Your Huddled Masses Yearning To Wreck Free

Continuing on with the theme for the past few days, we can check in on what "Nonnegotiable" is up to in Michigan. For those who don't remember, Nonnegotiable is a group of Michigan Jewish Democrats who responded to Abdul El-Sayed's primary victory by sending him a list of five ultimatums nonnegotiable demands that are absolutely not ultimatums but only brook no argument or discussion and must be agreed to unconditionally before a conversation can even begin. This, unsurprisingly, did not engender a positive response, and Nonnegotiable has spent the ensuing weeks complaining about how they're being overlooked and marginalized while also promising to take their movement national.

Anyway, what they're proposing is that Jews cast a protest vote by writing-in "Emma Lazarus" on their Senate ballot. This is an interesting gambit, in large part because I can't see any universe in which it doesn't blow up in their faces. Let's run through the plausible outcomes.

Possibility 1: As polling predicts, AES wins handily in spite of this maneuver. People learn Nonnegotiable was all bark and no bite. Moreover, because Nonnegotiable helpfully suggested an identifying mark for its protest votes, we can see just how irrelevant they were when the final results come in and "Emma Lazarus" has some 850 votes out 4,500,000 cast.

Possibility 2: Mike Rogers wins, and Nonnegotiable gives him his margin of victory. It is subsequently showered with all the adoration and praise that flowed from Democrats to Ralph Nader and the Green Party in 2000 after they provided the margin that let George W. Bush win Florida and the presidency. I'm not sure how people haven't internalized this lesson yet, but "we're the reason why your mortal enemies are in office" does not result in Democrats wanting to appease you, it results in Democrats hating you with an incandescent fury and wanting to put your heads on spikes outside the castle walls.

Possibility 3: Mike Rogers wins by more than the "Emma Lazarus" margin. Then we're going to get some weird two-step where they simultaneously insist that they mattered to the outcome, but also that it's totally unfair to blame them for the outcome. This incoherency will not go well for them.

The broader point, and this something Scott Lemieux (I think, I can't find it) has argued, is that in broad coalition politics a faction gains influence by showing it can win races, not by sabotaging other members of the coalition and thereby losing races. "[T]hrowing a tantrum and 'withholding your vote' by refusing to support democrats just makes everyone mad at you and diminishes your influence." The near-uniform Democratic reaction (including by very pro-Israel Democrats) to Haley Stevens of "screw Haley Stevens"? Nonnegotiable can expect a similar reception, ameliorated solely by the fact of their comparative irrelevancy.

Likewise, one might also learn a lesson that engaging with fellow coalitional stakeholders via ultimatum (protestations notwithstanding, yes, that's what Nonnegotiable did) is not a good strategy either. Nonnegotiable, in particular, made the especially counterproductive choice to frame its ultimatums in the most confrontational language possible, and expressly sought to evade the possibility of agreement by preemptively deriding any plausible steps El-Sayed might take to try and create consensus or reassurance as a sort of cheating ("cleverly worded arguments"). Of course El-Sayed was not going to talk to these people, and I don't blame him -- they've made it quite clear they're uninterested in having a conversation on anything other that purely supplicatory terms.

Return of the Wrecker

Well, Haley Stevens crossed the Rubicon, officially endorsing Republican Mike Rogers in the Michigan Senate race.

One doesn't need to say much more than what Chuck Schumer did: "A despicable betrayal." Stevens' Democratic career was already dead, but now it's ... extra dead? Dead-dead? Whatever. I find myself not caring about the verbiage.

A few more notes:

First, we should not downplay Stevens' tacit decision to give approval to the despicable Islamophobia that Republicans have been thrusting out against AES. That choice is made more salient, not less, by the fact that Stevens is framing her choice around opposition to antisemitism. Remember: the same logic that tells some it's okay to endorse Islamophobes in order to fight antisemitism, also licenses others to endorse antisemites in order to fight Islamophobia. This approach to "fighting antisemitism" remains one of the most obviously bone-headed and shortsighted political strategies I've ever encountered.

Second, we also should not at all accept Stevens framing her treason around finding antisemitism unacceptable, because she doesn't. It bears repeating once more that just a few days ago one of Rogers' top surrogates, Ohio GOP Senator Bernie Moreno, told a crowd at a GOP rally that anyone who does not recognize that "Jesus came here for our salvation ... should be nowhere near Washington, D.C.." That is, to be clear, a declaration that no Jew (or Muslim) should be allowed to hold higher office in this nation. Even on the metric of "most antisemitic thing said by a surrogate" that dwarfs anything Hasan Piker has said -- and I say that with no love lost for Piker, but rather to underscore just how outrageous Moreno's comments are that they cleared even the bar Piker had set. And that doesn't even get into all the other standard-issue ways the MAGA movement threatens Jews.

Haley Stevens is not taking a stand against antisemitism and she's not trying to protect Jews. She is taking a stand for antisemitism -- and Islamophobia, and anti-democratic fascism -- to salve her own bruised ego. Don't get it twisted.

Third, over the past few days -- before the endorsement but while the Stevens/AES rift had exploded -- Rogers had started lavishing Stevens with praise ("courageous leader", "conducted herself with nothing but class"), and obviously that feting paid big dividends. From a campaign strategy standpoint, of course, this was very smart by Rogers. And one might notice that I'm not seeing a lot of angst from Rogers' voters mewling about "how dare he praise a Democrat" and "monoparty!" Cf. Liz Cheney. 

Finally, perhaps the most salient thing Stevens has "accomplished" is to completely invert the valence of who is a "wrecker" in Democratic politics. Up until a few days ago, if you had played word association around "which nominal progressives sabotaged Democratic chances in Michigan by refusing to support the Democratic nominee because of their views on Israel/Palestine", the general answer would have been Uncommitted sorts and other pro-Palestine activists. To be honest, in an era of nose-diving support for Israel, residual rage at that cadre for said wrecking behavior in 2024 might have been the main brake on burgeoning anti-Israel support. But now Stevens has turned that on its head and re-associated anti-Democratic (and anti-democratic) sabotage with pro-Israel and anti-antisemitism activists. Heckuva job, Haley!

Anyway, we should absolutely blame Haley Stevens for Haley Stevens' bad and immoral choices. The end.

The Empire Wrecks Back

The fallout from the deliberately inflammatory Rebellion PAC ad continues, as it seems to have created a massive rift between Michigan's Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed, and his vanquished primary opponent Haley Stevens. Stevens, whose fiancé Jason Turkish already publicly announced he was endorsing AES' Republican opponent, came out with a lengthy list of demands for El-Sayed before she'd deign to appear with him. El-Sayed, who'd already disavowed the ad and was reportedly ready to more explicitly condemn it, bristled at Stevens' ultimatums. Now the unity event is off, and Republicans are salivating at another Dems-in-disarray opportunity.

First thing is first. While I agree with those who attribute this whole cascade to the fallout from that terrible ad, that in no way excuses Stevens' wretched choices here. She's responsible for her own choices, and these choices are pure wrecking behavior. It's all the more frustrating because Stevens' initial concession and endorsement after a bitter and disappointing primary loss to AES were model behavior, and earned plenty of justified praise by appearing to prove that "blue no matter who" wasn't just a demand put upon the left by the center, but applied reciprocally as well. Even many of her critics were lauding her and holding her up as a contrast to, say, Jasmine Crockett. For her to backslide now, so late in the game, is an act of pure ego. As far as I'm concerned, she and Turkish are no better than any other Michigan "progressive" who -- whether by explicit endorsement or tacit foot-dragging -- functionally sabotages the Democratic nominee in a progressive race (yes, I continue to think that the right analogue for these people are the folks who refused to back Biden/Harris in 2024, and yes, that comparison is meant to be a supremely negative one).

At the very least, I'd hope that Stevens (and Turkish) have rendered themselves personas non grata in Democratic politics going forward. Whether that actually will happen -- who's to say (Darializa Avila Chevalier didn't even vote for Biden in 2020 and now she's headed to Congress, so, you know, memories can be short). But for my part -- and I say this as someone who probably would have voted for Stevens over AES in the primary (albeit McMorrow over both of them) -- Stevens is dead to me, and I very much hope her career is indeed over.

David's Election 2026 Predictions!

We're a week out from election day, and Jill and I have submitted our ballots. But what will the nation do? I'll give my predictions below, in a fun, not-at-all-anxiety-laden game for everyone!

(One note: I'm historically pretty bad at this.).

U.S. House

Not going to do individual races here, but I will predict that Democrats retake the House, and by a pretty comfortable but not overwhelming margin. We'll go with a 25-seat Democratic majority when all is said and done.

Senate

Alaska -- Mary Petola (D-flip): She's well-liked in the state and has consistently led Dan Sullivan in the polls. I think she'll take more votes than both Dan Sullivans combined, making an already frivolous DOJ lawsuit even more pointless than it already was.

Florida -- Ashley Moody (R): Nixon may make it closer than some people expect, but Florida will still be Florida. I don't think Nixon's DSA affiliation seems to either be helping or hurting her in the general, so take from that what you will.

Georgia -- Jon Ossoff (D): If you had told me a few years ago that a Georgia Senate race would be a Democratic walkover, I'd have laughed. But here we are (and it's nice to be here!).

Iowa -- Ashley Hinson (R): This one really feels like a pure toss-up, and it's been a while since Iowa has felt like a pure toss-up. I can't quite bring myself to call the Democratic upset, but if Turek does win it really could augur a broader shift of the rust-belt midwest back to its at least swingier roots.

Kansas -- Roger Marshall (R): If "it's been a while since Iowa has felt like a toss-up", I'm not sure Kansas has ever felt like a toss-up. It'd be amazing if Hamilton can get over the hump though.

Maine -- Troy Jackson (D-flip): Jackson may not be the most inspiring candidate, but he's competent enough (and doesn't have any pesky Nazi tattoos). Susan Collins' luck will finally run out in a blue state with severe blue headwinds. Good riddance.

Michigan -- Mike Rogers (R-flip): This is a pure vibes-based call. I would not put money on this, and I'd be very sad at this outcome. But AES just doesn't seem like he's been able to close the show here. I'm not sure how much to take from the polls vastly overstating AES' support in the primary -- primaries are not general elections, so the same "mistake" doesn't necessarily cross-apply -- but it's another factor making me nervous. Of all my picks, this is the one I'm least sure about and will be least surprised to be wrong about. But if we see a "surprise" GOP victory anywhere on election day, this is where I think it'll be.

Minnesota -- Peggy Flanagan (D): A lot of polls have had this race surprisingly tight, but nobody is putting their money where their mouth is and actually acting like it will be close. Put me in the column that says this won't be end up being all that close.

Mississippi -- Cindy Hyde-Smith (R): Wow, this one would feel good. But I still can't fathom the GOP actually losing a race in this part of the country unless they run a literal pedophile. Which they have been dumb enough to do in the past, but not this time.

North Carolina -- Roy Cooper (D-flip): If it weren't for Georgia taking the crown of "I can't believe this state of all places will be a Democratic walkover!", it'd be North Carolina.

Nebraska -- Pete Ricketts (R): I've been burned too many times thinking that "this will be the year a Nebraska independent upsets the apple cart!"

New Hampshire -- Chris Pappas (D): Republicans have a far-above-replacement level candidate here, but I can't imagine New Hampshire bucking a Democratic wave trend this year (and it's not like Pappas is some wounded bird either).

Ohio -- Sherrod Brown (D-flip): What I don't think Turek can do in Iowa, I do think Brown can do in Ohio. It would be hilarious of Vivek Ramaswamy's late campaign implosion gave Brown enough reverse-coattails to carry him to victory.

South Carolina -- Darlene Graham (R): Another race that really shouldn't be competitive but has an intoxicating brew of terrible GOP candidate and terrible GOP national environment. Here, too, though, I dare not believe.

Texas -- James Talarico (D-flip): The theme of the Senate predictions, you may have noticed, is David being unwilling to believe that Democrats can crawl across the finish line in historically GOP territory. There have been too many times where we've thought "maybe Iowa is close" or "maybe Florida is swingy again", and it hasn't panned out -- and Blue Texas is probably the apex of that. But eff it -- here's where I'll decide to believe. Ken Paxton is a generationally-terrible candidate, and Talarico is more than strong enough to take advantage. Add that to a collapse in GOP Latino support, and I'm willing to ignore all of my doomer instincts and say this will, indeed, be the year.

Net: D+4

Most Likely To Be Wrong: (1) Michigan, (2) Ohio, (3) Texas, (4) Iowa, (5) South Carolina, (6) Kansas, (7) Alaska, (8) New Hampshire, (9) Maine.

Governor

Alaska -- Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins (D-flip): The Alaska Senate race so overshadowed the governor's race that I didn't even fully realize this contest was competitive. And in fairness, it may not be: the most recent polling has Kreiss-Tomkins holding a double-digit lead. He even got a cross-party endorsement from Lisa Murkowski!

Alabama -- Tommy Tuberville (R): I love Doug Jones, but sadly America's dumbest Senator will soon become America's dumbest Governor.

Arizona -- Katie Hobbs (D): I can still see this race being maybe a bit closer than folks predict, but Hobbs should take it home.

Florida -- Byron Donalds (R): Donalds has been struggling more than I'd expect to lock this race down. Racism? Maybe! But like with the Senate, I ultimately expect Florida to be Florida, and put the Republican into office.

Georgia -- Keisha Lance-Bottoms (D-flip): Late polling has seen this race tighten up considerably, which I don't love, but the enthusiasm still seems to be with Democrats.

Iowa -- Rob Sand (D-flip): I know what I said about Iowa re: the Senate race, but I think for a state position Democrats are better positioned to compete, and Sand's consistently led this entire race.

Kansas -- Ty Masterson (R-flip): Weird to write "R-flip" for Kansas. Even weirder given how badly Marshall is struggling in the Senate race. It'd be wild if Kansas elects a Democrat Senator while also swapping parties for Governor in the same cycle.

Maine -- Hannah Pingree (D): Much less stressful than the Maine Senate race.

Michigan -- Jocelyn Benson (D): John James seems set to take up the Martha McSally award for "candidate who seems good on paper but can't ever seem to, you know, win."

Minnesota -- Amy Klobuchar (D): Amy Klobuchar has always curb-stomped any Republican dumb enough to face her. That streak will not end now.

Nebraska -- Jim Pillen (R): Haven't heard a peep on this one, which is good news for the GOP.

Nevada -- Aaron Ford (D-flip): Nevada's purple in the sense that Republicans can still squeak out victories in very good GOP years. This is not going to be a very good GOP year.

New York -- Kathy Hochul (D): It's cute how some people think this race will be close.

Ohio -- Amy Acton (D-flip): I'm not sure why any part of me thinks "surely, this behavior by [GOP candidate] is so viscerally repulsive that the voters will recoil", given, you know, a lifetime of experience. But somehow, I do believe that regarding Vivek Ramaswamy! Even though as far as I can tell, polls have not actually picked up a dip following his horrific "being raped as a child makes Amy Acton damaged goods" closing pitch.

Oklahoma -- Mike Mazzei (R): It'd take something extraordinary for a Republican to lose in Oklahoma, and if something extraordinary was afoot you'd think I'd at least recognize the candidate's name.

Oregon -- Tina Kotek (D): Kotek may not be inspiring the most adoration from voters right now, but this is not going to be the year Oregon puts a Republican into office.

South Carolina -- Alan Wilson (R): A lot more low-key than the Senate race.

Texas -- Greg Abbott (R): It's amazing what running a normal terrible Republican, as opposed to a cartoonishly corrupt mob boss figure Republican, can do for Republican chances in Texas.

Vermont -- Phil Scott (R): Just change parties, man. Or at least call yourself an independent.

Wisconsin -- David Crowley (D): Given the insane ending to the Democratic primary here, I'm surprised I haven't heard more about the general. I guess that's good for Crowley, though?

Net: D+4

Most Likely To Be Wrong: (1) Ohio, (2) Wisconsin, (3) Nevada, (4) Iowa, (5) Georgia, (6) Texas, (7) Arizona, (8) Florida, (9) Vermont.

Bonus Local Races!

Multnomah County Chair -- Shannon Singleton: I voted for Julia Brim-Edwards. But I don't know -- it feels to me like Singleton might have the momentum. It's another vibes pick, and I wouldn't be surprised to be wrong, but it would be an interesting upset.

Portland City Council District 3 -- Steve Novick, Tiffany Koyama Lane, Angelita Morillo: First thing's first: all the councilors in Portland are Democrats, but there is a divide between a more mainline liberal caucus and a lefty caucus ("Peacock" -- "progressive caucus"). Koyama Lane and Morillo are Peacocks, while Novick is considered the main swing voter on the council.

Now, onto the predictions. Everyone hates the incumbents, and all the incumbents win. That's my prediction for all Portland city council races, and it's my prediction here. If there is to be any shakeup, though, it's possible that Kellie Torres -- who'd align with the mainline liberals -- could dislodge either Koyama Lane or Morillo.

Portland City Council District 4 -- Olivia Clark, Eric Zimmerman, Mitch Green. Everyone hates the incumbents, and all the incumbents win. The most likely "shakeup" here, I think, is if Eli Arnold slips in at the expense of Eric Zimmerman. "Shakeup" is in quotes because I view Arnold and Zimmerman as essentially indistinguishable (both are, along with Clark, in the mainline liberal camp; Green is a Peacock DSAer).

Wreckers Gonna Wreck

There's an ad going around in Michigan, nominally in support of Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed, that's generating quite its share of controversy in a race where there's concern that El-Sayed may not be able to lock down support from the normally stalwart-blue Jewish community.

The ad comes from Rebellion PAC, which is fronted by left-wing political commentator Cenk Uygur. It depicts a couple in a supermarket saying they cannot afford groceries because they have to set money aside “for killing Palestinians.” It concludes by stating that the Michigan Democrat’s GOP opponent “is for they/them,” referring to Israelis.

The ad actually apparently is a "repurposed" piece from Uygur's absurdist vanity run for President, with the bonus content at the end attacking Mike Rogers. Both Uygur and Rebellion PAC spokeswoman Kara Eastman* took a similar line on the controversy, which was to accuse their critics of mental illness:

“If you think this ad is antisemitic, you’ve lost your mind and you don’t know it,” the Rebellion PAC spokesperson, Kara Eastman, told JTA. “It’s saying we’re giving too much money to a foreign nation — and they’re misusing it. There’s nothing more normal than that. But when someone criticizes the government of Israel, and you hear ‘they hate all Jews,’ get clinical help.”

Shortly after Eastman’s response to JTA, Uygur himself added on X, “If you think this ad is antisemitic, you’re in a cult and don’t know it. You think Israel is owed all the money it wants from US and if Americans don’t hand it over — without complaint — they’re antisemites. That’s insane, but you don’t realize it because you’ve lost your mind.”

For his part, El-Sayed has disavowed the ad.

This is obvious wrecker behavior -- which makes sense, since it's, you know, Cenk Uygur. Indeed, apparently Rebellion PAC is spending a whopping $1,000 (no, I'm not missing any zeros) on this advertisement -- effectively nothing. It's not actually going to be seen by Michigan voters. Its only purpose is to stir up antagonism and controversy, of a sort that I'm confident neither the Jewish community, the Democratic Party, nor El-Sayed have any desire to deal with a week out of election day. Which again, is entirely in line with Uygur's whole MO.

So to be clear -- this ad is trash, and it's designed to be trash. But we shouldn't make it out to be a bigger investment in trash than it is. It's a known wrecker trying to wreck things. Don't give him the oxygen, and don't pretend it's some prominent intervention.

* That name rang a bell, and it is indeed the same Kara Eastman who was the 2018 and 2020 Democratic nominee for the swingy 2nd Nebraska District House seat currently held by Don Bacon. Eastman defeated Brad Ashford, a Democrat who had held the seat for a term in 2014 (he lost it in 2016), in the 2018 primary, then proceeded to lose to Bacon by an even larger margin than Ashford did despite 2018 being a much better year for Democrats than 2016.

AIPAC Ends Direct Contributions, Endorsements

The big news in money and politics is AIPAC's announcement that it will no longer issue endorsements or make direct contributions to candidates. This marks a substantial retreat -- AIPAC only began giving direct donations in 2021. (AIPAC will continue to operate its SuperPAC however).

Needless to say, this decision is generating plenty of crowing on behalf of AIPAC's adversaries, who've labored hard to turn it into a toxic brand amongst Democrats (and, to a lesser but not negligible extent, Republicans). That crowing is certainly justified, and I have no doubt that the degree to which AIPAC has become a boogeyman (and thereby hurting the politicians it nominally wishes to help) is playing no small role in the organization's decision. But I'll do my own crowing here as well, as from the outset of AIPAC's foray into direct contributions (so well before it became super toxic) I was telling anyone who'd listen that it was a dumb strategy that would backfire on them in spectacular fashion. AIPAC made the choice to initiate an unprecedented foray into partisan politics at the precise moment such an intervention was most fraught -- it's no accident that the just months into the program AIPAC crashed into a PR buzzsaw by endorsing a slate full of insurrectionists. 

Worse, from AIPAC's vantage point, is that their choice to join hands with the most vile Republicans imaginable irreparably damaged their credibility in Democratic primaries even though probably the most important bang-for-buck AIPAC could get is in protected moderate pro-Israel Democrats from leftier challengers. Again, I called it:

The most likely place where we're liable to see a contested race where one candidate has (from AIPAC's vantage) a much worse Israel record than their competitor is in Democratic primaries where a strong pro-Israel Democrat might face a challenge from their left that AIPAC would want to fend off (the reason this doesn't apply to Republican primaries is that I doubt there is any rightwing position on Israel -- at least that which nominally drapes itself as "pro-Israel" -- that is too extreme for AIPAC to accept. But remember, they support a two-state solution!).... But it's far from clear that AIPAC's endorsement is even beneficial these days in a Democratic primary, and associating AIPAC with GOP insurrectionists makes the brand even more toxic. If the top priority is keeping pro-Israel Democrats secure against flanking attacks, the main effect of AIPAC's endorsement list is to kneecap their own credibility.

Used to playing the game on easy mode, AIPAC proved almost comically inept at effectively interceding in progressive the moment the political waters grew choppy. And that's the generous interpretation -- the more cynical one is that they purposefully sacrificed solid pro-Israel Democrats who weren't willing to completely kowtow to a Bibi-or-bust line in favor of more radical antagonists because the latter made for better fundraising foils. Even in the brief window where AIPAC's interventions were not completely toxic amongst Democratic voters, their net effect still was to strengthen overt anti-Zionists at the expense of liberal Zionists, and it's not to see that as intentional. Either way, the lesson liberal Zionists in particular learned loud and clear was that "if you at all think of yourself as in the lane of 'I care about Israel but they, and we, need to change course substantially to align with basic liberal values', AIPAC is your mortal enemy trying to destroy your movement."

Let's Kill Domestic Spam/Scam Texters

I hate scammers. And I hate spammers. I know, controversial opinion. But seriously, I do think I harbor an outsized rage towards them, at least for someone who's never been a victim of a serious scam (save that one time with Lego).

My understanding is that many of the various scam phone and text operations operate out of organized criminal compounds in southeast Asia, making them relatively impervious to American law enforcement (germane to the aforementioned hatred, I'd mostly-earnestly support orienting our entire foreign policy towards those countries towards finding and decapitating these scam operations).

But some seem to be U.S. based. A few years ago, I alluded to the "jury service" scam call I received, where the caller on the other end of the line claimed to be from the sheriff's office. His accent was decidedly southern-American in character, which I guess doesn't preclude it coming out of a Cambodian compound, but I think more likely suggests the culprit was based somewhere in the United States (it was, I think, a little early for AI-generated deep faking, though of course that's on the horizon). More recently, I've been hit with a flurry of spam texts offering roof repairs; reading up on the angle, it seems that the perpetrators offer a deceptively low rate to "fix your roof", then do intentionally shoddy work while identifying more and more "problems" to try and drain more money out of you. That, too, is a scam which cannot be done entirely remotely, which means the operators have at least some American boots on the ground.

So if there is at least something of a domestic American spam/scam text industry, why does it not seem law enforcement is going after it with any vigor? If I were a DA, I'd answer all those texts and try to arrange meet ups where I'd toss as many people as possible in jail (this is a domain where I am 100% carceral and punitive in character). This seems like such an obvious quality-of-life "win" -- everyone hates these calls -- that any politician or public attorney that was able to really take a high profile crack at it would I think get a ton of positive attention and accolades.