Next week is the election for the next Pope. There are 135 eligible Cardinal electors, but with two unable to travel to Rome due to health, the conclave size will be 133 electors.
4% (5) appointed by John Paul II.
15% (20) appointed by Benedict XVI.
81% (108) were appointed by Francis.
It takes a two-thirds vote, (or 89 votes) to select the next Pope. With the outsized number of Cardinals created by Francis, it's likely any archconservative wanting to rollback Francis' efforts will get blocked by the two-thirds requirement. So the next Pope likely will be a centristist or center-left. We'll see.
Albo did a smart thing, he pointed out that there was inflation due to COVID shocks and the war in America, Europe and every other nation which he couldn't possibly have caused. But Americans are too stupid to understand this even if Harris repeated this point.
As in Canada, a lot has to do with the reaction to Trump:
It's quite a remarkable turnaround from the start of the year, when polling put PM Anthony Albanese's popularity at record lows after three years of global economic pain, tense national debate, and growing government dissatisfaction.
I strongly disagree. If anyone except Poilievre was leading the Conservatives, they would be in power right now. In Canada, it isn’t like America, no matter how much the Conservative hardcore base wants it to be. Kindness, respect, compassion for others and working together are things all Canadians from left to most of the right value. In person it’s a near universal set of values we share, less so online. And we HATE blowhard braggarts, especially ones who sound exactly like the bully in the White House. Poilievre is what lost them the 2025 election, himself alone with his “Canada First” campaign.
How can I be so sure? Easy. Look at opinion polls of Canadians on the current economy taken during the campaign. They blame the Liberals for inflation, for the lack of affordable housing, for the rising crime in certain suburban areas. Majority after majority said they wanted change from the Trudeau government. They liked the Conservatives party platform. The Liberals never should have had a chance with such daunting opposition.
What was the 1 and only stat from Canadians that went against the Conservatives specifically? Poilievre’s “likability” deficit. He never once got a positive approval ratings from voters. That’s what sealed his party’s fate. Don’t believe me? Ask Conservative MP’s themselves:
Ahmar Khan
@AhmarSKhan
Robert Fife on CBC’s Power and Politics re: Conservative MPs feelings about Pierre Poilievre.
“MPs have told me that they found it really difficult going door-to-door because a lot of people were saying ‘we some of the policies you’re doing, but we think your leader is a dick’.”
Erin O’Toole would be PM right now, so would Doug Ford, Tim Houston or any other prominent Conservative that isn’t Poilievre (or even a backbencher for that matter). Canadian voters voted for Conservatives in unprecedented numbers because they couldn’t handle the problems with the economy in the country. They voted for Liberals to make sure Poilievre specifically wouldn’t be PM.
He did not create a massive pro-Conservative party vote gain, although he succeeded doing some of that. What he did was ride an anti-current situation vote, people who were done with the party in charge because they didn’t like the economy and would vote Conservative no matter what to get the Liberals out.
In fact the only Conservative who underperformed was Poilievre himself, losing his seat, while his party gained a bunch of seats. Can’t be any much clearer of a message voters send than that.
O’Toole and Houston may be PM now because they are less right-wing than Polieivre. It was his ideology more than his personality that did him in. Trump
A follow up to a comment I posted last week. The Palm Beach County DEC did not implode Thursday night. The resolution to split the county and purge all committee people over 65 was withdrawn. The malcontents behind the resolution are probably plotting their next move.
One thing you learn from being a lifelong Boston sports fan is to NEVER declare "game/series won" until it is won. It annoyed this Kopite to no end that people were declaring that my guys had the Premier League Title won until it was actually won.
GA-Sen, Punchbowl News did a great break down of how Ossoff and Kemp are approaching Trump in potential campaigns. This part though emphasizes what I've been talking about the dilemma Kemp faces if he were to jump in:
If Kemp jumps in the race, questions will only intensify about whether he approves of Trump’s actions. To win, Kemp — who can’t run for governor in 2026 due to term limits — will need to unite a coalition of Trump supporters and moderate Republicans. Kemp’s team didn’t respond to requests for comment.
I think we all know that "moderate Republicans" just means Never Trump Republicans these days. Punchbowl does highlight how Trump and Kemp have made up but Kemp's strategy is to just stay silent about Trump and how DOGE has really been hurting Georgia while Ossoff highlights the damage he's doing. Now Kemp might be staying quiet now because he hasn't made a decision on what he's going to do but it highlights how he risks losing that crossover appeal that helped him secure a second term.
I really really don't understand how the minds of these crossover moderates work? Do they think Kemp will be some centrist in the Senate and do any better job than Greene? Their voting records won't differ much. Ossoff has a diametrically opposite voting record.
The sad thing is, in America, voters don’t pay attention to how a politician actually votes, they only do to what the politician says. If they sound moderate, they think they are moderate. That’s how Republicans keep getting elected with voting records similar to MTG and Boebert in Democratic won districts. I don’t like how it is, but that’s the truth and Kemp would be an extremely difficult opponent for Ossoff. I really hope he does pass because Georgia is not blue yet.
In addition to this: it's not even so much what the politician says, but how they say it. Republicans who speak in a calm, boring way style that use friendlier euphemisms for their policies will be perceived as moderate. Even if the actual policies are 100% identical.
In his first election back in 2002, Brian Kemp unseated Democratic Georgia State Senator Doug Haines in the 46th District. However, in the 2000’s Kemp like many Republicans had more freedom to be themselves and not be beholden to Trump. If Kemp is to unseat Senator Jon Ossoff, I am not sure he would have the same kind of success as he did in defeating Haines back in 2002.
In being elected twice to be Secretary of State and Governor, Kemp did not face any incumbent Democrat. He could be a more credible opponent to Ossoff but all I can see is that he’d make Ossoff’s margin of victory closer than it was before (he’s no Herschel Walker).
It’s why I’m done with Rep Omar in MN-5. When Trump got rid of USAID, she posts on social media that we’ll fix this with legislation she introduced to create a Dept of Peace. How fucking tone deaf is she? We don’t need hippy dippy feel good legislation that will never pass, we need solutions and we need to fight.
She could be replaced with someone who votes exactly like her but they make it look good.
And now I’m reminded I have to bite the bullet and vote for Mayor Frey this year. Ugh. I never liked the guy or his political rise as it was extremely opportunistic. A straight white man becoming a politician bc he used the LGBTQ+ community annoys the shit out of me. But, anything to beat the socialists. Everyone is technically a socialist but most of us aren’t stupid enough to call ourselves one. And now, Minneapolis politics is being overrun by dumb fuck socialists.
I am receptive to the goals of the Department of Peace but we already have the State Department. I don't see why we can't reorient it to be more peace driven than just simply starting a new department.
That said, we already have the U.S. Institute of Peace.
FYI, it should be pointed out that the Department of Peace has been a proposal over a decade by progressives and even the Green Party. This isn't unique to what Ilhan Omar had proposed.
However, it's better to talk about proposals like this when Democrats have power in Congress AND the White House. Right now, it's distracting.
I haven’t heard of a Dept of Peace since back when I was a college student majoring in Justice and Peace studies. That’s an actual degree and I dualed it with Poli Sci. The friends I met. Love em, gave them keggers and wops. Ooooo I’ll never forget this one guy who said he voted Green in 2008 bc why not? I was like you’ve been to my house and I gave you alcohol? And we got a life size Obama cardboard cut-out watching us as you say this?
Anywho, I’m an OG Obama college kid. I bought a life size cardboard cut-out of him bc I saw it at the Mall of America. I would bring it to my College Dem meetings or terrorize my roommates.
“Ahhhhhh, there is a man in my room!!” Oh it’s Barack Obama, FUCK YOU Andrew!!!! 🤣🤣🤣
That's exactly the problem and something too many Democrats ignore to our peril. Rightly or wrongly, to the majority of Americans, unless the Republican politician actually says the words "I hate Blacks" or uses the N word, they aren't going to be seen by the majority of people as racists.
Not just that. The reality is that the USA of 2025 is less racist than the USA of 1965. When far left lunatics insist that it is "exactly the same" if not worse now than then, it hurts the Democratic Party's image and flies in the face of reality and perception. Including and in many cases ESPECIALLY with many minority voters.
I think we should listen to Black people about this. Not a single one of my Black friends was surprised Trump won in 2016; in fact, they predicted it, because they deal with racism every fucking day and know how racist white people are. And we all know that since the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts passed, a majority of white voters have voted Republican for president every fucking time. So if the U.S. is less racist, is it because there are fewer whites or because whites are less racist?
As Morgan Freeman said it best regarding racism, "Don't talk about it."
Yes, if racism comes up sure. However, when the discussion is about "racism is everywhere" and that clouds the discussion of everything, then more people not on this side of the issue are going to be turned off.
This particularly applies to Asians, who like Caucasians represent key demographics that are looking for basic, essential issues to be addressed. I myself believe in combating racism but it should be done productively, not having to get distracted over saying "everything is racism" when it really isn't.
I’d say Kemp is going to have a difficult position of running his Senate campaign.
If he challenged Raphael Warnock back in 2022, he’d have a higher probability of winning. Nowadays, Kemp runs the risk of becoming the next David Perdue if he’s not careful. He won re-election as Governor back in 2022 in part because he was seen as more sane compared to Trump back then.
If he wants the POTUS track, he comes from a much stronger position as an ex-Governor in 28 when Trump will likely be at W Bush 2008 levels of popularity than a sitting Senatot forced to take a lot of unpopular votes.
Here in Texas the Secretary of State position is appointed by the governor, which is given out every couple years to one of Abbotts cronies who wants a title, so yes Pablos would be a republican. I'm glad to see all the money Jones spent running for congress paid off for...something.
Can any Texas politicos speak to how school vouchers ended up passing the Texas House? I know Paxton's groups successfully primaried some Reps, but I thought enough had survived to halt passage.
Were the remaining Reps spooked? Did they add a bunch of sweeteners?
GA-Sen, Trump says he would endorse Kemp if he were to run. The rest of the article is about how the NRSC and other GOP campaign arms are all in for sticking by Trump no matter what. It’s pretty typical coverage. Majority of GOP operatives sounding overconfident while a few of them express concerns. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna203544
GOP operatives also said they would make impeachment a campaign issue if Dems were to win the House. It’s amazing how the big lesson they took from the 2006 midterms was “we ran away from the GOP president. We need to run with him!”. That was Brad Schimel’s big strategy in Wisconsin and how did that play out?
It's a damned if they do, damned if they don't scenario. But I'd argue the less-bad option for the party holding the presidency is to stand by their president during midterms.
If they try to run away from the de facto face of their party, voters will by and large still associate the president with the party. In exchange, by running away they will depress the base a bit and signal to the country that there is something sufficiently bad about the president to warrant running away from them in the first place.
Running away is a good choice for candidates in seats that would be competitive even outside of a midterm. Easy example: someone like Collins needs to have distance between her and Trump to have a chance. Unfortunately for us she has a lot of ingrained distance built up over her career.
Dems probably would have done better in 2010 if our candidates didn't create a stampede to create distance between themselves and Obama. Still would have gotten crushed overall, but slightly less crushed.
What are the steps for Dems to start competing in FL. I am interested in the Maria Salazar, Laurel Lee, Aaron Bean, and Anna Paulina Luna seats. could atleast 2/4 be flips in 2026?
Not to mention keeping away politicians who insist and insist and insist on calling themselves "socialists" in ANY form from the Democratic Party. People whose families fled Cuba and Venezuela don't want to hear it.
In a politically intelligent world, the DSA would rebrand itself as the SDA – the "Social Democrats of America". Just to be clear, regardless of their claims otherwise, both Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez are *Social Democrats* – and NOT socialists!
I completely agree with you on strategy, but since Sanders has never made clear what his ultimate goal or in other words, ideal society is, I don't think we know whether he ultimately wants to put the means of production of oligopolistic essential industries in the hands of a government that represents the people. Has AOC ever addressed whether she ultimately wants a society of from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their needs?
Fair enough. Let me express things in a more qualified manner: I have yet to see anything from Bernie or AOC as politicians that indicates they’re proposing concrete steps to implement a socialist society.
Naturally I cannot comment what they’re ultimate dream might be.
It would take an overhaul of the constitution and a system where government controls the economy in order to change the U.S. to a socialist society.
However, what Bernie and AOC are proposing in their agenda has primarily to do with the have and have nots as well as corporations not dictating who gets in power. Lots of synergy with what liberal Democrats have traditionally believed in. If Bernie and AOC's agenda is looked at as going to more of the extreme by those centrist and moderate types, then it's how they're selling it more than anything.
We already have a mixed economy which contains a market economy + social programs in place such as medicare and social security. A universal healthcare system, which will likely be the next real government social program pushed by the Democratic Party in its agenda, has been talked about by Bernie and AOC for a long time but in also citing Canada, UK, etc. as having such a system.
What do you mean a system where the government controls the economy? There is nothing in the constitution that dictates an economic system. All that it states is that people cannot deprived of property without due process and just compensation.
You are correct about everything. Command economies are where countries such as China, Cuba and Russia in the past or present control over their economies more and dictate the amount of supply. This is contingent of their own laws and systems.
However, I am referring to what it would take in order for the U.S. to have to change into a socialist country that the GOP thinks Bernie, AOC and others of their kind are arguing. The remaking of the U.S. Constitution + additional laws in place would need to completely shift the system away from true representative democracy and opportunity in order for a socialist system to be in place. There would need to be other factors such as dismantling current laws that allow a market-based economy. This would enable the U.S. to direct the economy where the government calls the shots as opposed to the citizens doing anything. The notion of all of what I am describing is improbable and not ever going to happen.
Point being, if Bernie and AOC are arguing their views and setting policy proposals, it’s got more to do with strengthening the economy so it works for everyone. They can also argue for how education, healthcare and housing should be human rights. However, any of their actual proposals legislation wise won’t be far off from how Medicare and Social Security were originally introduced.
I'd say that's more of an image and perception problem but whether we're talking about any Democratic Candidate or incumbent in office in FL, Democrats aren't doing a good job at being on the offensive in the state anyway.
Of course, there's also the disillusionment of the state becoming more red because of the influx of more conservative residents. On the other hand, when you have Annette Taddeo, Nikki Fried and Rep. Jared Moskowitz crying uncle over one of President Biden's last remaining decisions to compromise with Cuba over releasing of prisoners which has ZERO to do with appeasing socialism, that's FL Democrats shooting themselves in the foot.
It's primarily Cubans who are imprisoned and that's to do with protesting Cuba's government and how it's oppressing their ability to live and thrive in the country. Not Americans so much.
The Catholic Church and the Vatican have been involved in this for years now.
Oh ok. Dems do need to get better at SFL, but imo there is more growth opportunity in Jax and Tampa area with Bean, APL and Lee seats. They need to convince Charlie Christ to come back and run for his old seat vs APL lol.
Democrats did win the Jacksonville Mayoral Election back in 2023 by electing Donna Deegan so it's still possible. However, they need to do more just elect Mayors.
I don't know about Charlie Crist running for FL-13 again, especially considering it's a R+5 Lean Republican District now. His problem is that he cannot be counted on to stick to a political career path without it catapulting him further up the ladder.
Crist didn't even run for re-election as Governor back in 2010 but he also didn't run for re-election as Attorney General back in 2006. He did get elected to represent FL-13 back in 2016 by unseating David Jolly but then after serving three terms goes back to running for Governor again, a race he lost back in 2014. If he were elected to FL-13, how long would he serve?
Yeah, I think it was a mistake for Crist to run for Governor in 2022 and resign his House seat to focus on the race.
On the other hand, to my understanding FL-13 has moved more to the right since then. It's a Lean Republican District and could be winnable again but Crist would need a strong pull from independents and moderates (not just from Democrats) if he wants to unseat Rep. Anna Paulina Luna.
I disagree, somewhat. I think it has mostly to do with Dems getting smacked with the latin folks, especially in SFL. Cause 2016 Hillary was very close like 3-5 pt race? And since then Dem votes in SFL has been decreasing while the population is increasing. I don’t know if they can be gotten back so I think focusing on Jax and Tampa area would be good.
It was actual 1pt in 2016. HRC actually got the highest % ever for a D in SEFL. Esp with Hispanic voters there.
If you follow Florida counties live turnout, you can see how many registered Rs and Ds and NPAs are voting real time. Throughout Nov 8th 2016, it became obvious that she had a hard time in Florida unless a disproportionate NPAs voting for her. When SEFL reported early votes, for a while it seemed she really could do the unthinkable of a Florida knockout blow.
Then came the massive smack-down around the exurbs around I4, and the two coasts.
The 2016 example is a good example of the problem though.
Clinton lost FL by ~1.5 points while winning the national popular vote by 2 points. Even with her being stronger with hispanic voters, she still lost the state. Then 2018 happens and our candidates fell short again. Nelson did about as well in Miami-Dade and Broward, as HRC, but he still lost. That's despite 2018 being a huge wave year for us nationally; the swing in the house popular vote from 2016 to 2018 is about ten points in our favor.
Our problem with Florida is that even putting up HRC-like numbers with non-whites in the state will still see us lose.
I think 2018 was the biggest L, because the Andrew Gillum is a clown. Someone else, literally anyone wins. Then they got power from there. Their redistricting is very unfair especially in Tampa and Jax area smh.
The issue in 2016 was that while latinos did not move right the midwest transplants did just like their cousins back in Iowa. The fact that Nelson lost in freakin 2018 was a sign that things weren't going good down there. Now every demographic has zoomed right.
Jared Golden couldn’t ask for better news! Except for geriatric MAGA Republicans, even the reddest parts of Maine have long since moved on from Paul "Flintstone" LePage.
When he was governor, I would often listen to interviews with him on NPR or other radio stations. Not once have I heard LePage utter three consecutive sentences without saying something reprehensible, deranged, incomprehensible or truly bizarre.
One less concern for not just ME-02 but the gubernatorial race coming up next year. As Janet Mills is termed out as Governor, this can complicate the GOP's chances at the state level in 2026.
Jets come back from 3-1 down late in the 3rd to win 4-3 in 2OT to eliminate the Blues in 7. The Blues needed 1.6 seconds more to hold on to advance. Our inability to stop a 6 on 5 situation doomed us big time.
Next year, hopefully the Blues respond to this setback with a deeper run. 1.6 seconds away from advancing to a 2nd round, only to be eliminated in 2OT: a real dagger.
I read that, in the Texas primary last Saturday, MAGA candidates for local offices, esp school board, when down big time. I'd love to see more information about the results.
Next week is the election for the next Pope. There are 135 eligible Cardinal electors, but with two unable to travel to Rome due to health, the conclave size will be 133 electors.
4% (5) appointed by John Paul II.
15% (20) appointed by Benedict XVI.
81% (108) were appointed by Francis.
It takes a two-thirds vote, (or 89 votes) to select the next Pope. With the outsized number of Cardinals created by Francis, it's likely any archconservative wanting to rollback Francis' efforts will get blocked by the two-thirds requirement. So the next Pope likely will be a centristist or center-left. We'll see.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_electors_in_the_2025_papal_conclave
I’m hoping for Zuppi.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/02/world/europe/matteo-zuppi-pope-bologna.html
Australia
Labor has won the election and will form government, either in minority or majority, Australia's national broadcaster the ABC has declared.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cevdw14r1mgt
Albo did a smart thing, he pointed out that there was inflation due to COVID shocks and the war in America, Europe and every other nation which he couldn't possibly have caused. But Americans are too stupid to understand this even if Harris repeated this point.
As in Canada, a lot has to do with the reaction to Trump:
It's quite a remarkable turnaround from the start of the year, when polling put PM Anthony Albanese's popularity at record lows after three years of global economic pain, tense national debate, and growing government dissatisfaction.
Poilievre was very unfairly compared to Trump imo, Peter Dutton is closer to him in rhetoric and policies. He lost his seat too.
You think? Poilievre was a convoy supporter, hung out with the typical MAGA cretins, seemed like a fair comparison to Trump style trolling.
He did that to win the party primary and distanced himself from those cretins after that.
Then he deserved to be tarred with pandering to them and being untrustworthy.
The results seem to reflect that. Poilievre's party gained vote share and seats, Dutton's lost both.
That was more because LPC was in a 20pt hole when with Trudeau.
I strongly disagree. If anyone except Poilievre was leading the Conservatives, they would be in power right now. In Canada, it isn’t like America, no matter how much the Conservative hardcore base wants it to be. Kindness, respect, compassion for others and working together are things all Canadians from left to most of the right value. In person it’s a near universal set of values we share, less so online. And we HATE blowhard braggarts, especially ones who sound exactly like the bully in the White House. Poilievre is what lost them the 2025 election, himself alone with his “Canada First” campaign.
How can I be so sure? Easy. Look at opinion polls of Canadians on the current economy taken during the campaign. They blame the Liberals for inflation, for the lack of affordable housing, for the rising crime in certain suburban areas. Majority after majority said they wanted change from the Trudeau government. They liked the Conservatives party platform. The Liberals never should have had a chance with such daunting opposition.
What was the 1 and only stat from Canadians that went against the Conservatives specifically? Poilievre’s “likability” deficit. He never once got a positive approval ratings from voters. That’s what sealed his party’s fate. Don’t believe me? Ask Conservative MP’s themselves:
Ahmar Khan
@AhmarSKhan
Robert Fife on CBC’s Power and Politics re: Conservative MPs feelings about Pierre Poilievre.
“MPs have told me that they found it really difficult going door-to-door because a lot of people were saying ‘we some of the policies you’re doing, but we think your leader is a dick’.”
Erin O’Toole would be PM right now, so would Doug Ford, Tim Houston or any other prominent Conservative that isn’t Poilievre (or even a backbencher for that matter). Canadian voters voted for Conservatives in unprecedented numbers because they couldn’t handle the problems with the economy in the country. They voted for Liberals to make sure Poilievre specifically wouldn’t be PM.
He did not create a massive pro-Conservative party vote gain, although he succeeded doing some of that. What he did was ride an anti-current situation vote, people who were done with the party in charge because they didn’t like the economy and would vote Conservative no matter what to get the Liberals out.
In fact the only Conservative who underperformed was Poilievre himself, losing his seat, while his party gained a bunch of seats. Can’t be any much clearer of a message voters send than that.
The argument is that Dutton is even worse, not that Poilievre is good.
O’Toole and Houston may be PM now because they are less right-wing than Polieivre. It was his ideology more than his personality that did him in. Trump
Curious who will replace Dutton - Andrew Hastie, maybe?
With 60% of the vote, Labor has a more than 2-1 lead in seats.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2025/results?sortBy=latest&searchQuery=&filter=all&selectedRegion=all&selectedParty=all&partyWonBy=all&partyHeldBy=all
That kind of margin for either party is unusual in Australia, isn't it?
Not up enough on Australian electoral history to say.
As counted so far, you need to go back to WWII to find the Labor achieving this kind of two party margin.
The late-count pre-poll votes may change the picture a bit though.
Do you know the last time the Liberals got this degree of electoral success?
Damn, I figured Labor would
Hold on but not by those margins. Did the Teals largely get wiped out?
The Teals seem to hold on well. Maybe even expand one seat.
This is not FPTP. The affluent moderates don’t have to rank Labor first to prevent the Coalition.
A follow up to a comment I posted last week. The Palm Beach County DEC did not implode Thursday night. The resolution to split the county and purge all committee people over 65 was withdrawn. The malcontents behind the resolution are probably plotting their next move.
These people sound as ruthless as the Del Boca Vista condo board...
Phase I or Phase II?
The world may be going to shite, but at least Everton are winning.
(sigh of jinxdom)
One thing you learn from being a lifelong Boston sports fan is to NEVER declare "game/series won" until it is won. It annoyed this Kopite to no end that people were declaring that my guys had the Premier League Title won until it was actually won.
And Arsenal threw away more points, as it blew a 1-0 lead and lost 2-1 at home to Bournemouth.
New Housing in Berkeley Contributing to Drop in Rent?
Apparently so! Although it should be noted that the City of Berkeley is a pro-tenant city whereas San Francisco not as much.
That said, Berkeley is killing it. The leadership of State Senator Jesse Arreguin when he was Mayor has certainly made an impact.
https://www.berkeleyside.org/2025/05/01/berkeley-housing-rent-prices-data
GA-Sen, Punchbowl News did a great break down of how Ossoff and Kemp are approaching Trump in potential campaigns. This part though emphasizes what I've been talking about the dilemma Kemp faces if he were to jump in:
https://punchbowl.news/article/senate/trump-approach-ga-senate-race/
If Kemp jumps in the race, questions will only intensify about whether he approves of Trump’s actions. To win, Kemp — who can’t run for governor in 2026 due to term limits — will need to unite a coalition of Trump supporters and moderate Republicans. Kemp’s team didn’t respond to requests for comment.
I think we all know that "moderate Republicans" just means Never Trump Republicans these days. Punchbowl does highlight how Trump and Kemp have made up but Kemp's strategy is to just stay silent about Trump and how DOGE has really been hurting Georgia while Ossoff highlights the damage he's doing. Now Kemp might be staying quiet now because he hasn't made a decision on what he's going to do but it highlights how he risks losing that crossover appeal that helped him secure a second term.
It was reported that he won't most probably, he's just delaying the decision in his words to make Ossoff squirm.
I really really don't understand how the minds of these crossover moderates work? Do they think Kemp will be some centrist in the Senate and do any better job than Greene? Their voting records won't differ much. Ossoff has a diametrically opposite voting record.
The sad thing is, in America, voters don’t pay attention to how a politician actually votes, they only do to what the politician says. If they sound moderate, they think they are moderate. That’s how Republicans keep getting elected with voting records similar to MTG and Boebert in Democratic won districts. I don’t like how it is, but that’s the truth and Kemp would be an extremely difficult opponent for Ossoff. I really hope he does pass because Georgia is not blue yet.
In addition to this: it's not even so much what the politician says, but how they say it. Republicans who speak in a calm, boring way style that use friendlier euphemisms for their policies will be perceived as moderate. Even if the actual policies are 100% identical.
In his first election back in 2002, Brian Kemp unseated Democratic Georgia State Senator Doug Haines in the 46th District. However, in the 2000’s Kemp like many Republicans had more freedom to be themselves and not be beholden to Trump. If Kemp is to unseat Senator Jon Ossoff, I am not sure he would have the same kind of success as he did in defeating Haines back in 2002.
In being elected twice to be Secretary of State and Governor, Kemp did not face any incumbent Democrat. He could be a more credible opponent to Ossoff but all I can see is that he’d make Ossoff’s margin of victory closer than it was before (he’s no Herschel Walker).
It’s why I’m done with Rep Omar in MN-5. When Trump got rid of USAID, she posts on social media that we’ll fix this with legislation she introduced to create a Dept of Peace. How fucking tone deaf is she? We don’t need hippy dippy feel good legislation that will never pass, we need solutions and we need to fight.
She could be replaced with someone who votes exactly like her but they make it look good.
And now I’m reminded I have to bite the bullet and vote for Mayor Frey this year. Ugh. I never liked the guy or his political rise as it was extremely opportunistic. A straight white man becoming a politician bc he used the LGBTQ+ community annoys the shit out of me. But, anything to beat the socialists. Everyone is technically a socialist but most of us aren’t stupid enough to call ourselves one. And now, Minneapolis politics is being overrun by dumb fuck socialists.
Peace? Horrors.
It’s messaging, honey.
Maybe not -exactly- like she votes, but we basically agree.
There have been some boogers.
I am receptive to the goals of the Department of Peace but we already have the State Department. I don't see why we can't reorient it to be more peace driven than just simply starting a new department.
That said, we already have the U.S. Institute of Peace.
Exactly. It’d make us look good if our SoS did good things.
FYI, it should be pointed out that the Department of Peace has been a proposal over a decade by progressives and even the Green Party. This isn't unique to what Ilhan Omar had proposed.
However, it's better to talk about proposals like this when Democrats have power in Congress AND the White House. Right now, it's distracting.
I haven’t heard of a Dept of Peace since back when I was a college student majoring in Justice and Peace studies. That’s an actual degree and I dualed it with Poli Sci. The friends I met. Love em, gave them keggers and wops. Ooooo I’ll never forget this one guy who said he voted Green in 2008 bc why not? I was like you’ve been to my house and I gave you alcohol? And we got a life size Obama cardboard cut-out watching us as you say this?
Anywho, I’m an OG Obama college kid. I bought a life size cardboard cut-out of him bc I saw it at the Mall of America. I would bring it to my College Dem meetings or terrorize my roommates.
“Ahhhhhh, there is a man in my room!!” Oh it’s Barack Obama, FUCK YOU Andrew!!!! 🤣🤣🤣
I was for John, then Hillary then Obama.
Goes back even further than that. I was in college in the '80s and Jennings Randolph of West Virginia would introduce this bill every year.
That's exactly the problem and something too many Democrats ignore to our peril. Rightly or wrongly, to the majority of Americans, unless the Republican politician actually says the words "I hate Blacks" or uses the N word, they aren't going to be seen by the majority of people as racists.
Because loads of voters are themselves racists and want to discriminate as in the pre-desegregation days and enforce a lack of discussion of it.
Not just that. The reality is that the USA of 2025 is less racist than the USA of 1965. When far left lunatics insist that it is "exactly the same" if not worse now than then, it hurts the Democratic Party's image and flies in the face of reality and perception. Including and in many cases ESPECIALLY with many minority voters.
I think we should listen to Black people about this. Not a single one of my Black friends was surprised Trump won in 2016; in fact, they predicted it, because they deal with racism every fucking day and know how racist white people are. And we all know that since the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts passed, a majority of white voters have voted Republican for president every fucking time. So if the U.S. is less racist, is it because there are fewer whites or because whites are less racist?
As Morgan Freeman said it best regarding racism, "Don't talk about it."
Yes, if racism comes up sure. However, when the discussion is about "racism is everywhere" and that clouds the discussion of everything, then more people not on this side of the issue are going to be turned off.
This particularly applies to Asians, who like Caucasians represent key demographics that are looking for basic, essential issues to be addressed. I myself believe in combating racism but it should be done productively, not having to get distracted over saying "everything is racism" when it really isn't.
I’d say Kemp is going to have a difficult position of running his Senate campaign.
If he challenged Raphael Warnock back in 2022, he’d have a higher probability of winning. Nowadays, Kemp runs the risk of becoming the next David Perdue if he’s not careful. He won re-election as Governor back in 2022 in part because he was seen as more sane compared to Trump back then.
He might legitimately like running for office and not really care if he wins or loses, this is probably his last chance.
If he wants the POTUS track, he comes from a much stronger position as an ex-Governor in 28 when Trump will likely be at W Bush 2008 levels of popularity than a sitting Senatot forced to take a lot of unpopular votes.
You're right, that's probably his best angle. Chris Sununu might have something to say about that, though.
The 2028 Republican primary will be interesting. There hasn't been a seriously contested one since 2016 and the radicals are the establishment now.
“The radicals are the establishment now”. Damn, that statement is going to haunt me. The 2028 GOP primary is gonna be fun/horrifying to watch!
I feel like Kemp would be favored if he ran, but I don't think he'll run-I don't believe he wants to be one of one hundred Senators.
San Antonio Mayor. It's a runoff between Gina Ortiz Jones and Rolando Pablos.
https://sanantonioreport.org/san-antonio-mayor-election-2025-results-runoff-candidates/
Former Air Force Under Secretary Gina Ortiz Jones 27.2%
Former Texas Secretary of State Rolando Pablos: 16.61%
Tech entrepreneur Beto Altamirano 12.05%
Councilwoman Adriana Rocha Garcia (D4) 9.89%
Councilman Manny Pelaez (D8) 7.31%
Councilwoman Melissa Cabello Havrda (D6) 6.66%
Councilman John Courage (D9) 5.56%
Former Councilman Clayton Perry: 5.51%
The runoff may turn into a D v. R affair. A conservative PAC with ties to Greg Abbott has been spending to help Pablos.
https://sanantonioreport.org/greg-abbott-pac-texas-economic-fund-san-antonio-mayors-race/
Here in Texas the Secretary of State position is appointed by the governor, which is given out every couple years to one of Abbotts cronies who wants a title, so yes Pablos would be a republican. I'm glad to see all the money Jones spent running for congress paid off for...something.
Is she a good progressive?
Can any Texas politicos speak to how school vouchers ended up passing the Texas House? I know Paxton's groups successfully primaried some Reps, but I thought enough had survived to halt passage.
Were the remaining Reps spooked? Did they add a bunch of sweeteners?
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/04/17/greg-abbott-school-vouchers-republicans-hardball/
The ongoing destruction of public education in this country is a tragedy.
If only Hillary won and was able to appoint strong pro separation of state and church Justices to the SC.
GA-Sen, Trump says he would endorse Kemp if he were to run. The rest of the article is about how the NRSC and other GOP campaign arms are all in for sticking by Trump no matter what. It’s pretty typical coverage. Majority of GOP operatives sounding overconfident while a few of them express concerns. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna203544
GOP operatives also said they would make impeachment a campaign issue if Dems were to win the House. It’s amazing how the big lesson they took from the 2006 midterms was “we ran away from the GOP president. We need to run with him!”. That was Brad Schimel’s big strategy in Wisconsin and how did that play out?
They ran on impeachment in 2018 and it didn’t save them.
It's a damned if they do, damned if they don't scenario. But I'd argue the less-bad option for the party holding the presidency is to stand by their president during midterms.
If they try to run away from the de facto face of their party, voters will by and large still associate the president with the party. In exchange, by running away they will depress the base a bit and signal to the country that there is something sufficiently bad about the president to warrant running away from them in the first place.
Running away is a good choice for candidates in seats that would be competitive even outside of a midterm. Easy example: someone like Collins needs to have distance between her and Trump to have a chance. Unfortunately for us she has a lot of ingrained distance built up over her career.
Dems probably would have done better in 2010 if our candidates didn't create a stampede to create distance between themselves and Obama. Still would have gotten crushed overall, but slightly less crushed.
I think Dems would have probably held the Illinois senate seat in 2010 had they stood by Obama.
Said that about Sununu in NH and pray it's the same situation!!
What are the steps for Dems to start competing in FL. I am interested in the Maria Salazar, Laurel Lee, Aaron Bean, and Anna Paulina Luna seats. could atleast 2/4 be flips in 2026?
Turning out Democratic voters is the starting point. The past two elections have been abysmal turnout.
FL Democrats cannot win again if this problem isn’t corrected.
Not to mention keeping away politicians who insist and insist and insist on calling themselves "socialists" in ANY form from the Democratic Party. People whose families fled Cuba and Venezuela don't want to hear it.
In a politically intelligent world, the DSA would rebrand itself as the SDA – the "Social Democrats of America". Just to be clear, regardless of their claims otherwise, both Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez are *Social Democrats* – and NOT socialists!
I completely agree with you on strategy, but since Sanders has never made clear what his ultimate goal or in other words, ideal society is, I don't think we know whether he ultimately wants to put the means of production of oligopolistic essential industries in the hands of a government that represents the people. Has AOC ever addressed whether she ultimately wants a society of from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their needs?
Fair enough. Let me express things in a more qualified manner: I have yet to see anything from Bernie or AOC as politicians that indicates they’re proposing concrete steps to implement a socialist society.
Naturally I cannot comment what they’re ultimate dream might be.
It would take an overhaul of the constitution and a system where government controls the economy in order to change the U.S. to a socialist society.
However, what Bernie and AOC are proposing in their agenda has primarily to do with the have and have nots as well as corporations not dictating who gets in power. Lots of synergy with what liberal Democrats have traditionally believed in. If Bernie and AOC's agenda is looked at as going to more of the extreme by those centrist and moderate types, then it's how they're selling it more than anything.
We already have a mixed economy which contains a market economy + social programs in place such as medicare and social security. A universal healthcare system, which will likely be the next real government social program pushed by the Democratic Party in its agenda, has been talked about by Bernie and AOC for a long time but in also citing Canada, UK, etc. as having such a system.
What do you mean a system where the government controls the economy? There is nothing in the constitution that dictates an economic system. All that it states is that people cannot deprived of property without due process and just compensation.
You are correct about everything. Command economies are where countries such as China, Cuba and Russia in the past or present control over their economies more and dictate the amount of supply. This is contingent of their own laws and systems.
However, I am referring to what it would take in order for the U.S. to have to change into a socialist country that the GOP thinks Bernie, AOC and others of their kind are arguing. The remaking of the U.S. Constitution + additional laws in place would need to completely shift the system away from true representative democracy and opportunity in order for a socialist system to be in place. There would need to be other factors such as dismantling current laws that allow a market-based economy. This would enable the U.S. to direct the economy where the government calls the shots as opposed to the citizens doing anything. The notion of all of what I am describing is improbable and not ever going to happen.
Point being, if Bernie and AOC are arguing their views and setting policy proposals, it’s got more to do with strengthening the economy so it works for everyone. They can also argue for how education, healthcare and housing should be human rights. However, any of their actual proposals legislation wise won’t be far off from how Medicare and Social Security were originally introduced.
Do any Democrats who run in Florida call themselves socialists?
I'd say that's more of an image and perception problem but whether we're talking about any Democratic Candidate or incumbent in office in FL, Democrats aren't doing a good job at being on the offensive in the state anyway.
Of course, there's also the disillusionment of the state becoming more red because of the influx of more conservative residents. On the other hand, when you have Annette Taddeo, Nikki Fried and Rep. Jared Moskowitz crying uncle over one of President Biden's last remaining decisions to compromise with Cuba over releasing of prisoners which has ZERO to do with appeasing socialism, that's FL Democrats shooting themselves in the foot.
Could you explain, why does Cuba have American prisoners?
It's primarily Cubans who are imprisoned and that's to do with protesting Cuba's government and how it's oppressing their ability to live and thrive in the country. Not Americans so much.
The Catholic Church and the Vatican have been involved in this for years now.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8edw201jx6o
Oh ok. Dems do need to get better at SFL, but imo there is more growth opportunity in Jax and Tampa area with Bean, APL and Lee seats. They need to convince Charlie Christ to come back and run for his old seat vs APL lol.
Democrats did win the Jacksonville Mayoral Election back in 2023 by electing Donna Deegan so it's still possible. However, they need to do more just elect Mayors.
I don't know about Charlie Crist running for FL-13 again, especially considering it's a R+5 Lean Republican District now. His problem is that he cannot be counted on to stick to a political career path without it catapulting him further up the ladder.
Crist didn't even run for re-election as Governor back in 2010 but he also didn't run for re-election as Attorney General back in 2006. He did get elected to represent FL-13 back in 2016 by unseating David Jolly but then after serving three terms goes back to running for Governor again, a race he lost back in 2014. If he were elected to FL-13, how long would he serve?
I think he would stay there for good, considering he doesnt have any pull statewide at all.
Yeah, I think it was a mistake for Crist to run for Governor in 2022 and resign his House seat to focus on the race.
On the other hand, to my understanding FL-13 has moved more to the right since then. It's a Lean Republican District and could be winnable again but Crist would need a strong pull from independents and moderates (not just from Democrats) if he wants to unseat Rep. Anna Paulina Luna.
Somehow we have been talking about the party losing WWC voters since mid 2010s. Guess which state has the largest WWC voter pool?
I disagree, somewhat. I think it has mostly to do with Dems getting smacked with the latin folks, especially in SFL. Cause 2016 Hillary was very close like 3-5 pt race? And since then Dem votes in SFL has been decreasing while the population is increasing. I don’t know if they can be gotten back so I think focusing on Jax and Tampa area would be good.
It was actual 1pt in 2016. HRC actually got the highest % ever for a D in SEFL. Esp with Hispanic voters there.
If you follow Florida counties live turnout, you can see how many registered Rs and Ds and NPAs are voting real time. Throughout Nov 8th 2016, it became obvious that she had a hard time in Florida unless a disproportionate NPAs voting for her. When SEFL reported early votes, for a while it seemed she really could do the unthinkable of a Florida knockout blow.
Then came the massive smack-down around the exurbs around I4, and the two coasts.
The 2016 example is a good example of the problem though.
Clinton lost FL by ~1.5 points while winning the national popular vote by 2 points. Even with her being stronger with hispanic voters, she still lost the state. Then 2018 happens and our candidates fell short again. Nelson did about as well in Miami-Dade and Broward, as HRC, but he still lost. That's despite 2018 being a huge wave year for us nationally; the swing in the house popular vote from 2016 to 2018 is about ten points in our favor.
Our problem with Florida is that even putting up HRC-like numbers with non-whites in the state will still see us lose.
I think 2018 was the biggest L, because the Andrew Gillum is a clown. Someone else, literally anyone wins. Then they got power from there. Their redistricting is very unfair especially in Tampa and Jax area smh.
The issue in 2016 was that while latinos did not move right the midwest transplants did just like their cousins back in Iowa. The fact that Nelson lost in freakin 2018 was a sign that things weren't going good down there. Now every demographic has zoomed right.
Ohio or Florida?!
Florida.
Florida had 8.5m white active voters registered last Nov. (That is pretty much the full pool of Ohio) Around 2/3 ~ 70% are WWC.
In sheer size of all eligible voters, California and Texas may have more WWC voters. But not necessarily in the actual voters turned out.
https://open.substack.com/pub/mcimaps/p/issue-234-looking-at-2024-partisan?r=3t7cxe&utm_medium=ios
What does the Dem bench look like in FL? Are there any good local officials or state legislators?
https://www.bangordailynews.com/2025/05/04/politics/washington/paul-lepage-plans-to-announce-his-run-for-maine-2nd-congressional-district/
ME-2: Former Governor Paul LePage is in.
Jared Golden couldn’t ask for better news! Except for geriatric MAGA Republicans, even the reddest parts of Maine have long since moved on from Paul "Flintstone" LePage.
When he was governor, I would often listen to interviews with him on NPR or other radio stations. Not once have I heard LePage utter three consecutive sentences without saying something reprehensible, deranged, incomprehensible or truly bizarre.
I still wouldn't put it above them to elect him, but I tend to agree that he should be a good opponent for Golden.
One less concern for not just ME-02 but the gubernatorial race coming up next year. As Janet Mills is termed out as Governor, this can complicate the GOP's chances at the state level in 2026.
Jets come back from 3-1 down late in the 3rd to win 4-3 in 2OT to eliminate the Blues in 7. The Blues needed 1.6 seconds more to hold on to advance. Our inability to stop a 6 on 5 situation doomed us big time.
Next year, hopefully the Blues respond to this setback with a deeper run. 1.6 seconds away from advancing to a 2nd round, only to be eliminated in 2OT: a real dagger.
Canada rules!!
"Our inability to stop a 6 on 5 situation doomed us big time."
Why not blame creating a 6-on-5 situation in the first place? So unnecessary!
The 6-on-5 in reference to the Blues opponents being 6 skaters late in games.
I thought it meant one skater sitting out because of a penalty late in the game. Do I have that wrong?
The 6 skaters refers to a team pulling the goalie.
I read that, in the Texas primary last Saturday, MAGA candidates for local offices, esp school board, when down big time. I'd love to see more information about the results.