I suppose there's always Tim Ryan to run in Ohio should Brown opt to run for governor. He should have better name recognition by now from his previous attempt.
Has much more to do with the incumbency and the dynamics of the candidates during that transition period. But Ohio is dead to us at the federal level for the time being.
If you’re writing off Ohio at the federal level, you’re effectively accepting that it is impossible for Democrats to win Senate seats in any states we don’t currently have Senators in other than North Carolina and maybe Alaska. We can’t rely on winning every Senate seat in every swing seat, especially now that Republicans are probably gonna be playing offense in places like Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Virginia, and New Jersey that were close this time around. If we don’t try to win Senate races in more than just 26 states, we’re just giving up and accepting that we’ll never have any power ever again. Ohio was the closest non-swing state that the Republicans won in the presidential election, and we lost a Senate race there by just 4 points, if we can’t win there, where else do you think we should campaign?
1) If we have a statewide "star player" . .I'd rather out them in the more winnable race. Having a D Governor in Ohio could do a lot of good policy-wise.
2) I'm not writing it off completely, but trends IMO are important. Ohio for 4 straight POTUS cycles now has become more Republican. Texas until last month was trending our way (North Carolina still is) . .I'd rather allocate resources in the states trending towards us than away from us. Yes that means our map is in a pretty sorry shape currently and we can't afford any upsets to our side.
I agree with your sentiment, but disagree that we'll be on defense for a Senate seat in NJ, NM or VA in a Republican President's midterm. I suspect MN and NH are safe in that situation too.
Might be a challenge to find a good candidate for that seat since it would be a two-year term and they'd have to remain in permanent campaign mode for the right to keep it in an even more difficult Presidential cycle.
Here is a radical strategy for winning back the House of Representatives, sooner rather than later. One way to get rid of bothersome upper-management employees that are difficult to fire, is to praise them to the right ears – so they’re headhunted by a competitor. The result is a win-win.
Not infrequently, congressional representatives retire to seek the greater financial rewards that are available in private industry. In fact, Axios had an article about this just the other day:
. "Private-sector paydays threaten Mike Johnson's House majority"
So here is my idea: that democracy-favoring business owners be "inspired" to make lucrative job offers to Republican House members elected from vulnerable districts, tempting them to retire early from Congress. This, of course, will trigger Special Elections, in which Democrats in recent years have been overperforming.
Hakeem Jeffries may well find himself Speaker of the House sooner than expected.
"Salary is a major sore spot for House lawmakers. They last got a pay bump to $174,000 in 2009… The real threat to Johnson's majority is people leaving for private-sector jobs.
"At least five House lawmakers quit Congress early in the last two years to pursue private-sector paychecks. Another four resigned early for other reasons, two died in office and one was expelled.
"If similar patterns play out over the next two years, Johnson's majority is permanently at risk."
("Johnson will start Jan. 3 with (at most!) a 221-213 vote majority, before falling as low as 218-216 until special elections can replace Trump Cabinet appointees. Even at full strength, the House GOP majority will be at most 221-214. That's a margin nightmares are made of.")
Of course it might very well succeed – because my proposal doesn’t need to work on a large scale. And as the article points out, people leave Congress all the time.
There are more than 200 Republicans in the house. If even two or three of them leave, for any reason whatsoever (not just those that I describe), that can be catastrophic for Mike Johnson’s control. In other words, we’re talking about a resignation rate of 1–1.5%. That low rate is happening anyways!
I’m just suggesting we add one more factor to the mix.
No of course not. This is just frosting on the cake to sweeten the deal. The key is to see how toxic the environment gets before these folks get uncomfortable enough that they decide the alternative of bailing is more enticing.
A question - how often do write-in campaigns succeed, or at least do well? We had a pretty last minute one here in my area that garnered around 35% of the vote. I'm in a heavily Democratic area and the write-in candidates were Democrats themselves, running on what folks here would call a "nimby" campaign. I'm sure they got Republican crossover to stick it to the Dems, but I think their base was Democrats.
I had my State Rep win renomination in a write-in campaign. He failed to file his signatures, so he wasn't on the ballot. There have also been cases in Massachusetts where all of the candidates have been write-ins because an incumbent decided not to run for reelection but didn't tell anyone until after the deadline.
(He claimed the signature papers were stolen from his office, though I was skeptical of that. Even if that was the case, it was irresponsible to just leave them sitting on his disk with the door open.)
A similar thing happened a year or two ago for Byron Brown, when he lost the primary than turned around in a write-in campaign to pretty easily win the general election for Buffalo Mayor.
Back in the March 2002 primary, we had an OC superior court judge, Ronald Klein, up for a retention vote, and beyond the filing date, he was arrested for having thousands of porn pictures of young boys on the computer in his chambers. He was the only candidate on the ballot and it couldn't be changed.
There was a media effort by the LA Times, OC Register, local TV and mailing blitz to vote for only one of the many lawyers who signed up for writein.
OC voters voted for the media picked writein and didn't vote for the only name on the ballot, so we didn't elect a pervert (at least that time).
Unfortunately, when Klein was convicted, he was sentenced to only 27 months. I thought a much longer sentence was warranted for someone in that type of position.
Or leave it blank. I will usually undervote when there is only one name on the ballot. If I know who they are and like them I'll give a vote, but otherwise it is just one less oval to fill in.
I might be the only one here who remembers Rep. Ron Packard (R-CA) who won a seat in Congress in 1982 as a write-in candidate. There were 17 candidates running in a GOP open seat primary. The guy who won the primary was some random rich dude who lied about being endorsed by Reagan, massively outspent the others with attack ads, and was not liked by the local partisans. Packard, who had been Mayor of Carlsbad, was 92 votes behind. He won as a write-in in the general election with 37% to 32% for the Dem and 31% to the GOP nominee. Packard served 18 years in Congress, never strongly challenged after that.
I very much enjoy writing in my cat(s) names, when only one choice is on the ballot and write-in is an option. Usually not provided for judicial races, though (professional requirements, I suppose) in North Cakalaky.
In 2006 in OH-06, Charlie Wilson's campaign fucked up gathering signatures to make the ballot, and he ran a write in campaign in the primary, leading to this gem:
I especially love the line "George Bush will feel the pain, when you write in Charlie's name." He got like 66% as a write-in and went on to win his election in November easily.
In Virginia, Delegate Nick Freitas had to run a write-in campaign in 2019 to keep his state House seat, because he didn’t submit the required paperwork to run. (Funny enough, he made the same mistake when he ran for Congress in 2020.) He ended up winning 56-42 in a district that usually votes along the lines of 62-38.
In 2002, then-DC Mayor Anthony Williams won renomination as a write-in after his campaign botched his nomination petitions and he thus couldn't appear on the ballot.
Honestly I find the sharp upwards tick in his favorability that began in Fall 2023 so bizarre and not tethered to anything specific. Makes me think I'm going crazy.
People are getting dumber and/or worse. Maybe COVID broke the species (God forbid we ever had to navigate any legitimate hardship like WWII, the Great Depression, etc.).
Don’t worry once the damage of his policies and leadership (or lack thereof) start setting in, the honeymoon will quickly evaporate and the divorce papers will start coming.
Covid was a legitimate hardship. I had to buy Heinz ketchup today and the price is stupid. Same with heavy cream. 12-packs of Pepsi products just increased another 50 cents to $8.99, a 61% increase since pre-pandemic. Coke is still at $8.49 but for how long?
I track my spending every month. Here are my average spends on groceries per month since 2020 (the first year I stopped buying 7-8 meals a week at the office):
2020 $460
2021 $459
2022 $437
2023 $493
2024 $468
So I am now spending 1.7% more than I was 5 years ago.
Have I changed my shopping habits? No, not at all. I buy a few essentials each week and then focus on whatever is on sale. As you pointed out, some things have gone up, but others have gone down. 12 packs of soda here cost over $10, but I've never paid anything close to that. Last week they were on a "buy 2 get 3 free" special, so I got 5 12 packs for a little over $20, or a bit over $4 each. BOGO, 3 for $14, and other such specials happen every week.
My local grocer has a loyalty card that automatically gets you all the specials when you swipe it at checkout - no coupons to clip, etc. I get a 5% discount shopping on Thursdays for being over 60 (this has been true for all the years above). My credit card gives me 2% cash back on all grocery purchases. I get "fuel points" that give me 10 cents/gallon off for every $100 spent, so each month I generally get 40-50 cents off per gallon on gas - sometimes they have one week 4X fuel point specials - as a result this year I got 80 cents and 90 cents per gallon discounts on two different months. All those discounts add up to something between $450 and $500 a year, so essentially I get 1 months' groceries for free.
Your answer is the answer that lost on Election Day while mine is the one that won. Not saying you’re wrong as I’m a sales shopper as well. I will hit up four grocery stores in one trip if the sales tell me to, but that’s not the norm. If I only had one store option and had to buy pop/soda at regular price, I’d be fucking pissed.
Yeah, it's kind of human nature. People remember the prices that went up and totally ignore the prices that went down. I suspect that if most people isolated the total that they spend on groceries it probably hasn't gone up all that much, but people fixate on eggs (bird flu, but everyone ignores that), soda, gas, etc. So it does impact voting even if it makes little sense.
In addition, Austria’s Russia-friendly and euro-skeptic Freedom Party (FPÖ) continues to make headway. On Sunday the far-right party won a state election in Styria for the first time.
. "Austrian far right shows strength with state election win in Styria"
I second what Zack said. It’s a challenge to find the little glimmers of light in these dark times, but they are there. Hope to see you back, at least occasionally. Do take care!
While OH Sen is only tangentially possible to recover (and MT/WV Sen definitely not), PA Sen is very recoverable. The two obvious candidates there would be Reps. Boyle and Deluzio, who in some ways parallel Lamb and Fetterman to me, in that Boyle is more of an milquetoast Establishment guy and Deluzio is more of a left-populist (but much less of a loose cannon than Fetterman). Anyone else?
Harris campaign "blew" 1 billion. Is $20 million in debt. "I think this disqualifies her forever,” Morgan said. “If you can’t run a campaign, you can’t run America.”
Not sure that John Morgan, a self-described "Joe Biden Democrat" who identifies as an independent (from the article) who refused to fundraise for Harris is really the best one to listen to regarding Harris' campaign or her future prospects. (Apparently she wasn't sufficiently loyal to Biden for Morgan's liking?)
If her campaign's spending was overly lavish or sometimes misdirected (no argument here), it's notable that she was able to raise so much that some could be wasted. Given the level of overall spending in presidential races, a $20 million debt can be covered by looking under the proverbial couch cushions.
It's not a criticism of you but if ya didn't know John Morgan is a joke PI lawyer from the southeast who claimed vaccines cause autism. Harris had 100 days to dig the smoldering disastrous Biden campaign out of the dumpster fire it set itself in.
The dilemma of a sitting VP running for president while the incumbent president is unpopular. Humphrey is really the only other one who had to navigate this dilemma, and he was also faced with a badly divided party.
Already, the cries of "Then why did they say they had it in the bag!" are starting on social media, since it's also coming me out that internals never showed her ahead.
Nevermind the fact that it was mostly pundits and online people saying that. I always saw the Harris people themselves saying "We are the underdogs, but this is a close race and we believe we will ultimately win."
Even the people on podcasts like Pod Save America and the Bulwark were saying similar things.
It goes to show how little even many of her supporters paid attention to her messaging.
Though I do wonder if Democratic fundraising strategies have backfired on this too. The fact that even obviously winning campaigns send emails saying "We're way behind and we need your help!" may, IMO, be creating a Chicken Little effect. How many people saw this and said "Oh, they have to say that for fundraising and stuff though. She'll be fine"?
All of that being said, the unwillingness to break from Biden on anything does strike me as yet another indication that the Democratic party is often too cautious for its own good.
Yeah, Harris and Walz ran the only/best campaign they could, really. Since the "horror show debate" I wondered if the nomination was a poison chalice/busted hand all along (and allowed hope to creep back in over the fall, because I'm a moe-ron). In that sense, I give them lots of credit for the courage to run.
But their national ticket careers are over. They lost, and that's that. Fair or not, way that it goes.
Considering the leak of Biden's own internals (Favreau said internals had Trump >400 EVs if Biden stayed in), I'd go a step further and say that Harris ran a miraculously good campaign. She took a ship on a clear course for catastrophic defeat and turned it into a near miss.
A two point shift in our favor would have given her the win. By comparison, Romney would have needed over a five point shift in his favor to win in 2012. Barely more than half a point shift away from us in 2020 would have seen Biden lose — despite the clear gap in the electoral college, the win/lose scenario for 2020 and 2024 are very close, including in the house.
I know the natural response from everyone is to conclude that a losing candidate lost because they're a bad candidate, but considering the circumstances I'd say Harris did an excellent job. Sometimes candidates do a great job and still lose. It's an unfortunate reminder of the unfairness of life, but it is the reality.
Though, like you say her time on national tickets is over, fair or not.
If she was younger I think she could get another shot down the line after a stint in another office (like CA-Gov). If the perception of the Biden administration drastically moves in a positive direction in the next few years maybe she will get another look but I suspect the swing state governors/senators are going to be more attractive options and the party will want a fresh break.
If Kamala Harris wants to be the Governor of CA she would be the instant frontrunner for the 2026 runoff. There are a bunch of Democratic candidates already running or considering running for CA-Gov, but let's be real here. How many people know who Eleni Kounalakis, Betty Yee, Toni Atkins or Tony Thurmond are? Two of them are even current statewide officeholders and another is the former Controller. One is the former leader of both sides of the Legislature, which is a rare accomplishment, especially for a woman. Almost every California voter knows who Kamala Harris is; she just received over 9 million votes and 58.6% of the total.
Kamala didn't break the glass ceiling for POTUS but she could be the first woman Governor of this state if she wants to be. After two terms in Sacramento she would be around age 70, which would be a good time to retire or go into academia or write her memoirs or whatever. Being a woman, a person of color and a Californian was too much for her to overcome in the 2024 national election.
The Harris campaign never said they “had it in the bag”. If anything they suggested the opposite with the “underdog” talk. I do remember them saying they were keeping their polling assumptions fairly pessimistic.
And I’m as annoyed as anyone with the constant “We’re gonna lose unless you send us $50 today!” e-mails. The Harris campaign isn’t even one of the worst offenders here.
Unless I'm missing something, the republican re-gerrymander of North Carolina was likely decisive.
Assuming Gray and Tran hold onto their leads and I'm counting right, we'll have a 220-215 house. North Carolina's gerrymander gave three pickups to republicans. Assuming our incumbents would have held on with the original maps (not certain) the result would have been 218-217 in our favor.
Or California. If Gray hangs on we will be +3 seats in the Golden State (Tran and Gray, plus George Whitesides in CA-27) and we held a swing open seat (CA-47 with Dave Min replacing Katie Porter, who ran for Senator and did not make the runoff.) Not too bad...
Complete with winning OR-05, we have redeemed the most egregious failures of 2022 re: the House.
That said, having all our non-redistricting flips in CA and NY (with OR-05) doesn’t seem to bode well for shaking off the label of the “coastal party” . . .
I am psyched to see Gray pull ahead in CA-13! I'll break it down by county in a few minutes.
Meanwhile in SoCal Representative-elect Derek Tran added to his winning margin in both of his counties. The tiny L.A. batch has 20 for Tran and 12 for Steel. The Orange ballots have Derek up 318-294. Today's margin increase of 32 brings Derek to +613.
Now I am off to sos.ca.gov to see which counties reported in CA-13...
In CA-13 Adam Gray went ahead based on a big batch from Merced County which he won 1344 to 1032 for Duarte. That is a 312 vote gain which took him from 207 behind to 105 ahead. It ain't over until it is over, but we are in the late innings here, and now I believe Adam will win.
I won't be shocked if another county chimes in with a few votes tonight but that is what is showing up at this time (5:25 PST). Praise the mercy of the Merced County voters!
Maybe, maybe not. Steel is Korean American and she has now won twice and lost once. It is a big deal that Tran will be the first Vietnamese American House member from the most Vietnamese district in the country. The fact that he was able to win as a Democrat shows that the strong right-wing anticommunists aren't as dominant in their community as in earlier generations shortly after the end of the war. I hope he can do an excellent job and solidify his hold on the district while building up the CDP in the area. OC used to be the heartland of Reagan Country. I am glad it is more of a mixture now. Both parties have had success with Asian and Latino candidates in recent years. The big loss for the Dems in OC this year was a white dude, Josh Newman, who lost his senate seat to "Steve" Choi in SD-37. There are always different factors at play in every race. I think Tran was a good candidate; he just beat an incumbent congresscritter.
Yes, and Stephanie Murphy in Florida also was Vietnamese. But Derek Tran is the first to represent one of the most Vietnamese-American districts in the country.
That was a fluke where the Democratic rep was found with massive amounts of cash in his freezer. The next election the GOP rep was crushed in that overwhelmingly Democratic district.
Meanwhile, Orange County has essentially exhausted all of its provisional ballots (on average only about 1/4 of them end up being accepted). Those were supposed to be more R-leaning, but Tran won those drops anyway. The remaining should be somewhat bluer than the past few days and net Tran another 300 votes.
This Stanislaus batch has 713 votes for Gray and 636 for Duarte, a margin of 77 votes, which increases Gray's lead to 182 votes. We'll see what tomorrow brings, but we are almost done here.
Troy Jackson and Sherrod Brown should run for senator, not governor.
I suppose there's always Tim Ryan to run in Ohio should Brown opt to run for governor. He should have better name recognition by now from his previous attempt.
Is Emilia Sykes considering going statewide? She might be a good candidate.
What would the bench look like for her seat if she gave it up? She won a tough reelection and even in a good year that seat could be vulnerable.
Governors are more powerful than Senators, so I can see why people would prefer that office.
Joe Manchin might disagree.
Depends on the state.
Hard disagree. The right Dem can still win OH Gov. Statewide federal races there are a moneysink heartbreaker waiting to happen.
Last Democrat elected governor was in 2006. Last one elected senator was in 2018.
Has much more to do with the incumbency and the dynamics of the candidates during that transition period. But Ohio is dead to us at the federal level for the time being.
If you’re writing off Ohio at the federal level, you’re effectively accepting that it is impossible for Democrats to win Senate seats in any states we don’t currently have Senators in other than North Carolina and maybe Alaska. We can’t rely on winning every Senate seat in every swing seat, especially now that Republicans are probably gonna be playing offense in places like Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Virginia, and New Jersey that were close this time around. If we don’t try to win Senate races in more than just 26 states, we’re just giving up and accepting that we’ll never have any power ever again. Ohio was the closest non-swing state that the Republicans won in the presidential election, and we lost a Senate race there by just 4 points, if we can’t win there, where else do you think we should campaign?
Comes down to 2 things:
1) If we have a statewide "star player" . .I'd rather out them in the more winnable race. Having a D Governor in Ohio could do a lot of good policy-wise.
2) I'm not writing it off completely, but trends IMO are important. Ohio for 4 straight POTUS cycles now has become more Republican. Texas until last month was trending our way (North Carolina still is) . .I'd rather allocate resources in the states trending towards us than away from us. Yes that means our map is in a pretty sorry shape currently and we can't afford any upsets to our side.
I agree with your sentiment, but disagree that we'll be on defense for a Senate seat in NJ, NM or VA in a Republican President's midterm. I suspect MN and NH are safe in that situation too.
Might be a challenge to find a good candidate for that seat since it would be a two-year term and they'd have to remain in permanent campaign mode for the right to keep it in an even more difficult Presidential cycle.
Would be great to have both Ryan and Brown running on the ticket in Ohio at the same time.
WINNING THE HOUSE SOONER…
Here is a radical strategy for winning back the House of Representatives, sooner rather than later. One way to get rid of bothersome upper-management employees that are difficult to fire, is to praise them to the right ears – so they’re headhunted by a competitor. The result is a win-win.
Not infrequently, congressional representatives retire to seek the greater financial rewards that are available in private industry. In fact, Axios had an article about this just the other day:
. "Private-sector paydays threaten Mike Johnson's House majority"
https://www.axios.com/2024/11/26/mike-johnson-congress-cameo-jobs-books
So here is my idea: that democracy-favoring business owners be "inspired" to make lucrative job offers to Republican House members elected from vulnerable districts, tempting them to retire early from Congress. This, of course, will trigger Special Elections, in which Democrats in recent years have been overperforming.
Hakeem Jeffries may well find himself Speaker of the House sooner than expected.
From Axios’ article:
"Salary is a major sore spot for House lawmakers. They last got a pay bump to $174,000 in 2009… The real threat to Johnson's majority is people leaving for private-sector jobs.
"At least five House lawmakers quit Congress early in the last two years to pursue private-sector paychecks. Another four resigned early for other reasons, two died in office and one was expelled.
"If similar patterns play out over the next two years, Johnson's majority is permanently at risk."
("Johnson will start Jan. 3 with (at most!) a 221-213 vote majority, before falling as low as 218-216 until special elections can replace Trump Cabinet appointees. Even at full strength, the House GOP majority will be at most 221-214. That's a margin nightmares are made of.")
So we need a rich liberal to hire Don Bacon, Mike Lawler and David Valadao to high paying jobs?
Democrats need a multi-pronged strategy. Job offers from non-MAGA business owners is just one more tactic added to the mix.
It wont work. If these people wanted lucrative jobs they could take them at any time.
This is like all those "why doesn't Biden just appoint Susan Collins to be ambassador to Britain" posts we used to see on DK.
Of course it might very well succeed – because my proposal doesn’t need to work on a large scale. And as the article points out, people leave Congress all the time.
There are more than 200 Republicans in the house. If even two or three of them leave, for any reason whatsoever (not just those that I describe), that can be catastrophic for Mike Johnson’s control. In other words, we’re talking about a resignation rate of 1–1.5%. That low rate is happening anyways!
I’m just suggesting we add one more factor to the mix.
No of course not. This is just frosting on the cake to sweeten the deal. The key is to see how toxic the environment gets before these folks get uncomfortable enough that they decide the alternative of bailing is more enticing.
A question - how often do write-in campaigns succeed, or at least do well? We had a pretty last minute one here in my area that garnered around 35% of the vote. I'm in a heavily Democratic area and the write-in candidates were Democrats themselves, running on what folks here would call a "nimby" campaign. I'm sure they got Republican crossover to stick it to the Dems, but I think their base was Democrats.
I had my State Rep win renomination in a write-in campaign. He failed to file his signatures, so he wasn't on the ballot. There have also been cases in Massachusetts where all of the candidates have been write-ins because an incumbent decided not to run for reelection but didn't tell anyone until after the deadline.
(He claimed the signature papers were stolen from his office, though I was skeptical of that. Even if that was the case, it was irresponsible to just leave them sitting on his disk with the door open.)
A similar thing happened a year or two ago for Byron Brown, when he lost the primary than turned around in a write-in campaign to pretty easily win the general election for Buffalo Mayor.
Back in the March 2002 primary, we had an OC superior court judge, Ronald Klein, up for a retention vote, and beyond the filing date, he was arrested for having thousands of porn pictures of young boys on the computer in his chambers. He was the only candidate on the ballot and it couldn't be changed.
There was a media effort by the LA Times, OC Register, local TV and mailing blitz to vote for only one of the many lawyers who signed up for writein.
OC voters voted for the media picked writein and didn't vote for the only name on the ballot, so we didn't elect a pervert (at least that time).
Unfortunately, when Klein was convicted, he was sentenced to only 27 months. I thought a much longer sentence was warranted for someone in that type of position.
Was Klein actively campaigning despite the arrest?
No, but when you have a single judge on the ballot, it's rare for there to be any campaign. Most everyone just votes for the only name on the ballot.
Or leave it blank. I will usually undervote when there is only one name on the ballot. If I know who they are and like them I'll give a vote, but otherwise it is just one less oval to fill in.
I might be the only one here who remembers Rep. Ron Packard (R-CA) who won a seat in Congress in 1982 as a write-in candidate. There were 17 candidates running in a GOP open seat primary. The guy who won the primary was some random rich dude who lied about being endorsed by Reagan, massively outspent the others with attack ads, and was not liked by the local partisans. Packard, who had been Mayor of Carlsbad, was 92 votes behind. He won as a write-in in the general election with 37% to 32% for the Dem and 31% to the GOP nominee. Packard served 18 years in Congress, never strongly challenged after that.
I very much enjoy writing in my cat(s) names, when only one choice is on the ballot and write-in is an option. Usually not provided for judicial races, though (professional requirements, I suppose) in North Cakalaky.
In 2006 in OH-06, Charlie Wilson's campaign fucked up gathering signatures to make the ballot, and he ran a write in campaign in the primary, leading to this gem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OzysDagrYA
I especially love the line "George Bush will feel the pain, when you write in Charlie's name." He got like 66% as a write-in and went on to win his election in November easily.
While I'm sad for any pain inflicted on anyone I hope Trump hits that level of popularity in 2026.
Lisa Murkowski won her Senate race in 2010 as a write-in after losing the GOP primary to MAGA before it was cool aka Hipster MAGA Joe Miller.
That spelling bee ad is fucking classic.
In Virginia, Delegate Nick Freitas had to run a write-in campaign in 2019 to keep his state House seat, because he didn’t submit the required paperwork to run. (Funny enough, he made the same mistake when he ran for Congress in 2020.) He ended up winning 56-42 in a district that usually votes along the lines of 62-38.
In 2002, then-DC Mayor Anthony Williams won renomination as a write-in after his campaign botched his nomination petitions and he thus couldn't appear on the ballot.
Trump starting term #2 on more positive notes with the public than his first term:https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/cbs-news-poll-trump-transition-cabinet-picks-2024-11-24/
Honestly I find the sharp upwards tick in his favorability that began in Fall 2023 so bizarre and not tethered to anything specific. Makes me think I'm going crazy.
People are getting dumber and/or worse. Maybe COVID broke the species (God forbid we ever had to navigate any legitimate hardship like WWII, the Great Depression, etc.).
Don’t worry once the damage of his policies and leadership (or lack thereof) start setting in, the honeymoon will quickly evaporate and the divorce papers will start coming.
Covid was a legitimate hardship. I had to buy Heinz ketchup today and the price is stupid. Same with heavy cream. 12-packs of Pepsi products just increased another 50 cents to $8.99, a 61% increase since pre-pandemic. Coke is still at $8.49 but for how long?
I track my spending every month. Here are my average spends on groceries per month since 2020 (the first year I stopped buying 7-8 meals a week at the office):
2020 $460
2021 $459
2022 $437
2023 $493
2024 $468
So I am now spending 1.7% more than I was 5 years ago.
Have I changed my shopping habits? No, not at all. I buy a few essentials each week and then focus on whatever is on sale. As you pointed out, some things have gone up, but others have gone down. 12 packs of soda here cost over $10, but I've never paid anything close to that. Last week they were on a "buy 2 get 3 free" special, so I got 5 12 packs for a little over $20, or a bit over $4 each. BOGO, 3 for $14, and other such specials happen every week.
My local grocer has a loyalty card that automatically gets you all the specials when you swipe it at checkout - no coupons to clip, etc. I get a 5% discount shopping on Thursdays for being over 60 (this has been true for all the years above). My credit card gives me 2% cash back on all grocery purchases. I get "fuel points" that give me 10 cents/gallon off for every $100 spent, so each month I generally get 40-50 cents off per gallon on gas - sometimes they have one week 4X fuel point specials - as a result this year I got 80 cents and 90 cents per gallon discounts on two different months. All those discounts add up to something between $450 and $500 a year, so essentially I get 1 months' groceries for free.
This stuff isn't hard.
Your answer is the answer that lost on Election Day while mine is the one that won. Not saying you’re wrong as I’m a sales shopper as well. I will hit up four grocery stores in one trip if the sales tell me to, but that’s not the norm. If I only had one store option and had to buy pop/soda at regular price, I’d be fucking pissed.
Yeah, it's kind of human nature. People remember the prices that went up and totally ignore the prices that went down. I suspect that if most people isolated the total that they spend on groceries it probably hasn't gone up all that much, but people fixate on eggs (bird flu, but everyone ignores that), soda, gas, etc. So it does impact voting even if it makes little sense.
Is someone able to link the racist ad from 2008? None of the articles seem to have links.
Found it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1haqLYB1cw0
Ukraine takes it on the chin again, and Europe loses another round to Putin and authoritarianism: https://politicalwire.com/2024/11/26/pro-putin-tiktok-star-wins-in-romania/ We live in very dangerous times.
In addition, Austria’s Russia-friendly and euro-skeptic Freedom Party (FPÖ) continues to make headway. On Sunday the far-right party won a state election in Styria for the first time.
. "Austrian far right shows strength with state election win in Styria"
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/austrian-far-right-shows-strength-with-provincial-election-win-styria-2024-11-24/
I would think he will lose handily in the run-off, he only got 22% in the first round
Welcome back
I'm not fully back; I just decided to read some of the digest and the comments and post one thing some of you would be grimly interested in.
"Grimly interested in" sounds like a lot of the news these days. Take care, my friend.
You too.
I second what Zack said. It’s a challenge to find the little glimmers of light in these dark times, but they are there. Hope to see you back, at least occasionally. Do take care!
Thanks. I expect to be in Berlin some time in the spring.
Social media man . . .will be the downfall of the world.
While OH Sen is only tangentially possible to recover (and MT/WV Sen definitely not), PA Sen is very recoverable. The two obvious candidates there would be Reps. Boyle and Deluzio, who in some ways parallel Lamb and Fetterman to me, in that Boyle is more of an milquetoast Establishment guy and Deluzio is more of a left-populist (but much less of a loose cannon than Fetterman). Anyone else?
Shapiro's second term would be up the same year, so he seems an obvious candidate, assuming he wins re-election and does not become president.
Seems like JBE should just wait and run for Governor again in 2027?
Harris was unwilling to publicly break with Biden. She felt extreme loyalty.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5010824-harris-campaign-advisor-biden-criticism/
Harris campaign "blew" 1 billion. Is $20 million in debt. "I think this disqualifies her forever,” Morgan said. “If you can’t run a campaign, you can’t run America.”
https://newsnationnow.com/politics/kamala-harris-campaign-debt-donor/
Not sure that John Morgan, a self-described "Joe Biden Democrat" who identifies as an independent (from the article) who refused to fundraise for Harris is really the best one to listen to regarding Harris' campaign or her future prospects. (Apparently she wasn't sufficiently loyal to Biden for Morgan's liking?)
If her campaign's spending was overly lavish or sometimes misdirected (no argument here), it's notable that she was able to raise so much that some could be wasted. Given the level of overall spending in presidential races, a $20 million debt can be covered by looking under the proverbial couch cushions.
If Harris hadn't spent that much, we might be looking at a 57-43 Senate instead of 53-47, as well as a much bigger deficit in the House.
Bingo !
It's not a criticism of you but if ya didn't know John Morgan is a joke PI lawyer from the southeast who claimed vaccines cause autism. Harris had 100 days to dig the smoldering disastrous Biden campaign out of the dumpster fire it set itself in.
https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/02/21/john-morgan-deletes-tweets-appearing-to-link-vaccines-to-autism/
The dilemma of a sitting VP running for president while the incumbent president is unpopular. Humphrey is really the only other one who had to navigate this dilemma, and he was also faced with a badly divided party.
Yeah. I very much consider this past election parallel to 1968.
Already, the cries of "Then why did they say they had it in the bag!" are starting on social media, since it's also coming me out that internals never showed her ahead.
Nevermind the fact that it was mostly pundits and online people saying that. I always saw the Harris people themselves saying "We are the underdogs, but this is a close race and we believe we will ultimately win."
Even the people on podcasts like Pod Save America and the Bulwark were saying similar things.
It goes to show how little even many of her supporters paid attention to her messaging.
Though I do wonder if Democratic fundraising strategies have backfired on this too. The fact that even obviously winning campaigns send emails saying "We're way behind and we need your help!" may, IMO, be creating a Chicken Little effect. How many people saw this and said "Oh, they have to say that for fundraising and stuff though. She'll be fine"?
All of that being said, the unwillingness to break from Biden on anything does strike me as yet another indication that the Democratic party is often too cautious for its own good.
Yeah, Harris and Walz ran the only/best campaign they could, really. Since the "horror show debate" I wondered if the nomination was a poison chalice/busted hand all along (and allowed hope to creep back in over the fall, because I'm a moe-ron). In that sense, I give them lots of credit for the courage to run.
But their national ticket careers are over. They lost, and that's that. Fair or not, way that it goes.
Considering the leak of Biden's own internals (Favreau said internals had Trump >400 EVs if Biden stayed in), I'd go a step further and say that Harris ran a miraculously good campaign. She took a ship on a clear course for catastrophic defeat and turned it into a near miss.
A two point shift in our favor would have given her the win. By comparison, Romney would have needed over a five point shift in his favor to win in 2012. Barely more than half a point shift away from us in 2020 would have seen Biden lose — despite the clear gap in the electoral college, the win/lose scenario for 2020 and 2024 are very close, including in the house.
I know the natural response from everyone is to conclude that a losing candidate lost because they're a bad candidate, but considering the circumstances I'd say Harris did an excellent job. Sometimes candidates do a great job and still lose. It's an unfortunate reminder of the unfairness of life, but it is the reality.
Though, like you say her time on national tickets is over, fair or not.
If she was younger I think she could get another shot down the line after a stint in another office (like CA-Gov). If the perception of the Biden administration drastically moves in a positive direction in the next few years maybe she will get another look but I suspect the swing state governors/senators are going to be more attractive options and the party will want a fresh break.
If Kamala Harris wants to be the Governor of CA she would be the instant frontrunner for the 2026 runoff. There are a bunch of Democratic candidates already running or considering running for CA-Gov, but let's be real here. How many people know who Eleni Kounalakis, Betty Yee, Toni Atkins or Tony Thurmond are? Two of them are even current statewide officeholders and another is the former Controller. One is the former leader of both sides of the Legislature, which is a rare accomplishment, especially for a woman. Almost every California voter knows who Kamala Harris is; she just received over 9 million votes and 58.6% of the total.
Kamala didn't break the glass ceiling for POTUS but she could be the first woman Governor of this state if she wants to be. After two terms in Sacramento she would be around age 70, which would be a good time to retire or go into academia or write her memoirs or whatever. Being a woman, a person of color and a Californian was too much for her to overcome in the 2024 national election.
Losing didn't end Trump's career, or Nixon's. Losing two primary fights didn't end Regan's or Biden's. So, never say "never".
The Harris campaign never said they “had it in the bag”. If anything they suggested the opposite with the “underdog” talk. I do remember them saying they were keeping their polling assumptions fairly pessimistic.
And I’m as annoyed as anyone with the constant “We’re gonna lose unless you send us $50 today!” e-mails. The Harris campaign isn’t even one of the worst offenders here.
Kaboom Grey takes the lead in CA13 https://x.com/rpyers/status/1861562956850266214?s=61&t=5copDbz1aPl7ASsRCUclLg
Leads by 105!!
50.03% - 103,790 - Adam Gray (D)
49.97% - 103,685 - John Duarte (R)
CA-13
Adam Gray takes the lead!
+105 votes over Duarte.
Unless I'm missing something, the republican re-gerrymander of North Carolina was likely decisive.
Assuming Gray and Tran hold onto their leads and I'm counting right, we'll have a 220-215 house. North Carolina's gerrymander gave three pickups to republicans. Assuming our incumbents would have held on with the original maps (not certain) the result would have been 218-217 in our favor.
Nickel (NC-13) would have had a tough race he was in the marginal district under the old maps but he would have been a decent bet to win.
he's a good politician though; I like his chances in close races especially as an incumbent
Assuming both hold on, it would mean we somehow gained one seat in the House from this hot mess.
Can't blame New York this time.
Or California. If Gray hangs on we will be +3 seats in the Golden State (Tran and Gray, plus George Whitesides in CA-27) and we held a swing open seat (CA-47 with Dave Min replacing Katie Porter, who ran for Senator and did not make the runoff.) Not too bad...
Complete with winning OR-05, we have redeemed the most egregious failures of 2022 re: the House.
That said, having all our non-redistricting flips in CA and NY (with OR-05) doesn’t seem to bode well for shaking off the label of the “coastal party” . . .
Ah yes the costal swing districts consisting of... Syracuse and the Central Valley
If the final totals hold up Republicans will have won the three closest seats (CO-08, IA-01 and PA-07) and control of the House by 7,464 votes.
I hate our gerrymander, but to be fair the Democrats picked up court-ordered seats in Alabama and Louisiana, so the net effect was -1.
I am psyched to see Gray pull ahead in CA-13! I'll break it down by county in a few minutes.
Meanwhile in SoCal Representative-elect Derek Tran added to his winning margin in both of his counties. The tiny L.A. batch has 20 for Tran and 12 for Steel. The Orange ballots have Derek up 318-294. Today's margin increase of 32 brings Derek to +613.
Now I am off to sos.ca.gov to see which counties reported in CA-13...
Gray ahead? I’ve been waiting and hoping. That’s effing awesome!
In CA-13 Adam Gray went ahead based on a big batch from Merced County which he won 1344 to 1032 for Duarte. That is a 312 vote gain which took him from 207 behind to 105 ahead. It ain't over until it is over, but we are in the late innings here, and now I believe Adam will win.
I won't be shocked if another county chimes in with a few votes tonight but that is what is showing up at this time (5:25 PST). Praise the mercy of the Merced County voters!
Would Tran have stood a chance if he wasn't vietnamese?
Maybe, maybe not. Steel is Korean American and she has now won twice and lost once. It is a big deal that Tran will be the first Vietnamese American House member from the most Vietnamese district in the country. The fact that he was able to win as a Democrat shows that the strong right-wing anticommunists aren't as dominant in their community as in earlier generations shortly after the end of the war. I hope he can do an excellent job and solidify his hold on the district while building up the CDP in the area. OC used to be the heartland of Reagan Country. I am glad it is more of a mixture now. Both parties have had success with Asian and Latino candidates in recent years. The big loss for the Dems in OC this year was a white dude, Josh Newman, who lost his senate seat to "Steve" Choi in SD-37. There are always different factors at play in every race. I think Tran was a good candidate; he just beat an incumbent congresscritter.
Wasn't there a Vietnamese american gop rep from Louisiana or something back in thr Obama era?
Yes, and Stephanie Murphy in Florida also was Vietnamese. But Derek Tran is the first to represent one of the most Vietnamese-American districts in the country.
Oh. I see what you are saying.
That was a fluke where the Democratic rep was found with massive amounts of cash in his freezer. The next election the GOP rep was crushed in that overwhelmingly Democratic district.
CA 45: Tran’s lead up to 613.
Stanislaus in Grey pads lead in CA13 to 182 https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1861613681894924313?s=61&t=5copDbz1aPl7ASsRCUclLg
With this update, Merced, Madera, and Stanislaus are substantially done counting, with only a few provisional ballots (needing signature cures left).
Fresno (red) and San Joaquin (blue) will report tomorrow (11/27), those should roughly cancel each other out.
https://x.com/rpyers/status/1861613002400698460
Meanwhile, Orange County has essentially exhausted all of its provisional ballots (on average only about 1/4 of them end up being accepted). Those were supposed to be more R-leaning, but Tran won those drops anyway. The remaining should be somewhat bluer than the past few days and net Tran another 300 votes.
This Stanislaus batch has 713 votes for Gray and 636 for Duarte, a margin of 77 votes, which increases Gray's lead to 182 votes. We'll see what tomorrow brings, but we are almost done here.