Yeah. If we look at partisan lean, Missouri sort of matches well with neighboring Kansas. Missouri's been more resistant than Kansas when it comes to shifting to the left (as in, it hasn't) but given how blue this year is, anything is possible, especially with regards to a lower profile race that might catch Republicans off guard, as well as the state GOP doing a lot of scummy shit this year with regards to gerrymandering and trying to sabotage ballot initiatives
On that note... why does Missouri hold their auditor's elections in midterm years? Every other one of their statewide offices holds theirs in presidential years.
I pulled together a list of current postcard campaigns across all the major postcard platforms. Here's a link for anyone who might be interested: https://substack.com/@cj277/note/c-336404910
Interesting that another progressive besides Brandon Johnson hasn’t tried for mayor. Andre Vasquez was considering at one point — I believe he now isn’t.
I wonder why. Is the city just turning against progressives in general due to Johnson? Were the left afraid to challenge him? I know some of the left do not like Johnson and have accused him of betraying his former allies (not sure why, as I can’t remember. The leadership of the Chicago Teachers Union has likewise been criticized.)
Which leads me to my question. Given Johnson’s unpopularity, will other progressives running in races like City Council or School Board suffer with Johnson, or is the damage mitigated to the mayor? Curious if any IL/Chicago posters can explain.
While analogies to other cities can be hard, look at Alexi G as basically a Brad Lander-type running against Johnson, who is left-wing but saddled with both the strengths (reliable base of black voters) and weaknesses (poor manager) of Eric Adams, the difference being that Johnson isn't corrupt, which will matter.
The thing is, the entire election question rests on the premise that you can get an equally progressive or close to as progressive mayor as Johnson, which means every early major candidate like Alexi G (backed away from 1,000 new cops) and Rep. Mike Quigley (moderate New Dem who cosponsored the Block The Bombs Act randomly over the summer) has pivoted left instead of right. That means Johnson defines the election and, by extension, the electorate. Another progressive hasn't jumped in because Johnson is setting the terms and limits of the debate - while his polling remains low, it went up quite a bit after 1) crime went down tremendously in the last 2 years and 2) he stood up to Trump on ICE. Anyone running against him will have to articulate how they could've done better on those two things, and I haven't seen that yet.
Alexi G has the money, of course, but he has to thread the needle carefully to build a coalition that includes:
1) lefty/lib/progs who have soured on Johnson but are still very left-leaning and will bail on Alexi G if he tries to pander to Chicago's reactionaries
2) Conservatives who know he's a liberal do-gooder but MAY be willing to vote for him to get rid of Johnson, but only up to a point
3) Non-white voters, in a town in which racial voting is still paramount, and historically, only women and black candidates have actually been successful at running as liberal reformers and winning
There are multiple decent-to-lightly competitive Latino candidates, another high-profile Greek candidate planning to run (Alexi is Greek), and multiple moderate-y white candidates who have money to blow; but Johnson, unlike in 2023 with Lightfoot, is the only prominent Black candidate. His ceiling is probably low, but his floor is higher than people think, especially for the primary.
Not bad, although I'd say Alexi is not that progressive. He'll govern as an Obama-era neolib, favorable to the business community with crumbs to underresourced communities.
The model that the Chicago establishment adheres to is trickle-down--take care of downtown and the resulting prosperity will eventually reach the neighborhoods. (It never does, but that's the model). Alexi will firmly embrace that model, and the Tribune, Crain's, the City Club, will all laud him for being a mayor for all Chicago, which is the standard they hold White politicians to when they aren't overtly racist. We'll continue to get a huge drain of African-Americans from Chicago, which will make the establishment happy because they won't have to deal with "those people," and the schools will be increasingly privatized to cut or stabilize the property taxes of the wealthy.
Hard to say on that, at least as he currently presents himself, but the media will frame him as such “responsible progressive”, “progressive who gets things done.”
Very likely. Their definition of "progressive who gets things done" is "progressive who gets things done for the business community/elites," not "progressive who gets things done that are actually progressive."
Absolutely spot on. Its a tale of two cities, as I have stated here before. There is the wealthy downtown core with a vine of hip neighborhoods running up northwest, adjacent to the Kennedy Expressway, your Logan Squares, your Wicker Parks, and then there is the rest of the city.
1) I think Giannoulias has done a reasonable, competent job at running IL SoS and driver services, taking over from the long-tenured Jesse White. How that translates to running a city as difficult and unwieldy as Chicago is, I don't know. I imagine he will be a Rahm Emmanuel or Daley type, more than a Johnson type. He will not get enthusiastic support from the left, but he does not need it per se.
2) Conservatives in Chicago want one thing. Cops shoving the faces of gangbangers (and others!) into the concrete, preferably taped, and repeated on the news. "Law n order". They have no hope of getting an R through, so they will, as usual support the most pro-Cop democrat.
3) Racial voting is still very prevalent, but I don't think it will be as impactful in the elections to come at the mayoral level as it is at the alderman/ward level. Susana Mendoza for example will get some support strictly along racial lines, but it won't be nearly as fanatical as it gets for the local alderman/alderwoman.
I didn't find the poll I was looking for. So this polling on how important 12 issues are to voters reported by G. Elliot Morris/Strength in Numbers will have to do.
The most important issue is prices/inflation for 60% of those polled.
The 2nd is Jobs & the Economy, which overlaps with Prices/Inflation imho, at 40%.
Healthcare is 3rd, >35%. Again, imho has some overlap with prices/inflation because of eliminated subsidies, increased costs, etc.
Crime & safety? 20%.
I don't even know where trans fits. Maybe education? ~15%.
Blowing $50M on ads that don't address voters OVERWHELMING concern seems not smart.
I'm sure that this will get a "but it's a way to boost turnout." The problem there, & Mike Madrid is a great source on this, is that the felon won because Hispanic voters voted for him, & Rs, in 2024 because of the economy. they haven't delivered on the economy & Hispanics are switching their support to Democratic candidates. Boosting turnout won't help here. & ~75% of Independents support Democrats this election, which is unheard of.
NYC Councilman Christopher Marte is facing allegations of "misus[ing] government staff for political purposes", per Politico. A large amount of money Marte tried to allocate for a nonprofit has been frozen, and there are also accusations of illicit super PAC coordination.
The leader of the SEIU-UHW/major backer of the proposition, Dave Regan, apparently is facing allegations of threatening other labor officials into supporting the referendum, including physical assault allegations.
While the allegations have been substantiated (and Regan is alleging a political smear campaign), I personally feel the timing is a bit suspect. I don't deny Regan did these things, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a political element to why these allegations suddenly came out now.
Not new, but Sen. Elizabeth Warren declined to endorse the tax. A bit surprising (and a little infuriating, for me personally) given her long record of going after businesses. Apparently her rationale is that a national ban is needed -- also Newsom's position (which makes it worse for me personally as I'm suspicious of Newsom's position given his ties to the tech industry. Obviously Warren is not tied to the tech industry but it is infuriating to see her go along with this in my opinion).
Probably outflow more centered on higher income professionals than super rich.
Tax foundation may have an ideological lean, but its data source is objective. I found 22-23 one year changes CA lost 100k taxpayers with $11+b. That was under Biden administration.
Perhaps, Warren's thinking is along the lines of the anti-gerrymandering laws that states passed that ended up hurting Democrats nationally because the Republican states cheerfully gerrymandered like crazy, which has now resulted in Democratic states undoing such laws or putting them on hold. If millionaires (small potatoes) and multi-millionaires and billionaires can just move to another state, that does not help the state with such laws. We need federal laws that require the increasingly smaller group of ultrawealthy to pay their share as the rest of us do.
Studies have shown that most millionaires don't move because their taxes are increased, as they're already paying a premium to live where they want to live, such as in New York or San Francisco.
It is beyond "dead on arrival". The California airwaves (and online ads as well) are dominated by No on 40 advertising. It is the only statewide ballot measure campaign that is up with ads already. In addition there are ads that are generally against taxes though not specifically about Prop 40. I could go on about this, and probably will next week when I get back from a brief trip to the Sierras. I need to see my favorite mountains before the season is over. I am a hiker, not a skier...
Isn't it amazing that millionaires and billionaires will spend so much money on a campaign to defeat the measure rather than just pay the tax? It reminds me of some of my students who took so much time to craft a plagiarized essay that they could have just written the damn essay themselves.
I think that billionaires especially have gotten too comfortable. I don't think they realize that taxation is the moderate position. If things keep going how they're going, they should look no further than 1780s France.
Yeah, I feel like a lot of the advertising for voting Yes on 40 comes from the ballot initiative itself. How many voters, especially blue voters in perhaps the most "anti-rich" environment in decades, are going to see what the ballot initiative does and go "hell yeah, stick it to the man!" Probably a lot - all the initiative needs is >=%50
That's the billionaire tax. Too bad. Way too many Americans lack class consciousness and identity aspirationally with the super-rich, which is part of the reason why they don't get most of the kinds of services that would help them.
Quite honestly, Democrats should try to spend more time focusing on returning to the normal income tax rates during President Clinton’s days in the 90’s than pushing too much with this billionaire tax. The billionaire tax agenda seems to have overtaken the agenda for everything tax related these days.
I’m not saying ignore the merits of a billionaire tax but don’t we have to pay down the deficit and debt? I’d like that to be addressed so the GOP and Libertarians don’t have to use this as a punching bag against Democrats.
Naturally, improving the economy should not be on the back burner while solving the deficit and debt.
Some states, such as Florida and Texas, don't have state income tax. I seem to recall that Washington State didn't when I lived there, but that was many years ago. The problem is that they need to make up the revenue somewhere, so it hits primarily as sales tax, which disproportionately hurts people with lower incomes, and sometimes with property taxes which also hurts people earning less.
Of course. Every state government’s budget is different and not always reflective of what goes on in the federal budget.
And just imagine if the federal budget deficit and debt are gone. Wouldn’t state governments like California have an easier time getting funding and support.
And to be clear, I do not think billionaires are not paying enough in taxes. Just ask Warren Buffett as he’s on more than one occasion doesn’t want his tax breaks.
Looking at the pretty diverse opposition to this, beyond moderates and conservatives, such as much of the state's Democratic establishment, some leftier types like Porter and Warren (whose's not against it but not backing it either), a fair number of unions, and Planned Parenthood... this seems to be a good concept executed poorly.
The one-time billionaire tax is not a permanent solution. If state taxes on billionaires are not permanent, then what happens when the funding runs out? How are we assured funding from this measure will be properly and competently managed?
Also, why do we need propositions to increase taxes like this when Democrats have a super majority in the State Legislature? It’s like, dudes, you have had ample opportunity for years on higher taxes. Governor Jerry Brown got a state budget surplus from higher taxes being in place.
Yes, they should pass the legislation, but this is a one-time tax? I agree that that's stupid because it's insufficient and needs to be permanent, but it's still better than nothing.
So, he lies about Ballard's record (Lincoln Party) and all he can find on Bayh is to suggest that his mail-in voting while in college, the military, and law school, somehow do not make him a "real" Hoosier. Bayh lives in Indiana and is part of a law firm here.
Engling does not mention his own time in D.C. working on Kevin McCarthy's staff.
Sweden's center-left opposition leader Magdalena Andersson of the Social Democrats has appeared to narrowly defeat conservative Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson of the Democrats, who has catered to the far right since taking office.
Andersson was PM from 2021-2022, and Kristersson has been since.
Center-left is slight misnomer. It's a political block that spans from the Center to the Left. The parties are literally Centerpartiet and Vänsterpartiet.
TX-Railroad Commissioner: Republican nominee Bo French is under fire for calling Asian students at a University of Texas football game a "problem". Outgoing Sen. John Cornyn, outgoing Rep. Dan Crenshaw, and state Rep. Dustin Burrows, the speaker of the state House, have criticized French.
Ken Paxton, meanwhile, took the opportunity to accuse James Talarico of racism.
Keep in mind that this job has little to do with RRs but is one of the most important positions in the state as it has responsibility for regulation of the oil and natural gas industry, pipeline safety, natural gas utilities, coal and uranium mining, etc.
As it turns out, disappearing for 3 and a half months for extremely dubious reasons is a pretty quick way to kill your political career in a swing district. Unless someone's depression is so severe that they can barely get out of bed, in which case they should consider resigning, as someone with depression, depression is not a valid excuse to completely hide away for months.
See Judd Legum's article today at Popular Information for how the Trump organization is starting to dump money into the midterms. In particular, notice the ads which deliberately platform lies.
The November yard sign ground game is beginning in WV. No federal ones from Capito/Moore or their Democratic opponents yet, but in the legislature I've seen a LOT of Phil Mallow and Dave McCormick ones (both Republican delegates) and John Williams (Democratic delegate running a competitive state Senate race). No signs for my delegate yet, however.
The sign game has been going on since this summer from the Fitzpatrick campaign, primarily signs saying that Bob Harvie is under FBI Investigation and that he gave himself a pay raise. And now, he's putting up big signs that show what groups endorsed him, a lot of which is just bogus.
I’m a little worried about my home district of NY-17. Lawler is popular with some conservative Dems and other conservative non-GOPers here, and I fear his false bipartisanship will genuinely fool people. Recently in my hometown of Chappaqua NY, a town board member endorsed Lawler and pissed off all the town Dems in the process. I can’t go too much into detail about why Lawler is so popular as it partially overlaps with a topic that is banned, but I am concerned he’ll become entrenched like Fitzpatrick. Like Fitzpatrick, he is wrongly perceived as a moderate, and I just worry the ingredients are all there for him to become entrenched.
Curious to see what people think, including if there are counterarguments.
I don't have any ground-level knowledge here, but my general take is that any Republican in a Harris-won district is starting in a deep hole. And, even if the Dem brand has suffered among some voters who are strongly motivated by a certain divisive issue, Conley seems to have a relatively non-toxic profile on national security type matters, at least compared to some other molds of candidates we have seen. Lawler does seem to be able to get himself in the headlines, though, which can be a very valuable skill.
As long as Conley remains a good campaigner unlike Lawler's predecessor Sean Patrick Maloney, she should be fine. Like Matt said, this is a Harris-won seat, and if recent polls in other seats like NJ-7 mean anything this is a prime seat to flip. Joe DioGuardi made it two terms in this district in the 1980s by cultivating a similar moderate image as Lawler.
Good analysis, from both you and Matt. Conley is actively campaigning, yes (I met her at a town event) so that’s a good sign. That, and Lawler’s disastrous town halls, one of which ended with someone getting dragged out.
This is a good analysis here. I 100% agree that Fitzpatrick is perceived as a moderate, even though he isn't acting like one. What separates Fitz from Lawler is the fact that the Fitzpatrick name has more standing here in PA-01 than Lawler's ability as a member of Congress for NY-17. Bob has been campaigning hard and doing everything to take on Brian, and in a year like this, with Bob being an elected official in Bucks, there is solid progress in challenging the name.
SCOTUS Win: In a big win for the blue team and voting rights, the Supreme Court has blocked Trump's plan to dramatically change how Americans vote by mail. The court’s brief order included little reasoning, stating only that the government is “unlikely to succeed on the merits” of it’s challenge to a lower-court ruling.
In a one-paragraph concurrence, Kavanaugh said that there was “at least a fair prospect” that the Postal Service has the authority to eventually carry out the new rules but that the proposed changes were too close to the election.
When *Rosa Parks* comes out against the nomination of a Black man to the Supreme Court, as well as the incumbent justice Thurgood Marshall, you're probably not a great guy.
Clarence Thomas is too privileged for his own good, not to mention being on the SCOTUS with these rigid, outdated and traditional views of how legal interpretation of constitutional law should be.
How very interesting that all SCOTUS justices that Trump nominated voted to block the limitation of mail-in voting but the two SCOTUS justices that voted NO were originally nominated by Bush Sr and Bush Jr.
LA-Mayor: Democratic city councilor Nithya Raman, who is challenging incumbent Karen Bass from the left, premiered an ad at the Emmys voiced by legendary actor and comedian Bob Odenkirk.
What business does MO-Auditor have being so competitive 50 days out?
It's a blue wave year. A lot of states about as red as Missouri are showing numbers like that.
Yeah. If we look at partisan lean, Missouri sort of matches well with neighboring Kansas. Missouri's been more resistant than Kansas when it comes to shifting to the left (as in, it hasn't) but given how blue this year is, anything is possible, especially with regards to a lower profile race that might catch Republicans off guard, as well as the state GOP doing a lot of scummy shit this year with regards to gerrymandering and trying to sabotage ballot initiatives
On that note... why does Missouri hold their auditor's elections in midterm years? Every other one of their statewide offices holds theirs in presidential years.
Isn't Missouri more fundamentalist and less highly educated than Kansas?
⬆️"What business does MO-Auditor have being so competitive 50 days out?"
Postcards for Democracy (https://postcards.markersfordemocracy.org/) has postcard campaigns for 3 MO (state not federal) house districts in case anyone is interested.
I pulled together a list of current postcard campaigns across all the major postcard platforms. Here's a link for anyone who might be interested: https://substack.com/@cj277/note/c-336404910
Interesting that another progressive besides Brandon Johnson hasn’t tried for mayor. Andre Vasquez was considering at one point — I believe he now isn’t.
I wonder why. Is the city just turning against progressives in general due to Johnson? Were the left afraid to challenge him? I know some of the left do not like Johnson and have accused him of betraying his former allies (not sure why, as I can’t remember. The leadership of the Chicago Teachers Union has likewise been criticized.)
Which leads me to my question. Given Johnson’s unpopularity, will other progressives running in races like City Council or School Board suffer with Johnson, or is the damage mitigated to the mayor? Curious if any IL/Chicago posters can explain.
My Mike Kornacki take on Chicago Mayor So Far:
While analogies to other cities can be hard, look at Alexi G as basically a Brad Lander-type running against Johnson, who is left-wing but saddled with both the strengths (reliable base of black voters) and weaknesses (poor manager) of Eric Adams, the difference being that Johnson isn't corrupt, which will matter.
The thing is, the entire election question rests on the premise that you can get an equally progressive or close to as progressive mayor as Johnson, which means every early major candidate like Alexi G (backed away from 1,000 new cops) and Rep. Mike Quigley (moderate New Dem who cosponsored the Block The Bombs Act randomly over the summer) has pivoted left instead of right. That means Johnson defines the election and, by extension, the electorate. Another progressive hasn't jumped in because Johnson is setting the terms and limits of the debate - while his polling remains low, it went up quite a bit after 1) crime went down tremendously in the last 2 years and 2) he stood up to Trump on ICE. Anyone running against him will have to articulate how they could've done better on those two things, and I haven't seen that yet.
Alexi G has the money, of course, but he has to thread the needle carefully to build a coalition that includes:
1) lefty/lib/progs who have soured on Johnson but are still very left-leaning and will bail on Alexi G if he tries to pander to Chicago's reactionaries
2) Conservatives who know he's a liberal do-gooder but MAY be willing to vote for him to get rid of Johnson, but only up to a point
3) Non-white voters, in a town in which racial voting is still paramount, and historically, only women and black candidates have actually been successful at running as liberal reformers and winning
There are multiple decent-to-lightly competitive Latino candidates, another high-profile Greek candidate planning to run (Alexi is Greek), and multiple moderate-y white candidates who have money to blow; but Johnson, unlike in 2023 with Lightfoot, is the only prominent Black candidate. His ceiling is probably low, but his floor is higher than people think, especially for the primary.
Very good analysis! This helps contextualize things, yes.
Not bad, although I'd say Alexi is not that progressive. He'll govern as an Obama-era neolib, favorable to the business community with crumbs to underresourced communities.
The model that the Chicago establishment adheres to is trickle-down--take care of downtown and the resulting prosperity will eventually reach the neighborhoods. (It never does, but that's the model). Alexi will firmly embrace that model, and the Tribune, Crain's, the City Club, will all laud him for being a mayor for all Chicago, which is the standard they hold White politicians to when they aren't overtly racist. We'll continue to get a huge drain of African-Americans from Chicago, which will make the establishment happy because they won't have to deal with "those people," and the schools will be increasingly privatized to cut or stabilize the property taxes of the wealthy.
Hard to say on that, at least as he currently presents himself, but the media will frame him as such “responsible progressive”, “progressive who gets things done.”
Very likely. Their definition of "progressive who gets things done" is "progressive who gets things done for the business community/elites," not "progressive who gets things done that are actually progressive."
Absolutely spot on. Its a tale of two cities, as I have stated here before. There is the wealthy downtown core with a vine of hip neighborhoods running up northwest, adjacent to the Kennedy Expressway, your Logan Squares, your Wicker Parks, and then there is the rest of the city.
1) I think Giannoulias has done a reasonable, competent job at running IL SoS and driver services, taking over from the long-tenured Jesse White. How that translates to running a city as difficult and unwieldy as Chicago is, I don't know. I imagine he will be a Rahm Emmanuel or Daley type, more than a Johnson type. He will not get enthusiastic support from the left, but he does not need it per se.
2) Conservatives in Chicago want one thing. Cops shoving the faces of gangbangers (and others!) into the concrete, preferably taped, and repeated on the news. "Law n order". They have no hope of getting an R through, so they will, as usual support the most pro-Cop democrat.
3) Racial voting is still very prevalent, but I don't think it will be as impactful in the elections to come at the mayoral level as it is at the alderman/ward level. Susana Mendoza for example will get some support strictly along racial lines, but it won't be nearly as fanatical as it gets for the local alderman/alderwoman.
I didn't find the poll I was looking for. So this polling on how important 12 issues are to voters reported by G. Elliot Morris/Strength in Numbers will have to do.
The most important issue is prices/inflation for 60% of those polled.
The 2nd is Jobs & the Economy, which overlaps with Prices/Inflation imho, at 40%.
Healthcare is 3rd, >35%. Again, imho has some overlap with prices/inflation because of eliminated subsidies, increased costs, etc.
Crime & safety? 20%.
I don't even know where trans fits. Maybe education? ~15%.
Blowing $50M on ads that don't address voters OVERWHELMING concern seems not smart.
I'm sure that this will get a "but it's a way to boost turnout." The problem there, & Mike Madrid is a great source on this, is that the felon won because Hispanic voters voted for him, & Rs, in 2024 because of the economy. they haven't delivered on the economy & Hispanics are switching their support to Democratic candidates. Boosting turnout won't help here. & ~75% of Independents support Democrats this election, which is unheard of.
NYC Council District 1:
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/newyorkplaybook
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/06/new-york-city-lawmaker-accused-of-using-government-staff-for-political-fundraising-01026591
NYC Councilman Christopher Marte is facing allegations of "misus[ing] government staff for political purposes", per Politico. A large amount of money Marte tried to allocate for a nonprofit has been frozen, and there are also accusations of illicit super PAC coordination.
Thanks for flagging and linking this. I'm shocked to read this about a politician I know about, but given New York's history, I shouldn't be.
2026 CA Prop 40 (aka the billionaire tax):
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/11/california-wealth-tax-proponent-threatened-labor-officials-report-finds-01072488
The leader of the SEIU-UHW/major backer of the proposition, Dave Regan, apparently is facing allegations of threatening other labor officials into supporting the referendum, including physical assault allegations.
While the allegations have been substantiated (and Regan is alleging a political smear campaign), I personally feel the timing is a bit suspect. I don't deny Regan did these things, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a political element to why these allegations suddenly came out now.
Speaking of news on this referendum:
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/14/the-lefts-california-problem-01037361
Not new, but Sen. Elizabeth Warren declined to endorse the tax. A bit surprising (and a little infuriating, for me personally) given her long record of going after businesses. Apparently her rationale is that a national ban is needed -- also Newsom's position (which makes it worse for me personally as I'm suspicious of Newsom's position given his ties to the tech industry. Obviously Warren is not tied to the tech industry but it is infuriating to see her go along with this in my opinion).
That's a ridiculous and surprising position by Warren. States don't have a right to their own tax policy and initiatives?
They do. But that doesn’t mean there is no consequences. Esp in states like CA NY IL which are losing to large outmigration.
How much of that outmigration is by super-rich people who have no trouble living wherever they want?
Probably outflow more centered on higher income professionals than super rich.
Tax foundation may have an ideological lean, but its data source is objective. I found 22-23 one year changes CA lost 100k taxpayers with $11+b. That was under Biden administration.
Perhaps, Warren's thinking is along the lines of the anti-gerrymandering laws that states passed that ended up hurting Democrats nationally because the Republican states cheerfully gerrymandered like crazy, which has now resulted in Democratic states undoing such laws or putting them on hold. If millionaires (small potatoes) and multi-millionaires and billionaires can just move to another state, that does not help the state with such laws. We need federal laws that require the increasingly smaller group of ultrawealthy to pay their share as the rest of us do.
Studies have shown that most millionaires don't move because their taxes are increased, as they're already paying a premium to live where they want to live, such as in New York or San Francisco.
Well cost of living is already a problem in general. Paying monthly in high housing costs is much different than yearly taxes.
Exactly, but the point is that housing costs are so high in places like that precisely because rich people are willing to pay them.
looks like prop 40 is doa in CA
It is beyond "dead on arrival". The California airwaves (and online ads as well) are dominated by No on 40 advertising. It is the only statewide ballot measure campaign that is up with ads already. In addition there are ads that are generally against taxes though not specifically about Prop 40. I could go on about this, and probably will next week when I get back from a brief trip to the Sierras. I need to see my favorite mountains before the season is over. I am a hiker, not a skier...
Isn't it amazing that millionaires and billionaires will spend so much money on a campaign to defeat the measure rather than just pay the tax? It reminds me of some of my students who took so much time to craft a plagiarized essay that they could have just written the damn essay themselves.
I think that billionaires especially have gotten too comfortable. I don't think they realize that taxation is the moderate position. If things keep going how they're going, they should look no further than 1780s France.
I have seen no No on 40 ads, personally, so I'm surprised to hear that.
I still think it has a shot at passing, just because of how unpopular billionaires are these days.
Yeah, I feel like a lot of the advertising for voting Yes on 40 comes from the ballot initiative itself. How many voters, especially blue voters in perhaps the most "anti-rich" environment in decades, are going to see what the ballot initiative does and go "hell yeah, stick it to the man!" Probably a lot - all the initiative needs is >=%50
That's the billionaire tax. Too bad. Way too many Americans lack class consciousness and identity aspirationally with the super-rich, which is part of the reason why they don't get most of the kinds of services that would help them.
Quite honestly, Democrats should try to spend more time focusing on returning to the normal income tax rates during President Clinton’s days in the 90’s than pushing too much with this billionaire tax. The billionaire tax agenda seems to have overtaken the agenda for everything tax related these days.
I’m not saying ignore the merits of a billionaire tax but don’t we have to pay down the deficit and debt? I’d like that to be addressed so the GOP and Libertarians don’t have to use this as a punching bag against Democrats.
Naturally, improving the economy should not be on the back burner while solving the deficit and debt.
It needs to be on federal rates. Migration is real if only blue states do this shit.
Well then, might as well eliminate state income taxes. Then you can have race to the bottom shit.
And eliminate the minimum wage while we're at it.
Some states, such as Florida and Texas, don't have state income tax. I seem to recall that Washington State didn't when I lived there, but that was many years ago. The problem is that they need to make up the revenue somewhere, so it hits primarily as sales tax, which disproportionately hurts people with lower incomes, and sometimes with property taxes which also hurts people earning less.
Of course. Every state government’s budget is different and not always reflective of what goes on in the federal budget.
And just imagine if the federal budget deficit and debt are gone. Wouldn’t state governments like California have an easier time getting funding and support.
And to be clear, I do not think billionaires are not paying enough in taxes. Just ask Warren Buffett as he’s on more than one occasion doesn’t want his tax breaks.
Looking at the pretty diverse opposition to this, beyond moderates and conservatives, such as much of the state's Democratic establishment, some leftier types like Porter and Warren (whose's not against it but not backing it either), a fair number of unions, and Planned Parenthood... this seems to be a good concept executed poorly.
What's the problem with the execution, and how was it remediable?
I’ll speak for myself:
The one-time billionaire tax is not a permanent solution. If state taxes on billionaires are not permanent, then what happens when the funding runs out? How are we assured funding from this measure will be properly and competently managed?
Also, why do we need propositions to increase taxes like this when Democrats have a super majority in the State Legislature? It’s like, dudes, you have had ample opportunity for years on higher taxes. Governor Jerry Brown got a state budget surplus from higher taxes being in place.
Yes, they should pass the legislation, but this is a one-time tax? I agree that that's stupid because it's insufficient and needs to be permanent, but it's still better than nothing.
Max Engling's campaign ads for Indiana Secretary of State:
https://indianacapitalchronicle.com/2026/09/11/republicans-attack-ex-gop-mayor-ballard-in-partys-opening-secretary-of-state-ad/?utm_source=newsletters.indianacapitalchronicle.com&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=big-news-coming-your-way&_bhlid=16d3f2a85261eb5bdc7745e221bcfeae9120cbab
So, he lies about Ballard's record (Lincoln Party) and all he can find on Bayh is to suggest that his mail-in voting while in college, the military, and law school, somehow do not make him a "real" Hoosier. Bayh lives in Indiana and is part of a law firm here.
Engling does not mention his own time in D.C. working on Kevin McCarthy's staff.
part of the benefit of running such a young candidate like Bayh is that you don't have much the opponents can use for attack ads :P
The ghost of Platner's campaign past may want a word with you
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/swedish-centre-left-opposition-pole-position-take-power-after-tight-election-2026-09-14/
Sweden's center-left opposition leader Magdalena Andersson of the Social Democrats has appeared to narrowly defeat conservative Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson of the Democrats, who has catered to the far right since taking office.
Andersson was PM from 2021-2022, and Kristersson has been since.
Center-left is slight misnomer. It's a political block that spans from the Center to the Left. The parties are literally Centerpartiet and Vänsterpartiet.
The block also includes the Social Democratic Worker's Party and the Greens, as the parties in between the Center and the Left.
Andersson is the leader of the center-left party, so "center-left opposition leader Magdalena Andersson" was quite accurate already.
Sounds like the conservatives were poised to co-opt the far right into their coalition and that it was, very narrowly, a bridge too far.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/6087705-gop-candidate-ut-south-asian-backlash/amp/
TX-Railroad Commissioner: Republican nominee Bo French is under fire for calling Asian students at a University of Texas football game a "problem". Outgoing Sen. John Cornyn, outgoing Rep. Dan Crenshaw, and state Rep. Dustin Burrows, the speaker of the state House, have criticized French.
Ken Paxton, meanwhile, took the opportunity to accuse James Talarico of racism.
It's clear that French would want public universities in Texas, or at least the non-HBCU ones, to be White-only institutions.
Texas was one of the last major college football programs to racially integrate, not fielding a Black varsity player until 1970.
Keep in mind that this job has little to do with RRs but is one of the most important positions in the state as it has responsibility for regulation of the oil and natural gas industry, pipeline safety, natural gas utilities, coal and uranium mining, etc.
Survey USA Nebraska poll:
NE-Sen: Osborn 46-Ricketts 42
NE-Gov: Pillen 43-Walz 35
https://results.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d94236a7-5861-4b7f-9d81-d5a81ab786cc
To clarify, Ricketts and Pillen are the Republicans in these races.
Osborn, like Andrews (SC) and Turek (IA) will all win!!
NJ 7
Bennett 47
Kean 42
https://www.insidernj.com/insider-nj-stimsight-poll-finds-bennett-leads-kean-in-new-jerseys-7th-district-affordability-of-household-goods-is-a-crucial-factor-for-persuadable-voters/
Ooh, I like 5%+. Thought it would he under that.
As it turns out, disappearing for 3 and a half months for extremely dubious reasons is a pretty quick way to kill your political career in a swing district. Unless someone's depression is so severe that they can barely get out of bed, in which case they should consider resigning, as someone with depression, depression is not a valid excuse to completely hide away for months.
Right. I also struggle mentally and attend counseling but would never miss school for that.
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/819918-a-pure-toss-up-eliott-rodriguez-maria-elvira-salazar-deadlocked-in-cd-27-internal-poll-finds/
FL-27: Bendixen & Amandi (Rodriguez internal)
Eliott Rodriguez (D) 45%
Maria Elvira Salazar (R-inc) 45%
See Judd Legum's article today at Popular Information for how the Trump organization is starting to dump money into the midterms. In particular, notice the ads which deliberately platform lies.
The November yard sign ground game is beginning in WV. No federal ones from Capito/Moore or their Democratic opponents yet, but in the legislature I've seen a LOT of Phil Mallow and Dave McCormick ones (both Republican delegates) and John Williams (Democratic delegate running a competitive state Senate race). No signs for my delegate yet, however.
I’m seeing a lot of Kiggans/Luria signs here in VA-2 and have been for a few weeks now. Not much other ones cause Senate is a shoo-in
Yeah, and I don't think a lot of Republicans are overjoyed at voting for someone named Misuzawa. I mean Hung Cao was a hard ask for them.
The sign game has been going on since this summer from the Fitzpatrick campaign, primarily signs saying that Bob Harvie is under FBI Investigation and that he gave himself a pay raise. And now, he's putting up big signs that show what groups endorsed him, a lot of which is just bogus.
I’m a little worried about my home district of NY-17. Lawler is popular with some conservative Dems and other conservative non-GOPers here, and I fear his false bipartisanship will genuinely fool people. Recently in my hometown of Chappaqua NY, a town board member endorsed Lawler and pissed off all the town Dems in the process. I can’t go too much into detail about why Lawler is so popular as it partially overlaps with a topic that is banned, but I am concerned he’ll become entrenched like Fitzpatrick. Like Fitzpatrick, he is wrongly perceived as a moderate, and I just worry the ingredients are all there for him to become entrenched.
Curious to see what people think, including if there are counterarguments.
I don't have any ground-level knowledge here, but my general take is that any Republican in a Harris-won district is starting in a deep hole. And, even if the Dem brand has suffered among some voters who are strongly motivated by a certain divisive issue, Conley seems to have a relatively non-toxic profile on national security type matters, at least compared to some other molds of candidates we have seen. Lawler does seem to be able to get himself in the headlines, though, which can be a very valuable skill.
As long as Conley remains a good campaigner unlike Lawler's predecessor Sean Patrick Maloney, she should be fine. Like Matt said, this is a Harris-won seat, and if recent polls in other seats like NJ-7 mean anything this is a prime seat to flip. Joe DioGuardi made it two terms in this district in the 1980s by cultivating a similar moderate image as Lawler.
Good analysis, from both you and Matt. Conley is actively campaigning, yes (I met her at a town event) so that’s a good sign. That, and Lawler’s disastrous town halls, one of which ended with someone getting dragged out.
I don't remember DioGuardi being considered moderate. As I recall, his main selling point was opposition to abortion.
This is a good analysis here. I 100% agree that Fitzpatrick is perceived as a moderate, even though he isn't acting like one. What separates Fitz from Lawler is the fact that the Fitzpatrick name has more standing here in PA-01 than Lawler's ability as a member of Congress for NY-17. Bob has been campaigning hard and doing everything to take on Brian, and in a year like this, with Bob being an elected official in Bucks, there is solid progress in challenging the name.
SCOTUS Win: In a big win for the blue team and voting rights, the Supreme Court has blocked Trump's plan to dramatically change how Americans vote by mail. The court’s brief order included little reasoning, stating only that the government is “unlikely to succeed on the merits” of it’s challenge to a lower-court ruling.
In a one-paragraph concurrence, Kavanaugh said that there was “at least a fair prospect” that the Postal Service has the authority to eventually carry out the new rules but that the proposed changes were too close to the election.
Two justices dissented: Alito and Thomas.
you gotta be kidding me! no freakin' way!!
You're surprised that they're in favor of Republican dictatorship or what?
/s
I wonder how history will judge those two. I can't imagine well.
When *Rosa Parks* comes out against the nomination of a Black man to the Supreme Court, as well as the incumbent justice Thurgood Marshall, you're probably not a great guy.
Clarence Thomas is too privileged for his own good, not to mention being on the SCOTUS with these rigid, outdated and traditional views of how legal interpretation of constitutional law should be.
How very interesting that all SCOTUS justices that Trump nominated voted to block the limitation of mail-in voting but the two SCOTUS justices that voted NO were originally nominated by Bush Sr and Bush Jr.
https://deadline.com/2026/09/emmy-nithya-raman-ad-bob-odenkirk-1237101821/
LA-Mayor: Democratic city councilor Nithya Raman, who is challenging incumbent Karen Bass from the left, premiered an ad at the Emmys voiced by legendary actor and comedian Bob Odenkirk.