Highlight: Holding a simultaneous rally 90 minutes down the road in Milwaukee, filling both the RNC and DNC stadiums to the brim just to show off was a big win.
Lowlight: The “surprise guest” stunt. Seriously, who signed off on that? Don’t tease a special guest for a full day just to have no special guest at all. Stupid move
Best speech(es): The Obamas. Michelle and Barack Obama are generational talent orators.
Worst speech: Bill Clinton. He has clearly reached his expiration date. A 78 year old man simply doesn’t have the political skills or acumen he held a decade ago. In 1992 his charm and charisma were fresh, exciting and led him to the White Housem 32 years later he just doesn’t have it any more.
Boldest move: The rollcall of states, by a mile. Adding music and celebration turned what is normally a C-SPAN esque snoozefest formality into a celebrstion. I suspect both parties will be treating their rollcalls differently from now on because of this, and they will be treated as productions/highlights moving forward. Resounding success of by far the biggest “out there” move of the convention
Conclusion: Like most conventions, I suspect there will be a small bounce in the polls. But I truthly don’t believe we’ve hit steady state yet, as it was only 33 days ago we were still facing Trump-Biden II Electric Boogaloo. The polls haven’t leveled out to a “new normal” yet. Once the DNC “bounce (to the extent it exists or is measurable) is baked in the cake in another ~week or so, we’ll have a real baseline for the election. Conveniently that also coincides with Labor Day, when the electorate traditionally starts tuning into politics in advance of the Novemebr election. My guess is Harris will be up 4-5 on Labor Day, after being up 2-3 now (depending on who is doing the averages).
Disagree somewhat- as older D American and 16 year veteran of the Illinois legislature from 50-50 district. Bill Clinton was not as good as he has been but still great speaker. Best or most necessary and effective speakers were the Republican Lt.Governor of Georgia and Republican Adam Kinzinger. These 2 reach GOP and Independent voters- I saw the effect they had on my white male haircutter Thursday morning- he is a strict independent but talked good about the ticket. Texas and Florida may come into play- close by Harris wins 2 Senate seats; N.C. moving toward D victory for Harris (close) and swamp by statewide.
The Quad Cities moved substantially to the right between 2012 and 2016. Do you think they'll continue to trend Republican, or have Democrats stabilized there?
Think the best speech from a simultaneous "rev up the base and appeal to swingy voter" was Walz. I thought the two Republicans you mentioned were also good for the indies watching, as was Bill. Yes, he's not the absolute oratical force he was just 10 years ago, but he still knows how to speak to middle America and paint things in a larger context that flows and is easy to understand.
The Obamas were great at speaking to the base, as was Hilary and Whitmer.
Twitter loved AOC's Monday performance but honestly I didn't love her speech. Her upper register can get a little screechy, the rhetoric too pseudo-socialist warrior, and delivery too scripted and rehearsed for my tastes.
78 year old Clinton isn't the same as 46 year old Clinton, and we've seen plenty of evidence from others lately about declining political and oratorical skills as they age.
But Bill still has his long standing capability to fill a speech with all manner of facts as well as zingers and keep it interesting, as well as his extemporaneous talents which have usually been better than his prepared script readings--which served him especially well this week when faced with teleprompter problems mid-speech.
when Bill Clinton talks about economic policy and job creation, folks believe him..therefore, I think he accomplished his mission.. Agree with most of your takes except the Beyonce stuff.. which I consider to be small potatoes..
I'll join the others disagreeing about Bill Clinton. I actually thought his quieter demeanor was a nice contrast from the pulpit style of most everyone else. He should have been shorter though.
Ann Richards' daughter spoke briefly as the director of some organization and I couldn't understand anything she said. Others I thought were meh were Klobuchar, a woman running for Congress in California (missed her name, very theatrical), Pelosi, Ted Lieu, Maura Healey, and Josh Shapiro.
I was very impressed by Hakeem Jeffries and Wes Moore.
And my response is: who knows? They could be misleading (-which- public polls?) to act against public complacency or it could be totally accurate. Either way, it shouldn't change anyone's behavior.
Campaigns that are clearly but not overwhelmingly ahead almost always try to frame their races as being neck and neck to discourage complacency. Their statement wouldn't be technically inaccurate as long as their numbers aren't as good as the polls showing the best numbers for Harris have been.
I think the unsaid second part of it is “so keep donating”. Agree it’s impossible to say which polls are correct, but a message of “we’re surging in the polls and looking good” is going to get far fewer donations than “it’s not over yet and we need to keep fighting over the next 2.5 months”.
Are you sure that would get fewer donations than: "Things are looking good, but the election is still close. Be part of a winning team! Donate and volunteer today!"?
Am I sure? No, but I suspect for most people donating comes from a sense of need rather than a desire to fit in. I am sure there has been research on the motivations but can’t say I’ve ever read it. But if a feeling of inclusivity was more effective than fear I suspect we wouldn’t see as many “I need your help” emails / texts. You do raise a valid point though, people are willing to spend a lot of money in order to feel included. But there is usually something tangible they get in return so it’s not quite the same. The SPCA could have used happy puppies in the Sarah McLachlan commercial to fund raise, instead they went for heartbreakingly depressive.
There have been comments before that the typical constant drumbeat of "WE'RE GONNA LOSE UNLESS YOU DONATE RIGHT NOW!" from many candidates depresses donations and votes, but I haven't studied the psychology of it.
Yeah, I definitely agree with that. There’s several different messages one can send. From everything is sunshine and ponies to the world is gonna end unless you send me $20 right now. Trump uses the latter pretty effectively, but I think that plays to his target audience. Again, no evidence but I would hypothesize that feeling like you’re needed is going to spur more Dem leaning people to donate than “everything is awesome”, especially for folks with less discretionary income. But you’ve got me curious, will try to find some literature about it.
Better that than being overconfident. Maybe the private/campaign polls are making relatively pessimistic or at least conservative assumptions about public opinion and turnout, which is preferable to repeating Clinton's 2016 mistakes such as expanding into reach states and not doing enough in swingy ones that they falsely thought they had locked down.
Though if not for Comey and the media's e-mail coverage, who knows, those optimistic assumptions might actually have panned out....
She almost certainly would have won without Comey violating the rulebook. But the Clinton campaign shouldn't have been so confident in a contest that was that close to start with.
One of the things that has been driving pollsters mad is that Trump brings a lot of typically non-participating voters when he's on the ballot so that's where that is coming from.
On that note, does Nate Cohn still think that there are going to be huge mobs of African-American and Hispanic voters, who have never voted in any election before, who are going to show up at the polls this fall and vote for Trump?
I think the conclusion is the same. Harris needs one of the three bigger states, PA/NC/GA, which are probably all tossup at this moment. Winning all blue states + MI/WI/NV/AZ +NE02, is not enough. Even as one new poll shows her winning ME02, that would only get to 269.
On the other hand, she might have already got enough cushion in these states, possibly MI + 2 of the 3 WI/AZ/NV, such that 1 out of the bigger 3 would be sufficient. That is, Trump would need all 3 to win.
Too bad Taylor and Beyonce didnt come out on stage holding hands to endorse Kamala as many on X were insisting, or Dems would win all 538 electoral voted instantly. /s
Guess we just have to do it the old fashioned way.
Maybe they didn't want to do the Taylor/Beyonce thing during the convention just because those two ladies deserve a bigger spotlight than being a sideshow in the convention and -- flipside -- because Taylor and Beyonce would have stepped on the Obama/Harris/Walz speeches.
I'm hoping they'll sing a few cowgirl songs together at a rally next month in, say, Philadelphia or State College, PA? Maybe even go on a little mini-tour together. That might not get us all 538 electoral votes, but we could still shoot for every state not named Wyoming. :-)
I'm not convinced that the DNC actually promoted an appearance.. the song was played at the end..and I agree, focusing the spotlight away from the nominee makes zero sense to me..I suspect late in October that a Taylor\Beyonce\Kamala bus tour will travel through Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and ends in Atlanta.. Or some such thing
In case anyone was waiting or wondering, 538 relaunched its model today and Harris starts out with a 58% chance of winning. Incidentally, they brought Fivey Fox and the "snake" chart back.
Those both seem entirely reasonable. In recent years, Texas has been to the right of Florida. And even though the two states are supposedly heading in opposite directions, Florida has an abortion referendum on the ballot this year.
It’s also possible that 2022 was an outlier for FL and it’s not suddenly ruby red as lots of folks seem to believe. There have been so many tough losses in FL I think a lot of people want to write it off just to not have to be disappointed again.
The limited polling so far this year has shown Harris further behind in Texas than in Florida. That said, in recent years polling has mostly been too favorable for us in Florida, but not in Texas.
Reading a recent fact that all former Democratic presidents and vice presidents have endorsed Harris, and no former Republican presidents or vice presidents have endorsed Trump.
Apologies for the thread jack;but, my multi millionaire friend called me up and is ready to donate some of his formidable fortune on winnable Democratic races..and he wants me to advise him; I am creating a list for him that already includes Sherrod Brown, John Tester, and against Scott Perry.. Please give me further suggestions.. Thanks in advance
The three tipping-point Senate candidates appear to be Tester, Mucarsel-Powell and Allred. I'm concentrating on the latter two because they need the money to win in Florida and Texas.
While I'm most focused on the Senate, it's difficult not to love the idea of defeating Vladimir Perry.
I agree with Ken that Tester, Mucarsel-Powell, and Allred all are good donations for the Senate. Sherrod Brown doesn't hurt, too, but if Brown is losing, then the hope for the Senate probably is lost.
For the House, I'd recommend asking him to max out donations to Amish Shah (AZ-01), Tony Vargas (NE-02), Missy Cotter Smasal (VA-02), and being right on the money with Janelle Stetson (PA-10). Why? All four are winnable swing races whose voters are entirely concentrated in one comparatively less expensive media market (i.e., not New York, LA, etc.). And all of those candidates could use more money.
If he's willing to do even more, I'd say additional donations to Kirsten Engel (AZ-06), Adam Gray (CA-13), Rudy Salas (CA-22), Derek Tran (CA-45), Sue Altman (NJ-07), and Janelle Bynum (OR-05) couldn't hurt, either.
Lastly, for a little bit of defense, the Democratic incumbent Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA-03) could definitely use all the financial support she can get. Kristen Mcdonald Rivet, the Democrat running in the open seat in MI-08, seems like another good candidate that fiscally it makes sense to support.
Thanks.. This is exactly what I was wanting.. I'll research all of these districts as well as Republican money being spent against them.. If anyone else has anything to add it's greatly appreciated.. And once again thanks for this excellent post.. I have also added to my list, the opponent to that crazy Anna Paulina Luna as well.. I think she's beatable for many reasons plus the ballot initiatives in Florida I believe will boost democratic turnouts as well as the anti Trump and anti deSantis folks as well..
The last amendment to the Constitution I believe was the 27th Amendment back in 1992. Since then, we've waited long enough.
The problem is, the 2nd Amendment applied to a much different time in U.S. history and before the Civil War. Considering how much the U.S. has changed since the original amendment, it's still important to educate more of the public on exactly what's in it.
I don't think the gun nuts really understand the 2nd Amendment as much as they think they do.
In that case, though, neither does the Supreme Court. Listen, I think it's completely absurd for there to be a constitutional right to own a gun. I wouldn't prohibit all gun ownership, but it should be regulated by statute, just like driving. So I'm all for a constitutional amendment that repeals the right to own any weaponry and authorizes Congress, state legislatures and city councils to pass any law they like that sets standards for regulating arms ownership. I just think it's wildly optimistic to believe we could get such an amendment through the requisite number of state legislatures, even when Congress would agree to it, and that's also quite far off.
That nonpartisan YouGov poll that puts Allred within two points on Ted Cruz put a big ol' smile on my face.
"YouGov for the University of Houston and Texas Southern University: Ted Cruz (R-inc): 47, Colin Allred (D): 45, Ted Brown (L): 3 (50-45 Trump with third-party candidates) (July: 47-44 Cruz)"
ICYMI, RFK has suspended his campaign and endorsed Trump. Five of his siblings released a statement on Instagram saying his decision to endorse Trump “is a betrayal of the values that our father and our family hold most dear.” https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/08/23/us/harris-dnc-trump-election
Kennedy mentioned Trump's "biggest donors" as among the people who gave him confidence to endorse Trump. The biggest donor to Kennedy is also the biggest donor to Trump: Timothy Mellon, a reclusive heir to a Gilded Age fortune.
The Secretary of State’s office on Friday confirmed that both the pro-choice and anti-abortion petitions met the requirements to appear on the state ballot. That means each petition obtained more than the required 136,000 valid signatures from 5% of registered voters in at least 38 of Nebraska’s counties.
“Nebraska has never before had two conflicting petition efforts make the same ballot,” the release from Evnen’s office states.
Anti-abortion petitioners told 6 News in July that they had collected 205,344 signatures.
Pro-choice petitioners said in July that they had submitted 207,608 signatures.
I want to know who votes yes to both. I can see someone voting no to both, out of some moral/process objection to direct democracy. I just can't envision who would be voting two yeses.
My 1000-foot review of the DNC
Highlight: Holding a simultaneous rally 90 minutes down the road in Milwaukee, filling both the RNC and DNC stadiums to the brim just to show off was a big win.
Lowlight: The “surprise guest” stunt. Seriously, who signed off on that? Don’t tease a special guest for a full day just to have no special guest at all. Stupid move
Best speech(es): The Obamas. Michelle and Barack Obama are generational talent orators.
Worst speech: Bill Clinton. He has clearly reached his expiration date. A 78 year old man simply doesn’t have the political skills or acumen he held a decade ago. In 1992 his charm and charisma were fresh, exciting and led him to the White Housem 32 years later he just doesn’t have it any more.
Boldest move: The rollcall of states, by a mile. Adding music and celebration turned what is normally a C-SPAN esque snoozefest formality into a celebrstion. I suspect both parties will be treating their rollcalls differently from now on because of this, and they will be treated as productions/highlights moving forward. Resounding success of by far the biggest “out there” move of the convention
Conclusion: Like most conventions, I suspect there will be a small bounce in the polls. But I truthly don’t believe we’ve hit steady state yet, as it was only 33 days ago we were still facing Trump-Biden II Electric Boogaloo. The polls haven’t leveled out to a “new normal” yet. Once the DNC “bounce (to the extent it exists or is measurable) is baked in the cake in another ~week or so, we’ll have a real baseline for the election. Conveniently that also coincides with Labor Day, when the electorate traditionally starts tuning into politics in advance of the Novemebr election. My guess is Harris will be up 4-5 on Labor Day, after being up 2-3 now (depending on who is doing the averages).
The DNC was behind the special guest leak? I wasn't aware that was the case.
Disagree somewhat- as older D American and 16 year veteran of the Illinois legislature from 50-50 district. Bill Clinton was not as good as he has been but still great speaker. Best or most necessary and effective speakers were the Republican Lt.Governor of Georgia and Republican Adam Kinzinger. These 2 reach GOP and Independent voters- I saw the effect they had on my white male haircutter Thursday morning- he is a strict independent but talked good about the ticket. Texas and Florida may come into play- close by Harris wins 2 Senate seats; N.C. moving toward D victory for Harris (close) and swamp by statewide.
Awesome to have you here, Mike! I love the fact that elected officials are part of this community.
Wow!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Boland_(politician)
The Quad Cities moved substantially to the right between 2012 and 2016. Do you think they'll continue to trend Republican, or have Democrats stabilized there?
Think the best speech from a simultaneous "rev up the base and appeal to swingy voter" was Walz. I thought the two Republicans you mentioned were also good for the indies watching, as was Bill. Yes, he's not the absolute oratical force he was just 10 years ago, but he still knows how to speak to middle America and paint things in a larger context that flows and is easy to understand.
The Obamas were great at speaking to the base, as was Hilary and Whitmer.
Twitter loved AOC's Monday performance but honestly I didn't love her speech. Her upper register can get a little screechy, the rhetoric too pseudo-socialist warrior, and delivery too scripted and rehearsed for my tastes.
78 year old Clinton isn't the same as 46 year old Clinton, and we've seen plenty of evidence from others lately about declining political and oratorical skills as they age.
But Bill still has his long standing capability to fill a speech with all manner of facts as well as zingers and keep it interesting, as well as his extemporaneous talents which have usually been better than his prepared script readings--which served him especially well this week when faced with teleprompter problems mid-speech.
when Bill Clinton talks about economic policy and job creation, folks believe him..therefore, I think he accomplished his mission.. Agree with most of your takes except the Beyonce stuff.. which I consider to be small potatoes..
I still love Bill Clinton, and I suspect a lot of folks my age and especially older find him quite reassuring.
Also, the "special guest" rumor was started by fucking blue-check randos! See here: https://x.com/BFriedmanDC/status/1826827605330329850
I'll join the others disagreeing about Bill Clinton. I actually thought his quieter demeanor was a nice contrast from the pulpit style of most everyone else. He should have been shorter though.
Ann Richards' daughter spoke briefly as the director of some organization and I couldn't understand anything she said. Others I thought were meh were Klobuchar, a woman running for Congress in California (missed her name, very theatrical), Pelosi, Ted Lieu, Maura Healey, and Josh Shapiro.
I was very impressed by Hakeem Jeffries and Wes Moore.
https://politicalwire.com/2024/08/23/harris-super-pac-says-public-polls-are-too-rosy/
less “rosy” than public polls suggest
And my response is: who knows? They could be misleading (-which- public polls?) to act against public complacency or it could be totally accurate. Either way, it shouldn't change anyone's behavior.
Campaigns that are clearly but not overwhelmingly ahead almost always try to frame their races as being neck and neck to discourage complacency. Their statement wouldn't be technically inaccurate as long as their numbers aren't as good as the polls showing the best numbers for Harris have been.
Exactly.
I think the unsaid second part of it is “so keep donating”. Agree it’s impossible to say which polls are correct, but a message of “we’re surging in the polls and looking good” is going to get far fewer donations than “it’s not over yet and we need to keep fighting over the next 2.5 months”.
Are you sure that would get fewer donations than: "Things are looking good, but the election is still close. Be part of a winning team! Donate and volunteer today!"?
Am I sure? No, but I suspect for most people donating comes from a sense of need rather than a desire to fit in. I am sure there has been research on the motivations but can’t say I’ve ever read it. But if a feeling of inclusivity was more effective than fear I suspect we wouldn’t see as many “I need your help” emails / texts. You do raise a valid point though, people are willing to spend a lot of money in order to feel included. But there is usually something tangible they get in return so it’s not quite the same. The SPCA could have used happy puppies in the Sarah McLachlan commercial to fund raise, instead they went for heartbreakingly depressive.
There have been comments before that the typical constant drumbeat of "WE'RE GONNA LOSE UNLESS YOU DONATE RIGHT NOW!" from many candidates depresses donations and votes, but I haven't studied the psychology of it.
Yeah, I definitely agree with that. There’s several different messages one can send. From everything is sunshine and ponies to the world is gonna end unless you send me $20 right now. Trump uses the latter pretty effectively, but I think that plays to his target audience. Again, no evidence but I would hypothesize that feeling like you’re needed is going to spur more Dem leaning people to donate than “everything is awesome”, especially for folks with less discretionary income. But you’ve got me curious, will try to find some literature about it.
It would be great and fascinating to see any studies of the effects of different donation solicitation messages.
Better that than being overconfident. Maybe the private/campaign polls are making relatively pessimistic or at least conservative assumptions about public opinion and turnout, which is preferable to repeating Clinton's 2016 mistakes such as expanding into reach states and not doing enough in swingy ones that they falsely thought they had locked down.
Though if not for Comey and the media's e-mail coverage, who knows, those optimistic assumptions might actually have panned out....
She almost certainly would have won without Comey violating the rulebook. But the Clinton campaign shouldn't have been so confident in a contest that was that close to start with.
One of the things that has been driving pollsters mad is that Trump brings a lot of typically non-participating voters when he's on the ballot so that's where that is coming from.
On that note, does Nate Cohn still think that there are going to be huge mobs of African-American and Hispanic voters, who have never voted in any election before, who are going to show up at the polls this fall and vote for Trump?
This time, I'm optimistic that'll be far more for her.
I think the conclusion is the same. Harris needs one of the three bigger states, PA/NC/GA, which are probably all tossup at this moment. Winning all blue states + MI/WI/NV/AZ +NE02, is not enough. Even as one new poll shows her winning ME02, that would only get to 269.
On the other hand, she might have already got enough cushion in these states, possibly MI + 2 of the 3 WI/AZ/NV, such that 1 out of the bigger 3 would be sufficient. That is, Trump would need all 3 to win.
In regard to AR this is why it’s important to have good lawyers ahead of time.
How do you figure? You mean about the abortion ballot measure? It seemed like the arguments were good and their Supreme Court acted in bad faith.
This could’ve been avoided if they had talked to election lawyers ahead of time.
I doubt it.
Too bad Taylor and Beyonce didnt come out on stage holding hands to endorse Kamala as many on X were insisting, or Dems would win all 538 electoral voted instantly. /s
Guess we just have to do it the old fashioned way.
Maybe they didn't want to do the Taylor/Beyonce thing during the convention just because those two ladies deserve a bigger spotlight than being a sideshow in the convention and -- flipside -- because Taylor and Beyonce would have stepped on the Obama/Harris/Walz speeches.
I'm hoping they'll sing a few cowgirl songs together at a rally next month in, say, Philadelphia or State College, PA? Maybe even go on a little mini-tour together. That might not get us all 538 electoral votes, but we could still shoot for every state not named Wyoming. :-)
I'm not convinced that the DNC actually promoted an appearance.. the song was played at the end..and I agree, focusing the spotlight away from the nominee makes zero sense to me..I suspect late in October that a Taylor\Beyonce\Kamala bus tour will travel through Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and ends in Atlanta.. Or some such thing
"Freedom" is Kamala's "official" anthem, so, they were gonna play it no matter what. The rumor started from some anon account, as this thread explains: https://x.com/BFriedmanDC/status/1826827605330329850
In case anyone was waiting or wondering, 538 relaunched its model today and Harris starts out with a 58% chance of winning. Incidentally, they brought Fivey Fox and the "snake" chart back.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/
Less than 1 in 100 chance that every state votes the same as 2020?
And Florida is to the left of Texas for some reason?
Those both seem entirely reasonable. In recent years, Texas has been to the right of Florida. And even though the two states are supposedly heading in opposite directions, Florida has an abortion referendum on the ballot this year.
It’s also possible that 2022 was an outlier for FL and it’s not suddenly ruby red as lots of folks seem to believe. There have been so many tough losses in FL I think a lot of people want to write it off just to not have to be disappointed again.
The limited polling so far this year has shown Harris further behind in Texas than in Florida. That said, in recent years polling has mostly been too favorable for us in Florida, but not in Texas.
Reading a recent fact that all former Democratic presidents and vice presidents have endorsed Harris, and no former Republican presidents or vice presidents have endorsed Trump.
Did Dan Quayle endorse Trump?
It doesn't seem like Quayle has stated any opinion publicly on the 2024 election.
Quayle did advise Pence not to go along with Trump's fake electoral scam. Also, I understand that he recently learned how to spell "potato."
Fun fact: Dan Quayle is younger than Donald Trump.
Apologies for the thread jack;but, my multi millionaire friend called me up and is ready to donate some of his formidable fortune on winnable Democratic races..and he wants me to advise him; I am creating a list for him that already includes Sherrod Brown, John Tester, and against Scott Perry.. Please give me further suggestions.. Thanks in advance
The three tipping-point Senate candidates appear to be Tester, Mucarsel-Powell and Allred. I'm concentrating on the latter two because they need the money to win in Florida and Texas.
While I'm most focused on the Senate, it's difficult not to love the idea of defeating Vladimir Perry.
Thanks.. Any feedback is most appreciated
I agree with Ken that Tester, Mucarsel-Powell, and Allred all are good donations for the Senate. Sherrod Brown doesn't hurt, too, but if Brown is losing, then the hope for the Senate probably is lost.
For the House, I'd recommend asking him to max out donations to Amish Shah (AZ-01), Tony Vargas (NE-02), Missy Cotter Smasal (VA-02), and being right on the money with Janelle Stetson (PA-10). Why? All four are winnable swing races whose voters are entirely concentrated in one comparatively less expensive media market (i.e., not New York, LA, etc.). And all of those candidates could use more money.
If he's willing to do even more, I'd say additional donations to Kirsten Engel (AZ-06), Adam Gray (CA-13), Rudy Salas (CA-22), Derek Tran (CA-45), Sue Altman (NJ-07), and Janelle Bynum (OR-05) couldn't hurt, either.
Lastly, for a little bit of defense, the Democratic incumbent Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA-03) could definitely use all the financial support she can get. Kristen Mcdonald Rivet, the Democrat running in the open seat in MI-08, seems like another good candidate that fiscally it makes sense to support.
Thanks.. This is exactly what I was wanting.. I'll research all of these districts as well as Republican money being spent against them.. If anyone else has anything to add it's greatly appreciated.. And once again thanks for this excellent post.. I have also added to my list, the opponent to that crazy Anna Paulina Luna as well.. I think she's beatable for many reasons plus the ballot initiatives in Florida I believe will boost democratic turnouts as well as the anti Trump and anti deSantis folks as well..
FL-13 is 100% in the Tampa media market, so it's another one where your donation gets you more bang for your buck!
A Trump judge ruled there’s a Second Amendment right to own machine guns
https://www.vox.com/scotus/368616/supreme-court-second-amendment-machine-guns-bruen-broomes
Insane! Someone should argue there's a right to own howitzers!
I personally won't feel safe until I have the right to an ICBM that obliterates everything in a 10-mile radius.
But there were no machine guns owned by the average American household back in the late 18th century!
This is why the 2nd Amendment needs to be modified or straight out repealed.
Repeal would be the right move. There's no reason gun ownership shouldn't be regulated by statute. But it's very hard to amend the constitution.
The last amendment to the Constitution I believe was the 27th Amendment back in 1992. Since then, we've waited long enough.
The problem is, the 2nd Amendment applied to a much different time in U.S. history and before the Civil War. Considering how much the U.S. has changed since the original amendment, it's still important to educate more of the public on exactly what's in it.
I don't think the gun nuts really understand the 2nd Amendment as much as they think they do.
In that case, though, neither does the Supreme Court. Listen, I think it's completely absurd for there to be a constitutional right to own a gun. I wouldn't prohibit all gun ownership, but it should be regulated by statute, just like driving. So I'm all for a constitutional amendment that repeals the right to own any weaponry and authorizes Congress, state legislatures and city councils to pass any law they like that sets standards for regulating arms ownership. I just think it's wildly optimistic to believe we could get such an amendment through the requisite number of state legislatures, even when Congress would agree to it, and that's also quite far off.
Alaska: Nancy Dahlstrom drops out.
https://x.com/maxpcohen/status/1827039939298517351
That's too bad. Makes me even more happy that Peltola is above 50 percent in the primary.
Also, interesting that Dahlstrom didn't endorse Begich in her statement.
That nonpartisan YouGov poll that puts Allred within two points on Ted Cruz put a big ol' smile on my face.
"YouGov for the University of Houston and Texas Southern University: Ted Cruz (R-inc): 47, Colin Allred (D): 45, Ted Brown (L): 3 (50-45 Trump with third-party candidates) (July: 47-44 Cruz)"
ICYMI, RFK has suspended his campaign and endorsed Trump. Five of his siblings released a statement on Instagram saying his decision to endorse Trump “is a betrayal of the values that our father and our family hold most dear.” https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/08/23/us/harris-dnc-trump-election
Kennedy mentioned Trump's "biggest donors" as among the people who gave him confidence to endorse Trump. The biggest donor to Kennedy is also the biggest donor to Trump: Timothy Mellon, a reclusive heir to a Gilded Age fortune.
I continue to suspect that this will make far greater waves in the media than it will in the ballot box.
Yes. RFK would have been ashamed of RFK Jr.
https://www.wowt.com/2024/08/23/both-abortion-initiatives-appear-nebraska-ballots/?outputType=amp (hat tip: PoliticalWire):
The Secretary of State’s office on Friday confirmed that both the pro-choice and anti-abortion petitions met the requirements to appear on the state ballot. That means each petition obtained more than the required 136,000 valid signatures from 5% of registered voters in at least 38 of Nebraska’s counties.
“Nebraska has never before had two conflicting petition efforts make the same ballot,” the release from Evnen’s office states.
Anti-abortion petitioners told 6 News in July that they had collected 205,344 signatures.
Pro-choice petitioners said in July that they had submitted 207,608 signatures.
If both pass; then what??.. Dogs and cats living together.. Mass confusion..
If both passed, only the amendment with the highest vote total would become law. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/7/9/2252537/-Morning-Digest-Two-red-states-could-vote-to-restore-abortion-rights-this-fall#1
Whether that's team cat or team dog I'll leave up to you.
The PTA will disband!
I want to know who votes yes to both. I can see someone voting no to both, out of some moral/process objection to direct democracy. I just can't envision who would be voting two yeses.
A pure contrarian. They do exist.
Excellent summary. Very readable.
Once again, the MI Republican Pary is imploding. I REPEAT, the MI Republican Party is imploding.