Very disappointing that neither McEachern nor Fenton will run for NH-Gov. Either of them would've had a much better chance at winning than Cinde Warmington, whose opioid lobbying work makes her unelectable statewide.
Ayotte is a terrible governor, and is certainly beatable, but you can't beat someone with no one, and right now Democrats effectively have no one. At this point, new leadership for the NHDP certainly wouldn't hurt.
I agree we’ll probably lose with Warmington due to the opioid attacks coming in the campaign, but I’m not so sure about having new leadership in the NH Democratic state party. The reason Democrats have held the Senate seats there, as well as presidential results in good years and bad is likely from the state party’s efforts.
Republicans hold control of the state legislature because we had a drawn out divisive primary for Governor leading up to a terrible election year for our party. Not from some sort of incompetence on their part. Voters there still see the GOP in the state as different from the national MAGA version (see formerly Virginia voters).
The state house is ours in NH 2026 and the state senate could be won. I’m not seeing a ton of data or evidence for why the current leadership needs to be replaced, but I’m also open to hearing an argument as to why you or anyone else believes that is necessary. We consistently clean their clocks fundraising wise for the party as an example.
We've done well at federal elections in NH because of the direction the republican party has taken nationally. They've abandoned the Rockefeller Republican or Country Club Republican demographic. They're increasingly anti-education and pro-evangelical, both of which play poorly in New England especially. NH is much more conservative than its neighbors but the core New England culture is absolutely still applicable. Over the years republican candidates for the house and senate have struggled to distance themselves from this, while their presidential candidates do not even bother to try.
I don't know that we can give much credit or blame to the state party apparatus for those results.
Crockett fans are hitting the copium super hard, saying she'll win the Election Day vote! Um, if Talarico has banked enough EV numbers, he'll still win.
If that poll is right, Talarico would have about a 250,000 vote lead right now going into election day. She would need a very black-heavy electorate to make that up tomorrow.
Problem is, the black vote is not as substantially high as the hispanic and white vote in the state. If Crockett gets a good portion of the black vote, she'd have to make it up with other demographics in the state.
TX is not GA where there's 33% black voters per the last Census. TX has close to 14% black voters, which is a roughly 20% difference.
Mathwise, though, she'll probably get 80-85% of the black vote, but Talarico won't be getting that with white/Latino/Asian voters. He'll maybe be in the high-50s to mid-60s with the other groups. Nearly half of her vote share in the Emerson poll was from the black vote, I believe.
Yes, Crockett certainly has a shot at capturing the majority of the black vote. If anything, their turnout will be great in a primary sense as we've not had a TX-SEN primary in a long time that was truly competitive for Democrats.
Talarico could get the percentage of votes in the range you are referring to but still could capture a small portion of the black vote anyway to add to his overall margins.
We don’t know that actual EV results. It’s a poll of likely voters of which some said they planned to or already voted early. For primaries it is harder for pollsters to distinguish a pool of representative Democrats (or representative Republicans). So Emerson suggests Talarico won the EV and predicts that Crockett will win the Election Day vote, but both of that is polling.
We’ll get to see Tuesday night. A close race or a blowout by either side all remain possible.
And yes, let’s hope that candidates, staff, volunteers, and supporters quickly reconcile and focus on winning in November. It’s going to take everyone.
There's also the question of if Texas Republicans catch up with Democrats based on the Eday vote. They very well might, but if so the R-over-D margin will probably be significantly less than most or any recent elections--and they don't have the "only Democrats had a competitive primary" excuse.
Our EV lead may or may not be indicative regarding the general election, but I can’t see any reason it would be harmful.
And I think it’s useful to note that Republicans are breaking their own EV records, just not by merely as much. There’s still a lot of people who like what is happening in America.
The public polling has been all over the place, but I suspect both Crockett's and Talarico's private polling shows him ahead because they're both acting like he's ahead. Most Texas pollsters probably aren't very adept at polling Democratic primaries in any case, as they haven't mattered much for the last 35 years or so.
Where she makes campaign appearances, giving Talarico zero space to try to make inroads with black churchgoers by leaning heavily on that demographic herself. The big gaffes that are damaging her campaign have been largely her sycophants on TikTok or Bluesky
Contrary to the crosstabs Emerson found, my suspicion is actually that Crockett may be slightly ahead in the early vote but that Talarico will win e-day. We'll find out tomorrow.
re the iran invasion: the statements from schumer, jefferies, and leadership writ large read like the abstract for dissertations. They say we need to talk more like normal people, step one, our statements to the press shouldn't take a degree in english literature to understand.
Either way, the impact this whole Iran situation has on the elections this fall will be absolutely zero. The fact is, the vast majority of Americans don't vote based on foreign policy.
Depends on what gas prices are like June-Labor Day if Hormuz actually becomes as scary as the Red Sea for shipping. The IRGC could vanish into the hills and become a supercharged Houthis
You just made me realize something that may come into play if this war continues and Iran still has a lot of drones, missiles to throw at the UAE, Qatar is that it'll affect the aerial supply chains. A lot of stuff must be flying in the cargo holds of all those Emirates and Qatar planes that shuttle passengers primarily between Europe and Asia.
Remember one of the reasons why the supply chains went to hell during Covid was that nobody was flying anywhere so a ton of cargo capacity was taken out of the market.
Are those passenger cargo planes used that much for supply chain movement, though? I really don’t know.
What I do think though is that the use of Gulf airports as aviation hubs may take a severe hit. One of Dubai’s big fancy terminals took a direct hit on Saturday morning
I beg to differ - IP was a major factor of the 2024 election, the War on Terror in 2004-2008, the Cold War in the 80s and Vietnam before then. You can't say that Americans don't vote based on foreign policy when it has decided some very consequential elections.
The US didn't lose anyone or much of anything in Venezuela. We've already lost at least 4 service members and 3 planes in Iran, and that's probably an undercount.
Regardless of the wisdom of the Maduro op, it was about as close to an operational 10/10 as exists and had an extremely limited impact (to Trump’s chagrin, I’m sure, since there was not the hoped-for rally effect I’m sure he craved). The Hormuz potentially becoming unusable and missiles striking terminals at Dubai Int’l is a whole different beast because Trump decided to play cowboy again
The War on Terror happened post 9/11 but unlike today, it came in response to going after Al-Qaeda and Osama Biden Laden. The invasion of Iraq though destabilized the Middle East and everything else you have referenced has become more complicated as a result of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.
That said, just last night I had seen a local news report that Iranian women living in the U.S. are cheering the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. I'm not sure what this will lead to as far as regime change but it remains to be seen how this is going to play out.
And some of us don’t forget 9/11. Or, should I say, the *other* 9/11. That was the day the CIA helped stage a coup against Salvador Allende, the democratically-elected President of Chile. Which of course inaugurated the murderous rule of Augusto Pinochet.
I think there are some key things that are overlooked about the decision to strike Iran. Here is a fresh analysis from Haviv Rettig Gur. He argues that this is *not* the USA being manipulated by Bibi into "riding piggyback" on Israel’s conflict with Iran! Keyword: China.
(NB. First click "More" at the end of the video description. Then you have to scroll down quite a ways; under Haviv’s *large* logo you’ll see "Show Transcript". Click on that, and the transcript will be displayed in the upper right, beside the video, and it will scroll automatically as the video proceeds.)
I keenly appreciate your question, as I too generally prefer to read!
The strongest contrast are the statements made by the TX Sen candidates.
Crockett falls into the same trap that Schumer, Jefferies, Foushee, et al does with a long-winded statement. Talarico uses Trump's own "no more forever wars" to direct, brilliant effect.
I imagine the real reason is they want to be publicly against it but can't/don't want to, so they put out a word salad a resposne that sounds angry but says nothing.
Mushy corporate moderates don't take strong stances and saying stuff like that, and in that way, makes them feel like theyvare really smart and the only adults in the room.
On Bluesky everyone is pissed. Saw one comment blaming both the labor movement for recruiting Platner and Schumer for recruiting Mills (who has her own issues, such as alleged anti-labor views).
Oh I am furious. I am being forced to back a geriatric governor who might die within the next six years because the alternative seems to be unable to go more than a couple months without a Nazi-related incident. This is a shit show.
It’s not really alleged, she has vetoed bills organized labor supports. It’s apparently bad enough that one union vp said a lot of unions will back Collins in the general if Mills wins the primary.
I wasn't implying everyone felt that way, for the record. I was just saying how Bluesky felt, since I tend to use Bluesky as a gauge on how the online left specifically feels.
Maine subreddit is usually the polar opposite of Bluesky with regards to Platner. I think both are in bubbles and reality on the ground among normie voters is probably in between. But be careful of assuming even Bluesky even represents the totality of the online left. Social media is becoming bubble pockets dependent on which platform.
Sideshow in this social media age. People will vote for or against him based on his views and his anti-establishment credentials. Especially in an independent-minded state like Maine. Right now his forceful opposition to Trump’s illegal war is what matters.
I’m sure that’s what Republicans told themselves too when they nominated people with very huge character flaws that predictably came back to bite them in many general elections.
Trouble is, those GOP folks with character flaws were never leading in polls the way Platner is. From the Delaware Witch to Dr. Oz, neutral observers of polling would show that they were the worse nominees for the general election, yet GOP voters sent them through anyway. From an electability lens, Mills seems like the riskier option.
if mills was a better option, shouldn't she be running ads before the cake is baked? or is she trying bill nelson's solid 2018 strategy, wait until two months before the election to go on air after you're already defined as yesterday's senator
Yes, I think Mills or at least her allies need to start airing negative ads real soon. It’s better to do it now then wait for Collins to do it after the primary so we can see whether his poll numbers hold up to scrutiny.
They did that more than a decade ago. When they've done it since, voters didn't care as they picked whoever wore the same-colored jersey they preferred. The one exception was 2017 when Alabama rejected Roy Moore. 2017 was still a time when child molesters were considered a tick below Democrats. In most red states, I don't 2026 is that time anymore. It remains to be seen whether 2026 is a time when a blue electorate disqualifies a guy with a Nazi tattoo who wears their jersey. I believe it will be.
This is whistling past the graveyard a bit too much for my tastes, personally, but I will say I’m surprised Platner’s polling hasn’t been harmed more by this bullshit
I’m not convinced voters are aware of it as much as we are. We are high-information people. You can’t convince me that this stuff doesn’t carry a huge electoral penalty after what I saw in my home state of North Carolina in 2024.
I wonder how much of it is our voters just being done with septuagenarian and octogenarian candidates and are very unlikely to drop support for Platner when his primary opponent is 78 and the republican incumbent is 73?
If his primary opponent was younger I could see this going differently.
one of the lovely things about having family in maine is that when you go up there, other than york county, no one is constantly online. People are so much different up there from even the rest of new england, much less the northeast. Huge crowd after huge crowd flock to wherever platner speaks, and i remember 2020 many voters didn't know who sara gideon was even by labor day
So let me get this straight, the Democratic Party, of which everyone in 2024 agreed we need to expand our tent, now refuse to go on any right media because they have right wing views? Is that what we’re mad about now? That Rogan and the manosphere podcast alternate media bros should be a red line for Democrats to never go on and talk to a ton of average non-political voters about our party because the hosts hold awful and unacceptable views?
What are we even doing here? Like, seriously, if we want to lose again, by all means let’s stick to the same media script and outreach we had in 2024 by ignoring this massive tranche of voters because the people that lead them are rightwing idiots who can reach voters when our current party can’t even open a door for them to let them hear us. This is a great example of trying to expand the tent, like Bernie and Talarico did for Joe Rogan and people went nuts against the former, yet praised the latter for his ability to reach out to and appeal to people outside our party base. Do we think Talarico is now unelectable and has these views because he went on Rogan?
It’s one thing to agree with a host on anti-semitism, it’s another entirely to go on the podcast, push back against it and talk about your campaign message. The outrage here is ridiculously stupid. These are the kinds of places Democrats don’t go to and need to go to more often, not less if we want to have a bigger party than we had in 2016 and 2024. So the question is do we want that or not? The whole entire problem we have as a party is only talking to people who already agree with us on most things or everything. Look where that got us.
These podcasts with hundreds of thousands or millions of subscribers are exactly where we need to go. If not, well, get used to our party not being big enough to beat horrifically awful politicians like Trump who do talk to people that don’t agree with him or his party. We must choose. Which is worse: Trump winning or Democrats going on anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic hosts shows to push our message without agreeing with their horrific views. Which is worse: Collins winning or Platner going on podcasts. I wish we had a 3rd option, but we don’t. It’s as simple as that, welcome to the real world where idealistic scenarios don’t exist.
Especially Barstool which isn’t particularly conservative compared to Rogan or Von, has a constellation of different content (go figure, it’s a media company) and has an especially libertine, anti-social conservative streak to it
I have no idea why there was hesitancy getting on Rogan's show in the first place. James Talarico did it in advance of his Senate run without breaking a sweat but Gavin Newsom walked back on his intentions to do this in the first place. This coming from someone who interviewed Charlie Kirk on his own podcast.
Well, the left will savage you for going on those podcasts if you aren't Sanders, Platner or a member of the squad. But beyond that, I think Harris didn't interview well and was afraid of looking bad.
We need to start ignoring the Bluesky gang who seemingly don’t know actual humans who aren’t ardent progressives. These people have been an absolute pox on our mass messaging since the early 2010s (I’m convinced Biden largely succeeded in 2020 because he basically told them to fuck off)
Ahhh but Joe Rogan's political philosphy is more Libertarian and he along with Rand Paul and Thomas Massie are among Democrats best allies in the fight against war.
Also, Rogan is pro-universal healthcare. Perhaps "the left" wasn't aware about that.
Rogan has a national audience. He is unique in that he is not a doctrinaire ideologist but rather, because he is kind of dumb, is completely malleable by anyone with a hint of charisma. This is combined with his propensity to enjoy discussing conspiracy theories and being an MMA commentator and standup comedian trying to interview subject matter experts, leaders and an assortment of less than savory hucksters and extremists, most of whom can essentially dissert for two hours with almost zero pushback to an audience in the millions. It makes him both dangerous, but also is a perfect place for someone like Talarico to go to.
Buttigieg has also been making appearances on shows like Flagrant, another right coded comedy podcast. It is vital that these effective, moderate seeming communicators like Talarico and Buttigieg go to these places. Its one of the best chances we have to get some potential R votes, even if for a cycle or two.
Call it Platner Derangement Syndrome or whatever you want. Guilty as charged. No, the issue is him saying he’s a longtime fan of this garbage and not even seemingly vetting it. Should we being going on alt-right podcasts to try to win over voters? There’s a big difference between going on Fox and Rogan than going on an alt-right podcaster’s thing. I thought we wouldn’t need to note the difference, but here we are.
I’m glad you’re at least willing to realize your bias. “I listen to your show, I’m a longtime fan” is literally what almost every guest says after being invited to and going on a podcast. And yes, we should be going on alt-right podcasts to win over voters, just like we should go on Fox News. Want to know why Republicans constantly go on left wing media channels? It’s to spread their message. Are they suddenly not far right extremists? No. But they know that to win elections they need to reach out to people who don’t always agree with their party.
The rightwing is far better at doing this than the left is and the problem for us is exactly what you’re doing, that we will ostracize and attack any Democrat who ventures into anything right wing because that’s like supporting them in our minds. It’s wrong thinking and it’s led to Trump twice. We need to go anywhere the voters are, regardless of who we’re interacting with. That’s how to win. If he actually does listen though and supports the host’s show, you do understand that it’s possible to like something and not always agree with everything about it right? That it’s not an all or nothing, white vs black world?
I hate many Trump/MAGA actors/athletes/artists, but I still watch and/or listen to them. Does that make me somehow responsible for and locked into agreement with their abhorrent beliefs? You yourself today like things right now that involve rightwing people that you still watch or listen to. Are you suddenly then MAGA because you watch them? Does hearing something someone says tether you to that statement, that just by listening, you’re tarnished by it? Are your family/friends far right Trumpists now your responsibility and that your connection to them makes you the same?
Or is it what you think about a subject that determines whether you support something or not? I’d like to think that’s the truth, because otherwise every person here, including yourself, is considered MAGA because at some point in your life and likely right now, you’re associated with someone like that whether you know it or not.
Source for Platner pushing back against anti-Semitism on the podcast? None of the limited coverage I can find on the issue suggests he did that, but per the (probably biased) Jewish Insider, he described himself as a longtime fan of Cornacchia. Also, he doesn't need to go on podcasts like this to win.
I mean, I wish he would not be doing thatcstuff or apoearing on podcasts with people like that. For sure.
But the tat isn't Nazi, it is similar to a Nazi one. People/soldiers have been getting skull & crossbones tats sincecthere were pirates in the Caribbean.
And the comment was an even bigger yawner. Yep, some Ds are with Trump on Iran (Fettetman & Gothheimer) and there were Rs on the D side of the aisle who stood.
This stuff is icky but not earth shaking in my view. And I think Mills more likely to lose in the fall.
And we'd be reminded yet again that 2012 was the last cycle when candidate biography and temperament mattered. The era of "being giddy about your opponent's party running an extremist" is over.
I mean....I'm not exactly sure that anyone was wrong about Corbyn, but let's put that aside for a moment. Appearing on a right-coded podcast is a good thing and I think all Dem's should do it - if that was the only issue, I wouldn't worry too much about it. It's on top of the tattoo and the amplification of Stew Peters and so on and so forth.
Jasmine Crockett served as national co-chair of Kamala Harris's presidential campaign. Harris was obligated to support Crockett's bid for the Senate. However, the fact that Harris waited until after early voting to issue her endorsement suggests that she also respects Talarico, or at least the influence of his supporters.
True but it's like walking a tightrope. She's running again for the office that shall never be named and she can't lose her old supporters and come across as ungrateful so she had to support Crocket so she did it with the least amount of impact, the friday after early voting was over.
Every failed presidential candidate of ours gets built up as certain to run in the following presidential election. Yet, it has never actually happened at any point in my life.
Harris is retired. If she wanted to run for office she'd be in for CA-Gov right now.
The last time it happened was Adlai Stevenson II in 1956, and that was so long ago that I don't even know if Dwight Eisenhower would be a Republican today.
Exactly lol. She does not NEED to support Crockett's primary, nor is she short of surrogates in the world Crockett had gotten pissy if she told her no.
UT-01: although lots of Dems have filed, my impression is that it's really between former Rep Ben McAdams, running in the moderate lane, and state senator Nate Blouin, running in the progressive lane. Amirite and if not why not? polling to back it up?
I would say considering UT-01 is a new district that liberals in Salt Lake City and Democrats never had, it could go any way. It's a crowded race to begin with although certainly Ben McAdams and Nate Blouin seem to be the top two contenders.
Dunno if this has been posted among all the insane things happening the last few days, but the Chicago Sun-Times/WBEZ has officially confirmed the strong indication random shadow PACs "Affordable Chicago Now" and "Elect Chicago Women" are indeed AIPAC/UDP. The more recent "Chicago Progressive Partnership" isn't part of the investigation because it was probably too new, but I think it's safe to assume the same.
Yeah, there's zero surprise to most people who've paid attention, but some AIPAC defenders were like "HOW dO you Know thAt???" So it's good to have a thorough analysis to shut that down.
I remain baffled at AIPAC’s strategy this cycle, it’s hard to think of a more self-defeating series of moves by a lobby/pressure group in recent cycles even setting aside my assumptions about their blinkers about how much the ground has shifted under their feet the last two years
I wasn't familiar with UDP. I don't feel like linking their site, but Duckduckgo shows this in the summary you can see without opening it: "United Democracy Project is an organization comprised of American citizens—Democrats, Republicans and Independents—united in the belief that America's partnership with our democratic ally Israel benefits both countries." A lot of people used to believe that when Israel wasn't ruled by Netanyahu.
A new CNN poll finds that 59% of Americans disapprove of Trump’s decision to take military action in Iran, as most say a long-term military conflict between the two nations is likely. "Most say they lack trust in Trump to make the right decisions about US use of force in Iran, with 60% saying they do not think he has a clear plan for handling the situation and 62% saying he should get congressional approval for any further military action." Just 27% feel that the US made enough of an effort at diplomacy with Iran before using military force. https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/02/politics/cnn-poll-59-of-americans-disapprove-of-iran-strikes-and-most-think-a-long-term-conflict-is-likely
Not seeing the usual "rally around the president" that usually happens after military actions. No surprise to me.
Previous administrations tried to justify conflicts/wars but this administration doesn’t really even try to sell these actions outside of the MAGA bubble. I’m also not surprised there isn’t a rally around the flag this time.
This is yet another instance where persuasion, which two (almost three) Trump GE operations have shown to be quite talented at, gets tossed aside for BASE ONLY!! once in office. These assholes are thankfully often their own worst enemy
Eh. I will be extraordinarily surprised if Crockett does much more than paper endorse. Maybe short remarks or an event here or there. Sharing lists, hitting the trail, introducing to powerbrokers, cutting ads, making TV surrogate hits? I really doubt any of it, unfortunately.
The nice thing about an early primary like this is that the losing candidate has plenty of time to put aside their differences with the winning candidate and get behind them. Time heals all (or, at least, most) wounds.
This is the issue with late primaries. Winning candidates have little time to unite their party for the general election. Something which has hurt NH Democrats repeatedly.
I continue to be astounded by how ill thought out this war is. Trump really seem to think all he needed to do is kill Khamenei and the Iranian people would overthrow the government? (The same government who just massacred them by the tens of thousands.) Even though the Joint Chiefs told him this was bullshit? And the backup strategy, you know, on the off chance that didn't work is... Nothing. Just keep bombing.
The one precedent that might be marginally similar is the Kosovo War where Clinton succeeded in compelling Serbia to accept an autonomous Kosovo solely through air power. But that had an endgame, while unpalatable to the Serbs, did not threaten them existentially. The Iranian regime has no such incentive to agree to anything. Trump hasn't even clearly articulated an objective.
Another similarity is neither sought or received Congressional approval for their wars.
The Senate passed non-binding resolution essentially agreeing with the Clinton Administration that they didn't need approval for air operations against Serbia, but it failed in the House by a 213-213 tie. With Trump, there never was an opportunity for such a vote, because he didn't wait for negotiations to fail. If they were ever intended to be a negotiation at all and not just a Hitlerean "Here's a phony ultimatum that we're giving to you even as our troops are actively invading."
Agree. The most likely outcome if the Iranian government is decapitated is chaos and lots of killing. Millions oppose the current government but millions of others still support it and the police, army and revolutionary guards have the weapons. Who will collect them? Trump's attack does not bode well for any kind of stability in Iran any time soon. Add to that, the likely chaos across the entire region. Worst case would make Iraq look like a picnic.
I think he hoped for a Venezuela situation where a more shrewd, pragmatic leader takes the reins who leads basically the same government, makes a few surface level changes to ease the public, and then pays homage and tribute to keep the US mollified like it's the freaking Mongol empire.
It appears Israel might have audibled and taken out “Delcy Rodrigues but make it Persian” which ruined his plans (setting aside the massive differences between the Chavistas and the Islamic Republic)
Possibly, but it wouldn't have taken a genius to realize that Iran didn't have any such leader.
All of its leaders in the regime are anti-America, support the nuclear program, and want to destroy Israel. The people in charge of the regime would never let a more reasonable person rise up through the ranks.
Yeah, their motivations are much less rational (the sociological definition of rational). You can't just expect them to have a likely leader waiting in the wings who can conveniently bend their dogma just like that.
I don't there's anything more sophisticated to Trump's logic than having a tantrum about not getting the Nobel Peace Prize and now being determined to lash out and pursue the opposite of peace.
The "negotiations" with Serbia were intended to fail, too. They demanded free passage of NATO troops through Serbia - not just Kosovo - in exchange for not bombing.
Fortunately for me, I am Reform Jewish and like many Jews I do not have a commitment to Jesus. I have a commitment to all Jews.
But as it relates to Jesus himself, he was for human rights and freedom. Perhaps we might want to redefine what he really meant as opposed to what Democrat-name-in-only Karen Whitsett believes.
Zinke was a fairly weak incumbent so I'm not sure a new Republican would be any easier to beat, unless they nominate someone just as unlikeable (or worse!)
Very disappointing that neither McEachern nor Fenton will run for NH-Gov. Either of them would've had a much better chance at winning than Cinde Warmington, whose opioid lobbying work makes her unelectable statewide.
Ayotte is a terrible governor, and is certainly beatable, but you can't beat someone with no one, and right now Democrats effectively have no one. At this point, new leadership for the NHDP certainly wouldn't hurt.
I agree we’ll probably lose with Warmington due to the opioid attacks coming in the campaign, but I’m not so sure about having new leadership in the NH Democratic state party. The reason Democrats have held the Senate seats there, as well as presidential results in good years and bad is likely from the state party’s efforts.
Republicans hold control of the state legislature because we had a drawn out divisive primary for Governor leading up to a terrible election year for our party. Not from some sort of incompetence on their part. Voters there still see the GOP in the state as different from the national MAGA version (see formerly Virginia voters).
The state house is ours in NH 2026 and the state senate could be won. I’m not seeing a ton of data or evidence for why the current leadership needs to be replaced, but I’m also open to hearing an argument as to why you or anyone else believes that is necessary. We consistently clean their clocks fundraising wise for the party as an example.
Buckley has turned the state party into an ossified fossil after almost 20yrs as chair. It badly needs new energy to shake things up and reinvigorate.
We've done well at federal elections in NH because of the direction the republican party has taken nationally. They've abandoned the Rockefeller Republican or Country Club Republican demographic. They're increasingly anti-education and pro-evangelical, both of which play poorly in New England especially. NH is much more conservative than its neighbors but the core New England culture is absolutely still applicable. Over the years republican candidates for the house and senate have struggled to distance themselves from this, while their presidential candidates do not even bother to try.
I don't know that we can give much credit or blame to the state party apparatus for those results.
Getting Madame VP to do a "Hail Mary" robocall isn't going to move the margins for Jasmine Crockett.
i mean she did so well in texas two years ago so i can't imagine her endorsement wouldn't help...snark
Doing it on a Friday after early voting was done. Seems like she was just doing a solid for a friend.
Harris lost to Trump in TX by nearly 14% points so I question the impact in this sense.
maybe she's actually trying to help talarico, although that would take a level of self-awareness her campaign never demonstrated
I imagine she did just fine among Democrats though, which is who's voting tomorrow.
Yes, true. Although it might be different this time around considering Trump's impact in office in his 2nd term.
Crockett fans are hitting the copium super hard, saying she'll win the Election Day vote! Um, if Talarico has banked enough EV numbers, he'll still win.
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/texas-2026-primary-poll-talarico-paxton-with-narrow-edges-in-senate-primaries/
If that poll is right, Talarico would have about a 250,000 vote lead right now going into election day. She would need a very black-heavy electorate to make that up tomorrow.
A lot of Black voters came out during the early voting period. Will there be enough who will come out tomorrow? It's iffy.
Problem is, the black vote is not as substantially high as the hispanic and white vote in the state. If Crockett gets a good portion of the black vote, she'd have to make it up with other demographics in the state.
TX is not GA where there's 33% black voters per the last Census. TX has close to 14% black voters, which is a roughly 20% difference.
GA population:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/GA/PST045224
TX population:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/TX/PST045225
Mathwise, though, she'll probably get 80-85% of the black vote, but Talarico won't be getting that with white/Latino/Asian voters. He'll maybe be in the high-50s to mid-60s with the other groups. Nearly half of her vote share in the Emerson poll was from the black vote, I believe.
Yes, Crockett certainly has a shot at capturing the majority of the black vote. If anything, their turnout will be great in a primary sense as we've not had a TX-SEN primary in a long time that was truly competitive for Democrats.
Talarico could get the percentage of votes in the range you are referring to but still could capture a small portion of the black vote anyway to add to his overall margins.
A shot? Is there the slightest doubt that she'll win a big majority of the Black vote?
No but how much Crockett wins by in the majority has to be assessed, especially given the primary is being held today.
Primaries are very hard to poll. I wouldn’t assume that a single primary poll will be accurate.
I do hope that Talarico wins though.
Agreed.
But in big states small %s can be a lot of votes. Especially if the EV is the bigger chunk and turnout is high.
Whomever wins, I hope they immediately play nice and start gearing up and ganging up on Paxton, who hopefully heads to a runoff.
We don’t know that actual EV results. It’s a poll of likely voters of which some said they planned to or already voted early. For primaries it is harder for pollsters to distinguish a pool of representative Democrats (or representative Republicans). So Emerson suggests Talarico won the EV and predicts that Crockett will win the Election Day vote, but both of that is polling.
We’ll get to see Tuesday night. A close race or a blowout by either side all remain possible.
And yes, let’s hope that candidates, staff, volunteers, and supporters quickly reconcile and focus on winning in November. It’s going to take everyone.
There's also the question of if Texas Republicans catch up with Democrats based on the Eday vote. They very well might, but if so the R-over-D margin will probably be significantly less than most or any recent elections--and they don't have the "only Democrats had a competitive primary" excuse.
Our EV lead may or may not be indicative regarding the general election, but I can’t see any reason it would be harmful.
And I think it’s useful to note that Republicans are breaking their own EV records, just not by merely as much. There’s still a lot of people who like what is happening in America.
We know the EV is heavy, but not from the poll.
We know the number of votes in which primary. We don’t know which candidates are receiving them.
The public polling has been all over the place, but I suspect both Crockett's and Talarico's private polling shows him ahead because they're both acting like he's ahead. Most Texas pollsters probably aren't very adept at polling Democratic primaries in any case, as they haven't mattered much for the last 35 years or so.
While I think Crockett herself has run a savvier race than I’ve given her credit for, her online supporters have done her absolutely zero favors
What has been savvy about it
Where she makes campaign appearances, giving Talarico zero space to try to make inroads with black churchgoers by leaning heavily on that demographic herself. The big gaffes that are damaging her campaign have been largely her sycophants on TikTok or Bluesky
Contrary to the crosstabs Emerson found, my suspicion is actually that Crockett may be slightly ahead in the early vote but that Talarico will win e-day. We'll find out tomorrow.
re the iran invasion: the statements from schumer, jefferies, and leadership writ large read like the abstract for dissertations. They say we need to talk more like normal people, step one, our statements to the press shouldn't take a degree in english literature to understand.
Either way, the impact this whole Iran situation has on the elections this fall will be absolutely zero. The fact is, the vast majority of Americans don't vote based on foreign policy.
Depends on what gas prices are like June-Labor Day if Hormuz actually becomes as scary as the Red Sea for shipping. The IRGC could vanish into the hills and become a supercharged Houthis
You just made me realize something that may come into play if this war continues and Iran still has a lot of drones, missiles to throw at the UAE, Qatar is that it'll affect the aerial supply chains. A lot of stuff must be flying in the cargo holds of all those Emirates and Qatar planes that shuttle passengers primarily between Europe and Asia.
Remember one of the reasons why the supply chains went to hell during Covid was that nobody was flying anywhere so a ton of cargo capacity was taken out of the market.
Are those passenger cargo planes used that much for supply chain movement, though? I really don’t know.
What I do think though is that the use of Gulf airports as aviation hubs may take a severe hit. One of Dubai’s big fancy terminals took a direct hit on Saturday morning
I beg to differ - IP was a major factor of the 2024 election, the War on Terror in 2004-2008, the Cold War in the 80s and Vietnam before then. You can't say that Americans don't vote based on foreign policy when it has decided some very consequential elections.
I mean we already forgot about Venezuela two months after it happened.
The US didn't lose anyone or much of anything in Venezuela. We've already lost at least 4 service members and 3 planes in Iran, and that's probably an undercount.
The number of American service members who have been killed has now risen to six as of Monday evening.
We forgot about it a week after.
Maduro is alive. U.S. troops weren't killed, either.
Americans would've forgotten about it even if Maduro had been killed.
Regardless of the wisdom of the Maduro op, it was about as close to an operational 10/10 as exists and had an extremely limited impact (to Trump’s chagrin, I’m sure, since there was not the hoped-for rally effect I’m sure he craved). The Hormuz potentially becoming unusable and missiles striking terminals at Dubai Int’l is a whole different beast because Trump decided to play cowboy again
The War on Terror happened post 9/11 but unlike today, it came in response to going after Al-Qaeda and Osama Biden Laden. The invasion of Iraq though destabilized the Middle East and everything else you have referenced has become more complicated as a result of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.
That said, just last night I had seen a local news report that Iranian women living in the U.S. are cheering the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. I'm not sure what this will lead to as far as regime change but it remains to be seen how this is going to play out.
And some of us don’t forget 9/11. Or, should I say, the *other* 9/11. That was the day the CIA helped stage a coup against Salvador Allende, the democratically-elected President of Chile. Which of course inaugurated the murderous rule of Augusto Pinochet.
I think there are some key things that are overlooked about the decision to strike Iran. Here is a fresh analysis from Haviv Rettig Gur. He argues that this is *not* the USA being manipulated by Bibi into "riding piggyback" on Israel’s conflict with Iran! Keyword: China.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-94-americas-war-not-israels/id1794590850?i=1000752614732
Is there a transcript for that podcast? I clicked the link but didn't see anything there.
Good news! Haviv’s podcast is also on YouTube, where there is indeed a transcript.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24ryHuOLVmQ
(NB. First click "More" at the end of the video description. Then you have to scroll down quite a ways; under Haviv’s *large* logo you’ll see "Show Transcript". Click on that, and the transcript will be displayed in the upper right, beside the video, and it will scroll automatically as the video proceeds.)
I keenly appreciate your question, as I too generally prefer to read!
Thanks!
Wow. I just read that transcript. Kind of scary how Iran is being used by China and what China is trying to do here.
The strongest contrast are the statements made by the TX Sen candidates.
Crockett falls into the same trap that Schumer, Jefferies, Foushee, et al does with a long-winded statement. Talarico uses Trump's own "no more forever wars" to direct, brilliant effect.
I imagine the real reason is they want to be publicly against it but can't/don't want to, so they put out a word salad a resposne that sounds angry but says nothing.
Mushy corporate moderates don't take strong stances and saying stuff like that, and in that way, makes them feel like theyvare really smart and the only adults in the room.
ME-Sen: I’m over this shit. If Platner had an R after his name, we’d would be rightfully giddy at the prospect of running against him.
https://www.primetimer.com/news/what-is-graham-planter-tattoo-controversy-senate-candidate-slammed-online-following-nate-cornacchia-podcast-appearance
On Bluesky everyone is pissed. Saw one comment blaming both the labor movement for recruiting Platner and Schumer for recruiting Mills (who has her own issues, such as alleged anti-labor views).
Oh I am furious. I am being forced to back a geriatric governor who might die within the next six years because the alternative seems to be unable to go more than a couple months without a Nazi-related incident. This is a shit show.
It’s not really alleged, she has vetoed bills organized labor supports. It’s apparently bad enough that one union vp said a lot of unions will back Collins in the general if Mills wins the primary.
Got it, didn’t know enough about it and wanted to make sure I wasn’t making a false claim.
Yea support someone who will absolutely not support those bills just for pure spite
or perhaps support the candidate the polls the best, if the goal is to win elections
I'm glad I don't live in Maine and thus do not have to choose between the two of them.
Obligatory OG comment about over-generalizing from social media inserted here. 😉
I wasn't implying everyone felt that way, for the record. I was just saying how Bluesky felt, since I tend to use Bluesky as a gauge on how the online left specifically feels.
Maine subreddit is usually the polar opposite of Bluesky with regards to Platner. I think both are in bubbles and reality on the ground among normie voters is probably in between. But be careful of assuming even Bluesky even represents the totality of the online left. Social media is becoming bubble pockets dependent on which platform.
Oh no I didn’t mean to imply Bluesky was a total rep. More that it’s a general one - general meaning as a vague whole, not as a 100% accurate idea.
I appreciated the sourcing for the comment. Still figured I'd tweak you about it though, since I know there are a few decades between us.
Sideshow in this social media age. People will vote for or against him based on his views and his anti-establishment credentials. Especially in an independent-minded state like Maine. Right now his forceful opposition to Trump’s illegal war is what matters.
I’m sure that’s what Republicans told themselves too when they nominated people with very huge character flaws that predictably came back to bite them in many general elections.
Maine’s blue lean and the lean of the year should still pull him over the line.
This is likely true but, yikes, is this the best we can do?
Trouble is, those GOP folks with character flaws were never leading in polls the way Platner is. From the Delaware Witch to Dr. Oz, neutral observers of polling would show that they were the worse nominees for the general election, yet GOP voters sent them through anyway. From an electability lens, Mills seems like the riskier option.
So far. We’ll see how that holds up after the ads make work of Platner.
if mills was a better option, shouldn't she be running ads before the cake is baked? or is she trying bill nelson's solid 2018 strategy, wait until two months before the election to go on air after you're already defined as yesterday's senator
Yes, I think Mills or at least her allies need to start airing negative ads real soon. It’s better to do it now then wait for Collins to do it after the primary so we can see whether his poll numbers hold up to scrutiny.
like trump?
They did that more than a decade ago. When they've done it since, voters didn't care as they picked whoever wore the same-colored jersey they preferred. The one exception was 2017 when Alabama rejected Roy Moore. 2017 was still a time when child molesters were considered a tick below Democrats. In most red states, I don't 2026 is that time anymore. It remains to be seen whether 2026 is a time when a blue electorate disqualifies a guy with a Nazi tattoo who wears their jersey. I believe it will be.
This is whistling past the graveyard a bit too much for my tastes, personally, but I will say I’m surprised Platner’s polling hasn’t been harmed more by this bullshit
I’m not convinced voters are aware of it as much as we are. We are high-information people. You can’t convince me that this stuff doesn’t carry a huge electoral penalty after what I saw in my home state of North Carolina in 2024.
But that became apparent in polling almost instantly. It doesn't seem to have affected Platner (yet).
“Yet” being the operative word there. He hasn’t even been touched yet by negative ads.
which indicates janet isn't that great an alternative, what's she waiting for? and collins wearing a maga hat is still out there too
I wonder how much of it is our voters just being done with septuagenarian and octogenarian candidates and are very unlikely to drop support for Platner when his primary opponent is 78 and the republican incumbent is 73?
If his primary opponent was younger I could see this going differently.
It’s a persuasive theory, certainly
or even if mills was the same age but not in open warfare with her own state legislature and organized labor
That's possible. Or maybe she's too mild toward Republicans (and antagonistic toward other Democrats as per Hudson Democrat's reminder) for them.
one of the lovely things about having family in maine is that when you go up there, other than york county, no one is constantly online. People are so much different up there from even the rest of new england, much less the northeast. Huge crowd after huge crowd flock to wherever platner speaks, and i remember 2020 many voters didn't know who sara gideon was even by labor day
It’s interesting, every time I read an article about him I think he’ll lose for sure. But when I hear him speak, I understand why people like him.
Which is why I highly doubt anything from his past will swing the election in an era when Donald Trump is President.
That article reads like AI wrote it and they repeatedly misspelled his name as Planter. It sucked.
Platner is risk personified in a must win Senate race, it’s horrendous that he and Mills appear to be the best Maine Democrats can offer.
So let me get this straight, the Democratic Party, of which everyone in 2024 agreed we need to expand our tent, now refuse to go on any right media because they have right wing views? Is that what we’re mad about now? That Rogan and the manosphere podcast alternate media bros should be a red line for Democrats to never go on and talk to a ton of average non-political voters about our party because the hosts hold awful and unacceptable views?
What are we even doing here? Like, seriously, if we want to lose again, by all means let’s stick to the same media script and outreach we had in 2024 by ignoring this massive tranche of voters because the people that lead them are rightwing idiots who can reach voters when our current party can’t even open a door for them to let them hear us. This is a great example of trying to expand the tent, like Bernie and Talarico did for Joe Rogan and people went nuts against the former, yet praised the latter for his ability to reach out to and appeal to people outside our party base. Do we think Talarico is now unelectable and has these views because he went on Rogan?
It’s one thing to agree with a host on anti-semitism, it’s another entirely to go on the podcast, push back against it and talk about your campaign message. The outrage here is ridiculously stupid. These are the kinds of places Democrats don’t go to and need to go to more often, not less if we want to have a bigger party than we had in 2016 and 2024. So the question is do we want that or not? The whole entire problem we have as a party is only talking to people who already agree with us on most things or everything. Look where that got us.
These podcasts with hundreds of thousands or millions of subscribers are exactly where we need to go. If not, well, get used to our party not being big enough to beat horrifically awful politicians like Trump who do talk to people that don’t agree with him or his party. We must choose. Which is worse: Trump winning or Democrats going on anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic hosts shows to push our message without agreeing with their horrific views. Which is worse: Collins winning or Platner going on podcasts. I wish we had a 3rd option, but we don’t. It’s as simple as that, welcome to the real world where idealistic scenarios don’t exist.
Every 2028 contender needs to try to get on Rogan
And other right-coded but not doctrinaire shows like Theo Von, Barstool, etc.
Especially Barstool which isn’t particularly conservative compared to Rogan or Von, has a constellation of different content (go figure, it’s a media company) and has an especially libertine, anti-social conservative streak to it
I have no idea why there was hesitancy getting on Rogan's show in the first place. James Talarico did it in advance of his Senate run without breaking a sweat but Gavin Newsom walked back on his intentions to do this in the first place. This coming from someone who interviewed Charlie Kirk on his own podcast.
Well, the left will savage you for going on those podcasts if you aren't Sanders, Platner or a member of the squad. But beyond that, I think Harris didn't interview well and was afraid of looking bad.
We need to start ignoring the Bluesky gang who seemingly don’t know actual humans who aren’t ardent progressives. These people have been an absolute pox on our mass messaging since the early 2010s (I’m convinced Biden largely succeeded in 2020 because he basically told them to fuck off)
“Bluesky gang? Have I stumbled into a Matt Yglesias -Ezra Klein podcast? I guess the “gang” just doesn’t do politics the right way.
Well, personally I’d draw the line at a Democratic candidate being interviewed in Steve Bannon’s "War Room".
Sure, me too. But there’s a massive difference between that and other right-coded or even outright right-leaning podcasts
Ahhh but Joe Rogan's political philosphy is more Libertarian and he along with Rand Paul and Thomas Massie are among Democrats best allies in the fight against war.
Also, Rogan is pro-universal healthcare. Perhaps "the left" wasn't aware about that.
Rogan's politics are pretty idiosyncratic. Don't forget he endorsed Bernie in 2020
Rogan has a national audience. He is unique in that he is not a doctrinaire ideologist but rather, because he is kind of dumb, is completely malleable by anyone with a hint of charisma. This is combined with his propensity to enjoy discussing conspiracy theories and being an MMA commentator and standup comedian trying to interview subject matter experts, leaders and an assortment of less than savory hucksters and extremists, most of whom can essentially dissert for two hours with almost zero pushback to an audience in the millions. It makes him both dangerous, but also is a perfect place for someone like Talarico to go to.
Buttigieg has also been making appearances on shows like Flagrant, another right coded comedy podcast. It is vital that these effective, moderate seeming communicators like Talarico and Buttigieg go to these places. Its one of the best chances we have to get some potential R votes, even if for a cycle or two.
Call it Platner Derangement Syndrome or whatever you want. Guilty as charged. No, the issue is him saying he’s a longtime fan of this garbage and not even seemingly vetting it. Should we being going on alt-right podcasts to try to win over voters? There’s a big difference between going on Fox and Rogan than going on an alt-right podcaster’s thing. I thought we wouldn’t need to note the difference, but here we are.
I’m glad you’re at least willing to realize your bias. “I listen to your show, I’m a longtime fan” is literally what almost every guest says after being invited to and going on a podcast. And yes, we should be going on alt-right podcasts to win over voters, just like we should go on Fox News. Want to know why Republicans constantly go on left wing media channels? It’s to spread their message. Are they suddenly not far right extremists? No. But they know that to win elections they need to reach out to people who don’t always agree with their party.
The rightwing is far better at doing this than the left is and the problem for us is exactly what you’re doing, that we will ostracize and attack any Democrat who ventures into anything right wing because that’s like supporting them in our minds. It’s wrong thinking and it’s led to Trump twice. We need to go anywhere the voters are, regardless of who we’re interacting with. That’s how to win. If he actually does listen though and supports the host’s show, you do understand that it’s possible to like something and not always agree with everything about it right? That it’s not an all or nothing, white vs black world?
I hate many Trump/MAGA actors/athletes/artists, but I still watch and/or listen to them. Does that make me somehow responsible for and locked into agreement with their abhorrent beliefs? You yourself today like things right now that involve rightwing people that you still watch or listen to. Are you suddenly then MAGA because you watch them? Does hearing something someone says tether you to that statement, that just by listening, you’re tarnished by it? Are your family/friends far right Trumpists now your responsibility and that your connection to them makes you the same?
Or is it what you think about a subject that determines whether you support something or not? I’d like to think that’s the truth, because otherwise every person here, including yourself, is considered MAGA because at some point in your life and likely right now, you’re associated with someone like that whether you know it or not.
Not trying to be anything, but what left-wing media are you saying that MAGA pols go on?
Source for Platner pushing back against anti-Semitism on the podcast? None of the limited coverage I can find on the issue suggests he did that, but per the (probably biased) Jewish Insider, he described himself as a longtime fan of Cornacchia. Also, he doesn't need to go on podcasts like this to win.
Right-wing is one thing, Jew-hating is another.
I yawn at all that.
I mean, I wish he would not be doing thatcstuff or apoearing on podcasts with people like that. For sure.
But the tat isn't Nazi, it is similar to a Nazi one. People/soldiers have been getting skull & crossbones tats sincecthere were pirates in the Caribbean.
And the comment was an even bigger yawner. Yep, some Ds are with Trump on Iran (Fettetman & Gothheimer) and there were Rs on the D side of the aisle who stood.
This stuff is icky but not earth shaking in my view. And I think Mills more likely to lose in the fall.
YMMV, of course.
And we'd be reminded yet again that 2012 was the last cycle when candidate biography and temperament mattered. The era of "being giddy about your opponent's party running an extremist" is over.
Tell that Josh Stein, Raphael Warnock, Mary Peltola, Doug Jones, Josh Shapiro, Katie Hobbs, and John Fetterman.
I don't think that's true. NC-GOV is Example A.
Where there's smoke, there's fire. The fact that he's likely to be our nominee in arguably the most winnable Senate race this year blows my mind.
This reminds me of what Starmerites/New Labour said about Corbyn.
Newsom and Bernie appear on similar podcasts and people should watch that interview on YT first. Just another hitjob which will not matter to Mainers.
I mean....I'm not exactly sure that anyone was wrong about Corbyn, but let's put that aside for a moment. Appearing on a right-coded podcast is a good thing and I think all Dem's should do it - if that was the only issue, I wouldn't worry too much about it. It's on top of the tattoo and the amplification of Stew Peters and so on and so forth.
Jasmine Crockett served as national co-chair of Kamala Harris's presidential campaign. Harris was obligated to support Crockett's bid for the Senate. However, the fact that Harris waited until after early voting to issue her endorsement suggests that she also respects Talarico, or at least the influence of his supporters.
I mean Harris isn't "obligated" to do jack.
True but it's like walking a tightrope. She's running again for the office that shall never be named and she can't lose her old supporters and come across as ungrateful so she had to support Crocket so she did it with the least amount of impact, the friday after early voting was over.
I don't think Harris is running for a federal seat again. Would love to be proven wrong again.
i, on the other hand, pray that you are right
Every failed presidential candidate of ours gets built up as certain to run in the following presidential election. Yet, it has never actually happened at any point in my life.
Harris is retired. If she wanted to run for office she'd be in for CA-Gov right now.
I'm reading it totally different, she didn't run for Gov because she wanted to run for some other office again.
The last time it happened was Adlai Stevenson II in 1956, and that was so long ago that I don't even know if Dwight Eisenhower would be a Republican today.
Exactly lol. She does not NEED to support Crockett's primary, nor is she short of surrogates in the world Crockett had gotten pissy if she told her no.
Thanks, that's useful context.
I saw this on twitter and I thought you guys would appreciate it: https://x.com/TheCalvinCooli1/status/2014521117646389325 (...and no, it's neither porn nor an ad for something).
UT-01: although lots of Dems have filed, my impression is that it's really between former Rep Ben McAdams, running in the moderate lane, and state senator Nate Blouin, running in the progressive lane. Amirite and if not why not? polling to back it up?
That’s the vibe I get too, and I have no polling to back it up
I would say considering UT-01 is a new district that liberals in Salt Lake City and Democrats never had, it could go any way. It's a crowded race to begin with although certainly Ben McAdams and Nate Blouin seem to be the top two contenders.
Dunno if this has been posted among all the insane things happening the last few days, but the Chicago Sun-Times/WBEZ has officially confirmed the strong indication random shadow PACs "Affordable Chicago Now" and "Elect Chicago Women" are indeed AIPAC/UDP. The more recent "Chicago Progressive Partnership" isn't part of the investigation because it was probably too new, but I think it's safe to assume the same.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/the-watchdogs/2026/02/27/aipac-pro-israel-groups-chicago-area-democratic-congressional-primaries-miller-conyears-ervin-bean-fine
It seems like everyone knew who it was from the jump but it's always nice to having reporting confirm it.
Yeah, there's zero surprise to most people who've paid attention, but some AIPAC defenders were like "HOW dO you Know thAt???" So it's good to have a thorough analysis to shut that down.
I remain baffled at AIPAC’s strategy this cycle, it’s hard to think of a more self-defeating series of moves by a lobby/pressure group in recent cycles even setting aside my assumptions about their blinkers about how much the ground has shifted under their feet the last two years
I wasn't familiar with UDP. I don't feel like linking their site, but Duckduckgo shows this in the summary you can see without opening it: "United Democracy Project is an organization comprised of American citizens—Democrats, Republicans and Independents—united in the belief that America's partnership with our democratic ally Israel benefits both countries." A lot of people used to believe that when Israel wasn't ruled by Netanyahu.
UDP is just AIPAC's Super PAC arm.
I thought AIPAC was a pac now.
Yes but Super PACs are a bit different.
I actually don't know the difference between a pac and a superpac. What is the difference?
A new CNN poll finds that 59% of Americans disapprove of Trump’s decision to take military action in Iran, as most say a long-term military conflict between the two nations is likely. "Most say they lack trust in Trump to make the right decisions about US use of force in Iran, with 60% saying they do not think he has a clear plan for handling the situation and 62% saying he should get congressional approval for any further military action." Just 27% feel that the US made enough of an effort at diplomacy with Iran before using military force. https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/02/politics/cnn-poll-59-of-americans-disapprove-of-iran-strikes-and-most-think-a-long-term-conflict-is-likely
Not seeing the usual "rally around the president" that usually happens after military actions. No surprise to me.
no "rally around the President" because to overwhelming majority of Americans we do not have a president but a fraud!
Previous administrations tried to justify conflicts/wars but this administration doesn’t really even try to sell these actions outside of the MAGA bubble. I’m also not surprised there isn’t a rally around the flag this time.
This is yet another instance where persuasion, which two (almost three) Trump GE operations have shown to be quite talented at, gets tossed aside for BASE ONLY!! once in office. These assholes are thankfully often their own worst enemy
Something newsy that I haven’t seen said before, good for Crockett.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/02/texas-primary-crockett-talarico-senate-race-00805194
https://archive.ph/4sRX4
A spokesperson for Crockett said the congresswoman has expressed she would “absolutely” support Talarico.
Her avoiding making statements to Politico and kicking out the reporter who wrote that piece on her isn't going to fly if she wins the primary.
which, INMO, she is expecting to lose the primary!
Eh. I will be extraordinarily surprised if Crockett does much more than paper endorse. Maybe short remarks or an event here or there. Sharing lists, hitting the trail, introducing to powerbrokers, cutting ads, making TV surrogate hits? I really doubt any of it, unfortunately.
The nice thing about an early primary like this is that the losing candidate has plenty of time to put aside their differences with the winning candidate and get behind them. Time heals all (or, at least, most) wounds.
This is the issue with late primaries. Winning candidates have little time to unite their party for the general election. Something which has hurt NH Democrats repeatedly.
Yes but most other losing candidates care about people other than themselves.
I continue to be astounded by how ill thought out this war is. Trump really seem to think all he needed to do is kill Khamenei and the Iranian people would overthrow the government? (The same government who just massacred them by the tens of thousands.) Even though the Joint Chiefs told him this was bullshit? And the backup strategy, you know, on the off chance that didn't work is... Nothing. Just keep bombing.
The one precedent that might be marginally similar is the Kosovo War where Clinton succeeded in compelling Serbia to accept an autonomous Kosovo solely through air power. But that had an endgame, while unpalatable to the Serbs, did not threaten them existentially. The Iranian regime has no such incentive to agree to anything. Trump hasn't even clearly articulated an objective.
Another similarity is neither sought or received Congressional approval for their wars.
The Senate passed non-binding resolution essentially agreeing with the Clinton Administration that they didn't need approval for air operations against Serbia, but it failed in the House by a 213-213 tie. With Trump, there never was an opportunity for such a vote, because he didn't wait for negotiations to fail. If they were ever intended to be a negotiation at all and not just a Hitlerean "Here's a phony ultimatum that we're giving to you even as our troops are actively invading."
And arguably in Kosovo the KLA were the boots on the ground.
Agree. The most likely outcome if the Iranian government is decapitated is chaos and lots of killing. Millions oppose the current government but millions of others still support it and the police, army and revolutionary guards have the weapons. Who will collect them? Trump's attack does not bode well for any kind of stability in Iran any time soon. Add to that, the likely chaos across the entire region. Worst case would make Iraq look like a picnic.
The media scenario is Trump eventually declares victory and leaves Iran with the regime intact.
agree...and why would we expect anything different from the (American) regime?
Keeping in mind that the worst case in Iraq was for Islamic State in Mesopotamia to take over, I don't think it'll make that look like a picnic.
I think he hoped for a Venezuela situation where a more shrewd, pragmatic leader takes the reins who leads basically the same government, makes a few surface level changes to ease the public, and then pays homage and tribute to keep the US mollified like it's the freaking Mongol empire.
It appears Israel might have audibled and taken out “Delcy Rodrigues but make it Persian” which ruined his plans (setting aside the massive differences between the Chavistas and the Islamic Republic)
Possibly, but it wouldn't have taken a genius to realize that Iran didn't have any such leader.
All of its leaders in the regime are anti-America, support the nuclear program, and want to destroy Israel. The people in charge of the regime would never let a more reasonable person rise up through the ranks.
Yeah, their motivations are much less rational (the sociological definition of rational). You can't just expect them to have a likely leader waiting in the wings who can conveniently bend their dogma just like that.
I don't there's anything more sophisticated to Trump's logic than having a tantrum about not getting the Nobel Peace Prize and now being determined to lash out and pursue the opposite of peace.
The "negotiations" with Serbia were intended to fail, too. They demanded free passage of NATO troops through Serbia - not just Kosovo - in exchange for not bombing.
Good riddance. No more GOP enablers leading our party.
https://x.com/samueljrob/status/2028539320190050447
State Rep. Karen Whitsett, D-Detroit, isn't running for reelection, citing her commitment to Jesus
Uh, context please?
The context is in the link, she’s anti choice and made tweets praising Trump.
She also left the Democratic caucus in January 2025.
She was literally only in it during the two-year trifecta last term. Not her first four years, and then left again.
"Committment to Jesus" while being anti-choice.
Fortunately for me, I am Reform Jewish and like many Jews I do not have a commitment to Jesus. I have a commitment to all Jews.
But as it relates to Jesus himself, he was for human rights and freedom. Perhaps we might want to redefine what he really meant as opposed to what Democrat-name-in-only Karen Whitsett believes.
lol. Such an awful person.
Wow Ryan Zinke is retiring https://x.com/JakeSherman/status/2028559923945054670?s=20
Right before the filing deadline too
Oh fuck yeah. That guy sucks and has sucked for a long time.
I feel much better about Forstag picking it up now
Zinke was a fairly weak incumbent so I'm not sure a new Republican would be any easier to beat, unless they nominate someone just as unlikeable (or worse!)
The rats on the ship are swimming for shore. Another open seat for us to try to flip. Fantastic news!
And he was the 1st Secretary of Interior in Trump's first term for two years.
https://sunflowerstatejournal.com/olathe-lawmaker-passes-away/
KS state Rep. John Resman (R) dead at 70
Do they still have their supermajority to override Gov Kelly's vetoes?
I hope not, after that BS they pulled with invalidating trans people's licenses with little notice.
They still do, but it's getting closer: I believe you need 83, they have 87 now
IL-Comp (D): Retiring Comptroller Susana Mendoza (D) endorses Holly Kim. https://bsky.app/profile/capitolfax.bsky.social/post/3mg3ftkp2uu2q
https://capitolfax.com/2026/03/02/susana-mendoza-backs-holly-kim-in-comptroller-race/
Mendoza is awful, so of course she would lol
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/02/05/how-a-campaign-contribution-loss-in-chkn-tokens-has-made-crypto-an-issue-in-the-illinois-comptroller-race/