse Jackson Jr., three AIPAC moderates (Conyears-Ervin, Bean, and Laura Fine), and Patty Garcia, who believes she is above the democratic process.
As well as AIPAC moderates Quigley, Casten, Schneider, Budzinski and Sorensen
Ramirez is great at least!
The IL-4 situation is far more Chuy's fault than Patty's
Just FYI, people who are actually on the ground in & near IL-4 are far more favorably disposed to Patty Garcia than DB pearl clutchers.
anyone think that all this AIPAC vs Justice Dems/ PALPAC ends up helping Daniel Biss (and others such as Mike Simmons)? My group has endorsed Biss so I'm not objective, but I'm thinking that if Abughazaleh, Biss, and Fine are the 3 frontrunners (per polls and FR numbers), and 2 of them are sniping at each other...the 3d glides into the win. Biss is already in a strong position and he doesn't seem affected by the PAC wars.
and just like that, new poll. (I will try to remember to repost in morning for the benefit of East Coast folk.) Biss 31, Fine and Abughazaleh 18, rest single digits. https://x.com/mattheweadie22/status/2022086544815948116
"One NH GOP lawmaker recently admitted Republican lawmakers craft legislation specifically to drive Democrats out of state, rather than improving the lives of Granite Staters."
https://x.com/GranitePost/status/2021331958526247190
Sounds like Florida
LOL, it doesn't work like that. The things I moved to New Hampshire for aren't going anywhere, and so neither am I.
I just wish the state party would get its act together. There's no reason the state GOP should be winning the generic ballot for the state legislature more often than not. Seems like a messaging/branding issue.
Ray Buckley’s raison d’être is to say he’s been the NH Dem Party chair for 20yrs and screech about why it should be the first presidential primary state, not helping elect state and local Dems.
I wonder why organized labor is lining up behind Zach Wahls and not Josh Turek in the Iowa Senate primary? Laura Belin of the Bleeding Heartland wrote that they have identical voting records on labor issues. I also expected Schumer to use some of his muscle to sway those endorsements for Turek.
I think Zach has had long term contacts with labor. Josh Turek hasn't had time to grow those contacts. It came as a surprise to me that Josh was going to jump into this race to be honest. I thought it was a bit early for him to go statewide. That said, I am a Turek supporter.
I think Turek has a better chance to win the general.
I would concur with that. I think Wahls justifiably got anxious and felt like he had waited long enough to run statewide. I fully expected Joni Ernst to ultimately seek a third term and for her not to make some of the blunders that she did. Wahls got in knowing he wouldn't lose his State Senate by doing so, obviously the dynamics of the race have changed. Zach's political career and future bids will still be a possibility. Josh Turek is the one rolling the dice given that his House seat is up.
Ernst already announced she's not running. Ashley Hinson is.
I'm well aware. I use the word expected when it came to Ernst's re-election. I apologize for the confusion.
Haven't seen it discussed here yet, what are your thoughts about Gallup ceasing to conduct presidential polling after 88 years?
"Gallup has been a pioneer of presidential approval surveys since the 1930s, now pivoting its focus amid growing threats from President Donald Trump toward pollsters who publish unfavorable findings" ... “This change is part of a broader, ongoing effort to align all of Gallup’s public work with its mission," a spokesperson for the agency said. "We look forward to continuing to offer independent research that adheres to the highest standards of social science.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/gallup-ends-presidential-approval-ratings-211251468.html
Surely they weren't pressured to stop from above? It sounds like a very vague reason to stop putting out one of their premier, well respected, and reputation making-products....
I agree with Paleo’s take yesterday that the infrequency of their polling to begin with, and the fact that they stopped a lot of other polling types over the last fifteen years, does not immediately or necessarily suggest anything nefarious, just another unfortunate drip of established names suffering in a rapidly changing economy
Not doing H2Hs anymore made sense after they bombed 2012 made sense, but there's no reason to stop doing approvals. Unlike news orgs that have pulled back from polling, I'd imagine it's not a "lack of resources" issue for them.
Judge blocks Hegseth effort to punish Sen. Kelly.
"This Court has all it needs to conclude that Defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees."
https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3meok2koi7s2m
Responding to Michael's question nearly a week ago about Mejia's electoral prospects: barring a severe personal scandal, any Democrat would win the NJ11 special and general elections this year.
Going forward, it depends on what she does in office. Apparently her campaign was mostly just pro-labor and anti-ICE. That basically sounds like what David Bonior used to do, and he held down a marginal (although more labor-friendly) district in the Detroit suburbs for eons. I don't see Mejia losing too many Sherrill voters over that sort of thing even in bad years. That said, if Mejia goes full bombthrower and starts talking like Tlaib or Omar in 2019 she could lose the seat in a bad cycle.
and we will have to see how morris county (the portion in her district) voters continue to evolve in their voting patterns. If morris county keeps slowly drifting left then I think she should be safe in anything but a 2010/2014 environment
It's possible she's not around in the district for long because I could see her be picked for a Senate vacancy if Booker or Kim were to get a job in a future Dem presidency. Or if a redraw happens I could easily see her moving into NJ-09.
I hadn’t thought of her sitting to the top of potential statewide contenders from the federal delegation. She, McIver and Menendez are the only younger members (and I don’t see Menendez being strongly considered with his parent’s baggage, fair or unfair). Not sure Mejia is a strong appointment possibility thus far, she’s from a different faction than Sherrill, who is a potential candidate herself pending her gubernatorial term ofc. But lots of time for their relationships to develop. My guess would by McIver or a non-federal candidate tbh.
Could also be a future rep in NJ-07 or NJ-12.
Yes but operating with known knowns and not unknown unknowns lol
I would be quite surprised if she were selected
NY-25:
https://13wham.com/news/local/ex-brighton-town-board-member-to-primary-joe-morelle
PrimaryMania 2026 continues, with former Brighton town board member Robin Wilt challenging Joe Morelle, presumably from the left.
I don't know a lot about Morelle from an ideological standpoint, but I remember he's been a strong advocate for a national right to repair bill so I definitely appreciate him for that
He voted for the Laken Riley Act & yes on a resolution thanking ICE and encouraging collaboration between it and local law enforcement so he's pretty moderate for a solidly blue district
Good to know! Yeah that's definitely a lot more moderate than I would like, to put it mildly. I'm curious what Rochester is like politically. Is it more traditional/moderate Democratic or is it more progressive?
If I had to guess it wouldn't lean too hard either way like lots of upstate NY, but I don't know enough abt Rochester specifically to say fs
it's not as blue as it looks, morelle was much more liberal when in the state assembly, the district in question almost went republican in 2014 when then incumbent democratic rep louise slaughter hung on by a percentage point. Morelle's only won 58% of the vote in 2018 wave. Has won roughly the same amount since then, in each subsquent election.
I agree we should expect more in semi safe seats, so if the challenge is on the basis of his collaboration with ice, my hope, at the very least, is that he recognizes he needs to stop paying homage and voting to fund trump's secret police
The 2014 scare was largely because Cuomo intentionally didn't campaign in Upstate NY and massively dragged down the ticket there. I also wouldn't attribute Morelle's mediocre election victories to the district; it's more because the machine nature of our politics causes a lot of people to disengage. Morelle isn't the worst and is kind of lowkey, but he's definitely a hack that deserves replacing.
It was ~60-40 Dem for both Biden and Harris, probably more instructive than one of the biggest red wave years in recent memory.
I don't like Morelle and would love to see a strong challenge, but Robin Wilt ain't it. She ran when the seat was open in 2018 and again in 2020. She's a dismal fundraiser and doesn't seem to be a great campaigner. It's possible that the recent anti-incumbent fervor boosts her this time around, but I wouldn't count on it.
growing up splitting my time between the capital region of new york and maine, I never could understand why rochester, and syracuse weren't as reliably blue as Albany
JD Sholten will not be running for re-election to the Iowa House this year.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/jd-scholten-will-not-be-re-running-for-iowa-house-he-announces/ar-AA1Wemdp?ocid=BingNewsVerp
A bit strange. Would have thought he’d be a prime candidate for Grassley’s seat in 2028. Maybe he thinks we’ll take 1-3 of the House seats this cycle and that one of them will probably win the nomination?
Very odd behavior from him over the last year. Ran for Senate for two months, dropped out to endorse Turek, now not running for reelection.
https://www.abc15.com/news/politics/karrin-taylor-robson-drops-out-of-race-for-arizona-governor
AZ-Gov: Former Arizona Board of Regents member (and 2022 candidate) Karrin Taylor Robson has dropped out of the Republican primary, leaving Rep. Andy Biggs as the frontrunner and Rep. David Schweikert behind.
By far their strongest GE candidate
WHOA.
Chat is it good if your party's strongest candidate in a highly competitive race drops out without strong justification to do so
Or when the same thing happened further down the ballot last week (Gina Swoboda)