Gov. Dan McKee (D) has a 19% approval rating with 71% disapproval, including 27% approval among DEMOCRATS (63% disapprove). Any idea of the reasons behind this?
Democratic primary voters really ought to select someone different in 2026 to prevent a Republican win, like Helena Foulkes!!
Looks like a Dan Malloy situation, only this one is running again rather than retiring!! 💙🇺🇲
Why does it always seem like Rhode Island governors have some of the highest disapproval ratings in the country? This is worse than normal, but Raimondo and Chafee were unpopular too.
Rhode Island governors often face high disapproval ratings due to a combination of structural, political, and cultural factors unique to the state. Here’s a breakdown of why this pattern persists, with a focus on Dan McKee, Gina Raimondo, and Lincoln Chafee, informed by recent polling data and historical context:
1. **Small State, Intense Scrutiny**: Rhode Island’s small size and tight-knit political culture amplify public and media focus on the governor’s actions. With a population of just over 1 million, state politics feel personal, and missteps are quickly magnified. Governors are highly visible and often bear the brunt of frustration over local issues like infrastructure (e.g., the Washington Bridge delays under McKee) or economic struggles, which hit hard in a state with a history of economic stagnation.
6. **Historical Context and Voter Memory**: Rhode Island’s political history includes scandals and economic struggles, fostering cynicism. The 38 Studios failure under Chafee and Raimondo’s pension cuts left lasting bitterness. McKee inherited a state with a skeptical electorate, and his low approval reflects both his own missteps and this broader distrust. Posts on X highlight this sentiment, with some noting McKee’s 19% approval as a continuation of Rhode Island’s “tradition” of unpopular governors.[](https://x.com/TheCalvinCooli1/status/1928241084389355813)[](https://x.com/FitzProv/status/1928464718898815161)
In summary, Rhode Island’s governors face high disapproval due to the state’s small size, economic challenges, polarized and anti-establishment voters, and the need for tough policy decisions. McKee’s ratings are worse than Raimondo’s or Chafee’s due to specific controversies and infrastructure woes, but all three have struggled against a backdrop of voter skepticism and structural constraints. If you’d like me to dig deeper into any specific governor or issue, let me know!
It has to do with both states having slower economic recovery than more largely populated, multiple metropolitan city states like CA, NY and TX.
While Rhode Island gives Democrats more breathing room electorally from this as far as electing/re-electing Governors, that's not the case in Nevada as Governor Steve Sisolak was the lone incumbent Democratic Governor in office to lose re-election in 2022 (so I remember).
NV I reference because the state's slow economic recovery impacts it far more than in RI. Governor Sisolak did have a heavy focus on leading the state during the COVID-19 pandemic but it came at a great cost to the state's casino industry. While he certainly had the best intentions and the right goals, economic anxiety did unfortunately impact his re-election chances. I also believe this was an omen to Trump winning the state at the presidential level in 2024.
While there may be nothing to indicate Colton Moore is an ephebophile like Roy Moore of Alabama, he sounds equally detestable – but, more importantly, eminently beatable. I wish him the best of luck attaining the Republican nomination!
Polish Election: GenZ showing again how they're complete suckers for right wing disinfo. Going to be a lingering issue especially for any center-left (and center right) incumbent governments going forward.
Yeah, the parliamentary elections in Greece come April 2027 will be one to watch, since they have a center-right government (and just legalized marriage equality in February 2024). Especially since voter turnout is typically lower than Poland's.
Gen Z in Germany also broke for far right AfD and far left Die Linke and in Poland too for libertarian far right Konfederacy and SocDem and DemSoc progressive Razem which would not be far left but the most left in Poland. Social Media too has polarized the world and is the major communication channel of these 4 parties I mentioned.
Note that I am quite left wing myself — I was referring to the far right’s rise. I personally feel that the far right is a significantly greater threat than the left will ever be. I don’t see the same disdain for democracy and willingness to use violence in the left that I see on the right myself.
Far leftists need to be radicals who want to do things like end capitalism or nationalize the holdings of large corporations or something. Merely being a loud social democrat doesn't make someone a member of the far left.
I may have a different view but from an academic sense, I believe very liberal (if this counts as far left) means something different than what you are referring to. Unless you think “far left” is differently than “very liberal.”
Anyone I see who extremely liberal is:
1) Inclusive
2) Open-Minded, especially to different points of view
3) Forward Thinking
4) More wise and patient than most liberals
Far right to me suggests a view that’s more rigid, close minded and not open to change.
"Far left" has absolutely nothing to do with liberals, who are center left, regardless of how liberal they are. If you haven't already read Engels' "Principles of Communism," I recommend it. To be far left, you have to at least have a program that more closely resembles the one he prescribes for communists who get into office through election than would typify a mere liberal. The Socialist Workers Party, which is Trotskyist, is radical and far left, and is one of the few current-day examples of far leftists in the U.S.
More than that, they are anti establishment, they voted for the same coalition in the 2023 Polish elections and the last Presidential election but the centre right coalition failed to even bring an abortion legalization bill or civil union bill to the President due to the right wing elements in the coalition.
They were simultaneously the the only generation which voted the most for the most progressive DemSoc and SocDem Razem party and the libertarian far right Confederacy in the primary. The centrist coalition didn't really deliver on its promises which was reflected by many on online platforms.
We are seeing history just repeat itself. The anti establishment far right and far left are on the rise in every nation. Extremely low chance that it results in another war but the anti democratic Nazi party and the Communist party's seats increased exponentially once economic struggles began increasing in the Weimar Republic.
In today's age, the far right and the far left parties use social media especially TikTok to reach younger voters and eschew traditional media.
We haven't had a depression yet though. It wasn't until the Depression that the Nazis took off in Germany. In fact for most of the 1920s, Weimar looked stable.
I mean it's not as if we Americans wanted to get involved in WWII. It took more than two years for us to get directly involved in that conflict. And only after Pearl Harbor happened.
"Extremely low chance that it results in another war" is not phrased to be about the United States. Moreover, the idea that a war requires a military engagement in which things go boom is outmoded. Russia, China and Iran have been continually engaging in acts of sabotage online and have helped destabilize major countries including the UK and the U.S. The U.S. is definitely at war, and has been since at least the leadup to the 2016 election.
I'd bet on a whole lot more shooting wars in the near future, internal/civil and traditional varietals.
When the prevailing, nihilistic sentiment is "just give me an extremist who will break shit, I don't care about policy" - I don't see how it goes any other direction.
This is another reason why Democrats need to push for a technology regulatory agency, whether it be if they win control of Congress next year or the White House in 2028.
Social media should have been regulated back in the early 2000’s before Facebook took off. It would have saved society a HUGE pain.
But even with Rafal T, they couldn't fulfill half of the promises due a Catholic rural "centrist" party in the coalition.
They shouldn't have formed the government IMO at all and should've let PiS have formed the govt with the Third Way party. Ideological purity is needed sometimes.
Ideological purity only works when its voters allow for it. Rest assured if Democratic Party voters in general wanted Bernie Sanders type policies, politicians like him would be the rule, not the exception.
I was not talking about US progressives here, I was talking about how Polish centrists literally took in a conservative catholic party to form the government which is not ideologically cohesive at all.
The writing was always on the wall - we just chose to ignore it until it was too late. All those weird and cringe online celebrities - the Paul Bros, Andrew Tate, Mr. Beast and prolly a whole host of other creeps and jerks, poisoned the internet and helped corrupt many youths. I wonder if this trend is more among young men than women.
When I mentioned to a friend a while ago that I occasionally watched Mr. Beat's videos (i.e., the bespectacled YouTuber from Kansas who's an American history buff), said friend thought I was talking about MrBeast instead. *eyeroll*
It's darkly ironic and dystopian that MrBeast not only has his own Squid Games show, but also that it's rife with all sorts of abuse. Is that the future we're headed to? Semi-legal entertainment that exploits desperate people for cash prices at the potential expense of their own dignity and health?
Pohl is not the best candidate, she lost by nearly 10 points to Amanda Chase of all people in a district Trump barely won in 2020 and might have lost in 2024.
Schuyler VanValkenburg would be the strongest opponent for Wittman IMO.
Ignore the user written heading but it's insane that Missouri Republicans repealed successful ballot measures which mandated minimum wage increase and a paid leave. It's also surprising that voters in states like Missouri vote for these measures but simultaneously and consistently vote for politicians who explicitly and vocally oppose them and promise to repeal these measures but not Democrats who have always supported such measures.
And it's not due to trans issues which Democrats need to moderate on, our communication failing or Fox news/right wing media IMO, we lost these states in 2020, 2018 and 2016 too. The real reason behind it may be tha fact the GOP's base coalition is made up of social conservatives or the religious right who don't support any kind of immigrants, abortion rights and LBG rights too and fiscal conservatives or right libertarians who have a zombie like obsession with cutting taxes for the rich, blowing up deficits and cutting public spending.
So when we have abortion rights ballot measures in red states, you see a lot of these fiscal conservatives who may also not support immigration but support abortion rights and crossover to vote for it and when you have minimum wage on the ballot, a lot of social conservatives who may be rural or working class crossover to vote for it and it passes.
The GOP is also aware of this as when the populist faction in GOP including Vance wanted to increase taxes on just the 1 percent in the BBB to own the libs, which fueled heavy media speculation, Trump rejected it as it would have led to an anti tax intra party revolt.
Question — when you say “moderating” on trans issues, what are you referring to specifically? Because I don’t feel throwing groups of people under the bus is worth it for political points personally.
Specifically banning them from sports with the exception intellectual sports like chess or bridge for fairness which polls have shown that more than 2/3rds of Americans oppose. I am also not in favor of restricting gender affirming care or denying their existence or anything else like MAGAs. In fact, banning trans discrimination should be enshrined into law IMV.
Trans people are estimated to make up 1-2% of the population of the United States; however, trans people make up less than less than 0.002% (10/500,000) of US college athletes, and even fewer of recent Olympians (0.001%) identify as trans.
This is the reality but it's costing Democrats voters and that's a shame.
Banning trans people from all physical sports? I’m sorry but I don’t think open discrimination is worth a few elections. So what if most Americans support it. Most Americans supported slavery at one time.
Just because a viewpoint is popular doesn’t make it right.
Must banning trans people from sports be considered “center”? It certainly wasn’t center a few years ago.
I don’t like to be absolutist on positions but discrimination against minority groups is one I won’t budge on. Not to mention giving in on this issue risks dragging more minority groups into their own forms of discrimination. If the right win this issue, what’s stopping them from targeting other groups next?
EDIT: If trans people really can’t play in mainstream sports, why not create a trans league? Why is banning the only option?
The right lost the marriage equality issue which is the reason why they moved to this gotcha one. I don't think they will find any more gotchas, they consistently use culture wars and social issues to serve their corporate masters.
Red states are now banning gender affirming care even with parental consent as it is in blue states which shouldn't be allowed by passing a federal law.
A trans league is not an option because once again their population is too small which the right won't ever acknowledge. We are losing working class voters over something we shouldn't. A lot of them interviewed after Ohio elections didn't vote for Sherrod Brown over such a stupid thing.
I don't think hardly anyone is for a blanket "ban" on trans persons playing sports but the debate is about folks playing on teams that reflect their biological sex. Because gender does not equate to biological sex . . that shouldn't be a controversial statement to make.
Women are a protected class based on their SEX, not gender, and if you essentially say sex is a cultural construction, well congrats you've essentially torn down the foundation of all female-specific protections in this country, which were hard-fought and hard-won.
I'm completely against any legalized discrimination against trans people, but the debate-and it should be a free debate within the left cohort-is whether keeping legal sex-specific distinctions is in itself discrimination (years ago even the suggestion of that would've been considered a far far right reactionary stance)- I don't think it is, and increasingly outside the U.S. among the center-left that's become the predominate view as well.
I wholeheartedly agree with you and I find that we need to have this discussion at all rather discouraging.
I remember the ancient year of 2016. Back then Roy Cooper won election as governor of North Carolina. I would be remiss were I to neglect to highlight that the last time we won a statewide federal election in NC was 2008: this is not a blue state, not a light blue state, and while I do classify it as a purple state it's a purple state that we frequently just barely lose.
Anyway, back to the point. Roy Cooper won the 2016 gubernatorial election. A meaningful part of the backdrop of that victory was McCrory's unpopularity over his support for anti-trans bathroom bills in NC.
I'm not particularly surprised that republicans have regressed on this topic. They regress on a lot of things. I'm somewhat but not super surprised that "moderate" voters have regressed on it too. What I am surprised by is how many democrats have also regressed and how quick they are to throw a marginalized group under the bus.
That strategy never even fucking works! I cannot think of any time when trying this has worked out for us. Why do people keep trying it? It doesn't actually help us. People angry about the existence of trans people are not going to suddenly support democrats if we take a more hostile stance towards trans rights.
If trans rights are bad for us electorally, the solution is not to move towards the republican stance on trans rights. The solution is to (a) shut up about trans rights, and (b) change the topic to something else. Adopting the republican stance fails at both, because it requires democrats to talk about their position, failing (a), and it forces it to stay in the conversation for longer, failing (b).
The alternative as you can see in real time is much more horrible and I feel very sad at what Trump is doing to them. Moving to the center seems to be the most humane option.
Men are stronger than women physically which is a biological fact. Trans women are not men but they have the physical advantage.
This obviously doesn't mean that I don't support gender equality.
Overall, it is clear that trans women do have a physical advantage. Were this not the case, you would see a lot of trans men competing in men’s sports. Instead, we hardly ever hear about that – and I don’t recall ever hearing about any specific instances where this has been perceived to be a problem.
I'm pointing out what the precedent is. It's hardly unprecedented for there to be discriminatory quotas against Jews. If Democrats didn't need Jewish votes, would you be OK with allowing colleges to limit Jewish student acceptances to 2.5%, on the basis that our academic qualifications or stereotypic attitudes about our supposed higher intelligence (which are of course nonsense) handicap non-Jewish applicants? I think the most Democrats should be doing is saying that trans women's rights to play sports should be respected and athletic bodies have the responsibility to decide on the fairest way to implement that, and then change the subject.
It goes beyond sports. There's a series of issues around women's spaces, especially in institutional settings. I.e. should someone who identifies themself as a woman, be housed as a woman, in prisons, group homes, etc.? There also the general sense that the trans rights movement was trying to force others to consider gender as a personal choice rather than inborn trait, i.e. by encouraging people to introduce themselves with their pronouns, etc. All of this is very different than protecting trans people from discrimination, and is well beyond what the public is willing to support in most cases.
It's about whether one takes a nuanced, or a black/white view of the issue. Trumpists prefer the latter, because (i) it's how the vast majority of their cohort thinks; and (ii) when presented that way, they end up winning the public relations battle.
There are a small handful of "edge cases" that will be complicated, otherwise the vast majority can be resolved by common sense, kindness, and empathy (and primarily at the local level).
The winning argument is to start with the general principle "don't bully or shame a vulnerable community of human beings" and work from there.
It's how the majority of people think, unfortunately. There's a reason why "Star Wars" has always been more popular than "Star Trek." Yes, George Lucas was and is a big liberal and "Star Wars" was an anti Vietnam War film, but it has always had widespread appeal among American - and frankly Anglosphere - conservatives because of its black and white/good vs evil message.
I don't think it's at all reasonable to compare the popularity of two fundamentally different media properties such as Star Wars and Star Trek. Star Wars is primarily movies and the core experience can be had over the course of three sittings. Star Trek is primarily TV shows and there isn't really a singular core experience but the closest there is to one is what, 70 something episodes long? Star Wars also played a huge part in the popularizing of the summer blockbuster, and in particular the speculative fiction blockbuster.
Also Star Wars didn't really go down the anti-Vietnam thing until RotJ. ANH most closely hews to being a fantastical take on a WW2 film. The anti-fascist subtext is not exactly subtle in the original trilogy. The prequel trilogy also isn't exactly subtle (though less on the nose I think) with it's negative perspective on the Bush admin.
I say this as someone that actually does prefer Star Wars and readily acknowledges that it is not deep. But to insist that the popularity of it is because people prefer black/white morality instead of because of the good fortune of timing, the relative shortness of the core story, the far higher production quality, etc. is, IMO, silly.
When Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) tried to defend cuts to Medicaid by noting: "We all die," it was surely worth a $1 million donation to her Democratic opponent.
And State Rep. J.D. Scholten announced today that he was running against Ernst. Scholten took on Steve King in IA-4 in 2018 (and lost by three points), then lost soundly in 2020 against Randy Feenstra.
At this point, the IA-SEN race is a must win race if Democrats want to win control back of the Senate in 2026 (even amid the difficult Senate environment).
Democrats need to take Colton Moore's comments more seriously, particularly when he said,
"I'll never back down; I'll never give up," the senator said afterward. "They'll have to put a bullet in my head to ever stop me."
The second sentence is the key here. It indicates something that's important to understand about Republicans, particularly in the Trump era. They don't care about the rule of law. They don't care about norms. They don't care about decency. They don't give a crap about other people. The only way to stop them from doing their evil deeds, the only thing they respect, is BRUTE FORCE.
I know this is anathema to many Democrats, but the only way the right wing in America will ever respect Democrats is if we use brute force on them. They think that Democrats are weak, because they own guns and we don't. The only way to stop them is to show that we are stronger than they are.
We had a chance to do this after 1/6 (and after Biden took office). It is an absolute tragedy that we didn't. And we may not have very many more chances in the future.
Has nothing to do with guns or brute force. It’s Democrats not fighting, and fighting back, in a figurative sense. That’s why they have no fear of Democrats. Typified by Hakeem Jeffries:
I'm currently writing a feature script that takes place 10 years in the future and I have some moments where I can write some fake headlines in and one of them is definitely some form of "Leader Jeffries writes a sternly worded letter to President Cena"
I just had a lot more jokes to write with President Cena. In this reality Don Jr or Vance wins in 28' so the Dems are like "fuck it, you want a celebrity we'll give you a celebrity" and then he goes on to miraculously win but Jeffries still doesn't like him.
I think 8 years back (holy shit, time flies when everything goes to hell) saying we should run the Rock. He's gotten generally worse than that and I sort of like Cena as an actor (I know nothing else about him), so why the hell not.
They had that whole show where he ran for President as the framing device but yeah. I like Cena as an actor and it's just a blast to write for. Plus the role isn't HUGE or anything so it's just a quick cameo for fun. (In this reality Rob Gronkowski is Treasury Secretary too which also leads to some fun bits of dialogue.)
Democrats should not stoop to Republicans’ level and use brute force. The way to fight back is through peaceful civic activism and getting our institutions to hold Trump and the GOP’s feet to the fire.
One thing Biden royally screwed up on was doling out the infrastructure funds from the bill he got passed. I would’ve said I’m not giving a penny to any part of the country where their members of Congress voted no unless someone from the delegation, Senate or House, sends me a letter personally requesting it. Or in other words, they need to eat shit.
McConnell voted yes on the bill so I would give all of KY a pass. I wouldn’t be savage about it but I mean, if no one voted for the bill then I’m not sending any money unless someone eats shit.
He also was sitting on something like half the infrastructure funds when he left office. Allowing Trump to de facto kill that funding or turn it into a bribe motivated slush fund.
He's the guy who came shockingly close to defeating Steve King in 2018. (A lot of that was, of course, due to the awfulness of Steve King, but it was still an incredible performance.)
The Labour faction influencing Downing Street’s pitch to Reform UK voters has urged ministers to “root out DEI”.
An article from the Blue Labour campaign group, titled What is to be Done, calls for the government to legislate against diversity, equity and inclusion
I thought the British version of DEI was to applaud both brown-eyed and blue-eyed graduates of Eton?
On a more serious note, both the UK and the US need to root out DUI hires and DUI candidates. That’s far more important than bending the knee to the uncivilized horde demanding racist and misogynistic policies disguised as "anti-DEI"!
Apparently Labour watched the past decade of center-left parties being decimated across Europe. With the fastest and most consistent decimation happening to parties that tried to move towards the center. Upon seeing this pattern on endless repeat, they decided that sure, lightning can strike the same spot 30 times in a row, but it's never done it 31 times so they should give it a try.
Well that's their problem / my point. They're no one's alternative.
A UK voter upset about immigration is going to vote for the explicitly anti-immigration party. Labour cannot win those people over (and simultaneously keep their existing base) by being half as anti-immigration as that party. Same deal with anyone upset about whatever social issues are top of the the heap in the UK.
On paper the math seems OK: meet in the middle and they keep their current voters and get some people closer to their new, more conservative position. In practice it falls apart because voters are not looking for the party that occupies the ideological coordinate that is mathematically closest to their own. Voters are emotional and will not be effectively swayed by such measures.
It's not a good position to be in, and it's not an electoral one I envy. But they're making a huge mistake here by chasing after voters that history has shown us time and time again will not flock to a center-left party that moves to the right.
In all likelihood Labour in a bad spot regardless of what they do. They only won their current power because the Tories fucked up for a straight decade and British voters finally got sick of giving that party a pass. Labour'ss long term prospects are better if they try to keep their existing ideological lane functional rather than setting it on fire while trying to be in three lanes at once, most of which are already occupied.
Welp here's to the new LibDem v. Reform political axis. RIP Labour/Tory (1922-2025?) you had a good run...you had a decent run...eh, you certainly were an era in British politics!
“When Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York chose Antonio Delgado to be her lieutenant governor in 2022, she had nothing but the highest praise for her new No. 2.
“Three years later, their partnership has completely disintegrated. After months of open political warfare with Ms. Hochul, Mr. Delgado said Monday he would challenge her in next year’s Democratic primary.”
I don't know much about Delgado but he has a quality that I highly admire in a candidate. He isn't Kathy Hochul. Were I a resident of NY that would be enough to win me over in the primary, unless I learned something about him that made me conclude he was somehow worse than her.
That probably entirely depends on how many candidates decide to run. Democrats know she’s vulnerable from her actions taken since being elected and from her pathetic 2022 general election performance. A big, split field with a lot of candidates would go very badly for her opponents. A 1 on 1 battle on the other hand between the 2 would be pretty hard to see him lose that fight.
Exactly right imo. Not so much running on a policy disagreement left or right, but a person disagreement. The “she’s not running New York effectively, but I can” political primary attack strategy instead of “she’s too progressive or too conservative” political primary attack strategy.
Which to be fair, is almost certainly the right call from Delgado. That’s the only way she really is vulnerable in a primary rather than attacking her on things most voters have forgotten about or shrugged off in the end. She’s treading water approval wise in the state, so she doesn’t have a large segment of Democrats or any voters for that matter really mad at her over something left or right policy related. Just a meh resignation to her being Governor.
"The Trump administration said on Monday that it planned to eliminate federal protections across millions of acres of Alaskan wilderness, a move that would allow drilling and mining in some of the last remaining pristine wilderness in the country."
Just trying to stick to the politics of this how does this affect the Alaska races? I know in the aughts and even in Begich's race in 2014 there was a lot of who can drill the most but not sure where the politics of this are in 2025.
I'd be surprised if the typical Alaskan voter has changed much on that front. Anything that might make their annual dividend check bigger will be well received. If the check doesn't benefit at all because of how things are implemented, they'll still get mad at the wrong people.
Charlotte Clymer wrote an excellent piece debunking the BS anti-LGBTQ+ narrative that "gays get a month, while the veterans only get a day." In fact, there are far more days and months of military observances in some form on the calendar than LGBTQ+ ones. 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️
Rhode Island Gov:
Gov. Dan McKee (D) has a 19% approval rating with 71% disapproval, including 27% approval among DEMOCRATS (63% disapprove). Any idea of the reasons behind this?
Democratic primary voters really ought to select someone different in 2026 to prevent a Republican win, like Helena Foulkes!!
Looks like a Dan Malloy situation, only this one is running again rather than retiring!! 💙🇺🇲
Why does it always seem like Rhode Island governors have some of the highest disapproval ratings in the country? This is worse than normal, but Raimondo and Chafee were unpopular too.
I fed your question to Grok:
Rhode Island governors often face high disapproval ratings due to a combination of structural, political, and cultural factors unique to the state. Here’s a breakdown of why this pattern persists, with a focus on Dan McKee, Gina Raimondo, and Lincoln Chafee, informed by recent polling data and historical context:
1. **Small State, Intense Scrutiny**: Rhode Island’s small size and tight-knit political culture amplify public and media focus on the governor’s actions. With a population of just over 1 million, state politics feel personal, and missteps are quickly magnified. Governors are highly visible and often bear the brunt of frustration over local issues like infrastructure (e.g., the Washington Bridge delays under McKee) or economic struggles, which hit hard in a state with a history of economic stagnation.
2. **Economic Challenges**: Rhode Island has faced persistent economic woes, including high unemployment rates in the past and slow recovery from recessions. During Raimondo’s tenure (2015–2021), the state’s economy improved, with unemployment dropping to around 4%, but her approval ratings remained below 50% due to controversial policies like pension reform, which angered public employees. Chafee (2011–2015) struggled with the fallout of the 38 Studios debacle and pension cuts, which soured voters and unions. McKee’s low approval (19% in a May 2025 UNH poll, with 71% disapproving) reflects ongoing frustration with traffic disruptions and perceived leadership issues.[](https://thepublicsradio.org/politics/gina-raimondo-is-considering-another-run-for-governor-of-rhode-island/)[](https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-raimondo-rhode-island-governor-election.html)[](https://rollcall.com/2013/06/02/ratings-change-rhode-island-governor-rigov/)
3. **Polarization and Anti-Establishment Sentiment**: Rhode Island’s electorate leans heavily Democratic, but there’s a strong anti-establishment streak. Voters often express distrust in state leadership, regardless of party. Chafee, who switched from Independent to Democrat, faced backlash for his ideological shifts and was seen as ineffective, with approval ratings struggling to break 40%. Raimondo, despite economic gains, was criticized for corporate ties and a botched state computer system overhaul. McKee’s unpopularity (down to 38% approval in 2022, per Morning Consult) has been tied to an FBI investigation into a contract award and perceptions of being “in over his head”.[](https://rollcall.com/2013/06/02/ratings-change-rhode-island-governor-rigov/)[](https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-raimondo-rhode-island-governor-election.html)[](https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/politics/2022/07/19/new-poll-ri-governor-approval-rating-ranking-lowest-u-s/10100652002/)
4. **High Expectations, Tough Decisions**: Rhode Island governors often face contentious issues requiring unpopular decisions. Raimondo’s pension reform and Chafee’s support for it alienated key constituencies like unions. McKee’s handling of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout was initially praised (60% approval in Q3 2021), but his later decisions, like vetoing bills on kratom and non-compete clauses, and ongoing bridge issues, eroded support. These tough calls, necessary or not, breed resentment in a state where voters expect quick results.[](https://rollcall.com/2013/06/02/ratings-change-rhode-island-governor-rigov/)[](https://thepublicsradio.org/politics/gina-raimondo-is-considering-another-run-for-governor-of-rhode-island/)[](https://rhodeislandcurrent.com/2025/04/14/mckee-among-the-least-popular-governors-in-the-nation-new-poll-finds/)
5. **McKee’s Unique Struggles**: McKee’s approval ratings are notably lower than his predecessors’, hitting 19% in May 2025, compared to Raimondo’s sub-50% and Chafee’s similarly low numbers. His challenges include taking office unexpectedly after Raimondo’s departure to become U.S. Commerce Secretary, facing a learning curve during a pandemic, and dealing with controversies like the ILO Group contract investigation. The Washington Bridge fiasco has further fueled public frustration, with 74% of voters in 2025 opposing his re-election.[](https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/politics/2025/05/29/in-ri-gov-dan-mckee-sees-approval-rating-slide-along-with-trumps/83928930007/)[](https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/politics/2022/07/19/new-poll-ri-governor-approval-rating-ranking-lowest-u-s/10100652002/)[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_McKee)
6. **Historical Context and Voter Memory**: Rhode Island’s political history includes scandals and economic struggles, fostering cynicism. The 38 Studios failure under Chafee and Raimondo’s pension cuts left lasting bitterness. McKee inherited a state with a skeptical electorate, and his low approval reflects both his own missteps and this broader distrust. Posts on X highlight this sentiment, with some noting McKee’s 19% approval as a continuation of Rhode Island’s “tradition” of unpopular governors.[](https://x.com/TheCalvinCooli1/status/1928241084389355813)[](https://x.com/FitzProv/status/1928464718898815161)
In summary, Rhode Island’s governors face high disapproval due to the state’s small size, economic challenges, polarized and anti-establishment voters, and the need for tough policy decisions. McKee’s ratings are worse than Raimondo’s or Chafee’s due to specific controversies and infrastructure woes, but all three have struggled against a backdrop of voter skepticism and structural constraints. If you’d like me to dig deeper into any specific governor or issue, let me know!
This feels very plausable..is it accurate? I'm not sure how to feel about this
That is quite a history of Rhode Island’s problems!
If RI were another Nevada, Democrats would have already taken a hit electorally.
What do you mean by it being another Nevada?
It has to do with both states having slower economic recovery than more largely populated, multiple metropolitan city states like CA, NY and TX.
While Rhode Island gives Democrats more breathing room electorally from this as far as electing/re-electing Governors, that's not the case in Nevada as Governor Steve Sisolak was the lone incumbent Democratic Governor in office to lose re-election in 2022 (so I remember).
NV I reference because the state's slow economic recovery impacts it far more than in RI. Governor Sisolak did have a heavy focus on leading the state during the COVID-19 pandemic but it came at a great cost to the state's casino industry. While he certainly had the best intentions and the right goals, economic anxiety did unfortunately impact his re-election chances. I also believe this was an omen to Trump winning the state at the presidential level in 2024.
I see. I wasn't sure what the comparison was, but you've explained it.
While there may be nothing to indicate Colton Moore is an ephebophile like Roy Moore of Alabama, he sounds equally detestable – but, more importantly, eminently beatable. I wish him the best of luck attaining the Republican nomination!
In a runoff state like Georgia, it was always likely that a truly-execrable Republican would win the nomination.
Stands to reason that a truly-execrable political party excretes a truly-execrable nominee.
This guy could very well replace MTG when she leaves congress.
Now we need the guy that chased Sacha Baron Cohen around with his bare ass out to run as well. /s
I will contribute 69 cents to C. Moore campaign
Polish Election: GenZ showing again how they're complete suckers for right wing disinfo. Going to be a lingering issue especially for any center-left (and center right) incumbent governments going forward.
Yeah, the parliamentary elections in Greece come April 2027 will be one to watch, since they have a center-right government (and just legalized marriage equality in February 2024). Especially since voter turnout is typically lower than Poland's.
I am Gen Z myself and it’s frankly depressing to watch this happen to my generation.
The center needs a better vision in every nation.
Gen Z in Germany also broke for far right AfD and far left Die Linke and in Poland too for libertarian far right Konfederacy and SocDem and DemSoc progressive Razem which would not be far left but the most left in Poland. Social Media too has polarized the world and is the major communication channel of these 4 parties I mentioned.
Note that I am quite left wing myself — I was referring to the far right’s rise. I personally feel that the far right is a significantly greater threat than the left will ever be. I don’t see the same disdain for democracy and willingness to use violence in the left that I see on the right myself.
Historically, there has been.
But not currently. Whatever you think of progressives today, one thing they are not is violent and anti-democratic.
Progressives are not far left.
“Far left” is a nebulous term. I’ve seen it be applied to many different views and politicians.
How do you define “far left”?
Far leftists need to be radicals who want to do things like end capitalism or nationalize the holdings of large corporations or something. Merely being a loud social democrat doesn't make someone a member of the far left.
I may have a different view but from an academic sense, I believe very liberal (if this counts as far left) means something different than what you are referring to. Unless you think “far left” is differently than “very liberal.”
Anyone I see who extremely liberal is:
1) Inclusive
2) Open-Minded, especially to different points of view
3) Forward Thinking
4) More wise and patient than most liberals
Far right to me suggests a view that’s more rigid, close minded and not open to change.
"Far left" has absolutely nothing to do with liberals, who are center left, regardless of how liberal they are. If you haven't already read Engels' "Principles of Communism," I recommend it. To be far left, you have to at least have a program that more closely resembles the one he prescribes for communists who get into office through election than would typify a mere liberal. The Socialist Workers Party, which is Trotskyist, is radical and far left, and is one of the few current-day examples of far leftists in the U.S.
More than that, they are anti establishment, they voted for the same coalition in the 2023 Polish elections and the last Presidential election but the centre right coalition failed to even bring an abortion legalization bill or civil union bill to the President due to the right wing elements in the coalition.
They were simultaneously the the only generation which voted the most for the most progressive DemSoc and SocDem Razem party and the libertarian far right Confederacy in the primary. The centrist coalition didn't really deliver on its promises which was reflected by many on online platforms.
But they can't deliver promises with a Law and Justice President! Make it make sense!
They want to break things "just because."
We are seeing history just repeat itself. The anti establishment far right and far left are on the rise in every nation. Extremely low chance that it results in another war but the anti democratic Nazi party and the Communist party's seats increased exponentially once economic struggles began increasing in the Weimar Republic.
In today's age, the far right and the far left parties use social media especially TikTok to reach younger voters and eschew traditional media.
We haven't had a depression yet though. It wasn't until the Depression that the Nazis took off in Germany. In fact for most of the 1920s, Weimar looked stable.
Europe has been in a recession since the COVID and the Russo Ukrainian war. The inflation though has subsided now.
Don't you mean a recession? In a depression, there would be 30% unemployment or more nationwide and people dying of starvation on the streets.
Did your comment originally say Europe has been in a depression, or did I just misread it?
It said that and I edited it after you correctly pointed it out.
Why do you think more wars are unlikely, especially considering what Russia is doing?
I mean it's not as if we Americans wanted to get involved in WWII. It took more than two years for us to get directly involved in that conflict. And only after Pearl Harbor happened.
The U.S. is not the only country that could be involved in more wars.
The point is that our current status is nothing new.
"Extremely low chance that it results in another war" is not phrased to be about the United States. Moreover, the idea that a war requires a military engagement in which things go boom is outmoded. Russia, China and Iran have been continually engaging in acts of sabotage online and have helped destabilize major countries including the UK and the U.S. The U.S. is definitely at war, and has been since at least the leadup to the 2016 election.
I'd bet on a whole lot more shooting wars in the near future, internal/civil and traditional varietals.
When the prevailing, nihilistic sentiment is "just give me an extremist who will break shit, I don't care about policy" - I don't see how it goes any other direction.
Agreed, but in addition, the ravages of global warming and movement of climate refugees will cause people to blame and attack each other more.
Read a great fiction book on that phenomenon ("The Wall") recently. Highly recommend.
This is another reason why Democrats need to push for a technology regulatory agency, whether it be if they win control of Congress next year or the White House in 2028.
Social media should have been regulated back in the early 2000’s before Facebook took off. It would have saved society a HUGE pain.
But even with Rafal T, they couldn't fulfill half of the promises due a Catholic rural "centrist" party in the coalition.
They shouldn't have formed the government IMO at all and should've let PiS have formed the govt with the Third Way party. Ideological purity is needed sometimes.
Ideological purity only works when its voters allow for it. Rest assured if Democratic Party voters in general wanted Bernie Sanders type policies, politicians like him would be the rule, not the exception.
I was not talking about US progressives here, I was talking about how Polish centrists literally took in a conservative catholic party to form the government which is not ideologically cohesive at all.
My view of ideological purity are all Democrats except the Manchins and Sinemas in any case.
Was there an exit poll? How do we know who voted whom?
The writing was always on the wall - we just chose to ignore it until it was too late. All those weird and cringe online celebrities - the Paul Bros, Andrew Tate, Mr. Beast and prolly a whole host of other creeps and jerks, poisoned the internet and helped corrupt many youths. I wonder if this trend is more among young men than women.
When I mentioned to a friend a while ago that I occasionally watched Mr. Beat's videos (i.e., the bespectacled YouTuber from Kansas who's an American history buff), said friend thought I was talking about MrBeast instead. *eyeroll*
It's darkly ironic and dystopian that MrBeast not only has his own Squid Games show, but also that it's rife with all sorts of abuse. Is that the future we're headed to? Semi-legal entertainment that exploits desperate people for cash prices at the potential expense of their own dignity and health?
Finding new ways to exploit the poor is a tale as old as time…
What does the Chesterfield Clerk of Court do? This is obviously not a purely clerical position, I imagine.
https://www.chesterfield.gov/1127/Circuit-Court
Thanks. It's a clerical job in a very broad and specialized sense, with quite a lot of important responsibilities.
Pohl is not the best candidate, she lost by nearly 10 points to Amanda Chase of all people in a district Trump barely won in 2020 and might have lost in 2024.
Schuyler VanValkenburg would be the strongest opponent for Wittman IMO.
Are they running?
VanValkenburg has to win reelection to the House of Delegates this year before he thinks about 2026. Pohl doesn't face election until 2027.
VanValkenburg is now in the state senate and his seat isn’t up for reelection until 2027.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LeopardsAteMyFace/comments/1l1ackt/voter_we_voted_for_trump_and_to_kill_dei_now_we/
Ignore the user written heading but it's insane that Missouri Republicans repealed successful ballot measures which mandated minimum wage increase and a paid leave. It's also surprising that voters in states like Missouri vote for these measures but simultaneously and consistently vote for politicians who explicitly and vocally oppose them and promise to repeal these measures but not Democrats who have always supported such measures.
And it's not due to trans issues which Democrats need to moderate on, our communication failing or Fox news/right wing media IMO, we lost these states in 2020, 2018 and 2016 too. The real reason behind it may be tha fact the GOP's base coalition is made up of social conservatives or the religious right who don't support any kind of immigrants, abortion rights and LBG rights too and fiscal conservatives or right libertarians who have a zombie like obsession with cutting taxes for the rich, blowing up deficits and cutting public spending.
So when we have abortion rights ballot measures in red states, you see a lot of these fiscal conservatives who may also not support immigration but support abortion rights and crossover to vote for it and when you have minimum wage on the ballot, a lot of social conservatives who may be rural or working class crossover to vote for it and it passes.
The GOP is also aware of this as when the populist faction in GOP including Vance wanted to increase taxes on just the 1 percent in the BBB to own the libs, which fueled heavy media speculation, Trump rejected it as it would have led to an anti tax intra party revolt.
Question — when you say “moderating” on trans issues, what are you referring to specifically? Because I don’t feel throwing groups of people under the bus is worth it for political points personally.
Specifically banning them from sports with the exception intellectual sports like chess or bridge for fairness which polls have shown that more than 2/3rds of Americans oppose. I am also not in favor of restricting gender affirming care or denying their existence or anything else like MAGAs. In fact, banning trans discrimination should be enshrined into law IMV.
Trans people are estimated to make up 1-2% of the population of the United States; however, trans people make up less than less than 0.002% (10/500,000) of US college athletes, and even fewer of recent Olympians (0.001%) identify as trans.
This is the reality but it's costing Democrats voters and that's a shame.
Banning trans people from all physical sports? I’m sorry but I don’t think open discrimination is worth a few elections. So what if most Americans support it. Most Americans supported slavery at one time.
Just because a viewpoint is popular doesn’t make it right.
Must banning trans people from sports be considered “center”? It certainly wasn’t center a few years ago.
I don’t like to be absolutist on positions but discrimination against minority groups is one I won’t budge on. Not to mention giving in on this issue risks dragging more minority groups into their own forms of discrimination. If the right win this issue, what’s stopping them from targeting other groups next?
EDIT: If trans people really can’t play in mainstream sports, why not create a trans league? Why is banning the only option?
The right lost the marriage equality issue which is the reason why they moved to this gotcha one. I don't think they will find any more gotchas, they consistently use culture wars and social issues to serve their corporate masters.
Red states are now banning gender affirming care even with parental consent as it is in blue states which shouldn't be allowed by passing a federal law.
A trans league is not an option because once again their population is too small which the right won't ever acknowledge. We are losing working class voters over something we shouldn't. A lot of them interviewed after Ohio elections didn't vote for Sherrod Brown over such a stupid thing.
I’ll agree to disagree here I guess. I still don’t believe the trans sports ban is an option but I don’t have the stamina to keep arguing.
Unfortunately voters think otherwise.
I don't think hardly anyone is for a blanket "ban" on trans persons playing sports but the debate is about folks playing on teams that reflect their biological sex. Because gender does not equate to biological sex . . that shouldn't be a controversial statement to make.
Women are a protected class based on their SEX, not gender, and if you essentially say sex is a cultural construction, well congrats you've essentially torn down the foundation of all female-specific protections in this country, which were hard-fought and hard-won.
I'm completely against any legalized discrimination against trans people, but the debate-and it should be a free debate within the left cohort-is whether keeping legal sex-specific distinctions is in itself discrimination (years ago even the suggestion of that would've been considered a far far right reactionary stance)- I don't think it is, and increasingly outside the U.S. among the center-left that's become the predominate view as well.
I wholeheartedly agree with you and I find that we need to have this discussion at all rather discouraging.
I remember the ancient year of 2016. Back then Roy Cooper won election as governor of North Carolina. I would be remiss were I to neglect to highlight that the last time we won a statewide federal election in NC was 2008: this is not a blue state, not a light blue state, and while I do classify it as a purple state it's a purple state that we frequently just barely lose.
Anyway, back to the point. Roy Cooper won the 2016 gubernatorial election. A meaningful part of the backdrop of that victory was McCrory's unpopularity over his support for anti-trans bathroom bills in NC.
I'm not particularly surprised that republicans have regressed on this topic. They regress on a lot of things. I'm somewhat but not super surprised that "moderate" voters have regressed on it too. What I am surprised by is how many democrats have also regressed and how quick they are to throw a marginalized group under the bus.
That strategy never even fucking works! I cannot think of any time when trying this has worked out for us. Why do people keep trying it? It doesn't actually help us. People angry about the existence of trans people are not going to suddenly support democrats if we take a more hostile stance towards trans rights.
If trans rights are bad for us electorally, the solution is not to move towards the republican stance on trans rights. The solution is to (a) shut up about trans rights, and (b) change the topic to something else. Adopting the republican stance fails at both, because it requires democrats to talk about their position, failing (a), and it forces it to stay in the conversation for longer, failing (b).
The alternative as you can see in real time is much more horrible and I feel very sad at what Trump is doing to them. Moving to the center seems to be the most humane option.
Men are stronger than women physically which is a biological fact. Trans women are not men but they have the physical advantage.
This obviously doesn't mean that I don't support gender equality.
Overall, it is clear that trans women do have a physical advantage. Were this not the case, you would see a lot of trans men competing in men’s sports. Instead, we hardly ever hear about that – and I don’t recall ever hearing about any specific instances where this has been perceived to be a problem.
Do you know who else has that percentage of the population? Jews. Think about that.
We agree to disagree but Jewish people are 2.5% of the national population, trans folks are 1 percent.
What do you think we're disagreeing with? The idea that when a minority is a small percentage of the population, it's OK to sell them out?
Not about selling them out but about trans women in women’s sports.
I'm pointing out what the precedent is. It's hardly unprecedented for there to be discriminatory quotas against Jews. If Democrats didn't need Jewish votes, would you be OK with allowing colleges to limit Jewish student acceptances to 2.5%, on the basis that our academic qualifications or stereotypic attitudes about our supposed higher intelligence (which are of course nonsense) handicap non-Jewish applicants? I think the most Democrats should be doing is saying that trans women's rights to play sports should be respected and athletic bodies have the responsibility to decide on the fairest way to implement that, and then change the subject.
If I was okay would selling our minorities, I would not be a Democrat, that too more on the progressive side.
The post I replied to said 1-2%.
It goes beyond sports. There's a series of issues around women's spaces, especially in institutional settings. I.e. should someone who identifies themself as a woman, be housed as a woman, in prisons, group homes, etc.? There also the general sense that the trans rights movement was trying to force others to consider gender as a personal choice rather than inborn trait, i.e. by encouraging people to introduce themselves with their pronouns, etc. All of this is very different than protecting trans people from discrimination, and is well beyond what the public is willing to support in most cases.
It's about whether one takes a nuanced, or a black/white view of the issue. Trumpists prefer the latter, because (i) it's how the vast majority of their cohort thinks; and (ii) when presented that way, they end up winning the public relations battle.
There are a small handful of "edge cases" that will be complicated, otherwise the vast majority can be resolved by common sense, kindness, and empathy (and primarily at the local level).
The winning argument is to start with the general principle "don't bully or shame a vulnerable community of human beings" and work from there.
It's how the majority of people think, unfortunately. There's a reason why "Star Wars" has always been more popular than "Star Trek." Yes, George Lucas was and is a big liberal and "Star Wars" was an anti Vietnam War film, but it has always had widespread appeal among American - and frankly Anglosphere - conservatives because of its black and white/good vs evil message.
I don't think it's at all reasonable to compare the popularity of two fundamentally different media properties such as Star Wars and Star Trek. Star Wars is primarily movies and the core experience can be had over the course of three sittings. Star Trek is primarily TV shows and there isn't really a singular core experience but the closest there is to one is what, 70 something episodes long? Star Wars also played a huge part in the popularizing of the summer blockbuster, and in particular the speculative fiction blockbuster.
Also Star Wars didn't really go down the anti-Vietnam thing until RotJ. ANH most closely hews to being a fantastical take on a WW2 film. The anti-fascist subtext is not exactly subtle in the original trilogy. The prequel trilogy also isn't exactly subtle (though less on the nose I think) with it's negative perspective on the Bush admin.
I say this as someone that actually does prefer Star Wars and readily acknowledges that it is not deep. But to insist that the popularity of it is because people prefer black/white morality instead of because of the good fortune of timing, the relative shortness of the core story, the far higher production quality, etc. is, IMO, silly.
There's an Australian race that's still undecided: https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2025/guide/brfd
The teal Indie is apparently marginally ahead, but it's not locked in.
When Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) tried to defend cuts to Medicaid by noting: "We all die," it was surely worth a $1 million donation to her Democratic opponent.
She seems to have since doubled down on her comment:
https://www.npr.org/2025/05/31/nx-s1-5418932/we-all-are-going-to-die-ernst-joni-town-hall-iowa-senator
Someone has convinced her that going full-out making this about some alleged lib denial of death is a political winner.
Is that a new angle conservatives are pursuing?
I'm more annoyed by her finding an opportunity within it to proselytize
"Never apologize, never backtrack" is basically 99% of the Trumpist ethos.
Yes, this has been going on for 8 years.
Yep. And it terrifies me by its tactical staying power. Dangerous af.
Time to start talking about Republican Death Panels.
She's just doing the job of her opponents for her at this point. Can't even credibly claim it's fake news, AI, or a gaffe at this point.
Another one bites the dust..
And State Rep. J.D. Scholten announced today that he was running against Ernst. Scholten took on Steve King in IA-4 in 2018 (and lost by three points), then lost soundly in 2020 against Randy Feenstra.
At this point, the IA-SEN race is a must win race if Democrats want to win control back of the Senate in 2026 (even amid the difficult Senate environment).
so sorry my state produces such monstrous wack jobs. But at least he isn't proclaiming Biden was executed in 2020 and replaced with a clone.
If they replaced him with a clone, why did they replace him with a clone that had so many malfunctions?
Who says that?
Trump reposted that comment.
I don't know whether I should be surprised.
Democrats need to take Colton Moore's comments more seriously, particularly when he said,
"I'll never back down; I'll never give up," the senator said afterward. "They'll have to put a bullet in my head to ever stop me."
The second sentence is the key here. It indicates something that's important to understand about Republicans, particularly in the Trump era. They don't care about the rule of law. They don't care about norms. They don't care about decency. They don't give a crap about other people. The only way to stop them from doing their evil deeds, the only thing they respect, is BRUTE FORCE.
I know this is anathema to many Democrats, but the only way the right wing in America will ever respect Democrats is if we use brute force on them. They think that Democrats are weak, because they own guns and we don't. The only way to stop them is to show that we are stronger than they are.
We had a chance to do this after 1/6 (and after Biden took office). It is an absolute tragedy that we didn't. And we may not have very many more chances in the future.
Has nothing to do with guns or brute force. It’s Democrats not fighting, and fighting back, in a figurative sense. That’s why they have no fear of Democrats. Typified by Hakeem Jeffries:
https://bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3lqlk4b3hrc2s
I'm currently writing a feature script that takes place 10 years in the future and I have some moments where I can write some fake headlines in and one of them is definitely some form of "Leader Jeffries writes a sternly worded letter to President Cena"
I feel like John Cena isn't a crazy enough choice. Certainly a better President thank Trump.
I just had a lot more jokes to write with President Cena. In this reality Don Jr or Vance wins in 28' so the Dems are like "fuck it, you want a celebrity we'll give you a celebrity" and then he goes on to miraculously win but Jeffries still doesn't like him.
I think 8 years back (holy shit, time flies when everything goes to hell) saying we should run the Rock. He's gotten generally worse than that and I sort of like Cena as an actor (I know nothing else about him), so why the hell not.
They had that whole show where he ran for President as the framing device but yeah. I like Cena as an actor and it's just a blast to write for. Plus the role isn't HUGE or anything so it's just a quick cameo for fun. (In this reality Rob Gronkowski is Treasury Secretary too which also leads to some fun bits of dialogue.)
But only at a time and manner of his own choosing of course.
Democrats should not stoop to Republicans’ level and use brute force. The way to fight back is through peaceful civic activism and getting our institutions to hold Trump and the GOP’s feet to the fire.
One thing Biden royally screwed up on was doling out the infrastructure funds from the bill he got passed. I would’ve said I’m not giving a penny to any part of the country where their members of Congress voted no unless someone from the delegation, Senate or House, sends me a letter personally requesting it. Or in other words, they need to eat shit.
McConnell voted yes on the bill so I would give all of KY a pass. I wouldn’t be savage about it but I mean, if no one voted for the bill then I’m not sending any money unless someone eats shit.
He also was sitting on something like half the infrastructure funds when he left office. Allowing Trump to de facto kill that funding or turn it into a bribe motivated slush fund.
And we have a challenger to Joni Ernst-J. D SCholten a sitting rep and apparently the real deal https://x.com/ECaliberSeven/status/1928518384930451534.
He's the guy who came shockingly close to defeating Steve King in 2018. (A lot of that was, of course, due to the awfulness of Steve King, but it was still an incredible performance.)
Sad thing is that Steve King wouldn't struggle to be reelected today. Republican voters would like him more.
He might be too moderate for them now.
We don't know that yet, he didn't poll well in the Data for Progress poll.
The Labour faction influencing Downing Street’s pitch to Reform UK voters has urged ministers to “root out DEI”.
An article from the Blue Labour campaign group, titled What is to be Done, calls for the government to legislate against diversity, equity and inclusion
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/02/blue-labour-group-urges-ministers-root-out-dei-win-over-reform-voters?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
I thought the British version of DEI was to applaud both brown-eyed and blue-eyed graduates of Eton?
On a more serious note, both the UK and the US need to root out DUI hires and DUI candidates. That’s far more important than bending the knee to the uncivilized horde demanding racist and misogynistic policies disguised as "anti-DEI"!
I misread that comment for a second. Lol
Good luck finding anyone to run for office in Wisconsin if you go on an anti-DUI campaign. /s
They'll lose Asian votes. That's worth selling out their souls? What kind of fucking labor party is this
They’ll probably lose progressive voters generally to the Greens if they keep going down this path.
Apparently Labour watched the past decade of center-left parties being decimated across Europe. With the fastest and most consistent decimation happening to parties that tried to move towards the center. Upon seeing this pattern on endless repeat, they decided that sure, lightning can strike the same spot 30 times in a row, but it's never done it 31 times so they should give it a try.
So being right-of-center makes them an alternative to whom?
Well that's their problem / my point. They're no one's alternative.
A UK voter upset about immigration is going to vote for the explicitly anti-immigration party. Labour cannot win those people over (and simultaneously keep their existing base) by being half as anti-immigration as that party. Same deal with anyone upset about whatever social issues are top of the the heap in the UK.
On paper the math seems OK: meet in the middle and they keep their current voters and get some people closer to their new, more conservative position. In practice it falls apart because voters are not looking for the party that occupies the ideological coordinate that is mathematically closest to their own. Voters are emotional and will not be effectively swayed by such measures.
It's not a good position to be in, and it's not an electoral one I envy. But they're making a huge mistake here by chasing after voters that history has shown us time and time again will not flock to a center-left party that moves to the right.
In all likelihood Labour in a bad spot regardless of what they do. They only won their current power because the Tories fucked up for a straight decade and British voters finally got sick of giving that party a pass. Labour'ss long term prospects are better if they try to keep their existing ideological lane functional rather than setting it on fire while trying to be in three lanes at once, most of which are already occupied.
They already have on economic issues. And when it comes to these social type of issues, they’ll lose voters to the Liberal Democrats.
Welp here's to the new LibDem v. Reform political axis. RIP Labour/Tory (1922-2025?) you had a good run...you had a decent run...eh, you certainly were an era in British politics!
In South Carolina, Lindsey Graham has a challenger. Enjoy Annie Andrews’ stellar ad!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8wMNLaSNW4
Gov. Hochul has a challenger: Antonio Delgado
“When Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York chose Antonio Delgado to be her lieutenant governor in 2022, she had nothing but the highest praise for her new No. 2.
“Three years later, their partnership has completely disintegrated. After months of open political warfare with Ms. Hochul, Mr. Delgado said Monday he would challenge her in next year’s Democratic primary.”
https://politicalwire.com/2025/06/02/antonio-delgado-will-challenge-kathy-hochul/
Thank goodness!
I don't know much about Delgado but he has a quality that I highly admire in a candidate. He isn't Kathy Hochul. Were I a resident of NY that would be enough to win me over in the primary, unless I learned something about him that made me conclude he was somehow worse than her.
Totally agreed.
I don't see that going very well for Delgado.
That probably entirely depends on how many candidates decide to run. Democrats know she’s vulnerable from her actions taken since being elected and from her pathetic 2022 general election performance. A big, split field with a lot of candidates would go very badly for her opponents. A 1 on 1 battle on the other hand between the 2 would be pretty hard to see him lose that fight.
Curious if there are any polls on this race. My initial guess would be he has an uphill fight but also curious what locals think.
She had a 35 point lead on him a couple months back. Lots and lots of time to the primary. Anything can happen. But I wouldn't put money on him.
Hochul is weak. If he campaigns strongly, gets wide enough name recognition, and gets people to see effectively-made ads, he could very well win.
Is he challenging from the left or the right?
From below.
Exactly right imo. Not so much running on a policy disagreement left or right, but a person disagreement. The “she’s not running New York effectively, but I can” political primary attack strategy instead of “she’s too progressive or too conservative” political primary attack strategy.
Which to be fair, is almost certainly the right call from Delgado. That’s the only way she really is vulnerable in a primary rather than attacking her on things most voters have forgotten about or shrugged off in the end. She’s treading water approval wise in the state, so she doesn’t have a large segment of Democrats or any voters for that matter really mad at her over something left or right policy related. Just a meh resignation to her being Governor.
He's to her left.
Interesting. In what ways?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/02/climate/national-petroleum-reserve-alaska-trump-drilling.html?smid=url-share
"The Trump administration said on Monday that it planned to eliminate federal protections across millions of acres of Alaskan wilderness, a move that would allow drilling and mining in some of the last remaining pristine wilderness in the country."
Just trying to stick to the politics of this how does this affect the Alaska races? I know in the aughts and even in Begich's race in 2014 there was a lot of who can drill the most but not sure where the politics of this are in 2025.
I'd be surprised if the typical Alaskan voter has changed much on that front. Anything that might make their annual dividend check bigger will be well received. If the check doesn't benefit at all because of how things are implemented, they'll still get mad at the wrong people.
Exclusive: Just got sent internal Biden polling numbers from BEFORE the June debate disaster and Jesus Christ Minnesota and Virginia were only D +2
https://x.com/OrganizerMemes/status/1929608000748376185
Nancy and Kamala saved the nation! It would have been a Bush Sr. style loss for us!
We all get the point that the loss would have been worse, but it's really questionable that the nation has been saved.
Charlotte Clymer wrote an excellent piece debunking the BS anti-LGBTQ+ narrative that "gays get a month, while the veterans only get a day." In fact, there are far more days and months of military observances in some form on the calendar than LGBTQ+ ones. 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️
https://charlotteclymer.substack.com/p/pride-month-never-replaced-our-veterans