To be fair, the brisketgate thing would have been better if they gave his wheelchair a ramp to the table. I think the awkwardness came in part from how low he was.
That being said he’s not a primary target, no, and if he doesn’t go statewide it’s a moot point he can have that seat for at least another decade if he wants
Hong had an abysmal performance in Dane county for a progressive. I doubt she'd make a formidable challenger in an pen WI-02. She might try, when he does retire, but I'd expect someone better and stronger to outpace her easily.
Especially if it's more than one cycle away, as she'll have time to be forgotten. And considering Pocan is in his early 60s, I doubt he's planning to retire soon.
I wouldn't be so sure; I've seen a lot of calls from across the Dem spectrum in Madison for her to mount a campaign for mayor next spring, even though she gave the incumbent mayor an enthusiastic endorsement a few weeks ago.
But if the incumbent mayor ends up in a Crowley admin, she would probably be the frontrunner immediately.
Sincerely doubt we've seen the last of Hong. Whether it's likely she'll ever win statewide office is another matter entirely, but as to whether she runs again, she's 37, got over 300,000 votes and lost by a little. The polling whiff was not her fault. I think most politicians look at that and think "I can do it next time," not "oh, no, that didn't work out. Better find another line of work."
I wouldn't say she's done with politics altogether, but her prospects as a statewide candidate are doubtful at best. If it's starting to look like she could be nominated--and the GOP has a credible candidate, whether Johnson or whomever else--then others may once again withdraw to consolidate to ensure she doesn't slip through with a plurality. (The Wisconsin primary was reminiscent to me of parliamentary elections in other, mostly European, countries where candidates often withdraw late to ensure someone, usually of the far left or right, that the majority dislikes doesn't win.)
I don't know if Kaul has expressed interest in the Senate, but it would make sense since he passed on being governor. Prior to the gubernatorial primary votes being counted there was a lot of "If only Josh had run he could have spared us this mess" type of talk.
It's exactly that: one more of a bad thing. It's one more base we need to ping-pong names over.
Personally I despise naming anything after politicians that are recent enough to have meaningful partisan controversy behind them. It's a battle I'm going to lose indefinitely, but I'll still complain. For where we are now I'd say the cutoff point should be around 1980.
I'd be absolutely fine with that too. Though I'm not going to extend my losing battle to go after things named for Washington or Lincoln. They're also far enough in the past that I don't see a problem, even if I think a naming convention that avoided people entirely would be preferable.
Staying a Republican after everything Trump has said and done, means he at the very least, continues to passively support those actions through party membership whether he means to or not. Dud'n matter what he says. Words are cheap. Endorsements are barely worth the paper they are printed on. His continuing membership is all that matters. I don't trust any post 2024 remaining GOPer. I don't care what he has said or who he has endorsed. Katie Hobbs is intentionally placing Trump GOP Republican, to be a heart beat from the Governors office.
I support and vote for democrats, to elect democrats. If I wanted a Republican a heartbeat from the office, I'd vote for the Republican.
1. He isn’t a registered Republican anymore, as noted in the post above yours.
2. Party membership is free, and does not automatically show unyielding support for a party. I’d probably register as a Republican (to have a say in primaries) if I lived in a red state, but that doesn’t affect my beliefs.
3. Even if he was still registered as a Republican, he wouldn’t be the only person still registered to push the party to moderate.
4. If you think he’s still a “Trump GOP Republican” after years of talking and governing like a moderate, that’s just conspiratorial.
I’d also prefer someone to his left as LG, but let’s not baselessly demonize him.
Point 1 is kind of a big deal, isn't it, and changes the entire premise of the argument. If that is the case, most of my argument is moot. I'm willing to bet he changed his registration because he saw his continued membership as tacit support of a vast majority of his party's policies, or found that continued membership was incongruent with his personal values. In that instance, in my opinion the only thing to do is to leave, not to stay and try to hopelessly turn back a 40 year political tide.
Many "moderates" can say they are "moderates" because they are not the fulcrum vote, and are so outnumbered in their caucus they can vote how they please without consequence, and without personal cost. Or truly, the party has left them to such an extent, they no longer agree with a majority of it, but psychologically cannot switch over or go indy. I have yet to see one GOP rep or senator truly sacrifice something to stand up the the administration. We need to learn from Susan Collins, trust in "moderates" has yielded nothing for us but punishment and disappointment. I do not trust the Rick Wilsons of American Politics one bit.
He does not live a red state. He lives a state so blue, the blue governor invited him to the ticket in hopes the blues keep and expand their power.
The cost or lacktherof of a party membership has no bearing on any normative arguments related to what that intentional, continued membership says about an individual's values. I am sure the communist and other authoritarian parties also had their members who were dissidents and attempted to moderate the parties of which they were members. The Republicans, like those historical authoritarian parties are beyond saving. Brand new this year, US citizens and non-citizens are dead as a result of government policy. There is no moderating that, only prosecuting it.
2. Giles never served in any legislature, but was the mayor of a fairly large city for over a decade, he had no one to hide behind. This is extremely different from a Susan Collins situation.
4. No, whether a party membership costs money or not is incredibly important. If it does, as seen in most other countries, it indicates any member of a party supports their party in its current state, as they are directly giving the party money. In parts of the U.S, there are deep red places with more registered Democrats than Republicans and to a lesser extent vice versa. Because party membership is free, someone doesn't need to support a party in it's current state, and some won't go through the hassle to change their party affiliation, or think they can effect the trajectory of a party somewhat, even if they likely plan to vote against it in the general. And, as I mentioned, in deep red/blue states, especially one with closed primaries, it'd be self defeating to not register as the majority party.
While you may be right that those trying to change a party they've come to disagree with is mostly fruitless, I'm also not going to judge people for trying. If you're suggesting prosecuting the entire Republican Party apparatus... good luck with that.
Giles was an at-large elected member of the Mesa city council from 1997-2001, before his stint as mayor from 2014-2025. I missed being old enough to vote against him in that April 1996 election by a few months. The city voted to shift to ward based council elections in 1998.
Mesa has a weak mayor system, where the mayor is one vote of 7 on the council and day to day city administration is done by the city manager, though Mesa mayors almost always wield significantly more clout than that implies.
I see. Hard to imagine "swing voters" for whom the ticket choice is going to be the fulcrum thing that pushes them to D, and not anything else in the broader economic, cultural, financial and political context.
I agree, I expect it will help her coalesce some more of the sane GOP vote, particularly of the LDS flavor, and particularly in the third largest city in the state, where Giles served as mayor (and graduated from my high school).
I’m excited to get a read on Alaska next week! It should show just how competitive the Senate and gubernatorial races actually are.
I am rooting for Tom Begich to come in a solid first place and for three Republicans to get 2-4. I hope JKT and Walker drop if they barely come in the top 4. Nate Silver had a good analysis showing the huge advantage of a single nominee in a top 4 system. If Begich was the only Dem, he’d probably win the general just based off of vote exhaustion.
Some type of approval/STAR voting is i believe generally considered the better option; RCV just captured the minds of people both online and in Dem circles earlier. There's some kooky things with condorcet winners etc that RCV can cause iirc
Unfortunately, I think Kriess-Tomkins will go to the top 4 with Begich and probably at least Wilson. Not sure who the 4th spot might be. But that doesn't mean that the seat isn't out of reach - a poll released in July (https://bsky.app/profile/alaskasurvey.bsky.social/post/3mq5ys4ybsc2r) showed Begich beating out Kriess-Tomkins and the Republicans in RCV anyway.
MI-Sen: Since I did the Wisconsin thing breaking down which congressional districts Crowley and Hong won, I'll do the same for El-Sayed and Stevens.
1st (Upper Peninsula, Petoskey, Traverse City, Gaylord, Standish): El-Sayed +6%
2nd (Cadillac, Ludington, Mount Pleasant, eastern Grand Rapids suburbs): Stevens +4%
3rd (corridor including Grand Rapids area and Muskegon): El-Sayed +22%
4th (Dutch Grand Rapids suburbs and Kalamazoo/Battle Creek): El-Sayed +12%
5th (Monroe, Jackson, Marshall, Three Rivers): Stevens +1%
6th (Ann Arbor and south/west Detroit suburbs): El-Sayed +12%
7th (Lansing and west Detroit exurbs): El-Sayed +10%
8th (Flint and MBS): Stevens +13%
9th (The Thumb and north Detroit exurbs): Stevens +12%
10th (inner Macomb County): Stevens +5%
11th (inner Oakland County, Stevens's district): Stevens +4% (yikes)
12th (west Detroit and inner suburbs): Stevens +10%
13th (inner city Detroit): Stevens +9
Strange that El-Sayed won the 1st just as moderate Callie Barr defeated progressive Kyle Blomquist in the primary for that seat, just as it is strange Stevens won the 13th as progressive Donavan McKinney defeated moderate Rep. Shri Thanedar.
I wonder if the results in the 1st and 13th have to do with voters' ideological perceptions of their districts versus the state as a whole. Voters in the 1st recognize their district is very conservative so they nominate a moderate who they perceive as having a better chance. But because they also see the state as a whole as more to the left than their district, they feel comfortable nominating El-Sayed. Meanwhile voters in the 13th recognize that their district is very blue so they feel comfortable nominating McKinney, but because they see the state as more conservative than Detroit they choose to nominate Stevens for Senate.
It occurs to me while looking at the crosstabs for this poll that for this cycle, the standard age breakdowns largely align with the common definitions for generations.
18 to 29 is predominantly Gen Z.
30 to 44 is predominantly Millennial.
45 to 65 is predominantly Gen X.
And the 65+ demographic most likely is predominantly Baby Boomers, as their "official" cut off years for demographers are 1946 to 1964, which is 62 to 80. Presumably, the bulk of this demographic is between 65 and 80 and not 80+.
I just don't see there being any significant Brown-Acton split in the end, unless her campaign crashes and burns. I know Ramaswarmy is spending big but he's just SO annoying and a poor fit for Ohio.
News from the North: Poll by highly respected firm in Canada shows Alberta Separatism remains highly unpopular, with the referendum this fall (the one to have another referendum later on actually separating) underwater with a 33-61 margin.
A breakdown of my MA primary ballot. Apologies for the length.
MA-SD-Middlesex-02: Pat Jehlen is retiring after a long career. I didn’t like Jehlen, whose office never replied to my emails and whose social media posts often betrayed her as misinformed. This is a Harris +62 district.
Candidates to replace her are current state reps Erika Uyterhoeven (the most progressive, reputation as an agitator rather than a coalition builder) and Christine Barber (establishment choice), Cambridge Vice Mayor Burhan Azeem, and veteran and Somerville City Councilor Matt McLaughlin. School Committee member Top Hopcroft dropped out but remains on the ballot.
MA-HD-Middlesex-34: Christine Barber is giving up this Harris +60 seat to run for state senate. I didn’t have a great experience corresponding with Barber’s office either, though at least she replied. Candidates are Somerville City Councilor Will Mbah, civic tech professional Chris Oates, and software engineer / former Medford City Councilor Paul Roseau. Mbah is one of the more visible faces in Somerville politics, but I’ve heard he has a reputation for being hard to work with and taking credit for others’ accomplishments.
I’ve talked to both Azeem and Oates via Reddit, and there were debates and profiles of most of these names. They’re all various flavors of progressive, which makes sense given the partisan makeup of the locale, and the biggest differences among them come down to their theories of how to be effective in state and local government. I ended up voting for McLaughlin and Oates.
Middlesex DA: Incumbent Marion Ryan drew a challenge from David Solet, who has the backing of police unions. Voted Ryan.
Governor’s Council, 6th District: Incumbent Terrence Kennedy is being primaried by Diann Baylis, whose campaign focuses on doing a better job vetting judges on their knowledge of immigration law. Voted Baylis. Governor’s Council is a position with its own separate district lines whose primary function is to approve or deny State Supreme Court candidates proposed by the governor.
MA-SEN: Markey v Moulton. You’ve heard about this one so I won’t get into it.
All of the above will either be unopposed or win easily in November. In addition, there are several offices where the Democrat doesn’t have a primary challenger and will coast to victory in the fall: Governor Maura Healey, LG Kimberly Driscoll, AG Andrea Campbell, SoS Bill Galvin, Treasurer Deborah Goldberg, Auditor Diana DiZoglio, Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), and Middlesex County Register of Probate Tara DeCristofaro.
I have almost the same ballot, except I'm in the 27th Middlesex (Uyterhoeven's district). She has consistently answer my emails, fwiw, but I think she burned some bridges by prioritizing the "political revolution" above legislative accomplishments. Some people like this style though and she did win renomination in 2024 against a challenger who promised to be more nose-to-the-grindstone.
There has also been some lingering resentment over her residency from her first campaign, where she signed, under oath, that she was a Cambridge resident in November 2019 (to vote in their municipal election) and then that she was a Somerville resident at the same time, in order to meet the one year residency requirement for the State House seat. Her backers misrepresented the criticism as "what? you think you need to be born here to run for office?" when it was actually that she was ineligible, or committed perjury, or both.
(I did actually vote for Uyterhoeven last go around, despite my criticism of her here. I thought her opponent was a hack, basically running as a loud and proud hack, and we need people who will stand up to leadership when they get it wrong.)
Not really. I suspect Ward 3 Councilor Ben Ewen-Campbell will win handily. He's generally well liked and his opponent isn't running much of a campaign.
For those concerned about recent polling out of Michigan, Vote Forward just announced a letter-writing campaign targeting young voters there: https://go.votefwd.org/letter-campaigns.
-Not that it matters since the Senate race isn't super competitive, but it's interesting to see another ideological battle between Alex Vindman and Angie Nixon in that primary. Nixon seems to be more of a fiery progressive while Vindman is a more normal, laid-back moderate that is likely more electable. I expect him to win, but not in a landslide.
-Interested in who wins the open Republican primaries for the 2nd, 19th, 22nd and 25th districts. The other open Republican seats, the 11th and 16th, have clear primary frontrunners in Carey Baker and Sydney Gruters. I predict Austin Rogers, Jim Schwartzel, Michael Carbonara and George Moraitis will win the others, respectively.
-Interested in the 20th, 24th and 25th district Democratic primaries. I doubt Jared Moskowitz will lose, but I want to see the margin between him and Oliver Larkin. My guess is it'll be a Greg Stanton/Kai Newkirk style blowout. I really wish someone would defeat Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and my preferred candidate in the 24th is Shev Jones.
-Interested in the Republican primary for governor, and if the hype around James Fishback translates into him having a better finish than predicted. Also interested to see if it's a complete blowout on the Democratic side, or if Dotie Joseph (who hasn't really campaigned) can make a case for a different candidate than David Jolly.
-I'm also interested to see how primary challenges to Randy Fine and Cory Mills go. I hate them both and would gladly see them leave Congress in any way possible, whether it be defeat or resignation.
When was the last time a Democratic primary contest in the FL-SEN race was really competitive? I'm trying to remember such a race but if there was one that was the most crowded, it may have been back in 2010 when there were four Senate candidates including Kendrick Meek. This also happened to be an open Senate race.
Perhaps in 2030 when Rick Scott is up for re-election (or if he retires) Democrats will be able to get more of a contest in the primary process.
Discourse around a meritocracy in academia and so-called "DEI" measures has intensified in the UK as professor Jason Arday of Cambridge, who is Black, had to resign following accusations of plagiarism by a fellow professor who said bigoted things about him (i.e. Black people wouldn't be academics in a meritocracy). Today, Arday died. He was 41.
Obviously Arday’s death is sad in the way that most deaths are sad, but he also was a serial liar on the level of George Santos, it wasn’t just about the other professor’s allegations.
Not a great look when the other professor responds with racism nonetheless. I imagine there was some smoke regarding rumors of threats to Arday, which probably added pressure.
There weren't 246 articles in 22 days about George Santos in the NYT and the Washington Post. I saw a comment under the NYT IG post about his passing that said Compared to Donald Trump - you know, the guy who has control of nuclear weapons - Arday was worse for the world.
Sure, it was blown out of proportion. But he was a fraud who told a bunch of ridiculous lies that deserved to be mocked, especially given the fact that he had actively threatened people who had tried to look into them before. Yes, it's sad that he's dead, but the implication that JazElections made that he was a victim of unfair behavior from others minimizes the fact that he was a liar and a fraud who abused people's trust in the system for his own fame and profit, and him deciding to take his own life does not change that.
Which makes him a criminal, though no legal system ever adjudicated it, but not worthy of death. Considering your level of vitriol towards a man you did not know on the other side of the world, I suppose you think differently.
I've pretty clearly said that I don't think he deserved to die. I just don't think it really makes sense to portray him as though he was a victim of unfair treatment from others, all that the vast majority of other people did was react to things he did that he chose to do and that were universally regarded to be wrong. Anyone who went beyond that into harassment was obviously in the wrong, but the journalists who simply reported how much of a liar this man was didn't do anything they shouldn't have.
Ok, but you said he had to resign because of the accusations of bigots when it has a lot more to do with the mountain of lies he built and the way he abused his power to try to stop those lies from being exposed.
Being autistic like Jason Arday was (although Arday was also a person of color, which I'm not), I am obviously saddened and horrified to learn of his death, but I want to make a few points known:
- Plagiarism is an extremely serious allegation in any field, especially in academia and in politics.
- The coverage of Arday in the British media amounted to a continued harassment campaign against him. Once he resigned from Cambridge, that should have been the end of the media's coverage of the plagiarism scandal itself as a major news story.
- There is obviously a campaign by the far-right to use Arday and his scandals as a vehicle to drive anyone who is not White British, male, able-bodied, cisgender, and heterosexual out of public life and positions of power and prestige.
I'm saddened that the ensuing mental anguish led to him taking his life, but the issue was made worse by liberals reflexively defending him when the allegations first came out, and Arday doubling down on his innocence, when the evidence was overwhelming that he had invented a huge part of his backstory along with engaging in significant plagiarism. It basically became a real world version of right wing caricatures. It's not good for diversity or inclusionary efforts.
Bigot.
To be fair, the brisketgate thing would have been better if they gave his wheelchair a ramp to the table. I think the awkwardness came in part from how low he was.
Can't give him any special treatment. That's DEI.
Make that 2-way. I think Hong's done.
Maybe she'll run again, but try it using some TV ads this time. :)
Francesca Hong Ran No TV Ads in Narrow Loss
https://politicalwire.com/2026/08/13/francesca-hong-ran-no-tv-ads-in-narrow-loss/
She’ll probably wait for Pocan to retire
Pocan retire? He's only 62. he could easily go another couple decades.
And would the DSA likely go after the former Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus? Although who can guess with them...
[Deleted - I was confused.]
He may run for Senate, in either 2028 or 2030.
That being said he’s not a primary target, no, and if he doesn’t go statewide it’s a moot point he can have that seat for at least another decade if he wants
Hong had an abysmal performance in Dane county for a progressive. I doubt she'd make a formidable challenger in an pen WI-02. She might try, when he does retire, but I'd expect someone better and stronger to outpace her easily.
Especially if it's more than one cycle away, as she'll have time to be forgotten. And considering Pocan is in his early 60s, I doubt he's planning to retire soon.
I wouldn't be so sure; I've seen a lot of calls from across the Dem spectrum in Madison for her to mount a campaign for mayor next spring, even though she gave the incumbent mayor an enthusiastic endorsement a few weeks ago.
But if the incumbent mayor ends up in a Crowley admin, she would probably be the frontrunner immediately.
hope so!
Sincerely doubt we've seen the last of Hong. Whether it's likely she'll ever win statewide office is another matter entirely, but as to whether she runs again, she's 37, got over 300,000 votes and lost by a little. The polling whiff was not her fault. I think most politicians look at that and think "I can do it next time," not "oh, no, that didn't work out. Better find another line of work."
I wouldn't say she's done with politics altogether, but her prospects as a statewide candidate are doubtful at best. If it's starting to look like she could be nominated--and the GOP has a credible candidate, whether Johnson or whomever else--then others may once again withdraw to consolidate to ensure she doesn't slip through with a plurality. (The Wisconsin primary was reminiscent to me of parliamentary elections in other, mostly European, countries where candidates often withdraw late to ensure someone, usually of the far left or right, that the majority dislikes doesn't win.)
I don't know if Kaul has expressed interest in the Senate, but it would make sense since he passed on being governor. Prior to the gubernatorial primary votes being counted there was a lot of "If only Josh had run he could have spared us this mess" type of talk.
Eh, I say let them have this. There are plenty of problematically named military bases. What's one more?
It's exactly that: one more of a bad thing. It's one more base we need to ping-pong names over.
Personally I despise naming anything after politicians that are recent enough to have meaningful partisan controversy behind them. It's a battle I'm going to lose indefinitely, but I'll still complain. For where we are now I'd say the cutoff point should be around 1980.
I'd be A-OK with never naming them for people.
I'd be absolutely fine with that too. Though I'm not going to extend my losing battle to go after things named for Washington or Lincoln. They're also far enough in the past that I don't see a problem, even if I think a naming convention that avoided people entirely would be preferable.
Again, why are you posting these old and now obsolete things?
It’s a bot spam account liking his own posts.
So that was a bot who posted earlier they would vote against Hobbs (for having an Indie (former GOP) running mate)?
Good. Because I'd hate to think an actual TDB reader here was that stupid.
These articles are older than a year in some cases.
You'd vote against her in a general election? If so, don't post here!
I'd still vote for her, that's an easy decision.
I wouldn't donate anything to her or volunteer or similar, though.
The Republican in question is an advocate for green energy who endorsed Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and many Democrats for statewide office.
Voting against Hobbs for that seems rather foolish, given that her opponent is a diehard MAGA stooge.
He's also now an independent, no longer a registered Republican, from what I read.
So why stay a Republican?
Staying a Republican after everything Trump has said and done, means he at the very least, continues to passively support those actions through party membership whether he means to or not. Dud'n matter what he says. Words are cheap. Endorsements are barely worth the paper they are printed on. His continuing membership is all that matters. I don't trust any post 2024 remaining GOPer. I don't care what he has said or who he has endorsed. Katie Hobbs is intentionally placing Trump GOP Republican, to be a heart beat from the Governors office.
I support and vote for democrats, to elect democrats. If I wanted a Republican a heartbeat from the office, I'd vote for the Republican.
A lot to unpack here
1. He isn’t a registered Republican anymore, as noted in the post above yours.
2. Party membership is free, and does not automatically show unyielding support for a party. I’d probably register as a Republican (to have a say in primaries) if I lived in a red state, but that doesn’t affect my beliefs.
3. Even if he was still registered as a Republican, he wouldn’t be the only person still registered to push the party to moderate.
4. If you think he’s still a “Trump GOP Republican” after years of talking and governing like a moderate, that’s just conspiratorial.
I’d also prefer someone to his left as LG, but let’s not baselessly demonize him.
Point 1 is kind of a big deal, isn't it, and changes the entire premise of the argument. If that is the case, most of my argument is moot. I'm willing to bet he changed his registration because he saw his continued membership as tacit support of a vast majority of his party's policies, or found that continued membership was incongruent with his personal values. In that instance, in my opinion the only thing to do is to leave, not to stay and try to hopelessly turn back a 40 year political tide.
Many "moderates" can say they are "moderates" because they are not the fulcrum vote, and are so outnumbered in their caucus they can vote how they please without consequence, and without personal cost. Or truly, the party has left them to such an extent, they no longer agree with a majority of it, but psychologically cannot switch over or go indy. I have yet to see one GOP rep or senator truly sacrifice something to stand up the the administration. We need to learn from Susan Collins, trust in "moderates" has yielded nothing for us but punishment and disappointment. I do not trust the Rick Wilsons of American Politics one bit.
He does not live a red state. He lives a state so blue, the blue governor invited him to the ticket in hopes the blues keep and expand their power.
The cost or lacktherof of a party membership has no bearing on any normative arguments related to what that intentional, continued membership says about an individual's values. I am sure the communist and other authoritarian parties also had their members who were dissidents and attempted to moderate the parties of which they were members. The Republicans, like those historical authoritarian parties are beyond saving. Brand new this year, US citizens and non-citizens are dead as a result of government policy. There is no moderating that, only prosecuting it.
2. Giles never served in any legislature, but was the mayor of a fairly large city for over a decade, he had no one to hide behind. This is extremely different from a Susan Collins situation.
4. No, whether a party membership costs money or not is incredibly important. If it does, as seen in most other countries, it indicates any member of a party supports their party in its current state, as they are directly giving the party money. In parts of the U.S, there are deep red places with more registered Democrats than Republicans and to a lesser extent vice versa. Because party membership is free, someone doesn't need to support a party in it's current state, and some won't go through the hassle to change their party affiliation, or think they can effect the trajectory of a party somewhat, even if they likely plan to vote against it in the general. And, as I mentioned, in deep red/blue states, especially one with closed primaries, it'd be self defeating to not register as the majority party.
While you may be right that those trying to change a party they've come to disagree with is mostly fruitless, I'm also not going to judge people for trying. If you're suggesting prosecuting the entire Republican Party apparatus... good luck with that.
Giles was an at-large elected member of the Mesa city council from 1997-2001, before his stint as mayor from 2014-2025. I missed being old enough to vote against him in that April 1996 election by a few months. The city voted to shift to ward based council elections in 1998.
Mesa has a weak mayor system, where the mayor is one vote of 7 on the council and day to day city administration is done by the city manager, though Mesa mayors almost always wield significantly more clout than that implies.
Its performative nonsense that changes zero votes but she's still better than a Andy Biggs
I think it might get her some votes in Mesa and maybe other parts of the east valley.
From who? Independents? No actual real republican is going to buy it.
Swing voters and anti-Trump Republicans.
I see. Hard to imagine "swing voters" for whom the ticket choice is going to be the fulcrum thing that pushes them to D, and not anything else in the broader economic, cultural, financial and political context.
I agree, I expect it will help her coalesce some more of the sane GOP vote, particularly of the LDS flavor, and particularly in the third largest city in the state, where Giles served as mayor (and graduated from my high school).
I suspect that there is a real opening among longtime GOP voting moderate LDS communities in Arizona and other Western states.
MI-Gov - General election introductory ad by Jocelyn Benson:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DcBSjosxQ9M/?igsh=dGtxajljYWx1Mm9m
I’m excited to get a read on Alaska next week! It should show just how competitive the Senate and gubernatorial races actually are.
I am rooting for Tom Begich to come in a solid first place and for three Republicans to get 2-4. I hope JKT and Walker drop if they barely come in the top 4. Nate Silver had a good analysis showing the huge advantage of a single nominee in a top 4 system. If Begich was the only Dem, he’d probably win the general just based off of vote exhaustion.
don't care much for RCV
Why? I feel like RCV is the best method of voting thus far and significantly better than first past the post. What alternative would you prefer?
Some type of approval/STAR voting is i believe generally considered the better option; RCV just captured the minds of people both online and in Dem circles earlier. There's some kooky things with condorcet winners etc that RCV can cause iirc
Unfortunately, I think Kriess-Tomkins will go to the top 4 with Begich and probably at least Wilson. Not sure who the 4th spot might be. But that doesn't mean that the seat isn't out of reach - a poll released in July (https://bsky.app/profile/alaskasurvey.bsky.social/post/3mq5ys4ybsc2r) showed Begich beating out Kriess-Tomkins and the Republicans in RCV anyway.
Are Kreiss-Tompkins and Begich generally playing nice with each other? As long as they are, them both being in the general shouldn't be too bad.
Gotta get them to act like Mamdani & Lander, telling their voters to rank them 1&2
MI-Sen: Since I did the Wisconsin thing breaking down which congressional districts Crowley and Hong won, I'll do the same for El-Sayed and Stevens.
1st (Upper Peninsula, Petoskey, Traverse City, Gaylord, Standish): El-Sayed +6%
2nd (Cadillac, Ludington, Mount Pleasant, eastern Grand Rapids suburbs): Stevens +4%
3rd (corridor including Grand Rapids area and Muskegon): El-Sayed +22%
4th (Dutch Grand Rapids suburbs and Kalamazoo/Battle Creek): El-Sayed +12%
5th (Monroe, Jackson, Marshall, Three Rivers): Stevens +1%
6th (Ann Arbor and south/west Detroit suburbs): El-Sayed +12%
7th (Lansing and west Detroit exurbs): El-Sayed +10%
8th (Flint and MBS): Stevens +13%
9th (The Thumb and north Detroit exurbs): Stevens +12%
10th (inner Macomb County): Stevens +5%
11th (inner Oakland County, Stevens's district): Stevens +4% (yikes)
12th (west Detroit and inner suburbs): Stevens +10%
13th (inner city Detroit): Stevens +9
Strange that El-Sayed won the 1st just as moderate Callie Barr defeated progressive Kyle Blomquist in the primary for that seat, just as it is strange Stevens won the 13th as progressive Donavan McKinney defeated moderate Rep. Shri Thanedar.
I'd imagine there were a lot of Black Stevens-McKinney voters.
Oh, tons. No doubt about that
I wonder if the results in the 1st and 13th have to do with voters' ideological perceptions of their districts versus the state as a whole. Voters in the 1st recognize their district is very conservative so they nominate a moderate who they perceive as having a better chance. But because they also see the state as a whole as more to the left than their district, they feel comfortable nominating El-Sayed. Meanwhile voters in the 13th recognize that their district is very blue so they feel comfortable nominating McKinney, but because they see the state as more conservative than Detroit they choose to nominate Stevens for Senate.
Trump says he will soon declare the Strait of Hormuz a US territory
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/trump-says-soon-declare-strait-204004763.html
🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪
We are living in The Onion.
Ohio poll:
Brown 48-44
Acton 47-46
https://x.com/ppollingnumbers/status/2088309117815288178?s=46&t=sbdQQeYBqp0h_Zql717iTw
Is there an actual source for this poll? These Twitter polling accounts are not always legitimate with what they post.
Edit: I found it. Wedgewood tweeted it and posted a link to this PDF in Google Drive with results. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rP-26-yqNx9jy_gRqoLDmgJgzm5X8a4O/view
It occurs to me while looking at the crosstabs for this poll that for this cycle, the standard age breakdowns largely align with the common definitions for generations.
18 to 29 is predominantly Gen Z.
30 to 44 is predominantly Millennial.
45 to 65 is predominantly Gen X.
And the 65+ demographic most likely is predominantly Baby Boomers, as their "official" cut off years for demographers are 1946 to 1964, which is 62 to 80. Presumably, the bulk of this demographic is between 65 and 80 and not 80+.
I just don't see there being any significant Brown-Acton split in the end, unless her campaign crashes and burns. I know Ramaswarmy is spending big but he's just SO annoying and a poor fit for Ohio.
News from the North: Poll by highly respected firm in Canada shows Alberta Separatism remains highly unpopular, with the referendum this fall (the one to have another referendum later on actually separating) underwater with a 33-61 margin.
https://angusreid.org/alberta-referendum-polling-sending-a-message-danielle-smith-seperation/
Good.
Yeah, it’s good that a lower stakes “vote to have a vote” isn’t even getting that close to 40. Excellent News
Not too many undecideds either, as I’d expect
Further News from the North: https://338canada.com/federal.htm
LOL. LMAO, even. Probably why MPs and candidates in byelections are giving Milhouse Van Trumpen a wide berth: https://globalnews.ca/news/12022122/conservatives-poilievre-criticisms-byelection-voters/
A breakdown of my MA primary ballot. Apologies for the length.
MA-SD-Middlesex-02: Pat Jehlen is retiring after a long career. I didn’t like Jehlen, whose office never replied to my emails and whose social media posts often betrayed her as misinformed. This is a Harris +62 district.
Candidates to replace her are current state reps Erika Uyterhoeven (the most progressive, reputation as an agitator rather than a coalition builder) and Christine Barber (establishment choice), Cambridge Vice Mayor Burhan Azeem, and veteran and Somerville City Councilor Matt McLaughlin. School Committee member Top Hopcroft dropped out but remains on the ballot.
MA-HD-Middlesex-34: Christine Barber is giving up this Harris +60 seat to run for state senate. I didn’t have a great experience corresponding with Barber’s office either, though at least she replied. Candidates are Somerville City Councilor Will Mbah, civic tech professional Chris Oates, and software engineer / former Medford City Councilor Paul Roseau. Mbah is one of the more visible faces in Somerville politics, but I’ve heard he has a reputation for being hard to work with and taking credit for others’ accomplishments.
I’ve talked to both Azeem and Oates via Reddit, and there were debates and profiles of most of these names. They’re all various flavors of progressive, which makes sense given the partisan makeup of the locale, and the biggest differences among them come down to their theories of how to be effective in state and local government. I ended up voting for McLaughlin and Oates.
Middlesex DA: Incumbent Marion Ryan drew a challenge from David Solet, who has the backing of police unions. Voted Ryan.
Governor’s Council, 6th District: Incumbent Terrence Kennedy is being primaried by Diann Baylis, whose campaign focuses on doing a better job vetting judges on their knowledge of immigration law. Voted Baylis. Governor’s Council is a position with its own separate district lines whose primary function is to approve or deny State Supreme Court candidates proposed by the governor.
MA-SEN: Markey v Moulton. You’ve heard about this one so I won’t get into it.
All of the above will either be unopposed or win easily in November. In addition, there are several offices where the Democrat doesn’t have a primary challenger and will coast to victory in the fall: Governor Maura Healey, LG Kimberly Driscoll, AG Andrea Campbell, SoS Bill Galvin, Treasurer Deborah Goldberg, Auditor Diana DiZoglio, Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), and Middlesex County Register of Probate Tara DeCristofaro.
I have almost the same ballot, except I'm in the 27th Middlesex (Uyterhoeven's district). She has consistently answer my emails, fwiw, but I think she burned some bridges by prioritizing the "political revolution" above legislative accomplishments. Some people like this style though and she did win renomination in 2024 against a challenger who promised to be more nose-to-the-grindstone.
There has also been some lingering resentment over her residency from her first campaign, where she signed, under oath, that she was a Cambridge resident in November 2019 (to vote in their municipal election) and then that she was a Somerville resident at the same time, in order to meet the one year residency requirement for the State House seat. Her backers misrepresented the criticism as "what? you think you need to be born here to run for office?" when it was actually that she was ineligible, or committed perjury, or both.
(I did actually vote for Uyterhoeven last go around, despite my criticism of her here. I thought her opponent was a hack, basically running as a loud and proud hack, and we need people who will stand up to leadership when they get it wrong.)
Ah, hi neighbor! Anything interesting from the election to replace Uyterhoeven in the 27th?
Not really. I suspect Ward 3 Councilor Ben Ewen-Campbell will win handily. He's generally well liked and his opponent isn't running much of a campaign.
For those concerned about recent polling out of Michigan, Vote Forward just announced a letter-writing campaign targeting young voters there: https://go.votefwd.org/letter-campaigns.
Interested in Florida.
-Not that it matters since the Senate race isn't super competitive, but it's interesting to see another ideological battle between Alex Vindman and Angie Nixon in that primary. Nixon seems to be more of a fiery progressive while Vindman is a more normal, laid-back moderate that is likely more electable. I expect him to win, but not in a landslide.
-Interested in who wins the open Republican primaries for the 2nd, 19th, 22nd and 25th districts. The other open Republican seats, the 11th and 16th, have clear primary frontrunners in Carey Baker and Sydney Gruters. I predict Austin Rogers, Jim Schwartzel, Michael Carbonara and George Moraitis will win the others, respectively.
-Interested in the 20th, 24th and 25th district Democratic primaries. I doubt Jared Moskowitz will lose, but I want to see the margin between him and Oliver Larkin. My guess is it'll be a Greg Stanton/Kai Newkirk style blowout. I really wish someone would defeat Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and my preferred candidate in the 24th is Shev Jones.
-Interested in the Republican primary for governor, and if the hype around James Fishback translates into him having a better finish than predicted. Also interested to see if it's a complete blowout on the Democratic side, or if Dotie Joseph (who hasn't really campaigned) can make a case for a different candidate than David Jolly.
-I'm also interested to see how primary challenges to Randy Fine and Cory Mills go. I hate them both and would gladly see them leave Congress in any way possible, whether it be defeat or resignation.
When was the last time a Democratic primary contest in the FL-SEN race was really competitive? I'm trying to remember such a race but if there was one that was the most crowded, it may have been back in 2010 when there were four Senate candidates including Kendrick Meek. This also happened to be an open Senate race.
Perhaps in 2030 when Rick Scott is up for re-election (or if he retires) Democrats will be able to get more of a contest in the primary process.
1980. Incumbent Democratic Senator Richard Stone lost to Bill Gunter, then the FL Insurance Commissioner.
Who lost to Public Service Commissioner Paula Hawkins in the general.
Q was abt when a Dem primary contest for FL-SEN was really competitive. If it was abt general elections, Kendrick Meek also lost.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1j1ye6n30no
Discourse around a meritocracy in academia and so-called "DEI" measures has intensified in the UK as professor Jason Arday of Cambridge, who is Black, had to resign following accusations of plagiarism by a fellow professor who said bigoted things about him (i.e. Black people wouldn't be academics in a meritocracy). Today, Arday died. He was 41.
Obviously Arday’s death is sad in the way that most deaths are sad, but he also was a serial liar on the level of George Santos, it wasn’t just about the other professor’s allegations.
Not a great look when the other professor responds with racism nonetheless. I imagine there was some smoke regarding rumors of threats to Arday, which probably added pressure.
The issue is how the right-wing media made him a cause celebre, GB News, the Telegraph, etc., and blew it out of all proportion.
There weren't 246 articles in 22 days about George Santos in the NYT and the Washington Post. I saw a comment under the NYT IG post about his passing that said Compared to Donald Trump - you know, the guy who has control of nuclear weapons - Arday was worse for the world.
Sure, it was blown out of proportion. But he was a fraud who told a bunch of ridiculous lies that deserved to be mocked, especially given the fact that he had actively threatened people who had tried to look into them before. Yes, it's sad that he's dead, but the implication that JazElections made that he was a victim of unfair behavior from others minimizes the fact that he was a liar and a fraud who abused people's trust in the system for his own fame and profit, and him deciding to take his own life does not change that.
Which makes him a criminal, though no legal system ever adjudicated it, but not worthy of death. Considering your level of vitriol towards a man you did not know on the other side of the world, I suppose you think differently.
I've pretty clearly said that I don't think he deserved to die. I just don't think it really makes sense to portray him as though he was a victim of unfair treatment from others, all that the vast majority of other people did was react to things he did that he chose to do and that were universally regarded to be wrong. Anyone who went beyond that into harassment was obviously in the wrong, but the journalists who simply reported how much of a liar this man was didn't do anything they shouldn't have.
I mean...he was a victim of unfair behavior from others, regardless of his guilt.
Ok, but you said he had to resign because of the accusations of bigots when it has a lot more to do with the mountain of lies he built and the way he abused his power to try to stop those lies from being exposed.
Being autistic like Jason Arday was (although Arday was also a person of color, which I'm not), I am obviously saddened and horrified to learn of his death, but I want to make a few points known:
- Plagiarism is an extremely serious allegation in any field, especially in academia and in politics.
- The coverage of Arday in the British media amounted to a continued harassment campaign against him. Once he resigned from Cambridge, that should have been the end of the media's coverage of the plagiarism scandal itself as a major news story.
- There is obviously a campaign by the far-right to use Arday and his scandals as a vehicle to drive anyone who is not White British, male, able-bodied, cisgender, and heterosexual out of public life and positions of power and prestige.
With a couple of exceptions the British media is horrific.
I'm saddened that the ensuing mental anguish led to him taking his life, but the issue was made worse by liberals reflexively defending him when the allegations first came out, and Arday doubling down on his innocence, when the evidence was overwhelming that he had invented a huge part of his backstory along with engaging in significant plagiarism. It basically became a real world version of right wing caricatures. It's not good for diversity or inclusionary efforts.