187 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Jonathan's avatar

Love to see Nessel run; she's a straight bad ass

Expand full comment
TheDude415's avatar

Yeah, I feel like the best candidates would be her or Whitmer.

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

agreed

Expand full comment
Andrew's avatar

Giiiiirrllllll, I’d donate as much as I can and force all of my friends to donate as well. MN gays for MI lesbians.

I think that’s partly why he’s retiring. This is a good changing of the guard situation.

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

A bit of a surprise. Whitmer would be the strongest possibility. If she’s interested.

Expand full comment
Avedee Eikew's avatar

Yeah, I thought Peters had another term in him and with Stabenow retiring thought he might stick around a bit for seniority reasons. See if Whitmer has any interest if she doesn't want to take the plunge in 28.

Expand full comment
Andrew's avatar

I’m hoping Senators are gaming this out, now. He should run for another term if he wants to but then his next re-election is 2032. He’ll be even older in a Pres year and more likely to want to retire. He’s better off retiring now during what will hopefully be a truly devastating midterm for the GOP.

Expand full comment
Andrew Sidebottom's avatar

That will probably lead to the primary for Governor thinning out.

Expand full comment
UpstateNYer's avatar

Senator Pete??

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

There are stronger candidates than going with a newcomer to the state.

Expand full comment
UpstateNYer's avatar

Sure, but he's got to the best pure politician of the bunch, especially when it comes to interviews and public speaking. Will be an interesting primary to watch

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

Whitmer is a better politician imo(no disrespect to Pete)

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

The realist in me expects her to say "no" to the Senate in 2026 if she has Presidential ambitions. These days for us, the Governors mansions look like better launchpads than the US Senate. Barack Obama was the exception, rather than the rule.

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

Absolutely agree with your comment; exactly my thoughts also

Expand full comment
Andrew's avatar

Yup. She has bigger, more important things to do. Also interesting that DeSantis had a Senate seat he could have set himself up to run for. Didn’t go for it, either.

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

I think DeSantis knew Trump was not going to endorse him

Expand full comment
Jeff Perry's avatar

I assume that Governor Whitmer will run for the Senate since she is term limited.

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

I think she holds off and runs for the Office Which Shall Not Be Named

Expand full comment
Tigercourse's avatar

I think, if she's wise, she'll run for Senate.

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

I am not convinced of this; I think Trump could be historically bad in his 2nd term

Expand full comment
Tigercourse's avatar

I could obviously be wrong, but I think it will be some time before a woman is at the top of the ticket.

Expand full comment
Avedee Eikew's avatar

I'm a little more skeptical/optimistic. I think Clinton and Harris each had their own bad hands to play that hurt them more than their gender but I would agree sexism is a political force/headwind.

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

I think the Harris campaign had divisive ads that really emboldened the male voters to vote for Trump in a way that the Clinton campaign didn't back in 2016.

Putting out an ad where women decide to secretly vote for Harris and don't tell their own husbands about it was one of the dumbest decisions any presidential campaign has ever made. I can see why men thought this was sexist.

Expand full comment
Avedee Eikew's avatar

I feel the opposite Clinton campaign made gender a front and center issue "I'm with her" where as Kamala attempted to downplay it regardless of whatever superpac came up with that ad you referenced.

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

Yeah, that makes sense.

“I’m With Her” also doesn’t take into account the fact that not all women were Clinton supporters or even warming up to her. This wasn’t just with women Trump supporters but certain women Bernie Sanders supporters on the far liberal side. After Bernie lost the Democratic Presidential Nomination, these voters were more inclined to voting Green and felt Jill Stein as a Green Party Presidential Candidate back in 2016 spoke about the social justice issues better for them.

That said, since Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election there have been quite a number of women Democrats being elected to office in the House, Senate and other statewide offices who have emerged as stronger and smarter in their political campaigns than what Clinton did with her’s.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Don't forget that Clinton won the popular vote by over 5,000,000 votes. She "lost" only in the anti-democratic U.S. system, and with various extenuating circumstances we all know about.

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

I'm going to exercise caution with this as Trump was taking the steam away from the 2016 and 2024 presidential races.

A woman presidential candidate might be effective if she were a uniting figure like Barack Obama was in 2008 as long as she would bridge the divide between the polarizing sides.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Remember the circumstances under which the first Black presidential candidate won in the U.S. Trump is popular with a lot of idiots, but he brings chaos, and just as voters voted for a Black man to fix what white men had ruined almost to the point of a new Great Depression, they may well turn to a woman to fix what men ruined in the next 4 years. But either way, I don't see Democratic voters acting on the basis of anyone's sexism in our primary voting.

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

we should certainly hope so; the Democratic party is clearly not perfect, but the current Republican party is evil

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

She could possibly do both.

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

No doubt

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

If national sentiment weren't anti Washington right now, I would agree. It is. Her being a Senator hurts her national ambitions.

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

It’s been “anti-Washington” for as long as I can remember.

Expand full comment
Avedee Eikew's avatar

I think it is less "anti-washington" sentiment that makes this a problem and more just the crunch of having to pivot immediately from a Senate campaign to a presidential campaign and the endless charges from whoever the opponent is saying she will be too busy running for President to do anything for Michigan. If she doesn't want to run in 28 though she should go for it.

Expand full comment
Andrew's avatar

I think you’re both right while throw in a tad of, “Pick a job!” Applying for multiple jobs at once is smart for the job seeker but at this level of competition and as the one deciding, I’d want someone to pick a lane.

Expand full comment
JanusIanitos's avatar

She could, but it's a lot easier to run a national campaign without a day job.

I didn't think she'd run, back when I thought Peters was going to stay in office. Now that that's changed, I have to change my thinking.

My best guess is that it comes down to the balance of her answer on two factors. (1) How badly does she want to stick around in politics if she cannot move up? Is a sideways job change desirable or would she rather retire? Is being a career politician worth it? (2) How strongly does she rate her chance at actually getting that promotion? Is it worth the costs to seeking that promotion if she can guarantee a senate seat?

I already made one wrong guess here, so I won't try making another. But that's what I'd expect the decision points to come down to.

Expand full comment
Andrew's avatar

Those are legit considerations I would have with myself in that position. But, there is one overarching one - Say fuck it all and go for becoming the first female POTUS. If this were Deal or No Deal, this is a no deal!!!

Those of us from the SSP days know her name well. We wanted to her run for Gov in 2010 and she said no, not the time. She said it again in 2014. Both were horrible midterm year elections and she knew to not waste her shine on crappy electoral years.

That woman has a plan and is thinking the long game.

Expand full comment
Jeff Perry's avatar

I guess I was wrong

Expand full comment
Henrik's avatar

He has served his state well.

That does take some pressure off the Gov race primary

Expand full comment
LiberalBuffalo's avatar

Does anyone read his retiring as a sign that he was facing some bad polling?

I have doubts Whitmer wants the job in any case. She seems to like being an executive.

Update: she says no to senate run

Expand full comment
Colin Artinger's avatar

I think his retirement was mostly expected from people behind the scenes. A lot of times, longtime pols retire in a cycle expected to be favorable to their party so they have a better chance at holding a seat. Jerry Costello did that in IL-12 a decade ago.

Expand full comment
LiberalBuffalo's avatar

He's only 66. He could have served several more terms. I'm actually glad he did it to open the pipeline but I'm wondering the reason.

Expand full comment
Colin Artinger's avatar

Yeah, but I think he's just the rare pol who gets out before they're on hospice.

Expand full comment
Henrik's avatar

If anything, people peacing out in their mid-60s after under twenty years in DC should be celebrated!

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

Guy is literally a 'biker dude'; I am betting he just wants to 'ride to live' now; nothing more

Expand full comment
Toiler On the Sea's avatar

I think it's pretty early in the cycle to retire from bad polling.

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

I don't think it's about polling this early

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

I don’t think polling had anything to do with it. It’s not like 2026 was going to be a midterm with a Democrat in the White House.

Expand full comment
Tim Nguyen's avatar

I wonder how much of this is the perceived failures or lack of success of Peters as Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chair in 2022 and 2024. Peters isn't that old, especially for a senator. In fact many individuals in their 70s run for office, especially for senate. He may have some underlying health issues, but barring that this may just be internal pressure to step down. 2026, unless some massive scandal or anomaly happens, should be a very favorable year for Democrats including in the senate and in swing states like Michigan. Perhaps we'll get more details later along with how the MI senate race now plays out.

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

Per Peters, he didn’t want to stay in elected office in Congress forever.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna189579

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

I think Peters did a terrific job at DSCC

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

Failure? They hung on to the senate in 2022 when everyone thought they were going to lose it.

Expand full comment
Tim Nguyen's avatar

I wouldn't call Peters time as senate chair a failure but others from what I've read see it as a failure or "perceived failure." There has been some frustration that the Wisconsin senate election in 2022 was very winnable and Mandela Barnes was neglected due to perceptions of being a weak candidate and thus didn't get nearly enough funding. Many would also point out a very winnable race in PA in 2024 that somehow more could have been done to win. Personally, I don't think Peters was a "failure" though I do think his time in this role was rather lackluster. He's no Howard Dean but he got the job done considering all the chaos in DC. The problem is his "perceived failure" which translates to what the DNC failed to achieve, even if much of that is beyond his control.

Expand full comment
Andrew's avatar

A “perceived failure”. Oh, politics.

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

Barnes was funded; I am tired of such Monday morning quarterbacking (not saying that you are doing it)

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

Frankly, I see problems with the DSCC as not unique to when Peters ran it.

There were problems with the DSCC even back in 2020 when it chose to endorse Sara Gideon's Senate campaign against Senator Susan Collins back in June 2019, months before the primary race was even held. According to Nathan Bernard, a reporter at the worker-owned magazine Mainer (when he was interviewed by CBS News), the DSCC's endorsement of Gideon's campaign killed her chances of unseating Susan Collins.

The DSCC can make plenty of errors. The way to deal with this is to be smart in when the right time to make the investment for a particular campaign. I'd prefer the primary process be dealt with where the Senate candidates themselves run their own campaigns and the DSCC comes in later, not earlier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chUCk-1NVaM

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

All states are different; you have to adjust the strategy depending on the state being analyzed

Expand full comment
JanusIanitos's avatar

Many politicians stick around until they are no longer able to hold office anymore, but not all. He'll be retiring from politics at 68, having served 18 years in elected federal office and 25 years in total elected office.

We're in an era where senators' primary day job is confirming executive nominees and making last minute votes to avoid government shutdowns or debt limit implosions (where all the details are decided by someone else). Why stick around to do boring work that any other decent democrat can do basically the same thing and he can go enjoy retirement?

For this whole decade 2026 is the most promising one for a democrat in a swing seat/state to retire. Obviously we don't know the outcome yet, but nobody does when they're deciding whether or not to retire. It's as good a bet as he can count on to give his successor a better chance of being another democrat.

I think I'd make the same decision if I were him.

Expand full comment
ErrorError