I would like to see ranked choice voting in primaries, since I think it moderates the tendency to elect the most extreme candidate (or an unpopular incumbent) when there are several candidates who have similar ideologies.
I'm not a big fan of runoff elections with a 50% threshold like GA or TX. Races there lead to a lot of runoffs whenever there is 3rd candidate who garners as little as 8 - 10% of the vote.
NC uses 30% as a threshold for runoff elections. We rarely have a runoff unless it is an open seat attracting a lot of candidates. In 2024, when Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson ran for governor, there was a runoff for the GOP slot for Lt. Governor. IIRC, there were 10 or more candidates running in the GOP primary.
Probably the least likely swing state Republican to lose, especially given the money disparity. I'd put Ohio, Iowa, Arizona, Alaska, Georiga all higher on Dems chances to win. Nevada Democrats have a pretty solid lock on the legislature though so Lombardo's power is somewhat limited.
Even though Dems have a seemingly solid lock on the legislature now, it’s still pretty stupid that they keep blocking independent redistricting there. It’s highly unlikely well have a trifecta after 2030 (especially if a Dem is president) and that alone will erase the Dem gerrymandering of the legislature for the 2030s and the current Dem gerrymander of the House districts. We saw in 2014 that is possible for Republicans to win the legislature.
I’d rather have independent redistricting and lock in two safe Dem seats rather than potentially have an R gerrymander that cuts us down to just one House seat (believe me, it can be done) and baconmanders a bunch of suburban Vegas and Reno legislative districts out into the Cow counties so we have a very hard time winning the legislature.
I don’t see what we have to lose by allowing an independent commission to draw the maps in Nevada.
John I respectfully strongly disagree with your logic. You said it's highly unlikely we'll have a trifecta after 2030. Well it's much more unlikely the Republicans will have one. It's not impossible for Republicans to gain control of the Nevada legislature but it's quite tough. The number of safe Dem seats in each body is close to a majority. Republican voters are very geographically concentrated in the Cow Counties. It's probably themost advantageous geographic voter distribution for us in the USA. So your R gerrymander scenario is--in my opinion, and I used to monitor Nevada legislative races professionally--quite unlikely(though not absolutely impossible). Then you went on to say "I don’t see what we have to lose by allowing an independent commission to draw the maps in Nevada". What we have to lose is a US House seat--recall that we currently have THREE from Nevada. So you're conceding a seat to the Reps without real need/reason. I don't live in Nevada but I've worked with Dem operatives there and I think it's very unlikely they'd support this.
We’ll likely lose that third House seat regardless in the 2031 redistricting. Do you think a Republican governor (highly likely, especially if a Dem is President in 2030) is going to sign a map that has three Dem leaning districts?
In pocas palabras as they say in Spanish, a conjectural loss is no reason to concede an actual loss ahead of time. Your scenario concedes a seat under the VERY unlikely scenario that there'll be a Republican trifecta after 2030. IF IF IF there's a Republican governor & a Dem legislature, s/he'll refuse to sign a 3:1 map , probably dropping us to a 2:2 delegation. But that just takes us down to where you'd have put us with the commission. So why give up the seat ahead of time? We don't even KNOW that there will be a Republican governor. So you've conceded a seat for no real benefit. It's an unworthy and quite illogical trade-off in my view. And I'm quite confident NV Dems wouldn't support it. They're the ones after all who went for the max 3:1 map, royally pissing off Dina Titus.She said after the map was drawn "they fucked me over." But it worked! 3:1 baby! Democrats need to do the mirror image of what you said and do MORE aggressive Nevada style maps NOT FEWER in order to combat the ubiquitous Republican gerrymandering where they have control. Trying to play it safe absolutely won't get us a sustainable majority in the US House nationally. [I've done the math, meticulously.] And it's an especially bad idea when it creates sure losses in exchange for extremely hypothetical benefits.
Had we put commissions in place in several states where we had the chance prior to 2010 (OH, NC and WI come to mind), we wouldn’t be stuck with perpetual Republican gerrymanders in NC and OH where there is pretty much no way we can get the legislature or a fair redistricting map for more than a cycle or two or had been stuck with one for nearly 15 years in WI.
Thinking ahead and seeing around the corner is important in politics. Republicans understand this.
I think, in this environment, that Ford will likely win. NV-Gov is exactly the kind of race that will flow with the political environment. A generic D (like Ford) should be favored in a light blue state, even over a relatively popular R like Lombardo.
It'll be close. I could see it being like MN-GOV 2006 though with a very annoying narrow loss between a decently popular Gov. running for reelection against an AG.
It's frustrating that Sisolak got thrown out partly because of the bad economy in NV but Lombardo seems to be doing fine with an even worse economy in NV right now. GOP Govs seem to get a pass on the issues troubling their states. Abbott has been governor for over a decade and continues to be re-elected even with growing affordability issues in Texas.
Dan Moraff, Morris Katz, et al knew about many of the scandals back in August and decided to push Platner anyway, per the WSJ. Notably the tattoo and one of the ex-girlfriends. I’m just going to assume any candidate who hires them going forward is going to be a disaster.
There is a (small, but still too large) faction of people who very fervently believe that the only thing wrong with Trumpism is the choice of ideology. That a leftist Trump would be an unqualified good thing.
I can't scream loudly enough how much I disagree with this, both tactically and morally.
We have to grapple with the fact that the growing radicalization of the left (just as it happened with the right) is simultaneously creating a cult-like "blue MAGA" group that we must also distinguish from progressive politics.
As a progressive, I understand the movement is prone to a Trump-like Manchurian Candidate that won't serve the interests of the people and is instead hanging on to progressive policies for political gain. Graham Platner is one of those men.
You make good points. Maybe it's wrong to put labels on people of being "blue MAGA" in the first place, since it doesn't actually exist in a form the current MAGA movement does. But there is a difference between the likes of Sanders, Mamdani, etc. and the Platners of this world that we on the left should be weary of.
Agreed. With recognition that the GOP has proven very, very adept at "picking at the scabs"at various points of our coalition. Have to be extremely diligent on watch.
A lot of that “Blue MAGA” group have a very vested interest in not being distinguished from progressivism by Dem base voters and will fight that tooth and nail, and they’re the ones too who are trying to create a sentiment that they absolutely may not be questioned or criticized at the risk of your career
This might be the single best analysis I've read of Platner, why his campaign and especially his most fervent backers seemed different from the other leftwing DSA candidacies we've seen, why the bro-left and alt-left seemed so invested in him: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/gender-graham-crackup/
Written last month, after the NYT article but well before this week's revelations. Much more salient now...Matt Stoller's turn of phrase "Dem HR Lady politics" is going to rattle around in my brain for awhile, so revealing. The tent is big but these guys need to be yeeted out of the party.
Not yeeted, but told to shut the fuck up and learn why they were so wrong despite women getting the hibbity jibbities about this dude.
When I told my pretty normie lib wife about Platner, she said “oh, so he is someone where alcohol is at the center of every negative story. There’s more there, just ask the women in his life.” This should be a humbling experience.
And that faction would grow, not ebb, if a Democratic version of Trump was to materialize. The attainment and retention of power is enough to make people (perhaps a majority) justify almost anything. I don't see us behaving much differently than Mike Johnson or John Cornyn in abusing it if and when the time comes for the shoe to be on the other foot.
That was the most sobering/depressing reality check for me throughout this ordeal. Maybe we’re not so different from the MAGA cult as we like to believe.
I’m glad rape was that red line, but fuck, there were other things that I thought were red lines that we blew right on past.
That's certainly possible, and it's why it's so dangerous that the President of the U.S. has unconstitutionally been given dictatorial powers. The next Democratic president may need to use some of them to quickly deal with the wreckage of the Trump Administration, but they are like the Ring of Sauron.
i supported platner because he and troy had joint rallies, and I could not be a bigger troy jackson fan. I got suckered in myself. I admit I held on to my support too long, especially reading that politico story, it made me sick that'd I'd supported this man. Absolutely gut wrenching.
The thing that makes me most mad about all of this is the mention of a 2024 public facebook post that apparently listed many of graham's trangsgressions, including rape victim blaming on the internet, and still the bozos thought they'd use this as their avatar for a new form of politics?
I'm in the same boat as you. I was willing to forgive the tattoo and social media comments due to his military service PTSD and previous mental issues but am very upset that some on his team seemed to know about the SA allegations and continued to support him. Nevermind the candidate himself.
I think Dan Osborn hired Katz. I hope nothing comes out about him, although I doubt he will receive anywhere close to the level of media scrutiny Platner did, unless he wins.
I seem to remember Summer Lee (possible primary challenger to Fetterman in 2028, although there are other possible primary challenges to Fetterman if he runs for re-election as a Democrat) firing one of the two. I seem to remember it being Moraff who was fired by Lee, but I'm not sure.
Although anyone who says they support “expanding Medicare” gives me pause — that usually is a meaningless buzzword that translates to “I oppose universal healthcare”, although given his ostensible support for universal healthcare who knows.
Gilchrest has absolutely no chance of winning nor does Ruth Fortune, who petitioned her way onto the ballot. They're going to hurt Bronin, who is the most prominent anti-Larson candidate. They're thinking is that Gilchrest is setting herself up for a run in 2028 when Larson retires.
ME-Sen: Former CDC director Nirav Shah, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows and congressional staffer Jordan Wood, who all ran for other offices this cycle, are in for this special Democratic nomination process.
They join former state Sen. Troy Jackson, businessman Dan Kleban and social worker Paige Loud, who also ran for office this cycle.
Jackson is probably the favorite for the nomination, and I'm honestly excited for his candidacy.
Jackson would be a strong candidate and if he gets the nomination it'll probably be the best I'll feel about this race since before Platner's first scandals came out
As they do in most places. This should be as close to a shoe-in for Troy Jackson as possible, which thank god. What a crisis averted at the last possible minute to get our best potential candidate the whole time.
Probably just comes from an intrinsic worry that party leaders will *always* pick the worst/most unappealing option possible
But I feel pretty confident about Jackson's chances here. His name seems to be the one circulating around the most and I feel like the state party would be more receptive to what voters wanted and still want compared to national Democrats like Schumer
Not all, but many progressives see us as a group that has been unfairly kept out of power by major officials. That feeling has gotten worse with them in recent years. Even cases where progressives win can still trigger this feeling, like NYC's mayoral primary, as there was a strong effort to support Cuomo because officials didn't like Mamdani.
To a lot of that group, anything that doesn't create an obvious progressive advantage is something they will worry about.
As a progressive myself I don't agree with them on that, but that's very likely what's causing some of them to be nervous.
1) Jackson - palatable to entire coalition, realistic chance to win, probably minimizes "conspiratorial" backlash working (on the sly or out and proud) against him.
2) Kleban - outsider-y enough to look deferential to the people energized by Platner's campaign, but complete unknown (and the Mills endorsement could hurt him significantly)
3) Bellows - palatable to the entire coalition, but lost to Collins before (and being a woman will agitate the "conspiratorial" element a bit more than I find prudent under the circumstances).
4) Wood - Don't see a realistic path to victory unless the wave is massive.
5) Shah - The other candidates in the Gubernatorial race all seemed to team up against him, bad sign for unity across the coalition (and being not-white will agitate the "conspiratorial" element a bit more than I find prudent under the circumstances)..
Definitely the closest style fit and known issue profile. The only reason I see not to pick him is that people who've seen him up close know/see something wrong that I don't. Can't rule it out, but I sure hope not the case (this whole situation is a complete minefield, in every direction).
It seems like he’s been really reluctant to leave Maine for a long time despite entreaties to run for federal office over several cycles including this one so I think earlier questions about his heart being in it are fair
I don't agree with this and I know Troy personally(we hung out together at the Democratic National Convention in 2016). He's not a TV star like the "McDreamy" guy, but he's sincere,engaged & engaging and very likable, at least to me. He's also super non-pretentious(maybe the least pretentious politico I've ever met, and I've met hundreds). Just a very real dude(he's a logger, NOT the owner of a logging company). That's charisma of a sort, albeit in a low key way. I may temporarily migrate from my home in the New Mexico mountains to volunteer on his campaign. He'd be an absolute difference maker in the Senate, like Bernie but with (much less) irascibility and (much more) humility than Bernie.
Two great students that I recall from a one-year teaching position in Spokane were loggers who had come back to school. One would take books in his pack when he was working, while some of his colleagues were hauling beer. He had back issues but still did some tree work while in school, as did the other student. Many times, older, "returning" students are the best because they value education.
He's an outsider, both politically but also natively, which probably hurts his chances against someone like Jackson. Given that the more establishment oriented candidates in the governor's race, Pingree and Bellows, opted to co-endorse Troy Jackson over Shah, I would guess he's probably not super well liked among the party establishment
I don't think any attention should be paid to the "conspiratorial element". The best candidate who is willing to run should be picked, not the one who isn't a woman and isn't non-white. To be clear, I buy the idea that Jackson is the best available candidate, but the idea that the Democratic Party should discriminate against more than half the population for some stupid political reason is abhorrent.
The morality of your statement is 100% correct, and as a WASP dude from North Cakalaky, I was more than a bit ashamed to list the "minimize conspiracy" factors above. I am just nervous as all get-out right now. Suspect the Maine Dems are feeling similar heat, and just want to avoid pissing anyone off/creating an even bigger shitshow.
Is there a subtext to this remark? I don't disagree with it, but I don't understand why you thought it was a response to my remark. What does it have to do with whether a candidate is a man or woman, white or non-white?
Completely agree that in a vacuum Jackson is the best candidate but isn't there a concern here that Jackson being so tight with Platner will make it easy for Republicans to tar him with the same brush? "You supported this guy 100% when you knew/should have known/didn't care to find out"?
Shah seems competent, likeable and got the most votes in the Gov primary before ranked choice, I'd have him above everyone but Jackson here.
I don't think it will be an effective attack, but I think you would have had to be an idiot to endorse Platner or think he should be a Senator. Long before the rapes were officially known about.
I'm not sure if Paige Loud is old enough to run for U.S. Senate this cycle; she's 29 years old, and I'm not sure if she'll turn 30 before January 3rd of next year.
Apparently it's happened before that an elected candidate just waits until their 30th birthday to take the oath of office... but for obvious reasons given the potential for needing every senator seated in order to form a majority (if the chips fall our way) that is not ideal...
I know Minnesota's conventions have been so strongly left-wing in recent years that Angie Craig completely declined to participate in the convention in this year's Senate race there (as the primary, not the convention, officially decides the nomination) and a far-left candidate got 30% or so of the convention vote against Amy Klobuchar in the gubernatorial race.
I would guess that Maine's convention, which is using what appears to be a similar delegate selection process to what Wisconsin Democrats use for their conventions to elect state party officers, will be not quite as favorable to progressives as Minnesota's conventions, but more favorable to progressives than the conventions in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Ok, this could have been worse. But still, this case has bothered me. When I was following the actual trial, it was really looking like the prosecution's case was shoddy, and Dugan was actually acquitted on one of the counts, but the reasoning behind the other count ending in guilty was illogical in some arcane way. So legally it was questionable...
...but beyond that, it was very disturbing that after the initial attention this got from resistance-minded folks, the story soon faded into the background and rather than being treated as an overzealous government silencing resistors, it just faded into the background. (And the trial happened, if I remember the timing correctly, before the ICE invasion of Minnesota, so it's not as if that was overshadowing it at the time).
It sucks, because Dugan was clearly willing to take a risk to protect people but the suspect ended up being detained by ICE anyway, and the Trump admin still persecuted her anyway.
Any possibility of an appeal? Also, the link is messed up and is showing me this article from June 26, 2022: "Biden kicks off G7 summit with focus on Ukraine, global economy".
An appeal actually has a very strong chance. There is a circuit split as to the required acts and intent. There is a strong argument that the government failed to prove she impeded an "official proceeding" as required for the conviction
I seem to remember the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the attempted putschists who invaded the Capitol effectively couldn't be charged under that statute, although they obviously tried to and did impede an official proceeding.
The Mitch McConnell situation's total lack of transparency is completely unacceptable in a free, open, democratic republic like this. Its not fucking Turkmenistan, the public should be able to know the status of one of the top 500 most powerful people in the country, that holds a public, elected, taxpayer funded office. Same goes for Tom Kean's "I'm just gonna fall off the face of the earth for months" whole thing. Utterly unacceptable and infuriating.
And whatever vetting, background check/investigation process the Dem party and its wings has at the federal and state levels needs to be completely overhauled if there is one, I am tired of finding massive flaws in our candidates only after oppo research starts. As one of the two big parties, the Dems need to cover their ass FAR better than they are now, before they give prospective candidates like Platner national endorsements, air time, and money. Here's hoping Troy Jackson can salvage this debacle.
The three political consultants (Maine outsiders) who recruited Platner to run opted not to spend the money on an in-depth background check. We need to look at the role of these professional campaign people who seem focused on pulling off amazing wins rather than on candidate quality.
In Independent Voter News, Senate Candidate Brian Bengs explains the reason why he is running as an Independent this time as opposed to being a Democratic Candidate back in 2022 running against Senator John Thune:
He got real pushback from SD voters over being a Democrat. It was toxic enough that he couldn't get much leverage over voters even if he stood firmly for getting money out of politics and improving anti-trust laws.
Now as an Independent Senate candidate, it's a whole different ballgame for Bengs. He's gotten closer in the polls and has even raised $666,000, which is $456,000 more than Democratic Candidate Julian Beaudion.
"Bengs is running against two-term Republican Sen. Mike Rounds. Rounds has raised $3.9 million this cycle and carried $2.7 million cash on hand through May 13, per FEC filings. Bengs has raised $666,000 with $58,000 cash on hand. Democrat Julian Beaudion rounds out the field with $210,000 raised and $3,000 cash on hand. South Dakota has approximately 600,000 registered voters, split roughly 51% Republican, 23% Democrat, and 26% independent. The state has been a Republican stronghold in federal races for decades.
In head-to-head polling between Rounds (Republican) and Beaudion (Democrat), the incumbent handily wins 56-31. But a head-to-head between Rounds and Bengs tells a different story: 44-40, a race within the margin of error, and with Bengs’ name recognition lower than the incumbent’s.
The same polling has the three-way general at 43-23-18, with Bengs running 5 points ahead of the Democrat—a gap that is the foundation of his argument that he, not Beaudion, is the viable path for the roughly 29% of South Dakotans who want a change. While it needs to be noted that the poll in question was sponsored by Bengs, no one—including Beaudion—has released a poll with different results."
"Bengs describes himself as a lifelong independent, outside of his brief stint as a Democrat to run for Senate in 2022. On that experience, Bengs in unequivocal: "I would never run as a Democrat again. That was my takeaway. The whole experience from the ‘22 race was soul sucking and exhausting."
He describes a scene that repeated itself throughout that campaign: approaching voters at parades and county fairs, including people in Trump hats, introducing himself as a candidate, and telling them he could guarantee they'd agree on at least two, probably three things. He'd run down the list—big money controls politics, healthcare should be affordable, Congress needs term limits—and they'd nod along. "Generally it was all three. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's good." Then he'd ask for their vote in November. "And the first words out of their mouth were: So what are you?
When he said he was running as a Democrat, the conversation ended. "I'll never vote for a Democrat. Sometimes there was an expletive in there. The takeaway was that the letter was more important than what I was saying. The ideas that they agreed with me on did not matter so much as what team are you playing for, what jersey do you have."
posts like these make me miss when howard dean ran the dnc, the atrophying of state parties everywhere has cascading consequences, as i'm sure we are all aware
not disputing that, but the fact that in so many portions of the great plains we are running democrats as independents because the brand is so bad, just speaks to years of neglect by national party starting with kaine chairmanship of dnc.
What do you mean? Popular opinion from residents in states like SD as far as how the Democratic Party is perceived there?
I think we should take into account the fact that SD as well as ND are largely rural farming states. They have far less cities than states like CA, FL, NY or even TX. It was always going to be a challenge to get traction at the presidential level in ND and SD to begin with.
Rural parts of the U.S. were moving away from Democrats for some time long before even Obama was first elected as POTUS.
PPP has been what has shown the SD-SEN race to be more competitive although in most cases with polling (not just PPP), when it comes to facing Mike Rounds, Bengs is still in a 3-way race.
Given Beaudion is still running as a Democratic candidate, that complicates Bengs getting enough of the margin of the percentage of votes vs. Rounds. Otherwise, if you look at this being Bengs vs. Rounds (without Beaudion in), that's when it changes. The NY Times shows the PPP data as cited in Independent Voter News.
Left-wing activists have tried to convince Beaudion to drop out of the race as they've seen Bengs to have a clearer shot against Rounds in a two-way race.
AZ-4 - A group called Young Democrats of Arizona has revoked its endorsement of Kai Newkirk, the Democratic primary challenger to Greg Stanton, citing "concerning patterns of behavior" by Newkirk, but the organization did not go into any specifics on what the concerning patterns of behavior are.
Honestly, I'm glad progressives are doing vetting now. I know everyone here doesn't like DAC or Melat Kiros, so I'll note that proper vetting may prevent future DACs and Kiroses, and lead to more Brad Landers or Claire Valdezes or Troy Jacksons instead.
Perhaps. I will admit I’m a little nervous about DAC — I don’t like her Ukraine positions. I do concede that there is not a complete lack of left vetting though. (I am a progressive, for what it’s worth. I got started in politics partially through Bernie’s 2016 bid and my opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership, which is how I found Bernie to begin with. I’ve voted progressive pretty consistently for years. I just try to also be pragmatic where needed, as in, voting blue consistently.)
The fact it’s only starting “now” as if it’s a novel concept is so funny to me. If only it didn’t have dire consequences for an absolutely critical election.
I do agree that this should have been a consideration before, but better now than not at all. Imagine if the left just decided to ram Platner through anyway, and how bad that would be. I’m glad we’re learning now, it will stop this from getting worse later.
It's not like non-progressives have a substantially better track record on vetting.
Cal Cunningham and Eric Swalwell jump to mind as candidates that got by with seemingly zero vetting. Andrew Cuomo is even worse as the vetting didn't even need to occur -- his problems were openly known to any and all -- and he still received establishment support.
I misremembered the thing that concerned me about Kiros. Her poor response to “was the Boulder attack antisemitic” wasn’t necessarily something a background check could have prevented. Apologies.
I don't know if he's the only one. If Maine voters are prepared to vote against Susan Collins, any decent candidate would do the job. Otherwise, she will win again.
AP calls the CO-gov primary for Victor Marx. I think dems have a shot in CO-05 (and maybe even CO-04 if Douglas county republicans really can’t stomach Marx) with him as the nominee.
Man, sometimes I just love Republicans for being so comically villainous and dumb at the same time. Thanks for winning us a likely supermajority in the legislature and 1-4 US House seats, CO GOP!
Boebert might just be that bad to lose the 4th if Republicans are losing the gubernatorial race by 30 points…
Maybe I’m getting too greedy. I just remember the gift of Mark Robinson that saved my home state party a lot of races down the ballot in what would have been a bad year.
Need Evers to show some leadership here and endorse someone already.
I would like to see ranked choice voting in primaries, since I think it moderates the tendency to elect the most extreme candidate (or an unpopular incumbent) when there are several candidates who have similar ideologies.
I'm not a big fan of runoff elections with a 50% threshold like GA or TX. Races there lead to a lot of runoffs whenever there is 3rd candidate who garners as little as 8 - 10% of the vote.
NC uses 30% as a threshold for runoff elections. We rarely have a runoff unless it is an open seat attracting a lot of candidates. In 2024, when Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson ran for governor, there was a runoff for the GOP slot for Lt. Governor. IIRC, there were 10 or more candidates running in the GOP primary.
Be nice if Ford ousted Lombardo.
Probably the least likely swing state Republican to lose, especially given the money disparity. I'd put Ohio, Iowa, Arizona, Alaska, Georiga all higher on Dems chances to win. Nevada Democrats have a pretty solid lock on the legislature though so Lombardo's power is somewhat limited.
Arizona is a likely hold, not a gain. But agreed, I think Nevada flips after all the above.
Even though Dems have a seemingly solid lock on the legislature now, it’s still pretty stupid that they keep blocking independent redistricting there. It’s highly unlikely well have a trifecta after 2030 (especially if a Dem is president) and that alone will erase the Dem gerrymandering of the legislature for the 2030s and the current Dem gerrymander of the House districts. We saw in 2014 that is possible for Republicans to win the legislature.
I’d rather have independent redistricting and lock in two safe Dem seats rather than potentially have an R gerrymander that cuts us down to just one House seat (believe me, it can be done) and baconmanders a bunch of suburban Vegas and Reno legislative districts out into the Cow counties so we have a very hard time winning the legislature.
I don’t see what we have to lose by allowing an independent commission to draw the maps in Nevada.
John I respectfully strongly disagree with your logic. You said it's highly unlikely we'll have a trifecta after 2030. Well it's much more unlikely the Republicans will have one. It's not impossible for Republicans to gain control of the Nevada legislature but it's quite tough. The number of safe Dem seats in each body is close to a majority. Republican voters are very geographically concentrated in the Cow Counties. It's probably themost advantageous geographic voter distribution for us in the USA. So your R gerrymander scenario is--in my opinion, and I used to monitor Nevada legislative races professionally--quite unlikely(though not absolutely impossible). Then you went on to say "I don’t see what we have to lose by allowing an independent commission to draw the maps in Nevada". What we have to lose is a US House seat--recall that we currently have THREE from Nevada. So you're conceding a seat to the Reps without real need/reason. I don't live in Nevada but I've worked with Dem operatives there and I think it's very unlikely they'd support this.
We’ll likely lose that third House seat regardless in the 2031 redistricting. Do you think a Republican governor (highly likely, especially if a Dem is President in 2030) is going to sign a map that has three Dem leaning districts?
In pocas palabras as they say in Spanish, a conjectural loss is no reason to concede an actual loss ahead of time. Your scenario concedes a seat under the VERY unlikely scenario that there'll be a Republican trifecta after 2030. IF IF IF there's a Republican governor & a Dem legislature, s/he'll refuse to sign a 3:1 map , probably dropping us to a 2:2 delegation. But that just takes us down to where you'd have put us with the commission. So why give up the seat ahead of time? We don't even KNOW that there will be a Republican governor. So you've conceded a seat for no real benefit. It's an unworthy and quite illogical trade-off in my view. And I'm quite confident NV Dems wouldn't support it. They're the ones after all who went for the max 3:1 map, royally pissing off Dina Titus.She said after the map was drawn "they fucked me over." But it worked! 3:1 baby! Democrats need to do the mirror image of what you said and do MORE aggressive Nevada style maps NOT FEWER in order to combat the ubiquitous Republican gerrymandering where they have control. Trying to play it safe absolutely won't get us a sustainable majority in the US House nationally. [I've done the math, meticulously.] And it's an especially bad idea when it creates sure losses in exchange for extremely hypothetical benefits.
Had we put commissions in place in several states where we had the chance prior to 2010 (OH, NC and WI come to mind), we wouldn’t be stuck with perpetual Republican gerrymanders in NC and OH where there is pretty much no way we can get the legislature or a fair redistricting map for more than a cycle or two or had been stuck with one for nearly 15 years in WI.
Thinking ahead and seeing around the corner is important in politics. Republicans understand this.
I think, in this environment, that Ford will likely win. NV-Gov is exactly the kind of race that will flow with the political environment. A generic D (like Ford) should be favored in a light blue state, even over a relatively popular R like Lombardo.
i generally agree, and for that reason have been giving money to ford here and there. But his numbers have stagnated for roughly a year now
Dunno, even in a wave, some people hang on.
It'll be close. I could see it being like MN-GOV 2006 though with a very annoying narrow loss between a decently popular Gov. running for reelection against an AG.
It's frustrating that Sisolak got thrown out partly because of the bad economy in NV but Lombardo seems to be doing fine with an even worse economy in NV right now. GOP Govs seem to get a pass on the issues troubling their states. Abbott has been governor for over a decade and continues to be re-elected even with growing affordability issues in Texas.
Dan Moraff, Morris Katz, et al knew about many of the scandals back in August and decided to push Platner anyway, per the WSJ. Notably the tattoo and one of the ex-girlfriends. I’m just going to assume any candidate who hires them going forward is going to be a disaster.
https://on.wsj.com/4eSWVP6
There is a (small, but still too large) faction of people who very fervently believe that the only thing wrong with Trumpism is the choice of ideology. That a leftist Trump would be an unqualified good thing.
I can't scream loudly enough how much I disagree with this, both tactically and morally.
It’s absolutely maddening
I'm just grateful for this place, helping me feel slightly more sane (ie, that I am not the only one who hears this and recoils)
We have to grapple with the fact that the growing radicalization of the left (just as it happened with the right) is simultaneously creating a cult-like "blue MAGA" group that we must also distinguish from progressive politics.
As a progressive, I understand the movement is prone to a Trump-like Manchurian Candidate that won't serve the interests of the people and is instead hanging on to progressive policies for political gain. Graham Platner is one of those men.
You make good points. Maybe it's wrong to put labels on people of being "blue MAGA" in the first place, since it doesn't actually exist in a form the current MAGA movement does. But there is a difference between the likes of Sanders, Mamdani, etc. and the Platners of this world that we on the left should be weary of.
Agreed. With recognition that the GOP has proven very, very adept at "picking at the scabs"at various points of our coalition. Have to be extremely diligent on watch.
100%. I think I was the one who caused a controversy months ago by referring to the Platner excuse-making as “Blue MAGA,” but I stand by it.
A lot of that “Blue MAGA” group have a very vested interest in not being distinguished from progressivism by Dem base voters and will fight that tooth and nail, and they’re the ones too who are trying to create a sentiment that they absolutely may not be questioned or criticized at the risk of your career
(I’m referring to Piker here if that isn’t clear)
This might be the single best analysis I've read of Platner, why his campaign and especially his most fervent backers seemed different from the other leftwing DSA candidacies we've seen, why the bro-left and alt-left seemed so invested in him: https://www.liberalcurrents.com/gender-graham-crackup/
Written last month, after the NYT article but well before this week's revelations. Much more salient now...Matt Stoller's turn of phrase "Dem HR Lady politics" is going to rattle around in my brain for awhile, so revealing. The tent is big but these guys need to be yeeted out of the party.
Not yeeted, but told to shut the fuck up and learn why they were so wrong despite women getting the hibbity jibbities about this dude.
When I told my pretty normie lib wife about Platner, she said “oh, so he is someone where alcohol is at the center of every negative story. There’s more there, just ask the women in his life.” This should be a humbling experience.
So that's where Stoller ended up. He occasionally wrote some interesting things on Open Left.
And that faction would grow, not ebb, if a Democratic version of Trump was to materialize. The attainment and retention of power is enough to make people (perhaps a majority) justify almost anything. I don't see us behaving much differently than Mike Johnson or John Cornyn in abusing it if and when the time comes for the shoe to be on the other foot.
That was the most sobering/depressing reality check for me throughout this ordeal. Maybe we’re not so different from the MAGA cult as we like to believe.
I’m glad rape was that red line, but fuck, there were other things that I thought were red lines that we blew right on past.
I mean he is out as the nominee and being replaced so I don't think we are there yet.
That's certainly possible, and it's why it's so dangerous that the President of the U.S. has unconstitutionally been given dictatorial powers. The next Democratic president may need to use some of them to quickly deal with the wreckage of the Trump Administration, but they are like the Ring of Sauron.
i supported platner because he and troy had joint rallies, and I could not be a bigger troy jackson fan. I got suckered in myself. I admit I held on to my support too long, especially reading that politico story, it made me sick that'd I'd supported this man. Absolutely gut wrenching.
The thing that makes me most mad about all of this is the mention of a 2024 public facebook post that apparently listed many of graham's trangsgressions, including rape victim blaming on the internet, and still the bozos thought they'd use this as their avatar for a new form of politics?
I'm in the same boat as you. I was willing to forgive the tattoo and social media comments due to his military service PTSD and previous mental issues but am very upset that some on his team seemed to know about the SA allegations and continued to support him. Nevermind the candidate himself.
I think Dan Osborn hired Katz. I hope nothing comes out about him, although I doubt he will receive anywhere close to the level of media scrutiny Platner did, unless he wins.
I seem to remember Summer Lee (possible primary challenger to Fetterman in 2028, although there are other possible primary challenges to Fetterman if he runs for re-election as a Democrat) firing one of the two. I seem to remember it being Moraff who was fired by Lee, but I'm not sure.
FL-SEN, CT-01:
https://workingfamilies.org/candidates/
Buried in here, but the Working Families Party is backing Angie Nixon for Florida’s U.S. Senate race, and incumbent Rep. John Larson in CT-01.
I wonder why not Jillian Gilchrest in the latter race. Maybe they know she probably won't win.
Was wondering that myself. I like Gilchrest but I don’t think she’ll win.
If it means anything, Bronin, in spite of taking tech money (I’ve heard), is a universal healthcare supporter.
https://www.broninforcongress.com/issues/protecting-medicare-medicaid-and-pushing-for-universal-healthcare?source=025257b0-f7cf-4084-8c6d-42e581619ed8
Although anyone who says they support “expanding Medicare” gives me pause — that usually is a meaningless buzzword that translates to “I oppose universal healthcare”, although given his ostensible support for universal healthcare who knows.
Gilchrest has absolutely no chance of winning nor does Ruth Fortune, who petitioned her way onto the ballot. They're going to hurt Bronin, who is the most prominent anti-Larson candidate. They're thinking is that Gilchrest is setting herself up for a run in 2028 when Larson retires.
In that case, hard disagree with working families.
https://www.bangordailynews.com/2026/07/09/politics/elections/maine-election-senate-nirav-shah-campaign-graham-platner-replacement/
ME-Sen: Former CDC director Nirav Shah, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows and congressional staffer Jordan Wood, who all ran for other offices this cycle, are in for this special Democratic nomination process.
They join former state Sen. Troy Jackson, businessman Dan Kleban and social worker Paige Loud, who also ran for office this cycle.
Jackson is probably the favorite for the nomination, and I'm honestly excited for his candidacy.
Jackson would be a strong candidate and if he gets the nomination it'll probably be the best I'll feel about this race since before Platner's first scandals came out
No word yet on the process?
If anything, conventions probably favor progressives here.
As they do in most places. This should be as close to a shoe-in for Troy Jackson as possible, which thank god. What a crisis averted at the last possible minute to get our best potential candidate the whole time.
I’m not so sure. Jackson would be the strongest candidate and he’s my choice. But I have no idea how it will play out.
Yeah I was gonna say I’d rather be Jackson than anyone else at a convention. Are they “nervous” because they don’t get a total veto or something?
Probably just comes from an intrinsic worry that party leaders will *always* pick the worst/most unappealing option possible
But I feel pretty confident about Jackson's chances here. His name seems to be the one circulating around the most and I feel like the state party would be more receptive to what voters wanted and still want compared to national Democrats like Schumer
I would think even hyper establishment types know they can’t piss off the progressive base that came out for Platner
If "leaders" were allowed to pick a candidate at the start of the cycle, they probably would've picked Jackson
Not all, but many progressives see us as a group that has been unfairly kept out of power by major officials. That feeling has gotten worse with them in recent years. Even cases where progressives win can still trigger this feeling, like NYC's mayoral primary, as there was a strong effort to support Cuomo because officials didn't like Mamdani.
To a lot of that group, anything that doesn't create an obvious progressive advantage is something they will worry about.
As a progressive myself I don't agree with them on that, but that's very likely what's causing some of them to be nervous.
I would order them like this:
1) Jackson - palatable to entire coalition, realistic chance to win, probably minimizes "conspiratorial" backlash working (on the sly or out and proud) against him.
2) Kleban - outsider-y enough to look deferential to the people energized by Platner's campaign, but complete unknown (and the Mills endorsement could hurt him significantly)
3) Bellows - palatable to the entire coalition, but lost to Collins before (and being a woman will agitate the "conspiratorial" element a bit more than I find prudent under the circumstances).
4) Wood - Don't see a realistic path to victory unless the wave is massive.
5) Shah - The other candidates in the Gubernatorial race all seemed to team up against him, bad sign for unity across the coalition (and being not-white will agitate the "conspiratorial" element a bit more than I find prudent under the circumstances)..
Comment deleted for violating our rules on not discussing Israeli-Palestinian issues. Please read our rules of the road: https://www.the-downballot.com/p/the-downballots-community-rules-of
Jackson’s the one who can carry on Platner’s message.
Definitely the closest style fit and known issue profile. The only reason I see not to pick him is that people who've seen him up close know/see something wrong that I don't. Can't rule it out, but I sure hope not the case (this whole situation is a complete minefield, in every direction).
It seems like he’s been really reluctant to leave Maine for a long time despite entreaties to run for federal office over several cycles including this one so I think earlier questions about his heart being in it are fair
True. He jumped in so quickly this week that I pretty much forgot about that factor.
I think it is just a lack of charisma. Jackson is great, and I hope he wins. But he has the star power of a decent slice of sourdough toast
I don't agree with this and I know Troy personally(we hung out together at the Democratic National Convention in 2016). He's not a TV star like the "McDreamy" guy, but he's sincere,engaged & engaging and very likable, at least to me. He's also super non-pretentious(maybe the least pretentious politico I've ever met, and I've met hundreds). Just a very real dude(he's a logger, NOT the owner of a logging company). That's charisma of a sort, albeit in a low key way. I may temporarily migrate from my home in the New Mexico mountains to volunteer on his campaign. He'd be an absolute difference maker in the Senate, like Bernie but with (much less) irascibility and (much more) humility than Bernie.
Thanks for all of that! Has he indeed recently worked as a logger?
Great piece of personal insight - thanks!
Two great students that I recall from a one-year teaching position in Spokane were loggers who had come back to school. One would take books in his pack when he was working, while some of his colleagues were hauling beer. He had back issues but still did some tree work while in school, as did the other student. Many times, older, "returning" students are the best because they value education.
My worry about Jackson is he could be tainted by the fact he ran on a kind of joint ticket with Platner in the primary
I think Bellows and Kleban could too, but Jackson is the most clearly tied to the progressive movement that fueled Platner’s candidacy.
I really doubt Shah wins. Did the “establishment” types even like him all that much?
He's an outsider, both politically but also natively, which probably hurts his chances against someone like Jackson. Given that the more establishment oriented candidates in the governor's race, Pingree and Bellows, opted to co-endorse Troy Jackson over Shah, I would guess he's probably not super well liked among the party establishment
I don't think any attention should be paid to the "conspiratorial element". The best candidate who is willing to run should be picked, not the one who isn't a woman and isn't non-white. To be clear, I buy the idea that Jackson is the best available candidate, but the idea that the Democratic Party should discriminate against more than half the population for some stupid political reason is abhorrent.
The morality of your statement is 100% correct, and as a WASP dude from North Cakalaky, I was more than a bit ashamed to list the "minimize conspiracy" factors above. I am just nervous as all get-out right now. Suspect the Maine Dems are feeling similar heat, and just want to avoid pissing anyone off/creating an even bigger shitshow.
I understand.
Just as a candidate should not be discriminated against because he or she puts primary focus on economic populism rather than social liberalism.
Is there a subtext to this remark? I don't disagree with it, but I don't understand why you thought it was a response to my remark. What does it have to do with whether a candidate is a man or woman, white or non-white?
I think there is some class discrimination or snobbery by some in the party against "working class" issues.
OK, I'd say fuck those people, except that whoever votes for the Democratic Party for any reason, especially now, their votes are welcome.
Completely agree that in a vacuum Jackson is the best candidate but isn't there a concern here that Jackson being so tight with Platner will make it easy for Republicans to tar him with the same brush? "You supported this guy 100% when you knew/should have known/didn't care to find out"?
Shah seems competent, likeable and got the most votes in the Gov primary before ranked choice, I'd have him above everyone but Jackson here.
And the Republicans never stop supporting Trump.
Tar him with the same brush that was leading in most of the polls? Go ahead.
huh? The brush regarding the SA, not his policies. Plus all the recent polling had Collins closing the gap and/or taking the lead.
That is a ridiculous attack.
"You should have known he was a rapist?"
Like other Dems should have known with Swalwell?
Especially since R's still support Trump, even after.
I don't think it will be an effective attack, but I think you would have had to be an idiot to endorse Platner or think he should be a Senator. Long before the rapes were officially known about.
Forgot about that rule, my bad 🫡
I agree that Jackson is probably our strongest choice. He's simultaneously a Progressive, but also a grown-up. Good candidate for Maine.
I'm not sure if Paige Loud is old enough to run for U.S. Senate this cycle; she's 29 years old, and I'm not sure if she'll turn 30 before January 3rd of next year.
She filed to run 🤷
https://www.wmtw.com/article/graham-platner-who-running-maine-senate-replacement/71882082
Apparently it's happened before that an elected candidate just waits until their 30th birthday to take the oath of office... but for obvious reasons given the potential for needing every senator seated in order to form a majority (if the chips fall our way) that is not ideal...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Holt_Sr.
I know Minnesota's conventions have been so strongly left-wing in recent years that Angie Craig completely declined to participate in the convention in this year's Senate race there (as the primary, not the convention, officially decides the nomination) and a far-left candidate got 30% or so of the convention vote against Amy Klobuchar in the gubernatorial race.
I would guess that Maine's convention, which is using what appears to be a similar delegate selection process to what Wisconsin Democrats use for their conventions to elect state party officers, will be not quite as favorable to progressives as Minnesota's conventions, but more favorable to progressives than the conventions in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
https://apnews.com/article/hannah-dugan-judge-arrested-ice-trump-milwaukee-fb6f19ec5ccde54dfad3fd03bc58e39d
Former Milwaukee, Wisconsin judge Hannah Dugan won't face jail time for "obstructing an ICE arrest" last year but will face a fine.
Ok, this could have been worse. But still, this case has bothered me. When I was following the actual trial, it was really looking like the prosecution's case was shoddy, and Dugan was actually acquitted on one of the counts, but the reasoning behind the other count ending in guilty was illogical in some arcane way. So legally it was questionable...
...but beyond that, it was very disturbing that after the initial attention this got from resistance-minded folks, the story soon faded into the background and rather than being treated as an overzealous government silencing resistors, it just faded into the background. (And the trial happened, if I remember the timing correctly, before the ICE invasion of Minnesota, so it's not as if that was overshadowing it at the time).
It sucks, because Dugan was clearly willing to take a risk to protect people but the suspect ended up being detained by ICE anyway, and the Trump admin still persecuted her anyway.
Any possibility of an appeal? Also, the link is messed up and is showing me this article from June 26, 2022: "Biden kicks off G7 summit with focus on Ukraine, global economy".
An appeal actually has a very strong chance. There is a circuit split as to the required acts and intent. There is a strong argument that the government failed to prove she impeded an "official proceeding" as required for the conviction
I seem to remember the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the attempted putschists who invaded the Capitol effectively couldn't be charged under that statute, although they obviously tried to and did impede an official proceeding.
The Mitch McConnell situation's total lack of transparency is completely unacceptable in a free, open, democratic republic like this. Its not fucking Turkmenistan, the public should be able to know the status of one of the top 500 most powerful people in the country, that holds a public, elected, taxpayer funded office. Same goes for Tom Kean's "I'm just gonna fall off the face of the earth for months" whole thing. Utterly unacceptable and infuriating.
And whatever vetting, background check/investigation process the Dem party and its wings has at the federal and state levels needs to be completely overhauled if there is one, I am tired of finding massive flaws in our candidates only after oppo research starts. As one of the two big parties, the Dems need to cover their ass FAR better than they are now, before they give prospective candidates like Platner national endorsements, air time, and money. Here's hoping Troy Jackson can salvage this debacle.
The three political consultants (Maine outsiders) who recruited Platner to run opted not to spend the money on an in-depth background check. We need to look at the role of these professional campaign people who seem focused on pulling off amazing wins rather than on candidate quality.
Usually I agree, but I am personally loving it. The more he’s away from the Senate and holding his seat hostage, the less he can fuck up the country.
MI-13: Donovan McKinney ad attacking Shri Thanedar over a lab Thanedar used to run that used dogs and monkeys for pharmaceutical testing:
https://www.threads.com/@andrew_solender/post/DakrKyqgc2F
SD-SEN:
In Independent Voter News, Senate Candidate Brian Bengs explains the reason why he is running as an Independent this time as opposed to being a Democratic Candidate back in 2022 running against Senator John Thune:
He got real pushback from SD voters over being a Democrat. It was toxic enough that he couldn't get much leverage over voters even if he stood firmly for getting money out of politics and improving anti-trust laws.
Now as an Independent Senate candidate, it's a whole different ballgame for Bengs. He's gotten closer in the polls and has even raised $666,000, which is $456,000 more than Democratic Candidate Julian Beaudion.
https://ivn.us/he-ran-as-a-democrat-once-brian-bengs-says-never-again/
.
.
.
"Bengs is running against two-term Republican Sen. Mike Rounds. Rounds has raised $3.9 million this cycle and carried $2.7 million cash on hand through May 13, per FEC filings. Bengs has raised $666,000 with $58,000 cash on hand. Democrat Julian Beaudion rounds out the field with $210,000 raised and $3,000 cash on hand. South Dakota has approximately 600,000 registered voters, split roughly 51% Republican, 23% Democrat, and 26% independent. The state has been a Republican stronghold in federal races for decades.
In head-to-head polling between Rounds (Republican) and Beaudion (Democrat), the incumbent handily wins 56-31. But a head-to-head between Rounds and Bengs tells a different story: 44-40, a race within the margin of error, and with Bengs’ name recognition lower than the incumbent’s.
The same polling has the three-way general at 43-23-18, with Bengs running 5 points ahead of the Democrat—a gap that is the foundation of his argument that he, not Beaudion, is the viable path for the roughly 29% of South Dakotans who want a change. While it needs to be noted that the poll in question was sponsored by Bengs, no one—including Beaudion—has released a poll with different results."
"Bengs describes himself as a lifelong independent, outside of his brief stint as a Democrat to run for Senate in 2022. On that experience, Bengs in unequivocal: "I would never run as a Democrat again. That was my takeaway. The whole experience from the ‘22 race was soul sucking and exhausting."
He describes a scene that repeated itself throughout that campaign: approaching voters at parades and county fairs, including people in Trump hats, introducing himself as a candidate, and telling them he could guarantee they'd agree on at least two, probably three things. He'd run down the list—big money controls politics, healthcare should be affordable, Congress needs term limits—and they'd nod along. "Generally it was all three. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's good." Then he'd ask for their vote in November. "And the first words out of their mouth were: So what are you?
When he said he was running as a Democrat, the conversation ended. "I'll never vote for a Democrat. Sometimes there was an expletive in there. The takeaway was that the letter was more important than what I was saying. The ideas that they agreed with me on did not matter so much as what team are you playing for, what jersey do you have."
posts like these make me miss when howard dean ran the dnc, the atrophying of state parties everywhere has cascading consequences, as i'm sure we are all aware
Dean wouldn't have saved the Democratic Party in the Dakotas. He wasn't a magician.
not disputing that, but the fact that in so many portions of the great plains we are running democrats as independents because the brand is so bad, just speaks to years of neglect by national party starting with kaine chairmanship of dnc.
I think it speaks much more to popular opinion in those states than anything else.
What do you mean? Popular opinion from residents in states like SD as far as how the Democratic Party is perceived there?
I think we should take into account the fact that SD as well as ND are largely rural farming states. They have far less cities than states like CA, FL, NY or even TX. It was always going to be a challenge to get traction at the presidential level in ND and SD to begin with.
Rural parts of the U.S. were moving away from Democrats for some time long before even Obama was first elected as POTUS.
That's exactly right.
Yeah in 2008 Obama got the Dakotas margins down to single digits and their entire congressional delegations were Democrats.
With the exception of John Thune forgot he was elected barely in 04
What kind of poll showed a 1-on-1 race close? I hope it wasn't an "informed ballot" poll.
PPP has been what has shown the SD-SEN race to be more competitive although in most cases with polling (not just PPP), when it comes to facing Mike Rounds, Bengs is still in a 3-way race.
Given Beaudion is still running as a Democratic candidate, that complicates Bengs getting enough of the margin of the percentage of votes vs. Rounds. Otherwise, if you look at this being Bengs vs. Rounds (without Beaudion in), that's when it changes. The NY Times shows the PPP data as cited in Independent Voter News.
Left-wing activists have tried to convince Beaudion to drop out of the race as they've seen Bengs to have a clearer shot against Rounds in a two-way race.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/polls/south-dakota-us-senate-election-polls-2026.html?ref=ivn.us
https://aberdeeninsider.com/left-wing-activists-urge-south-dakota-democrat-to-exit-senate-race-in-favor-of-independent/
And with that, we have a perfect distillation of the problem of politics subsuming identity in so much of our country
AZ-4 - A group called Young Democrats of Arizona has revoked its endorsement of Kai Newkirk, the Democratic primary challenger to Greg Stanton, citing "concerning patterns of behavior" by Newkirk, but the organization did not go into any specifics on what the concerning patterns of behavior are.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DalcAJkvQVp/?igsh=bXA2aThoOTV3bnl3
I'm guessing somebody did a background check on Newkirk in response to the Graham Platner fiasco, and one or more red flags about Newkirk came up.
Due diligence, fancy that
Honestly, I'm glad progressives are doing vetting now. I know everyone here doesn't like DAC or Melat Kiros, so I'll note that proper vetting may prevent future DACs and Kiroses, and lead to more Brad Landers or Claire Valdezes or Troy Jacksons instead.
Perhaps. I will admit I’m a little nervous about DAC — I don’t like her Ukraine positions. I do concede that there is not a complete lack of left vetting though. (I am a progressive, for what it’s worth. I got started in politics partially through Bernie’s 2016 bid and my opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership, which is how I found Bernie to begin with. I’ve voted progressive pretty consistently for years. I just try to also be pragmatic where needed, as in, voting blue consistently.)
The fact it’s only starting “now” as if it’s a novel concept is so funny to me. If only it didn’t have dire consequences for an absolutely critical election.
Katz has at least built a resume with some good candidates (Mamdani/Osborn) so he’ll probably survive this, to some extent
You have a lot of confidence in the unknown that I must confess I lack given the circumstances.
I do agree that this should have been a consideration before, but better now than not at all. Imagine if the left just decided to ram Platner through anyway, and how bad that would be. I’m glad we’re learning now, it will stop this from getting worse later.
It's not like non-progressives have a substantially better track record on vetting.
Cal Cunningham and Eric Swalwell jump to mind as candidates that got by with seemingly zero vetting. Andrew Cuomo is even worse as the vetting didn't even need to occur -- his problems were openly known to any and all -- and he still received establishment support.
Andrew Cuomo belongs in jail, and I think the Schumer/establishment lost a ton of credibility on that one. No argument there.
Curious what you think vetting would have changed in Kiros’s case? The letter she got fired over was known about and she still won by double digits.
I misremembered the thing that concerned me about Kiros. Her poor response to “was the Boulder attack antisemitic” wasn’t necessarily something a background check could have prevented. Apologies.
I’ve never been more wrong in my initial support of someone no matter how hesitant he made that support. Fuck this guy. https://www.axios.com/2026/07/09/graham-platner-exit-maine-senate-race-deadline
a lot of us were wrong about him, myself included
Ditto. I’ve been worried since the Nazi tattoo, to be honest.
Hopefully they’ll line up behind Troy Jackson. He’s like the only guy who could possibly salvage this race for us I think.
I don't know if he's the only one. If Maine voters are prepared to vote against Susan Collins, any decent candidate would do the job. Otherwise, she will win again.
It takes a lot of maturity to admit that, so kudos to you. We all get it wrong sometimes.
AP calls the CO-gov primary for Victor Marx. I think dems have a shot in CO-05 (and maybe even CO-04 if Douglas county republicans really can’t stomach Marx) with him as the nominee.
https://coloradosun.com/2026/07/09/victor-marx-wins-colorados-republican-primary-governor/
Man, sometimes I just love Republicans for being so comically villainous and dumb at the same time. Thanks for winning us a likely supermajority in the legislature and 1-4 US House seats, CO GOP!
If only we won all 4 House seats and had an entirely Democratic delegation...
Boebert might just be that bad to lose the 4th if Republicans are losing the gubernatorial race by 30 points…
Maybe I’m getting too greedy. I just remember the gift of Mark Robinson that saved my home state party a lot of races down the ballot in what would have been a bad year.