The loss of Congressman Raúl Grijalva, a solid progressive who died on March 13th, is tragic. But why should Arizona’s 7th Congressional District suffer lack of representation for more than 6 months? That’s a long disenfranchisement! Why should extremist Speaker Mike Johnson enjoy the advantage of an expanded margin for half a year?
As David & Jeff point out in this morning’s digest, the District’s primary happens on 15 July, and the actual special election won’t take place until 23 September. Are there state laws that prevent Arizona from holding elections sooner? Arizona has a good leader, Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs – can’t she accelerate the process?
The nation sorely needs Congressman Raúl Grijalva’s replacement much sooner!
Does ARS also require elections to be held on the first day of Rosh Hashanah? /S Unfortunately, Arizona has always been tone deaf on stepping on minorities toes, the most notable the years long opposition to the Martin Luther King holiday. That one was solved by the NFL telling the state they would never get the Superbowl unless they changed their tune. They did.
Meanwhile two governors are playing coy about filling a vacant Congressional seat in their states. Democrat Kathy Hochul needs to schedule an election for the red district that Elise Stefanik is vacating, and Republican Greg Abbott needs to schedule an election for the blue district that the late Sylvester Turner represented. The two governors should make a mutual agreement to proceed as soon as possible.
There's no vacancy yet in NY. Stefanik hasn't been confirmed. Hochul is probably waiting until Stefanik resigns. There's no way that Abbott will ever make a mutual pact with a Dem NY Governor; his brand is owning the libs, even if Hochul's politics are not exactly liberal.
But when, inevitably, Stefanik resigns, it is probable that Hochul will want to play possum with her Congressional district the same way Abbott is with Turner's. Meanwhile, voters in both districts lack representation. It is in everyone's best interest to hold special elections ASAP.
Recent history suggests it's a winnable seat for Democrats in the right electoral conditions...just like those Iowa legislative seats that swung away from Republicans by double digits. Foot-dragging on calling a special election has the potential of backfiring.
I'm skeptical. I think the logic is right in comparing to the Iowa special elections, but the larger you scale up the electorate the less we'll benefit. The smaller the electorate the larger the swing from the political environment. A special election for a house seat is going to have multiple times as many voters in it. Consequently I think a special election in the house in Iowa would see more like a 5-10 point swing right now instead of the 20-25 point swings of the legislative seats.
I'd love to be proven wrong but I think NY-21 would need to be more like a 55-45 seat instead of its current 60-40 for this to be particularly plausible.
This might be the first time I've been more pessimistic than you!
All that is required is a GOTV effort that makes Democrats and anti-Trump Independents get off their asses and vote at Scandinavian levels, i.e. a turnout of 80% or more for our side.
Minnesota is quickly running out of viable candidates; im personally not surprised; with a decent Democratic nominee and Trump in office, i am feeling real good about an easy hold
Seems hard to imagine they end up with a top tier candidate at this point, and it’s so early. The state senate is up for re-election this year so none of them can have a freebie chance at the US Senate, which the GOP relies on with finding a candidate. There isn’t much incentive for anyone with a name to run. Even some rich guy would be smart enough to be like, well ahhhh shit, MN is a doom money pit. Outspending the MN DFL is very hard to do and the electoral advantage is damn near impossible to overcome. The last Republican to win MN was in 2006 and that’s bc our candidate blew it in the end stretch.
Republicans have tried and succeeded in this trick in Florida during the 2000s. Floridians used to pass progressive ballot measures so Big Businesses lobbied the GOP and they scapegoated a previously passed idiotic pregnant pig ballot measure to convince Floridians to raise the threshold. This is why abortion and weed measures failed even after getting 55 percent+ of the votes.
even if the 60% threshold is hit; Republican Governors here have repeatedly not implemented the passed Amendments they didnt support(with no court doing their jobs for the voters who passed it)
How do we contend with the fact that voters seem to dislike the Democratic Party at levels not seen in my lifetime? Do we just stay the course and hope that Trump's unpopularity lifts Democrats back into power? Do we acknowledge that maybe building the biggest tent possible by being everything to everyone isn't working?
I do feel it's an issue that will (probably) not matter much for 2026, but could be a problem for 2028. At the same time, I do not know that is something we can do anything about, but to explain that we need to go into why we're so unpopular right now anyway.
I think the core of it is (1) democrats blame the rest of the party that they don't identify with whenever we lose, and (2) everyone that isn't a democrat blames democrats whenever we lose.
After the election, moderates ran around pointing fingers at progressives, progressives ran around pointing fingers at moderates, another chunk of both of them pointed their fingers trans people, some more people pointed in both directions on a banned topic, and seemingly endless more. As the gap between the ends of our tent get bigger and the republican electoral strategy relies more on turning people towards baser human instincts, this problem gets worse.
When democrats lose, the country blames us and hates us for it. Compare the public opinion of Gore, Kerry, HRC, and Harris with the public opinion of McCain and Romney, or how Trump was able to rehabilitate his image after 2020 by simply being out of office.
There is a cultural default in politics that only democrats have agency, so when we lose it's entirely on us, just the same as when we win. People believe it's our fault for not telling voters what was going to happen if republicans won, and when it's explained that we did, then it's our fault for not explaining it better, etc.
I don't know that we can *do* anything about it without first winning. Trying to bind the party together with more cohesive messaging, a different approach to party leadership that feels more responsive to voters (even if it doesn't have any actual changes in policy) could help, but those aren't easy solutions. They're big, multi-cycle efforts that might not even work.
The core of the problem is that the progressive party is gonna be at the tip of the spear of cultural change, and cultural change is almost always wildly unpopular. Whether Democrats choose to lean in to the cultural change despite its unpopularity, resist it, or attempt to ignore the topics completely, Republicans come at it with a united front of righteous opposition. This always gives them a baked-in advantage even at times when the culture wars aren't burning red hot.
This should be particularly concerning for Democrats on the dawn of the AI revolution, which will instigate cultural change at a supercharged degree unlike anything our species has experienced before. Democrats will respond by blaming greedy corporations and calling for an expanded safety net, and they'll probably win a few battles here and there. But Republicans will respond by selling an agenda of cultural "security" for those minimally-to-modestly besieged by AI disruption and pitting them against the "freeloading parasites" who are most besieged by AI disruption. Don't bet against them when they do.
to piggyback off your post here; Republicans are masters playing the 'aggrieved card' imo; i cant tell you how maany times i was confronted by angry voters screaming at me, ' you democrats only care about letting men play womens sports!!'; that happened time and time again(there was absolutely nothing for me in response that these people would actually listen)
Exactly. Find and then identify a new villain. It's their all-purpose angle for every new cultural or economic zeitgeist. And it has a very good batting average of success.
The villains that we Democrats identify don't seem to be very compelling - even when they are freaking evil billionaires. Who should our villain be? As I've sort of argued elsewhere, it should be "business productivity" that puts people out of work. We don't need self driving cars, ai ordering kiosks and crappy apps that do nothing but disconnect is from others. I think Dems need to become "smart luddites". Jobs for people, not robots.
The cultural default around perceived agency is the problem. As long as the media treats the GOP as a static natural reality that never makes its own decisions - and thus must answer for them - the cycle can never break
The agency thing is something that grinds my gears in particular. It isn't something that jumped out at me before I became aware of it, but once I was aware it's presence is everywhere.
If we could singularly change the dialogue to have universal blame for unpopular republican policies being assigned to republicans, that would be a huge shift on this front. Right now (and also 2017-2021) there's a lot of "why didn't democrats stop this?" — never mind that we hold close to zero power in DC right now, aside from the filibuster.
the Democratic voters are the ones who hate the Democrats though; they have no current outlet other than our side because Trump has rejected them; plus, they register NPA for a reason; our side needs a coherent message imo then after Trump alienates them further, our side is the only game in town; Joe Biden levels of turnout would have easily won the election for Harris(our voters stayed on their couch
This isn’t specific to what is going on with Trump being POTUS now or in his first term but just with anyone as POTUS, Democratic or Republican.
Take for instance the Occupy Wall Street movement. It started back in September 2011 but then fizzled out at some point. This was an example of a left wing populist movement that the Democratic Party as a whole failed to capitalize on and instead focused on ensuring President Obama would be re-elected. Sure, Elizabeth Warren unseated Scott Brown in the Senate and along with Bernie Sanders was one of the most sympathetic to the protestors. This particularly pertains to policy.
I agree that focusing on the moment right now while Trump is in office matters.
However, what happens when Trump is out of office? What's the Democratic Party's plan after that? Trump may give Democrats plenty of options for getting elected now but so did Bush Jr in his 2nd term.
I just want this to not just be about winning elections now with Trump as a catalyst.
It goes without saying that the Democratic Party needs to ensure it turns out voters and keeps them engaged so that they have a reason to vote and get involved at every election, not just the most vital ones that are important because of the threat of democracy. Of course, it helps that the Democratic Party agenda should resonate at all levels for those where it can benefit.
Of course, we can make the argument that media and podcasts like Joe Rogan and Theo Von have influence on what goes on with the GOP's agenda. Still, Democrats should beat the GOP at its game or at least be on the same level with them as far as strategy.
NBC and others ask a simple question. Do you approve of the Democratic Party (or the jon that the party does)?
Can you honestly answer yes to this right now? I would answer no and based on the angst here I think a lot of us would. Doesn't mean I'll vote for any GOPs now.
I'd say I approve of the party but not our leadership. Across all issues we're seeing >90% of house dems act appropriately, and about 80% of senate dems the same.
I don't know how many people would make that distinction, or for how many the distinction matters, but I will make it and it does matter for me. Schumer is useless, and Jeffries for some reason is being the decorum police, but they're not the party.
100%. I still believe in the Democratic Party as the vehicle for substantive change in this country. That's why I happen to think that what's needed now more than ever are primary challenges. We make fun of the Republicans and the Tea Party back in 2009 but the reality is... They freaking won. At the end of the day they won, they're getting almost everything they wanted and I just want that for the Democratic Party. People who are willing to fight tooth and nail for what we actually believe in (Though some may disagree on what that is).
Totally fair, and your point about leadership vs party stances is a great point. But pollsters aren't polling DB readers and parties elect their leadership. Schumer has been bad for years. He never learned how to outmaneuver the opposition from Reid or Pelosi (or take lessons in his losses at the hands of McConnell). Let's see how the new DNC chair does. That selection may signal a party that is willing to become functionally better. Like Miguel alludes to below.
Any updates on the NC Supreme Court? I did a quick google search and looks like the next hearing is on the 21st? For the talk this week of falling into fascism I think disqualifying 60,000 votes would be a crimson flag.
"A GOP-Majority Appeals Court Panel Will Hear North Carolina Supreme Court Challenge"
I think the NC Supreme Court will end up doing a recount or call another election. Either Nir or Beard said that according to an election atty, the NCSC can’t just throw out the results, they have to follow state statute.
If they do the unthinkable, it’ll be overturned in federal court.
MN State Senator Justin Eichorn (who I believe has run for Congress at some point?) was arrested for soliciting an underage male prostitute, apparently.
Party of family values, guys! And as always - not a drag Queen.
More seats at the table: The groups want to influence the discussion earlier in the process and a more proactive plan to battle Republicans.
Elevate younger voices in the party, especially Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y). Schumer brought Murphy and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), known for their media savvy, into his leadership team this year.
Go on offense. They want more fight from Schumer — and are pushing him to encourage his members to host town halls in their states' redder areas if the GOP representatives don't. "It is a source of real pain for the Republican Party when veterans and Trump voters in Republican districts have a voice," PCCC co-founder Adam Green told Axios.
Got a poll for NH senate. Tested Sununu and Brown on the republican side, with Goodlander and Pappas on the democratic side.
One of the question sets tested anti-MAGA messaging for the democratic candidates without a corresponding pro question set. That leads me to suspect the poll was done for one of Pappas or Goodlander.
Sounds to me like he knows that he wouldn't win in that scenario. If Bass is recalled, someone else in the LA Democratic Establishment probably gets elected Mayor.
ARIZONA: Why the long wait?
The loss of Congressman Raúl Grijalva, a solid progressive who died on March 13th, is tragic. But why should Arizona’s 7th Congressional District suffer lack of representation for more than 6 months? That’s a long disenfranchisement! Why should extremist Speaker Mike Johnson enjoy the advantage of an expanded margin for half a year?
As David & Jeff point out in this morning’s digest, the District’s primary happens on 15 July, and the actual special election won’t take place until 23 September. Are there state laws that prevent Arizona from holding elections sooner? Arizona has a good leader, Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs – can’t she accelerate the process?
The nation sorely needs Congressman Raúl Grijalva’s replacement much sooner!
could just be the way Arizona works; after all, Hobbs was SOS
The time period is required by statute.
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/16/00222.htm
Thanks for clarification: "the vacancy shall be filled at the next general election."
Does ARS also require elections to be held on the first day of Rosh Hashanah? /S Unfortunately, Arizona has always been tone deaf on stepping on minorities toes, the most notable the years long opposition to the Martin Luther King holiday. That one was solved by the NFL telling the state they would never get the Superbowl unless they changed their tune. They did.
Meanwhile two governors are playing coy about filling a vacant Congressional seat in their states. Democrat Kathy Hochul needs to schedule an election for the red district that Elise Stefanik is vacating, and Republican Greg Abbott needs to schedule an election for the blue district that the late Sylvester Turner represented. The two governors should make a mutual agreement to proceed as soon as possible.
There's no vacancy yet in NY. Stefanik hasn't been confirmed. Hochul is probably waiting until Stefanik resigns. There's no way that Abbott will ever make a mutual pact with a Dem NY Governor; his brand is owning the libs, even if Hochul's politics are not exactly liberal.
But when, inevitably, Stefanik resigns, it is probable that Hochul will want to play possum with her Congressional district the same way Abbott is with Turner's. Meanwhile, voters in both districts lack representation. It is in everyone's best interest to hold special elections ASAP.
Not sure that Hochul is that strategic. But this could be a case where democratic norms run up against Democratic interests.
Recent history suggests it's a winnable seat for Democrats in the right electoral conditions...just like those Iowa legislative seats that swung away from Republicans by double digits. Foot-dragging on calling a special election has the potential of backfiring.
I'm skeptical. I think the logic is right in comparing to the Iowa special elections, but the larger you scale up the electorate the less we'll benefit. The smaller the electorate the larger the swing from the political environment. A special election for a house seat is going to have multiple times as many voters in it. Consequently I think a special election in the house in Iowa would see more like a 5-10 point swing right now instead of the 20-25 point swings of the legislative seats.
I'd love to be proven wrong but I think NY-21 would need to be more like a 55-45 seat instead of its current 60-40 for this to be particularly plausible.
This might be the first time I've been more pessimistic than you!
All that is required is a GOTV effort that makes Democrats and anti-Trump Independents get off their asses and vote at Scandinavian levels, i.e. a turnout of 80% or more for our side.
good post
Minnesota is quickly running out of viable candidates; im personally not surprised; with a decent Democratic nominee and Trump in office, i am feeling real good about an easy hold
Seems hard to imagine they end up with a top tier candidate at this point, and it’s so early. The state senate is up for re-election this year so none of them can have a freebie chance at the US Senate, which the GOP relies on with finding a candidate. There isn’t much incentive for anyone with a name to run. Even some rich guy would be smart enough to be like, well ahhhh shit, MN is a doom money pit. Outspending the MN DFL is very hard to do and the electoral advantage is damn near impossible to overcome. The last Republican to win MN was in 2006 and that’s bc our candidate blew it in the end stretch.
yup; great post; the DSCC can basically just chalk this one up as a W
https://www.axios.com/local/tampa-bay/2024/11/06/florida-60-percent-constitutional-amendments-weed-abortion
https://floridaphoenix.com/2024/11/06/fl-lawmakers-recall-what-led-to-60-threshold-to-pass-constitutional-amendments/
Republicans have tried and succeeded in this trick in Florida during the 2000s. Floridians used to pass progressive ballot measures so Big Businesses lobbied the GOP and they scapegoated a previously passed idiotic pregnant pig ballot measure to convince Floridians to raise the threshold. This is why abortion and weed measures failed even after getting 55 percent+ of the votes.
even if the 60% threshold is hit; Republican Governors here have repeatedly not implemented the passed Amendments they didnt support(with no court doing their jobs for the voters who passed it)
How do we contend with the fact that voters seem to dislike the Democratic Party at levels not seen in my lifetime? Do we just stay the course and hope that Trump's unpopularity lifts Democrats back into power? Do we acknowledge that maybe building the biggest tent possible by being everything to everyone isn't working?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/democratic-party-hits-new-polling-low-voters-want-fight-trump-harder-rcna196161
I do feel it's an issue that will (probably) not matter much for 2026, but could be a problem for 2028. At the same time, I do not know that is something we can do anything about, but to explain that we need to go into why we're so unpopular right now anyway.
I think the core of it is (1) democrats blame the rest of the party that they don't identify with whenever we lose, and (2) everyone that isn't a democrat blames democrats whenever we lose.
After the election, moderates ran around pointing fingers at progressives, progressives ran around pointing fingers at moderates, another chunk of both of them pointed their fingers trans people, some more people pointed in both directions on a banned topic, and seemingly endless more. As the gap between the ends of our tent get bigger and the republican electoral strategy relies more on turning people towards baser human instincts, this problem gets worse.
When democrats lose, the country blames us and hates us for it. Compare the public opinion of Gore, Kerry, HRC, and Harris with the public opinion of McCain and Romney, or how Trump was able to rehabilitate his image after 2020 by simply being out of office.
There is a cultural default in politics that only democrats have agency, so when we lose it's entirely on us, just the same as when we win. People believe it's our fault for not telling voters what was going to happen if republicans won, and when it's explained that we did, then it's our fault for not explaining it better, etc.
I don't know that we can *do* anything about it without first winning. Trying to bind the party together with more cohesive messaging, a different approach to party leadership that feels more responsive to voters (even if it doesn't have any actual changes in policy) could help, but those aren't easy solutions. They're big, multi-cycle efforts that might not even work.
agree with your main points; my argument here is pretty simple; Let Trump Be Trump
The core of the problem is that the progressive party is gonna be at the tip of the spear of cultural change, and cultural change is almost always wildly unpopular. Whether Democrats choose to lean in to the cultural change despite its unpopularity, resist it, or attempt to ignore the topics completely, Republicans come at it with a united front of righteous opposition. This always gives them a baked-in advantage even at times when the culture wars aren't burning red hot.
This should be particularly concerning for Democrats on the dawn of the AI revolution, which will instigate cultural change at a supercharged degree unlike anything our species has experienced before. Democrats will respond by blaming greedy corporations and calling for an expanded safety net, and they'll probably win a few battles here and there. But Republicans will respond by selling an agenda of cultural "security" for those minimally-to-modestly besieged by AI disruption and pitting them against the "freeloading parasites" who are most besieged by AI disruption. Don't bet against them when they do.
to piggyback off your post here; Republicans are masters playing the 'aggrieved card' imo; i cant tell you how maany times i was confronted by angry voters screaming at me, ' you democrats only care about letting men play womens sports!!'; that happened time and time again(there was absolutely nothing for me in response that these people would actually listen)
Exactly. Find and then identify a new villain. It's their all-purpose angle for every new cultural or economic zeitgeist. And it has a very good batting average of success.
The villains that we Democrats identify don't seem to be very compelling - even when they are freaking evil billionaires. Who should our villain be? As I've sort of argued elsewhere, it should be "business productivity" that puts people out of work. We don't need self driving cars, ai ordering kiosks and crappy apps that do nothing but disconnect is from others. I think Dems need to become "smart luddites". Jobs for people, not robots.
The cultural default around perceived agency is the problem. As long as the media treats the GOP as a static natural reality that never makes its own decisions - and thus must answer for them - the cycle can never break
The agency thing is something that grinds my gears in particular. It isn't something that jumped out at me before I became aware of it, but once I was aware it's presence is everywhere.
If we could singularly change the dialogue to have universal blame for unpopular republican policies being assigned to republicans, that would be a huge shift on this front. Right now (and also 2017-2021) there's a lot of "why didn't democrats stop this?" — never mind that we hold close to zero power in DC right now, aside from the filibuster.
the Democratic voters are the ones who hate the Democrats though; they have no current outlet other than our side because Trump has rejected them; plus, they register NPA for a reason; our side needs a coherent message imo then after Trump alienates them further, our side is the only game in town; Joe Biden levels of turnout would have easily won the election for Harris(our voters stayed on their couch
Comparatively, 2022 was a much better election year for Democrats as opposed to 2010.
However, the Democratic Party needs to do a better job at helping the left channel their anger and agenda into a more productive means of a strategy.
im not sure that your solution wins elections though; i would propose that the number 1 thing to do is, Let Trump Be Trump
This isn’t specific to what is going on with Trump being POTUS now or in his first term but just with anyone as POTUS, Democratic or Republican.
Take for instance the Occupy Wall Street movement. It started back in September 2011 but then fizzled out at some point. This was an example of a left wing populist movement that the Democratic Party as a whole failed to capitalize on and instead focused on ensuring President Obama would be re-elected. Sure, Elizabeth Warren unseated Scott Brown in the Senate and along with Bernie Sanders was one of the most sympathetic to the protestors. This particularly pertains to policy.
i think you are overanalyzing here; all our side needs to do, is basically nothing(and have candidates ready to contest every single election)
I agree that focusing on the moment right now while Trump is in office matters.
However, what happens when Trump is out of office? What's the Democratic Party's plan after that? Trump may give Democrats plenty of options for getting elected now but so did Bush Jr in his 2nd term.
I just want this to not just be about winning elections now with Trump as a catalyst.
It goes without saying that the Democratic Party needs to ensure it turns out voters and keeps them engaged so that they have a reason to vote and get involved at every election, not just the most vital ones that are important because of the threat of democracy. Of course, it helps that the Democratic Party agenda should resonate at all levels for those where it can benefit.
Of course, we can make the argument that media and podcasts like Joe Rogan and Theo Von have influence on what goes on with the GOP's agenda. Still, Democrats should beat the GOP at its game or at least be on the same level with them as far as strategy.
NBC and others ask a simple question. Do you approve of the Democratic Party (or the jon that the party does)?
Can you honestly answer yes to this right now? I would answer no and based on the angst here I think a lot of us would. Doesn't mean I'll vote for any GOPs now.
I'd say I approve of the party but not our leadership. Across all issues we're seeing >90% of house dems act appropriately, and about 80% of senate dems the same.
I don't know how many people would make that distinction, or for how many the distinction matters, but I will make it and it does matter for me. Schumer is useless, and Jeffries for some reason is being the decorum police, but they're not the party.
100%. I still believe in the Democratic Party as the vehicle for substantive change in this country. That's why I happen to think that what's needed now more than ever are primary challenges. We make fun of the Republicans and the Tea Party back in 2009 but the reality is... They freaking won. At the end of the day they won, they're getting almost everything they wanted and I just want that for the Democratic Party. People who are willing to fight tooth and nail for what we actually believe in (Though some may disagree on what that is).
im against primary challenges in marginal seats
Totally fair, and your point about leadership vs party stances is a great point. But pollsters aren't polling DB readers and parties elect their leadership. Schumer has been bad for years. He never learned how to outmaneuver the opposition from Reid or Pelosi (or take lessons in his losses at the hands of McConnell). Let's see how the new DNC chair does. That selection may signal a party that is willing to become functionally better. Like Miguel alludes to below.
The New York Times has started a polling aggregator. At least for presidential approval numbers.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/polls/donald-trump-approval-rating-polls.html
Any updates on the NC Supreme Court? I did a quick google search and looks like the next hearing is on the 21st? For the talk this week of falling into fascism I think disqualifying 60,000 votes would be a crimson flag.
"A GOP-Majority Appeals Court Panel Will Hear North Carolina Supreme Court Challenge"
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/a-gop-majority-appeals-court-panel-will-hear-north-carolina-supreme-court-challenge/
I think the NC Supreme Court will end up doing a recount or call another election. Either Nir or Beard said that according to an election atty, the NCSC can’t just throw out the results, they have to follow state statute.
If they do the unthinkable, it’ll be overturned in federal court.
MN State Senator Justin Eichorn (who I believe has run for Congress at some point?) was arrested for soliciting an underage male prostitute, apparently.
Party of family values, guys! And as always - not a drag Queen.
it is always about the hypocrisy with this bunch
Sounds like grassroots groups have some backup ideas in case they can't get Schumer to step down. From Axios: https://www.axios.com/2025/03/19/democrats-chuck-schumer-activists-shutdown-senate
Their top three demands:
More seats at the table: The groups want to influence the discussion earlier in the process and a more proactive plan to battle Republicans.
Elevate younger voices in the party, especially Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y). Schumer brought Murphy and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), known for their media savvy, into his leadership team this year.
Go on offense. They want more fight from Schumer — and are pushing him to encourage his members to host town halls in their states' redder areas if the GOP representatives don't. "It is a source of real pain for the Republican Party when veterans and Trump voters in Republican districts have a voice," PCCC co-founder Adam Green told Axios.
Schumer is going nowhere until after 2026(and maybe not then either)
Didn't Schatz vote for the Republican budget?
Got a poll for NH senate. Tested Sununu and Brown on the republican side, with Goodlander and Pappas on the democratic side.
One of the question sets tested anti-MAGA messaging for the democratic candidates without a corresponding pro question set. That leads me to suspect the poll was done for one of Pappas or Goodlander.
Wow, Rick Caruso isn’t being an asshole for once and is against any effort to try and recall Mayor Karen Bass. Doesn’t mean he won’t make a run for it next year but still: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5201091-rick-caruso-karen-bass-los-angeles-recall-effort/amp/
Sounds to me like he knows that he wouldn't win in that scenario. If Bass is recalled, someone else in the LA Democratic Establishment probably gets elected Mayor.