I wanted peoples opinions on the most important issues that Democrats should push for if they achieve a trifecta in 2028, i curated this list eventually:
⁃ Nationwide Independent Redistricting Commission
⁃ Introduce Congressional Age Limits (Would most likely require an amendment)
⁃ Expand & Pack SCOTUS
⁃ Expand the VRA
⁃ D.C. (Named Douglass) and Puerto Rico statehood
⁃ Abolish the cap on seats in the house
⁃ Ban Congressional Stock Trading
⁃ Introduce Federal Voting System of nonpartisan blanket top-four primary, and then RCV used in a top four candidate general election
⁃ Judicial Term Limits
⁃ Remove the filibuster
⁃ Make Election Day a federal holiday
⁃ Overturn Citizens United
⁃ Limit Presidential Power
I'd love to know other peoples recommendations and opinions on this list.
I think all of these are great, but would tweak a few: term limits instead of age limits, and have one presidential term of 6 years so there's no re election (a president can get a lot more done without campaigning)
We've practically had 6 years of Trump already and yes, the country is worse off because of it, but there is still hope for a return to normalcy envisioned by Harding.
As long as "abolish ICE" is TDB shorthand for a more realistic "improve border security and restructure immigration controls" then fine. But Abolish ICE out in the wild is the same loser as defined the police.
No it isn't. And public sentiment on that is in a far different place.
You still need some kind of enforcement mechanism for immigration. But that agency, and the people who run it and work in it, are beyond saving. The entire bushel is rotten.
They all have to go. Fired. Gone. Start over with new enabling legislation & a new remit.
Homeland Security is close. It is only 25 years old. That post 9/11 stuff all needs re-examined.
After re-reading it twice, I get that I misinterpreted ClimateHawk's "top 4" as referring to the top 4 points but he was actually referring to the top four primary system. So my question is moot and for transparency, I am deleting it.
Love it! I would also add expanding the house and setting a cap of people per rep that couldn’t be exceeded, say 100K, could be lower, but every time it would go over a state needs to add a seat. A rep representing 700K people feels remarkably undemocratic.
If you’re interested in this stuff and spreading these ideas I’d recommend joining liberal currents! A lot of these are in their reconstruction papers they’re developing! https://www.liberalcurrents.com/reforging-america/
uncapping the house affectively would set up those reforms of a limit on people per district, and many other districting reforms too, although one issue that could happen is having the number for people per rep being too low and then we have a house too big for well the physical house in the future
Agreed!! We need to stop feeling constrained by what was possible in the past, we need large enough reforms to not only help prevent further democratic backsliding but also to signal to the public, we’re never doing that again.
It doesn't even have to be built. Legislators could just work online from their districts, which might even help with eliminating "the Washington stench" that comes from being in too deep in the district.
That's fair. The other way this could work is that representatives caucus in regional congresses and bills would have to pass through each region and that counts as a full passage.
I agree with most but wouldn't waste time with Congressional age or term limits. Let the voters take care of that. If the advantage of incumbency needs to be dealt with, fundraising and spending limits could be imposed, at least in theory.
to a certain extent I agree, however political education especially in most districts isn’t the best and people vote off of name recognition or a current candidate because they haven’t been ‘that’ bad, I do agree that as I previously mentioned fundraising and spending limits should be imposed and would benefit the ousting of a bad incumbent.
Ugh, the problem is that there are so many reforms our government needs, that we'll never get them all done in one trifecta. I support almost everything you posted, but some of those things would require a constitutional amendment, like overturning Citizens United, some infringe on powers that have been reserved for the states, and we'll only have political capital to accomplish a few, so my top picks would be:
1. Require states to have independent redistricting commissions. I'd be ok with giving states a couple of choices on how to set them up, but some sort of gerrymandering reform needs to be top of mind.
2. D.C./P.R. statehood. Once it happens, it can't be undone and we need to break the inertia.
3. Stock trading ban/general ethics bill for all three branches. Politics aside, the stuff Clarence Thomas and Alito get away with is insane.
4. If it doesn't require a constitutional amendment, I'm all for the system of giving judges 18 year terms and appointing a new one every two years. The current justices would probably have to be grandfathered in, unfortunately, but this strikes me as the fairest method of ensuring the court reflects the people.
Honorable mentions go to nomination reform and circuit court expansion/remapping. It's insane to me that so many positions in the government are unfilled because the nomination process gets so bogged down in politics. There has to be a way to reform the system to make sure we have judges in the courts, ambassadors abroad, and civil service positions filled. We should probably also add more circuits and at the very least, rebalance how the current district/circuit courts are distributed across the country.
I don't think there's any question that judicial term limits would require a constitutional amendment. Another thing that would require a constitutional amendment is the abolition of presidential pardon power, which I think needs to be done.
An important reform that requires only legislation is an end to the debt ceiling.
i don’t interpret the constitution as that, especially if we expand and pack scotus it can easily be interpreted differently because the wording “during good behavior’ is very loose in my interpretation
although an amendment on presidential power is a must, but with how polarizing the United states are I struggle to find bi partisan support unless we exploit the presidential power in our first years
how would a national independent Redistricting commission be set up and work though? There are many models out there and I can imagine it also being very difficult.
That's what I meant by saying we should give states a couple of options. There are a couple of states that currently have different methods of redistricting that produce equally good outcomes. No reason to force everyone to do the same thing if there are multiple acceptable methods, but there should be strict guidelines to ensure there are no loopholes like Ohio has. I'm just spitballing here, but I could see a mechanism where each state is allowed to do it on its own but the new law creates an arbitration system outside the court system to approve or force redraws on maps deemed to be gerrymanders.
I'll just remind everyone that Puerto Rico was forcibly taken from Spain while Puerto Ricans were fighting for their independence. They traded one colonial power for another. So statehood should be conferred only if and when the people of Puerto Rico vote in favor of it. There seems to be an exceptionalistic idea that "of course PR would want to be a state", but that's nowhere near a uniform sentiment there. There have been nonbinding referenda that suggest support for statehood, but they've all been manipulated one way or another by either the PNP (prostatehood party) or PDP (pro status quo). A Congressionally authorized binding referendum that takes status quo off the table that passes in favor of statehood must occur before statehood can be conferred. At that point, the Dems will likely *net* 7 EVs, 0 Senators, and +1 in house.
I say this as a former long term resident of PR, who still works there and has Puerto Rican family.
Considering the Greenland issue this might be a controversial proposal, but I say we offer to buy the British Virgin Islands and admit them all as a state. The BVI already use the USD.
I support statehood for Guam if they want it, in theory, but in practice, that would risk 2 more Republican senators, so I'd be very careful about that.
They voted for statehood in 2012. And 2017. And 2020. And 2024. Yes, the 2017 vote has an asterisk because the no-voters stayed home in protest, but 2024 had 64% turnout.
We already know what the people of PR want. They voted on it less than TWO years ago. The 2024 referendum was clear (58% in favor), with >60% turnout. The 2020 referendum was rather blunt too, a yes/no on becoming a state.
Forcing vote after vote after vote there to confirm it is a glorified way of ensuring it never happens, because that's what has been happening for a decade.
Exactly what I was going to say. If you don't want PR to become a state for anti-colonialist reasons or whatever, be honest about what you want. But don't say we need another referendum to be sure, Puertorriqueños have been telling us for more than a decade.
Exactly. They voted for it. If some voters sat it out for various reasons, that's on them.
An unrelated concern is once the Trump era passes, will it be a Dem state, w/2 Dem Senators? They had a GOP delegate to the House very recently and GOP governors.
I think this list is important, but it's Inside Baseball. The non-politics junky folks will want:
Lower health care costs (not just insurance reform like Obamacare), whether Medicare for all, a Swiss version, or something else. I'm in favor of all health care being non-profit.
More affordable housing to support the American dream, especially on the low end
Universal PreK
Break up monopolies on streaming, hospital systems, entertainment, travel, right to repair, etc.
New emphasis on clean air and water, especially PFAS, arsenic, etc.
Expand earned income credit and Medicaid and pay for with wealth taxes.
I hope that the next legislature can expand on the Housing for the 21st Century Act which seems likely to pass in a few weeks, that would definitely support your second bullet point.
The feds can't directly enact zoning laws but the package includes several nudges towards more deregulation and rules for new projects that would need to be followed by cities to get fed grants.
I was just about to come in here to talk about breaking up monopolies. I just read Corey Doctorow's book on Enshittification and I think Antitrust is one of the most important and substantial things that we can do that will have a lot of upside and tangible results that the American people see day in and day out. More Jobs, More Competition, More Personal Freedom. It's a no brainer. While we're at it we need to frame Monopolies as the Cartels that they are.
Republicans realized decades ago that the process stuff, while not salient to voters, has an immeasurable impact on politics, so it must be addressed no matter how inside baseball it is. It makes everything else more feasible.
The United States is the only democracy in the world that chooses its leader in as bizarre and undemocratic a fashion as through the Electoral College. Twice this century (2000 and 2016) has someone lost the popular vote but gained the presidency by winning a majority of electoral votes, which gives an unfair advantage to smaller states. The momentum among states to pass the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact indicates widespread dissatisfaction with the Electoral College. Even Republicans recognize that the institution could hurt them.
I do not see how a trifecta can repeal Citizens United except by changing SCOTUS so I would treat it as a subset of expansion of SCOTUS. BTW, stop using the word "pack" if you hope to win that argument.
Election Day? Talked about a lot but to me, the downside is that people would take a long four-day weekend and be gone on election day, just as they do now on Monday and Friday holidays.
Realistically, to me, (1) DC/PR statehood and (2,3) expand SCOTUS with judicial term limits would be the most important. But these could only happen if the filibuster is also gone (although it could just have new exceptions) for admission of states and overseeing the judiciary.
I don't know how realistic it would be to happen, but I want to see somebody propose the US to slowly shift to a semi-presidential system and give Congress back the power its meant to have. PR as a derivative of majority-district results would be a good compromise.
Sad to say, I cannot see how any of these proposals, save for banning congressional stock trading, ever have a chance of being effected given the massive political, institutional, and financial barriers they face. Anything requiring 60 votes in the Senate or god forbid 3/4ths of the states/leges is utterly DOA. We're going to expand and pack SCOTUS? With someone like Schumer, being the tip of the spear on that in terms of selling the public and muscling it through? Democrats lack the party DNA and spine to do the kind of ruthless, merciless, victory above all muscling through of critical priorities. Harry Reid was the closest we got. This is evidenced for example, by less than maximalist maps in state after state. For once, I wish we could be led by a McConnell type, whos entire animating raison d'etre for every fiber of his body is crushing the other side. The moment demands it, the survival of the Republic demands it.
Even the congressional stock trading ban, which is currently already proposed and working its way through the house in some form will be defeated and circumvented Pelosi style. (The spouse, children or a step removed family will be making the trades and profiting for the family, instead of the congress member doing it directly. Big whoop). Unless the ban is something extremely stringent, like nothing but broad indexes for all spouses, family, staffers and employees, I don't see how you can meaningfully prevent profiting from inside government information. And even then, you just tip off your friends, who've been in the markets and are ready to trade, while you're at golf.
I mostly agree, but there's a very real chance that Schumer isn't our party leader come Jan 2029. He'll be in his late 70s when he's up for reelection in 2028. A common late-age retirement from the senate. And if he sticks around he has a very serious risk of losing a primary to AOC.
Ultimately if we keep the filibuster in place, our next trifecta will have very little power to fix any of the ills that ail this country.
Absolutely agreed. Filibuster needs to go, or we're toothless. AOC challenging Schumer is my most wanted primary, by a mile. I bet she would raise 10-15M within 24h of announcing.
Basically the only issue Democrats should focus on is managing the pending atomic fallout of AI disruption. We're whistling past graveyards as a nation as though we're not at the doorstep of the most consequential reordering of our planet since the asteroid killed the dinosaurs.
There's a fine line between inciting panic and preparing the population for every aspect of their contemporary lifestyle being outmoded. With each passing week, this outcome becomes less ambiguous than those innocent times of two years ago when the biggest threat from AI was phony images of people with six fingers.
The more time the Dems are seen as obsessing over things that will be deemed frivolous when the AI revolution moves to its next inevitable disruptive stage, the better off we'll be. In other words, most things on your list need to be viewed as marginal priorities, at least when it comes to the public face of the party's agenda.
Honestly I'm baffled why there have been multiple amendments to narrow the veto power, instead of just fixing the issue entirely by making it more like the federal level.
We have a potential crazy extension of prop 13, the property tax cap that could appear on the 2026 general election ballot. It would allow seniors, over 60, who have lived in their house 5 years, or on California for 10 years to elect to not pay property taxes.
This would cripple local governments and schools districts, and create more inequity between property owners and renters.
With prop 13, we already have property tax relief for older people who have been in their houses for years. Personally, I pay about $6,000 in property taxes, and my newer neighbors about $17,000.
We also have the ability to defer property tax payments and transfer property tax basis within a county, and for SoCal and Alameda county in NorCal, between counties.
This crazy idea BTW is coming out of NorCal, not OC, lol.
Prop 13 is so insane. People with huge houses, surrounded by massive lawns, should be paying enormous property taxes. Estates like that are a massive waste of space, especially in a place like California with a terrible housing shortage.
Prop 13 should be eliminated, not extended. If the residents of those estates can't pay their property taxes, good - they leave, and then the city can tear down those estates and build much more densely populated housing in their place.
Some of us that benefit from prop 13 live in dumpy little houses surrounded by patio and a few bushes. If it weren't for prop 13, I would have sold a long time ago and probably have had to move out of California, which I currently am considering anyway.
I personally wished the people pushing the wealth tax this year instead had focused their energies at a ballot proposition carving homes owned by ultra wealthy bozos like Marc Andressen and David Sacks' out of Prop 13.
Interestingly enough I read a Prop 19 article in the SF Chronicle (which made a small, but notable carve out of Prop 13) where the author bemoaned the fact that people who inherited homes from their parents might have to sell them, especially if they were using them as a second home/Airbnb.
Which is good IMO since Prop 13 has given a perverse incentive for people to hold onto their homes in perpetuity even if they're an empty nester. In a state where we aren't building enough housing anything that helps a natural turnover in the housing market helps.
It's more than just prop 13 that creates the perverse incentives for unused housing space.
It used to be that you could downsize and use a 1031 exchange to pay tax on only the portion taken out as cash. That went away both federally and in California. Given I bought my house 37 years ago, my capital gains taxes and transaction fees significantly reduce cash available for the replacement housing, so why bother. Plus in 10 years, I'll probably be dead, then my heirs get a stepped up basis and that tax completely disappears, never to be collected.
Until January, I was taking care of Mom, but with her gone, I could rent rooms to college kids, but the city severely restricts my ability to do so.
People have to move all the time. Since when did anyone have a God-given right to live in exactly the same house, for their entire life, regardless of anything that was happening around it?
That's ridiculous, especially in an extremely high-demand area like California. Times change. Land priorities change too.
It's politics . I am not supporting him but Stratton has also been accusing him of being in ICE's pockets and has attacked him for voting for that resolution praising ICE since months.
The following would require a constitutional amendment or a completely different supreme court or both:
Nationwide Independent Redistricting Commission
Introduce Federal Voting System of nonpartisan blanket top-four primary, and then RCV used in a top four candidate general election
Judicial Term Limits
Overturn Citizens United
Finally, Limit Presidential Power is vague. Some limits could be done legislatively, others would require changes to the constitution and/or a different court. Also changes to the VRA, some would require an amendment others would not.
The number one thing to add would be to make the tax system more fair, including taxing capital gains as income, removing trust loopholes, adding additional brackets at the top (the current top bracket its 626,351/751,601, which is insane when people make tens of billions of dollars), enlarging the untaxed minimum amount, taxing the use of wealth for loans, and a wealth tax (which may require an Amendment so that's a maybe).
I’m guessing you meant to reply to me there, as I mentioned we should definitely expand and pack scotus which as you mentioned would make it a complete different court, citizens united yes would need an amendment, a very liberal scotus would rule judicial term limits constitutional but it would be close in my opinion, for the voting system again I think that would pass in an expanded and packed scotus, and finally the nationwide independent Redistricting commission we could find a way around that I’m sure based on other comments and previous SCOTUS. Oh and i definitely agree with the majority of your tax opinions.
In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton the Supreme Court held that terms limits for Congress were unconstitutional. Now, it was a 5-4 decision. Interestingly the more liberal justices were the ones who held the term limits unconstitutional. In my memory it was not as close as it was. However, the language on federal judges is much clearer. I am for term limits. But I do not see them happening without a constitutional amendment. With a liberal court citizens united could be overturned. But term limits for judges would need an amendment.
One other thing I forgot to say is that legislatively they could get rid of senior status for federal judges. Senior status is a huge scam because the president nominates a replacement but the judge stays on the bench. I would like to see senior status limited in time, say two years to wrap up cases.
Another thing they could get rid of legislatively is the shadow docket and require a full opinion if the Court overturns a preliminary injunction. Or get rid of appeals of preliminary injunctions to SCOTUS completely and limit the court to appeals of final opinions.
I would like to see 13 justices, one justice per circuit, and get back to the justices riding the circuit and participate in circuit court cases.
Right now a judge can "retire" to senior status and stay on the bench until they die. The judge chooses when to do it. The change would be to have senior status only last two years. So the judge would be on senior status for two years and then retire from the bench. A judge would not be required to take senior status. They could still stay on the bench until they die. But senior status allows the president to appoint a replacement and then the judge still stays on the bench as long as they want. Senior status is a legislative invention. Congress could get rid of it completely. But what i am saying it would have a clock. Senior status is not about age. It is a choice judges make. Some have smaller dockets. Some have full dockets.
Senior status is entirely a legislative scheme, not prescribed by the Constitution. I imagine repealing it would either require senior judges to retire or converting them to full-time judges, which would likely prompt most of those to retire instead.
Could you add a “Redistricting Scoreboard” to your Substack that updates what the state of play is in the redistricting efforts in the various states — which ones have been completed, which ones are likely to succeed, and which ones will probably not succeed?
It looks like "Lurleen" DeSantis will not be the next Governor of Florida. That is a good thing. Byron Donalds is not a good alternative, but FL is FL...
I thought of something else, which fits into your voting discussion generally. Specifically I would like to eliminate great disparities in waiting in line to vote within a state. The states would still determine the manner of elections, but that manner would have to be applied equally across the state.
And, I can't believe I forgot this, direct the EPA to monitor and regulate greenhouse gases.
That first one is simple - require each polling place to have at least a certain number of voting booths and check-in stations per number of registered voters at the polling place.
This is what New Hampshire does, and we generally don't have long lines. The only time we've ever had lines anywhere near 30 minutes is when a disproportionate number of voters arrive at the same time, such as for the last presidential election when a lot of people showed up first thing in the morning. But we can't control when voters show up, and once we got through the morning rush, there was a steady stream of people coming in all day but no one was waiting for more than 5-10 minutes.
In my law each state would make a determination how to eliminate waiting disparity. But it sounds like NH has a good one. It is particularly pronounced in Missouri, with ridiculous lines in St. Louis and people having no wait in other areas.
Doesn't early voting eliminate need for E-day holiday? If election day was a holiday, how would that affect voting locations? (Schools closed so unavailable for example)
I feel like we have other more important issues to spend our capital on. Also that I'm being a nay sayer today, which isn't my intent to be disagreeable.
And yet New Hampshire is still consistently one of the top 10 states for turnout.
Meanwhile, Texas offers several weeks of early voting, but turnout is still low.
I support implementing early voting in New Hampshire, but let's not pretend that turnout is solely, or even mostly, dependent on the availability of early or mail-in voting.
NH has one of the most educated populations in the country and despite the absence of early voting and more stringent VBM requirements, that accommodation for voters makes up for it.
The primary turnout in TX, in regard to early voting, has REALLY popped this year. Which makes me think Nov is going to have MASSIVE turnout all over the country.
It appears that a push to decrease early voting days in Indiana from 28 to 16 days will not move out of the state Senate. While proponents said it would "save money," it would have clearly hampered voter turnout which is already low in Indiana, which was 41st among the states in the last election.
Indiana Rs have a bit of sense. They knew if they actually shortened the early voting period, it would energize Dems and left leaning unaffiliated voters into turning out.
Kinda like how they said no to TACO's gerrymandering BS last year.
I wouldn’t quite call them Burkean intellectuals but they are at least more classical conservatives than the more nonsensical Jacobinist streak of MAGA (here I go being a nerd again after I not long ago compared Trump to Napoleon III)
We have 2 weeks of early voting in SC and that seems to work just fine. 50% of the vote is cast that way. Is there *Real* data that shows 28 days expands turnout substantially, rather than just spreading it out?
I understand people have their favorites, but the Crockett influencers need to understand that Jasmine was Astroturfed into running at the last minute and gaslighting Talarico's campaign does them no favors. Talarico asked her this past summer if she was going to run for Senate, she said no, then changed her mind. Beto and co asked if he wanted to run against Abbott, he said no, he was going to run for the Senate seat.
Perhaps these influencers ought to use their energy better by helping elect Democrats elsewhere in TX where the Democratic candidates could use the support the most.
I've seen KHive/Crockett influencers saying since James Talarico is a pastor and wears his faith on his sleeve we should tell him to fuck off. One infamous KHive person on X even compared James Talarico and Lis Smith to Jim Jones. Like really?
Luckily most of this derangement is limited to X and Threads.
Excuse my Texan, but I’d tell those mindless fuckers to shut up for 15 minutes – long enough to watch the video of the interview Stephen Colbert did with James Talarico. Really excellent!
We now have 3 liberal challengers to all 3 GOP-appointed Georgia State Supreme Court Justices who are up for a non-partisan general election on May 19th (you read that right, May NOT November).
minor note: Mike McGuire's base is Sonoma County, not Mendocino County. Sonoma has a university and one 100K+ city (Santa Rosa) along with world class wineries, beaches, etc. Mendocino county has world class wineries and beaches but is sparsely populated.
In a recent discussion, there were lists of candidates of color who are running in the primaries/general elections. I wanted to share this with somebody, but now I can’t seem to find it. Can anyone point me to it, please?
I wanted peoples opinions on the most important issues that Democrats should push for if they achieve a trifecta in 2028, i curated this list eventually:
⁃ Nationwide Independent Redistricting Commission
⁃ Introduce Congressional Age Limits (Would most likely require an amendment)
⁃ Expand & Pack SCOTUS
⁃ Expand the VRA
⁃ D.C. (Named Douglass) and Puerto Rico statehood
⁃ Abolish the cap on seats in the house
⁃ Ban Congressional Stock Trading
⁃ Introduce Federal Voting System of nonpartisan blanket top-four primary, and then RCV used in a top four candidate general election
⁃ Judicial Term Limits
⁃ Remove the filibuster
⁃ Make Election Day a federal holiday
⁃ Overturn Citizens United
⁃ Limit Presidential Power
I'd love to know other peoples recommendations and opinions on this list.
I think all of these are great, but would tweak a few: term limits instead of age limits, and have one presidential term of 6 years so there's no re election (a president can get a lot more done without campaigning)
A single 6-year term is an interesting but potentially scary idea.
imagine Trump for 6 consecutive years, that’s a very scary thought
Exactly my thought.
We've practically had 6 years of Trump already and yes, the country is worse off because of it, but there is still hope for a return to normalcy envisioned by Harding.
I don't think we want to take the campaign slogans of one of the most corrupt presidents in history at face value.
Corrupt with his decisions but not his morals, arguably
If I had a vote, I would vote for the procedual/process stuff. It unlocks everything else.
1) Kill the Fill.
2) Expand SCROTUS/Fed Courts
3) Repeal Citizens United/get the $$ out of politics/reduce billionaire & corporate power.
----------
4) Purge MAGA from Gov't
5) Abolish ICE
6) Add DC as state
7) Attack gerrymandering/abolish 435 limit.
8) Repeal All of Trump I & II
9) ACCOUNTABILITY for lawnessness.
10) Restore capable folk to gov't positions
11) Kill Blue slips
Then I'd get to work.
1) Medicare for All
2) Green New Deal/Climate Change
3) Raise taxes on rich/corps
4) Paid family leave
5) Help Ukraine/defeat Putin
6) Affordable Housing
7) Restore/Protect Democracy
8) Reward resistors and punish collaborators. Gov't contracts, etc.
9) Go after AI & crypto.
10) Reform UN/NATO. No vetoes. EU would also help, butcwe are not a member.
Killing the filibuster unlocks everything, so that should be first thing we do.
Part of me would prefer that Republicans administer the coup de grâce, but yes, I think it needs to go.
Expecting the filibuster to kill off bad policy just seems to make people feel freer to vote for unserious MAGA/Tea Party joke candidates.
GOP base and low information voters two years into that project: best I can give you is hard labor camps for all registered Democrats
As long as "abolish ICE" is TDB shorthand for a more realistic "improve border security and restructure immigration controls" then fine. But Abolish ICE out in the wild is the same loser as defined the police.
"Abolish ICE and reestablish the Border Patrol and INS."
No it isn't. And public sentiment on that is in a far different place.
You still need some kind of enforcement mechanism for immigration. But that agency, and the people who run it and work in it, are beyond saving. The entire bushel is rotten.
They all have to go. Fired. Gone. Start over with new enabling legislation & a new remit.
Homeland Security is close. It is only 25 years old. That post 9/11 stuff all needs re-examined.
I am against:
Nationwide recistricting commission (it has to be state be state with Fed standards & Commissions can be packed).
Age limits & judicial term limits (Constitutional issues).
Nor am I a huge fan of top 4. And federalizing it may run into issues.
A big fan of everything else.
Huh? ClimateHawk didn't say that.
It is the fourth point of the top 4.
That was written by a different person.
Don't put words in someone's mouth that they didn't say.
Noah wrote the list that ClimateHawk responded to, and I’m interested in hearing his perspective.
https://thedownballot.substack.com/p/morning-digest-wisconsin-gop-seeks?utm_source=direct&r=5h35x5&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=218988062 Expandind the VRA is in the top 4 points.
https://thedownballot.substack.com/p/morning-digest-wisconsin-gop-seeks?utm_source=direct&r=5h35x5&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=219017860 "Nor am I a huge fan of top 4. And federalizing it may run into issues."
After re-reading it twice, I get that I misinterpreted ClimateHawk's "top 4" as referring to the top 4 points but he was actually referring to the top four primary system. So my question is moot and for transparency, I am deleting it.
I believe they meant the top 4 voting system not the top 4 points that I made
Indeed. Sorry for the confusion.
Excellent list.
Love it! I would also add expanding the house and setting a cap of people per rep that couldn’t be exceeded, say 100K, could be lower, but every time it would go over a state needs to add a seat. A rep representing 700K people feels remarkably undemocratic.
If you’re interested in this stuff and spreading these ideas I’d recommend joining liberal currents! A lot of these are in their reconstruction papers they’re developing! https://www.liberalcurrents.com/reforging-america/
uncapping the house affectively would set up those reforms of a limit on people per district, and many other districting reforms too, although one issue that could happen is having the number for people per rep being too low and then we have a house too big for well the physical house in the future
Then a new House would have to be built, which is perfectly OK.
Agreed!! We need to stop feeling constrained by what was possible in the past, we need large enough reforms to not only help prevent further democratic backsliding but also to signal to the public, we’re never doing that again.
It doesn't even have to be built. Legislators could just work online from their districts, which might even help with eliminating "the Washington stench" that comes from being in too deep in the district.
Working online comes with a bunch of issues that would have to be dealt with. It might be worth doing, but it isn't free of challenges.
That's fair. The other way this could work is that representatives caucus in regional congresses and bills would have to pass through each region and that counts as a full passage.
I agree with most but wouldn't waste time with Congressional age or term limits. Let the voters take care of that. If the advantage of incumbency needs to be dealt with, fundraising and spending limits could be imposed, at least in theory.
to a certain extent I agree, however political education especially in most districts isn’t the best and people vote off of name recognition or a current candidate because they haven’t been ‘that’ bad, I do agree that as I previously mentioned fundraising and spending limits should be imposed and would benefit the ousting of a bad incumbent.
Ugh, the problem is that there are so many reforms our government needs, that we'll never get them all done in one trifecta. I support almost everything you posted, but some of those things would require a constitutional amendment, like overturning Citizens United, some infringe on powers that have been reserved for the states, and we'll only have political capital to accomplish a few, so my top picks would be:
1. Require states to have independent redistricting commissions. I'd be ok with giving states a couple of choices on how to set them up, but some sort of gerrymandering reform needs to be top of mind.
2. D.C./P.R. statehood. Once it happens, it can't be undone and we need to break the inertia.
3. Stock trading ban/general ethics bill for all three branches. Politics aside, the stuff Clarence Thomas and Alito get away with is insane.
4. If it doesn't require a constitutional amendment, I'm all for the system of giving judges 18 year terms and appointing a new one every two years. The current justices would probably have to be grandfathered in, unfortunately, but this strikes me as the fairest method of ensuring the court reflects the people.
Honorable mentions go to nomination reform and circuit court expansion/remapping. It's insane to me that so many positions in the government are unfilled because the nomination process gets so bogged down in politics. There has to be a way to reform the system to make sure we have judges in the courts, ambassadors abroad, and civil service positions filled. We should probably also add more circuits and at the very least, rebalance how the current district/circuit courts are distributed across the country.
I don't think there's any question that judicial term limits would require a constitutional amendment. Another thing that would require a constitutional amendment is the abolition of presidential pardon power, which I think needs to be done.
An important reform that requires only legislation is an end to the debt ceiling.
i don’t interpret the constitution as that, especially if we expand and pack scotus it can easily be interpreted differently because the wording “during good behavior’ is very loose in my interpretation
I don't think it is, but it definitely couldn't be interpreted to mean a term or age limit.
I’ll refer you to this links for a better explanation than I could give:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/constitution-allows-term-limited-supreme-court-justices
although an amendment on presidential power is a must, but with how polarizing the United states are I struggle to find bi partisan support unless we exploit the presidential power in our first years
I agree.
Yes, and that's exactly what we should do.
how would a national independent Redistricting commission be set up and work though? There are many models out there and I can imagine it also being very difficult.
What do they do in other countries?
That's what I meant by saying we should give states a couple of options. There are a couple of states that currently have different methods of redistricting that produce equally good outcomes. No reason to force everyone to do the same thing if there are multiple acceptable methods, but there should be strict guidelines to ensure there are no loopholes like Ohio has. I'm just spitballing here, but I could see a mechanism where each state is allowed to do it on its own but the new law creates an arbitration system outside the court system to approve or force redraws on maps deemed to be gerrymanders.
Repeal the Patriot Act!
I'll just remind everyone that Puerto Rico was forcibly taken from Spain while Puerto Ricans were fighting for their independence. They traded one colonial power for another. So statehood should be conferred only if and when the people of Puerto Rico vote in favor of it. There seems to be an exceptionalistic idea that "of course PR would want to be a state", but that's nowhere near a uniform sentiment there. There have been nonbinding referenda that suggest support for statehood, but they've all been manipulated one way or another by either the PNP (prostatehood party) or PDP (pro status quo). A Congressionally authorized binding referendum that takes status quo off the table that passes in favor of statehood must occur before statehood can be conferred. At that point, the Dems will likely *net* 7 EVs, 0 Senators, and +1 in house.
I say this as a former long term resident of PR, who still works there and has Puerto Rican family.
DC, on the other hand, seems like a slam dunk.
Don't stop there. If VI or Guam want in, I am OK with that. Some non-contiguous Native American or Pacific/Marshall Islands thing could also work.
Everybody deserves representation and a vote for it.
Considering the Greenland issue this might be a controversial proposal, but I say we offer to buy the British Virgin Islands and admit them all as a state. The BVI already use the USD.
I support statehood for Guam if they want it, in theory, but in practice, that would risk 2 more Republican senators, so I'd be very careful about that.
They voted for statehood in 2012. And 2017. And 2020. And 2024. Yes, the 2017 vote has an asterisk because the no-voters stayed home in protest, but 2024 had 64% turnout.
We already know what the people of PR want. They voted on it less than TWO years ago. The 2024 referendum was clear (58% in favor), with >60% turnout. The 2020 referendum was rather blunt too, a yes/no on becoming a state.
Forcing vote after vote after vote there to confirm it is a glorified way of ensuring it never happens, because that's what has been happening for a decade.
Exactly what I was going to say. If you don't want PR to become a state for anti-colonialist reasons or whatever, be honest about what you want. But don't say we need another referendum to be sure, Puertorriqueños have been telling us for more than a decade.
Exactly. They voted for it. If some voters sat it out for various reasons, that's on them.
An unrelated concern is once the Trump era passes, will it be a Dem state, w/2 Dem Senators? They had a GOP delegate to the House very recently and GOP governors.
Definitely a concern politically, but at bedrock these are American citizens who want full citizenship, nothing else matters.
I think this list is important, but it's Inside Baseball. The non-politics junky folks will want:
Lower health care costs (not just insurance reform like Obamacare), whether Medicare for all, a Swiss version, or something else. I'm in favor of all health care being non-profit.
More affordable housing to support the American dream, especially on the low end
Universal PreK
Break up monopolies on streaming, hospital systems, entertainment, travel, right to repair, etc.
New emphasis on clean air and water, especially PFAS, arsenic, etc.
Expand earned income credit and Medicaid and pay for with wealth taxes.
And young people will want regulation of AI, which appears to be stealing their jobs.
yes that must all happen, however this administration has illustrated even more than ever the need for a stronger democracy
I hope that the next legislature can expand on the Housing for the 21st Century Act which seems likely to pass in a few weeks, that would definitely support your second bullet point.
I didn't know there was a Federal housing expansion bill. What does it say and how does it deal with local zoning laws?
https://www.naco.org/news/house-passes-bipartisan-housing-21st-century-act
The feds can't directly enact zoning laws but the package includes several nudges towards more deregulation and rules for new projects that would need to be followed by cities to get fed grants.
I was just about to come in here to talk about breaking up monopolies. I just read Corey Doctorow's book on Enshittification and I think Antitrust is one of the most important and substantial things that we can do that will have a lot of upside and tangible results that the American people see day in and day out. More Jobs, More Competition, More Personal Freedom. It's a no brainer. While we're at it we need to frame Monopolies as the Cartels that they are.
Republicans realized decades ago that the process stuff, while not salient to voters, has an immeasurable impact on politics, so it must be addressed no matter how inside baseball it is. It makes everything else more feasible.
Abolish the Electoral College.
let’s be realistic here
The United States is the only democracy in the world that chooses its leader in as bizarre and undemocratic a fashion as through the Electoral College. Twice this century (2000 and 2016) has someone lost the popular vote but gained the presidency by winning a majority of electoral votes, which gives an unfair advantage to smaller states. The momentum among states to pass the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact indicates widespread dissatisfaction with the Electoral College. Even Republicans recognize that the institution could hurt them.
In theory, but they are not going to support a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Electoral College until they're on the short end of it.
I do not see how a trifecta can repeal Citizens United except by changing SCOTUS so I would treat it as a subset of expansion of SCOTUS. BTW, stop using the word "pack" if you hope to win that argument.
Election Day? Talked about a lot but to me, the downside is that people would take a long four-day weekend and be gone on election day, just as they do now on Monday and Friday holidays.
Realistically, to me, (1) DC/PR statehood and (2,3) expand SCOTUS with judicial term limits would be the most important. But these could only happen if the filibuster is also gone (although it could just have new exceptions) for admission of states and overseeing the judiciary.
Your last pgh is key -- easy-to-explain reforms and easy to defend. Would add some sort of gerrymandering reform, but then that's it.
I don't know how realistic it would be to happen, but I want to see somebody propose the US to slowly shift to a semi-presidential system and give Congress back the power its meant to have. PR as a derivative of majority-district results would be a good compromise.
Sad to say, I cannot see how any of these proposals, save for banning congressional stock trading, ever have a chance of being effected given the massive political, institutional, and financial barriers they face. Anything requiring 60 votes in the Senate or god forbid 3/4ths of the states/leges is utterly DOA. We're going to expand and pack SCOTUS? With someone like Schumer, being the tip of the spear on that in terms of selling the public and muscling it through? Democrats lack the party DNA and spine to do the kind of ruthless, merciless, victory above all muscling through of critical priorities. Harry Reid was the closest we got. This is evidenced for example, by less than maximalist maps in state after state. For once, I wish we could be led by a McConnell type, whos entire animating raison d'etre for every fiber of his body is crushing the other side. The moment demands it, the survival of the Republic demands it.
Even the congressional stock trading ban, which is currently already proposed and working its way through the house in some form will be defeated and circumvented Pelosi style. (The spouse, children or a step removed family will be making the trades and profiting for the family, instead of the congress member doing it directly. Big whoop). Unless the ban is something extremely stringent, like nothing but broad indexes for all spouses, family, staffers and employees, I don't see how you can meaningfully prevent profiting from inside government information. And even then, you just tip off your friends, who've been in the markets and are ready to trade, while you're at golf.
I mostly agree, but there's a very real chance that Schumer isn't our party leader come Jan 2029. He'll be in his late 70s when he's up for reelection in 2028. A common late-age retirement from the senate. And if he sticks around he has a very serious risk of losing a primary to AOC.
Ultimately if we keep the filibuster in place, our next trifecta will have very little power to fix any of the ills that ail this country.
Absolutely agreed. Filibuster needs to go, or we're toothless. AOC challenging Schumer is my most wanted primary, by a mile. I bet she would raise 10-15M within 24h of announcing.
At least half of those would require Constitutional amendments
I disagree, at most 3 of them do in my opinion
Basically the only issue Democrats should focus on is managing the pending atomic fallout of AI disruption. We're whistling past graveyards as a nation as though we're not at the doorstep of the most consequential reordering of our planet since the asteroid killed the dinosaurs.
There's a fine line between inciting panic and preparing the population for every aspect of their contemporary lifestyle being outmoded. With each passing week, this outcome becomes less ambiguous than those innocent times of two years ago when the biggest threat from AI was phony images of people with six fingers.
The more time the Dems are seen as obsessing over things that will be deemed frivolous when the AI revolution moves to its next inevitable disruptive stage, the better off we'll be. In other words, most things on your list need to be viewed as marginal priorities, at least when it comes to the public face of the party's agenda.
I don’t know if that WI constitutional amendment pushed by Rs will pass. It’s deliberately misleading.
And in a D - leaning environment like the 2026 midterms, it could fail.
Honestly I'm baffled why there have been multiple amendments to narrow the veto power, instead of just fixing the issue entirely by making it more like the federal level.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article314636202.html
We have a potential crazy extension of prop 13, the property tax cap that could appear on the 2026 general election ballot. It would allow seniors, over 60, who have lived in their house 5 years, or on California for 10 years to elect to not pay property taxes.
This would cripple local governments and schools districts, and create more inequity between property owners and renters.
With prop 13, we already have property tax relief for older people who have been in their houses for years. Personally, I pay about $6,000 in property taxes, and my newer neighbors about $17,000.
We also have the ability to defer property tax payments and transfer property tax basis within a county, and for SoCal and Alameda county in NorCal, between counties.
This crazy idea BTW is coming out of NorCal, not OC, lol.
Prop 13 is so insane. People with huge houses, surrounded by massive lawns, should be paying enormous property taxes. Estates like that are a massive waste of space, especially in a place like California with a terrible housing shortage.
Prop 13 should be eliminated, not extended. If the residents of those estates can't pay their property taxes, good - they leave, and then the city can tear down those estates and build much more densely populated housing in their place.
Some of us that benefit from prop 13 live in dumpy little houses surrounded by patio and a few bushes. If it weren't for prop 13, I would have sold a long time ago and probably have had to move out of California, which I currently am considering anyway.
Prop 13 benefits should be means tested.
I personally wished the people pushing the wealth tax this year instead had focused their energies at a ballot proposition carving homes owned by ultra wealthy bozos like Marc Andressen and David Sacks' out of Prop 13.
Interestingly enough I read a Prop 19 article in the SF Chronicle (which made a small, but notable carve out of Prop 13) where the author bemoaned the fact that people who inherited homes from their parents might have to sell them, especially if they were using them as a second home/Airbnb.
Which is good IMO since Prop 13 has given a perverse incentive for people to hold onto their homes in perpetuity even if they're an empty nester. In a state where we aren't building enough housing anything that helps a natural turnover in the housing market helps.
It's more than just prop 13 that creates the perverse incentives for unused housing space.
It used to be that you could downsize and use a 1031 exchange to pay tax on only the portion taken out as cash. That went away both federally and in California. Given I bought my house 37 years ago, my capital gains taxes and transaction fees significantly reduce cash available for the replacement housing, so why bother. Plus in 10 years, I'll probably be dead, then my heirs get a stepped up basis and that tax completely disappears, never to be collected.
Until January, I was taking care of Mom, but with her gone, I could rent rooms to college kids, but the city severely restricts my ability to do so.
If I do move, I'll lease my house, not sell.
That's nuts -- forcing people to flee where they grew up due to forces outside their control? That thinking is why Prop 13 remains in place.
People have to move all the time. Since when did anyone have a God-given right to live in exactly the same house, for their entire life, regardless of anything that was happening around it?
That's ridiculous, especially in an extremely high-demand area like California. Times change. Land priorities change too.
The fact that someone can't see why that is a losing argument politically is why Prop 13 is still in place.
Tender, soft citizens, so palsied by power,
Can we rally and march through Liberty's dark hour?
Freedom ain't free,
She takes work to be:
By shared sweat alone shall our Republic yet flower.
Krishnamoorthi trying to accuse anyone (but *especially* Stratton) of being in ICE's pocket is pathetic
It's politics . I am not supporting him but Stratton has also been accusing him of being in ICE's pockets and has attacked him for voting for that resolution praising ICE since months.
The following would require a constitutional amendment or a completely different supreme court or both:
Nationwide Independent Redistricting Commission
Introduce Federal Voting System of nonpartisan blanket top-four primary, and then RCV used in a top four candidate general election
Judicial Term Limits
Overturn Citizens United
Finally, Limit Presidential Power is vague. Some limits could be done legislatively, others would require changes to the constitution and/or a different court. Also changes to the VRA, some would require an amendment others would not.
The number one thing to add would be to make the tax system more fair, including taxing capital gains as income, removing trust loopholes, adding additional brackets at the top (the current top bracket its 626,351/751,601, which is insane when people make tens of billions of dollars), enlarging the untaxed minimum amount, taxing the use of wealth for loans, and a wealth tax (which may require an Amendment so that's a maybe).
I’m guessing you meant to reply to me there, as I mentioned we should definitely expand and pack scotus which as you mentioned would make it a complete different court, citizens united yes would need an amendment, a very liberal scotus would rule judicial term limits constitutional but it would be close in my opinion, for the voting system again I think that would pass in an expanded and packed scotus, and finally the nationwide independent Redistricting commission we could find a way around that I’m sure based on other comments and previous SCOTUS. Oh and i definitely agree with the majority of your tax opinions.
On what constitutional basis would any court rule that "life or good behavior" meant term limits?
In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton the Supreme Court held that terms limits for Congress were unconstitutional. Now, it was a 5-4 decision. Interestingly the more liberal justices were the ones who held the term limits unconstitutional. In my memory it was not as close as it was. However, the language on federal judges is much clearer. I am for term limits. But I do not see them happening without a constitutional amendment. With a liberal court citizens united could be overturned. But term limits for judges would need an amendment.
One other thing I forgot to say is that legislatively they could get rid of senior status for federal judges. Senior status is a huge scam because the president nominates a replacement but the judge stays on the bench. I would like to see senior status limited in time, say two years to wrap up cases.
Another thing they could get rid of legislatively is the shadow docket and require a full opinion if the Court overturns a preliminary injunction. Or get rid of appeals of preliminary injunctions to SCOTUS completely and limit the court to appeals of final opinions.
I would like to see 13 justices, one justice per circuit, and get back to the justices riding the circuit and participate in circuit court cases.
Can you explain how it's legislatively OK to get rid of senior status and require Federal judges to retire? I don't see how that could be possible.
Right now a judge can "retire" to senior status and stay on the bench until they die. The judge chooses when to do it. The change would be to have senior status only last two years. So the judge would be on senior status for two years and then retire from the bench. A judge would not be required to take senior status. They could still stay on the bench until they die. But senior status allows the president to appoint a replacement and then the judge still stays on the bench as long as they want. Senior status is a legislative invention. Congress could get rid of it completely. But what i am saying it would have a clock. Senior status is not about age. It is a choice judges make. Some have smaller dockets. Some have full dockets.
Senior status is entirely a legislative scheme, not prescribed by the Constitution. I imagine repealing it would either require senior judges to retire or converting them to full-time judges, which would likely prompt most of those to retire instead.
Understood.
Could you add a “Redistricting Scoreboard” to your Substack that updates what the state of play is in the redistricting efforts in the various states — which ones have been completed, which ones are likely to succeed, and which ones will probably not succeed?
CNN has a tool for that that's pretty neat: https://www.cnn.com/politics/state-redistricting-maps-vis
"InteractivePolls
@IAPolls2022
FL Governor GOP Primary (ages 18-34 only)
James Fishback — 32%
Byron Donalds — 8%
Paul Renner — 5%
Jay Collins — 3%
Not sure: 46%
@UNFPORL
| 2/16-19 | LV
Florida Governor GOP Primary
Byron Donalds — 31%
James Fishback — 6%
Jay Collins — 4%
Paul Renner — 1%
Not sure: 51%
——
With Casey DeSantis:
Byron Donalds — 28%
Casey DeSantis — 24%
James Fishback — 4%
Jay Collins — 3%
Paul Renner — 1%
Not sure: 36%
——
On the informed ballot where likely voters are told Donalds is backed by Trump
Byron Donalds — 47%
Casey DeSantis — 12%
James Fishback — 5%
Jay Collins — 2%
Paul Renner — 1%
@UNFPORL
| 2/16-19 | 657 LV
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6994d571bce3436c60d86870/t/699cd80af62c293767b3bbed/1771886602401/UNF+PORL+Spring+Statewide+2026+Rep+LV+-+Press+Release+EMBARGO.pdf"
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2026281095826690217
For context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Fishback
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Fishback#2026_Florida_gubernatorial_campaign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Fishback#Political_views
It looks like "Lurleen" DeSantis will not be the next Governor of Florida. That is a good thing. Byron Donalds is not a good alternative, but FL is FL...
I'm wary about the polling showing Jolly ahead of Donalds. Especially with the small amount of voters involved.
I can believe that Jolly already has 42% or so in the bag, especially against a weak opponent like Donalds. But that’s still a long way from 50+1.
I thought of something else, which fits into your voting discussion generally. Specifically I would like to eliminate great disparities in waiting in line to vote within a state. The states would still determine the manner of elections, but that manner would have to be applied equally across the state.
And, I can't believe I forgot this, direct the EPA to monitor and regulate greenhouse gases.
That first one is simple - require each polling place to have at least a certain number of voting booths and check-in stations per number of registered voters at the polling place.
This is what New Hampshire does, and we generally don't have long lines. The only time we've ever had lines anywhere near 30 minutes is when a disproportionate number of voters arrive at the same time, such as for the last presidential election when a lot of people showed up first thing in the morning. But we can't control when voters show up, and once we got through the morning rush, there was a steady stream of people coming in all day but no one was waiting for more than 5-10 minutes.
In my law each state would make a determination how to eliminate waiting disparity. But it sounds like NH has a good one. It is particularly pronounced in Missouri, with ridiculous lines in St. Louis and people having no wait in other areas.
that’s another reason of the long list of reasons we should make Election Day a federal holiday.
Doesn't early voting eliminate need for E-day holiday? If election day was a holiday, how would that affect voting locations? (Schools closed so unavailable for example)
I feel like we have other more important issues to spend our capital on. Also that I'm being a nay sayer today, which isn't my intent to be disagreeable.
I think there should be a combination of early voting and E-Day holidays for all 50 states. It's ridiculous that NH, AL, and MS don't have either.
And yet New Hampshire is still consistently one of the top 10 states for turnout.
Meanwhile, Texas offers several weeks of early voting, but turnout is still low.
I support implementing early voting in New Hampshire, but let's not pretend that turnout is solely, or even mostly, dependent on the availability of early or mail-in voting.
NH has one of the most educated populations in the country and despite the absence of early voting and more stringent VBM requirements, that accommodation for voters makes up for it.
The primary turnout in TX, in regard to early voting, has REALLY popped this year. Which makes me think Nov is going to have MASSIVE turnout all over the country.
It appears that a push to decrease early voting days in Indiana from 28 to 16 days will not move out of the state Senate. While proponents said it would "save money," it would have clearly hampered voter turnout which is already low in Indiana, which was 41st among the states in the last election.
Indiana Rs have a bit of sense. They knew if they actually shortened the early voting period, it would energize Dems and left leaning unaffiliated voters into turning out.
Kinda like how they said no to TACO's gerrymandering BS last year.
I wouldn’t quite call them Burkean intellectuals but they are at least more classical conservatives than the more nonsensical Jacobinist streak of MAGA (here I go being a nerd again after I not long ago compared Trump to Napoleon III)
We have 2 weeks of early voting in SC and that seems to work just fine. 50% of the vote is cast that way. Is there *Real* data that shows 28 days expands turnout substantially, rather than just spreading it out?
Has SC ever had longer?
The only way to know for sure in Indiana would be to shorten the period, and I do not want to see that experiment.
Reposting that James Talarico New Yorker profile from yesterday. Just disgusted at the pro Jasmine Crockett influencers slandering him.
https://archive.ph/anr8A
I understand people have their favorites, but the Crockett influencers need to understand that Jasmine was Astroturfed into running at the last minute and gaslighting Talarico's campaign does them no favors. Talarico asked her this past summer if she was going to run for Senate, she said no, then changed her mind. Beto and co asked if he wanted to run against Abbott, he said no, he was going to run for the Senate seat.
This is a terrific article. Highly recommended!
Perhaps these influencers ought to use their energy better by helping elect Democrats elsewhere in TX where the Democratic candidates could use the support the most.
I've seen KHive/Crockett influencers saying since James Talarico is a pastor and wears his faith on his sleeve we should tell him to fuck off. One infamous KHive person on X even compared James Talarico and Lis Smith to Jim Jones. Like really?
Luckily most of this derangement is limited to X and Threads.
Excuse my Texan, but I’d tell those mindless fuckers to shut up for 15 minutes – long enough to watch the video of the interview Stephen Colbert did with James Talarico. Really excellent!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiTJ7Pz_59A
Wow UNH poll of ME GOV D Primary. PLatner way up https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/2026317683478716878?s=20
Platner 64%, Mills 26%
Damn. That is pretty wild. Yet another L for Chuck.
Mills shsould've gotten in earlier if she was gonna do this
You mean ME-Sen Dem primary?
Platner makes surprise jump to gubernatorial primary!
We now have 3 liberal challengers to all 3 GOP-appointed Georgia State Supreme Court Justices who are up for a non-partisan general election on May 19th (you read that right, May NOT November).
Jen Jordan is challenging Justice Warren
Nikia Sellers is challenging Justice Land
Miracle Rankin is challenging Justice Bethel
How long are the judicial terms in Georgia?
Looks like 6-not year terms.
Would winning all flip the court?
Eight of the nine justices were appointed by GOP governors (Kemp alone appointed five of them).
Democratic-affiliated judges would have to flip all three seats in May and two in 2028 to flip control of the SCOGA.
Correct. It wouldn't flip the court but it would put a huge dent in the long-held GOP-appointed majority.
That’s a start.
And it would go a long way to move GA away from being the red state it used to be.
minor note: Mike McGuire's base is Sonoma County, not Mendocino County. Sonoma has a university and one 100K+ city (Santa Rosa) along with world class wineries, beaches, etc. Mendocino county has world class wineries and beaches but is sparsely populated.
Thank you for the catch! I've corrected.
Reuters/Ipsos poll | 2/18-2/23
President Trump approval
❌Disapprove 58% (-2)
✅Approve 40% (+2)
——
President Trump approval on the issues (net)
❌Immigration (-15)
❌Economy (-20)
❌Cost of living (-33)
Link to poll: https://reuters.com/world/us/most-americans-say-trump-is-growing-erratic-with-age-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2026-02-24/
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2026296286379466852
In a recent discussion, there were lists of candidates of color who are running in the primaries/general elections. I wanted to share this with somebody, but now I can’t seem to find it. Can anyone point me to it, please?
I'm pretty sure it was on the weekend thread.
I’ll look again. Thank you.