Sep 16Liked by James Lambert, David Nir, Jeff Singer
I really like that the Down ballot morning digest posts at 5am on the left coast. It gives me something to read when I take the dogs out first thing in the morning.
Sep 16·edited Sep 16Liked by James Lambert, David Nir, Jeff Singer
And I likewise near the East Coast. The Morning Digest arrives timely in my Inbox at 8am, after I’ve done a solid round of work, taken care of correspondence and project planning – and brewed myself a second mug of Peet’s French Roast to savor with the Digest.
It’s a delight to be able to support this great work!
Thank you both so much! One thing I am very proud of is that we go out like clockwork. I find that most other newsletters tend to vary their send times, but I love the consistency and reliability of our approach. It's actually harder than you might expect to be this regular, so I'm glad folks appreciate it!
MA voter here. Got to say the question on unionizing for drivers is anything but simple. I had a popsicle headache after trying to interpret the language and implementation of what seemed something I would have supported unequivocally.
I think that's a problem with voter initiatives across the country. They are written by special interests and sometimes include proposals with unintended consequences or obfuscate the titled issue with poison pills.
I generally start at no until I'm convinced otherwise.
In California, Zack of the SFV puts out a voters guide, Zack's picks, that does an excellent job of analyzing the propositions.
I wouldn't say I start at yes or no, because it depends on the substance of the ballot measure, but if I absolutely can't understand it, I vote against it.
Agreed. In this case the implementation seems convoluted and not representative of the majority of drivers. Still have plenty of time to research - but leaning no.
Thank you for your kind words, DM! I am going to try to get the Picks out earlier this season (famous last words) since so many people vote fairly early.
In other CA ballot measure news I noticed in one of my last DKE comments that it was unusual that there were TV ads for congressional candidates before I saw anything about the ballot measures. Now I am seeing some spots about Props 33 and 34, which is the third time that the issue of allowing rent control in local jurisdictions has come to the ballot in recent years. While I support the substance of Prop 33 (and benefit from L.A. city rent control) I don't see the point of Michael Weinstein and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation running it again after losing twice in recent years (2018 and 2020). Not much has changed; we still have an affordability crisis and the Landlords' Lobby will still vastly outspend the AHF. Prop 33 will almost certainly lose. Now there is Prop 34 to try to put the AHF out of the initiative biz. I see 34 as an abuse of the initiative process and I doubt that it will pass, but it is early. So far no ads have appeared about the other eight statewide ballot measures.
I live in Massachusetts too, and I agree! In 2022 we had a few measures (spending limits on dental insurers for one) where any discussion began with "Why is this a ballot measure instead of a legislative bill?"
The initiatives, it seems to me, are a relief valve for ideas which can’t get traction in the legislature. At times that’s good, forcing an issue with popular support to be addressed. But in some cases the legislature punting on an issue is for good reason.
Any how this year we have half baked ideas (mushrooms anyone?) and complex ones up for popular vote.
I don’t object to it being an issue on the ballot, I couldn’t resist the pun though. To me It didn’t seem fully thought out… you could grow 12 square feet of 3 types of psychedelics, but if I read it correctly you couldn’t actually consume it without licensed supervision. …. Seemed a bit of an inconsistency. Having gone back there is actually 15 pages of details which is dense and includes the creation of a commission. So half baked, while clever was not accurate.
At least in our D super-majority state, I'm actually glad that the legislature has the ability to amend the laws later. They're generally reticent to completely toss something the voters just approved, (lest they themselves be tossed), and this allows for corrections and clarifications of these long and confusing bills.
On the other hand, I wish we could do something about our overly long and legalistic summaries that the AG's office writes. They read like the terms and conditions of a cell phone contact and often nearly incomprehensible, even to a highly educated native speaker of English, much less to the larger electorate.
Unfortunately in California, we have gotten Republican initiated propositions passed such as top two primaries and an independent redistricting commission that our legislature can't undo and has enough public support that it will be hard to get undone at the ballot box.
I am largely in favor of independent redistricting commissions and very much opposed to extreme gerrymandering.
That said, only a fool disarms unilaterally. So, as long as some Republican-controlled states are carrying out heinous disenfranchisement through gerrymandering, I would have liked to see Democrats gerrymander California and New York to the max!
I want to share this excellent analysis of the Harris-Trump Debate by Marcy Wheeler (EmptyWheel). I hope some other readers here find it as fascinating and revealing as I did.
House Majority PAC is adding $24 million to its initial $186 million in TV and digital reservations in April, according to plans shared first with POLITICO. Most of that new money will bolster the original buy.
But the group, which has close ties to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, has also identified three new offensive targets:
Iowa’s 1st District: HMP is reserving $350,000 worth of ads to boost Democrat Christina Bohannan in a southeast Iowa seat held by Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks.
Wisconsin’s 1st District: The super PAC is booking $725,000 in Milwaukee, where former Democratic Rep. Peter Barca is challenging Rep. Bryan Steil.
Wisconsin’s 3rd District: The group is placing nearly $4 million across three markets in western Wisconsin, where Democrats hope to unseat GOP Rep. Derrick Van Orden.
There seems to be consensus that Democrats are well-positioned to flip the House. The margin matters – we don’t want people like Jared Golden de-fanging good, progressive legislation.
Any thoughts on the likely or achievable House margin?
The odds of having a Dem held senate are small, so the odds of getting "good, progressive legislation" are nearly zero. I'd gladly take Golden as the 218th seat, without hesitation. Of course I'd prefer more, but the reality is we won't be getting some sort of liberal bastion of new laws if Harris wins, because we almost certainly aren't winning the Senate, sadly.
Good chance that Sherrod Brown will pull through. I think Mucarsel-Powell will unseat the reprehensible Rick Scott of Florida, and Independent Dan Sanborn may surprise us in Nebraska. Also, Jon Tester’s re-election efforts may be an uphill struggle but not hopeless.
While I can see the similarities in that comparison, since both are heavily rural, white and conservative states, there are some notable caveats to consider. Kansas has a ridiculously long history of electing Republicans - in fact from what I can see the last Democrat elected was George McGill back in 1939. Contrast that with Nebraska, which elected Bob Kerry in the 90s then Ben Nelson until he retired in 2013. Nebraska may not be a left leaning state, but if definitely has a history of electing left leaning or at least moderate Democrats to the senate. I would also add that there's a strong culture of voting for and supporting independent and nonpartisan politicians. Osborn especially fits that ideal, especially considering he spurned help from both parties. Is the race still an uphill climb? Probably sure, but I'd say Osborn is well within striking distance more than we may realize.
The Dakotas and Iowa also had pretty recent histories of voting for Democratic senators - not to mention West Virginia. So just how much relevance should we give that history to this year's elections?
Most Dems were underestimated in the 2012 polls. That was a very interesting year and there hasn't been another like it since regarding Democratic overperformance, although to be fair, 2022 was the closest we've come.
I have a very hard time imagining Brown winning. Remember that he underperformed polls in 2018 against a nearly invisible opponent. Since then, the Mahoning Valley has slipped so far out of reach that even the region's sitting Congressman managed to lose it in a race against freaking J.D. Vance. I struggle to see the Mahoning Valley snapping back even to 2018 numbers and have no idea how the math works for a Democrat to win Ohio without it. Delaware County wouldn't save Brown with a 50-50 Mahoning Valley. Add a win in Butler County into the mix just for giggles and I can't even see how that would do it.
Brown has a pretty clear path to winning. Ohio is no redder now than it was in 2018 (and might possibly even be bluer now thanks to the abortion issue). And being well known to be an asshole (as Moreno is) isn't any better electorally than being nearly invisible like Renacci in 2018. It will be close as always, but I think Brown wins re-election.
And if you're not sure how the political geography works out, look at the abortion referendum last year (which passed 57-43) and have the Dem do 6% worse in each county. That would be a 51-49 Dem victory.
Dead man walking is an overstatement. I wouldn't say he's the favorite but the race is still closer to a tossup than either the media or polls seem to be making the race out to be. What's especially suspect is the almost all of the recent polls are Republican/conservative aligned or leaning pollsters so they heavily skew the narrative of that senate race in 1 particular direction. There's also the fact that Tester seems to have been accumulating more Republican endorsements lately and Sheehy has been perceived very poorly, even amongst conservative voters. I'd prolly say the race is a tossup that leans in Sheehy's favor, but nothing more or less beyond that.
Absolutely! And Golden has many good qualities, although at times he can be exasperating.
Just to be clear, I want Democrats to win the House by a sufficiently large margin that Jared Golden – or a tiny group of very-conservative or opportunistic Democratic representatives – doesn’t become positioned to gain Manchin-like influence in the House.
This might be an overstatement but I generally agree here. I think we're likelier than not to win the House. I think the Senate is probably gone. I'd put Tester's odds at around 35 to 40% and Brown at 50/50.
I would usually post an excerpt, but it's just what you'd expect: she hopes they'll endorse her, they haven't yet, and there's still resentment over their flirting with Trump and the Republicans.
Yeah, you seem to troll this thought every few days. While I think prop 36 will pass, I'm voting against it because California already has tough laws and tough sentencing, and the bulk of push behind these ideas is the right wing propaganda machine. I suspect the attacks on California will get worse as a way to try to get at Kamala Harris.
I'm sure that'll be just as successful in the courts as charging insurance companies that denied coverage, causing the patient to die, with medical malpractice.
Yeah, but the stock of a Domenici these days doesn't mean anything anymore considering Pete Domenici last left office after 2008. Nella Domenici is also more right-wing than her father was if we take into account her Senate campaign platform.
If Domenici's son Adam Laxalt couldn't win the NV-SEN Race, then there's no reason why Nella Domenici should win at all in a bluer state with the platform she has.
"José Luiz Datena slammed a chair into opponent Pablo Marçal at the São Paulo mayoral debate. Marçal’s aides said he was diagnosed with a fractured rib."
I’m not exactly condoning hitting your opponent with a chair during a televised debate, but it does sound like the provocateur who got hit with the chair explicitly asked to be physically assaulted.
Colorado Ballot initiatives: To join the topic of the day I figured I would go through the ones I am not 100% decided on to see if anyone has thoughts on them.
Amendment I: Constitutional Bail Exemption for First Degree Murder
Technically there is in California, but the judge has wide discretion on flight risk, public safety, and if charged with special circumstances that could allow for the death penalty.
“ Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning creating an exception to the right to bail for cases of murder in the first degree when proof is evident or presumption is great?[5]"
"Arguments in favor:
State Sen. Rhonda Fields (D-29): "This is a fix that the Colorado Supreme Court has asked us to do to be able to make sure that we have a balanced approach for those who have access to bail."
State Sen. Mike Lynch (R-65): "This was clearly an unintended consequence of repealing the death penalty that puts the safety of the community at risk, and nearly 500 first-degree murder cases have been impacted since 2020, and courts have set bond in some of those cases."
State Rep. Monica Duran (D): "It’s really just going back to the way Colorado was — it’s nothing new. We’re not creating a new penalty at all, we’re just going back to the way… it’s been all along except for this little loophole when we removed the death penalty."
State Sen. Tom Sullivan: "This is the least that we could do. This is by far the least we can do is to make sure that these killers do not have the ability to see the light of the day until their trial has been completely adjudicated."
Argument opposed:
State Rep. Javier Mabrey (D): "I felt that it could impact the principle of innocence until proven guilty. If a judge makes a determination that someone is likely guilty before the trial, I worry about the signal that could send to the jury, the prosecution and the defense."
My concern is with the standard of "proof is evident or presumption is great." What criteria meets this standard?
Cats Aren't Trophies: "The value of having three species of wild cats in Colorado should not solely be measured in the dollars they bring as fur for trappers, or a head, hide or a mount for a trophy hunter. Mountain lions occupy a unique place in Colorado as an apex predator bringing vast benefits to Colorado’s deer and elk herds by keeping them healthy from the deadly neurological Chronic Wasting Disease; mountain lions are key to whole ecosystem health, and public safety because they reduce vehicle collisions with deer that are becoming much more common and deadly. By allowing inhumane and unnecessary trophy hunting and trapping of wild cats in modern times when we face climate change and biodiversity losses, we should be working hard to invest in our wildlife, rather than offer such easy shooting opportunities for no public good. Especially when we truly do not know how many of these species exist in our state."
Arguments in Opposition:
Gaspar Perricone, chair of Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project: "The future of Colorado’s wildlife management is at a crossroads. The underpinnings of science-based wildlife management administered by wildlife professionals may be on the ballot this November, and the stakes couldn’t be higher."
State Sen. Perry Will: "Ballot box biology is the absolute worst way you can manage wildlife. Our capable wildlife professionals are put in charge to manage our wildlife. But they feel the power to do this because that's how reintroducing wolves was passed. They would have done it with wolverines if I wouldn't have put a bill in place, which is a better way to do these things."
Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better: “According to Colorado Parks & Wildlife, regulated hunting is a management tool to maintain more stable populations. This ballot measure is an attempt to upend science-based wildlife management strategies that have been used by Colorado Parks & Wildlife to maintain abundant and stable mountain lion and bobcat populations for decades. Without regulated hunting and trapping, these animal populations may increase dramatically, posing an increased safety risk to people, pets, property, livestock, and other wildlife populations across the state. This ballot measure would have a disproportionate impact on rural communities in Colorado and would no longer allow farmers to be reimbursed for any livestock losses caused by mountain lions. This ballot measure would have a significant negative impact on Colorado’s economy, resulting in over $60 million in lost economic output. This ballot measure is dangerous, reckless, and based on absolutely zero scientific research. Irresponsible ballot measures such as these have no place in Colorado.”
Yeah I'm not rooting for murderers to run amuck I just want some clarification on how uniform the standard of "proof is evident or presumption is great" so it's not used as a constitutionally protected presumption of guilt or catch-all for anyone facing the charges.
I guess the arguments for trophy hunting would be that it brings in a s-load of money. Trophy hunters tend to spend tons, but it's fairly concentrated. Also perhaps to maintain balance if predator populations get too big, but that can be handled through nuisance wildlife statutes. Finally, so Fifi or Patches don't get eaten when let out. Which I presume affects less than 10 pets/yr.
In principle, I'd like to see trophy hunting banned I do worry/wonder if the ballot is the best place to do it, if the statutes you mention might be hindered by it. My hesitancy to most of the amendments/propositions I listed are unintended consequences & that maybe the state legislature is the more appropriate place to hash these changes out. I'm all for enshrining abortion rights and some of the other amendments that are cut and dry.
By your username assuming you have a background in ecology what is your take on the population control arguments? Thanks.
I don't know the situation real well in Colorado, but you can control populations just fine without trophy hunting. I doubt any of those cats are overpopulated. Probably only coyotes are. If there are nuisance animals they can be selectively culled. Your DNR can make the determination and issue the permits.
I'm voting for K and probably against all the rest you listed, unless I see persuasive arguments to the contrary. By default I vote against criminal justice stuff being added to the constitution, though I'm sure the subject matter ensures Amendment I will pass with like 75%. So too will Prop 131, it's a losing battle fighting that stuff. Rich centrists will get their way. I don't care to legislate hunting, veterinary licensing, of law enforcement funding via initiative.
I essentially agree with all of this. Still want to try to do the right thing on each issue but I agree on the outcomes of Amendment I & 131. In practice, I think the top 4 and RCV makes sense but it also feels like a back door to give Kent Thiry an electoral path. Unless there are strong arguments in favor of the rest I'm with you that the state legislature should figure it out.
I think you're too optimistic on all your Tilt D's - I'd call AZ & GA straight tossups and NC Tilt R. I'd also consider NV to be more Tilt D. I'd also put OH and IA out of even longshot range. Everything else I agree with.
I'm really not posting this to gossip or start drama, but is there anyone else here who frequents RRH? I used to read their daily roundups because they'd focus on more down-in-the weeds races and have good write ups on international elections, but it really seems like a lot of the content (especially in the comments) has gone off the rails lately, even compared to 2016 and 2020.
Am I crazy or has anyone else noticed this as well?
There's like 3 people who are horrible, but the rest of them are cool to interact with. TBH, RRH has more of the old SSP feel than we do here. We've largely become an echo chamber, which is unfortunate in some ways.
I just feel like it's taken on a more partisan Republican slant than a conservative slant lately if that makes sense. I used to appreciate that even though it is certainly a conservative site, there was always a pretty solid foundation of objectivity, but that has been lacking as of late. It seems like posters there are increasingly eager to jump on anything that makes Democrats look bad, reality be damned. Like, does anyone really think that the sister-in-law of a congressional candidate making a joke in poor taste about Trump's attempted assassination will change anything? Maybe I've just been checking in on bad days, or I'm misremembering how things were years ago.
As I said, there's a couple bad actors. And tensions do get higher as we approach election day, that happens here too. In fact, can you imagine if we had as many Republicans here as they have Democrats over there? They would not be nearly as welcomed here as we have been there. It's unfortunate, but the reality.
I am not the site owner, but Republican view points on here would be fine with me, as long as there was actual debate instead of assholery(I find that the current Republican party is an increasingly angry group that refuses any honest, open debate)
I wouldn't welcome policy debates from a Republican point of view, but I did and would welcome campaign and election analysis from a Republican point of view that is not trollish. We used to have folks who did that on Swing State Project.
Since this is a topic of the day; as we get closer, will there be a comprehensive ballot initiative rundown for all states(I live in Florida and am really interested in the opinions of this site)
Yeah, days long Trump-inspired Nazi-Bomb threats seem like the line between effectively scaring old white people who blame migrants for all that is wrong in their lives and the world and pissing off everyone else in society.
"Two high-ranking New York Fire Department chiefs were arrested early Monday and accused of accepting tens of thousands of dollars in bribes to speed up the fire-safety approval process for building projects across the city."
Besides State Sen. Jessica Ramos, who else would be a good candidate to replace Mayor Adams?
Compared to the problems that Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao and San Francisco Mayor London Breed are dealing with, this is insane! Fire Departments in general are supposed to be apolitical and have less controversy than police departments (so far as I've understood).
From top to bottom the civil service and elected officials in NYC are incompetent and/or corrupt and (despite the massive budget that NYC has - understaffed) It's hardly a surprise that they are bribing the fire department. The building department is a mad house and severely understaffed for what they need to do - yet the city's budget has increased tremendously over the past 10 years.
I live in Berkeley, CA and when it comes to the fire department and firefighters, I find it interesting as someone seeing this from the lens of living in a college town that NYC has this much corruption. Fire fighters work around the clock in this city to take care of fires in the city and other crisis problems.
Of course, I’ve only visited NYC a few days and have never lived there.
Don't get me wrong, firefighters in NYC work like crazy too. It doesn't mean some of them, particularly upper echelons, aren't corrupt. NYC is messed up.
I agree with the lean R rating but if the Selzer poll is in the ballpark, Harris has to be ahead in IA-03. And the Polk County (Des Moines area) Democrats have better GOTV this year than I've ever seen. So Lanon Baccam absolutely has a realistic chance.
I really like that the Down ballot morning digest posts at 5am on the left coast. It gives me something to read when I take the dogs out first thing in the morning.
And I likewise near the East Coast. The Morning Digest arrives timely in my Inbox at 8am, after I’ve done a solid round of work, taken care of correspondence and project planning – and brewed myself a second mug of Peet’s French Roast to savor with the Digest.
It’s a delight to be able to support this great work!
Thank you both so much! One thing I am very proud of is that we go out like clockwork. I find that most other newsletters tend to vary their send times, but I love the consistency and reliability of our approach. It's actually harder than you might expect to be this regular, so I'm glad folks appreciate it!
Hey, you can hoot with owls so long as the next morning you can soar with the eagles.
MA voter here. Got to say the question on unionizing for drivers is anything but simple. I had a popsicle headache after trying to interpret the language and implementation of what seemed something I would have supported unequivocally.
I think that's a problem with voter initiatives across the country. They are written by special interests and sometimes include proposals with unintended consequences or obfuscate the titled issue with poison pills.
I generally start at no until I'm convinced otherwise.
In California, Zack of the SFV puts out a voters guide, Zack's picks, that does an excellent job of analyzing the propositions.
I wouldn't say I start at yes or no, because it depends on the substance of the ballot measure, but if I absolutely can't understand it, I vote against it.
Agreed. In this case the implementation seems convoluted and not representative of the majority of drivers. Still have plenty of time to research - but leaning no.
Thank you for your kind words, DM! I am going to try to get the Picks out earlier this season (famous last words) since so many people vote fairly early.
In other CA ballot measure news I noticed in one of my last DKE comments that it was unusual that there were TV ads for congressional candidates before I saw anything about the ballot measures. Now I am seeing some spots about Props 33 and 34, which is the third time that the issue of allowing rent control in local jurisdictions has come to the ballot in recent years. While I support the substance of Prop 33 (and benefit from L.A. city rent control) I don't see the point of Michael Weinstein and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation running it again after losing twice in recent years (2018 and 2020). Not much has changed; we still have an affordability crisis and the Landlords' Lobby will still vastly outspend the AHF. Prop 33 will almost certainly lose. Now there is Prop 34 to try to put the AHF out of the initiative biz. I see 34 as an abuse of the initiative process and I doubt that it will pass, but it is early. So far no ads have appeared about the other eight statewide ballot measures.
I live in Massachusetts too, and I agree! In 2022 we had a few measures (spending limits on dental insurers for one) where any discussion began with "Why is this a ballot measure instead of a legislative bill?"
Yes!
The initiatives, it seems to me, are a relief valve for ideas which can’t get traction in the legislature. At times that’s good, forcing an issue with popular support to be addressed. But in some cases the legislature punting on an issue is for good reason.
Any how this year we have half baked ideas (mushrooms anyone?) and complex ones up for popular vote.
Legalizing magic mushrooms seems to me to be a fine idea and a normal use for a referendum, although a legislative solution would be equally good.
I don’t object to it being an issue on the ballot, I couldn’t resist the pun though. To me It didn’t seem fully thought out… you could grow 12 square feet of 3 types of psychedelics, but if I read it correctly you couldn’t actually consume it without licensed supervision. …. Seemed a bit of an inconsistency. Having gone back there is actually 15 pages of details which is dense and includes the creation of a commission. So half baked, while clever was not accurate.
At least in our D super-majority state, I'm actually glad that the legislature has the ability to amend the laws later. They're generally reticent to completely toss something the voters just approved, (lest they themselves be tossed), and this allows for corrections and clarifications of these long and confusing bills.
On the other hand, I wish we could do something about our overly long and legalistic summaries that the AG's office writes. They read like the terms and conditions of a cell phone contact and often nearly incomprehensible, even to a highly educated native speaker of English, much less to the larger electorate.
Unfortunately in California, we have gotten Republican initiated propositions passed such as top two primaries and an independent redistricting commission that our legislature can't undo and has enough public support that it will be hard to get undone at the ballot box.
I am largely in favor of independent redistricting commissions and very much opposed to extreme gerrymandering.
That said, only a fool disarms unilaterally. So, as long as some Republican-controlled states are carrying out heinous disenfranchisement through gerrymandering, I would have liked to see Democrats gerrymander California and New York to the max!
WI-03: 49-47 Cooke, GBAO Dem internal poll posted as a scoop to Politico Playbook.
I want to share this excellent analysis of the Harris-Trump Debate by Marcy Wheeler (EmptyWheel). I hope some other readers here find it as fascinating and revealing as I did.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/09/15/how-kamala-harris-dodged-the-two-truths-problem/
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/07/29/congress/house-majority-pac-24m-ad-buys-00171570: (hat tip to Politicalwire; all that follows is quoted from the article)
House Majority PAC is adding $24 million to its initial $186 million in TV and digital reservations in April, according to plans shared first with POLITICO. Most of that new money will bolster the original buy.
But the group, which has close ties to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, has also identified three new offensive targets:
Iowa’s 1st District: HMP is reserving $350,000 worth of ads to boost Democrat Christina Bohannan in a southeast Iowa seat held by Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks.
Wisconsin’s 1st District: The super PAC is booking $725,000 in Milwaukee, where former Democratic Rep. Peter Barca is challenging Rep. Bryan Steil.
Wisconsin’s 3rd District: The group is placing nearly $4 million across three markets in western Wisconsin, where Democrats hope to unseat GOP Rep. Derrick Van Orden.
This article was written in July, so I’m not sure why it’s being posted now in September?
Oh, that's very weird. I didn't notice that. Politicalwire is a good resource but can be strange and slipshod at times.
There seems to be consensus that Democrats are well-positioned to flip the House. The margin matters – we don’t want people like Jared Golden de-fanging good, progressive legislation.
Any thoughts on the likely or achievable House margin?
The odds of having a Dem held senate are small, so the odds of getting "good, progressive legislation" are nearly zero. I'd gladly take Golden as the 218th seat, without hesitation. Of course I'd prefer more, but the reality is we won't be getting some sort of liberal bastion of new laws if Harris wins, because we almost certainly aren't winning the Senate, sadly.
"Almost certainly" is way too strong, in my opinion.
I'd say that to get to 50 senate seats, Dems would have to win at least one that they would seem likely to lose if the election were this week.
Yes. But it's 1 of 3.
Good chance that Sherrod Brown will pull through. I think Mucarsel-Powell will unseat the reprehensible Rick Scott of Florida, and Independent Dan Sanborn may surprise us in Nebraska. Also, Jon Tester’s re-election efforts may be an uphill struggle but not hopeless.
Nebraska is not believable to me. Compare Orman (I think that was his name) in Kansas.
While I can see the similarities in that comparison, since both are heavily rural, white and conservative states, there are some notable caveats to consider. Kansas has a ridiculously long history of electing Republicans - in fact from what I can see the last Democrat elected was George McGill back in 1939. Contrast that with Nebraska, which elected Bob Kerry in the 90s then Ben Nelson until he retired in 2013. Nebraska may not be a left leaning state, but if definitely has a history of electing left leaning or at least moderate Democrats to the senate. I would also add that there's a strong culture of voting for and supporting independent and nonpartisan politicians. Osborn especially fits that ideal, especially considering he spurned help from both parties. Is the race still an uphill climb? Probably sure, but I'd say Osborn is well within striking distance more than we may realize.
The Dakotas and Iowa also had pretty recent histories of voting for Democratic senators - not to mention West Virginia. So just how much relevance should we give that history to this year's elections?
I have Brown favored. But Tester seems to be dead man walking. That's 51R seats with a Sheehy win, unfortunately
Polls have underestimated Tester before, though
Most Dems were underestimated in the 2012 polls. That was a very interesting year and there hasn't been another like it since regarding Democratic overperformance, although to be fair, 2022 was the closest we've come.
A recent poll showed Tester up by five % points whereas others show Sheehy up several percentage points.
If Tester was up by just 1% points or even with Sheehy and he was leading Tester in multiple polls, then I'd be really concerned.
I have a very hard time imagining Brown winning. Remember that he underperformed polls in 2018 against a nearly invisible opponent. Since then, the Mahoning Valley has slipped so far out of reach that even the region's sitting Congressman managed to lose it in a race against freaking J.D. Vance. I struggle to see the Mahoning Valley snapping back even to 2018 numbers and have no idea how the math works for a Democrat to win Ohio without it. Delaware County wouldn't save Brown with a 50-50 Mahoning Valley. Add a win in Butler County into the mix just for giggles and I can't even see how that would do it.
Are you predicting a 52-48 Republican control of the Senate, then?
hello, is this Mark27 from DKE?
Tester and Brown are battle tested incumbents; and it's our best chance to retain the majority(it's not inconceivable that they win)
And yet Brown won re-election by a slightly higher margin in 2018 than in 2012. Explain that.
Brown has a pretty clear path to winning. Ohio is no redder now than it was in 2018 (and might possibly even be bluer now thanks to the abortion issue). And being well known to be an asshole (as Moreno is) isn't any better electorally than being nearly invisible like Renacci in 2018. It will be close as always, but I think Brown wins re-election.
And if you're not sure how the political geography works out, look at the abortion referendum last year (which passed 57-43) and have the Dem do 6% worse in each county. That would be a 51-49 Dem victory.
Don't count out Tester; it ain't over til it's over
Dead man walking is an overstatement. I wouldn't say he's the favorite but the race is still closer to a tossup than either the media or polls seem to be making the race out to be. What's especially suspect is the almost all of the recent polls are Republican/conservative aligned or leaning pollsters so they heavily skew the narrative of that senate race in 1 particular direction. There's also the fact that Tester seems to have been accumulating more Republican endorsements lately and Sheehy has been perceived very poorly, even amongst conservative voters. I'd prolly say the race is a tossup that leans in Sheehy's favor, but nothing more or less beyond that.
Dead Man Walking is not accurate; difficult race for Tester, no doubt
I think Sanborn could surprise us in Nebraska by keeping it closer than it realistically should be, but I see no situation in which he actually wins.
Imo our chances are considerably better than 'almost certainly aren't'...
It won’t be much. 225 may be realistic. With some breaks, could get up to 230.
I want Jared Golden over the alternative
Absolutely! And Golden has many good qualities, although at times he can be exasperating.
Just to be clear, I want Democrats to win the House by a sufficiently large margin that Jared Golden – or a tiny group of very-conservative or opportunistic Democratic representatives – doesn’t become positioned to gain Manchin-like influence in the House.
Imo I'm not worried about the house(I think our side has won it); I'm almost solely focused on the Senate(roughly 5 seats involved)
This might be an overstatement but I generally agree here. I think we're likelier than not to win the House. I think the Senate is probably gone. I'd put Tester's odds at around 35 to 40% and Brown at 50/50.
I'd put them both at marginally higher but both winnable as well as possibly losing
https://politicalwire.com/2024/09/16/harris-to-meet-with-teamsters-2/
I would usually post an excerpt, but it's just what you'd expect: she hopes they'll endorse her, they haven't yet, and there's still resentment over their flirting with Trump and the Republicans.
I would vote for Proposition 36 if I lived in CA.
Yeah, you seem to troll this thought every few days. While I think prop 36 will pass, I'm voting against it because California already has tough laws and tough sentencing, and the bulk of push behind these ideas is the right wing propaganda machine. I suspect the attacks on California will get worse as a way to try to get at Kamala Harris.
Count me in as well! More punishment for the least severe crimes isn't the way to go.
For the first time, investigators at Propublica have determined that two women in Georgia died due to the Dobbs decision.
More are to follow, especially since state investigative committees often operate with a two year lag behind the cases they examine.
Propublica will be releasing more details of other suspected deaths in the coming weeks and months.
https://www.propublica.org/article/georgia-abortion-ban-amber-thurman-death
Time to start charging anti-abortion politicians and judges with manslaughter.
I'm sure that'll be just as successful in the courts as charging insurance companies that denied coverage, causing the patient to die, with medical malpractice.
Hopefully these will be turned into tv commercials in October
Senate Poll - New Mexico
🔵 Heinrich 50% (+12)
🔴 Domenici 38%
Research &Polling 532 LV - 9/13
I forgot a Domenici was running here.
Yeah, but the stock of a Domenici these days doesn't mean anything anymore considering Pete Domenici last left office after 2008. Nella Domenici is also more right-wing than her father was if we take into account her Senate campaign platform.
If Domenici's son Adam Laxalt couldn't win the NV-SEN Race, then there's no reason why Nella Domenici should win at all in a bluer state with the platform she has.
She also has basically no connection to New Mexico aside from her surname.
Yes. And Senator Martin Heinrich has capitalized on this.
Just to remind everyone that the U.S. is not the only country with violent campaigns and maybe not the worst:
Candidate hits opponent with chair during live TV debate, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/16/brazil-politician-chair-attack-mayor-debate/
"José Luiz Datena slammed a chair into opponent Pablo Marçal at the São Paulo mayoral debate. Marçal’s aides said he was diagnosed with a fractured rib."
We are FAR from the worst. Have we forgotten what's happening in Venezuela right now?
No, but Venezuela is not a democracy at all.
Taiwan's Yuan (legislature) occasionally has brawls as a delay tactic.
Jesus. That's awful!
I’m not exactly condoning hitting your opponent with a chair during a televised debate, but it does sound like the provocateur who got hit with the chair explicitly asked to be physically assaulted.
Two Trafalgar polls FWIW
Senate Poll - Nevada 1079LV 9/13
🔵 Rosen 48% (+6)
🔴 Brown 42%
President Poll - Nevada
🔵 Harris 45% (+1)
🔴 Trump 44%
Last poll (8/8) - 🔴 Trump +3
If TRAFALGAR has Harris up in NV, that is not good for DJT.
Feeling very good: NE-02
Feeling good: MI, WI
Feeling pretty good: NV, PA
Tossup/Tilt D: AZ, GA, NC
Puncher's chance: ME-02, FL
Longshot: TX, IA, OH, AK
Colorado Ballot initiatives: To join the topic of the day I figured I would go through the ones I am not 100% decided on to see if anyone has thoughts on them.
Amendment I: Constitutional Bail Exemption for First Degree Murder
Amendment K: Modify Constitutional Election Deadlines.
Proposition #127 Prohibit Bobcat, Lyn and Mountain Lion Hunting (Prohibit Trophy Hunting).
Proposition #129 Establishing Veterinary Professional Associates
Proposition #130 Funding for Law Enforcement.
Proposition #131 All Candidates Primary and RCV.
There's bail now for people charged with 1st-degree murder in CO? On trophy hunting, what's the argument for it!?
Technically there is in California, but the judge has wide discretion on flight risk, public safety, and if charged with special circumstances that could allow for the death penalty.
On Amendment I:
"Ballot title
The ballot question is as follows:
“ Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning creating an exception to the right to bail for cases of murder in the first degree when proof is evident or presumption is great?[5]"
"Arguments in favor:
State Sen. Rhonda Fields (D-29): "This is a fix that the Colorado Supreme Court has asked us to do to be able to make sure that we have a balanced approach for those who have access to bail."
State Sen. Mike Lynch (R-65): "This was clearly an unintended consequence of repealing the death penalty that puts the safety of the community at risk, and nearly 500 first-degree murder cases have been impacted since 2020, and courts have set bond in some of those cases."
State Rep. Monica Duran (D): "It’s really just going back to the way Colorado was — it’s nothing new. We’re not creating a new penalty at all, we’re just going back to the way… it’s been all along except for this little loophole when we removed the death penalty."
State Sen. Tom Sullivan: "This is the least that we could do. This is by far the least we can do is to make sure that these killers do not have the ability to see the light of the day until their trial has been completely adjudicated."
Argument opposed:
State Rep. Javier Mabrey (D): "I felt that it could impact the principle of innocence until proven guilty. If a judge makes a determination that someone is likely guilty before the trial, I worry about the signal that could send to the jury, the prosecution and the defense."
My concern is with the standard of "proof is evident or presumption is great." What criteria meets this standard?
https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Amendment_I,_Remove_Right_to_Bail_in_First_Degree_Murder_Cases_Amendment_(2024)
Proposition 127:
Arguments in favor:
Cats Aren't Trophies: "The value of having three species of wild cats in Colorado should not solely be measured in the dollars they bring as fur for trappers, or a head, hide or a mount for a trophy hunter. Mountain lions occupy a unique place in Colorado as an apex predator bringing vast benefits to Colorado’s deer and elk herds by keeping them healthy from the deadly neurological Chronic Wasting Disease; mountain lions are key to whole ecosystem health, and public safety because they reduce vehicle collisions with deer that are becoming much more common and deadly. By allowing inhumane and unnecessary trophy hunting and trapping of wild cats in modern times when we face climate change and biodiversity losses, we should be working hard to invest in our wildlife, rather than offer such easy shooting opportunities for no public good. Especially when we truly do not know how many of these species exist in our state."
Arguments in Opposition:
Gaspar Perricone, chair of Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project: "The future of Colorado’s wildlife management is at a crossroads. The underpinnings of science-based wildlife management administered by wildlife professionals may be on the ballot this November, and the stakes couldn’t be higher."
State Sen. Perry Will: "Ballot box biology is the absolute worst way you can manage wildlife. Our capable wildlife professionals are put in charge to manage our wildlife. But they feel the power to do this because that's how reintroducing wolves was passed. They would have done it with wolverines if I wouldn't have put a bill in place, which is a better way to do these things."
Colorado’s Wildlife Deserve Better: “According to Colorado Parks & Wildlife, regulated hunting is a management tool to maintain more stable populations. This ballot measure is an attempt to upend science-based wildlife management strategies that have been used by Colorado Parks & Wildlife to maintain abundant and stable mountain lion and bobcat populations for decades. Without regulated hunting and trapping, these animal populations may increase dramatically, posing an increased safety risk to people, pets, property, livestock, and other wildlife populations across the state. This ballot measure would have a disproportionate impact on rural communities in Colorado and would no longer allow farmers to be reimbursed for any livestock losses caused by mountain lions. This ballot measure would have a significant negative impact on Colorado’s economy, resulting in over $60 million in lost economic output. This ballot measure is dangerous, reckless, and based on absolutely zero scientific research. Irresponsible ballot measures such as these have no place in Colorado.”
https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Proposition_127,_Prohibit_Hunting_of_Mountain_Lion,_Bobcat,_and_Lynx_Initiative_(2024)
I don't like the pro-death penalty arguments, but if people charged with first-degree murder can't be held without bail, that's absurd to me.
absolutely agree!!
Yeah I'm not rooting for murderers to run amuck I just want some clarification on how uniform the standard of "proof is evident or presumption is great" so it's not used as a constitutionally protected presumption of guilt or catch-all for anyone facing the charges.
I guess the arguments for trophy hunting would be that it brings in a s-load of money. Trophy hunters tend to spend tons, but it's fairly concentrated. Also perhaps to maintain balance if predator populations get too big, but that can be handled through nuisance wildlife statutes. Finally, so Fifi or Patches don't get eaten when let out. Which I presume affects less than 10 pets/yr.
I'd vote to ban.
I think it's fine to have special hunting seasons to control populations, but no need to have non-food hunting every year, in my opinion.
In principle, I'd like to see trophy hunting banned I do worry/wonder if the ballot is the best place to do it, if the statutes you mention might be hindered by it. My hesitancy to most of the amendments/propositions I listed are unintended consequences & that maybe the state legislature is the more appropriate place to hash these changes out. I'm all for enshrining abortion rights and some of the other amendments that are cut and dry.
By your username assuming you have a background in ecology what is your take on the population control arguments? Thanks.
I don't know the situation real well in Colorado, but you can control populations just fine without trophy hunting. I doubt any of those cats are overpopulated. Probably only coyotes are. If there are nuisance animals they can be selectively culled. Your DNR can make the determination and issue the permits.
I'm voting for K and probably against all the rest you listed, unless I see persuasive arguments to the contrary. By default I vote against criminal justice stuff being added to the constitution, though I'm sure the subject matter ensures Amendment I will pass with like 75%. So too will Prop 131, it's a losing battle fighting that stuff. Rich centrists will get their way. I don't care to legislate hunting, veterinary licensing, of law enforcement funding via initiative.
I essentially agree with all of this. Still want to try to do the right thing on each issue but I agree on the outcomes of Amendment I & 131. In practice, I think the top 4 and RCV makes sense but it also feels like a back door to give Kent Thiry an electoral path. Unless there are strong arguments in favor of the rest I'm with you that the state legislature should figure it out.
This is pretty much where I’m at as well, with the caveat that I think the three states you have under Tossup/Tilt D are all more on the tossup side.
NC lean D; AZ & GA tilt R
You think AZ & GA will be 2 clicks to the right of NC? That seems....odd...
Good job👍
I think you're too optimistic on all your Tilt D's - I'd call AZ & GA straight tossups and NC Tilt R. I'd also consider NV to be more Tilt D. I'd also put OH and IA out of even longshot range. Everything else I agree with.
I'm really not posting this to gossip or start drama, but is there anyone else here who frequents RRH? I used to read their daily roundups because they'd focus on more down-in-the weeds races and have good write ups on international elections, but it really seems like a lot of the content (especially in the comments) has gone off the rails lately, even compared to 2016 and 2020.
Am I crazy or has anyone else noticed this as well?
I'm over there more than here.
There's like 3 people who are horrible, but the rest of them are cool to interact with. TBH, RRH has more of the old SSP feel than we do here. We've largely become an echo chamber, which is unfortunate in some ways.
I just feel like it's taken on a more partisan Republican slant than a conservative slant lately if that makes sense. I used to appreciate that even though it is certainly a conservative site, there was always a pretty solid foundation of objectivity, but that has been lacking as of late. It seems like posters there are increasingly eager to jump on anything that makes Democrats look bad, reality be damned. Like, does anyone really think that the sister-in-law of a congressional candidate making a joke in poor taste about Trump's attempted assassination will change anything? Maybe I've just been checking in on bad days, or I'm misremembering how things were years ago.
As I said, there's a couple bad actors. And tensions do get higher as we approach election day, that happens here too. In fact, can you imagine if we had as many Republicans here as they have Democrats over there? They would not be nearly as welcomed here as we have been there. It's unfortunate, but the reality.
I am not the site owner, but Republican view points on here would be fine with me, as long as there was actual debate instead of assholery(I find that the current Republican party is an increasingly angry group that refuses any honest, open debate)
I wouldn't welcome policy debates from a Republican point of view, but I did and would welcome campaign and election analysis from a Republican point of view that is not trollish. We used to have folks who did that on Swing State Project.
We did. Those exact folks are the founders / moderators at RRH. It's the same 5ish guys
I would welcome either, but like I said, not the site owner(respect your take though)
100% - honest, good-faith R electoral views would be very welcome here from my perspective...
Some of the RRH moderators are having a public discussion in their comments section today about whether the site is still for Republicans.
It's clearly a Republican site; what's to debate?
Since this is a topic of the day; as we get closer, will there be a comprehensive ballot initiative rundown for all states(I live in Florida and am really interested in the opinions of this site)
Not directly election related but close enough...this is what happens when you spread lies. Of course, tfg and vance are likely happy these colleges were forced to close... https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/16/us/springfield-ohio-closures-threats/index.html
Yeah, days long Trump-inspired Nazi-Bomb threats seem like the line between effectively scaring old white people who blame migrants for all that is wrong in their lives and the world and pissing off everyone else in society.
I sure hope you're right, because in the meantime, they're greatly endangering people's lives.
More good news for Sherrod Brown(and of course, John McCain)
Imo this is very much election related
Things just keep getting worse and worse for the Adams administration in New York City. I feel like its power structure is starting to fall apart:
2 N.Y.C. Fire Department Chiefs Arrested on Bribery Charges, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/16/nyregion/nyc-fdny-bribery-arrest.html
"Two high-ranking New York Fire Department chiefs were arrested early Monday and accused of accepting tens of thousands of dollars in bribes to speed up the fire-safety approval process for building projects across the city."
Great! That sounds really safe! :(
50 years ago my cousin, living in Brooklyn, told me about how certain fdny were taking bribes...never knew if this was true but it was talked about
There have been movies\ documentary on the 'New York Taxi Cab Service'(police escorts of drug couriers
Featured prominently in "The Usual Suspects," a modern masterpiece of a film.
Besides State Sen. Jessica Ramos, who else would be a good candidate to replace Mayor Adams?
Compared to the problems that Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao and San Francisco Mayor London Breed are dealing with, this is insane! Fire Departments in general are supposed to be apolitical and have less controversy than police departments (so far as I've understood).
From top to bottom the civil service and elected officials in NYC are incompetent and/or corrupt and (despite the massive budget that NYC has - understaffed) It's hardly a surprise that they are bribing the fire department. The building department is a mad house and severely understaffed for what they need to do - yet the city's budget has increased tremendously over the past 10 years.
I live in Berkeley, CA and when it comes to the fire department and firefighters, I find it interesting as someone seeing this from the lens of living in a college town that NYC has this much corruption. Fire fighters work around the clock in this city to take care of fires in the city and other crisis problems.
Of course, I’ve only visited NYC a few days and have never lived there.
Don't get me wrong, firefighters in NYC work like crazy too. It doesn't mean some of them, particularly upper echelons, aren't corrupt. NYC is messed up.
Brad Lander, the Comptroller of New York City, is running for Mayor and is a great candidate.
IA-03: I wrote a deep dive here.
https://www.bleedingheartland.com/2024/09/16/what-needs-to-happen-for-lanon-baccam-to-beat-zach-nunn-in-ia-03/
I agree with the lean R rating but if the Selzer poll is in the ballpark, Harris has to be ahead in IA-03. And the Polk County (Des Moines area) Democrats have better GOTV this year than I've ever seen. So Lanon Baccam absolutely has a realistic chance.
Thanks for the ground info