Call it schadenfreude, but it’s been a genuine pleasure watching Elise Stefanik’s political career – as well as the brief promise of her diplomatic career – go up in flames.
Nothing would please me more than now seeing a Democrat defeat her heir in this once-bright-Red Congressional district. Fingers crossed!
she'll probably get aconsolation prize post-midterms and try to leverage that into something in a future GOP admin. She's still quite young and has demonstrated a willingness to be a sock puppet as needed.
I suspect Janet Mill got in late because no one any better was willing to run in this race because they all wanted to be governor. Troy Jackson would be ahead by high single digits right now.
I'm no Platner fan and am concerned we're throwing away a relative layup by nominating him, but I also have a hard time seeing a lead that size against Collins, regardless of the candidate.
You’d think an incumbent being down or even tied in the polls in a state that favors the other party would mean they are finished. Still not sure what happened in 2020, since the polls in ME in the presidential race weren’t that far off the actual result.
Collins at 48-50 approval actually makes me feel better about this poll. I've been a Collins approval truther ever since 2020, all those polls that supposedly had her miserably unpopular, near the most unpopular incumbent in the whole chamber, were obviously missing something, and part of the eventual double digit error. If she's near break even approvals (which I honestly think she is), then it was always going to be a tough race, we're in good position being ahead at all. And I certainly don't think some rando state legislator would just be cruising here.
I wouldn't be surprised if despite all of Platner's shall we say moral failings he wins out in the end. The Bulwark recently did a focus group of 2020 Biden-Collins voters (all but one of the participants in that bucket also voted for Kamala in 2024) and basically everyone was in one way or another ready to hold their nose and vote for Platner as long as something didn't come out where he'd be criminally charged for said act.
One focus group participant went on a mini-rant about Platner's inexperience if he was elected to the Senate, but even that participant at the end of said rants said despite all of that they were still voting for Platner.
Interestingly during that Focus Group voters brought up Collins' vote for Kavanaugh as a reason why they were done with her. 8 years after she voted for him...
Quote from the digest: "'election integrity'—a rallying cry for conservatives who baselessly believe that American elections are plagued with fraud."
Why would we assume they believe this? Some crazy people believe this, but a great majority of Republican politicians know this is false and are habitually lying to justify efforts at election-stealing.
It's basically a nice word for election denying. Or as I like to call it, "election integrity is Republican code for not wanting Black people and college students voting."
Saw JD Vance on Bill Maher Friday, and his "election rigging" explanation was one I'd never heard before (at least outside of the right-wing bubble, I assume). Putting aside actual vote counting processes, he claimed private companies were suppressing information harmful to Dems in the runup to 2020, that's why it was rigged against Trump. What Maher didn't push back on -- even if that's true, what is the remedy for it? The other person wins? We vote again? Some neutral source sends out the "correct" information to every voter? Imagine if no election counted because some subset of voters heard "bad" information? There'd never be anyone taking office. (Not to mention the hypocrisy of this argument w/r/t 2016 and Russia.)
MN-Sen - Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey endorsed Angie Craig.
This means that Craig has the endorsements of both the Minneapolis and St. Paul (Kaohly Her) mayors, but Peggy Flanagan has the endorsements of the U.S. House members representing Minneapolis (Ilhan Omar) and St. Paul (Betty McCollum). Interesting.
Definitely interesting that House members are endorsing against their colleague, though Omar and McCollum are certainly on the left side of the caucus.
SCOTUS ruled against FDJT on late-arriving mail ballots, on a 5-4 decision. Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion, who was joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear Republican arguments in defense of Arizona laws that risk disenfranchising eligible voters and make it harder to register.
Ah, that is good news on late arriving ballots. The argument against on constitutional grounds was absurd. On policy merits some states should tighten the window but doing it this way was insane
It was puzzling when the RNC challenged an absentee mail law from a state with a GOP trifecta. But then I realized they were pulling the same playbook they did with Dobbs, which also started in MS.
That may honestly be giving them too much credit. Plenty of states, including GOP ones, allow a mail grace period, and MS’s of five days is entirely reasonable
If Rs wanted Mississippi to do away with the grace period, they would've gotten the ear of Tate and the MS GOP majority to do so. The fact that they filed suit in a red state (rather than purple or blue) shows they wanted SCOTUS to do away with the grace period nationwide.
Well, sure, because Trump irrationally hates mail voting and the Fifth Circuit is stupidly friendly to shitty lawsuits even by federal appellate standards. That is not why MS put its Grace period into its election law to begin with
I honestly expected it to be 5-4 either way. Alito and Thomas basically do Trump's bidding, while Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett exhibit a few signs of independence (though not much). Roberts acts like Susan Collins whenever something truly controversial is in the works.
But then they ruled for Trump in Rebecca Slaughter's firing. I swear to God, the next Democratic president needs to do some clean up and take advantage of SCOTUS's partisan rulings against them.
The independence of those agencies was via laws passed by Congress and SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT. That the Congress and POTUS together can't restrict their own authority is the definition of absurd.
The serious Republican (e.g. FedSoc and basically no one else) movement is very much envisioning a system of government that constrains rulemaking and the power of the executive to engage in regulatory actions while being unconstrained in the nat sec and immigration spaces. The fix here is just to abolish the filibuster and reform the laws that give unfettered discretion to the President on a lot of this stuff and pass regulatory laws as we want them to be implement. Absent the filibuster, their vision of government is going to collapse very quickly and they'll pivot to something else we can respond to in time.
And it was only a very narrow ruling where they left the door open to support Cook's removal anyway. Bill "Mortgage Fraud" Pulte already hinted that Cook will be formally charged with mortgage fraud which SCOTUS maybe down with her removal in that case since right now there's only an open criminal investigation against her.
"HOLD UP @kai_newkirk has emailed/posted 2 polls today with 2 different results. No links to data.
"Also: His recent complaint to @AZAGMayes re "foreign government interference" cites wrong state statutes (tho it's a federal matter) & appears to be AI generated. #AZ04"
I met Kai last night. He and his CM were certainly giddy about the poll. I really like him, which is why I agreed to have my name on a fundraiser for him, but I really don't see DSA beating the former mayor of Phx/ 3 term incumbent who's not horrible on issues.
Small correction: Stanton is a 4 term incumbent running for a 5th. Other than that, I agree. Though progressives have been doing well in the suburbs lately - look at Analilia Mejia.
Although she won her primary for a general election with ease, she only barely won the special election primary on the back of kamikaze AIPAC spending that wouldn't help the challenger in a primary like this. As with Hamawy, 32% is nothing to scoff at but also not dominant.
Hamawy's victory was at least dominant to score a comfortable victory over his nearest opponents. It's hard to get a majority when there's almost a dozen major candidates.
Newkirk defeating Stanton would be a massive upset. AZ-4 is, on paper, not as friendly to progressives as AZ-3 or AZ-7. Newkirk would need a massive margin and massive turnout out of the area around Arizona State University (the closest thing AZ-4 has to a progressive stronghold) and not let Stanton run up a big margin elsewhere in the district. Think of Mamdani winning NY-8 in the NYC mayoral primary last year relying predominantly on a big margin in Bed-Stuy.
Colorado supreme court blocks efforts to redraw congressional maps for 2028. Think we need to start coming to terms with the possibility that red state supreme courts refusing to follow plain law like in Florida and Missouri will make the House unwinnable for us in anything other than a massive wave year. Hard to disentangle these kinds of failings from people like DAC winning imo.
my point is that it's hard to come to any other conclusion than that establishment democrats have completely failed to meet the moment. We're going to be locked out of power in the house for a generation against a weak opposition party because our leaders are feckless. People will vote for whoever else is on the ballot in that case and we're starting to see that.
So- it's the fault of the Democratic establishment that state Supreme Court justices appointed by the GOP voted against us. I bed if you stubbed your toe getting out of bed tonight it would be Chuck Schumer's fault too.
Yeah they appointed seven people who managed to rule unanimously on a technicality while Desantis is able to find justices who will just outright ignore constitutional restrictions and not even bother to explain why.
yes, a stupid procedural technicality the likes of which serves as absolutely no constraint on judges appointed by Republican governors. VA + CO is a 3-5 seat swing. If we're similarly constrained in NY, MD, and/or NJ while the Florida Supreme Court ignores its own constitution we're fucked.
new york is proceeding with a constitutional amendment on the proper timetable, virginia's swing vote justice retires this coming january. Maryland's anti redistricting state sen majority leader is gone come january as well.
Hudson Dem, could be you know something about this I don't. But while I appreciate your overall refusal to give up(and I'm not being facetious at all), you've stated a flat out inaccuracy here. Maryland's state sen majority leader, Bill Ferguson, WON his primary. It's a super safe Dem district in Baltimore. Now he's backtracked a bit on his oppostion to redistricting, that may be what you're confusing here.
Actually the majority leader is Nancy King, who supported Ferguson's opposition to redistricting and was defeated last week.
Ferguson is the Senate President who had a somewhat closer than expected primary race, and who has at least somewhat changed his tune on redistricting. The current legislature is planning to reconvene soon for a special session that would put forth redistricting-related constitutional amendments to be voted on by the public, which if passed would allow a new congressional map in time for 2028 that couldn't be struck down by state judges.
I stand corrected in that Mike is of course correct about King being the majority leader who also just lost her primary. I appreciate the correction. However the real czar of the MD state Senate is Senate President (I believe that's his correct title) Bill Ferguson, who's still there and has until recently been absolutely implacably opposed to mid-decade re-redistricting. He has been making pro-redistricting pious noises lately after the Supreme Court decision effectively eliminating Black majority districts. We'll see. The reason I was confused by Hudson's original comment, was that Nancy King was never the real problem. But every obstacle removed helps. Thanks Mike & sorry for my boo-boo Hudson.
Dems have to manage a trifecta (with a "get shit done" executive) in the 2028 elections. Then ram through robust, national reforms (however politically difficult) - as Josh Marshall has laid out on TPM.
Yeah I think I'm reaching the point where I worry the House majority will be out of reach. It's not feasible if we need to win by 6 nationally. Neither party has done that in a Presidential year in 20 years.
Yep 2028 is likely the last chance we’ll get at this in a very long time. Any Democrat who tries to pull a Lieberman on this should get any committee seats they have taken and have any pet projects or any other aid that they want be burned to the ground. We are dealing with the potential loss of our democracy here and that is more important than almost anything else.
Way way too early to start making prognostications about 2028. It makes it harder yes, but not impossible — and we have no idea what the climate will be like with two more years of this administration.
This just isn't true. We're looking at something like an R+6 median seat. It's not too early to say that this is a huge fucking deal that will lock us out of power and underreacting to it will cement that possibility. "it will make it harder" does not capture the extent of this. Exactly three times in the last 30 years has a party won the House popular vote by enough to overcome the structural bias we are likely to face in 2028, and only once has it happened in a Presidential year.
How many loses will it take for them to realize that unlimited spending can't overcome real grassroots support? Especially in the era of younger voters completely shunning traditional media and mail. Though seeing them burn money will be fun in the meantime.
We'll see who wins that seat. This is one case in which, as deeply problematic as AIPCA and Big Tech are, I hope the incumbent they're supporting wins. We don't need Jew-haters in the House.
Hahaha!
I think the incumbent is in BIG trouble come November!
Call it schadenfreude, but it’s been a genuine pleasure watching Elise Stefanik’s political career – as well as the brief promise of her diplomatic career – go up in flames.
Nothing would please me more than now seeing a Democrat defeat her heir in this once-bright-Red Congressional district. Fingers crossed!
she'll probably get aconsolation prize post-midterms and try to leverage that into something in a future GOP admin. She's still quite young and has demonstrated a willingness to be a sock puppet as needed.
Knowing Trump she'll get an ambassador post to some country most people can't pick on the map so she can get a taxpayer funded vacation until 2029.
Platner +2 in Maine according to NYT/Siena poll.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/29/us/politics/collins-platner-maine-senate-poll.html?unlocked_article_code=1.t1A.qa4T.vcbObLrt45_B&smid=url-share
Fingers crossed...
Nice to both see Siena doing fieldwork again as well as Platner close to 50.
+2 is way too close for comfort against Collins, though.
It was never going to be a blowout.
might've been if everyone hadn't fucked up the recruiting. I think a random state rep would be up by 8-10 right now.
Maybe. Jordan Wood didn’t seem to be catching much traction even though he was first one in
didn't he move to the state in 2025?
He is not a random state rep. He has baggage that a tried-and-true local wouldn't. Or, to state the obvious, Troy Jackson wouldn't.
I suspect Janet Mill got in late because no one any better was willing to run in this race because they all wanted to be governor. Troy Jackson would be ahead by high single digits right now.
Yeah, which I think points to a recruiting failure rather than Collins still being a juggernaut.
I'm no Platner fan and am concerned we're throwing away a relative layup by nominating him, but I also have a hard time seeing a lead that size against Collins, regardless of the candidate.
2+?
You’d think an incumbent being down or even tied in the polls in a state that favors the other party would mean they are finished. Still not sure what happened in 2020, since the polls in ME in the presidential race weren’t that far off the actual result.
Yes, I'd normally think that in the case of other senators who haven't been underestimated in polling before.
Yeah it’s 2020 that keeps concerning me here. She should have lost then with the polling results she had that year.
Pollsters appear to have largely corrected their 2020 weighting flaws, if anything overcorrected.
Collins at 48-50 approval actually makes me feel better about this poll. I've been a Collins approval truther ever since 2020, all those polls that supposedly had her miserably unpopular, near the most unpopular incumbent in the whole chamber, were obviously missing something, and part of the eventual double digit error. If she's near break even approvals (which I honestly think she is), then it was always going to be a tough race, we're in good position being ahead at all. And I certainly don't think some rando state legislator would just be cruising here.
The low amount of undecided is also different than the 2020 polls. At least at this stage of the election.
I wouldn't be surprised if despite all of Platner's shall we say moral failings he wins out in the end. The Bulwark recently did a focus group of 2020 Biden-Collins voters (all but one of the participants in that bucket also voted for Kamala in 2024) and basically everyone was in one way or another ready to hold their nose and vote for Platner as long as something didn't come out where he'd be criminally charged for said act.
One focus group participant went on a mini-rant about Platner's inexperience if he was elected to the Senate, but even that participant at the end of said rants said despite all of that they were still voting for Platner.
Interestingly during that Focus Group voters brought up Collins' vote for Kavanaugh as a reason why they were done with her. 8 years after she voted for him...
https://youtu.be/wA_iob2pnFk?si=7RRByXIbm1Txv6Fk&t=1378
Kavanaugh hadn't overturned Roe yet at that point.
Exactly, Dobbs really changed the view on Kavanaugh, especially since he said Roe was "settled" when he was trying to get confirmed.
Appreciate your work, but I can’t spare the change right now.
Just signed up as “paid”, thank you for all you do!
Thank you so kindly, Tyler! This means a ton to me.
Quote from the digest: "'election integrity'—a rallying cry for conservatives who baselessly believe that American elections are plagued with fraud."
Why would we assume they believe this? Some crazy people believe this, but a great majority of Republican politicians know this is false and are habitually lying to justify efforts at election-stealing.
It's basically a nice word for election denying. Or as I like to call it, "election integrity is Republican code for not wanting Black people and college students voting."
Saw JD Vance on Bill Maher Friday, and his "election rigging" explanation was one I'd never heard before (at least outside of the right-wing bubble, I assume). Putting aside actual vote counting processes, he claimed private companies were suppressing information harmful to Dems in the runup to 2020, that's why it was rigged against Trump. What Maher didn't push back on -- even if that's true, what is the remedy for it? The other person wins? We vote again? Some neutral source sends out the "correct" information to every voter? Imagine if no election counted because some subset of voters heard "bad" information? There'd never be anyone taking office. (Not to mention the hypocrisy of this argument w/r/t 2016 and Russia.)
The hypocrisy certainly isn't limited to 2016 ...
It's going to be tough. The red hats are still there hiding in the shadows. But the Dem is a centrist, so he may do well.
Which Dem are you talking about?
What are you talking about?
When in doubt, assume they're referring to the title story. I'm going to guess he's talking about Gendebein.
You don't live in Upstate NY, do you? I'm referring to Gendebien because that could be my district, again, when they re-draw.
How was I supposed to know that?
The original post is referring to an Upstate race you commented on that was why I asked.
MN-Sen - Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey endorsed Angie Craig.
This means that Craig has the endorsements of both the Minneapolis and St. Paul (Kaohly Her) mayors, but Peggy Flanagan has the endorsements of the U.S. House members representing Minneapolis (Ilhan Omar) and St. Paul (Betty McCollum). Interesting.
Definitely interesting that House members are endorsing against their colleague, though Omar and McCollum are certainly on the left side of the caucus.
SCOTUS ruled against FDJT on late-arriving mail ballots, on a 5-4 decision. Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion, who was joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan.
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2026-06-29-Opinion.pdf
And on a related note, they agreed to take on a GOP bid to disenfranchise Pennsylvania voters who have missing dates on their mail ballots.
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/supreme-court-signals-it-will-hear-high-stakes-case-on-pennsylvania-mail-ballots/
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear Republican arguments in defense of Arizona laws that risk disenfranchising eligible voters and make it harder to register.
www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/...
And winning the legislature stops the GOP from sending vetoed legislation to the ballots as constitutional amendments.
Yeah I saw that too.
Ah, that is good news on late arriving ballots. The argument against on constitutional grounds was absurd. On policy merits some states should tighten the window but doing it this way was insane
It was puzzling when the RNC challenged an absentee mail law from a state with a GOP trifecta. But then I realized they were pulling the same playbook they did with Dobbs, which also started in MS.
That may honestly be giving them too much credit. Plenty of states, including GOP ones, allow a mail grace period, and MS’s of five days is entirely reasonable
If Rs wanted Mississippi to do away with the grace period, they would've gotten the ear of Tate and the MS GOP majority to do so. The fact that they filed suit in a red state (rather than purple or blue) shows they wanted SCOTUS to do away with the grace period nationwide.
Well, sure, because Trump irrationally hates mail voting and the Fifth Circuit is stupidly friendly to shitty lawsuits even by federal appellate standards. That is not why MS put its Grace period into its election law to begin with
Absolutely frightening that it was a 5-4 decision.
I honestly expected it to be 5-4 either way. Alito and Thomas basically do Trump's bidding, while Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett exhibit a few signs of independence (though not much). Roberts acts like Susan Collins whenever something truly controversial is in the works.
Roberts throws Democrats a bone every now so that the outrage against his partisan court doesn’t get out of hand.
TRUMP: “The system is rigged!”
Also TRUMP: “I can’t believe I nominated that brain dead woman for the SCOTUS before Sleepy Joe beat me!”
LINDSAY GRAHAM: “Mr. President, just be aware Justice Amy Coney Barrett is a very conservative Supreme Court justice.”
TRUMP: “You should get primaried!”
LINDSAY GRAHAM: “I’m sorry you feel that way about me Mr. President but the primary has passed. I won’t be able to get a challenger until 2032.”
SCOTUS also ruled against Trump on Lisa Cook's firing.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/06/29/supreme-court-wont-let-trump-fire-lisa-cook/88532213007/
Wow. This one is pretty major.
But then they ruled for Trump in Rebecca Slaughter's firing. I swear to God, the next Democratic president needs to do some clean up and take advantage of SCOTUS's partisan rulings against them.
The independence of those agencies was via laws passed by Congress and SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT. That the Congress and POTUS together can't restrict their own authority is the definition of absurd.
The serious Republican (e.g. FedSoc and basically no one else) movement is very much envisioning a system of government that constrains rulemaking and the power of the executive to engage in regulatory actions while being unconstrained in the nat sec and immigration spaces. The fix here is just to abolish the filibuster and reform the laws that give unfettered discretion to the President on a lot of this stuff and pass regulatory laws as we want them to be implement. Absent the filibuster, their vision of government is going to collapse very quickly and they'll pivot to something else we can respond to in time.
Overruled a 90-year old precedent. Which was expected. “Unitary executive,” save for the Fed.
The Fed, which is special because money.
And it was only a very narrow ruling where they left the door open to support Cook's removal anyway. Bill "Mortgage Fraud" Pulte already hinted that Cook will be formally charged with mortgage fraud which SCOTUS maybe down with her removal in that case since right now there's only an open criminal investigation against her.
“Unitary executive theory ends where John Roberts’ IRA begins”
The SCOTUS GOP majority probably thought, "if we allow this, then that allows a Democratic president to do the same thing."
Should be noted that Lisa Cook is represented by Paul Clement, who was the Soliciter General in most of Dubya’s years as POTUS.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/29/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-sexual-assault.html
The Supreme Court also upheld the result of a lawsuit that found Trump raped E. Jean Carroll.
Once again, proof that Trump has a small wee wee if he can’t learn his lesson and show empathy.
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2071408858518442010
AZ-4: Democratic primary (Kai Newkirk internal)
Greg Stanton (incumbent) 34%
Newkirk 33%
Undecided 33%
two decimal places!
That poll is ... interesting ... 12News' Brahm Resnik: https://x.com/brahmresnik/status/2071449425432777117
"HOLD UP @kai_newkirk has emailed/posted 2 polls today with 2 different results. No links to data.
"Also: His recent complaint to @AZAGMayes re "foreign government interference" cites wrong state statutes (tho it's a federal matter) & appears to be AI generated. #AZ04"
The parade of Not Ready for Primetime primary challengers to established Dem incumbents continues unabated.....
I met Kai last night. He and his CM were certainly giddy about the poll. I really like him, which is why I agreed to have my name on a fundraiser for him, but I really don't see DSA beating the former mayor of Phx/ 3 term incumbent who's not horrible on issues.
Small correction: Stanton is a 4 term incumbent running for a 5th. Other than that, I agree. Though progressives have been doing well in the suburbs lately - look at Analilia Mejia.
Although she won her primary for a general election with ease, she only barely won the special election primary on the back of kamikaze AIPAC spending that wouldn't help the challenger in a primary like this. As with Hamawy, 32% is nothing to scoff at but also not dominant.
Hamawy's victory was at least dominant to score a comfortable victory over his nearest opponents. It's hard to get a majority when there's almost a dozen major candidates.
I haven’t been a Stanton fan since my sister was a city employee while he was mayor but he’s at least competent.
Newkirk defeating Stanton would be a massive upset. AZ-4 is, on paper, not as friendly to progressives as AZ-3 or AZ-7. Newkirk would need a massive margin and massive turnout out of the area around Arizona State University (the closest thing AZ-4 has to a progressive stronghold) and not let Stanton run up a big margin elsewhere in the district. Think of Mamdani winning NY-8 in the NYC mayoral primary last year relying predominantly on a big margin in Bed-Stuy.
I think the 33% in the poll I posted is more likely than being a point behind Stanton.
Michael Lange, who has become the go-to election analysis expert in NYC, is out with a new piece on NY-7 and NY-13 - https://www.michaellange.nyc/p/when-narratives-meet-facts
Solid analysis. The polarization within the Dem electorate definitely seems more age based than income or race, certainly
Colorado supreme court blocks efforts to redraw congressional maps for 2028. Think we need to start coming to terms with the possibility that red state supreme courts refusing to follow plain law like in Florida and Missouri will make the House unwinnable for us in anything other than a massive wave year. Hard to disentangle these kinds of failings from people like DAC winning imo.
https://gazette.com/2026/06/29/colorado-supreme-court-redistricting-plans-for-2028-election-cannot-proceed-under-state-constitution/
I know she's everyone's favorite bogeyman at the moment, but this would've likely happened even if DAC didn't win on Tuesday.
my point is that it's hard to come to any other conclusion than that establishment democrats have completely failed to meet the moment. We're going to be locked out of power in the house for a generation against a weak opposition party because our leaders are feckless. People will vote for whoever else is on the ballot in that case and we're starting to see that.
Ah, I see where you're coming from. Apologies for the incorrect read - all of the negative discourse happening recently had me assuming unjustly
no worries!
So- it's the fault of the Democratic establishment that state Supreme Court justices appointed by the GOP voted against us. I bed if you stubbed your toe getting out of bed tonight it would be Chuck Schumer's fault too.
Right? I don't really get the connection between this ruling and Dem primary challengers.
Literally all seven members of the Colorado state supreme court are dem appointees. Four Hickenlooper, two Polis, one Ritter.
Yeah they appointed seven people who managed to rule unanimously on a technicality while Desantis is able to find justices who will just outright ignore constitutional restrictions and not even bother to explain why.
They said couldn’t do changing the process of redistricting and the actual redistricting in one initiative.
yes, a stupid procedural technicality the likes of which serves as absolutely no constraint on judges appointed by Republican governors. VA + CO is a 3-5 seat swing. If we're similarly constrained in NY, MD, and/or NJ while the Florida Supreme Court ignores its own constitution we're fucked.
new york is proceeding with a constitutional amendment on the proper timetable, virginia's swing vote justice retires this coming january. Maryland's anti redistricting state sen majority leader is gone come january as well.
Let's see if the New York Supreme Court allows them to.
I think there are four votes on the New York Court of Appeals to allow this.
inshallah
Hudson Dem, could be you know something about this I don't. But while I appreciate your overall refusal to give up(and I'm not being facetious at all), you've stated a flat out inaccuracy here. Maryland's state sen majority leader, Bill Ferguson, WON his primary. It's a super safe Dem district in Baltimore. Now he's backtracked a bit on his oppostion to redistricting, that may be what you're confusing here.
I assume he’s implying that the MD Senate Dem caucus will ditch Ferguson as leader
Actually the majority leader is Nancy King, who supported Ferguson's opposition to redistricting and was defeated last week.
Ferguson is the Senate President who had a somewhat closer than expected primary race, and who has at least somewhat changed his tune on redistricting. The current legislature is planning to reconvene soon for a special session that would put forth redistricting-related constitutional amendments to be voted on by the public, which if passed would allow a new congressional map in time for 2028 that couldn't be struck down by state judges.
Why couldn't it be struck down?
I stand corrected in that Mike is of course correct about King being the majority leader who also just lost her primary. I appreciate the correction. However the real czar of the MD state Senate is Senate President (I believe that's his correct title) Bill Ferguson, who's still there and has until recently been absolutely implacably opposed to mid-decade re-redistricting. He has been making pro-redistricting pious noises lately after the Supreme Court decision effectively eliminating Black majority districts. We'll see. The reason I was confused by Hudson's original comment, was that Nancy King was never the real problem. But every obstacle removed helps. Thanks Mike & sorry for my boo-boo Hudson.
Like it or not, that's almost certainly correct on the law.
Yes, it totally is correct on the law. That's not the point I'm making.
Well I was not responding to your comment, so it's quite ok that we are not making the same point.
ah I may not be totally correct about how the replies look on substack. Sorry!
Dems have to manage a trifecta (with a "get shit done" executive) in the 2028 elections. Then ram through robust, national reforms (however politically difficult) - as Josh Marshall has laid out on TPM.
That's the whole ballgame, truly.
Yeah I think I'm reaching the point where I worry the House majority will be out of reach. It's not feasible if we need to win by 6 nationally. Neither party has done that in a Presidential year in 20 years.
Yep 2028 is likely the last chance we’ll get at this in a very long time. Any Democrat who tries to pull a Lieberman on this should get any committee seats they have taken and have any pet projects or any other aid that they want be burned to the ground. We are dealing with the potential loss of our democracy here and that is more important than almost anything else.
Dems desperately need NY + VA redistricting wins 2027-2028 or they will be underdogs for the House majority for 2028.
Way way too early to start making prognostications about 2028. It makes it harder yes, but not impossible — and we have no idea what the climate will be like with two more years of this administration.
This just isn't true. We're looking at something like an R+6 median seat. It's not too early to say that this is a huge fucking deal that will lock us out of power and underreacting to it will cement that possibility. "it will make it harder" does not capture the extent of this. Exactly three times in the last 30 years has a party won the House popular vote by enough to overcome the structural bias we are likely to face in 2028, and only once has it happened in a Presidential year.
"AIPAC, Big Tech Back Diana DeGette Over Melat Kiros With $2M Spending Flood
Next week’s Colorado primary is attracting national attention in the wake of the major democratic socialist wins in New York City"
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/aipac-ai-degette-melat-kiros-colorado
This week. It's tomorrow.
How many loses will it take for them to realize that unlimited spending can't overcome real grassroots support? Especially in the era of younger voters completely shunning traditional media and mail. Though seeing them burn money will be fun in the meantime.
We'll see who wins that seat. This is one case in which, as deeply problematic as AIPCA and Big Tech are, I hope the incumbent they're supporting wins. We don't need Jew-haters in the House.