That poll specifically doesn't make me worried we're going to get Moulton, but it in conjunction with Moulton doing more fundraising makes me think there's more of a risk than my initial assessment. The good and bad news is that MA's primaries are late in the cycle. I'd expect most of the not-sure to line up behind the incumbent eventually, but if Markey tries to sleepwalk his way through then Moulton's chances go up quite a bit.
Moulton’s comments on transgender people might be enough to sink his chances in the primary, especially considering how more diverse MA as a state is becoming.
I don’t think Markey though has been known to being a passive politician. If staunchly liberal Joe Kennedy III couldn’t unseat him, why does the more moderate Moulton have a greater chance besides the age factor?
I am only questioning what Moulton has to offer as a Senate candidate besides age. As far as I know, age is the only reason why he’s got a chance against Markey.
Kennedy was leading in the polls in 2020 until he wasn't, I hope that as with 2020, voters catch on an realize Markey is the more progressive option, despite being older.
Discussing this a few weeks back someone mentioned Dems can run a write in campaign but that sounds like a mess trying to get them to agree top dem vote getter should be that person.
Hmmm previous discussion with DM indicating they can but what i'm finding digging further is you're right. All the more reason this stupid system should be scrapped.
Hilton is a conservative. He's a member of the Conservative Party in the UK and was an advisor to David Cameron when he was PM. Not right wing but still conservative.
I'm not fooled by whatever "moderate" image Hilton has.
Perhaps being a moderate conservative is more suitable in this case but I recall when Howard Dean faced Ralph Nader at that one debate they had just before the 2004 DNC Convention:
NADER: "Republicans are human beings"
DEAN: "Right wingers may not be."
In this case, I believe Dean was referring to those right wingers who were anti-choice and argued for a more repressive society for women, were warmongers and were not into diversity.
Plenty of conservatives I have run into, namely those in my own network or members of a local chamber of commerce I was once a member of back i the day, do not look at themselves as right wing. They are more tolerant than the typical right wingers. Steve Hilton reminds me of these people.
Right-wing and left-wing originally referred to where parties sat in the Etats-Generaux. The more progressive or radical folks were on the left, the more conservative ones on the right. Conservatives are by definition right-wing, just as progressives are by definition left-wing.
Then it's probably best to just say Steve Hilton is a moderate conservative, at least for now.
Being liberal was always to me about being forward thinking and inclusive to human rights whereas being conservative was about being rigid and less open to change, especially with human rights. Hilton may be closer to the middle but still embodies many things that conservatives in the business world I have met have as well.
I think we all have to accept the fact that the Democratic primary surge in TX is likely being fueled by people (esp. new voters) coming out for Crockett and she may very well win without a run-off.
If I could guess at a model of the electorate, I'd say Talarico brings out folks who are nostalgic for more civility in politics and public life and wish it wasn't so "coarse," while Crockett brings out younger people who want a fighter. I'm not a TX voter so my only interest is in winning this seat, but if I was a betting person, I'd put my money on Crockett at the moment.
Not so sure that so few people even aware there's an election with the EV turnout so far. Just seems like the wild card here is the large #s of first-time voters, who I'd guess are getting a lot of their news from social media, where Crockett has been highly visible.
The oldest ever was Rep. William Lewis (R-KY), who entered three months before his 80th birthday in April 1948, and only served until he retired in January 1949.
James B. Bowler (D-IL) was the second oldest at 78. He entered in 1953 and died in 1957 at 82. He was a few months older than LePage would be if he was elected this year, so LePage would be the 3rd oldest.
This isn't far from the best case scenario for us. We want none of them to hit 50%+ and force a runoff. We want the runoff to be between Paxton and Cornyn. And in the first round we want Cornyn to do just well enough that establishment republicans feel compelled to dump tons of money supporting him only for him to lose the runoff anyway.
I thought this too but being a Biden admin alumna is probably a big liability. Not sure it would've been that much better than Vindman, who is a fresh face with a military background, even if he's an anti-Trump lightning rod.
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.
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.
If you drop the cap on the House to about 120,000, then that covers USVI to have 1 Rep with 2 Senators. And you end up with about 2500 Representatives.
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.
More likely Senators are split between parties, Gov is a Republican because the corporatists have taken over the PNP and house 3D 2R. But the island votes D for President
The problem with the conclusion that PR has voted for statehood multiple times is that it misses a huge amount of context. The 2024 referendum had 51% of turnout vote against statehood, either directly or by casting blank ballots. The 2017 referendum was boycotted by 2 of the 3 main parties so turnout was far less than half normal turnout for an election. The 2012 vote was a two step procedure that looked like a 61% win for statehood but that number ignores the 500,000 voters who voted in the 1st part but not the 2nd. Including those drops the statehood % to 44%. PR voted against statehood in 67, 93, and 98. So the conclusions that PR has voted for statehood multiple times is not as clear as it seems.
Why is this? It's because the local political parties play with the definitions. The 2012 and 2024 ballots included an option for "free association" that suggested PR could be independent but still part of the US. The 2012 definition for example, suggested PR would retain US citizenship, Medicare, etc. while also being able to negotiate independent trade deals with other countries. It was clearly pie in the sky. But it illustrates why a binding referendum endorsed by the US Congress that defines the options is necessary, to avoid local political manipulation.
The best argument that statehood was supported is 2020 where the question was simply "Should PR be admitted to the US as a state?" And that won by 52.5% (50.9% if blanks counted). That's a thin margin, but it was ignored by Congress and it was still hypothetical, because the island was voting on something that it knew didn't have a stamp of approval in DC so nothing would happen. So it was an opinion poll.
My personal preference is for PR to be a state. But we should not force that upon the island with a clear mandate from the island itself. Obama said the same. Statehood shouldn't be a goal just to gain 7 EVs.
I understand that, but at the end of the day: I'm not interested in rewarding people for sitting out of election as an act of protest. You want a certain electoral vote, and the system is a freely conducted elections (aka not Russia/similar) ? Then you have to vote for the outcome you want. Blank protest ballots are worthless except in systems that are so thoroughly corrupt that there is little else a person can do. People casting blank ballots forfeited their right to have their vote say anything, and they did so intentionally.
If they wanted to say they opposed statehood, they had their chance. The majority of valid ballots cast in multiple successive elections all say the same thing. The consistent and numerically clear winner over and over again has been statehood.
Abstention is a valid choice. None of the above is an option in Utah iirc, right? If the blank ballot casters had sat home, I'd agree with you, but they didn't. They put in the same effort as those who voted for statehood.
In successive referenda, both the statehood and the status quo parties have manipulated the definition of "free association" and independence. With that, abstention was a logical option. That's why I think the most legit vote was 2020. But it was still an opinion poll, because it wasn't binding.
Would you prefer to admit a state where the majority of residents want to be a state? Or a state where maybe a majority of residents want to be a state but you don't know for sure because previous referenda were manipulated by political tricks? Or a state where the majority of residents don't want to join the US? I want the 1st option. That has not been demonstrated in PR because the referenda have been flawed.
That's true, but it didn't receive a majority of the votes cast. It only received 44% of the total votes cast, because a substantial number of voters chose status quo and then didn't vote on the 2nd question because they were done. Think of it like this: You're a vegetarian in a group. The group decides to vote on what's for dinner. The first question is do you want a vegetarian dinner or something else. Something else wins in a close result and then you get to vote on chicken, pork, or beef, so you don't vote and neither do the other vegetarians. Pork wins 60% of who is left, but not 60% of all voters. Everyone gets pork for dinner, but it really only received a plurality of the vote. I don't think statehood, as much as I support it personally, should be foisted on people based on a plurality vote.
I was in PR for that referendum. Made sense on it's face. Do you want current status or something else. But because everyone knew that Congress wouldn't act on something else, the statehood party got a result they could brag about, but wasn't legit. It was a manipulated referendum by both the PNP and PDP parties to get results they wanted and it did not further the debate one iota.
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.
1) Pushing for a Technology Regulatory Agency, one that specifically regulates AI, bans cryptocurrency except that which is overseen by government, requires social media companies overhaul their UX to suffice for user privacy and holds VC companies accountable for financing tech startups and companies that create more income inequality problems instead of real innovation.
2) Reinstate Glass Steagall Act with more teeth than it had before.
3) End the tariffs. ALL of them, even if it takes a slower time to do so immediately.
4) Constitutional Amendment to I Ban Presidential Immunity from crimes and a POTUS from being able to file lawsuits. If Prince Andrew can get arrested in the UK, so should Trump.
5) Revise Anti-Trust Laws so Amazon, Comcast, Disney, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros Discovery ALL get broken up.
6) Reform campaign finance laws so Citizens United is overturned and public financing is primarily focused in elections.
7) Overturn Dobbs and pass a pro-choice law that applies in all 50 states so women have the right to an abortion where their health is . Sorry men with “conservative,” anti-choice views but this is a democracy and women should have rights.
We have the Department of Justice for a reason, not just to oversee the justice department . A POTUS being able to sue someone for their right of free speech or for just flat out criticizing them makes no sense. Neither of the Bushes did it. Clinton didn't do it. Obama didn't do it. And Biden didn't do it.
For anything outside of the parameters of the Oval Office, that doesn't apply.
Bottom line is I'm concerned about the way free speech is being treated these days at the federal level. Used to be cancel culture was something conservatives would throw against Democrats or that it was about something really petty on social media but with Trump & Co, it's become much worse with assholes like FCC Chair Brendan Carr. It's all about loyalty and damn it be any one who can level an attack on a POTUS if it's not real defamation.
What's the reason why a POTUS should have the right to sue someone if it's not defamation? A POTUS has the Justice Department and the power to nominate the Attorney General but anyone like Jimmy Kimmel or Stephen Colbert does not, even while they are celebrities. This is threading a difficult needle.
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.
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?
That poll specifically doesn't make me worried we're going to get Moulton, but it in conjunction with Moulton doing more fundraising makes me think there's more of a risk than my initial assessment. The good and bad news is that MA's primaries are late in the cycle. I'd expect most of the not-sure to line up behind the incumbent eventually, but if Markey tries to sleepwalk his way through then Moulton's chances go up quite a bit.
MA Gov has appointment power ahead of a special election
Moulton’s comments on transgender people might be enough to sink his chances in the primary, especially considering how more diverse MA as a state is becoming.
I don’t think Markey though has been known to being a passive politician. If staunchly liberal Joe Kennedy III couldn’t unseat him, why does the more moderate Moulton have a greater chance besides the age factor?
I am only questioning what Moulton has to offer as a Senate candidate besides age. As far as I know, age is the only reason why he’s got a chance against Markey.
Kennedy was leading in the polls in 2020 until he wasn't, I hope that as with 2020, voters catch on an realize Markey is the more progressive option, despite being older.
Discussing this a few weeks back someone mentioned Dems can run a write in campaign but that sounds like a mess trying to get them to agree top dem vote getter should be that person.
You can't run a write-in for top two
Hmmm previous discussion with DM indicating they can but what i'm finding digging further is you're right. All the more reason this stupid system should be scrapped.
I know it's an option in WA but not sure about CA
Hilton is a conservative. He's a member of the Conservative Party in the UK and was an advisor to David Cameron when he was PM. Not right wing but still conservative.
I'm not fooled by whatever "moderate" image Hilton has.
I guess you mean not far-right. Conservatives are right-wing.
Perhaps being a moderate conservative is more suitable in this case but I recall when Howard Dean faced Ralph Nader at that one debate they had just before the 2004 DNC Convention:
NADER: "Republicans are human beings"
DEAN: "Right wingers may not be."
In this case, I believe Dean was referring to those right wingers who were anti-choice and argued for a more repressive society for women, were warmongers and were not into diversity.
Plenty of conservatives I have run into, namely those in my own network or members of a local chamber of commerce I was once a member of back i the day, do not look at themselves as right wing. They are more tolerant than the typical right wingers. Steve Hilton reminds me of these people.
Right-wing and left-wing originally referred to where parties sat in the Etats-Generaux. The more progressive or radical folks were on the left, the more conservative ones on the right. Conservatives are by definition right-wing, just as progressives are by definition left-wing.
Then it's probably best to just say Steve Hilton is a moderate conservative, at least for now.
Being liberal was always to me about being forward thinking and inclusive to human rights whereas being conservative was about being rigid and less open to change, especially with human rights. Hilton may be closer to the middle but still embodies many things that conservatives in the business world I have met have as well.
This is shaping up exactly how most people thought it would. We aren't heading into a lockout. Swawell will move into a sold number 2.
18% does not give me a lot of confidence in that but you could be right.
I think we all have to accept the fact that the Democratic primary surge in TX is likely being fueled by people (esp. new voters) coming out for Crockett and she may very well win without a run-off.
If I could guess at a model of the electorate, I'd say Talarico brings out folks who are nostalgic for more civility in politics and public life and wish it wasn't so "coarse," while Crockett brings out younger people who want a fighter. I'm not a TX voter so my only interest is in winning this seat, but if I was a betting person, I'd put my money on Crockett at the moment.
Not so sure that so few people even aware there's an election with the EV turnout so far. Just seems like the wild card here is the large #s of first-time voters, who I'd guess are getting a lot of their news from social media, where Crockett has been highly visible.
Maybe. That would contravene most interpretations of the race from people who know Texas well, though.
Minus 1 is well within reach, especially if pollsters are using 2024 modeling.
Lepage barely won the seat against Mills in a much redder year than 2026 is shaping out to be.
Also do you think Golden would have been on track to win had he run again?
Trump won by +10.
I feel things will continue downhill for the GOP until November.
As much as I'd want to believe Baldacci holds it, I won't get my hopes up. I predict a 3 point LePage win.
This seat reminds me of Minnesota's 1st, the essential swing district until Walz ran for governor, which has now shifted far right.
The oldest ever was Rep. William Lewis (R-KY), who entered three months before his 80th birthday in April 1948, and only served until he retired in January 1949.
James B. Bowler (D-IL) was the second oldest at 78. He entered in 1953 and died in 1957 at 82. He was a few months older than LePage would be if he was elected this year, so LePage would be the 3rd oldest.
Very close.
He's cooked after the runoffs.
This isn't far from the best case scenario for us. We want none of them to hit 50%+ and force a runoff. We want the runoff to be between Paxton and Cornyn. And in the first round we want Cornyn to do just well enough that establishment republicans feel compelled to dump tons of money supporting him only for him to lose the runoff anyway.
Pretty abysmal for McKee. Surprised Healey is so high.
Is RI the worst machine state in the country?
Why do Dems continually fail to get a popular administration in there?
Ha! Touchè
That's a pretty big drop for Lamont who always had high approvals.
I wonder if this might give Josh Elliott an opening.
Democratic.
Scott Presler is such a weenie.
Another one who thinks he has a seat at the MAGA table when he’s actually on the MAGA menu.
I am in mouth-agape shock that “totally not Jigsaw from the Saw franchise” Laura Loomer wrote that on her Twitter
Hopefully it’s only the beginning!
Could you please use quotation marks or some other clear indication of where you are quoting? It's really not clear from how you posted this. Thanks.
I thought this too but being a Biden admin alumna is probably a big liability. Not sure it would've been that much better than Vindman, who is a fresh face with a military background, even if he's an anti-Trump lightning rod.
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.
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.
The fact that someone can't see why that is a losing argument politically is why Prop 13 is still in place.
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 agree with everything you said here. I don't agree with using the slogan.
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.
It is the fourth point of the top 4.
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.
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.
Quite possible, they could refuse.
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.
If you drop the cap on the House to about 120,000, then that covers USVI to have 1 Rep with 2 Senators. And you end up with about 2500 Representatives.
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.
I want Puerto Rico to have whatever status it wants, except the current colonial status.
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.
More likely Senators are split between parties, Gov is a Republican because the corporatists have taken over the PNP and house 3D 2R. But the island votes D for President
This is going to be a long response. Apologies.
The problem with the conclusion that PR has voted for statehood multiple times is that it misses a huge amount of context. The 2024 referendum had 51% of turnout vote against statehood, either directly or by casting blank ballots. The 2017 referendum was boycotted by 2 of the 3 main parties so turnout was far less than half normal turnout for an election. The 2012 vote was a two step procedure that looked like a 61% win for statehood but that number ignores the 500,000 voters who voted in the 1st part but not the 2nd. Including those drops the statehood % to 44%. PR voted against statehood in 67, 93, and 98. So the conclusions that PR has voted for statehood multiple times is not as clear as it seems.
Why is this? It's because the local political parties play with the definitions. The 2012 and 2024 ballots included an option for "free association" that suggested PR could be independent but still part of the US. The 2012 definition for example, suggested PR would retain US citizenship, Medicare, etc. while also being able to negotiate independent trade deals with other countries. It was clearly pie in the sky. But it illustrates why a binding referendum endorsed by the US Congress that defines the options is necessary, to avoid local political manipulation.
The best argument that statehood was supported is 2020 where the question was simply "Should PR be admitted to the US as a state?" And that won by 52.5% (50.9% if blanks counted). That's a thin margin, but it was ignored by Congress and it was still hypothetical, because the island was voting on something that it knew didn't have a stamp of approval in DC so nothing would happen. So it was an opinion poll.
My personal preference is for PR to be a state. But we should not force that upon the island with a clear mandate from the island itself. Obama said the same. Statehood shouldn't be a goal just to gain 7 EVs.
I understand that, but at the end of the day: I'm not interested in rewarding people for sitting out of election as an act of protest. You want a certain electoral vote, and the system is a freely conducted elections (aka not Russia/similar) ? Then you have to vote for the outcome you want. Blank protest ballots are worthless except in systems that are so thoroughly corrupt that there is little else a person can do. People casting blank ballots forfeited their right to have their vote say anything, and they did so intentionally.
If they wanted to say they opposed statehood, they had their chance. The majority of valid ballots cast in multiple successive elections all say the same thing. The consistent and numerically clear winner over and over again has been statehood.
Abstention is a valid choice. None of the above is an option in Utah iirc, right? If the blank ballot casters had sat home, I'd agree with you, but they didn't. They put in the same effort as those who voted for statehood.
In successive referenda, both the statehood and the status quo parties have manipulated the definition of "free association" and independence. With that, abstention was a logical option. That's why I think the most legit vote was 2020. But it was still an opinion poll, because it wasn't binding.
Would you prefer to admit a state where the majority of residents want to be a state? Or a state where maybe a majority of residents want to be a state but you don't know for sure because previous referenda were manipulated by political tricks? Or a state where the majority of residents don't want to join the US? I want the 1st option. That has not been demonstrated in PR because the referenda have been flawed.
Nevada has a "None of these Candidates" option, with a crucial asterisk: If NOTC gets the most votes, the runner-up is declared the winner.
In the 2012 referendum, Statehood received more votes on the second question than votes in favor of the current status in the first.
That's true, but it didn't receive a majority of the votes cast. It only received 44% of the total votes cast, because a substantial number of voters chose status quo and then didn't vote on the 2nd question because they were done. Think of it like this: You're a vegetarian in a group. The group decides to vote on what's for dinner. The first question is do you want a vegetarian dinner or something else. Something else wins in a close result and then you get to vote on chicken, pork, or beef, so you don't vote and neither do the other vegetarians. Pork wins 60% of who is left, but not 60% of all voters. Everyone gets pork for dinner, but it really only received a plurality of the vote. I don't think statehood, as much as I support it personally, should be foisted on people based on a plurality vote.
I was in PR for that referendum. Made sense on it's face. Do you want current status or something else. But because everyone knew that Congress wouldn't act on something else, the statehood party got a result they could brag about, but wasn't legit. It was a manipulated referendum by both the PNP and PDP parties to get results they wanted and it did not further the debate one iota.
Like Janus already pointed out, I give no moral weight to abstainers. Valid votes are what count in an election.
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.
That won't come with a conservative SCOTUS, we need a liberal SCOTUS for that though.
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.
Also, get rid of surveillance pricing.
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.
1) Pushing for a Technology Regulatory Agency, one that specifically regulates AI, bans cryptocurrency except that which is overseen by government, requires social media companies overhaul their UX to suffice for user privacy and holds VC companies accountable for financing tech startups and companies that create more income inequality problems instead of real innovation.
2) Reinstate Glass Steagall Act with more teeth than it had before.
3) End the tariffs. ALL of them, even if it takes a slower time to do so immediately.
4) Constitutional Amendment to I Ban Presidential Immunity from crimes and a POTUS from being able to file lawsuits. If Prince Andrew can get arrested in the UK, so should Trump.
5) Revise Anti-Trust Laws so Amazon, Comcast, Disney, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros Discovery ALL get broken up.
6) Reform campaign finance laws so Citizens United is overturned and public financing is primarily focused in elections.
7) Overturn Dobbs and pass a pro-choice law that applies in all 50 states so women have the right to an abortion where their health is . Sorry men with “conservative,” anti-choice views but this is a democracy and women should have rights.
I don't agree on banning anyone from being able to sue.
We have the Department of Justice for a reason, not just to oversee the justice department . A POTUS being able to sue someone for their right of free speech or for just flat out criticizing them makes no sense. Neither of the Bushes did it. Clinton didn't do it. Obama didn't do it. And Biden didn't do it.
For anything outside of the parameters of the Oval Office, that doesn't apply.
I get your point, but I'm not sure I agree.
Bottom line is I'm concerned about the way free speech is being treated these days at the federal level. Used to be cancel culture was something conservatives would throw against Democrats or that it was about something really petty on social media but with Trump & Co, it's become much worse with assholes like FCC Chair Brendan Carr. It's all about loyalty and damn it be any one who can level an attack on a POTUS if it's not real defamation.
What's the reason why a POTUS should have the right to sue someone if it's not defamation? A POTUS has the Justice Department and the power to nominate the Attorney General but anyone like Jimmy Kimmel or Stephen Colbert does not, even while they are celebrities. This is threading a difficult needle.
The same reasons anyone else sues.
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.
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