Pete Buttigieg is expected to announce Thursday he will not run for Michigan’s open Senate seat, according to a person briefed on his decision, clearing a path for a potential presidential campaign instead.
This is a bit deceitful, so let's correct the record. Richard Mourdock said that in 2012, two years after his 2010 race against Pete. Also, as I'm sure you know, 2010 was a massive red wave election in which the Dems lost 60+ house seats, and Indiana was still very much a red state (despite Obama carrying it two years earlier). There's no way any Democrat was going to overcome those headwinds and win statewide in Indiana, so let's not pretend any of this says anything about Pete's strengths as a candidate.
The problem is that Buttigieg didn't just lose that race. He lost it by 25 per cent. Yes, he went on to twice be elected Mayor of South Bend, but that was and is a blue dot in the Hoosier State. If he's struggling in Michigan of all places, that doesn't bode well for his national prospects.
Buttigeg is in his early 40's so he still has time to build up his political resume regardless of what direction he ends up going in the future.
That said, I'd say being Transportation Secretary could boost Buttigeg's chances as Governor considering he was responsible for helping President Biden implement multiple infrastructure projects, all of which help the manufacturing industry.
He's an excellent debater but WAY too straight-laced & by-the-book for this era in politics. I know some folks love that but swingy low-info voters don't.
Trump belongs to the "government sucks" party. He's allowed to lack experience. Buttigieg does not. Like it or not, as the "government is good" party we Democrats get held to higher standards and are actually expected to govern and be adults.
How are we expected to govern when the government is hollowed out and burnt to ashes? The Dems of the future need to represent policies that won't be business as usual and bold and new ideas for how to build a new world from the ground up.
The good news is now that we are the challenging party, we can run on "change" and "everything sucks" and get away with it. And "being bold" requires the American electorate to want to go through with it.
If Pete Buttigieg were Governor of or Senator from Michigan (or Indiana), I would agree. The problem is that he is not that at all. If Barack Obama were not a US Senator first, he doesn't get elected President in 2008. Buttigieg doesn't get special treatment because he has a pretty face.
Be great if Nessel was our candidate and we got Pappas in NH, too. They’d be a great outlet for the national LGBTQ+ community to fight back. I’m ready to give some money and write some postcards. Well, I might need all my money for groceries and electricity soon.
In all fairness, McMarrow has the LGBTQ+ cred from her viral legislative speech and we’ll treat her as our own. And then, it’s interesting that Buttigieg was in contention. Why is MI so gay? 😁
Just to run with this train of thought, Sen. Baldwin became the first out LGBTQ+ Senator and is from WI. WI was the first state to ban discrimination on account of sexual orientation in housing, employment and public accommodations back in 1989. MN became the first state in 1993 to do so while also including gender identity. MN then became the first state to reject a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality in 2012. IA’s record is a bit thin but they were the fourth state to legalize marriage equality. It was through court order which, lessens the vibe but it was a unanimous decision. They made a lot of blue state folks eat shit on that one with it being early 2009 just after CA just passed Prop 8 in November.
She's already 68, so max two terms from her. Realistically Pappas should run for the Senate, and Stefany Shaheen (yes Jeanne's oldest of three daughters) for Pappas' seat.
Stefany Shaheen was a city councilor in Portsmouth, and has been floated around as a potential candidate for various offices in the past. No idea if she wants to enter the buzzsaw of national politics, but I suspect she does if she saw an opening.
I don't really know much about her, but I dislike the idea of promoting someone primarily because of her last name. American voters have shown no such compunction for their own voting behavior, so if she did decide to run for something I expect she'd be a serious/strong candidate.
Given that New Hampshire is a small state and requires seniority to get their elected officials to move up, that won't sit well with Granite Staters. Pappas is 44 and thus can give quite a long tenure if he so chooses.
The advantage Pappas has is that he's held quite well in the House representing NH-01 since being elected back in 2018. The closest election he's had was back in 2020 where he won by 5% points whereas in 2022 and 2024 he's won re-election by roughly 8% points.
Also, WH Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was the 2022 GOP Candidate against Pappas. He's certainly been battle tested and could be a difficult Democratic Senate Candidate the GOP could challenge next year.
Her saying she'll run if Pappas doesn't gives me the sense that she's only intending to run if we do not have a high profile candidate. Taking one for the team, in a sense.
I'd be surprised if Pappas doesn't run though, so it seems improbable to see Kuster run.
And we have our answer to the question of 'who will be the first judge who was eligible to retire the last time Trump was in office to announce their retirement this time around?' The answer is an unsurprising one, in the form of Nathaniel Gorton of the District of Massachusetts, a GHW Bush appointee. At 86, he's the oldest active district judge in the nation, and in one of many legal atrocities that have crossed his desk, he was the judge that greenlit the Muslim travel ban. He's an heir of the Gorton's Seafood family and his older brother was the late, equally disgraceful Slade Gorton. The Massachusetts senators didn't allow Trump to appoint anybody last time around; we'll see if blue slips survive this administration.
Heh. To this day, I'm still wary of breaded fish, though it can be good. And I think they've managed to get worse over time, or perhaps it's just a matter of standing still while your competition improves.
I remember that Slade Gorton, as Senator from Washington, showed a fair degree of moderation because he needed to to be reelected. I was very happy when Maria Cantwell and her tennis shoes defeated him.
Interesting to look at the issue specific approvals too. Approve-disapprove numbers:
Economy: 41-54
Russia/Ukraine War: 38-55
Foreign Policy: 42-53
Immigration: 46-49
Military: 41-48
The only issue he's above water on is trade with China, at 46-44.
If there is a government shutdown, voters will blame democrats (32%), republicans (31%), and Trump (22%), with 15% having no opinion. An outright majority would blame a republican, and they're 62% of those offering an opinion. Going for a shutdown to fight Trump is all but a gimme for us with these kinds of numbers.
The underwater immigration number strikes me as too low compared to other polls but it's possible that the astonishing absence of headlines about it are catching up to him.
I had a suspicion the mass deportation gambit was a red herring. We had a single week of shock and awe and then....nothing. We were expecting news cycles inundated with images of children ripped apart from families and boarded onto ICE buses like cattle, but I haven't seen any images even remotely like that since January. Deportation numbers are lacking what we saw in the last year of Biden's term. But I don't think voters who are otherwise amenable on deportations have caught on to this because the reckless dismemberment of the federal government is devouring all of the headlines as the scale of immigration raids has been a microscopic fraction of what was promised.
Could be. I def think the first two weeks had a lot of “look busy” energy, and today there was news that they’re moving migrant detainees away from Gitmo after realizing a week or two ago military flights were too expensive.
Long run, though, I imagine the lack of border encounters is the number the administration will actually flag
I'm not sure he would be. If he's as horrible a hypothetical candidate as everyone says he is, then he also is probably just as bad a surrogate for whoever the nominee is.
Being a candidate doesn’t by default make one a bad surrogate. In Buttigeg’s case, he’s just very skilled at communicating (say against pundits and even Fox News) without a sweat. He’s got his arguments well prepared and is sharp.
Showing up at campaign rallies and making speeches isn’t exactly what I was thinking. What I am looking for is someone who can help Stevens and other Democratic candidates running for office to help Democrats beat the GOP at their game.
Progressives who didn't support his Presidential Candidacy, anyone who agrees with the Democratic platform on everything except LGBTQ+rights, possibly minorities (depending who he ultimately endorses-there's a reason he got almost nothing in the South Carolina primary).
Sorry, I need to vent. Josh Marshall, while I appreciate what he's doing, is driving me fucking crazy on Bluesky. I know he wants to pull teeth on which Senate Democrats will vote No on cloture and he's both moving at a snail's pace to update his list (though I don't fully blame him for that) but also either doom posting to get folks to act or prepare us for what's next. But looks like we might now know who the 10 likely Yes votes on allowing Cloture. https://bsky.app/profile/joshtpm.bsky.social/post/3lkbxyja44s2c
The MAGA continuing resolution. If it doesn't pass, the government shuts down. It would require 60 votes to pass so they'll need some Dem votes, but the bill is a pure GOP wish list that makes no concessions to Dems on anything.
Even if the GOP was willing to give us anything, I think shutting down the government until after the midterms (if not until after the 2028 elections) would be the better strategy.
Axios: "Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), a giant of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, died Thursday due to complications from his cancer treatment, his office announced. He was 77."
Damn. I cannot claim to have great knowledge of house members, but I think every time I heard news about Grijalva it was something that made me like him.
Primary to be held in 120-135 days, and special election 70-80 days after the primary. Earliest the seat could be filled is mid-late September, latest is mid October.
Aaaaaand Schumer folds like a lawn chair. Just a man who is utterly incapable of meeting the moment. NY and CA Democratic Parties are the worst in the country.
The biggest mistake Schumer made was not prepping the ground correctly. In a shutdown fight, the side who isn't willing to accept a clean CR loses. That should be the Republicans! This CR isn't clean. Problem is it's being *treated* as clean, both because if you squint at it from the right angle, it's close to clean (this isn't their dream bill), and more importantly because we completely fumbled our media strategy. After we made that mistake - letting them call this clean - we were screwed either way.
I think on shutdown fights while in the minority we should say, look, we're always willing to accept an honest, clean CR. If the Republicans want anything other than current policy, they have to negotiate with us for it and give us something in return. Making this point clear a month ago could have led to a better outcome here. That's the original error. It doesn't take a savant to figure this out, and it's what makes me seriously question whether Schumer is up to the job. I'd like to see new leadership.
But the whole point of shutdown negotiations is that you can't afford to get the blame for the shutdown. Every party that's been blamed for a shutdown in the last fifteen years has eventually caved. Making extortionate demands like that just doesn't work.
Yeah, Schumer was betting on House Republicans not getting their shit together like they did the first Trump was in office and failed to repeal the ACA. I admit, I was hoping Chip Roy and the Free Dumb Caucus would be a pain in the ass along with some more weirdos like Thomas Massie breaking. But this isn't 2017 where the GOP had a bigger majority. Johnson knew he couldn't spare to lose any votes. Don't get me wrong, the GOP kept the the Democrats on the Appropriations Committee completely out of the process and rammed this through but Schumer should've seen that coming. What's insane is even John Fetterman agreed with AOC that this was all performative.
Now I don't know how this Schumer cave plays out electorally for Democrats next year or even this year (I don't think it will for the Governor races or legislative races). But if the grassroots/base anger can materialize into recruiting real, electable (heavy emphasis on that word) primary candidates that can knock out incumbents, that's going to be the real test. It's very tiresome to explain what CRs and cloture and the whole process means to regular voters.
Democrats need to stop putting New Yorkers in top leadership positions. With a couple of exceptions, particularly AOC, the congressional membership is rancid.
Unfortunately, you are right. I'm so livid tonight! I get emails from Schumer every fucking day about how dangerous Trump is, he's such a threat, and will I fucking send him money to help him fight Trump, and now, he behaves like the fucking Center Party in 1933 Germany. Fuck him! This is the worst thing he's done since his vote to give G.W. Bush a blank check to invade Iraq.
No it wasn't. Republicans are increasingly unpopular right now and that change is happening rapidly. It's happening because of how they're running government.
Standing aside and giving our stamp of approval to their actions is just about the stupidest thing Schumer/Jeffries could have done for our party.
There is a legitimate counterargument: "never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake." You're absolutely correct that the way Republicans are running government right now is wrecking their popularity. A shutdown fight might interrupt that, which is why you see some Democrats backing down here.
Now I'm not saying they're right. I think there's a real argument for saying "no, wait, we'll only take an actual clean CR". But I can see both sides here.
Playing along with a CR gives us culpability. "Democrats voted for it too." Also it's not like a clean CR would have stopped republicans from doing the deeply unpopular things, so I don't buy that argument at all. They'd continue making their mistakes. If anything, we interrupted their mistake by running over and shoving our nametags all over it.
One of the biggest problems we have with a decent chunk our should-be voters is that a lot of them think we're not much different from republicans, that we're "republican-lite." Crap like this reinforces that and makes getting them to turnout that much harder.
Also just generally this is fucking awful for our ability to wield power in DC. If we hold the presidency, republicans threaten to shut down the government if we don't do what they want. Eventually we cave and pass a CR with concessions to them. If republicans hold the presidency, they threaten to shut down the government if we don't do what they want. Eventually we cave and pass a CR with concessions to them.
This kind of behavior calls into question the entire point of having people win offices in congress. This is mind numbingly stupid of Schumer. On every level.
It's not even that a "decent chunk our should-be voters is that a lot of them think we're not much different from republicans"; it's that this is a complete cave-in, absolute collaboration, and at a time when this was the one way Democrats could oppose dictatorship and demand an end to recissions, arbitrary firings and the immediate reinstatement of everyone fired without due process as requirements for their votes, they have betrayed the country and helped usher in true dictatorship. It's only some courts that are trying to resist now.
I have absolutely no faith in his leadership whatsoever. I just got an email from the DSCC and I'm sure my response went into the ether but I'm not sending any money to these committees anymore.
Schumer and the Senate Dems were put in an absolute no-win situation: a vote for the CR is a vote to enable Trump and Musk, whereas a vote for a government shutdown would have handed a potentially effective attack line against Democrats (and Senate Democrats in particular) to Trump and the GOP.
Schumer would have been better off caving from the outset instead of feigning a shutdown threat and then caving, which has done nothing but enrage progressives and hyperpartisan establishment Dems (a big part of the Democratic base) and make Schumer look comically weak. At least Jeffries got all but one member of his caucus to hold firm!
Republican House + Republican Senate + Republican White House = Republican Shut down. Schumer going along lends them bipartisan cred and plays right into the "both parties are the same" crap. Lord know what will be demanded and caved to in the next crunch moment.
The institutional Democratic Party is guided by an almost pathological level of conflict avoidance in almost every direction. “What can we do to make the least number of people mad?” is just a bankrupt way to operate.
"'Hickenlooper told viewers of his virtual town hall that the Republican spending bill “would wipe out congressional oversight, letting (President Donald) Trump cut and redirect funding however he wants.
“The longer I look at it, this is a fundamental test of our democracy,” he said. “So when this bill reaches the Senate floor, I will vote no. We need a funding bill that preserves Congress’ authority and, by extension, your voice.”
In his statement, Bennet blamed Republicans for failing to work with Democrats on a compromise.
The GOP “refused to work with Democrats on a bipartisan deal to put American families first,” he wrote. “The Republican spending bill does not serve Coloradans well; therefore, I will be voting no.”
Pete Buttigieg is expected to announce Thursday he will not run for Michigan’s open Senate seat, according to a person briefed on his decision, clearing a path for a potential presidential campaign instead.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/13/pete-buttigieg-michigan-senate-run-00227583
The right call
I'd rather he'd run for Governor. Mayor of South Bend doesn't cut it. Sorry.
I think he would argue being Transportation Secretary is a resume booster but won't say anything else to avoid primary talk.
That's not an elected position. Sorry. If he can't defeat a guy who claimed pregnancy by rape is a "gift from God", he doesn't stand a chance.
He said that in 2012 and Pete ran against him in 2010 tea party that too in a red state.
This is a bit deceitful, so let's correct the record. Richard Mourdock said that in 2012, two years after his 2010 race against Pete. Also, as I'm sure you know, 2010 was a massive red wave election in which the Dems lost 60+ house seats, and Indiana was still very much a red state (despite Obama carrying it two years earlier). There's no way any Democrat was going to overcome those headwinds and win statewide in Indiana, so let's not pretend any of this says anything about Pete's strengths as a candidate.
The problem is that Buttigieg didn't just lose that race. He lost it by 25 per cent. Yes, he went on to twice be elected Mayor of South Bend, but that was and is a blue dot in the Hoosier State. If he's struggling in Michigan of all places, that doesn't bode well for his national prospects.
Buttigeg is in his early 40's so he still has time to build up his political resume regardless of what direction he ends up going in the future.
That said, I'd say being Transportation Secretary could boost Buttigeg's chances as Governor considering he was responsible for helping President Biden implement multiple infrastructure projects, all of which help the manufacturing industry.
We've had dozens of experienced candidates like Hillary and Biden. How did that turn out?
IMO swing voters care more about personality and charisma than experience and policy. This is one thing that Trump has in droves.
He's an excellent debater but WAY too straight-laced & by-the-book for this era in politics. I know some folks love that but swingy low-info voters don't.
Well he's got a couple years to liven things up
Trump belongs to the "government sucks" party. He's allowed to lack experience. Buttigieg does not. Like it or not, as the "government is good" party we Democrats get held to higher standards and are actually expected to govern and be adults.
How are we expected to govern when the government is hollowed out and burnt to ashes? The Dems of the future need to represent policies that won't be business as usual and bold and new ideas for how to build a new world from the ground up.
The good news is now that we are the challenging party, we can run on "change" and "everything sucks" and get away with it. And "being bold" requires the American electorate to want to go through with it.
Pete is calm, brilliant in communication, very educated, a veteran and someone with principles who the country can look up to.
Elections here often result in the country electing the exact opposite of the current president. In 2028, Pete might fit this perfectly.
He’ll never be elected president. In 2028 at least.
I've learned to never say never.
And not just because of his sexual orientation.
Yeah his career is stuck. Unless gets the VP pick, he doesn’t have much hope. And even then, VP’s don’t move POTUS very often.
And save for electoral disasters, we Democrats don't tend to put non statewide elected candidates on either end of our Presidential ticket.
If Pete Buttigieg were Governor of or Senator from Michigan (or Indiana), I would agree. The problem is that he is not that at all. If Barack Obama were not a US Senator first, he doesn't get elected President in 2008. Buttigieg doesn't get special treatment because he has a pretty face.
Good, the carpetbagging label would have been the number 1 concern.
I'd support state AG Dana Nessel 100%!! 💙🇺🇲
Be great if Nessel was our candidate and we got Pappas in NH, too. They’d be a great outlet for the national LGBTQ+ community to fight back. I’m ready to give some money and write some postcards. Well, I might need all my money for groceries and electricity soon.
In all fairness, McMarrow has the LGBTQ+ cred from her viral legislative speech and we’ll treat her as our own. And then, it’s interesting that Buttigieg was in contention. Why is MI so gay? 😁
Just to run with this train of thought, Sen. Baldwin became the first out LGBTQ+ Senator and is from WI. WI was the first state to ban discrimination on account of sexual orientation in housing, employment and public accommodations back in 1989. MN became the first state in 1993 to do so while also including gender identity. MN then became the first state to reject a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality in 2012. IA’s record is a bit thin but they were the fourth state to legalize marriage equality. It was through court order which, lessens the vibe but it was a unanimous decision. They made a lot of blue state folks eat shit on that one with it being early 2009 just after CA just passed Prop 8 in November.
Mallory McMorrow set to announce a bid "shortly" according to the AP.
Wouldn’t seeing Anne Kuster run.
In New Hampshire? She said she may well run if Pappas somehow declines. 💙🇺🇲
She's already 68, so max two terms from her. Realistically Pappas should run for the Senate, and Stefany Shaheen (yes Jeanne's oldest of three daughters) for Pappas' seat.
Have her daughters expressed any interest in politics?
Stefany Shaheen was a city councilor in Portsmouth, and has been floated around as a potential candidate for various offices in the past. No idea if she wants to enter the buzzsaw of national politics, but I suspect she does if she saw an opening.
I don't really know much about her, but I dislike the idea of promoting someone primarily because of her last name. American voters have shown no such compunction for their own voting behavior, so if she did decide to run for something I expect she'd be a serious/strong candidate.
Nothing wrong with a 2 term max.
Given that New Hampshire is a small state and requires seniority to get their elected officials to move up, that won't sit well with Granite Staters. Pappas is 44 and thus can give quite a long tenure if he so chooses.
The advantage Pappas has is that he's held quite well in the House representing NH-01 since being elected back in 2018. The closest election he's had was back in 2020 where he won by 5% points whereas in 2022 and 2024 he's won re-election by roughly 8% points.
Also, WH Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was the 2022 GOP Candidate against Pappas. He's certainly been battle tested and could be a difficult Democratic Senate Candidate the GOP could challenge next year.
2022 was the Karoline Leavitt race.
Ahh yes! Making edit shortly.
And proving more that Pappas can beat the GOP in NH even if it nominated Trump’s own spokesperson.
Her saying she'll run if Pappas doesn't gives me the sense that she's only intending to run if we do not have a high profile candidate. Taking one for the team, in a sense.
I'd be surprised if Pappas doesn't run though, so it seems improbable to see Kuster run.
He seems to be hinting that he is in fact running on Instagram.
And we have our answer to the question of 'who will be the first judge who was eligible to retire the last time Trump was in office to announce their retirement this time around?' The answer is an unsurprising one, in the form of Nathaniel Gorton of the District of Massachusetts, a GHW Bush appointee. At 86, he's the oldest active district judge in the nation, and in one of many legal atrocities that have crossed his desk, he was the judge that greenlit the Muslim travel ban. He's an heir of the Gorton's Seafood family and his older brother was the late, equally disgraceful Slade Gorton. The Massachusetts senators didn't allow Trump to appoint anybody last time around; we'll see if blue slips survive this administration.
Can trust the Gorton’s fisherman.
Heh. To this day, I'm still wary of breaded fish, though it can be good. And I think they've managed to get worse over time, or perhaps it's just a matter of standing still while your competition improves.
I remember that Slade Gorton, as Senator from Washington, showed a fair degree of moderation because he needed to to be reelected. I was very happy when Maria Cantwell and her tennis shoes defeated him.
A Quinnipiac University poll released today has Trump's approval under water at 42% approve; 53% disapprove. Independents are 36%-58%. https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3921
Trump has only performed better than Trump 45 in presidential approval ratings.
What's striking to me is in even in his better polls, Trump's indie support numbers are TERRIBLE.
There goes that honeymoon. Tariffs and daily musings about annexing Canada are sure to bring those Indy numbers back up though, I’m sure
Interesting to look at the issue specific approvals too. Approve-disapprove numbers:
Economy: 41-54
Russia/Ukraine War: 38-55
Foreign Policy: 42-53
Immigration: 46-49
Military: 41-48
The only issue he's above water on is trade with China, at 46-44.
If there is a government shutdown, voters will blame democrats (32%), republicans (31%), and Trump (22%), with 15% having no opinion. An outright majority would blame a republican, and they're 62% of those offering an opinion. Going for a shutdown to fight Trump is all but a gimme for us with these kinds of numbers.
The underwater immigration number strikes me as too low compared to other polls but it's possible that the astonishing absence of headlines about it are catching up to him.
I had a suspicion the mass deportation gambit was a red herring. We had a single week of shock and awe and then....nothing. We were expecting news cycles inundated with images of children ripped apart from families and boarded onto ICE buses like cattle, but I haven't seen any images even remotely like that since January. Deportation numbers are lacking what we saw in the last year of Biden's term. But I don't think voters who are otherwise amenable on deportations have caught on to this because the reckless dismemberment of the federal government is devouring all of the headlines as the scale of immigration raids has been a microscopic fraction of what was promised.
Could be. I def think the first two weeks had a lot of “look busy” energy, and today there was news that they’re moving migrant detainees away from Gitmo after realizing a week or two ago military flights were too expensive.
Long run, though, I imagine the lack of border encounters is the number the administration will actually flag
If Trump was smart he’d muster American soft power within the G7 to aggressively block out Chinese trade but, alas
If Trump was smart, he'd cease to be Trump.
True
Or even take Howard Stern’s advice and see a psychotherapist.
Also, go figure, Americans like Canadians! I saw posted on another website a poll that Canada joining the Us is a position that has 8% approval.
https://petebuttigieg.substack.com/p/im-not-running-in-2026-but-i-am-getting
Pete Buttigieg's announcement.
Buttigeg would be an asset in helping Rep. Haley Stevens or whoever else ends up being the Democratic Senate nominee.
I'm not sure he would be. If he's as horrible a hypothetical candidate as everyone says he is, then he also is probably just as bad a surrogate for whoever the nominee is.
Being a candidate doesn’t by default make one a bad surrogate. In Buttigeg’s case, he’s just very skilled at communicating (say against pundits and even Fox News) without a sweat. He’s got his arguments well prepared and is sharp.
Showing up at campaign rallies and making speeches isn’t exactly what I was thinking. What I am looking for is someone who can help Stevens and other Democratic candidates running for office to help Democrats beat the GOP at their game.
No, but you could make the argument that his presence supporting our nominee will cost whoever that is critical votes.
How? I’m not sold on how it could be a possibility.
Who would Buttigeg turn off if he spoke?
Progressives who didn't support his Presidential Candidacy, anyone who agrees with the Democratic platform on everything except LGBTQ+rights, possibly minorities (depending who he ultimately endorses-there's a reason he got almost nothing in the South Carolina primary).
I don't hear anyone calling him a horrible candidate. Most have a problem with him either because
1. He's gay
2. A gay would not be electable
3. He's not progressive enough.
Sorry, I need to vent. Josh Marshall, while I appreciate what he's doing, is driving me fucking crazy on Bluesky. I know he wants to pull teeth on which Senate Democrats will vote No on cloture and he's both moving at a snail's pace to update his list (though I don't fully blame him for that) but also either doom posting to get folks to act or prepare us for what's next. But looks like we might now know who the 10 likely Yes votes on allowing Cloture. https://bsky.app/profile/joshtpm.bsky.social/post/3lkbxyja44s2c
There's no context here. Cloture on what?
The MAGA continuing resolution. If it doesn't pass, the government shuts down. It would require 60 votes to pass so they'll need some Dem votes, but the bill is a pure GOP wish list that makes no concessions to Dems on anything.
Even if the GOP was willing to give us anything, I think shutting down the government until after the midterms (if not until after the 2028 elections) would be the better strategy.
I agree. Give the GOP hell just weeks before Democrats take over Congress, assuming for the sake of the argument they do win control of both chambers.
Rep Raul Grijalva has died https://x.com/garrett_archer/status/1900292053738938558?s=61&t=5copDbz1aPl7ASsRCUclLg
Oh no. RIP to a long-standing icon of his state
Axios: "Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), a giant of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, died Thursday due to complications from his cancer treatment, his office announced. He was 77."
https://www.axios.com/2025/03/13/raul-grijalva-dies-cancer-77
Damn. I cannot claim to have great knowledge of house members, but I think every time I heard news about Grijalva it was something that made me like him.
Looks like this will be a long vacancy, unfortunately. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00222.htm
Primary to be held in 120-135 days, and special election 70-80 days after the primary. Earliest the seat could be filled is mid-late September, latest is mid October.
Pity he had to be one of the most prolific modern-day smokers in congress.
This party will get younger one way or another.
Our bench in Tucson seems fairly solid
I'm really sorry to hear that.
Aaaaaand Schumer folds like a lawn chair. Just a man who is utterly incapable of meeting the moment. NY and CA Democratic Parties are the worst in the country.
https://bsky.app/profile/sahilkapur.bsky.social/post/3lkc5ngo6ts2q
The biggest mistake Schumer made was not prepping the ground correctly. In a shutdown fight, the side who isn't willing to accept a clean CR loses. That should be the Republicans! This CR isn't clean. Problem is it's being *treated* as clean, both because if you squint at it from the right angle, it's close to clean (this isn't their dream bill), and more importantly because we completely fumbled our media strategy. After we made that mistake - letting them call this clean - we were screwed either way.
I think on shutdown fights while in the minority we should say, look, we're always willing to accept an honest, clean CR. If the Republicans want anything other than current policy, they have to negotiate with us for it and give us something in return. Making this point clear a month ago could have led to a better outcome here. That's the original error. It doesn't take a savant to figure this out, and it's what makes me seriously question whether Schumer is up to the job. I'd like to see new leadership.
He isn't up for the job.
Even if the Republicans were willing to pass a clean CR our demands to keep the government open should have been:
Hakeem Jeffries as Speaker+Resignation of Trump/Vance.
But the whole point of shutdown negotiations is that you can't afford to get the blame for the shutdown. Every party that's been blamed for a shutdown in the last fifteen years has eventually caved. Making extortionate demands like that just doesn't work.
We shouldn't have been negotiating to begin with.
I repeat, even if Republicans were willing to pass a clean CR, the better strategy to me was to shut the government down regardless.
Yeah, Schumer was betting on House Republicans not getting their shit together like they did the first Trump was in office and failed to repeal the ACA. I admit, I was hoping Chip Roy and the Free Dumb Caucus would be a pain in the ass along with some more weirdos like Thomas Massie breaking. But this isn't 2017 where the GOP had a bigger majority. Johnson knew he couldn't spare to lose any votes. Don't get me wrong, the GOP kept the the Democrats on the Appropriations Committee completely out of the process and rammed this through but Schumer should've seen that coming. What's insane is even John Fetterman agreed with AOC that this was all performative.
Now I don't know how this Schumer cave plays out electorally for Democrats next year or even this year (I don't think it will for the Governor races or legislative races). But if the grassroots/base anger can materialize into recruiting real, electable (heavy emphasis on that word) primary candidates that can knock out incumbents, that's going to be the real test. It's very tiresome to explain what CRs and cloture and the whole process means to regular voters.
Not to try to get off topic a bit but we’ve gotta hand it to Paul Ryan:
1) He had it easier than Mike Johnson as House Speaker.
2) He left office while he could after Trump was first POTUS.
3) Never went MAGA.
4) Is now having a more lucrative and higher paying career in the private sector than he did after being in the House since the late 90’s.
Fetterman was going to vote to avoid a shutdown according to his own tweet.
Democrats need to stop putting New Yorkers in top leadership positions. With a couple of exceptions, particularly AOC, the congressional membership is rancid.
Unfortunately, you are right. I'm so livid tonight! I get emails from Schumer every fucking day about how dangerous Trump is, he's such a threat, and will I fucking send him money to help him fight Trump, and now, he behaves like the fucking Center Party in 1933 Germany. Fuck him! This is the worst thing he's done since his vote to give G.W. Bush a blank check to invade Iraq.
the executive leadership also fucking sucks. Is there a worse quartet than Cuomo, Adams, de Blasio, and Hochul?
It was a real dilemma.
No it wasn't. Republicans are increasingly unpopular right now and that change is happening rapidly. It's happening because of how they're running government.
Standing aside and giving our stamp of approval to their actions is just about the stupidest thing Schumer/Jeffries could have done for our party.
There is a legitimate counterargument: "never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake." You're absolutely correct that the way Republicans are running government right now is wrecking their popularity. A shutdown fight might interrupt that, which is why you see some Democrats backing down here.
Now I'm not saying they're right. I think there's a real argument for saying "no, wait, we'll only take an actual clean CR". But I can see both sides here.
Playing along with a CR gives us culpability. "Democrats voted for it too." Also it's not like a clean CR would have stopped republicans from doing the deeply unpopular things, so I don't buy that argument at all. They'd continue making their mistakes. If anything, we interrupted their mistake by running over and shoving our nametags all over it.
One of the biggest problems we have with a decent chunk our should-be voters is that a lot of them think we're not much different from republicans, that we're "republican-lite." Crap like this reinforces that and makes getting them to turnout that much harder.
Also just generally this is fucking awful for our ability to wield power in DC. If we hold the presidency, republicans threaten to shut down the government if we don't do what they want. Eventually we cave and pass a CR with concessions to them. If republicans hold the presidency, they threaten to shut down the government if we don't do what they want. Eventually we cave and pass a CR with concessions to them.
This kind of behavior calls into question the entire point of having people win offices in congress. This is mind numbingly stupid of Schumer. On every level.
It's not even that a "decent chunk our should-be voters is that a lot of them think we're not much different from republicans"; it's that this is a complete cave-in, absolute collaboration, and at a time when this was the one way Democrats could oppose dictatorship and demand an end to recissions, arbitrary firings and the immediate reinstatement of everyone fired without due process as requirements for their votes, they have betrayed the country and helped usher in true dictatorship. It's only some courts that are trying to resist now.
ok whens the debt limit? Schumers got one more chance.
I have absolutely no faith in his leadership whatsoever. I just got an email from the DSCC and I'm sure my response went into the ether but I'm not sending any money to these committees anymore.
Schumer and the Senate Dems were put in an absolute no-win situation: a vote for the CR is a vote to enable Trump and Musk, whereas a vote for a government shutdown would have handed a potentially effective attack line against Democrats (and Senate Democrats in particular) to Trump and the GOP.
Schumer would have been better off caving from the outset instead of feigning a shutdown threat and then caving, which has done nothing but enrage progressives and hyperpartisan establishment Dems (a big part of the Democratic base) and make Schumer look comically weak. At least Jeffries got all but one member of his caucus to hold firm!
Republican House + Republican Senate + Republican White House = Republican Shut down. Schumer going along lends them bipartisan cred and plays right into the "both parties are the same" crap. Lord know what will be demanded and caved to in the next crunch moment.
Exactly.
The institutional Democratic Party is guided by an almost pathological level of conflict avoidance in almost every direction. “What can we do to make the least number of people mad?” is just a bankrupt way to operate.
https://bsky.app/profile/chrislhayes.bsky.social/post/3lkc53x4ghs2h
I’ve been saying this for ages.
Being everything to everyone makes one nobody to everyone. I wish more people within the Democratic Party understood that.
https://www.denverpost.com/2025/03/13/colorado-michael-bennet-john-hickenlooper-senate-republican-budget-shutdown/
"Colorado’s U.S. senators say they won’t support Republican spending bill as shutdown looms
John Hickenlooper, Michael Bennet announce votes as Congress faces late Friday deadline"
"'Hickenlooper told viewers of his virtual town hall that the Republican spending bill “would wipe out congressional oversight, letting (President Donald) Trump cut and redirect funding however he wants.
“The longer I look at it, this is a fundamental test of our democracy,” he said. “So when this bill reaches the Senate floor, I will vote no. We need a funding bill that preserves Congress’ authority and, by extension, your voice.”
In his statement, Bennet blamed Republicans for failing to work with Democrats on a compromise.
The GOP “refused to work with Democrats on a bipartisan deal to put American families first,” he wrote. “The Republican spending bill does not serve Coloradans well; therefore, I will be voting no.”