I see what you guys were going for, but I think a better word than "dismember" could have been used for the headline. I don't have a suggestion to what else could be said, though.
They had a headline item on April 28 talking about spending from national Democrats in the race. It could flip in a really big wave with coattails from Acton and Brown.
Yesterday, they characterized Leonard's win over Adam Miller as an upset, as most of the spending went to Miller.
51 year incumbent Margaret Doud was reelected as mayor of Mackinac Island, Michigan on Tuesday. She is the longest serving mayor in the United States.
Doud received a formal recognition from then-Sen. Debbie Stabenow, then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm and then-Rep. Bart Stupak back in 2005 when she reached 30 years in office.
I recently posted an 8-0 map of Colorado that Democrats could use to respond to the insane gerrymanders coming out of red states right now. I've also posted a 6-0 map of Oregon here before - if anyone wants to see it, let me know and I can post it again. Today I turned my attention to Washington - I'd previously drawn a 9-1 map, but considering recent developments, I decided to see if 10-0 was possible.
I basically took my 9-1 map and redrew four districts on it - the Republican district, the Seattle district, and the two districts between them (districts 3, 4, 7, and 8 on the map). And, as long as you're OK with splitting Seattle between four districts, a 10-0 map is definitely possible.
The key here is to split the Spokane area between three districts, and then to connect the blue parts to Bellingham and the red parts to Seattle and its inner suburbs. Several districts on my map cross the Cascades, but I was careful to make sure that each of them had a road across the mountains connecting the two parts.
I've heard that Washington Dems are interested in repealing their redistricting commission if they win a 2/3 majority in the state legislature this fall, but even if they don't, it could still be repealed via citizen initiative. And if Harris+6 Virginia could repeal their commission, then Harris+18 Washington can certainly do it too.
Those are some impressive bacon strips! Also darkly hilarious to me that the more conservative parts of E Wash wind up in bluer districts, including my libertarian-leaning parents being put back in with Redmond (where they lived) when they moved to Walla Walla outskirts haha
I'm really glad you're looking positively toward what can be done, because I find the destruction of civil rights and democratic governance very depressing. Also, let's not be surprised if the corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court find some basis to annul Democratic gerrymandering efforts because they're Democratic.
I think I'll decline public comment about that, except to say that I doubt there will be a United States of America that includes all 50 of the current states at the end of the century unless the country is a dictatorship. I just don't think it's tenable for California to be subject to the whims of voters in tiny-population states like Wyoming. The Electoral College, a powerful Senate and gerrymandering have got to go.
Well, and what I would’ve led with after I pondered it some more is that this would be a last resort — if judges could not be added, AND we could not take full power to change things. All of this could still change and even though it looks like the court has absolute power right now doing work for Republicans that might not always be true.
Secession, not succession. I have mixed feelings about it. I identify much more as a Californian than as a U.S. American, but I worry about issues related to a breakup (water rights, trade, water availability, continuation of Social Security and Medicare, water and agricultural issues, military and diplomatic issues and water, among other issues.)
Not a legal expert at all, but there was some back & forth on Twitter last night about how Dems may not be able to dismantle their own VRA districts beacuse of intent but the GOP could. Not sure how realistic that is, but this court is nuts and will impose whatever they want.
a thought: we all seem relatively active in our local political communities. Between now and November we undoubtedly will all do our part to turn out the vote/donate/do whatever we do to help.
Beyond our typical efforts, for those that live in safe blue seats, I think we should all make a point to repeatedly call/write our local state reps (if you are lucky to have democratic state reps like me) pushing for redrawing ahead of 2028 to counter the VRA gutting. Those that are lucky enough to be on speaking professional terms with their reps take it a step further and bring it up at fundraisers/meet and greets etc. I'm in LD 32 of New Jersey, so I have amenable legislators, but always worth pushing the need for redraws by word of mouth/letter writing to electeds.
Quick question - if the GOP eliminates all the VRA districts, the Dems are able to redistrict in all of their targets, and the GOP respond in kind, what is the partisan makeup of the House roughly?
You can gerrymander PA to have a safe blue seat in Allentown/Scranton and a blue-leaning one in Harrisburg/York/Lancaster. Probably a net gain of 1-2 seats, not including Fitzpatrick.
Just give Fitzpatrick a bluer part of Montco. PA-08 is tough is Monroe is used to make the 7th bluer, but it could snake into State College. Making one a sink while conceding the other is also a possibility.
Two observations that may or may not have been discussed to some capacity:
The biggest long-term liability of the Voting Rights Act being thrown out and Southern states redrawing maps to become impenetrably Republican is a collective collapse in Black turnout. Why would any Democrat of any race bother to show up to vote in Tennessee or Alabama if every single race of consequence is predetermined? This seems poised to hurt Democrats even in local races in places that are currently overwhelmingly Democrat, as disproportionately black and Democratic voters will sit out elections at every level.
I suspect Republicans will dig in to make sure these new maps are enacted by the 2026 midterms, regardless of existing candidate filing deadlines, and that the courts will have their backs when they do. Given that we're moving closer to a requirement of 20 Democratic House gains to offset their losses to redistricting, at what point will it become more realistic for the Democrats to win back the Senate than the House?
I remember learning in college that voter suppression tactics against the black community often drove up their turnout. I hope that's again the case this year.
Yeah. Georgia Rs passing a sweeping elections bill in early 2021 didn't keep voters from re-electing Sen Raphael Warnock to a full 6-year term the following year.
Fifteen years? Democrats started turning out in 2011?
It's not complicated. When there are no competitive races by design at the state or congressional level, state parties atrophy, voter registration drives lag, and it becomes harder for formerly "base" voters to be motivated to do anything. The next thing you know, you start seeing Republicans win mayoral races in Montgomery or city council races in Memphis.
No, the Republicans gerrymandered all of Tennessee and Alabama's congressional disctricts to be non-competitive. Going from 1-2 safe Democratic seats to zero doesn't change that fact.
"They"? The three seats I'm talking about were noncompetitive....for Republicans. Democrats won them in landslides. They're about to be noncompetitive for Democrats after the maps are redrawn. Are we even talking about the same thing here?
How are we moving close to needing 20 seats to gain the House? Even if Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Missouri all eliminate every blue district in their states, that’s just 8 more seats for Republicans, which when added onto the existing gerrymanders I’m pretty sure just gives them a +9 advantage overall, which would mean we’d need to gain 15 seats to win.
I don't know if any of your Californians/Angelinos watched the Gubernatorial/Mayoral Debate last night but it was a complete and total shit show all around. People talking over each other. The Republicans all acting Trumpian, particularly that knob Spencer Pratt. Unfortunately, the Democrats were, for the most part, unimpressive themselves. Villaraigosa showed why he didn't belong on that stage. Becerra took the safe route and is basically playing not to lose. Steyer is shoring up my support for him because I think he might actually shake things up as the Class Traitor. I'm most disappointed in Nithya Raman. She just seemed on the defensive the entire debate, timid and just not ready for primetime. It's a shame and I'll still probably vote for her over Bass because I cannot take Mayor Spencer Pratt. It's a shame that in one of the most Democratic states in the nation we have absolutely ZERO superstars. (Except Kenneth Mejia IMO who should have run for Mayor instead).
No. But it has a higher chance with Bass IMO due to the perception of her handling of the fires last year and Pratt can keep hitting her with it. I'd just prefer not to chance it. Honestly I have a guy I knew from college who works for a Conservative think thank and he actually believes Pratt will win which signals to me that he has no shot. But again. I'd prefer not to chance it.
I also was not especially impressed with the three mayoral candidates, but Pratt really pissed me off. He kept calling homeless people dangerous drug addicts. Some are, but not the 90%+ that he claimed. (Or was that Bianco in the guv debate? It is a blur). There are many druggies, others who are naturally mentally ill and many more who lost a housing situation and/or ran out of money. I used to be homeless, though not in Los Angeles and a long time ago (1980s). The Repubs never are willing to admit that the economic system fails many in this country. They think that any one experiencing hard times has only themself to blame.
I haven't filled out my ballot yet, but now am leaning towards voting for Raman to keep Pratt out of the runoff. I don't think Bass will get the 50%+1 she needs to avoid a runoff so this goes to November. I am really cranky this morning so I will sign off for now; maybe I will be back this evening. I have work to do now.
They're all pretty interchangeable fear mongers with the same talking points. The issue is totally systemic but that would require Republicans being honest with themselves that the economic system we have in place isn't working and it's because of their policies giving everything the corporations and billionaires want that's causing it.
It really goes to show just the absolute dearth of quality candidates in this state. Most of our issues here in California are downstream of national economic policy but you see the Dems in charge for 16 years and things have gotten worse, people unfortunately, will listen.
16+ million reg voters in CA and that is the best the parties can do...those 2 republican gov candidates don't even believe in the concept of Democracy
I understand the hesitation regarding Steyer, but he does seem to stick by his principles. I think he's closer to a JB Pritzker-like than people give him credit for.
If Steyer, a billionaire, can advocate for a billionaire tax when Governor Newsom, who makes considerably less income and wealth cannot, that’s saying a lot.
Charlotte, NC mayor Vi Lyles has announced her resignation, effective end of June. I imagine there will be a plethora of electeds that will consider a bid to replace her.
Her stated reasoning is to spend time with her grandchildren. Very odd justification to resign from office partway through a term, instead of serving what I presume is half a year for the remainder of the term.
maybe what is happening on all levels of American politics is that the really talented people do not want anything to do with running for office because of the nature of the beast!! trump and his minions are doing a great job of destroying everything including the political arena. I completely agree with Miguel P about the California "debates".
Oh I think that’s been apparent for much longer than just the Trump era. There are no incentives for talented and smart people to get into politics, which is increasingly just the “tyranny of the mediocre and the aggrieved.” The consumption of politics as an outlet of culture war and grievances and the incentive structure for political media to encourage it has completely divorced politics from policy, that which it is indeed meant to actually influence
I know a lot of people disagree with me on this, but I think this problem is exacerbated heavily by how comparatively poorly politicians are paid.
The kind of person that can get elected to congress is often the kind of person that has the connections and skills to make more than $200k/year, with less traveling and no need to maintain two residences.
That's not even touching on state legislator salaries. NH is the most egregious and pays $100/year plus mileage reimbursement. I doubt that pay comes close to covering lunch for the days they're in session.
Correct. I know several people from across the political spectrum here in NH who support substantially reducing the size of our state House.
The problem is that, because NH doesn't have citizen initiatives, the only way to change the state Constitution to do that is through a vote of the state legislature. And the state House will never vote to eliminate more than half of their own positions.
I actually don't disagree with you there. I 100% believe politicians should be paid more. Low salaries breed corruption and leaves out working class people from the legislative process. I don't want to see more lawyers in Congress.
That's why I feel like Mamdani was such a breath of fresh air. I mean sure, maybe superstar inspirational politicians are few and far between. I was lucky that I was able to vote for Obama in my first Presidential election. We need people who believe in the promise of government and make a difference in people's lives and are willing to do what it takes to make that happen.
CA-11: Democratic candidate Marie Huriabell, a former aide to San Francisco mayor Dan Lurie and a Trump administration official, is under fire for purported homophobia after attacking state Sen. Scott Wiener for his sexuality regarding legislation he passed years ago to protect the LGBTQ+ community.
As someone once said regarding another race, her chances of winning go from zero to zero.
It would be fair to attack Weiner on the issues from a constructive sense but in this case, this is not a sign of a real campaign Huriabell is running.
I mean come on. The LGBTQ community is a considerable portion of the population in San Francisco.
She advocates for a typical Silicon Valley-like universal basic income proposal that’s meant to address displacement from AI as opposed to flat out limiting AI development and stopping displacement from happening as a result in these cases.
My god, this is not an inspiring Democratic candidate.
I see what you guys were going for, but I think a better word than "dismember" could have been used for the headline. I don't have a suggestion to what else could be said, though.
Could you spotlight Ohio's 15th CD? Don Leonard, a progressive, won a close primary Tuesday. Does he have any chance in the general?
They had a headline item on April 28 talking about spending from national Democrats in the race. It could flip in a really big wave with coattails from Acton and Brown.
Yesterday, they characterized Leonard's win over Adam Miller as an upset, as most of the spending went to Miller.
Leonard voter here.
https://www.mlive.com/news/2026/05/longest-serving-us-mayor-mackinacs-margaret-doud-elected-for-51st-time.html
51 year incumbent Margaret Doud was reelected as mayor of Mackinac Island, Michigan on Tuesday. She is the longest serving mayor in the United States.
Doud received a formal recognition from then-Sen. Debbie Stabenow, then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm and then-Rep. Bart Stupak back in 2005 when she reached 30 years in office.
stupak, now there's a name i'd love to have never known
I imagine she excels at cutting ribbons.
I recently posted an 8-0 map of Colorado that Democrats could use to respond to the insane gerrymanders coming out of red states right now. I've also posted a 6-0 map of Oregon here before - if anyone wants to see it, let me know and I can post it again. Today I turned my attention to Washington - I'd previously drawn a 9-1 map, but considering recent developments, I decided to see if 10-0 was possible.
I basically took my 9-1 map and redrew four districts on it - the Republican district, the Seattle district, and the two districts between them (districts 3, 4, 7, and 8 on the map). And, as long as you're OK with splitting Seattle between four districts, a 10-0 map is definitely possible.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/087a2f9b-4941-4581-a65e-3120ccc22315
The key here is to split the Spokane area between three districts, and then to connect the blue parts to Bellingham and the red parts to Seattle and its inner suburbs. Several districts on my map cross the Cascades, but I was careful to make sure that each of them had a road across the mountains connecting the two parts.
I've heard that Washington Dems are interested in repealing their redistricting commission if they win a 2/3 majority in the state legislature this fall, but even if they don't, it could still be repealed via citizen initiative. And if Harris+6 Virginia could repeal their commission, then Harris+18 Washington can certainly do it too.
Those are some impressive bacon strips! Also darkly hilarious to me that the more conservative parts of E Wash wind up in bluer districts, including my libertarian-leaning parents being put back in with Redmond (where they lived) when they moved to Walla Walla outskirts haha
Can you show me the 8-0 Colorado and 6-0 Oregon?
The 8-0 Colorado map is here:
https://davesredistricting.org/join/a7b7f132-cb06-45e7-bf90-ef3bf86a3329
And the 6-0 Oregon map is here:
https://davesredistricting.org/join/1505ee91-4aa0-4ab5-a55d-a598f5a63998
I'm really glad you're looking positively toward what can be done, because I find the destruction of civil rights and democratic governance very depressing. Also, let's not be surprised if the corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court find some basis to annul Democratic gerrymandering efforts because they're Democratic.
Then at that point, we no longer have a country. Succession would be what I would push if that happens. Yes that would be Civil War, but so be it.
I think I'll decline public comment about that, except to say that I doubt there will be a United States of America that includes all 50 of the current states at the end of the century unless the country is a dictatorship. I just don't think it's tenable for California to be subject to the whims of voters in tiny-population states like Wyoming. The Electoral College, a powerful Senate and gerrymandering have got to go.
Well, and what I would’ve led with after I pondered it some more is that this would be a last resort — if judges could not be added, AND we could not take full power to change things. All of this could still change and even though it looks like the court has absolute power right now doing work for Republicans that might not always be true.
Secession, not succession. I have mixed feelings about it. I identify much more as a Californian than as a U.S. American, but I worry about issues related to a breakup (water rights, trade, water availability, continuation of Social Security and Medicare, water and agricultural issues, military and diplomatic issues and water, among other issues.)
Damn voice-to-text misunderstood the word I wanted, and when I’m on the move, I have no time to spellcheck. But yes secession.
No they don’t. The VRA ruling is a double edged sword. If the courts can’t strike down GOP gerrymanders they can’t do the same to Dems either?
The U.S. Extreme Court can do whatever the bleep it wants. Its power is unchecked at the moment, but hopefully not forever...
Not a legal expert at all, but there was some back & forth on Twitter last night about how Dems may not be able to dismantle their own VRA districts beacuse of intent but the GOP could. Not sure how realistic that is, but this court is nuts and will impose whatever they want.
I haven't seen that thread.
a thought: we all seem relatively active in our local political communities. Between now and November we undoubtedly will all do our part to turn out the vote/donate/do whatever we do to help.
Beyond our typical efforts, for those that live in safe blue seats, I think we should all make a point to repeatedly call/write our local state reps (if you are lucky to have democratic state reps like me) pushing for redrawing ahead of 2028 to counter the VRA gutting. Those that are lucky enough to be on speaking professional terms with their reps take it a step further and bring it up at fundraisers/meet and greets etc. I'm in LD 32 of New Jersey, so I have amenable legislators, but always worth pushing the need for redraws by word of mouth/letter writing to electeds.
Do democrats still have a chance at midterms
Yes. Any more questions?
Is the pope Catholic
Depends, are we asking JD Vance?
Quick question - if the GOP eliminates all the VRA districts, the Dems are able to redistrict in all of their targets, and the GOP respond in kind, what is the partisan makeup of the House roughly?
we're up by like ten depending on how the races in states where gerrymandering seems unlikely, i.e. , michigan and pa
You can gerrymander PA to have a safe blue seat in Allentown/Scranton and a blue-leaning one in Harrisburg/York/Lancaster. Probably a net gain of 1-2 seats, not including Fitzpatrick.
Just give Fitzpatrick a bluer part of Montco. PA-08 is tough is Monroe is used to make the 7th bluer, but it could snake into State College. Making one a sink while conceding the other is also a possibility.
Two observations that may or may not have been discussed to some capacity:
The biggest long-term liability of the Voting Rights Act being thrown out and Southern states redrawing maps to become impenetrably Republican is a collective collapse in Black turnout. Why would any Democrat of any race bother to show up to vote in Tennessee or Alabama if every single race of consequence is predetermined? This seems poised to hurt Democrats even in local races in places that are currently overwhelmingly Democrat, as disproportionately black and Democratic voters will sit out elections at every level.
I suspect Republicans will dig in to make sure these new maps are enacted by the 2026 midterms, regardless of existing candidate filing deadlines, and that the courts will have their backs when they do. Given that we're moving closer to a requirement of 20 Democratic House gains to offset their losses to redistricting, at what point will it become more realistic for the Democrats to win back the Senate than the House?
Letting the south secede and not trying to stop them this time gets more and more appealing by the day
I remember learning in college that voter suppression tactics against the black community often drove up their turnout. I hope that's again the case this year.
Yeah. Georgia Rs passing a sweeping elections bill in early 2021 didn't keep voters from re-electing Sen Raphael Warnock to a full 6-year term the following year.
An awful GOP candidate helped too.
"Why would any Democrat of any race bother to show up to vote in Tennessee or Alabama if every single race of consequence is predetermined?"
You mean like they are right now, and have been for the past 15 years?
Fifteen years? Democrats started turning out in 2011?
It's not complicated. When there are no competitive races by design at the state or congressional level, state parties atrophy, voter registration drives lag, and it becomes harder for formerly "base" voters to be motivated to do anything. The next thing you know, you start seeing Republicans win mayoral races in Montgomery or city council races in Memphis.
No, the Republicans gerrymandered all of Tennessee and Alabama's congressional disctricts to be non-competitive. Going from 1-2 safe Democratic seats to zero doesn't change that fact.
There are currently three Democratic-held seats in Tennessee and Alabama. Next year at the latest, there will be zero.
And they will still be just as non-competitive as before.
"They"? The three seats I'm talking about were noncompetitive....for Republicans. Democrats won them in landslides. They're about to be noncompetitive for Democrats after the maps are redrawn. Are we even talking about the same thing here?
I don’t think they’ll get most of their new maps in place until 2028, when Democrats will have countered with maps of their own.
How are we moving close to needing 20 seats to gain the House? Even if Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Missouri all eliminate every blue district in their states, that’s just 8 more seats for Republicans, which when added onto the existing gerrymanders I’m pretty sure just gives them a +9 advantage overall, which would mean we’d need to gain 15 seats to win.
And there’s been no serious talk about Missouri going 8-0.
For starters, I'm not convinced we've seen the last from Ohio, Indiana, and Kansas as the redistricting wars continue to escalate.
Republicans in Ohio would need a referendum to pass statewide in order to reopen redistricting before the 2031 census.
I don't know if any of your Californians/Angelinos watched the Gubernatorial/Mayoral Debate last night but it was a complete and total shit show all around. People talking over each other. The Republicans all acting Trumpian, particularly that knob Spencer Pratt. Unfortunately, the Democrats were, for the most part, unimpressive themselves. Villaraigosa showed why he didn't belong on that stage. Becerra took the safe route and is basically playing not to lose. Steyer is shoring up my support for him because I think he might actually shake things up as the Class Traitor. I'm most disappointed in Nithya Raman. She just seemed on the defensive the entire debate, timid and just not ready for primetime. It's a shame and I'll still probably vote for her over Bass because I cannot take Mayor Spencer Pratt. It's a shame that in one of the most Democratic states in the nation we have absolutely ZERO superstars. (Except Kenneth Mejia IMO who should have run for Mayor instead).
Does Pratt have a serious chance of winning?
No. But it has a higher chance with Bass IMO due to the perception of her handling of the fires last year and Pratt can keep hitting her with it. I'd just prefer not to chance it. Honestly I have a guy I knew from college who works for a Conservative think thank and he actually believes Pratt will win which signals to me that he has no shot. But again. I'd prefer not to chance it.
I also was not especially impressed with the three mayoral candidates, but Pratt really pissed me off. He kept calling homeless people dangerous drug addicts. Some are, but not the 90%+ that he claimed. (Or was that Bianco in the guv debate? It is a blur). There are many druggies, others who are naturally mentally ill and many more who lost a housing situation and/or ran out of money. I used to be homeless, though not in Los Angeles and a long time ago (1980s). The Repubs never are willing to admit that the economic system fails many in this country. They think that any one experiencing hard times has only themself to blame.
I haven't filled out my ballot yet, but now am leaning towards voting for Raman to keep Pratt out of the runoff. I don't think Bass will get the 50%+1 she needs to avoid a runoff so this goes to November. I am really cranky this morning so I will sign off for now; maybe I will be back this evening. I have work to do now.
They're all pretty interchangeable fear mongers with the same talking points. The issue is totally systemic but that would require Republicans being honest with themselves that the economic system we have in place isn't working and it's because of their policies giving everything the corporations and billionaires want that's causing it.
I'm looking at Raman, Steyer for the big races.
Wild to me that “synonym for shit boyfriend” Spencer Pratt is running a credible insurgent campaign for mayor
It really goes to show just the absolute dearth of quality candidates in this state. Most of our issues here in California are downstream of national economic policy but you see the Dems in charge for 16 years and things have gotten worse, people unfortunately, will listen.
16+ million reg voters in CA and that is the best the parties can do...those 2 republican gov candidates don't even believe in the concept of Democracy
I understand the hesitation regarding Steyer, but he does seem to stick by his principles. I think he's closer to a JB Pritzker-like than people give him credit for.
If Steyer, a billionaire, can advocate for a billionaire tax when Governor Newsom, who makes considerably less income and wealth cannot, that’s saying a lot.
https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/local/mayor-vi-lyles-will-not-seek-reelection-resigns-from-office-charlotte-nc/275-d54e9948-4596-414e-82fe-5f36d612020a
Charlotte, NC mayor Vi Lyles has announced her resignation, effective end of June. I imagine there will be a plethora of electeds that will consider a bid to replace her.
Her stated reasoning is to spend time with her grandchildren. Very odd justification to resign from office partway through a term, instead of serving what I presume is half a year for the remainder of the term.
Makes you wonder if she received some bad medical news that she doesn't want to talk about.
Appealing job in a city that seems pretty easy to run compared to some
maybe what is happening on all levels of American politics is that the really talented people do not want anything to do with running for office because of the nature of the beast!! trump and his minions are doing a great job of destroying everything including the political arena. I completely agree with Miguel P about the California "debates".
Oh I think that’s been apparent for much longer than just the Trump era. There are no incentives for talented and smart people to get into politics, which is increasingly just the “tyranny of the mediocre and the aggrieved.” The consumption of politics as an outlet of culture war and grievances and the incentive structure for political media to encourage it has completely divorced politics from policy, that which it is indeed meant to actually influence
true but trump gave it a big push
He was certainly an accelerant, yes
I know a lot of people disagree with me on this, but I think this problem is exacerbated heavily by how comparatively poorly politicians are paid.
The kind of person that can get elected to congress is often the kind of person that has the connections and skills to make more than $200k/year, with less traveling and no need to maintain two residences.
That's not even touching on state legislator salaries. NH is the most egregious and pays $100/year plus mileage reimbursement. I doubt that pay comes close to covering lunch for the days they're in session.
Well, NH has like 250 too many members of its state legislature lol
Correct. I know several people from across the political spectrum here in NH who support substantially reducing the size of our state House.
The problem is that, because NH doesn't have citizen initiatives, the only way to change the state Constitution to do that is through a vote of the state legislature. And the state House will never vote to eliminate more than half of their own positions.
I actually don't disagree with you there. I 100% believe politicians should be paid more. Low salaries breed corruption and leaves out working class people from the legislative process. I don't want to see more lawyers in Congress.
That's why I feel like Mamdani was such a breath of fresh air. I mean sure, maybe superstar inspirational politicians are few and far between. I was lucky that I was able to vote for Obama in my first Presidential election. We need people who believe in the promise of government and make a difference in people's lives and are willing to do what it takes to make that happen.
Cornyn Super PAC did a series of polls of possible TX-Sen ballots to show Cornyn beating generic Dem, but Paxton losing to generic Dem: https://nitter.poast.org/birenbomb/status/2052384069443363029#m
What's interesting is they poll at the Congressional and state house level.
polling a generic dem is so funny because there already is a candidate the dems have lol
https://missionlocal.org/2026/05/sf-marie-hurabiell-connectedsf-homophobia/
CA-11: Democratic candidate Marie Huriabell, a former aide to San Francisco mayor Dan Lurie and a Trump administration official, is under fire for purported homophobia after attacking state Sen. Scott Wiener for his sexuality regarding legislation he passed years ago to protect the LGBTQ+ community.
As someone once said regarding another race, her chances of winning go from zero to zero.
Huriabell’s campaign is officially DOA.
It would be fair to attack Weiner on the issues from a constructive sense but in this case, this is not a sign of a real campaign Huriabell is running.
I mean come on. The LGBTQ community is a considerable portion of the population in San Francisco.
Also, on a side note regarding Marie Huriabell:
She advocates for a typical Silicon Valley-like universal basic income proposal that’s meant to address displacement from AI as opposed to flat out limiting AI development and stopping displacement from happening as a result in these cases.
My god, this is not an inspiring Democratic candidate.
CT-1: Buttigieg endorses Luke Bronin, who is challenging 77-year old incumbent John Larson
https://www.ms.now/news/buttigieg-backs-luke-bronin-in-bid-to-unseat-longtime-connecticut-democrat