I was thinking just now about the studies of how the presidential admin at the time someone comes of age helps shape that person's politics for life.
A lot of millennials are on the left because we went from popular Clinton to unpopular Bush to popular Obama for a lot of our formative years. Similar story with older Gen X, except it made them conservative: unpopular Carter followed by popular Reagan followed by popular(ish...) Bush Sr.
What's going to happen with people that have their formative years starting around 2017? Unpopular Trump followed by even more unpopular Biden followed by even further unpopular Trump. Popularity being with the relevant groups coming of age, not necessarily the whole populace.
Normally there's some consistent partisanship at play that will nudge an age cohort down a certain path. I think with Biden's unpopularity with younger people sandwiched in the middle that we'll be less likely to get that. Is the long term for this age group that they will be shifted towards political apathy or maybe universal disdain? Will they shift towards extremism, where those predisposed towards the left will be much more so, and those predisposed towards the right much more so than typical? Something else?
It appeared that GenZ were going to be way more liberal than Millennials during Trump #1. Then Covid happened and too much time online melted everyone's brains. Now the younger GenZ cohort seems to have taken a decidedly right turn, especially the men.
Is it common for generational cohorts to have such marked political splits between older and younger members? This is something I feel like I've also noticed among Gen Z and wasn't sure if this was unique or common
There's a pretty clear split between halves of Gen X (generally considered to have been born from about 1964-65 to around 1980-81). The older half is among the reddest of age cohorts, with the Carter and Reagan eras being their formative political memories. The younger half is much bluer.
That makes sense, and relates to a comment I was writing below to your hypothesis on perpetual anti-incubency if we have successive unpopular administrations from both parties. I was thinking about the successive unpopular administrations in the 70s with Nixon, Ford, and Carter, and wondering how voters who grew up during/were formatively influenced by those years are like
I think the broader sense of the society coming apart had both a more profound effect on our consciousness and contributed to the frequent turnover of the WH. There was a lot of political violence--I didn't realize until much later in my life how rare it was for politicians to be shot at or assassinated in the U.S., but in that time, we had JFK, Malcolm X, MLK, RFK, two attempts on Ford, and Reagan being shot. I assumed that to be expected in politics.
In terms of partisan instability, of course Watergate has to be factored in. Nixon would have been regularly unpopular without it. The turnover was in search of stability as much as it demonstrated instability in the society in general.
Would Nixon have even been unpopular, otherwise? If so, why? Vietnam? But he was reelected after his "secret plan" to end that war was shown to be nothing.
The 60s were particularly violent, but there had been assassinations and attempted assassinations in the U.S. before that.
I wouldn't be surprised if younger people develop apathy or disdain for what are perceived as "establishment" politics and politicians, and instead become more populist regardless of left or right. So if they are faced with two candidates, they'll support the one that voices a more populist message whether that be left-wing populism or right-wing populism.
I wonder if we'll see a party-switch/flip/re-align in the next two-ish decades due to this phenomenon among young Gen Z. I'm also curious to see what will happen with Gen Alpha. If we're using 2010 as a starting birth year for Gen Alpha (although I've also seen 2012 used), then they will first be able to vote in 2028, having fully grown up with almost zero memory of Obama.
I suspect voters who first age into the electorate in 2028 may be heavily blue, as their main impression of politics will be of Trump, and (judging from polling and other indicators so far) it probably won't be a positive one of him or his party. They might not have much liked what they know or remember of Biden, either, but he may be a sketchier memory by then.
What happens next depends on who gets elected and how they're perceived. I guess it's possible that they become detached or perpetually anti-incumbent, if we fall into a pattern of alternating Democratic and Republican administrations and neither being popular.
I agree with your analysis. Maybe the political views of younger Gen Z and Gen Alpha will depend on if we get 8 years of a popular president, similar to how the 70s were followed by 8 years of Reagan as JanusIanitos initially pointed out
I am currently interested in the NJ governors race, albeit because I’m actually worried Sherrill will either lose or barely win.
She has run a lousy campaign so far in my opinion. Her ads haven’t done a good job selling her (and they are outnumbered by Ciattarelli/anti-Sherrill ads), she has done baffling things like opposing the state AG (suspected of being because said AG went after powerful party figure George Norcross), she has no charisma, and overall I have little confidence in her. I know this is a good environment for us but Sherrill has just done a crappy job campaigning I think.
Thoughts from others? Including in NJ? Am I incorrect or inaccurate in my analysis?
All the NJ people I followed bemoaned her winning over someone informed on state issues and with strong policy solutions (Fulop and Baraka) for these exact issues. She was the worst acceptable candidate over Gottheimer (spineless centrist), Sweeney (corrupt centirst) and Spiller (vanity progressive).
Baraka would have been hard pressed to win the general election. Fulop might be better suited to be governor, but I don’t know if he would have been a stronger nominee.
Baraka would be excellent as a candidate for the House. His outspoken rhetoric and fearlessness in fighting back makes him suitable for this kind of political office.
I’m not that pessimistic. I thought she ran a lousy primary race and then she kicked it into high gear the last 3 weeks and won the primary comfortably. And she has more charisma than Murphy. She may not win by double digits but I think she’ll win by a bigger margin than Murphy did 4 years ago.
they're running a well organized coordinated campaign with local candidates in even reach districts, and the jack raises tax ad is ubiquitous at this point
Of course, a different unpopular national administration may account for Sherrill potentially overperforming Murphy. Ciatterelli kept Trump at arms' length in 2021; this time he proudly embraced him to win the nomination, and is now whining about Democrats making that an issue.
Have you seen her ads? I think she is doing fine, she already has Spanish ads up and running and has already put Ciattarelli on the defensive on floating a 10% sales tax.
Former Rep. Yadira Caraveo dropped out of her attempted re-election bid in CO-08. Probably good as she was dealing with unwanted press over her mental health issues.
Josh Kraft dropped out of the Boston mayor's race -- his polling was as atrocious as his campaign.
Not election-specific, but important nonetheless -- Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA was assassinated as well.
The past few Downballots should fill you in on some of the others too.
I don’t recall the Caraveo dropout being reported here or anywhere else, when did that happen? I’m also extremely glad she did. She was very likely to win the primary and was probably headed for another defeat in the general election. Now we can get someone stronger who can hold down that seat for us long term after hopefully winning in 2026.
I'm in California, went to Alaska with really limited internet for 3 weeks, came back to find that we have a proposition on the November ballot and the campaign has already launched and here's your talking points and your phone banking schedule. So...I relate. Go back to the wilderness.
Talarico answers for his record on transgender rights, his claim that "God is non-binary" , and fairness in sports. Pretty much takes the Buttigieg line as I predicted.
I’m just hugely relieved that Norway didn’t elect a conservative & far-right alliance. Instead, on election day (Monday, 8 September) voters re-elected a Labour-led coalition. Jonas Gahr Støre continues as prime minister, with Jens Stoltenberg still finance minister.
However, the Progress Party is now Norway’s second-largest political party, with Sylvi Lysthaug as its smooth-talking head, having far surpassed the Conservative Party. In my opinion this is rather alarming – but not nearly as alarming as Lysthaug becoming PM.
The Progress Party's gains were, in large part, at the expense of the Conservatives. However, the biggest loser was the agrarian and protectionist Centre Party, which lost 19 of its 28 seats. Though looking at wikipedia, it seems that the party has fallen to its historic baseline and that the previous two elections were particularly good for the Centre Party. Centre is part of the Left-Green block, so this is what made the election so close (the other left-green parties netted 7 seats in total). I'm sure there's some explanation for why Centre did so well the past two elections and fell to earth here, but I wouldn't know what it is.
I'd think so but these are the same people who didn't mind all of Trumps various sex scandals and a lot of these christians seem to love the "redemption arc" while happily condemning everyone outside of their camp. Still I'm sure Cornyn is happy with this.
It's really amazing that Christians can just claim "God has forgiven me for everything", and other Christians just blindly accept this without any critical thought whatsoever.
You’re right that’s why I said rarely to make it obvious I wasn’t grouping all of them as the same. But 3 people got confused by what I meant, so my intention obviously didn’t come across and I’ll just delete it. Wasn’t very substantive anyways, just snark.
I'm the wrong person to ask, since I'm not Christian.
But personally, I think the whole idea of some Christian denominations that salvation can be achieved by faith alone, without any actions to back up that faith, is completely ridiculous and absurd, and has had a massive negative impact on society and on world history.
Yes, but I doubt the contrition of most of these sinners is sincere, and if it's not, they are probably supposed to go to Hell or suffer some other kind of punishment as far as their religion is concerned.
There's a wide diversity of beliefs about sin and repentance in Christianity. The "sola fide" view, that is, salvation through faith alone, is widespread among Protestants, but the "that means I can do whatever since I'm a believer" interpretation of that is peculiar to certain evangelicals and certainly not the norm.
And the radical antinomians of the reformation (e.g. the Amish) are now the most conservative. Simliar in Judaism where the Hasids are now the among the most "ultra-orthodox".
I expect it won't have much impact. Traditional conservatives don't approve of that sort of thing, but they're probably all supporting Cornyn anyway. MAGA morons would likely approve of cucking another man as show of dominance, but they're probably all supporting Paxton already.
It's either going to torpedo his campaign or supercharge it. I have no idea which. Republican primary voters will toss him aside as no longer worth their time, or they'll circle the wagons and play up the victimhood of him being treated "unfairly" by the media.
I just finished watching a political YouTuber who's known in the past for doing political commentary. He said he's going to indefinitely stop doing political commentary in the US because it's simply not worth it anymore. Moreover though, he expressed the belief that the US is now a fascist theocracy. He believes that fascism only dies via 2 ways - it's leader(s) die or go away somehow, or via a military overthrow or coup. He has stated he has full plans to move to Europe and encourages anyone left leaning or a dissident to leave the US if they can, believing things will only get worse. My question to everyone is: what do you make of such assessments? Is the US truly that far gone like many authoritarian states that it likely cannot save itself? Moreover, is leaving the US truly the best plan for those who have the means?
No, it is not the best plan to leave! No, the US is that far gone that it likely cannot save itself! Maybe, things will get worse before they get better. Yes, this "fascist moment in our history" will end shortly after it's leaders are gone.
And that may be sooner than we think. Trump is 79 years old. I don’t think he will be around much longer, especially with his crappy diet and likely dementia. I also doubt there will be another leader to fill his footsteps.
Ehh, trump clearly has pretty advanced CHF and probably had a stroke when he disappeared for 5 days. I doubt the White House chef is buying many green bananas these days (not that trump would eat a banana).
That wasn't true in Chile, not with right-wing dictatorial regimes in places like the Philippines under Marcos or Indonesia under Suharto, and the U.S. is not an actual dictatorship yet, which would be a 1-party country with no independent courts, no separate authority in states, and martial law enforced by the military or security forces.
And don’t forget — Marcos fell to a revolution. So did the Soviet satellite regimes in 1989. People in the streets risking it all. Fascism most certainly does not die solely when its leaders do. If enough people are pissed, even an unrepentant fanatical strongman won’t be able to stay up for long.
So did Suharto, and it was violent partly because military men took off their uniforms to perpetrate a pogrom against Chinese Indonesians in Jakarta and several other cities to try to derail the revolution and just because they were evil violent people.
I don't begrudge anyone going into exile, but if they do, I hope they come back in the periods leading up to elections and vote-counting to fight (peacefully, of course) to keep them fair. My girlfriend and I may spend some time in Europe, too, but we're already planning to be here next fall. And if not, I hope they at least make sure to vote absentee.
We really ought to try to aim for sanity and reframe the conversation so people don’t feel radicalized.
Also, with all due respect, technology is playing a big part of the conversation in this aspect. If we don’t regulate and pull back on certain technologies, then the problem gets worse.
I think we still, somehow, underrate how much the internet has rotted society. The information we have on Kirk’s shooter for instance basically boil down his likeliest motive to “but the memes bro lol” and that’s a level of nihilism I don’t think we can really grasp, socially, quite yet
But if you look at the days of AOL back in the 90’s, it was nothing like social media today. Besides the code language such as “age, sex, location” and “got a pic” that every teenager asked each other, AOL was pretty tame. Very much like You’ve Got Mail with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan chatting with each other. AOL even had a responsive Terms of Service enforcer team that would follow through with user concerns right away. Not the case with Facebook, X, etc.
As a result of no regulation, social media has become what it has been. The only way to solve this is if the platforms themselves get completely designed or enhanced per government regulation to ensure user privacy and appropriate monitoring of rules. Democrats are really going to need to push for tech regulation and as quickly as they can, not just with AI.
Not the same kind of rot, but it's also worth noting just how thoroughly the algorithmic domination of the internet has ruined our societal attention span.
It was barely more than a year ago that someone tried to kill Trump. It stopped being a story within a week. Less than that, I think. Pre internet that would have been a story that lasted for months. Pre internet, that is a story that would be brought up again and again and again after what happened to Kirk. Nobody remembers it anymore. I had to double check that it actually was last year!
This event will be forgotten soon, as thoroughly as it is dominating political consciousness at the moment. That is something that we can grasp socially, but no one seems to really care.
I do think the atrocious societal attention spans do a lot to help enable that level of nihilistic rot you identify, but it's not in and of itself the cause or primary factor.
I doubt the Charlie Kirk assassination is going to fade like the attempted assassination of Trump. For starters, the college students on campus at the scene of the incident were fleeing in high numbers as videos have shown, much different from the situation with Trump a year ago. The incident is also more violent and disturbing, which suggests those watching it were really traumatized by it.
The one difference this time is that some on the left are calling for more of the far right to be assassinated without even doing their homework and understanding why conservatives across the board were disturbed by this shooting. More such people are getting fired and failing to grasp the gravity of this situation.
I mean there was pandemonium and people fleeing the scene in Butler PA last summer, too, especially once the Secret Service returned fire, so I’m not sure what that (other than the graphic nature of the footage) has to do with it
Hmmm. Then I guess both shooting incidents did create similar moments of pandemonium.
That said, I’ve been reading more about Charlie Kirk and as much as people are hating on him, especially his rhetoric, and the murder of him has more tragic elements to it. This is just a different magnitude of severity.
Also, Trump is a malignant narcissist but I don’t see that in Kirk. In fact, I’m going on the limb and saying Rush Limbaugh is worse than Kirk simply because he had no interest in discourse and wanted to bash anyone who disagreed with him (especially fellow conservatives who he believed were liberals just because they criticized him over one single issue). I don’t see that in Kirk as much.
We are finding out what happens to a society when you allow anyone to have a platform, no matter how dishonest, extreme or hateful. There was a reason that the some Nazi propagandists were hung as war criminals at the end of WW2.
Any time fleeing the US has crossed my mind as an option I’m reminded that no matter where you go, all countries are subject to the same right wing shit happening here…historically refugees or foreigners are the first/easiest to target under an authoritarian regime. Unless you are actively facing threats of violence I’d advise we stay and try our best to stay sane and organize against MAGA however possible.
Definitely not. We are not a one-party dictatorship yet and are unlikely to become one. Right now our trajectory is more of an Orban-style hybrid state. It’s definitely a hole we can dig out of but it won’t be easy.
Might be on an island for this one, but if people feel they have to leave, I don’t begrudge or judge them. It’s a scary time in America and has been since 2016. As long as they’re still voting in every election, but feel safer for themselves or their family outside the country, I don’t see any problem with it.
Citizens are literally being rounded up and thrown in prison camps. The right wing fascist movement has control over the courts, the Senate, the House and the White House and all of them are targeting any dissent with firings or threats or lawsuits or imprisonment.
The media and schools which are the last bastions of democracy left standing are folding and bowing to the regimes wishes pushing the coverage and teachings of our youth that the right propaganda machine supports. If there was ever any time anyone realistically would feel that they can’t live in the country anymore in the modern era, this time would be it.
I’m sorry, but saying not all is like saying 12/15 kids died in a bus accident and then saying not all of them died. That may be true, but most did and that’s very important to understand the gravity of the situation. Having some outlets refuse that aren’t even on cable or widely disseminated means little to nothing.
I’m not saying give up and I’m not advocating for everyone to leave America, but for those who feel they have to, they have a mountain of evidence to point to in order to justify that decision. We’re trying to create a wave by throwing a rock into the ocean while facing a hurricane.
It’s vitally important we understand the magnitude of the challenge before we can prepare ourselves to properly fight it (no, I’m not saying actual fighting/civil war, but by proxy via elections). The biggest mistake you can make in a fight is underestimating your opponent, so we should be clear eyed about the fight ahead.
We’ve seen countries that have taken an authoritarian turn then come back from the brink. Brazil, South Korea, and Poland are all examples. Writing off the U.S. at this point is premature.
Cross-posting this from the Discord 'cause I want to see what the whole community here thinks:
One thing I was thinking about the other day that's been missing from the "how do we get through to Trump voters?" eternal conundrum is that, while we have had a fair share of Never Trump Republicans in media, we have an almost complete dearth of Ex-Trump Republicans. People who once identified as part of, or at least were sympathetic enough to vote for, the MAGA movement but have since rejected it. When we talk about modeled behavior, having people like that is so important. Show people that it's OK to ditch all this, because others like them are doing the same.
But those individuals are either not very prominent, unpopular, highly flawed, or some combination of the above. Of course there won't be many super prominent/widely-known ex-Trump republicans (although interestingly while looking up ex-Trump republicans, I learned that Rep. David Valadao didn't vote for him last year), but I think there's a good point to be made for finding regular, everyday people who used to support Trump and now don't. And if they're now Democrats then maybe they could even run for office?
I remain convinced that the only reason Joe Biden won in 2020 was those personal testimonial videos of Trump voters who publicly decided to vote for Biden and explaining why. They went viral and were in ads everywhere, they felt real and each person had a different reason that resonated with a small section of moderates or even conservatives that allowed them the permission structure to cross over.
Trump didn’t lose by much in 2020 and I think these were the smartest most effective ads/videos of any created in the last decade. Why Harris and Democrats didn’t do that again is one of the biggest mysteries of 2024 to me because they worked, they had people living in their respective swing states look at other swing state voters who talked like them, thought like them, looked like them and connected on issues they hated about Trump.
In 2020, Democrats were behind the canvassing efforts due to following the COVID restrictions too much and the GOP had gotten a leap with this.
If this was not the case, Democrats might have been able to improve on the margins as a result of getting more time with canvassing and GOTV operations. Base activism was just stronger in 2020 vs 2016. Mail-in voting did save Biden and Democrats maximizing turnout was just not an option.
Probably a big part of why he's opting to retire. There's not much room in the modern republican party for conservatives with pre-MAGA foreign policy views.
Yeah, that caught my attention too. It seems that they passed a malapprotioned and non-contiguous map because one district is detailed as including a non-contiguous precinct but the adjacent district is written up like it has said precinct. Could the lege rush back to amend this or is it not that simple?
Regardless, it was reported last month that they spent a 4 figure amount to license redistricting software and they still didn't catch this?
Some GOPers are now suggesting Indiana go 9-0, which seems to have massive dummymander potential, in part as “revenge” for Kirk’s death, despite the dubious connection between the alleged shooter and… well, anything other than edgelord gamer memes
That said, many GOP legislators still seem skeptical of any redistricting at all, let alone 9-0.
If they do that, then the Democratic trifecta that Minnesota will probably have in 2027 should definitely go 6D-2R, or maybe even 7D-1R, in revenge for Hortman's death.
You may be having a lose interpretation of what I am talking about but the “neighborhood dialogue” I am referring to consists of doing the following:
-Building consensus on housing.
-Ensuring that housing fits the community but also solves the issue of affordability.
-Doesn’t adversely displace people who are already at risk of being priced out.
-Is not about stopping housing everywhere except housing development proposals that are as a result of stupid planning (not all such proposals, especially sustainable affordable housing, are stupid).
As an example, back in the late 2000’s when Chris Daly (not a fan btw) was Supervisor of District 6 and then Mayor Gavin Newsom’s nemesis, he brought together residents of the SoMa to work together on a community redevelopment rendering of what could look like an ideal affordable housing development. Much to my surprise, it was well thought out although I wouldn’t say it was perfect.
But this was before the Great Recession hit. Nowadays, you have the tech lobby, SF Chamber of Commerce, corporate developers, and many wealthy investors in the city who want a piece of the action. This kin
However, not all housing proposals involving neighborhood dialog are being restrictive now. In the Richmond District, Supervisor Connie Chan has been talking with residents about the ongoing issue of getting new housing to reflect the changing attitudes of the district. More older residents are retiring and the neighborhood is changing.
The issue with Lurie’s upzoning agenda that residents are raising has to do with the balance in the discussion with resident needs vs the top down approach. Lurie is not an unpopular mayor and has gone a good job at changing the tone of SF and overall management. However, he risks being more aloof if he is going with the my-way-is-the high way. He’s also not getting a good image by black residents in the Bayview.
There is no consensus on housing. If the only right way boils down to requiring that, then there never will be new housing built. That's a big part of why we're seeing the house affordability problems going on right now.
Communities are not static, housing consensus doesn't exist, and "stupid planning" doesn't mean anything from a policy point of view. The best way to displace people from neighborhoods due to unaffordability is to make it difficult to build new housing there and everywhere else.
The opposition comes when people who have either huge mortgages or huge equity in the real estate they own realize that they will be seriously hurt if housing prices fall. Combine that with the usual NIMBY opposition such as opposition to gentrification and environmental concerns for new development and building new housing becomes much harder.
This bill will speed up the approval process for new homes by allowing home builders to hire a licensed and certified third-party reviewer for review of housing permit applications if the local government cannot or does not complete their permit review within 30 days.
This would be unimaginable a few years ago and is a huge deal along with the recently passed transit-oriented housing legalization and CEQA reform. California's housing laws are now officially among one of the most YIMBY in the nation. If we had low interest rates and comprehensive immigration reform, California could immediately start catching up to housing demand and stop the California exodus.
I was thinking just now about the studies of how the presidential admin at the time someone comes of age helps shape that person's politics for life.
A lot of millennials are on the left because we went from popular Clinton to unpopular Bush to popular Obama for a lot of our formative years. Similar story with older Gen X, except it made them conservative: unpopular Carter followed by popular Reagan followed by popular(ish...) Bush Sr.
What's going to happen with people that have their formative years starting around 2017? Unpopular Trump followed by even more unpopular Biden followed by even further unpopular Trump. Popularity being with the relevant groups coming of age, not necessarily the whole populace.
Normally there's some consistent partisanship at play that will nudge an age cohort down a certain path. I think with Biden's unpopularity with younger people sandwiched in the middle that we'll be less likely to get that. Is the long term for this age group that they will be shifted towards political apathy or maybe universal disdain? Will they shift towards extremism, where those predisposed towards the left will be much more so, and those predisposed towards the right much more so than typical? Something else?
It appeared that GenZ were going to be way more liberal than Millennials during Trump #1. Then Covid happened and too much time online melted everyone's brains. Now the younger GenZ cohort seems to have taken a decidedly right turn, especially the men.
Is it common for generational cohorts to have such marked political splits between older and younger members? This is something I feel like I've also noticed among Gen Z and wasn't sure if this was unique or common
There's a pretty clear split between halves of Gen X (generally considered to have been born from about 1964-65 to around 1980-81). The older half is among the reddest of age cohorts, with the Carter and Reagan eras being their formative political memories. The younger half is much bluer.
That makes sense, and relates to a comment I was writing below to your hypothesis on perpetual anti-incubency if we have successive unpopular administrations from both parties. I was thinking about the successive unpopular administrations in the 70s with Nixon, Ford, and Carter, and wondering how voters who grew up during/were formatively influenced by those years are like
I think the broader sense of the society coming apart had both a more profound effect on our consciousness and contributed to the frequent turnover of the WH. There was a lot of political violence--I didn't realize until much later in my life how rare it was for politicians to be shot at or assassinated in the U.S., but in that time, we had JFK, Malcolm X, MLK, RFK, two attempts on Ford, and Reagan being shot. I assumed that to be expected in politics.
In terms of partisan instability, of course Watergate has to be factored in. Nixon would have been regularly unpopular without it. The turnover was in search of stability as much as it demonstrated instability in the society in general.
Would Nixon have even been unpopular, otherwise? If so, why? Vietnam? But he was reelected after his "secret plan" to end that war was shown to be nothing.
The 60s were particularly violent, but there had been assassinations and attempted assassinations in the U.S. before that.
I wouldn't be surprised if younger people develop apathy or disdain for what are perceived as "establishment" politics and politicians, and instead become more populist regardless of left or right. So if they are faced with two candidates, they'll support the one that voices a more populist message whether that be left-wing populism or right-wing populism.
I wonder if we'll see a party-switch/flip/re-align in the next two-ish decades due to this phenomenon among young Gen Z. I'm also curious to see what will happen with Gen Alpha. If we're using 2010 as a starting birth year for Gen Alpha (although I've also seen 2012 used), then they will first be able to vote in 2028, having fully grown up with almost zero memory of Obama.
I suspect voters who first age into the electorate in 2028 may be heavily blue, as their main impression of politics will be of Trump, and (judging from polling and other indicators so far) it probably won't be a positive one of him or his party. They might not have much liked what they know or remember of Biden, either, but he may be a sketchier memory by then.
What happens next depends on who gets elected and how they're perceived. I guess it's possible that they become detached or perpetually anti-incumbent, if we fall into a pattern of alternating Democratic and Republican administrations and neither being popular.
I agree with your analysis. Maybe the political views of younger Gen Z and Gen Alpha will depend on if we get 8 years of a popular president, similar to how the 70s were followed by 8 years of Reagan as JanusIanitos initially pointed out
I am currently interested in the NJ governors race, albeit because I’m actually worried Sherrill will either lose or barely win.
She has run a lousy campaign so far in my opinion. Her ads haven’t done a good job selling her (and they are outnumbered by Ciattarelli/anti-Sherrill ads), she has done baffling things like opposing the state AG (suspected of being because said AG went after powerful party figure George Norcross), she has no charisma, and overall I have little confidence in her. I know this is a good environment for us but Sherrill has just done a crappy job campaigning I think.
Thoughts from others? Including in NJ? Am I incorrect or inaccurate in my analysis?
All the NJ people I followed bemoaned her winning over someone informed on state issues and with strong policy solutions (Fulop and Baraka) for these exact issues. She was the worst acceptable candidate over Gottheimer (spineless centrist), Sweeney (corrupt centirst) and Spiller (vanity progressive).
Baraka would have been hard pressed to win the general election. Fulop might be better suited to be governor, but I don’t know if he would have been a stronger nominee.
Baraka would be excellent as a candidate for the House. His outspoken rhetoric and fearlessness in fighting back makes him suitable for this kind of political office.
He may not be temperamentally suited for a legislative job, though.
I’m not that pessimistic. I thought she ran a lousy primary race and then she kicked it into high gear the last 3 weeks and won the primary comfortably. And she has more charisma than Murphy. She may not win by double digits but I think she’ll win by a bigger margin than Murphy did 4 years ago.
Good to know. Thanks for the insight Paleo.
they're running a well organized coordinated campaign with local candidates in even reach districts, and the jack raises tax ad is ubiquitous at this point
Of course, a different unpopular national administration may account for Sherrill potentially overperforming Murphy. Ciatterelli kept Trump at arms' length in 2021; this time he proudly embraced him to win the nomination, and is now whining about Democrats making that an issue.
Have you seen her ads? I think she is doing fine, she already has Spanish ads up and running and has already put Ciattarelli on the defensive on floating a 10% sales tax.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w4npZI1dIY
https://x.com/MikieSherrill/status/1965760250386227486/video/1
I have, although I realize now my bias was affecting my perception. Ads are fine.
Missouri Legislature passes congressional gerrymandering. No word of any movement by Maryland in response.
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/missouri-sends-gop-gerrymander-to-governor-as-dems-continue-fight/
There's a chance the lawsuit that was filed against it could succeed, the Missouri courts aren't as clearly partisan as Ohio or North Carolina.
There's an argument being made in lawsuits as well that the state constitution limits the state to one apportionment per census.
Also, what is this about: https://nitter.poast.org/markpgaber/status/1966617607504621651#m
Sounds like good legal challenge fodder.
Yep that's the same thread I saw! Hopefully that lawsuit bears fruit
#3 with the precinct screw-up caught my curiosity.
So I've been on a three-day overnight hiking trip in the wilderness since Wednesday morning. Have I missed anything in the world of elections?
Former Rep. Yadira Caraveo dropped out of her attempted re-election bid in CO-08. Probably good as she was dealing with unwanted press over her mental health issues.
Josh Kraft dropped out of the Boston mayor's race -- his polling was as atrocious as his campaign.
Not election-specific, but important nonetheless -- Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA was assassinated as well.
The past few Downballots should fill you in on some of the others too.
Thank you!
I don’t recall the Caraveo dropout being reported here or anywhere else, when did that happen? I’m also extremely glad she did. She was very likely to win the primary and was probably headed for another defeat in the general election. Now we can get someone stronger who can hold down that seat for us long term after hopefully winning in 2026.
It happened on Friday, so it'll probably be in the DB digest on Monday.
I'm in California, went to Alaska with really limited internet for 3 weeks, came back to find that we have a proposition on the November ballot and the campaign has already launched and here's your talking points and your phone banking schedule. So...I relate. Go back to the wilderness.
"Some early Dem skirmishing in this primary:
@AstroTerry
, a retired astronaut who has been running since June, warns that Talarico's past statements about gender make him less electable.
Plays the 2024 anti-Harris ads and warns "the same ads will be played by Ken Paxton." "
Terry Virts goes all in on demagoguery.
https://x.com/daveweigel/status/1965529446624141723
Talarico answers for his record on transgender rights, his claim that "God is non-binary" , and fairness in sports. Pretty much takes the Buttigieg line as I predicted.
https://x.com/daveweigel/status/1965463589143405054
Doesn't support Schumer as leader and wants to abolish the filibuster.
https://x.com/daveweigel/status/1965366861643874809
I’m just hugely relieved that Norway didn’t elect a conservative & far-right alliance. Instead, on election day (Monday, 8 September) voters re-elected a Labour-led coalition. Jonas Gahr Støre continues as prime minister, with Jens Stoltenberg still finance minister.
However, the Progress Party is now Norway’s second-largest political party, with Sylvi Lysthaug as its smooth-talking head, having far surpassed the Conservative Party. In my opinion this is rather alarming – but not nearly as alarming as Lysthaug becoming PM.
The Progress Party's gains were, in large part, at the expense of the Conservatives. However, the biggest loser was the agrarian and protectionist Centre Party, which lost 19 of its 28 seats. Though looking at wikipedia, it seems that the party has fallen to its historic baseline and that the previous two elections were particularly good for the Centre Party. Centre is part of the Left-Green block, so this is what made the election so close (the other left-green parties netted 7 seats in total). I'm sure there's some explanation for why Centre did so well the past two elections and fell to earth here, but I wouldn't know what it is.
I really ought to pay a visit to Norway one of these days.
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1966652011413131371
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15083059/Texas-Attorney-General-Ken-Paxton-cheating-scandal.html
https://www.sacurrent.com/news/news-report-accuses-texas-ag-ken-paxton-of-affair-with-married-christian-influencer/
Ken Paxton caught in a sex scandal. It's over for him.
At this point, all I care about is winning the TX Senate seat.
If Paxton wins the primary and helps make it easier for Democrats to win, that’s what matters.
I could imagine him winning.
You’re right that it’s over, he’s now guaranteed to win the primary.
I'd think so but these are the same people who didn't mind all of Trumps various sex scandals and a lot of these christians seem to love the "redemption arc" while happily condemning everyone outside of their camp. Still I'm sure Cornyn is happy with this.
It's really amazing that Christians can just claim "God has forgiven me for everything", and other Christians just blindly accept this without any critical thought whatsoever.
That _type_ of Christian, yes.
Hey, I take offense to that. I’m Lutheran Christian and borderline socialist. We do exist, the crazies are just louder and more prominent.
You’re right that’s why I said rarely to make it obvious I wasn’t grouping all of them as the same. But 3 people got confused by what I meant, so my intention obviously didn’t come across and I’ll just delete it. Wasn’t very substantive anyways, just snark.
Thomas Aquinas might like a word.
Isn't that what most Christianity is about?
I'm the wrong person to ask, since I'm not Christian.
But personally, I think the whole idea of some Christian denominations that salvation can be achieved by faith alone, without any actions to back up that faith, is completely ridiculous and absurd, and has had a massive negative impact on society and on world history.
Yes, but I doubt the contrition of most of these sinners is sincere, and if it's not, they are probably supposed to go to Hell or suffer some other kind of punishment as far as their religion is concerned.
I don't doubt it...I am convinced it is not.
There's a wide diversity of beliefs about sin and repentance in Christianity. The "sola fide" view, that is, salvation through faith alone, is widespread among Protestants, but the "that means I can do whatever since I'm a believer" interpretation of that is peculiar to certain evangelicals and certainly not the norm.
And the radical antinomians of the reformation (e.g. the Amish) are now the most conservative. Simliar in Judaism where the Hasids are now the among the most "ultra-orthodox".
I expect it won't have much impact. Traditional conservatives don't approve of that sort of thing, but they're probably all supporting Cornyn anyway. MAGA morons would likely approve of cucking another man as show of dominance, but they're probably all supporting Paxton already.
It's either going to torpedo his campaign or supercharge it. I have no idea which. Republican primary voters will toss him aside as no longer worth their time, or they'll circle the wagons and play up the victimhood of him being treated "unfairly" by the media.
Didn't we already know he was a cheater?
I just finished watching a political YouTuber who's known in the past for doing political commentary. He said he's going to indefinitely stop doing political commentary in the US because it's simply not worth it anymore. Moreover though, he expressed the belief that the US is now a fascist theocracy. He believes that fascism only dies via 2 ways - it's leader(s) die or go away somehow, or via a military overthrow or coup. He has stated he has full plans to move to Europe and encourages anyone left leaning or a dissident to leave the US if they can, believing things will only get worse. My question to everyone is: what do you make of such assessments? Is the US truly that far gone like many authoritarian states that it likely cannot save itself? Moreover, is leaving the US truly the best plan for those who have the means?
No, it is not the best plan to leave! No, the US is that far gone that it likely cannot save itself! Maybe, things will get worse before they get better. Yes, this "fascist moment in our history" will end shortly after it's leaders are gone.
And that may be sooner than we think. Trump is 79 years old. I don’t think he will be around much longer, especially with his crappy diet and likely dementia. I also doubt there will be another leader to fill his footsteps.
Like Michael Corleone said speaking about Hyman Roth: "he's been dying from the same heart attack for 20 years".
Ehh, trump clearly has pretty advanced CHF and probably had a stroke when he disappeared for 5 days. I doubt the White House chef is buying many green bananas these days (not that trump would eat a banana).
I think the Republicans will try to extend it.
That wasn't true in Chile, not with right-wing dictatorial regimes in places like the Philippines under Marcos or Indonesia under Suharto, and the U.S. is not an actual dictatorship yet, which would be a 1-party country with no independent courts, no separate authority in states, and martial law enforced by the military or security forces.
And don’t forget — Marcos fell to a revolution. So did the Soviet satellite regimes in 1989. People in the streets risking it all. Fascism most certainly does not die solely when its leaders do. If enough people are pissed, even an unrepentant fanatical strongman won’t be able to stay up for long.
So did Suharto, and it was violent partly because military men took off their uniforms to perpetrate a pogrom against Chinese Indonesians in Jakarta and several other cities to try to derail the revolution and just because they were evil violent people.
I don't begrudge anyone going into exile, but if they do, I hope they come back in the periods leading up to elections and vote-counting to fight (peacefully, of course) to keep them fair. My girlfriend and I may spend some time in Europe, too, but we're already planning to be here next fall. And if not, I hope they at least make sure to vote absentee.
We really ought to try to aim for sanity and reframe the conversation so people don’t feel radicalized.
Also, with all due respect, technology is playing a big part of the conversation in this aspect. If we don’t regulate and pull back on certain technologies, then the problem gets worse.
I think we still, somehow, underrate how much the internet has rotted society. The information we have on Kirk’s shooter for instance basically boil down his likeliest motive to “but the memes bro lol” and that’s a level of nihilism I don’t think we can really grasp, socially, quite yet
Yes, that’s true.
But if you look at the days of AOL back in the 90’s, it was nothing like social media today. Besides the code language such as “age, sex, location” and “got a pic” that every teenager asked each other, AOL was pretty tame. Very much like You’ve Got Mail with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan chatting with each other. AOL even had a responsive Terms of Service enforcer team that would follow through with user concerns right away. Not the case with Facebook, X, etc.
As a result of no regulation, social media has become what it has been. The only way to solve this is if the platforms themselves get completely designed or enhanced per government regulation to ensure user privacy and appropriate monitoring of rules. Democrats are really going to need to push for tech regulation and as quickly as they can, not just with AI.
Not the same kind of rot, but it's also worth noting just how thoroughly the algorithmic domination of the internet has ruined our societal attention span.
It was barely more than a year ago that someone tried to kill Trump. It stopped being a story within a week. Less than that, I think. Pre internet that would have been a story that lasted for months. Pre internet, that is a story that would be brought up again and again and again after what happened to Kirk. Nobody remembers it anymore. I had to double check that it actually was last year!
This event will be forgotten soon, as thoroughly as it is dominating political consciousness at the moment. That is something that we can grasp socially, but no one seems to really care.
I do think the atrocious societal attention spans do a lot to help enable that level of nihilistic rot you identify, but it's not in and of itself the cause or primary factor.
I doubt the Charlie Kirk assassination is going to fade like the attempted assassination of Trump. For starters, the college students on campus at the scene of the incident were fleeing in high numbers as videos have shown, much different from the situation with Trump a year ago. The incident is also more violent and disturbing, which suggests those watching it were really traumatized by it.
The one difference this time is that some on the left are calling for more of the far right to be assassinated without even doing their homework and understanding why conservatives across the board were disturbed by this shooting. More such people are getting fired and failing to grasp the gravity of this situation.
I mean there was pandemonium and people fleeing the scene in Butler PA last summer, too, especially once the Secret Service returned fire, so I’m not sure what that (other than the graphic nature of the footage) has to do with it
Hmmm. Then I guess both shooting incidents did create similar moments of pandemonium.
That said, I’ve been reading more about Charlie Kirk and as much as people are hating on him, especially his rhetoric, and the murder of him has more tragic elements to it. This is just a different magnitude of severity.
Also, Trump is a malignant narcissist but I don’t see that in Kirk. In fact, I’m going on the limb and saying Rush Limbaugh is worse than Kirk simply because he had no interest in discourse and wanted to bash anyone who disagreed with him (especially fellow conservatives who he believed were liberals just because they criticized him over one single issue). I don’t see that in Kirk as much.
We are finding out what happens to a society when you allow anyone to have a platform, no matter how dishonest, extreme or hateful. There was a reason that the some Nazi propagandists were hung as war criminals at the end of WW2.
Any time fleeing the US has crossed my mind as an option I’m reminded that no matter where you go, all countries are subject to the same right wing shit happening here…historically refugees or foreigners are the first/easiest to target under an authoritarian regime. Unless you are actively facing threats of violence I’d advise we stay and try our best to stay sane and organize against MAGA however possible.
Definitely not. We are not a one-party dictatorship yet and are unlikely to become one. Right now our trajectory is more of an Orban-style hybrid state. It’s definitely a hole we can dig out of but it won’t be easy.
Might be on an island for this one, but if people feel they have to leave, I don’t begrudge or judge them. It’s a scary time in America and has been since 2016. As long as they’re still voting in every election, but feel safer for themselves or their family outside the country, I don’t see any problem with it.
Citizens are literally being rounded up and thrown in prison camps. The right wing fascist movement has control over the courts, the Senate, the House and the White House and all of them are targeting any dissent with firings or threats or lawsuits or imprisonment.
The media and schools which are the last bastions of democracy left standing are folding and bowing to the regimes wishes pushing the coverage and teachings of our youth that the right propaganda machine supports. If there was ever any time anyone realistically would feel that they can’t live in the country anymore in the modern era, this time would be it.
State and local government is still holding the line. Not all courts are enabling Trump. Not all news outlets or schools are bowing to the right.
I’m sorry, but saying not all is like saying 12/15 kids died in a bus accident and then saying not all of them died. That may be true, but most did and that’s very important to understand the gravity of the situation. Having some outlets refuse that aren’t even on cable or widely disseminated means little to nothing.
I’m not saying give up and I’m not advocating for everyone to leave America, but for those who feel they have to, they have a mountain of evidence to point to in order to justify that decision. We’re trying to create a wave by throwing a rock into the ocean while facing a hurricane.
It’s vitally important we understand the magnitude of the challenge before we can prepare ourselves to properly fight it (no, I’m not saying actual fighting/civil war, but by proxy via elections). The biggest mistake you can make in a fight is underestimating your opponent, so we should be clear eyed about the fight ahead.
We’ve seen countries that have taken an authoritarian turn then come back from the brink. Brazil, South Korea, and Poland are all examples. Writing off the U.S. at this point is premature.
I’m pretty sure I clearly stated:
“I’m not saying give up and I’m not advocating for everyone to leave America”
And I was just giving a counterargument for hope.
My household also does not make enough income/I’m not wealthy enough to make the option of moving even a possibility.
First thought is I need to get into the youtube political game if he has the money to just jump over to Europe.
Did he get the money that way, though, and what kind of work can he do in Europe? I'm not rich but might be able to earn a living in Germany.
Fair points. I don't know.
Cross-posting this from the Discord 'cause I want to see what the whole community here thinks:
One thing I was thinking about the other day that's been missing from the "how do we get through to Trump voters?" eternal conundrum is that, while we have had a fair share of Never Trump Republicans in media, we have an almost complete dearth of Ex-Trump Republicans. People who once identified as part of, or at least were sympathetic enough to vote for, the MAGA movement but have since rejected it. When we talk about modeled behavior, having people like that is so important. Show people that it's OK to ditch all this, because others like them are doing the same.
There have been a fair number: Scaramucci, Esper, Christie, Cohen, Bolton, Kelly, to name a few.
But those individuals are either not very prominent, unpopular, highly flawed, or some combination of the above. Of course there won't be many super prominent/widely-known ex-Trump republicans (although interestingly while looking up ex-Trump republicans, I learned that Rep. David Valadao didn't vote for him last year), but I think there's a good point to be made for finding regular, everyday people who used to support Trump and now don't. And if they're now Democrats then maybe they could even run for office?
I remain convinced that the only reason Joe Biden won in 2020 was those personal testimonial videos of Trump voters who publicly decided to vote for Biden and explaining why. They went viral and were in ads everywhere, they felt real and each person had a different reason that resonated with a small section of moderates or even conservatives that allowed them the permission structure to cross over.
Trump didn’t lose by much in 2020 and I think these were the smartest most effective ads/videos of any created in the last decade. Why Harris and Democrats didn’t do that again is one of the biggest mysteries of 2024 to me because they worked, they had people living in their respective swing states look at other swing state voters who talked like them, thought like them, looked like them and connected on issues they hated about Trump.
I think Covid was a big reason. Plus increased turnout from 2016. He actually got 12 million more votes.
I am not sold on this.
In 2020, Democrats were behind the canvassing efforts due to following the COVID restrictions too much and the GOP had gotten a leap with this.
If this was not the case, Democrats might have been able to improve on the margins as a result of getting more time with canvassing and GOTV operations. Base activism was just stronger in 2020 vs 2016. Mail-in voting did save Biden and Democrats maximizing turnout was just not an option.
Just wait until his tariffs and immigration crackdown tank the economy.
Texas Republican Congressman Michael McCaul announced Sunday that he will not seek re-election in 2026.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republican-rep-michael-mccaul-wont-seek-reelection-after/story?id=125552752
That’s a shame, he’s one of the last true foreign policy institutionalists/traditionalists
McCaul also was very civil with his discourse when I’ve seen him interviewed.
Probably a big part of why he's opting to retire. There's not much room in the modern republican party for conservatives with pre-MAGA foreign policy views.
Or for people with any serious interest in governing.
Rats, sinking ship, etc.
If ballotpedia is up to date (not sure?), this retirement makes 17 Republicans in the House not running for re-election compared to just 10 Democrats.
In 2017 by November 13th there was 21 GOP House retirements in that election cycle. We’re probably well on or over that pace right now.
Interesting points. Clearly being a House Republican right now is worse than being one back in 2017.
they are running for cover rather than either being defeated or taking a moderate stance on issues and running afoul of their furher.
MO-Redistricting: In their haste to pass a new map, the legislature somehow assigned one precinct to two different districts. What a fail. https://x.com/ferald_gord/status/1966673644798591031
Yeah, that caught my attention too. It seems that they passed a malapprotioned and non-contiguous map because one district is detailed as including a non-contiguous precinct but the adjacent district is written up like it has said precinct. Could the lege rush back to amend this or is it not that simple?
Regardless, it was reported last month that they spent a 4 figure amount to license redistricting software and they still didn't catch this?
Hastiness and intelligence seldom go hand in hand
Some GOPers are now suggesting Indiana go 9-0, which seems to have massive dummymander potential, in part as “revenge” for Kirk’s death, despite the dubious connection between the alleged shooter and… well, anything other than edgelord gamer memes
That said, many GOP legislators still seem skeptical of any redistricting at all, let alone 9-0.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/14/charlie-kirk-indiana-redistricting-00563252
If they do that, then the Democratic trifecta that Minnesota will probably have in 2027 should definitely go 6D-2R, or maybe even 7D-1R, in revenge for Hortman's death.
I must also say that the fact that I know what the word "edgelord" means is entirely thanks to you, Henrik.
I’d normally say “you’re welcome” but not sure that entirely fits
San Francisco Mayoral Race 2028
It’s still a ways to go. However, Mayor Daniel Lurie may be underestimating the resistance residents have with his upzoning proposal.
It is find to focus on housing but Lurie is showing aloofness to this matter and could be get a more serious challenge in 2028 if he isn’t careful.
Let’s just say that Lurie and Michael Bloomberg have plenty in common.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SnY6W4vC5B4&pp=ygUVRGFuaWVsIGx1cmllIHByb3Rlc3Rz
Leave it to San Francisco to complain about the high cost of housing in the city and yet fight tooth and nail for the development of any new homes.
Not really the issue here.
The issue is proper neighborhood dialog as it relates to housing.
In SF, corporate development has had a stranglehold on city politics as it relates to housing.
By contrast, in Berkeley there’s more balance in housing development and as a pro tenant city better dialog.
“Neighborhood dialogue” while an admirable idea in theory is a big reason why SF is in this situation to begin with, though.
You may be having a lose interpretation of what I am talking about but the “neighborhood dialogue” I am referring to consists of doing the following:
-Building consensus on housing.
-Ensuring that housing fits the community but also solves the issue of affordability.
-Doesn’t adversely displace people who are already at risk of being priced out.
-Is not about stopping housing everywhere except housing development proposals that are as a result of stupid planning (not all such proposals, especially sustainable affordable housing, are stupid).
As an example, back in the late 2000’s when Chris Daly (not a fan btw) was Supervisor of District 6 and then Mayor Gavin Newsom’s nemesis, he brought together residents of the SoMa to work together on a community redevelopment rendering of what could look like an ideal affordable housing development. Much to my surprise, it was well thought out although I wouldn’t say it was perfect.
But this was before the Great Recession hit. Nowadays, you have the tech lobby, SF Chamber of Commerce, corporate developers, and many wealthy investors in the city who want a piece of the action. This kin
However, not all housing proposals involving neighborhood dialog are being restrictive now. In the Richmond District, Supervisor Connie Chan has been talking with residents about the ongoing issue of getting new housing to reflect the changing attitudes of the district. More older residents are retiring and the neighborhood is changing.
The issue with Lurie’s upzoning agenda that residents are raising has to do with the balance in the discussion with resident needs vs the top down approach. Lurie is not an unpopular mayor and has gone a good job at changing the tone of SF and overall management. However, he risks being more aloof if he is going with the my-way-is-the high way. He’s also not getting a good image by black residents in the Bayview.
But time will tell how this evolves.
FYI, I was going to add:
There is actually better discussion these days on housing in SF than there used to be.
But it has a ways to go before it matches how cities like Berkeley are doing it.
There is no consensus on housing. If the only right way boils down to requiring that, then there never will be new housing built. That's a big part of why we're seeing the house affordability problems going on right now.
Communities are not static, housing consensus doesn't exist, and "stupid planning" doesn't mean anything from a policy point of view. The best way to displace people from neighborhoods due to unaffordability is to make it difficult to build new housing there and everywhere else.
Berkeley residents who are pushing for more housing disagree with your assessment.
"neigborhood dialogue" lol
The opposition comes when people who have either huge mortgages or huge equity in the real estate they own realize that they will be seriously hurt if housing prices fall. Combine that with the usual NIMBY opposition such as opposition to gentrification and environmental concerns for new development and building new housing becomes much harder.
Hochul finally endorses Mamdani: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/9/14/2343575/-NYC-Mayor-BREAKING-Gov-Kathy-Hochul-D-Endorses-Zohran-Mamdani-D-For-Mayor
Nice to see. Wonder if that means the other big name holdouts are close behind or if this will prove isolated and they'll hold out a bit longer.
IL-Gov, Obituaries: Legendary former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar dies at 79. Edgar was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer recently.
He represented a Chicago Collars-dominated moderate GOP vision for Illinois.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-politics/former-illinois-gov-jim-edgar-dies-at-age-79/3823866/
Third Party Permit Review (Housing “Shot Clock”)
This bill will speed up the approval process for new homes by allowing home builders to hire a licensed and certified third-party reviewer for review of housing permit applications if the local government cannot or does not complete their permit review within 30 days.
This would be unimaginable a few years ago and is a huge deal along with the recently passed transit-oriented housing legalization and CEQA reform. California's housing laws are now officially among one of the most YIMBY in the nation. If we had low interest rates and comprehensive immigration reform, California could immediately start catching up to housing demand and stop the California exodus.
https://cayimby.org/legislation/ab-253/
https://x.com/mnolangray/status/1821658685598519398
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/02/los-angeles-fires-rebuild-texas/681687/ This idea was originally popularized in The Atlantic as it has already been implemented in Texas, Florida and Tennessee. No matter how many housing reforms you pass, if cities keep delaying permits, they simply don't work.
A lot of this momentum can be credited to Newsom's presidential bid and the looming electoral college reapportionment.