Hollier is also an AIPAC hack though. In his 2022 campaign he was endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce in addition to AIPAC, which in downtown Detroit is like a West Virginia Republican being endorsed by the Sierra Club.
Shri Thanedar also flip-flopped on his agenda towards Israel after originally co-sponsoring legislation to Congress to halt aid to the country only then to completely flip to the other side and be on Israel's side completely.
I would prefer a replacement for Thanedar in MI-13 be more principled and intelligent on this issue than just conveniently moving to the under side under pressure.
Amongst other things, the State of New York needs to improve its vote tabulation. There is no good reason why it should take as long as it does.
It would also behoove New York to strive for greater process transparency, perhaps implementing a live vote count with granular information similar to what Georgia has under Gabriel Sterling.
Not necessarily. Unified opposition might have been able to make more of a focused case for itself that could have drawn more votes from the incumbent.
I think Sununu would be a serious and dangerous opponent for us, but I'm going to seriously call into doubt a poll that has him with a substantial advantage over Shaheen. Especially this far from election day.
I don’t think Sununu wants to run for the Senate though. If he was pushed by Mitch McConnell to consider a Senate run during Biden’s presidency and declined, what incentive now would make him reconsider?
Besides, Sununu is going to give Senator Jeanne Shaheen and Democrats ammunition in the Senate race if his statements on the Paris Agreement and federal worker layoffs in NH says anything.
Sununu is a moderate conservative and based on his time as NH Governor, I think, fits the state government profile. However, considering that Kelly Ayotte lost re-election in the Senate back in 2016 before Trump took office and the fact that she won the gubernatorial race by double digits last year amid Trump losing the state by a wider margin than he did in 2016, it may be fitting that being a Republican at the state level is an easier sell than running for federal office.
“I am not an apologist for Trump or Elon Musk,” Sununu said, adding that valuable federal programs such as some in USAID would be preserved. He described the Paris Climate Agreement that was tossed out by an executive order, as “nonsense.”
“It’s just an unenforceable document that is costing the country massive amounts of money in which the United States keeps making huge investments while the Chinas of the world are putting up 50 factories a year with no accountability,” Sununu said.
“This gets back to the heart of what I’m all about, which is fiscal responsibility,” he said. “We owe $36 trillion. Does the government owe $36 trillion? No. You owe $36 trillion. Your neighbors do. Your kids do. You owe that money.”
Sesno asked if Sununu was okay with half of the 10,870 federal government employees in New Hampshire being fired.
“Yes,” Sununu said. “Absolutely. The government isn’t here to keep you employed. You got to make tough decisions. Nobody in Washington wants to make tough decisions. It stinks. It’s not easy. It’s painful. But you owe the money.”
FYI, Sununu was on CNN and interviewed by Anderson Cooper about Musk's DOGE agenda.
Panelists, including legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, had argued that the numbers and examples of what DOGE is uncovering are thrown out in mid-air while Sununu is giving no real legitimate explanation other than citing what DOGE has apparently uncovered in "wasteful spending."
He's not going to be ready for primetime in the 2026 midterms.
Name recognition. Because of his family legacy - both his father and brother served in elected office there - he's able to fool a LOT of Granite Staters - especially suburban moderates - into believing he's more moderate than he actually is. New Hampshire is the most conservative state in New England, particularly on economic issues. The only reason why the Granite State goes blue in Presidential Elections is because southern hardline social conservatism scares away these suburban moderates.
I figured that was 90% of it. So based on the same profile but his name being "Chris Anderson", do you think he'd get away with it and thrive in New Hampshire politics? Or would people wince at his blowhard bullshit?
If I recall he pushed back more against Trump during his first term, but since Trump became the clear favorite in the primaries he dipped into Rubio-esque apologia.
He plays the part of the mythical "moderate republican" that everyone yearns for. On TV, at least, which is all anyone cares about.
He doesn't engage in fiery rhetoric. He does very conservative things and supports very conservative people. He does the former behind the scenes with no fanfare, no big announcements. It's slow, incremental, and *boring* shifts to the right (that are all hard to undo). For the latter he always phrases it in a "well I'm forced to pick one..." style that the they're-all-the-same types love to hear.
It's the same reason Baker and Scott in next door MA/VT were/are equally popular.
Adding to this: I have a general theory that people at large generally want as little to happen in politics as possible, especially as that politics gets more local and less national. If there are no big news events, no announcements, no legislation being debated, they are happy. They want as much *nothing* to happen as possible. Even if that nothing is entirely illusory and a lot is happening behind the scenes. To them, nothing=competence. The blue state republican governors fill that niche perfectly. Sununu isn't quite that as NH has a republican legislature, and did for 3/4 of his tenure, but he still played the part in front of the cameras.
Not completely soulless, at all least not before Trump got elected as POTUS. Sununu as Governor had his own DEI council but ended it with an executive order just before Kelly Ayotte took office weeks ago as Governor. I’m pretty sure he was trying to save Ayotte a liability considering how it’s considered toxic for the GOP based these days.
That said, he resembles everything he and his family of Sununus are - Traditional, old school Bush Republicans. Sununu speaks, talks and acts just Iike them.
And Sununu is not going to budge on the trickled down economics issue.
I think it was already hard to imagine him jumping in for 2026 even if he hadn't said anything prior. If he didn't jump in for 2022 why would he take it now? When he would have had to make a decision for 2022 the cycle would have looked like the best opportunity a candidate could hope for; on the flipside, 2026 looks like the exact opposite of that.
Fortunately 2022 ended up being decent for us, but there was no reason to expect that in late 2021 or even early 2022 when he would have had to decide.
I think Sununu, Younkin, and Kemp would all be the best players for Republicans in a year that Democrats should otherwise dominate. They are their best bets to flip their respective seats.
If Sununu passed on a Senate bid in 2022 then I don't know what would make him run in 2026 which should be a much bluer year (even accounting for the fact that 2022 was less red than expected.) Unless he's just bored being out of office...
The same poll showed Shaheen easily beating two other Republicans, including a potential return engagement from Scott Brown, who to me resembles a political one hit wonder forever trying to milk his single moment in the sun.
Youngkin is questionable as a Senate candidate running in the 2026 midterms, which are likely going to be unpopular for the GOP in VA where Trump barely made an inch of improvement in his margin of loss back in 2024 vs. in 2016.
Warner is already going to have the advantage by being on the federal workers' side, which we have no doubt he will be. Youngkin is doing nothing to fight for them, is already supporting Lt. Governor Winsome Earle-Sears' gubernatorial bid even while she's doing the same and neither one of them are even changing their agenda in a state where federal workers make up a substantial portion of the population.
Youngkin has a record as governor now whereas he did not back in 2021 when running against former Governor Terry McAuliffe and winning by just 1.94% points during President Biden's first year. Also, he just commuted a police officer's sentence over killing an unarmed man who shoplifted at Tyson's Corner Center. Criminal justice reform advocates are going to have a field day over this.
Also, pardon my French, but who the heck is Praecones? Maybe if this was UNH, Emerson or Quinnipiac and we were actually less than a year into election season. But this? The pollster is absolutely a no name, C ranked and too much time before the election without much indication that Sununu is even gonna run yet. Garbage pile.
I've come around to your position here, and think you are 100% right. He'd be a great Vivek foil, without Trump on the ballot. Still has fire in the belly, for sure.
He turns 76 in November 2028, which may be pushing it regarding President or VP; after Biden Democratic voters may be more wary of age. But it would be nice to see him run for Senator again or Governor, if that's how he wants to help reorient the Democratic party toward being a "workers party", which he makes a strong case for in the article, and improve its status in states like Ohio.
Brown does note that becoming a workers' party will take a long time; we can't just declare mission accomplished if we win in 2026 or 2028, especially if it's largely with the same coalition that we've relied on recently augmented by some swing voters who soured on Trump and the GOP.
The North American trade War that is happening for literally zero reason kicks off tomorrow, officially. Equity markets have slid sharply on this news.
I sincerely wonder when the masters of the universe start trying to get GOPers in Congress to intervene with the White House because we’re about to speedrun an economic crisis at this rate
(cross-posting from today's Bulwark/JVL thread, it fits here):
What if even wrecking the economy (contraction/recession) is part of the plan? Shrink the pool of resources available, get double digit unemployment...and people really WILL start shooting one another to get theirs.
They (I think) know they need that level of societal breakdown to "solve" the 52/48 problem (ie, no matter how good "our" candidate, or how bad "theirs" is - it's almost impossible for a modern, national election to be more overwhelming than 52-48).
In the Trump view, King of a heap of ashes beats "lame duck" of a thriving democracy. And I think Vance represents the cohort that wants a new Dark Age, to undo the Enlightenment. This is how you get it.
I’m not entirely closed to such thoughts. That said, I think Occam’s razor suggests that Trump really actually does not understand tariffs and really truly believes all the incorrect things he says about them, up to and including his view that they exclusively harm other countries as a punitive tool.
I’d note that Musk isn’t pro-tariff, by all accounts, nor are most of the other SV edgelords usually associated with accelerationist thought. So while there’s some people in power who believe some pretty grim out-there stuff, I do think that’s it’s own thing separate from tariffs, which Trump has had a boner for since the 80s
There's definitely some folks, mainly the techno-fascists, that would welcome that, but the majority of very rich people don't want to roll the dice on major financial instability and recession to usher in some new feudalist age . . .they do great in the current system!
What's transpiring will be a classic "old money vs new money" battle and while they've taken some major licks in the Trump era, I think one should never count out old money's ultimate power.
There’s a reason why old money becomes old money and it’s not by fucking with the system that made them rich.
Powerful incumbents, whether institutional or personal, will fight to the death to preserve their power, influence and wealth. Musk in particular imo is playing with fire pissing off some very, very powerful constituencies
I wonder whether we are seeing a sort of civil war within the plutocracy? On one side, we have billionaires who favor the traditional "Shear the Sheep" model, and, on the other, billionaires who embrace the "Skin the Sheep" model.
I'm paraphrasing something I read on a Reddit economic thread (the Reddit economic threads are more intelligent than I would have thought) last week - the economic train has derailed, the kaboose just doesn't know it yet
We're going to see if the ultra-wealthy care more about their ideology or their money. It's long been assumed that they picked the ideology for the sake of money. What we've been seeing these past few years would suggest there's a good number of them that are OK being not as insanely wealthy if it means their political views are ascendant.
I'm also at the point where I'm assuming the worst from everyone on the right half of politics right now, so maybe I'm too pessimistic about them.
Except... This level of inequality is unsustainable and their views are extremely unpopular at a national level. What happens when you force that on people AND give them nothing left to lose?
Shit like Luigi happens. And as much as I think the transformation of his vigilantism into a populist meme is pretty gross, I don’t think he’ll be the last case
Which will cause a lot of collateral damage. I joke all the time about guillotines and Luigi and stuff but the end game of all of that is pretty terrifying.
With the level of power that modern states can wield it's not inconceivable that the ultra-wealthy could more or less survive complete social upheaval in a way that they could not in 18th century France. I doubt they're looking at things through that lens though.
People, including the wealthy, largely do not consider the potential for disaster in their decision making.
If by unsustainable you mean that there will be working class revolt against the rich when the cuts and inflation set in, think of another possibility--the working class turns on itself, as the wealthy want them to. Trump/Musk/Miller will claim that minorities are to blame for everything, and it will pit the WWC against every other working class group. What MAGA wants, more than anything, is to preserve whiteness, and T/M/M will give it to them, at least rhetorically.
Nominally R+3. In reality Somewhere R+2, if you count the uncontested races. D districts generally have more drop-offs than R districts, besides the crossovers for incumbents and Trump only votes. So slightly higher than the presidential line R+1.5
A GCB with both parties under 45 isn't really telling you much.
Polling is in two different worlds right now, with the big difference being Trump disapproval. Pew, Gallup, Marist, CNN, Reuters all have it over 50%, whereas RMG, Yougov, MC, Tipps, Emerson have it under 50%. Most polling now shows him floating in the 44-48% approval range even when he's net up.
Three point advantage isn't a wave, but we're also only 1.5 months in. 538 has Biden's approvals at ~+15 in early March of his first year. I suspect a poll of the GCB at that point might have even favored us. Yet, if it weren't for the Dobb's decision I suspect 2022 would have looked like another round of 2010 for us.
We have time for the numbers to get to where we need them. If they will is a question we do not know yet, but we can certainly hope so.
Today’s NPR/Marist Poll (taken before Friday’s Oval Office “meeting”) found that 37% think the U.S. is not giving Ukraine enough support in the war with Russia, 34% think we are giving too much and 28% say we are giving the right amount of support. In short, 65% say the US should give the same or more to Ukraine, not less.
Trump’s job approval: 45% approve; 49% disapprove
56% of Americans, including 65% of independents, think Trump has been rushing to make changes without considering the impact.
CNN ran a poll Friday that found that 4% of those asked thought the Oval Office blowup was Z’s fault and the majority blamed Vance. Those are awful numbers.
So are the issues polled in this poll; that 65% figure is rough
I just analyzed Trump's 2024 presidential election results comparatively towards his 2016 presidential election results specifically to aim at when he won the presidential election in each year.
Here's where he won or lost by single digits.
AZ - Won by 5.5% points, an improvement of 2% points vs. back in 2016 where he won by 3.5% points.
GA - Won by 2.2% points, a drop of 2.9% points vs back in 2016 where he won by 5.1% points.
ME - Lost by 6.9% points, a drop of 4% vs back in 2016 where he lost by 2.9% points.
MI - Won by 1.4% points, an improvement of 1.1% points vs. back in 2016 where he won by 0.3% points.
MN - Lost by 4.2% points, a drop of 2.7% points vs back in 2016 where he lost by 1.5% points.
NC - Win by 3.3% points, an drop of 0.3% points vs back in 2016 where he won the state by 3.6% points.
NH - Lost by 2.8% points, a drop of 2.5% points vs back in 2016 where he lost by 0.3% points.
NJ - Lost by 5.9% points, an improvement of 8.1% points vs back in 2016 where he lost by 14% points.
NM - Lost by 6.1% points, an improvement of 2.2% points vs back in 2016 where he lost by 8.3% points.
NV - Won by 3.1% points, flipping the state red for the first time in all of the presidential elections he's faced. He lost 2.4% in his he state back in 2016.
PA - Won by 1.8% points, an improvement of 1.1% points vs back in 2016 where he won by 0.7% points.
VA - Lost by 5.7% points, a drop of 0.3% points vs back in 2016 where he lost by 5.4% points.
WI - Won by 0.9% points, an improvement of 0.2% points vs back in 2016 where he won by 0.7% points.
You have NH's 2016 results flipped. Trump lost NH in 2016. Very narrowly, but still.
I think it would be interesting to also compare to the shift in popular vote. He went from losing that by 2.1 points to winning by 1.5 points, a net shift of 3.8 points. Any statewide shift that is less than that is a net move towards us relative to the nation, and any statewide shift that is more than that is a net move away from us relative to the nation.
Highlights NV as easily the most troubling result in a competitive state. Especially in conjunction with us losing the 2022 gubernatorial election there.
Thanks for the heads up although mentioning Trump won NH was done by accident. Nevertheless, I re-edited it. Once again, the GOP has not won NH at the presidential level since 2000. Not gonna happen in 2028 at this point as long as Trump and Musk continue to be a liability for the GOP.
Yes, NV has become a troubling, challenging state even while it's a relief that Senators Catherine Cortez-Masto and Jacky Rosen won re-election by the nail biter margin that they did. I believe the pandemic and post-pandemic environment were what accelerated the state to move more to the right than it has been before. Governor Steve Sisolak lost re-election in 2022 and grew increasingly unpopular because of the casinos shutting down due to COVID-19 redirections. Not a good sign when back in 2022 Democrats maintained control of the Governor’s mansion in MI, PA and WI.
As for states like GA and NC, they represent increasing demographics that show they are competitive and have opportunities for electing Democrats. The fact that Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock got elected in the Senate runoff elections in January 2020 and Warnock winning re-election is a success. Same with Roy Cooper being a two-term Governor in North Carolina along with Josh Stein winning the gubernatorial race to replace him even while at the presidential level it's much harder.
Today on FS1/Fox Sports Radio’s The Herd With Colin Cowherd, Jimmy Johnson announced his retirement from NFL on Fox coverage. Johnson was one of the Fox NFL Sunday originals, along with the still-remaining Howie Long and Terry Bradshaw.
MI 13: Yes, the opposition needs to unite behind one candidate to beat that crypto/AIPAC hack.
He is just such a ridiculous person. Be nice to get all such fuckery out of the caucus.
Hollier is also an AIPAC hack though. In his 2022 campaign he was endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce in addition to AIPAC, which in downtown Detroit is like a West Virginia Republican being endorsed by the Sierra Club.
Shri Thanedar also flip-flopped on his agenda towards Israel after originally co-sponsoring legislation to Congress to halt aid to the country only then to completely flip to the other side and be on Israel's side completely.
I would prefer a replacement for Thanedar in MI-13 be more principled and intelligent on this issue than just conveniently moving to the under side under pressure.
Now that the New York City mayoral election has become a battle of reprobates, Anthony Weiner must be eager to try again.
Anthony Weiner is eyeing a City Council race https://gothamist.com/news/brooklyn-elections-boss-promotes-fundraiser-for-anthony-weiner-in-nyc-council-race
New York (city and state) just seems like a mess/car crash, in terms of political smoothness.
Amongst other things, the State of New York needs to improve its vote tabulation. There is no good reason why it should take as long as it does.
It would also behoove New York to strive for greater process transparency, perhaps implementing a live vote count with granular information similar to what Georgia has under Gabriel Sterling.
"He is just such a ridiculous person." Also how I feel about Eric Adams and Andrew Cuomo.
Well Thanedar got 54%in the primary in 2024, the opposition fracturing wouldn't have mattered.
Not necessarily. Unified opposition might have been able to make more of a focused case for itself that could have drawn more votes from the incumbent.
Yeah exactly. Plus after Hollier got bounched, Thanedar's remaining biggest-name opponent wasn't very strong.
New Hampshire Senate
Sununu 54% (+8)
Shaheen (Inc) 46%
Praecones #C - 626 RV - 3/1
I think Sununu would be a serious and dangerous opponent for us, but I'm going to seriously call into doubt a poll that has him with a substantial advantage over Shaheen. Especially this far from election day.
With no undecideds even...
I don’t think Sununu wants to run for the Senate though. If he was pushed by Mitch McConnell to consider a Senate run during Biden’s presidency and declined, what incentive now would make him reconsider?
Besides, Sununu is going to give Senator Jeanne Shaheen and Democrats ammunition in the Senate race if his statements on the Paris Agreement and federal worker layoffs in NH says anything.
Sununu is a moderate conservative and based on his time as NH Governor, I think, fits the state government profile. However, considering that Kelly Ayotte lost re-election in the Senate back in 2016 before Trump took office and the fact that she won the gubernatorial race by double digits last year amid Trump losing the state by a wider margin than he did in 2016, it may be fitting that being a Republican at the state level is an easier sell than running for federal office.
https://gwtoday.gwu.edu/republican-chris-sununu-explains-trump-administration-actions-during-sesno-series-discussion
.
.
.
“I am not an apologist for Trump or Elon Musk,” Sununu said, adding that valuable federal programs such as some in USAID would be preserved. He described the Paris Climate Agreement that was tossed out by an executive order, as “nonsense.”
“It’s just an unenforceable document that is costing the country massive amounts of money in which the United States keeps making huge investments while the Chinas of the world are putting up 50 factories a year with no accountability,” Sununu said.
“This gets back to the heart of what I’m all about, which is fiscal responsibility,” he said. “We owe $36 trillion. Does the government owe $36 trillion? No. You owe $36 trillion. Your neighbors do. Your kids do. You owe that money.”
Sesno asked if Sununu was okay with half of the 10,870 federal government employees in New Hampshire being fired.
“Yes,” Sununu said. “Absolutely. The government isn’t here to keep you employed. You got to make tough decisions. Nobody in Washington wants to make tough decisions. It stinks. It’s not easy. It’s painful. But you owe the money.”
FYI, Sununu was on CNN and interviewed by Anderson Cooper about Musk's DOGE agenda.
Panelists, including legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, had argued that the numbers and examples of what DOGE is uncovering are thrown out in mid-air while Sununu is giving no real legitimate explanation other than citing what DOGE has apparently uncovered in "wasteful spending."
He's not going to be ready for primetime in the 2026 midterms.
For the life of me, I can't understand the appeal of this obnoxious oaf. He's every bit as blatantly synthetic and soulless as Vance and Rubio.
Name recognition. Because of his family legacy - both his father and brother served in elected office there - he's able to fool a LOT of Granite Staters - especially suburban moderates - into believing he's more moderate than he actually is. New Hampshire is the most conservative state in New England, particularly on economic issues. The only reason why the Granite State goes blue in Presidential Elections is because southern hardline social conservatism scares away these suburban moderates.
I figured that was 90% of it. So based on the same profile but his name being "Chris Anderson", do you think he'd get away with it and thrive in New Hampshire politics? Or would people wince at his blowhard bullshit?
He would have a LOT harder of a time getting away with it. That's for certain.
If I recall he pushed back more against Trump during his first term, but since Trump became the clear favorite in the primaries he dipped into Rubio-esque apologia.
He plays the part of the mythical "moderate republican" that everyone yearns for. On TV, at least, which is all anyone cares about.
He doesn't engage in fiery rhetoric. He does very conservative things and supports very conservative people. He does the former behind the scenes with no fanfare, no big announcements. It's slow, incremental, and *boring* shifts to the right (that are all hard to undo). For the latter he always phrases it in a "well I'm forced to pick one..." style that the they're-all-the-same types love to hear.
It's the same reason Baker and Scott in next door MA/VT were/are equally popular.
Adding to this: I have a general theory that people at large generally want as little to happen in politics as possible, especially as that politics gets more local and less national. If there are no big news events, no announcements, no legislation being debated, they are happy. They want as much *nothing* to happen as possible. Even if that nothing is entirely illusory and a lot is happening behind the scenes. To them, nothing=competence. The blue state republican governors fill that niche perfectly. Sununu isn't quite that as NH has a republican legislature, and did for 3/4 of his tenure, but he still played the part in front of the cameras.
Not completely soulless, at all least not before Trump got elected as POTUS. Sununu as Governor had his own DEI council but ended it with an executive order just before Kelly Ayotte took office weeks ago as Governor. I’m pretty sure he was trying to save Ayotte a liability considering how it’s considered toxic for the GOP based these days.
That said, he resembles everything he and his family of Sununus are - Traditional, old school Bush Republicans. Sununu speaks, talks and acts just Iike them.
And Sununu is not going to budge on the trickled down economics issue.
Trickle-down economics is the equivalent of fetishists who are into water sports.
Sununu said no to NH-Sen in January. https://www.the-downballot.com/p/morning-digest-sponsored-by-314-action?open=false#%C2%A7nh-sen
Also, polling a race almost two years from now and not allowing voters to say they're undecided is ... a choice.
Right, it's a hard poll to take seriously.
I think it was already hard to imagine him jumping in for 2026 even if he hadn't said anything prior. If he didn't jump in for 2022 why would he take it now? When he would have had to make a decision for 2022 the cycle would have looked like the best opportunity a candidate could hope for; on the flipside, 2026 looks like the exact opposite of that.
Fortunately 2022 ended up being decent for us, but there was no reason to expect that in late 2021 or even early 2022 when he would have had to decide.
I think Sununu, Younkin, and Kemp would all be the best players for Republicans in a year that Democrats should otherwise dominate. They are their best bets to flip their respective seats.
Kemp would easily be the strongest of the three of them, presuming Mark Warner runs again next year here in Virginia.
I seriously don’t think Kemp will make the jump. And if he does, Ossoff has a decent chance to dispatch him.
Ossoff will beat the sh*t out of any other candidate.
If Sununu passed on a Senate bid in 2022 then I don't know what would make him run in 2026 which should be a much bluer year (even accounting for the fact that 2022 was less red than expected.) Unless he's just bored being out of office...
The same poll showed Shaheen easily beating two other Republicans, including a potential return engagement from Scott Brown, who to me resembles a political one hit wonder forever trying to milk his single moment in the sun.
Youngkin is questionable as a Senate candidate running in the 2026 midterms, which are likely going to be unpopular for the GOP in VA where Trump barely made an inch of improvement in his margin of loss back in 2024 vs. in 2016.
Warner is already going to have the advantage by being on the federal workers' side, which we have no doubt he will be. Youngkin is doing nothing to fight for them, is already supporting Lt. Governor Winsome Earle-Sears' gubernatorial bid even while she's doing the same and neither one of them are even changing their agenda in a state where federal workers make up a substantial portion of the population.
Youngkin has a record as governor now whereas he did not back in 2021 when running against former Governor Terry McAuliffe and winning by just 1.94% points during President Biden's first year. Also, he just commuted a police officer's sentence over killing an unarmed man who shoplifted at Tyson's Corner Center. Criminal justice reform advocates are going to have a field day over this.
https://www.12onyourside.com/2025/03/03/governor-youngkin-commutes-former-fairfax-police-officers-sentence/
Also, pardon my French, but who the heck is Praecones? Maybe if this was UNH, Emerson or Quinnipiac and we were actually less than a year into election season. But this? The pollster is absolutely a no name, C ranked and too much time before the election without much indication that Sununu is even gonna run yet. Garbage pile.
Sherrod Brown is laying down law on X and in his New Republic article.
If he doesn't run for office in 2026 in Ohio he may have Pres or Vice Pres in his sights.
https://x.com/SherrodBrown/status/1896638319091716347?t=FG6X4icW1PcSew8-GmGegQ&s=19
He should run for the senate seat.
I've come around to your position here, and think you are 100% right. He'd be a great Vivek foil, without Trump on the ballot. Still has fire in the belly, for sure.
Whom would and could we run for Governor though?
Dr. Acton seems fine (if not overwhelmingly great), and Governor is less important given how insane the legislative margins are in OH.
He turns 76 in November 2028, which may be pushing it regarding President or VP; after Biden Democratic voters may be more wary of age. But it would be nice to see him run for Senator again or Governor, if that's how he wants to help reorient the Democratic party toward being a "workers party", which he makes a strong case for in the article, and improve its status in states like Ohio.
Brown does note that becoming a workers' party will take a long time; we can't just declare mission accomplished if we win in 2026 or 2028, especially if it's largely with the same coalition that we've relied on recently augmented by some swing voters who soured on Trump and the GOP.
The North American trade War that is happening for literally zero reason kicks off tomorrow, officially. Equity markets have slid sharply on this news.
I sincerely wonder when the masters of the universe start trying to get GOPers in Congress to intervene with the White House because we’re about to speedrun an economic crisis at this rate
(cross-posting from today's Bulwark/JVL thread, it fits here):
What if even wrecking the economy (contraction/recession) is part of the plan? Shrink the pool of resources available, get double digit unemployment...and people really WILL start shooting one another to get theirs.
They (I think) know they need that level of societal breakdown to "solve" the 52/48 problem (ie, no matter how good "our" candidate, or how bad "theirs" is - it's almost impossible for a modern, national election to be more overwhelming than 52-48).
In the Trump view, King of a heap of ashes beats "lame duck" of a thriving democracy. And I think Vance represents the cohort that wants a new Dark Age, to undo the Enlightenment. This is how you get it.
I’m not entirely closed to such thoughts. That said, I think Occam’s razor suggests that Trump really actually does not understand tariffs and really truly believes all the incorrect things he says about them, up to and including his view that they exclusively harm other countries as a punitive tool.
Thanks. I needed talking off the ledge a bit. It's hard when so many foundational pillars of trust have crumbled.
I’d note that Musk isn’t pro-tariff, by all accounts, nor are most of the other SV edgelords usually associated with accelerationist thought. So while there’s some people in power who believe some pretty grim out-there stuff, I do think that’s it’s own thing separate from tariffs, which Trump has had a boner for since the 80s
There's definitely some folks, mainly the techno-fascists, that would welcome that, but the majority of very rich people don't want to roll the dice on major financial instability and recession to usher in some new feudalist age . . .they do great in the current system!
What's transpiring will be a classic "old money vs new money" battle and while they've taken some major licks in the Trump era, I think one should never count out old money's ultimate power.
There’s a reason why old money becomes old money and it’s not by fucking with the system that made them rich.
Powerful incumbents, whether institutional or personal, will fight to the death to preserve their power, influence and wealth. Musk in particular imo is playing with fire pissing off some very, very powerful constituencies
I wonder whether we are seeing a sort of civil war within the plutocracy? On one side, we have billionaires who favor the traditional "Shear the Sheep" model, and, on the other, billionaires who embrace the "Skin the Sheep" model.
To some extent, sure. I think that will only get more pointed even if we never quite see it ourselves
I'm paraphrasing something I read on a Reddit economic thread (the Reddit economic threads are more intelligent than I would have thought) last week - the economic train has derailed, the kaboose just doesn't know it yet
We're going to see if the ultra-wealthy care more about their ideology or their money. It's long been assumed that they picked the ideology for the sake of money. What we've been seeing these past few years would suggest there's a good number of them that are OK being not as insanely wealthy if it means their political views are ascendant.
I'm also at the point where I'm assuming the worst from everyone on the right half of politics right now, so maybe I'm too pessimistic about them.
Except... This level of inequality is unsustainable and their views are extremely unpopular at a national level. What happens when you force that on people AND give them nothing left to lose?
Shit like Luigi happens. And as much as I think the transformation of his vigilantism into a populist meme is pretty gross, I don’t think he’ll be the last case
There was a reason the French Revolution took place.
Exactly my point
Which will cause a lot of collateral damage. I joke all the time about guillotines and Luigi and stuff but the end game of all of that is pretty terrifying.
Conditions were many magnitudes worse in France. Like it makes living as a regular citizen in the USSR look like a life of plenty in comparison.
I never accused them of being smart or caring.
With the level of power that modern states can wield it's not inconceivable that the ultra-wealthy could more or less survive complete social upheaval in a way that they could not in 18th century France. I doubt they're looking at things through that lens though.
People, including the wealthy, largely do not consider the potential for disaster in their decision making.
If by unsustainable you mean that there will be working class revolt against the rich when the cuts and inflation set in, think of another possibility--the working class turns on itself, as the wealthy want them to. Trump/Musk/Miller will claim that minorities are to blame for everything, and it will pit the WWC against every other working class group. What MAGA wants, more than anything, is to preserve whiteness, and T/M/M will give it to them, at least rhetorically.
I think, to a degree, the ultra wealthy are planning on buying assets cheap if/when everything falls apart.
Such as federally owned land and buildings, oil drilling rights and mineral extraction rights, which Trump is eager to sell off in return for favors.
Grudgingly Emerson has been fairly accurate as of late so I'll take it. How far ahead should we be for "wave" territory?
Generic Ballot poll
Democrats 44% (+3)
Republicans 41%
Emerson #B - 1000 RV - 3/3
7?
What was 2024?
Nominally R+3. In reality Somewhere R+2, if you count the uncontested races. D districts generally have more drop-offs than R districts, besides the crossovers for incumbents and Trump only votes. So slightly higher than the presidential line R+1.5
A GCB with both parties under 45 isn't really telling you much.
Polling is in two different worlds right now, with the big difference being Trump disapproval. Pew, Gallup, Marist, CNN, Reuters all have it over 50%, whereas RMG, Yougov, MC, Tipps, Emerson have it under 50%. Most polling now shows him floating in the 44-48% approval range even when he's net up.
Actions in the next month will tell a lot.
A 3 point lead isn’t a wave, but it’s enough for a rebound. That probably gets us the House, and hold serve or better in the Senate and states.
Three point advantage isn't a wave, but we're also only 1.5 months in. 538 has Biden's approvals at ~+15 in early March of his first year. I suspect a poll of the GCB at that point might have even favored us. Yet, if it weren't for the Dobb's decision I suspect 2022 would have looked like another round of 2010 for us.
We have time for the numbers to get to where we need them. If they will is a question we do not know yet, but we can certainly hope so.
Today’s NPR/Marist Poll (taken before Friday’s Oval Office “meeting”) found that 37% think the U.S. is not giving Ukraine enough support in the war with Russia, 34% think we are giving too much and 28% say we are giving the right amount of support. In short, 65% say the US should give the same or more to Ukraine, not less.
Trump’s job approval: 45% approve; 49% disapprove
56% of Americans, including 65% of independents, think Trump has been rushing to make changes without considering the impact.
https://maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/the-state-of-the-union-march-2025/
CNN ran a poll Friday that found that 4% of those asked thought the Oval Office blowup was Z’s fault and the majority blamed Vance. Those are awful numbers.
So are the issues polled in this poll; that 65% figure is rough
I think those are great numbers, and very reassuring. But I guess it depends on one’s perspective. Certainly awful for JD and Agent Orange.
vance was obviously assigned the job as hatchet man...it seemed so scripted and dumpf waited to jump in and finish things off
I just analyzed Trump's 2024 presidential election results comparatively towards his 2016 presidential election results specifically to aim at when he won the presidential election in each year.
Here's where he won or lost by single digits.
AZ - Won by 5.5% points, an improvement of 2% points vs. back in 2016 where he won by 3.5% points.
GA - Won by 2.2% points, a drop of 2.9% points vs back in 2016 where he won by 5.1% points.
ME - Lost by 6.9% points, a drop of 4% vs back in 2016 where he lost by 2.9% points.
MI - Won by 1.4% points, an improvement of 1.1% points vs. back in 2016 where he won by 0.3% points.
MN - Lost by 4.2% points, a drop of 2.7% points vs back in 2016 where he lost by 1.5% points.
NC - Win by 3.3% points, an drop of 0.3% points vs back in 2016 where he won the state by 3.6% points.
NH - Lost by 2.8% points, a drop of 2.5% points vs back in 2016 where he lost by 0.3% points.
NJ - Lost by 5.9% points, an improvement of 8.1% points vs back in 2016 where he lost by 14% points.
NM - Lost by 6.1% points, an improvement of 2.2% points vs back in 2016 where he lost by 8.3% points.
NV - Won by 3.1% points, flipping the state red for the first time in all of the presidential elections he's faced. He lost 2.4% in his he state back in 2016.
PA - Won by 1.8% points, an improvement of 1.1% points vs back in 2016 where he won by 0.7% points.
VA - Lost by 5.7% points, a drop of 0.3% points vs back in 2016 where he lost by 5.4% points.
WI - Won by 0.9% points, an improvement of 0.2% points vs back in 2016 where he won by 0.7% points.
https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/results/president?election-data-id=2024-PG&election-painting-mode=projection-with-lead&filter-key-races=false&filter-flipped=false&filter-remaining=false
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/president
You have NH's 2016 results flipped. Trump lost NH in 2016. Very narrowly, but still.
I think it would be interesting to also compare to the shift in popular vote. He went from losing that by 2.1 points to winning by 1.5 points, a net shift of 3.8 points. Any statewide shift that is less than that is a net move towards us relative to the nation, and any statewide shift that is more than that is a net move away from us relative to the nation.
Highlights NV as easily the most troubling result in a competitive state. Especially in conjunction with us losing the 2022 gubernatorial election there.
Thanks for the heads up although mentioning Trump won NH was done by accident. Nevertheless, I re-edited it. Once again, the GOP has not won NH at the presidential level since 2000. Not gonna happen in 2028 at this point as long as Trump and Musk continue to be a liability for the GOP.
Yes, NV has become a troubling, challenging state even while it's a relief that Senators Catherine Cortez-Masto and Jacky Rosen won re-election by the nail biter margin that they did. I believe the pandemic and post-pandemic environment were what accelerated the state to move more to the right than it has been before. Governor Steve Sisolak lost re-election in 2022 and grew increasingly unpopular because of the casinos shutting down due to COVID-19 redirections. Not a good sign when back in 2022 Democrats maintained control of the Governor’s mansion in MI, PA and WI.
As for states like GA and NC, they represent increasing demographics that show they are competitive and have opportunities for electing Democrats. The fact that Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock got elected in the Senate runoff elections in January 2020 and Warnock winning re-election is a success. Same with Roy Cooper being a two-term Governor in North Carolina along with Josh Stein winning the gubernatorial race to replace him even while at the presidential level it's much harder.
He didn’t win Minnesota
Lost MN by more in 2024 than he did in 2016.
Re-edited.
Today on FS1/Fox Sports Radio’s The Herd With Colin Cowherd, Jimmy Johnson announced his retirement from NFL on Fox coverage. Johnson was one of the Fox NFL Sunday originals, along with the still-remaining Howie Long and Terry Bradshaw.
https://awfulannouncing.com/nfl/jimmy-johnson-announces-retirement-from-fox.html