Democratic politicians coming out against this are off-base and risk damaging the party. This kind of stuff would normally be hugely popular. That's quite apart from my attitude that opposing this kind of tax is immoral.
I have a feeling that if the billionaire tax passes, having Tom Steyer as Governor would change the political landscape and discourse in CA.
Besides the fact that Steyer is a billionaire, he has an MBA at Stanford, one of the top 5 MBA programs in the world and well-connected to Silicon Valley.
Think about it - A billionaire like Steyer being for the billionaire tax. Warren Buffett would not be against paying more taxes.
Interesting that those in line have the right to refuse. Minnesota ran into an incredibly strange situation in early 2018. When then-Governor Mark Dayton appointed his LG Tina Smith the the US Senate. In Minnesota the Senate President automatically becomes Lieutenant Governor, and they can't say no. So when Tina Smith became a Senator, Senate President Michelle Fischbach (Later elected as a Congresswoman) became Lieutenant Governor, to the displeasure of everyone involved, including (especially) Fischbach and Dayton.
Thought of the same example you did. Here's how it happened. Nikki Hayley was Gov. Her LG was hired to be President of the College of Charleston. The Senate president pro tem didn't want to be LG, so he resigned and a Democrat Yancey McGill ran unopposed for Senate pro tem despite it being majority R. After his election, the LG resigned, McGill was elevated to LG and the previous pro tem was reelected by the Rs in the state Senate.
McGill had been in the state senate like 25 years. Mostly with easy reelections,but he was a white prolife democrat in a diatrict with a large Black community and it was the early 2010s. In hos previous Sen primary he won by less than 1%. So McGill got a promotion and didn't have to lose or retire his senate seat. It's currently held by Ronnie Sabb, who'd be a good replacement for Clyburn IMO. Sabb win the special to replace McGill. He is a better fit for the Senate district than McGill was at the end, Black, pro-choice, relatively left.
Henry McMaster ran for LG at the next regular election, becoming LG with Hailey. McGill didn't run. Mc Gill did run for Gov against McMaster as an R later, but finished well behind.
Oh right! I'd forgotten about that. These shenanigans show how much people care about LG here, lol. Though Pamela Evette is trying to make hay from it.
That may have been Orbán’s hope. But with Péter Magyar’s Tisza Party enjoying a supermajority, Orbán’s prospects of running interference are considerably curtailed. Thank God!
Could be simply being done with things. He was PM for the past 16 years, and 20 years total. He's in his early 60s. Perfect time to fuck off and enjoy retirement without needing to operate from a position of political weakness, trying to scrape it together into power that would overlap with his 70s.
The party wasn't aligned on everything. It had to depend on Manchin and Sinema. That's why it didn't get enough done, though what it did get done ought to have been sufficient for voters not to re-elect a convicted felon sociopathic moron. In terms of your other points, show us examples of swing districts in which candidates calling themselves socialists won any elections behind record turnout. And finally, going back to the point about Manchin and Sinema, but also considering the trials of the Obama years: if the Democratic Party expands to include everyone who's against dictatorship, regardless of whether they support any other agenda, how would there be any chance to unite behind all of the essential legislation and other steps that any trifecta, if we have one in 2029, must take? Total lack of ideology makes parties incoherent and unable to effectuate any policies other than very general ones like trying to avoid excessive inflation and unemployment.
I think there are definitely voters for whom nothing would work, and I do believe that appealing to the center is the most intuitive thing to do, though not the only possible strategy.
I didn't realize you were talking about welcoming votes from any quarter. That's very different from what I thought you were talking about.
I applaud Liz Cheney for her integrity, patriotism and sacrifice – while disagreeing with just about everything she stands for on the issues. I see her as a reliable anti-Trump ally, and I applaud and embrace just about everyone who is useful in that regard. But I do NOT believe she can or should have any place in the Democratic Party!
The problem with "red lines" is, whose red lines? Not everyone's definition of that is the same. The Democrats do not have a "one man" cult, and I don't think they ever will. I fail to see how an argument about a cult of personality is relevant to an argument about strict ideology.
Re: alienating voters: can you provide polls or hard evidence proving that accommodating the left somehow loses us votes? Mamdani's win certainly didn't slow our momentum in other states -- Virginia, NJ, the PA court races, the WI court races, NJ-11 (where a similar progressive won), etc.
Also, what is the alternative to not accommodating the left? Kicking them out? Keeping them out of politics? What would happen if they weren't kicked out?
I generally agree, but I have to say, if the Democrats win but don't protect abortion rights, or throw LGBT people under the bus, that will cause way more anger and defection from the Democrats than resistance to candidates who are reasonably feared to be too far left to win districts by the establishment.
You had mentioned Mamdani as being in your definition of "far left". As I understand it, your definition, as in the comment above, seems to define the term as communists and those close with them.
As far as I know, Mamdani fits neither category. He has some beliefs like city-run grocery stores that are much further left than traditional U.S. politics. But his policies overall seem to be in between your definitions of "the left" and "far left".
Socialism =/= communism. There are socialist belief systems like libertarian socialism that have little in common with communism. Mamdani is not calling for mass nationalization of utilities -- thus, I do not consider him communist or communist-leaning. But he's further left than what you define as "the left".
It seems like a third category is needed here. Mamdani is good about working with the party -- he endorsed Hochul even, much to the consternation of the DSA and some allies -- but he's further left than your definition of "the left". I'd argue this third category can be integrated without alienating voters -- as I said, Mamdani winning didn't slow our progress in Virginia (we won a referendum that we wouldn't ever have won 20 years ago), or PA (all 3 court justices were retained) or even neighboring NJ (where we gained seats in a State Assembly we were widely expected to lose seats in.) Maybe Mamdani is further left than some Americans would like. But since he doesn't seem to be harming us, I don't see the problem in integrating him and this third category I've identified.
Now, if we're talking foreign policy, I can see why you'd put Mamdani there -- although I can't really go into detail as it concerns the forbidden I-P topic that will only create further drama and is banned here anyhow. But if we're talking strictly policy, I don't think Mamdani is anywhere near a communist (or even some of the more radical factions of the DSA). That's just my thoughts though -- apologies if I came off too aggressive, I'm quite passionate about my politics.
You have to know that Mamdani's foreign policy views are not why he was elected Mayor of New York. He has great common-sense ideas, he showed that he had done the work of figuring out how to pay for them, and he's charismatic. His foreign policy views simply, and maybe surprisingly, didn't prevent him from winning.
Private capital controlling energy and transport is a big part of the obstacle to climate progress. Consideration of alternate models of organizing those sectors seems warranted.
I've always considered myself a moderate but I check every box you list for "the Left". Just goes to show how everyone has their own definition of these labels (which, I believe, is the point you were making).
I don't think "accommodate" means "give everything they want" in this context. I read it as having more of the party establishment accept and support progressives in cities, districts, and states that are a good fit. Easy recent example with NYC's mayoral election -- a lot of party insiders endorsed Mamdani tepidly, not at all, or even outright endorsed his opponent.
There's what, half a dozen members of the squad? And maybe twice as many again non-members with similar ideology. There's about 60 house seats with a PVI of D+20 or greater, and nearly 100 at D+15 or greater. With the caveat that PVI is not a 1:1 match for ideology, there are a lot of seats that could fit more AOC-esque candidates without being an electoral liability. But the party insiders do not like this and fight, to varying degrees, to prevent that.
A healthy party is one that is happy to have Gluesenkamp Perez in WA-03, Summer Lee in PA-12, and Slotkin in the middle as MI-Sen. We need all three wings of the party's ideological spectrum confident that the party will support them where it makes sense without undue opposition. Currently the leftmost wing does not feel that is the case.
Right. But before you make claims that the left has sat out elections since 2012, you ought to have data to back that up. It's -that- part of your post that I find unacceptable and a slur against people like me - and based on your self-description, you!
On top of that, another question I have is, what is so awful about a hard left person winning ideologically that we have to draw red lines? With all due respect, I don't think city-owned grocery stores are anywhere near as dangerous as, or comparable to, rounding up immigrants and deporting/shooting them. The implication in another comment that Mamdani types are as dangerous as Trumpers is, in my mind, wholly false.
Got it. Misread your comment. (Incidentally, as a side note, if I recall correctly Atlanta tried city-run grocery stores too due to similar serious food desert problems -- as far as I know, it didn't create any real problems.)
I wonder if Mamdani's problem with some voters is messaging. People think of him as a communist or a radical, when a lot of his policies are fine. Aside from grocery stores, I love his public restroom idea -- I live close to NYC, finding a restroom is a complete fucking nightmare (especially since Starbucks closed several locations and stripped restrooms out of others, and they were the closest thing to a restroom many places hade.) But when voters see him, they think Soviets, Mao, Cuba. Maybe if he'd have embraced messaging closer to general economic progressivism, some of his skeptics would have been more assuaged. (Tellingly, his focus on affordability is one reason he's been as successful as he is.) I don't know, just kind of putting it out there to gauge opinions.
"On top of that, another question I have is, what is so awful about a hard left person winning ideologically that we have to draw red lines? "
If they help the Republicans win that should be enough to draw a red line. That may not have been so for Zohran Mamdani, but it certainly could in more competitive states and districts.
And in response to another comment, I've honestly sensed some unsettling personality cultism at times among the left toward several politicians, even if it hasn't reached GOP/Trump levels. And while I'd agree that to a degree "bad statements, bad views and anything else can at least be accepted" (acts like those which Eric Swalwell has been accused of are of course unacceptable), there are too many who are intolerant of what they view as personal or ideological transgressions and unhelpfully refuse to support someone who they judge guilty of them.
That is not uniformly true of the left though -- and you could make the same argument regarding centrists. A Republican won the Seattle City Attorney race a while back due to centrist support (the Dem primary winner was a leftist), and the 2023 Allegheny County Executive race was quite close in part due to a left-wing candidate winning the Dem primary. Shouldn't centrists have shown up for those races, much as the left are asked to do so for centrists?
Re: personality cults: Bernie/AOC/Mamdani do get a lot more shit from their base than Trump does from his though. Mamdani's Hochul endorsement was very controversial among the left, as was his intervention in the DSA endorsement process to stop Chi Osse from getting the DSA endorsement during his aborted Jeffries challenge. I've even seen people who feel Bernie and AOC didn't go far enough.
And reflexive and illogical support of prominent individual politicians and their policies accompanied by hero worship is NOT limited to the left among Democratic factions.
As a socialist, I agree with your points, except for your example of Lander and Mamdani, who differ in religion and maybe Lander doesn't say loudly that he's a socialist? But they are very much kindred spirits and supported each other. So if one is "far left", the other is, but I also rather resist the idea of democratic socialists being "far left" like Stalinists.
The far left is much more represented online, and seems much, much larger than it actually is.
The actual number of Jill Stein ratfuckers, laced boots wearing street communists and all black-clad activists destroying flock cameras at night, the true far left, is vanishingly small, even in places of high concentration like certain areas on the West Coast. Their actual electoral impact on both primaries and general elections, and on the fate of the Dems is minimal outside their outsized ability to occasionally impact discourse online. Even then, the socio-political structure of this country gives the right such a massive inherent advantage, that the far left will never be able to gain critical mass.
I’m a pragmatic progressive as well and we see eye to eye on many issues here. I think it’s time for the centrists to hold their noses and vote for candidates who they don’t love for a change.
I’m a pragmatic liberal (refuse to call myself a progressive but it’s in essence more semantics) but believe anyone in the Democratic Party should be a good spokesperson on the causes that matter and not be afraid to show balls (especially on regulating AI and getting rid of data centers).
Aside from this, as in Daily Kos, more and better Democrats!
Ok, we do need to have at least some principles. I am not going to vote for people who are bigots, or rapists, or who are corrupt on the level of someone like Bob Menendez. I'm just not. Disagreements on some policy issues are one thing, but if we don't have even basic moral standards what's the point?
If the choice were Menendez or a Republican, what would you do? New Jersey voters had that choice and voted for him, and it was important. However, that was before we knew about the gold bars. But I definitely don't think the solution is to vote for a Republican or sit out the election in these times when virtually all Republican politicians are supporting dictatorship.
I'd vote for the Republican if the Democrat is a criminal like that (if we had known how bad it was at the time, which like you said we did not know in 2018). If you are literally selling out the country to foreign governments in exchange for gold, then I don't really care about anything else, you cannot be allowed to serve in office.
I don't think there's anything that could get me to vote for a member of the fascist party the Republicans are now. If the Democrat were a murderer, I suppose I'd vote for a minor-party candidate or write someone in.
I'm sorry, but I truly cannot agree with that. I'm a partisan, but I'm not so partisan that I wouldn't be willing to vote for someone whose policies I disagree with over a literal murderer. You're basically applying the quote about how Trump could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Ave and people would still vote for him and saying that even that wouldn't be enough to get you to vote against a member of your own party (and voting for a third party is just throwing your vote away and saying you don't care enough to actually stop either candidate from the main party from winning).
I'd probably have to vote Menendez, although for a state legislative or local election, I could be convinced to vote Republican if the Democrat was unfit for office to the degree they were an active detriment to the party. There are also times where in a deep blue state, getting rid of a problematic state legislative leader is worth electing a Republican (see Rhode Island House in 2020), as the Republican can do less harm than a majority leader.
This is a good discussion for a weekend and I'm glad you can make it here and have the conversation that's occurring above/below without a bunch of flames. Yay TDB!
Curious though why the Michigan Convention spurred this? Is it because Shkreli wasn't nominated for SOS? Because from my POV the centrist establishment candidate there was Barb Byrum, not Gilchrist, even though he's been LG. The more progressive candidate got the AG nod (Savit) and as did Amit Makled for one of the UM regent races, defeating incumbent Jordan Acker. I'd have voted for a 3rd option in the UM race, but at least Makled stands for freedom of speech and assembly while Acker actively worked against it. Both have problematic social media or text posts. However, I think both Savits and Makled for your desire to have more lefty options be the nominees. Or were you worried they are unelectable even though they better matched a left profile? I think Savits is totally electable in Michigan. Makled might not be, but an R might also be better than Acker.
I think that's a legitimate fear in most years, but this year is shaping up to be one that carries many Dems across the line. I suspect any of the MI-SEN candidates would be likely to win the general election, even Abdul-Sayed.
To be clear, AES is not my guy and I hope he doesn't win the primary (for several reasons, including the fact that I agree with you that he'd make it closer than it should be in the GE).
I agree with basically all of this. I fear we’re going to piss away probably our best/only shot at the Indiana Secretary of State race with the convention format too.
From a press release in mid-2025: "Whether it was thwarting last-minute amendments to the budget or vetoing bills that sought to restrict eligible voters’ ability to vote in their elections, Gov. Hobbs fought to ensure that efforts to restrict access to the ballot box for eligible voters did not go into law this session. The bills vetoed would have outlawed vote centers (HB2017), restricted voter registration assistance efforts (HB2004), and limited voters’ ability to drop off their ballot on election day without standing in line and checking in (HB2703)."
MS Gov. Tate Reeves (R) calls a special session to the legislature relating to congressional redistricting. Depending on the ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the legislature may be inclined to dismantle the 2nd district, a majority Black seat long held by Democrat Bennie Thompson.
However, primary elections in Mississippi have already occurred, meaning a threat to the only Democratic member of the delegation won't come until 2028, when Reeves happens to leave office.
Potentially, but it's not hard to draw 4 non-competitive R districts in MS if you remove VRA restrictions. Here's one where all 4 seats are over 60% Trump 2024.
If Mississippi becomes more of a light-red state (this would require the GOP to not gain more support among Black voters compared to 2024 and the Dem share of the White vote to increase significantly from 2024), any attempt at an all-GOP map would have dummymander potential. If Mississippi remains as stubbornly Republican as it has been in recent decades, then there would be little dummymander potential if Section 2 of the VRA gets struck down.
I disagree - it would be pretty trivial to draw 4 Solid R districts there if the VRA were dismantled. Ditto for SC and LA (although I'd say a 5-1 is more likely there).
Well, I'm glad she'll never be a Senator. I just wish Maine had a better alternative. I like Platner's positions I just wish he wasn't such a... problematic character.
This isn't the first time Mills has angered her own party with her veto pen. Maine has a red flag gun control law after voters approved it in a statewide referendum after Mills vetoed that bill.
Stuff like this always makes we wonder which lobbyist is whispering in the politician's ear. Remember how Kyrsten Sinema was so obstructionist in the Senate?
Well, there is the artificial intelligence PAC (which I believe goes by the abbreviation similar to AIPAC, which is not the same PAC) and I’m sure they are emboldened in this case. More building of data centers empowers the efforts of AI “innovation.”
As usual, a large number of races are on my watchlist. I'm going to spin a literal wheel again, like last time, via WheelDecide and list my results that way. Here's what the wheel decided upon for elaboration:
- NY-Gov: Hochul had a close call in 2022, polls aren't looking good against Blakeman last I checked, and the climate bill shootdown did not help her goodwill with some voters. Could she be vulnerable again? Or is Blakeman being a shitty candidate going to help us?
- CA-48: Who is favored in the Dem primary? Will PAC spending help Marni von Wilpert against Ammar Campa-Najjar, or does Ammar have a good shot?
- Senate appointments: Specifically Colorado, Tennessee, and Minnesota. With Michael Bennet, Marsha Blackburn, and Amy Klobuchar favored to win their gubernatorial races, who might be appointed to replace them in the Senate? Jason Crow or Joe Neguse in CO, or someone else? Who in TN? Will Angie Craig be appointed in MN if/when she loses the Senate race, or will they go with someone else -- and if so, who? Are there other possible situations like this I'm missing?
- CA-1: Mike McGuire seems heavily favored here -- or is he? Audrey Denney has attracted some progressive support, and has Emily's List behind her too. Will it be enough?
- CA-11: Who is favored here? It seemed like Scott Wiener, but Saikat Chakrabarti is gaining. Will there be a runoff? If so, who is favored? If Saikat makes the runoff, where will Connie Chan's supporters go?
CA uses Top 2. So it is highly likely one of Chakrabarti or Chan will be in the general election. Not versed in SF politics so I'll leave the rest of the CA-11 question for someone else.
I don't recall seeing any problematic polls for Hochul. My thinking is that the scenario of her losing this cycle would be a bigger upset than Talarico winning.
She won by, what, 6-8 points?, in 2022. That's not a good win by NY-dem standards but it is a solid, undeniable win in and of itself. In a neutral/slightly bad cycle. The environment this year could be 10+ points to the left of 2022. Is Hochul 15-20 points weaker this year than 2022? No.
I wouldn't call 47-34 a bad poll for her. That's a 13 point lead, and she only needs 16% of undecided voters in that sample to back her in order to win.
NY'er here. 2022 was a neutral in much of the country but it was a BAD cycle in much of New York, especially Long Island, where Lee Zeldin had coattails that elevated some down ballot candidates in Nassau and Suffolk counties.
The focus on crime, including in ad about crime in her opponent's home neighborhood, caught Governor Hochul's campaign a little flat footed in 2022 and the Democratic Party was not really geared up for a tough statewide race. She was running for the first time in her own right statewide and had only become governor 15 months prior...
NONE of that is true in 2026. She is doing well in the polls, the issues are much more favorable to a Democrat and she has established herself as a governor in the last four years. Trump is deeply unpopular here and she has a record of standing up to him. Her opponent is largely unknown outside of his home county, and while he should pick up the usual Republican areas, Gov. Hochul should sail to reelection this year.
Bennet I could see trying to get brownie points by appointing a woman as his replacement - I don’t believe Colorado has ever had a woman senator after all
Chakrabarti could defeat Weiner in the general election although not necessarily by double digits. It would be on par with the difference in margin back when Weiner defeated Jane Kim in the State Senate race (reverse of course for Chakrabarti if he defeats Weiner).
Quite honestly, there are more things Chakrabarti and Chan have in common in terms of ideas on affordable housing and less emphasis on market rate housing. It’s Weiner that Chan supporters are less likely to gravitate towards as he’s too tied to the establishment wing and is not as community driven as Chan is.
To understand more about the demographics of San Francisco, there are lots of liberals and progressives but center left, moderates, etc. also carry plenty of weight in the city. Corporate developers and tech donors have a big influence on the city but not enough to prevent Chan or Chakrabarti from winning in the general election.
That really isn’t the read I’ve gotten on the race, though I’m not there so I’m not too familiar. What I’d generally understood is that both Weiner and Chan have more community ties than Chakrabarti and that Chan generally is seen as the NIMBY candidate.
Chan does have community ties, namely as District 1 Supervisor. However, Weiner’s community ties are questionable. He has a habit of making an ass out of himself and accusing someone line former San Francisco District 3 Supervisor Aaron Peskin (probably the most powerful legislator in city government) of leading the recall of Joe Engardio when there was no evidence he did. He has had better community relations as State Senator but that’s largely due to his staff.
Chakrabarti I don’t know about his specific community ties. He and Chan though do have commonality in relations on affordable housing. Not so much with Weiner.
As for Chan being the NIMBY candidate, this whole “NIMBY” label of her is typical of what YIMBYs throw at those who don’t fall 100% in line with their views. The reality is that she’s not a NIMBY and has been able to get affordable housing done in her own district.
There are real concerns neighborhood residents have with upzoning and changes in their community that could potentially gentrify and shut down businesses in the process. This is not the same conversation where NIMBYs have tried to stop development at all costs no matter what the idea is.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about in regards to Chan, it sounds like she has pretty consistently worked to stop the expansion of public transit and has prioritized car-centric infrastructure. I really don't see the logic behind prioritizing parking spaces over bus lanes and trying to allow cars back onto car-free roads.
I'm usually quick to respond to these - was traveling throughout the weekend, my apologies.
NY-Gov: Blakeman isn't necessarily a shitty candidate and Hochul isn't necessarily vulnerable. In a blue wave year, New York of all places isn't flipping. I expect Hochul to win by at least double digits, maybe with over 60%.
CA-48: Campa-Najjar is probably a Democratic frontrunner, given his connections to the establishment (currently dating rising star Rep. Sara Jacobs). Wilpert may have a lot of outside spending, but Brandon Riker could counteract that through self-funding.
Senate: Knox County mayor Glenn Jacobs and Reps. Diana Harshbarger and Tim Burchett have been floated as Blackburn replacements, with Jacobs and Harshbarger actively jockeying for the seat with early endorsements of Blackburn. Crow has been discussed favorably by Bennet, and Neguse has generally been seen to prefer rising the ranks in House leadership to the Senate, so I'd say Crow is a safe pick here. Craig probably won't be appointed in Minnesota - I imagine a prominent state legislator as either a caretaker or someone who will serve a full term. My picks are Erin Murphy and Melisa Lopez Franzen. All other possible appointments in the near future probably have to do with 2028 presidential candidates, so I won't elaborate.
CA-1: Denney is probably favored to make it to the top 2 primary in the *special*, not the general, since McGuire doesn't live in the current iteration of the 1st, and she does. As for the full term, McGuire will probably win, and defeat an incumbent Rep. James Gallagher.
CA-11: Wiener and Chakrabarti will probably make it to November, with Chan's supporters splitting between the two.
In this environment, we don't need to waste a second of time worrying about NY-Gov. It's Safe D, regardless of opponent. Frankly, even in a red wave environment, it would be Lean D at worst. What concerning polls are you referring to?
Apparently Hasan Piker did an event with Oliver Larkin (the leftist challenger to Rep. Jared Moskowitz) and raised $65,000+ for him in the process. Thoughts? Does this mean anything?
Probably not. I live in the Boca area of Moskowitz district and he’s basically invisible here. Our local Democratic club has tried repeatedly to get him to a meeting and he ignores us. I think he’s vulnerable to the right GOP’er.
Could be although Moskowitz did get a similar margin of victory in 2024 vs 2022 by 4+% points. That means he could hold stronger vs a Democratic challenger more to the left of him.
Until Trump is out of office and no longer a factor in elections, Moskowitz may be the best Democrats can get in FL-23. Of course, I am also not discounting the issues you are bringing up about him since you live in his district.
Probably the worst type of seat for a progressive challenger backed by Hasan. FL 23 has a high Jewish population and the district went from Biden +13 to Harris +3 and likely a top target in redistricting. Not sure why Moskowitz is being challenged and who thinks it’s a good idea.
I happen to agree -- Moskowitz is a conservative Democrat who has, if I recall correctly, done and said a number of things progressives aren't happy about, but we aren't getting much better at the moment in the seat he holds.
He at least pretends to hate Trump and be somewhat of a fighter on a few issues, and often comes after administration officials, so I can respect that. He lacks charisma but clearly thinks he doesn't, though.
The issue that made me annoyed about Moskowitz (along with plenty of elected FL Democratic office holders and statewide party leaders) was the prisoner release deal President Biden made with Cuba only days before leaving office. Given this the Catholic Church was involved, it was a big deal. Moskowitz along with FL Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried and Annette Taddeo complained, saying they were blindsided by this and were critical of Cuba and its government.
I am not worked up about this as I used to be but it should be emphasized that Cuba since Raul Castro took over brother Fidel’s rein had started to move away from being less restrictive of a country as it used to be. President Obama did start to normalize relations with the country in his 2nd term. Anything the U.S. can do to improve its relations with Cuba is a good thing.
The Dem state senator for that same area pulled a Manchin/Sinema after 2024, defecting from the party as Independent (and is now running for governor).
Dems also won the Boca Raton mayor's race by only 1 vote, (and recent FL specials still show Dems running behind 2020 numbers), so long way to go before this could be considered safe territory for a more left-leaning representative.
Let's just say that there are some people who would rather lose a district to a Republican than to elect a Democrat who they disagree with on the forbidden issue.
I'm okay with political candidates being interviewed by podcasters/streamers like Piker, but actually inviting someone like Piker, who is an alleged animal abuser (among other controversies), to campaign for you is not something I'd recommend, even in constituencies that are more amenable to voting for progressive Democrats than FL-23 is.
Also, Piker campaigned for Abdul El-Sayed in the Michigan U.S. Senate race, and I remember seeing a photo of Piker from that event where he was wearing a barncoat (or something similar) over a suit, which was extremely awkward.
I would stay away from Hasan Piker. He tends to reference news on social media a lot and not do enough real objective journalism even while he is ideologically closer to Team Blue in views.
Besides, how much credence should be given to someone who is just another internet influencer?
Better choice would be to get interviewed by Andrew Callaghan of Channel 9 News. He’s left wing but also does a better job at actual real reporting.
For the record, I don't actually follow Piker. This post was actually reposted and commented on by Kevin/Nick Tagliaferro (former Primary School author), which was how I found it -- I follow him on Bsky. I thought it might be relevant as Piker is quite popular among younger voters.
I also just found out that Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks is Piker’s uncle. Piker also worked at TYT at one point.
However, by contrast, Uygur exercises more civility, especially with his relations with the late Charlie Kirk.
Poker also was quick to support Luigi Mangione, even while the late United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson did not do anything to Mangione nor was Mangione even proven to be subscriber to United Healthcare. Raising awareness about the state of the healthcare industry and insurance’s stranglehold yes. Giving a pass to an accused over the crime he has been charged with is very dangerous and not at all liberal or progressive in values.
What crime did Brian Thompson really commit before he was gunned down? As far as I’m concerned, United Healthcare is the one responsible but accusing Thompson of “social murder” risks defamation and undermines any true investigation as to what’s going on in the company and other health insurance companies. Sure, Piker is followed by many centennials but is he being the right spokesperson?
Oh I get what you are talking about and knew you were making a post referencing him accordingly.
But my original comment was originally written as a heads up about Piker as it related to your original question. I probably should have directly answered by saying I think the impact of Piker’d involvement in this campaign will be l limited. Not the best use of his energy and focus.
Democratic politicians coming out against this are off-base and risk damaging the party. This kind of stuff would normally be hugely popular. That's quite apart from my attitude that opposing this kind of tax is immoral.
I have a feeling that if the billionaire tax passes, having Tom Steyer as Governor would change the political landscape and discourse in CA.
Besides the fact that Steyer is a billionaire, he has an MBA at Stanford, one of the top 5 MBA programs in the world and well-connected to Silicon Valley.
Think about it - A billionaire like Steyer being for the billionaire tax. Warren Buffett would not be against paying more taxes.
Indeed, Buffett advocates tax increases for the super-rich.
Interesting that those in line have the right to refuse. Minnesota ran into an incredibly strange situation in early 2018. When then-Governor Mark Dayton appointed his LG Tina Smith the the US Senate. In Minnesota the Senate President automatically becomes Lieutenant Governor, and they can't say no. So when Tina Smith became a Senator, Senate President Michelle Fischbach (Later elected as a Congresswoman) became Lieutenant Governor, to the displeasure of everyone involved, including (especially) Fischbach and Dayton.
Thought of the same example you did. Here's how it happened. Nikki Hayley was Gov. Her LG was hired to be President of the College of Charleston. The Senate president pro tem didn't want to be LG, so he resigned and a Democrat Yancey McGill ran unopposed for Senate pro tem despite it being majority R. After his election, the LG resigned, McGill was elevated to LG and the previous pro tem was reelected by the Rs in the state Senate.
McGill had been in the state senate like 25 years. Mostly with easy reelections,but he was a white prolife democrat in a diatrict with a large Black community and it was the early 2010s. In hos previous Sen primary he won by less than 1%. So McGill got a promotion and didn't have to lose or retire his senate seat. It's currently held by Ronnie Sabb, who'd be a good replacement for Clyburn IMO. Sabb win the special to replace McGill. He is a better fit for the Senate district than McGill was at the end, Black, pro-choice, relatively left.
Henry McMaster ran for LG at the next regular election, becoming LG with Hailey. McGill didn't run. Mc Gill did run for Gov against McMaster as an R later, but finished well behind.
Oh right! I'd forgotten about that. These shenanigans show how much people care about LG here, lol. Though Pamela Evette is trying to make hay from it.
It's funny that both McGill and Bryant ran against McMaster for Gov in 2018 and they finished last and second-last.
Heh. Silliman.
Good senator, hats off! RIP.
Don’t get my hopes up. With Colley or Yost on the Nov ballot, Acton’s chances of winning go down.
Vivek isn’t dropping.
Like Cunningham, Majeed changing to 'indie' is more a finger to Dem primary voters who voted him out.
I hope everyone is ok.
We always planned to be off today. In our last Digest we wrote, "The Morning Digest will be off Monday, but we’ll be back in your inbox on Tuesday."
LOL it *was* my birthday last week!
Happy late birthday!
Happy belated birthday to you!
All significant birthdays become Monday holidays.
Happy belated birthday. Everyone needs time to themselves and a vacation.
Wasn't Raj Goyle the closest thing to a serious challenger to DiNapoli anyway?
Aside from Putin and his sick puppet in Belarus, of course. 😁
Sock
Sick works even better!
Why not both? Lukashenko is a sick sock puppet...
Wow, that’s surprising. I figured he’d try to lead Fidesz in a four year rearguard campaign to fuck with Magyar
That may have been Orbán’s hope. But with Péter Magyar’s Tisza Party enjoying a supermajority, Orbán’s prospects of running interference are considerably curtailed. Thank God!
Could be simply being done with things. He was PM for the past 16 years, and 20 years total. He's in his early 60s. Perfect time to fuck off and enjoy retirement without needing to operate from a position of political weakness, trying to scrape it together into power that would overlap with his 70s.
Suppose he stashed a bunch of ill-gotten money while he wa PM. It's easier to live off that if you're out of the limelight, even in the minority.
The party wasn't aligned on everything. It had to depend on Manchin and Sinema. That's why it didn't get enough done, though what it did get done ought to have been sufficient for voters not to re-elect a convicted felon sociopathic moron. In terms of your other points, show us examples of swing districts in which candidates calling themselves socialists won any elections behind record turnout. And finally, going back to the point about Manchin and Sinema, but also considering the trials of the Obama years: if the Democratic Party expands to include everyone who's against dictatorship, regardless of whether they support any other agenda, how would there be any chance to unite behind all of the essential legislation and other steps that any trifecta, if we have one in 2029, must take? Total lack of ideology makes parties incoherent and unable to effectuate any policies other than very general ones like trying to avoid excessive inflation and unemployment.
I think there are definitely voters for whom nothing would work, and I do believe that appealing to the center is the most intuitive thing to do, though not the only possible strategy.
I didn't realize you were talking about welcoming votes from any quarter. That's very different from what I thought you were talking about.
I applaud Liz Cheney for her integrity, patriotism and sacrifice – while disagreeing with just about everything she stands for on the issues. I see her as a reliable anti-Trump ally, and I applaud and embrace just about everyone who is useful in that regard. But I do NOT believe she can or should have any place in the Democratic Party!
I totally agree. She'd have to change her politics in a big way to be able to be a Democrat.
The problem with "red lines" is, whose red lines? Not everyone's definition of that is the same. The Democrats do not have a "one man" cult, and I don't think they ever will. I fail to see how an argument about a cult of personality is relevant to an argument about strict ideology.
Re: alienating voters: can you provide polls or hard evidence proving that accommodating the left somehow loses us votes? Mamdani's win certainly didn't slow our momentum in other states -- Virginia, NJ, the PA court races, the WI court races, NJ-11 (where a similar progressive won), etc.
Also, what is the alternative to not accommodating the left? Kicking them out? Keeping them out of politics? What would happen if they weren't kicked out?
I generally agree, but I have to say, if the Democrats win but don't protect abortion rights, or throw LGBT people under the bus, that will cause way more anger and defection from the Democrats than resistance to candidates who are reasonably feared to be too far left to win districts by the establishment.
You had mentioned Mamdani as being in your definition of "far left". As I understand it, your definition, as in the comment above, seems to define the term as communists and those close with them.
As far as I know, Mamdani fits neither category. He has some beliefs like city-run grocery stores that are much further left than traditional U.S. politics. But his policies overall seem to be in between your definitions of "the left" and "far left".
Socialism =/= communism. There are socialist belief systems like libertarian socialism that have little in common with communism. Mamdani is not calling for mass nationalization of utilities -- thus, I do not consider him communist or communist-leaning. But he's further left than what you define as "the left".
It seems like a third category is needed here. Mamdani is good about working with the party -- he endorsed Hochul even, much to the consternation of the DSA and some allies -- but he's further left than your definition of "the left". I'd argue this third category can be integrated without alienating voters -- as I said, Mamdani winning didn't slow our progress in Virginia (we won a referendum that we wouldn't ever have won 20 years ago), or PA (all 3 court justices were retained) or even neighboring NJ (where we gained seats in a State Assembly we were widely expected to lose seats in.) Maybe Mamdani is further left than some Americans would like. But since he doesn't seem to be harming us, I don't see the problem in integrating him and this third category I've identified.
Now, if we're talking foreign policy, I can see why you'd put Mamdani there -- although I can't really go into detail as it concerns the forbidden I-P topic that will only create further drama and is banned here anyhow. But if we're talking strictly policy, I don't think Mamdani is anywhere near a communist (or even some of the more radical factions of the DSA). That's just my thoughts though -- apologies if I came off too aggressive, I'm quite passionate about my politics.
You have to know that Mamdani's foreign policy views are not why he was elected Mayor of New York. He has great common-sense ideas, he showed that he had done the work of figuring out how to pay for them, and he's charismatic. His foreign policy views simply, and maybe surprisingly, didn't prevent him from winning.
I love this entire discussion...we need more of this type of debate.
Private capital controlling energy and transport is a big part of the obstacle to climate progress. Consideration of alternate models of organizing those sectors seems warranted.
I've always considered myself a moderate but I check every box you list for "the Left". Just goes to show how everyone has their own definition of these labels (which, I believe, is the point you were making).
I don't think "accommodate" means "give everything they want" in this context. I read it as having more of the party establishment accept and support progressives in cities, districts, and states that are a good fit. Easy recent example with NYC's mayoral election -- a lot of party insiders endorsed Mamdani tepidly, not at all, or even outright endorsed his opponent.
There's what, half a dozen members of the squad? And maybe twice as many again non-members with similar ideology. There's about 60 house seats with a PVI of D+20 or greater, and nearly 100 at D+15 or greater. With the caveat that PVI is not a 1:1 match for ideology, there are a lot of seats that could fit more AOC-esque candidates without being an electoral liability. But the party insiders do not like this and fight, to varying degrees, to prevent that.
A healthy party is one that is happy to have Gluesenkamp Perez in WA-03, Summer Lee in PA-12, and Slotkin in the middle as MI-Sen. We need all three wings of the party's ideological spectrum confident that the party will support them where it makes sense without undue opposition. Currently the leftmost wing does not feel that is the case.
Right. But before you make claims that the left has sat out elections since 2012, you ought to have data to back that up. It's -that- part of your post that I find unacceptable and a slur against people like me - and based on your self-description, you!
On top of that, another question I have is, what is so awful about a hard left person winning ideologically that we have to draw red lines? With all due respect, I don't think city-owned grocery stores are anywhere near as dangerous as, or comparable to, rounding up immigrants and deporting/shooting them. The implication in another comment that Mamdani types are as dangerous as Trumpers is, in my mind, wholly false.
Got it. Misread your comment. (Incidentally, as a side note, if I recall correctly Atlanta tried city-run grocery stores too due to similar serious food desert problems -- as far as I know, it didn't create any real problems.)
I wonder if Mamdani's problem with some voters is messaging. People think of him as a communist or a radical, when a lot of his policies are fine. Aside from grocery stores, I love his public restroom idea -- I live close to NYC, finding a restroom is a complete fucking nightmare (especially since Starbucks closed several locations and stripped restrooms out of others, and they were the closest thing to a restroom many places hade.) But when voters see him, they think Soviets, Mao, Cuba. Maybe if he'd have embraced messaging closer to general economic progressivism, some of his skeptics would have been more assuaged. (Tellingly, his focus on affordability is one reason he's been as successful as he is.) I don't know, just kind of putting it out there to gauge opinions.
Right, but that's because of decades of right-wing propaganda conflating socialists with totalitarian dictatorships.
"On top of that, another question I have is, what is so awful about a hard left person winning ideologically that we have to draw red lines? "
If they help the Republicans win that should be enough to draw a red line. That may not have been so for Zohran Mamdani, but it certainly could in more competitive states and districts.
And in response to another comment, I've honestly sensed some unsettling personality cultism at times among the left toward several politicians, even if it hasn't reached GOP/Trump levels. And while I'd agree that to a degree "bad statements, bad views and anything else can at least be accepted" (acts like those which Eric Swalwell has been accused of are of course unacceptable), there are too many who are intolerant of what they view as personal or ideological transgressions and unhelpfully refuse to support someone who they judge guilty of them.
That is not uniformly true of the left though -- and you could make the same argument regarding centrists. A Republican won the Seattle City Attorney race a while back due to centrist support (the Dem primary winner was a leftist), and the 2023 Allegheny County Executive race was quite close in part due to a left-wing candidate winning the Dem primary. Shouldn't centrists have shown up for those races, much as the left are asked to do so for centrists?
Re: personality cults: Bernie/AOC/Mamdani do get a lot more shit from their base than Trump does from his though. Mamdani's Hochul endorsement was very controversial among the left, as was his intervention in the DSA endorsement process to stop Chi Osse from getting the DSA endorsement during his aborted Jeffries challenge. I've even seen people who feel Bernie and AOC didn't go far enough.
And reflexive and illogical support of prominent individual politicians and their policies accompanied by hero worship is NOT limited to the left among Democratic factions.
I support and am happy with Mamdani but agree in general with drawing lines.
As a socialist, I agree with your points, except for your example of Lander and Mamdani, who differ in religion and maybe Lander doesn't say loudly that he's a socialist? But they are very much kindred spirits and supported each other. So if one is "far left", the other is, but I also rather resist the idea of democratic socialists being "far left" like Stalinists.
I always thought of actual Stalinists as just “Fascists of a different color”.
The far left is much more represented online, and seems much, much larger than it actually is.
The actual number of Jill Stein ratfuckers, laced boots wearing street communists and all black-clad activists destroying flock cameras at night, the true far left, is vanishingly small, even in places of high concentration like certain areas on the West Coast. Their actual electoral impact on both primaries and general elections, and on the fate of the Dems is minimal outside their outsized ability to occasionally impact discourse online. Even then, the socio-political structure of this country gives the right such a massive inherent advantage, that the far left will never be able to gain critical mass.
I’m a pragmatic progressive as well and we see eye to eye on many issues here. I think it’s time for the centrists to hold their noses and vote for candidates who they don’t love for a change.
I’m a pragmatic liberal (refuse to call myself a progressive but it’s in essence more semantics) but believe anyone in the Democratic Party should be a good spokesperson on the causes that matter and not be afraid to show balls (especially on regulating AI and getting rid of data centers).
Aside from this, as in Daily Kos, more and better Democrats!
Ok, we do need to have at least some principles. I am not going to vote for people who are bigots, or rapists, or who are corrupt on the level of someone like Bob Menendez. I'm just not. Disagreements on some policy issues are one thing, but if we don't have even basic moral standards what's the point?
If the choice were Menendez or a Republican, what would you do? New Jersey voters had that choice and voted for him, and it was important. However, that was before we knew about the gold bars. But I definitely don't think the solution is to vote for a Republican or sit out the election in these times when virtually all Republican politicians are supporting dictatorship.
I'd vote for the Republican if the Democrat is a criminal like that (if we had known how bad it was at the time, which like you said we did not know in 2018). If you are literally selling out the country to foreign governments in exchange for gold, then I don't really care about anything else, you cannot be allowed to serve in office.
I don't think there's anything that could get me to vote for a member of the fascist party the Republicans are now. If the Democrat were a murderer, I suppose I'd vote for a minor-party candidate or write someone in.
Yes, skipping a race is a choice. You don't have to support either main party w a vote.
I'm sorry, but I truly cannot agree with that. I'm a partisan, but I'm not so partisan that I wouldn't be willing to vote for someone whose policies I disagree with over a literal murderer. You're basically applying the quote about how Trump could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Ave and people would still vote for him and saying that even that wouldn't be enough to get you to vote against a member of your own party (and voting for a third party is just throwing your vote away and saying you don't care enough to actually stop either candidate from the main party from winning).
How many people has fascism killed already?
I'd probably have to vote Menendez, although for a state legislative or local election, I could be convinced to vote Republican if the Democrat was unfit for office to the degree they were an active detriment to the party. There are also times where in a deep blue state, getting rid of a problematic state legislative leader is worth electing a Republican (see Rhode Island House in 2020), as the Republican can do less harm than a majority leader.
This is a good discussion for a weekend and I'm glad you can make it here and have the conversation that's occurring above/below without a bunch of flames. Yay TDB!
Curious though why the Michigan Convention spurred this? Is it because Shkreli wasn't nominated for SOS? Because from my POV the centrist establishment candidate there was Barb Byrum, not Gilchrist, even though he's been LG. The more progressive candidate got the AG nod (Savit) and as did Amit Makled for one of the UM regent races, defeating incumbent Jordan Acker. I'd have voted for a 3rd option in the UM race, but at least Makled stands for freedom of speech and assembly while Acker actively worked against it. Both have problematic social media or text posts. However, I think both Savits and Makled for your desire to have more lefty options be the nominees. Or were you worried they are unelectable even though they better matched a left profile? I think Savits is totally electable in Michigan. Makled might not be, but an R might also be better than Acker.
I think that's a legitimate fear in most years, but this year is shaping up to be one that carries many Dems across the line. I suspect any of the MI-SEN candidates would be likely to win the general election, even Abdul-Sayed.
To be clear, AES is not my guy and I hope he doesn't win the primary (for several reasons, including the fact that I agree with you that he'd make it closer than it should be in the GE).
I agree with basically all of this. I fear we’re going to piss away probably our best/only shot at the Indiana Secretary of State race with the convention format too.
From a press release in mid-2025: "Whether it was thwarting last-minute amendments to the budget or vetoing bills that sought to restrict eligible voters’ ability to vote in their elections, Gov. Hobbs fought to ensure that efforts to restrict access to the ballot box for eligible voters did not go into law this session. The bills vetoed would have outlawed vote centers (HB2017), restricted voter registration assistance efforts (HB2004), and limited voters’ ability to drop off their ballot on election day without standing in line and checking in (HB2703)."
Has any similar referendum ever failed in the U.S.?
The one in Maine did last year.
I wonder if that may give Esther Kim Varet an opening.
I would say Ken Calvert has a better record in supporting Trump than Young Kim.
However, Kim has to defeat Calvert in order to win her House seat. What else will she be able to do?
https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/politics/2026/04/24/ms-gov-reeves-calls-special-session-for-redistricting/89769748007/
MS Gov. Tate Reeves (R) calls a special session to the legislature relating to congressional redistricting. Depending on the ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the legislature may be inclined to dismantle the 2nd district, a majority Black seat long held by Democrat Bennie Thompson.
However, primary elections in Mississippi have already occurred, meaning a threat to the only Democratic member of the delegation won't come until 2028, when Reeves happens to leave office.
Wouldn't such a move have dummymander potential?
Potentially, but it's not hard to draw 4 non-competitive R districts in MS if you remove VRA restrictions. Here's one where all 4 seats are over 60% Trump 2024.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/49c46941-ef95-4e97-bf0b-588fb92058e2
If Mississippi becomes more of a light-red state (this would require the GOP to not gain more support among Black voters compared to 2024 and the Dem share of the White vote to increase significantly from 2024), any attempt at an all-GOP map would have dummymander potential. If Mississippi remains as stubbornly Republican as it has been in recent decades, then there would be little dummymander potential if Section 2 of the VRA gets struck down.
I disagree - it would be pretty trivial to draw 4 Solid R districts there if the VRA were dismantled. Ditto for SC and LA (although I'd say a 5-1 is more likely there).
The Callais ruling hasn't happened yet. Maybe this means they think they'll rule to kill the VRA?
This is only for the State Supreme Court districts, which have been in limbo for months.
https://www.pressherald.com/2026/04/24/janet-mills-vetoes-temporary-data-center-ban-2/
Maine Gov. Janet Mills vetoed a bill that would create a moratorium for data centers until 2027, which had a lot of support from legislators.
I'm tired of her centrist bullshit. We want a fighter in the Senate, not whatever this is.
Oh FFS. Democracy Now just had a whole story yesterday speculating on if she'd do it, and she did. Pathetic.
https://www.democracynow.org/2026/4/22/maine_ai_data_center_ban_melanie
Mills would lose to Collins.
In this environment...probably not.
Well, I'm glad she'll never be a Senator. I just wish Maine had a better alternative. I like Platner's positions I just wish he wasn't such a... problematic character.
This isn't the first time Mills has angered her own party with her veto pen. Maine has a red flag gun control law after voters approved it in a statewide referendum after Mills vetoed that bill.
Stuff like this always makes we wonder which lobbyist is whispering in the politician's ear. Remember how Kyrsten Sinema was so obstructionist in the Senate?
The amount of money in politics is obscene!
Well, there is the artificial intelligence PAC (which I believe goes by the abbreviation similar to AIPAC, which is not the same PAC) and I’m sure they are emboldened in this case. More building of data centers empowers the efforts of AI “innovation.”
As usual, a large number of races are on my watchlist. I'm going to spin a literal wheel again, like last time, via WheelDecide and list my results that way. Here's what the wheel decided upon for elaboration:
- NY-Gov: Hochul had a close call in 2022, polls aren't looking good against Blakeman last I checked, and the climate bill shootdown did not help her goodwill with some voters. Could she be vulnerable again? Or is Blakeman being a shitty candidate going to help us?
- CA-48: Who is favored in the Dem primary? Will PAC spending help Marni von Wilpert against Ammar Campa-Najjar, or does Ammar have a good shot?
- Senate appointments: Specifically Colorado, Tennessee, and Minnesota. With Michael Bennet, Marsha Blackburn, and Amy Klobuchar favored to win their gubernatorial races, who might be appointed to replace them in the Senate? Jason Crow or Joe Neguse in CO, or someone else? Who in TN? Will Angie Craig be appointed in MN if/when she loses the Senate race, or will they go with someone else -- and if so, who? Are there other possible situations like this I'm missing?
- CA-1: Mike McGuire seems heavily favored here -- or is he? Audrey Denney has attracted some progressive support, and has Emily's List behind her too. Will it be enough?
- CA-11: Who is favored here? It seemed like Scott Wiener, but Saikat Chakrabarti is gaining. Will there be a runoff? If so, who is favored? If Saikat makes the runoff, where will Connie Chan's supporters go?
Thoughts?
CA uses Top 2. So it is highly likely one of Chakrabarti or Chan will be in the general election. Not versed in SF politics so I'll leave the rest of the CA-11 question for someone else.
That's what I meant, sorry.
I don't recall seeing any problematic polls for Hochul. My thinking is that the scenario of her losing this cycle would be a bigger upset than Talarico winning.
She won by, what, 6-8 points?, in 2022. That's not a good win by NY-dem standards but it is a solid, undeniable win in and of itself. In a neutral/slightly bad cycle. The environment this year could be 10+ points to the left of 2022. Is Hochul 15-20 points weaker this year than 2022? No.
https://sri.siena.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/SNY-March-2026-Poll-Release-3-31-26-FINAL.pdf
It was a Siena College poll. I do agree this environment is looking better.
I wouldn't call 47-34 a bad poll for her. That's a 13 point lead, and she only needs 16% of undecided voters in that sample to back her in order to win.
The concern was that it was a decrease from prior polls. Again, though, I do think she'll win -- and Blakeman's an awful candidate.
In 2022, she was a drag on the whole ticket. Hopefully, this year, she will at least be a neutral force on the ticket
In the likely environment we will have Hochul would have to shoot a nun on live tv to lose the general election.
NY'er here. 2022 was a neutral in much of the country but it was a BAD cycle in much of New York, especially Long Island, where Lee Zeldin had coattails that elevated some down ballot candidates in Nassau and Suffolk counties.
The focus on crime, including in ad about crime in her opponent's home neighborhood, caught Governor Hochul's campaign a little flat footed in 2022 and the Democratic Party was not really geared up for a tough statewide race. She was running for the first time in her own right statewide and had only become governor 15 months prior...
NONE of that is true in 2026. She is doing well in the polls, the issues are much more favorable to a Democrat and she has established herself as a governor in the last four years. Trump is deeply unpopular here and she has a record of standing up to him. Her opponent is largely unknown outside of his home county, and while he should pick up the usual Republican areas, Gov. Hochul should sail to reelection this year.
For the senate appointments Crow and Neguse seem like the obvious top two for CO, but Pettersen is also a name to look out for.
For TN, Harshbarger, Burchett, and Ogles seem like names to watch.
In MN if not Angie Craig, than perhaps Steve Simon?
Bennet I could see trying to get brownie points by appointing a woman as his replacement - I don’t believe Colorado has ever had a woman senator after all
CA-11:
Being a Chan supporter myself,
Chakrabarti could defeat Weiner in the general election although not necessarily by double digits. It would be on par with the difference in margin back when Weiner defeated Jane Kim in the State Senate race (reverse of course for Chakrabarti if he defeats Weiner).
Quite honestly, there are more things Chakrabarti and Chan have in common in terms of ideas on affordable housing and less emphasis on market rate housing. It’s Weiner that Chan supporters are less likely to gravitate towards as he’s too tied to the establishment wing and is not as community driven as Chan is.
To understand more about the demographics of San Francisco, there are lots of liberals and progressives but center left, moderates, etc. also carry plenty of weight in the city. Corporate developers and tech donors have a big influence on the city but not enough to prevent Chan or Chakrabarti from winning in the general election.
It’s the mayoral races which are much harder.
That really isn’t the read I’ve gotten on the race, though I’m not there so I’m not too familiar. What I’d generally understood is that both Weiner and Chan have more community ties than Chakrabarti and that Chan generally is seen as the NIMBY candidate.
Chan does have community ties, namely as District 1 Supervisor. However, Weiner’s community ties are questionable. He has a habit of making an ass out of himself and accusing someone line former San Francisco District 3 Supervisor Aaron Peskin (probably the most powerful legislator in city government) of leading the recall of Joe Engardio when there was no evidence he did. He has had better community relations as State Senator but that’s largely due to his staff.
Chakrabarti I don’t know about his specific community ties. He and Chan though do have commonality in relations on affordable housing. Not so much with Weiner.
As for Chan being the NIMBY candidate, this whole “NIMBY” label of her is typical of what YIMBYs throw at those who don’t fall 100% in line with their views. The reality is that she’s not a NIMBY and has been able to get affordable housing done in her own district.
There are real concerns neighborhood residents have with upzoning and changes in their community that could potentially gentrify and shut down businesses in the process. This is not the same conversation where NIMBYs have tried to stop development at all costs no matter what the idea is.
https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/sf-supervisor-connie-chan-sparks-debate-with-transit-stances/article_5c5535ea-32de-11ee-83d7-bfbab33902bb.html
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about in regards to Chan, it sounds like she has pretty consistently worked to stop the expansion of public transit and has prioritized car-centric infrastructure. I really don't see the logic behind prioritizing parking spaces over bus lanes and trying to allow cars back onto car-free roads.
I'm usually quick to respond to these - was traveling throughout the weekend, my apologies.
NY-Gov: Blakeman isn't necessarily a shitty candidate and Hochul isn't necessarily vulnerable. In a blue wave year, New York of all places isn't flipping. I expect Hochul to win by at least double digits, maybe with over 60%.
CA-48: Campa-Najjar is probably a Democratic frontrunner, given his connections to the establishment (currently dating rising star Rep. Sara Jacobs). Wilpert may have a lot of outside spending, but Brandon Riker could counteract that through self-funding.
Senate: Knox County mayor Glenn Jacobs and Reps. Diana Harshbarger and Tim Burchett have been floated as Blackburn replacements, with Jacobs and Harshbarger actively jockeying for the seat with early endorsements of Blackburn. Crow has been discussed favorably by Bennet, and Neguse has generally been seen to prefer rising the ranks in House leadership to the Senate, so I'd say Crow is a safe pick here. Craig probably won't be appointed in Minnesota - I imagine a prominent state legislator as either a caretaker or someone who will serve a full term. My picks are Erin Murphy and Melisa Lopez Franzen. All other possible appointments in the near future probably have to do with 2028 presidential candidates, so I won't elaborate.
CA-1: Denney is probably favored to make it to the top 2 primary in the *special*, not the general, since McGuire doesn't live in the current iteration of the 1st, and she does. As for the full term, McGuire will probably win, and defeat an incumbent Rep. James Gallagher.
CA-11: Wiener and Chakrabarti will probably make it to November, with Chan's supporters splitting between the two.
In this environment, we don't need to waste a second of time worrying about NY-Gov. It's Safe D, regardless of opponent. Frankly, even in a red wave environment, it would be Lean D at worst. What concerning polls are you referring to?
FL-23:
https://bsky.app/profile/oliveralarkin.bsky.social/post/3mkbec5qpct2y
Apparently Hasan Piker did an event with Oliver Larkin (the leftist challenger to Rep. Jared Moskowitz) and raised $65,000+ for him in the process. Thoughts? Does this mean anything?
Doubtful it means much. Larkin won't win
Probably not. I live in the Boca area of Moskowitz district and he’s basically invisible here. Our local Democratic club has tried repeatedly to get him to a meeting and he ignores us. I think he’s vulnerable to the right GOP’er.
Could be although Moskowitz did get a similar margin of victory in 2024 vs 2022 by 4+% points. That means he could hold stronger vs a Democratic challenger more to the left of him.
Until Trump is out of office and no longer a factor in elections, Moskowitz may be the best Democrats can get in FL-23. Of course, I am also not discounting the issues you are bringing up about him since you live in his district.
Probably the worst type of seat for a progressive challenger backed by Hasan. FL 23 has a high Jewish population and the district went from Biden +13 to Harris +3 and likely a top target in redistricting. Not sure why Moskowitz is being challenged and who thinks it’s a good idea.
I happen to agree -- Moskowitz is a conservative Democrat who has, if I recall correctly, done and said a number of things progressives aren't happy about, but we aren't getting much better at the moment in the seat he holds.
He at least pretends to hate Trump and be somewhat of a fighter on a few issues, and often comes after administration officials, so I can respect that. He lacks charisma but clearly thinks he doesn't, though.
Pretends?? I do think that insinuation, even with your caveat, is uncalled for.
The issue that made me annoyed about Moskowitz (along with plenty of elected FL Democratic office holders and statewide party leaders) was the prisoner release deal President Biden made with Cuba only days before leaving office. Given this the Catholic Church was involved, it was a big deal. Moskowitz along with FL Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried and Annette Taddeo complained, saying they were blindsided by this and were critical of Cuba and its government.
I am not worked up about this as I used to be but it should be emphasized that Cuba since Raul Castro took over brother Fidel’s rein had started to move away from being less restrictive of a country as it used to be. President Obama did start to normalize relations with the country in his 2nd term. Anything the U.S. can do to improve its relations with Cuba is a good thing.
The Dem state senator for that same area pulled a Manchin/Sinema after 2024, defecting from the party as Independent (and is now running for governor).
Dems also won the Boca Raton mayor's race by only 1 vote, (and recent FL specials still show Dems running behind 2020 numbers), so long way to go before this could be considered safe territory for a more left-leaning representative.
Jason Pizzo isn't actually running for governor, but he thought about it.
Let's just say that there are some people who would rather lose a district to a Republican than to elect a Democrat who they disagree with on the forbidden issue.
I guess it means Larkin doesn't much like dogs.
I'm okay with political candidates being interviewed by podcasters/streamers like Piker, but actually inviting someone like Piker, who is an alleged animal abuser (among other controversies), to campaign for you is not something I'd recommend, even in constituencies that are more amenable to voting for progressive Democrats than FL-23 is.
Also, Piker campaigned for Abdul El-Sayed in the Michigan U.S. Senate race, and I remember seeing a photo of Piker from that event where he was wearing a barncoat (or something similar) over a suit, which was extremely awkward.
I would stay away from Hasan Piker. He tends to reference news on social media a lot and not do enough real objective journalism even while he is ideologically closer to Team Blue in views.
Besides, how much credence should be given to someone who is just another internet influencer?
Better choice would be to get interviewed by Andrew Callaghan of Channel 9 News. He’s left wing but also does a better job at actual real reporting.
For the record, I don't actually follow Piker. This post was actually reposted and commented on by Kevin/Nick Tagliaferro (former Primary School author), which was how I found it -- I follow him on Bsky. I thought it might be relevant as Piker is quite popular among younger voters.
I also just found out that Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks is Piker’s uncle. Piker also worked at TYT at one point.
However, by contrast, Uygur exercises more civility, especially with his relations with the late Charlie Kirk.
Poker also was quick to support Luigi Mangione, even while the late United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson did not do anything to Mangione nor was Mangione even proven to be subscriber to United Healthcare. Raising awareness about the state of the healthcare industry and insurance’s stranglehold yes. Giving a pass to an accused over the crime he has been charged with is very dangerous and not at all liberal or progressive in values.
What crime did Brian Thompson really commit before he was gunned down? As far as I’m concerned, United Healthcare is the one responsible but accusing Thompson of “social murder” risks defamation and undermines any true investigation as to what’s going on in the company and other health insurance companies. Sure, Piker is followed by many centennials but is he being the right spokesperson?
I’m not defending him. I was posting this in the event his involvement is at all relevant in this race, irrespective of my own thoughts on him.
Oh I get what you are talking about and knew you were making a post referencing him accordingly.
But my original comment was originally written as a heads up about Piker as it related to your original question. I probably should have directly answered by saying I think the impact of Piker’d involvement in this campaign will be l limited. Not the best use of his energy and focus.