Take that, Scooter Braun! Taylor Swift bought back the rights to the master recordings of her first 6 albums that were released on Big Machine Records (Taylor Swift, Fearless, Speak Now, Red, 1989, and reputation). Of those 6 Big Machine albums, 4 have been re-recorded as “(Taylor’s Version)” (Fearless, Red, Speak Now, and 1989).
Good for her! I admire the hard work, artistic integrity and business savvy of Taylor Swift. In my book she is right up there with Dolly Parton. Ok, granted, I really don’t like much of the music of either, but I still respect and admire them.
Swift’s music is ok, not a fan of her country beginning but her recent output is fine. Like you, I admire her business acumen and philanthropy more than her songs.
Dolly Parton is an all-around great person. She advocates for LGBT people and against racism, and does it on the stated basis that the only way to be Christian is to be kind and accepting toward everyone, which is a very good way to couch things for an audience that includes a lot of white evangelicals.
Definitely an ick factor to that marriage (Cleveland was his future wife's unofficial guardian following her father's untimely death when she was eleven years old)...
The Iowa Senate race for me has gone from Safe Republican to Lean Republican after Joni Ernst’s callous remarks at a town hall.
Had she said something this tone deaf in 2014, she wouldn’t have gotten elected in the first place. She gave a ton of free attack material to the Iowa Democratic Party.
The real cherry on the top would be if Nathan Sage, a real working class candidate wins the primary. He would be a starker contrast to her than the quintessential Democratic lawyer.
At this point, I hope Sage wins next year’s primary. Sage will read her on her callous “everybody dies” comment and her votes for DOGE at a debate. And she’ll have to defend that.
No, in 2014 there was enough of a wave that this probably wouldn't have been fatal, especially as her opponent Bruce Braley couldn't seem to keep his foot out of his mouth. His gaffes may have been contagious, as in an appearance for him shortly before the election Michelle Obama messed up his name ("Bruce Bailey") which came to symbolize his struggles.
I'm not convinced that this really shifts the election that much, especially this early. (Something similar next October might be different.) But it does provide a "viral moment" that can be recycled in showing her and other Republicans as uncaring about Medicaid and health care in general. It certainly was an avoidable mistake going into what may be the most problematic type of election for her (midterm with a potentially unpopular GOP trifecta that Dems are fired up to vote against.)
I'm not as optimistic. This is the same GOP that went full death cult in response to Covid, suggesting people sacrifice their grandparents' lives for the supposed sake of the economy. With no long term negative repercussions for them as a party, and even the short term damage was less than you'd expect.
This should hurt her but I don't think it's enough to warrant shifting the rating down a full category, let alone two. Hopefully I'm wrong and it proves more damaging than I expect.
I agree with you that long term repercussions for any politician based on something they said is a thing of the past. But for 1 election? This could absolutely matter.
I’d be remiss not to remind you of the huge number of seats Republicans have lost that they should have won for nominating a candidate or incumbent who has said or done things that have turned off voters. For Trump, nothing matters, every other GOP candidate though has to pass the normalcy voter test. If they don’t, they still today lose to a Democrat.
We just saw that last year in NC-Gov, NC-SI and WA-03. The year before that, there was a very long list of extreme R candidates who lost while Biden was president. Voters are absolutely more “shrug” worthy over wrong things said or done by the GOP and don’t care about scandals as much than they did in the past, but there’s still a limit to what they will accept.
Whether Ernst has crossed that limit by saying people should die would make for a lively debate I’m sure, but regardless it absolutely could have an impact. I don’t think I’d move it past Likely either for those reasons, but it definitely bears watching.
Healthcare is still the 3rd rail of politics for the GOP. Every time they touch it or attempt to touch it, voters punish them in the next election, even extremely conservative voters in extremely conservative states, like we miraculously saw Manchin win in WV 2018. Medicaid cuts could be as damaging to the party in power as trying to end Obamacare was.
I think cutting Medicaid will hurt republicans in general.
I'm saying I'm skeptical that Ernst's statement will hurt her in a major way. I hope it does. Yet, being dismissive of their constituents dying became a core identity of republicans for 2020-2022 and the largest penalty they suffered from it was that it killed part of their base. The penalty for being cavalier about whether people survive was seemingly non-existent. Why would this be different?
Cutting Medicaid bad for her: yes
Saying stupid thing displaying a fundamental lack of empathy bad for her: doubtful
not my personal opinion), but COVID was less of a big deal to people than Medicaid is. COVID killed many, but to the average voter, potentially losing Medicaid has a far bigger impact on them than a disease that could kill them, but most likely won’t. They aren’t the same situation at all. It’s Apples and Orangutans.
When the world economy basically stopped running, people’s livelihoods were completely upended. There was more anger about things being shut down than there was about people actually dying “it won’t kill me, but with no school/work/anything how can I afford to pay for anything”? The latter problem affected every single person, the former didn’t.
So voters overall agreed with maybe not the exact words or delivery of Republicans, but the sentiment: they wanted the country to re-open regardless of what that meant for other people. That’s a main reason why Republicans swept the 2021 elections as a voter backlash to Democrats not willing to get things started again.
On the other hand, Medicaid is something every voter knows at least someone else who relies on it. Different motivations and different situations in the average voters mind with someone taking something you already have away compared to being uncaring about someone who already died.
The reality is cutting Medicaid is a far more potent line of attack than trying to attack the GOP for saying the economy should re-open even if that meant people die. America is one of the most selfish and self centered countries on this planet earth. It’s all about “what’s in it for me?” Irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion or age.
Attacking taking away something you have and like is galaxies apart of being more impactful to voters compared to attacking the GOP argument which a majority of voters already agreed with.
Everyone knew someone who died of Covid, too. Loads of people don't have Medicaid, and there's a prejudice that it's just for Black and maybe Hispanic people and other people of color. My girlfriend experienced that, being told it personally when she had Medicaid in Boston in the early 2000s. Now if they go after -Medicare-, that's another matter.
Not that it's anymore nuts then anything else they do but they moved quick from "sacrifice grandma for the economy!" to "Suck it up and live with two or three dolls".
But were there comparable videos of Ernst or Republican Senators in previous years making stupid statements like this? If any, perhaps to seniors it was more noise.
I think in context of DOGE, it’s becoming more alarming now, not just for seniors. More crazy news about DOGE’s agenda and government programs being cut in the worst kind of ways makes it harder for seniors to be sold on the solvency of Medicaid.
Of course, this is a video as you point out. It may be we will have to see how this plays out heading to the 2026 midterms. That said, I don’t think Ernst has the ability to spin this and she’s going to constantly be on the defensive. Not a good position if she wants to be assured she wants to win re-election.
This seems...too optimistic... It's still Iowa, after all. Not saying it's impossible to beat her, particularly if the environment continues on this path, but it would be a significant upset.
The way I see it, putting up a real fight for Ernst's seat is absolutely worth it because whether she narrowly loses or holds on, that energy will help out in downballot races, especially in the Governor race where Rob Sands has a good shot and in all three of the congressional districts the DCCC is targeting. Think of it as having Beto O'Rourke at the top of the ticket in 2018 where even though he fell short and kept that race closer than it should've, his energy translated down to congressional races, state legislator races and judicial races.
Right now, I see it as Ernst slightly favored, the Governor race a toss up/lean GOP and Dems getting two out of three congressional districts.
Tomorrow I will be watching the runoff in Poland’s Presidential Election. Really hoping Rafał Trzaskowski, Mayor of Warsaw, defeats Karol Nawrocki of the right-wing PiS party.
Kristi Noem has stumped for Nawrocki in Poland along with other MAGAs, I hope that costs him votes. His policy platform is very very similar to MAGA except on taxation and the welfare state.
Most European far right politicians are except those in Germany and places like Romania. For e.g, Jordan Bardella of France supports strong climate action and a stronger welfare state.
If Nawrocki loses, Poland will probably legalise abortion without his veto.
The threat of Russia and the threat of becoming like Russia, or regressing to a Cold War state, is a very compelling incentive to improve your society.
I think there are three reasons often tated for Europe being left to America especially economically:
a powerful labor movement emerged after ww2 which wasn't divided by racial lines like America (e.g "welfare queens", drained pool politics) and powered Soc Dems,
Conservative parties were mostly Christian Democratic, a centrist philosophy which values free or mixed markets with a strong welfare state and are moderately conservative in social issues, influenced by Jesus' teachings ( like the Catholic Social Teaching) which they interpret very differently compared to our evangelical folks,
the threat of workers rising up in a communist revolution if they felt too oppressed.
If I missed out any other oft cited theory, do point out.
Come to think of it, I know very little of postwar Europe. That would be a nice topic to explore some day. Postwar Japan I do know about since I took a whole course on that. Long story short, lots of US intervention and involvement and basically the Japanese government hand selecting the most desirable businesses. Ironically, it's eerily similar to socialism or communism...
the Working Families Party chose Mr. Cuomo’s leading rival, Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, as its top choice among its slate of ranked candidates, followed by Brad Lander, the city comptroller; Adrienne Adams, the speaker of the City Council; Zellnor Myrie, a state senator from Brooklyn; and Jessica Ramos a state senator from Queens.
The party is urging its followers to list the candidates as their five choices on their ranked-choice primary ballots, a strategy designed to block Mr. Cuomo from winning.
It's a shame Myrie hasn't taken off more. I can definitely see him running for a statewide position at some point. He's very young, and exceptionally well-regarded in the state senate.
To answer the question of what race I'm watching, while I don't live there and don't know the race as well as some who do would, I'm interested in the AZ-7 special election primary on July 15. There are really two big candidates of the ones running, and there's an ideological divide -- Adelita Grijalva, a Pima County supervisor, daughter of the previous late Rep. Raul Grijalva, and the progressive of the two (as her father was), and Daniel Hernandez Jr., a former State Rep. who played a role in saving Gabby Giffords after her 2011 shooting and the centrist of the two. Progressive groups, accordingly, are backing Grijalva (including the WFP and Bernie) while Hernandez is getting support from more centrist Dems and apparently pro-Israel donors. (Interestingly, Grijalva is also getting support from both Senators, Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego -- neither of whom are particularly progressive.)
One poll has been done, with Grijalva ahead, but Hernandez has lots of money so it could go either way (although from what I've heard Grijalva has an advantage). Something else interesting about the race -- Gabby Giffords herself endorsed Grijalva over Hernandez.
Regardless of one's ideological bent, the results will be interesting.
(I'm also watching the other big Dem special election, TX-18, but Christian Menefee has most of the endorsements and will likely win, plus the election isn't happening until November due to Texas's MAGA governor intentionally delaying the primary to help House Republicans.)
I know what you were saying and you just confirmed it.
In the first view months of Gallego being a Senator, his voting record is still too soon to just whether he has become less progressive compared to being in the House. Comparatively, he’s no Fetterman or Sinema but he has cast some votes that progressives would likely not be fans of.
But as I said, Gallego is not so far getting chastised by progressives whereas Fetterman is.
If you've compared precinct results across the country between the 2020 and 2024 elections, you may have noticed that Harris did a little bit better than Biden in almost every age-restricted retirement community in America.
The question is, why? I can think of two possible explanations:
1) The campaigns and issues in the election
2) Demographic change, as the very conservative Silent Generation is dying off and being replaced in these retirement communities by the Boomers, who are still conservative but not quite as right-wing
Which of these explanations do we think is more likely? Or do you think it's something else entirely?
Your second point connects to something that I've been thinking about, and I don't know if other people are too: that people and demographic groups age over time, and so our language about how different age groups vote will also have to change
IMO, the answer is neither, but rather old people voting for stability because they can’t take things being shook up for them. The 2 countries are very much not alike, but in Canada (which let’s face it, it’s the closest country to the US out of any other one out there), the voting trends have completely been upended. Young voters are voting more conservative, while old voters are voting more progressive. It did in BC 2024 election and in the Canada 2025 election. That it showed up if only by a little in the 2024 US election means we could be about to see a big coalition shift.
Which intuitively makes a ton of sense. Young voters have a long time to live, they’re not worried about retirement, they’re worried about now. The right is almost always the “shake things up” party. So they’d naturally be drawn to the party doing something different because how it is now isn’t working well for them.
Whereas older voters don’t have a long time left to live. They’re worried about retirement and can’t take big disruptions to make things better in the long run (I know this is not actually true, but this is the right wing argument). They need stability and responsibility and that’s almost always the left wing party.
I will be very interested in 2026 and 2028 to see if this pattern shows up more prominently in the US like it has in Canada. It hasn’t shown up everywhere, but it has in BC and Canada this last election and BC was the first province in the country to vote in the NDP into power and keep them there since 2017 for now 8 years over 3 elections.
In Alberta, they’ve elected the NDP once in the last decade and almost twice because in the 2023 election, they fell a handful of seats short in the Calgary suburbs by about 6,000 votes total. Manitoba also in 2023 elected a NDP government. In Saskatchewan the NDP fell just 3 seats short of winning power in the 2024 election there.
The federal NDP are obviously a mess, but the provincial specific NDP have a real chance to have power in every western province by 2030, which is wild to say if you know anything about western Canada.
We might get an early hint at this possible election coalition switch in the upcoming 2025 elections in VA/NJ after the votes are counted.
Ha, the story behind that is when the Germans were expelled from West Poland or Prussia as it was then, the communist party didn't allow the Catholic Church to embed itself in those territories and being a part of Prussia, those territories were naturally more resource rich and industrialized. In East Poland, the communist party took a relatively conciliatory stance compared to other European communists to the church.
Tired of Poland's centre right coalition not being able to get things done, Gen Z broke hard for far right antisemitic libertarian Slawomir Mentzen (think Ted Cruz with antisemitism) and the Polish left wing Razem Party (think AOC and Bernie) in the first round who promised to break the establishment dominance. The Gen Z vote in USA, in Germany and in Poland atleast are an anti-establishment vote.
Please refrain from posting hateful content here. Particularly since the posted story is not even about politics.
Take that, Scooter Braun! Taylor Swift bought back the rights to the master recordings of her first 6 albums that were released on Big Machine Records (Taylor Swift, Fearless, Speak Now, Red, 1989, and reputation). Of those 6 Big Machine albums, 4 have been re-recorded as “(Taylor’s Version)” (Fearless, Red, Speak Now, and 1989).
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2025/may/30/taylor-swift-buys-back-master-recordings-taylors-versions
Good for her! I admire the hard work, artistic integrity and business savvy of Taylor Swift. In my book she is right up there with Dolly Parton. Ok, granted, I really don’t like much of the music of either, but I still respect and admire them.
Swift’s music is ok, not a fan of her country beginning but her recent output is fine. Like you, I admire her business acumen and philanthropy more than her songs.
And few have done more for American kids than Dolly Parton! Her "Imagination Library" has gifted more than 277 million books to children!
https://imaginationlibrary.com/
PS. I do think Taylor Swift’s song "Carolina" in "Where the Crawdads Sing" was excellent.
Dolly Parton is an all-around great person. She advocates for LGBT people and against racism, and does it on the stated basis that the only way to be Christian is to be kind and accepting toward everyone, which is a very good way to couch things for an audience that includes a lot of white evangelicals.
I had a very strong feeling that Dolly Parton was a truly great person when she starred in 9 to 5 with Lily Tomlin and Jane Fonda!
She’ll change you from a rooster to a hen with one shot! 😉
I like Parton's music a lot more than Swift's. Otherwise, I agree on all points.
The last living grandson of President John Tyler — who left the White House in 1845 — has died.
https://www.npr.org/2025/05/29/nx-s1-5415207/president-tyler-grandson-harrison-ruffin-tyler
Wow, some late in life reproduction there. To think being only four generations from the formation of the country.
Both Tyler and the person's father remarried younger women after their first wives died.
Bad president. Great genes.
Looking around, that leaves Kennedy through Trump remain having presidential children.
And Cleveland, Taft, Harding (via Nan Britton), and Hoover through Trump (minus Reagan and Obama) are presidential grandfathers.
Cleveland has a grandkid still around? I guess since he married a young woman while in the White House that makes sense.
Definitely an ick factor to that marriage (Cleveland was his future wife's unofficial guardian following her father's untimely death when she was eleven years old)...
FWIW, Reagan's adopted son Michael has two children, and his late daughter Maureen adopted a child, too.
The Iowa Senate race for me has gone from Safe Republican to Lean Republican after Joni Ernst’s callous remarks at a town hall.
Had she said something this tone deaf in 2014, she wouldn’t have gotten elected in the first place. She gave a ton of free attack material to the Iowa Democratic Party.
The real cherry on the top would be if Nathan Sage, a real working class candidate wins the primary. He would be a starker contrast to her than the quintessential Democratic lawyer.
At this point, I hope Sage wins next year’s primary. Sage will read her on her callous “everybody dies” comment and her votes for DOGE at a debate. And she’ll have to defend that.
It was never safe for me. Republican favored/likely and remains so.
Given Ernst’s Senate election history, if she wins re-election I see it 3% points or less.
I don’t think she is very popular with MAGA. She’s had to move more to MAGA with her association with DOGE but that seems to be firing back at her.
Yeah, I'm not giving up on Iowa just yet. It swung surprisingly hard toward Democrats in 2018 and might just do so again.
No, in 2014 there was enough of a wave that this probably wouldn't have been fatal, especially as her opponent Bruce Braley couldn't seem to keep his foot out of his mouth. His gaffes may have been contagious, as in an appearance for him shortly before the election Michelle Obama messed up his name ("Bruce Bailey") which came to symbolize his struggles.
I'm not convinced that this really shifts the election that much, especially this early. (Something similar next October might be different.) But it does provide a "viral moment" that can be recycled in showing her and other Republicans as uncaring about Medicaid and health care in general. It certainly was an avoidable mistake going into what may be the most problematic type of election for her (midterm with a potentially unpopular GOP trifecta that Dems are fired up to vote against.)
The "Bruce Bailey" moment was total cringe!
I'm not as optimistic. This is the same GOP that went full death cult in response to Covid, suggesting people sacrifice their grandparents' lives for the supposed sake of the economy. With no long term negative repercussions for them as a party, and even the short term damage was less than you'd expect.
This should hurt her but I don't think it's enough to warrant shifting the rating down a full category, let alone two. Hopefully I'm wrong and it proves more damaging than I expect.
That a very valid opinion.
I agree with you that long term repercussions for any politician based on something they said is a thing of the past. But for 1 election? This could absolutely matter.
I’d be remiss not to remind you of the huge number of seats Republicans have lost that they should have won for nominating a candidate or incumbent who has said or done things that have turned off voters. For Trump, nothing matters, every other GOP candidate though has to pass the normalcy voter test. If they don’t, they still today lose to a Democrat.
We just saw that last year in NC-Gov, NC-SI and WA-03. The year before that, there was a very long list of extreme R candidates who lost while Biden was president. Voters are absolutely more “shrug” worthy over wrong things said or done by the GOP and don’t care about scandals as much than they did in the past, but there’s still a limit to what they will accept.
Whether Ernst has crossed that limit by saying people should die would make for a lively debate I’m sure, but regardless it absolutely could have an impact. I don’t think I’d move it past Likely either for those reasons, but it definitely bears watching.
Healthcare is still the 3rd rail of politics for the GOP. Every time they touch it or attempt to touch it, voters punish them in the next election, even extremely conservative voters in extremely conservative states, like we miraculously saw Manchin win in WV 2018. Medicaid cuts could be as damaging to the party in power as trying to end Obamacare was.
I think cutting Medicaid will hurt republicans in general.
I'm saying I'm skeptical that Ernst's statement will hurt her in a major way. I hope it does. Yet, being dismissive of their constituents dying became a core identity of republicans for 2020-2022 and the largest penalty they suffered from it was that it killed part of their base. The penalty for being cavalier about whether people survive was seemingly non-existent. Why would this be different?
Cutting Medicaid bad for her: yes
Saying stupid thing displaying a fundamental lack of empathy bad for her: doubtful
This may sound crass (and is
not my personal opinion), but COVID was less of a big deal to people than Medicaid is. COVID killed many, but to the average voter, potentially losing Medicaid has a far bigger impact on them than a disease that could kill them, but most likely won’t. They aren’t the same situation at all. It’s Apples and Orangutans.
When the world economy basically stopped running, people’s livelihoods were completely upended. There was more anger about things being shut down than there was about people actually dying “it won’t kill me, but with no school/work/anything how can I afford to pay for anything”? The latter problem affected every single person, the former didn’t.
So voters overall agreed with maybe not the exact words or delivery of Republicans, but the sentiment: they wanted the country to re-open regardless of what that meant for other people. That’s a main reason why Republicans swept the 2021 elections as a voter backlash to Democrats not willing to get things started again.
On the other hand, Medicaid is something every voter knows at least someone else who relies on it. Different motivations and different situations in the average voters mind with someone taking something you already have away compared to being uncaring about someone who already died.
The reality is cutting Medicaid is a far more potent line of attack than trying to attack the GOP for saying the economy should re-open even if that meant people die. America is one of the most selfish and self centered countries on this planet earth. It’s all about “what’s in it for me?” Irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion or age.
Attacking taking away something you have and like is galaxies apart of being more impactful to voters compared to attacking the GOP argument which a majority of voters already agreed with.
Everyone knew someone who died of Covid, too. Loads of people don't have Medicaid, and there's a prejudice that it's just for Black and maybe Hispanic people and other people of color. My girlfriend experienced that, being told it personally when she had Medicaid in Boston in the early 2000s. Now if they go after -Medicare-, that's another matter.
Not that it's anymore nuts then anything else they do but they moved quick from "sacrifice grandma for the economy!" to "Suck it up and live with two or three dolls".
Dolls?
https://apnews.com/article/trump-two-dolls-tariffs-toys-7b0e5d3a9035471317e6dc4ee1fbfbc1
But were there comparable videos of Ernst or Republican Senators in previous years making stupid statements like this? If any, perhaps to seniors it was more noise.
I think in context of DOGE, it’s becoming more alarming now, not just for seniors. More crazy news about DOGE’s agenda and government programs being cut in the worst kind of ways makes it harder for seniors to be sold on the solvency of Medicaid.
Of course, this is a video as you point out. It may be we will have to see how this plays out heading to the 2026 midterms. That said, I don’t think Ernst has the ability to spin this and she’s going to constantly be on the defensive. Not a good position if she wants to be assured she wants to win re-election.
This seems...too optimistic... It's still Iowa, after all. Not saying it's impossible to beat her, particularly if the environment continues on this path, but it would be a significant upset.
If she keeps this up, she will be visited by three spirits this Christmas Eve.
The way I see it, putting up a real fight for Ernst's seat is absolutely worth it because whether she narrowly loses or holds on, that energy will help out in downballot races, especially in the Governor race where Rob Sands has a good shot and in all three of the congressional districts the DCCC is targeting. Think of it as having Beto O'Rourke at the top of the ticket in 2018 where even though he fell short and kept that race closer than it should've, his energy translated down to congressional races, state legislator races and judicial races.
Right now, I see it as Ernst slightly favored, the Governor race a toss up/lean GOP and Dems getting two out of three congressional districts.
Tomorrow I will be watching the runoff in Poland’s Presidential Election. Really hoping Rafał Trzaskowski, Mayor of Warsaw, defeats Karol Nawrocki of the right-wing PiS party.
Kristi Noem has stumped for Nawrocki in Poland along with other MAGAs, I hope that costs him votes. His policy platform is very very similar to MAGA except on taxation and the welfare state.
So he’s better than they are?
Most European far right politicians are except those in Germany and places like Romania. For e.g, Jordan Bardella of France supports strong climate action and a stronger welfare state.
If Nawrocki loses, Poland will probably legalise abortion without his veto.
Pretty sad when even their fascists are better than our fascists.
The threat of Russia and the threat of becoming like Russia, or regressing to a Cold War state, is a very compelling incentive to improve your society.
I think there are three reasons often tated for Europe being left to America especially economically:
a powerful labor movement emerged after ww2 which wasn't divided by racial lines like America (e.g "welfare queens", drained pool politics) and powered Soc Dems,
Conservative parties were mostly Christian Democratic, a centrist philosophy which values free or mixed markets with a strong welfare state and are moderately conservative in social issues, influenced by Jesus' teachings ( like the Catholic Social Teaching) which they interpret very differently compared to our evangelical folks,
the threat of workers rising up in a communist revolution if they felt too oppressed.
If I missed out any other oft cited theory, do point out.
Yes, there’s always been a class consciousness embedded in European politics that never took root for various reasons in the U.S.
Because of racism and nativism.
Come to think of it, I know very little of postwar Europe. That would be a nice topic to explore some day. Postwar Japan I do know about since I took a whole course on that. Long story short, lots of US intervention and involvement and basically the Japanese government hand selecting the most desirable businesses. Ironically, it's eerily similar to socialism or communism...
Not to real socialism of any kind but maybe to the state monopolism of countries ruled by communist dictatorships.
The word is dirigisme.
I think the legalization they are considering making legal would allow abortions during the first three months.
That's a lot better than nothing.
No question.
WFP makes NYC mayoral primary selections:
the Working Families Party chose Mr. Cuomo’s leading rival, Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, as its top choice among its slate of ranked candidates, followed by Brad Lander, the city comptroller; Adrienne Adams, the speaker of the City Council; Zellnor Myrie, a state senator from Brooklyn; and Jessica Ramos a state senator from Queens.
The party is urging its followers to list the candidates as their five choices on their ranked-choice primary ballots, a strategy designed to block Mr. Cuomo from winning.
Those will probably be my 5 choices, but definitely not in that order.
Hopefully there are fewer exhausted votes this cycle. I checked and in the 2021 primary, 14.9% of ballots were exhausted before the final round.
Looks like there are two debates scheduled for this. June 4 and June 12, wonder if that has any real chance to help consolidate the anti-Cuomo field.
It's a shame Myrie hasn't taken off more. I can definitely see him running for a statewide position at some point. He's very young, and exceptionally well-regarded in the state senate.
To answer the question of what race I'm watching, while I don't live there and don't know the race as well as some who do would, I'm interested in the AZ-7 special election primary on July 15. There are really two big candidates of the ones running, and there's an ideological divide -- Adelita Grijalva, a Pima County supervisor, daughter of the previous late Rep. Raul Grijalva, and the progressive of the two (as her father was), and Daniel Hernandez Jr., a former State Rep. who played a role in saving Gabby Giffords after her 2011 shooting and the centrist of the two. Progressive groups, accordingly, are backing Grijalva (including the WFP and Bernie) while Hernandez is getting support from more centrist Dems and apparently pro-Israel donors. (Interestingly, Grijalva is also getting support from both Senators, Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego -- neither of whom are particularly progressive.)
One poll has been done, with Grijalva ahead, but Hernandez has lots of money so it could go either way (although from what I've heard Grijalva has an advantage). Something else interesting about the race -- Gabby Giffords herself endorsed Grijalva over Hernandez.
Regardless of one's ideological bent, the results will be interesting.
(I'm also watching the other big Dem special election, TX-18, but Christian Menefee has most of the endorsements and will likely win, plus the election isn't happening until November due to Texas's MAGA governor intentionally delaying the primary to help House Republicans.)
A pleasant surprise from Gallego since he has been bending over backwards to appease the establishment especially through his endorsements.
Gallego was progressive
He was, but has become less so recently
Hard to say just yet. Gallego has been a Senator for just a few months.
However, he’s not becoming Fetterman at all right now. Frankly, he’s got better political instincts.
I didn’t mean that bad, I just meant relevant to his time as a Rep.
I know what you were saying and you just confirmed it.
In the first view months of Gallego being a Senator, his voting record is still too soon to just whether he has become less progressive compared to being in the House. Comparatively, he’s no Fetterman or Sinema but he has cast some votes that progressives would likely not be fans of.
But as I said, Gallego is not so far getting chastised by progressives whereas Fetterman is.
If you've compared precinct results across the country between the 2020 and 2024 elections, you may have noticed that Harris did a little bit better than Biden in almost every age-restricted retirement community in America.
The question is, why? I can think of two possible explanations:
1) The campaigns and issues in the election
2) Demographic change, as the very conservative Silent Generation is dying off and being replaced in these retirement communities by the Boomers, who are still conservative but not quite as right-wing
Which of these explanations do we think is more likely? Or do you think it's something else entirely?
Concerns about social security and Medicare may have been more salient thus time around
Your second point connects to something that I've been thinking about, and I don't know if other people are too: that people and demographic groups age over time, and so our language about how different age groups vote will also have to change
IMO, the answer is neither, but rather old people voting for stability because they can’t take things being shook up for them. The 2 countries are very much not alike, but in Canada (which let’s face it, it’s the closest country to the US out of any other one out there), the voting trends have completely been upended. Young voters are voting more conservative, while old voters are voting more progressive. It did in BC 2024 election and in the Canada 2025 election. That it showed up if only by a little in the 2024 US election means we could be about to see a big coalition shift.
Which intuitively makes a ton of sense. Young voters have a long time to live, they’re not worried about retirement, they’re worried about now. The right is almost always the “shake things up” party. So they’d naturally be drawn to the party doing something different because how it is now isn’t working well for them.
Whereas older voters don’t have a long time left to live. They’re worried about retirement and can’t take big disruptions to make things better in the long run (I know this is not actually true, but this is the right wing argument). They need stability and responsibility and that’s almost always the left wing party.
I will be very interested in 2026 and 2028 to see if this pattern shows up more prominently in the US like it has in Canada. It hasn’t shown up everywhere, but it has in BC and Canada this last election and BC was the first province in the country to vote in the NDP into power and keep them there since 2017 for now 8 years over 3 elections.
In Alberta, they’ve elected the NDP once in the last decade and almost twice because in the 2023 election, they fell a handful of seats short in the Calgary suburbs by about 6,000 votes total. Manitoba also in 2023 elected a NDP government. In Saskatchewan the NDP fell just 3 seats short of winning power in the 2024 election there.
The federal NDP are obviously a mess, but the provincial specific NDP have a real chance to have power in every western province by 2030, which is wild to say if you know anything about western Canada.
We might get an early hint at this possible election coalition switch in the upcoming 2025 elections in VA/NJ after the votes are counted.
The exit poll on the election in Poland is out. Be cautious, like any poll, it has a m/e.
Trzaskowski (pro-European) 50.3%
Nawrocki (populist) 49.7%
VERY CLOSE.
Second exit poll verifies that the election is VERY CLOSE:
Rafał Trzaskowski 50.17%
Karol Nawrocki 49.83%
Actual results tomorrow.
This is reminding me of Peruvian presidential elections…
They don't release after polls close?
A Bad Shift: An updated late exit poll puts Nawrocki ahead of Trzaskowski 50.7% to 49.3%. This poll updates the exit poll with partial results from 50% of polling stations where they conducted the poll. https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/jun/01/polls-set-to-close-in-tight-presidential-race-in-poland-live
It's over, Nawrocki won. The second late poll has come.
Welp, east Poland outvoes west Poland once again
Ha, the story behind that is when the Germans were expelled from West Poland or Prussia as it was then, the communist party didn't allow the Catholic Church to embed itself in those territories and being a part of Prussia, those territories were naturally more resource rich and industrialized. In East Poland, the communist party took a relatively conciliatory stance compared to other European communists to the church.
The poll shows a 51-49 margin. The votes still have to be all counted. A little technical detail.
https://ctnewsjunkie.com/2025/05/28/ct-house-approves-wide-ranging-housing-bill-after-marathon-debate/
https://ctmirror.org/2025/05/27/ct-omnibus-housing-bill-house-passes/
Connecticut passed a massive pro housing YIMBY abundance bill, something that no one thought was possible in a blue state.
0 Republicans voted for it.
Wow! Hopefully this will help Connecticut's population to start growing again, since it's stagnated in recent years.
And it's not a surprise that no Republicans voted for it. As NIMBY-ish as some Democrats are in New England, Republicans in New England are NIMBYer.
Tired of Poland's centre right coalition not being able to get things done, Gen Z broke hard for far right antisemitic libertarian Slawomir Mentzen (think Ted Cruz with antisemitism) and the Polish left wing Razem Party (think AOC and Bernie) in the first round who promised to break the establishment dominance. The Gen Z vote in USA, in Germany and in Poland atleast are an anti-establishment vote.
So disappointed with Poland right now. Gen Z voters need to get it together.