In terms of what? It was covered in the digest yesterday. Deplorable (in)actions by many Democrats including the incumbent mayor. Democrats just shouldn't do this shit when the Republican Party is fascist and an out-and-out criminal, actively subversive organization.
I too have been pondering San Antonio’s weird resistance to the Democratic candidate for mayor, Gina Ortiz Jones.
Two sentences jumped out at me in this Morning Digest. First, "Jones…joked about her "resting bitch face."" (Who the hell talks like that??)
Second, and more substantively: "What accounts for [Gina Ortiz] Jones' weakness? Andrea Drusch writes in the San Antonio Report that many local power players believe that the Democrat, who is relatively new to city politics, would represent an unwelcome change."
Following the Digest’s link, here are excerpts from Drush’s article:
"Jones’ general governing perspective hasn’t always lined up with the city’s power structures, complicating her efforts while campaigning across dozens of candidate forums.
"Perhaps most notably, Jones came into the race railing against a $4 billion downtown redevelopment project known as Project Marvel, which she framed as a handout for Spurs owners and a transparency failure for city leaders working on it behind closed doors.
"She’s called for the city to invest in people instead of projects through expanded Pre-K programs, job training and affordable housing."
I find it odd Gina Ortiz Jones is Filipino considering this. Then again, perhaps there’s something I don’t know about Filipino culture when it comes to names!
Eh, I've met a lot of people who joke about their resting bitch face. It's hard because some people (mostly women) get unfairly branded as unfriendly or unlikeable, so they have to joke about it to make it seem like they're in on the joke, but it's kind of a no-win situation. It's a tricky gender dynamic that a lot of female politicians have to deal with and I don't blame her for struggling with.
Thanks! I’m clearly behind the times. For instance, having reached two-thirds of a century, I still react to "Ask" used as a noun, e.g. "That’s a big ask." (What in the world happened to a good old-fashioned "request"??) Well, I suppose someone else might applaud this as evolution of language with the words "That’s a good get." Sigh!
Who's everyone's member of congress and what are your thoughts about them? I'm in Casar's district in Texas. I'm not crazy about having a DSA dem but he doesn't seem to be to out there with his rhetoric. I'm ok with him but he doesn't seem to visit my community much.
Ours is Jared Golden. He can be annoying as hell, but I’m still glad he unseated Bruce Poliquin. Worth noting is that Jared Golden almost lost reelection last time – a key reason being that he proposed sensible gun control after that horrible mass shooting in his native Lewiston. Golden is probably the best we can do in ME-02.
My Rep is Jared Moskowitz. He’s very good debating with the MAGA’s in Congress but we haven’t seen him in person since he was elected. There’s a lot of frustration with him in his part of Palm Beach County.
Moskowitz really looked stupid when he started calling President Biden out for removing Cuba as a country that was a designated state sponsor of terrorism, even though this was an issue the Catholic Church was involved with.
Unfortunately, I’m stuck with Mike Lawler. Contrary to his claims of bipartisanship, his voting record is abominable. Hopefully we will be able to replace him in 2026.
Before she was elected as Mayor of Oakland in the special election last April, Barbara Lee was my representative in the House for decades for CA-12. High approval ratings and got re-elected with a high percentage of the votes (last re-election win was by 90+%). She’s always been legendary with her anti-war votes and has very good political instincts.
That said, I will admit that while it’s only been a few months since Lateefah Simon has taken over in representing CA-12, she has become active in organizing local events. I don’t know when the last time Lee organized one in Berkeley (where I live) but nevertheless, this is good to know.
Dan Goldman. I didn't vote for him for the open seat in the last cycle because he opposes single-payer, such a self-evidently logical system no Democrat should oppose, especially in such a liberal district, but I believe he won because he was an impeachment prosecutor, and he's done well in his continuing role as such in Congress. I feel like, especially lately, all his emails are begs for money, but I'm sure he'll win reelection, in any case.
Looks like Goldman is for a public healthcare system but not specifically Medicare-For-All.
Honestly, reforming healthcare is an extremely complicated and complex process. If the U.S. is going to have its own public healthcare system that takes care of those who can’t afford it through private healthcare insurance, better work to make it right so it gets better and better overtime.
She's on her first term and I haven't seen much of her. I did get a voicemail from her office early on where they were setting up a phone town hall to ask her questions as everything started to go to shit. I had to work when that was happening so I didn't call in but I thought that was a nice touch.
Otherwise I haven't seen anything to make me think about her one way or the other. Since it's NH inevitably anyone representing me is going to be far more moderate than I'd like.
I've never seen any indication that Williams is popular. She ran a few campaigns before 2024 but never made it through the primary before. She won the 2024 primary then lost the general election by six points in an open D+2 seat.
In 2026 the political environment should favor us, Goodlander will be the incumbent, and Williams will be most recently known for having lost her prior election. It should go better for us.
It's always worth having some level of caution in a state as fickle as NH, but nothing right now warrants atypical levels of worry.
Marie Perez….she’s tried to stay hyper-fixated on local, small-ball issues and constituent service, yet she rightfully got tons of flak for her vote for the “SAVE Act.” Still, for us, she’s probably the best this district can elect at this time. Vancouver, WA is light-blue but the surrounding counties are full of blood-red maga freaks.
Emanuel Cleaver, he's 80 years old now but probably won't attract a strong primary because he's been a fixture in the community for so long. I wasn't around when he was mayor of Kansas City, but most people seem to think he did a good job. The only people I've seen complain about him are Republicans.
April McClain Delaney. Solid, reliable normie Dem freshman, as were her husband and David Trone--though unlike them I don't see her leaving for higher office soon. (She's not gonna run a quixotic presidential campaign and neither Senate seat is likely to be open soon.)
Sydney Kamlager-Dove. She is both a member of the Black and Progressive Caucus and also Vice-Chair of the Equal Rights Amendment Caucus. I have yet to go to a town hall but she's a good one.
I used to live in Jimmy Gomez's district (And had Xavier Becerra before him) before I moved to Brad Sherman's district. Massive downgrade. Hoping for a decent primary challenger next year.
Brad Sherman has his good and bad points, but at least he lives in "the best named community in the U.S.A., Sherman Oaks CA". He needs some new jokes for sure.
After my parents died I moved out of that area and now live farther east in the SFValley, in North Hollywood. I have a new Representative this year, Luz Rivas, who was previously a CA Assemblymember. I was out of town when she did her first town hall but she has done a good job of reporting back to the district with regular email newsletters. She is better than her predecessor Tony Cardenas. Just east of here in the Burbank-Glendale-Hollywood district (CA-30) there is also a new Rep. Laura Friedman also was in the Assembly,and has now replaced Adam Schiff in the House. It is good to see our local delegation get younger and more female.
I live in NYC for law school and my rep is Espaillat who seems cool, I vote at my mom's home in Fresno for Jim Costa, who is fine but needs to retire imo. he could run for Mayor if he wants a career capper since he lost AG Chair.
Pretty expected. She still can't get over the fact that Virginia supports lgbtq and abortion rights and has the charisma of a rock. Also, Biden isn't the President anymore and Virginia is blue state.
It isn’t just that she can’t be another Youngkin. It’s that she really doesn’t have the ability to emphasize and show she cares about Virginians, especially those who are angry at Elon Musk and Trump.
I don't get your comment about Wyoming, but please clarify. I think it's absurd to call Trump and his collaborators and imitators "populist", but many people do and Wyoming certainly supports him and them big-time. Who are you considering a populist?
"The Supreme Court on Friday turned away the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) bid to block Pennsylvania voters’ in-person, do-over option when they return a defective mail ballot.
. . .
The order leaves in place a 4-3 ruling from Pennsylvania’s top court that voters can still cast a vote at their polling place on Election Day if their mail-in ballot was rejected for technical reasons, despite a state law saying such votes “shall not be counted” if the mail-in ballot was timely received. The additional option impacts thousands of voters each election cycle." https://www.abc27.com/pennsylvania-politics/supreme-court-turns-away-rnc-challenge-to-pennsylvania-ballot-ruling/
An early May poll commissioned by the American Opportunity Alliance has the Texas incumbent down 17 points.
Below the top-line of Paxton’s 52-percent-to-35-percent advantage, the poll found a clear divide between those voters who were defined as “Trump Movement” voters and those who were “Traditional Republicans.” In the former category, which made up of 58 percent of the electorate, Paxton had a 45-point lead. Among the latter, who made up only 35 percent of voters, Cornyn had a 27-point lead.
The findings reflect a increasingly prominent divide among Republican primary voters in Texas where an insurgent hard-right faction has been steadily gaining ground in recent years while ousting more traditional GOP elected officials. Paxton, who has faced federal investigation and impeachment, has long been a darling of right-wingers in Texas, while Cornyn — first elected to the Senate in 2002 — is considered a pillar of the establishment GOP.
In a speculative three-way race with GOP Rep. Wesley Hunt, who is exploring a bid, the margin barely narrowed with the Cornyn trailing Paxton, 43 percent to 27 percent, with Hunt receiving 14 percent.
Super right-wing group did the poll. But it’s not enough to be garden variety right-wing these days, at least in Texas. You need to be out and out Fascist.
It's incredible how Trump took the libertarianism out of the tea party radicals and turned it into MAGA. Maybe, they weren't libertarians at all, it was but a temporary position as a Black President ran deficits in response to the depression and advocated for the government to solve issues like healthcare.
This is why the attempts to woo working class White voters with economic populism is so difficult. They see government spending as handouts for lazy minorities and they want no part of it.
You're overlooking the point, which is the preference of a majority of white people for a party that doesn't provide more help to everyone, and therefore stiffs the Black people.
After Bessent and Musk exited the Oval Office and began walking down the hallway, the two men started to exchange insults… Bessent brought up Musk’s claims that he would uncover more than $1 trillion in wasteful and fraudulent government spending, which Musk had not succeeded at doing.
Said Bessent: “You’re a fraud. You’re a total fraud.”
Musk then rammed his shoulder into Bessent’s rib cage ‘like a rugby player’ – and Bessent hit him back. Multiple people stepped in to break up the scrum as the two men reached the national security adviser’s office, and Musk was shuffled out of the West Wing.
On the other hand, Bessent accusing Musk of not doing his job uncovering waste is like the Trump Administration is really outsourcing help when it comes to fixing problems instead of working on fixing the problem at hand with inspector generals.
I can only assess how the fallout of relations will end but knowing Musk’s history, he’s going to get more worked up and likely make irrational, shoot from the hip decisions than he’s done before. This will not serve him well. Musk also by contrast to Trump is far more articulate and well read, even if he’s got crazy ideas and aloof to social problems but this image will only get worse for him.
If Musk decides to support Democrats as a matter of revenge, doing so isn’t assured to repair his image.
And Musk had to learn the hard way with his DOGE agenda that Tesla’s profits are going down. If he had smarter political instincts (which he doesn’t), he’d have been apolitical and stay silent with politics. Like Bill Gates.
I say signs of Musk’s credibility was lost ages ago when he decided to get combative towards the SEC. It may have not hurt his stance with Tesla or liberals that much but it shows he has no true understanding of what the public domain in free speech is.
NYC (Republican, unsurprisingly) Councilwoman Vickie Paladino called for Zohran Mamdani to be deported.
“Let’s just talk about how insane it is to elect someone to any major office who hasn’t even been a U.S. citizen for 10 years — much less a radical leftist who actually hates everything about the country and is here specifically to undermine everything we’ve ever been about. Deport.” -- Paladino's comments, per NYT.
Zohran's response:
"Death threats. Islamophobic bigotry. Now a sitting council member calling for my deportation. Enough. This is what Trump and his sycophants have wrought.”
Even if you don't like him, I think calling for Mamdani to be deported for his views is ridiculous.
Why is it so hard for New Yorkers to rank anyone but Cuomo, it's a very ideologically diverse opposition out there and NYC has ranked choice voting. I would not definitely not rank Mamdami first but would vote for him even in a two-way race against Cuomo despite having market-oriented views on issues like housing and groceries. Do people not realize that the NYC city council won't pass his most radical proposals?
Not ranking Mamdani means there's a high chance that you're wasting your vote. It would be similar to voting for Ralph Nader because one didn't like either Bush or Gore.
Is Mamdani cross-endorsing and cooperating with other anti-Cuomo candidates? I ask because I have not been following the nuts and bolts of the NYC campaigns closely.
It's a shame that no other candidate could consolidate the field. Adrienne Adams should've entered way earlier and defined herself. She had to be coaxed by Hochul.
Considering that he's seemingly the leading not-Cuomo candidate by far for the primary, her disgusting comments probably help him at this stage. Anything to bring attention/name recognition to him to help break through the noise.
I absolutely think he could, if the Republicans had a real candidate on the other side. but Sliwa doesn't seem like that. Still, I wouldn't be shocked if it was close between them because you are right, Mamdani is very much not a strong general election candidate.
You mean for Sliwa to run against, not Paladino ? She's not running for mayor unless I missed something.
She could be trying to help who she perceives as the weakest democrat, but she's such a consistent red meat bomb thrower that I feel this is just her typical awfulness being on display.
I don't see why. Queens is the most populous borough of New York, there are plenty of Democrats there, too, and there are plenty of right-wing assholes in other boroughs as well, especially Staten Island and Brooklyn. I'd say it's literally a coincidence.
In my NH town we have a House vacancy that will be filled at the next town meeting. I am probably not running (I ran for the state house in 24). It is a Trump +20 town, and it might be winnable in a low turnout election.
She'll be a fine mayor, not sure what the local establishment is butthurt about. It's probably because she showed up and beat like 3 city council members in the primary, they got their feefee's hurt.
Thank goodness that she won; another round of the Trump realignment, the Democrats' Latino problem and how Talarico, Allred and Virts are going on a fool's errand by the centrist media based on one Mayoral election would have cooked my brain.
Mayor Nirenberg wants to be the Senator of Texas but doesn't have the guts to endorse the Democratic candidate.
If Nirenberg really wants to be Senator then the time to declare is probably now or very soon. But I'm not aware of him having expressed any clear interest in statewide office.
Another recent San Antonio Mayor, Julian Castro, was seen as a potential statewide winner but instead chose to aim higher, running for president. Unfortunately, besides a good debate performance, he not only did not get far (withdrawing before the primaries started) but the liberal stands he took probably ended whatever statewide Texas electoral potential he had.
~54-46 with 64% reporting according to that. A smaller lead than I'd like, but big enough that it is hard to imagine the late counted vote removing her lead.
Ridiculous that so much of the local party tried to kneecap her campaign.
For all the talk about how all politics is polarized and nationalized now, there's no bottom to the amount of local politics that gets decided by personal grievances and petty slights, even if they go against the grain of national trends.
Our city elections are officially non-partisan. The new council will unofficially be 8 Democrats and 2 Republicans (Districts 9 and 10). District 9 is a pickup for Republicans, but not surprising. It was surprising the current councilman, John Courage, held it for so long cause the district is conservative and Courage had run for office numerous times as a Democrat.
This is just the beginning, unfortunately. I used to live near the Home Depot where they conducted one of the raids and it was sickening to watch people treated that way. If Tom Homan wants a fight, he doesn't know LA.
Assuming the worst that Martial Law somehow is declared, I don't see this truly benefitting Trump and his allies. His health is in poor and declining shape and creating more conflict and enemies won't help him. This seems like a convenient distraction from his other true nemesis - Musk deciding to backstab him and try to kill his spending bill. Massive inflation and now if the bill passes, major cuts affecting millions on top of the tariff blowbacks will only get worse on top of his already energized opposition. If Musk is willing to take a jab and turn against Trump, I can easily imagine many more powerful allies, including billionaires and millionaires, soon turning against Trump as the state of the nation worsens. What's happening in LA will only hasten that.
The odd thing about demagogues, be they popular OR otherwise, time and nature tend to catch up with them eventually, if not sooner. Though they share almost nothing in common, Trump and FDR would be be considered demagogues by many. Moreover, both are considered threats to the checks and balances of the US government via abuse of the Presidency and Executive. For FDR, he was literally the reason the 22nd Amendment came about for term limits. But as I said, time and nature have a way of balancing the world. FDR did not finish his 4th term - he passed away thin and frail in 1945 months before WW2's end at the age of 63, thus avoiding a potentially disastrous constitutional crisis amid a major global conflict. Now consider Trump's age and the persistent rumors and observations about his health - he's currently 78, well a decade older than FDR was. Even if Trump tried to declare martial law or run and win a 3rd term, he would be pushing his mid 80s and in declining health, with his poor diet, habits and stress not helping him at all. The cold uncaring forces of Time and Nature would eventually, if not sooner also vanquish his presidency, and thus most of his lingering influence.
I don't understand why you think FDR's death averted a constitutional crisis. I also think comparing a highly responsible leader like FDR with Trump is outrageous and shocking to see on a Democratic site! FDR saved the country from fascism and was almost killed in a fascist coup attempt; Trump is a fascist sociopath who has collaborated with enemies of the United States and caused great and possibly irreparable harm to the country. You could compare them only in regard to arrogation of Executive power and demagogic actions against people on account of their nationality and ethnicity, but the reasons and motivations behind the actions were entirely different. Roosevelt acted to save the country in times of depression and war; Trump is just a megalomaniac. And I say that without attempting to justify Roosevelt's horrible abuse of people of Japanese descent at all. No-one should. But whereas Trump tries to call immigration an invasion, Japan actually -did- invade U.S. territories (most notably the Philippines, regardless of the terrible history of how the U.S. had occupied it originally) and attack others. So not a justification, but context.
Please note that I am very careful in my choice of words for how I chose to color FDR. Not a tyrant, authoritarian or even a politician. No. Demagogue. Demagoguery is a natural consequence and feature of any democracy, be it Ancient Rome or the US or European democracies. I truly think to appreciate the state of the nation you have to look at it through the lens of demagoguery, and especially in the US, that historically has had a history of demagogues. FDR best highlights 1 side of that coin with the positives - the outgoing, charming and popular leader that rallied the public amidst times of trouble and uncertainty, whereas authoritarians and crooks like Trump are almost certainly diametrical opposites. Let's face it - as I said before as popular and effective of a leader, perhaps too effective some may say, a lasting legacy of FDR is the passage of the 22nd Amendment, which was only made possible with support from his own allies in Congress. When I look at the influence of individuals like Trump now, and yes those like Obama, Biden and Sanders, I see the looming shadow of demagoguery for better or worse and we need to learn from it's power. In the simplest of descriptions, democracy truly is at it's core a popularity contest, and those that can manipulate that emotion to their advantage best not only can win elections, but even expand the influence of the President. When I see the gutting of experts and professionals at a federal level and the gutting of education, basic dissent, and the flood of misinformation, I see the worst of demagoguery. But I also seriously realize that to not only win elections, and the win the public and narrative, we can't simply pretend intellectualism is enough nor pretend that issues like inflation and uncertainty now aren't real. We like many care deeply about respecting democracy and those it serves, but we need to temper that better in a manner that can reach everyone, even those we may deem our enemies.
Our institutions are far stronger than Germany’s were in 1933, and Hitler was way more popular than Trump is now. This could easily turn into a 2024 South Korea situation.
The Nazis never won more than 33% of the vote in any free election, so I'm sorry, but Trump is much more popular than Hitler was. As for our institutions, look how much they've already been weakened. Did you expect Musk and his band of young hackers to do so much damage so quickly? And that's only one example.
“Trump praised the National Guard for their work in Los Angeles at immigration protests in his latest Truth Social post. But the 2,000 troops he ordered to the area have yet to arrive. It’s been mostly local law enforcement and some federal agents who have dealt with protesters.”
After this middle of the night lie, Trump said he was banning masks at demonstrations.
I've been hearing that Auchincloss may primary Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts. I think it would be a loss for Democrats since the most educated and liberal state would then be represented by a centrist ideologue and the Senate would also lose a green policy champion. Sen. Markey should not run for reelection to allow some progressive like Michelle Wu enter the field.
What scandal? I also wouldn't assume Markey, who's been a very effective candidate, would lose just because of age, regardless of how good a communicator his opponent is.
I don't see any appreciable number of voters in Massachusetts deciding to vote against Markey because some other aged politician presented some kind of problem to them. Did the voters in Oakland think of Diane Feinstein while voting for Mayor?
Funny/sad thing is if JPK3 had waited one cycle to challenge Markey he'd have way better odds. I think if he had stayed in the house and started a primary challenge now that he'd be the clear favorite.
I think the age thing plus presumably being better at politics would be enough in the six years later scenario.
If he had been smarter in 2020 he might have won then, but his campaign was based on "I'm a Kennedy, the end" which was never going to be sufficient. With RFK Jr tarnishing the family name, as you say, that'd force his team to come up with a better rationale for running and a better appear to primary voters. Voters are also getting more wary of older politicians than they were six years ago, but there needs to be a real challenger they can get behind for that to work. Kennedy, even with his uncle running around with a megaphone being as awful as he can, has the name recognition and cachet that he can clear that hurdle if there's enough elsewhere to sell his campaign.
Could be that he'd still have lost but I think he'd be the favorite if he had been patient.
Well considering that the change would be after 2024, there's been effectively no chances for it to happen yet. I also didn't say that voters are — or soon will once we account for my prior sentence — voting out older incumbents in droves. I said they're more wary of older politicians. Old age can be an opening for an otherwise capable primary challenger to use. It probably will not be enough in and of itself, and I expect most older incumbents to win renomination just fine.
But also, it's not uncommon for candidates to retire rather than face a difficult primary. E.g. we'll never know if that's what happened with Schakowsky or if she'd have retired no matter what.
Mostly provided in my comment to Paleo above, but focusing more specifically...
Markey is six years older and democrats are more worried about age now than they were in 2020. JPK3 would be forced to run a campaign based on more than his last name due to his uncle trying his damned best to ruin said family name.
That his 2020 campaign was basically his last name and little else is, I'd argue, the core of what doomed him then. He failed to learn the lesson of Ted's run for president in 1980. Waiting and running in 2026 probably removes that negative for him, while adding the positive of the primary electorate being far more receptive to replacing an old official with a younger official. All while he'd have six more years of experience under his belt.
Wu is busy running for reelection, and will be until November of this year. She'd have to kick off a senate run right after/before her re-inauguration. It's a horrible look. Plus, like in many states with a primate city, mayor of the largest city in the state is not a great stepping stone for advancement.
I doubt Wu has her sights aimed higher than serving as mayor for as long as she likes. Menino was mayor for 20 years.
Should Markey retire so someone of like-mind can replace him? Yes. Will he? Probably not. Will that person be Wu? Even less likely. If he does it this cycle our best bet is Pressley.
I generally support the idea of Abundance and permitting reform but these Abundists turned out to be people who saw Manchin and Sinema not as a cautionary tale but as a blueprint by applying baseball stats like Wins Above Replacement in elections. Totally out of step of the primary electorate. The "fest" was funded by Hoffman, Bloomberg and Murdoch Jr. They'll keep bashing liberals to alienate us then they'll claim we have been hijacked by "the groups". They seem to be hellbent on reducing the appeal of a powerful manifesto by associating with such obstructionist scolds.
The aggressively centrist types always pop up out of the woodwork with new branding for their terrible ideas whenever we lose an election. Sometimes when we win, too.
"Abundance" initially tried to come across as the idea that we have so much inherent resources that we merely need to utilize them better and can get "free" societal improvements with smarter policy. Not inherently flawed as an agenda. They couldn't even hold out more than a few months (weeks?) before doing an about-face into how the real problem is that the democratic party doesn't cater enough to the large businesses and the wealthy.
I'm sure there's a lot of consultants making bank off them though.
They say that they also support big government and public programs, but they are allying with the fiscally moderate to conservative Blue Dog group and the most centrist and fiscally conservative members of New Democratic Caucus. As has happened before, we are going to get all the deregulation, free trade and austerity without the expansion of the state and safety nets from these politicians which will lead to the rise of another version of Sanders and Trump. The Abundance movement should have become some sort of a nonpartisan enlightened group and movement, above the petty tribal politics of the Democratic party. They have found their champions in tariff loving (not an Abundance policy) Golden, Marie Perez (who has defended local regulations), Torres and folks like Ed Case and Suozzi.
According to them, the Inflation Reduction has simultaneously been a massive failure as nothing has gotten built due to dei contracting requirements in some areas, NEPA environmental reviews, childcare subsidies, and inflation has supposedly increased because of its climate spending (Canada and Australia had higher inflation than us) but it has also been a massive success since the Fiscal Responsiblity Act (passed by Biden) capped the time and length of environmental reviews, has brought thousands of manufacturing jobs and billions of dollars to red rural districts and forgotten parts of the Rust belt which will be stopped in its track by the "Big, beautiful" Bill's repeal of it and DOGE contract cuts.
Let's say that this is true, does that mean that the will of 80-90 percent of the voters of the winning candidate should be ignored?
I think the main flaw is that Abundance thinkers are trying to nationalize its California centrist legislative coalition which is trying to solve California's problems like COI and the exodus but these national centrists are much more conservative and pro-corporate than California's local centrists who would be liberal in any other state.
"Moderate" voters are often best described as people with inconsistent (from a partisan perspective) extreme views. Someone who thinks: minimum wage should go up substantially, abortion should be banned/limited, that we need to address climate change, and that the social safety net is too generous and needs extreme cuts. What party is that person going to vote for? There's no obvious or clear answer. People with views like that make up a lot of our electorates moderates. All with different combinations on those policy topics and many more.
We do not win those people over by offering half measures. They don't want half measures. They want policies that might be called "extreme" but they want that from both the left and the right. Of course there are moderates in the more traditional definition thereof, but they do not make up the bulk of people defined as such. Chasing just that group and pretending we're chasing *everyone* that is on average left of the median republican ideologically is being dishonest with ourselves and is a path to failure.
-----
I was going to edit my original comment to add this in but since we're already a reply in that it's best to put it here... I wouldn't even critique the original Abundance Agenda ideas. Permitting, reviews, zoning rules, etc. are all combining together to make it damn near impossible to do anything. There was an attempt to build 450 MW of offshore wind off the Cape Cod coast in 2001. It was tied up in reviews and litigation for years until the developer gave up in 2017 because they had not been legally allowed to make any progress. California's high speed rail was authorized in 2008, and currently there is no operational systems. Current projections are that a portion of the tracks in the middle, missing both LA and SF that the system is centered on, will start operation in 2031-2033. Chances are that will be delayed too. Essentially every blue city that people really really want to live in (and many that people do not) are chronically under-building housing due to zoning rules.
That latter bit isn't a problem that red states skip either, despite the way it is often covered. Places like Houston or Dallas are struggling to build (further) up just as Boston or SF are; the former instead have the space to build out while the latter do not have that as an option.
All this to say that there is a huge amount of room to fight NIMBYism and over-regulated roadblocks to doing anything and turn that into major policy wins and societal improvements. But the aggressively centrist types have opted to hijack that concept and argue that if we focused our policy agenda on catering to Fortune 500 and top 1% that it would solve all of our problems.
I don't think that any of the policy recommendations are wrong especially for state politicians, but the horses chosen for the national agenda are wrong.
They will use all those points which are good for corporations while throwing gay kids under the bus (of Don't say gay bills), they will reform permitting but I can in no way see Perez like politicians voting for or a President Slotkin (this was actually discussed informally lol) fighting for a tax overhaul to lessen inequality, introduce some balanced regulation in sectors where they are necessary like Crypto and Ai, fund the Green New Deal or toned down versions, a public health insurance system for all, paid family and sick leave etc since they are not "business friendly" policies.
An aggressive transition away from fossil fuels is business friendly. Businesses are going to suffer greatly from the increasing (un)natural disasters the human race is creating.
Also, immigration reform and amnesty would be difficult to pass with them in control, this is something that could heal our country a lot if combined with a strong but humane border policy.
"According to them, the Inflation Reduction has simultaneously been a massive failure as nothing has gotten built due to dei contracting requirements in some areas, NEPA environmental reviews, childcare subsidies, and inflation has supposedly increased because of its climate spending[.]" This is a nefarious lie and among other things, racist, and that's before you get to why they think it's been a success. People making these arguments are literally collaborating with the enemy.
Ever notice the Republicans never have to move to the middle? In fact, they can be just about as far right as they want to be. Maybe because these “moderate Democrats” have helped push the Overton window further and further to the right over the years.
Many republicans are afraid of their primary voters. Too many democrats hold their own primary voters as an unavoidable headache.
There's a lot that goes into why each of those is the case, but that fundamental realization explains a lot of the background for conversations like this one.
Their base is much more uniform, and authoritarian in nature. Mild nudges attempting to get our side to "fall in line" are taken as a personal insult.
Just the nature of our coalition.
I give Trump's people credit on two fronts - 1) They are VERY good at picking at the scabs of our coalition; and 2) I never thought of "unify the crazy people" (of all ideological stripes) as a viable electoral strategy - but they pulled it off.
If you don't bother with the insane impacts to our society and humanity in general? Frees one up to try all kinds of shenanigans.
Other than brief periods here and there, (1932-1968) I feel like it has been. This country fought a revolution because it didn't want to pay taxes. Half of it fought a war to keep slaves. Rugged individualism bs prevails.
And the country wasn’t even semi-progressive for the entire 1932-68 period. After 1938 the only real period of liberal electoral and legislative success was in the mid-60s.
Winning three state presidential elections after ‘38 was nothing to sneeze at. Nor was the high top marginal tax rates and union membership during the entire period.
I'd argue the US wasn't particularly conservative or liberal on the whole in our history predating the Cold War. Once the Cold War started is when the New Deal coalition started to fall apart. The conservative lean itself only starting in earnest once Nixon won with the appeal to the southern conservatives in the wake of the Civil Rights era.
All the years before New Deal era had large seesawing of the government taking on more responsibility and protections for the people, while also putting it off and hoping doing so wouldn't be politically necessary.
The problem isn't Manchin himself. It's them saying everyone needs to be like Manchin, regardless of district. Manchin is their blueprint for the party. What he should be is a blueprint for deep red seats/states where any win at all is incredible.
In the links above there's a slide arguing that AOC is not stronger with Wins Above Replacement than Janelle Stelson, with them comparing candidate performance to Harris' performance in district. Of course Stelson lost, which is hard to argue as a good outcome for democrats. Even by their own metric AOC did do better (6 points over Harris instead of 4 points for Stelson).
The basic idea that we need candidates to shift more moderate for seats as the seat shifts from very blue to light red is not one that I see all that many (... any?) serious people disagree with. They're presenting this concept as some radical idea that no one has ever considered before.
Also, in politics you don't get points for coming close. Stelson lost. I don't know where she actually sat ideologically in 2024, but her losing by 1 point doesn't get us any consolation prizes. We need an actual win for things to have value — calling it "Wins" Above Replacement is rather insulting then, when their preferred example of why they're right is someone who lost.
In the real world I think our blueprint for purple seats/states should be people like Mark Kelly or Raphael Warnock. Candidates in tune with what their electorate wants, who don't go out of their way to piss people off or make waves that endanger their chances at reelection. All while also avoiding becoming a headache for our ability to accomplish things when we hold power.
The idea that Manchin would have won over Hillary Clinton is the most ridiculous as an Abundance writer in Vox proposed. Certainly, he would been much preferable to Trump but what's the use of voting at that point. Practically, it would lead to a huge drop in turnout and a strong third-party candidacy.
They admire Manchin which is the weirdest thing. Manchin was the best WV could give us but even a new Manchin won't win there anymore due to the decline of ticket splitting. The main issue is that trying to run conservative democrats or aggressive centrists rather than mainstream or moderate liberals in swing districts and swing states is a really, really horrible idea which is not going to let us get anything big passed or get the filibuster nuked even after winning a rare trifecta. Once again, we'll remain a party of defending the status quo. People don't understand what the filibuster or a trifecta is, they think that a Democrat won but didn't pass anything so both parties are the same. Politicians like Lieberman, Sinema and Emanuel (his idea of a weak stimulus) are toxic. A major race where it might have worked with a fresh candidate rather than someone with an old brand is moderately red Ohio in 2022 when Tim Ryan lost by 6 points, (Biden lost by 8 in 2020) but we do not know how much of that was due to Vance's lack of charisma and his extremist rhetoric. He was losing the primary before he went to Mar a Lago. Manchin also had a very old and popular personal brand. WV had not yet transitioned away from its ancestral Blue roots. As Manchin says, everybody he knew was a Dem and he couldn't imagine being a Republican.
Joe Manchin is West Virginia material. Best type of Democrat we could have in the Senate after the less conservative Senator Jay Rockefeller retired in 2014.
I honestly think people throw out the term “moderate” without enough thought. Any true moderate is fiscally conservative, socially liberal, much like the late Senator Dianne Feinstein (who was a reliable vote for Democrats on many issues, including when Trump was POTUS in his first term and Biden was POTUS.
Those in the Democratic Party who are moderate liberals tend to be a bit (not substantially more) conservative than hard core liberals. Maybe it’s a matter of perspective?
I think it's just an assumption people make because the establishment media favor that point of view. I seem to recall that the fiscally progressive, culturally conservative point of view is the most common in the U.S., or at least a hell of a lot more common than fiscal elitism (let's call it by its real name) plus social libertarianism/liberalism.
Honestly, this is all completely expected. Every faction/wing of the Democratic Party sees losing to Trump twice as the catalyst for a majority of Democratic primary voters left to right being open to their pitch/ideology of what Democrats need to do to win again irrespective of their own policy views. Which to be fair, is absolutely true, so I get why each group is trying to move the party in their preferred direction right now.
The centrists, populists, youths, progressives, minorities, old guard and every other party group thinks that right now is their best opportunity to win over everyone else. We’re literally for the next 4 years just going through what Republicans did for the 2016 cycle when every GOP faction thought after Obama, they were the ones to lead the party to victory again at a time Republicans feared the “emerging majority” meant they’d never win a presidential election again, leading them to decide an outsider former Democrat could win.
Had Obama lost in 2012, Trump never would have been president, but the GOP were so sure Romney would win that year, it was a massive emotional gut punch to their party and their voters when they lost, which allowed primary voters to shake their own ideology and search for the one candidate to put their party back in power again regardless of who that was. I’m sure I’m not the only one who remembers how many social conservative groups were outraged by Trump’s views at the time.
This is a good thing and is what is necessary to put Democrats back into power. May the most persuasive pitch/faction win and lead us back to victory. On a personal note I’m 100% behind the popularists advocating moving left on economic issues. I think they are the key to winning, but I know many here disagree, so to each their own and regardless at the end of these 4 years of fighting (this is happening, get used to it), we should have a far stronger party than we’ve ever had before.
I hope you're right, and I hope there will still be an opportunity to peacefully transfer power to a Democratic candidate who is able to duly win a vote.
I don't see any reason why there wouldn't be. Elections are run by the states and ultimately certified by Congress. There's not much Trump can do to stay in power if he wants to.
That's not clear. Can he put the country under martial law, dare the courts to levy their own military when they try to overrule it, etc.? We're going to have a bumpy ride.
Yes, but certainly parts of the department almost certainly are not (CBP, ICE), or should be in other departments (FEMA).
Ideally, the Department of Homeland Security would take parts of the FBI from the Justice Department (anything having to do with combating terrorism), The Secret Service from the Treasury Department, and would keep the TSA.
Why? Terrorism is a type of crime. I don't see why the FBI can't combat it, along with other branches of government that existed in 2001. It's not that there weren't warnings; it's that the Bush Administration was determined to ignore everything the Clinton Administration people warned him about. That's why the system didn't work. Not because there was no Department of Homeland Security.
The Bush Administration ignored those warnings due their own political goals-that doesn't really change the fact that a department of homeland security is needed in some form-most European Democracies have some version of it, for instance.
What's the deal with San Antonio mayor?
In terms of what? It was covered in the digest yesterday. Deplorable (in)actions by many Democrats including the incumbent mayor. Democrats just shouldn't do this shit when the Republican Party is fascist and an out-and-out criminal, actively subversive organization.
I too have been pondering San Antonio’s weird resistance to the Democratic candidate for mayor, Gina Ortiz Jones.
Two sentences jumped out at me in this Morning Digest. First, "Jones…joked about her "resting bitch face."" (Who the hell talks like that??)
Second, and more substantively: "What accounts for [Gina Ortiz] Jones' weakness? Andrea Drusch writes in the San Antonio Report that many local power players believe that the Democrat, who is relatively new to city politics, would represent an unwelcome change."
Following the Digest’s link, here are excerpts from Drush’s article:
"Jones’ general governing perspective hasn’t always lined up with the city’s power structures, complicating her efforts while campaigning across dozens of candidate forums.
"Perhaps most notably, Jones came into the race railing against a $4 billion downtown redevelopment project known as Project Marvel, which she framed as a handout for Spurs owners and a transparency failure for city leaders working on it behind closed doors.
"She’s called for the city to invest in people instead of projects through expanded Pre-K programs, job training and affordable housing."
I found that more telling.
Jones is a lesbian. I also don't think that they have been cool to her for the length of the race because of a recent event.
Aaron mentioned a recent news story. I was saying that I don't think they have been cool to her for the length of the race because of a recent story.
First off, isn’t Ortiz a Latina sounding name?
I find it odd Gina Ortiz Jones is Filipino considering this. Then again, perhaps there’s something I don’t know about Filipino culture when it comes to names!
400 years of Spanish rule, they adopted spanish names.
Ok. Point well made!
I shall familiarize myself more with the history.
Yes, not to mention paella is huge there.
As Kevin points out, a longtime Spanish colony. In fact, the Philippines itself was named after King Philip II of Spain.
Eh, I've met a lot of people who joke about their resting bitch face. It's hard because some people (mostly women) get unfairly branded as unfriendly or unlikeable, so they have to joke about it to make it seem like they're in on the joke, but it's kind of a no-win situation. It's a tricky gender dynamic that a lot of female politicians have to deal with and I don't blame her for struggling with.
Thanks! I’m clearly behind the times. For instance, having reached two-thirds of a century, I still react to "Ask" used as a noun, e.g. "That’s a big ask." (What in the world happened to a good old-fashioned "request"??) Well, I suppose someone else might applaud this as evolution of language with the words "That’s a good get." Sigh!
That sounds like a good position from her.
She sounds great. Glad to see she’s won.
Who's everyone's member of congress and what are your thoughts about them? I'm in Casar's district in Texas. I'm not crazy about having a DSA dem but he doesn't seem to be to out there with his rhetoric. I'm ok with him but he doesn't seem to visit my community much.
Ours is Jared Golden. He can be annoying as hell, but I’m still glad he unseated Bruce Poliquin. Worth noting is that Jared Golden almost lost reelection last time – a key reason being that he proposed sensible gun control after that horrible mass shooting in his native Lewiston. Golden is probably the best we can do in ME-02.
My Rep is Jared Moskowitz. He’s very good debating with the MAGA’s in Congress but we haven’t seen him in person since he was elected. There’s a lot of frustration with him in his part of Palm Beach County.
Moskowitz really looked stupid when he started calling President Biden out for removing Cuba as a country that was a designated state sponsor of terrorism, even though this was an issue the Catholic Church was involved with.
Unfortunately, I’m stuck with Mike Lawler. Contrary to his claims of bipartisanship, his voting record is abominable. Hopefully we will be able to replace him in 2026.
Im guessing we need to take back these districts if we have any hope of winning the house. He's beatable but hopefully he runs for governor and loses.
Mike Lawler had originally unseated Sean Patrick Maloney in NY-18 although unseating him isn’t improbable as this is a Lean Democrat District.
Harris won NY-17 last fall, and even if Lawler decides to run for another term in the House, the seat is very likely to flip, IMO.
Before she was elected as Mayor of Oakland in the special election last April, Barbara Lee was my representative in the House for decades for CA-12. High approval ratings and got re-elected with a high percentage of the votes (last re-election win was by 90+%). She’s always been legendary with her anti-war votes and has very good political instincts.
That said, I will admit that while it’s only been a few months since Lateefah Simon has taken over in representing CA-12, she has become active in organizing local events. I don’t know when the last time Lee organized one in Berkeley (where I live) but nevertheless, this is good to know.
Dan Goldman. I didn't vote for him for the open seat in the last cycle because he opposes single-payer, such a self-evidently logical system no Democrat should oppose, especially in such a liberal district, but I believe he won because he was an impeachment prosecutor, and he's done well in his continuing role as such in Congress. I feel like, especially lately, all his emails are begs for money, but I'm sure he'll win reelection, in any case.
But he's a member of the progressive caucus? I thought they had medicare purity tests.
I didn't know he was a member of that. I'm also unaware that he ever announced a change of mind about that.
Was Dan Goldman specifically against single-payer option or a public healthcare option in general?
I recall President Biden years ago before he was elected POTUS was open to a public healthcare system but not specifically a single-payer one.
I did a search, and this doesn't seem so bad: https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2022/08/mondaire-jones-critiques-dan-goldmans-moderate-stance-health-care-reform/375260/ I still wanted a more progressive, socialist-adjacent Representative in this district, but Goldman's position seems reasonable and appears to have been better than I remembered.
Read the article myself as well.
Looks like Goldman is for a public healthcare system but not specifically Medicare-For-All.
Honestly, reforming healthcare is an extremely complicated and complex process. If the U.S. is going to have its own public healthcare system that takes care of those who can’t afford it through private healthcare insurance, better work to make it right so it gets better and better overtime.
George Joseph "Mike" Kelly, PA-16. He's gross.
I worked on Ron DiNicola's campaign back in 2018. I wish he would have leaned more into attacking him as a used car salesman.
Thanks for fighting the good fight! Ron came much closer than I ever expected.
Maggie Goodlander.
She's on her first term and I haven't seen much of her. I did get a voicemail from her office early on where they were setting up a phone town hall to ask her questions as everything started to go to shit. I had to work when that was happening so I didn't call in but I thought that was a nice touch.
Otherwise I haven't seen anything to make me think about her one way or the other. Since it's NH inevitably anyone representing me is going to be far more moderate than I'd like.
Lily Tang Williams (R) is strangely popular in NH-02 after viral debate last year and her backstory and is seeking a rematch.
Should Democrats be worried?!
Have polls shown her to be popular?
I certainly didn't expect her to get 47% - 53%. 2024 was the first election cycle since when NH-02 voted to the right of NH-01 (54% - 46%)? 💙🇺🇲
I've never seen any indication that Williams is popular. She ran a few campaigns before 2024 but never made it through the primary before. She won the 2024 primary then lost the general election by six points in an open D+2 seat.
In 2026 the political environment should favor us, Goodlander will be the incumbent, and Williams will be most recently known for having lost her prior election. It should go better for us.
It's always worth having some level of caution in a state as fickle as NH, but nothing right now warrants atypical levels of worry.
Herb Conaway, Andy Kim’s successor. Decent, low key.
Marie Perez….she’s tried to stay hyper-fixated on local, small-ball issues and constituent service, yet she rightfully got tons of flak for her vote for the “SAVE Act.” Still, for us, she’s probably the best this district can elect at this time. Vancouver, WA is light-blue but the surrounding counties are full of blood-red maga freaks.
Emanuel Cleaver, he's 80 years old now but probably won't attract a strong primary because he's been a fixture in the community for so long. I wasn't around when he was mayor of Kansas City, but most people seem to think he did a good job. The only people I've seen complain about him are Republicans.
April McClain Delaney. Solid, reliable normie Dem freshman, as were her husband and David Trone--though unlike them I don't see her leaving for higher office soon. (She's not gonna run a quixotic presidential campaign and neither Senate seat is likely to be open soon.)
Sydney Kamlager-Dove. She is both a member of the Black and Progressive Caucus and also Vice-Chair of the Equal Rights Amendment Caucus. I have yet to go to a town hall but she's a good one.
I used to live in Jimmy Gomez's district (And had Xavier Becerra before him) before I moved to Brad Sherman's district. Massive downgrade. Hoping for a decent primary challenger next year.
Brad Sherman has his good and bad points, but at least he lives in "the best named community in the U.S.A., Sherman Oaks CA". He needs some new jokes for sure.
After my parents died I moved out of that area and now live farther east in the SFValley, in North Hollywood. I have a new Representative this year, Luz Rivas, who was previously a CA Assemblymember. I was out of town when she did her first town hall but she has done a good job of reporting back to the district with regular email newsletters. She is better than her predecessor Tony Cardenas. Just east of here in the Burbank-Glendale-Hollywood district (CA-30) there is also a new Rep. Laura Friedman also was in the Assembly,and has now replaced Adam Schiff in the House. It is good to see our local delegation get younger and more female.
I live in NYC for law school and my rep is Espaillat who seems cool, I vote at my mom's home in Fresno for Jim Costa, who is fine but needs to retire imo. he could run for Mayor if he wants a career capper since he lost AG Chair.
Kim Schrier. She’s pretty solid and fits WA-8 quite well
VA R internal Sears seriously down https://x.com/samshirazim/status/1931358600900829449?s=61&t=5copDbz1aPl7ASsRCUclLg
Pretty expected. She still can't get over the fact that Virginia supports lgbtq and abortion rights and has the charisma of a rock. Also, Biden isn't the President anymore and Virginia is blue state.
She will have a harder time fooling people into thinking she's a "moderate" than Youngkin did. She lacks his "aw shucks" persona. Big time.
It isn’t just that she can’t be another Youngkin. It’s that she really doesn’t have the ability to emphasize and show she cares about Virginians, especially those who are angry at Elon Musk and Trump.
That’s an unfair comparison! My daughter has a fine rock collection – and I would argue some of those rocks have considerable charisma.
We in Virginia like our politics to be milquetoast
Not to mention with milk & toast.
Except for maybe a few western states like Wyoming, you'll never find a state more allergic to populism than Virginia.
I don't get your comment about Wyoming, but please clarify. I think it's absurd to call Trump and his collaborators and imitators "populist", but many people do and Wyoming certainly supports him and them big-time. Who are you considering a populist?
William Jennings Bryan and Bernie Sanders types. I picked Wyoming because it is VERY Libertarian. Essentially the antithesis of populism.
Are there any William Jennings Bryan types today? Who would be closest?
Good! Good!
And the best part: Sears is doing absolutely NOTHING to change course in her campaign and shows she gives a damn.
Abigail Spanberger’s looking better every day.
The biggest fear here in Virginia in November is low turnout. Taking nothing for granted.
Yeah, agreed! I wouldn’t take anything for granted either, especially with Terry McAuliffe losing to Governor Glenn Youngkin back in 2021.
It looks like she is doing about as well as the other Sears right now.
PA Election Law: Good news.
"The Supreme Court on Friday turned away the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) bid to block Pennsylvania voters’ in-person, do-over option when they return a defective mail ballot.
. . .
The order leaves in place a 4-3 ruling from Pennsylvania’s top court that voters can still cast a vote at their polling place on Election Day if their mail-in ballot was rejected for technical reasons, despite a state law saying such votes “shall not be counted” if the mail-in ballot was timely received. The additional option impacts thousands of voters each election cycle." https://www.abc27.com/pennsylvania-politics/supreme-court-turns-away-rnc-challenge-to-pennsylvania-ballot-ruling/
Would it kill the PA GOP to actually show they care about voters and want to make a difference for Pennsylvanians?
Come on GOP! /s
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/07/john-cornyn-ken-paxton-poll-trump-movement-00393045
‘Trump movement’ turns on Cornyn, poll finds
An early May poll commissioned by the American Opportunity Alliance has the Texas incumbent down 17 points.
Below the top-line of Paxton’s 52-percent-to-35-percent advantage, the poll found a clear divide between those voters who were defined as “Trump Movement” voters and those who were “Traditional Republicans.” In the former category, which made up of 58 percent of the electorate, Paxton had a 45-point lead. Among the latter, who made up only 35 percent of voters, Cornyn had a 27-point lead.
The findings reflect a increasingly prominent divide among Republican primary voters in Texas where an insurgent hard-right faction has been steadily gaining ground in recent years while ousting more traditional GOP elected officials. Paxton, who has faced federal investigation and impeachment, has long been a darling of right-wingers in Texas, while Cornyn — first elected to the Senate in 2002 — is considered a pillar of the establishment GOP.
In a speculative three-way race with GOP Rep. Wesley Hunt, who is exploring a bid, the margin barely narrowed with the Cornyn trailing Paxton, 43 percent to 27 percent, with Hunt receiving 14 percent.
No amount of extremism can satisfy MAGA.
Super right-wing group did the poll. But it’s not enough to be garden variety right-wing these days, at least in Texas. You need to be out and out Fascist.
It's incredible how Trump took the libertarianism out of the tea party radicals and turned it into MAGA. Maybe, they weren't libertarians at all, it was but a temporary position as a Black President ran deficits in response to the depression and advocated for the government to solve issues like healthcare.
Exactly. Just as Reagan's tax cuts were all about sticking it to Black people: Atwater said so.
This is why the attempts to woo working class White voters with economic populism is so difficult. They see government spending as handouts for lazy minorities and they want no part of it.
Unless such voters are able to actually benefit economically, it’s more of a challenge for Democrats to win them over.
You're overlooking the point, which is the preference of a majority of white people for a party that doesn't provide more help to everyone, and therefore stiffs the Black people.
Former Ron Paul guys are some of the most zealous MAGAs and have been for some time
MUSK’s FIGHT WITH BESSENT TURNED PHYSICAL
After Bessent and Musk exited the Oval Office and began walking down the hallway, the two men started to exchange insults… Bessent brought up Musk’s claims that he would uncover more than $1 trillion in wasteful and fraudulent government spending, which Musk had not succeeded at doing.
Said Bessent: “You’re a fraud. You’re a total fraud.”
Musk then rammed his shoulder into Bessent’s rib cage ‘like a rugby player’ – and Bessent hit him back. Multiple people stepped in to break up the scrum as the two men reached the national security adviser’s office, and Musk was shuffled out of the West Wing.
https://politicalwire.com/2025/06/07/elon-musks-fight-with-scott-bessent-turned-physical/
This is certainly not going to end well for Musk.
On the other hand, Bessent accusing Musk of not doing his job uncovering waste is like the Trump Administration is really outsourcing help when it comes to fixing problems instead of working on fixing the problem at hand with inspector generals.
Your prediction of how it ends for him?
I can only assess how the fallout of relations will end but knowing Musk’s history, he’s going to get more worked up and likely make irrational, shoot from the hip decisions than he’s done before. This will not serve him well. Musk also by contrast to Trump is far more articulate and well read, even if he’s got crazy ideas and aloof to social problems but this image will only get worse for him.
If Musk decides to support Democrats as a matter of revenge, doing so isn’t assured to repair his image.
Oh no, it shouldn't, and what he did as an unofficial government employee is undoubtedly criminal if the courts functioned properly.
Yeah, you’re right.
And Musk had to learn the hard way with his DOGE agenda that Tesla’s profits are going down. If he had smarter political instincts (which he doesn’t), he’d have been apolitical and stay silent with politics. Like Bill Gates.
I say signs of Musk’s credibility was lost ages ago when he decided to get combative towards the SEC. It may have not hurt his stance with Tesla or liberals that much but it shows he has no true understanding of what the public domain in free speech is.
Not exactly new news but whatever you think of Zohran Mamdani, this is just deranged (also paywalled, it's the NYT):
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/03/nyregion/mamdani-deport-paladino.html
NYC (Republican, unsurprisingly) Councilwoman Vickie Paladino called for Zohran Mamdani to be deported.
“Let’s just talk about how insane it is to elect someone to any major office who hasn’t even been a U.S. citizen for 10 years — much less a radical leftist who actually hates everything about the country and is here specifically to undermine everything we’ve ever been about. Deport.” -- Paladino's comments, per NYT.
Zohran's response:
"Death threats. Islamophobic bigotry. Now a sitting council member calling for my deportation. Enough. This is what Trump and his sycophants have wrought.”
Even if you don't like him, I think calling for Mamdani to be deported for his views is ridiculous.
Why is it so hard for New Yorkers to rank anyone but Cuomo, it's a very ideologically diverse opposition out there and NYC has ranked choice voting. I would not definitely not rank Mamdami first but would vote for him even in a two-way race against Cuomo despite having market-oriented views on issues like housing and groceries. Do people not realize that the NYC city council won't pass his most radical proposals?
I don’t know if I’d rank either Cuomo or Mamdani at all if I were a NYC voter.
Lander, Stringer, Myrie, Adrienne Adams, and Ramos are fine with me, though I don’t know in which order.
Ramos endorsed Cuomo, right? If so, she gets no vote from me.
Isn't she known as a leftie, i'm surprised she endorsed Cuomo
I’m sure she sold out for the promise of an appointed position in a Cuomo administration.
True this is NY or she's seeing strong support for Cuomo in her district
I was shocked, too. It shows that her leftiness is all an act, don't you think?
Ehh, that's why i think maybe she's seeing strong Cuomo support in her hispanic district, same reason Goldman supported a leftie, self preservation.
Not ranking Mamdani means there's a high chance that you're wasting your vote. It would be similar to voting for Ralph Nader because one didn't like either Bush or Gore.
Is Mamdani cross-endorsing and cooperating with other anti-Cuomo candidates? I ask because I have not been following the nuts and bolts of the NYC campaigns closely.
Yes all except Ramos.
Well, that's good.
Unfortunately, ranking him is also highly likely to be a waste.
It's a shame that no other candidate could consolidate the field. Adrienne Adams should've entered way earlier and defined herself. She had to be coaxed by Hochul.
Considering that he's seemingly the leading not-Cuomo candidate by far for the primary, her disgusting comments probably help him at this stage. Anything to bring attention/name recognition to him to help break through the noise.
Clearly not her intent.
Don't be sure of that. She may hope she has an extreme opponent she has a chance to defeat in the general election.
Cant stand Cuomo but Mamdani is definitely the weaker candidate in the general, not that he would actually lose, especially if the vote is split
He could lose a general election. This is the same city that elected Giuliani twice and Bloomberg three times.
I absolutely think he could, if the Republicans had a real candidate on the other side. but Sliwa doesn't seem like that. Still, I wouldn't be shocked if it was close between them because you are right, Mamdani is very much not a strong general election candidate.
You heard it here first: perennial candidate Sliwa could beat Mamdani.
You mean for Sliwa to run against, not Paladino ? She's not running for mayor unless I missed something.
She could be trying to help who she perceives as the weakest democrat, but she's such a consistent red meat bomb thrower that I feel this is just her typical awfulness being on display.
More than ridiculous, it's obscene, repugnant, infuriating and unacceptable.
It’s not a coincidence that both she and Trump come from Queens.
I don't see why. Queens is the most populous borough of New York, there are plenty of Democrats there, too, and there are plenty of right-wing assholes in other boroughs as well, especially Staten Island and Brooklyn. I'd say it's literally a coincidence.
In my NH town we have a House vacancy that will be filled at the next town meeting. I am probably not running (I ran for the state house in 24). It is a Trump +20 town, and it might be winnable in a low turnout election.
San Antonio Mayor
Early vote is in with GOJ leading by 4,782 votes
Gina Ortiz Jones 52.33% (53,645 votes)
Rolando Pablos 47.67% (48,863 votes)
Looking at the first round back in May, Ortiz Jones gained 9300 votes on Election day versus Pablos who gained 6300.
She'll be a fine mayor, not sure what the local establishment is butthurt about. It's probably because she showed up and beat like 3 city council members in the primary, they got their feefee's hurt.
Sorry 5 city council members
San Antonio Mayor
First batch of Election Day results have reported
GOJ now leads by 7,653 votes
Gina Ortiz Jones 53.44% (59,517 votes)
Rolando Pablos 46.56% (51,864 votes)
46 out of 182 vote centers have reported or 25%.
San Antonio Mayor
92 out of 182 vote centers reporting or 50.5%
GOJ now leads by 8,701 votes
Gina Ortiz Jones 53.66% (63,856)
Roland Pablos 46.34% (55,155)
San Antonio Mayor
71% reporting
GOJ leads by 9,938
Gina Ortiz Jones 53.95% (67,923 votes)
Rolando Pablos 46.05% (57,985)
San Antonio Mayor
100% reporting
GOJ wins by 12,282 votes
GOJ 54.3% vs. Pablos 45.7%
Decision Desk calls SA Mayor for Gina Ortiz Jones https://decisiondeskhq.com/results/2025/General/Texas/counties/Bexar
Thank goodness! I'd like to see some kind of consequences for the Democratic politicians who tried to sabotage her campaign.
Thank goodness that she won; another round of the Trump realignment, the Democrats' Latino problem and how Talarico, Allred and Virts are going on a fool's errand by the centrist media based on one Mayoral election would have cooked my brain.
Mayor Nirenberg wants to be the Senator of Texas but doesn't have the guts to endorse the Democratic candidate.
No Democrat should support him for anything again.
If Nirenberg really wants to be Senator then the time to declare is probably now or very soon. But I'm not aware of him having expressed any clear interest in statewide office.
Another recent San Antonio Mayor, Julian Castro, was seen as a potential statewide winner but instead chose to aim higher, running for president. Unfortunately, besides a good debate performance, he not only did not get far (withdrawing before the primaries started) but the liberal stands he took probably ended whatever statewide Texas electoral potential he had.
~54-46 with 64% reporting according to that. A smaller lead than I'd like, but big enough that it is hard to imagine the late counted vote removing her lead.
Ridiculous that so much of the local party tried to kneecap her campaign.
For all the talk about how all politics is polarized and nationalized now, there's no bottom to the amount of local politics that gets decided by personal grievances and petty slights, even if they go against the grain of national trends.
Decision Desk has also called:
– #1 for Sukh Kaur
– #4 for Edward Mungia
– #8 for Ivalis Gonzalez
– #9 for Misty Spears
(#6 too close to call, with margin of 66 voters. Only 5% of precincts reported.)
Who are these people? San Antonio City Council members?
San Antonio City Council members
All Democrats, I assume. Any flips?
Strangely enough I don’t see a party ID. I presume David & Jeff will have a good write-up tomorrow in their Morning Digest.
Our city elections are officially non-partisan. The new council will unofficially be 8 Democrats and 2 Republicans (Districts 9 and 10). District 9 is a pickup for Republicans, but not surprising. It was surprising the current councilman, John Courage, held it for so long cause the district is conservative and Courage had run for office numerous times as a Democrat.
Looks like Los Angeles is erupting with protests and clash with the National Guard. This can't end well for anyone.
This is just the beginning, unfortunately. I used to live near the Home Depot where they conducted one of the raids and it was sickening to watch people treated that way. If Tom Homan wants a fight, he doesn't know LA.
Assuming the worst that Martial Law somehow is declared, I don't see this truly benefitting Trump and his allies. His health is in poor and declining shape and creating more conflict and enemies won't help him. This seems like a convenient distraction from his other true nemesis - Musk deciding to backstab him and try to kill his spending bill. Massive inflation and now if the bill passes, major cuts affecting millions on top of the tariff blowbacks will only get worse on top of his already energized opposition. If Musk is willing to take a jab and turn against Trump, I can easily imagine many more powerful allies, including billionaires and millionaires, soon turning against Trump as the state of the nation worsens. What's happening in LA will only hasten that.
May the end of the Trump regime start in LA tonight.
The odd thing about demagogues, be they popular OR otherwise, time and nature tend to catch up with them eventually, if not sooner. Though they share almost nothing in common, Trump and FDR would be be considered demagogues by many. Moreover, both are considered threats to the checks and balances of the US government via abuse of the Presidency and Executive. For FDR, he was literally the reason the 22nd Amendment came about for term limits. But as I said, time and nature have a way of balancing the world. FDR did not finish his 4th term - he passed away thin and frail in 1945 months before WW2's end at the age of 63, thus avoiding a potentially disastrous constitutional crisis amid a major global conflict. Now consider Trump's age and the persistent rumors and observations about his health - he's currently 78, well a decade older than FDR was. Even if Trump tried to declare martial law or run and win a 3rd term, he would be pushing his mid 80s and in declining health, with his poor diet, habits and stress not helping him at all. The cold uncaring forces of Time and Nature would eventually, if not sooner also vanquish his presidency, and thus most of his lingering influence.
"It's the economy, stupid"
If Trump had a good economic policy, the median American voter would digest all his demogoguery with ease.
Yes, and that should frighten us all.
I don't understand why you think FDR's death averted a constitutional crisis. I also think comparing a highly responsible leader like FDR with Trump is outrageous and shocking to see on a Democratic site! FDR saved the country from fascism and was almost killed in a fascist coup attempt; Trump is a fascist sociopath who has collaborated with enemies of the United States and caused great and possibly irreparable harm to the country. You could compare them only in regard to arrogation of Executive power and demagogic actions against people on account of their nationality and ethnicity, but the reasons and motivations behind the actions were entirely different. Roosevelt acted to save the country in times of depression and war; Trump is just a megalomaniac. And I say that without attempting to justify Roosevelt's horrible abuse of people of Japanese descent at all. No-one should. But whereas Trump tries to call immigration an invasion, Japan actually -did- invade U.S. territories (most notably the Philippines, regardless of the terrible history of how the U.S. had occupied it originally) and attack others. So not a justification, but context.
Please note that I am very careful in my choice of words for how I chose to color FDR. Not a tyrant, authoritarian or even a politician. No. Demagogue. Demagoguery is a natural consequence and feature of any democracy, be it Ancient Rome or the US or European democracies. I truly think to appreciate the state of the nation you have to look at it through the lens of demagoguery, and especially in the US, that historically has had a history of demagogues. FDR best highlights 1 side of that coin with the positives - the outgoing, charming and popular leader that rallied the public amidst times of trouble and uncertainty, whereas authoritarians and crooks like Trump are almost certainly diametrical opposites. Let's face it - as I said before as popular and effective of a leader, perhaps too effective some may say, a lasting legacy of FDR is the passage of the 22nd Amendment, which was only made possible with support from his own allies in Congress. When I look at the influence of individuals like Trump now, and yes those like Obama, Biden and Sanders, I see the looming shadow of demagoguery for better or worse and we need to learn from it's power. In the simplest of descriptions, democracy truly is at it's core a popularity contest, and those that can manipulate that emotion to their advantage best not only can win elections, but even expand the influence of the President. When I see the gutting of experts and professionals at a federal level and the gutting of education, basic dissent, and the flood of misinformation, I see the worst of demagoguery. But I also seriously realize that to not only win elections, and the win the public and narrative, we can't simply pretend intellectualism is enough nor pretend that issues like inflation and uncertainty now aren't real. We like many care deeply about respecting democracy and those it serves, but we need to temper that better in a manner that can reach everyone, even those we may deem our enemies.
I feel like some Germans would have said the same thing about the Reichstag fire. I'm not making any assumptions.
Our institutions are far stronger than Germany’s were in 1933, and Hitler was way more popular than Trump is now. This could easily turn into a 2024 South Korea situation.
The Nazis never won more than 33% of the vote in any free election, so I'm sorry, but Trump is much more popular than Hitler was. As for our institutions, look how much they've already been weakened. Did you expect Musk and his band of young hackers to do so much damage so quickly? And that's only one example.
You can’t compare Germany’s parliamentary system to America’s two-party presidential system.
Also courts and opposition parties basically surrendered without a fight in Germany. We’re seeing much more pushback against Trump.
“Trump praised the National Guard for their work in Los Angeles at immigration protests in his latest Truth Social post. But the 2,000 troops he ordered to the area have yet to arrive. It’s been mostly local law enforcement and some federal agents who have dealt with protesters.”
After this middle of the night lie, Trump said he was banning masks at demonstrations.
TACO always lies.
Not getting it.
Trump always lies. Remember that TACO acronym the WSJ talked about regarding him chickening out on tariffs?
No.
Trump Always Chickens Out = TACO
Because be announces tariffs then backs down. Nickname came from a conservative but not Trumpist Republican/Conservative
I see. Clever, but I think those cycles of apparent craziness on tariffs are grifts.
I've been hearing that Auchincloss may primary Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts. I think it would be a loss for Democrats since the most educated and liberal state would then be represented by a centrist ideologue and the Senate would also lose a green policy champion. Sen. Markey should not run for reelection to allow some progressive like Michelle Wu enter the field.
Why are you assuming Markey would lose? And would Wu want to resign as Mayor of Boston?
He's almost 79 with the Biden scandal fresh in voters minds and Auchincloss is a good speaker.
What scandal? I also wouldn't assume Markey, who's been a very effective candidate, would lose just because of age, regardless of how good a communicator his opponent is.
Is Markey the longest serving member of congress? If not he's close. I think he had an afro when he first got there.
He's second to Chuck Grassley, who was first elected to the House in 1974 and Senate in 1980. (And first to public office--the Iowa House--in 1958.)
He probably means the controversy over Biden's age, ability, and alleged coverup of it as he sought reelection.
One positive side effect of the Musk/Trump dustup is that there's been much less Biden talk, even as Jake Tapper pimps his book.
I don't see any appreciable number of voters in Massachusetts deciding to vote against Markey because some other aged politician presented some kind of problem to them. Did the voters in Oakland think of Diane Feinstein while voting for Mayor?
Markey’s out there in public, participating in hearings, making speeches, etc. No comparison to Biden.
Funny/sad thing is if JPK3 had waited one cycle to challenge Markey he'd have way better odds. I think if he had stayed in the house and started a primary challenge now that he'd be the clear favorite.
Don’t agree. Especially with his uncle tarnishing the family name.
I think the age thing plus presumably being better at politics would be enough in the six years later scenario.
If he had been smarter in 2020 he might have won then, but his campaign was based on "I'm a Kennedy, the end" which was never going to be sufficient. With RFK Jr tarnishing the family name, as you say, that'd force his team to come up with a better rationale for running and a better appear to primary voters. Voters are also getting more wary of older politicians than they were six years ago, but there needs to be a real challenger they can get behind for that to work. Kennedy, even with his uncle running around with a megaphone being as awful as he can, has the name recognition and cachet that he can clear that hurdle if there's enough elsewhere to sell his campaign.
Could be that he'd still have lost but I think he'd be the favorite if he had been patient.
We'll have to agree to disagree. What's the evidence that elderly incumbents are being primaried out in droves?
Well considering that the change would be after 2024, there's been effectively no chances for it to happen yet. I also didn't say that voters are — or soon will once we account for my prior sentence — voting out older incumbents in droves. I said they're more wary of older politicians. Old age can be an opening for an otherwise capable primary challenger to use. It probably will not be enough in and of itself, and I expect most older incumbents to win renomination just fine.
But also, it's not uncommon for candidates to retire rather than face a difficult primary. E.g. we'll never know if that's what happened with Schakowsky or if she'd have retired no matter what.
Yep. No Kennedys, ever again. Frankly, the whole concept of "Camelot" always made me cringe a little. Too royalty-adjacent.
America doesn't need "magic" family names.
He'd be a favorite based on what?
Mostly provided in my comment to Paleo above, but focusing more specifically...
Markey is six years older and democrats are more worried about age now than they were in 2020. JPK3 would be forced to run a campaign based on more than his last name due to his uncle trying his damned best to ruin said family name.
That his 2020 campaign was basically his last name and little else is, I'd argue, the core of what doomed him then. He failed to learn the lesson of Ted's run for president in 1980. Waiting and running in 2026 probably removes that negative for him, while adding the positive of the primary electorate being far more receptive to replacing an old official with a younger official. All while he'd have six more years of experience under his belt.
Wu is busy running for reelection, and will be until November of this year. She'd have to kick off a senate run right after/before her re-inauguration. It's a horrible look. Plus, like in many states with a primate city, mayor of the largest city in the state is not a great stepping stone for advancement.
I doubt Wu has her sights aimed higher than serving as mayor for as long as she likes. Menino was mayor for 20 years.
Should Markey retire so someone of like-mind can replace him? Yes. Will he? Probably not. Will that person be Wu? Even less likely. If he does it this cycle our best bet is Pressley.
If JFK III couldn’t beat him in a primary. Auchincloss won’t. Regardless of age.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/1l3so4s/highlights_from_welcomefest_the_largest_public/
https://www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/what-is-centrism
I generally support the idea of Abundance and permitting reform but these Abundists turned out to be people who saw Manchin and Sinema not as a cautionary tale but as a blueprint by applying baseball stats like Wins Above Replacement in elections. Totally out of step of the primary electorate. The "fest" was funded by Hoffman, Bloomberg and Murdoch Jr. They'll keep bashing liberals to alienate us then they'll claim we have been hijacked by "the groups". They seem to be hellbent on reducing the appeal of a powerful manifesto by associating with such obstructionist scolds.
The aggressively centrist types always pop up out of the woodwork with new branding for their terrible ideas whenever we lose an election. Sometimes when we win, too.
"Abundance" initially tried to come across as the idea that we have so much inherent resources that we merely need to utilize them better and can get "free" societal improvements with smarter policy. Not inherently flawed as an agenda. They couldn't even hold out more than a few months (weeks?) before doing an about-face into how the real problem is that the democratic party doesn't cater enough to the large businesses and the wealthy.
I'm sure there's a lot of consultants making bank off them though.
They say that they also support big government and public programs, but they are allying with the fiscally moderate to conservative Blue Dog group and the most centrist and fiscally conservative members of New Democratic Caucus. As has happened before, we are going to get all the deregulation, free trade and austerity without the expansion of the state and safety nets from these politicians which will lead to the rise of another version of Sanders and Trump. The Abundance movement should have become some sort of a nonpartisan enlightened group and movement, above the petty tribal politics of the Democratic party. They have found their champions in tariff loving (not an Abundance policy) Golden, Marie Perez (who has defended local regulations), Torres and folks like Ed Case and Suozzi.
According to them, the Inflation Reduction has simultaneously been a massive failure as nothing has gotten built due to dei contracting requirements in some areas, NEPA environmental reviews, childcare subsidies, and inflation has supposedly increased because of its climate spending (Canada and Australia had higher inflation than us) but it has also been a massive success since the Fiscal Responsiblity Act (passed by Biden) capped the time and length of environmental reviews, has brought thousands of manufacturing jobs and billions of dollars to red rural districts and forgotten parts of the Rust belt which will be stopped in its track by the "Big, beautiful" Bill's repeal of it and DOGE contract cuts.
Marie G Perez says that the median American is a Blue Dog so Democrats should be like Blue Dogs. It actually is not: in Ezra Klein's own words 11 years ago, "When we say moderate what we really mean is what corporations want" and "The deeper point here is that the idea of the moderate middle is bullshit" https://www.vox.com/2014/7/8/5878293/lets-stop-using-the-word-moderate and another study https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-a-myth/.
Let's say that this is true, does that mean that the will of 80-90 percent of the voters of the winning candidate should be ignored?
I think the main flaw is that Abundance thinkers are trying to nationalize its California centrist legislative coalition which is trying to solve California's problems like COI and the exodus but these national centrists are much more conservative and pro-corporate than California's local centrists who would be liberal in any other state.
The fetishization of "moderation" always gets me.
"Moderate" voters are often best described as people with inconsistent (from a partisan perspective) extreme views. Someone who thinks: minimum wage should go up substantially, abortion should be banned/limited, that we need to address climate change, and that the social safety net is too generous and needs extreme cuts. What party is that person going to vote for? There's no obvious or clear answer. People with views like that make up a lot of our electorates moderates. All with different combinations on those policy topics and many more.
We do not win those people over by offering half measures. They don't want half measures. They want policies that might be called "extreme" but they want that from both the left and the right. Of course there are moderates in the more traditional definition thereof, but they do not make up the bulk of people defined as such. Chasing just that group and pretending we're chasing *everyone* that is on average left of the median republican ideologically is being dishonest with ourselves and is a path to failure.
-----
I was going to edit my original comment to add this in but since we're already a reply in that it's best to put it here... I wouldn't even critique the original Abundance Agenda ideas. Permitting, reviews, zoning rules, etc. are all combining together to make it damn near impossible to do anything. There was an attempt to build 450 MW of offshore wind off the Cape Cod coast in 2001. It was tied up in reviews and litigation for years until the developer gave up in 2017 because they had not been legally allowed to make any progress. California's high speed rail was authorized in 2008, and currently there is no operational systems. Current projections are that a portion of the tracks in the middle, missing both LA and SF that the system is centered on, will start operation in 2031-2033. Chances are that will be delayed too. Essentially every blue city that people really really want to live in (and many that people do not) are chronically under-building housing due to zoning rules.
That latter bit isn't a problem that red states skip either, despite the way it is often covered. Places like Houston or Dallas are struggling to build (further) up just as Boston or SF are; the former instead have the space to build out while the latter do not have that as an option.
All this to say that there is a huge amount of room to fight NIMBYism and over-regulated roadblocks to doing anything and turn that into major policy wins and societal improvements. But the aggressively centrist types have opted to hijack that concept and argue that if we focused our policy agenda on catering to Fortune 500 and top 1% that it would solve all of our problems.
I don't think that any of the policy recommendations are wrong especially for state politicians, but the horses chosen for the national agenda are wrong.
They will use all those points which are good for corporations while throwing gay kids under the bus (of Don't say gay bills), they will reform permitting but I can in no way see Perez like politicians voting for or a President Slotkin (this was actually discussed informally lol) fighting for a tax overhaul to lessen inequality, introduce some balanced regulation in sectors where they are necessary like Crypto and Ai, fund the Green New Deal or toned down versions, a public health insurance system for all, paid family and sick leave etc since they are not "business friendly" policies.
An aggressive transition away from fossil fuels is business friendly. Businesses are going to suffer greatly from the increasing (un)natural disasters the human race is creating.
Also, immigration reform and amnesty would be difficult to pass with them in control, this is something that could heal our country a lot if combined with a strong but humane border policy.
"According to them, the Inflation Reduction has simultaneously been a massive failure as nothing has gotten built due to dei contracting requirements in some areas, NEPA environmental reviews, childcare subsidies, and inflation has supposedly increased because of its climate spending[.]" This is a nefarious lie and among other things, racist, and that's before you get to why they think it's been a success. People making these arguments are literally collaborating with the enemy.
Ever notice the Republicans never have to move to the middle? In fact, they can be just about as far right as they want to be. Maybe because these “moderate Democrats” have helped push the Overton window further and further to the right over the years.
Many republicans are afraid of their primary voters. Too many democrats hold their own primary voters as an unavoidable headache.
There's a lot that goes into why each of those is the case, but that fundamental realization explains a lot of the background for conversations like this one.
Their base is much more uniform, and authoritarian in nature. Mild nudges attempting to get our side to "fall in line" are taken as a personal insult.
Just the nature of our coalition.
I give Trump's people credit on two fronts - 1) They are VERY good at picking at the scabs of our coalition; and 2) I never thought of "unify the crazy people" (of all ideological stripes) as a viable electoral strategy - but they pulled it off.
If you don't bother with the insane impacts to our society and humanity in general? Frees one up to try all kinds of shenanigans.
Or maybe because this is a conservative country at it's rotten heart.
Then it always would have been.
Other than brief periods here and there, (1932-1968) I feel like it has been. This country fought a revolution because it didn't want to pay taxes. Half of it fought a war to keep slaves. Rugged individualism bs prevails.
You have to add Reconstruction to your timeline.
And the country wasn’t even semi-progressive for the entire 1932-68 period. After 1938 the only real period of liberal electoral and legislative success was in the mid-60s.
Winning three state presidential elections after ‘38 was nothing to sneeze at. Nor was the high top marginal tax rates and union membership during the entire period.
I'd argue the US wasn't particularly conservative or liberal on the whole in our history predating the Cold War. Once the Cold War started is when the New Deal coalition started to fall apart. The conservative lean itself only starting in earnest once Nixon won with the appeal to the southern conservatives in the wake of the Civil Rights era.
All the years before New Deal era had large seesawing of the government taking on more responsibility and protections for the people, while also putting it off and hoping doing so wouldn't be politically necessary.
Wins above replacement is very relevant to Manchin. When do you expect an equally liberal senator from WV?
The problem isn't Manchin himself. It's them saying everyone needs to be like Manchin, regardless of district. Manchin is their blueprint for the party. What he should be is a blueprint for deep red seats/states where any win at all is incredible.
In the links above there's a slide arguing that AOC is not stronger with Wins Above Replacement than Janelle Stelson, with them comparing candidate performance to Harris' performance in district. Of course Stelson lost, which is hard to argue as a good outcome for democrats. Even by their own metric AOC did do better (6 points over Harris instead of 4 points for Stelson).
The basic idea that we need candidates to shift more moderate for seats as the seat shifts from very blue to light red is not one that I see all that many (... any?) serious people disagree with. They're presenting this concept as some radical idea that no one has ever considered before.
Also, in politics you don't get points for coming close. Stelson lost. I don't know where she actually sat ideologically in 2024, but her losing by 1 point doesn't get us any consolation prizes. We need an actual win for things to have value — calling it "Wins" Above Replacement is rather insulting then, when their preferred example of why they're right is someone who lost.
In the real world I think our blueprint for purple seats/states should be people like Mark Kelly or Raphael Warnock. Candidates in tune with what their electorate wants, who don't go out of their way to piss people off or make waves that endanger their chances at reelection. All while also avoiding becoming a headache for our ability to accomplish things when we hold power.
The idea that Manchin would have won over Hillary Clinton is the most ridiculous as an Abundance writer in Vox proposed. Certainly, he would been much preferable to Trump but what's the use of voting at that point. Practically, it would lead to a huge drop in turnout and a strong third-party candidacy.
Yeah, that is just silly.
They admire Manchin which is the weirdest thing. Manchin was the best WV could give us but even a new Manchin won't win there anymore due to the decline of ticket splitting. The main issue is that trying to run conservative democrats or aggressive centrists rather than mainstream or moderate liberals in swing districts and swing states is a really, really horrible idea which is not going to let us get anything big passed or get the filibuster nuked even after winning a rare trifecta. Once again, we'll remain a party of defending the status quo. People don't understand what the filibuster or a trifecta is, they think that a Democrat won but didn't pass anything so both parties are the same. Politicians like Lieberman, Sinema and Emanuel (his idea of a weak stimulus) are toxic. A major race where it might have worked with a fresh candidate rather than someone with an old brand is moderately red Ohio in 2022 when Tim Ryan lost by 6 points, (Biden lost by 8 in 2020) but we do not know how much of that was due to Vance's lack of charisma and his extremist rhetoric. He was losing the primary before he went to Mar a Lago. Manchin also had a very old and popular personal brand. WV had not yet transitioned away from its ancestral Blue roots. As Manchin says, everybody he knew was a Dem and he couldn't imagine being a Republican.
Let’s just put it bluntly:
Joe Manchin is West Virginia material. Best type of Democrat we could have in the Senate after the less conservative Senator Jay Rockefeller retired in 2014.
I honestly think people throw out the term “moderate” without enough thought. Any true moderate is fiscally conservative, socially liberal, much like the late Senator Dianne Feinstein (who was a reliable vote for Democrats on many issues, including when Trump was POTUS in his first term and Biden was POTUS.
Why would someone who's fiscally liberal and socially conservative not be "moderate"?
Moderate conservative perhaps?
Those in the Democratic Party who are moderate liberals tend to be a bit (not substantially more) conservative than hard core liberals. Maybe it’s a matter of perspective?
I think it's just an assumption people make because the establishment media favor that point of view. I seem to recall that the fiscally progressive, culturally conservative point of view is the most common in the U.S., or at least a hell of a lot more common than fiscal elitism (let's call it by its real name) plus social libertarianism/liberalism.
I feel like there is a lot of room for interpretation in all of the labels we throw around.
Yeah although I think it would help to have a better framework to assess who is what on the political spectrum. Not a litmus test so much as a guide.
On the Issues has a good way of assessing this although as a website, it doesn’t update information as quickly as it ought to.
https://www.ontheissues.org/
Honestly, this is all completely expected. Every faction/wing of the Democratic Party sees losing to Trump twice as the catalyst for a majority of Democratic primary voters left to right being open to their pitch/ideology of what Democrats need to do to win again irrespective of their own policy views. Which to be fair, is absolutely true, so I get why each group is trying to move the party in their preferred direction right now.
The centrists, populists, youths, progressives, minorities, old guard and every other party group thinks that right now is their best opportunity to win over everyone else. We’re literally for the next 4 years just going through what Republicans did for the 2016 cycle when every GOP faction thought after Obama, they were the ones to lead the party to victory again at a time Republicans feared the “emerging majority” meant they’d never win a presidential election again, leading them to decide an outsider former Democrat could win.
Had Obama lost in 2012, Trump never would have been president, but the GOP were so sure Romney would win that year, it was a massive emotional gut punch to their party and their voters when they lost, which allowed primary voters to shake their own ideology and search for the one candidate to put their party back in power again regardless of who that was. I’m sure I’m not the only one who remembers how many social conservative groups were outraged by Trump’s views at the time.
This is a good thing and is what is necessary to put Democrats back into power. May the most persuasive pitch/faction win and lead us back to victory. On a personal note I’m 100% behind the popularists advocating moving left on economic issues. I think they are the key to winning, but I know many here disagree, so to each their own and regardless at the end of these 4 years of fighting (this is happening, get used to it), we should have a far stronger party than we’ve ever had before.
I hope you're right, and I hope there will still be an opportunity to peacefully transfer power to a Democratic candidate who is able to duly win a vote.
I don't see any reason why there wouldn't be. Elections are run by the states and ultimately certified by Congress. There's not much Trump can do to stay in power if he wants to.
That's not clear. Can he put the country under martial law, dare the courts to levy their own military when they try to overrule it, etc.? We're going to have a bumpy ride.
I mean the South Korean martial law crisis failed.
Which proves nothing about the U.S.
Now I see why the national guard was called in.
https://bsky.app/profile/tinadesireeberg.com/post/3lr4z7o5oo22o
just giving trump all the ammo he needs/wants...will accomplish no good!
The bigger conversation should be:
Is the Department of Homeland Security necessary?
probably not but no one will have the guts to get rid of it
Yes, but certainly parts of the department almost certainly are not (CBP, ICE), or should be in other departments (FEMA).
Ideally, the Department of Homeland Security would take parts of the FBI from the Justice Department (anything having to do with combating terrorism), The Secret Service from the Treasury Department, and would keep the TSA.
Why? Terrorism is a type of crime. I don't see why the FBI can't combat it, along with other branches of government that existed in 2001. It's not that there weren't warnings; it's that the Bush Administration was determined to ignore everything the Clinton Administration people warned him about. That's why the system didn't work. Not because there was no Department of Homeland Security.
The Bush Administration ignored those warnings due their own political goals-that doesn't really change the fact that a department of homeland security is needed in some form-most European Democracies have some version of it, for instance.
No. The 9/11/01 atrocities could have and would have been prevented had Al Gore been President. Nor is the TSA needed.
I honestly disagree with that.
The 9/11 attacks could have been prevented if we'd never armed the mujadeen during the Soviet/Afghan war-I think that was the point of no return.
Did you read any summaries of the 9/11 Report? It was clearly preventable at the time.
I don't buy that-everyone there had agendas, (protecting Bush/Clinton).
Short of abandoning Israel (and installing an American Sharia state), some version of 9/11 was invetiable no matter what we did.