Taking responsibility and acting on legislative issues is not their forte. They’d rather bitch, moan, bellyache and demonize and most importantly be responsible for as little as possible. And draw a paycheck. Republican Town Halls are much more fun when they are not in charge. And republicans won’t admit it but no doubt the majority are so sick and tired of playing third and fourth fiddle to one of EPSTEINS Buddies. And they have that fiasco to look forward to once Johnson figures out he has a job and responsibilities. To the American people, not the White House.

We just showed ourselves we can win. Trump is gonna spend the next year showing the nation why we SHOULD.

Every single district. I don't care if DNC headhunters have to go into every bar in every maga district to find the ONE PERSON who can win that district as a dem.
Theyre out there. RUN THEM.

in absolutely the BEST ONE!

Howard Dean proved that in 2006 and 2008!

Then the Dems went back to "same-old-same-old!"

Mills would be 79 at the start of her term, and she is unapologetically pro-filibuster.

Killing the filibuster to pass legislation expanding SCOTUS is critical to restoring democracy and protecting the rights of the people, and must be a litmus test for all Dem senate candidates.

The Maine primary isn’t for eight months, and the filing deadline isn’t for six months- there is absolutely no urgency to presume Mills is the best and only candidate to beat Collins.

The filibuster is the only thing stopping the Senate from passing a "clean CR" and making it certain that Medicaid will be slashed and health insurance will go through the roof.

The control of the Senate will necessarily change from one party to the other. When the Rethuglicans control the Senate, the filibuster is our only protection

Be careful for what you wish.

The known benefits far outweigh any potential risks.

And? What would be the political after effects of killing the filibuster to pass a CR with such draconian cuts? Not the direct effects on the people, but the people’s response to the widespread suffering inflicted upon them by the republicans…

Once Dems regain power, if the govern effectively, and more importantly, fearlessly and unhesitatingly, the voters will reward them with majorities for the foreseeable future.

If the filibuster dies, the court is expanded, and Dems govern with the welfare of the people as their top priority, Republicans will never regain a trifecta (WH, house & senate) for at least a generation.

Otherwise, the filibuster will continue to be used as the “double edged sword” that it has always been: edge 1 - to block any substantive change that might benefit the people and give Dems an electoral advantage ; edge 2- to assist all senators in avoiding accountability to the voters for the failure of bills that don’t meet the approval of their donors and lobbyists.

Filibuster = no floor vote = no record for voters to hold senators accountable.

If we are to fight fascism NOW, the filibuster must die, and the court must be expanded.

No other measure will be sufficient if any law can be blocked or overturned.

While I'm in favor of an expanded court (and an expanded House which very few people talk about, I worry that an expanded court might look like a power grab and could backfire on us.

Removing the corruption and bias would allow Dems to pass new laws protecting voter rights, reproductive rights, corporate regulations, campaign finance restrictions etc. without fear of those laws being instantly overturned as somehow unconstitutional.

Respect for Stare decicis would return to the court, and restraining the executive branch would no longer be an impossible pipe dream.

If Dems expanded the court quickly upon regaining the trifecta in 2029, and then governed effectively, passing laws that provided immediate, tangible benefits to the people, there would be no “backfire” from the voters.

If everyone eligible could vote easily with no hassles, ICE was no longer terrorizing communities, student loans were forgiven, billionaires paid more taxes than teachers and bus drivers, women regained reproductive rights, families enjoyed affordable healthcare, child tax credits, and a higher minimum wage, I think voters would be much more likely to reward Dems with majorities for years to come.

Dems must not hesitate to govern effectively out of fear of “what the republicans might do”; we’ve seen the worst republicans can do…fearless governance by Dems can only make things better.

We must demand that our elected officials govern fearlessly, starting with killing the filibuster and expanding the court.

his SC pick? Worse than Kavanaugh? And then Barrett? Why are you focusing on making sure we don’t take BOLD actions?

And like I mentioned, I'm not necessarily against it. It's a game changer for sure. I just worry about unintended consequences. It's mainly the blow back. We've got this huge pool of fickle voters who are guided more by emotion than an understanding of policy.

I just think about the 2010 mid-year elections. How in the hell did that happen? Just two years before Obama took over during one of the most disastrous economic crisis since the depression and managed to steer us out of it. He took very bold measures to do so. And the tea party was born. And people got caught up in it.

If we are able to win the presidency, the Senate and House in 2028, you can bet by 2030, the Republicans will act like Trump never existed. And then the cycle will start anew.

Don't know enough about her record, but a pro-filibuster stance will not affect a vote on Supreme Court nominees since that particular action is not subject to a filibuster. That's how we got Kavanaugh, Coney-Barrett and Gorsuch. The Dems couldn't filibuster them.

Time to end the gridlock.

Look at a bunch of the states we won Senate seats in that year.

He’s not interested, and Judy would chain him to the bed if he took up that job again. But Howard will be 77 in ten days. Any DNC chair with half a brain would be on the phone to him picking his brain for about ten hours a week, since Howard is the one former DNC chair who can really claim to have been there and really DID do that.

We don't have the same number of likely targets in the Senate as in that year---
but it's not totally impossible.....

50-50. We have Sherrod Brown in OH, possible ME flip, and a strong candidate in NC. That and holding our others gets us to 50-50.

In a PERFECT storm, I can see IA, NE, and KS as possibilities, too. Remote, but we'd just need one. Yes, there are other complications (like Fetterman), but I feel better than I did Monday.

And like sherrod browns chances

Since I'm not one of those Maine Democratic primary voters,
I'm not about to proclaim some such sweeping verdict about
whom they will nominate for that seat,
seven months before their primary election....

Conventional political calculations from the past would argue that you are correct---
but they would also have prevented Trump from being renominated by the GQP,
let alone elected....

Or as you probably meant, wtf!

Dems who cave clearly don’t stand for much other than themselves and their own electability. Surely not Democratic, democratic, or progressive values.

But call your DEM Senators and tell them to hold the fucking line.

A couple of friends are up for re-election next year, and the one that worries me most is also probably the highest IQ in the Senate. Mark Kelly in AZ and Hick in CO should be safe. Sharp, personable, eloquent, and unafraid to ask questions, Jon Ossoff of Georgia is, as far as I recall, the only Democratic Senator running for re-election in a State that Trump won in 2024. I have stretched my contribution budget to support Jon’s campaign because I firmly believe that he is the caliber of person our Senate desperately needs. Being from Georgia, he is also more vulnerable than the rest.

Sherrod Brown? Well, sure, he’d be far better than any Republican, and he knows the territory of the Senate. But he seriously underwhelmed me when he called last year, and is no longer a high priority contribution.

Janet Mills? Yeah, yeah, I don’t need to be hit over the head with her age every second post here. I now know how old she is. I have known her for a couple of years, now, and the one thing I never asked her was her age. But she is experienced, hard-working and extremely sharp. I have no problem at all with her in the Senate for a term while Maine searches for the next Ed Muskie. She is also completely not full of herself, and I love that. I met her when she was on a panel I was leading a couple of years ago, and all I knew was everyone’s name and city. During a break, I casually asked her what she did in Maine. She casually answered, “oh, I’m the governor.” Her tone of voice was so low-key, she might as well have said, “oh, I’m a cashier at a local CVS.” And yet in a meeting where Trump was blustering, she faced him down and said, “I’ll see you in court.” I don’t discount that someone better might yet enter the Maine senate primary, but so far, they haven’t, and so I’m for Janet.

and everything would have to fall in line just right---
but we should DEFINITELY make a fight for it,
and target a few of the best red state seats that are up for re-election,
which were not very seriously considered before!

(Texas, Iowa and Nebraska come to mind,
just off the top of my head...)

((in addition to Maine, North Carolina and Ohio, of course--
and maybe one other state I can't recall at this moment!))