Hi guys! I decided to pay the subscription. I've never talked about this on here, but I have Autism, high functioning. Its hard to see the corruption, the price increases, the awfulness in our country. But I believe in America. Our country has went through moment of crisis far more volatile than this. But that does not mean we get complecent. For a better environment, for a Public Option, for $25 minimum wage, for so much more..I believe.
Love the positivity. I have a good vibe about November. My only worry about us not retaking Congress is due to this stuff with the USPS and mail-in ballots which is concerning
Great to see more neurodivergent people here. I have ADHD.
There's going to be a huge laundry list of issues Democrats are going to have to push for the next Democratic POTUS. However, I'd like to see more wins by Democrats this November than in 2018 so Democrats get more power not only to stop Trump and his agenda but also be able to override his vetos.
I think if the GOP nominates Vance it will be a pretty blue year. On top of the legacy of Trump, Vance is unpopular and extremely unlikable, and he could cost the GOP big, I think.
Will stay away from the inter-midterm race that might affect this calculus but assuming that any alternative plans don't work out for him, Josh Shapiro running against McCormick has to be priorities #1, 2, and 3 for whoever is in charge of Senate Democrats in 2029.
Ralph Norman will certainly get write in votes. He couldn't be elected that way because of the sore loser law here, as noted in digest yesterday. But that won't prevent people from writing him in. How many wtite ins would he get? That would be a fun pool to make. My guess would be about 1000, though I'd normally say less than 200 for others.
I think the write ins for Norman would eventually show up on a report when it is certified. But the sore loser would keep him out. Could be the report or the reporting would note xxx votes cast for Norman were disallowed.
I say that because I've been written in for a county office before (unsolicited, and definitely not with a registered write in campaign) and ended up on the certified election report. I suspect one time was when a voter called me over while I was a poll clerk and asked me what my name was. We wear nametags but I was probably not facing her. I didn't think anything of it until the county election director told me later I got a write in.
If he did somehow manage to win the election via write in, for some ungodly reason, would he be barred from serving? That doesn’t sound very constitutional, at face value atleast
I doubt state rules on who can get write-in votes have ever been found unconstitutional. States have the right to set their own rules, as long as they sustain a republican form of government.
These are pretty reasonable and I would add Fl as 13. That said, I’m honestly shocked that NH is even on the list let alone so far down at almost tossup. I know there was one rough poll, but have I missed other signals that the race there could be almost as close as Texas? In this environment that seems wildly unlikely.
I agree about the NH rating. N.b. he rated as lean-D, not tossup. According to the fine article, he points out: (1) he didn't previously have it on the board, (2) high name recognition for Sununu, and (3) the recent UNH poll that had Sununu up 45-43.
I don’t buy it flipping before any of those states *but* New Hampshire is pretty weird, politically. Governor Ayotte is all but guaranteed to cruise to an easy victory and John has that magical last name that absolves him of being nothing more than a future Trump enabler.
Going by conventional wisdom, I dont think NH is more likely to flip compared to other tossups/Lean D races this year. But if there was going to be a completely out of left field, shocker loss that’s extremely out of place with the rest of the results (like Arkansas in 2002, as an imperfect example), I think it would belong to New Hampshire. But I’m gonna need more than one bad poll to believe that’s anywhere close to happening.
There's not really any precedent for a candidate like Angie Nixon winning in purple or red territory. The closest thing we've had is Paula Jean Swearingen in WV and she underran the partisan baseline by a dozen points or so. FL-Sen is probably totally off the board.
NH between OH and TX is crazy. Other than that, fair list, and I think he gets NE right as the first real reach seat after the obviously competitive cluster. Osborne only lost by 7 in 2024! NE is closer to AK, OH, or TX than it is to KS or SC if you ask me.
It's great to see Daily Kos and I are on the same page regarding the AK-SEN race.
I'm still trying to understand why Sabato has taken forever to shift things to tossup here considering none of the polls for months even suggest such a race exists.
Markos mentions there's no need to gauge the polls of this race but as it turns out, for months since Mary Peltola entered it as the Democratic Senate candidate she's led in the polls by anywhere from 3-8% points. Plus, with Senator Dan Sullivan's approval ratings extremely low approval ratings this complicates things as well as Dan Sullivan Jr's presence as a spoiler GOP candidate.
With the ranked choice system, Senator Sullivan & Co. are going to have a major headache with Sullivan Jr. advancing to the general election.
Regarding MA Question 3, I was talking with a friend about this who was in favor. I tried to explain the top 2 lockout problem, but they felt that it was "extremely hypothetical" in such a Blue State. Based on California and Washington, it's not hypothetical at all, but that's not the perception (from my admittedly biased sample).
I don’t understand how anybody could support such a stupid system after the debacle that happened in California, unless you just don’t pay any attention to politics outside of your home state
I really don't see how it was a debacle here. We were 2% away from an all Dem top two and I truly think all of the concerns of a top two Dem lockout were always overblown. That's not to say that I think it's a good system, I think they should move toward something more like Alaska. But there's always more hand wringing over it than seems merited to me.
I will of course be voting No on MA Question 3. But as to convincing others, you may start with Kenneth Arrow's (1972 Nobel Prize in Economics) proof that there is no optimal voting system, they just have different tradeoffs. In the case of jungle top-two, having more candidates enter from your party reduces your party's chances of winning due to vote fragmentation.
As someone who lives in a state that does a top two jungle primary I can't stress enough how much it sucks. I don't know why more progressive states can't just adopt RCV, how is it that Alaska does it, but not California?
Has Xavier Becerra stated a position on RCV? Gavin is going to be gone soon, off to do other things in other places (which will not be discussed here...)
I looked it up and I don't see anything regarding his position, so I guess we'll see if the legislature passes it again and whether or not he signs it. I have a feeling that he won't support it but I'm more than happy to be proven long.
California just has more big money interests than Alaska or Maine. It’s that powerful of a state. Same with New York.
That said, with efforts being made to repeal the top two primary system on the ballot in 2028 and revert back to the old primary system, I still would vote for this to ensure we don’t have a the top two system in anymore.
I’m fine with RCV either way. It’s worked in city elections in Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco.
I'm a senior myself, and I have been very turned off by the incessant text ads from not only the problematic Democratic-oriented PACs, but from candidates as well. A lot of the candidates' ads are well-written and creative, but getting them several times a day is way too much. But one thing all the candidates do is write saying they are short of this or that goal, and your dollar is the one thing they need to win the election, and disaster will follow if they do not get it. Of course these messages do not stop once one has donated.
This has very much depressed the amount of money I was willing to donate this season, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
you are not the only one! Don't the politicians have an ear tuned to the public responses to these non-stop ads or are these non-stop ads achieving the exact re$ult$ de$ired?
I'm convinced this was a major factor in why Kamala lost. She assembled the largest fundraising list in history. I.e. if you had ever given to a Democrat, even decades ago, you were on the list. And she bombarded it nonstop with these histrionic give-now-or-a-puppy-dies type messages.
It was the scam PACs that primarily caused the deluge. Actual campaigns respect unsubscribe requests. The scammers will just text you again with a different fake organization's name.
I am constantly hearing (from desperate repubs) that there is still 2 months to go. But, in reality, in many states not quite. Here are some dates when early voting starts: OH 10/6; TX 10/19; NC 9/4; SC 10/19; ME 10/5; GA 10/13; IA 10/14; NE 10/5; AK 10/24.
Can't stress enough the importance of voting early...in person whenever possible!!!
Less than a week until the big Trumpapolooza in Dallas. Two full days of Trump campaigning. Everyone going?
Actually, even Republican officeholders and candidates are hesitant to be seen with Trump as election day nears. A "Politico survey of more than 70 GOP candidates and members revealed that most either do not plan to attend or are still weighing whether to go. Dozens more declined to share their plans." https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/02/gop-midterm-convention-attendance-01061286
I suspect that Trump will provide multiple clips for Democratic candidates to use in ads. And my advice is for Democrats to play a clip of Trump's insanity, then state how the Republican incumbent has voted with Trump X% of the time and perhaps, if appropriate, examples.
So I decided to go ahead and post this Axios article I saw recently. While the focus is on the Dem presidential primary in 2028, which I strongly ask we do not discuss, as it's against the rules, it also discusses something else I found interesting.
So, the DSA apparently has had very strong recent internal divisions, which are beginning to bubble up. The national organization's recent antics, including multiple recent interviews (particularly the Fox News one) and the recent Fidel Castro statement, were not well-received by some in the DSA, and there's a feeling the current leadership is doing the organization no favors, apparently. This comment stuck out to me in particular:
""Our leaders aren't politicians," Yeverino added. "They're working-class people and new to doing media. It's been a learning experience, and they are listening to our members' feedback.""
That's certainly one way to put it. I am not exactly happy with comments like this, to put it mildly. We can't afford to make mistakes in this national environment. On top of that, apparently the NYC chapter and the national chapter are fighting. I also learned there is a literal Maoist caucus in the DSA through this article.
I wonder, admittedly from a non-DSA persepective, if it'd be better at this point if the saner factions of the DSA, such as the NYC chapter, split off from the national and started a new group. That way, the nuttier factions like the national group and some of the less-competent state branches (Rhode Island and Boston come to mind, from what I've heard of them) can stop making the saner people look bad, and hopefully not drag the progressive movement and their electeds down with them. This would hopefully also stop giving conservatives yet more fodder to attack the Dems with.
Your thoughts make sense to me. Splits on the left are legendary and regrettable in theory, but important and necessary when extremist, authoritarian or pro-authoritarian factions rear their ugly heads.
I know it's an unpopular position around here but I'm wondering if the way to blunt a pendulum swing back to the right in 2030, is if the Left has like a FreeDem Party that goes farther than current Dems, and makes the current Democratic Party the "Conservative" Party, and MAGA the marginalized extremist party. I fear that if we go into 2030 doing what we always do there's gonna be a pendulum swing back to the fascists and I just want to try something new because people are going to stay angry if things don't change and maybe this is a way to provide an "alternative" that's just not the Republicans. I'm a pragmatic progressive and have always been "Vote Blue No Matter Who". I just don't want to see us swing back to, what will likely be, an even more extremist Conservative Party in 2030.
That said I'm not a fan of some of the positions of the national DSA but I would consider myself closer to DSA than anything else.
It's essentially fated for the Democrats to take a bath in 2030 if they start 2029 with a trifecta, and they're likely to lose in 2032. The best things anyone can do to make losses less likely are to grant statehood to DC and PR, pass a national fair districting law and a new Voting Rights Law that's much stronger than the previous one, increase the size of the Supreme Court by 6, and then pass a law requiring Supreme Court Justices with 15 or more years of service to become senior justices, including those currently on the court, then replace those. Meanwhile, there has to be extremely vigorous prosecution of Republican crimes, a very strong anti-corruption law with teeth that also applies to the Supreme Court and which the Supreme Court is denied jurisdiction over, and all kinds of other pressing issues from climate disaster to Social Security taxes on high earners need to be dealt with during the 2029 Congressional term. But we should absolutely expect the Democrats to lose a midterm with a Democrat in the White House, no matter what.
I am in favor of doing all of this but again. I think that the electorate is just generally very angry and ornery for the last 40 years, for good reason. They're mostly just looking for an avenue to voice their displeasure so give it to them. I only advocate for it just because I'm tired of seeing the pendulum swing back to Rs several times in my lifetime and I'm just wondering if that might be a way to blunt some of the Rs gains. I dunno. I'm just trying to think outside of the box here.
The "good reason" they're angry is mostly because they keep fucking themselves by voting for Republicans due to bigotry, ignorance, lack of memory and stupidity. Democrats are far from perfect, but there's no way to logically compare Clinton's administration at its worst with George W. Bush or Trump.
Kinda disagree on this one. I know that the historical pattern is for the party in the WH to take a hit in the mid-terms, but I think there are enough counter-examples in the 21st century that we may have to question that.
If Democrats pass popular policies and the economy improves in 2029 and 2030, I don't think it's written in stone that Democrats get clobbered in the mid-terms. An improving economy plus the Trump hangover effect should help to insulate Dems from a bloodbath.
I just think that 21st century mid-terms have been more idiosyncratic than previously. The big losses in 2010 and 2014 (which do follow the pattern) are really Obama not caring enough to campaign for a Dem Congress. And as stevk mentions, 2022 was much more meh than a slaughter. I don't want to go all Mayhew on this and say "every election is different" (of course they are, but there are patterns), but a good 2030 for Republicans (should Dems earn a trifecta) would require good candidates, which they currently do not have.
If there's a reason other than history to believe Dems would be especially vulnerable in 2030 if they have a trifecta, I'm all ears. But I don't know that the past is necessarily prologue here.
"If Democrats pass popular policies and the economy improves in 2029 and 2030" This is the key phrase. If they don't, then I think there's an opening for a populist left wing economic message to counter. Is it risky? Maybe. But it makes more sense than a do or die split in times of fascism.
If you think 2010 and 2014 would have gone much differently if Obama had campaigned then, were you actually following politics then? If not, check the margins again.
My wife and I were discussing this today because she thinks a strong third party is inevitable with as upset and disillusioned as people are. And she thinks it'll be centrist. I think the Dems will have to prove they can truly be a big tent And govern with whatever they win in Nov and 28, which means some things to satisfy DSA types, and some things that'll be widely supported but more incremental. If they can't do that, then cleaving off the far left to make the Ds merely left is probably a good strategy.
I'm not so certain the Rs remain whole in 28 though. So the 3rd party may be their fascist side.
I'd like to see Alaska's model for the country that way the Right and the Left can both split in two and we'll see who comes out. For me and everyone else on this board. Even the worst Democrat is still better than the best Republican.
It’s a good thing this is happening because then this means politicians of the likes of AOC, Ilhan Omar, Zohran Mamdani, etc. can focus on challenging the status quo and making a difference without having to be pushed to go too far.
That’s what I’ve gotten a sense of since Zohran Mamdani has been Mayor.
Unless the U.S. had a different economic system like Cuba has and what China and Russia used to have, Mamdani isn’t exactly changing things too much other than being laser focused on issues like the cost of living, housing for the less fortunate and new municipal grocery stores with significant discounts on food. Like this is really that radical.
Some UK news for those of you who aren't part of the Discord server:
1) Nigel Farage caught on camera by undercover reporters (what a world) celebrating secret foreign donations into Reform UK. Remember, the investigation into Nigel Farage's finances which caused him to crash out, resign and trigger a by-election in his seat of Clacton which he won has restarted now he's been officially sworn in as a MP again.
2) Greens leader Zack Polanski is taking his biggest political gamble yet by announcing he's throwing his hat into the ring for the by-election for Keir Starmer's former seat of Holborn and St. Pancras. Polanski has had a very rough political summer that saw him and the Greens come back down to Earth.
This is Polanski's chance to reset the narrative, but this will be a very difficult seat for him because even though it's a cosmopolitan seat where a significant amount of voters would be disturbed by Labour's rightward drift on social issues, it isn't Hackney or Lewisham which saw the Greens sweep control of the local councils and mayor positions in the May local elections that marked the beginning of the end of Keir Starmer's political career.
LBC and News Agents journalist Lewis Goodall has a must read Substack about how this by-election could once again change the political weather in the UK along with determining the direction of Andy Burnham's government.
Labour is tipped to select Sagal Abdi-Wali, leader of Camden council as their candidate. Abdi-Wali is a refugee from Somalia which went down as well as you would have expected among the Reform/Restore crowd. Reform's Chancellor spokesperson Zia Yusuf beat Restore Britain leader Rupert Lowe into banging out a racist tweet in reaction to this news. Lowe somehow has not commented on Abdi-Wali's imminent nomination yet.
Generally no. There was a incident a couple years back where some Greens resigned from leadership over the party's position on Trans rights (I.e. social conservatives left the party). Under Polanski, the party's has been uniformly left-wing on divisive social issues and I/P, etc.
Sometimes they can be - the Mexican Greens have long been on the outs with the International Green Movement because the Mexican Greens are like 90s era Republicans on Gay Marriage and Abortion.
Top 2 is actually pretty good at getting the most voter popular candidates to office. There are some possibilities for Glitches. An easy fix to Top 2 to prevent oddities is the use of Ranked Choice Voting to determine the November candidates.
The court also pointedly noted the secretary manufactured his own timing crisis by delaying certification to the last day despite a federal court flagging the problem in December 2025.
Great news. Of course it's being appealed to SCOTUS. They have sat out other state-level fights that don't involve VRA districts. What do folks think this time?
Yeah they’ve mostly taken an attitude of “figure it out yourselves” when it comes to gerrymandering, VRA aside, maybe because it would be incredibly difficult to come up with a ruling that allows a gerrymander in Texas to be valid and not in California. I’m sure they desperately tried to find some argument that would work, but probably nothing that appeals to any judge besides Alito and Thomas.
The bad press for ruling in favor of MO Republicans does not seem like it would be worth it when the benefit is one seat in a year in which the House is very likely flipping regardless
Hi guys! I decided to pay the subscription. I've never talked about this on here, but I have Autism, high functioning. Its hard to see the corruption, the price increases, the awfulness in our country. But I believe in America. Our country has went through moment of crisis far more volatile than this. But that does not mean we get complecent. For a better environment, for a Public Option, for $25 minimum wage, for so much more..I believe.
Let's kick ass in November guys!
Love the positivity. I have a good vibe about November. My only worry about us not retaking Congress is due to this stuff with the USPS and mail-in ballots which is concerning
I’m also autistic, incidentally. Welcome back!
Great to see more neurodivergent people here. I have ADHD.
There's going to be a huge laundry list of issues Democrats are going to have to push for the next Democratic POTUS. However, I'd like to see more wins by Democrats this November than in 2018 so Democrats get more power not only to stop Trump and his agenda but also be able to override his vetos.
NC-Supreme Court: Berger Jr. not running for reelection in 2028!!
https://x.com/philbergerjr/status/2095489758742913532?s=20
I wonder if his father losing his primary had anything to do with it. Or just a potentially very blue environment.
Remains to be seen how blue 2028 will be. I suspect it'll be bluer than 2024 but not as blue as this year.
I think if the GOP nominates Vance it will be a pretty blue year. On top of the legacy of Trump, Vance is unpopular and extremely unlikable, and he could cost the GOP big, I think.
It's certainly possible, and I definitely hope so. A lot will depend on who we nominate as well, I suspect, but that's not a subject for this site.
MPC would have posted this, but is too busy 🤸🏻♂️🤸🏻♂️🎉
Lol yes I forgot to say "paging MPC"!
MPC is reading, just not commenting, and appreciates the shout out!
Seems pretty early to announce. Perhaps he plans to work to overturn free and fair elections elsewhere now.
Probably an audition for a sub-cabinet or WH job.
The Crystal Ball has made three rating shifts in Gov races, all toward Blue:
AK: Likely R to Toss-up;
IA: Toss-up to Lean Dem;
PA: Likely Dem to Safe Dem.
They shifted Iowa to Leans Dem instead of Likely Dem, which makes much more sense.
Thanks. Fixed.
Will stay away from the inter-midterm race that might affect this calculus but assuming that any alternative plans don't work out for him, Josh Shapiro running against McCormick has to be priorities #1, 2, and 3 for whoever is in charge of Senate Democrats in 2029.
AK-Gov being moved to tossup status by Sabato/Crystal Ball is a surprise, I would have AK-Sen as tossup, AK-Gov as Lean R, and AK-AL as Likely R.
Ralph Norman will certainly get write in votes. He couldn't be elected that way because of the sore loser law here, as noted in digest yesterday. But that won't prevent people from writing him in. How many wtite ins would he get? That would be a fun pool to make. My guess would be about 1000, though I'd normally say less than 200 for others.
Potential babka tiebreaker question
Will they record the number of write-ins for him, even though those votes are void?
If he's not a registered write-in candidate (which he can't be under the state's sore loser law), I doubt it.
I think the write ins for Norman would eventually show up on a report when it is certified. But the sore loser would keep him out. Could be the report or the reporting would note xxx votes cast for Norman were disallowed.
I say that because I've been written in for a county office before (unsolicited, and definitely not with a registered write in campaign) and ended up on the certified election report. I suspect one time was when a voter called me over while I was a poll clerk and asked me what my name was. We wear nametags but I was probably not facing her. I didn't think anything of it until the county election director told me later I got a write in.
If he did somehow manage to win the election via write in, for some ungodly reason, would he be barred from serving? That doesn’t sound very constitutional, at face value atleast
I doubt state rules on who can get write-in votes have ever been found unconstitutional. States have the right to set their own rules, as long as they sustain a republican form of government.
Yesterday kos posted his updated Senate ratings. It's (IMO) worth the quick read.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2026/9/2/800092905/elections/could-even-more-senate-seats-be-in-play-for-democrats/
1. GA (likely D)
2. NC
3. ME (lean D)
4. AK
5. MI
6. OH
7. NH
8. TX (tossup)
9. IA (lean R)
10. NE (likely R)
11. KS
12. SC
These are pretty reasonable and I would add Fl as 13. That said, I’m honestly shocked that NH is even on the list let alone so far down at almost tossup. I know there was one rough poll, but have I missed other signals that the race there could be almost as close as Texas? In this environment that seems wildly unlikely.
I agree about the NH rating. N.b. he rated as lean-D, not tossup. According to the fine article, he points out: (1) he didn't previously have it on the board, (2) high name recognition for Sununu, and (3) the recent UNH poll that had Sununu up 45-43.
That all makes sense, but more likely to flip than OH, AK, or MI? Just can't see it.
I don’t buy it flipping before any of those states *but* New Hampshire is pretty weird, politically. Governor Ayotte is all but guaranteed to cruise to an easy victory and John has that magical last name that absolves him of being nothing more than a future Trump enabler.
Going by conventional wisdom, I dont think NH is more likely to flip compared to other tossups/Lean D races this year. But if there was going to be a completely out of left field, shocker loss that’s extremely out of place with the rest of the results (like Arkansas in 2002, as an imperfect example), I think it would belong to New Hampshire. But I’m gonna need more than one bad poll to believe that’s anywhere close to happening.
Not more likely to flip, but less likely the Democrat wins. But yeah, I'd put it at 3 or 4.
Lean-D is a reasonable rating for NH-Sen.
We still have a primary to resolve there that could impact the race too...
There's not really any precedent for a candidate like Angie Nixon winning in purple or red territory. The closest thing we've had is Paula Jean Swearingen in WV and she underran the partisan baseline by a dozen points or so. FL-Sen is probably totally off the board.
Agreed...Vindman would have been a longshot at best, but nominating Nixon probably took it off the board for us entirely.
NH between OH and TX is crazy. Other than that, fair list, and I think he gets NE right as the first real reach seat after the obviously competitive cluster. Osborne only lost by 7 in 2024! NE is closer to AK, OH, or TX than it is to KS or SC if you ask me.
Good take, but there have been some promising polls out of KS, have there not? (I hope I'm not just confusing gubernatorial polls with senate polls.)
Yes, and you saw it in the digest! GSG has Hamilton up 44-43. However, it's from an anti-Marshall group.
It's great to see Daily Kos and I are on the same page regarding the AK-SEN race.
I'm still trying to understand why Sabato has taken forever to shift things to tossup here considering none of the polls for months even suggest such a race exists.
Markos mentions there's no need to gauge the polls of this race but as it turns out, for months since Mary Peltola entered it as the Democratic Senate candidate she's led in the polls by anywhere from 3-8% points. Plus, with Senator Dan Sullivan's approval ratings extremely low approval ratings this complicates things as well as Dan Sullivan Jr's presence as a spoiler GOP candidate.
With the ranked choice system, Senator Sullivan & Co. are going to have a major headache with Sullivan Jr. advancing to the general election.
What do you all think is making Sullivan so unpopular now? He was fairly uncontroversial in previous elections, I thought?
Lack of enthusiasm I suppose. Senator Sullivan did in fact vote for the BBB but I don’t believe his lower approval ratings began with this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/03/us/politics/gloria-steinem-dead.html
Obituaries: Gloria Steinem, the prominent women's liberation activist and Ms. Magazine co-founder, has died at 92.
Everybody besides the one people are waiting for…
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-09-02/democratic-socialists-endorse-raman-in-la-mayoral-race
LA-Mayor: The city chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America has endorsed councilor Nithya Raman for her bid against mayor Karen Bass.
I guess my only question about that is why hadn't they already?
Regarding MA Question 3, I was talking with a friend about this who was in favor. I tried to explain the top 2 lockout problem, but they felt that it was "extremely hypothetical" in such a Blue State. Based on California and Washington, it's not hypothetical at all, but that's not the perception (from my admittedly biased sample).
I don’t understand how anybody could support such a stupid system after the debacle that happened in California, unless you just don’t pay any attention to politics outside of your home state
A majority of voters pay little attention to politics in their own state, let alone outside of it!
I think we need to do more work educating people. The average voter, or even the above average voter, isn't a political nerd.
I really don't see how it was a debacle here. We were 2% away from an all Dem top two and I truly think all of the concerns of a top two Dem lockout were always overblown. That's not to say that I think it's a good system, I think they should move toward something more like Alaska. But there's always more hand wringing over it than seems merited to me.
I will of course be voting No on MA Question 3. But as to convincing others, you may start with Kenneth Arrow's (1972 Nobel Prize in Economics) proof that there is no optimal voting system, they just have different tradeoffs. In the case of jungle top-two, having more candidates enter from your party reduces your party's chances of winning due to vote fragmentation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem
As someone who lives in a state that does a top two jungle primary I can't stress enough how much it sucks. I don't know why more progressive states can't just adopt RCV, how is it that Alaska does it, but not California?
Because Gavin Newsom hates RCV as he would probably have never been elected governor with RCV
Has Xavier Becerra stated a position on RCV? Gavin is going to be gone soon, off to do other things in other places (which will not be discussed here...)
I looked it up and I don't see anything regarding his position, so I guess we'll see if the legislature passes it again and whether or not he signs it. I have a feeling that he won't support it but I'm more than happy to be proven long.
California just has more big money interests than Alaska or Maine. It’s that powerful of a state. Same with New York.
That said, with efforts being made to repeal the top two primary system on the ballot in 2028 and revert back to the old primary system, I still would vote for this to ensure we don’t have a the top two system in anymore.
I’m fine with RCV either way. It’s worked in city elections in Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco.
I'm a senior myself, and I have been very turned off by the incessant text ads from not only the problematic Democratic-oriented PACs, but from candidates as well. A lot of the candidates' ads are well-written and creative, but getting them several times a day is way too much. But one thing all the candidates do is write saying they are short of this or that goal, and your dollar is the one thing they need to win the election, and disaster will follow if they do not get it. Of course these messages do not stop once one has donated.
This has very much depressed the amount of money I was willing to donate this season, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
you are not the only one! Don't the politicians have an ear tuned to the public responses to these non-stop ads or are these non-stop ads achieving the exact re$ult$ de$ired?
I'm convinced this was a major factor in why Kamala lost. She assembled the largest fundraising list in history. I.e. if you had ever given to a Democrat, even decades ago, you were on the list. And she bombarded it nonstop with these histrionic give-now-or-a-puppy-dies type messages.
It was the scam PACs that primarily caused the deluge. Actual campaigns respect unsubscribe requests. The scammers will just text you again with a different fake organization's name.
I am constantly hearing (from desperate repubs) that there is still 2 months to go. But, in reality, in many states not quite. Here are some dates when early voting starts: OH 10/6; TX 10/19; NC 9/4; SC 10/19; ME 10/5; GA 10/13; IA 10/14; NE 10/5; AK 10/24.
Can't stress enough the importance of voting early...in person whenever possible!!!
Less than a week until the big Trumpapolooza in Dallas. Two full days of Trump campaigning. Everyone going?
Actually, even Republican officeholders and candidates are hesitant to be seen with Trump as election day nears. A "Politico survey of more than 70 GOP candidates and members revealed that most either do not plan to attend or are still weighing whether to go. Dozens more declined to share their plans." https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/02/gop-midterm-convention-attendance-01061286
I suspect that Trump will provide multiple clips for Democratic candidates to use in ads. And my advice is for Democrats to play a clip of Trump's insanity, then state how the Republican incumbent has voted with Trump X% of the time and perhaps, if appropriate, examples.
So I decided to go ahead and post this Axios article I saw recently. While the focus is on the Dem presidential primary in 2028, which I strongly ask we do not discuss, as it's against the rules, it also discusses something else I found interesting.
https://archive.ph/i8naG
So, the DSA apparently has had very strong recent internal divisions, which are beginning to bubble up. The national organization's recent antics, including multiple recent interviews (particularly the Fox News one) and the recent Fidel Castro statement, were not well-received by some in the DSA, and there's a feeling the current leadership is doing the organization no favors, apparently. This comment stuck out to me in particular:
""Our leaders aren't politicians," Yeverino added. "They're working-class people and new to doing media. It's been a learning experience, and they are listening to our members' feedback.""
That's certainly one way to put it. I am not exactly happy with comments like this, to put it mildly. We can't afford to make mistakes in this national environment. On top of that, apparently the NYC chapter and the national chapter are fighting. I also learned there is a literal Maoist caucus in the DSA through this article.
I wonder, admittedly from a non-DSA persepective, if it'd be better at this point if the saner factions of the DSA, such as the NYC chapter, split off from the national and started a new group. That way, the nuttier factions like the national group and some of the less-competent state branches (Rhode Island and Boston come to mind, from what I've heard of them) can stop making the saner people look bad, and hopefully not drag the progressive movement and their electeds down with them. This would hopefully also stop giving conservatives yet more fodder to attack the Dems with.
Thoughts?
Your thoughts make sense to me. Splits on the left are legendary and regrettable in theory, but important and necessary when extremist, authoritarian or pro-authoritarian factions rear their ugly heads.
I know it's an unpopular position around here but I'm wondering if the way to blunt a pendulum swing back to the right in 2030, is if the Left has like a FreeDem Party that goes farther than current Dems, and makes the current Democratic Party the "Conservative" Party, and MAGA the marginalized extremist party. I fear that if we go into 2030 doing what we always do there's gonna be a pendulum swing back to the fascists and I just want to try something new because people are going to stay angry if things don't change and maybe this is a way to provide an "alternative" that's just not the Republicans. I'm a pragmatic progressive and have always been "Vote Blue No Matter Who". I just don't want to see us swing back to, what will likely be, an even more extremist Conservative Party in 2030.
That said I'm not a fan of some of the positions of the national DSA but I would consider myself closer to DSA than anything else.
It's essentially fated for the Democrats to take a bath in 2030 if they start 2029 with a trifecta, and they're likely to lose in 2032. The best things anyone can do to make losses less likely are to grant statehood to DC and PR, pass a national fair districting law and a new Voting Rights Law that's much stronger than the previous one, increase the size of the Supreme Court by 6, and then pass a law requiring Supreme Court Justices with 15 or more years of service to become senior justices, including those currently on the court, then replace those. Meanwhile, there has to be extremely vigorous prosecution of Republican crimes, a very strong anti-corruption law with teeth that also applies to the Supreme Court and which the Supreme Court is denied jurisdiction over, and all kinds of other pressing issues from climate disaster to Social Security taxes on high earners need to be dealt with during the 2029 Congressional term. But we should absolutely expect the Democrats to lose a midterm with a Democrat in the White House, no matter what.
I am in favor of doing all of this but again. I think that the electorate is just generally very angry and ornery for the last 40 years, for good reason. They're mostly just looking for an avenue to voice their displeasure so give it to them. I only advocate for it just because I'm tired of seeing the pendulum swing back to Rs several times in my lifetime and I'm just wondering if that might be a way to blunt some of the Rs gains. I dunno. I'm just trying to think outside of the box here.
The "good reason" they're angry is mostly because they keep fucking themselves by voting for Republicans due to bigotry, ignorance, lack of memory and stupidity. Democrats are far from perfect, but there's no way to logically compare Clinton's administration at its worst with George W. Bush or Trump.
I generally agree with you, although 2022 was surprisingly good for us.
Except with losing the House.
Kinda disagree on this one. I know that the historical pattern is for the party in the WH to take a hit in the mid-terms, but I think there are enough counter-examples in the 21st century that we may have to question that.
If Democrats pass popular policies and the economy improves in 2029 and 2030, I don't think it's written in stone that Democrats get clobbered in the mid-terms. An improving economy plus the Trump hangover effect should help to insulate Dems from a bloodbath.
I just think that 21st century mid-terms have been more idiosyncratic than previously. The big losses in 2010 and 2014 (which do follow the pattern) are really Obama not caring enough to campaign for a Dem Congress. And as stevk mentions, 2022 was much more meh than a slaughter. I don't want to go all Mayhew on this and say "every election is different" (of course they are, but there are patterns), but a good 2030 for Republicans (should Dems earn a trifecta) would require good candidates, which they currently do not have.
If there's a reason other than history to believe Dems would be especially vulnerable in 2030 if they have a trifecta, I'm all ears. But I don't know that the past is necessarily prologue here.
"If Democrats pass popular policies and the economy improves in 2029 and 2030" This is the key phrase. If they don't, then I think there's an opening for a populist left wing economic message to counter. Is it risky? Maybe. But it makes more sense than a do or die split in times of fascism.
If you think 2010 and 2014 would have gone much differently if Obama had campaigned then, were you actually following politics then? If not, check the margins again.
My wife and I were discussing this today because she thinks a strong third party is inevitable with as upset and disillusioned as people are. And she thinks it'll be centrist. I think the Dems will have to prove they can truly be a big tent And govern with whatever they win in Nov and 28, which means some things to satisfy DSA types, and some things that'll be widely supported but more incremental. If they can't do that, then cleaving off the far left to make the Ds merely left is probably a good strategy.
I'm not so certain the Rs remain whole in 28 though. So the 3rd party may be their fascist side.
I'd like to see Alaska's model for the country that way the Right and the Left can both split in two and we'll see who comes out. For me and everyone else on this board. Even the worst Democrat is still better than the best Republican.
It’s a good thing this is happening because then this means politicians of the likes of AOC, Ilhan Omar, Zohran Mamdani, etc. can focus on challenging the status quo and making a difference without having to be pushed to go too far.
I don't think we have to worry about Mamdani being pushed to be more radical. He's as radical as he intends to be.
That’s what I’ve gotten a sense of since Zohran Mamdani has been Mayor.
Unless the U.S. had a different economic system like Cuba has and what China and Russia used to have, Mamdani isn’t exactly changing things too much other than being laser focused on issues like the cost of living, housing for the less fortunate and new municipal grocery stores with significant discounts on food. Like this is really that radical.
It is radical.
Link is broken.
Here’s the original:
https://www.axios.com/2026/08/30/socialists-fight-aoc-2028
ty!
Some UK news for those of you who aren't part of the Discord server:
1) Nigel Farage caught on camera by undercover reporters (what a world) celebrating secret foreign donations into Reform UK. Remember, the investigation into Nigel Farage's finances which caused him to crash out, resign and trigger a by-election in his seat of Clacton which he won has restarted now he's been officially sworn in as a MP again.
https://channel4news.substack.com/p/exclusive-nigel-farage-filmed-undercover
2) Greens leader Zack Polanski is taking his biggest political gamble yet by announcing he's throwing his hat into the ring for the by-election for Keir Starmer's former seat of Holborn and St. Pancras. Polanski has had a very rough political summer that saw him and the Greens come back down to Earth.
This is Polanski's chance to reset the narrative, but this will be a very difficult seat for him because even though it's a cosmopolitan seat where a significant amount of voters would be disturbed by Labour's rightward drift on social issues, it isn't Hackney or Lewisham which saw the Greens sweep control of the local councils and mayor positions in the May local elections that marked the beginning of the end of Keir Starmer's political career.
LBC and News Agents journalist Lewis Goodall has a must read Substack about how this by-election could once again change the political weather in the UK along with determining the direction of Andy Burnham's government.
https://goodallandgoodluck.substack.com/p/zack-polanskis-huge-gamble
Labour is tipped to select Sagal Abdi-Wali, leader of Camden council as their candidate. Abdi-Wali is a refugee from Somalia which went down as well as you would have expected among the Reform/Restore crowd. Reform's Chancellor spokesperson Zia Yusuf beat Restore Britain leader Rupert Lowe into banging out a racist tweet in reaction to this news. Lowe somehow has not commented on Abdi-Wali's imminent nomination yet.
Re: your remark on the Greens: are they socially conservative in the UK?
Going by the Wikipedia Page for the England and Wales Greens, they seem to be progressive. or at least progressive-leaning, on social issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales#Ideology_and_policy
Generally no. There was a incident a couple years back where some Greens resigned from leadership over the party's position on Trans rights (I.e. social conservatives left the party). Under Polanski, the party's has been uniformly left-wing on divisive social issues and I/P, etc.
Sometimes they can be - the Mexican Greens have long been on the outs with the International Green Movement because the Mexican Greens are like 90s era Republicans on Gay Marriage and Abortion.
Top 2 is actually pretty good at getting the most voter popular candidates to office. There are some possibilities for Glitches. An easy fix to Top 2 to prevent oddities is the use of Ranked Choice Voting to determine the November candidates.
The Missouri Supreme Court ruled the state constitution permits a referendum on a congressional redistricting map passed by the legislature.
The 2022 congressional map governs the November 2026 election. HB 1 takes effect only if voters approve it.
I guess Cleaver’s seat is saved.
The court also pointedly noted the secretary manufactured his own timing crisis by delaying certification to the last day despite a federal court flagging the problem in December 2025.
Great news!
If this is the final word, MO-5 would go from Safe R to Safe D and MO-2 would go from Safe R to Likely R.
https://x.com/kkondik/status/2095636922232180886?s=46&t=sbdQQeYBqp0h_Zql717iTw
I'd argue Wagner goes to Lean even. We could get Congressman Fred Wellman instead of Congressman Rick Brattin.
Great news. Of course it's being appealed to SCOTUS. They have sat out other state-level fights that don't involve VRA districts. What do folks think this time?
Purely a question of state law so no honest reason for SCOTUS involvement. Of course, that is no guarantee.
Who knows with this corrupt, partisan, unconstitutional court? I wouldn't assume anything.
Generally agree, but I suspect they'll stay out of this one.
Yeah they’ve mostly taken an attitude of “figure it out yourselves” when it comes to gerrymandering, VRA aside, maybe because it would be incredibly difficult to come up with a ruling that allows a gerrymander in Texas to be valid and not in California. I’m sure they desperately tried to find some argument that would work, but probably nothing that appeals to any judge besides Alito and Thomas.
The bad press for ruling in favor of MO Republicans does not seem like it would be worth it when the benefit is one seat in a year in which the House is very likely flipping regardless
And ideologically compromised.
Missouri SC has five justices appointed by R's and two by D's. Imagine Republicans who follow the law.
Unlike Florida and Ohio.