Nice music choice, Primal Scream are great -- Screamadelica in particular is one of my favorite albums ever.
Anyway, as for what races I'm watching, the Minneapolis mayoral race is a big one. After what happened in NYC and Seattle, we've got another big left vs. center primary -- with centrist incumbent Jacob Frey against progressive challenger and State Sen. Omar Fateh. I'll be watching to see whether the left scores another victory, or if the center manages to hold. (The state party, notably, endorsed Fateh -- but Gov. Walz endorsed Frey. Apparently Fateh fought Frey on a bill regulating rideshare companies, if I'm remembering this correctly.) (Curious about the city council too -- the left did well last time, so we'll see if that repeats.)
I'm also interested in the Dem primary for my own district, NY-17. I thought Beth Davidson was a shoe-in but with so many candidates, I'm not so sure anymore -- especially with Cait Conley also fundraising well. I don't even know who I'm backing yet -- although from a purely ideological standpoint Effie Philips-Staley and Mike Sacks seem to be the leftmost candidates.
The MI-Sen primary has me interested too. I like both McMorrow and Abdul -- I think the former has a better shot of winning than the latter (and I do really like McMorrow), but as I said prior Michigan's large Arab community could really help Abdul, which may help us win the general if he does win the primary. To say nothing of how having the sole Arab senator be a Democrat may help our image with disaffected Arab voters nationwide. I just hope Stevens does not win. Does anyone who lives in Michigan have an idea of who looks likeliest to win this primary?
Some of the left House challengers have me interested too. I've talked about Donavan McKinney already, but I'm also interested in Jarrett Keohokalole's challenge to Ed Case in HI-01 and Mohamed Seifeldein's challenge to Don Beyer in VA-8, among others. This leads me to my question -- of all the primary challengers in the upcoming House races so far, left, generational, or even center, which do posters here think are likeliest to succeed?
Finally, I'm interested in IA-Sen. Ernst's controversy seems to have blown over a bit, but with Iowa's Democratic swing in special elections I still think this could be one to watch, even if the Dems have a small chance. (I really like J.D. Scholten in particular -- he seems to be taking his campaign seriously, and I ideologically agree with him to boot.)
I brought them up as examples of high-profile primary challenges. The VA-8 one was more obscure, but I like what I’ve read of him so I mentioned him.
I also think Dan Goldman is in potential danger, unless they redraw his district to protect him assuming we get redistricting. His current district is significantly to his left, and I’m admittedly still bitter we didn’t get Yuh-Line Niou.
Eh, I’m not a huge Niou fan, though that’s limited to her and her left-NIMBY schtick specifically. The district could do better though Goldman hasn’t been as bad as he could have been
I hope Goldman is in danger, but though that idea has been advanced a bunch of times on this site, I don't know of any evidence that he is, and while he's certainly to my right, it can't be said that he's a wimp in regard to Trump!
I don't think Frey has governed badly, he's a pro development YIMBY. Yeah he's a bit too corporate friendly but he's done good. I don't believe in ousting good incumbents.
But I really want to see Goldman, Thanedar and Ed Case taken down.
Why are you so angry at Goldman, who is one of the stronger fighters against Trump in Congress? I'd be likely to vote for someone else again in the primary, but I daresay he's a good incumbent.
Does Jeffries have that little self awareness to know that this is a running joke at this point? I sure am glad that we wrote another strongly worded letter that amounts to nothing.
Honestly that was the dumbest shit . .a well off drunk white guy being belligerent against someone who had no choice in being there. Exactly the type of activity that is the most counter-productive.
You do, in fact, have a choice whether to join the CBP, and any member of the CBP has the choice to resign rather than participate in this farce. They do not deserve the sympathetic frame you're giving them.
Yes it's a farce but the expectation that the 65,000 members of CBP are going to resign and join the unemployment lines is a joke. Individuals who participate in human rights abuses/unlawful harassment should not be given any quarter, but the CBP (or was he another LEA?) guy is literally just standing on the street. It's the same ass-backwards stance of spitting at returning Vietnam vets in the 60s. That stance does nothing but alienates people.
My idiosyncratic rightwing brother’s best friend (poor white Mormon) in high school in early 1980’s Arizona, joined the Border Patrol in the Nogales Sector after a hitch or two in the Army. He quit after a few years, thoroughly disgusted and has been an immigration activist for decades now.
None of what I've seen so far as minority leader gives me any confidence in his abilities as Speaker. Maybe you're seeing something different but I'm interested to know what.
The minority leader plays a big part in party messaging and strategy, deciding how hardball to play on must pass legislation, and generally organizing the caucus. This is not a figurehead position that is otherwise irrelevant.
From what I've seen Jeffries has been decent on playing hardball. He hasn't had any opportunities to show he will really stick through to the end, but he also hasn't been the one to fold and take our hand away for zero benefit. (that's all Schumer). I'm willing to give him a wait and see on that front.
On managing the caucus he has likewise done decent. Not great, but OK enough. He gets the most centrist members to be mostly in line when it matters, which is important. He's also gone off on bluntly absurd and stupid tangents of being a decorum scold towards the party.
On messaging he gets a big fat F.
There's a lot of room for people to be disappointed with Jeffries, even if he isn't the same pathetic disappointment as Schumer.
I would like to second what Janus Lanitos wrote. While Hakeem Jeffries (like many other Democrats!) really needs to work on his messaging, I do think he’s done a fairly decent job on other fronts.
In short: Behind the scenes, he’s pretty good. In public he’s just terrible. Hopefully he grows into the latter part of his job as he gets more comfortable in the position, because he’s not losing the minority leader position anytime soon.
Do you all think dems are taking the warning signs from 2024 seriously enough? I saw an argument the other day that the dems are not putting in the investment and effort into states they saw big declines in support in, especially New Jersey. Do dems need to solidify their own base of support before they invest into reach states like Texas, Iowa etc? I get that they have to because of senate math, but a state like New Jersey becoming a swing state would be worse than losing in Texas again imo.
I think many of the swings we saw in 2024, including in New Jersey, were temporary and there's already a lot of buyers' remorse in competitive states. The gubernatorial race there may give us some clues; if Sherrill wins solidly then last year will probably look like an aberration. She should win, but shouldn't and hopefully isn't taking it for granted.
Meanwhile, the current state of this fall's other governor's race is probably summed up by the fact that this week Spanberger got the Virginia Police Benevolent Association endorsement.
I think what we need to figure out is just why the Democratic Brand is so toxic everywhere. Buyers' remorse or not. People just don't like the options that Democratic Leaders are offering.
In addition to what rightfully falls squarely on our shoulders, many Democratic ailments can be ascribed to social media and the current corporate structure of the news media. Republicans have been investing heavily in both, while Democrats are way behind. This has created a consequential and dangerous asymmetry.
While it obviously is extraordinarily difficult, Democrats need to find ways to seriously compete with the Trump & MAGA megaphones, right-wing media and the legacy media’s spineless bothsiderism. The failure to do so was particularly acute during the Biden Presidency. While Trump was campaigning continuously by shit-talking Biden and America, Team Biden and Democrats just weren’t serious and effective about loud messaging and touting their considerable accomplishments. (And those accomplishments were even more considerable if we take into account the hyperpartisan era and closely-split House and Senate!)
In 2024 America and the world paid the price for this unforgivable neglect.
Biden and other Dems did at least attempt to message, though not effectively enough. It was sometimes hard to break through the social media chaos, especially trying to reach those "progressives" who would rather whine than vote or try to win elections, but even a more effective outreach by Harris was too little or at least too late. Many of us do seem to have recognized those mistakes and are trying to do a more concerted social media outreach, even to not entirely friendly outlets.
Relying on the MSM was and is a big mistake nowadays. Biden tried to rely on them to relay his accomplishments, but that doesn't work when much of the MSM at best both-sides most things, or would rather air a millionth story about people complaining about grocery prices. (At least that particular shoe is now on the other foot.)
There's a legitimate question of tactics over whether pressuring an administration that's receptive to your aims is more effective verses cheerleading what they've accomplished. For instance, the Inflation Reduction Act had a number of subsidies and incentives for green energy. But if you're of the belief that more radical action is urgently needed, are you better off still trumpeting it as a good step or saying "this isn't nearly enough" and risking the catastrophy of Trump's environmental policies?
Of course what really killed progressive enthusiasm for electoral politics was the Gaza War, at least that was the case in my social circle. (We've discussed already how well the evidence does or does not support this being generally true.)
One point if I may: Far more of the allocations and benefits of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act and other legislation should have been front-loaded, for two obvious reasons:
1) The advantages would have been more visible to voters.
2) It would have been more difficult to Trump to reverse funds.
Weren't civil rights heroes like Dr. King good at taking any progress while continuing to keep their eyes on the prize? There is no contradiction between having ideals and continuing to fight for them while accepting half-measures as steps in the right direction, and any "progressives" who can't see that are in an important sense maximalist extremists, rather than people who actually support progress, and are definitely part of the problem. All we have to do is look back at the political emails we got during the Biden Administration (excluding the issue we're not supposed to discuss here, if you prefer) to see the difference between normal politics and the mostly feeble and purely fundraising attempts to stave off existential doom now. And for the most part, the same contrast was operative during the Obama Administration as opposed to the G.W. Bush Administration.
This post right here is why so many mainstream Democrats are so mad at Progressives- nothing the party ever do is good enough for Progressives and they constantly undermine our party messages all over social media and if Progressives aren't constantly catered to, they will lose enthusiasm and not vote and if you tell them no on one of their demands, they have no problem sabotaging our nominee no matter who gets hurt, because their ideological purity is what's really important. If you can see all the people being hurt all over the world because of Trump's election but you feel justified with not voting or with making a protest vote, you are a special kind of selfish. However, social media and the site we used to be on is full of those types. (This is not an attack on the prior poster, but is an explanation on why so many non-progressive Democrats are so upset with the left right now.)
I feel that the left / progressives falls into two camps, broadly speaking. There are those who generally fight for the Democrats and are invested in the party's success, but get frustrated when their policy goals are overlooked or whittled down in the face of political realities. And there are those who don't have any investment in the Democratic Party and if anything prefer to be out of power because more people show up at their rallies.
The second group isn't worth spending much time on, but the first group often makes up much of the boots on the ground that Democrats depend on and maintaining a good relationship with them is important. It can be frustrating and difficult at times, but still important.
I think this is a pretty good description on why Progressives are upset with the party, and often with other Progressives. It is frustrating that in these closely divided times, we are operating at a disadvantage when Republicans always fall in line but our voters often refuse to do so.
I'd put it differently. There are pragmatic progressives and there are impractical maximalists. Being mad at all progressives because of the useless dreamers among us is not at all reasonable and makes those of us who are realists angry.
I think this is entirely something we just have to wait and see on.
I think it’s possible that 2024 was an aberration one off election result that won’t happen again. I think it’s also equally possible that Democrats are not understanding how much minority working class voters have aligned with Republicans, that 2024 results are a blaring red warning signal of a realignment under way that’s going to get worse from here that we’re ignoring to our own peril, based on a false assumption about 2024 + wrongly thinking people have buyers remorse.
If you don’t think either are a possibility, then I honestly don’t think you’re being realistic. The polls say voters are not liking what they’ve gotten from their votes, but other than special elections (which turnout Democrats like the US federal reserve prints money when Trump is president), we haven’t really had any elections since 2024 to see if anything has changed.
NJ 2025 is the election I’m most interested in seeing the end result for from Governor on down the ballot. That’ll tell us a lot more about which scenario is more likely.
I'm less worried about losing because of GOP spending than because of dopey Dems voting no because "good government", "we have to be better than them". or some other such goo-goo bullshit that sounds good in theory but is out of touch with present political reality.
If it makes you feel better, other than Alex Lee progressives are pretty firmly on board with redistricting — Assemb. Isaac Bryan was at Newsom’s launch, for one, and left Bluesky is so angry at Lee for opposing this that they’re openly calling for Lee to be primaried. (Nick Tagliaferro, who writes the left-wing Primary School newsletter, even said he didn’t care if a pro-corporate Dem replaced Lee, as long as they were in favor of redistricting.)
"The Alberta Electoral Boundaries Commission (ABEBC) is currently reviewing the provincial electoral districts, as it is required to do every two general election cycles.
Currently, southwestern Alberta is served by MLAs who represent Lethbridge-West, Lethbridge-East, Cardston-Siksika, Livingstone-Macleod, and Taber-Warner. The two Lethbridge ridings are entirely urban, while the other four cover the surrounding rural communities.
The new proposal aims to create rural-urban hybrid ridings that split Lethbridge into four districts, and each would include a large rural area."
For conext, Lethbridge-West is one of only two districts not won by the United Conservative Party outside of the Calgary and Edmonton metro areas.
Valadao district as drawn here gets 4 points bluer. Issa is in an even district going by PVI. Kiley, Calvert, LaMalfa also are not winning their new districts.
I mentioned this in the Discord, but I tested a theory: If you add SLO and Cal Poly SLO to CD-22, move Valadao's base of Hanford and a few other conservative precincts to CD-20, and then move CD-24 into Kern County...CD-22 becomes a Harris +6.3 district, while CD-24 remains Harris +18.9. And CD-22 is still over 64% Hispanic VAP. https://davesredistricting.org/join/57d9b061-ad75-4aec-bd78-1021d2cb21d2
I don't have Twitter or a BlueSky account that I'm comfortable using, so I welcome anyone to tweet this map out and let it be a part of the discourse. Tag Newsom or the alleged mapmaker Paul Mitchell, even!
Rollins ran two super hard races, if he wants one of the new seats I think it's fine for him to have one of them. We need to become a party that rewards people who take on difficult races given the dynamics of the median House and Senate seats.
Because of wild crossover swings that most Rs struggle to pull off. But there's been no polling on Tejanos specifically since then sadly, just of the broader Hispanic community.
Yeah I think we actually hold these seats in the midterms probably, just saying that Abbott et al are pushing the seats a lot more than we are. Valadao might be able to win a Harris +10 seat but I wouldn't bet on it.
People keep pointing out Lofgren could have mopped up some Central Valley rural turf and I don't deny that, but it would have made the Central Valley more irate and made the districts uglier. They could have done more for Tran with ease apparently.
In 2001, their last time having full control of redistricting before the commission, they focused on locking in their gains in the late 90s rather than allowing more opportunities for growth. Lois Capps had a ribbon along the coast for example.
Paul Mitchell drew these maps, I trust that he did his job properly and in a legally defensible way. If we don’t end up with +5 seats though, he’s going to be persona non grata to every California Democrat. Time will tell, for now I’ll trust the process and that we’ll win all 5.
Assuming he does pick us up 5 seats and Texas does draw us out of 5 seats, we’re drawing equal. Also an off chance Dems still have 2 of the Texas seats after 2026 elections with our RGV incumbents Gonzalez and Cuellar, who could still win (though I’m far more upbeat about Cuellar’s chances than Gonzalez).
So that makes Ohio’s up to 3 seats and Indiana/Missouri 1 seat each. Losing 5 seats still would suck, but better than losing 10. This is why we fight fire with fire. We make it less challenging for our party to win power, that’s all that matters, period.
There’s rumblings about Florida, but I don’t know if they’d be able to do that, much more legally risky and probably a dummymander potential depending on what seats they try to draw. Especially so if Hispanic/Latino voters shift left from 2024.
Yeah, lots of moving parts, but we’re in a far better position than we once were not too long ago even in the worst case scenario.
This is PA-08, Matt Cartwright's old district. It's R+4. Definitely flippable under the right circumstances, I would think. I'm not seeing any Democratic candidates on BallotPedia. Time for someone to step up and run! No possibility of Cartwright changing his mind? He's not that old, only 64 running for a 2-year term.
The Democratic mayor of Scranton, Paige Cognetti, is expected to challenge Mr. Bresnahan, according to a person familiar with her plans. Democrats are enthusiastic about her potential candidacy and expect Mr. Bresnahan’s stock trading to be a core part of the case they continue to make against him.
Issa once was my rep until he quit and Mike Levin took over that seat. Issa later moved to a new/red district. He is #1 on my list to be whupped again.
we shouldn't ignore it but we lost it by 10 in a D+4 year with a popular governor against the same opponent we'd be facing in 2026. Hard to make a case it's on the board. Tester is probably the only person who could put it remotely in play and even then he'd probably lose by 8 or so.
The only elections we’re sure to lose are those in which we cannot be bothered to run a candidate. To be self-defeating is the worst defeat of all. If our turnout is massively higher than their turnout, the odds of a surprising victory rise dramatically!
No worries, but yeah as michaelflutist said I wasn't saying we shouldn't run a candidate. Just that Sherrod Brown and the Texas Senate candidate are far more important to our Senate math than Tester or Bullock are.
Definitely one of the best articles I’ve ever read when it was posted in Friday’s digest earlier. Well worth your time to read in its entirety and really sums up exactly what’s happening now and has been happening for a decade with our party leaders asleep at the wheel.
Redistricting and maybe Epstein is the only time I’ve ever seen them wake up politically to the reality of doing what needs to be done to beat Trump’s GOP. I truly do hope it lights a fire under the asses if and galvanizes our elected officials from left to right to become solely focused on doing whatever it takes to beat Republicans. WHATEVER. IT. TAKES!
Late weekend question do you have any friends, colleagues, family that hold false equivalency as a sacred virtue “both parties are the same” and if you do what have you found works for engagement with them if anything? Some of this is left purity, some of it is my job/life sucks no matter what, some of it is a mix of the two. Thanks.
I have family that does the left purity false equivalency.
I have never found an argument of any kind that gets through to them, no matter what arguments or logic I try. What has always worked is the results of a republican being elected president. Which is to say, after it's too late. The results of 2016 was recent enough last year to still result in them voting dem, I don't know if there is any permanency to it but I hope there is.
My roommate was raised in a very conservative Christian environment. He's still Christian which has caused him to drift left ideologically on most things like immigration and the welfare state, but because of the cognitive dissonance around some things (abortion and LGBT rights mostly) he has basically adopted a worldview that averages the views between the people he's talking to.
Sorry if this comment comes out a bit scattered or underinformed. With respect to the Republican gerrymanders in general and the Texas one in particular, how much of it is them planning based on "the last war", like how the French were caught unprepared by Germany in 1940? What I mean by that is, the districts they are drawing are presumably based on the 2024 margins, yes? It seems like the GOP leadership is planning based on a best-case scenario. How resilient are they compared to 2020 when Trump only won by 5.5 points and a number of suburban counties around Houston and Dallas trended blue? How sure are they that the Latino swing to Trump is going to hold, given all the evidence to the contrary? Is there data about voter registration or interstate migration that has gone into this? I know that the term "dummymander" gets used around here, is that what we are talking about?
I think that’s true… to an extent. I think three if not four districts might be a dummymander they’ve been forced into. The Dallas-area one they can probably be pretty confident in
I was struck by the number of 51-49 districts there were in 2020 for Trump (It was around 8), and I know this is obviously a second round of redistricting since then. Perhaps I'm a cockeyed optimist, but I just wonder how many times they can slice the onion before they cry.
Nice music choice, Primal Scream are great -- Screamadelica in particular is one of my favorite albums ever.
Anyway, as for what races I'm watching, the Minneapolis mayoral race is a big one. After what happened in NYC and Seattle, we've got another big left vs. center primary -- with centrist incumbent Jacob Frey against progressive challenger and State Sen. Omar Fateh. I'll be watching to see whether the left scores another victory, or if the center manages to hold. (The state party, notably, endorsed Fateh -- but Gov. Walz endorsed Frey. Apparently Fateh fought Frey on a bill regulating rideshare companies, if I'm remembering this correctly.) (Curious about the city council too -- the left did well last time, so we'll see if that repeats.)
I'm also interested in the Dem primary for my own district, NY-17. I thought Beth Davidson was a shoe-in but with so many candidates, I'm not so sure anymore -- especially with Cait Conley also fundraising well. I don't even know who I'm backing yet -- although from a purely ideological standpoint Effie Philips-Staley and Mike Sacks seem to be the leftmost candidates.
The MI-Sen primary has me interested too. I like both McMorrow and Abdul -- I think the former has a better shot of winning than the latter (and I do really like McMorrow), but as I said prior Michigan's large Arab community could really help Abdul, which may help us win the general if he does win the primary. To say nothing of how having the sole Arab senator be a Democrat may help our image with disaffected Arab voters nationwide. I just hope Stevens does not win. Does anyone who lives in Michigan have an idea of who looks likeliest to win this primary?
Some of the left House challengers have me interested too. I've talked about Donavan McKinney already, but I'm also interested in Jarrett Keohokalole's challenge to Ed Case in HI-01 and Mohamed Seifeldein's challenge to Don Beyer in VA-8, among others. This leads me to my question -- of all the primary challengers in the upcoming House races so far, left, generational, or even center, which do posters here think are likeliest to succeed?
Finally, I'm interested in IA-Sen. Ernst's controversy seems to have blown over a bit, but with Iowa's Democratic swing in special elections I still think this could be one to watch, even if the Dems have a small chance. (I really like J.D. Scholten in particular -- he seems to be taking his campaign seriously, and I ideologically agree with him to boot.)
"Apparently Fateh fought Frey on a bill regulating rideshare companies, if I'm remembering this correctly."
That sounds like a good reason to support Fateh.
Can't tell from this if Fateh wants rideshare companies to be regulated or not.
He does want regulation. Walz opposed it. Was pretty controversial at the time from what I remember.
McKinney and Keohokalole are both very low hanging fruit for a dramatic upgrade in both their seats
I brought them up as examples of high-profile primary challenges. The VA-8 one was more obscure, but I like what I’ve read of him so I mentioned him.
I also think Dan Goldman is in potential danger, unless they redraw his district to protect him assuming we get redistricting. His current district is significantly to his left, and I’m admittedly still bitter we didn’t get Yuh-Line Niou.
Eh, I’m not a huge Niou fan, though that’s limited to her and her left-NIMBY schtick specifically. The district could do better though Goldman hasn’t been as bad as he could have been
Admittedly a lot of my support for Niou was because she would be the first openly autistic Rep. ever. I am autistic so that’s a big deal for me.
Was not aware of her being a NIMBY - sad, though she’s at least good on other policies.
I hate to break it to you, but Tom Massie from Kentucky is Autistic.
Do you have proof of that statement?
If true, that’s just depressing.
Yup. Here is a list of politicians who are known to be autistic or on the spectrum.
https://www.crossrivertherapy.com/autism/autistic-politicians
That makes a lot of sense now for what he says, does and how he votes, never knew that about him.
Do you know what Niou is up to these days? Just curious.
I hope Goldman is in danger, but though that idea has been advanced a bunch of times on this site, I don't know of any evidence that he is, and while he's certainly to my right, it can't be said that he's a wimp in regard to Trump!
I don't think Frey has governed badly, he's a pro development YIMBY. Yeah he's a bit too corporate friendly but he's done good. I don't believe in ousting good incumbents.
But I really want to see Goldman, Thanedar and Ed Case taken down.
Why are you so angry at Goldman, who is one of the stronger fighters against Trump in Congress? I'd be likely to vote for someone else again in the primary, but I daresay he's a good incumbent.
Does Jeffries have that little self awareness to know that this is a running joke at this point? I sure am glad that we wrote another strongly worded letter that amounts to nothing.
https://bsky.app/profile/kenklippenstein.bsky.social/post/3lwhvmecaoc2j
The ideal, realistic response is basically to let law enforcement waste their time and bake in the summer sun on the National Mall.
Or throw sandwiches at them.
No, just give them nothing but boredom.
Nah. Throw tacos!
(Speaking of which, WTF is up with the MAGA dildo-throwing onto women’s sporting arenas??)
Honestly that was the dumbest shit . .a well off drunk white guy being belligerent against someone who had no choice in being there. Exactly the type of activity that is the most counter-productive.
"someone who had no choice in being there"
You do, in fact, have a choice whether to join the CBP, and any member of the CBP has the choice to resign rather than participate in this farce. They do not deserve the sympathetic frame you're giving them.
Yes it's a farce but the expectation that the 65,000 members of CBP are going to resign and join the unemployment lines is a joke. Individuals who participate in human rights abuses/unlawful harassment should not be given any quarter, but the CBP (or was he another LEA?) guy is literally just standing on the street. It's the same ass-backwards stance of spitting at returning Vietnam vets in the 60s. That stance does nothing but alienates people.
My idiosyncratic rightwing brother’s best friend (poor white Mormon) in high school in early 1980’s Arizona, joined the Border Patrol in the Nogales Sector after a hitch or two in the Army. He quit after a few years, thoroughly disgusted and has been an immigration activist for decades now.
It’s hard for me to understand how he became leader. He’s weak, ineffectual and unimpressive.
Precisely because he's weak, ineffectual, and unimpressive.
The minority leader doesn't have the power to restore normal law enforcement in D.C. before the 30 day period is up.
He hasn't been Speaker yet.
None of what I've seen so far as minority leader gives me any confidence in his abilities as Speaker. Maybe you're seeing something different but I'm interested to know what.
The minority leader has no powers save for speaking for the minority and nominating members to committees so of course you're not impressed.
The minority leader plays a big part in party messaging and strategy, deciding how hardball to play on must pass legislation, and generally organizing the caucus. This is not a figurehead position that is otherwise irrelevant.
From what I've seen Jeffries has been decent on playing hardball. He hasn't had any opportunities to show he will really stick through to the end, but he also hasn't been the one to fold and take our hand away for zero benefit. (that's all Schumer). I'm willing to give him a wait and see on that front.
On managing the caucus he has likewise done decent. Not great, but OK enough. He gets the most centrist members to be mostly in line when it matters, which is important. He's also gone off on bluntly absurd and stupid tangents of being a decorum scold towards the party.
On messaging he gets a big fat F.
There's a lot of room for people to be disappointed with Jeffries, even if he isn't the same pathetic disappointment as Schumer.
I would like to second what Janus Lanitos wrote. While Hakeem Jeffries (like many other Democrats!) really needs to work on his messaging, I do think he’s done a fairly decent job on other fronts.
In short: Behind the scenes, he’s pretty good. In public he’s just terrible. Hopefully he grows into the latter part of his job as he gets more comfortable in the position, because he’s not losing the minority leader position anytime soon.
Having some speech full of yelling and anger would also amount to nothing. Dems keep getting mad at Dems because the GOP won a trifecta in November.
That said, no I dont think Jefferies has been the best Minority Leader.
He's legitimizing baseless attacks against his party's own mayoral nominee.
Exactly. A party leader should have no problems endorsing the party's nominee for Mayor of the city he represents.
Do you all think dems are taking the warning signs from 2024 seriously enough? I saw an argument the other day that the dems are not putting in the investment and effort into states they saw big declines in support in, especially New Jersey. Do dems need to solidify their own base of support before they invest into reach states like Texas, Iowa etc? I get that they have to because of senate math, but a state like New Jersey becoming a swing state would be worse than losing in Texas again imo.
I think many of the swings we saw in 2024, including in New Jersey, were temporary and there's already a lot of buyers' remorse in competitive states. The gubernatorial race there may give us some clues; if Sherrill wins solidly then last year will probably look like an aberration. She should win, but shouldn't and hopefully isn't taking it for granted.
Meanwhile, the current state of this fall's other governor's race is probably summed up by the fact that this week Spanberger got the Virginia Police Benevolent Association endorsement.
I think what we need to figure out is just why the Democratic Brand is so toxic everywhere. Buyers' remorse or not. People just don't like the options that Democratic Leaders are offering.
Democratic brand=toxic
Individual Democratic candidates running locally-focused campaigns & standing up to Trump=winners
In addition to what rightfully falls squarely on our shoulders, many Democratic ailments can be ascribed to social media and the current corporate structure of the news media. Republicans have been investing heavily in both, while Democrats are way behind. This has created a consequential and dangerous asymmetry.
While it obviously is extraordinarily difficult, Democrats need to find ways to seriously compete with the Trump & MAGA megaphones, right-wing media and the legacy media’s spineless bothsiderism. The failure to do so was particularly acute during the Biden Presidency. While Trump was campaigning continuously by shit-talking Biden and America, Team Biden and Democrats just weren’t serious and effective about loud messaging and touting their considerable accomplishments. (And those accomplishments were even more considerable if we take into account the hyperpartisan era and closely-split House and Senate!)
In 2024 America and the world paid the price for this unforgivable neglect.
Biden and other Dems did at least attempt to message, though not effectively enough. It was sometimes hard to break through the social media chaos, especially trying to reach those "progressives" who would rather whine than vote or try to win elections, but even a more effective outreach by Harris was too little or at least too late. Many of us do seem to have recognized those mistakes and are trying to do a more concerted social media outreach, even to not entirely friendly outlets.
Relying on the MSM was and is a big mistake nowadays. Biden tried to rely on them to relay his accomplishments, but that doesn't work when much of the MSM at best both-sides most things, or would rather air a millionth story about people complaining about grocery prices. (At least that particular shoe is now on the other foot.)
Re progressives "whining"
There's a legitimate question of tactics over whether pressuring an administration that's receptive to your aims is more effective verses cheerleading what they've accomplished. For instance, the Inflation Reduction Act had a number of subsidies and incentives for green energy. But if you're of the belief that more radical action is urgently needed, are you better off still trumpeting it as a good step or saying "this isn't nearly enough" and risking the catastrophy of Trump's environmental policies?
Of course what really killed progressive enthusiasm for electoral politics was the Gaza War, at least that was the case in my social circle. (We've discussed already how well the evidence does or does not support this being generally true.)
One point if I may: Far more of the allocations and benefits of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act and other legislation should have been front-loaded, for two obvious reasons:
1) The advantages would have been more visible to voters.
2) It would have been more difficult to Trump to reverse funds.
Weren't civil rights heroes like Dr. King good at taking any progress while continuing to keep their eyes on the prize? There is no contradiction between having ideals and continuing to fight for them while accepting half-measures as steps in the right direction, and any "progressives" who can't see that are in an important sense maximalist extremists, rather than people who actually support progress, and are definitely part of the problem. All we have to do is look back at the political emails we got during the Biden Administration (excluding the issue we're not supposed to discuss here, if you prefer) to see the difference between normal politics and the mostly feeble and purely fundraising attempts to stave off existential doom now. And for the most part, the same contrast was operative during the Obama Administration as opposed to the G.W. Bush Administration.
This post right here is why so many mainstream Democrats are so mad at Progressives- nothing the party ever do is good enough for Progressives and they constantly undermine our party messages all over social media and if Progressives aren't constantly catered to, they will lose enthusiasm and not vote and if you tell them no on one of their demands, they have no problem sabotaging our nominee no matter who gets hurt, because their ideological purity is what's really important. If you can see all the people being hurt all over the world because of Trump's election but you feel justified with not voting or with making a protest vote, you are a special kind of selfish. However, social media and the site we used to be on is full of those types. (This is not an attack on the prior poster, but is an explanation on why so many non-progressive Democrats are so upset with the left right now.)
I feel that the left / progressives falls into two camps, broadly speaking. There are those who generally fight for the Democrats and are invested in the party's success, but get frustrated when their policy goals are overlooked or whittled down in the face of political realities. And there are those who don't have any investment in the Democratic Party and if anything prefer to be out of power because more people show up at their rallies.
The second group isn't worth spending much time on, but the first group often makes up much of the boots on the ground that Democrats depend on and maintaining a good relationship with them is important. It can be frustrating and difficult at times, but still important.
I think this is a pretty good description on why Progressives are upset with the party, and often with other Progressives. It is frustrating that in these closely divided times, we are operating at a disadvantage when Republicans always fall in line but our voters often refuse to do so.
I'd put it differently. There are pragmatic progressives and there are impractical maximalists. Being mad at all progressives because of the useless dreamers among us is not at all reasonable and makes those of us who are realists angry.
I feel seen, certainly
I think this is entirely something we just have to wait and see on.
I think it’s possible that 2024 was an aberration one off election result that won’t happen again. I think it’s also equally possible that Democrats are not understanding how much minority working class voters have aligned with Republicans, that 2024 results are a blaring red warning signal of a realignment under way that’s going to get worse from here that we’re ignoring to our own peril, based on a false assumption about 2024 + wrongly thinking people have buyers remorse.
If you don’t think either are a possibility, then I honestly don’t think you’re being realistic. The polls say voters are not liking what they’ve gotten from their votes, but other than special elections (which turnout Democrats like the US federal reserve prints money when Trump is president), we haven’t really had any elections since 2024 to see if anything has changed.
NJ 2025 is the election I’m most interested in seeing the end result for from Governor on down the ballot. That’ll tell us a lot more about which scenario is more likely.
re California's The Election Rigging Response Act.
I'm already dreading the massive amount of negative advertising we'll be subjected to for the next 81 days (thru Nov. 4th.)
I presumed GOP/Trump would spend quite heavily: maybe $100M? $150M? More?
However, I sure didn't presume Kevin McCarthy would rise from the dead to be raising $100M for the opposition. Maybe this is how he gets back in Trump's good graces. https://politicalwire.com/2025/08/15/kevin-mccarthy-re-emerges-to-fight-california-redistricting/
In fact, probably any Repub wanting to get in his good graces list will be contributing one way or another.
I sure hope our side is lining up some real deep-pockets to counter this.
I'm less worried about losing because of GOP spending than because of dopey Dems voting no because "good government", "we have to be better than them". or some other such goo-goo bullshit that sounds good in theory but is out of touch with present political reality.
If it makes you feel better, other than Alex Lee progressives are pretty firmly on board with redistricting — Assemb. Isaac Bryan was at Newsom’s launch, for one, and left Bluesky is so angry at Lee for opposing this that they’re openly calling for Lee to be primaried. (Nick Tagliaferro, who writes the left-wing Primary School newsletter, even said he didn’t care if a pro-corporate Dem replaced Lee, as long as they were in favor of redistricting.)
Spot on, Mike! We can never win by bringing comity to a knife fight!
the more we just make this a bare partisan fight the more we're likely to win. We're operating with a pretty large margin for error in CA.
Sigh, now our Conservatives are trying to mimic Texas, at least at the provincial level: https://lethbridgenewsnow.com/2025/08/14/proposal-to-redraw-southwestern-alberta-into-four-rural-urban-provincial-ridings/
"The Alberta Electoral Boundaries Commission (ABEBC) is currently reviewing the provincial electoral districts, as it is required to do every two general election cycles.
Currently, southwestern Alberta is served by MLAs who represent Lethbridge-West, Lethbridge-East, Cardston-Siksika, Livingstone-Macleod, and Taber-Warner. The two Lethbridge ridings are entirely urban, while the other four cover the surrounding rural communities.
The new proposal aims to create rural-urban hybrid ridings that split Lethbridge into four districts, and each would include a large rural area."
For conext, Lethbridge-West is one of only two districts not won by the United Conservative Party outside of the Calgary and Edmonton metro areas.
The draft map for California: https://aelc.assembly.ca.gov/proposed-congressional-map
Valadao district as drawn here gets 4 points bluer. Issa is in an even district going by PVI. Kiley, Calvert, LaMalfa also are not winning their new districts.
I mentioned this in the Discord, but I tested a theory: If you add SLO and Cal Poly SLO to CD-22, move Valadao's base of Hanford and a few other conservative precincts to CD-20, and then move CD-24 into Kern County...CD-22 becomes a Harris +6.3 district, while CD-24 remains Harris +18.9. And CD-22 is still over 64% Hispanic VAP. https://davesredistricting.org/join/57d9b061-ad75-4aec-bd78-1021d2cb21d2
I don't have Twitter or a BlueSky account that I'm comfortable using, so I welcome anyone to tweet this map out and let it be a part of the discourse. Tag Newsom or the alleged mapmaker Paul Mitchell, even!
Maybe you can use the Public Comment portal: https://aelc.assembly.ca.gov/redistricting-public-comment
Calvert's likely to lose his House seat next year anyway so I am not surprised.
What I'd do to see Darrell Issa to finally lose re-election.
Paiging Will Rollins
Rollins would probably say no as he’s already lost two House races in a row to Calvert.
Then again. Issa nearly got unseated by Doug Applegate back in 2016 so anything can happen.
Rollins ran two super hard races, if he wants one of the new seats I think it's fine for him to have one of them. We need to become a party that rewards people who take on difficult races given the dynamics of the median House and Senate seats.
I am in support of Rollins making another run. He should get another shot.
I believe Rollins has already said no.
They can go way harder than this, Valadao will probably still win in this map.
Hard to say that in a midterm.
Maybe can, but not will. He is going to have a tougher time in 2026, especially with Hispanic voters swinging back toward Dems.
No way to know whether he probably will, but they should go really hard because Valadao is a tough survivor.
Yea what are they doing here, Texas is not producing any 50/50 districts
TX-28 and, to a lesser extent, 34 are still in range.
Yeah but they're Trump + 10, not +4.
Because of wild crossover swings that most Rs struggle to pull off. But there's been no polling on Tejanos specifically since then sadly, just of the broader Hispanic community.
Yeah I think we actually hold these seats in the midterms probably, just saying that Abbott et al are pushing the seats a lot more than we are. Valadao might be able to win a Harris +10 seat but I wouldn't bet on it.
Here's a thread with some data comparing this to the current map: https://lightbrd.com/Zprtr1/status/1956729880395300966#m
People keep pointing out Lofgren could have mopped up some Central Valley rural turf and I don't deny that, but it would have made the Central Valley more irate and made the districts uglier. They could have done more for Tran with ease apparently.
I'm sure behind the scenes there's a lot of bitching about their districts changing. They might only win by 20 instead of 30....the horror!
In 2001, their last time having full control of redistricting before the commission, they focused on locking in their gains in the late 90s rather than allowing more opportunities for growth. Lois Capps had a ribbon along the coast for example.
Paul Mitchell drew these maps, I trust that he did his job properly and in a legally defensible way. If we don’t end up with +5 seats though, he’s going to be persona non grata to every California Democrat. Time will tell, for now I’ll trust the process and that we’ll win all 5.
Assuming he does pick us up 5 seats and Texas does draw us out of 5 seats, we’re drawing equal. Also an off chance Dems still have 2 of the Texas seats after 2026 elections with our RGV incumbents Gonzalez and Cuellar, who could still win (though I’m far more upbeat about Cuellar’s chances than Gonzalez).
So that makes Ohio’s up to 3 seats and Indiana/Missouri 1 seat each. Losing 5 seats still would suck, but better than losing 10. This is why we fight fire with fire. We make it less challenging for our party to win power, that’s all that matters, period.
There’s rumblings about Florida, but I don’t know if they’d be able to do that, much more legally risky and probably a dummymander potential depending on what seats they try to draw. Especially so if Hispanic/Latino voters shift left from 2024.
Yeah, lots of moving parts, but we’re in a far better position than we once were not too long ago even in the worst case scenario.
PA 8: More Bresnahan stock trades.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/16/us/politics/bresnahan-congress-stock-trading.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ek8.z4mF.aKM3K8TSaDp_&smid=url-share
This is PA-08, Matt Cartwright's old district. It's R+4. Definitely flippable under the right circumstances, I would think. I'm not seeing any Democratic candidates on BallotPedia. Time for someone to step up and run! No possibility of Cartwright changing his mind? He's not that old, only 64 running for a 2-year term.
I heard they were waiting to see if Scranton mayor Paige Cognetti runs.
From the article:
The Democratic mayor of Scranton, Paige Cognetti, is expected to challenge Mr. Bresnahan, according to a person familiar with her plans. Democrats are enthusiastic about her potential candidacy and expect Mr. Bresnahan’s stock trading to be a core part of the case they continue to make against him.
Thanks. I guess I didn't read that far in the article; my bad.
The very definition of a driftwood candidate. His career is likely over after 2026.
Well, this seems unlikely to help with Issa's reelection efforts in a Lean Dem district...
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2025/08/16/ethics-complaints-accuse-house-speaker-of-using-campaign-funds-to-pay-issa-rent/?share=nruihrnnoioaswegsrrb
Issa once was my rep until he quit and Mike Levin took over that seat. Issa later moved to a new/red district. He is #1 on my list to be whupped again.
I'm interested in Montana. We should not ignore it just because Tester lost...
we shouldn't ignore it but we lost it by 10 in a D+4 year with a popular governor against the same opponent we'd be facing in 2026. Hard to make a case it's on the board. Tester is probably the only person who could put it remotely in play and even then he'd probably lose by 8 or so.
The only elections we’re sure to lose are those in which we cannot be bothered to run a candidate. To be self-defeating is the worst defeat of all. If our turnout is massively higher than their turnout, the odds of a surprising victory rise dramatically!
https://www.contesteveryrace.com/
(Edit: Apologies if this came across as criticism of your post. I realize you were not taking a negative position.)
Anonymous wasn't arguing that Democrats shouldn't run a candidate.
No worries, but yeah as michaelflutist said I wasn't saying we shouldn't run a candidate. Just that Sherrod Brown and the Texas Senate candidate are far more important to our Senate math than Tester or Bullock are.
NYT: How the Democrats Became the Party That Brings Pencils to a Knife Fight
Will the battle over Texas’ gerrymandering lead to a new era for the party?
https://archive.ph/oo7S0 Thought-provoking and well researched article in the NYT Magazine.
Thanks for the gift link to this!
Definitely one of the best articles I’ve ever read when it was posted in Friday’s digest earlier. Well worth your time to read in its entirety and really sums up exactly what’s happening now and has been happening for a decade with our party leaders asleep at the wheel.
Redistricting and maybe Epstein is the only time I’ve ever seen them wake up politically to the reality of doing what needs to be done to beat Trump’s GOP. I truly do hope it lights a fire under the asses if and galvanizes our elected officials from left to right to become solely focused on doing whatever it takes to beat Republicans. WHATEVER. IT. TAKES!
Does anyone have the same issue with this site that when you hit the back button it sends you a week into the past?
I noticed this for the second time two days ago. Yes, it’s happened.
I'd rather be sent a year back in time. Before Trump was elected!
Late weekend question do you have any friends, colleagues, family that hold false equivalency as a sacred virtue “both parties are the same” and if you do what have you found works for engagement with them if anything? Some of this is left purity, some of it is my job/life sucks no matter what, some of it is a mix of the two. Thanks.
I have family that does the left purity false equivalency.
I have never found an argument of any kind that gets through to them, no matter what arguments or logic I try. What has always worked is the results of a republican being elected president. Which is to say, after it's too late. The results of 2016 was recent enough last year to still result in them voting dem, I don't know if there is any permanency to it but I hope there is.
My roommate was raised in a very conservative Christian environment. He's still Christian which has caused him to drift left ideologically on most things like immigration and the welfare state, but because of the cognitive dissonance around some things (abortion and LGBT rights mostly) he has basically adopted a worldview that averages the views between the people he's talking to.
Sorry if this comment comes out a bit scattered or underinformed. With respect to the Republican gerrymanders in general and the Texas one in particular, how much of it is them planning based on "the last war", like how the French were caught unprepared by Germany in 1940? What I mean by that is, the districts they are drawing are presumably based on the 2024 margins, yes? It seems like the GOP leadership is planning based on a best-case scenario. How resilient are they compared to 2020 when Trump only won by 5.5 points and a number of suburban counties around Houston and Dallas trended blue? How sure are they that the Latino swing to Trump is going to hold, given all the evidence to the contrary? Is there data about voter registration or interstate migration that has gone into this? I know that the term "dummymander" gets used around here, is that what we are talking about?
I think that’s true… to an extent. I think three if not four districts might be a dummymander they’ve been forced into. The Dallas-area one they can probably be pretty confident in
I was struck by the number of 51-49 districts there were in 2020 for Trump (It was around 8), and I know this is obviously a second round of redistricting since then. Perhaps I'm a cockeyed optimist, but I just wonder how many times they can slice the onion before they cry.