I do love that all these worm Republicans now more or less just mirror Trump even in the way he speaks. These people have no sense of self, just weak mirror neurons with no spine.
I wonder if these morons realize that Trump has a very limited shelf life and that's not even addressing the fact that he can't run for reelection again, barring his absurd joke that he might run again.
We have a crisis of masculinity in this country, and it has nothing to do with gender theory or DEI. It's that somehow a majority of American men see this behavior as more "manly" than sticking up for what is right . . the old Superman ethos "truth, justice and the American way" , . . .I see grown men bend the knee and lick Trump's boots and I just think "my God, how can any of these adult males look themselves in the mirror at night and sleep."
Real men have a code of integrity, don't compromise their core principles, don't abandon or hurt the weaker among us, have quiet confidence, value honor, and putting others before themselves . . .all of this is antithetical to MAGA, which is all about scapegoating, whining incessantly, looking out for yourself above all else, engaging in peformative faux toughness, delighting in hurting the lesser, and having no core values to speak of. Basically . . . being a bitch. Democratic pols need to stop searching for the magic male formula in focus groups and just call this shit out for what it is . . .the behavior of insecure, weak little men. We can play on their turf and win.
MAGAism is just institutionalized bitchiness. These are the softest men on earth and yet somehow our institutions have yielded to them with barely a fight.
I think I've probably written something like this here before but sometime in the 2010's American men began to really lose their God Damn Minds. The masculinity crisis hit like a freaking train. While I can easily trace back a lot of what is happening now to (white and possibly Hispanic) people (mostly men) losing the plot over "me too" or "black lives matter", I really have trouble pinpointing why men suddenly all needed to have beards, wear tactical sunglasses, and drive lifted pickup trucks, and were so freaking angry about it all the time. I guess it was a reaction to the great recession, but I can't really connect the dots.
In my microworld (early 30s gay male millennial) I have more male friends (Straight & gay) that were Trump-Biden-Harris or Trump-Trump-Harris then moving the other way but the Denver burbs are their own thing. At some point we need to reclaim masculinity for the "superman" kind Toiler of the Sea mentioned above.
There is one thing I've noticed that I don't see discussed very often through a political lens. I do see it discussed through non-political lenses occasionally but not that often.
There has been a concerted effort by conservatives over the past 10-15 years to turn a lot of commonly (often but not exclusively young) "male" entertainment spaces into places where a conservative cultural view is dominant.
If you look at any recent big release with a preexisting fanbase that has fallen flat for the past decade, there has been a very loud group of people out there insisting that the reason for the fans' disappointment is because the property "got political" or "went woke" or whatever similar bullshit message.
It's gotten to the point now where the grifters are whipping up outrage before things even come out.
I don't believe this is the reason for things changing, but I think it's playing a big part in how younger men and women are diverging a lot more at the ballot box than in the past.
The effect of this is made worse as entertainment gains an increasingly parasocial nature — the adoption of twitch, lets plays, etc. means that opinions and discussions of popular media will increasingly revolve around specific individuals, and it only takes a handful of popular individuals being conservative to shift the needle there with people that do not already have deeply held political views. Basically perfectly describing younger adults with little/no voting history.
Toiler, you may find this to be of interest, a comment from my wife:
"Actually, this describes most of the men I've known. It's not a recent phenomenon. The 1940s/1950s ideal has long been dead. It is not about feminization of men. It is about infantilization. We have an entire nation of men who never grew up and never wanted to, and think that to remain a boy is raffish and charming."
"He's like 6'2'' which is why I don't understand why his hands are the size of someone who is 5'2". Have you seen his hands? You know what they say about men with small hands? You can't trust them. You can't trust them."
Things like this, and many many years of such behavior from them, is why the NYT is not an outlet I am willing to trust or patronize.
I wonder what their perception is with democratic leaning voters over the years. I'd expect they're still above water but also have taken a huge hit compared to a decade ago.
I remain of the opinion that the New York Times, through their monomanic "But her emails" headlines, bears much of the responsibility of Trump being elected in 2016. The NYT set the tone, and the rest of the media wolf pack followed.
And this time, too, A.G. Sulzberger’s editorial choices ensured that far-too-many failed to perceive Trump as the unqualified monster that he is, thus putting Trump 2.0 back in power, this time surrounded solely by loyalists following the Project 2025 blueprint.
Fully agreed. They haven't gotten any better in the years since, either.
Early on I thought they were simply chasing subscribers and ad revenue from a fucked up republican administration. They knew there would be more crazy stuff to cover = more people following things. And it did work out very well for them.
Today I think that entirely uncharitable motivation is too charitable to them. The people in charge there clearly want to move the country to the right.
They had been bad many times before that, and we don't have to go back to their underestimation of the threat of Hitler or covering the Holocaust on inside pages when they did cover it. Remember their persecution of Wen Ho Lee? Remember April Glaspie and the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction that supposedly justified the very real mass destruction and mass killing of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq?
A perfect example of this is their infamous headline: "Hitler Tamed By Prison."
I don't believe they deserve the traffic of a link directly to their archives. There's a Snopes page with the full article quoted, so I will go with that:
That was written a full century ago. The only lesson the NYT seems to have learned is that they will never be held accountable for their terrible editorializing, no matter how offensively wrong they have been.
I don't know a lot about the relationship between MD and VA, but I do know that a lot of New Hamphirites (is that what you call yourselves?) either fled MA due to taxation or have at best a love/hate relationship with the colossus on their border. I seriously doubt anyone in VA feels any kind of threat from or hatred (other than maybe some college sports rivalries) toward the smaller MD.
Realistically I don't think there's much love for MA to our south here. More of a hate/neutral relationship.
Conservatives loathe Massachusetts. Everyone else by and large doesn't think about them any differently than VT or ME, which is to say "rarely, if ever." The more leftward parts of NH don't express any fondness for MA (well, I do, but I'm the exception that proves the rule): they just don't hate MA. Conservatives think of MA as a hyper-taxed nanny state crime ridden hell hole and will never be convinced otherwise.
Most people will say the drivers to our south are horrible, but I'm pretty sure everybody everywhere says that about neighboring regions' drivers. I don't place any value on such claims. Otherwise people might be a bit wary of the state because they live in NH to have a more rural/suburban lifestyle and find the higher density to be intimidating, especially the much higher density in the core Boston area. Almost everyone I know here was shocked at my positive experiences doing trips to Boston, and everyone that's later tagged along with me did a massive reassessment of Boston, and Massachusetts along with it (often they get lumped together here).
The tax thing I've long found a bit perplexing. It's absolutely something that results in people moving states in reality. But it doesn't make sense to me: they generally want to keep their Massachusetts based job, but if they stay working in MA they will pay MA income taxes even if they live elsewhere. NH also has higher property taxes (as that's the main tax revenue). So those people get the worst of both states, tax wise.
I love Boston, but their drivers really _are_ terrible! You can't use your turn signal because they _will_ cut you off! And this isn't just me, non-driver speaking. My girlfriend used to live in Boston, and she's found the drivers there worse than anywhere else she's lived or even driven in while on vacation, which includes New Jersey, California and Texas.
I cannot speak for Boston drivers specifically as I only drive to the parking garages and then take public transit. I have heard that they are quite aggressive, but I cannot speak for or against that. Not defending them either way. But state to state, NH and MA drivers don't seem any meaningfully different to me. My overall point on that note was I inherently ignore it when someone says the drivers from [other region] are worse than drivers from [their region]. It's such a commonly expressed view by everyone, everywhere.
The real distinction I've noticed isn't what state is on a car's license plate. It's the size of the vehicle they drive.
My wife, who lived in that city for many years, explained that you have to use "the Force" when driving the J-way (Jamaicaway). Whatever. I far prefer to leave all Boston driving to her!
What I shake my head to is that there are people in NJ that are complaining about congestion pricing because they would prefer to drive into Manhattan. As a southern Californian, I've never driven in NYC nor do I have any desire to. I have driven in Boston, and it's terrorizing compared with SoCal.
My introduction to Massachusetts drivers (more specifically, drivers in the Greater Boston area) was seeing them tailgating at 70 miles per hour, while driving on so-called "all-season tires", in treacherous snowy-and-icy conditions on the freeway.
I think the term is actually "Granite Stater". Likewise someone from Massachusetts is a "Bay Stater" or, less formally, a "Masshole". The latter term is not necessarily pejorative.
I know about Massholes, but I didn't know people in New Hampshire or Massachusetts are also known by their states' official nicknames. No-one calls New Yorkers "Empire Staters", and I don't know how people are supposed to remember all those nicknames. Why is Connecticut the nutmeg state, anyway, when nutmeg is from Indonesia?
I expect the state nickname thing is a result of the official demonym for NH and MA both being horrible. Massachusettsan and New Hampshirite do not roll off the tongue, while New Yorker does.
I looked Nutmug/Connecticut up. The origins have been lost to time, but it's speculated to be from traders bringing nutmeg back to the state/colony when it was a very valuable good.
There's some suggestion that the Nutmeg State toponym was a scam and the Connecticut merchants used it to sell wooden "Nutmegs" to the credulous. But as you said the historical record is vague.
In Loudoun County, in Northern Virginia, there was once a popular slogan "Don't Fairfax Loudoun", referring to Fairfax County's overdevelopment. Much of Loudoun was 'Fairfaxed" anyway, but on the bright side at least it eventually got blue as it grew.
Has anyone given any thought to the complexities, both logistical but also political/messaging, on undoing the damage of the next four years, for our next dem presidency?
One that's been heavily on my mind is that blue states are going to be absolutely fucked with when it comes to any funding through executive agencies. Over the next four years that money will be doled out heavily to red and maybe some purple states. Infrastructure spending in particular has large amounts of funding left to assign. I don't think Hawaii or Illinois et al can count on getting anything close to an appropriate share of that funding.
How do we tackle this in a way that ensures conservatives aren't rewarded for this behavior by getting four years of looting the country, but also doesn't result in the media throwing shit at us over the process of making up for that recent under-investment? I can think some ways that it could be approached — make it some kind of process that's officially titled "Funding underserved regions" or some other such political naming, all while never ever explaining the purpose publicly. But I assume/hope that policy experts can come up with better (and more detailed!) processes than I can.
I desperately hope the various experts that will be relied on by any dem president, regardless of the specific person, are working on how to tackle this and similar problems, like contracts awarded as blatant corruption or trying to rework the civil service to be politically conservative instead of apolitical.
That's true, but that's a scenario we can do nothing about once it's already happened. I prefer to focus my thought-experiments on things where we can change things. Where if a good idea percolates around here, maybe it will spread and gain traction. Discussing the other possibility can be important in many ways, but it's something I can't do anything about other than what I think all of us will/would be doing anyway, election wise.
As I understand it, red states are projected to suffer more from Trump's policies. For example, Farron Cousins has made multiple YouTube videos focusing on this. However, when it comes to funding per se rather than policy, I can see Trump trying to screw blue states over as much as possible.
1) Most state transportation spending-including in blue states-is a tremendous gift for the construction lobby that incentivises sprawl and pollution. Blue states would be wise to view less federal grants as an opportunity to re-direct towards smart and sustainable planning (and yes while much of the Biden Admin's specific funding for transit/walkability will likely get axed, they still didn't have the political balls to attach such conditions to TIGER/RAISE and other transport grants which are the majority of federal transportation money distributed, so the pot we're talking about is still mostly going to highway expansion and construction).
2) Anyway you slice it, these DOGE cuts are going to hurt rural red America more because a) They're so much more reliant on federal money and b) their funding baseline is much smaller. Watch rural hospitals. I think over the next 20 months you're going to see an opportunity to claw back some rural voters that Dems haven't had since the 1980s. But, of course, still a lot of uncertainties.
Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds (R) signed the discriminatory anti-trans bill SF418 into law that removes gender identity nondiscrimination protections from the Iowa Civil Rights Act that were put in place in 2007 under former Gov. Chet Culver (D).
Her approval ratings crashed down to earth since her 2022 landslide reelection against Deidre DeJear. Democrats must now capitalize, can't think of a stronger opponent than State auditor Rob Sand, last remaining statewide elected.
Finkenauer or Axne should definitely take on Sen. Phoni Ernst, who's been a joke since BEFORE she was first elected in 2014!! 💙🇺🇲
But that ad with her castrating pigs was so brilliant!--or so the media kept telling everyone. In truth, almost any campaign would look good running against Bruce "Bailey", but Ernst was well positioned to take advantage of political shifts in the state that ran well beyond candidate or campaign quality.
The governorship, with or without Reynolds, is probably a better target for a Democratic comeback as Sand or another competent candidate can make a case against state GOP overreach on several issues including abortion.
Right, but I sure don't have a lot of confidence in Iowa voters. It's possible Democrats might win off-year elections there, but don't bet your house on it!
Finkenauer lost re-election in the House back in 2020 and only served one term. Not sure I'd want someone who couldn't win re-election in a district that's barely that much red.
IA-04 is one thing but IA-01 is a Lean GOP district.
Maria Cantwell (D) ALSO served 1 term in the House and was defeated (1992 - 1994), still made a 2000 comeback knocking off Sen. Slade Gorton (R) picking up a critical seat for Democrats.
Not impossible for Abby Finkenauer to repeat that in Iowa!! 💙🇺🇲
There needs to be a strong challenger to that awful governor in Iowa. Ditto for that former pig castrator with the same Karen hairstyle as Reynolds.
I keep wondering when Iowans have had enough of GOP rule and kick the bums out. Is the state too far gone or will those DOGE / VA cuts change voters’ minds?
“Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phony witch hunt….”
– Donald Trump, suggesting Putin was an aggrieved party who suffered
.
“No, the meeting did not go badly for Ukraine. It exposed in the most undeniable, unequivocal way possible the pro-Putin commitments of the president and vice-president. That was information Americans and allies needed to have clear before them.”
– David Frum
.
“Generations of American patriots, from our revolution onward, have fought for the principles Zelenskyy is risking his life to defend. But today, Donald Trump and JD Vance attacked Zelenskyy and pressured him to surrender the freedom of his people to the KGB war criminal who invaded Ukraine. History will remember this day—when an American President and Vice President abandoned all we stand for.”
"I'm overjoyed to see Donald Trump and most Americans embrace most of the issues that I've championed for years."
– David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the KKK. (Note: In the 2020 election, Duke initially endorsed Tulsi Gabbard, then Trump after Gabbard was out of the running. In 2024, Duke endorsed Jill Stein.)
Political corruption and extremism does indeed make for strange bedfellows.
As I understand it, David Duke grew disillusioned with Trump’s emphatic pro-Israel stance. On the other hand, he applauded Jill Stein’s vehement anti-Israel position, and even more so the pro-Hamas stance of her VP running mate. Strange bedfellows, indeed!
But now we’re getting dangerously close to forbidden topics, and that was not my intention.
Eh, he's better than Adams. He knows how to use power and won't rend his clothes gibbering about how impotent he is to make the NYPD do their jobs...I hope.
"Better than Adams" is such a low bar to clear that it isn't even a bar. It's a spot a few feet underground. Cuomo is awful and it would be an awful message to send by allowing him to return to office after being forced out for serial sexual harassment.
Also a perfect example of why abandoning impeachment because they "learned their lesson" is idiotic. The NY state legislature fucked up by backing off after he resigned. They should have continued and finished the job.
“Better than Adams” would mean that pizza rat could run for mayor. I haven’t seen so much success in a rodent since the time I saw a squirrel with a chocolate chip cookie. (Blurry photo. Could’ve been viral.) To me, this shows leadership, success, a can do attitude. Perfect qualities for mayor.
Florida Democrats net lost 14,000k registrations last month.
Honest question, as someone who believes registration is extremely important and indicated enthusiasm for the Party:
I know Nicki Freid is probably the best we have in hapless leadership in Florida, but we haven't seen any improvement at all in the state since she took over.
To the contrary.
So at what point do we start asking for Dem State Chair resignations if these registration numbers do not improve over the next few years? Not just in Florida but this is a nationwide crisis that has been going on for years now.
Florida has been a lost cause since 2018, when we lost two critical campaigns with good candidates in a huge dem wave year. The results in 2020, 2022, and 2024 have only reinforced that.
We need to reevaluate our expectations for the state and understand that we are going to continue to lose ground there as it acts as a conservative magnet. Our focus there should be damage control with maintaining as many house seats as possible. Being competitive in Florida is no longer on the table.
There's no point blaming the democratic chair of West Virginia for us losing ground there. There's nothing they can do to reverse the fundamentals. Same story with Florida.
I don't think we give up on the state entirely but short term should focus on shoring up the marginal seats and cities first once that is done can start figuring out how to win statewide again if that is possible.
I endorse a 50 state strategy, but part of that is making investments and effort strategically. For Florida that's going to be non-statewide races for the foreseeable future. Of course we could get lucky and see something crazy happen with the senate special in 2026 for Rubio's seat. Maybe they nominate Gaetz or something comparable happens to put the seat on the map. But otherwise our ambitions in Florida are going to be damage control for the time being.
Of course, the best case would be if we could get a quarter million Florida democrats to move to Georgia and North Carolina, each. That would reshape things in our favor in a huge way.
I believe DNC Chair Ken Martin is on board with the 50 state strategy although it remains to be seen exactly what more support in the coming months and year from the DNC that will make an impact.
I’ve never felt the Fifty State Strategy was much of a strategy but more of a phrase. It made sense back when the GOP wouldn’t even run candidates for Senate in Arkansas. And frankly, we ended up with an a bloated caucus full of warring factions that made the whole party look fractured and dumb. The Fifty State Strategy lead to the 2010 50 State Massacre Midterm Election.
Yes but turnout in FL as opposed to WV is the real problem that needs to be resolved. You can't argue the state is a lost cause if FL Democrats can't turnout their own voters.
I have hope for TX and believe the changing demographics do favor Democrats over time. I don’t think it’s going to be a long slog like FL for Democrats but they also need to ensure they are not presumptuous too much about the Hispanic community (which is a sizable portion of TX).
Changing demographics are more likely to change election results than some kind of mythical sea change in getting out the votes of people who just never vote.
Yes although in the case of TX, the changing demographics are fluctuating around the state depending on where the opportunities lie. Austin I know is super friendly to transplants, namely less conservative ones.
Hispanic population though along with the new TX residents do present opportunities for Democrats. I also know TX Democrats and the related grassroots groups have been building for years (like Battleground Texas).
For Florida, Democrats can’t win solely based on turning out Democrats. Voter registration drops though complicate things.
Yes and why I don't write off Texas is because I think the Hispanic community there is relatively fungible re: political support. There could be pretty wide swings seen from cycle to cycle.
That’s a fair observation. Hispanic voters by default are probably the biggest swing types of voters based on what their needs are and which politicians they think will best represent them.
Dunno. A lot of them may be identifying as white, as happened with the Irish and Italians, and may be voting based on identification with white privilege.
Unfortunately, it's going to be a long slog for the Florida Democratic Party.
In all fairness to Nikki Fried, the problems started well before her time as State Party Chair. Low turnout is still a big problem and was that way back in 2022. After 2018, Democrats lost steam in the state.
However, FL Democrats also need to show more spine. Fried, Rep. Jared Moskowitz and fellow Democrats aren't doing themselves any favor by going to the right on the issue of Cuba when President Biden was removing the country as a designated sponsor of terrorism.
Why is being to the right on Cuba bad politically in Florida? Mind you, I think it's way past time for national Democrats to say "fuck you!" to right-wing Cuban exiles who are wrong on policy and will never vote Democratic, but I don't know about the dynamics in Florida for Democrats.
From my standpoint, to the right on the issue of Cuba in this case means being Republican lite on the issue.
In other words, FL Democrats are essentially offering no distinctive agenda on Cuba other than being against communism and the Castros, I believe out of concern they will alienate Cuban-Americans. Granted they and/or their families fled Cuba to escape the Castro regime and ended up settling in states like FL, which is completely understandable given the circumstance. Cuba does not have a market economy and therefore does not have the ability like the US to offer an entrepreneurial friendly environment for Cubans to thrive without government control.
I don’t think FL Democrats should need to go far to the left on the issue with Cuba. They just need to give a different policy position than the GOP, which is doing more economic sanctions at a time when Cuba needs more economic opportunities for its citizens. FL Democrats really shouldn’t be behind on this issue, especially considering Presidents Obama and Biden have been leading on Cuba since the 2010’s.
Another argument is that Democrats in Florida might not benefit from being different from Republicans on every policy question and could differentiate themselves on other issues.
The issue of Cuba though cannot be about appeasing the state so that Venezuela and other countries like it take over. On the other hand, Cuba’s been influenced by communism for many decades that even going to a more healthy market economy of some sort won’t happen over night. That’s why this is a difficult issue to manage for Democrats.
Yet Vietnam is not. Think about that. No-one is saying the U.S. has to support every Cuban policy, but what happened to "Can't beat 'em? Join 'em!" from the old Warner Brothers cartoons?
The one fundamental difference is the trade embargo on Vietnam was done back in 1994. The country has had 31 years to evolve since then and has moved far away from what it used to be. Also, from someone I talked to who over a year ago was living in Vietnam as a tech investor, there’s been a growing startup scene there. In general, Vietnam has been for over a decade apart of the growing emerging market in Southeast Asia. Consulting firms like Kearney have offices there.
For Cuba, I am mainly arguing that the Democratic Party (especially in FL) needs to move on and lead on this issue. I find FL Democrats who are getting overly defensive over Cuba making fools out of themselves, especially considering the US never went to war with the country in the 60’s.
Yes but comparatively, Vietnam is a more wealthy country by vs. Cuba. It’a also been maintaining relations with the US for decades and has no current criticism by the GOP establishment that even compares to their criticism of Cuba. This takes into account the efforts of John Kerry and the late John McCain in helping normalize relations when they were Senators back in the mid 90’s. Cuba doesn’t have this except what has happened with President Obama and President Biden’s administration.
That said, every country including Vietnam, Cuba, and others which don’t have a real democracy and aren’t a real threat should evolve in this sense on their own terms if they want to have a more Democratic society.
Your first sentence begs the question: why was the U.S. able to end its trade embargo against Vietnam and is still fucking around with Cuba, which is not an enemy?
Good question. I'd say with Cuba, probably politics at this point, especially from Cuban-Americans who are still very sensitive about the Castro family's strangehold over Cuba since the late 1950's.
I get that people in FL care but as a white Minnesotan, I’m so sick of talking about Cuba. What a stupid political issue. I have never once been like, oh damn, my life in the US is being affected by what happens in Cuba. Didn’t these people leave for a reason? Christ.
A good party chair is a catalyst for positive change and the engagement of people who do make a difference! Witness Anderson Clayton of North Carolina, Ken Martin of Minnesota, and Ben Wikler of Wisconsin.
Whereas the Democratic Party in Florida has been a mess for many years, until recently. As far as I understand, they’re just starting to turn things around. Much of the credit goes to Nikki Fried.
A key success story: running a candidate in every Florida legislative race. That’s a big damn deal!
In 2024 nationwide, Democrats failed to challenge over a thousand state legislative seats. That’s intolerable political malpractice – never mind that the GOP failed to run a candidate in over 1300 such races.
How much of that registration loss is due to Democrats moving out of state? If those people move to neighboring Georgia, then that’s a net benefit for us.
That’s a valid question. I know a good friend of mine left Jacksonville, FL to Santa Maria, CA over two years ago to escape the political environment (even in Jax, which isn’t as red as other parts of FL, there’s still plenty of conservative crazies).
I think migration trends were bad for us in FL back in the late 20teens but since COVID they've seemed to go into overdrive . . .Florida is THE retirement locale for right wing conservatives. Really really tough to swim against that tide.
Florida being the premier retirement state SHOULD present Democrats with huge opportunities! We just have to make those retirees sufficiently fearful of losing their Social Security and Medicare – and clearly portray the Democratic Party as the only defender of their hard-earned economic rights.
This is doable! But it does require a huge informational and educational effort.
I love that Henley Parker responded with a list of EIGHT phone numbers belonging to Senator Marshall – and a request that people inundate him with calls!
On a totally unrelated note: we also need Naftali Bennett to once again replace Bibi, preferably with a broad coalition that this time too includes the leading Arab-Israeli party.
Of course, but was there something that happened today in particular that prompted that remark? Also, the problem with putting an Arab party in the coalition is that some parties (probably including Bennett's) will refuse to be in a coalition with them. It's all very fucked up.
That gave the association to what I with candor called my "totally unrelated note". Important to remember that Bennett worked with an Arab party before, and it made major positive contributions to Bennett’s coalition – the broadest coalition in Israeli history.
From what I can discern, Naftali Bennett is currently preparing the ground for a new coalition, with or without new elections. I think Bibi’s fall is inevitable. Sooner would be better than later.
It was half-assed, true, although I believe Polis is referring to RFK Jr’s agenda in getting harmful ingredients out of food. He otherwise is not on RFK Jr’s side on vaccines.
Otherwise, I agree Polis should have kept his mouth shut.
Moved more to the left? Is that based on PVI? Biden won the state 13.5% while Harris won it by 11%. I spose this is where PVI could be useful where if the entire country shifts more red, PVI can explain how certain constituencies did more or less and that can be extrapolated into a trend.
Hmmmm, after this election maybe I’m more open to PVI. I do hate when though when rating congressional seats and PVI will call it +2 but then the Dem Prez won by 8. Obama wins distorted the whole system.
I don't personally think Senators should run for Governor unless the gubernatorial race is up in the same year as their Senate seat; special elections are a headache.
Sen. Bennet should stay in the Senate, he has 16 years of seniority and is in the best place so should keep it going!! 💙🇺🇲
It’s interesting that we’ve seen more Senators eying gubernatorial races lately when it used to be the other way around. The Senate must really suck, now. Why retire in DC getting nothing done?
State Rep. Zohran Mamdani (D-Queens) is also running for NYC Mayor, and here's his response to Cuomo carpetbagging in from Westchester County to run for NYC Mayor:
Funny thing is Bacon ancd Collins are both perpetually in the "I'm concerned" caucus yet votes with leadership 24/7. They know how their town halls would go.
Would he? He's strongly anti-abortion and routinely votes for republican economic policy. He voted against Trump's multiple impeachments. He voted for an impeachment inquiry into Biden. Has he ever voted against republican leadership on critical bills?
He might not be a fire breathing insane conservative, but he still is and votes like a deeply conservative individual. He might be a rhetorical fit with us but certainly not an ideological fit, not even close.
"it's my hope that the EU buys the minerals from Ukraine and then sells it to the US with a markup so that they can use the money to help fund Ukraine's defense. If Canada and Mexico join in so much the better."
Really the permanent political and economic shifts we could see in the next 4 years are under-rated. Trump thinks the size of the U.S. consumer market has us holding all of the aces, but he's subsequently doing everything he can to weaken the U.S. consumer re: federal cuts and tariffs. Europe (especially staring at potential WWII-level aggression from Russia) and our North American neighbors (staring at continual economic hostage taking from the U.S.) will reconfigure trade relationships to minimize their exposure. Causing prices to go up and further harming U.S. purchasing power. Real fucking genius we have at the top.
Minor correction: Given how Melania is clearly keeping as much distance between herself and Donald – preferably at least one or two states – Trump is, right now, most likely a non-fucking "genius".
It’s a remarkable over-assessment of US strength that misunderstands the source of said strength. I think a fair amount of his Cabinet officers know better (Bessent, Rubio, Waltz etc) but Trump is of course always the smartest and most correct man in every room so of course he will take absolutely zero of their advice
The other side of the ledger is the theory that Musk is actively trying to initiate an economic collapse to install his brand of techno-feudalism in cahoots with Thiel/Yarvin. I'm undecided on whether that is actually a plausible outcome (but the scary thing is I definitely haven't ruled it out!)
Musk though in all honesty is a loose cannon so whatever he is doing it may be more impulsiveness than anything. Thiel is not even while he and Musk are of the same libertarian ilk (with Musk claiming before he was moderate when he’s really not) doesn’t have Musk’s particular personality.
At one point around back in 2014, I remember Peter Thiel while not being supportive of minimum wage increases ended up caving in.
You are misusing the word "libertarian." It doesn't mean a dictatorship in which the government chooses who is allowed to make money based on corruption.
I’m not defining being libertarian as it relates to Musk and Trump’s agenda (and Musk’s progression towards warming up to Trump before the 2024 presidential election. I agree though that what Musk has with Trump since the 1+ months he’s been POTUS again goes beyond being libertarian at this point.
Putting aside this agenda and going back to the 2010’s, Musk and Thiel’s views then were not exactly far apart from each other. Thiel wants government out of business affairs and believes startup founders should aim for monopolies. Musk’s fight with the SEC over legitimate violations he made over tweeting publicly about something he shouldn’t have done is an example of such. He also said he doesn’t believe in the concept of unions. Also, tech libertarians since the 2010’s believe the rules don’t apply to them.
There are libertarians outside of the Silicon Valley/tech world who are not of the Musk and Thiel kind who don’t have the elitist mentality. Gary Johnson for instance is an example of one and he never ran an elitist agenda in both his 2012 and 2016 Libertarian Presidential Campaigns.
Right; "libertarian" in this context refers to a belief in a lack of state infrastructure to ensure the welfare of the populace being the key to "economic liberty" i.e. serfdom for everyone but the elites.
The reason I'm not (yet) overly alarmed about this is a) It has zero popular base of support and b) the elite tech-folks in real life all loathe each other and are fierce competitors, so I don't see how they could ever unite even temporarily given the egos involved. In addition, despite the disproportionate ink spilled on them, most of the monied class aren't Silicon Tech-adjacent and they don't want to be ruled by Palantir AI anymore than we do.
A free market is typically thriving when there’s less or no government intervention.
Gary Johnson’s Libertarian point of view on this is pretty general, traditional libertarian. It’s also something that traditional conservative Republicans can be in agreement with as well.
When Thiel is arguing startup founders should aim for monopolies, it’s mainly so that they aim higher and dominate competition as opposed to having to run a business like a traditional small business. Not all such startups, even those with high validations, can always succeed with this.
However, this mentality as it applies to tech Bros and founders has made it so that the goal of innovating has more to do with being wealthy than it is making an impact. Let’s just say Thiel doesn’t have any particularly socially conscious views about the economy at all.
When looked at through that lens it's basically a copy of one of the core problems with GW Bush's presidency. He approached international politics like the US was a permanently unassailable lone superpower. Of course, a big part of why that assumption became more assailable was because of his actions, but the rise of other parts of the world wasn't in doubt even back then. Only the timelines.
Nowadays there's zero room for doubt that our geopolitical and economic position is not what it was in the 80s and 90s. But republican rhetoric and governance would have you believe that nothing has changed on that front.
Huge numbers of people in this country can't even comprehend of a situation in which the US loses power in the global scheme of things. So while Trump and his cronies are going around smashing things, the average, or above average person doesn't realize that just because things have been the way they are for 80 years - it doesn't mean they can or will stay that way for ever. All empires fall, and it's not usually good for the people in them when they do.
That’s kind of the crux of our current predicament, right there. People have no reference point for anything else since there’s not too many people left who remember WW2 let alone the world before it.
I haven't underestimated any of this, and it's why I believe the U.S. is in a process of irreversible decline. And it's not just economic. There is no good reason for anyone to make any long-term agreements with the U.S. anymore, and watching excerpts from the abuse of President Zelensky brought home to me that the U.S. is being ruled by a mafia.
I don't think its irreversible; the other major powers (China and Russia) are in demographic death spirals and have their own internal state capacity issues, which are growing. Even if Trump is able to install some long-term decline in immigration, we're decades away from approaching their situations.
Of course, the Trump agenda (curtailed immigration, wrecking economic/political alliances, retreating from global affairs, tariffs/cuts to gov. programs) is exactly what you'd enact to get the U.S. onto a path of permanent decline.
I wouldn't call Russia a major geopolitical power. They're a major power, but only in Eastern Europe and the Caucuses, and only because their neighbors in that are a lot smaller than them. That Russia wasn't able to completely bulldoze Ukraine immediately, long before external support arrived for Ukraine, is the perfect example of Russia's limited power.
Right now I'd say China is the only other major power besides the US. The EU will find themselves there too if they continue to become increasingly cohesive, and I expect India to follow a similar, but delayed, path as China on the front of economic/military power.
I don't think we can rely on China's demographic issues saving us. Even declining to half their current population would leave them at over double ours. That kind of decline will/would take many decades. During those decades the world is going to see increasing levels of automation, and that automation is going to be concentrated in the areas that are already doing those tasks with human labor. China could easily remain the world's manufacturing hub even after a huge population decline. And with a rapidly improving military and a more consistent and intentional industrial policy on top.
The US could remain the world's #1 power for this century if we play our cards right / China plays their cards wrong / some luck. It seems increasingly less likely to me, though. Even in that world China is going to be a not too distant #2. If we had avoided a lot of our own missteps so far this century we'd be in a far better position. We could have dominated the green energy market and avoided surrendering advanced manufacturing with honestly a depressingly small boost to our national wisdom.
Yes yes but have you considered that it was more important for the US to have a navel gazing circlejerk about American exceptionalism that has infected every corner of our culture rather than do some simple long term planning?
I think it all comes down to the fact that humans are by and large small-c conservative. People do not like change. People do not like change even if that change is done to help protect the status quo. People do not like even acknowledging that there is the possibility of change.
Modern big-C conservative political parties adopt a reactionary stance to the threat of change and promise regressive changes to restore a historical reality that never truly existed but benefits from nostalgia, especially from older voters.
But even the liberal parties of the modern era can have some strong aversion to change in various areas, even when acting so is detrimental to their core ideology. This is the heart of e.g. NIMBY households that also have BLM signs. Or Scholz's extreme reluctance to "escalate" German support for Ukraine, needing to be dragged to every new threshold.
The idea that the US' global status could change is anathema to a clear majority of our country. So anathema that even saying that we should make ourselves stronger so as to prevent that change is met with self-destructive insistence to the contrary.
The mafia would never be as nihilistic as Trump and Musk. Thus our predicament is far worse.
Musk’s destruction of USAI and demotion of numerous other agencies and departments is hugely damaging – and, sadly, not easily reversible. Likewise if the Trump regime starts selling off federal lands and properties.
I think other countries will enter into long-term agreements with the US, but they won't make any 'concessions' that they weren't planning to do in the first place.
Haven’t seen such impressive toadying since Smithers and Mr. Burns.
https://bsky.app/profile/karaswisher.bsky.social/post/3ljb77jqey22h
I do love that all these worm Republicans now more or less just mirror Trump even in the way he speaks. These people have no sense of self, just weak mirror neurons with no spine.
It’s what makes them Republicans. Their reasons for public service have always had a lot of self-interested elements.
I wonder if these morons realize that Trump has a very limited shelf life and that's not even addressing the fact that he can't run for reelection again, barring his absurd joke that he might run again.
We have a crisis of masculinity in this country, and it has nothing to do with gender theory or DEI. It's that somehow a majority of American men see this behavior as more "manly" than sticking up for what is right . . the old Superman ethos "truth, justice and the American way" , . . .I see grown men bend the knee and lick Trump's boots and I just think "my God, how can any of these adult males look themselves in the mirror at night and sleep."
Real men have a code of integrity, don't compromise their core principles, don't abandon or hurt the weaker among us, have quiet confidence, value honor, and putting others before themselves . . .all of this is antithetical to MAGA, which is all about scapegoating, whining incessantly, looking out for yourself above all else, engaging in peformative faux toughness, delighting in hurting the lesser, and having no core values to speak of. Basically . . . being a bitch. Democratic pols need to stop searching for the magic male formula in focus groups and just call this shit out for what it is . . .the behavior of insecure, weak little men. We can play on their turf and win.
MAGAism is just institutionalized bitchiness. These are the softest men on earth and yet somehow our institutions have yielded to them with barely a fight.
We are an unserious society
A failing society in the process of collapsing.
Yeah. If it weren’t for extended family and elderly parents my wife and I’d be bouncing for Sweden
Sweden, Maine is not too far away here. But then again, Peru and Mexico are quite close as well.
I guess Moscow, Maine is within driving distance, too.
Yup, it’s not too far. Although I’m not going to claim we can see Moscow from our kitchen window.
I think I've probably written something like this here before but sometime in the 2010's American men began to really lose their God Damn Minds. The masculinity crisis hit like a freaking train. While I can easily trace back a lot of what is happening now to (white and possibly Hispanic) people (mostly men) losing the plot over "me too" or "black lives matter", I really have trouble pinpointing why men suddenly all needed to have beards, wear tactical sunglasses, and drive lifted pickup trucks, and were so freaking angry about it all the time. I guess it was a reaction to the great recession, but I can't really connect the dots.
In my microworld (early 30s gay male millennial) I have more male friends (Straight & gay) that were Trump-Biden-Harris or Trump-Trump-Harris then moving the other way but the Denver burbs are their own thing. At some point we need to reclaim masculinity for the "superman" kind Toiler of the Sea mentioned above.
There is one thing I've noticed that I don't see discussed very often through a political lens. I do see it discussed through non-political lenses occasionally but not that often.
There has been a concerted effort by conservatives over the past 10-15 years to turn a lot of commonly (often but not exclusively young) "male" entertainment spaces into places where a conservative cultural view is dominant.
If you look at any recent big release with a preexisting fanbase that has fallen flat for the past decade, there has been a very loud group of people out there insisting that the reason for the fans' disappointment is because the property "got political" or "went woke" or whatever similar bullshit message.
It's gotten to the point now where the grifters are whipping up outrage before things even come out.
I don't believe this is the reason for things changing, but I think it's playing a big part in how younger men and women are diverging a lot more at the ballot box than in the past.
The effect of this is made worse as entertainment gains an increasingly parasocial nature — the adoption of twitch, lets plays, etc. means that opinions and discussions of popular media will increasingly revolve around specific individuals, and it only takes a handful of popular individuals being conservative to shift the needle there with people that do not already have deeply held political views. Basically perfectly describing younger adults with little/no voting history.
Republican men have principles! And should Trump make it clear that he doesn’t like those principles, well, then they have others.
Toiler, you may find this to be of interest, a comment from my wife:
"Actually, this describes most of the men I've known. It's not a recent phenomenon. The 1940s/1950s ideal has long been dead. It is not about feminization of men. It is about infantilization. We have an entire nation of men who never grew up and never wanted to, and think that to remain a boy is raffish and charming."
"Little Marco" was the truest thing Trump ever rambled.
"He's like 6'2'' which is why I don't understand why his hands are the size of someone who is 5'2". Have you seen his hands? You know what they say about men with small hands? You can't trust them. You can't trust them."
– Little Marco, about Small-Hands Trump
Speaking of which, here's the NY Times headline.
https://bsky.app/profile/gregsargent.bsky.social/post/3ljbmvsb4ck2w
And from earlier in the day:
https://bsky.app/profile/n0rmalguy.bsky.social/post/3ljbty6tois2z
What fucking shit.
Things like this, and many many years of such behavior from them, is why the NYT is not an outlet I am willing to trust or patronize.
I wonder what their perception is with democratic leaning voters over the years. I'd expect they're still above water but also have taken a huge hit compared to a decade ago.
I remain of the opinion that the New York Times, through their monomanic "But her emails" headlines, bears much of the responsibility of Trump being elected in 2016. The NYT set the tone, and the rest of the media wolf pack followed.
And this time, too, A.G. Sulzberger’s editorial choices ensured that far-too-many failed to perceive Trump as the unqualified monster that he is, thus putting Trump 2.0 back in power, this time surrounded solely by loyalists following the Project 2025 blueprint.
Fully agreed. They haven't gotten any better in the years since, either.
Early on I thought they were simply chasing subscribers and ad revenue from a fucked up republican administration. They knew there would be more crazy stuff to cover = more people following things. And it did work out very well for them.
Today I think that entirely uncharitable motivation is too charitable to them. The people in charge there clearly want to move the country to the right.
They had been bad many times before that, and we don't have to go back to their underestimation of the threat of Hitler or covering the Holocaust on inside pages when they did cover it. Remember their persecution of Wen Ho Lee? Remember April Glaspie and the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction that supposedly justified the very real mass destruction and mass killing of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq?
The events you describe were long before our subscription period. That said, I am not surprised.
A perfect example of this is their infamous headline: "Hitler Tamed By Prison."
I don't believe they deserve the traffic of a link directly to their archives. There's a Snopes page with the full article quoted, so I will go with that:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nyt-1924-hitler-tamed-by-prison/
That was written a full century ago. The only lesson the NYT seems to have learned is that they will never be held accountable for their terrible editorializing, no matter how offensively wrong they have been.
VA-Gov: This dipwad thinks Maryland is a verb to be used in a derogatory way. And she’s the (relatively) sane one of the three GOP contenders.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/2025/02/28/dont-maryland-my-virginia-gop-governor-candidate-paints-clear-picture-of-old-line-state/
Kelly Ayotte had giant signs all over the State that read "Don't Mass up New Hampshire"
I don't know a lot about the relationship between MD and VA, but I do know that a lot of New Hamphirites (is that what you call yourselves?) either fled MA due to taxation or have at best a love/hate relationship with the colossus on their border. I seriously doubt anyone in VA feels any kind of threat from or hatred (other than maybe some college sports rivalries) toward the smaller MD.
Realistically I don't think there's much love for MA to our south here. More of a hate/neutral relationship.
Conservatives loathe Massachusetts. Everyone else by and large doesn't think about them any differently than VT or ME, which is to say "rarely, if ever." The more leftward parts of NH don't express any fondness for MA (well, I do, but I'm the exception that proves the rule): they just don't hate MA. Conservatives think of MA as a hyper-taxed nanny state crime ridden hell hole and will never be convinced otherwise.
Most people will say the drivers to our south are horrible, but I'm pretty sure everybody everywhere says that about neighboring regions' drivers. I don't place any value on such claims. Otherwise people might be a bit wary of the state because they live in NH to have a more rural/suburban lifestyle and find the higher density to be intimidating, especially the much higher density in the core Boston area. Almost everyone I know here was shocked at my positive experiences doing trips to Boston, and everyone that's later tagged along with me did a massive reassessment of Boston, and Massachusetts along with it (often they get lumped together here).
The tax thing I've long found a bit perplexing. It's absolutely something that results in people moving states in reality. But it doesn't make sense to me: they generally want to keep their Massachusetts based job, but if they stay working in MA they will pay MA income taxes even if they live elsewhere. NH also has higher property taxes (as that's the main tax revenue). So those people get the worst of both states, tax wise.
I love Boston, but their drivers really _are_ terrible! You can't use your turn signal because they _will_ cut you off! And this isn't just me, non-driver speaking. My girlfriend used to live in Boston, and she's found the drivers there worse than anywhere else she's lived or even driven in while on vacation, which includes New Jersey, California and Texas.
I cannot speak for Boston drivers specifically as I only drive to the parking garages and then take public transit. I have heard that they are quite aggressive, but I cannot speak for or against that. Not defending them either way. But state to state, NH and MA drivers don't seem any meaningfully different to me. My overall point on that note was I inherently ignore it when someone says the drivers from [other region] are worse than drivers from [their region]. It's such a commonly expressed view by everyone, everywhere.
The real distinction I've noticed isn't what state is on a car's license plate. It's the size of the vehicle they drive.
My wife, who lived in that city for many years, explained that you have to use "the Force" when driving the J-way (Jamaicaway). Whatever. I far prefer to leave all Boston driving to her!
What I shake my head to is that there are people in NJ that are complaining about congestion pricing because they would prefer to drive into Manhattan. As a southern Californian, I've never driven in NYC nor do I have any desire to. I have driven in Boston, and it's terrorizing compared with SoCal.
My girlfriend also has no desire to drive in New York City, and since she's lived in New York for a couple of decades or so, she no longer owns a car.
My introduction to Massachusetts drivers (more specifically, drivers in the Greater Boston area) was seeing them tailgating at 70 miles per hour, while driving on so-called "all-season tires", in treacherous snowy-and-icy conditions on the freeway.
That was terrifying!
I think the term is actually "Granite Stater". Likewise someone from Massachusetts is a "Bay Stater" or, less formally, a "Masshole". The latter term is not necessarily pejorative.
I know about Massholes, but I didn't know people in New Hampshire or Massachusetts are also known by their states' official nicknames. No-one calls New Yorkers "Empire Staters", and I don't know how people are supposed to remember all those nicknames. Why is Connecticut the nutmeg state, anyway, when nutmeg is from Indonesia?
Connecticut is also the Constitution State, due to Roger Sherman and the Connecticut Compromise.
I expect the state nickname thing is a result of the official demonym for NH and MA both being horrible. Massachusettsan and New Hampshirite do not roll off the tongue, while New Yorker does.
I looked Nutmug/Connecticut up. The origins have been lost to time, but it's speculated to be from traders bringing nutmeg back to the state/colony when it was a very valuable good.
Yeah, but it was a valuable good everywhere.
There's some suggestion that the Nutmeg State toponym was a scam and the Connecticut merchants used it to sell wooden "Nutmegs" to the credulous. But as you said the historical record is vague.
I always get a chuckle from Oregon's "Don't Californicate Oregon."
In Loudoun County, in Northern Virginia, there was once a popular slogan "Don't Fairfax Loudoun", referring to Fairfax County's overdevelopment. Much of Loudoun was 'Fairfaxed" anyway, but on the bright side at least it eventually got blue as it grew.
Many years ago, I recall seeing a wonderful postcard in Oregon:
"People in Oregon don’t tan in the summer..."
(...and when you open it up:)
"They rust. For a great tan, PLEASE go to Southern California!"
My dermatologist has a life sized picture of a lifeguard in speedos with scars all over every inch of his body from having skin cancer removed.
Having grown up in Phoenix pre sunblock and have had 6 pre melanomas removed, I stay out of the sun and use sunblock.
Has anyone given any thought to the complexities, both logistical but also political/messaging, on undoing the damage of the next four years, for our next dem presidency?
One that's been heavily on my mind is that blue states are going to be absolutely fucked with when it comes to any funding through executive agencies. Over the next four years that money will be doled out heavily to red and maybe some purple states. Infrastructure spending in particular has large amounts of funding left to assign. I don't think Hawaii or Illinois et al can count on getting anything close to an appropriate share of that funding.
How do we tackle this in a way that ensures conservatives aren't rewarded for this behavior by getting four years of looting the country, but also doesn't result in the media throwing shit at us over the process of making up for that recent under-investment? I can think some ways that it could be approached — make it some kind of process that's officially titled "Funding underserved regions" or some other such political naming, all while never ever explaining the purpose publicly. But I assume/hope that policy experts can come up with better (and more detailed!) processes than I can.
I desperately hope the various experts that will be relied on by any dem president, regardless of the specific person, are working on how to tackle this and similar problems, like contracts awarded as blatant corruption or trying to rework the civil service to be politically conservative instead of apolitical.
We have to hope there will be another Democratic president. Who knows what the next 4 years will bring?
That's true, but that's a scenario we can do nothing about once it's already happened. I prefer to focus my thought-experiments on things where we can change things. Where if a good idea percolates around here, maybe it will spread and gain traction. Discussing the other possibility can be important in many ways, but it's something I can't do anything about other than what I think all of us will/would be doing anyway, election wise.
I understand, but we also don't know just how dire the wreckage will be if a Democratic president or trifecta ever comes around again.
In the memorable words of the Washington Post’s humor columnist:
"I like elections – and I want to keep having them."
– Alexandra Petri
Luckily elections are run by the states, which can limit the influence Trump and the national GOP will have over them.
Don't count on that.
There almost certainly will be another Democratic president one day, though it might not happen in 2028.
You have much more confidence in the continuation of U.S. democracy than I think any of us should have.
As I understand it, red states are projected to suffer more from Trump's policies. For example, Farron Cousins has made multiple YouTube videos focusing on this. However, when it comes to funding per se rather than policy, I can see Trump trying to screw blue states over as much as possible.
The other kicker is a Republican majority in the House still requires a lot of blue state members, so you can't squeeze the noose too tight.
The glass half-full view:
1) Most state transportation spending-including in blue states-is a tremendous gift for the construction lobby that incentivises sprawl and pollution. Blue states would be wise to view less federal grants as an opportunity to re-direct towards smart and sustainable planning (and yes while much of the Biden Admin's specific funding for transit/walkability will likely get axed, they still didn't have the political balls to attach such conditions to TIGER/RAISE and other transport grants which are the majority of federal transportation money distributed, so the pot we're talking about is still mostly going to highway expansion and construction).
2) Anyway you slice it, these DOGE cuts are going to hurt rural red America more because a) They're so much more reliant on federal money and b) their funding baseline is much smaller. Watch rural hospitals. I think over the next 20 months you're going to see an opportunity to claw back some rural voters that Dems haven't had since the 1980s. But, of course, still a lot of uncertainties.
Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds (R) signed the discriminatory anti-trans bill SF418 into law that removes gender identity nondiscrimination protections from the Iowa Civil Rights Act that were put in place in 2007 under former Gov. Chet Culver (D).
Iowa has the dubious distinction of being the first state to remove nondiscrimination protections for trans people. https://www.advocate.com/politics/breaking-transphobic-discrimination-legalized-iowa
Her approval ratings crashed down to earth since her 2022 landslide reelection against Deidre DeJear. Democrats must now capitalize, can't think of a stronger opponent than State auditor Rob Sand, last remaining statewide elected.
Finkenauer or Axne should definitely take on Sen. Phoni Ernst, who's been a joke since BEFORE she was first elected in 2014!! 💙🇺🇲
But that ad with her castrating pigs was so brilliant!--or so the media kept telling everyone. In truth, almost any campaign would look good running against Bruce "Bailey", but Ernst was well positioned to take advantage of political shifts in the state that ran well beyond candidate or campaign quality.
The governorship, with or without Reynolds, is probably a better target for a Democratic comeback as Sand or another competent candidate can make a case against state GOP overreach on several issues including abortion.
Right, but I sure don't have a lot of confidence in Iowa voters. It's possible Democrats might win off-year elections there, but don't bet your house on it!
Finkenauer lost re-election in the House back in 2020 and only served one term. Not sure I'd want someone who couldn't win re-election in a district that's barely that much red.
IA-04 is one thing but IA-01 is a Lean GOP district.
Maria Cantwell (D) ALSO served 1 term in the House and was defeated (1992 - 1994), still made a 2000 comeback knocking off Sen. Slade Gorton (R) picking up a critical seat for Democrats.
Not impossible for Abby Finkenauer to repeat that in Iowa!! 💙🇺🇲
I am not sure in this environment a similar scenario will happen but knowing how toxic Musk and Trump have become, anything can happen in IA.
There needs to be a strong challenger to that awful governor in Iowa. Ditto for that former pig castrator with the same Karen hairstyle as Reynolds.
I keep wondering when Iowans have had enough of GOP rule and kick the bums out. Is the state too far gone or will those DOGE / VA cuts change voters’ minds?
“Putin went through a hell of a lot with me. He went through a phony witch hunt….”
– Donald Trump, suggesting Putin was an aggrieved party who suffered
.
“No, the meeting did not go badly for Ukraine. It exposed in the most undeniable, unequivocal way possible the pro-Putin commitments of the president and vice-president. That was information Americans and allies needed to have clear before them.”
– David Frum
.
“Generations of American patriots, from our revolution onward, have fought for the principles Zelenskyy is risking his life to defend. But today, Donald Trump and JD Vance attacked Zelenskyy and pressured him to surrender the freedom of his people to the KGB war criminal who invaded Ukraine. History will remember this day—when an American President and Vice President abandoned all we stand for.”
– Liz Cheney, (former Representative, R-WY)
"I'm overjoyed to see Donald Trump and most Americans embrace most of the issues that I've championed for years."
– David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the KKK. (Note: In the 2020 election, Duke initially endorsed Tulsi Gabbard, then Trump after Gabbard was out of the running. In 2024, Duke endorsed Jill Stein.)
Duke was for anti-semitism before he was against it?
I am still laughing at the notion that he has endorsed a Jewish Presidential Candidate who ended up renouncing his support for obvious reasons.
Then again, Stein is pro-RT which means pro-Kremlin so she’s got explaining to do herself.
Political corruption and extremism does indeed make for strange bedfellows.
As I understand it, David Duke grew disillusioned with Trump’s emphatic pro-Israel stance. On the other hand, he applauded Jill Stein’s vehement anti-Israel position, and even more so the pro-Hamas stance of her VP running mate. Strange bedfellows, indeed!
But now we’re getting dangerously close to forbidden topics, and that was not my intention.
Sure. I just find that David Duke is willing to be this “open” to supporting different political candidates like Jill Stein.
On the other hand, white nationalists and supremacists are notoriously anti-interventionist from what I have understood.
I was saying on here years back . . .watch Duke's 1991 debate with Edwin Edwards. The similarities to Trump re: rhetoric and messaging are eerie.
And Andrew Cuomo has made what we all knew was coming official. He’s in for NYC Mayor.
Really hope the Anti-criminals and sex pests in public office wings of the party and city find someone to rally around.
I didn’t know the Sex Pests and the Anti-criminals were on the same page.
/s
Eh, he's better than Adams. He knows how to use power and won't rend his clothes gibbering about how impotent he is to make the NYPD do their jobs...I hope.
"Better than Adams" is such a low bar to clear that it isn't even a bar. It's a spot a few feet underground. Cuomo is awful and it would be an awful message to send by allowing him to return to office after being forced out for serial sexual harassment.
Also a perfect example of why abandoning impeachment because they "learned their lesson" is idiotic. The NY state legislature fucked up by backing off after he resigned. They should have continued and finished the job.
“Better than Adams” would mean that pizza rat could run for mayor. I haven’t seen so much success in a rodent since the time I saw a squirrel with a chocolate chip cookie. (Blurry photo. Could’ve been viral.) To me, this shows leadership, success, a can do attitude. Perfect qualities for mayor.
Yeah that bar is too low. Other people exist who can do this job.
Florida Democrats net lost 14,000k registrations last month.
Honest question, as someone who believes registration is extremely important and indicated enthusiasm for the Party:
I know Nicki Freid is probably the best we have in hapless leadership in Florida, but we haven't seen any improvement at all in the state since she took over.
To the contrary.
So at what point do we start asking for Dem State Chair resignations if these registration numbers do not improve over the next few years? Not just in Florida but this is a nationwide crisis that has been going on for years now.
We start when we have reason to believe anyone else could have better results.
Florida has been a lost cause since 2018, when we lost two critical campaigns with good candidates in a huge dem wave year. The results in 2020, 2022, and 2024 have only reinforced that.
We need to reevaluate our expectations for the state and understand that we are going to continue to lose ground there as it acts as a conservative magnet. Our focus there should be damage control with maintaining as many house seats as possible. Being competitive in Florida is no longer on the table.
There's no point blaming the democratic chair of West Virginia for us losing ground there. There's nothing they can do to reverse the fundamentals. Same story with Florida.
I don't think we give up on the state entirely but short term should focus on shoring up the marginal seats and cities first once that is done can start figuring out how to win statewide again if that is possible.
Democrats should not give up any state! We need to revive the Fifty State Strategy – forcefully and creatively.
I endorse a 50 state strategy, but part of that is making investments and effort strategically. For Florida that's going to be non-statewide races for the foreseeable future. Of course we could get lucky and see something crazy happen with the senate special in 2026 for Rubio's seat. Maybe they nominate Gaetz or something comparable happens to put the seat on the map. But otherwise our ambitions in Florida are going to be damage control for the time being.
Of course, the best case would be if we could get a quarter million Florida democrats to move to Georgia and North Carolina, each. That would reshape things in our favor in a huge way.
I believe DNC Chair Ken Martin is on board with the 50 state strategy although it remains to be seen exactly what more support in the coming months and year from the DNC that will make an impact.
A big part of why GA is bluing is the influx of D refugees from FL. It’s already happened/happening here.
It also helps that Trump did worse in GA last year than back in 2016.
Worse compared to the rest of the country, you mean?
Trump won GA by 2.2% points, a 2.9% drop from 2016 when he won the state back in then by 5.1% points.
This suggests GA is not getting any redder. This actually holds well for Senator Jon Ossoff and his re-election chances.
2016:
https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/states/georgia
2024:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/georgia-president-results
I’ve never felt the Fifty State Strategy was much of a strategy but more of a phrase. It made sense back when the GOP wouldn’t even run candidates for Senate in Arkansas. And frankly, we ended up with an a bloated caucus full of warring factions that made the whole party look fractured and dumb. The Fifty State Strategy lead to the 2010 50 State Massacre Midterm Election.
Yes but turnout in FL as opposed to WV is the real problem that needs to be resolved. You can't argue the state is a lost cause if FL Democrats can't turnout their own voters.
Like Texas forever. If people just won't turn out ever, that's not a soluble problem. But yeah, they should keep trying hard.
Sure.
I have hope for TX and believe the changing demographics do favor Democrats over time. I don’t think it’s going to be a long slog like FL for Democrats but they also need to ensure they are not presumptuous too much about the Hispanic community (which is a sizable portion of TX).
Changing demographics are more likely to change election results than some kind of mythical sea change in getting out the votes of people who just never vote.
Yes although in the case of TX, the changing demographics are fluctuating around the state depending on where the opportunities lie. Austin I know is super friendly to transplants, namely less conservative ones.
Hispanic population though along with the new TX residents do present opportunities for Democrats. I also know TX Democrats and the related grassroots groups have been building for years (like Battleground Texas).
For Florida, Democrats can’t win solely based on turning out Democrats. Voter registration drops though complicate things.
Yes and why I don't write off Texas is because I think the Hispanic community there is relatively fungible re: political support. There could be pretty wide swings seen from cycle to cycle.
That’s a fair observation. Hispanic voters by default are probably the biggest swing types of voters based on what their needs are and which politicians they think will best represent them.
Dunno. A lot of them may be identifying as white, as happened with the Irish and Italians, and may be voting based on identification with white privilege.
Unfortunately, it's going to be a long slog for the Florida Democratic Party.
In all fairness to Nikki Fried, the problems started well before her time as State Party Chair. Low turnout is still a big problem and was that way back in 2022. After 2018, Democrats lost steam in the state.
However, FL Democrats also need to show more spine. Fried, Rep. Jared Moskowitz and fellow Democrats aren't doing themselves any favor by going to the right on the issue of Cuba when President Biden was removing the country as a designated sponsor of terrorism.
Why is being to the right on Cuba bad politically in Florida? Mind you, I think it's way past time for national Democrats to say "fuck you!" to right-wing Cuban exiles who are wrong on policy and will never vote Democratic, but I don't know about the dynamics in Florida for Democrats.
From my standpoint, to the right on the issue of Cuba in this case means being Republican lite on the issue.
In other words, FL Democrats are essentially offering no distinctive agenda on Cuba other than being against communism and the Castros, I believe out of concern they will alienate Cuban-Americans. Granted they and/or their families fled Cuba to escape the Castro regime and ended up settling in states like FL, which is completely understandable given the circumstance. Cuba does not have a market economy and therefore does not have the ability like the US to offer an entrepreneurial friendly environment for Cubans to thrive without government control.
I don’t think FL Democrats should need to go far to the left on the issue with Cuba. They just need to give a different policy position than the GOP, which is doing more economic sanctions at a time when Cuba needs more economic opportunities for its citizens. FL Democrats really shouldn’t be behind on this issue, especially considering Presidents Obama and Biden have been leading on Cuba since the 2010’s.
Another argument is that Democrats in Florida might not benefit from being different from Republicans on every policy question and could differentiate themselves on other issues.
I could see that happening.
The issue of Cuba though cannot be about appeasing the state so that Venezuela and other countries like it take over. On the other hand, Cuba’s been influenced by communism for many decades that even going to a more healthy market economy of some sort won’t happen over night. That’s why this is a difficult issue to manage for Democrats.
Yet Vietnam is not. Think about that. No-one is saying the U.S. has to support every Cuban policy, but what happened to "Can't beat 'em? Join 'em!" from the old Warner Brothers cartoons?
The one fundamental difference is the trade embargo on Vietnam was done back in 1994. The country has had 31 years to evolve since then and has moved far away from what it used to be. Also, from someone I talked to who over a year ago was living in Vietnam as a tech investor, there’s been a growing startup scene there. In general, Vietnam has been for over a decade apart of the growing emerging market in Southeast Asia. Consulting firms like Kearney have offices there.
For Cuba, I am mainly arguing that the Democratic Party (especially in FL) needs to move on and lead on this issue. I find FL Democrats who are getting overly defensive over Cuba making fools out of themselves, especially considering the US never went to war with the country in the 60’s.
"The country has had 31 years to evolve since then and has moved far away from what it used to be."
While it's evolved it's still far from being an open liberal democracy.
Yes but comparatively, Vietnam is a more wealthy country by vs. Cuba. It’a also been maintaining relations with the US for decades and has no current criticism by the GOP establishment that even compares to their criticism of Cuba. This takes into account the efforts of John Kerry and the late John McCain in helping normalize relations when they were Senators back in the mid 90’s. Cuba doesn’t have this except what has happened with President Obama and President Biden’s administration.
That said, every country including Vietnam, Cuba, and others which don’t have a real democracy and aren’t a real threat should evolve in this sense on their own terms if they want to have a more Democratic society.
I agree with your last sentence only to an extent, because I do believe there are rights that should be universal.
Your first sentence begs the question: why was the U.S. able to end its trade embargo against Vietnam and is still fucking around with Cuba, which is not an enemy?
Good question. I'd say with Cuba, probably politics at this point, especially from Cuban-Americans who are still very sensitive about the Castro family's strangehold over Cuba since the late 1950's.
Exactly. It makes no logical sense.
I get that people in FL care but as a white Minnesotan, I’m so sick of talking about Cuba. What a stupid political issue. I have never once been like, oh damn, my life in the US is being affected by what happens in Cuba. Didn’t these people leave for a reason? Christ.
A good party chair is a catalyst for positive change and the engagement of people who do make a difference! Witness Anderson Clayton of North Carolina, Ken Martin of Minnesota, and Ben Wikler of Wisconsin.
Whereas the Democratic Party in Florida has been a mess for many years, until recently. As far as I understand, they’re just starting to turn things around. Much of the credit goes to Nikki Fried.
A key success story: running a candidate in every Florida legislative race. That’s a big damn deal!
In 2024 nationwide, Democrats failed to challenge over a thousand state legislative seats. That’s intolerable political malpractice – never mind that the GOP failed to run a candidate in over 1300 such races.
How much of that registration loss is due to Democrats moving out of state? If those people move to neighboring Georgia, then that’s a net benefit for us.
That’s a valid question. I know a good friend of mine left Jacksonville, FL to Santa Maria, CA over two years ago to escape the political environment (even in Jax, which isn’t as red as other parts of FL, there’s still plenty of conservative crazies).
Why do people look at state party chairs as the reason dems do poorly? They are well down the list of reasons.
I think migration trends were bad for us in FL back in the late 20teens but since COVID they've seemed to go into overdrive . . .Florida is THE retirement locale for right wing conservatives. Really really tough to swim against that tide.
Florida being the premier retirement state SHOULD present Democrats with huge opportunities! We just have to make those retirees sufficiently fearful of losing their Social Security and Medicare – and clearly portray the Democratic Party as the only defender of their hard-earned economic rights.
This is doable! But it does require a huge informational and educational effort.
Until Republicans actually cut SS and Medicare they aren't going to care about the theoretical threat.
Yep. Things have to impact THEM directly before they “get it.”
Senator Marshall flees his town hall.
https://bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3ljdqvc6rc22y
Meanwhile, folks in Vermont protest Vance.
https://bsky.app/profile/michelemanziano.bsky.social/post/3ljdppvnndk2q
Mad River Glen put up a sign: "Sorry VP sold out". Two ambiguous lines:
1) Sorry VP, sold out.
2) Sorry, VP sold out.
I love that Henley Parker responded with a list of EIGHT phone numbers belonging to Senator Marshall – and a request that people inundate him with calls!
Sen. Michael Bennet considering run for CO governor. Primary could get busy if Neguse and Salazar get in too.
https://coloradosun.com/2025/02/28/michael-bennet-colorado-governor-2026/
On a totally unrelated note: we also need Naftali Bennett to once again replace Bibi, preferably with a broad coalition that this time too includes the leading Arab-Israeli party.
Of course, but was there something that happened today in particular that prompted that remark? Also, the problem with putting an Arab party in the coalition is that some parties (probably including Bennett's) will refuse to be in a coalition with them. It's all very fucked up.
Bennett ≈ Bennet
That gave the association to what I with candor called my "totally unrelated note". Important to remember that Bennett worked with an Arab party before, and it made major positive contributions to Bennett’s coalition – the broadest coalition in Israeli history.
From what I can discern, Naftali Bennett is currently preparing the ground for a new coalition, with or without new elections. I think Bibi’s fall is inevitable. Sooner would be better than later.
We should have nothing to worry about the Senate seat as Colorado moved more to the left in the 2024 presidential election.
Jared Polis could go run for the Senate, unless he desires to run for POTUS in 2028.
His support for Kennedy really soured me on Polis.
It was half-assed, true, although I believe Polis is referring to RFK Jr’s agenda in getting harmful ingredients out of food. He otherwise is not on RFK Jr’s side on vaccines.
Otherwise, I agree Polis should have kept his mouth shut.
Anyone could see Kennedy had gone off the deep end, so weird how Polis went to bat for him.
Removing harmful ingredients from our food is the one thing Trump & Co will NOT allow RFK Jr to do.
We’re likely to see the implementation only of those 90-percent of RFK Jr’s ideas that are horrendously bad – not the 10% that actually are good.
Yeah this was clear to anyone with a brain once he was nominated.
Also, let us not forget that RFK Jr took Daily Kos to court over a user who wasn’t even on the paid staff and lost the legal fight.
Oh. Did not know that. What a petty little bitch.
Moved more to the left? Is that based on PVI? Biden won the state 13.5% while Harris won it by 11%. I spose this is where PVI could be useful where if the entire country shifts more red, PVI can explain how certain constituencies did more or less and that can be extrapolated into a trend.
Hmmmm, after this election maybe I’m more open to PVI. I do hate when though when rating congressional seats and PVI will call it +2 but then the Dem Prez won by 8. Obama wins distorted the whole system.
I don't personally think Senators should run for Governor unless the gubernatorial race is up in the same year as their Senate seat; special elections are a headache.
Sen. Bennet should stay in the Senate, he has 16 years of seniority and is in the best place so should keep it going!! 💙🇺🇲
It’s interesting that we’ve seen more Senators eying gubernatorial races lately when it used to be the other way around. The Senate must really suck, now. Why retire in DC getting nothing done?
State Rep. Zohran Mamdani (D-Queens) is also running for NYC Mayor, and here's his response to Cuomo carpetbagging in from Westchester County to run for NYC Mayor:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DGqmM5iuvzN/?igsh=MXdvdjlydXp5YW80cw==
Also, Dan Goldman has endorsed Zellnor Myrie for mayor; it will be interesting to see if Goldman switches his support to Cuomo or not.
Goldman needs progressive cred, he won't switch to Cuomo.
Yeah, I'm in his district, which is pretty left-wing.
Slight correction: we have assembly members in New York, not state representatives.
A very interesting thing I am noticing with these town hall events:
I am seeing all of them in solid red districts and/or states and less so in swingy districts.
I mean we have yet to see Don Bacon get screamed at or Miller-Meeks for example. We are seeing this happen in ~60% Trump areas.
I think Bacon and Miller Meeks are too cowardly to hold town halls anyway.
Senator Susan Collins hasn’t held a town hall in many years.
She’s concerned about the reception
Funny thing is Bacon ancd Collins are both perpetually in the "I'm concerned" caucus yet votes with leadership 24/7. They know how their town halls would go.
Neither has Thom Tillis. Any kind of gathering he’s done is funded by a dark money PAC like the John Locke Foundation with prescreened questions.
If Roy Cooper’s his Dem candidate, Tillis can’t do that anymore. He’ll have to actually work to get re-elected.
Might it be worth it to see if Bacon is open to switching parties? He's a better fit in our tent than in theirs at this point.
Would he? He's strongly anti-abortion and routinely votes for republican economic policy. He voted against Trump's multiple impeachments. He voted for an impeachment inquiry into Biden. Has he ever voted against republican leadership on critical bills?
He might not be a fire breathing insane conservative, but he still is and votes like a deeply conservative individual. He might be a rhetorical fit with us but certainly not an ideological fit, not even close.
Former Utah Rep Mia Love has brain cancer which is not responding to treatment. She has decided to enter hospice care.
As per her daughter.
The one bipartisan slogan left:
F*CK cancer
Except for, you know, DOGE targeting cancer research grants.
Horrible. She's only 49.
That’s so awful :(
Quotable:
"it's my hope that the EU buys the minerals from Ukraine and then sells it to the US with a markup so that they can use the money to help fund Ukraine's defense. If Canada and Mexico join in so much the better."
– Christine B in NC (on Hopium Chronicles)
Really the permanent political and economic shifts we could see in the next 4 years are under-rated. Trump thinks the size of the U.S. consumer market has us holding all of the aces, but he's subsequently doing everything he can to weaken the U.S. consumer re: federal cuts and tariffs. Europe (especially staring at potential WWII-level aggression from Russia) and our North American neighbors (staring at continual economic hostage taking from the U.S.) will reconfigure trade relationships to minimize their exposure. Causing prices to go up and further harming U.S. purchasing power. Real fucking genius we have at the top.
Minor correction: Given how Melania is clearly keeping as much distance between herself and Donald – preferably at least one or two states – Trump is, right now, most likely a non-fucking "genius".
It’s a remarkable over-assessment of US strength that misunderstands the source of said strength. I think a fair amount of his Cabinet officers know better (Bessent, Rubio, Waltz etc) but Trump is of course always the smartest and most correct man in every room so of course he will take absolutely zero of their advice
The other side of the ledger is the theory that Musk is actively trying to initiate an economic collapse to install his brand of techno-feudalism in cahoots with Thiel/Yarvin. I'm undecided on whether that is actually a plausible outcome (but the scary thing is I definitely haven't ruled it out!)
Musk though in all honesty is a loose cannon so whatever he is doing it may be more impulsiveness than anything. Thiel is not even while he and Musk are of the same libertarian ilk (with Musk claiming before he was moderate when he’s really not) doesn’t have Musk’s particular personality.
At one point around back in 2014, I remember Peter Thiel while not being supportive of minimum wage increases ended up caving in.
You are misusing the word "libertarian." It doesn't mean a dictatorship in which the government chooses who is allowed to make money based on corruption.
I’m not defining being libertarian as it relates to Musk and Trump’s agenda (and Musk’s progression towards warming up to Trump before the 2024 presidential election. I agree though that what Musk has with Trump since the 1+ months he’s been POTUS again goes beyond being libertarian at this point.
Putting aside this agenda and going back to the 2010’s, Musk and Thiel’s views then were not exactly far apart from each other. Thiel wants government out of business affairs and believes startup founders should aim for monopolies. Musk’s fight with the SEC over legitimate violations he made over tweeting publicly about something he shouldn’t have done is an example of such. He also said he doesn’t believe in the concept of unions. Also, tech libertarians since the 2010’s believe the rules don’t apply to them.
There are libertarians outside of the Silicon Valley/tech world who are not of the Musk and Thiel kind who don’t have the elitist mentality. Gary Johnson for instance is an example of one and he never ran an elitist agenda in both his 2012 and 2016 Libertarian Presidential Campaigns.
Right; "libertarian" in this context refers to a belief in a lack of state infrastructure to ensure the welfare of the populace being the key to "economic liberty" i.e. serfdom for everyone but the elites.
The reason I'm not (yet) overly alarmed about this is a) It has zero popular base of support and b) the elite tech-folks in real life all loathe each other and are fierce competitors, so I don't see how they could ever unite even temporarily given the egos involved. In addition, despite the disproportionate ink spilled on them, most of the monied class aren't Silicon Tech-adjacent and they don't want to be ruled by Palantir AI anymore than we do.
Ok, I get that. But is monopolism really libertarian? I think libertarianism requires a free market.
A free market is typically thriving when there’s less or no government intervention.
Gary Johnson’s Libertarian point of view on this is pretty general, traditional libertarian. It’s also something that traditional conservative Republicans can be in agreement with as well.
When Thiel is arguing startup founders should aim for monopolies, it’s mainly so that they aim higher and dominate competition as opposed to having to run a business like a traditional small business. Not all such startups, even those with high validations, can always succeed with this.
However, this mentality as it applies to tech Bros and founders has made it so that the goal of innovating has more to do with being wealthy than it is making an impact. Let’s just say Thiel doesn’t have any particularly socially conscious views about the economy at all.
When looked at through that lens it's basically a copy of one of the core problems with GW Bush's presidency. He approached international politics like the US was a permanently unassailable lone superpower. Of course, a big part of why that assumption became more assailable was because of his actions, but the rise of other parts of the world wasn't in doubt even back then. Only the timelines.
Nowadays there's zero room for doubt that our geopolitical and economic position is not what it was in the 80s and 90s. But republican rhetoric and governance would have you believe that nothing has changed on that front.
Exactly. Just now with trade wars to go with the short-sighted and erratic foreign policy adventurism
Huge numbers of people in this country can't even comprehend of a situation in which the US loses power in the global scheme of things. So while Trump and his cronies are going around smashing things, the average, or above average person doesn't realize that just because things have been the way they are for 80 years - it doesn't mean they can or will stay that way for ever. All empires fall, and it's not usually good for the people in them when they do.
That’s kind of the crux of our current predicament, right there. People have no reference point for anything else since there’s not too many people left who remember WW2 let alone the world before it.
Or apparently have read a book or seen a Ken Burns documentary.
I haven't underestimated any of this, and it's why I believe the U.S. is in a process of irreversible decline. And it's not just economic. There is no good reason for anyone to make any long-term agreements with the U.S. anymore, and watching excerpts from the abuse of President Zelensky brought home to me that the U.S. is being ruled by a mafia.
I don't think its irreversible; the other major powers (China and Russia) are in demographic death spirals and have their own internal state capacity issues, which are growing. Even if Trump is able to install some long-term decline in immigration, we're decades away from approaching their situations.
Of course, the Trump agenda (curtailed immigration, wrecking economic/political alliances, retreating from global affairs, tariffs/cuts to gov. programs) is exactly what you'd enact to get the U.S. onto a path of permanent decline.
I wouldn't call Russia a major geopolitical power. They're a major power, but only in Eastern Europe and the Caucuses, and only because their neighbors in that are a lot smaller than them. That Russia wasn't able to completely bulldoze Ukraine immediately, long before external support arrived for Ukraine, is the perfect example of Russia's limited power.
Right now I'd say China is the only other major power besides the US. The EU will find themselves there too if they continue to become increasingly cohesive, and I expect India to follow a similar, but delayed, path as China on the front of economic/military power.
I don't think we can rely on China's demographic issues saving us. Even declining to half their current population would leave them at over double ours. That kind of decline will/would take many decades. During those decades the world is going to see increasing levels of automation, and that automation is going to be concentrated in the areas that are already doing those tasks with human labor. China could easily remain the world's manufacturing hub even after a huge population decline. And with a rapidly improving military and a more consistent and intentional industrial policy on top.
The US could remain the world's #1 power for this century if we play our cards right / China plays their cards wrong / some luck. It seems increasingly less likely to me, though. Even in that world China is going to be a not too distant #2. If we had avoided a lot of our own missteps so far this century we'd be in a far better position. We could have dominated the green energy market and avoided surrendering advanced manufacturing with honestly a depressingly small boost to our national wisdom.
Yes yes but have you considered that it was more important for the US to have a navel gazing circlejerk about American exceptionalism that has infected every corner of our culture rather than do some simple long term planning?
It's insanely frustrating.
I think it all comes down to the fact that humans are by and large small-c conservative. People do not like change. People do not like change even if that change is done to help protect the status quo. People do not like even acknowledging that there is the possibility of change.
Modern big-C conservative political parties adopt a reactionary stance to the threat of change and promise regressive changes to restore a historical reality that never truly existed but benefits from nostalgia, especially from older voters.
But even the liberal parties of the modern era can have some strong aversion to change in various areas, even when acting so is detrimental to their core ideology. This is the heart of e.g. NIMBY households that also have BLM signs. Or Scholz's extreme reluctance to "escalate" German support for Ukraine, needing to be dragged to every new threshold.
The idea that the US' global status could change is anathema to a clear majority of our country. So anathema that even saying that we should make ourselves stronger so as to prevent that change is met with self-destructive insistence to the contrary.
The decline of other powers is irrelevant to the fact that there is no point in making any long-term agreements with the U.S.
The mafia would never be as nihilistic as Trump and Musk. Thus our predicament is far worse.
Musk’s destruction of USAI and demotion of numerous other agencies and departments is hugely damaging – and, sadly, not easily reversible. Likewise if the Trump regime starts selling off federal lands and properties.
You have a point.
Unfortunately, I have to agree.
I think other countries will enter into long-term agreements with the US, but they won't make any 'concessions' that they weren't planning to do in the first place.
They're foolish if they place any confidence in any agreement with the U.S. American voters and leaders are unreliable.