181 Comments
User's avatar
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jul 11
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Techno00's avatar

As someone born the same year Foxx was, it'd be cool to see someone the same age as me in Congress.

Expand full comment
Brad Warren's avatar

That's nice. Meanwhile, I'm older than two sitting Senators (Ossoff and Sheehy).

Expand full comment
Guy's avatar

2000 technically is still the 20th century.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

It is, but nobody treats it that way, and of course there was never really a year 0 nor was Jesus born in A.D. 1. I also recall coverage of Y1K in 1999, so even in 999, they considered 1000 the start of the new millennium, seemingly.

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

Or rather almost nobody treats it that way. I wouldn't treat it that way if it weren't for the fact that it's just mathematically inaccurate. To claim that this millennium began in 2000, you have to believe one of two things. #1. There was a year 0 or #2. the first millennium of the common era was only 999 years long.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Well, when did Christians start using A.D.? Quite a few of the years were retroactively redefined, and in addition, Jesus was not born on January 1 nor in A.D. 1. So the system was never mathematically accurate. It's a culturally agreed-upon system and it's accurate enough to be very usable for most dates starting after a certain point, and part of the cultural agreement is on when the millennia change.

Expand full comment
Techno00's avatar

I'm interested in many, many races, but I'll highlight some in particular I'm curious about.

- This is a way's away, but Chicago's 2027 mayor's race interests me. What little I know of this race is that the mayor is extremely unpopular, including among fellow progressives (I've seen progressives on Bluesky complaining about him and the Chicago Teachers Union leadership "betraying his/their former allies", and my progressive sister who lives in Chicago is not a fan either and has told me he is not popular). I'm curious to see who might be able to challenge/succeed him while pissing off the least amount of people possible. I definitely do not want Paul Vallas, particularly after he apparently went to go work for Koch or Murdoch (I can't remember which). Alexi Giannoulias maybe? He had a record as a centrist but multiple progressive figures/groups backed his SoS bid, and I've heard he's been a good SoS. Not sure who else.

- Even further away, but Ron Johnson will be up in Wisconsin in 2028. I'll be curious to see who is shaping up to be a possible challenger.

- Moving back to sooner races, I'm curious to see who the Justice Democrats, or conversely AIPAC, may challenge next, and with who. Obviously both groups are quite fired up and active so I wonder who might be next to be taken on for either. Question -- has anyone who's in the know heard anything in their areas?

- For specific races, I have a strong feeling Pelosi is going to retire soon, either now or in 2028. Aside from Scott Weiner, who else may run? From the left? The center?

- Does Henry Cuellar still have a chance in his seat, after his scandals? Would he get primaried first? If he did survive a primary, would he make it through the general? I'm concerned the GOP may take that seat, much as I hate Cuellar.

- Assuming Utah's map does end up getting redrawn, I'll be curious to see which Dems are interested there in the event Salt Lake City gets a district. Ditto if this new Wisconsin lawsuit goes through and WI-1, WI-3, or even WI-8 get redrawn.

- Now that Peltola is probably running for Governor, do we have anyone who could run against Begich III in AK-AL? Or is the seat one we have no chance at anymore?

- There were rumblings a while back that Randy Fine could get a GOP primary challenge from the DeSantis camp in Florida. Now that DeSantis has been wounded by his scandal, could this still happen? I know Fine is personally unpopular with many Republicans, but sadly I have a feeling his Islamophobic tirade against Omar may help him among the GOP base. Is my thinking accurate?

- Speaking of Florida, are there any seats left that the Democrats could target in the House? Has the Latino swing-back to the Dems changed anything here?

- Finally, those in Los Angeles -- what is the mayor's race looking like there? Bass was really unpopular after the fires -- is this still the case? How have the ICE raids affected the race? Is Caruso still plotting a bid? Is another figure from the center or the left considering? (Kenneth Mejia is out I've heard -- he's running for re-election for City Controller.) On a related note, I've heard the City Attorney has a left-wing primary challenger with WFP backing -- Marissa Roy. Apparently the incumbent killed an affordable housing thing, among other problems. How might that race go?

Expand full comment
Henrik's avatar

Kawasaki, Foster and Wielochowski are all solid options in Alaska though all are obviously long shots

Expand full comment
Miguel Parreno's avatar

Everyone I know out here hates Bass. Progressive included. I know many of us voted for her to stop Caruso but I feel like the environment is ripe to pick her off with the right Mamdani-esque candidate. It's unfortunate that Mejia is out as I think he'd have a decent shot at taking her down.

Expand full comment
Zack from the SFV's avatar

I don't hate Mayor Bass, but I feel like she has a very difficult job. The situation isn't quite hopeless, but I don't have much faith that things will get better here in Los Angeles. I don't know what she and the city council can do to solve our problems like housing affordability/availability and transportation.

The Tr*mp regime makes it worse; at this point it looks like the upcoming large events like the World Cup in '26 and the Olympics in 2028 will be a shit show thanks to the insane policies of the federal government, including the unfair treatment of international visitors. The Orange Anus is working to destroy our tourism industry as well as our workforce generally.

That said, elections are a choice among people who are actually running for office. If it came down to Bass vs Caruso again, I would have no hesitation in voting for Karen over Rick. I don't know Mejia that well, but I think he made the wise choice to run for re-election as Controller.

Expand full comment
Miguel Parreno's avatar

I feel like the Mayor of any big city has a difficult job due to the systemic issues of modern day capitalism. Especially when you have to deal with the monetary might of special interest groups. I'm not sure how to solve it though.

I will 100% vote for Bass over Caruso, but that doesn't mean that I don't want a different option.

Expand full comment
Brad Warren's avatar

It seems odd to me that Pittsburgh (not that it's quite a "big city" but it certainly has many of the same issues) is tossing its second mayor in a row this year, despite a history of being pro-incumbent.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Pittsburgh is a big city. If you think it isn't, you think there are very few big cities in the country.

Expand full comment
Brad Warren's avatar

Being a lifelong western Pennsylvanian, I think it's a big city ("The Paris of Appalachia"), but some folks seem to disagree.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Who are those folks? Pittsburgh's metropolitan statistical area had an estimated population of 2,429,917 as of 2024, 28th in the country. I as a New Yorker recognize it as a big city, just not a huge one like NYC or Chicago.

Expand full comment
PollJunkie's avatar

A performative executive order by Karen Bass accidentally unlocked a huge supply of unsubsidized affordable housing. After outrage from Los Angeles elites, she mostly repealed it. How can such politicians be called "progressive"?

https://calmatters.org/housing/2024/02/affordable-housing-los-angeles/

https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/los-angeles-ed-1-changes-mayor-karen-bass-affordable-housing-low-income-streamline-revision

https://www.reddit.com/r/yimby/comments/1hr57y7/in_a_recent_interview_la_mayor_karen_bass_argues/

Expand full comment
Henrik's avatar

Cali gonna Cali

Expand full comment
Henrik's avatar

Also as long as you complain about “greedy developers” and never propose your own solutions you get to be a progressive sorry I don’t make the rules

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Is there a way for the city to have enough funds to build more public transit lines and are there things the city can do to increase housing? What about dedicated bus lanes and requirements for a certain percentage of new buildings to provide affordable apartments, for example?

Expand full comment
JanusIanitos's avatar

I wonder what is the largest city is with a mayor that isn't unpopular? Chicago and LA are already mentioned here, and we all know Adams in NYC is unpopular.

How are the mayors of Houston, Dallas, Philly, Phoenix, Seattle, Atlanta, DC, etc. doing? If I remember right Henrik has brought up that Seattle's mayors continue to only serve for a single term due to their own issues. Looks like the last mayor of Seattle to be reelected was Greg Nickels, elected in 2001 and reelected in 2005.

I know Wu in Boston is generally well regarded, she has her detractors but that's mostly the crowd reading the Boston Herald instead of the Boston Globe.

Expand full comment
the lurking ecologist's avatar

Mike Duggan in Detroit? (As mayor, not as candidate for Governor)

Expand full comment
Brad Warren's avatar

I'm surprised at his longevity TBH. I thought he had a very "white savior from the suburbs" vibe at first, but I guess he's turned out to be decent at the job.

Expand full comment
Henrik's avatar

thank you for the shout out!

I should note that Ed Murray’s reelection was on cruise control until it turned out he diddled kids. On policy he was reasonably popular, as much as any big city mayor can be. Durkan and McGinn were their own worst enemies from opposite ends of the spectrum.

I’d note that middlingly popular as he is, Harrell should be reelected handily this fall if for no other reason than significantly improving perceptions of public safety in Seattle and the Times’ boner for complaining about homeless people

Expand full comment
Samuel Sero's avatar

At this point, Trump saved her re-election bid and I think Caruso is having second thoughts about trying to challenge her again. You imagine how Caruso would’ve handled the ICE raids? He was all for having the LAPD scoop up homeless people and get super tough on crime. I’m very sure he would’ve worked with Trump on the ICE raids. I also don’t see a Mamdani type candidate emerging. The LA City Council has proved it can be a clown show in itself. See the whole Kevin de Leon shit show for an example. The past few NYC mayor elections had candidates people wanted to prevent from becoming mayor and coalition voters had a good chances to capitalize on it. In 2013, when Christine Quinn, Bloomberg’s chosen candidate, and Anthony Weiner had real shots, Bill de Blasio (despite what you ended up thinking of him) knew how to mobilize support both in terms of policy and being the best alternative choice. In 2021, the coalition voters couldn’t get behind a candidate they liked hence why Eric Adams is where he is now. Mamdani and Lander understood that’s how NYC got Eric Adams and became strategically smart about how to win. We don’t have ranked choice voting in LA, just the top two jungle primary. So far, I’m not seeing any serious candidate step forward on the Left or the Right go up against Bass. After everything LA has been going through, who the fuck wants the job? Bass has my full respect. I may not always agree with her but I will never regret my vote for her because LA needs a fucking adult to run things and I will enthusiastically vote for her re-election bid. I can’t speak for my fellow Angelenos about loving or being enthusiastic about voting for Bass but I can see a lot of them being like “yeah, but who else is going to a better job?” and voting for her again.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I don't remember Weiner being a real threat to win a mayoral election.

Expand full comment
Samuel Sero's avatar

Weiner had a brief surge until another one of his dick pic texts came out.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Chicago seems like a very difficult city to run, with some problems that are more severe than New York, like I suppose crime is still higher there, but have the crimes and shootings come down much since the end of the pandemic? What do you think a good mayor of Chicago could do to run the city effectively, and what factors have made it difficult or made some problems seem intractable?

Expand full comment
Techno00's avatar

I wouldn't know, as I don't live there. Hence why I'm asking.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I wouldn't know you didn't know, as you don't live there but your sister does, and you asked about who could become the next mayor, which is a somewhat different question from the ones I'm asking. Maybe someone else will have some insight.

Expand full comment
Techno00's avatar

My sister isn't as politically active as I, but I don't live in Chicago, hence my lack of knowledge.

Perhaps a Chicagoan here may have said insight.

Expand full comment
Miguel Parreno's avatar

I think it just boils down to more philosophical discussions of what's the best way to prevent crime? Also what's the best way to prevent recidivism and how can we rehabilitate criminals without seeming "soft on crime"? That's why I deal in fiction and write it into my scripts haha.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I meant to also ask what other issues in Chicago have solutions that are being blocked, why, and what is making them seem intractable.

Expand full comment
rayspace's avatar

Johnson has no chance to win a 2nd term in Chicago. The business elites will get either Ald. Bill Conway (whose father runs/ran the Carlye Group) or Ald. Brendan Reilly to run. They're the kind of candidate that the moneyed interests in Chicago like--they speak platitudes about serving the whole city and then, lo and behold, the only things they really accomplish are what the business community wants. (See Daley, Richard M.).

Nothing gets better for Black people, despite Black mayors, but the moneyed crowd then turns it back on the people whose schools they've underfunded and who live places where they don't spend any development dollars (except when they deem the time right for gentrification) and says it's their fault. They accept inequities because they don't impact them directly.

Lots could be done in Chicago--the City government could more aggressively replace lead pipes, which deliver toxic water to homes in Black and Brown communities and lead to cognitive impairment and impulse control issues (read: crime). Chicago has 400,000; California (the whole state) has 20,000.

It could encourage development without displacement on the South and West Sides.

It could do real police reform (no, not defunding the police) and reduce police misconduct, the settlement of which costs Chicago $100m/yr.

It could value education and invest in schools rather than go around saying "I think it's more important for people to have common sense." And always, it could try to make things more fair and outcomes more equal. In the Streeterville neighborhood north of the Loop, life expectancy is about 90 years. In Englewood, on the South Side, it's 60. Guess which neighborhood has a Black majority?

I could go on, but what's the point? Nobody really wants change in Chicago, and Black people are leaving in droves, for good reasons. The willingness to accept mediocrity in Chicago is astounding, and Johnson will lose to a candidate who does big business's bidding.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Thank you for that writeup, although it's really depressing. To a visitor, Chicago is a great city. It was really sad that Harold Washington died when he did.

Expand full comment
rayspace's avatar

I agree with you totally, Michael. Chicago puts on a good front for visitors, but you should see the backyard. I agree 100% that had Harold lived longer, we'd be a much better city than we are now and on a different trajectory.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Everyone I know who was living in Chicago then felt that Washington had really helped but that there was so much left to do when he suddenly died.

Expand full comment
rayspace's avatar

100%. His first term was essentially shortened by Council Wars, and he was really moving things forward on policy when he died very suddenly.

Expand full comment
FeingoldFan's avatar

Just to be clear, Lori Lightfoot and Brandon Johnson were and are still bad at their jobs and it’s not big business’s fault.

Expand full comment
rayspace's avatar

Nothing I said indicated that they were/are anything but bad at their jobs. The 1% have been critical of them for the last 6 years, and my guess is they'll get their candidate in '27 and return Chicago back to the "glory days" of the RMD mayoralty. I don't know a progressive in Chicago who isn't frustrated with Johnson, so if he remains the progressive standard-bearer in the race, it will be fairly easy for the Tribune/Crain's/City Club crowd to discredit progressiveism in the eyes of most voters.

Expand full comment
PollJunkie's avatar

It's such a shame, Hillary Clinton could have overturned San Antonio v. Rodriguez with her appointments. This is really the worst timeline. It's going to be impossible to win the court for this generation if we don't win the Senate in 2026.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio_Independent_School_District_v._Rodriguez

''San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that San Antonio Independent School District's financing system, which was based on local property taxes, was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.[1]

The majority opinion, reversing the District Court, stated that the appellees did not sufficiently prove a textual basis, within the U.S. Constitution, supporting the principle that education is a fundamental right. Urging that the school financing system led to wealth-based discrimination, the plaintiffs had argued that the fundamental right to education should be applied to the States, through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that there was no such fundamental right and that the unequal school financing system was not subject to strict scrutiny. ''

Expand full comment
PollJunkie's avatar

Yes according to Vox: Hailly Korman, a principal at Bellwether Education Partners and a veteran education attorney, expressed hope that the Court could overturn San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, the 1973 decision that concluded, 5-4, that there was no federal right to education.

"With a liberal majority, I don't think it's implausible," Korman explains. " I think there is a very strong case to be made that some minimum of education is a necessary prerequisite to enable people to access and wield all of their other rights. If I could change one thing about our federal jurisprudence, this would be it."

Expand full comment
ArcticStones's avatar

The majority opinion: "did not sufficiently prove a textual basis, within the U.S. Constitution … that education is a fundamental right."

I remember reading those shocking words back in the day. It seems SCOTUS has set us on a course firmly towards Neo-Feudalism.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

That was the Burger Court in 1973.

Expand full comment
ArcticStones's avatar

Yes, I was in high school at the time.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I didn't remember that you were older than me. I was 8 in 1973, but I've read a number of Burger Court decisions, and they were mixed. Some were very liberal, some were compromise decisions (people usually forget that Roe v Wade, though its results and lineup surprised many, was a carefully measured compromise), and some were authoritarian (I'd cite Laird v Tatum, which purported to explain away the chilling effect of having military intelligence files on lawful demonstrators, denying them a right to sue). I think in the history of the Supreme Court, it was much more the Warren Court than the Burger Court that was an exception.

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

By the time Utah’s map is redrawn, it will be the 2030 election.

Expand full comment
Techno00's avatar

The sad thing is, you're probably right.

Expand full comment
ArcticStones's avatar

Great questions, Techno! Let me add one of my own:

– What are the odds that control of the House will be decided by gerrymanders?

Edit: If I understand correctly, current GOP control of the House was pretty much decided by their North Carolina gerrymander.

Expand full comment
John Carr's avatar

Way too high.

Expand full comment
Buckeye73's avatar

I suspect that we will have a blue wave in 26 but that gerrymanders could decide control of the house in 28.

Expand full comment
JanusIanitos's avatar

For current control and NC it comes down to if we could have maintained control over the competitive seat. When the state courts gerrymandered the state against us, they took two blue seats and one competitive seat and made all three red. Those three mark the margin of power in the current house, outside of current vacancies (what a shit show that scenario would have been...).

If we would have held that one competitive seat then the election outcome would have been a 218-217 house in our favor.

Expand full comment
Ncsupack's avatar

As it relates to Ron Johnson senate seat what about Ben Wikler? Believe I read somewhere that he was looking to potentially run for office. Maybe also Tony Evers? He’s old yes but he’s only a few years older than Ron Johnson

Expand full comment
Techno00's avatar

I read in The Nation myself that Wikler was a possibility. Evers could be good too.

Expand full comment
Mike in MD's avatar

Nir and Rupar had a discussion with Wisconsin Substacker Dan Shafer yesterday, in which he argued that Evers shouldn't even run again for governor, let alone Senate for a term he'd start at age 77. The idea is you've done great, but it's time to pass the torch. (Then again Janet Mills would be 79 at the start of a Senate term many here want her to run for, so I dunno.)

Wikler's never been elected to office himself, but quite a few Wisconsin Dems who have owe much to him. He'd be an intriguing possibility, and was mentioned by Shafer as being potentially interested in a statewide race.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

That was an excellent discussion. Shafer had a lot of interesting things to say and comes across great on audio.

Expand full comment
PollJunkie's avatar

A locked The Bulwark article suggested that Democrats were thinking of running a Dan Osborn style pro-gun Independent in Alaska's open Senate primary.

I saw a list of targets and to my surprise, Democrats are going to target 2020 Biden South Texas and South Florida districts as I've long wanted. This list was heavily trolled on social media. I really believe that the huge Latino swing in Trump's approval and generic ballot polls and the ICE backlash (Gallup) will translate to the ballot. I have hopes that Texas' Senate seat will finally turn blue after decades. I think we may go back to 2020 margins in Florida's Senate election but there's little to no chance of winning it imo. The Florida Democratic party is in shambles with a complete lack of political talent. Maybe a good 2026 performance will encourage rebuilding for 2028.

I think Scott Wiener is a top YIMBY politician in the state and he would be a leading candidate given his stellar record in the California senate. His endorsement of Katie Porter suggests to me that he is not aligned with Pelosi. Saikat Chakravarthy, AOC's former staffer is also running whether or not, Pelosi retires. So an article from Politico says that Pelosi's daughter is looking to succeed her and Wiener will likely challenge her whenever it happens.

Randy Fine is a Kahanist who has openly called for mass murder multiple times which even Republican magazines harshly criticized but unfortunately he seems aligned with his evangelical and religious orthodox district, and has built a huge brand (Hebrew Hammer) around making such bombastic comments. Trump has backed him and without a Trump endorsed challenge, he seems to be safe.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Where is Fine running? South Florida?

Expand full comment
Henrik's avatar

Daytona area

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I hope such an extremist can be defeated!

Expand full comment
Andrew's avatar

WI Sen 2028! Yes! I was just talking about that in a comment on another post. I am confident the WI Dems have plans in place for who the nominee will be and they are setting up Sarah Godlewski.

She was the WI State Treasurer, elected statewide and won her only term in 2018. She then went for Senate in 2022 but Lt Gov Mandela Barnes was unstoppable in the primary. He then barely lost due to racist attack ads, amplified by BLM protests and racial anxiety. (George Floyd’s murder in next door MN and then what happened in Kenosha.) The close loss and effective racial campaign made it pretty obvious that if we had just picked the white woman, we probably would have won.

Then, comes the set-up. Democrat Doug La Follette was re-elected in 2022 to Secretary of State, a statewide elected job that’s been mostly stripped of all its duties and is worthless. But, it’s a statewide elected office. He was first elected SoS in 1974, went for Lt Gov in 1978 and lost, then back again to SoS in 1982 and had won consecutively ever since. He’s pretty damn old being in statewide office for 50 years! 👏👏👏

He suddenly steps aside shortly after winning re-election in 2022 and Gov. Evers appoints Godlewski to replace him. All the tea leaves say that she is being set-up to run for Senate again. There are regrets and remorse about 2022 and we’re not fucking this up again. She needs to win her SoS race in 2026 and then 2028 Senate is hers for the taking.

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

Regarding Scott Weiner in the race to replace Nancy Pelosi:

Aaron Peskin is the most high profile liberal in San Francisco who wields the most influence and was known to being a prolific legislator in the Board of Supervisors. If there is anyone who will mount an effective challenge to Scott Weiner in the House race, it’s Peskin. He would be able to gain traction with union support as he got the most of it in his mayoral race last year. Unions, especially hotel worker unions, love Peskin.

The thing is, Peskin as much as he’s been a lightning rod in SF doesn’t desire a political career outside of being a Supervisor. He and his wife are too involved with their environmental non-profit and has power even if he’s not an elected official.

Also, I’d much rather Weiner be primaried out of office as State Senator. He’s showing too much of an ego on his pro-housing agenda and is getting more aloof to what native San Franciscans want, especially as it relates to holding big tech accountable. Peskin has a better track record on this and isn’t afraid to go after those squelching the little guy. Weiner’s just a square.

Expand full comment
Henrik's avatar

As in Peskin, the guy who’s made it his life’s work to make housing construction in SF impossible?

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

Because of potential gentrification and displacement. That's why.

Expand full comment
the lurking ecologist's avatar

Not sure this got covered earlier this week, but State Senator Stephen Goldfinch is running for SC attorney general.

https://gabnewsonline.com/goldfinch-makes-it-official-hes-running-for-state-ag-p8877-90.htm

I'd rather kink to the local paper, thr Coastal Observer, but the article is probably paywalled.

Anyway, the positive is it would open up our State Senate district to potentially someone better. I think he could have had a hard time winning reelection because he's on the wrong side of redevelopment of the closed paper mill in Georgetown, SC.

Current AG Alan Wilson is running for Gov while facing charges of not prosecuting Good Old Boys in SC. Goldfinch is just as connected to the GOB network though.

Expand full comment
the lurking ecologist's avatar

As it turns out, you can get the front page of the Coastal Observer, which goes into a little more of Goldfinch's background and approach. Note pdf file.

https://coastalobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/cover071025.pdf

Expand full comment
dragonfire5004's avatar

I’m going to be bold: I think Deja Foxx is going to win an upset in the primary on July 15 for AZ07 and gun to head: I don’t think it’ll be that close. Why? It’s not policy, Grijalva is a down the line progressive Democrat. It’s not the fact that the elder Grijalva died in office, Adelita is only 54. It’s about doing politics exactly how I think Democrats of all stripes should do it:

Go out there and create something that forces the media to pay attention, that gets people who don’t do politics to sit up and listen. To go online and in person to talk to anyone and everyone. This is what Trump successfully did in his primary and general election campaigns.

I love Adelita Grijalva, she’d make a great congresswoman. I’m ambivalent on Deja Foxx and I’m sure I’m going to be upset by some of the things she says and does as someone new to elected politics. I’m not supportive of her over Adelita. This has nothing to do with a progressive vs moderate battle. Both would be progressive in Congress.

But this is a battle between the old way of doing things and a new way, utilizing different forms of communication to spread our party message, a different style and strategy of what we do in elections. I see the way the wind is blowing and this is what I think Democrats will choose in a few days.

If I’m wrong, so be it.

https://archive.ph/xQ2kO

Expand full comment
Aaron Apollo Camp's avatar

Foxx was formerly homeless, and I don't know if there's ever been a former homeless person elected to Congress.

Expand full comment
JanusIanitos's avatar

She's out of office now, but Cori Bush was formerly homeless.

I only remember because she did a protest during Biden's term, sleeping outside the capital at night to pressure Biden to extend a federal eviction moratorium created during covid. I recall her explaining it in the context of her own past.

When I double checked the story to make sure I remembered right, I saw mention that Pressley also joined in the protest. I'm only finding articles of it as she was doing it but as I recall the effort was successful and Biden extended the freeze on evictions.

Expand full comment
Techno00's avatar

I remember that protest. A lot of reps and Senators got involved, even Schumer. Whatever you think of Bush, the housing protest was smart.

Expand full comment
Avedee Eikew's avatar

Didn't Sinema claim to be homeless at one point in her childhood?

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Yes, and living out of a car, if I remember correctly.

Expand full comment
Samuel Sero's avatar

So Courier News has been doing a documentary series about Deja Foxx’s campaign. It’s not getting any traction on YouTube and I think her and that series just fixate too much on the “I’m not waiting my turn and I’m making age a key issue here” aspect. Is Foxx wrong that we should talk about how long someone should serve in congress and passing the torch to a new generation of leaders? Not at all. But her argument is severely flawed because she claims that had three Democratic members of congress hadn’t died (Grijalva, Connolly and Turner), the “big beautiful bill” wouldn’t have made it out of the House. That’s a bold statement and it’s not completely honest. Even if all three members had survived, Johnson would’ve still found a way to get it passed and Thune and Senate Republicans were already working on separate version of the budget because they had a feeling the House GOP could fuck this up somehow. But the part of Foxx’s argument that she seems to omit is that all three members had cancer. Now, I can understand the argument that the mixture of their age along with battling cancer because their likelihood of survival was low as a legit argument for why we need fresh new leadership. But my cousin died of a rare liver cancer that was misdiagnosed at the age of 44. Cancer can take anyone at any age. Jamie Raskin is a cancer survivor and he’s still going. Foxx is trying to overhype the “Dems are old, we need younger people in office” argument in hopes that will be enough to win a primary election. I respect her work on the Harris campaign and utilizing her influencer status to build up a campaign and going viral calling out Jeff Flake at a town hall meeting in 2018. But as someone who worked on the digital team for the Harris-Walz campaign and has worked in digital media for over a decade, I can tell you that having a large following on TikTok does not guarantee a win. I’m not against influencers running for office. In fact I encourage it because I want them to prove just how much of an influence they have how authentic they really are. Jeff Jackson knew how to use TikTok to educate constituents so there is a real use for social and digital platforms in politics but it’s all about how you use it. Also, rural areas and lower income parts don’t have access to high speed internet. A candidate needs to be someone who knows every pocket of their district to first build up their basis of support for winning the nomination and then focusing on turning out votes in every area to secure a win in the general election. Electoral Politics is a numbers game and a turf war. Social Media gets the numbers game aspect to a degree but it doesn’t always translate for the turf war aspect. Look at how Shontel Brown took out Nina Turner in her primary. Turner’s campaign had a lot of issues but her campaign decided to just ignore campaigning in the Orthodox Jewish areas of Cleveland and that’s where Brown capitalized on. If Foxx is just hoping for younger voters to help her and not focus on other constituencies, then she’s fucked. I give Grijalva the edge because I’m sure learned that key lesson from her father that who have to know your district like the back of your hand.

Expand full comment
dragonfire5004's avatar

In the article I posted it says she traveled 1300 miles over the last week. She’s doing both and that’s why I think she will be successful. You need both, not 1 or the other. I also sympathize and empathize with your loss of your cousin at far too young an age. I’m very sorry for your loss. It is true, anyone can die at any point in life, young or old.

She is definitely not telling the truth about what would have happened to the bill if those 3 Democrats were alive to vote no. But to be frank: when has the truth ever mattered to voters? When have they ever decided who to vote for on their policy platforms? It doesn’t matter to winning elections. It matters how people feel and our base on the whole feel that bill could have been stopped if those 3 were there to vote no.

To be a bit blunt, that YouTube channel is exactly the wrong media to pay attention to in order to assess a candidate’s campaign reach or success in the year 2025. No one watches the news, fewer read a local organization like Courier News and those who do are older voters who probably don’t ever watch YouTube (or know it exists, like you said, there’s many people without internet).

There’s already been double the total Democratic turnout compared to the 2024 primary before election day even happens. I’m just not betting against those newer voters activated voting for the newer politician instead of voting for a long time one who wants to carry on her father’s legacy. It’s not what I want to happen, but it is what I expect to.

Expand full comment
Samuel Sero's avatar

That’s good that she’s traveling everywhere. Glad to see that. The truth may not always matter in a general election but a Democratic Primary is different. Democratic voters are smarter than just a simple argument. Are they energized by a desire for the party to do way more in fighting Trump? Absolutely! But they also want someone who truly understands the needs of their district. You can nationalize the race all you want but all politics is still local and if you can’t also address the specific needs of the constituency you want to represent in Congress, you aren’t going to get the nominee. Pure emotional reactionary politics can help a MAGA clown win a GOP primary but in Democratic primaries, our voters aren’t just driven by emotion when choosing our representatives. I remember I had this concern about how Adam Schiff was going to run his Senate campaign. I voted for Katie Porter in the primary because she was focusing heavily on the local issues facing the state whereas I was concerned Schiff was going to over nationalize the race as the man who went after Trump. I love and respect both Schiff and Porter and Barbara Lee and that was the most recent election where I was happy to have a great slate of options to choose from. I was also very pleased Schiff would strike the right balance of focusing on the local issues while also nationalizing the race about resisting Trump. The 2023 WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes were a great way for Schiff to highlight his deep understanding of the concerns people in California were facing. He represented Burbank, Pasadena and parts of Hollywood and even kicked off his campaign at an IASTE union hall so he knew how to flex his muscles on the local issues. Now Porter and Lee were also supportive and on the picket lines for the strikes like Schiff, but Porter represented Orange County and Lee represent Oakland so Schiff being from that part of SoCal that was really impacted for the strikes had the upper hand.

But where I disagree with you on is the YouTube aspect. Courier News isn’t a local outfit. It’s actually grown to the same level of influence as NowThis and Crooked Media when it comes to short form social content influence. Just look at their Instagram account for proof. To give them credit, they are trying to build up their local press efforts while also be a nationally known brand. But the issue that Courier faces is not focusing heavily on the YouTube aspect. YouTube isn’t and shouldn’t be treated like a social media platform in the hopes of instant gratification when it comes to audience building. It’s not just Gen Z and Millennials watching either. Older generations watch YouTube as well. Outlets and talent Crooked Media and Brian Tyler Cohen know how to properly invest in making long form content that viewers can consume and be a source of information. YouTube is more about authenticity than any other platform. The issue is other progressive digital companies and outlets treat YouTube like an afterthought because they don’t want to invest real resources like a production team and have it be a whole separate department because it’s harder to build an audience there. Hell, it’s not even that expensive to hire a crew to set up a simple video podcast shoot. YouTube wants you to put thought and quality into your video creation hence why they prefer 4K video. It takes a lot of time, patience and dedication but I can guarantee you as someone who sharply focuses on YouTube, you can be very successful there. In fact, you can get more control of your algorithm there because YouTube’s algorithm isn’t really conservative biased. It might recommend conservative content at first to new channel users but that’s because the right leaning podcasts have so engrained themselves in YouTube’s algorithm. 20 years and trillions of hours of video later, there is no way in hell Google has complete control over YouTube’s algorithm. That’s a whole different beast than Google’s search algorithm. We are seeing a shift on YouTube when it comes to progressive voices and commentary. Even Andrew Schultz knew which way the wind was blowing. Why else would he have Pete Buttigieg on his YouTube podcast? Also, more people are watching YouTube on their TV now more than ever. I’m not talking about the YouTube TV provider, I’m talking about the YouTube App on TV. YouTube is revamping their layout on TV to look more like Netflix where viewers can easily find more episodes and videos from their favorite channels and talent without having to wait for the YouTube Recommendations portion of the algorithm to show them the next episode. YouTube is all about keeping people engaged and watching longer but TV is the only device YouTube prioritizes going to full screen when you select a video as a default setting like you would on Netflix or any other streamer. Whereas you watch a video on Desktop or Mobile, going full screen is an option, not a default setting because YouTube has the Suggested Videos section. YouTube is also the only platform that allows you to make content in all formats (Podcasts, Memberships, livestreams, long to mid form, YouTube Shorts) and to utilize the Community Tab and comments to engage with your audience. YouTube, despite its issues, thinks way more long term than social platforms like TikTok and Instagram and especially Facebook. Facebook and TikTok’s algorithms are much easier to manipulate and from a revenue generating stand point are becoming way less reliable for companies and creators. And most importantly, while Google and YouTube will encourage brands and creators to try out AI features, they have been very firm in their policy that AI is not a replacement for the creative process. They are cracking down on AI generated slop. Sorry to go on a long spiel about YouTube but I want more and more people to understand the value of utilizing YouTube. I want our side to kick ass and dominate there. We just have to not half ass it out of fear that it won’t work.

Consistency and persistence is how you win on YouTube.

Also, I see your point on the last paragraph but I also hope people understand as there’s still a world of difference between mobilizing younger and newer voters in New York City to help someone like Zohran Mamdani win the nominee versus a historically Blue but bigger district in Arizona.

Expand full comment
dragonfire5004's avatar

I understand that you have far more experience in the area of digital expertise. I just really think you’re going to be wrong on this about everything. Democrats are smarter, but they also have hearts and feel emotions just like any person does.

Will they remember being angry about Trump being elected, wrecking America, constantly in their daily lives? Or will they remember the local concerns of a blue district? Will they think about continuing the past progressive representation, or think more about who is best to fight Trump with everything they’ve got?

Emotions almost always overrides logic, always. It’s far more powerful and memorable to human beings, even inside Democrats. It’s not what I want either, if people used their minds, Trump would be an afterthought by now. We’re just going to have to agree to disagree here I think and we’ll find out the answers to those questions in a few short days.

Expand full comment
Samuel Sero's avatar

Fair enough but what I was saying for our side it’s a balance of emotion and logic. Look at the New Jersey Democratic Primary in the Governor race. Newark Mayor Ras Baraka made the most noise in terms of resistance to Trump by being arrested at an ICE detention center. That was true bravery and struck an emotional chord with Democratic voters. But was it enough to get the nominee? No. Mikie Sherrill on the other hand found that balance of nationalizing the race and focusing on the local issues. I’m not saying the fight versus not fight debate isn’t real. It is. It’s just not the only aspect determining winners in primaries so far.

Expand full comment
dragonfire5004's avatar

I agree that it’s both, but I disagree that they’re equal. Emotion is felt far more than logic. I think those cases are very different for multiple reasons, so they aren’t really comparable.

First and foremost, they came before Mamdani’s upset primary victory. Second, the Democratic nominees who won had previously flipped and held former GOP districts, so Democratic voters knew they can win tough races. Thirdly, the challengers to the consensus pick were all elected Democrats, whereas in AZ07, the challenger isn’t.

If you’re willing, I’d like you to mention what you think about 20,000 new Democratic primary voters compared to 2024. You didn’t mention it at all in your posts and it’s real data instead of our opinions. Do you think they’re all voting for Grijalva? Do you think it’s split? Or do you think a majority of the new voters would vote for the new politician?

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

The large number of new voters seems like the best argument for a Foxx victory being likely; I agree with that.

Has Mamdani's primary victory had a great effect on campaigns or popular sentiment outside the New York area?

Expand full comment
dragonfire5004's avatar

I can say just as a single progressive: that wing of the party got a lightning bolt jolt of energy. A progressive candidate beating the establishment pick. There’s a feeling among that wing of the party that we’re no longer waiting for the torch to be passed by the old guard so we can lead, we’re taking it from them because they have failed us.

I keep seeing articles of longtime political observers in these areas with these insurgent challengers hearing the same thing over and over from Democrats on the ground: they’re not socialists, they don’t align with every policy, they certainly don't identify as such, but that the campaign and message and candidate is a “breath of fresh air” or “I really like them”.

Now maybe this is entirely or partially my own bias speaking, but every time I’ve went against my gut in politics, I’ve been wrong. Every time I used my head instead, I get it wrong. So this time I’m not letting data or logic guide me, I’m letting my emotions do that. We’ll see if that’s the right decision or not soon enough!

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Sounds like you have a better feel for these things than I do. I usually know better than to make any predictions on election results, because I know they'll be inaccurate just like my feeling that we'd be stuck with Cuomo in New York. I guess I'm just wondering how far news of Mamdani has even spread. Do you have any sense of what percentage of primary voters in, say, Wisconsin, have even heard of him?

Expand full comment
Mike in MD's avatar

I think plenty of Dems/liberals throughout the country know of Mamdani, but the idea that everything suddenly changed everywhere a couple of weeks ago seems strained. To cite an example above, I doubt Ras Baraka would win the NJ primary if it were being held now, though it's not impossible.

Expand full comment
Samuel Sero's avatar

I didn’t see the article you posted in our thread about the voter registration numbers in our direct comment thread so I was confused for a moment. But I see what you’re referring to. Also, many of the points I made weren’t opinions but observations also based on facts. New Jersey had the highest turnout in a Democratic Primary this year more than any other year. NYC had the same thing. I think that the higher turnout isn’t just due to newer registrations but also coming from the 8% portion of the vote that sat out the primary 2024 primary. We also don’t know what percentage of the newer voter registration numbers are first time voters who turned 18. We don’t know what portion of Independents or Republicans switched registrations. We don’t know which key areas from the district we’re seeing more newer registrations coming (city or suburban or rural) just based on that article. So we don’t have an idea yet of which Democratic nominee they are going to pick until Election Day. But what I can tell you based on Democratic voting trends in primaries that they are still striking a balance of emotion and logic. Mamdani knew how to focus heavily on the local issues facing the cost of living in the city while also focusing on Trump resistance.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

My perception is that Mamdani actually focused more on local issues than resistance to Trump.

Expand full comment
dragonfire5004's avatar

For arguments sake, let’s say you’re right, the increased turnout is solely from voters who sat out the 2024 primary and are not newly registered voters. Why do you think voters who didn’t vote in the 2024 primary would vote this time?

Is it just because it’s viewed as competitive? Is it because there’s real choices given to voters? Or do you think it’s more likely that something or someone different has activated those non voters into actual voters? For me, the most likely situation is a combination of the 3, but that the last one is the biggest factor.

If you disagree that’s ok, I just don’t agree with you on that. Turnout increases the most when new voters are activated by a different person running than what the previous election’s candidates were (obviously all are different from then, but 1 is very different). That, logically speaking, makes the most sense to me.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

You can say emotions almost always override logic, but historically, it's been unusual for incumbents to lose primaries, and in this case, we have the daughter of a popular incumbent, so she will presumably benefit to a more or less large extent from that.

Expand full comment
dragonfire5004's avatar

That’s exactly what I’m getting at. This isn’t normal politics, history doesn’t matter, but right now does and right now Trump is in office with a blank check to do anything, with the judicial system and all of Washington in Republican hands refusing to stop him on any issue. Meanwhile Democrats are trying to use normal political strategies to meander against Trump.

People feel this difference, they feel urgency, they see and feel the effects of Trump’s presidency every day in their lives. It was absolutely uncommon for incumbents to lose, historically speaking, but I don’t think it’s going to be uncommon for this moment in American politics when our voters feel betrayed by our party and who leads it.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

You could very well be right. We will see how things play out in this primary.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

As someone who watches a lot of videos and listens to a lot of music on YouTube, I found that a really interesting post. I'd like to hear from you more about YouTube cracking down on AI-generate slop, though, because there is a hell of a lot of AI-narrated crap. What are they doing?

Expand full comment
Samuel Sero's avatar

Sure! It’s going after mass produced AI Slop. Check out this article: https://mashable.com/article/youtube-monetization-ai-slop-mass-produced-videos

Expand full comment
dragonfire5004's avatar

Interesting nugget that I found in a different article and I don’t think anyone’s posted anything about it yet. That’s a lot of new voters compared to the 2024 primary in just a special election primary (which is usually far lower turnout than general election primaries).

https://www.kob.com/ap-top-news/ap-decision-notes-what-to-expect-in-arizonas-special-congressional-primaries/

As of June 16, there were nearly 440,000 voters registered in the 7th District. Of those, about 175,000, or 40%, were Democrats, and nearly 92,000, or 21%, were Republicans. Roughly 165,000 voters were not registered with any party.

In the 2024 primaries for the 7th District, turnout was 12% of registered voters in the Democratic primary (approx 21,000 voters) and 5% in the Republican primary. About 92% of Democratic primary voters and about 80% of Republican primary voters cast their ballots before election day.

As of Thursday, nearly 40,000 Democratic and more than 12,000 Republican primary ballots had already been cast.

Expand full comment
PollJunkie's avatar

Could the Arizona primary between Grijalva and Deja Foxx lead to the moderate third candidate winning?

I remember this happen before in NY and Mass. when Jake Auchincloss and Dan Goldman got elected in extremely liberal districts. Goldman is really good at hearings but his district is much more to the left of him.

Expand full comment
Techno00's avatar

I hope not. The fact that Giffords wouldn’t endorse Hernandez Jr despite his apparent role in saving her life does not bode well for his politics for me.

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

The Hernandezes are politically to the right of most Arizona Democrats. As was Giffords at one point.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

In those days, Arizona was further to the right, so though most Arizona Democrats might have been to her left, there were fewer of them, so she wouldn't have won enough independent votes if she had been much further left.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I don't know if this district is way to the left of Goldman. The part in Manhattan is, I believe, but part of this district is also in Brooklyn, and it's weirdly shaped.

Expand full comment
dragonfire5004's avatar

No, because Trump is in the White House instead of Biden. Democrats for the most part in primaries over his term went with the establishment/less progressive choices. After all, Biden and the old party guard was what saved them from another Trump term. Our voters voted for them from a position of playing it safe and trusting them to know what to do to beat Republicans. They even voted for more moderate candidates in blue seats, because they were “good enough”.

That’s no longer the case. Our voters feel the party lied to them and led us to an even worse 2nd Trump term, with election losses so large, across every single state, it was impossible to ignore, the largest swings afterall came from the deep blue districts, the heart and soul of our party. The election results proved to our base that the party no longer knew how to win in a modern America.

That trust was obliterated, replaced by anger at anyone who was a part of that massive debacle. It’s felt by every single one of us: the party let us down, so why on earth will we keep following the party instead of changing who runs it? Maybe I’ll have to eat my words, but I’d be shocked if Hernandez came within 20 points of the winning candidate (whoever that ends up being).

He was the perfect candidate for Biden’s term, but is absolutely not the right one for a 2nd more emboldened, lawless Trump one, where there are no guardrails and Democrats are desperately screaming “DO SOMETHING, FIGHT TRUMP!” That’s the unanimous feeling from left to right in our party. People who normally aren’t open to progressives, or younger politicians lacking experience are searching for the strongest voice and the most ruthless fighter.

Expand full comment
PollJunkie's avatar

Another factor may also be that Biden was also elected to preside over the greatest expansion of Social Democracy/Welfare State/workers' rights in America since the Great society through expansion of the ACA, government run healthcare plan which Buttigieg once termed Medicare if you want it, Build Back Better but in the end he couldn't even get abortion rights codified because of Manchin (obviously because he represented West Virginia) and Sinema (a DINO). People don't understand what the filibuster or the Senate does so I think this has also caused great anger and frustration. "Both parties are the same".

Expand full comment
Tigercourse's avatar

Biden's only real mandate was to be different than Trump and an adult who could save us from Covid. He governed to the left of how he campaigned.

Expand full comment
PollJunkie's avatar

On the border, he failed but how did he differ from his campaign platform in the rest? He had rejected neoliberalism before 2020 itself. Though I agree that being a sane alternative to Trump was his biggest mandate. Restoring the "Soul of the nation" etc.

Expand full comment
Tigercourse's avatar

What I mean was, he wasn't elected with the expectation that he would "provide over the greatest expansion...". He was elected because he wasn't an incompetent asshole. I think most of us were surprised with how to the left he governed. i might not have fully understood your earlier post.

Expand full comment
Kevin H.'s avatar

I'm curious what was to the left of what you were expecting?

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

He really pleasantly surprised me by being further left than I expected, adopting much more of the economic recommendations of Liz Warren and Bernie than I thought he would. A lot of that was in Build Back Better, which never passed, but some of it got into the legislation that did pass, and he was also the most pro-union president since Johnson.

Expand full comment
ArcticStones's avatar

In addition to what Michael mentions, President Biden nominated some very progressive people to key positions, many of them recommended by Senator Elizabeth Warren.

As the saying goes: "Personnel is Policy."

Expand full comment
Techno00's avatar

Honestly I liked some of the people he appointed/tried to appoint. Deb Haaland fought for public lands as Interior Secretary, Lina Khan actually fought for consumers and against mega-mergers in the FTC, and had Gigi Sohn gone through, it would have been cool to have someone who worked in anti-copyright advocacy and for net neutrality in the FCC (as someone skeptical of copyright myself).

I’m curious as to why having people who fight for policies that help us all is supposedly a bad thing - I could be misreading Tigercourse’s comment but I interpret it as saying Biden governing the way he did was somehow bad.

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

He did appoint some good people. As well as duds. Blinken, Garland. But that’s different from governing. Which I view as handling the day to day events and communicating with the public.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Day to day events were handled well, no? I won't change my mind that the Biden presidency was great with the huge exception that most of what it did has been or will be undone because it didn't succeed in being followed by a second Democratic term.

Expand full comment
Tigercourse's avatar

No, I don't think Biden governing to the left of how he campaigned was bad.

Expand full comment
Techno00's avatar

So it was a misreading then. Apologies, I have a language processing disorder (autism, though it was still considered Asperger’s when I was diagnosed) and I sometimes miss things.

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

Yep. If Trump handled COVID better in 2020, he would have gotten a consecutive second term. Especially since we Democrats weren't going door to door in that election.

Expand full comment
John Carr's avatar

As a whole yes, but progressives were at least implicitly told that progressive legislation would happen under Biden.

I actually do give the Biden people more credit for keeping expectations down and using the tools they had to get as much progressive legislation through as possible than I do Obama.

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

Public opinion can be fluid; a party that wants to succeed in the long term—and especially one that bears the burden, in a two-party system, of maintaining a functional country—needs to have priorities besides winning the next election. With these truths in mind, Democrats have a choice. They could put their heads together to make an educated guess about what the country might look like, think like, and need out of its government in 2028, then conduct themselves accordingly for the next three years. Or they could spend several hundred million dollars to find out again that the middle class likes the phrase “lift up the middle class.”

The party and its blob are finely tuned for outputting effective language about working across the aisle and protecting Social Security. They have proved much less adept at weighing competing short-term and long-term interests while responding to real-world events, protecting the party’s reputation and advancing its overall plan for improving the United States.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/07/donald-trump-news-democrats-elections-strategist-brain.html?sid=5821daf48cc2b20e5a8b4594&email=2471298e93c5b459fe1875bdc117ff6bded20d242a8e177c097e411fc4585c0c&email2=adf014a083d008fed9902946a660dad8&email3=b4d6d121c1e409ae055db3f4b03a0dd2d26ecd7f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=traffic&utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=TheSlatest

Expand full comment
PollJunkie's avatar

I think the biggest problem with the strategist brain is that with their excessive obsession with issue polling makes them prone to be stuck competing in the past rather than the present.

Like the Kilmar Abrego Garcia deportation case. Their main suggestion was to ignore him based on polling that immigration was Trump's strongest issue but campaigning on Abrego Garcia led to a huge fall his in solid lead on immigration. Initially, the space program etc were not popular in America but JFK campaigned on it and made it popular. Another example was Kamala's price gouging proposal which was not of any substance in reality (I agree) and the pundit class made her stop campaigning on it since it purportedly made her sound "Marxist" , but later polling showed that this was one of most popular populist proposals and was received well. She was also asked to not campaign on Trump's fascism and fearmongering instead asked to focus on moderate economics. However, in the last stretches of the campaign, she decided to campaign on it and asked the Future Forward to do the same but David Shor once again refused instead playing ads on the economy. (This was also subject to a high profile Politico investigation) Then later polling showed that the voters who broke in the end favored her. Now his argument is that Gen Z are permanently the most conservative generation since the Silent Generation so Democrats should abandon Progressivism/Liberalism. Really? They are anti-establishment and more liberal on all specific issue polls than any other generation and are the least likely to identify as conservative. They are the most anti-establishment cohort across the world and are most likely to vote for anti-establishment candidates according to a The Atlantic analysis.

Expand full comment
Henrik's avatar

I think Shor often raises points that are worth considering and it is worthwhile to take his notes into consideration as it is with anyone else. That said, in my opinion, he has a habit of dismissing data that doesn’t comport to his priors

Expand full comment
PollJunkie's avatar

Yeah, I am not saying that everything he says is wrong, a lot of his points are useful.

Expand full comment
Miguel Parreno's avatar

I've been giving a lot of thought to strategist brain and how it filters down to the rhetoric of our leaders. I don't know if it's my own biases or what not but when I hear a lot of establishment candidates like Jeffries speak I hear the same focus group tested language and rhetoric that is just so blatant and obvious. Yet when you hear people more on the left of the party they may have the same talking points as one another yet it seems far more genuine and natural.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

To a point. There is a certain orthodoxy of leftist groups like the DSA, but politicians who win races usually don't talk quite the same way as ideologues who aren't in elective politics or last one term at most.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Interesting situation in Texas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ4dm0ccqLs

New scandal ERUPTS in Texas; Republican may face CHARGES

Brian Tyler Cohen with Marc Elias

To summarize: the state legislator who introduced the bill that became the current Congressional gerrymander in Texas swore that she was "blind to race" in creating the map, but Governor Abbott cites a letter from the Department of Justice stating that race was considered in making that map as the reason he had to call a special session to revisit it. The Federal judge who considered a race discrimination case based on the existing map has reopened the case. Someone is lying, and that might affect the current map and any attempt to worsen it.

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

Well, if they pass a new map, it may become moot.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Doesn't that depend on whether the new map addresses possible racial discrimination or worsens it, considering that this is a reopened case?

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

It would be challenged on its own merits. But I’m sure the current map will be considered along side it.

Expand full comment
Samuel Sero's avatar

GA-Sen, "Did anyone really think the sexual predator President who partied with Jeffrey Epstein was going to release the Epstein Files?" https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/7/12/2332610/-GA-Sen-Did-anyone-really-think-the-sexual-predator-Pres-was-going-to-release-the-Epstein-files

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

Yes, but Ritchie Torres says:

“the Epstein controversy is a distraction" and that "there was no need for an investigation".

https://x.com/kenklippenstein/status/1943862753741222390

Fortunately, Democrats also have Jamie Raskin.

Top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee (which oversees DOJ) says "I'm going to be asking Chairman Jordan to call for a hearing where we subpoena the Attorney General and Dan Bongino and Kash Patel to come in and tell us everything that we know" about the Jeffrey Epstein files

https://bsky.app/profile/kenklippenstein.bsky.social/post/3ltqalak5ns2p

Not that there’s a chance in hell that Jordan would agree to that.

Expand full comment
Tigercourse's avatar

Torres is an imbecile.

Expand full comment
Techno00's avatar

I’ve heard he has lousy constituent services too.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

If so, there should be an opening to primary him.

Expand full comment
Kevin H.'s avatar

Israeli politicians being on the list confirmed

Expand full comment
Techno00's avatar

I remember ex-PM Ehud Barak being mentioned as being close to Epstein, as a matter of fact. I believe it actually became a political issue for the Israeli opposition in that country.

Expand full comment
PollJunkie's avatar

I don't think so, he's just reactionary and loves to take the opposite position on these issues compared to other Democrats. The worst result of this attitude is that after every antisemitic attack whether on Gov. Shapiro or anyone else, he claims that the perpetrator is a left-wing Democrat without any evidence on social media then interacts with MAGA comments.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Do you mean Rep. Torres is reactionary, etc.? (Btw, I use "reactionary" only to describe right-wing politics that favors undoing progress, but I recognize that using it to mean "reacting" is common and understand it in context.)

Expand full comment
Henrik's avatar

That’d be contrarian rather than reactionary (imo he’s both but still)

Expand full comment
Kevin H.'s avatar

Torres is downplaying the Epstein report which is why i said there could be Israeli politicians in it, ya know because he's weirdly pro-Israel everything.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I get your logic.

Expand full comment
Samuel Sero's avatar

Ruben Gallego is calling for the release of the Epstein List. Just got an email from him today about it.

Expand full comment
Tim Nguyen's avatar

This whole MAGAs suddenly being outraged about Bondi not releasing the Epstein files debacle is so mind numbing. THIS is the final straw, of all the corruption and crime that Trump and his goons have committed? But sure let's go with the pedophilia angle. Were these idiots NOT aware of Trump Model Management agency, which had beauty pageants with girls as young as 14 paraded in swimsuits in front of rich men? Were they not aware of the countless reported cases of harassment, abuse and even some allegations of rape by models that worked under Trump's agencies, some while minors at the time? But let's forget even the Access Hollywood tape which has lines I won't utter here. How about Trump's good friend Putin, who not only has been trying to commit genocide against the Ukrainians, but committed countless war crimes, not least of all releasing countless sex offenders out to fight his war against Ukraine, many who have proceeded to commit acts of murder and rape against women, children and civilians. No because apparently up to this point, none of that mattered until now, notwithstanding the ties to Neo Nazis and terrorist groups among the plethora of countless other crimes. But I guess at least now some in MAGA came to their senses. It's a wonder that it took this much and this long.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

It took some supporters of the Nazis until after they lost the war to realize they were evil.

Expand full comment
Tigercourse's avatar

People, of all political stipes but certainly Republicans in particular, often don't care about the real, but "boring" things and do care about the sensational ones. To give an example from the other side of the aisle, lots of Dems were very concerned with Hillary Clinton having given keynote speeches at conferences and retreats, which is one of stupidest thing I had ever heard. But people care about stupid shit (not that I think this is actually stupid shit) and ignore real things.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

You point is taken, but does it apply to people who didn't care about the coup attempt on January 6, 2020?

Expand full comment
JanusIanitos's avatar

I'm thinking this is breaking through the media cycle in a non standard way.

Most political news is coded as, well, political news. That primes people to be partisan, or alternatively to filter it out and not care, depending on how they view politics. The Epstein list is, at least from what I've seen, being coded as more general news that also has a political actor involved. This gets people to hear about the news and have an opinion first, then view it politically afterwards.

The low information populist voters that seem to have swung towards Trump are the prime candidate to respond negatively towards republicans over this difference.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Great comment, thanks!

Expand full comment
Mike in MD's avatar

I do not and never have cared much about Epstein, but if this is what causes MAGAts to start infighting and some to turn on their leader, I'm not complaining about the renewed attention.

Live by the conspiracy theory, die or at least suffer by the conspiracy theory....

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

In this case, it's obvious that there's a real conspiracy being led from the top.

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

As I’ve said, Democrats should have been hitting him on this with a concerted campaign a long time ago. That they haven’t shows their utter political incompetence. Or there are other factors at work where there is a mutually assured destruction thing going on,

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I think your last point is probable, unfortunately.

Expand full comment
the lurking ecologist's avatar

I'm happy to sacrifice Bill Clinton, some Cuomos and Kennedys...

Expand full comment
JanusIanitos's avatar

If they were doing horrible things, especially the kind of horrible things of this context, I'll "sacrifice" anyone, not just the crappiest people I already think poorly of. Doesn't matter how much I like them or if I'm in perfect agreement.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Of course! But you and I aren't at issue here.

Expand full comment
Tim Nguyen's avatar

I thought about this alleged Epstein list (or lists) for the briefest of moments, and a thought ocurred to me. If releasing (or not releasing) the list is such a big deal, why not release the list anyways, or claim to release it? Moreover, if there's fear of Trump or his close allies being on the Epstein list, couldn't they just simply lie or omit these names from the list? Surely his rabid MAGA base will eat it up like nearly everything he has spoonfed them. Maybe there's someone handling this list with a modicum of integrity and honesty, prolly not Bondi, but Trump seems inclined to defend them nonetheless. There's something far more incriminating going on that prevents or discourages Trump and co from further acting. I myself am not sure I want to further delve into this rabbit hole.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I do! Whoever is guilty should pay for their crimes!

Expand full comment
MPC's avatar

James Whalen, an attorney who successfully defended Justice Allison Riggs’ victory last year, is running for the open third seat for the N.C. Court of Appeals next year. Incumbent Democratic justice Allegra Collins is retiring.

https://amp.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article310415750.html

Christine Walczyk, a Democratic Wake County district judge, is also running for the open seat.

Expand full comment
MPC's avatar

With all due respect for Walczyk (I want to see her run for SCONC in 2028 instead), I hope Whalen wins the primary next year. It would be good to get more voting rights attorneys in the N.C. judiciary apart from Earls and Riggs.

Expand full comment
MPC's avatar
Jul 13Edited

James Galliard is running for his old NC state Senate against incumbent Republican Lisa Stone Barnes after he was unseated in 2022. It’s an ancestrally Democratic district that has leaned Republican in the past two cycles.

https://www.wral.com/story/why-nc-democrats-think-2026-midterms-will-run-through-rocky-mount/22083317/

Expand full comment
PollJunkie's avatar

NRSC (Graphs in link)

https://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/MEMO_Battleground-Democrat-Primary-Survey_2507082-1.pdf

TO: Interested Parties

RE: Internal Democratic Primary Survey – Battleground Senate States

DATE: July 08, 2025

Progressives On Top, Voters Unimpressed: Battleground Senate Primaries Feature Far-Left

Frontrunners and Huge Pools of Undecided Democrats

Fresh polling across five key states (Michigan, Texas, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Maine) shows

outspoken progressives leading or nearly tied in their respective Democratic Senate primaries. 40% to

50% of voters remain undecided in most states, signaling deep dissatisfaction with the field of

candidates.

• MI: Abdul El-Sayed nearly tied with Stevens, 22% to 24%

• TX: Crockett leads with 35%

• MN: Flanagan tops Craig 30% – 24%

• NC: Cooper leads with 39%, but Nickel isn’t far behind at 19% (41% are still undecided)

• ME: Mills leads with 32%, yet Wood pulls 18% with a staggering 51% undecided

Other key issue findings include:

• 24% believe the U.S. Constitution should be replaced or fundamentally changed

• 52% back a $15/hour minimum wage, while 27% say it should be raised to $25/hour

• 22% support granting full citizenship to all individuals in the U.S., regardless of

immigration status (21% undecided)

• 16% believe having national borders is inherently racist or unjust (16% undecided)

• 73% believe abortion should be legal at any time, with no limits

• 33% say transgender women should be allowed to compete in women’s sports (27%

undecided)

• 14% support allowing minors to medically transition genders without parental consent or

knowledge (20% undecided)

• 40% believe there are more than two genders, and 24% believe there are no limits to the

number of genders someone can be

Expand full comment
PollJunkie's avatar

Jordan Wood is surprisingly doing well in fundraising as well as polling. Jasmine Crockett though is unelectable in Texas statewide and is divisive. I hope Flanagan maintains the lead since I really don't like some of the people (Philips, Torres, AIPAC) who've endorsed Craig. If El-Sayed can create a non-divisive 2022 Fetterman style pro-M4A populist campaign, then good for him. I think he would certainly be at a disadvantage compared to the other 2 for obvious reasons but a Trump midterm can get him over the line.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

We would want someone who could win a second term. Would he have the potential to do so, like Tammy Baldwin has?

Expand full comment
PollJunkie's avatar

That would depend a lot on the votes he would take if elected and incumbency. Like Warnock was known to be more liberal than even Ossoff but he has had a bipartisan record in Congress to show for.

Expand full comment
the lurking ecologist's avatar

Wonder how hard the NRSC pushed that poll. Many of the results are not believable in context of more reputable polls.

Expand full comment
PollJunkie's avatar

This was the simplest explanation that came to my mind too but I think it would be an ignorant take. General polling overwhelmingly shows a very strong anti-establishment attitude among the Democratic base right now, with most wanting to fire all party leaders which has been subject to much reporting since the last week. Jasmine Crockett though not a potential candidate, very easily fits that mold so does Jordan Wood. He was Katie Porter's Chief of Staff, after all.

Expand full comment
the lurking ecologist's avatar

The Michigan numbers don't track at all. Last I saw El Sayed was in single digits and Stevens and McMarrow (?) were well ahead of the field.

But also, as noted by Michael, when someone is down 20 and they aren't "too far behind" plus some of the other issue wording, it seems like a push.

Expand full comment
PollJunkie's avatar

He has always been No. 2 in polling. All of those were informed polls conducted by McMorrow's campaign where he came 3rd.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_Senate_election_in_Michigan#Polling

Expand full comment
dragonfire5004's avatar

It’s actually kind of surprising how left wing voters are on a host of issues. I did not expect a majority to believe there’s more than 2 genders. I definitely didn’t expect 80% of voters to support doubling the minimum wage. The only issues that don’t get support is minors doing things without parents consent and eliminating the Constitution.

I also think on the immigration status question, there would probably be a majority if it was instead framed as all individuals who have not committed crimes other than illegally coming here being granted citizenship.

One thing that’s total messaging bullshit from the GOP though is that 40-50% of voters being undecided a year and a half out is the electorate not liking their options. Half of primary voters undecided is what you’d expect of any poll anywhere a year and a half until election day. People don’t tune in this early.

Similarly along those lines, polling Abdul El-Sayed and not Mallory McMorrow in MI as well as Jasmine Crockett in TX (who is not running), is purely who Republicans want to face, rather than the likelihood of who they face in those elections. It’s the narrative they want.

Expand full comment
PollJunkie's avatar

This is the Democratic primary electorate not the entire electorate.

Expand full comment
dragonfire5004's avatar

Thank you for correcting my mistake. These numbers make a lot more sense now.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

"16% believe having national borders is inherently racist or unjust (16% undecided)"

That's absurd! The differences between Canada and the U.S. are not racial!

I agree with dragonfire5004, though, and I was going to ask whether Crockett was running for Senate and Texas but now don't have to.

Oh, about this:

"Cooper leads with 39%, but Nickel isn’t far behind at 19%"

20 points down "isn't far behind"?

Expand full comment
Henrik's avatar

Yeah, Canada has a completely distinct cultural history and has since 1776.

Expand full comment
PollJunkie's avatar

The wording is loaded obviously.

You don't think 15 percent of 30-35 percent of the population supports open borders? It would be around 5 percent of the general population.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I doubt it. Like I've previously said, I'd prefer essentially an open immigration policy, but that doesn't mean no borders. I still would want checks on who has a criminal record, a dangerous contagious disease, or is an extremist.

Expand full comment
Space Wizard's avatar

What's the practical reason to apply those checks to people from Mexico but not people from Texas?

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Huh? Until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, you can't deport Americans from the U.S.A. because they are criminals, have contagious diseases, or hold extremist views!

Expand full comment
Space Wizard's avatar

OK, you said checks, not deportations, but sure. In any case, that's a legal reason, not based in any actual difference in the relative threat Mexicans or Texans coming to New York might pose. Can't you see how someone might find that inherently unjust, even if you don't find the alternative practical?

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

No. Btw, I wouldn't exclude people with all contagious diseases, nor do I think people with HIV are automatically excluded, but who knows at this point?

Expand full comment