She's a Joe Manchin-style Democrat. If he were 20 years younger, he would have done the same as WV lurched to the right, and he wanted to maintain office. As Democrats become more vilified in very rural areas in the South, there is an incentive to switch parties and hope your name recognition will keep your seat in the primary when you know that as a Democrat, you're toast in the general election.
2026 Election Watch. Races, Tomfoolery, And Other Things
- Thread starter LTParis
- Start date
- Status
And then watch the SC give everyone whiplash as they change their mind on the legality of partisan gerrymandering.
You can really see the enthusiasm for Mamdani among regular New Yorkers who work thankless jobs, such as driving Taxis and Ubers. More importantly, you can see his genuine love for them as well.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNRRqGEqXFs&t=77s
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNRRqGEqXFs&t=77s
Under 100,000. And for every one in the field, they need three to four in support roles—same proportion for active duty. Maybe they can deploy half for domestic duties in ostensibly non-combat missions.
But anything like that will trigger active resistance, including legal, political, civil unrest, and possibly armed confrontations due to overreach.
But anything like that will trigger active resistance, including legal, political, civil unrest, and possibly armed confrontations due to overreach.
You sweet summer child. Like they won't find a way to grandfather in any already gerrymandered Republican majority states due to some specious and completely made-up legal "principle."
BY banning nationwide injunctions that were used to combat pervasive constitutional violations, the SC is allyign with Trump and allowing him to violate due process rights for tens of thousands of people.
He does not need to violate the orders of an ally. They occasionally pretend to slap him down, and then he zigs a bit and does the same thing anyway.
He does not need to violate the orders of an ally. They occasionally pretend to slap him down, and then he zigs a bit and does the same thing anyway.
This is reasonable sounding, but bullshit. These laws are always designed to lessen voting by groups that tend to be somewhat more liberal, such as women, the poor, racial minorities, and students. They allow pistol carry licenses to be used for ID, but not college IDs. They are almost always accompanied by the closure of DMV offices, the removal of ballot drop boxes, and other measures to inconvenience people in more Democratic counties.
Shit, the State Department recently stopped allowing 401(c)(3) libraries from processing passport applications, even as passports are more in demand to prevent citizens from being detained by ICE and CBP, and since they will be the only generally available ID that also provides citizenship. Most public libraries are organized this way and are not technically municipally operated.
So, no.. It's a big fucking deal, and truthy common-sense boosting of ID requirements for voting is ignorant at best, and that is generous.
The SAVE Act requires proof of citizenship, which even a Real ID driver's license does not provide. It also requires a birth certificate to match the ID used. Most women would be subject to additional hoops.
And I don't believe for a minute that conservative rural areas in swing states will conform. There will be exceptions, like this one, that exempt West Virginians from complying with Real ID laws.
https://www.wdtv.com/2026/02/13/new-bill-would-exempt-west-virginia-residents-having-obtain-real-id/
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hb5514 intr.htm&yr=2026&sesstype=RS&i=5514
Last edited:
The states where this is a big deal are one and the same as the ones that make it purposefully hard to register and vote.
Stiffer ID requirements for some people (college ID bad, pistol license good), no online registration, and no automatic registration when you move if you have already been verified.
This is accompanied by measures that make it harder to vote: fewer polling locations, shorter hours, no vote-by-mail, removal of drop boxes, and no water allowed to be provided in long lines.
This is about stoking fears about minorities and disenfranchising voters. White knighting on behalf of these people while also acknowledging how shit they are on the immigration enforcement front in other threads seems really weird to me.
Stiffer ID requirements for some people (college ID bad, pistol license good), no online registration, and no automatic registration when you move if you have already been verified.
This is accompanied by measures that make it harder to vote: fewer polling locations, shorter hours, no vote-by-mail, removal of drop boxes, and no water allowed to be provided in long lines.
This is about stoking fears about minorities and disenfranchising voters. White knighting on behalf of these people while also acknowledging how shit they are on the immigration enforcement front in other threads seems really weird to me.
This Supreme Court could decide to allow it to be deployed until it's adjudicated, just like the tariffs, and then take its sweet ass time to make a final determination, including sending it back down to trial courts to develop a record and determine facts. They could stretch it out until after 2028 very easily if they wanted.
To be fair is bullshit.
There is no reason to twist ourselves into knots to give any kind of benefit of the doubt for these laws since they require the expenditure of additional resources to increase turnout.
It's a tax on certain kinds of voters, mostly brown, poor, and liberal.
There is no reason to twist ourselves into knots to give any kind of benefit of the doubt for these laws since they require the expenditure of additional resources to increase turnout.
It's a tax on certain kinds of voters, mostly brown, poor, and liberal.
Because the SAFE Act, as structured, puts unfair burdens on women and the poor. It also basically invalidates the Motor Voter law and makes voting by mail extremely hard.
It also has a provision mandating the upload of voter rolls to the SAFE system for validation. It's a system that is notoriously unreliable and which is perennially out of date.
It's really simple. Why are you white-knighting a shit law that is being passed for shit reasons? We are not debating your spherical cow idea of what an ideal voter ID law would be. It's tiresome.
It also has a provision mandating the upload of voter rolls to the SAFE system for validation. It's a system that is notoriously unreliable and which is perennially out of date.
It's really simple. Why are you white-knighting a shit law that is being passed for shit reasons? We are not debating your spherical cow idea of what an ideal voter ID law would be. It's tiresome.
It's a bigger issue than that. Kansas is a case in point:
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/five-things-to-know-about-the-save-act/
Source of stats is the appellate decision:
https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/18-3133/18-3133-2020-04-29.pdf?ts=1588176048
It's right there... 12% of attempted valid registrations were blocked. Irrespective of which party it affects more, it is a large-scale disenfranchisement. Boosting it as "popular" is a shit opinion.
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/five-things-to-know-about-the-save-act/
Source of stats is the appellate decision:
https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/18-3133/18-3133-2020-04-29.pdf?ts=1588176048
It's right there... 12% of attempted valid registrations were blocked. Irrespective of which party it affects more, it is a large-scale disenfranchisement. Boosting it as "popular" is a shit opinion.
Except none of these laws go to the lengths the SAVE Act does, and none have invalidated the Motor Voter laws like this does. It's a whole different scale.
Your source also explicitly says that it required additional expenditure by Dems to contact and mobilize minority voters, which is an unfair burden. Combating disenfranchisement is not free.
Your source also explicitly says that it required additional expenditure by Dems to contact and mobilize minority voters, which is an unfair burden. Combating disenfranchisement is not free.
Nice try, but your source notes that maintaining turnout requires increased outreach, which comes at a cost. If anyone is speculating, it's you.
Voters are like automatic registration and same-day registration. When are those going to be on the table? There is a difference between support for generic voter ID laws and support for the SAVE Act.
I also want @GohanIYIan to explicitly state whether he supports the SAVE Act. All this dancing around and dodging that point is fucking disingenuous.
The SAVE Act is purpose-built to disenfranchise potentially tens of millions of voters. It violates the Constitution. It also destroys privacy.
I want to know if I am talking to a person who is all in on this bullshit or not. People who support wholesale curtailment of rights get harsher questions with no wiggle room.
If not, what SPECIFIC parts don't you support? The turning over of voter rolls? The heightened ID requirements above RealID? The in-person requirement? I am tired of talking about generalities when there is specific ratfuchery going on.
The SAVE Act is purpose-built to disenfranchise potentially tens of millions of voters. It violates the Constitution. It also destroys privacy.
I want to know if I am talking to a person who is all in on this bullshit or not. People who support wholesale curtailment of rights get harsher questions with no wiggle room.
If not, what SPECIFIC parts don't you support? The turning over of voter rolls? The heightened ID requirements above RealID? The in-person requirement? I am tired of talking about generalities when there is specific ratfuchery going on.
I can give a little benefit of the doubt due to some people liking playing devil advocate for the sake of debate. But after a while it gets tiresome having specific objections ignored.
I did a lot of Lincoln-Douglas debate in HS and college. I understand being able to argue the other side. It's good mental exercise. But.. you still need to debate and support the thesis, and you need to answer questions when asked. Being Pam Bondi should not be acceptable here.
I did a lot of Lincoln-Douglas debate in HS and college. I understand being able to argue the other side. It's good mental exercise. But.. you still need to debate and support the thesis, and you need to answer questions when asked. Being Pam Bondi should not be acceptable here.
It is very biased against women, and purposefully so with it's relaince on original birth certificates and exact name matching to current IDs. That is where it hits against Dems in a very disproportionate way.
But, you still have not answered. Do you personally support the SAVE Act as a good and just law? Stop tap-dancing. It's obvious you are avoiding taking a stand.
But, you still have not answered. Do you personally support the SAVE Act as a good and just law? Stop tap-dancing. It's obvious you are avoiding taking a stand.
It also creates a private right of action for muckrakers to sue officials and vote talliers for monetary damages, with no real standing or evidentiary requirements. This will result in thousands of muckrakers and opportunists suing local officials.
All this is being glossed over by people discussing it as if it's just a Voter ID law. This is why I want a direct answer on the actual law and not this bullshit hemming and hawing.
All this is being glossed over by people discussing it as if it's just a Voter ID law. This is why I want a direct answer on the actual law and not this bullshit hemming and hawing.
I don’t think that’s what he said. He thinks it’s good for the Democrats to support it, which I think is bullshit. And he talks about previous iterations of voter ID lawd, but have not seen him actually endorse the save act itself, nor any of the more controversial provisions, such as this private causes of action that would tie up vote, counting for months and lead to a shit ton of harassment.
I asked him to specifically say whether the Save Act is a good and just law at the bottom of the last page. He never answered that. I want THAT question answered. Whether it's a good idea to support it anyway is a different question, which he has answered in the affirmative, but I disagree, as it would be the equivalent of cutting our own throats.
The private cause of action and nullification of motor voter are bad enough on their own to make it worthwhile to oppose them to the end.
The private cause of action and nullification of motor voter are bad enough on their own to make it worthwhile to oppose them to the end.
She has walked that back a bit lately, and he has made it plain that he will enthusiastically support her if she beats him. Her base of black voters is also much more motivated than any of Talarico's major support groups. But he'll be a great proxy for her in reaching across the aisle, and she has actual government experience and is also a great communicator.
If I were a Texas Democratic voter, I would be OK with either one.
He has also discussed
He's extremely anti-corporate and anti-oligarch. I think the cynicism is unearned.
He's extremely anti-corporate and anti-oligarch. I think the cynicism is unearned.
He's not enough of an ass-kisser for Trump and he's still too leftie on a lot of economic issues like universal health care and higher marginal individual and corporate taxes. He is also a strong supporter of unions, opposes the SAVE Act, though supporting voter ID AND univrsal vote by mail.
Despite the caterwaling, he is not a Republican. He only holds a few views, important though they are, that make him a public relations only favorite with Republicans.
But he's a troll and enjoys rubbing his colleagues noses into the dirt because he's a misanthrope in some ways. He's also smart enough to know he will not get re-elected. He is currently at -40% net popularity among Democrats, so he will most probably lose the primary. Very few Republicans will vote for him as their favorite in PA. They don't vote like that.
With his current ratings, he makes Schumer, and Sinema from just before she dropped out, look like a party darling.
Despite the caterwaling, he is not a Republican. He only holds a few views, important though they are, that make him a public relations only favorite with Republicans.
But he's a troll and enjoys rubbing his colleagues noses into the dirt because he's a misanthrope in some ways. He's also smart enough to know he will not get re-elected. He is currently at -40% net popularity among Democrats, so he will most probably lose the primary. Very few Republicans will vote for him as their favorite in PA. They don't vote like that.
With his current ratings, he makes Schumer, and Sinema from just before she dropped out, look like a party darling.
A three-judge panel has again found that Alabama had purposefully discriminated based on race after the special master drafted the Congressional district map, which had been sent back for reconsideration after Callais. The opinion is remarkable considering these are two Trump-appointed judges on the panel.
They based their ruling on:
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5894918-alabama-republican-congressional-map-blocked/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/05/alabama-callais-redistricting-gerrymandering/
They based their ruling on:
- The Purcell Principle - changes to maps should not be made this close to an election
- There is no evidence of partisanship as a goal in the map's legislative history, and there is ample evidence of racial intent. Merely claiming that the goal is partisan at trial, after the fact, does not make it so
- The presumption of legislative good faith was overcome by the record
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5894918-alabama-republican-congressional-map-blocked/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/05/alabama-callais-redistricting-gerrymandering/
I think if a cop or two had died on site at the Capitol, directly from injuries, and especially gunshots, it would have overcome some of the intentional blinders some Trump supporters have to the violence. Because a few passed away from suicide and another from a stress-induced stroke later, they can just mumble along with the faithful line.
Unfortunately, you are correct more broadly, but an actual direct and proximate killing of a cop would short-circuit talking points about Babitt being the only death on J6.
McCarthy is looking at the parties. The Senate and House Dem committees raise plenty of money, and the Dem candidates have been outraising the Republican candidates.
- Status