Whether or not Dick Durbin (80) runs for re-election, Sheldon Whitehouse should immediately replace him as ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Senator Whitehouse is highly capable, he does not suffer fools or misinformation or Republican manipulation – he is the fighter we need for the precarious times in which we live.
Sheldon Whitehouse’s excellent Senate lectures on how the dark money and the Federalist Society captured the Supreme Court and much of our judicial system is well worth watching!
Had Whitehouse been Chair of the Senate Judiciary these last four years, I believe we would have quite a few more Biden-appointed judges in place in our federal courts.
I have been applauding Bernie Sanders’ and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez’s huge rallies. Really glad they’re standing up to Trump and loudly taking their fight to the American public. Until I spotted this, which gave me pause... :
. BERNIE’s BAD IDEA: "The Left Should Leave the Democratic Party"
"At a time when plenty of people have advice for unhappy progressive Democrats, one of their heroes, Bernie Sanders, had a succinct message: Don't love the party, leave it.
"In an interview with the New York Times, he previewed a barnstorming tour he has undertaken with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez but made it clear he wouldn't be asking audiences to rally 'round the Democratic Party. "One of the aspects of this tour is to try to rally people to get engaged in the political process and run as independents outside of the Democratic Party," Sanders said."
EDIT: Just to be clear, my aim is NOT to attack either Bernie or AOC, but to express concern about the *elections consequence* of this – if the reporting and the NYT interview with Bernie are accurate. I think those consequences are worth discussing here on The Downballot.
Well, he's always been an independent or member of a third party. Yet when push comes to shove, he's never run as a third-party candidate in a presidential race. And he's sided with the Senate Democratic caucus.
IMHO, Bernie could make an even bigger contribution to the fight against Trump and autocracy by JOINING the Democratic Party and encouraging others, especially young voters, to join the party. If Bernie and AOC really wanted to do a huge service, they could lead a strong voter registration and Dem Party registration drive, making this a prominent feature at each of the well-attended rallies on their Fighting Oligarchy Tour.
(The very last thing America needs is Ralph Naderesque / Jill Steinish spoilers!)
Not to mention they can actually encourage people to vote Democratic and vote progressive down ballot. If they really mean "not me, us", back it up with similarly minded candidates. The problem is that's precisely what they are NOT doing.
If the country wanted Bernie Sanders style policy and politicians, he would be President right now and politicians like him would be the rule and not the exception. For once separate your personal politics from those of the nation's.
When one party loses repeatedly to another, the losing party's politics tend to move toward those of the winning party. This is, like, Poli Sci 101 stuff.
If that were so, we wouldn't have had Ronald Reagan elected president. But move to the right. Just don't complain when a lot of voters don't go with you.
Reagan didn't arise from repeated Republican defeats. Nixon won in 1968 and 1972, and Carter was elected only narrowly in 1976.
I'm not defending it, and I certainly don't want to see the Democratic Party move to the right. I'm just saying that the way to shift the Overton Window left is to defeat *Republicans* consistently and repeatedly.
And don't forget Eisenhower before Nixon. Biden was actually fairly left wing a President. If no Clinton nor Obama before him, he's not as left wing a President as he is.
Nixon domestically was more left than most of the presidents who followed him. Wage and price controls, the EPA, OSHA, SSI. And you're only looking at it on the presidential level.
Republicans won 1968 and 1972, and narrowly lost 1976. And 1976's narrow loss was after one of the most damaging political scandals in our nation's history.
That's exactly the kind of recipe to see their party move to the right. They won 2/3 of the preceding elections and the only one they lost was barely lost despite a huge handicap.
And it's not as if Jimmy Carter was a liberal darling. He sucked up to George Wallace to win the Presidential election. Not to mention his Playboy interview was done to appeal liberals who thought he was too RIGHT wing.
It's more complicated than that. Every time in my lifetime that the GOP has had a big election, it's done so by moving still further to the right. 1980....1994....2010....2024. It's been the same pattern. Moving further to the right is a political winner for Republicans.
The Poli Sci 101 lesson here is that the calculus doesn't work in the other direction, or at least hasn't since the 1960s. When Democrats try moving to the left, it doesn't generate the same response among voters as it does when the Republicans move right.
Let's not forget, though, that the dynamics of presidential and midterm elections are very, very different. Republicans haven't been shut out of the White House three consecutive times since FDR/Truman (and even in that instance, the response was the nomination of Dwight Eisenhower, whose politics were so vague that he was courted by BOTH parties!).
2024 was a disaster of an election, but does it qualify as "big" in this context? It has big consequences but republicans won it on the margins.
They won the tipping point state (PA) by 1.7 points and have the narrowest house majority since WW1! Change three seats in the house and the speaker changes. They did well in the senate but two of their pickups (WV, MT) were effectively guaranteed by the map, and the third (OH) wasn't that far off. Only PA was an impressive senate win for them.
The election has some of the biggest consequences in modern US history, but I would call it among the narrowest of wins in our history. Far, far, far from being lumped in with 1980, 1994, or 2010.
That's a reasonable distinction. And while you're correct, David Shor's analysis paints a picture of a country where Trump's dominance was less "on the margins" than the actual 2024 electorate indicated.
There's a lot more to it than a conventional left-right argument. It's less left-right than "risk versus security". People want security and were conned into believing "MAGA" would give that to them. MAGA promised cultural security and economic security, a hybrid of social policy from the right and some configuration of the New Deal consensus and Japanese-style protectionism more reflective of the left.
MAGA successfully portrayed the Democrats as the party of turbocharged cultural change without hesitation, apology, or respect for those uncomfortable with turbocharged cultural change.....and they won over the "security voters" en masse. The Democrats' prospects of realigning the electorate depends upon being the party of security again for these voters, who won't be any more bothered by fear of leftism than they were in 1932 if they feel insecure. Musk is making that task easier for the Democrats to sell, but if the party remains either supportive or indifferent about turbocharged cultural change and the majority of voters who despise it, then it won't matter if they move left or right. They won't win.
Yes but to your point the current U.S. left wing is full-steam ahead on the "cultural change"/risk train track re: LGBTQ, crime/criminal justice, and immigration . .so not sure how a pivot to the right doesn't occur in tandem with being seen as the security blanket voters can run home to.
The best things the Democrats have going for them is that events are likely to change the conversation now that the other team is in power and doing unpopular things that will undermine voters' feelings of security.
In terms of tangibles, recognizing that the overwhelming majority of the country sees a distinction between illegal border crossings and legal immigration is at the top of the list. Beyond that, we need to appreciate that policies that were broadly unpopular in the past will likely be just as unpopular when repackaged for contemporary times. This puts us in a precarious position in having to distance ourselves from policies that have long been progressive goals, but when we see the alternative that is the 2025 reality following an election when our worldviews were soundly rejected, it's hard to say that eliminating cash bail was worth the right battle to choose, as one example.
And more broadly, creating new "risk" in a nation whose people are pleading for security is incredibly bad politics, and it really put Democratic elected officials on a collision course with their base in many ways in the last several years. Voters don't enjoy the anxiety that comes with feeling that their entire lives are gonna be judged based on a Halloween costume they wore in the 80s. Rationally or not, that's the kind of anxiety that leads people into the arms of MAGA.
Just do better and be more inspirational. The whole debate over being too right or too left is stupid bc the average American doesn’t understand the complexity of policy. Just look and sound good. Trump is orange for a reason.
He underperformed Harris in Vermont in 2024 and he barely got a majority in his 2020 primary run for President in Vermont. He's not as popular as he once was.
Sanders' approach to in/not in the party is IMO the wrong approach for his goals. AOC's approach has it right.
If the problem with democrats is that there aren't enough people like him in it, then him refusing to join is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I have no illusions that he will change his mind on this, but I do think he'd accomplish more for his goals if he went from a democratic-aligned independent to an official democrat.
Or rather his stated goals. His refusal to work with people is a demonstration of how unserious he actually is about governing and passing progressive policy. Keep in mind that this is the ONLY stable career the man has ever had. He became a politician to line his (and his family's) pockets. Nothing more.
I'm not the biggest Sanders fan despite being really quite far on the left, but I would contend none of that is fair. People who want to get rich don't become politicians, and those that do don't spend a decade as mayor of Burlington, and they certainly don't keep running for office after multiple defeats long before the age of grifter-candidates. I don't have anything against someone being a career politician.
People can be truly dedicated to their goals while they are also not the most efficacious worker towards those goals. That doesn't mean the person is not genuine.
This is well put. Like you, I am not president of the Sanders fan club and yes, like all politicians, he has a healthy ego, but I don't doubt that he is fighting for what he believes is best for the country and to imply that he is in it for the money is silly....
Running as a Leftie independent may have worked for Bernie in Vermont, but it's not going to fly in the rest of the country. It is really terrible advice. Going to AOC route has a much higher chance of success, even without the concern about spoilers. Third party runs just do not attract the same amount of money or institutional support needed to win. And the primary system advantages insurgent campaigns. You need to convince a much smaller subset of the electorate and those you do need tend to be more tuned into what's going on politically.
I saw this at a small scale in the 26th Middlesex State Rep district (East Cambridge and East Somerville). The current rep, Mike Connolly, first ran for office as a leftie Independent against the long time Rep, Tim Toomey. He lost decisively. He came back 4 years later and won the Democratic primary, also against Toomey, and has served ever since. He actually got more votes (4,010 vs 2,938) in his first campaign, but the electorate was much larger, so that translated to 25% vs 54%.
I hate to point Sinema as an example bc she absolutely fucking sucks. But, they all learn their lesson and come crawling back at some point.
I saw Blue Rev on Fbook make an “Indy ?” type of post and if is this where the conversation is headed, then we need to do better. I’m a Democrat bc of the ideals and morals, not bc of the name. Get it the fuck together literally everyone.
It might have been real in 2016, when Clinton was the opponent, and Trump was bashing her with NAFTA and the prospect of additional "trade" agreements, but it's dissipated since then.
There's no wonder. They are both populists and stress the need of ONE person to make all the changes. The reason why left populism is harder to implement than right populism is because for it to be electorally successful, it requires "punching down." It requires Democratic politicians to have SOME cultural conservative elements to them. This does not sit well with base Democrats. At all. Particularly women.
One person to make all the changes? What crap. And since the voters have not been presented with economic populism as an alternative on the presidential general level in decades, "we" don't know whether "culturally conservative elements" are required.
Um, Orange Men stresses "only I can make change." And while Sanders can say all he wants "not me, us", he has a long history of refusing to encourage down ballot support. So yes, it is all about one person to them. As for economic populism, it only appeals to people if so called "social norms" are maintained. This goes back to the days of Andrew Jackson when expanding the electorate to all white men was a radical liberal idea. It only worked because women and African Americans were ignored and we have this thing called the "Trail of Tears." So yes, "punching down" was very much a part of it.
How is not encouraging down ballot support, not all that surprising since he's run and been elected as an independent, equivalent to authoritarianism, or a "strongman." Particularly, since he's never said that. But has run on issues, not personalities.
Because if he were serious about addressing issues, he would have spent his political career working to get such policy passed into law. The fact that no state - not even Vermont - has single payer healthcare shows how limited an appeal it is. You need more to actually win election and govern than just shouting and saying cutesy words. That's all he has brought to the table.
Bernie's political instincts leave a lot to be desired, frankly. Let's not forget that in 2022 he urged Democrats to run on how great the economy was (in a year when inflation hit 9%!) rather than on preserving democracy and individual rights. Had such advice been taken, we would have been utterly destroyed.
The American people voted in a fucking chaos agent felon in spite of having the best economy in the world! Considering that campaigning on "yes, but" in regard to the economy didn't work, I think you might be more humble about what might have happened if the Democrats had extolled the Biden economy at every turn. Maybe they would have convinced enough people to support it!
When huge numbers of people—rightly or wrongly!—think that the economy sucks (as polling clearly showed throughout the Biden presidency), no amount of educating or slick messaging is going to change that. That stuff only works when it resonates with how people already feel.
The chaos agent felon won because America wanted a return to 2019.
People don't arrive at this completely independently. The media cried "recession" over and over again while the economy grew every month. With the same economy, Trump would have said it was the greatest in history! And he would have convinced a lot of people, including some media people.
I don't think you can fault his efforts to pass universal healthcare. He has tried hard for a long time, and was also very helpful in getting the ACA passed and including money for community health centers in it - which was his idea.
Add to that the simple fact that Bernie and Trump both have significant bases of support among people who don't care about policy much (or at all), but simply want to "burn it all down."
I have always found that mindset incredibly reckless—and incredibly, cluelessly, callously privileged. Sure, the status quo always leaves a lot to be desired, but there's *never* a guarantee that something better would rise from its ashes.
Why is "punching down" electorally necessary? I don’t follow your logic. Also, it seems you are tying populism to authoritarianism in a way that surprises me. Could you explain and expand these two points?
Because in order to appeal to hardline socially conservatives, so called "social norms" have to be upheld. The New Deal only sold because it upheld segregation for example. Nonwhites were locked out of MANY of the programs. Today's equivalent would be standing against transgender women playing in women's sports.
And sadly populism and authoritarianism often DO go together. As I've mentioned several times, the welfare state in South Africa started under the National Party which was pro Afrikaners, pro apartheid, and anti British. They were absolutely happy to implement social programs.......so long as poor Afrikaners got the benefits of them.
"The New Deal only sold because it upheld segregation for example."
More garbage. Yes, programs like social security, unemployment compensation, farm income supports, were only popular because they didn't disturb segregation in the south.
These programs upheld "social norms." Women could only qualify for Social Security throughout their husbands and children. Also I notice you deliberately left out the FHA, which VERY MUCH locked out African Americans.
I didn't say ALL programs were segregated. I said MANY. Reading comprehension is a good thing.
I suspect that the real answer is that those programs would never have been implemented if they also attacked segregation. They were popular because they were good programs. I also suspect that the real reason we didn't get national healthcare in the 50's like Canada and most of Europe is because it would have been difficult to implement a national healthcare system that was for whites only and any system that spent tax dollars on non-whites would have been DOA with Southern conservatives.
That's exactly my point. Most people regardless of their actual political ideology or party actually LIKE social programs. The issue is that many don't like those programs going to people they don't like.
The Bernie to Trump pipeline has two main paths. The first are anti-vaxxers who left the Democratic Party over Covid-19 vaccine policy. (think Joe Rogan) The second pathway are the tankie crowd who supported Russia in the Ukraine war and who opposed the Biden administration on that issue we aren't supposed to mention. (think Tulsi Gabbard).
I don't think Bernie was advocating a new, progressive third party nationally--he must know at least that such an endeavour would likely result in more Republican rule with less than majorities. One thing he may have had in mind is people running as independents in states and districts that won't usually vote Dem but are open to hearing a non-Republican message--which doesn't always necessarily mean a progressive one. Not for the first time, though, he could perhaps have phrased things better, and the headlines are a bit off-base.
AOC shows potential of how to rally frustrated or indifferent voters who are open to a Democratic or progressive pitch while firmly staying in the party, though I'd be wary of knighting her (or anyone else) as the Democratic saviour who knows the one path forward. (And some of the Bernie-related discussion here may justify David's rule against presidential primary discussion; imagine having this argument nonstop almost every day in 2015-16 and 2019-20.)
The idea of running independents in hostile and/or idiosyncratic states is interesting to me (I wonder what might have happened if, say, McMullin vs. Lee and Osborn vs. Fischer had taken place in a Dem-leaning midterm). Getting to 50%+1 is still a major hurdle, though.
It's something I've thought about before. Creating a "sister party" to democrats that could have a chance in states like Missouri or Tennessee. Something that is more distinct than the name change that DFL represents.
Whenever I mull it over in my head I get stuck on the problem that with the way congress works they would ultimately need to caucus with us or with republicans, at which point they de facto join either party in practice — voters know they're voting for a centrist democrat when they vote for Angus King, even though he officially isn't a democrat. It's hard to separate from a party while also joining their caucus in congress. If we had a more formalized coalition system it would be easier to make work.
As of last night, the Early Vote in Wisconsin’s crucial Supreme Court Election has passed 250,000 votes. That’s about 80,000 more votes than were cast at this point in 2023! That was the year Janet Protasiewicz defeated former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice Daniel Kelly, flipping the state’s high court to progressive control. So far, it looks like turnout will be significantly higher than two years ago.
(The big question, of course, is who is voting: MAGA Republicans and others whose vote Elon Musk is trying to buy, or democracy-minded Wisconsinites who are determined to preserve their state’s achievements since Justice Protasiewicz was elected. Her victory made it possible for Wisconsin to undo one of the country’s worst gerrymanders!)
Toby of MGData is tabulating and analyzing Early Voting in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election between Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel. He believes that today will be a big day – and he will be analyzing the numbers as soon as they come in. Lots of fascinating info here!
Toby of MGData has just posted updated numbers and analysis. The topline is that another 86,561 votes have been added, bringing the Early Vote total to 345,536. Toby has a really nice chart comparing 2025 votes so far with 2023:
"While conservatives could cherry pick some of this data to point to signs of strength, there really isn't much in the way of good news for them here. You have to squint pretty hard to see good news for them outside of really topline-level stuff in a handful of counties.
"By 2023 results at the county level, Crawford has a conservatively estimated 62-38 lead among mail ballots and a 54-46 lead among IPAV. Mail voting is coming in stronger than 2023 and IPAV (in-person absentee vote) looks a lot better for progressives than it did in 2024 (though not as good as 2023).
"Schimel will likely be headed into election day with a massive deficit among mail ballots and a smaller one among in person ballots unless things shift dramatically in conservatives' favor over the next four days. They will be relying on election day turnout to overcome that because they simply are not seeing what they need to from absentee ballots from what we can tell from the publicly available data."
I encourage you to read Toby’s numbers and analysis yourself.
Sara Gideon lost in 2020 because too many Maine voters, for whatever reason, saw her as "not-one-of-us". I think Mainers can be rather insular.
That said, I would like to complement Susan Collins on one thing: She does the work! And she rarely, if ever, misses a vote in the Senate. A lot of the senators on our side could and should imitate that.
That one was new to me. On a personal note, many years ago I asked a store that was selling name-brand T-shirts how much of a discount they were willing to give me to walk around as an advertisement billboard.
Maine, like Vermont, lacks a major shared population with a neighbor.
Portland is in the southern part of the state and it does have some links with the NH coast, but it's a small one with not huge population movement at play. Most of the ME/NH border is very low population rural areas. Their border with Canada is even more sparsely populated.
That's why it's more insular. There's fewer people that can conveniently travel outside the state on a whim, or outsiders to travel into the state. There is a tourism industry there for the Maine coast (which is beautiful!) but that only does so much. Limits their exposure to not-Maine.
NH would be similar if not for the fact that Boston is large enough to economically and culturally permeate into our major population centers along the border.
It is rather tiny, but it's nice enough. Portsmouth has that small dense town vibe going that people like. Hampton gets all the stereotypical beach goers with the heavily commercialized boardwalk. Then Rye et al to fill in the gaps.
Most of the population isn't that far from the coast, so even though we barely have one it feels more present than you'd expect. Though NH isn't exactly awash in nautical culture, to be clear.
Sounds kind of like my native northwest Pennsylvania, which—thanks to Lake Erie—is the only part of the state that has any remotely "maritime" feel at all.
Huh, I would have thought Philly would have a slight maritime feel to it since it's on the river that leads to the ocean. Even had major shipyards in the past, didn't it?
I guess it's too far from the actual bay to have any real coastal feeling to it?
Isn't Susan Collins perceived as being similar to Olympia Snowe? They were called "the Maine Twins" when they were both in Senate. Ironically, though, the two of them have never really liked each other.
As a fun little tidbit to go with that: NH had the first all-female congressional delegation.
When Carol Shea-Porter defeated Guinta in a rematch in 2012 we had her, Kuster, Ayotte, and Shaheen in congress. Guinta won a re-re-match in 2014, then Porter won a re-re-re-rematch in 2016, where Ayotte lost but was replaced by Hassan, another woman.
NH had both the first and second all-female congressional delegations, and the first all-female congressional delegation made up entirely by one political party.
Yep, Pennsylvania leaves a lot to be desired in that department (we've never elected a female governor or senator), but when the ridiculous GOP gerrymander was finally tossed in 2018 we immediately elected four Democratic women to the House (Madeleine Dean, Chrissy Houlahan, Mary Gay Scanlon, and Susan Wild), and that felt pretty awesome.
I definitely think she's beatable. Yes, she held on in 2020 even though polling predicted her defeat, but she also turned in a far-weaker performance than in her previous runs.
It wasn't a "true" 9 point win because of the RCV system and the fact that Collins got a majority on the first ballot. The independents running would have pulled more from Gideon than from Collins. Gideon wouldn't have gotten all of their votes, and some of them wouldn't have ranked anyone at all, so we cannot assume all their votes would go to her, but many would have done so.
In practice Collins' win is more like 4-6 points, depending on details we will never know.
What's really telling is how she's unpopular not just with Democrats but also with Republicans. I know the ME Republican Party wouldn't be thrilled if Paul LePage chose to challenge her in the primary since he lost badly to a third term against Mills in 2022 and he's eyeing to go up against Jared Golden in Maine's 2nd District.
I’ve always been puzzled by the fact that Paul LePage’s popularity rises above single-digit. When he was Governor of Maine, I listened to countless interviews with him on NPR. Not once did LePage ever utter three consecutive sentences without saying something truly bizarre, totally deranged or truly despicable.
Let's not forget that he wrote "stolen election" on Jared Golden's first election certificate. It's tough to be outclassed by Kris Kobach (who, as outgoing Kansas SoS, certified the gubernatorial election that he had lost without incident), but LePage managed to do it.
I suspect he never would have been elected (nor re-elected) had it not been for the favorable national mood combined with Eliot Cutler splitting the center-left vote.
So would the Maine Democratic Party; the dream scenario may be that LePage or someone similar either defeats Collins in a primary or pushes her into retirement, thus effectively handing Dems an important Senate seat (especially in a midterm with a likely unpopular Trump.)
Hasn't Collins been sending out feelers for a gubernatorial run for a long time? Maybe now's the time for her to do it! (I always found this strange, owing to the fact that she doesn't seem to spend much time in Maine.)
I don't believe she ever put out serious feelers on that front. Her first election and only loss was the 1994 gubernatorial election, which I think is where this comes from.
If Collins doesn't run for reelection my assumption is it's because she's retiring completely.
It would be quite Trumpian for Trump/Musk to push Rod Blagojevich, who has declared himself a "Trump-o-crat" and helped raise funds for a Republican candidate for the state senate, to run for Dick Durbin's Senate seat.
Yes, but it wouldn't work. Do you think he could get even 1% in a Democratic primary? Wait, do you mean as a Republican? That's crazy, but so are lots of Republican candidates. He'd lose by a landslide, though.
Yeah, but at this point, what's Blagojevich going to do other than to just maintain his celebrity status? I mean, he appeared with Trump on the Celebrity Apprentice for pete's sake!
My rankings for IL-SEN would be Underwood or Krishnamurthi, Kelly (very capable, but would much rather see her in a House leadership position), then Stratton. Peters would be on the very bottom of the list--an empty suit propped up by Preckwinkle. No opinion on Friedrichs or Giannoulias, although Alexi lost in 2010 and it might be time for a fresh face.
Have a question that I figured some of you might be able to answer: about how many hours a week does it take to run a great campaign for local office? Think state legislature in a mid to large state in a major metro.
The last campaign I worked full time on was for U.S. House and we worked seven days a week 12 hour days. There has been a movement to unionize campaign workers to work six days a week. Between fundraising and campaigning six days 8-12 hours a day is probably right candidates need at least one day to not lose their minds. People with day jobs obviously can't do that but ideally I would say that much time yeah.
yeah US House I assumed was basically full time, is it the same for a state house race? Talking about for the candidate b/c a friend of mine is running .
Just my opinion but would say the same six days 8-12 hours a week. It does not have to be that rigorous 18 months out but within a few months of the contested primary should be a well oiled machine with a plan each day through the general, I would say that is ideal. Individual factors may vary here though. How much territory in geographic terms do you have to cover? Is it a swing district or is the primary the real election? Weather conditions, does the candidate have a full time job? family situation etc etc. but my general inclination is towards the first range I gave you. I don't think that means you can't succeed if you don't follow a schedule that is that intense but that would be my inclination if no other factors were in the way.
The board’s monthly confidence index of current conditions slipped to 92.9, a 7.2-point decline and the fourth consecutive monthly contraction. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been looking for a reading of 93.5.
However, the measure for future expectations told an even darker story, with the index tumbling 9.6 points to 65.2, the lowest reading in 12 years and well below the 80 level that is considered a signal for a recession ahead.
My nightmare is that we end up with another deep recession followed by a grinding, jobless recovery. Of course, that's exactly what a great many moneyed interests would love to see (as it enables them to scoop up assets for pennies on the dollar, have multiple desperate applicants bid against each other for every lousy job opening, and so on)...
My nightmare is that we end up with a permanent economic realignment for the US that sees our exports and tourism take a huge nosedive as international partners rush to avoid relying on the US in any industry where they can avoid doing so.
One that really jumps to my mind is the defense industry. Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, et al were having some of the best times of their history with so much of the world shifting away from Russian weapon systems and the so many EU states wanting to expand their military with new/more equipment. Doubt they can rely on that continuing unabated. And once countries shift to EU or South Korea or Japan for weapon production, why would they shift back to the US?
I agree with you. As I've said, we are living the downfall of the U.S. I don't see any possibility of a recovery from this until both major parties can again be trusted to maintain alliances and agreements and the American people are not electing incompetents, criminals and trolls. And the rest of the world would need to see that play out for a couple of decades or more.
Not going to happen so long as the banking industry is sound. I am not losing sleep over it, especially considering the 1982 recession and Great Recession were caused by much worse situations than what are being faced today.
Not ruling out a recession happening at some point but a deep one is hard for me to believe at this point.
I would be cautious about reading into this too much just yet as what could indicate a recession, at least for now. These measures may have been more applicable with normal economies that were going to fall down into recession territory but given what has happened with this economy since the recovery after COVID-19, it's more of a rollercoaster ride that happens to be still a growing economy.
For starters, more workers are going back to the office than before and this activity is starting to trickle down into downtown where main street businesses are benefitting. For a long time, main street businesses were seeing slow recovery and while certain ones benefitted vs. others, the general view by business owners has been that traditional work environments deemphasizing remote work at a large scale helped them considerably.
I am also hearing that in the consulting industry (mine) that many companies are going on a hiring spree right now until May. Depends on where you are hearing things from though.
In regard to NY 17, my district, I like that Conley has ties to both Rockland and Westchester. The two counties are almost different worlds and someone from one can be pretty isolated from the other. I don't know if her gung-ho attitude will work as well for a female Democrat as it does for a male Republican, but I think it could be helpful against Lawler.
NY-17 is one district where Dems could have done more in redistricting. It would have been very easy to take out Lawler’s best precincts in Rockland and put them in NY-16 in exchange for more of Westchester.
Yup. They did some relatively minor things to try to protect Bowman in the primary but nothing for my 17, as I recall. Having the red section in Dutchess county, for example, is bad for 17, and classic gerrymandering. The registering in NY was a mess.
Trump has signed an executive order to make sweeping changes to federal elections that includes a proof of citizenship requirement and aims to prevent states from counting mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day.
Trump has long railed against mail-in voting and Tuesday's order directs the Election Assistance Commission to include in its national mail-in voter registration form a stipulation for proof of U.S. citizenship, such as a passport or Real ID. States that don't comply with the new requirements could have federal funding cut, according to the order.
While Trump's order is called "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American elections," UCLA law professor Rick Hasen wrote in a Tuesday blog post the action was an "executive power grab" that would disenfranchise "millions" of voters.
"The aim here is voter suppression pure and simple," Hasen said.
And even if it's 80% and not 95%, I think we're in good position. We're only losing E-Day votes (70% of the total) by 3000 votes. We have a 2500 vote margin. Over 70% of election day votes should be in. I'd expect to lose 1000 votes in what's left, not 2500.
If it's 80% reporting, with ~40k votes in right now, we'd expect ~50k total. If that follows, for 10k remaining votes and a lead of a bit over 2k, we win even with only 40% of the remaining vote going for us.
OK, now ~everything's in per AP and we still have an 800-vote lead. Late results were worse than I'd guessed (there were a few more than expected), but not bad enough to flip it. At least not seemingly.
Oh, this is fun. We have precisely 50% + 1 of the vote: 26951 out of 53900. (There's a third party candidate and so the margin is more than 1 vote, but still.)
Discussed in the digest.
Apologies, I searched for "Allegheny". Missed it.
Whether or not Dick Durbin (80) runs for re-election, Sheldon Whitehouse should immediately replace him as ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Senator Whitehouse is highly capable, he does not suffer fools or misinformation or Republican manipulation – he is the fighter we need for the precarious times in which we live.
Sheldon Whitehouse’s excellent Senate lectures on how the dark money and the Federalist Society captured the Supreme Court and much of our judicial system is well worth watching!
Had Whitehouse been Chair of the Senate Judiciary these last four years, I believe we would have quite a few more Biden-appointed judges in place in our federal courts.
If it were up to me, I'd put Whitehouse in the White House!
I have been applauding Bernie Sanders’ and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez’s huge rallies. Really glad they’re standing up to Trump and loudly taking their fight to the American public. Until I spotted this, which gave me pause... :
. BERNIE’s BAD IDEA: "The Left Should Leave the Democratic Party"
"At a time when plenty of people have advice for unhappy progressive Democrats, one of their heroes, Bernie Sanders, had a succinct message: Don't love the party, leave it.
"In an interview with the New York Times, he previewed a barnstorming tour he has undertaken with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez but made it clear he wouldn't be asking audiences to rally 'round the Democratic Party. "One of the aspects of this tour is to try to rally people to get engaged in the political process and run as independents outside of the Democratic Party," Sanders said."
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/20/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democrats-independents.html
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/bernie-sanderss-bad-idea-left-should-quit-democratic-party.html
Thoughts, anyone?
EDIT: Just to be clear, my aim is NOT to attack either Bernie or AOC, but to express concern about the *elections consequence* of this – if the reporting and the NYT interview with Bernie are accurate. I think those consequences are worth discussing here on The Downballot.
Well, he's always been an independent or member of a third party. Yet when push comes to shove, he's never run as a third-party candidate in a presidential race. And he's sided with the Senate Democratic caucus.
IMHO, Bernie could make an even bigger contribution to the fight against Trump and autocracy by JOINING the Democratic Party and encouraging others, especially young voters, to join the party. If Bernie and AOC really wanted to do a huge service, they could lead a strong voter registration and Dem Party registration drive, making this a prominent feature at each of the well-attended rallies on their Fighting Oligarchy Tour.
(The very last thing America needs is Ralph Naderesque / Jill Steinish spoilers!)
Not to mention they can actually encourage people to vote Democratic and vote progressive down ballot. If they really mean "not me, us", back it up with similarly minded candidates. The problem is that's precisely what they are NOT doing.
His ego will never let him do that.
Which only proves the point of detractors that "not me, us" is a lie.
There's a pervasive mindset among the Bernie crowd that repeated Democratic defeats will move the party to the left—which is utterly delusional.
Yes, well move to the right. I'm sure that will do the trick.
If the country wanted Bernie Sanders style policy and politicians, he would be President right now and politicians like him would be the rule and not the exception. For once separate your personal politics from those of the nation's.
When one party loses repeatedly to another, the losing party's politics tend to move toward those of the winning party. This is, like, Poli Sci 101 stuff.
If that were so, we wouldn't have had Ronald Reagan elected president. But move to the right. Just don't complain when a lot of voters don't go with you.
Reagan didn't arise from repeated Republican defeats. Nixon won in 1968 and 1972, and Carter was elected only narrowly in 1976.
I'm not defending it, and I certainly don't want to see the Democratic Party move to the right. I'm just saying that the way to shift the Overton Window left is to defeat *Republicans* consistently and repeatedly.
And don't forget Eisenhower before Nixon. Biden was actually fairly left wing a President. If no Clinton nor Obama before him, he's not as left wing a President as he is.
Nixon domestically was more left than most of the presidents who followed him. Wage and price controls, the EPA, OSHA, SSI. And you're only looking at it on the presidential level.
Republicans won 1968 and 1972, and narrowly lost 1976. And 1976's narrow loss was after one of the most damaging political scandals in our nation's history.
That's exactly the kind of recipe to see their party move to the right. They won 2/3 of the preceding elections and the only one they lost was barely lost despite a huge handicap.
And it's not as if Jimmy Carter was a liberal darling. He sucked up to George Wallace to win the Presidential election. Not to mention his Playboy interview was done to appeal liberals who thought he was too RIGHT wing.
It's more complicated than that. Every time in my lifetime that the GOP has had a big election, it's done so by moving still further to the right. 1980....1994....2010....2024. It's been the same pattern. Moving further to the right is a political winner for Republicans.
The Poli Sci 101 lesson here is that the calculus doesn't work in the other direction, or at least hasn't since the 1960s. When Democrats try moving to the left, it doesn't generate the same response among voters as it does when the Republicans move right.
Let's not forget, though, that the dynamics of presidential and midterm elections are very, very different. Republicans haven't been shut out of the White House three consecutive times since FDR/Truman (and even in that instance, the response was the nomination of Dwight Eisenhower, whose politics were so vague that he was courted by BOTH parties!).
2024 was a disaster of an election, but does it qualify as "big" in this context? It has big consequences but republicans won it on the margins.
They won the tipping point state (PA) by 1.7 points and have the narrowest house majority since WW1! Change three seats in the house and the speaker changes. They did well in the senate but two of their pickups (WV, MT) were effectively guaranteed by the map, and the third (OH) wasn't that far off. Only PA was an impressive senate win for them.
The election has some of the biggest consequences in modern US history, but I would call it among the narrowest of wins in our history. Far, far, far from being lumped in with 1980, 1994, or 2010.
That's a reasonable distinction. And while you're correct, David Shor's analysis paints a picture of a country where Trump's dominance was less "on the margins" than the actual 2024 electorate indicated.
Even in the 1960s, it didn't work for us. Lest we forget that JFK ran against Nixon claiming we were facing a "missile gap."
We live in a center-right country . .how that isn't apparent right now is beyond me. Folks on the Left are literally delusional about this.
No, they're trying to change it. Not simply accept it and let the right move the Overton window further and further right.
Again, the ONLY thing that will move the Overton window to the left is to defeat Republicans, at every level of government, over and over and over.
There's a lot more to it than a conventional left-right argument. It's less left-right than "risk versus security". People want security and were conned into believing "MAGA" would give that to them. MAGA promised cultural security and economic security, a hybrid of social policy from the right and some configuration of the New Deal consensus and Japanese-style protectionism more reflective of the left.
MAGA successfully portrayed the Democrats as the party of turbocharged cultural change without hesitation, apology, or respect for those uncomfortable with turbocharged cultural change.....and they won over the "security voters" en masse. The Democrats' prospects of realigning the electorate depends upon being the party of security again for these voters, who won't be any more bothered by fear of leftism than they were in 1932 if they feel insecure. Musk is making that task easier for the Democrats to sell, but if the party remains either supportive or indifferent about turbocharged cultural change and the majority of voters who despise it, then it won't matter if they move left or right. They won't win.
That’s a very astute analysis!
Thank you.
Yes but to your point the current U.S. left wing is full-steam ahead on the "cultural change"/risk train track re: LGBTQ, crime/criminal justice, and immigration . .so not sure how a pivot to the right doesn't occur in tandem with being seen as the security blanket voters can run home to.
What kinds of specific suggestions do you have, other than stopping being the party of immigration?
The best things the Democrats have going for them is that events are likely to change the conversation now that the other team is in power and doing unpopular things that will undermine voters' feelings of security.
In terms of tangibles, recognizing that the overwhelming majority of the country sees a distinction between illegal border crossings and legal immigration is at the top of the list. Beyond that, we need to appreciate that policies that were broadly unpopular in the past will likely be just as unpopular when repackaged for contemporary times. This puts us in a precarious position in having to distance ourselves from policies that have long been progressive goals, but when we see the alternative that is the 2025 reality following an election when our worldviews were soundly rejected, it's hard to say that eliminating cash bail was worth the right battle to choose, as one example.
And more broadly, creating new "risk" in a nation whose people are pleading for security is incredibly bad politics, and it really put Democratic elected officials on a collision course with their base in many ways in the last several years. Voters don't enjoy the anxiety that comes with feeling that their entire lives are gonna be judged based on a Halloween costume they wore in the 80s. Rationally or not, that's the kind of anxiety that leads people into the arms of MAGA.
Just do better and be more inspirational. The whole debate over being too right or too left is stupid bc the average American doesn’t understand the complexity of policy. Just look and sound good. Trump is orange for a reason.
Ego? Right. If it was a matter of ego, he could have run as an independent the last three elections and collected millions of votes.
He'd get voted out in Vermont if he did that. He knows that. He's no fool.
LOL. I don't think so.
He underperformed Harris in Vermont in 2024 and he barely got a majority in his 2020 primary run for President in Vermont. He's not as popular as he once was.
Sanders' approach to in/not in the party is IMO the wrong approach for his goals. AOC's approach has it right.
If the problem with democrats is that there aren't enough people like him in it, then him refusing to join is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I have no illusions that he will change his mind on this, but I do think he'd accomplish more for his goals if he went from a democratic-aligned independent to an official democrat.
Or rather his stated goals. His refusal to work with people is a demonstration of how unserious he actually is about governing and passing progressive policy. Keep in mind that this is the ONLY stable career the man has ever had. He became a politician to line his (and his family's) pockets. Nothing more.
I'm not the biggest Sanders fan despite being really quite far on the left, but I would contend none of that is fair. People who want to get rich don't become politicians, and those that do don't spend a decade as mayor of Burlington, and they certainly don't keep running for office after multiple defeats long before the age of grifter-candidates. I don't have anything against someone being a career politician.
People can be truly dedicated to their goals while they are also not the most efficacious worker towards those goals. That doesn't mean the person is not genuine.
This is well put. Like you, I am not president of the Sanders fan club and yes, like all politicians, he has a healthy ego, but I don't doubt that he is fighting for what he believes is best for the country and to imply that he is in it for the money is silly....
He's worked on legislation, sometimes with Senators way to his right.
Running as a Leftie independent may have worked for Bernie in Vermont, but it's not going to fly in the rest of the country. It is really terrible advice. Going to AOC route has a much higher chance of success, even without the concern about spoilers. Third party runs just do not attract the same amount of money or institutional support needed to win. And the primary system advantages insurgent campaigns. You need to convince a much smaller subset of the electorate and those you do need tend to be more tuned into what's going on politically.
I saw this at a small scale in the 26th Middlesex State Rep district (East Cambridge and East Somerville). The current rep, Mike Connolly, first ran for office as a leftie Independent against the long time Rep, Tim Toomey. He lost decisively. He came back 4 years later and won the Democratic primary, also against Toomey, and has served ever since. He actually got more votes (4,010 vs 2,938) in his first campaign, but the electorate was much larger, so that translated to 25% vs 54%.
I hate to point Sinema as an example bc she absolutely fucking sucks. But, they all learn their lesson and come crawling back at some point.
I saw Blue Rev on Fbook make an “Indy ?” type of post and if is this where the conversation is headed, then we need to do better. I’m a Democrat bc of the ideals and morals, not bc of the name. Get it the fuck together literally everyone.
Is it any wonder that the Bernie-to-Trump pipeline is real?
It might have been real in 2016, when Clinton was the opponent, and Trump was bashing her with NAFTA and the prospect of additional "trade" agreements, but it's dissipated since then.
There's no wonder. They are both populists and stress the need of ONE person to make all the changes. The reason why left populism is harder to implement than right populism is because for it to be electorally successful, it requires "punching down." It requires Democratic politicians to have SOME cultural conservative elements to them. This does not sit well with base Democrats. At all. Particularly women.
One person to make all the changes? What crap. And since the voters have not been presented with economic populism as an alternative on the presidential general level in decades, "we" don't know whether "culturally conservative elements" are required.
Um, Orange Men stresses "only I can make change." And while Sanders can say all he wants "not me, us", he has a long history of refusing to encourage down ballot support. So yes, it is all about one person to them. As for economic populism, it only appeals to people if so called "social norms" are maintained. This goes back to the days of Andrew Jackson when expanding the electorate to all white men was a radical liberal idea. It only worked because women and African Americans were ignored and we have this thing called the "Trail of Tears." So yes, "punching down" was very much a part of it.
How is not encouraging down ballot support, not all that surprising since he's run and been elected as an independent, equivalent to authoritarianism, or a "strongman." Particularly, since he's never said that. But has run on issues, not personalities.
Because if he were serious about addressing issues, he would have spent his political career working to get such policy passed into law. The fact that no state - not even Vermont - has single payer healthcare shows how limited an appeal it is. You need more to actually win election and govern than just shouting and saying cutesy words. That's all he has brought to the table.
Bernie's political instincts leave a lot to be desired, frankly. Let's not forget that in 2022 he urged Democrats to run on how great the economy was (in a year when inflation hit 9%!) rather than on preserving democracy and individual rights. Had such advice been taken, we would have been utterly destroyed.
The American people voted in a fucking chaos agent felon in spite of having the best economy in the world! Considering that campaigning on "yes, but" in regard to the economy didn't work, I think you might be more humble about what might have happened if the Democrats had extolled the Biden economy at every turn. Maybe they would have convinced enough people to support it!
When huge numbers of people—rightly or wrongly!—think that the economy sucks (as polling clearly showed throughout the Biden presidency), no amount of educating or slick messaging is going to change that. That stuff only works when it resonates with how people already feel.
The chaos agent felon won because America wanted a return to 2019.
People don't arrive at this completely independently. The media cried "recession" over and over again while the economy grew every month. With the same economy, Trump would have said it was the greatest in history! And he would have convinced a lot of people, including some media people.
I don't think you can fault his efforts to pass universal healthcare. He has tried hard for a long time, and was also very helpful in getting the ACA passed and including money for community health centers in it - which was his idea.
Add to that the simple fact that Bernie and Trump both have significant bases of support among people who don't care about policy much (or at all), but simply want to "burn it all down."
I have always found that mindset incredibly reckless—and incredibly, cluelessly, callously privileged. Sure, the status quo always leaves a lot to be desired, but there's *never* a guarantee that something better would rise from its ashes.
Why is "punching down" electorally necessary? I don’t follow your logic. Also, it seems you are tying populism to authoritarianism in a way that surprises me. Could you explain and expand these two points?
Because in order to appeal to hardline socially conservatives, so called "social norms" have to be upheld. The New Deal only sold because it upheld segregation for example. Nonwhites were locked out of MANY of the programs. Today's equivalent would be standing against transgender women playing in women's sports.
And sadly populism and authoritarianism often DO go together. As I've mentioned several times, the welfare state in South Africa started under the National Party which was pro Afrikaners, pro apartheid, and anti British. They were absolutely happy to implement social programs.......so long as poor Afrikaners got the benefits of them.
"The New Deal only sold because it upheld segregation for example."
More garbage. Yes, programs like social security, unemployment compensation, farm income supports, were only popular because they didn't disturb segregation in the south.
These programs upheld "social norms." Women could only qualify for Social Security throughout their husbands and children. Also I notice you deliberately left out the FHA, which VERY MUCH locked out African Americans.
I didn't say ALL programs were segregated. I said MANY. Reading comprehension is a good thing.
No, this is what you said:
"The New Deal only sold because it upheld segregation for example."
Recall is a good thing.
Locking African Americans out of programs like the FHA IS upholding segregation. Sorry you do not see it that way.
You didn't say simply that it upheld segregation. You said the New Deal only "sold" because it upheld segregation.
Next sentence: "Nonwhites were locked out of MANY of the programs."
You are arguing in bad faith. As usual.
I suspect that the real answer is that those programs would never have been implemented if they also attacked segregation. They were popular because they were good programs. I also suspect that the real reason we didn't get national healthcare in the 50's like Canada and most of Europe is because it would have been difficult to implement a national healthcare system that was for whites only and any system that spent tax dollars on non-whites would have been DOA with Southern conservatives.
That's exactly my point. Most people regardless of their actual political ideology or party actually LIKE social programs. The issue is that many don't like those programs going to people they don't like.
Shit like, "Reading comprehension is a good thing" doesn't fly here. Time for both of you to knock it off.
The Bernie to Trump pipeline has two main paths. The first are anti-vaxxers who left the Democratic Party over Covid-19 vaccine policy. (think Joe Rogan) The second pathway are the tankie crowd who supported Russia in the Ukraine war and who opposed the Biden administration on that issue we aren't supposed to mention. (think Tulsi Gabbard).
I don't think Bernie was advocating a new, progressive third party nationally--he must know at least that such an endeavour would likely result in more Republican rule with less than majorities. One thing he may have had in mind is people running as independents in states and districts that won't usually vote Dem but are open to hearing a non-Republican message--which doesn't always necessarily mean a progressive one. Not for the first time, though, he could perhaps have phrased things better, and the headlines are a bit off-base.
AOC shows potential of how to rally frustrated or indifferent voters who are open to a Democratic or progressive pitch while firmly staying in the party, though I'd be wary of knighting her (or anyone else) as the Democratic saviour who knows the one path forward. (And some of the Bernie-related discussion here may justify David's rule against presidential primary discussion; imagine having this argument nonstop almost every day in 2015-16 and 2019-20.)
The idea of running independents in hostile and/or idiosyncratic states is interesting to me (I wonder what might have happened if, say, McMullin vs. Lee and Osborn vs. Fischer had taken place in a Dem-leaning midterm). Getting to 50%+1 is still a major hurdle, though.
It's something I've thought about before. Creating a "sister party" to democrats that could have a chance in states like Missouri or Tennessee. Something that is more distinct than the name change that DFL represents.
Whenever I mull it over in my head I get stuck on the problem that with the way congress works they would ultimately need to caucus with us or with republicans, at which point they de facto join either party in practice — voters know they're voting for a centrist democrat when they vote for Angus King, even though he officially isn't a democrat. It's hard to separate from a party while also joining their caucus in congress. If we had a more formalized coalition system it would be easier to make work.
WISCONSIN – ACTUAL VOTE COUNT
As of last night, the Early Vote in Wisconsin’s crucial Supreme Court Election has passed 250,000 votes. That’s about 80,000 more votes than were cast at this point in 2023! That was the year Janet Protasiewicz defeated former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice Daniel Kelly, flipping the state’s high court to progressive control. So far, it looks like turnout will be significantly higher than two years ago.
(The big question, of course, is who is voting: MAGA Republicans and others whose vote Elon Musk is trying to buy, or democracy-minded Wisconsinites who are determined to preserve their state’s achievements since Justice Protasiewicz was elected. Her victory made it possible for Wisconsin to undo one of the country’s worst gerrymanders!)
Toby of MGData is tabulating and analyzing Early Voting in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election between Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel. He believes that today will be a big day – and he will be analyzing the numbers as soon as they come in. Lots of fascinating info here!
https://nitter.poast.org/TobyMGData
(Nitter is a way to read Tweets, so you don’t ever have to visit Musk’s Xitter.)
Thanks for the Nitter tip!
You can use Nitter’s main page to search for Tweeters you’re interested in.
https://nitter.poast.org/
WISCONSIN EARLY VOTE UPDATE
Toby of MGData has just posted updated numbers and analysis. The topline is that another 86,561 votes have been added, bringing the Early Vote total to 345,536. Toby has a really nice chart comparing 2025 votes so far with 2023:
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGm6H_sOW4AEDQXf.png
"While conservatives could cherry pick some of this data to point to signs of strength, there really isn't much in the way of good news for them here. You have to squint pretty hard to see good news for them outside of really topline-level stuff in a handful of counties.
"By 2023 results at the county level, Crawford has a conservatively estimated 62-38 lead among mail ballots and a 54-46 lead among IPAV. Mail voting is coming in stronger than 2023 and IPAV (in-person absentee vote) looks a lot better for progressives than it did in 2024 (though not as good as 2023).
"Schimel will likely be headed into election day with a massive deficit among mail ballots and a smaller one among in person ballots unless things shift dramatically in conservatives' favor over the next four days. They will be relying on election day turnout to overcome that because they simply are not seeing what they need to from absentee ballots from what we can tell from the publicly available data."
I encourage you to read Toby’s numbers and analysis yourself.
https://nitter.poast.org/TobyMGData
Appears Susan Collins schtick is wearing thin w/Mainers of all stripes https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/polls/mainers-concerned-with-collins/
She wasn't polling well last time either.
Polling underestimated Republicans pretty much everywhere that cycle.
Sara Gideon lost in 2020 because too many Maine voters, for whatever reason, saw her as "not-one-of-us". I think Mainers can be rather insular.
That said, I would like to complement Susan Collins on one thing: She does the work! And she rarely, if ever, misses a vote in the Senate. A lot of the senators on our side could and should imitate that.
Didn’t some people try to say Gideon lost because she wore the wrong brand jacket ?
That one was new to me. On a personal note, many years ago I asked a store that was selling name-brand T-shirts how much of a discount they were willing to give me to walk around as an advertisement billboard.
Yes, Columbia instead of L.L. Bean—fitting with the overall "not-one-of-us" theme.
Maine, like Vermont, lacks a major shared population with a neighbor.
Portland is in the southern part of the state and it does have some links with the NH coast, but it's a small one with not huge population movement at play. Most of the ME/NH border is very low population rural areas. Their border with Canada is even more sparsely populated.
That's why it's more insular. There's fewer people that can conveniently travel outside the state on a whim, or outsiders to travel into the state. There is a tourism industry there for the Maine coast (which is beautiful!) but that only does so much. Limits their exposure to not-Maine.
NH would be similar if not for the fact that Boston is large enough to economically and culturally permeate into our major population centers along the border.
New Hampshire's coastline is so tiny that it's easy to forget that it even exists.
It is rather tiny, but it's nice enough. Portsmouth has that small dense town vibe going that people like. Hampton gets all the stereotypical beach goers with the heavily commercialized boardwalk. Then Rye et al to fill in the gaps.
Most of the population isn't that far from the coast, so even though we barely have one it feels more present than you'd expect. Though NH isn't exactly awash in nautical culture, to be clear.
Sounds kind of like my native northwest Pennsylvania, which—thanks to Lake Erie—is the only part of the state that has any remotely "maritime" feel at all.
Huh, I would have thought Philly would have a slight maritime feel to it since it's on the river that leads to the ocean. Even had major shipyards in the past, didn't it?
I guess it's too far from the actual bay to have any real coastal feeling to it?
Doesn't it still have significant shipping? I would have thought so, but maybe not?
You're right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ports_in_the_United_States
23rd busiest port in the US.
Slightly ahead of Valdez, Alaska.
"If you’re driving fast and blink, you miss it."
/s
Priceless headline!
I've never understood her appeal. (Olympia Snowe's, yes—she at least had a personality.)
Mainers like to be seen as people who dance to their own drum. That's a major reason why.
Does she really though? It seems like she only does when it doesn’t make a difference.
Harry Reid said he could always count on her vote when he didn't need it, FWIW.
Isn't Susan Collins perceived as being similar to Olympia Snowe? They were called "the Maine Twins" when they were both in Senate. Ironically, though, the two of them have never really liked each other.
That probably had more to do with their status as an all-female Senate delegation (they were the second; Feinstein and Boxer were the first).
As a fun little tidbit to go with that: NH had the first all-female congressional delegation.
When Carol Shea-Porter defeated Guinta in a rematch in 2012 we had her, Kuster, Ayotte, and Shaheen in congress. Guinta won a re-re-match in 2014, then Porter won a re-re-re-rematch in 2016, where Ayotte lost but was replaced by Hassan, another woman.
NH had both the first and second all-female congressional delegations, and the first all-female congressional delegation made up entirely by one political party.
Yep, Pennsylvania leaves a lot to be desired in that department (we've never elected a female governor or senator), but when the ridiculous GOP gerrymander was finally tossed in 2018 we immediately elected four Democratic women to the House (Madeleine Dean, Chrissy Houlahan, Mary Gay Scanlon, and Susan Wild), and that felt pretty awesome.
Oops, scratch that; they were the third (I forgot about Kansas being represented briefly by Nancy Kassebaum Baker and Sheila Frahm in 1996).
Snowe was a lot more genuine than Collins and a lot less annoying.
Agreed. Collins is still cruising on that moderate legacy of the era when Olympia Snowe was the senior Senator.
Also Snowe never went under 60% in any of her senate elections. Collins was reelected with 51% last time.
LOL at "Mainers concerned with Collins".
I definitely think she's beatable. Yes, she held on in 2020 even though polling predicted her defeat, but she also turned in a far-weaker performance than in her previous runs.
I wouldn't call a 9 pt win "hanging on" .
I didn't mean to imply that the race was close.
And give yourself some credit. Polling said she was going to lose. I don’t even remember the polls tightening so the big came as a surprise.
It wasn't a "true" 9 point win because of the RCV system and the fact that Collins got a majority on the first ballot. The independents running would have pulled more from Gideon than from Collins. Gideon wouldn't have gotten all of their votes, and some of them wouldn't have ranked anyone at all, so we cannot assume all their votes would go to her, but many would have done so.
In practice Collins' win is more like 4-6 points, depending on details we will never know.
It’s still definitely going to be real work to beat her. Not gonna be a gimme.
I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. (Especially while there's still not a clear opponent.)
I'll believe she'll lose when she actually does. I think she'll retire or die first.
What's really telling is how she's unpopular not just with Democrats but also with Republicans. I know the ME Republican Party wouldn't be thrilled if Paul LePage chose to challenge her in the primary since he lost badly to a third term against Mills in 2022 and he's eyeing to go up against Jared Golden in Maine's 2nd District.
I’ve always been puzzled by the fact that Paul LePage’s popularity rises above single-digit. When he was Governor of Maine, I listened to countless interviews with him on NPR. Not once did LePage ever utter three consecutive sentences without saying something truly bizarre, totally deranged or truly despicable.
Unfortunately that's what the core of the republican party wants these days.
Let's not forget that he wrote "stolen election" on Jared Golden's first election certificate. It's tough to be outclassed by Kris Kobach (who, as outgoing Kansas SoS, certified the gubernatorial election that he had lost without incident), but LePage managed to do it.
I suspect he never would have been elected (nor re-elected) had it not been for the favorable national mood combined with Eliot Cutler splitting the center-left vote.
So would the Maine Democratic Party; the dream scenario may be that LePage or someone similar either defeats Collins in a primary or pushes her into retirement, thus effectively handing Dems an important Senate seat (especially in a midterm with a likely unpopular Trump.)
Hasn't Collins been sending out feelers for a gubernatorial run for a long time? Maybe now's the time for her to do it! (I always found this strange, owing to the fact that she doesn't seem to spend much time in Maine.)
I don't believe she ever put out serious feelers on that front. Her first election and only loss was the 1994 gubernatorial election, which I think is where this comes from.
If Collins doesn't run for reelection my assumption is it's because she's retiring completely.
Eh, while Collins' image and approval may have taken a hit, I doubt they've fallen THAT low (19% favourable, 24% job approval), at least not yet.
It would be quite Trumpian for Trump/Musk to push Rod Blagojevich, who has declared himself a "Trump-o-crat" and helped raise funds for a Republican candidate for the state senate, to run for Dick Durbin's Senate seat.
Isn’t Blagojevich just as expired and unattractive as week-old fish? (It doesn’t surprise me that his pardon came with a quid pro quo.)
And, as they say, fish stink from the head.
More accurately: the fish rots from the head.
Yes, but it wouldn't work. Do you think he could get even 1% in a Democratic primary? Wait, do you mean as a Republican? That's crazy, but so are lots of Republican candidates. He'd lose by a landslide, though.
He cannot legally run for office in IL, despite the pardon. The impeachment still stands which bars him from ever running for office again
Yeah, but at this point, what's Blagojevich going to do other than to just maintain his celebrity status? I mean, he appeared with Trump on the Celebrity Apprentice for pete's sake!
My rankings for IL-SEN would be Underwood or Krishnamurthi, Kelly (very capable, but would much rather see her in a House leadership position), then Stratton. Peters would be on the very bottom of the list--an empty suit propped up by Preckwinkle. No opinion on Friedrichs or Giannoulias, although Alexi lost in 2010 and it might be time for a fresh face.
I am ABR (anyone but Raja)
Why? He seems like a good Congressman to me, but I might have missed something.
One of the most frequently cited members by Dear White Staffers (this is not a good thing)
I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but I don't know what you mean.
Have a question that I figured some of you might be able to answer: about how many hours a week does it take to run a great campaign for local office? Think state legislature in a mid to large state in a major metro.
The last campaign I worked full time on was for U.S. House and we worked seven days a week 12 hour days. There has been a movement to unionize campaign workers to work six days a week. Between fundraising and campaigning six days 8-12 hours a day is probably right candidates need at least one day to not lose their minds. People with day jobs obviously can't do that but ideally I would say that much time yeah.
yeah US House I assumed was basically full time, is it the same for a state house race? Talking about for the candidate b/c a friend of mine is running .
Just my opinion but would say the same six days 8-12 hours a week. It does not have to be that rigorous 18 months out but within a few months of the contested primary should be a well oiled machine with a plan each day through the general, I would say that is ideal. Individual factors may vary here though. How much territory in geographic terms do you have to cover? Is it a swing district or is the primary the real election? Weather conditions, does the candidate have a full time job? family situation etc etc. but my general inclination is towards the first range I gave you. I don't think that means you can't succeed if you don't follow a schedule that is that intense but that would be my inclination if no other factors were in the way.
The board’s monthly confidence index of current conditions slipped to 92.9, a 7.2-point decline and the fourth consecutive monthly contraction. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been looking for a reading of 93.5.
However, the measure for future expectations told an even darker story, with the index tumbling 9.6 points to 65.2, the lowest reading in 12 years and well below the 80 level that is considered a signal for a recession ahead.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/25/consumer-confidence-in-where-the-economy-is-headed-hits-12-year-low.html
What is the unit of measurement for that index? I have never seen that explained.
I don't think it describes a real unit of measurement. What matters is the trend.
My nightmare is that we end up with another deep recession followed by a grinding, jobless recovery. Of course, that's exactly what a great many moneyed interests would love to see (as it enables them to scoop up assets for pennies on the dollar, have multiple desperate applicants bid against each other for every lousy job opening, and so on)...
My nightmare is that we end up with a permanent economic realignment for the US that sees our exports and tourism take a huge nosedive as international partners rush to avoid relying on the US in any industry where they can avoid doing so.
One that really jumps to my mind is the defense industry. Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, et al were having some of the best times of their history with so much of the world shifting away from Russian weapon systems and the so many EU states wanting to expand their military with new/more equipment. Doubt they can rely on that continuing unabated. And once countries shift to EU or South Korea or Japan for weapon production, why would they shift back to the US?
I agree with you. As I've said, we are living the downfall of the U.S. I don't see any possibility of a recovery from this until both major parties can again be trusted to maintain alliances and agreements and the American people are not electing incompetents, criminals and trolls. And the rest of the world would need to see that play out for a couple of decades or more.
I think a recovery is possible. But I am worried all the same. Relying on "possible" is not the best place to be in.
Not much to be done in the present, other than do what we can to hasten the change of power back to democrats. We'll know in a few years.
Not going to happen so long as the banking industry is sound. I am not losing sleep over it, especially considering the 1982 recession and Great Recession were caused by much worse situations than what are being faced today.
Not ruling out a recession happening at some point but a deep one is hard for me to believe at this point.
I would be cautious about reading into this too much just yet as what could indicate a recession, at least for now. These measures may have been more applicable with normal economies that were going to fall down into recession territory but given what has happened with this economy since the recovery after COVID-19, it's more of a rollercoaster ride that happens to be still a growing economy.
For starters, more workers are going back to the office than before and this activity is starting to trickle down into downtown where main street businesses are benefitting. For a long time, main street businesses were seeing slow recovery and while certain ones benefitted vs. others, the general view by business owners has been that traditional work environments deemphasizing remote work at a large scale helped them considerably.
I am also hearing that in the consulting industry (mine) that many companies are going on a hiring spree right now until May. Depends on where you are hearing things from though.
In regard to NY 17, my district, I like that Conley has ties to both Rockland and Westchester. The two counties are almost different worlds and someone from one can be pretty isolated from the other. I don't know if her gung-ho attitude will work as well for a female Democrat as it does for a male Republican, but I think it could be helpful against Lawler.
NY-17 is one district where Dems could have done more in redistricting. It would have been very easy to take out Lawler’s best precincts in Rockland and put them in NY-16 in exchange for more of Westchester.
Yup. They did some relatively minor things to try to protect Bowman in the primary but nothing for my 17, as I recall. Having the red section in Dutchess county, for example, is bad for 17, and classic gerrymandering. The registering in NY was a mess.
Not having that red section of Dutchess in 18 or 19 is good though. They could have made up for it by unpacking 16 a bit.
TRUMP SIGNS VOTER SUPPRESSION ORDER
Trump has signed an executive order to make sweeping changes to federal elections that includes a proof of citizenship requirement and aims to prevent states from counting mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day.
Trump has long railed against mail-in voting and Tuesday's order directs the Election Assistance Commission to include in its national mail-in voter registration form a stipulation for proof of U.S. citizenship, such as a passport or Real ID. States that don't comply with the new requirements could have federal funding cut, according to the order.
While Trump's order is called "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American elections," UCLA law professor Rick Hasen wrote in a Tuesday blog post the action was an "executive power grab" that would disenfranchise "millions" of voters.
"The aim here is voter suppression pure and simple," Hasen said.
https://www.axios.com/2025/03/25/trump-elections-executive-order-citizenship-proof
Too bad for him that he doesn’t have the authority.
Absolutely. He is doing or trying to do a helluva lot that he doesn’t have authority to do.
We've got more turnout possibilities in the 2026 midterms than before and growing. This order is only amplifying things.
First votes in for PA 35 House seat. https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/PA/Allegheny/123236/web.345435/#/summary
Goughnor over 80% with 27% in.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/25/us/elections/results-pennsylvania-special-elections.html
Democrat off to a big lead in SD 36.
Surely this is mail/early...
Would think so.
Unfortunately yes.
With over 50% in, Democrat up 58-41 in a district Trump won by 15.
Trump won this district?
Yes.
ok i was thinking about house district 35
Harris won that by 16.
With 67% in, lead us down to 54-45.
52-47 80% reported
I’m seeing Malone 52.4–46.6 over Parsons with >95% reporting.
https://www.270towin.com/news/2025/03/25/live-results-march-25-legislative-special-elections_1710.html
NYT/AP think it's 80% reporting.
Yeah, I was just going to add that. Same numbers but wildly different estimates. I wonder why. Do you have a link to AP?
And even if it's 80% and not 95%, I think we're in good position. We're only losing E-Day votes (70% of the total) by 3000 votes. We have a 2500 vote margin. Over 70% of election day votes should be in. I'd expect to lose 1000 votes in what's left, not 2500.
If it's 80% reporting, with ~40k votes in right now, we'd expect ~50k total. If that follows, for 10k remaining votes and a lead of a bit over 2k, we win even with only 40% of the remaining vote going for us.
Worth being cautiously optimistic.
OK, now ~everything's in per AP and we still have an 800-vote lead. Late results were worse than I'd guessed (there were a few more than expected), but not bad enough to flip it. At least not seemingly.
Last three precincts just came in and we're up 500. That should be that.
Oh, this is fun. We have precisely 50% + 1 of the vote: 26951 out of 53900. (There's a third party candidate and so the margin is more than 1 vote, but still.)
64-34 at 50% reporting
64-34 at 73% reporting
71% in. Same margin.
Called
https://bsky.app/profile/civicapi.org/post/3llammiuzi22h
Running, what, over ten points ahead of Harris? Nice.
We're on a roll here! Looking forward to seeing more successes throughout this year.
I can only imagine how the NJ-GOV and VA-GOV races are going to evolve given the dynamics we're seeing in the special elections.