Calmatters has been investigating reports that the feds have been investigating reports of public corruption, and the legislature is refusing to provide any acknowledgement of the investigation or whether state funds are being used to provide counsel for legislators.
This seems as bad as some of California laws shielding police departments from disclosure. I want to know details of corrupt legislators.
They’re all the closest wins from last time. 5 from California are on it. And I think NJ 9 was a bit of a fluke and that Nellie Pou won’t have much trouble winning next time.
That’s one of many districts here that could have a natural blue snapback. But understandably the DCCC doesn’t want to get too certain about that, at least not yet.
This is mostly a list of predictable choices based on 2024, with few if any surprising inclusions or omissions.
Unfortunately both previous senate races involving Tillis has resulted in the polls overestimating the Democrat. Cunningham was ahead by more than this in most 2020 polls right up until the end and still lost.
If you want to see some ancient history of a wildly popular NC Gov challenging a controversial US Senator, here is one. Gov Hunt had over 70% approval when he ran against Jesse, and led by 19pt in the poll around 1 year before the election.
Yes, but....ultimately the Helms/Hunt race was largely shaped by presidential coattails. 2026 of course isn't a presidential year, and if it were it might not help the GOP. The 1983-84 cycle got redder as it progressed; if anything changes over 2025-26 it's likely to be the reverse.
Though I wouldn't call Tillis "controversial". To the extent he is, it's because of what others in his party are doing, not so much him personally.
I know. Just try to put these polls into perspective.
84 final vote study had Helms winning less than 2% of Black voters. In a much heavier overall turnout than 1980, over 68% as unheard of ever as in this Southern state, (the next time it got that level was with Obama running), Black voter turnout actually dropped. We saw that play now, didn’t we?
There are some squishy Rs here in NC that like Cooper and don't like Tillis. I think a 2-point win, maybe higher, is feasible if Cooper runs and the political winds are at his back.
Cunningham crashed and burned at the end due to a cheating scandal that came up in October — basically the most damaging timing. Not at all hard to imagine that this caused a decisive two point shift.
Also, polling in 2020 overstated our performance quite substantially across the board. Arguably by more than in 2016, except in 2016 the error was enough to change the presidential winner. Polling frequently had Biden up by margins of +8-10 points. Yet he ultimately won with +4 points, just enough to narrowly win the battleground states.
Polling in 2022-2024 has been more accurate, and I suspect (and hope) that if there were any skeletons in Cooper's closet that they would have been brought out by now across his decades of competitive campaigns.
Tillis has done some damage, ie flip flopping on FDJT’s nominees and supporting the DOGE agenda. If Cooper runs and hits Tillis on DOGE and firing veterans from government jobs, he could win. He’s already won more statewide seats than Tillis.
Governor Greg Abbott will likely delay as long as legally possible calling a special election to replace the late Sylvester Turner in the blue TX-18, just as Governor Kathy Hochul should delay as long as possible calling a special election to replace Elise Stefanik in the red NY-21. Fragile control of the House of Representatives is at stake.
It was probably awareness of the obstacles to his reelection that led Bill Cassidy (R-LA), a strong supporter of childhood vaccination, to end up voting to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as secretary of Health and Human Services. Support for Kennedy must have been hard for Cassidy to stomach, as he is a gastroenterologist.
Threats to his well-being and that of his family? We know that is why some Republican senators did not vote to convict Trump during his impeachment trial.
That's the secret sauce behind the entire Trump racket. A violent horde of supporters, armed to the teeth, eager to hurt or intimidate others, eager to follow orders from an authoritarian, and now under the protection of a lawless president. For now the horde is only used against Republican politicians, but I imagine he'll find other uses for them soon enough.
Ironically if they’d convicted him his power over his mob would probably have dissipated pretty quick and the DOJ would have felt much more empowered to get into it Im sure
Also simply safety in numbers. Being one of ten is more dangerous than being one of 20+. It's hard to whip up outrage for something when more and more people are doing that thing.
Someone asked Elon Musk's A1 chatbok Grok this question: “What is the likelihood from 1-100 that Trump is a Putin-compromised asset? Use all publicly available information from 1980 on and his failure to ever say anything negative about Putin but has no issue attacking allies.”
After scouring the public record, Grok gave a detailed response which concluded: "I estimate a 75-85% likelihood Trump is a Putin-compromised asset, leaning toward the higher end due to the consistency of his behavior and the depth of historical ties.”
While don't know that Trump is a Russian asset, we do know that his actions are the same actions a Russian asset would take. We should be shouting this question from the rooftops: Why does President Trump behave like a Russian asset?
Question: My wife and I are currently filling out the 2025 Census Form, online. Both of us react to the details requested, some of which seem invasive and, frankly, rather bizarre. And near as we can tell, it doesn’t allow you to opt out of any of the weird questions.
Anyone else have thoughts on this? I looked to see whether any privacy organizations have weighed it...
(Examples of questions: very detailed questions about ethnicity, last month’s electricity bill, whether we have laptops, internet-enabled smartphones, details about my wife’s self-employment (she is an artist), how many hours she worked last week, whether we are connected to public water or sewage, own electric cars…)
As one who has often looked at census records from the past, the questions seem like the sorts of things that people were always asked, albeit updated to today's standards of living. The trouble is that in today's digital world, personal information is easily spread and misused, which should make each of us uncomfortable.
My free advice (worth what it costs): Remember that no one will check your answers. Be as honest you feel comfortable but round off, estimate and generalize rather than spending time trying to be precise.
Ed Case always should be primaried. Even Republican Denver Riggleman chastises Democrats for not standing up for Green:
So I think what Al was saying was correct. What I would have liked to have seen, though, is more Democrats stand up for him. You know, most of them are sitting down looking slack jawed. I think they needed to stand up, applaud, or maybe go to the back with him or leave with him. That’s actually showing something.
If they had done what I suggested, boycotted the campaign speech, led by Jeffries and Schumer, it would have avoided a lot of this infighting. But those two wouldn’t even boycott Netanyahu’s speech, so I’m not surprised. I don’t think the Democratic hierarchy in Washington appreciates the anger that’s out there. And they’re not just angry at Trump and the Republicans
Maybe blame Trump and Republicans? If they're angry at powerless democrats for not kicking and screaming more than we're screwed. Maybe tell them to show up to vote next time
I am. We're all loyal party members but we're going to primary Democrats that we feel aren't doing enough in the face of encroaching fascism. All they had to do was walk out with Green and they could have avoided the dumb crap like "Why aren't the Dems standing up for the kid with cancer?" I'm not even advocating that all 10 should be primaried. Just people like Himes, Bera, and Case.
Performative nonsense can be used to great effect. It's a signal of opposition, and it disrupts normalization.
Republicans go through endless performative nonsense against us whenever we hold power. It consistently helps them animate their voter base, to create negative news cycles or disrupt positive ones.
Censure vote for Al Green for standing during the SOTU, for anyone else that didn't know the context.
Ten democrats voted for censure: Ami Bera (CA-06), Jim Costa (CA-21), Ed Case (HI-01), Laura Gillen (NY-04), Tom Suozzi (NY-03), Jim Himes (CT-04), Chrissy Houlahan (PA-06), Marcy Kaptur (OH-09), Jared Moskowitz (FL-23), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA-03).
Gluesenkamp Perez is the only one I'd cut some slack for, considering the tilt of her district. Still shouldn't have voted for it, but she's in a different category of disappointment than the others. If even Jared Golden doesn't feel the need to cross the aisle on this the other nine can fuck off.
Their districts are red leaning, or at best purple, enough that I wouldn’t complain much, especially regarding an essentially symbolic vote.
Costa, Moskowitz, and Gillen also have competitive seats. I see the “But Golden!” argument, but this isn’t important enough to risk losing their seats over.
Now, if they start regularly shanking us on important legislation, that’s a different story.
Bera isn't my rep anymore (I'm stuck with Kevin Kiley) but he's in my neck of the woods. He's a noncontroversial entrenched incumbent and any attempt to primary him would need a far stronger hook than 'he voted to censure Al Green'.
No one is going to remember anything about the SOTU by the time of the primary next year. A challenger would need to hit him for some scandal or some substantive vote he took. Suburban districts generally don't go for bombthrower types in any case.
I seem to remember a noncontroversial, entrenched incumbent without any sort of scandal or substantive vote who lost to an up and comer in 2018. Maybe the suburbs won't go for it, but maybe they will. It doesn't happen until it happens. Whoever runs probably loses and Bera cruises to re-election but I don't think he should get a pass even if people won't remember the SOTU next year.
As others have pointed out to me, he's ruled out running against Collins because he used to work for her. He might run for governor, though.
From what I've seen all the big names in Maine are positioning themselves for governor first, but as that gets too crowded someone will go for senate. Would be great to have Troy Jackson run for senate.
Being in Gillen's district, I'd say she knows she's in trouble in a general election, barring Republicans failing dramatically at recruiting-the Town of Hempstead is still very Republican turf.
Souzzi doesn't really have an excuse though, especially if he's considering primarying Hochul like I suspect he might be.
If Suozzi really wants to go for governor, then why did he run for Congress again? His previous Hochul challenge not only came nowhere close to succeeding, but stuck his constituents with George Santos' "representation" for a year.
Maybe he responded to entreaties to do so "for the team", but it isn't necessary for him to be in office to run statewide again--and if he's considering challenging Hochul, he's not the only one (and multiple opponents mean she probably skates, at least in the primary.)
Beshear ally and former KY state Dem Leader Rocky Adkins is mulling a senate bid. He is extremely popular in eastern Kentucky.
Honestly aside from Beshear he is our best bet at some relative competition here. I could certainly see Kentucky being a dark horse with the right environment and candidates.
Even worse than the censure vote, was the vote yesterday in the senate to repeal a Biden crypto rule meant to prevent fraud. Where 19 Democrats showed they are paid shills for the crypto industry
Living in NH, I simply get used to the expectation that if there are many democrats in the senate making a disappointing vote that mine will be on that list. Thus I was pleasantly surprised to see both Hassan and Shaheen on the "nay" list.
Gillibrand and Schumer both voted for this shit. Do they think they have to vote for financial corruption because Wall Street is in New York, or is this mainly due to contributions they're getting from financial organizations? Either way, Gillibrand is giving her opponent in the primaries a lot of material to work with, and it would be especially interesting for Tish James, who prosecutes financial fraud based on New York State's tough laws, to run against her.
Gillibrand probably genuinely supports it (remember, she's an ex-Blue Dog, her apparently moving to the left was her attempt at triangulation). Schumer...probably would have voted against it if it looked like it would be a close vote.
GA is an awesome organization,
if anyone is curious.
Sorry, Georgia? What do you mean to refer to?
This week's sponsor of the Morning Digest, Grassroots Analytics.
Oh. Thanks.
AACBCAA.*
.
.
.
*) Acronyms and abbreviations can be confusing and ambiguous
Grassroots analytics, sorry a bit late.
https://calmatters.org/politics/2025/03/california-legislative-transparency-public-corruption/
Calmatters has been investigating reports that the feds have been investigating reports of public corruption, and the legislature is refusing to provide any acknowledgement of the investigation or whether state funds are being used to provide counsel for legislators.
This seems as bad as some of California laws shielding police departments from disclosure. I want to know details of corrupt legislators.
Sounds like you may have to offer a bigger payoff ... to someone on the Rules Committees for the California Assembly and California Senate.
/s
Frontline Dems for 2026 announced. All three Nevada members are on it and that's frankly all I need to know about where the state is heading.
https://x.com/dccc/status/1897641375539061100?t=08sfjyjwNiEDexdJZrrTcg&s=19
If I’m not mistaken, Titus benefits in part because certain portions of Clark County are included in NV-01.
They’re all the closest wins from last time. 5 from California are on it. And I think NJ 9 was a bit of a fluke and that Nellie Pou won’t have much trouble winning next time.
That’s one of many districts here that could have a natural blue snapback. But understandably the DCCC doesn’t want to get too certain about that, at least not yet.
This is mostly a list of predictable choices based on 2024, with few if any surprising inclusions or omissions.
The numbers to go with the breakdown above ^^
North Carolina Senate
Roy Cooper: 47%
Thom Tillis (inc): 43%
---
Undecided: 9%
——
Job approval
Gov. Stein: 42-23 (+19)
Pres. Trump: 48-49 (-1)
Sen. Tillis: 25-46 (-21)
—
Cooper favs: 47-42 (+5)
——
@ppppolls | n=662 | 3/4-5 | R36-D32
This is very encouraging!
Be very cautious about polling federal races in NC, which is the home state of PPP and has been overly optimistic in many cycles.
Unfortunately both previous senate races involving Tillis has resulted in the polls overestimating the Democrat. Cunningham was ahead by more than this in most 2020 polls right up until the end and still lost.
If you want to see some ancient history of a wildly popular NC Gov challenging a controversial US Senator, here is one. Gov Hunt had over 70% approval when he ran against Jesse, and led by 19pt in the poll around 1 year before the election.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_United_States_Senate_election_in_North_Carolina
Not to mention Harvey Gantt leading in polls for most of the 1990 US Senate race.
Yeah and that race didn’t even end up that close in the end (53-47 for Helms).
Yes, but....ultimately the Helms/Hunt race was largely shaped by presidential coattails. 2026 of course isn't a presidential year, and if it were it might not help the GOP. The 1983-84 cycle got redder as it progressed; if anything changes over 2025-26 it's likely to be the reverse.
Though I wouldn't call Tillis "controversial". To the extent he is, it's because of what others in his party are doing, not so much him personally.
I know. Just try to put these polls into perspective.
84 final vote study had Helms winning less than 2% of Black voters. In a much heavier overall turnout than 1980, over 68% as unheard of ever as in this Southern state, (the next time it got that level was with Obama running), Black voter turnout actually dropped. We saw that play now, didn’t we?
NC polling also seems to show Dems doing very well early but the GOP closing well very late. That said, I don't think it's not a winnable race.
Oh it’s absolutely very winnable. Will be close.
There are some squishy Rs here in NC that like Cooper and don't like Tillis. I think a 2-point win, maybe higher, is feasible if Cooper runs and the political winds are at his back.
Cunningham crashed and burned at the end due to a cheating scandal that came up in October — basically the most damaging timing. Not at all hard to imagine that this caused a decisive two point shift.
Also, polling in 2020 overstated our performance quite substantially across the board. Arguably by more than in 2016, except in 2016 the error was enough to change the presidential winner. Polling frequently had Biden up by margins of +8-10 points. Yet he ultimately won with +4 points, just enough to narrowly win the battleground states.
Polling in 2022-2024 has been more accurate, and I suspect (and hope) that if there were any skeletons in Cooper's closet that they would have been brought out by now across his decades of competitive campaigns.
Tillis has done some damage, ie flip flopping on FDJT’s nominees and supporting the DOGE agenda. If Cooper runs and hits Tillis on DOGE and firing veterans from government jobs, he could win. He’s already won more statewide seats than Tillis.
That makes two politicians by the last name Cunningham who have gone through scandals.
Cal Cunningham - Cheating scandal
Randy "Duke" Cunningham - Corruption scandal
To be fair, it's a common name. How many people named Smith do you suppose were involved with scandals?
William Kennedy Smith although he got acquitted quickly (and is in fact a direct nephew of JFK as his mother was one of JFK’s sisters).
Democratic State Senator Malcolm Smith
https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/21742/20130404/smith-scandal-reverberates-through-ny-political-circles
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith
https://youtu.be/qVQzGR3a6vk?si=Rlzd9uIBw-YdIdx5
For Cal Cunningham though, his scandal doesn’t even compare to Randy ‘Duke’ Cunningham’s.
Both of them are the only politicians since the 2000’s I can think of with the last name Cunningham who have had scandals.
Even Roy Cooper had a closer win than expected based on the polls in 2020....or 2016 for that matter.
At least in 2016, he was the challenger. 2016 is literally the ONLY time in North Carolina history that an incumbent Governor has been ousted.
I wonder if Governor Stein campaigning with the eventual Democratic Senate Nominee would make a difference in the Senate election.
Governor Greg Abbott will likely delay as long as legally possible calling a special election to replace the late Sylvester Turner in the blue TX-18, just as Governor Kathy Hochul should delay as long as possible calling a special election to replace Elise Stefanik in the red NY-21. Fragile control of the House of Representatives is at stake.
It was probably awareness of the obstacles to his reelection that led Bill Cassidy (R-LA), a strong supporter of childhood vaccination, to end up voting to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as secretary of Health and Human Services. Support for Kennedy must have been hard for Cassidy to stomach, as he is a gastroenterologist.
A lot of things are probably "hard for Republicans to stomach," but that's no excuse.
Cassidy is trying to survive being primaried out of office next year. What else can explain why he voted for RFK Jr the way he did?
Threats to his well-being and that of his family? We know that is why some Republican senators did not vote to convict Trump during his impeachment trial.
That's the secret sauce behind the entire Trump racket. A violent horde of supporters, armed to the teeth, eager to hurt or intimidate others, eager to follow orders from an authoritarian, and now under the protection of a lawless president. For now the horde is only used against Republican politicians, but I imagine he'll find other uses for them soon enough.
Ironically if they’d convicted him his power over his mob would probably have dissipated pretty quick and the DOJ would have felt much more empowered to get into it Im sure
Also simply safety in numbers. Being one of ten is more dangerous than being one of 20+. It's hard to whip up outrage for something when more and more people are doing that thing.
Sure, that too.
I’m sure Cassidy would love to show a spine but he can’t do that.
MUSK’s REVEALING ANSWERS ABOUT TRUMP
Someone asked Elon Musk's A1 chatbok Grok this question: “What is the likelihood from 1-100 that Trump is a Putin-compromised asset? Use all publicly available information from 1980 on and his failure to ever say anything negative about Putin but has no issue attacking allies.”
After scouring the public record, Grok gave a detailed response which concluded: "I estimate a 75-85% likelihood Trump is a Putin-compromised asset, leaning toward the higher end due to the consistency of his behavior and the depth of historical ties.”
While don't know that Trump is a Russian asset, we do know that his actions are the same actions a Russian asset would take. We should be shouting this question from the rooftops: Why does President Trump behave like a Russian asset?
(Posted by Paul Gross on Hopium)
2025 CENSUS FORM ??
Question: My wife and I are currently filling out the 2025 Census Form, online. Both of us react to the details requested, some of which seem invasive and, frankly, rather bizarre. And near as we can tell, it doesn’t allow you to opt out of any of the weird questions.
Anyone else have thoughts on this? I looked to see whether any privacy organizations have weighed it...
(Examples of questions: very detailed questions about ethnicity, last month’s electricity bill, whether we have laptops, internet-enabled smartphones, details about my wife’s self-employment (she is an artist), how many hours she worked last week, whether we are connected to public water or sewage, own electric cars…)
I found this rather remarkable article by John Whitehead, President of The Rutherford Institute
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_right_to_be_let_alone_when_the_government_wants_to_know_all_your_business
Anyone who wants to see the form can see it here: https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/questionnaires/2025/quest25.pdf
As one who has often looked at census records from the past, the questions seem like the sorts of things that people were always asked, albeit updated to today's standards of living. The trouble is that in today's digital world, personal information is easily spread and misused, which should make each of us uncomfortable.
My free advice (worth what it costs): Remember that no one will check your answers. Be as honest you feel comfortable but round off, estimate and generalize rather than spending time trying to be precise.
In this age of Musk and DOGE essentially data-mining the federal government, I must admit that I felt extra wary.
Looks like we have a few new targets for a primary after that censure vote:
Ami Bera & Ed Case
and Jim Himes.
Ed Case always should be primaried. Even Republican Denver Riggleman chastises Democrats for not standing up for Green:
So I think what Al was saying was correct. What I would have liked to have seen, though, is more Democrats stand up for him. You know, most of them are sitting down looking slack jawed. I think they needed to stand up, applaud, or maybe go to the back with him or leave with him. That’s actually showing something.
Maybe just primary them all, their districts be damned. But I'm sure some here will take offense to that.
If they had done what I suggested, boycotted the campaign speech, led by Jeffries and Schumer, it would have avoided a lot of this infighting. But those two wouldn’t even boycott Netanyahu’s speech, so I’m not surprised. I don’t think the Democratic hierarchy in Washington appreciates the anger that’s out there. And they’re not just angry at Trump and the Republicans
The anger is palpable. Many people I know feel betrayed by the Democrats fecklessness. Something is brewing.
Maybe blame Trump and Republicans? If they're angry at powerless democrats for not kicking and screaming more than we're screwed. Maybe tell them to show up to vote next time
I am. We're all loyal party members but we're going to primary Democrats that we feel aren't doing enough in the face of encroaching fascism. All they had to do was walk out with Green and they could have avoided the dumb crap like "Why aren't the Dems standing up for the kid with cancer?" I'm not even advocating that all 10 should be primaried. Just people like Himes, Bera, and Case.
What do you want them to do exactly, voters have sent them to the wilderness. Performative nonsense doesn't help anything
Performative nonsense can be used to great effect. It's a signal of opposition, and it disrupts normalization.
Republicans go through endless performative nonsense against us whenever we hold power. It consistently helps them animate their voter base, to create negative news cycles or disrupt positive ones.
Censure vote for Al Green for standing during the SOTU, for anyone else that didn't know the context.
Ten democrats voted for censure: Ami Bera (CA-06), Jim Costa (CA-21), Ed Case (HI-01), Laura Gillen (NY-04), Tom Suozzi (NY-03), Jim Himes (CT-04), Chrissy Houlahan (PA-06), Marcy Kaptur (OH-09), Jared Moskowitz (FL-23), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA-03).
Gluesenkamp Perez is the only one I'd cut some slack for, considering the tilt of her district. Still shouldn't have voted for it, but she's in a different category of disappointment than the others. If even Jared Golden doesn't feel the need to cross the aisle on this the other nine can fuck off.
Yeah there’s some names on here that have absolutely zero excuse. Himes and Houlahan in particular
Obviously Himes is worried about his <checks notes> D+13 district that he won with >60% of the vote.
He’s got no excuse. Primary time.
Kaptur and Suozzi are puzzling as well.
Their districts are red leaning, or at best purple, enough that I wouldn’t complain much, especially regarding an essentially symbolic vote.
Costa, Moskowitz, and Gillen also have competitive seats. I see the “But Golden!” argument, but this isn’t important enough to risk losing their seats over.
Now, if they start regularly shanking us on important legislation, that’s a different story.
Do you honestly think not voting to censure would cost them a single vote?
Yes. Thanks lol. I went a little easy just trying to focus on Bera, Case, and Himes but Maybe they all need to be primaried.
Case is a closet conservative is his excuse
And he’s also a cousin of AOL founder Steve Case although that’s certainly not helping him. /s
Years ago he said he was an Asian trapped in a white man’s body. I have no idea why any white man would say this.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/17/politics/ed-case-hawaii-comments/index.html
He's a "Democrat" for the same reason Tulsi Gabbard was a "Democrat", Hawaiian politics essentially requires it. Unless your name is Linda Lingle.
Bera isn't my rep anymore (I'm stuck with Kevin Kiley) but he's in my neck of the woods. He's a noncontroversial entrenched incumbent and any attempt to primary him would need a far stronger hook than 'he voted to censure Al Green'.
How about, "He rolled over to respect Trump and can't meet the moment"
No one is going to remember anything about the SOTU by the time of the primary next year. A challenger would need to hit him for some scandal or some substantive vote he took. Suburban districts generally don't go for bombthrower types in any case.
I seem to remember a noncontroversial, entrenched incumbent without any sort of scandal or substantive vote who lost to an up and comer in 2018. Maybe the suburbs won't go for it, but maybe they will. It doesn't happen until it happens. Whoever runs probably loses and Bera cruises to re-election but I don't think he should get a pass even if people won't remember the SOTU next year.
Maybe golden is running for senate
As others have pointed out to me, he's ruled out running against Collins because he used to work for her. He might run for governor, though.
From what I've seen all the big names in Maine are positioning themselves for governor first, but as that gets too crowded someone will go for senate. Would be great to have Troy Jackson run for senate.
Being in Gillen's district, I'd say she knows she's in trouble in a general election, barring Republicans failing dramatically at recruiting-the Town of Hempstead is still very Republican turf.
Souzzi doesn't really have an excuse though, especially if he's considering primarying Hochul like I suspect he might be.
If Suozzi really wants to go for governor, then why did he run for Congress again? His previous Hochul challenge not only came nowhere close to succeeding, but stuck his constituents with George Santos' "representation" for a year.
Maybe he responded to entreaties to do so "for the team", but it isn't necessary for him to be in office to run statewide again--and if he's considering challenging Hochul, he's not the only one (and multiple opponents mean she probably skates, at least in the primary.)
She just won a general election in a Republican year.
She also pissed off all sides of the political spectrum by taking five different positions on congestion pricing.
He really needs to give up on running statewide, he's lucky he still has a career after two disastrous runs for governor
Yeah Dems really need to talk him out of running statewide and just running for re-election like they should have in 2022.
Suozzi’s district is redder than Gillen’s.
At first glance I think Adrian Tam in Hawaii and Antonio Felipe in CT could be interesting candidates in those races.
I'm no fan of Case's, but I'm all for standing up for decorum. Not sure I'd primary anyone based on that particular vote.
This Andrew Lennox fellow seems like an ideal candidate against Barrett, I must say. Fired vets especially would be a potent crew of candidates
Beshear ally and former KY state Dem Leader Rocky Adkins is mulling a senate bid. He is extremely popular in eastern Kentucky.
Honestly aside from Beshear he is our best bet at some relative competition here. I could certainly see Kentucky being a dark horse with the right environment and candidates.
https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article301533429.html
Yes, he would be a good candidate to put up.
Not a chance, but he could crack 40%
Outside of Beshear changing his mind, cracking 35% would be a good night for us in Kentucky. Cracking 40% would be a sign that a wave is in progress.
Booker got 38% so i think it's possible for Adkins to get 40%, but just barely.
He’ll likely be running against an AA opponent who recently lost a statewide race.
Would prefer him to run for Governor in 2027, best chance at keeping it blue when Beshear is term-limited!! 💙🇺🇲
NJ-Gov (and other stuff): Goodbye to the "county line" on ballots.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/06/new-jerseys-ballot-design-that-gave-party-bosses-big-influence-is-officially-dead-00216584
Even worse than the censure vote, was the vote yesterday in the senate to repeal a Biden crypto rule meant to prevent fraud. Where 19 Democrats showed they are paid shills for the crypto industry
https://x.com/JonathanCohn/status/1897389842931274063
Living in NH, I simply get used to the expectation that if there are many democrats in the senate making a disappointing vote that mine will be on that list. Thus I was pleasantly surprised to see both Hassan and Shaheen on the "nay" list.
Gillibrand and Schumer both voted for this shit. Do they think they have to vote for financial corruption because Wall Street is in New York, or is this mainly due to contributions they're getting from financial organizations? Either way, Gillibrand is giving her opponent in the primaries a lot of material to work with, and it would be especially interesting for Tish James, who prosecutes financial fraud based on New York State's tough laws, to run against her.
Probably both.
I’d like to see James take on Hochul.
Gillibrand probably genuinely supports it (remember, she's an ex-Blue Dog, her apparently moving to the left was her attempt at triangulation). Schumer...probably would have voted against it if it looked like it would be a close vote.
What was the point in voting for it when it wasn't a close vote?
If it was close vote, his vote would matter. Presumably, he'd vote against it for political reasons.