WASHINGTON, Jan 31 (Reuters) - Aides to Elon Musk charged with running the U.S. government human resources agency have locked career civil servants out of computer systems that contain the personal data of millions of federal employees, according to two agency officials.
The two officials, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation, said some senior career employees at OPM have had their access revoked to some of the department's data systems.
The systems include a vast database called Enterprise Human Resources Integration, which contains dates of birth, Social Security numbers, appraisals, home addresses, pay grades and length of service of government workers, the officials said.
"We have no visibility into what they are doing with the computer and data systems," one of the officials said. "That is creating great concern. There is no oversight. It creates real cybersecurity and hacking implications."
In addition to Democratic leaders, I believe we each must do our part. I, for one, share it with my friends and acquaintances, here in the US and abroad. And I post it here on The Downballot and on Hopium.
I've made a spreadsheet of Democratic Incumbents over 55 with vote shares over 60% in their district and plan to track their responses to all of Trump's shenanigans and if they're not vocal enough about it. I think it's fair to say that a primary would be in order.
Not necessarily an age restriction. We hear all the time about how old the party is and I was just curious to see it broken down into just how old it was and I found it to be quite interesting. 113 Reps are over 55. 55 are over 70 and 11 are 80 or older. Now that doesn't mean that everyone is treated the same but I think it would send a huge message if they either stepped down willingly or were taken down via a primary.
55 is not old at all. I support primarying out overly right-wing or timid Democrats when that is likely to result in moving the seats in question further left, rather than losing them to Republicans, but trying to purge the party based on age starting at 55 would be ludicrous and stupid, in my opinion.
I didn't say it was. That's just the cutoff that I decided on and there are bigger fish to fry than those that are 55. I'm also looking at what their primary vote share was, what their district vote share was, where they fall ideologically, and how long they've been in office. Anyone from the 1900s in a 60+% district I think should be primaried at the very least. For example Doris Matsui and her husband have represented a California congressional district going back to 1979. She's 80 years old and her district voted for her with over 66% of the vote. I think she's someone who should be primaried if she doesn't retire.
I plan on moving onto the House Republicans next. This has basically come about because I'm working on helping my college friend run for a House seat in Wisconsin. We've heard all the time about how institutional knowledge was so important and how we couldn't afford to lose any of these leaders but that old world is gone. We don't need Reps who are going to play nice. We need fighters who are ready for the challenge ahead of us and willing to do what's necessary to fight back against this actual coup by an unelected bureaucrat.
The challenge isn’t "to send out information". It’s to do so with a voice(s) that resonates – and in ways that penetrate the information bubbles. The vast right-wing ecosphere is a huge challenge for Democrats, as is the infotainment news media (which at best is bothsiderist) whose currency is "views and clicks"
A Baton Rouge-area grand jury indicted a New York doctor and a Louisiana mother Friday on felony charges for allegedly providing an illegal abortion with drugs obtained through the mail.
It is the first criminal case of its kind in the country since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, which triggered Louisiana’s strict abortion ban.
Today is the big day at the DNC, as they seek to elect a new chair to lead the Democratic Party out of the abyss and set up for a chance at success in 2026 (provided we still have free elections by then). The main two contenders for the chair are Ben Wikler from Wisconsin and Ken Martin from Minnesota.
Martin's a well-respected state chair and has spent a ton of time building relationships with DNC members. Wikler was more popular among Democratic politicians and activist types, but they're not the ones who vote. (I'd have preferred Wikler myself based on his record in WI, but Martin is not going to do a bad job).
I’d have to familiarize myself with Martin’s history in Minnesota but if he was chosen, it’s likely because he’s got a strong strategy helping elect and re-elect Democrats in MN that can translate into other states.
“We have to tap into the rich, rich, rich diversity of elected officials we have throughout this country who are actually delivering on our party values right now,” Martin said. “The DNC chair is just one spokesperson, but we have so many other spokespeople out there we should be tapping into. Instead of sending celebrities out, we should send workers out to talk to workers, we should send out other folks out to talk who are trusted messengers and validators.”
“My job is to get out there and define the Republicans,” Martin said. “I will take the low road so they can take the high road. I will throw the punches so they don’t have to, and we will go on offense against Donald Trump. That’s the role I will play as spokesperson, and I will also be the organizer-in-chief for our party.”
“It is time for our leaders and the new DNC to treat us as “partners in the fight, not just donors to the cause.” There has to be a total re-imagination of our party, communication and politics for us to become an effective opposition.”
I would love to see the new DNC Chair send an email to the millions of people who donated to Kamala Harris’ Campaign, to other Democratic candidates up and down the ballot, and to the DNC itself – an email where Ken Martin explains how people can contribute to the Democratic Party, and to the resistance, IN OTHER WAYS than by giving money!
Imho, it would be very inspirational and hugely beneficial if Ken Martin were to immediately signal that he is looking for PARTNERS, not donors, and explain how he invites us to MOBILIZE right now.
this is where Hogg and Kenyatta can best help; youth don't have the funds available that older folks have; but, they can be huge contributors in other ways
Minnesota Rising. Of course our VP pick was Governor Walz.
Now the DNC chair will be from MN.
And agriculture policy will be controlled on the Dem side by Amy Klobuchar and Angie Craig for the foreseeable future as well as both are ranking members on their respective AG committees.
Trump is illegally incorporating USAID into the State Department, in direct contravention of the Foreign Assistance Act. Any such re-organization needs congressional approval. This is just the start . . .agencies like EPA will be next.
Before last week I thought the Senate would care enough about retaining their own power to keep Trump from doing crazy shit like this, but this . .. impoundments, firing IGs, taking over the Treasury software systems (the biggest story of the week, and mostly crickets from the supposed liberal media). . .crickets from Senate Republicans. I know lots of folks use panicky, hyperbolic language regarding politics, especially Trump, but this is CODE RED time. People are talking about elections and I honestly aren't sure we're going to have another round of free and fair federal elections.
Everyone needs to call their congressman/Senators and let them know how serious this is. This is honestly how many authoritarian regimes starts . . playbook to a T. And by the time any of the squisky "moderates" realize they need to do something, it's going to be too late.
I honestly don't see this presidency ending in any way other than a coup or impeachment after he's sent the country into a depression. Sorry I hate to be Mr. Dark Clouds on a Saturday, but I think a lot of folks REALLY don't understand how serious this has gotten in just the last 3-5 days.
I will add this . . should we ever get unified government again, we're going to need to SERIOUSLY curtail presidential powers so nothing like this could ever happen again. The constitutional and legal framework presumed you wouldn't have someone in the executive who legit wanted to just break the system, but the current guardrails are not at all strong enough to prevent that from happening.
Yes . . .I heard suits against the freeze in grant funding but not about the aid halts, but that is just as illegal; statutes passed by Congress and signed by the President entail those funds need to be spent as directed.
A President doesn't just get to halt contractual agreements to review and then only spend the money if he agrees with it. Doing so means not only any congressional spending deal is worth nothing, but any financial agreement the U.S. signs with an entity isn't worth the paper its printed on either, because we are not a trustworthy partner. It destabilizes everything.
I mean, are Republicans really thinking this through? With this precedent, a hypothetical future POTUS AOC could pass a bipartisan funding deal, and then just axe huge components of the defense spending, as well as any funding directed to the oil/gas industry, because it doesn't align "with the goals of her administration." Do they really want to go down that road??
I mean, the more establishment ones at least try to play some prevent defense though re: institutional norms. It's why they haven't killed the filibuster, because come the next D trifecta with a 51 seat Dem Senate majority, Dems would pass the wishlist to Santa and add the asks for the Easter Bunny for dessert.
I mean, yes that was my first thought-they'll pray the courts do their job for them. But what if he defies the courts (as I expect is likely) . . . then what?
Then we’re over the Rubicon. My suspicion is that the bulk of the GOP (wrongly) thinks it won’t come to that, especially since a lot of them are cozy with FedSoc
Paleo, you’re absolutely right: This has to he taken to court.
The probably-insurmountable problem is that President Musk is moving at lightning speed, with a carefully-prepared blueprint and playbook, and throughout the entire government. (!!!) And American courts move far too slowly, as we saw (by design) in all the cases against Trump.
At some point, SCOTUS is going to have a case before them where they'll have to decide between Donald Trump and the Constitution, as much as the conservative justices in the bench don't want that.
Considering their "official acts" immunity ruling, I'm not optimistic about how that will turn out when it happens.
They'll twist themselves into knots to create a standard that is inherently arbitrary so that republicans can violate the constitution but democrats cannot repeat the same action.
I have a hard time seeing Barrett, Roberts or Kavanaugh saying the Executive can just flat out ignore statute and impound funds. That turns us into a banana republic.
A career official tried to undo Trump’s purge at USAID. He was then purged, too.
"The dramatic purge and counter-purge played out in emails obtained by The Washington Post, as Trump’s pause on aid upends humanitarian work around the world."
My wife has a family member who work for USAID abroad. All of her colleagues there have just lost their jobs – and she knows she is next. Above is gift link to a key article in The Washington Post on these developments.
As Toiler On the Sea clearly indicates – with alarm that cannot be overstated – is that what we see at USAID is just the tip of the iceberg.
I'm so sorry for you all . . .USAID is a pittance of the budget and yet it's getting this treatment. Pure cruelty; they don't deserve this and most tragic of all are the millions of people who'll now suffer because the head of the richest country on Earth decided he doesn't give a shit.
While Americans businessmen are overfocused on quarterly results, annual reports and stock prices, the Chinese are trying to fulfill five-year plans and planning 20–30 years ahead.
During the financial crisis of 2007–2008, Chinese diplomats and trade representatives were traveling the world, offering aid/contracts to various struggling countries in return for ensuring a steady supply of essential minerals and other resources that China would need during the next decades.
Trump is playing Russian roulette, not checkers. If he were deliberately trying to sabotage the country, would he have done anything differently from what he's done?
I would rather see Pete Buttigieg as an articulate voice in the Shadow Cabinet, as proposed by Timothy Snyder. The idea of Democrats forming a Shadow Cabinet has been mentioned in comments here by numerous people.
Either Senate or President (or neither.) Not both.
Maybe the biggest potential problem for us holding that Senate seat is Buttigieg being nominated and then doing little to counter the impression that he's more interested in using it to run for the WH than in serving the people of Michigan.
Nominating Buttigieg for a U.S. Senate race in Michigan would be effectively handing a Senate seat to the Republicans. The GOP attacks on him being a carpetbagger from Indiana write themselves.
They didn't get away with it. Slotkin made a huge issue about Mike Rogers residence. Although in his case he was from Mich but moved to Florida and didn't really move back.
I'm glad he's the -outgoing- chair. It's understandable, though in exceedingly poor grace and showing bad judgment, for Biden himself to say he made a mistake bowing out and would have won. While it's impossible to know exactly how many additional voters would have voted for him because he's a white man and not a Black/Asian woman or how many additional people would have voted against him or stayed home because they blamed him for inflation or thought he was not capable of functioning as president, it's very unlikely he would have won and he should have shut up about that. But anyone else publicly second-guessing his decision to bow out should in my opinion never have a position of leadership in the party. And a word about some other activists: https://politicalwire.com/2025/01/31/democrats-get-shouted-down-by-their-own-activists/
"The final forum of candidates running to lead the Democratic National Committee was derailed at numerous points by climate protesters"
What the fuck is wrong with them? Trump is trying to end the constitutional system, the independence and professionalism of the civil service, governance, alliances, and trade relationships, and create chaos, the Democrats are out of power, and instead of unifying, these imbeciles are disrupting a meeting of the party that's out of power in Washington and is the one that believes in science and is actually trying to do something to deal with global warming. Do they understand the immediate threat of fascism, at a time when Trump is trying to unilaterally revoke the temporary protected status of hundreds of thousands of people living and working legally in the U.S. and empowering ICE to detain American citizens on mere suspicion of being undocumented immigrants?
And about the political commentators who are sanctimoniously pronouncing Biden's presidency a dismal failure, clinched by inflation in an inflationary worldwide recovery from a pandemic the likes of which hadn't been seen since 1919, his supposedly electing Trump, and then his unwise remarks after the fact about Harris and his having made a mistake bowing out: You are part of the problem represented by the huge media corporations that just can't wait to give Trump multi million-dollar bribes as "settlements" for frivolous lawsuits by Trump and kiss his ass every which way.
But you're also missing the point. We can talk about unpatriotic Republicans, subversion by foreign powers and probably even greater subversion by domestic-based oligarchs (not all of them citizens), timidity and slowness by the Justice Department, egregious sabotage by the courts, successful delaying tactics by Trump, political commentators and reporters who are incentivized to pretend that merely imperfect Democrats should be treated with at least normal confrontation and disrespect but Trump should be
treated as if he were a normal politician and/or to treat politics as a bloodless game even after seeing the blood on worldwide TV, and we can acknowledge that eloquent and impressive speeches were never Biden's forte, though he wasn't elected for that, and that his speaking deteriorated in the last 4 years, leading to what I think are false beliefs about his being incompetent to execute the office, whereas he continued to do great things till the end. But all of that ultimately misses the point.
So who is to blame for Trump and the Republicans being given the keys to the country again? Ultimately, though plenty of other people have acted deplorably, only one group is fundamentally responsible: a plurality of Americans who voted. Say what you want about all the others, but the voters knew what happened when Trump and the Republicans had a trifecta before, and they said "We want more of that!"
And if the human race survives the ravages of global warming, historians will treat Biden very differently, as the last opportunity the American voters took to avoid driving the country into collapse. And don't try to claim I'm "catastrophizing": I'm not saying the collapse will happen within the next 4 years, but I do think this election marks the final step likely to ensure it. Only time will tell, but never forget who is really to blame. History won't.
Much like in 1930s Germany, the institutions that were supposed to protect us failed because of weak and timid leaders. Making Merrick Garland AG was Biden's fatal error. It was a cascade of failure up and down from every institution. The Justice system, the Media, and the Government all failed, and now we all reap what they sowed.
I don't blame climate protestors for acting out. Why should they be expected to unify with people who are sitting at home right now while Elon Musk takes over the government payment systems? How are they showing that they will be trusted stewards if they're just gonna run the same playbook over and over again? What is their strategy to take back power? Sending text messages about how bad Trump is and that's why you should send us $20 to help fight back?
Truthfully a lot of this is coming from frustration on my part as well. As a brown Latino who was a loyal party foot soldier since 2004 arguing with my middle school friends why Bush was awful I feel somewhat betrayed because I put my trust in the system and in our institutions and they have utterly and completely failed us. That's why I believe we can't just do things business as usual anymore. People want things shaken up so why don't we be the party that shakes things up for good? People don't want to go back to a system that hasn't worked for them for over 40 years and if that's what Dems are proposing then I don't think they've learned anything.
The Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act, and people like Newsom are acting on the state level. Believe me, I know that global warming is existential for the human race, and I'm pessimistic that it will save itself, but attacking the party that's actually done and doing things by disrupting their meeting is not the way to effect positive change. I'm a socialist, so in no way is a party as relatively right-wing as the Democrats ever my ideal, but they are not the problem in the U.S., especially today.
They may not be the problem but at this juncture I think they're far from the solution because of the ossified leadership in the party that is just a continuation of the old guard of incremental change when drastic action will need to be taken to fix this and maybe it's past the point of no return.
Any drastic action on climate would be incredibly unpopular and would just result in a red wave in the next election. It's either incremental change or nothing for the foreseeable future.
Because the idiotic/successfully misled American voters keep electing saboteurs like Reagan, the Bushes and Trump, drastic action will be necessary to save worldwide civilization. The alternative will be collapse, and I agree that that's likely, if that's what you mean to say.
Yes unfortunately the sweetspot time for incremental change was 25 years ago and we elected Bush twice . Although honestly I think a lot of the climate proposals you see from the late 90s/early 2000s had some significant issues that would've in some ways made emissions worse than the status quo via unintended consequences (e.g. climate proposals from that period called for MASSIVE investments/subsidies for biofuels for cars)
The sweet spot time was the 1980s. Had Carter been re-elected, he could have continued to concentrate on conservation and solar energy. But the Supreme Court's selection of G.W. Bush may have been the death knell for any sort of effective relatively mild climate transition policy.
Ooh yeah even more massive biofuels would have been a disaster.
Honestly, hybridization out of a “peak oil”/efficiency argument would have been the way to go, and battery tech would have been much better for electrification by present day
As someone who lives in the North and experiences winter, snow, and cold temperatures every year, it is frankly appalling how many people here whine and complain about the cold and the snow. And I have increasingly come to the conclusion over the past couple of years that this irrational fear and/or hatred of cold weather is a HUGE reason why there is so little enthusiasm on the part of the electorate to take any action against climate change.
I hate to say it, but the average uninformed voter hears that the climate is warming, and thinks to themselves, "Sounds good to me! No more icy roads or shoveling snow!".
If Democrats really want the electorate to get behind them in terms of dealing with climate change, we have to instill in the American people an appreciation of winter, and snow, and cold weather. Because that appreciation is sadly lacking in way too many people.
People hate MN/Dakota cold, but they love the seasons, and climate change is killing the change of seasons (really the change I've noticed in just the past decade has been really depressing)
I don’t know about drastic but there have been for years now new breaking developments in science to combat climate change and global warming. This particularly includes technology. Same goes with emphasizing sustainable design and development of buildings so they can not only withstand climate change but also translate into cost saving incentives for homeowners.
That said, Democrats running on just simply adapting isn’t going to help them win elections. The party has already been losing in the messaging battle in the LA fires. Thank god Newsom isn’t running for re-election as Governor of California or he’d have serious problems.
Sunrise is very problematic in many ways. Climate/environment is literally my #1 voting position (or maybe tied with healthcare) and I think they are terrible for the cause.
Don't forget the MI, MN and NM trifectas all passed strong climate legislation as well (NM's not as strong as the others but given it's reliance on oil money what they did do has been a big deal)
“Why should they be expected to unify with people are sitting at home right now”. They showed up to an event with people clearly not sitting at home right now.
No, being loud and annoying accomplishes absolutely nothing and just makes us all look all bad. Those people are clowns who hurt their own goals.
Just like the morons who last year thought that blocking the Golden Gate Bridge would somehow force policy change on an issue that we're disallowed from directly discussing here....
It's past time for the sun to set on the "Sunrise Movement". In the last contested Democratic presidential primary they mostly promoted one candidate rather than their supposed cause, and since then their activism (which is little better than whining and performativeness) has often been less about climate change than the leftist grievance du jour.
And good points both about misguided leftist protestors and media malfeasance, as well as both positively and negatively about Biden.
And speaking of Biden, if Jamie Harrison really thinks Dems would have been better off sticking with him through November, then there's a whole host of Democrats who won competitive Senate, House, and state/local elections who might beg to differ.
Some of the climate protestors are such fringe ultraleftists that they actually believe the 'heighten the contradictions' crap and assume that they'll be the ones to win the power struggle after everything collapses.
And yeah, Biden's claims he would have won are about as convincing as Beavis' 'I woulda kicked his ass'.
Kenyatta was also a US Senate candidate in 2022, losing the primary to John Fetterman (as did Conor Lamb as well).
I haven't been too impressed with Hogg over the last five years or so--he was starting to resemble a political one hit wonder struggling to stay relevant or effective. So good on him for earning a second wind.
Delighted to see that David Hogg won! That young Parkland Massacre survivor is going places, and he is already selflessly contributing so much. Here is a stellar interview that Simon Rosenberg did with David Hogg:
Well, this one is worth watching – and that Hogg is to be lauded for the good, helpful ideas that he shares. Give it a chance. (It’s been a long time since I watched Pod Save America.)
Does he have a knack for reaching the young, low-info noncollege independents that we have so much trouble with? It seems to me that he (and probably Kenyatta) would appeal mostly to people who are already firmly inside the tent.
If Democrats want to win in swing or red territory, look no further than INDEPENDENT Dan Osborn in Nebraska, who came closer than anyone ever imagined to knocking off Sen. Deb Fischer (R). Merge his platform with Sherrod Brown/Tim Ryan/Marcy Kaptur and that's the path to populism!! 💙🇺🇲
Spot on! Our candidates must fit their state and district. In some cases, such as Nebraska or Utah, this might even mean promoting someone who is not carrying the Democratic brand.
Osborn did much better than Greg Orman did in his Senate campaign in the 2014 KS-SEN race when he ran as an Independent. Of course, we’re talking about two different Independents in different red states but they both had the freedom of not having being beholden to the Democratic Party.
I mentioned this before but one of the issues Osborn stood for in his campaign was getting money out of politics. That may have helped him make the race closer than expected although I’m sure it wasn’t the only issue factoring in.
Are dems willing to let a candidate like Osborn take the necessary positions to win? There was a lot of complaining about Manchin among dem activists. And Osborn was quite a bit to the right of Manchin.
Are dems comfortable supporting a candidate that wants to build the border wall, reduce illegal immigration and protect gun rights?
“He is not somebody that you can appease,” Gov. JB Pritzker, an Illinois Democrat, said in an interview. “We’ve got to stand up and fight. And by the way, at the state level, I think many of us are. But I think that we’ve got to make sure that in the Senate and the House, that the people who have a platform are standing up.”
I can't speak for Henrik, but I feel similarly and my reference is before he was elected. Pre-election I thought he'd be acceptable at best. Him being a billionaire with no history of elected office did not instill optimism.
I am glad that he proved my doubts to be unfounded. He's more than cleared that hurdle. If anything I'd highlight him as one of our governors that best gets it with respect to what's going on now and how we need to react to modern conservatism.
If he wins another term; he's running for the White House afterwards; I could definitely vote for the guy in primary that shall not be named; unlike others here, imo we have many outstanding choices, that's why I think the new DNC chair doesn't have to be some kind of Party National Spokesman (dude has never been elected to actual public office afaik)
FL-6
WISC - April 1
PA retention elections - Nov 4
VA governor and legislators - Nov 4
WTF is going on here:
Musk aides lock government workers out of computer systems at US agency
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musk-aides-lock-government-workers-out-computer-systems-us-agency-sources-say-2025-01-31/
WASHINGTON, Jan 31 (Reuters) - Aides to Elon Musk charged with running the U.S. government human resources agency have locked career civil servants out of computer systems that contain the personal data of millions of federal employees, according to two agency officials.
The two officials, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation, said some senior career employees at OPM have had their access revoked to some of the department's data systems.
The systems include a vast database called Enterprise Human Resources Integration, which contains dates of birth, Social Security numbers, appraisals, home addresses, pay grades and length of service of government workers, the officials said.
"We have no visibility into what they are doing with the computer and data systems," one of the officials said. "That is creating great concern. There is no oversight. It creates real cybersecurity and hacking implications."
So what are Democrats doing to make sure Americans know that this is actually happening?
And no, "hope they find out about it on their own" should not be an acceptable response.
In addition to Democratic leaders, I believe we each must do our part. I, for one, share it with my friends and acquaintances, here in the US and abroad. And I post it here on The Downballot and on Hopium.
Shhhh, Fetterman and Golden will get angry if you make a big deal about this stuff.
I've made a spreadsheet of Democratic Incumbents over 55 with vote shares over 60% in their district and plan to track their responses to all of Trump's shenanigans and if they're not vocal enough about it. I think it's fair to say that a primary would be in order.
Why the age restriction?
Not necessarily an age restriction. We hear all the time about how old the party is and I was just curious to see it broken down into just how old it was and I found it to be quite interesting. 113 Reps are over 55. 55 are over 70 and 11 are 80 or older. Now that doesn't mean that everyone is treated the same but I think it would send a huge message if they either stepped down willingly or were taken down via a primary.
55 is not old at all. I support primarying out overly right-wing or timid Democrats when that is likely to result in moving the seats in question further left, rather than losing them to Republicans, but trying to purge the party based on age starting at 55 would be ludicrous and stupid, in my opinion.
I didn't say it was. That's just the cutoff that I decided on and there are bigger fish to fry than those that are 55. I'm also looking at what their primary vote share was, what their district vote share was, where they fall ideologically, and how long they've been in office. Anyone from the 1900s in a 60+% district I think should be primaried at the very least. For example Doris Matsui and her husband have represented a California congressional district going back to 1979. She's 80 years old and her district voted for her with over 66% of the vote. I think she's someone who should be primaried if she doesn't retire.
Democrats have a problem with younger voters and noncollege younger voters in particular, but the solution isn't to descend into blatant ageism.
And do what with that info? Be angry over it? What does that do to help defeat Republicans?
I plan on moving onto the House Republicans next. This has basically come about because I'm working on helping my college friend run for a House seat in Wisconsin. We've heard all the time about how institutional knowledge was so important and how we couldn't afford to lose any of these leaders but that old world is gone. We don't need Reps who are going to play nice. We need fighters who are ready for the challenge ahead of us and willing to do what's necessary to fight back against this actual coup by an unelected bureaucrat.
In solid Democratic seats?
Once again, we can send out all the information we want. At the end of the day, voters. Have. To. Care.
We have the VA-GOV race being more directly impacted by this as many federal workers do in fact live in Virginia.
Of course, this has to be presented more effectively to voters than sending off information.
The challenge isn’t "to send out information". It’s to do so with a voice(s) that resonates – and in ways that penetrate the information bubbles. The vast right-wing ecosphere is a huge challenge for Democrats, as is the infotainment news media (which at best is bothsiderist) whose currency is "views and clicks"
A Baton Rouge-area grand jury indicted a New York doctor and a Louisiana mother Friday on felony charges for allegedly providing an illegal abortion with drugs obtained through the mail.
It is the first criminal case of its kind in the country since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, which triggered Louisiana’s strict abortion ban.
https://lailluminator.com/2025/01/31/louisiana-abortion-2/
Is this going to be the new Fugitive Slave Act, dividing the country in a way free states are unwilling to tolerate?
What I’ll be interested in seeing is how they can prosecute a doctor and the patient’s mother for use of a legal product under federal law.
I won’t be holding my breath waiting to see how the federal Department of Justice steps up to defend federal law.
Technically, the law would not be under attack. It would used as a defense to get the charges dismissed.
I hear you. Let me rephrase: I seriously doubt Trump’s DoJ will request those charges be dismissed.
It's a state case I think.....????
Here's some fitting music: https://youtu.be/7nqcL0mjMjw?si=AyRg4-1RZ78MrlCA
This song felt more appropriate in the post-9/11 era anyway, not 1993 when it came out.
Today is the big day at the DNC, as they seek to elect a new chair to lead the Democratic Party out of the abyss and set up for a chance at success in 2026 (provided we still have free elections by then). The main two contenders for the chair are Ben Wikler from Wisconsin and Ken Martin from Minnesota.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/31/dnc-chair-election
Martin wins, first ballot. He'll be fine.
I'm shocked Wikler didn't win. Any insight into why?
Martin's a well-respected state chair and has spent a ton of time building relationships with DNC members. Wikler was more popular among Democratic politicians and activist types, but they're not the ones who vote. (I'd have preferred Wikler myself based on his record in WI, but Martin is not going to do a bad job).
The job is mostly fundraising and limited state party coordination anyway.
Has been. But going forward it must be far more than that. See the quote from Simon Rosenberg.
Winning in Wisconsin is more impressive than winning in Minnesota
Maybe....but Martin's done a lot better job of winning in Minnesota than Wikler has in Wisconsin.
I’d have to familiarize myself with Martin’s history in Minnesota but if he was chosen, it’s likely because he’s got a strong strategy helping elect and re-elect Democrats in MN that can translate into other states.
Yeah, and on the first ballot. Martin led the MN Dems for 14 years after being elevated by Mark Dayton.
After I saw Third Way, Schumer and Jeffries backed Wikler, I’m glad Martin won. Although I don’t think it’s all that big of a deal.
I'm already liking what Martin is saying coming into being DNC Chair:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/ken-martin-wins-election-chair-democratic-national-committee-rcna190018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“We have to tap into the rich, rich, rich diversity of elected officials we have throughout this country who are actually delivering on our party values right now,” Martin said. “The DNC chair is just one spokesperson, but we have so many other spokespeople out there we should be tapping into. Instead of sending celebrities out, we should send workers out to talk to workers, we should send out other folks out to talk who are trusted messengers and validators.”
“My job is to get out there and define the Republicans,” Martin said. “I will take the low road so they can take the high road. I will throw the punches so they don’t have to, and we will go on offense against Donald Trump. That’s the role I will play as spokesperson, and I will also be the organizer-in-chief for our party.”
That’s exactly what I want to hear from him!
It's good, but why don't other Democrats need to punch Trump?
Sounds like it's just status quo. We'll see if he can translate those lofty platitudes into action.
clearly not status quo
I don't judge Wikler by who supported him but by what he's done in Wisconsin, which is amazing.
Pelosi also backed Wikler very late in the going, likely because she assumed Wikler was going to win easily, which definitely didn't happen.
“It is time for our leaders and the new DNC to treat us as “partners in the fight, not just donors to the cause.” There has to be a total re-imagination of our party, communication and politics for us to become an effective opposition.”
– Simon Rosenberg
I would love to see the new DNC Chair send an email to the millions of people who donated to Kamala Harris’ Campaign, to other Democratic candidates up and down the ballot, and to the DNC itself – an email where Ken Martin explains how people can contribute to the Democratic Party, and to the resistance, IN OTHER WAYS than by giving money!
Imho, it would be very inspirational and hugely beneficial if Ken Martin were to immediately signal that he is looking for PARTNERS, not donors, and explain how he invites us to MOBILIZE right now.
this is where Hogg and Kenyatta can best help; youth don't have the funds available that older folks have; but, they can be huge contributors in other ways
Minnesota Rising. Of course our VP pick was Governor Walz.
Now the DNC chair will be from MN.
And agriculture policy will be controlled on the Dem side by Amy Klobuchar and Angie Craig for the foreseeable future as well as both are ranking members on their respective AG committees.
Trump is illegally incorporating USAID into the State Department, in direct contravention of the Foreign Assistance Act. Any such re-organization needs congressional approval. This is just the start . . .agencies like EPA will be next.
Before last week I thought the Senate would care enough about retaining their own power to keep Trump from doing crazy shit like this, but this . .. impoundments, firing IGs, taking over the Treasury software systems (the biggest story of the week, and mostly crickets from the supposed liberal media). . .crickets from Senate Republicans. I know lots of folks use panicky, hyperbolic language regarding politics, especially Trump, but this is CODE RED time. People are talking about elections and I honestly aren't sure we're going to have another round of free and fair federal elections.
Everyone needs to call their congressman/Senators and let them know how serious this is. This is honestly how many authoritarian regimes starts . . playbook to a T. And by the time any of the squisky "moderates" realize they need to do something, it's going to be too late.
I honestly don't see this presidency ending in any way other than a coup or impeachment after he's sent the country into a depression. Sorry I hate to be Mr. Dark Clouds on a Saturday, but I think a lot of folks REALLY don't understand how serious this has gotten in just the last 3-5 days.
I will add this . . should we ever get unified government again, we're going to need to SERIOUSLY curtail presidential powers so nothing like this could ever happen again. The constitutional and legal framework presumed you wouldn't have someone in the executive who legit wanted to just break the system, but the current guardrails are not at all strong enough to prevent that from happening.
Once again, this needs to be taken to court
Yes . . .I heard suits against the freeze in grant funding but not about the aid halts, but that is just as illegal; statutes passed by Congress and signed by the President entail those funds need to be spent as directed.
A President doesn't just get to halt contractual agreements to review and then only spend the money if he agrees with it. Doing so means not only any congressional spending deal is worth nothing, but any financial agreement the U.S. signs with an entity isn't worth the paper its printed on either, because we are not a trustworthy partner. It destabilizes everything.
I mean, are Republicans really thinking this through? With this precedent, a hypothetical future POTUS AOC could pass a bipartisan funding deal, and then just axe huge components of the defense spending, as well as any funding directed to the oil/gas industry, because it doesn't align "with the goals of her administration." Do they really want to go down that road??
Yes, because they are in power. They don't have any principles and fight anything any Democrat does. You already know that.
I mean, the more establishment ones at least try to play some prevent defense though re: institutional norms. It's why they haven't killed the filibuster, because come the next D trifecta with a 51 seat Dem Senate majority, Dems would pass the wishlist to Santa and add the asks for the Easter Bunny for dessert.
The “vote no, hope yes” coward caucus once again expects Ds to bail them out from the lunacy of their own base, this time via lawsuits and TROs
I mean, yes that was my first thought-they'll pray the courts do their job for them. But what if he defies the courts (as I expect is likely) . . . then what?
Then we’re over the Rubicon. My suspicion is that the bulk of the GOP (wrongly) thinks it won’t come to that, especially since a lot of them are cozy with FedSoc
Paleo, you’re absolutely right: This has to he taken to court.
The probably-insurmountable problem is that President Musk is moving at lightning speed, with a carefully-prepared blueprint and playbook, and throughout the entire government. (!!!) And American courts move far too slowly, as we saw (by design) in all the cases against Trump.
They move fast when they issue injunctions.
At some point, SCOTUS is going to have a case before them where they'll have to decide between Donald Trump and the Constitution, as much as the conservative justices in the bench don't want that.
Considering their "official acts" immunity ruling, I'm not optimistic about how that will turn out when it happens.
They'll twist themselves into knots to create a standard that is inherently arbitrary so that republicans can violate the constitution but democrats cannot repeat the same action.
Roberts is going to have to make a choice; surprisingly, Barrett may vote with the liberals
I have a hard time seeing Barrett, Roberts or Kavanaugh saying the Executive can just flat out ignore statute and impound funds. That turns us into a banana republic.
Don't put them above approving that if they get a cut. Maybe not Barrett, but the others.
I tend to agree but I want proof
A career official tried to undo Trump’s purge at USAID. He was then purged, too.
"The dramatic purge and counter-purge played out in emails obtained by The Washington Post, as Trump’s pause on aid upends humanitarian work around the world."
https://wapo.st/4aGbSA5
My wife has a family member who work for USAID abroad. All of her colleagues there have just lost their jobs – and she knows she is next. Above is gift link to a key article in The Washington Post on these developments.
As Toiler On the Sea clearly indicates – with alarm that cannot be overstated – is that what we see at USAID is just the tip of the iceberg.
I'm so sorry for you all . . .USAID is a pittance of the budget and yet it's getting this treatment. Pure cruelty; they don't deserve this and most tragic of all are the millions of people who'll now suffer because the head of the richest country on Earth decided he doesn't give a shit.
The repercussions, just of the USAID intervention, are monumental. WaPo’s article, which is well worth reading, delineates how and why.
Moreover, China will substitute for the U.S. aid. Watch.
yup; it's all about future market potential, and Xi is a million times more shrewd than Trump
While Trump is playing Checkers, Xi is playing Wei Ch'i (Go).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)
While Americans businessmen are overfocused on quarterly results, annual reports and stock prices, the Chinese are trying to fulfill five-year plans and planning 20–30 years ahead.
During the financial crisis of 2007–2008, Chinese diplomats and trade representatives were traveling the world, offering aid/contracts to various struggling countries in return for ensuring a steady supply of essential minerals and other resources that China would need during the next decades.
Trump is playing Russian roulette, not checkers. If he were deliberately trying to sabotage the country, would he have done anything differently from what he's done?
Ultimately, I think it'll have military implications, too.
absolutely
Pete Buttigieg rules out run for Michigan Governor. He's "seriously" considering a Senate run. And still a presidential run in 2028 too.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/01/buttigieg-michigan-governor-senate-bid-00201947
I’d rather him not run for the senate.
Agreed among the statewide options; I am thinking he runs for the White House instead
He won’t win if he goes straight Presidential. Mayor of South Bend doesn’t cut it.
not to touch on the forbidden subject but I think that is the path he takes (win or lose)
I would rather see Pete Buttigieg as an articulate voice in the Shadow Cabinet, as proposed by Timothy Snyder. The idea of Democrats forming a Shadow Cabinet has been mentioned in comments here by numerous people.
they'll never do it imo
Either Senate or President (or neither.) Not both.
Maybe the biggest potential problem for us holding that Senate seat is Buttigieg being nominated and then doing little to counter the impression that he's more interested in using it to run for the WH than in serving the people of Michigan.
Nominating Buttigieg for a U.S. Senate race in Michigan would be effectively handing a Senate seat to the Republicans. The GOP attacks on him being a carpetbagger from Indiana write themselves.
Yup. Not sure why Republicans get away with it but we sure won’t. Especially not a gay guy.
They didn't get away with it. Slotkin made a huge issue about Mike Rogers residence. Although in his case he was from Mich but moved to Florida and didn't really move back.
Yeah, but they often do get away with it.
Fair
Not to mention the homophobia-laden attacks on him as well.
Eh. Less of a worry. Michigan has already elected a lesbian statewide. And other states have elected gay governors.
Warning: rant.
This is unhelpful: https://politicalwire.com/2025/02/01/democrats-wonder-where-their-leaders-are/
"For months, party activists have felt[...]incensed at the leaders who first went along with Joe Biden’s decision to run again."
That was the default decision, and it's water under the bridge. But at least these are unspecified people expressing their feelings privately or not for attribution. What's really fucked up is this kind of second-guessing: https://politicalwire.com/2025/01/31/dnc-chair-says-democrats-should-have-stuck-with-biden/
I'm glad he's the -outgoing- chair. It's understandable, though in exceedingly poor grace and showing bad judgment, for Biden himself to say he made a mistake bowing out and would have won. While it's impossible to know exactly how many additional voters would have voted for him because he's a white man and not a Black/Asian woman or how many additional people would have voted against him or stayed home because they blamed him for inflation or thought he was not capable of functioning as president, it's very unlikely he would have won and he should have shut up about that. But anyone else publicly second-guessing his decision to bow out should in my opinion never have a position of leadership in the party. And a word about some other activists: https://politicalwire.com/2025/01/31/democrats-get-shouted-down-by-their-own-activists/
"The final forum of candidates running to lead the Democratic National Committee was derailed at numerous points by climate protesters"
What the fuck is wrong with them? Trump is trying to end the constitutional system, the independence and professionalism of the civil service, governance, alliances, and trade relationships, and create chaos, the Democrats are out of power, and instead of unifying, these imbeciles are disrupting a meeting of the party that's out of power in Washington and is the one that believes in science and is actually trying to do something to deal with global warming. Do they understand the immediate threat of fascism, at a time when Trump is trying to unilaterally revoke the temporary protected status of hundreds of thousands of people living and working legally in the U.S. and empowering ICE to detain American citizens on mere suspicion of being undocumented immigrants?
And about the political commentators who are sanctimoniously pronouncing Biden's presidency a dismal failure, clinched by inflation in an inflationary worldwide recovery from a pandemic the likes of which hadn't been seen since 1919, his supposedly electing Trump, and then his unwise remarks after the fact about Harris and his having made a mistake bowing out: You are part of the problem represented by the huge media corporations that just can't wait to give Trump multi million-dollar bribes as "settlements" for frivolous lawsuits by Trump and kiss his ass every which way.
But you're also missing the point. We can talk about unpatriotic Republicans, subversion by foreign powers and probably even greater subversion by domestic-based oligarchs (not all of them citizens), timidity and slowness by the Justice Department, egregious sabotage by the courts, successful delaying tactics by Trump, political commentators and reporters who are incentivized to pretend that merely imperfect Democrats should be treated with at least normal confrontation and disrespect but Trump should be
treated as if he were a normal politician and/or to treat politics as a bloodless game even after seeing the blood on worldwide TV, and we can acknowledge that eloquent and impressive speeches were never Biden's forte, though he wasn't elected for that, and that his speaking deteriorated in the last 4 years, leading to what I think are false beliefs about his being incompetent to execute the office, whereas he continued to do great things till the end. But all of that ultimately misses the point.
So who is to blame for Trump and the Republicans being given the keys to the country again? Ultimately, though plenty of other people have acted deplorably, only one group is fundamentally responsible: a plurality of Americans who voted. Say what you want about all the others, but the voters knew what happened when Trump and the Republicans had a trifecta before, and they said "We want more of that!"
And if the human race survives the ravages of global warming, historians will treat Biden very differently, as the last opportunity the American voters took to avoid driving the country into collapse. And don't try to claim I'm "catastrophizing": I'm not saying the collapse will happen within the next 4 years, but I do think this election marks the final step likely to ensure it. Only time will tell, but never forget who is really to blame. History won't.
I think the Rolling Stone article from just after the inauguration really nails it.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-inauguration-2024-win-democrats-failed-1235241327/
Much like in 1930s Germany, the institutions that were supposed to protect us failed because of weak and timid leaders. Making Merrick Garland AG was Biden's fatal error. It was a cascade of failure up and down from every institution. The Justice system, the Media, and the Government all failed, and now we all reap what they sowed.
I don't blame climate protestors for acting out. Why should they be expected to unify with people who are sitting at home right now while Elon Musk takes over the government payment systems? How are they showing that they will be trusted stewards if they're just gonna run the same playbook over and over again? What is their strategy to take back power? Sending text messages about how bad Trump is and that's why you should send us $20 to help fight back?
Truthfully a lot of this is coming from frustration on my part as well. As a brown Latino who was a loyal party foot soldier since 2004 arguing with my middle school friends why Bush was awful I feel somewhat betrayed because I put my trust in the system and in our institutions and they have utterly and completely failed us. That's why I believe we can't just do things business as usual anymore. People want things shaken up so why don't we be the party that shakes things up for good? People don't want to go back to a system that hasn't worked for them for over 40 years and if that's what Dems are proposing then I don't think they've learned anything.
The Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act, and people like Newsom are acting on the state level. Believe me, I know that global warming is existential for the human race, and I'm pessimistic that it will save itself, but attacking the party that's actually done and doing things by disrupting their meeting is not the way to effect positive change. I'm a socialist, so in no way is a party as relatively right-wing as the Democrats ever my ideal, but they are not the problem in the U.S., especially today.
They may not be the problem but at this juncture I think they're far from the solution because of the ossified leadership in the party that is just a continuation of the old guard of incremental change when drastic action will need to be taken to fix this and maybe it's past the point of no return.
That "ossified leadership" passed and signed the Inflation Reduction Act and had more planned if the fucking voters hadn't sabotaged everything.
Any drastic action on climate would be incredibly unpopular and would just result in a red wave in the next election. It's either incremental change or nothing for the foreseeable future.
Because the idiotic/successfully misled American voters keep electing saboteurs like Reagan, the Bushes and Trump, drastic action will be necessary to save worldwide civilization. The alternative will be collapse, and I agree that that's likely, if that's what you mean to say.
Yes unfortunately the sweetspot time for incremental change was 25 years ago and we elected Bush twice . Although honestly I think a lot of the climate proposals you see from the late 90s/early 2000s had some significant issues that would've in some ways made emissions worse than the status quo via unintended consequences (e.g. climate proposals from that period called for MASSIVE investments/subsidies for biofuels for cars)
The sweet spot time was the 1980s. Had Carter been re-elected, he could have continued to concentrate on conservation and solar energy. But the Supreme Court's selection of G.W. Bush may have been the death knell for any sort of effective relatively mild climate transition policy.
Ooh yeah even more massive biofuels would have been a disaster.
Honestly, hybridization out of a “peak oil”/efficiency argument would have been the way to go, and battery tech would have been much better for electrification by present day
As someone who lives in the North and experiences winter, snow, and cold temperatures every year, it is frankly appalling how many people here whine and complain about the cold and the snow. And I have increasingly come to the conclusion over the past couple of years that this irrational fear and/or hatred of cold weather is a HUGE reason why there is so little enthusiasm on the part of the electorate to take any action against climate change.
I hate to say it, but the average uninformed voter hears that the climate is warming, and thinks to themselves, "Sounds good to me! No more icy roads or shoveling snow!".
If Democrats really want the electorate to get behind them in terms of dealing with climate change, we have to instill in the American people an appreciation of winter, and snow, and cold weather. Because that appreciation is sadly lacking in way too many people.
People hate MN/Dakota cold, but they love the seasons, and climate change is killing the change of seasons (really the change I've noticed in just the past decade has been really depressing)
What it amounts to is that most Americans are ignorant or stupid.
I don’t know about drastic but there have been for years now new breaking developments in science to combat climate change and global warming. This particularly includes technology. Same goes with emphasizing sustainable design and development of buildings so they can not only withstand climate change but also translate into cost saving incentives for homeowners.
That said, Democrats running on just simply adapting isn’t going to help them win elections. The party has already been losing in the messaging battle in the LA fires. Thank god Newsom isn’t running for re-election as Governor of California or he’d have serious problems.
How have they been losing on messaging in regard to the L.A. fires?
Sunrise is very problematic in many ways. Climate/environment is literally my #1 voting position (or maybe tied with healthcare) and I think they are terrible for the cause.
Were they the ones who pulled this idiotic stunt?
Several of them were affiliated with it, according to the article, but it probably wasn't specifically instigated or directed by the group.
Don't forget the MI, MN and NM trifectas all passed strong climate legislation as well (NM's not as strong as the others but given it's reliance on oil money what they did do has been a big deal)
“Why should they be expected to unify with people are sitting at home right now”. They showed up to an event with people clearly not sitting at home right now.
No, being loud and annoying accomplishes absolutely nothing and just makes us all look all bad. Those people are clowns who hurt their own goals.
exactly; it's both horrible and naive politics
Just like the morons who last year thought that blocking the Golden Gate Bridge would somehow force policy change on an issue that we're disallowed from directly discussing here....
it's all performance art; not helping anything at all
It's past time for the sun to set on the "Sunrise Movement". In the last contested Democratic presidential primary they mostly promoted one candidate rather than their supposed cause, and since then their activism (which is little better than whining and performativeness) has often been less about climate change than the leftist grievance du jour.
And good points both about misguided leftist protestors and media malfeasance, as well as both positively and negatively about Biden.
And speaking of Biden, if Jamie Harrison really thinks Dems would have been better off sticking with him through November, then there's a whole host of Democrats who won competitive Senate, House, and state/local elections who might beg to differ.
Some of the climate protestors are such fringe ultraleftists that they actually believe the 'heighten the contradictions' crap and assume that they'll be the ones to win the power struggle after everything collapses.
And yeah, Biden's claims he would have won are about as convincing as Beavis' 'I woulda kicked his ass'.
Democrats really need to ensure that discussion about climate change is meaningful.
Arnold Schwarzenegger had a good idea about this when he was interviewed by David Axelrod years ago.
https://youtu.be/OX5qbuAGOM4?si=UiiKwsTbgQPsdYNo
Excellent post
The three new DNC vice chairs will be:
Artie Blanco, longtime Nevada/Reid Machine Latino organizer.
Malcolm Kenyatta, 34. PA state rep and failed PA 2024 Auditor candidate. Openly gay.
David Hogg, 24, Parkland, FL survivor and gun control activist.
Kenyatta was also a US Senate candidate in 2022, losing the primary to John Fetterman (as did Conor Lamb as well).
I haven't been too impressed with Hogg over the last five years or so--he was starting to resemble a political one hit wonder struggling to stay relevant or effective. So good on him for earning a second wind.
Delighted to see that David Hogg won! That young Parkland Massacre survivor is going places, and he is already selflessly contributing so much. Here is a stellar interview that Simon Rosenberg did with David Hogg:
https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/my-interview-with-david-hogg-fighting
I turned off an interview he did on Pod Save America because I thought he was blaming Democrats too much and unhelpfully.
Well, this one is worth watching – and that Hogg is to be lauded for the good, helpful ideas that he shares. Give it a chance. (It’s been a long time since I watched Pod Save America.)
Does he have a knack for reaching the young, low-info noncollege independents that we have so much trouble with? It seems to me that he (and probably Kenyatta) would appeal mostly to people who are already firmly inside the tent.
Yeah, they seem like picks meant to counter the "old and moderate" label rather than to help win elections.
But at least it's more geographic diversity
Can’t stand Hogg.
I've got it, it just hit me!!
If Democrats want to win in swing or red territory, look no further than INDEPENDENT Dan Osborn in Nebraska, who came closer than anyone ever imagined to knocking off Sen. Deb Fischer (R). Merge his platform with Sherrod Brown/Tim Ryan/Marcy Kaptur and that's the path to populism!! 💙🇺🇲
Midterms could be just the beginning!! 🙏
Spot on! Our candidates must fit their state and district. In some cases, such as Nebraska or Utah, this might even mean promoting someone who is not carrying the Democratic brand.
Right, but he didn't win, and we shouldn't expect wins from such candidates in such states. Of course, it's worth a try when possible, though.
Osborn did much better than Greg Orman did in his Senate campaign in the 2014 KS-SEN race when he ran as an Independent. Of course, we’re talking about two different Independents in different red states but they both had the freedom of not having being beholden to the Democratic Party.
I mentioned this before but one of the issues Osborn stood for in his campaign was getting money out of politics. That may have helped him make the race closer than expected although I’m sure it wasn’t the only issue factoring in.
Are dems willing to let a candidate like Osborn take the necessary positions to win? There was a lot of complaining about Manchin among dem activists. And Osborn was quite a bit to the right of Manchin.
Are dems comfortable supporting a candidate that wants to build the border wall, reduce illegal immigration and protect gun rights?
yes
The overriding question is: Will he/she caucus with the Democrats? (Or at lest not caucus with the Republicans.)
And let’s be clear: any Democrat who is glad to see Manchin replaced by Senator Jim Justice (R) is woefully ignorant or an idiot.
Osborn did an amazing job considering that state and the national environment
“He is not somebody that you can appease,” Gov. JB Pritzker, an Illinois Democrat, said in an interview. “We’ve got to stand up and fight. And by the way, at the state level, I think many of us are. But I think that we’ve got to make sure that in the Senate and the House, that the people who have a platform are standing up.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/02/us/politics/democrats-trump.html
Pritzker to my surprise has been one of the good ones
When were you surprised? He's been good for a long time.
I can't speak for Henrik, but I feel similarly and my reference is before he was elected. Pre-election I thought he'd be acceptable at best. Him being a billionaire with no history of elected office did not instill optimism.
I am glad that he proved my doubts to be unfounded. He's more than cleared that hurdle. If anything I'd highlight him as one of our governors that best gets it with respect to what's going on now and how we need to react to modern conservatism.
If he wins another term; he's running for the White House afterwards; I could definitely vote for the guy in primary that shall not be named; unlike others here, imo we have many outstanding choices, that's why I think the new DNC chair doesn't have to be some kind of Party National Spokesman (dude has never been elected to actual public office afaik)
Pritzker has been a blessing for my state of Illinois.