NYC should keep its election in the odd number year. It will lose attention if it's moved, especially to a presidential year. Plus, from an observer point of view, it's nice to have odd year elections.
This is always the question. Does it benefit democracy more to be free from the distractions of the presidential race or to hold the poll at a time when higher turnout is virtually guaranteed.
I'm of the view that it's better to get higher turnout. NYC had 23% turnout in 2021, 26% in 2017, 26% in 2013, and 28% in 2009. No amount of increased focus in the world is worth that utterly pathetic level of turnout.
I do not know NYC's turnout for 2024 presidential, but the statewide turnout was 62%, and 70% in 2020. It's not hard to imagine that NYC would have at least twice the turnout in presidential years.
The primary last cycle was extremely competitive and saw a similar number of votes as the general election. Still too low even for the parts that are competitive.
Also Bloomberg only won by four points in 2009. I'd absolutely consider such a small margin to indicate a competitive race. He won by just over two points in 2001.
Where's the >50%, let alone >60%, turnout for those competitive elections? Maybe if turnout was at appropriate levels the results might have even changed! Maybe not, but we'll never know.
Those elections were also over 30 years ago. Fact is turnout is shit today, and it undermines the attention argument. If ~3/4 of voters are not showing up to vote, there's no credible way to argue that the local election is benefiting from not sharing the spotlight. Any extra attention or coverage that might be happening is being ignored.
NY state was not competitive at the presidential level in 2020 or 2024 and turnout was ~2.5x that of NYC's mayoral elections in the neighboring years. This isn't simply people refusing to show up because an election isn't competitive.
Don’t think the turnout actually hit 70% in 2020. There were 8.69m votes in 2020. The turnout rates are dependent on which denominator you use. If you use the state’s active registration back then of 12.36m, that is 70%. But the more reliable estimate of voting eligible citizen population is around 14.22m. That is, unlike the states with automatic registration, NYS has a large chunk of unregistered but eligible citizen pool, almost 2m people. That denominator gives you a rate of only 61%.
2024 turnout rate based on active registration would be 8.38m out of 12.43m at 67%, and about 60% of the eligible pool. The turnout rate drop is minimal, but the population has shrunk quite a bit.
Using registration as denominator, 2024 general election, NYC’s turnout rate was only 59%. Outside of NYC the rate was 73%. A 14% turnout difference!
"I like having elections to watch" is not a good reason to keep a system that thrives on low turnout. Like the item itself mentions, the "losing attention" angle doesn't really work either since of course people don't pay attention in elections they're not voting in. 23% turnout in 2021! 25% in 2017! They're not paying attention now!
It doesn't "thrive on low turnout." When there are competitive races, such as the Giuliani-Dinkins races of '89 and '93, turnout has been big. I'll bet turnout this November will rival those turnouts.
That's the undemocratic argument! Besides, mayoral elections will get plenty of coverage in New York, no matter what. If they get less national coverage, who cares?
I'm 100% for less national coverage of NYC mayoral elections. It's an outlier city and it's antics just give the GOP more fodder to attack Dems in states situated south or west of NY that don't touch the Pacific Ocean.
Just watched a clip of Stephen Colbert on Instagram (can't link, unfortunately) where he suggested he might run for Senate against Lindsay Graham in 2026, now that will be available to campaign next year. He said he's always wanted to do this, and now seems like it might be the time. As most of you know, his sister ran for a House seat in SC a few years ago.
We're going to need comedians and other highly charismatic personalities to help break through to people and generate a movement. The Zelenskyy Model.
That is true, but it’s going to be true whether or not Colbert runs. If he does, I imagine the number of donors who give money to him that they would have given to a downballot race if he wasn’t running will be infinitesimally small.
In the Senate, Stephen Colbert would surely prove himself to be a worthy heir of Al Franken. Both are highly articulate and very serious people, not withstanding the fact that they are comedians.
Colbert could successfully run campaign ads featuring his current persona aimed at Democrats and Independents – and ads with his faux-rightwing persona aimed at Republican voters!
He could file as an independent as late as July 15, 2026. I hope he does it. Of course, there would need to be coordination with the Democratic nominee to drop out - and I don't know if S.C. law allows a party nominee to drop out and not appear on the November ballot.
Being that Stephen Colbert’s sister, Elizabeth Colbert-Jones, could not beat Mark Sanford in the SC-01 special election back in 2013 even with his backing, I am not sure Colbert himself would be able to get enough support to turn out Democrats in the general election beyond the normal amount.
SC is still a difficult state for Democrats to make gains compared to NC. Besides Colbert’s persona and image, what else does he have to offer?
Al Franken was already active in politics and on platforms like Air America well after his days at Saturday Night Live. Colbert projects a more apolitical image whereas Franken was an outspoken liberal.
NY 17, Lawler has, probably unsurprisingly, chosen to run for reelection rather than go for Governor. I think he's beatable in this environment with a decent campaign.
I am surprised. I think he had a better shot in the general than Stefanik. But I guess he believes Stefanik will run and he wouldn't be able to win the primary.
That's my interpretation. He was doing so badly in those primary polls - more money in a potential congressional retirement fund thank losing a primary for Governor.
This article says Lawler got intense pressure from Trump to go for re-election, to help defend the GOP's majority. And of course Lawler acquiesced. Trump has really been focused on keeping the House, what with all the redistricting efforts he's pushing
To add on to that, I live in NY-17 and the local Dems are incredibly fired up. They may prove to be adept campaigners as well -- neither SPM nor Mondaire were strong campaigners at all (in fact, neither fucking showed up.)
While Jones was weak, I wouldn't call him "extremely flawed". Not right for the district, yep, but "extreme" would be putting a little too much mustard on it.
I think this is 100,000% guaranteed. There will be no Democratic Party left if they do nothing with the power they are given after the midterms. They would be completely abdicating all responsibility and trust given to them, once again, to try to prevent this from happening. Even if it fails to remove him, and it will fail unless MAGA turns on him too, it is important to document history.
She might have lost in 2022 if Republicans had been disciplined enough to run a bland, little-known moderate against her (similar to Pataki in 1994), but that's pretty much a non-starter these days.
In 2026? She'll probably underperform, but still win with room to spare.
I don't know enough about Delgado to have an opinion. I remember people being angry that he resigned from Congress to become LG because it jeopardized the seat.
Lawler’s “by the book” defense of the deportation of Mohammad Khalil should be enough to fire up the troops, even if there are plenty of other issues to be fired up about a well.
To be clear, I am talking about what the Mohammad Khalil deportation case represents as a matter of legal affairs, not as it relates to his specific agenda on campus at Columbia University (which I am not going to discuss here for obvious reasons).
What residents in NY-17 would likely pay attention to is the fact Mike Lawler is pro-ICE and has not shown any independence from Trump and his administration on this issue. The Khalil case got a lot of attention nationwide, namely with younger voters. Just recently, Khalil’s case got cleared and now he’s suing the Justice Department for the hell he’s had to face in this deportation fiasco.
This all boils down to due process and if anyone, even those accused of a crime, has the right to it and defending themselves in court. Even 9/11 terrorists had the right to attorneys in court. If Lawler isn’t going to budge on this issue, it’s going to be a big liability for him as he runs it re-election.
Trump is now at minus 40 approval with young people, down from roughly even at the start of his term, per YouGov. The buyers remorse with Gen Z is real.
I would love it to be 2006-sized, not 2018. Enough shock Dem flips to flip back the Senate and House to Dem control and actually hold the Trump regime accountable.
…unfortunately, that cannot include removing Kavanaugh, Gorsuch or Coney-Barrett. But a good alternative is to expand SCOTUS so that the number of justices equal the courts of appeal.
If Roy Cooper wins the open Senate seat in North Carolina next year, there's going to be a bigger fire lit under NC Dems for future cycles.
2028 is going to be expensive for Rs in NC to hold these seats:
- MAGA U.S. Senator Tedd Budd
- Retaining the MAGA majority on the NC Supreme Court (either by retaining the 5-2 or 4-3).
- Keeping Dave Boliek as state auditor (and control of the state board of elections).
If they lose all three, that's sign of a sea change in NC politics. Flipping the SCONC alone will be massive, but there's potential for a perfect storm for all three to flip. And if Phil Berger loses his primary next year, that'd be even better.
As someone squarely in Gen X, I'd advise to never count on the voting patterns of Gen X (unless you are a Republican).
But, what concerns me is that Gen Z may be duplicating our voting patterns. That they shifted toward trump at all worries me. That they are shifting away is great, but that has to include voting, and voting for Ds downballot. And if the issue is college loans, then what are the issues non-college Gen Z voters will follow to support Dems?
FYI, regarding the youngest Gen X age from 45-47, many of us in this bracket (including me) identify more as xennials than Gen Xers. Xennial is where someone typically looked at as a Gen Xer actually identifies more with the millennial generation. We are right above the age of the oldest millennials. Not everyone this age knows about what a xennial is but would likely identify as one if they knew what it meant.
Many Gen X/xennial friends I know of at this age do not vote for Trump or the GOP. There are those I know who voted for Trump to rebel against the “two party dictatorship” but prior to that never voted for the GOP. I also dated a millennial who grew up in El Centro and was a traditional Bush Republican, pro-immigration kind a woman who ended up moving to the left because of Trump.
Gen X otherwise the older they are the more likely they can potentially vote for Trump depends on who you talk to.
That said, I have a feeling the numbers of Gen Xers who are against Trump are younger than the older generation.
Moreover, according to data journalist G. Elliott Morris: "Democrats now have a lead over Republicans in trust to handle immigration, the economy and inflation. It’s not 2024 anymore!"
At least in terms of black voter numbers, those are more closely aligned with pre-Obama numbers (Kerry received 88 percent to Bush's 11 percent), which is probably to be expected moving forward.
Our long term support from Asian voters is something I've had as a potential worry spot for a while. I never got the sense that our language or focus has ever given them anywhere near a similar focus as other racial minorities. They're a growing chunk of the electorate and a bigger part of our coalition.
Falung Gong advertises their stupid dance show all over the place in my town. I make a point of mentioning to the owners of the business that they are advertising for a cult but all but one has never given a damn.
I'm not much familiar with the former and only vaguely with the latter, but I get the idea. I agree that's an issue but I was thinking even more broadly than that. I get the sense that as a party we largely do not give them anywhere near the focus you'd expect going into this without any knowledge.
Glad you posted this - the culture war moderates over at The Liberal Patriot are still utilizing exit poll data from November to make their arguments, when anyone with access to the internet can find polling shows a full-on collapse for Trump among other voters under 29 and Latinos.
I have a gut feeling student loan fiasco is what is hitting Gen Z the most along with the attacks on funding for universities, ICE, etc. Student loans being at the top of the list.
No doubt Gen Z is mad at Trump for not giving a damn about them. Even Ronald Reagan wasn’t this much of an asshole when it came to college education (except when it came to pushing public universities to charge students in their defiance towards the Vietnam War).
However, sending student tuition loans not paid to collections leaves an even more detrimental effect as each student’s credit rating would adversely be affected. I’m not sure Reagan went this extreme back in the day.
Yeah, the gubernatorial races in NJ and VA are going to be mighty interesting. Especially if GOP voter turnout craters or a fraction of them vote for Democrats.
What percentage of Republican voters voted Democratic in 2022? I was under the impression that it was much more the fact that too many of them turn out only in presidential years.
I don't remember exact figures but I know that there were significant crossover votes in NV and AZ, for two examples. (I was on Election Twitter back then and followed number-crunchers from both states.)
Hopefully New York and Virginia will both move to have all local elections in even year midterm elections- this will boost voter turnout and save tax money which will be needed to make up for money Trump is keeping from the states!!! After Trump is gone this money ($42 million for New York every 2 years) can be used for free all day kindergarten and free Pre-K education. All the blue states need to combine the local elections with the even year midterm elections!
"We will have reduced drug prices by 1000%. By 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 700, 600. Not 30 or 40 or 50%, but numbers the likes of which you’ve never even dreamed of before."
– Donald J. Trump
Reality check: Such an impressive reduction of drug prices would require drug companies to pay Americans to take them!
I was reading yesterday's comments regarding state legislature sizes. And it occurred to me that in California, the size of the CA Assembly and CA Senate is 80 and 40 and hasn't changed since its 1879 Constitution. In 1880, California's population was 864K, and the 2024 pop. est. is 39.4M, which is about 45.6 times greater.
Therefore, to keep the same level of representation as when California was founded, the Assembly would be 3648 seats and the Senate would be 1824 seats!
"The Commission, whose 13 members were appointed by Mayor Eric Adams last year, said in a report that the higher turnout that accompanies presidential elections would make the municipal electorate more reflective of the city's diverse population."
So when Adams won on the back of significant black and Latino voters, the electorate didn't reflect the city's diverse population?
the LA County Dem Party debated extensively the question of moving from odd to even years in about 2015, with both sides claiming that their position was better for democracy. What it really came down to was: odd numbered years are better for candidates. Local candidates with lower name recognition don't have to compete for attention with bigger names. But even numbered years are better for voters. Voters (most of them) don't like needing to vote a lot. And I landed on the side of voter convenience, and thus higher voter turnout, rather than candidate egos. LA County did move to even numbered years and I haven't seen any ill effects from it.
Republican gubernatorial nominee Jack Ciattarelli introduced Morris County Sheriff Jim Gannon as his running mate on Wednesday morning, launching the Jack and Jim ticket as the GOP seeks to retake the governorship.
As for Sherrill, two who many thought to be leading candidates, Troy Singleton and Benjie Wimberly, have "taken themselves" out of the running.
Sherrill does not appear to be considering sitting elected officials or members of Gov. Phil Murphy’s administration.
Less traditional, outside-the-box candidates are on Sherrill’s short list, including former Assistant Attorney General and former Newark mayoral candidate Shavar Jeffries, Statewide Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of New Jersey President Carlos Medina, Centenary College President Dale Caldwell, and Samuel A. Delgado, the vice chair of the New Jersey State Cannabis Regulatory Commission.
Not an overly impressive list in my view. Caldwell probably the best of the group. Jeffries was a rival of Ras Baraka, so I can't see him making Baraka happy. Decision has to be made by Monday.
it seems like a dead end job in a lot of ways, but no disagreement the list went from rumblings of mayor baraka to a bunch of folks that haven't been elected to anything
He has won SIX statewide races (attorney general, governor) here in NC. Voters know who he is, so attacks from Rs calling him a "crazy liberal socialist" or any other incendiary insult will fall flat.
He may very well be the favorite, and I agree with your main point that he’ll be harder to caricature, but past successes are never a guarantee of future wins. Bill Nelson won five consecutive statewide races in Florida before losing in 2018. Sherrod Brown was elected statewide in Ohio 5 times (though w/ a loss in 1990) before losing in 2024. Bob Casey won six statewide elections in Pennsylvania (with a primary loss in 2002) before losing in 2024. Evan Bayh won five times in a row in Indiana before losing in 2016. Mary Landrieu won five elections in Louisiana (with a loss in 2002) before losing in 2014. And popular governors don’t always make the transition to senate successfully, just ask Larry Hogan, Steve Bullock, Phil Bredesen, Linda Lingle, or Tommy Thompson.
North Carolina is a purple state and is slowly getting bluer each cycle thanks to the tech and science hubs, plus several well renowned universities. Most of the Senators and governors you mentioned are in red to red-leaning states like FL, OH, PA and LA.
NC has elected Democrats to the federal level but after 2008, state party leadership failed to counteract the state Republican Party. Now the NC GOP has been entrenched in legislative power for over 15 years with little to show apart from voter suppression, corruption and partisan power grabs.
Now we have state party leadership that gives a damn, it’s going to take work and several election cycles to undo the gerrymandering and flipping the two Senate seats blue. The fact that Anderson Clayton helped flip several statewide seats blue is a testament to her hard work— which ticked the NC GOP off big time. That’s why they rammed through veto overrides of two final power grab laws before they lost their supermajority this past January.
This is a nitpick, but since when is NC purple but PA is red-leaning?
More broadly speaking I totally agree that Anderson Clayton is great and is doing a lot to whip the state party back into shape. I’m actually bullish on Roy Cooper’s chances.
BUT we should always be cautious on our predictions, whether those are optimistic or pessimistic. Sometimes when people predict a state is trending our way it pans out (Georgia, Virginia) but sometimes those trends stop or reverse, or the underlying parameters driving the trend shift. There have been predictions of blue Texas for at least the last 15 years, and I remember when blue Florida was treated as something of an inevitability because of the state’s diverse population. Likewise, a proven history of winning is the probably the single best predictor of future success, so it’s hard to imagine a stronger candidate than Cooper. But even strong candidates can find themselves at the mercy of the electoral winds. Weak candidates can win in favorable years and can benefit from unexpected shifts in voting patterns, and even strong and well known candidates can fall unexpectedly in the face of a hostile environment.
Cooper may be the strongest candidate, but in a swing state like NC I don’t think either party can ever treat victory as ‘almost certain’
He's won a bunch of tough elections, but they've all been at the state level and for executive offices where he's basically the boss. Now he's running for a federal legislature where he's going to pledge to vote for Chuck Schumer to be his leader. It's not the same.
Actually you’re wrong. The state is starting to shift left.
Anderson Clayton fought hard to help Dems score several more wins last year, particularly AG, Superintendent, LG and the SCONC seat.
And had we had fair state legislative maps in place last year, NC Dems would’ve scored a trifecta. A slim majority of N.C. voters voted for Dem legislators but because our state is so gerrymandered, Rs control 59-60% of the seats.
It would seem that after a sluggish quiet start, the election in Iowa 2nd is starting to pick up steam and attract more notable Democratic challengers. Notably, all the congressional races in Iowa, including for the blood red 4th have at least 2 challengers in the Democratic primaries, which means that there should be quite a bit of energy among the left leaning voters and candidates. Still I wonder why Kevin Techau's bid for the 2nd fell so flat with fundraising. He's a well decorated Air Force veteran and his a solid background as a US Attorney appointed under Obama. Perhaps his candidacy was announced too early, but it's still surprising given 2026 is projected to be a strong year for Democrats especially with a toxic incumbent in the Oval Office.
When talking about Epstein, should Democrats starting making the Republican-pedophilia-sexual abuse connections go beyond Epstein?
For example, while talking about Epstein, should leading voices in the Democratic party start reminding people about Dennis Hastert, Mark Foley, Jim Jordan as a coach at Ohio State, etc.?
I have a feeling that there is an opportunity to help certain MAGA-inclined, conspiratorial voters start to see the Republican Party differently. And frankly, in my personal opinion, it would lead to them seeing the GOP more accurately: as a party that's welcomed and even advocated for sexual abusers.
For most of us talking about this, yes, I think it's great to do so. The first two of those predators may be less effective as they are dated, but Jordan is still an active politician and in the US house. There is a real culture of sexual predation there.
For candidates, maybe, maybe not? They shouldn't avoid it, but just with opportunity costs and focusing on their overall message, I'd guess they'll typically center their campaigns on cost of living issues. But there's certainly nothing inherently wrong with bringing it up incidentally.
I actually wouldn't do that. The last thing we want to do is provoke negative partisanship and make Republicans rally around the flag because they hate us more than they do pedophiles. Various commentators I've heard are suggesting that instead of posting our own content on Epstein, we just repost outraged MAGA content so that we amplify Republicans' anger rather than get in the middle of it, which I think is the right approach. If we try to add on other issues of people most Republicans have either forgotten about or have decided they don't care about, it'll only make it into a partisan issue.
True, the MAGA influencers are stoking the flames on this and are turning the outrage machine against Trump, but I don't think they'll allow non-Epstein pedophilia stories to enter the narrative. It's easier for them to say that Trump betrayed them on this specific campaign promise than it is for them to admit they're enabling a party of lecherous creeps. If we try to force the issue, it'll only provoke their defensive instincts and get them to rally around the GOP. Without those influencers and so-called "MAGA elites," we can't use this issue because we have zero credibility with the voters who care about it and who we're trying to turn on Trump/the GOP. We get the most mileage out of this by letting them fight amongst themselves and occasionally egging them on.
The problem with going down that rabbit hole is that you find Bill Clinton. Democrats ran interference for a sexual predator throughout the 90s purely for politics. And he might be on "the list".
In the short term, yes. In the long term, the embrace of neoliberalism (I believe) led to Trump — I’m of the opinion that Trump appealed to people tired of the economic platform embraced since Clinton (even if he did blame it on immigrants), with mass cuts to welfare, in particular, have been credited with creating our current poverty nightmare.
And not even getting the House back in 1996 when it should have been a layup (Clinton won like 280 House seats in 1996 and there were several freshmen Republicans in seats that Clinton easily carried).
How would you define “righted”? Ideological? I don’t exactly approve of welfare cuts, for one. Was that something you think we should have been doing?
Furthermore, we haven’t exactly been doing great recently — only Trump’s re election seems to have changed that. How has Clinton’s ideological push worked out in the long term?
Also, even if it were true, does that justify his actions with Epstein? Must we defend this shit?
I mean "righted" in that we could rarely get a president elected. A huge part of our judicial problems started with that. We largely moved away from Clinton's influences at least a decade ago.
What do you mean? At the uttermost worst, he committed workplace sexual harassment with Lewinsky (but he didn't offer bribes, special treatment, or make any threats so that's hazy). Broaderick was a crackpot that not even Ken Starr would bring into the fray.
I'm not sure about your alert settings, but he's a fairly high-level Democratic strategist, mainly in the digital realm. He has worked with Schiff and Harris among others.
They need to hammer EVERY Republican on the Trump-Epstein connection. Do it for state legislative and judicial races too.
It even managed to draw praise from Politico
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/07/23/house-democrats-jeffrey-epstein-trump-politics-00469042
NYC should keep its election in the odd number year. It will lose attention if it's moved, especially to a presidential year. Plus, from an observer point of view, it's nice to have odd year elections.
This is always the question. Does it benefit democracy more to be free from the distractions of the presidential race or to hold the poll at a time when higher turnout is virtually guaranteed.
I'm of the view that it's better to get higher turnout. NYC had 23% turnout in 2021, 26% in 2017, 26% in 2013, and 28% in 2009. No amount of increased focus in the world is worth that utterly pathetic level of turnout.
I do not know NYC's turnout for 2024 presidential, but the statewide turnout was 62%, and 70% in 2020. It's not hard to imagine that NYC would have at least twice the turnout in presidential years.
There hasn't been a truly competitive general election for mayor since 1993. The problem isn't the year, it's the lack of competition.
The primary last cycle was extremely competitive and saw a similar number of votes as the general election. Still too low even for the parts that are competitive.
Also Bloomberg only won by four points in 2009. I'd absolutely consider such a small margin to indicate a competitive race. He won by just over two points in 2001.
Where's the >50%, let alone >60%, turnout for those competitive elections? Maybe if turnout was at appropriate levels the results might have even changed! Maybe not, but we'll never know.
I forgot about 2001. In the aftermath of 9/11, turnout was a little over 40%. In 1989 and 1993, it was nearly 60%.
Those elections were also over 30 years ago. Fact is turnout is shit today, and it undermines the attention argument. If ~3/4 of voters are not showing up to vote, there's no credible way to argue that the local election is benefiting from not sharing the spotlight. Any extra attention or coverage that might be happening is being ignored.
NY state was not competitive at the presidential level in 2020 or 2024 and turnout was ~2.5x that of NYC's mayoral elections in the neighboring years. This isn't simply people refusing to show up because an election isn't competitive.
Don’t think the turnout actually hit 70% in 2020. There were 8.69m votes in 2020. The turnout rates are dependent on which denominator you use. If you use the state’s active registration back then of 12.36m, that is 70%. But the more reliable estimate of voting eligible citizen population is around 14.22m. That is, unlike the states with automatic registration, NYS has a large chunk of unregistered but eligible citizen pool, almost 2m people. That denominator gives you a rate of only 61%.
2024 turnout rate based on active registration would be 8.38m out of 12.43m at 67%, and about 60% of the eligible pool. The turnout rate drop is minimal, but the population has shrunk quite a bit.
Using registration as denominator, 2024 general election, NYC’s turnout rate was only 59%. Outside of NYC the rate was 73%. A 14% turnout difference!
"I like having elections to watch" is not a good reason to keep a system that thrives on low turnout. Like the item itself mentions, the "losing attention" angle doesn't really work either since of course people don't pay attention in elections they're not voting in. 23% turnout in 2021! 25% in 2017! They're not paying attention now!
It doesn't "thrive on low turnout." When there are competitive races, such as the Giuliani-Dinkins races of '89 and '93, turnout has been big. I'll bet turnout this November will rival those turnouts.
Maybe you're right, but even those high water marks (from 30-40 years ago, mind) are less than the 60-70% in presidential elections.
Yes. Plus likely cost savings by not having to run so many elections all the time.
That's the undemocratic argument! Besides, mayoral elections will get plenty of coverage in New York, no matter what. If they get less national coverage, who cares?
I'm 100% for less national coverage of NYC mayoral elections. It's an outlier city and it's antics just give the GOP more fodder to attack Dems in states situated south or west of NY that don't touch the Pacific Ocean.
New York has rarely elected very left-wing mayors in my lifetime, but point taken.
Just watched a clip of Stephen Colbert on Instagram (can't link, unfortunately) where he suggested he might run for Senate against Lindsay Graham in 2026, now that will be available to campaign next year. He said he's always wanted to do this, and now seems like it might be the time. As most of you know, his sister ran for a House seat in SC a few years ago.
We're going to need comedians and other highly charismatic personalities to help break through to people and generate a movement. The Zelenskyy Model.
All of our candidates will have enough money no matter where they’re running, money hasn’t been a problem for us in recent cycles.
True. Democratic attention on races needs to be far broader.
That is true, but it’s going to be true whether or not Colbert runs. If he does, I imagine the number of donors who give money to him that they would have given to a downballot race if he wasn’t running will be infinitesimally small.
In the Senate, Stephen Colbert would surely prove himself to be a worthy heir of Al Franken. Both are highly articulate and very serious people, not withstanding the fact that they are comedians.
Colbert could successfully run campaign ads featuring his current persona aimed at Democrats and Independents – and ads with his faux-rightwing persona aimed at Republican voters!
Colbert is employed thru May 2026. However, the SC primary is June 9, 2026. It's a cool idea, but the timing doesn't work. He'd be a good senator.
Colbert also has “fuck you” levels of money and doesn’t owe CBS anything if he wants to bounce early
He could file as an independent as late as July 15, 2026. I hope he does it. Of course, there would need to be coordination with the Democratic nominee to drop out - and I don't know if S.C. law allows a party nominee to drop out and not appear on the November ballot.
The primary would probably be a cake-walk. He wouldn't need to campaign much, just have ads and people on the ground.
But the timing does work to run against Tim Scott in 2028!
Ehh i'd rather not see Colbert go down in South Carolina, the numbers just aren't there...yet.
Given where SC is at, I'd say that accurate.
He'd likely overperform (as his sister did on her race, albeit against Mark Sanford), but that's not enough to win a solidly red state.
How much of his life has he spent in NYC now? Maybe he could primary Hochul instead...
Yeah does he even maintain a residence in SC?
Yes. And he has published a book with his wife recently on Southern food (complimentary, not critical)
Of all the things to criticize the South for, the food is not one lol
It's worth a shot given environment uncertainties.
What's the downside? He'd be a lot better than Joe Walsh.
Particularly excellent comment.
Exactly. And he'd be helping to fuel a national movement, even if he doesn't win South Carolina.
Being that Stephen Colbert’s sister, Elizabeth Colbert-Jones, could not beat Mark Sanford in the SC-01 special election back in 2013 even with his backing, I am not sure Colbert himself would be able to get enough support to turn out Democrats in the general election beyond the normal amount.
SC is still a difficult state for Democrats to make gains compared to NC. Besides Colbert’s persona and image, what else does he have to offer?
Al Franken was already active in politics and on platforms like Air America well after his days at Saturday Night Live. Colbert projects a more apolitical image whereas Franken was an outspoken liberal.
NY 17, Lawler has, probably unsurprisingly, chosen to run for reelection rather than go for Governor. I think he's beatable in this environment with a decent campaign.
I am surprised. I think he had a better shot in the general than Stefanik. But I guess he believes Stefanik will run and he wouldn't be able to win the primary.
That's my interpretation. He was doing so badly in those primary polls - more money in a potential congressional retirement fund thank losing a primary for Governor.
Stefanik's gubernatorial bid is going to go down quicker than the Hindenburg. Just like Youngkin's heir apparent will this fall.
I never thought that Earle-Sears was Youngkin's heir apparent, and was surprised that she won the nomination unopposed.
It's not like Virginia has any shortage of bland conservative rich dudes.
Hmm, I thought they'd at least try to save Miyares.
This article says Lawler got intense pressure from Trump to go for re-election, to help defend the GOP's majority. And of course Lawler acquiesced. Trump has really been focused on keeping the House, what with all the redistricting efforts he's pushing
https://politicalwire.com/2025/07/23/mike-lawler-will-seek-re-election-to-house/
I'm not as sure as you are. Lawler seems to be a talented campaigner.
Thanks, that's a very number-based analysis.
To add on to that, I live in NY-17 and the local Dems are incredibly fired up. They may prove to be adept campaigners as well -- neither SPM nor Mondaire were strong campaigners at all (in fact, neither fucking showed up.)
While Jones was weak, I wouldn't call him "extremely flawed". Not right for the district, yep, but "extreme" would be putting a little too much mustard on it.
He knows that investigations and impeachment will be on the menu if Democrats win back the house.
Will they impeach him, knowing that the Senate again won't convict? I doubt it. But I get the point that he fears hearings.
Why not? They did it twice already. And there are tons more grounds this time around.
There are grounds for a lot of things that Jeffries, and still less Schumer, are not doing.
And that's a part of why I'm personally supportive of a primary challenge for Jeffries.
I don't think he has the courage to stand up to Trump.
I think this is 100,000% guaranteed. There will be no Democratic Party left if they do nothing with the power they are given after the midterms. They would be completely abdicating all responsibility and trust given to them, once again, to try to prevent this from happening. Even if it fails to remove him, and it will fail unless MAGA turns on him too, it is important to document history.
I'd suggest hearings about Epstein, and if they cause tremendous damage to Trump with his base, impeach him for that and the coverup.
No Democratic Party left, replaced by what?
NY-17 is still redder than the state as a whole, so IMO this makes sense.
I definitely think he's beatable, though.
She might have lost in 2022 if Republicans had been disciplined enough to run a bland, little-known moderate against her (similar to Pataki in 1994), but that's pretty much a non-starter these days.
In 2026? She'll probably underperform, but still win with room to spare.
I'm still hoping she might be defeated by Delgado in the primary.
I don't know enough about Delgado to have an opinion. I remember people being angry that he resigned from Congress to become LG because it jeopardized the seat.
I remember that, too, but I don't think it's a reason not to vote for him for Governor.
Lawler’s “by the book” defense of the deportation of Mohammad Khalil should be enough to fire up the troops, even if there are plenty of other issues to be fired up about a well.
Lawler is almost 100% free of substance.
All Republicans are.
I don't think that is a terribly compelling issue to the average voter in the district.
To be clear, I am talking about what the Mohammad Khalil deportation case represents as a matter of legal affairs, not as it relates to his specific agenda on campus at Columbia University (which I am not going to discuss here for obvious reasons).
What residents in NY-17 would likely pay attention to is the fact Mike Lawler is pro-ICE and has not shown any independence from Trump and his administration on this issue. The Khalil case got a lot of attention nationwide, namely with younger voters. Just recently, Khalil’s case got cleared and now he’s suing the Justice Department for the hell he’s had to face in this deportation fiasco.
This all boils down to due process and if anyone, even those accused of a crime, has the right to it and defending themselves in court. Even 9/11 terrorists had the right to attorneys in court. If Lawler isn’t going to budge on this issue, it’s going to be a big liability for him as he runs it re-election.
Young Voters Turn Against Trump
Trump is now at minus 40 approval with young people, down from roughly even at the start of his term, per YouGov. The buyers remorse with Gen Z is real.
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGweg8v0XsAIa01j.jpg
https://politicalwire.com/2025/07/23/young-voters-turn-on-trump/
The real question is what this portends for the Trump-allied MAGA Republican candidates in the Midterms.
I would love it to be 2006-sized, not 2018. Enough shock Dem flips to flip back the Senate and House to Dem control and actually hold the Trump regime accountable.
…unfortunately, that cannot include removing Kavanaugh, Gorsuch or Coney-Barrett. But a good alternative is to expand SCOTUS so that the number of justices equal the courts of appeal.
If Roy Cooper wins the open Senate seat in North Carolina next year, there's going to be a bigger fire lit under NC Dems for future cycles.
2028 is going to be expensive for Rs in NC to hold these seats:
- MAGA U.S. Senator Tedd Budd
- Retaining the MAGA majority on the NC Supreme Court (either by retaining the 5-2 or 4-3).
- Keeping Dave Boliek as state auditor (and control of the state board of elections).
If they lose all three, that's sign of a sea change in NC politics. Flipping the SCONC alone will be massive, but there's potential for a perfect storm for all three to flip. And if Phil Berger loses his primary next year, that'd be even better.
We just need Mark Robinson and Michele Morrow to be the GOP nominees for every office in North Carolina...forever.
That would be great!
More Mark Robinson and Michele Morrows to be lean, mean, fundraising and turning out the vote machines for Democrats. :)
Good post, providing that sea changes can flip back, because we know better than to think NC would flip irrevocably.
As someone squarely in Gen X, I'd advise to never count on the voting patterns of Gen X (unless you are a Republican).
But, what concerns me is that Gen Z may be duplicating our voting patterns. That they shifted toward trump at all worries me. That they are shifting away is great, but that has to include voting, and voting for Ds downballot. And if the issue is college loans, then what are the issues non-college Gen Z voters will follow to support Dems?
FYI, regarding the youngest Gen X age from 45-47, many of us in this bracket (including me) identify more as xennials than Gen Xers. Xennial is where someone typically looked at as a Gen Xer actually identifies more with the millennial generation. We are right above the age of the oldest millennials. Not everyone this age knows about what a xennial is but would likely identify as one if they knew what it meant.
Many Gen X/xennial friends I know of at this age do not vote for Trump or the GOP. There are those I know who voted for Trump to rebel against the “two party dictatorship” but prior to that never voted for the GOP. I also dated a millennial who grew up in El Centro and was a traditional Bush Republican, pro-immigration kind a woman who ended up moving to the left because of Trump.
Gen X otherwise the older they are the more likely they can potentially vote for Trump depends on who you talk to.
That said, I have a feeling the numbers of Gen Xers who are against Trump are younger than the older generation.
Moreover, according to data journalist G. Elliott Morris: "Democrats now have a lead over Republicans in trust to handle immigration, the economy and inflation. It’s not 2024 anymore!"
https://nitter.poast.org/gelliottmorris/status/1948010965942862133#m
(Nitter is a way to access Tweets without having to visit Musk’s Xitter.)
At least in terms of black voter numbers, those are more closely aligned with pre-Obama numbers (Kerry received 88 percent to Bush's 11 percent), which is probably to be expected moving forward.
Our long term support from Asian voters is something I've had as a potential worry spot for a while. I never got the sense that our language or focus has ever given them anywhere near a similar focus as other racial minorities. They're a growing chunk of the electorate and a bigger part of our coalition.
Epoch Times and Hindutva groups remain a problem we haven’t really cracked there
Epoch Times?? Which demographics read that rag? As far as I know, the Falun Gong is not particularly strong in this country.
Epoch Times newspapers and visual media are quite common amongst older Chinese immigrants who otherwise have nothing to do with Falun Gong itself
Falung Gong advertises their stupid dance show all over the place in my town. I make a point of mentioning to the owners of the business that they are advertising for a cult but all but one has never given a damn.
I'm not much familiar with the former and only vaguely with the latter, but I get the idea. I agree that's an issue but I was thinking even more broadly than that. I get the sense that as a party we largely do not give them anywhere near the focus you'd expect going into this without any knowledge.
Glad you posted this - the culture war moderates over at The Liberal Patriot are still utilizing exit poll data from November to make their arguments, when anyone with access to the internet can find polling shows a full-on collapse for Trump among other voters under 29 and Latinos.
I have a gut feeling student loan fiasco is what is hitting Gen Z the most along with the attacks on funding for universities, ICE, etc. Student loans being at the top of the list.
No doubt Gen Z is mad at Trump for not giving a damn about them. Even Ronald Reagan wasn’t this much of an asshole when it came to college education (except when it came to pushing public universities to charge students in their defiance towards the Vietnam War).
Did you mean "funding" rather than "finding"?
Funding, not finding.
Thanks for pointing this out. This is what I get from making a comment with my smartphone!
Ronald Reagan made grants and scholarships taxable income. Screwed a lot of us back then.
For sure!
However, sending student tuition loans not paid to collections leaves an even more detrimental effect as each student’s credit rating would adversely be affected. I’m not sure Reagan went this extreme back in the day.
Team MAGA voters are already fighting each other over the Trump-Epstein connection and the regime's coverup.
Insert Popcorn and TACO emojis.
Yeah, the gubernatorial races in NJ and VA are going to be mighty interesting. Especially if GOP voter turnout craters or a fraction of them vote for Democrats.
We got persuasion votes from the GOP in many races in 2022—and that was without Trump in power. I'm certain it will happen again.
What percentage of Republican voters voted Democratic in 2022? I was under the impression that it was much more the fact that too many of them turn out only in presidential years.
I don't remember exact figures but I know that there were significant crossover votes in NV and AZ, for two examples. (I was on Election Twitter back then and followed number-crunchers from both states.)
🌮🍿 as requested 😁
:thumbsup:
Hopefully New York and Virginia will both move to have all local elections in even year midterm elections- this will boost voter turnout and save tax money which will be needed to make up for money Trump is keeping from the states!!! After Trump is gone this money ($42 million for New York every 2 years) can be used for free all day kindergarten and free Pre-K education. All the blue states need to combine the local elections with the even year midterm elections!
Bizarre Quote of the Day:
"We will have reduced drug prices by 1000%. By 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 700, 600. Not 30 or 40 or 50%, but numbers the likes of which you’ve never even dreamed of before."
– Donald J. Trump
Reality check: Such an impressive reduction of drug prices would require drug companies to pay Americans to take them!
https://politicalwire.com/2025/07/23/trump-claims-hell-slash-drug-prices-by-1400/
One of the most innocuous things about him that gets under my skin is just how often he engages in hyperbole. Drives me up a wall.
He shoots the "underpromise and overdeliver" political axiom to smithereens—and gets away with it!
Um, Peters hardly "scored an endorsement" from Preckwinkle. She's his main political sponsor. The surprise would have been if she hadn't endorsed him.
I was reading yesterday's comments regarding state legislature sizes. And it occurred to me that in California, the size of the CA Assembly and CA Senate is 80 and 40 and hasn't changed since its 1879 Constitution. In 1880, California's population was 864K, and the 2024 pop. est. is 39.4M, which is about 45.6 times greater.
Therefore, to keep the same level of representation as when California was founded, the Assembly would be 3648 seats and the Senate would be 1824 seats!
California's state senators have larger constituencies than the U.S. House members! Something like 20-25% more people per district.
Same with TX Senators
"The Commission, whose 13 members were appointed by Mayor Eric Adams last year, said in a report that the higher turnout that accompanies presidential elections would make the municipal electorate more reflective of the city's diverse population."
So when Adams won on the back of significant black and Latino voters, the electorate didn't reflect the city's diverse population?
"significant black and Latino voters" of 23% of the voting population.
Do elections only count when there is a majority of the voting population?
Of course not, no one is saying otherwise, but isn't it better when when they do?
Yes, and I'm shocked by how much pushback it's getting. Some regulars seem to think they're members of the Undemocratic Party or something...
the LA County Dem Party debated extensively the question of moving from odd to even years in about 2015, with both sides claiming that their position was better for democracy. What it really came down to was: odd numbered years are better for candidates. Local candidates with lower name recognition don't have to compete for attention with bigger names. But even numbered years are better for voters. Voters (most of them) don't like needing to vote a lot. And I landed on the side of voter convenience, and thus higher voter turnout, rather than candidate egos. LA County did move to even numbered years and I haven't seen any ill effects from it.
NJ Gov:
Republican gubernatorial nominee Jack Ciattarelli introduced Morris County Sheriff Jim Gannon as his running mate on Wednesday morning, launching the Jack and Jim ticket as the GOP seeks to retake the governorship.
https://newjerseyglobe.com/campaigns/ciattarelli-officially-introduces-gannon-as-running-mate/
they're clearly nervous about morris county giving jack the margins he would need to win
Two middle aged white guys from the northwest part of the state does not strike me as a balanced ticket.
I agree that it's an awful pick, but is there really any evidence that a "balanced ticket" changes much electorally?
As for Sherrill, two who many thought to be leading candidates, Troy Singleton and Benjie Wimberly, have "taken themselves" out of the running.
Sherrill does not appear to be considering sitting elected officials or members of Gov. Phil Murphy’s administration.
Less traditional, outside-the-box candidates are on Sherrill’s short list, including former Assistant Attorney General and former Newark mayoral candidate Shavar Jeffries, Statewide Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of New Jersey President Carlos Medina, Centenary College President Dale Caldwell, and Samuel A. Delgado, the vice chair of the New Jersey State Cannabis Regulatory Commission.
https://newjerseyglobe.com/governor/sherrill-ciattarelli-narrowing-list-of-lg-candidates-as-three-senators-bow-out/
Not an overly impressive list in my view. Caldwell probably the best of the group. Jeffries was a rival of Ras Baraka, so I can't see him making Baraka happy. Decision has to be made by Monday.
it seems like a dead end job in a lot of ways, but no disagreement the list went from rumblings of mayor baraka to a bunch of folks that haven't been elected to anything
Medina at least has media experience. Which is a plus.
https://quepasatv.org/
But he also lives in Morris County, although originally from Hudson.
Living in Morris County is problematic?
Only because Sherrill also lives there.
Sherrill represents most of Morris in her district, but actually resides in Essex County.
Per Axios Cooper is in for NC Sen https://x.com/Mwilburn123/status/1948082709529530634
YAY! This is almost certainly a R-to-D Senate flip.
He'll bring in a lot of needed funds for the state Democratic Party, which will help us get Anita Earls re-elected too.
I wouldn't say "almost certainly" but it sure makes things a hell of a lot easier.
He has won SIX statewide races (attorney general, governor) here in NC. Voters know who he is, so attacks from Rs calling him a "crazy liberal socialist" or any other incendiary insult will fall flat.
He may very well be the favorite, and I agree with your main point that he’ll be harder to caricature, but past successes are never a guarantee of future wins. Bill Nelson won five consecutive statewide races in Florida before losing in 2018. Sherrod Brown was elected statewide in Ohio 5 times (though w/ a loss in 1990) before losing in 2024. Bob Casey won six statewide elections in Pennsylvania (with a primary loss in 2002) before losing in 2024. Evan Bayh won five times in a row in Indiana before losing in 2016. Mary Landrieu won five elections in Louisiana (with a loss in 2002) before losing in 2014. And popular governors don’t always make the transition to senate successfully, just ask Larry Hogan, Steve Bullock, Phil Bredesen, Linda Lingle, or Tommy Thompson.
North Carolina is a purple state and is slowly getting bluer each cycle thanks to the tech and science hubs, plus several well renowned universities. Most of the Senators and governors you mentioned are in red to red-leaning states like FL, OH, PA and LA.
NC has elected Democrats to the federal level but after 2008, state party leadership failed to counteract the state Republican Party. Now the NC GOP has been entrenched in legislative power for over 15 years with little to show apart from voter suppression, corruption and partisan power grabs.
Now we have state party leadership that gives a damn, it’s going to take work and several election cycles to undo the gerrymandering and flipping the two Senate seats blue. The fact that Anderson Clayton helped flip several statewide seats blue is a testament to her hard work— which ticked the NC GOP off big time. That’s why they rammed through veto overrides of two final power grab laws before they lost their supermajority this past January.
This is a nitpick, but since when is NC purple but PA is red-leaning?
More broadly speaking I totally agree that Anderson Clayton is great and is doing a lot to whip the state party back into shape. I’m actually bullish on Roy Cooper’s chances.
BUT we should always be cautious on our predictions, whether those are optimistic or pessimistic. Sometimes when people predict a state is trending our way it pans out (Georgia, Virginia) but sometimes those trends stop or reverse, or the underlying parameters driving the trend shift. There have been predictions of blue Texas for at least the last 15 years, and I remember when blue Florida was treated as something of an inevitability because of the state’s diverse population. Likewise, a proven history of winning is the probably the single best predictor of future success, so it’s hard to imagine a stronger candidate than Cooper. But even strong candidates can find themselves at the mercy of the electoral winds. Weak candidates can win in favorable years and can benefit from unexpected shifts in voting patterns, and even strong and well known candidates can fall unexpectedly in the face of a hostile environment.
Cooper may be the strongest candidate, but in a swing state like NC I don’t think either party can ever treat victory as ‘almost certain’
He's won a bunch of tough elections, but they've all been at the state level and for executive offices where he's basically the boss. Now he's running for a federal legislature where he's going to pledge to vote for Chuck Schumer to be his leader. It's not the same.
"almost certainly" is a huge stretch in such a competitive state, but it's definitely a positive development.
No certainty in NC, the voters definitely lean right. We've lost more than we've won in these close contests.
Actually you’re wrong. The state is starting to shift left.
Anderson Clayton fought hard to help Dems score several more wins last year, particularly AG, Superintendent, LG and the SCONC seat.
And had we had fair state legislative maps in place last year, NC Dems would’ve scored a trifecta. A slim majority of N.C. voters voted for Dem legislators but because our state is so gerrymandered, Rs control 59-60% of the seats.
None of that proves I'm wrong.
Link to Axios story. https://www.axios.com/2025/07/23/roy-cooper-run-north-carolina-senate-democrat
It would seem that after a sluggish quiet start, the election in Iowa 2nd is starting to pick up steam and attract more notable Democratic challengers. Notably, all the congressional races in Iowa, including for the blood red 4th have at least 2 challengers in the Democratic primaries, which means that there should be quite a bit of energy among the left leaning voters and candidates. Still I wonder why Kevin Techau's bid for the 2nd fell so flat with fundraising. He's a well decorated Air Force veteran and his a solid background as a US Attorney appointed under Obama. Perhaps his candidacy was announced too early, but it's still surprising given 2026 is projected to be a strong year for Democrats especially with a toxic incumbent in the Oval Office.
Question I have for folks here:
When talking about Epstein, should Democrats starting making the Republican-pedophilia-sexual abuse connections go beyond Epstein?
For example, while talking about Epstein, should leading voices in the Democratic party start reminding people about Dennis Hastert, Mark Foley, Jim Jordan as a coach at Ohio State, etc.?
I have a feeling that there is an opportunity to help certain MAGA-inclined, conspiratorial voters start to see the Republican Party differently. And frankly, in my personal opinion, it would lead to them seeing the GOP more accurately: as a party that's welcomed and even advocated for sexual abusers.
Just keep it simple and direct. Reminding them of Hastert should be enough.
Yes.
For most of us talking about this, yes, I think it's great to do so. The first two of those predators may be less effective as they are dated, but Jordan is still an active politician and in the US house. There is a real culture of sexual predation there.
For candidates, maybe, maybe not? They shouldn't avoid it, but just with opportunity costs and focusing on their overall message, I'd guess they'll typically center their campaigns on cost of living issues. But there's certainly nothing inherently wrong with bringing it up incidentally.
I actually wouldn't do that. The last thing we want to do is provoke negative partisanship and make Republicans rally around the flag because they hate us more than they do pedophiles. Various commentators I've heard are suggesting that instead of posting our own content on Epstein, we just repost outraged MAGA content so that we amplify Republicans' anger rather than get in the middle of it, which I think is the right approach. If we try to add on other issues of people most Republicans have either forgotten about or have decided they don't care about, it'll only make it into a partisan issue.
True, the MAGA influencers are stoking the flames on this and are turning the outrage machine against Trump, but I don't think they'll allow non-Epstein pedophilia stories to enter the narrative. It's easier for them to say that Trump betrayed them on this specific campaign promise than it is for them to admit they're enabling a party of lecherous creeps. If we try to force the issue, it'll only provoke their defensive instincts and get them to rally around the GOP. Without those influencers and so-called "MAGA elites," we can't use this issue because we have zero credibility with the voters who care about it and who we're trying to turn on Trump/the GOP. We get the most mileage out of this by letting them fight amongst themselves and occasionally egging them on.
The problem with going down that rabbit hole is that you find Bill Clinton. Democrats ran interference for a sexual predator throughout the 90s purely for politics. And he might be on "the list".
So? I’m sure he is.
If he is, so be it. Quite frankly his ideological influence on the party in the 90s was poisonous anyway, so I would be glad to be rid of him.
Yea, that winning the white house twice was the pits
In the short term, yes. In the long term, the embrace of neoliberalism (I believe) led to Trump — I’m of the opinion that Trump appealed to people tired of the economic platform embraced since Clinton (even if he did blame it on immigrants), with mass cuts to welfare, in particular, have been credited with creating our current poverty nightmare.
Can’t say I appreciate your snarky tone either.
NAFTA, the Telecomm Act, financial deregulation. Wall Street first.
Trump is a direct follow up to Nixon and Reagan. did Bill Clinton also cause Nixon and Reagan?
So was losing control of congress for the first time in 40 years.
And not even getting the House back in 1996 when it should have been a layup (Clinton won like 280 House seats in 1996 and there were several freshmen Republicans in seats that Clinton easily carried).
I disagree that Clinton was poisonous. Prior to Clinton we had 20, arguably 24, years of failure as party. He righted that
How would you define “righted”? Ideological? I don’t exactly approve of welfare cuts, for one. Was that something you think we should have been doing?
Furthermore, we haven’t exactly been doing great recently — only Trump’s re election seems to have changed that. How has Clinton’s ideological push worked out in the long term?
Also, even if it were true, does that justify his actions with Epstein? Must we defend this shit?
I mean "righted" in that we could rarely get a president elected. A huge part of our judicial problems started with that. We largely moved away from Clinton's influences at least a decade ago.
What do you mean? At the uttermost worst, he committed workplace sexual harassment with Lewinsky (but he didn't offer bribes, special treatment, or make any threats so that's hazy). Broaderick was a crackpot that not even Ken Starr would bring into the fray.
If so, so be it.
Do you guys know why Mike Nellis's Substack is always promoted in the alerts here? And is he of any significance?
I'm not sure about your alert settings, but he's a fairly high-level Democratic strategist, mainly in the digital realm. He has worked with Schiff and Harris among others.