One big thing I've noticed in online discourse: the war has completely shifted the perception of foreign policy differences between parties. For low info voters, there was a lot of "well Obama and Biden did drone strikes, so they're all the same" -- the kind of thinking that enabled the chunk of voters that thought Harris would lead to war and Trump would lead to peace.
That is completely gone. Republicans as the party of war, especially war in the middle east, is cemented back in place.
Of course I can recall 20 years ago when that was the case then, so who knows if this will fade away again. Hopefully not. But at least for the time being the gap is re-established between parties on who is likely to start an unnecessary war.
Oh yes. Carolina Journal (a right leaning publication) said after last year's municipal races that had the legislative and county races occurred as well, the NC GOP legislative majorities "might have been at risk."
I think with the Iran war and inflation, the sky is the limit for shock flips. We've had a pattern of double digit flips in R-held districts, esp the Emily Gregory one last night in Trump's home county.
And if the GOP controlled Congress does ram through the SAVE Act, the losses are going to be BIGGER because it will affect rural red voters who can't afford a passport or copies of their birth certificate.
One thing to note - you are right about the SAVE Act affecting GOP voters more on average. But that’s if it is applied equally everywhere. My concern is that it will be ignored or th rules will be loose in GOP areas while stringently applied in Democratic areas. “Rules for thee, not for me” - the fascist motto
Yes - SD-14 is meant to be a Republican-leaning swing district, while HD-87 was meant to always go Republican (because they shifted heavily Republican parts of Jupiter into the district in exchange for getting rid of heavily Democratic areas in Greenacres and Boynton Beach)
One benefit of being out of power in many places (we also saw this during the Bush era, and, further back, in the Nixon/Watergate years) is that Dems can recruit a promising new bench of challengers that are more closely involved with their communities than "career politicians" who often have grown distant from their constituencies.
Meanwhile Republicans end up nominating more stereotypically politician-type candidates who may have more experience in office, but that's often not helpful when they have little to say other than "I love Trump" or have controversial votes to defend.
In the SC-SEN race, we have the leading candidate, Annie Andrews, a pediatrician, who does not have any prior political experience in elected office except in being the Democratic nominee in SC-01 back in 2022 when challenging Nancy Mace.
EDIT: Annie Andrews is a pediatrician, not a nurse. Just made the corrections.
Yes, pedatrician! My bad. My mind wizzed for a bit because I accidentally got her background mixed with Rep. Lauren Underwood, who was a registered nurse prior to running for the House back in 2018.
Andrews also is senior adviser for Everytown for Gun Safety and she had Underwood had served in leadership roles before running for politics.
Plenty of Democratic candidates for the special elections have been politicians, see Iowa Senate 35, Pennsylvania Senate 36, and others have previously run for office. Well-liked local politicians make strong candidates, and I wouldn't assume likable non-politicians make better candidates, even if they can do quite well. For more intensive races in larger districts, candidates who have run for office before are probably ideal.
I get the name recognition, but I think Scott Brown is much more likable than John Sununu if you're a Republican voter. I don't get how Sununu is the frontrunner here. Especially considering the Epstein ties.
John Sununu is a former senator, not governor. His brother and his dad (who he shares a name with) were both governor.
I think it's 100% name recognition. His brother was popular as governor, somehow, and they share a last name which was already well known before his brother's win in 2016.
My dad got the same mailer. I looked it up because he was curious: the PAC is supporting Scott Brown. I don't know anyone in my immediate family that has voted republican in the past 40 years, and everyone votes in democratic primaries. So, like your experience, they are not targeting voters well at all.
You're in a blue part of NH, right? This part is rather 50-50 so at least for the one my family received it could be explained by them targeting by zip code. Not a great defense but a bit less stupid than explicitly targeting registered democrats for voting in a republican primary.
I'm thinking they are trying to move the general election head to head polls so that Brown looks more electable than Sununu. A lot of Sununu's support in the September primary is based on perceived better electability.
If we’re including non-legislative special elections, definitely the Georgia Public Service Commission special elections. I agree with your top two in Texas and Pennsylvania.
Emily Gregory's victory in HD-87 last night is also a very big symbolic victory. You have a Democratic candidate prevailing in a district Trump won in 2024 by double digits, and she narrowly flipped it by over a point.
It shows that independents are breaking BIG for Democrats, as well as a decent slice of squishy Republican voters. It's similar to how Rehmet won his TX state Senate seat in a R-favorable district.
I understand your question from a strategic "I want the best bang for my limited buck" viewpoint, and of course it makes sense, lots of people give this way. But I feel like this exact kind of pre-triaging is one of the contributing factors to the party being almost nonexistent, or anemic in several states, and losing winnable races. I always see Democrats that either have shoestring resources, or Dems that are extremely popular and get more money than they need to win. There seems to be little in between, Democrats that have just enough without soaking up excess cash that could be better spent elsewhere. I feel like we need to find a way to get money to candidates that aren't getting it because magnets like AOC and Ossoff whose popularity drags in cash.
I understand your argument and appreciate the point of view. I have given small donations to many candidates who were polling poorly. Decided that I'd give to underfunded candidates only in close races as giving when there is no chance is a waste. That being said the need to compete in all states at all levels is strong but think that there giving to local organizers rather than candidates is the best investment
I think it depends on if the candidate seems like a grifter or if they’re building infrastructure. If no one ever gets money to build infrastructure then when the state starts turning purple there’s nothing to build on. But then you get candidates who run against lightning rods like MTG or Mitch McConnell and they’re money vacuums, there’s no building. This 1. Seems like a winnable race, 2. Has a candidate who so far doesn’t give off grifter vibes, and 3. Is in Texas where we absolutely need to be building that infrastructure, particularly among Latinos. So my vote is a good ROI whether she wins or not!
It would not be throwing your money away. She absolutely has a chance. If anything, she's one of the better Dem candidates to donate to right now--she needs to build up an organization, and money now will have more impact.
Agree with this. Many of the big name challengers are already well-funded. This is 100% a race we can win in this environment and against this opponent, particularly if there is even a moderate amount of Latino snapback to our column. It would be money well spent.
GA-Sen: There is bad blood between the Trump WH and Gov. Brian Kemp, for Kemp endorsing Derek Dooley in the Republican primary. Trump wanted to agree to endorse someone else, but Kemp went ahead all in for Dooley.
I have to question the Vote Vets ad for Josh Turek, not because I favor either candidate in that primary, but because of its attempt to connect his spina bifida with his father's exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam.
Here is what the Cleveland Clinic says about likely causes of spina bifida:
Risk factors of spina bifida
Talk to your provider to learn more about whether or not you’re at risk of having a child with this condition. For example, your child may be at higher risk if you:
Don’t get enough folic acid
Take certain medications (like some antiseizure medications)
Have a condition like diabetes or obesity
Have a high fever or overheat during early pregnancy
Your risk also increases if you have the condition or you’ve already had a child with a neural tube defect (genetics).
If Vote Vets wants to support Turek with an ad campaign, that is its choice. However, spreading misinformation, if the ad is indeed making that connection with Agent Orange, is irresponsible.
Thank you for the links. I looked at all of them. While the V.A. does cover children of veterans exposed to Agent Orange who have spina bifida, I note that the first two references state that a clear connection has not yet been established. Yes, the children should be covered if there is even a chance that Agent Orange caused their condition, whether or not we have conclusive evidence. However, we should also acknowledge that there is still no definitive answer. Continued studies may establish such a link. We are not there yet.
We should actually have a healthcare system that would cover all children with this condition regardless of why they have it.
Again, I have no problems with Vote Vets making whatever endorsement it wishes, but for me, more compelling reasons would be statements about Turek's positions on the issues facing our country and why he is the best candidate to meet the moment.
unpopular take maybe: the va has suppressed treatment of so many diseases/illnesses that stem from combat operations that at this point, I'm not really mad if we highlight (even slightly incorrectly) the dangers of sending our young people to die overseas.
I believe it would increase support for greater VA funding, something that is sorely needed now that we do not have the great jon tester leading the charge for a VA veterans truly deserve
I also know that the VA refused to acknowledge the link between Agent Orange exposure and diabetes in Vietnam Vets with exposure until lawsuits made them years ago. Agent Orange has been proven to actually cause DNA permanent damage to those it touched and to their children also. I know because not only did my brother-in-law develop diabetes but then his children did too. Very likely the same type of genetic damage applies here to the the chromosomes in the DNA chains.
In this kind of blue-leaning environment, it's certainly possible Democrats could break the supermajority in the FL legislature (which would help Jolly, should he win, drive a hard bargain with his vetoes).
Oh, I'm so sorry! I got the vaccination for RSV when it was added to the list of recommendations for seniors by Michigan Medicine. Mine was covered by Medicare. I get vaccinated for absolutely everything I can. I would rather pay for the poke and avoid getting sick, then get laid up with something that can be avoided. I worried about fellow Seniors, who I am around everyday, getting sick from grandkids in school.
This is an apocalyptic outcome for the GOP if it holds
They’re going to lose supermajorities or have their legislative majorities severely pared down in places like NC, OH, IA and TX.
And Dems definitely regaining trifectas in MN and MI, as well as fresh ones in PA, AZ and WI. Possibly Nevada as well.
Their attempt to paint Turek as Mamdani-lite is laughable. It's like their counterparts in NC trying to do the same with Roy Cooper.
Turek coming from western Iowa and having to overcome adversity would likely make a stronger GE candidate.
They should be careful what they wish for. I think both Wahls or Turek could beat Hinson in a blue wave environment.
Depends on if the war is still going or not, and how intense it gets.
Also on any economic effects.
One big thing I've noticed in online discourse: the war has completely shifted the perception of foreign policy differences between parties. For low info voters, there was a lot of "well Obama and Biden did drone strikes, so they're all the same" -- the kind of thinking that enabled the chunk of voters that thought Harris would lead to war and Trump would lead to peace.
That is completely gone. Republicans as the party of war, especially war in the middle east, is cemented back in place.
Of course I can recall 20 years ago when that was the case then, so who knows if this will fade away again. Hopefully not. But at least for the time being the gap is re-established between parties on who is likely to start an unnecessary war.
Who on earth are those 2% (or even the 6% for that matter)? What world are they living in?
2% is statistical noise.
This needs to be a full on shellacking in November. Has to be bigger than 2018.
Its time to avenge 2010
Oh yes. Carolina Journal (a right leaning publication) said after last year's municipal races that had the legislative and county races occurred as well, the NC GOP legislative majorities "might have been at risk."
https://www.carolinajournal.com/opinion/democratic-wave-crushes-gop-candidates/
I think with the Iran war and inflation, the sky is the limit for shock flips. We've had a pattern of double digit flips in R-held districts, esp the Emily Gregory one last night in Trump's home county.
And if the GOP controlled Congress does ram through the SAVE Act, the losses are going to be BIGGER because it will affect rural red voters who can't afford a passport or copies of their birth certificate.
One thing to note - you are right about the SAVE Act affecting GOP voters more on average. But that’s if it is applied equally everywhere. My concern is that it will be ignored or th rules will be loose in GOP areas while stringently applied in Democratic areas. “Rules for thee, not for me” - the fascist motto
Were these districts gerrymandered for republicans?
Yes - SD-14 is meant to be a Republican-leaning swing district, while HD-87 was meant to always go Republican (because they shifted heavily Republican parts of Jupiter into the district in exchange for getting rid of heavily Democratic areas in Greenacres and Boynton Beach)
This seems to line up with Quinnipiac's D+11 GCB poll...
One benefit of being out of power in many places (we also saw this during the Bush era, and, further back, in the Nixon/Watergate years) is that Dems can recruit a promising new bench of challengers that are more closely involved with their communities than "career politicians" who often have grown distant from their constituencies.
Meanwhile Republicans end up nominating more stereotypically politician-type candidates who may have more experience in office, but that's often not helpful when they have little to say other than "I love Trump" or have controversial votes to defend.
In the SC-SEN race, we have the leading candidate, Annie Andrews, a pediatrician, who does not have any prior political experience in elected office except in being the Democratic nominee in SC-01 back in 2022 when challenging Nancy Mace.
EDIT: Annie Andrews is a pediatrician, not a nurse. Just made the corrections.
Zero, respectfully, you're incorrect here. Andrews is not a nurse. She's a pediatrician.
Yes, pedatrician! My bad. My mind wizzed for a bit because I accidentally got her background mixed with Rep. Lauren Underwood, who was a registered nurse prior to running for the House back in 2018.
Andrews also is senior adviser for Everytown for Gun Safety and she had Underwood had served in leadership roles before running for politics.
Plenty of Democratic candidates for the special elections have been politicians, see Iowa Senate 35, Pennsylvania Senate 36, and others have previously run for office. Well-liked local politicians make strong candidates, and I wouldn't assume likable non-politicians make better candidates, even if they can do quite well. For more intensive races in larger districts, candidates who have run for office before are probably ideal.
Needs to go to 30% approval and 70% disapproval.
Was 32 Bush's low point median? Do you remember the month? I remember seeing him as low as 25 but that might have an outlier poll.
I have 27 in my head. No idea if that's correct.
I get the name recognition, but I think Scott Brown is much more likable than John Sununu if you're a Republican voter. I don't get how Sununu is the frontrunner here. Especially considering the Epstein ties.
I think the moderates (there are a handful in NH) like that he's a former governor and MAGA likes that he was endorsed by their pedo-king.
John Sununu is a former senator, not governor. His brother and his dad (who he shares a name with) were both governor.
I think it's 100% name recognition. His brother was popular as governor, somehow, and they share a last name which was already well known before his brother's win in 2016.
My dad got the same mailer. I looked it up because he was curious: the PAC is supporting Scott Brown. I don't know anyone in my immediate family that has voted republican in the past 40 years, and everyone votes in democratic primaries. So, like your experience, they are not targeting voters well at all.
You're in a blue part of NH, right? This part is rather 50-50 so at least for the one my family received it could be explained by them targeting by zip code. Not a great defense but a bit less stupid than explicitly targeting registered democrats for voting in a republican primary.
I'm thinking they are trying to move the general election head to head polls so that Brown looks more electable than Sununu. A lot of Sununu's support in the September primary is based on perceived better electability.
A lot of the MAGA X posters are hitting the copium super hard today.
"It's not vote by mail, it's absentee voting!"
"It was a requested ballot, not ballots sent to everyone!"
They're deranged.
If we’re including non-legislative special elections, definitely the Georgia Public Service Commission special elections. I agree with your top two in Texas and Pennsylvania.
Emily Gregory's victory in HD-87 last night is also a very big symbolic victory. You have a Democratic candidate prevailing in a district Trump won in 2024 by double digits, and she narrowly flipped it by over a point.
It shows that independents are breaking BIG for Democrats, as well as a decent slice of squishy Republican voters. It's similar to how Rehmet won his TX state Senate seat in a R-favorable district.
Taylor Rehmet and Mike Zimmer in Iowa.
Is there any point in making a donation to Padilla Stout or is that just throwing money away?
Why would it be throwing it away?
Because if she has no chance of winning my limited funds can go elsewhere where it might actually make a difference.
Based on the amount of overperformance by Democratic candidates since last year, there's no reason to assume she has no chance.
I understand your question from a strategic "I want the best bang for my limited buck" viewpoint, and of course it makes sense, lots of people give this way. But I feel like this exact kind of pre-triaging is one of the contributing factors to the party being almost nonexistent, or anemic in several states, and losing winnable races. I always see Democrats that either have shoestring resources, or Dems that are extremely popular and get more money than they need to win. There seems to be little in between, Democrats that have just enough without soaking up excess cash that could be better spent elsewhere. I feel like we need to find a way to get money to candidates that aren't getting it because magnets like AOC and Ossoff whose popularity drags in cash.
I understand your argument and appreciate the point of view. I have given small donations to many candidates who were polling poorly. Decided that I'd give to underfunded candidates only in close races as giving when there is no chance is a waste. That being said the need to compete in all states at all levels is strong but think that there giving to local organizers rather than candidates is the best investment
I think it depends on if the candidate seems like a grifter or if they’re building infrastructure. If no one ever gets money to build infrastructure then when the state starts turning purple there’s nothing to build on. But then you get candidates who run against lightning rods like MTG or Mitch McConnell and they’re money vacuums, there’s no building. This 1. Seems like a winnable race, 2. Has a candidate who so far doesn’t give off grifter vibes, and 3. Is in Texas where we absolutely need to be building that infrastructure, particularly among Latinos. So my vote is a good ROI whether she wins or not!
It would not be throwing your money away. She absolutely has a chance. If anything, she's one of the better Dem candidates to donate to right now--she needs to build up an organization, and money now will have more impact.
Agree with this. Many of the big name challengers are already well-funded. This is 100% a race we can win in this environment and against this opponent, particularly if there is even a moderate amount of Latino snapback to our column. It would be money well spent.
https://www.notus.org/republicans/brian-kemp-derek-dooley-trump-georgia-endorsement
GA-Sen: There is bad blood between the Trump WH and Gov. Brian Kemp, for Kemp endorsing Derek Dooley in the Republican primary. Trump wanted to agree to endorse someone else, but Kemp went ahead all in for Dooley.
Kemp has pretty good instincts usually so I’m baffled at him going to the mat for Dooley
Kemp has good instincts on himself only. Not running this year to damage himself.
Look at his last appointment to the other seat.
You mean Kelly Loeffler? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
I don't know if he'll fare well against Warnock in 2028, should he run.
Not sure Warnock is running for POTUS? Since obviously Kemp is not setting his eyes on the Senate.
I thought Kemp would run for Senate. After Trump is out, the GOP is going to be radioactive for a bit.
Kemp definitely has eyes on the presidency but I think he'll see how the landscape looks first.
You know what, fair point haha
I have to question the Vote Vets ad for Josh Turek, not because I favor either candidate in that primary, but because of its attempt to connect his spina bifida with his father's exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam.
Here is what the Cleveland Clinic says about likely causes of spina bifida:
Risk factors of spina bifida
Talk to your provider to learn more about whether or not you’re at risk of having a child with this condition. For example, your child may be at higher risk if you:
Don’t get enough folic acid
Take certain medications (like some antiseizure medications)
Have a condition like diabetes or obesity
Have a high fever or overheat during early pregnancy
Your risk also increases if you have the condition or you’ve already had a child with a neural tube defect (genetics).
If Vote Vets wants to support Turek with an ad campaign, that is its choice. However, spreading misinformation, if the ad is indeed making that connection with Agent Orange, is irresponsible.
Thank you for the links. I looked at all of them. While the V.A. does cover children of veterans exposed to Agent Orange who have spina bifida, I note that the first two references state that a clear connection has not yet been established. Yes, the children should be covered if there is even a chance that Agent Orange caused their condition, whether or not we have conclusive evidence. However, we should also acknowledge that there is still no definitive answer. Continued studies may establish such a link. We are not there yet.
We should actually have a healthcare system that would cover all children with this condition regardless of why they have it.
Again, I have no problems with Vote Vets making whatever endorsement it wishes, but for me, more compelling reasons would be statements about Turek's positions on the issues facing our country and why he is the best candidate to meet the moment.
I did not know that Turek made this claim. I focused on the Vote Vets ad.
The reason that there isn't an established link may just be that they obviously can't do an experiment
unpopular take maybe: the va has suppressed treatment of so many diseases/illnesses that stem from combat operations that at this point, I'm not really mad if we highlight (even slightly incorrectly) the dangers of sending our young people to die overseas.
I believe it would increase support for greater VA funding, something that is sorely needed now that we do not have the great jon tester leading the charge for a VA veterans truly deserve
I also know that the VA refused to acknowledge the link between Agent Orange exposure and diabetes in Vietnam Vets with exposure until lawsuits made them years ago. Agent Orange has been proven to actually cause DNA permanent damage to those it touched and to their children also. I know because not only did my brother-in-law develop diabetes but then his children did too. Very likely the same type of genetic damage applies here to the the chromosomes in the DNA chains.
In this kind of blue-leaning environment, it's certainly possible Democrats could break the supermajority in the FL legislature (which would help Jolly, should he win, drive a hard bargain with his vetoes).
Is it just me or is anyone else still giddy about two of the three FL legislative seats flipping, plus Phil Berger conceding his loss?
It's pretty awesome but I'm not really giddy over anything right now. Recovering from RSV.
Oh my God I hope you’re doing all right. I know that’s pretty terrible.
Oh, I'm so sorry! I got the vaccination for RSV when it was added to the list of recommendations for seniors by Michigan Medicine. Mine was covered by Medicare. I get vaccinated for absolutely everything I can. I would rather pay for the poke and avoid getting sick, then get laid up with something that can be avoided. I worried about fellow Seniors, who I am around everyday, getting sick from grandkids in school.