[...]Outgoing Romanian Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu said the court's decision to annul was "the only correct solution after the declassification of the documents... which show that the result of the Romanians' vote was blatantly distorted as a result of Russia's intervention".
In an address on Friday evening, current President Klaus Iohannis confirmed he would remain in the role until a new president was elected.[...]
The law stipulates that, in the event of the annulment of the elections, they should resume on the second Sunday after the date of the annulment - which would have meant on 22 December.
However, the court has decided to ask the government to rerun the entire electoral process, and therefore the electoral campaign.[...]
This is what should have happened in 2016. The candidate who came in 2nd and was hoping to win the runoff disagrees, though. Maybe some of you do, too.
In any case I'm not a fan of the decision because if the law actually says foreign propaganda is just cause to annull an election (which seems questionable . .but I'm no expert on Romanian law), they'll never be another election, because there's literally no way to prevent that.
There need to be steps taken at the educational level regarding courses teaching how future voters can discern information online and verify/cross-check claims. But of course any attempt to do that here would be decried itself as "propaganda" because fact-checking has a "liberal bias."
There was a bit of discussion on this earlier today, but the weekend thread is more suitable for a more in-depth exploration.
While on principle I would be opposed to election nullification (as a small-d democrat), the extraordinary and unprecedented nature of the situation means that whatever the intelligence services found regarding Russian involvement must be incredibly serious and damaging. (I know, we are all sick and tired of this "crisis era")
I do wonder if the incoming parliament will be able to take office at all. That election was held only a week after and subject to the same social media influence, as evident by far-right parties gaining seats. Though we all know in politics, logical consistency goes out the window for convenience (see the Republicans in 2020 who claimed the presidential race was stolen, but their races were just fine).
I am surprised by the court acting so quickly. At the very least, it is better optics to annul the election before any votes are cast, as opposed to declaring it void after the fact (which is what happened in Austria in 2016).
As for what Lasconi (the 2nd place finisher) said, I would not be so confident in winning. The few polls released show her stuck in the 40s (sound familiar?)
Finally, I will note that the center-left/pro-EU candidate did better in the revote than the initial round in Austria, an outcome we can only hope repeats itself again here.
I'm not really on board with banning TikTok; for purposes of entertainment, promoting businesses, and such, it's often been much more constructive than its critics are willing to admit. (I do not use it myself even for entertainment consumption).
But politically, it's increasingly concerning to me that it's become a destructive source of misinformation. Even if we dismiss the idea of a Russian, Chinese, or whatever conspiracy to warp US elections and public opinion, there's been way too much crap on it giving people (especially but not exclusively young voters) false ideas on all range of issues, ranging from the economy to social issues to certain international conflicts that aren't for discussion here.
Regarding Romania, nullifying an election result or imposing a do-over is an extreme measure that understandably people can be wary about. But it's good to see someone taking decisive action against Russian meddling.
Problem is broader than TikTok though, and even foreign disinfo (even if that’s more concentrated), but rather social media more broadly. There’s so much bullshit swirling around and so much incentive to perpetuate it that one platform or one foreign actor doesn’t begin to cover the problem. And it’s global
I would propose that there should be a complete redesign of social media that’s based on legislation which limits the ability for users to get corrupted the way they have been under Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.
AOL was the far superior social media platform because it gave users more autonomy and control over their own domain with less problems. Social media should not allow people to show their own name unless there’s a process by which to verify it legally or if they have to pay.
I agree. Contest everything. The GOP brand hasn't been this bad among regular voters since 1964, and the Dem brand hasn't been this bad among irregular voters since 1928. Our current coalition is optimized to overperform in special elections.
Absolutely! Democrats need to contest every race with the best-possible candidate.
It’s worth remembering that Democrats failed to contest more than a thousand (!) state legislative seats this November. That is political malpractice! (And, no, it is not a mitigating factor that Republicans left even more such races uncontested, over 1300.)
The final vote drop from Orange County boosted Derek Tran's margin by 59 votes, going from 594 to 653.
In Alaska, there apparently was another small batch of ballots added, padding the margin for "No" RCV repeal from 664 to 737 votes (+73). The recount is currently underway.
Also in adjacent CA 47, a lot of people questioned if any Democrat other than Katie Porter could hold the district, and especially if Min could win after the DUI. Min won in 2024 by slightly more than Porter did in 2022.
The unfortunate question was if we could hold Min's seat in the California Senate, and unfortunately, we didn't.
I will miss Katie Porter, her whiteboard and her devastating skewering of pharmaceutical CEOs and others. Certainly, and at least in retrospect, I do wish Porter had opted for reelection to the House rather than reached for a much-contested Senate seat.
Pity Harris didn’t win. Katie Porter would probably have been good as a negotiator of drug prices on behalf of Medicare and the VA. Must admit I would far rather see her back in Congress than as governor. Don’t know whether she is ready for that – and, as you point out, the field is already crowded.
If the GOP had picked up her House seat, then she'd have an obvious path back into office.
As it is, I don't know exactly what would be the best path for her. Assuming Min performs competently and votes as a standard Dem would, there's not much reason to primary him (the DUI isn't it.)
We already have too many Democratic gubernatorial candidates in the race and judging by who they are, all are considerably lower profile than Newsom was before and during his time as Governor. They also don’t possess any of Newsom’s divisiveness that can fire up the GOP base. I’d like to see the right candidate emerge and lead California in a more competent direction.
Porter might be ok as Governor but is she considering being in the race to fight Trump? Or does she really want to lead the state?
Likely but cautious indicators suggest the replacement government will still be better than Assad's reign of terror (but still so many unknowns at this point).
The Syrian Salvation Government, which is what HTS set up in Iblib, so far has been rather moderate and technocratic, though certainly still with an authoritarian bent. The real question is if they consolidate power will that change?
Yeah, like how Fidel Castro lied about how his motivations were to set up a proper Cuban national government only to end up making it Communist with him on top for life. In short, there needs to be a multi-lateral effort to shape whatever post-Assad government or else it could land on neo-ISIS.
One of Iran’s many tragedies was that Ayatollah Khomeini was succeeded by Khamenei, rather than the far-more-moderate and peaceful Ayatollah Montazeri, who was initially designated as successor.
If Bashar al-Assad and his murderous crime family is overthrown, and the HTS & allies consolidate power, then it will be much harder for Iran to supply missiles and other weapons to Hezbollah. That in itself is positive for the region!
Moreover, with Hezbollah militarily and politically weakened, and with less interference by Syria in Lebanese politics, there is at least some chance that this fractious country may once again have functioning government and begin to heal.
High time for Tulsi to pay Bashar another visit. In fact, I suggest an extended stay with him in his new family home in Moscow. I’d gladly contribute to a one-way ticket.
Considering it's the Druze-led "Southern Operation Room" and US-backed "Revolutionary Commando Army" that are closing in on Damascus, a Sunni theocracy seems rather unlikely in the immediate term. I am cautiously optimistic that the Syrian people will build a positive future for themselves post-Assad, but obviously tyranny by new rulers or continued civil war are both possible.
Could it be that these fighting forces are in a hurry to overthrow the Russian-supported regime of al-Assad, before the Putin-friendly Trump is inaugurated?
I think the timing has much more to do with cease fire between Hezbollah and Israel, than the incoming Donald. They struck before Hezbollah had a chance to regroup and redeploy in Syria.
Maybe. The Alawites will retreat to their stronghold on the coast and fight to the last man if they get even a whiff of that. Likeliest we have a new wrinkle of the civil war rather than an ending
It's possible some sort of federated Syria could emerge with the (already-existing) Kurdish autonomous zone in the North, a Druze one in the South and an Alawite one on the coast, but I agree that continued fighting is the more likely outcome.
If you could pick five red states for Democrats to invest in long-term outside of the seven swing states, which five would you pick? I recognize there are winnable races in every state that need $$$ but looking at this in terms of Senate seats and electoral votes mostly but open to anyone's thoughts or ideas here.
Mine:
Alaska
Kansas
Nebraska
Ohio
Texas
1) Alaska good overall trend, cheaper state to invest in. Recent success in AK-AL, almost getting Peltola reelected. RCV creates additional opportunities.
2) Kansas- good overall trend, cheaper state to invest in. Managed to get Governor Kelly elected twice.
3) Nebraska- The way they apportion EVs means we should probably have a strong party here anyway. but mostly same reasons for Alaska and Kansas. Dan Obsorn's solid run makes me think we can score an upset here too.
4) Ohio- I feel like we just can't give up here even with the tough swing from 20-24. The three C cities give us a decent base. If we can claw back in northern Ohio we can start competing here again.
5) Texas- Long term project but there are millions of unregistered but eligible voters and think we still have room to grow in the metros. I don't buy that Latinos are gone forever either.
First, when we examine investment opportunities, we need first and foremost to look at downballot opportunities. That includes state supreme courts (this friggin’ matters!), other elected judgeships, mayorships, election boards, school boards – and, of course, state legislative seats. (This is the way to build and strengthen state party organizations.)
Second, in addition to the party split, we need to consider costs, which means taking into account the state population and its media markets. In addition to Alaska, because of their low population I would add North and South Dakota, as well as Montana and perhaps Maine. (Texas, by contrast, will be hugely expensive. You can probably invest in five or ten other states for the same amount of money.)
I would also add Florida. Why? Because the Florida Democratic Party is finally starting to get its mojo back. This time, I believe they ran a candidate in every state legislative seat. (Nationwide, Democrats left more than a thousand legislative races unchallenged!)
That said, the Democratic Party bloody well needs to bring back the 50-State Strategy! And the new DNC Chair (hopefully Ben Wikler) needs to focus more on being a *catalyst* for sensible evolution and much-needed change of the Democratic Party, and *not* just fundraising. This means inviting lots of outside groups to the table for an ongoing conversation. (Field Team 6, Red Wine & Blue, etc etc etc.)
1) Sure I think there are going to be winnable seats in all 50 states that need $$$ but in terms of flappable senate seats or at the presidential level this decade I think we're limited to a handful.
2) Yeah Iowa and Montana were in competition for my picks because Trump might bungle Agriculture and trade policy enough to move elastic voters there he did it in the past and could do it again. We did win 3 of Iowa's 4 House seats and got Tester reelected in 18. I don't think the Dakotas are coming back any time soon but understand those are cheap markets to compete in.
3) I have Florida PTSD I don't think they've shown any ability to win statewide since 2018. They got candidates in every seat and performed worse than any presidential cycle since 1988.
4) Yeah we need to invest wherever we can and should in all 50 downballot in House seats, and legislative seats where we can compete but doing all we can in the seven swing states is expensive, the resources to expand and build a durable Senate majority this decade are going to be even more limited.
Excellent points in both posts! I suppose I was intentionally trying to shift the focus a tad, rather than just addressing your question as phrased. Apologies.
Oh no reason to apologize your point is important and overall I agree with it, we do need to push money into states we probably aren't winning at the statewide federal level until the 2040s for downballot reasons and to set us up for future success.
I think it should matter that local races are where Democrats can get traction, especially if they are in red region. Not arguing this is where the energy should be focused the most but local races tend to be lower profile compared to the statewide and federal ones.
I had mentioned in another party of the thread that SC-01, as an example, is a Congressional district that might present opportunities for growth for Democrats at the local level as it’s a Lean GOP district.
Agreed on the Dakotas and Montana. THe investment requirement is so miniscule--and their history of electing left-populists to Congress so substantial and recent--that it would be malpractice not to keep investing there and be ready to pounce at the first hint of the next realignment.
Utah - I think there is a "tipping point" with MAGA evil that causes a mass shift of "mainstream" LDS (who mostly think like The Bulwark never-Trumpers) into our coalition. They already test left on a policy level to where the GOP is currently (sorry, can't recall where I heard that, might have been a David French podcast).
South Carolina - Lots of "normie" Republicans here. Room for growth upstate and in the Charlotte suburbs. You just have to get a critical mass of people past their "social taboo" of voting Dem (my parents viewed that first-hand when they asked for D ballots the first time they voted in Summerville, SC - Charleston 'burbs). Being geographically in between NC and GA also connects some dots in my head, in ways I can't fully verbalize.
Slight update - I also characterize UT and SC as states where people mostly come off as friendly, in ways that don't apply to, say, Florida. Or even Texas.
No question I think the argument for #s 1 and 2 is much stronger. I am just trying to find different ways of looking at state demographics, for plausible "coalition" mindsets.
Hopefully some people smarter and more connected than me are also doing this.
UT residents are indeed friendly but very much conservative. Ideologically, unless we’re talking Salt Lake City or Salt Lake County, all else of UT hasn’t really changed that much over the years besides non-white demographics. Even with this, non-white Utahns can still be conservative, even socially.
Urban areas need to explode in population that favors voters who are transplants or it’s going to be hard for UT to move closer to the blue column. You have most of the state that is rural, which adds to the problems as well.
Living in SC, I just don't see the state being worth much investment for Dems. You can ungerrymander it by initiative. The Upstate is Wyoming-level red. The 42-44% floor looks enticing, but it's a mirage. The normie GOPs, who do tend to run the state, couldn't even get Tom Rice into a runoff in a 5 person primary after he voted to impeach Trump, and that was in relatively less right coastal/peedee area. We sunj a ton of cash into Jamie Harrison's run against Graham, who is not beloved, and it wasn't really close.
I don't know much about SC but it would be helpful to at least grow the Democratic Party's presence locally first, even in red areas outside of say SC-06 which Jim Clyburn represents.
SC-01 could be a good Congressional District by which Democrats can organize in.
I don't disagree, and if you could build up the Ds in Charleston then it would be harder gerrymander to the present 6-1 split we have now. But we had a lawsuit like the Alabama one about gerrymandering specifically on racial packing Clyburn's district that went no where. CD01 is Nancy Mace and her district was made redder after she beat Joe Cunningham. Plus the state level is badly titled too.
I just think there are better places to spend money than SC.
Agreed on investment being better spent in other states. I'd only selectively focus on SC for the exact reasons I mentioned but yes, definitely want to aim where the traction is the most.
AZ, GA and TX represent room for growth for Democrats as do AK and KS.
*Has an initiative process that could defang gerrymandering
^elects state supreme court justices (Kansas Bar determines theirs, Alaska has a commission of bar-appointed and Gov-appointed members that pick)
These are all pretty small states, except Ohio. Seems like some investment should go into at least one larger state. But they seem to provide some hint of sunlight for the Dems. The ability to block gerrymandering and elect judges means they could follow Michigan's path and fix structural issues that block progress. I considered Iowa, Missouri, and Mississippi. The judicial situation doesn't look favorable in Iowa or Missouri. Better in MS, but I'm skeptical that electoral reform would pass there.
The Ohio redistricting referendum failed because the amendment would've required the districts' partisan lean to match that of the state, which was a dumb idea from the start and, as OH Republicans used to their advantage, would've required more gerrymandering.
The Republicans' usual redistricting strategy (in all the states they control, not just Ohio) is to pack urban areas into a small number of deep-blue districts and then combine light-blue suburbs with dark-red rural areas to create their Republican districts. A better idea would be to put an amendment on the ballot that requires that, to the greatest extent possible, contiguous urban and suburban areas to be in different districts from the surrounding rural areas. This would 1) prevent them from eliminating Landsman's seat, 2) force the creation of a new all-suburban district in Columbus that would lean Dem, and 3) either shore up Kaptur significantly or create another Dem-leaning district in northeastern Ohio.
It's highly unfortunate that states like NC, GA, TN, and TX don't have ballot initiatives, because an amendment like this would significantly curtail Republican gerrymandering in those states.
Good list here. Your first two are the best options and deserve that pecking order. I'd still put Iowa at #3. The population is mostly secular and moderate, and the revival of Trump's tariffs could trigger another farm crisis. We saw how quickly the state realigned after the last farm crisis.
Are we sure Iowa's population is still mostly secular and moderate? I got the distinct impression that a large part of their realignment has been driven in no small part by their growing evangelical numbers. I'll defer to others on this but that's the impression I've gotten.
However the potential for us to benefit from a republican induced farm crisis sounds plausible to me.
I can't say with 100% certainty but I don't think the evangelical numbers are growing outside of a few enclaves. It's mostly the Lutherans and Methodists doing the realigning.
Well, the United Methodist church just disunited last year over gay marriage and gay ministers. Our local UM church dropped its affiliation and is now trying to raise boo-coo bucks to buy back their church from the national UM organization. The church up the road stayed. Both congregations are realigning now, with the bigots coming to our independent Methodist church or whatever they call themselves now.
SYRIA: Al-Jazeera has excellent minute-by-minute coverage of the developments in Syra, something you will be hard-pressed to find in other online written sources.
. "State of panic as gov’t troops reportedly leave positions around Damascus"
Local sources in Syria told Al Jazeera that a state of panic has spread as army troops withdraw from their positions around Damascus.
They also confirmed that opposition forces had advanced in the western Damascus countryside and the withdrawal of army forces from cities and towns in Eastern Ghouta.
There was a rush for food items in markets in the capital.
Looks like there may be a deal to turn Damascus over to HTS. Hopefully there's a broader deal to be made between HTS, the Turk-aligned groups, and the Kurds. Maybe some assistance for HTS and the Turk proxies in exchange for guarantees that they (and the Turks themselves) leave each other and the Kurds alone?
That seems to be the calculation the junior commanders in charge of cities north of Damascus have already made.
I think the key here is that Hezbollah borked itself by going so hard at Israel. If they hadn't been engaged there and gotten wrecked, they might have been able to prop Assad up. Russia has also been in no position to help since 2022, and I assume they'll stay out of it unless HTS demands that they leave their base (which could end up as their equivalent of Guantanamo).
Could be echoing propaganda but, if not, this is impressively fast:
. "Syrian army officers in Damascus discharged"
(BBC 8:44pm ET) UK-based war monitor the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reports that hundreds of members of the Syrian army and security forces have been seen taking off their military uniforms after being told that they were being discharged as the regime had fallen.
Orders had reportedly been issued to them to withdraw from Damascus International Airport following the departure of a private plane.
My impression is that Ghana has been a fairly stable democracy for about three decades or so. Which probably is why the country isn’t in the news so much. In that regards, I guess it’s similar to Botswana and Costa Rica: islands of longtime stability.
I've found Cooks turnout by Congressional District map 2020 -> 2024 to be informative. You can clearly see drastic drops in blue states/seats that help account for the PV margin.
That's pretty interesting - thanks for sharing. Kind of ironic that many of the D flips got "redder" compared to 2020 prez and vice versa for R flips. I know it makes sense logically, but still weird to see optically.
Rumors flying around the internet that a private jet that took off from Damascus and then vanished off FlightRadar had Assad onboard and May have crashed. We shall see, but his regime has all but fallen tonight
If that did happen, hard to imagine that it would have crashed by mere happenstance. Someone trying to prevent him from being in exile? Someone that wants deniability.
Putin already used that tactic with Prigozhin, I could see him preemptively deciding that Assad should meet the same fate. (Obviously extremely high degree of speculation here)
I have a sense that the rebels had been cutting deals on the down low with local authorities and commanders for weeks or months, and were just waiting for the right moment to execute the plan. Basically, what happened in Afghanistan 3 years ago.
Only one of the four playoff teams from last year made the 12-team field. Michigan and Washington lost most of their good players to the NFL, and Alabama turned into a chaos team that beat Georgia and wrecked some other good teams but also ate it against Vandy and got blown out by the worst Oklahoma team in years.
GHANA: In Ghana, the opposition candidate, former President John Mahama, just won the presidency, and the VP candidate, Mahamudu Bawumia, has accepted the election result. (Actually, that sounds an awful lot like a mirror image of our 2024 election.)
In some ways and not in other ways. This is the greatest seeming similarity:
"Mahama's previous time in office was marred by an ailing economy, frequent power-cuts and corruption scandals."
But he hasn't been tried and convicted. And while the economy in Ghana seems to be in a shambles, nothing could be further from the truth about the U.S. economy.
And it's still not as bad as when Jerry Rawlings was military dictator in the 1980s holding out for charity from Libya, the Soviets, and Cuba as agricultural output cratered, inter-ethnic tension rose (Rawlings favored the Ewe, who had a bone to pick with the Ashanti), and borders were closed. In the end, he swallowed his pride and took an IMF deal that required a transition to a republic again.
With the questionable move 26…e6, Ding Liren just opened himself to deadly tactics by Gukesh Dommaraju. (After Magnus Carlsen declined to defend his title, Ding Liren won the World Championship, a title he’s now defending.)
I believe this makes it 2–1, not counting draws, with three games to go. If the score is tied, they have a tiebreak of rapid games, and, if necessary, blitz games.
And now, it seems, all conversation, which came to naught, has ended.
. “Whatever you think about President Assad, the fact is that he is the President of Syria. In order for any peace agreement, in order for any possibility of a viable peace agreement to occur there has to be a conversation with him.”
– Tulsi Gabbard, interview with Jake Tapper in 2017
Has this been covered here yet? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4x2epppego Romanian court annuls result of presidential election first round:
[...]Outgoing Romanian Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu said the court's decision to annul was "the only correct solution after the declassification of the documents... which show that the result of the Romanians' vote was blatantly distorted as a result of Russia's intervention".
In an address on Friday evening, current President Klaus Iohannis confirmed he would remain in the role until a new president was elected.[...]
The law stipulates that, in the event of the annulment of the elections, they should resume on the second Sunday after the date of the annulment - which would have meant on 22 December.
However, the court has decided to ask the government to rerun the entire electoral process, and therefore the electoral campaign.[...]
This is what should have happened in 2016. The candidate who came in 2nd and was hoping to win the runoff disagrees, though. Maybe some of you do, too.
Freakin' tiktok is mucking up things again. Luckily a court here upheld the law requiring it to sell off or be banned.
Problem goes WAY beyond TikTok.
In any case I'm not a fan of the decision because if the law actually says foreign propaganda is just cause to annull an election (which seems questionable . .but I'm no expert on Romanian law), they'll never be another election, because there's literally no way to prevent that.
There need to be steps taken at the educational level regarding courses teaching how future voters can discern information online and verify/cross-check claims. But of course any attempt to do that here would be decried itself as "propaganda" because fact-checking has a "liberal bias."
There was a bit of discussion on this earlier today, but the weekend thread is more suitable for a more in-depth exploration.
While on principle I would be opposed to election nullification (as a small-d democrat), the extraordinary and unprecedented nature of the situation means that whatever the intelligence services found regarding Russian involvement must be incredibly serious and damaging. (I know, we are all sick and tired of this "crisis era")
I do wonder if the incoming parliament will be able to take office at all. That election was held only a week after and subject to the same social media influence, as evident by far-right parties gaining seats. Though we all know in politics, logical consistency goes out the window for convenience (see the Republicans in 2020 who claimed the presidential race was stolen, but their races were just fine).
I am surprised by the court acting so quickly. At the very least, it is better optics to annul the election before any votes are cast, as opposed to declaring it void after the fact (which is what happened in Austria in 2016).
As for what Lasconi (the 2nd place finisher) said, I would not be so confident in winning. The few polls released show her stuck in the 40s (sound familiar?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2024_Romanian_presidential_election#Georgescu_vs_Lasconi
Finally, I will note that the center-left/pro-EU candidate did better in the revote than the initial round in Austria, an outcome we can only hope repeats itself again here.
Meanwhile, to tie this all together, a US appeals court upholds the forced sale/threat of ban of Tiktok: https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/06/tech/tiktok-ban-law-court-decision/index.html
I'm not really on board with banning TikTok; for purposes of entertainment, promoting businesses, and such, it's often been much more constructive than its critics are willing to admit. (I do not use it myself even for entertainment consumption).
But politically, it's increasingly concerning to me that it's become a destructive source of misinformation. Even if we dismiss the idea of a Russian, Chinese, or whatever conspiracy to warp US elections and public opinion, there's been way too much crap on it giving people (especially but not exclusively young voters) false ideas on all range of issues, ranging from the economy to social issues to certain international conflicts that aren't for discussion here.
Regarding Romania, nullifying an election result or imposing a do-over is an extreme measure that understandably people can be wary about. But it's good to see someone taking decisive action against Russian meddling.
Problem is broader than TikTok though, and even foreign disinfo (even if that’s more concentrated), but rather social media more broadly. There’s so much bullshit swirling around and so much incentive to perpetuate it that one platform or one foreign actor doesn’t begin to cover the problem. And it’s global
Yep. Not an America problem, but rather a humanity problem.
I think we are past the tipping point, and pretty much screwed.
Agreed, sadly. That and the climate combine for a bad one-two punch
I would propose that there should be a complete redesign of social media that’s based on legislation which limits the ability for users to get corrupted the way they have been under Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.
AOL was the far superior social media platform because it gave users more autonomy and control over their own domain with less problems. Social media should not allow people to show their own name unless there’s a process by which to verify it legally or if they have to pay.
All special election races in the near term; here's to hoping that they are all contested, no matter the lean of the district
I agree. Contest everything. The GOP brand hasn't been this bad among regular voters since 1964, and the Dem brand hasn't been this bad among irregular voters since 1928. Our current coalition is optimized to overperform in special elections.
Absolutely agree.. No Trump name on any ballots now
Absolutely! Democrats need to contest every race with the best-possible candidate.
It’s worth remembering that Democrats failed to contest more than a thousand (!) state legislative seats this November. That is political malpractice! (And, no, it is not a mitigating factor that Republicans left even more such races uncontested, over 1300.)
Some more vote counting updates:
The final vote drop from Orange County boosted Derek Tran's margin by 59 votes, going from 594 to 653.
In Alaska, there apparently was another small batch of ballots added, padding the margin for "No" RCV repeal from 664 to 737 votes (+73). The recount is currently underway.
Also in adjacent CA 47, a lot of people questioned if any Democrat other than Katie Porter could hold the district, and especially if Min could win after the DUI. Min won in 2024 by slightly more than Porter did in 2022.
The unfortunate question was if we could hold Min's seat in the California Senate, and unfortunately, we didn't.
I will miss Katie Porter, her whiteboard and her devastating skewering of pharmaceutical CEOs and others. Certainly, and at least in retrospect, I do wish Porter had opted for reelection to the House rather than reached for a much-contested Senate seat.
Any ideas what her future plans are?
(Response to a comment from DM that disappeared)
Pity Harris didn’t win. Katie Porter would probably have been good as a negotiator of drug prices on behalf of Medicare and the VA. Must admit I would far rather see her back in Congress than as governor. Don’t know whether she is ready for that – and, as you point out, the field is already crowded.
If the GOP had picked up her House seat, then she'd have an obvious path back into office.
As it is, I don't know exactly what would be the best path for her. Assuming Min performs competently and votes as a standard Dem would, there's not much reason to primary him (the DUI isn't it.)
We already have too many Democratic gubernatorial candidates in the race and judging by who they are, all are considerably lower profile than Newsom was before and during his time as Governor. They also don’t possess any of Newsom’s divisiveness that can fire up the GOP base. I’d like to see the right candidate emerge and lead California in a more competent direction.
Porter might be ok as Governor but is she considering being in the race to fight Trump? Or does she really want to lead the state?
I don't think my hottake record is terribly strong, but I'll make a prediction anyway. Damascus will be liberated by Monday.
Liberated for what? A theocratic Sunni regime?
Likely but cautious indicators suggest the replacement government will still be better than Assad's reign of terror (but still so many unknowns at this point).
The Syrian Salvation Government, which is what HTS set up in Iblib, so far has been rather moderate and technocratic, though certainly still with an authoritarian bent. The real question is if they consolidate power will that change?
Yeah, like how Fidel Castro lied about how his motivations were to set up a proper Cuban national government only to end up making it Communist with him on top for life. In short, there needs to be a multi-lateral effort to shape whatever post-Assad government or else it could land on neo-ISIS.
We’ll see. The Iranian Revolution wasn’t inherently theocratic in 1978 and Khomeini was saying all the right things too
One of Iran’s many tragedies was that Ayatollah Khomeini was succeeded by Khamenei, rather than the far-more-moderate and peaceful Ayatollah Montazeri, who was initially designated as successor.
Long long list of tragedies in that country since the Cinema Rex burned down
It will certainly be a big blow to Russia and Iran.
If Bashar al-Assad and his murderous crime family is overthrown, and the HTS & allies consolidate power, then it will be much harder for Iran to supply missiles and other weapons to Hezbollah. That in itself is positive for the region!
Moreover, with Hezbollah militarily and politically weakened, and with less interference by Syria in Lebanese politics, there is at least some chance that this fractious country may once again have functioning government and begin to heal.
Bashar Al-Assad has fled Syria per the Rebels. This is a BFD.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/dec/07/syria-rebels-reach-damascus-bashar-al-assad
Whatever gives Tulsi a sad is great by me.
Yeah, her visit in Syria to meet Bashir Al-Assad was REALLLY helpful. /s
High time for Tulsi to pay Bashar another visit. In fact, I suggest an extended stay with him in his new family home in Moscow. I’d gladly contribute to a one-way ticket.
Considering it's the Druze-led "Southern Operation Room" and US-backed "Revolutionary Commando Army" that are closing in on Damascus, a Sunni theocracy seems rather unlikely in the immediate term. I am cautiously optimistic that the Syrian people will build a positive future for themselves post-Assad, but obviously tyranny by new rulers or continued civil war are both possible.
Druze-led, I presume?
Could it be that these fighting forces are in a hurry to overthrow the Russian-supported regime of al-Assad, before the Putin-friendly Trump is inaugurated?
Yes (edited).
I think the timing has much more to do with cease fire between Hezbollah and Israel, than the incoming Donald. They struck before Hezbollah had a chance to regroup and redeploy in Syria.
Maybe. The Alawites will retreat to their stronghold on the coast and fight to the last man if they get even a whiff of that. Likeliest we have a new wrinkle of the civil war rather than an ending
It's possible some sort of federated Syria could emerge with the (already-existing) Kurdish autonomous zone in the North, a Druze one in the South and an Alawite one on the coast, but I agree that continued fighting is the more likely outcome.
Problem there is Turkey (and maybe even Iraq) are probably not enthused about the idea of a federated state with a Kurdish Piedmont)
The speed at which the SAA has crumbled had has been genuinely stunning
I gave them a day more than necessary.
If you could pick five red states for Democrats to invest in long-term outside of the seven swing states, which five would you pick? I recognize there are winnable races in every state that need $$$ but looking at this in terms of Senate seats and electoral votes mostly but open to anyone's thoughts or ideas here.
Mine:
Alaska
Kansas
Nebraska
Ohio
Texas
1) Alaska good overall trend, cheaper state to invest in. Recent success in AK-AL, almost getting Peltola reelected. RCV creates additional opportunities.
2) Kansas- good overall trend, cheaper state to invest in. Managed to get Governor Kelly elected twice.
3) Nebraska- The way they apportion EVs means we should probably have a strong party here anyway. but mostly same reasons for Alaska and Kansas. Dan Obsorn's solid run makes me think we can score an upset here too.
4) Ohio- I feel like we just can't give up here even with the tough swing from 20-24. The three C cities give us a decent base. If we can claw back in northern Ohio we can start competing here again.
5) Texas- Long term project but there are millions of unregistered but eligible voters and think we still have room to grow in the metros. I don't buy that Latinos are gone forever either.
First, when we examine investment opportunities, we need first and foremost to look at downballot opportunities. That includes state supreme courts (this friggin’ matters!), other elected judgeships, mayorships, election boards, school boards – and, of course, state legislative seats. (This is the way to build and strengthen state party organizations.)
Second, in addition to the party split, we need to consider costs, which means taking into account the state population and its media markets. In addition to Alaska, because of their low population I would add North and South Dakota, as well as Montana and perhaps Maine. (Texas, by contrast, will be hugely expensive. You can probably invest in five or ten other states for the same amount of money.)
I would also add Florida. Why? Because the Florida Democratic Party is finally starting to get its mojo back. This time, I believe they ran a candidate in every state legislative seat. (Nationwide, Democrats left more than a thousand legislative races unchallenged!)
That said, the Democratic Party bloody well needs to bring back the 50-State Strategy! And the new DNC Chair (hopefully Ben Wikler) needs to focus more on being a *catalyst* for sensible evolution and much-needed change of the Democratic Party, and *not* just fundraising. This means inviting lots of outside groups to the table for an ongoing conversation. (Field Team 6, Red Wine & Blue, etc etc etc.)
1) Sure I think there are going to be winnable seats in all 50 states that need $$$ but in terms of flappable senate seats or at the presidential level this decade I think we're limited to a handful.
2) Yeah Iowa and Montana were in competition for my picks because Trump might bungle Agriculture and trade policy enough to move elastic voters there he did it in the past and could do it again. We did win 3 of Iowa's 4 House seats and got Tester reelected in 18. I don't think the Dakotas are coming back any time soon but understand those are cheap markets to compete in.
3) I have Florida PTSD I don't think they've shown any ability to win statewide since 2018. They got candidates in every seat and performed worse than any presidential cycle since 1988.
4) Yeah we need to invest wherever we can and should in all 50 downballot in House seats, and legislative seats where we can compete but doing all we can in the seven swing states is expensive, the resources to expand and build a durable Senate majority this decade are going to be even more limited.
Excellent points in both posts! I suppose I was intentionally trying to shift the focus a tad, rather than just addressing your question as phrased. Apologies.
Oh no reason to apologize your point is important and overall I agree with it, we do need to push money into states we probably aren't winning at the statewide federal level until the 2040s for downballot reasons and to set us up for future success.
I think it should matter that local races are where Democrats can get traction, especially if they are in red region. Not arguing this is where the energy should be focused the most but local races tend to be lower profile compared to the statewide and federal ones.
I had mentioned in another party of the thread that SC-01, as an example, is a Congressional district that might present opportunities for growth for Democrats at the local level as it’s a Lean GOP district.
Agreed on the Dakotas and Montana. THe investment requirement is so miniscule--and their history of electing left-populists to Congress so substantial and recent--that it would be malpractice not to keep investing there and be ready to pounce at the first hint of the next realignment.
Also, imagine inspiring migration there from Blue States. It wouldn’t take much to have a huge impact.
1) Kansas
2) Alaska
3) Utah
4) Nebraska
5) South Carolina
Curious about your thoughts on South Carolina and Utah.
Utah - I think there is a "tipping point" with MAGA evil that causes a mass shift of "mainstream" LDS (who mostly think like The Bulwark never-Trumpers) into our coalition. They already test left on a policy level to where the GOP is currently (sorry, can't recall where I heard that, might have been a David French podcast).
South Carolina - Lots of "normie" Republicans here. Room for growth upstate and in the Charlotte suburbs. You just have to get a critical mass of people past their "social taboo" of voting Dem (my parents viewed that first-hand when they asked for D ballots the first time they voted in Summerville, SC - Charleston 'burbs). Being geographically in between NC and GA also connects some dots in my head, in ways I can't fully verbalize.
Slight update - I also characterize UT and SC as states where people mostly come off as friendly, in ways that don't apply to, say, Florida. Or even Texas.
Thanks for sharing. I'm skeptical they come over in enough numbers but appreciate the solid case for them.
No question I think the argument for #s 1 and 2 is much stronger. I am just trying to find different ways of looking at state demographics, for plausible "coalition" mindsets.
Hopefully some people smarter and more connected than me are also doing this.
My mother and her family grew up in Ogden, UT.
UT residents are indeed friendly but very much conservative. Ideologically, unless we’re talking Salt Lake City or Salt Lake County, all else of UT hasn’t really changed that much over the years besides non-white demographics. Even with this, non-white Utahns can still be conservative, even socially.
Urban areas need to explode in population that favors voters who are transplants or it’s going to be hard for UT to move closer to the blue column. You have most of the state that is rural, which adds to the problems as well.
Living in SC, I just don't see the state being worth much investment for Dems. You can ungerrymander it by initiative. The Upstate is Wyoming-level red. The 42-44% floor looks enticing, but it's a mirage. The normie GOPs, who do tend to run the state, couldn't even get Tom Rice into a runoff in a 5 person primary after he voted to impeach Trump, and that was in relatively less right coastal/peedee area. We sunj a ton of cash into Jamie Harrison's run against Graham, who is not beloved, and it wasn't really close.
I don't know much about SC but it would be helpful to at least grow the Democratic Party's presence locally first, even in red areas outside of say SC-06 which Jim Clyburn represents.
SC-01 could be a good Congressional District by which Democrats can organize in.
Should have been cannot fix by initiative.
I don't disagree, and if you could build up the Ds in Charleston then it would be harder gerrymander to the present 6-1 split we have now. But we had a lawsuit like the Alabama one about gerrymandering specifically on racial packing Clyburn's district that went no where. CD01 is Nancy Mace and her district was made redder after she beat Joe Cunningham. Plus the state level is badly titled too.
I just think there are better places to spend money than SC.
Agreed on investment being better spent in other states. I'd only selectively focus on SC for the exact reasons I mentioned but yes, definitely want to aim where the traction is the most.
AZ, GA and TX represent room for growth for Democrats as do AK and KS.
Add in Missouri and Mississippi as well.
Agreed on AK and KS.
Here are mine ...
No particular order.
Alaska*
Kansas
Ohio*^
Nebraska*^
Montana*^
*Has an initiative process that could defang gerrymandering
^elects state supreme court justices (Kansas Bar determines theirs, Alaska has a commission of bar-appointed and Gov-appointed members that pick)
These are all pretty small states, except Ohio. Seems like some investment should go into at least one larger state. But they seem to provide some hint of sunlight for the Dems. The ability to block gerrymandering and elect judges means they could follow Michigan's path and fix structural issues that block progress. I considered Iowa, Missouri, and Mississippi. The judicial situation doesn't look favorable in Iowa or Missouri. Better in MS, but I'm skeptical that electoral reform would pass there.
The Ohio redistricting referendum failed because the amendment would've required the districts' partisan lean to match that of the state, which was a dumb idea from the start and, as OH Republicans used to their advantage, would've required more gerrymandering.
The Republicans' usual redistricting strategy (in all the states they control, not just Ohio) is to pack urban areas into a small number of deep-blue districts and then combine light-blue suburbs with dark-red rural areas to create their Republican districts. A better idea would be to put an amendment on the ballot that requires that, to the greatest extent possible, contiguous urban and suburban areas to be in different districts from the surrounding rural areas. This would 1) prevent them from eliminating Landsman's seat, 2) force the creation of a new all-suburban district in Columbus that would lean Dem, and 3) either shore up Kaptur significantly or create another Dem-leaning district in northeastern Ohio.
It's highly unfortunate that states like NC, GA, TN, and TX don't have ballot initiatives, because an amendment like this would significantly curtail Republican gerrymandering in those states.
Good list here. Your first two are the best options and deserve that pecking order. I'd still put Iowa at #3. The population is mostly secular and moderate, and the revival of Trump's tariffs could trigger another farm crisis. We saw how quickly the state realigned after the last farm crisis.
Are we sure Iowa's population is still mostly secular and moderate? I got the distinct impression that a large part of their realignment has been driven in no small part by their growing evangelical numbers. I'll defer to others on this but that's the impression I've gotten.
However the potential for us to benefit from a republican induced farm crisis sounds plausible to me.
I can't say with 100% certainty but I don't think the evangelical numbers are growing outside of a few enclaves. It's mostly the Lutherans and Methodists doing the realigning.
Well, the United Methodist church just disunited last year over gay marriage and gay ministers. Our local UM church dropped its affiliation and is now trying to raise boo-coo bucks to buy back their church from the national UM organization. The church up the road stayed. Both congregations are realigning now, with the bigots coming to our independent Methodist church or whatever they call themselves now.
SYRIA: Al-Jazeera has excellent minute-by-minute coverage of the developments in Syra, something you will be hard-pressed to find in other online written sources.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/12/7/syria-war-live-news-govt-says-president-al-assad-has-not-fled-damascus
For example, 11 minutes ago:
. "State of panic as gov’t troops reportedly leave positions around Damascus"
Local sources in Syria told Al Jazeera that a state of panic has spread as army troops withdraw from their positions around Damascus.
They also confirmed that opposition forces had advanced in the western Damascus countryside and the withdrawal of army forces from cities and towns in Eastern Ghouta.
There was a rush for food items in markets in the capital.
Iranian proxies were the keystone keeping Al-Assad secure for years.
Here is another good minute by minute site. https://syria.liveuamap.com/
Looks like there may be a deal to turn Damascus over to HTS. Hopefully there's a broader deal to be made between HTS, the Turk-aligned groups, and the Kurds. Maybe some assistance for HTS and the Turk proxies in exchange for guarantees that they (and the Turks themselves) leave each other and the Kurds alone?
I’d imagine a lot of SAA officers see the writing on the wall and don’t want to die for Assad
That seems to be the calculation the junior commanders in charge of cities north of Damascus have already made.
I think the key here is that Hezbollah borked itself by going so hard at Israel. If they hadn't been engaged there and gotten wrecked, they might have been able to prop Assad up. Russia has also been in no position to help since 2022, and I assume they'll stay out of it unless HTS demands that they leave their base (which could end up as their equivalent of Guantanamo).
Hezbollah had a real opportunity to consolidate themselves in southern Lebanon with Israel otherwise occupied and didn’t take it
Sounds like Assad may get to experience the less fun part of being a brutal dictator.
Could be echoing propaganda but, if not, this is impressively fast:
. "Syrian army officers in Damascus discharged"
(BBC 8:44pm ET) UK-based war monitor the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reports that hundreds of members of the Syrian army and security forces have been seen taking off their military uniforms after being told that they were being discharged as the regime had fallen.
Orders had reportedly been issued to them to withdraw from Damascus International Airport following the departure of a private plane.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cwy8xzxe0w7t
At this point I'm just living vicariously through Syrian and South Korea as a way of coping with our own democratic backsliding.
That's healthy, right?
Do what you gotta do
And Ghana. Romania redo coming up.
Isn't Ghana legitimately democratic though?
My impression is that Ghana has been a fairly stable democracy for about three decades or so. Which probably is why the country isn’t in the news so much. In that regards, I guess it’s similar to Botswana and Costa Rica: islands of longtime stability.
I've found Cooks turnout by Congressional District map 2020 -> 2024 to be informative. You can clearly see drastic drops in blue states/seats that help account for the PV margin.
https://www.cookpolitical.com/vote-tracker/2024/house
That's pretty interesting - thanks for sharing. Kind of ironic that many of the D flips got "redder" compared to 2020 prez and vice versa for R flips. I know it makes sense logically, but still weird to see optically.
I thought Damascus had a week or two. It had a day.
What a massive turnaround. The rebels were besieged for years in Idlib and even suffered a major earthquake not too long ago.
Rumors flying around the internet that a private jet that took off from Damascus and then vanished off FlightRadar had Assad onboard and May have crashed. We shall see, but his regime has all but fallen tonight
If that did happen, hard to imagine that it would have crashed by mere happenstance. Someone trying to prevent him from being in exile? Someone that wants deniability.
Putin already used that tactic with Prigozhin, I could see him preemptively deciding that Assad should meet the same fate. (Obviously extremely high degree of speculation here)
Assuming he's alive, maybe he could start a podcast with Snowden. They can call it "The Useful Idiot Follies."
I have a sense that the rebels had been cutting deals on the down low with local authorities and commanders for weeks or months, and were just waiting for the right moment to execute the plan. Basically, what happened in Afghanistan 3 years ago.
My CFB Playoff Field Projections:
1 Oregon (B1G)
2 Georgia (SEC)
3 Arizona State (Big 12)
4 Boise State (MWC)
=
5 Texas (SEC)
6 Penn State (B1G)
7 Notre Dame (IND)
8 Ohio State (B1G)
9 Tennessee (SEC)
10 Indiana (B1G)
11 Clemson (ACC)
12 SMU (ACC)
First Out:
Alabama (SEC), South Carolina (SEC), Miami (ACC)
Bet they’ll take Alabama over SMU.
You wound up being remarkably spot on - pleasantly surprised a so-so Alabama didn’t get in just on name brand
Only one of the four playoff teams from last year made the 12-team field. Michigan and Washington lost most of their good players to the NFL, and Alabama turned into a chaos team that beat Georgia and wrecked some other good teams but also ate it against Vandy and got blown out by the worst Oklahoma team in years.
GHANA: In Ghana, the opposition candidate, former President John Mahama, just won the presidency, and the VP candidate, Mahamudu Bawumia, has accepted the election result. (Actually, that sounds an awful lot like a mirror image of our 2024 election.)
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdx9nlyjke4o
In some ways and not in other ways. This is the greatest seeming similarity:
"Mahama's previous time in office was marred by an ailing economy, frequent power-cuts and corruption scandals."
But he hasn't been tried and convicted. And while the economy in Ghana seems to be in a shambles, nothing could be further from the truth about the U.S. economy.
And it's still not as bad as when Jerry Rawlings was military dictator in the 1980s holding out for charity from Libya, the Soviets, and Cuba as agricultural output cratered, inter-ethnic tension rose (Rawlings favored the Ewe, who had a bone to pick with the Ashanti), and borders were closed. In the end, he swallowed his pride and took an IMF deal that required a transition to a republic again.
World Chess Championship:
With the questionable move 26…e6, Ding Liren just opened himself to deadly tactics by Gukesh Dommaraju. (After Magnus Carlsen declined to defend his title, Ding Liren won the World Championship, a title he’s now defending.)
https://analysis.sesse.net/
Gukesh finally breaks through and wins Game 11.
I believe this makes it 2–1, not counting draws, with three games to go. If the score is tied, they have a tiebreak of rapid games, and, if necessary, blitz games.
And now, it seems, all conversation, which came to naught, has ended.
. “Whatever you think about President Assad, the fact is that he is the President of Syria. In order for any peace agreement, in order for any possibility of a viable peace agreement to occur there has to be a conversation with him.”
– Tulsi Gabbard, interview with Jake Tapper in 2017