No kidding that those of us under threat are more likely to be anxious and/or depressed. It really took a freakin rocket scientist to discover that! The findings on mood are counterintuitive, though.
I've been reading some political threads on Reddit and people seem to think it's utterly hopeless for America. Like, Trump is going to be a dictator, there's no recourse, elections will never be free or fair again, last election was the final chance to stop this, they'll put Americans in concentration camps, etc. Ordinarily I'd say "fight back", but some comments have indicated these posters don't seem to think that will do much.
I'm going to ask the people here more broadly: is there a light at the end of the tunnel? Is there any hope for an end to this nightmare? Will we have free elections again, and in relation to this SCOTUS ruling, will Congress even have any power again? And will fighting back ultimately do anything? Or is it really all hopeless?
My advice is to stop reading those threads on Reddit (and similar threads anywhere on the internet).
Personally, I have no interest in debating things like this. I'm here to analyze elections, election results, redistricting, etc. from a sober, cool-headed perspective. That was always the purpose and intention of the comment threads on DKE, and I've assumed that purpose has been transferred here. I hope it can be sustained. Back at DKE, everyone always emphasized that the comment threads there were *not* a place for random political discussion, where anything goes - everyone emphasized that there were other places on the internet where one could discuss that. We tried to keep the discussion focused just on election-related analysis.
Having that perspective will also help you keep your sanity during these trying times.
Humans tend to gravitate towards extremes. Initially, people will underplay future dangers and threats. Later, they will overplay those same dangers and threats.
The common undercurrent, on a psychological level, is that it acts as an excuse to do nothing. If there is no threat, then doing nothing about it is excusable and in fact correct. If the future threat is so great, so overwhelming, that we are helpless to stop it, then doing nothing is also excusable.
The risks and dangers to the US right now are immense. But there's nothing about them that have certain permanency. The US survived the dangers of the Civil Rights era with its multiple assassinations and states attempting to ignore federal law. We survived Nixon's attempts to circumvent the law. We survived the Civil War. We survived the Great Depression and WW2.
In all of those events there were, successful or failed, decisions that moved us towards a more authoritarian or more lawless direction. In the aftermath we would par back those powers or reinforce the rule of law properly. Nixon was forced to resign. The 22nd amendment was passed. Civil Rights were enforced. The CSA was defeated and the right to enslave people was ended, states were decisively shown to not have the authority to ignore federal law simply because they disliked it. All those times showed cracks in our system, and it is not infallible. Often some long-term damage would remain, but not as bad as initially.
The US is not immune to the dangers of authoritarianism, but we are far from lost to it. The #1 thing that authoritarians want us to believe is that it is helpless and hopeless. That we hold no power. That elections are corrupted to the point of being irrelevant. If you act like they've already won, it becomes self-fulfilling.
We've been holding free elections all year, in multiple special elections. We will hold free elections in November in NJ and VA, among many municipalities and other local jurisdictions. Next year we will hold free midterm elections. The light is there and it is clear. There are dangers but the light is there. Never presume that they have already won up until the final moment.
Ignore those threads, there’s a weird psychological joy for doom posters to have other people indulge in their doom.
It’s simultaneously true that A) the USA shouldn’t be dealing with this kind of autocratic streak imposed willingly upon itself by a small segment of the population considering our liberal traditions and B) that countries with weaker democratic traditions than ours have come back from much worse
Thank you, both to you and the other commenters here. I was in a moment of extreme emotional disregulation when I wrote my original comment, and I am in a better place right now. I apologize for inconveniencing anyone here who was not pleased by my panicked comment — but thank you all anyway for talking me out of this line of thought.
I will continue to fight back as those here are doing, and I will keep voting as well. (Incidentally, some people I know personally advised me to stay off Reddit as well. I usually avoid that site anyway so easy enough.)
To be quite honest, I generally think that unless Dems get serious majorities over the next two cycles and that its leadership make very serious, aggressive moves with such a trifecta that we're fucked in the immediate term--and how long that may last would be impossible to predict (but that Hungary, Israel, India, etc have had their autocratic govs in place for over a decade and counting). And that I have little faith in the probability of enough going right to set up the opportunity and in current leadership having the audacity to seize it.
But that doesn't mean we give up, or it'll never be feasible at all.
Yes, there is an end to the stuff the Trump is doing. People felt the same way about Bush after 2004.
Is there an end to humans finding new ways to be terrible? No, probably not.
I sometimes feel like the over the top doomerism is a psyop to get people to give up on democracy. Even if it isn't, let's not let it have that effect.
We don't know what the future will bring, but we do know that if we do nothing, bad people will roll over us. That said, my brother showed me a headline that 1,200 people have disappeared without records in Alligator Alcatraz, such that lawyers don't know who is there or how to contact them. The parallels with Nazi Germany are scary, and we really risk recapitulating the words of Martin Niemöller:
I don’t think Nazi Germany is our endgame, thankfully. Team Trump has neither the competence nor the infrastructure to pull that off.
Hungary is a better analogy for our situation. Orban operates by making his political opponents too afraid to challenge him.
Trump operates the same way. Just the idea of a dictatorship can create the chilling effect he wants if it gets the opposition to either give in or put their heads down.
Orban always has opposition in elections, but he has the country so gerrymandered that it doesn't matter how many Budapesters vote against him every time. But I think you're underestimating the potential risk from Trump and his collaborators. The Nazis didn't have infrastructure, either, until they built it, and the Trump Administration already has ICE prisons and is likely to build more. Moreover, Miller and other collaborators, as well as Trump, himself, are very much inspired by Hitler and the Nazis.
The circumstances are quite a bit different here. Germany was a much smaller country than the US is now, lacked the same democratic traditions, and Hitler did not have the same widespread opposition Trump does. So, eliminating the opposition was kind of easy for him.
The Nazis won less than 33% of the vote in 1933, and they were violently opposed by the Communists. On what basis do you claim there was weaker opposition to them?
There was no unified opposition to Hitler after he took power, and he was able to expand his base to include supporters of right wing and even centrist parties.
Opposition to Trump is a lot more mobilized, in comparison.
I agree with Kildere53, stop reading these posts. They don’t do anything and to be honest, they don’t belong as a discussion topic on TDB. We all remember how back at DK there was a massive difference between front page posters and conversations compared to the Elections digests. We care about elections here and that’s the totality of what this place is designed for.
That said it’s the weekend where rules were more lax around topics of discussion on DKE and I understand why people feel this way. Under every Trump administration innocent people get hurt in so many different ways, from deportations to targeted political violence. This is nothing new to those who live through Trump being the dictator in chief.
At some point though Democrats will gain another trifecta. Maybe as soon as 2028, maybe far longer with the Senate completely tilted to the GOP. We don’t know exactly when and we hope for as soon as possible. The key here (and why I’m so supportive of primaries in 2026 and replacing all of our leaders in the party now before the trifecta happens) is what we do with it.
IMO, we will have 1 chance to right the ship of the country and that only happens if we have bold unapologetic fighters willing to rip up the “norms and precedent” to safeguard our future from an even worse President who isn’t as stupid as Trump. We are lucky as it is that he doesn’t care at all about policy, just power, or we would be far worse off.
We need to blow up the filibuster. We need to add PR and DC as states. We need to implement a nationwide ban against gerrymandering, mid decade redraws, redone census with specific rules all states must adhere to regarding elections, regulating from how many seats each party has in each state and how many days of early voting there is to what counts as ID. We need to expand the Supreme Court. We need to reinstall the Fairness Doctrine for all news/media companies to be lawfully bound by.
We need to do this in the face of an onslaught of a powerful conservative media empire opposition, their entire system they created to brainwash and manipulate the uneducated will be at risk, they are going to raise hell including protests, delays and using whatever political pressure tactics necessary to stop us.
There will be the stupid unwitting accomplices who feel this isn’t right or fair to aid them in this endeavour. 2/3rds of the country’s voters will be against what we’re trying to do. Most of the people who vote to do all this will lose their next election in a massive political backlash ending their careers before they really begin. I wouldn’t be shocked if MAGA starts/continues murdering people. These are the risks and consequences we must accept in order to have the chance to save the country forever.
If we succeed, we can finally say that facts matter and the truth matters in the country. We can finally say all voices and votes in America count. We can finally say that we have safeguarded our future. If we fail then the next actually competent Trump president will take America down the slippery slope we’re sliding down all the way to a dictatorship pretending to be democracy.
Big note of caution though: Even if we succeed it’s highly likely the next GOP trifecta will undo everything we did. So with our power we have to actually help the country and all of the people, everything from low gas/electricity costs, to plentiful good paying career jobs for those without a college education, to lower costs of everyday products and public transportation.
There were times in our history where one party had control for decades and that’s when either the other party colossally screwed things up or when the people just trying to live their lives actually got ahead while working hard, to own a home, a car, start a family, to get an education. Whatever they wanted to be able to do, they could afford to do it. This is a lot of things to tackle in the 2-4 years we’ll likely have to do it.
We need people in our party who lead us understanding the urgency and everything we must do in our best chance to change things for the better for everyone. We don’t have that now, hopefully we will when voters give us a trifecta again.
wonder if they are trumpers trying to convince everyone things are utterly hopeless so you might as well sit back and enjoy it! and yes, they do not know what they are talking about: regarding politics, sports, the weather, finance, whatever they are dunce!
Feel others have answered this better then I can but what other choice do we have? Organize for 25 and 26 and if they cancel elections we confront that when it happens.
I am very interested in how this Maine Senate race shakes out and quite frankly I am astonished that after we have seemingly got a good fresh new recruit in Platner that Janet Mills is seriously considering a run.
We should be fielding older candidates, track record or not, only in races where we have no better alternative (Maybe OH or NC). Even then my inclination is to see if we can find fresh new non-political faces who have talent.
What is most astonishing to me is that I recently read Jake Tapper's book on 2024 and Janet Mills, while publicly supporting Biden, did voice concern about "Things change as we age." or something to that affect during the infamous Democratic Governors meeting.
This seems pretty hypocritical to me. I am really starting to not believe Mills is out strongest recruit here and I hope Gillibrand and Schumer can begin to understand that and also that Platner can prevail against her.
I guess my feeling is "that's why we have a primary". If Maine Dems want to nominate Mills over Platner that's their choice. And as long as the national organization doesn't try to strong arm anyone out of the race, I'm fine with it
Of course primary voters sometimes make poor choices. (Like nominating Martha Coakley twice, especially the second time.) But I still think it's a better system than trying to anoint a candidate.
Keep in mind that Trump called Janet Mills out only three months earlier this year about the DEI and transgender matter only for Mills to fight back by saying she would fight him in court. Trump ended up being petty by saying Mills couldn't get elected to anything.
That said, we are grateful that the DSCC has not endorsed a Senate candidate as of yet and we can have a real primary race, something Maine Democrats haven't had in a long time.
I am from the Miami area and recently the Congressman Carlos Jimenez campaign has begun to air "Thank you, Congressman" ads.... Over a year out from the election.
To me this seems a huge sign of how Republicans are nervous, especially in South Florida, over the midterms. Down here the issue is mainly the immigration practices, specifically Venezuelans.
The fact that Jimenez feels the need to air self congratulatory ads this early may be a harbinger. Thoughts?
Salazar has a more vulnerable seat, but both are predominantly Latino. A large swing in the Hispanic communities in South Florida would put both seats in jeopardy for Republicans.
For some levity, the brilliant interns at the White House are now trying to make the “Amelia Earhart Files” a thing, because it’s totally a conspiracy theory that a plane built with 1930s technology wouldn’t sustain a trans-Pacific flight
If a Trump district Democrat votes for a Democrat for Speaker that’s good enough for me and should be good enough for everyone else. I’m really tired of all the complaining about him from people here.
Let’s win power first and then work on persuading the less progressive wing of our party. He voted for every piece of Democratic legislation when Biden was president that was signed into law, did we like him and agree with him then? Do we really want to risk a Republican winning over him staking out positions with a Republican president that have nothing to do with policy?
If Golden is now suddenly not progressive enough to be in our majority, we don’t have a big enough party to win power in the first place. Bigger picture needed.
I'm not taking a position on this challenge (I once dreamt of Golden being told to take a hike) but we aren't doomed if our majority contains some conservative Dems. Our party accomplished most of it's greatest legislation when it was infested with segregationists.
The problem is that those segregationists approved of big changes to the welfare state or infrastructure as long as only Southern whites benefited while today’s conservative dems squirm or straightaway refuse even when asked to sign onto things like capping the prices of a couple of drugs like insulin, child tax credit, or loosening voting restrictions. Achieving anything that improves lives of Americans bigly is impossible with them.
Conservative dems helped Biden pass a bunch of good policy and appoint a bunch of good judges. Beyond that, even if you can't get great advancement out of them, you can help prevent sliding back. The general leftwing idea that "things can't get worse" has been proven exceedingly wrong over the past 10 years.
Left wingers don't need to believe in that idea, once enough swing voters believe it like 2024, they'll happily vote for whoever the MAGA candidate is then.
Carter actively sabotaged Humphrey Hawkins full employmen bill and universal health care legislation because he was forever jealous of ted kennedy and the kennedys at large
You say they were not much of a factor? They prevented -anti-lynching legislation- from being passed during the Roosevelt Administration. However, let's not forget that a majority of Republicans voted for the Social Security Act, and their support was crucial for passage of 1960s civil rights legislation.
Sure but he is certainly more well positioned to win the seat again than Dunlap. Dunlap hasn't won an election since 2004(!). Instead he has been appointed by the legislature as SoS & Auditor the past 20 years.
I'll take annoying all day long in a red leaning seat. I have much less tolerance for this in a solid blue seat, and that also includes annoyances from the left as well as the right.
Frankly good, it would be another 150 million wasted on SC 2020 Jaime Harrison race 2.0 and JBE is someone who would vote for Republican judges like Manchin. That money can be better spent on normal Democrats in Texas, Iowa and Ohio.
But Edwards has a similar ideology to Joe Manchin and Louisiana is extremely racially polarized in federal races. That money could be better spent on moderates running in Iowa and Texas.
Edwards is actually more liberal by contrast to Manchin and is slightly better on the issue of abortion. He also vetoed legislation in the LA State Legislature requiring biological females in women's sports, got medicaid expansion done and isn't wishy-washy like Manchin is on the issue.
Edwards also blows Manchin right out of the water on the environment.
State races are far different than federal ones. Look at Phil Bredesen and Larry Hogan. I doubt Edwards could even make this a single digit race for senate.
I think that the hope is that the expected primary between Senator Cassidy, who voted to impeach Trump after 1/6, and his challenger will split the GOP and that the candidate that wins the primary will be wounded and that will provide an opening for a good candidate in a blue year. However, I suspect that Cassidy will eventually see the writing on the wall and retire rather than suffer a loss in the GOP primary. Remember that the GOP ended the top 2 primary in Louisiana specifically to take out Cassidy. Again, I will gladly support a conservative Democrat from a state like Louisiana who votes like Manchin.
LA used to have two Democratic Senators up until 2005 but it was Mary Landrieu who lost re-election in 2014 when, like 2010, it was a low turnout election.
Larry Hogan became Governor during the 2014 midterms. He likely would have not won the gubernatorial race if his first one was in 2018 instead of 2014. His decision to run for the Senate with Trump on the ballot was just dumb.
Phil Bredesen was out of touch with the political environment when he ran for the Senate in 2018. He left office as Governor after the red wave in 2010 but didn’t adapt his Senate campaign to the times. His candidacy was clouded by Senator Bob Corker’s praise of him and Trump ended up attacking Bredesen during the campaign.
2005 might as well have been a lifetime ago. Politics has become far more polarized since then. Back then Dems still had both senate seats in Arkansas, North Dakota, and West Virginia as well. Completely different political world.
Oh for sure! In red states like LA, Democrats don’t have leverage like they used to in a less polarized environment.
In Senator Mary Landrieu’s case though, it’s possible she could have squeaked off winning re-election in 2014 and kept an additional seat in the Senate for Democrats. She did worse in the election runoff than she did in the jungle general election. Three other Democratic Senate candidates took votes away from Landrieu.
Key quote from Johnson's office: “As is standard practice, with the House now having received the appropriate paperwork from the state, the Speaker’s Office intends to schedule a swearing in for the Representative-elect when the House returns to session”
"DSCC Chair Kirsten Gillibrand is hosting a “Tuscan-European style” Napa retreat with spa treatments, a wine cave tour and dinner featuring #MISen candidate Haley Stevens, likely scheduled right in the middle of a government shutdown that threatens jobs of thousands of workers. The retreat is planned to be held at Hotel Yountville in the Napa Valley"
I think the bigger issue that people are drawing attention to is that it's tone deaf in the midst of a possible government shutdown and I think it's incredibly legitimate to question things that makes the party look bad and this makes the party look bad.
My only disagreement is that you condition not having any impact as possible instead of guaranteed. It’ll have no impact, but oh my god is this the most tone deaf thing you can possibly do during a government shutdown.
Wait a few months until after this is over if you must push your establishment chosen candidate. That seems obvious to everyone here, but not so for a Democratic organization dedicated to winning a Senate Majority apparently.
Also, I take back the compliment I gave them for not putting their thumb on the scale for any candidate in Michigan.
There was reporting by CNN a few months back that they tried to push out McMorrow and were fundraising for Stevens. It was confirmed a couple of days before too.
When this is over, there needs to be Nuremberg type trials for Miller, Noem and Hegseth at least. They’re violating the Posse Comitatus Act if they go beyond protecting a government building. They can claim they were just following orders.
Watch this lawless Supreme Court annul them. Though yes, it's important to do that and not let them get away with not even being prosecuted, like G.W. Bush and his band of torturers, killers and pervasive domestic spies.
Norms have already been broken so I'm in favor of any Democrat running in 2028, running on exiling them from America for the rest of their miserable lives.
Well, to him it’s the descendants of Christian pilgrims, English, Scots-Irish, and also conveniently Schmitt’s German ancestors get to be included, but that’s about it. He talks about this group trying to destroy America by increasing immigration, “Elites who rule everywhere but are not truly from anywhere”, this kind of shit really is so fundamental to their worldview. They so desperately need there to be this villainous group of international schemers pulling the strings, engineering the destruction of America’s white Christian heritage…dog whistles getting louder and louder every year.
My ancestry includes some of these English and German settlers he slobbers over, as well as Chinese, Filipino, Italian, Russian, and the indigenous Hawaiians who didn’t ask to be forcibly integrated into Schmitt’s great Aryan empire, but we’re here now. If I’m confident about anything in this country it’s that we never have and never will be an ethnostate. They really want us to forget what’s written on that bronze plaque in the Statue of Liberty. “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”. They want us to forget when Abraham Lincoln said all men are created equal. I don’t normally civics-post like this but this kind of garbage activates my latent patriotism to oppose it.
Used to be you knew who the National Front wing of the party was, guys like former Iowa rep. Steve King, but now they’re everywhere. How thoroughly the ghost of Pat Buchanan defeated the Bush GOP. Following an election of unprecedented gains with non-white and immigrant voters, they move towards this blood and soil shit.
Schmitt is ironically right. Yes America isn't for everyone, just not for those he thinks. If you're a violent, sexist and intolerant bigot who refuses to change or wants to exert violence towards those you disagree or dislike, then maybe America isn't for you. The notion that America is or ever was some conservative Christian Wonder Bread land is outdated and laughably incompatible with reality.
I know it's not the core of your comment, but this stands out to me.
One of the craziest parts about their fearmongering about "international schemers" is that the modern conservative movement is far more global than its counterparts. Republicans tried to come to the defense of Bolsonaro in Brazil, they align with Putin in Russia and will work with RT, they've held CPAC, with US republican attendance, in Hungary. They've adopted a consistent anti-immigrant message across various nations. The far right of the UK and the US work together.
One of the most consistent details with 21st century conservatism is their projecting their own flaws onto everyone else with nary a hint of irony or self-awareness.
Elites who rule everywhere, but are not truly from anywhere? That is a chilling thing to say. Did he crib from the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion"?
"In 2024 the senior senator from Missouri, Josh Hawley, gave the keynote speech at the conference. Hawley celebrated Christian nationalism as the core idea animating America. He warned against “cosmopolitans” and “globalists,” both famous tropes for Jews, threatening our country."
" “We Americans are the sons and daughters of the Christian pilgrims that poured out from Europe’s shores to baptize a new world in their ancient faith,” he said. “Our ancestors were driven here by destiny, possessed by urgent and fiery conviction, by burning belief, devoted to their cause and their God.” Their idol, he declares, is Andrew Jackson. “Their trust was in the Lord,” but their cause was not necessarily more righteous. They destroyed the Native Americans, he claims, because they were superior in strength and perseverance. This is a fascist vision of natural selection favoring the group with racial and cultural superiority. "
Time for Democrats and left-leaning groups to blast this on the TVs and phones of every descendant of Irish, Italian, or Eastern European immigrants in the U.S. Not to mention those of Hispanics and Asians here as well. Any groups willing to step up and do this? Or has the left permanently closed all their political messaging shops?
The difference with Limbaugh was that the specific strategy was going after advertisers of his show. He was on notice and did get angry because of advertisers progressively leaving under pressure from the left.
However, there is a fundamental difference between targeting ad revenue vs assassinating - One method actually lands the person in prison while the other one does not and isn’t even a crime.
That said, Limbaugh never went off the air in the end as he still had his show for years later.
The assassination thing has been a pervasive part of the discussion regarding right wing conservatives but I wasn’t arguing that’s what this thread is about. Just wanted to compare the rhetoric with Charlie Kirk vs Rush Limbaugh as I believe context is important. I also believe Limbaugh was a worse human being than Kirk.
A side note to this: Like most people on the left, I divide the world into rough groups of Oppressors and Oppressed. Schmitt's comments neatly illustrate why the first entry on my Oppressors list is White Christians.
White Christians can be oppressed, and have been even in the U.S. Which is why a Supreme Court decision was necessary to protect the right of the Amish not to salute or pledge allegiance to the flag, for example. Simplistic thinking is bad.
Oh man, that's some old school racism. Love the inferiority of the "lesser" races of Southern and Eastern Europe, (in which Ireland is somehow also included.) Surprised "papists" didn't make a showing.
Josh Hawley won re-election in the Senate by 13.8% points, which is only a 1% difference between the performance of Rick Scott who won by 12.8% points.
Florida and Missouri seem to have plenty in common - Difficult to elect Democrats statewide and at the federal level in the Senate, batshit crazy Republicans but also plenty of blue scattered around the states.
The problem was, Lucas Kunze’s Senate campaign was increasingly negative and kept on painting Josh Hawley as a fraud. I don’t think this was enough.
Isn't Kunce a progressive Democrat? I don't see how someone so left of center could win in a state like Missouri, regardless of their party affiliation or lack of same.
Yeah I think it would've still beeen tough for Kunce to win, I was more curious how the Independent label would've altered the race. He probably would have done better, but not as well as Osborne
I am not sure I looked at Kunce as running a progressive campaign so much as being the opposition to Hawley as the centerpiece to his campaign. I don’t think he elevated his campaign more than he did but perhaps there’s something I am missing.
But I understand what you are bringing up as far as viability for Democratic Senate Candidates in MO. Until MO gets bluer (which is not going to happen at any point in the near future), Democrats really should not put all eggs in one basket for a progressive candidate.
He probably would have got to 44-45% as an Independent just based on the label alone. But to truly be competitive as an Independent in a red state like Missouri you do need some policy separation from our party’s positions like Osborn has. Specifically immigration/the border, guns, oil/gas, crime and being anti-China. Those first two especially are why our party’s standing has sunk so low in former Democratic or swing states.
If we kept everything on every other issue the same, but changed our party to being tough on the border/limited immigration, and to be entirely pro 2nd amendment instead of compassionate immigration policy and advocating for gun restrictions/bans, we could win these states again easily.
Of course we won’t and shouldn’t do that because it’s not the right thing to do, but it would entirely revamp our standing in these states with these voters. You don’t need to break from the party on all of these subjects, but you need to pick a few to give voters a sense you are actually an independent and not a Democrat running with an Independent label.
I agree, but I also think an Independent wouldn't have to break all too much from Dems on the issues they select. I think an Independent label, as Zero Cool expressed earlier, allows a candidate to explore the nuances of a position without making voters feel uncomfortable with those nuances. So for example with immigration, they can be in favor of allowing sustained immigraion, but also increasing funding to ensure that more people can be processed in a shorter amount of time, to clear backlogs in the immigration court system, to more easily catch traffickers (both drug and people) and take care of their victims, to establish systems that support the integration of immigrants into American society, etc.
Of course, these are things that Dems already support, and should continue to support. But when someone with a D next to their name adovates for these things, many voters think 'ahh open borders!' When someone with an I next to their name advocates for these things, then these voters might view them as something less scary and more thoughtful, practical, and workable. Essentially, I don't think an Independent needs to become a Republican or even a Republican lite on these issues. I think they could provide the same nuances that a progressive from a blue state would provide, but the Independent label insulates them from the fears of voters.
And of course, not all voters will be swayed by this. There are plenty of Republicans who just simply dislike immigration. But I think there are many people who are fine with immigraton on paper, but get afraid of the association between Dems and "open borders"
I’m not sure I agree. I don’t think you can earn crossover votes by explaining the Democratic position as an Independent. We’ve tried that before in multiple states and it didn’t budge the vote share by much. What did work was Osborn saying “I agree with Trump on the border, China and tariffs (I think? There was a 3rd issue, but I can’t remember what it was exactly)”.
I do think in order to win these red states we need to swallow Republican lite policy on some of the issues, otherwise voters just see another Democrat not wanting to run as a Democrat. There’s a whole bunch of very good policy positions Osborn has on numerous other subjects, including most importantly not voting for a Republican Majority Leader. That’s about the best we can hope for if we actually want to win these races.
Except the one fundamental difference is that Candace Owens is a malignant narcissist whereas Tucker Carlson is not. Carlson also had a civil and spirited discussion with Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks. Owens couldn’t even do this even if she tried.
But all this difference aside, Carlson’s been triangulating for some time since Trump ran for POTUS. He really is annoying and has in one of his videos gone on a rant about how he hated his baby boomer teachers and professors back in the day. This coming from someone who was for a long time a traditional conservative who supported Bush Jr all the way. Quite frankly, I don’t believe a single thing Carlson even says most of the time.
Malignant narcissist to be exact. Owens worships Trump and is closer to his level of narcissism with little interest in showing empathy. She made her whole image from Trump’s rise and exists simply to act like she’s superior to anyone instead of trying to make a difference in the world. When you have Dave Chappelle who thinks Owens is the antithesis of every black woman he’s known, that’s saying a lot.
I do believe Carlson can be a narcissist at times but he also has intellectual curiosity, something Owens has no interest in. He had at one point considered voting for Elizabeth Warren and was interviewed by Salon about the income inequality problem in the economy.
Also, from what I have heard, Owens was not invited to Charlie Kirk’s memorial.
Scoop: Austin Democrat Gina Hinojosa eyes run for Texas governor
Texas state Rep. Gina Hinojosa, an Austin Democrat, has told at least two donors that she's running for governor next year, Axios has learned.
Why it matters: A Hinojosa win in the Democratic nomination would set up a battle with Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, seeking a fourth term, for the state's Latino vote.
What they're saying: "I'm running for governor," Hinojosa told an Austin-area Democratic donor in an email. The donor did not want to be identified because it was a private exchange.
Hinojosa's campaign did not respond to an interview request, but Austin political consultant David Butts, an adviser to her campaign, tells Axios "she's going to get in" — likely in the next couple of weeks.
State of play: A 51-year-old progressive who hails from the Rio Grande Valley, Hinojosa will likely make the case that she could reverse a recent rightward shift among Texas Latinos.
Traditionally a key Democratic constituency, Texas Latinos' allegiances are increasingly up for grabs. That shift has further imperiled the relevance of a party already in the political wilderness — the last time a Democrat won statewide was 1994.
Republicans have made a big bet that Latino loyalties are increasingly in play — their recent congressional redistricting increased the number of majority-Hispanic districts.
"That's possible because Hispanic voters have become more Republican," SMU political science professor Matthew Wilson told Axios this summer.
Between the lines: Abbott, partnering with national Republicans, has used his political capital and campaign money over the last decade to help build a GOP apparatus along the Texas-Mexico border, once a solid blue area of the state.
In 2018, when he was facing a Latina Democrat, Lupe Valdez, his campaign advertisements featured his Hispanic mother-in-law, Mary Lucy Phalen, speaking in Spanish about Abbott's character. (Phalen died in 2020.)
Stunning stat: In February 2016, 65% of Texas Latinos identified as Democrats. In December 2024, it was 45%, per polling from the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas.
Exit polls in 2024 found Trump won 55% of the Latino vote in Texas — a 13-point increase from 2020.
💰 Follow the money: Abbott's campaign has a king's ransom available to buy ads and mobilize voters — more than $86 million in cash on hand as of mid-July.
Hinojosa's campaign, by contrast, had a shade under $25,000 in cash on hand in its mid-July filing.
Several other Democrats have already said they're running, including Andrew White, a Houston businessman and son of the late Gov. Mark White. He has not yet filed a campaign finance report this election cycle.
The filing deadline for primary candidates is Dec. 8.
Zoom in: The daughter of legal aid lawyers from Mission, Hinojosa went to high school in Brownsville before heading to Austin to attend the University of Texas — she graduated from the Plan II Honors program and then earned a law degree from George Washington University.
She was elected to the Austin ISD school board in 2012 and first won her House seat, which covers central Austin, in 2016.
Her father, Gilberto Hinojosa, was state Democratic Party chair for 12 years, and the family name is well known in the Valley. The largest Spanish land grant in Texas was given to a Franciscan friar named Joaquín de Hinojosa in 1692.
Flashback: Hinojosa and Abbott sparred earlier this year after the Democrat called the governor's school voucher plan a "scam."
"Can we really trust the former head of the woke Austin school board to give us the facts about our children's education?" Abbott asked in a social media post.
"Call me a liar to my face," Hinojosa then wrote on X.
Yes, but: She's little known outside Austin — and the general election is just over a year away.
Context: Beto O'Rourke, by contrast, formally announced his U.S. Senate campaign in March 2017 — more than a year and a half ahead of his 2018 Trump midterm showdown with U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, as he tried to introduce himself across a vast state.
O'Rourke lost by less than 3 percentage points.
The intrigue: Two Democratic groups are launching a six-figure ad campaign against U.S. Rep. Monica De La Cruz, R-Edinburg, part of a larger Democratic effort to stop a rightward Latino shift.
The bottom line: Democrats are hoping Republicans up and down the ballot are vulnerable in the upcoming Trump midterm.
The latest UT/Texas Politics Project poll showed Abbott's approval rating at 40%, his lowest since he became governor in 2015.
But bracketing the 2018 Cruz-O'Rourke race, Republicans have been regularly winning statewide races by double (or near-double) digits.
The Hill: “Cracks are starting to form in the Senate Democratic caucus over whether to hold the line against a seven-week clean government funding stopgap passed by the House, according to Democratic sources, who say that a threat by President Trump to lay off thousands of federal workers is changing the Democratic political calculus on a shutdown.”
It's the usual suspects: Durbin, Fetterman (sure yes), NH Senators, Gary Peters, Cortez Masto, Gillibrand and King. (Their positions are unclear or may change)
How is it trolling to post an article simply discussing Senators taking a shutdown vote? This is relevant to downballot politics, some of these Senators may get primaries with this behavior. Please stop going to every comment I and PollJunkie make and making personal attacks and baseless accusations against us.
Attacking Dems? I post news here regularly about primaries, I’m a lifelong registered Dem, I vote Dem in every race, even when I hate the candidate, I have voted in elections where I was among the only people who voted, my comment at the top of this page literally was fear-posting about a Trump dictatorship — in what universe am I a Dem-hater? I’m a progressive, yes, and I take issue with many Dem leaders. But, I also post news about swing seats we can flip, I genuinely want the Dems to win and succeed, and I wouldn’t be here if I wasn’t. One can be a Democrat and still disagree with some Dems. I’ve seen you complain about progressives before in the party — does that make you not a Dem?
You have spent this entire night attacking me and another user, swarming to our comments with personal insults and unhinged accusations about us being Russians and uncultured and so on. This is getting tiring and I have other things to do. Leave us alone.
Our party is one of the last lines of defense against fascism. I don’t always agree with all members but the party is usually on the right side of numerous issues — abortion rights, gay and trans rights, gun control, and for the more progressive members, universal healthcare, environmental regulations, consumer protection and antitrust enforcement, and above all else, party faction be damned, we believe in democracy and the rule of law.
This stands in sharp contrast to the fascist GOP, a massive authoritarian cult centered around a deranged, psychotic, and clearly cognitively declining fool and his assorted gang of fascist followers, who seem to be interested in little else besides creating a dictatorship, trampling on the rights of all non-white Christian men, and destroying the integrity and reputation of this country.
I don’t expect you to care about my reply, and in fact I expect further aggressive personal attacks. But, I posted anyway, I don’t even know why. Whatever.
If you think someone is a troll or bot or whatever, report them and move on. Being so antagonistic and aggressive publicly is the wrong approach and is adding unnecessary hostility here.
I don't agree with you either, but that's almost besides the point. Even if I agreed with you, you'd be going about it the wrong way.
Posting information and articles about, say, the current shutdown and how it effects the Democratic Senate caucus is why I come to this site and DKE before it. This is not a pep rally Andrew. Accusing posters of being bots, Russians or whatever when you disagree with articles or opinions they share is really bizarre. I’m a real person in Western Mass and think the nonsense you have been spewing all night on this thread is out of line.
He is angling to be the next Democratic majority leader actually, especially if Pat Ryan or AOC or whoever primaries Schumer. I think he would be a good leader since he is not divisive.
I've only seen things about whip. I don't know how I feel about Schatz as leader or whip. I lost trust in him when he voted for the CR in March. He didn't need to vote for it as he's in a very safe seat, so it seems like he actually thought it was good and backed down from a fight. Not exactly something I want in a leader or a whip, especially if he's succeeding Schumer or Durbin. Also, if he's trying to get into higher leadership it's just bad political instincts because it pisses off our base
I'm not sure how he's positioned himself inside the caucus, but at least from the outside I got the sense that Murphy was seeking a similar career path as Schatz. If he is, I'd prefer him a thousand times over.
I also got the sense that Murphy is gunning for leader, and also (at least with my current knowledge abut him) really like the idea of him becoming Dem Senate leader
Early on I saw Murphy and Schatz as two peas in a pod, both angling to be a new generation of leadership through a similar pathway.
Schatz voting for the CR made me reevaluate him substantially. Maybe he truly supported it. Or maybe he was making the same kind of boneheaded calculus that led to every dem with presidential ambitions voting for the Iraq War: that the pathways to power require him to support republicans here and there. Either way, I no longer have a favorable view of him.
Murphy still seems to have a good head on his shoulders. No senator or party leader will be perfect, but I expect the disappointments from them to be... not as disappointing.
Shaheen, Durbin, and Peters are retiring. I think we all expect Fetterman to retire or to lose his primary in 2028. King is almost certain to be on his last term simply due to age (he should have retired last year).
Of those listed above, CCM, Gillibrand, and Hassan are the only ones that we can expect to stick around for any length of time. I cannot see us getting rid of CCM or Hassan except through the infinitely worse option of them losing to a republican. Gillibrand would be tough to beat in a primary but it looks a lot easier than doing so in NV or NH.
The bad news is that replacing them doesn't stop them from being worthless today. If anything it emboldens most of them, knowing that they do not need to worry about the democratic base any longer.
There's also still Schumer and Schatz, if we're assuming commonality with the idiots that voted for the CR earlier this year, but the article says they won't vote for the bill that house republicans passed. That still leaves room for them to surrender later or "compromise" to give republicans 99% of what they want instead of 100% and vote for that, but we can set them aside for the moment. Schumer might not be in office after 2028 either, though.
CCM gets a pass from me from any vote given how much Nevada has swung rightward with its low education levels and how often it elects Republicans statewide (including sadly to the State Supreme Court which the GOP now controls). She and Rosen may be the only Democrats who can win the state now (I’m saying may, because 2024 may or may not be an aberration, we’ll find out in 2028).
Hassan has always been like this, so it’s not unexpected, but it is still disappointing. The good news is she’s 67, so this is probably her last term she’s in our caucus for. She also managed to defeat the fake moderate Ayotte who probably had the US Senate seat held for Republicans right now still if she won re-election in 2016, which was a tough year for Democrats, so I’ll always be thankful for that.
I don’t think Gillibrand is tough to beat in a primary, in fact I think she’s the underdog right now to win again in her next primary election. I’ll also note I want Democrats to hold the line against Trump and the GOP jamming them AGAIN, but I’m hoping the defections won’t be enough to hit 60 while still allowing a select few reasonable party breaking votes from certain people who need or want to.
Is there a risk of Nevada going the way of Florida? How is the Nevada Dem party doing? I wasn't politically aware during the Reid years, but iirc people talk about how he led a very strong Democratic party there supported by the unions
Nevada depends on our ability to regain lost ground with Hispanic voters.
I do suspect we’re on better footing there than with Florida, even in a bad case for us. That is less about the bad case being good so much as Florida really being that awful for us.
Either way Dems would be smart to agree to an independent redistricting commission in Nevada. I don’t like the chances of electing a Dem governor in 2030, especially if there is a Dem in the White House and if there isn’t a Dem governor for the 2031 redistricting, these gerrymanders go away anyway. Dems should be proactive here like they should have been in North Carolina in the 2000s and agree to pass independent redistricting.
There was a DSA takeover at one point, which ended with the Reid people coming back. This may sound appealing to some, but the way they came back was flagrantly undemocratic and shocking — refusing to even attempt to cooperate with the new leadership, taking the money with them and essentially setting them up to fail, using their role in the legislature to disallow Democratic Party chair elections (so that they couldn’t come back), spreading malicious lies on the internet about them (I remember one claim that the new logo for the party was meant to be a guillotine — utter horseshit), and what do they have to show for it? Governors race was lost, the Senate seats just barely held on, continuing decline, etc. All for nothing. And I don’t even like the DSA.
I don’t think either side is clean on this. The DSA state party tried to primary or refused to endorse sitting incumbents if I recall correctly (including Sisolak). But the Reid Machine also created a shadow campaign without ever trying to really work with the new DSA party leadership.
The only thing I can say for certain is the whole ordeal was a complete cluster for everyone involved, the damage to the Democratic machine was large and I’m still convinced that state fight between the two sides in our party cost us a ton of winnable races, including 2024 President. Republicans were united in Nevada, Democrats definitely weren’t.
Hopefully in 2026 like in 2018 both sides row their oars against the GOP in the same direction while facing Trump as president and being locked out of power.
I don’t know if this is exactly what has contributed to the NV Democratic Party’s problems but Governor Steve Sisolak back in 2022 was the only incumbent Democratic Governor to lose re-election.
Main issue was how the COVID-19 pandemic related shutdown of casinos and social distancing affected the casino industry. It of course isn’t the only part of the economy in NV but Sisolak’s management of everything, I believe, did contribute to the narrative the GOP had on the Democratic Party that there isn’t enough sanity in the discussion over balancing the needs of people along with the points of view by epidemologists.
Also, while Catherine Cortez-Masto won re-election, she did it by a smaller amount than she did in her first Senate election back in 2016.
Yes, there’s absolutely a risk, I don’t think it’s nearly as dire though. The Reid Machine did come back in control of the state party again, but they also flopped in 2022/2024 races for some extremely important (the most imo) judicial races, so I’m not sure yet how competent they are without Reid leading the charge anymore.
I do think Gillibrand will be tough to beat because it’s hard to keep the base angry for so long. Outside of a handful of people that really piss them off, anger past a single cycle is difficult and rare. I think that does apply to Schumer and Fetterman.
If she was up next year I think she’d be at real risk of being primaried. If it was 2028, less so but still a real risk. By 2030 we will, I hope, be in the middle of a democratic presidency cleaning up the mess from the current shit show. That gives her a lot of high profile , easy votes to have voters move on.
It’s not impossible but I do think it’s difficult.
As for CCM, I give her less leeway because Rosen isn’t doing the same thing. Kelly and Gallego in the more difficult to win Arizona aren’t doing the same. Ossoff and Warnock aren’t doing the same. I’d also argue that while it is useful for them to take contrary votes now and then to build up a moderate record, such critical, far reaching votes are a terrible platform to do so.
I've thought Democrats just aren't that left-wing in New York, though I sure didn't expect Mamdani to win the Democratic primary in New York City, so maybe things are changing statewide, and if so, that would make me really happy!
First, the national dem base is moving leftward over time. I think this decade has seen an acceleration of that trend, but I’m not unbiased so I’m not confident enough to claim it without a qualification. Overall moderates and center-left dems are still favored but it’s been shifting.
Second, a decent chunk of the dem base is getting disillusioned with party leadership. In a state like NY in particular that’s easier to result in changes in primary elections.
Though I’d argue Mamdani’s primary win is still outside the standard bounds of those factors. He lucked out in a lot of power brokers favoring Cuomo. This prevented anyone good enough to beat Mamdani from getting enough oxygen to do so. Lander might have been able to do it if the establishment rallied around him instead of the corrupt sex pest.
For Gillibrand I’m not sure there’s anyone obvious for the primary. AOC would presumably go for Schumer first if she wanted to primary a senator. James will be 70 by 2030. Maybe someone will rise in popularity by then?
The fact that the CHAIR of the DSCC has an unclear stance on this is absurd. Out of all the Dems in the Senate they should be among the most responsive to what our base wants and most willing to fight back
More like the next Department of Homeland Security chair if Trump wants to relieve us of Kristi Noem, arguably the worst DHS Secretary in the department’s history.
In all seriousness, Adams may be elevated to either a key role in the Department of Homeland Security or whatever else pertains to law enforcement.
After all, Adams was formerly a police officer for a good number of years before. He also did a 180 on Stop & Frisk when he ran for Mayor as opposed to being against it for a long time before he ran for Mayor. He fits right in with Trump’s administration.
I checked some news on this, found a bunch of major officials’ quotes on it. Mamdani is the only dem not praising Adams. James only wrote the most pro forma praise so I’d give her credit too.
I get that ideologically he’s a good fit for Hochul and Jeffries and Cuomo, but it should be easy to not write such praise of his record after all the corruption. Especially with his wild unpopularity.
Adams is not an ideological fit for present day Hochul or Jeffries, or for Cuomo when he was Governor. Adams has always been a weird, incompetent, corrupt conservative.
Unsurprising and disappointing. The Bluesky left has now gone to war with Jeffries and a number of people want NYC Councilman Chi Ossé to primary him. Quite frankly I don’t blame them — can you imagine Jeffries pulling this shit as Speaker?
Looks like an early general election poll in Florida.
?? It was just a study about mental health.
If they were banned it'd say "Comment removed by moderator," so they likely deleted their own comment.
Touch grass.
.....the original comment was a link to this twitter post https://x.com/DKThomp/status/1971631866663841833
I'm not on your side here
No kidding that those of us under threat are more likely to be anxious and/or depressed. It really took a freakin rocket scientist to discover that! The findings on mood are counterintuitive, though.
I've been reading some political threads on Reddit and people seem to think it's utterly hopeless for America. Like, Trump is going to be a dictator, there's no recourse, elections will never be free or fair again, last election was the final chance to stop this, they'll put Americans in concentration camps, etc. Ordinarily I'd say "fight back", but some comments have indicated these posters don't seem to think that will do much.
I'm going to ask the people here more broadly: is there a light at the end of the tunnel? Is there any hope for an end to this nightmare? Will we have free elections again, and in relation to this SCOTUS ruling, will Congress even have any power again? And will fighting back ultimately do anything? Or is it really all hopeless?
My advice is to stop reading those threads on Reddit (and similar threads anywhere on the internet).
Personally, I have no interest in debating things like this. I'm here to analyze elections, election results, redistricting, etc. from a sober, cool-headed perspective. That was always the purpose and intention of the comment threads on DKE, and I've assumed that purpose has been transferred here. I hope it can be sustained. Back at DKE, everyone always emphasized that the comment threads there were *not* a place for random political discussion, where anything goes - everyone emphasized that there were other places on the internet where one could discuss that. We tried to keep the discussion focused just on election-related analysis.
Having that perspective will also help you keep your sanity during these trying times.
Broadly speaking, the people on Reddit don't know what they are talking about.
Humans tend to gravitate towards extremes. Initially, people will underplay future dangers and threats. Later, they will overplay those same dangers and threats.
The common undercurrent, on a psychological level, is that it acts as an excuse to do nothing. If there is no threat, then doing nothing about it is excusable and in fact correct. If the future threat is so great, so overwhelming, that we are helpless to stop it, then doing nothing is also excusable.
The risks and dangers to the US right now are immense. But there's nothing about them that have certain permanency. The US survived the dangers of the Civil Rights era with its multiple assassinations and states attempting to ignore federal law. We survived Nixon's attempts to circumvent the law. We survived the Civil War. We survived the Great Depression and WW2.
In all of those events there were, successful or failed, decisions that moved us towards a more authoritarian or more lawless direction. In the aftermath we would par back those powers or reinforce the rule of law properly. Nixon was forced to resign. The 22nd amendment was passed. Civil Rights were enforced. The CSA was defeated and the right to enslave people was ended, states were decisively shown to not have the authority to ignore federal law simply because they disliked it. All those times showed cracks in our system, and it is not infallible. Often some long-term damage would remain, but not as bad as initially.
The US is not immune to the dangers of authoritarianism, but we are far from lost to it. The #1 thing that authoritarians want us to believe is that it is helpless and hopeless. That we hold no power. That elections are corrupted to the point of being irrelevant. If you act like they've already won, it becomes self-fulfilling.
We've been holding free elections all year, in multiple special elections. We will hold free elections in November in NJ and VA, among many municipalities and other local jurisdictions. Next year we will hold free midterm elections. The light is there and it is clear. There are dangers but the light is there. Never presume that they have already won up until the final moment.
Ignore those threads, there’s a weird psychological joy for doom posters to have other people indulge in their doom.
It’s simultaneously true that A) the USA shouldn’t be dealing with this kind of autocratic streak imposed willingly upon itself by a small segment of the population considering our liberal traditions and B) that countries with weaker democratic traditions than ours have come back from much worse
Thank you, both to you and the other commenters here. I was in a moment of extreme emotional disregulation when I wrote my original comment, and I am in a better place right now. I apologize for inconveniencing anyone here who was not pleased by my panicked comment — but thank you all anyway for talking me out of this line of thought.
I will continue to fight back as those here are doing, and I will keep voting as well. (Incidentally, some people I know personally advised me to stay off Reddit as well. I usually avoid that site anyway so easy enough.)
Please don't apologize. Most of us feel fear and doubt in this situation, and I think whoever doesn't is probably not normal.
To be quite honest, I generally think that unless Dems get serious majorities over the next two cycles and that its leadership make very serious, aggressive moves with such a trifecta that we're fucked in the immediate term--and how long that may last would be impossible to predict (but that Hungary, Israel, India, etc have had their autocratic govs in place for over a decade and counting). And that I have little faith in the probability of enough going right to set up the opportunity and in current leadership having the audacity to seize it.
But that doesn't mean we give up, or it'll never be feasible at all.
Yes, there is an end to the stuff the Trump is doing. People felt the same way about Bush after 2004.
Is there an end to humans finding new ways to be terrible? No, probably not.
I sometimes feel like the over the top doomerism is a psyop to get people to give up on democracy. Even if it isn't, let's not let it have that effect.
We don't know what the future will bring, but we do know that if we do nothing, bad people will roll over us. That said, my brother showed me a headline that 1,200 people have disappeared without records in Alligator Alcatraz, such that lawyers don't know who is there or how to contact them. The parallels with Nazi Germany are scary, and we really risk recapitulating the words of Martin Niemöller:
"First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me"
Don't let that be you!
I don’t think Nazi Germany is our endgame, thankfully. Team Trump has neither the competence nor the infrastructure to pull that off.
Hungary is a better analogy for our situation. Orban operates by making his political opponents too afraid to challenge him.
Trump operates the same way. Just the idea of a dictatorship can create the chilling effect he wants if it gets the opposition to either give in or put their heads down.
Hungary or Modi’s India, yes
Orban always has opposition in elections, but he has the country so gerrymandered that it doesn't matter how many Budapesters vote against him every time. But I think you're underestimating the potential risk from Trump and his collaborators. The Nazis didn't have infrastructure, either, until they built it, and the Trump Administration already has ICE prisons and is likely to build more. Moreover, Miller and other collaborators, as well as Trump, himself, are very much inspired by Hitler and the Nazis.
The circumstances are quite a bit different here. Germany was a much smaller country than the US is now, lacked the same democratic traditions, and Hitler did not have the same widespread opposition Trump does. So, eliminating the opposition was kind of easy for him.
The Nazis won less than 33% of the vote in 1933, and they were violently opposed by the Communists. On what basis do you claim there was weaker opposition to them?
There was no unified opposition to Hitler after he took power, and he was able to expand his base to include supporters of right wing and even centrist parties.
Opposition to Trump is a lot more mobilized, in comparison.
I agree with Kildere53, stop reading these posts. They don’t do anything and to be honest, they don’t belong as a discussion topic on TDB. We all remember how back at DK there was a massive difference between front page posters and conversations compared to the Elections digests. We care about elections here and that’s the totality of what this place is designed for.
That said it’s the weekend where rules were more lax around topics of discussion on DKE and I understand why people feel this way. Under every Trump administration innocent people get hurt in so many different ways, from deportations to targeted political violence. This is nothing new to those who live through Trump being the dictator in chief.
At some point though Democrats will gain another trifecta. Maybe as soon as 2028, maybe far longer with the Senate completely tilted to the GOP. We don’t know exactly when and we hope for as soon as possible. The key here (and why I’m so supportive of primaries in 2026 and replacing all of our leaders in the party now before the trifecta happens) is what we do with it.
IMO, we will have 1 chance to right the ship of the country and that only happens if we have bold unapologetic fighters willing to rip up the “norms and precedent” to safeguard our future from an even worse President who isn’t as stupid as Trump. We are lucky as it is that he doesn’t care at all about policy, just power, or we would be far worse off.
We need to blow up the filibuster. We need to add PR and DC as states. We need to implement a nationwide ban against gerrymandering, mid decade redraws, redone census with specific rules all states must adhere to regarding elections, regulating from how many seats each party has in each state and how many days of early voting there is to what counts as ID. We need to expand the Supreme Court. We need to reinstall the Fairness Doctrine for all news/media companies to be lawfully bound by.
We need to do this in the face of an onslaught of a powerful conservative media empire opposition, their entire system they created to brainwash and manipulate the uneducated will be at risk, they are going to raise hell including protests, delays and using whatever political pressure tactics necessary to stop us.
There will be the stupid unwitting accomplices who feel this isn’t right or fair to aid them in this endeavour. 2/3rds of the country’s voters will be against what we’re trying to do. Most of the people who vote to do all this will lose their next election in a massive political backlash ending their careers before they really begin. I wouldn’t be shocked if MAGA starts/continues murdering people. These are the risks and consequences we must accept in order to have the chance to save the country forever.
If we succeed, we can finally say that facts matter and the truth matters in the country. We can finally say all voices and votes in America count. We can finally say that we have safeguarded our future. If we fail then the next actually competent Trump president will take America down the slippery slope we’re sliding down all the way to a dictatorship pretending to be democracy.
Big note of caution though: Even if we succeed it’s highly likely the next GOP trifecta will undo everything we did. So with our power we have to actually help the country and all of the people, everything from low gas/electricity costs, to plentiful good paying career jobs for those without a college education, to lower costs of everyday products and public transportation.
There were times in our history where one party had control for decades and that’s when either the other party colossally screwed things up or when the people just trying to live their lives actually got ahead while working hard, to own a home, a car, start a family, to get an education. Whatever they wanted to be able to do, they could afford to do it. This is a lot of things to tackle in the 2-4 years we’ll likely have to do it.
We need people in our party who lead us understanding the urgency and everything we must do in our best chance to change things for the better for everyone. We don’t have that now, hopefully we will when voters give us a trifecta again.
Which subs are these on?
Some of the bigger ones. r/politics and r/AskALiberal — which in hindsight I really should’ve been on.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of those are MAGA plants who just want people to give up.
I suspect that a lot of them are Russian trolls.
That’s a suspicion I’ve seen elsewhere too. Wouldn’t be surprised, these troll accounts didn’t just disappear after 2020.
We’ve seen that fighting back works (see Jimmy Kimmel), and that Trump has gotten his way the most when he faces less pushback.
wonder if they are trumpers trying to convince everyone things are utterly hopeless so you might as well sit back and enjoy it! and yes, they do not know what they are talking about: regarding politics, sports, the weather, finance, whatever they are dunce!
Folks live their life on the internet and have nothing to do other than comment and fear monger.
Besides, how long would these people last in Russia?
Feel others have answered this better then I can but what other choice do we have? Organize for 25 and 26 and if they cancel elections we confront that when it happens.
I am very interested in how this Maine Senate race shakes out and quite frankly I am astonished that after we have seemingly got a good fresh new recruit in Platner that Janet Mills is seriously considering a run.
We should be fielding older candidates, track record or not, only in races where we have no better alternative (Maybe OH or NC). Even then my inclination is to see if we can find fresh new non-political faces who have talent.
What is most astonishing to me is that I recently read Jake Tapper's book on 2024 and Janet Mills, while publicly supporting Biden, did voice concern about "Things change as we age." or something to that affect during the infamous Democratic Governors meeting.
This seems pretty hypocritical to me. I am really starting to not believe Mills is out strongest recruit here and I hope Gillibrand and Schumer can begin to understand that and also that Platner can prevail against her.
Well, Mills is not running so far. That might be significant.
I guess my feeling is "that's why we have a primary". If Maine Dems want to nominate Mills over Platner that's their choice. And as long as the national organization doesn't try to strong arm anyone out of the race, I'm fine with it
Of course primary voters sometimes make poor choices. (Like nominating Martha Coakley twice, especially the second time.) But I still think it's a better system than trying to anoint a candidate.
Keep in mind that Trump called Janet Mills out only three months earlier this year about the DEI and transgender matter only for Mills to fight back by saying she would fight him in court. Trump ended up being petty by saying Mills couldn't get elected to anything.
That said, we are grateful that the DSCC has not endorsed a Senate candidate as of yet and we can have a real primary race, something Maine Democrats haven't had in a long time.
I am from the Miami area and recently the Congressman Carlos Jimenez campaign has begun to air "Thank you, Congressman" ads.... Over a year out from the election.
To me this seems a huge sign of how Republicans are nervous, especially in South Florida, over the midterms. Down here the issue is mainly the immigration practices, specifically Venezuelans.
The fact that Jimenez feels the need to air self congratulatory ads this early may be a harbinger. Thoughts?
Is it Jimenez or Salazar who’s more at risk?
Salazar has a more vulnerable seat, but both are predominantly Latino. A large swing in the Hispanic communities in South Florida would put both seats in jeopardy for Republicans.
For some levity, the brilliant interns at the White House are now trying to make the “Amelia Earhart Files” a thing, because it’s totally a conspiracy theory that a plane built with 1930s technology wouldn’t sustain a trans-Pacific flight
I'm all for it. The more time and energy they spend on harmless things like the Earhart Files, the less they'll have for doing more horrible stuff.
“Dunlap for Congress” organization filed with the IRS on Thursday.
State Auditor Matt Dunlap is weighing a primary challenge against incumbent Democrat Jared Golden in Maine’s 2nd congressional district.
Source: Bloomberg Government.
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1971665701669949469
I think Golden might be the only person able to hold the seat in a non-blue wave year, but he is also extremely annoying.
If a Trump district Democrat votes for a Democrat for Speaker that’s good enough for me and should be good enough for everyone else. I’m really tired of all the complaining about him from people here.
Let’s win power first and then work on persuading the less progressive wing of our party. He voted for every piece of Democratic legislation when Biden was president that was signed into law, did we like him and agree with him then? Do we really want to risk a Republican winning over him staking out positions with a Republican president that have nothing to do with policy?
If Golden is now suddenly not progressive enough to be in our majority, we don’t have a big enough party to win power in the first place. Bigger picture needed.
I'm not taking a position on this challenge (I once dreamt of Golden being told to take a hike) but we aren't doomed if our majority contains some conservative Dems. Our party accomplished most of it's greatest legislation when it was infested with segregationists.
The problem is that those segregationists approved of big changes to the welfare state or infrastructure as long as only Southern whites benefited while today’s conservative dems squirm or straightaway refuse even when asked to sign onto things like capping the prices of a couple of drugs like insulin, child tax credit, or loosening voting restrictions. Achieving anything that improves lives of Americans bigly is impossible with them.
Conservative dems helped Biden pass a bunch of good policy and appoint a bunch of good judges. Beyond that, even if you can't get great advancement out of them, you can help prevent sliding back. The general leftwing idea that "things can't get worse" has been proven exceedingly wrong over the past 10 years.
Left wingers don't need to believe in that idea, once enough swing voters believe it like 2024, they'll happily vote for whoever the MAGA candidate is then.
The margins Democrats had in 1933-1939 and 1965-1967 were so large that the Dixiecrats were not that much of a factor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_coalition
Yes.
Same with from 1977-1981 under Carter and Dems basically got nothing from those years.
Margin wasn’t as great and Carter was no FDR or LBJ.
Carter actively sabotaged Humphrey Hawkins full employmen bill and universal health care legislation because he was forever jealous of ted kennedy and the kennedys at large
You say they were not much of a factor? They prevented -anti-lynching legislation- from being passed during the Roosevelt Administration. However, let's not forget that a majority of Republicans voted for the Social Security Act, and their support was crucial for passage of 1960s civil rights legislation.
Golden shouldn’t be immune to a challenge.
Sure but he is certainly more well positioned to win the seat again than Dunlap. Dunlap hasn't won an election since 2004(!). Instead he has been appointed by the legislature as SoS & Auditor the past 20 years.
I'll take annoying all day long in a red leaning seat. I have much less tolerance for this in a solid blue seat, and that also includes annoyances from the left as well as the right.
Could have sworn he was already running all this time
This is not true, per a person familiar with John Bel Edwards' plans
The former governor has been approached to run for #LASEN but has no plans to do so
https://x.com/allymutnick/status/1971660168648970440
Frankly good, it would be another 150 million wasted on SC 2020 Jaime Harrison race 2.0 and JBE is someone who would vote for Republican judges like Manchin. That money can be better spent on normal Democrats in Texas, Iowa and Ohio.
Not quite the same. Edwards has won two statewide races.
But Edwards has a similar ideology to Joe Manchin and Louisiana is extremely racially polarized in federal races. That money could be better spent on moderates running in Iowa and Texas.
Not exactly.
Edwards is actually more liberal by contrast to Manchin and is slightly better on the issue of abortion. He also vetoed legislation in the LA State Legislature requiring biological females in women's sports, got medicaid expansion done and isn't wishy-washy like Manchin is on the issue.
Edwards also blows Manchin right out of the water on the environment.
https://www.ontheissues.org/John_Bel_Edwards.htm
https://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Joe_Manchin_III.htm
State races are far different than federal ones. Look at Phil Bredesen and Larry Hogan. I doubt Edwards could even make this a single digit race for senate.
I understand. I was just comparing his situation to Harrison’s.
I think that the hope is that the expected primary between Senator Cassidy, who voted to impeach Trump after 1/6, and his challenger will split the GOP and that the candidate that wins the primary will be wounded and that will provide an opening for a good candidate in a blue year. However, I suspect that Cassidy will eventually see the writing on the wall and retire rather than suffer a loss in the GOP primary. Remember that the GOP ended the top 2 primary in Louisiana specifically to take out Cassidy. Again, I will gladly support a conservative Democrat from a state like Louisiana who votes like Manchin.
or Steve Bullock
I am not convinced.
LA used to have two Democratic Senators up until 2005 but it was Mary Landrieu who lost re-election in 2014 when, like 2010, it was a low turnout election.
Larry Hogan became Governor during the 2014 midterms. He likely would have not won the gubernatorial race if his first one was in 2018 instead of 2014. His decision to run for the Senate with Trump on the ballot was just dumb.
Phil Bredesen was out of touch with the political environment when he ran for the Senate in 2018. He left office as Governor after the red wave in 2010 but didn’t adapt his Senate campaign to the times. His candidacy was clouded by Senator Bob Corker’s praise of him and Trump ended up attacking Bredesen during the campaign.
2005 might as well have been a lifetime ago. Politics has become far more polarized since then. Back then Dems still had both senate seats in Arkansas, North Dakota, and West Virginia as well. Completely different political world.
Oh for sure! In red states like LA, Democrats don’t have leverage like they used to in a less polarized environment.
In Senator Mary Landrieu’s case though, it’s possible she could have squeaked off winning re-election in 2014 and kept an additional seat in the Senate for Democrats. She did worse in the election runoff than she did in the jungle general election. Three other Democratic Senate candidates took votes away from Landrieu.
So Johnson’s refusing to swear in Griljava?
https://bsky.app/profile/athenagabriel.bsky.social/post/3lzt4bp635k2e
Has the victory been certified? I ask because Arizona counts slower since they have a lot of mail ballots.
Not sure, but all the ballots appear to have been counted
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/09/23/us/elections/results-arizona-us-house-7-special.html
Post not found?
Found this article. https://www.kgun9.com/news/local-news/timing-for-grijalvas-swear-in-in-question
Key quote from Johnson's office: “As is standard practice, with the House now having received the appropriate paperwork from the state, the Speaker’s Office intends to schedule a swearing in for the Representative-elect when the House returns to session”
"DSCC Chair Kirsten Gillibrand is hosting a “Tuscan-European style” Napa retreat with spa treatments, a wine cave tour and dinner featuring #MISen candidate Haley Stevens, likely scheduled right in the middle of a government shutdown that threatens jobs of thousands of workers. The retreat is planned to be held at Hotel Yountville in the Napa Valley"
https://x.com/umichvoter/status/1971968151987589147
I think the bigger issue that people are drawing attention to is that it's tone deaf in the midst of a possible government shutdown and I think it's incredibly legitimate to question things that makes the party look bad and this makes the party look bad.
Do... do you just assume anyone who criticizes Democratic leadership is a Russian bot or a bad-faith pot-stirrer?
It will only have the smallest of impacts, if it has any at all, but some people really never miss a chance to be tone deaf.
My only disagreement is that you condition not having any impact as possible instead of guaranteed. It’ll have no impact, but oh my god is this the most tone deaf thing you can possibly do during a government shutdown.
Wait a few months until after this is over if you must push your establishment chosen candidate. That seems obvious to everyone here, but not so for a Democratic organization dedicated to winning a Senate Majority apparently.
Also, I take back the compliment I gave them for not putting their thumb on the scale for any candidate in Michigan.
There was reporting by CNN a few months back that they tried to push out McMorrow and were fundraising for Stevens. It was confirmed a couple of days before too.
I'm unconvinced it can't have any impact. A well-made ad might move some voters.
Two peas in a pod.
WTF?
"Trump says he is authorizing military to use ‘Full Force’ in Portland
The president wrote on Truth Social that he is directing the Defense Department to send troops to Oregon."
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/27/donald-trump-portland-troops-00583380
MAGAs: Don't call us authoritarian, waaahhh...you libruls are inciting violence against us.
When this is over, there needs to be Nuremberg type trials for Miller, Noem and Hegseth at least. They’re violating the Posse Comitatus Act if they go beyond protecting a government building. They can claim they were just following orders.
State charges are un-pardonable and seem to have been a successful threat from Pritzker. Bare minimum moving forward from every D governor/AG
Watch this lawless Supreme Court annul them. Though yes, it's important to do that and not let them get away with not even being prosecuted, like G.W. Bush and his band of torturers, killers and pervasive domestic spies.
Norms have already been broken so I'm in favor of any Democrat running in 2028, running on exiling them from America for the rest of their miserable lives.
The invasions of LA and DC ended up being a total failure. Will this be any different?
He didn’t even send troops to Chicago, he had to back off that one.
Maybe he’ll do the same if he gets the same pushback from Oregon leaders.
Forgot about this after Kirk but a few weeks ago Sen. Eric Schmitt gave a real nasty speech at a rightwing conference, calling it “What is America?”
https://missouriindependent.com/2025/09/15/missouri-sen-eric-schmitt-openly-promoted-white-supremacism-in-a-public-speech/
Well, to him it’s the descendants of Christian pilgrims, English, Scots-Irish, and also conveniently Schmitt’s German ancestors get to be included, but that’s about it. He talks about this group trying to destroy America by increasing immigration, “Elites who rule everywhere but are not truly from anywhere”, this kind of shit really is so fundamental to their worldview. They so desperately need there to be this villainous group of international schemers pulling the strings, engineering the destruction of America’s white Christian heritage…dog whistles getting louder and louder every year.
My ancestry includes some of these English and German settlers he slobbers over, as well as Chinese, Filipino, Italian, Russian, and the indigenous Hawaiians who didn’t ask to be forcibly integrated into Schmitt’s great Aryan empire, but we’re here now. If I’m confident about anything in this country it’s that we never have and never will be an ethnostate. They really want us to forget what’s written on that bronze plaque in the Statue of Liberty. “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”. They want us to forget when Abraham Lincoln said all men are created equal. I don’t normally civics-post like this but this kind of garbage activates my latent patriotism to oppose it.
Used to be you knew who the National Front wing of the party was, guys like former Iowa rep. Steve King, but now they’re everywhere. How thoroughly the ghost of Pat Buchanan defeated the Bush GOP. Following an election of unprecedented gains with non-white and immigrant voters, they move towards this blood and soil shit.
Another good piece on it.
A Senator Just Unapologetically Declared the U.S. a White Homeland
America, he says, isn’t an idea—and isn’t for everyone.
By Joshua Shanes
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/09/eric-schmitt-white-nationalism-national-conservatism-conference.html
Schmitt is ironically right. Yes America isn't for everyone, just not for those he thinks. If you're a violent, sexist and intolerant bigot who refuses to change or wants to exert violence towards those you disagree or dislike, then maybe America isn't for you. The notion that America is or ever was some conservative Christian Wonder Bread land is outdated and laughably incompatible with reality.
Historically, yes, America has very much been for people like that.
I know it's not the core of your comment, but this stands out to me.
One of the craziest parts about their fearmongering about "international schemers" is that the modern conservative movement is far more global than its counterparts. Republicans tried to come to the defense of Bolsonaro in Brazil, they align with Putin in Russia and will work with RT, they've held CPAC, with US republican attendance, in Hungary. They've adopted a consistent anti-immigrant message across various nations. The far right of the UK and the US work together.
One of the most consistent details with 21st century conservatism is their projecting their own flaws onto everyone else with nary a hint of irony or self-awareness.
Similar to the Fascist movement in the 1930s.
Elites who rule everywhere, but are not truly from anywhere? That is a chilling thing to say. Did he crib from the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion"?
I was thinking that. Blatant antisemitic dog whistling on Schmitt’s part.
"In 2024 the senior senator from Missouri, Josh Hawley, gave the keynote speech at the conference. Hawley celebrated Christian nationalism as the core idea animating America. He warned against “cosmopolitans” and “globalists,” both famous tropes for Jews, threatening our country."
Another
How about the US being the homeland to the Native Americans. After all they were here before the Europeans came and killed most of them.
" “We Americans are the sons and daughters of the Christian pilgrims that poured out from Europe’s shores to baptize a new world in their ancient faith,” he said. “Our ancestors were driven here by destiny, possessed by urgent and fiery conviction, by burning belief, devoted to their cause and their God.” Their idol, he declares, is Andrew Jackson. “Their trust was in the Lord,” but their cause was not necessarily more righteous. They destroyed the Native Americans, he claims, because they were superior in strength and perseverance. This is a fascist vision of natural selection favoring the group with racial and cultural superiority. "
I am such a diligent Russian agent that I don't forget to read American liberal magazines!
Read the last sentence.
"This is a fascist vision of natural selection favoring the group with racial and cultural superiority."
Are you even reading these comments?
What is that even responding to?
PollJunkie wasn’t saying the groups were superior, he was quoting a magazine (based on his other comment).
They’re “inferior” and “uncivilized.”
Time for Democrats and left-leaning groups to blast this on the TVs and phones of every descendant of Irish, Italian, or Eastern European immigrants in the U.S. Not to mention those of Hispanics and Asians here as well. Any groups willing to step up and do this? Or has the left permanently closed all their political messaging shops?
We should not create another conservative hero by blasting his face all over the nation. Didn't we try this strategy with Limbaugh?
Limbaugh was never a senator.
The difference with Limbaugh was that the specific strategy was going after advertisers of his show. He was on notice and did get angry because of advertisers progressively leaving under pressure from the left.
However, there is a fundamental difference between targeting ad revenue vs assassinating - One method actually lands the person in prison while the other one does not and isn’t even a crime.
That said, Limbaugh never went off the air in the end as he still had his show for years later.
No-one in this thread is calling for an assassination! Just for using Schmitt's words in an ad!
Fine with me! Gotta win that Senate seat!
The assassination thing has been a pervasive part of the discussion regarding right wing conservatives but I wasn’t arguing that’s what this thread is about. Just wanted to compare the rhetoric with Charlie Kirk vs Rush Limbaugh as I believe context is important. I also believe Limbaugh was a worse human being than Kirk.
A side note to this: Like most people on the left, I divide the world into rough groups of Oppressors and Oppressed. Schmitt's comments neatly illustrate why the first entry on my Oppressors list is White Christians.
White Christians can be oppressed, and have been even in the U.S. Which is why a Supreme Court decision was necessary to protect the right of the Amish not to salute or pledge allegiance to the flag, for example. Simplistic thinking is bad.
Who would have guessed five years ago that Hawley would be the less objectionable Missouri senator?
Oh man, that's some old school racism. Love the inferiority of the "lesser" races of Southern and Eastern Europe, (in which Ireland is somehow also included.) Surprised "papists" didn't make a showing.
Bill the Butcher from Gangs of New York type racism
Whoever the Democratic challenger is against Eric Schmidt in 2028, I am ready to donate to.
We need a Missourian Dan Osborn.
I wonder how Lucas Kunce would have done if he had run as an Independent, he already got 41% running as a Dem
I just reviewed the 2024 election results:
Josh Hawley won re-election in the Senate by 13.8% points, which is only a 1% difference between the performance of Rick Scott who won by 12.8% points.
Florida and Missouri seem to have plenty in common - Difficult to elect Democrats statewide and at the federal level in the Senate, batshit crazy Republicans but also plenty of blue scattered around the states.
The problem was, Lucas Kunze’s Senate campaign was increasingly negative and kept on painting Josh Hawley as a fraud. I don’t think this was enough.
https://www.politico.com/2024-election/results/florida/senate/
https://www.politico.com/2024-election/results/missouri/senate/
Isn't Kunce a progressive Democrat? I don't see how someone so left of center could win in a state like Missouri, regardless of their party affiliation or lack of same.
Yeah I think it would've still beeen tough for Kunce to win, I was more curious how the Independent label would've altered the race. He probably would have done better, but not as well as Osborne
I think an Independent candidate would be interesting in MO. It would give the candidate more wiggle room depending on the stances on the issues.
I am not sure I looked at Kunce as running a progressive campaign so much as being the opposition to Hawley as the centerpiece to his campaign. I don’t think he elevated his campaign more than he did but perhaps there’s something I am missing.
But I understand what you are bringing up as far as viability for Democratic Senate Candidates in MO. Until MO gets bluer (which is not going to happen at any point in the near future), Democrats really should not put all eggs in one basket for a progressive candidate.
He probably would have got to 44-45% as an Independent just based on the label alone. But to truly be competitive as an Independent in a red state like Missouri you do need some policy separation from our party’s positions like Osborn has. Specifically immigration/the border, guns, oil/gas, crime and being anti-China. Those first two especially are why our party’s standing has sunk so low in former Democratic or swing states.
If we kept everything on every other issue the same, but changed our party to being tough on the border/limited immigration, and to be entirely pro 2nd amendment instead of compassionate immigration policy and advocating for gun restrictions/bans, we could win these states again easily.
Of course we won’t and shouldn’t do that because it’s not the right thing to do, but it would entirely revamp our standing in these states with these voters. You don’t need to break from the party on all of these subjects, but you need to pick a few to give voters a sense you are actually an independent and not a Democrat running with an Independent label.
I agree, but I also think an Independent wouldn't have to break all too much from Dems on the issues they select. I think an Independent label, as Zero Cool expressed earlier, allows a candidate to explore the nuances of a position without making voters feel uncomfortable with those nuances. So for example with immigration, they can be in favor of allowing sustained immigraion, but also increasing funding to ensure that more people can be processed in a shorter amount of time, to clear backlogs in the immigration court system, to more easily catch traffickers (both drug and people) and take care of their victims, to establish systems that support the integration of immigrants into American society, etc.
Of course, these are things that Dems already support, and should continue to support. But when someone with a D next to their name adovates for these things, many voters think 'ahh open borders!' When someone with an I next to their name advocates for these things, then these voters might view them as something less scary and more thoughtful, practical, and workable. Essentially, I don't think an Independent needs to become a Republican or even a Republican lite on these issues. I think they could provide the same nuances that a progressive from a blue state would provide, but the Independent label insulates them from the fears of voters.
And of course, not all voters will be swayed by this. There are plenty of Republicans who just simply dislike immigration. But I think there are many people who are fine with immigraton on paper, but get afraid of the association between Dems and "open borders"
I’m not sure I agree. I don’t think you can earn crossover votes by explaining the Democratic position as an Independent. We’ve tried that before in multiple states and it didn’t budge the vote share by much. What did work was Osborn saying “I agree with Trump on the border, China and tariffs (I think? There was a 3rd issue, but I can’t remember what it was exactly)”.
I do think in order to win these red states we need to swallow Republican lite policy on some of the issues, otherwise voters just see another Democrat not wanting to run as a Democrat. There’s a whole bunch of very good policy positions Osborn has on numerous other subjects, including most importantly not voting for a Republican Majority Leader. That’s about the best we can hope for if we actually want to win these races.
“Elites who rule everywhere but are not truly from anywhere”
Tell me you are a Jew-hater without telling me you're a Jew-hater.
Antisemitism is making a huge comeback, unfortunately. Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson say similar things on a regular basis.
They’ve both been quite open they think Kirk was Mossad’ed
What motive do they ascribe for such an assassination? I can't see the advantage for Israel or certainly for the fascists who currently rule Israel.
Oh god.
Carlson will literally do anything he can to fit in with the crowd of the GOP these days.
Except the one fundamental difference is that Candace Owens is a malignant narcissist whereas Tucker Carlson is not. Carlson also had a civil and spirited discussion with Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks. Owens couldn’t even do this even if she tried.
But all this difference aside, Carlson’s been triangulating for some time since Trump ran for POTUS. He really is annoying and has in one of his videos gone on a rant about how he hated his baby boomer teachers and professors back in the day. This coming from someone who was for a long time a traditional conservative who supported Bush Jr all the way. Quite frankly, I don’t believe a single thing Carlson even says most of the time.
How do you figure Carlson isn't a narcissist?
Malignant narcissist to be exact. Owens worships Trump and is closer to his level of narcissism with little interest in showing empathy. She made her whole image from Trump’s rise and exists simply to act like she’s superior to anyone instead of trying to make a difference in the world. When you have Dave Chappelle who thinks Owens is the antithesis of every black woman he’s known, that’s saying a lot.
I do believe Carlson can be a narcissist at times but he also has intellectual curiosity, something Owens has no interest in. He had at one point considered voting for Elizabeth Warren and was interviewed by Salon about the income inequality problem in the economy.
Also, from what I have heard, Owens was not invited to Charlie Kirk’s memorial.
https://www.salon.com/2019/01/26/salon-interview-tucker-carlson-bashes-capitalism-says-he-might-vote-for-elizabeth-warren/
Scoop: Austin Democrat Gina Hinojosa eyes run for Texas governor
Texas state Rep. Gina Hinojosa, an Austin Democrat, has told at least two donors that she's running for governor next year, Axios has learned.
Why it matters: A Hinojosa win in the Democratic nomination would set up a battle with Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, seeking a fourth term, for the state's Latino vote.
What they're saying: "I'm running for governor," Hinojosa told an Austin-area Democratic donor in an email. The donor did not want to be identified because it was a private exchange.
Hinojosa's campaign did not respond to an interview request, but Austin political consultant David Butts, an adviser to her campaign, tells Axios "she's going to get in" — likely in the next couple of weeks.
State of play: A 51-year-old progressive who hails from the Rio Grande Valley, Hinojosa will likely make the case that she could reverse a recent rightward shift among Texas Latinos.
Traditionally a key Democratic constituency, Texas Latinos' allegiances are increasingly up for grabs. That shift has further imperiled the relevance of a party already in the political wilderness — the last time a Democrat won statewide was 1994.
Republicans have made a big bet that Latino loyalties are increasingly in play — their recent congressional redistricting increased the number of majority-Hispanic districts.
"That's possible because Hispanic voters have become more Republican," SMU political science professor Matthew Wilson told Axios this summer.
Between the lines: Abbott, partnering with national Republicans, has used his political capital and campaign money over the last decade to help build a GOP apparatus along the Texas-Mexico border, once a solid blue area of the state.
In 2018, when he was facing a Latina Democrat, Lupe Valdez, his campaign advertisements featured his Hispanic mother-in-law, Mary Lucy Phalen, speaking in Spanish about Abbott's character. (Phalen died in 2020.)
Stunning stat: In February 2016, 65% of Texas Latinos identified as Democrats. In December 2024, it was 45%, per polling from the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas.
Exit polls in 2024 found Trump won 55% of the Latino vote in Texas — a 13-point increase from 2020.
💰 Follow the money: Abbott's campaign has a king's ransom available to buy ads and mobilize voters — more than $86 million in cash on hand as of mid-July.
Hinojosa's campaign, by contrast, had a shade under $25,000 in cash on hand in its mid-July filing.
Several other Democrats have already said they're running, including Andrew White, a Houston businessman and son of the late Gov. Mark White. He has not yet filed a campaign finance report this election cycle.
The filing deadline for primary candidates is Dec. 8.
Zoom in: The daughter of legal aid lawyers from Mission, Hinojosa went to high school in Brownsville before heading to Austin to attend the University of Texas — she graduated from the Plan II Honors program and then earned a law degree from George Washington University.
She was elected to the Austin ISD school board in 2012 and first won her House seat, which covers central Austin, in 2016.
Her father, Gilberto Hinojosa, was state Democratic Party chair for 12 years, and the family name is well known in the Valley. The largest Spanish land grant in Texas was given to a Franciscan friar named Joaquín de Hinojosa in 1692.
Flashback: Hinojosa and Abbott sparred earlier this year after the Democrat called the governor's school voucher plan a "scam."
"Can we really trust the former head of the woke Austin school board to give us the facts about our children's education?" Abbott asked in a social media post.
"Call me a liar to my face," Hinojosa then wrote on X.
Yes, but: She's little known outside Austin — and the general election is just over a year away.
Context: Beto O'Rourke, by contrast, formally announced his U.S. Senate campaign in March 2017 — more than a year and a half ahead of his 2018 Trump midterm showdown with U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, as he tried to introduce himself across a vast state.
O'Rourke lost by less than 3 percentage points.
The intrigue: Two Democratic groups are launching a six-figure ad campaign against U.S. Rep. Monica De La Cruz, R-Edinburg, part of a larger Democratic effort to stop a rightward Latino shift.
The bottom line: Democrats are hoping Republicans up and down the ballot are vulnerable in the upcoming Trump midterm.
The latest UT/Texas Politics Project poll showed Abbott's approval rating at 40%, his lowest since he became governor in 2015.
But bracketing the 2018 Cruz-O'Rourke race, Republicans have been regularly winning statewide races by double (or near-double) digits.
https://www.axios.com/local/austin/2025/09/26/gina-hinojosa-austin-democrat-campaign-texas-governor
This is a fairly long article, but I think you quoted too much of it. Maybe 1/3 with a link would be OK. Thanks for the info, though.
I am not a Russian and neither do I have Russian heritage.
And it would be fine if you were and did. Russian-Americans are not to be held suspect.
?
Do you have any evidence for this claim?
Although you accused me of being a bot on yesterday's Digest so I don't know why I'm asking.
The Hill: “Cracks are starting to form in the Senate Democratic caucus over whether to hold the line against a seven-week clean government funding stopgap passed by the House, according to Democratic sources, who say that a threat by President Trump to lay off thousands of federal workers is changing the Democratic political calculus on a shutdown.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5522680-schumer-trump-threat-federal-workers/
It's the usual suspects: Durbin, Fetterman (sure yes), NH Senators, Gary Peters, Cortez Masto, Gillibrand and King. (Their positions are unclear or may change)
How is it trolling to post an article simply discussing Senators taking a shutdown vote? This is relevant to downballot politics, some of these Senators may get primaries with this behavior. Please stop going to every comment I and PollJunkie make and making personal attacks and baseless accusations against us.
Attacking Dems? I post news here regularly about primaries, I’m a lifelong registered Dem, I vote Dem in every race, even when I hate the candidate, I have voted in elections where I was among the only people who voted, my comment at the top of this page literally was fear-posting about a Trump dictatorship — in what universe am I a Dem-hater? I’m a progressive, yes, and I take issue with many Dem leaders. But, I also post news about swing seats we can flip, I genuinely want the Dems to win and succeed, and I wouldn’t be here if I wasn’t. One can be a Democrat and still disagree with some Dems. I’ve seen you complain about progressives before in the party — does that make you not a Dem?
You have spent this entire night attacking me and another user, swarming to our comments with personal insults and unhinged accusations about us being Russians and uncultured and so on. This is getting tiring and I have other things to do. Leave us alone.
You want praise?
Our party is one of the last lines of defense against fascism. I don’t always agree with all members but the party is usually on the right side of numerous issues — abortion rights, gay and trans rights, gun control, and for the more progressive members, universal healthcare, environmental regulations, consumer protection and antitrust enforcement, and above all else, party faction be damned, we believe in democracy and the rule of law.
This stands in sharp contrast to the fascist GOP, a massive authoritarian cult centered around a deranged, psychotic, and clearly cognitively declining fool and his assorted gang of fascist followers, who seem to be interested in little else besides creating a dictatorship, trampling on the rights of all non-white Christian men, and destroying the integrity and reputation of this country.
I don’t expect you to care about my reply, and in fact I expect further aggressive personal attacks. But, I posted anyway, I don’t even know why. Whatever.
OK: You're being an asshole.
If you think someone is a troll or bot or whatever, report them and move on. Being so antagonistic and aggressive publicly is the wrong approach and is adding unnecessary hostility here.
I don't agree with you either, but that's almost besides the point. Even if I agreed with you, you'd be going about it the wrong way.
Posting information and articles about, say, the current shutdown and how it effects the Democratic Senate caucus is why I come to this site and DKE before it. This is not a pep rally Andrew. Accusing posters of being bots, Russians or whatever when you disagree with articles or opinions they share is really bizarre. I’m a real person in Western Mass and think the nonsense you have been spewing all night on this thread is out of line.
Democrats who can't focus enough to oppose fascism need to be called out. It's existential for democracy!
Blocked.
I'm looking at Schatz, as he voted with Republicans earlier this year. He's cheif deputy whip, and I think he's angling to succeed Durbin as whip
He is angling to be the next Democratic majority leader actually, especially if Pat Ryan or AOC or whoever primaries Schumer. I think he would be a good leader since he is not divisive.
I've only seen things about whip. I don't know how I feel about Schatz as leader or whip. I lost trust in him when he voted for the CR in March. He didn't need to vote for it as he's in a very safe seat, so it seems like he actually thought it was good and backed down from a fight. Not exactly something I want in a leader or a whip, especially if he's succeeding Schumer or Durbin. Also, if he's trying to get into higher leadership it's just bad political instincts because it pisses off our base
Fully agreed.
I'm not sure how he's positioned himself inside the caucus, but at least from the outside I got the sense that Murphy was seeking a similar career path as Schatz. If he is, I'd prefer him a thousand times over.
I also got the sense that Murphy is gunning for leader, and also (at least with my current knowledge abut him) really like the idea of him becoming Dem Senate leader
Early on I saw Murphy and Schatz as two peas in a pod, both angling to be a new generation of leadership through a similar pathway.
Schatz voting for the CR made me reevaluate him substantially. Maybe he truly supported it. Or maybe he was making the same kind of boneheaded calculus that led to every dem with presidential ambitions voting for the Iraq War: that the pathways to power require him to support republicans here and there. Either way, I no longer have a favorable view of him.
Murphy still seems to have a good head on his shoulders. No senator or party leader will be perfect, but I expect the disappointments from them to be... not as disappointing.
No Murphy is seeking to run as President from the left lane. He is mentioned on the 2028 Presidential election wikipedia article too.
All these wimps need to be replaced!
The good news is that most of them will be.
Shaheen, Durbin, and Peters are retiring. I think we all expect Fetterman to retire or to lose his primary in 2028. King is almost certain to be on his last term simply due to age (he should have retired last year).
Of those listed above, CCM, Gillibrand, and Hassan are the only ones that we can expect to stick around for any length of time. I cannot see us getting rid of CCM or Hassan except through the infinitely worse option of them losing to a republican. Gillibrand would be tough to beat in a primary but it looks a lot easier than doing so in NV or NH.
The bad news is that replacing them doesn't stop them from being worthless today. If anything it emboldens most of them, knowing that they do not need to worry about the democratic base any longer.
There's also still Schumer and Schatz, if we're assuming commonality with the idiots that voted for the CR earlier this year, but the article says they won't vote for the bill that house republicans passed. That still leaves room for them to surrender later or "compromise" to give republicans 99% of what they want instead of 100% and vote for that, but we can set them aside for the moment. Schumer might not be in office after 2028 either, though.
There's been talk on the left of primarying Gillibrand.
I wonder if Letitia James would be interested.
I wish. Or AOC.
CCM gets a pass from me from any vote given how much Nevada has swung rightward with its low education levels and how often it elects Republicans statewide (including sadly to the State Supreme Court which the GOP now controls). She and Rosen may be the only Democrats who can win the state now (I’m saying may, because 2024 may or may not be an aberration, we’ll find out in 2028).
Hassan has always been like this, so it’s not unexpected, but it is still disappointing. The good news is she’s 67, so this is probably her last term she’s in our caucus for. She also managed to defeat the fake moderate Ayotte who probably had the US Senate seat held for Republicans right now still if she won re-election in 2016, which was a tough year for Democrats, so I’ll always be thankful for that.
I don’t think Gillibrand is tough to beat in a primary, in fact I think she’s the underdog right now to win again in her next primary election. I’ll also note I want Democrats to hold the line against Trump and the GOP jamming them AGAIN, but I’m hoping the defections won’t be enough to hit 60 while still allowing a select few reasonable party breaking votes from certain people who need or want to.
Curious to see how Aaron Ford and the rest of the ticket does this year in Nevada.
Is there a risk of Nevada going the way of Florida? How is the Nevada Dem party doing? I wasn't politically aware during the Reid years, but iirc people talk about how he led a very strong Democratic party there supported by the unions
Nevada depends on our ability to regain lost ground with Hispanic voters.
I do suspect we’re on better footing there than with Florida, even in a bad case for us. That is less about the bad case being good so much as Florida really being that awful for us.
Either way Dems would be smart to agree to an independent redistricting commission in Nevada. I don’t like the chances of electing a Dem governor in 2030, especially if there is a Dem in the White House and if there isn’t a Dem governor for the 2031 redistricting, these gerrymanders go away anyway. Dems should be proactive here like they should have been in North Carolina in the 2000s and agree to pass independent redistricting.
There was a DSA takeover at one point, which ended with the Reid people coming back. This may sound appealing to some, but the way they came back was flagrantly undemocratic and shocking — refusing to even attempt to cooperate with the new leadership, taking the money with them and essentially setting them up to fail, using their role in the legislature to disallow Democratic Party chair elections (so that they couldn’t come back), spreading malicious lies on the internet about them (I remember one claim that the new logo for the party was meant to be a guillotine — utter horseshit), and what do they have to show for it? Governors race was lost, the Senate seats just barely held on, continuing decline, etc. All for nothing. And I don’t even like the DSA.
I don’t think either side is clean on this. The DSA state party tried to primary or refused to endorse sitting incumbents if I recall correctly (including Sisolak). But the Reid Machine also created a shadow campaign without ever trying to really work with the new DSA party leadership.
The only thing I can say for certain is the whole ordeal was a complete cluster for everyone involved, the damage to the Democratic machine was large and I’m still convinced that state fight between the two sides in our party cost us a ton of winnable races, including 2024 President. Republicans were united in Nevada, Democrats definitely weren’t.
Hopefully in 2026 like in 2018 both sides row their oars against the GOP in the same direction while facing Trump as president and being locked out of power.
I don’t know if this is exactly what has contributed to the NV Democratic Party’s problems but Governor Steve Sisolak back in 2022 was the only incumbent Democratic Governor to lose re-election.
Main issue was how the COVID-19 pandemic related shutdown of casinos and social distancing affected the casino industry. It of course isn’t the only part of the economy in NV but Sisolak’s management of everything, I believe, did contribute to the narrative the GOP had on the Democratic Party that there isn’t enough sanity in the discussion over balancing the needs of people along with the points of view by epidemologists.
Also, while Catherine Cortez-Masto won re-election, she did it by a smaller amount than she did in her first Senate election back in 2016.
Yes, there’s absolutely a risk, I don’t think it’s nearly as dire though. The Reid Machine did come back in control of the state party again, but they also flopped in 2022/2024 races for some extremely important (the most imo) judicial races, so I’m not sure yet how competent they are without Reid leading the charge anymore.
I do think Gillibrand will be tough to beat because it’s hard to keep the base angry for so long. Outside of a handful of people that really piss them off, anger past a single cycle is difficult and rare. I think that does apply to Schumer and Fetterman.
If she was up next year I think she’d be at real risk of being primaried. If it was 2028, less so but still a real risk. By 2030 we will, I hope, be in the middle of a democratic presidency cleaning up the mess from the current shit show. That gives her a lot of high profile , easy votes to have voters move on.
It’s not impossible but I do think it’s difficult.
As for CCM, I give her less leeway because Rosen isn’t doing the same thing. Kelly and Gallego in the more difficult to win Arizona aren’t doing the same. Ossoff and Warnock aren’t doing the same. I’d also argue that while it is useful for them to take contrary votes now and then to build up a moderate record, such critical, far reaching votes are a terrible platform to do so.
I've thought Democrats just aren't that left-wing in New York, though I sure didn't expect Mamdani to win the Democratic primary in New York City, so maybe things are changing statewide, and if so, that would make me really happy!
I think there’s two factors at play.
First, the national dem base is moving leftward over time. I think this decade has seen an acceleration of that trend, but I’m not unbiased so I’m not confident enough to claim it without a qualification. Overall moderates and center-left dems are still favored but it’s been shifting.
Second, a decent chunk of the dem base is getting disillusioned with party leadership. In a state like NY in particular that’s easier to result in changes in primary elections.
Though I’d argue Mamdani’s primary win is still outside the standard bounds of those factors. He lucked out in a lot of power brokers favoring Cuomo. This prevented anyone good enough to beat Mamdani from getting enough oxygen to do so. Lander might have been able to do it if the establishment rallied around him instead of the corrupt sex pest.
For Gillibrand I’m not sure there’s anyone obvious for the primary. AOC would presumably go for Schumer first if she wanted to primary a senator. James will be 70 by 2030. Maybe someone will rise in popularity by then?
Let’s just say I don’t expect Gillibrand to stop pissing off our party base anytime soon lol.
The fact that the CHAIR of the DSCC has an unclear stance on this is absurd. Out of all the Dems in the Senate they should be among the most responsive to what our base wants and most willing to fight back
NYC Mayor: Adams drops out.
Except that he can't, really, in that his name will be on the ballot. But is he the next Ambassador to Saudi Arabia?
No, gold bars.
Might as well make him Ambassador to Turkey.
Indeed, but Saudi Arabia was the scuttlebutt a couple of weeks ago or so.
More like the next Department of Homeland Security chair if Trump wants to relieve us of Kristi Noem, arguably the worst DHS Secretary in the department’s history.
Is there any indication he no longer likes her?
Who knows what goes through Trump’s head anymore?
In all seriousness, Adams may be elevated to either a key role in the Department of Homeland Security or whatever else pertains to law enforcement.
After all, Adams was formerly a police officer for a good number of years before. He also did a 180 on Stop & Frisk when he ran for Mayor as opposed to being against it for a long time before he ran for Mayor. He fits right in with Trump’s administration.
https://x.com/FSU_Barstool/status/1835038157102104994?lang=en
Cuomo will need Silwa to drop outto have a chance.
If Silwa stays in the race, we have him to thank for his service to NYC and NY State.
I checked some news on this, found a bunch of major officials’ quotes on it. Mamdani is the only dem not praising Adams. James only wrote the most pro forma praise so I’d give her credit too.
I get that ideologically he’s a good fit for Hochul and Jeffries and Cuomo, but it should be easy to not write such praise of his record after all the corruption. Especially with his wild unpopularity.
Adams is not an ideological fit for present day Hochul or Jeffries, or for Cuomo when he was Governor. Adams has always been a weird, incompetent, corrupt conservative.
I’ll defer to you. In that case it’d make it even weirder to praise him!
My point though is that even a good ideological match doesn’t merit praise when they’re so corrupt.
I've heard that he attacked some Latino politician as anti-Latino for marrying a Jew and not a Latina. Weird as hell.
Hakeem Jeffries is still unsure of whether to endorse Mamdani or not.
Unsurprising and disappointing. The Bluesky left has now gone to war with Jeffries and a number of people want NYC Councilman Chi Ossé to primary him. Quite frankly I don’t blame them — can you imagine Jeffries pulling this shit as Speaker?
Did he say that?
He said he will weigh in before Early Voting after a flowery endorsement of Adams' time as Mayor.
Such an asshole! Endorsing corrupt politicians is a horrible look for a party leader!
https://www.wpr.org/news/wisconsin-supreme-court-orders-legal-briefs-in-2-congressional-map-challenges
Wisconsin redistricting may happen again. We’ll see.