If we win the trifecta in Wisconsin, and hold it through 2032 redistricting, how many Senate and Assembly seats could we realistically swing our direction without getting knocked down by the courts ourselves?
This would also give us a chance to pick up US House seats in Wisconsin.
This is a state where we should be passing independent redistricting shortly after we win a trifecta. Highly unlikely a trifecta survives a midterm of a Dem President in 2030 and there is a good chance of Republicans getting one (see 2010). An independent commission here takes the threat of Republicans being able to gerrymander here again for another decade (see 2010) off the table.
The only way an independent commission would work in Wisconsin is if it is specifically required to draw districts such that the party that wins the most votes is very likely to win a majority of seats. Otherwise, a commission-drawn map with compact districts that keep CoIs whole will give Republicans a majority due to Democrats' terrible political geography there (the same reason why a map like that in Nevada would give Democrats a majority). The wording of the commission's mandate is very important. Not all independent redistricting commissions are created equal, and in some cases they can be worse than doing nothing if their legal instructions aren't thought out well.
Also, keep in mind that even if Republicans win a trifecta in Wisconsin in 2030, they won't be able to gerrymander the state as long as Democrats control the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The commission language could be worded to take this into account, like requiring a as many competitive districts as possible.
Regarding relying on the Wisconsin Supreme Court staying Dem, that’s kind of like using a band aid to cover up a mortal wound. Nobody knows how long Dems will have a majority there. Unexpected things can happen over the next six years (folks could unexpectedly retire, pass away, etc). Also, SCOTUS could start getting involved in state SC decisions to benefit Republicans. You just don’t know. Bottom line, PA and WI are states that Dems should be working on getting commissions enacted.
Commissions are a hell of a lot of lot better than Republicans being able to gerrymander themselves into near permanent majorities.
The gerrymandering is super unpopular here in WI, and a fair solution would have a lot of popular support. I agree that the devil is in the details of an independent commission, but even an incremental improvement that *can pass* is better than holding out for perfection that goes nowhere.
I think if WI Ds win back the trifecta, they need to have the commission amendment worded similarly to Michigan’s or even the OH one that was sabotaged by Rs in 2024.
Yeah that’s what I was thinking. They should do it here and in PA if they get a trifecta there (state senate will be very tough, but maybe possible in 2028 if they can pick up a seat there this year).
I believe we are selling ourselves short in assuming that once we get back in power in some of these swing states that we won't be able to hold them. With the damage Republicans have done to education, health and social services, we should fix it and run on what we have accomplished. Then we should draw districts as favorably as we can under the scrutiny of the courts.
If we basically win an election, then act like we're going to lose the next one, in the long term this country is screwed.
Voters very rarely reward a party for its accomplishments in a midterm election. This kind of thinking unfortunately is what led to us not properly preparing for 2010 and getting wiped out in that election and allowing Republicans to take control of redistricting in many states and draw themselves into near permanently majorities (see NC or WI where it took us 15 years to undo their gerrymandered maps).
What is the downside of doing things as soon as possible to prepare for the worst?
I agree we need to do things differently from what we've done in the past. In 2032, with the reapportionment favoring currently Republican states, we had better figure out a way to win a couple of swing states routinely, or we could be in political Siberia.
I will argue that it's a good thing that we're going to be forced to expand our outreach because of the Electoral College math. The Senate map is brutal for us, and we cannot keep living on the edge, playing with the chance of a total wipeout of senate seats in swing states in a bad election cycle. We came very close to that happening in 2024. Having a national party focused on winning more states is probably a good thing in the long run.
Running on what we accomplished is scoffed at. As far as most people are concerned, Biden accomplished nothing. We need to make whatever moves we can quickly, because the public will very likely turn against us quickly.
We should note that any independent commission probably needs to be codified in the state constitution for it to last. Like Virginia, I believe that would require it passing the legislature in two consecutive sessions.
Unfortunately, I think the earliest it could get on the ballot is 2029. It seems two consecutive legislative sessions are required, so that would be 2027-2028 and 2028-2029. But they might be able to put it on the 2029 spring general elections for municipalities and judges (although, it might be risky, as no WI SCOTUS race would be on the ballot to drive up turnout).
In MD-05, Adrian Boafo seems like a great guy, and I think he'd do well in Congress.
Regarding Nicole Williams, however, Wikipedia says that she's opposed to creating a high-speed rail link between Baltimore and D.C. That's a major demerit in my book.
I don't know, I could see how a reasonable person might oppose high-speed rail between Baltimore and D.C. I'm generally supportive of high-speed rail and I live in D.C., but I don't know that ridership in that corridor would be high enough to merit the cost. I could be convinced if I saw a study saying that improving the speed would increase ridership by enough or if I'm wrong and there's already high enough ridership on that route, but I wouldn't hold it against her for now. I'd rather focus on fully funding WMATA for now.
I’m an Amtrak rider south of DC and you would be surprised at the long-distance commuters. Plus, BWI is a frequent choice for DC flyers. Both of those factors would weigh in favor of high-speed rail, plus the overcrowded air space.
True, but several years ago there was a plan to connect (or re-connect) Madison and Milwaukee by rail. They are about the same distance apart. I can’t remember offhand if that was high-speed or conventional, but it would have been a boon to the region. It was scrapped for a variety of reasons, all of them bad. I’m no longer in that area, but I believe it may be re-emerging. Where I am now, along the Charlotte to Atlanta corridor, there is also a high-speed rail plan that’s on the shelf from a couple of administrations back. This area is growing faster than any other area of the country. It would make sense to improve all modes of transportation. North Carolina is. I’m not sure about Georgia. Some cities in South Carolina are slowly improving bus service. Rail, not so much. By giving these examples, I’m trying to show that what may look like redundancy now may look like smart planning later.
In California, high speed rail is essential because as a state, it's much harder to even commute around the state from San Francisco to Los Angeles. It takes roughly anywhere from 4 1/2 - 6 1/2 hours to do this depending on traffic. If I wanted to work in Hollywood but be away from the influence of the entertainment environment in raising kids (which is what the Bay Area offers), I wouldn't know how I could make this work. Same goes if I were to find specific industry opportunities in LA or even San Diego that I wouldn't find here.
In CA, cutting down on the time traveled with high speed rail being a factor would also be a boon to cutting down pollution and traffic, especially with how much madness traffic is on the LA highways. BART has a lot of problems right now but for the time being, everyone here has to use it to save money and cut down on gas to get to work. I certainly wouldn't want BART and local bus lines to be the only opportunities to get around and find opportunities.
By contrast, the East Coast is just easier to get around. The time it takes from Baltimore to Arlington is considerably less than from NoCal to SoCal in just an hour by car. If I wanted to live in New Haven, CT where Yale University is and work in NYC, it would be only 1.5 to 1.75 hours by car. Hell, the time it takes to get from NoCal to SoCal is roughly the amount of time it takes from getting from CT to VA (New Haven to Arlington in this case). That's insane!
I think it all boils down to how much one is willing to tolerate in commuting. Bottom line, look at high speed rail as a way to increase the opportunity to live and work.
Fair. I don't live in NYC and cannot comment by experience on driving. I'm mainly referring to an approximate calculation that's given by Google Maps but in all honesty, irrespective of how long it takes, I wouldn't want to do it anyway. I'm more of a public transit guy and prefer using gas much less than I'd like to.
I do recall though making a visit to my friend from Berkeley who moved out to Silver Spring, MD with his close friend from NYU back in 2007 as well as several subsequent visits to VA in and around NoVa. I was amazed at how short of time it took to get around. Never tracked the time but through car, I remember it was much less of a pain than Bay Area traffic.
I suppose the same could be said about rush traffic in general, not specifically DC or even NYC.
Now that I remember, I visited my friend two days after President Obama won his first presidential election back in 2008. Took a flight from San Francisco International Airport to Reagan National Airport but it may have been the early evening. I know it didn’t take hours but it was probably 30-35 minutes.
I support high speed rail, but I don’t think it should be the top priority for Maryland transit, and frankly no one except the rich and people whose travel is subsidized by their workplace would be taking an $80 maglev train over a $34 Amtrak train just to save 30 minutes of time. And Marc is even cheaper, costing less than $10. When we already have multiple frequent, reliable, affordable ways to get between two cities in an hour or less, I don’t know if high speed rail is the move.
Maryland Dems are also proposing sending the map to the ballot as a constitutional amendment this fall. This seems like a way to bypass legal challenges but also tells me they have low confidence in courts upholding the map for 2026.
They should do all of the above. They can also file bills to curtail the judiciary’s power on it. They have safe supermajorities, might as well use them.
"Bill of Wrongs" – Powerful post by Timothy Snyder
Here is a small taste of Snyder’s cutting satire. I encourage you to read the whole piece:
"1. Congress shall make no law denying the Cult of all-wise Trump, or limiting the exercise thereof; or abridging His sole Freedom to define Truth, which includes his Self-Given Power to defraud, slander, and censor…"
MN Gubernatorial candidate Chris Madel withdrew this morning from the race, saying "he cannot support the national GOP’s “stated retribution on the citizens of our state, nor can I count myself a member of a party that would do so.”
Everyone is entitled to competent representation in the judicial system and I do not like this trend in recent years for attacking lawyers or law firms for who they represent. It is not a healthy trend.
I met Taylor at a local ice cream social last year. Very, very accomplished guy. He has been incredibly successful on a professional level and I was complaining about our lack of a candidate in this very race. Terrific young person that truly has the best interests of his fellow Iowans in mind.
Yes, Julius covered the development. I live in my local situation where people have been complaining about Taylor moving back to run when Bohannon has been running for years. My apologies for the lack of clarity.
Both are also in competitive primaries against establishment-backed candidates. I think the OP was asking if he's doing anything to help in generals as opposed to playing in primaries.
TN-HD-75 - Democratic candidate Allie Phillips of the Clarksville area is having to take her nine-month-old son to a children's hospital in Nashville due to breathing issues.
Interstate 24 is currently barely passable between Clarksville and Nashville due to the winter storm that passed through the area yesterday. Trying to balance being a political candidate and a parent is not easy in the best of times, and especially not in the worst of times.
Jennifer Konfrost has dropped out of the IA-3 primary. I live in IA-1 and have more friends and family in IA-2 than IA-3, I don't really have a preferred candidate in the IA-3 primary. I do think this drives down turnout in the U.S. Senate primary. We also have a primary for Secretary of Agriculture.
I live in IA-3. I don't think this has much impact on other races. Jennifer Konfrost has not been gaining much traction, both in support and fundraising. Not a dynamic candidate, but a competent one for sure. Just think she can see the writing on the wall and doesn't want to run a long campaign to come up well short
Given the controversy over Chuy timing his retirement to give his chief of staff effectively a free ride to Congress, this might not be the best endorsement for Stratton to publicly tout.
Stratton is getting a lot of the progressive endorsements; she was also endorsed by a lot of the progressive Champaign County Dems a few weeks ago.
I'll be honest, I don't think most normies, even the average Democratic primary voter, is that dialed in to inside baseball issues like García's retirement shenanigans. He's still broadly liked on the left for opposing Rahm, I'd wager.
Many Democrats pushed requiring TikTok to divest from China in order to operate in the U.S. They did and guess what? Larry Ellison inspired Leopards have appeared. Nice
With no explanations. @tiktok_us has throttled or frozen individual videos criticizing ICE and simply disabled entire accounts whether the video pertains to ICE or not - and not even offered spurious explanations or notices #TikTokCensorship
Yep. Not that celebrity opinions matter too much but I saw singer/songwriter Billie Eilish (who has a massive social media following) speak out against this.
I mean, this is what we want right? We want more people in our party (and outside for that matter!) to come closer to our beliefs on ICE? Is that not the entire point of the protests and our party members going out into media coverage? They want more support, not less, right?
This is why I will always take any Democrat over any Republican and mostly default to supporting Democratic incumbents in Trump seats, warts and all. Whatever they say or do gets a mostly free pass from me. They at least have open minds and are willing to change after new information comes in.
This is something that should be praised, not scorned regardless of how emotionally we feel about the horrific gestapo scenes we’re seeing and outrage we feel after 2 US citizens were killed for using their civil rights. Or any amount of “he should have known, never should have voted for it” backhanded dig for being late.
You know what civil rights protesters welcomed new people into their fight for justice at any time in any movement over the decades? Every single one. This is all in my opinion of course, you’re free to disagree, but every good policy passed in American history had late joiners in Congress who were no less influential into creating change than those who first wrote the bill.
Personally speaking, I’m glad Suozzi realizes his mistake and is admitting it. I like to see people grow to be better people, we all should have that ability as human beings.
I agree with you. There is a "but", though. Suozzi has sucked. These kinds of turnarounds are important, though, and absolutely to be welcomed, and your analogy of eye on the prize during the ~50s-70s period of the civil rights movement is very apt.
Suozzi has sucked many times before and will many times in the future, but even for the people who we think suck in our party (there will always be politicians who we don’t always agree with in office at any point now or in the future) we want them to become less sucky right? I’m glad you agree on the rest, we must unite with people who disagree with some/all of our beliefs to fight back against autocratic tyranny, or we fail to win this existential fight.
I completely agree, but like michaelflutist, also acknowledge Suozzi's previous blunders, which is why I was a little more cynical with this particular comment.
I broadly agree, but I think there's still room to question him here. This isn't a case where he had a lot of time to think it over or where he's had time to change or grow as an individual. It was four days ago, after ICE had already murdered a US citizen in broad daylight and lied about it in the immediate aftermath.
An additional person has been murdered by them in broad daylight. Is that his turning point? Why was one person insufficient? And perhaps most critically: what does he intend to do going forward having turned a new leaf? He said he "must do a better job" in being critical of ICE going forward. I think it's fair to ask what that entails.
People 100% should be given credit for reassessing and agreeing with us, but when they made so public and blatant a mistake so recently, I do want to hear more than a glorified "oops" -- I want details on how this affects their future behavior, I want to information to assess how genuine the change of heart is. If it's truly genuine then I'm fully on board with supporting it, but I want more than a token admitting of fault.
He’s also using this issue to directly attack Mills for her refusal to sign anti-Ice legislation, thus delaying it for months. This is the first time I recall him being so direct against Mills by calling her out by name. https://xbsky.app/profile/grahamformaine.bsky.social/post/3mddtt5e77k2a
Definitely how a frontrunner in a Democratic primary would act, sure. Attack the Democratic governor currently dealing with the crisis. 134 more days until the primary for those who can’t wait for this to be done.
Considering Mills had pro-Ice executive orders that she only very recently reversed and she refused to sign anti-Ice legislation passed by the legislature, I don’t think it is a bad thing for a strong primary encouraging her to instead be anti-Ice. Even if Platner doesn’t win the primary, having Mills pressured to be more anti-Ice is a good thing
He's calling her Susan Collins with a (D) next to her name. That's not a sign of someone who thinks they are in the lead right now. You are right that this primary is helpful in that it's forcing Mills to be more aggressive in her stances against Collins and in speaking out about ICE's lawless behavior.
Looks like having the moral position is better than having the focus tested position. Time will tell how this plays out but I'll take the flawed guy willing to go for the jugular and starts at the right moral position than someone who has to be coaxed into it.
This is literally a guy who advocated shooting fascists in the USA if they start attacking, professionally trained liberal gun owners and he’s supposed to be a secret nazi. It’s not like the tattoo was the most recognizable swastika or the lightning bolts. His extended family, his idol, the guy who recruited him and the lady who is his chief advisor, are Jewish. He has visited his activist friends and stepbrother in Israel. If the anonymous associate, who has made the allegations that he was aware of the significance since many years, is saying the truth then he should have the guts to come forward instead of giving anonymous quotes.
Don’t normally listen to speeches from our candidates (because there’s literally hundreds for each one every 2 years), but after watching I’m going to make a bold prediction: Platner’s going to win the primary and I don’t think it’ll be that close (5+ points). Never thought I’d think that, that’s for sure.
If any Democrat watches or listens to that and doesn’t feel like “this guy gets it, I’m going to fight like hell to get him elected” they’re not being truthful to their hearts. He’s literally building a stronger community to fight ICE in his stump speeches. I will not support him still, but if he wins I definitely won’t be disappointed either.
Something I feel a lot of the occasional arguments back and forth over this primary neglect is that both of them are meaningfully flawed. It's a pity nobody better jumped in.
I will say that my initial assessment, after the spate of bad coverage last year, that his campaign was dead in the water was clearly wrong. Even if he doesn't win, I was definitely wrong and he has a real chance. I'd agree with you that if anything I think he's the favored of the two right now.
The people being intellectually honest about this primary will acknowledge both of their flaws. I don't see many reluctant Mills supporters on here, myself included, that are all too thrilled about the prospect of backing a 78-year-old in a high stakes race.
Oh absolutely, these 2 candidates both have major baggage and Collins has been gaining approval, so either nominee could lose if she somehow manages mid 40’s approval and then wins just over half of the “disapprove of both candidates” voters in Maine, because I think Platner or Mills starts with 45% support pretty much locked in.
Not impossible by any means for someone who has beat every candidate Democrats have thrown at her in her Senate career, even in a hopefully very blue election year. Sadly stronger candidates decided to run for Governor instead of taking on Collins, which may end up costing Democrats a Senate Majority if she manages to weasel by once more.
Or maybe the race is a blowout Dem win over her, no one knows what the future holds, it’s up to Maine voters to decide.
I think if Collins is stuck relying on double-disapprove voters, she loses. Her victories have relied on her being liked by the electorate. Take that away and she loses the core of her electoral appeal: that people think of her as a different kind of republican.
For Collins, she needs to stay above the fray as Platner and Mills to get stuck in a months long contentious primary, then stave off the winner's attacks over the fall.
This is a big reason why I see Mills as flawed: I don't think she has the political instincts to go for the jugular and make the kind of attacks to make Collins unpopular and consequently beatable. A Mills victory relies on being carried by the political environment. Platner I think has the right kind of campaign for that, the question is if his disapprovals end up sufficiently bad to cancel it out.
I’m pretty sure if I recall correctly, that in 2020 she won her race with a 45-54 (-9) approval or something close to it(?), so that’s why I used that metric. I agree that she’s probably more likely to lose in 2026, than win, but even 30% chances do still happen a lot in politics, so I wouldn’t go as far as predicting it if she has to win double disapprovers.
She did it before and she can do it again, even though I wish she was burnt toast and DOA in polls from the MAGA voting “moderate”.
If we win the trifecta in Wisconsin, and hold it through 2032 redistricting, how many Senate and Assembly seats could we realistically swing our direction without getting knocked down by the courts ourselves?
This would also give us a chance to pick up US House seats in Wisconsin.
This is a state where we should be passing independent redistricting shortly after we win a trifecta. Highly unlikely a trifecta survives a midterm of a Dem President in 2030 and there is a good chance of Republicans getting one (see 2010). An independent commission here takes the threat of Republicans being able to gerrymander here again for another decade (see 2010) off the table.
The only way an independent commission would work in Wisconsin is if it is specifically required to draw districts such that the party that wins the most votes is very likely to win a majority of seats. Otherwise, a commission-drawn map with compact districts that keep CoIs whole will give Republicans a majority due to Democrats' terrible political geography there (the same reason why a map like that in Nevada would give Democrats a majority). The wording of the commission's mandate is very important. Not all independent redistricting commissions are created equal, and in some cases they can be worse than doing nothing if their legal instructions aren't thought out well.
Also, keep in mind that even if Republicans win a trifecta in Wisconsin in 2030, they won't be able to gerrymander the state as long as Democrats control the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The commission language could be worded to take this into account, like requiring a as many competitive districts as possible.
Regarding relying on the Wisconsin Supreme Court staying Dem, that’s kind of like using a band aid to cover up a mortal wound. Nobody knows how long Dems will have a majority there. Unexpected things can happen over the next six years (folks could unexpectedly retire, pass away, etc). Also, SCOTUS could start getting involved in state SC decisions to benefit Republicans. You just don’t know. Bottom line, PA and WI are states that Dems should be working on getting commissions enacted.
Commissions are a hell of a lot of lot better than Republicans being able to gerrymander themselves into near permanent majorities.
The gerrymandering is super unpopular here in WI, and a fair solution would have a lot of popular support. I agree that the devil is in the details of an independent commission, but even an incremental improvement that *can pass* is better than holding out for perfection that goes nowhere.
I think if WI Ds win back the trifecta, they need to have the commission amendment worded similarly to Michigan’s or even the OH one that was sabotaged by Rs in 2024.
Yeah that’s what I was thinking. They should do it here and in PA if they get a trifecta there (state senate will be very tough, but maybe possible in 2028 if they can pick up a seat there this year).
I believe we are selling ourselves short in assuming that once we get back in power in some of these swing states that we won't be able to hold them. With the damage Republicans have done to education, health and social services, we should fix it and run on what we have accomplished. Then we should draw districts as favorably as we can under the scrutiny of the courts.
If we basically win an election, then act like we're going to lose the next one, in the long term this country is screwed.
Voters very rarely reward a party for its accomplishments in a midterm election. This kind of thinking unfortunately is what led to us not properly preparing for 2010 and getting wiped out in that election and allowing Republicans to take control of redistricting in many states and draw themselves into near permanently majorities (see NC or WI where it took us 15 years to undo their gerrymandered maps).
What is the downside of doing things as soon as possible to prepare for the worst?
I agree we need to do things differently from what we've done in the past. In 2032, with the reapportionment favoring currently Republican states, we had better figure out a way to win a couple of swing states routinely, or we could be in political Siberia.
I will argue that it's a good thing that we're going to be forced to expand our outreach because of the Electoral College math. The Senate map is brutal for us, and we cannot keep living on the edge, playing with the chance of a total wipeout of senate seats in swing states in a bad election cycle. We came very close to that happening in 2024. Having a national party focused on winning more states is probably a good thing in the long run.
Running on what we accomplished is scoffed at. As far as most people are concerned, Biden accomplished nothing. We need to make whatever moves we can quickly, because the public will very likely turn against us quickly.
We should note that any independent commission probably needs to be codified in the state constitution for it to last. Like Virginia, I believe that would require it passing the legislature in two consecutive sessions.
In WI and PA, I believe they can get it on the ballot this way. They can pass it in 2027 and 2028 and get it on the ballot in 2028.
Unfortunately, I think the earliest it could get on the ballot is 2029. It seems two consecutive legislative sessions are required, so that would be 2027-2028 and 2028-2029. But they might be able to put it on the 2029 spring general elections for municipalities and judges (although, it might be risky, as no WI SCOTUS race would be on the ballot to drive up turnout).
PA does not have a ballot initiative process.
Something can be put on the ballot by the legislature.
Keep winning WISC elections and you dont need to worry. Go for the gerrymander if you have a trifecta and if you dont courts institute a fair map.
In MD-05, Adrian Boafo seems like a great guy, and I think he'd do well in Congress.
Regarding Nicole Williams, however, Wikipedia says that she's opposed to creating a high-speed rail link between Baltimore and D.C. That's a major demerit in my book.
Agreed, any Dem that's anti-public transit is a no-go for me.
I don't know, I could see how a reasonable person might oppose high-speed rail between Baltimore and D.C. I'm generally supportive of high-speed rail and I live in D.C., but I don't know that ridership in that corridor would be high enough to merit the cost. I could be convinced if I saw a study saying that improving the speed would increase ridership by enough or if I'm wrong and there's already high enough ridership on that route, but I wouldn't hold it against her for now. I'd rather focus on fully funding WMATA for now.
I’m an Amtrak rider south of DC and you would be surprised at the long-distance commuters. Plus, BWI is a frequent choice for DC flyers. Both of those factors would weigh in favor of high-speed rail, plus the overcrowded air space.
Maybe I'm mistaken but isn't it just about an hour and 15 minutes between the two by train? That's not particularly long distance.
Times two, that’s a lot out of a day.
You normally hear about high speed being between distance cities, not two that close together.
True, but several years ago there was a plan to connect (or re-connect) Madison and Milwaukee by rail. They are about the same distance apart. I can’t remember offhand if that was high-speed or conventional, but it would have been a boon to the region. It was scrapped for a variety of reasons, all of them bad. I’m no longer in that area, but I believe it may be re-emerging. Where I am now, along the Charlotte to Atlanta corridor, there is also a high-speed rail plan that’s on the shelf from a couple of administrations back. This area is growing faster than any other area of the country. It would make sense to improve all modes of transportation. North Carolina is. I’m not sure about Georgia. Some cities in South Carolina are slowly improving bus service. Rail, not so much. By giving these examples, I’m trying to show that what may look like redundancy now may look like smart planning later.
In California, high speed rail is essential because as a state, it's much harder to even commute around the state from San Francisco to Los Angeles. It takes roughly anywhere from 4 1/2 - 6 1/2 hours to do this depending on traffic. If I wanted to work in Hollywood but be away from the influence of the entertainment environment in raising kids (which is what the Bay Area offers), I wouldn't know how I could make this work. Same goes if I were to find specific industry opportunities in LA or even San Diego that I wouldn't find here.
In CA, cutting down on the time traveled with high speed rail being a factor would also be a boon to cutting down pollution and traffic, especially with how much madness traffic is on the LA highways. BART has a lot of problems right now but for the time being, everyone here has to use it to save money and cut down on gas to get to work. I certainly wouldn't want BART and local bus lines to be the only opportunities to get around and find opportunities.
By contrast, the East Coast is just easier to get around. The time it takes from Baltimore to Arlington is considerably less than from NoCal to SoCal in just an hour by car. If I wanted to live in New Haven, CT where Yale University is and work in NYC, it would be only 1.5 to 1.75 hours by car. Hell, the time it takes to get from NoCal to SoCal is roughly the amount of time it takes from getting from CT to VA (New Haven to Arlington in this case). That's insane!
I think it all boils down to how much one is willing to tolerate in commuting. Bottom line, look at high speed rail as a way to increase the opportunity to live and work.
I don't think you could count on traffic working for you between New York and New Haven. Better to take Metro North.
Fair. I don't live in NYC and cannot comment by experience on driving. I'm mainly referring to an approximate calculation that's given by Google Maps but in all honesty, irrespective of how long it takes, I wouldn't want to do it anyway. I'm more of a public transit guy and prefer using gas much less than I'd like to.
I do recall though making a visit to my friend from Berkeley who moved out to Silver Spring, MD with his close friend from NYU back in 2007 as well as several subsequent visits to VA in and around NoVa. I was amazed at how short of time it took to get around. Never tracked the time but through car, I remember it was much less of a pain than Bay Area traffic.
DC traffic can be horrible, though. I'm guessing that wasn't during rush hour.
I suppose the same could be said about rush traffic in general, not specifically DC or even NYC.
Now that I remember, I visited my friend two days after President Obama won his first presidential election back in 2008. Took a flight from San Francisco International Airport to Reagan National Airport but it may have been the early evening. I know it didn’t take hours but it was probably 30-35 minutes.
Boafo's a little rough on that one issue but so are most members.
Not sure what issue you're talking about. If it's the forbidden issue, then why did you bring it up in the first place?
And if it's something else, then maybe you can elaborate on it.
The forbidden one.
Are you not aware of what 'forbidden' means?
I've seen people mention "the issue" and even some specific facets and elements of it before. I think I'll be fine.
Only if no-one wants to debate that it's "rough".
Considering Hoyer was endorsed by AIPAC and DMFI prior to exiting the race, it's not a stretch that anyone he'd endorse would be aligned that way.
He was described as the leader of AIPAC Dems by the New York Times.
You mean Boafo?
You can just say that he's endorsed by AIPAC rather than saying if he's smooth or rough.
I support high speed rail, but I don’t think it should be the top priority for Maryland transit, and frankly no one except the rich and people whose travel is subsidized by their workplace would be taking an $80 maglev train over a $34 Amtrak train just to save 30 minutes of time. And Marc is even cheaper, costing less than $10. When we already have multiple frequent, reliable, affordable ways to get between two cities in an hour or less, I don’t know if high speed rail is the move.
https://marylandmatters.org/2026/01/23/house-wastes-no-time-taking-up-congressional-redistricting-bill/
Maryland Dems are also proposing sending the map to the ballot as a constitutional amendment this fall. This seems like a way to bypass legal challenges but also tells me they have low confidence in courts upholding the map for 2026.
They should do all of the above. They can also file bills to curtail the judiciary’s power on it. They have safe supermajorities, might as well use them.
Why wait until this fall? Put it on the ballot in April, like Virginia is doing, so the new map can be used in the Congressional elections this fall.
Maryland constitutional amendments can only be voted on in November general elections in even years.
Darn.
Well, at least we'll gain the seat in the 2028 election.
well, let's hope the Senate's opposition to redistricting doesn't extend to allowing a referendum as well.
This was very interesting.
"Bill of Wrongs" – Powerful post by Timothy Snyder
Here is a small taste of Snyder’s cutting satire. I encourage you to read the whole piece:
"1. Congress shall make no law denying the Cult of all-wise Trump, or limiting the exercise thereof; or abridging His sole Freedom to define Truth, which includes his Self-Given Power to defraud, slander, and censor…"
https://snyder.substack.com/p/the-bill-of-wrongs
MN Gubernatorial candidate Chris Madel withdrew this morning from the race, saying "he cannot support the national GOP’s “stated retribution on the citizens of our state, nor can I count myself a member of a party that would do so.”
https://bsky.app/profile/jljacobson.bsky.social/post/3mddkdtuyxl2n
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/ice-in-minnesota/republican-candidate-for-mn-governor-is-providing-legal-counsel-to-ice-agent/89-221ac923-3f46-4afc-a62a-80df65bcc9f6
Despite this, he's the lawyer for Jonathan Ross, the man who killed Renee Good.
He can't support it unless it makes him money
John Adams was the lawyer for the British soldiers who committed the Boston Massacre.
I've heard people say this. Was he being "principled" in both instances? Or did he have a "road to Damascus" moment after the second killing?
Unlike with John Adams, I don't think it would be hard for the ICE agent to find competent representation. Madel is not his savior.
Everyone is entitled to competent representation in the judicial system and I do not like this trend in recent years for attacking lawyers or law firms for who they represent. It is not a healthy trend.
Was not my intent. Just noting how his words may be perceived as hypocritical or present a conflict of interest.
Chris Madel’s exit from from the Minnesota governor’s race is a big damn deal – but his stated reasons for exiting constitute a political earthquake!
IA-1 News:
I met Taylor at a local ice cream social last year. Very, very accomplished guy. He has been incredibly successful on a professional level and I was complaining about our lack of a candidate in this very race. Terrific young person that truly has the best interests of his fellow Iowans in mind.
https://www.kcci.com/article/iowa-politics-taylor-wettach-runs-for-state-auditor/70134363?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot&fbclid=IwY2xjawPkcCVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETExcmJhSnY0YndBV3R3Q1RRc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHtaFMxS66-KYQxkABmKcXewmjhKO_sP6ftcfK_PW8_hC-qb4SZY_Z1-Sq1Jl_aem_1II9h4ibKViLzjJDiUB1Tg
Iowa has a lot of good candidates this cycle. Hope it can shape up to be even better than 2018 for you guys.
Wait, are you talking about the IA-01 Congressional Race or are you talking about the IA Auditor race?
You said IA-1 so that's why I'm asking. IA-01 I believe has three House candidates running on the Democratic Party side heading to the primary.
IA-1 and auditor - Taylor Wettach switched from the former to the latter
Got it. Thanks for clarifying.
Yes, Julius covered the development. I live in my local situation where people have been complaining about Taylor moving back to run when Bohannon has been running for years. My apologies for the lack of clarity.
No problem. I got the impression you were talking about the auditor's race as you were citing that related article specifically.
MA-8:
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5706046-david-hogg-backs-patrick-roath/
David Hogg's PAC is backing Pat Roath, the attorney/Deval Patrick alum who is challenging Stephen Lynch in the primary.
I'd be voting for Roath if I lived there, too. Lynch isn't very good.
Correct. I've never forgiven Lynch for voting against the ACA in 2010.
Who else is Hogg’s PAC backing? Is he stepping up to defeat any incumbent Republicans?
Yes, he’s backing Randy Villegas for David Valadao’s seat.
https://leaderswedeserve.com/2026-candidates/
These are Hogg's candidates. As Finnley said, Villegas is taking on David Valadao, and in addition Graham Platner is taking on Susan Collins.
Both are also in competitive primaries against establishment-backed candidates. I think the OP was asking if he's doing anything to help in generals as opposed to playing in primaries.
I’d assume the answer would be yes. I don’t think they’d bail on their candidate once they win the primary.
MI-Gov:
https://www.mlive.com/politics/2026/01/former-presidential-candidate-perry-johnson-joins-governors-race-for-a-second-time.html
Businessman Perry Johnson is in as a Republican.
Time to place 5th in the primary
Bold assumption he can make the ballot
TN-HD-75 - Democratic candidate Allie Phillips of the Clarksville area is having to take her nine-month-old son to a children's hospital in Nashville due to breathing issues.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DT-rMCyjrAh/?igsh=eTdhMWR5YWJ3dzlo
Interstate 24 is currently barely passable between Clarksville and Nashville due to the winter storm that passed through the area yesterday. Trying to balance being a political candidate and a parent is not easy in the best of times, and especially not in the worst of times.
Jennifer Konfrost has dropped out of the IA-3 primary. I live in IA-1 and have more friends and family in IA-2 than IA-3, I don't really have a preferred candidate in the IA-3 primary. I do think this drives down turnout in the U.S. Senate primary. We also have a primary for Secretary of Agriculture.
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1318300803663954&set=a.222631233230922
That's a surprise; I was not expecting either candidate to drop out.
Not sure what the reasoning is. It is a surprising development to me as well.
Sarah Trone Garriott seems like a formidable candidate. Should be good. Apparently 2024 nominee Lanon Baccam has filed too.
I live in IA-3. I don't think this has much impact on other races. Jennifer Konfrost has not been gaining much traction, both in support and fundraising. Not a dynamic candidate, but a competent one for sure. Just think she can see the writing on the wall and doesn't want to run a long campaign to come up well short
IL-Sen - Retiring U.S. Rep. Chuy Garcia endorses Juliana Stratton:
https://www.instagram.com/p/DT-1WnDEV5F/?img_index=1&igsh=MTNtYmlvZWQyZ2RvcQ
Given the controversy over Chuy timing his retirement to give his chief of staff effectively a free ride to Congress, this might not be the best endorsement for Stratton to publicly tout.
Stratton is getting a lot of the progressive endorsements; she was also endorsed by a lot of the progressive Champaign County Dems a few weeks ago.
I'll be honest, I don't think most normies, even the average Democratic primary voter, is that dialed in to inside baseball issues like García's retirement shenanigans. He's still broadly liked on the left for opposing Rahm, I'd wager.
It's certainly one of the lesser sins of IL politics. Remember we had a Governor try to sell a Senate seat.
in fact i still love him for giving rahm a run for his money, so I would agree
I'm still pissed about Garcia's antics, but I do think he did good work in Congress and politics.
Even Greg Abbott is like “whoa we need to do an investigation and deescalate ICE activity in MN.”
For a MAGA Republican to say that, says that it’s affecting his internal poll numbers.
Boy, if Abbott could be unseated as Governor, that would be a real tidal wave the GOP hasn't faced in a LONG time.
Many Democrats pushed requiring TikTok to divest from China in order to operate in the U.S. They did and guess what? Larry Ellison inspired Leopards have appeared. Nice
With no explanations. @tiktok_us has throttled or frozen individual videos criticizing ICE and simply disabled entire accounts whether the video pertains to ICE or not - and not even offered spurious explanations or notices #TikTokCensorship
https://x.com/keitholbermann/status/2015750793639408017?s=46&t=sbdQQeYBqp0h_Zql717iTw
*Fry Gif* I'm Shocked. Shocked! Well... Not that shocked.
Yep. Not that celebrity opinions matter too much but I saw singer/songwriter Billie Eilish (who has a massive social media following) speak out against this.
Actually, this seems to be a site wide problem with the US TikTok yesterday. Doesn't seem to be targeted censorship, at least not yet.
https://www.theverge.com/news/867625/tiktok-down-weekend-broke-fyp-video-uploads-review
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/01/26/congress/tom-suozzi-dhs-funding-vote-00746598
NY-3: Rep. Tom Suozzi says he regrets his vote to fund ICE.
Why'd you do it, then, Tom?
I mean, this is what we want right? We want more people in our party (and outside for that matter!) to come closer to our beliefs on ICE? Is that not the entire point of the protests and our party members going out into media coverage? They want more support, not less, right?
This is why I will always take any Democrat over any Republican and mostly default to supporting Democratic incumbents in Trump seats, warts and all. Whatever they say or do gets a mostly free pass from me. They at least have open minds and are willing to change after new information comes in.
This is something that should be praised, not scorned regardless of how emotionally we feel about the horrific gestapo scenes we’re seeing and outrage we feel after 2 US citizens were killed for using their civil rights. Or any amount of “he should have known, never should have voted for it” backhanded dig for being late.
You know what civil rights protesters welcomed new people into their fight for justice at any time in any movement over the decades? Every single one. This is all in my opinion of course, you’re free to disagree, but every good policy passed in American history had late joiners in Congress who were no less influential into creating change than those who first wrote the bill.
Personally speaking, I’m glad Suozzi realizes his mistake and is admitting it. I like to see people grow to be better people, we all should have that ability as human beings.
I agree with you. There is a "but", though. Suozzi has sucked. These kinds of turnarounds are important, though, and absolutely to be welcomed, and your analogy of eye on the prize during the ~50s-70s period of the civil rights movement is very apt.
Suozzi has sucked many times before and will many times in the future, but even for the people who we think suck in our party (there will always be politicians who we don’t always agree with in office at any point now or in the future) we want them to become less sucky right? I’m glad you agree on the rest, we must unite with people who disagree with some/all of our beliefs to fight back against autocratic tyranny, or we fail to win this existential fight.
I absolutely agree with that.
Hear hear. Same goes for anybody whose scales come off the eyes and ditch MAGA.
I completely agree, but like michaelflutist, also acknowledge Suozzi's previous blunders, which is why I was a little more cynical with this particular comment.
I broadly agree, but I think there's still room to question him here. This isn't a case where he had a lot of time to think it over or where he's had time to change or grow as an individual. It was four days ago, after ICE had already murdered a US citizen in broad daylight and lied about it in the immediate aftermath.
An additional person has been murdered by them in broad daylight. Is that his turning point? Why was one person insufficient? And perhaps most critically: what does he intend to do going forward having turned a new leaf? He said he "must do a better job" in being critical of ICE going forward. I think it's fair to ask what that entails.
People 100% should be given credit for reassessing and agreeing with us, but when they made so public and blatant a mistake so recently, I do want to hear more than a glorified "oops" -- I want details on how this affects their future behavior, I want to information to assess how genuine the change of heart is. If it's truly genuine then I'm fully on board with supporting it, but I want more than a token admitting of fault.
ME-SEN:
Graham Platner's leading on the issue of being against ICE and is not relenting in his rhetoric.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv5h7zUBwrA
He’s also using this issue to directly attack Mills for her refusal to sign anti-Ice legislation, thus delaying it for months. This is the first time I recall him being so direct against Mills by calling her out by name. https://xbsky.app/profile/grahamformaine.bsky.social/post/3mddtt5e77k2a
Definitely how a frontrunner in a Democratic primary would act, sure. Attack the Democratic governor currently dealing with the crisis. 134 more days until the primary for those who can’t wait for this to be done.
Considering Mills had pro-Ice executive orders that she only very recently reversed and she refused to sign anti-Ice legislation passed by the legislature, I don’t think it is a bad thing for a strong primary encouraging her to instead be anti-Ice. Even if Platner doesn’t win the primary, having Mills pressured to be more anti-Ice is a good thing
He's calling her Susan Collins with a (D) next to her name. That's not a sign of someone who thinks they are in the lead right now. You are right that this primary is helpful in that it's forcing Mills to be more aggressive in her stances against Collins and in speaking out about ICE's lawless behavior.
Actions have consequences. Holding establishment dems accountable for their votes and vetoes sucks, I know. Vote blue no matter who.
Meanwhile, Platner has calling to abolish ICE since Trump's 1st term but he's supposed to be a crypto Fetterman.
Looks like having the moral position is better than having the focus tested position. Time will tell how this plays out but I'll take the flawed guy willing to go for the jugular and starts at the right moral position than someone who has to be coaxed into it.
This is literally a guy who advocated shooting fascists in the USA if they start attacking, professionally trained liberal gun owners and he’s supposed to be a secret nazi. It’s not like the tattoo was the most recognizable swastika or the lightning bolts. His extended family, his idol, the guy who recruited him and the lady who is his chief advisor, are Jewish. He has visited his activist friends and stepbrother in Israel. If the anonymous associate, who has made the allegations that he was aware of the significance since many years, is saying the truth then he should have the guts to come forward instead of giving anonymous quotes.
They won't though. they're probably from the same consultant class that profits from Democratic Losses so they don't have to actually do anything.
Don’t normally listen to speeches from our candidates (because there’s literally hundreds for each one every 2 years), but after watching I’m going to make a bold prediction: Platner’s going to win the primary and I don’t think it’ll be that close (5+ points). Never thought I’d think that, that’s for sure.
If any Democrat watches or listens to that and doesn’t feel like “this guy gets it, I’m going to fight like hell to get him elected” they’re not being truthful to their hearts. He’s literally building a stronger community to fight ICE in his stump speeches. I will not support him still, but if he wins I definitely won’t be disappointed either.
Something I feel a lot of the occasional arguments back and forth over this primary neglect is that both of them are meaningfully flawed. It's a pity nobody better jumped in.
I will say that my initial assessment, after the spate of bad coverage last year, that his campaign was dead in the water was clearly wrong. Even if he doesn't win, I was definitely wrong and he has a real chance. I'd agree with you that if anything I think he's the favored of the two right now.
The people being intellectually honest about this primary will acknowledge both of their flaws. I don't see many reluctant Mills supporters on here, myself included, that are all too thrilled about the prospect of backing a 78-year-old in a high stakes race.
Oh absolutely, these 2 candidates both have major baggage and Collins has been gaining approval, so either nominee could lose if she somehow manages mid 40’s approval and then wins just over half of the “disapprove of both candidates” voters in Maine, because I think Platner or Mills starts with 45% support pretty much locked in.
Not impossible by any means for someone who has beat every candidate Democrats have thrown at her in her Senate career, even in a hopefully very blue election year. Sadly stronger candidates decided to run for Governor instead of taking on Collins, which may end up costing Democrats a Senate Majority if she manages to weasel by once more.
Or maybe the race is a blowout Dem win over her, no one knows what the future holds, it’s up to Maine voters to decide.
I think if Collins is stuck relying on double-disapprove voters, she loses. Her victories have relied on her being liked by the electorate. Take that away and she loses the core of her electoral appeal: that people think of her as a different kind of republican.
For Collins, she needs to stay above the fray as Platner and Mills to get stuck in a months long contentious primary, then stave off the winner's attacks over the fall.
This is a big reason why I see Mills as flawed: I don't think she has the political instincts to go for the jugular and make the kind of attacks to make Collins unpopular and consequently beatable. A Mills victory relies on being carried by the political environment. Platner I think has the right kind of campaign for that, the question is if his disapprovals end up sufficiently bad to cancel it out.
I’m pretty sure if I recall correctly, that in 2020 she won her race with a 45-54 (-9) approval or something close to it(?), so that’s why I used that metric. I agree that she’s probably more likely to lose in 2026, than win, but even 30% chances do still happen a lot in politics, so I wouldn’t go as far as predicting it if she has to win double disapprovers.
She did it before and she can do it again, even though I wish she was burnt toast and DOA in polls from the MAGA voting “moderate”.
That's fair. I have no recollection of her approvals being negative in 2020. If they were in the -10 range or so then my argument is not very strong.