mtutiger

If this were 2022, I'd agree with you... but I don't know this time around. This is a terrible, anti-incumbent environment for Rs, Collins herself isn't really well liked by her constituents anymore and is also getting up there in age, and people are angry and upset with the direction of the country. Keep harping on the environment because Platner would not be the first terrible candidate to win an election in a favorable cycle for their party.

I don't think she's going down easy, but the conventional wisdom among some is that she's now assured victory. And she very much isn't. This isn't 2020 anymore. Despite COVID, which wasn't great for Trump obviously, this is an *even worse* environment, complete with insanely high gas prices and a wildly unpopular war. Collins is much more unpopular than she was in 2020. Partisanship is much more hardened than in 2020. And Donald Trump, the great driver of turnout that he is, will not be on the ballot. Collins pulled the rabbit out of the hat, but even with Platner's problems, she's never faced a tougher cycle than this one.

She also didn't seem to want to put in the work of running... voters can sense that from a mile away. There's good reason to have mistrust of Graham Platner, just feel that it's not surprising that he won and, if the environment stays the way it is, nobody should be surprised to see him beat Collins.

I don't live in Maine, not my circus or my monkeys. But Ratko is right... This is the world we now live in. And in this environment, particularly if Mainers are having to spend upwards of $5/gal on gas, he'll probably win. Warts and all

It's probably too much to ask but similar to the clip of Kaitlin Collins yesterday asking Trump whether he really believed the BS that he was saying about the definition of "86"ing.... folks interviewing these subjects really need to start mixing in more contempt in their responses to these sorts of answers. If for nothing else to match the contempt that these interview subjects show in putting out such transparently horse**** answers.

Tim Scott also appears to be hitting the crack pipe this morning

Generally not a great sign when the lies are so big that even Joe Kernan doesn't want to touch then $6.00/gal gas? Double digit interest rates? What crack pipe is Scalise hitting?

But in relation to this ruling, who is saying "this is fine"? Just because someone adds additional context to the ruling doesn't mean they think "this is fine"

Who is saying "this is fine"?

Also mentioned his before, but there are VRA districts in blue states too... And after the decision not clear whether these states won't just revise their own districts without these in place constraints. NY, CA, even IL (which is already gerrymandered to hell) could theoretically draw out R districts on their existing maps without VRA requirements. I really don't like the VRA being gutted and the precedent it sets, but this is the other side of the coin as well.

Yep, if they thought they could actually take down ABC in all of these markets, they wouldn't be doing it given the immediate blowback they would get from actual consumers who like the products that ABC conveys over their air. It's red meat for the base.

I've beat this drum many times and will keep beating it, but while the die hards are a tough nut to crack, they aren't the entirety of those who cast a ballot for Donald Trump. And the die-hards alone a much more of a rump faction than a lot of us realize. The declining poll numbers and fortunes for his party are a reflection of this IMO

Gasoline prices loom large IMO.... people previously associated, rightly or wrongly, Trump with low gasoline prices. The whole "I'll take the cheap gas and the mean tweets" sentiment was very prevalent in 2024. That narrative of Trump has been blown to smithereens at this point. It's gone.

Plumbing new depths...

Is "the game" important to the average Washingtonian in a bar on a Saturday night? It may be a company town, but maybe playoff hockey matters more to those not actually attending the dinner. The upshot here is that the WHCD dinner an irrelevant and outdated institution. And the shock value of threats against a hugely unpopular President just has diminishing returns at this point?

To be clear as well, I'm absolutely concerned about what the Post-Trump world looks like. But if Trump is trying to truly consolidate power in a way similar to other authoritarian regimes, I don't think he's succeeding just based on the totality of the evidence (including the things mentioned in my above post). That doesn't mean we are out of the woods whenever he goes away... it will take a lot of work to prevent it from happening, and I'll be honest, I question whether the Democrats have the stomach for it. 1. Donating and protesting are all we can do, we all control what we control. 2. I'll amend to say that they won the battle and perhaps not the overall war, but if nothing else, they did beat back the federal government from their gross overreach and, in the process, demonstrated that this government does not have the capability to control the 25th largest metro area in the country (let alone LA or Chicago or NY) and likely never will. 3. We can maybe question whether the degree of the shift is bigger or smaller than what is shown by some of the polling, but directionally, it's all pointing in one direction since November 2024... he (and his party) are in much worse shape than they were in 2024, and they matter both politically and even in terms of the authoritarian consoldation project, as it is much much harder to consolidate when upwards of 60-65% of the public disapproves versus approves.

https://www.arlnow.com/2026/04/24/gop-bill-to-return-arlington-alexandria-to-d-c-condemned-as-unconstitutional-by-rep-beyer/ Unsurprisingly, this seems to be more of a long, extended temper tantrum rather than a serious proposal.

To be clear, I understand the risk that this administration has posed and continues to pose on the public. And certainly that requires vigilance going forward. But I think you mischaracterize my position... I don't think we should "wait these guys out", people absolutely should do what they can to donate to candidates or to attend protests or do whatever they think moves the ball down the field. But I am going to continue to call things like I see them. And they are incompetent and they are weird, they are wildly out of touch with the median American with regards to things that they are most concerned about (cost of living; if anything, because of the war and tariffs, he proudly advertises making things even more expensive for everyone). Through their terror campaign up in the Twin Cities (which the people of the Twin Cities *won* in the end BTW), they have managed to burn bridges with the types of voters who helped him win in 2024 (ie. Hispanics / young voters). The President himself looks old and senile, increasingly does not command the sort of stature or the ability to command events or public opinion that he did earlier in his career. And the President, for his part, is now getting poll numbers that are approaching Bush Iraq levels. I don't think that acknowledging these realities automatically means you don't consider the administration dangerous. That's where you and I differ IMO.

Worth noting that, similar to Texas, the success of this map in 2026 (at least) hinges pretty heavily on the gains Trump made with Hispanic voters in 2024 being realized going forward. And that's absolutely not a guarantee in this environment.

They know who this guy is and how he's always been. They are in bed with him because they like him, warts and all.

Sure, they'd still be heavy hitters under another administration (at least Amazon and Apple anyway)... but that doesn't mean they don't have a *clear* preference. They clearly do, and they clearly do *care* about it given all the money they have spent on this administration. Your eyes and ears tell you something different perhaps, but I saw Tim Apple go into the The White House and give him that stupid plaque with a 24 karat gold base to appeal to his vanity and ego. And to get policy concessions they wanted. So again, my point stands.

Congress has been disapproved of more than every President in every year that I've been alive. My point still stands. He's widely despised in the broader public, and The Big Club that you speak of, the guys like Bezos and Cook and Musk, would all prefer that he weren't. They would all prefer that we all hold our tongues, withhold any donations, not volunteer, not engage in any political activism, and not vote.

I think the public takes it more seriously than you think (he's getting -25 to -30 polls for a reason). But The Big Club wields a big stick in his favor, and they would prefer that all the people who disapprove of this President would all just shut up about it.

Given the fact that people are increasingly pointing fingers at them and are identifying them with Trump and his administration, my point stands.