Fair enough. While Austria's far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ) is very Russia-friendly, the articles on this state election do not show Russia’s hand or prove Russian meddling. So I’ve taken down my comment.
Robert Kuttner has written a hopeful article that suggests precisely this, and more. Who woulda thunk Republicans senators would discover a spine and suddenly display initial signs of ... resistance to Hair Furore?
These days I’m hungry for any signs of good news – and this qualifies. Enjoy!
I guess this doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies largely because I never thought the trotted out worst case scenarios (the Senate gives up all of their power and lets Trump run the show, especially re: the budget) was likely at all. The worry is do they have the stones to actually reject multiple Trump appointees? Gaetz was the sacrifical lamb and him going down isn't some big victory. But will the Senate confirm an unqualified bigoted assaulter like Hegeseth as DoD Secretary? DoD Secretary is a really important job-it's not just being a cheerleader for the Administration like some of the other Secretarial roles are. That to me is the real test.
In terms of legislation, I don't expect this trifecta to really be much worse than the first one was, and will likely be even less effective/impactful as they have smaller majorities in both chambers and the House vote whipping apparatus is amateur hour compared to Ryan's. The damage is going to be done via the many significant things a President can do sans Congress (and Lord knows Trump will test the Supreme Court's limits on executive power)
I totally agree with everything you’ve written. Warm and fuzzy? That’s hardly what I’m feeling! But these days, as we’re about to go through some very dark times, I’ll take a glimmer of hope and any positive sign.
After a two-week deep dive into Minnesota precinct data, here are my takeaways....
The Core Mostly Held For Harris--While Minnesota shifted three points to the right overall, that was less than the shift of the country at large. The primary reason is that the needle barely budged at all in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area, be it the urban centers, the first-ring suburbs, or the second-ring suburbs. The vast majority of municipalities in the Twin Cities were within a percentage point for Harris compared to Biden four years ago. Even the third-ring exurbs largely didn't move much, and in some cases, got a bit bluer. Meanwhile, Minnesota's third largest city of Rochester has continued its sharp Democratic trendline from a decade ago.
Mixed Bag in the Outstate College Towns--Most of the regional centers in outstate Minnesota that remain blue are homes to colleges and universities, some of which have been struggling with enrollment. I anticipated the student body, particularly the males, were probably more conservative this year than four years ago. There was little indication of slippage in Duluth, Moorhead, Bemidji, St. Peter, or Northfield. There was clearer erosion of support compared to Biden in Winona and the badly battered St. Cloud whose state university has seen the heaviest enrollment declines. Meanwhile, the bottom continues to fall out in Morris in western Minnesota, home of another college suffering from steep enrollment declines, going from a 16-point Hillary win in 2016 to a 1-point Trump win in 2024. Crookston remains the most conservative university town in Minnesota but didn't accelerate its rightward trend nearly as much as Morris.
The Mankato Embarrassment--The most inexplicable underperformance of Minnesota's college towns came in Walz's hometown of Mankato, where Harris lost more that four points from Biden's 2020 margin. I'm not sure what's going on here. Perhaps a more conservative student body reflective of the general conservative trend in southern Minnesota, but the underperformance was clear in precinct after precinct, not limited to neighborhoods with high student populations. There was no hint of any hometown victory chant for Walz among his neighbors, and that was decidedly not the case in any of his previous Congressional or gubernatorial runs where he always did well.
Klobuchar Still Ran Ahead of the Presidential Ticket--There was considerable polling that hinted at Amy Klobuchar's bipartisan appeal having faded and that, despite having her weakest challenger yet by far, her victory would be far less impressive this time than her three previous campaigns. In the end, her margin was at least within shouting distance of what we'd seen from her in the past, even if her county map wasn't nearly as comprehensively blue. Even though she didn't do as well as she had in the past outstate, her overperformance of Harris was more dramatic in the rural areas. There were numerous communities that went more than 2-1 for Trump that still voted for Klobuchar. It seems reasonable to predict that some Minnesota communities that held out for Klobuchar this year may never again vote Democratic in my lifetime.
Angie Craig Kills It--One of the most pleasant surprises of the evening was Angie Craig's dominating double-digit victory over Joe Teirab, who was actually a pretty good GOP candidate. After a trio of modest victories in previous cycles, Craig's winning margin in the district was much closer to Klobuchar's than Harris's. She was only 400 votes short of winning Scott County.
Warning Signs Among Immigrant Populations--The Minnesota Star Tribune ran a story that documented a double-digit shift toward Trump in the three Minneapolis precincts with the highest numbers of Somali-Americans. Harris still dominated in these precincts, but any time you see double-digit shifts among any demographic group, it's a development worthy of concern. Shakopee, another Twin Cities suburb with a substantial Somali population, also shifted two points toward Trump. It isn't fully clear if the Somali shift is related to Gaza or social conservatism. The Star Tribune article hinted at a combination of both. Similarly, the precincts with the heaviest Hmong populations on the east side of St. Paul also shifted decisively toward Trump and the GOP generally. Unlike Minneapolis, St. Paul actually shifted a couple of points to the right, and most of the losses came in those Hmong precincts. As a result, for the first time in my lifetime, St. Paul was NOT the most Democratic town in Ramsey County! Suburban Falcon Heights was. It's harder to pin down by precinct data how the Hispanic, Hmong, and Somali vote trended elsewhere in the state because outside of the core cities, there aren't many precincts with majority concentrations of first or second-generation immigrant populations.
The Iron Range is Gone--The big realignment of Minnesota's previously dark blue mining towns that make up the Iron Range happened in 2016. Since then, it's been continued incremental slippage, and in 2024, only Chisholm, Eveleth, and the tiny town of McKinley stayed in the Harris column on the Range proper. Virginia, Mountain Iron, Biwabik, and Nashwauk all flipped to Trump this year, joining their neighbors who already flipped in 2016 or 2020. And the last state House seat held by a Democrat in the central Iron Range flipped handily to the GOP this year after the retirement of Dave Lislegard who only won by 2 points in 2022. The local realignment happened more quickly than I anticipated even after the 2016 bloodbath at the top of the ticket. Most interesting about the Iron Range collapse is that the Itasca County side of the Iron Range fell the hardest and the most quickly. Twenty years ago, as one of numerous examples, nearly all of the towns on the Itasca County side of the Range went stronger for John Kerry than nearly all of the towns on the St. Louis County side. Fast forward to 2024 and the vast majority of the Range towns in St. Louis County held out comfortably for Amy Klobuchar, but except for Nashwauk and Keewatin, all of the Range towns in Itasca County didn't even vote for her!
Canoers Go The Other Direction--The inverse to the Iron Range story is that the only two Minnesota counties that went stronger for Harris than Biden were Lake and Cook counties in the state's Arrowhead region. It's a safe bet that their position on copper-nickel mining conflicts with that of the neighboring Iron Range. In fact, the town best known for being the gateway to the Boundary Waters, and which has one foot in the mining culture of the Iron Range, is Ely in northeastern St. Louis County. Ely went for Biden four years ago and voted for Harris this year, as did a couple of its neighboring townships. From a numerical standpoint, you'd rather have the Iron Range in your column than the Boundary Waters corridor but there's at least some degree of divergence going on here where votes lost in one area are being made up for elsewhere. If state Senator Grant Hauschild has any hope of being re-elected in Tom Bakk's old district in 2026, he'd better hope these trends continue.
The Center of Minnesota Is It's Darkest Shade of Red--From the Dakota borders to the Wisconsin border, central Minnesota has become the biggest disaster zone for Democrats. But it's the patch of territory in the dead center of the state where Republicans have recently begun to run up margins more reminiscent of central Nebraska than anything previously seen in Minnesota. Most of these counties are populated by German Catholics and are ancestrally Democratic, albeit VERY conservative Democrats. Outside of Collin Peterson, Democrats in federal races haven't fared well here for most of my lifetime, but as recently as the 2000s, these counties voted Democratic in statewide downballot races and sent Democrats like Dallas Sams, Mary Ellen Otremba, Larry Hosch, and Al Doty to the Legislature. More recently, the area was the home district of Republican Senate Leader Paul Gazelka. What's driving their surge to the right above and beyond the rest of outstate Minnesota? It's probably equal parts social conservatism, tied to their particularly strident Catholic diocese, and backlash to the considerable immigration settlements, be it the Somali influx to St. Cloud or the migrants at the dairy farms and food processing plants in the area.
Excellent and informative round-up. I wonder if the university town shifts are a reddening student population or declining enrollment . . I'd suspect the latter is a far larger variable. Long-term that's actually a major worry for the Dem Party . . the constant growth in degree obtainment has hit a brick wall over the past decade nationally, and there aren't many signs it's getting any better (although I do think colleges/universities will have to have a come to Jesus shift in the next decade re: costs as a result)
I think it's a combination of both. And it definitely is a major worry for Democrats as college attendance is at this point directly adjacent to Democratic voting. The fact that Harris's campaign was announcing that they were gonna lift degree requirements for more federal jobs was a good indicator that they see the future is a place where fewer and fewer people have college degrees. It's also another good indication of how disastrous it's been for the Democrats to coast on their 15-year-old "coalition of the ascendant" strategy that's now been completely blown apart at all levels.
"It's also another good indication of how disastrous it's been for the Democrats to coast on their 15-year-old "coalition of the ascendant" strategy"
Where I disagree is I don't see this as some deliberate strategy on the part of the Democratic Party and more part of a global realignment occurring along educational and rural/urban lines that is happening across the entire developed world. Has the party made some at times significant errors? Sure, but I don't see any alternative reality in which the Dem Party is able to hold onto its 2008 coalition via policy/messaging changes.
It wasn't so much a strategy as an interpretation based on 2008 and 2012 results, a half-baked interpretation that they internalized and then coasted on for far too long. A lot of tactical choices were made that accelerated the problem, be it limiting campaign stops to population centers or the shift to an immigration platform that they believed would appeal to Hispanics but ended up driving them away. I definitely think the alternative reality where Democrats didn't slow-walk their way to a de facto open borders position would have slowed the stampede of working-class whites and Hispanics toward the Republicans. It also wouldn't have given Trump so much to work with this year.
In your opinion, if Biden and Dems had taken action in immigration a year earlier, do you think it would have made a significant difference in this election? When the numbers of migrants started hitting NYC in summer of 23, I thought they really needed to do something quick.
Two years earlier might have stanched the bleeding. The cake might have already been baked only one year earlier but the sooner they showed a hint of seriousness about it, the better politically.
This is the proper context for our current struggles. This is a really worrisome global phenomenon going back to the early 2010s and it’s only accelerating.
Pierre Poilievre looks likely to win a Mulroney-sized majority in Canada. Parties like the FPO in Austria and SD in Sweden are easily coming ahead of traditional conservatives and forcing them right. Slicker, more polished nationalists like Bardella and Zemmour loom in France. AfD might be the second largest party in Germany in March. South Korean politics is just a contest to see who can be the biggest incel. It’s hard not to sense that the lights are going out, as Earl Grey said in 1914, not just here but everywhere
If nothing else I think the negative trends for smaller regional/“directional”
state schools, HBCUs and small liberal arts colleges aren’t going to get better even if larger land grant/flagship research state schools continue steady growth, albeit at a slower pace than in previous years.
At some point the sector is going to need serious cost reform. Job prospects are still much better for college graduates but the absurd prices at a lot of institutions aren’t sustainable
Yeah, half of them shuttering by 2035 is probably the optimistic case. I just don’t know what the upside to attend such an institution at current costs is when the education at most public state unis is as good if not better
I'm not sure the problem is with the liberal arts colleges. The issue is really whether you justify the tuition costs at public universities vs. private universities.
Taking a look at how much an undergraduate education costs at Stanford vs. UC Berkeley, we have the following figures:
Granted it's cheaper at UCB or any other UC compared to Stanford or even any of the ivy leagues, $168,000+ is still expensive no matter how you spin it. Therefore, the question of the value of education is always being brought to the test.
We have Ronald Reagan to thank for this back when he was Governor of California during most of the period of the Vietnam War.
That's a good point. I wouldn't think Mankato State University would be a school that would be likely to have a substantial percentage of the student body motivated by Gaza, but I may be out of touch about that.
Excellent summary. Re the Somali shift to the right, might the general swing due to inflation have something to do with it if the Somali community is generally lower-income than the state average? There seems to be a consistent pattern that poorer counties swung more toward Trump than more affluent counties did, all else equal.
A Somali imam from Minneaplis had an excellent piece in the Star Tribune yesterday giving some context for the numbers in the Somali precincts and framing the matter as a decline in turnout compared to four years ago more than it was a MAGA shift. He said the precincts with the double-digit percentage shift only saw 200 more votes for Trump but 1,531 fewer votes for Harris compared to Biden. It's not awesome if turnout cratered that badly but that loss of raw votes was clearly a bigger driver for the double-digit percentage shift than was gains for Trump.
Pretty amazing that we saw a sizable minority and immigrant population turnout decline on our side in a cycle where we ran a daughter of immigrants (and first ever Asian candidate to boot) vs an opponent going full-on Bill the Butcher nativist.
Some personal news and then thoughts/questions for the community.
1) I got accepted to three of the nine law schools I applied to for Fall of 2025, including my Plan A. Five are still pending but I am ecstatic about it. This likely means I will remain in the Denver metro area, but I will see how the rest of them shake out.
2) How are you all planning to use the time before the midterms? Getting as many grants, and scholarships together as possible will be time-consuming, and then school itself but I do want to think about what I can do to improve the national situation. I'm currently brushing up on Spanish so I can be a more effective/useful volunteer, but I would love some additional ideas for what individuals can do to start working against our national nightmare and setting up for success before the 26 cycle really kicks off.
3) In 26 I will try to do some voter registration drives in the Spring-Summer of 26 at colleges or other targeted areas in Adams County since the collapse there is the primary reason Caraveo lost CO-08 by 0.8%. Then volunteer where I can for whoever the candidate is after the primary. I will probably still be a good 30-45 minute drive from CO-08 though but will see what I can do then.
Join your local county DEC(if you haven't already); and consider running yourself (if the local party org will fund you\provide you volunteer organizing help)for a city council\commission seat(I always recommend first time candidates to seek only open seats and remember losing the first race is actually expected; almost all politicians have lost at least 1 race and many great politicians have lost 2 or even 3; except for George Washington, but he cheated, he ran unopposed)
OT: Does your local county or Municipality give a "State of the" address? I just got an ad for the State of the Village address from Palmetto Bay, FL, where I have family.
Trump picked recently defeated 1 term congresswoman Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Oregon) as Secretary of Labor. I'm actually relieved at this, because she's the least bad choice possible for this position. Andrew Puzder would have been the stuff of the worst nightmares as he tried him before and he ended up withdrawing!! 💙🇺🇲
Lori Chavez-DeRemer was a choice I never expected Trump would make as Labor Secretary. She's not considered a controversial or attention grabbing House Republican as far as I understand and is least likely going to be a problem in her respective role.
I expect her confirmation hearings are going to be smooth and not difficult like Linda McMahon's as Secretary of Education.
Similar to the surgeon general (described below), the right-wingers online are throwing a fit since she is apparently somewhat friendly to unions (voted for PRO act).
Trump just picked Dr. Janette Nesheiwat as Surgeon General. She is an unabashed vaccine supporter who supported the Covid vaccine and anti-vax Twitter is having a meltdown right now. They got played by Trump and they aren't happy.
One segment that shifted to Trump that no one has mentioned is the crunchy granola leftists who shifted from supporting Democrats to RFK Jr. to Trump this election. Look for Trump to cut RFK Jr. loose as soon as he gets resistance from the not insane GOP senators and also the GOP senators who are major recipients of campaign cash from big pharma. Yes, they are easy marks and they got played again.
Omg I know an uber wealthy, pretty liberal family that went that route this cycle. The parents were deep into the "natural wellness" podcast spiral (and all of these shows of course pimp various quack supplements and remedies at the end of their "informational" episodes).
Aren't the anti-vaxxers aware that it was Trump who ended up making the push for the COVID-19 vaccine to be developed in the first place? As far as I understand, he and his administration were arguing for a financial incentive for Pfizer, Moderna, etc. to get the COVID-19 vaccine done as quickly as possible.
I have a bunch of assorted thoughts and conclusions now that the disaster of an election has had a while to dwell in my head. It's too much to type them all up into a single mega comment, but I think tackling one at a time makes sense...
Today's thought: the penalty for unpopular policy decisions (or any kind of scandal) is capped at one election cycle. Voters at large are, for whatever reasons, unable or unwilling to "hold a grudge" after they have had the chance to anger-vote once. Dobbs saved us from a disastrous 2022. Many of us, myself included, expected voter anger over it to continue through to 2024 to our benefit. It did not. Similarly, voters did not care about any of the policies or details of Trump's first admin. They had already voted on it in 2018 or 2020.
We can see a similar example working in our favor with Obamacare. In 2010 voters were pissed about changes to the healthcare system, and that combined with other matters led to us getting slaughtered in Obama's 1st midterm. By 2012 Obamacare was not yet popular; it still was not fully implemented and many of the benefits had not settled into people's lives yet. Despite that, it was not an albatross around Obama's neck. Voters had gotten it out of their system in 2010 and were content to base their vote in 2012 on other matters.
I think this holds true at the state levels too. Wisconsin voters stopped caring about Walker's union busting after the failed recall vote.
If I'm right the resultant implications would be huge. Could help guide how to implement policy and approaches to governing when we do hold power.
A political administration should, imho, always frontload as many of its dramatic policy changes as possible – especially those which are deemed necessary but might be unpopular. But also policies that take time before voters see the effects and benefits.
There is a CA-45 update from OC. This drop had 352 Tran votes and 326 Steel votes added to the total. With 26 votes added to the margin "Landslide Derek" is up by 545. Steady progress...
Nothing from L.A. today. Expect a Los Angeles report on M or Tu this week.
I am waiting for all the votes to be counted. I have no inside information and haven't even set foot in that district since 2018. This year I was a small donor to several CA House races but none of the NorCal ones. I had Whitesides in CA-27 as my top race, then Rollins in CA-41, Tran in CA-45 and Dave Min in CA-47. In the primary I also gave to both of the new Congresswomen from the SFV: Laura Friedman in CA-30 and Luz Rivas in CA-29 (my district.) Overall I have to be happy with how my candidates did, although I really wanted Rollins, too.
All things considered, Rollins ended up improving his margins a bit this time around. He ended up losing to Calvert again but by 2.6% points whereas back in 2022 he lost by 4.6% points.
Considering how CA-41 is trending in demographics and the margins Calvert has won by since 2022, it's only a matter of time that he will be out of office. I suspect he'll have a harder time defending his seat in 2026 and the race may end up being more of a nail biter for him.
Ken Calvert is older, and has been in his seat since after the 1992 elections. He has to be on the possible retirement list for 2026, especially since he would be in for a difficult campaign.
If Calvert retires, then it'll be an even easier possibility for Democrats to win the seat. Rollins may give it a third shot although I am not convinced we need him to win, especially considering he's already run twice and the margins continue to shrink for Calvert.
There might be a lot of GOP retirements in 2026 if the cycle starts to shape up as a bad one for them. A lot of the older reps might stick around if they think they'll have a majority, but not to be in the opposition.
This is a strange voting situation - The City of Bonnieville, KY, is going to dissolve after just a seven vote margin by its residents approved it to cease to exist.
On the Friday digest I had a comment criticizing the Democrats digital communication strategy as "one giant nonstop fundraising pitch that was impossible to unsubscribe from" and speculated that it may have suppressed turnout. I thought it would be nice to have some discussion of what would be an effective strategy.
My ideal campaign communications would look a lot like this site's morning digest. Give little stories about what's been happening on the campaign trail that engage voters and keep them excited about the campaign. These newsletters can, of course, include some amount of fundraising, in fact it would be remise not to include a donate link. But it shouldn't be the primary focus. An occasional lead story like "Musk is dumping $100 million into Pennsylvania, help us counter!" or "the quarterly deadline is approaching, help us finish strong!" is fine, as long as it's truly occasional.
Give voters control of how much communication they receive and honor that request. If they say they want daily emails, send them a daily update. If they only want weekly, only send them an email once a week. I've seen campaigns have an option to sign up for "fewer" emails or "important emails only", but this is inevitably still more than one a day. Frequency based controls are better.
Save texting for voter mobilization efforts only. No one, and I mean no one, likes the endless stream of increasingly desperate pitches for money. Nor do I think they were overly effective. The events of the campaign motivated donors, not two sentence pitches with a sketchy link. Text messages are essentially interrupting a voter's day and therefore should be used sparingly. Things like "election day is three days away, make sure you have a plan to vote!" or "early voting is starting, here are locations and hours" are fine. But the "I am in tears because no one is donating" texts need to stop.
Lastly, and this is something we talked about on Friday, give a way to donate with zero communication. People didn't donate because they didn't want the email/text deluge.
I get what you are saying but I highly doubt actual turnout suffered; almost all of your other points are valid(however, let's be real; the Republicans\Trump did exactly the same thing)
But there’s a key difference, from small-amount donors, Trump raised a mere fraction of what Harris did. I am inclined to agree with Marcus: that Kamala Harris’ fundraising did affect Democratic voter perception, enthusiasm and turnout.
More importantly, Marcus’ proposals would increase enthusiasm, drive turnout, and raise funds!
the Republicans use the same tactics is my main point; I actually agree with him on quite a few things (except for the turnout thing; I don't think fundraising does anything to decrease turnout)
Ok, I hear you and I realize we’re pretty much on the same page. So let’s flip the question and instead ask: Can fundraising be done in such a way that it actually *increases* our turnout? I think what Marcus is suggesting would!
Absolutely the fundraising could have a lot less what I call 'Drama Queen' appeal; it's kind of annoying how every fundraiser is 'the absolute savior of democracy !'; and other such nonsense but what I suggest is just make sure they either go into SPAM or change your actual email address; as far as the question of using fundraising as a turnout tool; I would say that is just highly unlikely because anyone actually giving money is already a true believer (or a person with an agenda that contributes money to both sides)
I'm not entirely sure about that. One of my friends who was on the GOP lists showed me her texts and they were fewer and less maudlin than mine. More of the "Can you pitch in $25 bucks to help Trump" type. But yes, my thought that it suppressed turnout was definitely speculative.
My larger point is that people who donate money, or get on these very broad lists of potential donors that are sold around, are also voters. So barraging them with fundraising messages in much greater volume than any messages about voting risks turning them off. Most of the people I know who made the direct connection between the stream of fundraising texts and not voting, or at least threatening to sit out, were of the disgruntled leftie type. While it's unclear exactly how many such voters there were and what impact a different communication strategy would have had, I do think that just asking for money without asking for support was a mistake. Someone on the fence about the Democratic ticket would be less inclined to back it as a result.
hate to tell you this but you are wrong; know it for a fact because I make sure that I am on all Republican \Trump fundraising emails (I like to scout the opposition);I need to make it clear, I am saying that the Republicans\Trump use exactly the same tactics in fundraising (you have lots of other valid points)
Somehow being on Kamala's list despite not having donated to anyone in years, was certainly demotivating for me. I could think of very little more depressing than checking my "promotions" folder and seeing the dozens of plaintive emails awaiting me there. I think I would have voted Trump had I received text messages.
I was being sarcastic. But I very much hate spam texts. If the Harris campaign had somehow got my number and started spamming it, I would have been very pissed at them.
The whole thing has become a money machine without any attention paid to what it costs indirectly. Money is important to elections but outraising our opponent 2-1 didn't seem to do much for us the past three presidential races.
I'm with you, but I'd also note that most people I know will feel turned off by any extensive level of communication. Your update ideas are solid but based on my experience most people will tune them out in quick order unless the frequency is kept fairly low — one every other week or so at most.
The easiest thing that needs to change is the language use. Telling the most dedicated portions of your voter base that everything is "hopeless" that they're "being destroyed" and other such language is stupid. That stuff permeates through to how we think about the election and lowers moral throughout the voter base. People want to vote for winners. Losing 10% or 20% of the fundraising haul to keep those small donors optimistic instead of demoralized would easily be worth it in the long run.
Another obstacle is that the campaigns all sell their contact lists and act independently. Campaign A could adopt good practices but could be undermined by campaign B adopting poor practices and causing the person receiving the messages to give up on both of them. It would require a change at the level of whoever dictates party policy over NGP VAN data.
I don’t understand all the angst over this. I just delete all the fundraising e-mails unread, even the ones for candidates I’ll eventually donate to. No more annoying than the rain gutter e-mails, window replacement e-mails, etc. that I also delete unread everyday.
Even after the election I'm still getting these fundraising emails and they veer on unnecessary, cynical negativity that really defeats the purpose of why we should really inspire voters to vote for Democrats.
We didn't really have a turnout problem in the seven swing states; it was in the other 43 states (the safely blue and safely red states alike) where we had a turnout problem.
Your point about the abusive (yes, I'm calling it that) fundraising messaging/strategy is noted. If your fundraising emails are screwing up the mental health and well-being of our voters, then that's a very serious problem, to put it mildly.
However, we, as a party, need to stop relying on the mainstream media for voter outreach, as they're going to spend more time promoting Trump (despite being officially term-limited now) and attacking our candidates than anything else. CNN and MSNBC, especially the former, are basically Fox News with somewhat more journalistic credibility, and the big-three network news departments are pretty much the same way. We need to build our own counterweight, which will be pretty much exclusively through digital media platforms like podcasts and video streaming, to Fox News and the rest of the fascist media echo chamber and allow our elected officials to appear on our new, friendly-to-us media outlets as guests on a regular basis.
Fred Harris, who served as a United States senator and professor emeritus at the University of New Mexico, died Saturday at the age of 94.
Harris served two terms as an Oklahoma U.S. senator from 1964 to 1973. In 1969, he was also named chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Harris then relocated to New Mexico, working as a political science professor at UNM.
I am sorry to hear of Sen. Harris' passing. I would have voted for him in the 1976 primary had I been a couple of months older and had his candidacy still been active when the California primary was held in June of that year. Nobody lives forever and he had a long and very productive life. Hard to believe that Oklahoma elected such a progressive senator twice back in the 1960s when you look at the Sooner State nowadays. R.I.P.
I have 3 trial subscription vouchers for the Downballot discord to give away to anyone wanting the free trial (I highly recommend the value offered); just post if you are interested👍
We are now seeing what is truly a "hostile takeover" of our government – and Trump and his Project 2025 strategists, ideologues and funders are behaving accordingly.
Trump is eschewing all the written and unwritten rules of presidential transition, which means foregoing government funding for transition, as well as the contractual limitations that would come with that. Instead, Trump is funding this privately, with dark money – no disclosures required.
The New York Times has some fascinating and alarming details.
Think of the donors who are funding his transition as *policy shareholders*. They will be getting what they pay for. (Unfortunately, so will the rest of us.)
Democrats really should go hard on the getting money out of politics agenda in the 2026 midterms. If they aren't, they are blowing up a golden opportunity to win more elections considering fighting citizens united and going to public financing has in the past been on the agenda.
How in the world to you propose Democrats do that? Or do you just mean lots of political rhetoric about the issue?
Citizens United killed the McCain-Feingold Act (aka the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002). And Leonard Leo and Trump have really transformed the Supreme Court – plus Trump is likely to make new appointments, first and foremost replacing Alito and Thomas with younger, even more-reactionary judges.
There is no way in hell public campaign financing passes before Trump moves into the White House, and even less of a chance afterwards.
Yes to the 2nd question you brought up although the only way the big money issue can be brought up is with a constitutional amendment. That goes beyond the capabilities of the normal legislative process.
It's important that Democrats really distinct themselves from Republicans and not be another party that represents corporate powers that be over citizens. Otherwise, it's going to be hard for them to win over voters on this issue. It's more about the messaging and imaging problem than it is about anything legislative wise.
Has the general public ever actually cared about getting the money out of politics? It isn't like there was ever some vast public movement to support Feingold and McCain.
I think they care about it in a vague, nebulous sense. If you told people that they'd see less ads and get less annoying emails and text messages with public financing and shortening the window of election advertising they'd be on board.
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were able to capitalize on this issue in their presidential campaigns in both 2016 and 2020 respectively (in Bernie's case, both).
Dan Osborn also capitalized on this as well in his Senate campaign and got a 6.63% margin of loss to Senator Deb Fischer compared to all of the other Democratic challengers to incumbent Republican Senators who got larger loss margins in their respective Senate races.
The public does in fact care although the question is mainly about how Democrats can prove from an image standpoint they are not puppets of big money interests. Moderate and independent voters may be compelled but the big money out of politics issue won't be the only issue they will be evaluating Democrats for in 2026.
Not really. Bernie and Warren did this early on in their campaigns (Warren before Bernie even announced his 2nd bid) only for Biden to bring up doing more than just simply ending Citizens United. Essentially, both Bernie and Warren's base paved way for Biden to tap into in the remainder of the primaries and the general election in that they had captured the most left/liberal base of Democratic Primary voters.
Also, I cited Bernie, Warren and Osborn to imply that it was not only the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primaries but also in a general election for a Senate race in a red state where this issue applied as well.
If Osborn is able to capitalize on this issue and run as an Independent Senate Candidate with plenty of the support from the Democratic Party base in a red state, it means there's more than just simply a Democratic Presidential Primary Race that this issue applies in the general election.
This is why I mentioned Osborn along with Sanders and Warren. I also mentioned in my other comment above that Biden brought up the issue as well.
At the risk of getting into forbidden territory, running on an agenda of demanding that "pass the hat and put in $27" (or whatever amount) should be the only method of campaign finance is tying one hand behind our backs, and won't greatly move swing voters who generally don't vote based on abstract political "reform".
Until we get enough power to pass further reforms--and change the courts enough to repeal Citizens United--then I'm not willing to deliberately disarm. We should focus on winning, not "principle".
Donald Trump's Treasury pick is a gay, George Soros-connected Yale alum.
His Labor pick has strong Union ties.
His Surgeon General is a vaccine advocate.
His Secretary of State is a foreign policy hawk, not a dove.
And yet barely a peep from his MAGA cult who believed that he had exactly the OPPOSITE convictions on each of those topics.
In Trump world its about. TRUMP. Not policy. These people are blatant hypocrites and none even care. He also went to the Liberratian convention and declared: “I'm committing to you tonight that I will put a Libertarian in my cabinet, and also, Libertarians in senior posts.”
But anytime he blatantly renegs it's acceptable. But he's still not a "regular politiican"
Meanwhile the departments he cares most about controlling are the ones with the most controversial picks so far. Intelligence. FBI. Defense. Justice. The normal ones are the red herrings.
The one difference this time around is that there seems to be less multi-millionaires/billionaires in Trump's cabinet than there were when he made his 1st term cabinet picks back in 2016. Unless I'm mistaken.
I've seen some online objections. I don't understand the Rubio pick, from his perspective. Not so much the hawk or dove thing, as it's hard to figure out why. Other than he seems to be picking more than half his cabinet from Florida.
The blame is not on Russia. At least you haven’t shown it in this instance. Russia has too often become all too ready made scapegoat.
Fair enough. While Austria's far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ) is very Russia-friendly, the articles on this state election do not show Russia’s hand or prove Russian meddling. So I’ve taken down my comment.
GOOD NEWS FROM THE SENATE!
Robert Kuttner has written a hopeful article that suggests precisely this, and more. Who woulda thunk Republicans senators would discover a spine and suddenly display initial signs of ... resistance to Hair Furore?
These days I’m hungry for any signs of good news – and this qualifies. Enjoy!
https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-11-22-antibodies-to-trump-cabinet-senate-thune/
I guess this doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies largely because I never thought the trotted out worst case scenarios (the Senate gives up all of their power and lets Trump run the show, especially re: the budget) was likely at all. The worry is do they have the stones to actually reject multiple Trump appointees? Gaetz was the sacrifical lamb and him going down isn't some big victory. But will the Senate confirm an unqualified bigoted assaulter like Hegeseth as DoD Secretary? DoD Secretary is a really important job-it's not just being a cheerleader for the Administration like some of the other Secretarial roles are. That to me is the real test.
In terms of legislation, I don't expect this trifecta to really be much worse than the first one was, and will likely be even less effective/impactful as they have smaller majorities in both chambers and the House vote whipping apparatus is amateur hour compared to Ryan's. The damage is going to be done via the many significant things a President can do sans Congress (and Lord knows Trump will test the Supreme Court's limits on executive power)
I totally agree with everything you’ve written. Warm and fuzzy? That’s hardly what I’m feeling! But these days, as we’re about to go through some very dark times, I’ll take a glimmer of hope and any positive sign.
After a two-week deep dive into Minnesota precinct data, here are my takeaways....
The Core Mostly Held For Harris--While Minnesota shifted three points to the right overall, that was less than the shift of the country at large. The primary reason is that the needle barely budged at all in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area, be it the urban centers, the first-ring suburbs, or the second-ring suburbs. The vast majority of municipalities in the Twin Cities were within a percentage point for Harris compared to Biden four years ago. Even the third-ring exurbs largely didn't move much, and in some cases, got a bit bluer. Meanwhile, Minnesota's third largest city of Rochester has continued its sharp Democratic trendline from a decade ago.
Mixed Bag in the Outstate College Towns--Most of the regional centers in outstate Minnesota that remain blue are homes to colleges and universities, some of which have been struggling with enrollment. I anticipated the student body, particularly the males, were probably more conservative this year than four years ago. There was little indication of slippage in Duluth, Moorhead, Bemidji, St. Peter, or Northfield. There was clearer erosion of support compared to Biden in Winona and the badly battered St. Cloud whose state university has seen the heaviest enrollment declines. Meanwhile, the bottom continues to fall out in Morris in western Minnesota, home of another college suffering from steep enrollment declines, going from a 16-point Hillary win in 2016 to a 1-point Trump win in 2024. Crookston remains the most conservative university town in Minnesota but didn't accelerate its rightward trend nearly as much as Morris.
The Mankato Embarrassment--The most inexplicable underperformance of Minnesota's college towns came in Walz's hometown of Mankato, where Harris lost more that four points from Biden's 2020 margin. I'm not sure what's going on here. Perhaps a more conservative student body reflective of the general conservative trend in southern Minnesota, but the underperformance was clear in precinct after precinct, not limited to neighborhoods with high student populations. There was no hint of any hometown victory chant for Walz among his neighbors, and that was decidedly not the case in any of his previous Congressional or gubernatorial runs where he always did well.
Klobuchar Still Ran Ahead of the Presidential Ticket--There was considerable polling that hinted at Amy Klobuchar's bipartisan appeal having faded and that, despite having her weakest challenger yet by far, her victory would be far less impressive this time than her three previous campaigns. In the end, her margin was at least within shouting distance of what we'd seen from her in the past, even if her county map wasn't nearly as comprehensively blue. Even though she didn't do as well as she had in the past outstate, her overperformance of Harris was more dramatic in the rural areas. There were numerous communities that went more than 2-1 for Trump that still voted for Klobuchar. It seems reasonable to predict that some Minnesota communities that held out for Klobuchar this year may never again vote Democratic in my lifetime.
Angie Craig Kills It--One of the most pleasant surprises of the evening was Angie Craig's dominating double-digit victory over Joe Teirab, who was actually a pretty good GOP candidate. After a trio of modest victories in previous cycles, Craig's winning margin in the district was much closer to Klobuchar's than Harris's. She was only 400 votes short of winning Scott County.
Warning Signs Among Immigrant Populations--The Minnesota Star Tribune ran a story that documented a double-digit shift toward Trump in the three Minneapolis precincts with the highest numbers of Somali-Americans. Harris still dominated in these precincts, but any time you see double-digit shifts among any demographic group, it's a development worthy of concern. Shakopee, another Twin Cities suburb with a substantial Somali population, also shifted two points toward Trump. It isn't fully clear if the Somali shift is related to Gaza or social conservatism. The Star Tribune article hinted at a combination of both. Similarly, the precincts with the heaviest Hmong populations on the east side of St. Paul also shifted decisively toward Trump and the GOP generally. Unlike Minneapolis, St. Paul actually shifted a couple of points to the right, and most of the losses came in those Hmong precincts. As a result, for the first time in my lifetime, St. Paul was NOT the most Democratic town in Ramsey County! Suburban Falcon Heights was. It's harder to pin down by precinct data how the Hispanic, Hmong, and Somali vote trended elsewhere in the state because outside of the core cities, there aren't many precincts with majority concentrations of first or second-generation immigrant populations.
The Iron Range is Gone--The big realignment of Minnesota's previously dark blue mining towns that make up the Iron Range happened in 2016. Since then, it's been continued incremental slippage, and in 2024, only Chisholm, Eveleth, and the tiny town of McKinley stayed in the Harris column on the Range proper. Virginia, Mountain Iron, Biwabik, and Nashwauk all flipped to Trump this year, joining their neighbors who already flipped in 2016 or 2020. And the last state House seat held by a Democrat in the central Iron Range flipped handily to the GOP this year after the retirement of Dave Lislegard who only won by 2 points in 2022. The local realignment happened more quickly than I anticipated even after the 2016 bloodbath at the top of the ticket. Most interesting about the Iron Range collapse is that the Itasca County side of the Iron Range fell the hardest and the most quickly. Twenty years ago, as one of numerous examples, nearly all of the towns on the Itasca County side of the Range went stronger for John Kerry than nearly all of the towns on the St. Louis County side. Fast forward to 2024 and the vast majority of the Range towns in St. Louis County held out comfortably for Amy Klobuchar, but except for Nashwauk and Keewatin, all of the Range towns in Itasca County didn't even vote for her!
Canoers Go The Other Direction--The inverse to the Iron Range story is that the only two Minnesota counties that went stronger for Harris than Biden were Lake and Cook counties in the state's Arrowhead region. It's a safe bet that their position on copper-nickel mining conflicts with that of the neighboring Iron Range. In fact, the town best known for being the gateway to the Boundary Waters, and which has one foot in the mining culture of the Iron Range, is Ely in northeastern St. Louis County. Ely went for Biden four years ago and voted for Harris this year, as did a couple of its neighboring townships. From a numerical standpoint, you'd rather have the Iron Range in your column than the Boundary Waters corridor but there's at least some degree of divergence going on here where votes lost in one area are being made up for elsewhere. If state Senator Grant Hauschild has any hope of being re-elected in Tom Bakk's old district in 2026, he'd better hope these trends continue.
The Center of Minnesota Is It's Darkest Shade of Red--From the Dakota borders to the Wisconsin border, central Minnesota has become the biggest disaster zone for Democrats. But it's the patch of territory in the dead center of the state where Republicans have recently begun to run up margins more reminiscent of central Nebraska than anything previously seen in Minnesota. Most of these counties are populated by German Catholics and are ancestrally Democratic, albeit VERY conservative Democrats. Outside of Collin Peterson, Democrats in federal races haven't fared well here for most of my lifetime, but as recently as the 2000s, these counties voted Democratic in statewide downballot races and sent Democrats like Dallas Sams, Mary Ellen Otremba, Larry Hosch, and Al Doty to the Legislature. More recently, the area was the home district of Republican Senate Leader Paul Gazelka. What's driving their surge to the right above and beyond the rest of outstate Minnesota? It's probably equal parts social conservatism, tied to their particularly strident Catholic diocese, and backlash to the considerable immigration settlements, be it the Somali influx to St. Cloud or the migrants at the dairy farms and food processing plants in the area.
Excellent and informative round-up. I wonder if the university town shifts are a reddening student population or declining enrollment . . I'd suspect the latter is a far larger variable. Long-term that's actually a major worry for the Dem Party . . the constant growth in degree obtainment has hit a brick wall over the past decade nationally, and there aren't many signs it's getting any better (although I do think colleges/universities will have to have a come to Jesus shift in the next decade re: costs as a result)
I think it's a combination of both. And it definitely is a major worry for Democrats as college attendance is at this point directly adjacent to Democratic voting. The fact that Harris's campaign was announcing that they were gonna lift degree requirements for more federal jobs was a good indicator that they see the future is a place where fewer and fewer people have college degrees. It's also another good indication of how disastrous it's been for the Democrats to coast on their 15-year-old "coalition of the ascendant" strategy that's now been completely blown apart at all levels.
"It's also another good indication of how disastrous it's been for the Democrats to coast on their 15-year-old "coalition of the ascendant" strategy"
Where I disagree is I don't see this as some deliberate strategy on the part of the Democratic Party and more part of a global realignment occurring along educational and rural/urban lines that is happening across the entire developed world. Has the party made some at times significant errors? Sure, but I don't see any alternative reality in which the Dem Party is able to hold onto its 2008 coalition via policy/messaging changes.
It wasn't so much a strategy as an interpretation based on 2008 and 2012 results, a half-baked interpretation that they internalized and then coasted on for far too long. A lot of tactical choices were made that accelerated the problem, be it limiting campaign stops to population centers or the shift to an immigration platform that they believed would appeal to Hispanics but ended up driving them away. I definitely think the alternative reality where Democrats didn't slow-walk their way to a de facto open borders position would have slowed the stampede of working-class whites and Hispanics toward the Republicans. It also wouldn't have given Trump so much to work with this year.
In your opinion, if Biden and Dems had taken action in immigration a year earlier, do you think it would have made a significant difference in this election? When the numbers of migrants started hitting NYC in summer of 23, I thought they really needed to do something quick.
Two years earlier might have stanched the bleeding. The cake might have already been baked only one year earlier but the sooner they showed a hint of seriousness about it, the better politically.
This is the proper context for our current struggles. This is a really worrisome global phenomenon going back to the early 2010s and it’s only accelerating.
Pierre Poilievre looks likely to win a Mulroney-sized majority in Canada. Parties like the FPO in Austria and SD in Sweden are easily coming ahead of traditional conservatives and forcing them right. Slicker, more polished nationalists like Bardella and Zemmour loom in France. AfD might be the second largest party in Germany in March. South Korean politics is just a contest to see who can be the biggest incel. It’s hard not to sense that the lights are going out, as Earl Grey said in 1914, not just here but everywhere
If nothing else I think the negative trends for smaller regional/“directional”
state schools, HBCUs and small liberal arts colleges aren’t going to get better even if larger land grant/flagship research state schools continue steady growth, albeit at a slower pace than in previous years.
At some point the sector is going to need serious cost reform. Job prospects are still much better for college graduates but the absurd prices at a lot of institutions aren’t sustainable
I struggle to see how more than quarter of existing private liberal arts colleges will still be around by 2035.
Yeah, half of them shuttering by 2035 is probably the optimistic case. I just don’t know what the upside to attend such an institution at current costs is when the education at most public state unis is as good if not better
I'm not sure the problem is with the liberal arts colleges. The issue is really whether you justify the tuition costs at public universities vs. private universities.
Taking a look at how much an undergraduate education costs at Stanford vs. UC Berkeley, we have the following figures:
Stanford - $328,648 for undergraduate students
https://www.sofi.com/stanford-university-tuition-fees/
UCB - $168,576 for undergraduate students
https://financialaid.berkeley.edu/how-aid-works/student-budgets-cost-of-attendance/
Granted it's cheaper at UCB or any other UC compared to Stanford or even any of the ivy leagues, $168,000+ is still expensive no matter how you spin it. Therefore, the question of the value of education is always being brought to the test.
We have Ronald Reagan to thank for this back when he was Governor of California during most of the period of the Vietnam War.
Interesting since Berkeley is probably a better school than Stanford at half the cost.
Gaza may also play a role for the colleges you mentioned but there is no one answer that covers everyone who shifted or didn't show up.
That's a good point. I wouldn't think Mankato State University would be a school that would be likely to have a substantial percentage of the student body motivated by Gaza, but I may be out of touch about that.
Excellent summary. Re the Somali shift to the right, might the general swing due to inflation have something to do with it if the Somali community is generally lower-income than the state average? There seems to be a consistent pattern that poorer counties swung more toward Trump than more affluent counties did, all else equal.
A Somali imam from Minneaplis had an excellent piece in the Star Tribune yesterday giving some context for the numbers in the Somali precincts and framing the matter as a decline in turnout compared to four years ago more than it was a MAGA shift. He said the precincts with the double-digit percentage shift only saw 200 more votes for Trump but 1,531 fewer votes for Harris compared to Biden. It's not awesome if turnout cratered that badly but that loss of raw votes was clearly a bigger driver for the double-digit percentage shift than was gains for Trump.
Pretty amazing that we saw a sizable minority and immigrant population turnout decline on our side in a cycle where we ran a daughter of immigrants (and first ever Asian candidate to boot) vs an opponent going full-on Bill the Butcher nativist.
You think the George Floyd murder might have pushed some people who normally stay home to vote for Biden in 2020?
Hard to say. I don't think there's any reason that Floyd's murder would diminish turnout disproportionately high in the Somali community though.
I was speculating whether the murder pushed Somali turnout up in 2020, and then it fell back to a normal level this year.
Next open Senate seat in Minnesota, Angie Craig should go for it!! 💙🇺🇲
Might be a wait but I'm fine with her(or Walz)
My hunch is this will be Amy Klobuchar's last term. She'll be 70 in 2030.
70 is young for a Senator. I could see two more terms at least.
Tina Smith is 2 years older.
Some personal news and then thoughts/questions for the community.
1) I got accepted to three of the nine law schools I applied to for Fall of 2025, including my Plan A. Five are still pending but I am ecstatic about it. This likely means I will remain in the Denver metro area, but I will see how the rest of them shake out.
2) How are you all planning to use the time before the midterms? Getting as many grants, and scholarships together as possible will be time-consuming, and then school itself but I do want to think about what I can do to improve the national situation. I'm currently brushing up on Spanish so I can be a more effective/useful volunteer, but I would love some additional ideas for what individuals can do to start working against our national nightmare and setting up for success before the 26 cycle really kicks off.
3) In 26 I will try to do some voter registration drives in the Spring-Summer of 26 at colleges or other targeted areas in Adams County since the collapse there is the primary reason Caraveo lost CO-08 by 0.8%. Then volunteer where I can for whoever the candidate is after the primary. I will probably still be a good 30-45 minute drive from CO-08 though but will see what I can do then.
Congratulations!
Join your local county DEC(if you haven't already); and consider running yourself (if the local party org will fund you\provide you volunteer organizing help)for a city council\commission seat(I always recommend first time candidates to seek only open seats and remember losing the first race is actually expected; almost all politicians have lost at least 1 race and many great politicians have lost 2 or even 3; except for George Washington, but he cheated, he ran unopposed)
I don't know if I'm cut out for it and my little burb south of Denver is pretty blue up and down the ticket but will look into the local DEC. Thanks.
Good luck to you with law school👍
OT: Does your local county or Municipality give a "State of the" address? I just got an ad for the State of the Village address from Palmetto Bay, FL, where I have family.
https://files.constantcontact.com/719841aa001/78c864f9-485a-4c1a-92de-fff34cce4ae4.jpg?rdr=true
My city and county do actually
Thanks. I just thought Palmetto Bay made an oddly flashy flyer for a State of the Village address.
Trump picked recently defeated 1 term congresswoman Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Oregon) as Secretary of Labor. I'm actually relieved at this, because she's the least bad choice possible for this position. Andrew Puzder would have been the stuff of the worst nightmares as he tried him before and he ended up withdrawing!! 💙🇺🇲
Lori Chavez-DeRemer was a choice I never expected Trump would make as Labor Secretary. She's not considered a controversial or attention grabbing House Republican as far as I understand and is least likely going to be a problem in her respective role.
I expect her confirmation hearings are going to be smooth and not difficult like Linda McMahon's as Secretary of Education.
Similar to the surgeon general (described below), the right-wingers online are throwing a fit since she is apparently somewhat friendly to unions (voted for PRO act).
Do we see Sean O'Brien and Trump-voting Teamsters taking them on online?
She's a surprisingly good pick
Teamsters pushed her.
Trump just picked Dr. Janette Nesheiwat as Surgeon General. She is an unabashed vaccine supporter who supported the Covid vaccine and anti-vax Twitter is having a meltdown right now. They got played by Trump and they aren't happy.
Lmao😂 luvin it
The anti-vax/“wellness mom” crowd have got to be some of the easiest marks on earth
One segment that shifted to Trump that no one has mentioned is the crunchy granola leftists who shifted from supporting Democrats to RFK Jr. to Trump this election. Look for Trump to cut RFK Jr. loose as soon as he gets resistance from the not insane GOP senators and also the GOP senators who are major recipients of campaign cash from big pharma. Yes, they are easy marks and they got played again.
Omg I know an uber wealthy, pretty liberal family that went that route this cycle. The parents were deep into the "natural wellness" podcast spiral (and all of these shows of course pimp various quack supplements and remedies at the end of their "informational" episodes).
because they are naive, not stupid, just easy marks
Aren't the anti-vaxxers aware that it was Trump who ended up making the push for the COVID-19 vaccine to be developed in the first place? As far as I understand, he and his administration were arguing for a financial incentive for Pfizer, Moderna, etc. to get the COVID-19 vaccine done as quickly as possible.
Trump supporters have this amazing ability not to become derailed or confused by facts.
Which is another reason why Trump has so much power over them.
Trump supporter: "We hate the anti-vax establishment!"
Trump supporter: "And Trump got the COVID-19 vaccine in!"
Trump supporter: "We still hate the anti-vax establishment!"
CA 13 and 45. Duarte upped his margin from 203 to 204. Tran from 519 to 545.
thanks for updated
I have a bunch of assorted thoughts and conclusions now that the disaster of an election has had a while to dwell in my head. It's too much to type them all up into a single mega comment, but I think tackling one at a time makes sense...
Today's thought: the penalty for unpopular policy decisions (or any kind of scandal) is capped at one election cycle. Voters at large are, for whatever reasons, unable or unwilling to "hold a grudge" after they have had the chance to anger-vote once. Dobbs saved us from a disastrous 2022. Many of us, myself included, expected voter anger over it to continue through to 2024 to our benefit. It did not. Similarly, voters did not care about any of the policies or details of Trump's first admin. They had already voted on it in 2018 or 2020.
We can see a similar example working in our favor with Obamacare. In 2010 voters were pissed about changes to the healthcare system, and that combined with other matters led to us getting slaughtered in Obama's 1st midterm. By 2012 Obamacare was not yet popular; it still was not fully implemented and many of the benefits had not settled into people's lives yet. Despite that, it was not an albatross around Obama's neck. Voters had gotten it out of their system in 2010 and were content to base their vote in 2012 on other matters.
I think this holds true at the state levels too. Wisconsin voters stopped caring about Walker's union busting after the failed recall vote.
If I'm right the resultant implications would be huge. Could help guide how to implement policy and approaches to governing when we do hold power.
A political administration should, imho, always frontload as many of its dramatic policy changes as possible – especially those which are deemed necessary but might be unpopular. But also policies that take time before voters see the effects and benefits.
More news from Orange County:
There is a CA-45 update from OC. This drop had 352 Tran votes and 326 Steel votes added to the total. With 26 votes added to the margin "Landslide Derek" is up by 545. Steady progress...
Nothing from L.A. today. Expect a Los Angeles report on M or Tu this week.
CA-13 remains at Duarte +204.
How likely do you think Gray is to be victorious in CA-13?
I am waiting for all the votes to be counted. I have no inside information and haven't even set foot in that district since 2018. This year I was a small donor to several CA House races but none of the NorCal ones. I had Whitesides in CA-27 as my top race, then Rollins in CA-41, Tran in CA-45 and Dave Min in CA-47. In the primary I also gave to both of the new Congresswomen from the SFV: Laura Friedman in CA-30 and Luz Rivas in CA-29 (my district.) Overall I have to be happy with how my candidates did, although I really wanted Rollins, too.
All things considered, Rollins ended up improving his margins a bit this time around. He ended up losing to Calvert again but by 2.6% points whereas back in 2022 he lost by 4.6% points.
Considering how CA-41 is trending in demographics and the margins Calvert has won by since 2022, it's only a matter of time that he will be out of office. I suspect he'll have a harder time defending his seat in 2026 and the race may end up being more of a nail biter for him.
https://ballotpedia.org/Will_Rollins
Ken Calvert is older, and has been in his seat since after the 1992 elections. He has to be on the possible retirement list for 2026, especially since he would be in for a difficult campaign.
If Calvert retires, then it'll be an even easier possibility for Democrats to win the seat. Rollins may give it a third shot although I am not convinced we need him to win, especially considering he's already run twice and the margins continue to shrink for Calvert.
There might be a lot of GOP retirements in 2026 if the cycle starts to shape up as a bad one for them. A lot of the older reps might stick around if they think they'll have a majority, but not to be in the opposition.
I suspect a retirement
This is a strange voting situation - The City of Bonnieville, KY, is going to dissolve after just a seven vote margin by its residents approved it to cease to exist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48M3zHIbyPc&ab_channel=WHAS11
On the Friday digest I had a comment criticizing the Democrats digital communication strategy as "one giant nonstop fundraising pitch that was impossible to unsubscribe from" and speculated that it may have suppressed turnout. I thought it would be nice to have some discussion of what would be an effective strategy.
My ideal campaign communications would look a lot like this site's morning digest. Give little stories about what's been happening on the campaign trail that engage voters and keep them excited about the campaign. These newsletters can, of course, include some amount of fundraising, in fact it would be remise not to include a donate link. But it shouldn't be the primary focus. An occasional lead story like "Musk is dumping $100 million into Pennsylvania, help us counter!" or "the quarterly deadline is approaching, help us finish strong!" is fine, as long as it's truly occasional.
Give voters control of how much communication they receive and honor that request. If they say they want daily emails, send them a daily update. If they only want weekly, only send them an email once a week. I've seen campaigns have an option to sign up for "fewer" emails or "important emails only", but this is inevitably still more than one a day. Frequency based controls are better.
Save texting for voter mobilization efforts only. No one, and I mean no one, likes the endless stream of increasingly desperate pitches for money. Nor do I think they were overly effective. The events of the campaign motivated donors, not two sentence pitches with a sketchy link. Text messages are essentially interrupting a voter's day and therefore should be used sparingly. Things like "election day is three days away, make sure you have a plan to vote!" or "early voting is starting, here are locations and hours" are fine. But the "I am in tears because no one is donating" texts need to stop.
Lastly, and this is something we talked about on Friday, give a way to donate with zero communication. People didn't donate because they didn't want the email/text deluge.
I get what you are saying but I highly doubt actual turnout suffered; almost all of your other points are valid(however, let's be real; the Republicans\Trump did exactly the same thing)
But there’s a key difference, from small-amount donors, Trump raised a mere fraction of what Harris did. I am inclined to agree with Marcus: that Kamala Harris’ fundraising did affect Democratic voter perception, enthusiasm and turnout.
More importantly, Marcus’ proposals would increase enthusiasm, drive turnout, and raise funds!
the Republicans use the same tactics is my main point; I actually agree with him on quite a few things (except for the turnout thing; I don't think fundraising does anything to decrease turnout)
Ok, I hear you and I realize we’re pretty much on the same page. So let’s flip the question and instead ask: Can fundraising be done in such a way that it actually *increases* our turnout? I think what Marcus is suggesting would!
Absolutely the fundraising could have a lot less what I call 'Drama Queen' appeal; it's kind of annoying how every fundraiser is 'the absolute savior of democracy !'; and other such nonsense but what I suggest is just make sure they either go into SPAM or change your actual email address; as far as the question of using fundraising as a turnout tool; I would say that is just highly unlikely because anyone actually giving money is already a true believer (or a person with an agenda that contributes money to both sides)
I'm not entirely sure about that. One of my friends who was on the GOP lists showed me her texts and they were fewer and less maudlin than mine. More of the "Can you pitch in $25 bucks to help Trump" type. But yes, my thought that it suppressed turnout was definitely speculative.
My larger point is that people who donate money, or get on these very broad lists of potential donors that are sold around, are also voters. So barraging them with fundraising messages in much greater volume than any messages about voting risks turning them off. Most of the people I know who made the direct connection between the stream of fundraising texts and not voting, or at least threatening to sit out, were of the disgruntled leftie type. While it's unclear exactly how many such voters there were and what impact a different communication strategy would have had, I do think that just asking for money without asking for support was a mistake. Someone on the fence about the Democratic ticket would be less inclined to back it as a result.
hate to tell you this but you are wrong; know it for a fact because I make sure that I am on all Republican \Trump fundraising emails (I like to scout the opposition);I need to make it clear, I am saying that the Republicans\Trump use exactly the same tactics in fundraising (you have lots of other valid points)
Fair enough. (I'm sure your sample size is much bigger)
Somehow being on Kamala's list despite not having donated to anyone in years, was certainly demotivating for me. I could think of very little more depressing than checking my "promotions" folder and seeing the dozens of plaintive emails awaiting me there. I think I would have voted Trump had I received text messages.
why?
I was being sarcastic. But I very much hate spam texts. If the Harris campaign had somehow got my number and started spamming it, I would have been very pissed at them.
The whole thing has become a money machine without any attention paid to what it costs indirectly. Money is important to elections but outraising our opponent 2-1 didn't seem to do much for us the past three presidential races.
I'm with you, but I'd also note that most people I know will feel turned off by any extensive level of communication. Your update ideas are solid but based on my experience most people will tune them out in quick order unless the frequency is kept fairly low — one every other week or so at most.
The easiest thing that needs to change is the language use. Telling the most dedicated portions of your voter base that everything is "hopeless" that they're "being destroyed" and other such language is stupid. That stuff permeates through to how we think about the election and lowers moral throughout the voter base. People want to vote for winners. Losing 10% or 20% of the fundraising haul to keep those small donors optimistic instead of demoralized would easily be worth it in the long run.
Another obstacle is that the campaigns all sell their contact lists and act independently. Campaign A could adopt good practices but could be undermined by campaign B adopting poor practices and causing the person receiving the messages to give up on both of them. It would require a change at the level of whoever dictates party policy over NGP VAN data.
I don’t understand all the angst over this. I just delete all the fundraising e-mails unread, even the ones for candidates I’ll eventually donate to. No more annoying than the rain gutter e-mails, window replacement e-mails, etc. that I also delete unread everyday.
Same here. I had little issue unsubscribing from various listserves the past 6 months.
It's actually not an issue with voters (we are in a bubble)
Even after the election I'm still getting these fundraising emails and they veer on unnecessary, cynical negativity that really defeats the purpose of why we should really inspire voters to vote for Democrats.
We didn't really have a turnout problem in the seven swing states; it was in the other 43 states (the safely blue and safely red states alike) where we had a turnout problem.
Your point about the abusive (yes, I'm calling it that) fundraising messaging/strategy is noted. If your fundraising emails are screwing up the mental health and well-being of our voters, then that's a very serious problem, to put it mildly.
However, we, as a party, need to stop relying on the mainstream media for voter outreach, as they're going to spend more time promoting Trump (despite being officially term-limited now) and attacking our candidates than anything else. CNN and MSNBC, especially the former, are basically Fox News with somewhat more journalistic credibility, and the big-three network news departments are pretty much the same way. We need to build our own counterweight, which will be pretty much exclusively through digital media platforms like podcasts and video streaming, to Fox News and the rest of the fascist media echo chamber and allow our elected officials to appear on our new, friendly-to-us media outlets as guests on a regular basis.
Fred Harris, who served as a United States senator and professor emeritus at the University of New Mexico, died Saturday at the age of 94.
Harris served two terms as an Oklahoma U.S. senator from 1964 to 1973. In 1969, he was also named chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Harris then relocated to New Mexico, working as a political science professor at UNM.
https://www.koat.com/article/fred-harris-dies/62996654
Harris ran for president in 1976 and was the runner up when Humphrey chose Muskie to be his running mate in 1968.
I am sorry to hear of Sen. Harris' passing. I would have voted for him in the 1976 primary had I been a couple of months older and had his candidacy still been active when the California primary was held in June of that year. Nobody lives forever and he had a long and very productive life. Hard to believe that Oklahoma elected such a progressive senator twice back in the 1960s when you look at the Sooner State nowadays. R.I.P.
He didn't start out as progressive as he ended up. But he was an economic populist.
Yes, Harris dropped out before I had the chance to case my first vote. But Frank Church got in, and I voted for him in the primary.
I have 3 trial subscription vouchers for the Downballot discord to give away to anyone wanting the free trial (I highly recommend the value offered); just post if you are interested👍
We are now seeing what is truly a "hostile takeover" of our government – and Trump and his Project 2025 strategists, ideologues and funders are behaving accordingly.
Trump is eschewing all the written and unwritten rules of presidential transition, which means foregoing government funding for transition, as well as the contractual limitations that would come with that. Instead, Trump is funding this privately, with dark money – no disclosures required.
The New York Times has some fascinating and alarming details.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/24/us/politics/donald-trump-2024-campaign-transition.html?unlocked_article_code=1.cU4.sZCe.pqwScecRQgek&smid=url-share
Think of the donors who are funding his transition as *policy shareholders*. They will be getting what they pay for. (Unfortunately, so will the rest of us.)
He knows he’s above the law. So why should he be bound by it.
he won; we have to realize that
Democrats really should go hard on the getting money out of politics agenda in the 2026 midterms. If they aren't, they are blowing up a golden opportunity to win more elections considering fighting citizens united and going to public financing has in the past been on the agenda.
How in the world to you propose Democrats do that? Or do you just mean lots of political rhetoric about the issue?
Citizens United killed the McCain-Feingold Act (aka the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002). And Leonard Leo and Trump have really transformed the Supreme Court – plus Trump is likely to make new appointments, first and foremost replacing Alito and Thomas with younger, even more-reactionary judges.
There is no way in hell public campaign financing passes before Trump moves into the White House, and even less of a chance afterwards.
Yes to the 2nd question you brought up although the only way the big money issue can be brought up is with a constitutional amendment. That goes beyond the capabilities of the normal legislative process.
It's important that Democrats really distinct themselves from Republicans and not be another party that represents corporate powers that be over citizens. Otherwise, it's going to be hard for them to win over voters on this issue. It's more about the messaging and imaging problem than it is about anything legislative wise.
Naturally, the GOP isn't going to do jack squat.
Has the general public ever actually cared about getting the money out of politics? It isn't like there was ever some vast public movement to support Feingold and McCain.
I think they care about it in a vague, nebulous sense. If you told people that they'd see less ads and get less annoying emails and text messages with public financing and shortening the window of election advertising they'd be on board.
voters care about their pocketbook, not yours
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were able to capitalize on this issue in their presidential campaigns in both 2016 and 2020 respectively (in Bernie's case, both).
Dan Osborn also capitalized on this as well in his Senate campaign and got a 6.63% margin of loss to Senator Deb Fischer compared to all of the other Democratic challengers to incumbent Republican Senators who got larger loss margins in their respective Senate races.
The public does in fact care although the question is mainly about how Democrats can prove from an image standpoint they are not puppets of big money interests. Moderate and independent voters may be compelled but the big money out of politics issue won't be the only issue they will be evaluating Democrats for in 2026.
I mean, citing the Warren and Bernie 2020 campaigns isn't really a hopeful sign. . .
Not really. Bernie and Warren did this early on in their campaigns (Warren before Bernie even announced his 2nd bid) only for Biden to bring up doing more than just simply ending Citizens United. Essentially, both Bernie and Warren's base paved way for Biden to tap into in the remainder of the primaries and the general election in that they had captured the most left/liberal base of Democratic Primary voters.
Also, I cited Bernie, Warren and Osborn to imply that it was not only the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primaries but also in a general election for a Senate race in a red state where this issue applied as well.
https://tinyurl.com/3akj5ub3
To echo Toiler on the Sea, Warren went absolutely nowhere and Sanders obviously lost. Those were also primaries, not general elections.
If Osborn is able to capitalize on this issue and run as an Independent Senate Candidate with plenty of the support from the Democratic Party base in a red state, it means there's more than just simply a Democratic Presidential Primary Race that this issue applies in the general election.
This is why I mentioned Osborn along with Sanders and Warren. I also mentioned in my other comment above that Biden brought up the issue as well.
At the risk of getting into forbidden territory, running on an agenda of demanding that "pass the hat and put in $27" (or whatever amount) should be the only method of campaign finance is tying one hand behind our backs, and won't greatly move swing voters who generally don't vote based on abstract political "reform".
Until we get enough power to pass further reforms--and change the courts enough to repeal Citizens United--then I'm not willing to deliberately disarm. We should focus on winning, not "principle".
Public financing passed at the ballot box in multiple states before SCOTUS gutted it.
Nonsense
Donald Trump's Treasury pick is a gay, George Soros-connected Yale alum.
His Labor pick has strong Union ties.
His Surgeon General is a vaccine advocate.
His Secretary of State is a foreign policy hawk, not a dove.
And yet barely a peep from his MAGA cult who believed that he had exactly the OPPOSITE convictions on each of those topics.
In Trump world its about. TRUMP. Not policy. These people are blatant hypocrites and none even care. He also went to the Liberratian convention and declared: “I'm committing to you tonight that I will put a Libertarian in my cabinet, and also, Libertarians in senior posts.”
But anytime he blatantly renegs it's acceptable. But he's still not a "regular politiican"
Meanwhile the departments he cares most about controlling are the ones with the most controversial picks so far. Intelligence. FBI. Defense. Justice. The normal ones are the red herrings.
The one difference this time around is that there seems to be less multi-millionaires/billionaires in Trump's cabinet than there were when he made his 1st term cabinet picks back in 2016. Unless I'm mistaken.
I've seen some online objections. I don't understand the Rubio pick, from his perspective. Not so much the hawk or dove thing, as it's hard to figure out why. Other than he seems to be picking more than half his cabinet from Florida.