Here's CB's summary: "In a closely-divided, politically inelastic state like North Carolina, we’d like to see more before making Cooper a favorite in our ratings—we can easily imagine Cooper leading every poll of the race only for it to be decided by a point either way in a state that remains a little bit redder than Georgia."
I understand the rationale, but disagree. I continue to think most mainstream outlets are hedging on the overall environment, overindexing on generic ballot polling (which has noticeably ticked up in the new year) and generally having status quo bias
In my view, Georgia should have never been rated a tossup in the first place. It's been a Lean Democrat race from the beginning, especially with how much Jon Ossoff has in a war chest and how less likely he's facing a serious challenge on the GOP side.
He's going to have to work to keep his seat. Which means voting against his party's wishes this year -- and he hasn't done that with the appropriations bill.
If we keep this up (and keep Rs in disarray), this could be 2010 in reverse. Republicans need to lose seats all over this country, federal and state seats alike.
Just out of curiosity why does everyone keep saying they want a “reverse 2010” instead of just 2006?
In 2006, through most of the cycle the consensus was that democrats were definitely taking back the House but that the Senate was a stretch. But as things continued to deteriorate for republicans, democrats managed to pull off winning control of the senate.
In 2010 Republicans were expected to win control of the senate but failed to do so because they nominated too many right wing candidates outside of the mainstream.
I wouldn’t consider “reverse 2010” to be a good goal. 2006 is a good goal.
Why am I hoping for a reverse 2010 here in North Carolina? Democrats lost their majorities completely in the state legislature, while control of the state Senate flipped from supermajority D to supermajority R in 2010. So I am hoping for the reverse this year.
And considering how the awful Phil Berger is on thin ice with his own voters (and only won 54% of the vote in 2024), he deserves to be thrown off his perch. Winning one or even snagging both state houses despite the gerrymandering would be amazing.
I'd be super curious to see a geographic breakdown on the approvals from white voters.
In my own unrepresentative bubble I do not think any of the people, who are overwhelmingly white, I've interacted with in the past half year ever approved of him. I expect there's large parts of the south and mountain west where people will have the exact opposite experience.
The other groups are lopsided enough that we would expect some reliable consistency across geography.
The urban-rural divide is part of it, but there is a generational divide - a significant number of Gen Z lean Democratic while a significant number of Boomers (the ones that vote more) are strongly Republican. Also, many people I speak to aren't particularly interested in politics and will form their opinions (factual or not) based on what is shown to them through media.
What about Annie Andrews’ presence in the SC-SEN race?
She seems to be doing well fundraising and polling wise but we know in the past Senate elections Democrats haven’t been able to cut down the margins to single digits.
Well, she has the advantage of running against the SC incumbent Senator that locals dislike more. She has a medical background, iirc, so that helps with medicaid, etc. I think being a woman helps with moderates and Dems here, and SC elected Nikki Haley as Gov., so at least isn't a negative. But SC is very inelastic and Graham wasn't like when Jaime Harrison ran against him, and he still won despite the boatload of $ Harrison spent
Yeah, my cohort in Gen X is awful. Makes me wonder what happened to us. Though I take some solace that my friends who voted Dole or W now vote D all the way.
I have had my differences of opinion on Klobuchar as a Senator but she’s also coming with nearly 20 years of serving in the Senate and has been one of the most intelligent Senators Democrats have.
So far, her campaign announcement video is pretty solid.
It would be amazing if we had more Senators like Klobuchar (without her treatment of staff) in swing states who overperform a lot and have a moderate tone while having a sharply partisan voting record.
The Senate reconvenes in a couple of hours. I was really encouraged by yesterday’s Republican failure to pass Cloture on their budget bill. They needed 60 votes and weren’t even close. With all Democrats speaking with one voice, seven Republicans voting Nay for a variety of reasons, plus Thune casting a Nay vote for procedural reasons, it failed massively: 45–55.
Clearly, Senate Democrats are scoring a serious victory by separating five big budget bills from DHS/ICE, and allowing a mere two-week Continuing Resolution for the latter while budget negotiations proceed. Moreover, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has managed to keep Democrats, even Fetterman, fully united.
Question: Is it desirable for Democrats – and, if so, achievable – to next further separate out FEMA, the Coast Guard, THS, etc, and approve these separate from ICE and CBP? In other words, if Trump & the GOP refuse to make meaningful concession on ICE, then approve ONLY the non-controversial parts of the DHS budget...
AlienAlias wrote: "That's just not possible. The funding vehicle IS the DHS appropriations bill. Stripping ICE out is functionally defunding it, and that's not going to happen."
.
I am not so sure. Temporarily removing DHS from the budget bill is not the same as stripping it. Likewise, temporarily removing ICE and the CBP from the DHS budget bill, while negotiations continue on constraints on ICE pracitces, is hardly the same as defunding ICE.
Regardless, the Senate will now have to consider the DHS separately. I am merely arguing for whittling it down further, i.e. that the rest of the DHS budget proceed – while ICE and the CBP be negotiated and considered separately.
I mean, to point 3, I guess I don't really see that as much of an escalation after Republicans passed funding recissions of parts of already passed funding bills last year. Unless I'm missing something.
Republicans will never agree to that, and frankly why would they? It also sets a bad precedent . . Republicans would then demand future carve outs from EPA, HHS, Labor etc. approps and nothing would ever get funded.
As long as Warsh continues the trend of Federal Reserve Chairman from Ben Bernanke and on of being more proactive in addressing economic downturns instead of being another Alan Greenspan, I have less concern.
Of course, Trump did nominate Jerome Powell in his first term to be Fed Chair. He likely was hearing a mouthful from Wall Street and chose accordingly in this case with Warsh.
He does have previous Fed experience on one hand. On the other, he will be counted on as a loyal yes man. His wife's father, who knows Trump well, Ronald Lauder, is the guy who got trump to want Greenland in the first place.
They have one, singular, animalistic, tunnel-vision goal. Get rates slashed to the bone, so that the markets can spend the summer and fall ripping up, and Trump can get good headlines, tout good numbers, and get GOP votes, because the upper 40% will see their IRAs, 401ks, Roths and equities/assets up by 10-20% right before the midterms. That's it!!! That's all its ever been about! There is absolutely zero medium or long term, structural or comprehensive planning. They don't give a damn what this will do to the country in the next decade and more. Its all about short term rips in the market so the wealthy can extract out another set of pumps.
Given Trump has less than 3 years left in office, the influence of Warsh would probably not be as significant as Alan Greenspan’s influence was, which was decades in the making before Ben Bernanke replaced him. Which was before the Great Recession hit.
Whoever the next Democratic Party POTUS is, better nominate someone much better than Warsh. Neel Kashkari is my preference although I’m sure there are more progressive-minded choices for Fed Chair.
Bernanke is really sharply critical of Warsh in his book. He seems like the worst choice, from the people i've spoken to that actually know things about monetary policy.
St. Paul, Minnesota - Former CNN anchor Don Lemon was arrested this morning, apparently for a report he made on a church that lead authorities to believe he was demonstrating against ICE.
After Trump is gone, the number of lawsuits against the government will be staggering. Also, the number of government attorneys who end up getting disbarred for participating in clearly unethical behavior such as this will be massive.
The key is said institutions who hold such powers to disbar people need to actually do it once there is a Democrat back in the White House, hopefully by 2029. All of this bullshit is happening because Trump has told everyone working for him they will all have a federal pardon waiting for them once their service to him is over.
If Matt Mahan gets into the top 2 then he is almost guaranteed to be the next governor no matter who his opponent is: Republican or a progressive in the general. If the opponent is a Republican, progressives will vote for him and if the opponent is a progressive, Republicans will vote for him.
I don't see Mahan getting into the runoff. Although San Jose is the third largest city in California very few people outside of the Santa Clara (Silicon) Valley know who he is or follow S.J. politics. San Francisco always gets more attention even though it is a smaller city. Even if he raises and spends a lot of money it will be hard for him to break through to the top of the ticket. While there are four months to go before the primary it still looks to me like the leading Democrat will be either Swalwell or Porter, more likely Swalwell.
There might be wall-to-wall ads on TV and the internet for the gubernatorial race by late April but right now Tom Steyer is the only one up with advertising. I agree with the post that there won't be an all-GOP top two. There would only be an all-Dem runoff if the Repubs can't separate themselves to have a front-runner. I don't know whether that would be Sheriff Bianco or the other guy, but the next California Governor will not be a Repub.
The all dem top 2 logic isn't what we've seen in the past. If it worked that way, Harris would have lost the 2016 senate general election to Sanchez. Instead she won by over 20 points.
It's easy for a lot of us to miss, but most partisans republicans are going to see two democrats and hate both of them equally. Some will definitely note the ideological gap, but not enough to have this result. Same deal with partisan democrats picking between two republicans. Most democrats will hate them both equally, and only some will note the ideological gap and vote accordingly.
Sometimes they vote against their own ideological interests to spite the Democrats - see 2018, where Republicans generally supported the more progressive Kevin de Leon over Feinstein
It's because Feinstein was an entrenched incumbent and anti-Trump Democrat while de Leon was antiestablishment. Something similar would have happened to Porter if she got into the top 2 a couple of years ago.
Not really, Harris was a popular establishment Democrat not a progressive at that point and Sanchez was a Blue Dog with hardly any support from normie Dems. Harris only tried to outflank Sanders from the left in the Senate.
I don't know whether it works but Mahan is clearly trying to establish the ideological gap and focus between him and his rivals.
I think that's proving my point. Regular establishment dem vs blue dog dem has a clear ideological gap. If republicans were the type to make those ideologically calculated votes in an all dem top two, we'd have seen Sanchez do a lot better.
She did lock up all Republican support while getting negligible Dem support. Republicans backed her even in the top 2 primary. Another thing to note why Republicans might back Mahan is because he has been anti-Sacramento establishment his entire career even though he is a moderate and connected to tech.
Reportedly, internal polling showed that Porter would have won the 2024 senate election if she went to the general since Republicans hated Schiff and liked her anti establishment stance.
Congressman Al Green is holding a press conference today urging Mike Johnson to immediately swear in whoever wins the special election for Texas 18. A partial government shutdown should be no excuse for Johnson to behave as he did with Adelita Grijalva in refusing to seat a legitimately elected representative and thereby prevent the slim Republican majority from further erosion.
I hear you all about the low likelihood of a lockout in CA, but the two GOP candidates are polling in the high teens/low twenties and all the Dems are in the low teens. Been fairly consistent, too, with more and more folks joining the race.
At some point, I think we need to trust our eyes and say CA Dems are headed for a lockout. The activists in California need to pressure the pols here to consolidate. Fat chance, I know, given how egomaniacal the typical California politician is.
My two cents? Consolidate behind Swalwell since Porter might have some drag on downballot races. (Can't you just see the ads now?).
If we trust our eyes we see that there is a very large pool of undecided voters (around 40%) who mostly lean Democratic. I suppose that I am one of the undecided voters since I started out supporting Betty Yee, switched to Katie Porter and now am not sure for whom I'll cast my ballot for CA-Gov. I think this will be a good election to vote closer to the deadline to check out late developments in the race.
Why should we assume Swalwell is the stronger candidate? Porter flipped and held a swing district, he only ever held a Safe D seat so far as I'm aware.
Porter underperformed Biden by 5 points in 2020, and ran a point ahead of Padilla in 2022, there's no particular reason to believe she's a stronger candidate than Swalwell. Swalwell's performances are fairly similar, but a progressive with some workplace mistreatment allegations is probably not the ideal candidate.
C'mon, almost everyone underperformed Biden in 2020, and "she only overperformed sometimes" is pretty weak justification to get behind Swalwell out of electability concerns. And it's not like Swalwell has no controversies for the GOP to attack either.
It's a statewide race in California in a blue year. People should vote for who they think would be the best governor (out of the frontrunners because of top 2), not play electability mind games.
Looking at other house races in California in 2020, that's just false. I'm not arguing she has a chance of not winning against a Republican, but rather her margin of victory and coattails will probably be weaker. And in terms of who'd be the best governor, Porter calling the 2024 senate primary rigged feels worth bringing up, as does those workplace mistreatment allegations.
Swalwell promises pie-in-the-sky, unrealistic anti-Trump and anti-ICE policies to grab eyeballs and comes off as too much of a slopulist while also trying to be a centrist. I don’t see many good options. Swallwell has centered his entire political identity on opposing Trump and resist posting without offering affirmative solutions to problems for years.
Gavin's attitude toward the homeless. His staunch opposition to RCV (Which coincidentally enough would have solved the problem of Dems getting locked out and we wouldn't have to be discussing it). His weather vane style of politics. His vow to stop the billionaire tax. His flip flop on Single Payer Healthcare in California. That's not even touching on his out of touch podcast. I plain just don't like him in general.
Schiff is meh. His votes are fine for the most part and yes, my antipathy towards him is mostly that I thought we could do so much better than him in a state like California. But he catapulted himself to the Senate seat on the back of his opposition to Trump, again. Personal preference but he would have been a fine Senator from any state other than California.
Newsom did get Healthy San Francisco established when he was Mayor although it was an initiative that was started by then-Supervisor Tom Ammiano. Newsom didn't exactly start this to begin with.
He doesn’t have the same background as Newsom and Schiff did coming in politics. Swalwell grew up in a more middle class household with a cop as a father and a mother who held multiple odd jobs. Although I have my issues with Swalwell, he’s just tougher than Newsom and Schiff. He doesn’t flinch and doesn’t beat around the bush when he gives answers to questions. Also used to be an attorney in the Alameda County DA’s office before he was elected as a City Councilmember in Dublin.
How Swalwell is as it relates to statewide office and being Governor is an entirely different question all together. Frankly, if Swalwell ran for State Attorney General and Rob Bonta ran for Governor instead, that would have been even better for California.
That makes sense. I think Swalwell will be better than Newsom and Schiff but it's not really a high bar. And almost like clockwork Newsom gives us more to work with:
I agree. I was not looking for the CA gubernatorial to be a situation where we have no choice between Porter and Swalwell.
FYI, Newsom was appointed to replace Kevin Shelley in District 2 as Supervisor by Willie Brown when he was Mayor. We're talking about the most ritzy, wealthy part of San Francisco that includes Cow Hollow, the Marina, Pacific Heights and Presidio Heights. Outside of the Sea Cliff, real estate is the most expensive here. Many Democrats who don't come from SF or have lived there in the 2000's are aware of this, not to mention that Brown himself was never liked by liberals in the city.
I give Newsom empathy for being neurodivergent as he has dyslexia. However, he's unwilling to challenge his own wealthy donors and powers that be to be bold enough on policy. Jerry Brown has a better record with this.
This is part of the reason why I was hesitant in supporting Katie Porter for Governor in the first place.
Last year, I had seen discussion here about Porter being the best choice for being Governor as she would fight against Trump. I thought having a Governor better than Newsom and running state government more competently was a better idea, not just fighting against Trump. There would only be two years left of Trump as POTUS and if Porter ran for her 2nd term as Governor, what else besides being an anti-Trump fighter?
This is why I thought Toni Atkins was a perfect choice. Experienced, first lesbian and woman Governor and previously State Senate Pro Tem. Came with a background more prepared to serve as Governor than the rest of the pack as well as having come from a blue collar background. It was unfortunate she didn’t get traction.
However, in seeing Swalwell appear at a town hall or so, I sense he’s more prepared to be Governor than Porter. His platform is more focused and at one of the town halls in Fresno, Swalwell came across more like a regular guy talking. Personable and not making calculated campaign talk. Frankly, I think primary voters may warm up to him more than Porter but that’s also what my gut tells me.
Shawn Fluharty becomes another Democratic WV delegate to challenge a state senator, this time Republican Laura Chapman in the Wheeling area. Del. John Williams is also challenging one of my state senators, Mike Oliverio, near Morgantown.
Chapman's district is more red than Oliverio's, so who knows. The last time this particular seat went blue was in the 2018 wave, then Chapman flipped it in 2022. The district's other senator has been Republican Ryan Weld since 2016.
Is there any reason to believe Fluharty can translate his strength to anywhere outside of Wheeling? Looking at the 1st senate district in the 2024 U.S. senate race, Glenn Elliott outran Harris in and around Wheeling, but only ended up doing 5 points better in the district overall.
I'm actually curious whether the disastrous DHS/ICE handling in MN has turned more people off the Republican Party (or making it hard for GOP voters to support their party this year) than what's being polled. I think we'll probably see an even bigger drop-off from GOP voters compared to other midterms.
I've been wondering the same thing ever since Abbott issued his statement on ICE. After being shocked that he would say anything remotely critical, my first thought was polling must be horrendous if you're issuing a statement.
This year is VERY ripe for some upset losses. While I don't expect him to lose re-election (TX should've implemented term limits for governor either way), he must see some REALLY bad polling for his party in TX.
Him and/or Paxton losing would be a big hit for the TX Republican Party, akin to what Phil Berger losing his primary in March could be in NC. And with the shenanigans they pulled with redistricting last year, plus the MN chaos, it's possible that there's enough fed up TX voters (and newly registered ones) to throw the bums out.
They need to move NC from Toss-up to Leans D.
NH should go to Likely D and AK should move to tossup, as well
They wrote that NC races are always close and before doing that, they would like to see Cooper hit 50% in a poll.
I think he'll hit 50% by the summer.
That race has had "52-47, Cooper" written in stone since jump street.
Here's CB's summary: "In a closely-divided, politically inelastic state like North Carolina, we’d like to see more before making Cooper a favorite in our ratings—we can easily imagine Cooper leading every poll of the race only for it to be decided by a point either way in a state that remains a little bit redder than Georgia."
I understand the rationale, but disagree. I continue to think most mainstream outlets are hedging on the overall environment, overindexing on generic ballot polling (which has noticeably ticked up in the new year) and generally having status quo bias
Long overdue. It was Lean D the minute Brian Kemp declined.
In my view, Georgia should have never been rated a tossup in the first place. It's been a Lean Democrat race from the beginning, especially with how much Jon Ossoff has in a war chest and how less likely he's facing a serious challenge on the GOP side.
Crystal Ball has been slow.
So their best candidate is a guy named Brinker Harding.
Whoa. Lindstrom was a pretty formidable recruit. That’s a big big deal
He's going to have to work to keep his seat. Which means voting against his party's wishes this year -- and he hasn't done that with the appropriations bill.
Peltola’s got a good shot at giving Dan Sullivan a run for his money.
I’m sure Sullivan’s lower than expected approval ratings in recent days are attributed to his BBB vote.
If we keep this up (and keep Rs in disarray), this could be 2010 in reverse. Republicans need to lose seats all over this country, federal and state seats alike.
Just out of curiosity why does everyone keep saying they want a “reverse 2010” instead of just 2006?
In 2006, through most of the cycle the consensus was that democrats were definitely taking back the House but that the Senate was a stretch. But as things continued to deteriorate for republicans, democrats managed to pull off winning control of the senate.
In 2010 Republicans were expected to win control of the senate but failed to do so because they nominated too many right wing candidates outside of the mainstream.
I wouldn’t consider “reverse 2010” to be a good goal. 2006 is a good goal.
Why am I hoping for a reverse 2010 here in North Carolina? Democrats lost their majorities completely in the state legislature, while control of the state Senate flipped from supermajority D to supermajority R in 2010. So I am hoping for the reverse this year.
And considering how the awful Phil Berger is on thin ice with his own voters (and only won 54% of the vote in 2024), he deserves to be thrown off his perch. Winning one or even snagging both state houses despite the gerrymandering would be amazing.
Boy, I SURE like hearing the sound of more elections being won by Democrats!
Keep it coming Trump!
I'd be super curious to see a geographic breakdown on the approvals from white voters.
In my own unrepresentative bubble I do not think any of the people, who are overwhelmingly white, I've interacted with in the past half year ever approved of him. I expect there's large parts of the south and mountain west where people will have the exact opposite experience.
The other groups are lopsided enough that we would expect some reliable consistency across geography.
West Virginia, normally a solidly conservative state, seems to be mixed - though I do live in a swingy area.
Morgantown?
Correct
Why do you say mixed? Is more of the concentration of Democrats and Democratic Party-friendly voters in cities vs towns or something else?
I recall you said Monongalia County is divided between blue and deep red so that’s why I am asking.
The urban-rural divide is part of it, but there is a generational divide - a significant number of Gen Z lean Democratic while a significant number of Boomers (the ones that vote more) are strongly Republican. Also, many people I speak to aren't particularly interested in politics and will form their opinions (factual or not) based on what is shown to them through media.
Are Gen Zers in WV more inclined to be in the urban parts of the state such as Charleston, Huntington, etc?
Yes, this would be an important caveat to see.
I don't see Trump signs going away around here in SC...
What about Annie Andrews’ presence in the SC-SEN race?
She seems to be doing well fundraising and polling wise but we know in the past Senate elections Democrats haven’t been able to cut down the margins to single digits.
Well, she has the advantage of running against the SC incumbent Senator that locals dislike more. She has a medical background, iirc, so that helps with medicaid, etc. I think being a woman helps with moderates and Dems here, and SC elected Nikki Haley as Gov., so at least isn't a negative. But SC is very inelastic and Graham wasn't like when Jaime Harrison ran against him, and he still won despite the boatload of $ Harrison spent
Holy shit those are apocalyptic numbers. Only 73% with GOPers?
I am unsurprised that late Boomers/early Xers remain his best cohort though
Yeah, my cohort in Gen X is awful. Makes me wonder what happened to us. Though I take some solace that my friends who voted Dole or W now vote D all the way.
Hey, if Democrats can pick up John James’ House seat and win the gubernatorial race, that’s what counts.
I think she has health issues since she has been hospitalized for very brief periods a few times.
I have had my differences of opinion on Klobuchar as a Senator but she’s also coming with nearly 20 years of serving in the Senate and has been one of the most intelligent Senators Democrats have.
So far, her campaign announcement video is pretty solid.
It would be amazing if we had more Senators like Klobuchar (without her treatment of staff) in swing states who overperform a lot and have a moderate tone while having a sharply partisan voting record.
100% agree!
The Senate reconvenes in a couple of hours. I was really encouraged by yesterday’s Republican failure to pass Cloture on their budget bill. They needed 60 votes and weren’t even close. With all Democrats speaking with one voice, seven Republicans voting Nay for a variety of reasons, plus Thune casting a Nay vote for procedural reasons, it failed massively: 45–55.
Clearly, Senate Democrats are scoring a serious victory by separating five big budget bills from DHS/ICE, and allowing a mere two-week Continuing Resolution for the latter while budget negotiations proceed. Moreover, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has managed to keep Democrats, even Fetterman, fully united.
Question: Is it desirable for Democrats – and, if so, achievable – to next further separate out FEMA, the Coast Guard, THS, etc, and approve these separate from ICE and CBP? In other words, if Trump & the GOP refuse to make meaningful concession on ICE, then approve ONLY the non-controversial parts of the DHS budget...
AlienAlias wrote: "That's just not possible. The funding vehicle IS the DHS appropriations bill. Stripping ICE out is functionally defunding it, and that's not going to happen."
.
I am not so sure. Temporarily removing DHS from the budget bill is not the same as stripping it. Likewise, temporarily removing ICE and the CBP from the DHS budget bill, while negotiations continue on constraints on ICE pracitces, is hardly the same as defunding ICE.
Regardless, the Senate will now have to consider the DHS separately. I am merely arguing for whittling it down further, i.e. that the rest of the DHS budget proceed – while ICE and the CBP be negotiated and considered separately.
They’ve already got a slush fund from the Big Ugly Bill so why not just zero them out now?
I mean, to point 3, I guess I don't really see that as much of an escalation after Republicans passed funding recissions of parts of already passed funding bills last year. Unless I'm missing something.
Republicans will never agree to that, and frankly why would they? It also sets a bad precedent . . Republicans would then demand future carve outs from EPA, HHS, Labor etc. approps and nothing would ever get funded.
I'm actually shocked both FL Senators voted AGAINST it, as Scott isn't up for re-election until 2030. Moody I get since she's up this year, but Scott?
Are Republicans seeing beyond dire polling for their party nationwide? Because I would love to see FL Democrats win major statewide races again.
I think they are just the far-right nihilists who vote against all government spending unless directed to do otherwise by their master.
In the CA Governor race, I'm kind of surprised at this point that more of the candidates haven't
followed lead of Eleni Kounalakis & Fiona Ma and dropped down to run for a lower or different office. AG Rob Bonta dropped out to run for re-election.
Bonta was never in.
Officially no, unofficially yes. He was fundraising, polling and multiple candidates had already filed and started fundraising for the AG primary.
Just like Bill Huizenga was unofficially running for Senate and Mike Lawler for governor.
Could be interesting if Esther Kim Varet locks out either Young Kim or Ken Calvert in CA-40.
I’d like to see either one of them get unseated since the district is supposed to be more favorable to either one of them.
Kevin Warsh gets the nod as next Fed Chair. He’s probably the least bad choice (other than maybe Waller) but he’ll have huge holes to fill after JPow
As long as Warsh continues the trend of Federal Reserve Chairman from Ben Bernanke and on of being more proactive in addressing economic downturns instead of being another Alan Greenspan, I have less concern.
Of course, Trump did nominate Jerome Powell in his first term to be Fed Chair. He likely was hearing a mouthful from Wall Street and chose accordingly in this case with Warsh.
He does have previous Fed experience on one hand. On the other, he will be counted on as a loyal yes man. His wife's father, who knows Trump well, Ronald Lauder, is the guy who got trump to want Greenland in the first place.
They have one, singular, animalistic, tunnel-vision goal. Get rates slashed to the bone, so that the markets can spend the summer and fall ripping up, and Trump can get good headlines, tout good numbers, and get GOP votes, because the upper 40% will see their IRAs, 401ks, Roths and equities/assets up by 10-20% right before the midterms. That's it!!! That's all its ever been about! There is absolutely zero medium or long term, structural or comprehensive planning. They don't give a damn what this will do to the country in the next decade and more. Its all about short term rips in the market so the wealthy can extract out another set of pumps.
Given Trump has less than 3 years left in office, the influence of Warsh would probably not be as significant as Alan Greenspan’s influence was, which was decades in the making before Ben Bernanke replaced him. Which was before the Great Recession hit.
Whoever the next Democratic Party POTUS is, better nominate someone much better than Warsh. Neel Kashkari is my preference although I’m sure there are more progressive-minded choices for Fed Chair.
Bernanke is really sharply critical of Warsh in his book. He seems like the worst choice, from the people i've spoken to that actually know things about monetary policy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/30/us/don-lemon-arrest-minnesota-church-protest.html
St. Paul, Minnesota - Former CNN anchor Don Lemon was arrested this morning, apparently for a report he made on a church that lead authorities to believe he was demonstrating against ICE.
After Trump is gone, the number of lawsuits against the government will be staggering. Also, the number of government attorneys who end up getting disbarred for participating in clearly unethical behavior such as this will be massive.
The key is said institutions who hold such powers to disbar people need to actually do it once there is a Democrat back in the White House, hopefully by 2029. All of this bullshit is happening because Trump has told everyone working for him they will all have a federal pardon waiting for them once their service to him is over.
While Ice personnel who murder go uncharged
The charge is going to be tossed out in court.
Or fail to be indicted in the first place
I think even the buffoons in the administration know this, but the point is to discourage scrutiny by making things difficult for journalists.
feels more like red meat for the base who were calling for it more than the admin was.
No guarantee that works. Could have a Streisand effect instead by making journalists more willing to speak out.
Their attempts at intimidation usually backfire because they just make people angrier.
In Nebraska yesterday, a high school student attending a peaceful protest in front of her school was struck by an SUV with a Trump 2024 flag. The SUV stopped briefly, then drove on. https://www.newschannelnebraska.com/story/53414270/protester-struck-by-suv-displaying-trump-flag-at-fremont-high-school
If Matt Mahan gets into the top 2 then he is almost guaranteed to be the next governor no matter who his opponent is: Republican or a progressive in the general. If the opponent is a Republican, progressives will vote for him and if the opponent is a progressive, Republicans will vote for him.
I don't see Mahan getting into the runoff. Although San Jose is the third largest city in California very few people outside of the Santa Clara (Silicon) Valley know who he is or follow S.J. politics. San Francisco always gets more attention even though it is a smaller city. Even if he raises and spends a lot of money it will be hard for him to break through to the top of the ticket. While there are four months to go before the primary it still looks to me like the leading Democrat will be either Swalwell or Porter, more likely Swalwell.
There might be wall-to-wall ads on TV and the internet for the gubernatorial race by late April but right now Tom Steyer is the only one up with advertising. I agree with the post that there won't be an all-GOP top two. There would only be an all-Dem runoff if the Repubs can't separate themselves to have a front-runner. I don't know whether that would be Sheriff Bianco or the other guy, but the next California Governor will not be a Repub.
I think he draws from Swallwell even if he doesn't get into the top two, and only hurts him against Porter.
I grew up in Santa Clara County and I don't think many people IN Silicon Valley follow S.J. politics. Including in San Jose!
The all dem top 2 logic isn't what we've seen in the past. If it worked that way, Harris would have lost the 2016 senate general election to Sanchez. Instead she won by over 20 points.
It's easy for a lot of us to miss, but most partisans republicans are going to see two democrats and hate both of them equally. Some will definitely note the ideological gap, but not enough to have this result. Same deal with partisan democrats picking between two republicans. Most democrats will hate them both equally, and only some will note the ideological gap and vote accordingly.
Sometimes they vote against their own ideological interests to spite the Democrats - see 2018, where Republicans generally supported the more progressive Kevin de Leon over Feinstein
It's because Feinstein was an entrenched incumbent and anti-Trump Democrat while de Leon was antiestablishment. Something similar would have happened to Porter if she got into the top 2 a couple of years ago.
Not really, Harris was a popular establishment Democrat not a progressive at that point and Sanchez was a Blue Dog with hardly any support from normie Dems. Harris only tried to outflank Sanders from the left in the Senate.
I don't know whether it works but Mahan is clearly trying to establish the ideological gap and focus between him and his rivals.
I think that's proving my point. Regular establishment dem vs blue dog dem has a clear ideological gap. If republicans were the type to make those ideologically calculated votes in an all dem top two, we'd have seen Sanchez do a lot better.
She did lock up all Republican support while getting negligible Dem support. Republicans backed her even in the top 2 primary. Another thing to note why Republicans might back Mahan is because he has been anti-Sacramento establishment his entire career even though he is a moderate and connected to tech.
Reportedly, internal polling showed that Porter would have won the 2024 senate election if she went to the general since Republicans hated Schiff and liked her anti establishment stance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Kamala_Harris#United_States_Senate_election_(2016)
Congressman Al Green is holding a press conference today urging Mike Johnson to immediately swear in whoever wins the special election for Texas 18. A partial government shutdown should be no excuse for Johnson to behave as he did with Adelita Grijalva in refusing to seat a legitimately elected representative and thereby prevent the slim Republican majority from further erosion.
I'm sure he'll try and stall again. As well as with the NJ-11 winner. And I'm sure the winners of GA-14 and CA-1 will be sworn in ASAP.
I hear you all about the low likelihood of a lockout in CA, but the two GOP candidates are polling in the high teens/low twenties and all the Dems are in the low teens. Been fairly consistent, too, with more and more folks joining the race.
At some point, I think we need to trust our eyes and say CA Dems are headed for a lockout. The activists in California need to pressure the pols here to consolidate. Fat chance, I know, given how egomaniacal the typical California politician is.
My two cents? Consolidate behind Swalwell since Porter might have some drag on downballot races. (Can't you just see the ads now?).
Not a terrible idea. I think the idea of just hoping the field consolidates and denying any real risk of a Republican governor is not the way to go.
If we trust our eyes we see that there is a very large pool of undecided voters (around 40%) who mostly lean Democratic. I suppose that I am one of the undecided voters since I started out supporting Betty Yee, switched to Katie Porter and now am not sure for whom I'll cast my ballot for CA-Gov. I think this will be a good election to vote closer to the deadline to check out late developments in the race.
I'm one those undecideds as well. First choice is Porter but if asked in a survey, I would say undecided.
I echo what others have said too--we need fewer candidates, not more. I'm irritated that Steyer and Mahan have jumped in.
I'm also an undecided but am supporting Porter at the moment. It will be fine.
Why should we assume Swalwell is the stronger candidate? Porter flipped and held a swing district, he only ever held a Safe D seat so far as I'm aware.
Porter underperformed Biden by 5 points in 2020, and ran a point ahead of Padilla in 2022, there's no particular reason to believe she's a stronger candidate than Swalwell. Swalwell's performances are fairly similar, but a progressive with some workplace mistreatment allegations is probably not the ideal candidate.
C'mon, almost everyone underperformed Biden in 2020, and "she only overperformed sometimes" is pretty weak justification to get behind Swalwell out of electability concerns. And it's not like Swalwell has no controversies for the GOP to attack either.
It's a statewide race in California in a blue year. People should vote for who they think would be the best governor (out of the frontrunners because of top 2), not play electability mind games.
Looking at other house races in California in 2020, that's just false. I'm not arguing she has a chance of not winning against a Republican, but rather her margin of victory and coattails will probably be weaker. And in terms of who'd be the best governor, Porter calling the 2024 senate primary rigged feels worth bringing up, as does those workplace mistreatment allegations.
Swalwell promises pie-in-the-sky, unrealistic anti-Trump and anti-ICE policies to grab eyeballs and comes off as too much of a slopulist while also trying to be a centrist. I don’t see many good options. Swallwell has centered his entire political identity on opposing Trump and resist posting without offering affirmative solutions to problems for years.
He feels like another Adam Schiff and Gavin Newsom. Great on opposing Trump, Piss Poor on everything else.
How exactly are Schiff and Newsom "piss poor" on everything else?
Gavin's attitude toward the homeless. His staunch opposition to RCV (Which coincidentally enough would have solved the problem of Dems getting locked out and we wouldn't have to be discussing it). His weather vane style of politics. His vow to stop the billionaire tax. His flip flop on Single Payer Healthcare in California. That's not even touching on his out of touch podcast. I plain just don't like him in general.
Schiff is meh. His votes are fine for the most part and yes, my antipathy towards him is mostly that I thought we could do so much better than him in a state like California. But he catapulted himself to the Senate seat on the back of his opposition to Trump, again. Personal preference but he would have been a fine Senator from any state other than California.
Newsom did get Healthy San Francisco established when he was Mayor although it was an initiative that was started by then-Supervisor Tom Ammiano. Newsom didn't exactly start this to begin with.
There’s one thing you are missing about Swalwell:
He doesn’t have the same background as Newsom and Schiff did coming in politics. Swalwell grew up in a more middle class household with a cop as a father and a mother who held multiple odd jobs. Although I have my issues with Swalwell, he’s just tougher than Newsom and Schiff. He doesn’t flinch and doesn’t beat around the bush when he gives answers to questions. Also used to be an attorney in the Alameda County DA’s office before he was elected as a City Councilmember in Dublin.
How Swalwell is as it relates to statewide office and being Governor is an entirely different question all together. Frankly, if Swalwell ran for State Attorney General and Rob Bonta ran for Governor instead, that would have been even better for California.
That makes sense. I think Swalwell will be better than Newsom and Schiff but it's not really a high bar. And almost like clockwork Newsom gives us more to work with:
https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/gavin-newsom-pge-21322884.php
I agree. I was not looking for the CA gubernatorial to be a situation where we have no choice between Porter and Swalwell.
FYI, Newsom was appointed to replace Kevin Shelley in District 2 as Supervisor by Willie Brown when he was Mayor. We're talking about the most ritzy, wealthy part of San Francisco that includes Cow Hollow, the Marina, Pacific Heights and Presidio Heights. Outside of the Sea Cliff, real estate is the most expensive here. Many Democrats who don't come from SF or have lived there in the 2000's are aware of this, not to mention that Brown himself was never liked by liberals in the city.
I give Newsom empathy for being neurodivergent as he has dyslexia. However, he's unwilling to challenge his own wealthy donors and powers that be to be bold enough on policy. Jerry Brown has a better record with this.
This is part of the reason why I was hesitant in supporting Katie Porter for Governor in the first place.
Last year, I had seen discussion here about Porter being the best choice for being Governor as she would fight against Trump. I thought having a Governor better than Newsom and running state government more competently was a better idea, not just fighting against Trump. There would only be two years left of Trump as POTUS and if Porter ran for her 2nd term as Governor, what else besides being an anti-Trump fighter?
This is why I thought Toni Atkins was a perfect choice. Experienced, first lesbian and woman Governor and previously State Senate Pro Tem. Came with a background more prepared to serve as Governor than the rest of the pack as well as having come from a blue collar background. It was unfortunate she didn’t get traction.
However, in seeing Swalwell appear at a town hall or so, I sense he’s more prepared to be Governor than Porter. His platform is more focused and at one of the town halls in Fresno, Swalwell came across more like a regular guy talking. Personable and not making calculated campaign talk. Frankly, I think primary voters may warm up to him more than Porter but that’s also what my gut tells me.
https://www.theintelligencer.net/news/top-headlines/2026/01/w-va-del-shawn-fluharty-announces-run-for-state-senate/
Shawn Fluharty becomes another Democratic WV delegate to challenge a state senator, this time Republican Laura Chapman in the Wheeling area. Del. John Williams is also challenging one of my state senators, Mike Oliverio, near Morgantown.
Chapman's district is more red than Oliverio's, so who knows. The last time this particular seat went blue was in the 2018 wave, then Chapman flipped it in 2022. The district's other senator has been Republican Ryan Weld since 2016.
Is there any reason to believe Fluharty can translate his strength to anywhere outside of Wheeling? Looking at the 1st senate district in the 2024 U.S. senate race, Glenn Elliott outran Harris in and around Wheeling, but only ended up doing 5 points better in the district overall.
It's a good year to try it out. It's time for him to leave the House anyway - 12 year member
I'm actually curious whether the disastrous DHS/ICE handling in MN has turned more people off the Republican Party (or making it hard for GOP voters to support their party this year) than what's being polled. I think we'll probably see an even bigger drop-off from GOP voters compared to other midterms.
I've been wondering the same thing ever since Abbott issued his statement on ICE. After being shocked that he would say anything remotely critical, my first thought was polling must be horrendous if you're issuing a statement.
This year is VERY ripe for some upset losses. While I don't expect him to lose re-election (TX should've implemented term limits for governor either way), he must see some REALLY bad polling for his party in TX.
Him and/or Paxton losing would be a big hit for the TX Republican Party, akin to what Phil Berger losing his primary in March could be in NC. And with the shenanigans they pulled with redistricting last year, plus the MN chaos, it's possible that there's enough fed up TX voters (and newly registered ones) to throw the bums out.