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.
So here's a question for you all - in your opinion, what are the most impressive R -> D flips in special elections in Trump's second term?
Here are my top 3.
3) NH-HD-Carroll 7. Maybe I'm biased because this was in my state, but this was a hugely impressive win since this area has been solidly Republican for a long time, and Democrats didn't win any seats here even in 2018.
2) PA-SD-36. It's hard to get more historically Republican than Lancaster County, a place that has only voted Democratic for President once in the past 150 (!) years, and even that was 1) in the midst of LBJ's massive 1964 landslide, and 2) by a margin of less than 1 percent. And for the Lancaster suburbs (which used to be solidly Republican themselves) to now be blue enough to outvote the 80% Republican rural areas, is just insane.
1) TX-SD-9. Most of this district is rock-ribbed Republican suburbs, that haven't voted for a Democrat for any office in decades. This one gets the top spot not just because the district voted for Trump by 17 percent, but because the Democrat, Taylor Rehmet, won the election by a 15 percent margin. I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw this result.
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.
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.
Got a lot of info to post today since I was unable to do any yesterday, so I apologize for the coming volume of comments, but I’ll first just start off by saying I expected us to lose all 3 of the FL specials last night. I was pretty shocked we flipped two of them.
Republicans in the Trump era have made an extremely annoying habit of just getting enough persuadable voters to result in a ton of “moral” victories for Democrats, especially in Florida, but a few points away from actual wins in tantalizingly close races.
That now the final chunk of voters in these red district special elections which the GOP was winning over regularly is now voting Democratic is an extremely positive sign for us in the midterms.
I’m going to go against the grain though and say the most impressive result was the one Democrats didn’t win and didn’t overperform much in. Why? A few reasons.
- GOP turnout in that race was 51-36 (R-D).
- Trump 2024 voting Puerto-Rican areas, flipped to Democrats.
- Republicans spent $650k on holding this seat while the Democrat raised $15k.
Democrats didn’t even run a candidate here in 2022 and lost the seat 57-43 in 2024.
Yet the Democrat still only lost by 8 points, with a 6 point improvement. If you can get a 6 point swing left in a R+15 electorate with all of the above factors stacked against you, you’re going to be winning a lot of future elections across the country.
I just received a mailer from an anti-John Sununu group called Strong as Granite PAC, which I had never heard of before. The mailer criticizes Sununu for 1) appearing in the Epstein files (the front of the mailer contains pictures of Sununu and Epstein next to each other), 2) taking funding from Islamic terrorist groups and their supporters, and 3) being in the pocket of Wall Street, the insurance industry, and the prescription drug industry.
It is not clear from the mailer whether Strong as Granite PAC is Democratic-aligned, or supporting Sununu's primary opponent Scott Brown. The mailer doesn't provide a recommendation on who to vote for - it simply says to 'Stop Sununu'. In addition, their voter targeting is not very good, since I am a registered Democrat and thus not allowed to vote in the Republican primary.
But Sununu would be a stronger general election candidate than Scott Brown, so I can't complain too much.
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.
I seem to remember it being 32 before the 2006 midterms, at least according to Pew. Gallup though had it closer to the 37-38 mark. Unfortunately back then there wasn’t as much of an audience for politics coverage as there is today, so I can’t seem to find any polling aggregate to average the polls going back that far except Republican Clear Politics, which is not reliable for obvious reasons. So salt to your preference.
Simon Conway (Iowa right wing talk radio host) begging his listeners to stop yelling at him for giving Rob Sand easy interviews because he can’t help it if Sand keeps giving exactly the right answers a dem should give to get elected governor of Iowa
Rob has run a master class in Iowa politics so far. He actually worked for the most liberal candidates in different primaries in the past. One being Denise O'Brien for Ag Secretary and the other one being Ed Fallon for Governor. If the Republicans were smart, they would tie Sand's resume to him, but they just keep screaming about gender and abortion.
One other thing I’ve been noticing about special elections downballot. Democrats aren’t running politicians anymore for these seats, they’re recruiting and running people with deep ties to their communities, who have little electoral experience and now it’s the Republicans who are running politicians in these seats. It’s a complete switch of who exactly is running to represent our party and we’re winning races we used to be losing. If that isn’t a clear signal of what direction our party needs to move in, I don’t know what is.
We’re nominating union workers, nurses, small business owners, veterans, firefighters, thoroughly working class people who don’t have experience in politics. And though this phenomenon isn’t happening in federal/top ticket races yet, the fact it’s happening at the bottom means it’ll creep up eventually to start effecting the top too. This crop of newly elected and soon to be elected Democratic lawmakers in November with fresh eyes, energy and a positive message of why voters should support them will be running for higher office sooner than we think.
I’ve never been more excited and hopeful to see a rebirth and rebrand of our party in every state starting at the very bottom (which is where the GOP started 20 years ago to now control everything because of that focus and work done at the very bottom of elected office). We’ve needed this since Obama and I’m so happy to see it finally coming to fruition as Democrats are understanding what we’ve been doing wrong as a party and no longer doing what led us to ruin. People > politicians. It really is that simple a formula to win races.
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.
I think this is definitely true that it’s easier to recruit outsiders when you’re not the party in power, but I do think it needs to be mentioned that Democrats didn’t really do this in Trump 1. All of our candidates seemed to just ride the anti-Trump wave as polished centrist politicians. This is actually Democrats advocating for something, not just being against the Trump agenda/chaos. Both are changes from what I/we experienced during Trump’s first presidency and to my untrained novice election enthusiast’s eye, isn’t something I’ve really seen since after Obama 2008 at the top or bottom of the party.
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.
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.
So here's a question for you all - in your opinion, what are the most impressive R -> D flips in special elections in Trump's second term?
Here are my top 3.
3) NH-HD-Carroll 7. Maybe I'm biased because this was in my state, but this was a hugely impressive win since this area has been solidly Republican for a long time, and Democrats didn't win any seats here even in 2018.
2) PA-SD-36. It's hard to get more historically Republican than Lancaster County, a place that has only voted Democratic for President once in the past 150 (!) years, and even that was 1) in the midst of LBJ's massive 1964 landslide, and 2) by a margin of less than 1 percent. And for the Lancaster suburbs (which used to be solidly Republican themselves) to now be blue enough to outvote the 80% Republican rural areas, is just insane.
1) TX-SD-9. Most of this district is rock-ribbed Republican suburbs, that haven't voted for a Democrat for any office in decades. This one gets the top spot not just because the district voted for Trump by 17 percent, but because the Democrat, Taylor Rehmet, won the election by a 15 percent margin. I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw this result.
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.
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
I believe they are longtime friends from youth, not just like political or professional circles.
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.
https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/birth-defects/spina-bifida.asp
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/agent-orange-cause-spina-bifida
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19894129/
https://www.vetsprobono.org/impact-stories/article.815041-Vietnam_Veteran_Wins_Landmark_VA_Benefits_Case_for_Daughter_with_Spina_Bifi
https://sbfv.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Agents-Orange-Benefits-Act.pdf
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.
Do you have a reason to think Turek has not been found eligible for these exact benefits and that's the basis of him making this claim?
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.
Ugh so annoying to have the other TX-33 candidates endorse Allred.
Trump hits second term job approval low on RCP. -15.3
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/donald-trump/approval-rating
Do we have any VA updates on early redistricting votes?
https://www.vpap.org/elections/early-voting/
I'd select the option to view by county/city rather than by cd because cd's dont really give an accurate picture
WI-SC: Partial good news from the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. Chris Taylor leads 23-17, with 53% undecided, which isn't great.
However, 77% of Democrats report that they're certain to vote, and only 59% of Republicans.
https://www.wpr.org/news/poll-chris-taylor-leads-maria-lazar-wisconsin-supreme-court-race
That's an insane level of undecideds. They need to push leaners more. Or at all.
No kidding, the election is in a couple weeks!
Got a lot of info to post today since I was unable to do any yesterday, so I apologize for the coming volume of comments, but I’ll first just start off by saying I expected us to lose all 3 of the FL specials last night. I was pretty shocked we flipped two of them.
Republicans in the Trump era have made an extremely annoying habit of just getting enough persuadable voters to result in a ton of “moral” victories for Democrats, especially in Florida, but a few points away from actual wins in tantalizingly close races.
That now the final chunk of voters in these red district special elections which the GOP was winning over regularly is now voting Democratic is an extremely positive sign for us in the midterms.
I’m going to go against the grain though and say the most impressive result was the one Democrats didn’t win and didn’t overperform much in. Why? A few reasons.
- GOP turnout in that race was 51-36 (R-D).
- Trump 2024 voting Puerto-Rican areas, flipped to Democrats.
- Republicans spent $650k on holding this seat while the Democrat raised $15k.
Democrats didn’t even run a candidate here in 2022 and lost the seat 57-43 in 2024.
Yet the Democrat still only lost by 8 points, with a 6 point improvement. If you can get a 6 point swing left in a R+15 electorate with all of the above factors stacked against you, you’re going to be winning a lot of future elections across the country.
https://x.com/MappingFL/status/2036574099447701518
https://x.com/MappingFL/status/2036618250822230451
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.
New Quinnipiac poll.
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2036868599671845373
2026 Generic Congressional Ballot
🟦 Democrats: 51% [+4]
🟥 Republicans: 40% [-3]
D+11: biggest lead of cycle (was D+4 in Dec)
——
• Dem: Dem 99-1
• GOP: GOP 93-5
• Indie: Dem 57-26
• Men: GOP 46-43
• Women: Dem 58-35
@QuinnipiacPoll
| 3/19-23 | 1,191 RV
NH-Sen: Interesting how early they're starting.
I just received a mailer from an anti-John Sununu group called Strong as Granite PAC, which I had never heard of before. The mailer criticizes Sununu for 1) appearing in the Epstein files (the front of the mailer contains pictures of Sununu and Epstein next to each other), 2) taking funding from Islamic terrorist groups and their supporters, and 3) being in the pocket of Wall Street, the insurance industry, and the prescription drug industry.
It is not clear from the mailer whether Strong as Granite PAC is Democratic-aligned, or supporting Sununu's primary opponent Scott Brown. The mailer doesn't provide a recommendation on who to vote for - it simply says to 'Stop Sununu'. In addition, their voter targeting is not very good, since I am a registered Democrat and thus not allowed to vote in the Republican primary.
But Sununu would be a stronger general election candidate than Scott Brown, so I can't complain too much.
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.
New Reuters poll of adults.
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2036531616860733686
REUTERS/IPSOS - Trump Approval
Approve: 36% (-4)
Disapprove: 62% (+4)
——
Trump's net approval on key issues
🟤 Immigration: -13
🔴 Foreign policy: -27 (new low)
🔴 Economy: -33 (new low)
🔴 Cost of living: -41 (new low)
——
U.S. strikes on Iran
Approve: 35% (-2)
Disapprove: 61% (+2)
——
3/2/-23 | 1,272 A
https://reuters.com/world/us/trumps-approval-hits-new-36-low-fuel-prices-surge-amid-iran-war-reutersipsos-2026-03-24/
Needs to go to 30% approval and 70% disapproval.
I’m personally anxiously awaiting Bush’s number (32). If that gets broken all hell breaks loose on the GOP side.
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 seem to remember it being 32 before the 2006 midterms, at least according to Pew. Gallup though had it closer to the 37-38 mark. Unfortunately back then there wasn’t as much of an audience for politics coverage as there is today, so I can’t seem to find any polling aggregate to average the polls going back that far except Republican Clear Politics, which is not reliable for obvious reasons. So salt to your preference.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2008/12/18/bush-and-public-opinion/
I have 27 in my head. No idea if that's correct.
Rob Sand’s campaign for Governor in Iowa is driving right wingers nuts lol.
https://x.com/patdennis/status/2036434319342744051
Simon Conway (Iowa right wing talk radio host) begging his listeners to stop yelling at him for giving Rob Sand easy interviews because he can’t help it if Sand keeps giving exactly the right answers a dem should give to get elected governor of Iowa
Rob has run a master class in Iowa politics so far. He actually worked for the most liberal candidates in different primaries in the past. One being Denise O'Brien for Ag Secretary and the other one being Ed Fallon for Governor. If the Republicans were smart, they would tie Sand's resume to him, but they just keep screaming about gender and abortion.
One other thing I’ve been noticing about special elections downballot. Democrats aren’t running politicians anymore for these seats, they’re recruiting and running people with deep ties to their communities, who have little electoral experience and now it’s the Republicans who are running politicians in these seats. It’s a complete switch of who exactly is running to represent our party and we’re winning races we used to be losing. If that isn’t a clear signal of what direction our party needs to move in, I don’t know what is.
We’re nominating union workers, nurses, small business owners, veterans, firefighters, thoroughly working class people who don’t have experience in politics. And though this phenomenon isn’t happening in federal/top ticket races yet, the fact it’s happening at the bottom means it’ll creep up eventually to start effecting the top too. This crop of newly elected and soon to be elected Democratic lawmakers in November with fresh eyes, energy and a positive message of why voters should support them will be running for higher office sooner than we think.
I’ve never been more excited and hopeful to see a rebirth and rebrand of our party in every state starting at the very bottom (which is where the GOP started 20 years ago to now control everything because of that focus and work done at the very bottom of elected office). We’ve needed this since Obama and I’m so happy to see it finally coming to fruition as Democrats are understanding what we’ve been doing wrong as a party and no longer doing what led us to ruin. People > politicians. It really is that simple a formula to win races.
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.
I think this is definitely true that it’s easier to recruit outsiders when you’re not the party in power, but I do think it needs to be mentioned that Democrats didn’t really do this in Trump 1. All of our candidates seemed to just ride the anti-Trump wave as polished centrist politicians. This is actually Democrats advocating for something, not just being against the Trump agenda/chaos. Both are changes from what I/we experienced during Trump’s first presidency and to my untrained novice election enthusiast’s eye, isn’t something I’ve really seen since after Obama 2008 at the top or bottom of the party.
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.