I brought this up in a previous digest, but I'm still unclear why so many people are so quick to dismiss Jordan Wood in Maine. Susan Collins is easily the most secure blue-state republican. I don't understand why we're not talking about Jordan Wood as a "serious candidate" when we're faced with this situation. What happens if no other candidate emerges, and it's only Jordan Wood? Suddenly we have to rally behind a candidate that we had been very publically reluctant to support, as well as convince the public that we now like this candidate and they should too. That seems like such a misguided error, and if we end up in this situation (again, against the most secure blue-state republican) we would only have ourselves to blame. Even if Wood does draw a challenger, our early dismissal of him could still hurt us if he ends up winning the primay, and once again we would only have ourselves to blame.
She was, but candidates routinely win despite flaws. That doesn't mean the flaw doesn't exist.
Could be Wood ends up a solid candidate too. Or it could be that this is a non issue — I had not heard people accuse him of carpetbagging before, so I do not know how meritorious it is.
Apples to oranges - Goodlander was running for a house seat (i.e. lower profile) and against a non-incumbent. Not saying Wood is a good or bad candidate but it's not the same thing...
I could see that as a legitimate flaw of his (if it's true, although I recognize that carpetbagging is subjective). I'm just wary of us ignoring a candidate in a very important race
And Maine probably beats out WV for the title of most insular state. I'd guess 80-85% of native Mainers have a blatantly insular attitude, including 3/4 of native Democrats, and plenty of transplants adopt similar attitudes. (Note insular ≠ racist in this case, it's about where someone was born/grew up/has lived, though racism is still too common.)
I feel like "serious candidate" status is a responsibility of both the candidate and everyone else. Of course, candidates have to do voter outreach, raise money, etc. But it's also on us to talk about the candidate as such. If a candidate is doing all the right things, but we then refuse to talk about the candidate as serious because we're upset we don't have someone else, that hurts no one but ourselves.
If it turns out that Wood has major flaws, or it turns out that he is not putting in the appropriate effort to wage a state-wide campaign then I am happy to concede my point. But at this point it seems unconstructive, and even destructive, to basically ignore the only candidate we have running against Susan Collins.
I think if term-limited Janet Mills does end up running, Wood will graciously bow out and endorse her in the Senate race. That's what Wiley Nickel will do if Roy Cooper decides to run against Thom Tillis next year here in NC.
That'd be the point of a Mills candidacy - knock of Collins and then we can likely hold that seat indefinitely. That said, I have to admit that I'm starting to see the point people have been making about needing younger candidates....
Seems obvious everyone is waiting to see if he's the actual frontrunner. The filing deadline is still 10 months away. No point going through all the effort to prop up a C-level candidate if an A or B-level candidate emerges. We're still waiting on Mills, and the crowded Gov race may cause someone to shift over to the Senate race instead.
Yes, Mills is too old to start a Senate career, but if she can knock out Collins, the seat will stay blue beyond her (likely) single term. If the goal is to dislodge the entrenched Collins, Mills is one of the strongest options to achieve that goal. I'm not concerned about whether the junior Senator from Maine is able to build up a career in the Senate over decades.
This is such a perfect line of attack that Congressional Democrats should seize the opportunity: Make every Tuesday a TACO Tuesday! Hold a weekly press conference detailing how Trump and his lackeys have “chickened out”!
Here is the Political Wire’s summary of Jonathan Last’s thoughts on Donald “President TACO” Trump.
Jonathan Last believes “TACO” has the potential to hurt Donald Trump:
– It’s simple. Trump Always Chickens Out. You can put that phrase anywhere, apply it to anything, and everyone knows what it means.
– It’s meme-able. You have the slogan. You have the word mark. And you have an universally recognizable image. Hell, there’s even a pre-built emoji for it. 🌮
– It’s universal. You can apply it to any situation. Trump pulls back on tariffs? TACO. Trump gives in to Putin? TACO. Trump increases the national debt? TACO.
– It’s organic. No Democratic strategist came up with TACO. It’s an observation that emerged from the finance world—from the very same bros who voted for Trump in the first place. You can feel the disdain of his own supporters dripping off of it.
– It hits at something deep inside Trump. It’s about his soul. It’s about his weakness.
“By hitting him with TACO over and over, you (a) reveal his pull-backs as weakness and (b) dare him to go through with the stuff that will screw up the real world—and, in theory, (c) create pain for his movement.”
The latest TACO news: In December, 2023, Trump opposed the $15 billion sale of U.S. Steel to Nippon Steel and pledged "to block it instantaneously." Today, he flies to Pittsburgh to give his blessing to the deal.
Eh . . I don't always have the pulse of the electorate in tow but I don't see this as a sound strategy. Most voters will hear "taco" and think it signifies some support of illegal immigrants. I also don't think trying to goad him into doing even more terrible things is smart either.
I hate to quote Russia Today (but Dana Milbank quoted this first), but this week they put it succinctly, in response to an online Trump rant that Putin was "playing with fire" by not obeying his demands to stop bombing Kiev:
"The Russian state-owned propaganda outlet RT immediately responded to Trump’s “playing with fire” threat. “Trump’s message leaves little room for misinterpretation,” it wrote. “Until he posts the opposite tomorrow morning.”"
Meanwhile, the British are saying that the markets are imposing a "moron premium" on Trump's policies, after having done the same for Liz Truss'.
A Senate victory as unexpected as those of Elizabeth Warren and Jon Osoff: Doug Jones's. In 2002, Jones began a campaign against Jeff Sessions for his seat from Alabama but withdrew because of low name recognition and an inability to raise funds. In 2017, Jones defeated Republican Roy Moore in a special election for the same seat, which had been held by a Republican for the previous 25 years.
59% of Democrats preferred the populist argument, compared to just 16.8% liking the abundance one.
The survey of 1,200 registered voters by Demand Progress, a progressive advocacy organization, was designed to supply some hard data for the debate.
It defined the abundance argument by starting off with this sentence: "The big problem is 'bottlenecks' that make it harder to produce housing, expand energy production, or build new roads and bridges."
The populist argument was described as "The big problem is that big corporations have way too much power over our economy and our government."
A synthesis of the two arguments had a level of support that fell between those of “populism” and “abundance” — with 72.2% reacting positively and 13.5% reacting negatively to a synthesis.
I am shocked by the explicit aversion of the abundance movement to populist goals like fighting the oligarchy, universal healthcare, pre-K , free community college, student loan forgiveness which they deride as "well meaning but ineffective liberal policies" to subsidize demand instead of improving supply. Well, other countries also subsidize demand and they do a heck of a better job at it. They do not want to synthesize those goals with deregulation and permitting reform at all.
Abundance bros, Jared Polis just vetoed a Bipartisan and unanimous bill banning Ambulance surprise billing and Auchincloss calls left wing populism diet MAGA. More examples: https://x.com/AaronRegunberg/status/1928069627877236993
The populist argument is dumbed down and direct, which can peel off some Republican or R-leaning independents. And that's what we need -- direct and clear messaging that uses negative partisanship.
"to populist goals like fighting the oligarchy, universal healthcare, pre-K , free community college, student loan forgiveness"
This was LITERALLY the Biden agenda. Voters like populism in vague generalities but if the above is what's being included in that bucket, voters have shown this brand of progressive populism is simply not very popular.
It very much was not literally the Biden agenda. Biden, for all the good work he did, did not advocate for universal healthcare (specifically Medicare for All, which is what I'm sure the poll is referring to) and could've done way more with student loan forgiveness.
The problem is not that the policies themselves are unpopular (quite the opposite really), it's that the Biden admin didn't do *enough* with those policies.
Universal healthcare doesn't need to mean Medicare for All. Rather than putting drug prices and hospitals under Government control, letting Government directly negotiate with them through government operated health insurance aka a public option will also solve the issue as seen in many first world nations.
Student loan forgiveness was not popular. As for M4A, you think a population that voted in a historic GOP majority following Democrats passing a version of Romneycare is going to want some national single-payer?
So many folks are delusional about how left-leaning the American electorate is. If we somehow managed to pass M4A (we wouldn't and then suffer a 1994-esque drubbing, but let's play make believe), I honestly think that'd be the end of the Dem party; it'd have to be replaced by some other entity as the GOP alternative.
Universal healthcare is very popular but Medicare for All without private insurance clearly isn't in polls. A government run health insurance option also has broad support, including among a large share but not a majority of Republicans.
Student loan forgiveness was not unpopular but a 50-50 issue.
Multiple western democratic countries like Australia have a private and public healthcare system. The U.S. doesn’t need to go to a Cuba-like system in order for universal healthcare to exist.
In San Francisco, when Gavin Newsom was Mayor, the first universal healthcare initiative was experimented in the city. Called Healthy San Francisco, the way it’s financed is through an additional surcharge at restaurants and other establishments.
The real issue is how the fees or taxes are applied.
It's very clearly unpopular. There were constant reports on Biden"s successes with Liam forgiveness, precisely because the media knew it was unpopular.
EDIT: For those reading, no, I don’t think free tuition purely at face value as-is can easily be implemented. Universities would need to have a steady and healthy revenue stream in order for free tuition to be a possibility.
Why can’t universities get more involved in helping graduates pay off their tuition?
It has always seemed odd to me why the burden has to be on the students all the time. It’s one thing to get excited to get accepted into schools of their choice but it’s another to have to be shouldered with burden in having to pay off the tuition when salaries aren’t always going to be efficient enough to pay off tuition quickly.
Perhaps free tuition for all at public universities like it used to be.
OR
Universities should be more involved with students being able to pay off their tuition.
I don’t see how this problem can be solved any other way but I am open to ideas.
I don't think most track loan payoffs but colleges and universities are under constant pressure to maximize the "ROI" of their students. The government and crediation institutions insist on it. Because of this, colleges are becoming job factories rather than educational institutions.
I completely agree with you. I’d rather colleges have more balance and be able to focus on education without having to be job factories as you mention.
Right now, we aren’t going to have these intelligent policy implementations in government because of Trump’s administration. However, I think the U.S. Education Department and crediation institutions need to be questioned if it means they are placing unreasonable standards against colleges. They shouldn’t by default get a pass on this.
My feeling is that public colleges should offer focused career workshops to any students regardless of degree for an actual class. These are present in multiple MBA programs
This is a mistake - firstly, it would pretty much finish what the Republicans started in terms of killing off the humanities, which is bad for...well...humanity. Secondly, the Universities that would suffer are not the Harvards and Yales but rather precisely those institutions that serve first generation and other underserved communities. Long story short...this is a bad idea...
Whatever incentives and ways to make college more affordable and reasonable for students, I am all ears.
There are in free tuition incentives at community colleges, including the Peralta College District, which I have taken classes at for years. Harvard is also experimenting with free tuition initiatives although I am not concerned over anything with what private universities do. That said, tuition decades ago at public universities was super low cost or free. Now it’s sky high.
I am not arguing against humanities or anything in curriculum. I am in fact in support of keeping them there instead of cutting them. It’s not academia’s problem.
The question is - How do we make public universities within reach for anyone, especially the disadvantaged?
The IRA had several significant healthcare privisions, including Medicare negotiations for drug prices and insulin price cap and increased taxes on the wealthy. Biden also did several big actions on student loan forgiveness. The latter was outright unpopular and the former, while doing OK in polling, provided Biden with no political lift whatsoever, despites its many components which were long-time progressive goals.
Medicare negotiations for some drugs and insulin caps are still popular, where did you get that data from? Even Trump and MAGA try to take credit for that. The Biden administration being very unpopular doesn't mean all of its policies were.
Populism works only if it is loud and clear. Continuously!
And precisely this is what Team Biden failed to be. They were stellar on policy and legislation, but weak and meek on communication. They just couldn’t compete with four years of Trump shit-talking America and pissing on Biden, and the right-wing megaphone Trump had for his messaging.
I'd argue that ~80% of what voters think about a candidate's policies is in how they're packaged. Candidate A and candidate B could have 100% identical policies in practice and be perceived wildly differently due to how they communicate with voters, how they talk about their policies, how they present themselves in general.
Biden has always sold himself as a fairly typical establishment democrat risen up from the working class. He doesn't try to make people think he's populist.
This was probably a big part of why he did well in 2020, because it allowed him to make a "return to sanity" electoral pitch. It's also probably a big part of why things didn't work out for him for 2024, because the establishment style is terrible for handling electorates that think everything is horrible and want things to change.
In 2021, 9/10 voters wouldn't be able to name a single substantive thing Biden ran on. The same goes for Harris today, or HRC in 2017. For Trump, tariffs and mass deportations might break through but I'm not sure whether or not I'd qualify that as substantive.
So far Ezra Klein has been able to explain abundance but he is mainly talking about the outcome, not so much the details of the specific policy being discussed.
What he has said is that when government programs or systems function, there is a lack of abundance of supply to support what goes on in government. Klein’s argument is that government doesn’t do this effectively and needs to be efficiently planned with the right supply to justify systematic change that goes on in government to address essential needs and rights. M
The synthesis between the two seems so self-evident as to be nearly automatic, I'd argue.
One of the examples on the abundance side was housing. There are roadblocks to building new housing. There's also major corporations buying up lots of housing supply to take advantage of that, and to maintain those roadblocks so they can profit from shortages.
The two approaches should mesh together seamlessly.
Even if Democrats don't win the senate race in Iowa, there's plenty of benefit to this. Ernst has become the white albatross for the Iowa GOP and perhaps beyond. This crap will resonate beyond the senate race to the house races and even the governor race. Democrats simply need to provide a credible and known alternative. Scholten's already a strong potential candidate but so is Nathan Sage from what I hear. This is the time to go on offense. Nothing to lose.
I knew the MAGA message would eventually transition from "There will be some pain" to "Store up your treasures in heaven," but I didn't think it would happen this quickly.
If whoever runs against Ernst doesn’t make this into the centrepiece attack ad for their entire campaign, they’re doing it wrong. “Let people die” is exactly what every Republican in office actually thinks, but very few manage to tell the truth caught on camera.
She could even lose because of this quote, it’s devastating and goes directly to the argument Democrats have been making for a long time (to deaf ears sadly): the GOP doesn’t care about you, they only care about holding their own power and enriching their billionaire backers.
There's a non zero chance that the TACO question causes a recession, :(
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Two weeks ago China was in grave economic danger! The very high Tariffs I set made it virtually impossible for China to TRADE into the United States marketplace which is, by far, number one in the World. We went, in effect, COLD TURKEY with China, and it was devastating for them. Many factories closed and there was, to put it mildly, “civil unrest.” I saw what was happening and didn’t like it, for them, not for us. I made a FAST DEAL with China in order to save them from what I thought was going to be a very bad situation, and I didn’t want to see that happen. Because of this deal, everything quickly stabilized and China got back to business as usual. Everybody was happy! That is the good news!!! The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US. So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!
San Antonio - Mayor. Here's a couple of updates on the state of the mayor's race. We're currently in the middle of early voting, with Election Day June 7. We had a 101,000 votes in the first round. After 3 days of early voting we're sitting at about 38,700 votes for the runoff. The first article feels like a click-bait article. They only looked at the first day of early voting and for anyone who knows Bexar County Elections, the locations they cite as having high turnout always have high early voter turnout. Doesn't mean they're wrong about turnout trouble for Ortiz Jones, but unless you look at the voting history of the people turning out, it's kind of lazy to suggest that those sites alone mean trouble. In addition, there's 2 council races in the northside of San Antonio where several of those sites are located. Me and my husband are planning to vote tomorrow for Gina Ortiz Jones.
People have short memories and forget we haven't had a runoff for Mayor since 2019 and seem to forget that city politics can play out differently from partisan politics even if both candidates are associated with the major parties. That 2019 race was divided less along party lines, but most assumed Nirenberg was the Democrat and his opponent the Republican. That runoff resulted in Nirenberg winning re-election with 51.11%. In 2017 Nirenberg ousted the incumbent Mayor Ivy Taylor with 54..6% in a runoff. In 2015, Taylor beat fmr. State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte with 51.7% in a runoff. The last time the mayor's race was an open seat and there wasn't a runoff was 2009 when Julian Castro won his first term.
As an aside, I don't if it's because I'm gay, but I'm detecting an under-the-radar homophobic attack by Pablos. He has small signs that say "Families First," and passing by one of his larger 4x8 signs it says the same along with a picture of his family. I get the impression this a reminder that Gina Ortiz Jones is a lesbian and doesn't have a "traditional" family.
Texas Lege
For a bit a good news, Republican Lite Gov. Dan Patrick screwed up and killed a number of conservative bills. Rather than recessing the State Senate, he adjourned it. This meant that the bills in question needed Democratic support to pass because of vote requirements to suspend certain rules.
Regarding VA-11 having a Democratic candidate who previously served in Venezuela's national legislature, has there ever been a prior instance of a member of either house of Congress being elected after serving in a foreign elected office?
Those are 2018 wave numbers before voters are hit with tariff related price increases that should be hitting them shortly. This summer is when most of our recruitment efforts will be aiming for, so that lines up real nice timing wise after the policy chaos is begun to be felt by the average voter to help convince our best candidates to run.
“Well we all are going to die” isn’t the biggest problem in Joni Ernst’s half-assessed statement.
It’s when she says she wants those who receive Medicaid should be qualified to receive it. Ernst is apparently believing you need to address those who are US citizens vs those who came to the US illegally.
Anyone who uses Medicaid is already qualified. The whole concept Ernst is bringing up is ridiculous.
Didn't Elizabeth Warren underperform in 2012, though? Purely electorally, she was definitely an underperformer in 2018 and 2024, and I think almost any Democrat would have beaten Scott Brown back in '12.
Hogan did do about 20 points better than Cardin's 2018 opponent did... The media really does love those so-called moderate republicans and will fawn over them endlessly. Hogan benefited from it enormously, but Maryland is so blue that it wasn't enough and wasn't close to enough either.
I'm not even sure if Liberal Republicans (aka Rockefeller Republicans) still exist. Governor Phil Scott of Vermont might be one, but it's hard to tell. It takes much more than being a mere moderate to win in places like Vermont.
Leo Martinez was nominated to serve as the US representative to the Interamerican Development Bank as a member of its board of executive directors; he was not nominated to be its president. That's why Cruz could block it since it goes thru a Senate nomination, while the IADB president is approved by the board itself (without any US Senate involvement).
Not when you remember that empathy, ethics, and morality are all quickly discarded by conservatives. If she cared about her constituents' suffering, she'd never fit in with the republican party to make the switch in the first place, even if Medicaid was safe.
I'm reminded of when the ACA passed, and Dem. Gov. Steve Beshear used it to develop the "Kynect" state health exchange, which proved widely popular and was praised by officials and voters in red areas of the state who contorted themselves into thinking that Obama and other national Dems had nothing to do with it.
I brought this up in a previous digest, but I'm still unclear why so many people are so quick to dismiss Jordan Wood in Maine. Susan Collins is easily the most secure blue-state republican. I don't understand why we're not talking about Jordan Wood as a "serious candidate" when we're faced with this situation. What happens if no other candidate emerges, and it's only Jordan Wood? Suddenly we have to rally behind a candidate that we had been very publically reluctant to support, as well as convince the public that we now like this candidate and they should too. That seems like such a misguided error, and if we end up in this situation (again, against the most secure blue-state republican) we would only have ourselves to blame. Even if Wood does draw a challenger, our early dismissal of him could still hurt us if he ends up winning the primay, and once again we would only have ourselves to blame.
It's possible Maine voters see Wood as a carpetbagger -- and Collins' team is dismissive of him being a serious threat.
Wasn't Maggie Goodlander, Jake Sullivan's wife seen the same way in NH and she still won.
She was, but candidates routinely win despite flaws. That doesn't mean the flaw doesn't exist.
Could be Wood ends up a solid candidate too. Or it could be that this is a non issue — I had not heard people accuse him of carpetbagging before, so I do not know how meritorious it is.
Apples to oranges - Goodlander was running for a house seat (i.e. lower profile) and against a non-incumbent. Not saying Wood is a good or bad candidate but it's not the same thing...
I could see that as a legitimate flaw of his (if it's true, although I recognize that carpetbagging is subjective). I'm just wary of us ignoring a candidate in a very important race
And Maine probably beats out WV for the title of most insular state. I'd guess 80-85% of native Mainers have a blatantly insular attitude, including 3/4 of native Democrats, and plenty of transplants adopt similar attitudes. (Note insular ≠ racist in this case, it's about where someone was born/grew up/has lived, though racism is still too common.)
What has Wood done to warrant being considered a "serious candidate"?
Launched a campaign lol. No one else has done that except perennial filers.
I feel like "serious candidate" status is a responsibility of both the candidate and everyone else. Of course, candidates have to do voter outreach, raise money, etc. But it's also on us to talk about the candidate as such. If a candidate is doing all the right things, but we then refuse to talk about the candidate as serious because we're upset we don't have someone else, that hurts no one but ourselves.
If it turns out that Wood has major flaws, or it turns out that he is not putting in the appropriate effort to wage a state-wide campaign then I am happy to concede my point. But at this point it seems unconstructive, and even destructive, to basically ignore the only candidate we have running against Susan Collins.
I think if term-limited Janet Mills does end up running, Wood will graciously bow out and endorse her in the Senate race. That's what Wiley Nickel will do if Roy Cooper decides to run against Thom Tillis next year here in NC.
I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that (although I'm also wary of Mills being 79 when the term would begin)
That's enough to serve one term and retire during a presidential year, 2032.
That'd be the point of a Mills candidacy - knock of Collins and then we can likely hold that seat indefinitely. That said, I have to admit that I'm starting to see the point people have been making about needing younger candidates....
Seems obvious everyone is waiting to see if he's the actual frontrunner. The filing deadline is still 10 months away. No point going through all the effort to prop up a C-level candidate if an A or B-level candidate emerges. We're still waiting on Mills, and the crowded Gov race may cause someone to shift over to the Senate race instead.
Yes, Mills is too old to start a Senate career, but if she can knock out Collins, the seat will stay blue beyond her (likely) single term. If the goal is to dislodge the entrenched Collins, Mills is one of the strongest options to achieve that goal. I'm not concerned about whether the junior Senator from Maine is able to build up a career in the Senate over decades.
https://nypost.com/2025/05/29/media/jake-tappers-cnn-show-hits-lowest-ratings-since-2015-despite-biden-book-buzz/
To the surprise of nobody. 25 percent decline in viewership from the previous month.
After writing an entire book about the wrong president, I fear Tapper may be cognitively slipping.
Democrats: Make every Tuesday a TACO Tuesday!
This is such a perfect line of attack that Congressional Democrats should seize the opportunity: Make every Tuesday a TACO Tuesday! Hold a weekly press conference detailing how Trump and his lackeys have “chickened out”!
Here is the Political Wire’s summary of Jonathan Last’s thoughts on Donald “President TACO” Trump.
Jonathan Last believes “TACO” has the potential to hurt Donald Trump:
– It’s simple. Trump Always Chickens Out. You can put that phrase anywhere, apply it to anything, and everyone knows what it means.
– It’s meme-able. You have the slogan. You have the word mark. And you have an universally recognizable image. Hell, there’s even a pre-built emoji for it. 🌮
– It’s universal. You can apply it to any situation. Trump pulls back on tariffs? TACO. Trump gives in to Putin? TACO. Trump increases the national debt? TACO.
– It’s organic. No Democratic strategist came up with TACO. It’s an observation that emerged from the finance world—from the very same bros who voted for Trump in the first place. You can feel the disdain of his own supporters dripping off of it.
– It hits at something deep inside Trump. It’s about his soul. It’s about his weakness.
“By hitting him with TACO over and over, you (a) reveal his pull-backs as weakness and (b) dare him to go through with the stuff that will screw up the real world—and, in theory, (c) create pain for his movement.”
politicalwire.com/2025/05/29/president-taco/
The latest TACO news: In December, 2023, Trump opposed the $15 billion sale of U.S. Steel to Nippon Steel and pledged "to block it instantaneously." Today, he flies to Pittsburgh to give his blessing to the deal.
Trump: “It’s a good deal.”
MAGA: “Made in America?”
Trump: “It’s a good deal!”
Sky-high trolling at Mar-a-Lago! Enjoy the video.
https://substack.com/@thetonymichaels/note/c-121309410
Eh . . I don't always have the pulse of the electorate in tow but I don't see this as a sound strategy. Most voters will hear "taco" and think it signifies some support of illegal immigrants. I also don't think trying to goad him into doing even more terrible things is smart either.
How about this one: https://gizmodo.com/app/uploads/2025/04/art-of-the-deal-1024x1024.jpg
I agree, TACO is too vague. Maybe as a one-off thing but just dovetail it into people not taking his ravings seriously or literally.
So true. For Conservative leaners,
Taco = Mexican = drugs and crime.
I hate to quote Russia Today (but Dana Milbank quoted this first), but this week they put it succinctly, in response to an online Trump rant that Putin was "playing with fire" by not obeying his demands to stop bombing Kiev:
"The Russian state-owned propaganda outlet RT immediately responded to Trump’s “playing with fire” threat. “Trump’s message leaves little room for misinterpretation,” it wrote. “Until he posts the opposite tomorrow morning.”"
Meanwhile, the British are saying that the markets are imposing a "moron premium" on Trump's policies, after having done the same for Liz Truss'.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/05/30/trump-taco-trade-tariffs-lawsuit/
A Senate victory as unexpected as those of Elizabeth Warren and Jon Osoff: Doug Jones's. In 2002, Jones began a campaign against Jeff Sessions for his seat from Alabama but withdrew because of low name recognition and an inability to raise funds. In 2017, Jones defeated Republican Roy Moore in a special election for the same seat, which had been held by a Republican for the previous 25 years.
https://www.axios.com/2025/05/28/democratic-voters-polling-populism-abundance?
59% of Democrats preferred the populist argument, compared to just 16.8% liking the abundance one.
The survey of 1,200 registered voters by Demand Progress, a progressive advocacy organization, was designed to supply some hard data for the debate.
It defined the abundance argument by starting off with this sentence: "The big problem is 'bottlenecks' that make it harder to produce housing, expand energy production, or build new roads and bridges."
The populist argument was described as "The big problem is that big corporations have way too much power over our economy and our government."
A synthesis of the two arguments had a level of support that fell between those of “populism” and “abundance” — with 72.2% reacting positively and 13.5% reacting negatively to a synthesis.
I am shocked by the explicit aversion of the abundance movement to populist goals like fighting the oligarchy, universal healthcare, pre-K , free community college, student loan forgiveness which they deride as "well meaning but ineffective liberal policies" to subsidize demand instead of improving supply. Well, other countries also subsidize demand and they do a heck of a better job at it. They do not want to synthesize those goals with deregulation and permitting reform at all.
Abundance bros, Jared Polis just vetoed a Bipartisan and unanimous bill banning Ambulance surprise billing and Auchincloss calls left wing populism diet MAGA. More examples: https://x.com/AaronRegunberg/status/1928069627877236993
The populist argument is dumbed down and direct, which can peel off some Republican or R-leaning independents. And that's what we need -- direct and clear messaging that uses negative partisanship.
"to populist goals like fighting the oligarchy, universal healthcare, pre-K , free community college, student loan forgiveness"
This was LITERALLY the Biden agenda. Voters like populism in vague generalities but if the above is what's being included in that bucket, voters have shown this brand of progressive populism is simply not very popular.
It very much was not literally the Biden agenda. Biden, for all the good work he did, did not advocate for universal healthcare (specifically Medicare for All, which is what I'm sure the poll is referring to) and could've done way more with student loan forgiveness.
The problem is not that the policies themselves are unpopular (quite the opposite really), it's that the Biden admin didn't do *enough* with those policies.
Universal healthcare doesn't need to mean Medicare for All. Rather than putting drug prices and hospitals under Government control, letting Government directly negotiate with them through government operated health insurance aka a public option will also solve the issue as seen in many first world nations.
It doesn't but I guarantee it's closer to what many people are thinking than federal drug negotiation.
Student loan forgiveness was not popular. As for M4A, you think a population that voted in a historic GOP majority following Democrats passing a version of Romneycare is going to want some national single-payer?
So many folks are delusional about how left-leaning the American electorate is. If we somehow managed to pass M4A (we wouldn't and then suffer a 1994-esque drubbing, but let's play make believe), I honestly think that'd be the end of the Dem party; it'd have to be replaced by some other entity as the GOP alternative.
Universal healthcare is very popular but Medicare for All without private insurance clearly isn't in polls. A government run health insurance option also has broad support, including among a large share but not a majority of Republicans.
Student loan forgiveness was not unpopular but a 50-50 issue.
Medicare for all has polled well.
Multiple western democratic countries like Australia have a private and public healthcare system. The U.S. doesn’t need to go to a Cuba-like system in order for universal healthcare to exist.
In San Francisco, when Gavin Newsom was Mayor, the first universal healthcare initiative was experimented in the city. Called Healthy San Francisco, the way it’s financed is through an additional surcharge at restaurants and other establishments.
The real issue is how the fees or taxes are applied.
Is student loan forgiveness unpopular, or was Biden's botched handling of student loan forgiveness unpopular?
The latter according to a poll I saw otherwise it's a 50-50 issue.
That makes sense, some of the polling I've seen shows that there's a big generational and wealth divide on the issue.
not just generational, racial - it's very popular with black and Latino voters – https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/student-loan-debt-has-a-lasting-effect-on-black-borrowers-despite-the-latest-freeze-in-payments
It's very clearly unpopular. There were constant reports on Biden"s successes with Liam forgiveness, precisely because the media knew it was unpopular.
If Noel can forgive Liam, I guess the rest of us should consider it.
EDIT: For those reading, no, I don’t think free tuition purely at face value as-is can easily be implemented. Universities would need to have a steady and healthy revenue stream in order for free tuition to be a possibility.
Why can’t universities get more involved in helping graduates pay off their tuition?
It has always seemed odd to me why the burden has to be on the students all the time. It’s one thing to get excited to get accepted into schools of their choice but it’s another to have to be shouldered with burden in having to pay off the tuition when salaries aren’t always going to be efficient enough to pay off tuition quickly.
Perhaps free tuition for all at public universities like it used to be.
OR
Universities should be more involved with students being able to pay off their tuition.
I don’t see how this problem can be solved any other way but I am open to ideas.
That would bankrupt thousands of colleges. Many are barely surviving as it is.
Ok but what about the students? How quickly are they going to pay off their tuition? 5 months? 10 years? 40 years?
The latter part of what I am arguing as far as colleges being required to help students is not based on free tuition.
How quickly students pay off tuition is determined how well the university system is able to assure ROI for the degrees.
I don't think most track loan payoffs but colleges and universities are under constant pressure to maximize the "ROI" of their students. The government and crediation institutions insist on it. Because of this, colleges are becoming job factories rather than educational institutions.
I completely agree with you. I’d rather colleges have more balance and be able to focus on education without having to be job factories as you mention.
Right now, we aren’t going to have these intelligent policy implementations in government because of Trump’s administration. However, I think the U.S. Education Department and crediation institutions need to be questioned if it means they are placing unreasonable standards against colleges. They shouldn’t by default get a pass on this.
My feeling is that public colleges should offer focused career workshops to any students regardless of degree for an actual class. These are present in multiple MBA programs
This is a mistake - firstly, it would pretty much finish what the Republicans started in terms of killing off the humanities, which is bad for...well...humanity. Secondly, the Universities that would suffer are not the Harvards and Yales but rather precisely those institutions that serve first generation and other underserved communities. Long story short...this is a bad idea...
Whatever incentives and ways to make college more affordable and reasonable for students, I am all ears.
There are in free tuition incentives at community colleges, including the Peralta College District, which I have taken classes at for years. Harvard is also experimenting with free tuition initiatives although I am not concerned over anything with what private universities do. That said, tuition decades ago at public universities was super low cost or free. Now it’s sky high.
I am not arguing against humanities or anything in curriculum. I am in fact in support of keeping them there instead of cutting them. It’s not academia’s problem.
The question is - How do we make public universities within reach for anyone, especially the disadvantaged?
Did they? Biden couldn't get any such thing passed and voters specifically disliked the inflation in his term and his border crisis the most.
The IRA had several significant healthcare privisions, including Medicare negotiations for drug prices and insulin price cap and increased taxes on the wealthy. Biden also did several big actions on student loan forgiveness. The latter was outright unpopular and the former, while doing OK in polling, provided Biden with no political lift whatsoever, despites its many components which were long-time progressive goals.
Medicare negotiations for some drugs and insulin caps are still popular, where did you get that data from? Even Trump and MAGA try to take credit for that. The Biden administration being very unpopular doesn't mean all of its policies were.
Populism works only if it is loud and clear. Continuously!
And precisely this is what Team Biden failed to be. They were stellar on policy and legislation, but weak and meek on communication. They just couldn’t compete with four years of Trump shit-talking America and pissing on Biden, and the right-wing megaphone Trump had for his messaging.
I'd argue that ~80% of what voters think about a candidate's policies is in how they're packaged. Candidate A and candidate B could have 100% identical policies in practice and be perceived wildly differently due to how they communicate with voters, how they talk about their policies, how they present themselves in general.
Biden has always sold himself as a fairly typical establishment democrat risen up from the working class. He doesn't try to make people think he's populist.
This was probably a big part of why he did well in 2020, because it allowed him to make a "return to sanity" electoral pitch. It's also probably a big part of why things didn't work out for him for 2024, because the establishment style is terrible for handling electorates that think everything is horrible and want things to change.
In 2021, 9/10 voters wouldn't be able to name a single substantive thing Biden ran on. The same goes for Harris today, or HRC in 2017. For Trump, tariffs and mass deportations might break through but I'm not sure whether or not I'd qualify that as substantive.
In fairness, the “abundance” thing is new as of a few months ago.
That said, populism needs abundance and abundance needs populism. One doesn’t work without the other
Yes and only a smart politician will only be able to synthesize them effectively as the thinkers in abundance camp are as
beholden to corporate donors of their think tanks as the thinkers in the progressive camp are to interest advocacy groups.
Ro Khanna and Chris Murphy have already come out in support of a synthesis.
So far Ezra Klein has been able to explain abundance but he is mainly talking about the outcome, not so much the details of the specific policy being discussed.
What he has said is that when government programs or systems function, there is a lack of abundance of supply to support what goes on in government. Klein’s argument is that government doesn’t do this effectively and needs to be efficiently planned with the right supply to justify systematic change that goes on in government to address essential needs and rights. M
The synthesis between the two seems so self-evident as to be nearly automatic, I'd argue.
One of the examples on the abundance side was housing. There are roadblocks to building new housing. There's also major corporations buying up lots of housing supply to take advantage of that, and to maintain those roadblocks so they can profit from shortages.
The two approaches should mesh together seamlessly.
What was Polis's reasoning?
Maybe telling patients upfront of all the costs will make some of them refuse ambulance care?
It will cause them to raise costs upfront and it's not a buisness friendly policy.
Screw him. He makes Bennett look like Bernie Sanders.
Yeah I'm very skeptical about these labels, what is being ascribed to each or that they must be in conflict with each other.
And Polis vetoes a bill intended to protect tenants from price-fixing landlords. Siding with Republicans.
https://coloradosun.com/2025/05/29/jared-polis-vetoes-bill-rent-setting-software-algorithms-realpage/
Joni Ernst putting everything in perspective.
https://bsky.app/profile/briantylercohen.bsky.social/post/3lqfgv7f3ak2w
I love when politicians suddenly go goth. First India Walton, now Ernst.
Nice to see her getting involved early in filming Democratic campaign ads.
Even if Democrats don't win the senate race in Iowa, there's plenty of benefit to this. Ernst has become the white albatross for the Iowa GOP and perhaps beyond. This crap will resonate beyond the senate race to the house races and even the governor race. Democrats simply need to provide a credible and known alternative. Scholten's already a strong potential candidate but so is Nathan Sage from what I hear. This is the time to go on offense. Nothing to lose.
"Well we're all going to die" that better be an ad by next year. Cue some scary music some farmers dying due to lack of healthcare coverage.
I knew the MAGA message would eventually transition from "There will be some pain" to "Store up your treasures in heaven," but I didn't think it would happen this quickly.
If whoever runs against Ernst doesn’t make this into the centrepiece attack ad for their entire campaign, they’re doing it wrong. “Let people die” is exactly what every Republican in office actually thinks, but very few manage to tell the truth caught on camera.
She could even lose because of this quote, it’s devastating and goes directly to the argument Democrats have been making for a long time (to deaf ears sadly): the GOP doesn’t care about you, they only care about holding their own power and enriching their billionaire backers.
My dream is that Rob Sand wins by enough that he pulls Ernst's opponent across the finish line, too...
Look, Joni Ernst replaced Tom Harkin in the Senate in an open race. If anything, winning the seat back should be payback.
Does Ernst even want to win re-election at this point?
She’s sounding like Winsome Earle-Sears.
Reverse TACO! China tariffs potentially back!
There's a non zero chance that the TACO question causes a recession, :(
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Two weeks ago China was in grave economic danger! The very high Tariffs I set made it virtually impossible for China to TRADE into the United States marketplace which is, by far, number one in the World. We went, in effect, COLD TURKEY with China, and it was devastating for them. Many factories closed and there was, to put it mildly, “civil unrest.” I saw what was happening and didn’t like it, for them, not for us. I made a FAST DEAL with China in order to save them from what I thought was going to be a very bad situation, and I didn’t want to see that happen. Because of this deal, everything quickly stabilized and China got back to business as usual. Everybody was happy! That is the good news!!! The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US. So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114596705340367716
San Antonio - Mayor. Here's a couple of updates on the state of the mayor's race. We're currently in the middle of early voting, with Election Day June 7. We had a 101,000 votes in the first round. After 3 days of early voting we're sitting at about 38,700 votes for the runoff. The first article feels like a click-bait article. They only looked at the first day of early voting and for anyone who knows Bexar County Elections, the locations they cite as having high turnout always have high early voter turnout. Doesn't mean they're wrong about turnout trouble for Ortiz Jones, but unless you look at the voting history of the people turning out, it's kind of lazy to suggest that those sites alone mean trouble. In addition, there's 2 council races in the northside of San Antonio where several of those sites are located. Me and my husband are planning to vote tomorrow for Gina Ortiz Jones.
https://www.sacurrent.com/news/early-vote-turnout-in-san-antonio-mayoral-runoff-suggesting-trouble-for-gina-ortiz-jones-expert-says-37610598
https://sanantonioreport.org/san-antonio-mayor-race-state-of-play-gina-ortiz-jones-rolando-pablo/
People have short memories and forget we haven't had a runoff for Mayor since 2019 and seem to forget that city politics can play out differently from partisan politics even if both candidates are associated with the major parties. That 2019 race was divided less along party lines, but most assumed Nirenberg was the Democrat and his opponent the Republican. That runoff resulted in Nirenberg winning re-election with 51.11%. In 2017 Nirenberg ousted the incumbent Mayor Ivy Taylor with 54..6% in a runoff. In 2015, Taylor beat fmr. State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte with 51.7% in a runoff. The last time the mayor's race was an open seat and there wasn't a runoff was 2009 when Julian Castro won his first term.
As an aside, I don't if it's because I'm gay, but I'm detecting an under-the-radar homophobic attack by Pablos. He has small signs that say "Families First," and passing by one of his larger 4x8 signs it says the same along with a picture of his family. I get the impression this a reminder that Gina Ortiz Jones is a lesbian and doesn't have a "traditional" family.
Texas Lege
For a bit a good news, Republican Lite Gov. Dan Patrick screwed up and killed a number of conservative bills. Rather than recessing the State Senate, he adjourned it. This meant that the bills in question needed Democratic support to pass because of vote requirements to suspend certain rules.
https://www.reformaustin.org/texas-legislature/patrick-conservative-bills-die/
Regarding VA-11 having a Democratic candidate who previously served in Venezuela's national legislature, has there ever been a prior instance of a member of either house of Congress being elected after serving in a foreign elected office?
I don't know, but I won't be surprised if Jair Bolsonaro gets elected in Florida eventually.
I take it they are a political refugee, right?
I don't think so, but I think some guy from the Hungarian legislature ran for Congress in Indiana several decades ago, losing
Generic Ballot poll
🔵 Democrats 51%
🔴 Republicans 42%
Atlasintel #A+ - 5/27
https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1928515086231945233
Probably an outlier yet indicative of the momentum.
Those are 2018 wave numbers before voters are hit with tariff related price increases that should be hitting them shortly. This summer is when most of our recruitment efforts will be aiming for, so that lines up real nice timing wise after the policy chaos is begun to be felt by the average voter to help convince our best candidates to run.
At her town hall, when the crowd says people will die due to Medicaid and SNAP cuts, Joni Ernst responds "well we all are going to die." #iasen
The 2026 Iowa senate election just became lean R from Solid R.
Sage needs to SLAM Ernst on this from now until Election Day. It makes it easier to paint her as an uncaring puppet for the Republican billionaires.
Yeah, Ernst just cut the Dem's main ad right there.
Any other Dems considering, or is Sage pretty much it?
“Well we all are going to die” isn’t the biggest problem in Joni Ernst’s half-assessed statement.
It’s when she says she wants those who receive Medicaid should be qualified to receive it. Ernst is apparently believing you need to address those who are US citizens vs those who came to the US illegally.
Anyone who uses Medicaid is already qualified. The whole concept Ernst is bringing up is ridiculous.
Didn't Elizabeth Warren underperform in 2012, though? Purely electorally, she was definitely an underperformer in 2018 and 2024, and I think almost any Democrat would have beaten Scott Brown back in '12.
In hindsight, it's amazing how ridiculously overrated Scott Brown was.
Because the so called "liberal media" LOVES the mythical creature that is the "moderate Republican."
Larry Hogan would like a word with you. :)
The media tried SO HARD to make Senator Larry Hogan happen. Senator Larry Hogan was never going to happen.
Unlike Vanessa Huxtable, Larry Hogan was never going to have big fun in Baltimore. (Ancient TV joke.)
Hogan did do about 20 points better than Cardin's 2018 opponent did... The media really does love those so-called moderate republicans and will fawn over them endlessly. Hogan benefited from it enormously, but Maryland is so blue that it wasn't enough and wasn't close to enough either.
Ah, not mythical. But this was before the species Republicanus moderatus became extinct.
Died about the same time as Democratus segregationus.
I'm not even sure if Liberal Republicans (aka Rockefeller Republicans) still exist. Governor Phil Scott of Vermont might be one, but it's hard to tell. It takes much more than being a mere moderate to win in places like Vermont.
I remember when Dems were nervous about taking him on because he was becoming a juggernaut or something way back when. Now he's kinda pathetic.
Leo Martinez was nominated to serve as the US representative to the Interamerican Development Bank as a member of its board of executive directors; he was not nominated to be its president. That's why Cruz could block it since it goes thru a Senate nomination, while the IADB president is approved by the board itself (without any US Senate involvement).
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/30/andrew-cuomo-adrienne-adams-matching-funds-00376661
Andrew Cuomo was fined another $675,000 for illegal coordination with a Super PAC.
Why throwing Cuomo off the ballot isn't an option for the campaign board here is beyond me.
https://apnews.com/article/party-switch-kentucky-legislature-b7619252e623587e9f1378cd771b0494
The last Eastern Kentucky Democrat- State Senator Robin Webb has switched parties.
The last State Senator from the east to be sure. There's one state rep still around. That's a sad development regardless.
Switching to the GOP when they are about to gut Medicaid, something lots of people in Kentucky rely on, is a head-scratcher.
Not when you remember that empathy, ethics, and morality are all quickly discarded by conservatives. If she cared about her constituents' suffering, she'd never fit in with the republican party to make the switch in the first place, even if Medicaid was safe.
I'm reminded of when the ACA passed, and Dem. Gov. Steve Beshear used it to develop the "Kynect" state health exchange, which proved widely popular and was praised by officials and voters in red areas of the state who contorted themselves into thinking that Obama and other national Dems had nothing to do with it.