Pritzker is listed as potential, but I really hope he runs for re-election, he's been a great governor, and also that would be a better path for POTUS 2028 (if he's interested) than being a Senate backbencher.
Rahm Emanuel is listed as potential, which could be. But first he eventually must realize the chances of him getting the 2028 nomination are slim to none (and slim just left town).
Lauren Underwood is the Co-Chair of the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee. She's also only been in the House since 2019.
It's Senators like Durbin and Schumer who have been in the Senate for decades that are too establishment. The longer in the House or Senate a Democrat is, the more establishment they tend to be.
Could be. I always got the impression that Schumer is the type to leave feet first if it's up to him. A strong primary challenger right off the bat would at least make him more likely to retire if he was on the fence.
Fetterman I absolutely want gone too, but Schumer is at the top of my shit list and if he does stick around, primarying him will send a far more clear message. It will also be easier, IMO, to keep momentum against him in a primary because he's the face of this whole thing, and will continue to be the face of every misstep taken by senate dems for the next four years.
Given Fetterman is up for re-election in 2028, I think a primary challenge for him that year would work more effectively as it's going to be a presidential election year.
Both Fetterman and Schumer are both up in 2028. Considering their behavior since the election I think both are going to continue to give people reasons to stay mad at them despite it being a ways off.
The others that voted for the CR will probably have their actions forgotten with time, unless they keep pissing people off in the interim.
Fetterman's probably going to get the most heat in the 2028 Senate Primary Race simply because he cast the least amount of votes against Trump's cabinet nominees out of all Democratic Senators, not just because of his desire to prevent the government shutdown.
That's why I said they're continuing to give people reason to be mad at them.
Fetterman for his voting behavior being the most Trump-aligned of senate democrats.
Schumer for, fairly or not, being the caucus leader for a long time. Everyone hates congressional leadership, and they're hated more the longer they're around. He's going to continue to be the face of the party's response to Trump. Whether or not he is right to do so, any compromise or lack of fighting over the next 4 years is going to make democrats mad at him.
I get (although I wouldn't do it myself) voting for the more "conventional" nominees a la Rubio, but voting for Pam Bondi as AG I think will haunt him for awhile.
i agree..imo it's much too early for speculation..for instance; to me, Pritzker is not running for anything but another term or The Office Which Shall Not Be Named(possibly both..??)
American politics makes a lot more sense when you realize that the GOP is afraid of pissing off the GOP base, and the Dems are afraid of pissing off the GOP base, but neither party is afraid of pissing off the Dem base.
This is true, but in the same sense that it's true it's equally true that moderates and/or centrists are not the base of our party either.
We're a big tent party where no singular primary political identity dominates. Ethnic/racial minorities, progressives, moderates, LGBTQ, women, etc. all come together to form the party and none of them are a majority of democrats. Of course this is made a bit confusing on top because many people have multiple identities here (e.g. black women) but the point stands.
I define "base" as THE most loyal voters of the political party. For us Democrats that happens to be African American women, who are in general all over the map in terms of ideology. While the Democratic Party is center left in general in terms of ideology, we are far less ideological rigid than the Republican Party is. Within reason of course.
Yes, outside of the bluest of blue districts primary results have continually demonstraed the Dem base is center left and not left-wing. The "activist base" is way more progressive (although I've grown to really hate that term) than the voter-base.
well put; and our side doesnt do a good job of messaging to counteract this(for reasons i cant fathom); for instance; every friday i eat breakfast with a group of politically active Democrats; i asked this simple question, 'what is the current message of the Democratic Party nationally??'..every single person just looked at me dumbfounded, and remained completely silent
The reason is because it would require the American left to do what they HATE: have ONE central message and have EVERYONE sing from the same songbook. Unfortunately to even come close to tasting power, it requires us to suck up to people who are opposed to ANY form of central control. The fact that a major reason for Sanders' appeal is precisely because he does his own thing says it all.
Unfortunately, Bernie Sanders *says* a lot but *does* far less.
Despite having some great ideas and really wonderful qualities, Bernie is lousy at seeking allies and building the coalitions required to actually get stuff done, whether with legislation in the Senate or as a presidential candidate. (e.g. Bernie had four years between 2016 and 2020, but there is zero evidence he tried to expand his voter coalition.)
The central message is one of fairness and using the government to help the country progress and help people to reach their potential. I think what you all are reacting to is the lack of a single key slogan, and my observation is that it's usually somehow hard for the Democrats to have one when there's no presidential campaign, and even their presidential campaign slogans ("I'm with her," etc.) can be weak and not focused on the main point of the party.
At what point do we consider this country a dictatorship? Now that the so-called Senate Democratic Leader has rolled over and played dead, is it when the courts order Trump to do something and he says "how are you gonna make me?" Or is it when one of the 5 seemingly anti-absolute dictatorship Supreme Court justices retires or dies? Or is it when large numbers of permanent residents and citizens are dragged off the streets and out of their homes, never to be seen again, and there's no longer any authority in a position to stop that?
The states run elections. It can be called a messy system with discrepancies, but it was made for times like this. Not saying this make it impervious to shenanigans from on high, but it's something.
There are legal supposed opposition parties in countries like Russia. If the Democratic Party remains legal but isn't permitted to win elections when it's important, the country will be a dictatorship, and we're part way in that direction already, considering what's going on in North Carolina, though everyone should note that this is not the first time democracy will have been overturned in North Carolina. It happened in Wilmington in 1898, if I remember the year and city correctly.
Los Angeles County (dark blue, 9.7M people, 88 cities) has never held a ranked-choice voting election, which is a bit surprising). Until now.
One city (Redondo Beach) just held their non-partisan, municipal elections (mayor, councilmembers, etc) using RCV. It was all-VBM, plus dropboxes. Voting ended Mar. 04, results were determined yesterday.
By all accounts, things went off without a hitch, eliminating the cost of holding run-offs. (50% +1 is needed)
It was kind of a test case, and hopefully this should encourage other Los Angeles Co. cities, school districts, etc to seriously consider RCV.
Imagine if the US had ranked-choice voting everywhere, at the federal, state and local levels. RCV would immediately solve the problem of spoiler candidates, and third parties would become viable instead of being vote-wasters.
The local level is where I think RCV would be more immediately impactful because the state and federal governments don't always have influence with what is going on in the cities/towns.
Oakland and San Francisco have had RCV for years now whereas Berkeley just implemented it last year. If anything, if we wanted to ensure there's less corruption, RCV makes it easier for voters to have choices than always sticking to the status quo.
It came close, at least. If there was less of a clown car effect with the media chasing the latest "exciting" but highly flawed candidate it would have worked out.
One of our struggles going forward is the struggle to get media attention in the right place, instead of chasing the latest five minute story.
Then you didn't follow it closely. It was a close race between Adams and the former Sanitation Commissioner, Katherine Garcia, who would have been much better.
Rank choice voting actually makes it harder for minor parties to win breakthrough elections. (What would actually help them is proportional representation.) It does solve the spoiler problem though
I'm interested in the supreme court race coming up in Wisconsin in just two weeks or so. Also, I'm so glad you highlighted Wisconsin's 3rd House district the other day. It's just the sort of district that we need to win back, and Cooke is an excellent candidate!
We really need to win the Wisconsin Supreme Court Race! To do so, we need to counter the huge investment that Elon Musk is making here. Likewise we need to win as many legislative seats as possible. Democrats simply cannot afford to have Republicans reinstate Wisconsin’s extreme gerrymanders!
Media Matters For America has a report on the right-wing dominance of the online media ecosystem that has its tentacles into supposedly non-political spaces, such as sports and comedy shows like The Joe Rogan Experience, PBD Podcast by Patrick Bet-David, Kill Tony by Tony Hinchcliffe, and This Past Weekend by Theo Von.
I would like to know more about what Leonard Leo is up to right now. I have long considered him perhaps the most dangerous man in America. And let us remember that he’s flush with cash. Leonard Leo received a historic $1.6 billion donation from billionaire Barre Seid, the largest political donation in American history. That was back in 2022.
Leonard Leo has the vision, the intelligence, the resources and the network to remake American society into something we do not want. By all accounts he us using his huge stash of cash wisely and frugally, as a catalyst for profound societal change.
In his own words, the expressed desire of Leonard Leo is to "identify, recruit, educate, and elevate a new generation of leaders who can wield influence in the courtroom, the Hollywood box-office, or the corporate C-Suite of the Fortune 500" and "operationalize the conservative movement’s objectives, shaping decisions and blocking threats at the highest levels of influence."
I think there is a lot of hysteria about this shutdown thing.
I keep hearing our party say they expect to "fight" when really they mean "obstruct."
There is a time and place for that. The decision by Senate Dem leadership was not made idly. Whether or not we agree with it, intentions we must assume to be in positive intent.
The reality is we are in the minority and there is little we can currently do procedurally.
With that said I completely agree that a shutdown was our best move in light of the impending Reconciliation move by Trump which will be completely out of our hands.
And Schumer definitely made a huge error in effectively throwing house Dems under the bus.
I too would like to see a leadership change in the Senate much like the turnover in the House a few years back. However I will not tolerate the hysteria of calling fellow Democrats "traitors" or anything else.
Schumer never made the best leader but he personally brought jobs and literally hundeds of millions of dollars to Buffalo, my hometown.
Gillibrand probably lobbied him and other members with the calculus that it would make it difficult for Dems in 2026, as she runs the DSCC. Incidentally other swing state Dems voted no anyway. I have read multiple accounts about how she was heard literally screaming in a caucus meeting that "this will not be an ordinary shutdown."
But I would never consider her or other Democrats "traitors".
You can blame the Democrats current predicament on the leadership if you want and at your own peril but frankly I'm wondering where our far-left brethren on the middle-east issues have been, since they were so quick to kneecap Biden/Harris and have thus far been mostly mute. (At least compared to what they did last year.)
Or how about where the pro-immigration Dems are. Or the Venezuelan community who voted for Trump and are now being kicked out of the country.
The grassroots response has been virtually silent since the Democrat left the white house. And only just in the past few weeks has DOGE stirred a little action otherwise.
Let's not be ravenous to just blame all of our problems on a few leaders who have been in place since before and after Trump okay?
Average everyday Democrats, we have only ourselves to blame as far as I see it.
With that said, I would love it if Murray. Durbin, and Schumer all stepped down.
Edit: let me also point out that many of the same people screaming about filibustering the CR are the ones who screamed about ELIMIATING the filibuster when Biden was president.
If they had gotten their way we wouldn't even have this tool in our belt in the first place.
I swear it's all the same with some people. A constant circular firing squad whether we are in power or we have none.
It's a shame Gillibrand just got reelected, i'd like to see her gone too. I realize it's difficult to defeat incumbent politicians in New York. It's probably why more people are voting republican up there
Sure, but people aren't voting for Republicans because Democrats aren't being Democratic enough or something. I take your point that a few people could be voting for Republicans just to vote against incumbents, I guess, but if it were really just a desire to vote against incumbents, they'd also vote Democratic against Republican incumbents.
I think it's specifically that NY Democrats fucking suck. I mean is there a worst group of major pols anywhere in the country than Adams, Cuomo, Hochul, Gilibrand, DeBlasio, and Schumer? I can't think of state leaders who get anywhere close. At least the CA dems aren't corrupt sexual predators.
Not to beat a dead horse – uh, a politically-dead Minnesotan – but I really miss Al Franken. A helluva lot of Republican politicians and power brokers raised celebratory toasts when our highly-effective senator was forced to resign.
I didn't have a huge issue with it but Gillibrand waffling on Cuomo, who seems like much more of an actual predator than Franken was ever alleged to be, really gave the game away. Franken was forced out so Gillibrand could have a talking point in 2020.
I am not going to shoot at Gillibrand over the Franken case, nor suggest that she was insincere. But I do believe that the Democrats who jumped on the "Franken’s gotta go" bandwagon were overeager – and that they got played. The only winners were the Republican Senate Caucus and their behind-the-scenes power brokers. Huge winners!
I think it's very hard to come to any other conclusion other than Gillibrand's actions were craven. I actually thought then, as I do now, that Franken probably should've resigned or at least been censured. But there's just no way to level her positions on Cuomo and Franken.
"I keep hearing our party say they expect to "fight" when really they mean "obstruct.""
Well, considering we're in the minority and don't have the levers of power (more on that later), I personally don't see the difference.
"The reality is we are in the minority and there is little we can currently do procedurally."
We keep hearing this same shtick from Democratic leadership about how we're in the minority and how there's nothing we can do and yada yada. The one visible time they *are* able to do something and at such a visible scale, they fold. Leadership has shown consistently that when their backs are against the wall, they'll cave, and we can't fool ourselves into believing that'll change.
"However I will not tolerate the hysteria of calling fellow Democrats "traitors" or anything else. "
Thank you for being the arbiter of what is and isn't tolerated. Much appreciated bud.
"The grassroots response has been virtually silent since the Democrat left the white house."
Are you following the same channels as everyone else? The grassroots response has been consistently strong during the past few months, it's just now more focused on mutual aid and protection from DOGE's effects instead of active campaigning.
"Let's not be ravenous to just blame all of our problems on a few leaders who have been in place since before and after Trump okay?"
Why? In this instance, you can pretty solely lay the blame at the feet of leadership.
"Average everyday Democrats, we have only ourselves to blame as far as I see it."
Liberals and self-flagellation, an unbreakable bond. Joking aside though, I truly how to see how we shoulder the blame for this. The response across the board from the Democratic base has been one of hurt and betrayal. We voted for senators to vote with our best interests in mind, and the 10 who voted for the CR broke the trust implicit in that vote.
"I swear it's all the same with some people. A constant circular firing squad whether we are in power or we have none."
While I have lonnnnnnng since been done with our voters' too late, too empty calls to "fight!", I do think this situation was pretty clear.
The general voting public only votes for Democrats in sufficient numbers when Republicans have made their lives an absolute living hell. That means that Democratic lawmakers have to let Republicans make our lives an absolute living hell. This country votes for Democrats when things are bad, and votes for Republicans when things are good.
Helping Republicans out in the name of good government will do nothing but prolong their stranglehold of the country.
About the filibuster: there's no principle there. It's all about the power to do things for the people. The filibuster is a great hindrance when Democrats have a trifecta, but right now, it's a tool, and there's absolutely no hypocrisy in using any legal tool at your disposal on behalf of democracy and the people's interests.
I made the point yesterday but after reflection I'm even more convinced this was not the time to put up a fight. And the frankly hysteric "this was our last chance . . now everything is doomed!" rhetoric is both unhelpful and not true. It looks weak and flailing to voters outside the base. More Dems need to read "The Art of War" and play the long game.
You keep saying that but I'll repeat my question from yesterday: when, exactly, do you think we not only should fight but can fight?
As the minority party in both chambers of congress we're basically limited to must-pass bills that can be filubstered in the senate. That is: keeping the government open and the debt limit.
If the argument is that letting the government shutdown is the wrong time to do it, and we can implicitly assume that nobody is willing to do it over the debt limit, when, exactly should it be done? It sounds a lot like we're being told that the only time to fight is a fictional time that does not exist and in fact cannot exist based on the conditions being placed.
I) When Republicans/Trump are in a weaker position politically
ii) When the consequences of inaction are greater.
iii) When the potential benefits are clearly greater than the potential costs.
The CR was crappy but all things considered the bill itself was not an atrocious bill with tons of poison pills (I've seen a lot of misinfo being spread about its contents). And folks are fooling ourselves if they think less than 3 months into the Trump presidency Dems could successfully insert a bunch of policy riders into a CR via a shutdown. If the situation was reversed we'd be rightfully laughing at them.
The current issue of impoundments will have to be settled by the judiciary; Senate Rs have shown they aren't going to force anything on that front until they get some backing from the third branch. And we also have lots more leverage on that issue once major court decisions come down. Meanwhile we just need to let Trump be Trump and continue to tank his approvals. All Presidents have a limited tank of political capital and he's doing all he can to deplete his as quickly as possible.
OK, so you've set out 3 conditions. But we only have ~2-3 more times left where those conditions *could* be applied at all. It's no use to us if all 3 apply but there's no levers we can use to fight. So, when, exactly is this?
Do you think this will apply to the debt ceiling? To the final budget? To next year's budget? If not, do you imagine some scenario where we can wield our very limited powers to apply them in that instance?
If there isn't legislation that needs to pass the senate, congressional democrats have no influence to wield power.
Also, the 3 "conditions" are vague enough that they will apply equally well as a reason to wait in the next crisis. You can always tell yourself to wait, that Trump will be weaker later on, or the consequences will be greater. For years now, we've seen the consequences of Democratic leaders convincing themselves that the best course of action is coincidentally also the easiest for them, which is to do nothing.
Pelosi kept the troops together during the shutdown over Wall funding in 2019, because Trump was in a weak position politically and she understood that.
Not sure why folks don't see that Trump's current approvals are still among his best ever. That's not when you force a government shutdown to prevent what are still largely potentialities/hypotheticals.
Those "among his best ever" ratings are mostly under 50%. The average is about 47, which is what NBC News just put forth (51% disapproved.) Don't talk as if he's at 60%+ approvals or otherwise broadly popular.
But you may be right that this was not a good time to force a shutdown, and that the costs for Dems both politically and practically may well have outweighed the benefits.
47% in this day and age is not terrible . . .6 month ago we would've been estatic with Biden getting 47%.
Broader point being you want his approvals to be father from 50/50 before you engage in a big risky political fight like that . . and I think sooner than later they'll surely get there.
And it's not like we lack recent examples to mark this hypothetical. Can you imagine if South Korea's legislative leaders acted like Schumer during last year's attempted coup? They would be a literal dictatorship today if his attitude was prevalent among SK leadership.
Yep. The "wait" argument is the same line of thinking that led to Garland faffing about for four years instead of doing his job. If democratic leadership across the board was less predisposed to avoiding conflict with anyone but their own voters, we would be in a substantially better place today.
Here are four or five key points that made me hesitant about fully embracing or applauding the idea of a government shutdown:
– Trump alone gets to decide which government workers and which federal services are "essential". That would hypercharge the demolition that Trump, Musk and DOGE are carrying out.
– As far as I know, in the event that a budget deal fails to eventually emerge from Congress, there is no obvious off-ramp from a shutdown.
– It’s unclear whether and to what extent federal courts would continue to operate.
– Trump and Republicans have a far-stronger megaphone in the right-wing media and blogosphere. There is a strong risk that they could successfully twist the narrative and shift the blame in ways that would be very damaging for Democrats.
– …moreover, this might well mean Trump could recover from today’s situation, where he is sinking like a rock in the polls. Right now, increasingly many Americans (of all political stripes!) are waking up and blaming Trump and his insane policies for the downward spiral that is negatively impacting their lives. We certainly don’t want that to change.
The courts are essential services and would continue to function. The Democrats need not to function like the Vilno Ghetto Judenrat leader, who hoped that if the Jews there made themselves indispensable to the Nazis through efficient slave labor and gave up only their children to be murdered, the rest of them would be spared. They were - until 1944 or so. The spectacle of Democrats collaborating with Republican extremists on a draconian budget that doesn't even pretend to rein in the greatest Executive overreaches into Congressional power and prerogatives, because not doing so would ostensibly make things worse, really smacks to me of the kind of temporizing the Vilno Ghetto Judenrat did, when the Democrats actually had a chance to use the power they have and not give it away for nothing, while owning this budget as collaborators who do not have the Judenrat's excuse of acting under a death sentence.
I fully agree that Schumer played his hand poorly. His messaging and communications has been beyond terrible, and he left House Democrats high and dry.
Judge Howell underscores why the courts’ continued functioning is unclear:
"The judiciary [is] the third branch. We are not the executive branch. We are not subject to this [shutdown] guidance. But our landlord, and all of the federal courthouses around the country is GSA – the General Services Administration. And the people who do the security at our front doors, all across the country in federal courthouses, are DOJ-component employees from the U.S. Marshals Service or court security officers. So they are all executive branch employees."
– Judge Beryl Howell, US District Court for the District of Columbia.
Ok, but Democrats pretending this is business as usual are literally collaborating with violations of the Constitution and the dangerous, illegal arrogation of power by the Executive.
Here are some of Marcy Wheeler’s worries (of EmptyWheel renown):
Among the best arguments I’ve seen against a shutdown, laid out but dropped here by Josh Marshall, is that a shutdown would provide Trump a way to halt legal proceedings by deeming those lawyers non-essential.
Josh Marshall: I was told yesterday that a major driver for Dems was the fear that a shutdown would slow down or stop the various court cases against DOGE. …I was skeptical. But this afternoon I heard it from other key directions.
The court could appoint an attorney to represent the government in most of those cases. If you follow that logic, Trump could just instruct government attorneys not to show up with or without a shutdown.
Cook Political Report on the direction of the open Democratic Senate Races and the 2026 midterms:
Here's some perspective heading to the 2026 midterms as well as additional feedback that CPR's Amy Walter is hearing about a potential uprising in the Democratic Party on par with the Tea Party wave's effect on the GOP in the 2010 midterms.
FYI, you have to be a CPR subscriber to look at the full article but here's a snippet I was able to get.
On its face, the fact that three Democratic senators representing competitive states have announced their retirements should be a worrying sign for Democrats.
It’s usually harder for a party to hold an open seat than to defend a sitting incumbent. Primaries can be messy and unpredictable, and raising money as a challenger is a lot harder than doing so as a sitting U.S. senator.
Early in the cycle retirements can also suggest a lack of confidence among that party’s incumbents about the upcoming political environment. These back-to-back-to-back retirements by Democrats also feed into the conventional wisdom that the party is rudderless and powerless. After all, a stronger party should be able to compel its own incumbents to stick around — including one who just finished chairing the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for two cycles.
But it’s also dangerous to jump to these sorts of conclusions this early. History suggests that the party in the White House has much more to fear when it comes to open seats than does the minority party. Midterm elections are a referendum on the party
I will admit that CPR does get a bit too conservative with its assessments. However, just from my standpoint, I still pay attention to and read what they have to say anyway because they are objective and don't typically show a bias with their assessments.
Hell, Allan Lichtman was wrong about the 2024 presidential election for the first time in ages and I still pay attention to him.
Bitecofer is right about Dems needing to engage in negative partisanship like the GOP is. Brand the GOP as extremist and scare GOP or right leaning independents into voting against their candidate (or keep them at home).
I don't have any real opinion on Cook, good or ill. Most prognosticators are going to be small-c conservative at this point in the cycle, nearly two years before the election.
If I want to see how one of the names is rating individual races I like to go with Sabato. Unlike the others he has no financial incentive to make his ratings more or less interesting. No reason to skew the assessment beyond any personal biases that he and his team posses.
In a cycle like this, any replacement level Dem should win in all three of those states without too much trouble. Michigan has not sent a Republican to the Senate since 1994. No Republican has won any federal race in Minnesota since 2002. Even in New Hampshire, the GOP has lost four straight Senate elections and six straight presidential elections. The risk is that Dems will nominate unelectable candidates.
Of the three states you mentioned, New Hampshire would probably be the biggest risk of us nominating an unelectable candidate. As New Hampshire has a massive state house for a state of its population, it wouldn't be completely unthinkable for a backbench state legislator to come out of nowhere and defeat someone like Chris Pappas for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate there. However, I don't know if there's anyone in the NH State House Democratic Caucus that would be a potentially problematic candidate if they somehow got nominated for a federal race.
A random member of the state house wouldn't be able to defeat Pappas or Goodlander in a statewide primary. House constituencies are so small (~3500 people) that they are barely separated from people with no political history. An alderman in Manchester, NH represents over twice as many people as a member of the NH state house. To have a chance a state representative would need some other major leg up: extreme wealth, high name recognition for some other reason etc.
It would need to be a mayor, member of the state senate, or member of the executive council for someone to jump out with a surprise win. Unfortunately we only hold one of the five executive council seats so that one isn't likely. Likewise we only hold 8 of 24 seats in the state senate.
Only the house. The senate at 24 is reasonably sized, other than the fact that it's an even number. I'd bump that up to 25 and call it a day. Make the house something like 51 and it would be fine. No idea why it's 400.
Fun fact: NH's state house of representatives is the 4th largest house in the English speaking world. Largest is UK's house of commons (650), followed by the Lok Sabha in India (543), with the US house of reps in third (435).
The NH House should have 151 members so that it's in line with most other nearby states. CT and ME also have 151, NY and VT have 150, and MA has 160. Those all work very well in their states.
Another big problem with the NH House is the constitutional ban on splitting towns or city wards between districts - this is why floterial districts have to exist (there's no other way to ensure roughly equal representation across the state). That constitutional provision should be removed - neighboring Maine allows towns to be split, and their legislature still works pretty well.
There's one problem though with the scenario you're describing:
Chris Pappas has had a long history with Senator Jeanne Shaheen dating back to when she first ran for Governor back in 1996. Pappas volunteered for her campaign then and has worked with her in Congress. The moment Shaheen endorses Pappas' Senate campaign, that would present problems for other Democratic Senate candidates.
i dont see that happening..imo Republicans are much more likely to continue on that path than Democrats(yes, i know our side does nominate a few toxic candidates from time to time)
A federal judge this morning issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport several Venezuelan nationals with no process.
Makes me wonder if the same kind of order by a federal judge will be granted for the pro-Palestine Columbia University graduate who had been ordered to be deported. Protests have already started in NYC and are likely going to continue.
I am by no means the biggest supporter of the Palestinian side on here but I think what is being done to this student is outrageous. This is an egregious attack on free speech.
At the very worst, the Columbia student was showing he had a negative view about Israel and would have possibly been suspended from the university. That's not the case here with the deportation.
However, this is also another problem besides just free speech - It's potentially racial profiling a Palestinian student for supposedly having ties to Hamas when there's no evidence proving this. Even the attorney of the student has stated his client is not a supporter of Hamas.
Besides, NYC Mayor Eric Adams is already making his re-election bid even more endangered by not condemning the deportation of the student.
Columbia’s cowardice, if not outright complicity, also is to blame. They’ve returned to their wonderful history in WWI when they fired two professors for publicly opposing U.S. participation in WWI. Which caused noted constitutional law professor, Charles Beard, to resign in protest.
Despite living in New York, I haven't followed the protests on the Columbia campus closely enough to have an opinion on how the college handled them. They've gotten pushback from both sides and certainly faced a difficult situation. But be that as it may, the Federal government has no such excuse!
In context of the period of WWI and today, I think Columbia University isn’t looked at as an elite Ivy League like it used to be (according to those I know who have graduated from or are attending the MBA program there).
The problems with the university taking action nowadays are because it’s shown itself to be wimpy and not trying to set an example of how to moderate things so there can be a healthy debate.
However, going after Columbia alone though isn’t an ideal thing right now. Trump is threatening to pull funds from the university, UC Berkeley and other leading universities over DEI. This deportation of the Columbia University student is only making it worse, especially for the GOP (which is fine with me).
Comparatively towards Harvard and Yale, Columbia University is not looked at by MBA students (whom I have been in contact) as that elite. That’s what I am referring to. The competitiveness also isn’t exactly like Harvard and Yale. Coursework though, students are in fact swamped with it. Even Warren Buffett didn’t get accepted into Harvard but he was able to get more love when he went to Columbia. Columbia students I’ve also seen to be more friendly than Harvard folks.
Comparatively though towards public schools like CSU schools (ie my alumna matter San Francisco State) and UC schools, there’s just no comparison.
My worry with Adams is that his continued presence in the race makes takes up too much of the oxygen in the room, denying anyone the chance to rise up as the "not-Cuomo" candidate.
i dont disagree; i just dont want the Democratic Party to lose focus from winning the upcoming elections; if individual pols feel like making statements, so be it(my point is simple here; the upcoming special elections are my only concern because i think we can make Trump look bad)
The Democratic Party can certainly use the activism to its advantage and help House and Senate candidates pick up seats.
If we're looking at where the Iraq War protests were from 2005-2006, it was clear that the GOP was having increasingly no momentum heading towards the 2006 midterms. I wouldn't argue the protests on the deportations are on the same level but I have no doubt they will contribute to the most liberal base of the Democratic Party turning out in high numbers next year.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez condemned ICE’s detainment of Mahmoud Khalil, calling it a “tyrannical” move.
“Violating rule of law, actually,” AOC wrote on Monday, responding to an assertion from Katie Miller, wife of Trump adviser Stephen Miller, that Khalil’s kidnapping was mere “rule of law.”
“You are shredding the Constitution of the United States to go after political enemies. Seizing a person without reason or warrant and denying them access to their lawyer is un-American and tyrannical,” she continued. “Anyone celebrating this should be ashamed.
“If the federal government can disappear a legal US permanent resident without reason or warrant, then they can disappear US citizens too,” she wrote in a separate post. “Anyone—left, right, or center—who has highlighted the importance of constitutional rights + free speech should be sounding the alarm now.”
I am pro-Palestinian but not at all to the extent some SJW are and support a two-state solution, but this is an egregious attack on free speech by the party which claims to defend it.
Great to see Ken Martin stepping up to the challenge! This is a clear sign that he’ll be a great catalyst for much-needed change in the Democratic Party. (And by God it’s needed!)
His "People’s Town Halls in all 50 states" are a brilliant way to enliven, enlist and activate our base, as well as to win more hearts and minds. (That’s how you kick-start a re-energized "50 State Strategy"!)
These town halls are likely to generate lots of good media coverage, especially at the local and state levels where it really matters.
KEN MARTIN: "I’m excited to announce that democrats.org are partnering with @electdemocrats.bsky.social and @demstateparties.bsky.social to host People’s Town Halls in all 50 states, starting in vulnerable red districts. If Republicans won’t face voters about the Trump-Musk chaos, we will."
Romania is showing everyone how it should be done: kicking fascists off ballots instead of electing them, as it kicked off a 2nd far-right candidate for the Presidential re-run election: Diana Șoșoacă, who joins Călin Georgescu on that dubious list.
i dont like this at all for this country(i am not commenting at all about Romania); frankly, i think Nazis should be allowed to run freely here(i am obviously over exxagerating) and get their fascist asses beaten badly at the polls; tje path forward imo is through the ballot box; frankly, the messaging of the National Democratic Party sux ass(pardon my language please)
If Trump had not been allowed to run because he is treasonous, a lot of problems wouldn't be happening right now. Romania is at risk of direct military aggression from Russia and can't afford to have Russian agents run for President.
Russian George has links with Moldovan pro russia separatists too. FYI, Moldovans and Romanians are the same people. He will betray Moldova to the Kremlin in a jiffy. Moldova depends a lot on Romania to counter Russia which supplies most of its energy (a legacy of long pro russian rule) and separatist territories.
"frankly, i think Nazis should be allowed to run freely here"
Well, it seems your wish has come true: Trump and the MAGA Republican Party were allowed to run freely, they won the election and have seized power. Although if you want to get technical, Trump is a Fascist and not a Nazi, although he does enjoy overwhelming support in the latter camp as well.
I'd lump in the media too. The extent of sane-washing that Trump benefited from is enormous.
It was an endless and ever-present detail of election coverage. Everything he said was cleaned up, he was graded on a curve, and his age/health induced mental decline was abjectly ignored while Biden received no such benefit.
Sorry to hear. I will never forget her defeat of Dioguardi, which seems to me to have been a turning point in Westchester politics, because not only did she run as a Democrat, but also a pretty liberal one. And unless I'm forgetting anything important, she had a long and honorable career in the House. May her memory be a blessing.
In light of the discussion in the daily thread, the election most on my mind right now is the primary for senator in NY in 2028.
Schumer needs to go, and if we primary him that will also help scare the others into using their spines more often.
Have a feeling he’s not going to run anyway. The primary for Pennsylvania senator in 2028 is more on my mind.
As a former Illinois Resident I'm looking forward to the Primary next year, but it seems like Durbin likely retires at this point.
Getting rid of Durbin is a top priority, he needs to go.
I really think he retires at this point so the important thing is, who replaces him? Who is a good option? Is Lauren Underwood too establishment?
Re the IL Senate race, this page lists lots of potential names, and lots who have declined: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_Senate_election_in_Illinois
Two comments-
Pritzker is listed as potential, but I really hope he runs for re-election, he's been a great governor, and also that would be a better path for POTUS 2028 (if he's interested) than being a Senate backbencher.
Rahm Emanuel is listed as potential, which could be. But first he eventually must realize the chances of him getting the 2028 nomination are slim to none (and slim just left town).
Rahm would be a disaster
Heck, I’m glad Rahm Emmanuel isn’t the new DNC Chair.
I'd like to see Lauren Underwood as the Democratic candidate for the race to replace Durbin.
Agreed. I'd like someone NOT from Chicago to be our nominee in 2026 if possible.
Lauren Underwood is the Co-Chair of the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee. She's also only been in the House since 2019.
It's Senators like Durbin and Schumer who have been in the Senate for decades that are too establishment. The longer in the House or Senate a Democrat is, the more establishment they tend to be.
Lt. Gov Juliana Stratton is rumored to be preparing to run for senate if Pritzker.
Could be. I always got the impression that Schumer is the type to leave feet first if it's up to him. A strong primary challenger right off the bat would at least make him more likely to retire if he was on the fence.
Fetterman I absolutely want gone too, but Schumer is at the top of my shit list and if he does stick around, primarying him will send a far more clear message. It will also be easier, IMO, to keep momentum against him in a primary because he's the face of this whole thing, and will continue to be the face of every misstep taken by senate dems for the next four years.
Given Fetterman is up for re-election in 2028, I think a primary challenge for him that year would work more effectively as it's going to be a presidential election year.
Both Fetterman and Schumer are both up in 2028. Considering their behavior since the election I think both are going to continue to give people reasons to stay mad at them despite it being a ways off.
The others that voted for the CR will probably have their actions forgotten with time, unless they keep pissing people off in the interim.
Fetterman's probably going to get the most heat in the 2028 Senate Primary Race simply because he cast the least amount of votes against Trump's cabinet nominees out of all Democratic Senators, not just because of his desire to prevent the government shutdown.
That's why I said they're continuing to give people reason to be mad at them.
Fetterman for his voting behavior being the most Trump-aligned of senate democrats.
Schumer for, fairly or not, being the caucus leader for a long time. Everyone hates congressional leadership, and they're hated more the longer they're around. He's going to continue to be the face of the party's response to Trump. Whether or not he is right to do so, any compromise or lack of fighting over the next 4 years is going to make democrats mad at him.
I get (although I wouldn't do it myself) voting for the more "conventional" nominees a la Rubio, but voting for Pam Bondi as AG I think will haunt him for awhile.
Fetterman is on the Sinema path, I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't even run in 2028.
People will largely forget this one tactical misfire early on.
Hopefully not, or we'll just keep having the same problems again and again
i agree..imo it's much too early for speculation..for instance; to me, Pritzker is not running for anything but another term or The Office Which Shall Not Be Named(possibly both..??)
American politics makes a lot more sense when you realize that the GOP is afraid of pissing off the GOP base, and the Dems are afraid of pissing off the GOP base, but neither party is afraid of pissing off the Dem base.
https://bsky.app/profile/adamserwer.bsky.social/post/3lkenoeaj5k2t
Because the Dem base proved toxic last time, I'm sad to say.
No idea what you’re talking about. But I’m not surprised you said it.
I actually am surprised. This isn't the Maga Land blog.
So called "progressives" are not the base of the Democratic Party though. If they were, Bernie Sanders types would be the rule and not the exception.
This is true, but in the same sense that it's true it's equally true that moderates and/or centrists are not the base of our party either.
We're a big tent party where no singular primary political identity dominates. Ethnic/racial minorities, progressives, moderates, LGBTQ, women, etc. all come together to form the party and none of them are a majority of democrats. Of course this is made a bit confusing on top because many people have multiple identities here (e.g. black women) but the point stands.
I define "base" as THE most loyal voters of the political party. For us Democrats that happens to be African American women, who are in general all over the map in terms of ideology. While the Democratic Party is center left in general in terms of ideology, we are far less ideological rigid than the Republican Party is. Within reason of course.
Yes, outside of the bluest of blue districts primary results have continually demonstraed the Dem base is center left and not left-wing. The "activist base" is way more progressive (although I've grown to really hate that term) than the voter-base.
We don't have a base, we have BASES. That is the scab that the GOP has been effectively picking at (in Presidential years, anyway).
well put; and our side doesnt do a good job of messaging to counteract this(for reasons i cant fathom); for instance; every friday i eat breakfast with a group of politically active Democrats; i asked this simple question, 'what is the current message of the Democratic Party nationally??'..every single person just looked at me dumbfounded, and remained completely silent
The reason is because it would require the American left to do what they HATE: have ONE central message and have EVERYONE sing from the same songbook. Unfortunately to even come close to tasting power, it requires us to suck up to people who are opposed to ANY form of central control. The fact that a major reason for Sanders' appeal is precisely because he does his own thing says it all.
Unfortunately, Bernie Sanders *says* a lot but *does* far less.
Despite having some great ideas and really wonderful qualities, Bernie is lousy at seeking allies and building the coalitions required to actually get stuff done, whether with legislation in the Senate or as a presidential candidate. (e.g. Bernie had four years between 2016 and 2020, but there is zero evidence he tried to expand his voter coalition.)
The central message is one of fairness and using the government to help the country progress and help people to reach their potential. I think what you all are reacting to is the lack of a single key slogan, and my observation is that it's usually somehow hard for the Democrats to have one when there's no presidential campaign, and even their presidential campaign slogans ("I'm with her," etc.) can be weak and not focused on the main point of the party.
The Democratic Party: a Hufflepuff party in a Slytherin country.
this 👆👆
portions of it; but, kind of broad brushing here though imo(but i understand your sentiment)
At what point do we consider this country a dictatorship? Now that the so-called Senate Democratic Leader has rolled over and played dead, is it when the courts order Trump to do something and he says "how are you gonna make me?" Or is it when one of the 5 seemingly anti-absolute dictatorship Supreme Court justices retires or dies? Or is it when large numbers of permanent residents and citizens are dragged off the streets and out of their homes, never to be seen again, and there's no longer any authority in a position to stop that?
I think we conclude that if elections are cancelled or if we possess power over a branch of government but it gets ignored with no consequences.
Elections don't have to be cancelled. There are always elections in Cuba.
The states run elections. It can be called a messy system with discrepancies, but it was made for times like this. Not saying this make it impervious to shenanigans from on high, but it's something.
Agreed. It's something.
good point(with the obvious caveats)
If elections are rendered irrelevant for any of multiple possible reasons I'd lump that in as cancelled for the purpose of what I said.
Trump's soulmate Putin would likely advise him NOT to cancel elections. Just do them Putin-style. It gives the chumps a modicum of hope
It is when the courts order Trump to do something and he says "how are you gonna make me?" on a big issue.
If the Marshals Go Rogue, Courts Have Other Ways to Enforce their Orders
https://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/if-the-marshals-go-rogue-courts-have-other-ways-to-enforce-their-orders/
Thanks. That's reassuring and could be important.
When the Democratic Party and all other opposition to the Republican Party is illegal. That's when.
There are legal supposed opposition parties in countries like Russia. If the Democratic Party remains legal but isn't permitted to win elections when it's important, the country will be a dictatorship, and we're part way in that direction already, considering what's going on in North Carolina, though everyone should note that this is not the first time democracy will have been overturned in North Carolina. It happened in Wilmington in 1898, if I remember the year and city correctly.
I think we are likely past the Point of No Return, but I will fight until my last breath anyway.
me too
RCV news.
Los Angeles County (dark blue, 9.7M people, 88 cities) has never held a ranked-choice voting election, which is a bit surprising). Until now.
One city (Redondo Beach) just held their non-partisan, municipal elections (mayor, councilmembers, etc) using RCV. It was all-VBM, plus dropboxes. Voting ended Mar. 04, results were determined yesterday.
By all accounts, things went off without a hitch, eliminating the cost of holding run-offs. (50% +1 is needed)
It was kind of a test case, and hopefully this should encourage other Los Angeles Co. cities, school districts, etc to seriously consider RCV.
https://laist.com/news/politics/redondo-beach-becomes-first-la-county-city-to-use-ranked-choice-voting
Imagine if the US had ranked-choice voting everywhere, at the federal, state and local levels. RCV would immediately solve the problem of spoiler candidates, and third parties would become viable instead of being vote-wasters.
The local level is where I think RCV would be more immediately impactful because the state and federal governments don't always have influence with what is going on in the cities/towns.
Oakland and San Francisco have had RCV for years now whereas Berkeley just implemented it last year. If anything, if we wanted to ensure there's less corruption, RCV makes it easier for voters to have choices than always sticking to the status quo.
...and without throwing away their votes.
True!
And with local races, they are always a perfect way to start for a Democrat who wants to build a political career.
I wish the last New York mayoral election had worked that way...
It came close, at least. If there was less of a clown car effect with the media chasing the latest "exciting" but highly flawed candidate it would have worked out.
One of our struggles going forward is the struggle to get media attention in the right place, instead of chasing the latest five minute story.
Have there been pushes for RCV in NYC before?
That's what we have. I don't understand the question.
Sorry. I misread your original comment.
RCV doesn't work very well in NYC? Is there something I'm missing?
I don't know. Did you follow the last mayoral campaign?
I did a bit last time. I recall that it was a close race between Andrew Yang and Eric Adams and that was the extent which I had seen it to be.
Then you didn't follow it closely. It was a close race between Adams and the former Sanitation Commissioner, Katherine Garcia, who would have been much better.
Ahhh ok, now I remember a bit since you mentioned it. Just saw the results.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/11/02/us/elections/results-nyc-mayor.html
Rank choice voting actually makes it harder for minor parties to win breakthrough elections. (What would actually help them is proportional representation.) It does solve the spoiler problem though
I'm interested in the supreme court race coming up in Wisconsin in just two weeks or so. Also, I'm so glad you highlighted Wisconsin's 3rd House district the other day. It's just the sort of district that we need to win back, and Cooke is an excellent candidate!
We really need to win the Wisconsin Supreme Court Race! To do so, we need to counter the huge investment that Elon Musk is making here. Likewise we need to win as many legislative seats as possible. Democrats simply cannot afford to have Republicans reinstate Wisconsin’s extreme gerrymanders!
Media Matters For America has a report on the right-wing dominance of the online media ecosystem that has its tentacles into supposedly non-political spaces, such as sports and comedy shows like The Joe Rogan Experience, PBD Podcast by Patrick Bet-David, Kill Tony by Tony Hinchcliffe, and This Past Weekend by Theo Von.
https://www.mediamatters.org/google/right-dominates-online-media-ecosystem-seeping-sports-comedy-and-other-supposedly
WHAT’S UP WITH LEONARD LEO?
I would like to know more about what Leonard Leo is up to right now. I have long considered him perhaps the most dangerous man in America. And let us remember that he’s flush with cash. Leonard Leo received a historic $1.6 billion donation from billionaire Barre Seid, the largest political donation in American history. That was back in 2022.
https://www.propublica.org/article/dark-money-leonard-leo-barre-seid
Leonard Leo has the vision, the intelligence, the resources and the network to remake American society into something we do not want. By all accounts he us using his huge stash of cash wisely and frugally, as a catalyst for profound societal change.
In his own words, the expressed desire of Leonard Leo is to "identify, recruit, educate, and elevate a new generation of leaders who can wield influence in the courtroom, the Hollywood box-office, or the corporate C-Suite of the Fortune 500" and "operationalize the conservative movement’s objectives, shaping decisions and blocking threats at the highest levels of influence."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republican-megadonor-leonard-leo-tells-allies-its-time-to-weaponize-our-conservative-vision/ar-AA1qtycF
He and his Federalist Society already successfully transformed SCOTUS and much of the American judiciary.
The fact that Leo isn’t making big headlines these days gives me no comfort – quite the contrary.
I think there is a lot of hysteria about this shutdown thing.
I keep hearing our party say they expect to "fight" when really they mean "obstruct."
There is a time and place for that. The decision by Senate Dem leadership was not made idly. Whether or not we agree with it, intentions we must assume to be in positive intent.
The reality is we are in the minority and there is little we can currently do procedurally.
With that said I completely agree that a shutdown was our best move in light of the impending Reconciliation move by Trump which will be completely out of our hands.
And Schumer definitely made a huge error in effectively throwing house Dems under the bus.
I too would like to see a leadership change in the Senate much like the turnover in the House a few years back. However I will not tolerate the hysteria of calling fellow Democrats "traitors" or anything else.
Schumer never made the best leader but he personally brought jobs and literally hundeds of millions of dollars to Buffalo, my hometown.
Gillibrand probably lobbied him and other members with the calculus that it would make it difficult for Dems in 2026, as she runs the DSCC. Incidentally other swing state Dems voted no anyway. I have read multiple accounts about how she was heard literally screaming in a caucus meeting that "this will not be an ordinary shutdown."
But I would never consider her or other Democrats "traitors".
You can blame the Democrats current predicament on the leadership if you want and at your own peril but frankly I'm wondering where our far-left brethren on the middle-east issues have been, since they were so quick to kneecap Biden/Harris and have thus far been mostly mute. (At least compared to what they did last year.)
Or how about where the pro-immigration Dems are. Or the Venezuelan community who voted for Trump and are now being kicked out of the country.
The grassroots response has been virtually silent since the Democrat left the white house. And only just in the past few weeks has DOGE stirred a little action otherwise.
Let's not be ravenous to just blame all of our problems on a few leaders who have been in place since before and after Trump okay?
Average everyday Democrats, we have only ourselves to blame as far as I see it.
With that said, I would love it if Murray. Durbin, and Schumer all stepped down.
Edit: let me also point out that many of the same people screaming about filibustering the CR are the ones who screamed about ELIMIATING the filibuster when Biden was president.
If they had gotten their way we wouldn't even have this tool in our belt in the first place.
I swear it's all the same with some people. A constant circular firing squad whether we are in power or we have none.
It's a shame Gillibrand just got reelected, i'd like to see her gone too. I realize it's difficult to defeat incumbent politicians in New York. It's probably why more people are voting republican up there
No, that's because they're Republicans.
You haven't noticed the drop in support in New York? We've definitely lost voters
Sure, but people aren't voting for Republicans because Democrats aren't being Democratic enough or something. I take your point that a few people could be voting for Republicans just to vote against incumbents, I guess, but if it were really just a desire to vote against incumbents, they'd also vote Democratic against Republican incumbents.
I think it's specifically that NY Democrats fucking suck. I mean is there a worst group of major pols anywhere in the country than Adams, Cuomo, Hochul, Gilibrand, DeBlasio, and Schumer? I can't think of state leaders who get anywhere close. At least the CA dems aren't corrupt sexual predators.
You mean a worse group of _Democratic_ politicians, don't you?
yes that is what I meant. Although I think I'd probably take Phil Scott over Adams or Cuomo and maybe even Hochul.
There are hacks everywhere, buy NY seems especially lousy with them. A state with NY's demographics should do much, much better.
It's difficult to defeat incumbent politicians everywhere.
Not to beat a dead horse – uh, a politically-dead Minnesotan – but I really miss Al Franken. A helluva lot of Republican politicians and power brokers raised celebratory toasts when our highly-effective senator was forced to resign.
I didn't have a huge issue with it but Gillibrand waffling on Cuomo, who seems like much more of an actual predator than Franken was ever alleged to be, really gave the game away. Franken was forced out so Gillibrand could have a talking point in 2020.
No, I think it mainly had to do with the Senatorial election in Alabama.
I am not going to shoot at Gillibrand over the Franken case, nor suggest that she was insincere. But I do believe that the Democrats who jumped on the "Franken’s gotta go" bandwagon were overeager – and that they got played. The only winners were the Republican Senate Caucus and their behind-the-scenes power brokers. Huge winners!
I think it's very hard to come to any other conclusion other than Gillibrand's actions were craven. I actually thought then, as I do now, that Franken probably should've resigned or at least been censured. But there's just no way to level her positions on Cuomo and Franken.
Far left brethren? You mean the ones that just invaded Trump Tower?
If you don't like "traitor," the word "collaborator" is available to use accurately.
Let's break this down.
"I keep hearing our party say they expect to "fight" when really they mean "obstruct.""
Well, considering we're in the minority and don't have the levers of power (more on that later), I personally don't see the difference.
"The reality is we are in the minority and there is little we can currently do procedurally."
We keep hearing this same shtick from Democratic leadership about how we're in the minority and how there's nothing we can do and yada yada. The one visible time they *are* able to do something and at such a visible scale, they fold. Leadership has shown consistently that when their backs are against the wall, they'll cave, and we can't fool ourselves into believing that'll change.
"However I will not tolerate the hysteria of calling fellow Democrats "traitors" or anything else. "
Thank you for being the arbiter of what is and isn't tolerated. Much appreciated bud.
"The grassroots response has been virtually silent since the Democrat left the white house."
Are you following the same channels as everyone else? The grassroots response has been consistently strong during the past few months, it's just now more focused on mutual aid and protection from DOGE's effects instead of active campaigning.
"Let's not be ravenous to just blame all of our problems on a few leaders who have been in place since before and after Trump okay?"
Why? In this instance, you can pretty solely lay the blame at the feet of leadership.
"Average everyday Democrats, we have only ourselves to blame as far as I see it."
Liberals and self-flagellation, an unbreakable bond. Joking aside though, I truly how to see how we shoulder the blame for this. The response across the board from the Democratic base has been one of hurt and betrayal. We voted for senators to vote with our best interests in mind, and the 10 who voted for the CR broke the trust implicit in that vote.
"I swear it's all the same with some people. A constant circular firing squad whether we are in power or we have none."
Pot, kettle.
While I have lonnnnnnng since been done with our voters' too late, too empty calls to "fight!", I do think this situation was pretty clear.
The general voting public only votes for Democrats in sufficient numbers when Republicans have made their lives an absolute living hell. That means that Democratic lawmakers have to let Republicans make our lives an absolute living hell. This country votes for Democrats when things are bad, and votes for Republicans when things are good.
Helping Republicans out in the name of good government will do nothing but prolong their stranglehold of the country.
About the filibuster: there's no principle there. It's all about the power to do things for the people. The filibuster is a great hindrance when Democrats have a trifecta, but right now, it's a tool, and there's absolutely no hypocrisy in using any legal tool at your disposal on behalf of democracy and the people's interests.
Why Murray? She's been an excellent Senator.
I made the point yesterday but after reflection I'm even more convinced this was not the time to put up a fight. And the frankly hysteric "this was our last chance . . now everything is doomed!" rhetoric is both unhelpful and not true. It looks weak and flailing to voters outside the base. More Dems need to read "The Art of War" and play the long game.
You keep saying that but I'll repeat my question from yesterday: when, exactly, do you think we not only should fight but can fight?
As the minority party in both chambers of congress we're basically limited to must-pass bills that can be filubstered in the senate. That is: keeping the government open and the debt limit.
If the argument is that letting the government shutdown is the wrong time to do it, and we can implicitly assume that nobody is willing to do it over the debt limit, when, exactly should it be done? It sounds a lot like we're being told that the only time to fight is a fictional time that does not exist and in fact cannot exist based on the conditions being placed.
I) When Republicans/Trump are in a weaker position politically
ii) When the consequences of inaction are greater.
iii) When the potential benefits are clearly greater than the potential costs.
The CR was crappy but all things considered the bill itself was not an atrocious bill with tons of poison pills (I've seen a lot of misinfo being spread about its contents). And folks are fooling ourselves if they think less than 3 months into the Trump presidency Dems could successfully insert a bunch of policy riders into a CR via a shutdown. If the situation was reversed we'd be rightfully laughing at them.
The current issue of impoundments will have to be settled by the judiciary; Senate Rs have shown they aren't going to force anything on that front until they get some backing from the third branch. And we also have lots more leverage on that issue once major court decisions come down. Meanwhile we just need to let Trump be Trump and continue to tank his approvals. All Presidents have a limited tank of political capital and he's doing all he can to deplete his as quickly as possible.
OK, so you've set out 3 conditions. But we only have ~2-3 more times left where those conditions *could* be applied at all. It's no use to us if all 3 apply but there's no levers we can use to fight. So, when, exactly is this?
Do you think this will apply to the debt ceiling? To the final budget? To next year's budget? If not, do you imagine some scenario where we can wield our very limited powers to apply them in that instance?
If there isn't legislation that needs to pass the senate, congressional democrats have no influence to wield power.
Also, the 3 "conditions" are vague enough that they will apply equally well as a reason to wait in the next crisis. You can always tell yourself to wait, that Trump will be weaker later on, or the consequences will be greater. For years now, we've seen the consequences of Democratic leaders convincing themselves that the best course of action is coincidentally also the easiest for them, which is to do nothing.
Pelosi kept the troops together during the shutdown over Wall funding in 2019, because Trump was in a weak position politically and she understood that.
Not sure why folks don't see that Trump's current approvals are still among his best ever. That's not when you force a government shutdown to prevent what are still largely potentialities/hypotheticals.
Those "among his best ever" ratings are mostly under 50%. The average is about 47, which is what NBC News just put forth (51% disapproved.) Don't talk as if he's at 60%+ approvals or otherwise broadly popular.
But you may be right that this was not a good time to force a shutdown, and that the costs for Dems both politically and practically may well have outweighed the benefits.
47% in this day and age is not terrible . . .6 month ago we would've been estatic with Biden getting 47%.
Broader point being you want his approvals to be father from 50/50 before you engage in a big risky political fight like that . . and I think sooner than later they'll surely get there.
And that's only temporarily the easiest course of action, because in a real dictatorship, all of them will be arrested.
And it's not like we lack recent examples to mark this hypothetical. Can you imagine if South Korea's legislative leaders acted like Schumer during last year's attempted coup? They would be a literal dictatorship today if his attitude was prevalent among SK leadership.
Yep. The "wait" argument is the same line of thinking that led to Garland faffing about for four years instead of doing his job. If democratic leadership across the board was less predisposed to avoiding conflict with anyone but their own voters, we would be in a substantially better place today.
GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN – my hesitancy
Here are four or five key points that made me hesitant about fully embracing or applauding the idea of a government shutdown:
– Trump alone gets to decide which government workers and which federal services are "essential". That would hypercharge the demolition that Trump, Musk and DOGE are carrying out.
– As far as I know, in the event that a budget deal fails to eventually emerge from Congress, there is no obvious off-ramp from a shutdown.
– It’s unclear whether and to what extent federal courts would continue to operate.
– Trump and Republicans have a far-stronger megaphone in the right-wing media and blogosphere. There is a strong risk that they could successfully twist the narrative and shift the blame in ways that would be very damaging for Democrats.
– …moreover, this might well mean Trump could recover from today’s situation, where he is sinking like a rock in the polls. Right now, increasingly many Americans (of all political stripes!) are waking up and blaming Trump and his insane policies for the downward spiral that is negatively impacting their lives. We certainly don’t want that to change.
The courts are essential services and would continue to function. The Democrats need not to function like the Vilno Ghetto Judenrat leader, who hoped that if the Jews there made themselves indispensable to the Nazis through efficient slave labor and gave up only their children to be murdered, the rest of them would be spared. They were - until 1944 or so. The spectacle of Democrats collaborating with Republican extremists on a draconian budget that doesn't even pretend to rein in the greatest Executive overreaches into Congressional power and prerogatives, because not doing so would ostensibly make things worse, really smacks to me of the kind of temporizing the Vilno Ghetto Judenrat did, when the Democrats actually had a chance to use the power they have and not give it away for nothing, while owning this budget as collaborators who do not have the Judenrat's excuse of acting under a death sentence.
I fully agree that Schumer played his hand poorly. His messaging and communications has been beyond terrible, and he left House Democrats high and dry.
Judge Howell underscores why the courts’ continued functioning is unclear:
"The judiciary [is] the third branch. We are not the executive branch. We are not subject to this [shutdown] guidance. But our landlord, and all of the federal courthouses around the country is GSA – the General Services Administration. And the people who do the security at our front doors, all across the country in federal courthouses, are DOJ-component employees from the U.S. Marshals Service or court security officers. So they are all executive branch employees."
– Judge Beryl Howell, US District Court for the District of Columbia.
Ok, but Democrats pretending this is business as usual are literally collaborating with violations of the Constitution and the dangerous, illegal arrogation of power by the Executive.
Here are some of Marcy Wheeler’s worries (of EmptyWheel renown):
Among the best arguments I’ve seen against a shutdown, laid out but dropped here by Josh Marshall, is that a shutdown would provide Trump a way to halt legal proceedings by deeming those lawyers non-essential.
Josh Marshall: I was told yesterday that a major driver for Dems was the fear that a shutdown would slow down or stop the various court cases against DOGE. …I was skeptical. But this afternoon I heard it from other key directions.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2025/03/14/democrats-have-to-stop-making-political-decisions-with-an-eye-towards-2026/
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-kabuki-cave
And here is Gabe Fleisher
https://www.wakeuptopolitics.com/p/how-a-shutdown-could-empower-trump?triedRedirect=true
The court could appoint an attorney to represent the government in most of those cases. If you follow that logic, Trump could just instruct government attorneys not to show up with or without a shutdown.
Appointing an attorney would take forever with all the appeals. Also who would pay those lawyers? Court finances are handled by the government.
Not for injunctions. And practicing lawyers usually have to satisfy a pro bono requirement.
Cook Political Report on the direction of the open Democratic Senate Races and the 2026 midterms:
Here's some perspective heading to the 2026 midterms as well as additional feedback that CPR's Amy Walter is hearing about a potential uprising in the Democratic Party on par with the Tea Party wave's effect on the GOP in the 2010 midterms.
FYI, you have to be a CPR subscriber to look at the full article but here's a snippet I was able to get.
https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/senate/senate-overview/dont-jump-conclusions-about-democratic-open-senate-seats
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On its face, the fact that three Democratic senators representing competitive states have announced their retirements should be a worrying sign for Democrats.
It’s usually harder for a party to hold an open seat than to defend a sitting incumbent. Primaries can be messy and unpredictable, and raising money as a challenger is a lot harder than doing so as a sitting U.S. senator.
Early in the cycle retirements can also suggest a lack of confidence among that party’s incumbents about the upcoming political environment. These back-to-back-to-back retirements by Democrats also feed into the conventional wisdom that the party is rudderless and powerless. After all, a stronger party should be able to compel its own incumbents to stick around — including one who just finished chairing the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for two cycles.
But it’s also dangerous to jump to these sorts of conclusions this early. History suggests that the party in the White House has much more to fear when it comes to open seats than does the minority party. Midterm elections are a referendum on the party
Amy Walter here on a liberal 'Tea Party' uprising, which she has been hearing chatter about:
https://x.com/amyewalter/status/1900518575066022137?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Cook Report is way too conservative leaning. I stopped listening to them after the 2022 midterms.
Conservative leaning or conservative in their assessments of polling data and analysis?
As we are heading to the 2026 midterms, it should be noted that CPR was in fact accurate in its assessments of the 2018 midterms.
It’s the vibe. I would rather go with Chaz Nuttycombe or Rachel Bitecofer if I want election prognosticating.
I will admit that CPR does get a bit too conservative with its assessments. However, just from my standpoint, I still pay attention to and read what they have to say anyway because they are objective and don't typically show a bias with their assessments.
Hell, Allan Lichtman was wrong about the 2024 presidential election for the first time in ages and I still pay attention to him.
CPR does good overall; Lichtman id personally ignore
personally, imo Bitecofer is an overrated idiot(nothing personal, but i find her analysis to be Politico level bad)
Bitecofer is right about Dems needing to engage in negative partisanship like the GOP is. Brand the GOP as extremist and scare GOP or right leaning independents into voting against their candidate (or keep them at home).
Her takes on the 24 election cycle managed to be pretty much universally wrong at every juncture.
Her election projections are basically DA BEARS!
I don't have any real opinion on Cook, good or ill. Most prognosticators are going to be small-c conservative at this point in the cycle, nearly two years before the election.
If I want to see how one of the names is rating individual races I like to go with Sabato. Unlike the others he has no financial incentive to make his ratings more or less interesting. No reason to skew the assessment beyond any personal biases that he and his team posses.
In a cycle like this, any replacement level Dem should win in all three of those states without too much trouble. Michigan has not sent a Republican to the Senate since 1994. No Republican has won any federal race in Minnesota since 2002. Even in New Hampshire, the GOP has lost four straight Senate elections and six straight presidential elections. The risk is that Dems will nominate unelectable candidates.
Of the three states you mentioned, New Hampshire would probably be the biggest risk of us nominating an unelectable candidate. As New Hampshire has a massive state house for a state of its population, it wouldn't be completely unthinkable for a backbench state legislator to come out of nowhere and defeat someone like Chris Pappas for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate there. However, I don't know if there's anyone in the NH State House Democratic Caucus that would be a potentially problematic candidate if they somehow got nominated for a federal race.
A random member of the state house wouldn't be able to defeat Pappas or Goodlander in a statewide primary. House constituencies are so small (~3500 people) that they are barely separated from people with no political history. An alderman in Manchester, NH represents over twice as many people as a member of the NH state house. To have a chance a state representative would need some other major leg up: extreme wealth, high name recognition for some other reason etc.
It would need to be a mayor, member of the state senate, or member of the executive council for someone to jump out with a surprise win. Unfortunately we only hold one of the five executive council seats so that one isn't likely. Likewise we only hold 8 of 24 seats in the state senate.
even then i dont see any state rep becoming actually our nominee; highly unlikely imo
The size of New Hampshire’s legislature is absolutely absurd.
Only the house. The senate at 24 is reasonably sized, other than the fact that it's an even number. I'd bump that up to 25 and call it a day. Make the house something like 51 and it would be fine. No idea why it's 400.
Fun fact: NH's state house of representatives is the 4th largest house in the English speaking world. Largest is UK's house of commons (650), followed by the Lok Sabha in India (543), with the US house of reps in third (435).
Thanks for those astonishing facts! Yes, 25 and 51 would be far better.
The NH House should have 151 members so that it's in line with most other nearby states. CT and ME also have 151, NY and VT have 150, and MA has 160. Those all work very well in their states.
Another big problem with the NH House is the constitutional ban on splitting towns or city wards between districts - this is why floterial districts have to exist (there's no other way to ensure roughly equal representation across the state). That constitutional provision should be removed - neighboring Maine allows towns to be split, and their legislature still works pretty well.
There's one problem though with the scenario you're describing:
Chris Pappas has had a long history with Senator Jeanne Shaheen dating back to when she first ran for Governor back in 1996. Pappas volunteered for her campaign then and has worked with her in Congress. The moment Shaheen endorses Pappas' Senate campaign, that would present problems for other Democratic Senate candidates.
Pappas will be a fine candidate(with or without the backing of Shaheen; though, obviously that would help)
i dont see that happening..imo Republicans are much more likely to continue on that path than Democrats(yes, i know our side does nominate a few toxic candidates from time to time)
A federal judge this morning issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport several Venezuelan nationals with no process.
https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3lkggz7ju522w
I wonder if the constitutionally of that law has ever been tested?
Makes me wonder if the same kind of order by a federal judge will be granted for the pro-Palestine Columbia University graduate who had been ordered to be deported. Protests have already started in NYC and are likely going to continue.
An injunction has been issued in that case.
strictly speaking from a political standpoint(nothing to do with the legality); im not sure that the Democrats should weigh in(just my opinion)
If there is no free speech for controversial ideas, there is no free speech.
I am by no means the biggest supporter of the Palestinian side on here but I think what is being done to this student is outrageous. This is an egregious attack on free speech.
At the very worst, the Columbia student was showing he had a negative view about Israel and would have possibly been suspended from the university. That's not the case here with the deportation.
However, this is also another problem besides just free speech - It's potentially racial profiling a Palestinian student for supposedly having ties to Hamas when there's no evidence proving this. Even the attorney of the student has stated his client is not a supporter of Hamas.
Besides, NYC Mayor Eric Adams is already making his re-election bid even more endangered by not condemning the deportation of the student.
https://www.columbiaspectator.com/city-news/2025/03/11/mayor-eric-adams-addresses-ice-arrest-of-mahmoud-khalil-sipa-24-at-press-conference/
Columbia’s cowardice, if not outright complicity, also is to blame. They’ve returned to their wonderful history in WWI when they fired two professors for publicly opposing U.S. participation in WWI. Which caused noted constitutional law professor, Charles Beard, to resign in protest.
Despite living in New York, I haven't followed the protests on the Columbia campus closely enough to have an opinion on how the college handled them. They've gotten pushback from both sides and certainly faced a difficult situation. But be that as it may, the Federal government has no such excuse!
In context of the period of WWI and today, I think Columbia University isn’t looked at as an elite Ivy League like it used to be (according to those I know who have graduated from or are attending the MBA program there).
The problems with the university taking action nowadays are because it’s shown itself to be wimpy and not trying to set an example of how to moderate things so there can be a healthy debate.
However, going after Columbia alone though isn’t an ideal thing right now. Trump is threatening to pull funds from the university, UC Berkeley and other leading universities over DEI. This deportation of the Columbia University student is only making it worse, especially for the GOP (which is fine with me).
Columbia isn't an elite school? I'm very skeptical of that.
Comparatively towards Harvard and Yale, Columbia University is not looked at by MBA students (whom I have been in contact) as that elite. That’s what I am referring to. The competitiveness also isn’t exactly like Harvard and Yale. Coursework though, students are in fact swamped with it. Even Warren Buffett didn’t get accepted into Harvard but he was able to get more love when he went to Columbia. Columbia students I’ve also seen to be more friendly than Harvard folks.
Comparatively though towards public schools like CSU schools (ie my alumna matter San Francisco State) and UC schools, there’s just no comparison.
Eric Adams is already toast, why are some people (not you) still pretending that he has got a shot. If I had to bet, I would bet on Andrew Cuomo.
I hope you're right that he's toast (I think he is) and I hope we are spared the nightmare of Cuomo being our next mayor!
My worry with Adams is that his continued presence in the race makes takes up too much of the oxygen in the room, denying anyone the chance to rise up as the "not-Cuomo" candidate.
You're figuring Cuomo would be the not-Adams candidate?
Inside the beltway folks perhaps are thinking Adams has a shot. I don't know.
i dont disagree; i just dont want the Democratic Party to lose focus from winning the upcoming elections; if individual pols feel like making statements, so be it(my point is simple here; the upcoming special elections are my only concern because i think we can make Trump look bad)
The Democratic Party can certainly use the activism to its advantage and help House and Senate candidates pick up seats.
If we're looking at where the Iraq War protests were from 2005-2006, it was clear that the GOP was having increasingly no momentum heading towards the 2006 midterms. I wouldn't argue the protests on the deportations are on the same level but I have no doubt they will contribute to the most liberal base of the Democratic Party turning out in high numbers next year.
we have some very real elections coming up in 2 weeks; not saying that we will win them, but overperformance will tell us some things
For sure, especially with the Iowa elections.
LOL. Except for a couple, you don’t have to worry about that.
Even Hakeem Jeffries released a statement condemning it.
true that
AOC and others have already done so.
https://newrepublic.com/post/192558/aoc-ocasio-cortez-arrest-palestinian-activist-mahmoud-khalil
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez condemned ICE’s detainment of Mahmoud Khalil, calling it a “tyrannical” move.
“Violating rule of law, actually,” AOC wrote on Monday, responding to an assertion from Katie Miller, wife of Trump adviser Stephen Miller, that Khalil’s kidnapping was mere “rule of law.”
“You are shredding the Constitution of the United States to go after political enemies. Seizing a person without reason or warrant and denying them access to their lawyer is un-American and tyrannical,” she continued. “Anyone celebrating this should be ashamed.
“If the federal government can disappear a legal US permanent resident without reason or warrant, then they can disappear US citizens too,” she wrote in a separate post. “Anyone—left, right, or center—who has highlighted the importance of constitutional rights + free speech should be sounding the alarm now.”
I am pro-Palestinian but not at all to the extent some SJW are and support a two-state solution, but this is an egregious attack on free speech by the party which claims to defend it.
Oh they do. If it’s speech they like.
PEOPLE’s TOWN HALLS in ALL 50 STATES
Great to see Ken Martin stepping up to the challenge! This is a clear sign that he’ll be a great catalyst for much-needed change in the Democratic Party. (And by God it’s needed!)
His "People’s Town Halls in all 50 states" are a brilliant way to enliven, enlist and activate our base, as well as to win more hearts and minds. (That’s how you kick-start a re-energized "50 State Strategy"!)
These town halls are likely to generate lots of good media coverage, especially at the local and state levels where it really matters.
KEN MARTIN: "I’m excited to announce that democrats.org are partnering with @electdemocrats.bsky.social and @demstateparties.bsky.social to host People’s Town Halls in all 50 states, starting in vulnerable red districts. If Republicans won’t face voters about the Trump-Musk chaos, we will."
https://bsky.app/profile/kenmartin.bsky.social/post/3lkdsy3sw4s2i
Ken Martin as DNC Chair was ready to roll on day one. Impressed so far with his leadership.
Romania is showing everyone how it should be done: kicking fascists off ballots instead of electing them, as it kicked off a 2nd far-right candidate for the Presidential re-run election: Diana Șoșoacă, who joins Călin Georgescu on that dubious list.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/15/romania-bans-second-far-right-hopeful-from-presidential-election-re-run
i dont like this at all for this country(i am not commenting at all about Romania); frankly, i think Nazis should be allowed to run freely here(i am obviously over exxagerating) and get their fascist asses beaten badly at the polls; tje path forward imo is through the ballot box; frankly, the messaging of the National Democratic Party sux ass(pardon my language please)
If Trump had not been allowed to run because he is treasonous, a lot of problems wouldn't be happening right now. Romania is at risk of direct military aggression from Russia and can't afford to have Russian agents run for President.
Russian George has links with Moldovan pro russia separatists too. FYI, Moldovans and Romanians are the same people. He will betray Moldova to the Kremlin in a jiffy. Moldova depends a lot on Romania to counter Russia which supplies most of its energy (a legacy of long pro russian rule) and separatist territories.
my comment specifically says i am not commenting on Romania
Ohh.
"frankly, i think Nazis should be allowed to run freely here"
Well, it seems your wish has come true: Trump and the MAGA Republican Party were allowed to run freely, they won the election and have seized power. Although if you want to get technical, Trump is a Fascist and not a Nazi, although he does enjoy overwhelming support in the latter camp as well.
not a wish..pretty sure that was not posted by me
That’s a verbatum quote from your post.
point out where the word 'wish' was ever in my above post and i will delete it; simply not the case here
and just to state the obvious, Trump won the election; that is on our party, not the Republicans imo
That’s also on the courts, especially SCOTUS, and on Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans who voted to acquit Trump in both impeachment trials.
Just to be clear: I am of the firm opinion that Trump should have been disqualified from running or ever again holding elected office.
simply disagree on all points; our side lost the fair and open election; it is own us entirely; just my opinion
You agree that Trump should not have been convicted by the Senate and that the 14th Amendment should be a dead letter?
no..but that is not going to help us going forward imo; Trump is President; thats the reality
If you answer No, then you think he should not have been able to run in 2024. There is no middle ground here.
but my point has nothing to do with whats settled. i am solely focused on future elections
Your remarks in this subthread make no sense to me.
I'd lump in the media too. The extent of sane-washing that Trump benefited from is enormous.
It was an endless and ever-present detail of election coverage. Everything he said was cleaned up, he was graded on a curve, and his age/health induced mental decline was abjectly ignored while Biden received no such benefit.
Did not realize these threads were still ongoing (maybe I should've), but Nita Lowey passed away: https://www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2025/03/16/nita-lowey-congress-new-york-dead/
She retired some years ago thankfully.
Since her retirement we haven't been able to hold the district.
Jones won it by 24 in 2020. Then it was significantly altered in redistricting.
It was redrawn since she retired.
Sorry to hear. I will never forget her defeat of Dioguardi, which seems to me to have been a turning point in Westchester politics, because not only did she run as a Democrat, but also a pretty liberal one. And unless I'm forgetting anything important, she had a long and honorable career in the House. May her memory be a blessing.
Not quite sure I can forgive her for choosing not to challenge Hillary Clinton in 2000.
There's a lot of dramatics we could have avoided in the last decade had Hillary never been elected to the Senate.
She wouldn’t have won.
She was my congresswoman for a time and she wouldn't have stood a chance against Clinton.