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....
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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