Jeb Bush standing in front of a map of Virginia with all of the counties shaded yellow
turnout in Virginia is . . . good for yes? no, BAD for yes! good for no! wait, no, BAD for no!
what about the NEITHER YES NOR NO OPTION
1985--->2026
it's only in my common law courses that I do something more meta: in crim, we read Dudley and Stephens (obvi), and in property, I had them read Dred Scott and Johnson v. McIntosh
tbh for my conlaw courses, I don't usually start with a meta "first day" read. for conlaw II, I began with the Article I rights (and I'll do that again).
A must-read guide from @taniel.bsky.social about this year's state Supreme Court elections from coast to coast.
I emailed the company about this mug, and got a predictably boring response
this is a pretty big deal!!
my only reason for saying no is that it includes Mapp and Miranda as "great cases" 🫠
I have emailed the company that makes this to inform them of my horror that they're offering a product that includes Dred Scott, Plessy, and Buck v. Bell on a coffee mug as "GREAT" Supreme Court cases
description of "Supreme Court Mug" reading: Will it be Plessy or Ferguson? See the winners and the losers in over 30 famous US Supreme Court cases. Add a hot beverage and the losers disappear, revealing who won these landmark cases. Entertaining and educational for any constitutional scholar, judicial junkie or aspiring judge. Don't be caught without it. https://philosophersguild.com/products/great-supreme-court-cases-mug?srsltid=AfmBOopyIQCQUKHgEuyu7Y3TQIaxVA_F5mK056cjh06bFMwUe30TUn73
oh my god the website where the mug is sold LEANS INTO PLESSY V. FERGUSON
drinking out of a mug that lists Dred Scott, Plessy, and Buck v. Bell as "great" cases is . . . unreal
the number of people who apparently need “and that’s bad” to be added to a post so that they can understand the poster’s views on a subject is concerningly high.
it’s astonishing to me how many people are responding to this post with “OH, SO YOU SUPPORT PLATNER?”
no? the point is that national Dems’ myopia about who the ideal candidate was in this race created the current reality—in which Platner is likely to win against a weak opponent—and that’s BAD.
if your takeaway from anything I wrote is that I wanted Chuck Schumer to endorse Graham Platner, a person I find detestable and have repeatedly said I wouldn't vote for, then you're illiterate.
none of that justifies voting for Platner in the primary, suggesting he's a better candidate, etc. that's not what I'm saying, and that's not what OP said. it is a critique of Schumer's strategy in identifying her as the strongest possible candidate and boxing out other candidates.
the gubernatorial primary is overloaded with a lot of those Democrats. if more of them decided to run for the Senate, and Schumer hadn't attempted to recruit Mills, dedicate establishment energy to supporting her, etc., another candidate without Mills's weaknesses likely could've overtaken Platner.
when Schumer spent months very publicly attempting to recruit Mills into the race, it was communicated to other Democrats that the national party would back her if she ran, and that the Senate primary wasn't a winning option. and there are plenty of ambitious Dems in Maine.
a really good record on one issue does not transform someone into the best possible candidate to run in a must-win race.
but the critique is not of Mills in this moment. it is recognizing that Schumer's insistence on recruiting Mills helped create this moment by boxing out other candidates.
Janet Mills's public support for trans rights is admirable and laudable, especially at a time when trans rights have been under attack. she stood up for trans rights in a public way, confronted Trump on it, had her state fully defend trans rights. that's all extremely laudable!
there were a lot of reasons to think that wasn't true. she has long has middling approval ratings. she's made a lot of enemies in Maine. she has a lot of policy positions that are to the right of the current Democratic Party's electorate. she has also praised Susan Collins in public.
the claim that OP made (and with which I agree) was that it was a strategic error for Schumer to attempt to recruit Mills into the race. at the point that Schumer began that recruitment effort, no one knew who Platner was. Schumer thought that Mills was the strongest possible candidate.
okay. I am going to try again, and I'm going to begin with a few statements: first, I don't support Platner. as I said to you before, if I lived in Maine, I'd vote for Mills. second, I unequivocally and unreservedly support trans rights. I'm openly genderqueer and have a public record on this.
who said that her support of trans rights doesn't matter?
I'm not "screaming at Mills." Do you remember the post that your responses were in reply to? It's the one below. It's a critique of Schumer's decision to back Mills in the race as opposed to any other candidate. Maine Democrats have a deep bench. Another candidate wouldn't be in this situation.
(1) Janet Mills was not recruited into the race because of Platner's Nazi tattoos. There was a very long, public recruitment campaign by Schumer that predated anyone knowing who Platner was.
(2) I am UNEQUIVOCALLY not supporting Platner, good god. If I lived in Maine, I'd vote for Mills.
what on earth are you talking about? I don't have the chronology backwards! I'm well aware that he entered the race before her. Schumer embarked on a very public, months-long recruitment effort that predated Platner's campaign.
you're asking why it was an own goal to recruit as the Democrats' preferred Senate candidate in a must-win Senate race a 78-year-old governor with middling approval ratings, tons of intra-party enemies in Maine, unpopular policy positions, and zero apparent appetite for running to the Senate?
also, she didn't say that Mills was "the greater problem here." it's that RECRUITING Mills, who is not a super dynamic, popular, or compelling candidate, and who does not seem super enthusiastic about running for Senate, created an opening for a candidate like Platner.
how is that responsive to the post you're responding to? she didn't say that *defending* Mills is an own goal. she said that *recruiting* Mills was an own goal. we can value a person's contributions to policymaking without thinking that they're the ideal candidate to run in a must-win Senate seat.
“Outperforming the most unpopular Democratic presidential nominee in history is an abysmally low bar, and touting it as an achievement is embarrassing,” National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesperson Bernadette Breslin said. And turnout in the special elections is generally much lower than in a midterm or presidential election. National Republicans argue the midterms will be different when turnout is higher. “Democrats are cherry-picking low-turnout special elections to spin a narrative that falls apart the second you look at the full picture,” National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Mike Marinella said in a statement. “Republicans have the money, the message, and the momentum heading into 2026, and we are outpacing Democrats where it counts in the battlegrounds that will decide the majority.”
Republicans have decided to delude themselves about what the special elections are saying.
From this @politico.com piece (which cites our data!): www.politico.com/news/2026/04...
We do the opposite of cherry-picking. We aggregate *all* special elections, for the most complete picture.