Oakland Mayor Election: Barbara Lee has won. A new drop of ballots has put her way ahead with too few ballots left to change the outcome.
Lee leads Loren Taylor 45,047 (50.06%) to 42,276 (44.99%). The totals add 43,820 to the prior total and is likely almost all ballots received, as only 42K ballots were estimated to remain. Congratulations to Barbara Lee.
Percentage wise, Barbara Lee's win over Loren Taylor is wider than what Sheng Thao got vs. Taylor back in 2022.
This also boosts up the morale and enthusiasm of progressives in Oakland who may have been blindsided and disillusioned with Thao's corruption. Lee has the opportunity to do more with her experience, particularly since she's got far more of it working in government than Thao and Taylor did before they ran in both mayoral races.
Jerry Brown was mayor of Oakland after being governor. Cuomo wants to be mayor of NYC after being a governor. Plus Lee has never been in elected executive office.
yeah a lot of career pols say things like "Mayor of big city is the second best job in politics". Rahm says it's his favorite role he's had as does Cory Booker. Especially given what Congress is like now, being Mayor seems like a better job.
Barbara Lee's mentor and predecessor in Congress Ron Dellums was also elected mayor of Oakland. He was a great House member but had a difficult time as Mayor. I wish her the best of luck in her new role.
Dellums was aloof as Mayor and didn't always give the most transparency with his administration. He also had been out of elected office for years before he ran in the mayoral race back in 2006. Brown by contrast was more competent and focused.
Lee has the fortunate ability to have been out of office for only a few months before being elected as Mayor. I think she'll do a good job and is already fired up with ideas and an agenda.
As I understand your question, no. She was on Ron Dellums's staff and eventually was his Chief of Staff. She later served in the legislature for eight years.
I've always found it bizarre that Jerry Springer went from being a respected local attorney to City Council-member and then Mayor of Cinncinatti to . . .news anchor and struggling daytime talk host (before finding fame steering the show to raunchy dysfunction). I guess his disasterous gubernatorial run in the early 80s put him in a tough spot.
I mean, Mayor of Cincinnati was relatively powerless in the seventies, and he quite honestly had no business being in any statewide race in Ohio (at least not from the position of Mayor of Cincinnati).
It's actually a good gig for someone who wants to still do some work after leaving higher office. You get to lead and actually have a chance to see some results for your hard work.
To elaborate on why I will never subscribe to the Meidas Touch: For one thing, I object to the random interruptions by long testimonial ads. But I really can't tolerate Ben Meiselas anymore. He has called the prison in El Salvador where Abrego-Garcia was sent an "extermination camp" at least twice. That is outrageous and a grave insult to the victims of the Nazi Holocaust and other genocides that really did involve extermination camps. Really, he can go fuck himself.
Gulag inmates were sentenced by courts to the gulags for fixed terms (e.g. 10 years). As far as anybody knows, nobody ever gets out of CECOT, and many confined there have never been taken before a judge or received a penal sentance. Inasuch as the El Salvador government does intend to keep the men it has imprisoned in CECOT as slave laborers for the rest of their lives, I think comparisons to the camps of the Nazi regime are not out of line.
If the detainees are forced to do hard labor unto death, that would be identical to Nazi slave labor camps, but putting people in harsh prisons without parole is not an extermination camp. It's like the cheapening of the word "genocide" to mean any kind of brutality, human rights violations or war crimes someone wants to use the word for. If "trying to wipe out an entire people by killing them off" isn't what "genocide" means anymore, we need a different word that does mean that.
Probably not a conversation I want to go along with very far but there are acts of genocide that don't involve immediate murder: "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. " This is from the UN in 1948 I think but it covers adopting children out to erase their language and culture and forced sterilizations.
Right. But if the word doesn't mean an attempt to wipe a people out, we need a different word for that. And if harsh prisons are "extermination camps," we need another term for places where people are gathered to be murdered.
How many years has it been in operation? Also, during Stalin's reign, millions and millions of people were shot dead. So I don't know in which context the gulags were better. Not in Stalin's time, at least.
My problem with Kirschner is that he couldn't believe the Supreme Court would be so bad and so forth. I have listened to him a lot, and he couldn't believe Trump would get away with his crimes, but he unfortunately proved blind to reality.
I agree, but no-one is helped by crying wolf before there is a wolf. By the way, I was part of the demonstration in New York today, and none of the signs I saw claimed Trump is conducting a genocide against immigrants now, though I wouldn't put it past someone to have had such a sign. Did any of you go to demonstrations in other places today?
Exactly. Harrison, you are right if you're talking about Jewish refugees from Nazi occupation, not mere individuals whose lives might be in some level of danger but who are not members of a people all of whom are marked for murder/execution. Not letting refugees enter or stay is a violation of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees), but you are overusing and weakening the meaning of "genocide" just like someone who calls a slap on the head "murder" would be trying to weaken the meaning of that word.
Really interesting article for a weekend read. Doug Sosnik the Bill Clinton guy basically says Democrats should shift the party to progressive populism on economic issues and make that the focus of the party in the vein of Bernie Sanders/AOC. Whether you agree or disagree, a well thought out interview by a longtime strategist worth your time:
Robert Reich would concur with this approach. As Labor Secretary, he was arguably the most liberal, pro-union member of Clinton’s cabinet in his first term.
yes because analysis is thrown out the window because the individual themselves couldn't win. Wasn't the original point about finding someone to match Bill's charisma that is actually a team player and a leftie economically. It's not brain surgery, what do fdr truman jfk lbj all have in common? They are considered successful democratic presidents that were better on economic issues than social issues. Now picture jimmy carter and his failed commitment to austerity. We won when we cared about the economy. If biden was six years younger none of this would have happened
I'm not exactly throwing it out the window, but my point is very simple. Robert Reich is a very fine economist and a poor politician. What does Al Gore or John Kerry or Hillary Clinton think we should do? I don't care
are they? their philosophy of neoliberalism cost us each election they ran in. robert reich has never handed the keys of the country over to the likes of w bush, w bush again, and who can forget hillarys great campaign against trump. if memory serves all three lost just like robert reich, except their entire brand was pick us we are the best "general election candidate" (no offense to john kerry he was dealt a bad hand electorally), but clinton and gore both ran putrid campaigns wholly independent of their horrible opponents
Incredibly classy response. I would do better to make sure I handle future potential arguments in the same manner. all on the same team here. Have a good week and thanks for your courtesy in not escalating a meaningless argument.
You’re talking decades ago before Reich even became Labor Secretary. That’s a different time than today.
Reich’s views are in fact impactful. Ask anyone who has been fortunate to have had him as professor at UC Berkeley. He IS making an impact but from an educational and activism stand point. This coming from his contributions to society and giving people valuable critical thinking skills from a public policy standpoint. I even saw Reich withdrawal money from an ATM and a fellow Berkeley resident openly thanked him for his service.
I am talking about his campaign in the early 2000's when, as a professor at Brandeis, he attempted to rally the youth vote to become Governor of Massachusetts and lost the primary, coming in just ahead of 3rd place
Ahhh ok. I am not that familiar with the stories about his gubernatorial campaign but thanks for the perspective.
When Reich moved to Berkeley (which he's stayed at permanently since then) he became professor at UC Berkeley, he was aiming to be influential in the 2004 presidential race. He had incorrectly predicted that John Kerry was going to pick Tom Vilsack as his running mate although I believe Vilsack was in fact being vetted by the Kerry Presidential Campaign for this.
However, since the 2004 presidential race ended, I think Reich's primary impact has been in academia and inspiring the next generation of leaders. I don't think he was cut out running for political office. I do believe that President Obama should have considered Reich to be on the Council of Economic Advisors.
The main thing is that Reich is one of those in the Democratic Party who has argued the party should be the anti-establishment party. This means that anything related to the status quo, particularly as it adversely impacts the little guy, Democrats should fight for.
Sherrod Brown, Tim Ryan, Marcy Kaptur are better to emulate. States like Ohio are winnable and 2026 midterms represent a ripe opportunity.
Sherrod Brown & Tim Ryan BOTH need to run; 1 for Governor, 1 for Senate with Amy Acton on the gubernatorial ticket. Jennifer Brunner could run for 1 as backup if 1 or neither decline to run for anything!! 💙🇺🇲
Oakland Mayor Election: Barbara Lee has won. A new drop of ballots has put her way ahead with too few ballots left to change the outcome.
Lee leads Loren Taylor 45,047 (50.06%) to 42,276 (44.99%). The totals add 43,820 to the prior total and is likely almost all ballots received, as only 42K ballots were estimated to remain. Congratulations to Barbara Lee.
Wow, Lee won by a small margin. Congratulations to her as well!
Percentage wise, Barbara Lee's win over Loren Taylor is wider than what Sheng Thao got vs. Taylor back in 2022.
This also boosts up the morale and enthusiasm of progressives in Oakland who may have been blindsided and disillusioned with Thao's corruption. Lee has the opportunity to do more with her experience, particularly since she's got far more of it working in government than Thao and Taylor did before they ran in both mayoral races.
My biggest question with this race is why she wanted the job in the first place. Big-city mayorships have a tendency to be pretty thankless gigs.
But then again, former Delaware Gov. John Carney resigned two weeks early to become the mayor of Wilmington, so what do I know?
Jerry Brown was mayor of Oakland after being governor. Cuomo wants to be mayor of NYC after being a governor. Plus Lee has never been in elected executive office.
yeah a lot of career pols say things like "Mayor of big city is the second best job in politics". Rahm says it's his favorite role he's had as does Cory Booker. Especially given what Congress is like now, being Mayor seems like a better job.
Barbara Lee's mentor and predecessor in Congress Ron Dellums was also elected mayor of Oakland. He was a great House member but had a difficult time as Mayor. I wish her the best of luck in her new role.
I agree about Dellums on both counts. He was one of my all-time favorite members of Congress!
He represented my district before Barbara Lee's first term in the House. Great anti-war history and civil rights record.
Dellums was aloof as Mayor and didn't always give the most transparency with his administration. He also had been out of elected office for years before he ran in the mayoral race back in 2006. Brown by contrast was more competent and focused.
Lee has the fortunate ability to have been out of office for only a few months before being elected as Mayor. I think she'll do a good job and is already fired up with ideas and an agenda.
Was she in an appointive executive position before?
As I understand your question, no. She was on Ron Dellums's staff and eventually was his Chief of Staff. She later served in the legislature for eight years.
Mayor of Oakland is a nice career capstone for a politician of Lee's age, especially since never made it to House Leadership during her career.
I've always found it bizarre that Jerry Springer went from being a respected local attorney to City Council-member and then Mayor of Cinncinatti to . . .news anchor and struggling daytime talk host (before finding fame steering the show to raunchy dysfunction). I guess his disasterous gubernatorial run in the early 80s put him in a tough spot.
I mean, Mayor of Cincinnati was relatively powerless in the seventies, and he quite honestly had no business being in any statewide race in Ohio (at least not from the position of Mayor of Cincinnati).
It's actually a good gig for someone who wants to still do some work after leaving higher office. You get to lead and actually have a chance to see some results for your hard work.
To elaborate on why I will never subscribe to the Meidas Touch: For one thing, I object to the random interruptions by long testimonial ads. But I really can't tolerate Ben Meiselas anymore. He has called the prison in El Salvador where Abrego-Garcia was sent an "extermination camp" at least twice. That is outrageous and a grave insult to the victims of the Nazi Holocaust and other genocides that really did involve extermination camps. Really, he can go fuck himself.
Not an extermination camp. But it is a concentration camp. Or, more accurately, a gulag.
Yes a prison with forced labor, thrash conditions and a medium death rate i.e Gulag.
Gulag inmates were sentenced by courts to the gulags for fixed terms (e.g. 10 years). As far as anybody knows, nobody ever gets out of CECOT, and many confined there have never been taken before a judge or received a penal sentance. Inasuch as the El Salvador government does intend to keep the men it has imprisoned in CECOT as slave laborers for the rest of their lives, I think comparisons to the camps of the Nazi regime are not out of line.
The police officers are also given arrest quotas which have been known to cause innocents to end up in the gulag.
If the detainees are forced to do hard labor unto death, that would be identical to Nazi slave labor camps, but putting people in harsh prisons without parole is not an extermination camp. It's like the cheapening of the word "genocide" to mean any kind of brutality, human rights violations or war crimes someone wants to use the word for. If "trying to wipe out an entire people by killing them off" isn't what "genocide" means anymore, we need a different word that does mean that.
Agreed - I really don't like the overuse of the word "genocide" that we've seen so frequently recently.
Probably not a conversation I want to go along with very far but there are acts of genocide that don't involve immediate murder: "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. " This is from the UN in 1948 I think but it covers adopting children out to erase their language and culture and forced sterilizations.
Right. But if the word doesn't mean an attempt to wipe a people out, we need a different word for that. And if harsh prisons are "extermination camps," we need another term for places where people are gathered to be murdered.
"As far as anybody knows, nobody ever gets out of CECOT"
That's a pretty good point; has anyone ever been recorded actually getting out of there? If not, in many ways it's WORSE than the gulags.
How many years has it been in operation? Also, during Stalin's reign, millions and millions of people were shot dead. So I don't know in which context the gulags were better. Not in Stalin's time, at least.
I'm fine with "gulag," not extermination camp!
Agreed. We are not well served by Meiselas’ hyperbole.
For whatever it’s worth, I far prefer listening to e.g. Bryan Tyler Cohen, Simon Rosenberg or Jennifer Rubin.
I don't love Tyler Cohen's tendency to rant at length to the choir, but that's my personal taste. He is a pretty good interviewer.
I mostly watch BTC's channel for his interviews with Marc Elias (Democracy Watch) and Glenn Kirschner (The Legal Breakdown).
My problem with Kirschner is that he couldn't believe the Supreme Court would be so bad and so forth. I have listened to him a lot, and he couldn't believe Trump would get away with his crimes, but he unfortunately proved blind to reality.
Trust me, if Trump had his way it would be an extermination camp.
Can’t disagree.
I agree, but no-one is helped by crying wolf before there is a wolf. By the way, I was part of the demonstration in New York today, and none of the signs I saw claimed Trump is conducting a genocide against immigrants now, though I wouldn't put it past someone to have had such a sign. Did any of you go to demonstrations in other places today?
Not having open borders is the "soft" version of a genocide against immigrants-slippery slope and all.
I generally oppose immigration restrictions, but they aren't remotely close to genocide and it isn't helpful to throw the term around.
Exactly. Harrison, you are right if you're talking about Jewish refugees from Nazi occupation, not mere individuals whose lives might be in some level of danger but who are not members of a people all of whom are marked for murder/execution. Not letting refugees enter or stay is a violation of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees), but you are overusing and weakening the meaning of "genocide" just like someone who calls a slap on the head "murder" would be trying to weaken the meaning of that word.
Those diabolical commies.
https://bsky.app/profile/senseidai.bsky.social/post/3lnarkxf2cc2p
Commies selling stocks is a pretty funny idea.
Really interesting article for a weekend read. Doug Sosnik the Bill Clinton guy basically says Democrats should shift the party to progressive populism on economic issues and make that the focus of the party in the vein of Bernie Sanders/AOC. Whether you agree or disagree, a well thought out interview by a longtime strategist worth your time:
https://archive.ph/cWdFb
Robert Reich would concur with this approach. As Labor Secretary, he was arguably the most liberal, pro-union member of Clinton’s cabinet in his first term.
As a politician, he couldn't win a primary.
Probably not but it’s what Reich believes in and argues with his agenda, especially as a professor at UC Berkeley, that makes an impact.
My point is that he didn't win his primary in Massachusetts. I don't think his political advice carries much weight.
yes because analysis is thrown out the window because the individual themselves couldn't win. Wasn't the original point about finding someone to match Bill's charisma that is actually a team player and a leftie economically. It's not brain surgery, what do fdr truman jfk lbj all have in common? They are considered successful democratic presidents that were better on economic issues than social issues. Now picture jimmy carter and his failed commitment to austerity. We won when we cared about the economy. If biden was six years younger none of this would have happened
I'm not exactly throwing it out the window, but my point is very simple. Robert Reich is a very fine economist and a poor politician. What does Al Gore or John Kerry or Hillary Clinton think we should do? I don't care
And all 3 of those people are wayyyyy better at politics than Reich.
are they? their philosophy of neoliberalism cost us each election they ran in. robert reich has never handed the keys of the country over to the likes of w bush, w bush again, and who can forget hillarys great campaign against trump. if memory serves all three lost just like robert reich, except their entire brand was pick us we are the best "general election candidate" (no offense to john kerry he was dealt a bad hand electorally), but clinton and gore both ran putrid campaigns wholly independent of their horrible opponents
Philosophy of neoliberalism? What are you talking about?
I disagree with a lot of what you have written, but I also don't think that there will be much productivity in us arguing about it.
Incredibly classy response. I would do better to make sure I handle future potential arguments in the same manner. all on the same team here. Have a good week and thanks for your courtesy in not escalating a meaningless argument.
John Kerry and Hillary Clinton lost the general election. You are not making your point well.
You’re talking decades ago before Reich even became Labor Secretary. That’s a different time than today.
Reich’s views are in fact impactful. Ask anyone who has been fortunate to have had him as professor at UC Berkeley. He IS making an impact but from an educational and activism stand point. This coming from his contributions to society and giving people valuable critical thinking skills from a public policy standpoint. I even saw Reich withdrawal money from an ATM and a fellow Berkeley resident openly thanked him for his service.
I am talking about his campaign in the early 2000's when, as a professor at Brandeis, he attempted to rally the youth vote to become Governor of Massachusetts and lost the primary, coming in just ahead of 3rd place
Ahhh ok. I am not that familiar with the stories about his gubernatorial campaign but thanks for the perspective.
When Reich moved to Berkeley (which he's stayed at permanently since then) he became professor at UC Berkeley, he was aiming to be influential in the 2004 presidential race. He had incorrectly predicted that John Kerry was going to pick Tom Vilsack as his running mate although I believe Vilsack was in fact being vetted by the Kerry Presidential Campaign for this.
However, since the 2004 presidential race ended, I think Reich's primary impact has been in academia and inspiring the next generation of leaders. I don't think he was cut out running for political office. I do believe that President Obama should have considered Reich to be on the Council of Economic Advisors.
The main thing is that Reich is one of those in the Democratic Party who has argued the party should be the anti-establishment party. This means that anything related to the status quo, particularly as it adversely impacts the little guy, Democrats should fight for.
Sherrod Brown, Tim Ryan, Marcy Kaptur are better to emulate. States like Ohio are winnable and 2026 midterms represent a ripe opportunity.
Sherrod Brown & Tim Ryan BOTH need to run; 1 for Governor, 1 for Senate with Amy Acton on the gubernatorial ticket. Jennifer Brunner could run for 1 as backup if 1 or neither decline to run for anything!! 💙🇺🇲
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pope-francis-dies-rcna192559
Pope Francis died (yesterday, I assume) at 88.
RIP to a solid Pope.