Nobel Peace Prize: Why is Trump so hellbent on getting it? I know he envies Obama for it, but it's like having a 1600 SAT score. Incredibly empowering for a couple years, but then just fades away unless you need the speaker circuit to pay the bills. He can graft and grift anything he wants, so that's not a concern.
And it counts against your character if you contrive actions that you think will earn it for you. That's an act of selfishness. Gorbachev didn't consent to the dissolution of the USSR because he lusted after a hunk of gold. It's like when the character Dorian Gray tried to rectify his increasingly monstrous portrait by doing some token good deeds only to find the portrait get even worse.
Anyway, I found it quite on the nose when his spokesman's response to Maria Machado getting it seemingly invoked the modern day misogynist line of "they just had to make it political and give it to a woman."
The ironic thing is that Machado has actually said relatively good things about Trump and his posture to Venezuela. (Not explicitly supporting the strikes, but not condemning them either, and saying that the pressure on Maduro is good.) Although I suppose anything less than "thank you so very much, kindly overlord, we're so grateful for your wise munificence" is seen as a slight by the orange one.
The answer to your question is that, as much as Trump claims to despise the "elites", deep down he desperately wants approval from them. And he thinks that winning a Nobel Prize will get him that approval.
I've always found this baffling because if he had governed like a social moderate center-right economic populist instead of an uber far right nationalist he would've likely been insanely popular and garnered the support of both rural and elites. It would have been so easy for him.
The significant difference here is that Bannon was enlisted by Trump to help him the first time around. Even Bannon wasn’t originally a Trump fan before he met him but was then compelled at how Trump knew how to brand populism. This is where the two had synergy. PBS Frontline’s interview with Bannon discusses this.
From 2020 and on, Trump didn’t ask Bannon to come back to help him get re-elected.
He's long been an impulsive individual and that's the kind of trait that gets worse with mental decline. Especially mental decline from aging. And his impulses are exactly what results in all the awful, terrible things that make him so reviled by half the population and the elites.
Maybe if he had been in his 50s in 2016 he could have reigned himself in and done that, but I think even then he'd have failed to do so. With how old he was when he did run, him governing that way was off the table.
Because Kissinger and Le Duc Tho had (on paper) negotiated a peace deal to end US involvement in Vietnam. Of course that soon fell apart because the US kept bombing anyway and finally just cut and run in 1975. I don't think Kissinger was in it for the prize either. His ethos seemed to have been that every action he took, no matter how corrupt, devious, or immoral, was to augment the US' influence in the world. And that if the US played by the rules all the time, the Soviets would have the last laugh as they ate our lunch.
As for Obama, that was a vibe move. Bush & Co. had cratered the standing of the US. IIRC, even Obama was flabbergasted.
Obama was in his first year in office when awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (contrary to what the above post says). I agree that it wasn't really merited at that point; it should take more than just "he's not the previous guy". (If the NPP continues to be determined on that "vibe" basis, then a Democratic president in 2029 may want to make some more room on his/her shelf.)
Meanwhile, Trump hasn't helped himself with his blatant campaign for it, on top of his general self-aggrandization. Oh, and this endorsement won't help either:
Janet Mills briefly announced her Senate bid and then quickly retracted. This wasn't just a website launching early but she tweeted her announcement video and everything along with ActBlue page briefly going live. Probably not a big deal but maybe a sign she doesn't have the best team around for whats likely going to be a competitive primary.
Running for Governor is one thing but running for the Senate against a long-time incumbent who traditionally has been difficult to unseat is a much different ballgame.
Plus, if the energy is already with the Graham Platner candidacy, Janet Mills really can't have any room for errors, especially in this political environment.
This is the kind of mistake that really doesn't matter in the big picture but it further cements my view that she is not ready for the differences in federal elections versus local elections.
I’m probably going to get pushback from some people here on saying this, but I’m just plainly stating the obvious reality of politics today: she’s too old to run a campaign against Susan Collins. That time for her to run has come and gone. Mistakes like this just reinforces the idea that she doesn’t really have the fire and discipline anymore to take on and defeat one of the few remaining Senators who represents a state that votes the opposite of her party for president.
To slay the unslayable opponent you need to be perfect in the campaign from start to finish and yes I think it’s likely partisanship and polarization finally ends the MAGA voting “moderate”’s already far too long career representing a blue state, but I also thought that in 2020. I’d much rather take a chance on having a 40 year old working class man who’s full of piss and vinegar and won’t take any bs as our nominee, than a will be 78/79 year old freshman incumbent if she even manages to win the election.
I fear that she won't be willing to mount the cutthroat campaign that will be necessary to defeat Susan Collins. (After so many failed Democratic attempts, I think the only way this race is winnable is if Collins is completely discredited.)
If she'd gotten into the race in, say, April, she would have cleared the primary. She didn't care enough about advancing the cause of a Senate Democratic majority to make that call at that time. If she felt like she wasn't the right person to run, she could have lined up a candidate she felt was a strong contender who probably would have had more traditional bona fides than Wood, Platner, or Kleban. Maybe no one in the ME-Gov Dem primary clown car would have responded to pressure (and enticement!) from Schumer and Mills to run, but I bet one of them would have, and they could then have tried their best to consolidate their position in the primary and box out other contenders.
Mills has now put herself in a place where at the least she'll have a primary, very possibly a costly and divisive one. Whether animus towards Platner, Sanders, and the left motivated her ultimate decision to run at this juncture, with Platner at least fundraising well, is something only she will ever know (or maybe we'll see reporting about her decision-making process.) Or, of course, she sees the current field as a bunch of non-entities compared to her and assumes she'll have an easy time in the primary, and she could be right about that. Time will tell.
I just can't see how, after the first two or three months of Trump, Musk, DOGE, Stephen Miller, ICE brutality, corrupt SCOTUS rulings, tariffs, and all the rest, a person couldn't say: I need to make this decision now, to make my stand or get out of the way and let others make theirs.
If this is a race we lose, Mills's inability to make a simple and timely decision will surely be viewed with justified anger.
Yes, what you are describing is the real dilemma Janet Mills is facing. Originally she was not planning to run for the Senate and was primarily focused on serving her 2nd term as Governor.
We may have a real Democratic Primary Race. However, in order for Mills to have a shot as a general election nominee, she has to offer a complete contrast to Susan Collins in order to get enough momentum in the general election to win. It’s not certain she has this capability right now.
If this were a less popular Republican serving as senior Senator instead of Susan Collins, I’d be less concerned.
Instinctively, I do not believe Janet Mills will win the primary race, even if we’re taking account this is a primary race in Maine as opposed to other states.
I am sympathetic and on the side of Mills when it came to her defending Maine and transgender people from Trump (and winning the court battle against him). However, I do not think her running for the Senate is going to prove anything. In fact, she may have just given Trump another opportunity to go after her over not being able to be elected to anything else (assuming Mills loses the primary).
You don't think Mills can win the primary? In a small state like Maine, she probably has a good chance of winning on the basis of name recognition alone.
It would depend on the ground game Mills has with her Senate campaign.
Problem is, she is not dealing with the same situation as in 2019 when Sara Gideon essentially had ownership of the whole Senate race. Besides Gideon being endorsed by the DSCC, any other Senate candidates on the Democratic Party side then could not get traction with all the attention Gideon got. Her presence and the DSCC’s involvement with her campaign months before the primary.
We don’t have this situation with Graham Platner. He may be not the establishment choice but he’s not likely to drop out given Mills is the preferred choice by Schumer, the DSCC, etc. He also has more to work with as Mills praising Susan Collins will be used against her in the primary.
I really hoped Mills would avoid entering the primary, and it seemed like she didn’t want to, but she was clearly pressured by Schumer to run for "the good of the nation". She should have retired after a respectful career, but now we’re faced with a polarizing expensive primary that’s entirely unnecessary.
"2) Voters are split on their views of Janet Mills. Mills has a 48-45 job approval rating (including 30% that strongly disapprove) and a 47-43 favorability rating (including 29% that have a very unfavorable view of her).
She has a 40-51 approval rating among independents."
Now the people of Maine get to decide. Schumer and Gillibrand's preferred geriatric retread or an exciting young choice who could be in the seat for decades.
My biggest gripe about this whole thing is that Mills is not popular the way Schumer & national Dems think she is. Numerous polls have shown her with breakeven or trending negative approval rating and thats before a brutal negative campaign next year.
Mills is at least a strong candidate on paper, but it's unclear as to how she'll ultimately perform, and not just due to age. Lakshya Jain says she's not really an especially strong electoral performer, with her 2018/22 gubernatorial wins being somewhat unimpressive compared to downballot results, and Susan Collins is not Paul LePage.
However, I'd wouldn't swoon too much over Graham Platner just yet, either. Rookie candidates often make rookie mistakes, and having a candidate supposedly representative of the common people often sounds better in theory than reality. He's had an impressive launch over the last few months but has a long way to go.
Mark Kelly was a decorated astronaut and military officer with years of experience as an activist. He also ran unopposed in the primary, which sounds to me like the powers that be might have cleared the field for him.
No the DSCC waited for Gallego’s decision in 2019, and he decided he didn’t want a divisive primary and would instead pine for a House leadership or committee position. Gallego was also yet to shed his liberal image then.
Yeah, most of the "common man" candidates that Daily Kos always loved bombed at the ballot box. Our much loved Senator Fetterman being more the exception than the rule.
Nowadays, centrists like to pretend that John Fetterman has always been the way he is now - that he never suffered a severe stroke, and that the horrific tragedy of Oct 7 didn’t further impact his mental state. But the truth is, Fetterman was one of the earliest supporters of Bernie in 2015 even when he didn't return the favor by endorsing Fetterman in his primary against Sestak and McGinty. Between 2016 and 2018, multiple newspapers referred to him as a "self-described Democratic socialist," though they later had to retract those statements in 2022 due to a lack of direct quotes or recordings.
I’d bet that Platner won’t suffer a stroke, and that the organized labor groups who discovered him, Osborn-Mamdani consultants and Bernieworld—have thoroughly vetted his background.
I'm a centrist and I also believe that he has not been the same since the stroke, but I think many people are missing the main issue, which is whether or not the candidate is a skilled politician who can run strong campaigns and win tough elections, both in the primary and in the general election.. Pre-stroke, John Fetterman was a skilled politician who managed to attract support from across the political spectrum. This is why he was a good candidate until the stroke. However, some candidates from the progressive part of the party have a track record of being ideologues or bomb throwers who struggle to obtain support from people outside the left, and that includes in the primaries where they often lose to a more moderate candidate who represents what the majority of Democrats want. Janet Mills has a proven track record of winning elections in Maine, while Graham Platner has never run a campaign or won political office. I really need to see more before tossing aside a proven winner to go with the rookie.
Fetterman always very directly stated that he was not a socialist, at least since the campaign, but I believe for quite some time before that. Other points taken.
I have no proof, only vibes, but I really feel like vetting only gets you so far. I'm sure it does weed out some prospective candidates with easily-findable issues, but even if a candidate is more or less working with you to discover those issues, there's probably stuff that (a) they can't bring themselves to disclose and hope is obscure enough to not be found or (b) they may simply not realize will play poorly, especially in a tense campaign filled with plenty of folks who don't have any reason to give you the benefit of the doubt.
See, for example, the Ralph Northam blackface scandal. It was hiding there "in plain sight" in a yearbook that was surely sitting on at least a few library shelves, ready for inspection. And yet, it stayed hidden until it didn't.
If Platner is the guy, I hope nothing too bad comes up, but there's going to at least be something minor.
Some of them fail for sure, and most stop being an everyman by virtue of being elected. I don’t think all that many make it to the general election in actually winnable elections, so I’m not sure we can make too much of it. Generally elected officials are the stronger candidate, which I think is the real point and I agree with that.
Wouldn’t AOC count as one? She was a bartender before.
In Thursday's comments, Kildere53 asked about transplants to NH [1]. Great discussion question!
It's only anecdotal, but I live on the North Shore and work in Boston. Over the years, I've known a dozen or so people that commute to Boston Metro from NH. Their motivations for the long commute are usually pricing of single family housing (not taxes). They chose NH over similarly priced North Shore because of larger yards or such. My expectation is that category 2 is neutral or Democratic-leaning.
Oh man, MAGA is turning against Trump and his administration once again.
This time, we don’t have just the Jeffrey Epstein fiasco and shadiness with Trump on not getting to the bottom of it. Now it’s a Qatar Air Base in Idaho, which means that Make America Great Again is now Make American Great Again Last. Of course, we do have national security concerns to raise in the process.
However, at the same time if “Defense Secretary” (I’m sorry, “Secretary” of “War”) Pete Hegseth helps Trump in continuing to depress MAGA turnout in the 2026 midterms, please proceed!
I mean, we have Abu Dhabi which has the most robust economy and banking and investing environment in the Middle East besides Israel. Then Kuwait, which has been an ally of the U.S. and Western countries for a long time, has now gotten an economy that could become the next Abu Dhabi at some point.
The UAE and Kuwait are still repressive, theocratic regimes, not democracies. Therefore, America should only be allies with them up to a point, and certainly not to the point of giving such countries military bases inside the U.S.
They're not theocratic as such, because that is literally rule by clergy, but Kuwait in particular enforces some shari'ah laws strictly, which is the point you're making, and I'm quibbling only on the margins. Iran is literally a theocracy, whereas Saudi Arabia is ruled by a royal family of non-clergy, but in practice, Saudi Arabia is or at least quite recently has been more religiously repressive than even Iran.
I think the culture of what’s happened with the U.S. decades in the making has shown neglect for going after the Department of Defense budget and the excessive waste. Any other countries building bases here just amplifies this.
This kind of reminds me of the Dubai Ports World controversy when Dubya was president, when he proposed selling port management businesses to a company based in the UAE. Concerns were voiced about port security, and a broad coalition of opposition in and out of Congress, ranging from the far right to progressives, eventually forced the deal to be scuttled at a time when the Bush administration was beleaguered on multiple fronts.
An interesting postscript is that in 2018 the UAE-based Gulftainer won 50 year rights to develop a port in Wilmington, DE--Joe Biden's hometown, of course. Biden (who didn't then hold any office) had nothing officially to do with the deal, but John Carney, then Delaware's governor and now Wilmington's mayor, did. And Trump at least passively approved.
2005 George Bush era was scandal after scandal.. Dubai Ports World, Harriet Miers, privatizing social security, heckofa job Brownie, firing US attorneys
The decision to occupy Iraq, killing maybe over 1,000,000 people, was worse than pretty much anything Trump did other than help cause hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths from COVID.
Let’s be real though, we have no clue how many people in America actually died from COVID. The real stats probably aren’t anywhere close to the reality given how many of the at risk population refused to vaccinate and refused even in death to admit how stupid they were by getting the local coroner (who likely also was a Covidiot) to not list the real cause of death and instead say “heart failure” or whatever to make them feel better in the rural areas.
Yeah it probably was heart failure, but it was COVID that caused the heart failure. Then even the official stats aren’t anywhere close and probably on the low side as many people were likely misdiagnosed and then died or people just buried their loved ones without reporting it. While I agree both are equally horrific derelictions of duty by Republican presidents and I do believe people are people and lives lost are equal in value, I don’t think we can neatly lineup the numbers and say Bush was worst just because of the number of fatalities. Dying in war is awful, but dying in isolation is equally so.
We also don't know how many Iraqis were killed in or as a result of the war, though estimates of over 1,000,000 seem well-supported, whereas I think excess deaths as such are probably fairly accurate in the U.S.
One of the most annoying things about Trump is how much his existence has done to rehabilitate Bush’s public image. Man was one of the worst, most harmful (both to us and to other peoples), presidents ever. He did so much damage to our country, even if you don’t care about the lives lost the trillions of dollars wasted could have been used on endless good things. Many of the GOP’s autocratic sympathies started under him. Two of Trump’s rubber stamps on SCOTUS were appointed by him. He did everything he could to cultivate the cult of ignorance in his party.
Bush does not deserve the improvement of his image.
That was perhaps the first crack in the second term Bush armor. The media lectured everyone for months about how "moral values" were the most important issue for voters--and then seemed shocked when the public didn't like that religiously motivated government intervention into a family's personal issues.
This is what happens when Trump's naked corruption, which has led to him making several self-interested deals with Middle East leaders runs into his base's nativism and anti-Muslim bigotry.
Sobering interview with a guy describing how and why Silicon Valley, at least its leadership class, has gotten so reactionary. Some interesting assessments that largely dovetail with my conclusions that these guys are all high on their own supply and even more maladjusted weirdos than the average CEO. The messianic approach to technology in the industry has poisoned a LOT of brains
It’s about “hampering innovation” in the eyes of Silicon Valley leadership.
This is the same kind of regurgitated crap that’s been spewing since the 2010’s where Silicon Valley, as it’s been blowing up with private equity and VC capital since then, has become about “innovation.”
BS. It’s about power and domination, from men who have small wee wees.
I suggest anyone reading pick up the book “Abolish Silicon Valley” by Wendy Liu to understand this problem. Stopping Innovation is the new stopping investment.
Such poisoned brains must include much of the MSM, which incessantly fawned and slobbered over Elon Musk until about six months ago (remember how he had supposedly remade the GOP into the party of the future?) And that's only the perhaps most egregious example.
And this quote, "I think the tech industry, more broadly, would be very excited about Vance, because he’s one of them." Even if that proves true, who the hell else is?
So, after all these decades, it turns out the "high-tech" New Economy pushed by "New Liberals"/ neoliberals, and "New Democrats" hasn't eliminated the need for a bigger government or robust social safety nets. And now, with Citizens United empowering them further, these tech oligarchs are more powerful—and more reactionary—than ever.
This is surprising as Benioff has generally been more socially conscious than other billionaires, namely those in tech. He’s been vocal against the Ellis Act, challenged tech to give back on helping the homeless and went after Indiana over its new anti-LGBTQ at the time Mike Pence was still Governor. Also helped finance a low rent motel to provide affordable housing.
Benioff also served as national co-chair of President Obama’s re-election campaign.
Right but Salesforce has had ICE (or I believe the Department of Homeland Security) as a customer well before Trump’s first term. This was before the controversy with the ICE agents started nearly a decade ago.
On issues besides this, Benioff took action and became socially conscious when Mark Zuckerberg and other tech billionaires and CEOs did not. Another founder and CEO with these views is Jeff Lawson, who started Twilio and has been vocal about giving back.
In fact, Lawson has gone so far as to donate money to Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz’s campaign back in 2023. He was also vocal about Trump being a fascist back to his first term as POTUS. Benioff for years was projecting an apolitical image even while he did at one point supported Obama’s re-election campaign (which may have had to do in part with tech friendly policies).
Anyway, like I said, Benioff will have to face the music as simply praising a president like Trump over immigration and security matters is only going to give his image more trouble. Even before Trump’s 2nd term, Benioff at I believe a Tech Crunch conference had been confronted by an anti-ICE protestor about this. This is where it’s a matter of how far tech influence goes to the point where it’s all about the company’s customers instead of just focusing on the greater good.
Benioff said he has always been privately Republican.
"First honest Silicon Valley guy. Literally every other one of them pretends to have been a “reasonable” Democrat who was forced into the Republican Party by the loony left. Marc Andressen in particular has been running this same playbook since 2004!"
Maybe so but Benioff also happens to be a member of my Reform Jewish synagogue where a lot of the members are quite liberal. If he’s been privately Republican, I do not believe he’s being truly conservative or right wing from the standpoint of today’s GOP and where it stands on the political spectrum. Most Republicans in SF are conservative from a taxation standpoint.
No way could someone arguing the Ellis Act should end would be right wing, especially considering the original author of the Ellis Act, State Assemblyman James Ellis, was a Reagan conservative Republican in San Diego who made the original law specifically designed for preferential treatment for landlords. This is something many native San Franciscans, lots pro tenant, are against. Benioff happens to be a native San Franciscan.
If anything, Benioff may be no different than the “conservative” Republican types who live in the Marina or other parts of San Francisco who actually have more moderate views and happen to be SF Chamber of Commerce members. I used to be a member myself when I was running my consulting business but kept my liberal views restrained so as to keep the tone of the Chamber business-minded. Keep in mind the SF Chamber of Commerce is also pro affirmative action even while not being filled with liberal members.
More and more I come around to the idea of breaking up and harshly regulating these social media, MSM, technology and AI companies. I don’t really care if they can grow or make money or not, I care about a fact being a fact and a lie being a lie. When money became more important than the truth to all of these corporations, that’s the line in the sand I draw to support radically attacking and dismembering these propaganda machines before they do even more damage than they already have to the country.
A panel of three federal judges will soon decide whether to block Texas from using its new congressional map in the 2026 election, after a contentious nine-day hearing concluded Friday.
As much as I like taking them to court to delay this, it’s almost certainly going to end up at SCOTUS which is likely going to overturn any decision they make if they side with the plaintiffs. The only question in my mind is if the “it’s too late to change the map” applies just to Democrats or equally to Republicans. Pretty sure we all know the answer to that, so I wouldn’t get my hopes up on this honestly.
You're probably right, but I do think there's value in forcing SCOTUS to make their corrupt rulings rather than policing ourselves in advance due to an expectation of those rulings.
A lot of SCOTUS power comes down to being seen as a legitimate institution. Every time they make an awful ruling, they mortgage away some of that legitimacy. There was a lot to work with once upon a time, but the Roberts court has been assiduously spending it down. Forcing them to spend some of it is worth it, if we're going to have the same net result regardless.
Just curious. Was there caller ID or did you answer to an unidentified caller? I never do but I would answer if I saw a caller ID for a polling company.
CA-Gov, RE Katie Porter and that viral video from 2 days ago of her swearing at her employees.
I'm wondering if that might not have been deliberately leaked by her own campaign. To get that damaging clip out of the way now and forgotten before the June primary (in 8 months). Better now than have it come out as an "October surprise".
(Remember, the primary is top-2. So finishing in 2nd place is just as good as finishing in 1st.)
Japan: Komeito Party dissolved its 26 year coalition with the ruling LDP, and the opposition Constitutional Democratic Party (CDP) may try to put forward a consensus candidate for prime minister with the support of Komeito. This comes after the LDP selected hardline conservative Sanae Takaichi as its pick for prime minister.
Thanks for sharing all that information! I didn't realize how bad and chaotic things had been in Peru these past few years. I hope things can improve with this president out. I'm also glad to hear that the extremist selected by the LDP is not going to run Japan now.
In light of recent redistricting in Texas, I decided my first comment here would be showing my own hypothetical "fair" map (that only has the results up to the 2016 election)
2nd (Crenshaw and Luttrell, GOP, with the latter retiring)
3rd (Self and Fallon, GOP, with the latter possibly running in the 4th)
6th (Gooden and Ellzey, GOP)
25th (Goldman and Williams, GOP)
31st (McCaul, Roy and Carter, GOP, with McCaul and Roy retiring)
New seats:
4th (solidly GOP seat, includes much of the Fallon territory)
5th (solidly Dem seat east of Dallas)
8th (solidly GOP seat in Harris County)
10th (solidly GOP seat, includes much of the McCaul territory)
12th (solidly Dem seat in Fort Worth, Dem Rep. Veasey would likely move to)
21st (solidly Dem seat in San Antonio)
33rd (solidly Dem seat in DFW - GOP Rep. Van Duyne would live in the district, but would likely run in the neighboring 24th, which she represents)
Other changes:
11th (Pfluger, GOP, would pick up most of Hill Country from Roy in exchange to give Killeen to Sessions in the 17th)
13th and 26th (GOP Reps. Jackson and Gill would exchange territories in the Dallas suburbs; Gill would gain the city of Denton; Jackson would gain rural territories north and west)
14th and 36th (GOP Reps. Weber and Babin would exchange territories in the Houston area for more compact districts)
17th (Sessions, GOP, would lose much rural territory to the new 10th in exchange for Killeen from the 11th)
23rd (Gonzales, GOP, would lose his share of the Mexican border to pick up Roy's old district in San Antonio)
27th (Cloud, GOP, would lose most of Corpus Christi to the 34th, and gain the 15th's rural territory)
28th (Cuellar, Dem, would gain most of the Mexican border from Gonzales)
32nd (Johnson, Dem, seat would become more compact with the addition of the new 5th)
34th (Gonzalez, Dem, would almost fully lose his share of Hidalgo County to the 15th in exchange for Corpus Christi)
38th (Hunt, GOP, also retiring, would have his Harris County district become much more competitive)
Nice map! Texas is interesting because there are so many ways you can do it. I've never thought to run a district from west Harris County down to Galveston, but I like it. I'm also intrigued by your version of the 28th. I've always kept the 23rd running from El Paso to San Antonio, but there's really no reason it should when the 28th can run the entire stretch of the border. Your 24th district looks unnecessarily messy, though. At a glance, I don't think my version's partisanship would be that much different, but by trading Irvine for Arlington, you make it much more compact.
When I experimented with Texas in DRA, I noticed that Tarrant, Dallas, Collin, Denton, Rockwall, and Hunt Counties have pretty much exactly the right population for nine Congressional districts. Therefore, I drew nine districts entirely within these counties, as shown here:
It turns out that Ossoff and Warnock and even Kelly supported repealing Right to Work laws nationwide unlike what has been claimed multiple times here by someone.
There’s no prospect of it happening in the next few years. So they don’t have to vote on it. And Democrats would almost assuredly have to break the filibuster in order to pass it.
Which election is this related to? Can you give a link?
Nobel Peace Prize: Why is Trump so hellbent on getting it? I know he envies Obama for it, but it's like having a 1600 SAT score. Incredibly empowering for a couple years, but then just fades away unless you need the speaker circuit to pay the bills. He can graft and grift anything he wants, so that's not a concern.
And it counts against your character if you contrive actions that you think will earn it for you. That's an act of selfishness. Gorbachev didn't consent to the dissolution of the USSR because he lusted after a hunk of gold. It's like when the character Dorian Gray tried to rectify his increasingly monstrous portrait by doing some token good deeds only to find the portrait get even worse.
Anyway, I found it quite on the nose when his spokesman's response to Maria Machado getting it seemingly invoked the modern day misogynist line of "they just had to make it political and give it to a woman."
The ironic thing is that Machado has actually said relatively good things about Trump and his posture to Venezuela. (Not explicitly supporting the strikes, but not condemning them either, and saying that the pressure on Maduro is good.) Although I suppose anything less than "thank you so very much, kindly overlord, we're so grateful for your wise munificence" is seen as a slight by the orange one.
The answer to your question is that, as much as Trump claims to despise the "elites", deep down he desperately wants approval from them. And he thinks that winning a Nobel Prize will get him that approval.
I've always found this baffling because if he had governed like a social moderate center-right economic populist instead of an uber far right nationalist he would've likely been insanely popular and garnered the support of both rural and elites. It would have been so easy for him.
Probably inevitable once it was Bannon who got him over the line rather than one of his earlier managers in 2016
And Trump fired Bannon from his administration over always trying to get too much of the limelight.
Bannon these days seems to think he believes Trump is still following through his master plan.
Bannon’s influence with the true hardliners shouldn’t be understated but it’s certainly a big difference compared to 2016-18
The significant difference here is that Bannon was enlisted by Trump to help him the first time around. Even Bannon wasn’t originally a Trump fan before he met him but was then compelled at how Trump knew how to brand populism. This is where the two had synergy. PBS Frontline’s interview with Bannon discusses this.
From 2020 and on, Trump didn’t ask Bannon to come back to help him get re-elected.
He's long been an impulsive individual and that's the kind of trait that gets worse with mental decline. Especially mental decline from aging. And his impulses are exactly what results in all the awful, terrible things that make him so reviled by half the population and the elites.
Maybe if he had been in his 50s in 2016 he could have reigned himself in and done that, but I think even then he'd have failed to do so. With how old he was when he did run, him governing that way was off the table.
Why was Obama awarded the Nobel peace prize in the first place before he even became Prez? Why was Kissinger awarded that?
Because Kissinger and Le Duc Tho had (on paper) negotiated a peace deal to end US involvement in Vietnam. Of course that soon fell apart because the US kept bombing anyway and finally just cut and run in 1975. I don't think Kissinger was in it for the prize either. His ethos seemed to have been that every action he took, no matter how corrupt, devious, or immoral, was to augment the US' influence in the world. And that if the US played by the rules all the time, the Soviets would have the last laugh as they ate our lunch.
As for Obama, that was a vibe move. Bush & Co. had cratered the standing of the US. IIRC, even Obama was flabbergasted.
Obama was in his first year in office when awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (contrary to what the above post says). I agree that it wasn't really merited at that point; it should take more than just "he's not the previous guy". (If the NPP continues to be determined on that "vibe" basis, then a Democratic president in 2029 may want to make some more room on his/her shelf.)
Meanwhile, Trump hasn't helped himself with his blatant campaign for it, on top of his general self-aggrandization. Oh, and this endorsement won't help either:
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-deserved-the-nobel-prize-says-vladimir-putin/
People erroneously thought then that Obama was ending Bush’s wars…
He did ultimately pull out of Iraq.
"I know he envies Obama for it"
You just answered your question.
Janet Mills briefly announced her Senate bid and then quickly retracted. This wasn't just a website launching early but she tweeted her announcement video and everything along with ActBlue page briefly going live. Probably not a big deal but maybe a sign she doesn't have the best team around for whats likely going to be a competitive primary.
I actually gave her 10 on actblue in the brief time it was up. Don't know what happens with that, but the plan was to do it Tuesday, right?
Yea otherwise who would launch their campaign on a Friday before a holiday weekend.
Running for Governor is one thing but running for the Senate against a long-time incumbent who traditionally has been difficult to unseat is a much different ballgame.
Plus, if the energy is already with the Graham Platner candidacy, Janet Mills really can't have any room for errors, especially in this political environment.
This is the kind of mistake that really doesn't matter in the big picture but it further cements my view that she is not ready for the differences in federal elections versus local elections.
I’m probably going to get pushback from some people here on saying this, but I’m just plainly stating the obvious reality of politics today: she’s too old to run a campaign against Susan Collins. That time for her to run has come and gone. Mistakes like this just reinforces the idea that she doesn’t really have the fire and discipline anymore to take on and defeat one of the few remaining Senators who represents a state that votes the opposite of her party for president.
To slay the unslayable opponent you need to be perfect in the campaign from start to finish and yes I think it’s likely partisanship and polarization finally ends the MAGA voting “moderate”’s already far too long career representing a blue state, but I also thought that in 2020. I’d much rather take a chance on having a 40 year old working class man who’s full of piss and vinegar and won’t take any bs as our nominee, than a will be 78/79 year old freshman incumbent if she even manages to win the election.
I wish she'd stay out.
Nope, let's see what she can do.
We've already seen that she can praise Collins. What more do we need to see to realize she's the wrong candidate?
The "chummy" relationships of high-ranking politicians (especially those in small states like Maine) can really get in the way sometimes.
I fear that she won't be willing to mount the cutthroat campaign that will be necessary to defeat Susan Collins. (After so many failed Democratic attempts, I think the only way this race is winnable is if Collins is completely discredited.)
If she'd gotten into the race in, say, April, she would have cleared the primary. She didn't care enough about advancing the cause of a Senate Democratic majority to make that call at that time. If she felt like she wasn't the right person to run, she could have lined up a candidate she felt was a strong contender who probably would have had more traditional bona fides than Wood, Platner, or Kleban. Maybe no one in the ME-Gov Dem primary clown car would have responded to pressure (and enticement!) from Schumer and Mills to run, but I bet one of them would have, and they could then have tried their best to consolidate their position in the primary and box out other contenders.
Mills has now put herself in a place where at the least she'll have a primary, very possibly a costly and divisive one. Whether animus towards Platner, Sanders, and the left motivated her ultimate decision to run at this juncture, with Platner at least fundraising well, is something only she will ever know (or maybe we'll see reporting about her decision-making process.) Or, of course, she sees the current field as a bunch of non-entities compared to her and assumes she'll have an easy time in the primary, and she could be right about that. Time will tell.
I just can't see how, after the first two or three months of Trump, Musk, DOGE, Stephen Miller, ICE brutality, corrupt SCOTUS rulings, tariffs, and all the rest, a person couldn't say: I need to make this decision now, to make my stand or get out of the way and let others make theirs.
If this is a race we lose, Mills's inability to make a simple and timely decision will surely be viewed with justified anger.
Yes, what you are describing is the real dilemma Janet Mills is facing. Originally she was not planning to run for the Senate and was primarily focused on serving her 2nd term as Governor.
We may have a real Democratic Primary Race. However, in order for Mills to have a shot as a general election nominee, she has to offer a complete contrast to Susan Collins in order to get enough momentum in the general election to win. It’s not certain she has this capability right now.
If this were a less popular Republican serving as senior Senator instead of Susan Collins, I’d be less concerned.
Instinctively, I do not believe Janet Mills will win the primary race, even if we’re taking account this is a primary race in Maine as opposed to other states.
I am sympathetic and on the side of Mills when it came to her defending Maine and transgender people from Trump (and winning the court battle against him). However, I do not think her running for the Senate is going to prove anything. In fact, she may have just given Trump another opportunity to go after her over not being able to be elected to anything else (assuming Mills loses the primary).
You don't think Mills can win the primary? In a small state like Maine, she probably has a good chance of winning on the basis of name recognition alone.
It would depend on the ground game Mills has with her Senate campaign.
Problem is, she is not dealing with the same situation as in 2019 when Sara Gideon essentially had ownership of the whole Senate race. Besides Gideon being endorsed by the DSCC, any other Senate candidates on the Democratic Party side then could not get traction with all the attention Gideon got. Her presence and the DSCC’s involvement with her campaign months before the primary.
We don’t have this situation with Graham Platner. He may be not the establishment choice but he’s not likely to drop out given Mills is the preferred choice by Schumer, the DSCC, etc. He also has more to work with as Mills praising Susan Collins will be used against her in the primary.
JFC
"Zenith Research/More Perfect Union poll | 10/7-10/10 LV
Maine Senate
(initial ballot)
🟥Susan Collins 38%
🟦Graham Platner 38%
—
(informed ballot)
🟦Graham Platner 48%
🟥Susan Collins 34%
—
(initial ballot)
🟦Janet Mills 42%
🟥Susan Collins 37%
—
(informed ballot)
🟦Janet Mills 44%
🟥Susan Collins 36%
https://substack.perfectunion.us/p/poll-platner-best-positioned-maine "
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1976779219578302701
" Job approval rating among Maine voters
Senator Susan Collins approval
Disapprove 49%
Approve 39%
Governor Janet Mills approval
Approve 48%
Disapprove 45%
President Trump approval
Disapprove 58%
Approve 40%
Senator Angus King approval
Approve 54%
Disapprove 25% c
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1976780721361416353
"Favorability ratings among Maine voters"
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1976781156181065974
55% of Mainers don't know who Platner is.
Another detailed thread from the guy who conducted it:
https://x.com/admcrlsn/status/1976778291509182933
I really hoped Mills would avoid entering the primary, and it seemed like she didn’t want to, but she was clearly pressured by Schumer to run for "the good of the nation". She should have retired after a respectful career, but now we’re faced with a polarizing expensive primary that’s entirely unnecessary.
https://x.com/juliegraceb/status/1976758649998786588
Her launch video
"2) Voters are split on their views of Janet Mills. Mills has a 48-45 job approval rating (including 30% that strongly disapprove) and a 47-43 favorability rating (including 29% that have a very unfavorable view of her).
She has a 40-51 approval rating among independents."
Now the people of Maine get to decide. Schumer and Gillibrand's preferred geriatric retread or an exciting young choice who could be in the seat for decades.
My biggest gripe about this whole thing is that Mills is not popular the way Schumer & national Dems think she is. Numerous polls have shown her with breakeven or trending negative approval rating and thats before a brutal negative campaign next year.
Yeah, Mills is not popular in Maine like Roy Cooper is here in North Carolina.
I mean... An informed ballot doesn't mean a ton to me. mills having an initial 5 point lead is pretty good.
Most notable is that Collins is at 37/38 with both of them before any message-testing. That’s an awful place for her to be in this environment.
Concerning for our side is that in the matchup of two universally known opponents, Mills is only at 42.
I don't have a dog in the primary fight, but my impression is that Mills is a strong candidate who can beat Collins. Let the voters decide.
The Zenith Research poll may reflect name recognition.
Mills is at least a strong candidate on paper, but it's unclear as to how she'll ultimately perform, and not just due to age. Lakshya Jain says she's not really an especially strong electoral performer, with her 2018/22 gubernatorial wins being somewhat unimpressive compared to downballot results, and Susan Collins is not Paul LePage.
https://nitter.poast.org/lxeagle17/status/1976342727060267221#m
However, I'd wouldn't swoon too much over Graham Platner just yet, either. Rookie candidates often make rookie mistakes, and having a candidate supposedly representative of the common people often sounds better in theory than reality. He's had an impressive launch over the last few months but has a long way to go.
Mark Kelly, Warnock, Ossoff were outsiders and they overperformed.
Mark Kelly was a decorated astronaut and military officer with years of experience as an activist. He also ran unopposed in the primary, which sounds to me like the powers that be might have cleared the field for him.
No the DSCC waited for Gallego’s decision in 2019, and he decided he didn’t want a divisive primary and would instead pine for a House leadership or committee position. Gallego was also yet to shed his liberal image then.
Warnock has a compelling background story as a Baptist pastor.
For Ossoff I'm less sure his background is compelling. I think the anti-Trump vibes of 2020 helped him.
Ossoff's background may not have be politically pedigreed, but he's clearly a charismatic, attractive guy.
That said, his 2017 loss surely taught him a heck of a lot about how to be a good candidate.
I do really wish Platner had that level of seasoning on him.
Yeah, most of the "common man" candidates that Daily Kos always loved bombed at the ballot box. Our much loved Senator Fetterman being more the exception than the rule.
And his record in office hasn't exactly been an inspiring one, though mostly due to personal matters and views that don't extend to Platner or others.
Nowadays, centrists like to pretend that John Fetterman has always been the way he is now - that he never suffered a severe stroke, and that the horrific tragedy of Oct 7 didn’t further impact his mental state. But the truth is, Fetterman was one of the earliest supporters of Bernie in 2015 even when he didn't return the favor by endorsing Fetterman in his primary against Sestak and McGinty. Between 2016 and 2018, multiple newspapers referred to him as a "self-described Democratic socialist," though they later had to retract those statements in 2022 due to a lack of direct quotes or recordings.
I’d bet that Platner won’t suffer a stroke, and that the organized labor groups who discovered him, Osborn-Mamdani consultants and Bernieworld—have thoroughly vetted his background.
I believe that Fetterman was always an asshole and we just chose to ignore it. He clearly because way worse after the stroke though.
He was an unconventional asshole, but he was *our* asshole, he bullied Shapiro into approving clemency for many prisoners.
I'm a centrist and I also believe that he has not been the same since the stroke, but I think many people are missing the main issue, which is whether or not the candidate is a skilled politician who can run strong campaigns and win tough elections, both in the primary and in the general election.. Pre-stroke, John Fetterman was a skilled politician who managed to attract support from across the political spectrum. This is why he was a good candidate until the stroke. However, some candidates from the progressive part of the party have a track record of being ideologues or bomb throwers who struggle to obtain support from people outside the left, and that includes in the primaries where they often lose to a more moderate candidate who represents what the majority of Democrats want. Janet Mills has a proven track record of winning elections in Maine, while Graham Platner has never run a campaign or won political office. I really need to see more before tossing aside a proven winner to go with the rookie.
Fetterman always very directly stated that he was not a socialist, at least since the campaign, but I believe for quite some time before that. Other points taken.
He is on film saying he is a proud progressive, though, at Netroots Nation no less.
I have no proof, only vibes, but I really feel like vetting only gets you so far. I'm sure it does weed out some prospective candidates with easily-findable issues, but even if a candidate is more or less working with you to discover those issues, there's probably stuff that (a) they can't bring themselves to disclose and hope is obscure enough to not be found or (b) they may simply not realize will play poorly, especially in a tense campaign filled with plenty of folks who don't have any reason to give you the benefit of the doubt.
See, for example, the Ralph Northam blackface scandal. It was hiding there "in plain sight" in a yearbook that was surely sitting on at least a few library shelves, ready for inspection. And yet, it stayed hidden until it didn't.
If Platner is the guy, I hope nothing too bad comes up, but there's going to at least be something minor.
And if not, he'll make some additional mistake.
Some of them fail for sure, and most stop being an everyman by virtue of being elected. I don’t think all that many make it to the general election in actually winnable elections, so I’m not sure we can make too much of it. Generally elected officials are the stronger candidate, which I think is the real point and I agree with that.
Wouldn’t AOC count as one? She was a bartender before.
Yes, she definitely would.
betting Platner wins primary...people will see right thru Mills entering campaign...and it won't be particularly close...
In Thursday's comments, Kildere53 asked about transplants to NH [1]. Great discussion question!
It's only anecdotal, but I live on the North Shore and work in Boston. Over the years, I've known a dozen or so people that commute to Boston Metro from NH. Their motivations for the long commute are usually pricing of single family housing (not taxes). They chose NH over similarly priced North Shore because of larger yards or such. My expectation is that category 2 is neutral or Democratic-leaning.
[1] https://substack.com/profile/294805195-kildere53?utm_source=substack-feed-item
Oh man, MAGA is turning against Trump and his administration once again.
This time, we don’t have just the Jeffrey Epstein fiasco and shadiness with Trump on not getting to the bottom of it. Now it’s a Qatar Air Base in Idaho, which means that Make America Great Again is now Make American Great Again Last. Of course, we do have national security concerns to raise in the process.
However, at the same time if “Defense Secretary” (I’m sorry, “Secretary” of “War”) Pete Hegseth helps Trump in continuing to depress MAGA turnout in the 2026 midterms, please proceed!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rybrDZjirrk
Best part is that foreign countries having training units here isn’t that unusual but don’t maga that 🤫
Yes, but those foreign countries are generally friendly democracies, not repressive regimes that fund terrorism.
I mean, we have Abu Dhabi which has the most robust economy and banking and investing environment in the Middle East besides Israel. Then Kuwait, which has been an ally of the U.S. and Western countries for a long time, has now gotten an economy that could become the next Abu Dhabi at some point.
The UAE and Kuwait are still repressive, theocratic regimes, not democracies. Therefore, America should only be allies with them up to a point, and certainly not to the point of giving such countries military bases inside the U.S.
They're not theocratic as such, because that is literally rule by clergy, but Kuwait in particular enforces some shari'ah laws strictly, which is the point you're making, and I'm quibbling only on the margins. Iran is literally a theocracy, whereas Saudi Arabia is ruled by a royal family of non-clergy, but in practice, Saudi Arabia is or at least quite recently has been more religiously repressive than even Iran.
I think the culture of what’s happened with the U.S. decades in the making has shown neglect for going after the Department of Defense budget and the excessive waste. Any other countries building bases here just amplifies this.
Sandi Air Force personnel are also training at several bases in Texas.
Well, the MAGA crowd had delusions of grandeur in thinking Trump was really MAGA the whole time in every way.
But it should be obvious that Trump and Jared Kushner have warm relations with countries like Saudi Arabia and have no interest in ending them.
The Saudis and Qataris have $$$$ which edgelord shitposters like Bannon do not
Oh yes. I am sure Bannon is pissed at Trump right now.
Come on Bannon, did you think Trump wanted to execute your mission? Really!
This kind of reminds me of the Dubai Ports World controversy when Dubya was president, when he proposed selling port management businesses to a company based in the UAE. Concerns were voiced about port security, and a broad coalition of opposition in and out of Congress, ranging from the far right to progressives, eventually forced the deal to be scuttled at a time when the Bush administration was beleaguered on multiple fronts.
An interesting postscript is that in 2018 the UAE-based Gulftainer won 50 year rights to develop a port in Wilmington, DE--Joe Biden's hometown, of course. Biden (who didn't then hold any office) had nothing officially to do with the deal, but John Carney, then Delaware's governor and now Wilmington's mayor, did. And Trump at least passively approved.
That’s a throwback!
2005 George Bush era was scandal after scandal.. Dubai Ports World, Harriet Miers, privatizing social security, heckofa job Brownie, firing US attorneys
Some of which seem practically quaint at this point
This administration makes worse decisions daily
The decision to occupy Iraq, killing maybe over 1,000,000 people, was worse than pretty much anything Trump did other than help cause hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths from COVID.
Let’s be real though, we have no clue how many people in America actually died from COVID. The real stats probably aren’t anywhere close to the reality given how many of the at risk population refused to vaccinate and refused even in death to admit how stupid they were by getting the local coroner (who likely also was a Covidiot) to not list the real cause of death and instead say “heart failure” or whatever to make them feel better in the rural areas.
Yeah it probably was heart failure, but it was COVID that caused the heart failure. Then even the official stats aren’t anywhere close and probably on the low side as many people were likely misdiagnosed and then died or people just buried their loved ones without reporting it. While I agree both are equally horrific derelictions of duty by Republican presidents and I do believe people are people and lives lost are equal in value, I don’t think we can neatly lineup the numbers and say Bush was worst just because of the number of fatalities. Dying in war is awful, but dying in isolation is equally so.
Both are unacceptable.
We also don't know how many Iraqis were killed in or as a result of the war, though estimates of over 1,000,000 seem well-supported, whereas I think excess deaths as such are probably fairly accurate in the U.S.
One of the most annoying things about Trump is how much his existence has done to rehabilitate Bush’s public image. Man was one of the worst, most harmful (both to us and to other peoples), presidents ever. He did so much damage to our country, even if you don’t care about the lives lost the trillions of dollars wasted could have been used on endless good things. Many of the GOP’s autocratic sympathies started under him. Two of Trump’s rubber stamps on SCOTUS were appointed by him. He did everything he could to cultivate the cult of ignorance in his party.
Bush does not deserve the improvement of his image.
No. And he didn't win fair and square, either.
Todays Repug party has made Bush seem like a moderate in comparison, which speaks to how far right they've gone.
While we're piling on, he's also a shitty artist
I recall the backlash over the Terri Schiavo controversy playing a real role, too.
That was perhaps the first crack in the second term Bush armor. The media lectured everyone for months about how "moral values" were the most important issue for voters--and then seemed shocked when the public didn't like that religiously motivated government intervention into a family's personal issues.
This is what happens when Trump's naked corruption, which has led to him making several self-interested deals with Middle East leaders runs into his base's nativism and anti-Muslim bigotry.
Sobering interview with a guy describing how and why Silicon Valley, at least its leadership class, has gotten so reactionary. Some interesting assessments that largely dovetail with my conclusions that these guys are all high on their own supply and even more maladjusted weirdos than the average CEO. The messianic approach to technology in the industry has poisoned a LOT of brains
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/10/11/elon-musk-donald-trump-silicon-valley-book-jacob-silverman-00603682
Like all plutocrats, all they care about is money and power. And in the case of Musk and Theil, racial superiority.
Ever wondered why always the ultra-rich become libertarians. It's selfishness nothing more.
It’s about “hampering innovation” in the eyes of Silicon Valley leadership.
This is the same kind of regurgitated crap that’s been spewing since the 2010’s where Silicon Valley, as it’s been blowing up with private equity and VC capital since then, has become about “innovation.”
BS. It’s about power and domination, from men who have small wee wees.
I suggest anyone reading pick up the book “Abolish Silicon Valley” by Wendy Liu to understand this problem. Stopping Innovation is the new stopping investment.
Such poisoned brains must include much of the MSM, which incessantly fawned and slobbered over Elon Musk until about six months ago (remember how he had supposedly remade the GOP into the party of the future?) And that's only the perhaps most egregious example.
And this quote, "I think the tech industry, more broadly, would be very excited about Vance, because he’s one of them." Even if that proves true, who the hell else is?
So, after all these decades, it turns out the "high-tech" New Economy pushed by "New Liberals"/ neoliberals, and "New Democrats" hasn't eliminated the need for a bigger government or robust social safety nets. And now, with Citizens United empowering them further, these tech oligarchs are more powerful—and more reactionary—than ever.
Another Trumpist outed himself: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/11/slap-in-the-face-marc-benioffs-trump-turn-stuns-san-francisco-00604421 Marc Bernioff's comments make so much sense when you read the article Henrik shared.
This is surprising as Benioff has generally been more socially conscious than other billionaires, namely those in tech. He’s been vocal against the Ellis Act, challenged tech to give back on helping the homeless and went after Indiana over its new anti-LGBTQ at the time Mike Pence was still Governor. Also helped finance a low rent motel to provide affordable housing.
Benioff also served as national co-chair of President Obama’s re-election campaign.
I really think this has the answers.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/10/11/elon-musk-donald-trump-silicon-valley-book-jacob-silverman-00603682
Right but Salesforce has had ICE (or I believe the Department of Homeland Security) as a customer well before Trump’s first term. This was before the controversy with the ICE agents started nearly a decade ago.
On issues besides this, Benioff took action and became socially conscious when Mark Zuckerberg and other tech billionaires and CEOs did not. Another founder and CEO with these views is Jeff Lawson, who started Twilio and has been vocal about giving back.
In fact, Lawson has gone so far as to donate money to Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz’s campaign back in 2023. He was also vocal about Trump being a fascist back to his first term as POTUS. Benioff for years was projecting an apolitical image even while he did at one point supported Obama’s re-election campaign (which may have had to do in part with tech friendly policies).
Anyway, like I said, Benioff will have to face the music as simply praising a president like Trump over immigration and security matters is only going to give his image more trouble. Even before Trump’s 2nd term, Benioff at I believe a Tech Crunch conference had been confronted by an anti-ICE protestor about this. This is where it’s a matter of how far tech influence goes to the point where it’s all about the company’s customers instead of just focusing on the greater good.
https://pbswisconsin.org/news-item/mega-donors-fuel-over-40-million-in-donations-for-record-shattering-2023-wisconsin-supreme-court-race/
https://x.com/sf_mills/status/1976832491878298011
Benioff said he has always been privately Republican.
"First honest Silicon Valley guy. Literally every other one of them pretends to have been a “reasonable” Democrat who was forced into the Republican Party by the loony left. Marc Andressen in particular has been running this same playbook since 2004!"
https://x.com/burkehenryt/status/1977402276152017059
Maybe so but Benioff also happens to be a member of my Reform Jewish synagogue where a lot of the members are quite liberal. If he’s been privately Republican, I do not believe he’s being truly conservative or right wing from the standpoint of today’s GOP and where it stands on the political spectrum. Most Republicans in SF are conservative from a taxation standpoint.
No way could someone arguing the Ellis Act should end would be right wing, especially considering the original author of the Ellis Act, State Assemblyman James Ellis, was a Reagan conservative Republican in San Diego who made the original law specifically designed for preferential treatment for landlords. This is something many native San Franciscans, lots pro tenant, are against. Benioff happens to be a native San Franciscan.
If anything, Benioff may be no different than the “conservative” Republican types who live in the Marina or other parts of San Francisco who actually have more moderate views and happen to be SF Chamber of Commerce members. I used to be a member myself when I was running my consulting business but kept my liberal views restrained so as to keep the tone of the Chamber business-minded. Keep in mind the SF Chamber of Commerce is also pro affirmative action even while not being filled with liberal members.
More and more I come around to the idea of breaking up and harshly regulating these social media, MSM, technology and AI companies. I don’t really care if they can grow or make money or not, I care about a fact being a fact and a lie being a lie. When money became more important than the truth to all of these corporations, that’s the line in the sand I draw to support radically attacking and dismembering these propaganda machines before they do even more damage than they already have to the country.
A panel of three federal judges will soon decide whether to block Texas from using its new congressional map in the 2026 election, after a contentious nine-day hearing concluded Friday.
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/we-could-not-have-clearer-facts-minority-advocates-say-racial-motive-is-evident-as-texas-redistricting-hearing-wraps-up/
I should know, but does the California prop take effect (assuming it passes) if Texas maps never go into effect
Yes. Initially no but they decided not to go with that
I thought they had the ballot measure conditioned to TX maps being in place? Did I miss when they changed it?
You must have yes. That was the initial plan but AFAIK it was changed when other states started discussing redraws
As much as I like taking them to court to delay this, it’s almost certainly going to end up at SCOTUS which is likely going to overturn any decision they make if they side with the plaintiffs. The only question in my mind is if the “it’s too late to change the map” applies just to Democrats or equally to Republicans. Pretty sure we all know the answer to that, so I wouldn’t get my hopes up on this honestly.
You're probably right, but I do think there's value in forcing SCOTUS to make their corrupt rulings rather than policing ourselves in advance due to an expectation of those rulings.
A lot of SCOTUS power comes down to being seen as a legitimate institution. Every time they make an awful ruling, they mortgage away some of that legitimacy. There was a lot to work with once upon a time, but the Roberts court has been assiduously spending it down. Forcing them to spend some of it is worth it, if we're going to have the same net result regardless.
100% agree, I’m not saying don’t fight, I’m saying set your expectations properly that we’re almost certainly going to lose.
Just got polled by Quinnipiac on the NJ Governor’s race. So they’ll probably have a poll on it coming out on Wednesday.
I love when we get polled!
Just curious: Landline or Cellphone? Real human or recording?
Landline. Human.
Just curious. Was there caller ID or did you answer to an unidentified caller? I never do but I would answer if I saw a caller ID for a polling company.
Caller ID. That’s why I answered.
Why do you still have a landline?
Why not? Can’t have both?
CA-Gov, RE Katie Porter and that viral video from 2 days ago of her swearing at her employees.
I'm wondering if that might not have been deliberately leaked by her own campaign. To get that damaging clip out of the way now and forgotten before the June primary (in 8 months). Better now than have it come out as an "October surprise".
(Remember, the primary is top-2. So finishing in 2nd place is just as good as finishing in 1st.)
That would be smart, if true, especially since it wasn't that bad.
True although I still want the primary race to be a real race and not an anointment.
New Orleans Mayor: Helena Moreno (D) wins with 55% of the vote, avoiding a runoff.
https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/politics/elections/helena-moreno-elected-mayor-of-new-orleans-avoiding-runoff-wwl-projects/289-fb3c1520-0b99-4b28-abde-6ca4988b847d
Peru: President Dina Boluarte was removed from office
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1edw3x6vl2o
Japan: Komeito Party dissolved its 26 year coalition with the ruling LDP, and the opposition Constitutional Democratic Party (CDP) may try to put forward a consensus candidate for prime minister with the support of Komeito. This comes after the LDP selected hardline conservative Sanae Takaichi as its pick for prime minister.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2025/10/11/japan/politics/cdp-komeito-cooperation/
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/japans-komeito-leave-ruling-coalition-with-ldp-under-takaichi-nhk-reports-2025-10-10/
Thanks for sharing all that information! I didn't realize how bad and chaotic things had been in Peru these past few years. I hope things can improve with this president out. I'm also glad to hear that the extremist selected by the LDP is not going to run Japan now.
Peru have a president finish a term challenge
Also if CDP gets a PM here it’d be remarkable - LDP’s times out of power have been so very very brief
Impeached on grounds of "permanent moral incapacity".
Sounds just like Trump.
Is Helena Moreno the first Latina Mayor of New Orleans? Or is my history of the city’s mayoral elections foggy?
Definitely the first Latina, she may be the first Hispanic Nola mayor of any gender. I'm not seeing another one just from some cursory googling
In light of recent redistricting in Texas, I decided my first comment here would be showing my own hypothetical "fair" map (that only has the results up to the 2016 election)
https://districtr.org/plan/329937
Summary:
Incumbent-on-incumbent districts:
2nd (Crenshaw and Luttrell, GOP, with the latter retiring)
3rd (Self and Fallon, GOP, with the latter possibly running in the 4th)
6th (Gooden and Ellzey, GOP)
25th (Goldman and Williams, GOP)
31st (McCaul, Roy and Carter, GOP, with McCaul and Roy retiring)
New seats:
4th (solidly GOP seat, includes much of the Fallon territory)
5th (solidly Dem seat east of Dallas)
8th (solidly GOP seat in Harris County)
10th (solidly GOP seat, includes much of the McCaul territory)
12th (solidly Dem seat in Fort Worth, Dem Rep. Veasey would likely move to)
21st (solidly Dem seat in San Antonio)
33rd (solidly Dem seat in DFW - GOP Rep. Van Duyne would live in the district, but would likely run in the neighboring 24th, which she represents)
Other changes:
11th (Pfluger, GOP, would pick up most of Hill Country from Roy in exchange to give Killeen to Sessions in the 17th)
13th and 26th (GOP Reps. Jackson and Gill would exchange territories in the Dallas suburbs; Gill would gain the city of Denton; Jackson would gain rural territories north and west)
14th and 36th (GOP Reps. Weber and Babin would exchange territories in the Houston area for more compact districts)
17th (Sessions, GOP, would lose much rural territory to the new 10th in exchange for Killeen from the 11th)
23rd (Gonzales, GOP, would lose his share of the Mexican border to pick up Roy's old district in San Antonio)
27th (Cloud, GOP, would lose most of Corpus Christi to the 34th, and gain the 15th's rural territory)
28th (Cuellar, Dem, would gain most of the Mexican border from Gonzales)
32nd (Johnson, Dem, seat would become more compact with the addition of the new 5th)
34th (Gonzalez, Dem, would almost fully lose his share of Hidalgo County to the 15th in exchange for Corpus Christi)
38th (Hunt, GOP, also retiring, would have his Harris County district become much more competitive)
Districts with minimal changes:
1st (Moran, GOP)
7th (Fletcher, Dem)
9th (Green, Dem)
16th (Escobar, Dem)
18th (Vacant, heavy Dem)
19th (Arrington, GOP)
20th (Castro, Dem)
22nd (Nehls, GOP)
29th (Garcia, Dem)
30th (Crockett, Dem)
35th (Casar, Dem)
37th (Doggett, Dem)
Nice map! Texas is interesting because there are so many ways you can do it. I've never thought to run a district from west Harris County down to Galveston, but I like it. I'm also intrigued by your version of the 28th. I've always kept the 23rd running from El Paso to San Antonio, but there's really no reason it should when the 28th can run the entire stretch of the border. Your 24th district looks unnecessarily messy, though. At a glance, I don't think my version's partisanship would be that much different, but by trading Irvine for Arlington, you make it much more compact.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/6881d22e-ec88-4694-8c70-e8f3e9119d56
When I experimented with Texas in DRA, I noticed that Tarrant, Dallas, Collin, Denton, Rockwall, and Hunt Counties have pretty much exactly the right population for nine Congressional districts. Therefore, I drew nine districts entirely within these counties, as shown here:
https://davesredistricting.org/join/0d408a61-a5e7-497b-a832-382eff1a6e61
It turns out that Ossoff and Warnock and even Kelly supported repealing Right to Work laws nationwide unlike what has been claimed multiple times here by someone.
https://www.ossoff.senate.gov/press-releases/sens-jon-ossoff-rev-raphael-warnock-push-to-strengthen-workers-right-to-organize/
There’s no prospect of it happening in the next few years. So they don’t have to vote on it. And Democrats would almost assuredly have to break the filibuster in order to pass it.
It can happen in 2029 and 2030. Non-zero chance.