Yet another scandal by a stupid tweet/SM post. Lesson: Don't let people have access to your campaign social media who's impulses you have to tamp down. And if you're a loose cannon, you get what asked for.
In 2018, Cook Political Report categorized 30 house races as tossups. Dems ended up winning 70% of them (21 out of 30). Today they rate 18 seats as tossups (AZ-01, AZ-06, CA-22, CO-08, FL-25, IA-01, IA-03, MI-07, NJ-07, NY-17, OH-09, PA-07, PA-08, PA-10, TX-34, VA-02, WA-03, WI-03).
If 2026 plays out similarly to 2018 in the house and dems win around 70% of the tossups, which 5-6 tossups do you think republicans have the best chance at holding? Here’s what I think:
CA-22: Valadao was knocked out in 2018, but he’s a strong incumbent and dems have an unsettled primary. I think he has a decent chance.
FL-25: Moskowitz will make it competitive, but he’s probably a slight underdog.
NY-17: Lawler is a clever politician and if he can divide the opposition vote between the dem and WFP ballot lines again maybe he squeaks through.
OH-09: A very difficult district. Basically as red as Ohio overall. If Brown and Acton win, I can see Kaptur holding on.
WA-03: Even though this district is trending blue, republicans actually recruited a strong candidate this time. Perez is lucky this year is going to be pretty blue. Otherwise, I think she might lose.
I think dems are the favorites in the rest. Before Kean Jr.’s health fiasco I thought he might be able to survive. Now I think he’s cooked.
I’m in NY-17. Everyone where I am is white-hot angry at Lawler, including people who were sympathetic with him before. Inviting Trump to Rockland like he just did is downright suicidal in this environment. I think his days are numbered.
Maybe not most, but many. I can count at least 10 districts currently rated Lean R that I expect to be true toss ups. That said, don't forget, we are almost certain to win some Lean R districts anyway. We may even grab a couple of Likely R seat. KY-06, for example, is a seat where we could see some real action.
One thing to keep in mind with this kind of question is that the election ratings change between now and November. Prognosticators will be more conservative the further out we are from election day, and should shift their ratings towards the party that looks most likely to benefit from the national environment as the election draws nearer.
Some of the tossups on election day in 2018 would have been lean R in May. Some of the lean Rs today might become tossups by election day, if current trends hold. Those tossups that are currently labelled as R leaning are the ones I'd expect we're most likely to lose.
If enough Republicans play hooky, we can elect Hakeem Jeffries as House Speaker before the November Midterm Elections! Not likely to happen, but I would feel a helluva lot safer with Jeffries holding the gavel when Congress reconvenes in January!
That's a fair take on CA-22. I have not been posting much lately I was on SSP many moons ago. I live in Fong's district but if I do anything short of going to Taco Bell I have to go into CA-22. The Democratic primary is going to be telling because it is the first real head-to-head confrontation between rising south Bakersfield based Punjabi politicians and the more established Latin political machines (plural) around the valley. What is most interesting is that Villegas who is Visalia based is the more left of the two considering the long history of skirmishes between the Parras and the Florezes. In the 2020 redistricting the two coalitions made common cause in getting better districts at all levels.
This is a fun exercise. I think Fitzpatrick could hold on in PA-08. The two IA districts could also go either way, I think. I think Perez is probably in pretty good shape, so I'm not sure I agree on WA-03. I think Kaptur is going to lose, unfortunately.
Given that the entire federal government is broken, I believe we are going to have more and more people turn on Republicans as they are impacted by lack of governmental services. Signing up for Medicare/SS, dealing with IRS, a natural disaster, visiting overcrowded national parks, ACA premiums and deductibles, or anything else. The federal government is effectively closed to serving the public.
This week, I have indirectly been dealing with the CDC. Last Sunday morning, I was bitten on the neck by a bat and am undergoing rabies vaccines. My case had the wrinkle that I've undergone rabies shots before, decades ago, in a foreign country that didn't use US protocol then or now. CDC's response has been incoherent on what should be a textbook question. Fortunately local officials are knowledgeable and I'm getting treatment that is appropriate.
It's funny what does and doesn't rise to the level which leads voters to rise up and throw the bums out. Lots of examples of egregious incompetence, corruption, scandal, and even malice being overlooked repeatedly by voters, and then suddenly something changing that.
I think "last straw" really does usually apply. Whatever it ultimately is, people will say, really, THIS? After everything else, just this? But it's literally because "after everything else." Just one damn thing too many.
Happily the 20 shots in the stomach are a thing of the past. Also, based on my experience, the titre from the 1st treatment seems to remain for many many years to provide protection.
I had a blood draw for titer on Wednesday, the day of the second shot which should tell us my immunity from 1991. I'm getting shot 3 tomorrow regardless of titer levels but may eliminate shot 4.
Yeah, the shots don't hurt at all, given in the thigh.
I'm just thankful I'm on Medicare so the cost is covered. Some person on a bronze ACA plan could be writing a check for 7,500 for some freak incident like this. Our broken healthcare delivery system.
$7500 for a rabies shot when I can get one for a 125# Rott for $125? That's insane.
I had the 3 shot panel in 92, then the titer checked 20 years later because we were working in an area with a lot of rabid and occasionally aggressive vermin. The other techs on the project had never had any shots but since I did, it was cheaper to check the titer first. I was good to go. Yay. I guess.
Actually not quite a dracula joke, but did you eat the bat, RFK Jr would have. I've heard that twice.
The treatment is in an ER and I asked health department if there was a clinic and I was told just continue treatment at the ER. I'm sure Medicare pays way less than their rack rate.
When I got treatment in 1991 after a dog bite in Asia, I paid out of pocket, and total treatment was about $50 including immunoglobulin shots and only 2 rabies shots. They were administered in a public health clinic.
I think people have severely underestimated Keisha Lance Bottoms (KLB). She had serious, genuine opponents in the primary who raised a lot of money. According to the last fundraising reports, state senator Jason Esteves actually outraised her. And yet, she beat them all by a huge margin.
It is true that she had a somewhat higher name ID, but it's not like a former mayor of Atlanta is on the tip of everybody's tongues. She clearly put in a lot of work and effort to build support and win voters all across Georgia.
Now, with two decidedly MAGA doofuses in the Republican runoff, she has a lot of time to build a strong coordinated campaign with Jon Ossoff and other Democrats. My hope is that it leads to a big blue wave like no other hitting Georgia.
Arguably, the race is one of the most consequential this cycle. If KLB wins the governorship in Georgia, they'll be able to stop the rise of a second Jim Crow in one of the biggest states in the south. If Dems manage to flip the legislature, too, they'll be able to pass legislation undoing decades of damage--and maybe even pass new congressional maps!
And while I understand the reasons for initial skepticism of Bottom's candidacy, let's recall that the only general election polling we've seen has her winning by a 6% margin. Right now, she's the favorite.
So I'm putting out a call to all DBers: let's help KLB and Georgia Democrats win big this November!
If you are able to make a donation this weekend, give one to either her campaign or the Georgia Democratic Party:
And while I despise social media, I'm well aware that in this day and age, it matters. If you are not doing so already, follow Keisha Lance Bottoms on all the social media platforms and help boost her when her campaign makes posts:
She may well win, but I disagree that her primary victory was some sort of substantial effort — especially since she underperformed in the Atlanta area, where voters know her best. She certainly had good name ID among primary voters, and split opposition from different angles that never coalesced nor really took a swing at her. In a 1:1 primary with any one individual she beat last week, I don’t think she would’ve done as well.
My problem with the Atlanta underperformance critique (which others have been saying) is that I think it could be misdiagnosing what happened.
Jason Esteves, Mike Thurmond, and Geoff Duncan all were from the Atlanta area and had bases of support there, so it makes sense that they'd all do well in the Atlanta area too. Despite that, she still got over 40% of the votes in each of the Atlanta area counties. And ultimately, only one person did well outside of Atlanta, and that was KBL.
No. The underperformance was not broadly Atlanta area. It was specifically in areas within the perimeter.
She got a smaller share of Black voters in the core area, and probably in 3rd places in majority White area.
As to the areas further out, majority of White voters wouldn’t be voting in Democratic primary. But for those who did, she was likely ahead but far from a majority.
If you say Duncan is from Atlanta area, technically true. But people would laugh, that is far out edge of exurbs where less than 20% of White voters would support a Dem. Tbh, he had no base.
Do we know what percentage of the vote she actually got in Atlanta's city limits? I have not checked but I assume she still won it?
I know she had some controversies, but if she really were as toxically and irreparably bad as some Election Twitter types claim, she wouldn't have still been able to get 40% of the vote.
She should placed first within the city limit, probably not a majority.
Likely a majority in mostly Black precincts, but not like the overwhelming 70%-80% in the Black majority exurbs.
In the council seats around midtown and to the east, as well as adjacent DeKalb county majority White liberal areas, she is in the 3rd place. As well as the more moderate White majority Buckhead and northern part of DeKalb.
Need to pull the precincts level results to see the percentage.
Fulton is fully municipalized. The precincts are neatly labeled, say, AP01 as the first precinct in Alpharetta, 01A as precinct A in Atl 1st council district, etc. Such that you can easily see where the votes go.
Council districts 7 and 8 are in Buckhead, more moderates where more than half of R votes in the city limit would come from. 2, 5, and 6 are majority White liberals.
DeKalb is a bit tricky that precinct lines may not follow the city limits. Might need some guestimate distribution to see which votes are from within ATL limit.
looks like she is about 50 in Black majority council districts, behind Esteves in White majority or mixed 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th.
90%+ Black suburban cities within Fulton: 63-13-17. Esteves had no tractions here. She ran a bit worse than the Black majority exurbs further out, but over 60%.
Majority White suburban North Fulton: 46-30-5. Duncan got 14% here. Thurmond is basically unknown. KLB is leading with plurality.
You know in general election electorate, outside of Atlanta means a completely different animal as to the Democratic primary electorate outside of Atlanta, right?
For D primary, about 40% of Black voter are within the top 4 counties, 60% out of them. Two largest sections are the Black majority exurbs south of the metro, and the secondary cities. These are the places she probably cracked 70% in mostly Black precincts. Rural D votes are not large, The whole rural Black votes are less than those voted in Fulton, and less than 10% rural whites vote Dem. In exurbs, around 20% or less White voters vote Dem.
For White D voters, 55% of primary are within the top 4 counties. So very skewed
For R votes, less than 20% are from the top 4 counties, vast majority are in the exurbs and rural.
So doing well with D primary voters outside of the core counties, tells you nothing how well she will do with the general electorate outside of the core counties.
⬆️"In a 1:1 primary with any one individual she beat last week, I don’t think she would’ve done as well."
I'm sorry, but your response makes no sense to me since she received MORE than 50% of the vote. Your argument would only make sense if she had received a plurality but not a majority of the vote. (In which case, she would now be headed into a runoff).
Are you really suggesting that if she had been in a one-on-one race, people who actually voted for her last week would have switched their vote to someone else that they could have voted for on Tuesday??
My logic is that 1:1, it would be a completely different race, not simply the other candidate getting the exact same vote total as all the others combined. In a 1:1 race, both candidates would’ve gone negative because they each have one singular, focused opponent, and Bottoms’ weaknesses as mayor would’ve been made prominent in ads, debates, etc. In a multi-candidate field that didn’t happen because there’s less money to go around, and nobody knows who’s supporters would’ve gone where.
In the race that just happened, she received a bunch of support by default, but in a 1:1 race, the differences between just 2 candidates would be more stark.
I hope the Dem Party in Georgia is doing some sort of lessons-learned self examination, and will get their act together after blowing those 2 Supreme Court races
It sounded like a pretty uphill climb, given that they were aiming to overturn a 100 year precedent. It also sounded like, if the candidates had had R or D by their name, at least one of them could've pulled it off. The other was pretty well trounced, I guess
I'm in NC, not GA, but it is well established that Democrats in general have a bigger ballot drop-off problem (relative to Republicans) and are less likely to vote down ballot for races like state Supreme Court. Even though the GA race was non-partisan, the two GOP-backed candidates were the incumbents, which absent a scandal, gives them an advantage.
I wrote postcards for the two Democratically-endorsed candidates In this GA race with Postcards to Voters (https://postcardstovoters.org/), but that clearly wasn't enough to give them the boost they needed. I expect that the candidates sent out mailers, but with the number of candidates running in all the primary races being held the same day, I'm sure that theirs got lost in the shuffle. Most of the political mailers I receive go straight to the recycle bin in my garage and don't even make it into my house.
In NC, Supreme Court races have been partisan for at least a decade and it is part of the regular general election (not on primary day like GA). The election is always in an even year so there are a lot of statewide races in presidential election years (when we elect the Governor and Council of State) along with the entire state legislature which is elected every even year.
The Supreme Court races in NC are often very tight races - even within the margin of error. In 2024, Justice Alison Riggs won by 734 votes out of 5.7M with over 189K voters skipping over the Supreme Court race. In 2020, Cheri Beasley lost by 401 votes with over 150K voters skipping this race. This year The NC Democratic Party is putting the Supreme Court and other Judicial races front and center with a lot of door knocking since very early in the year. Hopefully, that will narrow the down ballot drop off!
Before 2008, used to be that Rs won most of the Federal races including all presidential, Dems won most of the council of state races. And the judicial races were the only state level ones Rs clearly led.
I buy that downballot dropoff used to be a bigger problem for us, but are we sure that's still true? Now that we're the higher turnout party and Republicans are essentially a personality cult, I'd have to see some data that supports that we still have higher dropoff rates.
A lot more than that. Not running for reelection for reasons.
Protests during Covid, the riots and burning down of a Wendy’s after a policy shooting, armed gang took over the site and shot a young girl passing by. Her handling the situation gave the appearance of shirking responsibility to other elected officials and community leaders.
Cop city was initiated during her term. constructions and protests, and police shooting of one there, happened after. But it is interesting that she gets more blame than her successor the current mayor.
Not in GA but I’ve heard Cop City is not popular in Atlanta at least. Especially the RICO charges against the demonstrators/voter suppression against the attempted referendum to stop it.
I had been skeptical of KLB's statewide viability, but her primary win should allay if not eliminate many of those concerns. Not only did she easily clear a majority (while the GOP has to fight among themselves for several more weeks), but on the map I saw she won almost every county. It's not as if she won just based on Metro Atlanta and nowhere else.
And with both parties in Georgia having had seriously contested primaries, more votes were cast in the Democratic primary than the Republican one, continuing a pattern we've seen in red-leaning states such as Texas and Ohio in which Dems significantly reduced or eliminated the recent GOP primary turnout advantage. This wasn't a case of Bottoms winning only on the strength of Democratic base voters because most Independents and swing voters voted in the Republican primary, if at all.
⬆️"This wasn't a case of Bottoms winning only on the strength of Democratic base voters because most Independents and swing voters voted in the Republican primary, if at all.'
If most Swing voters and Independents voted in the GOP primary, then who besides Democratic base voters voted for Bottoms? Who's left?
Just on the contrary. It is pretty much she won on her strength in base voters.
Winning primary voters out of the metro core, does NOT mean any particular strength in the general election out of the metro core at all. Neither positive nor negative.
The reason is pretty simple. Very few White voters out side of the metro core would vote in Dem primaries. In the exurbs, Appalachian, and piedmont counties, varying 15-25%. The southern coastal plains, less than 10%. Thus the out of core primary pool has a much heavier composition of Black voters, than the primary pool within the metro core.
Getting a lopsided win in primary there, tells us nothing about the general election strength there.
I agree that she's probably being underestimated. I suspect she's roughly equivalent to "Generic D" and that could well be enough to win GA-Gov this year.
South Carolina Republicans failed to fast-track the proposed congressional map through the Senate after a cloture vote didn't get enough support.
SC lawmakers will try again Saturday, though even if cloture passes, the earliest the bill could reach the governor is Tuesday, the same day early voting begins.
Yeah and then the legal issues become worse than now once early in-person voting starts. Not to mention the millions needed that they have not allocated to abort the early voting process and restart it all just for new Congressional primaries.
They certainly don't give a damn ethically. I do wonder whether the borked primaries ultimately confuse and piss off their own voters as well as everyone else, though. I guess they figure it's worth it.
Cloture passed about an hour ago, limiting debate that would start Tuesday to an hour/senator. 7 Rs voted against cloture. There won't be 46 hours of debate because those for the new map won't use their time. If it passes 3rd reading, McMaster can sign it late Tues or Wed. But early voting starts Tuesday and 1000s of absentee ballots have already been returned.
Some R senators have said if this didn't pass before voting started, they would vote against it. Doubtful that'll be enough to add to no votes on cloture to kill this at this point.
Majority Leader Shane Massey, who opposes redistricting, says Tuesday’s third reading was always going to be the real battle. He said there was no reason to keep senators at the State House over a holiday weekend.
“We knew that the earliest you were going to get to a third reading scenario was on Tuesday anyway,” Massey said. “I think more realistically you’re looking at Wednesday at the earliest by the time everything gets done. It could go longer than that.”
VA politico Ben Tribbett suggests that Gov. Spanberger is seeking to oust the VA Senate leadership team, although the Governor's office says this is untrue. Considering the recent NYT report on redistricting, though.
Spanberger has burned a lot of bridges in Richmond and doesn't have the influence her team thinks she has. She lost the unions when she vetoed collective bargaining and ticked off Louise Lucas and the black caucus by vetoing the retail marijuana bill. And who is going to be going in the trenches for her as anti-union/anti-pot candidates to take out the leadership? Those people don't exist.
They rejected them because she blindsided lawmakers with her amendments after not communicating at all with legislators during the session that she had issues with the bill. You can't just make substantial changes to a bill the legislature spent months negotiating and expect them to accept them in a week.
Oh is that the bottom line. That would make some sense of what seem like utterly inexplicable decisions. Ugh. "Moderates" are one thing. Power tripping politicians who can't play nicely in the sandbox? That's a real problem.
I think it's beyond fanciful. They are very powerful and popular members, and she's not going to take on the state senate leadership in primaries when she has to grow the majority to really juice legislative margins (let alone put it at risk of flipping and hobbling the second half of her single term with divided government after securing a historic trifecta).
This is a Safe Republican race but with Democratic Senate Candidate Hallie Shoffner running, my understanding is that she’s raising awareness about the farming industry not getting support.
Arkansas farmers are being hit hard and suffering a lot. I believe this is an issue that’s being addressed in the IA-SEN race but the problems are not unique to solely to IA.
That 10 point margin in our favor in self-ID is the biggest in the Trump era. In 2018 our margin improved from 7 to 8 between 1Q18 and 4Q18. In 2020 it grew from tied in 1Q20 to 7 in 4Q20. In 2022 it fell from +1 to -6 between 1Q22 and 4Q22. In 2024 it fell from +2 to -4.
The self-ID margin in this poll has improved in our favor in each of the past 5 quarterly samples, ever since Trump was re-elected, improving 14 points overall. Extrapolating irresponsibly, the trend would place us at +18 in 4Q26...
A guy can dream right? A D+15 election landslide drubbing and maybe, just maybe, the Republican Party decides to not do the whole Trump experiment again and to move on from MAGA because they want to be able to win in politics again.
Democrats will actually have to govern like they have a mandate. If we’re gonna lose. I’d prefer we lose for doing too much and going too far than playing it safe and not doing enough. Incrementalism has utterly failed. It’s time for bold moves.
Absolutely. GEM's latest about structural factors in our 2024 loss (we lost because voters hated the economy and we were the incumbent party) is spot on. We will absolutely see a massive reversal in our electoral fortunes post-2028 if we play small ball and don't make things broadly much better for people in visible ways. Biden should have declared an emergency and temporarily frozen rents.
And no matter what they do, they should expect to take a bath in 2030 if there's a Democrat in the White House. If they instead do well, great, but they have to get everything done in 2029 on the assumption that it's their only chance for a while.
We really need to make sure that the law that authorizes the 2030 reapportionment bans congressional Gerrymandering. And expand the Supreme Court so the Jim Crow Six don't just decided that the States can ignore that.
100%. I think pretty much everyone is aligned with this. You and I sit on opposite ends of the D spectrum (as far as I can tell) and we are on the same page here.
This might be controversial but I do wonder if the solution after 2028 is a schism within the party to give people an alternative that is NOT the Republican Party. It sounds crazy but we can't let Republicans be the only alternative again and we all know that the best case scenario for the future of the Republic is if the Democratic Party becomes the new(well, kinda) Conservative Party and a new Left Wing Party emerges.
Interesting, I live in this district and spend time in both the city and suburban portions, and have only seen folks gathering petitions or Macias and Sigcho-Lopez.
The chance of an independent candidate winning was already slim even with just one of them. With three of them? Patty Garcia might as well start buying furniture for her new office now.
I'd much rather Thanedar lose than Garcia. The only negative thing I know about Garcia is how she got this nomination in an underhanded way. Thanedar is far more problematic.
My guess is the Getty will hope that Garcia, Sigcho-Lopez, and Macias split the Latino vote, and he can win with a coalition of more moderate white voters and some Latinos. Pretty fanciful, considering most of the relevant players in this district and within the Latino political community are supporting Garcia, as are both the city and state AFL-CIO.
I don’t want to start a fight, even though I know I probably will by posting this, but if any of those lurkers or posters who have commented on occasion here about being upset and wondering how in the world our party voters, average, ordinary Democrats who’ve supported the establishment pick for decades, are now turning to the Mamdani, Platner, Mejia, Rabb candidates of the party and voting for candidates they’ve never voted for or supported in the past?
Well, it’s because Josh Shapiro and Abigail Spanberger are what we’re getting from elected Democrats when we get behind the establishment choice. The old party establishment and those who are still supporters of moderation to win, with old school type thinking, have only theirselves to blame by being unwilling to represent the voters how we want to be represented after we elect them into office. Tell me how much different all of these vetoes are to former Republican Glenn Youngkin? Wouldn’t he have done the same?
You can only disappoint our voters so many times with a “we promise we’re different this time in this campaign if you elect us”, while in office, going back to the same crap that’s made our voters despise their own party, to rage at it’s incompetence, for going back on their campaign promises. People eventually get tired of being played for fools every single election and begin to look elsewhere for political answers and real representation of them and their beliefs.
Also, this is normal, party factions grow, shrink and break off all the time throughout history. Now’s just another period with replacement happening in our party. That’s why the base is done taking orders about who is the best candidate in any race. Yeah, sure, maybe we’ll lose the seat to a Republican from being too left or too controversial, but at least if we win, we’ll get all of what we want instead of bones here and there to placate us.
Perhaps instead of being worried and complaining about other voters moving left of their preferred moderate candidates in primaries, those people of this faction should do some much needed introspection and look to themselves for the answer of why our party voters are so unbelievably furious that we’re picking the bombastic/far left progressives in primaries now.
If enough of our voters are doing this, in making these candidates our nominees in 2026 primaries, consider the possibility that maybe the problem isn’t everyone else who aren’t backing the establishment’s candidates anymore, maybe instead the problem is a lot closer to home. And yes, the article is obviously from a progressive who hates Democrats, their headline is exaggerative and she’s done a lot of good, she’s absolutely better than a Republican, period.
At the same time, regardless of the source of criticism, are any of these vetoes actually defendable? This is the type of thing gaining traction from our base on social media websites, so it’s no wonder so many voters (including our own) think both parties are the same. We need people in politics who represent us better and if the old establishment is unwilling to change to be what we want in today’s politics instead of what we wanted a decade ago, then voters will replace them with the people who will.
It doesn’t matter what’s true, or the fact Spanberger almost certainly will pass a marijuana legalization bill at some point and get most of these bills into law. It matters how people actually feel, and this just builds into the growing narrative our voter base is beginning to accept as reality: That these Democrats don’t represent us well anymore, that we need fresh blood and new names to lead us because the Democrats of old won’t do what we want.
I actually don’t believe any of that fwiw, because I’m a pragmatic progressive and I understand laws take time to write and revise. I understand that we can’t get everything we want done for a litany of reasons. I understand every Democrat is better than a Republican. However, I am in the minority as a voter, I’m well educated about politics and how things work.
Meanwhile average Democrats see this going viral on their social media feeds and get even angrier at our party while deciding who to back in primaries for upcoming midterm elections. Doesn’t take a political science major to see what the end result winds up being because of it. People vote with their emotions, not their logic and they’re inundated with stories like these all day every day.
Voters are already ill informed and misinformed, so this just adds gasoline to the fire raging right now amongst our voters hearts and minds. I wish it weren’t true, I wish people would use their brains to vote, but they don’t and that’s why all this is happening right now in our party for the first time ever.
Shapiro has had some controversy lately, given his backdoor support of Stacy Garrity in 2024 and meddling in congressional primaries, not to mention the rumors regarding his influence with the 2024 presidential race. If you're insinuating this is about his religion, then why didn't dragonfire mention other governors with the same background?
I don’t like Shapiro because I disagree with his centrism and because of his helping the Republican he now faces in the Treasurer race to retaliate against a Dem he didn’t like.
Not everyone who dislikes Shapiro dislikes him because of his religion.
Centrism philosophy from a political sense is not restrictive. In fact, it can be constructive is so much as moderate philosophy in a political sense can be constructive.
But actually holding political office changes the dynamic because then it’s the judgement of those in office who happen to be centrist or moderate that’s in question.
Case in point - Jared Golden may be more conservative than Abigail Spanberger but if he were Governor of Maine, he likely would sign a collective bargaining bill into law. Golden has a pro-union record and likely wouldn’t pull the crap that Spanberger did as Governor.
I know. Weird I am talking about Golden in this way vs. Spanberger. But on the matter with unions, it’s a clear distinction between the two as they also happened to serve together in the House before Spanberger left to run for Governor of VA.
That is a very good point. Different politicians can hold different beliefs on different issues. Mary Peltola is also relatively conservative and she really came out against the big supermarket merger a few years ago on monopoly grounds. I admit I get lost in ideology sometimes and it can cloud my own judgement.
That said, Shapiro’s elevation of Garrity does not exactly speak well towards his character in my opinion.
Notice how that wasn't my only point of disagreement, though. I think the thing with Garrity really dragged him down for me. And my problem with his 2024 involvement wasn't his influence, it was him being arrogant, thinking he was going to be the running mate for Harris and being bitter about not getting it.
If he's more outspoken about being Jewish, so? That doesn't mean the 3 other Jewish governors don't matter.
Backing a Republican should be a redline for our party. If you disagree, I’d suggest you are in the extreme minority on that one. You inventing some bigoted reason for me including the Governor in the “Democrats who don’t act like Democrats when in office” category I used is a really bad look for someone here, and that ain’t me. Do better next time.
Is it a redline to refuse to vote for our presidential nominee in 2024 because of an issue we can't discuss? I know a lot of leftists who crossed that line.
Not Dragonfire but in my opinion yes. I’m as livid with those who wouldn’t vote for Harris on leftist grounds as I am on centrist grounds. I voted for Harris in spite of issues I had with certain things she did. I hold all voters who did not vote for Harris responsible for this disaster we’re in now. When the US started threatening Canada, Canadian voters lined up behind the Liberals. I would have hoped the threat of Trump would do the same here, but no. Just awful all around.
I missed your reply, but absolutely! Fight it out in the primary. Then back the Democrat for the general. I don’t care what wing or ideology a person has who won’t support a nominated Democrat over a Republican. It’s disqualifying from any direction of any politician, period.
I don't think that's at all a fair assumption to make, that people here dislike a fellow democrat because of their ethnic background.
How many people here complain about Pritzker or Stein? Ossoff or Wyden? Occam's razor suggests that if someone dislikes centrist politicians, and they dislike a centrist that is also Jewish, that the reason they dislike that person is because that official is a centrist. Giving the benefit of the doubt here is critical for maintaining a positive community. A presumption of negative justifications is a very bad approach IMO. Not just this but for everything here.
He’s also a bit, hm. Well—Pritzker and Ossoff are also both high profile and plausible 2028 candidates (though I hope Ossoff doesn’t, we need every Senate seat and GA’s hardly an easy replacemen. Otherwise I’d probably be a fan).
But, while admittedly this is more vibes than anything than any one thing I’m remembering clearly, Shapiro comes off somehow as…I want to say, thirstier? I remember thinking at the DNC he came off like he was doing a sort of poor man’s Obama.
Also remembering that Harris turned him down for (I think rightly) Walz, and that the chatter was that Shapiro didn’t feel like as good a fit playing second fiddle (and, at least implied, much less to a woman).
I don’t know. I’m not crazy about him. I had some specific reasons which escape me at the moment because of course. I think most recently, something or other about him supporting a Republican on the down low for small p political reasons.
Bingo. I was not happy that Shapiro tried to intervene to stop Rabb, for one. (I would say the same for other governors, to be clear - I was really angry about how Hochul handled the India Walton Buffalo mayoral situation, for one.)
Stein also is in a difficult situation where the NC GOP kneecapped his power due to authoritarianism/Phil Berger, so he couldn’t do much high-profile to begin with. And Ossoff, to me, is in the same category as Peltola — while he has made votes progressives didn’t like, he’s well liked among the left for the positions he did take. Not all progressives are black-and-white Green 2024 voters. Many are pragmatists too.
I disagree with that. But regardless of the disagreement: I reiterate my statements that I strongly feel a presumption of negative justifications is a bad approach here, while the benefit of the doubt is absolutely the right approach.
If you feel there's not much daylight between those officials ideologically, that's fine! That's what healthy debate is for. But some people will see that daylight, and giving them the benefit of the doubt that said daylight is their reasons for disliking a specific official -- even if you disagree with them on how much there is -- rather than a horrible reason is essential to fostering that healthy discourse here.
Did any of the other folks you're talking about support a Republican in a statewide race? If I see Shapiro and think Pennsylvania's Andrew Cuomo, am I anti-Italian?
I'm sure there are some chuds out there who criticize him because he's Jewish. But most of the criticism that I've seen here focuses exclusively on his policies, his rhetoric and his actions.
It sounds like you are a socialist like me. I'm skeptical just how socialist Democratic voters are now. Let's revisit this in November, or better yet, November 2028.
Going one step back from socialism specifically to just progressive or progressive-ish anti-establishment more broadly... I think the answer is the shift will be less than we'd like, but they will represent a larger share of the party than before.
I believe it depends on what you mean by socialist. The economic definition is that the government controls and owns the means of production. It can be democratic, but I believe most Americans equate socialism with the USSR which didn't work out well.
I personally like progressive better where we allow companies and wealthy people to prosper and tax the hell out of them to provide social services. Make Jeff Bezos pay enough in taxes that he really has something to complain about.
Dictatorships cannot be socialist. Socialism means that the workers rule, and that's impossible in a dictatorship. Similarly, "democratic" has a real meaning, even if North Korea calls itself the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea."
Socialism refers to the ownership of the means of production, period. The governance of that socialist state can take any form including dictatorship. If you have a dictatorship, it quickly becomes corrupted where the state owned assets are managed for the pleasure of the dictator and those connected to them, but they are still state owned. Frightening y, we are entering that territory under Trump.
We very strongly disagree. Socialism is specifically about the workers owning the means of production. If the government does not represent the workers, it is just despotism, a nightmarish monopolistic dictatorship. Stalin was very far from a socialist.
I don't think this is true. The dictionary definition of Socialism is "an economic and political system based on the collective, public, or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. It operates on the principle that resources should be managed to benefit society as a whole rather than private individuals." As I read it, a Democratic government could be Socialist, as could an authoritarian one. To be clear, I'm not equating Socialism to either authoritarianism or Democracy, just pointing out that it is technically compatible with either, at least per the dictionary definition.
I don't agree with whichever dictionary's definition you are quoting, but let's say it's accurate. If an authoritarian regime could be socialist under that definition, it would have to manage the economy to benefit the people, not a class of apparatchiks. Where has that ever happened, that party members under a communist dictatorship weren't a privileged class?
I don't disagree with you. I was just pointing out that you could have an authoritarian system of government where the means of production/distribution of goods are owned by the public/government.
You know, I agree with you as someone socialist leaning, but one of the things I like most about this website is that other people can have discourse about this without burning bridges and defaulting to insults.
I worded that weirdly - I didn't mean that you said anything disagreeable to me, I meant that other people could disagree without it becoming hostile, which is rare on the internet.
Ah, I see, yes, I enjoy dialogue and debate, even vigorous and emotionally charged difficult conversations and try to make it so that I’m not trying to dissuade people from disagreeing when I post long form comments. We can only learn if we talk with each other.
Completely agree - it's what I love about this site. Rational, thoughtful (generally) debate between people who disagree frequently but are all on the same team. It's pretty special and unique and it's why I come back here.
It's not quite that simple. Democrats who win elections have to act, act quickly, and act aggressively enough for people to really notice a positive change in their lives.
Do you remember what Bernie Sanders said when he was interviewed by Chris Matthews on MSNBC on the topic of getting legislation done with Mitch McConnell being Senate Majority Leader if he were elected POTUS?
Bernie said he would rally the American people to fight back, which I believe meant Bernie would utilize his base and like minded activists to put pressure on Congress.
But that was 2016. Now 10 years later, the base of activism and action is much stronger in the Democratic Party. More elections means more Democrats as officeholders being able to wield influence.
We’ve seen shift pushback by Democrats in CO against Governor Polis and in VA against Governor Spanberger. Personally, if Polio, Spanberger, Shapiro, etc. get elected, I’d want the Democratic Party establishment in these respective states to be more responsive and in tune with where the base of Democrats are these days.
I agree. I was mentioning this not because I don't think rallying the American people (the base) is important but rather it's much easier to apply in context when Democrats have more power.
Point is, when I say win more elections, I'm really referring to Democrats not getting down and out because Governor Shapiro or Governor Spanberger started making their heads spin with their actions while being in office. I don't want to see the party lose itself and energy from this.
You are however making a valid point about Democrats taking action quickly and overall being in tune with voters.
Me, I just want to focus on candidates for on their own merits. Some insiders are good; some aren't. Some outsiders are swell. Some aren't. Unfortunately the latter only becomes apparent after they become, well, insiders.
The latter also don't actually turn out to be more progressive than the former.
Ditto the young/old divide. (Incidentally, Sanders always seems to escape the anti gerontocracy crowd for some reason. Personally I think he's rather fossilized in certain regards and his record as kingmaker is spotty at best. And I do wonder if the admittedly old school Republican VT governor replaces him with a Dem if he dies before his term's up)
Mamdani's one of the bright spots in this miasma we're all living through. I feel like, for example, Platner's a very different sort of character, even if I like some of the positions he *says* he stands for now. But, we'll find out.
Meanwhile there are longtimers who.never stood out as particularly left or barn burning who turned out to be absolute mensches: thinking Senator Van Hollen, for instance.
Generally it'd just be nice if we could all do more careful research and critical thinking and not just go on, you know, brand. Or vibes.
You really can't be sure how people may change when they get into higher office. I remember Chuck Schumer being a good liberal Congressman from Brooklyn.
Yeah. Well, and the voting public changes also, as does what constitutes "good liberal" and what becomes most important.
I still don't actually think he's a bad person, as such, the way I do of some other people. I don't even actually think he's the worst possible leader who ever was or could be. I do disagree with some of his positions and especially with the number he pulled on the first shutdown. Not even so much that he/the Senate caved, so much that until literally the day before he had said they wouldn't, leaving the House to go out on a limb for nothing. And then that tone deaf interview he gave that same day, mourning the lost collegiality of his pals across the aisle/gym lockers and he's sure it'll go back to normal after Trump. Dude. It's been TEN YEARS. If you don't get it by now...
He's one of way too many Democratic senators who have blood on their hands from being cowards or just plain immoral and voting to attack Iraq for not attacking the U.S. on 9/11/01 or having nukes.
That also said, while the snowjob was right there in evidence if you wanted to see it, you had supposed experts assuring us it WAS so and the steady drumbeat from NYT and elsewhere.
I can't believe how exponentially even dumber the Iran shit is, AND it's not all that long after we -know- what Iraq turned into--hey, after Bush Sr's little excursion, there was the energizing collective memory of invading Iraq being a cakewalk, if you want to get really cynical about it.
And still, the entire Republican party is...the human centipede, basically, at this point.
p.s. it's entirely possible we're invading Cuba real soon now. And I thought -I- had ADHD flavored tendency to abandon projects halfway through to start shiny new ones. YEEHA
That also said, re Fetterman and Sinema, there were definitely red flags on character if not position that were there if people had dug more deeply; or rather, had paid better attention to the people who had. Fetterman's chasing down a Black jogger at gunpoint in 2013 when he was the frigging mayor, for instance. People were not fazed enough to not vote him in, so, -YOLO shrug emoji-, yanno?
And he never apologized for that either. It's not just a head injury.
It probably helped Fetterman that the "jogger" was doing time for armed kidnapping when the election was held. Also helped that he endorsed Fetterman, lol.
That’s the entirety of my point you’re making for me. You, me, we, all of us TDB users here are the exceptions! Everything we talk about here is an exception, the policies we care about are the exception. Evaluating candidates based on policy and campaigns. Most voters don’t do that. Most voters (even our party’s!) vote based on emotions, not logic.
They want the candidate that makes them feel like they’ll fight for them with everything they’ve got and more. So we really shouldn’t be surprised right now with the primary results that are happening when this emotionally charged perception is literally everywhere every day for our voters. It’s impossible not to get swept up in those emotions if you see the same thing day after day after day.
Or in other words, look how strongly Republican voters believe conspiracy theories over facts after being told constantly that they’re true for years by people they trust. Or how apolitical voters decided to vote for Trump from podcast bros telling them to. Trump figured this out a decade ago, it’s why he got elected twice.
Emotions are how you control and manipulate people into believing lies. Our party is not immune to this phenomenon and now the loudest critics on the left have figured out Trump’s key to success in politics and are constantly attacking our party establishment candidates as not being real Democrats.
It’s becoming more and more believed and a successful narrative lie accepted as the truth. So that wing of the party can either decide to change tactics, stop talking about policy and bipartisanship and start talking about how angry people feel right now, using it to their advantage, or they can let the party be taken over by the blue MAGA/Tea Party of the left.
Because our voters today aren’t going to settle who they pick to represent our party based on their brains and they certainly aren’t going to vote for anyone who sounds like they don’t understand the current constitutional crisis emergency that requires bold actions to stop, before it’s too late and MAGA/Project 2025 fascism takes hold permanently in America.
That’s why the Platner’s of the party are gaining ground with our voter base and never elected Democrats are destroying multiple elected term statewide incumbents before a single vote is cast. That’s where the energy is in our party right now and it is surging, bringing in new voters and growing stronger as a movement by the week.
Rabb won by 13 points in his primary, almost hitting 40%. Mejia won her primary by 2 points with almost 30%. The elections were held just 1 month apart. I’m betting none of these candidates I’ve mentioned are the last ones of their wing/type/mould for this midterm election cycle either.
FL-21, FL-22: Former academic administrator and Apple official Pia Dandiya, who has so far conducted a well-funded campaign against Republican Rep. Brian Mast, will switch to the open 22nd. Former state Sen. Lauren Book is also considering a run in the Democratic primary.
Businessmen Michael Carbonara, Casey Askar and Herbie Wertheim and former national security official Mike Thompson are running on the Republican side, with former New York Rep. Chris Collins considering.
Ehhhh if all things else are equal, I’d much rather have a Hispanic/Latina Democrat running in these heavily Hispanic/Latino districts over a white Democrat, especially in Florida where we’ve lost a TON of ground politically in. Identity politics still plays a major factor in voters decisions. It’s why the MAGA party line Ciscomani can survive as an elected rep in an Arizona swing purple district. People see someone who looks like them and think they’ll be a good representative for them. It really is as simple as that sadly and Republicans figured this out a long time ago.
Hispanic identity helps in that seat, but it's not the end-all be-all. Voting record aside, Ciscomani is seen as business moderate, in a seat which has always previously elected white moderates (of both parties), and we ran a non-Hispanic white lefty professor in both his races for the seat. Don't get me wrong, Engel was much more my cup of tea than Danny Hernandez, and I donated to her campaign, but I feared her nomination would lose us the seat.
I think Kennedy and McLaurin will win, respectively, but it will probably be somewhat close on the Democratic side with Parkes. That primary was already pretty bitter, and she resorted to accusations of misogyny against McLaurin. The Republican primary didn't really have a frontrunner until Kennedy and Dolezal made it out of it.
The idea of a 2 Live Crew member being in congress is....something. The crazy thing is, the more I read about him, the more he seems like he'd be a pretty decent congressman.
Is it? His proposals there seem relatively sensible to me. I don't view any engagement with crypto as ipso facto bad. The fact is that it is here to stay so we should have a plan and his seems relatively reasonable.
I am fervently against crypto. I do not like the idea of an untraceable currency -- it is, to me, an invitation to criminals and foreign electoral interference. Additionally, the number of crypto scams, and the people screwed by them, is alarming.
That may be (and, frankly, I'm not sure I disagree with you) but the fact it is that it is here and it's not going to be outlawed (even if it was, I doubt it could be enforced) so we might as well have a plan. On that front, Campbell's seems pretty reasonable.
Tell that to Nithya Raman lol. Her campaign collapsed due to her terrible debate performances. Debates don't boost candidates but can hurt them.
*Goldman desperately asked for debates for months bc he needs something newsy to get him out of a double-digit polling deficit.
I'd like some help in understand something: if you want someone to do something, and then they do that, why mock them for "caving"?
Pretty sure Eric is Pro-Goldman based on previous remarks, so I guess he's happy Lander gave in to debating.
More disgusting than funny.
I wouldn't expect any more from this current breed of Republican, especially someone as noxious as Mike Collins.
Yet another scandal by a stupid tweet/SM post. Lesson: Don't let people have access to your campaign social media who's impulses you have to tamp down. And if you're a loose cannon, you get what asked for.
In 2018, Cook Political Report categorized 30 house races as tossups. Dems ended up winning 70% of them (21 out of 30). Today they rate 18 seats as tossups (AZ-01, AZ-06, CA-22, CO-08, FL-25, IA-01, IA-03, MI-07, NJ-07, NY-17, OH-09, PA-07, PA-08, PA-10, TX-34, VA-02, WA-03, WI-03).
If 2026 plays out similarly to 2018 in the house and dems win around 70% of the tossups, which 5-6 tossups do you think republicans have the best chance at holding? Here’s what I think:
CA-22: Valadao was knocked out in 2018, but he’s a strong incumbent and dems have an unsettled primary. I think he has a decent chance.
FL-25: Moskowitz will make it competitive, but he’s probably a slight underdog.
NY-17: Lawler is a clever politician and if he can divide the opposition vote between the dem and WFP ballot lines again maybe he squeaks through.
OH-09: A very difficult district. Basically as red as Ohio overall. If Brown and Acton win, I can see Kaptur holding on.
WA-03: Even though this district is trending blue, republicans actually recruited a strong candidate this time. Perez is lucky this year is going to be pretty blue. Otherwise, I think she might lose.
I think dems are the favorites in the rest. Before Kean Jr.’s health fiasco I thought he might be able to survive. Now I think he’s cooked.
I’m in NY-17. Everyone where I am is white-hot angry at Lawler, including people who were sympathetic with him before. Inviting Trump to Rockland like he just did is downright suicidal in this environment. I think his days are numbered.
That’s good to hear. Any news on the wfp ballot line? Will they support the whoever the dem is?
They did last time, and I think they would again. Right now they’re backing Effie in the primary (who I’m voting for).
I thought a Lawler plant had the wfp ballot line last time? Is anything being done to avoid that again?
Not sure. Don’t know a lot about what happened but I believe it’s related to how NY ballots work.
I certainly hope the WFP is prepared for a bad actor hijacking their ballot line.
Not even Mike Lawler trying to be Michael Jackson’s #1 fan will be enough to save him. /s
I agree - Lawler isn't entrenched like Fitzpatrick. I suspect he loses, and handily...
I suspect most of the races that will be in Tossup in November are in Lean/Likely R currently.
Maybe not most, but many. I can count at least 10 districts currently rated Lean R that I expect to be true toss ups. That said, don't forget, we are almost certain to win some Lean R districts anyway. We may even grab a couple of Likely R seat. KY-06, for example, is a seat where we could see some real action.
One thing to keep in mind with this kind of question is that the election ratings change between now and November. Prognosticators will be more conservative the further out we are from election day, and should shift their ratings towards the party that looks most likely to benefit from the national environment as the election draws nearer.
Some of the tossups on election day in 2018 would have been lean R in May. Some of the lean Rs today might become tossups by election day, if current trends hold. Those tossups that are currently labelled as R leaning are the ones I'd expect we're most likely to lose.
How can he divide between D and WFP party lines? I thought fusion voting in NY means same candidate can run as both.
Kean seems to be on walkabout? Weird travel schedule. I guess he could be undergoing some health treatment in...Las Vegas?
Honestly, given everything, I wouldn't be shocked if more than one rep ended up just saying "fuck this" and playing hooky for the rest of the term.
If enough Republicans play hooky, we can elect Hakeem Jeffries as House Speaker before the November Midterm Elections! Not likely to happen, but I would feel a helluva lot safer with Jeffries holding the gavel when Congress reconvenes in January!
That's a fair take on CA-22. I have not been posting much lately I was on SSP many moons ago. I live in Fong's district but if I do anything short of going to Taco Bell I have to go into CA-22. The Democratic primary is going to be telling because it is the first real head-to-head confrontation between rising south Bakersfield based Punjabi politicians and the more established Latin political machines (plural) around the valley. What is most interesting is that Villegas who is Visalia based is the more left of the two considering the long history of skirmishes between the Parras and the Florezes. In the 2020 redistricting the two coalitions made common cause in getting better districts at all levels.
This is a fun exercise. I think Fitzpatrick could hold on in PA-08. The two IA districts could also go either way, I think. I think Perez is probably in pretty good shape, so I'm not sure I agree on WA-03. I think Kaptur is going to lose, unfortunately.
Given that the entire federal government is broken, I believe we are going to have more and more people turn on Republicans as they are impacted by lack of governmental services. Signing up for Medicare/SS, dealing with IRS, a natural disaster, visiting overcrowded national parks, ACA premiums and deductibles, or anything else. The federal government is effectively closed to serving the public.
This week, I have indirectly been dealing with the CDC. Last Sunday morning, I was bitten on the neck by a bat and am undergoing rabies vaccines. My case had the wrinkle that I've undergone rabies shots before, decades ago, in a foreign country that didn't use US protocol then or now. CDC's response has been incoherent on what should be a textbook question. Fortunately local officials are knowledgeable and I'm getting treatment that is appropriate.
Heaven help if the Ebola outbreak gets here.
That's really scary! I'm glad you're getting prompt treatment!
It's funny what does and doesn't rise to the level which leads voters to rise up and throw the bums out. Lots of examples of egregious incompetence, corruption, scandal, and even malice being overlooked repeatedly by voters, and then suddenly something changing that.
I think "last straw" really does usually apply. Whatever it ultimately is, people will say, really, THIS? After everything else, just this? But it's literally because "after everything else." Just one damn thing too many.
Yes. For 2-4 years, and that's it.
Ack! Glad you were able to get treatment! That sounds terrifying.
Happily the 20 shots in the stomach are a thing of the past. Also, based on my experience, the titre from the 1st treatment seems to remain for many many years to provide protection.
I had a blood draw for titer on Wednesday, the day of the second shot which should tell us my immunity from 1991. I'm getting shot 3 tomorrow regardless of titer levels but may eliminate shot 4.
Yeah, the shots don't hurt at all, given in the thigh.
I'm just thankful I'm on Medicare so the cost is covered. Some person on a bronze ACA plan could be writing a check for 7,500 for some freak incident like this. Our broken healthcare delivery system.
$7500 for a rabies shot when I can get one for a 125# Rott for $125? That's insane.
I had the 3 shot panel in 92, then the titer checked 20 years later because we were working in an area with a lot of rabid and occasionally aggressive vermin. The other techs on the project had never had any shots but since I did, it was cheaper to check the titer first. I was good to go. Yay. I guess.
What's the best Dracula joke you've heard so far?
Actually not quite a dracula joke, but did you eat the bat, RFK Jr would have. I've heard that twice.
The treatment is in an ER and I asked health department if there was a clinic and I was told just continue treatment at the ER. I'm sure Medicare pays way less than their rack rate.
When I got treatment in 1991 after a dog bite in Asia, I paid out of pocket, and total treatment was about $50 including immunoglobulin shots and only 2 rabies shots. They were administered in a public health clinic.
Wow—be well. Glad you're okay.
This weekend, I'm interested in GA-Gov.
I think people have severely underestimated Keisha Lance Bottoms (KLB). She had serious, genuine opponents in the primary who raised a lot of money. According to the last fundraising reports, state senator Jason Esteves actually outraised her. And yet, she beat them all by a huge margin.
It is true that she had a somewhat higher name ID, but it's not like a former mayor of Atlanta is on the tip of everybody's tongues. She clearly put in a lot of work and effort to build support and win voters all across Georgia.
Now, with two decidedly MAGA doofuses in the Republican runoff, she has a lot of time to build a strong coordinated campaign with Jon Ossoff and other Democrats. My hope is that it leads to a big blue wave like no other hitting Georgia.
Arguably, the race is one of the most consequential this cycle. If KLB wins the governorship in Georgia, they'll be able to stop the rise of a second Jim Crow in one of the biggest states in the south. If Dems manage to flip the legislature, too, they'll be able to pass legislation undoing decades of damage--and maybe even pass new congressional maps!
And while I understand the reasons for initial skepticism of Bottom's candidacy, let's recall that the only general election polling we've seen has her winning by a 6% margin. Right now, she's the favorite.
So I'm putting out a call to all DBers: let's help KLB and Georgia Democrats win big this November!
If you are able to make a donation this weekend, give one to either her campaign or the Georgia Democratic Party:
Donate to Keisha Lance Bottoms: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/klb-web
Donate to Georgia Dems: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/dpg_web
If you live in Georgia, sign up to volunteer with the Georgia Democratic Party: https://secure.ngpvan.com/dhKXYacA00GX8FHUUHnfaA2
And while I despise social media, I'm well aware that in this day and age, it matters. If you are not doing so already, follow Keisha Lance Bottoms on all the social media platforms and help boost her when her campaign makes posts:
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/keishabottoms
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KeishaForGA
Twitter: https://x.com/keishabottoms
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@keishaforga
BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/keishaforga.bsky.social
Let's help Georgia step up to the plate and hit a grand slam out of the ballpark this November!
She may well win, but I disagree that her primary victory was some sort of substantial effort — especially since she underperformed in the Atlanta area, where voters know her best. She certainly had good name ID among primary voters, and split opposition from different angles that never coalesced nor really took a swing at her. In a 1:1 primary with any one individual she beat last week, I don’t think she would’ve done as well.
My problem with the Atlanta underperformance critique (which others have been saying) is that I think it could be misdiagnosing what happened.
Jason Esteves, Mike Thurmond, and Geoff Duncan all were from the Atlanta area and had bases of support there, so it makes sense that they'd all do well in the Atlanta area too. Despite that, she still got over 40% of the votes in each of the Atlanta area counties. And ultimately, only one person did well outside of Atlanta, and that was KBL.
No. The underperformance was not broadly Atlanta area. It was specifically in areas within the perimeter.
She got a smaller share of Black voters in the core area, and probably in 3rd places in majority White area.
As to the areas further out, majority of White voters wouldn’t be voting in Democratic primary. But for those who did, she was likely ahead but far from a majority.
If you say Duncan is from Atlanta area, technically true. But people would laugh, that is far out edge of exurbs where less than 20% of White voters would support a Dem. Tbh, he had no base.
Do we know what percentage of the vote she actually got in Atlanta's city limits? I have not checked but I assume she still won it?
I know she had some controversies, but if she really were as toxically and irreparably bad as some Election Twitter types claim, she wouldn't have still been able to get 40% of the vote.
She should placed first within the city limit, probably not a majority.
Likely a majority in mostly Black precincts, but not like the overwhelming 70%-80% in the Black majority exurbs.
In the council seats around midtown and to the east, as well as adjacent DeKalb county majority White liberal areas, she is in the 3rd place. As well as the more moderate White majority Buckhead and northern part of DeKalb.
Need to pull the precincts level results to see the percentage.
Fulton is fully municipalized. The precincts are neatly labeled, say, AP01 as the first precinct in Alpharetta, 01A as precinct A in Atl 1st council district, etc. Such that you can easily see where the votes go.
Council districts 7 and 8 are in Buckhead, more moderates where more than half of R votes in the city limit would come from. 2, 5, and 6 are majority White liberals.
DeKalb is a bit tricky that precinct lines may not follow the city limits. Might need some guestimate distribution to see which votes are from within ATL limit.
And she indeed didn’t get 40% within the city limit. 👀
For Fulton portion, KLB-Esteves-Thurmond %
Within ATL, 41-35-12;
looks like she is about 50 in Black majority council districts, behind Esteves in White majority or mixed 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th.
90%+ Black suburban cities within Fulton: 63-13-17. Esteves had no tractions here. She ran a bit worse than the Black majority exurbs further out, but over 60%.
Majority White suburban North Fulton: 46-30-5. Duncan got 14% here. Thurmond is basically unknown. KLB is leading with plurality.
She is indeed running worst inside the home turf.
Judging from DeKalb results, ig she might be not in the 1st place for the section of ATL extending into DeKalb. But not sure.
Found the DeKalb portion of ATL. It was KLB-Esteves-Thurmond at 24-57-8. Duncan was also at 8%, actually got some 24 votes more than Thurmond.
Adding up the whole city at 39-38-11. She was ahead by <1pt.
You know in general election electorate, outside of Atlanta means a completely different animal as to the Democratic primary electorate outside of Atlanta, right?
For D primary, about 40% of Black voter are within the top 4 counties, 60% out of them. Two largest sections are the Black majority exurbs south of the metro, and the secondary cities. These are the places she probably cracked 70% in mostly Black precincts. Rural D votes are not large, The whole rural Black votes are less than those voted in Fulton, and less than 10% rural whites vote Dem. In exurbs, around 20% or less White voters vote Dem.
For White D voters, 55% of primary are within the top 4 counties. So very skewed
For R votes, less than 20% are from the top 4 counties, vast majority are in the exurbs and rural.
So doing well with D primary voters outside of the core counties, tells you nothing how well she will do with the general electorate outside of the core counties.
⬆️"In a 1:1 primary with any one individual she beat last week, I don’t think she would’ve done as well."
I'm sorry, but your response makes no sense to me since she received MORE than 50% of the vote. Your argument would only make sense if she had received a plurality but not a majority of the vote. (In which case, she would now be headed into a runoff).
Are you really suggesting that if she had been in a one-on-one race, people who actually voted for her last week would have switched their vote to someone else that they could have voted for on Tuesday??
Please explain your logic!
My logic is that 1:1, it would be a completely different race, not simply the other candidate getting the exact same vote total as all the others combined. In a 1:1 race, both candidates would’ve gone negative because they each have one singular, focused opponent, and Bottoms’ weaknesses as mayor would’ve been made prominent in ads, debates, etc. In a multi-candidate field that didn’t happen because there’s less money to go around, and nobody knows who’s supporters would’ve gone where.
In the race that just happened, she received a bunch of support by default, but in a 1:1 race, the differences between just 2 candidates would be more stark.
I hope the Dem Party in Georgia is doing some sort of lessons-learned self examination, and will get their act together after blowing those 2 Supreme Court races
It sounded like a pretty uphill climb, given that they were aiming to overturn a 100 year precedent. It also sounded like, if the candidates had had R or D by their name, at least one of them could've pulled it off. The other was pretty well trounced, I guess
I'm in NC, not GA, but it is well established that Democrats in general have a bigger ballot drop-off problem (relative to Republicans) and are less likely to vote down ballot for races like state Supreme Court. Even though the GA race was non-partisan, the two GOP-backed candidates were the incumbents, which absent a scandal, gives them an advantage.
I wrote postcards for the two Democratically-endorsed candidates In this GA race with Postcards to Voters (https://postcardstovoters.org/), but that clearly wasn't enough to give them the boost they needed. I expect that the candidates sent out mailers, but with the number of candidates running in all the primary races being held the same day, I'm sure that theirs got lost in the shuffle. Most of the political mailers I receive go straight to the recycle bin in my garage and don't even make it into my house.
In NC, Supreme Court races have been partisan for at least a decade and it is part of the regular general election (not on primary day like GA). The election is always in an even year so there are a lot of statewide races in presidential election years (when we elect the Governor and Council of State) along with the entire state legislature which is elected every even year.
The Supreme Court races in NC are often very tight races - even within the margin of error. In 2024, Justice Alison Riggs won by 734 votes out of 5.7M with over 189K voters skipping over the Supreme Court race. In 2020, Cheri Beasley lost by 401 votes with over 150K voters skipping this race. This year The NC Democratic Party is putting the Supreme Court and other Judicial races front and center with a lot of door knocking since very early in the year. Hopefully, that will narrow the down ballot drop off!
Before 2008, used to be that Rs won most of the Federal races including all presidential, Dems won most of the council of state races. And the judicial races were the only state level ones Rs clearly led.
I buy that downballot dropoff used to be a bigger problem for us, but are we sure that's still true? Now that we're the higher turnout party and Republicans are essentially a personality cult, I'd have to see some data that supports that we still have higher dropoff rates.
What's the deal with her? Why do people think she's not a strong candidate?
She butted heads with Kemp when the Delta strain of covid came out. Also, she didn't run for reelection in 2021 because 2020 was too much.
A lot more than that. Not running for reelection for reasons.
Protests during Covid, the riots and burning down of a Wendy’s after a policy shooting, armed gang took over the site and shot a young girl passing by. Her handling the situation gave the appearance of shirking responsibility to other elected officials and community leaders.
Cop city was initiated during her term. constructions and protests, and police shooting of one there, happened after. But it is interesting that she gets more blame than her successor the current mayor.
I didn't hear about that Wendy's incident before.
I do imagine initiating "cop city" would be a net positive for her though. She isn't running for Mayor of Seattle.
Not in GA but I’ve heard Cop City is not popular in Atlanta at least. Especially the RICO charges against the demonstrators/voter suppression against the attempted referendum to stop it.
Is it a nimby thing? Do they not want police officers to get more, better training so they screw up less?
I had been skeptical of KLB's statewide viability, but her primary win should allay if not eliminate many of those concerns. Not only did she easily clear a majority (while the GOP has to fight among themselves for several more weeks), but on the map I saw she won almost every county. It's not as if she won just based on Metro Atlanta and nowhere else.
And with both parties in Georgia having had seriously contested primaries, more votes were cast in the Democratic primary than the Republican one, continuing a pattern we've seen in red-leaning states such as Texas and Ohio in which Dems significantly reduced or eliminated the recent GOP primary turnout advantage. This wasn't a case of Bottoms winning only on the strength of Democratic base voters because most Independents and swing voters voted in the Republican primary, if at all.
You missed the discussions that she is particularly weaker within the city limit, and within the I285 perimeter.
I'm not sure I buy the supposition that says that means she will automatically underperform in Atlanta metro in the GE.
No. If anything sinks her in the fall, it will be from the White majority suburbs and exurbs.
The intown leftists, no matter how grudgingly, as long as they turn out to vote on the Senate race, will most likely still vote for her as well.
⬆️"This wasn't a case of Bottoms winning only on the strength of Democratic base voters because most Independents and swing voters voted in the Republican primary, if at all.'
If most Swing voters and Independents voted in the GOP primary, then who besides Democratic base voters voted for Bottoms? Who's left?
Just on the contrary. It is pretty much she won on her strength in base voters.
Winning primary voters out of the metro core, does NOT mean any particular strength in the general election out of the metro core at all. Neither positive nor negative.
The reason is pretty simple. Very few White voters out side of the metro core would vote in Dem primaries. In the exurbs, Appalachian, and piedmont counties, varying 15-25%. The southern coastal plains, less than 10%. Thus the out of core primary pool has a much heavier composition of Black voters, than the primary pool within the metro core.
Getting a lopsided win in primary there, tells us nothing about the general election strength there.
I agree that she's probably being underestimated. I suspect she's roughly equivalent to "Generic D" and that could well be enough to win GA-Gov this year.
South Carolina Republicans failed to fast-track the proposed congressional map through the Senate after a cloture vote didn't get enough support.
SC lawmakers will try again Saturday, though even if cloture passes, the earliest the bill could reach the governor is Tuesday, the same day early voting begins.
https://www.wrdw.com/2026/05/22/south-carolina-redistricting-debate-continues-into-weekend/#
Yeah and then the legal issues become worse than now once early in-person voting starts. Not to mention the millions needed that they have not allocated to abort the early voting process and restart it all just for new Congressional primaries.
Allow me to be skeptical that there are still legal issues for Republicans...
The primary is June 9th.
And?
They certainly don't give a damn ethically. I do wonder whether the borked primaries ultimately confuse and piss off their own voters as well as everyone else, though. I guess they figure it's worth it.
They do, and so does the corrupt, unconstitutional Supreme Court.
Planning and logistics are the issue.
The Supreme Court doesn't care, when it benefits Republicans.
Cloture passed about an hour ago, limiting debate that would start Tuesday to an hour/senator. 7 Rs voted against cloture. There won't be 46 hours of debate because those for the new map won't use their time. If it passes 3rd reading, McMaster can sign it late Tues or Wed. But early voting starts Tuesday and 1000s of absentee ballots have already been returned.
Some R senators have said if this didn't pass before voting started, they would vote against it. Doubtful that'll be enough to add to no votes on cloture to kill this at this point.
Majority Leader Shane Massey, who opposes redistricting, says Tuesday’s third reading was always going to be the real battle. He said there was no reason to keep senators at the State House over a holiday weekend.
“We knew that the earliest you were going to get to a third reading scenario was on Tuesday anyway,” Massey said. “I think more realistically you’re looking at Wednesday at the earliest by the time everything gets done. It could go longer than that.”
https://www.wrdw.com/2026/05/23/sc-redistricting-map-passes-second-reading-final-vote-set-tuesday/
VA politico Ben Tribbett suggests that Gov. Spanberger is seeking to oust the VA Senate leadership team, although the Governor's office says this is untrue. Considering the recent NYT report on redistricting, though.
https://x.com/notlarrysabato/status/2057839168621891636?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/22/us/politics/partisan-mud-fight-or-focus-on-the-midterms-redistricting-divides-democrats.html
Spanberger has burned a lot of bridges in Richmond and doesn't have the influence her team thinks she has. She lost the unions when she vetoed collective bargaining and ticked off Louise Lucas and the black caucus by vetoing the retail marijuana bill. And who is going to be going in the trenches for her as anti-union/anti-pot candidates to take out the leadership? Those people don't exist.
To be fair, she did send them recommendations to put in regulations so as to curtail weed abuses and they didn't incorporate them.
They rejected them because she blindsided lawmakers with her amendments after not communicating at all with legislators during the session that she had issues with the bill. You can't just make substantial changes to a bill the legislature spent months negotiating and expect them to accept them in a week.
And thus the growing thought that Spanberger doesn’t understand how the legislative process works, and is incapable of working with others...
https://bluevirginia.us/2026/05/va-gov-abigail-spanberger-betrays-more-than-half-a-million-public-service-workers-by-vetoing-historic-collective-bargaining-legislation/
Oh is that the bottom line. That would make some sense of what seem like utterly inexplicable decisions. Ugh. "Moderates" are one thing. Power tripping politicians who can't play nicely in the sandbox? That's a real problem.
Sigh.
As Rep., Spanberger voted against Pelosi for Speaker. So it seems she likes high profile fights with other Democrats.
Also, as a lame duck, she possible feels she can lean into her worst instincts and just doesn't GAF.
What the fuck is she DOING? Why on god's earth? Is this really what she believes? What a frigging waste of goodwill and power. Ugh.
Ben is full of BS
Agree, this guy seems like kind of a troll - even his username is a bit of a joke
I think it's beyond fanciful. They are very powerful and popular members, and she's not going to take on the state senate leadership in primaries when she has to grow the majority to really juice legislative margins (let alone put it at risk of flipping and hobbling the second half of her single term with divided government after securing a historic trifecta).
AR-SEN:
This is a Safe Republican race but with Democratic Senate Candidate Hallie Shoffner running, my understanding is that she’s raising awareness about the farming industry not getting support.
Arkansas farmers are being hit hard and suffering a lot. I believe this is an issue that’s being addressed in the IA-SEN race but the problems are not unique to solely to IA.
https://www.hallieshoffner.com/
https://www.thv11.com/article/news/local/arkansas-farmers-crop-production-bankruptcies/91-ddcd14cf-d6f8-4f2d-8650-40eefb936c1b
Lmao.
https://x.com/EJDionne/status/2057581929721921548
A sign of the GOP’s troubles: A sharp drop in the share of the country that identifies as Republican.
Fourth quarter 2024
Republican/Lean Republican 47
Democrat/Lean Democrat 43
First Quarter 2026
Republican/Lean Republican 39
Democrat/Lean Democrat 49
https://news.gallup.com/poll/654560/quarterly-party-affiliation.aspx
That 10 point margin in our favor in self-ID is the biggest in the Trump era. In 2018 our margin improved from 7 to 8 between 1Q18 and 4Q18. In 2020 it grew from tied in 1Q20 to 7 in 4Q20. In 2022 it fell from +1 to -6 between 1Q22 and 4Q22. In 2024 it fell from +2 to -4.
The self-ID margin in this poll has improved in our favor in each of the past 5 quarterly samples, ever since Trump was re-elected, improving 14 points overall. Extrapolating irresponsibly, the trend would place us at +18 in 4Q26...
A guy can dream right? A D+15 election landslide drubbing and maybe, just maybe, the Republican Party decides to not do the whole Trump experiment again and to move on from MAGA because they want to be able to win in politics again.
Democrats will actually have to govern like they have a mandate. If we’re gonna lose. I’d prefer we lose for doing too much and going too far than playing it safe and not doing enough. Incrementalism has utterly failed. It’s time for bold moves.
Absolutely. GEM's latest about structural factors in our 2024 loss (we lost because voters hated the economy and we were the incumbent party) is spot on. We will absolutely see a massive reversal in our electoral fortunes post-2028 if we play small ball and don't make things broadly much better for people in visible ways. Biden should have declared an emergency and temporarily frozen rents.
And no matter what they do, they should expect to take a bath in 2030 if there's a Democrat in the White House. If they instead do well, great, but they have to get everything done in 2029 on the assumption that it's their only chance for a while.
We really need to make sure that the law that authorizes the 2030 reapportionment bans congressional Gerrymandering. And expand the Supreme Court so the Jim Crow Six don't just decided that the States can ignore that.
100%. I think pretty much everyone is aligned with this. You and I sit on opposite ends of the D spectrum (as far as I can tell) and we are on the same page here.
This might be controversial but I do wonder if the solution after 2028 is a schism within the party to give people an alternative that is NOT the Republican Party. It sounds crazy but we can't let Republicans be the only alternative again and we all know that the best case scenario for the future of the Republic is if the Democratic Party becomes the new(well, kinda) Conservative Party and a new Left Wing Party emerges.
While I generally think that more parties would be a positive thing, what you're proposing would probably hand a lot of elections to Republicans.
https://southwestregionalpublishing.com/2026/05/22/lyons-mayor-chris-getty-files-to-run-as-independent-for-congress/
IL-4: Democrat Chris Getty, the mayor of Lyons, will run as an independent here, after Patty Garcia was installed as the Democratic nominee.
He joins Chicago alder Byron Sigcho-Lopez and activist Mayra Macias.
Interesting, I live in this district and spend time in both the city and suburban portions, and have only seen folks gathering petitions or Macias and Sigcho-Lopez.
The chance of an independent candidate winning was already slim even with just one of them. With three of them? Patty Garcia might as well start buying furniture for her new office now.
The opposite of what is happening in the Detroit/Thanedar race, where the field has narrowed down to a 1v1
Win one, lose one I guess.
A good trade off.
I'd much rather Thanedar lose than Garcia. The only negative thing I know about Garcia is how she got this nomination in an underhanded way. Thanedar is far more problematic.
My guess is the Getty will hope that Garcia, Sigcho-Lopez, and Macias split the Latino vote, and he can win with a coalition of more moderate white voters and some Latinos. Pretty fanciful, considering most of the relevant players in this district and within the Latino political community are supporting Garcia, as are both the city and state AFL-CIO.
I wonder if Byron will challenge Patty in the Dem primary in 2028. Given that Patty is otherwise progressive, I suspect possibly not.
I don’t want to start a fight, even though I know I probably will by posting this, but if any of those lurkers or posters who have commented on occasion here about being upset and wondering how in the world our party voters, average, ordinary Democrats who’ve supported the establishment pick for decades, are now turning to the Mamdani, Platner, Mejia, Rabb candidates of the party and voting for candidates they’ve never voted for or supported in the past?
Well, it’s because Josh Shapiro and Abigail Spanberger are what we’re getting from elected Democrats when we get behind the establishment choice. The old party establishment and those who are still supporters of moderation to win, with old school type thinking, have only theirselves to blame by being unwilling to represent the voters how we want to be represented after we elect them into office. Tell me how much different all of these vetoes are to former Republican Glenn Youngkin? Wouldn’t he have done the same?
You can only disappoint our voters so many times with a “we promise we’re different this time in this campaign if you elect us”, while in office, going back to the same crap that’s made our voters despise their own party, to rage at it’s incompetence, for going back on their campaign promises. People eventually get tired of being played for fools every single election and begin to look elsewhere for political answers and real representation of them and their beliefs.
Also, this is normal, party factions grow, shrink and break off all the time throughout history. Now’s just another period with replacement happening in our party. That’s why the base is done taking orders about who is the best candidate in any race. Yeah, sure, maybe we’ll lose the seat to a Republican from being too left or too controversial, but at least if we win, we’ll get all of what we want instead of bones here and there to placate us.
Perhaps instead of being worried and complaining about other voters moving left of their preferred moderate candidates in primaries, those people of this faction should do some much needed introspection and look to themselves for the answer of why our party voters are so unbelievably furious that we’re picking the bombastic/far left progressives in primaries now.
If enough of our voters are doing this, in making these candidates our nominees in 2026 primaries, consider the possibility that maybe the problem isn’t everyone else who aren’t backing the establishment’s candidates anymore, maybe instead the problem is a lot closer to home. And yes, the article is obviously from a progressive who hates Democrats, their headline is exaggerative and she’s done a lot of good, she’s absolutely better than a Republican, period.
At the same time, regardless of the source of criticism, are any of these vetoes actually defendable? This is the type of thing gaining traction from our base on social media websites, so it’s no wonder so many voters (including our own) think both parties are the same. We need people in politics who represent us better and if the old establishment is unwilling to change to be what we want in today’s politics instead of what we wanted a decade ago, then voters will replace them with the people who will.
It doesn’t matter what’s true, or the fact Spanberger almost certainly will pass a marijuana legalization bill at some point and get most of these bills into law. It matters how people actually feel, and this just builds into the growing narrative our voter base is beginning to accept as reality: That these Democrats don’t represent us well anymore, that we need fresh blood and new names to lead us because the Democrats of old won’t do what we want.
I actually don’t believe any of that fwiw, because I’m a pragmatic progressive and I understand laws take time to write and revise. I understand that we can’t get everything we want done for a litany of reasons. I understand every Democrat is better than a Republican. However, I am in the minority as a voter, I’m well educated about politics and how things work.
Meanwhile average Democrats see this going viral on their social media feeds and get even angrier at our party while deciding who to back in primaries for upcoming midterm elections. Doesn’t take a political science major to see what the end result winds up being because of it. People vote with their emotions, not their logic and they’re inundated with stories like these all day every day.
Voters are already ill informed and misinformed, so this just adds gasoline to the fire raging right now amongst our voters hearts and minds. I wish it weren’t true, I wish people would use their brains to vote, but they don’t and that’s why all this is happening right now in our party for the first time ever.
https://x.com/_carlbeijer/status/2057494268655059148
NEW: I looked at all of the vetoes from Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) over the last week, and they were even worse than you thought they were.
https://www.peoplesline.org/p/spanbergers-week-was-even-worse-than
Shapiro has had some controversy lately, given his backdoor support of Stacy Garrity in 2024 and meddling in congressional primaries, not to mention the rumors regarding his influence with the 2024 presidential race. If you're insinuating this is about his religion, then why didn't dragonfire mention other governors with the same background?
I don’t like Shapiro because I disagree with his centrism and because of his helping the Republican he now faces in the Treasurer race to retaliate against a Dem he didn’t like.
Not everyone who dislikes Shapiro dislikes him because of his religion.
Centrism philosophy from a political sense is not restrictive. In fact, it can be constructive is so much as moderate philosophy in a political sense can be constructive.
But actually holding political office changes the dynamic because then it’s the judgement of those in office who happen to be centrist or moderate that’s in question.
Case in point - Jared Golden may be more conservative than Abigail Spanberger but if he were Governor of Maine, he likely would sign a collective bargaining bill into law. Golden has a pro-union record and likely wouldn’t pull the crap that Spanberger did as Governor.
I know. Weird I am talking about Golden in this way vs. Spanberger. But on the matter with unions, it’s a clear distinction between the two as they also happened to serve together in the House before Spanberger left to run for Governor of VA.
That is a very good point. Different politicians can hold different beliefs on different issues. Mary Peltola is also relatively conservative and she really came out against the big supermarket merger a few years ago on monopoly grounds. I admit I get lost in ideology sometimes and it can cloud my own judgement.
That said, Shapiro’s elevation of Garrity does not exactly speak well towards his character in my opinion.
Notice how that wasn't my only point of disagreement, though. I think the thing with Garrity really dragged him down for me. And my problem with his 2024 involvement wasn't his influence, it was him being arrogant, thinking he was going to be the running mate for Harris and being bitter about not getting it.
If he's more outspoken about being Jewish, so? That doesn't mean the 3 other Jewish governors don't matter.
Backing a Republican should be a redline for our party. If you disagree, I’d suggest you are in the extreme minority on that one. You inventing some bigoted reason for me including the Governor in the “Democrats who don’t act like Democrats when in office” category I used is a really bad look for someone here, and that ain’t me. Do better next time.
Is it a redline to refuse to vote for our presidential nominee in 2024 because of an issue we can't discuss? I know a lot of leftists who crossed that line.
Not Dragonfire but in my opinion yes. I’m as livid with those who wouldn’t vote for Harris on leftist grounds as I am on centrist grounds. I voted for Harris in spite of issues I had with certain things she did. I hold all voters who did not vote for Harris responsible for this disaster we’re in now. When the US started threatening Canada, Canadian voters lined up behind the Liberals. I would have hoped the threat of Trump would do the same here, but no. Just awful all around.
I missed your reply, but absolutely! Fight it out in the primary. Then back the Democrat for the general. I don’t care what wing or ideology a person has who won’t support a nominated Democrat over a Republican. It’s disqualifying from any direction of any politician, period.
I don't think that's at all a fair assumption to make, that people here dislike a fellow democrat because of their ethnic background.
How many people here complain about Pritzker or Stein? Ossoff or Wyden? Occam's razor suggests that if someone dislikes centrist politicians, and they dislike a centrist that is also Jewish, that the reason they dislike that person is because that official is a centrist. Giving the benefit of the doubt here is critical for maintaining a positive community. A presumption of negative justifications is a very bad approach IMO. Not just this but for everything here.
I think he is more outspokenly centrist, which is why he receives more criticism.
He’s also a bit, hm. Well—Pritzker and Ossoff are also both high profile and plausible 2028 candidates (though I hope Ossoff doesn’t, we need every Senate seat and GA’s hardly an easy replacemen. Otherwise I’d probably be a fan).
But, while admittedly this is more vibes than anything than any one thing I’m remembering clearly, Shapiro comes off somehow as…I want to say, thirstier? I remember thinking at the DNC he came off like he was doing a sort of poor man’s Obama.
Also remembering that Harris turned him down for (I think rightly) Walz, and that the chatter was that Shapiro didn’t feel like as good a fit playing second fiddle (and, at least implied, much less to a woman).
I don’t know. I’m not crazy about him. I had some specific reasons which escape me at the moment because of course. I think most recently, something or other about him supporting a Republican on the down low for small p political reasons.
Anyway.
That also said, I do think it’s true that Shapiro is more legible as Jewish to more people than Pritzker or Ossoff.
We don't talk about potential Democratic presidential candidates on this board as such.
Bingo. I was not happy that Shapiro tried to intervene to stop Rabb, for one. (I would say the same for other governors, to be clear - I was really angry about how Hochul handled the India Walton Buffalo mayoral situation, for one.)
Stein also is in a difficult situation where the NC GOP kneecapped his power due to authoritarianism/Phil Berger, so he couldn’t do much high-profile to begin with. And Ossoff, to me, is in the same category as Peltola — while he has made votes progressives didn’t like, he’s well liked among the left for the positions he did take. Not all progressives are black-and-white Green 2024 voters. Many are pragmatists too.
I disagree with that. But regardless of the disagreement: I reiterate my statements that I strongly feel a presumption of negative justifications is a bad approach here, while the benefit of the doubt is absolutely the right approach.
If you feel there's not much daylight between those officials ideologically, that's fine! That's what healthy debate is for. But some people will see that daylight, and giving them the benefit of the doubt that said daylight is their reasons for disliking a specific official -- even if you disagree with them on how much there is -- rather than a horrible reason is essential to fostering that healthy discourse here.
Did any of the other folks you're talking about support a Republican in a statewide race? If I see Shapiro and think Pennsylvania's Andrew Cuomo, am I anti-Italian?
I'm sure there are some chuds out there who criticize him because he's Jewish. But most of the criticism that I've seen here focuses exclusively on his policies, his rhetoric and his actions.
his nuking a fellow party member's campaign in '24 because the democrat dared to question him?
It sounds like you are a socialist like me. I'm skeptical just how socialist Democratic voters are now. Let's revisit this in November, or better yet, November 2028.
Going one step back from socialism specifically to just progressive or progressive-ish anti-establishment more broadly... I think the answer is the shift will be less than we'd like, but they will represent a larger share of the party than before.
Yes, it looks like that to me.
I believe it depends on what you mean by socialist. The economic definition is that the government controls and owns the means of production. It can be democratic, but I believe most Americans equate socialism with the USSR which didn't work out well.
I personally like progressive better where we allow companies and wealthy people to prosper and tax the hell out of them to provide social services. Make Jeff Bezos pay enough in taxes that he really has something to complain about.
Dictatorships cannot be socialist. Socialism means that the workers rule, and that's impossible in a dictatorship. Similarly, "democratic" has a real meaning, even if North Korea calls itself the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea."
I beg to differ.
Socialism refers to the ownership of the means of production, period. The governance of that socialist state can take any form including dictatorship. If you have a dictatorship, it quickly becomes corrupted where the state owned assets are managed for the pleasure of the dictator and those connected to them, but they are still state owned. Frightening y, we are entering that territory under Trump.
We very strongly disagree. Socialism is specifically about the workers owning the means of production. If the government does not represent the workers, it is just despotism, a nightmarish monopolistic dictatorship. Stalin was very far from a socialist.
I don't think this is true. The dictionary definition of Socialism is "an economic and political system based on the collective, public, or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. It operates on the principle that resources should be managed to benefit society as a whole rather than private individuals." As I read it, a Democratic government could be Socialist, as could an authoritarian one. To be clear, I'm not equating Socialism to either authoritarianism or Democracy, just pointing out that it is technically compatible with either, at least per the dictionary definition.
I don't agree with whichever dictionary's definition you are quoting, but let's say it's accurate. If an authoritarian regime could be socialist under that definition, it would have to manage the economy to benefit the people, not a class of apparatchiks. Where has that ever happened, that party members under a communist dictatorship weren't a privileged class?
I don't disagree with you. I was just pointing out that you could have an authoritarian system of government where the means of production/distribution of goods are owned by the public/government.
You know, I agree with you as someone socialist leaning, but one of the things I like most about this website is that other people can have discourse about this without burning bridges and defaulting to insults.
I don’t think I did any of that, but if you feel I did, please point out where you think I did and I’ll consider editing.
I worded that weirdly - I didn't mean that you said anything disagreeable to me, I meant that other people could disagree without it becoming hostile, which is rare on the internet.
Ah, I see, yes, I enjoy dialogue and debate, even vigorous and emotionally charged difficult conversations and try to make it so that I’m not trying to dissuade people from disagreeing when I post long form comments. We can only learn if we talk with each other.
Completely agree - it's what I love about this site. Rational, thoughtful (generally) debate between people who disagree frequently but are all on the same team. It's pretty special and unique and it's why I come back here.
Win more elections.
It’s that simple.
Win more elections.
It's not quite that simple. Democrats who win elections have to act, act quickly, and act aggressively enough for people to really notice a positive change in their lives.
Do you remember what Bernie Sanders said when he was interviewed by Chris Matthews on MSNBC on the topic of getting legislation done with Mitch McConnell being Senate Majority Leader if he were elected POTUS?
Bernie said he would rally the American people to fight back, which I believe meant Bernie would utilize his base and like minded activists to put pressure on Congress.
But that was 2016. Now 10 years later, the base of activism and action is much stronger in the Democratic Party. More elections means more Democrats as officeholders being able to wield influence.
We’ve seen shift pushback by Democrats in CO against Governor Polis and in VA against Governor Spanberger. Personally, if Polio, Spanberger, Shapiro, etc. get elected, I’d want the Democratic Party establishment in these respective states to be more responsive and in tune with where the base of Democrats are these days.
That was an extremely naive or intentionally false statement by Bernie. No pressure from the left was ever going to cause McConnell to budge.
I agree. I was mentioning this not because I don't think rallying the American people (the base) is important but rather it's much easier to apply in context when Democrats have more power.
Point is, when I say win more elections, I'm really referring to Democrats not getting down and out because Governor Shapiro or Governor Spanberger started making their heads spin with their actions while being in office. I don't want to see the party lose itself and energy from this.
You are however making a valid point about Democrats taking action quickly and overall being in tune with voters.
Winning elections is insufficient when the election-winners start acting like Republicans.
Me, I just want to focus on candidates for on their own merits. Some insiders are good; some aren't. Some outsiders are swell. Some aren't. Unfortunately the latter only becomes apparent after they become, well, insiders.
The latter also don't actually turn out to be more progressive than the former.
Ditto the young/old divide. (Incidentally, Sanders always seems to escape the anti gerontocracy crowd for some reason. Personally I think he's rather fossilized in certain regards and his record as kingmaker is spotty at best. And I do wonder if the admittedly old school Republican VT governor replaces him with a Dem if he dies before his term's up)
Mamdani's one of the bright spots in this miasma we're all living through. I feel like, for example, Platner's a very different sort of character, even if I like some of the positions he *says* he stands for now. But, we'll find out.
Meanwhile there are longtimers who.never stood out as particularly left or barn burning who turned out to be absolute mensches: thinking Senator Van Hollen, for instance.
Generally it'd just be nice if we could all do more careful research and critical thinking and not just go on, you know, brand. Or vibes.
But hell, I do it too.
Trying not to, though.
"don't always turn out to be more progressive" that should say.
Fetterman, anyone? Sinema?
Anyway, yes, Spanberger is being inexplicably horrible. Too. Very disappointing.
You really can't be sure how people may change when they get into higher office. I remember Chuck Schumer being a good liberal Congressman from Brooklyn.
Yeah. Well, and the voting public changes also, as does what constitutes "good liberal" and what becomes most important.
I still don't actually think he's a bad person, as such, the way I do of some other people. I don't even actually think he's the worst possible leader who ever was or could be. I do disagree with some of his positions and especially with the number he pulled on the first shutdown. Not even so much that he/the Senate caved, so much that until literally the day before he had said they wouldn't, leaving the House to go out on a limb for nothing. And then that tone deaf interview he gave that same day, mourning the lost collegiality of his pals across the aisle/gym lockers and he's sure it'll go back to normal after Trump. Dude. It's been TEN YEARS. If you don't get it by now...
He's one of way too many Democratic senators who have blood on their hands from being cowards or just plain immoral and voting to attack Iraq for not attacking the U.S. on 9/11/01 or having nukes.
As you say, that's almost all of them from that era.
I do think people get more than a bit Bitches Eating Crackers over Jeffries even if the Schumer animosity/exasperation is at least somewhat justified.
It wasn't almost all of them.
That also said, while the snowjob was right there in evidence if you wanted to see it, you had supposed experts assuring us it WAS so and the steady drumbeat from NYT and elsewhere.
I can't believe how exponentially even dumber the Iran shit is, AND it's not all that long after we -know- what Iraq turned into--hey, after Bush Sr's little excursion, there was the energizing collective memory of invading Iraq being a cakewalk, if you want to get really cynical about it.
And still, the entire Republican party is...the human centipede, basically, at this point.
p.s. it's entirely possible we're invading Cuba real soon now. And I thought -I- had ADHD flavored tendency to abandon projects halfway through to start shiny new ones. YEEHA
One country definitely learned a key lesson from the US invasion of Iraq: This is what happens when you DON’T have weapons of mass destruction.
Sadly, the country that learned that lesson was Iran.
And arguably North Korea.
That also said, re Fetterman and Sinema, there were definitely red flags on character if not position that were there if people had dug more deeply; or rather, had paid better attention to the people who had. Fetterman's chasing down a Black jogger at gunpoint in 2013 when he was the frigging mayor, for instance. People were not fazed enough to not vote him in, so, -YOLO shrug emoji-, yanno?
And he never apologized for that either. It's not just a head injury.
It probably helped Fetterman that the "jogger" was doing time for armed kidnapping when the election was held. Also helped that he endorsed Fetterman, lol.
That’s the entirety of my point you’re making for me. You, me, we, all of us TDB users here are the exceptions! Everything we talk about here is an exception, the policies we care about are the exception. Evaluating candidates based on policy and campaigns. Most voters don’t do that. Most voters (even our party’s!) vote based on emotions, not logic.
They want the candidate that makes them feel like they’ll fight for them with everything they’ve got and more. So we really shouldn’t be surprised right now with the primary results that are happening when this emotionally charged perception is literally everywhere every day for our voters. It’s impossible not to get swept up in those emotions if you see the same thing day after day after day.
Or in other words, look how strongly Republican voters believe conspiracy theories over facts after being told constantly that they’re true for years by people they trust. Or how apolitical voters decided to vote for Trump from podcast bros telling them to. Trump figured this out a decade ago, it’s why he got elected twice.
Emotions are how you control and manipulate people into believing lies. Our party is not immune to this phenomenon and now the loudest critics on the left have figured out Trump’s key to success in politics and are constantly attacking our party establishment candidates as not being real Democrats.
It’s becoming more and more believed and a successful narrative lie accepted as the truth. So that wing of the party can either decide to change tactics, stop talking about policy and bipartisanship and start talking about how angry people feel right now, using it to their advantage, or they can let the party be taken over by the blue MAGA/Tea Party of the left.
Because our voters today aren’t going to settle who they pick to represent our party based on their brains and they certainly aren’t going to vote for anyone who sounds like they don’t understand the current constitutional crisis emergency that requires bold actions to stop, before it’s too late and MAGA/Project 2025 fascism takes hold permanently in America.
That’s why the Platner’s of the party are gaining ground with our voter base and never elected Democrats are destroying multiple elected term statewide incumbents before a single vote is cast. That’s where the energy is in our party right now and it is surging, bringing in new voters and growing stronger as a movement by the week.
Rabb won by 13 points in his primary, almost hitting 40%. Mejia won her primary by 2 points with almost 30%. The elections were held just 1 month apart. I’m betting none of these candidates I’ve mentioned are the last ones of their wing/type/mould for this midterm election cycle either.
While Spanberger's vetoes are infuriating, don't kid yourself, she's 1000x better than a GOP Gov.
I don’t think you read all of my comment, because that’s exactly what I said.
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/797896-redistricting-shuffle-pia-dandiya-shifts-candidacy-to-open-cd-22-leaving-brian-mast-challenge-behind/
FL-21, FL-22: Former academic administrator and Apple official Pia Dandiya, who has so far conducted a well-funded campaign against Republican Rep. Brian Mast, will switch to the open 22nd. Former state Sen. Lauren Book is also considering a run in the Democratic primary.
Businessmen Michael Carbonara, Casey Askar and Herbie Wertheim and former national security official Mike Thompson are running on the Republican side, with former New York Rep. Chris Collins considering.
Book would be a terrific get here
Ehhhh if all things else are equal, I’d much rather have a Hispanic/Latina Democrat running in these heavily Hispanic/Latino districts over a white Democrat, especially in Florida where we’ve lost a TON of ground politically in. Identity politics still plays a major factor in voters decisions. It’s why the MAGA party line Ciscomani can survive as an elected rep in an Arizona swing purple district. People see someone who looks like them and think they’ll be a good representative for them. It really is as simple as that sadly and Republicans figured this out a long time ago.
Hispanic identity helps in that seat, but it's not the end-all be-all. Voting record aside, Ciscomani is seen as business moderate, in a seat which has always previously elected white moderates (of both parties), and we ran a non-Hispanic white lefty professor in both his races for the seat. Don't get me wrong, Engel was much more my cup of tea than Danny Hernandez, and I donated to her campaign, but I feared her nomination would lose us the seat.
Most accurate 2025 pollster.
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2057826982881034245
📊 2026 Generic Congressional Ballot
🟦 Democrats: 52%
🟥 Republicans: 41%
(sponsored by Unite Here, a Dem-leaning union)
Verasight | 5/18-20 | 2,000 A
Any prognostication about the runoff for Georgia Lieutenant Governor?
I think Kennedy and McLaurin will win, respectively, but it will probably be somewhat close on the Democratic side with Parkes. That primary was already pretty bitter, and she resorted to accusations of misogyny against McLaurin. The Republican primary didn't really have a frontrunner until Kennedy and Dolezal made it out of it.
McLaurin was JDV’s roommate at Yale, right?
Yes, although he is about 4 years Vance's junior.
And leaked all the nasty texts Vance said about Trump. lol
Subtract the Trump 2024 -> Won’t vote 2026 voters and you understand why the GCB is approaching double digits for Democrats in more than 1 poll.
https://x.com/ForecasterEnten/status/2057850199863599160
Voters who didn't cast a ballot in 2024 are pissed off, & it could reshape the midterms.
Trump's net approval with them is down 54 pt since Nov 2024 to -50 pt now!
A lot (48%) of these non-2024 voters say they're at least very likely to vote in 2026 & they favor Dems by 31 pt.
DWS needs to retire from Congress, or her new constituents will vote her out in the primary.
I'm still gunning for Elijah Manley, personally. I don't mind Uncle Luke but he doesn't seem to have a shot.
The idea of a 2 Live Crew member being in congress is....something. The crazy thing is, the more I read about him, the more he seems like he'd be a pretty decent congressman.
Looking through his issues, the crypto stuff is a red flag.
https://www.luthercampbellforcongress.com/issues
Is it? His proposals there seem relatively sensible to me. I don't view any engagement with crypto as ipso facto bad. The fact is that it is here to stay so we should have a plan and his seems relatively reasonable.
I am fervently against crypto. I do not like the idea of an untraceable currency -- it is, to me, an invitation to criminals and foreign electoral interference. Additionally, the number of crypto scams, and the people screwed by them, is alarming.
That may be (and, frankly, I'm not sure I disagree with you) but the fact it is that it is here and it's not going to be outlawed (even if it was, I doubt it could be enforced) so we might as well have a plan. On that front, Campbell's seems pretty reasonable.