This article makes an interesting point: "According to CBC's Poll Tracker, the Liberals led by Carney are leading with 37.7 per cent, compared to Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives who stand just below that at 37.4 per cent support. [However,] the Liberal voter base is spread more evenly across the country, which gives them a distinct advantage in the number of seats they could win over the Conservatives who have concentrated support in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
"The CBC Poll Tracker suggests that if a vote were to take place now, the Liberals could secure 176 seats to the Conservatives 133. (The Canadian Parliament has a total of 443 seats: 338 in the House of Commons and 105 in the Senate."
(The article does not address the Liberals’ chance of building a ruling coalition.)
176 would give it a majority. But yes, because so much of the Conservative vote is in Alberta and Saskatchewan, its vote is very inefficient. That's why even though the Conservatives received more votes in 2021, the Liberals had more seats.
Certainly an open question is how much Trump, with his insane statements and downright hostile policies against our northern neighbor, will unwittingly aid and abet Canada’s Liberals.
It's like the Speaker of the House is also the head of the executive. The upper house in Canada is just a royal relic and a figurehead body.
One thing I like about Parliamentary system is that it doesn't have deadlocks. If you have the leader of a party promise Universal Health Care and he wins a majority in the elections. His policies and mandate will surely be passed. You vote for the legislative to elect the executive there. The Cabinet ministers are also legislators so Bills have a smoother course.
Obviously, it has its own cons and the Presidential system also has its own pros as seen by us.
The Conservative party is the only major party on the right while the left leaning vote is divided between the Liberal Party, the New Democrats, the Quebec Block and the Greens. Also the Conservative party wins much of Alberta and Saskatchewan by 30-40%. Therefore, for the Conservatives to get a majority they need to win the popular vote by a few points nationwide. They also face the problem that no other parties are a natural coalition partner, while the Liberals usually align with the New Democrats, the Quebec Block and the Greens.
. How Trump Brought a Divided Canada Together – Against Him
"It is perhaps the ultimate demonstration of Trump’s unmitigated ignorance that he may have ruined the prospects of the most Trumpian politician in Canadian history. Trump’s unjustified and inexcusable attack on Canada’s sovereignty has reversed the very political trends that have developed in Canada over the last several years that might have been to his advantage."
Right but speaking by principle, members of the jury should ideally be impartial when it comes to analyzing evidence.
Defamation is serious legal territory for any one or organization to be embroiled in. I don't know what the evidence was that was put against Greenpeace but it has also been embroiled in these legal battles before.
Basically the same pattern we saw in November. Dane and Milwaukee pretty good, outstate low, WOW counties going nuts. It's what I'd expect to see pretty much regardless of outcome.
David Shor published an analysis that Trump would have won by 5 points if every registered voter turned out. Dems have done great recently in super low turnout specials.
Very hard to tell what exact turnout number is best for dems. Though lower overall is likely better.
Yep. My question was directed to Jonathan. NBC's final poll--which came as close as any media poll to nailing it--also showed that low-propensity voters were overwhelmingly leaning Trump. Voters whose likelihood to vote ranked at 9 or 10 were tied in that poll. Voters whose likelihood to vote was ranked at 7 or 8 were going Harris +2. And the voters who were at 6 or less for likelihood to vote supported Trump +16. Shor's findings were absolutely consistent with that.
Kansas Republicans are intent on duplicating the situation in Wisconsin - seats on the Supreme Court determined by highly partisan races in which outsiders such as Musk can pour unlimited funds.
Let's stop with the purity tests. Pappas vs Goodlander in terms of actual voting along party lines would be virtually indistinguishable. You know that.
Not too long ago you were tearing Goodlander apart in her primary because she's married to Jake Sullivan and a "Washington insider."
I doubt there would be much of any distinction between them in practice. They're both young and would likely to be the left of our current NH senators and close to the middle of our senate caucus. Maybe a bit like Tim Kaine or so.
Pappas should be the stronger candidate and Goodlander would pay a voter penalty for leaving the house after only a single term. Also wouldn't like the prospect of us having three open seats in NH next year, even if the expected political environment should insulate us somewhat.
It won't happen but I'd rather see Goodlander primary Hassan in 2028, with Pappas running this year.
This is what I'm saying. Name one vote she took besides the shutdown one in her Senate career that you had an issue with that means we need to primary her.
And whenever republicans pass something with 5-10 democratic votes, Hassan and Shaheen are consistently in that group of 5-10.
It's not defended by them being in a swing state, either: Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, and Nevada are all states much to the right of NH but the democratic senators from those states typically end up to the left of Hassan and Shaheen.
With Manchin and Sinema gone, these two are in the running to be some of our most conservative senators, despite being from a meaningfully bluer state than 20-30% of our caucus.
I'm still in awe of her defeat of Tommy Thompson that year. Yes, it was a different time (although still pretty damn polarized), but even I didn't think she'd be able to pull it off against the sTaTe iNsTiTuTiOn Thompson.
I’ve been following politics with the Davids for a long time and that is probably the most confusing race I’ve ever seen. Thompson ran for POTUS and then turned around and got his ass kicked by an uber liberal lesbian from Madison. I really don’t get how that race got away him from so fast.
Obama also kicked some ass in WI that year but ticket splitting was still a thing back then.
A lesbian senator with surprisingly progressive credentials. She was among the 14 senators that cosponsored the Medicare for All Act in 2022, alongside Bernie Sanders.
Did they not poll Johnson? Certainly a choice to poll Jeffries but not the literal speaker of the house.
Looks about par for the course for the US.
Democrats are more willing to voice displeasure with our leaders, especially when we lose, so our leaders are all unpopular. Schumer in particular stepped in it just last week, so he's extra hated right now. Republicans are paying the in-power tax, where everyone slowly increases their dislike of the party in power, so they're all unpopular too. They intentionally pissed away their honeymoon period, so while it would normally be impressive at how it ended right away, it's not surprising in light of their conduct.
Buttigieg gets to be the least disliked because he's really really good on TV and isn't in power. He cannot be blamed for anything and gets to present well. A good combo to acquire some popularity, although the durability of that popularity is another matter.
My guess is that Johnson (Boris) is more popular than Johnson (Mike). On the other hand, if the propaganda continues, Johnson (LBJ) will soon be blamed for the Civil Rights Act and other "DEI legislation".
Sigh!
(On the other hand, nobody has heard of Caryn Johnson, aka Whoopi Goldberg.)
Not surprising....given the state of affairs here recently why would any pol have a postive rating nationally. At least half the people will always hate you.
Just out of curiosity, what appeal does Zelenskyy have as Ukraine PM besides fighting against Russia that makes his approval ratings spike?
We know he’s Jewish and previously a comedian but i am not familiar with anything else he’s done as a politician. The Russia-Ukraine war seems to overshadow everything.
I will say that I like the trend of conservatives nominating previous statewide losers for Wisconsin Supreme Court seats (Dan Kelly was nominated in 2023 after losing bigly as an incumbent in 2020, and Schimel was narrowly defeated for a second term as state AG in 2018).
This part makes no sense: "Schimel heard his wife's request and ran for statewide office. “That’s why she said she gave me permission to run, which changed my plan, because I wasn’t planning to run,” "
So this guy is treating his family like crap partially because he's taking his work home . . and so instead of spending more time with the family and getting help, his wife is basically "go run for political office"? Unless she just wanted him away from the house as much as possible . . .anyway you crack it, it doesn't make him look good.
Indeed. I'm actually stumped as to why they even released the poll. To get donors? maybe, but it's Musk's own group; funding clearly isn't the problem.
More evidence that they only thing standing in the way of a dictatorship is a thin black robe:
A federal judge in Virginia has ordered the U.S. government not to deport a Georgetown University academic pending further litigation. The scholar, Badar Khan Suri, an Indian citizen, was detained Monday night, his lawyer said. The Homeland Security Department said he was spreading Hamas propaganda, but did not provide evidence to support that claim, and he has not been charged with a crime.
A federal judge has just derided as “woefully insufficient” efforts today by the Trump administration to provide him with flight data about planes of Venezuelan immigrants that officials sent to El Salvador last weekend. The judge, James E. Boasberg, had set a deadline of noon today for the Justice Department to give him details about when the planes took off, left U.S. airspace and landed. But after the department sent him a sealed filing largely repeating information it had already provided, the judge ordered the department to explain to him in clear terms why the administration’s actions had not violated his original order from Saturday pausing the deportation flights.
A federal judge in Maryland temporarily blocked top officials at the Social Security Administration from granting Elon Musk and his team access to the agency’s data systems. The order further required anyone on Musk’s team who had already sifted through sensitive financial data to “disgorge and delete” any of that material in their possession.
Lawyers representing the State Department said in a filing that they expected to finish paying a group of aid organizations that had their funding frozen by U.S.A.I.D., by Friday, as a judge had ordered. The agency said that by April 29 it would pay out the rest of the roughly $670 million owed to other groups not involved in the lawsuit for work they completed before mid-February.
.I still don't get how what happened at U.S. A.I.D (and now Education) isn't clearly impoundment of congressionally appropriated dollars. Seems like judges don't want to touch that until the Comptroller General weighs in (who seems to be taking their sweet time)?
Maybe the Comptroller doesn't want to get fired before his 15 year term is up so is waiting to see what happens? Only Congress can shutter statutory departments and organizations like USAID and DoEd. So they still exist but they are trying to bring their activity as close to 0 as possible (which is also illegal impoundment of funds). I don't get why they turned on USAID so abruptly. Maybe Musk wants to reignite HIV/AIDS to scourge subsharan Africa as revenge for turning the screws on the Apartheid Government of his homeland. I'm not even joking.
Yeah the right wing has always used foreign aid as a scapegoat but there's some backstory to Musk's seemingly personal U.S.A.I.D. vendetta that we may not fully know until years from now.
No worries – Speaker Mike Johnson is on this! Surely he is about to lodge a vociferous bipartisan condemnation of Trump usurping power that rightfully resides in the United States Congress.
Seriously though, can anyone explain to me why Democrats don't try to stop the growth of autonomous vehicles? It's bad policy and terrible politics. Tech oligarchs out here trying to run us over with death machines and put forces out of work and no political has a freaking thing to say about it.
In the past I'd say they don't want to alienate big tech and be seen as anti-future and that may still be the case to some degree but seems less of a risk now. If/when more stories of self driving cars running people down come out we'll probably see more active resistance.
not disagreeing with you; but i have not heard 1 person mention this as an issue(and i am currently helping Josh Weil in Florida); it is not an issue atm
In recent years, former District 2 Supervisor in San Francisco, Aaron Peskin, was working with the Board of Supervisors to regulate disruptive technology companies so they would follow public safety procedures accordingly. No outright bans though.
As far as autonomous vehicles are concerned, they are not very popular right now and are going to take a LONG time before the average consumer is going to consider them. Waymo may be influential in San Francisco but it also creates major liabilities for first responders and the issues are not being corrected by Waymo so they don't happen again.
What's everyone's ratings for the following Senate races?
FYI, I know a bunch of these races like ID and TN are Safe Republican but I wanted to shoot them out here anyway as they all have incumbent GOP Senators up for re-election in 2026:
If I'm giving a rating I do so under the assumption that the tilt of the year is unknown beyond the basics. Basics like that parties tend to suffer during midterms when they hold the presidency.
- Maine I'm assuming we will get a top quality candidate; if we do not then it moves towards republicans.
- Alaska I'm assuming we won't get a quality candidate, but open to the possibility that we get surprised again.
- Iowa is in Likely R not because I'm particularly optimistic for it but because the recent special elections have me too uncertain to think it merits the confidence of Safe R. But I think it will be moved over to Safe R as the cycle gets closer to election day next year.
- Ohio I think could move down to Lean R with Brown as our candidate, but I'm not 100% convinced either.
Texas and North Carolina I think stay where they are regardless. There's always an outside chance the cycle goes enough in our favor for us to get a surprise win out of Texas but it's remote. North Carolina keeps coming up just short for us but I think there's enough potential there to merit a tossup/tilt hybrid.
I suspect many will want to move Florida a tier or two towards us, but I've lost all confidence in the state and do not believe it is winnable for us even in a wave year.
IA-SEN - Likely Republican is fine for right now although as of right now I don't see any trajectory that would make it be a Safe Republican.
Just by doing a quick Google Search, I cannot find any polling data that shows anything about a hypothetical matchup between Ernst and another prospective Democratic Senate Candidate. Still very early in the race.
However, we do know that Ernst won re-election by a smaller margin than her original Senate election back in 2014. Any other factors though are contingent on the Democratic Senate Candidate.
That's all reasonable and feeds into my thinking for putting it in Likely instead of Safe at present.
Ultimately I'm skeptical that Iowa comes home enough for us. Ernst seems a bit weaker than neutral for Iowa, but the state has also trended into being a double-digit loss for us. It takes a lot of things going right for us for it to work out. It doesn't take all that many things going wrong for us for the state to go off the table. I think it's more likely than not that it ends up just outside the realm of viability for election day, where Ernst has an unimpressive but undeniable win.
I'd love for the seat to be in play and to move to the lean category over the next 18 months.
Democrats are certainly going to need a robust GOTV and turnout machine in IA if they want to make the IA Senate race closer than expected. Joni Ernst is also not Chuck Grassley who has far more seniority than she does and has been a notoriously difficult incumbent to unseat.
As for the ME Senate Race, as long as the DSCC stays out of involvement of the race in the primary that would be helpful. We don’t want another repeat of 2020 where the DSCC endorsed Sara Gideon early on. Considering the 2020 election results though, I don’t think Susan Collins will win by double digit margins like she used to but if she ends up winning re-election, it won’t be a surprise.
As expected, Canadians to go to the polls on April 28 or May 5.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carney-to-call-election-this-sunday-1.7488444
This article makes an interesting point: "According to CBC's Poll Tracker, the Liberals led by Carney are leading with 37.7 per cent, compared to Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives who stand just below that at 37.4 per cent support. [However,] the Liberal voter base is spread more evenly across the country, which gives them a distinct advantage in the number of seats they could win over the Conservatives who have concentrated support in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
"The CBC Poll Tracker suggests that if a vote were to take place now, the Liberals could secure 176 seats to the Conservatives 133. (The Canadian Parliament has a total of 443 seats: 338 in the House of Commons and 105 in the Senate."
(The article does not address the Liberals’ chance of building a ruling coalition.)
176 would give it a majority. But yes, because so much of the Conservative vote is in Alberta and Saskatchewan, its vote is very inefficient. That's why even though the Conservatives received more votes in 2021, the Liberals had more seats.
I thought that was 176 of 443 – not of 338?
Certainly an open question is how much Trump, with his insane statements and downright hostile policies against our northern neighbor, will unwittingly aid and abet Canada’s Liberals.
No. The Senate is appointed and basically a figurehead.
Ah, thanks for clarifying. So nothing like the bicameral American Congress? Appointed by whom?
It's like the Speaker of the House is also the head of the executive. The upper house in Canada is just a royal relic and a figurehead body.
One thing I like about Parliamentary system is that it doesn't have deadlocks. If you have the leader of a party promise Universal Health Care and he wins a majority in the elections. His policies and mandate will surely be passed. You vote for the legislative to elect the executive there. The Cabinet ministers are also legislators so Bills have a smoother course.
Obviously, it has its own cons and the Presidential system also has its own pros as seen by us.
By the Governor General at the recommendation of the prime minister.
The Conservative party is the only major party on the right while the left leaning vote is divided between the Liberal Party, the New Democrats, the Quebec Block and the Greens. Also the Conservative party wins much of Alberta and Saskatchewan by 30-40%. Therefore, for the Conservatives to get a majority they need to win the popular vote by a few points nationwide. They also face the problem that no other parties are a natural coalition partner, while the Liberals usually align with the New Democrats, the Quebec Block and the Greens.
. How Trump Brought a Divided Canada Together – Against Him
"It is perhaps the ultimate demonstration of Trump’s unmitigated ignorance that he may have ruined the prospects of the most Trumpian politician in Canadian history. Trump’s unjustified and inexcusable attack on Canada’s sovereignty has reversed the very political trends that have developed in Canada over the last several years that might have been to his advantage."
– New Republic, 20 March 2025
https://newrepublic.com/article/192484/trump-killed-canadian-right-maga-ambitions
This election the House will have 343 seats, 172 being a majority.
Surreal:
North Dakota jury says Greenpeace must pay $660m over Dakota pipeline protests.
The non-profit, which will appeal the decision, says lawsuits like this are aimed at ‘destroying the right to peaceful protest’.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/greenpeace-lawsuit-energy-transfer-dakota-pipeline
Who are these "jurists?"
It's North Dakota, conservative oil country. I don't think half of them even believe in climate change
People who don't believe in climate change shouldn't be allowed to sit on a jury.
c'mon man
I lived in North Dakota for 3 years. People there are very aware of climate change, mainly because it's caused crop yields there to increase.
Like is this true or sarcasm?
Right but speaking by principle, members of the jury should ideally be impartial when it comes to analyzing evidence.
Defamation is serious legal territory for any one or organization to be embroiled in. I don't know what the evidence was that was put against Greenpeace but it has also been embroiled in these legal battles before.
More WI EV data. Toby says looks good for now https://x.com/TobyMGData/status/1902566823473676563
Basically the same pattern we saw in November. Dane and Milwaukee pretty good, outstate low, WOW counties going nuts. It's what I'd expect to see pretty much regardless of outcome.
Would higher turnout versus 2023 favor Crawford? Anyone have any insight?
considering the current state of play, imo the higher the turnouts the better for us
David Shor published an analysis that Trump would have won by 5 points if every registered voter turned out. Dems have done great recently in super low turnout specials.
Very hard to tell what exact turnout number is best for dems. Though lower overall is likely better.
i dont believe that analysis at all
Why? Because your bias tells you so?
Trump turns out nonregular voters. That fact is by now indisputable no matter how much you don't want to hear it.
since i have zero bias, i have zero idea what you are talking about; but, i think that analysis is clearly flawed
just because YOU state something doesnt make it a fact; just sayin
Based on what?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/23/us/politics/trump-turning-point-arizona-2024-election.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/presidential-polls-2024-battleground-tracker/
https://abcnews.go.com/538/vote-back-trump/story?id=109090626
https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/politics/elections/2025/02/25/10xvotes-friends-relatives-get-out-conservative-vote/80219807007/
Yep. My question was directed to Jonathan. NBC's final poll--which came as close as any media poll to nailing it--also showed that low-propensity voters were overwhelmingly leaning Trump. Voters whose likelihood to vote ranked at 9 or 10 were tied in that poll. Voters whose likelihood to vote was ranked at 7 or 8 were going Harris +2. And the voters who were at 6 or less for likelihood to vote supported Trump +16. Shor's findings were absolutely consistent with that.
In Wisconsin?
Kansas Republicans are intent on duplicating the situation in Wisconsin - seats on the Supreme Court determined by highly partisan races in which outsiders such as Musk can pour unlimited funds.
in wisconsin, imo it is going to backfire bigly
kinda hoping Goodlander defers to Pappas
I'd reverse it.
why? just curious
Goodlander is more progressive
been in the House less than 3 months though; but now i understand your view
Let's stop with the purity tests. Pappas vs Goodlander in terms of actual voting along party lines would be virtually indistinguishable. You know that.
Not too long ago you were tearing Goodlander apart in her primary because she's married to Jake Sullivan and a "Washington insider."
I did? I don’t recall that. And it’s not a “purity test” to prefer one candidate over another in a primary. That’s why we have primaries.
i prefer Pappas but it is just a preference for the senior officeholder..nothing against Goodlander at all
I doubt there would be much of any distinction between them in practice. They're both young and would likely to be the left of our current NH senators and close to the middle of our senate caucus. Maybe a bit like Tim Kaine or so.
Pappas should be the stronger candidate and Goodlander would pay a voter penalty for leaving the house after only a single term. Also wouldn't like the prospect of us having three open seats in NH next year, even if the expected political environment should insulate us somewhat.
It won't happen but I'd rather see Goodlander primary Hassan in 2028, with Pappas running this year.
Why does Hassan need to be primaried exactly?
This is what I'm saying. Name one vote she took besides the shutdown one in her Senate career that you had an issue with that means we need to primary her.
Voted for the CR just last week.
And whenever republicans pass something with 5-10 democratic votes, Hassan and Shaheen are consistently in that group of 5-10.
It's not defended by them being in a swing state, either: Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, and Nevada are all states much to the right of NH but the democratic senators from those states typically end up to the left of Hassan and Shaheen.
With Manchin and Sinema gone, these two are in the running to be some of our most conservative senators, despite being from a meaningfully bluer state than 20-30% of our caucus.
I would too, because I'm not 100% sure a gay man is electable statewide in New Hampshire.
WI has elected a lesbian to the Senate since 2012 and they are redder, more religious and more rural.
I'm still in awe of her defeat of Tommy Thompson that year. Yes, it was a different time (although still pretty damn polarized), but even I didn't think she'd be able to pull it off against the sTaTe iNsTiTuTiOn Thompson.
I’ve been following politics with the Davids for a long time and that is probably the most confusing race I’ve ever seen. Thompson ran for POTUS and then turned around and got his ass kicked by an uber liberal lesbian from Madison. I really don’t get how that race got away him from so fast.
Obama also kicked some ass in WI that year but ticket splitting was still a thing back then.
it is all about her; she could teach a Master Class in politics
Dems routed in Wisconsin that year, which made 2016 all the more confusing and painful.
A lesbian senator with surprisingly progressive credentials. She was among the 14 senators that cosponsored the Medicare for All Act in 2022, alongside Bernie Sanders.
she is a master politician; Trump won Wisconsin, TWICE
Net Favorables:
Zelenskyy: +12%
Carney: +8%
Trudeau: +5%
Poilievre: +5%
Ford: +4%
Netanyahu: -2%
Buttigieg: -3%
Trump: -5%
Vance: -8%
Jeffries: -9%
Musk: -12%
Newsom: -15%
Schumer: -33%
Putin: -65%
YouGov / March 18, 2025 / n=1618
You know we have a problem with government in America when Buttigieg is the most popular politician in this survey and he has an underwater approval.
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1902467846141038892
Did they not poll Johnson? Certainly a choice to poll Jeffries but not the literal speaker of the house.
Looks about par for the course for the US.
Democrats are more willing to voice displeasure with our leaders, especially when we lose, so our leaders are all unpopular. Schumer in particular stepped in it just last week, so he's extra hated right now. Republicans are paying the in-power tax, where everyone slowly increases their dislike of the party in power, so they're all unpopular too. They intentionally pissed away their honeymoon period, so while it would normally be impressive at how it ended right away, it's not surprising in light of their conduct.
Buttigieg gets to be the least disliked because he's really really good on TV and isn't in power. He cannot be blamed for anything and gets to present well. A good combo to acquire some popularity, although the durability of that popularity is another matter.
Trump is Republican leader but i get your point(Johnson will never run for President)
Zelenskyy, Carney, Trudeau, Poilievre, Ford, Netanyahu, Musk, and Putin also will never run for President, but that is not the point of the poll.
My guess is that Johnson (Boris) is more popular than Johnson (Mike). On the other hand, if the propaganda continues, Johnson (LBJ) will soon be blamed for the Civil Rights Act and other "DEI legislation".
Sigh!
(On the other hand, nobody has heard of Caryn Johnson, aka Whoopi Goldberg.)
This is a poll of the USA?
thats the polling co(Polling USA); i guess the actual pollster is YouGuv
Who is Ford?
Presumably Rob Ford of Ontario?
Not surprising....given the state of affairs here recently why would any pol have a postive rating nationally. At least half the people will always hate you.
The fact that Zelensky is more popular than him must drive Trump batsh*t crazy....
Just out of curiosity, what appeal does Zelenskyy have as Ukraine PM besides fighting against Russia that makes his approval ratings spike?
We know he’s Jewish and previously a comedian but i am not familiar with anything else he’s done as a politician. The Russia-Ukraine war seems to overshadow everything.
Brad Schimel said he "psychologically beat the daylights out of his 8-year-old daughter: https://meidasnews.com/news/brad-schimel-admitted-to-having-psychologically-beat-the-daylights-out-of-his-8-year-old-daughter
Well, he is a schlemiel.
i saw what you did there...
Always the best people
I will say that I like the trend of conservatives nominating previous statewide losers for Wisconsin Supreme Court seats (Dan Kelly was nominated in 2023 after losing bigly as an incumbent in 2020, and Schimel was narrowly defeated for a second term as state AG in 2018).
Wtf
these f--king people..it is always about the hypocrisy with that gang
Some of them clearly ought to remain non-fucking and avoid procreation!
This part makes no sense: "Schimel heard his wife's request and ran for statewide office. “That’s why she said she gave me permission to run, which changed my plan, because I wasn’t planning to run,” "
So this guy is treating his family like crap partially because he's taking his work home . . and so instead of spending more time with the family and getting help, his wife is basically "go run for political office"? Unless she just wanted him away from the house as much as possible . . .anyway you crack it, it doesn't make him look good.
he is a POS and can you imagine a woman that keeps this guy around?she has kids
that should get him a few thousand xtra votes from the deranged Magas...I'm betting Crawford by more than 9.9999%
'Run it up Herman; Leave no doubt'
Susan Crawford: 48%
Brad Schimel: 43%
---
Undecided: 10%
Tyson Group for Elon Musk’s Building America’s Future group (R), 3/17-18
Very good numbers considering the source.
Indeed. I'm actually stumped as to why they even released the poll. To get donors? maybe, but it's Musk's own group; funding clearly isn't the problem.
They may have internals that are even worse.
this is my bet; agreed
Bloomberg is also getting involved too, right? Someone mentioned his PAC spent 60K on pro-Crawford ad production a week or so ago.
Can I get a link to the poll?
Love the result, but 10% undecided this close to the election seems...high...
More evidence that they only thing standing in the way of a dictatorship is a thin black robe:
A federal judge in Virginia has ordered the U.S. government not to deport a Georgetown University academic pending further litigation. The scholar, Badar Khan Suri, an Indian citizen, was detained Monday night, his lawyer said. The Homeland Security Department said he was spreading Hamas propaganda, but did not provide evidence to support that claim, and he has not been charged with a crime.
A federal judge has just derided as “woefully insufficient” efforts today by the Trump administration to provide him with flight data about planes of Venezuelan immigrants that officials sent to El Salvador last weekend. The judge, James E. Boasberg, had set a deadline of noon today for the Justice Department to give him details about when the planes took off, left U.S. airspace and landed. But after the department sent him a sealed filing largely repeating information it had already provided, the judge ordered the department to explain to him in clear terms why the administration’s actions had not violated his original order from Saturday pausing the deportation flights.
A federal judge in Maryland temporarily blocked top officials at the Social Security Administration from granting Elon Musk and his team access to the agency’s data systems. The order further required anyone on Musk’s team who had already sifted through sensitive financial data to “disgorge and delete” any of that material in their possession.
Lawyers representing the State Department said in a filing that they expected to finish paying a group of aid organizations that had their funding frozen by U.S.A.I.D., by Friday, as a judge had ordered. The agency said that by April 29 it would pay out the rest of the roughly $670 million owed to other groups not involved in the lawsuit for work they completed before mid-February.
.I still don't get how what happened at U.S. A.I.D (and now Education) isn't clearly impoundment of congressionally appropriated dollars. Seems like judges don't want to touch that until the Comptroller General weighs in (who seems to be taking their sweet time)?
Maybe the Comptroller doesn't want to get fired before his 15 year term is up so is waiting to see what happens? Only Congress can shutter statutory departments and organizations like USAID and DoEd. So they still exist but they are trying to bring their activity as close to 0 as possible (which is also illegal impoundment of funds). I don't get why they turned on USAID so abruptly. Maybe Musk wants to reignite HIV/AIDS to scourge subsharan Africa as revenge for turning the screws on the Apartheid Government of his homeland. I'm not even joking.
Yeah the right wing has always used foreign aid as a scapegoat but there's some backstory to Musk's seemingly personal U.S.A.I.D. vendetta that we may not fully know until years from now.
No worries – Speaker Mike Johnson is on this! Surely he is about to lodge a vociferous bipartisan condemnation of Trump usurping power that rightfully resides in the United States Congress.
/s
Seriously though, can anyone explain to me why Democrats don't try to stop the growth of autonomous vehicles? It's bad policy and terrible politics. Tech oligarchs out here trying to run us over with death machines and put forces out of work and no political has a freaking thing to say about it.
In the past I'd say they don't want to alienate big tech and be seen as anti-future and that may still be the case to some degree but seems less of a risk now. If/when more stories of self driving cars running people down come out we'll probably see more active resistance.
not disagreeing with you; but i have not heard 1 person mention this as an issue(and i am currently helping Josh Weil in Florida); it is not an issue atm
In recent years, former District 2 Supervisor in San Francisco, Aaron Peskin, was working with the Board of Supervisors to regulate disruptive technology companies so they would follow public safety procedures accordingly. No outright bans though.
As far as autonomous vehicles are concerned, they are not very popular right now and are going to take a LONG time before the average consumer is going to consider them. Waymo may be influential in San Francisco but it also creates major liabilities for first responders and the issues are not being corrected by Waymo so they don't happen again.
What's everyone's ratings for the following Senate races?
FYI, I know a bunch of these races like ID and TN are Safe Republican but I wanted to shoot them out here anyway as they all have incumbent GOP Senators up for re-election in 2026:
AL
AK
AR
FL
IA
ID
LA
KS
KY
ME
MT
MS
NE
NC
OH Special Election
OK
SC
SD
TN
TX
WV
WY
If there are any races I'm missing, share them. I'm mainly looking to discuss Senate races where the GOP is the incumbent party holding the seats.
If I'm giving a rating I do so under the assumption that the tilt of the year is unknown beyond the basics. Basics like that parties tend to suffer during midterms when they hold the presidency.
Safe R: AL, AR, FL, ID, LA, KS, KY, MT, MS, NE, OK, SC, SD, TN, WV, WY
Likely R: AK, IA, OH-Special, TX
Tossup/Tilt R: NC, ME
Everything outside of Safe R has asterisks.
- Maine I'm assuming we will get a top quality candidate; if we do not then it moves towards republicans.
- Alaska I'm assuming we won't get a quality candidate, but open to the possibility that we get surprised again.
- Iowa is in Likely R not because I'm particularly optimistic for it but because the recent special elections have me too uncertain to think it merits the confidence of Safe R. But I think it will be moved over to Safe R as the cycle gets closer to election day next year.
- Ohio I think could move down to Lean R with Brown as our candidate, but I'm not 100% convinced either.
Texas and North Carolina I think stay where they are regardless. There's always an outside chance the cycle goes enough in our favor for us to get a surprise win out of Texas but it's remote. North Carolina keeps coming up just short for us but I think there's enough potential there to merit a tossup/tilt hybrid.
I suspect many will want to move Florida a tier or two towards us, but I've lost all confidence in the state and do not believe it is winnable for us even in a wave year.
you have way to many Safe R imo
IA-SEN - Likely Republican is fine for right now although as of right now I don't see any trajectory that would make it be a Safe Republican.
Just by doing a quick Google Search, I cannot find any polling data that shows anything about a hypothetical matchup between Ernst and another prospective Democratic Senate Candidate. Still very early in the race.
However, we do know that Ernst won re-election by a smaller margin than her original Senate election back in 2014. Any other factors though are contingent on the Democratic Senate Candidate.
That's all reasonable and feeds into my thinking for putting it in Likely instead of Safe at present.
Ultimately I'm skeptical that Iowa comes home enough for us. Ernst seems a bit weaker than neutral for Iowa, but the state has also trended into being a double-digit loss for us. It takes a lot of things going right for us for it to work out. It doesn't take all that many things going wrong for us for the state to go off the table. I think it's more likely than not that it ends up just outside the realm of viability for election day, where Ernst has an unimpressive but undeniable win.
I'd love for the seat to be in play and to move to the lean category over the next 18 months.
Democrats are certainly going to need a robust GOTV and turnout machine in IA if they want to make the IA Senate race closer than expected. Joni Ernst is also not Chuck Grassley who has far more seniority than she does and has been a notoriously difficult incumbent to unseat.
As for the ME Senate Race, as long as the DSCC stays out of involvement of the race in the primary that would be helpful. We don’t want another repeat of 2020 where the DSCC endorsed Sara Gideon early on. Considering the 2020 election results though, I don’t think Susan Collins will win by double digit margins like she used to but if she ends up winning re-election, it won’t be a surprise.
wait and see; Let Trump Be Trump
Based on going by that strategy alone, the ME and NC Senate races are going to be the most directly impacted vs. the rest of the others.
I would say the TX Senate race as well although John Cornyn is not Ted Cruz.
been watching so much basketball; forgot that it is only thursday; hope everyone has a great weekend
Mizzou got knocked out. Sad there.
SIUE got blown out: expected there. Glad they made it in.