Did Ernst have a poll conducted or something? Iowa's still reliably red but her standing took a hit with that callous "well we all die" town hall remark plus that bizarre follow-up video.
If she decides to retire, that's a big red warning sign for Republicans next year.
But would it be likely to put Iowa Senate out of reach for the Democrats or help the Democratic efforts by reinforcing a sense of disarray and loserism among Republicans?
Yeah, honestly I'm not sure. Usually an open seat race in a wave-type midterm is more vulnerable, but Ernst's comments may have made her an easier opponent. Only time will tell...I still think IA is Lean R, but it's by no means out of reach and we should definitely contest it....
President Donald Trump is facing a sharp decline in support from voters, according to new data from a top Republican pollster.
According to the latest TIPP Insights/League of American Workers poll, conducted between June 9-11 among 1,584 registered voters, Trump's approval rating currently stands at 43 percent, with 50 percent disapproving, giving him a net rating of -7 points.
That is down from a net approval of -2 points in May, when 43 percent said they approved of Trump's job performance and 45 percent disapproved. The polls had a margin of error of between +/- 2.5 and 2.7 points.
The League of American Workers is not officially affiliated with the Republican Party, but it has a conservative, pro-Trump orientation.
Two Republicans, Jim Carlin and Joshua Smith, have already declared their candidacies for the Senate from Iowa, regardless of whether Joni Ernst decides to run again. Both are to her right. The ideal outcome would be a bruising primary in which Ernst loses to a MAGA minion who cannot win in November.
KING OF NORWAY: A distinct lack of Royal enthusiasm for Trump
Trump shocked the world when he started making noises about “taking” Greenland and making part of the USA. When King Harald V and Queen Sonja of Norway are currently visiting Svalbard, Norway’s archipelago in the far northern Arctic, this is widely interpreted as the Royal response – especially since the King is old (88) and ailing.
In April, when Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg (former General Secretary of NATO) visited Trump in the White House, the President was full of praise for Norway and for the King and said that he would like to see him.
Naturally that topic was broached when they met the press on Svalbard. When the Royal couple met the press in Svalbard, Aftenposten's journalist pointed out that Trump seems to be very enthusiastic about the King.
"I've never met him," said King Harald, and burst into laughter.
“He was keen to meet you, do you think that will happen?"
"I have no opinion. Such matters are handled by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and they go through diplomatic channels.
"But is the King interested in meeting him?"
"I'm interested in meeting everyone who is invited here," said King Harald after a pause and smiled.
When asked about Norway’s sovereignty of Svalbard, and the challenges to it, King Harald replied:
"I think our sovereignty is challenged every day. But this is an integral part of Norway, and it will remain so. This is Norwegian territory, and it is important that we point that out,” said the King.
In addition to the implications of Trump’s utterances against Denmark’s and Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic, for years Norway has faced never-ending attempts by the Soviets, and later by Russia, to expand their influence at the cost of Norwegian sovereignty. Russia does have legitimate mining activity on Svalbard, but has constantly been trying to push the boundary for what is acceptable.
Norway was also provoked last year when the PRIC (Polar Research Institute of China) celebrated the 20th anniversary of its activities on Svalbard – and one of those who attended showed up in a Chinese military uniform.
Yet another recurring issue is Norway’s management of fisheries management in its territorial waters around Svalbard (as well as north of the Norwegian mainland). This has been repeatedly challenged by the incursion of fishing vessels from numerous nations. The Arctic Ocean has some of the most fish-rich waters on the planet, and Norway strives to strictly manage fisheries so as to preserve this valuable food resource.
Most of the Norwegian mining in Svalbard has been winding down the last decade with the last mine slated to close this year. Russia's Arktikugol continues to operate in Barentsburg, but their operations are also expected to decline.
Svalbard is governed by the Svalbard Treaty which gives citizens of all countries rights to visit Svalbard, including for economic purposes such as fishing, limits Norway's right to collect taxes and prohibits military activities. Signed in 1920, it is an important predecessor to the Antarctic Treaty. Both the Russian and Chinese activities on Svalbard are under the auspices of that treaty framework.
Fun factoid: King Harald V actually lived in Pooks Hill, Maryland (Bethesda), close to DC for part of his childhood when the Norwegian Royals were in exile due to the Nazi occupation. He actually attended FDR's final inauguration and there are photos of him playing with Fala. As a result, he knows all about fascism and doesn't need to be reminded of it.
I feel like Democrats rely too much on empathy in the immigration debate, which is powerful, but they neglect to explain exactly how the system is "broken", which is used as a throwaway word with no articulation of what's actually broken or what needs to be fixed.
Which is "red tape", typically a Republican complaint, but when it comes to immigrants and poor people, Republicans are all about creating bureaucratic hurdles and underfunding of the relevant agencies to frustrate well meaning people. It's the exact same strategy they are using with Medicaid right now.
It's a wonky argument, but it needs to be made much more consistently.
So here's the thing: people who don't sympathize with the victims of red tape will not respond to an argument based on red tape being a universally bad thing.
My whole point is that relying on sympathy alone is the wrong strategy. The vast majority of people in this country, including myself and probably everyone else on this comment section, is woefully ignorant about the immigration system, how it actually functions, and where the bottlenecks are, and why those bottlenecks are there.
Another way to put it, there are a lot of people who I do think have sympathy for immigrants, but also think people should "follow the law". The problem is, nobody actually tells us what the laws are.
Not a sound bite, just include it in speeches and interviews. I'm responding directly to a Wes Moore interview I saw earlier today, and he's just a stand in for "Generic Democrat", and when immigration came up he threw out the "broken" word as if everyone knows what's broken. We don't. Nobody ever actually explains it.
My guess is the problem is that there's no real-world fix to what's "broken". If they proceed with amnesty to "fix what's broken", they know the next wave of illegal crossings will quickly ensue in pursuit of the inevitable next wave of amnesty. This is the catch 22 of immigration reform.....and why I think Trump's ironclad position on border security will be the only accepted mainstream position for the foreseeable future.
and once again folks on this left wing site continue to concede the argument to right wingers because we are afraid how our messaging will sound. we have the ability to message better than stephen miller, chuck schumer aside
What does amnesty have to do with anything that I've brought up? Seriously? If anything, I'm making your own argument that the conversation should be broadened.
I've noticed that most people who insist that immigrants need to "do it the right way" are wholly ignorant of how difficult our immigration process has become. The image of the poor immigrant getting off the boat at Ellis Island is embedded into our culture enough that, absent specific knowledge otherwise, most people assume immigrating to the US is relatively easy.
I don't know how easy or plausible it is to communicate that red tape problem to the electorate, but if it could be done I see it having potential.
To me it's about taking the offense to the Republicans. "Oh, the immigration system is broken? Why is that? Let's see..." Otherwise Democrats are essentially on the defensive.
Ultimately I think Republicans realize the salience is all on the enforcement side when it comes to immigration. While the majority of voters would officially land in the "do it the right way" lane, enabling or fast-tracking the legal immigration they claim to support is not the priority and it's unlikely they'll get to where it becomes a priority. Democrats are gonna have a very hard time convincing voters to bump this issue up on their to-do list. Hence the usage of "broken immigration system" language. Most people are only really interested in "enforcement", so if the Democrats have any chance of being heard at all, they have to make people think they're prioritizing enforcement and use language to frame it that way.
Are you thinking something like come up with a way to improve the system, but sell it to the public as an enforcement upgrade?
I could see that working to an extent, but a lot of the brokenness of the system would be hard to fix with anything that could be called enforcement with a straight face. Not nothing, of course. Increase the number of immigration judges could get that label easily. It'd be a stretch but maybe "streamlining the process so we can kick out the rule breakers more easily" could work?
Of course we could just lie about it because barely anyone knows whats in legislation anyway. But democrats are so thoroughly unwilling to stay on message with that kind of stuff once anyone at a major news network pushes them on it, so I'm not confident how far that'd go.
Though I'm not sure I agree that voters will only respond positively to enforcement. Slothlax's idea I think is the right angle here. People want the system to not be broken. That's basic human nature to an extent. What are the two parties doing in response to that? Republicans are saying "it's broken because too many non-legal immigrants, we need enforcement." Democrats are saying "it's broken, we should fix it."
Not hard to grok why the democratic message isn't going over well when viewed in that lens. Not only are we not establishing what the issue is, we're not establishing a link between that and a proposed solution.
The problem is, Democrats are not thinking about the issue of immigration as more than just the typical comprehensive immigration reform proposal.
Countries where migrants are coming from in high numbers should be put under international pressure or work with the U.S. and other countries to improve their economies and their overall system so less of their citizens flee to the U.S.
Yes on comprehensive immigration reform but it can’t end just there.
By careful diplomacy but it would have to do with the US and the countries working multilaterally on this front. The pressure has nothing to do with authoritative power or anything defiant on the part of the U.S.
I apologize if my rhetoric has come across as harsh but when it comes to diplomatic relations but there are no easy answers in countries like Colombia, Cuba and Venezuela in being able to resolve their issues so they can have better economies for their citizens. The U.S. and other countries have to start somewhere.
I don't agree with any of this. We've been sanctioning the shit out of Cuba and Venezuela for years to forces changes in domestic policy with absolutely no results.
That’s what you think I am suggesting? Economic sanctions have nothing to do with what I am arguing here.
I am talking about countries Iike Cuba and Venezuela working with the U.S. to get economic aid as well as trade with the goal of the countries to ensure they are not committing human rights violations. The latter part is what I am asserting as far as pressure at best but it’s apart of the negotiating process. Nothing to do with the economic sanctions.
In Cuba’s case, citizens are protesting because they want economic opportunities which the government is not able to provide due to extreme rationing problems. This is not the kind of country that needs economic sanctions, especially considering President Miguel Diaz-Canel has had an openness to wanting to work with the U.S.
If you want countries to do better, send them targeted aid. "Your economy isn't as good as ours, so if you don't improve it by yourself, we'll decrease aid to you" is insanely stupid and has the reverse effect. I'm sorry to be blunt, but think carefully about it. But the truth is, countries benefit when they are able to attract industrious, tenacious and creative people from other countries. Trump's moves against immigrants and immigration hurt the U.S.
However, what you’re referring to is apart of the diplomatic equation in how it’s done. It ties into what I am arguing as long as these countries are “pressured” through the negotiation process. It’s more to do with if say the U.S. gives economic aid to say Venezuela, the country should be pressured to make changes in its attitude towards its citizens. Whatever these countries do otherwise in improving their nations is completely up to them.
Right now, Trump is a major liability in getting anything done on immigration. He’s going to be no better for Cuba or Venezuela than he was with Puerto Rico.
The reality is-if you do not straight up support open borders (regardless of your position on who should be citizens) you are a cruel, heartless racist. End of story.
I actually would support letting everyone in who is not a criminal or dangerous extremist, but that's not a majority position in the U.S., and it's perfectly reasonable for people in cities like New York to see a need for limiting immigration here as long as immigrants bused here from Texas risk taking too many beds from homeless New Yorkers.
IA-01: Democrat Christina Bohannan announced today that she is running again against Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meek. In 2024, she lost to Miller-Meek by 799 votes.
I would start this one at tilt D. This is shaping up as a far worse cycle for the GOP, and they've performed atrociously in special elections in Iowa this year.
She wouldn’t be running a 3rd campaign (ironically following the Miller-Meeks path to Congress), if she didn’t think 2026 was going to be a bloodbath for Republicans. I expected her to pass honestly.
If I lived in NYC I would vote for Lander based on this alone :-) Off on my last leg of hiking journey in the Sierras. Will end at Tuolumne Meadows in Yosemite NP the day after NYC mayoral primary. Au revoir for now!
Tuolumne Meadows is probably my favorite place in the world, or at least in the mountains of California. Have a great time there, but be sure to have lots of mosquito repellent. I usually go there later in the season (mid-August to September) when there are fewer bugs but also fewer wildflowers.
baraka was never finishing behind gottheimer sweeney or spiller. Sweeney merely carried his former legislative district, spiller got 2.5% in his hometown, and gottheimer had zero appeal outside of tony bergen county. I will concede it helped him hop fake progressive fulop
It's fascinating how Michigan's 10th House district, which slightly leans Republican, has attracted so many Democratic candidates, but not a single Republican (as of yet). Would be curious who folks think is the strongest Dem we could nominate for the 10th.
George Hornedo (IN-7) getting some press in his primary challenge to André Carson.
A quote that sticks out to me: “The reality is that, with Trump and Musk dismantling things day in and day out, when Democrats come back in power, we are not walking back into a government that resembles that of which we knew. And I just don’t think that the leaders that got us into this are the ones that are going to get us out of it.”
Something else notable is that Carson is only 50 years old and has served for 17 years. He was first elected at age 33
VA-AG: Dem primary is over, though AP hasn't called it. Jay Jones defeats Shannon Taylor by about 2%.
VA-LG: Crazy race, currently a tenth of a point between Hashmi, Stoney, and Rouse. I'd rather be Hashmi given that the city of Richmond - where she's over 60% - is only half in.
To be fair, that Senate seat swung hard to Democrats during Trump’s first term. She definitely had to put in the work to win the seat, but it was our lowest hanging fruit (in the state Senate) in 2019.
RCV would be an adjustment for many people in the first election or two in which it’s used. However, once people get used to it, I think they’ll be glad to have it.
I think it’s pretty clear in elections held so far in areas that have RCV, that Democrats benefit where RCV takes place. So I’m 100% behind a nationwide campaign/push to implement it everywhere. The Republican voter base are uneducated idiots, so it makes sense that their voters drop off more in subsequent rounds/rankings than Democrats do who are educated.
After what they’ve done so far as a party to permanently entrench themselves into power, I really don’t care about being “fair”. The goal is for Democrats to win, by any legal means necessary. That’s the rules of politics today: there are none. With how many independent commissions have been passed by voters to redraw states, I’d bet a lot that RCV on the ballot would pass most states.
Though before going all-in on this strategy, there should obviously be analysis done on whether Democrats do benefit and by how much. But ME-02 and AK-AL elected Democrats partly/entirely because of RCV (not exactly blue areas), so I think this logic overall is sound: RCV = advantage Democrats. By how much? *shrug*
"Winning" with a small plurality is undemocratic and doing so in a primary can allow weaker candidates with a small percentage of supporters and little broad support to be nominated.
Looks like Stoney is going to lose to Hashmi (pending a possible recount) because of the city that Stoney is mayor of (Richmond) voting *heavily* against him. Looking at VPAP, nearly all, if not all, of the remaining vote is from the southwestern panhandle of the state, and in counties where Hashmi is in fourth place. However, there are probably not enough votes yet to be counted remaining for Stoney to overtake Hashmi. https://www.vpap.org/electionresults/20250617/ltgov/dem/
There is a recent trend of big-city Democratic mayors becoming extremely unpopular while in office, and it's not a moderate/progressive thing, as that trend crosses intra-party lines.
Did Ernst have a poll conducted or something? Iowa's still reliably red but her standing took a hit with that callous "well we all die" town hall remark plus that bizarre follow-up video.
If she decides to retire, that's a big red warning sign for Republicans next year.
But would it be likely to put Iowa Senate out of reach for the Democrats or help the Democratic efforts by reinforcing a sense of disarray and loserism among Republicans?
FAFO! – Field a Candidate and Find Out!
Um, maybe a bit of both? It's easier to win an open seat than unseating an incumbent in a favorable year.
I think either way Iowa is on the board. GOP can easily nominate someone worse (electorally) than Ernst.
I’m positive there are plenty of bigger assholes who could run.
Yeah, honestly I'm not sure. Usually an open seat race in a wave-type midterm is more vulnerable, but Ernst's comments may have made her an easier opponent. Only time will tell...I still think IA is Lean R, but it's by no means out of reach and we should definitely contest it....
Ernst needs to do the right thing and stay in the Senate race.
Anything to pick up the Senate seat.
Trump's approval ratings drop. This time with a GOP pollster, League of American Voters, that is pro-Trump.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-rating-polls-2086533
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Donald Trump is facing a sharp decline in support from voters, according to new data from a top Republican pollster.
According to the latest TIPP Insights/League of American Workers poll, conducted between June 9-11 among 1,584 registered voters, Trump's approval rating currently stands at 43 percent, with 50 percent disapproving, giving him a net rating of -7 points.
That is down from a net approval of -2 points in May, when 43 percent said they approved of Trump's job performance and 45 percent disapproved. The polls had a margin of error of between +/- 2.5 and 2.7 points.
The League of American Workers is not officially affiliated with the Republican Party, but it has a conservative, pro-Trump orientation.
War with Iran will make it worse. We can’t afford Medicaid or SNAP but we can pay for war against a country most people don’t care about.
Agreed. No more wars please.
It’s also going to further strain relations with Trump and Putin.
Russia has a long history in relations with Iran that dates prior to the founding of the U.S. Putin knows this.
Worsening relations between the U.S. and Putin would be a _good_ thing! The risk is for Trump to again sell out to Putin.
Two Republicans, Jim Carlin and Joshua Smith, have already declared their candidacies for the Senate from Iowa, regardless of whether Joni Ernst decides to run again. Both are to her right. The ideal outcome would be a bruising primary in which Ernst loses to a MAGA minion who cannot win in November.
Is Jim any relation to the immortal George?
I don't know of any familial connection, but I am sure that George would have used all seven dirty words to describe Jim's election denialism.
Especially the sixth one.
It's a fairly common name, I think. I have a boss with that name.
Seems unlikely.
KING OF NORWAY: A distinct lack of Royal enthusiasm for Trump
Trump shocked the world when he started making noises about “taking” Greenland and making part of the USA. When King Harald V and Queen Sonja of Norway are currently visiting Svalbard, Norway’s archipelago in the far northern Arctic, this is widely interpreted as the Royal response – especially since the King is old (88) and ailing.
In April, when Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and Finance Minister Jens Stoltenberg (former General Secretary of NATO) visited Trump in the White House, the President was full of praise for Norway and for the King and said that he would like to see him.
Naturally that topic was broached when they met the press on Svalbard. When the Royal couple met the press in Svalbard, Aftenposten's journalist pointed out that Trump seems to be very enthusiastic about the King.
"I've never met him," said King Harald, and burst into laughter.
“He was keen to meet you, do you think that will happen?"
"I have no opinion. Such matters are handled by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and they go through diplomatic channels.
"But is the King interested in meeting him?"
"I'm interested in meeting everyone who is invited here," said King Harald after a pause and smiled.
UNDERSCORING NORWEGIAN SOVEREIGNTY
When asked about Norway’s sovereignty of Svalbard, and the challenges to it, King Harald replied:
"I think our sovereignty is challenged every day. But this is an integral part of Norway, and it will remain so. This is Norwegian territory, and it is important that we point that out,” said the King.
What are the purported "challenges" to Norwegian sovereignty over Svalbard?
In addition to the implications of Trump’s utterances against Denmark’s and Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic, for years Norway has faced never-ending attempts by the Soviets, and later by Russia, to expand their influence at the cost of Norwegian sovereignty. Russia does have legitimate mining activity on Svalbard, but has constantly been trying to push the boundary for what is acceptable.
Norway was also provoked last year when the PRIC (Polar Research Institute of China) celebrated the 20th anniversary of its activities on Svalbard – and one of those who attended showed up in a Chinese military uniform.
Yet another recurring issue is Norway’s management of fisheries management in its territorial waters around Svalbard (as well as north of the Norwegian mainland). This has been repeatedly challenged by the incursion of fishing vessels from numerous nations. The Arctic Ocean has some of the most fish-rich waters on the planet, and Norway strives to strictly manage fisheries so as to preserve this valuable food resource.
Thanks for this explanation.
I added a point about fishing rights and territorial waters.
Most of the Norwegian mining in Svalbard has been winding down the last decade with the last mine slated to close this year. Russia's Arktikugol continues to operate in Barentsburg, but their operations are also expected to decline.
Yes, times are changing. There’s a seed bank, but that hardly employs that many people.
Svalbard is governed by the Svalbard Treaty which gives citizens of all countries rights to visit Svalbard, including for economic purposes such as fishing, limits Norway's right to collect taxes and prohibits military activities. Signed in 1920, it is an important predecessor to the Antarctic Treaty. Both the Russian and Chinese activities on Svalbard are under the auspices of that treaty framework.
Fun factoid: King Harald V actually lived in Pooks Hill, Maryland (Bethesda), close to DC for part of his childhood when the Norwegian Royals were in exile due to the Nazi occupation. He actually attended FDR's final inauguration and there are photos of him playing with Fala. As a result, he knows all about fascism and doesn't need to be reminded of it.
I feel like Democrats rely too much on empathy in the immigration debate, which is powerful, but they neglect to explain exactly how the system is "broken", which is used as a throwaway word with no articulation of what's actually broken or what needs to be fixed.
Which is "red tape", typically a Republican complaint, but when it comes to immigrants and poor people, Republicans are all about creating bureaucratic hurdles and underfunding of the relevant agencies to frustrate well meaning people. It's the exact same strategy they are using with Medicaid right now.
It's a wonky argument, but it needs to be made much more consistently.
So here's the thing: people who don't sympathize with the victims of red tape will not respond to an argument based on red tape being a universally bad thing.
My whole point is that relying on sympathy alone is the wrong strategy. The vast majority of people in this country, including myself and probably everyone else on this comment section, is woefully ignorant about the immigration system, how it actually functions, and where the bottlenecks are, and why those bottlenecks are there.
Another way to put it, there are a lot of people who I do think have sympathy for immigrants, but also think people should "follow the law". The problem is, nobody actually tells us what the laws are.
Right. Very hard to put that into a sound bite, though, I think?
Not a sound bite, just include it in speeches and interviews. I'm responding directly to a Wes Moore interview I saw earlier today, and he's just a stand in for "Generic Democrat", and when immigration came up he threw out the "broken" word as if everyone knows what's broken. We don't. Nobody ever actually explains it.
There's more to politics than sound bites.
My guess is the problem is that there's no real-world fix to what's "broken". If they proceed with amnesty to "fix what's broken", they know the next wave of illegal crossings will quickly ensue in pursuit of the inevitable next wave of amnesty. This is the catch 22 of immigration reform.....and why I think Trump's ironclad position on border security will be the only accepted mainstream position for the foreseeable future.
and once again folks on this left wing site continue to concede the argument to right wingers because we are afraid how our messaging will sound. we have the ability to message better than stephen miller, chuck schumer aside
What does amnesty have to do with anything that I've brought up? Seriously? If anything, I'm making your own argument that the conversation should be broadened.
Fully agree.
I've noticed that most people who insist that immigrants need to "do it the right way" are wholly ignorant of how difficult our immigration process has become. The image of the poor immigrant getting off the boat at Ellis Island is embedded into our culture enough that, absent specific knowledge otherwise, most people assume immigrating to the US is relatively easy.
I don't know how easy or plausible it is to communicate that red tape problem to the electorate, but if it could be done I see it having potential.
To me it's about taking the offense to the Republicans. "Oh, the immigration system is broken? Why is that? Let's see..." Otherwise Democrats are essentially on the defensive.
Ultimately I think Republicans realize the salience is all on the enforcement side when it comes to immigration. While the majority of voters would officially land in the "do it the right way" lane, enabling or fast-tracking the legal immigration they claim to support is not the priority and it's unlikely they'll get to where it becomes a priority. Democrats are gonna have a very hard time convincing voters to bump this issue up on their to-do list. Hence the usage of "broken immigration system" language. Most people are only really interested in "enforcement", so if the Democrats have any chance of being heard at all, they have to make people think they're prioritizing enforcement and use language to frame it that way.
Are you thinking something like come up with a way to improve the system, but sell it to the public as an enforcement upgrade?
I could see that working to an extent, but a lot of the brokenness of the system would be hard to fix with anything that could be called enforcement with a straight face. Not nothing, of course. Increase the number of immigration judges could get that label easily. It'd be a stretch but maybe "streamlining the process so we can kick out the rule breakers more easily" could work?
Of course we could just lie about it because barely anyone knows whats in legislation anyway. But democrats are so thoroughly unwilling to stay on message with that kind of stuff once anyone at a major news network pushes them on it, so I'm not confident how far that'd go.
Though I'm not sure I agree that voters will only respond positively to enforcement. Slothlax's idea I think is the right angle here. People want the system to not be broken. That's basic human nature to an extent. What are the two parties doing in response to that? Republicans are saying "it's broken because too many non-legal immigrants, we need enforcement." Democrats are saying "it's broken, we should fix it."
Not hard to grok why the democratic message isn't going over well when viewed in that lens. Not only are we not establishing what the issue is, we're not establishing a link between that and a proposed solution.
Increasing the number of immigration judges was the one specific thing I was thinking of as a possible issue.😜
The problem is, Democrats are not thinking about the issue of immigration as more than just the typical comprehensive immigration reform proposal.
Countries where migrants are coming from in high numbers should be put under international pressure or work with the U.S. and other countries to improve their economies and their overall system so less of their citizens flee to the U.S.
Yes on comprehensive immigration reform but it can’t end just there.
You think putting them under pressure will improve their economies? Explain your thinking.
By careful diplomacy but it would have to do with the US and the countries working multilaterally on this front. The pressure has nothing to do with authoritative power or anything defiant on the part of the U.S.
I apologize if my rhetoric has come across as harsh but when it comes to diplomatic relations but there are no easy answers in countries like Colombia, Cuba and Venezuela in being able to resolve their issues so they can have better economies for their citizens. The U.S. and other countries have to start somewhere.
I don't agree with any of this. We've been sanctioning the shit out of Cuba and Venezuela for years to forces changes in domestic policy with absolutely no results.
That’s what you think I am suggesting? Economic sanctions have nothing to do with what I am arguing here.
I am talking about countries Iike Cuba and Venezuela working with the U.S. to get economic aid as well as trade with the goal of the countries to ensure they are not committing human rights violations. The latter part is what I am asserting as far as pressure at best but it’s apart of the negotiating process. Nothing to do with the economic sanctions.
In Cuba’s case, citizens are protesting because they want economic opportunities which the government is not able to provide due to extreme rationing problems. This is not the kind of country that needs economic sanctions, especially considering President Miguel Diaz-Canel has had an openness to wanting to work with the U.S.
If you want countries to do better, send them targeted aid. "Your economy isn't as good as ours, so if you don't improve it by yourself, we'll decrease aid to you" is insanely stupid and has the reverse effect. I'm sorry to be blunt, but think carefully about it. But the truth is, countries benefit when they are able to attract industrious, tenacious and creative people from other countries. Trump's moves against immigrants and immigration hurt the U.S.
Oh I completely agree!
However, what you’re referring to is apart of the diplomatic equation in how it’s done. It ties into what I am arguing as long as these countries are “pressured” through the negotiation process. It’s more to do with if say the U.S. gives economic aid to say Venezuela, the country should be pressured to make changes in its attitude towards its citizens. Whatever these countries do otherwise in improving their nations is completely up to them.
Right now, Trump is a major liability in getting anything done on immigration. He’s going to be no better for Cuba or Venezuela than he was with Puerto Rico.
The solution is open borders-and amnesty for everyone already here illegally-we need to stop with the idea that illegal immigration is a thing.
The reality is-if you do not straight up support open borders (regardless of your position on who should be citizens) you are a cruel, heartless racist. End of story.
I actually would support letting everyone in who is not a criminal or dangerous extremist, but that's not a majority position in the U.S., and it's perfectly reasonable for people in cities like New York to see a need for limiting immigration here as long as immigrants bused here from Texas risk taking too many beds from homeless New Yorkers.
IA-01: Democrat Christina Bohannan announced today that she is running again against Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meek. In 2024, she lost to Miller-Meek by 799 votes.
Great news!
Miller-Meeks has a very good chance of LOSING her seat next year. Couldn't happen to a nicer lady.
I would start this one at tilt D. This is shaping up as a far worse cycle for the GOP, and they've performed atrociously in special elections in Iowa this year.
I'd probably call it a tossup, but Tilt D isn't crazy...
3M has always seemed pretty weak.
Speaking of Iowa, anyone who has not read Laura Berlin's story on the difficulties Dems are facing in Iowa should do so. The party really need to get to work. https://www.bleedingheartland.com/2025/06/15/real-talk-on-the-long-odds-facing-iowa-democrats-in-2026/
She wouldn’t be running a 3rd campaign (ironically following the Miller-Meeks path to Congress), if she didn’t think 2026 was going to be a bloodbath for Republicans. I expected her to pass honestly.
City Comptroller and mayoral candidate Brad Lander taken in custody by ICE.
https://bsky.app/profile/nytimes.com/post/3lrsykpw2e22w
If I lived in NYC I would vote for Lander based on this alone :-) Off on my last leg of hiking journey in the Sierras. Will end at Tuolumne Meadows in Yosemite NP the day after NYC mayoral primary. Au revoir for now!
Have a great trip!
Thanks, David!
Tuolumne Meadows is probably my favorite place in the world, or at least in the mountains of California. Have a great time there, but be sure to have lots of mosquito repellent. I usually go there later in the season (mid-August to September) when there are fewer bugs but also fewer wildflowers.
Yeah, I was leaning toward ranking him #1, and this probably clinches it.
I guess getting arrested is the new campaign tactic for Dems. "Behind in the polls? Better go get myself attacked by some thug in a mask".
It took Baraka from a potential 4th or 5th place finish to 2nd.
baraka was never finishing behind gottheimer sweeney or spiller. Sweeney merely carried his former legislative district, spiller got 2.5% in his hometown, and gottheimer had zero appeal outside of tony bergen county. I will concede it helped him hop fake progressive fulop
It's fascinating how Michigan's 10th House district, which slightly leans Republican, has attracted so many Democratic candidates, but not a single Republican (as of yet). Would be curious who folks think is the strongest Dem we could nominate for the 10th.
Mark Hackel? (He would be a huge pain-in-the-ass, but I doubt he'll ever run.)
At an election night party with Delegate Marcus Simon in Falls Church.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/17/indiana-democrat-george-hornedo
George Hornedo (IN-7) getting some press in his primary challenge to André Carson.
A quote that sticks out to me: “The reality is that, with Trump and Musk dismantling things day in and day out, when Democrats come back in power, we are not walking back into a government that resembles that of which we knew. And I just don’t think that the leaders that got us into this are the ones that are going to get us out of it.”
Something else notable is that Carson is only 50 years old and has served for 17 years. He was first elected at age 33
VA-AG: Dem primary is over, though AP hasn't called it. Jay Jones defeats Shannon Taylor by about 2%.
VA-LG: Crazy race, currently a tenth of a point between Hashmi, Stoney, and Rouse. I'd rather be Hashmi given that the city of Richmond - where she's over 60% - is only half in.
Does VA have runoffs?
Nope. Plurality will do it.
I like Hashmi, but honestly any of the three would be fine.
I just hope she can win centrist voters in the general.
In 2019, she easily flipped a state Senate seat that had been Republican-held since the mid-1980s.
To be fair, that Senate seat swung hard to Democrats during Trump’s first term. She definitely had to put in the work to win the seat, but it was our lowest hanging fruit (in the state Senate) in 2019.
Maybe an election this close will convince Virginia to adopt something better than plurality-win?
Virginia is no stranger to close elections.
Everyone hates runoffs. And ranked choice voting will need a lot of explaining.
RCV would be an adjustment for many people in the first election or two in which it’s used. However, once people get used to it, I think they’ll be glad to have it.
I think it’s pretty clear in elections held so far in areas that have RCV, that Democrats benefit where RCV takes place. So I’m 100% behind a nationwide campaign/push to implement it everywhere. The Republican voter base are uneducated idiots, so it makes sense that their voters drop off more in subsequent rounds/rankings than Democrats do who are educated.
After what they’ve done so far as a party to permanently entrench themselves into power, I really don’t care about being “fair”. The goal is for Democrats to win, by any legal means necessary. That’s the rules of politics today: there are none. With how many independent commissions have been passed by voters to redraw states, I’d bet a lot that RCV on the ballot would pass most states.
Though before going all-in on this strategy, there should obviously be analysis done on whether Democrats do benefit and by how much. But ME-02 and AK-AL elected Democrats partly/entirely because of RCV (not exactly blue areas), so I think this logic overall is sound: RCV = advantage Democrats. By how much? *shrug*
"Winning" with a small plurality is undemocratic and doing so in a primary can allow weaker candidates with a small percentage of supporters and little broad support to be nominated.
Who cares if it needs explaining? It's significantly better than what we have now. People will adjust.
I'm really glad to see that Jones beat Taylor. I oppose any VA candidate being funded (massively here) by Dominion Energy.
That's why I voted for Jones.
Looks like Stoney is going to lose to Hashmi (pending a possible recount) because of the city that Stoney is mayor of (Richmond) voting *heavily* against him. Looking at VPAP, nearly all, if not all, of the remaining vote is from the southwestern panhandle of the state, and in counties where Hashmi is in fourth place. However, there are probably not enough votes yet to be counted remaining for Stoney to overtake Hashmi. https://www.vpap.org/electionresults/20250617/ltgov/dem/
There is a recent trend of big-city Democratic mayors becoming extremely unpopular while in office, and it's not a moderate/progressive thing, as that trend crosses intra-party lines.
we dodged a bullet with anyone but stoney, rouse would have brought geogrpahic diversity, and hashmi will do great. Stoney was a walking liability