107 Comments
User's avatar
User's avatar
Comment removed
Apr 12Edited
Comment removed
Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

What is at the link?

Expand full comment
MPC's avatar

It was a spam link that had nothing to do with The Downballot.

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

North Carolina Supreme Court majority moves off the 60,000 vote thing onto several thousand overseas votes, but apparently only in some Democratic counties. Looks like a Bush v. Gore situation that will now go to federal court.

https://appellate.nccourts.org/orders.php?t=P&court=1&id=449428&pdf=1&a=0&docket=1&dev=1

https://bsky.app/profile/mjsdc.bsky.social/post/3lmkz5udgfc2b

Expand full comment
MPC's avatar

I’m so fed up with the NC GOP and Jefferson Griffin. However, framing the case as taking away active military rights to vote should give that 6-3 majority pause.

I think the SCONC is trying to avoid the kind of nationwide stink by keeping the 60,000 voters Griffin challenged but making 5,000 military and overseas voters update their registration is more underhanded to try to get the SCOTUS to rule in Griffin’s favor.

I don’t trust the SCOTUS to do the right thing. But if they do, Griffin will have a target on his back when he runs for re-election to NC Court of Appeals.

Expand full comment
Guy's avatar

Aren’t military votes protected by federal law?

Expand full comment
MPC's avatar

According to the NC GOP and Jefferson Griffin, if you’re active military who votes for Democrats, your vote doesn’t count.

Expand full comment
Guy's avatar

I mean this is why I don’t see Griffin winning in federal courts.

Expand full comment
MPC's avatar

I’m really awful at political predictions. If that happens (and Griffin gets smacked down), I’m curious which Trump appointee on SCOTUS will vote to uphold the election results and seat Justice Riggs.

Expand full comment
Guy's avatar

Amy Coney Barrett I think will side with Riggs, maybe Kavanaugh as well.

Expand full comment
Brad Warren's avatar

If any of the Trumpsters are reachable, it's Barrett.

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

North Carolina Supreme Court issues mixed ruling on election contest: 60k ballots with alleged incomplete registrations will be counted, but 5k military/overseas voters have 30 days to cure ballots. Riggs says she's taking the case to federal court.

https://bsky.app/profile/democracydocket.com/post/3lmkyevbqgu2g

Expand full comment
homerun1's avatar

What a f'ing hypocritical NC Supreme Court.

What gets me is that if those ballots were indeed really actually invalid, then all the votes on all the other dozens of races on those ballots should also be invalidated. And most every contest in the state be re-tabulated.

Expand full comment
Patntx's avatar

So this would flip the election correct if they disallow the 5,000 plus or minus overseas ballots.

Expand full comment
MPC's avatar

Yes it would.

Expand full comment
Guy's avatar

It could, but it’s not guaranteed to. Nobody knows how these people even voted or even if Riggs got her entire MOV from this group.

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

It could.

Expand full comment
hilltopper's avatar

Keep in mind that most should be cured. I have to hope NC Dems are or will be contacting people to help get as many as possible cured. Also, not every vote was Democratic. So yes it could, but not necessarily.

Expand full comment
hilltopper's avatar

As I read it:

(1) The lower court decision as to legitimate votes where people simply had not provided information not required at the time they registered was reversed.

(2) As to military and overseas ballots where something was missing (photo ID) the time to cure is extended from 15 business days to "thirty calendar days after the mailing of notice."

(3) As to people overseas who never lived in NC, (I assume children of NC residents who turned 18 overseas or had never registered), the lower court decision was affirmed and the votes not counted.

Perhaps I missed it on a quick read, but I do not see where the opinion distinguished by county.

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

From the dissent:

What is worse, these targeted voters are only those who happened to have registered in Guilford County, or maybe one of three or four other counties that vote heavily Democratic, the special order is not clear, but in any case, not every such voter in the state. Therefore, as a result of the action taken by this Court in this matter, the vote of an overseas or military voter who is registered in Wake County and who voted pursuant to the laws applicable at the time is counted. However, the vote of an overseas or military voter who is registered in Guilford County is presumed to be fraudulent and will not count unless that voter provides proof of their identity within thirty business days.

Expand full comment
hilltopper's avatar

Thanks. I see why you mentioned Bush v. Gore above.

Expand full comment
Marcus Graly's avatar

According to the Overseas Vote Foundation North Carolina law does (or did?) allow children to "inherit" voting rights from a parent who resided in North Carolina.

https://www.overseasvotefoundation.org/content/us-citizen-born-abroad-can-i-vote

I'm not sure if the decision overturns that or if the ballots in question are a different scenario.

Expand full comment
CuriousReader4456's avatar

Under the logic of Bush v. Gore this is very hard to defend. Unequal treatment of ballots in different counties was a big thing in the ruling.

I expect that only challenging democratic counties and not all voters will cost Griffin int federal court. I could see SCOTUS being okay with all military voters being challenged over voter ID. Don't see 5 votes for allowing military votes being challenged only in dem counties.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Of course the cynical view is that Bush v. Gore wasn't a principled decision at all, just one designed to give a result the Republican majority on the court wanted. But it's much worse to throw out duly counted and recounted votes after the fact than to just prevent a statewide recount on a pretext. If the U.S. Supreme Court were to sustain this decision, democracy of any kind would be over in the U.S.

Expand full comment
Guy's avatar

Maybe in North Carolina, but I don’t see how this decision would end democracy in the other swing states where there are more guardrails.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Anyplace where Republicans can annul votes.

Expand full comment
Guy's avatar

The one swing state that could happen in Georgia, where the GOP has a trifecta. But the GAGOP doesn’t seem as extreme on this issue as the NCGOP are.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

They wouldn't need a trifecta.

Expand full comment
Toiler On the Sea's avatar

Yes it's the makeup of the state courts. We'd be screwed in AZ too.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Any Republican official could make an argument in Federal courts if the Supreme Court sustains this.

Expand full comment
CuriousReader4456's avatar

NC political culture, close elections and partisan election of judges makes it more likely that they try to steal an election.

This wouldn't happen in MI,PA,WI as dem aligned judges are the majority on their supreme courts.

GA and AZ are more of an question mark. Both supreme courts refused to entertain Trump's attempts to steal 2020. Both courts are very conservative but not as partisan as the NC judge.

I have the theory that close partisan elections makes republican judges more likely to behave like politicans looking for every edge to win. Uncompetative judge elections in GA and AZ gets you conservative judges that are not as willing to steal an election. As they personally don't feel the need to rig an election they are easily winning anyway.

Expand full comment
homerun1's avatar

CA-Gov. This race is effectively frozen because of Harris's indecision. Fundraising is frozen, donors, campaign people and staff, downballot races, everything. Waiting to the end of summer to decide is ludicrous, and is becoming disrespectful of her fellow downballot Democrats who need a lot of time to prepare for a CA statewide campaign.

If Harris is in, it's 99% likely she wins. I have no expectations that she'll be some great governor. And most likely Trump would delight on doubling-down and tripling-down on screwing over California in his last 2 years.

To me, the only good thing about her running for CA Gov. is it probably keeps her out of a certain 2028 contest.

Democrats running for California governor take digs at Kamala Harris’ delayed decision on the race https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-04-10/democrats-running-for-california-governor-take-digs-at-kamala-harris-delayed-decision-on-the-race

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

CA Democrats are showing no spine. From Attorney General Rob Bonta to more Democrats and donors, I think they ought to, while they have the chance, clean up CA now instead of thinking Harris will take them to the Moon.

We CA residents need a race, not an anointment. If Harris runs for Governor, clearing the field makes Democrats look stupid here. She should be competing with fellow Democratic Candidates, not having the race to herself.

Expand full comment
PollJunkie's avatar

All this is true but if Kamala actually wants to fix California, she'd have a much easier time doing it as she could pressure the NIMBYs and luddites of the legislature more than any other politician.

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

I agree. Harris is far more intelligent than she is given credit for. She I believe would also pay closer attention to detail than Newsom would.

That said, my issue has mainly to do with the primary process, not criticizing Harris and her potential candidacy.

That said, I am intrigued at State Senator Toni Atkins’ candidacy far more than Harris. She has a history of fighting for the little guy and grew up in a blue collar family in the Appalachia near West Virginia.

Expand full comment
MPC's avatar

Atkins actually went to my alma mater, Emory & Henry, in southwestern Virginia.

Expand full comment
Brad Warren's avatar

Nice! I share an alma mater with one of JFK's (actually ghostwriter Ted Sorensen's) profiles in courage: Senator George W. Norris.

(I also share it with Ohio LG Jim Tressel, but I'm much less proud of that fact.)

Expand full comment
slothlax's avatar

I don't really see what the problem is here. Since Harris has universal name ID and extensive CA statewide campaign experience, she has earned the luxury of taking her time. It hasn't even been six months since the end of the presidential campaign, give the woman a break!

Expand full comment
Brad Warren's avatar

^This.

And if she's somehow "freezing" the race, that's more a testament to the weakness of the rest of the field than anything else.

Expand full comment
slothlax's avatar

Plus, it's a top two system. All she does is take one of the spots in the primary, that still gives the rest of the field the chance to gun for the second spot and lock out the Republicans.

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

We’re talking this early in the gubernatorial race and only six months after Harris lost the presidential race.

Kind of premature considering the rest of the gubernatorial candidates have barely had a chance to campaign and get their name out.

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

The problem is not Harris but CA Democrats and their push for Harris to either jump in the race or have her decide what to do. It makes the whole race not really one where us CA residents get to decide who we want to represent us, especially considering we want to move on from Newsom.

We’ve had multiple gubernatorial candidates, plenty of fresh faces and interesting candidates already declare their candidacies. Then when the hoopla comes in with Harris being considered to run for governor, Democrats like Attorney General Rob Bonta are already arguing she’s be field clearing before Harris has had a chance to think for herself and process after losing the 2024 presidential election.

I completely agree about giving Harris a break. But the CA Democratic Party machine and donors aren’t doing that.

Expand full comment
slothlax's avatar

Gotcha, I think we're on the same page.

The quotes from her potential competitors in the linked article came off as whiny bullcrap to me. Like, there's an 800-pound gorilla in the room, you were all aware of that when you entered the room, deal with it.

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

Consider this:

Ever since Gray Davis was recalled by Arnold Schwarzenegger, all Democrats who have been elected have been high profile figures as opposed to those who built their name brand from their individual gubernatorial races.

Jerry Brown - Elected in 2011 and re-elected in 2014

Gavin Newsom - Elected in 2018 and re-elected in 2022.

If Harris enters the gubernatorial race, she’s be the third high profile Democrat in a row to be elected.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

"Harris is far more intelligent than she is given credit for." Really? People think she is dumb, or not that smart? On what basis? Isn't she a brilliant prosecutor?

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

The GOP, Joe Rogan and others of their kind have since the 2024 presidential election viewed Harris as dumb. It’s their perception from what they have seen her act like in her presidential campaign.

However, Harris has beaten Mike Pence and Trump at the debates and is more focused when she governs. The critics have a one-sided view that doesn’t give voters the full picture of who Harris is.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

In other words, racist, sexist Republicans have tried to slur an obviously brilliant prosecutor as stupid. I don't think that makes her "far more intelligent than she is given credit for."

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

Actually, there was one explanation I neglected to mention:

Regarding Harris’s intelligence, what I’ve observed is that she learns quickly and is being mindful of where the Democratic Party base’s general direction is going.

As an example, when she was District Attorney in San Francisco, she divided the black community for being too hard line in how she prosecuted cases where defendants were black. However, when she was a US Senator, Harris became more socially conscious about the issues facing black people.

I myself have in Berkeley and Oakland run into multiple critics of her time as DA (most of them happen to be black) but what I felt they weren’t aware of was that Harris really didn’t have control over the criminal Justice reform agenda. She had to prosecute and uphold the law in as fair of a manner as she could. I think Harris was being too unfairly criticized for her time as DA and not being looked at as someone who does think about others besides herself.

For the criticism of Harris and the attacks on her as you point out, it’s mainly the image that’s projected about her and what Rogan, Trump, the GOP and others in their boat do to add to the cesspool.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Don't prosecutors have a great deal of control over which cases they prosecute and how?

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

I think so although I don’t know much about the specific cases Harris took on as DA that her critics referenced. They likely had to do with murder and theft crimes where the defendants in this case were black.

When I am referring to the criminal Justice reform agenda in Harris’ case as DA, she didn’t have control over things legislatively. When she was a US Senator, far more so. DAs do have a say on the cases they take on but they can’t legislate.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I think everyone understands that DAs can't legislate, but that doesn't make them powerless in their conduct.

Expand full comment
JanusIanitos's avatar

Americans despise losing democratic presidential candidates as a default. This happens to losing republican candidates too, but their party suffers from far less self-flagellation so the issue is less pronounced.

I think if you asked the typical person off the street what they thought of Harris, not much of it would be good. They would rate her intelligence and skills poorly because she lost.

I feel Americans have a strong ingrained need for people to get what they deserve. Thus, if someone got something, we like to believe that they deserved that thing. If a candidate lost, they deserved to lose, and many people will apply the characteristics that "earn" defeat to that losing candidate even if the reasons for defeat were something else entirely.

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

If Harris can defeat the perception of the critics and cynics because of her losing presidential campaign, then being Governor of California by contrast is a better opportunity than being POTUS.

My hope is that if Harris runs in the gubernatorial race she campaigns everywhere, not just LA or San Francisco.

Examples include but are not limited Clayton, Danville, Fresno, Redding and other parts of California that are more conservative, competitive or even far from reach for Democrats. I’d like to see a real gubernatorial campaign that isn’t just about appeasing the Democratic Party base but expanding on it.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Redding is really right-wing and also far from other places. I don't know if campaigning there would be a good use of a Democrat's time.

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

Redding is less red than the rest of CA-01, which is representatives by Rep. Doug LaMalfa. Coincidentally, it’s where Lucasfilm Producer Kathleen Kennedy grew up.

Most of the right wing influence comes from the overwhelming white population. There is a decent Hispanic population though.

I do know that the city is less practically appealing for Harris to campaign in compared to the other examples I suggested. However, since CA is a big state and red regions these days are more distant than the rest of the state’s growing demographics, I believe it’s still a good idea to to campaign in cities like Redding even if it would be done on a limited basis.

Harris does need to primarily focus on turning out voters where they traditionally have been blue or swingy.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I take your point.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I don't understand your first paragraph. Do you mean sort of the converse: that being governor of California would give Harris a better opportunity to change the perception of critics than being president?

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

Harris running for Governor would be easier for her to manage than a presidential campaign for the following reasons:

-If she were the nominee, there’d be no doubt she would win the gubernatorial election. I don’t think any Democrat would dispute that.

-She’s already have the Democratic Party machine behind her and has, in her option, the ability to expand her reach in campaigning in areas of CA that are more competitive turf or not as friendly to Democrats. Doing so would not harm her candidacy but instead solidify her support.

Examples: Bakersfield, Clayton, Danville, Fresno, Redding, and swing areas in say Orange County.

I’d also add in Hercules, Rodeo and Pittsburg, cities that aren’t typically frequented by leading gubernatorial candidates. They are blue turf but also should be listed too, not just say San Jose; San Francisco and Los Angeles.

-Besides being Governor during Trump’s 2nd term, Harris can also have the opportunity to serve in the role and have less pressure than if she were POTUS. Not arguing being Governor doesn’t have challenges but if Harris is leading a blue state, her opportunity in this case would be to show how she’s different than Newsom.

If Harris can change the perception on how she’s viewed by being better than Newsom, then she’s in a better position to do more with her agenda. She’s also have the option of serving two terms, which would mean she’s serve not just while Trump is POTUS but after he leaves the White House.

Bottom line - Harris’ presidential campaign, while short, makes her more prepared for a gubernatorial campaign, even if it would be easier for her to win an election.

Expand full comment
Kevin H.'s avatar

I'm guessing she's not running because she plans a 2028 prez race

Expand full comment
PollJunkie's avatar

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/10/us/politics/kamala-harris-president-california-governor.html

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/kamala-harriss-next-moves-a-big-speech-a-bigger-book-and-perhaps-a-run-for-office?srsltid=AfmBOoqIP1RP1m6PbeaSXJ0eH1Am1urgbvXO0S3YWBQetGZRvMVNEFTS

Two recent articles—one from The New York Times and another from Vanity Fair—suggest that Kamala Harris is more interested in the California gubernatorial race than 2028. She has reportedly been meeting with political strategists and thinkers such as David Shor and Ezra Klein (the "abundance" advocate of California) to better understand the Democratic Party’s current challenges and what went wrong in recent cycles.

Harris is said to have looked on in "horror" at the implementation of Project 2025 and is carefully considering her next move. She is hesitant to immediately enter the race, wary of making the California Gov post appear as a "rebound" relationship and being mocked for it. The reporting also notes her disappointment with how Governor Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass handled the recent wildfire crises.

In a humorous twist, the article concludes with former President Donald Trump reportedly encouraging her to run but to do more interviews this time. Also, I don't think that the digs would have any effect on her, longtime politicians like her obviously have a thick skin.

Expand full comment
Brad Warren's avatar

Honestly, I sort of like the idea of her getting the chance to launch more rhetorical nukes at him. (I really wish there had been a second debate, not that it would have changed the outcome most likely.)

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

I knew Harris was going to destroy Trump at the presidential debate. Debating Mike Pence, by contrast, was more of a warm up for her.

Expand full comment
Brad Warren's avatar

Eh, Trump is going to screw over California (and the rest of the country) regardless of who's in Sacramento.

Expand full comment
slothlax's avatar

So has the obvious Nixon comparison come up yet? I've been away from this stuff for a while.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Did Harris ever say they didn't have her to kick around anymore?

Expand full comment
slothlax's avatar

We haven't gotten to that point yet. But Nixon lost a close presidential election as the sitting VP, also happened to be running to succeed a president widely seen as too old, and immediately ran for governor of California in the next midterm.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I've never heard that Eisenhower was widely seen as too old.

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

The issue was we were in a recession in the late 1950s and Sputnik was a MAJOR blow. The Republican Party in 1958 wasn’t clobbered for nothing.

Expand full comment
John Carr's avatar

1958 was really about the recession that year. It was the first real bad one since the depression.

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

That PLUS Sputnik. The fact that Sputnik happened under a Republican President gave us Democrats a MAJOR opportunity to say that we had to "catch up to Russia." No Sputnik, JFK doesn't get to run in 1960 claiming that we had a "missile gap" with the USSR. My favorite President was hardly a peacenik.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Kennedy is your favorite president? Why?

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

Because my fellow Bay Stater was the President closest to me in terms of ideology. Socially liberal and fiscally moderate and not afraid to use force when necessary. He was also ahead of his time and recognized that in order to keep Africa and Asia from turning towards Communism, the USA needed to be seen as supporting nationalist movements for independence. He also was pro transportation and pro disability rights, well before it was popular.

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

More than any specific policies, Kennedy encompassed the qualities that go into making a great president. Coolness, ability to detach and to admit and learn from mistakes, a sense and knowledge of history, self-depreciation, wit and an ability to communicate without resorting to rank demagoguery.

Expand full comment
slothlax's avatar

Ike left office as the oldest sitting president up to that point and Kennedy ran on his youth and vigor. It wasn't Biden level of age concern, but it was absolutely a factor.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

This is all really interesting because what I've heard about Eisenhower always is that he was supremely popular and a very talented campaigner. I guess no-one had really focused on the latter part of his second term. But considering how extremely close the 1960 election was, don't all of you think Eisenhower would have won if he had been Constitutionally able to run again and chose to do so?

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

Not to mention Nixon was only four years older than Kennedy. They were both elected to Congress in 1946 and were actually pretty close until 1960. Either of them would have been the first US President born in the 20th century. Which was a absolute BFD at the time.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Close, as in friends?

Expand full comment
Henrik's avatar

Friends might be a strong word but they got on quite well before 1960, yes

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

Joseph P Kennedy Sr donated $1,000 to Nixon's first Senate run in 1950. He even told Nixon in 1960 "if (the Democratic nominee) is not my boy, I'm for you." Then again JFK referred to his father's politics as "to the right of Herbert Hoover."

Expand full comment
Buckeye73's avatar

Eisenhower was in very poor health by his second term. He had multiple heart attacks and had surgery due to Crohn''s disease.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

What do you think Harris would do and not do as Governor, if she were to win?

Expand full comment
dragonfire5004's avatar

This question will probably make for a lively weekend discussion:

If you had your choice of type of candidate for a competitive district (yes, I know every district is different, but it’s a hypothetical for a reason ;)) would you rather have an already elected Democrat in the seat to run on “bringing competence to government” or would you rather have an outsider (veteran, union worker, etc) running on a “broken government, we need working people, not politicians” message? Which do you think would be more effective/persuasive to voters with Trump as president? Why or why not?

For me, I can see the benefit to each for Democrats for different reasons, but I’d be interested in knowing what the rest of you think. Hope y’all have a great weekend!

Expand full comment
JanusIanitos's avatar

All else held equal I would prefer an experienced candidate.

That said I want an overall level of balance. AOC and Mark Kelly, at opposite ends of the party's ideological spectrum, were both great first time candidates (even if AOC didn't need to be one to win her district) and also good for the party, bringing in new blood to their respective halves of our two congressional caucuses. On the flipside, Pappas is a great candidate for NH's senate seat this cycle because of his experience winning elections in the state.

We need both and while I'd say one is marginally better, it's not enough of a margin to justify ignoring all the other details that will not be equal.

Expand full comment
Brad Warren's avatar

Yes, in general I'm a fan of aspiring politicians serving at least one full term in a lower office before jumping into congressional or statewide politics.

But I'm also the kind of rare bird who prefers workhorses over show horses.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Who prefers show horses?

Expand full comment
Ben F.'s avatar

The people who keep electing Marjorie Taylor Greene come to mind.

(But among dem leaning voters? I'm not sure)

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Point taken. Right-wingers like politicians who posture and say a bunch of shit. I don't think other voters do.

Expand full comment
ArcticStones's avatar

I prefer Slow Horses. Gary Oldman is fabulous in this series!

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5875444

Expand full comment
slothlax's avatar

Right, but the question is competitive districts. I don't see AOC winning any D+1 districts.

Expand full comment
JanusIanitos's avatar

That's due to ideology, not due to talent. If anything her raw political talent would suggest that she should be able to hold down a district less blue than others with similar ideology would need.

I brought AOC up not as an example of someone I want in a competitive district, but as how we can benefit from fresh blood. Getting more talented individuals than expected. I used her and Mark Kelly as examples so it was clear it was not an ideological point.

Expand full comment
slothlax's avatar

I hear that, I should clarify that I meant I don't see AOC winning any D+1 districts in her initial campaign. And if we had a political culture more like the UK or Canada where parachuting in a candidate is more acceptable, she probably could do pretty well in a competitive district now with her name ID.

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

Also, NY-14 white population is less than 30%. The majority of AOC’s constituency is non-white.

A closer, more competitive district where white population would be the majority (even if it’s a small majority) might be more challenging for her.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Depends. Are whites the majority on the Upper West Side? I think she could win a district like that that has a lot of left-wing white people.

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

Possibly although a competitive district outside of NY and in say TX may not present opportunities for someone like AOC.

Then again, AOC I’d say has more politically savvy abilities than others in the squad. Her appeal is impactful among left-wing/liberal people nationwide, not just in her own district.

Expand full comment
ArcticStones's avatar

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) withdrew their endorsement of AOC. In my book, that alone gives her extra credibility and an additional star beside her name.

AOC has matured impressively during her time in the House. Unlike some in The Squad, she is fully focused on accomplishing good stuff – and not content with grandstanding.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Yeah, some of my fellow socialists are real fools. It's sad.

Expand full comment
ArcticStones's avatar

In my opinion, we’d be better off seeing the DSA replaced by the SDA – the Social Democrats of America. I wonder why almost no-one in America calls themselves a Social Democrat. Which of course is what Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez actually are.

Or am I missing something?

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I don't know. It depends on what their end goal is, their ideal society that they believe is a realistic hope at some point in the future.

Expand full comment
slothlax's avatar

For a competitive district? Elected official without question. Particularly one who represents a competitive district in their lower office.

I brought this up last week. State Senator Mannion was the first Democrat to outrun the presidential number in NY-22 (and its predecessors) in my lifetime. Before that it was a slew of activists, lawyers, congressional aides, and a veteran, none of whom had never held office before. The last elected official we ran was the mayor of a small city back in 1996 and he actually did pretty good.

Expand full comment
Ben F.'s avatar

I actually changed my mind in the middle of writing this. At first I was preferring outsider candidates, for the reason that the public seems to be asking for more of such candidates.

But, as far as track record shows, elected officials end up performing very well. All of the 4 surviving red state senators were already in elected office either as incumbents or house members. As for the sentiment towards fewer "politicians", that's just another example of voters having conflicted desires that don't square with how they vote.

Of course we do want to have a good mix of outsiders and active politicians, and individual races have other variables as you say.

Expand full comment
PollJunkie's avatar

Why can't we have a competent outsider who fulfills both of these criteria.

Expand full comment
Justin Gibson's avatar

The Haskell Free Library and Opera House (Bibliothèque et salle d'opéra Haskell)-- which straddles Derby Line, Vermont, USA and Stanstead, Québec, Canada-- is caught between the crosshairs of Trump’s insane feud with Canada, as the Canadian entrance is being cut off.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/13/us-canada-border-library

Expand full comment