146 Comments
User's avatar
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Feb 12Edited
Comment deleted
anonymouse's avatar

I'm curious why you had NM-02 as a tossup in the first place? Vasquez won by four points even as Trump won the seat by 2 points. Always seemed at least lean D or Likely D off the bat assuming 2026 would be no worse than 2024 was.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Feb 12Edited
Comment deleted
Henrik's avatar

Sanford coming at Graham from the right would be a remarkable change

the lurking ecologist's avatar

If Sanford is running against 2006 Graham, he could run to the right, but its not 2006 anymore. Possible he could force a primary runoff. The Project 2025 author who's name I can't remember will also suck up some RW vote.

Head to head, Sanford is toast

Justin Gibson's avatar

Paul Dans is his name.

Zero Cool's avatar

Sanford's got no chance against Lindsay Graham, especially considering Trump hates his guts.

Really? After launching his own would-be presidential campaign against Trump? Sanford now thinks he's still hot stuff in SC?

JazElections's avatar

I would have thought the cheating scandal would end him but here we are 17 years later

Zero Cool's avatar

The cheating scandal was pre-Trump. Post-Trump, Sanford lost the GOP primary to Katie Arrington only then for her to lose the general election to Joe Cunningham.

If Sanford couldn't keep his own House seat in the primary back in 2018, he's likely going to be killed in the June primary. Graham won the 2020 GOP Primary with 67% of the votes.

AWildLibAppeared's avatar

He's a narcissist with no values, so this is not that surprising. He probably won't do it.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Feb 12
Comment deleted
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Feb 12
Comment deleted
JazElections's avatar

I was getting more at the idea that she isn't one with the party if she even considered running in the special in the first place

Hudson Democrat's avatar

the full november term is decided in all likelihood the june full term democratic primary, assemblywoman bagolie is a committed progressive

JazElections's avatar

If she's so progressive then why does she hate this progressive so much and talk about how moderate she is?

D S's avatar

Bagolie is a thoroughly forgettable backbencher, but she isn't a conservacrat. What she is doing isn't helpful, but she is not a fringe voice, although I doubt a primary bid by her would have been very successful.

Paleo's avatar

She won’t run for the primary in June. Which means she won’t be on the ballot in November.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Feb 12Edited
Comment deleted
JanusIanitos's avatar

I wonder how much Trump being a lame duck is playing into this. He's never going to be on the ballot again. Elected republicans have to account for the future of running for office without him.

Normally lame duck negatives don't start to set in until the final two years, after midterms, but this admin is going out of their way to alienate and ignore elected officials at every turn. Could easily be accelerating the process.

Political reality comes home to roost for everyone. It hits harder for people that have convinced themselves that they are immune to it.

michaelflutist's avatar

So, of course I agree with most of that, but lying is a bad idea and also totally unnecessary, given what the truth is.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Feb 12
Comment deleted
michaelflutist's avatar

I thought you meant Democrats shouldn't hesitate to lie.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Feb 13
Comment deleted
michaelflutist's avatar

If you want to be a troll, that's on you.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Feb 12Edited
Comment deleted
Henrik's avatar

that is the first time I’ve ever heard Tim Pool make a coherent, reasonable point

Zero Cool's avatar

It also doesn't help MAGA that Steve Bannon had close ties to Jeffrey Epstein and that he was looking for Epstein to help him with connections in Europe so he could add more influence.

Also, Tim Pool has been skeptical of the tariff agenda and last year pointed out Trump has done little to stop the prices of groceries and affordability in general. He has the ability to be truthful in his reporting even while I think he can be nuts at times.

Lastly, I could care less what Nick Fuentes says.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Feb 11Edited
Comment deleted
MPC's avatar

Is approval among Republican voters softening? That’s how we turn a blue wave into a tsunami.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Feb 11
Comment deleted
anonymouse's avatar

Much more believable than the poll showing big ticket splitting from the Senate and Supreme Court race. I think Cooper will do better than Earls, but not dramatically so.

MPC's avatar

I was about to post that. Thank you! 🙏

Guy Cohen's avatar

Those numbers are flip the State House territory. Also Don David has a real shot in this scenario.

MPC's avatar

I was wondering the same thing. We still have 9.5 months to go, maybe eke out an outright flip of both state House and Senate.

Guy Cohen's avatar

I forgot, these are also the numbers that Chuck Edwards starts to sweat.

AnthonySF's avatar

But why can’t Cooper hit 50%

MPC's avatar

He'll hit 50% by this summer. I feel confident in that.

I'd say he's almost certain to flip the seat, like Hickenlooper did in CO back in 2020.

User's avatar
Comment removed
Feb 11
Comment removed
MPC's avatar

Speaker Johnson will hate this.

Good.

User's avatar
Comment removed
Feb 11
Comment removed
Jeff Singer's avatar

Thank you for the catch, I've fixed!

User's avatar
Comment removed
Feb 11
Comment removed
ClimateHawk's avatar

I think they wanted Way.

And the point isn't so much to have your candidate win, it is to ensure the person who crossed you loses.

That way you can intimidate other pols without spending $$.

User's avatar
Comment removed
Feb 11
Comment removed
ClimateHawk's avatar

Again, there is no real danger here.

Mejia isn't even there for a full term. They can go after her in the primary and again in Nov.

Plus, it isn't as if the Dem establishment is any real danger of doing something anti-Israel, so she does not matter.

What matters is that Dem Congresscritters, even pro-Israel ones, know that if they don't cave to every AIPAC demand, they are vulnerable.

Marcus Graly's avatar

Disagree. They look like total idiots. Tanking someone who agrees with you 95% of the time to get someone who supports you 0% of this time doesn't intimidate anyone.

Zach McNamara's avatar

As it turns out, considerably short-sighted. I think there was so little of an accurate picture of this race they were expecting Gill or Way to break through.

Mr. Rochester's avatar

I'm willing to bet part of AIPAC's calculus was that they're unsettled by how they're becoming a bogeyman in Democratic politics and are more determined to throw their weight around than usual. They're so used to getting their way and wielding political power that they now feel like they have to exercise that power to prove they still have it, even in situations where it doesn't make tactical sense to do so. They wanted to make a statement by taking down the undisputed frontrunner and in doing so overplayed their hand.

ArcticStones's avatar

If I had my druthers, AIPAC would have announced that they would be refusing to support anyone who refused to certify the 2020 Election – and stuck with that.

ClimateHawk's avatar

Not good tactical sense in terms of this race. But in a wider lens strategic sense, yes.

Remember when Trump would go after normie GOP Reps who didn't completely bend the knee and they'd lose a winnable seat and Dems would laugh?

It isn't about so much about winning the individual race, but trying to control the entire herd. Bend them to your will. If you have to lose a race here & there to do it, so be it.

Mr. Rochester's avatar

Yes and no. It would've been a strategic victory if it resulted in people being cowed into submission, but this seems to have enraged people instead. You make a good comparison because it's the same tactic, but AIPAC has way less control over the Democratic Party than Trump does over Republicans, so where Trump can get away with it, AIPAC risks alienating instead of disciplining. Even early on, it would've been nearly unthinkable for a Republican Trump went after to run ads pushing back, but Democrats can successfully do that with AIPAC. NJ's results only make that more likely, now that a broader part of the Democratic Party has a bone to pick with them.

User's avatar
Comment removed
Feb 11
Comment removed
Paleo's avatar

He’s probably planning on attacking Mexico.

Marcus Graly's avatar

The problem with this administration is they've given us no reason to believe that any sort of "security" justification is genuine, leading people to suspect that actions like this are either capricious or malicious. Even if there is a good reason for closing El Paso's airspace, no one will believe it.

Henrik's avatar

Exactly. The real reason seems to be relatively innocuous/bureaucratic - weapons tests at Fort Bliss/White Sands nearby that DOD didn’t do a good job communicating about with FAA - but because of how the GOP comports itself these days nobody is willing to give the benefit of the doubt

ArcticStones's avatar

So... rather than flying those weapons tests under the radar, so to speak, the DOD unwittingly/dumwittedly assured that these got maximum attention.

Henrik's avatar

I didn’t say the innocuous/bureaucratic explanation was smart!

MPC's avatar

They just lifted the order. My guess is that TACO and his regime got an earful from angry airline CEOs.

Marcus Graly's avatar

This is the problem with filling your administration with yes-men. In any other government, include Trump 1, people would have said "Are you crazy? You can't shut down an airport that serves a million people for ten days!" These days they just do it unquestioningly.

BlackJackHorror's avatar

If these dipshits couldn't even make Minnesotans cower, there's nothing to suggest that they'd actually be capable of large scale intimidation.

Not everyone in the government is keen on doing Donald's personal bidding

bpfish's avatar

Seems like a test. See what they can get away with and for how long.

ArcticStones's avatar

Regarding Virginia’s redistricting, which I applaud as necessary: Do we yet have an explanation of why District 2 (I think it was) was not made more Blue by making a few more adjustments to the very-Blue District 3? Neglecting to do this strikes me as absolutely stunning – a lapse in an otherwise good strategy. Any insights into what went on behind closed doors?

JazElections's avatar

I think Bobby Scott was just a little stingy, and that the state party doesn't really like Luria.

michaelflutist's avatar

Why would they not like Luria?

Henrik's avatar

There’s a theory that mapmakers wanted to rely on the extant understanding of VRA based on the state’s experience with redistricting in the 2010s

ArcticStones's avatar

Interesting. Could you clarify what that means in this case, what it entails and why?

Henrik's avatar

Basically since VA was forced to redraw their seats in 2016 the mapmakers didn’t want to screw with the 3rd too much, the VRA protected seat at the center of that dispute.

Note that this is a theory

ArcticStones's avatar

Thank you. Makes sense.

Stargate77's avatar

According to VPAP, the current VA-03 is 44% black. If the new VA-03 also has to be 44% black to comply with the VRA, then I can see why they left the district unchanged for the most part. However, if the new VA-03 can have a black percentage in the low 40s and still comply with the VRA, then they definitely could've made more changes to make the new VA-02 bluer than they made it.

PollJunkie's avatar

I think AIPAC and its spokesperson reiterated multiple times that they had a beef with Malinokowski for voicing support for conditioning aid to Israel and he was going to regain his senior position on the Foreign Affairs committee due to some House rules. I don't want to discuss the politics of I/P but I think there should be a correction.

JazElections's avatar

Mejia was endorsed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, not Alexandra.

Patrick Morrisey made a similar mistake spelling out "West Virgina" yesterday at a local mall.

Jeff Singer's avatar

Thanks! I fixed.

Paleo's avatar

The Trump administration tried and failed Tuesday to indict Democratic lawmakers over a video urging members of the military and intelligence communities not to comply with unlawful orders, three sources familiar with the matter told NBC News.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/doj-fails-secure-indictment-democrats-involved-illegal-orders-video-rcna258385

PollJunkie's avatar

TEXAS POLL - Governor

🟥 Greg Abbott (inc): 49%

🟦 Gina Hinojosa: 42%

🟨 Pat Dixon: 3%

——

LT GOV

🟥 Dan Patrick (inc): 46%

🟦 Vikki Goodwin: 41%

🟨 A. Cristo: 4%

UN/TSU | 1/20-31 | 550 LV | ±4.18%

https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2021575574464974950

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26948419-state/

MPC's avatar

I hate how Abbott is almost at 50% already.

TX voters, please, please, PLEASE show this man the door this year. That would make my day more than the TX Senate seat flipping.

PollJunkie's avatar

Hinojosa is at 42 percent already with little name recognition! I really hope that the Soros family invests the 100 million they promised.

MPC's avatar

This year has so much potential to sweep out incumbent Republicans statewide, especially in TX. I pray voters don't muck it up.

MetroATLDem's avatar

I missed this. Where did you hear this?

PollJunkie's avatar

Mid-2025. Lone Star Project director.

michaelflutist's avatar

A 7-point deficit is not that bad.

Zero Cool's avatar

Libertarian Candidates Pat Dixon and Anthony Cristo are certainly making a dent in the gubernatorial and Lt. Governor races if we're talking about support taken away from Abbott and Patrick that would otherwise go to them.

anonymouse's avatar

I think the Lieutenant Governor race is winnable if the Senate matchup is our ideal Paxton v. Talarico. Patrick is a complete piece of shit. I kind of favor Marcos Velez over Goodwin in the primary.