Don’t listen to what they say. Watch what they do with their money to find out what their party actually thinks right now. They’re spending more in Iowa and Ohio than they are in New Hampshire (where the GOP actually has a strong candidate).
Axios: Republicans are dramatically boosting campaign spending on Senate races in red states that, until recently, looked safely out of Democrats' reach in the November midterms.
The GOP — alarmed by recent polls and voting trends — is juicing its efforts in Ohio and Iowa to reinforce a Senate “red wall” they believe can block Democrats' path to a majority in the chamber.
The clearest evidence yet: One Nation, the conservative nonprofit aligned with Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), is reserving $28 million in TV advertising in Ohio and $11 million in Iowa, according to plans obtained by Axios.
Those seats make sense to be bolstering, as one of them would likely be the tipping point 51st seat with North Carolina, Alaska and Maine most likely to be seats 48-50.
The only political ads I'm seeing here in NC now are Roy Cooper ads -- they frequently air the ones where he says, "as governor, I never signed a bill to defund the police."
I expect Whatley or pro Whatley PACs to start slinging mud after Labor Day.
One of Democrats biggest weakness is how voters perceive us on law and order. It makes sense for Cooper, who has a long track record as a prosecutor, to tackle that head on.
Might this indicate that after McMorrow dropped out most of her voters are supporting Haley Steven – while Abdul El-Sayed perhaps is close to his ceiling?
You could also argue that a lot of McMorrow's more left-oriented supporters already started shifting to Abdul El-Sayed before she dropped out, which would explain his surge and her decline. Based on the graph in the link it seems like a few McMorrow voters also trickled to Stevens before McMorrow dropped out, and Stevens might pick up the few remaining.
For the most part, even if you add *all* of McMorrow's support to Stevens' share of the vote, she doesn't take a commanding lead over El-Sayed. Seems more like they're both approaching their "ceiling," and it's all going to come down to undecided voters.
So this motherf***er is still in the race? Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised considering he had the nerve to stay in even after being caught in a lie about his Nazi tattoo.
With all the new information, I'll admit that I defended Platner long past his expiration date. He's truly despicable and it's a total blunder how none of this came out in vetting or in the primary.
That being said, I truly hope that this whole debacle doesn't dissuade candidates with "unconventional" backgrounds from running or from voters/party members from supporting them. Part of the appeal of the early Platner campaign was the fresh perspective he was bringing to the election, and his narrative was undeniably compelling. I think a lot of the the excitement that we've seen in insurgent primary campaigns that have gone on to win or almost win isn't rooted solely in ideology (though it's certainly a factor). It's refreshing to hear candidates like Mamdani, Osborn, Kiros, etc. talk about politics. Hell, that was part of AOC's victory back in 2018 and remains part of her identity today.
In short: fuck Graham Platner; still open to unconventional candidates, but ones with moral scruples please & thank you.
I believed that people *could* change. I think it's because I've had an imperfect past, including politically... granted I was literally 13, never worked for Blackwater, never said the shit he did as a fully grown man, and never got a Nazi tattoo, but still. He seemed genuine, and because a lot of what he said/did were moreso personal shortcomings and didn't directly affect or hurt others around him, I was willing to accept and believe that he really did change as a person.
That said, the Nazi tattoo was pretty bad and I was *really* expecting and hoping that he'd drop out and a less crazy progressive option would emerge, but that didn't happen, so I reluctantly supported him based on the logic above. When the first accusations of abuse came out that went from "reluctant support" to "well, he's the nominee regardless..." I wasn't super comfortable with the idea that, because his accuser was a Republican with ties to Susan Collins, the accusations must be false, but I did understand that there was plausible deniability because of that, and gave up the idea that he could still be replaced as the nominee after he won the nomination in a massive landslide. if Maine voters believed him and weren't willing to vote against him as protest, there wasn't much I could say, y'know?
And now this comes out. I'm not even surprised... just angry and tired. Angry that he got this far, that Bernie and others who should know better enabled him to get this far, and tired of people using this as "proof" progressive candidates can't be trusted or that they're unelectable. If anything this whole ordeal almost proves how strong progressive policies are. There's no way Platner should've survived the Nazi tattoo scandal, but he did anyway because voters resonated with what he was saying. In spite of that we're definitely going to see people use this to attack candidates like El-Sayed in Michigan who is squeaky clean from personal scandals.
The lesson from Maine is simple: When someone repeatedly shows us who he is – as Graham Platner has done very thoroughly through many years – we ignore it at our peril. And when those responsible for vetting totally botch their job, then it rises to political malpractice.
Those responsible for it should never be allowed near another major campaign ever again. I hope no one forgets. People tried warning about how this guy was bad news. For some reason, his backers kept giving him an undeserved narrative that he had “changed” or “learned.”
The people who need to “change” and “learn” are those who embraced and endorsed Platner, and continued applauding him, even as his shit kept piling up so high – that the shit inevitably hit the fan.
It seems that those people were just as drunk as Platner allegedly was when he got his Totenkopf tattoo.
Sadly there is no formal “vetting” process that parties do. People run if/when they want to, and bad stuff almost always comes out because rival campaigns pay opposition researchers to dig it up.
Whoever recruited Platner should be blacklisted but equally so should the people who ran Janet Mills' campaign. Says a lot that the worst things to come out about Platner had nothing to do with Mills or her campaign
I (like pretty much everyone else here) have been thinking about the Graham Platner situation and how he had so many red flags yet made it so far because people really liked his message. I wonder if part of the reason for this is because he caught the attention of tons of people who had not been highly involved in politics and therefore haven't learned or come to terms with the fact that people who run for office are sometimes going to disappoint you.
Platner was popular with young people who were newly tuning into politics and older people who felt inspired to tune into politics again. They had a vague understanding that politicians are sketchy, but these people really felt seen and heard by Platner. When they finally felt like they had found a politician they resonated with, they didn't want to think or accept that they could be let down by him too, so they refused to be.
To state the obvious, Trump. This whole saga showed Democratic voters are also susceptible to a cult-like mentality around a candidate as the GOP has been for over a decade.
I agree, I'm just saying that Platner is the most recent high profile example of this. And my line of thinking is that people who are newly tuning into politics or returning to politics because they've historically felt overlooked and now feel heard are most susceptable to having these blinders. People need to learn (often the hard way) that idolizing politicians as infallable and digging one's heels in the sand for them when they no longer deserve support is incorrect, and that its okay to feel disappointed by a politician you liked. It's part of politics.
I'm not claiming this to be an original take. Just one that I had and think is important to point out.
[I posted about this late yesterday, but commenting again when more people will see.]
Nigel Farage, architect of Brexit, leader of the far-right Reform UK party, and erstwhile poll-leader for the still far-off 2029 UK parliamentary elections, resigned his seat in parliament only to announce his intention to stand in the by-election to replace himself. The purpose of this was to quash a parliamentary investigation into massive "gifts" he received from crypto billionaires (including convicted fraudsters) which he never declared, despite the legal obligation to do so. You see, if you're no longer a member of parliament, then can't investigate you, can they? He also described the upcoming by-election as a "people vs. establishment" contest, that would re-establish his legitimacy. Farage got his parliamentary seat by shopping out the most pro-Reform constituency in the country, Clacton, and had little doubt he could win again there.
Funny thing happened though, all of the major parties have refused to participate in this farce. And thus far, it looks like the only opponent Farage will face will be Count Binface. Binface is as satirical who has stood in a good number of elections, campaigning with a rubbish bin over his head. Binface's manifesto for the Clacton by-election includes such points as "Cap the price of a croissant at £1", "Make water company bosses swim in polluted rivers", and "Build at least one affordable house".
Ironically, Farage might indeed have to make a serious effort to fend off Binface. It will at least be a interesting test of how sick people are of his political antics.
Qualls is the Minnesota GOP convention-endorsed candidate, DeMuth is the state house speaker, and Lindell is a pillow magnate and conspiracy theorist.
The pollster, to my knowledge, did not release numbers for ether party's U.S. Senate primary or the Democratic gubernatorial primary, although the latter is only nominally competitive.
(if you click the link, it seems to start at some different point in the video and I can't get it to start from the beginning. My apologies.)
Great rundown on the Graham Platner controversy from progressive commentator Mike Figueredo, who's one of my favorites. It does touch on a few forbidden topics, which is almost inevitable when discussing Platner's campaign and the broader ideological divides in the Democratic Party.
Don’t listen to what they say. Watch what they do with their money to find out what their party actually thinks right now. They’re spending more in Iowa and Ohio than they are in New Hampshire (where the GOP actually has a strong candidate).
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2074803672442122250
https://archive.ph/Q6kyX
Axios: Republicans are dramatically boosting campaign spending on Senate races in red states that, until recently, looked safely out of Democrats' reach in the November midterms.
The GOP — alarmed by recent polls and voting trends — is juicing its efforts in Ohio and Iowa to reinforce a Senate “red wall” they believe can block Democrats' path to a majority in the chamber.
The clearest evidence yet: One Nation, the conservative nonprofit aligned with Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), is reserving $28 million in TV advertising in Ohio and $11 million in Iowa, according to plans obtained by Axios.
They must see Husted's seat slipping out of reach. Good.
Those seats make sense to be bolstering, as one of them would likely be the tipping point 51st seat with North Carolina, Alaska and Maine most likely to be seats 48-50.
The only political ads I'm seeing here in NC now are Roy Cooper ads -- they frequently air the ones where he says, "as governor, I never signed a bill to defund the police."
I expect Whatley or pro Whatley PACs to start slinging mud after Labor Day.
Seems a bit strange to highlight *that*... is that what people are really concerned about right now?
One of Democrats biggest weakness is how voters perceive us on law and order. It makes sense for Cooper, who has a long track record as a prosecutor, to tackle that head on.
NY17: New internal poll out
https://x.com/cjwarnke/status/2074825241583329698
NEW
@HouseMajPAC
poll in #NY17:
🔵
@CaitforNewYork
: 51%
🔴Mike Lawler: 45%
Lawler Fav: 39%
Lawler Unfav: 55%
Trump Fav: 38%
Trump Unfav: 60%
Plausible numbers.
MI-Sen Dem Primary: New poll.
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2074814264292864259
Tavern Research poll | 7/6-7/7 LV
US Senate Michigan Democratic primary 2026
🟦Haley Stevens 42%
🟦Abdul El-Sayed 41%
Not sure 18%
——
🟦Abdul El-Sayed 41%
🟦Haley Stevens 38%
🟦Mallory McMorrow 5% (dropped out)
Not sure 16%
Link to poll: https://politico.com/f/?id=0000019f-412e-d884-ad9f-71ae19d30000
Might this indicate that after McMorrow dropped out most of her voters are supporting Haley Steven – while Abdul El-Sayed perhaps is close to his ceiling?
Probably too early to divine that
You could also argue that a lot of McMorrow's more left-oriented supporters already started shifting to Abdul El-Sayed before she dropped out, which would explain his surge and her decline. Based on the graph in the link it seems like a few McMorrow voters also trickled to Stevens before McMorrow dropped out, and Stevens might pick up the few remaining.
https://fiftyplusone.news/polls/senate/democratic-primary/michigan
For the most part, even if you add *all* of McMorrow's support to Stevens' share of the vote, she doesn't take a commanding lead over El-Sayed. Seems more like they're both approaching their "ceiling," and it's all going to come down to undecided voters.
So this motherf***er is still in the race? Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised considering he had the nerve to stay in even after being caught in a lie about his Nazi tattoo.
With all the new information, I'll admit that I defended Platner long past his expiration date. He's truly despicable and it's a total blunder how none of this came out in vetting or in the primary.
That being said, I truly hope that this whole debacle doesn't dissuade candidates with "unconventional" backgrounds from running or from voters/party members from supporting them. Part of the appeal of the early Platner campaign was the fresh perspective he was bringing to the election, and his narrative was undeniably compelling. I think a lot of the the excitement that we've seen in insurgent primary campaigns that have gone on to win or almost win isn't rooted solely in ideology (though it's certainly a factor). It's refreshing to hear candidates like Mamdani, Osborn, Kiros, etc. talk about politics. Hell, that was part of AOC's victory back in 2018 and remains part of her identity today.
In short: fuck Graham Platner; still open to unconventional candidates, but ones with moral scruples please & thank you.
I share the same view.
I believed that people *could* change. I think it's because I've had an imperfect past, including politically... granted I was literally 13, never worked for Blackwater, never said the shit he did as a fully grown man, and never got a Nazi tattoo, but still. He seemed genuine, and because a lot of what he said/did were moreso personal shortcomings and didn't directly affect or hurt others around him, I was willing to accept and believe that he really did change as a person.
That said, the Nazi tattoo was pretty bad and I was *really* expecting and hoping that he'd drop out and a less crazy progressive option would emerge, but that didn't happen, so I reluctantly supported him based on the logic above. When the first accusations of abuse came out that went from "reluctant support" to "well, he's the nominee regardless..." I wasn't super comfortable with the idea that, because his accuser was a Republican with ties to Susan Collins, the accusations must be false, but I did understand that there was plausible deniability because of that, and gave up the idea that he could still be replaced as the nominee after he won the nomination in a massive landslide. if Maine voters believed him and weren't willing to vote against him as protest, there wasn't much I could say, y'know?
And now this comes out. I'm not even surprised... just angry and tired. Angry that he got this far, that Bernie and others who should know better enabled him to get this far, and tired of people using this as "proof" progressive candidates can't be trusted or that they're unelectable. If anything this whole ordeal almost proves how strong progressive policies are. There's no way Platner should've survived the Nazi tattoo scandal, but he did anyway because voters resonated with what he was saying. In spite of that we're definitely going to see people use this to attack candidates like El-Sayed in Michigan who is squeaky clean from personal scandals.
The lesson from Maine is simple: When someone repeatedly shows us who he is – as Graham Platner has done very thoroughly through many years – we ignore it at our peril. And when those responsible for vetting totally botch their job, then it rises to political malpractice.
Those responsible for it should never be allowed near another major campaign ever again. I hope no one forgets. People tried warning about how this guy was bad news. For some reason, his backers kept giving him an undeserved narrative that he had “changed” or “learned.”
The people who need to “change” and “learn” are those who embraced and endorsed Platner, and continued applauding him, even as his shit kept piling up so high – that the shit inevitably hit the fan.
It seems that those people were just as drunk as Platner allegedly was when he got his Totenkopf tattoo.
Sadly there is no formal “vetting” process that parties do. People run if/when they want to, and bad stuff almost always comes out because rival campaigns pay opposition researchers to dig it up.
Whoever recruited Platner should be blacklisted but equally so should the people who ran Janet Mills' campaign. Says a lot that the worst things to come out about Platner had nothing to do with Mills or her campaign
Louisiana State Sen. Larry Selders (D-Baton Rouge) has died at 44 years of age:
https://www.instagram.com/p/DahRgarD1re/?igsh=dXhrZXQ1ZXZrbjV0
Thanks for reposting. I did it kind of late last night.
He was at his son's football practice, and was only in the Senate for a little over a year after succeeding now Rep. Cleo Fields.
Way too young. RIP.
I (like pretty much everyone else here) have been thinking about the Graham Platner situation and how he had so many red flags yet made it so far because people really liked his message. I wonder if part of the reason for this is because he caught the attention of tons of people who had not been highly involved in politics and therefore haven't learned or come to terms with the fact that people who run for office are sometimes going to disappoint you.
Platner was popular with young people who were newly tuning into politics and older people who felt inspired to tune into politics again. They had a vague understanding that politicians are sketchy, but these people really felt seen and heard by Platner. When they finally felt like they had found a politician they resonated with, they didn't want to think or accept that they could be let down by him too, so they refused to be.
This kind of blinders when people get overly attached to a politician apply to a whole lot more than just Platner
To state the obvious, Trump. This whole saga showed Democratic voters are also susceptible to a cult-like mentality around a candidate as the GOP has been for over a decade.
I agree, I'm just saying that Platner is the most recent high profile example of this. And my line of thinking is that people who are newly tuning into politics or returning to politics because they've historically felt overlooked and now feel heard are most susceptable to having these blinders. People need to learn (often the hard way) that idolizing politicians as infallable and digging one's heels in the sand for them when they no longer deserve support is incorrect, and that its okay to feel disappointed by a politician you liked. It's part of politics.
I'm not claiming this to be an original take. Just one that I had and think is important to point out.
[I posted about this late yesterday, but commenting again when more people will see.]
Nigel Farage, architect of Brexit, leader of the far-right Reform UK party, and erstwhile poll-leader for the still far-off 2029 UK parliamentary elections, resigned his seat in parliament only to announce his intention to stand in the by-election to replace himself. The purpose of this was to quash a parliamentary investigation into massive "gifts" he received from crypto billionaires (including convicted fraudsters) which he never declared, despite the legal obligation to do so. You see, if you're no longer a member of parliament, then can't investigate you, can they? He also described the upcoming by-election as a "people vs. establishment" contest, that would re-establish his legitimacy. Farage got his parliamentary seat by shopping out the most pro-Reform constituency in the country, Clacton, and had little doubt he could win again there.
Funny thing happened though, all of the major parties have refused to participate in this farce. And thus far, it looks like the only opponent Farage will face will be Count Binface. Binface is as satirical who has stood in a good number of elections, campaigning with a rubbish bin over his head. Binface's manifesto for the Clacton by-election includes such points as "Cap the price of a croissant at £1", "Make water company bosses swim in polluted rivers", and "Build at least one affordable house".
Ironically, Farage might indeed have to make a serious effort to fend off Binface. It will at least be a interesting test of how sick people are of his political antics.
The second funniest thing that could happen is that Binface ends up performing really well as a protest vote
You already know what the funniest thing would be
MN-Gov-R - A pollster called Big Data Poll has Mike Lindell leading Lisa DeMuth and Kendall Qualls 25-20-10:
https://www.threads.com/@thedatanerd13/post/DaiI2ShjabP
Qualls is the Minnesota GOP convention-endorsed candidate, DeMuth is the state house speaker, and Lindell is a pillow magnate and conspiracy theorist.
The pollster, to my knowledge, did not release numbers for ether party's U.S. Senate primary or the Democratic gubernatorial primary, although the latter is only nominally competitive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVESpeFmRDw&t
(if you click the link, it seems to start at some different point in the video and I can't get it to start from the beginning. My apologies.)
Great rundown on the Graham Platner controversy from progressive commentator Mike Figueredo, who's one of my favorites. It does touch on a few forbidden topics, which is almost inevitable when discussing Platner's campaign and the broader ideological divides in the Democratic Party.