I’d like to echo a good question voiced yesterday by Dragonfire: Why isn’t Kathryn Garcia, who almost won last time, running for Mayor of New York against Cuomo et al? Anyone have insights?
Right, why bother with going through the process of actually being mayor when you already have the sort of cushy state appointment that former mayors and county executives in NY state aspire to?
Not to mention, being mayor of a big city kind of sucks. Director of Operations for NYS sounds like a much more enjoyable job than Mayor of NYC.
I’m from Mpls and our mayor is running for a third term. What a tough job after George Floyd but the city politics has split between DFL and DSA. (DFL = Dem.) I don’t like the guy but I’m going to have to vote for him this time.
Evanston Mayor, former State Senator, and 2018 gubernatorial candidate Daniel Biss has announced he’s running for Illinois’ 9th congressional district to succeed Jan Schakowsky.
Trump Cancels Grants to Study Online Misinformation: "The Trump administration has sharply expanded its campaign against experts who track misinformation and other harmful content online, abruptly canceling scores of scientific research grants at universities across the country,” the New York Times reports.
I get where you're coming from with that question, but one of the fundamental reasons I'm a big D Democrat is because I trust the government more than private charity to solve our problems. That might be a band-aid, but it's not sufficient.
I totally agree! But given the sorry excuse for what currently passes for American "government", the only remedy seems to be philanthropies or foundations, perhaps ideally given to universities for this express purpose.
Said democratically-minded philanthropist would likely be indicted if they tried-Trump has already shown he's not above laying false criminal charges on his enemies.
NORWAY allocates money to secure American climate data
The Trump administration has stopped collecting climate data and removed it from websites. Now the government is setting aside money for Norway to secure the data.
The goal is to protect health and climate data in particular, which is largely stored in the US. American research policy has changed very quickly. There is uncertainty about funding, and there is also uncertainty about some of these important data sources, especially in the areas of climate and health.
"There is uncertainty about whether this data will be safeguarded, maintained and made available. We want to ensure that we can safeguard and take responsibility for that," says Minister of Research Sigrun Aasland.
Missouri Republicans at it again. There will be a new constitutional amendment on the ballot next year (or this year if the governor decides to call the election early) to overturn last year’s amendment that made abortion legal statewide. The new amendment doesn’t mention that it’s overturning the old one and has “ballot candy” language about banning gender-affirming care for transgender residents under the age of 18, which is already banned under state law. There are also exceptions for rape and incest, but those are meaningless imo because all the abortion providers will leave the state. Republicans also voted to overturn another proposition from last year that required most employers to provide sick time to workers and raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour.
It’s crazy that Missouri voters probably won’t punish Republicans at all for overturning amendments they approved. Feels like it would be a great opportunity for Dems, but their brand is so bad voters would rather vote for paternalistic Republicans who completely disregard their decisions than vote for any Dem.
Real change in abortion rights, sick leave and paid family leave policy in red states can only come from Washington, we need to get a comfortable majority in the Senate in 2026 and 2028 to gut the filibuster, add DC, PR, pass the freedom to vote act so that no Lieberman, Sinema or Fetterman can stop us. Republicans hate Democracy when it doesn't work for them and their corporate overlords.
The next Democratic nominee should campaign on radical change, a Project 2029 to fix the broken system that we have here. The little guy in this nation has been screwed over for far too long but sadly votes against his own interests.
And every state should be treated like a swing state from California to Alabama, perhaps we can get to that by getting the NPVIC interstate compact passed and a majority on the Supreme Court.
Are you interested in PR being a state because the US shouldn't have colonies? Or because of it's potential effect on the number of Dems in Congress? If the latter, you'll be disappointed, it would very likely be ~50:50 D:R. The statehood party there has long been dominated by corporatist anti-environment, anti-labor, social conservatives.
They elected their previous Resident Commissioner, their single shadow Congressperson, Jenniffer Gonzalez, Gov last year. She's the epitome of the RW statehood party I described. They replaced her with someone who is a Dem from the status quo (colony) party.
I'm all for PR becoming a state if that's what the island chooses. But while polls suggest they might prefer Dems as Senators, the voting history suggests it would be a toss up.
From what I knew, I thought that all three parties are big tent parties which have Democrats, Republicans and Independents.
Harris won in landslide in he straw poll conducted in 2024 and was leading by a huge margin in opinion polls even before the Puerto Rico garbage incident. I don't think it will be a swing state. Even if it is, good for us anyways.
Well, I lived there for 8 years and still work there do back and forth a lot. Iirc, they'll get 5 reps and my guess is they'll split 3D2R. You are right that all the parties there have both Ds and Rs, but the PNP (statehood) party has swung farther to the right w each year. I would expect the EVs to be pretty solidly in the D camp, but not the mix of elected officials. It could be that the Rs are winning solely because of their alignment with the PNP and if so that would be interesting to follow if PR ever did become a state.
There's another commenter or two around here who is native PR and lives there still. He can better handicap the splits than I can, but I'm certain PR would elect a mix of D and R to house and maybe Senate, even though they'd be 7 EV for Dems. Kind of like Colorado, I guess.
Interesting how Trump’s approval numbers might compare with President Biden’s at a similar point in his presidency. Likewise the generic Dem/GOP poll at that point.
Biden's weren't this low this early (just four months into the term.) They didn't really turn decisively negative until late 2021 and of course never recovered, despite some up and down bumps.
G. Elliott Morris, who commissioned this poll, keeps a record at his site of presidential approval ratings, from Eisenhower on, for the first six months of their terms (presumably he'll keep stretching it out over the next 3 1/2 years.) So far only Trump himself in 2017 had comparably low ratings, though Bill Clinton's did turn negative shortly after this point in 1993, reflecting his plurality win which limited his base of support, a sour political and economic mood among the public (sound familiar?), and his own blunders and defeats, some of which were overhyped by the media and Republicans (some redundancy there.)
Are there any potential IL senate candidates from outside the Chicago area/from south or central IL? Based on cursory wikipedia-ing I think Durbin was from south/central IL (born in East St. Louis, served in the House from a Springfield-area district), while Duckworth represented the Chicago suburbs. Is IL poised to have two senators from the Chicago area?
When you consider how much of the population of IL comes from the Chicago area it’s not that weird? Not sure being a downstate candidate would even bring that much of an advantage in a D primary given how red it is now and how much population it’s bled in recent decades.
To piggyback on that, 5m people live in Cook County (Chicago and inner suburbs) and 12m in the entire state. If you include other Chicago suburban counties (what is known as Chicagoland, including DuPage, Kane, Lake, Will and McHenry) you get another 3m. For the Dem primary, 2/3rds of the statewide vote comes from Cook County alone. While there may be other candidates who announce (although it's doubtful at this point), a downstate candidate would have to secure overwhelming margins in the 56 other counties and the Chicagoland vote would have to be pretty evenly split for someone to get the nomination.
That's fair, although you could compare this to New York which is another big state where the population density concentrates around one primary city. NYC+Long Island+Westchester and Rockland counties also have around 2/3 of the population with 13m people out of a total 20m. Yet they have one Senator from Brooklyn (Schumer) and another from Upstate (Gillibrand)
Well, Caroline Kennedy was the first choice, and when she withdrew, I think there was a lot of sentiment that Hillary should be succeeded by a woman, and Gillibrand was young and the party thought she could win upstate while she wouldn't be anathema to NYC metro.
The problem is that Cook County isn't 2/3rds of the state as a whole and IL has become a one party state. I say this as an Upstate NY Democrat who cited being a "big D" Democrat in a different comment thread, but in this context my small d democrat comes out. I'm not a fan of NYC voters dictating statewide policy.
Can you point out where I said Cook County is 2/3rds of IL? I think I said it was 5/12 or 41% of the entire state's population. With the suburbs, it's 2/3rds (8/12).
A Republican can win in IL statewide, but for the most part, their nominees (starting with Koehler in '86) have been far right ideologues with no appeal to Chicago. We had Republican Governors until 2002, and then the Rauner disaster starting in 2014. For Senate, we had Kirk from 2010 to 2016. What I'm saying is that the responsibility for IL becoming a one-party state is not with the voters, but with the Republican Party and the candidates it keeps nominating. If Republicans want to win, stop nominating candidates who call Chicago a "cesspool" (Darren Bailey, Gov nominee in 2022).
Which is true. The Democratic primary is not "2/3rds of the state as a whole." It's just people who choose to vote in the Democratic primary. I'm not sure how to make this any clearer.
Then you should rest easy, because New York City has historically been absolutely killed on things like support for public education. Do you remember when the Court of Appeal ruled that the state government had hugely underfunded education in the city as compared to Upstate but that it lacked the power to force the Legislature to remedy that?
It's a poignant problem for the anti-Cuomo faction. As Inside Elections' Jacob Rubashkin notes, Mamdani and the next two candidates, City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams and Comptroller Brad Lander, collectively exceed Cuomo's share of the vote in the fourth round. Ultimately, though, many supporters of both Adams and Lander break for Cuomo rather than Mamdani after their candidate is eliminated.
I wonder if that's a name recognition issue though. AOC endorsing Lander over Mamdani would stymie the momentum he currently has and only fracture the anti-Cuomo vote.
I think the problem is that he's to the left of Lander. His voters will most probably rank Lander next but Lander's don't seem to be interested in doing do.
Yeah, I'm a big fan of Lander and would prefer not to rank Mamdani. However, if he is really the most likely not-Cuomo not-Adams, I may rank him as high as 3rd.
Thirty House Democrats are 75 years or older – and yet more than half plan to run for reelection in 2026. (Yet to announce*: Pelosi, Hoyer, Davis, Wilson, Cleaver and Adams.) Only Jan Schakowsky (80) and Gerry Connolly (75) have announced retirement.
Honestly given that 2026 should be a major wave year strongly favoring Democrats, I don't mind Kaptur retiring assuming a solid candidate emerges. Hell, even a "generic D" given enough support may be more than enough to at least keep the seat competitive or even D leaning.
Are there no credible potential successors? I know we've had strong credible candidates in redder districts. Off the top of my head notably Dan Feehan and Jeff Ettinger in Minnesota 1st and Ron DiNicola in PA 16th, the latter which is far more conservative and where Democrats should have had no business competing in, even in the wave environment of 2018.
Just looking at that name I’d like to see at least half, if not more, of that list go to inject some fresh blood. David Scott is pretty useless and a lot of those names are backbenchers (Matsui and Garamendi don’t provide particular value to the caucus, as obvious examples)
Sadly perception matters more than facts to American voters, it would be wise to listen to them as Republicans have already done (minus Trump) since 2010.
Specifics? No, you’re absolutely right. But the “Democrats are old and talking about things we don’t care about” image of the party that exists right now in poll after poll suggests we would be smart to start getting more younger fresh blood into the hallways and social media spheres of the American media ecosystem.
I want to win, I don’t want Schumer and Pelosi (I know she’s stepped down) to be the image of the party and tbqf, if anyone here wants that to continue, then you’re not willing to accept that there are major issues that need fixing in the party, starting with younger, fresh, DIFFERENT leadership.
My only goal is to win and I really don’t care if that means tossing some reps out who refuse to grapple with the new reality of America today and won’t fight with their dying breath Trump and his aristocracy enabled by the GOP. Get out of the way if you can’t do that bare minimum.
How effective is Sanders outside deep blue America though? Not very. Otherwise he'd be President right now and politicians like him would be the rule and not the exception.
My critique was saying those people partly because of age, but also partly because of outdated thinking that doesn’t fit today’s America.
Democratic economic populists like Bernie Sanders always seem to get a chunk of voters that aren’t available to Democrats otherwise, because they view him as one of the few on the left who gets the issues that matter most to rural America (obviously approval isn’t everything, but there’s a reason he’s the most popular Democratic politician in Washington right now).
The people who feel left behind are given a voice and a different direction to that anger across the country: it’s the billionaires fault! Tax the wealthy! Fix income inequality! Trump has been successful because he’s channeled that anger that exists out there into the Democratic Party itself both times he wasn’t president, but ran to become president. If you can tell me one other Republican who not only got rural turnout into hyperdrive, but also won Democratic voters at the same time? I don’t think there is one as effective.
Have you ever noticed that every Democratic policy when it comes to economics is overwhelmingly popular among voters? Like 75-25 support popular. Far better than on any other issue for the party. But we don’t ever get near that vote and yes it’s absolutely partisanship, but it’s also old outdated ideas and messaging that doesn’t resonate.
The party is the most unpopular it’s ever been. That’s a verifiable fact. We can choose to admit it and shift or get used to losing to some of the most vile, horrifying people in the country. What’s the worst that could happen if every Democratic rep (except Kaptur) in Congress retired over the age of 70? Where blue state reps are all younger, more energetic, telegenic, confident and have a big reach into the party base exciting them to vote for Democrats. That is where the energy is in the party or maybe you missed the “fight oligarchy” rallies that drew tens of thousands of Americans with AOC and Sanders, that’s where young leaders are stepping up and making an impact.
1 quick question before I continue: What would happen if Chuck Schumer did the same? Do you think even 1000 people would attend that? But AOC and Sanders earned nationwide media coverage. You don’t wait for politics to happen, you go out and you create it. Every day. That’s how you get a political brand loyalty when people start to hear and like what the Dem reps in office have to say. The party is the people. Who we choose to represent the party matters.
They may not be as effective in legislation or procedure, but they’re probably going to be more effective in the areas Democrats badly lag behind Republicans right now like in social media, earned media, messaging that resonates. What is literally the worst case scenario if this happens? A GOP trifecta? Can’t get much worse than now.
That's very well stated. But do you think we could have a better young shadow Speaker than Hakeem Jeffries? He's better than Schumer, but I'm not satisfied with him.
Oh I’m not enamoured with him either, which is why I don’t automatically believe a younger person will be a good leader for the party. He’s viewed pretty much as a continuation of the same old Dem politics compared to someone such as AOC, which is more a mix of both.
Voters don’t like every issue she supports, but they like her because of her message and persona, the insurgent trying to shake the party out of a rut. Something different. People will vote for someone they disagree on many issues with if they like them, look no further then Obama, the last dynamicc media savvy Democratic presidential nominee and look what happened in rural, white America. Of course he was a generational politician unlikely to ever be replicated, but the point still stands though.
I’m not saying these people will fix everything or even that they are the only answer, but I am saying very strongly that I believe they will make the Democratic Party brand better if we sounded more like Sanders and AOC on the economy and less like Jeffries and Schumer. Jeffries is better than Schumer, but that’s not a huge bar to clear either.
Right, but the caveat is that issues or an identity as an avowed socialist can make supporting someone a step too far for a lot of people, and while AOC is loved, she's also hated passionately by many people (I'm a fan and wish she were running for Mayor!).
I agree. To just list someone's chronological age tells you nothing. Functional age might begin to be relevant. But if you don't favor a candidate you really need to find a persuasive reason--a bad vote, a deficiency in service. Otherwise, you're participating in stereotype and prejudice.
Emanuel Cleaver is my Congressman, now in his 20th year in Congress, and he's barely visible in the district (or anywhere) these days. His staff posts on social media, and he gives the occasional speech at places like the National WWI Memorial in KC, or at the IRS building, where thousands of employees were fired, but that's about it. I haven't seen him at any of the local protests. I think he expects to hold the seat for life and doesn't seem to think he'll have to work to keep it. He was a very popular local pastor with a large following, then became mayor of KC, (the first Black mayor, and a fairly successful one--a major street in the heart of the city was named after him before he was elected to Congress). He's a good and kind man, and some friends of mine who are local politicians know him personally (he officiated their wedding), and they think the world of him. Other than his years of covering for Sprint, including during the FISA debate, I've had no real issues with him. He's just not doing enough now, under these new circumstances.
Speaking of FISA, what a good time to consider that the telecom companies are most likely giving Trump federal government access to whatever communications it wants.
I'd say we still need someone like Pelosi even though I didn't like her crusade against AOC, without her, we'd get Biden and total devastation in the Presidential election with downballot GOPers riding Trump's coattails.
As Speaker Emerita, and perhaps the most powerful and effective Speaker in my lifetime, Nancy Pelosi has a wealth of institutional knowledge and strategic savvy. She also has the wisdom to stay in the background as an advisore after passing the baton to Hakeem Jeffries.
Ideally, the list would indicate which of these might be deemed safe seats.
Pelosi is doing good work. However, she can do most of what she's doing now without being an actual member of congress. People listen to her because of her connections and history, not because she's still in the house. Her fundraising would take a hit, and that does matter but at the same time it's not like candidates are strapped for cash the past few cycles.
If there is going to be a Democrat who will replace Nancy Pelosi, I would prefer it be either City Attorney David Chiu or another emerging politician in San Francisco, ideally one who has served on the Board of Supervisors.
I do think some generational turn-over is needed but I also worry about who would replace them. It shouldn’t be lost on anyone that the perception of Dems is pretty low as we are viewed as out of touch by many Americans. Younger, more liberal and more diverse candidates winning may be a deterrent to rebuilding our image.
Which, also to your point - it’d be better for them to retire and we have an open primary where established politicians would run instead of a race between an old incumbent vs a good looking bad politics nobody. AOC turned out fantastic but I wouldn’t count on other would be Squad members being so successful at politics.
I thought that too, but wouldn't favorability be more related to their ideology or partisanship. Like a college educated person who is politically conservative might see his actions rationally and see that the policies are failing but wouldn't vote for Democrats?
Could be a bit of both, especially in purple states. My political predictions are not good at all.
At most, I'm rooting for Dems to smash Rs in the House races next year. I would love to see a political earthquake and get the Senate back too, but politics are way too polarized at this time.
Never Trumpers are the ones that are likely to cross the aisle and vote for Dems out of spite, but there are still plenty of GOP Trump voters who don't like what he's doing but still won't vote for Dems out of party loyalty.
Louisiana has a Democratic voter majority, Kentucky had till 2022, Nevada has more Democrats. Colorado has roughly equal and blue wall had a democratic majority in 2016. Voter registration advantage is a very poor measure to predict election results.
SC had no party registration and open primaries. It also runs excellent elections in terms of the mechanics of voting. Two week early voting, free voter ID if you don't have a DL, paper "receipts" that are easy to read when you vote, etc. etc.
For those following the primary, is it generally the case where if Sherrill hits 30-40% (or thereabouts) support, there’s not a path for anyone else to nomination? Barring of course black swan events/scandals/dropping out etc.
i may have been a bit hyperbolic, but the current race for mayor of jersey city is at least largely revolving on finacial mismanagment by the current administration (fulop).
To wit, the following excerpt is pulled from a Jersey City op-ed laying out the dire financial straits.
"The City faced financial deficits in 2021 and 2023, totaling $94 million—a rare occurrence for local governments in New Jersey. Such deficits are typically reserved for the federal government, not local municipalities, and Jersey City will be paying off this fiscal mismanagement for years to come.
Audited statements reveal $219 million in Deferred Charges incurred since 2018, with $112 million still on the books as of December 2023."
A Democratic candidate has stepped up to challenge 3rd Congressional District Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Skamania, in the 2026 midterms, just as she faces criticism over several votes.
Brent Hennrich, a Vancouver stay-at-home father, announced his candidacy Thursday. He was a 2022 candidate for the seat then held by Republican Jaime Herrera Beutler and endorsed Perez after dropping out before the primary.
I’d like to echo a good question voiced yesterday by Dragonfire: Why isn’t Kathryn Garcia, who almost won last time, running for Mayor of New York against Cuomo et al? Anyone have insights?
Maybe she likes her job? Hochul appointed her Director of Operations for NYS shortly after her loss and she's still in that role.
Right, why bother with going through the process of actually being mayor when you already have the sort of cushy state appointment that former mayors and county executives in NY state aspire to?
I don't know that Hochul is popular enough where running as her operations director is a positive...
Not to mention, being mayor of a big city kind of sucks. Director of Operations for NYS sounds like a much more enjoyable job than Mayor of NYC.
I’m from Mpls and our mayor is running for a third term. What a tough job after George Floyd but the city politics has split between DFL and DSA. (DFL = Dem.) I don’t like the guy but I’m going to have to vote for him this time.
Evanston Mayor, former State Senator, and 2018 gubernatorial candidate Daniel Biss has announced he’s running for Illinois’ 9th congressional district to succeed Jan Schakowsky.
https://news.wttw.com/2025/05/15/evanston-mayor-daniel-biss-announces-bid-replace-us-rep-jan-schakowsky
Hope he wins, he was runner-up to Pritzker in 2018 D primary, solid all round guy!! 💙🇺🇲
TRUMP’s WAR ON TRUTH
Trump Cancels Grants to Study Online Misinformation: "The Trump administration has sharply expanded its campaign against experts who track misinformation and other harmful content online, abruptly canceling scores of scientific research grants at universities across the country,” the New York Times reports.
https://politicalwire.com/2025/05/15/trump-cancels-grants-to-study-online-misinformation/
Thought: Surely some democratically-minded philanthropist or foundation can replace these grants with their own?
This has been the MAGA target since COVID afaik. I think it goes even before that to WikiLeaks, Russiagate and Comey in 2016-2018.
MAGA can’t win without being able to lie with impunity
I get where you're coming from with that question, but one of the fundamental reasons I'm a big D Democrat is because I trust the government more than private charity to solve our problems. That might be a band-aid, but it's not sufficient.
I totally agree! But given the sorry excuse for what currently passes for American "government", the only remedy seems to be philanthropies or foundations, perhaps ideally given to universities for this express purpose.
Said democratically-minded philanthropist would likely be indicted if they tried-Trump has already shown he's not above laying false criminal charges on his enemies.
Fortunately, philanthropists who don’t seek public applause can make anonymous donations to good causes.
Trump was indicted four times and basically shrugged all of them off. Anyone he goes after is perfectly capable of doing the same.
They won't have "absolute immunity"...
Trump only got absolute immunity when he’s president.
Whatever.
NORWAY allocates money to secure American climate data
The Trump administration has stopped collecting climate data and removed it from websites. Now the government is setting aside money for Norway to secure the data.
The goal is to protect health and climate data in particular, which is largely stored in the US. American research policy has changed very quickly. There is uncertainty about funding, and there is also uncertainty about some of these important data sources, especially in the areas of climate and health.
"There is uncertainty about whether this data will be safeguarded, maintained and made available. We want to ensure that we can safeguard and take responsibility for that," says Minister of Research Sigrun Aasland.
https://www-nrk-no.translate.goog/klima/regjeringen-gir-20-millioner-for-sikre-klimadata-fra-usa-1.17410880?_x_tr_sl=no&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp
(Link to rough English version via Google Translate, summary above.)
Missouri Republicans at it again. There will be a new constitutional amendment on the ballot next year (or this year if the governor decides to call the election early) to overturn last year’s amendment that made abortion legal statewide. The new amendment doesn’t mention that it’s overturning the old one and has “ballot candy” language about banning gender-affirming care for transgender residents under the age of 18, which is already banned under state law. There are also exceptions for rape and incest, but those are meaningless imo because all the abortion providers will leave the state. Republicans also voted to overturn another proposition from last year that required most employers to provide sick time to workers and raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour.
It’s crazy that Missouri voters probably won’t punish Republicans at all for overturning amendments they approved. Feels like it would be a great opportunity for Dems, but their brand is so bad voters would rather vote for paternalistic Republicans who completely disregard their decisions than vote for any Dem.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article306426256.html
Real change in abortion rights, sick leave and paid family leave policy in red states can only come from Washington, we need to get a comfortable majority in the Senate in 2026 and 2028 to gut the filibuster, add DC, PR, pass the freedom to vote act so that no Lieberman, Sinema or Fetterman can stop us. Republicans hate Democracy when it doesn't work for them and their corporate overlords.
The next Democratic nominee should campaign on radical change, a Project 2029 to fix the broken system that we have here. The little guy in this nation has been screwed over for far too long but sadly votes against his own interests.
And every state should be treated like a swing state from California to Alabama, perhaps we can get to that by getting the NPVIC interstate compact passed and a majority on the Supreme Court.
Add national redistricting reform to that list. I believe that the freedom to vote act has that ?
Yes.
Are you interested in PR being a state because the US shouldn't have colonies? Or because of it's potential effect on the number of Dems in Congress? If the latter, you'll be disappointed, it would very likely be ~50:50 D:R. The statehood party there has long been dominated by corporatist anti-environment, anti-labor, social conservatives.
Both but some polls I saw during 2020-22 suggested that Puerto Ricans would prefer Democrats over Republicans for the Senate.
Also, aren't abortion and LGBTQ rights legal there?
They elected their previous Resident Commissioner, their single shadow Congressperson, Jenniffer Gonzalez, Gov last year. She's the epitome of the RW statehood party I described. They replaced her with someone who is a Dem from the status quo (colony) party.
I'm all for PR becoming a state if that's what the island chooses. But while polls suggest they might prefer Dems as Senators, the voting history suggests it would be a toss up.
From what I knew, I thought that all three parties are big tent parties which have Democrats, Republicans and Independents.
Harris won in landslide in he straw poll conducted in 2024 and was leading by a huge margin in opinion polls even before the Puerto Rico garbage incident. I don't think it will be a swing state. Even if it is, good for us anyways.
Well, I lived there for 8 years and still work there do back and forth a lot. Iirc, they'll get 5 reps and my guess is they'll split 3D2R. You are right that all the parties there have both Ds and Rs, but the PNP (statehood) party has swung farther to the right w each year. I would expect the EVs to be pretty solidly in the D camp, but not the mix of elected officials. It could be that the Rs are winning solely because of their alignment with the PNP and if so that would be interesting to follow if PR ever did become a state.
There's another commenter or two around here who is native PR and lives there still. He can better handicap the splits than I can, but I'm certain PR would elect a mix of D and R to house and maybe Senate, even though they'd be 7 EV for Dems. Kind of like Colorado, I guess.
I would expect the local parties to disintegrate after a binding referendum.
Yes, both legal for now.
Strength In Numbers/Verasight poll
President Trump
Approve: 40%
Disapprove: 56%
——
2026 Generic Ballot
🔵 DEM: 47%
🔴 GOP: 41%
——
May 1-6 | 1,000 Adults | ±3.1%
https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/new-poll-americans-oppose-trumps
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/democrats-have-a-real-shot-at-retaking-the-senate-in-2026.html
Interesting how Trump’s approval numbers might compare with President Biden’s at a similar point in his presidency. Likewise the generic Dem/GOP poll at that point.
Biden's weren't this low this early (just four months into the term.) They didn't really turn decisively negative until late 2021 and of course never recovered, despite some up and down bumps.
G. Elliott Morris, who commissioned this poll, keeps a record at his site of presidential approval ratings, from Eisenhower on, for the first six months of their terms (presumably he'll keep stretching it out over the next 3 1/2 years.) So far only Trump himself in 2017 had comparably low ratings, though Bill Clinton's did turn negative shortly after this point in 1993, reflecting his plurality win which limited his base of support, a sour political and economic mood among the public (sound familiar?), and his own blunders and defeats, some of which were overhyped by the media and Republicans (some redundancy there.)
Yes, this is what I seem to recall. Thanks!
Are there any potential IL senate candidates from outside the Chicago area/from south or central IL? Based on cursory wikipedia-ing I think Durbin was from south/central IL (born in East St. Louis, served in the House from a Springfield-area district), while Duckworth represented the Chicago suburbs. Is IL poised to have two senators from the Chicago area?
When you consider how much of the population of IL comes from the Chicago area it’s not that weird? Not sure being a downstate candidate would even bring that much of an advantage in a D primary given how red it is now and how much population it’s bled in recent decades.
To piggyback on that, 5m people live in Cook County (Chicago and inner suburbs) and 12m in the entire state. If you include other Chicago suburban counties (what is known as Chicagoland, including DuPage, Kane, Lake, Will and McHenry) you get another 3m. For the Dem primary, 2/3rds of the statewide vote comes from Cook County alone. While there may be other candidates who announce (although it's doubtful at this point), a downstate candidate would have to secure overwhelming margins in the 56 other counties and the Chicagoland vote would have to be pretty evenly split for someone to get the nomination.
That's fair, although you could compare this to New York which is another big state where the population density concentrates around one primary city. NYC+Long Island+Westchester and Rockland counties also have around 2/3 of the population with 13m people out of a total 20m. Yet they have one Senator from Brooklyn (Schumer) and another from Upstate (Gillibrand)
But remember, Gillibrand was appointed to the seat. She didn't win a primary. And incumbents are hard to dislodge.
Oh true! I forgot/didn't know that she was appointed
Still makes no sense to me why she was appointed, especially since she was a blue dog in the House.
Well, Caroline Kennedy was the first choice, and when she withdrew, I think there was a lot of sentiment that Hillary should be succeeded by a woman, and Gillibrand was young and the party thought she could win upstate while she wouldn't be anathema to NYC metro.
Because they wanted a Senator who wasn't from NYC. There's a sentiment outside NYC that the rest of the Empire State is "ignored."
The problem is that Cook County isn't 2/3rds of the state as a whole and IL has become a one party state. I say this as an Upstate NY Democrat who cited being a "big D" Democrat in a different comment thread, but in this context my small d democrat comes out. I'm not a fan of NYC voters dictating statewide policy.
Can you point out where I said Cook County is 2/3rds of IL? I think I said it was 5/12 or 41% of the entire state's population. With the suburbs, it's 2/3rds (8/12).
A Republican can win in IL statewide, but for the most part, their nominees (starting with Koehler in '86) have been far right ideologues with no appeal to Chicago. We had Republican Governors until 2002, and then the Rauner disaster starting in 2014. For Senate, we had Kirk from 2010 to 2016. What I'm saying is that the responsibility for IL becoming a one-party state is not with the voters, but with the Republican Party and the candidates it keeps nominating. If Republicans want to win, stop nominating candidates who call Chicago a "cesspool" (Darren Bailey, Gov nominee in 2022).
"For the Dem primary, 2/3rds of the statewide vote comes from Cook County alone."
Which is true. The Democratic primary is not "2/3rds of the state as a whole." It's just people who choose to vote in the Democratic primary. I'm not sure how to make this any clearer.
Then you should rest easy, because New York City has historically been absolutely killed on things like support for public education. Do you remember when the Court of Appeal ruled that the state government had hugely underfunded education in the city as compared to Upstate but that it lacked the power to force the Legislature to remedy that?
I hope AOC endorses Lander and not Mamdani, progressives need to be electorally smart.
And how is endorsing Mamdani an electorally dumb move?
It's a poignant problem for the anti-Cuomo faction. As Inside Elections' Jacob Rubashkin notes, Mamdani and the next two candidates, City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams and Comptroller Brad Lander, collectively exceed Cuomo's share of the vote in the fourth round. Ultimately, though, many supporters of both Adams and Lander break for Cuomo rather than Mamdani after their candidate is eliminated.
I wonder if that's a name recognition issue though. AOC endorsing Lander over Mamdani would stymie the momentum he currently has and only fracture the anti-Cuomo vote.
I think the problem is that he's to the left of Lander. His voters will most probably rank Lander next but Lander's don't seem to be interested in doing do.
Yeah, I'm a big fan of Lander and would prefer not to rank Mamdani. However, if he is really the most likely not-Cuomo not-Adams, I may rank him as high as 3rd.
Lander is sensible and effective.
What about her endorsing Lander and Adrienne Adams for 1st and 2nd choice? That may be my ballot.
Read my post in yesterday's digest, but to summarize, Mamdani is promising pie in the sky and is likely unelectable.
WHO DO WE WANT TO RETIRE
Thirty House Democrats are 75 years or older – and yet more than half plan to run for reelection in 2026. (Yet to announce*: Pelosi, Hoyer, Davis, Wilson, Cleaver and Adams.) Only Jan Schakowsky (80) and Gerry Connolly (75) have announced retirement.
Who else would we like to see retire?
1. Maxine Waters (CA-43), 86
2. Nancy Pelosi (CA-11), 85*
3. Steny Hoyer (MD-05), 85*
4. Danny Davis (IL-07), 83*
5. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03), 82
6. Frederica Wilson (FL-24), 82*
7. John Garamendi (CA-08), 80
8. Doris Matsui (CA-07), 80
9. Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12), 80
10. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05), 80*
https://www.axios.com/2025/05/15/house-democrats-age-members-reelection-biden
(LIST continued)
11. David Scott (GA-13), 79
12. Lloyd Doggett (TX-37), 78
13. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09), 78
14. Alma Adams (NC-12), 78*
15. Jerry Nadler (NY-12), 77
16. Al Green (TX-09), 77
17. Bennie Thompson (MS-02), 77
18. Zoe Lofgren (CA-18), 77
19. Kweisi Mfume (MD-07), 76
20. Richard Neal (MA-01), 76
21. Lois Frankel (FL-22), 76
22. John Larson (CT-01), 76
23. Steve Cohen (TN-09), 75
24. Joyce Beatty (OH-03), 75
NB. If you see someone missing, please let me know.
Definitely not Kaptur!
Everyone except Kaptur should retire, plain and simple
Everyone except Kaptur, yes.
Honestly given that 2026 should be a major wave year strongly favoring Democrats, I don't mind Kaptur retiring assuming a solid candidate emerges. Hell, even a "generic D" given enough support may be more than enough to at least keep the seat competitive or even D leaning.
In that district, that would be hazardous.
Are there no credible potential successors? I know we've had strong credible candidates in redder districts. Off the top of my head notably Dan Feehan and Jeff Ettinger in Minnesota 1st and Ron DiNicola in PA 16th, the latter which is far more conservative and where Democrats should have had no business competing in, even in the wave environment of 2018.
Ah Ron, I worked on that campaign. I even tried writing an ad for him to use and they ended up doing a worse FB video version of the ad. Good times.
We don't want a credible candidate; we want to keep the seat.
Just looking at that name I’d like to see at least half, if not more, of that list go to inject some fresh blood. David Scott is pretty useless and a lot of those names are backbenchers (Matsui and Garamendi don’t provide particular value to the caucus, as obvious examples)
I’d say at least 20 of them should stay. I don’t go for this ageism thing.
Sadly perception matters more than facts to American voters, it would be wise to listen to them as Republicans have already done (minus Trump) since 2010.
I doubt most voters are even aware of who and how old members of Congress are.
Specifics? No, you’re absolutely right. But the “Democrats are old and talking about things we don’t care about” image of the party that exists right now in poll after poll suggests we would be smart to start getting more younger fresh blood into the hallways and social media spheres of the American media ecosystem.
I want to win, I don’t want Schumer and Pelosi (I know she’s stepped down) to be the image of the party and tbqf, if anyone here wants that to continue, then you’re not willing to accept that there are major issues that need fixing in the party, starting with younger, fresh, DIFFERENT leadership.
My only goal is to win and I really don’t care if that means tossing some reps out who refuse to grapple with the new reality of America today and won’t fight with their dying breath Trump and his aristocracy enabled by the GOP. Get out of the way if you can’t do that bare minimum.
My problem with Schumer is not his age. Do voters have similar appraisals of Bernie Sanders? Youth is fine, but what matters most is effectiveness.
How effective is Sanders outside deep blue America though? Not very. Otherwise he'd be President right now and politicians like him would be the rule and not the exception.
Agreed, but you never hear him being criticized for his age.
My critique was saying those people partly because of age, but also partly because of outdated thinking that doesn’t fit today’s America.
Democratic economic populists like Bernie Sanders always seem to get a chunk of voters that aren’t available to Democrats otherwise, because they view him as one of the few on the left who gets the issues that matter most to rural America (obviously approval isn’t everything, but there’s a reason he’s the most popular Democratic politician in Washington right now).
The people who feel left behind are given a voice and a different direction to that anger across the country: it’s the billionaires fault! Tax the wealthy! Fix income inequality! Trump has been successful because he’s channeled that anger that exists out there into the Democratic Party itself both times he wasn’t president, but ran to become president. If you can tell me one other Republican who not only got rural turnout into hyperdrive, but also won Democratic voters at the same time? I don’t think there is one as effective.
Have you ever noticed that every Democratic policy when it comes to economics is overwhelmingly popular among voters? Like 75-25 support popular. Far better than on any other issue for the party. But we don’t ever get near that vote and yes it’s absolutely partisanship, but it’s also old outdated ideas and messaging that doesn’t resonate.
The party is the most unpopular it’s ever been. That’s a verifiable fact. We can choose to admit it and shift or get used to losing to some of the most vile, horrifying people in the country. What’s the worst that could happen if every Democratic rep (except Kaptur) in Congress retired over the age of 70? Where blue state reps are all younger, more energetic, telegenic, confident and have a big reach into the party base exciting them to vote for Democrats. That is where the energy is in the party or maybe you missed the “fight oligarchy” rallies that drew tens of thousands of Americans with AOC and Sanders, that’s where young leaders are stepping up and making an impact.
1 quick question before I continue: What would happen if Chuck Schumer did the same? Do you think even 1000 people would attend that? But AOC and Sanders earned nationwide media coverage. You don’t wait for politics to happen, you go out and you create it. Every day. That’s how you get a political brand loyalty when people start to hear and like what the Dem reps in office have to say. The party is the people. Who we choose to represent the party matters.
They may not be as effective in legislation or procedure, but they’re probably going to be more effective in the areas Democrats badly lag behind Republicans right now like in social media, earned media, messaging that resonates. What is literally the worst case scenario if this happens? A GOP trifecta? Can’t get much worse than now.
That's very well stated. But do you think we could have a better young shadow Speaker than Hakeem Jeffries? He's better than Schumer, but I'm not satisfied with him.
Oh I’m not enamoured with him either, which is why I don’t automatically believe a younger person will be a good leader for the party. He’s viewed pretty much as a continuation of the same old Dem politics compared to someone such as AOC, which is more a mix of both.
Voters don’t like every issue she supports, but they like her because of her message and persona, the insurgent trying to shake the party out of a rut. Something different. People will vote for someone they disagree on many issues with if they like them, look no further then Obama, the last dynamicc media savvy Democratic presidential nominee and look what happened in rural, white America. Of course he was a generational politician unlikely to ever be replicated, but the point still stands though.
I’m not saying these people will fix everything or even that they are the only answer, but I am saying very strongly that I believe they will make the Democratic Party brand better if we sounded more like Sanders and AOC on the economy and less like Jeffries and Schumer. Jeffries is better than Schumer, but that’s not a huge bar to clear either.
Right, but the caveat is that issues or an identity as an avowed socialist can make supporting someone a step too far for a lot of people, and while AOC is loved, she's also hated passionately by many people (I'm a fan and wish she were running for Mayor!).
I agree. To just list someone's chronological age tells you nothing. Functional age might begin to be relevant. But if you don't favor a candidate you really need to find a persuasive reason--a bad vote, a deficiency in service. Otherwise, you're participating in stereotype and prejudice.
Emanuel Cleaver is my Congressman, now in his 20th year in Congress, and he's barely visible in the district (or anywhere) these days. His staff posts on social media, and he gives the occasional speech at places like the National WWI Memorial in KC, or at the IRS building, where thousands of employees were fired, but that's about it. I haven't seen him at any of the local protests. I think he expects to hold the seat for life and doesn't seem to think he'll have to work to keep it. He was a very popular local pastor with a large following, then became mayor of KC, (the first Black mayor, and a fairly successful one--a major street in the heart of the city was named after him before he was elected to Congress). He's a good and kind man, and some friends of mine who are local politicians know him personally (he officiated their wedding), and they think the world of him. Other than his years of covering for Sprint, including during the FISA debate, I've had no real issues with him. He's just not doing enough now, under these new circumstances.
Speaking of FISA, what a good time to consider that the telecom companies are most likely giving Trump federal government access to whatever communications it wants.
I'd say we still need someone like Pelosi even though I didn't like her crusade against AOC, without her, we'd get Biden and total devastation in the Presidential election with downballot GOPers riding Trump's coattails.
As Speaker Emerita, and perhaps the most powerful and effective Speaker in my lifetime, Nancy Pelosi has a wealth of institutional knowledge and strategic savvy. She also has the wisdom to stay in the background as an advisore after passing the baton to Hakeem Jeffries.
Ideally, the list would indicate which of these might be deemed safe seats.
Been a while since I pulled this up but here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SZDvPXXQCp7cKeTtyYa9tMW2RSQbQbkADxrX-kAgWDo/edit?usp=sharing
Many thanks!
Pelosi is doing good work. However, she can do most of what she's doing now without being an actual member of congress. People listen to her because of her connections and history, not because she's still in the house. Her fundraising would take a hit, and that does matter but at the same time it's not like candidates are strapped for cash the past few cycles.
If there is going to be a Democrat who will replace Nancy Pelosi, I would prefer it be either City Attorney David Chiu or another emerging politician in San Francisco, ideally one who has served on the Board of Supervisors.
I wanted Steny Hoyer to retire 20 years ago.
I do think some generational turn-over is needed but I also worry about who would replace them. It shouldn’t be lost on anyone that the perception of Dems is pretty low as we are viewed as out of touch by many Americans. Younger, more liberal and more diverse candidates winning may be a deterrent to rebuilding our image.
Which, also to your point - it’d be better for them to retire and we have an open primary where established politicians would run instead of a race between an old incumbent vs a good looking bad politics nobody. AOC turned out fantastic but I wouldn’t count on other would be Squad members being so successful at politics.
A question. Would Trump's favorability be a better metric to gauge how a state will vote in 2026 or would his job approval there be a better metric?
Probably job approval.
I thought that too, but wouldn't favorability be more related to their ideology or partisanship. Like a college educated person who is politically conservative might see his actions rationally and see that the policies are failing but wouldn't vote for Democrats?
Could be a bit of both, especially in purple states. My political predictions are not good at all.
At most, I'm rooting for Dems to smash Rs in the House races next year. I would love to see a political earthquake and get the Senate back too, but politics are way too polarized at this time.
Never Trumpers are the ones that are likely to cross the aisle and vote for Dems out of spite, but there are still plenty of GOP Trump voters who don't like what he's doing but still won't vote for Dems out of party loyalty.
No, it's probably what party has a registration advantage-2016-2024 arguably proved approval ratings don't really matter.
Louisiana has a Democratic voter majority, Kentucky had till 2022, Nevada has more Democrats. Colorado has roughly equal and blue wall had a democratic majority in 2016. Voter registration advantage is a very poor measure to predict election results.
And several states have no partisan registration whatsoever.
So do all of those states do open primaries?
I'm not exhaustively knowledgeable on this, but from what I do know: yes.
SC had no party registration and open primaries. It also runs excellent elections in terms of the mechanics of voting. Two week early voting, free voter ID if you don't have a DL, paper "receipts" that are easy to read when you vote, etc. etc.
NJ Gov Emerson:
Sherrill 28
Fulop, Baraka, Gottheimer 11
Spiller 10
Sweeney 5
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/may-2025-new-jersey-poll/
For those following the primary, is it generally the case where if Sherrill hits 30-40% (or thereabouts) support, there’s not a path for anyone else to nomination? Barring of course black swan events/scandals/dropping out etc.
Yeah, I think 1/3 of the vote would win it for her.
I'm split between Sherill and Fulop. I gotta brush up on them and a couple others.
Fulop: baraka without the policy successes
Sherill: will clean the republicans clock in November and hasn't managed to piss off almost every aspect of the State Party like Fulop
Fulop has sunk? I haven't been paying close attention to him in ages and just associated him with Jersey City's rebound.
i may have been a bit hyperbolic, but the current race for mayor of jersey city is at least largely revolving on finacial mismanagment by the current administration (fulop).
To wit, the following excerpt is pulled from a Jersey City op-ed laying out the dire financial straits.
"The City faced financial deficits in 2021 and 2023, totaling $94 million—a rare occurrence for local governments in New Jersey. Such deficits are typically reserved for the federal government, not local municipalities, and Jersey City will be paying off this fiscal mismanagement for years to come.
Audited statements reveal $219 million in Deferred Charges incurred since 2018, with $112 million still on the books as of December 2023."
https://jcitytimes.com/op-ed-overspending-is-a-way-of-life-in-jersey-city/#:~:text=The%20City%20also%20faced%20financial,mismanagement%20for%20years%20to%20come.
WA 3
A Democratic candidate has stepped up to challenge 3rd Congressional District Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Skamania, in the 2026 midterms, just as she faces criticism over several votes.
Brent Hennrich, a Vancouver stay-at-home father, announced his candidacy Thursday. He was a 2022 candidate for the seat then held by Republican Jaime Herrera Beutler and endorsed Perez after dropping out before the primary.
https://www.columbian.com/news/2025/may/15/3rd-congressional-district-democrat-challenging-perez-ran-for-seat-in-2022/
Tough district for a Democrat, so this might be a mistake.
I don't think he'll threaten MGP's chances of getting into the top two.
It'd be funny AF if he got the second slot though (which would assure MGP a third term).
I’m very left wing and even I think this isn’t a good idea. Perez is probably as good as we’re getting in this district.
I've always liked her.
This is very stupid. Dems are very lucky to have MGP in that seat. VERY lucky. She is a gift.