The discussion of the NYC Mayoral election is eye opening.. Quite a few posters here that I respect are handicapping it to Cuomo or Adams at much greater odds than I would; and since they are locals, I am sure they know more than me..I am curious about other opinions and other conceivable candidates
As someone who lives here and pays very close attention to local politics, with the current crop of candidates (leaving Cuomo out until he's announced), it's hard to see any of them beating Adams, baggage and all.
No one likes Adams, but people don't love Lander. Stringer is a has-been. Ramos and Myrie just don't have the name recognition--though I do think Myrie's future is quite bright. Mamdani will likely do well in Astoria, Williamsburg, and Bushwick, and will be a non-factor elsewhere.
Turnout is always spectacularly bad, and I just don't see how this doesn't become an Adams-v-Cuomo (assuming he runs) race unless Tish James jumps in, or some very rich guy runs a competent independent campaign.
Petitioning starts next month (I think), and the fact that there isn't a bigger challenger speaks volumes.
If you consider the fact that and Andrew Yang (who is a loose cannon with his political agenda) were the two leading mayoral candidates in the 2021 NYC Mayoral Race, that's quite a statement.
That said, I would have chosen Yang in a heartbeat over Adams considering how arrogant and corrupt he is. At least with Yang, he HAS ideas.
Also, with a Mayor Yang, it's possible he wouldn't have politicized the whole Luigi Mangione legal controversy to the extent where he'd already degrade Mangione as guilt before innocent. He would have stayed clear of the case and let due process go as it would.
You're getting no disagreement with me there. I was not sold on Yang's presidential candidacy from the get go and found it to be the most uninspiring I've ever seen in a Democratic Presidential Campaign at the time. The comparison I'm making between Adams and Yang isn't something I'd take lightly.
However, Adams is an asshole and acts like his background as a police officer makes him feel powerful that he can treat those who commit any crime like dirt. He doesn't have the kind of civility that is needed in order to lead a city like NYC, even if it is the city that never sleeps.
Yang I am only saying would have been a better mayor than Adams in that he would have by contrast had more civility. That said, I have never been a Yang supporter and think his agenda is that of a loose cannon who seems to not know when to keep his mouth shut or at least try to be politically savvy.
Even Knowing what we know now, I would still have voted for Adams over Yang, and I was strongly averse to Adams even before the clown show that has been his time as mayor. Adams is a clown, Yang is dangerous.
I honestly don’t think Yang would have enjoyed being NYC Mayor. If he’s dangerous as you point out, I don’t know how how enough of his policies would get enacted. He could have brought more tech to NYC but not sure what else would have been apart of his agenda.
I could have seen Yang’s popularity going down as I don’t believe he would be able to handle the pressure of being on the job.
I have to believe people will eventually get sick of nepotism, gerontocracy, enabling sexual assault and petty corruption. Still I'm too far from NYC to have any idea how it will shake out.
But a six-justice conservative supermajority that declines, for now, to grant a Republican president-elect’s demand for unlimited executive power—by a narrowly-reasoned, oddly fact-specific, single-vote margin—is not evidence of moderation or principle or nonpartisanship. It is what, in theory, should be the absolute bare minimum for an institution whose members cannot shut up about their solemn commitment to upholding the rule of law over promoting their personal politics. It is great, I guess, that the Court did not come out the other way; it is pretty fucking crazy, in my view, that the question was this close.
In brighter news, they at least seem more inclined to uphold the law forcing the sale or closure of TikToks US presence on national security grounds. I look forward to that.
Not bright news, constitutional question aside. It’s being done for political reasons, not “national security.” But U.S. will be in good company with Russia and India who have done the same thing.
It's banned in the PRC too. They use a similar program called Douyin, also owned by ByteDance, to make sure that the the youth are insulated and reminded that nothing exists but an endless present in which Xi is always right. Meanwhile, they keep the riot hose of disinformation and pseudoscience aimed at everyone else.
Gonna bookmark this for when this ends up forcing the sale of US TikTok operations to a rightwing American billionaire. I agree that TikTok is bad and wouldn't mind seeing it shuttered, but I can't see how anyone can look at how our institutions have behaved for the past 8 years and see this as "brighter news."
TikTok’s probable sale is positive only if it is purchased by a civic-minded, democracy-defending American billionaire or some coalition of people/organizations with similar values. I seriously hope some are considering this!
The very last thing we need is for TikTok, too, to fall into the hands of a Murdoch or Musk anti-democracy billionaire.
Kavanaugh's vote was likely performance after the outcome became clear. To me, the real story is the continuation of both Roberts' at least part-time redemption arc and the possibility that Barrett is not a completely insane conservative woman as I'd feared. Perhaps the other three women are having some influence on her.
Just a little borrowing from the world of TV for grins and to make my point. Roberts remains horrible on virtually anything favoring corporations. But on the high-profile, national-news-type issues, he's getting close to a reliable vote with the three actual jurists. Perhaps there's hope that Barrett is headed in the same direction. I can't explain why, but I have a hunch that she's horrified at the MAGA movement and its degradation of anything and everything that stands in its way including the Constitution.
I said before, Barrett's background (growing up as a woman in the relatively liberal NOLA metro Catholic culture of the 80s) isn't one that's condusive to producing hardcore right wing ideologues. Although I'm sure given how polarization and extremism has increased in the quarter-centure plus since, that's no longer the case.
At this rate I want the next Dem Pres to be a fucking Huey Long who DGAF about standards or limits of power, and force the Court to find ways to backtrack all this bullshit.
Conservatives aren't the same as they were in the 1930s and 1940s. If a dem president in 2029 threatens to pack the court, republican members of SCOTUS might change their tune... up until the exact moment when we are no longer able to change the court's composition. Threats are only valid for as long as they can be implemented. Changing the composition of the court is something that would endure for more than 24 months.
I wouldn't. The people who are ultimately in charge of this country should be people who are actually elected. The President is elected. The Supreme Court is not, and a majority of members of the current SCOTUS couldn't win a nationwide election.
Pretty sure a lot of this amounts to the Court posturing to save face while also trying assert what little influence they still retain. The Court is near worthless now in the face of public opinion and seems to exist to prop up rightwing policies and propaganda. Still if not preserving it's own independence from the president, the Court must assert it's influence. Just giving Trump carte blanche to do what he will without consequences renders the court as useless beyond figureheads. Occasionally checking Trump's power and abuses while also carving out arbitrary exceptions for him allows the Court to retain a fig leaf of influence, if not some independence. Notice how it's almost entirely Trump that the Court bends backwards to defend while also weakly rejecting at times, his cohorts and minions have rarely gotten similar benefits.
Although the NJ-GOV race isn't evolving like the VA-GOV race where Abigail Spanberger is right now the only Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate, nevertheless it seems to have quite a lineup of five contenders.
I would assume Congressman Josh Gottheimer and Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill are the two leading contenders with Sherrill perhaps the better choice. The rest such as Ex-State Senate President Steve Sweeney, Montclair Mayor Sean Spiller, and Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop I don't know enough of.
There’s also Newark mayor Ras Baraka in the mix. Fulop and Sherrill are probably the two strongest. But Gottheimer will cut into Fulop’s support. Spiller will cut into Baraka’s support. Sweeney will dominate far south Jersey, but I expect Sherrill to have the broadest support. At this point, I would make her the favorite.
I saw Fulop's campaign website. The introduction video is a compelling way to give a narrative on why Fulop would be an effective Governor. I can see why he could be a strong candidate.
Also, both Fulop and Sherrill are veterans which adds an interesting dynamic to the NJ-GOV race that I don't believe it's had before in previous races. Fulop served in the Marine Corps whereas Sherrill served in the Navy.
At this point, most assessments of the 2026 House ratings are of course too early. However, here are some of my thoughts:
AK At-Large - Not sure about the rating but Lean GOP could be ideal. That said, it's going to be hard for new Rep. Nick Begich to build up up a stature this early in his time in the House. Not certain he's going to be able to hold onto his House seat, particularly with Trump likely to be an albatross over House Republicans in the 2026 midterms.
CA-41 - Tossup for me. Rep. Ken Calvert is likely going to be facing a tougher re-election fight than he did in 2022 and 2024 simply because Trump is going to be the incumbent POTUS and the district is Lean Republican. Also, his margin of victory dropped in 2024 vs 2022.
Calvert is also a lower profile Republican who isn't known to showing much of an independence from his party and will likely see his ability to hold onto his seat harder the more he gets on board with Trump's agenda.
MI-10 - Lean Republican for me for now as Rep. John James won re-election by a wider margin against the same Democratic Challenger he faced in 2022, Carl Marlinga. However, could be a potentially competitive race.
NY-17 - Tossup. Rep. Mike Lawler could be primaried out of office if he sticks to his moderate Republican ways and shows independence towards Trump. He could also lose re-election if he moves more to the right to appease Trump.
PA-10 - Lean GOP but could become a tossup race. Rep. Scott Perry won re-election by a small 1.2% points and his district is Lean Republican now. As long as he's all in line for Trump, I can see PA-10 flipping.
Or a more liberal type but not crazy left as you mentioned. I was assuming "crazy left" in the vein of Jamaal Bowman or any of those types of far left candidates.
I mentioned center left as another way of saying "moderate liberal." Liberal or moderate liberal, regardless, the candidate would certainly need to be a fit for a district and not generate stupid controversy.
Yes, I have read that Lawler is looking into possibly running in the NY-GOV race. For now, until he officially announces, I'm going to assume he's not ruling out running for re-election in 2026.
Peltola is indeed the best Democratic Candidate that can run in 2026. If not her, hopefully she can at least have a key role in helping Democrats get more traction in Alaska.
I think VA-07 might be better for us than Tossup. Eugene Vindman may not have been the best candidate but still defeated Fake Family Guy by nearly three points, and as an incumbent in what will probably be a bluer year can easily be considered at least a slight favourite.
VA-01 might be worth watching, as some Dems have identified it as a stretch goal. It remains to be seen if anything really comes of that, but Wittman may not be entirely safe.
No idea yet. After this fall's VA elections it should become clearer.
Spanberger giving up her seat to run for governor means at least we don't have to worry about dropping it in a special election if she wins, though with Trump in the WH we might well have been favoured to hold it a year from now anyway. (With a PresiDem it might well have been chancier.)
The two incumbent Democratic state legislators in VA-01 are Schuyler VanValkenburg (SD-16) and Rodney Willett (HD-58), both of whom are in Henrico County. They could possibly run in VA-01 in the future, but I doubt they would run in 2026. I'm guessing they'll want to wait until 2028 or 2030, when VA-01 is hopefully more Dem-friendly than it is now. Also, Virginia has state legislative elections in odd-numbered years, which means either of them would have to run separate campaigns 2+ years in a row if they were to lose a federal House race.
The only other person I can think of is former Delegate Albert Pollard, who represented a State House district on the Northern Neck in the 2000s and early 2010s (the same one that Rob Wittman represented before being elected to Congress). He might be able to outperform on the Northern Neck in a run for VA-01 but by nowhere near the amount he did in the 2000s, due to the general decline in ticket splitting and the rightward shift of Virginia's rural counties.
Bill Clinton ran into Loretta Lynch at an airport, had a 5 minutes chat with her, and it was a week-long scandal resulting in Lynch's recusal from the Hillary email invest. Alito CALLS TRUMP to get his law clerk a job while Trump has a case pending before SCOTUS and it's crickets...
The goal post has been moved several football fields away. Also the media has zero sway over republicans so they don't even bother anymore making a big deal out of their corruption.
Not sure if anyone here is following the addition into DRA of 2024 election data added by users (not DRA itself), but Arizona and Maryland were recently added. So I checked to see if my Democratic gerrymander of Arizona's legislative districts, drawn before the 2024 election, would've held up despite Arizona's Republican shift last year.
And, amazingly, it did. Of the 30 legislative districts, 17 voted for Harris by at least 7 percent and are securely Democratic, 12 are strongly Republican, and one majority-Hispanic district stretching from Avondale to Yuma swung from Biden +13 to Harris +1.
And I also drew a legal 8D-0R Democratic gerrymander of Maryland. The map is legal because only four counties are split - Montgomery, Prince George's, Baltimore County, and Anne Arundel (the first three are larger than a district). The current map splits six counties - those same four plus Carroll and Baltimore City.
All eight districts on the map are at least Harris +13, and the least-blue district is April McClain-Delaney's, which still moves from Harris +5 to Harris +13 largely by removing places like Germantown and Gaithersburg which have only middling turnout and replacing them with Potomac and Bethesda which have higher turnout.
In addition, the map now has three majority-Black districts instead of just two. Steny Hoyer's district, renumbered the 3rd, is redrawn to be 51% Black VAP. It probably wouldn't be enough for Hoyer to lose a primary, but once he retires (and he's 85), an African-American will probably win the seat.
So next time you see someone claim that an 8D-0R map in Maryland isn't possible without splitting counties that wouldn't be split otherwise... they're wrong.
this is where the Republicans eat our lunch; we need to learn to bring a gun to the redistricting fight(and yet, always seem to f it up); we normally bring a slingshot
Be a bit careful about these user published data though.
Many 2024 precincts have changed. DRA doesn’t have all the new precincts to census block link yet. So the public precinct level data the users collected, are most likely mapped into 2022 precinct shapes. They may not be the same animal.
You could end up blank precincts on map, or valid precincts with votes not being able to show.
This is a good point, and in fact I just found an example.
Another state that recently got 2024 election data in DRA from a user is Illinois. As most of us probably know here, one of the counties in Illinois that's giving Dems inarguably good news is McLean, home to Bloomington and Normal - it's consistently trending Democratic. The only Harris-voting precinct there outside of Bloomington or Normal is one of the two precincts in Towanda, a township just east of Normal. However, this Harris-voting precinct doesn't show up on DRA, since Towanda Township is just one precinct there (it was probably split into two precincts sometime in the last couple of years). And considering that the two precincts in Towanda went 54-44 Harris and 62-36 Trump, it makes sense that many people, especially Democrats, would want them in different districts.
Therefore, if stuff like this is widespread, it could allow us to draw even more effective gerrymanders than what we already have.
Luckily with the CA-GOV race, most of the Democratic Gubernatorial Candidates running are as far removed from being like Newsom as possible.
If Democrats end up winning the CA-GOV race, regardless of how much, if the goal is to move on from Newsom and make California more governable, that'll be progress.
As a Californian, I find the state under Newsom's leadership doesn't have the same moderation that Governor Jerry Brown had prior. Now that the state budget is not in a deficient, pressure will be on Newsom to use as much of this budget as possible to rebuild LA County.
California Democrats are lucky that the California Republican Party is very much still dominated by hard right conspiracy theorists. If they were more like Ahhhhhhhnold or former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, we would be in serious electoral jeopardy in the Golden State.
His Trump apostasy means he's a Democrat in all but party ID only. He would be crushed in any GOP primary (I know you weren't seriously suggesting that . .just saying).
Schwarzenegger is a member in good standing of a political party that no longer exist. You’re absolutely right; the MAGA Party would primary and defeat Arnie if he ran for City Dog Catcher.
Yes although this should not be an excuse for the CA Democratic Party to get too comfortable.
Also, I think the CA GOP can still elect moderates as politicians. Rep. Young Kim is an example of such who ended up winning re-election in CA-40 by 10.6% points even while she represents a R+2 Lean GOP District.
A California governor who had actually fixed California’s several housing problems would make a pretty good national candidate. Clearly that won’t be Newsom.
One of the political fault lines in California is between the NIMBY and YIMBY factions. These factions are not necessarily related to other political positions. We need to make more of an effort to vote for YIMBYS to solve this issue.
YIMBYs may have a more complicated situation with LA than in cities like San Francisco but I'm certainly open to hearing more ideas on how the current situation can be resolved housing wise.
The challenge is that a lot of the ongoing fires have affected quite a lot of wealthy areas of LA County but there are other parts of LA itself that while even not being affected by the fires are still facing major income inequality problems. This particularly pertains to communities say in East LA, which a friend of mine saw firsthand when she was working near there at a non-profit (she now lives in WA State).
For now, it appears Newsom is starting to make things easier for LA homeowners to rebuild their homes.
I recall seeing pro-Newsom diaries on Daily Kos from time to time but just about everyone who commented was in their own echo chamber essentially cheering Newsom as a potential presidential candidate. I had contemplated on offering the opposite argument in those threads but felt it would be counter productive and would not have accomplished much.
Plenty of liberals who lived in San Francisco like I did during the time Newsom was Mayor were not fans of Newsom back then. He was essentially the preferred choice of replacing Willie Brown, whose policies really screwed SF for its ability to get affordable housing built as far back as in the 90's when he was Mayor. Newsom didn't do jack squat to change this when he was Mayor, even while he did take the initiative on gay marriage when it was unpopular and spearheading the city's universal healthcare system, Healthy San Francisco.
Former San Francisco Supervisor David Campos said Newsom was more comfortable making speeches in big crowds but less so when working directly with others in smaller settings. This didn't change at all when he was Lt. Governor and now as Governor.
His baggage (he had an affair with his best friend's wife) and his general smarminess would be a real turnoff to swing voters and that's before the problems related to general anti-California bias among swing state voters.
Newsom also during the COVID-19 pandemic held a private fundraising dinner where neither he nor any of the attendees wore masks nor did any form of social distancing. Also, sending his kids to school in Marin County (generally affluent) when they could simply go to school locally in Sacramento is a real sign of privilege. These facts would likely come to haunt him more with swing state voters as it’s happened more recently and prior to the 2021 CA Recall Election which Newsom defeated.
Newsom is just not battle tested anywhere outside of the blue state comfort zone he’s been in since he was Mayor of San Francisco. Newsom as Supervisor of District 2 did represent the wealthiest district of San Francisco prior to being Mayor but he’s also wealthy and the hand pick of Mayor Brown to replace Kevin Shelley who was vacating the seat to serve in the CA State Assembly.
The affair happened in the mid-2000's when Newsom was just in his 2nd year as Mayor, right after President Bush won re-election and in a considerably less polarized political environment.
I would be surprised that the GOP would bring it up as a central issue, especially considering that most of what the GOP does in attacking Newsom has little do to with his personal life and everything to do with being Governor.
WHAT WOULD WE LIKE TO SEE BIDEN DO during these last days of his presidency? Let’s concentrate on realistic and achievable actions – not pipe dreams or wishful thinking!
For instance, President Biden just recently protected huge swathes of coastal waters, putting them out of reach for oil and gas extraction, at least for the time being. (Must admit I didn’t see that one coming!)
Moreover, Biden did this in a smart way that won’t be easy for Trump to undo.
Another thought: Are there ways that Biden can shore up the Civil Service? Imho, it’s imperative that Trump be unable to demolish it by demanding loyalty oaths, carry out wholesale dismissal of civil servants he deems "disloyal", and hire a vast horde of dangerous, unqualified loyalists.
No; Schedule F is enabled by an obscure provision of the Carter-era Civil Service Reform Act and Dems blew their chance to fix it when they had a trifecta.
The coastal water protection is good but less impressive when more closely examined since they're areas the oil industry wasn't really interested in anyway.
The only thing the Administration can do this final week that's tangible is keep trying to push IRA money out the door before it can be rescinded/redirected by Trump and declare new national monuments. Any further EOs/directives will just be immediately axed by Trump.
By my understanding given the personal household rebates are enshrined in law Trump can't do much to those until/if Congress halts them, but I suppose there's administrative things he could do to muck up implementation if he wanted to be a real a-hole.
The worry is no-one knows whether he's going to go code red and flood the zone with blatantly illegal acts his first week, or take a more (relatively) measured approach.
Surely nobody here has forgotten Trump’s promise to be a “Dictator on Day One”?
I expect a collection of shock-and-awe illegal (and borderline illegal) acts. I’m sure these have already been prepared. And I expect the corrupt SCOTUS majority to silently celebrate and do nothing.
I still wonder if Trump's position will change on this issue once he gets serious pushback from big auto companies who have billions invested in domestic battery plants to make EV's.
The domestic auto companies bet that consumers would jump straight to uber-expensive EV trucks and SUVs, rather than starting with more affordable (but less profit-making) sedans, which was just dumb. Due to that dumb idea, their market share suffered and they've already started cutting their EV programs.
I do think the electric manufacturing credit may stay because of the politics (red states/districts have been primary benefactors) and also the auto companies don't want TOO many sunk costs-they can use those components in hybrids, which also keeps the dealers happy because hybrids require far more maintanence than pure EVs.
I'm easily envisioning a scenario where Trump just continues to trash California and Newsom while the fires burn, refusing to provide an iota of federal funding or aid. At that point we'd be reliant on other state aid and Canada, but honestly, I prefer that Trump does nothing besides his idiotic blabbering than anything at all. This is the best we can hope for - Trump and his goons being so distracted by their own egos and petty fights and schemes to actually do anything important, aside from perhaps approving a decent budget.
FORTUNATELY: Joe Biden has already approved a disaster declaration for the southern California fires, committing the federal government to covering all of the fire management and debris removal costs for six months.
“We are with you,” Biden pledged. “We are not going anywhere.”
(Yes, President is going somewhere, but the President has made a strong commitment on behalf of the federal government. Not sure how easily Trump can undo that, nor whether he would want to. If No.47 wants to pick a fight with California, I suspect it will far more likely be over deportations and sanctuary cities.)
Is it possible Kamala could jump into the already crowded Governor's race in California and scare the already declareds into lower offices (Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General etc)? 💙🇺🇲
She could still run for one of the other statewide offices like Treasurer or Secretary of State. Kounalakis is only termed out of her current job, not any of the others.
There's been some rumors that she's considering it.
I'm skeptical. She's currently vice president and is just getting out of a presidential campaign. The past two months are likely the first time to relax she's had in half a decade. Would she give that up to take a job that is, at least in prestige, a major step down from her current one? Yes, governors have far more power than the VP, but VP comes with far more prestige and legacy.
That said I am horrible at predicting this kind of stuff. I could see her going for it if she thinks she could do a truly stellar job such that it does elevate her legacy. Certainly it'd be easier to do a good job for someone that has no pathways to move up in the world of politics after.
If Kamala Harris wants to be one of the visible figures leading the opposition to Trump and his extreme policies, there is hardly a better position from which to do that than as Governor of California. And in these times, her prosecutorial and recent debate experience would be a huge boon.
Being that the actual primary election won't be held until June 2, 2026, it's still way too early to see where the CA-GOV race is going.
If Harris is going to run in the race, she has plenty of time by which to do so. She could join as a candidate in September and will still have time to mount an effective campaign. Having roughly nine months until the primary race is a much different beast and would be by contrast less pressure for Harris than the presidential race.
I will say this - Although I am not necessarily a fan of Harris running in the CA-GOV race, I'd prefer her over Newsom. On the one hand, her handling of the Teamsters USA's decision to decline to endorse a presidential candidate in 2024 makes me wonder if she will be enough of a uniter with unions. On the other hand, Harris may have been under increased pressure with a presidential campaign only three months until the actual election.
For those interested, The American Prospect has published a complete list of all 448 members of the Democratic National Committee. These are the people who will choose the next Chair to succeed Jaime Harrison, as well as all other DNC officers. If you have an opinion about that, you can contact people on this list.
"Whoever holds the office [of DNC Chair] will have a significant role in how Democrats respond to Trump, how they rebuild, what changes they make to their media, technology, and fundraising practices, and how the 2028 presidential selection process plays out."
But who will make this decision? Officially, it’s a secret. According to the DNC, there are 448 active members of the national committee, including 200 elected members from 57 states, territories, and Democrats Abroad; members representing 16 affiliate groups; and 73 “at-large” members who were elected as a slate appointed in 2021 by the party chairman, Jaime Harrison. For a party that claims the word “democratic” and insists that it is a champion of transparency and accountability in government, the official roster of these 448 voters is not public.
Michael Kapp, a DNC member from California who was first elected to that position by his state party’s executive committee in 2016, told me the list isn’t public “because it’s the DNC — it’s a black box.” He told me that leadership holds tightly to the list to prevent any organizing beyond their control.
Today, we’re going to open up the DNC’s black box.
Good news on the NC Supreme Court race: 4th Circuit had taken the case with expedited schedule (as for by Riggs and granted) by Jan 27. 4th Circuit should be favorable to us.
The discussion of the NYC Mayoral election is eye opening.. Quite a few posters here that I respect are handicapping it to Cuomo or Adams at much greater odds than I would; and since they are locals, I am sure they know more than me..I am curious about other opinions and other conceivable candidates
As I said in the other thread, Adams is not winning.
I completely agree; dude has more baggage than Trump with 2% of what Trump can rely on as a rock solid base
As someone who lives here and pays very close attention to local politics, with the current crop of candidates (leaving Cuomo out until he's announced), it's hard to see any of them beating Adams, baggage and all.
No one likes Adams, but people don't love Lander. Stringer is a has-been. Ramos and Myrie just don't have the name recognition--though I do think Myrie's future is quite bright. Mamdani will likely do well in Astoria, Williamsburg, and Bushwick, and will be a non-factor elsewhere.
Turnout is always spectacularly bad, and I just don't see how this doesn't become an Adams-v-Cuomo (assuming he runs) race unless Tish James jumps in, or some very rich guy runs a competent independent campaign.
Petitioning starts next month (I think), and the fact that there isn't a bigger challenger speaks volumes.
Lander and Ramos could both be solid options, with very different profiles and bases. But if Cuomo is in, he’ll be sucking up a lot of oxygen
I don't like the fact that Cuomo is running but he's honestly more of a Democrat than Adams is. This isn't saying a lot.
I am convinced that Adams was never actually a Democrat (ballot line or not)
If you consider the fact that and Andrew Yang (who is a loose cannon with his political agenda) were the two leading mayoral candidates in the 2021 NYC Mayoral Race, that's quite a statement.
That said, I would have chosen Yang in a heartbeat over Adams considering how arrogant and corrupt he is. At least with Yang, he HAS ideas.
Also, with a Mayor Yang, it's possible he wouldn't have politicized the whole Luigi Mangione legal controversy to the extent where he'd already degrade Mangione as guilt before innocent. He would have stayed clear of the case and let due process go as it would.
Andrew Yang was and is a joke. A fake rich guy who basically relies on no one bothering to check his wikipedia page.
You're getting no disagreement with me there. I was not sold on Yang's presidential candidacy from the get go and found it to be the most uninspiring I've ever seen in a Democratic Presidential Campaign at the time. The comparison I'm making between Adams and Yang isn't something I'd take lightly.
However, Adams is an asshole and acts like his background as a police officer makes him feel powerful that he can treat those who commit any crime like dirt. He doesn't have the kind of civility that is needed in order to lead a city like NYC, even if it is the city that never sleeps.
Yang I am only saying would have been a better mayor than Adams in that he would have by contrast had more civility. That said, I have never been a Yang supporter and think his agenda is that of a loose cannon who seems to not know when to keep his mouth shut or at least try to be politically savvy.
Even Knowing what we know now, I would still have voted for Adams over Yang, and I was strongly averse to Adams even before the clown show that has been his time as mayor. Adams is a clown, Yang is dangerous.
I honestly don’t think Yang would have enjoyed being NYC Mayor. If he’s dangerous as you point out, I don’t know how how enough of his policies would get enacted. He could have brought more tech to NYC but not sure what else would have been apart of his agenda.
I could have seen Yang’s popularity going down as I don’t believe he would be able to handle the pressure of being on the job.
I have to believe people will eventually get sick of nepotism, gerontocracy, enabling sexual assault and petty corruption. Still I'm too far from NYC to have any idea how it will shake out.
But a six-justice conservative supermajority that declines, for now, to grant a Republican president-elect’s demand for unlimited executive power—by a narrowly-reasoned, oddly fact-specific, single-vote margin—is not evidence of moderation or principle or nonpartisanship. It is what, in theory, should be the absolute bare minimum for an institution whose members cannot shut up about their solemn commitment to upholding the rule of law over promoting their personal politics. It is great, I guess, that the Court did not come out the other way; it is pretty fucking crazy, in my view, that the question was this close.
https://ballsandstrikes.substack.com/p/the-conservative-justices-wanted?utm_campaign=email-half-post&r=rw0h9&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
In brighter news, they at least seem more inclined to uphold the law forcing the sale or closure of TikToks US presence on national security grounds. I look forward to that.
Not bright news, constitutional question aside. It’s being done for political reasons, not “national security.” But U.S. will be in good company with Russia and India who have done the same thing.
It's banned in the PRC too. They use a similar program called Douyin, also owned by ByteDance, to make sure that the the youth are insulated and reminded that nothing exists but an endless present in which Xi is always right. Meanwhile, they keep the riot hose of disinformation and pseudoscience aimed at everyone else.
India did it because the PRC has been harassing them at their border. I guess Tibet wasn't enough.
This is why we NEED a technology regulatory agency. Just simply focusing on AI regulation isn't enough.
Wild to think Gorsuch is the only person mildly skeptical in oral arguments about the ban
Gonna bookmark this for when this ends up forcing the sale of US TikTok operations to a rightwing American billionaire. I agree that TikTok is bad and wouldn't mind seeing it shuttered, but I can't see how anyone can look at how our institutions have behaved for the past 8 years and see this as "brighter news."
TikTok’s probable sale is positive only if it is purchased by a civic-minded, democracy-defending American billionaire or some coalition of people/organizations with similar values. I seriously hope some are considering this!
The very last thing we need is for TikTok, too, to fall into the hands of a Murdoch or Musk anti-democracy billionaire.
Kavanaugh's vote was likely performance after the outcome became clear. To me, the real story is the continuation of both Roberts' at least part-time redemption arc and the possibility that Barrett is not a completely insane conservative woman as I'd feared. Perhaps the other three women are having some influence on her.
Or perhaps she realized how old Trump actually is and just how young she is(obviously age is a relative term)
"Part-time redemption arc" is perhaps an overly-generous description for Chief Justice John Roberts’ decisions, but I did find it amusing.
Just a little borrowing from the world of TV for grins and to make my point. Roberts remains horrible on virtually anything favoring corporations. But on the high-profile, national-news-type issues, he's getting close to a reliable vote with the three actual jurists. Perhaps there's hope that Barrett is headed in the same direction. I can't explain why, but I have a hunch that she's horrified at the MAGA movement and its degradation of anything and everything that stands in its way including the Constitution.
I said before, Barrett's background (growing up as a woman in the relatively liberal NOLA metro Catholic culture of the 80s) isn't one that's condusive to producing hardcore right wing ideologues. Although I'm sure given how polarization and extremism has increased in the quarter-centure plus since, that's no longer the case.
At this rate I want the next Dem Pres to be a fucking Huey Long who DGAF about standards or limits of power, and force the Court to find ways to backtrack all this bullshit.
I’d settle for another FDR who helped change the court by threatening to pack it.
I'd settle for someone who does pack the court.
Conservatives aren't the same as they were in the 1930s and 1940s. If a dem president in 2029 threatens to pack the court, republican members of SCOTUS might change their tune... up until the exact moment when we are no longer able to change the court's composition. Threats are only valid for as long as they can be implemented. Changing the composition of the court is something that would endure for more than 24 months.
I'd rather have a loose-cannon Supreme Court than two authoritarian parties.
I wouldn't. The people who are ultimately in charge of this country should be people who are actually elected. The President is elected. The Supreme Court is not, and a majority of members of the current SCOTUS couldn't win a nationwide election.
Pretty sure a lot of this amounts to the Court posturing to save face while also trying assert what little influence they still retain. The Court is near worthless now in the face of public opinion and seems to exist to prop up rightwing policies and propaganda. Still if not preserving it's own independence from the president, the Court must assert it's influence. Just giving Trump carte blanche to do what he will without consequences renders the court as useless beyond figureheads. Occasionally checking Trump's power and abuses while also carving out arbitrary exceptions for him allows the Court to retain a fig leaf of influence, if not some independence. Notice how it's almost entirely Trump that the Court bends backwards to defend while also weakly rejecting at times, his cohorts and minions have rarely gotten similar benefits.
NJ-GOV and VA-GOV Races:
Although the NJ-GOV race isn't evolving like the VA-GOV race where Abigail Spanberger is right now the only Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate, nevertheless it seems to have quite a lineup of five contenders.
I would assume Congressman Josh Gottheimer and Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill are the two leading contenders with Sherrill perhaps the better choice. The rest such as Ex-State Senate President Steve Sweeney, Montclair Mayor Sean Spiller, and Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop I don't know enough of.
I’d be curious to hear Paleo’s thoughts of where things are at in his home state
There’s also Newark mayor Ras Baraka in the mix. Fulop and Sherrill are probably the two strongest. But Gottheimer will cut into Fulop’s support. Spiller will cut into Baraka’s support. Sweeney will dominate far south Jersey, but I expect Sherrill to have the broadest support. At this point, I would make her the favorite.
In your opinion, will either Democratic Senator endorse..?? (Especially curious about Cory)
If Booker does, I think it would be Fulop or Gottheimer. He and Baraja were rivals. I could see Kim endorsing Sherrill.
I would not discount the chances that Fulop wins
I saw Fulop's campaign website. The introduction video is a compelling way to give a narrative on why Fulop would be an effective Governor. I can see why he could be a strong candidate.
Also, both Fulop and Sherrill are veterans which adds an interesting dynamic to the NJ-GOV race that I don't believe it's had before in previous races. Fulop served in the Marine Corps whereas Sherrill served in the Navy.
https://stevenfulop.com/
Figured I'd put together some way too early 2026 House ratings based mostly off the 2024 results. Will see where things are in 18 months.
https://www.270towin.com/2026-house-election/8M4wKBq
At this point, most assessments of the 2026 House ratings are of course too early. However, here are some of my thoughts:
AK At-Large - Not sure about the rating but Lean GOP could be ideal. That said, it's going to be hard for new Rep. Nick Begich to build up up a stature this early in his time in the House. Not certain he's going to be able to hold onto his House seat, particularly with Trump likely to be an albatross over House Republicans in the 2026 midterms.
CA-41 - Tossup for me. Rep. Ken Calvert is likely going to be facing a tougher re-election fight than he did in 2022 and 2024 simply because Trump is going to be the incumbent POTUS and the district is Lean Republican. Also, his margin of victory dropped in 2024 vs 2022.
Calvert is also a lower profile Republican who isn't known to showing much of an independence from his party and will likely see his ability to hold onto his seat harder the more he gets on board with Trump's agenda.
MI-10 - Lean Republican for me for now as Rep. John James won re-election by a wider margin against the same Democratic Challenger he faced in 2022, Carl Marlinga. However, could be a potentially competitive race.
NY-17 - Tossup. Rep. Mike Lawler could be primaried out of office if he sticks to his moderate Republican ways and shows independence towards Trump. He could also lose re-election if he moves more to the right to appease Trump.
PA-10 - Lean GOP but could become a tossup race. Rep. Scott Perry won re-election by a small 1.2% points and his district is Lean Republican now. As long as he's all in line for Trump, I can see PA-10 flipping.
Lawler is unlikely to be the candidate as he seems pretty clearly set on running for NY Gov
agreed; that seat goes to the Democratic party as long as our candidate is not crazy left
A center left Democratic Candidate will be fine as this is a Lean Blue Congressional District.
you are wrong.. I won't debate more
Center-left is “crazy left”?
Or a more liberal type but not crazy left as you mentioned. I was assuming "crazy left" in the vein of Jamaal Bowman or any of those types of far left candidates.
I mentioned center left as another way of saying "moderate liberal." Liberal or moderate liberal, regardless, the candidate would certainly need to be a fit for a district and not generate stupid controversy.
Yes, I have read that Lawler is looking into possibly running in the NY-GOV race. For now, until he officially announces, I'm going to assume he's not ruling out running for re-election in 2026.
Thanks for sharing.
For Alaska I think it comes down to if Peltola runs and if not if the Dems can find someone decent to challenge Begich.
Agree on CA-41.
MI-10 I think James seat is more elastic and more open to swinging back but we'll see.
NY-17 I'm not as convinced Lawler will jump into NY-GOV but if he does that would likely make NY-17 a tossup.
PA-10 Perry had his closest race in 24 and if Shapiro is romping statewide I think we can finally pick this one off.
Peltola is indeed the best Democratic Candidate that can run in 2026. If not her, hopefully she can at least have a key role in helping Democrats get more traction in Alaska.
I think VA-07 might be better for us than Tossup. Eugene Vindman may not have been the best candidate but still defeated Fake Family Guy by nearly three points, and as an incumbent in what will probably be a bluer year can easily be considered at least a slight favourite.
VA-01 might be worth watching, as some Dems have identified it as a stretch goal. It remains to be seen if anything really comes of that, but Wittman may not be entirely safe.
Harris got a better percentage, and reduced the raw vote deficit in VA01, comparing to 2020.
Any Idea who Dems might run in VA-01? Thanks.
No idea yet. After this fall's VA elections it should become clearer.
Spanberger giving up her seat to run for governor means at least we don't have to worry about dropping it in a special election if she wins, though with Trump in the WH we might well have been favoured to hold it a year from now anyway. (With a PresiDem it might well have been chancier.)
That makes sense. Thanks.
The two incumbent Democratic state legislators in VA-01 are Schuyler VanValkenburg (SD-16) and Rodney Willett (HD-58), both of whom are in Henrico County. They could possibly run in VA-01 in the future, but I doubt they would run in 2026. I'm guessing they'll want to wait until 2028 or 2030, when VA-01 is hopefully more Dem-friendly than it is now. Also, Virginia has state legislative elections in odd-numbered years, which means either of them would have to run separate campaigns 2+ years in a row if they were to lose a federal House race.
The only other person I can think of is former Delegate Albert Pollard, who represented a State House district on the Northern Neck in the 2000s and early 2010s (the same one that Rob Wittman represented before being elected to Congress). He might be able to outperform on the Northern Neck in a run for VA-01 but by nowhere near the amount he did in the 2000s, due to the general decline in ticket splitting and the rightward shift of Virginia's rural counties.
Bill Clinton ran into Loretta Lynch at an airport, had a 5 minutes chat with her, and it was a week-long scandal resulting in Lynch's recusal from the Hillary email invest. Alito CALLS TRUMP to get his law clerk a job while Trump has a case pending before SCOTUS and it's crickets...
The goal post has been moved several football fields away. Also the media has zero sway over republicans so they don't even bother anymore making a big deal out of their corruption.
there is a new paradigm; our side has to learn that, and deal with it (whining is not going to benefit anyone)
Not sure if anyone here is following the addition into DRA of 2024 election data added by users (not DRA itself), but Arizona and Maryland were recently added. So I checked to see if my Democratic gerrymander of Arizona's legislative districts, drawn before the 2024 election, would've held up despite Arizona's Republican shift last year.
And, amazingly, it did. Of the 30 legislative districts, 17 voted for Harris by at least 7 percent and are securely Democratic, 12 are strongly Republican, and one majority-Hispanic district stretching from Avondale to Yuma swung from Biden +13 to Harris +1.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/586d7706-9330-4fa0-a9fc-b3af8fe84097
And I also drew a legal 8D-0R Democratic gerrymander of Maryland. The map is legal because only four counties are split - Montgomery, Prince George's, Baltimore County, and Anne Arundel (the first three are larger than a district). The current map splits six counties - those same four plus Carroll and Baltimore City.
All eight districts on the map are at least Harris +13, and the least-blue district is April McClain-Delaney's, which still moves from Harris +5 to Harris +13 largely by removing places like Germantown and Gaithersburg which have only middling turnout and replacing them with Potomac and Bethesda which have higher turnout.
In addition, the map now has three majority-Black districts instead of just two. Steny Hoyer's district, renumbered the 3rd, is redrawn to be 51% Black VAP. It probably wouldn't be enough for Hoyer to lose a primary, but once he retires (and he's 85), an African-American will probably win the seat.
So next time you see someone claim that an 8D-0R map in Maryland isn't possible without splitting counties that wouldn't be split otherwise... they're wrong.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/f26ca4f9-f429-4a47-832d-f883c7c4cc72
this is where the Republicans eat our lunch; we need to learn to bring a gun to the redistricting fight(and yet, always seem to f it up); we normally bring a slingshot
Be a bit careful about these user published data though.
Many 2024 precincts have changed. DRA doesn’t have all the new precincts to census block link yet. So the public precinct level data the users collected, are most likely mapped into 2022 precinct shapes. They may not be the same animal.
You could end up blank precincts on map, or valid precincts with votes not being able to show.
This is a good point, and in fact I just found an example.
Another state that recently got 2024 election data in DRA from a user is Illinois. As most of us probably know here, one of the counties in Illinois that's giving Dems inarguably good news is McLean, home to Bloomington and Normal - it's consistently trending Democratic. The only Harris-voting precinct there outside of Bloomington or Normal is one of the two precincts in Towanda, a township just east of Normal. However, this Harris-voting precinct doesn't show up on DRA, since Towanda Township is just one precinct there (it was probably split into two precincts sometime in the last couple of years). And considering that the two precincts in Towanda went 54-44 Harris and 62-36 Trump, it makes sense that many people, especially Democrats, would want them in different districts.
Therefore, if stuff like this is widespread, it could allow us to draw even more effective gerrymanders than what we already have.
The wildfires have probably tanked Newsome for 2028 (probably for the best)
After 2024, the last thing we need is a Californian at the top of our ticket.
Luckily with the CA-GOV race, most of the Democratic Gubernatorial Candidates running are as far removed from being like Newsom as possible.
If Democrats end up winning the CA-GOV race, regardless of how much, if the goal is to move on from Newsom and make California more governable, that'll be progress.
As a Californian, I find the state under Newsom's leadership doesn't have the same moderation that Governor Jerry Brown had prior. Now that the state budget is not in a deficient, pressure will be on Newsom to use as much of this budget as possible to rebuild LA County.
California Democrats are lucky that the California Republican Party is very much still dominated by hard right conspiracy theorists. If they were more like Ahhhhhhhnold or former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, we would be in serious electoral jeopardy in the Golden State.
If Arnie ever relocated to, say, Texas or Florida, and ran for Senate, I would definitely consider him an upgrade over any of their current senators.
His Trump apostasy means he's a Democrat in all but party ID only. He would be crushed in any GOP primary (I know you weren't seriously suggesting that . .just saying).
Schwarzenegger is a member in good standing of a political party that no longer exist. You’re absolutely right; the MAGA Party would primary and defeat Arnie if he ran for City Dog Catcher.
Yes although this should not be an excuse for the CA Democratic Party to get too comfortable.
Also, I think the CA GOP can still elect moderates as politicians. Rep. Young Kim is an example of such who ended up winning re-election in CA-40 by 10.6% points even while she represents a R+2 Lean GOP District.
all true but reality is such that the California GOP is laughable on a statewide level
A California governor who had actually fixed California’s several housing problems would make a pretty good national candidate. Clearly that won’t be Newsom.
One of the political fault lines in California is between the NIMBY and YIMBY factions. These factions are not necessarily related to other political positions. We need to make more of an effort to vote for YIMBYS to solve this issue.
YIMBYs may have a more complicated situation with LA than in cities like San Francisco but I'm certainly open to hearing more ideas on how the current situation can be resolved housing wise.
The challenge is that a lot of the ongoing fires have affected quite a lot of wealthy areas of LA County but there are other parts of LA itself that while even not being affected by the fires are still facing major income inequality problems. This particularly pertains to communities say in East LA, which a friend of mine saw firsthand when she was working near there at a non-profit (she now lives in WA State).
For now, it appears Newsom is starting to make things easier for LA homeowners to rebuild their homes.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/01/12/governor-newsom-signs-executive-order-to-help-los-angeles-rebuild-faster-and-stronger/
it's A countrywide problem actually; and the Democratic party might want to wake up and realize it
Newsom probably has a national ceiling of high Cabinet position (I think Senator and President are off the table; even before the fires)
I've long though the folks pushing for Newsome to be the top of the X&#($* ticket were literally insane.
I recall seeing pro-Newsom diaries on Daily Kos from time to time but just about everyone who commented was in their own echo chamber essentially cheering Newsom as a potential presidential candidate. I had contemplated on offering the opposite argument in those threads but felt it would be counter productive and would not have accomplished much.
Plenty of liberals who lived in San Francisco like I did during the time Newsom was Mayor were not fans of Newsom back then. He was essentially the preferred choice of replacing Willie Brown, whose policies really screwed SF for its ability to get affordable housing built as far back as in the 90's when he was Mayor. Newsom didn't do jack squat to change this when he was Mayor, even while he did take the initiative on gay marriage when it was unpopular and spearheading the city's universal healthcare system, Healthy San Francisco.
Former San Francisco Supervisor David Campos said Newsom was more comfortable making speeches in big crowds but less so when working directly with others in smaller settings. This didn't change at all when he was Lt. Governor and now as Governor.
I probably haven't been following closely enough but is there a reason you believe he's finished?
I think Newsom would be a mediocre national candidate but certainly not due to the wildfires
His baggage (he had an affair with his best friend's wife) and his general smarminess would be a real turnoff to swing voters and that's before the problems related to general anti-California bias among swing state voters.
Newsom also during the COVID-19 pandemic held a private fundraising dinner where neither he nor any of the attendees wore masks nor did any form of social distancing. Also, sending his kids to school in Marin County (generally affluent) when they could simply go to school locally in Sacramento is a real sign of privilege. These facts would likely come to haunt him more with swing state voters as it’s happened more recently and prior to the 2021 CA Recall Election which Newsom defeated.
Newsom is just not battle tested anywhere outside of the blue state comfort zone he’s been in since he was Mayor of San Francisco. Newsom as Supervisor of District 2 did represent the wealthiest district of San Francisco prior to being Mayor but he’s also wealthy and the hand pick of Mayor Brown to replace Kevin Shelley who was vacating the seat to serve in the CA State Assembly.
I think the affair and being a general smarmy creep don't matter much - witness Trump. But running another San Francisco Dem would be cuckoo bananas.
The affair happened in the mid-2000's when Newsom was just in his 2nd year as Mayor, right after President Bush won re-election and in a considerably less polarized political environment.
I would be surprised that the GOP would bring it up as a central issue, especially considering that most of what the GOP does in attacking Newsom has little do to with his personal life and everything to do with being Governor.
Lol
Question:
WHAT WOULD WE LIKE TO SEE BIDEN DO during these last days of his presidency? Let’s concentrate on realistic and achievable actions – not pipe dreams or wishful thinking!
For instance, President Biden just recently protected huge swathes of coastal waters, putting them out of reach for oil and gas extraction, at least for the time being. (Must admit I didn’t see that one coming!)
Moreover, Biden did this in a smart way that won’t be easy for Trump to undo.
Another thought: Are there ways that Biden can shore up the Civil Service? Imho, it’s imperative that Trump be unable to demolish it by demanding loyalty oaths, carry out wholesale dismissal of civil servants he deems "disloyal", and hire a vast horde of dangerous, unqualified loyalists.
No; Schedule F is enabled by an obscure provision of the Carter-era Civil Service Reform Act and Dems blew their chance to fix it when they had a trifecta.
The coastal water protection is good but less impressive when more closely examined since they're areas the oil industry wasn't really interested in anyway.
The only thing the Administration can do this final week that's tangible is keep trying to push IRA money out the door before it can be rescinded/redirected by Trump and declare new national monuments. Any further EOs/directives will just be immediately axed by Trump.
Not all states ira funding for households have been approved. As many as legally possible should be approved.
By my understanding given the personal household rebates are enshrined in law Trump can't do much to those until/if Congress halts them, but I suppose there's administrative things he could do to muck up implementation if he wanted to be a real a-hole.
The worry is no-one knows whether he's going to go code red and flood the zone with blatantly illegal acts his first week, or take a more (relatively) measured approach.
Surely nobody here has forgotten Trump’s promise to be a “Dictator on Day One”?
I expect a collection of shock-and-awe illegal (and borderline illegal) acts. I’m sure these have already been prepared. And I expect the corrupt SCOTUS majority to silently celebrate and do nothing.
I still wonder if Trump's position will change on this issue once he gets serious pushback from big auto companies who have billions invested in domestic battery plants to make EV's.
The domestic auto companies bet that consumers would jump straight to uber-expensive EV trucks and SUVs, rather than starting with more affordable (but less profit-making) sedans, which was just dumb. Due to that dumb idea, their market share suffered and they've already started cutting their EV programs.
I do think the electric manufacturing credit may stay because of the politics (red states/districts have been primary benefactors) and also the auto companies don't want TOO many sunk costs-they can use those components in hybrids, which also keeps the dealers happy because hybrids require far more maintanence than pure EVs.
Rep. Cory Mills will run for Florida Senate no matter who DeSantis picks.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/11/cory-mills-rubio-florida-senate-00197684
Mills could be formidable, though Moody has won statewide twice and seems pretty well liked across the FL GOP
disagree; Mills is lightweight
I should add; Mills might be able to land on Trump's cabinet in the 2nd term
I'm easily envisioning a scenario where Trump just continues to trash California and Newsom while the fires burn, refusing to provide an iota of federal funding or aid. At that point we'd be reliant on other state aid and Canada, but honestly, I prefer that Trump does nothing besides his idiotic blabbering than anything at all. This is the best we can hope for - Trump and his goons being so distracted by their own egos and petty fights and schemes to actually do anything important, aside from perhaps approving a decent budget.
Republican congressman calls for halting of disaster relief to California
Warren Davidson of Ohio says aid should be withheld until the state ravaged by wildfires reforms forestry management.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/11/warren-davidson-republican-disaster-relief-california-wildfires
What a difference Rep. Davidson has been in OH-08 since John Boehner left. /s
Boehner wouldn't have been this stupid if he were still in office.
It's so dumb because fires in the LA metro have little to do with forest management.
Davidson's an idiot
Yes, we really need forest management experience to help us solve the wildfires. Bring in park rangers why don't we! /s
FORTUNATELY: Joe Biden has already approved a disaster declaration for the southern California fires, committing the federal government to covering all of the fire management and debris removal costs for six months.
“We are with you,” Biden pledged. “We are not going anywhere.”
(Yes, President is going somewhere, but the President has made a strong commitment on behalf of the federal government. Not sure how easily Trump can undo that, nor whether he would want to. If No.47 wants to pick a fight with California, I suspect it will far more likely be over deportations and sanctuary cities.)
Is it possible Kamala could jump into the already crowded Governor's race in California and scare the already declareds into lower offices (Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General etc)? 💙🇺🇲
Some of them. Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis being a notable exception. She's termed out in 2026.
She could still run for one of the other statewide offices like Treasurer or Secretary of State. Kounalakis is only termed out of her current job, not any of the others.
The realist in me doesn't see that happening. Either would be seen as a step down from the Lieutenant Governorship.
There's been some rumors that she's considering it.
I'm skeptical. She's currently vice president and is just getting out of a presidential campaign. The past two months are likely the first time to relax she's had in half a decade. Would she give that up to take a job that is, at least in prestige, a major step down from her current one? Yes, governors have far more power than the VP, but VP comes with far more prestige and legacy.
That said I am horrible at predicting this kind of stuff. I could see her going for it if she thinks she could do a truly stellar job such that it does elevate her legacy. Certainly it'd be easier to do a good job for someone that has no pathways to move up in the world of politics after.
If Kamala Harris wants to be one of the visible figures leading the opposition to Trump and his extreme policies, there is hardly a better position from which to do that than as Governor of California. And in these times, her prosecutorial and recent debate experience would be a huge boon.
Being that the actual primary election won't be held until June 2, 2026, it's still way too early to see where the CA-GOV race is going.
If Harris is going to run in the race, she has plenty of time by which to do so. She could join as a candidate in September and will still have time to mount an effective campaign. Having roughly nine months until the primary race is a much different beast and would be by contrast less pressure for Harris than the presidential race.
I will say this - Although I am not necessarily a fan of Harris running in the CA-GOV race, I'd prefer her over Newsom. On the one hand, her handling of the Teamsters USA's decision to decline to endorse a presidential candidate in 2024 makes me wonder if she will be enough of a uniter with unions. On the other hand, Harris may have been under increased pressure with a presidential campaign only three months until the actual election.
https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/upcoming-elections/primary-election-june-2-2026
None of the big ones imo
For those interested, The American Prospect has published a complete list of all 448 members of the Democratic National Committee. These are the people who will choose the next Chair to succeed Jaime Harrison, as well as all other DNC officers. If you have an opinion about that, you can contact people on this list.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bQKIP3W1NWChRjSbsE0O5k5s7OdgXrJi5-CMfFECIBU/edit?gid=0#gid=0
The list is sortable by name, state and position/title.
https://prospect.org/politics/2025-01-10-opening-dncs-black-box/
"Whoever holds the office [of DNC Chair] will have a significant role in how Democrats respond to Trump, how they rebuild, what changes they make to their media, technology, and fundraising practices, and how the 2028 presidential selection process plays out."
From The Prospect:
But who will make this decision? Officially, it’s a secret. According to the DNC, there are 448 active members of the national committee, including 200 elected members from 57 states, territories, and Democrats Abroad; members representing 16 affiliate groups; and 73 “at-large” members who were elected as a slate appointed in 2021 by the party chairman, Jaime Harrison. For a party that claims the word “democratic” and insists that it is a champion of transparency and accountability in government, the official roster of these 448 voters is not public.
Michael Kapp, a DNC member from California who was first elected to that position by his state party’s executive committee in 2016, told me the list isn’t public “because it’s the DNC — it’s a black box.” He told me that leadership holds tightly to the list to prevent any organizing beyond their control.
Today, we’re going to open up the DNC’s black box.
It's so cool to see some of my friends and mentors on this list
Good news on the NC Supreme Court race: 4th Circuit had taken the case with expedited schedule (as for by Riggs and granted) by Jan 27. 4th Circuit should be favorable to us.
https://www.carolinajournal.com/federal-appeals-court-sets-jan-27-oral-argument-in-nc-supreme-court-election-dispute/