I don't have much to add from today's thread but NYC Mayor just for all of the reasons discussed in today's thread. The thought of Dem leadership blessing and helping to elect a nepo sex pest from the inheritance class who resigned in disgrace for sexually harassing women just makes my skin crawl.
Yes. If he loses the primary, I hope Mamdani agrees to run on the WFP line. There’s precedent for that. In 1969, John Lindsay lost the primary but ran on the Liberal party line and won. In 1977, Mario Cuomo lost the primary and ran on the Liberal line but lost.
Maybe if progressive voters hadn't flocked to an inexperienced socialist with la-la land proposals and questionable statements on issues ranging from policing to foreign policy, then NY Dems wouldn't be in this mess....
Some responsibility is not the same thing as blame. You’d think an incommunicative and addled president who insisted on staying in the race until midsummer, and a replacement who thought barnstorming with Liz Cheney was a great idea, had little to do with the result.
If you don't think it's egregious and highly blameworthy for a plurality of voters to elect a convicted felon and adjudicated sexual abuser who was responsible for hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths and had capriciously abrogated agreements, thereby showing that there's no point in anyone making any agreements with the U.S., just continue to blame everyone but the voters who literally made the choice.
There are lots of people and institutions to blame, but the bottom line is, people are responsible for their actions, and if they can't be, they should be in institutions designed to help people with dementia, etc.
If you and I could figure out that it was insane to vote for Trump, acting like people are not really responsible for their actions in voting for him is really outrageous and unacceptable. We could say that because white Americans are brought up to be racist, they're not responsible for a majority of them voting Republican for president in every freakin election since 1968, and people duped into believing in the German Uebermensch and that they were doing the world a favor by ridding it of handicapped people, Jews, Romanis, Poles, gays, Communists, etc. were not responsible for voting for the Nazi Party. I guess we should also say that people who murder for hire are victims of the capitalist system that reduces everything to money.
Politics is not a game. It's an act of public (im-)morality. And just as people should not murder, rape and rob, they should be able to figure out when it's obviously immoral and extremely destructive to vote for someone who already has a record and made promises to add to that record.
I’d give the biggest blame to voters but there’s blame to go all around. The party insiders didn’t try to discourage Biden from running again, killed the “weird” attack line, etc.
Media graded Trump on a curve so big that it made their 2016 curve look fair in comparison.
And voters ultimately went along with all of it and pulled the lever for the most dangerous and malevolent candidate in modern history.
With all due respect, I don’t think Trump and Zohran are remotely comparable.
And I’m going to get hate for saying this, but I’d rather have a socialist than a fascist.
EDIT: Just to clarify, I’m not saying Cuomo is a facsist, although I despise him. I’m just saying that between socialism and fascism, I’d pick socialism.
I didn't say they were remotely comparable, and as a democratic socialist myself, I think you know who I'd pick without a second thought in a contest between Bernie/AOC and fucking Trump!
Establishment Dems should have offered a better alternative to an "inexperienced socialist with la la land proposals" than a "nepo baby sex pest who killed the elderly"
Honestly, that put me off as well. If you want to endorse Cuomo because you liked his performance as governor, his vision or proposals (such as they are) for the city, or don't want Mamdani and think Cuomo is the only other one who can win, that's one thing.
But praising the "character" of someone who was forced to resign for the reasons he was? Even if you don't believe all the accusations or think they justified resignation, that's laughable.
Since the Working Families Party said they probably won't endorse Cuomo even if he wins the Dem primary in NYC, could they nominate someone else for their ballot line in the general election? Obviously Cuomo would be the heavy favorite, but a 4-way race between Cuomo, the Republican, Eric Adams, and whoever the WFP nominates could be interesting.
I cannot imagine a WFP candidate being able to win the general if they lose the democratic primary. I wish it wasn't the case but I'd find it unlikely enough to not put any hope on it working out.
Oh I agree. The election nerd in me just thought it would be interesting to have a fractured race like that. Especially since there's apparently no ranked-choice voting in the general election. Cuomo and Adams also seem to have similar bases of support. Adams was polling around 10-15% in a poll from last month. I still think Cuomo would win in that scenario, but maybe with only 50-55% of the vote instead of the 67% Adams got in 2021.
Ah okay. Yeah the scenario could be intellectually intriguing. I'm so disgusted with the possibility of Cuomo winning though that I wouldn't be able to enjoy the curiosity of that four-way election scenario.
If Mamdani is the WFP candidate-it might be possible-he's pretty clearly got enough Primary support to finish ahead of Cuomo in the primary-even though I suspect Ranked Choice voting will put Cuomo over the top.
FWIW, it's already nominally a four-way race (Adams and Jim Walden are running as independents). I have no idea how much of the vote they'll siphon off, though.
I find as i get older i could care less who's endorsing whom. Clyburn is just some guy from South Carolina with an ever-increasing diminished role in the party. He can endorse whoever he wants but it doesn't matter to me. I'm certainly not going to get angry about it.
I really feel like one of the only times in decades that an endorsement has mattered was when Clyburn endorsed Biden. Other than that, who cares. Virtually no one in this state knows who Clyburn is
I mean what came first, black voters rallying behind Biden in South Carolina or Clyburns endorsement? I think Biden would done well there even without Clyburn.
True but as far as statewide, has he ever had appeal in potentially winning the general election over anything else besides the House?
Clyburn has served in the House since 1993 and to date has not run for Governor, the Senate or any other political race that would signify he could be battle tested in difficult parts of SC.
SC-06, which Clyburn represents, is a D+13 district and happens to be the only blue district in the state that I am aware of.
Well, Senator Fritz Hollings represented it from 1967 to 2005, nearly 40 years. His last two Senate elections were closer than most of his previous Senate elections (including his first back in 1966). However, he also got a larger margin winning re-election in 1998 vs. 1992, the year which Bill Clinton won the presidential election. Hollings also defeated current Governor Henry McMaster in his re-election bid by nearly 30% points back in 1986.
Also, regarding incumbents and open races:
Lindsay Graham
2002 - Alex Sanders lost to him in the open race by 44.19% of the votes
2008 - Bob Conley lost by 42.25% of the votes
2020 - Jaime Harrison lost by 44.17% of the votes
Jim DeMint
2004 - Inez Tenenbaum lost to him in the open race by 44.10% of the votes
By contrast, with Tim Scott no Democratic Senate challenger has been able to get 40% or higher. Perhaps Graham has lower approval ratings than Scott does.
Regarding Jim Clyburn, I am mainly talking about his appeal period these days. I don't think he's got that kind of appeal and energy which could propel him for a statewide run. He could have had a chance back in 2002, 2004 or 2008 to run for the Senate but chose to stay in the House and gain influence and stature. He has after all been House Majority Whip multiple times and now House Assistant Democratic Leader but he's been too institutionalized in the House to be a truly fresh face South Carolinians statewide would gravitate towards.
I think it's obvious that he wouldn't have much state-wide appeal at his current advanced age, but I don't really see losing with 42-44% of the vote as being influential.
Yes although it should be noted that Hollings himself also got re-elected in his last two elections by close to that or lower. I’m not convinced SC has moved that much further to the right than it had before. Senator Tim Scott may also benefit not just from being a conservative Republican but also being black as well.
It also really depends on who is in office as Senator.
Yes he was although the point I am making about SC not moving further to the right than it was back in the mid-late 2000’s is something I think is a valid topic for discussion.
Graham also is an incumbent and has been that way since 2003. However, Democratic challengers have still gone past 40% in the votes in multiple times they have faced Graham in the elections.
I think it's just symbolic of the moral rot within the party. Endorsements don't matter on the whole but to willingly endorse a sex pest grandparent killer who shouldn't be anywhere near a single lever of power is concerning for those who believe in good governance.
Yeah it's a problem to have congressional leadership endorsing sex pests on "character" even if this one endorsement does not have a major impact on this one race.
America’s youngest voters are far likelier to vote Republican than their older siblings. Generation Z may be better understood as two distinct sub-generations, divided, in large part, by how they experienced the shock of Covid-19.
A stunning statistic is revealed in the latest iteration of the Yale Youth Poll, which found an extraordinary 18-point partisan gap between younger and older members of Generation Z. When asked whether they’d pick a Democratic or Republican candidate in the midterm elections, voters age 22–29 favored Democrats by 6.4 points, while those age 18–21 favored Republicans by 11.7 points.
Worth noting: This right-ward drift amongst the very-youngest voters is not just an American phenomenon. It is seen in European countries as well, including in Norway.
Also, as has been repeatedly headlined many places: there is a significant and growing gender gap. This right-ward drift is far more pronounced amongst young men.
It's because social media has become dominated by right-ish personalities, which is a complete flip from like 6 years ago when Twitter was mostly known as a liberal friendly-space and Facebook was actually enforcing some basic standards for mis-info (and TikTok wasn't a thing)
This is especially pronounced in areas that target young men. Probably playing a big part in the gender divide.
A lot of big personalities in gaming social media are conservative, especially when compared to ten years ago. Then there’s stuff like Joe Rogan.
Young guys who follow these people will take cues from the from their political takes. If for no other reason then because they’re in their formative years when they start hearing it.
The Yale youth poll has been called an outlier by commentators at Vox and NYmag or Atlantic. I think we'll have to wait and watch. No poll other than the Yale Youth poll has such numbers. National opinion polls which don't consider registered voters don't show much difference in Gen Z like that of Harvard and YouGov. It's very possible that young conservatives registered in droves to vote for Trump 2025/4. Trump has the worst approval of all generations among Gen Z. There have been two Yale youth polls and both have generated intense media cycles. Let's also not forget that Trump may also lead to another anti GOP generation.
Thank you for pointing this out! I also recall polls that show a dramatic drop in the support for Trump in various demographics, especially amongst young voters.
I think at the very least it indicates that our approach towards Gen-Z should keep in mind that the generation has a life experience split based on COVID. We have to have actual elections to back the red-blue divide to see if that is an outlier or not.
No, I found it paywalled as well but thought someone else here might be able to read it. It was shared by a commenter at Simon Rosenberg's substack who tried to gift it but said the gift article button wouldn't show up.
Republicans now want to re-gerrymander Ohio along with Texas. This needs to end in 2029 by carving out the filibuster. When they go low, we need to hit them harder.
100%. Require every state to set up a commission with equal members of each party and have strict rules regarding county and city splitting. This shit needs to end this is absolute something that needs to be made exempt from the filibuster. Effective democracy depends on it.
Trying do fix it while still keeping the core system latent intact: I’d add ~50 or so seats to the house that don’t have a specific district. The seats are awarded to parties to make the total house seats as close to proportional to the national vote as possible.
No, I think someone introduced such an act which is legal but it only has support among the Progressive caucus. The Freedom to Vote/For the People Act though repeals the ban on multi member districts which was enacted in 1964 and allows states to decide on their own.
Which lawmaker from Massachusetts or Connecticut for example would vote to take away their own seat by creating multi member districts? A research group tested a million different FPTP redistricting models for Mass. but none of them had a Republican seat.
I’m not sure. That didn’t cross my mind to consider when I came up with it.
If it didn’t pass constitutional muster there’s other ways to get something close. States can be required to have a certain number of seats be proportional. That would disadvantage us still because the smallest states are red enough that we couldn’t expect to get much/anything out of them at proportional checkpoints. But it’d be a huge improvement still and do a lot to discourage gerrymandering — no point drawing an ugly gerrymander if the party gets nothing out of it at the end of the day.
Country wide add-on seats may need an amendment to rewrite how seats are allocated among states. Germany style add-on seats by state, may pass as constitutional. But that need the smallest state to have something like 3 seats to work properly.
For the latter I was thinking a smaller increase, maybe 30-50% more seats in the house. Then just accept the places still too small to be able to do it.
Non-ideal but probably not too bad, especially with large states like FL, TX, GA being pointless to gerrymander.
You and I both know that most Democratic voters are never going to vote to abolish an independent redistricting commission. Most Democrats hate gerrymandering, even if it helps them in certain places.
Correct. If Colorado didn't have an "independent" redistricting commission, Dems could've drawn a 7D-1R map there (I've drawn such a map myself). Those three seats the Dems lost in Colorado because of the commission are the entire reason why Republicans control the House right now.
Anderson Clayton, NC Democratic Party chair, hinted on her IG page that Roy Cooper would run against Thom Tillis next year.
She was being vague but she took a pic of Cooper at Allison Riggs’ formal investiture at the NC Supreme Court smiling and all ears. She was answering questions on her IG page— one was whether Cooper was going to run for US Senate.
At the Blue Commonwealth Gala in Richmond (Virginia’s new equivalent of the old Jefferson Jackson Dinner). All three statewide nominees, Abigail Spanberger, Ghazala Hashmi, and Jay Jones will be here!
He lost to Biden by less than predicted and was not predicted to defeat Clinton, but the popular vote percentage was pretty accurately predicted, just not all the right states.
Very interesting that three red states match swing states in approval rating. Texas matches North Carolina and Ohio/Utah matches Georgia.
That the state of Florida is grouped with Indiana, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri is also a very good sign to abandon pouring anymore national money down that red sinkhole. If you live there, by all means, compete and donate, it’s your state and you want things to be better, but if you don’t or if you care more about spending your money/time on winnable races, look elsewhere in 2026. The state is gone for Democrats.
I remember Farenthold was quite a character. Never did anything out of significance other than be a Tea Party clown and was a toxic leader to his own staff.
Early in the year of 2002, when plans for the Iraq invasion were first being publicly discussed, was polling favorable towards this right away? Because my vague memories of the time were that it was lukewarm at first and only got up to positive territory closer to November when Reps were using it as a campaign issue and condemning anyone who didn't favor going to war.
Trying to look for signs that history won't repeat itself, but polling stats from that time are necessary to do that
It wasn't so much about not going to war but the larger argument on the war on terrorism and WMDs, which we know Iraq did NOT have or was getting anywhere near building. President Bush was a standard and boring POTUS before 9/11 hit. After that, it transformed his presidency.
However, the neocons from Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. that influenced Bush don't occupy the White House these days. As much as the war will affect Iran, there's likely not going to be US troops in the ground there and there certainly won't be any nation building.
I can't claim to have any insight into the strategic thinking of the Iranian state. But the notion that Iran would be incapable of it, especially because of distance, seems incredibly naive.
That’s a really naive question. Do you remember the big terror attacks on the Israeli Embassy and the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires? What about the October 7 atrocities in Israel? Etc., etc.
Are you referring to terror attacks from any specific groups such as ISIS or specifically Iranian terrorist attacks?
Right now, if such attacks happen, they’ll likely be more regional to the Middle East.
However, Republican Jewish Congressman Max Miller also was just victim of an attack of harassment from a Palestinian man in I believe OH (where his district is based) or in DC. More direct attacks like this could happen in the U.S: because of the war in Iran.
IS is a mortal enemy of Iran. Think Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Palestinians who have other motives but could be coordinated by Iran just as the 11/7 Hamas atrocities were. And I don't agree that terrorism in the U.S. is unlikely.
I think there's a disconnect but I am not arguing there isn't going to be terrorism in the U.S. It's that I don't think we're going to see Iranians traveling from Iran to the U.S. in groups causing terrorism like what we've seen in terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS. So far from what I sense.
Within the U.S., attacks on people like the sitting Congressman Max Miller could very well continue. It's clear the assailent, a Palestinian man, had intent to kill Rep. Miller and had no interest in civil discussion or concerns over discourse. More such situations like this in the U.S. could continue with the War in Iran unfolding.
Here's an email I was sent by J-Street. I'm not a member, mostly because though I largely agree with their wishes, I understand they're not going to happen, but I have sometimes participated in petitions they initiated. That aside, the rest of this post is a copy and paste of the email:
Michael, for the better part of the last two decades, I have argued that diplomacy – not military action – was the better way to deal with the Iranian nuclear program.
My views flow directly from lessons I draw from the greatest American strategic blunder since Vietnam, George W. Bush’s post-9/11 Iraq War.
My skepticism about attacking Iran doesn’t mean I have illusions about the Iranian regime. It oppresses its own people, terrorizes the region, unequivocally threatens to destroy Israel and hates America.
I also firmly believe a nuclear-armed Iran would be an unacceptable threat – not just to Israel and its neighbors but to the United States and the world.
I’m not a pacifist either. Tactical military operations have their place in national security strategy, and can achieve limited successes. I acknowledge the tactical successes Israel and the US have achieved in military operations against Iranian facilities and personnel.
Finally, I’m beyond aware that the Israeli public overwhelmingly supports both the US and Israeli military operations. My skepticism about the wisdom of this attack is out of step with even allies and friends in Israel.
Here at home, swaths of the American Jewish community are cheering President Trump’s decision. (I witnessed this firsthand last night at the bar in my hotel in LA when local Jewish Iranian-Americans ordered champagne to toast President Trump at the table next to me.)
Nonetheless, popping champagne seems beyond premature in these early hours.
First things first – let’s see what the Iranian response will be.
Will Iran opt for a limited response that the US can essentially ignore? If so, that’s a potential off-ramp that could allow Trump – and the Netanyahu government – to declare victory and to close this chapter.
I certainly hope that’s the case – in the near-term, that’s without question the best-case scenario.
More worryingly, Iran could launch a more meaningful, large-scale attack on US forces in the region – one that the President would feel compelled to answer.
My biggest concern if that happens – and the concern of the pro-diplomacy camp before the attack – was that the Iranian response and our answer could set off a cycle of escalation that would entangle the US in another long-term military conflict in the Middle East.
Will that happen? I hope not, but we’re all about to find out together.
There are other scenarios – none of them good. For one, Iran could take an action that has global economic impacts such as mining and shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. What would we do then? What would other countries in the region do?
Will the Russians step in to assist the Iranians in rebuilding their program? Remember that Iran has been helping the Russians in Ukraine.
The Houthis could restart firing on crucial shipping lanes. Hezbollah could be brought out of its hibernation. The Iranians could continue to fire on Israeli towns and cities intermittently for weeks in a war of attrition. Will their missiles or Israeli interceptors run out first?
Then there’s the risk that Iran has assets abroad that could engage in terror or assassinations against American, Jewish or other interests globally. Actions of that kind might only happen weeks or months from now at a time and place of Iran’s choosing.
The use of military force is rarely a simple ‘one-and-done’ scenario.
As I listen to more hawkish voices argue for a US strike to “finish the job,” I worry that Netanyahu and his hardline allies won’t be satisfied if, after the US attack, the Iranian regime is still in power, still taking shots at Israel and maybe US forces, and the nuclear program is only set back, not truly destroyed.
In the best scenario, military action stops here. But we’ll soon see that the Iranian program won’t have been “permanently eliminated.” In fact, the regime will have increased incentive to get right back to work, this time with determination to produce a weapon, far away from public view and international oversight.
Won’t the temptation then be for Netanyahu and Trump to push for regime change? Was that the goal all along?
If they try to take out the country’s leadership, what then would follow? Disintegration of the state? A more radical military regime? A country so destabilized it becomes a haven for terrorists and jihadis from neighboring countries?
At a moment like this, we should remember the wisdom of Clausewitz in his seminal “On War”: “No one starts a war… without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war.”
I want the best for the people of the region, for all those in the direct line of fire, and for the world as a whole.
I unfortunately fear the worst. I have little confidence that either leader – Trump or Netanyahu – has a strategy or an end game in mind. I don’t know what worries me more: That they don’t know clearly what they hope to achieve or that what they hope to achieve is going to leave the region and world in a far more dangerous place.
But one thing I do know: Wars are easy to get into. Far harder to end. What comes next will require relentless effort – working with our partners in Congress to do everything we can to bring this crisis to a peaceful end.
To the point of what Jeremy Ben-Ami is talking about, I'm trying to do my best to keep my distance from Jews who are more hawkish on the situation with Iran instead of being more level-headed about peace. I know plenty of Jews locally in Berkeley and nearby (at least Reform Jews) who are not happy with this war.
However, as it relates to Iran, even before Trump was elected POTUS back in 2016 I remember getting into an argument with a fellow Jewish man I met at a local Jewish business professionals mixer in San Francisco. We connected with each other at a cafe in the SoMa area but at some point the conversation became a bit heated when this man mentioned that while he was socially liberal on everything, he did not like the Iran Nuclear Deal. I pointed out to him that the Iran Nuclear Deal was the most monumental pro-diplomatic solution that the U.S. could get with Iran in a LONG time. It was meant to set the stage for further diplomacy and working relations with Iran (after all, multiple western countries besides the U.S. signed on to it). Unfortunately, I could not convince him as he still thought that the Iran Nuclear Deal was embolding Iran so it could go against Israel.
On the other hand, I've met Israeli transplants from the country who have wanted to get away from it. I suppose it really depends on perspective at this point.
No-but in hindsight, given the nationality of the 9/11 attackers, if the Bush Administration had considered some kind of military response against Saudi Arabia-there would have been almost universal support in this country for it.
Somehow Osama Bin Laden's home country, which also produced fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers got away completely scot-free and we invaded a country that had literally nothing to do with the attacks instead in Iraq.
Lol invading Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam would lead to unimaginable terror worldwide. Some Wahhabi citizens definitely funded them through workarounds but there hasn't been any evidence or a geopolitical reason for official funding and support for them despite conspiracy theories. The Saudi family would have the most to lose even today if Saudi jihadists are empowered. And US bases in Saudi were definitely a trigger in Osama's twisted mind.
The hard turn to ultra-Wahhabism in SA came after the December 1979 Grand Mosque Siege (with its own proto-Khomeini) after all, when the Sauds looked across the Gulf and decided they didn’t want to wind up like the Shah.
That's a huge overstatement. I also don't know what the "ultra-Wahhabism" Henrik brings up consisted of, but Saudi Arabia has been Wahhabist from the very beginning and Wahhabism is per se a very extreme form of Islam.
No, Saudi Arabia is not a wahhabi majority nation, most Arabs are religious and follow Hanafi, Hanbalis and other schools of Islam but the Wahhabi clergy ruled the country in partnership with the royal family all these decades lending legitimacy to the royal family as the head and using their position to spread Wahhabism and installed it as the state ideology. When the royal family first tried to modernize, they saw the Grand Mosque Seizure and the toppling of the Shah so they abandoned it and went deeper into Wahhabism. Wahhabism was and is honestly followed by a region in the interior, parts of Qatar which was the core base of the Wahhabi emirate before they annexed the Kingdom of Hejaz which was ruled by the patriarch of Jordan's royal family who liberated it from the Ottoman Empire. Wahhabism is essentially an extreme puritanical version of Islam which is against schools of thought.
MBS is a tyrant but he has actually cracked down on Wahhabism, it's excesses and calls for the reinterpretation of scriptures according to modern times, something that is considered to be one of biggest sins in the sect.
I didn't say Wahhabis were the majority in Saudi Arabia; I said Saudi Arabia has been Wahhabist. Saudi Arabia is the kingdom ruled by the Saud family, not the geographic area under their control, which historically is just several regions of Arabia (Hejaz, Asir, etc., etc.) and wasn't and would never be called Saudi without the Saud family ruling it.
Thanks for the links. The discussion at Reddit seems to caution against oversimplification and overconclusion. My observation is that it may be hard for the kingdom to have legitimacy if it casts of Wahhabism, which was its reason for existence (as briefly noted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud).
As you say, it's still subject to a much stricter form of Islam than almost every other country except Afghanistan. I don't think it's simply a regular Sunni country, just because it joined almost all of the rest of the world in allowing women to drive, etc.
But MBS has been doing that — women can now work, shop, and drive. The street morality police have been dismantled or sidelined, economic diversification is being pushed and cinemas and concerts have begun. This is not to say that the country has become westernized, or even as liberal as Jordan or Syria, but Wahhabism is being cast off and replaced by a nationalist monarchy with power and legitimacy solely in the hands of MBS. A Wahhabi aligned ruler would never have even thought of normalization with Israel.
The article says that the royals didn't do governing. We could have avoided all the wars and demanded compensation and a terror crackdown from the Saudis. I am shocked.
The media absolutely loves military action. Even if nothing else happens from here we should expect the TV networks to be doing their best to boost Trump. Maybe strikes were unpopular before hand but there will be a concerted effort to make people happy with them after the fact.
I'm not sure about right away. However, I remember the constant talk from Fox News and the Bush administration about "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs) and how Saddam Hussein supposedly already had them. This is what caused a majority of the general public to become in favor of invading Iraq. Prior to this, I'm guessing that many people were in the Not Sure camp, with Support and Oppose both being below 50%.
Senate Parliamentarian says GOP scheme to limit federal court preliminary injunctions by requiring plaintiffs challenging government actions to post large bonds cannot be part of reconciliation bill.
BREAKING: Church attack in Wayne, Michigan, gunman opens fire
A violent attack unfolded Sunday at a church in Wayne, Michigan, when a suspect rammed a truck into the building and opened fire on worshipers. Multiple people were injured in the chaos. According to initial reports, a security guard on site responded swiftly and fatally shot the assailant, preventing further casualties.
Bigoted? Any speculation about the possible motives of the dead attacker? I guess that would be really hard to know unless they left writings behind or had told someone they had something against that particular church.
I don't have much to add from today's thread but NYC Mayor just for all of the reasons discussed in today's thread. The thought of Dem leadership blessing and helping to elect a nepo sex pest from the inheritance class who resigned in disgrace for sexually harassing women just makes my skin crawl.
Yes. If he loses the primary, I hope Mamdani agrees to run on the WFP line. There’s precedent for that. In 1969, John Lindsay lost the primary but ran on the Liberal party line and won. In 1977, Mario Cuomo lost the primary and ran on the Liberal line but lost.
My understanding is that the WFP line is being held open for him.
I’m despondent that we’re unlikely to push aside Mamdani as well as Cuomo. New York has a terrific candidate for Mayor: Brad Lander!
Maybe if progressive voters hadn't flocked to an inexperienced socialist with la-la land proposals and questionable statements on issues ranging from policing to foreign policy, then NY Dems wouldn't be in this mess....
Always good to blame the voters
Voters have a lot to answer for. Who should be blamed for Trump II?
Democratic officials and campaign strategists.
Absurd! Unless you can show the election was actually rigged, it was the voters who chose Trump. They are to blame.
I give the media a fair share of blame as well--also for Trump I.
But heaven forbid we should expect voters to bear some responsibility for their bad decisions....
Some responsibility is not the same thing as blame. You’d think an incommunicative and addled president who insisted on staying in the race until midsummer, and a replacement who thought barnstorming with Liz Cheney was a great idea, had little to do with the result.
If you don't think it's egregious and highly blameworthy for a plurality of voters to elect a convicted felon and adjudicated sexual abuser who was responsible for hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths and had capriciously abrogated agreements, thereby showing that there's no point in anyone making any agreements with the U.S., just continue to blame everyone but the voters who literally made the choice.
There are lots of people and institutions to blame, but the bottom line is, people are responsible for their actions, and if they can't be, they should be in institutions designed to help people with dementia, etc.
If you and I could figure out that it was insane to vote for Trump, acting like people are not really responsible for their actions in voting for him is really outrageous and unacceptable. We could say that because white Americans are brought up to be racist, they're not responsible for a majority of them voting Republican for president in every freakin election since 1968, and people duped into believing in the German Uebermensch and that they were doing the world a favor by ridding it of handicapped people, Jews, Romanis, Poles, gays, Communists, etc. were not responsible for voting for the Nazi Party. I guess we should also say that people who murder for hire are victims of the capitalist system that reduces everything to money.
Politics is not a game. It's an act of public (im-)morality. And just as people should not murder, rape and rob, they should be able to figure out when it's obviously immoral and extremely destructive to vote for someone who already has a record and made promises to add to that record.
I’d give the biggest blame to voters but there’s blame to go all around. The party insiders didn’t try to discourage Biden from running again, killed the “weird” attack line, etc.
Media graded Trump on a curve so big that it made their 2016 curve look fair in comparison.
And voters ultimately went along with all of it and pulled the lever for the most dangerous and malevolent candidate in modern history.
With all due respect, I don’t think Trump and Zohran are remotely comparable.
And I’m going to get hate for saying this, but I’d rather have a socialist than a fascist.
EDIT: Just to clarify, I’m not saying Cuomo is a facsist, although I despise him. I’m just saying that between socialism and fascism, I’d pick socialism.
I didn't say they were remotely comparable, and as a democratic socialist myself, I think you know who I'd pick without a second thought in a contest between Bernie/AOC and fucking Trump!
Oh no I didn’t mean you specifically. It was more of a general comment. Apologies for the misinterpretation.
No problem. But the point is, any democrat is better than an authoritarian!
Indeed!
Paleo, personally I tend to blame the non-voters.
They are also to blame.
Each of the seven states that made the difference had more votes than 2020.
If the non voters there were forced to vote, don’t be surprised by an even more severe loss.
What does a mayoral candidate’s foreign policy views have to do with a municipal election? And maybe ask why voters flocked to him?
They should be irrelevant to the extent that mayors don't get to make foreign policy, but they matter politically in New York.
Establishment Dems should have offered a better alternative to an "inexperienced socialist with la la land proposals" than a "nepo baby sex pest who killed the elderly"
Lander? Stringer? Adrienne Adams? Myrie? Maybe they're not all strictly "establishment Dems", but all are "better alternatives" to Cuomo and Mamdani.
Yes they’re all better than Cuomo, but the establishment people with influence opted to back Cuomo instead, either explicitly or implicitly.
All people Clyburn and co could have endorsed other than endorsing the sex pest on "character".
Honestly, that put me off as well. If you want to endorse Cuomo because you liked his performance as governor, his vision or proposals (such as they are) for the city, or don't want Mamdani and think Cuomo is the only other one who can win, that's one thing.
But praising the "character" of someone who was forced to resign for the reasons he was? Even if you don't believe all the accusations or think they justified resignation, that's laughable.
Then they should have thrown their support behind one of them and yet they're all lining up behind Cuomo because he was a good ol' boy.
Or because they believe he will win and somehow fear him.
Since the Working Families Party said they probably won't endorse Cuomo even if he wins the Dem primary in NYC, could they nominate someone else for their ballot line in the general election? Obviously Cuomo would be the heavy favorite, but a 4-way race between Cuomo, the Republican, Eric Adams, and whoever the WFP nominates could be interesting.
I cannot imagine a WFP candidate being able to win the general if they lose the democratic primary. I wish it wasn't the case but I'd find it unlikely enough to not put any hope on it working out.
We need to have someone beat him in the primary.
Oh I agree. The election nerd in me just thought it would be interesting to have a fractured race like that. Especially since there's apparently no ranked-choice voting in the general election. Cuomo and Adams also seem to have similar bases of support. Adams was polling around 10-15% in a poll from last month. I still think Cuomo would win in that scenario, but maybe with only 50-55% of the vote instead of the 67% Adams got in 2021.
Ah okay. Yeah the scenario could be intellectually intriguing. I'm so disgusted with the possibility of Cuomo winning though that I wouldn't be able to enjoy the curiosity of that four-way election scenario.
If Mamdani is the WFP candidate-it might be possible-he's pretty clearly got enough Primary support to finish ahead of Cuomo in the primary-even though I suspect Ranked Choice voting will put Cuomo over the top.
I seriously doubt he would get very far as the Working Family candidate. The primary electorate is way to the left of the eventual general election.
Is it Curtis Silwa again?
FWIW, it's already nominally a four-way race (Adams and Jim Walden are running as independents). I have no idea how much of the vote they'll siphon off, though.
Jim Who?
New York, concrete jungle where dreams are made of...
What does this mean?
It's a song quote.
I find as i get older i could care less who's endorsing whom. Clyburn is just some guy from South Carolina with an ever-increasing diminished role in the party. He can endorse whoever he wants but it doesn't matter to me. I'm certainly not going to get angry about it.
I really feel like one of the only times in decades that an endorsement has mattered was when Clyburn endorsed Biden. Other than that, who cares. Virtually no one in this state knows who Clyburn is
I mean what came first, black voters rallying behind Biden in South Carolina or Clyburns endorsement? I think Biden would done well there even without Clyburn.
I can't remember the sequence of events but it couldn't have hurt.
Yes, Clyburn definitely holds some sway in South Carolina. I don't think his reach extends much to NYC, though.
More importantly, Clyburn doesn’t exactly have wide appeal statewide in SC.
No, but maybe among Democrats.
True but as far as statewide, has he ever had appeal in potentially winning the general election over anything else besides the House?
Clyburn has served in the House since 1993 and to date has not run for Governor, the Senate or any other political race that would signify he could be battle tested in difficult parts of SC.
SC-06, which Clyburn represents, is a D+13 district and happens to be the only blue district in the state that I am aware of.
I don't understand what you're getting at. SC is a very Republican state.
Well, Senator Fritz Hollings represented it from 1967 to 2005, nearly 40 years. His last two Senate elections were closer than most of his previous Senate elections (including his first back in 1966). However, he also got a larger margin winning re-election in 1998 vs. 1992, the year which Bill Clinton won the presidential election. Hollings also defeated current Governor Henry McMaster in his re-election bid by nearly 30% points back in 1986.
Also, regarding incumbents and open races:
Lindsay Graham
2002 - Alex Sanders lost to him in the open race by 44.19% of the votes
2008 - Bob Conley lost by 42.25% of the votes
2020 - Jaime Harrison lost by 44.17% of the votes
Jim DeMint
2004 - Inez Tenenbaum lost to him in the open race by 44.10% of the votes
By contrast, with Tim Scott no Democratic Senate challenger has been able to get 40% or higher. Perhaps Graham has lower approval ratings than Scott does.
Regarding Jim Clyburn, I am mainly talking about his appeal period these days. I don't think he's got that kind of appeal and energy which could propel him for a statewide run. He could have had a chance back in 2002, 2004 or 2008 to run for the Senate but chose to stay in the House and gain influence and stature. He has after all been House Majority Whip multiple times and now House Assistant Democratic Leader but he's been too institutionalized in the House to be a truly fresh face South Carolinians statewide would gravitate towards.
I think it's obvious that he wouldn't have much state-wide appeal at his current advanced age, but I don't really see losing with 42-44% of the vote as being influential.
Well, it's better to get between 42-44% than less than 40% but I get your point.
The main problem is that Democrats still need to win more elections locally and statewide. That's what they need to improve on.
There's no magic wand that will enable Democrats to win South Carolina.
No, there isn’t.
However, the bright side is that it still offers better opportunities for Democrats to turn out than in states like WV.
45% has generally been the ceiling for Dems with a couple of exceptions here and there.
Yes although it should be noted that Hollings himself also got re-elected in his last two elections by close to that or lower. I’m not convinced SC has moved that much further to the right than it had before. Senator Tim Scott may also benefit not just from being a conservative Republican but also being black as well.
It also really depends on who is in office as Senator.
Hollings was an incumbent.
Yes he was although the point I am making about SC not moving further to the right than it was back in the mid-late 2000’s is something I think is a valid topic for discussion.
Graham also is an incumbent and has been that way since 2003. However, Democratic challengers have still gone past 40% in the votes in multiple times they have faced Graham in the elections.
Someone can still be angered by an immoral act, even if it has no impact on the outcome.
well said
Thank you.
I think it's just symbolic of the moral rot within the party. Endorsements don't matter on the whole but to willingly endorse a sex pest grandparent killer who shouldn't be anywhere near a single lever of power is concerning for those who believe in good governance.
Yeah it's a problem to have congressional leadership endorsing sex pests on "character" even if this one endorsement does not have a major impact on this one race.
AMERICA’s YOUTH VOTE: Democrats have work to do!
America’s youngest voters are far likelier to vote Republican than their older siblings. Generation Z may be better understood as two distinct sub-generations, divided, in large part, by how they experienced the shock of Covid-19.
A stunning statistic is revealed in the latest iteration of the Yale Youth Poll, which found an extraordinary 18-point partisan gap between younger and older members of Generation Z. When asked whether they’d pick a Democratic or Republican candidate in the midterm elections, voters age 22–29 favored Democrats by 6.4 points, while those age 18–21 favored Republicans by 11.7 points.
https://youthpoll.yale.edu/spring-2025-results
https://www.axios.com/2025/06/21/gen-z-partisan-split-young-voters
https://politicalwire.com/2025/06/21/gen-zs-stunning-partisan-split/
Worth noting: This right-ward drift amongst the very-youngest voters is not just an American phenomenon. It is seen in European countries as well, including in Norway.
Also, as has been repeatedly headlined many places: there is a significant and growing gender gap. This right-ward drift is far more pronounced amongst young men.
It's because social media has become dominated by right-ish personalities, which is a complete flip from like 6 years ago when Twitter was mostly known as a liberal friendly-space and Facebook was actually enforcing some basic standards for mis-info (and TikTok wasn't a thing)
This is especially pronounced in areas that target young men. Probably playing a big part in the gender divide.
A lot of big personalities in gaming social media are conservative, especially when compared to ten years ago. Then there’s stuff like Joe Rogan.
Young guys who follow these people will take cues from the from their political takes. If for no other reason then because they’re in their formative years when they start hearing it.
The Yale youth poll has been called an outlier by commentators at Vox and NYmag or Atlantic. I think we'll have to wait and watch. No poll other than the Yale Youth poll has such numbers. National opinion polls which don't consider registered voters don't show much difference in Gen Z like that of Harvard and YouGov. It's very possible that young conservatives registered in droves to vote for Trump 2025/4. Trump has the worst approval of all generations among Gen Z. There have been two Yale youth polls and both have generated intense media cycles. Let's also not forget that Trump may also lead to another anti GOP generation.
Thank you for pointing this out! I also recall polls that show a dramatic drop in the support for Trump in various demographics, especially amongst young voters.
I think at the very least it indicates that our approach towards Gen-Z should keep in mind that the generation has a life experience split based on COVID. We have to have actual elections to back the red-blue divide to see if that is an outlier or not.
For a view contrary to the Yale Youth Poll (and in line with most other current polling), there's this published yesterday by the Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/06/gen-z-red-wave/683212/
Paywalled. Looks very interesting. Could you by chance share a Gift Link?
No, I found it paywalled as well but thought someone else here might be able to read it. It was shared by a commenter at Simon Rosenberg's substack who tried to gift it but said the gift article button wouldn't show up.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/20/politics/redistricting-texas-ohio-republicans-house
Republicans now want to re-gerrymander Ohio along with Texas. This needs to end in 2029 by carving out the filibuster. When they go low, we need to hit them harder.
In Ohio there has to be a new map drawn regardless. By the end of September. Otherwise a commission will do it.
The commission in Ohio is a sham that has all kinds of features that conveniently allow Republicans to still gerrymander the state.
100%. Require every state to set up a commission with equal members of each party and have strict rules regarding county and city splitting. This shit needs to end this is absolute something that needs to be made exempt from the filibuster. Effective democracy depends on it.
There’s still a lot of room for that to go wrong.
Trying do fix it while still keeping the core system latent intact: I’d add ~50 or so seats to the house that don’t have a specific district. The seats are awarded to parties to make the total house seats as close to proportional to the national vote as possible.
Would that require a constitutional amendment?
No, I think someone introduced such an act which is legal but it only has support among the Progressive caucus. The Freedom to Vote/For the People Act though repeals the ban on multi member districts which was enacted in 1964 and allows states to decide on their own.
Which lawmaker from Massachusetts or Connecticut for example would vote to take away their own seat by creating multi member districts? A research group tested a million different FPTP redistricting models for Mass. but none of them had a Republican seat.
I’m not sure. That didn’t cross my mind to consider when I came up with it.
If it didn’t pass constitutional muster there’s other ways to get something close. States can be required to have a certain number of seats be proportional. That would disadvantage us still because the smallest states are red enough that we couldn’t expect to get much/anything out of them at proportional checkpoints. But it’d be a huge improvement still and do a lot to discourage gerrymandering — no point drawing an ugly gerrymander if the party gets nothing out of it at the end of the day.
Country wide add-on seats may need an amendment to rewrite how seats are allocated among states. Germany style add-on seats by state, may pass as constitutional. But that need the smallest state to have something like 3 seats to work properly.
So we are talking about a 1500 seat House.
For the latter I was thinking a smaller increase, maybe 30-50% more seats in the house. Then just accept the places still too small to be able to do it.
Non-ideal but probably not too bad, especially with large states like FL, TX, GA being pointless to gerrymander.
The solution is to ditch our redistricting commissions. There's no reason why California shouldn't have a 52D-0R delegation, for example.
You and I both know that most Democratic voters are never going to vote to abolish an independent redistricting commission. Most Democrats hate gerrymandering, even if it helps them in certain places.
Including me, for example. I'm for good government reforms, and independent redistricting commissions are that. (Not the Ohio version.)
Correct. If Colorado didn't have an "independent" redistricting commission, Dems could've drawn a 7D-1R map there (I've drawn such a map myself). Those three seats the Dems lost in Colorado because of the commission are the entire reason why Republicans control the House right now.
I don't think that's the solution. California does it better by involving the community and forbidding incumbent protection maps.
"When they go low, we go high."
Translation: "When Republicans go for the gut punch, Democrats need to go for the jugular!"
Anderson Clayton, NC Democratic Party chair, hinted on her IG page that Roy Cooper would run against Thom Tillis next year.
She was being vague but she took a pic of Cooper at Allison Riggs’ formal investiture at the NC Supreme Court smiling and all ears. She was answering questions on her IG page— one was whether Cooper was going to run for US Senate.
At the Blue Commonwealth Gala in Richmond (Virginia’s new equivalent of the old Jefferson Jackson Dinner). All three statewide nominees, Abigail Spanberger, Ghazala Hashmi, and Jay Jones will be here!
Enjoy!
Donald Trump's Approval Rating Underwater in 15 States He Won
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-rating-polls-states-2088763
It may be an outlier.
More winning elections please. More winning elections.
It's also easier for him to be down in theory than face-to-face with an actual Democrat, as we've seen.
He was always within the margin of error with Harris.
He lost to Biden by less than predicted and was not predicted to defeat Clinton, but the popular vote percentage was pretty accurately predicted, just not all the right states.
Very interesting that three red states match swing states in approval rating. Texas matches North Carolina and Ohio/Utah matches Georgia.
That the state of Florida is grouped with Indiana, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri is also a very good sign to abandon pouring anymore national money down that red sinkhole. If you live there, by all means, compete and donate, it’s your state and you want things to be better, but if you don’t or if you care more about spending your money/time on winnable races, look elsewhere in 2026. The state is gone for Democrats.
My personal opinion is that this is an outlier but is an indication of the gist.
This long term Civics poll seems to be more accurate and has also been covered by media.
https://civiqs.com/results/approve_president_trump_2025?uncertainty=true&zoomIn=true&annotations=true&map=true
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/blake-farenthold-former-texas-rep-dies/
Former Representative Blake Farenthold died at 63.
I remember Farenthold was quite a character. Never did anything out of significance other than be a Tea Party clown and was a toxic leader to his own staff.
Right. Still sad he died so young, though. The article was impossible to read unless I had disabled my ad blocker, which I won't do.
True. It was unexpected and Farenthold was also not even in his mid 60’s.
It was a shock when he flipped that seat even with the wave that year. Redistricting protected him after that.
Due to some recent developments, i wanted to ask.
Early in the year of 2002, when plans for the Iraq invasion were first being publicly discussed, was polling favorable towards this right away? Because my vague memories of the time were that it was lukewarm at first and only got up to positive territory closer to November when Reps were using it as a campaign issue and condemning anyone who didn't favor going to war.
Trying to look for signs that history won't repeat itself, but polling stats from that time are necessary to do that
No, it wasn't.
Bear in mind 9/11 had happened very recently in 2002
And the disaster of the Iraq war had not happened yet. It will be much harder to sell the public on another war in the Middle East after that debacle.
Because they would never vote to repeat a debacle...
We were still emerging from our 1990s “end of history hyperpower” era then. We’ve since been very disabused of that notion
I don’t remember precisely. But it was more popular than the numbers leading up to the attack on Iran.
It wasn't so much about not going to war but the larger argument on the war on terrorism and WMDs, which we know Iraq did NOT have or was getting anywhere near building. President Bush was a standard and boring POTUS before 9/11 hit. After that, it transformed his presidency.
However, the neocons from Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. that influenced Bush don't occupy the White House these days. As much as the war will affect Iran, there's likely not going to be US troops in the ground there and there certainly won't be any nation building.
What if a lot of American soldiers get injured in retaliation?
Right now, Iran has already planned or could look into attacking anything as follows:
-U.S. jets that are launching air strikes
-U.S. bases in the Middle East
However, the U.S. is still likely to be focused on air strikes.
Don't ignore the likelihood of terror attacks.
How is Iran going to commit terrorist attacks halfway across the world?
What kind of daft question is that? It takes less than 24 hours to travel to just about any place on Earth from just about any other.
You think Iranians are going to fly people halfway around the world just to commit terrorist attacks?
I can't claim to have any insight into the strategic thinking of the Iranian state. But the notion that Iran would be incapable of it, especially because of distance, seems incredibly naive.
Of course!
That’s a really naive question. Do you remember the big terror attacks on the Israeli Embassy and the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires? What about the October 7 atrocities in Israel? Etc., etc.
Sleeper cells and proxies.
Are you referring to terror attacks from any specific groups such as ISIS or specifically Iranian terrorist attacks?
Right now, if such attacks happen, they’ll likely be more regional to the Middle East.
However, Republican Jewish Congressman Max Miller also was just victim of an attack of harassment from a Palestinian man in I believe OH (where his district is based) or in DC. More direct attacks like this could happen in the U.S: because of the war in Iran.
IS is a mortal enemy of Iran. Think Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Palestinians who have other motives but could be coordinated by Iran just as the 11/7 Hamas atrocities were. And I don't agree that terrorism in the U.S. is unlikely.
I think there's a disconnect but I am not arguing there isn't going to be terrorism in the U.S. It's that I don't think we're going to see Iranians traveling from Iran to the U.S. in groups causing terrorism like what we've seen in terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS. So far from what I sense.
Within the U.S., attacks on people like the sitting Congressman Max Miller could very well continue. It's clear the assailent, a Palestinian man, had intent to kill Rep. Miller and had no interest in civil discussion or concerns over discourse. More such situations like this in the U.S. could continue with the War in Iran unfolding.
Iranians don't need to be the ones doing it for the Iranian regime to direct or coordinate it.
No, of course not.
Here's an email I was sent by J-Street. I'm not a member, mostly because though I largely agree with their wishes, I understand they're not going to happen, but I have sometimes participated in petitions they initiated. That aside, the rest of this post is a copy and paste of the email:
Michael, for the better part of the last two decades, I have argued that diplomacy – not military action – was the better way to deal with the Iranian nuclear program.
My views flow directly from lessons I draw from the greatest American strategic blunder since Vietnam, George W. Bush’s post-9/11 Iraq War.
My skepticism about attacking Iran doesn’t mean I have illusions about the Iranian regime. It oppresses its own people, terrorizes the region, unequivocally threatens to destroy Israel and hates America.
I also firmly believe a nuclear-armed Iran would be an unacceptable threat – not just to Israel and its neighbors but to the United States and the world.
I’m not a pacifist either. Tactical military operations have their place in national security strategy, and can achieve limited successes. I acknowledge the tactical successes Israel and the US have achieved in military operations against Iranian facilities and personnel.
Finally, I’m beyond aware that the Israeli public overwhelmingly supports both the US and Israeli military operations. My skepticism about the wisdom of this attack is out of step with even allies and friends in Israel.
Here at home, swaths of the American Jewish community are cheering President Trump’s decision. (I witnessed this firsthand last night at the bar in my hotel in LA when local Jewish Iranian-Americans ordered champagne to toast President Trump at the table next to me.)
Nonetheless, popping champagne seems beyond premature in these early hours.
First things first – let’s see what the Iranian response will be.
Will Iran opt for a limited response that the US can essentially ignore? If so, that’s a potential off-ramp that could allow Trump – and the Netanyahu government – to declare victory and to close this chapter.
I certainly hope that’s the case – in the near-term, that’s without question the best-case scenario.
More worryingly, Iran could launch a more meaningful, large-scale attack on US forces in the region – one that the President would feel compelled to answer.
My biggest concern if that happens – and the concern of the pro-diplomacy camp before the attack – was that the Iranian response and our answer could set off a cycle of escalation that would entangle the US in another long-term military conflict in the Middle East.
Will that happen? I hope not, but we’re all about to find out together.
There are other scenarios – none of them good. For one, Iran could take an action that has global economic impacts such as mining and shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. What would we do then? What would other countries in the region do?
Will the Russians step in to assist the Iranians in rebuilding their program? Remember that Iran has been helping the Russians in Ukraine.
The Houthis could restart firing on crucial shipping lanes. Hezbollah could be brought out of its hibernation. The Iranians could continue to fire on Israeli towns and cities intermittently for weeks in a war of attrition. Will their missiles or Israeli interceptors run out first?
Then there’s the risk that Iran has assets abroad that could engage in terror or assassinations against American, Jewish or other interests globally. Actions of that kind might only happen weeks or months from now at a time and place of Iran’s choosing.
The use of military force is rarely a simple ‘one-and-done’ scenario.
As I listen to more hawkish voices argue for a US strike to “finish the job,” I worry that Netanyahu and his hardline allies won’t be satisfied if, after the US attack, the Iranian regime is still in power, still taking shots at Israel and maybe US forces, and the nuclear program is only set back, not truly destroyed.
In the best scenario, military action stops here. But we’ll soon see that the Iranian program won’t have been “permanently eliminated.” In fact, the regime will have increased incentive to get right back to work, this time with determination to produce a weapon, far away from public view and international oversight.
Won’t the temptation then be for Netanyahu and Trump to push for regime change? Was that the goal all along?
If they try to take out the country’s leadership, what then would follow? Disintegration of the state? A more radical military regime? A country so destabilized it becomes a haven for terrorists and jihadis from neighboring countries?
At a moment like this, we should remember the wisdom of Clausewitz in his seminal “On War”: “No one starts a war… without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war.”
I want the best for the people of the region, for all those in the direct line of fire, and for the world as a whole.
I unfortunately fear the worst. I have little confidence that either leader – Trump or Netanyahu – has a strategy or an end game in mind. I don’t know what worries me more: That they don’t know clearly what they hope to achieve or that what they hope to achieve is going to leave the region and world in a far more dangerous place.
But one thing I do know: Wars are easy to get into. Far harder to end. What comes next will require relentless effort – working with our partners in Congress to do everything we can to bring this crisis to a peaceful end.
Thank you, sincerely, for being with us,
Jeremy Ben-Ami
President, J Street
To the point of what Jeremy Ben-Ami is talking about, I'm trying to do my best to keep my distance from Jews who are more hawkish on the situation with Iran instead of being more level-headed about peace. I know plenty of Jews locally in Berkeley and nearby (at least Reform Jews) who are not happy with this war.
However, as it relates to Iran, even before Trump was elected POTUS back in 2016 I remember getting into an argument with a fellow Jewish man I met at a local Jewish business professionals mixer in San Francisco. We connected with each other at a cafe in the SoMa area but at some point the conversation became a bit heated when this man mentioned that while he was socially liberal on everything, he did not like the Iran Nuclear Deal. I pointed out to him that the Iran Nuclear Deal was the most monumental pro-diplomatic solution that the U.S. could get with Iran in a LONG time. It was meant to set the stage for further diplomacy and working relations with Iran (after all, multiple western countries besides the U.S. signed on to it). Unfortunately, I could not convince him as he still thought that the Iran Nuclear Deal was embolding Iran so it could go against Israel.
On the other hand, I've met Israeli transplants from the country who have wanted to get away from it. I suppose it really depends on perspective at this point.
Like everything else. But the reason I quoted it was partly that it addressed ways Iran could retaliate.
Yeah, I can see where these potential situations could occur if Iran retaliates.
No-but in hindsight, given the nationality of the 9/11 attackers, if the Bush Administration had considered some kind of military response against Saudi Arabia-there would have been almost universal support in this country for it.
Somehow Osama Bin Laden's home country, which also produced fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers got away completely scot-free and we invaded a country that had literally nothing to do with the attacks instead in Iraq.
Lol invading Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam would lead to unimaginable terror worldwide. Some Wahhabi citizens definitely funded them through workarounds but there hasn't been any evidence or a geopolitical reason for official funding and support for them despite conspiracy theories. The Saudi family would have the most to lose even today if Saudi jihadists are empowered. And US bases in Saudi were definitely a trigger in Osama's twisted mind.
The hard turn to ultra-Wahhabism in SA came after the December 1979 Grand Mosque Siege (with its own proto-Khomeini) after all, when the Sauds looked across the Gulf and decided they didn’t want to wind up like the Shah.
And now, MBS has neutered the Wahhabis and broken the pact.
That's a huge overstatement. I also don't know what the "ultra-Wahhabism" Henrik brings up consisted of, but Saudi Arabia has been Wahhabist from the very beginning and Wahhabism is per se a very extreme form of Islam.
No, Saudi Arabia is not a wahhabi majority nation, most Arabs are religious and follow Hanafi, Hanbalis and other schools of Islam but the Wahhabi clergy ruled the country in partnership with the royal family all these decades lending legitimacy to the royal family as the head and using their position to spread Wahhabism and installed it as the state ideology. When the royal family first tried to modernize, they saw the Grand Mosque Seizure and the toppling of the Shah so they abandoned it and went deeper into Wahhabism. Wahhabism was and is honestly followed by a region in the interior, parts of Qatar which was the core base of the Wahhabi emirate before they annexed the Kingdom of Hejaz which was ruled by the patriarch of Jordan's royal family who liberated it from the Ottoman Empire. Wahhabism is essentially an extreme puritanical version of Islam which is against schools of thought.
MBS is a tyrant but he has actually cracked down on Wahhabism, it's excesses and calls for the reinterpretation of scriptures according to modern times, something that is considered to be one of biggest sins in the sect.
https://theconversation.com/saudi-reforms-are-softening-islams-role-but-critics-warn-the-kingdom-will-still-take-a-hard-line-against-dissent-210537
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/saudi-arabia-adjusts-its-history-diminishing-role-wahhabism
https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/1c6dh84/is_saudi_arabia_still_exporting_wahhabism_if_so/
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-used-to-export-extremism-now-its-exporting-tv-dramas-8eb32aa3
He is now promoting a nationalist narrative.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wahhabism#Post-Wahhabi_Era
I didn't say Wahhabis were the majority in Saudi Arabia; I said Saudi Arabia has been Wahhabist. Saudi Arabia is the kingdom ruled by the Saud family, not the geographic area under their control, which historically is just several regions of Arabia (Hejaz, Asir, etc., etc.) and wasn't and would never be called Saudi without the Saud family ruling it.
Thanks for the links. The discussion at Reddit seems to caution against oversimplification and overconclusion. My observation is that it may be hard for the kingdom to have legitimacy if it casts of Wahhabism, which was its reason for existence (as briefly noted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud).
As you say, it's still subject to a much stricter form of Islam than almost every other country except Afghanistan. I don't think it's simply a regular Sunni country, just because it joined almost all of the rest of the world in allowing women to drive, etc.
I believe Iran, Yemen, Sudan and Libya are worse and it's not even comparable to Afghanistan.
But MBS has been doing that — women can now work, shop, and drive. The street morality police have been dismantled or sidelined, economic diversification is being pushed and cinemas and concerts have begun. This is not to say that the country has become westernized, or even as liberal as Jordan or Syria, but Wahhabism is being cast off and replaced by a nationalist monarchy with power and legitimacy solely in the hands of MBS. A Wahhabi aligned ruler would never have even thought of normalization with Israel.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/mbs-domestic-agenda-also-driving-saudi-arabias-diplomatic-blitz
https://dayan.org/content/saudi-arabias-new-nationalism-embracing-jahiliyyah
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/08/07/saudi-arabia-uae-emirates-nationalism-mbs-mbz/
Just to point out: women could work and shop before MBS, too.
Not without a male guardian and other restrictions.
There has indeed been evidence. This is paywalled, but there's enough content that's publicly viewable for you to see sufficient key points: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/september-11-attacks-saudi-arabia-lawsuit/678430/
There indeed has been new revelations since I last checked. Damning though the royals don't seem to be involved.
How are you concluding none of the royals were involved?
The article says that the royals didn't do governing. We could have avoided all the wars and demanded compensation and a terror crackdown from the Saudis. I am shocked.
The royal family is very big. Some of them fund terrorist organizations. But the bigger deal is stuff like this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/911-hijackers-video-saudi-intelligence-official-omar-al-bayoumi/
The media absolutely loves military action. Even if nothing else happens from here we should expect the TV networks to be doing their best to boost Trump. Maybe strikes were unpopular before hand but there will be a concerted effort to make people happy with them after the fact.
What you described is the biggest issue with US media - it presses its own interests at the expense of the public’s
I'm not sure about right away. However, I remember the constant talk from Fox News and the Bush administration about "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs) and how Saddam Hussein supposedly already had them. This is what caused a majority of the general public to become in favor of invading Iraq. Prior to this, I'm guessing that many people were in the Not Sure camp, with Support and Oppose both being below 50%.
Marc Elias: Appeals court decision will incite Trump to send Federalized National Guard and troops into numerous cities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAfYaazu2lc
https://archive.ph/R4MDr
The Myth of the Gen Z Red Wave
The best available evidence suggests that the youth-vote shift in 2024 was more a one-off event than an ideological realignment.
By Jean M. Twenge
June 20, 2025
But we don't know until it's either confirmed or refuted by subsequent elections.
Agreed. And I remain quite worried about it, given how easily people are led by the nose via social media.
That, and a similar pattern in other electorates around the world (South Korea most acutely, but other places too)
Agreed.
Senate Parliamentarian says GOP scheme to limit federal court preliminary injunctions by requiring plaintiffs challenging government actions to post large bonds cannot be part of reconciliation bill.
https://bsky.app/profile/marcelias.bsky.social/post/3ls7id2zn4k2b
So insane that was ever a part of the bill in the first place.
I assume they knew damn well that couldn't be in reconciliation but they have to pretend to appease Trump.
Glad to see it getting Byrd Bathed out.
BREAKING: Church attack in Wayne, Michigan, gunman opens fire
A violent attack unfolded Sunday at a church in Wayne, Michigan, when a suspect rammed a truck into the building and opened fire on worshipers. Multiple people were injured in the chaos. According to initial reports, a security guard on site responded swiftly and fatally shot the assailant, preventing further casualties.
What kind of church was it (I'm guessing if it were Black, you would have mentioned that), and do we know anything about the attacker?
Perhaps it’s regrettable, but I have a strong aversion to diving into the details.
Details can be significant.
Justs seems like generic Christian with a rightward slant. Trinitarian, texualist, purposefully-generic, bigoted
My partner who has a very strong interest in religion just said "non-denominational"
Bigoted? Any speculation about the possible motives of the dead attacker? I guess that would be really hard to know unless they left writings behind or had told someone they had something against that particular church.
They have in their statement of faith a whole section on how marriage is between a man and a woman
I couldn't find any reputable news sources that shared any information about the shooter
All religions believe that marriage is between a man and a woman-if you want to not be homophobic, you should be an atheist.
That's untrue, and a quick survey of Christian denominations that sanctify same-sex marriage is not exhaustive but sufficient to disprove it.