Fascinating! Kudos to David & Jeff; you keep notching up the entertainment value of the Morning Digest!
Hilarious about Mike Rogers. Perhaps his next Democratic opponent could, with considerable political advantage, invent the term "undocumented resident"?
As for Kamala Harris and the governorship of California, I suppose she and other out-of-position politicians with ambition also have the challenge of how to stay in the limelight?
Is it just me, or does Senator Mark Warner seem like a highly-capable moderate, but rather bland and lacking charisma? Perhaps I am misinformed, but I’m certainly not aware that he "has a dream" or has voiced "a vision for America".
Arctic, you always leave such kind comments for us! It truly brightens our day—not only the things you say, but the fact that you take the time to say them. That goes double given how rough the last two weeks have been. I hope you have a wonderful weekend!
Keep in mind that Warner has a long history of being in the business world before going into elected office.
He’s a serial entrepreneur who happens to be the co-founder of Nextel (which was acquired by Sprint) and at one point founded his own venture capital firm. Warner may be in politics these days but he’s very much business savvy.
This kind of background is more fitting to someone who has a centrist or moderate appeal but doesn’t necessarily want to be a political animal or aspire to do bigger and better things with political office. I believe Warner just wants to serve.
Possible exceptions to the rule that running for president immediately after running for senator or governor is politically fatal: 1) Barack Obama served fewer than four years of his only term in the Senate before he was elected president 2) James Garfield did not serve any time in the Senate (to which he was elected by the Ohio General Assembly, before the 17th Amendment mandated direct election of senators) before he was elected president.
Obama isn't really the same category because he didn't win in 2006 and then immediately start running in 2008. While he did get attacked for being a relative Senate newbie before running for president, he did have a whole election cycle where he could travel across the country without worrying about his own race.
As for James Garfield, that is quite the deep cut I didn't know about! But I think politics has changed enough since the 19th century to have him not be a great blueprint for anyone in 2025.
And Wilson had the major advantage in that the Republican Party was irreparably damaged in 1912. With Taft and Roosevelt going at each other's throats, we Democrats essentially could have nominated Bozo the Clown for President that year and won the White House.
While I agree with your point, please do not confuse the Democrats of 1912 with Democrats of today ("we Democrats"). The parties have realigned since then. Today's Republicans are not the "party of Lincoln" and today's Democrats are not the party of the segregationists.
Wilson helped bring in the income tax, the Fed, the federal 8-hour day, the Federal Trade Commission, anti-trust legislation, legislation against child labor.
On social issues, you are very much correct. On economic issues, not so much. Wilson very much was economically liberal and hit Charles Evans Hughes hard in 1916 for fighting against the 8 hour day, unions, and excessive big business.
"Senior U.S. official to exit after rift with Musk allies over payment system"
The highest-ranking career official at the Treasury Department, David A. Lebryk, is departing after a clash with allies of billionaire Elon Musk. Surrogates of Musk’s DOGE effort had sought access to the sensitive payment system the U.S. government uses to disburse trillions of dollars every year.
Lebryk had served in nonpolitical roles at Treasury for several decades, and President Trump named Lebryk as Acting Treasury Secretary upon taking office last week.
(I’ve mildly edited the above text for compactness.) The fact that Musk wants access to these government payment systems is absolutely insane! This should raise alarm in anybody with more than two functioning brain cells.
I wish more of these people were staying on and forcing someone up above to fire them for non compliance rather than resigning in protest. All the protest-resignations do is allow republicans to push out people until they find someone that will comply, all with little political cost.
I get that it's a more complex question for any individual person and that facing the threats, both implied and direct, is not trivial. I still wish they were going about it differently.
I agree. Musk knows that he and his surrogates are only allowed access to non secure government information and systems. The Treasury payment system is highly secured.
Perhaps Democrats should push legislation to prevent anyone like Musk from being able to get access to this information if such laws don't already exist.
When Democrats have control over Congress then yes, that's more appropriate. They're more likely to win control over the House than the Senate in 2026 though.
However, the issue on Musk & Co. trying to get access to secured information is not something I'd see independent and moderate voters really approve of.
I hope the new SD governor does a better job than Noem. One of the first things he needs to do is try to establish good relationships with the Native American nation. Noem is forbidden to set foot in their sovereign nation.
Not expecting much from a “Christian school educated” lifelong Republican, but he honestly doesn’t need to care to do better with the sovereign tribal nations than Noem did, and he made overtures in his inaugural address that indicate he at least wants to be seen as making efforts in that regard.
Exactly the point; they hate Indians, and blacks, and women, and gays, and etc..name any group, handicap folks, you name it; actions speak loudly; they have repeatedly told us who they are; perhaps we should listen??
It's pretty common for governor or senators to run for president right after getting reelected to the job they already hold. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush did it successfully. Most recently, Ron DeSantis did not do it successfully.
I think Roy Cooper will run for the Senate seat next year. He’s the strongest candidate to face off against incumbent Thom Tillis and won more statewide races than he did.
*Strength* is the factor that will be prioritized by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and its new chair, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. They’re prepared to intervene in contested primaries. As Axios reports, Senate Democrats want to avoid the GOP's Obama-era pain of watching preferred candidates lose primaries to unelectable newcomers.
Yeah, because Schumer and Gillibrand are experts at electability *eye roll* (To be clear I think Roy Cooper is the best option in NC, but this does nothing to help dispel the accusations of putting their finger on the scales for their preferred candidates)
Roy Cooper is well liked by Democrats and some Rs here in NC -- he's a center left Dem that's moderate enough for squishy Rs and indies without damaging his progressive creds. Trump's disastrous second term (aka the plane collision and inflation) is going to be politically toxic for Thom Tillis and potentially pearl clutcher Susan Collins.
It's going to be a hard-fought race, probably as much funding and attention as a potential Kemp-Ossoff one next year.
Again, I like Roy Cooper and think he'll be a fine candidate. But in the long run, Republicans may have missed their chance to take back the Senate with bad candidates in 2010 but they still ended up controlling the chamber for 6 of the last 10 years so it seemed to work out in the end.
Schumer has picked some turkeys in the past, this is true. For instance, both Democrats and Republicans have over-eagerly embraced candidates who can finance their own campaigns. In this regards, I trust Gillibrand more than Schumer.
What I do hope is that Democratic leaders will sit down with people that definitely should not be running, and quietly convince them not to do so. The very last thing we need is ugly primaries that leave our eventual candidate injured and weakened for the general election.
That’s not what I am saying. And certainly we don’t want "coronation by the hidden powers that be" – voters should decide! However, primaries are often overcrowded, and all too often include absolutely-marginal candidates, as well as toxic mudslingers who through their losing campaign leave the winner damaged.
I think it's fair to limit primaries to 2-3 candidates. But also who's to judge who is a "toxic mudslinger" but also when have we seen this on the Democratic side? I don't know that I can think of an example of this happening. Admittedly the voters make mistakes sometimes just look at Fetterman & Lamb.
Good.. our side needs to play hardball in every potentially winnable race..taking back the Senate will be extremely difficult, but not impossible; obviously, our side needs as few retirements in competitive seats as possible, but I am extremely confident in Gillibrand as we move forward into the cycle
Cooper would likely wrap the primary up just on the strength of previous runs. I think most Democrats would just wait till 28 for the other senate seat and/or another easier shot at statewide office.
The handling of hurricane Helene is the fault of the GOP controlled state legislature, not former governor Cooper or current gov Josh Stein. Tillis has never showed up for his constituents, never held a public town hall since he unseated Kagan and only does events funded by his dark money donors (with prescreened questions).
And if Trump’s idiotic tariffs take effect March 1, angry voters are going to take their frustrations out on the incumbent party. And Tillis is the most vulnerable Senator up in 2026, apart from Collins and Ossoff.
Kemp or whomever is the R Senate challenger will be gunning for him— and a lot of money will be spent trying to unseat him. Ossoff should be thankful that he will benefit from the 2026 midterm backlash against FDJT.
I disagree; show me 1 election that wasn't actually won by the winner (don't give some bullshit before 2000); yes, I think Al Gore actually won here in Florida
Given my premise, most Dems “losing” close races in places run by Republicans. I’ll throw out Bill Nelson in 2018 as an example. Now I can certainly argue Bill should have managed to win anyway, but the margin is small enough it’s hard to argue GOP dirty tricks weren’t bigger than the margin. We just tend to see them as baked in.
How sure are you that they'll blame the legislature, rather than the governor, who should be able to solve everything by himself, according to what loads of ignorant people think about Chief Executives
Fascinating! Kudos to David & Jeff; you keep notching up the entertainment value of the Morning Digest!
Hilarious about Mike Rogers. Perhaps his next Democratic opponent could, with considerable political advantage, invent the term "undocumented resident"?
As for Kamala Harris and the governorship of California, I suppose she and other out-of-position politicians with ambition also have the challenge of how to stay in the limelight?
Is it just me, or does Senator Mark Warner seem like a highly-capable moderate, but rather bland and lacking charisma? Perhaps I am misinformed, but I’m certainly not aware that he "has a dream" or has voiced "a vision for America".
At 66, I hope I will never again vote for a president who is older than I am.
My ambitions are much lower. They’re perhaps best reflected in this quote:
"I like elections and want to keep having them."
– Alexandra Petri, (humor) columnist at The Washington Post
Real ones, not like the ones in Russia.
Arctic, you always leave such kind comments for us! It truly brightens our day—not only the things you say, but the fact that you take the time to say them. That goes double given how rough the last two weeks have been. I hope you have a wonderful weekend!
QUOTE for the day:
“Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking.”
– John Maynard Keynes
Keep in mind that Warner has a long history of being in the business world before going into elected office.
He’s a serial entrepreneur who happens to be the co-founder of Nextel (which was acquired by Sprint) and at one point founded his own venture capital firm. Warner may be in politics these days but he’s very much business savvy.
This kind of background is more fitting to someone who has a centrist or moderate appeal but doesn’t necessarily want to be a political animal or aspire to do bigger and better things with political office. I believe Warner just wants to serve.
Possible exceptions to the rule that running for president immediately after running for senator or governor is politically fatal: 1) Barack Obama served fewer than four years of his only term in the Senate before he was elected president 2) James Garfield did not serve any time in the Senate (to which he was elected by the Ohio General Assembly, before the 17th Amendment mandated direct election of senators) before he was elected president.
Obama isn't really the same category because he didn't win in 2006 and then immediately start running in 2008. While he did get attacked for being a relative Senate newbie before running for president, he did have a whole election cycle where he could travel across the country without worrying about his own race.
As for James Garfield, that is quite the deep cut I didn't know about! But I think politics has changed enough since the 19th century to have him not be a great blueprint for anyone in 2025.
Also people will want to avoid the same outcome as Garfield's Presidency. 😉
A more recent, but still long ago, example is Woodrow Wilson claiming the governorship of New Jersey in 1910 and winning the presidency in 1912. And back then Jersey had three-year terms for governors! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1910_New_Jersey_gubernatorial_election
And Wilson had the major advantage in that the Republican Party was irreparably damaged in 1912. With Taft and Roosevelt going at each other's throats, we Democrats essentially could have nominated Bozo the Clown for President that year and won the White House.
While I agree with your point, please do not confuse the Democrats of 1912 with Democrats of today ("we Democrats"). The parties have realigned since then. Today's Republicans are not the "party of Lincoln" and today's Democrats are not the party of the segregationists.
Wilson helped bring in the income tax, the Fed, the federal 8-hour day, the Federal Trade Commission, anti-trust legislation, legislation against child labor.
Wilson also went out of his way to purge African-Americans from the Federal workforce.
https://newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu/research/how-woodrow-wilsons-racist-segregation-order-eroded-the-black-civil-service/#:~:text=Wilson%20imposed%20segregation%20in%20his,Wilson's%20order%20was%20overtly%20discriminatory.
On social issues, you are very much correct. On economic issues, not so much. Wilson very much was economically liberal and hit Charles Evans Hughes hard in 1916 for fighting against the 8 hour day, unions, and excessive big business.
Wilson did serve for eight years as president of Princeton University, a potentate that was then perhaps as powerful as the governorship.
"Senior U.S. official to exit after rift with Musk allies over payment system"
The highest-ranking career official at the Treasury Department, David A. Lebryk, is departing after a clash with allies of billionaire Elon Musk. Surrogates of Musk’s DOGE effort had sought access to the sensitive payment system the U.S. government uses to disburse trillions of dollars every year.
Lebryk had served in nonpolitical roles at Treasury for several decades, and President Trump named Lebryk as Acting Treasury Secretary upon taking office last week.
https://wapo.st/4jH7XYa
(I’ve mildly edited the above text for compactness.) The fact that Musk wants access to these government payment systems is absolutely insane! This should raise alarm in anybody with more than two functioning brain cells.
I wish more of these people were staying on and forcing someone up above to fire them for non compliance rather than resigning in protest. All the protest-resignations do is allow republicans to push out people until they find someone that will comply, all with little political cost.
I get that it's a more complex question for any individual person and that facing the threats, both implied and direct, is not trivial. I still wish they were going about it differently.
Same thing happened with the Census office. I guess I get why they do it but it's frustrating that they're just complying in advance.
I agree. Musk knows that he and his surrogates are only allowed access to non secure government information and systems. The Treasury payment system is highly secured.
Perhaps Democrats should push legislation to prevent anyone like Musk from being able to get access to this information if such laws don't already exist.
Trump is President; do you think that this Congress would do such legislation??.. C'mon man
When Democrats have control over Congress then yes, that's more appropriate. They're more likely to win control over the House than the Senate in 2026 though.
However, the issue on Musk & Co. trying to get access to secured information is not something I'd see independent and moderate voters really approve of.
Lmao; that's after the next election; which is the point
Yes but to the point in my 2nd paragraph, Democrats still can run on the issue for the midterms.
Passing through Congress or not, the issue can still be used against the GOP in the VA-GOV race and the midterms.
I hope the new SD governor does a better job than Noem. One of the first things he needs to do is try to establish good relationships with the Native American nation. Noem is forbidden to set foot in their sovereign nation.
are you kidding me here? do you really think he cares about them?
I don’t know the answer to that. But if he is banned from reservation land, it will be telling.
I think the answer is as clear as anything; he doesn't give a shit(or any Republicans for that matter)
Not expecting much from a “Christian school educated” lifelong Republican, but he honestly doesn’t need to care to do better with the sovereign tribal nations than Noem did, and he made overtures in his inaugural address that indicate he at least wants to be seen as making efforts in that regard.
Exactly the point; they hate Indians, and blacks, and women, and gays, and etc..name any group, handicap folks, you name it; actions speak loudly; they have repeatedly told us who they are; perhaps we should listen??
What about being re-elected in 2026. Asking for a Josh Shapiro.
It's pretty common for governor or senators to run for president right after getting reelected to the job they already hold. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush did it successfully. Most recently, Ron DeSantis did not do it successfully.
I think Roy Cooper will run for the Senate seat next year. He’s the strongest candidate to face off against incumbent Thom Tillis and won more statewide races than he did.
*Strength* is the factor that will be prioritized by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and its new chair, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. They’re prepared to intervene in contested primaries. As Axios reports, Senate Democrats want to avoid the GOP's Obama-era pain of watching preferred candidates lose primaries to unelectable newcomers.
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/31/senate-democrats-primaries-gillibrand-schumer
Yeah, because Schumer and Gillibrand are experts at electability *eye roll* (To be clear I think Roy Cooper is the best option in NC, but this does nothing to help dispel the accusations of putting their finger on the scales for their preferred candidates)
Roy Cooper is well liked by Democrats and some Rs here in NC -- he's a center left Dem that's moderate enough for squishy Rs and indies without damaging his progressive creds. Trump's disastrous second term (aka the plane collision and inflation) is going to be politically toxic for Thom Tillis and potentially pearl clutcher Susan Collins.
It's going to be a hard-fought race, probably as much funding and attention as a potential Kemp-Ossoff one next year.
Again, I like Roy Cooper and think he'll be a fine candidate. But in the long run, Republicans may have missed their chance to take back the Senate with bad candidates in 2010 but they still ended up controlling the chamber for 6 of the last 10 years so it seemed to work out in the end.
It's the correct strategy
Schumer has picked some turkeys in the past, this is true. For instance, both Democrats and Republicans have over-eagerly embraced candidates who can finance their own campaigns. In this regards, I trust Gillibrand more than Schumer.
What I do hope is that Democratic leaders will sit down with people that definitely should not be running, and quietly convince them not to do so. The very last thing we need is ugly primaries that leave our eventual candidate injured and weakened for the general election.
God forbid the party of democracy allows the people to decide who's unelectable and who isn't.
That’s not what I am saying. And certainly we don’t want "coronation by the hidden powers that be" – voters should decide! However, primaries are often overcrowded, and all too often include absolutely-marginal candidates, as well as toxic mudslingers who through their losing campaign leave the winner damaged.
I think it's fair to limit primaries to 2-3 candidates. But also who's to judge who is a "toxic mudslinger" but also when have we seen this on the Democratic side? I don't know that I can think of an example of this happening. Admittedly the voters make mistakes sometimes just look at Fetterman & Lamb.
horrible strategy; pure loser strategy this
Good.. our side needs to play hardball in every potentially winnable race..taking back the Senate will be extremely difficult, but not impossible; obviously, our side needs as few retirements in competitive seats as possible, but I am extremely confident in Gillibrand as we move forward into the cycle
Cooper would likely wrap the primary up just on the strength of previous runs. I think most Democrats would just wait till 28 for the other senate seat and/or another easier shot at statewide office.
I don't think he can win. Western NC still looks like a war zone and people are not happy.
I highly disagree.
The handling of hurricane Helene is the fault of the GOP controlled state legislature, not former governor Cooper or current gov Josh Stein. Tillis has never showed up for his constituents, never held a public town hall since he unseated Kagan and only does events funded by his dark money donors (with prescreened questions).
And if Trump’s idiotic tariffs take effect March 1, angry voters are going to take their frustrations out on the incumbent party. And Tillis is the most vulnerable Senator up in 2026, apart from Collins and Ossoff.
I don't think Ossoff is vulnerable
Kemp or whomever is the R Senate challenger will be gunning for him— and a lot of money will be spent trying to unseat him. Ossoff should be thankful that he will benefit from the 2026 midterm backlash against FDJT.
Any Dem running in a swing state with a GOP trifecta and triplex is vulnerable to GOP shenanigans.
I disagree; show me 1 election that wasn't actually won by the winner (don't give some bullshit before 2000); yes, I think Al Gore actually won here in Florida
Given my premise, most Dems “losing” close races in places run by Republicans. I’ll throw out Bill Nelson in 2018 as an example. Now I can certainly argue Bill should have managed to win anyway, but the margin is small enough it’s hard to argue GOP dirty tricks weren’t bigger than the margin. We just tend to see them as baked in.
How sure are you that they'll blame the legislature, rather than the governor, who should be able to solve everything by himself, according to what loads of ignorant people think about Chief Executives
Trump can be his biggest helper; Cooper knows that
Didn’t Harris run even better in the western NC disaster zone than Biden 2020?
yup; and thanks for pointing it out
So far the names released, from the crash represent the best and totally diverse population of the USA.
Somebody should tell the turd. Any republican volunteers for the task?