She's doing what Ben Wikler did in Wisconsin: operate year-round, do voter outreach 12-18 months before an election, canvass heavily during election season and pivot and attack.
I notice that she has been doing rural outreach periods more frequently -- and she is bringing her SCONC and Court of Appeals justices up for re-election along with her.
I wish NY had a Dem chair half as competent. Instead, Jay Jacobs has mostly focused on waging internal ideological wars instead of fighting Republicans.
It would not surprise me if that happened, Whatley would try to pull a Jefferson Griffin. At least when McCrory lost in 2016, he acknowledged his loss and conceded (even though the NC GOP was telling him not to).
I am not going to complain about the possibility of Cooper narrowly winning the Senate seat similarly to how he unseated Governor Pat McCrory back in 2016.
…as long as it’s not close enough to be tied up in courts and by Republican & DOJ shenanigans! Ideally, of course, we want the Republican loser to be civil enough to concede.
We shall see but if say Cooper wins by a larger margin of victory (ex: 5% points) with 100% in then it's less likely the GOP nominee will delay to concede.
I'm somewhat disappointed Lara Trump isn't running. It would have been satisfying on a certain level to see someone with no particular qualifications who doesn't even (currently) live in the state have the nomination handed to her simply because of her last name and then have her head handed to her in the general election due to the unpopularity of that name and lack of other credentials by someone who's successfully run in that state several times and is well liked in it.
But Whatley's credentials really aren't that much stronger. While he might have more familiarity with NC and its politics than Princess Lara, he's never run for office himself and seems have little to offer beside insider connections and generic right wing talking points. The state being what it is the race will probably be at least decently close (I'm assuming Whatley isn't Mark Robinson, at least) but it's competitive enough even in not-great years that Cooper doesn't fall into the Linda Lingle/Steve Bullock/Larry Hogan pattern of "our only hope but still an underdog". And given the usual pattern of midterms and how they're shaping up so far, just "I support Trump" likely won't be enough for Whatley.
I'm not so sure I agree with this. It is not at all clear that Trump's appeal accrues to anyone else. I also think there will be an anti-Trump backlash in this election, as there was in 2018 (and, frankly, in 2022 as well).
We've seen over and over again that his "brand" does not transfer over to others, no matter how hard they or he try to make it happen. On the other hand, no one with his last name in his family has tried it either. Could be that is the one thing that makes the attempt work.
I'm content for us not to find out, but I'm also not worried about the possibility.
Republicans seem to be doing a lot of stuff right to hold the House (convincing vulnerable members to run for reelection, more gerrymandering, recruiting strong challengers, etc). I wonder if 2026 will end up being a district by district battle instead of a wave like it was in 2022.
Would have been nice if Obama and Dems had done even a quarter of this type of strategic prep work (I.e. convincing certain House members to not make suicide senate runs-cough Brad Ellsworth and Charlie Melancon) in 2010.
It would have been even better if his chief of staff and chief advisor (Emanuel and Axelrod) were not neoliberals who pushed a small stimulus going against the advice of most economists. In hindsight, it is insane that a lunatic like Rahm Emanuel chose what to do with a 60 seat majority.
Yep. I have no idea why they didn’t use budget reconciliation (where they only needed 50 votes and could cut Republicans and Lieberman out of the process) to pass something closer to $2 trillion. Just so so stupid.
Hindsight is 20/20 and Dems are held to different standards than republicans are, in part because our voters consume nonpartisan media while Republican voters are largely tuned in to channels and podcasts that won't criticize Republicans for being obstructionist.
I've said it before but our senate victories in 2006+2008 helped set the stage for this, in an odd and unfortunate way.
If Obama was inaugurated with a 56 seat majority in the senate, it would be immediately understood that nothing was going to pass without repealing the filibuster. It would have happened because the mandate was there, the political will to do something post-Bush was there, the party wanted to accomplish something.
Instead, we entered 2009 with a 58-41 seat majority, with >=2 "moderate" republican "deal makers" being in the senate. Then Specter switched parties. Then Franken was finally seated. The expectations were there from the start, and only grew over time, that we could and must get our accomplishments done with things as they were.
Everyone important enough "knew" that Obama could and must work with republicans with the way things were. Change the seat count and that changes, I think.
The biggest failure of the ARRA was its lack of aid to state and local governments, which caused unnecessary public-sector job losses in areas where those are about the only "good" jobs available.
Yep. So any Republican that attacked a Dem incumbent for supporting the “wasteful stimulus bill” could be responded to with “oh, so you don’t think Americans should have gotten those $2,000 checks but you would be fine with providing Iraq universal healthcare?”
Yeah, we *could* have had statehood for DC and possibly Puerto Rico. Obama’s DOJ could and should have prosecuted banksters, and demanded equity (low-priced shares) for the bank bailouts – which could later have been sold at a hefty profit benefiting tax payers, giving Wall Street an appropriately-costly lesson.
We could and should have passed single-payer ACA. (Yes, I know: Lieberman…) Oh, and the ACA should have included a *ban* on so-called "insurer provider networks". In other words, keep your doctor or pick whatever doctor you want!
Or if Dems had threatened to take away his chairmanship or cut off foreign aid that he wanted if he didn’t vote for the public option. That’s how you deal with a Lieberman.
Maybe. Donnelly only held his seat (barely) because his opponent, the late Jackie Walorski, was viewed as a total wackjob. I don't think Bucshon was viewed the same way.
Bucshon was seen as a sacrificial lamb against Ellsworth and raised almost no money until Ellsworth left that race. Walorski was actually a state legislator who raised a significant amount of money.
2010 was the biggest disaster that has happened to the party. Worse than 1980 and 1994. Because the party was decimated on the state level. Which led to locked out gerrymanders on both the legislative and congressional level in places like North Carolina, Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin.
Most of what happens in November 2026 will be determined by the toxicity of the Trump II (Vance?) Administration at that point in time.
Don't forget that Republicans gerrymandered the shit out of multiple states post-2010, but the Democrats were still able to net eight House seats in 2012. If we just match that performance, we get the gavel.
A lot of what happens in November 2026 will be determined by Democratic GOTV and voter registration efforts between now and then. In all-too-many precincts and states the largest party is the Sofa-Sitter Party, followed by the Low-Information/Dumbfuck Party. That’s what defeated Kamala Harris last year.
I see the spark of an interesting strategy there -- really make the sofa-sitters feel like the complete losers they are and guilt them into finally joining the fight. Many people who don't vote do so from a perceived sense of superiority (the system is rigged, both parties are the same, you're just too stupid to see it). Instead of coddling their feelings or ignoring htem, make them feel stupid and useless, and maybe they'll change.
GOTV and voter registration strategies have to be well-considered and well-communicated. I certainly do not propose *attack and guilting* as a strategy. However, the fact remains: American voter turnout has always been embarrassingly dismal compared to what else I am used to, namely Scandinavian turnout.
The problem with that PEW research is that it, a priori, assumes increased turnout across the board. That’s not how things work – and certainly not what we’re striving for. Our GOTV efforts are aimed at the members of the Sofa-Sitter Party and that other party that trend Democratic.
Perhaps I should have been clearer, but I stand by what I said. Kamala Harris’ loss is due to a failure of this GOTV. For instance, millions of Biden voters didn’t bother to vote. Obviously there are additional reasons as well.
We totally lost control of the narrative around Biden's presidency around the time of the Afghanistan withdrawal. We couldn't just GOTV our way out of that, we lost people because they thought the admin failed them and we couldn't make up for it by turning out our voters. Trump got more voters in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan in 2024 than Biden did in 2020.
I don't blame Harris or her campaign for that for what it is worth. The failures around the last 4 years came from every corner of the party, including the people who have been most critical of Biden and the media that allowed Trump to rehabilitate his political image and dragged Biden through the mud for one of the best Presidencies in the post-war era. The cake was baked by early 2023 that Trump was returning to the White House and I think all of us casting aspersions at Jen O'Malley Dillon or Ron Klain or Biden himself isn't facing what we need to do to win next time.
There's a lot in that but I don't think it disputes Arctic's point.
In 2024, Trump got 85% of his 2020 voters, with 11% of those 2020 voters not voting, and 3% shifting to Harris. On the flipside, Harris only received 79% of Biden's 2020 voters, with 5% of that group shifting to Trump; 15% of them sat out the election.
Of 2020 nonvoters, in 2024 14% went Trump and 12% went Harris, with 73% remaining nonvoting.
The biggest gap to our detriment in that data isn't the gap in persuasion, it isn't the gap in converting nonvoters. The biggest gap is the gap in return voters from 2020.
Realistically 2024 was a narrow loss in the electoral college and our defeat comes down to a lot of factors that can all be decisive on their own due to how narrow it was. Even though nonvoters were more pro-Trump than pro-Harris in 2024, the nonvoters that were most amenable to voting — due to having voted in the prior presidential election — were, or at least should be expected to be, more amenable to Harris.
I mean I think this analysis more or less stops when you take into account that Trump got more voters in all the swing states than Biden did in 2020. Matching Biden's voter turnout would've been insufficient in every single swing state.
In the end, I don’t think any of it will matter. If all holds the same at it is (and is headed further), the wave will be too big and wipe them out anyway.
I don't think Lawler staying in the House is a net boon for the GOP, unless you assume he was destined to lose a statewide race, and even then it's probably a push.
Lawler running doesn't assure his party holds the seat with the unpopular record of Trump and Congress overall, and I'm not sure that "I saved SALT" will be enough to overcome that. Meanwhile, he probably wouldn't have been favoured for governor given overall national trends, but might have at least made it competitive enough to have a shot as Zeldin did. Nominating Stefanik is nearly conceding it outright, as she's almost certainly too conservative to win statewide.
I mentioned this in the comments of last issue but the local Dems here (I'm in NY-17) are really fired up. Lawler is very unpopular in parts of my district and he is seen by said local Dems as MAGA disguised as a "moderate".
He may very well be screwed regardless. Beth Davidson is apparently the frontrunner per a local source -- not the biggest fan of her positions, but I doubt a progressive is going to win in my district, and quite frankly I hope they nominate someone from Rockland County (where Lawler and some of his base are from) anyway.
I don't know if that's true. In a place like Madison or Ann Arbor, sure, but not clear that ICE is a big motivating factor in the wealthy NY suburbs. SALT, on the other hand, might be. I do think Lawler will probably lose, as long as we nominate someone who fits the district, but he could very well win...
Per the US Census, 19% of the residents of NY-17 are Hispanic. Also, 11% of the residents are black.
A sizable portion of the Hispanic residents could help the Democratic Congressional Nominee get the edge over Lawler if there's enough turnout from them. Not saying this alone would be enough but I would not give the ICE issue a pass here.
Fair point on the demographics, but this is still a very wealthy district that includes towns like North Salem, Pound Ridge, Mt Kisco and ranks in the top 20 in median income nationwide. It's also in a high-tax state. So, while I think ICE may resonate here, I don't think it's the pre-eminent issue by any means. That said, if the environment continues to shape up the way I think it is, Lawler is probably done unless we nominate someone really out of the mainstream.
Do you or does anyone else know how Davidson’s district in local legislative government voted in 2020/2024? Trying to get an idea of her political connections/performance as someone outside her district.
This may sound odd, but I actually found myself relieved to hear about Republicans wanting to continue subverting democracy using their existing tools, namely gerrymandering and voter suppression, rather than novel ideas like martial law, ICE conducting social media checks at polling places, etc. Not that we won't see some of that as well, but the focus on current laws and process tells us they are at least planning to stay somewhat within the framework of our democratic structure. I still think this upcoming midterm will be the least free and fair this country has ever had, given the strong desire among MAGA to protect Trump and make this white supremacy movement permanent.
I think the thing people misunderstand about authoritarian political movements and regimes is that they're not purely nihilistic. They usually have principles and lines they typically won't cross, and "elections" in a vague sense are a very American idea. Republicans are generally committed to continuing to hold them as an abstract goal, but they're completely ambivalent about whether or not they're truly competitive.
The rightward drift of south Texas Republicans enabled Rep. Monica De La Cruz to win reelection in 2024 by 14 points. Popular Tejano singer Bobby Pulido's announcement that he was forming an exploratory committee to run against her offers Democrats some hope, though the prospect of a gerrymander of Texas's 17 Congressional District makes any prediction impossible. https://www.texastribune.org/2025/07/24/bobby-pulido-exploratory-committee-congress-south-texas/
"When you’re a star, the Supreme Court lets you do it"
Analysis: SCOTUS is enabling Trump's assault on American institutions
“A couple of months ago, the major concern was what would happen when Trump defied the courts. A more complicated picture is now emerging. One that mixes quiet but unmistakable defiance of court decisions by the Trump administration with encouragement from the six Republican-appointed Justices who sit atop the judicial branch.
“This is an arguably worse scenario, since it provides a veneer of legalism even as it replaces the rule of law with rule by law, where Trump is allowed to determine the nature of that law.“The emerging pattern is that the Trump administration is checked by the lower courts, slow-walks compliance, and sometimes asks SCOTUS for help, which they usually provide via poorly reasoned opinions or no opinions at all. The Supreme Court often does not feel the need to explain what are effectively constitutional amendments that rebalance the separation of powers, feeding perceptions of the court as a partisan actor.”
This is a big part of why we need to expand the court. They're already regularly flouting consistent rule of law and relying on obscurity and issue complexity to avoid major backlash. The next time we hold power they're going to be as partisanly opposed to us as they are partisanly cooperative with Trump today. They will happily whittle away every power we utilize and put up a sign saying "only for republicans."
I'm a bit of an institutionalist and I think the way to do this is to add six seats to the court and give Republicans the choice between term limits and us filling them. It'd destroy the institution if each side just kept packing it every 8 years but we can't constantly unilaterally disarm with Republican fuckery.
I'd be fine with that option. I think on paper it's better. The other day I suggested we do it via a bill with a trigger mechanism. If a constitutional amendment with 18 year term limits passes before a specific date, the legislation is voided. If the amendment doesn't pass, four seats are added to the court and promptly filled.
In practice I expect it's a distinction without a difference. I am deeply skeptical that republicans would ever cooperate, even for a scenario that is better for them.
Ultimately I think we're at the point where rendering SCOTUS into a trifecta hot potato is infinitely better than the current status quo.
Yeah it is, and unfortunately this Court is doing nothing to dissuade us of that notion. If it's just going to function as a branch of government that neuters Democratic Presidents and shrugs at outright authoritarianism by Republican ones there's literally just no incentive for us to maintain the status quo.
Every time we/they pack it it would dillute the influence of any individual justice. It's absolutely insane that we only have 9 people in robes making decisions for a nation of 340+ million.
The CA Supreme Court Justice makeup is just seven justices including the Chief Justice, Patricia Guerrero, which at two justices shy of the count in the Supreme Court.
California's population is only 11.5% of the US population per the last Census (may decline a bit due to residents leaving the state since the COVID-19 pandemic and cost of living).
Most certainly we need more than 9 justices on the Supreme Court!
63% of Americans think the Supreme Court is led more by politics than following the law. That’s the opening for Democrats to think a little bigger and push for a court expansion in the next trifecta. There is so much that could be accomplished if Democrats as a whole stopped focusing on what’s possible now and started pushing towards the seemingly impossible future.
Just because it hasn’t been done before doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
I'm guessing they wanted Sliwa to look like Superman but he looks like the posters you would see of Che Guevara or Castro in the photo lol. I'd love to know more about that the photo of Mandani addressing this group.
WI-Gov: Evers is retiring. Good for him. It might make the seat harder to hold, but on the other hand, it might be easier to win an open seat this cycle than in 2030 and I'd rather have an incumbent running for reelection then. Any thoughts on who might be a strong replacement candidate? https://x.com/mattsmith_news/status/1948428342559973411
Josh Kaul? Secretary of State Sarah Godlewski would be another option, but I think she would be a strong Senate challenger to unseat Ron Johnson in 2028.
Mostly a gut feeling, but he'll be 74 on election day, he seems a little fed up with politics if some of his news hits on the OBBB are to be taken at face value, and he already broke his term limits pledge once
Ron Kind is the first name that comes to mind. He seems like he wanted to get out of DC and we can save Kaul for the Senate race in 2028. Godlewski seems to have some weird personal baggage like lying about her academic background, not the kind of candidate we need in such important races.
This stuff seems to fall under IOKIYAR (e.g., Herschel Walker and former MBA claimant Ron Johnson) but it still irritates me. There's little upside to lying/bending the truth about your credentials, and a lot of downside.
From what I have read, Johnson bailed out of finishing his MBA degree a semester before he was set to graduate. I don't understand how anyone who gets this close to completing a graduate degree unless there are real unfortunate circumstances that prevent them from doing this.
In Johnson's case, he's just an idiot if he has to spin this the way he's doing.
My guess is that Johnson couldn’t cobble a thesis/capstone together.
One of my classmates in my Master of Music program completed all of his coursework and bailed (for no obvious reason) with only his recital and final research paper remaining. To my knowledge, he never received his degree.
You're not the least bit concerned about Barnes' Senate campaign? I'd rather that someone who's less of a lightning rod would run, if we want them to have a good chance to not only win but win reelection.
A key reason Barnes lost was that the national Dems basically didn't invest in WI, from what I've heard. Barnes barely lost anyway. Though I don't think running a previous losing candidate is usually a good idea anyway so there is that.
Unfortunately the GOP had plenty of material against Barnes and he just struggled to respond it to it effectively. His past comments are still out there on video and I don't see how he does any better refuting it this time.
I would be very concerned about a Dane County Democrat leading the ticket in Wisconsin come 2026. The rest of the state is very different from Dane County and Republicans can easily tie her to the “Madison liberal” out of touch with the rest of the state smear. There’s a reason our successful statewide Democrats in Wisconsin live almost everywhere except Dane County.
I'm not sure that's the problem in Wisconsin that it can be in other states. Wisconsin seems even more polarized than typical. This is the same state that keeps reelecting Tammy Baldwin at the same time as Ron Johnson.
Before running for senate, Baldwin was rep of WI-02, which is centered around Dane county. It currently has a PVI of D+21, and past results were not substantially different from present results.
If ever there was an opportune time to retire in a statewide seat, now is that damn time. Kudos to Evers. Now new blood can come up and hopefully win the governor's seat to succeed Evers and build their own brand.
Scott Walker tweeted a "Make Wisconsin Great Again" redhat with a winking emoji. Not sure if that's a hint he's going to run, but man I wish he does. A retread loser isn't going to be the best candidate for Republicans.
Walker has always been forever associated with the Tea Party movement back in 2010 and onward. He never fit with MAGA and doesn't have the personality for it even while doing the MAGA dance with that cap. On top of that, he has such a fixation on Ronald Reagan so much that on Reagan's birthday, Walker and his wife have the same kind of dinner that Reagan was known to having (which isn't even much different than what many Americans have for dinner).
Trump pulverized Walker at one of the GOP Presidential Debate over his record on the economy in WI. All Walker had was, "This is a Democratic Party talking point." At least Jeb Bush lasted longer than him!
Thanks to Trump, Walker was out of office two years later.
I’m neutral about it. I wouldn’t have had a problem with him running. But given his age and that it’s usually tougher to win a third term, I don’t have a problem with him not running.
I'll always be grateful to Evers for administering the coup de grâce to the execrable Scott Walker's political career. (and, of course, for holding the seat in 2022). I wish him a long and happy retirement.
I know we’re all focused on the growing Epstein scandal and enjoying the chaos among Trump’s GOP, but I think we also need to focus on removing blue seat reps who still are unable to realize the barest of basics: Trump lies about everything. If you take his word for something because he said it and that’s “the norm, old school politics, trust what a person says” type thinking, you clearly haven’t paid attention since 2016 changed everything in America.
You are also certainly not ever going to be able to fight the GOP with the ferocity it takes to win in this modern era. These people need to retire or get primaried out, it’s this outdated thinking that still pervades much of our party that is corrosive which makes it so much harder to beat Republicans.
“I was not obsessed with the Jeffrey Epstein case,” said Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts. “I mean, I just assumed all the stuff Trump was saying, that there was no merit to it. But the way he has handled this makes you wonder.”
Even if that’s not what he meant, “it makes you wonder”? Seriously? That’s what you say right now? No wonder voters and our base view our party as weak because our representatives are weak. How about instead saying “Trump and his yes-sir administration will do anything to protect his weak ego, including covering up for rapists and pedophiles by deceiving the American people with lies and propaganda.”
That’s the truth and that’s the kind of clarity and no more BS couching criticism milquetoast pulling punches that our party desperately needs to do to improve our party’s brand.
Given McGovern represents a D+13 House District in MA, a state where no GOP candidate has been able to get elected in the House in decades, we have nothing to lose if another Democratic candidate challenges him in the 2026 primary.
I am actually taking a more neutral tone here in this thread re: McGovern but I will say that him being in office for decades has more to do with him having experience in managing politics at the federal level than him being "weak" on action.
Compared to say Chuck Schumer, McGovern is ok. He's quite liberal on many issues and fought hard against Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill when Schumer was capitulating.
Plus, as much as we want to criticize McGovern, he actually has valid points on the 2026 midterms and a pretty good BS detector.
"I think it's important that we remind people about the devastation that these cuts are going to have on our economy and on their lives in particular. But you can't win elections by just being against things," he says. "You have to be for things, and I think Democrats have to focus in on issues of affordability, because life is still hard for a lot of people, not just those who are struggling in poverty, but for the middle class. I mean, food prices are still too high, the cost of living is still too high, and with Trump's tariffs, it might even get worse. You know, we have to offer solutions that are that are realistic, that people believe can actually happen if we win an election, as a way to counter that."
Looks like a redistricting plan (PLANC2203) has been filed in Texas that would attempt to gerrymander an all-Republican U.S. House delegation in Texas, although I've not looked at the full underlying data, but the map and data is here (links to large PDF files are in the link):
This is not a plan under serious consideration. It's a public submission made by a conservative user on Twitter. There are 50 of them on the website, and I submitted a plan myself.
There are still two members of Congress running, no one has been anointed by their cult leader yet, and that person almost certainly will not be anyone Kemp picks, unless that person already has a massive lead Trump wants to take credit for.
Appears that the VRA may not be quite dead. The Supreme Court w/ Alito, GOrsuch and THomas dissenting just stayed the order of the 8th Circuit which eviscerated the Act by allowing only the DOJ to sue for violations-which will never happen under this DOJ. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/072425zr_o75p.pdf
As with the stays letting Trump fire members of agency commissions without cause, this gives a pretty good indication of which way they’ll go. Imagine that, they might uphold a practice under the VRA that went unchallenged since its creation. Nearly 60 years ago.
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) admitted Thursday that he made “a mistake” by voting to confirm Josh Divine, a 35-year-old archconservative with a long record of litigation against abortion rights, to a lifetime federal judgeship.
King told HuffPost that he voted Tuesday to confirm Divine after talking to Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who gave Divine “a strong reference.” Divine, who will now serve on a U.S. district court in Missouri, used to be Hawley’s chief counsel.
“I took Josh Hawley’s advice,” said the Maine senator. “In retrospect, I think it was a mistake, from what I’ve learned about Mr. Divine since. But sometimes, you rely on your colleagues.”
Asked if he was aware of Divine’s record on abortion rights, King said, “Not fully.”
King’s vote didn’t change the outcome of Divine’s confirmation, as he already had enough Republican votes to get through. But it’s an embarrassing misstep by the Maine senator,
You can add on Senator Jeanne Shaheen to this. She was the lone vote needed today to advance Michael Waltz through the committee (yes, the same idiot who sent classified info by signal) when not all Republicans supported the nominee. The reason? She got $75m of funds released in a deal with the GOP and wanted to help them out as a good will branch. Really? You call that a win? What a joke.
It’s this type of crap, just give up, roll over and take whatever the GOP does, defer to precedence and the executive bassackwards thinking mostly coming from our older members of Congress that needs to stop. If you don’t support a nominee, don’t help them confirm it! This seems very basic and yet out of reach to understand for our party’s tenured members somehow.
The more I hear and see from our elder, long term representatives the more I come to the conclusion they should all go. Contrast that with Summer Lee, a recently elected progressive who successfully forced a vote on Epstein to make the GOP’s drama even harder for them to avoid fallout from.
The new blood is drawing blood and the old blood is coagulating. They see an America and are used to an America of old: try to work with your opponents, do bipartisan bills, let nominees get confirmed, trust what they say antiquated thought process that has let the GOP run circles around us up until Epstein.
I don’t doubt older members are still physically capable of and healthy enough to continue representing their constituents in office, I do however doubt they have the mindset, fire and understanding to play the modern political game successfully against Republicans.
I don't doubt it in the case of people like Bernie Sanders or Jerry Nadler, nor are all the younger members of Congress doing things right. I think we all agree on the general point, though: it's stupefying or simply corrupt how someone would trust a recommendation from Hawley, of all people, or trade their integrity for a bit of money.
Pappas will be a full blown moderate but I don't think he goes to bed at night dreaming up new ways to surrender. And NH is still gonna NH: ideologically he's a good fit for the state. He'll be a huge upgrade from her while still being very moderate.
From what I've observed he's not in the difficult-moderate camp, like the above King or Gottheimer. I expect/hope he'll be more like a Tim Kaine style moderate once in the senate. Someone who is not going to push our party to the left but who also is not going to obstruct our party's agenda or being a pain to deal with.
Pappas is also going to be independent in his own way by taking on issues that could otherwise be a liability to Democrats if they are not addressed.
I've mentioned here before about Pappas' efforts to substantially raise the threshold of which sellers on Ebay, Etsy, etc. have in order to be taxed. Frankly, it's a stupid idea for random average joes selling on Ebay to be taxed in the first place unless they are running a full-blown, retail operation or retail store. Apparently, there was a provision in the infrastructure bill back in 2021 that lowered the threshold. I can think of no GOP House member or Senator who would have advocated for this.
Independent thinking is needed, especially if it means telling Democrats they are going too far and they could give ammunition to the GOP to win elections.
These senators like to play stupid, like i'm supposed to believe that king is that naive? A lot of this is probably vote trading, it's all a game to these idiots.
King is in our "new worst" tier of senators, now that Manchin and Sinema are gone. Him being crappy was easy to gloss over before because there were two overwhelmingly worse senators in our caucus at the same time.
I think he was OK for his first two terms. But he ran for reelection at 80 years old and this term was, as far as I'm concerned, a huge mistake on his behalf. But now he definitely seems fine with ignoring how critical this moment of history is.
Makes the gubernatorial election in Maine next year more important too. There's a real chance he won't finish his term due to age.
It could be even worse, though: he could defend his vote instead of admitting to a "mistake". We have to hope he'll be less of a fucking idiot going forward.
King has traditionally been effective as a Senator and a reliable vote in caucusing with Democrats. However, he does have his moments where they can be real f ups.
That said, Democrats have an easier shot at winning the ME-SEN seat if King resigns before he completes his next Senate term.
Looks like DeSantis is pushing for a gerrymander of Florida's congressional districts, although there are two mitigating factors that exist in Florida that don't exist in Texas: Florida's "fair districts" provision in its state constitution (the current map is about as much of a Republican gerrymander as the fair districts provision will allow), and DeSantis's ongoing feud with Republican state legislators.
NY-Redistricting: Hochul cracks the door on a redraw and shows just how bad Jay Jacobs is as party chair in that state. Couldn’t be a clearer contrast.
“All’s fair in love and war. We’re following the rules. We do redistricting every 10 years,” Hochul said during an unrelated event Thursday in Buffalo. “But if there’s other states violating the rules and are trying to give themselves an advantage, all I’ll say is, I’m going to look at it closely with Hakeem Jeffries.”
VS
“I understand those in New York who are watching what’s happening in Texas and Ohio want to offset their unfair advantage,” New York Democratic Chair Jay Jacobs told POLITICO earlier this week. “But I think we need to be careful about democracy, because I’m finding it to be pretty fragile at this time in our history.”
Jacobs added the state constitution ties his party’s hands.
“You don’t change the rules of the game to your advantage just because you can,” Jacobs said. “The constitution seems pretty clear that this redistricting process should be done every 10 years. I don’t know where someone could interpret it as something you can do every two years.”
I remember when Jacobs gave the maximum allowed donation to George Latimer in that campaign. Like, I know Bowman was despised and unpopular, but (at least in my opinion) state party chairs are not supposed to intervene in primaries. (I believe after Bowman lost Jacobs also went on an anti-left tirade too, though I could be thinking of another candidate.) I don't like anyone having the scales tipped for them, whoever they are. Let the voters decide.
Ex-Cook County Commissioner Richard Boykin is planning to announce for the Dem nomination for the seat, with the apparent backing of prominent area businessman Willie Wilson. Looks like Danny Davis is out. I detest Boykin so hopefully someone better will run. Anyone else seem good for the seat?
Apparently a Democrat is trying again against Republican Rep. Laurel Lee. Former VA doctor Darren McAuley is the one. Highly unlikely we will even come close but I figured I'd mention it anyway since this was a seat we were watching last cycle.
Former Dem gubernatorial nominee Chris Jones filed to run against Republican Rep. French Hill here. This one's even less likely to flip, but at R+8 it is somehow the least red district in Arkansas. Depressing.
We've got our first non-Mikie Sherrill candidate for the seat Sherrill may very well vacate (since her chances at winning seem pretty good). Anna Williams, an activist who worked for a digital music company (per the article) and also worked with Make The Road NJ and Vietnamese Boat People. Make the Road are pretty progressive so it seems like she'll run as that. Speaking of Sherrill by the way:
It looks like Sherrill picked her lieutenant governor, and not exactly a great one. Dale Caldwell, president of Centenary University, who previously ran charter schools and is little-known in the state. Not exactly a good sign in my opinion.
CA-22, CO-8 (sorry for linking to X, it's where they posted this):
The progressive Working Families Party endorsed in two swing districts, backing Visalia school board member Randy Villegas in CA-22 (against Republican Rep. David Valadao), and former Colorado Education Association head Amie Baca-Oehlert in CO-8 (against Republican Rep. Gabe Evans). Villegas makes sense to me, from a WFP perpsective, but I'm surprised they didn't back Manny Rutinel in CO-8. Oh well.
Caldwell has a varied background. From New Brunswick in Middlesex County. One of the other finalists also had experience with charter schools. This could present a problem with governing but I don’t it will be an electoral problem. None of the finalists were overly impressive from a political point of view.
Jones will be very interesting in AR-02. He definitely outperformed the Democratic baseline when he ran statewide. These are the fringe kind of seats on the peripheral that came into play in 2018 late in the cycle, with some surprise districts flipping blue. Worth a shot. He definitely has the fundraising/grassroots connections to run hard there and make Hill sweat a little at the very least.
Whatley is a partisan MAGA extremist. If Cooper doesn't pull any punches, he's going to STEAMROLL Whatley.
North Carolina gonna North Carolina. It could easily be a 51-49 race in the end.
The important thing is, the Dem chair in North Carolina is fantastic. I have faith she'll be able to help us do well in this race/upcoming races.
She's doing what Ben Wikler did in Wisconsin: operate year-round, do voter outreach 12-18 months before an election, canvass heavily during election season and pivot and attack.
I notice that she has been doing rural outreach periods more frequently -- and she is bringing her SCONC and Court of Appeals justices up for re-election along with her.
I wish NY had a Dem chair half as competent. Instead, Jay Jacobs has mostly focused on waging internal ideological wars instead of fighting Republicans.
Imagine what a competent chair could do for NY.
I wish we had competent party chairs in states like Arkansas, Ohio and Oklahoma. But for those states, it's like rolling a boulder up Mount Everest.
Heck it could even be like Cooper’s first governors race where he won by like 10,000 votes.
It would not surprise me if that happened, Whatley would try to pull a Jefferson Griffin. At least when McCrory lost in 2016, he acknowledged his loss and conceded (even though the NC GOP was telling him not to).
I am not going to complain about the possibility of Cooper narrowly winning the Senate seat similarly to how he unseated Governor Pat McCrory back in 2016.
A Senate pickup is a Senate pickup.
…as long as it’s not close enough to be tied up in courts and by Republican & DOJ shenanigans! Ideally, of course, we want the Republican loser to be civil enough to concede.
We shall see but if say Cooper wins by a larger margin of victory (ex: 5% points) with 100% in then it's less likely the GOP nominee will delay to concede.
I'm somewhat disappointed Lara Trump isn't running. It would have been satisfying on a certain level to see someone with no particular qualifications who doesn't even (currently) live in the state have the nomination handed to her simply because of her last name and then have her head handed to her in the general election due to the unpopularity of that name and lack of other credentials by someone who's successfully run in that state several times and is well liked in it.
But Whatley's credentials really aren't that much stronger. While he might have more familiarity with NC and its politics than Princess Lara, he's never run for office himself and seems have little to offer beside insider connections and generic right wing talking points. The state being what it is the race will probably be at least decently close (I'm assuming Whatley isn't Mark Robinson, at least) but it's competitive enough even in not-great years that Cooper doesn't fall into the Linda Lingle/Steve Bullock/Larry Hogan pattern of "our only hope but still an underdog". And given the usual pattern of midterms and how they're shaping up so far, just "I support Trump" likely won't be enough for Whatley.
I hope Cooper makes the Epstein files a talking point for Whatley to run away from, considering how close Whatley is to FDJT.
Whatley got his start in politics as a high school student working for the heinous Jesse Helms.
I guess I'd prefer to take my chances against a challenger whose last name isn't "Trump" in North Carolina....for a decade's worth of reasons.
I'm not so sure I agree with this. It is not at all clear that Trump's appeal accrues to anyone else. I also think there will be an anti-Trump backlash in this election, as there was in 2018 (and, frankly, in 2022 as well).
There's two sides to this.
We've seen over and over again that his "brand" does not transfer over to others, no matter how hard they or he try to make it happen. On the other hand, no one with his last name in his family has tried it either. Could be that is the one thing that makes the attempt work.
I'm content for us not to find out, but I'm also not worried about the possibility.
If Whatley is in my guess is Trump is out.
Republicans seem to be doing a lot of stuff right to hold the House (convincing vulnerable members to run for reelection, more gerrymandering, recruiting strong challengers, etc). I wonder if 2026 will end up being a district by district battle instead of a wave like it was in 2022.
Would have been nice if Obama and Dems had done even a quarter of this type of strategic prep work (I.e. convincing certain House members to not make suicide senate runs-cough Brad Ellsworth and Charlie Melancon) in 2010.
It would have been even better if his chief of staff and chief advisor (Emanuel and Axelrod) were not neoliberals who pushed a small stimulus going against the advice of most economists. In hindsight, it is insane that a lunatic like Rahm Emanuel chose what to do with a 60 seat majority.
Yep. I have no idea why they didn’t use budget reconciliation (where they only needed 50 votes and could cut Republicans and Lieberman out of the process) to pass something closer to $2 trillion. Just so so stupid.
Obama wanted consensus legislation. His desire for "post-partisanship" was his political Achilles heel.
Even after Republicans had a well publicized meeting before Obama’s inauguration promising to vote against anything he proposed ?
That there should have been the signal to completely cut them out of the process on any significant legislation.
I agree.
Hindsight is 20/20 and Dems are held to different standards than republicans are, in part because our voters consume nonpartisan media while Republican voters are largely tuned in to channels and podcasts that won't criticize Republicans for being obstructionist.
I've said it before but our senate victories in 2006+2008 helped set the stage for this, in an odd and unfortunate way.
If Obama was inaugurated with a 56 seat majority in the senate, it would be immediately understood that nothing was going to pass without repealing the filibuster. It would have happened because the mandate was there, the political will to do something post-Bush was there, the party wanted to accomplish something.
Instead, we entered 2009 with a 58-41 seat majority, with >=2 "moderate" republican "deal makers" being in the senate. Then Specter switched parties. Then Franken was finally seated. The expectations were there from the start, and only grew over time, that we could and must get our accomplishments done with things as they were.
Everyone important enough "knew" that Obama could and must work with republicans with the way things were. Change the seat count and that changes, I think.
The biggest failure of the ARRA was its lack of aid to state and local governments, which caused unnecessary public-sector job losses in areas where those are about the only "good" jobs available.
That and in addition to the tax credit (that nobody noticed), they should have mailed out $2000 checks to everyone with a letter from Obama.
I'm not sure how well that would have flown in a pre-Trump political milieu.
Didn't Bush do exactly that with his first tax cut, sending checks out to people directly?
…a letter with Obama’s signature, yes – and specifying the Congressional vote for and against the stimulus checks!
Yep. So any Republican that attacked a Dem incumbent for supporting the “wasteful stimulus bill” could be responded to with “oh, so you don’t think Americans should have gotten those $2,000 checks but you would be fine with providing Iraq universal healthcare?”
Yeah, we *could* have had statehood for DC and possibly Puerto Rico. Obama’s DOJ could and should have prosecuted banksters, and demanded equity (low-priced shares) for the bank bailouts – which could later have been sold at a hefty profit benefiting tax payers, giving Wall Street an appropriately-costly lesson.
We could and should have passed single-payer ACA. (Yes, I know: Lieberman…) Oh, and the ACA should have included a *ban* on so-called "insurer provider networks". In other words, keep your doctor or pick whatever doctor you want!
Imagine where we'd be now if it had been Ned Lamont. (Who, amusingly enough, is now facing a primary from a progressive as Governor.)
Or if Dems had threatened to take away his chairmanship or cut off foreign aid that he wanted if he didn’t vote for the public option. That’s how you deal with a Lieberman.
Didn't they pass the ACA with that majority? Let's give some credit where credit is due...
Could have been much better had they used LBJ style force on Lieberman as I mentioned above.
Emanuel opposed the ACA and privately lobbied hard against it. He abused liberals pushing for a public option.
Ellsworth and Melançon were highly unlikely to hold those seats, FWIW.
Melancon I might agree. Ellsworth actually might have held his. Heath Shuler held a seat in Western NC that had a similar partnership at the time.
Maybe. Donnelly only held his seat (barely) because his opponent, the late Jackie Walorski, was viewed as a total wackjob. I don't think Bucshon was viewed the same way.
Bucshon was seen as a sacrificial lamb against Ellsworth and raised almost no money until Ellsworth left that race. Walorski was actually a state legislator who raised a significant amount of money.
2010 was the biggest disaster that has happened to the party. Worse than 1980 and 1994. Because the party was decimated on the state level. Which led to locked out gerrymanders on both the legislative and congressional level in places like North Carolina, Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin.
..that in NC FL and possibly OH we will never recover from
Never? Never say never.
Most of what happens in November 2026 will be determined by the toxicity of the Trump II (Vance?) Administration at that point in time.
Don't forget that Republicans gerrymandered the shit out of multiple states post-2010, but the Democrats were still able to net eight House seats in 2012. If we just match that performance, we get the gavel.
A lot of what happens in November 2026 will be determined by Democratic GOTV and voter registration efforts between now and then. In all-too-many precincts and states the largest party is the Sofa-Sitter Party, followed by the Low-Information/Dumbfuck Party. That’s what defeated Kamala Harris last year.
I see the spark of an interesting strategy there -- really make the sofa-sitters feel like the complete losers they are and guilt them into finally joining the fight. Many people who don't vote do so from a perceived sense of superiority (the system is rigged, both parties are the same, you're just too stupid to see it). Instead of coddling their feelings or ignoring htem, make them feel stupid and useless, and maybe they'll change.
GOTV and voter registration strategies have to be well-considered and well-communicated. I certainly do not propose *attack and guilting* as a strategy. However, the fact remains: American voter turnout has always been embarrassingly dismal compared to what else I am used to, namely Scandinavian turnout.
This just isn't true
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/26/nx-s1-5447450/trump-2024-election-non-voters-coalition
Yeah, with the changes in the coalitions, I think we tend to benefit from lower turnout elections at this point....
The problem with that PEW research is that it, a priori, assumes increased turnout across the board. That’s not how things work – and certainly not what we’re striving for. Our GOTV efforts are aimed at the members of the Sofa-Sitter Party and that other party that trend Democratic.
Perhaps I should have been clearer, but I stand by what I said. Kamala Harris’ loss is due to a failure of this GOTV. For instance, millions of Biden voters didn’t bother to vote. Obviously there are additional reasons as well.
This again just isn' the case, something like 2/3rds to 4/5ths of Trump's win was due to persuasion. https://www.campaignnow.com/blog/why-democrats-stayed-home-in-2024-analysis-breaks-it-down
We totally lost control of the narrative around Biden's presidency around the time of the Afghanistan withdrawal. We couldn't just GOTV our way out of that, we lost people because they thought the admin failed them and we couldn't make up for it by turning out our voters. Trump got more voters in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan in 2024 than Biden did in 2020.
I don't blame Harris or her campaign for that for what it is worth. The failures around the last 4 years came from every corner of the party, including the people who have been most critical of Biden and the media that allowed Trump to rehabilitate his political image and dragged Biden through the mud for one of the best Presidencies in the post-war era. The cake was baked by early 2023 that Trump was returning to the White House and I think all of us casting aspersions at Jen O'Malley Dillon or Ron Klain or Biden himself isn't facing what we need to do to win next time.
There's a lot in that but I don't think it disputes Arctic's point.
In 2024, Trump got 85% of his 2020 voters, with 11% of those 2020 voters not voting, and 3% shifting to Harris. On the flipside, Harris only received 79% of Biden's 2020 voters, with 5% of that group shifting to Trump; 15% of them sat out the election.
Of 2020 nonvoters, in 2024 14% went Trump and 12% went Harris, with 73% remaining nonvoting.
The biggest gap to our detriment in that data isn't the gap in persuasion, it isn't the gap in converting nonvoters. The biggest gap is the gap in return voters from 2020.
Realistically 2024 was a narrow loss in the electoral college and our defeat comes down to a lot of factors that can all be decisive on their own due to how narrow it was. Even though nonvoters were more pro-Trump than pro-Harris in 2024, the nonvoters that were most amenable to voting — due to having voted in the prior presidential election — were, or at least should be expected to be, more amenable to Harris.
Janus, thank you for that detailed data!
I mean I think this analysis more or less stops when you take into account that Trump got more voters in all the swing states than Biden did in 2020. Matching Biden's voter turnout would've been insufficient in every single swing state.
Recced for "Low-Information/Dumbf*ck Party."
Much of that momentum is fueled by anger at the incumbent administration.
In the end, I don’t think any of it will matter. If all holds the same at it is (and is headed further), the wave will be too big and wipe them out anyway.
I don't think Lawler staying in the House is a net boon for the GOP, unless you assume he was destined to lose a statewide race, and even then it's probably a push.
Lawler running doesn't assure his party holds the seat with the unpopular record of Trump and Congress overall, and I'm not sure that "I saved SALT" will be enough to overcome that. Meanwhile, he probably wouldn't have been favoured for governor given overall national trends, but might have at least made it competitive enough to have a shot as Zeldin did. Nominating Stefanik is nearly conceding it outright, as she's almost certainly too conservative to win statewide.
I mentioned this in the comments of last issue but the local Dems here (I'm in NY-17) are really fired up. Lawler is very unpopular in parts of my district and he is seen by said local Dems as MAGA disguised as a "moderate".
He may very well be screwed regardless. Beth Davidson is apparently the frontrunner per a local source -- not the biggest fan of her positions, but I doubt a progressive is going to win in my district, and quite frankly I hope they nominate someone from Rockland County (where Lawler and some of his base are from) anyway.
More importantly, Lawler is pro-ICE. You can’t run for re-election in a Lean Blue district as a pro-ICE Republican and expect to win re-election.
I don't know if that's true. In a place like Madison or Ann Arbor, sure, but not clear that ICE is a big motivating factor in the wealthy NY suburbs. SALT, on the other hand, might be. I do think Lawler will probably lose, as long as we nominate someone who fits the district, but he could very well win...
Yep. I'm not an expert on NY-17, but surely there's a well-liked local Dem official who could run (i.e. a George Latimer type)...
Per the US Census, 19% of the residents of NY-17 are Hispanic. Also, 11% of the residents are black.
A sizable portion of the Hispanic residents could help the Democratic Congressional Nominee get the edge over Lawler if there's enough turnout from them. Not saying this alone would be enough but I would not give the ICE issue a pass here.
https://data.census.gov/profile/Congressional_District_17_(116th_Congress),_New_York?g=500XX00US3617#race-and-ethnicity
This isn't the wealthy section of Westchester. But I agree with your overall point.
Fair point on the demographics, but this is still a very wealthy district that includes towns like North Salem, Pound Ridge, Mt Kisco and ranks in the top 20 in median income nationwide. It's also in a high-tax state. So, while I think ICE may resonate here, I don't think it's the pre-eminent issue by any means. That said, if the environment continues to shape up the way I think it is, Lawler is probably done unless we nominate someone really out of the mainstream.
Do you or does anyone else know how Davidson’s district in local legislative government voted in 2020/2024? Trying to get an idea of her political connections/performance as someone outside her district.
This may sound odd, but I actually found myself relieved to hear about Republicans wanting to continue subverting democracy using their existing tools, namely gerrymandering and voter suppression, rather than novel ideas like martial law, ICE conducting social media checks at polling places, etc. Not that we won't see some of that as well, but the focus on current laws and process tells us they are at least planning to stay somewhat within the framework of our democratic structure. I still think this upcoming midterm will be the least free and fair this country has ever had, given the strong desire among MAGA to protect Trump and make this white supremacy movement permanent.
I think the thing people misunderstand about authoritarian political movements and regimes is that they're not purely nihilistic. They usually have principles and lines they typically won't cross, and "elections" in a vague sense are a very American idea. Republicans are generally committed to continuing to hold them as an abstract goal, but they're completely ambivalent about whether or not they're truly competitive.
They also have variant factions, as we’re seeing play out currently; the USSR in particular was famed for this, as was post-Mao China
And we know how things worked out in those countries. Even the Nazis had factions.
It's easier to use the tools people have accepted/failed to stop previously then to jump to Martial law if you want to avoid a backlash.
The rightward drift of south Texas Republicans enabled Rep. Monica De La Cruz to win reelection in 2024 by 14 points. Popular Tejano singer Bobby Pulido's announcement that he was forming an exploratory committee to run against her offers Democrats some hope, though the prospect of a gerrymander of Texas's 17 Congressional District makes any prediction impossible. https://www.texastribune.org/2025/07/24/bobby-pulido-exploratory-committee-congress-south-texas/
"When you’re a star, the Supreme Court lets you do it"
Analysis: SCOTUS is enabling Trump's assault on American institutions
“A couple of months ago, the major concern was what would happen when Trump defied the courts. A more complicated picture is now emerging. One that mixes quiet but unmistakable defiance of court decisions by the Trump administration with encouragement from the six Republican-appointed Justices who sit atop the judicial branch.
“This is an arguably worse scenario, since it provides a veneer of legalism even as it replaces the rule of law with rule by law, where Trump is allowed to determine the nature of that law.“The emerging pattern is that the Trump administration is checked by the lower courts, slow-walks compliance, and sometimes asks SCOTUS for help, which they usually provide via poorly reasoned opinions or no opinions at all. The Supreme Court often does not feel the need to explain what are effectively constitutional amendments that rebalance the separation of powers, feeding perceptions of the court as a partisan actor.”
– Dan Moynihan
https://donmoynihan.substack.com/p/when-youre-a-star-the-supreme-court
https://politicalwire.com/2025/07/24/when-youre-a-star-the-supreme-court-lets-you-do-it/
This is a big part of why we need to expand the court. They're already regularly flouting consistent rule of law and relying on obscurity and issue complexity to avoid major backlash. The next time we hold power they're going to be as partisanly opposed to us as they are partisanly cooperative with Trump today. They will happily whittle away every power we utilize and put up a sign saying "only for republicans."
I'm a bit of an institutionalist and I think the way to do this is to add six seats to the court and give Republicans the choice between term limits and us filling them. It'd destroy the institution if each side just kept packing it every 8 years but we can't constantly unilaterally disarm with Republican fuckery.
I'd be fine with that option. I think on paper it's better. The other day I suggested we do it via a bill with a trigger mechanism. If a constitutional amendment with 18 year term limits passes before a specific date, the legislation is voided. If the amendment doesn't pass, four seats are added to the court and promptly filled.
In practice I expect it's a distinction without a difference. I am deeply skeptical that republicans would ever cooperate, even for a scenario that is better for them.
Ultimately I think we're at the point where rendering SCOTUS into a trifecta hot potato is infinitely better than the current status quo.
Yeah it is, and unfortunately this Court is doing nothing to dissuade us of that notion. If it's just going to function as a branch of government that neuters Democratic Presidents and shrugs at outright authoritarianism by Republican ones there's literally just no incentive for us to maintain the status quo.
They're not shrugging. They've created an imperial executive even Alexander Hamilton would protest.
Every time we/they pack it it would dillute the influence of any individual justice. It's absolutely insane that we only have 9 people in robes making decisions for a nation of 340+ million.
The CA Supreme Court Justice makeup is just seven justices including the Chief Justice, Patricia Guerrero, which at two justices shy of the count in the Supreme Court.
California's population is only 11.5% of the US population per the last Census (may decline a bit due to residents leaving the state since the COVID-19 pandemic and cost of living).
Most certainly we need more than 9 justices on the Supreme Court!
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/state-by-state/california.html
https://www.census.gov/popclock/
63% of Americans think the Supreme Court is led more by politics than following the law. That’s the opening for Democrats to think a little bigger and push for a court expansion in the next trifecta. There is so much that could be accomplished if Democrats as a whole stopped focusing on what’s possible now and started pushing towards the seemingly impossible future.
Just because it hasn’t been done before doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
I'm guessing they wanted Sliwa to look like Superman but he looks like the posters you would see of Che Guevara or Castro in the photo lol. I'd love to know more about that the photo of Mandani addressing this group.
I haven't seen the posters.
The Sliwa poster is in the photo at the top of the digest.
I see what you mean.
WI-Gov: Evers is retiring. Good for him. It might make the seat harder to hold, but on the other hand, it might be easier to win an open seat this cycle than in 2030 and I'd rather have an incumbent running for reelection then. Any thoughts on who might be a strong replacement candidate? https://x.com/mattsmith_news/status/1948428342559973411
Josh Kaul? Secretary of State Sarah Godlewski would be another option, but I think she would be a strong Senate challenger to unseat Ron Johnson in 2028.
I doubt RoJo runs for another term personally
Any particular insight here or just a gut feeling? Do we think him retiring is good or bad for our chances at that seat?
Mostly a gut feeling, but he'll be 74 on election day, he seems a little fed up with politics if some of his news hits on the OBBB are to be taken at face value, and he already broke his term limits pledge once
Term limit pledges are almost always laughable.
Pat Toomey though was a man of his word as he served just two terms in the Senate from 2011-2023.
I’d much rather have an incumbent running in 2030 (redistricting cycle) than have an open seat to defend.
Agree
Ron Kind is the first name that comes to mind. He seems like he wanted to get out of DC and we can save Kaul for the Senate race in 2028. Godlewski seems to have some weird personal baggage like lying about her academic background, not the kind of candidate we need in such important races.
Wasn't that Godlewski academic thing complete micky mouse bullshit?
eh it was in her wedding announcement, it's likely she was at least fudging the truth even if not outright lying about it.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/investigations/daniel-bice/2021/04/12/wisconsin-treasurer-sarah-godlewski-doesnt-have-masters-degree/7156400002/
This stuff seems to fall under IOKIYAR (e.g., Herschel Walker and former MBA claimant Ron Johnson) but it still irritates me. There's little upside to lying/bending the truth about your credentials, and a lot of downside.
Former MBA claimant. hahaha
From what I have read, Johnson bailed out of finishing his MBA degree a semester before he was set to graduate. I don't understand how anyone who gets this close to completing a graduate degree unless there are real unfortunate circumstances that prevent them from doing this.
In Johnson's case, he's just an idiot if he has to spin this the way he's doing.
My guess is that Johnson couldn’t cobble a thesis/capstone together.
One of my classmates in my Master of Music program completed all of his coursework and bailed (for no obvious reason) with only his recital and final research paper remaining. To my knowledge, he never received his degree.
Any of Kaul, Kind (if he wants it) or Godlewski have my vote
Current and former LGs Barnes and Rodriguez would work for me as well as the other names mentioned.
You're not the least bit concerned about Barnes' Senate campaign? I'd rather that someone who's less of a lightning rod would run, if we want them to have a good chance to not only win but win reelection.
A key reason Barnes lost was that the national Dems basically didn't invest in WI, from what I've heard. Barnes barely lost anyway. Though I don't think running a previous losing candidate is usually a good idea anyway so there is that.
He barely lost, but attacks on him were damaging. I'd rather someone else ran this time.
Oh no I agree. I was just saying that he may have had a better shot if the Dems had invested more in this race.
Yes, and if this is a more Democratic-voting electorate.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/07/politics/kfile-mandela-barnes-signaled-support-abolish-ice
Unfortunately the GOP had plenty of material against Barnes and he just struggled to respond it to it effectively. His past comments are still out there on video and I don't see how he does any better refuting it this time.
Right, my thoughts exactly.
Turns out he would have been quite prescient calling for the abolition of ICE. That loss hurt the most.
I'm skeptical its ever going to be a winning issue. It wasn't back in 2018 when the politics around immigration were much more favorable.
Dane County Executive Melissa Agard would be a progressive favorite if she were to run.
I would be very concerned about a Dane County Democrat leading the ticket in Wisconsin come 2026. The rest of the state is very different from Dane County and Republicans can easily tie her to the “Madison liberal” out of touch with the rest of the state smear. There’s a reason our successful statewide Democrats in Wisconsin live almost everywhere except Dane County.
Susan Crawford was from Dane, and she was our big winner this year.
In fairness, though, she grew up in Chippewa Falls and emphasized that on the campaign trail much more than the fact that she was a Dane County judge.
I'm not sure that's the problem in Wisconsin that it can be in other states. Wisconsin seems even more polarized than typical. This is the same state that keeps reelecting Tammy Baldwin at the same time as Ron Johnson.
Before running for senate, Baldwin was rep of WI-02, which is centered around Dane county. It currently has a PVI of D+21, and past results were not substantially different from present results.
If ever there was an opportune time to retire in a statewide seat, now is that damn time. Kudos to Evers. Now new blood can come up and hopefully win the governor's seat to succeed Evers and build their own brand.
Scott Walker tweeted a "Make Wisconsin Great Again" redhat with a winking emoji. Not sure if that's a hint he's going to run, but man I wish he does. A retread loser isn't going to be the best candidate for Republicans.
Scott Walker getting pantsed again would be delightful.
Didn't he receive enough humiliation in 2016 and 2018? Glutton for punishment, apparently.
Walker has always been forever associated with the Tea Party movement back in 2010 and onward. He never fit with MAGA and doesn't have the personality for it even while doing the MAGA dance with that cap. On top of that, he has such a fixation on Ronald Reagan so much that on Reagan's birthday, Walker and his wife have the same kind of dinner that Reagan was known to having (which isn't even much different than what many Americans have for dinner).
Trump pulverized Walker at one of the GOP Presidential Debate over his record on the economy in WI. All Walker had was, "This is a Democratic Party talking point." At least Jeb Bush lasted longer than him!
Thanks to Trump, Walker was out of office two years later.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7B5caksn94
In addition to his horrible politics, Walker is just one WEIRD dude.
Yes, a true and utter snake oil salesman who really is nothing more than that along with weird habits and interests.
I’m neutral about it. I wouldn’t have had a problem with him running. But given his age and that it’s usually tougher to win a third term, I don’t have a problem with him not running.
I'll always be grateful to Evers for administering the coup de grâce to the execrable Scott Walker's political career. (and, of course, for holding the seat in 2022). I wish him a long and happy retirement.
I know we’re all focused on the growing Epstein scandal and enjoying the chaos among Trump’s GOP, but I think we also need to focus on removing blue seat reps who still are unable to realize the barest of basics: Trump lies about everything. If you take his word for something because he said it and that’s “the norm, old school politics, trust what a person says” type thinking, you clearly haven’t paid attention since 2016 changed everything in America.
You are also certainly not ever going to be able to fight the GOP with the ferocity it takes to win in this modern era. These people need to retire or get primaried out, it’s this outdated thinking that still pervades much of our party that is corrosive which makes it so much harder to beat Republicans.
“I was not obsessed with the Jeffrey Epstein case,” said Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts. “I mean, I just assumed all the stuff Trump was saying, that there was no merit to it. But the way he has handled this makes you wonder.”
Even if that’s not what he meant, “it makes you wonder”? Seriously? That’s what you say right now? No wonder voters and our base view our party as weak because our representatives are weak. How about instead saying “Trump and his yes-sir administration will do anything to protect his weak ego, including covering up for rapists and pedophiles by deceiving the American people with lies and propaganda.”
That’s the truth and that’s the kind of clarity and no more BS couching criticism milquetoast pulling punches that our party desperately needs to do to improve our party’s brand.
NYT article: https://archive.ph/jzopf
Get rid of useless Dems like that. It's just that easy.
Given McGovern represents a D+13 House District in MA, a state where no GOP candidate has been able to get elected in the House in decades, we have nothing to lose if another Democratic candidate challenges him in the 2026 primary.
It’s a shame, McGovern did some real good on foreign policy issues in the House. He’s been there too long though, perhaps it is time for a challenger.
I am actually taking a more neutral tone here in this thread re: McGovern but I will say that him being in office for decades has more to do with him having experience in managing politics at the federal level than him being "weak" on action.
Compared to say Chuck Schumer, McGovern is ok. He's quite liberal on many issues and fought hard against Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill when Schumer was capitulating.
Plus, as much as we want to criticize McGovern, he actually has valid points on the 2026 midterms and a pretty good BS detector.
https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/jim-mcgovern-donald-trump-big-beautiful-bill/
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9m6dvm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I think it's important that we remind people about the devastation that these cuts are going to have on our economy and on their lives in particular. But you can't win elections by just being against things," he says. "You have to be for things, and I think Democrats have to focus in on issues of affordability, because life is still hard for a lot of people, not just those who are struggling in poverty, but for the middle class. I mean, food prices are still too high, the cost of living is still too high, and with Trump's tariffs, it might even get worse. You know, we have to offer solutions that are that are realistic, that people believe can actually happen if we win an election, as a way to counter that."
Looks like a redistricting plan (PLANC2203) has been filed in Texas that would attempt to gerrymander an all-Republican U.S. House delegation in Texas, although I've not looked at the full underlying data, but the map and data is here (links to large PDF files are in the link):
https://data.capitol.texas.gov/dataset/planc2203
Keep in mind that any all-GOP map has massive dummymander potential if Texas becomes a swing state.
This is not a plan under serious consideration. It's a public submission made by a conservative user on Twitter. There are 50 of them on the website, and I submitted a plan myself.
Looks like Dooley against Ossoff. GA Ins Commissioner King drops out https://x.com/bluestein/status/1948451113495368133
There are still two members of Congress running, no one has been anointed by their cult leader yet, and that person almost certainly will not be anyone Kemp picks, unless that person already has a massive lead Trump wants to take credit for.
Appears that the VRA may not be quite dead. The Supreme Court w/ Alito, GOrsuch and THomas dissenting just stayed the order of the 8th Circuit which eviscerated the Act by allowing only the DOJ to sue for violations-which will never happen under this DOJ. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/072425zr_o75p.pdf
As with the stays letting Trump fire members of agency commissions without cause, this gives a pretty good indication of which way they’ll go. Imagine that, they might uphold a practice under the VRA that went unchallenged since its creation. Nearly 60 years ago.
Sometimes there’s just nothing to say:
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) admitted Thursday that he made “a mistake” by voting to confirm Josh Divine, a 35-year-old archconservative with a long record of litigation against abortion rights, to a lifetime federal judgeship.
King told HuffPost that he voted Tuesday to confirm Divine after talking to Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who gave Divine “a strong reference.” Divine, who will now serve on a U.S. district court in Missouri, used to be Hawley’s chief counsel.
“I took Josh Hawley’s advice,” said the Maine senator. “In retrospect, I think it was a mistake, from what I’ve learned about Mr. Divine since. But sometimes, you rely on your colleagues.”
Asked if he was aware of Divine’s record on abortion rights, King said, “Not fully.”
King’s vote didn’t change the outcome of Divine’s confirmation, as he already had enough Republican votes to get through. But it’s an embarrassing misstep by the Maine senator,
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/angus-king-mistake-josh-divine-abortion_n_688257c1e4b036c6e7022a68?be
Hawley and the other one held these seats open for the entire Biden administration to make sure they could get someone like this on the bench.
You can add on Senator Jeanne Shaheen to this. She was the lone vote needed today to advance Michael Waltz through the committee (yes, the same idiot who sent classified info by signal) when not all Republicans supported the nominee. The reason? She got $75m of funds released in a deal with the GOP and wanted to help them out as a good will branch. Really? You call that a win? What a joke.
NYT: https://archive.ph/5Zcd4
It’s this type of crap, just give up, roll over and take whatever the GOP does, defer to precedence and the executive bassackwards thinking mostly coming from our older members of Congress that needs to stop. If you don’t support a nominee, don’t help them confirm it! This seems very basic and yet out of reach to understand for our party’s tenured members somehow.
The more I hear and see from our elder, long term representatives the more I come to the conclusion they should all go. Contrast that with Summer Lee, a recently elected progressive who successfully forced a vote on Epstein to make the GOP’s drama even harder for them to avoid fallout from.
The new blood is drawing blood and the old blood is coagulating. They see an America and are used to an America of old: try to work with your opponents, do bipartisan bills, let nominees get confirmed, trust what they say antiquated thought process that has let the GOP run circles around us up until Epstein.
I don’t doubt older members are still physically capable of and healthy enough to continue representing their constituents in office, I do however doubt they have the mindset, fire and understanding to play the modern political game successfully against Republicans.
I don't doubt it in the case of people like Bernie Sanders or Jerry Nadler, nor are all the younger members of Congress doing things right. I think we all agree on the general point, though: it's stupefying or simply corrupt how someone would trust a recommendation from Hawley, of all people, or trade their integrity for a bit of money.
Fortunately Shaheen, at least, is retiring.
Pappas will be a full blown moderate but I don't think he goes to bed at night dreaming up new ways to surrender. And NH is still gonna NH: ideologically he's a good fit for the state. He'll be a huge upgrade from her while still being very moderate.
He's a liberal, a true moderate is a dead breed. I guess anyone to the right of AOC or DSA types is a moderate in todays world.
Pappas is absolutely a moderate dem.
From what I've observed he's not in the difficult-moderate camp, like the above King or Gottheimer. I expect/hope he'll be more like a Tim Kaine style moderate once in the senate. Someone who is not going to push our party to the left but who also is not going to obstruct our party's agenda or being a pain to deal with.
Pappas is also going to be independent in his own way by taking on issues that could otherwise be a liability to Democrats if they are not addressed.
I've mentioned here before about Pappas' efforts to substantially raise the threshold of which sellers on Ebay, Etsy, etc. have in order to be taxed. Frankly, it's a stupid idea for random average joes selling on Ebay to be taxed in the first place unless they are running a full-blown, retail operation or retail store. Apparently, there was a provision in the infrastructure bill back in 2021 that lowered the threshold. I can think of no GOP House member or Senator who would have advocated for this.
Independent thinking is needed, especially if it means telling Democrats they are going too far and they could give ammunition to the GOP to win elections.
These senators like to play stupid, like i'm supposed to believe that king is that naive? A lot of this is probably vote trading, it's all a game to these idiots.
King is in our "new worst" tier of senators, now that Manchin and Sinema are gone. Him being crappy was easy to gloss over before because there were two overwhelmingly worse senators in our caucus at the same time.
I think he was OK for his first two terms. But he ran for reelection at 80 years old and this term was, as far as I'm concerned, a huge mistake on his behalf. But now he definitely seems fine with ignoring how critical this moment of history is.
Makes the gubernatorial election in Maine next year more important too. There's a real chance he won't finish his term due to age.
It could be even worse, though: he could defend his vote instead of admitting to a "mistake". We have to hope he'll be less of a fucking idiot going forward.
Did he admit it or did Huff Post call him out outside his office and he gave some lame excuse?
Regardless, he said it was a mistake.
True, it could be worse. I'm not holding my breath on him being any better, at least so long as republicans hold the senate.
If/when we retake it, if he hasn't retired yet, I assume he'll be less of an idiot if only from fewer opportunities.
King has traditionally been effective as a Senator and a reliable vote in caucusing with Democrats. However, he does have his moments where they can be real f ups.
That said, Democrats have an easier shot at winning the ME-SEN seat if King resigns before he completes his next Senate term.
King isn’t going to be seen like that as long as Fetterman’s around.
Looks like DeSantis is pushing for a gerrymander of Florida's congressional districts, although there are two mitigating factors that exist in Florida that don't exist in Texas: Florida's "fair districts" provision in its state constitution (the current map is about as much of a Republican gerrymander as the fair districts provision will allow), and DeSantis's ongoing feud with Republican state legislators.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/news/content/ar-AA1JeEIY?ocid=sapphireappshare
Yes, the original map preserved the AA North Florida seat. Then DeSantis forced them to eliminate that and draw an even friendlier Republican map.
NY-Redistricting: Hochul cracks the door on a redraw and shows just how bad Jay Jacobs is as party chair in that state. Couldn’t be a clearer contrast.
Politico: https://archive.ph/p7bBj
“All’s fair in love and war. We’re following the rules. We do redistricting every 10 years,” Hochul said during an unrelated event Thursday in Buffalo. “But if there’s other states violating the rules and are trying to give themselves an advantage, all I’ll say is, I’m going to look at it closely with Hakeem Jeffries.”
VS
“I understand those in New York who are watching what’s happening in Texas and Ohio want to offset their unfair advantage,” New York Democratic Chair Jay Jacobs told POLITICO earlier this week. “But I think we need to be careful about democracy, because I’m finding it to be pretty fragile at this time in our history.”
Jacobs added the state constitution ties his party’s hands.
“You don’t change the rules of the game to your advantage just because you can,” Jacobs said. “The constitution seems pretty clear that this redistricting process should be done every 10 years. I don’t know where someone could interpret it as something you can do every two years.”
Jacobs is such a fucking hack, and another terrible legacy of fucking Cuomo!
I remember when Jacobs gave the maximum allowed donation to George Latimer in that campaign. Like, I know Bowman was despised and unpopular, but (at least in my opinion) state party chairs are not supposed to intervene in primaries. (I believe after Bowman lost Jacobs also went on an anti-left tirade too, though I could be thinking of another candidate.) I don't like anyone having the scales tipped for them, whoever they are. Let the voters decide.
I agree. He should have resigned if he wanted to contribute to a primary challenger.
That Jacobs is still party chair says all you need to know about the New York State Democratic Party.
Ok but why would anyone care what the state party chair has to say about it, he's been elected to nothing.
Is it possible in New York, I don't think they have a supermajority anymore?
I think they are 1 or 2 seats short in the senate. They could do it in 2027, though, as I think they will gain seats next year.
A few recent news stories:
IL-7:
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/illinois-playbook/2025/07/24/pritzkers-gerrymander-jab-draws-fire-00473441
Ex-Cook County Commissioner Richard Boykin is planning to announce for the Dem nomination for the seat, with the apparent backing of prominent area businessman Willie Wilson. Looks like Danny Davis is out. I detest Boykin so hopefully someone better will run. Anyone else seem good for the seat?
FL-15:
https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2025/07/24/trump-desantis-lee-abortion-tax-cuts-tariffs-medicare/
Apparently a Democrat is trying again against Republican Rep. Laurel Lee. Former VA doctor Darren McAuley is the one. Highly unlikely we will even come close but I figured I'd mention it anyway since this was a seat we were watching last cycle.
AR-2:
https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/H6AR02286/1905386
Former Dem gubernatorial nominee Chris Jones filed to run against Republican Rep. French Hill here. This one's even less likely to flip, but at R+8 it is somehow the least red district in Arkansas. Depressing.
NJ-11:
https://newjerseyglobe.com/congress/anna-lee-williams-becomes-first-democrat-to-enter-race-for-nj-11/
We've got our first non-Mikie Sherrill candidate for the seat Sherrill may very well vacate (since her chances at winning seem pretty good). Anna Williams, an activist who worked for a digital music company (per the article) and also worked with Make The Road NJ and Vietnamese Boat People. Make the Road are pretty progressive so it seems like she'll run as that. Speaking of Sherrill by the way:
NJ-LG:
https://newjerseyglobe.com/governor/sherrill-selects-dale-caldwell-a-college-president-as-lt-governor-candidate/
It looks like Sherrill picked her lieutenant governor, and not exactly a great one. Dale Caldwell, president of Centenary University, who previously ran charter schools and is little-known in the state. Not exactly a good sign in my opinion.
CA-22, CO-8 (sorry for linking to X, it's where they posted this):
https://x.com/WorkingFamilies/status/1947430505722347837
The progressive Working Families Party endorsed in two swing districts, backing Visalia school board member Randy Villegas in CA-22 (against Republican Rep. David Valadao), and former Colorado Education Association head Amie Baca-Oehlert in CO-8 (against Republican Rep. Gabe Evans). Villegas makes sense to me, from a WFP perpsective, but I'm surprised they didn't back Manny Rutinel in CO-8. Oh well.
Caldwell has a varied background. From New Brunswick in Middlesex County. One of the other finalists also had experience with charter schools. This could present a problem with governing but I don’t it will be an electoral problem. None of the finalists were overly impressive from a political point of view.
https://newjerseyglobe.com/governor/sherrill-selects-dale-caldwell-a-college-president-as-lt-governor-candidate/
Interesting. Thanks for the local insight Paleo!
Jones will be very interesting in AR-02. He definitely outperformed the Democratic baseline when he ran statewide. These are the fringe kind of seats on the peripheral that came into play in 2018 late in the cycle, with some surprise districts flipping blue. Worth a shot. He definitely has the fundraising/grassroots connections to run hard there and make Hill sweat a little at the very least.