FL-06: Did anyone else get email showing a Fabrizio poll having Weil 44% and Fine 41%? Is this legit? Of course, the email asked for money. But it seems like the polling on this race as been steadily trending to Weil.
A victory in either of the two Florida special elections would completely surprise me; I believe both FL-1 and FL-6 are more Republican-leaning than the Pennsylvania state senate district we flipped a few days ago.
I think it’s definitely likely Weil gets 41%, but how much does low turnout boost that number is what’s completely unknown (ie totally different elections, same total turnout: 30% D turnout, 30% R turnout vs 45% D turnout 15% R turnout. Both have 60% turnout, but both extremely different results). Also, I’m pretty sure it was Fine 44-Weil 41 in that poll. Overall this looks like a KS-04. Ridiculously closer than it should be, but not enough to win/come within 5. I’ll repost my post from the other day.
I think this has all the signs of a KS-04. A spring election where Democrats are pissed/hair on fire and swing voters are mad at Trump’s chaos, confusion and catastrophe (only after electing him, do they go “wait a minute, I hate Trump”). The Democratic candidate out raises the Republican by a massive margin.
Millions pour into the district from partisan Democrats wanting a way to channel their fury at a Republican trifecta screwing up the country. Republicans are freaked and do a late last minute intervention to save the seat in a race that shouldn’t be close. History may not repeat, but it very often rhymes. Before KS-04 though in 2017 there was also a sign in the northeast that voters are angry and casting their votes against the GOP.
CT SD32 FEB 2017 spring special election with a massive D+24 over performance from the previous presidential election.
PA SD-36 MAR 2025 spring special election with a massive D+16 over performance from the previous presidential election.
Although not initially expecting a close race, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) spent $100,000 on advertising in the last week of the campaign, and Republican politicians Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, President Donald Trump, and Vice President Mike Pence recorded robocalls or campaigned in person supporting their nominee Ron Estes.[15][16] On April 10, the Cook Political Report moved the rating of the district to Lean Republican.[17] Estes won the election by 6.2% over political newcomer James Thompson. This not only marked a dramatic shift from the 61.6%–29.6% margin that Pompeo had been re-elected by in the previous year's regularly-scheduled election, but this was also the closest race in the district since incumbent Todd Tiahrt, who held the seat from 1995 to 2011, edged out Democrat Randy Rathburn by 3% in 1996.[18]
Also a mea culpa, apology to all, but especially to Mark. You were right and I was wrong about 2024, all of it (except Florida, take that Chris Bouzy!). I thought voters would vote with their brains, not on their emotions. I was wrong. It seems swing voters only care to safeguard democracy after it helps elect the fox to be in charge of the hen house on a promise to never harm the chickens and to make it better for them.
I will learn from this and grow as a person, but if I was a betting man… Republicans then lost 25 seats from state legislature to congress over the next 2 years of special elections and GOP picked up just 4. Democrats won’t win, but they’ll make it closer than it should be, which sparks another blue wave of Democratic activism that flips downballot seats anywhere from Trump +50 (think KY, WV ancestral Dems) to a more realistic, but still hugely impressive Trump +15-25 and below seat from red to blue as Republicans are happy and stay home. Will history rhyme this time? Only time will tell.
Wisconsin, Wisconsin, Wisconsin—both the Supreme Court and Superintendent of Public Instruction races (the latter doesn't seem to be considered competitive, though).
Apparently John Kasich was on MSNBC earlier today spouting that his "sources" think Schimel has it in the bag (this is secondhand information; I have no interest in tracking down the clip). Whatever, John.
All but one poll I've seen has Crawford ahead, and that poll had the race tied. I don't think we've had a poll from a source that isn't right-leaning in Wisconsin (Marquette doesn't do head-to-head polling for state supreme court races).
I was polled the other day. It had the standard approve/disapprove questions for various figures in NH. Spent some time on senate, pretty standard.
What wasn't standard and is worth sharing: the overwhelming majority of the poll focused on the prospect of republicans doing a mid-decade redistricting of NH. I tried looking for stories about this but the most recent thing I found was Ayotte saying she was opposed back in November. I doubt a poll would be so overly focused on it if there wasn't at least some real desire for doing so with the republicans in the state legislature though.
There's a distinct possibility that we end up with NH having one blue seat and one red seat for the 2026 elections and that we're stuck looking at a deficit of one more seat.
I don't know if they could draw something that's immune to a dem wave year in NH, but they could definitely draw something that would clearly favor a republican.
If you look at the current CD borders and then look at 2024 results by municipality you'll see there's a lot of red towns that aren't part NH-01 but are right on the border between the two districts. The Salem area in particular has a lot of dark red towns across the NH/MA border that could easily be in NH-01. In exchange it could drop either Manchester or some of the Manchester suburbs (depending on how the numbers worked out). Those are areas that are either roughly neutral or on the blue end of the spectrum.
The NH legislature is heavily gerrymandered right now, it's how republicans won a 2/3 majority of the state senate and 4/5 executive council seats despite Harris carrying the state.
Van Orden would be screwed in redistricting. His best hope is Tom Tiffany running for Governor so he can carpetbag to his district. In fact, he lives close enough to WI-07 that he could be drawn into it after redistricting.
Steil’s seat would be more competitive, though not totally unwinnable for him. Beating him is important for Dems because otherwise he may for Ron Johnson’s seat if he retires in 2028, or against Tammy Baldwin in 2030. Perhaps Greta Neubauer or Cory Mason run here.
There’s definitely a chance Tony Wied gets a tougher district too that goes into Oshkosh. Dems would probably not have much of a chance there if Gallagher stuck around, but Wied is very MAGA and very beatable should WI-08 be brought down into the single digits for Trump. Tom Nelson could finally come to congress.
WI-3 is pretty much already a Dem gerrymander seat. Could gerrymander in some of the Madison area or make some weird district that also takes in the most Northern parts of WI-7 that are blue. Other than that, it’s already pretty gerrymandered.
STATE TRIFECTAS – What did Democrats do with Power?
The American Prospect has published a review of what Democratic governors and legislatures did with their power in 17 states where they have a Trifecta. I am sure there is plenty room for disagreement on the specifics of this evaluation, but this is fascinating stuff!
Seems to me that the best campaign argument for downballot Democrats should be what we do with power when we have it. Are we doing enough good stuff? And, if so, the next obvious questions are: How convincing is that argument in the various states Are we communicating those achievements well to voters?
If Dems get trifectas in PA and WI, they need to get independent redistricting put on the ballot there. Dem trifectas in those states are very rare and we really don’t want to risk Republicans getting control again in a redistricting cycle. I can’t say this enough.
NYT has a piece out about how both Dems and Reps think Musk will help their candidates. Reps think Musk will help them with getting out their base. I don't doubt that MAGA hasn't soured as much on Musk but the issue the GOP is facing is that not only does Musk fire up Dem voters, they aren't considering his unpopularity with Independent voters. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/28/us/politics/elon-musk-wisconsin-supreme-court.html
Elon Musk is viewed favorably by 41% and unfavorably by 53%. Partisan differences in views of Musk are extremely large, with 81% of Republicans favorable to Musk, while 58% of independents and 97% of Democrats are unfavorable.
It just shows that GOP hasn't learned a lesson that MAGA, especially in off year elections when Trump isn't on the ballot, isn't enough to win elections. By basically blowing off appealing to Independent voters with their "you're with us or against us" mentality, it just keeps helping our side. My good friend is a moderate Independent who really can't stand Newsom and thinks Democrats are weak on crime and focus too much on identity politics but he royally hates Trump and has been voting Democrat more often because he acknowledges that Democrats put forth the effort to win him over.
It may help the Dark Side that Musk’s canvassers in Wisconsin are offering $100 to young, less-reliable voters. Incredible that none of them have been arrested! Imagine George Soros doing the same in, say, Florida’s Congressional races, or in New York’s special election to replace Stefanik had Trump not withdrawn her nomination.
Did gas prices jump 20-30 cents/gallon today in FL like they did in CA? If so, I sure hope Weil is making a f*cking big deal about it over the weekend! It is all on trump and his maga losers.
Egg, gas and so much more – and soon to include lots of imported goods. Yes, these price increases are entirely on Trump.
That said, American gas is still dirt cheap – less than half the price in Scandinavia. (Ok, granted, California is more than half.) And I still haven’t figured out why so many Americans drive gas-guzzling pickup trucks and SUVs that they don’t really need, especially when they’re sitting alone behind the wheel so much of the time.
Pickup trucks are definitely a macho thing. There's some kind of sociological yearning for a lot of men to pretend that they're doing some kind of physical labor and buy a truck on that pretense. Either as their main income or as a side hobby. The vast majority of them only use it for commuting and shopping. I can't count the number of times a man has said he "needs" a truck for work, and then literally never puts anything in the bed.
But oversized vehicles aren't limited to men. All of the women in my extended family have gravitated towards oversized SUVs. Either because (1) "bigger car is safer car", and/or (2) they think they need it for parenting duties.
I find it rather insane, truthfully. Even in densely populated areas where parking a bigger vehicle would be a nightmare I still see plenty of absolutely giant SUVs or trucks.
I wish I could find it again but a few months ago I saw a very illuminating chart along those lines. One line showed the number of Americans employed in a trades or other related jobs that would generally justify a pickup truck for work purposes. The other line showed the number of pickup trucks sold per year.
The pickup truck sales line was a steady increase year over, increasing many, many many times over from its initial starting position. The employment line was nearly flat over the same time period.
I'd guesstimate that fewer than 20% of pickup truck owners have a use based need for a truck.
what part of the country are you located in? here in SoCal the "pick up phenomenon" is out of control: speeding, road rage, running stop signs, taking up 2 parking spots, needing to back in to a parking spot, etc., etc., etc. There is one major south OC city where the MEDIAN household income in $178,000/year: they don't give a shit about gas prices!!
I’m in Maine. Last time I filled regular gas it cost $3 per gallon. (My wife and I drive a hybrid Prius.) In Norway gas is priced per liter; right now the average price there is approx. $7.50 per gallon. This despite the fact that Norway is a major oil producer.
A major difference there is in much of Europe (and presumably other developed countries) the gas tax is way higher. If I did my math right, Norway has a gas tax equivalent of $1.50/gal.
That isn't accounting for Norway's CO2 tax on fuel, which I cannot find a source I'm happy with, but I believe is in the neighborhood of another $1/gal once all conversions are done. That would bring the total tax to ~$2.50/gal.
CA has a combined state and federal gas tax of ~$0.85/gal, the highest in the country a decent margin. Most states are $0.50/gal or lower for the combined value.
There are some major upsides to the higher gas tax system, even if it would be disastrously unpopular here. Since a higher proportion of the cost is fixed, that means the impact of cost shocks on the system have a lower effective impact on people's lives — the disruption of eg OPEC raising prices would still exist but would be lower. It incentivizes people to buy more efficient vehicles. And finally it brings in revenue for roads, bridges, and other related infrastructure. No one in the US is ever happy with the condition of our roads but also no one wants to pay anything to maintain them...
This is true, but the price you pay at the pump is only part of the story.
Americans carry a lot of hidden costs for their gasoline. For instance, it can be argued that a significant portion of Middle Eastern wars and military aid has been a huge subsidy for control of oil and to keep it flowing. And who pays for that? Why, the American taxpayer of course.
Now, perhaps someone has bothered to compute that as a "surcharge" per gallon. If someone were to do so, I wouldn’t be surprised if that far exceeds the taxes added Scandinavia and elsewhere.
I'd lump that into the negative externality camp rather than as an equivalent of a hidden gas tax. Everyone paid for the Iraq Wars, reimposing the Shah on Iran, propping up the Egyptian military, and everything else in that long, long list. People who do not drive pay it the same as those that do. People that were children or not even born yet pay for it. In some ways even people in unrelated countries pay for it.
It's like the classic negative externality of pollution in that way: everyone pays for it equally, even if they had nothing to do with its generation.
I do expect your assumption that if we did treat it as another hidden gas tax that it would be quite high. I started trying to do some math on it to confirm, but there's too many assumptions to make and it was messy so I didn't keep it in. That is another part of why I think treating it as an externality is wiser — it's not easy to assign the spending to gallons of gas made available.
You raise some good points – especially about how complex it is to quantify those costs if we treat them as a hidden gas tax. But regardless of how we categorize them, as externalities or directly related to oil & gas, these massive expenditures cost taxpayers vast amounts of money and ought somehow to be taken into account. Merely comparing the taxes and fees of petrol at the pump gives in incomplete picture.
That's very common. People's views on issues seem to be very different from their cultural, tribal or whatever identification as Republicans, though that said, we know that Louisiana had a Democratic governor very recently, so some voting based purely on attitudes toward particular candidates is also relevant, but people don't always choose candidates based on their positions on issues.
Landry actually isn't very popular even among LA Republicans; he just won handidly due to a) Deep polarization re: partisanship along with b) Historically low turnout. It's a little similar to Trump in that I think most voters pulled the lever for him thinking he'd be just another Generic R Governor, but he's really tried to impose some massive changes and folks are pushing back.
A POTENT REMINDER! John Lithgow reads "20 Lessons on Tyranny from the 20th Century". This is the core of Timothy Snyder’s message – a timely reminder of the precarious times in which we live.
Yes, I am well aware. For years Timothy Snyder has seen the writing on the wall and been trying to warn us. All too many, including most of our news media, cover the news as though it largely is business as usual.
tried to post the link but it would not work: trump spouting off how he couldn't care less if car prices soar because of tariffs...people, that is you he doesn't care about!!!
However, this is all the more reason why Democrats need to unseat as many Republicans in office as possible so they have power. Once that happens, it will be easier to reverse the tide.
GA-Sen: Pundits and campaign professionals might think that as Sen. Jon Ossoff runs for reelection, he would seek compromise with Republicans and tread lightly re Trump given the redness, or at best purpleness, of his state.
FL-06: Did anyone else get email showing a Fabrizio poll having Weil 44% and Fine 41%? Is this legit? Of course, the email asked for money. But it seems like the polling on this race as been steadily trending to Weil.
The poll is legit, but special elections can be tough to gauge.
I'd say the most likely outcome is a healthy Democratic over-performance.
A victory in either of the two Florida special elections would completely surprise me; I believe both FL-1 and FL-6 are more Republican-leaning than the Pennsylvania state senate district we flipped a few days ago.
well, maybe you will be completely surprised :-)
I think it’s definitely likely Weil gets 41%, but how much does low turnout boost that number is what’s completely unknown (ie totally different elections, same total turnout: 30% D turnout, 30% R turnout vs 45% D turnout 15% R turnout. Both have 60% turnout, but both extremely different results). Also, I’m pretty sure it was Fine 44-Weil 41 in that poll. Overall this looks like a KS-04. Ridiculously closer than it should be, but not enough to win/come within 5. I’ll repost my post from the other day.
I think this has all the signs of a KS-04. A spring election where Democrats are pissed/hair on fire and swing voters are mad at Trump’s chaos, confusion and catastrophe (only after electing him, do they go “wait a minute, I hate Trump”). The Democratic candidate out raises the Republican by a massive margin.
Millions pour into the district from partisan Democrats wanting a way to channel their fury at a Republican trifecta screwing up the country. Republicans are freaked and do a late last minute intervention to save the seat in a race that shouldn’t be close. History may not repeat, but it very often rhymes. Before KS-04 though in 2017 there was also a sign in the northeast that voters are angry and casting their votes against the GOP.
CT SD32 FEB 2017 spring special election with a massive D+24 over performance from the previous presidential election.
PA SD-36 MAR 2025 spring special election with a massive D+16 over performance from the previous presidential election.
Although not initially expecting a close race, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) spent $100,000 on advertising in the last week of the campaign, and Republican politicians Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, President Donald Trump, and Vice President Mike Pence recorded robocalls or campaigned in person supporting their nominee Ron Estes.[15][16] On April 10, the Cook Political Report moved the rating of the district to Lean Republican.[17] Estes won the election by 6.2% over political newcomer James Thompson. This not only marked a dramatic shift from the 61.6%–29.6% margin that Pompeo had been re-elected by in the previous year's regularly-scheduled election, but this was also the closest race in the district since incumbent Todd Tiahrt, who held the seat from 1995 to 2011, edged out Democrat Randy Rathburn by 3% in 1996.[18]
Also a mea culpa, apology to all, but especially to Mark. You were right and I was wrong about 2024, all of it (except Florida, take that Chris Bouzy!). I thought voters would vote with their brains, not on their emotions. I was wrong. It seems swing voters only care to safeguard democracy after it helps elect the fox to be in charge of the hen house on a promise to never harm the chickens and to make it better for them.
I will learn from this and grow as a person, but if I was a betting man… Republicans then lost 25 seats from state legislature to congress over the next 2 years of special elections and GOP picked up just 4. Democrats won’t win, but they’ll make it closer than it should be, which sparks another blue wave of Democratic activism that flips downballot seats anywhere from Trump +50 (think KY, WV ancestral Dems) to a more realistic, but still hugely impressive Trump +15-25 and below seat from red to blue as Republicans are happy and stay home. Will history rhyme this time? Only time will tell.
What if you took independents and moderate voters in FL-06? Would that factor in?
I don’t know much about FL-06 and can’t comment about trends affecting the district.
Wisconsin, Wisconsin, Wisconsin—both the Supreme Court and Superintendent of Public Instruction races (the latter doesn't seem to be considered competitive, though).
Apparently John Kasich was on MSNBC earlier today spouting that his "sources" think Schimel has it in the bag (this is secondhand information; I have no interest in tracking down the clip). Whatever, John.
let me know when we should start believing what kasich has to say
All but one poll I've seen has Crawford ahead, and that poll had the race tied. I don't think we've had a poll from a source that isn't right-leaning in Wisconsin (Marquette doesn't do head-to-head polling for state supreme court races).
I was polled the other day. It had the standard approve/disapprove questions for various figures in NH. Spent some time on senate, pretty standard.
What wasn't standard and is worth sharing: the overwhelming majority of the poll focused on the prospect of republicans doing a mid-decade redistricting of NH. I tried looking for stories about this but the most recent thing I found was Ayotte saying she was opposed back in November. I doubt a poll would be so overly focused on it if there wasn't at least some real desire for doing so with the republicans in the state legislature though.
There's a distinct possibility that we end up with NH having one blue seat and one red seat for the 2026 elections and that we're stuck looking at a deficit of one more seat.
We will gain seats in Wisconsin when Crawford wins.
Even without a redrawn map (which I agree that Wisconsin desperately needs!), Van Orden's seat is winnable by Democrats.
Is it possible to draw a reliably-red U.S. House district in New Hampshire? Even Bass and Guinta couldn't win consecutive terms post-2010.
I don't know if they could draw something that's immune to a dem wave year in NH, but they could definitely draw something that would clearly favor a republican.
If you look at the current CD borders and then look at 2024 results by municipality you'll see there's a lot of red towns that aren't part NH-01 but are right on the border between the two districts. The Salem area in particular has a lot of dark red towns across the NH/MA border that could easily be in NH-01. In exchange it could drop either Manchester or some of the Manchester suburbs (depending on how the numbers worked out). Those are areas that are either roughly neutral or on the blue end of the spectrum.
The NH legislature is heavily gerrymandered right now, it's how republicans won a 2/3 majority of the state senate and 4/5 executive council seats despite Harris carrying the state.
They won a couple Harris won districts in the state senate.
Van Orden would be screwed in redistricting. His best hope is Tom Tiffany running for Governor so he can carpetbag to his district. In fact, he lives close enough to WI-07 that he could be drawn into it after redistricting.
Steil’s seat would be more competitive, though not totally unwinnable for him. Beating him is important for Dems because otherwise he may for Ron Johnson’s seat if he retires in 2028, or against Tammy Baldwin in 2030. Perhaps Greta Neubauer or Cory Mason run here.
There’s definitely a chance Tony Wied gets a tougher district too that goes into Oshkosh. Dems would probably not have much of a chance there if Gallagher stuck around, but Wied is very MAGA and very beatable should WI-08 be brought down into the single digits for Trump. Tom Nelson could finally come to congress.
WI-3 is pretty much already a Dem gerrymander seat. Could gerrymander in some of the Madison area or make some weird district that also takes in the most Northern parts of WI-7 that are blue. Other than that, it’s already pretty gerrymandered.
Do we have information on the relative intensity and effectiveness of Democratic GOTV efforts compared to Republican efforts in:
– Wisconsin (Supreme Court)
– Florida FL-06
– Florida FL-01
EDIT: Anyone on the ground with impressions & anecdotal evidence? I’m sure that I am not the only one who is very interested!
STATE TRIFECTAS – What did Democrats do with Power?
The American Prospect has published a review of what Democratic governors and legislatures did with their power in 17 states where they have a Trifecta. I am sure there is plenty room for disagreement on the specifics of this evaluation, but this is fascinating stuff!
https://prospect.org/politics/2025-03-24-blue-state-power-index/
Seems to me that the best campaign argument for downballot Democrats should be what we do with power when we have it. Are we doing enough good stuff? And, if so, the next obvious questions are: How convincing is that argument in the various states Are we communicating those achievements well to voters?
If Dems get trifectas in PA and WI, they need to get independent redistricting put on the ballot there. Dem trifectas in those states are very rare and we really don’t want to risk Republicans getting control again in a redistricting cycle. I can’t say this enough.
That is a great article! Thank you.
NYT has a piece out about how both Dems and Reps think Musk will help their candidates. Reps think Musk will help them with getting out their base. I don't doubt that MAGA hasn't soured as much on Musk but the issue the GOP is facing is that not only does Musk fire up Dem voters, they aren't considering his unpopularity with Independent voters. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/28/us/politics/elon-musk-wisconsin-supreme-court.html
From Marquette's poll earlier this month: https://www.marquette.edu/news-center/2025/large-percentages-lack-opinions-of-candidates-for-wisconsin-supreme-court-state-superintendent-public-instruction.php
Elon Musk is viewed favorably by 41% and unfavorably by 53%. Partisan differences in views of Musk are extremely large, with 81% of Republicans favorable to Musk, while 58% of independents and 97% of Democrats are unfavorable.
It just shows that GOP hasn't learned a lesson that MAGA, especially in off year elections when Trump isn't on the ballot, isn't enough to win elections. By basically blowing off appealing to Independent voters with their "you're with us or against us" mentality, it just keeps helping our side. My good friend is a moderate Independent who really can't stand Newsom and thinks Democrats are weak on crime and focus too much on identity politics but he royally hates Trump and has been voting Democrat more often because he acknowledges that Democrats put forth the effort to win him over.
I think he GOP’s strategy may be to break the Democrats’ alliance with their less reliable voters, like young voters or disaffected minorities.
Good luck getting less reliable voters to the polls for an-off year state Supreme Court election.
It may help the Dark Side that Musk’s canvassers in Wisconsin are offering $100 to young, less-reliable voters. Incredible that none of them have been arrested! Imagine George Soros doing the same in, say, Florida’s Congressional races, or in New York’s special election to replace Stefanik had Trump not withdrawn her nomination.
https://bsky.app/profile/patrickiber.bsky.social/post/3llk4j2mc2c2h
They don’t need to show up for Republicans. They just need to not show-up at all.
They were already not showing up for april court elections.
I meant this as a strategy for high-turnout presidential races or midterms.
Did gas prices jump 20-30 cents/gallon today in FL like they did in CA? If so, I sure hope Weil is making a f*cking big deal about it over the weekend! It is all on trump and his maga losers.
Egg, gas and so much more – and soon to include lots of imported goods. Yes, these price increases are entirely on Trump.
That said, American gas is still dirt cheap – less than half the price in Scandinavia. (Ok, granted, California is more than half.) And I still haven’t figured out why so many Americans drive gas-guzzling pickup trucks and SUVs that they don’t really need, especially when they’re sitting alone behind the wheel so much of the time.
It's a pathological macho thing.
Pickup trucks are definitely a macho thing. There's some kind of sociological yearning for a lot of men to pretend that they're doing some kind of physical labor and buy a truck on that pretense. Either as their main income or as a side hobby. The vast majority of them only use it for commuting and shopping. I can't count the number of times a man has said he "needs" a truck for work, and then literally never puts anything in the bed.
But oversized vehicles aren't limited to men. All of the women in my extended family have gravitated towards oversized SUVs. Either because (1) "bigger car is safer car", and/or (2) they think they need it for parenting duties.
I find it rather insane, truthfully. Even in densely populated areas where parking a bigger vehicle would be a nightmare I still see plenty of absolutely giant SUVs or trucks.
My impression is that very few owners of pickup trucks are actually tradesmen who require those vehicles professionally.
As for the rest of them who "need" it because it’s a macho thing, sounds to me as though therapy for their male insecurity would be far, far cheaper.
I wish I could find it again but a few months ago I saw a very illuminating chart along those lines. One line showed the number of Americans employed in a trades or other related jobs that would generally justify a pickup truck for work purposes. The other line showed the number of pickup trucks sold per year.
The pickup truck sales line was a steady increase year over, increasing many, many many times over from its initial starting position. The employment line was nearly flat over the same time period.
I'd guesstimate that fewer than 20% of pickup truck owners have a use based need for a truck.
I've heard them referred to as emotional support trucks.
what part of the country are you located in? here in SoCal the "pick up phenomenon" is out of control: speeding, road rage, running stop signs, taking up 2 parking spots, needing to back in to a parking spot, etc., etc., etc. There is one major south OC city where the MEDIAN household income in $178,000/year: they don't give a shit about gas prices!!
I’m in Maine. Last time I filled regular gas it cost $3 per gallon. (My wife and I drive a hybrid Prius.) In Norway gas is priced per liter; right now the average price there is approx. $7.50 per gallon. This despite the fact that Norway is a major oil producer.
A major difference there is in much of Europe (and presumably other developed countries) the gas tax is way higher. If I did my math right, Norway has a gas tax equivalent of $1.50/gal.
https://www.skatteetaten.no/en/rates/road-usage-tax-on-fuel/
That isn't accounting for Norway's CO2 tax on fuel, which I cannot find a source I'm happy with, but I believe is in the neighborhood of another $1/gal once all conversions are done. That would bring the total tax to ~$2.50/gal.
CA has a combined state and federal gas tax of ~$0.85/gal, the highest in the country a decent margin. Most states are $0.50/gal or lower for the combined value.
There are some major upsides to the higher gas tax system, even if it would be disastrously unpopular here. Since a higher proportion of the cost is fixed, that means the impact of cost shocks on the system have a lower effective impact on people's lives — the disruption of eg OPEC raising prices would still exist but would be lower. It incentivizes people to buy more efficient vehicles. And finally it brings in revenue for roads, bridges, and other related infrastructure. No one in the US is ever happy with the condition of our roads but also no one wants to pay anything to maintain them...
This is true, but the price you pay at the pump is only part of the story.
Americans carry a lot of hidden costs for their gasoline. For instance, it can be argued that a significant portion of Middle Eastern wars and military aid has been a huge subsidy for control of oil and to keep it flowing. And who pays for that? Why, the American taxpayer of course.
Now, perhaps someone has bothered to compute that as a "surcharge" per gallon. If someone were to do so, I wouldn’t be surprised if that far exceeds the taxes added Scandinavia and elsewhere.
I'd lump that into the negative externality camp rather than as an equivalent of a hidden gas tax. Everyone paid for the Iraq Wars, reimposing the Shah on Iran, propping up the Egyptian military, and everything else in that long, long list. People who do not drive pay it the same as those that do. People that were children or not even born yet pay for it. In some ways even people in unrelated countries pay for it.
It's like the classic negative externality of pollution in that way: everyone pays for it equally, even if they had nothing to do with its generation.
I do expect your assumption that if we did treat it as another hidden gas tax that it would be quite high. I started trying to do some math on it to confirm, but there's too many assumptions to make and it was messy so I didn't keep it in. That is another part of why I think treating it as an externality is wiser — it's not easy to assign the spending to gallons of gas made available.
You raise some good points – especially about how complex it is to quantify those costs if we treat them as a hidden gas tax. But regardless of how we categorize them, as externalities or directly related to oil & gas, these massive expenditures cost taxpayers vast amounts of money and ought somehow to be taken into account. Merely comparing the taxes and fees of petrol at the pump gives in incomplete picture.
YUGE news from the Pelican State. All FOUR referenda were rejected! https://www.knoe.com/2025/03/30/louisiana-voters-reject-all-four-constitutional-amendments-march-ballot/
State is conditioned for failure? Landry doesn’t think much of his own state.
so why did a "republican" state overwhelmingly vote against the wishes of their republican governor?
That's very common. People's views on issues seem to be very different from their cultural, tribal or whatever identification as Republicans, though that said, we know that Louisiana had a Democratic governor very recently, so some voting based purely on attitudes toward particular candidates is also relevant, but people don't always choose candidates based on their positions on issues.
Landry actually isn't very popular even among LA Republicans; he just won handidly due to a) Deep polarization re: partisanship along with b) Historically low turnout. It's a little similar to Trump in that I think most voters pulled the lever for him thinking he'd be just another Generic R Governor, but he's really tried to impose some massive changes and folks are pushing back.
270towin mapped the results by county. https://www.270towin.com/news/2025/03/29/live-results-louisiana-proposed-constitutional-amendments_1712.html
Now if the LA Democratic Party gets its crap together and ends up winning elections, even better.
A POTENT REMINDER! John Lithgow reads "20 Lessons on Tyranny from the 20th Century". This is the core of Timothy Snyder’s message – a timely reminder of the precarious times in which we live.
https://snyder.substack.com/p/twenty-lessons-read-by-john-lithgow
To phrase it another way: "If you ever wondered what you would have done in Germany in 1933, you’re doing it now."
Snyder has left Yale and gone to the University of Toronto
Yes, I am well aware. For years Timothy Snyder has seen the writing on the wall and been trying to warn us. All too many, including most of our news media, cover the news as though it largely is business as usual.
Thanks for that.
tried to post the link but it would not work: trump spouting off how he couldn't care less if car prices soar because of tariffs...people, that is you he doesn't care about!!!
Another reason to call the tariffs the Trump sales tax.
He's creating the headlines for us to reinforce it.
Here is a link from NBC: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-couldnt-care-less-automakers-raise-prices-tariffs-rcna198731
No he doesn’t care! It’s like he’s throwing his army toys in the air without any care for what happens to them.
We can't thank anyone, because the damage to the country is so severe, and some of it is irreversible. Politics is not a game!
I’m not thanking anyone yet.
However, this is all the more reason why Democrats need to unseat as many Republicans in office as possible so they have power. Once that happens, it will be easier to reverse the tide.
Reminded my family in FL-06 to vote. They've received a bunch of phone calls from the Weil campaign and are planning to vote Tuesday.
GA-Sen: Pundits and campaign professionals might think that as Sen. Jon Ossoff runs for reelection, he would seek compromise with Republicans and tread lightly re Trump given the redness, or at best purpleness, of his state.
He's got other ideas.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/30/politics/ossoff-trump-outrage-reelection-georgia/index.html