Dems across ideological spectrum are telling leadership that voting for a 'clean' spending bill would be tacitly blessing Musk’s controversial work, and that denying Republicans the votes they’ll need to keep the agencies open would be the lesser evil," wrote Bade.
One prominent Democratic lawmaker told Politico, “At some point you’ve got to have a goddamn backbone. I am not giving them a blank check until September.”
I brought this story up a few times, but it's one that I think is instructive. When GW Bush was reelected his first goal was privatizing Social Security. Everyone in the media and even in the dem caucuses insisted that we needed to play along, to engage in negotiations etc.
Pelosi said fuck that, and forced republicans to do it 100% on their own. Their effort crumbled under the infighting and difficulty of getting something complex and unpopular to fruition. You could say McConnell did something similar to us with Obamacare; we got it out the door but the difficulty of the sausage making made the 2010 midterm go from bad to worse.
We need to force republicans to do everything entirely on their own right now. Force them to handle the debt limit on their own too. Anything with our cooperation should require massive concessions to dems, to the extent that it's the kind of legislation we'd make on our own.
At the very least, we need to demand that Medicaid and Social Security be shielded, that vaccination programs and standards continue unabated. We also need to demand that the gutting of key agencies be reversed, including but not limited to: USAID, NOAA, Veterans Affairs, CFPB, FEMA, Education Dept. That the firings of the Inspectors General et al be reversed. And that military and other aid to Ukraine approved by President Biden move unhindered and expedited.
That avoids bad videos going viral, but it also completely cedes the on-the-ground messaging and creates easy attack lines. Probably the correct move strategically, but also not an enviable position to have to make that move in the first place.
Democratic candidates for these districts need to step in and replace the leadership that is lacking from the Republican Lawmakers. Take questions. Act like the member of Congress and show that you're not afraid to face the public like the Republicans.
Grand Obstructionist Party – but that was before MAGA and Trump. Now there is a good case to be made that it is outright Fascist, with fewer and fewer individual exceptions.
Starting to get the vibe that Virginia will be to the LEFT of New Jersey this year with a weak Republican candidate along with Trumps rousing the suburbs with his federal firings.
Their write up is a breath of comic relief. Among other things, they say that "the race is tight but favors Sears". A 6 point lead, even this early, is "tight"?
For starters, Trump lost VA last year by a slightly worse amount than he did back in 2016, before the federal firings happened.
We know that back in the 2017 VA Gubernatorial Race that Ralph Northam beat GOP Candidate Ed Gillespie by nearly 9% points. This taking into account that Trump had lost VA to Hillary Clinton by 5.4% points.
We have to go back to 1985 when we won a Gubernatorial Election here in Virginia by double digits. Gerald Baliles' election also resulted in a narrow win for Doug Wilder, the first African American to win statewide here (for Lieutenant Governor), and a good margin of victory for Mary Sue Terry, the first woman to win statewide here (for Attorney General).
I could see NJ and VA going either way for relative position, assuming we get a good candidate out of NJ.
NJ requires a snapback away from the 2024 results. Which isn't that hard to imagine. Reversals like that often happen shortly after a large shift, even if the shift does continue in the long run. Not always though.
Virginia should have the weaker republican candidate. Otherwise it being the better state for us this year doesn't require much, only a continuation of existing trends and for very believable federal worker backlash.
While Trump did lose NJ by a smaller amount than back in 2016, Andy Kim did win the Senate election by nearly 10% points. In fact, Kim's margin of victory isn't that far apart from Cory Booker's Senate wins in the 2013 Special Election and the 2014 Senate Election, both of which he won by 10.7% (2013) and 13.5% (2014). Coincidentally, Booker is up for re-election in 2026.
If Mikie Sherrill ends up being the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, she may be difficult for the GOP to defeat in the general election. She ended up winning re-election to represent NJ-11 in the House in 2022 and 2024 by wider margins than in 2020. This taking into account she represents a Lean Democrat district.
Thanks for the information. Taking that into account, Sherrill still in being elected and re-elected in 2018 and 2020 in a less blue House district back in those election years shows she's been battle tested in competitive races.
I'm astonished the "federal worker backlash" wasn't more obvious in Virginia in November 2024. Hard to believe that many people that close to the federal workforce were part of the "illiterati" but it appears hundreds of thousands of people were literally whistling past their own graveyard four short months ago.
Sadly I'm not surprised at all. Federal workers are normal people at the end of the day. They will have blind spots in the same places as everyone else.
Political memory in this country is basically fuck-all. And as I repeat endlessly there was absolutely zero focus on policy for 2024. It made the "who you want to have a beer with" idiocy of 2000 and 2004 look like a discussion between two PhD policy wonks in comparison.
The media didn't care to talk about policy. All of Harris' (and Clinton's in 2016) efforts to talk about policy were met with a disinterested yawn. Nobody cared. Nobody wanted to admit, acknowledge, or even consider that there would be significant differences in governance between the two major candidates.
There is a fundamental disconnect in voters' minds between partisan politics and ideology. It's why Medicaid expansion and minimum wage increases or abortion protections can easily pass voter referendums in states that will simultaneously comfortably elect republicans that loudly and proudly oppose those very policies.
For 10-20% of the potential electorate, the stove needs to burn their hand before they remember that they already put their hand on a hot stove eight years ago.
Well said. The sentiment that both parties are basically the same has seemed to grow among younger voters and it’d asinine. “All politicians lie.” No they fucking don’t.
Virginia, alongside New Hampshire, New Mexico and Colorado seems to have moved solidly into the Democrat column, at least for the last 5 presidential election cycles. It's also notable that all these swing states are represented entirely by Democratic senators. Having a horrible and unpopular governor like Youngkin aside, Virginia's demographics trend toward and favor Democrats. Geographically close to DC and heavily funded and employed by them, plus a significant college educated and African American population, not to mention many postgrads. Contrast that with states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada or Wisconsin, which are more heavily blue collar and union heavy, groups that seem to be slipping from Democrats. It's a bit ironic too, considering that Virginia is far less urban than these states, yet manages to be more left leaning, prolly due to its proximity to DC. The trends are hopeful and good in Virginia, but we do also need to work on winning back more blue collar and union voters.
Actually, Youngkin isn't "unpopular", though he's not invincibly popular either. His praise of DOGE is enough to suggest that he could have had a difficult reelection race this year if he could have run.
And it's not just Northern Virginia where the Trump agenda isn't popular. How do you think Hegseth's proposed defense cuts will play in Hampton Roads?
It's more than just DOGE though. Youngkin's showing his true colors in commuting the sentence of a police officer charged with murder over shooting an unarmed man making a robbery at Tyson's Corner Center. The victim, Timothy Johnson, was black.
When you have both the NAACP and Virginia Leadership Black Caucus sharply criticizing Youngkin's decision to commute the prison sentence of the police officer, you know it's a political liability for Youngkin. It's an even bigger liability for him that 20% of Virginia's population is black.
Problem is, Senator Mark Warner back in 2014 dealt with a low turnout election year, which accounts in part for why Ed Gillespie was able to make the senatorial election then closer than anyone ever anticipated. If 2026 ends up being a high turnout election year (which right now we can predict it will be), I don't see how Youngkin could pull it off.
"Problem is, Senator Mark Warner back in 2014 dealt with a low turnout election year, which accounts in part for why Ed Gillespie was able to make the gubernatorial election then closer than anyone ever anticipated."
Senatorial election, that is. Gillespie ran for governor in 2017, and he lost by a wider margin than most anticipated. The pundits were still hyping his potential the weekend before the election.
Yes, naturally. Reedited (thank god The Downballot makes it easier).
There were reports back in 2014 that Gillespie did in fact run a strong GOTV operation that surpassed what the pundits had realized. I think this is why the pundits were thinking Gillespie was going to run a similar campaign but they underestimated what a different kind of campaign, a more negative and ugly one that is, ended up doing to his ability to win the race.
Here are population demographics that can potentially help Democrats as well on top of what you mentioned in an ideally favorable environment for them:
Black - 20%
Hispanic - 11%
Asian - 7.4%
Adding those three non-white voter demographics together, you have 38% of the voters in the state. White voters make up 59% of the vote and I'm sure a considerable portion of them will be from the federal work force.
There are around 150k federal civilian workers in VA. Even if you add military and contractors you won't go above 400-500k. A sizable number but far from deciding in a state of 9 million people.
Yes but back in 2017 Ralph Northam won election as Governor by a few votes shy of a 232,000 margin lead over Ed Gillespie. This takes into account he beat Gillespie by nearly 9% points.
If say Spanberger beats Earle-Sears by roughly 104,000 votes, it’s still not going to be a mail biter.
Not saying depending on the federal civilian workers will make them the key vote. They however will matter.
Trump is holding up slightly better in the NYC metro than anywhere else in the country right now (that's likely to change the closer we get to the 2026 midterms), and there's a real possibility that neither Sherill nor Kim win the Democratic Primary. In any other year, both Ras Baraka and Stephen Fulop would probably be able to win the primary easily, and there's a real chance one of them does so.
Sorry, there was a typo there-Kim should read Gottheimer. Anyways, my belief is if Sherrill doesn't win the primary, we lose the New Jersey race, while Virgina goes for us in almost any circumstance.
Say what you want about Fetterman but he's being strong on LGBTQ rights from the jump, and especially lately on social media. He's going after Nancy Mace right now.
I'd honestly move Texas into that second tier (I really don't think Cornyn survives a primary), and swap one of MT/OH/ with Florida (I'm not yet convinced Ashley Moody will turn out to be a strong candidate, and Montana in particular is way too Republican for us to be competitive without an incumbent already on the ballot).
Rep. Haley Stevens says she's likely going to make an official decision on the Senate run next month. Stevens, like Elisa Slotkin, first got elected to the House to represent a Congressional District in Michigan back in 2018.
If she were to run in the Democratic Primary Race, win the nomination and the Senate election next year, Stevens would be a millennial Senator serving alongside Slotkin, a gen x Senator. Much different generations compared to former Senator Debbie Stabenow and Senator Gary Peters, both by the way are baby boomers.
Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) is planning to announce in April whether she will seek to replace retiring Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Axios has learned.
Why it matters: Stevens' entry into the race would add to what is already on track to be a crowded and chaotic Democratic primary for a key Senate seat.
McMorrow presumably would have a difficult road to the senate nomination with the number of bigger names looking at the seat. It would be good to see a pathway for her to advance that has a meaningful chance of success — a house seat would be good.
McMorrow really should be lobbying the Gubernatorial candidates to make her their choice for Lieutenant Governor-she'd be an excellent choice for pretty much all of the rumored candidates.
I think the best thing we could arrange is having Shiri Thanedar carpetbag over from MI-13, and having a representative in MI-13 who actually is representative of the majority of that district's voters.
Mark Warner on Fox: "I may disagree with the president, but I respect the office of the president. I'm probably not gonna be jumping up applauding a lot, but I owe him his due as president. The president has made great, great progress on border crossings. That's something we ought to celebrate."
The overall statement is stupid, but what's with the bullshit at the end about border crossings?
Never give the political opposition praise. Even if you think they're doing good on an issue. Even if you think that issue is important. And especially if you think that's a wedge issue they successfully used against you — Warner is telling any voter that disliked dems because of immigration or the border that those voters were right to do so.
There's annoying and then there's utterly and absurdly stupid. This is the latter.
The main thing Dems should be saying right now is "I can't believe how bad the BLANK is since Trump was elected!" The economy, the stock market, the border crossings, the price of oil, the price of eggs, our standing as a world power, the taste of ketchup, the pain in your knees, etc. all got worse under Trump.
I don't think Virginians would think electing Spanberger for a single term as Governor and then electing her the following year as Senator would be a good idea. Many Virginians would rather elect a Governor who would finish off the full four year term, especially considering state law prevents any Governor from serving two consecutive terms.
Spanberger could decide to run for Senator Tim Kaine's seat in 2030 if he ends up deciding to retire. The optics may be better for her then if she gets elected as Governor this fall.
I'm not necessarily assuming automatically that she wins. She is the heavy favorite (especially compared to whoever we nominate in New Jersey-it feels like Trump is holding up better in the NYC metro than anywhere else in the country), but really, we should be going on offense and trying to boost Amanda Chase if we want to win in Virginia-she's easily the most unelectable statewide candidate running.
It’s still early in the VA-GOV race but right now Spanberger is in fact leading in the polls and not even by a sliver of a margin (unless polls contracting this come out).
FYI, I wouldn’t be too presumptuous about anyone in NJ or NYC who is necessarily voting for Trump. Generally speaking, such voters have a low tolerance for BS but that doesn’t mean they’d necessarily vote for the GOP candidates not Trump. If this was the case, AOC wouldn’t be winning re-election to the House by the giant margins she’s getting.
2022 GOP challenger Tina Forte got 27.34% of the votes against AOC back then. However, while she ran again last year and got 31% of the votes, that’s really not an improvement as a Conservative Party of NY State candidate Desi Cuellar took roughly 1.9% of the votes from Forte.
I agree with the first part of the statement-that the office of the Presidency itself should be respected..but the person in the office definitely should not be, and that is where this statement falls apart to me-I feel like Warner could have said the first line and then said something attacking Trump after.
Also, the comment on Border Crossings is unnecessary, and also a flat-out lie. Trump, like every President this century, has done practically nothing to this point on Border Crossings as far I'm aware.
I have never respected authority, only individuals when they exercise it responsibly and honorably. That goes back to elementary school, when I dealt with a self-important principal who never believed me although I always told him the truth, and told my parents that bullying was survival of the fittest and kids bullying other kids on the doorstep of the school were beyond their authority because they were outside. So no, fuck the "office of the Presidency." The people who should respect it are those who serve in it, not the people, whom they are supposed to serve.
Canada has a $19b order for F-35s. If they want to get the phones ringing in DC, they should cancel that. Lockheed Martin is going to have good lobbyists F-35 assembly goes through so many states and congressional districts.
Is this really the best they could come up with? I feel like we workshopped way better strategies on this very website and THIS is the best they can do?
They shouldn’t be there at all. Meanwhile, a lot of them will blame outlets like CNN and the N.Y. Times for “normalizing” the insurrectionist felon. But the fight against normalizing begins at home.
Of all the headscratchers of recent days, this might be the oddest one. Normally when a politician acts spineless and stupid it's at least in a way that's on brand for them. Warner being a spineless idiot who throws in some counterproductive "centrist" messaging? Yeah, that tacks. I loathe that he does it, but it's not a surprise at all.
On the other hand this is complete anathema to Gillibrand's political identity, who and how she sells herself to her state and on the national stage. "Sexual assault and harassment is bad and we should not normalize it" is her thing. This would be like Warren having a press release that we need to regulate banks less.
It's worse than dumb, it plainly does not make sense.
I disagree that it's not a surprise. She is in as perfect a condition to stay on brand as she could ever hope for.
Anyone that disliked her for that in the past isn't going to come around and change their view of her now. Her presidential ambitions are not going to be revived, and her ability to stay an incumbent is not in danger.
She just won reelection in 2024 by 19 points. Compared to Harris' 12 point win in the same year, Schumer's 14 point win in 2022, Hochul's 5 point win in 2022, and James' 9 point win in 2022.
Gillibrand's political position is the safest of any statewide official in NY! If comfortably winning reelection and not facing voters for six years isn't enough room to justify sticking by your core values... what does that say about you as a politician? As a person?
I do plan to give money to some organizations when I can afford it, but I don't tolerate any texts asking for money or coming in any way from political organizations. I text back "stop" to every one. All the spam in my inbox is bad enough.
Millions of those Americans are dead or senile. Dems need to shift the narrative on Reagan because he is the one responsible for a good amount of our modern issues.
Those who turned 18 on Election Day 1984 (the youngest people who could have voted for Reagan or Mondale for POTUS) are 58 years old now, if my math is correct. I'd guesstimate that around half, plus or minus several percent, of voters in the 1984 elections are now deceased.
How many of Reagan's voters are still voters today?
I think Reagan has lost a lot of his luster this past decade. Republicans stopped evangelizing him and instead focus on Trump. Democrats never loved him in large numbers. People in between are known for their fickleness and weren't going to feel strongly anyway.
I doubt there's some majority desperate to hear Reagan trash-talked, but I would argue that the number of people seeking positive comparisons to Reagan in 2025 do not compare to what they were in 2005.
I think it's important to connect the story of Reagan and Trump. Trump is the ultimate end game of economic conservatism that started with Reagan. While they might not align on foreign policy, this has been the Republican plan since Reagan and the culmination of 50 years of Conservative activism.
In practice I think this would go over like a lead-balloon if we tried to communicate it to voters. Even if Reagan was universally loathed. Voters don't want history lessons, they don't care. It's why attacking democrats as the next Jimmy Carter never worked for republicans, even though his presidency was seen as a failure (fair or not).
And I absolutely loathe Reagan and completely agree that he's one of the biggest stepping stones for us ending up where are today.
Again... It's not a history lesson. It's a story. A story of Corporate Power and the redistribution of wealth upward. The story of why we are where we are today. But again... At the very least I think we can agree that maybe Dems should hang it up with giving Reagan kudos for anything whether it's warranted or not.
As the son of a man who LEFT the Republican Party because of Reagan, I can assure you I'm no apologist for him. Far from it. Most Americans regardless of ideology are not historians and almost always cite the last President NOT of their preferred party as the "worst President ever."
I think attacking Democrats as the next Carter worked until it stopped working. I don't think they did that for no reason, just like Democrats didn't attack Republicans as the party of Herbert Hoover for no reason. That eventually stopped working, but it surely wasn't an accident that they did it.
It goes back to at least Goldwater, with the very important exception that Goldwater was totally opposed to any entanglement of religion and state, but Reagan was the first extreme reactionary Republican president, I think ever?
Respectfully disagree. W at least got revealed at the end of his Presidency as the disaster he was (Even if he did eventually turn on his conservative ideals to rescue the banks that would have caused a Depression) Too many people still think Reagan was great.
I mean, he was objectively worse. He killed maybe upwards of a million people in a war of aggression, failed to prevent the worst single act of terrorism on U.S. soil, systematically violated Americans' right to privacy in their electronic communications, and conducted a vast campaign of systematic torture.
I think you have Reagan confused with Nixon. Nixon's the one who literally committed treason (negotiating with a country we were at war with as a candidate for President). I'm pretty nothing during Iran-Contra would qualify as treasonous (though it would probably have sent Reagan to prison for deliberately and knowingly violating laws passed by Congress-but that doesn't add up to treason).
The difference between that what was going in 1968 is that Nixon was personally involved, whereas I don't see evidence that Reagan personally was involved-but yes members of his campaign committed treason.
OK, that's your conclusion. I do know about Nixon's treason. His domestic policies were not nearly as horrendous as Reagan's, and in many cases quite different in kind, but his foreign policy caused a hugely larger number of deaths, and he had a tremendous policy of systematic torture but kept it secret, unlike G.W. Bush.
I'd argue both Bill Clinton (rapist before he entered the White House, sexually assaulted multiple people as President) and George W. Bush were significantly worse (literally stole the Presidency, invaded Iraq despite Iraq having literally nothing to do with 9/11...if he wanted to do exactly what he said was doing when be invaded Iraq, he would have invaded Saudi Arabia instead.)
I can't believe that it's possible for an intern to give informed consent to a relationship with the Governor Arkansas/President of the United States. Too big a power dynamic
Sorry, that's not a rape, and Lewinsky has never claimed it was. It's definitely the kind of thing that would get loads of bosses fired, and it's not OK, but calling that a rape seems to me to disrespect the actual victims of assaults.
Assuming this holds, she'll be the third CE of the last four to move up from State's Attorney (county prosecutor/District Attorney). Of the other two, one went on to the US Senate and the other to prison.
Considering her top opponent was former County Executive Rushern Baker, she wasn't the only candidate there with name recognition. Her win was and is quite impressive receive more than double (43 per cent) his total (21 per cent).
Dems across ideological spectrum are telling leadership that voting for a 'clean' spending bill would be tacitly blessing Musk’s controversial work, and that denying Republicans the votes they’ll need to keep the agencies open would be the lesser evil," wrote Bade.
One prominent Democratic lawmaker told Politico, “At some point you’ve got to have a goddamn backbone. I am not giving them a blank check until September.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/have-a-backbone-dem-lawmakers-tell-leadership-to-force-mike-johnson-s-hand/ar-AA1AexJ8?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=4f7152f9d7974702ab0250e973490206&ei=11
Republicans have control. If they can't get their spending bill through, it's their fault.
Whoever that prominent dem is, is correct.
I brought this story up a few times, but it's one that I think is instructive. When GW Bush was reelected his first goal was privatizing Social Security. Everyone in the media and even in the dem caucuses insisted that we needed to play along, to engage in negotiations etc.
Pelosi said fuck that, and forced republicans to do it 100% on their own. Their effort crumbled under the infighting and difficulty of getting something complex and unpopular to fruition. You could say McConnell did something similar to us with Obamacare; we got it out the door but the difficulty of the sausage making made the 2010 midterm go from bad to worse.
We need to force republicans to do everything entirely on their own right now. Force them to handle the debt limit on their own too. Anything with our cooperation should require massive concessions to dems, to the extent that it's the kind of legislation we'd make on our own.
Hear, hear!
At the very least, we need to demand that Medicaid and Social Security be shielded, that vaccination programs and standards continue unabated. We also need to demand that the gutting of key agencies be reversed, including but not limited to: USAID, NOAA, Veterans Affairs, CFPB, FEMA, Education Dept. That the firings of the Inspectors General et al be reversed. And that military and other aid to Ukraine approved by President Biden move unhindered and expedited.
The NRCC has, per Politico, advised its members to stop doing in person town halls, which sure screams confidence
That avoids bad videos going viral, but it also completely cedes the on-the-ground messaging and creates easy attack lines. Probably the correct move strategically, but also not an enviable position to have to make that move in the first place.
Hopefully we take full advantage of this.
Have recurring picket days at their local offices. Keep getting media attention.
Time for some Winooski 44s? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winooski_44
Impressive! "Witnesses for the defense included historian and activist Howard Zinn and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark."
Democratic candidates for these districts need to step in and replace the leadership that is lacking from the Republican Lawmakers. Take questions. Act like the member of Congress and show that you're not afraid to face the public like the Republicans.
That's a good strategy. Lead when the GOP cannot.
This is what Ro Khanna and Tim Walz have been suggesting already!
John Kerry once said during his 2004 presidential campaign that the RNC stood for "Really Not Caring."
In this case, NRCC stands for "Not Really Compassionate or Caring."
GOP: Greedy Old Plutocrats.
Groupies Of Putin.
Giving Oligarchs Privileges.
Not the most eloquent or mature responses, but you get the idea…
I always thought of it as “Grumpy Old People”
Same but I grew up in FL around a lot of retirees that seemed to reflexively hate anyone under 70.
Grand Obstructionist Party – but that was before MAGA and Trump. Now there is a good case to be made that it is outright Fascist, with fewer and fewer individual exceptions.
I prefer Greedy Obnoxious Parasites.
They don’t want anymore scenes like this:
https://x.com/maddenifico/status/1896673400283955266
This was a very successful strategy in 2018.
Virginia GOV
Spanberger 46% (+6)
Sears 40%
Cygnal #A - 600 LV - 2/28
Starting to get the vibe that Virginia will be to the LEFT of New Jersey this year with a weak Republican candidate along with Trumps rousing the suburbs with his federal firings.
The write up for that from the Republican pollster reads as if it had been done for the Sears campaign.
I tend to agree with you that the elements are there for a bigger win in Virginia than in New Jersey.
Their write up is a breath of comic relief. Among other things, they say that "the race is tight but favors Sears". A 6 point lead, even this early, is "tight"?
For starters, Trump lost VA last year by a slightly worse amount than he did back in 2016, before the federal firings happened.
We know that back in the 2017 VA Gubernatorial Race that Ralph Northam beat GOP Candidate Ed Gillespie by nearly 9% points. This taking into account that Trump had lost VA to Hillary Clinton by 5.4% points.
https://www.cnn.com/election/2017/results/virginia-governor
https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/states/virginia
We have to go back to 1985 when we won a Gubernatorial Election here in Virginia by double digits. Gerald Baliles' election also resulted in a narrow win for Doug Wilder, the first African American to win statewide here (for Lieutenant Governor), and a good margin of victory for Mary Sue Terry, the first woman to win statewide here (for Attorney General).
I could see NJ and VA going either way for relative position, assuming we get a good candidate out of NJ.
NJ requires a snapback away from the 2024 results. Which isn't that hard to imagine. Reversals like that often happen shortly after a large shift, even if the shift does continue in the long run. Not always though.
Virginia should have the weaker republican candidate. Otherwise it being the better state for us this year doesn't require much, only a continuation of existing trends and for very believable federal worker backlash.
While Trump did lose NJ by a smaller amount than back in 2016, Andy Kim did win the Senate election by nearly 10% points. In fact, Kim's margin of victory isn't that far apart from Cory Booker's Senate wins in the 2013 Special Election and the 2014 Senate Election, both of which he won by 10.7% (2013) and 13.5% (2014). Coincidentally, Booker is up for re-election in 2026.
If Mikie Sherrill ends up being the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, she may be difficult for the GOP to defeat in the general election. She ended up winning re-election to represent NJ-11 in the House in 2022 and 2024 by wider margins than in 2020. This taking into account she represents a Lean Democrat district.
NJ Dems made her seat bluer in redistricting which would account for some of that 2020 vs 22/24 margins.
Thanks for the information. Taking that into account, Sherrill still in being elected and re-elected in 2018 and 2020 in a less blue House district back in those election years shows she's been battle tested in competitive races.
I'm astonished the "federal worker backlash" wasn't more obvious in Virginia in November 2024. Hard to believe that many people that close to the federal workforce were part of the "illiterati" but it appears hundreds of thousands of people were literally whistling past their own graveyard four short months ago.
Sadly I'm not surprised at all. Federal workers are normal people at the end of the day. They will have blind spots in the same places as everyone else.
Political memory in this country is basically fuck-all. And as I repeat endlessly there was absolutely zero focus on policy for 2024. It made the "who you want to have a beer with" idiocy of 2000 and 2004 look like a discussion between two PhD policy wonks in comparison.
The media didn't care to talk about policy. All of Harris' (and Clinton's in 2016) efforts to talk about policy were met with a disinterested yawn. Nobody cared. Nobody wanted to admit, acknowledge, or even consider that there would be significant differences in governance between the two major candidates.
There is a fundamental disconnect in voters' minds between partisan politics and ideology. It's why Medicaid expansion and minimum wage increases or abortion protections can easily pass voter referendums in states that will simultaneously comfortably elect republicans that loudly and proudly oppose those very policies.
For 10-20% of the potential electorate, the stove needs to burn their hand before they remember that they already put their hand on a hot stove eight years ago.
Politics as team sport rather than as a means to effect policy has been ruinous to our country and culture
Well said. The sentiment that both parties are basically the same has seemed to grow among younger voters and it’d asinine. “All politicians lie.” No they fucking don’t.
“Yeah but he’d never actually *do* that”
Or "he doesn't mean me. He means THOSE people!"
"Illiterati" – you’re adopting the term I suggested. :)
Indeed I did! Good term!
Possibly, will see how the primaries shake out.
Virginia, alongside New Hampshire, New Mexico and Colorado seems to have moved solidly into the Democrat column, at least for the last 5 presidential election cycles. It's also notable that all these swing states are represented entirely by Democratic senators. Having a horrible and unpopular governor like Youngkin aside, Virginia's demographics trend toward and favor Democrats. Geographically close to DC and heavily funded and employed by them, plus a significant college educated and African American population, not to mention many postgrads. Contrast that with states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada or Wisconsin, which are more heavily blue collar and union heavy, groups that seem to be slipping from Democrats. It's a bit ironic too, considering that Virginia is far less urban than these states, yet manages to be more left leaning, prolly due to its proximity to DC. The trends are hopeful and good in Virginia, but we do also need to work on winning back more blue collar and union voters.
Far less urban is an interesting comment. Is it, in a practical sense, given the amount of DC suburban and exurban influence in Northern Virginia?
Actually, Youngkin isn't "unpopular", though he's not invincibly popular either. His praise of DOGE is enough to suggest that he could have had a difficult reelection race this year if he could have run.
And it's not just Northern Virginia where the Trump agenda isn't popular. How do you think Hegseth's proposed defense cuts will play in Hampton Roads?
It's more than just DOGE though. Youngkin's showing his true colors in commuting the sentence of a police officer charged with murder over shooting an unarmed man making a robbery at Tyson's Corner Center. The victim, Timothy Johnson, was black.
When you have both the NAACP and Virginia Leadership Black Caucus sharply criticizing Youngkin's decision to commute the prison sentence of the police officer, you know it's a political liability for Youngkin. It's an even bigger liability for him that 20% of Virginia's population is black.
Problem is, Senator Mark Warner back in 2014 dealt with a low turnout election year, which accounts in part for why Ed Gillespie was able to make the senatorial election then closer than anyone ever anticipated. If 2026 ends up being a high turnout election year (which right now we can predict it will be), I don't see how Youngkin could pull it off.
https://www.wric.com/news/virginia-news/northern-virginia/virginia-legislative-black-caucus-condemns-youngkins-decision-to-commute-sentence-of-former-fairfax-county-police-sergeant/?nxsparam=1
https://wjla.com/news/local/wesley-shifflett-fairfax-county-naacp-condemns-governor-youngkin-commutation-police-officersentence-deadly-shooting-tysons-corner-mall-nordstrom-accountability-justice-system-virginia-unarmed-man-three-years-prison
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/VA/PST045223
"Problem is, Senator Mark Warner back in 2014 dealt with a low turnout election year, which accounts in part for why Ed Gillespie was able to make the gubernatorial election then closer than anyone ever anticipated."
Senatorial election, that is. Gillespie ran for governor in 2017, and he lost by a wider margin than most anticipated. The pundits were still hyping his potential the weekend before the election.
Yes, naturally. Reedited (thank god The Downballot makes it easier).
There were reports back in 2014 that Gillespie did in fact run a strong GOTV operation that surpassed what the pundits had realized. I think this is why the pundits were thinking Gillespie was going to run a similar campaign but they underestimated what a different kind of campaign, a more negative and ugly one that is, ended up doing to his ability to win the race.
Here are population demographics that can potentially help Democrats as well on top of what you mentioned in an ideally favorable environment for them:
Black - 20%
Hispanic - 11%
Asian - 7.4%
Adding those three non-white voter demographics together, you have 38% of the voters in the state. White voters make up 59% of the vote and I'm sure a considerable portion of them will be from the federal work force.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/VA/PST045223
There are around 150k federal civilian workers in VA. Even if you add military and contractors you won't go above 400-500k. A sizable number but far from deciding in a state of 9 million people.
Yes but back in 2017 Ralph Northam won election as Governor by a few votes shy of a 232,000 margin lead over Ed Gillespie. This takes into account he beat Gillespie by nearly 9% points.
If say Spanberger beats Earle-Sears by roughly 104,000 votes, it’s still not going to be a mail biter.
Not saying depending on the federal civilian workers will make them the key vote. They however will matter.
I wouldn't be shocked if New Jersey flipped, but we won by at least double digits in Virginia, quite honestly.
Flipped Republican? I'd be shocked!
Trump is holding up slightly better in the NYC metro than anywhere else in the country right now (that's likely to change the closer we get to the 2026 midterms), and there's a real possibility that neither Sherill nor Kim win the Democratic Primary. In any other year, both Ras Baraka and Stephen Fulop would probably be able to win the primary easily, and there's a real chance one of them does so.
Sorry, there was a typo there-Kim should read Gottheimer. Anyways, my belief is if Sherrill doesn't win the primary, we lose the New Jersey race, while Virgina goes for us in almost any circumstance.
I disagree.
Say what you want about Fetterman but he's being strong on LGBTQ rights from the jump, and especially lately on social media. He's going after Nancy Mace right now.
https://x.com/JohnFetterman/status/1896968074206830653?t=Bw0GlmhC1JmKDnElGZ6F_g&s=19
It's good to see someone is finally standing up to J.K. Mace.
No-one else has, in your opinion?
"Ethical Concerns Surround Sen. Joni Ernst’s Relationships With Top Military Officials Who Lobbied Her Committee"
I think Iowa in the second tier of senate seats #3-8 (AK, IA, KS, MT OH) and maybe TX if Cornyn retires or loses to Hunt or another RWNJ.
https://www.propublica.org/article/joni-ernst-congress-military-relationships
I'd honestly move Texas into that second tier (I really don't think Cornyn survives a primary), and swap one of MT/OH/ with Florida (I'm not yet convinced Ashley Moody will turn out to be a strong candidate, and Montana in particular is way too Republican for us to be competitive without an incumbent already on the ballot).
MI-SEN:
Rep. Haley Stevens says she's likely going to make an official decision on the Senate run next month. Stevens, like Elisa Slotkin, first got elected to the House to represent a Congressional District in Michigan back in 2018.
If she were to run in the Democratic Primary Race, win the nomination and the Senate election next year, Stevens would be a millennial Senator serving alongside Slotkin, a gen x Senator. Much different generations compared to former Senator Debbie Stabenow and Senator Gary Peters, both by the way are baby boomers.
https://www.axios.com/2025/02/26/haley-stevens-senate-gary-peters-buttigieg
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) is planning to announce in April whether she will seek to replace retiring Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Axios has learned.
Why it matters: Stevens' entry into the race would add to what is already on track to be a crowded and chaotic Democratic primary for a key Senate seat.
I’d imagine Stevens entering would see McMorrow slot into her House seat thereafter
And McMorrow also happens to be a millennial.
McMorrow presumably would have a difficult road to the senate nomination with the number of bigger names looking at the seat. It would be good to see a pathway for her to advance that has a meaningful chance of success — a house seat would be good.
McMorrow really should be lobbying the Gubernatorial candidates to make her their choice for Lieutenant Governor-she'd be an excellent choice for pretty much all of the rumored candidates.
I think the best thing we could arrange is having Shiri Thanedar carpetbag over from MI-13, and having a representative in MI-13 who actually is representative of the majority of that district's voters.
Why Democrats lose part xxxx:
Mark Warner on Fox: "I may disagree with the president, but I respect the office of the president. I'm probably not gonna be jumping up applauding a lot, but I owe him his due as president. The president has made great, great progress on border crossings. That's something we ought to celebrate."
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3ljldrx6f5427
And Fox Business no less. Which is even worse than regular Fox.
Our enemy is dousing himself in gasoline Warner, you dummy. Hand him a freaking match.
The overall statement is stupid, but what's with the bullshit at the end about border crossings?
Never give the political opposition praise. Even if you think they're doing good on an issue. Even if you think that issue is important. And especially if you think that's a wedge issue they successfully used against you — Warner is telling any voter that disliked dems because of immigration or the border that those voters were right to do so.
There's annoying and then there's utterly and absurdly stupid. This is the latter.
The main thing Dems should be saying right now is "I can't believe how bad the BLANK is since Trump was elected!" The economy, the stock market, the border crossings, the price of oil, the price of eggs, our standing as a world power, the taste of ketchup, the pain in your knees, etc. all got worse under Trump.
Any possibility this idiot retires soon?
How will we ever replace Mark Warner, though? No one else can possibly win in Virginia
Spanberger probably could, regardless of the Gubernatorial result this year.
Also, both Jennifer McClellan and Eugene Vindman strike me as potential future statewide winners.
I was being facetious. I will literally take anyone but him at this point.
I don't think Virginians would think electing Spanberger for a single term as Governor and then electing her the following year as Senator would be a good idea. Many Virginians would rather elect a Governor who would finish off the full four year term, especially considering state law prevents any Governor from serving two consecutive terms.
Spanberger could decide to run for Senator Tim Kaine's seat in 2030 if he ends up deciding to retire. The optics may be better for her then if she gets elected as Governor this fall.
I'm not necessarily assuming automatically that she wins. She is the heavy favorite (especially compared to whoever we nominate in New Jersey-it feels like Trump is holding up better in the NYC metro than anywhere else in the country), but really, we should be going on offense and trying to boost Amanda Chase if we want to win in Virginia-she's easily the most unelectable statewide candidate running.
It’s still early in the VA-GOV race but right now Spanberger is in fact leading in the polls and not even by a sliver of a margin (unless polls contracting this come out).
FYI, I wouldn’t be too presumptuous about anyone in NJ or NYC who is necessarily voting for Trump. Generally speaking, such voters have a low tolerance for BS but that doesn’t mean they’d necessarily vote for the GOP candidates not Trump. If this was the case, AOC wouldn’t be winning re-election to the House by the giant margins she’s getting.
2022 GOP challenger Tina Forte got 27.34% of the votes against AOC back then. However, while she ran again last year and got 31% of the votes, that’s really not an improvement as a Conservative Party of NY State candidate Desi Cuellar took roughly 1.9% of the votes from Forte.
I agree with the first part of the statement-that the office of the Presidency itself should be respected..but the person in the office definitely should not be, and that is where this statement falls apart to me-I feel like Warner could have said the first line and then said something attacking Trump after.
Also, the comment on Border Crossings is unnecessary, and also a flat-out lie. Trump, like every President this century, has done practically nothing to this point on Border Crossings as far I'm aware.
I have never respected authority, only individuals when they exercise it responsibly and honorably. That goes back to elementary school, when I dealt with a self-important principal who never believed me although I always told him the truth, and told my parents that bullying was survival of the fittest and kids bullying other kids on the doorstep of the school were beyond their authority because they were outside. So no, fuck the "office of the Presidency." The people who should respect it are those who serve in it, not the people, whom they are supposed to serve.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford cancels Elon Musk’s Starlink contract and bans all US companies from government contracts:
“It’s done, it’s gone... We won’t award contracts to people who enable and encourage economic attacks on our province and our country.”
“They only have President Trump to blame.”
https://bsky.app/profile/adamjschwarz.bsky.social/post/3ljlhwga4y22l
Bravo!
Canada has a $19b order for F-35s. If they want to get the phones ringing in DC, they should cancel that. Lockheed Martin is going to have good lobbyists F-35 assembly goes through so many states and congressional districts.
Is this really the best they could come up with? I feel like we workshopped way better strategies on this very website and THIS is the best they can do?
https://www.thecut.com/article/democrats-wearing-pink-to-protest-trumps-speech-to-congress.html?utm_medium=s1&utm_campaign=nym&utm_source=bluesky
They shouldn’t be there at all. Meanwhile, a lot of them will blame outlets like CNN and the N.Y. Times for “normalizing” the insurrectionist felon. But the fight against normalizing begins at home.
Leadership should step down and resign for the absolute abdication these first two months.
Short of attempting to coup Trump themselves, I'm not sure there's much our leadership would have been able to do.
Apparently she’s had a change of heart from 7 years ago.
"It's up to New York voters, it's not up to me," Sen. Gillibrand told me re: @andrewcuomo's bid for NYC mayor.
https://x.com/willmenaker/status/1897028652732440814
Of all the headscratchers of recent days, this might be the oddest one. Normally when a politician acts spineless and stupid it's at least in a way that's on brand for them. Warner being a spineless idiot who throws in some counterproductive "centrist" messaging? Yeah, that tacks. I loathe that he does it, but it's not a surprise at all.
On the other hand this is complete anathema to Gillibrand's political identity, who and how she sells herself to her state and on the national stage. "Sexual assault and harassment is bad and we should not normalize it" is her thing. This would be like Warren having a press release that we need to regulate banks less.
It's worse than dumb, it plainly does not make sense.
I mean, she got hounded for standing up to a creep last time, it's not a huge surprise that she would think twice at this point.
I disagree that it's not a surprise. She is in as perfect a condition to stay on brand as she could ever hope for.
Anyone that disliked her for that in the past isn't going to come around and change their view of her now. Her presidential ambitions are not going to be revived, and her ability to stay an incumbent is not in danger.
She just won reelection in 2024 by 19 points. Compared to Harris' 12 point win in the same year, Schumer's 14 point win in 2022, Hochul's 5 point win in 2022, and James' 9 point win in 2022.
Gillibrand's political position is the safest of any statewide official in NY! If comfortably winning reelection and not facing voters for six years isn't enough room to justify sticking by your core values... what does that say about you as a politician? As a person?
What does that say about whether she really has any core values?
Which would be nothing new. Lest we forget that until she was appointed to the Senate to replace Hillary, she was very much a Blue Dog Democrat.
I never forgot. I followed her original winning House campaign on Swing State Project.
Gillibrand's lucky she's not up for reelection until 2030, because she's earned a primary challenge based on that comment alone.
Wow jeez.
And the texts for money begins...
Huh? They ever stopped for you?
Every time I get a new one I unsubscribe. I'm never giving any money to the DNC again. It's only individual candidates for me.
I do plan to give money to some organizations when I can afford it, but I don't tolerate any texts asking for money or coming in any way from political organizations. I text back "stop" to every one. All the spam in my inbox is bad enough.
For those of you who want to see Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI)'s response. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEVn2br0yiI
I'd really love for Dems to stop normalizing Reagan. He was literally the worst President in modern history until Trump.
Rightly or wrongly, millions of Americans disagree. He was twice elected in landslides.
Millions of those Americans are dead or senile. Dems need to shift the narrative on Reagan because he is the one responsible for a good amount of our modern issues.
Those who turned 18 on Election Day 1984 (the youngest people who could have voted for Reagan or Mondale for POTUS) are 58 years old now, if my math is correct. I'd guesstimate that around half, plus or minus several percent, of voters in the 1984 elections are now deceased.
I don't think voters care about dead presidents from the 80s. That's the province of historians now.
How many of Reagan's voters are still voters today?
I think Reagan has lost a lot of his luster this past decade. Republicans stopped evangelizing him and instead focus on Trump. Democrats never loved him in large numbers. People in between are known for their fickleness and weren't going to feel strongly anyway.
I doubt there's some majority desperate to hear Reagan trash-talked, but I would argue that the number of people seeking positive comparisons to Reagan in 2025 do not compare to what they were in 2005.
I think it's important to connect the story of Reagan and Trump. Trump is the ultimate end game of economic conservatism that started with Reagan. While they might not align on foreign policy, this has been the Republican plan since Reagan and the culmination of 50 years of Conservative activism.
In a historical sense I wholly agree.
In practice I think this would go over like a lead-balloon if we tried to communicate it to voters. Even if Reagan was universally loathed. Voters don't want history lessons, they don't care. It's why attacking democrats as the next Jimmy Carter never worked for republicans, even though his presidency was seen as a failure (fair or not).
And I absolutely loathe Reagan and completely agree that he's one of the biggest stepping stones for us ending up where are today.
Again... It's not a history lesson. It's a story. A story of Corporate Power and the redistribution of wealth upward. The story of why we are where we are today. But again... At the very least I think we can agree that maybe Dems should hang it up with giving Reagan kudos for anything whether it's warranted or not.
As the son of a man who LEFT the Republican Party because of Reagan, I can assure you I'm no apologist for him. Far from it. Most Americans regardless of ideology are not historians and almost always cite the last President NOT of their preferred party as the "worst President ever."
I think attacking Democrats as the next Carter worked until it stopped working. I don't think they did that for no reason, just like Democrats didn't attack Republicans as the party of Herbert Hoover for no reason. That eventually stopped working, but it surely wasn't an accident that they did it.
It goes back to at least Goldwater, with the very important exception that Goldwater was totally opposed to any entanglement of religion and state, but Reagan was the first extreme reactionary Republican president, I think ever?
G.W. Bush was worse, but Reagan getting away with treason and everything else paved the was for Bush.
Respectfully disagree. W at least got revealed at the end of his Presidency as the disaster he was (Even if he did eventually turn on his conservative ideals to rescue the banks that would have caused a Depression) Too many people still think Reagan was great.
I mean, he was objectively worse. He killed maybe upwards of a million people in a war of aggression, failed to prevent the worst single act of terrorism on U.S. soil, systematically violated Americans' right to privacy in their electronic communications, and conducted a vast campaign of systematic torture.
I think you have Reagan confused with Nixon. Nixon's the one who literally committed treason (negotiating with a country we were at war with as a candidate for President). I'm pretty nothing during Iran-Contra would qualify as treasonous (though it would probably have sent Reagan to prison for deliberately and knowingly violating laws passed by Congress-but that doesn't add up to treason).
Well, this is less definitive than I was told, because wasn't Reagan's diary discovered after his death? But draw your own conclusions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_October_Surprise_theory
The difference between that what was going in 1968 is that Nixon was personally involved, whereas I don't see evidence that Reagan personally was involved-but yes members of his campaign committed treason.
OK, that's your conclusion. I do know about Nixon's treason. His domestic policies were not nearly as horrendous as Reagan's, and in many cases quite different in kind, but his foreign policy caused a hugely larger number of deaths, and he had a tremendous policy of systematic torture but kept it secret, unlike G.W. Bush.
LBJ was an idiot for not leaking the audio of Nixon committing treason the weekend before the 1968 election. He must have wanted Humphrey to lose.
I'd argue both Bill Clinton (rapist before he entered the White House, sexually assaulted multiple people as President) and George W. Bush were significantly worse (literally stole the Presidency, invaded Iraq despite Iraq having literally nothing to do with 9/11...if he wanted to do exactly what he said was doing when be invaded Iraq, he would have invaded Saudi Arabia instead.)
You're sure Clinton was a rapist? Also, that's a crime, but it's not treason, which Reagan got away with.
I can't believe that it's possible for an intern to give informed consent to a relationship with the Governor Arkansas/President of the United States. Too big a power dynamic
Sorry, that's not a rape, and Lewinsky has never claimed it was. It's definitely the kind of thing that would get loads of bosses fired, and it's not OK, but calling that a rape seems to me to disrespect the actual victims of assaults.
The rape allegation was made by Juanita Broddrick.
Looks like St Louis is going to have a new Mayor. https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/government-politics/article_ff800708-f930-11ef-9079-334725cadbd9.html?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_St._Louis_Post-Dispatch&fbclid=IwY2xjawI0t15leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHZ-YWCyyNdIps4fcoEq1UudjIK8XSW24F2P2Za5wETrOU0xr69z-esSZuA_aem_kN8gQenDjOXRKkzZhZgCwg
Paywall, so we only see the headline. Was it a big win?
She received more than double her opponent, the incumbent Mayor Tishaura Jones. Yeah, I'd call that a big win.
Prince George's County, MD, State's Attorney Aisha Braveboy claims victory for County Executive.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/03/05/braveboy-prince-georges-county-executive-democratic-primary-wes-moore/
Assuming this holds, she'll be the third CE of the last four to move up from State's Attorney (county prosecutor/District Attorney). Of the other two, one went on to the US Senate and the other to prison.
She has a great last name! I wonder if that was worth a few points in voting. Don't scoff, and remember what Lakoff said about Trump vs. Twimp.
Considering her top opponent was former County Executive Rushern Baker, she wasn't the only candidate there with name recognition. Her win was and is quite impressive receive more than double (43 per cent) his total (21 per cent).
I don't mean name recognition; I mean her last name is great and memorable.
There is a joke that Attorney General (AG) really stands for Almost Governor. Seems to also work downballot.
That or Aspiring Governor.
Democrat Greg Howard Jr. announced today he will challenge Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) next year.