Diagnosis of a political problem requires also finding the cause(s) of said problem. Saying that California is expensive to the point of being a problem is not an impressive observation. Are there any major figures who are going to argue otherwise? At least on the front of solving California's problems, nothing in that article suggests to me that he's bringing anything special.
I'm loathe to dismiss people out of hand in fluid contests but I struggle to see his pathway. He comes across as another egotistical rich guy that thinks they can buy an electoral win. Nothing I read separates him out from that group. Most of those fail, but not all.
Currently not worth the time to discuss unless he manages to carve out consistent polling figures that say he's a credible candidate. Until then I'd spare him no time or thought.
“It’s safe to say the Trump coalition was not pulling the lever for Medicaid cuts in November… Many of my House and Senate colleagues keep pushing for substantial cuts, and the House will begin to hash out its differences in negotiations this week… Republicans need to open their eyes: Our voters support social insurance programs. More than that, our voters depend on those programs.”
– Senator Josh Hawley, (R-MO), op-ed in the New York Times
I'm not sure who is behind it, but some group has been running ads in Missouri for several weeks urging people to "call Senator Hawley and thank him for standing up for Medicaid". This was weeks before this op ed was published. I've seen similar ads touting Trump's support for Medicaid. There's a clear intention here to trick conservatives (voters and politicans) into continuing to support Medicaid. Reminds me of the ratfucking ads, "complaining" that one candidate is just too conservative. Simple minds are easy to manipulate.
NYT: Josh Hawley and the Republican Populists, at War With Their Party
The conservative senator from Missouri, better known for his raised fist in solidarity with Trump supporters on Jan. 6, is embracing a key rhetorical theme in the president’s political ascendancy.
It would be a mistake to write Hawley off as a joke based on his Jan 6. acts. The article proclaims that his end goal is to divorce Social conservatism and Christian nationalism from Right-libertarianism, a marriage forged by Reagan himself. He is a self identified Christian nationalist and a populist and his voting and sponsorship record gives some credence to that, he has broken from his party on economic issues on most bills except some major ones. He ostensibly is pro union and left on economic issues and right to far right on social issues like banning abortion pills nationwide. His ideology seems something like the Catholic Law and Justice party of Poland. He has sponsored bills with progressives. He believes in the anti elite stuff that Trump has been saying since 2015 not what Trump does.
I know but *if* he is able to rehabilitate his image and win the Republican primary leveraging his joke acts and populism, he could poach a lot of our remaining working class voters.
The voters elected Trump, so I don't think we should assume that Hawley has to "rehabilitate his image" to win the presidency. American voters are fucked up!
Noted, but I never thought Trump could win the first time, and while I knew he could win the 2nd time, I was shocked he won a plurality. Thinking you know the lower limit of the American electorate is not very wise.
I would be content if his vote helps block some of the worst MAGA legislation and the most outrageous features of their insane reverse-Robin-Hood budget proposal.
Nearly a year after his government failed to hold right-wing race rioters who targeted not only immigrants but anyone who didn't "look right", accountable. Despicable.
You're talking about punishments for immigration. You don't find that bizarre? Immigration isn't or shouldn't be a crime, and immigrants who aren't accepted should be deported, not punished.
I can't speak to that, but that's the legal setup we have and because of backlash to a large amount of asylum claims, the law isn't going to get more lenient any time soon.
Unfortunately yes. The cause of expanding legal immigration has probably been set back a generation because of the Biden administration's lunatic "asylum for all comers" policy. Who could ever have imagined there would be a backlash to that?!?
Mark, why are you being deliberately dishonest - or to put it bluntly, lying? Loads and loads of people were deported by the Biden Administration. He never came remotely close to having an "'asylum for all comers' policy".
I honestly didn't realize that anybody was being deported until months after the election when they started contrasting with deportations during the Trump administration. There was no coverage at all about any kind of deportations going on. I even remember looking into the matter to see if anybody who was filing for asylum was being sent away and found no reports of it. I even asked on here if any of the asylum claims were being processed and if those who didn't qualify were sent away. There was no indication that the Biden administration was sending anybody back.
And I think it's a safe bet that if I didn't realize Biden was doing any deportations, very, very few voters did. It seemed like de facto open borders was our national policy for four years, and the Biden administration did virtually nothing to push back on that impression. Should voters have had any reasonable expectation that deportations of any kind were going on in 2024 when nobody was reporting that any were being made?
I only heard about deportations of people here living illegally who had committed crimes during the Biden years. Nothing more than that. If you can point me to a single story (from 2021-2024) about Biden-era deportations that weren't limited only to lawbreakers--or for that matter, of anybody who filed an asylum claim who was denied and sent back--please send me a link. It was a well-kept secret if it existed, which is probably why I asked the same questions on this site last year and got no takers.
She wouldn't be in trouble if the election went the other way. I don't know what else to say to her, but good luck in court. But what I was saying is that in a vacuum, the bad apples who conflated activism with struggle sessions should have been nipped in the bud.
Anyone guilty of acts of illegal civil disobedience was deliberately committing a crime to make a point and would normally be prosecuted for that. But if you think that's the point right now, please focus on the bluntly authoritarian actions that are being taken. Something that wasn't a crime 2 years ago is not a crime now, either.
No, but they’re proposing things their leader was opposed to not that long ago. My point is that proposing something out of “political necessity” that is bad, or unjust, policy doesn’t make it right. Or even necessarily politically smart.
Wasn't it a big reason why Canadian Liberals were doing so badly until they got their perfect foil in the US? A coworker of mine is Canadian-American and he described the immigration situation in Canada as being similar to the mass immigration to the US during the gilded age.
No, it was not the issue it has been in the U.S. and U.K. The comparison to the European immigration to the U.S. in the late 19th century is off the wall.
It's that voters feel like the 100,000 illegal immigrants coming from the boats yearly are causing their welfare cuts and their economy to struggle. They didn't care about it when the economy was doing well. Legal migration has dropped since Labour took over while Tories increased it a lot to stimulate the economy which failed. Immigration from Poland, Romania reversed after Brexit while it surged from post colonial English speaking nations in South Asia and Africa. Net immigration was up from before Brexit.
I read some of this in a BBC article which I am not able to find.
Yes and Reform has been able to drum up the boats into being the no 1 issue above the economy and legal immigration. In any case, I am pessimistic regarding Labour's future. They are going to keep bleeding left wing pro-EU voters to the Lib Dems and Greens and working class but economically left voters to Reform unless the economy changes.
They will never be able to replace the single market and skilled European immigration. The best talent from South Asia go to USA and Canada not the UK and America isn't going to give them the free trade deal that they want under Democrats or Republicans.
We’ve gotta try though, other than Nevada, New Hampshire, and Georgia we don’t have any significantly better offensive targets for gubernatorial races in 2026.
I wouldn't be too optimistic about NH. Unless Ayotte does something to make herself unpopular she'll likely cruise to reelection. NH does not like ousting incumbent governors, even in wave years.
In modern history only one governor of NH has lost reelection to their 2nd term, Craig Benson in 2004. He was super unpopular and still nearly held on, only losing by two points.
It's not impossible but I'd rank NH as a much harder hill to climb than those other states.
On a similar, ish, note we could have Vermont as a pickup opportunity if Scott opts to retire.
The new Vermont LG (John Rodgers) strikes me as someone who could give us a run for our money when/if Scott retires. Vermont seems loath to fully abandon its GOP heritage...
Vermont in a lot of ways doesn't really fit in with modern partisan demarcation points.
It's a supremely rural state; Burlington has all of 44k people in it, as the largest municipality. It's also a distinctly different style of rural than what most people think of for rural elsewhere in the US. Uniform low density rather than stark isolation. Less CSA cosplay. Higher education and income levels, but still a decent number of farms and outdoors types. Old school Yankee Rural, which is more or less gone elsewhere.
I never got the sense that Vermont likes democrats per se, rather than they really really dislike the national republican party. Like some other states there's a desire to claim political independence in the VT electorate, so when a republican shows up that can make the right sounds on being distinct from the national party that VT voters are far more willing to give them a chance.
I think if the US had a different election system that made third parties viable that Vermont would be one of the first places to make a distinct and local party (probably right after Alaska).
I have noticed this in NH gubernatorial races. It’s really hard unseating incumbent GOP Governors like John Sununu and Kelly Ayotte as they are not viewed as batshit crazy.
On the other hand, Maggie Hassan unseated Ayotte when she was running for her 2nd term as Senator.
That was a big part of it. National republicans are less popular in NH. They can still win but the national party is more radical than the median NH voter would like, at least in most elections. The evangelical stuff doesn't fit in well here either.
Another factor with Ayotte is she managed to piss off everyone with her stance on Trump. She backed him thoroughly but also said she couldn't vote for him due to the Hollywood Access video. It's the perfectly wrong middle ground that didn't appease the people that hated him while also making the people that liked him think of her as a traitor.
Her disavowal was too weak and inconsistent. If a candidate does that kind of thing they need to lean all the way into it to avoid that worst-case outcome. Either fully commit or don't bother.
True, but he's already been elected (I think twice?) as the state auditor. He's familiar with the game, and the people are familiar with him. He's probably got the best shot of anyone.
It needs to be more pointed at the outgoing MAGA governor and her compliant GOP majority for running roughshod over women's rights and defunding public schools.
Yes I agree but Trump's approval has fallen fast there and is negative now which might be an advantage for him. The current governor also has a net negative approval in another poll.
Cook Political Report: “Democratic Auditor Rob Sand threw his hat in the ring for Iowa governor on Monday, elevating a Republican-held seat to a new competitive tier. Sand, 42, is the lone Democrat holding statewide office in Iowa and easily the strongest contender his party could have recruited for the open seat.”
“His candidacy warrants a rare ‘double jump’ rating change, shifting this contest from Solid Republican to Lean Republican.”
I don’t think it’ll be a thing, but mere speculation.
When you have an incumbent Senator who supports DOGE and actual wasteful spending and a moderate Dem who’s the state auditor running for governor… it’s cognitive dissonance at its prime. I certainly wouldn’t vote a Sand-Ernst ticket if I were an Iowan voter. I’d vote for an all blue ticket.
Would the WI redistricting challenge on grounds of unequal population hold up? To me it seems obvious that the districts would no longer have equal populations half-way through the decade due to people moving/dying/being born/etc. I figured that was just a commonly understood side-effect of only changing district boundaries every 10-years -- they're not gonna stay equal for the whole decade. Or, is the case arguing that the maps were unequal when they were first drawn?
Related question: If the supreme court orders the maps to be redrawn, would they use 2020 census data even though it's not accurate anymore? Or would they use more recent data or 2025/26 population estimates?
It's based on the decennial census numbers, and the differences are literally one person above the maximum. I'm very uncertain about the merits of this argument, but the political goal here is to get the map struck down, hope for continued gridlock between the GOP-run lege and Gov. Evers, and then let the courts impose a new map.
But are they arguing that the districts when created in 2021 had unequal population distribution, or that the population change in the following four years have led to the districts now having unequal population distribution?
Okay that makes more sense (I mean, it doesn't really, but it makes more sense than saying maps should be struck down because people move and districts have become unequal)
I just looked through the text of the case and wow...that's very...nit-picky
Illinois Senate news: Eighteen members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including Chair Yvette Clarke and Rep. Jonathan Jackson, are endorsing Rep. Robin Kelly’s Senate run.
Every time this primary comes up, I feel the need to point out that Robin Kelly would turn 71 a couple months after beginning her first term, representing a safely blue state with a huge bench.
Yeah, I don't have anything against Kelly on its own, but I am sick and tired of people running for senate when they are that old. Even politicians who I otherwise think highly of.
Ideally when a blue state senate seat opens up, that seat should go to the next generation of our politicians. Future presidential or vice presidential contenders, or someone able to be a fresh and compelling face for the party in other ways. At the very minimum we should hope for someone that can build up some seniority in the senate to help their state out.
Stratton is a full decade younger than Kelly, Krishnamoorthi is nearly a decade younger than her, and Underwood (no announcement) is over a decade younger than him.
Wisdom and experience are important, but we need people with the bladder control of Cory Booker who can handle the long flights to El Salvador and apparently Libya and Rwanda.
I think I would, yes. I dislike the way we setup 18 as when people are adults, but pull a bunch of "not really" qualifications on top. While I do think 18 is going to be too young for someone to do a good job at this offices, at the same time if voters really want an 18 year old to do the job I don't see a good reason to block that — unlike people that I think are too old for the job, they're not likely to die unexpectedly or suffer from serious mental decline. Obviously not impossible but substantially less likely. Instead they would be expected to grow far better at the job.
There might even be the upside of them growing better at the job more significantly than with others, just because people tend to learn things better at younger ages.
Ideally I'd prefer making 25 the standard. That's already the case for the house but not the senate or presidency. By 25 people have matured substantially over their earliest adult years and are more cemented in who they are as a person, less likely to have a major shift based on life experiences.
But, despite preferring 25 as the requirement I think I would support an effort that made it 18.
18 is far too young for most federal offices. I would be horrified to see someone in their 20s elected to e.g. the presidency. Would you really want David Hogg in the Oval Office? (I’d have more faith in Maxwell Frost, but that’s really beside the point.)
That said, I’m not sure we need a rule to prevent this
I didn't say I'd vote for an 18-year-old for president, but you don't have to be 35, and I think a minimum age older than the age of majority shouldn't be in the constitution.
19 year old Senator? Rep? Maybe 21 or 22! Not 18 or 19...too easy to get someone totally unqualified in a state or district that is D or R+20ish. My 19 yr old grandson is extremely intelligent, finished 2nd year of university, extremely well grounded, not extreme in his views....I would not put him in any federal elected office...and, no, I am not biased!
So you would trust the judgment of voters in a highly partisan district to make the right decision that is not based only on partisanship? I wouldn't...not in this day and age!
I am not critical of Robin Kelly so much as I am of having more baby boomers being elected to the Senate. My sense is that she’s more liberal than Dick Durbin but that’s really besides the point.
A younger gen xer or millennial has had more direct experience in the modern workforce and is facing cost of living issues at the same time.
Cost of living does affect politicians just as much as your typical voter. A year ago, a city Councilmember in Newark, CA resigned because of high cost of living. His salary as city Councilmember, even as a staunch affordable housing advocate, was not enough for him to make a minimum down payment on a house in Newark. I would assume he’s trying to get into a better paying career but in any event, the problem of affordability is real. Politicians are not immune to the problem.
As far as the politicians such as the city council members facing cost of living issues, I am mainly pointing this out because I believe their experience comes in handy as Senate candidates. I would like more of these voices in the Senate as well as the House.
That would be nice, but pardon me for being a bit cynical about the prospects of it. And would they continue to struggle after becoming senators or somehow get rich on insider trading or honoraria or something?
Getting elected is one thing. However, the system of being in the Senate can change anyone, even the most forward thinking kind or those who are dealing with similar issues as their own constituents. The lobbying system in DC is still strong and isn’t going away.
Ideally speaking, I would like more Democrats not just in the Senate but the House talk about the cost of living problem. This may be where local and state governments have more power but if the federal government has leverage as well, it would be nice to see this used if it makes sense.
Of course. The only surprise is that they did this before Lauren Underwood publicly announced her plans. She's a CBC member as well and has been looking at the race. Either she's not running, or their colleagues prefer Kelly.
Though it's also worth noting that it's "only" 18 members of the CBC. There's 55 of them in the house currently, so ~1/3 of their caucus. Would suggest that the remaining 2/3 are waiting to see if Underwood jumps in or not and if they wish to be neutral.
Kelly has been in the house longer than Underwood. Could be the case that these 18 have a closer working relationship with her and would endorse her even if Underwood jumped in.
All that said I think Underwood waiting is making it harder for her if she does want to run. Each extra day makes it less likely because she's losing time while everyone else gets endorsements, fundraising, etc. Even with how far off the primary is, letting the other candidates have the starting weeks to themselves is an unnecessary handicap.
A recent poll by the conservative Senate Leadership Fund super PAC showed Paxton leading Cornyn by 15 points in a GOP primary — but narrowly losing a hypothetical general election against Allred, according to two people familiar with the survey.
Seems like a cheorographed "leak" by SLF to get Cornyn some help. Not saying Paxton wouldn't be vulnerable, but after last November I remain highly skeptical about anything approaching Blexas.
Do we have anyone who could make a credible run for this seat besides Brown? That's what makes me pessimistic about this seat. Our bench there is threadbare after a decade of losses and 15 years of aggressive gerrymanders.
I don't have anyone in mind but maybe someone closer can chime in. Maybe one of the mayors? I know Amy Action has been mentioned as a gubernatorial candidate. Maybe she can be persuaded to run for the senate if Tim Ryan and Brown pass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Acton
My list would be NC, ME, TX, AK, IA then Ohio/Florida (if Sherrod doesn't run which looks likely).
Let's not forget that Susan's margin of victory was reduced by half in 2020. I believe that same force which took away Tester and Sherrod is going take her away too. Alaska is quite libertarian, socially moderate and they hate national politics and polarization. They have a unified legislative caucus. A right candidate, a gun loving moderate Democrat similar to Peltola could win its ranked choice election. Alaska also has a very small single media market.
11. Paxton obstructed justice by delaying his trial for federal securities fraud after being indicted in 2015, preventing voters from gaining knowledge regarding Paxton.
11th article of 2023 impeachment which passed the house but not the senate, itself says this, you're also assuming that voters knew all of his background before the high profile impeachment after several other allegations were made, fraud and crimes were committed after those in the indictment, that too in an Attorney general election.
Remains to be seen if Texas' 2024 vote was an aberration or the new normal. Aberrations are not uncommon, especially in places that are going through slow and steady realignments. However, new normals are also not uncommon.
My hope is that the particulars of the 2024 election are what resulted in Texas' regression in its 2024 vote, but it is currently unknowable without more elections to provide a trend.
Texas shifted left every year since Bush ran. 2024 might easily be an aberration. It was the second closest loss in 2018 and 2020 after Florida. We've had two polls by now showing Democrats leading in 2026 Texas and two polls showing Trump underwater there. His approval has fallen the fastest in Texas and Florida mirroring the national trend of his approval falling among Latinos, Asians, Independents and young voters. You're very pessimistic. We have a deep bench and a lot of talent in Texas unlike Florida.
Also, the 2022 gubernatorial race in Texas was also closer than that in 2018.
True regarding the 2022 gubernatorial race. I’d say that the difference in election results have more to do with slowly but purely changing demographics in TX.
It's more likely due to immigrants being naturalized and Texas having higher birth rates rather than domestic immigration. Also with its growing cities and surburbs shifting blue.
Texas receives more Republicans than Democrats and a 2018 CNN exit found that migrants backed Cruz by 10 points while native born Texans backed Beto. Another study about the California exodus found that it exports more Republican leaners to other states.
I like the shade of giving them the most favorable language possible to represent all four of them being at 2%.
They have about two years before the 2028 primary really begins. I'd be surprised to see Vance doing so well by then. But I'm also consistently horrible at making predictions, so who knows.
I remember when Bannon left the first Trump Administration. Coincidence or not, it happened after a concerted activist campaign to address him as President Bannon. Postcards thus addressed were even being sent to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Given how fragile Trump’s ego is, I’m sure we can find excellent pressure points.
State Auditor Matt Dunlap says he's exploring a bid for Maine's 2nd Congressional District seat, raising the prospect that Democratic U.S. Rep. Jared Golden will face a primary challenge next year.
Diagnosis of a political problem requires also finding the cause(s) of said problem. Saying that California is expensive to the point of being a problem is not an impressive observation. Are there any major figures who are going to argue otherwise? At least on the front of solving California's problems, nothing in that article suggests to me that he's bringing anything special.
I'm loathe to dismiss people out of hand in fluid contests but I struggle to see his pathway. He comes across as another egotistical rich guy that thinks they can buy an electoral win. Nothing I read separates him out from that group. Most of those fail, but not all.
Currently not worth the time to discuss unless he manages to carve out consistent polling figures that say he's a credible candidate. Until then I'd spare him no time or thought.
Yeah, I don't think anyone has too much to fear from some timeshare guy.
Justice Beth Baker is only 63 years old. Pity she has chosen to retire. I wonder why? Has anyone, perchance, influenced her to make that decision?
She was pretty explicit about her reasons in the linked article: https://montanafreepress.org/2025/04/09/state-supreme-court-justice-beth-baker-wont-run-again/
Thank you.
HAWLEY: VOTERS DIDN’T VOTE FOR MEDICAID CUTS
“It’s safe to say the Trump coalition was not pulling the lever for Medicaid cuts in November… Many of my House and Senate colleagues keep pushing for substantial cuts, and the House will begin to hash out its differences in negotiations this week… Republicans need to open their eyes: Our voters support social insurance programs. More than that, our voters depend on those programs.”
– Senator Josh Hawley, (R-MO), op-ed in the New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/12/opinion/josh-hawley-dont-cut-medicaid.html
I mean... Republicans are always trying to cut Medicaid. So, by voting for Republicans, voters were absolutely doing that.
Some Republican politicians, but certainly not all – perhaps not even most.
How many support maintaining the Medicaid expansion in the ACA or extending it to their state if their state doesn't have it yet?
Charles Gaba would be the expert to weigh in on this. I worked intensely with him when he was just getting started.
Polls showed that voters trusted Republicans more than Democrats on Social Security and Medicaid before the election LMAO!
I'm not sure who is behind it, but some group has been running ads in Missouri for several weeks urging people to "call Senator Hawley and thank him for standing up for Medicaid". This was weeks before this op ed was published. I've seen similar ads touting Trump's support for Medicaid. There's a clear intention here to trick conservatives (voters and politicans) into continuing to support Medicaid. Reminds me of the ratfucking ads, "complaining" that one candidate is just too conservative. Simple minds are easy to manipulate.
https://archive.ph/WRK98
NYT: Josh Hawley and the Republican Populists, at War With Their Party
The conservative senator from Missouri, better known for his raised fist in solidarity with Trump supporters on Jan. 6, is embracing a key rhetorical theme in the president’s political ascendancy.
It would be a mistake to write Hawley off as a joke based on his Jan 6. acts. The article proclaims that his end goal is to divorce Social conservatism and Christian nationalism from Right-libertarianism, a marriage forged by Reagan himself. He is a self identified Christian nationalist and a populist and his voting and sponsorship record gives some credence to that, he has broken from his party on economic issues on most bills except some major ones. He ostensibly is pro union and left on economic issues and right to far right on social issues like banning abortion pills nationwide. His ideology seems something like the Catholic Law and Justice party of Poland. He has sponsored bills with progressives. He believes in the anti elite stuff that Trump has been saying since 2015 not what Trump does.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_Justice
Hawley is kind of a joke though. He’s just as known for running away from the J6 mob in the Capitol as he is for the raised fist photo.
I know but *if* he is able to rehabilitate his image and win the Republican primary leveraging his joke acts and populism, he could poach a lot of our remaining working class voters.
The voters elected Trump, so I don't think we should assume that Hawley has to "rehabilitate his image" to win the presidency. American voters are fucked up!
I don't think Hawley will be able to get away with nearly the same amount of things that Trump can.
Noted, but I never thought Trump could win the first time, and while I knew he could win the 2nd time, I was shocked he won a plurality. Thinking you know the lower limit of the American electorate is not very wise.
Hawley could become a Democrat at this point with this rhetoric. /s
Ha! I have no illusion about who Josh Hawley is.
I would be content if his vote helps block some of the worst MAGA legislation and the most outrageous features of their insane reverse-Robin-Hood budget proposal.
Fine with me!
I think Eddy is the odds-on favorite in a Dem-favorable midterm... yes, even in a R-leaning state.
Sorry. Eddy who for which race?
Eddy, the Montana SC justice.
Keir Starmer's government, already imitating the Conservatives on austerity, is now imitating Reform on immigration:
https://bsky.app/profile/pippacrerar.bsky.social/post/3loxkdfnths23
Nearly a year after his government failed to hold right-wing race rioters who targeted not only immigrants but anyone who didn't "look right", accountable. Despicable.
I mean, this is absolutely a political necessity for them. The status quo on immigration in the UK is extremely unpopular.
Too bad the Biden administration didn't deport people to an El Salvador prison and send ICE to arrest college students, I guess.
https://bsky.app/profile/implausibleblog.bsky.social/post/3loy5vjuwc222
There are a range of punishments that can be meted out. We're not limited to either impunity or using a modern day oubliette to punish crimes.
You're talking about punishments for immigration. You don't find that bizarre? Immigration isn't or shouldn't be a crime, and immigrants who aren't accepted should be deported, not punished.
I can't speak to that, but that's the legal setup we have and because of backlash to a large amount of asylum claims, the law isn't going to get more lenient any time soon.
Unfortunately yes. The cause of expanding legal immigration has probably been set back a generation because of the Biden administration's lunatic "asylum for all comers" policy. Who could ever have imagined there would be a backlash to that?!?
Mark, why are you being deliberately dishonest - or to put it bluntly, lying? Loads and loads of people were deported by the Biden Administration. He never came remotely close to having an "'asylum for all comers' policy".
I honestly didn't realize that anybody was being deported until months after the election when they started contrasting with deportations during the Trump administration. There was no coverage at all about any kind of deportations going on. I even remember looking into the matter to see if anybody who was filing for asylum was being sent away and found no reports of it. I even asked on here if any of the asylum claims were being processed and if those who didn't qualify were sent away. There was no indication that the Biden administration was sending anybody back.
And I think it's a safe bet that if I didn't realize Biden was doing any deportations, very, very few voters did. It seemed like de facto open borders was our national policy for four years, and the Biden administration did virtually nothing to push back on that impression. Should voters have had any reasonable expectation that deportations of any kind were going on in 2024 when nobody was reporting that any were being made?
You have strange blinders. The U.S. mainstream media are very problematic but did report on loads of deportations.
I only heard about deportations of people here living illegally who had committed crimes during the Biden years. Nothing more than that. If you can point me to a single story (from 2021-2024) about Biden-era deportations that weren't limited only to lawbreakers--or for that matter, of anybody who filed an asylum claim who was denied and sent back--please send me a link. It was a well-kept secret if it existed, which is probably why I asked the same questions on this site last year and got no takers.
But why are -you- talking about "punishment" for immigration? Moreover, you are talking about -legal- immigrants and people on student visas!
Expulsion from university for those that ransacked Hamilton Hall and held its custodial staff hostage isn't a tall ask. Civil charges too.
What did the Turkish woman dragged from the streets do? No-one on this site is objecting to charges with due process.
She wouldn't be in trouble if the election went the other way. I don't know what else to say to her, but good luck in court. But what I was saying is that in a vacuum, the bad apples who conflated activism with struggle sessions should have been nipped in the bud.
Anyone guilty of acts of illegal civil disobedience was deliberately committing a crime to make a point and would normally be prosecuted for that. But if you think that's the point right now, please focus on the bluntly authoritarian actions that are being taken. Something that wasn't a crime 2 years ago is not a crime now, either.
Not sure of your point given Labour isn't proposing anything akin to that.
No, but they’re proposing things their leader was opposed to not that long ago. My point is that proposing something out of “political necessity” that is bad, or unjust, policy doesn’t make it right. Or even necessarily politically smart.
Wasn't it a big reason why Canadian Liberals were doing so badly until they got their perfect foil in the US? A coworker of mine is Canadian-American and he described the immigration situation in Canada as being similar to the mass immigration to the US during the gilded age.
No, it was not the issue it has been in the U.S. and U.K. The comparison to the European immigration to the U.S. in the late 19th century is off the wall.
It's that voters feel like the 100,000 illegal immigrants coming from the boats yearly are causing their welfare cuts and their economy to struggle. They didn't care about it when the economy was doing well. Legal migration has dropped since Labour took over while Tories increased it a lot to stimulate the economy which failed. Immigration from Poland, Romania reversed after Brexit while it surged from post colonial English speaking nations in South Asia and Africa. Net immigration was up from before Brexit.
I read some of this in a BBC article which I am not able to find.
Yes the % increase of post-Covid migration into the UK has been staggering; not surprising that there's been a public backlash.
Yes and Reform has been able to drum up the boats into being the no 1 issue above the economy and legal immigration. In any case, I am pessimistic regarding Labour's future. They are going to keep bleeding left wing pro-EU voters to the Lib Dems and Greens and working class but economically left voters to Reform unless the economy changes.
Could it possibly be that Brexit has caused the economy to struggle...nah, couldn't be... :( Brits are as stupid as Americans.
They will never be able to replace the single market and skilled European immigration. The best talent from South Asia go to USA and Canada not the UK and America isn't going to give them the free trade deal that they want under Democrats or Republicans.
I wouldn't count on the U.S. attracting the best talent from anywhere, going forward, but the UK definitely won't get it.
If we were smart we'd be brain-draining the shit out of China right now. But we're not, so we won't.
They can support immigration restrictions without using demagogic xenophobic language.
“Rivers of Blood” II
https://x.com/ZackPolanski/status/1921929153948885339
https://cbs2iowa.com/news/local/iowa-auditor-rob-sand-announces-2026-gubernatorial-run-governor-kim-reynolds-republicans-democrats
Iowa State Auditor Rob Sand is running for governor of his state.
He's got a steep hill to climb unless a lot of GOP Iowans cross the aisle for him or sit out the 2026 midterms.
We’ve gotta try though, other than Nevada, New Hampshire, and Georgia we don’t have any significantly better offensive targets for gubernatorial races in 2026.
I wouldn't be too optimistic about NH. Unless Ayotte does something to make herself unpopular she'll likely cruise to reelection. NH does not like ousting incumbent governors, even in wave years.
In modern history only one governor of NH has lost reelection to their 2nd term, Craig Benson in 2004. He was super unpopular and still nearly held on, only losing by two points.
It's not impossible but I'd rank NH as a much harder hill to climb than those other states.
On a similar, ish, note we could have Vermont as a pickup opportunity if Scott opts to retire.
The new Vermont LG (John Rodgers) strikes me as someone who could give us a run for our money when/if Scott retires. Vermont seems loath to fully abandon its GOP heritage...
Vermont in a lot of ways doesn't really fit in with modern partisan demarcation points.
It's a supremely rural state; Burlington has all of 44k people in it, as the largest municipality. It's also a distinctly different style of rural than what most people think of for rural elsewhere in the US. Uniform low density rather than stark isolation. Less CSA cosplay. Higher education and income levels, but still a decent number of farms and outdoors types. Old school Yankee Rural, which is more or less gone elsewhere.
I never got the sense that Vermont likes democrats per se, rather than they really really dislike the national republican party. Like some other states there's a desire to claim political independence in the VT electorate, so when a republican shows up that can make the right sounds on being distinct from the national party that VT voters are far more willing to give them a chance.
I think if the US had a different election system that made third parties viable that Vermont would be one of the first places to make a distinct and local party (probably right after Alaska).
I have noticed this in NH gubernatorial races. It’s really hard unseating incumbent GOP Governors like John Sununu and Kelly Ayotte as they are not viewed as batshit crazy.
On the other hand, Maggie Hassan unseated Ayotte when she was running for her 2nd term as Senator.
IMO it was a combination of Hassan's personal popularity and tying Ayotte to national Republicans that allowed the former to pull off a (narrow) win.
That was a big part of it. National republicans are less popular in NH. They can still win but the national party is more radical than the median NH voter would like, at least in most elections. The evangelical stuff doesn't fit in well here either.
Another factor with Ayotte is she managed to piss off everyone with her stance on Trump. She backed him thoroughly but also said she couldn't vote for him due to the Hollywood Access video. It's the perfectly wrong middle ground that didn't appease the people that hated him while also making the people that liked him think of her as a traitor.
Her disavowal was too weak and inconsistent. If a candidate does that kind of thing they need to lean all the way into it to avoid that worst-case outcome. Either fully commit or don't bother.
True, but he's already been elected (I think twice?) as the state auditor. He's familiar with the game, and the people are familiar with him. He's probably got the best shot of anyone.
He does have a potentially powerful message.
It needs to be more pointed at the outgoing MAGA governor and her compliant GOP majority for running roughshod over women's rights and defunding public schools.
Yes I agree but Trump's approval has fallen fast there and is negative now which might be an advantage for him. The current governor also has a net negative approval in another poll.
https://civiqs.com/results/approve_president_trump_2025?uncertainty=true&zoomIn=true&annotations=true&map=true
Seems within reach for a gubernatorial race. It'll be vastly harder for Dems to win a federal race in Iowa moving forward.
He's the best possible candidate, excited hoping he pulls it off after 16 long years of Terry & Kim it's way past time for change!! 💙🇺🇲
Iowa Governor’s Race Is Suddenly Competitive
Cook Political Report: “Democratic Auditor Rob Sand threw his hat in the ring for Iowa governor on Monday, elevating a Republican-held seat to a new competitive tier. Sand, 42, is the lone Democrat holding statewide office in Iowa and easily the strongest contender his party could have recruited for the open seat.”
“His candidacy warrants a rare ‘double jump’ rating change, shifting this contest from Solid Republican to Lean Republican.”
https://politicalwire.com/2025/05/12/iowa-governors-race-is-suddenly-competitive/
Will there be a lot of ticket splitting for Sand-Ernst or will Sand pull the Democratic Senate candidate over the line with him too?
When does a gubernatorial candidate have coattails for a senatorial candidate?
I don’t think it’ll be a thing, but mere speculation.
When you have an incumbent Senator who supports DOGE and actual wasteful spending and a moderate Dem who’s the state auditor running for governor… it’s cognitive dissonance at its prime. I certainly wouldn’t vote a Sand-Ernst ticket if I were an Iowan voter. I’d vote for an all blue ticket.
Right, but you're not the median Iowa voter.
Would the WI redistricting challenge on grounds of unequal population hold up? To me it seems obvious that the districts would no longer have equal populations half-way through the decade due to people moving/dying/being born/etc. I figured that was just a commonly understood side-effect of only changing district boundaries every 10-years -- they're not gonna stay equal for the whole decade. Or, is the case arguing that the maps were unequal when they were first drawn?
Related question: If the supreme court orders the maps to be redrawn, would they use 2020 census data even though it's not accurate anymore? Or would they use more recent data or 2025/26 population estimates?
Would have to use the decennial census numbers. All estimates as of now, are just estimates.
It's based on the decennial census numbers, and the differences are literally one person above the maximum. I'm very uncertain about the merits of this argument, but the political goal here is to get the map struck down, hope for continued gridlock between the GOP-run lege and Gov. Evers, and then let the courts impose a new map.
But are they arguing that the districts when created in 2021 had unequal population distribution, or that the population change in the following four years have led to the districts now having unequal population distribution?
The former.
Okay that makes more sense (I mean, it doesn't really, but it makes more sense than saying maps should be struck down because people move and districts have become unequal)
I just looked through the text of the case and wow...that's very...nit-picky
https://campaignlegal.org/document/petition-original-action-wisconsin-supreme-court
Whenever mid-decade redistricting happens, they always have to use the most recent Census data (2010, 2020, etc.) rather than mid-decade estimates.
Illinois Senate news: Eighteen members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including Chair Yvette Clarke and Rep. Jonathan Jackson, are endorsing Rep. Robin Kelly’s Senate run.
https://nitter.poast.org/maxpcohen/status/1921926329080873103#m
Every time this primary comes up, I feel the need to point out that Robin Kelly would turn 71 a couple months after beginning her first term, representing a safely blue state with a huge bench.
Yeah, probably not the best choice if Dems want renewal of their bench. But I wanted to point out this level of endorsement.
Yeah, I don't have anything against Kelly on its own, but I am sick and tired of people running for senate when they are that old. Even politicians who I otherwise think highly of.
Ideally when a blue state senate seat opens up, that seat should go to the next generation of our politicians. Future presidential or vice presidential contenders, or someone able to be a fresh and compelling face for the party in other ways. At the very minimum we should hope for someone that can build up some seniority in the senate to help their state out.
Stratton is a full decade younger than Kelly, Krishnamoorthi is nearly a decade younger than her, and Underwood (no announcement) is over a decade younger than him.
Wisdom and experience are important, but we need people with the bladder control of Cory Booker who can handle the long flights to El Salvador and apparently Libya and Rwanda.
Would you support a constitutional amendment that makes 18 the minimum age for all federal elected offices? I think I would.
I think I would, yes. I dislike the way we setup 18 as when people are adults, but pull a bunch of "not really" qualifications on top. While I do think 18 is going to be too young for someone to do a good job at this offices, at the same time if voters really want an 18 year old to do the job I don't see a good reason to block that — unlike people that I think are too old for the job, they're not likely to die unexpectedly or suffer from serious mental decline. Obviously not impossible but substantially less likely. Instead they would be expected to grow far better at the job.
There might even be the upside of them growing better at the job more significantly than with others, just because people tend to learn things better at younger ages.
Ideally I'd prefer making 25 the standard. That's already the case for the house but not the senate or presidency. By 25 people have matured substantially over their earliest adult years and are more cemented in who they are as a person, less likely to have a major shift based on life experiences.
But, despite preferring 25 as the requirement I think I would support an effort that made it 18.
18 is far too young for most federal offices. I would be horrified to see someone in their 20s elected to e.g. the presidency. Would you really want David Hogg in the Oval Office? (I’d have more faith in Maxwell Frost, but that’s really beside the point.)
That said, I’m not sure we need a rule to prevent this
I didn't say I'd vote for an 18-year-old for president, but you don't have to be 35, and I think a minimum age older than the age of majority shouldn't be in the constitution.
Hence my last sentence.
Nope!
Why not?
19 year old Senator? Rep? Maybe 21 or 22! Not 18 or 19...too easy to get someone totally unqualified in a state or district that is D or R+20ish. My 19 yr old grandson is extremely intelligent, finished 2nd year of university, extremely well grounded, not extreme in his views....I would not put him in any federal elected office...and, no, I am not biased!
There's a difference between not voting for an 18-year-old and making it illegal for them to run.
So you would trust the judgment of voters in a highly partisan district to make the right decision that is not based only on partisanship? I wouldn't...not in this day and age!
No, I wouldn't, but any average 18-year-old will be better than Marjorie Taylor Greene, and if that's what those voters want to do, so be it.
I am not critical of Robin Kelly so much as I am of having more baby boomers being elected to the Senate. My sense is that she’s more liberal than Dick Durbin but that’s really besides the point.
A younger gen xer or millennial has had more direct experience in the modern workforce and is facing cost of living issues at the same time.
I doubt any senators are facing cost of living issues.
Right but they also are paid quite well.
Cost of living does affect politicians just as much as your typical voter. A year ago, a city Councilmember in Newark, CA resigned because of high cost of living. His salary as city Councilmember, even as a staunch affordable housing advocate, was not enough for him to make a minimum down payment on a house in Newark. I would assume he’s trying to get into a better paying career but in any event, the problem of affordability is real. Politicians are not immune to the problem.
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/bay-area-city-councilmember-resigns-blames-high-cost-of-living/amp/
We're talking about U.S. senators above. They are overwhelmingly millionaires. I didn't say no city council members face cost of living issues.
Yes, many are.
As far as the politicians such as the city council members facing cost of living issues, I am mainly pointing this out because I believe their experience comes in handy as Senate candidates. I would like more of these voices in the Senate as well as the House.
That would be nice, but pardon me for being a bit cynical about the prospects of it. And would they continue to struggle after becoming senators or somehow get rich on insider trading or honoraria or something?
I can understand your cynicism in this sense.
Getting elected is one thing. However, the system of being in the Senate can change anyone, even the most forward thinking kind or those who are dealing with similar issues as their own constituents. The lobbying system in DC is still strong and isn’t going away.
Ideally speaking, I would like more Democrats not just in the Senate but the House talk about the cost of living problem. This may be where local and state governments have more power but if the federal government has leverage as well, it would be nice to see this used if it makes sense.
I support Juliana Stratton strongly still. These House endorsements for Robin Kelly were expected, given her 12 years serving there!! 💙🇺🇲
Why Stratton in particular?
1. 21 years younger than Durbin & 9 years younger than Kelly.
2. Solid credentials and backstory, unseated a DEMOCRATIC incumbent for State Senate in 2016 with Obama endorsement.
3. 8 years as LG alongside Gov. Pritzker.
4. Would be brand new to DC as opposed to a sitting House member!!
💙🇺🇲
The caucus is going to support members of said caucus
Of course. The only surprise is that they did this before Lauren Underwood publicly announced her plans. She's a CBC member as well and has been looking at the race. Either she's not running, or their colleagues prefer Kelly.
Interesting point. If Underhood intends to run, why would she wait?
Though it's also worth noting that it's "only" 18 members of the CBC. There's 55 of them in the house currently, so ~1/3 of their caucus. Would suggest that the remaining 2/3 are waiting to see if Underwood jumps in or not and if they wish to be neutral.
Kelly has been in the house longer than Underwood. Could be the case that these 18 have a closer working relationship with her and would endorse her even if Underwood jumped in.
All that said I think Underwood waiting is making it harder for her if she does want to run. Each extra day makes it less likely because she's losing time while everyone else gets endorsements, fundraising, etc. Even with how far off the primary is, letting the other candidates have the starting weeks to themselves is an unnecessary handicap.
Poll: ALLRED LEADING PAXTON
A recent poll by the conservative Senate Leadership Fund super PAC showed Paxton leading Cornyn by 15 points in a GOP primary — but narrowly losing a hypothetical general election against Allred, according to two people familiar with the survey.
https://www.axios.com/2025/05/12/trump-endorse-senate-maga
Oh TX, don't threaten me with a good time next year.
Seems like a cheorographed "leak" by SLF to get Cornyn some help. Not saying Paxton wouldn't be vulnerable, but after last November I remain highly skeptical about anything approaching Blexas.
Blexas? Is that code for Texas turned Blue?
Blexas, Blaska, Bluhio. It's election slang on Reddit and Xitter.
I feel like it's target #5 after NC, ME, IA, AK. Paxton's numerous problems didn't matter in any of his AG elections.
Maybe #6 if we get someone decent to run in Ohio. I forget Vance's seat is up as a special election.
Do we have anyone who could make a credible run for this seat besides Brown? That's what makes me pessimistic about this seat. Our bench there is threadbare after a decade of losses and 15 years of aggressive gerrymanders.
I don't have anyone in mind but maybe someone closer can chime in. Maybe one of the mayors? I know Amy Action has been mentioned as a gubernatorial candidate. Maybe she can be persuaded to run for the senate if Tim Ryan and Brown pass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Acton
Not really, Paxton was impeached after 2022.
My list would be NC, ME, TX, AK, IA then Ohio/Florida (if Sherrod doesn't run which looks likely).
Let's not forget that Susan's margin of victory was reduced by half in 2020. I believe that same force which took away Tester and Sherrod is going take her away too. Alaska is quite libertarian, socially moderate and they hate national politics and polarization. They have a unified legislative caucus. A right candidate, a gun loving moderate Democrat similar to Peltola could win its ranked choice election. Alaska also has a very small single media market.
Going to push back on the Paxton was fine prior to 2023 point. He was indicted in 2015 and reelected in 18 and 22.
https://ballotpedia.org/Securities_fraud_charges_against_Texas_Attorney_General_Ken_Paxton,_2015
11. Paxton obstructed justice by delaying his trial for federal securities fraud after being indicted in 2015, preventing voters from gaining knowledge regarding Paxton.
11th article of 2023 impeachment which passed the house but not the senate, itself says this, you're also assuming that voters knew all of his background before the high profile impeachment after several other allegations were made, fraud and crimes were committed after those in the indictment, that too in an Attorney general election.
How does Alaska have a single media market? There are no separate markets for Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, etc.?
He almost lost in 2018 and there was no real push to beat him in 2022. Also his scandals blew up in 2023 for the most part.
Remains to be seen if Texas' 2024 vote was an aberration or the new normal. Aberrations are not uncommon, especially in places that are going through slow and steady realignments. However, new normals are also not uncommon.
My hope is that the particulars of the 2024 election are what resulted in Texas' regression in its 2024 vote, but it is currently unknowable without more elections to provide a trend.
Texas shifted left every year since Bush ran. 2024 might easily be an aberration. It was the second closest loss in 2018 and 2020 after Florida. We've had two polls by now showing Democrats leading in 2026 Texas and two polls showing Trump underwater there. His approval has fallen the fastest in Texas and Florida mirroring the national trend of his approval falling among Latinos, Asians, Independents and young voters. You're very pessimistic. We have a deep bench and a lot of talent in Texas unlike Florida.
Also, the 2022 gubernatorial race in Texas was also closer than that in 2018.
https://www.270towin.com/states/texas
True regarding the 2022 gubernatorial race. I’d say that the difference in election results have more to do with slowly but purely changing demographics in TX.
There are lots of cities and suburbs in TX.
It's more likely due to immigrants being naturalized and Texas having higher birth rates rather than domestic immigration. Also with its growing cities and surburbs shifting blue.
Texas receives more Republicans than Democrats and a 2018 CNN exit found that migrants backed Cruz by 10 points while native born Texans backed Beto. Another study about the California exodus found that it exports more Republican leaners to other states.
Those are surprising discoveries.
Another piece of art.
https://sos.idaho.gov/dashboards/moving-voters/
I would assume Hispanic residents represent the majority or sizable portion of the poll participants in the exit poll you’re referring to.
Once again, Democrats cannot take the Hispanic vote for granted and assume anything.
That's cute but it won't hold up
Yeah, I’m not holding my breath, not taking this as a prediction. But with Allred I do believe we have a chance, albeit a small one.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/12/cuomo-super-pac-investigation-00341740
Andrew Cuomo lost out on over $600,000 of campaign funding due to illegal coordination with a Super PAC.
Here's hoping a criminal indictment is next.
Rubio, Noem, Sanders and Ramaswamy tied in new presidential poll
https://nitter.poast.org/PpollingNumbers/status/1921706411962093990#m
I like the shade of giving them the most favorable language possible to represent all four of them being at 2%.
They have about two years before the 2028 primary really begins. I'd be surprised to see Vance doing so well by then. But I'm also consistently horrible at making predictions, so who knows.
Ramaswamy isn't running, it would be seen as betraying Ohio if he gets elected because he'd have to started campaigning again immediately.
Trump is certainly going to be pissed at JD Vance for polling much higher than him in this poll!
I remember when Bannon left the first Trump Administration. Coincidence or not, it happened after a concerted activist campaign to address him as President Bannon. Postcards thus addressed were even being sent to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Given how fragile Trump’s ego is, I’m sure we can find excellent pressure points.
Two new Texas polls:
Trump +1 (47-46) overall approval, negative on inflation, economy and tariffs.
Abbott's approval unclear, said to be near 50.
(Texas Politics Project, UT Austin)
Trump +2
Allred leading Paxton by 1 point, trailing Cornyn by 6 and Hunt by 4. Paxton leading bigly in all hypothetical primary matchups.
(GOP Senate Leadership Fund)
https://www.thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5295745-texas-gop-primary-cornyn-paxton/
https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/texas-politics-project-poll-trump-approval-rating-economy-legislature/
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/donald-trump-economy-approval-rating-20311330.php
https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/video/new-texas-poll-shows-trump-abbotts-approval-near-50-amid-economic-concerns/
State Auditor Matt Dunlap says he's exploring a bid for Maine's 2nd Congressional District seat, raising the prospect that Democratic U.S. Rep. Jared Golden will face a primary challenge next year.
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2025-05-12/maine-state-auditor-matt-dunlap-floats-challenging-rep-jared-golden-in-democratic-primary