Hilton’s got delusions of grandeur because he’s never going to get this accomplished. The state legislature has already removed single-family zoning restrictions and will be able to have more power than Hilton in this sense.
Meanwhile, both Eric Swalwell and Katie Porter have real ideas on housing. Matt Mahan on the other hand has nothing.
I still think the likelihood of a top two lockout is pretty low. That said even IF we somehow manage to fuck this up, we can use this as the catalyst to get RCV done in this state so it never happens again and recall the Republican Governor soon thereafter.
For starters, polling is only a snapshot at the picture heading towards the June primary but does not reveal anything about the turnout. We have yet to see indications of this although knowing how turnout has been nationwide, Democrats could see a real blow out in the CA primary.
Yes but since the pervasive concern is about both the top-two candidates advancing being Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton, a blowout in terms of turnout in favor of the Democrats but allowing either Chad Bianco or Steve Hilton to advance in the general election means the suspense is all over.
Truth be told, Hilton doesn’t want both him and Bianco to advance in the general election. In fact, he called out Bianco on the campaign trail to drop out in the interest of the GOP not being shut out of the general election. It did not go well.
As long as the RCV primary process allows only party-line RCV and not the ability of anyone to rank candidates in different political parties, then that works for me.
On the other hand, TX has a better primary system than CA does even if it’s not RCV.
From the tail end of the first bullet point at the start of the article "arguing the selection criteria excluded all prominent candidates of color."
I feel "prominent" is being stretched to its illogical ends here. Every single one of these candidates has never polled in the double digits or even close to it. In fact I think all four of them have an average below 5%. Sorry, but that is not prominent and I do not care how well credentialed they are.
They should absolutely be kept out of the debate and if anything it should be even more exclusionary. The four of them should be embarrassed with themselves more than anything. Thurmond is at a polling average of a whole 1%. Why the fuck should anyone take his candidacy seriously or treat him like a credible candidate? He isn't one.
Debates should 100% be reserved solely for candidates with a pathway to winning.
I wish he was the national party chair, but there's a lot to be done in WI. With court drawn maps all around, the state lege is finally up for grabs after the Walker-Fitzgerald-Vos days.
I don’t like the idea of party chairs running for major office in swing states. It’s very easy to polarize swing voters against you then. We have a decent bench in Wisconsin that we can avoid that.
I would prefer DNC Chairs to be more focused on building party apparatus, funding and supporting state parties with more traction. Basically improvement of things from a nuts and bolts + grassroots standpoint.
Who are you thinking? Josh Kaul would be solid and his decision not to run for governor this year makes me think it's Senate or nothing for him, but that's all I know. I'm not familiar with our bench in Wisconsin, but it's always struck me as surprising that in '22 and '18, there weren't any standout candidates for Senate and governor respectively. Even now, I'd say the field for governor is kind of weak, so I'd be interested in any names you could offer.
For any postcard writers out there interested in WI Supreme Court race:
Postcards to Voters (https://postcardstovoters.org/) still has addressed for Judge Chris Taylor in the WI race. (Their other campaign is for Shawn Harris in the runoff for the GA special election). NOTE: They always use a mail by date of 3 days from when you download the addresses (but no later than a week before the election).
Activate America (www.activateamerica.vote) still has names & addresses for the WI Supreme Court race (mail ASAP but the last date to mail these postcards is March 28th). [They also have campaigns to Flip CA-48 (currently Rep. Issa's district; last mail date March 30), vote YES for VA redistricting (last mail date April 8th) and OH primary for newly registered voters (last mail date April 20).]
I am wondering about Iranian-American sentiment. I recall seeing reports that Iranian-Americans cheered the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei but after that, I have doubts of the sentiment they originally exhibited has remained.
Here in the UK, the local émigré community is continuing to hold regular rallies against the regime, waving the pre 1979 flag and displaying photos of those massacred in the pre-war uprising. I'm pretty sure they support the US-Israeli war effort.
At the outset, the Daily Mail is probably the most right-wing widely-distributed tabloid in the UK. It seems to feature a continuing editorial campaign against all things Labour.
Yes because Ty Pinkins had previously been a candidate in two races back in 2023 and 2024. I am not sure why he decided to be an Independent this time around.
This will be the first midterm under a GOP president where we will see the full effect of the parties double realignment where Trump picked up working class voters who will show up for him but aren't regular voters and the Democrats picking up college educated suburban voters who vote in every single election. Combine this with a blue leaning electorate and an unpopular war and struggling economy, the blue wave may actually be larger than most people see at this time.
I wonder how good Schumer still is at recruitment. I feel the highs are very high this cycle -- Peltola as the best example, but we also have Brown and Cooper running and I think he had at least a hand to play for those two as well. But the lows feel comparably low themselves: Stevens, Craig, and Mills, are not impressing me at all even ignoring ideology.
Schumer has one playbook with recruitment these days I'm not sure if he has his finger on the pulse of politics well enough to know when "current or former moderate governor or member of the house" is appropriate and when they're not as strong as they appear at first glance.
Durbin and Schumer repeated our Pelosi and Stoyer problem of staying around too long and being age cohorts. There's no obvious successor to Schumer. I guess Schatz is the most likely person, but he's not a lock. Klubuchar is running for governor, so she's out. Booker and Murphy could make credible runs but as far as I know haven't laid the groundwork the way Schatz has.
I'll take just about anyone over Schumer at this stage. He makes me think of Germany's Scholz. He simply is not the right person for this moment. Schumer would have been a solid party leader during the Obama era, but not today.
How are you figuring all those races had nothing to do with Schumer contacting the candidates behind the scenes? We don't know what did or didn't happen, I think.
⬆️"How are you figuring all those races had nothing to do with Schumer contacting the candidates behind the scenes?"
Where did you get that idea? It isn't whether Schumer contacted the preferred candidates behind the scenes - it's whether he actually influenced them to run.
⬆️"We don't know what did or didn't happen, I think."
I agree with you on this, but dragonfire5004 stated "The candidates were beyond obvious ... but he still got them to run".
We don't know what we don't know, and I think that even if candidates were leaning toward running, Schumer could have helped by putting them in touch with big donors, etc. I'm inclined to give him more credit for recruitment while still being really pissed off at some of what he's done as Leader and in his voting record.
⬆️"The candidates were beyond obvious to any Democratic supporter for those races (AK, OH, NC), but he still got them to run."
I would agree that those are the best candidates for those states, but I'm not sure how much Chuck Schumer had to do with it. Do you have any facts to back up your assertion that Schumer was the catalyst?
Pelosi was absolutely a far better leader than Schumer. It isn't even a contest. Not just in her ability to get things done as a leader, but also in her ability to lead her caucus to get the right things done. She's overwhelmingly superior at both.
Doesn't change that her and Stoyer made the same mistake that Schumer and Durbin did, of sticking around too long while being of the same age cohort and thus leaving us without an obvious successor. It's not exactly a huge mistake but it is one all the same.
Chuck Schumer turns 76 later this year. It's time to step aside and let someone younger to lead. Too many politicians are guilty of staying on for one term too many.
LA sure is a mess of a city to run from an institutional standpoint. I don’t envy anyone who is working to keep the city running, especially Mayor Karen Bass.
That said, last I checked there are a lot of single-family homes in the city and within LA County along with multi-family units as well as apartments. Can’t comment on the affordable housing situation but getting change from a public transit improvement standpoint sure seems to be a pain.
In the Bay Area, where I live, at least BART has been able to extend well throughout the Bay Area and even outward a bit along with SF Muni getting extensions covering more of the city in the last 20 years.
Sounds like LA has a better public transit system than what exists in the Bay Area even while expanding it in this sense is challenging. I will have to try it out whenever I get to the point of making a visit to LA.
BART connects most of the Bay Area with the exception of Marin County, half of the Peninsula and South Bay but the system has been inundated with funding needs and system brake downs for decades with no formula apparently besides more funding and higher fees.
Frankly, I think public transit agencies should get off their high horse and start lowering ticket fees if they have problems with drops in ridership. I just don’t understand how they expect to make up for revenue shortfalls by charging more for less riders. It’s reverse logic.
To top it all off, remember the Summer 2028 Olympics are coming to LA. It's gonna be a massive boondoggle and I imagine there's gonna be many logistical hurdles, setbacks and backroom deals. Whoever wins the mayoral race in 2026 will have the looming Olympics to deal with, which is always it's own double edged sword.
Oh yes, it’s going to be a logistics nightmare in 2028.
Public transit isn’t going to be the problem with the Olympics so much as those who drive in and around though LA at the time which the events happen. Tourists ought not to get car rentals during this time because it’s going to be hell with the commute.
I’m one of those Democrats who believes while I don’t want Fetterman to be Senator, I think he could have an opportunity to get a beefier salary and a more comfortable career trajectory either in lobbying, a think tank or somewhere else. If he’s unseated in the primary and decides to go in this direction, I would support that out of empathy.
How likely is it that the GOP works hard to get Fetterman to switch parties? They have to be slightly worried about their senate majority. I have no idea if Fetterman would, but I really don't recognize what he has turned into.
IL-Sen: Democratic primary results by Chicago wards - Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi finished last, despite winning more wards than Rep. Robin Kelly, who won none. (Kelly represents many wards on the southeast side of the city, while Krishnamoorthi represents part of ward 41, based in the O'Hare neighborhood mostly absorbed by the airport).
And now the rich Democratic man in MD is trying the same strategy again for a House seat against a woman who again has most/all the state and local party elected endorsements. A key difference being that this time his female opponent is an incumbent even if he's subconsciously trying to deny it.
Yes. I don't think we've had more than one simultaneously prior to last year.
Anything even remotely approaching gender parity is a 21st century phenomenon. 1992 was dubbed "The Year of the Woman" because the number of women in the Senate went from 2 to 6. Likewise, every female Senator was either the wife or daughter of a male Senator until 1980. (Last sentence is wrong, see below.)
There have only been 4 black women Senators total up until now, and it was only when Alsobrooks and Rochester were elected that we had two in the Senate at the same time, so yes this is significant for representation.
"Bluer areas of Virginia are picking-up voting: As of Monday, votes cast in the 5-GOP held districts were 60% of all votes cast so far (vs 40% in 6 Dem-held districts). As of today, gap shrunk to 55% to 45%"
Dems seem to be picking up at a decent pace in Virginia and the satellite EV sites haven't even opened up in most of the blue counties. I think they close strong and have a real chance at winning this by at least double digits.
⬆️"Dems seem to be picking up at a decent pace in Virginia and the satellite EV sites haven't even opened up in most of the blue counties."
I have been writing postcards to vote YES on VA redistricting. Names & addresses are still available at www.activateamerica.vote.
There are also a bunch of phone banks between now and election day. Jessica Craven (Chop Wood Carry Water) was promoting one from MoveOn on Monday evenings. www.mobilize.us/moveon/event/796084/
Center for Common Ground focusses on Black and minority voters and is hosting phonebanks that include training & support on Tuesday and Thursday evenings. Experienced phone bankers can also watch a video and do it on your own time. IIRC, you are allowed to leave messages for these calls. (www.mobilize.us/mobilize/event/903710/)
Boebert is against the Iran War funding, citing concerns over not enough attention being paid to her constituents' real issues of affordability and other matters domestically at home.
Her district would be the perfect spot for a GOP vote sink in a 7-1 Gerrymander favoring the Democrats. I also suspect that she is aware that Trump's war in Iran will not be popular in her district. A disproportionate number of casualties in a possible ground war come from rural areas of the country like CO-4, but people who live in rural areas will be hit much harder by increases in gas and energy prices than urban people because they tend to drive many more miles per year than urban people and are much more sensitive to gas prices.
Trump vetoed the bill with water infrastructure stuff for her district because she was part of the Epstein file release crowd. So now she's firing back.
Luna’s close to being aligned with MTG and Lauren Boebert although I don’t think she’s officially said she’s supported QaNon. She’s just strange like they are and I don’t mean this in a good way.
And if you say Luna is a fraud, her making enemies with Trump helps Democrats even more. Last I checked she represents a Lean GOP, right after Charlie Crist did.
One theory is that he targeted Boebert because she signed the Epstein discharge petition, but I personally think that it's more likely he just wanted to hurt Colorado (perhaps because of that election clerk they convicted) and didn't think about the fact that there are Republicans in Blue States.
A state judge on Friday ordered a new, toned-down description of the redistricting plan after Missouri’s Republican secretary of state acknowledged that he had crafted an unfair summary likely to create bias for the new districts by describing the old ones as “gerrymandered.”
South Australia had their state election yesterday, and as expected Labor has won in a rout, with One Nation and the Australian Liberals dividing the right. Of 47 seats in the Assembly, Labor has won 32, the Liberals are on 4, with one independent and 10 seats still TBD. Looks like One Nation may win a few rural seats. In the Legislative Council (Senate equivalent), 11 seats of 22 were up, with Labor winning 4 so far, Liberals and One Nation with 2 each, 1 Green, and 2 TBD.
It's similar to the ranked choice voting in places like Maine and Alaska. Voters rank their choices from 1 to x on the ballot and their votes get transferred based on their preferences as lower performing candidates are eliminated. The South Australian Liberals did a daft thing and told their voters to preference One Nation ahead of Labor, with no offer of reciprocity from One Nation, so they ended up getting screwed both coming and going.
One Nation does have some fiscally left position and I can definitely see some traditional Labor voters vote for ON based on social issues (especially immigration) but rank Labor above the Liberals
Continuing with this thread rather than start a new one. As of now, Labor still at 32, Liberals still at 4, One Nation officially has 1, and 1 Independent. 9 seats in doubt. Labor leads in 1, Liberals in 3, Independents in 3, and One Nation in 3. The LC is still showing Labor winning 4 seats, Liberals 2, One Nation 2 (with a third likely), Greens 1, and 1 in doubt.
The Liberals have almost been wiped out in Adelaide with Labor taking 4 Liberal seats. Liberals officially have 1 seat in Adelaide and are clinging to an 8 vote lead in another Adelaide seat. Here is an interactive map of the South Australia results: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-21/mapping-seats-sa-election/106477958
This article on the results discusses the historical success of One Nation with this result being their best statewide primary vote since Queensland in 1998. This one also mentions how in 1998 the Liberals lost the Queensland state election after preferencing One Nation above Labor. Four months later in the federal election, PM John Howard preferenced One Nation below Labor and he ended up winning. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-22/one-nation-analysis/106483618
Hilton’s got delusions of grandeur because he’s never going to get this accomplished. The state legislature has already removed single-family zoning restrictions and will be able to have more power than Hilton in this sense.
Meanwhile, both Eric Swalwell and Katie Porter have real ideas on housing. Matt Mahan on the other hand has nothing.
I still think the likelihood of a top two lockout is pretty low. That said even IF we somehow manage to fuck this up, we can use this as the catalyst to get RCV done in this state so it never happens again and recall the Republican Governor soon thereafter.
Is it possible a top-two R contest causes D turnout to slip and cost us House seats?
It's possible, although I don't know if there's historical precedent for that.
Probably not enough seats to prevent a Democratic majority coming from other states.
For starters, polling is only a snapshot at the picture heading towards the June primary but does not reveal anything about the turnout. We have yet to see indications of this although knowing how turnout has been nationwide, Democrats could see a real blow out in the CA primary.
But even very high D turnout could end up with at least one of the Republicans making the top two if the vote is spread out widely as it is now.
Yes but since the pervasive concern is about both the top-two candidates advancing being Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton, a blowout in terms of turnout in favor of the Democrats but allowing either Chad Bianco or Steve Hilton to advance in the general election means the suspense is all over.
Truth be told, Hilton doesn’t want both him and Bianco to advance in the general election. In fact, he called out Bianco on the campaign trail to drop out in the interest of the GOP not being shut out of the general election. It did not go well.
https://www.ktvu.com/video/fmc-0zsblv2sf5ekp8pr#
https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/02/09/in-the-race-for-governor-steve-hilton-has-a-new-target-fellow-republican-chad-bianco/#
https://abc7.com/post/california-governors-race-republican-candidates-no-love-lost-between-steve-hilton-riverside-county-sheriff-chad-bianco/18707696/#:~:text=But%20when%20ABC7%20political%20reporter,something%20that%20I'm%20not.
As long as the RCV primary process allows only party-line RCV and not the ability of anyone to rank candidates in different political parties, then that works for me.
On the other hand, TX has a better primary system than CA does even if it’s not RCV.
He'll become obscure in time, like Jeff Chiesa, Mo Cowan or Paul Kirk.
All names worth knowing if you're in a political trivia tournament, at least.
They can't win, but it is strange that it will be an all-white debate. They should also exclude Matt Mahan.
Mahan gets invited under the mega-bucks from big tech ($17M) exception.
From the tail end of the first bullet point at the start of the article "arguing the selection criteria excluded all prominent candidates of color."
I feel "prominent" is being stretched to its illogical ends here. Every single one of these candidates has never polled in the double digits or even close to it. In fact I think all four of them have an average below 5%. Sorry, but that is not prominent and I do not care how well credentialed they are.
They should absolutely be kept out of the debate and if anything it should be even more exclusionary. The four of them should be embarrassed with themselves more than anything. Thurmond is at a polling average of a whole 1%. Why the fuck should anyone take his candidacy seriously or treat him like a credible candidate? He isn't one.
Debates should 100% be reserved solely for candidates with a pathway to winning.
Considering how little support they have, I don't think their loser arguments are going to persuade more than a vanishingly small number of people.
When people cry racism when it clearly is not they harm all the people who are truly hurt by racism.
Alumni of USC that are Mahan supporters are likely behind this.
Rick Caruso is one of them as is the co-director of the USC Center that is hosting the debate, Mike Murphy.
This isn’t going to look good for Mahan heading to the primary.
Wow. WI Democrats are killing it.
Not even Scott Walker and Charles Koch can save the GOP at this point.
I wish he was the national party chair, but there's a lot to be done in WI. With court drawn maps all around, the state lege is finally up for grabs after the Walker-Fitzgerald-Vos days.
Ken Martin has been fine anwyaws. I hope Wikler runs against Johnson in 2028
I don’t like the idea of party chairs running for major office in swing states. It’s very easy to polarize swing voters against you then. We have a decent bench in Wisconsin that we can avoid that.
I would prefer DNC Chairs to be more focused on building party apparatus, funding and supporting state parties with more traction. Basically improvement of things from a nuts and bolts + grassroots standpoint.
Who are you thinking? Josh Kaul would be solid and his decision not to run for governor this year makes me think it's Senate or nothing for him, but that's all I know. I'm not familiar with our bench in Wisconsin, but it's always struck me as surprising that in '22 and '18, there weren't any standout candidates for Senate and governor respectively. Even now, I'd say the field for governor is kind of weak, so I'd be interested in any names you could offer.
For any postcard writers out there interested in WI Supreme Court race:
Postcards to Voters (https://postcardstovoters.org/) still has addressed for Judge Chris Taylor in the WI race. (Their other campaign is for Shawn Harris in the runoff for the GA special election). NOTE: They always use a mail by date of 3 days from when you download the addresses (but no later than a week before the election).
Activate America (www.activateamerica.vote) still has names & addresses for the WI Supreme Court race (mail ASAP but the last date to mail these postcards is March 28th). [They also have campaigns to Flip CA-48 (currently Rep. Issa's district; last mail date March 30), vote YES for VA redistricting (last mail date April 8th) and OH primary for newly registered voters (last mail date April 20).]
I am wondering about Iranian-American sentiment. I recall seeing reports that Iranian-Americans cheered the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei but after that, I have doubts of the sentiment they originally exhibited has remained.
That’s a pretty internally fair and consistent take in all honesty
Hmmm. Interesting.
Here in the UK, the local émigré community is continuing to hold regular rallies against the regime, waving the pre 1979 flag and displaying photos of those massacred in the pre-war uprising. I'm pretty sure they support the US-Israeli war effort.
Why is the Daily Mail noteworthy as a source?
At the outset, the Daily Mail is probably the most right-wing widely-distributed tabloid in the UK. It seems to feature a continuing editorial campaign against all things Labour.
I see. But aren't even a lot of Conservatives anti-Trump, however disgustingly their government acts as his lapdog?
Probably, but my grasp of UK politics is very limited.
Not the Daily Mail.
Daily Mail I have observed is filled with a lot of junk stores, speculation and tabloids.
Being that I have a life and like to enjoy it, I skip publications like Daily Mail. Just saying.
The Daily Fail, and its owner Lord Rothermere, were big fans of Hitler in the 1930s. It hasn’t changed all that much since then,
I like Daily Fail. I would love to see the name change. ;)
I’d sure like to see Scott Colom or Ty Pinkins (formerly a Democrat now an Independent) unseat Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith with this kind of turnout.
Yes because Ty Pinkins had previously been a candidate in two races back in 2023 and 2024. I am not sure why he decided to be an Independent this time around.
Possibly but Mike Espy also made his original Senate run against Cindy Hyde Smith closer than expected.
The sent?
This will be the first midterm under a GOP president where we will see the full effect of the parties double realignment where Trump picked up working class voters who will show up for him but aren't regular voters and the Democrats picking up college educated suburban voters who vote in every single election. Combine this with a blue leaning electorate and an unpopular war and struggling economy, the blue wave may actually be larger than most people see at this time.
💯 agree with this. I don’t think most realize what’s exactly coming. It’s going to be bigger than anything we’ve seen in recent history.
I wonder how good Schumer still is at recruitment. I feel the highs are very high this cycle -- Peltola as the best example, but we also have Brown and Cooper running and I think he had at least a hand to play for those two as well. But the lows feel comparably low themselves: Stevens, Craig, and Mills, are not impressing me at all even ignoring ideology.
Schumer has one playbook with recruitment these days I'm not sure if he has his finger on the pulse of politics well enough to know when "current or former moderate governor or member of the house" is appropriate and when they're not as strong as they appear at first glance.
Durbin and Schumer repeated our Pelosi and Stoyer problem of staying around too long and being age cohorts. There's no obvious successor to Schumer. I guess Schatz is the most likely person, but he's not a lock. Klubuchar is running for governor, so she's out. Booker and Murphy could make credible runs but as far as I know haven't laid the groundwork the way Schatz has.
I'll take just about anyone over Schumer at this stage. He makes me think of Germany's Scholz. He simply is not the right person for this moment. Schumer would have been a solid party leader during the Obama era, but not today.
How are you figuring all those races had nothing to do with Schumer contacting the candidates behind the scenes? We don't know what did or didn't happen, I think.
⬆️"How are you figuring all those races had nothing to do with Schumer contacting the candidates behind the scenes?"
Where did you get that idea? It isn't whether Schumer contacted the preferred candidates behind the scenes - it's whether he actually influenced them to run.
⬆️"We don't know what did or didn't happen, I think."
I agree with you on this, but dragonfire5004 stated "The candidates were beyond obvious ... but he still got them to run".
I think that is where the pushback comes from.
We don't know what we don't know, and I think that even if candidates were leaning toward running, Schumer could have helped by putting them in touch with big donors, etc. I'm inclined to give him more credit for recruitment while still being really pissed off at some of what he's done as Leader and in his voting record.
⬆️"The candidates were beyond obvious to any Democratic supporter for those races (AK, OH, NC), but he still got them to run."
I would agree that those are the best candidates for those states, but I'm not sure how much Chuck Schumer had to do with it. Do you have any facts to back up your assertion that Schumer was the catalyst?
I agree with most of that, but when you bring up Pelosi, you're bringing up a far superior leader.
Did Pelosi ever call for a House vote that she lost?
I don't remember that ever happening.
Pelosi was absolutely a far better leader than Schumer. It isn't even a contest. Not just in her ability to get things done as a leader, but also in her ability to lead her caucus to get the right things done. She's overwhelmingly superior at both.
Doesn't change that her and Stoyer made the same mistake that Schumer and Durbin did, of sticking around too long while being of the same age cohort and thus leaving us without an obvious successor. It's not exactly a huge mistake but it is one all the same.
"Stoyer" = Steny Hoyer?
Yes
... Oops. I honestly have no idea why I kept getting his name wrong like that. Yes, Steny Hoyer. Thanks for pointing that out!
Chuck Schumer turns 76 later this year. It's time to step aside and let someone younger to lead. Too many politicians are guilty of staying on for one term too many.
LA sure is a mess of a city to run from an institutional standpoint. I don’t envy anyone who is working to keep the city running, especially Mayor Karen Bass.
That said, last I checked there are a lot of single-family homes in the city and within LA County along with multi-family units as well as apartments. Can’t comment on the affordable housing situation but getting change from a public transit improvement standpoint sure seems to be a pain.
In the Bay Area, where I live, at least BART has been able to extend well throughout the Bay Area and even outward a bit along with SF Muni getting extensions covering more of the city in the last 20 years.
Sounds like LA has a better public transit system than what exists in the Bay Area even while expanding it in this sense is challenging. I will have to try it out whenever I get to the point of making a visit to LA.
BART connects most of the Bay Area with the exception of Marin County, half of the Peninsula and South Bay but the system has been inundated with funding needs and system brake downs for decades with no formula apparently besides more funding and higher fees.
Frankly, I think public transit agencies should get off their high horse and start lowering ticket fees if they have problems with drops in ridership. I just don’t understand how they expect to make up for revenue shortfalls by charging more for less riders. It’s reverse logic.
To top it all off, remember the Summer 2028 Olympics are coming to LA. It's gonna be a massive boondoggle and I imagine there's gonna be many logistical hurdles, setbacks and backroom deals. Whoever wins the mayoral race in 2026 will have the looming Olympics to deal with, which is always it's own double edged sword.
Oh yes, it’s going to be a logistics nightmare in 2028.
Public transit isn’t going to be the problem with the Olympics so much as those who drive in and around though LA at the time which the events happen. Tourists ought not to get car rentals during this time because it’s going to be hell with the commute.
Still WISC for the next 2.5 weeks. We have a couple flip opportunities in special elections next week, but Wisconsin is the big one.
John Fetterman's had a 108 pt drop in his net approval with PA Dems since 2023.
His net rating is -40 pt net approval with them.
https://x.com/forecasterenten/status/2035044129135112219?s=46&t=sbdQQeYBqp0h_Zql717iTw
That sounds mathematically impossible until you remember that +100% to -100% are 200 points away from each other.
At -40, his approval is 60 points too high.
He and Shapiro despise each other, which is (at least in part) why Fetterman won't step down.
I’m one of those Democrats who believes while I don’t want Fetterman to be Senator, I think he could have an opportunity to get a beefier salary and a more comfortable career trajectory either in lobbying, a think tank or somewhere else. If he’s unseated in the primary and decides to go in this direction, I would support that out of empathy.
How likely is it that the GOP works hard to get Fetterman to switch parties? They have to be slightly worried about their senate majority. I have no idea if Fetterman would, but I really don't recognize what he has turned into.
Honestly if Dems manage to flip 4 Senate seats in November (inshallah), I think they'll try very hard. Of course we can do the same with Murkowski.
https://yt3.ggpht.com/YgRktlUa1x-GGmwfXvRihOoF1FxYoKe-_LliHWgJJjeBoureU0FA9dNbbQG6iLI42S2LLT05dcKwDw=s959-rw-nd-v1
IL-Sen: Democratic primary results by Chicago wards - Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi finished last, despite winning more wards than Rep. Robin Kelly, who won none. (Kelly represents many wards on the southeast side of the city, while Krishnamoorthi represents part of ward 41, based in the O'Hare neighborhood mostly absorbed by the airport).
And now the rich Democratic man in MD is trying the same strategy again for a House seat against a woman who again has most/all the state and local party elected endorsements. A key difference being that this time his female opponent is an incumbent even if he's subconsciously trying to deny it.
This means we will after November have three black women Senators:
Angela Alsobrooks
Juliana Stratton
Lisa Blunt Rochester
Would this be the most black women Senators we’ve had in history?
Yes. I don't think we've had more than one simultaneously prior to last year.
Anything even remotely approaching gender parity is a 21st century phenomenon. 1992 was dubbed "The Year of the Woman" because the number of women in the Senate went from 2 to 6. Likewise, every female Senator was either the wife or daughter of a male Senator until 1980. (Last sentence is wrong, see below.)
You're right. Not sure where I got that factoid, but it's wrong.
There have only been 4 black women Senators total up until now, and it was only when Alsobrooks and Rochester were elected that we had two in the Senate at the same time, so yes this is significant for representation.
Oh right I was just thinking of elected.
"Bluer areas of Virginia are picking-up voting: As of Monday, votes cast in the 5-GOP held districts were 60% of all votes cast so far (vs 40% in 6 Dem-held districts). As of today, gap shrunk to 55% to 45%"
https://x.com/Taniel/status/2035052209713328159
Dems seem to be picking up at a decent pace in Virginia and the satellite EV sites haven't even opened up in most of the blue counties. I think they close strong and have a real chance at winning this by at least double digits.
⬆️"Dems seem to be picking up at a decent pace in Virginia and the satellite EV sites haven't even opened up in most of the blue counties."
I have been writing postcards to vote YES on VA redistricting. Names & addresses are still available at www.activateamerica.vote.
There are also a bunch of phone banks between now and election day. Jessica Craven (Chop Wood Carry Water) was promoting one from MoveOn on Monday evenings. www.mobilize.us/moveon/event/796084/
Center for Common Ground focusses on Black and minority voters and is hosting phonebanks that include training & support on Tuesday and Thursday evenings. Experienced phone bankers can also watch a video and do it on your own time. IIRC, you are allowed to leave messages for these calls. (www.mobilize.us/mobilize/event/903710/)
There are other phone banks sponsored by other groups. You can search for them using this Mobilize query: www.mobilize.us/?event_type=2&is_virtual=true&q=Redistricting
CO-04:
Boebert is against the Iran War funding, citing concerns over not enough attention being paid to her constituents' real issues of affordability and other matters domestically at home.
She could be the next MTG at this point.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5792922-lauren-boebert-iran-war-funding-request-trump-hegseth/
Indeed Boebert is a loose cannon. How long she will be able to sustain doing this without ending up with the same fate as MTG remains to be seen.
Her district would be the perfect spot for a GOP vote sink in a 7-1 Gerrymander favoring the Democrats. I also suspect that she is aware that Trump's war in Iran will not be popular in her district. A disproportionate number of casualties in a possible ground war come from rural areas of the country like CO-4, but people who live in rural areas will be hit much harder by increases in gas and energy prices than urban people because they tend to drive many more miles per year than urban people and are much more sensitive to gas prices.
Notably, CO filing deadline just passed and she avoided a major primary challenge this year.
Trump vetoed the bill with water infrastructure stuff for her district because she was part of the Epstein file release crowd. So now she's firing back.
Oh man. It’s definitely on!
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna could be next.
Why that fraud, Luna?
Luna’s close to being aligned with MTG and Lauren Boebert although I don’t think she’s officially said she’s supported QaNon. She’s just strange like they are and I don’t mean this in a good way.
And if you say Luna is a fraud, her making enemies with Trump helps Democrats even more. Last I checked she represents a Lean GOP, right after Charlie Crist did.
She is a very big fraud. You forget: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/02/anna-paulina-luna-jewish-grandfather-nazi "While Claiming Jewish Heritage, Anna Paulina Luna Forgot to Mention Her Nazi Grandfather". And it goes on from there. More at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Paulina_Luna in the "Early life and family" and "Military service, education, and early career" sections.
Ahhh yes, I remember reading this. She’s phony indeed.
But at this point, all I care about is flipping her seat.
APL is also obsessed with conspiracy theories especially UFOs
Probably Trump nuking the previously uncontroversial water bill for her district.
He sure seems to be unrelenting in making enemies within the GOP.
Not like this is a new thing.
One theory is that he targeted Boebert because she signed the Epstein discharge petition, but I personally think that it's more likely he just wanted to hurt Colorado (perhaps because of that election clerk they convicted) and didn't think about the fact that there are Republicans in Blue States.
A state judge on Friday ordered a new, toned-down description of the redistricting plan after Missouri’s Republican secretary of state acknowledged that he had crafted an unfair summary likely to create bias for the new districts by describing the old ones as “gerrymandered.”
https://apnews.com/article/redistricting-gerrymandering-congress-missouri-trump-73ed894ef4201f1c21c1ee36ee57d29f#
So what, a red-leaning swing district that Cleaver could possibly win in a wave year, like the situation regarding Marcy Kaptur's re-election?
Great song choice this week
South Australia had their state election yesterday, and as expected Labor has won in a rout, with One Nation and the Australian Liberals dividing the right. Of 47 seats in the Assembly, Labor has won 32, the Liberals are on 4, with one independent and 10 seats still TBD. Looks like One Nation may win a few rural seats. In the Legislative Council (Senate equivalent), 11 seats of 22 were up, with Labor winning 4 so far, Liberals and One Nation with 2 each, 1 Green, and 2 TBD.
Tracker here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/sa/2026/results?sortBy=latest&filter=all&selectedRegion=all&selectedParty=all&partyWonBy=all&partyHeldBy=all
Though with transferable vote, the right being divided is not decisive. It's more that the Australian Labour Party is really popular right now.
What is transferable vote, and how does it work?
It's similar to the ranked choice voting in places like Maine and Alaska. Voters rank their choices from 1 to x on the ballot and their votes get transferred based on their preferences as lower performing candidates are eliminated. The South Australian Liberals did a daft thing and told their voters to preference One Nation ahead of Labor, with no offer of reciprocity from One Nation, so they ended up getting screwed both coming and going.
I'm a bit confused as to what type of One Nation voter would preference Labour over Liberal
One Nation does have some fiscally left position and I can definitely see some traditional Labor voters vote for ON based on social issues (especially immigration) but rank Labor above the Liberals
It was basically Labor/green 50% Liberal/One nation 41%
Continuing with this thread rather than start a new one. As of now, Labor still at 32, Liberals still at 4, One Nation officially has 1, and 1 Independent. 9 seats in doubt. Labor leads in 1, Liberals in 3, Independents in 3, and One Nation in 3. The LC is still showing Labor winning 4 seats, Liberals 2, One Nation 2 (with a third likely), Greens 1, and 1 in doubt.
The Liberals have almost been wiped out in Adelaide with Labor taking 4 Liberal seats. Liberals officially have 1 seat in Adelaide and are clinging to an 8 vote lead in another Adelaide seat. Here is an interactive map of the South Australia results: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-21/mapping-seats-sa-election/106477958
This article on the results discusses the historical success of One Nation with this result being their best statewide primary vote since Queensland in 1998. This one also mentions how in 1998 the Liberals lost the Queensland state election after preferencing One Nation above Labor. Four months later in the federal election, PM John Howard preferenced One Nation below Labor and he ended up winning. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-22/one-nation-analysis/106483618