Saw another thread on this, and should say, lacking a B.A. does not make someone dumb or unqualified. Mullin does that all on his own.
05.03.2026 23:13
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Saw another thread on this, and should say, lacking a B.A. does not make someone dumb or unqualified. Mullin does that all on his own.
If confirmed, Markwayne would be the first cabinet member without a B.A. since...? I'm having trouble finding it. Truman and McKinley had no degrees, so there are probably cabinet examples from the 50s or later, none recently. Most probably served in the military, though, which Mullin also did not.
you can have a dinner that celebrates the First Amendment or a dinner that features Donald Trump but you cannot have both
In case it's not clear how these email fundraising pitches work, here's the conclusion and the fine print of an email in which the "From:" line is "Jasmine Crockett" and the subject, "It’s official: I’m running for Senate"
If I donated, what portion would go to her campaign? Where does the rest go?
It's another way in which candidates are separated from their own campaigns. There must be people who would give to Crockett's campaign if asked, but assume they already gave, b/c they responded to one of these pitches. It's exhausting the pool of potential donors, and damaging my opinion of her.
This might be less about Crockett than the corrupt Dem fundraising structure, in which charismatic figures like Crockett (or not-charismatic but seen-on-TV, e.g. Carville) are deployed all over the place, particularly by Mothership-linked email/text operations. Thoughts, @adambonica.bsky.social?
A screenshot of my gmail inbox, showing emails from Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett, a candidate for US Senate.
My only opinion about the Texas D Senate primary is to ask why I have 50 fundraising emails from Jasmine Crockett, but not one of them is from her campaign. All are other PACs: Hold the Line PAC, BlueAMP PAC, Fields of Change PAC, etc. A few promise an unspecified split w/ Crockett, most don't.
I'm very worried about the Paramount/WB deal, but not because control of CNN+CBS+TikTok is enough for Trump's allies to execute an Orban-style competitive authoritarian takeover. It won't be, not here.
I'm worried that when Trumpism inevitably falls there will be nothing left of the old order.
"You can walk to the White House now" is a lie for one obvious reason (downtown DC is as safe as ever), but also because, if you do try to walk to the White House, this is what you'll have to get past. Not sure people outside DC appreciate how militarized "the people's house" has become.
Senator Grassley's main job has been politics and elective office since the middle of the second Eisenhower administration. Literally, first elected to the Iowa house in 1958.
This potential outcome, w/ 2 Rs in the general election, also means that the Dems will need to push a few candidates out before the primary. So a reform that was meant to limit the role of parties actually rewards a party that's more aggressive in limiting voters' choices, compared to party primary.
"We're seen as too close to the civil rights movement,' 'We're too close to Jesse Jackson' ...Anytime Dems lose,
there's always some version of, 'We're seen as too left,' which usually means too tied to people of color," says @smotus.bsky.social. Centrist complaints about "wokeness" are not new.
For that generation, Clinton's late-90s interventions in the Balkans was a big deal, as both policy and politics--Dems showing they could use force. The wars and interventions since then should be a lesson that there was something to be said for "Vietnam syndrome."
Key to understanding the senior generation of Democratic pols, eg Schumer, is that they are influenced more by worry about "Vietnam syndrome"--the idea that the US or Dems were too reluctant to use force after 1973--than by Vietnam itself, even if they were in college/draft-age during that debacle.
Thrilled to see this strong and informed endorsement of popular assemblies (also citizen or civic assemblies) from Jacobin, for Mamdani and NYC in particular. Assemblies appeal to centrists as a way to find consensus, but can also build popular power and agency. jacobin.com/2025/12/mamd...
New post on affordability, and why a political theme that doesn't name a villain might work. open.substack.com/pub/markschm...
Also, why is it "strong floor," like you can jump up and down on it? Shouldn't it be "high floor"? e.g., high min. wage, generous supports, maybe UBI? Or does that raise the spectre of actually providing benefits to people?
What annoys me most about "Strong floor, no ceiling" (which will soon be forgotten) is that someone, or some comms firm, probably got paid well for it. (Yes, I've been dealing with some of the "progressive communications firms" recently. Does it show?)
The Eric Schickler essay in Larry Bartel's symposium on "What Trump Has Taught Us About Political Science" is one of the most insightful pieces I've read in 2025.
US institutions turned out to be weak, and we have to rethink conventional wisdom.
open access: academic.oup.com/psq/advance-...
I disagree. He's not talking about "Cadillac" insurance policies, generous private plans that were taxed under original ACA. He's never heard of them. He's talking about actual Cadillacs, the car. He's referencing an old talk-radio canard from the 1970s/80s about people on welfare driving Cadillacs.
Love this in @newrepublic.com from the brilliant @jakemgrumbach.bsky.social & @adambonica.bsky.social, but while the headline is, Gen Z is alright, I'm also struck by how little difference there is between those born in 1970 and the 1940 cohort, on racial resentment. Gen X is a political disaster.
It's not the case that Rs have no ideas for health care. They've always had one big idea, which is health savings accounts--regressive, good for the rich, and, like 529s and Roth IRAs, take billions in investment income out of the tax system forever. They deliberately avoided talking about it. 3/3
For years, GOP dodged health politics consequences by proposing nothing. They would get rid of whatever people don't like, without creating a new target. Now they're cutting ACA, cutting Medicaid, and talking about cash vs insurance, HSAs, all unworkable schemes 2/3
Anxiety about *change* to health care has been a key factor in several consequential elections: 1994 (Clinton plan), 2010 (ACA), and (to some degree) 2018 . Even if people are unhappy w/ health care costs and choices, change is terrifying. GOP setting itself up on the wrong side of this dynamic. 1/3
Hemp vote indicates that cannabis is long past being a wedge issue, or even a "social issue," but is now just a parochial ag/revenue issue. Senators from legal states expecting revenue don't want competition from online/gas station hemp products. Many senators from legalized states voted no.
Still upset about no power of the purse language. You truly do hate to see it. The Trump admin undertook the most expansive set of illegal budgetary actions of any president in history, and broadcast as loudly as possible they’d keep doing it, and nothing. Budgetary lawlessness.
Few of us will see the faux-gold applique on the walls. This is the closest to the White House ("the people's house") that most people will get, looking west from 15th St along Pennsylvania Ave., yesterday evening at 5:45 pm
(Photo was from yesterday, 11/6, around 5:30 pm)
This is true, but the challenge, esp for Dems,is how to use a favorable environment (meaning 2 more elections and 3 ugly yrs) to maintain a favorable environment for longer than four years. Not forever, but enough to improve lives sustainably. Thermostatic politics is a disaster if one side is Trump
A pro-affordability, anti-Trump-corruption message unites the party. Every candidate can run on that, and every candidate can have their own take to fit that to their constituents. There's really no need to find fights to pick when the party agrees on more than it disagrees
