Andy Craig
@andycraig.bsky.social
@theunpopulist.net
Election law and policy, liberalism and democracy, and occasional pugs.
Election law and policy, liberalism and democracy, and occasional pugs.
There's no reason to think Axelrod has any particular insight on this, and I haven't seen or heard of any indication whatsoever that anybody in the caucus intends to challenge Schumer. No trial balloons, no rumors, not the slightest hint from any of them. And they know how to do that if they wanted.
Schumer’s leadership potentially stands on uncertain ground amid the shutdown and criticism from members within his own party.
Schumer Likely Won’t Be Leader of Senate Democrats in 2027: David Axelrod
www.newsweek.com
November 11, 2025 at 5:09 AM
There's no reason to think Axelrod has any particular insight on this, and I haven't seen or heard of any indication whatsoever that anybody in the caucus intends to challenge Schumer. No trial balloons, no rumors, not the slightest hint from any of them. And they know how to do that if they wanted.
There has never been any question about this, it has been Johnson's stated position this whole time, and it's what House rules and precedents unambiguously require. Seating new members takes automatic priority over any other business. They've only been delaying by not doing any business at all.
BREAKING via Punchbowl
“Speaker Mike Johnson plans to swear in Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) before the House votes on a government funding package, according to sources familiar with the planning.“
“Speaker Mike Johnson plans to swear in Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) before the House votes on a government funding package, according to sources familiar with the planning.“
November 11, 2025 at 4:48 AM
There has never been any question about this, it has been Johnson's stated position this whole time, and it's what House rules and precedents unambiguously require. Seating new members takes automatic priority over any other business. They've only been delaying by not doing any business at all.
Reposted by Andy Craig
NEW: President Trump's pardon of his alleged 2020 co-conspirators was less about shielding them from past crimes, his adversaries say, than about signaling to others that he has their back if he needs them again in 2026 or 2028.
w/ @joshgerstein.bsky.social
www.politico.com/news/2025/11...
w/ @joshgerstein.bsky.social
www.politico.com/news/2025/11...
November 11, 2025 at 12:27 AM
NEW: President Trump's pardon of his alleged 2020 co-conspirators was less about shielding them from past crimes, his adversaries say, than about signaling to others that he has their back if he needs them again in 2026 or 2028.
w/ @joshgerstein.bsky.social
www.politico.com/news/2025/11...
w/ @joshgerstein.bsky.social
www.politico.com/news/2025/11...
Rhetorical pleas against infighting are always begging the question about who's actually on the same side as you.
The sooner we get past internal recriminations and back to fighting united, the better off we all are — the likelier our victory next November.
November 11, 2025 at 3:06 AM
Rhetorical pleas against infighting are always begging the question about who's actually on the same side as you.
Reposted by Andy Craig
These people don't have the first fucking clue how to deal with a bully
November 10, 2025 at 5:44 PM
These people don't have the first fucking clue how to deal with a bully
They already had this, when they passed axing ACA credits. There's no ambiguity that Republicans did that and you can attack them for it. The marginal advantage of having another vote for messaging purposes is, at best, extremely thin, and even negative if it lets some Rs cast a meaningless yes vote
Kaine on why he thinks just getting a vote on healthcare is a win: "We're the minority party, but everybody will get to see who is standing for them when it comes to lowering their healthcare costs"
November 10, 2025 at 5:28 PM
They already had this, when they passed axing ACA credits. There's no ambiguity that Republicans did that and you can attack them for it. The marginal advantage of having another vote for messaging purposes is, at best, extremely thin, and even negative if it lets some Rs cast a meaningless yes vote
Re: Kim Davis, worrying about Obergefell is one thing, or even that they'd take that particular case. But there's something very dishonest and grifter-y about prominent people who absolutely know better being substantively misleading about how cert petitions work. That was wrong and in bad faith.
November 10, 2025 at 5:07 PM
Re: Kim Davis, worrying about Obergefell is one thing, or even that they'd take that particular case. But there's something very dishonest and grifter-y about prominent people who absolutely know better being substantively misleading about how cert petitions work. That was wrong and in bad faith.
It was very obvious they were never going to take this case and some people got very mad if you said that.
Supreme Court declines to hear case on constitutionality of same-sex marriage
The Supreme Court on Monday morning turned down a request from Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky, to reconsider its 2015 decision recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex […]
www.scotusblog.com
November 10, 2025 at 2:50 PM
It was very obvious they were never going to take this case and some people got very mad if you said that.
These are all the non-retiring Dems up in 2026:
Merkley OR
Markey MA
Warner VA
Ossoff GA
Lujan NM
Booker NJ
Reed RI
Hickenlooper CO
None are in serious danger of losing a primary. That could change, but it's unlikely, and none have viable challengers making serious moves (Moulton doesn't count).
Merkley OR
Markey MA
Warner VA
Ossoff GA
Lujan NM
Booker NJ
Reed RI
Hickenlooper CO
None are in serious danger of losing a primary. That could change, but it's unlikely, and none have viable challengers making serious moves (Moulton doesn't count).
November 10, 2025 at 8:28 AM
These are all the non-retiring Dems up in 2026:
Merkley OR
Markey MA
Warner VA
Ossoff GA
Lujan NM
Booker NJ
Reed RI
Hickenlooper CO
None are in serious danger of losing a primary. That could change, but it's unlikely, and none have viable challengers making serious moves (Moulton doesn't count).
Merkley OR
Markey MA
Warner VA
Ossoff GA
Lujan NM
Booker NJ
Reed RI
Hickenlooper CO
None are in serious danger of losing a primary. That could change, but it's unlikely, and none have viable challengers making serious moves (Moulton doesn't count).
We talk a lot about how uncompetitive general elections are in most cases, but the reality is primaries aren't better. In fact they're even worse. Only two incumbent Democratic senators have lost a primary in the 21st C., and one of them won reelection anyway as an independent.
i think an especially depressing part of this whole saga is that "we need to win primaries so establishment dems are replaced by true progressives" is a thing we've done before but one of the progressives we worked hard to install over the establishment pick was fetterman
November 10, 2025 at 7:44 AM
We talk a lot about how uncompetitive general elections are in most cases, but the reality is primaries aren't better. In fact they're even worse. Only two incumbent Democratic senators have lost a primary in the 21st C., and one of them won reelection anyway as an independent.
Reposted by Andy Craig
"The pardons are primarily symbolic"
Symbolic, but with a kicker: Trump is letting people know that if you do something for him over the next 3+ years that might get you in trouble, he'll pardon you... so don't worry about going too far.
Symbolic, but with a kicker: Trump is letting people know that if you do something for him over the next 3+ years that might get you in trouble, he'll pardon you... so don't worry about going too far.
November 10, 2025 at 6:16 AM
"The pardons are primarily symbolic"
Symbolic, but with a kicker: Trump is letting people know that if you do something for him over the next 3+ years that might get you in trouble, he'll pardon you... so don't worry about going too far.
Symbolic, but with a kicker: Trump is letting people know that if you do something for him over the next 3+ years that might get you in trouble, he'll pardon you... so don't worry about going too far.
Reposted by Andy Craig
The thing to make it about was the lawless authoritarianism. Just like last week’s elections were.
They were never going to get ACA subsidies, which is part of why it was a mistake to insist this was only about ACA subsidies and nothing else.
Sincere question: does anybody have any evidence that the GOP/WH would have eventually folded and extended the ACA subsidies if the shutdown continued?
I haven’t seen any. The President didn’t seem to feeling any pressure. No GOP Senator AFAIK expressed any concern. (Some Reps did)
I haven’t seen any. The President didn’t seem to feeling any pressure. No GOP Senator AFAIK expressed any concern. (Some Reps did)
November 10, 2025 at 6:12 AM
The thing to make it about was the lawless authoritarianism. Just like last week’s elections were.
They were never going to get ACA subsidies, which is part of why it was a mistake to insist this was only about ACA subsidies and nothing else.
Sincere question: does anybody have any evidence that the GOP/WH would have eventually folded and extended the ACA subsidies if the shutdown continued?
I haven’t seen any. The President didn’t seem to feeling any pressure. No GOP Senator AFAIK expressed any concern. (Some Reps did)
I haven’t seen any. The President didn’t seem to feeling any pressure. No GOP Senator AFAIK expressed any concern. (Some Reps did)
November 10, 2025 at 6:05 AM
They were never going to get ACA subsidies, which is part of why it was a mistake to insist this was only about ACA subsidies and nothing else.
Voting to fund the government means you voted to fund everything the government is doing. That's the whole point. It's not about some narrow this or that on the margins. You own the whole enchilada, you're saying "yes, this overall package for everything the government's doing is acceptable to me."
November 10, 2025 at 5:43 AM
Voting to fund the government means you voted to fund everything the government is doing. That's the whole point. It's not about some narrow this or that on the margins. You own the whole enchilada, you're saying "yes, this overall package for everything the government's doing is acceptable to me."
Reposted by Andy Craig
Interestingly, Trump notes at the end that he’s not pardoning himself:
November 10, 2025 at 4:50 AM
Interestingly, Trump notes at the end that he’s not pardoning himself:
Some will probably come out of the woodwork but I've yet to see anybody of note defending it that doesn't have a state and party identification in parentheses after their name.
the Democrats have lost MattY, Chait, even fucking Chris Cilizza on this cave
as far as I can tell the entire list of people in or around Democratic politics who think this vote was a good idea consists of the people who took the vote and whoever else in the caucus silently supported them
as far as I can tell the entire list of people in or around Democratic politics who think this vote was a good idea consists of the people who took the vote and whoever else in the caucus silently supported them
"Democrats could have held the line on the shutdown, and spent weeks watching Trump’s approval ratings fall," writes @jonathanbchait.bsky.social
Instead, he argues, they're making a mistake by giving in:
www.theatlantic.com/politics/202...
Instead, he argues, they're making a mistake by giving in:
www.theatlantic.com/politics/202...
November 10, 2025 at 5:13 AM
Some will probably come out of the woodwork but I've yet to see anybody of note defending it that doesn't have a state and party identification in parentheses after their name.
This is most directly about the fake electors (none of whom face any federal charges anyway) but the actual wording of it is much broader: it's effectively a full and complete blanket pardon for anybody who had anything to do with trying to steal the 2020 election, not just the Jan 6-ers.
The language of this pardon is extremely broad.
It includes “all United States citizens for conduct relating to the advice, creation, organization, execution, submission, support, voting, activities, participation in, or advocacy for or of any slate or proposed slate of Presidential
electors…”
It includes “all United States citizens for conduct relating to the advice, creation, organization, execution, submission, support, voting, activities, participation in, or advocacy for or of any slate or proposed slate of Presidential
electors…”
November 10, 2025 at 5:02 AM
This is most directly about the fake electors (none of whom face any federal charges anyway) but the actual wording of it is much broader: it's effectively a full and complete blanket pardon for anybody who had anything to do with trying to steal the 2020 election, not just the Jan 6-ers.
Reposted by Andy Craig
Trump’s pardon attorney Ed Martin claims Trump is pardoning his Georgia co-defendants and other “alternate electors.”
Note: Trump’s Georgia co-defendants are charged under state law. The president can’t pardon people for state crimes.
Note: Trump’s Georgia co-defendants are charged under state law. The president can’t pardon people for state crimes.
November 10, 2025 at 4:44 AM
Trump’s pardon attorney Ed Martin claims Trump is pardoning his Georgia co-defendants and other “alternate electors.”
Note: Trump’s Georgia co-defendants are charged under state law. The president can’t pardon people for state crimes.
Note: Trump’s Georgia co-defendants are charged under state law. The president can’t pardon people for state crimes.
Reposted by Andy Craig
Yeah real rich to hear my Senator talking about "how the senate works" while my city is under siege and the goons almost teargassed my children before their Halloween parade.
November 10, 2025 at 4:20 AM
Yeah real rich to hear my Senator talking about "how the senate works" while my city is under siege and the goons almost teargassed my children before their Halloween parade.
Reposted by Andy Craig
The coordinated nature of this—none are facing voters in 2026—means that either Schumer approved it or failed in his job as Senate Majority Leader to stop it.
Dems voting "no" get zero credit until they demand a change in leadership. Schumer out as Leader, Durbin out as Whip.
Dems voting "no" get zero credit until they demand a change in leadership. Schumer out as Leader, Durbin out as Whip.
so currently defectors are:
Kaine (2030)
Shaheen (Retiring)
Hasan (2028)
Fetterman (2028)
Durbin (Retiring)
CCM (2028)
Rosen (2030)
King (2030)
Kaine (2030)
Shaheen (Retiring)
Hasan (2028)
Fetterman (2028)
Durbin (Retiring)
CCM (2028)
Rosen (2030)
King (2030)
November 10, 2025 at 2:43 AM
The coordinated nature of this—none are facing voters in 2026—means that either Schumer approved it or failed in his job as Senate Majority Leader to stop it.
Dems voting "no" get zero credit until they demand a change in leadership. Schumer out as Leader, Durbin out as Whip.
Dems voting "no" get zero credit until they demand a change in leadership. Schumer out as Leader, Durbin out as Whip.
Clarifying on the procedural posture: this was a motion to invoke cloture *on the motion to proceed* to the House CR. MTP = starting debate, which also allows them do the gut-and-replace amendment on it they still need. It will still have to clear cloture proper (60 votes) on the final bill itself.
November 10, 2025 at 4:07 AM
Clarifying on the procedural posture: this was a motion to invoke cloture *on the motion to proceed* to the House CR. MTP = starting debate, which also allows them do the gut-and-replace amendment on it they still need. It will still have to clear cloture proper (60 votes) on the final bill itself.
Anyway, it'd be good if we had a multi-party system.
November 10, 2025 at 3:57 AM
Anyway, it'd be good if we had a multi-party system.
Reposted by Andy Craig
Christ, even Chait's against capitulation
"Democrats could have held the line on the shutdown, and spent weeks watching Trump’s approval ratings fall," writes @jonathanbchait.bsky.social
Instead, he argues, they're making a mistake by giving in:
www.theatlantic.com/politics/202...
Instead, he argues, they're making a mistake by giving in:
www.theatlantic.com/politics/202...
Senate Democrats Just Made a Huge Mistake
The shutdown was hurting Trump. Ending it helps him.
www.theatlantic.com
November 10, 2025 at 3:55 AM
Christ, even Chait's against capitulation
"Mr. Cornyn, aye"
That's probably the quickest anyone has ever gotten from Dulles to the Hill
That's probably the quickest anyone has ever gotten from Dulles to the Hill
November 10, 2025 at 3:49 AM
"Mr. Cornyn, aye"
That's probably the quickest anyone has ever gotten from Dulles to the Hill
That's probably the quickest anyone has ever gotten from Dulles to the Hill
"See, we came together and compromised" is a good talking point when the gettable swing voter has a vaguely positive sense of both parties or how the system is supposed to work. Not when the 50th percentile marginal vote is like "I hate both of them so much" and your offer is "cool, I'm like both!"
November 10, 2025 at 3:44 AM
"See, we came together and compromised" is a good talking point when the gettable swing voter has a vaguely positive sense of both parties or how the system is supposed to work. Not when the 50th percentile marginal vote is like "I hate both of them so much" and your offer is "cool, I'm like both!"