I’m not so sure. If he created an independent caucus in a closely divided senate (say 50 Rs, 49 Ds), he would have a lot of leverage to get the parties to agree to put him on a committee. Or they could just exclude him I guess. But they might need his support sometimes to pass a bill, so it would be better to keep him happy.
Incidentally, it's hard to imagine a scenario where he wins but where the senate isn't closely divided. Even if it did somehow happen, it'd be best practice to be nice to him in case the senate became closely divided again in the future. Considering the the distribution of senate seats that potential scenario is not a reach.
Interesting. Has that ever been done? I thought that to be put on a committee, you had to caucus either with the majority or the minority, not a 1-person caucus by yourself. But it sounds like a viable option.
Totally disagree, it's brilliant. He's running as an independent and not committing to either side, he can fudge it later if he wins. And even if he doesn't get on any committees, who cares? Like, even on this board, who actually knows what their representatives do in committees and base your votes on that?
At worst Osborn would be a healthier John Fetterman, who often skips committee meetings. And if he shares Fetterman's contrarianism, that's to be expected and is more defensible since he'd be representing a much redder state.
I agree that it's a smart way to campaign, but it would be a stupid way to actually behave in office. He would need to make the argument after the fact that such-and-such caucus is better for the people of Nebraska because of x and y.
I know that Rep Angie Craig got a James Beard award for her work on the Agriculture Committee. I have zero idea what for, though, hahahaha. It doesn’t sway my Senate primary vote but I am a foodie.
Part of the "success" of these pseudo-Dem-as-Indy campaigns is that they're kind of surprise attacks -- at the start of the cycle no one was expecting they'd take hold, an incumbent Republicans suddenly proves they don't have the chops to run a competitive general election, the Dem nominee steps aside very late in the game, the GOP money floods in at the very end to save the Republican, etc. Not sure if it'll work if everyone knows from day one that the Indy is a *wink wink* Dem.
Today’s "Letter From an American" by Heather Cox Richardson is a must read – an absolutely devastating description of the Trump Regime’s dysfunction and deeply damaging policies. A few choice excerpts.
"At a press opportunity at a cabinet meeting today, Trump said it wasn’t the right time to talk about his plans to phase out FEMA."
"Meanwhile, at the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth did not inform the White House before he stopped the shipment of weapons to Ukraine last week. … When a reporter asked the president today who had authorized the pause, Trump answered: “I don’t know, why don’t you tell me?”"
"At today’s press opportunity, Trump was erratic, at one point veering off into a discussion of whether he should put gold leaf on the moldings in the room’s corners."
"Just who is in charge of the administration remains unclear. …Jason Zengerle pointed to White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller as the “final word” on White House policy. Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem defers to him. Attorney General Pam Bondi “is so focused on preparing for and appearing on Fox News that she has essentially ceded control of the Department of Justice” to him. White House chief of staff Susie Wiles is concentrating on “producing a reality TV show every day,” a Trump advisor told Zengerle.
"So Miller, with his knack for flattering his boss, wields power."
In a demonstration of why the citizens of the District of Columbia deserve voting representation in Congress, Trump yesterday proclaimed his inclination to take over the district.
He's also said he'll "take over" New York City if Mamdani wins, and Kristi Noem previously said that ICE intended to "liberate" Los Angeles from "burdensome leadership."
Apparently Mamdani’s primary win has progressive groups interested in other challenges in NYC. Including Jeffries.
Ignoring the loaded language used in this article and whatever you think of the left/center divide in the Dems, I did want to highlight one very interesting detail:
“ The Mamdani ripple may not just be in primaries: Justin Brannan, who placed second for city comptroller on the same primary ballot that Mamdani carried, says the results have him taking another look at challenging Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, the lone Republican member from New York City, in a district covering Staten Island and Brooklyn which has trended increasingly Republican.
“Every year, whether it’s the midterms or the presidential election when there’s people from Manhattan chartering buses to Ohio and Pennsylvania,” Brannan told CNN. “I’m like, ‘Guys, just take the ferry to Staten Island – there’s a swing district here.’””
So Justin Brannan is considering taking on Malliotakis. Thoughts? Does he have a chance? I know his support base is in Staten Island from what I’ve heard, but will he be affected by being the progressive pick in the Comptroller race in red Staten Island?
Jeffries might be too ambitious/pointless but would love to see some of those local NYC officials who backed Cuomo get challenged. I'm skeptical on being able to flip the SI seat as it is now but I guess we did flip the older version of it in 2018.
Jeffries is almost certainly fine. Then again, how many of us thought Cantor was in trouble in 2014? Jeffries does represent a very, very blue part of Brooklyn so it's at least vaguely possible. The last time he faced a contested primary was his first election to the house in 2012.
I absolutely do not expect it to happen but if it does the foundation is there for it to make sense after the fact.
Leadership challenges are, in my opinion, the rare inversion of the rule that you cannot beat somebody with nobody.
The more a challenger becomes a somebody, the more the challenge becomes about the individual candidates instead of a referendum on how much the party base is disappointed in their leadership. The more the challenger becomes a somebody, the more attention the incumbent pays to the primary and the more resources they spend on defense.
In that context, I do not think it comes down to a good candidate being per se necessary. It requires a conflux of events to work out just right to get a fluke result. Which is why I do not expect it to happen, even if I am willing to posit the plausibility for it.
A challenge to Hakeem Jeffries from the Left seems like an utter waste, utterly destructive and tantamount to a circular firing squad. And just in case it actually needs to be said: A circular firing squad is NOT an effective fighting force!
I disagree. I think it's important for him to feel some heat, not so much because he's not left enough but because he's not effective or assertive enough.
I don't think being the progressive in a Comptrollers race matters at all, who cares about the Comptroller? As Henrik said, if he has "juice", that's probably enough to be competitive in an anti-Republican midterm, but Malliotakis is a hard nut to crack.
It was a different era, but I remember when Shirley Golub challenged Pelosi in the Democratic primary for failing to impeach Bush and got completely blown out of the water. Cindy Sheehan, whose anti-war activism made her more of a household name also challenged Pelosi as an independent and also got completely demolished.
This article sounds oddly familiar. It’s exactly what the old Republican Party members were saying about Trump’s primary win. “What worked in deep red areas, won’t fly here”, “We learned our lessons from previous successful primary challenges and are actually out fighting for our communities” and the age old “good luck beating me”.
The arrogance and entitlement that they alone are the only ones good enough to lead the districts and control the party. This is the attitude that needs to be eliminated on our side and actually creates a bigger backlash from primary challengers than if they had congratulated them and pledged to work with them. Dismissing those who don’t think like them as “team gentrification”.
“We will beat you handily if you come at us”. Most of the people who said that in 2016 on the GOP side aren’t in Congress anymore. They’re just pouring gasoline on a quietly simmering fire in the Democratic Party and I bet it works out just as well for them as it did for those Republicans back then.
The source looks a bit dodgy but I do suspect we’re going to see increasing financial pressure on red states in particular of a kind they are very much not used to (who would have thought ideology unmoored from reality would have consequences eventually?)
I thought that there was a meeting conducted last month and they decided that only one would run for Senate and the three others would run for other positions, including governor? Allred announced for Senate…
I guess the confab didn’t work. With Texas having a late primary thanks to a likely runoff election needed and an enormous, expensive state to cover, running a general election campaign after a competitive runoff primary would be almost impossible to win, even in a Trump midterm.
One of these people going for Senate needs to take one for the team and end their campaign sometime spring next year (if Talarico runs) after they know who has the campaign momentum to win the primary from polling and clearly understand they will lose the race.
That way our candidate can spend that much needed time running a general election campaign and not be subject to attacks or resource draining.
I think the biggest liability for Osborn is the audio recording from a Republican spy. He doesn't say much except "I love Bernie but we need to win over conservatives".
That doesn't seem like much of an effective attack to me. Bernie's Fight Oligarchy rallies have done well even in traditionally conservative areas -- he went to Mike Johnson's district, for instance, and got quite a few people. I'm not saying or implying Bernie is "the future" or whatever but running on "he likes Bernie Sanders" seems like desperation to me.
I could be dead wrong, of course -- Nebraska is quite red -- but this is looking good for Osborn overall.
I wouldn't think it should matter. But, back in the day, I thought Elliot Engel basically saying that he wouldn't have taken time away from another speaker if he wasn't in an election season was also not a big deal.
That seems like a bigger deal as it makes it sound like Engel doesn't give a shit about his district/he's just jumping through minimal hoops to get reelected and wouldn't otherwise if he didn't have a challenger.
There’s a very large Bernie 2020 to Trump 2020 pipeline of voters. That recording will make 0 impact, in fact, I’d say it’s more likely to help him, not hurt him.
If that’s the best quote GOP spies got after a year of him campaigning, I very much doubt they get anything of substance this time around either. They’ve got less than nothing on him.
There’s countless articles along with actual former Democratic representatives who went from supporting Bernie to Trump. I think the Bernie -> Trump voter has been proven to be real over and over again. It’s not the socialism that’s appealing to these people, it’s the “promising to shake up the status quo” that draws them in.
No it’s not anecdotal if you were willing to do a quick google search. They have their own Wikipedia page lmao. This isn’t hard info to verify and Tulsi Gabbard if you want an elected Democrat example.
The thing that seemed anecdotal was just how large a percentage of the electorate we're talking about. I wasn't questioning that there are some such people. But the Wikipedia article addresses that:
In the United States, Sanders–Trump voters, also known as Bernie–Trump voters, are Americans who voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 or 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries (or both), but who subsequently voted for Republican Party nominee Donald Trump in the general election. In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, these voters composed an estimated 6%–12% of Sanders supporters.[1] At least another 12% of Sanders supporters did not vote for Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton,[2] but also did not vote for Trump.
The extent to which these voters have been decisive in Trump's victory and their effect on the 2020 U.S. presidential election have been a subject of debate. Compared to other Sanders voters, Sanders–Trump voters are less likely to identify as Democrats and have more conservative views on social and gender issues.
Sanders–Trump voters were cited as a potential deciding factor in the 2020 United States presidential election. According to a February 2020 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, about 7% of respondents who said they were enthusiastic about or comfortable with Sanders in the 2020 election voted for Trump in 2016. In March 2020, Schaffner suggested that if Sanders were the Democratic nominee in the 2020 general election, Sanders would be able to target some but not all of those who voted Sanders–Trump in 2016. Philippe Reines, a longtime Clinton adviser, suggested that whether this group of voters would vote for Democratic nominee Joe Biden in the general election depended on Sanders' efforts to demonstrate his support for Biden.[4]
My point is that a recording saying he likes Bernie isn’t actually a damaging clip to his campaign. I am quite relaxed, thanks for your concern though :)
But her net approval rating sank 12 percentage points—more than any other Senator’s numbers—between the first and second quarters of this year, according to Morning Consult. Her disapproval number stood at 51%, up from a 44% average in the January-March window.
And she is definitely viewed less warmly than when she was at a comparable point ahead of her 2020 bid. In 2019, 52% of Mainers had a favorable impression of Collins, according to Morning Consult polling. Today, the number is 42%.
I’ll believe she’s vulnerable only after voters toss her from office and not 1 second before, fool me twice and all that. I hope she decides to call it a career after getting tired of being attacked from both sides, so Democrats don’t have to spend much/any money here to pick up the seat.
I guess my hint didn’t land, so I’ll be clearer: We can complain about these voters who don’t have rigid ideologies and aren’t willing to ever take time to understand the basics of politics like we here do or we can figure out what drives them, not disparage their previous choices and work harder to appeal to them knowing that they are the key to winning elections. I know which option I choose.
Obviously this doesn’t matter at all from comments on a Democratic elections website because none of those voters have ever gone to a politics blog before or even heard of 1. But they do exist in your life right this very second, so good habits started here, carry over to your own sphere of influence.
And all of those districts are over D+10. Is this just a phony justification so they can do broader crap or are they just gonna make those districts a few points less blue?
Abbott has included redistricting in the upcoming special election, it seems a mid decade gerrymander is guranteed.
IMO only way Dems can respond is Newsom having the legislature either pass a constitutional amendment allowing for mid-decade redistricting or drawing a map in the form of an amendment and putting it on the ballot. He can call a special election and have it on the ballot this November.
I meant more in changing the commission via a new amendment. They'd need a court to strike down the current map which would need some creative legal work.
Correct, but the Legislature believed it could pass its own redistricting after rejecting the commission's plans (twice, I think?). The Court of Appeals ruled that that was unconstitutional, but that was when its makeup was different.
Can Dems flee the state again to delay passage of any new gerrymander? They could run out the clock, since Texas has one of the earliest primary dates.
Dem trifectas: WA, OR, CA, CO, NM, HI, IL, MD, DE, NJ, NY, CT, MA, RI, ME
We already control every seat in HI, DE, MA, RI, CT, and ME.
We control every practical seat in NM. Trying to get the last seat out of MD is not impossible but I'm not sure how practical it is. Due to geography IL risks going into dummymander territory if we try to get any of the last three seats.
That leaves us with WA, OR, CA, OR, NY, and NJ where there are seats on the table. NY, as mentioned here above, has the commission in the constitution. OR republicans can deny democrats a quorum with a walkout.
NJ has a weird commission. CA, WA, and CO have commissions that aim for partisan fairness. Are any of those last four commissions able to be removed by statute? Or do we need some variation of voter initiative or constitutional amendment?
Virginia we could gain a trifecta in this fall but their districting process is setup by constitutional amendment.
I think the only real solution here is to make a filibuster carve out for voting issues if Dems get a trifecta in 2029 and pass a federal law requiring states to set up independent commissions and have a strict set of rules for how lines are drawn. This absolutely has to be done to stop shit like this.
Special session and a special election for voters to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment. The governor can call a special election for as soon as November. Schwarzenegger did in 2005 for some of his proposed ballot measures. They are rare in Cali but it is something they have the power to do.
I don't expect voters in any state to undo "fair" redistricting provisions, and California's is a good model for the rest of the nation, though it's obviously a problem when Republican-majority states don't also do it.
Ohio had a really good redistricting proposal on its ballot last year. The republican SoS was able to change the ballot summary to deceive and confuse voters who ended up rejecting it. Bottom line is, politicians have a lot of leeway in how these ballot measures are worded to the point where it's easy to manipulate voters.
How worth it is to try depends on the probability of failure. There is some cost to trying and failing. The reward for succeeding is large, so the risk of failure needs to be proportionally much higher.
I'm not sure it's likely enough to succeed, but I don't know.
Looks like PA State Treasurer Stacy Garrity will be seeking the GOP nomination to challenge Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro. I know Garrity is pretty Trumpy, but I actually have a question -- could she be a potential threat to Shapiro?
Robert Strickler, who apparently manages an eyewear company per Wikipedia, is running for the Democratic nomination for PA-1 to challenge Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick. Given that the other major Dem, Bucks County Board of Commissioners chair Bob Harvie, has the lions' share of endorsements and attention, I doubt Strickler will do well. Nice to see he appears to be running a grassroots campaign, though.
Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller is running for the Democratic nomination here, to succeed incumbent Rep. Robin Kelly (who is running for Senate). She seems a little more moderate than Robert Peters, a fellow candidate, as far as ideology goes -- though I wouldn't know as I'm not a Chicagoan.
Phil Andrews, an ex-FBI agent who survived a mass shooting, has joined the Democratic primary to succeed retiring Rep. Jan Schakowsky. Andrews appears to be running on gun control.
Another Dem in the race for Chris Pappas' old seat. Sarah Chadzynski, a former teacher who is also apparently the director for the American Coalition for Ukraine.
Vicki Schmidt, the Insurance Commissioner of Kansas, has joined the GOP field of candidates for that state's upcoming gubernatorial election, succeeding term-limited Democrat Laura Kelly. (Side note -- how likely or unlikely are we to hold that seat in 2026, anyone?)
Republican Lorenzo Rios, who is apparently the CEO of the Clovis Veterans Memorial District, is launching a bid against Democratic Rep. Jim Costa here. I know this race was close last time -- we'll see if this guy's a threat.
An older article, but apparently progressives want D.C. Councilmember and democratic socialist City Councilwoman Janeese Lewis George to challenge Muriel Bowser for the mayorship. City Councilman Robert White, who ran against Bowser in 2022, is apparently interested again as well. I know Bowser is quite unpopular with progressives -- we'll see how this goes.
RNC commiteemember and apparent MAGA devotee Richard Porter is considering running for Dick Durbin's open Senate seat as (of course) a MAGA Republican. Good luck with that.
The GOP primary to succeed retiring Rep. Andy Barr has added another candidate: State Rep. Deanna Gordon. She is saying she will be a "true Trump MAGA voice". Blech.
It's official -- State Rep. Josh Elliott has filed paperwork to challenge Gov. Ned Lamont from the left in 2026 in the Democratic primary. We'll see if he has a chance -- Lamont is apparently quite popular.
Following up from my mega-post yesterday, attorney and Tigrayan refugee Melat Kiros, who was fired from a major law firm for writing a paper on a geopolitical conflict we aren't allowed to discuss here, is running against Diana DeGette. She appears to be doing so from the left. We'll see how this goes.
Probably not? What do other people think?
Ok is this just left over DK rule because of 2016 or there another reason for no presidential talk, if it's 2016 i'm kinda over it.
It's a rule that goes back to Swing State Project, and in no way does a change in the site's URL change that guideline.
how many times does this need to be spelled out for you?
What "many times" ?
I think no.
Maybe it would be allowed if mentioned in the context of filling a vacancy. But best to play it safe.
The no caucus thing is nonsense. He needs to caucus with one of the parties to get on committees so he can accomplish stuff for his constituents
It's all optics. I'm sure he'd end up caucusing with one of em if elected.
I’m not so sure. If he created an independent caucus in a closely divided senate (say 50 Rs, 49 Ds), he would have a lot of leverage to get the parties to agree to put him on a committee. Or they could just exclude him I guess. But they might need his support sometimes to pass a bill, so it would be better to keep him happy.
Incidentally, it's hard to imagine a scenario where he wins but where the senate isn't closely divided. Even if it did somehow happen, it'd be best practice to be nice to him in case the senate became closely divided again in the future. Considering the the distribution of senate seats that potential scenario is not a reach.
Interesting. Has that ever been done? I thought that to be put on a committee, you had to caucus either with the majority or the minority, not a 1-person caucus by yourself. But it sounds like a viable option.
Totally disagree, it's brilliant. He's running as an independent and not committing to either side, he can fudge it later if he wins. And even if he doesn't get on any committees, who cares? Like, even on this board, who actually knows what their representatives do in committees and base your votes on that?
At worst Osborn would be a healthier John Fetterman, who often skips committee meetings. And if he shares Fetterman's contrarianism, that's to be expected and is more defensible since he'd be representing a much redder state.
I agree that it's a smart way to campaign, but it would be a stupid way to actually behave in office. He would need to make the argument after the fact that such-and-such caucus is better for the people of Nebraska because of x and y.
I know that Rep Angie Craig got a James Beard award for her work on the Agriculture Committee. I have zero idea what for, though, hahahaha. It doesn’t sway my Senate primary vote but I am a foodie.
Part of the "success" of these pseudo-Dem-as-Indy campaigns is that they're kind of surprise attacks -- at the start of the cycle no one was expecting they'd take hold, an incumbent Republicans suddenly proves they don't have the chops to run a competitive general election, the Dem nominee steps aside very late in the game, the GOP money floods in at the very end to save the Republican, etc. Not sure if it'll work if everyone knows from day one that the Indy is a *wink wink* Dem.
It's fine if it's one less republican from a ruby red state, he can do whatever he wants
Can’t he just make his own caucus and put himself on every committee or something? I dunno.
I guess that's uncharted territory.
DEVASTATING DYSFUNCTION
Today’s "Letter From an American" by Heather Cox Richardson is a must read – an absolutely devastating description of the Trump Regime’s dysfunction and deeply damaging policies. A few choice excerpts.
"At a press opportunity at a cabinet meeting today, Trump said it wasn’t the right time to talk about his plans to phase out FEMA."
"Meanwhile, at the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth did not inform the White House before he stopped the shipment of weapons to Ukraine last week. … When a reporter asked the president today who had authorized the pause, Trump answered: “I don’t know, why don’t you tell me?”"
"At today’s press opportunity, Trump was erratic, at one point veering off into a discussion of whether he should put gold leaf on the moldings in the room’s corners."
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/july-8-2025
WHO IS IN CHARGE?
And Heather also has this:
"Just who is in charge of the administration remains unclear. …Jason Zengerle pointed to White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller as the “final word” on White House policy. Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem defers to him. Attorney General Pam Bondi “is so focused on preparing for and appearing on Fox News that she has essentially ceded control of the Department of Justice” to him. White House chief of staff Susie Wiles is concentrating on “producing a reality TV show every day,” a Trump advisor told Zengerle.
"So Miller, with his knack for flattering his boss, wields power."
Miller and Vought are running the government.
Quelle surprise.
I heard a commentator describe it as Trump has Michael Corleone in charge of the graft and messaging while leaving Fredo to run the government.
That's unfair, he can handle things. Not like everyone says, like dumb. He's smaht, and he wants respect.
That speech from Fredo at the end of The Godfather 2 is the best example of the Dunning Kruger effect that I am aware of.
In a demonstration of why the citizens of the District of Columbia deserve voting representation in Congress, Trump yesterday proclaimed his inclination to take over the district.
He's also said he'll "take over" New York City if Mamdani wins, and Kristi Noem previously said that ICE intended to "liberate" Los Angeles from "burdensome leadership."
This coup rhetoric is fucking dangerous shit.
He hasn't gotten very far with Greenland. Or Panama. Or Canada.
No, but people in L.A. have been grabbed off the streets. He has control in the U.S.
And as much as he hates LA, he has a much, MUCH bigger bone to pick with NYC.
Yep. I'm surprised there aren't already U.S. troops on patrol in this city.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/09/politics/hakeem-jeffries-zohran-mamdani-democrats-primaries
Apparently Mamdani’s primary win has progressive groups interested in other challenges in NYC. Including Jeffries.
Ignoring the loaded language used in this article and whatever you think of the left/center divide in the Dems, I did want to highlight one very interesting detail:
“ The Mamdani ripple may not just be in primaries: Justin Brannan, who placed second for city comptroller on the same primary ballot that Mamdani carried, says the results have him taking another look at challenging Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, the lone Republican member from New York City, in a district covering Staten Island and Brooklyn which has trended increasingly Republican.
“Every year, whether it’s the midterms or the presidential election when there’s people from Manhattan chartering buses to Ohio and Pennsylvania,” Brannan told CNN. “I’m like, ‘Guys, just take the ferry to Staten Island – there’s a swing district here.’””
So Justin Brannan is considering taking on Malliotakis. Thoughts? Does he have a chance? I know his support base is in Staten Island from what I’ve heard, but will he be affected by being the progressive pick in the Comptroller race in red Staten Island?
Just as important as being an ideological fit for SI, does Brannon have juice? It seems he does, so if he wants to do it I’m all for it
Jeffries might be too ambitious/pointless but would love to see some of those local NYC officials who backed Cuomo get challenged. I'm skeptical on being able to flip the SI seat as it is now but I guess we did flip the older version of it in 2018.
Jeffries is almost certainly fine. Then again, how many of us thought Cantor was in trouble in 2014? Jeffries does represent a very, very blue part of Brooklyn so it's at least vaguely possible. The last time he faced a contested primary was his first election to the house in 2012.
I absolutely do not expect it to happen but if it does the foundation is there for it to make sense after the fact.
Someone brought up NYC Councilman Chi Ossé on Bluesky as a possibility, but even that person said it was unlikely.
Would definitely be interesting to see if anger in Leadership will manifest in actual votes. But who would be a good candidate?
Leadership challenges are, in my opinion, the rare inversion of the rule that you cannot beat somebody with nobody.
The more a challenger becomes a somebody, the more the challenge becomes about the individual candidates instead of a referendum on how much the party base is disappointed in their leadership. The more the challenger becomes a somebody, the more attention the incumbent pays to the primary and the more resources they spend on defense.
In that context, I do not think it comes down to a good candidate being per se necessary. It requires a conflux of events to work out just right to get a fluke result. Which is why I do not expect it to happen, even if I am willing to posit the plausibility for it.
A challenge to Hakeem Jeffries from the Left seems like an utter waste, utterly destructive and tantamount to a circular firing squad. And just in case it actually needs to be said: A circular firing squad is NOT an effective fighting force!
I disagree. I think it's important for him to feel some heat, not so much because he's not left enough but because he's not effective or assertive enough.
Some heat, sure. But I will be concerned if this becomes a huge progressive focus.
Agreed.
I don't think being the progressive in a Comptrollers race matters at all, who cares about the Comptroller? As Henrik said, if he has "juice", that's probably enough to be competitive in an anti-Republican midterm, but Malliotakis is a hard nut to crack.
Very very difficult. The district was turned into a Republican vote dump in redistricting
It was a different era, but I remember when Shirley Golub challenged Pelosi in the Democratic primary for failing to impeach Bush and got completely blown out of the water. Cindy Sheehan, whose anti-war activism made her more of a household name also challenged Pelosi as an independent and also got completely demolished.
A progressive has no shot in that district, I would think.
This article sounds oddly familiar. It’s exactly what the old Republican Party members were saying about Trump’s primary win. “What worked in deep red areas, won’t fly here”, “We learned our lessons from previous successful primary challenges and are actually out fighting for our communities” and the age old “good luck beating me”.
The arrogance and entitlement that they alone are the only ones good enough to lead the districts and control the party. This is the attitude that needs to be eliminated on our side and actually creates a bigger backlash from primary challengers than if they had congratulated them and pledged to work with them. Dismissing those who don’t think like them as “team gentrification”.
“We will beat you handily if you come at us”. Most of the people who said that in 2016 on the GOP side aren’t in Congress anymore. They’re just pouring gasoline on a quietly simmering fire in the Democratic Party and I bet it works out just as well for them as it did for those Republicans back then.
This may be a factor for Osborne.
https://bsky.app/profile/profromdover23.bsky.social/post/3ltjvngmoo22p
Is there confirmation that this actually happened? If so It'll definitely be interesting to see what happens.
The source looks a bit dodgy but I do suspect we’re going to see increasing financial pressure on red states in particular of a kind they are very much not used to (who would have thought ideology unmoored from reality would have consequences eventually?)
I saw real GDP data. Nebraska and Iowa's economy contracted somewhere around 5-7 percent, the highest in the nation since Trump took office.
Joe Rogan invited James Talarico to his podcast after watching his tiktoks. Talarico is looking to jump in the Senate primary as per reports.
Would be great if someone would run for Governor. If not Talarico or Allred then Nirenberg or Clay Jenkins.
I thought that there was a meeting conducted last month and they decided that only one would run for Senate and the three others would run for other positions, including governor? Allred announced for Senate…
That was the plan. According to what I've read, nothing was actually agreed to...
Egos screw a lot of things up.
I guess, in the words of Carmine Lupertazzi, Jr., that meeting was a total stagmire.
iconic comment
I guess the confab didn’t work. With Texas having a late primary thanks to a likely runoff election needed and an enormous, expensive state to cover, running a general election campaign after a competitive runoff primary would be almost impossible to win, even in a Trump midterm.
One of these people going for Senate needs to take one for the team and end their campaign sometime spring next year (if Talarico runs) after they know who has the campaign momentum to win the primary from polling and clearly understand they will lose the race.
That way our candidate can spend that much needed time running a general election campaign and not be subject to attacks or resource draining.
I think the biggest liability for Osborn is the audio recording from a Republican spy. He doesn't say much except "I love Bernie but we need to win over conservatives".
That doesn't seem like much of an effective attack to me. Bernie's Fight Oligarchy rallies have done well even in traditionally conservative areas -- he went to Mike Johnson's district, for instance, and got quite a few people. I'm not saying or implying Bernie is "the future" or whatever but running on "he likes Bernie Sanders" seems like desperation to me.
I could be dead wrong, of course -- Nebraska is quite red -- but this is looking good for Osborn overall.
I wouldn't think it should matter. But, back in the day, I thought Elliot Engel basically saying that he wouldn't have taken time away from another speaker if he wasn't in an election season was also not a big deal.
That seems like a bigger deal as it makes it sound like Engel doesn't give a shit about his district/he's just jumping through minimal hoops to get reelected and wouldn't otherwise if he didn't have a challenger.
I understand that is how many other people interpreted it. I interpreted it the other way.
Yes, it is how many people interpreted it (including me, though I'm not in that district), and that's why he lost.
There’s a very large Bernie 2020 to Trump 2020 pipeline of voters. That recording will make 0 impact, in fact, I’d say it’s more likely to help him, not hurt him.
If that’s the best quote GOP spies got after a year of him campaigning, I very much doubt they get anything of substance this time around either. They’ve got less than nothing on him.
Really? Socialists for Trump? Just how many of them are there?
There’s countless articles along with actual former Democratic representatives who went from supporting Bernie to Trump. I think the Bernie -> Trump voter has been proven to be real over and over again. It’s not the socialism that’s appealing to these people, it’s the “promising to shake up the status quo” that draws them in.
Anecdotal. Do you have more evidence than that?
No it’s not anecdotal if you were willing to do a quick google search. They have their own Wikipedia page lmao. This isn’t hard info to verify and Tulsi Gabbard if you want an elected Democrat example.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanders%E2%80%93Trump_voters
The thing that seemed anecdotal was just how large a percentage of the electorate we're talking about. I wasn't questioning that there are some such people. But the Wikipedia article addresses that:
In the United States, Sanders–Trump voters, also known as Bernie–Trump voters, are Americans who voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 or 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries (or both), but who subsequently voted for Republican Party nominee Donald Trump in the general election. In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, these voters composed an estimated 6%–12% of Sanders supporters.[1] At least another 12% of Sanders supporters did not vote for Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton,[2] but also did not vote for Trump.
The extent to which these voters have been decisive in Trump's victory and their effect on the 2020 U.S. presidential election have been a subject of debate. Compared to other Sanders voters, Sanders–Trump voters are less likely to identify as Democrats and have more conservative views on social and gender issues.
Sanders–Trump voters were cited as a potential deciding factor in the 2020 United States presidential election. According to a February 2020 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, about 7% of respondents who said they were enthusiastic about or comfortable with Sanders in the 2020 election voted for Trump in 2016. In March 2020, Schaffner suggested that if Sanders were the Democratic nominee in the 2020 general election, Sanders would be able to target some but not all of those who voted Sanders–Trump in 2016. Philippe Reines, a longtime Clinton adviser, suggested that whether this group of voters would vote for Democratic nominee Joe Biden in the general election depended on Sanders' efforts to demonstrate his support for Biden.[4]
I should say, though, that I could see where some people are politically incoherent gadflies.
there's also a large cohort of voters like me who, voted for bernie in both runs, and then voted for the nominee in the general. Relax
My point is that a recording saying he likes Bernie isn’t actually a damaging clip to his campaign. I am quite relaxed, thanks for your concern though :)
Susan Collins Was Facing a Tough Re-Election Even Before Voting Against Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’
https://time.com/7301062/susan-collins-big-beautiful-bill-polls/
But her net approval rating sank 12 percentage points—more than any other Senator’s numbers—between the first and second quarters of this year, according to Morning Consult. Her disapproval number stood at 51%, up from a 44% average in the January-March window.
And she is definitely viewed less warmly than when she was at a comparable point ahead of her 2020 bid. In 2019, 52% of Mainers had a favorable impression of Collins, according to Morning Consult polling. Today, the number is 42%.
I’ll believe she’s vulnerable only after voters toss her from office and not 1 second before, fool me twice and all that. I hope she decides to call it a career after getting tired of being attacked from both sides, so Democrats don’t have to spend much/any money here to pick up the seat.
Asian-American Trump to Mamdani voters:
https://x.com/_rotimia/status/1942947818433388664
Voters who flail this way and that without understanding who or what they're voting for.
Like it or not, these are the majority making voters. Finding a way to appeal to them is extremely important for Democrats.
We all know they are the majority. None of us were comatose during the 2024 elections.
I guess my hint didn’t land, so I’ll be clearer: We can complain about these voters who don’t have rigid ideologies and aren’t willing to ever take time to understand the basics of politics like we here do or we can figure out what drives them, not disparage their previous choices and work harder to appeal to them knowing that they are the key to winning elections. I know which option I choose.
Obviously this doesn’t matter at all from comments on a Democratic elections website because none of those voters have ever gone to a politics blog before or even heard of 1. But they do exist in your life right this very second, so good habits started here, carry over to your own sphere of influence.
Correct, it's OK for me to fucking complain about the people who are ruining the country and putting you, me and all of us in danger. Thank you.
i think, imo, dragonfire's point was that we have to move beyond complaining as these folks take a blowtorch to more and more everyday
We don't, except those of us who are trying to persuade them or driving electoral strategy.
Abbott adds congressional redistricting to the special session of the legislature.
Abbott references a DOJ letter about "constitutional concerns" related to certain congressional districts -- TX 9, 18, 29, 33.
"It is the position of this Department that several Texas Congressional Districts constitute unconstitutional racial gerrymanders."
All 4 are black or Latino. Doesn’t automatically follow that the legislature will redraw. And there would be Court challenges if they did, of course.
And all of those districts are over D+10. Is this just a phony justification so they can do broader crap or are they just gonna make those districts a few points less blue?
Phony. And the Justice Department wants more white districts.
As noted below, them making the districts less blue also likely entails making multiple GOP districts less red.
In a Trump midterm. After passing the Big Hideous Bill.
Stupid.
https://x.com/RedistrictNet/status/1943045808703582682
Abbott has included redistricting in the upcoming special election, it seems a mid decade gerrymander is guranteed.
IMO only way Dems can respond is Newsom having the legislature either pass a constitutional amendment allowing for mid-decade redistricting or drawing a map in the form of an amendment and putting it on the ballot. He can call a special election and have it on the ballot this November.
Could the New York State Legislature try to redistrict again and see what the current makeup of the Court of Appeals does, or is that illegal?
Could they redistrict just before the elections?
There are so many hoops they’d have to jump through and New York courts may not like it. Besides, knowing New York Democrats, they’d only fuck it up.
Yeah, probably, although they have passed some good legislation during the Hochul Administration.
NY Dems lost their supermajority last year not much they can do in terms of redistricting without it.
They would need a supermajority for this?
I meant more in changing the commission via a new amendment. They'd need a court to strike down the current map which would need some creative legal work.
They couldn't pass a new redistricting by a simple majority and then see what the court rules?
The Commission was brought in by constitutional amendment.
Another awful part of Cuomo's legacy.
Correct, but the Legislature believed it could pass its own redistricting after rejecting the commission's plans (twice, I think?). The Court of Appeals ruled that that was unconstitutional, but that was when its makeup was different.
The idea, as it's been reported, is to redraw Democratic districts to include more GOP voters.
That inevitably dilutes the Republican lean of other GOP-held districts. If 2026 ends up being a Democratic wave year, then the plan could backfire.
https://x.com/metzgov/status/1943048605675458937
Dems must scrap the filibuster and use every tool in the playbook to hit the fascists harder in 2029.
Can Dems flee the state again to delay passage of any new gerrymander? They could run out the clock, since Texas has one of the earliest primary dates.
We don't have much room to respond.
Dem trifectas: WA, OR, CA, CO, NM, HI, IL, MD, DE, NJ, NY, CT, MA, RI, ME
We already control every seat in HI, DE, MA, RI, CT, and ME.
We control every practical seat in NM. Trying to get the last seat out of MD is not impossible but I'm not sure how practical it is. Due to geography IL risks going into dummymander territory if we try to get any of the last three seats.
That leaves us with WA, OR, CA, OR, NY, and NJ where there are seats on the table. NY, as mentioned here above, has the commission in the constitution. OR republicans can deny democrats a quorum with a walkout.
NJ has a weird commission. CA, WA, and CO have commissions that aim for partisan fairness. Are any of those last four commissions able to be removed by statute? Or do we need some variation of voter initiative or constitutional amendment?
Virginia we could gain a trifecta in this fall but their districting process is setup by constitutional amendment.
New Jersey’s was adopted by constitutional amendment.
I think there needs to be a push in these states eliminate commissions for congressional seats and keep it in place for legislative seats.
If you want to get rid of Colorado's commission, turn it into a referendum on Lauren Boebert.
I think the only real solution here is to make a filibuster carve out for voting issues if Dems get a trifecta in 2029 and pass a federal law requiring states to set up independent commissions and have a strict set of rules for how lines are drawn. This absolutely has to be done to stop shit like this.
You mean "special session" not "special election."
Special session and a special election for voters to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment. The governor can call a special election for as soon as November. Schwarzenegger did in 2005 for some of his proposed ballot measures. They are rare in Cali but it is something they have the power to do.
I don't expect voters in any state to undo "fair" redistricting provisions, and California's is a good model for the rest of the nation, though it's obviously a problem when Republican-majority states don't also do it.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/ohio-politicians-try-deceive-voters-about-anti-gerrymandering-ballot
Ohio had a really good redistricting proposal on its ballot last year. The republican SoS was able to change the ballot summary to deceive and confuse voters who ended up rejecting it. Bottom line is, politicians have a lot of leeway in how these ballot measures are worded to the point where it's easy to manipulate voters.
Newsom would have to make it a partisan campaign, telling the democratic leaning electorate to pass an initiative
Absolutely, but I don't think it would work. It's worth a try, though.
How worth it is to try depends on the probability of failure. There is some cost to trying and failing. The reward for succeeding is large, so the risk of failure needs to be proportionally much higher.
I'm not sure it's likely enough to succeed, but I don't know.
News dump for today.
PA-Gov:
https://www.abc27.com/pennsylvania-governor-election/stacy-garritys-pennsylvania-gubernatorial-announcement-coming-very-soon-after-meuser-declines-to-run/
Looks like PA State Treasurer Stacy Garrity will be seeking the GOP nomination to challenge Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro. I know Garrity is pretty Trumpy, but I actually have a question -- could she be a potential threat to Shapiro?
PA-1:
https://patch.com/pennsylvania/doylestown/buckingham-democrat-joins-race-u-s-congress-pa01
Robert Strickler, who apparently manages an eyewear company per Wikipedia, is running for the Democratic nomination for PA-1 to challenge Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick. Given that the other major Dem, Bucks County Board of Commissioners chair Bob Harvie, has the lions' share of endorsements and attention, I doubt Strickler will do well. Nice to see he appears to be running a grassroots campaign, though.
IL-2:
https://www.hfchronicle.com/2025/07/09/cook-county-commissioner-donna-miller-launches-run-for-2nd-congressional-district/
Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller is running for the Democratic nomination here, to succeed incumbent Rep. Robin Kelly (who is running for Senate). She seems a little more moderate than Robert Peters, a fellow candidate, as far as ideology goes -- though I wouldn't know as I'm not a Chicagoan.
IL-9:
https://www.therecordnorthshore.org/2025/07/08/wilmettes-phil-andrew-a-mass-shooting-survivor-and-former-fbi-agent-gets-in-race-for-schakowskys-seat/
Phil Andrews, an ex-FBI agent who survived a mass shooting, has joined the Democratic primary to succeed retiring Rep. Jan Schakowsky. Andrews appears to be running on gun control.
NH-1:
https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2025-07-08/calling-her-campaign-a-movement-non-profit-director-enters-nh-congressional-race
Another Dem in the race for Chris Pappas' old seat. Sarah Chadzynski, a former teacher who is also apparently the director for the American Coalition for Ukraine.
KS-Gov:
https://www.wibw.com/2025/07/09/schmidt-jumps-into-kansas-governors-race/
Vicki Schmidt, the Insurance Commissioner of Kansas, has joined the GOP field of candidates for that state's upcoming gubernatorial election, succeeding term-limited Democrat Laura Kelly. (Side note -- how likely or unlikely are we to hold that seat in 2026, anyone?)
CA-21:
https://sjvsun.com/news/politics/lorenzo-rios-launches-challenge-to-jim-costa/
Republican Lorenzo Rios, who is apparently the CEO of the Clovis Veterans Memorial District, is launching a bid against Democratic Rep. Jim Costa here. I know this race was close last time -- we'll see if this guy's a threat.
Washington, D.C. Mayor:
https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2025/06/26/dc-zohran-mamdani-challenge-mayor-bowser
An older article, but apparently progressives want D.C. Councilmember and democratic socialist City Councilwoman Janeese Lewis George to challenge Muriel Bowser for the mayorship. City Councilman Robert White, who ran against Bowser in 2022, is apparently interested again as well. I know Bowser is quite unpopular with progressives -- we'll see how this goes.
IL-SEN:
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/illinois-playbook/2025/07/09/richard-porter-eyeing-durbins-seat-00443440
RNC commiteemember and apparent MAGA devotee Richard Porter is considering running for Dick Durbin's open Senate seat as (of course) a MAGA Republican. Good luck with that.
KY-6:
https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article310240340.html
The GOP primary to succeed retiring Rep. Andy Barr has added another candidate: State Rep. Deanna Gordon. She is saying she will be a "true Trump MAGA voice". Blech.
CT-Gov:
https://ctmirror.org/2025/07/08/rep-josh-elliott-files-to-challenge-lamont-for-governor/
It's official -- State Rep. Josh Elliott has filed paperwork to challenge Gov. Ned Lamont from the left in 2026 in the Democratic primary. We'll see if he has a chance -- Lamont is apparently quite popular.
NYC Mayor:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/07/08/trump-nyc-mayoral-race-declines-endorsement/84508120007/
Trump is staying out of the mayoral race in NYC and not endorsing. (Probably because he is about as popular as cancer in much of the city.)
CO-01:
https://bsky.app/profile/primaryschool.bsky.social/post/3ltl6s6iy6c2z
Following up from my mega-post yesterday, attorney and Tigrayan refugee Melat Kiros, who was fired from a major law firm for writing a paper on a geopolitical conflict we aren't allowed to discuss here, is running against Diana DeGette. She appears to be doing so from the left. We'll see how this goes.
Thanks for compiling these
You’re very welcome.