The second the Republican nominee in NY is named by the county chairs; he needs defining and connection to Trump's worst policy moves so far; go nuclear negative from the get go and pull zero punches imo
Easier said than done. This district is massive and covers most of Northern NY. The media bases are Syracuse and Albany and while they aren't NYC, they aren't cheap either.
I'm out near Buffalo and I know upstate NY well.
According to what I've seen from financial reports, fundraising is a huge issue for Democrats up there.
It would take serious investment for a Democrat to 1) raise money and then 2) develop a brand and then 3) build name recognition.
The bench seems thin there.
It's possible to thread the needle in the right circumstances however it's also home to a lot of Michigan-like militia groups in the mountains that are very Trumpy.
Our best shot is if Hochul punts the special to the latest date possible in order to maximize our chances of Trump fatigue and give our candidate the longest time to raise money and momentum.
So tired of the "it's the symbolic victories that count" argument. This is how we stay in the minority. NY-21 may or may not be winnable, but we'll never know if we're playing for a close 2nd place.
Playing to win implies pulling out all the stops, while playing for a close second accepts defeat as a given.
Some of this district was won in a special in 2009 by Bill Owens, who held it until 2014. Special elections are quirky things, so we don't know who will show up and how the tariffs will hit upstate NY.
No one suggested anywhere at anytime about playing for a close second; I am tired of your nonsense; you do it in every post you make; you create a rebuttal argument against something that was never posted by the original poster
I might add; the Democratic National Committee has an entirely new leadership, these special elections coming up will be a great trial run for that group; none of the races will be favored for the Democratic party, so imo we have nothing to lose by going all in
I always thought of Andrew Cuomo as a strong and opportunistic, Republican-adjacent governor. Unlike his dad Mario, who I believe would have made an excellent president.
Andrew Cuomo is an abusive piece of shit. He also certainly played games to limit progressives during his tenure as Governor. At the same time, he passed more progressive legislation than pretty much any other major state Governor other than Brown. I don't think "Republican adjacent" was accurate. With the chip he now has on his shoulder, what he might do as mayor of NYC now is a different story...
Or somehow convince him he has a chance to win. Man wouldn't it be great if he knocked off Tillis for us. Or, better yet, run for State Supreme Court. Go get em Mark! We the real, true, patriotic people of America are behind you! Stick it to those RINOs!
The only way that Ogles gets truly investigated now is if he pisses off Trump (maybe he's made enough House enemies that the ethics committee comes into play)
Are there videos showing "weird" sexual proclivities with Ogles as with Cawthorn? Or has been talking about orgies with other Congressmen? If not, then I don't see a primary loss or an investigation.
He must be a real asshole, such that his colleagues couldn't stand him. Plus, the Republicans hated him because they knew he was going to lose big if he tried to get re-elected.
Yesterday morning, up to 10 thousand people gathered in downtown LA to protest Trump's immigration policies. Protestors blocked surface streets between Union station and city hall, and for a period around noon spilled onto both sides of the 101 freeway at Alameda Street. For those not familiar with LA, that is just north of the East LA interchange where many freeways connect and except at 3am is gridlock.
There are plans to protest again today when people are actually downtown.
I hope they don't impede traffic; I am all in favor of the protests and the protesters but logistics matters for public awareness and sympathy; the worst tactic available is to make some poor schlub late for work because a freeway is blocked
I honestly don't care; impeding traffic is bad form unless they have some type of permit for that type protest; pretty sure that they don't allow such permits
Well it seems like the bulk of the Democratic party seems to think the best response is sitting around watching and hoping that when the price of eggs goes from $9 to $15 that people will get really really fed up with Trump.
It's horrible politics; playing nice in politics has never been my repertoire; I am all about winning elections; pissing off potential allies and persuadable voters is not a winning strategy imo ;impeding traffic is bad form
Vietnam War protests were effective because they were persistent and particularly targeted Washington, DC areas for many months and years.
If these protests were all about stopping traffic, I doubt Vietnam war activism would have gotten that far.
Likewise with labor union protests - They don’t stop traffic and target the companies directly on site. And usually there are resolutions in these cases.
After reading through all the comments on this thread, I see a lot of disagreement with you and yet none of it actually talks about what you’re talking about. Thanks for understanding that pissing off swing voters and negatively interrupting their personal lives isn’t a winning strategy.
Getting a protest/parade permit so people have advance warning what streets will be closed when is one thing, but spontaneously blocking roads is always counterproductive.
Traveling from Los Angeles to Alabama is a bit much to do a protest.
Democrats still primarily live in or near cities. Going to the city for a protest can be an afternoon activity for them; it doesn't require substantial planning from individuals. Cities also have infrastructure to protest at. In a way the purpose of these protests is to get attention and media coverage. Doing that in a city works.
Maybe, but that has been said about any and every protest that has occurred. Either the protest doesn't inconvenience anyone, in which case nobody cares because it has no impact. Or the protest inconveniences some people, in which case they're only annoying people.
As such I don't put much stock in complaints about protests.
Downballot reports: "Separately, Politico's Kelly Garrity identifies two other Republicans, former Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito and state Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, as potential candidates 'who haven't said much publicly whose names still come up in the conservation.'" It is reassuring to know that Massachusetts Republicans are conservationists.
“We don’t have the time to meander in the middle, to be milly-mouthed, or this way or that way,” Baraka said. “We can’t fight extremism with moderation.”
Gottheimer touted his proposed tax plan and said his experience in Congress leading the Problem Solvers Caucus will enable him to find practical solutions to difficult issues in the state. The congressman, a moderate who flaunts Jersey values and has labeled himself the “lower taxes, lower costs” candidate, also had to defend attacks on his vote for the Laken Riley Act.
Sherrill said questions over transgender athletes in sports distract from more important issues like lowering costs for residents—the congresswoman called anti-trans efforts “bullshit.”
“We have to do better at protecting vulnerable people,” she said. “But we can’t fall into these traps because we’re losing and we need to win on this issue.”
God bless Mikie Sherrill. Her answer highlighted in the article is correct and succinct, but is also one that too many Dem pols can't or won't say for some mind-boggling reason.
It's 2025, not 1955. Cursing is not taboo. Also, I think in this instance, the use of "bullshit" really highlights how inane the right is while also underpinning the anger and sadness that marginalized communities at-large are currently feeling.
As a resident of MA, Healey is vulnerable. I just don't know if she's vulnerable to that collection of R mediocrities. She's definitely vulnerable, because she's pissed a lot of people off, but she's mostly* pissed off us lefties. The mishandling of the shelter system was bad enough; but she's gone all mealy-mouth on Trump since the election.
*The other group she's pissed off are the gun nuts, but there's not enough of them in MA to make a difference.
Well, we have had quite a few R Governors here, but, no. As I said, she's pissing off the left. She's vulnerable to a primary challenger more than a Republican, IMHO.
The one R that can beat her? Baker, if he wants to go back. But that's not happening, and I don't see another Baker-type R running.
with Trump in power, no Republican will win Massachusetts statewide; even Baker; no viable alternative is coming from the left either; you are going to be dealing with Healey moving forward
Healey has solid approval ratings from what I was able to find. If she is vulnerable it will be over the shelter stuff, but I don't see it putting her in practical danger at the ballot box. No one with any traction will challenge her in a primary and republicans aren't going to try to find another Baker, who would struggle against an incumbent even if they could.
The shelter stuff is her biggest problem, yes, but there's been a lot of disgruntlement about her not being nearly as strong in decrying the administration as, say, Newsome or Pritzker. She did a lot of bipartisan braying, which didn't go over well with Trump-haters (which is still a majority of MA voters). She's gotten tougher about the tariffs, at least. As for primary challenge? Dizoglio might get a bit of traction. Enough? Good question.
Here's one of the big issues: based on her term as state AG, a lot of us expected an actual lefty. She hasn't proven to be that. Can she be primaried from the left? Probably not, but I wouldn't say definitely not.
Wanted to share this piece I put together with you—it’s about how the Democratic Party can’t afford to sit on the sidelines for the next four years and why they need to take control of the narrative now. It lays out a strategy for a Democratic shadow government and how it could be the key to winning back Congress in 2026 and the White House in 2028.
Would love to hear your thoughts when you have a minute.
"Democrats Need a Shadow Government Before It’s Too Late"
Jason, great work! On Hopium I have posted your title and a link to your substack page, with the following comment:
Under this title, Jason Egenberg has a fine substack post, shares thoughts very much in line with what Simon and the Hopium community have been discussing. He makes some very interesting detailed suggestions.
Countries without parliaments to my knowledge don't have shadow governments as such. Who would decide who would be each shadow minister in this system?
The congressional caucus leadership. Schumer and Jeffries could work it out. Could bring the DNC chair into it too. Unlike in a parliamentary system the goal would not explicitly be for them to be the cabinet-in-waiting, so a lot (but not all) of the ego trading could be skipped.
The point would be more media focused so get some people who are good in front of a camera but with relevant policy knowledge. If we do this, don't pick the people with the most seniority on the relevant committees. Pick people that can speak effectively and stay on message when shoved in front of a camera — and without them being so boring you could bottle their speeches up as a cure for insomnia.
Yeah. Dont these parliaments also pick their own members to be in charge of the departments/ministries? Really easy to have a shadow government when it’s always politicians who are basically just doing their job.
That’s exactly the problem. The Democratic leadership is stuck in a cycle of playing it safe while the GOP rewrites the rules in real-time. Fear of trying something new is a luxury they can’t afford—not when the stakes are this high. They need to understand that hesitation isn’t leadership. Bold, aggressive action is the only way forward.
I would have both of them resign their leadership roles so Brian Schatz and Tammy Duckworth or others like them can take over. They have more fire in their belly.
Unfortunately neither seem willing to give up power right now under some delusion that their experience is needed in this current moment when it's their experience that's the biggest hindrance in this moment.
. Musk Declares Social Security Recipients Can No Longer Work From Home
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Asserting that “this is what we do at all my other companies,” Elon Musk announced on Monday that, henceforth, Social Security recipients will no longer be permitted to work from home.
“When I started running the Treasury Department and saw all those checks going out, I was like, ‘Wait, where are all these people?’” Musk told reporters. “It turns out that they were all remote, which is insane.”
Musk said that, if those on Social Security want to continue receiving benefits, “they can haul their asses down to the U.S. Treasury offices in Washington and get to work—no exceptions.”
Across the country, Social Security recipients protested that the new requirement was inhumane because it would force them to come into contact with Musk.
Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow is preparing to enter the Democratic primary for an open U.S. Senate seat in the state, multiple people familiar with her plans confirmed to @AP
Michigan has been plenty willing to elect orthodox liberals. Dems have won every Senate election in Michigan since 1996, and only last year (a generally terrible cycle for Dems) did the Dem overtly run as a moderate.
SHUT DOWN AND SLOW-WALK the CONFIRMATION of TRUMP’s PEOPLE
Here is an idea: Can Senate Democrats, if they stand united, proclaim:
"We are shutting down and slow-walking the confirmation process until the Trump regime cease its blatantly illegal activities. DOGE and Elon Musk is NOT authorized to do what they are doing. Neither the President nor Elon Musk are empowered to shut down USAID or other government agencies; that can only be done by an Act of Congress, and after a proper legislative process. President Trump must continue disbursing those funds that have been approved by Congress. Moreover, the firing of federal employees without due process must cease."
I don’t have thorough knowledge of Senate rules and hence ask those who have such expertise: Is this doable? Is it a good idea? Is it a way to put Democrats more firmly in control of the narrative?
Someone please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the senate functions heavily on the principle of unanimous consent. Without that everything takes too long to do and the chamber is barely functional.
I'd support a senator withholding their consent for all motions going forward until things are only bad-policy insane instead of constitutional crisis insane. Based on how I understand things this wouldn't completely stop republicans but it would slow them down tremendously and only allow them to work with a handful of their senate needs.
We could have someone retiring (paging Sen Peters...) do it so that they can take all the media blowback without much personal concern.
Yes, take just one tiny example: The Senate regularly has to switch back and fort between Legislative Session and Executive Session. Any Democrat can deny unanimous consent and demand a *roll call vote* for this back and forth – and thus slow things down to a dysfunctional crawl.
All it takes is ONE senator. Time and again we have seen how e.g. Rand Paul has slowed things down, and likewise how Tuberville put a hold on just about every military promotion.
We just need one single Democratic senator to do this!
Also something I've had going through my head: we need more performative outrage from democrats. Things that they might need to do outside of regular congressional working hours and thus won't have any impact, but help to signal to voters and people in general that this is not OK. Something to help keep democratic voters angry and stay fired up through the midterms and into 2028.
Talking filibusters and house sit-ins and the type. If they can also add these onto efforts to gum up the works, all the better.
Messaging is a matter that we consistently fail on and part of that, IMO, is the lack of passion and energy we put into our responses. Democratic politicians need to sound more angry and energized and passionate.
Any resources we can point to to explain exactly why it is the dog and pony show that it obviously is? The Conservatives crowing about this great victory are getting on my nerves.
Mostly because the concessions were things Mexico and Canada were already committed to doing. And the US agreeing to assist in stopping the flow of guns southwards is something Mexico has wanted help with for years to combat the cartels
Next, blue state AGs should be suing Musk and his cronies on behalf of the privacy leak of their constituents. There’s a fine per SSN breached, apparently
The second the Republican nominee in NY is named by the county chairs; he needs defining and connection to Trump's worst policy moves so far; go nuclear negative from the get go and pull zero punches imo
Easier said than done. This district is massive and covers most of Northern NY. The media bases are Syracuse and Albany and while they aren't NYC, they aren't cheap either.
I'm out near Buffalo and I know upstate NY well.
According to what I've seen from financial reports, fundraising is a huge issue for Democrats up there.
It would take serious investment for a Democrat to 1) raise money and then 2) develop a brand and then 3) build name recognition.
The bench seems thin there.
It's possible to thread the needle in the right circumstances however it's also home to a lot of Michigan-like militia groups in the mountains that are very Trumpy.
Our best shot is if Hochul punts the special to the latest date possible in order to maximize our chances of Trump fatigue and give our candidate the longest time to raise money and momentum.
Agreed with you on all counts; it's not actually winning the seat that matters; it's the final margins and the narrative that can send going forward
So tired of the "it's the symbolic victories that count" argument. This is how we stay in the minority. NY-21 may or may not be winnable, but we'll never know if we're playing for a close 2nd place.
What would be the difference between playing to win and playing for a close second place?
The worst Stefanik ever did was in Trump's midterm, when she only won by about 14 points.
Playing to win implies pulling out all the stops, while playing for a close second accepts defeat as a given.
Some of this district was won in a special in 2009 by Bill Owens, who held it until 2014. Special elections are quirky things, so we don't know who will show up and how the tariffs will hit upstate NY.
No one suggested anywhere at anytime about playing for a close second; I am tired of your nonsense; you do it in every post you make; you create a rebuttal argument against something that was never posted by the original poster
you are once again clueless; and making an argument against something I didn't post; re-read my post or go back to English 101and learn simple English
I might add; the Democratic National Committee has an entirely new leadership, these special elections coming up will be a great trial run for that group; none of the races will be favored for the Democratic party, so imo we have nothing to lose by going all in
Re: Punting to latest possible date.
100%. But would she do that? She doesn't seem like a strong Democrat in terms of gamesmanship. Cuomolike in that regard.
I always thought of Andrew Cuomo as a strong and opportunistic, Republican-adjacent governor. Unlike his dad Mario, who I believe would have made an excellent president.
Andrew Cuomo is an abusive piece of shit. He also certainly played games to limit progressives during his tenure as Governor. At the same time, he passed more progressive legislation than pretty much any other major state Governor other than Brown. I don't think "Republican adjacent" was accurate. With the chip he now has on his shoulder, what he might do as mayor of NYC now is a different story...
Upvote for sharing information that was new to me.
The Syracuse and Albany markets are really expensive?
Could Tedra Cobb (D) from 2018 run again?
great question; maybe someone more local can help us here??
Our side needs to piss Robinson off just enough to get him back in the game
Or somehow convince him he has a chance to win. Man wouldn't it be great if he knocked off Tillis for us. Or, better yet, run for State Supreme Court. Go get em Mark! We the real, true, patriotic people of America are behind you! Stick it to those RINOs!
Exactly
100%
And if Democrats won the Senate race with Robinson being the nominee, I hope it ends up being that the win is by double digits.
GOP: “Oh crap. What happened?”
The only way that Ogles gets truly investigated now is if he pisses off Trump (maybe he's made enough House enemies that the ethics committee comes into play)
Maybe he’ll ultimately get primaried out. He only won by 12 points before the FBI investigation began.
Look what happened to Madison Cawthorn, and he never faced a day under investigation.
Are there videos showing "weird" sexual proclivities with Ogles as with Cawthorn? Or has been talking about orgies with other Congressmen? If not, then I don't see a primary loss or an investigation.
he's going to kiss Trump's ass; he's going nowhere
OK, what about Santos?
He must be a real asshole, such that his colleagues couldn't stand him. Plus, the Republicans hated him because they knew he was going to lose big if he tried to get re-elected.
Yeah. I have a feeling Ogles isn’t particularly well liked by his colleagues.
Yesterday morning, up to 10 thousand people gathered in downtown LA to protest Trump's immigration policies. Protestors blocked surface streets between Union station and city hall, and for a period around noon spilled onto both sides of the 101 freeway at Alameda Street. For those not familiar with LA, that is just north of the East LA interchange where many freeways connect and except at 3am is gridlock.
There are plans to protest again today when people are actually downtown.
I hope they don't impede traffic; I am all in favor of the protests and the protesters but logistics matters for public awareness and sympathy; the worst tactic available is to make some poor schlub late for work because a freeway is blocked
I don't know how you can fit thousands of people in the Civic center area of LA without impeding traffic.
I honestly don't care; impeding traffic is bad form unless they have some type of permit for that type protest; pretty sure that they don't allow such permits
When we are potentially dealing with a fascist take over of the country, we may to occasionally have to not play nice.
Impeding traffic does zero to stop Trump and Elon. Might actually be counterproductive.
Well it seems like the bulk of the Democratic party seems to think the best response is sitting around watching and hoping that when the price of eggs goes from $9 to $15 that people will get really really fed up with Trump.
It's horrible politics; playing nice in politics has never been my repertoire; I am all about winning elections; pissing off potential allies and persuadable voters is not a winning strategy imo ;impeding traffic is bad form
Vietnam War protests were effective because they were persistent and particularly targeted Washington, DC areas for many months and years.
If these protests were all about stopping traffic, I doubt Vietnam war activism would have gotten that far.
Likewise with labor union protests - They don’t stop traffic and target the companies directly on site. And usually there are resolutions in these cases.
After reading through all the comments on this thread, I see a lot of disagreement with you and yet none of it actually talks about what you’re talking about. Thanks for understanding that pissing off swing voters and negatively interrupting their personal lives isn’t a winning strategy.
Getting a protest/parade permit so people have advance warning what streets will be closed when is one thing, but spontaneously blocking roads is always counterproductive.
exactly the point I am making; good post
Why don't progressive go after the areas that actually voted for Trump, go on over to Alabama and block traffic?
How about we not block traffic?
Traveling from Los Angeles to Alabama is a bit much to do a protest.
Democrats still primarily live in or near cities. Going to the city for a protest can be an afternoon activity for them; it doesn't require substantial planning from individuals. Cities also have infrastructure to protest at. In a way the purpose of these protests is to get attention and media coverage. Doing that in a city works.
It's counter productive and it's not changing anyones mind.
Maybe, but that has been said about any and every protest that has occurred. Either the protest doesn't inconvenience anyone, in which case nobody cares because it has no impact. Or the protest inconveniences some people, in which case they're only annoying people.
As such I don't put much stock in complaints about protests.
Exactly
Downballot reports: "Separately, Politico's Kelly Garrity identifies two other Republicans, former Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito and state Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, as potential candidates 'who haven't said much publicly whose names still come up in the conservation.'" It is reassuring to know that Massachusetts Republicans are conservationists.
lol; I see what you did there
NJ Democratic Gubernatorial debate.
“We don’t have the time to meander in the middle, to be milly-mouthed, or this way or that way,” Baraka said. “We can’t fight extremism with moderation.”
Gottheimer touted his proposed tax plan and said his experience in Congress leading the Problem Solvers Caucus will enable him to find practical solutions to difficult issues in the state. The congressman, a moderate who flaunts Jersey values and has labeled himself the “lower taxes, lower costs” candidate, also had to defend attacks on his vote for the Laken Riley Act.
Sherrill said questions over transgender athletes in sports distract from more important issues like lowering costs for residents—the congresswoman called anti-trans efforts “bullshit.”
“We have to do better at protecting vulnerable people,” she said. “But we can’t fall into these traps because we’re losing and we need to win on this issue.”
https://newjerseyglobe.com/debate/democratic-gubernatorial-candidates-face-off-in-first-debate/
God bless Mikie Sherrill. Her answer highlighted in the article is correct and succinct, but is also one that too many Dem pols can't or won't say for some mind-boggling reason.
What lowering standards to start cursing?
It's 2025, not 1955. Cursing is not taboo. Also, I think in this instance, the use of "bullshit" really highlights how inane the right is while also underpinning the anger and sadness that marginalized communities at-large are currently feeling.
Here's the link to the NJ Gubernatorial Debate. If I have time, I'll give my thoughts later or tomorrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0tkWTtau2w
Mealy-mouthed The transcriber apparently doesn't know that expression.
As a resident of MA, Healey is vulnerable. I just don't know if she's vulnerable to that collection of R mediocrities. She's definitely vulnerable, because she's pissed a lot of people off, but she's mostly* pissed off us lefties. The mishandling of the shelter system was bad enough; but she's gone all mealy-mouth on Trump since the election.
*The other group she's pissed off are the gun nuts, but there's not enough of them in MA to make a difference.
to a Republican in that state?? C'mon man
Well, we have had quite a few R Governors here, but, no. As I said, she's pissing off the left. She's vulnerable to a primary challenger more than a Republican, IMHO.
The one R that can beat her? Baker, if he wants to go back. But that's not happening, and I don't see another Baker-type R running.
with Trump in power, no Republican will win Massachusetts statewide; even Baker; no viable alternative is coming from the left either; you are going to be dealing with Healey moving forward
Healey has solid approval ratings from what I was able to find. If she is vulnerable it will be over the shelter stuff, but I don't see it putting her in practical danger at the ballot box. No one with any traction will challenge her in a primary and republicans aren't going to try to find another Baker, who would struggle against an incumbent even if they could.
She's going nowhere; it is bordering on the delusional to think otherwise
The shelter stuff is her biggest problem, yes, but there's been a lot of disgruntlement about her not being nearly as strong in decrying the administration as, say, Newsome or Pritzker. She did a lot of bipartisan braying, which didn't go over well with Trump-haters (which is still a majority of MA voters). She's gotten tougher about the tariffs, at least. As for primary challenge? Dizoglio might get a bit of traction. Enough? Good question.
Here's one of the big issues: based on her term as state AG, a lot of us expected an actual lefty. She hasn't proven to be that. Can she be primaried from the left? Probably not, but I wouldn't say definitely not.
Wanted to share this piece I put together with you—it’s about how the Democratic Party can’t afford to sit on the sidelines for the next four years and why they need to take control of the narrative now. It lays out a strategy for a Democratic shadow government and how it could be the key to winning back Congress in 2026 and the White House in 2028.
Would love to hear your thoughts when you have a minute.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jasonegenberg/p/democrats-need-a-shadow-government?r=3nm35j&utm_medium=ios
"Democrats Need a Shadow Government Before It’s Too Late"
Jason, great work! On Hopium I have posted your title and a link to your substack page, with the following comment:
Under this title, Jason Egenberg has a fine substack post, shares thoughts very much in line with what Simon and the Hopium community have been discussing. He makes some very interesting detailed suggestions.
Thank you so much. I truly appreciate you. I am happy the piece resonated with you. For me, it’s the pathway forward for the party.
Hopium comment from Tom de Boor: "Thanks, AS, I think that's the best articulation of the shadow government concept I've read."
Countries without parliaments to my knowledge don't have shadow governments as such. Who would decide who would be each shadow minister in this system?
exactly
The congressional caucus leadership. Schumer and Jeffries could work it out. Could bring the DNC chair into it too. Unlike in a parliamentary system the goal would not explicitly be for them to be the cabinet-in-waiting, so a lot (but not all) of the ego trading could be skipped.
The point would be more media focused so get some people who are good in front of a camera but with relevant policy knowledge. If we do this, don't pick the people with the most seniority on the relevant committees. Pick people that can speak effectively and stay on message when shoved in front of a camera — and without them being so boring you could bottle their speeches up as a cure for insomnia.
I hardly see any of this actually coming into being
Yeah. Dont these parliaments also pick their own members to be in charge of the departments/ministries? Really easy to have a shadow government when it’s always politicians who are basically just doing their job.
exactly
On Monday, House and Senate Democrats held a great press conference outside the DC office of USAID!
https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/senate-and-house-dem-presser-outside
Multiple voices, taking turns to speak, some very good and articulate. Transcript button is below the video.
I, and others, have been saying this for a while. Yet the one thing the Democratic leadership in congress fear the most is trying something new.
That’s exactly the problem. The Democratic leadership is stuck in a cycle of playing it safe while the GOP rewrites the rules in real-time. Fear of trying something new is a luxury they can’t afford—not when the stakes are this high. They need to understand that hesitation isn’t leadership. Bold, aggressive action is the only way forward.
Schumer and Durbin do NOT inspire confidence. Both need to go.
I would have both of them resign their leadership roles so Brian Schatz and Tammy Duckworth or others like them can take over. They have more fire in their belly.
Unfortunately neither seem willing to give up power right now under some delusion that their experience is needed in this current moment when it's their experience that's the biggest hindrance in this moment.
On a lighter note:
. Musk Declares Social Security Recipients Can No Longer Work From Home
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Asserting that “this is what we do at all my other companies,” Elon Musk announced on Monday that, henceforth, Social Security recipients will no longer be permitted to work from home.
“When I started running the Treasury Department and saw all those checks going out, I was like, ‘Wait, where are all these people?’” Musk told reporters. “It turns out that they were all remote, which is insane.”
Musk said that, if those on Social Security want to continue receiving benefits, “they can haul their asses down to the U.S. Treasury offices in Washington and get to work—no exceptions.”
Across the country, Social Security recipients protested that the new requirement was inhumane because it would force them to come into contact with Musk.
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/musk-declares-social-security-recipients
The republicans still think they have a country…..🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I mean...they do, for the time being. We can't just hand them the reins into the ground without a fight.
What do you mean?
Typo. He meant kkkountry.
Sen. @brianschatz says he will place a “blanket hold” on all of Trump’s State Department nominees until USAID is back up and running again
More of this please.
This is the way
I was wondering why dems didn't do this for everything but apparently repugs can adjuorn congress and let Trump put in everyone.
Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow is preparing to enter the Democratic primary for an open U.S. Senate seat in the state, multiple people familiar with her plans confirmed to @AP
Excellent. She’d be my first choice for sure
Love this.
Are we sure she's not Wendy Davis 2.0? I'm not trolling- genuinely curious as to whether she's actually a strong statewide candidate and if so, why?
Michigan has been plenty willing to elect orthodox liberals. Dems have won every Senate election in Michigan since 1996, and only last year (a generally terrible cycle for Dems) did the Dem overtly run as a moderate.
SHUT DOWN AND SLOW-WALK the CONFIRMATION of TRUMP’s PEOPLE
Here is an idea: Can Senate Democrats, if they stand united, proclaim:
"We are shutting down and slow-walking the confirmation process until the Trump regime cease its blatantly illegal activities. DOGE and Elon Musk is NOT authorized to do what they are doing. Neither the President nor Elon Musk are empowered to shut down USAID or other government agencies; that can only be done by an Act of Congress, and after a proper legislative process. President Trump must continue disbursing those funds that have been approved by Congress. Moreover, the firing of federal employees without due process must cease."
I don’t have thorough knowledge of Senate rules and hence ask those who have such expertise: Is this doable? Is it a good idea? Is it a way to put Democrats more firmly in control of the narrative?
Someone please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the senate functions heavily on the principle of unanimous consent. Without that everything takes too long to do and the chamber is barely functional.
I'd support a senator withholding their consent for all motions going forward until things are only bad-policy insane instead of constitutional crisis insane. Based on how I understand things this wouldn't completely stop republicans but it would slow them down tremendously and only allow them to work with a handful of their senate needs.
We could have someone retiring (paging Sen Peters...) do it so that they can take all the media blowback without much personal concern.
Yes, take just one tiny example: The Senate regularly has to switch back and fort between Legislative Session and Executive Session. Any Democrat can deny unanimous consent and demand a *roll call vote* for this back and forth – and thus slow things down to a dysfunctional crawl.
I really hope they're planning to do this as it would be the most effective way to obstruct them.
All it takes is ONE senator. Time and again we have seen how e.g. Rand Paul has slowed things down, and likewise how Tuberville put a hold on just about every military promotion.
We just need one single Democratic senator to do this!
I like that, that's a good first step.
Also something I've had going through my head: we need more performative outrage from democrats. Things that they might need to do outside of regular congressional working hours and thus won't have any impact, but help to signal to voters and people in general that this is not OK. Something to help keep democratic voters angry and stay fired up through the midterms and into 2028.
Talking filibusters and house sit-ins and the type. If they can also add these onto efforts to gum up the works, all the better.
Messaging is a matter that we consistently fail on and part of that, IMO, is the lack of passion and energy we put into our responses. Democratic politicians need to sound more angry and energized and passionate.
And Democratic voters need to LET them be angry and energized and passionate.
Someone commented above that the GOP could just adjourn and let Trump do recess appointments.
FWIW, tariffs have been delayed (at least) 30 days on both Mexico and Canada after they both pledged to do… what they were already planning to do
Dog and pony show.
Yep
Any resources we can point to to explain exactly why it is the dog and pony show that it obviously is? The Conservatives crowing about this great victory are getting on my nerves.
Mostly because the concessions were things Mexico and Canada were already committed to doing. And the US agreeing to assist in stopping the flow of guns southwards is something Mexico has wanted help with for years to combat the cartels
2 federal employee unions, AFGE & SEIU, file suit seeking to block DOGE access to Treasury Department payment database.
https://x.com/joshgerstein/status/1886545749975986572
Good.
Next, blue state AGs should be suing Musk and his cronies on behalf of the privacy leak of their constituents. There’s a fine per SSN breached, apparently
This is a great opportunity to mobilize our elected officials and the people.
https://www.ocregister.com/2025/02/04/los-angeles-art-dealer-esther-kim-varet-launches-bid-for-californias-40th-congressional-district/
The first Democratic candidate has announced to run against Young Kim in CA 40 (inland foothills of OC and into Riverside county).
Kim Varet is Korean American, an art historian, undergrad Yale, doctorate Columbia. She owns an art gallery in Tustin.
She doesn't have a political CV, and we'll need to see who else jumps in.