That Texas poll is really, really bad for the GOP all around. It also matches other polling. Starting to sense there might be blood in the water. I hope we play it smart.
Considering their write up mentions Terry Virts as a candidate (and he dropped out for TX-09 months ago), I have to question this pollster's analysis of the race.
I don’t know if this applies but Austin, which used to actually be cheaper to live in vs say San Francisco, has gotten more expensive. Cost of living I would say factors in for Texans, at least in Austin, which is known to having its own massive tech scene.
I am actually surprised that Wesley Hunt has relatively high negatives among Republicans despite not being controversial. I guess that priming your base in favor of racism doesn't help your minority candidate.
Some have said that Vivek Ramaswamy in Ohio is suffering from the same thing. But I'd like to think that "I made an ego trip run for President and helped Elon Musk set up DOGE" would not be great credentials for governor for someone of any race, even in a red-leaning state.
Tragic! If the overperformance would have been anywhere close to the Democratic average so far, then Satini would have won this election! (Wouldn’t even have been close.)
Colorado Governor Jared Polis on Tina Peters’ sentence
“She got a sentence that was harsh. It was a nine-year sentence. We always look at people’s sentences and when you have people that are elderly, and we’re looking at this across a number of people — people that are in their 70s and 80s in our system — how much of a threat to society are they? And we balance that in a way that makes sure that they can spend their last few years at home.”
Guys, never vote for an anti-vaxx MAHA neoliberal with a globe emoji on his X and Reddit account again. 20 points underwater and he's still not satisfied.
Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions. And I also liked Polis on that: he at least understood the social and economic hazards that extended lockdowns posed and tried to balance those and public health interests, unlike too many "progressives" whose response was simply to sing the one-note "Stay Home" song indefinitely and self-righteously attacked anyone who didn't agree.
But I don't know what's happened to Polis lately, from the Tina Peters situation to his praise of RFK Jr. on at least some things to his vetoes of pro-union legislation. I suspect that if he could and did run again he'd have a tough primary challenge.
"A source close to the Trump administrations granted anonymity to speak candidly told POLITICO that the general thinking is Republicans will hold the Senate with or without Collins, but didn’t predict a sustained campaign against her: “Like a lot with the president, this is a moment in time, and what is said today does not necessarily hold for tomorrow.”"
Indiana Republican state Sen. Greg Walker, who has consistently stood against the Trump administration’s redistricting pressure campaign in the state, announced that he will no longer retire from the Indiana legislature.
Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang of Las Culturistas endorsed Talarico and told people not to donate to Crockett because she's a partisan candidate who can't win in a red state like Texas. The KHive promptly lost its mind and is now flooding them with abuse across every platform.
Great news — Bonta would be a formidable candidate. He’s not as corporate-friendly as Swalwell and has a calm demeanor, unlike Porter. He’s also done strong work advocating for housing.
Not related, but it’s quite a coincidence that Swalwell and Moulton — two moderate Democrats on opposite coasts — may be headed for similar fates. Both primaried old scandal-plagued progressives to get into office, launched failed vanity runs for president in 2020, are generally corporate- and defense- industry friendly, may lose their statewide primaries and instead be succeeded by two longtime progressive candidates and minorities in their districts: Aisha Wahab and Daniel Koh respectively! I used to be against Wahab because of her NIMBY policies but she has since embraced YIMBYism.
Bonta seems like he could be a formidable candidate, yes, but it's unclear to me why other candidates who hold statewide offices are polling in the low single digits, so I wouldn't assume anything about his prospects.
I don’t see why he would do better than Becerra, Yee, Thurmond or Eleni who all won statewide but are barely registering support for governor. I’d think Bonta is at even more of a disadvantage since he was appointed as AG back in 2021 and has never really introduced himself to voters.
The lack of competitive elections and super expensive media markets results in a lot of Cali voters not knowing who their politicians are. The state really needs a robust public campaign financing system so candidates can actually have the resources to get their names out there.
Nobody knows the names of the SoS and LG while Bonta has lead dozens of lawsuits against Trump and won some. He has also aggressively taken on NIMBYs, lawsuit after lawsuit — all of which has earned him media coverage and sympathy from the Abundance faction esp. in the Silicon Valley and donors.
True although as someone in the middle of NIMBY and YIMBY as far as philosophy, I'm not a fan of the state housing quota law and believe it should be modified to allow cities to be able to work with state government to establish their own realistic quota instead of the top down approach. Aside from this, I agree with Bonta taking on the NIMBYs.
No, the state government works with local governments to establish a realistic quota. It's not that local governments can do whatever they want. State government would be required to hold city governments accountable if they are not being realistic or trying to be NIMBY.
You can't expect Albany, which is barely even a city, to be able to build the same kind of amount of housing as Dublin. It's just not realistic. This has nothing to do with NIMBYism and more to do with trying to give city governments more of a productive say on things.
Name recognition and visibility are the reasons why the rest of the candidates are not polling well. They also have not run campaigns that have gotten enough traction that they can actually make headlines and move polls. I have yet to see anything that Betty Yee, Tony Thurmond, etc. are doing which resembles campaigns with legs.
It’s definitely $$. California has so many media markets and several of them are the most expensive in the country. This is why I think Steyer has the edge, he’s able to sustain a huge as campaign to stand out from the rest of the field with name ID.
I don't know if I'd go so far as to say Swalwell is corporate friendly, at least not that way all the time. He's for Medicare-for-all and the Green New Deal so he can't be that far into being moderate.
Then again, Governor Newsom is tech friendly and vetoed AI regulation that was introduced by State Senator Scott Weiner. Another reason why I hope whoever replaces Newsom does better than to pander to tech.
I believe Swalwell is cautious about anti-trust laws because of what they would do to the national security apparatus. I'm not sure where he gets the impression anti-trust laws do this because breaking up Google wouldn't exactly cause national security problems. Same if you broke up the big banks. In fact, just by breaking up big banks and tech companies you lower national security risks.
Unlike Moulton, Swalwell doesn't fight with the party over the worst things and didn't try to blame 2024 on trans people, so I don't have a problem with him
One of the major gubernatorial candidates dropping out is probably either Porter or one of the current statewide officers running for governor. If I were to guess, it's probably Thurmond who will drop out, but I could be very wrong.
If Bonta runs for Governor I could see Katie Porter switching to the open AG race. She would be well-suited to that office. She would still be facing big money opposition from crypto and other interest groups but might have a better chance of winning.
Are Thurmond and Yee still considered "major candidates"?
IL-9, the race featuring carpetbagger Kat Abughazaleh.
I'm looking at the track record of parachute/carpetbagger candidates in the last 25 years or so, and how successful or not they are. Hillary Clinton's ascension to the NY Senate seat is the most prominent one of the last quarter century I can think of that was successful. I forgot Clinton only bought a house in Chappaqua a year before she ran for Senate in NY. Can anyone remember if this was a point of contention in the Dem primary at the time? There is also a difference i think, between moving over a district, especially after redraws/new maps, and moving cross country, which is far more bold.
Perhaps not geographically, but assuming his views in Hillbilly Elegy were honest, JD Vance might be the greatest ideological carpetbagger of all time, becoming the right hand man of someone he once accused of peddling "cultural heroin". The crass, raw ambition for power is almost admirable, if it weren't so destructive.
Can Haley Stevens be called a carpetbagger? She spent most of her adult life outside of Michigan and parachuted in to run for House in 2018. She has tweets endorsing candidates in many states while living there as a private citizen.
Maggie Goodlander, in NH-01, basically carpetbagged there from DC. She's not devoid of prior NH history though (raised in Nashua), so not the same as HRC going to New York.
Raised in Nashua, yes, but left the state pretty much as soon as she turned 18. I don't think she deserves any credit for that - you can't control where you grow up, but you can control where you live once you become an adult, and Goodlander left the state as soon as she was able to.
One of the many reasons why I strongly opposed her candidacy in 2024.
I wasn't that bothered by it, but I did oppose her due to her having been a staffer for McCain and Lieberman. To me it augured poor things to come. To my surprise, she's been about as good as I think I could have expected out of a seat in NH. CVO likely would have been better, but she's superior to both Hassan and Shaheen, at least.
Colin Van Ostern, Goodlander's primary opponent in 2024. He would've been a great Congressmember - lived in NH for most of his adult life, and has a progressive record from his time on the Executive Council.
It was very disappointing when Goodlander basically bought the 2024 primary using her husband's connections (he was Biden's National Security Advisor).
Yes, Hillary Clinton's carpetbagging was an issue, and it may have cost her a few votes, but she got a solid win, probably in large part because of the issue of abortion rights and maybe also because of her highly publicized "listening tour" of every(?) county before she announced.
-Gov. Patrick Morrisey moved to West Virginia from Washington, D.C. in 2012 and immediately won the race for attorney general. He had also previously run for congress in New Jersey.
-Former Rep. Alex Mooney was a Maryland state senator 4 years before entering Congress here and chair of the state Republican party and is also related to the Suarez politicians in Florida.
-Former Sen. Jay Rockefeller is a member of the prominent New York family
Not much of an issue in the NYS Dem primary in 2000 b/c Hillary cleared the field, for the most part. Nita Lowey was going to run and didn't b/c Hillary was clearly going to win. Hillary won 82% of the primary vote.
Beyond being the president of the 2002 Olympics in SLC, Romney had truly not lived in Utah since 1971 when he finished his last two years of undergrad at BYU, and had been governor of Massachusetts clear across the country before he decided to run as Hatch's replacement in 2018.
As the unappointed spokesperson for the descendants of carpetbag makers, I'd like to protest the use of that term because that demeans our foreparents' valid industry. Besides, today's plastic luggage is ugly, even if it is lighter.
All tongue in cheek, of course, though I am descended from carpetbag makers (Oneida -- Google if interested) and ironically live in SC now. Keep smiling everyone.
I'm interested in my home district race of course! with Julia Brownley's retirement, Jacqui Irwin has jumped in and locked up some early endorsements, but we are waiting to see if others jump in. The district is divided among east/ west county (if you've ever traveled the 101 and traversed the steep Camarillo Grade, that's the dividing line). Irwin is east county (L.A. exurbs, conserva-Dem white people who fret about crime) but I'd like to see a west county (surfers and Latinos, angry at ICE, more progressive) candidate.
You can draw 10 seats that voted for Kamala Harris by double digits each. If we’re losing a Harris +10 seat that’s not due to scandal, we’ve already lost the House anyway.
That would depend a lot on the map specifics. I haven't looked at the proposal but I think when maps are stretched a bit too far the danger isn't so much complete collapse but that a few edge cases are lost in the wrong environment. So I could see us getting 8-3 or 7-4 in those minority bad outcomes if we had an insufficiently durable 10-1 map.
And maybe they can draw a 10-1 that is durable enough and it wouldn't be a worry.
I’ve seen a lot of different configurations of 9-2 on twitter that are pretty clean and would keep all the incumbents happy. Every 10-1 map I’ve seen involves significant changes to Don Beyer’s district to get that 10th district by baconstripping Arlington to VA-6. All it really takes is one unhappy incumbent to doom a redistricting plan and why I think 9-2 is more likely.
Thanks. The 9-2 map looks very solid. Is this 10-1 map the one with all the districts over Harris +10 in the last presidential election? District 3 looks light blue on the map.
How will this murder play out in the Minnesota gubernatorial and Senate primary?
Angie Craig supports and voted for the Laken Riley Act, and expressed gratitude to ICE and called for more state and local collaboration in a poison pilled resolution because AIPAC lobbied for it. 90 percent of Democrats and 43 percent of Americans support abolishing ICE according to Axios.
I wonder if she'll get the best of both worlds, worst of both worlds, or somewhere in between for being Walz's LG now.
He's distanced himself from her and isn't supporting her, so she could benefit from that as he becomes a bit of a punching bag. Or she could get the damage from lack of support and the damage from association. Or a bit of both the good and the bad. Hard to know currently.
I'm just happy that this issue reared its head in the last few months, and not about 14 months ago. Who knows of the potential downballot damage, had this scandal blown up on Walz in say, mid October 2024.
Craig has had to do a total 180 out of political necessity, although I honestly don't know if it's a sincere change of heart on Craig's part or if she's being a performative progressive in this political moment. Craig is running against a staunch and consistent progressive in Peggy Flanagan, and for Craig continue to run as a moderate after ICE's murder of Renee Good would have been extremely tone-deaf.
I will also note that I don't recall Craig having expressed regret for voting for the Laken Riley Act.
The Independent asked her if she regrets her vote:
“This administration is not using any law to do what they're doing in this country. What Donald Trump said is that they would target violent criminals in this country under ICE. That is not at all what they're doing, they are literally violating the law.”
This article doesn’t actually say Craig is now for abolishing/reforming ice. It’s about her and 2 other reps getting blocked from a detention facility to do her lawful immigration oversight. Showing up is the bare basic requirement for any Democrat. Those two things are not the same at all.
If this indecent causes her to fully back reform at minimum and to walk back her Riley Act vote as a mistake, then I’ll praise her changing her tune. Not until that point though and I have doubt whether I’ll ever need to do that.
I get more and more optimistic about the Iowa Governor's Race every day. Even with the conservative leanings of my state, I think Rob Sand may be the beneficiary of "lets try something different" after what will be 16 years of Republican Governors. Most of the stories I see about Feenstra are negative. Now can Steen catch some momentum and change the narrative, it is possible. The same can be said about Feenstra or the other Republicans, but this race has gone far better than I originally predicted.
Feenstra has the problems of being religiously conservative, but in a boring and uncharming way. The baggage of Trump's policies without being at all exciting basically.
If nothing else, I think we can confidently say that the pundits and users who argued moving right on immigration was what Democrats should do in order to win in 2026 were wrong. Strong border, humane border, deport the violent criminals, abolish/reform ice, pathway to citizenship for those here working. This is the position a majority/strong plurality of Americans favour.
And I bet as murder after murder happens at the hands of these thugs, that 42% number is going to quickly turn into a majority. Doubling support in a year is no small fete. Or at the worst a majority in favour of reforming ICE, if not abolishment. Also worth mentioning, this current number probably goes up if you add the words “and replace it with something else” instead of making it sound like America has no forces to deal with immigration.
Because no Democrat as far as I’m aware just wants to abolish it and have nothing else to enforce immigration in the country. This is a good reminder for all that public opinion isn’t set in stone, events can change opinion drastically. Meet the average voter where they are at that time and you’ll likely win. In 2024 that was closing the border, deporting illegal immigrants. Now in 2026? Not so much.
We’ve been too focused as a party on fighting the last fight instead of fighting the current fight or next fight. See abortion 2022 results vs 2024 results.
42% is still far from a majority in the country. I fear running on something like “Abolish ICE.” Like the stupid “Defund the police” slogan, it is easy for people to assume anyone saying it is unserious about the border and illegal immigration. Advocating for overhauls or consolidation with CBP. Frame it as a way to save money and weed out the unqualified masked goons that cannot get jobs with their local police departments or in the military.
42% is not far from a majority, and we should watch what happens in the next couple of years before concluding that abolishing ICE and replacing it with a Border Patrol that is clearly for law enforcement and not to function as a lawless private army would not be popular.
My issue with the “Abolish ICE” slogan is a fear it will turn into another 2019-2020 era slogan that feels good at the time but haunts us for years. I just hope we play it smart. I don’t doubt that most Americans are in favor of giant overhauls to ICE, or that they would be open to consolidation with Border Patrol.
Most people want law enforcement to not look like masked thugs who could be cosplaying a cop but really wants to kidnap/rape you. Most people probably don’t like untrained/trigger happy right wing extremists who couldn’t make the cut for local law enforcement nor join the military being in positions of authority. The issue is framing it tactfully and smartly.
I agree with you that the slogan is terrible. We need to start saying “replace ice” instead. But given how nationally viral these murder are going by armed thugs in masks, abolish ice would probably get to a majority pretty quick right now.
I really also want to emphasize that not stating the immigration agency will be replaced causes people on the fence or low info voters to think it’s just getting rid of the agency and not doing any immigration enforcement. I hope a pollster at some point decides to ask the question with the added “replaced with something else”, that 42% would almost certainly go up in my mind and may already garner majority support.
100%. People see “Abolish ICE” and come to the natural conclusion that the immigration wouldn’t be handled by another agency. “Replace,” “consolidate,” or “overhaul” are much better. Gotta win a Senate majority first, and you probably can’t do that running on “Abolish.”
Purge ICE might not be bad either, as realistically the institution needs to exist, but all the 2025 onward hires need to be removed as they are mostly just there to terrorize
The problem with the comparison to "defund the police" is the difference between the public's perception of the police versus their perception of ICE.
The public by and large likes the police, and by wide margins. To the extent that there may be support for reform outside of our base, it's exact that: support for reform. That's why "defund" was such a bad slogan. It directed people towards a different course of actions than what was actually wanted and away from what might have been a viable message to voters.
ICE does not have that benefit. The only portion of the public that likes ICE are diehard conservatives. The general perception of ICE is bad. Not as bad as it is with our base, but it is bad. We're contrasting negative with negative: it's something we can work with. We're not in danger of directing people away from the tone they might accept, because they think ICE is bad.
The two scenarios are only superficially similar. The details are not the same. I think tossing aside the popular argument here -- opposition to ICE -- due past experience with different groups is trying too hard to fight the last battle.
See the “replace” conversation above. There’s no doubt in my mind that the public is in favor of massive overhauls to ICE, or that they would be in favor of consolidation. It’s all about smart framing. You have to show who would do the actual immigration enforcement (i.e., Border Patrol).
I think you are doing the exact same thing that Dems did after Trump cracked down on immigration the first time. The people react negatively to violence by ICE but they are still, like most people all over the world, generally anti-immigration. Immigration was one of the top 3 things to bring down Biden and Harris probably top 2. It's why Trump caught fire and won in 2016.
I’m pretty sure I said strong border in my post 🤔 🤷♂️
I’m very obviously not advocating for going back to what Biden did, because you’re right that it absolutely helped Trump win in 2024. However, times have changed, voter opinion has changed and we need to acknowledge the reality as it sits today instead of looking back a year ago and saying that sentiment is the same as now. Because it unarguably isn’t.
Could it return to that opinion because it’s an issue that flips based on who is President and of what party? Yes. In Trump term 1, voters opposed building a border wall. In Biden’s America they wanted to deport all illegal immigrants. It will change again the next time a Democrat wins the White House, but for that to happen in Trump’s America today? Not a chance in hell.
So I’m going to restate my point about us not falling for fighting the last fight and instead fighting the one people currently want us to fight. You can fairly argue whether it’s a majority of people against ICE now, but you cannot with a bold face say we should be anti-immigration right now.
In 2030 under a Democratic president? Sure. In 2026? Nope.
It's the truth under the surface. We didn't win 2020 because we supported immigration, we won it because Trump fumbled COVID, the economy was doing poorly and 10,000 other scandals on his part.
The fact that no one prominent in congress has actually put forth a serious bill that abolishes ICE and lays out a replacement agency tells me it’s not an issue Dems are going to push. There’s nothing worse than putting a half baked slogan as part of your election policy messaging.
The time to propose a bill to abolish, replace or strongly reform Ice is after Democrats have regained the majority – hopefully in both chambers of Congress. To do so now would only be performative and peel away votes.
PS. And while we’re at it, let’s repeal the Patriot Act! (I don’t hear anybody talking about that.)
100%. Let's assert our right to privacy both with the government, big tech, and insurance/health. And let's please as a byproduct rename the agency with the fascist sounding Homeland in it.... Domestic Security, perhaps.
The "popularists" neoliberals Shor and Yglesias advocated for Laken Riley, ignoring Abrego Garcia and anti-trans positions based on a polling in time and now their favorite candidates like Craig, Stevens and Moulton are getting hit over some of those positions.
"But the topline really understates the intensity of public backlash to ICE and its tactics. In February 2025, just 19% of Americans held a strongly unfavorable view of ICE, per YouGov/The Economist. Today, 40% do. It’s not just that there has been a general move in opinion against the agency. There is a growing and intense, angry opposition to it across America."
Interested in my home district, NY-17. Was at an anti-ICE protest today in Mt Kisco NY where I met Beth Davidson and saw Mike Sacks (two candidates). I strongly feel Conley will win, so I’m curious — do people here think we could unseat Lawler?
With Trump at his current numbers I would say it is more likely than not. Lawler won, but not by huge numbers against two fairly weak candidates in bad years for Dems.
I think this seat probably flips, but I actually have it lower than a number of other seats. New York was the one place in the country last November where our electoral overperformance was muted.
I agree that Conley is the strongest candidate, but honestly think any of the major Democrats running now (Conley, Davidson, Sacks, Chatzky, Phillips-Staley and Sullivan) could probably win in a general given the environment. Even Kamala Harris carried the district in 2024 when she lost in NY-3, which simultaneously elected Tom Suozzi.
IL-9/Iran Protests: Florida State Representative and Orlando mayoral candidate Anna Eskamani is going to participate in one of Kat Abughazaleh's campaign livestreams tomorrow night:
This is notable because large-scale protests are ongoing in Iran right now, and Eskamani is the daughter of immigrants from Iran (Abughazaleh is a Palestinian-American). I know that Yassamin Ansari is the only Democratic member of either house of Congress who is of Iranian descent, but I don't know if there's any Democratic state legislators other than Eskamani who are of Iranian descent.
Abughazaleh also has what appears to be a new TV ad out:
Why do people delete their comments here? It makes comment threads difficult to understand. If you need to make a change or edit I feel like you should leave your comment up and add a note explaining the change or edit. Or, if you feel your comment is no longer applicable then leave it up for purposes of transparency and add a note indicating you've clarified or altered your sentiments below
That Texas poll is really, really bad for the GOP all around. It also matches other polling. Starting to sense there might be blood in the water. I hope we play it smart.
Link? Is it applicable to other Southern states like NC and FL?
It's in a thread on today's digest
https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/blog/health-care-prices-top-texans-voters-economic-worries-on-eve-of-critical-midterm-election-year-2
Considering their write up mentions Terry Virts as a candidate (and he dropped out for TX-09 months ago), I have to question this pollster's analysis of the race.
I don’t know if this applies but Austin, which used to actually be cheaper to live in vs say San Francisco, has gotten more expensive. Cost of living I would say factors in for Texans, at least in Austin, which is known to having its own massive tech scene.
I am actually surprised that Wesley Hunt has relatively high negatives among Republicans despite not being controversial. I guess that priming your base in favor of racism doesn't help your minority candidate.
Some have said that Vivek Ramaswamy in Ohio is suffering from the same thing. But I'd like to think that "I made an ego trip run for President and helped Elon Musk set up DOGE" would not be great credentials for governor for someone of any race, even in a red-leaning state.
It’s probably both racism/prejudice and his failed Presidential run/DOGE. It’s impossible to separate the effects, though.
https://election-night.decisiondeskhq.com/date/2026-01-06/532754
SD-HD-98: Republican Greg Ford's 21-vote margin over Democrat Sonja Satani has been certified - that is his winning margin.
Now that it has been certified, is there still a recount given how close the race was?
I get that there probably isn't much hope for a change in outcome, but also, it ain't over until it's truly over...
Certified after recount today.
https://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/125869/web.345435/#/summary
Tragic! If the overperformance would have been anywhere close to the Democratic average so far, then Satini would have won this election! (Wouldn’t even have been close.)
Why was enthusiasm/GOTV less? Why did we fail?
SC is strongly inelastic. 7 points is a massive seing here, not a failure.
Thanks for the correction.
Indiana cruising over Oregon!! 35-7 at halftime!!!
Sad day for Oregon supporters. Can't say I'm disappointed - they beat Texas Tech, who I was rooting for.
Indiana’s turnaround under Coach Cig has got to honestly be one of the most insane stories in the history of American sport
Politics & Poll Tracker 📡
@PollTracker2024
Colorado Governor Jared Polis on Tina Peters’ sentence
“She got a sentence that was harsh. It was a nine-year sentence. We always look at people’s sentences and when you have people that are elderly, and we’re looking at this across a number of people — people that are in their 70s and 80s in our system — how much of a threat to society are they? And we balance that in a way that makes sure that they can spend their last few years at home.”
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2009803869480468983?s=20
Guys, never vote for an anti-vaxx MAHA neoliberal with a globe emoji on his X and Reddit account again. 20 points underwater and he's still not satisfied.
He's an odd duck for sure. I liked his unorthodoxy on Covid NPIs but a lot of his other stances have been head-scratching for sure.
National Provider Identifiers or something else?
Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions. And I also liked Polis on that: he at least understood the social and economic hazards that extended lockdowns posed and tried to balance those and public health interests, unlike too many "progressives" whose response was simply to sing the one-note "Stay Home" song indefinitely and self-righteously attacked anyone who didn't agree.
But I don't know what's happened to Polis lately, from the Tina Peters situation to his praise of RFK Jr. on at least some things to his vetoes of pro-union legislation. I suspect that if he could and did run again he'd have a tough primary challenge.
I'm not really sure who you think you're talking about who wanted people to stay home forever. No-one called for that. But thanks for elaborating.
"A source close to the Trump administrations granted anonymity to speak candidly told POLITICO that the general thinking is Republicans will hold the Senate with or without Collins, but didn’t predict a sustained campaign against her: “Like a lot with the president, this is a moment in time, and what is said today does not necessarily hold for tomorrow.”"
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/09/susan-collins-trump-reelection-00719283?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
“What [the President says] today does not necessarily hold for tomorrow.”
Wow, that is some really deep an analysis – directly from the Regime!
I mean, that's probably about the most self-aware statement that any of these folks have made.
Indiana Republican state Sen. Greg Walker, who has consistently stood against the Trump administration’s redistricting pressure campaign in the state, announced that he will no longer retire from the Indiana legislature.
https://indianacapitalchronicle.com/2026/01/07/redistricting-foe-sen-greg-walker-changes-mind-says-hell-seek-reelection/
Good. I’ll take old school Reaganite Reps, much as I disagree with them, over the MAGA freaks
Every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang of Las Culturistas endorsed Talarico and told people not to donate to Crockett because she's a partisan candidate who can't win in a red state like Texas. The KHive promptly lost its mind and is now flooding them with abuse across every platform.
So maybe it would help if Kamala Harris endorsed Talarico?
Considering this is a primary and not a general election, Harris could certainly take some steam away from Crockett's campaign by endorsing Talarico.
Here's more about what they said. (Note: this includes discussion of some past and future things not for Downballot discussion.)
https://ew.com/bowen-yang-matt-rogers-urge-fans-not-donate-jasmine-crockett-11882304
"Vance Ulrich
@VanceUlrich
It’s so widely expected that CA AG Rob Bonta will announce a run for Governor, there’s already a shadow primary for AG.
Going to be so many Democrats jumping into the race for AG, one Bonta announces as expected.
One of the major Gov candidates is expected to drop out too…"
https://x.com/VanceUlrich/status/2009757376505651523
Great news — Bonta would be a formidable candidate. He’s not as corporate-friendly as Swalwell and has a calm demeanor, unlike Porter. He’s also done strong work advocating for housing.
Not related, but it’s quite a coincidence that Swalwell and Moulton — two moderate Democrats on opposite coasts — may be headed for similar fates. Both primaried old scandal-plagued progressives to get into office, launched failed vanity runs for president in 2020, are generally corporate- and defense- industry friendly, may lose their statewide primaries and instead be succeeded by two longtime progressive candidates and minorities in their districts: Aisha Wahab and Daniel Koh respectively! I used to be against Wahab because of her NIMBY policies but she has since embraced YIMBYism.
Bonta seems like he could be a formidable candidate, yes, but it's unclear to me why other candidates who hold statewide offices are polling in the low single digits, so I wouldn't assume anything about his prospects.
I don’t see why he would do better than Becerra, Yee, Thurmond or Eleni who all won statewide but are barely registering support for governor. I’d think Bonta is at even more of a disadvantage since he was appointed as AG back in 2021 and has never really introduced himself to voters.
The lack of competitive elections and super expensive media markets results in a lot of Cali voters not knowing who their politicians are. The state really needs a robust public campaign financing system so candidates can actually have the resources to get their names out there.
Nobody knows the names of the SoS and LG while Bonta has lead dozens of lawsuits against Trump and won some. He has also aggressively taken on NIMBYs, lawsuit after lawsuit — all of which has earned him media coverage and sympathy from the Abundance faction esp. in the Silicon Valley and donors.
True although as someone in the middle of NIMBY and YIMBY as far as philosophy, I'm not a fan of the state housing quota law and believe it should be modified to allow cities to be able to work with state government to establish their own realistic quota instead of the top down approach. Aside from this, I agree with Bonta taking on the NIMBYs.
I do not agree with allowing NIMBYs to set their own quota. Carrots have been tried for a very long time, they don't work – it's the time for sticks.
No, the state government works with local governments to establish a realistic quota. It's not that local governments can do whatever they want. State government would be required to hold city governments accountable if they are not being realistic or trying to be NIMBY.
You can't expect Albany, which is barely even a city, to be able to build the same kind of amount of housing as Dublin. It's just not realistic. This has nothing to do with NIMBYism and more to do with trying to give city governments more of a productive say on things.
Name recognition and visibility are the reasons why the rest of the candidates are not polling well. They also have not run campaigns that have gotten enough traction that they can actually make headlines and move polls. I have yet to see anything that Betty Yee, Tony Thurmond, etc. are doing which resembles campaigns with legs.
That begs the question: Why can't they?
It’s definitely $$. California has so many media markets and several of them are the most expensive in the country. This is why I think Steyer has the edge, he’s able to sustain a huge as campaign to stand out from the rest of the field with name ID.
Why can't statewide office-holders raise enough money, then?
I don't know if I'd go so far as to say Swalwell is corporate friendly, at least not that way all the time. He's for Medicare-for-all and the Green New Deal so he can't be that far into being moderate.
Then again, Governor Newsom is tech friendly and vetoed AI regulation that was introduced by State Senator Scott Weiner. Another reason why I hope whoever replaces Newsom does better than to pander to tech.
I believe Swalwell is cautious about anti-trust laws because of what they would do to the national security apparatus. I'm not sure where he gets the impression anti-trust laws do this because breaking up Google wouldn't exactly cause national security problems. Same if you broke up the big banks. In fact, just by breaking up big banks and tech companies you lower national security risks.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/medicare-all-obvious-solution-health-care-system-still-drives-people-ncna977851
If a politician's stated reason for supporting something makes no sense, look at who's bankrolling them.
Unlike Moulton, Swalwell doesn't fight with the party over the worst things and didn't try to blame 2024 on trans people, so I don't have a problem with him
One of the major gubernatorial candidates dropping out is probably either Porter or one of the current statewide officers running for governor. If I were to guess, it's probably Thurmond who will drop out, but I could be very wrong.
If Bonta runs for Governor I could see Katie Porter switching to the open AG race. She would be well-suited to that office. She would still be facing big money opposition from crypto and other interest groups but might have a better chance of winning.
Are Thurmond and Yee still considered "major candidates"?
IL-9, the race featuring carpetbagger Kat Abughazaleh.
I'm looking at the track record of parachute/carpetbagger candidates in the last 25 years or so, and how successful or not they are. Hillary Clinton's ascension to the NY Senate seat is the most prominent one of the last quarter century I can think of that was successful. I forgot Clinton only bought a house in Chappaqua a year before she ran for Senate in NY. Can anyone remember if this was a point of contention in the Dem primary at the time? There is also a difference i think, between moving over a district, especially after redraws/new maps, and moving cross country, which is far more bold.
Perhaps not geographically, but assuming his views in Hillbilly Elegy were honest, JD Vance might be the greatest ideological carpetbagger of all time, becoming the right hand man of someone he once accused of peddling "cultural heroin". The crass, raw ambition for power is almost admirable, if it weren't so destructive.
Can Haley Stevens be called a carpetbagger? She spent most of her adult life outside of Michigan and parachuted in to run for House in 2018. She has tweets endorsing candidates in many states while living there as a private citizen.
Maggie Goodlander, in NH-01, basically carpetbagged there from DC. She's not devoid of prior NH history though (raised in Nashua), so not the same as HRC going to New York.
Raised in Nashua, yes, but left the state pretty much as soon as she turned 18. I don't think she deserves any credit for that - you can't control where you grow up, but you can control where you live once you become an adult, and Goodlander left the state as soon as she was able to.
One of the many reasons why I strongly opposed her candidacy in 2024.
I wasn't that bothered by it, but I did oppose her due to her having been a staffer for McCain and Lieberman. To me it augured poor things to come. To my surprise, she's been about as good as I think I could have expected out of a seat in NH. CVO likely would have been better, but she's superior to both Hassan and Shaheen, at least.
CVO?
Colin Van Ostern, Goodlander's primary opponent in 2024. He would've been a great Congressmember - lived in NH for most of his adult life, and has a progressive record from his time on the Executive Council.
It was very disappointing when Goodlander basically bought the 2024 primary using her husband's connections (he was Biden's National Security Advisor).
She received almost 2 times as many votes as him.
Yes, Hillary Clinton's carpetbagging was an issue, and it may have cost her a few votes, but she got a solid win, probably in large part because of the issue of abortion rights and maybe also because of her highly publicized "listening tour" of every(?) county before she announced.
I think it cost her a sizable number of votes. Gore won by 25 points in an open seat. Hillary only won by 12 points.
As a West Virginian,
-Gov. Patrick Morrisey moved to West Virginia from Washington, D.C. in 2012 and immediately won the race for attorney general. He had also previously run for congress in New Jersey.
-Former Rep. Alex Mooney was a Maryland state senator 4 years before entering Congress here and chair of the state Republican party and is also related to the Suarez politicians in Florida.
-Former Sen. Jay Rockefeller is a member of the prominent New York family
Not much of an issue in the NYS Dem primary in 2000 b/c Hillary cleared the field, for the most part. Nita Lowey was going to run and didn't b/c Hillary was clearly going to win. Hillary won 82% of the primary vote.
Beyond being the president of the 2002 Olympics in SLC, Romney had truly not lived in Utah since 1971 when he finished his last two years of undergrad at BYU, and had been governor of Massachusetts clear across the country before he decided to run as Hatch's replacement in 2018.
Good example.
As the unappointed spokesperson for the descendants of carpetbag makers, I'd like to protest the use of that term because that demeans our foreparents' valid industry. Besides, today's plastic luggage is ugly, even if it is lighter.
All tongue in cheek, of course, though I am descended from carpetbag makers (Oneida -- Google if interested) and ironically live in SC now. Keep smiling everyone.
I'm interested in my home district race of course! with Julia Brownley's retirement, Jacqui Irwin has jumped in and locked up some early endorsements, but we are waiting to see if others jump in. The district is divided among east/ west county (if you've ever traveled the 101 and traversed the steep Camarillo Grade, that's the dividing line). Irwin is east county (L.A. exurbs, conserva-Dem white people who fret about crime) but I'd like to see a west county (surfers and Latinos, angry at ICE, more progressive) candidate.
What are people’s thoughts on the route VA Dems should go, 9-2 or 10-1 and should they release a draft map before the possible referendum?
9-2. I’m not sure whether or not they have to release it before the referendum.
Not sure, but I'd take a safe 9-2 over what may now look like a 10-1 but could be much worse than that in a red year.
You can draw 10 seats that voted for Kamala Harris by double digits each. If we’re losing a Harris +10 seat that’s not due to scandal, we’ve already lost the House anyway.
10-1, why concede seats we don’t have to? If I remember correctly the 10-1 map still had 10 districts that voted for McAuliffe in 2021.
There have been maps where 10-1 is safe in a red wave. Virginia has awful geography for the GOP.
I tend to favor durability. I expect 9-2 would be much more reliable than 10-1, even if the 10-1 would probably work out the majority of the time.
And in the minority of the time, how many seats do you think the Democrats would win?
That would depend a lot on the map specifics. I haven't looked at the proposal but I think when maps are stretched a bit too far the danger isn't so much complete collapse but that a few edge cases are lost in the wrong environment. So I could see us getting 8-3 or 7-4 in those minority bad outcomes if we had an insufficiently durable 10-1 map.
And maybe they can draw a 10-1 that is durable enough and it wouldn't be a worry.
2 folks have already said such maps exist. If anyone has a link, maybe we can discuss this question less theoretically.
I’ve seen a lot of different configurations of 9-2 on twitter that are pretty clean and would keep all the incumbents happy. Every 10-1 map I’ve seen involves significant changes to Don Beyer’s district to get that 10th district by baconstripping Arlington to VA-6. All it really takes is one unhappy incumbent to doom a redistricting plan and why I think 9-2 is more likely.
Thanks. My feeling is, fuck any Rep who gets in the way of a reasonably effective gerrymander that nets another seat.
This story has the maps. https://bluevirginia.us/2026/01/va-senate-president-pro-tem-louise-lucas-says-shes-sticking-with-a-10d-1r-map-today-and-anyone-in-the-congressional-delegation-who-wants-a-seat-needs-to-campaign-for-it-and-not-expect-a-safe/
Thanks. The 9-2 map looks very solid. Is this 10-1 map the one with all the districts over Harris +10 in the last presidential election? District 3 looks light blue on the map.
How will this murder play out in the Minnesota gubernatorial and Senate primary?
Angie Craig supports and voted for the Laken Riley Act, and expressed gratitude to ICE and called for more state and local collaboration in a poison pilled resolution because AIPAC lobbied for it. 90 percent of Democrats and 43 percent of Americans support abolishing ICE according to Axios.
Flanagan may be impacted by the fraud scandal too, as a member of the Walz Admin
True but Walz dropping out and being replaced by a better performer removes Craig's disingenuous “electability” claim.
What's the claim and why is it disingenuous? Is the claim that Flanagan is not electable or that Walz wasn't reelectable?
The claim was that Flanagan is not electable because Minnesota is a "swing state" so it needs to elect a corporate centrist for "electability".
That strikes me as nonsense.
I wonder if she'll get the best of both worlds, worst of both worlds, or somewhere in between for being Walz's LG now.
He's distanced himself from her and isn't supporting her, so she could benefit from that as he becomes a bit of a punching bag. Or she could get the damage from lack of support and the damage from association. Or a bit of both the good and the bad. Hard to know currently.
I'm just happy that this issue reared its head in the last few months, and not about 14 months ago. Who knows of the potential downballot damage, had this scandal blown up on Walz in say, mid October 2024.
Apparently she’s changing her tune.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/10/minnesota-democrats-ice-00721211
Craig has had to do a total 180 out of political necessity, although I honestly don't know if it's a sincere change of heart on Craig's part or if she's being a performative progressive in this political moment. Craig is running against a staunch and consistent progressive in Peggy Flanagan, and for Craig continue to run as a moderate after ICE's murder of Renee Good would have been extremely tone-deaf.
I will also note that I don't recall Craig having expressed regret for voting for the Laken Riley Act.
The Independent asked her if she regrets her vote:
“This administration is not using any law to do what they're doing in this country. What Donald Trump said is that they would target violent criminals in this country under ICE. That is not at all what they're doing, they are literally violating the law.”
https://x.com/EricMGarcia/status/2010198259252552167
So that’s a no then.
Laken Riley attacks people who are merely charged with an alleged crime, so she's full of shit.
This article doesn’t actually say Craig is now for abolishing/reforming ice. It’s about her and 2 other reps getting blocked from a detention facility to do her lawful immigration oversight. Showing up is the bare basic requirement for any Democrat. Those two things are not the same at all.
If this indecent causes her to fully back reform at minimum and to walk back her Riley Act vote as a mistake, then I’ll praise her changing her tune. Not until that point though and I have doubt whether I’ll ever need to do that.
I get more and more optimistic about the Iowa Governor's Race every day. Even with the conservative leanings of my state, I think Rob Sand may be the beneficiary of "lets try something different" after what will be 16 years of Republican Governors. Most of the stories I see about Feenstra are negative. Now can Steen catch some momentum and change the narrative, it is possible. The same can be said about Feenstra or the other Republicans, but this race has gone far better than I originally predicted.
Feenstra has the problems of being religiously conservative, but in a boring and uncharming way. The baggage of Trump's policies without being at all exciting basically.
Approval of ICE has gone from +16 to -13 since last February.
In September 2024, 19% supported abolishing ICE. It’s now at 42%.
https://www.axios.com/2026/01/09/ice-approval-rating-plummets-trump-immigration?utm_social_post_id=647450098&utm_medium=organic_social&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_source=x&utm_social_handle_id=800707492346925056
If nothing else, I think we can confidently say that the pundits and users who argued moving right on immigration was what Democrats should do in order to win in 2026 were wrong. Strong border, humane border, deport the violent criminals, abolish/reform ice, pathway to citizenship for those here working. This is the position a majority/strong plurality of Americans favour.
And I bet as murder after murder happens at the hands of these thugs, that 42% number is going to quickly turn into a majority. Doubling support in a year is no small fete. Or at the worst a majority in favour of reforming ICE, if not abolishment. Also worth mentioning, this current number probably goes up if you add the words “and replace it with something else” instead of making it sound like America has no forces to deal with immigration.
Because no Democrat as far as I’m aware just wants to abolish it and have nothing else to enforce immigration in the country. This is a good reminder for all that public opinion isn’t set in stone, events can change opinion drastically. Meet the average voter where they are at that time and you’ll likely win. In 2024 that was closing the border, deporting illegal immigrants. Now in 2026? Not so much.
We’ve been too focused as a party on fighting the last fight instead of fighting the current fight or next fight. See abortion 2022 results vs 2024 results.
42% is still far from a majority in the country. I fear running on something like “Abolish ICE.” Like the stupid “Defund the police” slogan, it is easy for people to assume anyone saying it is unserious about the border and illegal immigration. Advocating for overhauls or consolidation with CBP. Frame it as a way to save money and weed out the unqualified masked goons that cannot get jobs with their local police departments or in the military.
42% is not far from a majority, and we should watch what happens in the next couple of years before concluding that abolishing ICE and replacing it with a Border Patrol that is clearly for law enforcement and not to function as a lawless private army would not be popular.
Kamala Harris got 48% of the vote and won 19 states. 42% would be underwater in god knows how many states.
Only if it's a binary choice with no undecideds or "yes, but"s.
My issue with the “Abolish ICE” slogan is a fear it will turn into another 2019-2020 era slogan that feels good at the time but haunts us for years. I just hope we play it smart. I don’t doubt that most Americans are in favor of giant overhauls to ICE, or that they would be open to consolidation with Border Patrol.
Most people want law enforcement to not look like masked thugs who could be cosplaying a cop but really wants to kidnap/rape you. Most people probably don’t like untrained/trigger happy right wing extremists who couldn’t make the cut for local law enforcement nor join the military being in positions of authority. The issue is framing it tactfully and smartly.
I agree with you that the slogan is terrible. We need to start saying “replace ice” instead. But given how nationally viral these murder are going by armed thugs in masks, abolish ice would probably get to a majority pretty quick right now.
I really also want to emphasize that not stating the immigration agency will be replaced causes people on the fence or low info voters to think it’s just getting rid of the agency and not doing any immigration enforcement. I hope a pollster at some point decides to ask the question with the added “replaced with something else”, that 42% would almost certainly go up in my mind and may already garner majority support.
100%. People see “Abolish ICE” and come to the natural conclusion that the immigration wouldn’t be handled by another agency. “Replace,” “consolidate,” or “overhaul” are much better. Gotta win a Senate majority first, and you probably can’t do that running on “Abolish.”
"Reform". As in "reform immigration enforcement to go after criminals, not workers".
Purge ICE might not be bad either, as realistically the institution needs to exist, but all the 2025 onward hires need to be removed as they are mostly just there to terrorize
Why does it need to exist? It didn't exist before 2001.
The problem with the comparison to "defund the police" is the difference between the public's perception of the police versus their perception of ICE.
The public by and large likes the police, and by wide margins. To the extent that there may be support for reform outside of our base, it's exact that: support for reform. That's why "defund" was such a bad slogan. It directed people towards a different course of actions than what was actually wanted and away from what might have been a viable message to voters.
ICE does not have that benefit. The only portion of the public that likes ICE are diehard conservatives. The general perception of ICE is bad. Not as bad as it is with our base, but it is bad. We're contrasting negative with negative: it's something we can work with. We're not in danger of directing people away from the tone they might accept, because they think ICE is bad.
The two scenarios are only superficially similar. The details are not the same. I think tossing aside the popular argument here -- opposition to ICE -- due past experience with different groups is trying too hard to fight the last battle.
See the “replace” conversation above. There’s no doubt in my mind that the public is in favor of massive overhauls to ICE, or that they would be in favor of consolidation. It’s all about smart framing. You have to show who would do the actual immigration enforcement (i.e., Border Patrol).
Absolutely. But not overhaul, replacement.
"Defund the consultants!"
(Most of the Democratic campaign and communications consultants, that is)
The police are an important part of daily life and communities. ICE and police are not the same at all.
I think you are doing the exact same thing that Dems did after Trump cracked down on immigration the first time. The people react negatively to violence by ICE but they are still, like most people all over the world, generally anti-immigration. Immigration was one of the top 3 things to bring down Biden and Harris probably top 2. It's why Trump caught fire and won in 2016.
I’m pretty sure I said strong border in my post 🤔 🤷♂️
I’m very obviously not advocating for going back to what Biden did, because you’re right that it absolutely helped Trump win in 2024. However, times have changed, voter opinion has changed and we need to acknowledge the reality as it sits today instead of looking back a year ago and saying that sentiment is the same as now. Because it unarguably isn’t.
Could it return to that opinion because it’s an issue that flips based on who is President and of what party? Yes. In Trump term 1, voters opposed building a border wall. In Biden’s America they wanted to deport all illegal immigrants. It will change again the next time a Democrat wins the White House, but for that to happen in Trump’s America today? Not a chance in hell.
So I’m going to restate my point about us not falling for fighting the last fight and instead fighting the one people currently want us to fight. You can fairly argue whether it’s a majority of people against ICE now, but you cannot with a bold face say we should be anti-immigration right now.
In 2030 under a Democratic president? Sure. In 2026? Nope.
It's the truth under the surface. We didn't win 2020 because we supported immigration, we won it because Trump fumbled COVID, the economy was doing poorly and 10,000 other scandals on his part.
Right, but the situation is different now.
I don't really think it is. Time is a flat circle.
The fact that no one prominent in congress has actually put forth a serious bill that abolishes ICE and lays out a replacement agency tells me it’s not an issue Dems are going to push. There’s nothing worse than putting a half baked slogan as part of your election policy messaging.
The time to propose a bill to abolish, replace or strongly reform Ice is after Democrats have regained the majority – hopefully in both chambers of Congress. To do so now would only be performative and peel away votes.
PS. And while we’re at it, let’s repeal the Patriot Act! (I don’t hear anybody talking about that.)
100%. Let's assert our right to privacy both with the government, big tech, and insurance/health. And let's please as a byproduct rename the agency with the fascist sounding Homeland in it.... Domestic Security, perhaps.
The "popularists" neoliberals Shor and Yglesias advocated for Laken Riley, ignoring Abrego Garcia and anti-trans positions based on a polling in time and now their favorite candidates like Craig, Stevens and Moulton are getting hit over some of those positions.
This might benefit Abdul El-Sayed in the Democratic primary in the Michigan U.S. Senate race.
God help us.
"But the topline really understates the intensity of public backlash to ICE and its tactics. In February 2025, just 19% of Americans held a strongly unfavorable view of ICE, per YouGov/The Economist. Today, 40% do. It’s not just that there has been a general move in opinion against the agency. There is a growing and intense, angry opposition to it across America."
https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/support-for-abolishing-ice-is-at
Interested in my home district, NY-17. Was at an anti-ICE protest today in Mt Kisco NY where I met Beth Davidson and saw Mike Sacks (two candidates). I strongly feel Conley will win, so I’m curious — do people here think we could unseat Lawler?
Yes. It looks very likely that he'll be facing a powerful head wind this fall.
With Trump at his current numbers I would say it is more likely than not. Lawler won, but not by huge numbers against two fairly weak candidates in bad years for Dems.
If we can't win this seat then we're probably not getting a majority
I think this seat probably flips, but I actually have it lower than a number of other seats. New York was the one place in the country last November where our electoral overperformance was muted.
I agree that Conley is the strongest candidate, but honestly think any of the major Democrats running now (Conley, Davidson, Sacks, Chatzky, Phillips-Staley and Sullivan) could probably win in a general given the environment. Even Kamala Harris carried the district in 2024 when she lost in NY-3, which simultaneously elected Tom Suozzi.
IL-9/Iran Protests: Florida State Representative and Orlando mayoral candidate Anna Eskamani is going to participate in one of Kat Abughazaleh's campaign livestreams tomorrow night:
https://www.instagram.com/p/DTVmPB4jnB0/?igsh=bW04b3J4YWE1eXM3
This is notable because large-scale protests are ongoing in Iran right now, and Eskamani is the daughter of immigrants from Iran (Abughazaleh is a Palestinian-American). I know that Yassamin Ansari is the only Democratic member of either house of Congress who is of Iranian descent, but I don't know if there's any Democratic state legislators other than Eskamani who are of Iranian descent.
Abughazaleh also has what appears to be a new TV ad out:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTNyYHSiFb_/?igsh=enBudTJiMnY4YWVh
What?
Trump tearing up Obama's Iran deal and strengthening sanctions has brought the Ayatollah down on his knees.
In prayer?
Why do people delete their comments here? It makes comment threads difficult to understand. If you need to make a change or edit I feel like you should leave your comment up and add a note explaining the change or edit. Or, if you feel your comment is no longer applicable then leave it up for purposes of transparency and add a note indicating you've clarified or altered your sentiments below
It was the same thing, just worded differently.
The only reason I've ever deleted a comment here is because someone else edited their comment to make mine superfluous or seeming nonsensical.