Only way Shri wins is with a multi-candidate primary. Not too common in Detroit but hopefully the electeds in the city have figured that out (and Hollier switching to SoS gives a positive sign in that direction).
Ad spending by outside groups gets mentioned a lot. What about contributions to county and local Democratic Party organizations or paid canvassing and voter registration campaigns? Would those contributions show up publicly as TV ad buys do?
It's amazing how ever since Cameron's completely unforced error of Brexit, there have been so many laughably unsuccessful PMs. I'd suggest that's no accident.
Brexit seriously damaged the UK's economy and limited their options. In addition, it was caused by xenophobia, which also continues to cause problems, but I think it's the economic damage that's mainly causing the PM/Cabinet dysfunction.
Nice analysis! And surely Liz Truss holds the record for causing maximum economic damage, which Brits are still feeling – and this despite Truss being more short-lived than a head of lettuce.
Adding to your observations: the xenophobia/problems cycle is self-reinforcing. As things get worse people will often turn even more strongly towards xenophobia.
Earlier today I wondered to myself: if Starmer was deliberately trying to ruin Labour's standing with the public, would he be doing anything differently? I'm not particularly plugged into UK politics, but from everything I've seen his actions seem almost tailor made to ruin his party.
I don't actually think he's doing that with deliberate intent, but the extent of incompetence and stubborn refusal to recalibrate is incredible.
There's a liberal-conservative progressive hating guy called Morgan McSweeney who's he his no 1. confidante and the UK equivalent of Rahm Emanuel. Remember 2010?
Has anybody discussed the prospect of Trump using tariff revenue to give people rebate checks next fall right before the election? With his name on the checks just like in 2020 of course. And if so, what kind of impact do you think it might have on voters? I wouldn't underestimate it.
Yeah, I've been expecting something like this for awhile. It'll be interesting if they do it. I imagine the timing and the size of the rebates, should it actually happen, will be vitally important. Too early or too small and it looks out of touch or gets forgotten. But it's very clear from his gerrymandering push that he will do literally anything he can to keep the House.
If voter opinion remains about where it is now--which we don't know that it will--and certainly if it shifts in an even bluer direction, then that's probably not enough to really turn things around.
Voters angry about raising the costs of everything while programs are being cut aren't going to be entirely mollified by "here's a little of it back", especially if it looks blatantly political. The stimulus checks were in response to a true emergency situation--Trump and the GOP doing poorly in polls is not that--and COVID happened after a period when voters viewed the economy, and Trump's management of it, much more favourably than they do now--even if we on here don't think that view was ever justified.
Gavin Newsom ordered a similar rebate back in 2022 for high gas prices, the year he ran for re-election and having defeated the recall the previous year. It really didn’t change anything in the outcome of his re-election chances as he got elected by 19+% points, not far off from the recall election margin the NO votes beat the YES votes.
Also, in 2008 President Bush launched an economic stimulus program months before the giant stock market crash. Polls were not moved from what I remember.
That needs legislation, doesn't it? If he can do it unilaterally I assume he'd at least try, but I don't think he can. It's certainly something that could happen but I'm not sure it would do enough to change the overall outcome. Still, enough small things can and do add up.
That was the first thing I thought of too. Since "it's war", he's more likely to test the courts and try to take away Secret Service protection for Clinton, Obama, and Biden.
I wish I could feel sorry for what happened to Charlie Kirk yesterday, but I can't. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy and I will defend their right to exercise the First Amendment, but I'm not sending my condolences to his family.
Where was the GOP sympathy when Melissa Hortman, her husband and their dog were gunned down in June? TACO and the RW media apparatus quickly coalesced after Kirk died, but zilch in regard to Hortman. And we all know why.
For those MAGA people out there, spare me your thoughts and prayers for Kirk and silence on Melissa Hortman. I don't care if Congress has to pass a gun control law with Kirk's name on it, I want a PERMANENT assault weapons ban.
Matthew Dowd put it succinctly: "hateful thoughts lead to hateful words which then lead to hateful actions...you can't stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place, and that's the unfortunate environment we're in."
Of course, MSNBC fired him right after saying this, because god forbid we acknowledge the role Kirk's hate played in his own undoing.
The entire gimmick, if that’s the right word, of the RW ecosystem is they’re supposed to be able to say the most inciting bullshit for the grift and clout but are supposed to also live free of its consequences, because reasons.
While my priors in cases like this is always “weirdo loner with incoherent politics” I’m honestly surprised it took this long for somebody to possibly take what Kirk, Tim Pool and others spew seriously and decide to act first
I feel sorry for the kids, but his wife -- hell no. She knew EXACTLY who he was, married him and had two kids with him. She didn't condemn anything that he said while he was alive.
My take on feeling bad for his family is that I feel bad for his kids who will now have to join the ranks of children across this country who have lost a parent to gun violence -- a reality that Kirk himself supported
I really don't know anything about her except that she was married to him, but spouses don't usually publicly condemn each other while remaining married. Look, I'm not crying over this, but it's not a positive thing.
I agree. I don't mourn Kirk's death. Especially when he said in the aftermath of the 2023 Nashville Shooting "It's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment."
I wish more of the media was reporting on Charlie Kirk's reaction to the assassination attempt against Pelosi, in which her husband was severely injured.
He was callous and cruel in his comments, and he suggested raising money to help the assassin post bail.
I don't wish violence on anyone, and I do feel very sorry for his kids, who witnessed his death. But I have a tough time offering empathy for someone who refused to offer basic kindness--let alone empathy--to anyone who had a different political viewpoint than him. And he famously called empathy a "sin."
Kirk actually hated empathy! He once said "I can't stand the word empathy, actually, I think empathy is a made up, New Age term that does a lot of damage”
Empathy is healing. Empathy is natural. Empathy is life changing.
I went to a book event last night where the author talked about creating empathy for characters and using real life stories as inspiration for her writing. Ironic considering that was everything Kirk stood against.
Is this really what we're becoming? Mourning isn't some transactional or reciprocal norm that we engage in unless the other side mirrors our behavior. A lot of us find Trump so deeply threatening to the republic specifically because he acts in the way you've advocated for in this post. Yes, Charlie Kirk mocked Paul Pelosi after he was nearly killed and said a variety of other things that were vile during his career. That doesn't change the fact that he was assassinated yesterday. When an American political figure is killed for their political beliefs, that is a tragedy for the country. Either we believe in this experiment or we don't, that's true for both Melissa Hortman and Charlie Kirk. That it's unreciprocated shouldn't rob you of your humanity or your commitment to making this country's political system work.
We don't know that he was killed for his political beliefs. The identity and motives of the gunman are still unknown. We can show empathy to his family but at the same time we shouldn't lionize or prop him up as something that he was not. He didn't deserve to be killed in this manner but neither did the countless other victims of gun violence either.
Based on the picture the FBi released of their chief suspect my suspicion of “weirdo loner in his mid 20s” suggests it probably was “political” but not political, if you follow
It's a bit offensive to me for people who didn't personally know him to mourn him. By analogy, I wouldn't support an assassination of David Duke and would certainly regret if someone murdered him, but I certainly will not mourn whenever or however he dies. These kinds of folks are not respectable political opponents: they are violent enemies who work to destroy us. We should never incite or seem to incite violence against them, but we are fools if we mourn unrepentant mortal enemies.
Yes I find every story about a 31 year old dying prematurely to be very sad. I don't hear about the vast majority of them, but I would pray for the person and feel sadness if I knew about their passing.
‘Psyop’: How Far-Right Conspiracy Theories About the Minnesota Shooting Evolved to Protect MAGA
Influencers like Alex Jones and Elon Musk have spent the weekend blaming the murder of Democratic lawmaker Melissa Hortman on leftists and the deep state.
Whether the results in Nassau County--which I think may see some snapback from the 2021-24 GOP surge, but not necessarily what we'd like--here's some hopeful polling signs from Bucks County, a closely divided county in a key swing state.
Isn't there a DA race going on there at some point in the future? I know the County Solicitor Joe Khan is running as a Dem, and he has support from some progressives. If I recall correctly, the incumbent is a Republican.
Both DA and sheriff are up this November. From the article (which you might not have gotten to read most of due to paywalling):
"The survey also found that Joe Khan, the Democratic nominee for D.A. in Bucks County, led Republican incumbent Jennifer Schorn in the survey 49 percent-43 percent with 8 percent of likely voters undecided. Danny Ceisler, the Democratic contender for sheriff, was likewise ahead of GOP incumbent Fred Harran 48 percent to 43 percent with 9 percent undecided."
Ironically, while the US House is probably what's most competitive nationally, Bucks and Nassau may not be bellwethers of any blue trend. Bucks has Brian Fitzpatrick, who while not invulnerable does have a record of relatively moderate votes and running well ahead of his party. And since 2022 we've already flipped two Nassau congressional seats blue, though that owed much to GOP self-owns (cough...George Santos...cough)
"though that owed much to GOP self-owns (cough...George Santos...cough)"
Don't forget Anthony D'Esposito putting a woman he had an affair with on his congressional payroll. He was already vulnerable, and that likely sealed the deal.
Anyway, good news about Bucks County. Hopefully the start of a turnaround in PA -- I'd heard the leadership of the state party under Sharif Street was a disaster, or at least Politico claimed as such:
So far at least four Democratic governors have done this. For someone who said gays should be stoned to death and said that the Civil Rights Act was a huge mistake. Not to mention that he was an insignificant pipsqueak.
While I get the inclination to be respectful of someone who was unjustifiably killed, however much we disagreed with him, a Democratic governor lowering the flag to half staff seems a bit much. (JB Pritzker isn't doing that to my knowledge, and Kirk was from his state.)
Charlie Kirk was never an elected or appointed official, and probably wasn't even that well known to the public. You think that even a moderate or blue state Republican governor would have done that for a murdered progressive activist who never held any office, however well known or respected they might have been in political circles?
Agree it's a bit much. Shapiro I kind of get because he's doing this more as a call to put an end to political violence but since today is 9/11, the flags were already ordered to be lowered at half-staff. But it's being extended to Sunday. https://www.phillymag.com/news/2025/09/11/charlie-kirk-flags-half-staff/
It turns out that Shapiro was already planning on ordering all flags to fly at half-staff — for Thursday only — in remembrance of 9/11.
On Thursday morning, the office of Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker issued the following statement:
All flags on city buildings will immediately go to half-staff today, to honor the victims of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
Additionally, per the directive of Governor Shapiro, all U.S. and Commonwealth flags will remain at half-staff until Sunset on Sunday, as a mark of respect for Charlie Kirk.
I get the disappointment with Democratic Governors for sure and I think this is just them trying to be the adults here but Kirk doesn't need to be a reason to keep them half-staff for longer than a day.
I'd be surprised if all Democratic Governors don't end up doing it. Conservative media is going to milk this for all its worth and spend weeks publicly shaming noncompliant actors from keeping their flags at full staff. It will be politically untenable not to go along with the charade.
If he was actually a citizen of the state I could almost kind of understand, but this is really fucking stupid and will score 0 bonus points or votes from MAGA GOP. All it shows is once again Democrats are showing deference to what Republicans believe and want. That we’re weak and will say “yes” to the right wing whenever they bark.
It pisses off our base and legitimizes the conservative media echo chamber labeling him a martyr instead of factually stating he was the architect of his own demise from spewing such hate and vitriol. Sickening and though it won’t matter at all come 2026, any Governor who does this will not get my support in 2028. We don’t give 1 inch to the right wing, that is the mindset we need from our party elected officials to county chairs.
If we can’t do that given all that’s gone on over this last 10 years we may as well just pack up, close shop and create a new party that will vociferously oppose every single thing the GOP does/supports/thinks because that is what’s needed right now in this time of American crisis and chaos.
If you’re not on board with that, there’s the door. Democrats keep treating their opponents with kid gloves as the opposition they disagree with instead of the fascist authoritarian dictatorship disguised as a party that they truly are. That’s why there’s no urgency from our leaders and they always defer to the other party on almost everything.
The GOP didn’t even do this when actual elected members of office were murdered, so why in the fuck are we doing so for an unelected bigot who reaped what he sowed? It just makes the story bigger and justifies the right wing freak out playing entirely into their hands because it’s now “bipartisan”. We fall for this and do the same thing every freaking time and it makes me angry that our party can’t figure something this obvious out.
I don't think it's really so much about Democrats scoring points with MAGA, though there are crossover voters who voted for Trump but voted for a Democrat for Congress or Governor. I think it's just the fixation on wanting to be the adults and bigger and better than the other side. It's the "they go low, we go high" mentality but this is too much. I also think that they get that Kirk has been able to indoctrinate young white males which has been a group they need to win back to a degree. I also get with Shapiro that my home state has had quite a few incidents of politically motivated violence like Trump's attempted shooting last year and someone trying to set the PA Governor's mansion on fire over Hamas. So a mixture of the timing and the intent with the flags lowered since it's 9/11 is just their way or trying to respond to anyone like Fox News trying to scream about how Democrats aren't speaking out against political violence. That's my thoughts on this.
In terms of 2028, it's a long while away and I don't think even this will be enough to sink anyone's candidacy. It's usually a mixture of factors any way.
The Shapiro arson attacker was schizophrenic, posted anti both sides libertarian memes before 2020, believed Shapiro was killing his friends as well as the Palestinians, voted for Trump and tried to convince his entire family to vote for Trump. I don't think his politics can be pinned down.
Who's the other one? I know the other was Polis. But this shit is so weak. You can empathize with the guy's family and extend your condolences but this shit is making him out to be bigger than he actually was. I'm so disappointed.
I think a big factor was how public a spectacle it all was. Did people respond similarly when Budd Dwyer killed himself during a live, filmed press conference back in 1987?
He shouldn't have gotten killed but lowering flags down for what was essentially an online troll who trafficked in cruelty is beyond the pale. They should hang their heads in shame.
JB Pritzker didn't and he shouldn't. He's said horrible things about Jews among other groups too, including the "Jews own everything" and are "replacing whites". It's shameful that Shapiro, Polis and Newsom (partly Jewish) are doing this performative drama.
Every time he opens his mouth I cringe, I’ve yet to see a single quote from him that I’ve approved in any media pieces, so with that in mind, when is the earliest Jay Jacobs can finally be tossed as Democratic state party chair in New York? I think he got re-elected recently unfortunately, but I’m unsure how long terms are in the state or if there’s any ability to recall him early.
I’m tired of him attacking the party, its members on the left and attacking the recent finding of a backbone by the party regarding redistricting. What exactly is he doing to help our party elect more Democrats? Because I haven’t seen one thing yet. Maybe it’s all behind the scenes, but state party chair is supposed to be a cheerleader like Wikler and Clayton have been.
I hope sooner than later he will no longer have the job he feels he’s entitled to while doing very little publicly to help us on literally anything.
I still remember when Jacobs gave the maximum allowed donation to George Latimer during the Bowman-Latimer primary showdown. Whatever you think of Bowman, giving money to a candidate in a contested primary as the chair of that party's state affiliate is, in my opinion, blatantly unethical and counterproductive.
Or how about when he compared backing the legitimate Buffalo mayoral primary winner in 2021, India Walton, to backing David Duke of the KKK? Even if you didn't like Walton, that was also blatantly inappropriate, particularly since Walton was a black woman. Not to mention him taking stances on highly contentious issues with intra-party ramifications such as bail reform that he really should shut up on. Even if you're against bail reform, party chairs should not be taking stances on issues like that. Leave that to the candidates.
This guy is in charge of the Dems in a state that simultaneously includes Zohran Mamdani and AOC with Elise Stefanik and Bruce Blakeman. You'd think he'd be a little more careful with interfering in internal ideological divides. (Or maybe not, since he was installed by Cuomo. I distinctly remember AOC alleging much of NY's Dem party leadership were either Cuomo loyalists or lobbyists.) To say nothing of him and the rest of the NY Dems blowing 2022 and losing five winnable House seats, numerous state legislative seats, Nassau County's entire leadership (where Jacobs literally started as the Dem chair from), etc. It took Hochul getting more involved to reverse some of our fortunes in 2024, and we're still recovering.
We need new leadership. Not even progressive leadership per se, just competent leadership. Like a Wikler or Clayton. Someone who gives a single shit about winning and won't intervene in contentious intra-party primaries. (Let the voters decide that one, I'm sick of this idea that the party has to protect voters from themselves, it's blatantly condescending and anti-democratic.) Jacobs does not cut it, and needs to go.
I'm pretty much convinced Jacobs has been the one urging other Democratic leaders like Jeffries, Schumer and Hochul from not publicly endorsing him. I still think all three of them should endorse him but Mamdani isn't sweating it when it comes to their endorsements. But I also think that at least for Jeffries and other congressional NY Dems, there's still the DSA primary threats. No doubt that's been a part of Jeffries' conversation with Mamdani and why he might be closer to an actual endorsement. Schumer recently had another conversation with him this week.
That wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest regarding Jacobs. But there’s also a simple solution for these Democrats to avoid a primary or win a contested primary: shift towards what our base wants. They’re in safe blue seats, moving left doesn’t mean a Republican will take the seat. It’s such an obvious solution that they’re so far refusing to do.
I have way more leeway for the Democrats in swing or Trump districts, say whatever you need to win re-election, but there’s literally no level of “too far left” that can make these seats vulnerable. If you’re not willing to move towards what our voters want then maybe you aren’t actually properly representing your constituents well and do need to be replaced with someone who does.
In terms of Schumer, especially, but also Jeffries, being just plain more effective and taking a harder line against Trump and his collaborators would matter. But you're being hyperbolic when saying "there’s literally no level of 'too far left' that can make these seats vulnerable". I don't think a Trotskyite could win a NY Senate seat.
I think it depends on your definition of too far left. I don’t think there’s any left position on any issue that would cause a Democrat to lose New York. I do however think a lunatic or someone extremely controversial could do so, but I don’t think that’s correlated directly with left policy, rather than just being a political nutjob.
If you don’t view candidates of that ilk as separate from policy (we’ve had crazy people from left to right run for our party nominations before at every level of government), then I completely understand your position. Speaking for myself only, I view crazy as crazy and they come from all areas along our party’s political spectrum coalition.
I had a colleague at one of the CUNY community colleges where I used to teach who was actually a Stalinist! He was (is, as I certainly hope he's alive!) a very nice man and seemed to be an excellent teacher who didn't introduce his politics into his instruction, so he was by no means crazy even though his politics were absurd.
Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Representative Pat Ryan of New York offered Mr. Mamdani, a state assemblyman and democratic socialist, their formal endorsement. Rahm Emanuel, the former mayor of Chicago, and Representative Ritchie Torres, two moderate Democrats with close ties to the Jewish leaders who are skeptical of Mr. Mamdani, praised his potential to effectively lead the city.
Top Democrats have treaded cautiously for months after Mr. Mamdani’s decisive primary victory in June over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, waiting weeks to even meet with their party’s nominee. The New York Democrats who have so far declined to endorse his bid are notable in their absence from his camp: Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the House Democratic leader; Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader; Senator Kirsten Gillibrand; and Gov. Kathy Hochul.
Now, publicly and privately, Democrats across the ideological spectrum are arguing that it is important for their leaders to forcefully reject Mr. Trump’s apparent interest in tipping the race toward Mr. Cuomo, who is running as an independent.
They barely know him. How can they possibly endorse him? They've only had a handful of meetings with him and it's not like he's the party nominee or anything.
Said Democratic Establishment in New York deserves Zohran Mamdani because they were content with letting Andrew Cuomo waltz back into elected politics instead of taking Tish James' advice to throw their support behind Adrienne Adams in the primary.
When it's Rahm Emanuel who is giving praise to Zohran Mamdani's potential to lead the city, that's a significant breakthrough.
Considering AOC herself is a Democratic Socialist like Mamdani and represents the House in part of NYC, endorsing Mamdani for Mayor shouldn't be that difficult.
But it apparently is with the NY State Democratic Party establishment.
Somewhat, yes. And I fucked it up - Morgan is the Congressman. He and his twin brother Marcus of “Lone Survivor” fame are active philanthropists for a lot of NAVY SEAL causes
It's hard to make the level of changes they've made to eliminate 5 dem seats without also touching most if not every seat in the state. That said it's going to be ruby red still. As I understand it Texas republicans didn't make a potential dummymander, the worst case scenario for them (best case for us) is that they pick up fewer seats than they intended to, not that they lose seats in net.
Continuing a tradition that seems to go back to when Chris Christie was running for re-election back in 2013, more NJ "Democrats" (I'm sorry, Democrats in name-only) have decided to endorse GOP Nominee Jack Ciattarelli for Governor.
Garfield, NJ Mayor Everett E. Garntore, Jr has not just endorsed Ciattarelli but also changed his party registration as a Republican. The others, Dover Mayor James P. Dodd, Garfield Deputy Mayor Tana Raymond, and former Assemblymember and Roselle Mayor Jamel Holley, also have endorsed Ciattarelli but remain as Democrats.
In New Jersey specifically there’s a chunk of conservative Democrats who get elected to office, usually because of a contested primary with multiple candidates splitting the real Democratic vote, but not always. In fact, I think it’s one of the only states left in the nation that has that faction in our party that can still win Dem primaries.
The rest of the states where this used to be the case have all switched and morphed into Republicans and it’s probably inevitable New Jersey will follow eventually. I’m kind of surprised it hasn’t happened yet honestly. Hopefully primary voters will show these Democrats endorsing Ciattarelli the door the next chance they get.
That said, I think mayors of small towns endorsing is a nothing burger. That happens all the time in both directions in every election. It would be a far greater get for Ciattrelli if he actually got sitting legislative representatives. That would indicate some crossover appeal.
That even the most conservative of Democrats haven’t done so to my knowledge is extremely telling. Democratic voters (even conservative ones) will tolerate a lot of policy transgressions from Democrats (especially that faction), but party transgressions are a bridge too far even for them, especially with someone like Sherrill as our nominee.
What you’re describing seems to me something that is a problem with NJ and how it has evolved as a state, not just with the faction of conservative Democrats as you have described.
On the other hand, we have Senators Andy Kim and Cory Booker representing NJ as opposed to the history with previous Senators. Both Booker and Kim are as far apart ideologically from the conservative Democrats as any Democrat can be in the state, especially considering the infamous Bob Menendez is now out of office.
It's ludicrous to say he's a conservative. Compared to whom? And on Wall Street, remember that some of it is actually in Jersey City, and many people from New Jersey work in Manhattan's Financial District, so he's representing a local industry. I'm not saying that's best for the country, but it's hardly weird politics. I'm not sure how many pharmaceutical companies are in New Jersey.
Look at On the Issues and examine where Booker is. Although I disagree with the site saying he’s a hard core liberal, there are plenty of issues that makes him not a conservative Democrat.
Booker’s:
1) 100% pro choice
2) A vegan, pro animal rights
3) Pro environment and even receptive to the principles of a Green New Deal
4) Has argued for free community college
5) Pro criminal justice reform
6) Pro labor and against the fast track for the TPP
7) Pro gun control and for an assault weapons ban, which btw the late Senator Dianne Feinstein had a long history in fighting for
8) Pro Medicare-For-All
9) Against raising the retirement age
Based on what you’ve cited, it’s fair to argue Booker is more conservative than liberal Democrats like Senators Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren as well as Katie Porter. But his voting record otherwise doesn’t make him a conservative.
That's not how politics works, least of all in the U.S. today. The most crucial difference is between supporting and opposing dictatorship here. You can be a single-issue voter on something else, but that in no way makes everyone who differs from you on that one issue a conservative.
I am not arguing Booker is a Bernie, Warren or even Porter type of liberal Democrat who has a large following of liberals and like-minded people.
Booker is by contrast more moderate than them so we’re not expecting him to go further in his agenda to the left of what he’s done in the past. However, from the standpoint of being far as possible from a NJ conservative “Democrat,” my argument relates to how he’s always been a reliable vote for the Democratic Party agenda, hasn’t done much to piss the party off in this sense and has not pulled a Jeff Van Drew or even endorsed a leading statewide Republican. He did at one point partner with Senator Rand Paul on criminal Justice reform but that’s what we should expect all Democrats to do if it means to ensure issues can in fact be addressed in a bipartisan way (not necessarily being bipartisan as a way to weaken the agenda of Democrats).
On a side note, for a few years Booker was in a relationship with actress Rosario Dawson who is extremely to the left and a staunch Bernie supporter even back in 2012 when she endorsed his re-election bid (and against Bush and the Iraq War from the get go). Funny enough, Dawson endorsed Booker’s 2020 presidential campaign but then after he dropped out, she went all in for Bernie.
Maybe Booker was just fortunate but there must have been something Dawson found appealing about him at one point. Do you think she’d find any NJ conservative Democrat even remotely interesting and would want to date that man? I think not! ;)
I can't comment on Holley or any NJ Democratic politician serving a small town or elsewhere in the state. However, if this is the case, wow, it certainly indicates the degree which these conservative Democrats NJ have no real appeal statewide.
Former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro was convicted by a Supreme Court majority on Thursday of plotting a coup to remain in power after losing the 2022 election
For a country that was actually under a military dictatorship during my lifetime, they are much better at preserving multi-party democracy than the U.S.
Hopefully, McKinney remains the only one in the race to take on Thanedar.
Only way Shri wins is with a multi-candidate primary. Not too common in Detroit but hopefully the electeds in the city have figured that out (and Hollier switching to SoS gives a positive sign in that direction).
Ad spending by outside groups gets mentioned a lot. What about contributions to county and local Democratic Party organizations or paid canvassing and voter registration campaigns? Would those contributions show up publicly as TV ad buys do?
Keir Starmer has sacked Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US over his association with Jeffrey Epstein.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/11/keir-starmer-sacks-peter-mandelson-over-jeffrey-epstein-revelations?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Now Labour needs to sack Starmer - what a total incompetent and useless PM he has quickly become.
The only consistent theme of Keir Starmer's Labour government has been stepping over rake after rake.
If only. Methinks PM Starmer is stepping on the rakes – each time triggering a serious detrimental reaction.
It's amazing how ever since Cameron's completely unforced error of Brexit, there have been so many laughably unsuccessful PMs. I'd suggest that's no accident.
I’m very curious: to what would you ascribe this?
Brexit seriously damaged the UK's economy and limited their options. In addition, it was caused by xenophobia, which also continues to cause problems, but I think it's the economic damage that's mainly causing the PM/Cabinet dysfunction.
Nice analysis! And surely Liz Truss holds the record for causing maximum economic damage, which Brits are still feeling – and this despite Truss being more short-lived than a head of lettuce.
Adding to your observations: the xenophobia/problems cycle is self-reinforcing. As things get worse people will often turn even more strongly towards xenophobia.
Earlier today I wondered to myself: if Starmer was deliberately trying to ruin Labour's standing with the public, would he be doing anything differently? I'm not particularly plugged into UK politics, but from everything I've seen his actions seem almost tailor made to ruin his party.
I don't actually think he's doing that with deliberate intent, but the extent of incompetence and stubborn refusal to recalibrate is incredible.
There's a liberal-conservative progressive hating guy called Morgan McSweeney who's he his no 1. confidante and the UK equivalent of Rahm Emanuel. Remember 2010?
Has anybody discussed the prospect of Trump using tariff revenue to give people rebate checks next fall right before the election? With his name on the checks just like in 2020 of course. And if so, what kind of impact do you think it might have on voters? I wouldn't underestimate it.
Yeah, I've been expecting something like this for awhile. It'll be interesting if they do it. I imagine the timing and the size of the rebates, should it actually happen, will be vitally important. Too early or too small and it looks out of touch or gets forgotten. But it's very clear from his gerrymandering push that he will do literally anything he can to keep the House.
They're not going to do it. Bessent said that if the tariffs were knocked down by SCOTUS, people would likely get 50% of it back.
If voter opinion remains about where it is now--which we don't know that it will--and certainly if it shifts in an even bluer direction, then that's probably not enough to really turn things around.
Voters angry about raising the costs of everything while programs are being cut aren't going to be entirely mollified by "here's a little of it back", especially if it looks blatantly political. The stimulus checks were in response to a true emergency situation--Trump and the GOP doing poorly in polls is not that--and COVID happened after a period when voters viewed the economy, and Trump's management of it, much more favourably than they do now--even if we on here don't think that view was ever justified.
They coming before or after those rebates that Musk BSed about?
Little impact at best.
Gavin Newsom ordered a similar rebate back in 2022 for high gas prices, the year he ran for re-election and having defeated the recall the previous year. It really didn’t change anything in the outcome of his re-election chances as he got elected by 19+% points, not far off from the recall election margin the NO votes beat the YES votes.
Also, in 2008 President Bush launched an economic stimulus program months before the giant stock market crash. Polls were not moved from what I remember.
If the economy keeps getting weaker it won't matter much: Bush's checks did nothing to help him.
That needs legislation, doesn't it? If he can do it unilaterally I assume he'd at least try, but I don't think he can. It's certainly something that could happen but I'm not sure it would do enough to change the overall outcome. Still, enough small things can and do add up.
With this Supreme Court, I think he can.
If Republicans are serious about their desire to reduce political violence, they will cease referring to their candidates as "MAGA warriors."
They aren't.
It’s like “free speech.” They want to be able to say whatever they want without consequence. While suppressing speech they don’t agree with.
Exactly the same with "freedom of religion".
Also if Trump were serious about it at all, he would give John Bolton, Kamala Harris, etc their Secret Service protection back.
That was the first thing I thought of too. Since "it's war", he's more likely to test the courts and try to take away Secret Service protection for Clinton, Obama, and Biden.
I wish I could feel sorry for what happened to Charlie Kirk yesterday, but I can't. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy and I will defend their right to exercise the First Amendment, but I'm not sending my condolences to his family.
Where was the GOP sympathy when Melissa Hortman, her husband and their dog were gunned down in June? TACO and the RW media apparatus quickly coalesced after Kirk died, but zilch in regard to Hortman. And we all know why.
For those MAGA people out there, spare me your thoughts and prayers for Kirk and silence on Melissa Hortman. I don't care if Congress has to pass a gun control law with Kirk's name on it, I want a PERMANENT assault weapons ban.
I came across a tweet yesterday from Still We Rise that sums up my feelings pretty well:
"I don't want anyone to get shot, even those I vehemently disagree with.
I want guns out of the hands of people who will use them to kill people"
Matthew Dowd put it succinctly: "hateful thoughts lead to hateful words which then lead to hateful actions...you can't stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place, and that's the unfortunate environment we're in."
Of course, MSNBC fired him right after saying this, because god forbid we acknowledge the role Kirk's hate played in his own undoing.
Fox would have given him his own show if he had said that about someone on the left.
The entire gimmick, if that’s the right word, of the RW ecosystem is they’re supposed to be able to say the most inciting bullshit for the grift and clout but are supposed to also live free of its consequences, because reasons.
While my priors in cases like this is always “weirdo loner with incoherent politics” I’m honestly surprised it took this long for somebody to possibly take what Kirk, Tim Pool and others spew seriously and decide to act first
Reactionaries and accountability are just as compatible as oil and water
While those who disagree with them should be suppressed, canceled or worse.
Sounds like Matthew Dowd is a helluva lot more sensible and palatable than Maureen Dowd.
He's one of the better NeverTrumpers (I find some of them VERY obnoxious, but Dowd rarely if ever fell in that category).
I don't feel much, but I certainly don't support the assassination and I keep in mind that he had a family.
I feel sorry for the kids, but his wife -- hell no. She knew EXACTLY who he was, married him and had two kids with him. She didn't condemn anything that he said while he was alive.
My take on feeling bad for his family is that I feel bad for his kids who will now have to join the ranks of children across this country who have lost a parent to gun violence -- a reality that Kirk himself supported
I really don't know anything about her except that she was married to him, but spouses don't usually publicly condemn each other while remaining married. Look, I'm not crying over this, but it's not a positive thing.
I agree. I don't mourn Kirk's death. Especially when he said in the aftermath of the 2023 Nashville Shooting "It's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment."
I wish more of the media was reporting on Charlie Kirk's reaction to the assassination attempt against Pelosi, in which her husband was severely injured.
He was callous and cruel in his comments, and he suggested raising money to help the assassin post bail.
I don't wish violence on anyone, and I do feel very sorry for his kids, who witnessed his death. But I have a tough time offering empathy for someone who refused to offer basic kindness--let alone empathy--to anyone who had a different political viewpoint than him. And he famously called empathy a "sin."
Kirk actually hated empathy! He once said "I can't stand the word empathy, actually, I think empathy is a made up, New Age term that does a lot of damage”
Empathy is healing. Empathy is natural. Empathy is life changing.
I went to a book event last night where the author talked about creating empathy for characters and using real life stories as inspiration for her writing. Ironic considering that was everything Kirk stood against.
A person without empathy is a psychopath.
Is this really what we're becoming? Mourning isn't some transactional or reciprocal norm that we engage in unless the other side mirrors our behavior. A lot of us find Trump so deeply threatening to the republic specifically because he acts in the way you've advocated for in this post. Yes, Charlie Kirk mocked Paul Pelosi after he was nearly killed and said a variety of other things that were vile during his career. That doesn't change the fact that he was assassinated yesterday. When an American political figure is killed for their political beliefs, that is a tragedy for the country. Either we believe in this experiment or we don't, that's true for both Melissa Hortman and Charlie Kirk. That it's unreciprocated shouldn't rob you of your humanity or your commitment to making this country's political system work.
We don't know that he was killed for his political beliefs. The identity and motives of the gunman are still unknown. We can show empathy to his family but at the same time we shouldn't lionize or prop him up as something that he was not. He didn't deserve to be killed in this manner but neither did the countless other victims of gun violence either.
Based on the picture the FBi released of their chief suspect my suspicion of “weirdo loner in his mid 20s” suggests it probably was “political” but not political, if you follow
I'm sure it'll be like every other domestic terrorist over the last 30 years.
These things aren't mutually exclusive. And mourning doesn't require lionizing him or propping him up.
Why do we need to mourn someone who would celebrate our deaths? I condemn the murder and am against all violence but would not mourn him.
It's a bit offensive to me for people who didn't personally know him to mourn him. By analogy, I wouldn't support an assassination of David Duke and would certainly regret if someone murdered him, but I certainly will not mourn whenever or however he dies. These kinds of folks are not respectable political opponents: they are violent enemies who work to destroy us. We should never incite or seem to incite violence against them, but we are fools if we mourn unrepentant mortal enemies.
Do you mourn everyone who is killed every day?
Yes I find every story about a 31 year old dying prematurely to be very sad. I don't hear about the vast majority of them, but I would pray for the person and feel sadness if I knew about their passing.
Is sadness the same as mourning?
https://www.wired.com/story/psyop-far-right-conspiracy-theories-minnesota-shooting/
‘Psyop’: How Far-Right Conspiracy Theories About the Minnesota Shooting Evolved to Protect MAGA
Influencers like Alex Jones and Elon Musk have spent the weekend blaming the murder of Democratic lawmaker Melissa Hortman on leftists and the deep state.
From the digest: "Bailey joins DuPage County Sheriff James Mendrick and Ted Dabrowski..."
I couldn't help saying "James Shmendrick" silently in my head.
Whether the results in Nassau County--which I think may see some snapback from the 2021-24 GOP surge, but not necessarily what we'd like--here's some hopeful polling signs from Bucks County, a closely divided county in a key swing state.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/11/bucks-county-poll-trump-favorability-00556393
Isn't there a DA race going on there at some point in the future? I know the County Solicitor Joe Khan is running as a Dem, and he has support from some progressives. If I recall correctly, the incumbent is a Republican.
Both DA and sheriff are up this November. From the article (which you might not have gotten to read most of due to paywalling):
"The survey also found that Joe Khan, the Democratic nominee for D.A. in Bucks County, led Republican incumbent Jennifer Schorn in the survey 49 percent-43 percent with 8 percent of likely voters undecided. Danny Ceisler, the Democratic contender for sheriff, was likewise ahead of GOP incumbent Fred Harran 48 percent to 43 percent with 9 percent undecided."
Ironically, while the US House is probably what's most competitive nationally, Bucks and Nassau may not be bellwethers of any blue trend. Bucks has Brian Fitzpatrick, who while not invulnerable does have a record of relatively moderate votes and running well ahead of his party. And since 2022 we've already flipped two Nassau congressional seats blue, though that owed much to GOP self-owns (cough...George Santos...cough)
"though that owed much to GOP self-owns (cough...George Santos...cough)"
Don't forget Anthony D'Esposito putting a woman he had an affair with on his congressional payroll. He was already vulnerable, and that likely sealed the deal.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/23/nyregion/anthony-desposito-affair-congress.html
Anyway, good news about Bucks County. Hopefully the start of a turnaround in PA -- I'd heard the leadership of the state party under Sharif Street was a disaster, or at least Politico claimed as such:
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/01/pennsylvania-democratic-party-trouble-00113705
With new leadership under Eugene DePasquale, hopefully we can turn that around.
So far at least four Democratic governors have done this. For someone who said gays should be stoned to death and said that the Civil Rights Act was a huge mistake. Not to mention that he was an insignificant pipsqueak.
https://bsky.app/profile/lowrhoufo.bsky.social/post/3lyjruy4yqc23
While I get the inclination to be respectful of someone who was unjustifiably killed, however much we disagreed with him, a Democratic governor lowering the flag to half staff seems a bit much. (JB Pritzker isn't doing that to my knowledge, and Kirk was from his state.)
Charlie Kirk was never an elected or appointed official, and probably wasn't even that well known to the public. You think that even a moderate or blue state Republican governor would have done that for a murdered progressive activist who never held any office, however well known or respected they might have been in political circles?
Agree it's a bit much. Shapiro I kind of get because he's doing this more as a call to put an end to political violence but since today is 9/11, the flags were already ordered to be lowered at half-staff. But it's being extended to Sunday. https://www.phillymag.com/news/2025/09/11/charlie-kirk-flags-half-staff/
It turns out that Shapiro was already planning on ordering all flags to fly at half-staff — for Thursday only — in remembrance of 9/11.
On Thursday morning, the office of Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker issued the following statement:
All flags on city buildings will immediately go to half-staff today, to honor the victims of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
Additionally, per the directive of Governor Shapiro, all U.S. and Commonwealth flags will remain at half-staff until Sunset on Sunday, as a mark of respect for Charlie Kirk.
I get the disappointment with Democratic Governors for sure and I think this is just them trying to be the adults here but Kirk doesn't need to be a reason to keep them half-staff for longer than a day.
I'd be surprised if all Democratic Governors don't end up doing it. Conservative media is going to milk this for all its worth and spend weeks publicly shaming noncompliant actors from keeping their flags at full staff. It will be politically untenable not to go along with the charade.
I don't know, I think 'did you put yours at half staff for Melissa Hortman?' would put an end to it.
This attitude is why we lose.
Absolutely pathetic.
If he was actually a citizen of the state I could almost kind of understand, but this is really fucking stupid and will score 0 bonus points or votes from MAGA GOP. All it shows is once again Democrats are showing deference to what Republicans believe and want. That we’re weak and will say “yes” to the right wing whenever they bark.
It pisses off our base and legitimizes the conservative media echo chamber labeling him a martyr instead of factually stating he was the architect of his own demise from spewing such hate and vitriol. Sickening and though it won’t matter at all come 2026, any Governor who does this will not get my support in 2028. We don’t give 1 inch to the right wing, that is the mindset we need from our party elected officials to county chairs.
If we can’t do that given all that’s gone on over this last 10 years we may as well just pack up, close shop and create a new party that will vociferously oppose every single thing the GOP does/supports/thinks because that is what’s needed right now in this time of American crisis and chaos.
If you’re not on board with that, there’s the door. Democrats keep treating their opponents with kid gloves as the opposition they disagree with instead of the fascist authoritarian dictatorship disguised as a party that they truly are. That’s why there’s no urgency from our leaders and they always defer to the other party on almost everything.
The GOP didn’t even do this when actual elected members of office were murdered, so why in the fuck are we doing so for an unelected bigot who reaped what he sowed? It just makes the story bigger and justifies the right wing freak out playing entirely into their hands because it’s now “bipartisan”. We fall for this and do the same thing every freaking time and it makes me angry that our party can’t figure something this obvious out.
I don't think it's really so much about Democrats scoring points with MAGA, though there are crossover voters who voted for Trump but voted for a Democrat for Congress or Governor. I think it's just the fixation on wanting to be the adults and bigger and better than the other side. It's the "they go low, we go high" mentality but this is too much. I also think that they get that Kirk has been able to indoctrinate young white males which has been a group they need to win back to a degree. I also get with Shapiro that my home state has had quite a few incidents of politically motivated violence like Trump's attempted shooting last year and someone trying to set the PA Governor's mansion on fire over Hamas. So a mixture of the timing and the intent with the flags lowered since it's 9/11 is just their way or trying to respond to anyone like Fox News trying to scream about how Democrats aren't speaking out against political violence. That's my thoughts on this.
In terms of 2028, it's a long while away and I don't think even this will be enough to sink anyone's candidacy. It's usually a mixture of factors any way.
The Shapiro arson attacker was schizophrenic, posted anti both sides libertarian memes before 2020, believed Shapiro was killing his friends as well as the Palestinians, voted for Trump and tried to convince his entire family to vote for Trump. I don't think his politics can be pinned down.
Otherwise good points.
We're putting flags at half staff for Nazis now? That's extremely offensive!
The flags were already being set at half-staff because it's 9/11 but Kirk shouldn't be lumped into that.
Shapiro, Newsom, Polis and who is the fourth?
Andy Beshear
Who's the other one? I know the other was Polis. But this shit is so weak. You can empathize with the guy's family and extend your condolences but this shit is making him out to be bigger than he actually was. I'm so disappointed.
The fourth was Andy Beshear (unless there are others I'm unaware of)
Someone in the Bluesky thread mentioned Whitmer.
Not only that, but Mark Carney and Keir Starmer put out condolence statements on X. Absolutely pathetic.
Why are they even weighing in?
To kiss Trump's ass?
Yeah, now that I think about it, it’s trying to score points through appeasement.
I think a big factor was how public a spectacle it all was. Did people respond similarly when Budd Dwyer killed himself during a live, filmed press conference back in 1987?
No. But of course there was no Internet then. And broadcast news wouldn’t show it. Nor CNN.
I had forgotten about that. They didn't. It was a suicide of someone found guilty of felonies, not an assassination.
1987 and 2025 are in two different worlds.
He shouldn't have gotten killed but lowering flags down for what was essentially an online troll who trafficked in cruelty is beyond the pale. They should hang their heads in shame.
Absolutely pathetic, none of them will get my primary vote.
JB Pritzker didn't and he shouldn't. He's said horrible things about Jews among other groups too, including the "Jews own everything" and are "replacing whites". It's shameful that Shapiro, Polis and Newsom (partly Jewish) are doing this performative drama.
Every time he opens his mouth I cringe, I’ve yet to see a single quote from him that I’ve approved in any media pieces, so with that in mind, when is the earliest Jay Jacobs can finally be tossed as Democratic state party chair in New York? I think he got re-elected recently unfortunately, but I’m unsure how long terms are in the state or if there’s any ability to recall him early.
I’m tired of him attacking the party, its members on the left and attacking the recent finding of a backbone by the party regarding redistricting. What exactly is he doing to help our party elect more Democrats? Because I haven’t seen one thing yet. Maybe it’s all behind the scenes, but state party chair is supposed to be a cheerleader like Wikler and Clayton have been.
I hope sooner than later he will no longer have the job he feels he’s entitled to while doing very little publicly to help us on literally anything.
I still remember when Jacobs gave the maximum allowed donation to George Latimer during the Bowman-Latimer primary showdown. Whatever you think of Bowman, giving money to a candidate in a contested primary as the chair of that party's state affiliate is, in my opinion, blatantly unethical and counterproductive.
Or how about when he compared backing the legitimate Buffalo mayoral primary winner in 2021, India Walton, to backing David Duke of the KKK? Even if you didn't like Walton, that was also blatantly inappropriate, particularly since Walton was a black woman. Not to mention him taking stances on highly contentious issues with intra-party ramifications such as bail reform that he really should shut up on. Even if you're against bail reform, party chairs should not be taking stances on issues like that. Leave that to the candidates.
This guy is in charge of the Dems in a state that simultaneously includes Zohran Mamdani and AOC with Elise Stefanik and Bruce Blakeman. You'd think he'd be a little more careful with interfering in internal ideological divides. (Or maybe not, since he was installed by Cuomo. I distinctly remember AOC alleging much of NY's Dem party leadership were either Cuomo loyalists or lobbyists.) To say nothing of him and the rest of the NY Dems blowing 2022 and losing five winnable House seats, numerous state legislative seats, Nassau County's entire leadership (where Jacobs literally started as the Dem chair from), etc. It took Hochul getting more involved to reverse some of our fortunes in 2024, and we're still recovering.
We need new leadership. Not even progressive leadership per se, just competent leadership. Like a Wikler or Clayton. Someone who gives a single shit about winning and won't intervene in contentious intra-party primaries. (Let the voters decide that one, I'm sick of this idea that the party has to protect voters from themselves, it's blatantly condescending and anti-democratic.) Jacobs does not cut it, and needs to go.
I'm pretty much convinced Jacobs has been the one urging other Democratic leaders like Jeffries, Schumer and Hochul from not publicly endorsing him. I still think all three of them should endorse him but Mamdani isn't sweating it when it comes to their endorsements. But I also think that at least for Jeffries and other congressional NY Dems, there's still the DSA primary threats. No doubt that's been a part of Jeffries' conversation with Mamdani and why he might be closer to an actual endorsement. Schumer recently had another conversation with him this week.
That wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest regarding Jacobs. But there’s also a simple solution for these Democrats to avoid a primary or win a contested primary: shift towards what our base wants. They’re in safe blue seats, moving left doesn’t mean a Republican will take the seat. It’s such an obvious solution that they’re so far refusing to do.
I have way more leeway for the Democrats in swing or Trump districts, say whatever you need to win re-election, but there’s literally no level of “too far left” that can make these seats vulnerable. If you’re not willing to move towards what our voters want then maybe you aren’t actually properly representing your constituents well and do need to be replaced with someone who does.
In terms of Schumer, especially, but also Jeffries, being just plain more effective and taking a harder line against Trump and his collaborators would matter. But you're being hyperbolic when saying "there’s literally no level of 'too far left' that can make these seats vulnerable". I don't think a Trotskyite could win a NY Senate seat.
I think it depends on your definition of too far left. I don’t think there’s any left position on any issue that would cause a Democrat to lose New York. I do however think a lunatic or someone extremely controversial could do so, but I don’t think that’s correlated directly with left policy, rather than just being a political nutjob.
If you don’t view candidates of that ilk as separate from policy (we’ve had crazy people from left to right run for our party nominations before at every level of government), then I completely understand your position. Speaking for myself only, I view crazy as crazy and they come from all areas along our party’s political spectrum coalition.
I had a colleague at one of the CUNY community colleges where I used to teach who was actually a Stalinist! He was (is, as I certainly hope he's alive!) a very nice man and seemed to be an excellent teacher who didn't introduce his politics into his instruction, so he was by no means crazy even though his politics were absurd.
Why would they be swayed by anything Jacobs says?
He's the state party chairman and he might be telling Jeffries, Schumer and Hochul that Mamdani would sink a lot of Democrats in New York.
He's a reverse Superman? Anyway, if they think that, I suppose they jumped to that conclusion without being persuaded by a dull-witted functionary.
David Axelrod said that top Dems were not endorsing due to "donors".
Rich people who favor a particular side in a conflict in the eastern Mediterranean, perhaps?
Personally, I believe it's a mix of class based and conflict based grievances.
NYC-Mayor, Mamdani gaining more national Democratic support: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/us/politics/zohran-mamdani-democrats-endorsements.html
Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Representative Pat Ryan of New York offered Mr. Mamdani, a state assemblyman and democratic socialist, their formal endorsement. Rahm Emanuel, the former mayor of Chicago, and Representative Ritchie Torres, two moderate Democrats with close ties to the Jewish leaders who are skeptical of Mr. Mamdani, praised his potential to effectively lead the city.
Top Democrats have treaded cautiously for months after Mr. Mamdani’s decisive primary victory in June over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, waiting weeks to even meet with their party’s nominee. The New York Democrats who have so far declined to endorse his bid are notable in their absence from his camp: Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the House Democratic leader; Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader; Senator Kirsten Gillibrand; and Gov. Kathy Hochul.
Now, publicly and privately, Democrats across the ideological spectrum are arguing that it is important for their leaders to forcefully reject Mr. Trump’s apparent interest in tipping the race toward Mr. Cuomo, who is running as an independent.
The continued silence of leaders of the Democratic Establishment in New York is deafening.
They barely know him. How can they possibly endorse him? They've only had a handful of meetings with him and it's not like he's the party nominee or anything.
Are you being sarcastic?
Very much so. Not directed at you.
Said Democratic Establishment in New York deserves Zohran Mamdani because they were content with letting Andrew Cuomo waltz back into elected politics instead of taking Tish James' advice to throw their support behind Adrienne Adams in the primary.
Hopefully this finally motivates them to shit or get off the pot.
When it's Rahm Emanuel who is giving praise to Zohran Mamdani's potential to lead the city, that's a significant breakthrough.
Considering AOC herself is a Democratic Socialist like Mamdani and represents the House in part of NYC, endorsing Mamdani for Mayor shouldn't be that difficult.
But it apparently is with the NY State Democratic Party establishment.
Ironically Mamdani getting Emanuel's support is a little concerning for me.
[chuckle]
TX-8: Marcus Luttrell not seeking a third term
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/09/11/congress/morgan-luttrell-texas-retire-00557843
If the descriptions in the article are accurate, he seems much more service-oriented and better than most Republican politicians.
Somewhat, yes. And I fucked it up - Morgan is the Congressman. He and his twin brother Marcus of “Lone Survivor” fame are active philanthropists for a lot of NAVY SEAL causes
Is his district going to be affected by the new gerrymandered map? currently it's R+16 per Cook.
It's hard to make the level of changes they've made to eliminate 5 dem seats without also touching most if not every seat in the state. That said it's going to be ruby red still. As I understand it Texas republicans didn't make a potential dummymander, the worst case scenario for them (best case for us) is that they pick up fewer seats than they intended to, not that they lose seats in net.
NJ-GOV Race:
Continuing a tradition that seems to go back to when Chris Christie was running for re-election back in 2013, more NJ "Democrats" (I'm sorry, Democrats in name-only) have decided to endorse GOP Nominee Jack Ciattarelli for Governor.
Garfield, NJ Mayor Everett E. Garntore, Jr has not just endorsed Ciattarelli but also changed his party registration as a Republican. The others, Dover Mayor James P. Dodd, Garfield Deputy Mayor Tana Raymond, and former Assemblymember and Roselle Mayor Jamel Holley, also have endorsed Ciattarelli but remain as Democrats.
This seems to really be a NJ thing.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/four-democrats-break-with-party-endorse-gop-candidate/ss-AA1MiDjh?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=LCTS&cvid=68c3144497ad4375a0121ae108bf4122&ei=18
In New Jersey specifically there’s a chunk of conservative Democrats who get elected to office, usually because of a contested primary with multiple candidates splitting the real Democratic vote, but not always. In fact, I think it’s one of the only states left in the nation that has that faction in our party that can still win Dem primaries.
The rest of the states where this used to be the case have all switched and morphed into Republicans and it’s probably inevitable New Jersey will follow eventually. I’m kind of surprised it hasn’t happened yet honestly. Hopefully primary voters will show these Democrats endorsing Ciattarelli the door the next chance they get.
That said, I think mayors of small towns endorsing is a nothing burger. That happens all the time in both directions in every election. It would be a far greater get for Ciattrelli if he actually got sitting legislative representatives. That would indicate some crossover appeal.
That even the most conservative of Democrats haven’t done so to my knowledge is extremely telling. Democratic voters (even conservative ones) will tolerate a lot of policy transgressions from Democrats (especially that faction), but party transgressions are a bridge too far even for them, especially with someone like Sherrill as our nominee.
What you’re describing seems to me something that is a problem with NJ and how it has evolved as a state, not just with the faction of conservative Democrats as you have described.
On the other hand, we have Senators Andy Kim and Cory Booker representing NJ as opposed to the history with previous Senators. Both Booker and Kim are as far apart ideologically from the conservative Democrats as any Democrat can be in the state, especially considering the infamous Bob Menendez is now out of office.
It's ludicrous to say he's a conservative. Compared to whom? And on Wall Street, remember that some of it is actually in Jersey City, and many people from New Jersey work in Manhattan's Financial District, so he's representing a local industry. I'm not saying that's best for the country, but it's hardly weird politics. I'm not sure how many pharmaceutical companies are in New Jersey.
Look at On the Issues and examine where Booker is. Although I disagree with the site saying he’s a hard core liberal, there are plenty of issues that makes him not a conservative Democrat.
Booker’s:
1) 100% pro choice
2) A vegan, pro animal rights
3) Pro environment and even receptive to the principles of a Green New Deal
4) Has argued for free community college
5) Pro criminal justice reform
6) Pro labor and against the fast track for the TPP
7) Pro gun control and for an assault weapons ban, which btw the late Senator Dianne Feinstein had a long history in fighting for
8) Pro Medicare-For-All
9) Against raising the retirement age
Based on what you’ve cited, it’s fair to argue Booker is more conservative than liberal Democrats like Senators Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren as well as Katie Porter. But his voting record otherwise doesn’t make him a conservative.
https://www.ontheissues.org/Cory_Booker.htm
FYI, the Israel and Palestinian conflict is forbidden in discussion on this thread.
Be more mindful of your agenda before commenting on The Downballot.
That's not how politics works, least of all in the U.S. today. The most crucial difference is between supporting and opposing dictatorship here. You can be a single-issue voter on something else, but that in no way makes everyone who differs from you on that one issue a conservative.
Booker is not as far as possible from a conservative Democrat. I mean, he is hardly Elizabeth Warren, don't you agree?
Oh for sure!
I am not arguing Booker is a Bernie, Warren or even Porter type of liberal Democrat who has a large following of liberals and like-minded people.
Booker is by contrast more moderate than them so we’re not expecting him to go further in his agenda to the left of what he’s done in the past. However, from the standpoint of being far as possible from a NJ conservative “Democrat,” my argument relates to how he’s always been a reliable vote for the Democratic Party agenda, hasn’t done much to piss the party off in this sense and has not pulled a Jeff Van Drew or even endorsed a leading statewide Republican. He did at one point partner with Senator Rand Paul on criminal Justice reform but that’s what we should expect all Democrats to do if it means to ensure issues can in fact be addressed in a bipartisan way (not necessarily being bipartisan as a way to weaken the agenda of Democrats).
On a side note, for a few years Booker was in a relationship with actress Rosario Dawson who is extremely to the left and a staunch Bernie supporter even back in 2012 when she endorsed his re-election bid (and against Bush and the Iraq War from the get go). Funny enough, Dawson endorsed Booker’s 2020 presidential campaign but then after he dropped out, she went all in for Bernie.
Maybe Booker was just fortunate but there must have been something Dawson found appealing about him at one point. Do you think she’d find any NJ conservative Democrat even remotely interesting and would want to date that man? I think not! ;)
Wasn't Holley that really crazy anti-vaxxer nut? If I remember correctly, he was in that stupid "Plandemic" fauxcumentary or whichever one he was in.
I can't comment on Holley or any NJ Democratic politician serving a small town or elsewhere in the state. However, if this is the case, wow, it certainly indicates the degree which these conservative Democrats NJ have no real appeal statewide.
New NYC MAyor poll. Mamdani still stoking it by 27 in 4-way. https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1966219396101423220
Cook Report has changed their prediction rating of the Virginia gubernatorial race from Lean to Likely Democrat.
Seems appropriate
Former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro was convicted by a Supreme Court majority on Thursday of plotting a coup to remain in power after losing the 2022 election
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/brazils-bolsonaro-guilty-coup-charges-court-majority-decides-landmark-trial-2025-09-11/
Bolsonaro sentenced to more than 27 years in prison after Supreme Court panel convicts him of attempting coup.
For a country that was actually under a military dictatorship during my lifetime, they are much better at preserving multi-party democracy than the U.S.
Brazil is lucky they don't have their own Merrick Garland.
And even worse, their own majority of corrupt anti-constitutional radical right-wingers on their Supreme Court.