The Wisconsin Supreme Court race between Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel is, without a doubt, the most consequential item on the election calendar these next few weeks.
This conversation between historian Heather Cox Richardson and Ben Wikler, Chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, highlights the historical background and what is at stake, and underscores why it is imperative that we help Crawford win. The election is April 1st.
I cannot recommend this interview strongly enough!
In 2020, Cheri Beasley lost the North Carolina Supreme Court election to Paul Newby by a mere 451 votes, out of almost 5.4 million cast. That’s a margin of 0.008 %.
If memory serves me right, Republicans immediately exploited Beasley’s narrow loss and their regained control of the court to reverse numerous prior NC Supreme Court Decisions, and to implement an egregious gerrymander in the state. That gerrymander gave Republicans significant advantages in three extra Congressional districts.
Had Beasly won, elections and North Carolina would have remained more fair – Democrats right now would likely be in control of the House of Representatives, with Hakeem Jeffries as Speaker.
Needless to say, that would be decisive in stopping Musk’s illegitimate DOGE, the ability to conduct House hearings and investigations, maintaining a separation of powers and maintaining Congressional "power of the purse", as well as more effectively countering the breakneck-speedy implementation of Trump’s Project 2025.
MORAL of the story: These state supreme court elections effing matter!!
Had the 2022 congressional map survived, the House would be 218D-217R.
That said, the 2022 map was imposed as one time thing per the Court’s ruling against the map R legislature passed. Rs were set to flip the NC Supreme Court in 2022 if not 2020. They had enough time to remap anyway.
Yeah, in that 2022 election Richard Dietz (R) beat Lucy Inman (D) 52.6–47.4, while Trey Allen (R) beat the Democratic incumbent Sam Ervin IV by very similar figures: 52.4–47.6. Those were solid five-point margins; I don’t know what it would have taken for Democrats to hold the NC Supreme Court majority. Interestingly, Ervin IV’s namesake grandfather was Senator Sam Ervin Jr. of Watergate fame, who imho made those Senate hearings particularly memorable.
Our top dog on Judiciary ought to be the excellent Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, not Dick Durbin. By the way, Whitehouse’s Senate lectures on the Federal Society’s capture of SCOTUS are incredibly informative, a must-watch.
I don't disagree with your points about how important state Supreme Court elections are, but I worry we're worse off wrt Trump and Congress than we think. I would much prefer having Jeffries as Speaker, but what makes any of us think that Trump and Musk would be at all thwarted by a house of Congress that stood in opposition to them?
To think that the normal guardrails of democracy are going to stand in Trump/Musk's way seems like wishful thinking. They're doing what they want regardless of Congress, the courts, norms, etc. What would a Democratic House do--pass a resolution that they strongly disapprove of the WH's actions? Sure, they wouldn't have passed the budget bill, but Trump/Musk don't seem to be constrained by budget authorizations anyway. I don't have answers or a strategy, but these are incredibly worrisome times, and we can't expect getting to 218 House Dems will save us.
For me, at least, the determination is in your conclusion: that we do not have an answer makes it something that cannot be focused on. It's a situation that we are, by and large, powerless to shape. We can only work within the confines of what we can do.
I also feel there is a certain level of power ceded by assuming that they will be able to successfully go down an authoritarian path with no push back. Our systems are made up of people. Just like every other person out there, those people are subject to normalization and are less likely to do that push back if the societal expectation is that it is futile. In this situation by refusing to accept an outcome as inevitable we can make it less likely.
I agree that we can't normalize this, but I think it's going to take a large-scale pushback from voters, even/especially those who voted for Trump, to get some meaningful checks from Congress.
At present, though, assuming that just having Jeffries as Speaker would be sufficient to put the brakes on doesn't seem like it would matter much with a WH that isn't going to follow any rules. If Musk defies court orders, who's going to prosecute him? Bondi? It is to laugh.
Jeffries seemed more interested in having a decorum discussion with Al Green rather than standing by his caucus and standing up to Trump/Musk.
i disagree; having a Democratic House should be priority #1 imo; the current Congress has given Trump their recorded votes and Cabinet\White House Advise & Consent majority votes; i blame the Congress, not Trump
Ray, we would be in a far better place with a Democratic House Majority and Hakeem Jeffries as Speaker. But just to be clear, I am in no way implying that this would be sufficient. This country is in very serious trouble, our democracy is in deep danger – and so is anything in the world that Trump touches.
I think the NC mess that Dems can’t seem to escape goes back to 2010 or even earlier. Democrats had the chance when they controlled the legislature to get independent redistricting on the ballot. It should have been clear to Dems that they weren’t gonna be able to control the legislature there forever and independent redistricting would have been insurance against Republicans getting control in a redistricting year. Dems in MN would be wise to try and get independent redistricting enacted because you never know when a really bad year might come up. It could happen in a redistricting cycle like it did in 2010.
Agreed but North Carolina wouldn’t have been a bad state to do it but that would’ve required predicting the future. Things could’ve gone differently in NC if they had continued getting bluer and we eventually would want to gerrymander ourselves.
I mean, did anyone really expect Democrats to be able to control the state legislature in NC forever? The state had only voted Dem for president once (2008) since 1976. Even Clinton couldn’t win it in 1992 or 1996. Dems even lost the state house in 1994 and 1996 there.
Even by summer 2009, it was pretty clear Dems were in for a rough year and by early 2010 polls were coming out showing Dems were likely to lose one or both chambers of the NC legislature.
Hoping for a state to get bluer and doing nothing is a bad strategy.
Coming off of 2008, the Tea Party wave crashing over NC was pretty rough and we never recovered bc of the gerrymanders. But statewide, it’s still pretty close to a swing state, it just hasn’t been swinging enough.
NC is an interesting and frustrating one. The 2008 election with Kay Hagan as our Senate candidate was fantastic. Everyone was afraid to run bc it’s NC and why waste our time? She stepped up and destroyed the Republican incumbent. Things went to shit after that but then still, we got Gov wins, we got Supreme Court wins that undid the congressional map. They’d still be better off with an IRDC at this point, obviously. It’s a big state with a lot of blue circles that can be easily packed.
In deep blue states like CA and NY yes. However they were a lifesaver in AZ in 2011 (although less so in 2021) and potentially MI the next time Republicans have a trifecta there in a redistricting year.
Basically, Dems should want them in red and even light blue states (like MN), but not in deep blue states where Republicans would never get a trifecta (MA, NY, CA, IL).
CA democrats had already declined to implement gerrymanders in the past. The pattern there was a history of incumbent protection maps — incumbents of both parties. The new maps in 2002 saw only a single seat change hands. No seats changed hands in 2004, democrats gained another seat in 2006, and no seats changed hands in 2008 or 2010. To expand on that, the 2008 house elections in CA saw a result of 60-37 (D-R) for the popular vote; 2010 was 53-44. This was a net shift of ~13 points between the two elections; yet zero seats changed hands.
The independent commission in 2010 did not seek to protect incumbents of both parties. The 2012 election with those maps saw a nearly identical popular vote result as 2008, except this time democrats picked up four seats. Going into the decade the seats were 34D-19R. By the end of the decade the seats were 42D-11R, and at its peak it was 46D-7R!
I'm skeptical that CA democrats would have had the willpower to do a gerrymander that would have seen us able to win that many seats. Today I think we'd be stuck with something like a consistent 35-17 delegation in CA instead of our current 43-9.
I agree. For various reasons and for many cycles, CA Dems were quite content to join hands with the GOP and draw incumbent protection districts.
In 2012, the first year of the CA citizen commission's lines, many incumbents were upset that they had been drawn into the same district as another. iirc, a lot of deadwood decided it was time to retire.
(BTW, the CA citizens commission is explicitly forbidden to consider incumbents place of residence when drawing lines. Probably one of the best things in that law.)
MN Dems need to not be wusses and gerrymander the shit out of the state the first chance they get. No more sharing power with a party that can’t win statewide.
Yes but first they’d need to be able to win both chambers as well as the governorship in a redistricting cycle, which they haven’t been able to do in well over 50 years.
Nah, mid-decade redistricting. Pass a map whenever you want. Legal in most states. They blew their chance in 2022 when it would have been the easiest to do.
An obituary is also due for Nita Lowey, , who served as a U.S. Representative from New York from 1989 to 2021, in what would eventually be called the 17th district. She was the first woman to chair the House Appropriations Committee. Lowey died on March 15 at age 87.
It seems to me that these items in this order should be the political priorities for responsible Americans over the next 3-4 years:
1. Ensure that the 2026 and 2028 elections are as free and fair as previous elections this century.
2. Build the opposition to fascism with the broadest possible coalition.
3. Preserve as much local and national state capacity as possible.
4. Protect the vulnerable.
I think free elections are more important than an energized opposition: Real elections with opposition that isn't super-energized describes the current situation in Poland. The good guys are in charge again there. Energized opposition with sham elections describes the situation in Venezuela. Thoughts? I could see 3 and 4 being switched.
I would add: Ensure Democratic wins in judicial elections. See my notes above on Wisconsin and North Carolina.
Democratic control of state supreme courts, especially in swing states, is increasingly proving to be an absolute prerequisite for your #1 priority: free and fair elections in 2026 and 2028. (Brad Schimel, the full-MAGA Republican candidate in Wisconsin, has indicated he would have helped overturn Biden’s win in 2020!)
i would add a 1\a); nationally prioritize all special elections from this day forward(obviously including 'non-partisan' judicials that. are in fact extremely partisan)
Michigan State has tortured many schools over the years but they've been particularly tough against Marquette including 2 years ago when we were the 2-seed and they were the 7th-seed. Hopefully this year our fortunes will be flipped if we can get past New Mexico.
Indivisible is already working on pushing for Schumer to resign as Senate Minority Leader. Schumer's book tour this week is also getting postponed. I went back and looked at if there were times that Senate Minority or Majority Leaders switch up in the middle of congressional sessions and there are a few examples. The last one was in the 1995-1997 104th session when Bob Dole's stupid publicity stunt to resign as Majority Leader and run for President in order to get Clinton to agree to resign from the Presidency and focus on the 96 campaign. Clinton called that idiotic move out saying you have to be able to do both. Prior to that, the last time the Minority Party switch leaders was in 1969 during the 91st congressional session when Everett Dirksen died of lung cancer and Hugh Scott took over. I don't know how difficult of a task it will be to get Schumer to resign but I do think that Patty Murray and Jeff Merkley should be the new Minority Leader and Whip. They both showed real leadership whipping up votes. Here's a list of the Senate leadership history: https://www.senate.gov/senators/majority-minority-leaders.htm
I cannot imagine Schumer being pressured enough to step down. But I can imagine the pressure being sufficient to make him compelled to use his spine more often.
That might also be the other end game here for groups like Indivisible. I think they would like him to leave but if he won’t then he has to prove he’s willing to fight.
Why do you say that about Murray? I can understand about the age and time she’s been there but she did show real leadership last week. Now her being the lead appropriator might be something that holds her back from making a go at it. Agree on Merkley and Murphy. Merkley got the Senate to change the rules on judicial nominees so he knows how to make that argument to his fellow Senators. Murphy does the best at explaining to people what’s going on.
I've never seen Slotkin but being less charismatic than Warren is something. At the same time, how good is Schumer in media or public speaking? I mean, he did the key note speech at my college graduation and it was... Fine.
It’s all about firing up the base. Murray doesn’t exactly ignite this kind of enthusiasm whereas Warren does.
When I say Murray’s a bore, it has more to do with her public speaking. She comes across as too polished and not loose enough with her speaking like Warren.
I think she's much better chairing Senate approps; she has a good rapport with Collins and as noted, she's not the most charismatic individual re: public speaking.
we disagree here; i dont think a battle internally is good politics for the Democratic Caucus and personally i think Schumer would win anyway; so, the answer to your question(even though you frame it with your word 'worthless' which i think is nonsense)is Yes
Agree to disagree. I think that an internal battle getting rid of entrenched incumbents who have been directly involved in the Democratic Party's approval rating plummeting to 29% is worth it and I'm not so sure that Schumer wins. He's already canceled his book tour appearances due to the backlash and is incredibly unpopular. He represents all of the things that the average person sees is wrong with the Democratic Party.
Honestly, given the alternatives for a midcycle leadership change are probably Durbin and maybe Patty Murray, I'm fine with sticking with Schumer until after the midterms.
The NRCC has released their list of targeted House Dem districts. Most of these are what you'd expect, though many feel like real stretches at best especially given the unlikelihood that public opinion and voter motivation in 2026 will be the same as in 2024.
Along with Virginia and New Jersey, people are going to be looking at Bucks County on election night this year to read the tea leaves for 2026 and beyond. Let's send a very clear message to the Trump-led GOP and support Joe Khan and the rest of the Democratic ticket in Bucks County in 2025: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/joe-khan-for-da?refcode=directory.
Ma'am, this is a Wendy's.
👏👏👏
Bless Your Heart
EYES ON WISCONSIN
The Wisconsin Supreme Court race between Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel is, without a doubt, the most consequential item on the election calendar these next few weeks.
This conversation between historian Heather Cox Richardson and Ben Wikler, Chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, highlights the historical background and what is at stake, and underscores why it is imperative that we help Crawford win. The election is April 1st.
I cannot recommend this interview strongly enough!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyXba-vx1sw
PAINFUL CONSEQUENCES: North Carolina
In 2020, Cheri Beasley lost the North Carolina Supreme Court election to Paul Newby by a mere 451 votes, out of almost 5.4 million cast. That’s a margin of 0.008 %.
If memory serves me right, Republicans immediately exploited Beasley’s narrow loss and their regained control of the court to reverse numerous prior NC Supreme Court Decisions, and to implement an egregious gerrymander in the state. That gerrymander gave Republicans significant advantages in three extra Congressional districts.
Had Beasly won, elections and North Carolina would have remained more fair – Democrats right now would likely be in control of the House of Representatives, with Hakeem Jeffries as Speaker.
Needless to say, that would be decisive in stopping Musk’s illegitimate DOGE, the ability to conduct House hearings and investigations, maintaining a separation of powers and maintaining Congressional "power of the purse", as well as more effectively countering the breakneck-speedy implementation of Trump’s Project 2025.
MORAL of the story: These state supreme court elections effing matter!!
Had the 2022 congressional map survived, the House would be 218D-217R.
That said, the 2022 map was imposed as one time thing per the Court’s ruling against the map R legislature passed. Rs were set to flip the NC Supreme Court in 2022 if not 2020. They had enough time to remap anyway.
Yeah, in that 2022 election Richard Dietz (R) beat Lucy Inman (D) 52.6–47.4, while Trey Allen (R) beat the Democratic incumbent Sam Ervin IV by very similar figures: 52.4–47.6. Those were solid five-point margins; I don’t know what it would have taken for Democrats to hold the NC Supreme Court majority. Interestingly, Ervin IV’s namesake grandfather was Senator Sam Ervin Jr. of Watergate fame, who imho made those Senate hearings particularly memorable.
the current Senate could use an Ervin or a Moynihan; instead, we are awash in mediocrity
Our top dog on Judiciary ought to be the excellent Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, not Dick Durbin. By the way, Whitehouse’s Senate lectures on the Federal Society’s capture of SCOTUS are incredibly informative, a must-watch.
I thought Ervin had been a segregationist, though. No?
Could the court have least set up some redistricting guidelines? Like stop fucking splitting Guilford county?
No, the next court just changes them.
I don't disagree with your points about how important state Supreme Court elections are, but I worry we're worse off wrt Trump and Congress than we think. I would much prefer having Jeffries as Speaker, but what makes any of us think that Trump and Musk would be at all thwarted by a house of Congress that stood in opposition to them?
To think that the normal guardrails of democracy are going to stand in Trump/Musk's way seems like wishful thinking. They're doing what they want regardless of Congress, the courts, norms, etc. What would a Democratic House do--pass a resolution that they strongly disapprove of the WH's actions? Sure, they wouldn't have passed the budget bill, but Trump/Musk don't seem to be constrained by budget authorizations anyway. I don't have answers or a strategy, but these are incredibly worrisome times, and we can't expect getting to 218 House Dems will save us.
For me, at least, the determination is in your conclusion: that we do not have an answer makes it something that cannot be focused on. It's a situation that we are, by and large, powerless to shape. We can only work within the confines of what we can do.
I also feel there is a certain level of power ceded by assuming that they will be able to successfully go down an authoritarian path with no push back. Our systems are made up of people. Just like every other person out there, those people are subject to normalization and are less likely to do that push back if the societal expectation is that it is futile. In this situation by refusing to accept an outcome as inevitable we can make it less likely.
I agree that we can't normalize this, but I think it's going to take a large-scale pushback from voters, even/especially those who voted for Trump, to get some meaningful checks from Congress.
At present, though, assuming that just having Jeffries as Speaker would be sufficient to put the brakes on doesn't seem like it would matter much with a WH that isn't going to follow any rules. If Musk defies court orders, who's going to prosecute him? Bondi? It is to laugh.
Jeffries seemed more interested in having a decorum discussion with Al Green rather than standing by his caucus and standing up to Trump/Musk.
i disagree; having a Democratic House should be priority #1 imo; the current Congress has given Trump their recorded votes and Cabinet\White House Advise & Consent majority votes; i blame the Congress, not Trump
Ray, we would be in a far better place with a Democratic House Majority and Hakeem Jeffries as Speaker. But just to be clear, I am in no way implying that this would be sufficient. This country is in very serious trouble, our democracy is in deep danger – and so is anything in the world that Trump touches.
I think the NC mess that Dems can’t seem to escape goes back to 2010 or even earlier. Democrats had the chance when they controlled the legislature to get independent redistricting on the ballot. It should have been clear to Dems that they weren’t gonna be able to control the legislature there forever and independent redistricting would have been insurance against Republicans getting control in a redistricting year. Dems in MN would be wise to try and get independent redistricting enacted because you never know when a really bad year might come up. It could happen in a redistricting cycle like it did in 2010.
IRDC have continously screwed Democrats; i disagree with you because of it
Agreed but North Carolina wouldn’t have been a bad state to do it but that would’ve required predicting the future. Things could’ve gone differently in NC if they had continued getting bluer and we eventually would want to gerrymander ourselves.
I mean, did anyone really expect Democrats to be able to control the state legislature in NC forever? The state had only voted Dem for president once (2008) since 1976. Even Clinton couldn’t win it in 1992 or 1996. Dems even lost the state house in 1994 and 1996 there.
Even by summer 2009, it was pretty clear Dems were in for a rough year and by early 2010 polls were coming out showing Dems were likely to lose one or both chambers of the NC legislature.
Hoping for a state to get bluer and doing nothing is a bad strategy.
Coming off of 2008, the Tea Party wave crashing over NC was pretty rough and we never recovered bc of the gerrymanders. But statewide, it’s still pretty close to a swing state, it just hasn’t been swinging enough.
NC is an interesting and frustrating one. The 2008 election with Kay Hagan as our Senate candidate was fantastic. Everyone was afraid to run bc it’s NC and why waste our time? She stepped up and destroyed the Republican incumbent. Things went to shit after that but then still, we got Gov wins, we got Supreme Court wins that undid the congressional map. They’d still be better off with an IRDC at this point, obviously. It’s a big state with a lot of blue circles that can be easily packed.
In deep blue states like CA and NY yes. However they were a lifesaver in AZ in 2011 (although less so in 2021) and potentially MI the next time Republicans have a trifecta there in a redistricting year.
Basically, Dems should want them in red and even light blue states (like MN), but not in deep blue states where Republicans would never get a trifecta (MA, NY, CA, IL).
I'd argue we benefited from it in at least CA.
CA democrats had already declined to implement gerrymanders in the past. The pattern there was a history of incumbent protection maps — incumbents of both parties. The new maps in 2002 saw only a single seat change hands. No seats changed hands in 2004, democrats gained another seat in 2006, and no seats changed hands in 2008 or 2010. To expand on that, the 2008 house elections in CA saw a result of 60-37 (D-R) for the popular vote; 2010 was 53-44. This was a net shift of ~13 points between the two elections; yet zero seats changed hands.
The independent commission in 2010 did not seek to protect incumbents of both parties. The 2012 election with those maps saw a nearly identical popular vote result as 2008, except this time democrats picked up four seats. Going into the decade the seats were 34D-19R. By the end of the decade the seats were 42D-11R, and at its peak it was 46D-7R!
I'm skeptical that CA democrats would have had the willpower to do a gerrymander that would have seen us able to win that many seats. Today I think we'd be stuck with something like a consistent 35-17 delegation in CA instead of our current 43-9.
I agree. For various reasons and for many cycles, CA Dems were quite content to join hands with the GOP and draw incumbent protection districts.
In 2012, the first year of the CA citizen commission's lines, many incumbents were upset that they had been drawn into the same district as another. iirc, a lot of deadwood decided it was time to retire.
(BTW, the CA citizens commission is explicitly forbidden to consider incumbents place of residence when drawing lines. Probably one of the best things in that law.)
MN Dems need to not be wusses and gerrymander the shit out of the state the first chance they get. No more sharing power with a party that can’t win statewide.
Yes but first they’d need to be able to win both chambers as well as the governorship in a redistricting cycle, which they haven’t been able to do in well over 50 years.
Nah, mid-decade redistricting. Pass a map whenever you want. Legal in most states. They blew their chance in 2022 when it would have been the easiest to do.
I’m pretty sure the MN constitution prohibits mid decade redistricting.
The court didn’t flip until 2022 actually. And the court actually became 5-2, so had Beasley won the GOP would still have flipped the court in 2022.
An obituary is also due for Nita Lowey, , who served as a U.S. Representative from New York from 1989 to 2021, in what would eventually be called the 17th district. She was the first woman to chair the House Appropriations Committee. Lowey died on March 15 at age 87.
Absolutely will be one in the next issue.
It seems to me that these items in this order should be the political priorities for responsible Americans over the next 3-4 years:
1. Ensure that the 2026 and 2028 elections are as free and fair as previous elections this century.
2. Build the opposition to fascism with the broadest possible coalition.
3. Preserve as much local and national state capacity as possible.
4. Protect the vulnerable.
I think free elections are more important than an energized opposition: Real elections with opposition that isn't super-energized describes the current situation in Poland. The good guys are in charge again there. Energized opposition with sham elections describes the situation in Venezuela. Thoughts? I could see 3 and 4 being switched.
I would add: Ensure Democratic wins in judicial elections. See my notes above on Wisconsin and North Carolina.
Democratic control of state supreme courts, especially in swing states, is increasingly proving to be an absolute prerequisite for your #1 priority: free and fair elections in 2026 and 2028. (Brad Schimel, the full-MAGA Republican candidate in Wisconsin, has indicated he would have helped overturn Biden’s win in 2020!)
i would add a 1\a); nationally prioritize all special elections from this day forward(obviously including 'non-partisan' judicials that. are in fact extremely partisan)
good luck to everyone filling out their brackets today\tomorrow
Even if Marquette makes it to the 2nd Round, I have no hope in them actually beating Michigan State.
Michigan State does have problems scoring, but they also have Tom Izzo
Michigan State has tortured many schools over the years but they've been particularly tough against Marquette including 2 years ago when we were the 2-seed and they were the 7th-seed. Hopefully this year our fortunes will be flipped if we can get past New Mexico.
good luck; i dont miss a game, starting with tomorrow night
And say a prayer for me that NC State hires Will Wade as soon as McNeese's tourney run is over.
Wow love to see a fellow State here. GO PACK #WadeToState
Happy to see SIUE be in it.
Indivisible is already working on pushing for Schumer to resign as Senate Minority Leader. Schumer's book tour this week is also getting postponed. I went back and looked at if there were times that Senate Minority or Majority Leaders switch up in the middle of congressional sessions and there are a few examples. The last one was in the 1995-1997 104th session when Bob Dole's stupid publicity stunt to resign as Majority Leader and run for President in order to get Clinton to agree to resign from the Presidency and focus on the 96 campaign. Clinton called that idiotic move out saying you have to be able to do both. Prior to that, the last time the Minority Party switch leaders was in 1969 during the 91st congressional session when Everett Dirksen died of lung cancer and Hugh Scott took over. I don't know how difficult of a task it will be to get Schumer to resign but I do think that Patty Murray and Jeff Merkley should be the new Minority Leader and Whip. They both showed real leadership whipping up votes. Here's a list of the Senate leadership history: https://www.senate.gov/senators/majority-minority-leaders.htm
I cannot imagine Schumer being pressured enough to step down. But I can imagine the pressure being sufficient to make him compelled to use his spine more often.
That might also be the other end game here for groups like Indivisible. I think they would like him to leave but if he won’t then he has to prove he’s willing to fight.
Patty Murray wouldn’t present as a good leader. Merkley or Chris Murphy would be better.
Why do you say that about Murray? I can understand about the age and time she’s been there but she did show real leadership last week. Now her being the lead appropriator might be something that holds her back from making a go at it. Agree on Merkley and Murphy. Merkley got the Senate to change the rules on judicial nominees so he knows how to make that argument to his fellow Senators. Murphy does the best at explaining to people what’s going on.
she's not appealing on television(not speaking for Paleo here; he can adequately speak for himslef)
thats a strong rebuttal; so, my rebuttal to your rebuttal is Balderdash
Yes. That’s what I was driving at.
Not criticizing Patty Murray for her service in the Senate but by comparison to Elizabeth Warren and Elisa Slotkin, Murray’s a bore on TV.
Perhaps Murray ignited more energy when she first ran for the Senate. These days, she’s too establishment.
I've never seen Slotkin but being less charismatic than Warren is something. At the same time, how good is Schumer in media or public speaking? I mean, he did the key note speech at my college graduation and it was... Fine.
It’s all about firing up the base. Murray doesn’t exactly ignite this kind of enthusiasm whereas Warren does.
When I say Murray’s a bore, it has more to do with her public speaking. She comes across as too polished and not loose enough with her speaking like Warren.
I think she's much better chairing Senate approps; she has a good rapport with Collins and as noted, she's not the most charismatic individual re: public speaking.
imo this is wishful thinking at best; bad politics at worse
It's bad politics to get rid of a worthless leader?
we disagree here; i dont think a battle internally is good politics for the Democratic Caucus and personally i think Schumer would win anyway; so, the answer to your question(even though you frame it with your word 'worthless' which i think is nonsense)is Yes
Agree to disagree. I think that an internal battle getting rid of entrenched incumbents who have been directly involved in the Democratic Party's approval rating plummeting to 29% is worth it and I'm not so sure that Schumer wins. He's already canceled his book tour appearances due to the backlash and is incredibly unpopular. He represents all of the things that the average person sees is wrong with the Democratic Party.
agree to disagree; i dont think a single member of the Senate Democrats give a shit about the canceled appearances
That's likely part of the problem.
That’s a shame. I was looking forward to the Kick Me Again tour.
I was looking forward to protesting when he was here in Santa Monica.
Honestly, given the alternatives for a midcycle leadership change are probably Durbin and maybe Patty Murray, I'm fine with sticking with Schumer until after the midterms.
St Patrick's Day AND Evacuation Day are both upon us!
The NRCC has released their list of targeted House Dem districts. Most of these are what you'd expect, though many feel like real stretches at best especially given the unlikelihood that public opinion and voter motivation in 2026 will be the same as in 2024.
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGmPa09JWEAAYck5.jpg
One interesting omission is OR-05. Maybe Lori Chavez-Deremer's confirmation as Secretary of Labour removed the GOP's only hope?
they will wind up focusing more on their vulnerables to save what small chance they have of saving the House imo
Makes sense to me I don't think they're flipping a Harris +8.6 seat in 26.
they are going to wind up playing defense
Along with Virginia and New Jersey, people are going to be looking at Bucks County on election night this year to read the tea leaves for 2026 and beyond. Let's send a very clear message to the Trump-led GOP and support Joe Khan and the rest of the Democratic ticket in Bucks County in 2025: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/joe-khan-for-da?refcode=directory.