Georgia voters broke a turnout record for early voting in a primary election on the final day of early voting, and Gov. Brian Kemp is concerned about the Democratic turnout advantage heading into Election Day on Tuesday. #gapol
The Justice Department on Thursday accused Yale University's medical school of discriminating against white and Asian applicants in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws.
Who wants to tell the non-doj that since to their stacked courts it is legal to discriminate against asians.
A while ago I read an article that said the same group of asians that sued harvard saying they had to many asian students and ended affinitive action sued harvard again this time claiming they did not have enough asian students.
Although not all white and Asian students at schools like Yale are this way, I just think these people in particular are whiners who give an excuse for why they didn’t get admitted.
As someone who was a teenager in Berkeley during the 90’s when affirmative action was still around (until Darrell Issa worked to end it), affirmative action was vital for those who were specifically underprivileged.
completely unclear how you square these claims with the Court's general rejection of disparate impact analyses in civil rights claims. Coming up with very low burdens of proof for anti-white discrimination but a presumption of good faith for southern state legislatures is so remarkably anti-originalist I'd be surprised if I wasn't so cynical.
Tom Kean Jr is alive per his father, who says he’s recovering from a temporary illness and is under a doctor’s care, which does not suggest a psychiatric hold or anything of that extreme.
When he gets back is the question but I think Kean Sr’s statement is ruling out death for sure.
Terry is doing this to air graphic ads depicting aborted fetuses in the Philadelphia and NYC media markets (and possibly nationally). Terry currently lives in Tennessee and would have to move to any part of New Jersey at some point before the general election in order to actually be eligible to be elected to Congress in that state.
Although I would normally dismiss Terry's antics as a frequent political candidate as an extremely disgusting form of attention-seeking, there is a non-zero chance that Terry could end up being the de facto Republican candidate. Kean Jr. has no Republican primary opposition, and, if he dies before the general election, I don't know if New Jersey law allows for a major-party nominee to be replaced on the ballot after the primary. Even if New Jersey law allows for Republicans to replace a nominee post-primary, Republicans could decide to not nominate a replacement candidate and endorse Terry's independent bid if they wanted to.
Make light of Randall Terry at your own hazard, gentlemen. When he challenged President Obama’s renomination in 2012, he carried the ENTIRE Oklahoma panhandle!
Maybe it's just me but I've been noticing more moderate Democrats, especially those that are governors, pissing off Democrats and progressives or just chickening out more lately. There's been Josh Shapiro's relevation that he's been fighting with local Dems and backed a Republican for treasurer in 2024 and he's been maneuvering to try and block Chris Rabb in Philadelphia and pushing for more centrist candidates.
Then there's Gretchen Whitmer and her excessive willingness to play nice with Trump and big tech. And of course we also the less than amicable relations between the VA senate president Louise Lucas and governor Spanberger.
Not saying that the center hasn't shifted left, especially with the whole gerrymandering war, but there's still been much stubborn, selfish and foolish resistance.
To be completely honest, this is the norm. This is what’s always happened over the last 2 decades of politics. National Democrats choosing the candidates in districts and states instead of the voters because our voters trusted the party to know what’s best. It’s only now after losing to Trump a 2nd time where our base has basically had enough and is actively pushing back on this top down “democracy” that’s been the absolute for our party since after Obama. It’s noticed more by voters, it’s cared about more by voters.
It’s not just enough to run as a Democrat, you must actively support most/all of our party priorities to be in sync with what our base wants (especially in blue states/seats). Every NC State House Democrat who voted with Republicans to override Josh Stein’s veto had been in office and not faced a challenger for a long time. There were regular cases of elected Democrats not supporting Harris/Hillary or actively supporting Trump since 2016. Our party has needed a cleanup for decades now and it’s only just starting to impact Democratic primary elections.
But for those used to how the way things worked, it makes them frustrated that it doesn’t automatically anymore, so whenever they do things that used to be shrugged off by our base, now is enough to cause actual outrage and move votes away from the Democrat who doesn’t do what we want. Which is why the politician who receives said blowback is shocked and surprised by the amount of opposition to doing what Democrats have always done and our party voters never cared about that before.
So I get why elected Democrats keep doing this and I also get why our progressive base is not listening to elected Democrats on who we should nominate. Democrats today need to understand times are different, we want a different kind of representation in office and we aren’t just accepting of any politician’s actions/votes just because they have a D next to their name. That era is over and accountability being held to us by our party’s voters is the new norm.
Fight hard with us, or get out of the way for people who can do what is necessary. Some people will decide to change, others will decide to lose, but regardless, that old way of doing things is now entirely in the past for our party. May the best candidates with the most voter support win.
Clemency and a pardon are different. I disagree with his decision. But as a long time public defender, I have a guy aversion to our tendency to incarcerate folks. Outside of the rare case, prison is almost never a place where we should want our fellow humans to suffer.
I only wish Polis had done that for the thousands of other nonviolent felons we put in cages instead of the right-wing nut job who tried to subvert democracy
Yeah, I'm a bit cynical over him choosing this sentence, specifically, I'm afraid. The net effect of this move is going to be pro-mass-incarceration, since it emboldens the far right. Particularly for non-citizens. Who are suffering in facilities that people who went from maximum security to a "detention center" (concentration camp) say are much MUCH worse.
A Florida judge on Friday heard arguments on a lawsuit to block a new congressional redistricting plan in Florida that could give Republicans a four-seat gain in the upcoming midterm elections.
Opponents are seeking a temporary injunction barring the state from using the new districts. They say the plan violates a state constitutional amendment approved by voters that prohibits using redistricting for partisan purposes.
Florida 2nd Judicial Circuit Judge Joshua Hawkes did not issue an immediate ruling.
Twitter breadcrumbs suggest DeSantis’ case did not go over especially well, but considering the whole bench we should assume they’ll end up in his corner.
Final. Mail + EV Democratic margins = BIG vote hurdle for Republicans to overcome on E-Day. Question now is will they still show up if they haven’t gone and voted yet.
Investigative journalist Austin Ahlman is running as a left-wing independent for this seat. There is apparently concern he may split the Dem vote here - but this is a real reach seat if I remember right. Thoughts?
Yeah, this is a reach seat. Osborn won it in 2024, but it's probably around Likely R as of now. Democrat Chris Backemeyer has some credibility at the State Department, so that may boost him a little.
Two candidates I chipped in to help a wee bit I selected because of my impression that they were at the very top of Trump’s very large s*** list. Ilhan Omar and Letitia James. Anybody got any insight as to their respective fortunes and needs?
This makes me worried. Will they now make excuses to block all Dem redraws and allow GOP ones? If they do, do we have any recourse at all in the redistricting fight?
They can redistrict, but they're not going to stop the wave from coming. The House has got to flip, as does the Senate, and it has to be by convincing enough margins that we can hold them in 2028.
I really want to see some real movement from NY and CO on that front. They're our two biggest opportunities for counterbalance.
Hochul has made statements in favor of doing something, and there's talk for CO. I need to see something concrete start up for both, because the process isn't as trivial as passing something through the legislature. All while the clock is ticking.
1) Democrats in those states and other blue ones are rightly spending their time now on winning the midterms by beating Republicans from top of the ticket on down in November.
CO03, CO05, CO08, NY01, NY02 and NY17 have possibly/are actually competitive seats held by the GOP, so that’s a House Majority right there for us if Democrats sweep.
2) Are also thinking/planning quietly on what to do immediately afterwards in order to redraw the maps in time for 2028. I’d rather they do the first thing right now because step 1 is halting Trump’s puppet party.
Then after that hopeful electoral annihilation of the GOP, we can fight back against Republicans implementing Jim Crow in the South again, by redrawing/redistricting in blue states. Sometimes I’d rather a person just keep walking instead, focused on the task at hand instead of also trying to chew gum at the same time.
Problem with that is the process doesn't give them time to wait until after 2026.
NY requires two separate legislatures to approve an amendment to the state constitution before it can go to voters. Colorado needs to either go through the whole ballot initiative process or get 2/3 votes in the state legislature before it goes to voters. In both cases they need a full separate election in front of voters, and potency of anger over redistricting is going to go down with time: we want to do this sooner rather than later.
We can talk and chew gum at the same time. State leaders can focus on getting this done on a quick enough time table while still giving appropriate attention to this year's elections. Waiting until after 2026 is a glorified way of, more likely than not, having nothing happen.
We can walk and chew gum at the same time. I wouldn’t assume anything is happening behind the scenes because not all of these Govs and lege leaders have committed to taking up the redistricting fight. Some of these states need action how, this November, to draw maps for 2028.
Convincing enough margins from one cycle to the other can happen for the senate, by building up enough of an advantage in held seats that the 1/3 up in the next cycle aren't practically capable of changing the balance of power. That is not possible for the house. Look at 2008 -> 2010. We won the popular vote for the house by 11 points in 2008 with 257 seats. We still lost it in the 2010 backlash.
For the senate, ideally we want to win the majority outright this cycle. If we do OK in 2028 we'd be almost certain to retain our majority, if not grow it. Less ideally but still good would be getting 2-3 pickups and having the majority in 2028 rely on the two most viable senate pickups in NC+WI from that cycle.
Yeah you would have thought winning 257 House seats in 2008 would have given us a huge buffer in 2010. Nope, that majority collapsed like a house made out of pixie sticks.
Obviously you'd need to nuke the filibuster first, which you need for pretty much anything meaningful at this point. A structural change like PR would, besides being good in itself, be one of the few things that made me feel better about nuking the filibuster; I think you get a much more solid chance of retaining power or at least averting another trifecta for longer that way.
You have nothing to worry about. There's a difference between SCOTUS not overturning a state court's decision to block a Dem redraw and them overturning a map themselves. The latter has thankfully not happened.
No; they already tried and failed with California--that is, GOP sued (on racial premise of all things) and SCOTUS unsurprisingly shot it down. The difference is, we didn't have state judges/supreme court shooting us down. VA's still swingy in that regard.
Any redistricting in solidly bluer states will not be overturned. The challenge will be getting it past initial intraparty objections. I suspect those will be much fewer now after Callais.
not a law person at all, but I had the impression that, outside of all other context, in itself this would be an expected move, I think? Federal not getting involved in state supreme court matters?
ah right, gotcha. well clearly this is one of those cases where it doesn't concern federal matters, except when it does -eyeroll-
I like that they've at least felt the need to get all defensive in public about how very not political they are. I hope Roberts is visited by the ghosts of SCOTUS past at Christmas.
TN-4: Nashville councilman Mike Cortese will challenge Republican Rep. Scott DesJarlais, after previously running in the 5th.
TN-5: Republican Rep. Andy Ogles faces former state agriculture commissioner Charlie Hatcher in the primary, and Columbia mayor Chaz Molder and activist DeVante Hill (who previously ran in the now-open 9th) on the Democratic side.
TN-6: Former Rep. Van Hilleary and state Rep. Johnny Garrett will compete in the Republican primary, while former Nashville mayor Megan Barry will not run on the Democratic side after all.
TN-7: Republican Rep. Matt Van Epps faces surprisingly spirited Democratic challengers from state Rep. Vincent Dixie and businessman Darden Copeland. Nashville councilman Jacob Kupin initially said he would run but withdrew ahead of the filing deadline.
TN-9: Obviously, Rep. Steve Cohen isn't running here. That leaves state Rep. Justin Pearson and state Sen. London Lamar as the only major Democrats. State Sen. Brent Taylor, state Rep. Todd Warner, and conservative commentator Charlotte Bergman are the major Republicans running, and it's likely one of them will win the general against Pearson or Lamar.
The last two provisionals in the Deery vs Copenhaver primary for Indiana's 23rd State Senate district got rejected, meaning Deery has won by 3 votes, although Copenhaver will presumably request a recount, and it's possible that could change things.
I'm interested in 2026 state senate and house races.
One thing I've been trying to figure out is what the "tipping point" district is in each state senate / house, at least for competitive races. Does anyone know if there's a resource that covers this? For example, in NH, to win 12 senate seats and have a tie the Democracts would need to win District 7 (lost by 11 in 2024), and for 13 and a majority they'd need to win District 12 (lost by 12), if the district follow the same relative partisanship anyway.
But to figure that out you'd need to go to the wiki, ballotpedia, or NH gov site and calculate and sort all the margins to get the tipping point districts. Before I go crazy calculating a bunch of states, anyone know if this work has already been done somewhere?
I find it odd that Maine, a point to the left of Virginia is 2024, hasn't come up in the redistricting convo. There's 2 Democratic reps now, but it could easily fall to 1-1 even if we have a blue wave; Jared Golden won a Trump +9 seat and isn't running again.
Instead of a Harris +22 and Trump +9 they could draw Harris +7 and +6, or say +11 and +2, whatever, anything of that flavor. They'd need a constitutional amendment that rips down all the current procedures, but that's true of a number of places that I've seen come up a lot more in the redistricting convo.
I think the problem in Maine is it takes a supermajority to redistrict or change the constitution. The tipping point for that is Trump+9 in both chambers, about on par with ME-02, so it's worth a shot breaking it this year.
Well until the corrupt ssc decides that before and election like in 2026 when they stole the senate seat for learned his lesson that RCV is illegal and unconstititonal and then after the election flipped and said that RCV was legal after all.
They are doing the same thing again.
Maine Supreme Court says ranked choice voting expansion is unconstitutional
No, they very clearly do not have RCV for state general elections. The most recent case was unanimous, we should not wait to flip it with explicitly pro-RCV justices. It should be dealt with constitutionally to get around judicial interpretation.
Maine might be one state I'd exclude from a Democratic gerrymandering effort, as the state is nowhere near as polarized as most other states, and any attempt to draw an all-Democratic map could yield an all-Republican House delegation in a GOP wave year and/or a year with badly flawed Democratic congressional nominees.
Maps in Maine have to be passed by 2/3 of the legislature. It's de facto impossible for us to redraw it right now.
The only real avenue to doing anything there is to fail to pass a map after 2030 and have the state court create something. But I'd hazard a guess that the chances of the Maine supreme court creating a dem gerrymander is ~zero.
Here are some reasons and some states already doing it.
Black voters who forced Louisiana to add a second majority-Black congressional district asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to recall an order allowing a contentious voting rights ruling to take effect immediately.
The night prior, the justices issued a rare order agreeing to rush the implementation of their decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which struck down the state’s congressional maps. The high court’s unsigned order reasoned the Black voters hadn’t asked the court to reconsider its judgment.
But civil rights groups supporting the voters said that was incorrect. The second sentence of their opposition to expediting release of the ruling states “this court should afford appellants the opportunity to consider seeking rehearing in the ordinary course.”
The Black voters asked the justices to recall the judgment, reconsider their order granting the application and deny it.
Under court practice, the clerk issues a certified judgment about 32 days after a ruling. Just hours after its decision last week, the plaintiffs Callais — a group of “non-African American voters” — asked the high court to fast-track the procedural process formalizing their win.
Tension across the bench over granting their request spilled out into the public Monday night. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden appointee, issued a blistering solo dissent admonishing her colleagues for ignoring protocol to assist a Republican redraw amid an ongoing election. She noted the court has only ever agreed to rush the release of its judgment in two other cases over the last 25 years.
“Not content to have decided the law, it now takes steps to influence its implementation,” Jackson wrote. “The court’s decision to buck our usual practice under Rule 45.3 and issue the judgment forthwith is tantamount to an approval of Louisiana’s rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map.”
Justice Samuel Alito, a George W. Bush appointee, said Jackson’s accusation was “groundless and utterly irresponsible” in a concurring opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. He said Jackson leveled charges that cannot go unanswered, characterizing her reasons for delaying as “trivial at best” and “baseless and insulting.”
The Supreme Court's latest ruling allowing a red state to pursue its redistricting efforts sparked outrage on Monday.
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued an unsigned ruling allowing Alabama to pursue a new election map that could eliminate two Democratic-held seats. The ruling paved the way for the Republicans to add more seats in Congress as the 2026 midterms approach.
Political analysts and experts reacted to the ruling on social media.
"The Supreme Court is rigged," Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) posted on X.
"They're shameless fascists and political hacks, and they shouldn't be able to go anywhere without people screaming in their faces, reminding them that they're scum," political commentator Kyle Kulinski posted on X.
"Roberts is a GOP operative and a crook, and it’s really time to stop pretending otherwise," Jesse Lee, a former Biden administration official, posted on X.
"[I don't know] how anyone can still act like the Supreme Court majority has any credibility now," Jen Rice, a reporter with Democracy Docket, posted on X.
"Of course they did. Gotta help out the [Republicans] before it's too close to an election to change the maps," lawyer T. Greg Doucette posted on Bluesky.
"At this point, anyone who cares about justice and the rule of law just needs to be upfront about the fact that this is an illegitimate court whose decisions will be undone at the first opportunity, and that opportunity, being peaceful, is the best these partisan hacks can hope for," Chris Kluwe, a Democratic candidate for office, posted on Bluesky.
The decision came nearly a half-hour after the court missed its own 5pm EST deadline.
If they are going to ignore their own procedures and deadlines maybe it is time for us to ignore them.
Here are some states ignoring them on some cases already.
Hawaii Legislature passes first-in-nation bill targeting Citizens United ruling
As for what the think here is one who admitted they would be powerless if people ignored them.
Barrett told the New York Times' Ross Douthat on the Thursday episode of his podcast that the structure of the Supreme Court dictates that its rulings be adhered to not by force, but out of tradition. And if a president disregards that tradition, there's little judges can do to deter him.
So maybe it is time for blue states to ignore tradition.
I would argue that ignoring the courts at any level is a non-starter with a plurality of Democrats, and a majority of voters and establishment and institutional structures. The societal pushback, (and the level of unity and ruthlessness needed by the Dems to see a court revolution through) is going to be immense, and is something we are absolutely not going to be able to do, with 52-54 seats in the Senate, and the fulcrum votes being people like Seth Moulton and Angus King....
Ignoring, removing, packing or otherwise fundamentally altering the situation with courts is not going to be possible if the Executive or Legislature are the primary mover. It would only be possible with a massive, sustained grassroots protest movement, something larger than Occupy, or the No Kings movement. Something truly revolution scale, with millions of Americans in the streets bringing government and business to a halt. At that point, we're in escapist fantasy.
Ignoring decisions is a non-starter, but I'm completely unconvinced that enlarging the Supreme Court is, and it fucking better not be if the Democrats plan on getting anything done!
I never thought the Village People’s music was about being gay. Of course, many in the LGBTQ community in the Bay Area over the years since I’ve lived here have played Y.M.C.A. and other various Village People songs but mainly because the music is catchy and empowering.
Trump just wants to do anything and everything he can to get attention.
The point the Village People made about the songs was that they were challenging the status quo and representation of black people as far as being in the crowd. That’s what the lead singer in the article mentioned.
Kemp’s getting nervous in Georgia.
https://x.com/wabenews/status/2055332004804038807
Georgia voters broke a turnout record for early voting in a primary election on the final day of early voting, and Gov. Brian Kemp is concerned about the Democratic turnout advantage heading into Election Day on Tuesday. #gapol
https://www.wabe.org/georgia-voters-break-the-record-for-early-voting-turnout-in-a-primary-election/
He should be getting nervous. Especially if Democrats flip the state legislature and governors seat this year after he rigs the 2028 maps.
Good!
I know that this is not strictly election related but I had to post it.
US Justice Department accuses Yale medical school of race-based discrimination in admissions
https://www.ctinsider.com/news/education/article/justice-department-trump-yale-medical-school-22259548.php
The Justice Department on Thursday accused Yale University's medical school of discriminating against white and Asian applicants in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws.
Who wants to tell the non-doj that since to their stacked courts it is legal to discriminate against asians.
A while ago I read an article that said the same group of asians that sued harvard saying they had to many asian students and ended affinitive action sued harvard again this time claiming they did not have enough asian students.
I sense privilege is at play here.
Although not all white and Asian students at schools like Yale are this way, I just think these people in particular are whiners who give an excuse for why they didn’t get admitted.
As someone who was a teenager in Berkeley during the 90’s when affirmative action was still around (until Darrell Issa worked to end it), affirmative action was vital for those who were specifically underprivileged.
completely unclear how you square these claims with the Court's general rejection of disparate impact analyses in civil rights claims. Coming up with very low burdens of proof for anti-white discrimination but a presumption of good faith for southern state legislatures is so remarkably anti-originalist I'd be surprised if I wasn't so cynical.
Repost since it was late:
NJ-07: Auto flip.
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2055351692544094513
Anti-abortion activist Randell Terry files as an Independent to run in New Jersey’s 7th congressional district, Tom Kean’s (R-NJ) seat
(Trump +2 | 2024)
Thank you Randall Terry for your service in helping elect Tom Kean Jr’s Democratic challenger.
Of course, that's implying it's Tom Kean Jr. someone is running against.
No proof he is even alive, let alone running for reelection.
Tom Kean Jr is alive per his father, who says he’s recovering from a temporary illness and is under a doctor’s care, which does not suggest a psychiatric hold or anything of that extreme.
When he gets back is the question but I think Kean Sr’s statement is ruling out death for sure.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/15/politics/tom-kean-jr-absence-congress-under-doctors-care
“Under a doctor’s care” may not mean a hold, but it does suggest something psychiatric.
True. Could mean say a psychiatrist Kean Jr is seeing is doing monitoring and he’s seeing him weekly or monthly for check ups.
Terry is doing this to air graphic ads depicting aborted fetuses in the Philadelphia and NYC media markets (and possibly nationally). Terry currently lives in Tennessee and would have to move to any part of New Jersey at some point before the general election in order to actually be eligible to be elected to Congress in that state.
Although I would normally dismiss Terry's antics as a frequent political candidate as an extremely disgusting form of attention-seeking, there is a non-zero chance that Terry could end up being the de facto Republican candidate. Kean Jr. has no Republican primary opposition, and, if he dies before the general election, I don't know if New Jersey law allows for a major-party nominee to be replaced on the ballot after the primary. Even if New Jersey law allows for Republicans to replace a nominee post-primary, Republicans could decide to not nominate a replacement candidate and endorse Terry's independent bid if they wanted to.
If they do that (endorse him), well, that's...you keep thinking there's no further to fall with the current GOP. And then.
That said, it sounds like Kean's situation could be something more politically than existentially deadly, perhaps? I guess eventually we'll see.
jfc Terry's still around? Terry's still alive?
Make light of Randall Terry at your own hazard, gentlemen. When he challenged President Obama’s renomination in 2012, he carried the ENTIRE Oklahoma panhandle!
Polis grants Tina Peters clemency. Glad he’s on his way out.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/05/15/colorado-gov-jared-polis-grants-clemency-to-tina-peters-makes-her-eligible-for-release-from-prison/
He should be impeached. Fuck him.
The republicans already hate him, could be a unanimous vote lol.
With allies like these, who needs enemies?
Thankfully he's an outlier in the Democrats.
I can't imagine anyone in the Colorado Democratic Party is cheering for this. Wouldn't say the same about the Pennsylvania one though.
Looks like Democrats have to do cleaning up in CO.
Do we have any real hope that Bennet will do that? He seems the most likely to win the primary. He's always come across as fairly milquetoast to me.
Which is why in this case Newsom has more balls than Polis.
In a lot of places.
Long overdue.
He’s probably got a good paying corporate gig already lined up.
We should send him into an early retirement. Impeach and Remove.
Yes, this rich fucking douchbag Dem with no spine.
he's worth half a billion, I think he's doing this out of genuine conviction and is just really stupid.
I remember when this guy was one of the rising stars of the party. Thank god he's on his way out.
What a disappointment this guy is.
Maybe it's just me but I've been noticing more moderate Democrats, especially those that are governors, pissing off Democrats and progressives or just chickening out more lately. There's been Josh Shapiro's relevation that he's been fighting with local Dems and backed a Republican for treasurer in 2024 and he's been maneuvering to try and block Chris Rabb in Philadelphia and pushing for more centrist candidates.
Then there's Gretchen Whitmer and her excessive willingness to play nice with Trump and big tech. And of course we also the less than amicable relations between the VA senate president Louise Lucas and governor Spanberger.
Not saying that the center hasn't shifted left, especially with the whole gerrymandering war, but there's still been much stubborn, selfish and foolish resistance.
To be completely honest, this is the norm. This is what’s always happened over the last 2 decades of politics. National Democrats choosing the candidates in districts and states instead of the voters because our voters trusted the party to know what’s best. It’s only now after losing to Trump a 2nd time where our base has basically had enough and is actively pushing back on this top down “democracy” that’s been the absolute for our party since after Obama. It’s noticed more by voters, it’s cared about more by voters.
It’s not just enough to run as a Democrat, you must actively support most/all of our party priorities to be in sync with what our base wants (especially in blue states/seats). Every NC State House Democrat who voted with Republicans to override Josh Stein’s veto had been in office and not faced a challenger for a long time. There were regular cases of elected Democrats not supporting Harris/Hillary or actively supporting Trump since 2016. Our party has needed a cleanup for decades now and it’s only just starting to impact Democratic primary elections.
But for those used to how the way things worked, it makes them frustrated that it doesn’t automatically anymore, so whenever they do things that used to be shrugged off by our base, now is enough to cause actual outrage and move votes away from the Democrat who doesn’t do what we want. Which is why the politician who receives said blowback is shocked and surprised by the amount of opposition to doing what Democrats have always done and our party voters never cared about that before.
So I get why elected Democrats keep doing this and I also get why our progressive base is not listening to elected Democrats on who we should nominate. Democrats today need to understand times are different, we want a different kind of representation in office and we aren’t just accepting of any politician’s actions/votes just because they have a D next to their name. That era is over and accountability being held to us by our party’s voters is the new norm.
Fight hard with us, or get out of the way for people who can do what is necessary. Some people will decide to change, others will decide to lose, but regardless, that old way of doing things is now entirely in the past for our party. May the best candidates with the most voter support win.
You said it man.
Win elections, win elections and win more elections.
To be pedantic, Shapiro never "backed" the Republican in the Treasurer race. he just didn't endorse the Democrat.
Clemency and a pardon are different. I disagree with his decision. But as a long time public defender, I have a guy aversion to our tendency to incarcerate folks. Outside of the rare case, prison is almost never a place where we should want our fellow humans to suffer.
I only wish Polis had done that for the thousands of other nonviolent felons we put in cages instead of the right-wing nut job who tried to subvert democracy
Yeah, I'm a bit cynical over him choosing this sentence, specifically, I'm afraid. The net effect of this move is going to be pro-mass-incarceration, since it emboldens the far right. Particularly for non-citizens. Who are suffering in facilities that people who went from maximum security to a "detention center" (concentration camp) say are much MUCH worse.
International political news:
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/bahamas-prime-minister-re-elected-early-election-victory-2026-05-13/
Well, not that exciting news, but the PM of the Bahamas and his political party were re-elected.
I’m sure U.S. “Ambassador” Herschel Walker will be invited to attend.
A Florida judge on Friday heard arguments on a lawsuit to block a new congressional redistricting plan in Florida that could give Republicans a four-seat gain in the upcoming midterm elections.
Opponents are seeking a temporary injunction barring the state from using the new districts. They say the plan violates a state constitutional amendment approved by voters that prohibits using redistricting for partisan purposes.
Florida 2nd Judicial Circuit Judge Joshua Hawkes did not issue an immediate ruling.
https://www.themountaineer.com/news/national/no-ruling-florida-judge-hears-arguments-in-redistricting-litigation/article_d1c4b338-2c1c-510f-ab7f-2196aa9edb1a.html
Twitter breadcrumbs suggest DeSantis’ case did not go over especially well, but considering the whole bench we should assume they’ll end up in his corner.
We can always hope for a rare example of justice from a Republican court.
Blue bomb of votes on the last day of EV in GA.
https://x.com/DjsokeSpeaking/status/2055413671279444170
5:30
176,213 at D+19.2
yesterday
102,753 at D+14.5
Continued.
https://x.com/DjsokeSpeaking/status/2055428804084982127
6:30pm update
190,697 votes, D+22.4
Yesterday
110,655 votes, D+17.6
Final. Mail + EV Democratic margins = BIG vote hurdle for Republicans to overcome on E-Day. Question now is will they still show up if they haven’t gone and voted yet.
https://x.com/DjsokeSpeaking/status/2055460126182584400
We did get an update at 8:30, so:
Day 19 of EV in GA:
D+25.4 by ballot choice
D+14.8 cumulatively with 1.021m votes
Day 19 in 2022:
R+4.6 by ballot choice
R+13.2 cumulatively with 859k votes
Some vbm will come in through eday and push total EV to around D+15
https://x.com/MrUnionYes/status/2055454078243586141
An insane fact is that IPEV will finish less than 1% more Republican than absentee by mail voting. (56.6% D v. 57.4%)
I hope the Dems have put out clear endorsements in the state Supreme Court races.
It came back with a "this page does not exist message for this and the links below.
He got some updates after the polls closed, so he deleted his old posts and posted new ones, sorry about that!
NE-01:
https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/en/news/news-articles/independent-candidate-from-norfolk-launches-bid-for-1st-congressional-district-race/
Investigative journalist Austin Ahlman is running as a left-wing independent for this seat. There is apparently concern he may split the Dem vote here - but this is a real reach seat if I remember right. Thoughts?
Yeah, this is a reach seat. Osborn won it in 2024, but it's probably around Likely R as of now. Democrat Chris Backemeyer has some credibility at the State Department, so that may boost him a little.
He's a phony who feels like a plant. I hope he doesn't get on the ballot.
Given that this is the same state where they tried (and failed, I take it) that move for the U.S. Senate seat, it seems likely.
And this guy is NO Dan Osborn, who was a solid candidate statewide.
Looks like he will be again! Fingers crossed, maybe he'll make it this time.
Two candidates I chipped in to help a wee bit I selected because of my impression that they were at the very top of Trump’s very large s*** list. Ilhan Omar and Letitia James. Anybody got any insight as to their respective fortunes and needs?
They're both great progressives and should also be safe for re election.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/15/us/politics/supreme-court-virginia-redistricting.html
SCOTUS rejected Virginia Democrats' challenge to the redistricting referendum being overturned.
This makes me worried. Will they now make excuses to block all Dem redraws and allow GOP ones? If they do, do we have any recourse at all in the redistricting fight?
They can redistrict, but they're not going to stop the wave from coming. The House has got to flip, as does the Senate, and it has to be by convincing enough margins that we can hold them in 2028.
I really want to see some real movement from NY and CO on that front. They're our two biggest opportunities for counterbalance.
Hochul has made statements in favor of doing something, and there's talk for CO. I need to see something concrete start up for both, because the process isn't as trivial as passing something through the legislature. All while the clock is ticking.
I think it’s pretty safe to assume:
1) Democrats in those states and other blue ones are rightly spending their time now on winning the midterms by beating Republicans from top of the ticket on down in November.
CO03, CO05, CO08, NY01, NY02 and NY17 have possibly/are actually competitive seats held by the GOP, so that’s a House Majority right there for us if Democrats sweep.
2) Are also thinking/planning quietly on what to do immediately afterwards in order to redraw the maps in time for 2028. I’d rather they do the first thing right now because step 1 is halting Trump’s puppet party.
Then after that hopeful electoral annihilation of the GOP, we can fight back against Republicans implementing Jim Crow in the South again, by redrawing/redistricting in blue states. Sometimes I’d rather a person just keep walking instead, focused on the task at hand instead of also trying to chew gum at the same time.
Don't forget CO-04.
Problem with that is the process doesn't give them time to wait until after 2026.
NY requires two separate legislatures to approve an amendment to the state constitution before it can go to voters. Colorado needs to either go through the whole ballot initiative process or get 2/3 votes in the state legislature before it goes to voters. In both cases they need a full separate election in front of voters, and potency of anger over redistricting is going to go down with time: we want to do this sooner rather than later.
We can talk and chew gum at the same time. State leaders can focus on getting this done on a quick enough time table while still giving appropriate attention to this year's elections. Waiting until after 2026 is a glorified way of, more likely than not, having nothing happen.
We can walk and chew gum at the same time. I wouldn’t assume anything is happening behind the scenes because not all of these Govs and lege leaders have committed to taking up the redistricting fight. Some of these states need action how, this November, to draw maps for 2028.
Convincing enough margins from one cycle to the other can happen for the senate, by building up enough of an advantage in held seats that the 1/3 up in the next cycle aren't practically capable of changing the balance of power. That is not possible for the house. Look at 2008 -> 2010. We won the popular vote for the house by 11 points in 2008 with 257 seats. We still lost it in the 2010 backlash.
For the senate, ideally we want to win the majority outright this cycle. If we do OK in 2028 we'd be almost certain to retain our majority, if not grow it. Less ideally but still good would be getting 2-3 pickups and having the majority in 2028 rely on the two most viable senate pickups in NC+WI from that cycle.
Yeah you would have thought winning 257 House seats in 2008 would have given us a huge buffer in 2010. Nope, that majority collapsed like a house made out of pixie sticks.
I was pretty impressed by the argument here for using the opportunity, once back in power, to push through proportional representation.
https://newrepublic.com/article/210428/democrats-can-fix-government-2029
Obviously you'd need to nuke the filibuster first, which you need for pretty much anything meaningful at this point. A structural change like PR would, besides being good in itself, be one of the few things that made me feel better about nuking the filibuster; I think you get a much more solid chance of retaining power or at least averting another trifecta for longer that way.
You have nothing to worry about. There's a difference between SCOTUS not overturning a state court's decision to block a Dem redraw and them overturning a map themselves. The latter has thankfully not happened.
No, the argument behind this was completely different and IMO not very strong.
No; they already tried and failed with California--that is, GOP sued (on racial premise of all things) and SCOTUS unsurprisingly shot it down. The difference is, we didn't have state judges/supreme court shooting us down. VA's still swingy in that regard.
Any redistricting in solidly bluer states will not be overturned. The challenge will be getting it past initial intraparty objections. I suspect those will be much fewer now after Callais.
not a law person at all, but I had the impression that, outside of all other context, in itself this would be an expected move, I think? Federal not getting involved in state supreme court matters?
You generally can't appeal a state decision to the federal Supreme Court unless it concerns federal matters, which this does.
ah right, gotcha. well clearly this is one of those cases where it doesn't concern federal matters, except when it does -eyeroll-
I like that they've at least felt the need to get all defensive in public about how very not political they are. I hope Roberts is visited by the ghosts of SCOTUS past at Christmas.
https://fox17.com/news/local/tennessee-releases-congressional-candidate-list-after-explosive-redistricting-session
Tennessee filing deadline:
TN-4: Nashville councilman Mike Cortese will challenge Republican Rep. Scott DesJarlais, after previously running in the 5th.
TN-5: Republican Rep. Andy Ogles faces former state agriculture commissioner Charlie Hatcher in the primary, and Columbia mayor Chaz Molder and activist DeVante Hill (who previously ran in the now-open 9th) on the Democratic side.
TN-6: Former Rep. Van Hilleary and state Rep. Johnny Garrett will compete in the Republican primary, while former Nashville mayor Megan Barry will not run on the Democratic side after all.
TN-7: Republican Rep. Matt Van Epps faces surprisingly spirited Democratic challengers from state Rep. Vincent Dixie and businessman Darden Copeland. Nashville councilman Jacob Kupin initially said he would run but withdrew ahead of the filing deadline.
TN-9: Obviously, Rep. Steve Cohen isn't running here. That leaves state Rep. Justin Pearson and state Sen. London Lamar as the only major Democrats. State Sen. Brent Taylor, state Rep. Todd Warner, and conservative commentator Charlotte Bergman are the major Republicans running, and it's likely one of them will win the general against Pearson or Lamar.
https://www.wfyi.org/statewide/2026-05-15/deery-wins-race-for-indiana-district-23-by-3-votes-over-trump-backed-challenger
The last two provisionals in the Deery vs Copenhaver primary for Indiana's 23rd State Senate district got rejected, meaning Deery has won by 3 votes, although Copenhaver will presumably request a recount, and it's possible that could change things.
wow.
I'm interested in 2026 state senate and house races.
One thing I've been trying to figure out is what the "tipping point" district is in each state senate / house, at least for competitive races. Does anyone know if there's a resource that covers this? For example, in NH, to win 12 senate seats and have a tie the Democracts would need to win District 7 (lost by 11 in 2024), and for 13 and a majority they'd need to win District 12 (lost by 12), if the district follow the same relative partisanship anyway.
But to figure that out you'd need to go to the wiki, ballotpedia, or NH gov site and calculate and sort all the margins to get the tipping point districts. Before I go crazy calculating a bunch of states, anyone know if this work has already been done somewhere?
I find it odd that Maine, a point to the left of Virginia is 2024, hasn't come up in the redistricting convo. There's 2 Democratic reps now, but it could easily fall to 1-1 even if we have a blue wave; Jared Golden won a Trump +9 seat and isn't running again.
Instead of a Harris +22 and Trump +9 they could draw Harris +7 and +6, or say +11 and +2, whatever, anything of that flavor. They'd need a constitutional amendment that rips down all the current procedures, but that's true of a number of places that I've seen come up a lot more in the redistricting convo.
I think the problem in Maine is it takes a supermajority to redistrict or change the constitution. The tipping point for that is Trump+9 in both chambers, about on par with ME-02, so it's worth a shot breaking it this year.
They should also change the state constitution to allow ranked-choice voting for state elections in the same go.
They already have RCV for all elections.
Well until the corrupt ssc decides that before and election like in 2026 when they stole the senate seat for learned his lesson that RCV is illegal and unconstititonal and then after the election flipped and said that RCV was legal after all.
They are doing the same thing again.
Maine Supreme Court says ranked choice voting expansion is unconstitutional
https://mainemorningstar.com/2026/04/06/maine-supreme-court-says-proposed-ranked-choice-voting-expansion-is-not-constitutional/
They will flip and say it is legal after the el;ection.
No, they very clearly do not have RCV for state general elections. The most recent case was unanimous, we should not wait to flip it with explicitly pro-RCV justices. It should be dealt with constitutionally to get around judicial interpretation.
Maine might be one state I'd exclude from a Democratic gerrymandering effort, as the state is nowhere near as polarized as most other states, and any attempt to draw an all-Democratic map could yield an all-Republican House delegation in a GOP wave year and/or a year with badly flawed Democratic congressional nominees.
I think having a Harris+3 and a Harris+10 is better than two Harris+7s
https://davesredistricting.org/join/3e7a3c42-38f0-48b0-9955-42f5b3825ff4
Nah, if we're losing Harris +7 the House is gone, Harris +3 could be lost with candidate differential in a neutral year.
or even a D+4 year, which is now apparently the new "neutral" I take it, ugh
Maps in Maine have to be passed by 2/3 of the legislature. It's de facto impossible for us to redraw it right now.
The only real avenue to doing anything there is to fail to pass a map after 2030 and have the state court create something. But I'd hazard a guess that the chances of the Maine supreme court creating a dem gerrymander is ~zero.
Or try to win a supermajority.
If it can be done in any year, this is probably the year.
Maybe it is time to ignore some courts.
Here are some reasons and some states already doing it.
Black voters who forced Louisiana to add a second majority-Black congressional district asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to recall an order allowing a contentious voting rights ruling to take effect immediately.
The night prior, the justices issued a rare order agreeing to rush the implementation of their decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which struck down the state’s congressional maps. The high court’s unsigned order reasoned the Black voters hadn’t asked the court to reconsider its judgment.
But civil rights groups supporting the voters said that was incorrect. The second sentence of their opposition to expediting release of the ruling states “this court should afford appellants the opportunity to consider seeking rehearing in the ordinary course.”
The Black voters asked the justices to recall the judgment, reconsider their order granting the application and deny it.
Under court practice, the clerk issues a certified judgment about 32 days after a ruling. Just hours after its decision last week, the plaintiffs Callais — a group of “non-African American voters” — asked the high court to fast-track the procedural process formalizing their win.
Tension across the bench over granting their request spilled out into the public Monday night. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden appointee, issued a blistering solo dissent admonishing her colleagues for ignoring protocol to assist a Republican redraw amid an ongoing election. She noted the court has only ever agreed to rush the release of its judgment in two other cases over the last 25 years.
“Not content to have decided the law, it now takes steps to influence its implementation,” Jackson wrote. “The court’s decision to buck our usual practice under Rule 45.3 and issue the judgment forthwith is tantamount to an approval of Louisiana’s rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map.”
Justice Samuel Alito, a George W. Bush appointee, said Jackson’s accusation was “groundless and utterly irresponsible” in a concurring opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. He said Jackson leveled charges that cannot go unanswered, characterizing her reasons for delaying as “trivial at best” and “baseless and insulting.”
The Supreme Court's latest ruling allowing a red state to pursue its redistricting efforts sparked outrage on Monday.
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued an unsigned ruling allowing Alabama to pursue a new election map that could eliminate two Democratic-held seats. The ruling paved the way for the Republicans to add more seats in Congress as the 2026 midterms approach.
Political analysts and experts reacted to the ruling on social media.
"The Supreme Court is rigged," Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) posted on X.
"They're shameless fascists and political hacks, and they shouldn't be able to go anywhere without people screaming in their faces, reminding them that they're scum," political commentator Kyle Kulinski posted on X.
"Roberts is a GOP operative and a crook, and it’s really time to stop pretending otherwise," Jesse Lee, a former Biden administration official, posted on X.
"[I don't know] how anyone can still act like the Supreme Court majority has any credibility now," Jen Rice, a reporter with Democracy Docket, posted on X.
"Of course they did. Gotta help out the [Republicans] before it's too close to an election to change the maps," lawyer T. Greg Doucette posted on Bluesky.
"At this point, anyone who cares about justice and the rule of law just needs to be upfront about the fact that this is an illegitimate court whose decisions will be undone at the first opportunity, and that opportunity, being peaceful, is the best these partisan hacks can hope for," Chris Kluwe, a Democratic candidate for office, posted on Bluesky.
The decision came nearly a half-hour after the court missed its own 5pm EST deadline.
If they are going to ignore their own procedures and deadlines maybe it is time for us to ignore them.
Here are some states ignoring them on some cases already.
Hawaii Legislature passes first-in-nation bill targeting Citizens United ruling
https://www.courthousenews.com/hawaii-legislature-passes-first-in-nation-bill-targeting-citizens-united-ruling/
‘Montana Plan’ to prohibit corporate spending in politics green lit for signature gathering
https://dailymontanan.com/2026/03/11/montana-plan-to-prohibit-corporate-spending-in-politics-green-lit-for-signature-gathering/
Montana high court clears way for ballot initiative on corporate election spending
https://www.courthousenews.com/montana-high-court-clears-way-for-ballot-initiative-on-corporate-election-spending/
Minnesota can change corporate law to forbid campaign spending
https://minnesotareformer.com/2026/04/02/minnesota-can-change-corporate-law-to-forbid-campaign-spending/
And my personal favorite
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes tells U.S. Supreme Court to shove it
https://www.yahoo.com/news/arizona-attorney-general-kris-mayes-140030478.html
As for what the think here is one who admitted they would be powerless if people ignored them.
Barrett told the New York Times' Ross Douthat on the Thursday episode of his podcast that the structure of the Supreme Court dictates that its rulings be adhered to not by force, but out of tradition. And if a president disregards that tradition, there's little judges can do to deter him.
So maybe it is time for blue states to ignore tradition.
You don’t have to copy and paste the whole thing, just link it next time.
I would argue that ignoring the courts at any level is a non-starter with a plurality of Democrats, and a majority of voters and establishment and institutional structures. The societal pushback, (and the level of unity and ruthlessness needed by the Dems to see a court revolution through) is going to be immense, and is something we are absolutely not going to be able to do, with 52-54 seats in the Senate, and the fulcrum votes being people like Seth Moulton and Angus King....
Ignoring, removing, packing or otherwise fundamentally altering the situation with courts is not going to be possible if the Executive or Legislature are the primary mover. It would only be possible with a massive, sustained grassroots protest movement, something larger than Occupy, or the No Kings movement. Something truly revolution scale, with millions of Americans in the streets bringing government and business to a halt. At that point, we're in escapist fantasy.
Ignoring decisions is a non-starter, but I'm completely unconvinced that enlarging the Supreme Court is, and it fucking better not be if the Democrats plan on getting anything done!
Village People front man says ‘YMCA’ isn’t a gay anthem – and he’ll sue anyone who disagrees
https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/06/entertainment/ymca-not-gay-anthem-scli-intl
“My wife will sue anyone who falsely refers to ‘Y.M.C.A.’ as a gay anthem”: How a Village People classic ended up in the hands of the far right
https://english.elpais.com/culture/2024-12-17/my-wife-will-sue-anyone-who-falsely-refers-to-ymca-as-a-gay-anthem-how-a-village-people-classic-ended-up-in-the-hands-of-the-far-right.html
Donald Trump calls “Y.M.C.A” the “gay national anthem” & brags he’s the reason it went number 1
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2026/05/donald-calls-y-m-c-a-the-gay-national-anthem-brags-hes-the-reason-it-went-number-1/
So their god called it the gay national anthem so will either he or his wife sue their god.
If they do not than that would be discrimination and they can be sued..
Frivolous suit. We still have a First Amendment.
I never thought the Village People’s music was about being gay. Of course, many in the LGBTQ community in the Bay Area over the years since I’ve lived here have played Y.M.C.A. and other various Village People songs but mainly because the music is catchy and empowering.
Trump just wants to do anything and everything he can to get attention.
...why is it "fun" for "young men" to stay at the YMCA? the table tennis?
YMCA and In The Navy for sure.
Yes.
The point the Village People made about the songs was that they were challenging the status quo and representation of black people as far as being in the crowd. That’s what the lead singer in the article mentioned.
Y.M.C.A. came from an album called "Cruisin'"
I will have to check it out. I only know the main songs.