I wonder what percentage of voters in NY-21 watch Newsmax? I suspect it can’t be very high. Even though flipping Stefanik’s seat might be a longshot, I do hope Democrats nominate a strong candidate – someone who fits the district.
We had a democrat represent the area before her, Bill Owen I think was his name. If feels like the already republican upstate has slipped further away from us so it will be tough.
It was an odd anomaly during the Obama years as NY-21 kept trending increasingly Democratic and then abruptly went the other direction. In the Stefanik era, Dems have even managed to lose the parts of NY-21 that had been Democratic going back to the Clinton years, such as St. Lawrence and Franklin counties.
We may nominate a credible candidate, but it's an uphill battle for sure. Dems only won it in a 2009 special election due to a GOP split.
It was fairly impressive that Bill Owens managed to hold on to it in 2010 and 2012, but he stepped down in 2014 and for some reason local Dems closed ranks quickly around Aaron Woolf, an interesting but little known candidate (a filmmaker and organic grocery owner who had never held public office.) Woolf lost to Stefanik by a 55-34 landslide, with 11% going to a Green candidate. (However, there was enough of a red wave that year that even Owens might have lost.) None of Stefanik's opponents since have gotten more than 42%.
ROMANIA: Court annuls result of first round of presidential election. That first round was unexpectedly won by a far-right candidate, Calin Georgescu, a NATO skeptic who praises Putin. (Sound familiar?)
Amazingly, Georgescu, who is almost unknown, claims he spent "almost nothing" on his presidential campaign.
The court referred to Romanian intelligence reports that Georgescu benefited from a massive influence operation conducted from abroad (Russia), which was designed to interfere with the result of the vote.
Outcome-oriented I’m very ok with this, but this seems to play into the hands of anti-establishment populists as a matter of process and I can see such a scenario ripe for abuse in a future case where nastier figures have come ahead in Romania’s pretty young and long uneven democracy
Interestingly, vehement attacks on the court have been voiced by the Romanian candidate who took second place in round #1. Why? Runner-up Elena Lasconi was confident that she would beat Georgescu in round #2, which of course won’t be happening as scheduled.
(With an election re-do, the governing party’s candidate, Marcel Ciolacu of the governing Social Democrats who placed third, will have another shot at the presidency.)
"Whether we like it or not, from a legal and legitimate point of view, nine million Romanian citizens, both in the country and in the diaspora, have expressed their preference for a certain candidate. We cannot ignore their will!"
– Elena Lasconi, Save Romania Union (an opposition party)
Blunt as always, Rocha announced this week, “I’m not running for DNC chairman because, after meeting with former chairmen (to discuss what the primary focus of the committee’s work). I have no interest in being a full-time fundraiser for the party. I’m still committed to fixing and rebuild our party, but I’ll do it without being the chairman.”
That was a pointed, and entirely appropriate observation regarding the DNC, which many critics have argued spends inordinate amounts of time chasing after big money and far too little time building a party that appeals to working-class voters.
True, and I don't agree with those who say that money raised in any way other than "pass the hat and put in $27" (or whatever small amount) is "dirty". So long as we have Citizens United and the unlikelihood of Congress passing any comprehensive reform, we have to play on the field that's been set and can't disarm.
But Rocha is right in that there's probably been too much emphasis on that. While it's not the job of the DNC to dictate policy or handpick candidates, it needs to do more than just send fundraising solicitations whose frequency and tone can sometimes end up doing more harm than good--note the frequent complaining on here and elsewhere about endless "we're DOOMED unless you send us $50!!" e-mails and texts (in fairness, not all of those are the DNC's doing.)
Some need to drink from the poisoned chalice until fundamental reform of campaign finance happens, if it ever does, is largely inarguable. It's not disqualifying to be rich, to self fund, or to accept large sums from rich donors. However, that doesn't mean no implications can be drawn from who funds candidates or what funds they solicit/accept.
Money is important, but there's also a question of where the diminishing returns are. Harris, Biden, and Clinton all either lost narrowly or won narrowly against an opponent they outspent ~3:1, even accounting for outside spending. Brown and Tester had giant gobs of money.
We absolutely, 100% need to be good at fundraising and it really matters. But there's room for fair critique that there is an outsized focus on fundraising and that there are scenarios where we maybe raise 10-20% less but do better overall because of smarter strategies and interacting with the party's base on a more meaningful level than as ATMs.
"interacting with the party's base on a more meaningful level than as ATMs." Treat me as a citizen and a party member and a fellow human, not as a mark to be conned out of money and into the voting booth.
Lauren McFerran, Chairwoman of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), is still waiting for reconfirmation with less than two weeks left in her term.
Yet Senate Democrats have dragged their feet on reconfirming McFerran, whose term ends on December 16. This is despite the fact that Majority Leader Chuck Schumer recently described the task as one of the Senate’s “highest priorities.” Doing so would cement a Democratic voting majority on the agency’s board until 2026, creating a crucial bulwark against the incoming Trump administration’s explicit aims to rollback Biden-era policy.
Here's an article I wrote over at my Substack newsletter, Apollo Record, about how I define a political mandate for a President. By my definition, the last three presidential elections have resulted in the winner winning without a political mandate.
I wonder what percentage of voters in NY-21 watch Newsmax? I suspect it can’t be very high. Even though flipping Stefanik’s seat might be a longshot, I do hope Democrats nominate a strong candidate – someone who fits the district.
We had a democrat represent the area before her, Bill Owen I think was his name. If feels like the already republican upstate has slipped further away from us so it will be tough.
And the district has been made more Republican through redistricting since then.
It was an odd anomaly during the Obama years as NY-21 kept trending increasingly Democratic and then abruptly went the other direction. In the Stefanik era, Dems have even managed to lose the parts of NY-21 that had been Democratic going back to the Clinton years, such as St. Lawrence and Franklin counties.
Of the three vacancies, it makes the most sense to try here but it's a longshot for sure.
We may nominate a credible candidate, but it's an uphill battle for sure. Dems only won it in a 2009 special election due to a GOP split.
It was fairly impressive that Bill Owens managed to hold on to it in 2010 and 2012, but he stepped down in 2014 and for some reason local Dems closed ranks quickly around Aaron Woolf, an interesting but little known candidate (a filmmaker and organic grocery owner who had never held public office.) Woolf lost to Stefanik by a 55-34 landslide, with 11% going to a Green candidate. (However, there was enough of a red wave that year that even Owens might have lost.) None of Stefanik's opponents since have gotten more than 42%.
ROMANIA: Court annuls result of first round of presidential election. That first round was unexpectedly won by a far-right candidate, Calin Georgescu, a NATO skeptic who praises Putin. (Sound familiar?)
Amazingly, Georgescu, who is almost unknown, claims he spent "almost nothing" on his presidential campaign.
The court referred to Romanian intelligence reports that Georgescu benefited from a massive influence operation conducted from abroad (Russia), which was designed to interfere with the result of the vote.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/06/romanian-court-annuls-first-round-of-presidential-election
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4x2epppego
Hmm.
Outcome-oriented I’m very ok with this, but this seems to play into the hands of anti-establishment populists as a matter of process and I can see such a scenario ripe for abuse in a future case where nastier figures have come ahead in Romania’s pretty young and long uneven democracy
Interestingly, vehement attacks on the court have been voiced by the Romanian candidate who took second place in round #1. Why? Runner-up Elena Lasconi was confident that she would beat Georgescu in round #2, which of course won’t be happening as scheduled.
(With an election re-do, the governing party’s candidate, Marcel Ciolacu of the governing Social Democrats who placed third, will have another shot at the presidency.)
"Whether we like it or not, from a legal and legitimate point of view, nine million Romanian citizens, both in the country and in the diaspora, have expressed their preference for a certain candidate. We cannot ignore their will!"
– Elena Lasconi, Save Romania Union (an opposition party)
Congresswoman Suzan DelBene will serve another term as Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Fine be with this, though t
it’s just in wait for Murray to retire
NYC Mayor Eric Adams (D) sounds like he’s considering seeking reelection next year as an Independent or a Republican…
https://x.com/Politics1com/status/1865037550240289192
No surprise, the problem for him is he's a bad mayor and won't win reelection
Not to mention a crook who is under indictment.
TRUMP LAUGHS AT ‘THIRSTY’ ERIC ADAMS FOR KISSING UP
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-eric-adams-new-york-pardon-1235195063/
NY-21: "Pinion, though, argued that... there's 'a willingness to vote for Joe Pinion'."
Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like uh, your Joe Pinion, man...
Hahaha
Bob Dole is smiling.
Interactive map of presidential voting by town, city, borough in New Jersey.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/mT8Nz/4/
Whoo-hoo, Medford in Burlington County finally went blue. Their municipal government is 100% R.
Blunt as always, Rocha announced this week, “I’m not running for DNC chairman because, after meeting with former chairmen (to discuss what the primary focus of the committee’s work). I have no interest in being a full-time fundraiser for the party. I’m still committed to fixing and rebuild our party, but I’ll do it without being the chairman.”
That was a pointed, and entirely appropriate observation regarding the DNC, which many critics have argued spends inordinate amounts of time chasing after big money and far too little time building a party that appeals to working-class voters.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/chuck-rocha-dnc-chair/
At least he's staying active in the party. In addition to his organizational skills, he's saying stuff that needs to be heard.
In fairness we don't have billionaires at our disposal to spend 100s of millions so yes fundraising is important.
True, and I don't agree with those who say that money raised in any way other than "pass the hat and put in $27" (or whatever small amount) is "dirty". So long as we have Citizens United and the unlikelihood of Congress passing any comprehensive reform, we have to play on the field that's been set and can't disarm.
But Rocha is right in that there's probably been too much emphasis on that. While it's not the job of the DNC to dictate policy or handpick candidates, it needs to do more than just send fundraising solicitations whose frequency and tone can sometimes end up doing more harm than good--note the frequent complaining on here and elsewhere about endless "we're DOOMED unless you send us $50!!" e-mails and texts (in fairness, not all of those are the DNC's doing.)
Some need to drink from the poisoned chalice until fundamental reform of campaign finance happens, if it ever does, is largely inarguable. It's not disqualifying to be rich, to self fund, or to accept large sums from rich donors. However, that doesn't mean no implications can be drawn from who funds candidates or what funds they solicit/accept.
Money is important, but there's also a question of where the diminishing returns are. Harris, Biden, and Clinton all either lost narrowly or won narrowly against an opponent they outspent ~3:1, even accounting for outside spending. Brown and Tester had giant gobs of money.
We absolutely, 100% need to be good at fundraising and it really matters. But there's room for fair critique that there is an outsized focus on fundraising and that there are scenarios where we maybe raise 10-20% less but do better overall because of smarter strategies and interacting with the party's base on a more meaningful level than as ATMs.
"interacting with the party's base on a more meaningful level than as ATMs." Treat me as a citizen and a party member and a fellow human, not as a mark to be conned out of money and into the voting booth.
At least that's an admission that the DNC is not a dark cabal. Good for him to finally acknowledge that.
What color IS the cabal?
It would have to exist first. And this is no place for ontological debates over fictional entities.
Lauren McFerran, Chairwoman of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), is still waiting for reconfirmation with less than two weeks left in her term.
Yet Senate Democrats have dragged their feet on reconfirming McFerran, whose term ends on December 16. This is despite the fact that Majority Leader Chuck Schumer recently described the task as one of the Senate’s “highest priorities.” Doing so would cement a Democratic voting majority on the agency’s board until 2026, creating a crucial bulwark against the incoming Trump administration’s explicit aims to rollback Biden-era policy.
https://revolvingdoorproject.substack.com/p/why-wont-democrats-defend-their-legacy
Any Democrats opposing her?
Not aware of any. At least not publicly.
Oh, we support labor, just ask us.
Here's an article I wrote over at my Substack newsletter, Apollo Record, about how I define a political mandate for a President. By my definition, the last three presidential elections have resulted in the winner winning without a political mandate.
https://apollorecord.substack.com/p/political-mandate-president
Where did Biden fall short? Not getting a majority in the "tipping point" state?
You're correct. Biden got a plurality in the 2020 tipping point state, which was Wisconsin.
I beg to differ. Trump definitely has a "mandate" – i.e. a date with Elon Musk.
The last presidential election that was arguably a “mandate” election was 2008
I'm doubt Trump knows the definition of the word mandate. It's kind of an irrelevant political term.
I want to unsubscribe. I can't afford it. eccaps@gmail.com