Seth is anti trans. Better candidate Alex rickleen. I will not vote for anyone anti trans. Market should pass the baton but we cannot support someone who agrees with Nancy Mace and MAGA.
Most Dems do not support biological men playing women's sports. Moulton co-sponsored the Trans Bill of Rights. Appears to support trans folks in every way except sports.
I would like to recommend against using terms like "biological men" when referring to trans girls and women, these are terms favored by the anti-trans right.
I'm sorry, doing shit like this is why Dems are so underwater on this issue. Just because the right wing is using or misusing certain terms doesn't mean it should be banned from mentioning amidst those left of center.
I don't accept that correlation (I'm going to avoid that debate here) but I'll just say I think it's a loser both politically and logically if, amidst a respectful debate, we can't acknowledge that biological sex is a real thing. I think conflating sex and gender was/is a very dumb move and ceding unnecessary ground to the reactionary right.
Are you implying that being trans is not real? When you say things like “biological sex is a real thing”, specifically in this context, I get the impression you are denying trans people are actually trans.
If this is a misinterpretation of your position I apologize. I just want to make sure we’re not engaging in disinformation here.
I doubt this will persuade you, but trans people themselves really hate the terms "biological males" and "biological females", and that alone is reason to enlighten ourselves and adjust our language and how we frame this discussion. Trans people themselves are a biological occurrence. How else would they come to exist? Intersex people also do not fit neatly into your tidy categories. It may be a political loser, but only because the majority of the population is ignorant. The same has been true of gay marriage, climate change, and every other forward-moving issue. There is no way to avoid the discussion and terminology except by pretending they don't exist, as so many centrists in the Democratic Party would like. Erasure.
Can we presume a little good faith that not all Democrats (or the average person) are 100% educated on the nuances of the trans community? Moulton is not my first choice but he is not Nancy Mace bigoted or a demagogue, he pointed out truthfully that the trans issue was an anvil on the Harris campaign. I know at least one woman in my family who otherwise voted Democratic their whole lives but this specific issue made them (idiotically) vote Trump 2024. For many woman the sports issue has true resonance and it feels like yet another circumstance where they must STFU and just accept what feels inherently unfair. We as democrats should be able to have these conversations in our party without being tarred as anti-trans or else how can we change hearts and minds outside the party? Finally, please bring to my attention the best resources you believe can help me educate myself better on this issue…I ask in total good faith.
I don't think Moulton deserves a presumption of good faith. He didn't articulate it as something like "We need to discuss this issue better, or convince people it's so rare it doesn't matter" type of deal. He leaned directly into right-wing talking points. Then when he was called out on it he played the woe is me victim card. Moulton is an asshole.
Exactly - he didn't do media appearances about signing the trans bill of rights, he did them from the frame of the right's talking points. I don't know why it is so hard for some people on the left to expect a robust defense of values around civil rights instead of "Well, the people who keep calling me a groomer actually have some points."
I don't think this is an accurate assessment of Moulton's position.
As a simple example, he has twice co‑sponsored House Democrats’ Transgender Bill of Rights and has received perfect scores from the Human Rights Campaign. As far as I can tell, the only "negative" thing he's said about Trans rights was this quote: “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.” While probably overly aggressively put, this is not an indefensible position. Long story short, I think characterizing him as "anti-trans" is pretty inaccurate.
The Trans Bill of Rights was 1) literally originally sponsored by Markey in the Senate with Jayapal, 2) a simple resolution and wouldn't have done anything, 3) because it's all structured as a request for the federal gov to draft the actual said bill of rights with some recommendations. It was maybe structured that way in the hope that it could get some bipartisan cosponsors and maybe pass one chamber. But it ultimately was not real legislation with proposed provisions to actually mandate anything. It was a simple messaging bill that Moulton signed onto in early 2023 and then was forced into doing it again to shore up his flank for this Senate campaign.
The first time he actually stated policy views on trans issues, it was bigoted, it was sua sponte and he doubled down on it.
Talarico has the perfect framing of this debate that’s literally a handful of people across the country. Pronouns vs. Prices: Which matters to you more? Stop falling into the BS Right Wing talking points.
This, this, a thousand times this. If polling is any indication, voters don’t particularly care about culture war issues when being able to afford basic necessities is approaching impossibility. (And the needless Iran war is about to make that significantly harder, even!)
Politics is priorities. We should always be asking people the question “What matters to you the most?”. If someone really does reply with trans women in sports, then, ok, I don’t think we’re going to be winning them over. But make them say it.
This comment really sucked. Yes, there is such a thing as sex that is distinct from gender. But referring to trans women and trans girls as "biological men" is not acceptable. It's not how trans women/girls refer to themselves, and you don't get to choose a different term for them.
It would be funny if Rickleen got 15% at the convention and Moulton didn't. His politics are a better fit for the sentiment of the moment, even if he really is the proverbial "some dude".
I fear Clyburn will face the same fate that his fellow House Democratic members did at running for reelection at 80+ years old.
Lee and Connolly died of cancer in office while another died of natural causes shortly after winning Lee's seat. Please, House Rep. Clyburn, retire and actually enjoy your final years so that GOP governors can't delay a special election to replace you.
Seth Moulton? The Congressman who tried to stop Nancy Pelosi from being re-elected as Speaker, without bothering even to find anyone willing to run against her? That idiot??
Methinks the voters of the 6th Congressional District – and all the rest of Massachusetts – would be well served by Seth Moulton taking a long walk on the shortest fishing pier in Gloucester!
The details on the Public Policy Polling memo are interesting. When asked who did you vote for in 2024 it’s 51-39 with 10 who didn’t vote or wouldn’t say. That’s 3% less of a margin than Trump would have won the district according to the Texas Tribune.
Talarico is up. Hinojosa is tied. Padilla is down, but 61% of the sample don’t know who she is. Of those who do know her, her favorability rating is positive. Herrera’s is negative.
It’s just one poll, but hints of a big shift on that south Texas district.
I think it supports the idea that Acton is likelier of her and Brown to win. Multiple polls have now borne that out. I think Acton ultimately wins if I had to guess. Lean no on Brown, but here’s to hoping I’m wrong.
Yes, but I would take any win we can get in that state at this point. I can’t decide whether I want to win the governorship or the Senate race more, if I had to choose. Seeing Ramaswamy lose would be one of the best morale boosts we could claim as a party in November. However, the Senate race could flip the entire Senate depending on how other races go, even if Brown would have to run again in 2028. It’s tough.
I'm starting to become a bit of an optimist on OH. While it has zoomed to the right in recent years, Obama did win it twice and Brown won re-election multiple times. If the current political environment holds, it's not nuts to think we could win both OH-Gov and OH-Sen.
God, as someone from Massachusetts... can I just vote for "a plague on both your houses?" I don't wanna vote for either Markey (who's been in congress since before my parents could vote... and they're both almost retirement age!) or Moulton (who wanted to throw out Pelosi for shits and giggles, ig, and basically offered to throw people like me under the bus for political expedience)
Blegh. Why couldn't Pressley run? Or hell, why couldn't Kennedy take another crack at it? Please, just ANYBODY but these two
Markey is one of the most progressive members of the Senate, so imo it shouldn't be a difficult choice. Some people earn their right to stick around longer than others. Obviously Moulton is a downgrade, but I think Kennedy would be too. Pressley running may have only helped Moulton by splitting the progressive vote with Markey.
I don't like how post-Biden malaise has suddenly made people think every Dem over 75 should retire. Markey is still sharp, has experience and relationships on the Hill, a proven fighter etc. And should he die he's in a safe blue state that would pick a replacement. You don't just chuck that all away for the sake of pure generational turnover.
Let's be clear here, this is not really about Joe Biden. It's partially about Diane Feinstein but MOSTLY about the fact that three Democratic representatives died in office while the House was incredibly closely divided.
Alex, I’m curious: Did you argue at least as vehemently for Senator Bernie Sanders to retire last time he was running? I just want to point out that Senator Ed Markey is five (5!) years younger than Bernie.
Moreover, Vermont has a Republican governor – Massachusetts does not.
Well, I've never lived in (let alone registered to vote in) Vermont so admittedly I wasn't paying as much attention, but yeah, I would have preferred Bernie step down last election. Ah well, at least he's said this term is almost certainly his last.
It's just, Markey's a sore spot for me because A. He's one of my senators, and B. I thought he was too old LAST cycle!
I'm not Alex but I was really pissed when Sanders ran again in 2024 due to his age. Despite him very much being in my ideological lane. It was selfish and egotistical of him; he should have been laying the groundwork for a like-minded successor that he could endorse by the time he hit his 80s. Now we have the very real risk that he has medical issues at a critical legislative junction and there will be effectively nothing we can do about it.
Between Markey and Moulton the choice is incredibly easy to pick Markey. That doesn't change that it's problematic to have him running for a term that will end when he's 86.
The legislature could pass a law mandating a special election within 3 months of the vacancy, but they inexplicably lost the supermajority to override a Scott veto. It blows my mind at just how much New England Democrats struggle attracting state level support compared to federal. Is it a governance issue? You don’t see much of this type of split anymore with red states electing Dem state governments anymore outside a few token governors like Laura Kelly and Andy Beshear.
New England has a distinct sub-culture within the US. Politically, a lot of people here are not so much pro-democratic party as anti-republican party. The national republican party is culturally toxic here, so when a local republican manages to convince voters that they are unlike the national GOP, that person can become deeply popular. Partially as a throwback to the old days, partially as a way for voters to validate "I don't treat politics like sports" to themselves, and partially as a check on local democratic power structures.
Vermont and Maine were some of the most iron-clad, reliable republican states for generations. Their politics did change, but what changed to an even greater degree was national politics. Especially for Vermont. It's got a lot of the anti-establishment tendencies you see in heavily rural states, but it lacks the rural conservative culture you see in the rest of the US.
I get that, but you’d think local New England Democrats would adapt to that reality, no? Instead you see some puzzling things from state-level New Hampshire Dems and they have gotten rolled the past decade at the state level.
There's only so much adaption that can be done at certain stages. To go with an extreme: what level of adaption can local democrats make to be relevant in Idaho, or republicans to be relevant in California? Realistically there's nothing they can do.
For New England it has been changing, it's just not instant. Vermont is the biggest hold out. There's not much local democrats in Vermont or Massachusetts can do to preclude voters from liking a republican that adopts moderate talking points and distancing themselves from the national GOP.
Democrats have done better in NH than they're given credit for, the reality is that our election system with late primaries and two year terms heavily favors incumbents. Democrats Lynch and Hassan both won reelection as governor in the republican waves of 2010 and 2014. Sununu won reelection in the democratic wave of 2018. Republicans gerrymandered the legislature in both 2010 and 2020. In general the party has done well considering the circumstances, we've just been particularly unlucky with timing as of late.
Not even just his age, the fact that he had a heart attack in 2020! While running for president! Now, all indications are that he has made a full recovery and has just as much energy now as he did then, but it's still a scary prospect.
If she had run, I imagine her being half-Iranian would have come up at some point, and she wouldn't want to have to explain what that meant to MAGA primary voters outside her district or deal with low key racism.
The former Republican, Ballard, who announced a run for Indiana Secretary of State as an Independent will now run with the political designation "Lincoln Party."
If we get the right Democratic candidate, and the Democratic party in Indiana puts in the effort, this may be the best chance yet to flip that office. I'm assuming that Libertarians and Lincoln Party would eat into the Republican votes.
My test is this: would we be talking about them otherwise? If the answer is no, they are a "nepo baby" (a person getting an unearned advantage from the success of family members). This also applies to spouses (looking at you, Dorothy McAuliffe).
People can get legitimate and sufficient experience in a field as a result of their family connections. For me the cut-off isn't if they're qualified on their own -- it's how much did their family play a part in them gaining those qualifications?
And here, the answer is pretty obviously “no.” That said, I’m happy to support nepo babies in otherwise hostile territory where we wouldn’t stand a prayer’s chance. But in places like New York, Schlossberg would be ranked dead last for me or not at all.
Yes, he is. I'm planning on attending an event to hear him speak this weekend. There is another Democratic candidate as well. I heard her speak in early January, and I do not see her as viable in a statewide race, although she would be a good candidate for a local or state legislative seat. The candidate will be chosen at the state convention. There is no primary, other than voting for delegates who may support a particular candidate.
Not sure if it will be enough to flip the office but it could make a difference in at least one way: reminder that ballot order in Indiana is determined by which party won each county in the last Secretary of State election.
Happened earlier in the week, but didn't see it mentioned. So in Australia, there was more leadership turnover with the Coalition. The Liberals already installed a new leader, and now so have the Nationals. MP David Littleproud stepped down and was replaced by Sen. Matt Canavan.
With only about a week until the election in South Australia, both sides had a not so good week. Labor had a healthcare email blunder and the Liberals had to remove a candidate for his remarks. Another interesting tidbit is that the Liberals are going to preference One Nation ahead of Labor in South Australia.
It used to be that the American right wing was relatively unique in its hardcore opposition to environmentalism/fealty to the fossil fuel industries. Now thanks to the proliferation of online misinfo and other shady maneuvers, it's become standard globally. Which is really bad news in the fight to reduce emissions.
Right, but just a few years ago even the Nationals had an official pro Net-Zero position, even if their means of getting there were fanciful. Can you ever imagine the GOP having a formal policy of achieving neutral emissions by 2050?
TL;DR: Trans issues consistently rank near the bottom in terms of importance to voters despite Republicans obsession with them. Democrats also consistently do better against Republicans who make anti-trans issues a focal point of their campaign (see: Spanberger vs. Earle-Sears in VA, Ewing vs. Stothert in Omaha). Elected Dems who truly think that Dems are losing because they're "too woke" on trans issues are fools falling for reactionary talking points.
On a personal note: it's really disheartening to see the lack of support from members of the Downballot community on not just trans issues but queer issues at-large. I'm a 20-something gay man so I acknowledge that I'm more attuned to the LGBTQ+ than most of posters here, and it's okay to not be as knowledgeable about challenges the trans community in particular face if you're not as in touch with that community. That being said, I think it's worth the effort to try and educate oneself about said issues instead of regurgitating what Ben Shapiro or Nick Fuentes or Charlie Kirk say. It's really disheartening to see phrases such as "biological men/women" being tossed around on an ostensibly liberal, supportive forum.
This article is really excellent, thank you for sharing…every Democrat should read it. I don’t want to appear to waver in my support for trans persons, I’m constantly trying to learn and help others learn as well.
I’m sorry hearing that you feel a lack of support as a gay man, especially here on this wonderful site. Please know that as a straight man I consider myself an ally even if expressing that makes me feel like I’m pandering or something…I consider any threat to same sex marriage as much a threat to my union with my wife, for instance. Homophobia is idiotic and just a form of bullying, which is basically the essence of MAGA.
There is a bit of a mess in a solidly red state house district in central Texas. After filing for it, Kelly Hall decided to run for mayor of Round Rock instead. He effectively dropped out of the Democratic primary for HD 19 and did absolutely no campaigning for it. He was shocked to learn that he won the nomination by 3,000 votes. The Democratic Party is now trying to pressure Hall to withdraw and is using a law that prohibits a candidate from running for two offices simultaneously. https://www.expressnews.com/news/politics/elections/state/article/texas-democrat-won-race-thought-dropped-of-now-21957793.php
Time for another round of Most Annoying Primary, now that TX-Sen is done! This time I added CA-Gov to the list, competing with perpetually annoying Maine Senate and (not yet as media-saturated) Michigan Senate. Vote on Xitter: https://x.com/RL_Miller/status/2032494838135066936?s=20
"Trump endorses Brandon Herrera, Texas GOP candidate who owned copy of ‘Mein Kampf’
Spokesperson rejects accusations of antisemitism; Republican Jewish Coalition opposes nomination; US president says candidate will 'never let you down'"
I dislike the headline the article uses, implying that owning a book translates to supporting it, because it cheapens the real evidence against Herrera. I own books by Ayn Rand and other authors that I disagree with strongly - owning a book does not imply agreement.
"In 2024, on his own podcast, Herrera also discussed owning a copy of “Mein Kampf,” Hitler’s manifesto." This shouldn't be the selling point.
"His output has also included reviews of Nazi-era weaponry, a recreation of Hitler’s suicide, and the occasional Holocaust joke." This, along with other evidence of supporting authoritarian/fascist policies, is much more impactful to me. I'm not sure that holds true for all voters, but I'd hope it does.
Seth is anti trans. Better candidate Alex rickleen. I will not vote for anyone anti trans. Market should pass the baton but we cannot support someone who agrees with Nancy Mace and MAGA.
Most Dems do not support biological men playing women's sports. Moulton co-sponsored the Trans Bill of Rights. Appears to support trans folks in every way except sports.
I would like to recommend against using terms like "biological men" when referring to trans girls and women, these are terms favored by the anti-trans right.
The term also implies being trans is not real, which is both horseshit and appalling.
I'm sorry, doing shit like this is why Dems are so underwater on this issue. Just because the right wing is using or misusing certain terms doesn't mean it should be banned from mentioning amidst those left of center.
Calling trans women "biological men" is like calling gay people "biological straights". Would you think that's a productive term to use?
I don't accept that correlation (I'm going to avoid that debate here) but I'll just say I think it's a loser both politically and logically if, amidst a respectful debate, we can't acknowledge that biological sex is a real thing. I think conflating sex and gender was/is a very dumb move and ceding unnecessary ground to the reactionary right.
Are you implying that being trans is not real? When you say things like “biological sex is a real thing”, specifically in this context, I get the impression you are denying trans people are actually trans.
If this is a misinterpretation of your position I apologize. I just want to make sure we’re not engaging in disinformation here.
This is quite a strawman, I don't know of anyone on the pro-trans rights side that says that sex assigned at birth isn't a "real thing"
I doubt this will persuade you, but trans people themselves really hate the terms "biological males" and "biological females", and that alone is reason to enlighten ourselves and adjust our language and how we frame this discussion. Trans people themselves are a biological occurrence. How else would they come to exist? Intersex people also do not fit neatly into your tidy categories. It may be a political loser, but only because the majority of the population is ignorant. The same has been true of gay marriage, climate change, and every other forward-moving issue. There is no way to avoid the discussion and terminology except by pretending they don't exist, as so many centrists in the Democratic Party would like. Erasure.
Can we presume a little good faith that not all Democrats (or the average person) are 100% educated on the nuances of the trans community? Moulton is not my first choice but he is not Nancy Mace bigoted or a demagogue, he pointed out truthfully that the trans issue was an anvil on the Harris campaign. I know at least one woman in my family who otherwise voted Democratic their whole lives but this specific issue made them (idiotically) vote Trump 2024. For many woman the sports issue has true resonance and it feels like yet another circumstance where they must STFU and just accept what feels inherently unfair. We as democrats should be able to have these conversations in our party without being tarred as anti-trans or else how can we change hearts and minds outside the party? Finally, please bring to my attention the best resources you believe can help me educate myself better on this issue…I ask in total good faith.
I struggle to see how using the language "I would like to recommend against using [x term]" indicates I wasn't operating in good faith.
I don't think Moulton deserves a presumption of good faith. He didn't articulate it as something like "We need to discuss this issue better, or convince people it's so rare it doesn't matter" type of deal. He leaned directly into right-wing talking points. Then when he was called out on it he played the woe is me victim card. Moulton is an asshole.
Exactly - he didn't do media appearances about signing the trans bill of rights, he did them from the frame of the right's talking points. I don't know why it is so hard for some people on the left to expect a robust defense of values around civil rights instead of "Well, the people who keep calling me a groomer actually have some points."
If only your namesake would be so compassionate and sensible!
I don't think this is an accurate assessment of Moulton's position.
As a simple example, he has twice co‑sponsored House Democrats’ Transgender Bill of Rights and has received perfect scores from the Human Rights Campaign. As far as I can tell, the only "negative" thing he's said about Trans rights was this quote: “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.” While probably overly aggressively put, this is not an indefensible position. Long story short, I think characterizing him as "anti-trans" is pretty inaccurate.
The Trans Bill of Rights was 1) literally originally sponsored by Markey in the Senate with Jayapal, 2) a simple resolution and wouldn't have done anything, 3) because it's all structured as a request for the federal gov to draft the actual said bill of rights with some recommendations. It was maybe structured that way in the hope that it could get some bipartisan cosponsors and maybe pass one chamber. But it ultimately was not real legislation with proposed provisions to actually mandate anything. It was a simple messaging bill that Moulton signed onto in early 2023 and then was forced into doing it again to shore up his flank for this Senate campaign.
The first time he actually stated policy views on trans issues, it was bigoted, it was sua sponte and he doubled down on it.
Frankly, fuck off with that. He's also running statewide in Massachusetts, not Wyoming or even Ohio or Nevada. There is zero reason to accept Moulton.
What an asshole
"Biological men" fuck off with the right-wing talking points
Talarico has the perfect framing of this debate that’s literally a handful of people across the country. Pronouns vs. Prices: Which matters to you more? Stop falling into the BS Right Wing talking points.
This, this, a thousand times this. If polling is any indication, voters don’t particularly care about culture war issues when being able to afford basic necessities is approaching impossibility. (And the needless Iran war is about to make that significantly harder, even!)
Politics is priorities. We should always be asking people the question “What matters to you the most?”. If someone really does reply with trans women in sports, then, ok, I don’t think we’re going to be winning them over. But make them say it.
This comment really sucked. Yes, there is such a thing as sex that is distinct from gender. But referring to trans women and trans girls as "biological men" is not acceptable. It's not how trans women/girls refer to themselves, and you don't get to choose a different term for them.
It would be funny if Rickleen got 15% at the convention and Moulton didn't. His politics are a better fit for the sentiment of the moment, even if he really is the proverbial "some dude".
No to Seth. He is anti trans.
I fear Clyburn will face the same fate that his fellow House Democratic members did at running for reelection at 80+ years old.
Lee and Connolly died of cancer in office while another died of natural causes shortly after winning Lee's seat. Please, House Rep. Clyburn, retire and actually enjoy your final years so that GOP governors can't delay a special election to replace you.
Seth Moulton? The Congressman who tried to stop Nancy Pelosi from being re-elected as Speaker, without bothering even to find anyone willing to run against her? That idiot??
Methinks the voters of the 6th Congressional District – and all the rest of Massachusetts – would be well served by Seth Moulton taking a long walk on the shortest fishing pier in Gloucester!
This. I don't love his stances and comments on trans issues, but his record as a politician before that is being an outright doofus.
I really wish Markey had retired and endorsed Ayanna Pressley.
Markey is a fine Senator.
One of the best, in fact.
Yeah, the only knock I've heard about Markey is that hes old. I don't think being in his late 70s is justification for the hate he gets.
And Biden was a great President who helped the country move on from Trump...until he wasn't.
Moulton was actually a more reliable House Democrat on the issues but he has a habit of making an ass out of himself.
Hopefully a landslide of Moulton lava goes against Seth Moulton’s Senate primary campaign so he loses badly.
Moulton is awful.
The details on the Public Policy Polling memo are interesting. When asked who did you vote for in 2024 it’s 51-39 with 10 who didn’t vote or wouldn’t say. That’s 3% less of a margin than Trump would have won the district according to the Texas Tribune.
Talarico is up. Hinojosa is tied. Padilla is down, but 61% of the sample don’t know who she is. Of those who do know her, her favorability rating is positive. Herrera’s is negative.
It’s just one poll, but hints of a big shift on that south Texas district.
Can any Ohioans speak to the very optimistic polling here? Is Vivek losing by 10 realistic? I mean, I love to see it.
Not an Ohioan, but the polling seems to follow the trajectory shown by Emerson polling last December, which had Acton at 46% and Vivek at 45%.
https://tiffinohio.net/posts/poll-amy-acton-leads-vivek-ramaswamy-by-10-in-ohio-governor-s-race/
I think it supports the idea that Acton is likelier of her and Brown to win. Multiple polls have now borne that out. I think Acton ultimately wins if I had to guess. Lean no on Brown, but here’s to hoping I’m wrong.
I would love to see that GOP majority on the Ohio Supreme Court go from 6-1 to 5-2 after November.
Yes, but I would take any win we can get in that state at this point. I can’t decide whether I want to win the governorship or the Senate race more, if I had to choose. Seeing Ramaswamy lose would be one of the best morale boosts we could claim as a party in November. However, the Senate race could flip the entire Senate depending on how other races go, even if Brown would have to run again in 2028. It’s tough.
The U.S. Senate has more impact on the country than the Governor of Ohio. Easy choice for me as a non-Buckeye.
I'm starting to become a bit of an optimist on OH. While it has zoomed to the right in recent years, Obama did win it twice and Brown won re-election multiple times. If the current political environment holds, it's not nuts to think we could win both OH-Gov and OH-Sen.
God, as someone from Massachusetts... can I just vote for "a plague on both your houses?" I don't wanna vote for either Markey (who's been in congress since before my parents could vote... and they're both almost retirement age!) or Moulton (who wanted to throw out Pelosi for shits and giggles, ig, and basically offered to throw people like me under the bus for political expedience)
Blegh. Why couldn't Pressley run? Or hell, why couldn't Kennedy take another crack at it? Please, just ANYBODY but these two
Pressley probably doesn't want to oppose a fellow progressive whom she probably respects and has a good relationship with.
Markey is one of the most progressive members of the Senate, so imo it shouldn't be a difficult choice. Some people earn their right to stick around longer than others. Obviously Moulton is a downgrade, but I think Kennedy would be too. Pressley running may have only helped Moulton by splitting the progressive vote with Markey.
I don't like how post-Biden malaise has suddenly made people think every Dem over 75 should retire. Markey is still sharp, has experience and relationships on the Hill, a proven fighter etc. And should he die he's in a safe blue state that would pick a replacement. You don't just chuck that all away for the sake of pure generational turnover.
Let's be clear here, this is not really about Joe Biden. It's partially about Diane Feinstein but MOSTLY about the fact that three Democratic representatives died in office while the House was incredibly closely divided.
No more special elections like the one that led to Senator Brown?
Because Markey was adamant in seeking another term and Pressley would have divided the progressive vote.
Alex, I’m curious: Did you argue at least as vehemently for Senator Bernie Sanders to retire last time he was running? I just want to point out that Senator Ed Markey is five (5!) years younger than Bernie.
Moreover, Vermont has a Republican governor – Massachusetts does not.
Well, I've never lived in (let alone registered to vote in) Vermont so admittedly I wasn't paying as much attention, but yeah, I would have preferred Bernie step down last election. Ah well, at least he's said this term is almost certainly his last.
It's just, Markey's a sore spot for me because A. He's one of my senators, and B. I thought he was too old LAST cycle!
Alex (& Janus), thank you for good clear answers!
I'm not Alex but I was really pissed when Sanders ran again in 2024 due to his age. Despite him very much being in my ideological lane. It was selfish and egotistical of him; he should have been laying the groundwork for a like-minded successor that he could endorse by the time he hit his 80s. Now we have the very real risk that he has medical issues at a critical legislative junction and there will be effectively nothing we can do about it.
Between Markey and Moulton the choice is incredibly easy to pick Markey. That doesn't change that it's problematic to have him running for a term that will end when he's 86.
The legislature could pass a law mandating a special election within 3 months of the vacancy, but they inexplicably lost the supermajority to override a Scott veto. It blows my mind at just how much New England Democrats struggle attracting state level support compared to federal. Is it a governance issue? You don’t see much of this type of split anymore with red states electing Dem state governments anymore outside a few token governors like Laura Kelly and Andy Beshear.
New England has a distinct sub-culture within the US. Politically, a lot of people here are not so much pro-democratic party as anti-republican party. The national republican party is culturally toxic here, so when a local republican manages to convince voters that they are unlike the national GOP, that person can become deeply popular. Partially as a throwback to the old days, partially as a way for voters to validate "I don't treat politics like sports" to themselves, and partially as a check on local democratic power structures.
Vermont and Maine were some of the most iron-clad, reliable republican states for generations. Their politics did change, but what changed to an even greater degree was national politics. Especially for Vermont. It's got a lot of the anti-establishment tendencies you see in heavily rural states, but it lacks the rural conservative culture you see in the rest of the US.
^ exactly
I get that, but you’d think local New England Democrats would adapt to that reality, no? Instead you see some puzzling things from state-level New Hampshire Dems and they have gotten rolled the past decade at the state level.
There's only so much adaption that can be done at certain stages. To go with an extreme: what level of adaption can local democrats make to be relevant in Idaho, or republicans to be relevant in California? Realistically there's nothing they can do.
For New England it has been changing, it's just not instant. Vermont is the biggest hold out. There's not much local democrats in Vermont or Massachusetts can do to preclude voters from liking a republican that adopts moderate talking points and distancing themselves from the national GOP.
Democrats have done better in NH than they're given credit for, the reality is that our election system with late primaries and two year terms heavily favors incumbents. Democrats Lynch and Hassan both won reelection as governor in the republican waves of 2010 and 2014. Sununu won reelection in the democratic wave of 2018. Republicans gerrymandered the legislature in both 2010 and 2020. In general the party has done well considering the circumstances, we've just been particularly unlucky with timing as of late.
Good summary. Signed, a native New Englander who cast his first ever congressional vote for Chris Shays (R-CT).
Not even just his age, the fact that he had a heart attack in 2020! While running for president! Now, all indications are that he has made a full recovery and has just as much energy now as he did then, but it's still a scary prospect.
I agree 100%. Plus, Sanders can continue to speak and have influence from outside the Senate.
Stephanie Bice staying out the the senate race.
https://x.com/reesejgorman/status/2032455561048932436?s=20
Maybe Hern will still get a primary.
If she had run, I imagine her being half-Iranian would have come up at some point, and she wouldn't want to have to explain what that meant to MAGA primary voters outside her district or deal with low key racism.
Hern could have easily turned it into outright racism lol
The former Republican, Ballard, who announced a run for Indiana Secretary of State as an Independent will now run with the political designation "Lincoln Party."
https://indianacapitalchronicle.com/briefs/ballard-to-run-under-lincoln-party-name-in-independent-bid-for-indiana-secretary-of-state/?emci=ba00b0be-3d1e-f111-9a48-000d3a14b640&emdi=7572ed01-d01e-f111-9a48-000d3a14b640&ceid=630426
If we get the right Democratic candidate, and the Democratic party in Indiana puts in the effort, this may be the best chance yet to flip that office. I'm assuming that Libertarians and Lincoln Party would eat into the Republican votes.
Isn't Beau Bayh running?
Yeah. The nepo baby may not be the worst choice here tbh
Beau Bayh is a veteran. He is also a lawyer. Given that the Secretary of State is important for elections, having a legal background is a plus.
Not everyone with a parent in the same field they want to work in is a "nepo baby".
Parent and grandparents.
And just because he's a nepo baby doesnt mean he isn't qualified. It can be both
My test is this: would we be talking about them otherwise? If the answer is no, they are a "nepo baby" (a person getting an unearned advantage from the success of family members). This also applies to spouses (looking at you, Dorothy McAuliffe).
People can get legitimate and sufficient experience in a field as a result of their family connections. For me the cut-off isn't if they're qualified on their own -- it's how much did their family play a part in them gaining those qualifications?
And here, the answer is pretty obviously “no.” That said, I’m happy to support nepo babies in otherwise hostile territory where we wouldn’t stand a prayer’s chance. But in places like New York, Schlossberg would be ranked dead last for me or not at all.
Yes, he is. I'm planning on attending an event to hear him speak this weekend. There is another Democratic candidate as well. I heard her speak in early January, and I do not see her as viable in a statewide race, although she would be a good candidate for a local or state legislative seat. The candidate will be chosen at the state convention. There is no primary, other than voting for delegates who may support a particular candidate.
Not sure if it will be enough to flip the office but it could make a difference in at least one way: reminder that ballot order in Indiana is determined by which party won each county in the last Secretary of State election.
Happened earlier in the week, but didn't see it mentioned. So in Australia, there was more leadership turnover with the Coalition. The Liberals already installed a new leader, and now so have the Nationals. MP David Littleproud stepped down and was replaced by Sen. Matt Canavan.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-10/david-littleproud-steps-down-as-nationals-leader/106437902
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-11/matt-canavan-elected-nationals-leader/106440618
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-11/matt-canavan-nationals-leader-fossil-fuel-future/106440190
With only about a week until the election in South Australia, both sides had a not so good week. Labor had a healthcare email blunder and the Liberals had to remove a candidate for his remarks. Another interesting tidbit is that the Liberals are going to preference One Nation ahead of Labor in South Australia.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-13/labors-email-blunder-and-liberal-candidate-comments/106450750
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-07/sa-liberals-to-preference-one-nation/106428070
It used to be that the American right wing was relatively unique in its hardcore opposition to environmentalism/fealty to the fossil fuel industries. Now thanks to the proliferation of online misinfo and other shady maneuvers, it's become standard globally. Which is really bad news in the fight to reduce emissions.
Australia has a very powerful coal mining industry, so it's also prevalent there.
Right, but just a few years ago even the Nationals had an official pro Net-Zero position, even if their means of getting there were fanciful. Can you ever imagine the GOP having a formal policy of achieving neutral emissions by 2050?
Yes. 50 years ago, before Reagan. He's the villain who started ruining a lot of things in this country.
There's a lot of discussion of trans issues in this thread regarding Moulton, so I'm gonna post this very well-research article from last month: https://www.bostonreview.net/forum/how-not-to-defeat-authoritarianism/julia-serano/
TL;DR: Trans issues consistently rank near the bottom in terms of importance to voters despite Republicans obsession with them. Democrats also consistently do better against Republicans who make anti-trans issues a focal point of their campaign (see: Spanberger vs. Earle-Sears in VA, Ewing vs. Stothert in Omaha). Elected Dems who truly think that Dems are losing because they're "too woke" on trans issues are fools falling for reactionary talking points.
On a personal note: it's really disheartening to see the lack of support from members of the Downballot community on not just trans issues but queer issues at-large. I'm a 20-something gay man so I acknowledge that I'm more attuned to the LGBTQ+ than most of posters here, and it's okay to not be as knowledgeable about challenges the trans community in particular face if you're not as in touch with that community. That being said, I think it's worth the effort to try and educate oneself about said issues instead of regurgitating what Ben Shapiro or Nick Fuentes or Charlie Kirk say. It's really disheartening to see phrases such as "biological men/women" being tossed around on an ostensibly liberal, supportive forum.
This article is really excellent, thank you for sharing…every Democrat should read it. I don’t want to appear to waver in my support for trans persons, I’m constantly trying to learn and help others learn as well.
I’m sorry hearing that you feel a lack of support as a gay man, especially here on this wonderful site. Please know that as a straight man I consider myself an ally even if expressing that makes me feel like I’m pandering or something…I consider any threat to same sex marriage as much a threat to my union with my wife, for instance. Homophobia is idiotic and just a form of bullying, which is basically the essence of MAGA.
I’m sure I speak for many others on this site.
There is a bit of a mess in a solidly red state house district in central Texas. After filing for it, Kelly Hall decided to run for mayor of Round Rock instead. He effectively dropped out of the Democratic primary for HD 19 and did absolutely no campaigning for it. He was shocked to learn that he won the nomination by 3,000 votes. The Democratic Party is now trying to pressure Hall to withdraw and is using a law that prohibits a candidate from running for two offices simultaneously. https://www.expressnews.com/news/politics/elections/state/article/texas-democrat-won-race-thought-dropped-of-now-21957793.php
Time for another round of Most Annoying Primary, now that TX-Sen is done! This time I added CA-Gov to the list, competing with perpetually annoying Maine Senate and (not yet as media-saturated) Michigan Senate. Vote on Xitter: https://x.com/RL_Miller/status/2032494838135066936?s=20
"Trump endorses Brandon Herrera, Texas GOP candidate who owned copy of ‘Mein Kampf’
Spokesperson rejects accusations of antisemitism; Republican Jewish Coalition opposes nomination; US president says candidate will 'never let you down'"
https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-endorses-brandon-herrera-texas-gop-candidate-who-owned-copy-of-mein-kampf/
This seems to be a sleeper pick, right?
Katy Padilla Stout, the Dem in this race, was only down 2 in the latest poll: https://www.texastribune.org/2026/03/12/brandon-herrera-democrats-texas-23rd-congressional-district-tony-gonzales/
Definitely flippable
Sleeper pick- I agree.
I dislike the headline the article uses, implying that owning a book translates to supporting it, because it cheapens the real evidence against Herrera. I own books by Ayn Rand and other authors that I disagree with strongly - owning a book does not imply agreement.
"In 2024, on his own podcast, Herrera also discussed owning a copy of “Mein Kampf,” Hitler’s manifesto." This shouldn't be the selling point.
"His output has also included reviews of Nazi-era weaponry, a recreation of Hitler’s suicide, and the occasional Holocaust joke." This, along with other evidence of supporting authoritarian/fascist policies, is much more impactful to me. I'm not sure that holds true for all voters, but I'd hope it does.
100% Owning a copy of Mein Kampf isn't necessarily disqualifying by itself. It's the litany of other offenses that you touch on that is.
A Hispanic man that trolls and plays around with Hitler.
He must have been spending one too many times online on X, Daily Caller, World Net Daily, One News Network and then The Daily Stormer.
As long as Trump endorsing him helps Democrats win, so be it.
Jackson Lahmeyer, who challenged Lankford from the right in 2022, likely announcing for Hern's House seat soon.
https://x.com/reesejgorman/status/2032460791203422273