KY-Sen: I met Adkins very briefly during the 2019 primary for Governor. I was not greatly impressed with him in person, but I've never doubted that he's very capable. And he did go all-in for Beshear, especially in Eastern KY, after his primary loss. It's far too early to say that he'd have my primary vote, but I wouldn't mind seeing him run.
I don't expect McGrath to make another run, for the Senate, but if Barr leaves KY-06 open, that might maybe could be another story. Remember, she came within 3.2%, and just under 10,000 votes, of Barr in 2018. The only other person to get that close was Ben Chandler, and /he/ was the incumbent.
Many years ago, I had a pretty formative experience in regard to meeting politicians. At the same gathering, I met two different candidates for the House, both running in swing districts.
The first so warm and personable—just a really good guy, great communicator, made you feel like he wanted to be talking to you, because he *did* want to. You'd have walked away from that conversation convinced you wanted this guy to represent you.
The second barely looked me in the eye and then quickly turned away from me as soon as some pretty girls walked over.
The first guy lost. The second guy won. Taught me that a candidate's interpersonal skills don't necessarily count for a lot!
Only politician I met was the late, great Jimmy Carter at a book signing here in Durham, NC around 2003. The line stretched around the block and my mom (who is a hardcore R but LOVED Jimmy) was so thrilled to meet him.
McGrath should have never run for the Senate last time and should have run again in KY-06 to unseat Andy Barr back in 2020.
I don't understand how losing a House election in KY-06 back in 2018 was part of a formula for Senate run. If McGrath were to run in KY-06 again, that would be a more fruitful.
I think more Democrats nationwide should take the approach Wisconsin Ds are doing and tie in the Muskrat with the vulnerable Republican up for reelection.
Tying in Musk with someone unpopular like Tillis or Collins will push away soft Rs and energize Ds and left leaning independents.
He also seems to think taking these positions won’t present a problem in the *redacted*. Not saying he’s right or wrong, just that it’s a pretty declarative statement of what he thinks won’t hurt him.
For all his flaws, he realizes that this is a losing argument. Rightly or wrongly, the majority of Americans don't want to hear about pronouns, trans athletes, et al. Lest we forget Barack Obama didn't run as pro marriage equality in 2008.
It might be. But if it is a losing argument the better path to take is to not talk about it. Change the topic to something else, rather than to adopt republican talking points.
If the motivating factor for voters is culture war, we cannot win them over by being the second party to take a specific stance: we offer nothing new to voters in that scenario. If the motivating factor is not culture war, then talking about this is a waste of time.
It’s a strategic misstep of the kind our party often makes.
Republicans cling to potentially unpopular positions for too long, but we abandon them too quickly.
It's not about winning over Republicans; it's about taking away lines of attack/vulnerabilities of D candidates among swingy voters. And I know a LOT of moderate Biden voters who really didn't like the standard Dem position on this.
Instead of taking away lines of attack, flip it back on them. "Republicans are trying to get under your teenage daughter's skirt to make sure she has a vagina. Sounds intrusive and borderline pedophilic to me."
I’ve sometimes quipped that my pronoun is "Hey, you!"
If we consistently refer to someone by their preferred name, or address them as "you" – which has the advantage of being wonderfully gender neutral – I really don’t even see the need for other pronouns.
Doesn’t this avoid all controversy? Am I missing something?
Of course he's triangulating and also plans to run for president. I don't think it's a winning issue for dems so they need to figure out a different position. Problem for Newsom is he looks like a slick politician and also he's from California which makes some Americans froth at the mouth.
I don't hardly know of anyone I know in California that think Newsom would be a good idea, including people who supported him previously. I have only voted for him in generals where the other choice was a Republican.
This is the easiest issue for Dems to just take the lay-up. Not necessarily saying they should've supported the Senate legislation, but there's literally zero rational to make this any hill to die on.
All the things he's doing now (including mindlessly ordering state workers to return to the office, never mind that we're at least as productive from home and hybrid work is a major selling point for prospective employees) aren't the sort of 'moving to the center' things that would appeal to thoughtful moderates. They're cheap attacks seemingly intended to appeal to the sort of ignorant douchebros who don't vote in primaries.
Just so anyone needs a reminder of how Newsom got his start in politics:
Back in 1997, Newsom was appointed by San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown to serve District 2 Supervisor Kevin Shelley who ended up being elected to serve as Assembly Member District 12. He had no prior political experience or even ran for any political office (although he did volunteer for Brown's first Mayoral Campaign back in 1995).
San Francisco District 2 is the wealthest, most waspy district in the city that has the most expensive real estate. It also happens to have the largest number of registered Republican voters in the city. Laurel Heights is probably the most liberal part of the district (it's right next to the Richmond District) whereas the rest of it is where the most wealthy live. Newsom and his business partners have traditionally had influence and owned numerous businesses in the district. Hell, back in my 20's I went with friends to the Matrix Fillmore which I did not know Newsom had co-owned until years later.
Newsom fits more of the profile of someone who should work in business than in politics. Just my two cents.
Question: What is the ratio of transgender athletes that have transitioned to male, compared to transgender athletes that have transitioned to female? Seriously, I would like to know.
I find it curious that we hear zilch about the former category.
FYI, from what a gay friend has told me about transgender friends he knows and the trans community in general, they are divided on topics like this. For starters, what Caitlyn Jenner believes isn't necessarily what other transgender people believe (in other words, there are more trans people with Jenner's point of view than what we're led to believe).
The goal should be to allow transgender athletes to compete in sports without having it divide the general voting public. Newsom may be trying to find middle ground with Charlie Kirk instead of turning right wing, which may be brave on his part but not necessarily the most productive in overall discourse considering what Kirk's agenda is.
Problem is, Kirk, Trump and the GOP are about banning trans people from women's sports and nothing else. They are not arguing for allowing trans athletes to compete outside of women's sports, which means they have no interest in productive discourse on this topic.
All politicians triangulate to some extent - it’s kinda the name of the game, and it’s not always a bad thing since the whole point of a politician is to represent their people.
That said, Newsome is just so obvious about it that it screams inauthentic.
Out of approximately 510,000 student-athletes, fewer than 10 are transgender, making up less than 0.002% of the total NCAA athlete population. Surely there are more urgent issues - climate change, the fate of democracy, health care, Russian aggression - to place at the center of American political discourse.
That's just what Republicans do best though. Turning a fringe issue and making it a flash point. Instead of running away from it our goal should be to make it such an untenable issue for THEM to even bring up that they don't even dare bring it up. Hence my recommendation to suggest that any Republican politician advocating for the policy is a pedophile.
We forgot this small Iowa race, where the more progressive-aligned candidate, Oliver Weilein, won the special election to fill the vacant seat on the Iowa City Council. He secured 60% of the vote -- and won the absentee vote tallies as well. Voter turnout was 16%, a sizeable uptick from the city's last special election in 2018 (9%).
The finance reports are out for Oakland’s 4/15 special election for Mayor. The two major candidates are former Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Loren Taylor, a former council member who barely lost a race for mayor in 2022. Since Jan 1, Lee outraised Taylor $293K to $253K but Taylor also raised $57 before January 1. As of March 1, Taylor has a COH edge of $284K to Lee’s $178K (but also higher debts). Lee, however, also has two independent expenditure committees supporting her which, combined, have $159 COH available to support Lee. https://www.oaklandca.gov/services/campaign-finance-disclosure
CA-Gov: Kamala Harris has imposed a deadline of summer's end to decide on whether to enter the race. If she does, then that probably keeps many though not all potential Democratic rivals out of that contest, and her out of The Race Which Shall Not Be Discussed Here.
I can't see Kamala running for California Governor or for President in 2028.
She doesn't strike me as someone who'd be interested in being a Governor, and I doubt she wants to be the first person since Adlai Stevenson to lose two General Elections in a row (whether or she would is irrelevant to the conversation-I think her lack of willingness to be that person means she won't be a Presidential candidate in 2028).
I can definitely imagine her as being someone that wants her political career to end on a higher note than it’s on right now. Becoming governor, and doing a good job (important detail!), would give her a much better legacy. General discussion of her I see with democrats dismisses her as an obviously weak candidate whose defeat was inevitable — not because of the political environment or how she became the nominee, but because it was her. Who wants to end their legacy on such a low note?
Not saying she will jump in, but I can certainly see the logical pathway for her to reach that decision.
I definitely think Kamala's defeat was inevitable, but so would anyone we nominated in 2024. We had no answers for a pissed off Republican base, and that's not a slight against Kamala, but more a slight against certain members of the Biden Administration (Merrick Garland), who didn't move more decisively against Trump.
Interesting to see the presidential polling for the nomination for 2028 has her about mid-30's, not exactly a ringing endorsement of her 2024 candidacy but i suppose losing will do that.
Probably because only really hard-core partisans realize that not only was Harris not at fault for losing in 2024, but barring Garland indicting Trump and getting a conviction before the 2022 midterms (which was very unlikely given Trump's run out the clock strategy when it came to his trials), no candidate we ran was going to win in 2024.
Is there anything on how the Labor Commissioner of Georgia has been vacant since Bruce Thompson's death in November and there's just been nothing on Brian Kemp appointing a successor? It's not even clear there's an acting commissioner, the website still says it's Thompson (who, again, is dead).
If Sen. Jeanne Shaheen does retire, I'm envisioning a potential Chris Pappas vs. Scott Brown matchup which would be Lean D at a minimum no matter what!!
I wouldn't be completely shocked if Kelly Ayotte ran if Shaheen retired. She pretty clearly ran for Governor with an eye on returning to the Senate in mind (mind you, It'd still be Tilt D at worst barring an epic recruiting fail with Ayotte as the Republican nominee-for one, she's not as likely to get right-wing support as some other possible candidates (for that matter, barring a Trump endorsement, I don't think Scott Brown would either), and for another, both her (and Brown) would have to move way to the right to win the nomination, which would hurt them when they get to November.)
Voters have a tendency to dislike candidates that abandon an office for a "better" one shortly after being elected to the former.
If she goes for senate again I suspect it will be in 2028 or 2032, after she has had enough terms under her belt to establish herself as governor. NH tends to like our governors unless they blatantly fuckup, so I fear she will inevitably be popular after 4-8 years in office.
Yeah, it would be premature for Kelly Ayotte to run for the Senate again in 2026 when she was just elected as Governor last November.
The other thing is that having lost re-election after being a freshman Senator when Trump first ran for POTUS back in 2016 isn't exactly a good sign if Ayotte wants to return to the Senate. Serving as Governor for now is a safer bet for her if she wants to rebuild her credibility. Additionally, from what I understand, Ayotte never became a MAGA Republican and fits more in line with where Republicans like Chris Sununu are.
KY-Sen: I met Adkins very briefly during the 2019 primary for Governor. I was not greatly impressed with him in person, but I've never doubted that he's very capable. And he did go all-in for Beshear, especially in Eastern KY, after his primary loss. It's far too early to say that he'd have my primary vote, but I wouldn't mind seeing him run.
I don't expect McGrath to make another run, for the Senate, but if Barr leaves KY-06 open, that might maybe could be another story. Remember, she came within 3.2%, and just under 10,000 votes, of Barr in 2018. The only other person to get that close was Ben Chandler, and /he/ was the incumbent.
Many years ago, I had a pretty formative experience in regard to meeting politicians. At the same gathering, I met two different candidates for the House, both running in swing districts.
The first so warm and personable—just a really good guy, great communicator, made you feel like he wanted to be talking to you, because he *did* want to. You'd have walked away from that conversation convinced you wanted this guy to represent you.
The second barely looked me in the eye and then quickly turned away from me as soon as some pretty girls walked over.
The first guy lost. The second guy won. Taught me that a candidate's interpersonal skills don't necessarily count for a lot!
Only politician I met was the late, great Jimmy Carter at a book signing here in Durham, NC around 2003. The line stretched around the block and my mom (who is a hardcore R but LOVED Jimmy) was so thrilled to meet him.
Adkins didn't give me any reason not to vote for him, but he didn't really give me a reason to vote for /him/, other then not being Matt Bevin.
McGrath should have never run for the Senate last time and should have run again in KY-06 to unseat Andy Barr back in 2020.
I don't understand how losing a House election in KY-06 back in 2018 was part of a formula for Senate run. If McGrath were to run in KY-06 again, that would be a more fruitful.
I think more Democrats nationwide should take the approach Wisconsin Ds are doing and tie in the Muskrat with the vulnerable Republican up for reelection.
Tying in Musk with someone unpopular like Tillis or Collins will push away soft Rs and energize Ds and left leaning independents.
CA-GOV:
I cannot tell if Newsom is triangulating or if he truly has these principles.
Once again, how does he have time for his own podcast while he’s Governor?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz03ye4j8rzo.amp
To me that says "I'm running for president in 2028."
We saw the same thing with Romney in Massachusetts, with him abandoning long-held positions once he decided to seek the oval office.
He also seems to think taking these positions won’t present a problem in the *redacted*. Not saying he’s right or wrong, just that it’s a pretty declarative statement of what he thinks won’t hurt him.
For all his flaws, he realizes that this is a losing argument. Rightly or wrongly, the majority of Americans don't want to hear about pronouns, trans athletes, et al. Lest we forget Barack Obama didn't run as pro marriage equality in 2008.
It might be. But if it is a losing argument the better path to take is to not talk about it. Change the topic to something else, rather than to adopt republican talking points.
If the motivating factor for voters is culture war, we cannot win them over by being the second party to take a specific stance: we offer nothing new to voters in that scenario. If the motivating factor is not culture war, then talking about this is a waste of time.
It’s a strategic misstep of the kind our party often makes.
Republicans cling to potentially unpopular positions for too long, but we abandon them too quickly.
It's not about winning over Republicans; it's about taking away lines of attack/vulnerabilities of D candidates among swingy voters. And I know a LOT of moderate Biden voters who really didn't like the standard Dem position on this.
If you’re talking about it, you’re reminding the voters of it. It’s basic human psychology at play.
If it is an unpalatable position then the winning move is shut up and move on.
Instead of taking away lines of attack, flip it back on them. "Republicans are trying to get under your teenage daughter's skirt to make sure she has a vagina. Sounds intrusive and borderline pedophilic to me."
I've been using the argument, "Why do Republicans want the government checking teenagers' genitals?"
I’ve sometimes quipped that my pronoun is "Hey, you!"
If we consistently refer to someone by their preferred name, or address them as "you" – which has the advantage of being wonderfully gender neutral – I really don’t even see the need for other pronouns.
Doesn’t this avoid all controversy? Am I missing something?
Of course he's triangulating and also plans to run for president. I don't think it's a winning issue for dems so they need to figure out a different position. Problem for Newsom is he looks like a slick politician and also he's from California which makes some Americans froth at the mouth.
I don't hardly know of anyone I know in California that think Newsom would be a good idea, including people who supported him previously. I have only voted for him in generals where the other choice was a Republican.
Same. I personally despise him and think he's been a mediocre governor at best.
This is the easiest issue for Dems to just take the lay-up. Not necessarily saying they should've supported the Senate legislation, but there's literally zero rational to make this any hill to die on.
All the things he's doing now (including mindlessly ordering state workers to return to the office, never mind that we're at least as productive from home and hybrid work is a major selling point for prospective employees) aren't the sort of 'moving to the center' things that would appeal to thoughtful moderates. They're cheap attacks seemingly intended to appeal to the sort of ignorant douchebros who don't vote in primaries.
Just so anyone needs a reminder of how Newsom got his start in politics:
Back in 1997, Newsom was appointed by San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown to serve District 2 Supervisor Kevin Shelley who ended up being elected to serve as Assembly Member District 12. He had no prior political experience or even ran for any political office (although he did volunteer for Brown's first Mayoral Campaign back in 1995).
San Francisco District 2 is the wealthest, most waspy district in the city that has the most expensive real estate. It also happens to have the largest number of registered Republican voters in the city. Laurel Heights is probably the most liberal part of the district (it's right next to the Richmond District) whereas the rest of it is where the most wealthy live. Newsom and his business partners have traditionally had influence and owned numerous businesses in the district. Hell, back in my 20's I went with friends to the Matrix Fillmore which I did not know Newsom had co-owned until years later.
Newsom fits more of the profile of someone who should work in business than in politics. Just my two cents.
Interestingly, an International Olympic Committee-funded study found that transgender athletes face a competitive disadvantage over cisgender athletes: https://www.them.us/story/trans-women-disadvantages-athletic-competition-study
This is nothing more than Newsom embracing anti-tramsgender bigotry.
Correction: anti-transgender bigotry
Question: What is the ratio of transgender athletes that have transitioned to male, compared to transgender athletes that have transitioned to female? Seriously, I would like to know.
I find it curious that we hear zilch about the former category.
We've seen intersexed do well in womens competition.
Tell that to the American electorate though.
FYI, from what a gay friend has told me about transgender friends he knows and the trans community in general, they are divided on topics like this. For starters, what Caitlyn Jenner believes isn't necessarily what other transgender people believe (in other words, there are more trans people with Jenner's point of view than what we're led to believe).
The goal should be to allow transgender athletes to compete in sports without having it divide the general voting public. Newsom may be trying to find middle ground with Charlie Kirk instead of turning right wing, which may be brave on his part but not necessarily the most productive in overall discourse considering what Kirk's agenda is.
Problem is, Kirk, Trump and the GOP are about banning trans people from women's sports and nothing else. They are not arguing for allowing trans athletes to compete outside of women's sports, which means they have no interest in productive discourse on this topic.
All politicians triangulate to some extent - it’s kinda the name of the game, and it’s not always a bad thing since the whole point of a politician is to represent their people.
That said, Newsome is just so obvious about it that it screams inauthentic.
as a Californian he is just about the last person I want to see even campaigning for the nomination let alone to be the nominee
Agreed.
Out of approximately 510,000 student-athletes, fewer than 10 are transgender, making up less than 0.002% of the total NCAA athlete population. Surely there are more urgent issues - climate change, the fate of democracy, health care, Russian aggression - to place at the center of American political discourse.
That's just what Republicans do best though. Turning a fringe issue and making it a flash point. Instead of running away from it our goal should be to make it such an untenable issue for THEM to even bring up that they don't even dare bring it up. Hence my recommendation to suggest that any Republican politician advocating for the policy is a pedophile.
We forgot this small Iowa race, where the more progressive-aligned candidate, Oliver Weilein, won the special election to fill the vacant seat on the Iowa City Council. He secured 60% of the vote -- and won the absentee vote tallies as well. Voter turnout was 16%, a sizeable uptick from the city's last special election in 2018 (9%).
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/elections/2025/03/04/who-won-the-special-city-council-election-in-iowa-city/81371601007/
The finance reports are out for Oakland’s 4/15 special election for Mayor. The two major candidates are former Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Loren Taylor, a former council member who barely lost a race for mayor in 2022. Since Jan 1, Lee outraised Taylor $293K to $253K but Taylor also raised $57 before January 1. As of March 1, Taylor has a COH edge of $284K to Lee’s $178K (but also higher debts). Lee, however, also has two independent expenditure committees supporting her which, combined, have $159 COH available to support Lee. https://www.oaklandca.gov/services/campaign-finance-disclosure
Most of the Democratic establishment, including Jerry Brown, are backing Barbara Lee's mayoral campaign. She's definitely got momentum.
Does anyone know what is going on with Act Blue? The NY Times had a big story about it on Wednesday titled: "ActBlue, the Democratic Fund-Raising Powerhouse, Faces Internal Chaos." It describes multiple resignations and internal turmoil. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/05/us/politics/actblue-democrat-fundraising-resignations.html
CA-Gov: Kamala Harris has imposed a deadline of summer's end to decide on whether to enter the race. If she does, then that probably keeps many though not all potential Democratic rivals out of that contest, and her out of The Race Which Shall Not Be Discussed Here.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/07/kamala-harris-california-governor-decision-deadline-00216737
I can't see Kamala running for California Governor or for President in 2028.
She doesn't strike me as someone who'd be interested in being a Governor, and I doubt she wants to be the first person since Adlai Stevenson to lose two General Elections in a row (whether or she would is irrelevant to the conversation-I think her lack of willingness to be that person means she won't be a Presidential candidate in 2028).
I can definitely imagine her as being someone that wants her political career to end on a higher note than it’s on right now. Becoming governor, and doing a good job (important detail!), would give her a much better legacy. General discussion of her I see with democrats dismisses her as an obviously weak candidate whose defeat was inevitable — not because of the political environment or how she became the nominee, but because it was her. Who wants to end their legacy on such a low note?
Not saying she will jump in, but I can certainly see the logical pathway for her to reach that decision.
I definitely think Kamala's defeat was inevitable, but so would anyone we nominated in 2024. We had no answers for a pissed off Republican base, and that's not a slight against Kamala, but more a slight against certain members of the Biden Administration (Merrick Garland), who didn't move more decisively against Trump.
I agree, and that’s why she might see and want the chance to repair her legacy to a more respectable place.
In all honesty, I think Harris would be a more competent and focused Governor than Newsom.
However, the question remains - Is she really what CA needs to move on from Newsom?
Interesting to see the presidential polling for the nomination for 2028 has her about mid-30's, not exactly a ringing endorsement of her 2024 candidacy but i suppose losing will do that.
That is higher than I would expect. Dems hate their losing presidential candidates.
Probably because only really hard-core partisans realize that not only was Harris not at fault for losing in 2024, but barring Garland indicting Trump and getting a conviction before the 2022 midterms (which was very unlikely given Trump's run out the clock strategy when it came to his trials), no candidate we ran was going to win in 2024.
Is there anything on how the Labor Commissioner of Georgia has been vacant since Bruce Thompson's death in November and there's just been nothing on Brian Kemp appointing a successor? It's not even clear there's an acting commissioner, the website still says it's Thompson (who, again, is dead).
Polls: Monmouth University in New Jersey is ending its polling firm, Monmouth Polling University Institute.
https://newjerseyglobe.com/polling/monmouth-university-will-shutter-its-gold-standard-polling-institute/
Not good. The academic polling industry is dying.
New Hampshire 2026:
If Sen. Jeanne Shaheen does retire, I'm envisioning a potential Chris Pappas vs. Scott Brown matchup which would be Lean D at a minimum no matter what!!
I wouldn't be completely shocked if Kelly Ayotte ran if Shaheen retired. She pretty clearly ran for Governor with an eye on returning to the Senate in mind (mind you, It'd still be Tilt D at worst barring an epic recruiting fail with Ayotte as the Republican nominee-for one, she's not as likely to get right-wing support as some other possible candidates (for that matter, barring a Trump endorsement, I don't think Scott Brown would either), and for another, both her (and Brown) would have to move way to the right to win the nomination, which would hurt them when they get to November.)
Voters have a tendency to dislike candidates that abandon an office for a "better" one shortly after being elected to the former.
If she goes for senate again I suspect it will be in 2028 or 2032, after she has had enough terms under her belt to establish herself as governor. NH tends to like our governors unless they blatantly fuckup, so I fear she will inevitably be popular after 4-8 years in office.
Yeah, it would be premature for Kelly Ayotte to run for the Senate again in 2026 when she was just elected as Governor last November.
The other thing is that having lost re-election after being a freshman Senator when Trump first ran for POTUS back in 2016 isn't exactly a good sign if Ayotte wants to return to the Senate. Serving as Governor for now is a safer bet for her if she wants to rebuild her credibility. Additionally, from what I understand, Ayotte never became a MAGA Republican and fits more in line with where Republicans like Chris Sununu are.