[djimi]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Knuts

Spijtig dat we geen heel recente en veelvuldige datapunten hebben over de populariteit van deze of gene politieke strekking in de VS.

/s

Er zijn de verkiezingsresultaten, er zijn de politici & de donors, er zijn de professionele opiniemakers & spindoctors, er zijn de geïncorporeerde podcasters & pundits, …


en dan zijn er de kiezers zelf, en de mensen die er mede voor zorgden dat die kiezers opdaagden, velen daarvan voor het eerst.

Binnen die groep zijn nu er eenmaal een heleboel zich aan het organiseren omdat ze niet de indruk hebben dat ondermeer “Chuckles & The Hack” begrepen hebben dat het tijd is voor ‘change’.

Het waren heus niet enkel verstokte Dems die ‘blue’ gestemd hebben.

Ik blijf alvast volgen wat ginder aan het gebeuren is, op zo veel mogelijk kanalen met politiek-journalistieke invalshoek die sponsoring systematisch weigeren.

Alleszins interessanter dan een Scandinavische misdaadserie of een voetbaltoernooi.

[Pandareus]

Dit vind ik een heel lezenswaardig stuk over de vraag wie speaker moet worden en hoe beperkt het gewicht is van de DSA binnen de partij :

Some Democrats are targeting Jeffries and Schumer. That’s a mistake.

If Democrats oust their current House and Senate leaders, they'll snatch defeat from the jaws of victory


On Tuesday, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elissa Slotkin held a joint press conference about Sen. Chuck Schumer’s future as their caucus’ leader. Sanders said he would not support Schumer, and Slotkin said she is withholding her support for now.

To the casual observer, this shot across the bow, directed at Schumer, might seem odd. It was, after all, just a week ago that congressional Democrats scored a historic midterm win. Yet even as the celebrations were underway on Tuesday night, some Democrats, particularly in the party’s liberal wing, pushed for Democrats to dump both Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries as leaders of the party’s Senate and House caucuses.
A number of House members or members-elect, largely on the left of the caucus, have not committed to supporting Jeffries as the next House speaker. A petition on Change.org calling on Democrats to reject Jeffries already has more than a million signatures. Axios reported that “Democratic House members and members-elect are being bombarded with phone calls and emails” asking them not to elect Jeffries.

As for the Senate, most of the new class of freshman senators have refused to endorse Schumer’s bid for majority leader. Sen. Chris Van Hollen said he is in “active listening mode” about a run.

But none of this posturing will likely amount to much. Come January, Jeffries and Schumer will almost certainly be the leaders of their respective caucuses.
Indeed, with the exception of President Donald Trump, no two people are as responsible for the Democrats’ smashing victory as Jeffries and Schumer. Jeffries raised more than $800 million for Democratic candidates, kept his House caucus united in opposing the GOP’s policy agenda and recruited many of the candidates who prevailed last week. And in a caucus that could include as many as 60 Black members, it’s hard to imagine that blocking the first Black House speaker will be a well-received move.

As for Schumer, he actively lobbied Sen.-elect Roy Cooper of North Carolina, Sen.-elect Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Mary Peltola of Alaska, Sen.-elect Josh Turek of Iowa and Scott Colom of Mississippi to run for Senate seats that Trump won in 2024. All emerged victorious or currently lead their races. And when Schumer’s preferred candidates in Maine and Michigan crashed and burned, he still threw tens of millions of dollars into both races.
Instead of cheering Jeffries and Schumer on, however, some Democrats want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The argument against the two men is that they represent the dreaded Democratic establishment — and that they are out of touch and too corrupted by Washington to bring real political change. Others blame them for the Democrats’ 2024 election debacle or argue that both men are poor public communicators. On the latter, Jeffries’ and Schumer’s critics have a point. The best congressional leaders, however, are defined not by their oration, but by their organizing skills.

However, the attacks from the left on Jeffries and Schumer would have more oomph had the party’s left wing emerged from the primaries in greater numbers..
In safe Democratic districts, left-wing candidates affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America won a number of contested primaries — though several benefited from running in multicandidate fields. But outside solid Democratic strongholds, establishment Democrats mostly beat back left-wing challenges.
As a result, the DSA/Squad contingent in the House stands at around 16. That number would matter more if Democrats had a slim edge in the House. But Democrats are likely to have a more than 40-seat majority. And as many as 60 of those Democrats will have won in districts that went for Trump in 2024.
The situation is similar in the Senate. Outside blue states, more liberal candidates fared poorly, with Michigan’s Abdul El-Sayed and Minnesota’s Peggy Flanagan winning closely contested primaries, and Maine’s Troy Jackson emerging from the wreckage of Graham Platner’s failed Senate bid. If Democrats prevail in Mississippi and Alaska, 18 of their 56 senators will come from states that Trump won in 2024, including eight from states Trump won three times.

If you’re Jeffries and Schumer, who are you more interested in keeping happy and politically protected — the five dozen House Democrats and eight Senators in purple or even red-leaning districts, or the handful of members in districts and states that perennially vote for Democrats?

Oddly, the liberal wing of the party is a victim of the Democrats’ outsize success last week. With such large majorities in both chambers, neither Jeffries nor Schumer is beholden to the left. Quite simply, they don’t need their votes.
This is not to say that either leader will ignore this contingent. There’s no reason to pick a fight with any Democrats and, truth be told, the Democratic caucus is probably more liberal-leaning than any other in American history. Even the Democrats’ more moderate members are decidedly more liberal than the party’s moderate wing from two or three decades ago. More often than not, the Democratic caucus will be united around the party’s policy agenda.

But for Jeffries and Schumer, the ultimate goal, aside from enacting their policy agendas, is to maintain their majorities. That means they will lean toward legislative priorities that ensure that when Democrats who won in purple or red locales face tough electoral fights, they are well-positioned to hold their seats.

After Republicans were walloped in the 2008 election, the party turned in on itself, and the so-called tea party defeated one establishment Republican after another. As a result, the GOP leadership had little choice but to cater to its angry right wing. And arguably, the rise of the tea party contributed to Trump’s takeover of the party in 2016.

That didn’t happen with Democrats this year, even after the humiliation of 2024. Democratic voters — as they often do — chose pragmatic, centrist, largely inoffensive candidates. If the party’s left wants to exercise more power, it needs to do what it failed to do this year — win a few more elections. Until then, it will just be another faction of a broad Democratic majority — and a fairly powerless one.

https://www.ms.now/opinion/jeffries-...democrats-vote

[Knuts]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pandareus

Dit vind ik een heel lezenswaardig stuk over de vraag wie speaker moet worden en hoe beperkt het gewicht is van de DSA binnen de partij :


https://www.ms.now/opinion/jeffries-...democrats-vote

Het klinkt wat vreemd, maar DSA-achtigen en hun schreeuwerige podcasters en mediafiguren hebben de Democratische overwinning nog steeds niet verteerd.

Zin uit het geciteerde artikel: "Democratic voters — as they often do — chose pragmatic, centrist, largely inoffensive candidates."
Hopelijk doen ze dat in twee jaar ook.

[Pandareus]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Knuts

Het klinkt wat vreemd, maar DSA-achtigen en hun schreeuwerige podcasters en mediafiguren hebben de Democratische overwinning nog steeds niet verteerd.

Zin uit het geciteerde artikel: "Democratic voters — as they often do — chose pragmatic, centrist, largely inoffensive candidates."
Hopelijk doen ze dat in twee jaar ook.

Ik vind dat ook een vreemd fenomeen... De democraten hebben zonet een formidabele overwinning geboekt, en die DSA gasten lopen te zagen en te doen alsof dat grotendeels HUN verdienste is en ZIJ de te volgen koers gaan uitzetten...

De optelsom van de zetels vertelt nochtans iets anders.

[Pandareus]

Bij de republikeinen zijn er toch al enkelen die voorbij de impact van vandaag kijken, en aan het rekenen gaan wat er kan (en niet kan...) gebeuren voor hun partij in 2028.

Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.Va.) says his party can “forget” about retaking the Senate majority in 2028 just a week after brutal losses for Republicans on deep-red turf.

“You can forget 2028. Absolutely,” Justice told the Washington Examiner. “This is such a colossal blow that it is beyond belief how colossal this is to America.”

Democrats flipped seven seats in the upper chamber, with two more races — Alaska and Mississippi — outstanding.

The party picked up Senate seats in North Carolina, Maine, Texas, Ohio, South Carolina, Iowa and Kansas and are leading in Alaska and Mississippi — a possible nine-seat gain that would put Democrats at 56 Senate seats, the most a party has won in an election since 2008.

The big gain may make it easier to govern, but it also dramatically increases the likelihood of a Democratic Senate majority beyond 2028.

Even if Democrats lose Alaska and Mississippi, Republicans would need to flip five seats to win back the Senate in 2028, or four if they hold the presidency. The clearest opportunities to do so are Georgia, where Sen. Raphael Warnock (D) is up for reelection, Arizona, where Sen. Mark Kelly (D) is up, Pennsylvania with Sen. John Fetterman’s (D) seat and Nevada with Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto.

So if they win the presidency, those four could be enough. If they lose the presidency, it is not immediately clear where Republicans could have a chance to pick up enough seats, and if they lose the outstanding races in Alaska and Mississippi, their odds look even tougher.

Democrats, meanwhile, may even have a path to the coveted 60 seats in the Senate, a filibuster-proof majority, a feat not achieved since 2010.

The clearest targets for them include Wisconsin with Sen. Ron Johnson (R) and North Carolina with Sen. Ted Budd (R). But Democrats pulled off major victories in places like Kansas, Iowa and South Carolina this year, all three of which have seats up in 2028.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) ran the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) this cycle, the Senate Democrats’ campaign arm, and announced she would volunteer to head the organization again.

Gillibrand told Nexstar this week that she is already looking to expand her party’s Senate majority in 2028.

“I think there’s more states we can put in play,” Gillibrand said. “There’s a lot of opportunity next cycle that we can try to build on what we did this cycle.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...majority-2028/

[Tavek]

Ja, volgens mij, als Trump loco blijft gaan, hebben de DEM's in 2028 >60 zetels.

En dan kunnen ze alles stemmen wat ze willen indien we ook president leveren.

[Knuts]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pandareus

Bij de republikeinen zijn er toch al enkelen die voorbij de impact van vandaag kijken, en aan het rekenen gaan wat er kan (en niet kan...) gebeuren voor hun partij in 2028.

Misschien moet Senator Justice overwegen weer Democraat te worden (zo lang geleden is dat voor hem niet).

[Pandareus]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Tavek

Ja, volgens mij, als Trump loco blijft gaan, hebben de DEM's in 2028 >60 zetels.

En dan kunnen ze alles stemmen wat ze willen indien we ook president leveren.

Ja, het is cynisch, maar eigenlijk moeten we hopen dat Orange man voluit doorgaat in zijn bestaande zotternij, en vooral de 'goeie raad' volgt van zijn nieuwe chief of staf Stephen Miller en zijn incompetente minister van defensie. Dat hij blijft leuteren over zijn onnozele vijver, zijn ballroom en zijn triomfboog. Dat hij blijft de kont van Poetin kussen, ruzie maken met buurlanden canada en mexico, probeert om zijn zwakzinnige tarieven débacle levendig te houden, enz enz.

Dan is de GOP kansloos in 2028.

De vraag richting 2028 zal zijn : vanaf wanneer gaan de eerste GP tenoren durven breken met Trump, en zich echt distantiëren van hem ?

Na januari ? Als er een nieuwe impeachment procedure ter stemming gaat komen over Hegseth in het nieuw samengestelde parlement ? Of als er democratische parlementaire initiatieven zouden komen om Trump zijn tarieven-onzin in te perken ? Wanneer gaan grote muilen zoals Ted Cruz het aandurven ? Gaat Rubio zijn schup afkuisen als minister om zijn kansen voor 2028 gaaf te houden ?