Federal Court GRANTS sweeping nationwide injunction against Trump DEI executive orders finding that they violate First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.
“The White House and Attorney General have made clear,” Judge Abelson wrote, that “viewpoints and speech considered to be in favor of or supportive of D.E.I.” are “viewpoints the government wishes to punish and, apparently, attempt to extinguish.”
He continued, “As the Supreme Court has made clear time and time again, the government cannot rely on the ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion’ to suppress disfavored speech.”
I am not jumping to conclusions here just yet but I remember in the lead up to the 2006 midterms that Democrats in Congress from the House to the Senate were being pressured by protestors outside their office to do more to stop Bush & Cheney's agenda on the Iraq War.
There seems to be a similar dynamic happening early on in Trump's 2nd term as POTUS. Although it's very early, this is sounding in a similar way as how Bush Jr's 2nd term ended up becoming - Perhaps worse and more complicated. This could affect the 2026 midterms in perhaps a blue wave election.
Trump's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was the closest to being a Hurricane Katrina for him then. However, that no longer is going to be relevant like it used to be.
Given we're only roughly a month into Trump's 2nd term, it's hard to know where things are going.
Agree and frankly the "something is happening" vibes are giving me major ptsd from the last election so let's revisit once a year has passed. The 2026 midterms are a political eternity away
Something was happening when Harris/Walz took over. As much as I or we may respect Biden, if he'd stayed on through November we'd be in a much deeper hole.
It is of course too early to make any precise 2026 predictions, though from what we've seen it's hard to see how the GOP defies gravity and has a midterm surge. However, we should not treat a blue wave as a given.
The hurricanes blunted a great deal of momentum and then October was a fire hose of distracting bullshit even the Obama ‘12 op would have struggled to break through fully
I disagree. If we are going to win again we need base support somewhere between Obama 08 and Obama 12.
And that's just a base.
The enthusiasm after Harris got in was what we should be seeing every four years as a base. Celebrating enthusiasm for a candidate just means we have been scraping by since 2016, with 2 losses and 1 bare minimum win BTW.
Success going forward means that "somethings happening" needs to be the vibe every election and sadly Democrats are extremely fickle.
Never too early for a prediction. It’s important to check oneself, though, and recognize this is based off of historical trends and not actual poll numbers.
Just because people are pissed at Republicans doesn't mean that will correlate to people enthusiastically voting for Dems. Dem enthusiasm is currently abysmal in our own party....
Democrats are being hounded by protestors to do more when they don’t have the power and the votes to do so.
Back in 2006 when Rep. David Obey was still in office, he dealt with his own constituents being angry about not doing enough on stopping the Iraq (even though Obey himself voted against the 2002 Iraq War Resolution and was anti-war for the most part). Obey explained to them Democrats don’t have the votes. Dynamics are similar here.
Democratic enthusiasm is abysmal? We are still winning plenty of the special elections since last year's presidential election.
Poor approval of congressional Democrats among Dems and reachable independents may well be made up for by anger at Republicans.
"We're not the people in power screwing things up" may itself be enough for the midterms, but we'll need a more positive message and messenger to regain the WH. Of course, a strong midterm and oppositional stance may well improve views of the Democratic party anyway as we move farther from 2024 and toward 2026/28.
DNC Chair Ken Martin is right now working to get the Democratic Party to being more centralized on being a pro-labor party. That's one avenue that's being paid attention to but I don't think it will be the only part of the agenda heading to the 2025 off year elections and 2026 midterms.
Being pro-union has been pro-labor for the Democratic Party for ages. Martin's been talking to unions in PA about returning to the Democratic Party's roots with unions.
I'm pretty sure this means Democrats aren't going to be wishy-washy if Martin is doing what he's doing as DNC Chair.
So not changing anything? Biden and the party under him were pro union has hell and it didn't play out very well. Being pro labor has to mean more than catering to a small slice of the electorate.
I'm not sure if this ties in to what you're talking about but Kamala Harris ended up pissing off the Teamsters President when the Teamsters wasn't going to endorsement any 2024 presidential candidate out of concern that union members were divided in support of Trump (not all but a considerable portion). Harris ended up saying she would win with or without the Teamsters support, which showed her to be arrogant in the eyes of the Teamsters President.
This illustrates that union members aren't completely unanimous in support for Democrats. That means the Democratic Party can no longer be comfortable in its union member base.
Ken Martin went out in Pittsburgh and got quite an unfiltered view about how things are for union Steelworkers. In this case, I believe he's listening to how Democrats need to be pro-labor, not just pro-union as you mentioned.
Martin approached the Steelworkers, shook everyone’s hand, and said, “Give me the good, bad or the ugly. Tell me, how are things here in Pittsburgh?”
Those at the table joked about the weather (it was minus 175 degrees outside, or at least felt like it) and mentioned the difficulties and frustrations of fighting for working people in the Trump era. Then Martin acknowledged the Democratic Party’s stumbles.
“Too many people right now feel like our party has forgotten them, that they have been left behind,” he said. “They’re working their asses off, and they can’t get ahead, and that’s what we have to really recognize. My brother who’s a union carpenter, he voted for Democrats his whole life. And then in ’16, and ’20 and ’24, he voted for Trump. My father-in-law, who’s a beef cattle farmer in southern Minnesota — same deal.
“We’re losing working people in a way that” — then, Martin paused — “it’s really quite frustrating to me, because, at the core, the Democratic Party has always stood with working people. We have stood behind the American dream, that if you work hard and you play by the rules you should be able to climb the economic ladder.”
Martin noted a recent poll that said, for the first time in history, public perceptions of the two major political parties have shifted. People believe the Republican Party best represents the interests of working-class people and the poor, he said. The Democrats now are considered the party of the wealthy and elite.
"Too many people right now feel like our party has forgotten them, that they have been left behind,” he said.
And they're wrong, and thinking the Republicans best represent the interests of the working class and the poor isn't about workers' rights, and we ought to at long last see that!
Yes although Trump capitalized on the infighting that Democrats in Congress and unions had with the TPP which President Obama and his administration were pushing at the time. He ended up framing the Democratic Party as the party that was being hypocritical towards unions and he consistently was against the TPP from the outset (even effectively ended it with one of his first few executive orders). Even Hillary Clinton eventually coming out against the TPP didn't stop the tide of Trump's framing.
I truly don't understand what you're getting at. How is it an advantage for any worker not to be a union member? I'm not, but that's only because the Musician's Union is weak, and after getting so few union jobs for years, I couldn't justify the expense of paying dues. But workers' rights are workers' rights, and how does fighting for them mean just "catering to a small slice of the electorate"?
That's not what I am getting at. I'm a huge union supporter. My grandfather was a big union organizer back in the 30's and 40's. What I am getting at is that,
1) This is no shift at all. Democrats have been the pro-union party forever and Republicans have been the anti-union party forever. It doesn't make any sense to say that focusing on unions is new for the party.
2) There are many people who labor who are not part of a union. Unions only make up a small part of the country. People who are not in unions mostly don't care about unions or have negative view of them. For example, the vast majority of people who post on left leaning sites, myself included, would probably have some interesting things to say about Police Unions. Focusing on unions does very little to capture the laborers outside of unions.
On that argument you just made regarding the example of police unions, being pro-union doesn't mean you have to blindly accept everything unions do.
Costco union workers did raise awareness to Costco about a $30/hour salary and they got what they bargained for. Of course, Costco also listened because they have a good history of being a very ethical and pro-worker company. That's an example of what I praise unions for doing.
However, if it's about being all powerful and arrogant, then union leaders do need to be held accountable.
Continuing, sort of stream of consciousness here, to be more broadly pro-labor, I think Democrats need to be more vocally supportive of non-union workers.
Why don't we hear more Democrats denouncing self-driving cars? These things are dangerous and designed to put millions of people out of work. Taxi drivers and truckers vote.
Why aren't more Democrats attacking self-service checkouts at grocery stores and cvs, etc? It's putting workers out of jobs and most customers don't actually like them.
When there was that lawsuit against real estate agents last year (who make up 1-2 million people in this country) why did Biden basically tell a huge group of independent contractors and small business owners that they needed to charge less money (the average agent basically earns at the poverty line and has no benefits)? Was it good worker politics to spit in 2 million faces?
How many democrats talk up support for freelancers, who make up something like 70 million people in this country?
FYI, just so you're aware, not all self-service checkouts at grocery stores are putting people out of work. Maybe Amazon Fresh but at the Safeway near me in Berkeley, there are lots of Safeway workers and plenty of them still operate as cashiers (same with Andronico's), work at the deli, in-store Starbucks stand, stocking shelves and even behind the fish counter. Plenty of them have been working at the same location for years.
In fact, the State of California has been limiting purchases of items at self-checkout stores to 15 or less as well as no alcohol being purchased. This actually drives more people to go to the regular checkout counter.
That said, support for non-union workers is a good idea. Same goes for people who work at tech companies and corporations.
Democrats should always be pro-labor. That's basic fairness and I'd like it to be a central part of the party's moral core. However, we can't expect white workers to choose the Democrats over bigotry, ignorance and misinformation just because the Democrats do the right thing.
Yes, agreed although economic anxiety and instability can adversely affect white workers' psychology to the extent where they can vent off at non-white workers. Not defending them but it's much easier to address the issues of biogotry, ignorance and misinformation when white union workers are benefitting economically.
Competition for jobs has triggered white race riots repeatedly in U.S. history, if that's what you're getting at, but most recently, they led to Obama being elected in 2008. Do you really think white workers blamed Black people for inflation, and that's why they voted to destroy the country instead of electing a Black/Asian woman?
When economic problems get to be more complicated for white union workers, then they can get more vulnerable for manipulation by carnival barkers like Trump.
This is the oft ignored crutch of the issue right here.
The big takeaway we have after every election we lose is that we do not talk about the economy enough, that we talk too much about social issues. I think that's an emotional rather than logical rationalization on our (democrats at large) part: we want the answer to be that we need to talk about the economy more, because that's a subject that largely animates us and connects the various corners of our big tent.
Harris and HRC avoided social issues and talked economic issues every chance the could. So did Biden, both as a candidate and as president.
The American electorate wants to hear about social issues. Maybe they don't want to hear what we want to say about them (that's a complex discussion in and of itself!) but it's very much one of the driving and animating issues of this political era in a way that "pocketbook issues" are not.
I could say a lot about this but I think I would simplify it down to: we might be best served by selling economic issues in the style of social issues. Don't talk up a seven point plan to increase GDP growth by 0.3 points per year which will [...]. Talk about how the economic elite are looting the country and keeping YOUR wages down. Don't even make it an issue of fairness, make it an issue of how it hurts YOU, the listener. And fucking sound angry when talking about it for once.
In the last election the GOP talked constantly about Trans people and migrants but I never heard Kamala Harris talk about those issues once. However, she was burdened with being part of the incumbent administration and trying to talk economic policy when most people were unhappy with the economy and wanted change. It was an impossible position and it was why incumbent parties have lost almost every election since Covid ended.
Biden sounded angry when he blasted big businesses for gouging. As I recall, Harris talked about that, too. So your points are good, but part of the problem is that it's hard for Democratic points to get through this media and the amount of ignorance, misinformation and prejudice among the American people today.
The media environment is absolutely a huge obstacle. One that we cannot ignore and will take sustained and not-insignificant effort to chip away at. I don't know how much, if any, better we can expect this one to get. I get the feeling that the ownership class for large media institutions has largely concluded that 2024 was the time to give up with putting their thumbs on the scale: they went with bricks on the scale instead. Once they go that far, there's not much incentive to reverse course.
I think the example is maybe a case in point in a way. Biden et al need to be talking like that constantly, not just now and then. One of my other points I've had in my head is that our messaging is too inconsistent, we change it too easily and too often.
I don't have the same fondness for Sanders that most other people as far left as me have, but this is something he gets very right. I expect a lot of his popularity comes down to people liking that he *always* sounds angry when he's talking about politics.
Yes, absolutely. I'm not saying Sanders is the ideal that our candidates should aspire to, but that there is a benefit from sounding angry, putting some intensity into dialogue with voters. The reality is going to be some balance, where they don't sound angry about everything but also where they are angry often enough to cause normal voters to bring out the "authenticity" label, which they seem to only reserve for that type of speaker.
Without getting into forbidden territory, I always found Bernie's style of shouty finger wagging to be rather unappealing even when I liked the general thrust of his ideas, and with all respect to self-identified socialists, I was and still am dubious that someone who explicitly identifies as such can really win a national presidential election.
The Democrats always have a positive message of progress and helping people. It's effective when a majority of Americans see how badly a Republican president has fucked things up.
That's a good point. Not being dismissive of what Clinton, Obama and Biden have done for progress as POTUS but they did capitalize on where things were for the U.S. that needed mending. When they've controlled the White House though, Democrats have traditionally in the last several decades never really seen a true blue wave in the first midterms.
Bush Jr and Trump both have had problems as POTUS that screwed the U.S. although Bush Sr back in 1992 was perceived as more aloof and didn't exactly screw things up. The 1991 Gulf War was not a boondoggle and had a stronger multi-lateral coalition than the 2003 Iraq War did.
It was Bush Sr's administration though that sent NAFTA to President Clinton.
They don’t need power or votes to engage in a coordinated, sustained and forceful attack on Trump and Musk. A couple of back benchers have, but no one in what passes for leadership.
I'm not sure congressional approval is an accurate barometer of anything . . .GOP congressional approval is pretty consistently terrible regardless of whether they do well or not. The GCB will be the measure to look at.
Sure, Democratic voters want Democratic politicians to "do more". But it’s not just a question of power, which Dems currently don’t have. "Doing more" includes being louder, controlling the narrative, not allowing Trump and his chaos to steal all the oxygen in media cycle after media cycle.
In this respect, we are seeing some improvements from those Democratic politicians that realize the nature of their challenge – but there is a helluva lot more that can be done!
We’ll see. I’m impressed so far with just how disorganized that effort has been considering it’s the first order domestic policy priority for the party
The tax bill will pass and the GOP will wear it like a badge of honor for lowering taxes. Much of the tax cuts are just continuing current ones so it being a political albatross seems unlikely.
With Hegseth in charge of DoD, all eyes should be on our military and what insane orders Trump tries to carry out. Invading Gaza would certainly cause a stir. Who in the fuck wants to go back to the Middle East?!?
A great singer, and Democratic politician, Jerry Butler, “The Iceman,” has passed.
Mr. Butler enjoyed his highest pop chart position in 1968 with “Only the Strong Survive,” which reached No. 4 on the pop chart and No. 1 on the R&B list. In all, more than a dozen of his songs reached Billboard’s R&B Top 10 (three of which went all the way to No. 1). Just as many made it to Billboard’s Top 40 pop list.
Mr. Butler also made a splash, although a smaller one, in politics. In 1985, he was elected as a Democrat to the board of commissioners for Cook County, which encompasses Chicago. He would hold that position for more than three decades before retiring in 2018.
It now looks like Austria will finally have a new government – a centrist coalition. "Austria's conservative People's Party (ÖVP) and Social Democrats (SPÖ) said on Friday they had widened their talks aimed at forming a coalition government to include the small, liberal Neos Party so as to have a solid majority in parliament."
The sane, mainstream political parties are thus set to keep the extreme right-wingers out of power. Although winning the biggest single block in September’s parliamentary elections, Herbert Kickl and his FPÖ, the so-called "Freedom Party", failed in their repeated attempts to build a governing coalition.
OVP and FPO were originally in talks for a coalition, but talks broke down. Sounded like it was largely personal issues between their two leaders, so we came scarily close. They had formed a coalition together after the 2017 elections (which fell apart in 2019 after a video leaked showing FPO was compromised by Russia), so the FPO-in-government dam has sadly already been breached.
What will Germany choose? That is the foremost question on my mind on the eve of tomorrow’s parliamentary elections in Europe’s most populous country. (No, I’m not counting Russia, albeit larger, as "European".)
Like most readers of The DownBallot, I am sincerely hoping German voters will ignore Elon Musk’s embrace and promotion of the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland), which many consider a proto-Neo-Nazi party.
According to polls, Friedrich Merz, leader of the opposition CDU/CS, is likely to replace Olaf Scholz as German Chancellor. Merz has campaigned on "standing up to Trump". Importantly, if he’s victorious, I am hoping that Merz does not grant the AfD any influence on government policy.
If the polls are right, there is a chance that the CDU and SDP will have enough seats between them to form a majority. The BSW and the FD are on the cusp of 5%. The Linke is at 8% and could close to double their seat count.
I don't think they deviate from other mainstream parties in not supporting Ukrainian membership in NATO now, but they support aid to Ukraine much more strongly than the SPD and have pushed to send Taurus missiles to them. They are very strong on security. I don't know what their position is on Ukrainian membership in the EU, but let's be honest that a poor country that's been severely damaged in an ongoing war is not ready to join the EU. NATO is a different question, as Ukraine would have one of the most powerful militaries in the alliance and is of course battle-tested.
I am curious if the angry town halls across the country (like the one with that R idiot from Georgia) plus the protests are indicative of a bigger down ballot swing than The Cook Report can predict for next year.
I want voters to take that same energy to the polls that they’re showing at town halls and public protests.
Town hall energy hasn't been seen in this manner since the Tea Party of 2009/2010. Good sign for Democrats.
Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Georgia) is a heartless asshole, who has the nerve to call himself a doctor. Regarding free school meals for public school kids, he suggested them "earning it", aka child labor. A shocking upset in a "safe seat" isn't impossible, is it?! Carolyn Bordeaux should run again!! 💙🇺🇲
Anyone remember how Obamacare opposition started bc of town halls? The media covering angry people begets more angry people. This might be too soon and too general of protests but everyone seems ready to go once the GOP starts
I see a lot of nonsense “buy nothing days” which is stupid and silly. I usually don’t buy anything most days already. Doing nothing will do nothing.
Not too soon. And it’s up to the people because if you expect that kind of fight out of Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries or the rest of the Democratic congressional leadership, you’re going to be waiting a long time.
Sad news. He did his best to push the Catholic Church to be a more opening and accepting place. I left the church long ago but my extended family would be considered old school JFK Democrats. I can’t wait to visit my grandpa in FL in a month. He’s going to talk so much shit about Trump.
Apropos unions (not sure where to put this), apparently only approx. 9–10% of the American workforce is unionized. As a result, unions have very limited power to influence overall policy in the US. Compare:
"The Nordic countries continue to have the highest union density in the world. In 2016, of all blue and white-collar workers, membership of trade unions amounted to 52% in Norway, 65% in Finland, 84% in Iceland, 66% in Sweden, and 67% in Denmark."
On the note of unions, the way we as a society interpret "union worker" is more of an anachronism than anything. You ask people to imagine that, they're going to imagine a young to middle aged white man working a construction or manufacturing job, or something similar that does not require higher education.
There are 14-16m people working in a union in the US. Of those, 1.6m are in natural resources or construction and another 2.3m in production or transportation. That is to say, the presumed image of a union worker adds up to about 4m people, or less than a third of actual union membership. The remainder are people working in "professional" or service fields, especially healthcare and education. About half of all union members work for some level of government, be it local, state, or federal.
The average union member is nothing like our standard depiction. A librarian is more representative of the average union member than a construction worker is.
When I hear "union member" I imagine ... potentially just about anybody who is not in upper management or a company owner. But then again, I am a Scandinavian. Which I suppose is why I also have another anachronism: insisting that American election turnout is absolutely dismal, even the 67% of the 2020 Presidential Election. (a few individual states e.g. Minnesota excepted)
EDIT: Your link leads to fascinating data, but what I couldn’t find in that table was the overall percentage of American union membership / union representation.
It’s considered 50/50 but I like our odds better. Our new coalition of college educated voters in cities and suburbs are the type who show up for every election. And, we’re fucking pissed.
"[Friedrich Merz] is arguably best known for his suggestion in the early 2000s that German tax rules be drastically reduced so that they fit on the back of a beer coaster."
Such an irritating but iconic modern day politician. I wonder what she really thought. I remember reading in some article a long time ago she was going to vote for Obamacare and McConnell scared her off from it. He wanted no bipartisanship.
To be fair to Collins, she did vote against repeal of it, and her vote was crucial as was McCain's--and Murkowski's, who particularly deserves some credit given the red lean of her state.
All the (relatively) better republicans have been getting scared off by the newer batches of worse republicans for as long as I’ve been alive.
Collins is an impressive example of pretending to be better without ever having to deliver on that in a meaningful way.
I bet she was the most pissed off republican in the room when McCain did his surprise nay vote on Obamacare repeal. It’s the only instance I can think of where her vote contrary to other republicans was decisive, and I cannot imagine she meant for that outcome.
A lot rests on that 5 percent threshold. If neither make it, CDU and SPD is likely a majority, and this is the most stable coalition. If both make it, CDU and SPD need another party (Greens or FDP). If only one makes it, it's close. BSW making it would increase instability for this reason.
Yikes! Looking at the seat projections, if neither the FDP or BSW make it, and CDU/SPD combined aren't a majority of seats, Merz is going to have all sorts of trouble forming a coalition.
If neither of those make it, though, I think CDU/SPD combined should be a majority. That's the seat projection (second link) and it makes sense given that they'd be just over half of non-wasted votes.
In that scenario, you'd see either CDU-SPD-FDP or CDU-SPD-Green. CDU-SPD-Green would be somewhat unstable. That's why I say that the real worst case might be BSW making it and FDP missing out - it would be close whether CDU-SPD would be a majority, and if not, CDU-SPD-Green is likely forced.
"Among men, CDU/CSU came first at 30%, AfD second at 23%, and SDP third at 15%, closely followed by Greens at 12% and Die Linke at 7%.
"But among women, CDU/CSU got only 27%, and SDP was tied up with the AFD in second, both at 17%. Greens came fourth at 14%, with Die Linke at very high 10% in fifth."
The AfD gained in the youth vote, but the big winner there was Die Linke.
“AfD gained the most from mobilising non-voters as well as the centre-right. At the end, the AfD losses to the also populist BSW were minimal. On the other side of the spectrum, Die Linke won more voters from the centre-left and non-voters than it lost to BSW.
Also interesting are these numbers posted by Kate Connolly, Berlin correspondenf for The Guardian about the loss/win of votes between the three major parties:
"According to initial analysis, the CDU gained 1.8 million voters from the SPD, 1.3 million from the FDP, as well as securing the votes 1.5 million people who had previously never voted.
"In turn, the CDU lost 830,000 voters to the AfD."
Worldwide push over last 25 years to gut the humanities/history in schooling along with people getting their (dis)info online and not legit news sources.
Right, but I'm still a bit skeptical that the younger generation is so extremist worldwide. We saw some of that among young men in the U.S., but not so much among young women, right? Are young Israelis more right-wing than older Israelis? It would be interesting to see a country-by-country rundown.
Will they make it or not? Sahra Wagenknecht's BSW has been in circling around the 5% threshold all evening. These national elections are a first for the party that was founded in January 2024.
While the BSW did briefly jump over the 5% barrier earlier, according to BILD, they currently stand at 4.982%.
The federal returning officer is counting the votes and updating numbers almost by the minute. Currently, 251 out of Germany's 299 constituencies have been counted.
The turnout in today’s German Bundestag elections was 83%, according to ZDF. That is almost 20% higher than turnout in America’s 2024 Presidential Elections!
Also every vote does matter in Germany due to their MMP system. A lot easier to encourage voting if your vote matters regardless of where you live in the country.
How many democrats in Tennessee or republicans in Massachusetts decide to stay home because they feel their vote doesn’t matter? For that matter, how many republicans in Tennessee and democrats in Massachusetts stay home for that reason?
I believe it is Mixed-Member Proportional, referring to the combination of direct constituency elections with national party list elections. The final composition of the Bundestag comes from both
It's a huge irony that former East Germany has been the biggest supporter of neo-Nazism. It says a lot about which type of government during the Cold War was better at eradicating national socialism.
Not ironic at all. Saxony was the Nazis' political base in the 30s, and those East Germans who don't miss the GDR and vote for Die Linke in many instances support the party that was held up as the big enemy of socialism under the GDR. In other words, they support everything that was held up as forbidden and the opposite of the GDR.
Were expelled Germans from Danzig and Ostpreusen resettled in East Germany? I know it was almost 80 years ago, but they were probably the most reactionary Germans.
Maybe? I’d always thought a lot of the Ostflucht descendants would up in the West but that may have been more those from Czechoslovakia and the Danube basin, since they were more proximate to Bavaria
Yeah, I think they were resettled all over. A friend of mine who grew up in two Bavarian villages was the last child (b. 1946) of parents who were expelled from the Sudentenland, where they had owned a big farm.
“I would have never thought I would need to say something like this on television, but after Donald Trump’s statements last week, it is clear: this American government doesn’t care for Europe.”
– Friedrich Merz, leader of CDU/CSU in post-election panel of party leaders
Federal Court GRANTS sweeping nationwide injunction against Trump DEI executive orders finding that they violate First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.
https://bsky.app/profile/marcelias.bsky.social/post/3lipy2klkcc2o
Good. Make them fight for every inch of their shitty agenda in court
“The White House and Attorney General have made clear,” Judge Abelson wrote, that “viewpoints and speech considered to be in favor of or supportive of D.E.I.” are “viewpoints the government wishes to punish and, apparently, attempt to extinguish.”
He continued, “As the Supreme Court has made clear time and time again, the government cannot rely on the ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion’ to suppress disfavored speech.”
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/02/21/us/trump-news/the-judges-ruling-temporarily-halts-any-stoppage-on-federal-diversity-initiatives?smid=url-share
2006 midterms vs. 2026 midterms
I am not jumping to conclusions here just yet but I remember in the lead up to the 2006 midterms that Democrats in Congress from the House to the Senate were being pressured by protestors outside their office to do more to stop Bush & Cheney's agenda on the Iraq War.
There seems to be a similar dynamic happening early on in Trump's 2nd term as POTUS. Although it's very early, this is sounding in a similar way as how Bush Jr's 2nd term ended up becoming - Perhaps worse and more complicated. This could affect the 2026 midterms in perhaps a blue wave election.
Any thoughts?
previously said I expect 20+ House seat Dem pick up
The big question then is what would be Orange Slob's equivalent of Hurricane Katrina?
Trump's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was the closest to being a Hurricane Katrina for him then. However, that no longer is going to be relevant like it used to be.
Given we're only roughly a month into Trump's 2nd term, it's hard to know where things are going.
His handling of the pandemic was way worse than Katrina. Hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
Yes, true.
"Weaponized incompetence" should be part of the message.
Whereas now we keep hoping for "incompetent weaponization".
Way too early to get into numbers.
Agree and frankly the "something is happening" vibes are giving me major ptsd from the last election so let's revisit once a year has passed. The 2026 midterms are a political eternity away
Something was happening when Harris/Walz took over. As much as I or we may respect Biden, if he'd stayed on through November we'd be in a much deeper hole.
It is of course too early to make any precise 2026 predictions, though from what we've seen it's hard to see how the GOP defies gravity and has a midterm surge. However, we should not treat a blue wave as a given.
I think something "was" happening but it lost steam over the ensuing 2 months, for a variety of reasons that have been hammered to death.
The hurricanes blunted a great deal of momentum and then October was a fire hose of distracting bullshit even the Obama ‘12 op would have struggled to break through fully
Harris got a good swing out of WNC. The hurricanes were not a net negative for the Dems.
I mean in terms of national news coverage
I disagree. If we are going to win again we need base support somewhere between Obama 08 and Obama 12.
And that's just a base.
The enthusiasm after Harris got in was what we should be seeing every four years as a base. Celebrating enthusiasm for a candidate just means we have been scraping by since 2016, with 2 losses and 1 bare minimum win BTW.
Success going forward means that "somethings happening" needs to be the vibe every election and sadly Democrats are extremely fickle.
Hence the problem.
Never too early for a prediction. It’s important to check oneself, though, and recognize this is based off of historical trends and not actual poll numbers.
2017: Dem Congressional approval among Dems: +17
2025: Dem Congressional approval among Dems: -51
Just because people are pissed at Republicans doesn't mean that will correlate to people enthusiastically voting for Dems. Dem enthusiasm is currently abysmal in our own party....
Democrats are being hounded by protestors to do more when they don’t have the power and the votes to do so.
Back in 2006 when Rep. David Obey was still in office, he dealt with his own constituents being angry about not doing enough on stopping the Iraq (even though Obey himself voted against the 2002 Iraq War Resolution and was anti-war for the most part). Obey explained to them Democrats don’t have the votes. Dynamics are similar here.
Democratic enthusiasm is abysmal? We are still winning plenty of the special elections since last year's presidential election.
Poor approval of congressional Democrats among Dems and reachable independents may well be made up for by anger at Republicans.
"We're not the people in power screwing things up" may itself be enough for the midterms, but we'll need a more positive message and messenger to regain the WH. Of course, a strong midterm and oppositional stance may well improve views of the Democratic party anyway as we move farther from 2024 and toward 2026/28.
DNC Chair Ken Martin is right now working to get the Democratic Party to being more centralized on being a pro-labor party. That's one avenue that's being paid attention to but I don't think it will be the only part of the agenda heading to the 2025 off year elections and 2026 midterms.
Is he focusing on being pro labor or pro union?
Being pro-union has been pro-labor for the Democratic Party for ages. Martin's been talking to unions in PA about returning to the Democratic Party's roots with unions.
I'm pretty sure this means Democrats aren't going to be wishy-washy if Martin is doing what he's doing as DNC Chair.
https://www.unionprogress.com/2025/02/19/new-dnc-chair-ken-martin-tells-pittsburgh-union-members-the-democratic-party-has-got-to-get-back-to-its-roots/
So not changing anything? Biden and the party under him were pro union has hell and it didn't play out very well. Being pro labor has to mean more than catering to a small slice of the electorate.
I'm not sure if this ties in to what you're talking about but Kamala Harris ended up pissing off the Teamsters President when the Teamsters wasn't going to endorsement any 2024 presidential candidate out of concern that union members were divided in support of Trump (not all but a considerable portion). Harris ended up saying she would win with or without the Teamsters support, which showed her to be arrogant in the eyes of the Teamsters President.
This illustrates that union members aren't completely unanimous in support for Democrats. That means the Democratic Party can no longer be comfortable in its union member base.
Ken Martin went out in Pittsburgh and got quite an unfiltered view about how things are for union Steelworkers. In this case, I believe he's listening to how Democrats need to be pro-labor, not just pro-union as you mentioned.
https://www.unionprogress.com/2025/02/19/new-dnc-chair-ken-martin-tells-pittsburgh-union-members-the-democratic-party-has-got-to-get-back-to-its-roots/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin approached the Steelworkers, shook everyone’s hand, and said, “Give me the good, bad or the ugly. Tell me, how are things here in Pittsburgh?”
Those at the table joked about the weather (it was minus 175 degrees outside, or at least felt like it) and mentioned the difficulties and frustrations of fighting for working people in the Trump era. Then Martin acknowledged the Democratic Party’s stumbles.
“Too many people right now feel like our party has forgotten them, that they have been left behind,” he said. “They’re working their asses off, and they can’t get ahead, and that’s what we have to really recognize. My brother who’s a union carpenter, he voted for Democrats his whole life. And then in ’16, and ’20 and ’24, he voted for Trump. My father-in-law, who’s a beef cattle farmer in southern Minnesota — same deal.
“We’re losing working people in a way that” — then, Martin paused — “it’s really quite frustrating to me, because, at the core, the Democratic Party has always stood with working people. We have stood behind the American dream, that if you work hard and you play by the rules you should be able to climb the economic ladder.”
Martin noted a recent poll that said, for the first time in history, public perceptions of the two major political parties have shifted. People believe the Republican Party best represents the interests of working-class people and the poor, he said. The Democrats now are considered the party of the wealthy and elite.
"Too many people right now feel like our party has forgotten them, that they have been left behind,” he said.
And they're wrong, and thinking the Republicans best represent the interests of the working class and the poor isn't about workers' rights, and we ought to at long last see that!
Well yes but first Democrats need to get back their power.
And to the point of being in the union, it's always been about raising the standard of living and having a fair living wage.
And this perception has little to do with labor policy and everything to do with cultural war issues and "vibes".
Yes although Trump capitalized on the infighting that Democrats in Congress and unions had with the TPP which President Obama and his administration were pushing at the time. He ended up framing the Democratic Party as the party that was being hypocritical towards unions and he consistently was against the TPP from the outset (even effectively ended it with one of his first few executive orders). Even Hillary Clinton eventually coming out against the TPP didn't stop the tide of Trump's framing.
I truly don't understand what you're getting at. How is it an advantage for any worker not to be a union member? I'm not, but that's only because the Musician's Union is weak, and after getting so few union jobs for years, I couldn't justify the expense of paying dues. But workers' rights are workers' rights, and how does fighting for them mean just "catering to a small slice of the electorate"?
That's not what I am getting at. I'm a huge union supporter. My grandfather was a big union organizer back in the 30's and 40's. What I am getting at is that,
1) This is no shift at all. Democrats have been the pro-union party forever and Republicans have been the anti-union party forever. It doesn't make any sense to say that focusing on unions is new for the party.
2) There are many people who labor who are not part of a union. Unions only make up a small part of the country. People who are not in unions mostly don't care about unions or have negative view of them. For example, the vast majority of people who post on left leaning sites, myself included, would probably have some interesting things to say about Police Unions. Focusing on unions does very little to capture the laborers outside of unions.
Ok, yes, we're actually on the same page.
On that argument you just made regarding the example of police unions, being pro-union doesn't mean you have to blindly accept everything unions do.
Costco union workers did raise awareness to Costco about a $30/hour salary and they got what they bargained for. Of course, Costco also listened because they have a good history of being a very ethical and pro-worker company. That's an example of what I praise unions for doing.
However, if it's about being all powerful and arrogant, then union leaders do need to be held accountable.
Continuing, sort of stream of consciousness here, to be more broadly pro-labor, I think Democrats need to be more vocally supportive of non-union workers.
Why don't we hear more Democrats denouncing self-driving cars? These things are dangerous and designed to put millions of people out of work. Taxi drivers and truckers vote.
Why aren't more Democrats attacking self-service checkouts at grocery stores and cvs, etc? It's putting workers out of jobs and most customers don't actually like them.
When there was that lawsuit against real estate agents last year (who make up 1-2 million people in this country) why did Biden basically tell a huge group of independent contractors and small business owners that they needed to charge less money (the average agent basically earns at the poverty line and has no benefits)? Was it good worker politics to spit in 2 million faces?
How many democrats talk up support for freelancers, who make up something like 70 million people in this country?
Not enough. Freelancer here.
FYI, just so you're aware, not all self-service checkouts at grocery stores are putting people out of work. Maybe Amazon Fresh but at the Safeway near me in Berkeley, there are lots of Safeway workers and plenty of them still operate as cashiers (same with Andronico's), work at the deli, in-store Starbucks stand, stocking shelves and even behind the fish counter. Plenty of them have been working at the same location for years.
In fact, the State of California has been limiting purchases of items at self-checkout stores to 15 or less as well as no alcohol being purchased. This actually drives more people to go to the regular checkout counter.
That said, support for non-union workers is a good idea. Same goes for people who work at tech companies and corporations.
Democrats should always be pro-labor. That's basic fairness and I'd like it to be a central part of the party's moral core. However, we can't expect white workers to choose the Democrats over bigotry, ignorance and misinformation just because the Democrats do the right thing.
Yes, agreed although economic anxiety and instability can adversely affect white workers' psychology to the extent where they can vent off at non-white workers. Not defending them but it's much easier to address the issues of biogotry, ignorance and misinformation when white union workers are benefitting economically.
Competition for jobs has triggered white race riots repeatedly in U.S. history, if that's what you're getting at, but most recently, they led to Obama being elected in 2008. Do you really think white workers blamed Black people for inflation, and that's why they voted to destroy the country instead of electing a Black/Asian woman?
I wasn't specifically referring to competition for jobs. That's actually only part of the problem but certainly does factor in.
Series of events as follows:
-Severe economic downturns
-Outsourcing (using loopholes in trade laws)
-Technology disruption (i.e. automation, AI, etc.)
When economic problems get to be more complicated for white union workers, then they can get more vulnerable for manipulation by carnival barkers like Trump.
Well, the economy wasn't bad, and they elected someone who's making it bad. Bravi!
This is the oft ignored crutch of the issue right here.
The big takeaway we have after every election we lose is that we do not talk about the economy enough, that we talk too much about social issues. I think that's an emotional rather than logical rationalization on our (democrats at large) part: we want the answer to be that we need to talk about the economy more, because that's a subject that largely animates us and connects the various corners of our big tent.
Harris and HRC avoided social issues and talked economic issues every chance the could. So did Biden, both as a candidate and as president.
The American electorate wants to hear about social issues. Maybe they don't want to hear what we want to say about them (that's a complex discussion in and of itself!) but it's very much one of the driving and animating issues of this political era in a way that "pocketbook issues" are not.
I could say a lot about this but I think I would simplify it down to: we might be best served by selling economic issues in the style of social issues. Don't talk up a seven point plan to increase GDP growth by 0.3 points per year which will [...]. Talk about how the economic elite are looting the country and keeping YOUR wages down. Don't even make it an issue of fairness, make it an issue of how it hurts YOU, the listener. And fucking sound angry when talking about it for once.
In the last election the GOP talked constantly about Trans people and migrants but I never heard Kamala Harris talk about those issues once. However, she was burdened with being part of the incumbent administration and trying to talk economic policy when most people were unhappy with the economy and wanted change. It was an impossible position and it was why incumbent parties have lost almost every election since Covid ended.
Biden sounded angry when he blasted big businesses for gouging. As I recall, Harris talked about that, too. So your points are good, but part of the problem is that it's hard for Democratic points to get through this media and the amount of ignorance, misinformation and prejudice among the American people today.
The media environment is absolutely a huge obstacle. One that we cannot ignore and will take sustained and not-insignificant effort to chip away at. I don't know how much, if any, better we can expect this one to get. I get the feeling that the ownership class for large media institutions has largely concluded that 2024 was the time to give up with putting their thumbs on the scale: they went with bricks on the scale instead. Once they go that far, there's not much incentive to reverse course.
I think the example is maybe a case in point in a way. Biden et al need to be talking like that constantly, not just now and then. One of my other points I've had in my head is that our messaging is too inconsistent, we change it too easily and too often.
I don't have the same fondness for Sanders that most other people as far left as me have, but this is something he gets very right. I expect a lot of his popularity comes down to people liking that he *always* sounds angry when he's talking about politics.
But don't you think part of Sanders' unpopularity with Democratic voters who _don't_ like him is because he rants all the time?
Yes, absolutely. I'm not saying Sanders is the ideal that our candidates should aspire to, but that there is a benefit from sounding angry, putting some intensity into dialogue with voters. The reality is going to be some balance, where they don't sound angry about everything but also where they are angry often enough to cause normal voters to bring out the "authenticity" label, which they seem to only reserve for that type of speaker.
Without getting into forbidden territory, I always found Bernie's style of shouty finger wagging to be rather unappealing even when I liked the general thrust of his ideas, and with all respect to self-identified socialists, I was and still am dubious that someone who explicitly identifies as such can really win a national presidential election.
Yeah I think it was mentioned in the DB Podcast this week that Republicans were not exactly popular in 10/14 when they won landslides in the midterms.
The Democrats always have a positive message of progress and helping people. It's effective when a majority of Americans see how badly a Republican president has fucked things up.
That's a good point. Not being dismissive of what Clinton, Obama and Biden have done for progress as POTUS but they did capitalize on where things were for the U.S. that needed mending. When they've controlled the White House though, Democrats have traditionally in the last several decades never really seen a true blue wave in the first midterms.
Bush Jr and Trump both have had problems as POTUS that screwed the U.S. although Bush Sr back in 1992 was perceived as more aloof and didn't exactly screw things up. The 1991 Gulf War was not a boondoggle and had a stronger multi-lateral coalition than the 2003 Iraq War did.
It was Bush Sr's administration though that sent NAFTA to President Clinton.
They don’t need power or votes to engage in a coordinated, sustained and forceful attack on Trump and Musk. A couple of back benchers have, but no one in what passes for leadership.
I'm not sure congressional approval is an accurate barometer of anything . . .GOP congressional approval is pretty consistently terrible regardless of whether they do well or not. The GCB will be the measure to look at.
Sure, Democratic voters want Democratic politicians to "do more". But it’s not just a question of power, which Dems currently don’t have. "Doing more" includes being louder, controlling the narrative, not allowing Trump and his chaos to steal all the oxygen in media cycle after media cycle.
In this respect, we are seeing some improvements from those Democratic politicians that realize the nature of their challenge – but there is a helluva lot more that can be done!
The first sign of Bush weakness was social security privatization going absolutely no where. The tax bill will probably be the equivalent.
We’ll see. I’m impressed so far with just how disorganized that effort has been considering it’s the first order domestic policy priority for the party
The tax bill will pass and the GOP will wear it like a badge of honor for lowering taxes. Much of the tax cuts are just continuing current ones so it being a political albatross seems unlikely.
With Hegseth in charge of DoD, all eyes should be on our military and what insane orders Trump tries to carry out. Invading Gaza would certainly cause a stir. Who in the fuck wants to go back to the Middle East?!?
A great singer, and Democratic politician, Jerry Butler, “The Iceman,” has passed.
Mr. Butler enjoyed his highest pop chart position in 1968 with “Only the Strong Survive,” which reached No. 4 on the pop chart and No. 1 on the R&B list. In all, more than a dozen of his songs reached Billboard’s R&B Top 10 (three of which went all the way to No. 1). Just as many made it to Billboard’s Top 40 pop list.
Mr. Butler also made a splash, although a smaller one, in politics. In 1985, he was elected as a Democrat to the board of commissioners for Cook County, which encompasses Chicago. He would hold that position for more than three decades before retiring in 2018.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/21/arts/music/jerry-butler-dead.html
ADOLF’s GHOST must be none too pleased...
It now looks like Austria will finally have a new government – a centrist coalition. "Austria's conservative People's Party (ÖVP) and Social Democrats (SPÖ) said on Friday they had widened their talks aimed at forming a coalition government to include the small, liberal Neos Party so as to have a solid majority in parliament."
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/austrian-parties-bring-liberals-board-they-seek-form-government-2025-02-21/
The sane, mainstream political parties are thus set to keep the extreme right-wingers out of power. Although winning the biggest single block in September’s parliamentary elections, Herbert Kickl and his FPÖ, the so-called "Freedom Party", failed in their repeated attempts to build a governing coalition.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78x3klx4rjo
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8rdygy5888o
(Note: Austria’s election turnout of 77.3% puts America’s presidential election turnouts to shame – last November it was a dismal 63.7%!)
Good news. I had gotten the impression FPO had actually truly broken through this time. Buys Austria a few more years at least
OVP and FPO were originally in talks for a coalition, but talks broke down. Sounded like it was largely personal issues between their two leaders, so we came scarily close. They had formed a coalition together after the 2017 elections (which fell apart in 2019 after a video leaked showing FPO was compromised by Russia), so the FPO-in-government dam has sadly already been breached.
Tomorrow: BUNDESTAG ELECTIONS
What will Germany choose? That is the foremost question on my mind on the eve of tomorrow’s parliamentary elections in Europe’s most populous country. (No, I’m not counting Russia, albeit larger, as "European".)
Like most readers of The DownBallot, I am sincerely hoping German voters will ignore Elon Musk’s embrace and promotion of the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland), which many consider a proto-Neo-Nazi party.
According to polls, Friedrich Merz, leader of the opposition CDU/CS, is likely to replace Olaf Scholz as German Chancellor. Merz has campaigned on "standing up to Trump". Importantly, if he’s victorious, I am hoping that Merz does not grant the AfD any influence on government policy.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/21/the-guardian-view-on-germanys-election-a-chance-to-reset-for-a-new-era
If the polls are right, there is a chance that the CDU and SDP will have enough seats between them to form a majority. The BSW and the FD are on the cusp of 5%. The Linke is at 8% and could close to double their seat count.
How accurate are German polls, typically?
What about the Greens?
Polls for Greens are at 12-13%. They got 14.7% in 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2025_German_federal_election
They're the party I'm rooting for.
What is the Green Party’s policy position on German military aid to Ukraine? Ukrainian membership in NATO? Ukraine joining the EU?
I don't think they deviate from other mainstream parties in not supporting Ukrainian membership in NATO now, but they support aid to Ukraine much more strongly than the SPD and have pushed to send Taurus missiles to them. They are very strong on security. I don't know what their position is on Ukrainian membership in the EU, but let's be honest that a poor country that's been severely damaged in an ongoing war is not ready to join the EU. NATO is a different question, as Ukraine would have one of the most powerful militaries in the alliance and is of course battle-tested.
I am curious if the angry town halls across the country (like the one with that R idiot from Georgia) plus the protests are indicative of a bigger down ballot swing than The Cook Report can predict for next year.
I want voters to take that same energy to the polls that they’re showing at town halls and public protests.
It all depends on
a) If Musk and co. continue to have carte blanche in axing federal government functions/jobs unconstitutionally
b) How nasty the Reconciliation bill ends up being re: spending cuts.
c) How long and deep Trump's tariffs end up being/go on.
d) How draconian voter suppression laws are enacted at the national level and in Red states
Town hall energy hasn't been seen in this manner since the Tea Party of 2009/2010. Good sign for Democrats.
Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Georgia) is a heartless asshole, who has the nerve to call himself a doctor. Regarding free school meals for public school kids, he suggested them "earning it", aka child labor. A shocking upset in a "safe seat" isn't impossible, is it?! Carolyn Bordeaux should run again!! 💙🇺🇲
Anyone remember how Obamacare opposition started bc of town halls? The media covering angry people begets more angry people. This might be too soon and too general of protests but everyone seems ready to go once the GOP starts
I see a lot of nonsense “buy nothing days” which is stupid and silly. I usually don’t buy anything most days already. Doing nothing will do nothing.
Not too soon. And it’s up to the people because if you expect that kind of fight out of Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries or the rest of the Democratic congressional leadership, you’re going to be waiting a long time.
Well said!
Georgia has a record 4 village idiots in Congress:
1. Marjorie Taylor Greene.
2. Buddy Carter.
3. Mike Collins.
4. Rich McCormick.
Hopefully one of them is Ossoff's opponent next year.
I would strongly encourage Georgia Republicans to give Herschel Walker another shot at the Senate.
A Papal Conclave sooner rather than later? Pope Francis has taken a turn for the worse.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g0x3p1kglo
Damn, sorry to hear.
Sad news. He did his best to push the Catholic Church to be a more opening and accepting place. I left the church long ago but my extended family would be considered old school JFK Democrats. I can’t wait to visit my grandpa in FL in a month. He’s going to talk so much shit about Trump.
Apropos unions (not sure where to put this), apparently only approx. 9–10% of the American workforce is unionized. As a result, unions have very limited power to influence overall policy in the US. Compare:
"The Nordic countries continue to have the highest union density in the world. In 2016, of all blue and white-collar workers, membership of trade unions amounted to 52% in Norway, 65% in Finland, 84% in Iceland, 66% in Sweden, and 67% in Denmark."
https://nordics.info/show/artikel/trade-unions-in-the-nordic-region/
On the note of unions, the way we as a society interpret "union worker" is more of an anachronism than anything. You ask people to imagine that, they're going to imagine a young to middle aged white man working a construction or manufacturing job, or something similar that does not require higher education.
There are 14-16m people working in a union in the US. Of those, 1.6m are in natural resources or construction and another 2.3m in production or transportation. That is to say, the presumed image of a union worker adds up to about 4m people, or less than a third of actual union membership. The remainder are people working in "professional" or service fields, especially healthcare and education. About half of all union members work for some level of government, be it local, state, or federal.
The average union member is nothing like our standard depiction. A librarian is more representative of the average union member than a construction worker is.
My numbers are from here: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t03.htm
I used the membership column rather than represented by column, not that I think it changes the numbers too much.
When I hear "union member" I imagine ... potentially just about anybody who is not in upper management or a company owner. But then again, I am a Scandinavian. Which I suppose is why I also have another anachronism: insisting that American election turnout is absolutely dismal, even the 67% of the 2020 Presidential Election. (a few individual states e.g. Minnesota excepted)
EDIT: Your link leads to fascinating data, but what I couldn’t find in that table was the overall percentage of American union membership / union representation.
Who is favored in WI Supreme Court race? Susan Crawford have a good chance?
When is the runoff, if that's what it's called?! 💙🇺🇲
apparently, no runoff. Election, just 2 candidates, is on April Fools Day...no foolin'. https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/20/politics/wisconsin-state-supreme-court-election/index.html
It’s considered 50/50 but I like our odds better. Our new coalition of college educated voters in cities and suburbs are the type who show up for every election. And, we’re fucking pissed.
Special election PA State Senate 3/25
Democrat James Malone, Mayor of East Petersburg, is running for PA-S-36.
District partisanship:
Harris -15, but narrowly carried by Josh Shapiro in 2022.
More favorable than the Harris -21 district that Dem. Mike Zimmer flipped in recent Iowa State Senate special.
Unlike that IA district, which shifted sharply right since Obama carried it in 2012,
in PAS-36, Democrats have improved from Obama losing the district by 25 points in 2012 (details below).
A Libertarian Party candidate on the ballot will draw some votes away from the Republican from folks who will never vote for a Democrat.
Crucial: greater turnout in the more densely populated bluer part of the district – Mannheim, East Hempfield, Columbia Borough, East Petersburg.
Website: https://www.friendsofjamesmalone.org/
has a variety of links instagram, bluesky: Maloneforsenate.bsky.social
linktree includes ActBlue donation link.
Website has form for volunteering, including writing letters and postcards.
canvassing info also at Mobilize.us
PA State Senate currently D 23; R 27.
Presidential vote 2012 D -25; 2016 D -23; 2020 D-16; 2024 D -15.
State offices: Josh Shapiro (for AG twice and then governor): 2016 D -27; 2020 D-19; 2022 D +0.2.
Statewide, Tom Wolf won the 2018 gubernatorial election by a couple more points than Shapiro in 2022, but Wolf lost PAS-36 by 4.4 points.
Election data from Daves Redistricting and State Navigator (fka CNalysis).
"[Friedrich Merz] is arguably best known for his suggestion in the early 2000s that German tax rules be drastically reduced so that they fit on the back of a beer coaster."
– The Guardian
Susan Collins has reached "Concerned" level regarding Elon Musks government firings and its impact on Maine.
https://x.com/mkraju/status/1893680606275338475?t=otqOhSrfiGD2Hk5Dz3xAaA&s=19
As mushy and frustrating as Olympia Snowe was, she was much better than this!
Such an irritating but iconic modern day politician. I wonder what she really thought. I remember reading in some article a long time ago she was going to vote for Obamacare and McConnell scared her off from it. He wanted no bipartisanship.
Such a statesman, standing up for the right for insurance companies to steal people's money and kill them!
To be fair to Collins, she did vote against repeal of it, and her vote was crucial as was McCain's--and Murkowski's, who particularly deserves some credit given the red lean of her state.
I was talking about McConnell there.
All the (relatively) better republicans have been getting scared off by the newer batches of worse republicans for as long as I’ve been alive.
Collins is an impressive example of pretending to be better without ever having to deliver on that in a meaningful way.
I bet she was the most pissed off republican in the room when McCain did his surprise nay vote on Obamacare repeal. It’s the only instance I can think of where her vote contrary to other republicans was decisive, and I cannot imagine she meant for that outcome.
German exit polls following the pre-election poll order. Differ as to whether the FDP and BSW will make it.
https://x.com/EuropeElects/status/1893709553008578742
https://x.com/EuropeElects/status/1893712132295782733
https://x.com/EuropeElects/status/1893713761245987021
Seems like a slight underperformance for AFD based on prior polling, and slight overperformance for the Greens?
About on target. The second seat total appears more favorable to the AfD. And less favorable for the CDU
A lot rests on that 5 percent threshold. If neither make it, CDU and SPD is likely a majority, and this is the most stable coalition. If both make it, CDU and SPD need another party (Greens or FDP). If only one makes it, it's close. BSW making it would increase instability for this reason.
Yikes! Looking at the seat projections, if neither the FDP or BSW make it, and CDU/SPD combined aren't a majority of seats, Merz is going to have all sorts of trouble forming a coalition.
If neither of those make it, though, I think CDU/SPD combined should be a majority. That's the seat projection (second link) and it makes sense given that they'd be just over half of non-wasted votes.
It looks like you were right, though a small majority.
Here is a different seat projection:
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGkfSoRwWMAA2nkB.jpg
In that scenario, you'd see either CDU-SPD-FDP or CDU-SPD-Green. CDU-SPD-Green would be somewhat unstable. That's why I say that the real worst case might be BSW making it and FDP missing out - it would be close whether CDU-SPD would be a majority, and if not, CDU-SPD-Green is likely forced.
The best case scenario would be the FDP not making it.
Agreed. That's the most stable outcome.
With the Greens? Those 3 parties would be a majority, right?
Gender disparity also amongst German voters:
"Among men, CDU/CSU came first at 30%, AfD second at 23%, and SDP third at 15%, closely followed by Greens at 12% and Die Linke at 7%.
"But among women, CDU/CSU got only 27%, and SDP was tied up with the AFD in second, both at 17%. Greens came fourth at 14%, with Die Linke at very high 10% in fifth."
– The Guardian’s Live Blog
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/feb/23/german-election-live-olaf-scholz-alice-weidel-afd-friedrich-merz-germany-latest-news#top-of-blog
The AfD gained in the youth vote, but the big winner there was Die Linke.
“AfD gained the most from mobilising non-voters as well as the centre-right. At the end, the AfD losses to the also populist BSW were minimal. On the other side of the spectrum, Die Linke won more voters from the centre-left and non-voters than it lost to BSW.
Also interesting are these numbers posted by Kate Connolly, Berlin correspondenf for The Guardian about the loss/win of votes between the three major parties:
"According to initial analysis, the CDU gained 1.8 million voters from the SPD, 1.3 million from the FDP, as well as securing the votes 1.5 million people who had previously never voted.
"In turn, the CDU lost 830,000 voters to the AfD."
Very problematic that extremism is gaining among the young.
Seems like a worldwide trend, likely to make the future extraordinarily unstable.
Especially once everyone starts their own nuclear weapons program, now that the USA can't be trusted vis-a-vis NATO.
Is greater extremism among the young in particular truly worldwide?
They are extremely social media dependent, I guess not surprising considering how much right wing propaganda they come across
That would be an explanation, but is it true that they are particularly extremist?
fair point, it's just my impression, no idea how to show my maths
Worldwide push over last 25 years to gut the humanities/history in schooling along with people getting their (dis)info online and not legit news sources.
Right, but I'm still a bit skeptical that the younger generation is so extremist worldwide. We saw some of that among young men in the U.S., but not so much among young women, right? Are young Israelis more right-wing than older Israelis? It would be interesting to see a country-by-country rundown.
I don't think there's been a push to do that in Germany, has there? Maybe in Hungary.
Both German public broadcasters are predicting that the FDP won’t make it.
The Linke currently leads in Berlin.
The AfD is projected to get 34% in the old East Germany while the Linke and BSW will have a combined 23%
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/liveblog-german-election-2025-background-results/
Will they make it or not? Sahra Wagenknecht's BSW has been in circling around the 5% threshold all evening. These national elections are a first for the party that was founded in January 2024.
While the BSW did briefly jump over the 5% barrier earlier, according to BILD, they currently stand at 4.982%.
The federal returning officer is counting the votes and updating numbers almost by the minute. Currently, 251 out of Germany's 299 constituencies have been counted.
Like here, it depends on what's left, they'll obviously need east Germany to be what's left to count
They've missed it. 4.972%, final. CDU-SPD coalition incoming. (Best case scenario for German, hence European, stability.)
I'm glad Wagenknecht's party didn't make it. I wish that had been the fate of the AfD, too, though...
Wow! Must be painful to miss the threshold by a mere 0.028%. In terms of actual votes, how many more did they need?
Americans please take note:
The turnout in today’s German Bundestag elections was 83%, according to ZDF. That is almost 20% higher than turnout in America’s 2024 Presidential Elections!
No vote-suppression.
On the other hand, as far as I know Germany, does not have our extensive Early Vote or Vote-by-Mail.
I don't know anything about that.
Also every vote does matter in Germany due to their MMP system. A lot easier to encourage voting if your vote matters regardless of where you live in the country.
How many democrats in Tennessee or republicans in Massachusetts decide to stay home because they feel their vote doesn’t matter? For that matter, how many republicans in Tennessee and democrats in Massachusetts stay home for that reason?
I get the idea: this is the proportional representation aspect of German elections. But what does MMP stand for?
I believe it is Mixed-Member Proportional, referring to the combination of direct constituency elections with national party list elections. The final composition of the Bundestag comes from both
It's a huge irony that former East Germany has been the biggest supporter of neo-Nazism. It says a lot about which type of government during the Cold War was better at eradicating national socialism.
Not ironic at all. Saxony was the Nazis' political base in the 30s, and those East Germans who don't miss the GDR and vote for Die Linke in many instances support the party that was held up as the big enemy of socialism under the GDR. In other words, they support everything that was held up as forbidden and the opposite of the GDR.
Were expelled Germans from Danzig and Ostpreusen resettled in East Germany? I know it was almost 80 years ago, but they were probably the most reactionary Germans.
Maybe? I’d always thought a lot of the Ostflucht descendants would up in the West but that may have been more those from Czechoslovakia and the Danube basin, since they were more proximate to Bavaria
Yeah, I think they were resettled all over. A friend of mine who grew up in two Bavarian villages was the last child (b. 1946) of parents who were expelled from the Sudentenland, where they had owned a big farm.
“I would have never thought I would need to say something like this on television, but after Donald Trump’s statements last week, it is clear: this American government doesn’t care for Europe.”
– Friedrich Merz, leader of CDU/CSU in post-election panel of party leaders