Definitely their biggest. The next tier down is probably Hinson in IA (a current rep) or Rogers in MI (former rep), and that's a big drop. Dems have thus far recruited two former/departing governors and a former Senator. We're definitely winning the recruitment game.
The GOP appears on track to run basically nobodies in two of the most competitive races (NC and GA). Complete recruitment failure in MN, in addition to CO, NM, and VA, which would definitely be reach seats for the GOP in this environment but have recently featured single-digit races and all have competitive House races where a ticket-leader would help drive turnout.
Whatley has not run in an election, let alone won -- he was the former chair of the NC GOP and RNC (which gives you experience with elections to some degree but not as a candidate yourself). He's clearly there because he kissed TACO's ass for the endorsement.
If NC GOP were confident about their Senate chances, they'd pick someone with a better chance against Cooper. It would've been funny to see one of Cooper's nemeses go up against him like state Senate asshole Phil Berger or current Congressman Tim Moore.
He has some name recognition among political watchers, but nobody in NC has ever voted for him. He's also only there because Trump was holding the seat for his daughter-in-law, and when she declined, he just anointed someone else before anyone could even blink.
Could be a possibility Sununu won't make it through the primary. This ad looks like he was straight out of the 2010's pre-Trump (maybe 2010), before he even announced his candidacy back in 2015.
Thanks for clarifying, but the ADL is one of the world's leading authorities on anything relating to antisemitism, including words, symbols, beliefs, and conspiracy theories relating to it. There's no need for any other source about the symbol on Platner's tattoo.
Yeah, no. Not going to litigate how besmirched they've made themselves under Greenblatt and how wearisome (for lack of a better word) associating with them rather than another more reputable source is.
Ahh yes...you dive in here with your first comment, attacking a long-time reliable source on anti-semitism and then declare that you're "not going to litigate" your statement. You're also very close to touching on one of the clear no-go zones on this board. Move on please...
The reason I mentioned I-P is that the primary reason a lot of people oppose the ADL is related to that, and I suspected that was why the original poster referenced not using them.
And my point is that regardless of how you feel about I/P (which I agree shouldn't be discussed here), opposing the ADL is 100% antisemitic. Simple as that.
Opposing the ADL is antisemitic in the same way that opposing the NAACP is racist.
Do you think that we should believe Black people when they say that something is racist? (I hope you do, by the way, since if you don't then this is probably not the best blog for you to comment on.)
If so, then you also need to believe Jews when we say that something is antisemitic. To refuse to do that is, itself, antisemitic.
Not sure I agree with that statement, one can oppose specific orgs or parts of them without necessarily disagreeing with their general message. I really don’t like this idea that a specific org can have a monopoly on policing a specific type of bigotry, and that goes for the NAACP as much as the ADL. Condemning an org is different from condemning an entire group. Members of a group can oppose their supposed reps, after all — and not all Jews/African-Americans support the ADL/NAACP.
So, just to clarify, do you think it's OK to accuse the NAACP of falsely claiming that something is racist, and to demand that some other source (ideally one that aligns more with your priors) corroborate any accusations of racism that they make?
(I should note that this is something that right-wing conservatives do all the time.)
Not getting into the nuts of this argument but human beings within racial/ethnic/religious groups are not a monolith and no one organization can say they are a spokesmen for the entire group.
Not it is not. ADL has become too political under Greenblatt as reported by dozens of mainstream news orgs. It's reliable on topics other than the Middle East.
Antisemitism is an inherently political issue. It's unrealistic to expect an organization that's specifically dedicated to stopping antisemitism to avoid politics.
Knock it off with the snark. It’s a long time ban, going back to the DKE days. It was implemented because this topic is a massive contentious drama magnet.
It doesn't matter whether you care. The rules are the rules. There are two topics we don't do here—Dem presidential primaries and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
I will post a "rules of the road" to make this more easily accessible for folks, but now you know.
Also, sometimes other convos will turn into a derail and, if need be, we will step in to shut those down. As with all things in life, it's not possible to know what those might be in advance.
This generated a supremely unhelpful comment chain. I'm instructing everyone to move on immediately.
I've been fucking furious at the ADL for many reasons for quite some time, but their database on far-right symbology remains a widely respected resource.
To be frank, it does feel unhelpful to direct traffic and attention toward a disreputable group because they have some archival function that isn't especially more informative than an enlightened reader could find on their own if they were curious. I wouldn't promote a Fox News article just because they cover a specific topic. Moving on etc etc and this is obviously your fiefdom, but the eggshells around "unwritten rules" combined with this casual link is. I'll say frustrating.
State Navigate (Chaz Nuttycombe's outfit) has a new poll of Virginia, and it's very good news for Democrats. Spanberger leads 55-42, Hashmi leads 53-42, and Jones leads 50-45. The generic ballot for the HoD is 52-40 for Dems.
Unlike other polls, it doesn't weight by recalled 2021 Governor vote, which makes sense since the electorate this year will certainly be bluer than the one that showed up in 2021.
I don't have a link since this is from an email from them (I subscribe to their emails).
The VA HoD popular vote in 2023 was Dem +2. So if that vote is actually D +12 now, then Dems could win any seat that voted Republican by less than 10% in 2023.
There are 11 such districts - 22, 30, 41, 52, 57, 64, 71, 73, 75, 82, and 89. And that doesn't even include swing districts where Dems didn't run a candidate last time (69) or where polls have already shown the Dem leading (86). So if that poll is right, then Dems are going to pick up a lot of seats.
I'm curious whether the federal courts will let the umpteenth gerrymandered 11 R - 3 D map stay for next year -- because voting rights groups have lawsuits ready to go once Berger and Hall ram the final vote through today. We all know the NC Supreme Court is a political arm of the NC GOP unless the majority is flipped in three years, but the federal courts might say otherwise.
I'm not sure whether the case will go to federal justice Richard Myers or to another one -- but I'm not holding my breath. Myers ruled fairly in the Griffin vs. Riggs case but I don't expect him to do the same and force them to stick with the atrocious 10 R - 4 D map or revert to the fair 2022 7-7 maps.
Trende talks out of both sides of his mouth. He defended the GOP maps in NC saying they were fine yet testified against the Hochulmander with data saying it was a Dem gerrymander.
I've drawn maps where Terry McAuliffe won 27/40 state senate districts and 65/100 HoD districts in 2021 despite losing the election overall. (Harris won 28 state senate districts and a few more HoD districts on those same maps.)
And that's not even getting into the congressional map, where the sky's almost literally the limit for Dems depending on how aggressive they want to be. 10-1 is certainly possible - I've drawn a map where 9 districts voted at least Harris +10 and for McAuliffe, one district that's Harris +6 and Youngkin +1, and then of course the Republican district which is Trump +55 and Youngkin +60.
"Democrat Jay Jones leads Republican Jason Miyares by 5 percentage points, 50 to 45. Jones’ lead is buoyed by those who have already cast their ballots, who say that they voted for him by 18 percentage points."
The VCU poll released yesterday, which had one of the more GOP friendly results (though Spanberger led by 7), seemed, from its explanation, to calibrate to 2021 turnout patterns.
Which makes no sense unless maybe it's a Republican firm trying to keep up hope. 2021 was something like a best-case scenario for the VA GOP, and obviously the environment and leading issues are different now.
The only good thing about this is that Democrats then get the media narrative of outperforming the polls and the blue wave in 2026 pieces start to get written.
Interesting that Mike Johnson himself isn't listed as a defendant. Rather, the defedants are the chamber itself (which indirectly means Johnson) and also the clerk and the sergeant at arms, who are explicitly named.
I’m not sure. I just hope MA-06 doesn’t replace one bad rep with another. I’m also very suspicious of crypto and don’t think the House Dems need another crypto shill.
It would be nice if Massachusetts Democrats don't clown car the median Massachusetts Democrat lane like they've done in the past two open seat races so the Democratic candidate friendlies to Republicans, Crypto, AI slop, etc. sneaks through!
The only 2 House incumbents that we Dems need to make sure we get rid of in primaries are Case in Hawaii and Golden in Maine. They both voted for Trump's bill requiring proof of citizenship before voting. Non-citizens are already forbidden by law from voting and it has been extremely rare when one even tried. 2026 will see us in a Trump Republican recession that is deepening and few Republicans are going to be safe so it is crucial that a major task of Democrats is to get candidates everywhere and not to waste resources on defending these 2 or in challenging good incumbents like Thompson in California or Larson in Connecticut.
the choice is jared golden, who usually votes with us or Paul lepage, a virulent bigot that ran maine's finances into the ground and will never vote with us. Big tent party people, we need to regain power before we start another round of purity tests.
Re Ed Case, 100% agree. His district deserves better. My parents and extended family live up in Golden's district, they long for the days a true blue dem like rep allen represented them but are realistic that it's golden or some rwnj.
Disagree. Sometimes an otherwise seemingly good member can make enough bad votes that they no longer represent their district. Dan Goldman represents one of the bluest districts in the country and has done things like not endorsing Mamdani (who overwhelmingly won his district) and voting to condemn the ICC, among others — hence why he’s being targeted.
Ideally we would want a Rep to really represent their district, no? Hence my stance.
Goldman is the centrist Bowman, he is similarly too dogmatic and tries to play to a national audience rather than his district. He's toast in a one on one with any progressive opponent. I hope Mamdani and Lander personally campaign against him.
Goldman will almost certainly run for statewide office at some point (he ran for NY-AG for a hot minute in 2021) and is probably tailoring his voting record accordingly.
Then let him try that. I'd rather be represented by someone who's more of a leftist, and I wouldn't mind for them to send me fewer unasked-for emails and capitalize my name...
I was responding to the claim that Case and Golden were the only two who needed to go. I was arguing anyone who does not represent their district is fair game, with Goldman as one example.
I did not advocate for voting Golden out. I explicitly didn’t mention him for a reason. I think he represents his district, and I’m against Dunlap’s primary bid partly for that reason (and also I have no faith he’ll win a general race).
Case, Goldman, Thanedar, these are people who I think need to go.
Fine on Case, but absolutely not on Golden. Primarying him would almost certainly hand that seat to Republicans, which we simply cannot afford right now.
troy jackson still looks like the best bet to balance any ticket in maine. He's running for govenor and bernie endorsed. Bernie is very well like in Maine fwiw
It isn't that, it's because Mills vetoed some bills he championed and he wants to be able to pass his legislative priorities. Being Governor seems to be much more appealing to him.
I don't think Fecteau will run for Senate. He was probably only considering it if Mills didn't run, and jumping in now might have the effect of mostly splitting votes from Mills and aiding the now-problematic Platner.
It’s honestly kind of alarming how many entities and national pols endorsed Platner despite knowing essentially nothing about him other than that he said the right buzzwords and looked the part.
That’s a pretty poor excuse for letting it just blind them and not do any serious vetting of him before jumping on the bandwagon. Sounds like the Tea Party.
As Marliss Degens said, Fetterman looked the part and said all the right buzzwords, leading people to ignore his red flags. Look how that turned out.
It’s a reason for the rushed endorsements, not an excuse. Look, I agree with you, there should have been more vetting of Platner. But I don’t find the surge of support for him “alarming.” Platner positioned himself against status quo dems, and I don’t think we should scold people for finding that kind of message appealing.
I agree. It reminds me of the John Fetterman mania in Pennsylvania. Look at how that turned out. Instead of getting caught up in media hype on the superficial (what a candidate wears, whether he or she will be the first of a certain gender, racial group, occupation, age group, religion, etc. to hold that office, or the all-purpose "compelling backstory, complete with suffering), we need to look at a person's qualifications, and their values and ideas. Then ask the question: Can this person effectively do the job?
Fetterman was at least a known entity and statewide officeholder prior to running for Senate (plus, he was a very different person prior to his stroke and mental health crisis—watch any interview he gave from 2021 or earlier).
the stroke impacts are not talked about enough. The man was never great, but having your entire staff effectively quit suggests that fetterman shifted after the stroke.
He was never great, but he *was* interesting and had a sui generis appeal—unlike, say, Conor Lamb or Bob Casey (long before 2024 I predicted that the latter would lose the moment he faced even a mildly-hostile electorate, since he never developed a personal brand or even campaigned much).
Absolutely! I was skeptical about him early on and that skepticism is proving warranted. The stakes are too high for us to just fall in love with candidates...
I agree he should drop out but, from a practical standpoint, his staying in might help Mills as it will allow her to paint herself as a pragmatic centrist.
Collins already paints herself as that. I question why voters will feel excited over a race with two “pragmatic centrist” types (regardless of their record.)
Platner imploding was sad, and I agree that progressives blew it with candidate vetting — by our own admission, as seen by Bluesky discussion.
I worry we’re going to lose Maine again over all this shit.
Fair point on your first paragraph. I'm not worried about your last point, though. Platner will be long forgotten by the time the GE rolls around a year from now.
One thing I'm thinking about re generationally-focused democratic primaries is would we actually be replacing incumbents with better congresspeople? Obviously in a situaion like Ed Case's the replacement would almost certainly be more progressive, which is good (although it would still be good to make sure Case's challenger is actually more progressive!) but I'm thinking more about the examples like CA-4 and CT-1. While Thompson in CA-4 is a member of the Blue Dogs, the digest said he is being challenged by a venture capitalist, which doesn't necessarily make me confident that they would be a significantly better rep. (Not saying a venture capitalist is incapable of being a good rep, it just gives me some skepticism). Meanwhile, is there any info on the political leanings of Mayor Bronin who is challenging John Larson in CT-1? Or would one of the other challengers end up being better?
And, of course, this discussion of primarying Dem incumbents really only applies to safe-blue seats. In swing-seats and Trump-seats, I recognize that a Dem who votes in a disappointing way is miles better than any Republican.
fwiw, Eric Jones' website says he's rejecting corporate PAC money and donations from lobbyists, and uses language like "people-powered movement" so he's definitely casting himself in the progressive lane.
This discussion is always trippy for me. I fail to see how "I'd rather a Dem who votes against Dem bills" is any different from "I'd rather have a Repub in that seat." Either way, Dem policies lose, especially in an evenly divided House.
Let's say the House is 219D-216R in the next Congress (hopefully not--hope it's a lot more--but possible). Dems propose a bill to, say, restore funding for Biden clean energy projects, most of which are in red states. (In other words, not a third rail bill). The bill fails 217-218, with 2 conservaDems voting against. This is one of our priority items for showing voters Dem priorities--how is it better to have a conservaDem in there? You can say "Speaker Jeffries" or "committee chairs," but if we can't pass our most important legislation, what's the f'in point?
I understand your points, I think the way I view it is more from the perspective of "what if we didn't hold this seat?" or "if I had a button I could push that would replace this annoying Dem with a Republican, would I push it?" and the answer is no. I know that's not exactly satisfying, though. If we have a large majority then it doesn't matter as much who is in that seat. But if we don't have a large majority, then while I understand your frustration with the response of "Dem Speaker and committee chairs," those are still important, and at the end of the day we'll get more (even if marginally more) with a Democrat than a Republican. I think ultimately for me it comes from a place of not wanting to take things for granted.
Thanks for your comment, NEM. True of course that a large majority makes 1-2 defections irrelevant. My main concern is where does the leeway we're giving these folks end? What can we pass that will be meaningful to voters and cause them to see the Dems on their side so we can keep or expand the majority?
In other words, if we can't pass important legislation because of these defectors, how do we sell a D majority to the voters? "Hey, we're in favor of good things. We can't actually pass them when we have a majority, but we're in favor of them."
That leaves us with oversight hearings in committees, which are important, but don't win elections. Once we get the majority, we need to hold it for a long while to get rid of the poison that 47/Miller/Vought/Bondi/Patel...have inserted into the system.
There's always a bit of tradeoff with people that are at the far end of the centrist portion of the party, like Golden.
To look at it differently though: how ecstatic would we be right now if we held a bare majority from the start of the year, just barely enough to maintain even with officials dying in office? While not all of the horrors of this year would be defanged, a lot of them would have been.
Sure, every few weeks we'd have to put up with Golden running to the nearest media outlet to say something awful about our party. I'd pay that happily if it meant they didn't get to cut social spending, that Biden's legislative accomplishments weren't being ended, that ICE's budget wasn't increased to whatever insane value it is at now.
I do like to make the point that the tradeoff exists, of there being a cost to the biggest pain in the ass members of our caucus. At the same time, this tradeoff is one that is worth it for the ones in the reddest seats.
But my point being, all the things you said we wouldn't have had to endure w/a small D majority might have passed anyway with a small D majority and D defections. The defectors get to choose which D policies they don't like, and they're usually the ones that would be most popular in Dem messaging.
I just keep thinking of how Obama had to kiss the asses of D Sens who killed the public option, who then didn't even run for re-election (Conrad, Nelson, and Lieberman, to name 3). Raising the minimum wage in 2027 would probably be very popular, but if Golden decides to prioritize the small business lobby, we could end up losing. What good is he then?
Those bad things wouldn't have passed with a small dem majority for the most simple of reasons: it wouldn't reach the floor. Doesn't matter that much if a few dems might defect when the bill never gets voted on in the first place.
There would be a huge difference today if Jeffries was speaker since Jan instead of Johnson.
I agree with you in a strategic sense, that when people don't feel like Democrats have improved their lot (even when they very much have!), they idiotically vote for Republicans, and both of us are exceedingly frustrated when a few members of either House on the right wing of the party stymie essential legislation. But as sober analysts, we should always remember that every single time there is a Democrat in the White House, incomes of non-rich people rise. Democrats are not close to the social democratic/green party I'd prefer to support, but only ignoramuses and deluded people could look at the Biden Administration's record and say that it was not better for workers and the environment than the fucking Republicans! Sadly for the country and the world, ignoramuses and deluded people are a plurality in today's America.
This disregards all of the other benefits of having a Dem in that seat that you point out and dismiss (speaker election, committee ratios etc.). Those are very real impacts. I have zero problem with reps taking votes on bills that are already foregone conclusions in order to hold on to tough districts. Purity tests get us nowhere.
Except if you'd actually read the thread, I never talked about bills that are foregone conclusions, only those that are close and where a defecting Dem could tip the balance. I understand that my view on the value of the Case/Golden Dem is in the minority here, but no need to distort my argument beyond what I've actually said.
We have a lot of elected hacks we need to replace, but you are 100% on the money that the current Dem primary process doesn’t naturally lend itself to upgrades and that in almost all if not all cases, not every potential “successful” replacement would be an upgrade.
Meanwhile, expect to be very busy between November 5 and 10 tracking all the California candidate announcements. They are already calling around to long time supporters. No one, besides Scott Wiener, is doing anything official-ish until after Nov. 4.
Connie Chan is a progressive, from what I've heard -- a surprising pick for Pelosi.
EDIT: You're shitting me. This is also in the Playbook:
"Some tech power brokers have discussed attempting to draft someone else to run, even former San Francisco Mayor London Breed, who in her losing campaign to now-Mayor Daniel Lurie was able to coalesce many of the city’s top donors."
After what I've heard about London Breed, hell no.
I wasn't saying Pelosi was a conservative, I was saying she's close with the Dem establishment (also possible for a progressive) and the endorsement was surprising for that reason -- notably, the SF Dems endorsed Chan's opponent in the City Council race:
London Breed? Nice one, I needed a laugh this morning.
Honestly Big Tech in San Francisco should ask one of Ed Lee's daughters to move back to San Francisco to run for Pelosi's seat if they don't want to back Wiener.
One of the low key storylines in San Francisco politics is how Pelosi has been trying to kneecap Scott Wiener for the past couple of years because he was planning on running for her seat when she stepped aside instead of letting Pelosi anoint her daughter Christine.
Her policies on housing looks awful based on her wiki page. She says she supports making housing more affordable, but the page has a record of her consistently opposing efforts to accomplish that.
From the standpoint of actually giving a damn about neighborhoods and community, yes, especially if we’re not talking about adverse gentrification. Connie Chan is a better Supervisor than Scott Weiner was during his time.
I’m angry at Weiner mainly because he and Governor Newsom made asses of themselves over the original court ruling against the People’s Park development in Berkeley. First and foremost, this park is an important part of Berkeley culture and heritage and Newsom and Weiner were crying uncle over the court ruling as opposed to showing any damn respect to Berkeley residents and history. At least former Mayor Jesse Arreguin was recognizing this originally and even UC Berkeley is now in the new development trying to pay tribute to People’s Park history.
The best person to serve in the House, frankly, is Aaron Peskin. He’s been a lightning rod for YIMBYs on housing but is otherwise the best fighting Democrat we have in San Francisco. He’s absolutely fearless and unrelenting. If the GOP thinks it can reason with Peskin and throw crap at him, they wouldn’t. He’s probably the most powerful legislator in SF in recent memory and knows how to get shit done. And he’s got great relations with unions and is the closest to Pelosi vs any other politician in SF as far as this is concerned. He also would be able to bridge the gap between establishment Democrats and AOC types of Democrats.
I have communicated to Peskin’s office when he was Supervisor and my business was located in his district. I got a response directly from him less than 30 minutes later. That’s dedication.
The one thing though, I do not think Peskin desires higher office that much. He’s only been Supervisor and that’s it.
It's interesting to get your views based in significant part on attitudes toward a park in Berkeley, and I respect that, but Chan's record on housing, as linked by JanusIanitos, seems horrible.
So apparently the frontrunner here is centrist Councilwoman Julie Menin -- but NYC Councilwoman Carmen De La Rosa is running as a more progressive alternative. This could get interesting.
In other news, unsuccessful NYC Council candidate Vanessa Aronson is gunning for Alex Bores' open Assembly seat.
Progressives aren't happy with Menin for not endorsing Mamdani, and according to Politico she's the most business-friendly.
I use the term "centrist" in place of "moderate" because I'm of the thought that the latter is a loaded term that is used to make its candidates seem more reasonable. Thus, I use centrist.
Also knock it off. I'm not a DSA type, I've repeatedly condemned them here over and over. Stop insinuating shit.
Jordan Wood has had a ton of luck in the Maine Senate race in just a few days. Janet Mills came out against repealing the filibuster (in effect, sabotaging a future Democratic administration from being able to get its stated agenda enacted by Congress), and Graham Platner's campaign has completely collapsed.
Definitely should be properly vetting everybody! Wood has already been a congressional staffer so likely less of a loose cannon (though, he was a staffer for Katie Porter, lol)
I think his work as executive director for PACs tied to Mothership Strategies (which is partially owed by his partner) is disqualifying. Recent investigations showed that of the $678 million that company’s PACs raised in recent years, just $11 million went to candidates while Mothership Strategies kept $159 million. This was a rip off of thousands of fooled contributors to Act Blue and otherwise. See more info here: https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/maine-democratic-senate-primary-graham-platner-jordan-wood-susan-collins
Wait, are we now pro-repealing filibuster? Tough to keep track since that's the only thing holding up Trump on a number of issues here. Once the genie is out of that bottle, you can't put it back.
It would backfire tremendously if it was a blanket elimination of the filibuster. Republicans control the senate much more often than Dems and they would be able to privatize social security without it and likely would have under Bush in 2005 if there wasn’t a filibuster.
It wouldn't backfire if the Democrats do it when they have a trifecta, pass voting rights and fair districting laws with teeth, increase the Supreme Court by at least 4 new members, admit D.C., Puerto Rico and perhaps the Virgin Islands as states (no worse than the Republicans admitting the Dakota Territory as 2 states back when), retaking control over things like the Power of the Purse and declaring them off-limits from judicial review under the constitution and just getting lots of shit done. It's very late for them to try to do it, and it may be the only chance of saving the U.S. as a unified republic.
If you want to talk about permanence, I don't think the U.S. as we know it will exist at the end of the century, if the human race survives, and if the U.S. does survive, it will be as a result of some kind of crisis that results in a constitutional overhaul, probably by a forced convention, that makes the country work by undoing the New Jersey compromise, giving populous states much more power, reining in the courts and giving more power to Congress. But realistically, I don't see California being in the same country as Alabama in 2100. I won't live to see the end of the century unless I live to be 135, though.
There's no inconsistency here. As long as the filibuster exists, we should use it to its maximum extent for our political benefit.
At the same time, we should seek to remove it when we hold power. Nearly all of our goals when controlling government require legislation. Our base, in the sense of people who might vote for us rather than in the most loyal and involved parts of our coalition, will not be happy, or even content if we hold a trifecta and fail to have any major legislative accomplishments.
Republicans do not face this hurdle. While there are legislative goals that they hold, their core policy preferences can be accomplished with a reconciliation bill (cut taxes), holding any single veto point through a chamber of congress or the presidency (prevent change), or controlling the executive (make government as dysfunctional as possible). Their base can be made content or happy without legislative success.
I'm sorry this is an absolutely insane comment. It's the same as when Reid blew up the fillibuster for judges and now we have a 7-2 conservative Supreme Court. Quit taking theoretical policy wins for realtiy on the ground. Without the filibuster Trump would run even more rampant.
Realistically Dems aren't winning the Senate anytime soon so you should be praying it stays in place, but with this current situation Thune's only play may be to eventually blow it all up. You reap what you sow.
If winning the senate is out of reach then the country is doomed. Not even because of the current dangers to it and an inability to react to those, but for the simple reason that the country needs to be able to legislate. A country with a government that stays static indefinitely is not one that can succeed.
Additionally, if you think SCOTUS would look better for us without that change then I've got a few bridges to sell. SCOTUS seats have been the conservative holy grail since before I was born. They would have gutted the filibuster for SCOTUS in 2017 regardless of if Obama had been enabled to appoint more than a handful of judges. The only way around that outcome would have been if they had convinced some of the spineless dem senators to vote for their picks anyway, which still leads to the current SCOTUS balance of power.
Yeah, because Trump totally is showing restraint because of the filibuster.
Actually, Trump has shown no interest in actually working with congressional Republicans and has been perfectly content with ruling through executive might.
My biggest worry is that with platner's implosion and mills' age being unpalatable to many, is that we are back where many thought we were in the early summer, without a good candidate in maine. My parents have lived there since 2010 and still are considered the New Yorkers. Wood worked for Katie Porter of CA. After the success Collins had painting Sara Gideon as a not a true mainer, I think we need a lifelong mainer
I totally get the objections to Mills, but I don't think she's a bad candidate. Platner released a poll showing her up 42-37 over Collins (though it purported to show Platner with a higher ceiling after sample messaging was provided to respondents.) It won't be THAT easy for Collins to run on age given that she's also in her 70s (just about 5 years younger.)
This is probably why the GCB has expanded and why Democrats need to hold the line. Our political argument is winning those persuadable by a lot and voters don’t like what the GOP is doing in power, especially completely ignoring the economy:
Among independents, 48 percent think Republicans in Congress are more responsible, while 32 percent think Democrats in Congress are more responsible and 14 percent volunteered that they think both parties are equally responsible.
Among independents, 52 percent say they would want to see the Democratic Party win control of the House, while 32 percent say they would want to see the Republican Party win control of the House, and 16 percent did not offer an opinion.
the economy: 38 percent approve, while 57 percent disapprove, with 5 percent not offering an opinion
This is the lowest score for Trump's handling of the economy since February 2017 after he first took office when the Quinnipiac University Poll began asking the question.
Trump's handling of the economy reached its previous low of 39 percent approval among voters four times since 2017, most recently in a September 24, 2025 poll when 39 percent of voters approved of Trump's handling of the economy, 56 percent disapproved, and 5 percent did not offer an opinion.
I am waiting for Adam Steen to catch more momentum in the GOP primary for Governor. He is a viable social conservative that will force Feenstra to open his mouth and state his true positions on the issues. Feenstra holds the same positions as Steen, Sherman and others. He is smart enough to keep his mouth shut and dodge. If Steen wins the primary or even catches momentum, it will help Rob Sand.
If Feenstra is able to get through the primary without anyone laying a glove on him, then we could have more trouble in the general, despite the high level of genuine enthusiasm and curiosity about Rob Sand's efforts.
Bousselot has some establishment support too, yes? And former LG Sinclair is still yet to jump in - her presence would certainly shake things up slightly
Indeed. Bousselot and Eddie Andrews are splitting the rational, Branstad/Grassley governance wing of the party. I don't see Andrews having the resources to stay in the race. Bousselot has been rumored to stay in the race or possibly seek some other position. I could even see him running some sort of political operation with Kim Reynolds.
I presume it will come down to Steen and Feenstra. Yes, Sinclair could try to find heir niche in the race and she would make a good general election candidate. Rob Sand has run a great campaign and frankly the GOP hasn't found an effective attack line, yet. Even if Sand runs a near perfect campaign, it will still take a fair amount of good luck to win this race.
IL-09, new poll from the Kat Abughazaleh campaign: Biss 18, Abu 13, Fine 9. Conducted by text only. Kat's support has grown by 3 percent, which is incredibly dynamic and amazing, but Biss' support has grown by 1 percent, which is stagnant. Yes, I'm a bit cynical about this poll. https://x.com/mattheweadie22/status/1981023744530292825
Nobody even hitting 20% is impressive in its own way. I expect Biss to win ultimately and without much difficulty, but at least that poll shows it's rather open. A set of good headlines could catapult someone into frontrunner status.
She was an underdog from the beginning. If she gets a non-embarrassing second place showing I'd say she did well. Of course there's no second place prize in congressional elections, but it could lead to her going for something else.
NH Senate: Sununu is in.
https://x.com/Politics1com/status/1980963616603206030
Can't wait for Pappas to crush him. Maybe that will finally make the horrific Sununu family just go the f*ck away.
You're assuming he makes it through the primary. That's very much TBD.
Is Sununu the first big GOP recruit this cycle?
Seems like in most competitive races many have passed rather than run in this environment
Definitely their biggest. The next tier down is probably Hinson in IA (a current rep) or Rogers in MI (former rep), and that's a big drop. Dems have thus far recruited two former/departing governors and a former Senator. We're definitely winning the recruitment game.
The GOP appears on track to run basically nobodies in two of the most competitive races (NC and GA). Complete recruitment failure in MN, in addition to CO, NM, and VA, which would definitely be reach seats for the GOP in this environment but have recently featured single-digit races and all have competitive House races where a ticket-leader would help drive turnout.
I wouldn't call Michael Whatley, the ex-chair of Trump's GOP party a "nobody" in North Carolina.
Whatley has not run in an election, let alone won -- he was the former chair of the NC GOP and RNC (which gives you experience with elections to some degree but not as a candidate yourself). He's clearly there because he kissed TACO's ass for the endorsement.
If NC GOP were confident about their Senate chances, they'd pick someone with a better chance against Cooper. It would've been funny to see one of Cooper's nemeses go up against him like state Senate asshole Phil Berger or current Congressman Tim Moore.
He has some name recognition among political watchers, but nobody in NC has ever voted for him. He's also only there because Trump was holding the seat for his daughter-in-law, and when she declined, he just anointed someone else before anyone could even blink.
Agreed...makes me wonder what polling he saw to make him get in.
He’s going to lose. And Chris would not have won either.
Could be a possibility Sununu won't make it through the primary. This ad looks like he was straight out of the 2010's pre-Trump (maybe 2010), before he even announced his candidacy back in 2015.
Time for fellow 2008 losers Norm Coleman and Gordon Smith to commence with comeback attempts as well!
don't forget fellow 2008 loser jim gilmore, who got his tail whooped by his successor (as Governor) Mark Warner in the senate race
Surely there are other sources on the Totenkopf to use than the ADL.
I would be curious to know that also…
What's the ADF? I just scanned the Digest and I didn't see any reference to an organization with that acronym.
*ADL, fixed
Thanks for clarifying, but the ADL is one of the world's leading authorities on anything relating to antisemitism, including words, symbols, beliefs, and conspiracy theories relating to it. There's no need for any other source about the symbol on Platner's tattoo.
Yeah, no. Not going to litigate how besmirched they've made themselves under Greenblatt and how wearisome (for lack of a better word) associating with them rather than another more reputable source is.
Wikipedia no longer considers them a valid source specifically in reference to Israel-Palestine, but are otherwise reliable on antisemitism subjects.
Ahh yes...you dive in here with your first comment, attacking a long-time reliable source on anti-semitism and then declare that you're "not going to litigate" your statement. You're also very close to touching on one of the clear no-go zones on this board. Move on please...
You mean the ADL?
If this is about Israel and Palestine that topic is banned here.
Correct, but a discussion of antisemitic symbols, and the organizations that explain their meaning, need not necessarily be about I/P.
The reason I mentioned I-P is that the primary reason a lot of people oppose the ADL is related to that, and I suspected that was why the original poster referenced not using them.
And my point is that regardless of how you feel about I/P (which I agree shouldn't be discussed here), opposing the ADL is 100% antisemitic. Simple as that.
Opposing the ADL is antisemitic in the same way that opposing the NAACP is racist.
This is a stupid opinion, sorry lmao.
Do you think that we should believe Black people when they say that something is racist? (I hope you do, by the way, since if you don't then this is probably not the best blog for you to comment on.)
If so, then you also need to believe Jews when we say that something is antisemitic. To refuse to do that is, itself, antisemitic.
Not sure I agree with that statement, one can oppose specific orgs or parts of them without necessarily disagreeing with their general message. I really don’t like this idea that a specific org can have a monopoly on policing a specific type of bigotry, and that goes for the NAACP as much as the ADL. Condemning an org is different from condemning an entire group. Members of a group can oppose their supposed reps, after all — and not all Jews/African-Americans support the ADL/NAACP.
So, just to clarify, do you think it's OK to accuse the NAACP of falsely claiming that something is racist, and to demand that some other source (ideally one that aligns more with your priors) corroborate any accusations of racism that they make?
(I should note that this is something that right-wing conservatives do all the time.)
Not getting into the nuts of this argument but human beings within racial/ethnic/religious groups are not a monolith and no one organization can say they are a spokesmen for the entire group.
Not it is not. ADL has become too political under Greenblatt as reported by dozens of mainstream news orgs. It's reliable on topics other than the Middle East.
Antisemitism is an inherently political issue. It's unrealistic to expect an organization that's specifically dedicated to stopping antisemitism to avoid politics.
We love the ever-elusive and never-described topic bans. Really engenders a transparent discussion space. 💖
Knock it off with the snark. It’s a long time ban, going back to the DKE days. It was implemented because this topic is a massive contentious drama magnet.
And unwritten, and most people weren't here for the Daily Kos grandfathering, so I don't really care what happened there tbh.
Just because you don’t care about the rules doesn’t make them less valid.
It doesn't matter whether you care. The rules are the rules. There are two topics we don't do here—Dem presidential primaries and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
I will post a "rules of the road" to make this more easily accessible for folks, but now you know.
Also, sometimes other convos will turn into a derail and, if need be, we will step in to shut those down. As with all things in life, it's not possible to know what those might be in advance.
Discuss it transparently on your own site.
Discuss (or fight about) it transparently on your own site.
Would they say something different?
This generated a supremely unhelpful comment chain. I'm instructing everyone to move on immediately.
I've been fucking furious at the ADL for many reasons for quite some time, but their database on far-right symbology remains a widely respected resource.
But we're moving on.
To be frank, it does feel unhelpful to direct traffic and attention toward a disreputable group because they have some archival function that isn't especially more informative than an enlightened reader could find on their own if they were curious. I wouldn't promote a Fox News article just because they cover a specific topic. Moving on etc etc and this is obviously your fiefdom, but the eggshells around "unwritten rules" combined with this casual link is. I'll say frustrating.
Thank you, and apologies if my comments were among the unhelpful ones.
State Navigate (Chaz Nuttycombe's outfit) has a new poll of Virginia, and it's very good news for Democrats. Spanberger leads 55-42, Hashmi leads 53-42, and Jones leads 50-45. The generic ballot for the HoD is 52-40 for Dems.
Unlike other polls, it doesn't weight by recalled 2021 Governor vote, which makes sense since the electorate this year will certainly be bluer than the one that showed up in 2021.
I don't have a link since this is from an email from them (I subscribe to their emails).
The VA HoD popular vote in 2023 was Dem +2. So if that vote is actually D +12 now, then Dems could win any seat that voted Republican by less than 10% in 2023.
There are 11 such districts - 22, 30, 41, 52, 57, 64, 71, 73, 75, 82, and 89. And that doesn't even include swing districts where Dems didn't run a candidate last time (69) or where polls have already shown the Dem leading (86). So if that poll is right, then Dems are going to pick up a lot of seats.
I think Nuttycombe said that VA Dems have a 15% chance of scoring a supermajority in the House of Delegates, which is nuts.
This outlier is with fair maps AND an angry anti-TACO electorate, not the gerrymandering BS Reps are doing here in NC.
Side note -- UT Republicans have hired the same GOP hack (Sean Trende) to defend their crappy map who drew these crappy Virginia districts.
I'm curious whether the federal courts will let the umpteenth gerrymandered 11 R - 3 D map stay for next year -- because voting rights groups have lawsuits ready to go once Berger and Hall ram the final vote through today. We all know the NC Supreme Court is a political arm of the NC GOP unless the majority is flipped in three years, but the federal courts might say otherwise.
I'm not sure whether the case will go to federal justice Richard Myers or to another one -- but I'm not holding my breath. Myers ruled fairly in the Griffin vs. Riggs case but I don't expect him to do the same and force them to stick with the atrocious 10 R - 4 D map or revert to the fair 2022 7-7 maps.
Trende talks out of both sides of his mouth. He defended the GOP maps in NC saying they were fine yet testified against the Hochulmander with data saying it was a Dem gerrymander.
First things first once we have the trifecta...get rid of the redistricting commission and institute some new lines.
Shit yes.
I've drawn maps where Terry McAuliffe won 27/40 state senate districts and 65/100 HoD districts in 2021 despite losing the election overall. (Harris won 28 state senate districts and a few more HoD districts on those same maps.)
And that's not even getting into the congressional map, where the sky's almost literally the limit for Dems depending on how aggressive they want to be. 10-1 is certainly possible - I've drawn a map where 9 districts voted at least Harris +10 and for McAuliffe, one district that's Harris +6 and Youngkin +1, and then of course the Republican district which is Trump +55 and Youngkin +60.
Let's make it happen! https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/23/us/politics/virginia-democrats-redistrict.html
Jones' lead is only 5 points. Could go either way.
"Democrat Jay Jones leads Republican Jason Miyares by 5 percentage points, 50 to 45. Jones’ lead is buoyed by those who have already cast their ballots, who say that they voted for him by 18 percentage points."
https://statenavigate.org/state-navigate-poll-shows-spanberger-with-13-point-lead-in-virginia-governor-race/
Nope. I think you misread the article.
I went back to my email and re-read it again.
You were right.
Wait other polls are weighting by 2021 turnout? That seems like malpractice. You should only weight by age/race afaik
Maybe also level of education and sometimes the racial breakdown of your area, as that seems to affect the polarization of white voters?
yeah those are valid as well, but definitely not past election results.
The VCU poll released yesterday, which had one of the more GOP friendly results (though Spanberger led by 7), seemed, from its explanation, to calibrate to 2021 turnout patterns.
Which makes no sense unless maybe it's a Republican firm trying to keep up hope. 2021 was something like a best-case scenario for the VA GOP, and obviously the environment and leading issues are different now.
The only good thing about this is that Democrats then get the media narrative of outperforming the polls and the blue wave in 2026 pieces start to get written.
Linking the complaint Mayes filed.
https://mcusercontent.com/cc1fad182b6d6f8b1e352e206/files/2373e6ca-e621-5ed7-d8bb-4dd1042a55ce/2025_10_21_Complaint_for_Declaratory_Relief_State_et_al._v._US_House_et_al.pdf
Interesting that Mike Johnson himself isn't listed as a defendant. Rather, the defedants are the chamber itself (which indirectly means Johnson) and also the clerk and the sergeant at arms, who are explicitly named.
I wonder if MA-06 will end up missing Seth Moulton if he’s replaced with a cryptocurrency executive.
Is Moulton particularly anti-crypto?
I’m not sure. I just hope MA-06 doesn’t replace one bad rep with another. I’m also very suspicious of crypto and don’t think the House Dems need another crypto shill.
Definitely same, crypto needs to be killed with fire
It would be nice if Massachusetts Democrats don't clown car the median Massachusetts Democrat lane like they've done in the past two open seat races so the Democratic candidate friendlies to Republicans, Crypto, AI slop, etc. sneaks through!
Is Trahan bad? She seems pretty generic Dem or slightly to the left of that.
The only 2 House incumbents that we Dems need to make sure we get rid of in primaries are Case in Hawaii and Golden in Maine. They both voted for Trump's bill requiring proof of citizenship before voting. Non-citizens are already forbidden by law from voting and it has been extremely rare when one even tried. 2026 will see us in a Trump Republican recession that is deepening and few Republicans are going to be safe so it is crucial that a major task of Democrats is to get candidates everywhere and not to waste resources on defending these 2 or in challenging good incumbents like Thompson in California or Larson in Connecticut.
the choice is jared golden, who usually votes with us or Paul lepage, a virulent bigot that ran maine's finances into the ground and will never vote with us. Big tent party people, we need to regain power before we start another round of purity tests.
Re Ed Case, 100% agree. His district deserves better. My parents and extended family live up in Golden's district, they long for the days a true blue dem like rep allen represented them but are realistic that it's golden or some rwnj.
Disagree. Sometimes an otherwise seemingly good member can make enough bad votes that they no longer represent their district. Dan Goldman represents one of the bluest districts in the country and has done things like not endorsing Mamdani (who overwhelmingly won his district) and voting to condemn the ICC, among others — hence why he’s being targeted.
Ideally we would want a Rep to really represent their district, no? Hence my stance.
Goldman is the centrist Bowman, he is similarly too dogmatic and tries to play to a national audience rather than his district. He's toast in a one on one with any progressive opponent. I hope Mamdani and Lander personally campaign against him.
I constantly get emails from him. Did Bowman constantly email constituents?
Goldman will almost certainly run for statewide office at some point (he ran for NY-AG for a hot minute in 2021) and is probably tailoring his voting record accordingly.
Then let him try that. I'd rather be represented by someone who's more of a leftist, and I wouldn't mind for them to send me fewer unasked-for emails and capitalize my name...
While I agree with your take on Dan Goldman, I think the above comment was referring to Rep. Jared Golden in Maine
I was responding to the claim that Case and Golden were the only two who needed to go. I was arguing anyone who does not represent their district is fair game, with Goldman as one example.
Ah, understood! And I agree
I also agree goldman should be primaried.
Except Golden represents his district nearly perfectly....
I did not advocate for voting Golden out. I explicitly didn’t mention him for a reason. I think he represents his district, and I’m against Dunlap’s primary bid partly for that reason (and also I have no faith he’ll win a general race).
Case, Goldman, Thanedar, these are people who I think need to go.
Total agreement with you on all points
Fine on Case, but absolutely not on Golden. Primarying him would almost certainly hand that seat to Republicans, which we simply cannot afford right now.
Graham Platner needs to remove his offensive tattoo as well as his name from the Maine ballot.
Left Bluesky has bailed on him already. There’s actually been some discussion on doing more candidate vetting too which is also nice.
EDIT: And on Bernie being a poor judge of character regarding endorsements.
Election Twitter also bailed on him.
troy jackson still looks like the best bet to balance any ticket in maine. He's running for govenor and bernie endorsed. Bernie is very well like in Maine fwiw
I wish it was Jackson running for Senate. Not sure why he picked Gov instead.
Open seat easier than taking down a 5-term incumbent
Well yeah, I was just saying what I personally wish was the case. But you're right, Gov is easier.
It isn't that, it's because Mills vetoed some bills he championed and he wants to be able to pass his legislative priorities. Being Governor seems to be much more appealing to him.
I hope Ryan Fecteau jumps in though
I don't think Fecteau will run for Senate. He was probably only considering it if Mills didn't run, and jumping in now might have the effect of mostly splitting votes from Mills and aiding the now-problematic Platner.
I wasn't purporting that it was the *only* reason, but I have to believe it's a factor.
It’s honestly kind of alarming how many entities and national pols endorsed Platner despite knowing essentially nothing about him other than that he said the right buzzwords and looked the part.
I think it speaks to the level of frustration lots of people have with the status quo and a desire for change.
That’s a pretty poor excuse for letting it just blind them and not do any serious vetting of him before jumping on the bandwagon. Sounds like the Tea Party.
As Marliss Degens said, Fetterman looked the part and said all the right buzzwords, leading people to ignore his red flags. Look how that turned out.
It’s a reason for the rushed endorsements, not an excuse. Look, I agree with you, there should have been more vetting of Platner. But I don’t find the surge of support for him “alarming.” Platner positioned himself against status quo dems, and I don’t think we should scold people for finding that kind of message appealing.
If you remember, I found his emphasis on attacking the Democratic as well as the Republican Party offputting.
I agree. It reminds me of the John Fetterman mania in Pennsylvania. Look at how that turned out. Instead of getting caught up in media hype on the superficial (what a candidate wears, whether he or she will be the first of a certain gender, racial group, occupation, age group, religion, etc. to hold that office, or the all-purpose "compelling backstory, complete with suffering), we need to look at a person's qualifications, and their values and ideas. Then ask the question: Can this person effectively do the job?
Fetterman was at least a known entity and statewide officeholder prior to running for Senate (plus, he was a very different person prior to his stroke and mental health crisis—watch any interview he gave from 2021 or earlier).
Platner came out of nowhere.
the stroke impacts are not talked about enough. The man was never great, but having your entire staff effectively quit suggests that fetterman shifted after the stroke.
He was never great, but he *was* interesting and had a sui generis appeal—unlike, say, Conor Lamb or Bob Casey (long before 2024 I predicted that the latter would lose the moment he faced even a mildly-hostile electorate, since he never developed a personal brand or even campaigned much).
Absolutely! I was skeptical about him early on and that skepticism is proving warranted. The stakes are too high for us to just fall in love with candidates...
I wonder if any more people or organizations will pull their endorsements
he says he will removes his tattoo.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5566909-platner-plans-tattoo-removal/
He should drop out, if he has any decency left.
I agree he should drop out but, from a practical standpoint, his staying in might help Mills as it will allow her to paint herself as a pragmatic centrist.
Collins already paints herself as that. I question why voters will feel excited over a race with two “pragmatic centrist” types (regardless of their record.)
Platner imploding was sad, and I agree that progressives blew it with candidate vetting — by our own admission, as seen by Bluesky discussion.
I worry we’re going to lose Maine again over all this shit.
Fair point on your first paragraph. I'm not worried about your last point, though. Platner will be long forgotten by the time the GE rolls around a year from now.
You are right that we’re a ways away from the election and a lot could happen. We’ll see I guess.
Tbh, just use the same fiery rhetoric with a different hue, he might stand a better chance of defeating Collins in the other primary.
NJ Gov Rutgers-Eagleton poll: Sherrill 50-45
https://eagletonpoll.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Rutgers-Eagleton-Poll-2025-NJ-Gov-Election-10.22.25-FINAL-PUBLIC.pdf
The weighted sample seems to be roughly equally Dem and R, but with a bluish indie sample.
Makes me wonder what the over/under for everyone's expectations might be?
I'd be happy with any margin above Sherrill +5, and Spanberger +9.
Those are pretty good estimates for the ultimate margins in both races (maybe more like +7 and +10).
One thing I'm thinking about re generationally-focused democratic primaries is would we actually be replacing incumbents with better congresspeople? Obviously in a situaion like Ed Case's the replacement would almost certainly be more progressive, which is good (although it would still be good to make sure Case's challenger is actually more progressive!) but I'm thinking more about the examples like CA-4 and CT-1. While Thompson in CA-4 is a member of the Blue Dogs, the digest said he is being challenged by a venture capitalist, which doesn't necessarily make me confident that they would be a significantly better rep. (Not saying a venture capitalist is incapable of being a good rep, it just gives me some skepticism). Meanwhile, is there any info on the political leanings of Mayor Bronin who is challenging John Larson in CT-1? Or would one of the other challengers end up being better?
And, of course, this discussion of primarying Dem incumbents really only applies to safe-blue seats. In swing-seats and Trump-seats, I recognize that a Dem who votes in a disappointing way is miles better than any Republican.
fwiw, Eric Jones' website says he's rejecting corporate PAC money and donations from lobbyists, and uses language like "people-powered movement" so he's definitely casting himself in the progressive lane.
This discussion is always trippy for me. I fail to see how "I'd rather a Dem who votes against Dem bills" is any different from "I'd rather have a Repub in that seat." Either way, Dem policies lose, especially in an evenly divided House.
Let's say the House is 219D-216R in the next Congress (hopefully not--hope it's a lot more--but possible). Dems propose a bill to, say, restore funding for Biden clean energy projects, most of which are in red states. (In other words, not a third rail bill). The bill fails 217-218, with 2 conservaDems voting against. This is one of our priority items for showing voters Dem priorities--how is it better to have a conservaDem in there? You can say "Speaker Jeffries" or "committee chairs," but if we can't pass our most important legislation, what's the f'in point?
I understand your points, I think the way I view it is more from the perspective of "what if we didn't hold this seat?" or "if I had a button I could push that would replace this annoying Dem with a Republican, would I push it?" and the answer is no. I know that's not exactly satisfying, though. If we have a large majority then it doesn't matter as much who is in that seat. But if we don't have a large majority, then while I understand your frustration with the response of "Dem Speaker and committee chairs," those are still important, and at the end of the day we'll get more (even if marginally more) with a Democrat than a Republican. I think ultimately for me it comes from a place of not wanting to take things for granted.
Thanks for your comment, NEM. True of course that a large majority makes 1-2 defections irrelevant. My main concern is where does the leeway we're giving these folks end? What can we pass that will be meaningful to voters and cause them to see the Dems on their side so we can keep or expand the majority?
In other words, if we can't pass important legislation because of these defectors, how do we sell a D majority to the voters? "Hey, we're in favor of good things. We can't actually pass them when we have a majority, but we're in favor of them."
That leaves us with oversight hearings in committees, which are important, but don't win elections. Once we get the majority, we need to hold it for a long while to get rid of the poison that 47/Miller/Vought/Bondi/Patel...have inserted into the system.
There's always a bit of tradeoff with people that are at the far end of the centrist portion of the party, like Golden.
To look at it differently though: how ecstatic would we be right now if we held a bare majority from the start of the year, just barely enough to maintain even with officials dying in office? While not all of the horrors of this year would be defanged, a lot of them would have been.
Sure, every few weeks we'd have to put up with Golden running to the nearest media outlet to say something awful about our party. I'd pay that happily if it meant they didn't get to cut social spending, that Biden's legislative accomplishments weren't being ended, that ICE's budget wasn't increased to whatever insane value it is at now.
I do like to make the point that the tradeoff exists, of there being a cost to the biggest pain in the ass members of our caucus. At the same time, this tradeoff is one that is worth it for the ones in the reddest seats.
But my point being, all the things you said we wouldn't have had to endure w/a small D majority might have passed anyway with a small D majority and D defections. The defectors get to choose which D policies they don't like, and they're usually the ones that would be most popular in Dem messaging.
I just keep thinking of how Obama had to kiss the asses of D Sens who killed the public option, who then didn't even run for re-election (Conrad, Nelson, and Lieberman, to name 3). Raising the minimum wage in 2027 would probably be very popular, but if Golden decides to prioritize the small business lobby, we could end up losing. What good is he then?
Those bad things wouldn't have passed with a small dem majority for the most simple of reasons: it wouldn't reach the floor. Doesn't matter that much if a few dems might defect when the bill never gets voted on in the first place.
There would be a huge difference today if Jeffries was speaker since Jan instead of Johnson.
I agree with you in a strategic sense, that when people don't feel like Democrats have improved their lot (even when they very much have!), they idiotically vote for Republicans, and both of us are exceedingly frustrated when a few members of either House on the right wing of the party stymie essential legislation. But as sober analysts, we should always remember that every single time there is a Democrat in the White House, incomes of non-rich people rise. Democrats are not close to the social democratic/green party I'd prefer to support, but only ignoramuses and deluded people could look at the Biden Administration's record and say that it was not better for workers and the environment than the fucking Republicans! Sadly for the country and the world, ignoramuses and deluded people are a plurality in today's America.
In an alternate universe you could just have Trump illegally impounding social programs and funneling money to ICE.
This disregards all of the other benefits of having a Dem in that seat that you point out and dismiss (speaker election, committee ratios etc.). Those are very real impacts. I have zero problem with reps taking votes on bills that are already foregone conclusions in order to hold on to tough districts. Purity tests get us nowhere.
Except if you'd actually read the thread, I never talked about bills that are foregone conclusions, only those that are close and where a defecting Dem could tip the balance. I understand that my view on the value of the Case/Golden Dem is in the minority here, but no need to distort my argument beyond what I've actually said.
We have a lot of elected hacks we need to replace, but you are 100% on the money that the current Dem primary process doesn’t naturally lend itself to upgrades and that in almost all if not all cases, not every potential “successful” replacement would be an upgrade.
Pelosi likely to make a retirement announcement after Prop 50 passes (IF it passes, but lookin' pretty good so far), surprising no one. But for those who thought she'd try to pass the torch to her daughter, she's instead nudging Connie Chan, a SF supervisor. Cue the intrigue, and in San Francisco we will have a Dem on Dem general election. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/california-playbook/2025/10/22/pelosi-succession-intrigue-in-san-francisco-00618094
Meanwhile, expect to be very busy between November 5 and 10 tracking all the California candidate announcements. They are already calling around to long time supporters. No one, besides Scott Wiener, is doing anything official-ish until after Nov. 4.
Connie Chan is a progressive, from what I've heard -- a surprising pick for Pelosi.
EDIT: You're shitting me. This is also in the Playbook:
"Some tech power brokers have discussed attempting to draft someone else to run, even former San Francisco Mayor London Breed, who in her losing campaign to now-Mayor Daniel Lurie was able to coalesce many of the city’s top donors."
After what I've heard about London Breed, hell no.
Pelosi is hardly some conservative. It's not surprising toe that she would support a progressive replacement.
I wasn't saying Pelosi was a conservative, I was saying she's close with the Dem establishment (also possible for a progressive) and the endorsement was surprising for that reason -- notably, the SF Dems endorsed Chan's opponent in the City Council race:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/election/article/s-f-democratic-party-make-key-endorsement-19593954.php
London Breed? Nice one, I needed a laugh this morning.
Honestly Big Tech in San Francisco should ask one of Ed Lee's daughters to move back to San Francisco to run for Pelosi's seat if they don't want to back Wiener.
Maybe Wiener pissed Pelosi off by getting in Id always assumed he was the heir apparent
can confirm that Weiner has immensely p!ssed off the Pelosi family. Was never a heir apparent.
With that said, I recommend Weiner be primaried in the State Senate.
I would love to see this race.
One of the low key storylines in San Francisco politics is how Pelosi has been trying to kneecap Scott Wiener for the past couple of years because he was planning on running for her seat when she stepped aside instead of letting Pelosi anoint her daughter Christine.
Chan sounds perfectly fine but I’m a Wiener superfan (awkward sentence out of context!) and would love the greatest champion of Abundance in Congress
What's Chan's viewpoint on housing?
Her policies on housing looks awful based on her wiki page. She says she supports making housing more affordable, but the page has a record of her consistently opposing efforts to accomplish that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connie_Chan_(politician)#Positions_on_housing_and_transit
Yeah, based on that, I'd have to oppose her if I were voting in that district.
*Prop 50
thx for catching, fixed. Prop 50/ Nov 4.
NO, absolutely NO, on Scott Weiner.
Is Chan better, though?
From the standpoint of actually giving a damn about neighborhoods and community, yes, especially if we’re not talking about adverse gentrification. Connie Chan is a better Supervisor than Scott Weiner was during his time.
I’m angry at Weiner mainly because he and Governor Newsom made asses of themselves over the original court ruling against the People’s Park development in Berkeley. First and foremost, this park is an important part of Berkeley culture and heritage and Newsom and Weiner were crying uncle over the court ruling as opposed to showing any damn respect to Berkeley residents and history. At least former Mayor Jesse Arreguin was recognizing this originally and even UC Berkeley is now in the new development trying to pay tribute to People’s Park history.
The best person to serve in the House, frankly, is Aaron Peskin. He’s been a lightning rod for YIMBYs on housing but is otherwise the best fighting Democrat we have in San Francisco. He’s absolutely fearless and unrelenting. If the GOP thinks it can reason with Peskin and throw crap at him, they wouldn’t. He’s probably the most powerful legislator in SF in recent memory and knows how to get shit done. And he’s got great relations with unions and is the closest to Pelosi vs any other politician in SF as far as this is concerned. He also would be able to bridge the gap between establishment Democrats and AOC types of Democrats.
I have communicated to Peskin’s office when he was Supervisor and my business was located in his district. I got a response directly from him less than 30 minutes later. That’s dedication.
The one thing though, I do not think Peskin desires higher office that much. He’s only been Supervisor and that’s it.
It's interesting to get your views based in significant part on attitudes toward a park in Berkeley, and I respect that, but Chan's record on housing, as linked by JanusIanitos, seems horrible.
NYC Council Speaker, NY-AD-74:
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/newyorkplaybook
So apparently the frontrunner here is centrist Councilwoman Julie Menin -- but NYC Councilwoman Carmen De La Rosa is running as a more progressive alternative. This could get interesting.
In other news, unsuccessful NYC Council candidate Vanessa Aronson is gunning for Alex Bores' open Assembly seat.
True "centrist" or not hardcore leftwing wing DSA type therefore "centrist"?
Progressives aren't happy with Menin for not endorsing Mamdani, and according to Politico she's the most business-friendly.
I use the term "centrist" in place of "moderate" because I'm of the thought that the latter is a loaded term that is used to make its candidates seem more reasonable. Thus, I use centrist.
Also knock it off. I'm not a DSA type, I've repeatedly condemned them here over and over. Stop insinuating shit.
De La Rosa isn't in DSA anyway, but appears to be much more labor-aligned than Menin.
IN-Redistricting
Per Rodric Bray's office, the votes aren't there.
https://www.wthr.com/article/news/local/indiana/report-indiana-senate-republicans-dont-currently-have-votes-redistricting-statehouse-government-mike-braun-special-session-politico/531-131df970-9d69-4d1b-9d8a-a6029fa905cd?tbref=hp
I called my state rep and state senator (both Republicans) on Monday to express opposition to redistricting.
Are their districts at all competitive?
My state rep has had some close races but overall I think pretty solidly red now.
Politico’s writeup made it sound much less like a sure thing that the IN state Senators who are holding out will or can continue to do so
Could be true, but that cites a "source close to the White House" and I think I believe Bray has a better read of his caucus than Trump.
Fair enough. I just don’t think we’re out of the woods in Indiana yet
Jordan Wood has had a ton of luck in the Maine Senate race in just a few days. Janet Mills came out against repealing the filibuster (in effect, sabotaging a future Democratic administration from being able to get its stated agenda enacted by Congress), and Graham Platner's campaign has completely collapsed.
A pretty good fundraising quarter too, nearly $1.5m
Maybe it's time to start properly vetting Wood as well. Better make sure there are no skeletons in his closet too...
Definitely should be properly vetting everybody! Wood has already been a congressional staffer so likely less of a loose cannon (though, he was a staffer for Katie Porter, lol)
I think his work as executive director for PACs tied to Mothership Strategies (which is partially owed by his partner) is disqualifying. Recent investigations showed that of the $678 million that company’s PACs raised in recent years, just $11 million went to candidates while Mothership Strategies kept $159 million. This was a rip off of thousands of fooled contributors to Act Blue and otherwise. See more info here: https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/maine-democratic-senate-primary-graham-platner-jordan-wood-susan-collins
Wait, are we now pro-repealing filibuster? Tough to keep track since that's the only thing holding up Trump on a number of issues here. Once the genie is out of that bottle, you can't put it back.
Now? Most progressives have been for getting rid of the filibuster for a decade-plus.
It would backfire tremendously if it was a blanket elimination of the filibuster. Republicans control the senate much more often than Dems and they would be able to privatize social security without it and likely would have under Bush in 2005 if there wasn’t a filibuster.
It wouldn't backfire if the Democrats do it when they have a trifecta, pass voting rights and fair districting laws with teeth, increase the Supreme Court by at least 4 new members, admit D.C., Puerto Rico and perhaps the Virgin Islands as states (no worse than the Republicans admitting the Dakota Territory as 2 states back when), retaking control over things like the Power of the Purse and declaring them off-limits from judicial review under the constitution and just getting lots of shit done. It's very late for them to try to do it, and it may be the only chance of saving the U.S. as a unified republic.
Don’t be so sure. You are saying as if there is permanent left majority.
Me? No, nothing is permanent, but the filibuster is bullshit.
If you want to talk about permanence, I don't think the U.S. as we know it will exist at the end of the century, if the human race survives, and if the U.S. does survive, it will be as a result of some kind of crisis that results in a constitutional overhaul, probably by a forced convention, that makes the country work by undoing the New Jersey compromise, giving populous states much more power, reining in the courts and giving more power to Congress. But realistically, I don't see California being in the same country as Alabama in 2100. I won't live to see the end of the century unless I live to be 135, though.
Whatever laws Trump could theoretically sign he’s doing via executive order anyways.
There's no inconsistency here. As long as the filibuster exists, we should use it to its maximum extent for our political benefit.
At the same time, we should seek to remove it when we hold power. Nearly all of our goals when controlling government require legislation. Our base, in the sense of people who might vote for us rather than in the most loyal and involved parts of our coalition, will not be happy, or even content if we hold a trifecta and fail to have any major legislative accomplishments.
Republicans do not face this hurdle. While there are legislative goals that they hold, their core policy preferences can be accomplished with a reconciliation bill (cut taxes), holding any single veto point through a chamber of congress or the presidency (prevent change), or controlling the executive (make government as dysfunctional as possible). Their base can be made content or happy without legislative success.
I'm sorry this is an absolutely insane comment. It's the same as when Reid blew up the fillibuster for judges and now we have a 7-2 conservative Supreme Court. Quit taking theoretical policy wins for realtiy on the ground. Without the filibuster Trump would run even more rampant.
Realistically Dems aren't winning the Senate anytime soon so you should be praying it stays in place, but with this current situation Thune's only play may be to eventually blow it all up. You reap what you sow.
If you think the Democrats can't flip the Senate, when are you going into exile?
If winning the senate is out of reach then the country is doomed. Not even because of the current dangers to it and an inability to react to those, but for the simple reason that the country needs to be able to legislate. A country with a government that stays static indefinitely is not one that can succeed.
Additionally, if you think SCOTUS would look better for us without that change then I've got a few bridges to sell. SCOTUS seats have been the conservative holy grail since before I was born. They would have gutted the filibuster for SCOTUS in 2017 regardless of if Obama had been enabled to appoint more than a handful of judges. The only way around that outcome would have been if they had convinced some of the spineless dem senators to vote for their picks anyway, which still leads to the current SCOTUS balance of power.
I initially read "had convinced some of the spineless dem senators to vote for their pricks anyway," which fits perfectly.
It’s more accurate than my wording!
Yeah, because Trump totally is showing restraint because of the filibuster.
Actually, Trump has shown no interest in actually working with congressional Republicans and has been perfectly content with ruling through executive might.
7-2?
My biggest worry is that with platner's implosion and mills' age being unpalatable to many, is that we are back where many thought we were in the early summer, without a good candidate in maine. My parents have lived there since 2010 and still are considered the New Yorkers. Wood worked for Katie Porter of CA. After the success Collins had painting Sara Gideon as a not a true mainer, I think we need a lifelong mainer
I totally get the objections to Mills, but I don't think she's a bad candidate. Platner released a poll showing her up 42-37 over Collins (though it purported to show Platner with a higher ceiling after sample messaging was provided to respondents.) It won't be THAT easy for Collins to run on age given that she's also in her 70s (just about 5 years younger.)
Q poll Generic at D+9. TRUMP at 40-54 https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3938
This is probably why the GCB has expanded and why Democrats need to hold the line. Our political argument is winning those persuadable by a lot and voters don’t like what the GOP is doing in power, especially completely ignoring the economy:
Among independents, 48 percent think Republicans in Congress are more responsible, while 32 percent think Democrats in Congress are more responsible and 14 percent volunteered that they think both parties are equally responsible.
Among independents, 52 percent say they would want to see the Democratic Party win control of the House, while 32 percent say they would want to see the Republican Party win control of the House, and 16 percent did not offer an opinion.
the economy: 38 percent approve, while 57 percent disapprove, with 5 percent not offering an opinion
This is the lowest score for Trump's handling of the economy since February 2017 after he first took office when the Quinnipiac University Poll began asking the question.
Trump's handling of the economy reached its previous low of 39 percent approval among voters four times since 2017, most recently in a September 24, 2025 poll when 39 percent of voters approved of Trump's handling of the economy, 56 percent disapproved, and 5 percent did not offer an opinion.
I am waiting for Adam Steen to catch more momentum in the GOP primary for Governor. He is a viable social conservative that will force Feenstra to open his mouth and state his true positions on the issues. Feenstra holds the same positions as Steen, Sherman and others. He is smart enough to keep his mouth shut and dodge. If Steen wins the primary or even catches momentum, it will help Rob Sand.
If Feenstra is able to get through the primary without anyone laying a glove on him, then we could have more trouble in the general, despite the high level of genuine enthusiasm and curiosity about Rob Sand's efforts.
Bousselot has some establishment support too, yes? And former LG Sinclair is still yet to jump in - her presence would certainly shake things up slightly
Indeed. Bousselot and Eddie Andrews are splitting the rational, Branstad/Grassley governance wing of the party. I don't see Andrews having the resources to stay in the race. Bousselot has been rumored to stay in the race or possibly seek some other position. I could even see him running some sort of political operation with Kim Reynolds.
I presume it will come down to Steen and Feenstra. Yes, Sinclair could try to find heir niche in the race and she would make a good general election candidate. Rob Sand has run a great campaign and frankly the GOP hasn't found an effective attack line, yet. Even if Sand runs a near perfect campaign, it will still take a fair amount of good luck to win this race.
IL-09, new poll from the Kat Abughazaleh campaign: Biss 18, Abu 13, Fine 9. Conducted by text only. Kat's support has grown by 3 percent, which is incredibly dynamic and amazing, but Biss' support has grown by 1 percent, which is stagnant. Yes, I'm a bit cynical about this poll. https://x.com/mattheweadie22/status/1981023744530292825
Nobody even hitting 20% is impressive in its own way. I expect Biss to win ultimately and without much difficulty, but at least that poll shows it's rather open. A set of good headlines could catapult someone into frontrunner status.
Yeah, I'd be very skeptical of a text-only poll.
Interesting that a text-only poll still shows Biss in the lead though.
Interesting and not good for Kat, I'd say
She was an underdog from the beginning. If she gets a non-embarrassing second place showing I'd say she did well. Of course there's no second place prize in congressional elections, but it could lead to her going for something else.