Well, I fear my wife will not push me down the stairs so as to put me into a coma until March 4th. In the meantime, Kamala Harris, last seen losing Texas by the worst margin in over a decade, has weighed in to endorse Crockett.
I am going to be a poll denier. I don’t care how irrational it is, I’ll own it. I will choose to be optimistic. It’s humorous to me that there are two primaries on Tuesday that could determine nominees in two key Senate races. In one of them, we have a popular former Governor who seems to be on a glide path to the Senate. In Texas, we potentially have the opportunity of a lifetime and we might squander it. I refuse to believe we will.
Regarding support for Crockett, is it more that 1) People deny the obvious fact that she can't win a statewide election in Texas, or 2) People don't care whether she can win or not, and look solely at her race and gender (since I haven't seen anyone supporting her for any other reason besides that)?
I'm honestly curious which of those is closer to what's going on.
Ironically, I recently downloaded Harris's book, "107 Days" to my phone and plan on finishing it this weekend. I only have 2 days before the loan period expires.
While so far, I believe the book is self serving, I believe the media really hyped attacks on Democrats above what she really said and took a lot of things out of context. And this is from somebody who has never been a Harris fan, but have voted for her when the alternative was a Republican.
Harris is such a disappointment. She could've easily been our next California governor. Every other serious Dem. candidate would've withdrawn for her. And she likely would've glided to a comfortable victory.
(And as a nice bonus, we wouldn't have the currently looming top-two lockout predicament)
Instead, she authors a self-serving book and she endorses Crockett in TX.
I have confidence this won't move the needle, since the EV period is over, the KHive type voters were behind Crockett anyway, and the ED vote will favor anti-establishment progressives like Talarico over corporate favorites like Crockett.
Maybe if Harris really wanted to move the needle for Crockett she would or should have done more and done it earlier. A robocall at this point feels somewhat perfunctory, though she of course didn't actually have to do anything at all.
Kamala Harris, Angela Alsobrooks, Cardi B, Ayanna Pressley, Collin Allred, Nina Turner and KHive are her biggest endorsements. It's not racist to point this out.
They don't share similar ideologies or philosophies. Harris is Harris, Pressley is a Warrenite and Squad, Cardi B and Turner were big Bernie boosters and Allred is a suburban moderate.
"2) People don't care whether she can win or not, and look solely at her race and gender"
That said, this doesn't really seem relevant to Kildere53's question. The question wasn't "why do people support Crockett?", it was "are her supporters aware that she can't win the general election?".
Nina Turner continues to make it clear she doesn't care too much about people actually getting elected to do good work, and would rather either be picky and not vote or get in and support someone terrible.
It's like when you agree almost completely with someone but they express your views in such an annoying way you can't help but not like them. That's how I feel about her.
If I were a Crockett supporter (I’m not), I’d basically argue all of the below:
- That we’ve run establishment, electable candidates for two decades in the state and haven’t won a single election. The only time we got close was in a wave year with a progressive Congress member in Beto. That the path to winning Texas isn’t by trying to appeal to the middle and moderate Republican, but instead to get nonvoters to surge to the polls by revving our potential base to be fired up and outvote the opposition, instead of trying to win them over.
- I’d also say if I supported her that the only Democratic president to be elected in a landslide did a lot of things in his campaign that back then were mocked by punditry because of how campaigns were supposed to be run. Then he won and those formerly criticized campaign decisions became viewed as ingenious and a part of every future campaign on both sides of the aisle.
- There’s something to say about a Democratic black female fighter rising star politician having no campaign manager, having little ground game organization, being outraised 3 to 1, while Talarico is having massive campaign turnout rallies and still she’s in a fight to win the nomination. This race should be a 60-30 blowout, but it isn’t. We should be considering why. After all, we thought Trump’s unconventional, bizarre campaign couldn’t win in America, twice, and were wrong.
I don’t believe that to be true fwiw, but I also acknowledge that in such a massive state as Texas, which usually has lower turnout compared to other states, it could be true during an election where the other side has an unenthusiastic base, Trump is President and it’s a terrible economy. It’s also true that half of the primary voters who’ve voted already haven’t voted in a Democratic primary, so that 500k new voters are trying out our party primary for the first time.
You can argue it’s Talarico doing it, but I think supporters of Crockett would say she’s the first Democrat running for the nomination as her kind of brash, no holds barred base revving politician, so it’s more likely Crockett who is bringing them out. Which actually sounds almost exactly like the person currently president who was elected twice by Republicans. Their party never moves to the middle or compromises, yet they win a ton of elections, perhaps we should be following their lead of a base first strategy if we want to win today.
Should we admit how often they’ve beat us with candidates so far out of the mainstream, 10 years ago it would’ve cost them the election? They do it by always exciting their base and always attacking the left as radical socialists. Maybe this Trump method to win (base first and make your opponent look unacceptable and out of touch) is how to do it in a modern political campaign. If we had a guarantee of a win in November, would Democrats pick Talarico over Crockett? Not likely. The head says Talarico, the heart says Crockett.
Finally, the biggest flaw of our party in polling is not that we’re too progressive (40%), it’s that we’re viewed as weak (70%). One thing you can absolutely say for certain regardless of her flaws, bombthrowing and what you think of her: she’s not weak, she’s a fighter, even critics will acknowledge that. I actually think I’m one of the few here that believes either Democratic candidate could beat Cornyn or Paxton, but we’ll find out in a few days in any case.
They think we're weak because we can't get anything done not because we dont call people a$$holes. I dont care if people talk shit on Twitter or committee hearings, can they pass meaningful legislation that affects people's lives for the better?
That honestly feels a lot more like old America thinking. Back when people read candidate platforms and compared ideas to make an informed decision of their vote. That doesn’t excite average voters or even inform them, they do that for a party’s base and the majority making voters don’t pay attention to politics already. So, if we accept the premise that a ton of people are tuned completely out of politics right now, what can we do differently that might make them sit up and pay attention?
So far, the answer is politicians in the Crockett mold, strong progressives who refuse to back down, moderate or downplay their beliefs on issues our party base wants, even if it may be a liability in a general election. By being unabashed about our left wing views bringing along the middle by talking about things other politicians aren’t with progressive solutions to everyday problems.
The Platner, Mamdani, Crockett, Mejia method, not the establishment electable moderate method. There’s a reason these politicians who are very different from one another have captured our party voters hearts and brought in people who don’t care about politics into the party. This is exactly what the upcoming primaries will be a battle between.
The good news for moderate Democrats, the party and the establishment is that so far, we have a formula for either type of candidate to win. We can win races by exciting our base and turning out new voters (like Obama did and won the biggest landslide our party’s ever had) or we can win races with established moderates like Sherrill and Spanberger in 2025 elections by winning the middle, a focus on lowering costs and converting Trump/GOP voters.
We don’t yet know if the new method that’s given Democratic campaigns who’ve captured this energy in our party, can turnout enough supporters to beat the MAGA/GOP base to win swing or red states, so it’s a risk to be sure, but if you had a Time Machine and went back to 2015-2016, most Republicans would be saying about Trump, what many here are saying about this type of candidate in our primaries.
I’ll just add, this is the most excited I am to support the party and most hopeful I’ve ever been about it since Obama 2008. We’ve needed this fresh energy, new leadership in our party for two decades now and more often than not, the middle method by trying to drag the left to vote for us because the right is terrible hasn’t worked. We need 2 wings to fly and I’m finally seeing a 2nd wing of the party be built.
The GOP has had 2 wings forever that are enthusiastic about the party or beating Democrats(establishment vs MAGA). That’s why we’ve lost so often. We needed something other than establishment moderation to grow the party since it hasn’t grown with the current makeup of it. We’re seeing the seeds of that new growth for our party to grow popup in a lot of primaries so far, which is very encouraging to see.
I’m uninterested in pissing away Senate seats and gubernatorial races that we cannot afford to lose just because of some rabble rousers being perceived as “fighters.” You can’t “fight” if you don’t win the general election. The MAGA/establishment divide in Republican primaries is not something we should want in our primaries if it results in the same effect of throwing races left and right.
If one knows anything about sales, one of the main things is you cannot be seen by the customer as being unenthusiastic about what you are selling. You cannot be shy about its price, its value, or that buying it is a good idea. If you don't believe in the thing, why on earth should they?
Democrats who run away from core Democratic principles (Pro Choice, pro Environment, Tax the rich, pro Rule of Law, pro Accountability for ICE/Epstein, pro Immigrant, Pro Union, Pro Working Class) to try to appeal to more moderate or GOP voters give off the same vibe. They don't believe in what their party is selling..even when it is a good thing. Look at how Dems ran AWAY from the ACA after it passed, and got crushed.
I am not saying Talarico is guilty of this kind of stuff. But I am saying that many people feel powerless these days. And candidates that stick their chests out and fight FOR something, that demonstrate they believe in what they are fighting for..have an appeal. Especially if they can convince that voter they will fight just as hard for THEM.
Nobody wants wishy-washy on their side.
Now, Crockett is certainly flawed in some ways as a candidate. And I think she is kinda too corporate, but the fight covers up a lot of warts. Kinda like Gavin Newsom.
IDK if she will win, in the primary or in the general. Talarico is a VERY good candidate, and either Dem will be an underdog. Has a Dem in Texas won statewide since...Ann Richards?
But it is certainly not crazy to think she could. In polling, she is only a point or two behind Talarico vs the GOP. And doing something different when you haven't won conventionally in 30 years seems reasonable to me.
Also a Talarico supporter, and I've been wondering myself if Crockett could ultimately win in a general anyway. Trump's base is the least enthusiastic it's been in some time, if ever. Live or die MAGAs like Laura Loomer are starting to become disenchanted with Trump.
I don't think Crockett would win because of her own strategy. I think she'd win because the Republicans don't realize how despised and unpopular they've become. (Easy to do when you solely consume MAGA media and think everything is fine.)
I think it was very eye opening to see Crockett within 3 in Republican polling against Paxton (he’s the nominee, we’ve pretty much known since he filed to run). She only underperformed Talarico by 3 points in that matchup IIRC. That can be made up over a campaign while the Republican side tries to nuke each other or by bringing new voters to our party and expanding the electorate.
Crockett has made it clear that she doesn’t think she needs to win over any Republican voters to win a general election. The math ain’t mathing on that one.
Unlike Platner, her comments on Trump voters suffering from mental illnesses, some white men being mediocre and some Latinos having a slave mentality are not baked into the electorate. Add her throwing out journalists from her events to that.
When you mentioned a presidential landslide, I figured you were talking about Obama, but I thought of Johnson, the last Democratic presidential candidate to have a true landslide.
Don't go down the stairs! I have experience. It hurts. Go to a national park and avoid the news until Tuesday night. Less pain. Less craziness. Lots of stress reduction.
I really hope Talarico and Paxton win (and Paxton in a May run-off). But if it's Crockett, who knows what can happen in a wave year?
I'm in NC not TX, but I thought unaffiliated voters (or whatever they call them in TX) could vote in the primaries in TX just like they can in NC.
That has always struck me as leaving a huge gap with respect to polling with respect to assigning likely voters to the ballot they will be voting - especially if there are polarizing candidates. With the generally low turnout for midterm primaries, I think it is anyone's guess who will end up in the general election in TX. And on the GOP side, that might not be known until after a primary run-off which would be scheduled in late May.
🤞🏻that Roy Cooper has a smooth glide path in the NC Democratic primary. Plus, unlike TX, winning 50% of the vote isn't necessary in NC to stave off a runoff. IIRC, it is either 30 or 35% and happens rarely.
Something I worked on in the past couple of weeks and months with not much practical purpose: A sort of Congressional directory showcasing basic information about members and their districts.
EDIT: Reading the names of the Reps who each Rep succeeded/defeated/etc., it's funny the names you don't hear anymore. I haven't heard the name Louie Gohmert in some time. (Considering how insane Gohmert was, maybe that's for the better.)
With primary day coming up on Tuesday, I'm interested in the following:
- TX-SEN, GOP and Dem: This one goes without saying. Like probably everyone else here, I am watching anxiously to see if Talarico beats Crockett, if the GOP side goes to a runoff, etc.
- NC-SD-26: Like our fellow poster MPC (if I'm getting the poster right), I am curious to see if Phil Berger can survive his MAGA challenge. Neither of them are great but Berger has done lasting damage to his state, so Berger losing would be no loss to me.
- NC-04: The first major primary test of the cycle, and another one that's heavily watched. Can Allam beat Foushee? Will the late money surge have an effect? I really hope Allam can pull it off. The party needs to change, and this is an early opportunity.
- TX-18: The Christian Menefee/Al Green showdown. I'm concerned that Menefee (if I remember correctly) has started taking crypto donations. I also, however, believe in generational change. The crypto donations have me controversially personally rooting for Green, but honestly either could win IMO and I'd be OK.
- TX-33: This is the Johnson-Allred-Hafeez race. With the fighting between Allred and Johnson turning ugly, I'm hoping for Hafeez to pull off a progressive mega-upset (highly unlikely), or at the very least Johnson beating Allred (who I do not like, sadly also not likely). We'll see who wins.
- Harris County Judge: No one is talking about this race. The leader in the Dem primary, Annise Parker, is to outgoing incumbent Lina Hidalgo's right -- and Hidalgo/the left are backing a different candidate, Houston City Councillor Letitia Plummer. I'm rooting for Plummer myself, but this will be an interesting race to watch.
- TX-Agriculture Commissioner: Another overlooked race. The incumbent, Sid Miller, is so nuts, a notable GOP challenger has emerged. Will Miller survive? I'll be curious to watch this one.
- NC State primaries: All the "Dems" who voted against Stein who have primaries. Hope the challengers can win. Also a bit concerned about Rodney Pierce, a progressive State Rep. who is being challenged by the guy he unseated, Michael Wray. I hope to God Wray doesn't return -- he could join the Veto Caucus of anti-Stein Dems.
Those are the big ones for me. When the IL primary comes up I'll list the ones I'm curious about there.
Oh, and I cannot recommend Bolts Magazine enough -- they are a fantastic news source focused on downballot in-the-woods races. They also do roundups each month of elections worth watching -- I consulted the March one for help in writing this comment, actually.
TX-Sen: I predict a runoff between Cornyn and Paxton, with the latter clinching the nomination in May. I feel Hunt will perform better than expected and the race will truly be a 3-way. Not sure what to say about the Democrats. It'll either be close or a blowout. Like most people here, I would vote for Talarico.
NC-SD-26: Hoping that Berger goes down, but it's kind of David vs. Goliath. I imagine if Page loses, he'll join the administration.
NC-4: Hoping Allam clinches the nomination given the new makeup of the district favoring more minorities. Foushee is getting up there in age, and, as you said, is taking a lot of money from shady organizations in the final days. Since there's no spoiler of Clay Aiken like in 2022, and given the recent populist shift in the Democratic base, I say Allam is a narrow favorite.
TX-18: I agree with you that Green should win re-election. Menefee doesn't feel very progressive to me. Yes, Green is old and a long-serving member, and some of his outbursts can be considered performative, but he is more genuine than the competition.
TX-33: I also hope Hafeez wins, as he's been gaining traction. Not a fan of Johnson or Allred.
Harris County judge: I'd give the nomination to Plummer, considering her support and longtime progressive credentials compared to Parker's advancing age and time out of office.
TX-Agriculture: I think Miller will survive - he was floated as a potential Trump 2.0 agriculture secretary, a much higher position of power, before it went to fellow Texan Brooke Rollins and has a major incumbency advantage.
NC: Yeah, I hope the challengers win and Pierce survives.
I don't think Hafeez is gaining enough traction to break 25% of the vote, his endorsement list is pretty bare and is being dwarfed in fundraising by Allred and Johnson, it's not impossible he'll just barely beat out someone (probably Johnson) but it's unlikely.
Yes, but they are indicators of traction, and Hafeez doesn't seem to have caught national progressive's attentions. Also, zero local endorsements is a more clear indication of a lack of support.
Putting this is as a reply because I forgot it, but I'm additionally curious about TX-23 -- both to see if Tony Gonzales gets primaried by Herrera (likely), and which Dem is in the general to take Herrera on.
I second your recommendation of Bolts Magazine, which I have been following ever since it was launched by Daniel Nichanian (widely known simply as Taniel). It’s terrific – and perfectly complements The Downballot.
Today is one of those times when I wish The Downballot had a feature similar to what DKE had, where commenters like us could write articles that would show up in a sidebar on the home page.
The reason I'm thinking about this is because I recently finished my project about the Israeli election in 2022. I was going to post a comment about it to share some of my findings, but quickly realized that, in order to share everything interesting I discovered about Israel's political geography from that election, my comment would be closer to the length of an entire article.
Over the past few days, I've written everything I want to say about it, and it came about to be roughly 6,500 words. To put that in perspective, that's 11 pages, of single-spaced font 12 text, in MS Word. I'd love to share it with everyone here - I guarantee you'll learn more about Israeli political geography than you ever thought possible. However, I'm not entirely sure how to share it since The Downballot doesn't allow users to post diaries.
Interestingly enough, West Virginia's current governor (the odious Patrick Morissey) ran for Congress in New Jersey in 2000, and West Virginia's 2nd District also sent Maryland carpetbagger Alex Mooney to Congress for five terms.
Fun fact I almost forgot about: Alex Mooney blocked me on Twitter when I mocked him for managing to lose his state Senate seat in Maryland to a Democrat in, of all years, 2010.
Devine managed to be defeated for reelection in 1980, of all years, and Reagan won the district, which had half of Columbus, easily that year. The Democrat who beat him was then defeated by John Kasich in 1982, making the district the only one to flip D in 1980 and then R in 1982, barring flips due to redistricting.
Sam Devine was first elected in 1958, a Democratic wave year, and served until he lost in a Republican one. This countercyclicality continued when the GOP took the seat back in a blue-leaning year.
A more recent analogy might be NE-02, which Republicans have won in every election from 1994 on with the single unlikely exception of 2014. That of course may be about to change this year.
I almost confused TX Land Commissioner for Agriculture Commissioner. Was surprised you weren’t backing Clayton Tucker there. Then I realized both offices exist for some reason in Texas and that Tucker doesn’t have an opponent.
A recent poll from High Point University (very conservative leaning) has Roy Cooper leading Michael Whatley in the U.S. Senate race by 51 - 38% among likely voters and 46-41 among registered voters.
Early voting on the Virginia redistricting amendment starts next week and the Virginia Supreme Court still has not acted to lift an injunction that stopped state election officials from carrying out the election.
I fear the GOP aligned justices who makeup a majority of the court may be planning to bail out the Republicans and stop the amendment. Hope I’m wrong but when you have to rely on conservative judges to rule in your favor there should be reason to worry.
I get your point, but the justices already had one chance to stop the amendment and chose not to do so. If they were going to stop it, why would they wait until the second try?
I agree. I think they'd be VERY nervous about a TX special election for that seat. Can you imagine how insane it would be if Democrats flipped the Senate by flipping two TX seats?
You know, I wonder if that would help with our international reputation. Obviously it wouldn’t solve it, the world justifiably despises us now, but it would at least show the opposition aren’t completely useless.
The world justifiably despises the Trump regime – but, incredibly enough, not the American people. Although they are perplexed how the fuck we could put Trump back in the Oval Office!
MAGATs need to be fumigated from government domestically, and dealt with Nuremberg style, whether in the Hague or elsewhere, internationally. We should have both the reckoning that many (not all) of the banksters and other corrupt Republicans received in the 1930s, and the sort of justice and closure that never really happened in the 1970s after Watergate due in part to the well-meaning Nixon pardon.
Of course we probably won't get all that, but at the very least they do not deserve preemptive forgiveness. We can and should both "walk and chew gum" in the sense of prosecuting past offenses while passing legislation for the benefit of America's future.
Still waiting of Election day before drawing too broad conclusions. Trump's been hitting the anti-early vote rhetoric pretty hard, so that has to be at least something of a factor.
I far preferred CNN when Ted Turner owned and ran it. That said, I do have a fondness for some their great journalists/anchors, especially Christiane Amanpour.
US joining in on attacks on Iran right now. From what I've skimmed it looks much bigger than the previous attacks.
In the past 20 years this would be one of the bigger stories of the election. If not the biggest. Even with November as far off as it is. I'm not sure it's going to crack the top 5 this year. Probably deepens the admin's unpopularity to some degree, because Americans are increasingly opposed to engaging in conflicts in the Middle East as a result of national exhaustion from the Iraq War.
I expect the admin went into this banking on a rally around the flag effect and will be promptly disappointed.
I don't think there will be no matter how long it lasts.
Short conflict: forgotten by the end of summer other than lingering annoyance over "another war."
Long conflict: that annoyance is more pointed and people are either trying to ignore it and live their lives, or they're actively annoyed in another quagmire in the Middle East that does nothing for us, while groceries are still expensive (and maybe gas now, too).
Neither scenario leads to a rally around the flag.
But I think the admin wants one. They're just not going to get it.
Funny how someone who long bashed Bush's preemptive war in Iraq now wants voters to react like it's still 2002 to his own similar initiatives, which were not authorised by Congress or anyone else. At least Bush worked to build an (unjustified) case for war and got congressional authorisation, and had the aftermath of 9/11 going for him.
Strikes on Iran last summer did not increase Trump's popularity, and neither did the supposed Mideast peace deal that the media slobbered and fawned over. Politically, his military actions are likely to contribute to a result more like 2006-08 than 2002-04. (I wonder how people who fell for those stupid "Biden War, Trump Peace" memes must be feeling. If their votes swing accordingly, then that's fine.)
Trump likes foreign affairs because he’s the only one in charge and can make deals with other leaders. He hates domestic policy because he has to deal with Congress. Problem is voters care more about domestic affairs and the economy than the former.
Trump doesn't understand the first thing about foreign policy. His only tactic (besides imposing tariffs whenever anyone says or does something he doesn't like) is to drop bombs and go home, because he likes inflicting death and destruction but doesn't like the blowback that comes with US casualties.
Well, this is certainly interesting news to wake up to. Especially for me, since I'm going to be traveling to Israel in June for my cousin's wedding.
It seems to me there are three possibilities for what could happen here: the good, the bad, and the ugly.
The good possibility is that this war only lasts a few weeks, and successfully topples the Iranian regime. Khamenei would be dead, and Iran's nuclear program gone along with him. Whether or not this is likely, I hope this is what we are all rooting for.
The bad possibility is that Trump decides to withdraw after a few weeks, having given Iran a bloody nose but without actually toppling the regime. If this happens, I think everybody's reaction would be, "What was the point?". And Iran's regime would still be there, dangerous as ever.
The ugly possibility is that this war ends up lasting a long time, as in months or even years. This would not only further destabilize the region, but probably would also result in more American deaths, without any guarantee of actually toppling the Iranian regime. And my trip to Israel might have to be canceled.
1) Iran literally murdered more than 5,000 of its own people recently. That is effectively starting a war with its own citizens.
2) Iran is the main sponsor of terrorist groups all across the Middle East, and they have started numerous wars.
3) Everyone knows that the sole reason why Iran wants nuclear weapons is so they can use them on Israel, which by definition would be starting a war.
The Iranian regime is extremely dangerous, and you have to be willfully blind not to see that. Do we really have a Khamenei apologist on The Downballot?
That number is probably closer to 20-30k, 5k seems to be a massive undercount.
Either way I think it’s easy to hold the position that Iran’s leadership is horrible for its own people and the Middle East (and Ukraine for that matter) AND that a war of choice with an unclear strategic endgame beyond “bomb Iran, ??, profit!” underpants gnome style nonsense is a bad idea.
I will shed not tears for the Mullahs or IRGC, but I also will not cheer this on
A rumor is currently floating around on Twitter that Khamenei has been killed. If that ends up being true, I will definitely cheer that on, since he is (was?) an extremely evil person who has committed a long list of monstrous crimes (and wanted/intended to commit a whole lot more). I would call him the second-most-evil national leader in the world (after Putin).
But beyond that, I will reserve judgment, especially since this operation is currently less than 24 hours old. After all, killing Khamenei was just a minor goal for this operation, the larger goals being to permanently end Iran's nuclear program and topple the regime. And just killing Khamenei won't necessarily do either of those things.
So I'm willing to wait and see what happens in the next couple of weeks.
Everyone does not know #3. It's logical that since the lack of nukes meant that Iran was attacked, it wants nukes to protect itself against attack from foreign countries. The mullahs have never behaved suicidally and are unlikely to use nukes first in a war with Israel.
The past 10-20 years has been absolutely horrible for nuclear non-proliferation.
North Korea acquired nukes: nobody has attacked them or bothered them since, even when they occasionally do awful things to their neighbors. They even get the occasional concession to make them back down. Pakistan doesn't act as crazy as North Korea but they're in a similar boat: their autonomy as a state is not in danger.
Ukraine gave up their nukes after the USSR collapsed. Now they're in a war that is existential for them. Libya gave up on their nuclear ambitions and Gaddafi was deposed. Iran never acquired nukes and has been getting attacked by the US and Israel while unable to respond. Taiwan was pressured to drop their nuclear program in the 80s and is now permanently forced to worry about an existential conflict comparable to Ukraine's. NATO's European nuclear states are in the west of the continent, while the ones near Russia in the East are increasingly unsure of how much they can rely on the others' umbrella if Russia succeeds in Ukraine and targets them next.
Of course Gaddafi and Iran's current government are/were horrible, horrible people who deserve(d) to lose power. But the impact on how other horrible authoritarians are going to look at things in the future is worrisome. I fear the decades ahead are going to be a time where states are increasingly unwilling to abandon nuclear programs, with the only option to prevent that being kinetic. Which is risky, difficult, expensive, and not even guaranteed to work.
Oh give me a break. The mullahs would happily become martyrs if it meant that Israel was annihilated. It's delusional to believe that the Iranian regime wouldn't use nukes first against Israel.
I understand your satisfaction at Khamenei's death. But you misunderstand Iran as a state.
Iran wants nuclear weapons for the same reason North Korea got them. Not to use them, but as a deterrent. They are not ISIS, they are a rational, sovereign state.
Nukes are the ultimate guarantor of being left the hell alone by the larger powers. The DPRK (North Korea) has them, and they don't use them, but now, Russia, China, the US don't dare cross or attack them. Same thing applies to Iran. Same thing to Pakistan and India. The mullahs, like the Kims, know damn well that any actual use would be the end of them, their country and their religion. If you want to worry about nukes actually being used, worry about truly radical sub-state actors like ISIS.
Russia, China, many other states routinely kill, imprison, execute and exile their own citizens. Russia has sent over a million of them to their deaths. China has been committing Uyghur genocide in the seven figures, in addition to being a principal material and financial sponsor of the Russian war effort, which is killing Europeans at a scale far beyond 5,000. Both China and Russia have nukes. But I don't see anyone calling for US led regime change in either, and that's for one reason. Nuke deterrent. Brute force, guaranteed by nukes is how the ruthless business of international relations is conducted.
The cold, rational logic of force and nuclear deterrence is not concerned with normative statements.
I think you're a little dramatic in what you think it would be the end of. Islam is not going away, no matter what. But otherwise, we are 100% in agreement.
Evidence that they're the world's leading sponsor of terrorism? Agreed on all the rest, but I don't think we should take those kinds of claims at face value. At least until recently, most of the Islamist terrorism was by violent Salafists inspired and funded by Saudi Arabians, and of course the U.S. has sponsored and trained terrorists for decades.
I really just think Trump's megalomania's gotten the better of him. He told the Norwegians that, like Richard III, he is "determined to prove a villain" after not getting the Peace Prize. While his "ooh shiny" of the moment was Greenland, which fortunately someone with sense convinced him would be total disaster, Iran has long been a desired target by the more hawkish elements of the GOP, so people around him more likely greased the skids, rather than holding back the reins, to mix metaphors.
A war in Iran was one of those things people would say like “nothing’s gonna change the direction of this election except a terrorist attack or war in the Middle East” and here we are and it doesn’t move the needle an inch
Other than Neptune Spear to take out Bin Laden I can’t think of a time that a foreign policy operation produced a lasting or even noticeable rally around the flag effect for the incumbent. Iraq and Afghanistan have poisoned that well for decades to come
Suffice to say, despite being something of a hawk, I think striking Iran is a momentously bad idea
Trump will be pushing hard for both Iranian and Cuban regime change this year, to try and help him in the midterms with select constituencies, as well as to try and build "legacy". Many analysts thought the strikes likely, since the US started moving record levels of assets to the region. They weren't going to spend eight figures moving boats and planes around just to posture.
The current admin strategy is to force the government to capitulate/collapse through nearly full blockade, not just trade embargo. The country has been put into a chokehold and is slowly deteriorating. Venezuela and Mexico were a main source of oil, and both have stopped supplying it, due to US pressure. As oil is a central economic input, this has resulted in crippling their aviation and transportation sectors, along with impacting industry and there are problems with widening food shortages as well. Trump has said in the last few days he is open to a "friendly takeover". Within the last week there has also been some action with US flagged boats in Cuban waters.
He’s treating Cuba the way the Nazis treated the Warsaw Ghetto. Fortunately Cuba still has resources and is receiving aid. And has lived with a U.S. embargo for 65 years. All because it won’t operate a capitalist economic system.
Excuse me, you're suggesting all residents of Cuba are going to be sent to a death camp and gassed to death or forced to do slave labor unto death? Not everything that's horrible is equivalent to the Nazi treatment of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto.
CA-11: Marie Hurabiell, a former aide to San Francisco mayor Daniel Lurie and Trump appointee to the Presidio Trust, is in as a Democrat, but appears to be looking for moderate and conservative support in a split progressive field. The field includes progressives Saikat Chakrabarti and Connie Chan as well as established liberal Scott Wiener.
She's definitely the worst candidate on policy, but idk I think being appointed to the Presidio Trust doesn't really make her a "Trump admin official" lol. No clue what the history of her time there is (she left ~three years into a four year term early in Biden's admin to launch her moderate SF org), but it's not exactly the most partisan role, esp compared to if she'd been appointed this admin post-DOGE.
Scott Weiner’s support may be more directly affected with Marie Hurabiell being in the race but he’s also been a proven fundraiser for quite some time since announcing his candidacy.
As someone who supports Connie Chan’s candidacy, I’d rather she or Saikat Chakrabarti advance beyond the primary to face Hurabiell or Weiner. A Hurabiell vs Weiner race in the fall would not be ideal for me but if it were the case, I’d support Weiner over Hurabiell in a heartbeat.
President Masoud Pezeshkian is also missing. It's morbid, but I wouldn't be surprised if they try to retaliate against the US.
Of course they will!
34% of Americans support trump... https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/polls-trump-iran-2026-03-01?utm_campaign=email-half-post&r=53n7py&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
It’s a far cry from Iraq 2003
right...but it should be 3.4%
I don't think it's at all clear that getting the U.S. Military into a quagmire would be the -less unpopular- option!
Well, I fear my wife will not push me down the stairs so as to put me into a coma until March 4th. In the meantime, Kamala Harris, last seen losing Texas by the worst margin in over a decade, has weighed in to endorse Crockett.
I am going to be a poll denier. I don’t care how irrational it is, I’ll own it. I will choose to be optimistic. It’s humorous to me that there are two primaries on Tuesday that could determine nominees in two key Senate races. In one of them, we have a popular former Governor who seems to be on a glide path to the Senate. In Texas, we potentially have the opportunity of a lifetime and we might squander it. I refuse to believe we will.
💯
"When Texas goes blue, the nation changes for a generation." – Someone said this
I refuse to believe we'll squander this.
Wait, Harris endorsed Crockett? That's extremely disappointing.
Regarding support for Crockett, is it more that 1) People deny the obvious fact that she can't win a statewide election in Texas, or 2) People don't care whether she can win or not, and look solely at her race and gender (since I haven't seen anyone supporting her for any other reason besides that)?
I'm honestly curious which of those is closer to what's going on.
I think it's just that they are old friends and Harris owed a favor. Certainly disappointing though and if it costs us a Texas senate seat . . . . .
Ironically, I recently downloaded Harris's book, "107 Days" to my phone and plan on finishing it this weekend. I only have 2 days before the loan period expires.
While so far, I believe the book is self serving, I believe the media really hyped attacks on Democrats above what she really said and took a lot of things out of context. And this is from somebody who has never been a Harris fan, but have voted for her when the alternative was a Republican.
Harris is such a disappointment. She could've easily been our next California governor. Every other serious Dem. candidate would've withdrawn for her. And she likely would've glided to a comfortable victory.
(And as a nice bonus, we wouldn't have the currently looming top-two lockout predicament)
Instead, she authors a self-serving book and she endorses Crockett in TX.
Meh.
There’s no top 2 lock out looming - unless you think all the undecided Dem voters are going to vote for one of the 2 republicans
I have confidence this won't move the needle, since the EV period is over, the KHive type voters were behind Crockett anyway, and the ED vote will favor anti-establishment progressives like Talarico over corporate favorites like Crockett.
Maybe if Harris really wanted to move the needle for Crockett she would or should have done more and done it earlier. A robocall at this point feels somewhat perfunctory, though she of course didn't actually have to do anything at all.
Kamala Harris, Angela Alsobrooks, Cardi B, Ayanna Pressley, Collin Allred, Nina Turner and KHive are her biggest endorsements. It's not racist to point this out.
They don't share similar ideologies or philosophies. Harris is Harris, Pressley is a Warrenite and Squad, Cardi B and Turner were big Bernie boosters and Allred is a suburban moderate.
So basically, you're saying it's #2?
What does that mean in this context?
Quoting Kildere53's earlier comment:
"2) People don't care whether she can win or not, and look solely at her race and gender"
That said, this doesn't really seem relevant to Kildere53's question. The question wasn't "why do people support Crockett?", it was "are her supporters aware that she can't win the general election?".
Nina Turner continues to make it clear she doesn't care too much about people actually getting elected to do good work, and would rather either be picky and not vote or get in and support someone terrible.
It's like when you agree almost completely with someone but they express your views in such an annoying way you can't help but not like them. That's how I feel about her.
If I were a Crockett supporter (I’m not), I’d basically argue all of the below:
- That we’ve run establishment, electable candidates for two decades in the state and haven’t won a single election. The only time we got close was in a wave year with a progressive Congress member in Beto. That the path to winning Texas isn’t by trying to appeal to the middle and moderate Republican, but instead to get nonvoters to surge to the polls by revving our potential base to be fired up and outvote the opposition, instead of trying to win them over.
- I’d also say if I supported her that the only Democratic president to be elected in a landslide did a lot of things in his campaign that back then were mocked by punditry because of how campaigns were supposed to be run. Then he won and those formerly criticized campaign decisions became viewed as ingenious and a part of every future campaign on both sides of the aisle.
- There’s something to say about a Democratic black female fighter rising star politician having no campaign manager, having little ground game organization, being outraised 3 to 1, while Talarico is having massive campaign turnout rallies and still she’s in a fight to win the nomination. This race should be a 60-30 blowout, but it isn’t. We should be considering why. After all, we thought Trump’s unconventional, bizarre campaign couldn’t win in America, twice, and were wrong.
I don’t believe that to be true fwiw, but I also acknowledge that in such a massive state as Texas, which usually has lower turnout compared to other states, it could be true during an election where the other side has an unenthusiastic base, Trump is President and it’s a terrible economy. It’s also true that half of the primary voters who’ve voted already haven’t voted in a Democratic primary, so that 500k new voters are trying out our party primary for the first time.
You can argue it’s Talarico doing it, but I think supporters of Crockett would say she’s the first Democrat running for the nomination as her kind of brash, no holds barred base revving politician, so it’s more likely Crockett who is bringing them out. Which actually sounds almost exactly like the person currently president who was elected twice by Republicans. Their party never moves to the middle or compromises, yet they win a ton of elections, perhaps we should be following their lead of a base first strategy if we want to win today.
Should we admit how often they’ve beat us with candidates so far out of the mainstream, 10 years ago it would’ve cost them the election? They do it by always exciting their base and always attacking the left as radical socialists. Maybe this Trump method to win (base first and make your opponent look unacceptable and out of touch) is how to do it in a modern political campaign. If we had a guarantee of a win in November, would Democrats pick Talarico over Crockett? Not likely. The head says Talarico, the heart says Crockett.
Finally, the biggest flaw of our party in polling is not that we’re too progressive (40%), it’s that we’re viewed as weak (70%). One thing you can absolutely say for certain regardless of her flaws, bombthrowing and what you think of her: she’s not weak, she’s a fighter, even critics will acknowledge that. I actually think I’m one of the few here that believes either Democratic candidate could beat Cornyn or Paxton, but we’ll find out in a few days in any case.
They think we're weak because we can't get anything done not because we dont call people a$$holes. I dont care if people talk shit on Twitter or committee hearings, can they pass meaningful legislation that affects people's lives for the better?
That honestly feels a lot more like old America thinking. Back when people read candidate platforms and compared ideas to make an informed decision of their vote. That doesn’t excite average voters or even inform them, they do that for a party’s base and the majority making voters don’t pay attention to politics already. So, if we accept the premise that a ton of people are tuned completely out of politics right now, what can we do differently that might make them sit up and pay attention?
So far, the answer is politicians in the Crockett mold, strong progressives who refuse to back down, moderate or downplay their beliefs on issues our party base wants, even if it may be a liability in a general election. By being unabashed about our left wing views bringing along the middle by talking about things other politicians aren’t with progressive solutions to everyday problems.
The Platner, Mamdani, Crockett, Mejia method, not the establishment electable moderate method. There’s a reason these politicians who are very different from one another have captured our party voters hearts and brought in people who don’t care about politics into the party. This is exactly what the upcoming primaries will be a battle between.
The good news for moderate Democrats, the party and the establishment is that so far, we have a formula for either type of candidate to win. We can win races by exciting our base and turning out new voters (like Obama did and won the biggest landslide our party’s ever had) or we can win races with established moderates like Sherrill and Spanberger in 2025 elections by winning the middle, a focus on lowering costs and converting Trump/GOP voters.
We don’t yet know if the new method that’s given Democratic campaigns who’ve captured this energy in our party, can turnout enough supporters to beat the MAGA/GOP base to win swing or red states, so it’s a risk to be sure, but if you had a Time Machine and went back to 2015-2016, most Republicans would be saying about Trump, what many here are saying about this type of candidate in our primaries.
I’ll just add, this is the most excited I am to support the party and most hopeful I’ve ever been about it since Obama 2008. We’ve needed this fresh energy, new leadership in our party for two decades now and more often than not, the middle method by trying to drag the left to vote for us because the right is terrible hasn’t worked. We need 2 wings to fly and I’m finally seeing a 2nd wing of the party be built.
The GOP has had 2 wings forever that are enthusiastic about the party or beating Democrats(establishment vs MAGA). That’s why we’ve lost so often. We needed something other than establishment moderation to grow the party since it hasn’t grown with the current makeup of it. We’re seeing the seeds of that new growth for our party to grow popup in a lot of primaries so far, which is very encouraging to see.
I’m uninterested in pissing away Senate seats and gubernatorial races that we cannot afford to lose just because of some rabble rousers being perceived as “fighters.” You can’t “fight” if you don’t win the general election. The MAGA/establishment divide in Republican primaries is not something we should want in our primaries if it results in the same effect of throwing races left and right.
If one knows anything about sales, one of the main things is you cannot be seen by the customer as being unenthusiastic about what you are selling. You cannot be shy about its price, its value, or that buying it is a good idea. If you don't believe in the thing, why on earth should they?
Democrats who run away from core Democratic principles (Pro Choice, pro Environment, Tax the rich, pro Rule of Law, pro Accountability for ICE/Epstein, pro Immigrant, Pro Union, Pro Working Class) to try to appeal to more moderate or GOP voters give off the same vibe. They don't believe in what their party is selling..even when it is a good thing. Look at how Dems ran AWAY from the ACA after it passed, and got crushed.
I am not saying Talarico is guilty of this kind of stuff. But I am saying that many people feel powerless these days. And candidates that stick their chests out and fight FOR something, that demonstrate they believe in what they are fighting for..have an appeal. Especially if they can convince that voter they will fight just as hard for THEM.
Nobody wants wishy-washy on their side.
Now, Crockett is certainly flawed in some ways as a candidate. And I think she is kinda too corporate, but the fight covers up a lot of warts. Kinda like Gavin Newsom.
IDK if she will win, in the primary or in the general. Talarico is a VERY good candidate, and either Dem will be an underdog. Has a Dem in Texas won statewide since...Ann Richards?
But it is certainly not crazy to think she could. In polling, she is only a point or two behind Talarico vs the GOP. And doing something different when you haven't won conventionally in 30 years seems reasonable to me.
Also a Talarico supporter, and I've been wondering myself if Crockett could ultimately win in a general anyway. Trump's base is the least enthusiastic it's been in some time, if ever. Live or die MAGAs like Laura Loomer are starting to become disenchanted with Trump.
I don't think Crockett would win because of her own strategy. I think she'd win because the Republicans don't realize how despised and unpopular they've become. (Easy to do when you solely consume MAGA media and think everything is fine.)
I think it was very eye opening to see Crockett within 3 in Republican polling against Paxton (he’s the nominee, we’ve pretty much known since he filed to run). She only underperformed Talarico by 3 points in that matchup IIRC. That can be made up over a campaign while the Republican side tries to nuke each other or by bringing new voters to our party and expanding the electorate.
Crockett has made it clear that she doesn’t think she needs to win over any Republican voters to win a general election. The math ain’t mathing on that one.
Unlike Platner, her comments on Trump voters suffering from mental illnesses, some white men being mediocre and some Latinos having a slave mentality are not baked into the electorate. Add her throwing out journalists from her events to that.
When you mentioned a presidential landslide, I figured you were talking about Obama, but I thought of Johnson, the last Democratic presidential candidate to have a true landslide.
Same. Obama's win was a comfortable one, not a landslide.
Since 2000 polarization has ensured landslides akin to 1984 are simply impossible.
True, so we shouldn't get carried away with 2008, right?
IDK about that.
You may be about to see one in 2028.
When I imagine a "Trump landslide" I visualize him buried under one!
Fantastic post, and I could not agree more. On every level.
I vote with my head, and if I were in Texas I'd vote Crockett.
Harris is ending her "political" career by choice. Good riddance!
Get a grip.
Did she say that?
What makes you say she can't win a statewide election in Texas?
Don't go down the stairs! I have experience. It hurts. Go to a national park and avoid the news until Tuesday night. Less pain. Less craziness. Lots of stress reduction.
I really hope Talarico and Paxton win (and Paxton in a May run-off). But if it's Crockett, who knows what can happen in a wave year?
Yeah, I wouldn’t do that to my family haha. Not to worry, I’m not suicidal. This is just my dark humor coping mechanism.
Assuming James Talarico beats Jasmine Crockett in the primary, the Kamala Harris endorsement might be meant to turn out the black vote.
I'm in NC not TX, but I thought unaffiliated voters (or whatever they call them in TX) could vote in the primaries in TX just like they can in NC.
That has always struck me as leaving a huge gap with respect to polling with respect to assigning likely voters to the ballot they will be voting - especially if there are polarizing candidates. With the generally low turnout for midterm primaries, I think it is anyone's guess who will end up in the general election in TX. And on the GOP side, that might not be known until after a primary run-off which would be scheduled in late May.
🤞🏻that Roy Cooper has a smooth glide path in the NC Democratic primary. Plus, unlike TX, winning 50% of the vote isn't necessary in NC to stave off a runoff. IIRC, it is either 30 or 35% and happens rarely.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hr_Mw1cv6nWeOn1o3ValkEIMPYSpf9ygkWPXscZtRbo/edit?tab=t.0
Something I worked on in the past couple of weeks and months with not much practical purpose: A sort of Congressional directory showcasing basic information about members and their districts.
Thoughts?
Very interesting. Good work.
EDIT: Reading the names of the Reps who each Rep succeeded/defeated/etc., it's funny the names you don't hear anymore. I haven't heard the name Louie Gohmert in some time. (Considering how insane Gohmert was, maybe that's for the better.)
With primary day coming up on Tuesday, I'm interested in the following:
- TX-SEN, GOP and Dem: This one goes without saying. Like probably everyone else here, I am watching anxiously to see if Talarico beats Crockett, if the GOP side goes to a runoff, etc.
- NC-SD-26: Like our fellow poster MPC (if I'm getting the poster right), I am curious to see if Phil Berger can survive his MAGA challenge. Neither of them are great but Berger has done lasting damage to his state, so Berger losing would be no loss to me.
- NC-04: The first major primary test of the cycle, and another one that's heavily watched. Can Allam beat Foushee? Will the late money surge have an effect? I really hope Allam can pull it off. The party needs to change, and this is an early opportunity.
- TX-18: The Christian Menefee/Al Green showdown. I'm concerned that Menefee (if I remember correctly) has started taking crypto donations. I also, however, believe in generational change. The crypto donations have me controversially personally rooting for Green, but honestly either could win IMO and I'd be OK.
- TX-33: This is the Johnson-Allred-Hafeez race. With the fighting between Allred and Johnson turning ugly, I'm hoping for Hafeez to pull off a progressive mega-upset (highly unlikely), or at the very least Johnson beating Allred (who I do not like, sadly also not likely). We'll see who wins.
- Harris County Judge: No one is talking about this race. The leader in the Dem primary, Annise Parker, is to outgoing incumbent Lina Hidalgo's right -- and Hidalgo/the left are backing a different candidate, Houston City Councillor Letitia Plummer. I'm rooting for Plummer myself, but this will be an interesting race to watch.
- TX-Agriculture Commissioner: Another overlooked race. The incumbent, Sid Miller, is so nuts, a notable GOP challenger has emerged. Will Miller survive? I'll be curious to watch this one.
- NC State primaries: All the "Dems" who voted against Stein who have primaries. Hope the challengers can win. Also a bit concerned about Rodney Pierce, a progressive State Rep. who is being challenged by the guy he unseated, Michael Wray. I hope to God Wray doesn't return -- he could join the Veto Caucus of anti-Stein Dems.
Those are the big ones for me. When the IL primary comes up I'll list the ones I'm curious about there.
Oh, and I cannot recommend Bolts Magazine enough -- they are a fantastic news source focused on downballot in-the-woods races. They also do roundups each month of elections worth watching -- I consulted the March one for help in writing this comment, actually.
https://boltsmag.org/whats-on-the-ballot/march-2026-elections-guide/ <-- Their election guide for this month. Check it out.
Excellent list and discussion for Tuesday viewing.
Yeah Allred's behavior has pushed me from meh to actively hoping he loses. He can back Crockett without trashing Talarico.
TX-Sen: I predict a runoff between Cornyn and Paxton, with the latter clinching the nomination in May. I feel Hunt will perform better than expected and the race will truly be a 3-way. Not sure what to say about the Democrats. It'll either be close or a blowout. Like most people here, I would vote for Talarico.
NC-SD-26: Hoping that Berger goes down, but it's kind of David vs. Goliath. I imagine if Page loses, he'll join the administration.
NC-4: Hoping Allam clinches the nomination given the new makeup of the district favoring more minorities. Foushee is getting up there in age, and, as you said, is taking a lot of money from shady organizations in the final days. Since there's no spoiler of Clay Aiken like in 2022, and given the recent populist shift in the Democratic base, I say Allam is a narrow favorite.
TX-18: I agree with you that Green should win re-election. Menefee doesn't feel very progressive to me. Yes, Green is old and a long-serving member, and some of his outbursts can be considered performative, but he is more genuine than the competition.
TX-33: I also hope Hafeez wins, as he's been gaining traction. Not a fan of Johnson or Allred.
Harris County judge: I'd give the nomination to Plummer, considering her support and longtime progressive credentials compared to Parker's advancing age and time out of office.
TX-Agriculture: I think Miller will survive - he was floated as a potential Trump 2.0 agriculture secretary, a much higher position of power, before it went to fellow Texan Brooke Rollins and has a major incumbency advantage.
NC: Yeah, I hope the challengers win and Pierce survives.
I don't think Hafeez is gaining enough traction to break 25% of the vote, his endorsement list is pretty bare and is being dwarfed in fundraising by Allred and Johnson, it's not impossible he'll just barely beat out someone (probably Johnson) but it's unlikely.
I would agree, but I don't think endorsements and fundraising are the top factors of a race's result.
Yes, but they are indicators of traction, and Hafeez doesn't seem to have caught national progressive's attentions. Also, zero local endorsements is a more clear indication of a lack of support.
Putting this is as a reply because I forgot it, but I'm additionally curious about TX-23 -- both to see if Tony Gonzales gets primaried by Herrera (likely), and which Dem is in the general to take Herrera on.
I second your recommendation of Bolts Magazine, which I have been following ever since it was launched by Daniel Nichanian (widely known simply as Taniel). It’s terrific – and perfectly complements The Downballot.
Today is one of those times when I wish The Downballot had a feature similar to what DKE had, where commenters like us could write articles that would show up in a sidebar on the home page.
The reason I'm thinking about this is because I recently finished my project about the Israeli election in 2022. I was going to post a comment about it to share some of my findings, but quickly realized that, in order to share everything interesting I discovered about Israel's political geography from that election, my comment would be closer to the length of an entire article.
Over the past few days, I've written everything I want to say about it, and it came about to be roughly 6,500 words. To put that in perspective, that's 11 pages, of single-spaced font 12 text, in MS Word. I'd love to share it with everyone here - I guarantee you'll learn more about Israeli political geography than you ever thought possible. However, I'm not entirely sure how to share it since The Downballot doesn't allow users to post diaries.
Any thoughts?
You should start your own substack and post it.
That's a good idea, but just to confirm, are there any rules here about posting links to articles we wrote in our own substack?
I can't imagine there are. I've linked to other people's Substack articles.
Kildere, I would be very interested in reading that! Please message me if you post it somewhere.
Suggestion: if it’s 6500 words, I suggest you break it up into sections topped with different subtitles that reflect the sub-topics.
Rick Wilson and his son think the pro-JC polls in TX are hot garbage but say that she could win the primary if she can drive up turnout in Houston.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=70brZWXYp-A
They’re pretty stunned by the EV turnout and Rick thinks this eclipses the turnout for Beto’s 2018 campaign.
Here is who I'm supporting in Tuesday's primaries FWIW:
Governor:
Fred Love (AR)
Gina Hinojosa (TX)
Senate:
Roy Cooper (NC)
Hailee Shoffner (AR)
James Talarico (TX)
House:
Raymond Smith Jr. (NC-3)
Nida Allam (NC-4)
Cyril Jefferson (NC-6)
Richard Ojeda (NC-9)
Jamie Ager (NC-11)
Kate Barr (NC-14) (primary only)
Leticia Gutierrez (TX-9)
Caitlin Rourk (TX-10)
Bobby Pulido (TX-15)
Al Green (TX-18)
Sylvia Garcia (TX-29)
Fred Haynes III (TX-30)
Zeeshan Hafeez (TX-33)
Johnny Garcia (TX-35)
Other statewide offices:
Vikki Goodwin (TX LG)
Nathan Johnson (TX AG)
Sarah Eckhardt (TX Comptroller)
Jose Loya (TX Land Commissioner)
Is that the same Richard Ojeda who ran for Congress in West Virginia?
I thought it was only Republicans moving to Fort Myers who did stuff like that.
Yep, same dude.
Interestingly enough, West Virginia's current governor (the odious Patrick Morissey) ran for Congress in New Jersey in 2000, and West Virginia's 2nd District also sent Maryland carpetbagger Alex Mooney to Congress for five terms.
Jay Rockefeller, who was elected statewide for some 40 years, was also a carpetbagger.
Rep. Carol Miller is from Huntington, but has roots in eastern Ohio, where her father Sam Devine served in Congress.
Fun fact I almost forgot about: Alex Mooney blocked me on Twitter when I mocked him for managing to lose his state Senate seat in Maryland to a Democrat in, of all years, 2010.
Devine managed to be defeated for reelection in 1980, of all years, and Reagan won the district, which had half of Columbus, easily that year. The Democrat who beat him was then defeated by John Kasich in 1982, making the district the only one to flip D in 1980 and then R in 1982, barring flips due to redistricting.
Sam Devine was first elected in 1958, a Democratic wave year, and served until he lost in a Republican one. This countercyclicality continued when the GOP took the seat back in a blue-leaning year.
A more recent analogy might be NE-02, which Republicans have won in every election from 1994 on with the single unlikely exception of 2014. That of course may be about to change this year.
I almost confused TX Land Commissioner for Agriculture Commissioner. Was surprised you weren’t backing Clayton Tucker there. Then I realized both offices exist for some reason in Texas and that Tucker doesn’t have an opponent.
https://county17.com/2026/02/27/casper-veteran-david-giralt-joins-race-for-wyoming-u-s-house-seat/
WY-AL: David Giralt, a veteran and aide to Sen. Cynthia Lummis, is in as a Republican.
Chuck Gray, Jillian Balow and Reid Rasner are already in; state Sen. Bo Biteman and possibly Gov. Mark Gordon are expected to join.
Wait, Gordon might enter?
He is also considering a 3rd term and senate run
A recent poll from High Point University (very conservative leaning) has Roy Cooper leading Michael Whatley in the U.S. Senate race by 51 - 38% among likely voters and 46-41 among registered voters.
https://www.highpoint.edu/src/files/2023/08/HPU-Poll-119-Memo_A_02262026.pdf
Also has incumbent NC Supreme Court justice Anita Earls leading Sarah Stevens by 49-43 among likely voters and 46-41 among registered voters.
Yes, the actual margin will be narrower.
This is a poll of very likely primary voters. Look at Table 4, only 11% don’t plan to vote in the primary.
Tbh, no value inferred for Nov. Not to mention 2028.
Early voting on the Virginia redistricting amendment starts next week and the Virginia Supreme Court still has not acted to lift an injunction that stopped state election officials from carrying out the election.
I fear the GOP aligned justices who makeup a majority of the court may be planning to bail out the Republicans and stop the amendment. Hope I’m wrong but when you have to rely on conservative judges to rule in your favor there should be reason to worry.
I get your point, but the justices already had one chance to stop the amendment and chose not to do so. If they were going to stop it, why would they wait until the second try?
One theory is they wanted to wait to see if voters approved the amendment.
If it would've failed, then it's a moot case and the justices wouldn't have to make an actual decision.
TX-Sen: Republicans leave Friday Corpus Christi event without any endorsement from Trump
Oh, yeah, he also said he could nominate *Sen. Ted Cruz* to the SCOTUS if Alito retires.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-hes-thinking-putting-republican-senator-ted-cruz-supreme-court-2026-02-27/
Trump said this same shit when RBG died in 2020. Mitch shot him down and had him pick ACB instead.
But with Thune, idk, he’d probably indulge Trump on that.
I disagree. Thune seems to be another McConnell. He ain't Mike Johnson.
I agree. I think they'd be VERY nervous about a TX special election for that seat. Can you imagine how insane it would be if Democrats flipped the Senate by flipping two TX seats?
I bet Crockett would run for that too
I guess that would make Texas the new Georgia.
Texas has special elections to fill senate vacancies that don't occur close enough to another general election to merge them in.
Do republicans want to have a special elections for Cruz's seat in 2027?
SC works in winter with a heavy schedule. Ted Cruz can't join the SC because that's when he goes to Cancun.
Democrats Should Launch a “Nuremberg Caucus” to Investigate the Crimes of the Trump Regime
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/democrats-nuremberg-caucus-trump-administration-crimes/
Yes, they should
You know, I wonder if that would help with our international reputation. Obviously it wouldn’t solve it, the world justifiably despises us now, but it would at least show the opposition aren’t completely useless.
The world justifiably despises the Trump regime – but, incredibly enough, not the American people. Although they are perplexed how the fuck we could put Trump back in the Oval Office!
You sure about that? Plenty of people in other countries know who’s ultimately responsible for electing trump - the American people
Based on my travels and correspondence, people elsewhere are largely stupefied and perplexed. But I’m sure it varies…
In Canada there’s certainly a lot of hatred from what I’ve seen.
I don’t blame them (enough isn’t being done, I agree) although I do question some of the Redditors celebrating Americans dying in a winter storm.
You've experienced personal animus just for being an American while visiting Canada?
Right, but in many cases, the Americans who travel to their countries are usually not Trump supporters.
MAGATs need to be fumigated from government domestically, and dealt with Nuremberg style, whether in the Hague or elsewhere, internationally. We should have both the reckoning that many (not all) of the banksters and other corrupt Republicans received in the 1930s, and the sort of justice and closure that never really happened in the 1970s after Watergate due in part to the well-meaning Nixon pardon.
Of course we probably won't get all that, but at the very least they do not deserve preemptive forgiveness. We can and should both "walk and chew gum" in the sense of prosecuting past offenses while passing legislation for the benefit of America's future.
Agreed with all except "well-meaning" pardon.
Ford's substantial harm to this country in a variety of ways is sadly misunderestimated as Shrub might say.
Final IPEV tally for Kaufman County, TX. 50-60 point swing left from both 2024 and 2020 in the primary is insane.
https://x.com/DjsokeSpeaking/status/2027566261249474628
today is Kaufman, a super fast-growing Dallas suburb
nearly 17k votes cast, a 55% increase from 2024's primary. Composition is roughly 7900 D, 9000 R
about R+6.5
It was R+67 in 2024!
Still waiting of Election day before drawing too broad conclusions. Trump's been hitting the anti-early vote rhetoric pretty hard, so that has to be at least something of a factor.
CBS News chief Bari Weiss is expected to play a major role in steering CNN if the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger is approved.
Weiss was appointed to lead CBS News by David Ellison in October 2025 as part of Paramount Skydance’s acquisition of her media company The Free Press.
Read the full cover: https://wp.me/pc8uak-1lGXCp
Do people still watch CNN?
I far preferred CNN when Ted Turner owned and ran it. That said, I do have a fondness for some their great journalists/anchors, especially Christiane Amanpour.
Isn't she on PBS now?
CNN just has panelled bloviating these days. Not really any news.
She has shows both on PBS and CNN International.
US joining in on attacks on Iran right now. From what I've skimmed it looks much bigger than the previous attacks.
In the past 20 years this would be one of the bigger stories of the election. If not the biggest. Even with November as far off as it is. I'm not sure it's going to crack the top 5 this year. Probably deepens the admin's unpopularity to some degree, because Americans are increasingly opposed to engaging in conflicts in the Middle East as a result of national exhaustion from the Iraq War.
I expect the admin went into this banking on a rally around the flag effect and will be promptly disappointed.
I don't think there will be a rally aroudn the flag effect. It honestly depends on how long this conflict lasts.
I don't think there will be no matter how long it lasts.
Short conflict: forgotten by the end of summer other than lingering annoyance over "another war."
Long conflict: that annoyance is more pointed and people are either trying to ignore it and live their lives, or they're actively annoyed in another quagmire in the Middle East that does nothing for us, while groceries are still expensive (and maybe gas now, too).
Neither scenario leads to a rally around the flag.
But I think the admin wants one. They're just not going to get it.
Funny how someone who long bashed Bush's preemptive war in Iraq now wants voters to react like it's still 2002 to his own similar initiatives, which were not authorised by Congress or anyone else. At least Bush worked to build an (unjustified) case for war and got congressional authorisation, and had the aftermath of 9/11 going for him.
Strikes on Iran last summer did not increase Trump's popularity, and neither did the supposed Mideast peace deal that the media slobbered and fawned over. Politically, his military actions are likely to contribute to a result more like 2006-08 than 2002-04. (I wonder how people who fell for those stupid "Biden War, Trump Peace" memes must be feeling. If their votes swing accordingly, then that's fine.)
The Neo Con Don. Preemptive war, regime change. We’ve been here before. Except Trump is smart enough (so far) not to put troops on the ground.
Trump likes foreign affairs because he’s the only one in charge and can make deals with other leaders. He hates domestic policy because he has to deal with Congress. Problem is voters care more about domestic affairs and the economy than the former.
Trump declared regime change as an objective.
https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/2027651077865157033?s=20
As numerous analysts including Haviv Rettig Gur have made clear, attack from the outside will actually make Iranian regime change *less likely*.
Trump utterly fails to understand the Middle Eastern mentality. And for that matter, he doesn’t understand anybody else’s either. ’nuff said.
Trump doesn't understand the first thing about foreign policy. His only tactic (besides imposing tariffs whenever anyone says or does something he doesn't like) is to drop bombs and go home, because he likes inflicting death and destruction but doesn't like the blowback that comes with US casualties.
Terrible news. It's horrible to be a citizen of an international outlaw country.
Yeah, this is going to increase their unpopularity.
Where are those TACO supporters claiming there would be peace in the ME? I hope they’re regretting their 11/5/24 vote.
Well, this is certainly interesting news to wake up to. Especially for me, since I'm going to be traveling to Israel in June for my cousin's wedding.
It seems to me there are three possibilities for what could happen here: the good, the bad, and the ugly.
The good possibility is that this war only lasts a few weeks, and successfully topples the Iranian regime. Khamenei would be dead, and Iran's nuclear program gone along with him. Whether or not this is likely, I hope this is what we are all rooting for.
The bad possibility is that Trump decides to withdraw after a few weeks, having given Iran a bloody nose but without actually toppling the regime. If this happens, I think everybody's reaction would be, "What was the point?". And Iran's regime would still be there, dangerous as ever.
The ugly possibility is that this war ends up lasting a long time, as in months or even years. This would not only further destabilize the region, but probably would also result in more American deaths, without any guarantee of actually toppling the Iranian regime. And my trip to Israel might have to be canceled.
For now, though? Who knows. *shrug*
Withdraw what? Are there troops on the ground?
Iran dangerous? I see the U.S. and Israel starting wars, or threatening to start wars, left and right. I don’t see Iran starting a war anywhere.
Not right now, no, but they have helped Russia a lot in Ukraine, particularly with shahid drones. Your point is well taken, though.
1) Iran literally murdered more than 5,000 of its own people recently. That is effectively starting a war with its own citizens.
2) Iran is the main sponsor of terrorist groups all across the Middle East, and they have started numerous wars.
3) Everyone knows that the sole reason why Iran wants nuclear weapons is so they can use them on Israel, which by definition would be starting a war.
The Iranian regime is extremely dangerous, and you have to be willfully blind not to see that. Do we really have a Khamenei apologist on The Downballot?
That number is probably closer to 20-30k, 5k seems to be a massive undercount.
Either way I think it’s easy to hold the position that Iran’s leadership is horrible for its own people and the Middle East (and Ukraine for that matter) AND that a war of choice with an unclear strategic endgame beyond “bomb Iran, ??, profit!” underpants gnome style nonsense is a bad idea.
I will shed not tears for the Mullahs or IRGC, but I also will not cheer this on
A rumor is currently floating around on Twitter that Khamenei has been killed. If that ends up being true, I will definitely cheer that on, since he is (was?) an extremely evil person who has committed a long list of monstrous crimes (and wanted/intended to commit a whole lot more). I would call him the second-most-evil national leader in the world (after Putin).
But beyond that, I will reserve judgment, especially since this operation is currently less than 24 hours old. After all, killing Khamenei was just a minor goal for this operation, the larger goals being to permanently end Iran's nuclear program and topple the regime. And just killing Khamenei won't necessarily do either of those things.
So I'm willing to wait and see what happens in the next couple of weeks.
Second most evil? Have you heard of Messrs Trump and Netanyahu?
And murdering the leaders of other countries gives them carte blanche to murder other countries’ leaders. The law of the jungle.
Everyone does not know #3. It's logical that since the lack of nukes meant that Iran was attacked, it wants nukes to protect itself against attack from foreign countries. The mullahs have never behaved suicidally and are unlikely to use nukes first in a war with Israel.
On that note...
The past 10-20 years has been absolutely horrible for nuclear non-proliferation.
North Korea acquired nukes: nobody has attacked them or bothered them since, even when they occasionally do awful things to their neighbors. They even get the occasional concession to make them back down. Pakistan doesn't act as crazy as North Korea but they're in a similar boat: their autonomy as a state is not in danger.
Ukraine gave up their nukes after the USSR collapsed. Now they're in a war that is existential for them. Libya gave up on their nuclear ambitions and Gaddafi was deposed. Iran never acquired nukes and has been getting attacked by the US and Israel while unable to respond. Taiwan was pressured to drop their nuclear program in the 80s and is now permanently forced to worry about an existential conflict comparable to Ukraine's. NATO's European nuclear states are in the west of the continent, while the ones near Russia in the East are increasingly unsure of how much they can rely on the others' umbrella if Russia succeeds in Ukraine and targets them next.
Of course Gaddafi and Iran's current government are/were horrible, horrible people who deserve(d) to lose power. But the impact on how other horrible authoritarians are going to look at things in the future is worrisome. I fear the decades ahead are going to be a time where states are increasingly unwilling to abandon nuclear programs, with the only option to prevent that being kinetic. Which is risky, difficult, expensive, and not even guaranteed to work.
Also, Saddam Hussein ended up dead because he had no nukes and had given up his nuclear program years earlier.
Oh give me a break. The mullahs would happily become martyrs if it meant that Israel was annihilated. It's delusional to believe that the Iranian regime wouldn't use nukes first against Israel.
Show me evidence of suicidal behavior by them.
I understand your satisfaction at Khamenei's death. But you misunderstand Iran as a state.
Iran wants nuclear weapons for the same reason North Korea got them. Not to use them, but as a deterrent. They are not ISIS, they are a rational, sovereign state.
Nukes are the ultimate guarantor of being left the hell alone by the larger powers. The DPRK (North Korea) has them, and they don't use them, but now, Russia, China, the US don't dare cross or attack them. Same thing applies to Iran. Same thing to Pakistan and India. The mullahs, like the Kims, know damn well that any actual use would be the end of them, their country and their religion. If you want to worry about nukes actually being used, worry about truly radical sub-state actors like ISIS.
Russia, China, many other states routinely kill, imprison, execute and exile their own citizens. Russia has sent over a million of them to their deaths. China has been committing Uyghur genocide in the seven figures, in addition to being a principal material and financial sponsor of the Russian war effort, which is killing Europeans at a scale far beyond 5,000. Both China and Russia have nukes. But I don't see anyone calling for US led regime change in either, and that's for one reason. Nuke deterrent. Brute force, guaranteed by nukes is how the ruthless business of international relations is conducted.
The cold, rational logic of force and nuclear deterrence is not concerned with normative statements.
I think you're a little dramatic in what you think it would be the end of. Islam is not going away, no matter what. But otherwise, we are 100% in agreement.
10/7 in Israel was backed by Iranian $$$.
They are supplying Russia with drones to kill Ukrainians.
They are the worlds leading sponsor of terrorism.
They just murdered tens of thousands of their own citizens.
I am not saying this attack is wise, constitutional, or likely to hasten the regime's downfall. Or that Iran poses any direct threat to us atm.
But let's not get confused. That regime is evil and murderous.
Evidence that they're the world's leading sponsor of terrorism? Agreed on all the rest, but I don't think we should take those kinds of claims at face value. At least until recently, most of the Islamist terrorism was by violent Salafists inspired and funded by Saudi Arabians, and of course the U.S. has sponsored and trained terrorists for decades.
With all due respect, I really don’t think we should be pursuing regime change in a region this volatile.
I really just think Trump's megalomania's gotten the better of him. He told the Norwegians that, like Richard III, he is "determined to prove a villain" after not getting the Peace Prize. While his "ooh shiny" of the moment was Greenland, which fortunately someone with sense convinced him would be total disaster, Iran has long been a desired target by the more hawkish elements of the GOP, so people around him more likely greased the skids, rather than holding back the reins, to mix metaphors.
A war in Iran was one of those things people would say like “nothing’s gonna change the direction of this election except a terrorist attack or war in the Middle East” and here we are and it doesn’t move the needle an inch
It depends on the scale and severity of the war in the long term.
Other than Neptune Spear to take out Bin Laden I can’t think of a time that a foreign policy operation produced a lasting or even noticeable rally around the flag effect for the incumbent. Iraq and Afghanistan have poisoned that well for decades to come
Suffice to say, despite being something of a hawk, I think striking Iran is a momentously bad idea
Trump will be pushing hard for both Iranian and Cuban regime change this year, to try and help him in the midterms with select constituencies, as well as to try and build "legacy". Many analysts thought the strikes likely, since the US started moving record levels of assets to the region. They weren't going to spend eight figures moving boats and planes around just to posture.
Have we heard any developments on Cuba?
The current admin strategy is to force the government to capitulate/collapse through nearly full blockade, not just trade embargo. The country has been put into a chokehold and is slowly deteriorating. Venezuela and Mexico were a main source of oil, and both have stopped supplying it, due to US pressure. As oil is a central economic input, this has resulted in crippling their aviation and transportation sectors, along with impacting industry and there are problems with widening food shortages as well. Trump has said in the last few days he is open to a "friendly takeover". Within the last week there has also been some action with US flagged boats in Cuban waters.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/starved-fuel-cubans-scramble-ends-233356339.html
https://apnews.com/article/trump-cuba-friendly-takeover-rubio-venezuela-435f056b47cfd6bc0c0af875318fa123
https://www.nbcnews.com/world/cuba/cuba-says-second-boat-mission-us-failed-rcna261096
He’s treating Cuba the way the Nazis treated the Warsaw Ghetto. Fortunately Cuba still has resources and is receiving aid. And has lived with a U.S. embargo for 65 years. All because it won’t operate a capitalist economic system.
Excuse me, you're suggesting all residents of Cuba are going to be sent to a death camp and gassed to death or forced to do slave labor unto death? Not everything that's horrible is equivalent to the Nazi treatment of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto.
https://sfstandard.com/2026/02/25/marie-hurabiell-congressional-race/
CA-11: Marie Hurabiell, a former aide to San Francisco mayor Daniel Lurie and Trump appointee to the Presidio Trust, is in as a Democrat, but appears to be looking for moderate and conservative support in a split progressive field. The field includes progressives Saikat Chakrabarti and Connie Chan as well as established liberal Scott Wiener.
She's definitely the worst candidate on policy, but idk I think being appointed to the Presidio Trust doesn't really make her a "Trump admin official" lol. No clue what the history of her time there is (she left ~three years into a four year term early in Biden's admin to launch her moderate SF org), but it's not exactly the most partisan role, esp compared to if she'd been appointed this admin post-DOGE.
Changed to reflect her appointment rather than say she was a part of the admin
Scott Weiner’s support may be more directly affected with Marie Hurabiell being in the race but he’s also been a proven fundraiser for quite some time since announcing his candidacy.
As someone who supports Connie Chan’s candidacy, I’d rather she or Saikat Chakrabarti advance beyond the primary to face Hurabiell or Weiner. A Hurabiell vs Weiner race in the fall would not be ideal for me but if it were the case, I’d support Weiner over Hurabiell in a heartbeat.