Newsom said having them both in the primary field would be “mutual assured destruction,” citing their overlapping political bases and circles. “The [Venn] diagram on that is just pure crossover”
If you know your political base is exactly the same as someone who already ran and lost, maybe that’s a sign that there’s something deficient with your politics.
My theory is that the federal nature of the US leads to a default popular attitude of hostility toward any policy that originates above the state level, unless there are commercial interests willing to pay for the marketing and campaign contributions to sell it to the people and/or legislators. And businesses aren’t that interested in an improvement that only marginally affects their profits.
Alpacas, crows, and jaguars.
Between this and his friendly relations with Trump, Hochul, and Tisch, I get the impression that Mamdani has little interest in being a political leader or in the broader socialist movement—he just wants to be an effective administrator and happens to think socialism is the best approach.
Don’t the Chinese get tired of having every route to their country being named the “X Silk Road”?
The idea that Trump’s “intel” team was inclined to dismiss the threat is the first thing that makes me think it might have been real after all.
The quietest one I’ve found so far is Phillips Sonicare—it’s not much louder than an open tap or running shower.
Quietness is a quality easy to overlook until you find yourself reluctant to use it for fear of waking up everyone in your household/apartment building/surrounding neighborhood.
My point isn’t whether or not the best candidate won, it’s that the outcome depended on how many candidates each faction split their votes between. A bigger field wasn’t a reflection of “where the base was” if more candidates supporting a position made it less likely to win.
I agree with the goal… but while I think a competitive primary leads to better outcomes, too many candidates leads to arbitrary outcomes that depend more on which factions have the lowest candidate-to-voter ratio instead of which have the most actual voters (at least the way it’s currently structured). Plus it increases the chances of a brokered convention, which leads to voters feeling disenfranchised no matter who wins.
IMHO whats important in 2028 is we have a big field in the primaries so we can see where the base is then.
I agree in principle, but the Democrats had a historically big field in 2020 and ended up with Biden. Sanders could arguably have won if Warren had pulled out earlier (reducing the number of candidates).
What would Schumer get from that? I can’t see him throwing away whatever’s left of his career just to help a Californian get the presidential nomination instead of another New Yorker.
Why would AOC need to cut a deal to win Schumer’s seat? What other potential Senate candidate could defeat her, but would stay out of the race for Newsom’s benefit?
Bi is the only completely certain sexual orientation—everything else is potentially contingent on the set of people we’ve met so far.
Do you continue being an idiot outside the context of the team?
I’d rather be surrounded by people more capable than me (at least if I care about the success of the task), but not at that cost.
They’re not selling gasoline, they’re selling the experience of living in an alternate reality.
I mean, the Whig party hasn’t lost an election in 100 years…
Given that birthright citizenship has been the rule since the Civil War, is he saying that all of subsequent American history is an example of these “grotesque results”?
The rest of its brood had already dissolved.
Being a woman is the only thing that gives someone access to women’s experiences, but being a woman doesn’t automatically make someone a feminist. Neither thing presumes the other.