I’m interested in Danny Davis’s open seat, IL-7. Mainly from my own ideological perspective — I’m waiting to see if a prominent progressive gives it a shot. (Given the fact that Davis was targeted by progressives in the past, the lack of one is surprising. Though given Brandon Johnson’s unpopularity maybe less so.)
Also interested in any other House seats that may open up. Anyone heard any retirement chatter, or higher-office chatter, other than what we already know?
Finally, I’m also interested in the Senate, in the wake of what is likely to be tariff economic hell. Question - how might such tariffs affect the Senate races? Might the reach seats get closer? Even slightly?
I just wonder what it's going to take to break the fever. Like it's been clear that Republicans are shit on the economy for the last 45 years. Is it going to take a 2nd Great Depression for people to finally GET it?
The reality is that the majority of voters don't really care, they only want post-hoc justifications for their partisan preferences.
The part of the electorate (maybe 10%ish??) that is truly swingy is also the portion of the electorate that tends to be the least informed and is most reliant on "vibes." Gas prices are low? Must be a great president! Gas prices are high? Must be the worst president ever! Now apply that line of thinking across the stack and that's how much of those voters assess issues.
It's not even that they are atypically unintelligent — realistically a lot of voters even that aren't swingy think like this too, they're just unwilling to change their vote based on the conclusion. It's that they are uninterested or unwilling to go deeper into political issues.
It would be interesting to see if any of the progressive alders runs there, although the field seems to be solidifying fast. Boykin is the closest to a progressive in the race so far. I don't know too many progressives who are still claiming Johnson.
A bad economy, or even negative vibes (things cost too much, not enough jobs) will probably shift most races at least a bit bluer, especially if they can be blamed on things like tariffs that can clearly be pinned on Trump or the GOP writ large.
But that won't necessarily be enough to really put Dems into contention in "reach" seats. In some of them it may...
That's kind of how I grocery shop: use several different stores and buy according to what's on sale or best priced where. Sometimes that leads me to buy stuff that is good but I wouldn't have considered buying full or regular price--like the family size (for one person's consumption) box of Frosted Lemon Cheerios I got at Target yesterday for $2.64.
Similarly, when going out I scope out the best food and happy hour specials. It's gotten so that the bartenders often know what I'm going to get before I order.
I find Trader Joe's to be really cheap, at least in my area. Good quality stuff too. Although they're in hot water for being anti-union so make of that what you will.
The U.S. Supreme Court escalated the high-stakes redistricting battle in Louisiana by ordering new legal briefings on whether intentionally creating a second majority-Black congressional district — to comply with the Voting Rights Act — might violate the U.S. Constitution.
The Court’s order Friday directs both sides to submit supplemental briefs on “whether the State’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”
The order suggests that the court’s conservative majority could be readying to make a sweeping ruling that creating districts in which minority voters can elect their representatives of choice under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional.
Good question. Kavanaugh’s concurrence in that case left the door open that at some point in the future such districts might be declared unconstitutional. But hard for me to believe that he meant two years.
Oh, he absolutely did. Milligan didn't have the question of if Section 2 of the VRA violates the Equal Protection Clause, it was presented as "did they properly comply with the Section 2 of the VRA?" He was begging someone to present the actual question to strike it down.
Maybe SC 01 Mace and SC Timmons seat. SC 07 was close in 2012, but hasn't really been since. Would be nice to boot Russell Fry though. John Vincent is running there, but with zero electoral history.
I'm concerned with CO-8 and AZ-1 for the opposite reason: two many candidates.
In CO-8, former Rep. Yadira Caraveo (who won in 2022 and lost in 2024) is seriously flawed and IMO would make a weak candidate in this toss-up race. But so many Dems are running that she could win the primary with less than 30% of the vote.
AZ-1 has multiple competitive candidates. In 2024, Shah won the nomination with 23.5%. No criticism of him, but the primary is in early August and it's tough to take a campaign that was fought until the last minute, with no money left and an exhausted candidate and workers and go win a tough race in 90 days. They really need a runoff or RCV.
I'm not advocating for a king-maker. But an earlier primary in Arizona and RCV everywhere would sure help. In the meantime, I hope some people drop out long before voting starts.
Agree on CO8. Caraveo at this point is much worse than a replacement level Dem and probably the only candidate who could lose that seat this cycle. Hopefully either she will drop out or all but one of the others will drop out, but both of those scenarios seem pretty unlikely, and where would the pressure actually come from?
I just moved into WI-1 - I know “Iron Stache” is running again. But not sure he’s that formidable. Plenty of Dems in the legislature from Rock County (Beloit and Janesville). Maybe one of them steps up? I don’t know much about the Kenosha side of the district. But it was heartening to see Steil getting ripped apart by constituents in Walworth County which is (I’m pretty sure) one of the more red parts of the district (save for Whitewater due to the UW campus).
It's good that Democrats in various Dem-controlled states are considering how to push back against Texas's re-gerrymandering their congressional districts by drawing new districts of their own that are better for Democrats. New York and Maryland should definitely do it now, and (as someone said in Friday's Digest) states with independent redistricting commissions (such as California, Washington, Colorado, and New Jersey) should repeal those commissions so they can draw Texas-style Democratic gerrymanders of their own.
But Democrats also should look beyond 2026. It is entirely possible that Democrats could win or regain trifectas in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan in 2026, and if they do, they should be prepared to redraw those states as well to compensate for Texas this year. Dems could gain two more seats in each of those states. And of course, in the likely event that Dems win a trifecta in Virginia this fall, they should do the same there. Someone here recently mentioned that Virginia's commission is merely statutory, so a Dem trifecta could repeal it and then draw an 8D-3R Democratic gerrymander in Virginia. (And while they're at it, they should redraw their legislative districts as well, since those are effectively a Republican gerrymander right now.)
The moral of the story is that Democrats can't afford to overlook any states that are Democratic-controlled or could be in the near future. They might have only one cycle's opportunity in some states to draw more favorable lines, and they can't afford to waste it. Every state's congressional delegation is vital in the fight to regain and then keep control of the House, to put a leash on Donald Trump.
Dems could potentially use Republican's own tactics against them in California this year. I'm still frustrated that Missouri voted to overturn its nonpartisan redistricting process in 2020, but Dems should learn from their deceitful behavior. They structured the wording of the ballot measure to say it will "Ban gifts from paid lobbyists to legislators and their employees" and "Reduce legislative campaign contribution limits" before mentioning redistricting. California Dems should do something similar.
I doubt that kind of dishonesty would make a positive difference, and it might hurt because Democratic voters are savvier and don't like having their intelligence insulted.
I'm probably taking it too seriously when people on sites like DailyKos curse Democrats as well as Republicans for gerrymandering, but there is a certain "good government" type that condemns gerrymandering, no matter what. And many of them are on the left and otherwise Democratic-leaning.
I'm hesitant to even put this out in the universe, but say Canada becomes the 51st to 56th states (BC, Alberta, Saskatoba, Ontario, Quebec, Atlantica). Assuming there were no massive population outflows before a census and apportionment could happen, and the 435 seat maximum remained in effect, does any know how many seats each new state would get, and almost more importantly, which current US states would be most affected by having seats taking away?
I am torn between giving serious answers and humourous ones and not wanting to offend anyone. I don't know how accurate it is, but there is a trope that Canadian Conservatives are to the left of American Democrats. Given the ideological shifts of recent years, I think that might be false, at least among urban Democrats,, but I don't know that I'd want to import all those Republicans in those states. Can we do a population exchange?
Yes, that is true, but my concern is where American voters would map on our party system. Republicans would likely go Conservative, or even to one of the fringe right parties like the People's Party. Would Democratic votes splinter: the DSA types going to the NDP, establishment Democrats to the Liberals, centrist ones to the Conservatives? It's a legitimate concern.
Oh, and we get Hawaii, or no deal. There was a proposal years ago for a Caribbean nation, I think it was Saint Lucia, to join Canada, maybe we can ask Puerto Rico if they want to come along (we're already bilingual, what's one more language).
Canadian tories are typically a generation or two less conservative than American republicans from my observation. Easily to the right of democrats, even if democrats in net are not as leftward as many of us would like. But how many people here would (or do) feel similarly unimpressed with Canada's Liberals?
There are a lot of democrats across the states highlighted. I'm confident this event would move Canada to the left, even if not necessarily towards the NDP level of left.
As an example, looking at just New England: people might note that NH can be republican friendly at times, and Maine isn't as reliable as we like to say it is. But those are the 2nd and 3rd smallest states in the region. There are 15m people in New England... and 7m of them live in Massachusetts. That is to say, ~47% of New England resides in a single state, and that state is one of the bluest in the US. NH could be 100% republican voters and the totality of New England would still be overwhelmingly democratic.
It's an interesting thought experiment, I would love to get 1000 Democrats in a room, give them the main points from the party platforms of the CPC, LPC and NDP from the last election (without telling them which is which, sort of a blind taste test) and see how the votes would shake out.
It would be an interesting experiment. That said I think you'd be disappointed to find that the results poorly map to voting patterns. Americans, at least, care a lot more about partisan affiliations than we are willing to admit.
So long as they were convinced the Liberals were the closest mapping for democratic voters, you'd say >80%, probably >90%, of democratic voters becoming Liberal voters. I think 90-95% would be my guess. That's even if they might have found in a blind test that a different party was a better match for them. I expect there would be more ending up with NDP than with tories.
It's easy to underestimate the leftward tilt of democrats compared to other left or center-left parties in the west. I've ranted about this a few times in the past but I think this largely results from a mistaken attempt to assess ideology. Ideology isn't about a singular policy goal. It's about a direction. I like to think of this in mathematical terms, because I'm an engineer. People mistakenly think of ideology as being represented by coordinates on a Cartesian plane. I'd represent ideology as a vector, where the direction and magnitude are far more critical than the coordinates. That's not the say the coordinates are irrelevant, but that the difference required between them must be far greater (like the difference between Russia and Germany) to start to impact things here.
America's left had far more muted wins in the aftermath of WW2 than the left in Canada, the UK, France, Germany, etc. had. This means that the field of what is politically possible is substantially different between states.
As an example... In the US, implementing a single payer universal healthcare system is a monumental, dramatic change. To accomplish this would require substantial policy changes and would be a huge undertaking. I wish that weren't true, I wish we had it, I wish it was easy, I want it to happen, but I understand it is a lot of work to make it happen. In Canada, implementing such a system requires literally nothing to happen, because that system already exists. That is to say, in Canada the political ideology represented by maintaining the current system is small-c conservatism: the desire to avoid structural change. Or put another way: the act of trying to implement universal healthcare represents a strongly leftward ideology while the act of trying to maintain a universal healthcare system does not.
All excellent points. To add to that, I think everyone likes voting for a winner, and the Liberals aren't called Canada's Natural Governing Party for nothing. During elections, the CBC runs something called the Vote Compass on their site, and when I take it, the NDP, Greens and Liberals are all clustered fairly closely around my positions on the various subjects. So the ultimate arbiter of my vote becomes "which party is most likely to win my district and form a government" and....
At one time an argument could have been made that the Progressive Conservatives were to the Democrats’ left. Such as when they were lead by Robert Stanfield in the 60s and 70s. Not anymore. The dropping of Progressive was more than symbolic
Add Illinois, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. (And Hawaii, which often counts as West Coast.) And DC; let the red-majority remnant of the "United" States choose a new capital. Maybe Palm Beach, FL, so Mar-a-Lago can be in name what it already is in fact.
When Congress has added States in the past the total number of seats temporarily grew until the next census. Assuming they use this scheme again, they could use the 762,000 person per seat average from the 2020 US Census and the results from the 2021 Canada Census to come up with the following:
BC: 7
Alberta: 6
Saskatoba: 3
Ontario: 19
Quebec: 11
Atlantica: 3
How it would play out in the scenario you actually describe would require rerunning the formula. Iirc there's some code on The Green Papers for doing that, if you care to give it a go.
Every new state except for Alberta would be at least a swing state at worst, and BC, Ontario, and Atlantica would be strongly Democratic. Quebec's politics within the U.S. would be difficult to predict because of the separatist politics there.
It does look like the populist CAQ, which is governed since 2018 is likely to get booted in the next election, barring a major turnaround in the polls. Whether PQ or the QLP will win is a little unclear. The Quebec Liberals are more economically conservative, while the Parti Québécois is more culturally conservative. The only actually Left Wing party, Québec solidaire, isn't really competitive outside of the Eastern portions of Montreal.
Continuing the conversation from today’s digest. If any elected Democrat objects or screws up a California redraw: There’s the door and voters will shove you out of it. No more using a fire extinguisher to douse the GOP’s constant flames of torching democracy, this time we use fire to make sure they get burned too instead of always being just us.
Harris +10 districts for every Democrat without any Republicans elected, should be something every elected official gets behind or else they’re going to lose their jobs. Shuffle districts if you must as incumbents, but this is a no brainer to support a potential map that looks like this.
Some local Pro-Israel media outlets are warning that Ro Khanna may face a primary due to his recent stances (...) as well as due to a high concentration of Israeli Americans in the Bay Area; How is his position in the district generally? And who may be the potential recruits? I think Big Crypto and Big Semiconductor will back him along with most Progressives and Scott Wiener.
Ironically, there was talk a while back that Khanna may get primaried from the left, because apparently a lot of the left do not like him -- he's quite close to some conservatives and tech people, for one. Assemb. Alex Lee was the original pick for them, but right now Lee is in hot water for opposing the CA redistricting and is facing primary calls himself.
Not sure of potential recruits from the other side (I typically associate staunchly pro-Israel democratic recruits with centrist politics), but it wouldn't surprise me either. SF and the Bay Area in general have gotten really conservative in recent years, so I wouldn't be shocked if someone does run from that side.
Khanna is only to the right of Sanders, AOC, DSA and Warren on the progressive side. He is to the left of most progressives. He doesn't accept corporate PAC money, trade stocks and literally co-chaired Sanders 2020 and still stans him. The main difference is that he is a big believer in technology and believes that taxing unrealized gains is bad economic policy.
There's nothing wrong with a younger progressive primarying an older 76yr old one. A Senator Auchincloss wouldn't looming large if that happened with Markey.
What they often were prior. This isn’t to say there haven’t always been relative centrists in SF (see Newsom as mayor, London Breed) but right now a big chunk of the city council are centrists, the current mayor got elected on a fairly centrist platform from what I’ve heard, the DA got recalled due to being deemed insufficiently tough on crime, 3 school board members got recalled for similarly anti-progressive reasons, etc.
Not educated enough about SF politics to know, but maybe George Moscone? SF has a reputation for being liberal in general. Maybe that reputation wasn't deserved?
I'm basing my knowledge off multiple recent progressive losses in SF for the record.
Local politics do not always map well to national politics.
You can see this at the state level, where NH is far more competitive for elections to state office than to federal office, even if both are competitive. You can see this in many cities too. Just look at NYC, which has elected a republican/republican-turned-independent as mayor in five of the past eight elections.
Local politics can often be less progressive than the same area's federal preferences. Which in many ways makes sense: a city cannot realistically implement universal healthcare, or massively expand renewable energy, or regulate financial institutions more strongly, or... Much of the default progressive agenda is off the table for cities.
Art Agnos was the last progressive Mayor of San Francisco. Served during the 1989 World Series. He's gotten fair criticism of his policies when being Mayor but compared to how SF has been since then, far saner and more critical of the status quo.
Also, progressives during the 2000's had more power in the Board of Supervisors when Gavin Newsom was Mayor and pro-development (he was after soon after Willie Brown became Mayor appointed to replace District 2 Supervisor Kevin Shelley who became State Assembly member at the time) hailing from the ritziest and most wealthy part of SF.
No one was more notorious of a nemesis to Newsom when he was Mayor than District 6 Supervisor Chris Daly. The rift between him and Newsom escalated so much that Daly had even started pissing off the Board of Supervisors with his profanity and anger. He even suggested that Newsom was under the influence of cocaine, which didn't win him any respect.
Daly now resides in Fairfield and far removed from SF politics these days.
Hearsay, admittedly. Hence why I said I'm not super knowledgeable about SF politics.
Incidentally, the recent victories of Jackie Fielder and Chyanne Chen seem to be pointing to something of a progressive upswing, although again I could be wrong.
"Conservative" in the Bay Area is probably a relative term, with the right wing (such as it is) being Democrats who are clearly liberal by national standards.
And if clowns like Chesa Boudin and the SF school board members who were recalled are the local definition of "progressive", then a (relative) shift to the right by dumping them is not a bad thing IMO.
I remember they were talking about primarying Pramila Jayapal too at one point. Nothing seems to have come from that, and as mentioned Khanna has substantial business support (he literally entered Congress by primarying progressive Mike Honda with business support back in 2016) so it's not always a death sentence.
AIPAC can lose too sometimes. They went big on Joanna Weiss in 2024 for Katie Porter's old seat in CA-47, and Dave Min won the primary anyway. They also failed to unseat Omar and Summer Lee, and DMFI (the Democratic-only version of AIPAC partially credited with killing Nina Turner's congressional bid) failed to stop Jasmine Crockett from being elected (Jane Hope Hamilton was their candidate), so it isn't always a given that AIPAC wins. To say nothing of cases where candidates favored by AIPAC go against that group's wishes -- Maxine Dexter, Yassamin Ansari, hell I heard they're pissed at Sarah Elfreth apparently for not being on their side enough. AIPAC aren't all-powerful.
AIPAC might come out against Sarah Elfreth, but they almost certainly won't defeat her. Same for Chris Van Hollen.
Also in MD, three years ago some progressives whined that AIPAC effectively "bought" Glenn Ivey a congressional seat against Donna Edwards. Their spending probably mattered much less than the fact that Ivey was a well regarded local official, while Edwards may be a hero to many progressives nationally but locally is probably more known for her crappy constituent service, especially for someone representing a district literally as close to DC as is possible.
Pretty hard not to see AIPAC becoming the new “pro-life”, “NRA” for Democrats when 2/3rds of the party voters support the unmentionable issue over the unmentionable country. This is the inevitable outcome once Nehtanyahu decided to put his entire country solely behind one party instead of being diplomatic and staying out of politics amongst your allies.
It was only a matter of time after how he treated Obama. Now the humanitarian crisis straw broke the camel’s back permanently and irreparably. As in they’re fast becoming persona non grata for the vast majority of voters in our party.
In the California Governor’s race, financial disclosures were filed this past week for the 1/1/2025-6/30/2025 time period. As some candidates did little fundraising or spending as they waited for Harris to decide, I view these numbers as almost a starting point.
(listed in order of COH)
Name / Amount Raised / Amount Spent / COH
Eleni Kounalakis / 0 / $18,834 / $4,646,503
Toni Atkins / $647,654 / $514,117 / $4,251,660
Antonio Villaraigosa / $1,113,236 / $544,268 / $3,347,423
It appears based on fundraising most competitive candidates are as follows:
Antonio Villaraigosa
Betty Yee
Katie Porter
Toni Atkins
Eleni Kounalakis I am not making judgement just yet because she’s got substantially a lot of COH. These COH and fundraising figures come before Harris decided to not run for Governor.
Tony Thurmond seems to be the most likely candidate to drop out at some point. With these fundraising numbers and crowded number of candidates, I don’t see him really making much noise to change the trajectory for him. Xavier Becerra can possibly be competitive but again, this is still a crowded field.
In the end, it may be a 3-4 person race if we get close to the primary but it depends on how the dynamics unfold.
I would keep Kounalakis in the top tier. She's well-connected and has lots of family money. After Harris's announcement, word came out that Harris had given Kounalakis a heads-up and right after the announcement, Pelosi basically endorsed Kounalakis. Lots of contacts; lots of money.
I agree re Thurmond and also do not see much of a chance for Yee. Time will tell I guess.
I'll be interested in seeing how Becerra campaigns. He's a long-term serving member of congress, the former AG (who delighted in fighting Trump in court), and was Biden's secretary of health and human services. Will that impress voters?
Porter interests me. She has strong grassroots support it seems, and she’s nationally known too — taking on corporate people with the whiteboard, for one. I wonder if she has a fighting chance, particularly in an anti-Dem leadership environment.
Porter could be able to ride the anti-establishment sentiment to success.
However, her lack of experience at the state level is going to be asked to her at the debates either by the moderators or fellow candidates. All the other main candidates have state government experience.
She has much better name recognition than the others, she's been on national television during her committee work sparring with the GOP members, and she's not shy. Most of the others are very mellow and boring.
Sure but that isn’t alone going to sell her at the debates.
Porter is going to need to sell herself well, not just because she has a national presence. This is a gubernatorial race, not a House or Senate race.
I agree on most of the other candidates although Toni Atkins is probably the most interesting and real out of them all, especially considering she’s the first lesbian State Pro Tem in CA history (if memory serves correct). Having Porter run against one of the most high profile Democrats in the state legislature will be an interesting sight.
I have a hunch that the first woman will be elected Governor next year.
Yeah, I might as well put Kounalakis in the top tier as well.
I was just being neutral about her based on the financials reported but with Harris out of the gubernatorial race, things may start to change for Kounalakis.
Yeah, that would make sense. Thurmond’s got decent electoral history but seems to have a profile that’s more suited in being a legislator than in the governor’s mansion.
This field is kind of all over the place and no clue who is best tbh. The lower polling tier seems to be Atkins, Becerra, Thurmond and Yee. I maybe would have preferred Becerra bc of the very foward-thinking equity work at HHS and his statewide exp as state AG, but seems his management of HHS may have sometimes been a bit of a mess. Idk enough about Atkins, Thurmond or Yee beyond their job titles.
The higher polling tier seems to be Kounalakis, Porter and Villaraigosa. Villaraigosa is a mess from a bygone era of the party imo. And as much as Porter is clearly the best on policy, she's really not great to her staff and I just think it's always bad to have an executive like that. I know nothing of Kounalakis either, but my assumption is that she's like a normie, corporate Dem. Sigh. If only Rob Bonta could run, but he seems to want to wait the eight years before trying.
While I am sure there is truth to it, I rarely give much credence to complaints of women in congress being tough with their staff. I have only ever heard that critique directed at women, never at men. I am sure there is truth to it, but I think there is a lot of gender bias at play in how this gets evaluated and covered.
In this case I am a fan of Porter, so one might reasonably dismiss my comment as biased in this case. But I felt the same when it was said of Klobuchar who I think is fine but I do not favor her.
This is exactly my position as well. You never see complaints about men being too hard or abusive to their staff even though many almost certainly are (and I’d bet a lot that most in office have done far worse than what Porter is accused of) without a peep from the staff members on the receiving end. The expectation of a woman leader is kinder, gentler, more easy going, so when staff expect that and get basically how men treat them, people get upset about it.
We all remember the salad fork of Klobuchar that became a big thing right? Two different standards and expectations when it comes to men and women elected officials. That said, it very well could be real abuse that is unacceptable, but if all I have to go on is he/she said she said, I lean towards whatever complaint against a woman being overblown because most probably are compared to what men do.
I agree about more men should be scrutinized, but Porter's allegations are not fluff. And every single former Klobuchar staffer I've talked to--personal office, committee, leadership--has said she's a bad boss lol
I never said they were, just that most men in office have done far worse for far longer and no one ever comes out saying their male boss was abusive. Whether you think she’s a bad boss or not is entirely subjective. Abuse isn’t. Maybe that seems like splitting hairs, but I really think we should differentiate between the two.
It doesn’t make Klobuchar abusive just because everyone you’ve talked with says she’s a bad boss lol. Lots of non abusive people are terrible bosses and while I’m not sure I agree with what they’ve said working for Klobuchar is like, the Senator obviously knows the job like the back of her hand. Maybe she just has extremely high standards not many are able to meet.
In any case we’re getting far from discussing some of Porter’s staff allegations of abuse. We’ll never know the truth about the situation (and there’s also been many people in history that make stuff up because they got fired or hated their boss enough to try to bring them down), so it’s all up to subjective opinion for each individual. For me, that’s my view on it.
Some of us here have complained frequently of male congressmen being terrible to their staff (one in particular running for US Senate in IL, for example).
I think it's a bit premature to start looking at polling just yet as Harris leaving the race will likely shift things in the polls to reflect where the candidates' campaigns are going.
If Atkins was able to fundraise this substantially even amid lower polling numbers, that doesn't mean she doesn't register well. Providing she continues these numbers, it's possible she'll likely go higher. Harris leaving the race will shift things, but it may take several months for this to reflect.
Atkins introduction video is something to watch. Think about it - Atkins if elected Governor would be the first woman and LGBTQ governor in CA history. She would be a great alternative to Porter.
Beyond being a lesbian, it always seemed like Atkins had a mixed progressive record. But would welcome an article or someone's commentary with more details on championed causes/demerits/overall record and positions of all these candidates.
Gladly. Toni Atkins introduced single payer healthcare legislation back in 2018. Hardly a mixed record on being progressive if this means transforming CA State’s healthcare system. Atkins did this amid push in the GOP to repeal the Affordable Care Act during Trump’s 1st term as POTUS.
Btw, on a side note, when Gavin Newsom was Mayor of San Francisco, he pushed the first city-based universal healthcare system, Healthy San Francisco. Not perfect but a start.
I am not going to argue that Atkins is say a “perfect progressive,” but from what I have seen, her record is better than the other candidates in the race besides Porter.
The US Senate confirmed 50-45 in a party-line vote Trump toady and election denier Jeanine “Box O’Wine” Pirro to the US Attorney for DC role on a permanent basis. Prior to becoming US Attorney, Pirro served as a host on Fox “News.”
Former Rep. Al Lawson is considering a gubernatorial bid as a Dem. He is not happy apparently that David Jolly is an ex-Republican, hence his bid apparently.
I wonder if different states could agree to a detente, like New Jersey tells Missouri "We won't redistrict if you do the same." It's probably too late for that at this point, especially since republicans will do whatever trump says.
I think the best we could hope for as a “truce” is democratic states putting trigger conditions on their commissions. Eg if Texas implements a commission, then California uses theirs; if not, they gerrymander.
Even that is a tall order because most of our commissions are not a simple statute that can be repealed or modified on a whim.
Is there any legal argument that non-court ordered mid-decade redistricting is unconstitutional? I get that the Supreme Court thinks gerrymandering is fine and dandy, but I wonder if they'd be willing to put the kibosh on all this nonsense.
The supreme Court rejected the argument that states can redistrict only once per census in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006).
I don't have much faith in their equivocations. They'll do what the national party tells them to in the end because that's more important to them than the integrity of the communities in their state.
I hope they know what they're doing and are in synch. There is less reason for what TX is doing now than in Delaymandering (where there was a justification that the state had gone red up and down ballot and the court map Rs were aiming to replace catered to the precarious red district Dems) and Dems fled then too, but a few came back and restored quorum rather than tough it out.
And don’t chicken out like in 2003. The DNC and any Dem redistricting PACs should pay for lodging and food for these legislators until the clock runs out. It’s THAT important.
Per the Texas Tribune, some Dems went to NY and Boston as well. From the story:
"Texas House rules adopted by Republicans in 2023 impose a threat of arrest and a $500-per-day fine on each lawmaker who absconds from the state. House rules also prohibit lawmakers from using their campaign funds to pay the fines, making the decampment a potentially expensive move. But Democrats have been raising money in recent weeks in anticipation of the quorum break, and those involved in the fundraising say they have found a way to circumvent the campaign restrictions.
Among those fundraising to support Democrats is Powered by People, a political group launched by former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke in 2019. The group raised over $600,000 in 2021, the last time Democrats deprived the House of a quorum, to help cover the costs associated with staying out of state, and an O'Rourke spokesperson confirmed the group is again supporting this year's effort."
I hope this doesn't lull Newsom into stopping Cali redistricting. Dems should go full steam ahead in Cali to show the GOP Dems are serious about fighting back.
“I don't know if the Republican Party is leaving me, or if I'm kind of not relating to the Republican Party as much anymore,” Greene said. “I don't know which one it is.”
The Georgia congresswoman said she felt as if the party had given up on issues that she resonates with, such as stopping foreign aid, using the Department of Government Efficiency to make cuts across the federal government, and driving down inflation.
If anything, anything I mentioned in the primary process as far as questions about Porter's experience can only make her stronger.
It's also only fair to Democrats that Porter be given the chance because the GOP had Arnold Schwarzenegger back in 2003 winning the gubernatorial recall election with no prior experienced in elected office.
I don't usually bother with these kinds of clarifications, but in this case I must–my like is a partial one, applying to everything in your post except "good for her."
I’m interested in Danny Davis’s open seat, IL-7. Mainly from my own ideological perspective — I’m waiting to see if a prominent progressive gives it a shot. (Given the fact that Davis was targeted by progressives in the past, the lack of one is surprising. Though given Brandon Johnson’s unpopularity maybe less so.)
Also interested in any other House seats that may open up. Anyone heard any retirement chatter, or higher-office chatter, other than what we already know?
Finally, I’m also interested in the Senate, in the wake of what is likely to be tariff economic hell. Question - how might such tariffs affect the Senate races? Might the reach seats get closer? Even slightly?
I just wonder what it's going to take to break the fever. Like it's been clear that Republicans are shit on the economy for the last 45 years. Is it going to take a 2nd Great Depression for people to finally GET it?
The reality is that the majority of voters don't really care, they only want post-hoc justifications for their partisan preferences.
The part of the electorate (maybe 10%ish??) that is truly swingy is also the portion of the electorate that tends to be the least informed and is most reliant on "vibes." Gas prices are low? Must be a great president! Gas prices are high? Must be the worst president ever! Now apply that line of thinking across the stack and that's how much of those voters assess issues.
It's not even that they are atypically unintelligent — realistically a lot of voters even that aren't swingy think like this too, they're just unwilling to change their vote based on the conclusion. It's that they are uninterested or unwilling to go deeper into political issues.
Probably not even a 2nd Great Depression would do it unfortunately.
We had some cracks in 2008 where people seemed to get it when the crash happened two month prior to the election.
We almost certainly would have been better off had that crash happened about 2 years earlier.
It would be interesting to see if any of the progressive alders runs there, although the field seems to be solidifying fast. Boykin is the closest to a progressive in the race so far. I don't know too many progressives who are still claiming Johnson.
A bad economy, or even negative vibes (things cost too much, not enough jobs) will probably shift most races at least a bit bluer, especially if they can be blamed on things like tariffs that can clearly be pinned on Trump or the GOP writ large.
But that won't necessarily be enough to really put Dems into contention in "reach" seats. In some of them it may...
That's kind of how I grocery shop: use several different stores and buy according to what's on sale or best priced where. Sometimes that leads me to buy stuff that is good but I wouldn't have considered buying full or regular price--like the family size (for one person's consumption) box of Frosted Lemon Cheerios I got at Target yesterday for $2.64.
Similarly, when going out I scope out the best food and happy hour specials. It's gotten so that the bartenders often know what I'm going to get before I order.
I find Trader Joe's to be really cheap, at least in my area. Good quality stuff too. Although they're in hot water for being anti-union so make of that what you will.
Yeah, I boycott them and Whole Foods for that reason.
The U.S. Supreme Court escalated the high-stakes redistricting battle in Louisiana by ordering new legal briefings on whether intentionally creating a second majority-Black congressional district — to comply with the Voting Rights Act — might violate the U.S. Constitution.
The Court’s order Friday directs both sides to submit supplemental briefs on “whether the State’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”
The order suggests that the court’s conservative majority could be readying to make a sweeping ruling that creating districts in which minority voters can elect their representatives of choice under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional.
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/scotus-could-be-set-to-end-key-protection-for-minority-voters/
What was the point of Milligan three years ago then?
Good question. Kavanaugh’s concurrence in that case left the door open that at some point in the future such districts might be declared unconstitutional. But hard for me to believe that he meant two years.
Oh, he absolutely did. Milligan didn't have the question of if Section 2 of the VRA violates the Equal Protection Clause, it was presented as "did they properly comply with the Section 2 of the VRA?" He was begging someone to present the actual question to strike it down.
The point is not to expect consistency or intellectual integrity from these corrupt politicians in robes.
I'm interested in where people think we have recruiting holes in House races.
For instance, WI-01 against Rep. Bryan Steil where he had a rough town hall a couple nights ago.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2025/07/31/wisconsin-republican-bryan-steil-greeted-with-boos-at-town-hall/85409438007/
Where else?
Maybe SC 01 Mace and SC Timmons seat. SC 07 was close in 2012, but hasn't really been since. Would be nice to boot Russell Fry though. John Vincent is running there, but with zero electoral history.
I'm concerned with CO-8 and AZ-1 for the opposite reason: two many candidates.
In CO-8, former Rep. Yadira Caraveo (who won in 2022 and lost in 2024) is seriously flawed and IMO would make a weak candidate in this toss-up race. But so many Dems are running that she could win the primary with less than 30% of the vote.
AZ-1 has multiple competitive candidates. In 2024, Shah won the nomination with 23.5%. No criticism of him, but the primary is in early August and it's tough to take a campaign that was fought until the last minute, with no money left and an exhausted candidate and workers and go win a tough race in 90 days. They really need a runoff or RCV.
I'm not advocating for a king-maker. But an earlier primary in Arizona and RCV everywhere would sure help. In the meantime, I hope some people drop out long before voting starts.
Agree on CO8. Caraveo at this point is much worse than a replacement level Dem and probably the only candidate who could lose that seat this cycle. Hopefully either she will drop out or all but one of the others will drop out, but both of those scenarios seem pretty unlikely, and where would the pressure actually come from?
I think ME-02 could also flip.
I just moved into WI-1 - I know “Iron Stache” is running again. But not sure he’s that formidable. Plenty of Dems in the legislature from Rock County (Beloit and Janesville). Maybe one of them steps up? I don’t know much about the Kenosha side of the district. But it was heartening to see Steil getting ripped apart by constituents in Walworth County which is (I’m pretty sure) one of the more red parts of the district (save for Whitewater due to the UW campus).
It's good that Democrats in various Dem-controlled states are considering how to push back against Texas's re-gerrymandering their congressional districts by drawing new districts of their own that are better for Democrats. New York and Maryland should definitely do it now, and (as someone said in Friday's Digest) states with independent redistricting commissions (such as California, Washington, Colorado, and New Jersey) should repeal those commissions so they can draw Texas-style Democratic gerrymanders of their own.
But Democrats also should look beyond 2026. It is entirely possible that Democrats could win or regain trifectas in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan in 2026, and if they do, they should be prepared to redraw those states as well to compensate for Texas this year. Dems could gain two more seats in each of those states. And of course, in the likely event that Dems win a trifecta in Virginia this fall, they should do the same there. Someone here recently mentioned that Virginia's commission is merely statutory, so a Dem trifecta could repeal it and then draw an 8D-3R Democratic gerrymander in Virginia. (And while they're at it, they should redraw their legislative districts as well, since those are effectively a Republican gerrymander right now.)
The moral of the story is that Democrats can't afford to overlook any states that are Democratic-controlled or could be in the near future. They might have only one cycle's opportunity in some states to draw more favorable lines, and they can't afford to waste it. Every state's congressional delegation is vital in the fight to regain and then keep control of the House, to put a leash on Donald Trump.
Dems could potentially use Republican's own tactics against them in California this year. I'm still frustrated that Missouri voted to overturn its nonpartisan redistricting process in 2020, but Dems should learn from their deceitful behavior. They structured the wording of the ballot measure to say it will "Ban gifts from paid lobbyists to legislators and their employees" and "Reduce legislative campaign contribution limits" before mentioning redistricting. California Dems should do something similar.
I doubt that kind of dishonesty would make a positive difference, and it might hurt because Democratic voters are savvier and don't like having their intelligence insulted.
But some Democrats will be skeptical of "unfair" redistricting and could be lost from attempts to manipulate like this.
I'm probably taking it too seriously when people on sites like DailyKos curse Democrats as well as Republicans for gerrymandering, but there is a certain "good government" type that condemns gerrymandering, no matter what. And many of them are on the left and otherwise Democratic-leaning.
I'm hesitant to even put this out in the universe, but say Canada becomes the 51st to 56th states (BC, Alberta, Saskatoba, Ontario, Quebec, Atlantica). Assuming there were no massive population outflows before a census and apportionment could happen, and the 435 seat maximum remained in effect, does any know how many seats each new state would get, and almost more importantly, which current US states would be most affected by having seats taking away?
What about if the states on the West Coast, New Jersey, New York and New England and Minnesota became provinces of Canada?
I am torn between giving serious answers and humourous ones and not wanting to offend anyone. I don't know how accurate it is, but there is a trope that Canadian Conservatives are to the left of American Democrats. Given the ideological shifts of recent years, I think that might be false, at least among urban Democrats,, but I don't know that I'd want to import all those Republicans in those states. Can we do a population exchange?
All those states are majority-Democratic.
Yes, that is true, but my concern is where American voters would map on our party system. Republicans would likely go Conservative, or even to one of the fringe right parties like the People's Party. Would Democratic votes splinter: the DSA types going to the NDP, establishment Democrats to the Liberals, centrist ones to the Conservatives? It's a legitimate concern.
I get your point.
Oh, and we get Hawaii, or no deal. There was a proposal years ago for a Caribbean nation, I think it was Saint Lucia, to join Canada, maybe we can ask Puerto Rico if they want to come along (we're already bilingual, what's one more language).
Canadian tories are typically a generation or two less conservative than American republicans from my observation. Easily to the right of democrats, even if democrats in net are not as leftward as many of us would like. But how many people here would (or do) feel similarly unimpressed with Canada's Liberals?
There are a lot of democrats across the states highlighted. I'm confident this event would move Canada to the left, even if not necessarily towards the NDP level of left.
As an example, looking at just New England: people might note that NH can be republican friendly at times, and Maine isn't as reliable as we like to say it is. But those are the 2nd and 3rd smallest states in the region. There are 15m people in New England... and 7m of them live in Massachusetts. That is to say, ~47% of New England resides in a single state, and that state is one of the bluest in the US. NH could be 100% republican voters and the totality of New England would still be overwhelmingly democratic.
It's an interesting thought experiment, I would love to get 1000 Democrats in a room, give them the main points from the party platforms of the CPC, LPC and NDP from the last election (without telling them which is which, sort of a blind taste test) and see how the votes would shake out.
It would be an interesting experiment. That said I think you'd be disappointed to find that the results poorly map to voting patterns. Americans, at least, care a lot more about partisan affiliations than we are willing to admit.
So long as they were convinced the Liberals were the closest mapping for democratic voters, you'd say >80%, probably >90%, of democratic voters becoming Liberal voters. I think 90-95% would be my guess. That's even if they might have found in a blind test that a different party was a better match for them. I expect there would be more ending up with NDP than with tories.
It's easy to underestimate the leftward tilt of democrats compared to other left or center-left parties in the west. I've ranted about this a few times in the past but I think this largely results from a mistaken attempt to assess ideology. Ideology isn't about a singular policy goal. It's about a direction. I like to think of this in mathematical terms, because I'm an engineer. People mistakenly think of ideology as being represented by coordinates on a Cartesian plane. I'd represent ideology as a vector, where the direction and magnitude are far more critical than the coordinates. That's not the say the coordinates are irrelevant, but that the difference required between them must be far greater (like the difference between Russia and Germany) to start to impact things here.
America's left had far more muted wins in the aftermath of WW2 than the left in Canada, the UK, France, Germany, etc. had. This means that the field of what is politically possible is substantially different between states.
As an example... In the US, implementing a single payer universal healthcare system is a monumental, dramatic change. To accomplish this would require substantial policy changes and would be a huge undertaking. I wish that weren't true, I wish we had it, I wish it was easy, I want it to happen, but I understand it is a lot of work to make it happen. In Canada, implementing such a system requires literally nothing to happen, because that system already exists. That is to say, in Canada the political ideology represented by maintaining the current system is small-c conservatism: the desire to avoid structural change. Or put another way: the act of trying to implement universal healthcare represents a strongly leftward ideology while the act of trying to maintain a universal healthcare system does not.
All excellent points. To add to that, I think everyone likes voting for a winner, and the Liberals aren't called Canada's Natural Governing Party for nothing. During elections, the CBC runs something called the Vote Compass on their site, and when I take it, the NDP, Greens and Liberals are all clustered fairly closely around my positions on the various subjects. So the ultimate arbiter of my vote becomes "which party is most likely to win my district and form a government" and....
Canada’s Tories are 100% to the right or Dems and arguably were even in the Harper years
At one time an argument could have been made that the Progressive Conservatives were to the Democrats’ left. Such as when they were lead by Robert Stanfield in the 60s and 70s. Not anymore. The dropping of Progressive was more than symbolic
Add Illinois, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. (And Hawaii, which often counts as West Coast.) And DC; let the red-majority remnant of the "United" States choose a new capital. Maybe Palm Beach, FL, so Mar-a-Lago can be in name what it already is in fact.
Delaware, Maryland, DC and Virginia are contiguous, but Illinois is not and Wisconsin is not Democratic enough, so that could be a practical issue.
We have to get Chicago out, subsuming WI is worth it.
But the state would presumably have to consent.
Why make it complicated? Just carve off the old Confederacy minus Virginia and plus OK/MO/KY and call it a day. They can figure it out from there
You want Idaho, Montana and Utah in Canada?
I don't want to be left behind in Denver. hah.
When Congress has added States in the past the total number of seats temporarily grew until the next census. Assuming they use this scheme again, they could use the 762,000 person per seat average from the 2020 US Census and the results from the 2021 Canada Census to come up with the following:
BC: 7
Alberta: 6
Saskatoba: 3
Ontario: 19
Quebec: 11
Atlantica: 3
How it would play out in the scenario you actually describe would require rerunning the formula. Iirc there's some code on The Green Papers for doing that, if you care to give it a go.
Minor point, but I think Alberta and Saskitoba would be one state. Alsaskitoba sounds very Canadian.
Especially since I think you'd get 4 GOP Senators out of them (if they come in as two states), eh?
I think it would be awfully close but I'm not sure you could count on that. Here are poll results that were done a few weeks before the 2024 election, I'm quite sure the results would be rather different after six months of the nonsense: https://www.environicsinstitute.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/read-the-report6589c781-7dd1-40c2-b3ad-372bb98c1aa1.pdf?sfvrsn=cac8947f_1
Every new state except for Alberta would be at least a swing state at worst, and BC, Ontario, and Atlantica would be strongly Democratic. Quebec's politics within the U.S. would be difficult to predict because of the separatist politics there.
Quebec is social democratic but in a culturally reactionary way which doesn’t translate to the USA at all
It does look like the populist CAQ, which is governed since 2018 is likely to get booted in the next election, barring a major turnaround in the polls. Whether PQ or the QLP will win is a little unclear. The Quebec Liberals are more economically conservative, while the Parti Québécois is more culturally conservative. The only actually Left Wing party, Québec solidaire, isn't really competitive outside of the Eastern portions of Montreal.
Continuing the conversation from today’s digest. If any elected Democrat objects or screws up a California redraw: There’s the door and voters will shove you out of it. No more using a fire extinguisher to douse the GOP’s constant flames of torching democracy, this time we use fire to make sure they get burned too instead of always being just us.
Harris +10 districts for every Democrat without any Republicans elected, should be something every elected official gets behind or else they’re going to lose their jobs. Shuffle districts if you must as incumbents, but this is a no brainer to support a potential map that looks like this.
Some local Pro-Israel media outlets are warning that Ro Khanna may face a primary due to his recent stances (...) as well as due to a high concentration of Israeli Americans in the Bay Area; How is his position in the district generally? And who may be the potential recruits? I think Big Crypto and Big Semiconductor will back him along with most Progressives and Scott Wiener.
Ironically, there was talk a while back that Khanna may get primaried from the left, because apparently a lot of the left do not like him -- he's quite close to some conservatives and tech people, for one. Assemb. Alex Lee was the original pick for them, but right now Lee is in hot water for opposing the CA redistricting and is facing primary calls himself.
Not sure of potential recruits from the other side (I typically associate staunchly pro-Israel democratic recruits with centrist politics), but it wouldn't surprise me either. SF and the Bay Area in general have gotten really conservative in recent years, so I wouldn't be shocked if someone does run from that side.
Khanna is only to the right of Sanders, AOC, DSA and Warren on the progressive side. He is to the left of most progressives. He doesn't accept corporate PAC money, trade stocks and literally co-chaired Sanders 2020 and still stans him. The main difference is that he is a big believer in technology and believes that taxing unrealized gains is bad economic policy.
I wasn’t saying I had problems with him. I was saying what I’d heard from other progressives on Bluesky.
And he is more isolationist than Sanders and Warren from what I get. Alex Lee is DSA right?
Lee is DSA, but as I mentioned progressives currently hate him because he came out against the CA gerrymander.
And is a crypto stooge.
He voted against the 3rd Bill, the CBDC ban. He represents Silicon Valley.
Except there’s quite a lot of non-tech residents in Milpitas and Newark, both of which are in CA-17. Same with part of Fremont, also in CA-17.
Let’s not forget that Khanna unseated the great progressive Mike Honda.
There's nothing wrong with a younger progressive primarying an older 76yr old one. A Senator Auchincloss wouldn't looming large if that happened with Markey.
Really conservative compared to what?
What they often were prior. This isn’t to say there haven’t always been relative centrists in SF (see Newsom as mayor, London Breed) but right now a big chunk of the city council are centrists, the current mayor got elected on a fairly centrist platform from what I’ve heard, the DA got recalled due to being deemed insufficiently tough on crime, 3 school board members got recalled for similarly anti-progressive reasons, etc.
It’s definitely a shift.
When's the last time a progressive was Mayor of SF or progressives were a majority in the City Council?
Not educated enough about SF politics to know, but maybe George Moscone? SF has a reputation for being liberal in general. Maybe that reputation wasn't deserved?
I'm basing my knowledge off multiple recent progressive losses in SF for the record.
Local politics do not always map well to national politics.
You can see this at the state level, where NH is far more competitive for elections to state office than to federal office, even if both are competitive. You can see this in many cities too. Just look at NYC, which has elected a republican/republican-turned-independent as mayor in five of the past eight elections.
Local politics can often be less progressive than the same area's federal preferences. Which in many ways makes sense: a city cannot realistically implement universal healthcare, or massively expand renewable energy, or regulate financial institutions more strongly, or... Much of the default progressive agenda is off the table for cities.
Moscone was assassinated in 1978. That's a long time ago!
Art Agnos was the last progressive Mayor of San Francisco. Served during the 1989 World Series. He's gotten fair criticism of his policies when being Mayor but compared to how SF has been since then, far saner and more critical of the status quo.
Also, progressives during the 2000's had more power in the Board of Supervisors when Gavin Newsom was Mayor and pro-development (he was after soon after Willie Brown became Mayor appointed to replace District 2 Supervisor Kevin Shelley who became State Assembly member at the time) hailing from the ritziest and most wealthy part of SF.
No one was more notorious of a nemesis to Newsom when he was Mayor than District 6 Supervisor Chris Daly. The rift between him and Newsom escalated so much that Daly had even started pissing off the Board of Supervisors with his profanity and anger. He even suggested that Newsom was under the influence of cocaine, which didn't win him any respect.
Daly now resides in Fairfield and far removed from SF politics these days.
SF and the Bay Area have not gotten really conservative in recent years.. where did that come from?
Hearsay, admittedly. Hence why I said I'm not super knowledgeable about SF politics.
Incidentally, the recent victories of Jackie Fielder and Chyanne Chen seem to be pointing to something of a progressive upswing, although again I could be wrong.
"Conservative" in the Bay Area is probably a relative term, with the right wing (such as it is) being Democrats who are clearly liberal by national standards.
And if clowns like Chesa Boudin and the SF school board members who were recalled are the local definition of "progressive", then a (relative) shift to the right by dumping them is not a bad thing IMO.
Pro-Israel media wish casting doesn't really amount to much, Khanna is in about as much danger as any other incumbent.
I remember they were talking about primarying Pramila Jayapal too at one point. Nothing seems to have come from that, and as mentioned Khanna has substantial business support (he literally entered Congress by primarying progressive Mike Honda with business support back in 2016) so it's not always a death sentence.
AIPAC can lose too sometimes. They went big on Joanna Weiss in 2024 for Katie Porter's old seat in CA-47, and Dave Min won the primary anyway. They also failed to unseat Omar and Summer Lee, and DMFI (the Democratic-only version of AIPAC partially credited with killing Nina Turner's congressional bid) failed to stop Jasmine Crockett from being elected (Jane Hope Hamilton was their candidate), so it isn't always a given that AIPAC wins. To say nothing of cases where candidates favored by AIPAC go against that group's wishes -- Maxine Dexter, Yassamin Ansari, hell I heard they're pissed at Sarah Elfreth apparently for not being on their side enough. AIPAC aren't all-powerful.
AIPAC might come out against Sarah Elfreth, but they almost certainly won't defeat her. Same for Chris Van Hollen.
Also in MD, three years ago some progressives whined that AIPAC effectively "bought" Glenn Ivey a congressional seat against Donna Edwards. Their spending probably mattered much less than the fact that Ivey was a well regarded local official, while Edwards may be a hero to many progressives nationally but locally is probably more known for her crappy constituent service, especially for someone representing a district literally as close to DC as is possible.
AIPAC is good at jumping in when somebody is already about to go down
I've been cautiously optimistic about Ansari in particular.
Pretty hard not to see AIPAC becoming the new “pro-life”, “NRA” for Democrats when 2/3rds of the party voters support the unmentionable issue over the unmentionable country. This is the inevitable outcome once Nehtanyahu decided to put his entire country solely behind one party instead of being diplomatic and staying out of politics amongst your allies.
It was only a matter of time after how he treated Obama. Now the humanitarian crisis straw broke the camel’s back permanently and irreparably. As in they’re fast becoming persona non grata for the vast majority of voters in our party.
In the California Governor’s race, financial disclosures were filed this past week for the 1/1/2025-6/30/2025 time period. As some candidates did little fundraising or spending as they waited for Harris to decide, I view these numbers as almost a starting point.
(listed in order of COH)
Name / Amount Raised / Amount Spent / COH
Eleni Kounalakis / 0 / $18,834 / $4,646,503
Toni Atkins / $647,654 / $514,117 / $4,251,660
Antonio Villaraigosa / $1,113,236 / $544,268 / $3,347,423
Katie Porter / $3,016,042 / $1,201,134/ $1,963,077
Xavier Becerra / 0 / $122,391 / $1,427,900
Betty Yee / $237,755 / $219,360 / $637,301
Tony Thurmond / $70,044 / $110,655 / $557,623
Thanks for sharing the data!
It appears based on fundraising most competitive candidates are as follows:
Antonio Villaraigosa
Betty Yee
Katie Porter
Toni Atkins
Eleni Kounalakis I am not making judgement just yet because she’s got substantially a lot of COH. These COH and fundraising figures come before Harris decided to not run for Governor.
Tony Thurmond seems to be the most likely candidate to drop out at some point. With these fundraising numbers and crowded number of candidates, I don’t see him really making much noise to change the trajectory for him. Xavier Becerra can possibly be competitive but again, this is still a crowded field.
In the end, it may be a 3-4 person race if we get close to the primary but it depends on how the dynamics unfold.
I would keep Kounalakis in the top tier. She's well-connected and has lots of family money. After Harris's announcement, word came out that Harris had given Kounalakis a heads-up and right after the announcement, Pelosi basically endorsed Kounalakis. Lots of contacts; lots of money.
I agree re Thurmond and also do not see much of a chance for Yee. Time will tell I guess.
I'll be interested in seeing how Becerra campaigns. He's a long-term serving member of congress, the former AG (who delighted in fighting Trump in court), and was Biden's secretary of health and human services. Will that impress voters?
Porter interests me. She has strong grassroots support it seems, and she’s nationally known too — taking on corporate people with the whiteboard, for one. I wonder if she has a fighting chance, particularly in an anti-Dem leadership environment.
Porter could be able to ride the anti-establishment sentiment to success.
However, her lack of experience at the state level is going to be asked to her at the debates either by the moderators or fellow candidates. All the other main candidates have state government experience.
She has much better name recognition than the others, she's been on national television during her committee work sparring with the GOP members, and she's not shy. Most of the others are very mellow and boring.
Sure but that isn’t alone going to sell her at the debates.
Porter is going to need to sell herself well, not just because she has a national presence. This is a gubernatorial race, not a House or Senate race.
I agree on most of the other candidates although Toni Atkins is probably the most interesting and real out of them all, especially considering she’s the first lesbian State Pro Tem in CA history (if memory serves correct). Having Porter run against one of the most high profile Democrats in the state legislature will be an interesting sight.
I have a hunch that the first woman will be elected Governor next year.
Yeah, I might as well put Kounalakis in the top tier as well.
I was just being neutral about her based on the financials reported but with Harris out of the gubernatorial race, things may start to change for Kounalakis.
Thurmond would make a good candidate for Garamendi’s house seat when it opens up.
Yeah, that would make sense. Thurmond’s got decent electoral history but seems to have a profile that’s more suited in being a legislator than in the governor’s mansion.
This field is kind of all over the place and no clue who is best tbh. The lower polling tier seems to be Atkins, Becerra, Thurmond and Yee. I maybe would have preferred Becerra bc of the very foward-thinking equity work at HHS and his statewide exp as state AG, but seems his management of HHS may have sometimes been a bit of a mess. Idk enough about Atkins, Thurmond or Yee beyond their job titles.
The higher polling tier seems to be Kounalakis, Porter and Villaraigosa. Villaraigosa is a mess from a bygone era of the party imo. And as much as Porter is clearly the best on policy, she's really not great to her staff and I just think it's always bad to have an executive like that. I know nothing of Kounalakis either, but my assumption is that she's like a normie, corporate Dem. Sigh. If only Rob Bonta could run, but he seems to want to wait the eight years before trying.
I forgot about that about Porter. Yeah, not good. Our options don’t seem great TBH, you’re right.
While I am sure there is truth to it, I rarely give much credence to complaints of women in congress being tough with their staff. I have only ever heard that critique directed at women, never at men. I am sure there is truth to it, but I think there is a lot of gender bias at play in how this gets evaluated and covered.
In this case I am a fan of Porter, so one might reasonably dismiss my comment as biased in this case. But I felt the same when it was said of Klobuchar who I think is fine but I do not favor her.
This is exactly my position as well. You never see complaints about men being too hard or abusive to their staff even though many almost certainly are (and I’d bet a lot that most in office have done far worse than what Porter is accused of) without a peep from the staff members on the receiving end. The expectation of a woman leader is kinder, gentler, more easy going, so when staff expect that and get basically how men treat them, people get upset about it.
We all remember the salad fork of Klobuchar that became a big thing right? Two different standards and expectations when it comes to men and women elected officials. That said, it very well could be real abuse that is unacceptable, but if all I have to go on is he/she said she said, I lean towards whatever complaint against a woman being overblown because most probably are compared to what men do.
I agree about more men should be scrutinized, but Porter's allegations are not fluff. And every single former Klobuchar staffer I've talked to--personal office, committee, leadership--has said she's a bad boss lol
I never said they were, just that most men in office have done far worse for far longer and no one ever comes out saying their male boss was abusive. Whether you think she’s a bad boss or not is entirely subjective. Abuse isn’t. Maybe that seems like splitting hairs, but I really think we should differentiate between the two.
It doesn’t make Klobuchar abusive just because everyone you’ve talked with says she’s a bad boss lol. Lots of non abusive people are terrible bosses and while I’m not sure I agree with what they’ve said working for Klobuchar is like, the Senator obviously knows the job like the back of her hand. Maybe she just has extremely high standards not many are able to meet.
In any case we’re getting far from discussing some of Porter’s staff allegations of abuse. We’ll never know the truth about the situation (and there’s also been many people in history that make stuff up because they got fired or hated their boss enough to try to bring them down), so it’s all up to subjective opinion for each individual. For me, that’s my view on it.
Uh, no. Is what I'm going to say lol.
Some of us here have complained frequently of male congressmen being terrible to their staff (one in particular running for US Senate in IL, for example).
Indeed.
I think it's a bit premature to start looking at polling just yet as Harris leaving the race will likely shift things in the polls to reflect where the candidates' campaigns are going.
If Atkins was able to fundraise this substantially even amid lower polling numbers, that doesn't mean she doesn't register well. Providing she continues these numbers, it's possible she'll likely go higher. Harris leaving the race will shift things, but it may take several months for this to reflect.
Atkins introduction video is something to watch. Think about it - Atkins if elected Governor would be the first woman and LGBTQ governor in CA history. She would be a great alternative to Porter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6UITRjhijI
Beyond being a lesbian, it always seemed like Atkins had a mixed progressive record. But would welcome an article or someone's commentary with more details on championed causes/demerits/overall record and positions of all these candidates.
Gladly. Toni Atkins introduced single payer healthcare legislation back in 2018. Hardly a mixed record on being progressive if this means transforming CA State’s healthcare system. Atkins did this amid push in the GOP to repeal the Affordable Care Act during Trump’s 1st term as POTUS.
Btw, on a side note, when Gavin Newsom was Mayor of San Francisco, he pushed the first city-based universal healthcare system, Healthy San Francisco. Not perfect but a start.
I am not going to argue that Atkins is say a “perfect progressive,” but from what I have seen, her record is better than the other candidates in the race besides Porter.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Single-payer-plan-is-within-reach-of-California-12803229.php
Desperately need Robert Peters to win in IL-02.
Agreed. Even if you don’t like Peters, he’s greatly preferable to Jesse Jackson Jr’s return.
62 percent of Dems want to Abolish ICE.
https://x.com/Julesnader386/status/1951645696999702602
I personally agree, but please for the love of god, let’s not do another shoot self in face repeatedly “defund the police” moment.
Yeah, best to get into office first, then reform governmental structure and duties.
The US Senate confirmed 50-45 in a party-line vote Trump toady and election denier Jeanine “Box O’Wine” Pirro to the US Attorney for DC role on a permanent basis. Prior to becoming US Attorney, Pirro served as a host on Fox “News.”
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/senate-confirms-election-denying-fox-host-as-dc-us-attorney/
The next Democratic president can (and should) fire her. Like on or after Inauguration Day 2029.
Loomer is a legit nut job even by MAGA standards
It's a shame we can't get rid of Bove. Having him as a federal judge for life is REALLY bad.
FL-Gov:
https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2025/08/02/tallahassee-al-lawson-says-he-may-run-for-florida-governor-in-2026/85493064007/
Former Rep. Al Lawson is considering a gubernatorial bid as a Dem. He is not happy apparently that David Jolly is an ex-Republican, hence his bid apparently.
Should run for senator instead.
Glad he's joining the race. Could have the ability to shake things up and give a real choice for Democrats.
Having two former Republican-turned Democrats as candidates isn't exactly a winning strategy.
He is kind of mediocre but beggars can't be choosers.
He's 76, Jolly is not as bad as you think he is.
I don't mind Jolly and would rather Lawson run for Senate. I don't think either is first tier by any means tho.
This must be a joke, Lawson has no chance.
Why would Jolly have a better chance?
Wasn't Lawson somewhat conservative(for a dem) or am I remembering wrong?
He is/was if we had any kind of bench I would say get someone else but we don't seem to have anyone willing to step up.
Sure, and still way better than any Republican!
Looks like Missouri redistricting is going to happen : https://missouriindependent.com/2025/08/02/missouri-senate-leader-says-special-session-is-likely-to-redraw-congressional-map/
I wonder if different states could agree to a detente, like New Jersey tells Missouri "We won't redistrict if you do the same." It's probably too late for that at this point, especially since republicans will do whatever trump says.
I think the best we could hope for as a “truce” is democratic states putting trigger conditions on their commissions. Eg if Texas implements a commission, then California uses theirs; if not, they gerrymander.
Even that is a tall order because most of our commissions are not a simple statute that can be repealed or modified on a whim.
Is there any legal argument that non-court ordered mid-decade redistricting is unconstitutional? I get that the Supreme Court thinks gerrymandering is fine and dandy, but I wonder if they'd be willing to put the kibosh on all this nonsense.
It's helping their conservative philosophy so the answer will be a no
The supreme Court rejected the argument that states can redistrict only once per census in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006).
In the state court system there could be.
They seem to be hemming and hawing a bit in the article, fwiw.
I don't have much faith in their equivocations. They'll do what the national party tells them to in the end because that's more important to them than the integrity of the communities in their state.
TX on the run. Ds go to Illinois to break quorum. https://x.com/adamwren/status/1952098648705159326?s=61&t=5copDbz1aPl7ASsRCUclLg
I hope they know what they're doing and are in synch. There is less reason for what TX is doing now than in Delaymandering (where there was a justification that the state had gone red up and down ballot and the court map Rs were aiming to replace catered to the precarious red district Dems) and Dems fled then too, but a few came back and restored quorum rather than tough it out.
See my comment above. The DNC and redistricting orgs should provide them support as long as they tough it out.
There's also the possibility their seats could be declared vacant if it goes on long enough in order to reduce the quorum threshold.
Oy, really? If so, I'm sure the Republicans will do that.
Also in 2003, they were replacing a court-drawn map.
And don’t chicken out like in 2003. The DNC and any Dem redistricting PACs should pay for lodging and food for these legislators until the clock runs out. It’s THAT important.
Pritzker is loaded too.
Per the Texas Tribune, some Dems went to NY and Boston as well. From the story:
"Texas House rules adopted by Republicans in 2023 impose a threat of arrest and a $500-per-day fine on each lawmaker who absconds from the state. House rules also prohibit lawmakers from using their campaign funds to pay the fines, making the decampment a potentially expensive move. But Democrats have been raising money in recent weeks in anticipation of the quorum break, and those involved in the fundraising say they have found a way to circumvent the campaign restrictions.
Among those fundraising to support Democrats is Powered by People, a political group launched by former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke in 2019. The group raised over $600,000 in 2021, the last time Democrats deprived the House of a quorum, to help cover the costs associated with staying out of state, and an O'Rourke spokesperson confirmed the group is again supporting this year's effort."
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/03/texas-democrats-quorum-break-redistricting-map/
I hope this doesn't lull Newsom into stopping Cali redistricting. Dems should go full steam ahead in Cali to show the GOP Dems are serious about fighting back.
If Trump attempts to get involved i'd say it would only help Newsom
What exactly do you mean by "Trump getting involved"?
Interesting that's it wasn't New Mexico again?
Marjorie Taylor Greene considering leaving the GOP?
This is absolute comedy.
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-republican-party-b2801174.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I don't know if the Republican Party is leaving me, or if I'm kind of not relating to the Republican Party as much anymore,” Greene said. “I don't know which one it is.”
The Georgia congresswoman said she felt as if the party had given up on issues that she resonates with, such as stopping foreign aid, using the Department of Government Efficiency to make cuts across the federal government, and driving down inflation.
If anything, anything I mentioned in the primary process as far as questions about Porter's experience can only make her stronger.
It's also only fair to Democrats that Porter be given the chance because the GOP had Arnold Schwarzenegger back in 2003 winning the gubernatorial recall election with no prior experienced in elected office.
I don't usually bother with these kinds of clarifications, but in this case I must–my like is a partial one, applying to everything in your post except "good for her."
The Onion.