Nancy Pelosi's endorsement of Connie Chan + Saikat Chakrabarti endorsing her after losing the primary are quite significant. That means the base of Chan and Chakrabarti support will likely coalese together, making the CA-14 race closer than expected.
Plus, Chan's recent protest at the San Francisco International Airport and over ICE, raising awareness of $30/hour minimum wage for airport workers and getting arrested at the same time are already showing she's ready to lead.
This is not going to be the same race for Scott Weiner as back in 2016 when he challenged Jane Kim for the State Senate. I thought the CA-14 general election race was going to end up this way in he end but that was before Pelosi endorsed Chan.
Blakeman’s an awful candidate. Even more MAGA than Zeldin in this environment. What were they thinking? After Stefanik dropped out, was this their only option?
I don't think he's awful, he's just the best they have and he was basically the only Republican to win in 2025 across the country. He could also possibly juice turnout on LI for some key house races. Without Stefanik the state GOP bench is non-existent, not that anyone was going to win in a Trump midterm regardless. George Pataki ain't walking through that door.
looking back pataki got to run against some horrible democratic campaigns. in 02 pataki beat mediocre mccall in a r leaning year. More galling, in 98 he absolutely pasted the then city council speaker peter vallone sr, an otherwise good year for the party where we flipped 5 net house seats in a presidem midterm and managed to flip the alabama governor's office, by 15 points to boot. the new york democratic party has been poorly led for some time now.
The point was more that, if this is the best they have, that doesn't speak well for their chances.
I do concede on the Long Island point though. I'm actually a little worried about Laura Gillen, I believe her congestion pricing response didn't go over well with the conservative base and the left hates her for her Mamdani comments. She seems like a really weak candidate, and while I think she'll win re-election this year, I'm a little nervous she'll go down in 2028 (barring a particularly radioactive GOP presidential nominee like Vance).
She was running unopposed, and Long Island is infamously hostile to progressive politics, someone anywhere to her left would be weaker. A stronger candidate would have to be someone both very moderate and obnoxious about it, like Suozzi.
The environment and their better candidates staying out are directly related.
If you're a strong republican in a state that is somewhere to the left of purple, are you going to pick 2026 as the year you try to run for a tough statewide office? No. They will wait until the next dem midterm instead.
Somehow I had missed that Baldacci did not advance in ME-2, in a genuine stunner, and Matt Dunlap did instead. What do we think of his chances against LePage?
It was a difficult race with Baldacci, and (in my opinion) next to impossible with Dunlap. His only hope is a much bigger Democratic wave than the polls (even on the most optimistic end) are now indicating.
i didn't think it was a big deal jackson ran for govenor, because Baldacci would fill his slot as a perfect nominee for me-02 but the voters disagreed with me
You're referencing a certain issue in the Middle East and Democratic presidential primaries, of course.
There is also a "very short leash" for talk of policy, even though passing good and effective policy has an impact on Democrats ability to hold Congress when they get control. Even discussing what policies might help Democrats win elections is out of bounds.
And any positive mention of the 46th President will get you called a "deadender" and to talk about the transition during the 2024 election is also often forbidden (even though it's not about a presidential primary).
Why are we so freaking determined to make a race (MI-Sen) that we should win in a walk competitive? It used to be that we were the smarter party about nominating our best candidates. We seem to be following the Republicans down the rabbit hole here.
It'll be competitive regardless, IMO. Either of the three candidates will be within a 10 point victory, but I suppose El-Sayed is the weakest electorally of the three. None of them have been statewide nominees before, either. As someone who leans McMorrow, I'd give him a chance.
Perhaps Chris Van Hollen, a current U.S. senator, former House member, and former chair of both of the electoral arms of the Democratic House and Senate Caucuses, knows more about winning elections than many of us here.
An official endorsing a progressive candidate is only going to get much cred out of that if the candidate wins. Van Hollen gains nothing if he does this and El-Sayed loses.
Elected officials frequently make endorsements based on ideology, not electability. After blowing a winnable race in 2018, Kara Eastman should have been ignored in 2020, and yet was endorsed by many national progressives, and proceeded to lose again.
Up until maybe late last year, no one considered Chris Van Hollen - or Tina Smith or Martin Heinrich or any other of the mostly measured members of the so-called Senate Dem 'Fight Club'- as particularly Bernie- or DSA-adjacent.
Or maybe there's a possibility that Don Bacon was and is a popular incumbent and that the seat wasn't in prime opportunity to flip in 2018. Now Eastman works for The Young Turks, Bacon is retiring, and Ashford is dead. Crazy.
I doubt that means a more moderate candidate would have loss. I'm not saying Ashford was great, but a progressive was obviously a poor fit for a moderate Midwestern city.
What do you define as the best candidate besides one that obvious would win?
If El-Sayed is right now apparently being the front runner in the race, it's likely because of two reasons:
1) He's benefitting due to both Haley Stevens and Mallory McMorrow not gaining momentum.
2) El-Sayed's campaign is genuinely resonating with Michiganders, namely on economic issues. I can't speak on behalf of MI residents but if El-Sayed is a union member, that may mean a lot to voters in this state, not just if a candidate happens to simply have pro-union views.
There was someone who made a comment on here several months ago who said they were running for local office in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Any update on their primary or candidacy? For the life of me, I can't remember the person's name.
Outgoing Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) vetoed a bill that would place restrictions on mail-in voting, which was supported by the heavily Republican state legislature.
And both of them are close to 50%! I've never trusted the polls showing Talarico in the lead because to my memory, he was always in the low 40s, but this is legit promising.
NC is a layup at this point. I'd still rate ME next, but it is close. Peltola, Brown, and Turek have all won statewide before. We have polling with all leading. I'd rate AK (because of ranked choice), OH, and IA next, in that order.
Then TX. It has been longer. Talarico is a great candidate. But Paxton is odious and MAGA love odious. And rank and file GOPers almost always fall in line.
I think you might be confusing Josh Turek with Rob Sand. Sand has won statewide as Auditor and is running for Governor. Turek is a state legislator who won in difficult turf, but he has never run statewide before this year.
Both are great candidates with a chance to win this year. I loved it when Turek referenced my favorite Iowa Senator, Tom Harkin, in his election night remarks...
Do you expect the environment to improve for Republicans? We're barreling towards a recession as soon as the AI bubble pops and I have little confidence in Trump's ability to handle these sensitive negotiations with Iran. Things will, unfortunately for the rest of us who live here, get worse before they get better.
That is exactly what I mean. Most people, even in wave years eventually "go home" to their usual party. I think in the end, it will take at least a +10 wave and maybe higher. Most people on here thinks that will happen, but we will see.
That is exactly what I mean. Most people, even in wave years eventually "go home" to their usual party. I think in the end, it will take at least a +10 wave and maybe higher. Most people on here thinks that will happen, but we will see.
Also, the governor's poll is identical numbers wise to the Tulchin poll released last week. However, Fabrizio and Impact interviewed more likely voters than Tulchin.
Polls in 2018 were showing a blue tsunami that ended up just being a modest wave. Fundamentals just weren't there for something bigger, Trump was in the mid 40's, strong numbers on the economy, etc. Some people have been pointing to polls this year generally showing a modest wave as reason to be concerned, but the fundamentals might be stronger for that blue tsunami to actually show up than 2018.
Trump is less popular (or more unpopular) now than eight years ago, and the economy is far weaker, at least in terms of public perception of it. Which leaves Republicans overall more exposed to a wave; Trump's first term unpopularity was more due to personal issues and mistakes that didn't necessarily spill over to the rest of the party.
Though we might not gain as many seats especially in the House simply because there aren't as many to gain--and we don't need as many. 2018 came after three good Republican cycles out of the last four, so they were somewhat overextended especially as it had been 12 years since the last GOP trifecta.
There could also be a few odd white supremacists that vote for Acton. Nick Fuentes, a neo-Nazi and Midwesterner, said he would vote for Democrats this cycle. And I'm not saying that they're welcome in the party, just that they could vote our way in a series of complicated events.
I honestly wonder if Ramaswamy and Donalds both being nonwhite is a factor here.
It's tough to see an increasingly-nakedly white supremacist party turning out in droves for them (though I still think both are favored to win modestly at this point).
Yes, it is a factor. As I've said, might be the main reason why Democrats have a shot in Florida. But while I think Donalds is still favored, I think Ohio is even, with maybe a slight lean to Acton.
As this is a primary where there could be a huge split between Minneapolis (expected to be very pro-Flanagan) and St. Paul (where Craig probably needs at least a decent margin over Flanagan to have any chance of winning), having St. Paul's Congresswoman in her corner is huge for Flanagan.
I always thought McCollum was pretty progressive, so it doesn't surprise me, I guess. She seems like one of those members that doesn't appreciate the spotlight in place of getting actual work done.
I do find it funny that the outrage over Carville saying this is far less than the outrage over similar comments by Chevalier. I’m aware her other comments were nuts but we have to be consistent.
To be frank, I am not happy with the party’s response to these primaries. They’re throwing a fit because their candidates didn’t win and threatening all kinds of shit. Letitia fucking James just went after Mamdani for basically not backing her candidates. Absolutely shameful. I worry that if the left keeps winning primaries, the Carville types are going to sabotage us to prevent further left wins. Just disgraceful. (And before I get accused of shit, no, the left are not absolved either. I’d even argue their previous actions invited all this dogshit, and created the image that we’re unwilling to cooperate.)
Not saying that she's being smeared. I'm simply pointing out that she actually appears reasonable in this interview. Judging by what you read about her you'd think she was certifiably insane and I just didn't see that in this interview. Just my perspective but she seemed reasonable and measured and had decent responses for some of her more divisive statements.
Ah ok, you said painted like her words were being taken out of context. I'm glad she's getting a clue and zipping her impulse thoughts now that people will be paying attention.
Carville's always shot his mouth off. I don't think he has the capability, or inclination, to do damage to the party as does a sitting senator who goes on Fox and dumps all over members of the party and defends Trump. He makes Manchin and Sinema look like party stalwarts.
Not him specifically, per se, I meant types like him. I’m worried there are people much more powerful in the party than him that have similar beliefs. The response to these wins is downright alarming.
Being a jerk is not a synonym for aligning with republicans on a lot of high profile issues. Fetterman probably always was a bit of a jerk. But he wasn't what he is today.
He suffered actual, literal brain damage and has shown personality changes as a result of it. Linking those personality changes to a sudden, and contemporaneous, ideological shift is not a stretch.
Don't blame this on progressives. He won the primary with 59%, plenty of points over Lamb and Kenyatta, the latter also being progressive. Do you really think it was *only* progressives who helped get him that win?
I mean as someone who thinks Chevalier is an absolute toxic loon, the sensible thing to do is at least wait until she's actually in Congress and see how she does. If she doesn't and repeats some of the insane shit she has the past 5 years, we can discuss expulsion. Until then, learn the cherished art of holding your fire and shutting the fuck up.
Social media now absolutely amplifies backbenchers that enables them to live rent free in people's heads whereas 20 years ago no-one paid them anymind. The Democratic Party survived Cynthia McKinney it can survive this.
An expulsion for words rather than actions would be unprecedented, not that there's a set of guidelines for Ethics to follow. I can't see how she has done anything expulsion-worthy yet.
NJ-7: Republican Rep. Tom Kean, in the flesh, was finally spotted for the first time since March at his personal residence in Westfield, wearing a suit and tie indoors. He is expected to return to Congress on Tuesday.
AZ-2 Poll: Crane (R Inc.) 44% - Nez (D) 41%. (GBAO Strategies; 500 LVs; June 11-15; +/-4.4%). A win here would take a blue wave as Cook rates this district at R+7, but the poll shows it is potentially competitive. Nez lost in 2024 and lost by 9%. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nYHNj0SrZ2WcXLhQ1feyfeGpF-5SHJgx/view?_hsmi=2
Note that Navajo turnout is often quite good in midterms, because tribal presidential elections are held simultaneously, and this year, they’ll be in the same places as state elections everywhere in AZ.
GOP meddling in MI-SEN has begun. They've begun to run 'attack' ads against AES with clear messaging meant to boost him in the primary. Their clearly telegraphing who they prefer to run against, make of that what you will.
Or who they think they’ll run against. For all we know, Abdul could surprise us. Just because the GOP wants to face him doesn’t mean he will run the campaign they think he will.
Ahhh yes. Senator John Barrasso and others, plenty of which are not even pro-union and union members like El-Sayed, are arguing he's too radical.
No, on the contrary, El-Sayed actually wants to talk about regular people dealing with a challenging economy whereas the NRSC really wants to talk about how the GOP will continue to wipe Trump's ass.
It really pissed me off when I met Joe Manchin and saw him speak and he kept going on about how great of a friend Barrasso was to him, and how bipartisan he was. Fuck those guys.
The whole concept of "being radical" has been used by the GOP for years now. Not something new.
Nevertheless, if Barrasso was really bipartisan, that may have been pre-Trump. Since those days, he's not veering off course in any way with his ideology.
NY21: D internal has us within one in the Stefanik empty seat H2H, when there exists a real possibility that the republican second place primary finisher runs as the conservative party nominee. individual has until 3rd of july to keep or decline conservative line. added background that the republican nominee, the sticker guy, has a defamation lawsuit against chairman of conservative party pending
I hope Smullen stays in the race. There's a real shot this could be somewhat similar to 2009, but I don't know if it's enough to put Gendebien over the edge.
Besides, Gendebien declined to say who he voted for in 2024, so he might not be that much of a change. Not that it matters, but regarding the recent controversy with Chevalier (which we've all went over already), implying that you didn't vote for/detest a Democratic presidential nominee then running as a Democrat isn't a good look.
I get your point about purity, and I agree that it *shouldn't* be an issue, but if people have a problem with that same concept with another candidate in New York, they should have it here, if they're so concerned about party loyalty. It would be hypocritical otherwise. There's plenty of other Democrats running in seats this red that don't have the same issue.
I say this as someone who often disagrees with people like Kamala Harris but would gladly vote for her in a millisecond over Trump. If you're going to elect someone who voted for him, of all people, why call that person a Democrat? Gendebien can keep his vote to himself. But as a Democrat running to flip a Republican district, I would hope he supports the party he's running under.
Exactly. No one should care. There is a common denominator between the two candidates, and I think it's wrong to attack just one of them for an issue that is under most people's radars.
IA-2, IA-3: HHS head Robert F. Kennedy Jr. privately urged Libertarian nominee Rick Stewart to drop out, in an attempt to help Republican nominee Joe Mitchell against Democratic nominee Lindsay James. He also pushed Libertarian Marco Battaglia to drop out so Republican Rep. Zach Nunn could win against Democrat Sarah Trone Garriott in the 3rd.
Showing my age, but I remember when cabinet members were not allowed to get involved in politics. How quaint.
IA-2 and IA-3 are each great opportunities for us. Coincidentally, both Democratic nominees are ministers. Lindsay James is a Presbyterian pastor and chaplain. Sarah Trone Garriott is a Lutheran minister.
I know this won't be popular here, but this is bad policy. It's kind of funny thought that the progressive opinion on housing has become, on the one hand, massively builder friendly, and on the other, massively landlord hostile. It's an interesting dichotomy.
NY has been doing this for decades. This is leading to the destruction of housing stock. It could also lead directly to the court overturning rent stabilization/control.
I don't have as strong of an opinion on this as you, but it's clear to me that this will be a good thing for Mamdani whether that's a good thing for the city or not. It was something he ran on, and something that contributed to his win. That's why I made the comment. Not to highlight my own opinion.
I don't know enough about NYC's history with this but to my understanding, Mamdani's original housing platform when he ran for Mayor last year was very detailed and comprehensive.
You can disagree with what Mamdani's doing here in his housing agenda but I have a feeling Mamdani's planning on doing more than just simply rent freezes. Whether this really ends up making a difference long-term in prices of rent remains to be seen.
I can virtually guarantee you that this will only make things worse. While I am no big fan of economists, the vassssst majority of economists agree that rent control has negative long term impacts on affordability. You only need to have a casual understanding of the costs of being a landlord to understand the negative impacts the rent stabilization has. And the other side of his plan is, what, what if we gave builders huge amounts of money to build a few theoretically seni-affordable units. It's the same basic plan that has been around forever. This is nothing remotely new. The only way NY becomes more affordable is if less people move there or we have a recession again.
Maybe this is a problem in NYC. However, with Berkeley as well as San Francisco, rent control doesn't typically involve rent freezes. It's generally a broad measure that limits the amount of increases rent can go up and the right amount of time that but that's not the same as stopping rent increases all together.
At my family house in Berkeley, we get renters on a regular basis (namely UC Berkeley students as we're close to campus) although if we have the option for increasing the rent, we have to abide by the following guidelines per state and local government rules:
1) Rent increase by 10% or less requires a one month notice to tenants.
2) Rent increase by more than 10% requires a three month notice.
At the same time, Berkeley, which used to be notoriously anti-development for decades, is building more housing these days that's affordable and even for the homeless as well. Developers are involved, namely sustainable housing developers. It will take time for prices to go down though.
That said, just from the perspective of someone who has lived in San Francisco for years, there's a reason why rent control exists. It's to prevent further displacement and allow those who aren't wealthy to be able to not keep moving around and getting priced out of the market too quickly.
Yes, building housing is the solution but at the same time until new housing actually lowers prices across the board where anyone can afford, you also have to keep the diversity of residents in the city as well or you lose the character of it.
Nancy Pelosi's endorsement of Connie Chan + Saikat Chakrabarti endorsing her after losing the primary are quite significant. That means the base of Chan and Chakrabarti support will likely coalese together, making the CA-14 race closer than expected.
Plus, Chan's recent protest at the San Francisco International Airport and over ICE, raising awareness of $30/hour minimum wage for airport workers and getting arrested at the same time are already showing she's ready to lead.
This is not going to be the same race for Scott Weiner as back in 2016 when he challenged Jane Kim for the State Senate. I thought the CA-14 general election race was going to end up this way in he end but that was before Pelosi endorsed Chan.
https://missionlocal.org/2026/05/s-f-supervisors-past-and-present-arrested-at-sfo-anti-ice-protest/
Hochul up 20 here in NY👊
52-32.
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/buffalo/politics/2026/06/24/poll--hochul-lead-over-blakeman-now-20-points
Blakeman’s an awful candidate. Even more MAGA than Zeldin in this environment. What were they thinking? After Stefanik dropped out, was this their only option?
I would imagine that any halfway decent GOP candidate would not want to run in a blue state in a midterm with a GOP president.
that he helps on long island and they're worried about some long island house seats
I don't think he's awful, he's just the best they have and he was basically the only Republican to win in 2025 across the country. He could also possibly juice turnout on LI for some key house races. Without Stefanik the state GOP bench is non-existent, not that anyone was going to win in a Trump midterm regardless. George Pataki ain't walking through that door.
And even Pataki now is not what he was.
Pataki wouldn’t do much better than Blakeman these days.
No, he wouldn't.
looking back pataki got to run against some horrible democratic campaigns. in 02 pataki beat mediocre mccall in a r leaning year. More galling, in 98 he absolutely pasted the then city council speaker peter vallone sr, an otherwise good year for the party where we flipped 5 net house seats in a presidem midterm and managed to flip the alabama governor's office, by 15 points to boot. the new york democratic party has been poorly led for some time now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Alabama_gubernatorial_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_New_York_gubernatorial_election
Wasn't it 1994 combined with Cuomo fatigue that handed Pataki the win? (I was nine years old then.)
Yes, exactly.
The point was more that, if this is the best they have, that doesn't speak well for their chances.
I do concede on the Long Island point though. I'm actually a little worried about Laura Gillen, I believe her congestion pricing response didn't go over well with the conservative base and the left hates her for her Mamdani comments. She seems like a really weak candidate, and while I think she'll win re-election this year, I'm a little nervous she'll go down in 2028 (barring a particularly radioactive GOP presidential nominee like Vance).
i think any new map would seek to protect her for the reasons you've outlined
It’s a shame we didn’t swap her for a stronger nominee Tuesday.
She was running unopposed, and Long Island is infamously hostile to progressive politics, someone anywhere to her left would be weaker. A stronger candidate would have to be someone both very moderate and obnoxious about it, like Suozzi.
The environment and their better candidates staying out are directly related.
If you're a strong republican in a state that is somewhere to the left of purple, are you going to pick 2026 as the year you try to run for a tough statewide office? No. They will wait until the next dem midterm instead.
Split ticketing common here in Nassau county
Its also moved right along with areas of NYC
Sure but Republicans still swept last year all over LI so it's not crazy to think there would be a similar result this year.
Not true - Suozzi and Gillen won back the Nassau county seats in 2024 - the only election last year was County Exec
And as a lifelong Long Islander who grew up in Nassau trust me I keep close track of all these races
Somehow I had missed that Baldacci did not advance in ME-2, in a genuine stunner, and Matt Dunlap did instead. What do we think of his chances against LePage?
imo, not great
I asked this same question a while back. General response was that he can still win, but his chances are significantly worse than Baldacci.
I'd say worse, not significantly worse.
Thanks for the correction.
I'd agree with that, but with the reasoning being that neither of them have a great chance to win.
It was a difficult race with Baldacci, and (in my opinion) next to impossible with Dunlap. His only hope is a much bigger Democratic wave than the polls (even on the most optimistic end) are now indicating.
i didn't think it was a big deal jackson ran for govenor, because Baldacci would fill his slot as a perfect nominee for me-02 but the voters disagreed with me
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/06/25/michigan-democrats-senate-elsayed-van-hollen/0a0a24d8-7086-11f1-8730-e7fd0e2a6404_story.html
MI-Sen: Abdul El-Sayed gains an endorsement from Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD).
Whats his motive?
I'm not sure I know what you mean. Van Hollen is a progressive voice in the Senate that aligns with El-Sayed on key issues.
He's positioning himself for one of the many, many forbidden topics here.
This is what i assumed
Many many? There are exactly two forbidden topics.
You're referencing a certain issue in the Middle East and Democratic presidential primaries, of course.
There is also a "very short leash" for talk of policy, even though passing good and effective policy has an impact on Democrats ability to hold Congress when they get control. Even discussing what policies might help Democrats win elections is out of bounds.
And any positive mention of the 46th President will get you called a "deadender" and to talk about the transition during the 2024 election is also often forbidden (even though it's not about a presidential primary).
So at the very least, shadowbans.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the forbidden topic you were referring to was the second one you listed, in relation to Van Hollen.
And your point is....?????
Why are we so freaking determined to make a race (MI-Sen) that we should win in a walk competitive? It used to be that we were the smarter party about nominating our best candidates. We seem to be following the Republicans down the rabbit hole here.
It'll be competitive regardless, IMO. Either of the three candidates will be within a 10 point victory, but I suppose El-Sayed is the weakest electorally of the three. None of them have been statewide nominees before, either. As someone who leans McMorrow, I'd give him a chance.
Perhaps Chris Van Hollen, a current U.S. senator, former House member, and former chair of both of the electoral arms of the Democratic House and Senate Caucuses, knows more about winning elections than many of us here.
Good point.
Or maybe he want progressive cred, let's get real.
An official endorsing a progressive candidate is only going to get much cred out of that if the candidate wins. Van Hollen gains nothing if he does this and El-Sayed loses.
Elected officials frequently make endorsements based on ideology, not electability. After blowing a winnable race in 2018, Kara Eastman should have been ignored in 2020, and yet was endorsed by many national progressives, and proceeded to lose again.
Up until maybe late last year, no one considered Chris Van Hollen - or Tina Smith or Martin Heinrich or any other of the mostly measured members of the so-called Senate Dem 'Fight Club'- as particularly Bernie- or DSA-adjacent.
Hmm, did Kara Eastman lose on her own, or did the moderate Democrat who lost the primary then betray the party and endorse the Republican?
Or maybe there's a possibility that Don Bacon was and is a popular incumbent and that the seat wasn't in prime opportunity to flip in 2018. Now Eastman works for The Young Turks, Bacon is retiring, and Ashford is dead. Crazy.
She lost by two points, a stronger candidate could have surely closed that gap.
I doubt that means a more moderate candidate would have loss. I'm not saying Ashford was great, but a progressive was obviously a poor fit for a moderate Midwestern city.
What do you define as the best candidate besides one that obvious would win?
If El-Sayed is right now apparently being the front runner in the race, it's likely because of two reasons:
1) He's benefitting due to both Haley Stevens and Mallory McMorrow not gaining momentum.
2) El-Sayed's campaign is genuinely resonating with Michiganders, namely on economic issues. I can't speak on behalf of MI residents but if El-Sayed is a union member, that may mean a lot to voters in this state, not just if a candidate happens to simply have pro-union views.
The podcast was good, if depressing.
There was someone who made a comment on here several months ago who said they were running for local office in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Any update on their primary or candidacy? For the life of me, I can't remember the person's name.
https://www.statenews.org/government-politics/2026-06-24/gov-dewine-blocks-effort-creating-stricter-id-for-ohio-mail-in-voting
Outgoing Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) vetoed a bill that would place restrictions on mail-in voting, which was supported by the heavily Republican state legislature.
Excellent! I thought he'd be spineless as usual and sign it like the one eliminating the grace period for mail ballots.
They have overridden vetoes before. Could happen again.
OH: Sherrod Brown up 48-45 and Amy Acton up 47-44 in poll done by Impact and Fabrizio: https://www.aarp.org/press/releases/2026-06-25-ohio-poll-50-voters-key-tight-senate-governor-races/
That's insane from a Republican pollster like Fabrizio. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think Brown and Acton might actually win.
And both of them are close to 50%! I've never trusted the polls showing Talarico in the lead because to my memory, he was always in the low 40s, but this is legit promising.
OH is above TX in terms of the flip ladder.
NC is a layup at this point. I'd still rate ME next, but it is close. Peltola, Brown, and Turek have all won statewide before. We have polling with all leading. I'd rate AK (because of ranked choice), OH, and IA next, in that order.
Then TX. It has been longer. Talarico is a great candidate. But Paxton is odious and MAGA love odious. And rank and file GOPers almost always fall in line.
Then NE & FL.
I think you might be confusing Josh Turek with Rob Sand. Sand has won statewide as Auditor and is running for Governor. Turek is a state legislator who won in difficult turf, but he has never run statewide before this year.
Both are great candidates with a chance to win this year. I loved it when Turek referenced my favorite Iowa Senator, Tom Harkin, in his election night remarks...
Talarico has been at 46 or 47 in several polls. My belief is that he may only need 48 or 49 to win with a Libertarian on the ballot.
Its two partisan pollsters, not just republican. Impact is democratic, they're used by fox news
It's a long way to November
Do you expect the environment to improve for Republicans? We're barreling towards a recession as soon as the AI bubble pops and I have little confidence in Trump's ability to handle these sensitive negotiations with Iran. Things will, unfortunately for the rest of us who live here, get worse before they get better.
I assume that means partisan votes will come home, in Trump +13 states, we don't want that.
That is exactly what I mean. Most people, even in wave years eventually "go home" to their usual party. I think in the end, it will take at least a +10 wave and maybe higher. Most people on here thinks that will happen, but we will see.
That is exactly what I mean. Most people, even in wave years eventually "go home" to their usual party. I think in the end, it will take at least a +10 wave and maybe higher. Most people on here thinks that will happen, but we will see.
Actually, there were two pollsters: One R and one D (Fabrizio Ward (R) & Impact Research (D).
I also think they might both win.
Also, the governor's poll is identical numbers wise to the Tulchin poll released last week. However, Fabrizio and Impact interviewed more likely voters than Tulchin.
https://www.nbc4i.com/news/your-local-election-hq/new-poll-shows-democratic-candidates-ahead-in-ohio/
Gonna be close but there were many late polls in 2018 showing Cordray with these types of leads and he ended up at exactly 47%.
Polls in 2018 were showing a blue tsunami that ended up just being a modest wave. Fundamentals just weren't there for something bigger, Trump was in the mid 40's, strong numbers on the economy, etc. Some people have been pointing to polls this year generally showing a modest wave as reason to be concerned, but the fundamentals might be stronger for that blue tsunami to actually show up than 2018.
My gut tells me it won't be that different. Sure a democratic advantage, I think we'll take the house but come up short in the senate
The blue wave hit the House in 2018. It just missed key governors races in FL and OH and the senate race in FL.
Trump is less popular (or more unpopular) now than eight years ago, and the economy is far weaker, at least in terms of public perception of it. Which leaves Republicans overall more exposed to a wave; Trump's first term unpopularity was more due to personal issues and mistakes that didn't necessarily spill over to the rest of the party.
Though we might not gain as many seats especially in the House simply because there aren't as many to gain--and we don't need as many. 2018 came after three good Republican cycles out of the last four, so they were somewhat overextended especially as it had been 12 years since the last GOP trifecta.
I do think it matters somewhat that DeWine in 2018 was a far-stronger candidate than Ramaswamy.
Though I still think he's slightly favored at this point, it's plausible that more than a few racist MAGAs simply stay home rather than vote for him.
There could also be a few odd white supremacists that vote for Acton. Nick Fuentes, a neo-Nazi and Midwesterner, said he would vote for Democrats this cycle. And I'm not saying that they're welcome in the party, just that they could vote our way in a series of complicated events.
Yea I'm at the Lucy holding the football stage with Ohio and Florida. Who are the undecideds?
I honestly wonder if Ramaswamy and Donalds both being nonwhite is a factor here.
It's tough to see an increasingly-nakedly white supremacist party turning out in droves for them (though I still think both are favored to win modestly at this point).
Yes, it is a factor. As I've said, might be the main reason why Democrats have a shot in Florida. But while I think Donalds is still favored, I think Ohio is even, with maybe a slight lean to Acton.
MN-Sen - In a surprise (at least to me), MN-4 Rep. Betty McCollum endorses Peggy Flanagan (I was expecting her to endorse Angie Craig):
https://www.instagram.com/p/DZ5ZWAuH8lX/?igsh=bmlxNW50cG1wMHJ2
As this is a primary where there could be a huge split between Minneapolis (expected to be very pro-Flanagan) and St. Paul (where Craig probably needs at least a decent margin over Flanagan to have any chance of winning), having St. Paul's Congresswoman in her corner is huge for Flanagan.
I always thought McCollum was pretty progressive, so it doesn't surprise me, I guess. She seems like one of those members that doesn't appreciate the spotlight in place of getting actual work done.
I don't think it's a surprise, one's an ubran progressive, the other is a surburban liberal.
Guess it's only "Vote Blue No Matter Who" for one side.
https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/im-done-im-not-in-that-fcking-political-party-james-carville-freaks-out-after-progressives-win-big-in-democratic-primaries/
That's very Avila Chevalier of him.
I do find it funny that the outrage over Carville saying this is far less than the outrage over similar comments by Chevalier. I’m aware her other comments were nuts but we have to be consistent.
To be frank, I am not happy with the party’s response to these primaries. They’re throwing a fit because their candidates didn’t win and threatening all kinds of shit. Letitia fucking James just went after Mamdani for basically not backing her candidates. Absolutely shameful. I worry that if the left keeps winning primaries, the Carville types are going to sabotage us to prevent further left wins. Just disgraceful. (And before I get accused of shit, no, the left are not absolved either. I’d even argue their previous actions invited all this dogshit, and created the image that we’re unwilling to cooperate.)
I watched Chevalier's interview on MSNow this morning and I'm not seeing this bomb thrower, racist, extremist that she's been painted as.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mncXnjrNGAA
Painted? Are you saying she's being falsely smeared?
Not saying that she's being smeared. I'm simply pointing out that she actually appears reasonable in this interview. Judging by what you read about her you'd think she was certifiably insane and I just didn't see that in this interview. Just my perspective but she seemed reasonable and measured and had decent responses for some of her more divisive statements.
Ah ok, you said painted like her words were being taken out of context. I'm glad she's getting a clue and zipping her impulse thoughts now that people will be paying attention.
Carville's always shot his mouth off. I don't think he has the capability, or inclination, to do damage to the party as does a sitting senator who goes on Fox and dumps all over members of the party and defends Trump. He makes Manchin and Sinema look like party stalwarts.
Not him specifically, per se, I meant types like him. I’m worried there are people much more powerful in the party than him that have similar beliefs. The response to these wins is downright alarming.
I believe Brad Lander spoke with Hakeem Jeffries last night to ease tensions between the wings of the NY party.
Carville isn't running for anything.
Thank God he isn’t.
Hey, if he could win a U.S. Senate seat in Louisiana I’d lump it.
Well neither was she when she said "fuck Kamala Harris"
Please stop engaging in whataboutism.
Please stop trying to tell people what to do, you have a bad habit of it.
Still better than the response from a senator from Pennsylvania who claims to be in the party.
Yeah, talking down to the "dirtbag left" that helped get you elected probably isn't the best play.
i know, progressives just had to have him, he was the shrek Bernie
I still contend he wouldn't have gone off the deep end if he didn't have LITERAL brain damage. There was a stark change after the stroke.
It's an excuse people want to use but i'm not buying it. I think he's always been a d!ck people just didn't know it.
Being a jerk is not a synonym for aligning with republicans on a lot of high profile issues. Fetterman probably always was a bit of a jerk. But he wasn't what he is today.
He suffered actual, literal brain damage and has shown personality changes as a result of it. Linking those personality changes to a sudden, and contemporaneous, ideological shift is not a stretch.
The guy was always a massive piece of crap. Progressives just didn't care.
Don't blame this on progressives. He won the primary with 59%, plenty of points over Lamb and Kenyatta, the latter also being progressive. Do you really think it was *only* progressives who helped get him that win?
I just wish we would unite to kick Trump and his cronies the fuck out of office for good. All of this intraparty shit is just so petty sometimes.
Absolutely.
I mean as someone who thinks Chevalier is an absolute toxic loon, the sensible thing to do is at least wait until she's actually in Congress and see how she does. If she doesn't and repeats some of the insane shit she has the past 5 years, we can discuss expulsion. Until then, learn the cherished art of holding your fire and shutting the fuck up.
Social media now absolutely amplifies backbenchers that enables them to live rent free in people's heads whereas 20 years ago no-one paid them anymind. The Democratic Party survived Cynthia McKinney it can survive this.
An expulsion for words rather than actions would be unprecedented, not that there's a set of guidelines for Ethics to follow. I can't see how she has done anything expulsion-worthy yet.
Oh god, McKinney was awful. Chevalier's worse. Based on her statements, I'd say she's the Dem equivalent of David Duke.
Yeah. Being against interracial relationships in... (checks watch) 2026... is bonkers
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/24/nyregion/tom-kean-missing-found.html
NJ-7: Republican Rep. Tom Kean, in the flesh, was finally spotted for the first time since March at his personal residence in Westfield, wearing a suit and tie indoors. He is expected to return to Congress on Tuesday.
He sleeps in a suit and tie. Very patrician.
Ha!!
AZ-2 Poll: Crane (R Inc.) 44% - Nez (D) 41%. (GBAO Strategies; 500 LVs; June 11-15; +/-4.4%). A win here would take a blue wave as Cook rates this district at R+7, but the poll shows it is potentially competitive. Nez lost in 2024 and lost by 9%. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nYHNj0SrZ2WcXLhQ1feyfeGpF-5SHJgx/view?_hsmi=2
Note that Navajo turnout is often quite good in midterms, because tribal presidential elections are held simultaneously, and this year, they’ll be in the same places as state elections everywhere in AZ.
https://x.com/burgessev/status/2070197703821209820
GOP meddling in MI-SEN has begun. They've begun to run 'attack' ads against AES with clear messaging meant to boost him in the primary. Their clearly telegraphing who they prefer to run against, make of that what you will.
Or who they think they’ll run against. For all we know, Abdul could surprise us. Just because the GOP wants to face him doesn’t mean he will run the campaign they think he will.
Ahhh yes. Senator John Barrasso and others, plenty of which are not even pro-union and union members like El-Sayed, are arguing he's too radical.
No, on the contrary, El-Sayed actually wants to talk about regular people dealing with a challenging economy whereas the NRSC really wants to talk about how the GOP will continue to wipe Trump's ass.
It really pissed me off when I met Joe Manchin and saw him speak and he kept going on about how great of a friend Barrasso was to him, and how bipartisan he was. Fuck those guys.
The whole concept of "being radical" has been used by the GOP for years now. Not something new.
Nevertheless, if Barrasso was really bipartisan, that may have been pre-Trump. Since those days, he's not veering off course in any way with his ideology.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/25/a-district-that-went-20-for-trump-now-in-play-for-democrats-00976934?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it
NY21: D internal has us within one in the Stefanik empty seat H2H, when there exists a real possibility that the republican second place primary finisher runs as the conservative party nominee. individual has until 3rd of july to keep or decline conservative line. added background that the republican nominee, the sticker guy, has a defamation lawsuit against chairman of conservative party pending
I hope Smullen stays in the race. There's a real shot this could be somewhat similar to 2009, but I don't know if it's enough to put Gendebien over the edge.
Besides, Gendebien declined to say who he voted for in 2024, so he might not be that much of a change. Not that it matters, but regarding the recent controversy with Chevalier (which we've all went over already), implying that you didn't vote for/detest a Democratic presidential nominee then running as a Democrat isn't a good look.
"Besides, Gendebien declined to say who he voted for in 2024, so he might not be that much of a change."
Are you serious? We're trying to flip a Trump +20 district and you're concerned about purity?
I get your point about purity, and I agree that it *shouldn't* be an issue, but if people have a problem with that same concept with another candidate in New York, they should have it here, if they're so concerned about party loyalty. It would be hypocritical otherwise. There's plenty of other Democrats running in seats this red that don't have the same issue.
I say this as someone who often disagrees with people like Kamala Harris but would gladly vote for her in a millisecond over Trump. If you're going to elect someone who voted for him, of all people, why call that person a Democrat? Gendebien can keep his vote to himself. But as a Democrat running to flip a Republican district, I would hope he supports the party he's running under.
Words cannot describe how irrelevant NYC Democratic party politics are in Upstate NY. Nobody cares.
Exactly. No one should care. There is a common denominator between the two candidates, and I think it's wrong to attack just one of them for an issue that is under most people's radars.
What issue is under most people's radars?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2026/06/25/rfk-jr-urged-libertarian-rick-stewart-to-exit-house-race-candidate/90700133007/
IA-2, IA-3: HHS head Robert F. Kennedy Jr. privately urged Libertarian nominee Rick Stewart to drop out, in an attempt to help Republican nominee Joe Mitchell against Democratic nominee Lindsay James. He also pushed Libertarian Marco Battaglia to drop out so Republican Rep. Zach Nunn could win against Democrat Sarah Trone Garriott in the 3rd.
They're really worried about losing the midterms.
Showing my age, but I remember when cabinet members were not allowed to get involved in politics. How quaint.
IA-2 and IA-3 are each great opportunities for us. Coincidentally, both Democratic nominees are ministers. Lindsay James is a Presbyterian pastor and chaplain. Sarah Trone Garriott is a Lutheran minister.
Did RFK Jr make a quid pro quo with Trump to support electing Republicans in the midterms exchange for him pushing his MAHA agenda at the HHS?
Far cry compared to back in 2017 when RFK Jr was with UFW protesting against the Trump administration's policy on undocumented workers.
https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article129264184.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/25/nyregion/nyc-rent-freeze-vote-mamdani.html
New York City - In another major political victory for mayor Zohran Mamdani, his rent freeze program was approved by the city's rent board.
I know this won't be popular here, but this is bad policy. It's kind of funny thought that the progressive opinion on housing has become, on the one hand, massively builder friendly, and on the other, massively landlord hostile. It's an interesting dichotomy.
At least he enacted a campaign promise within months of becoming mayor, unlike many other politicians.
Agree with that, just do something. It might not work out, but at least try.
NY has been doing this for decades. This is leading to the destruction of housing stock. It could also lead directly to the court overturning rent stabilization/control.
DeBlasio did the exact same thing 3 times.
I don't have as strong of an opinion on this as you, but it's clear to me that this will be a good thing for Mamdani whether that's a good thing for the city or not. It was something he ran on, and something that contributed to his win. That's why I made the comment. Not to highlight my own opinion.
I don't know enough about NYC's history with this but to my understanding, Mamdani's original housing platform when he ran for Mayor last year was very detailed and comprehensive.
You can disagree with what Mamdani's doing here in his housing agenda but I have a feeling Mamdani's planning on doing more than just simply rent freezes. Whether this really ends up making a difference long-term in prices of rent remains to be seen.
I can virtually guarantee you that this will only make things worse. While I am no big fan of economists, the vassssst majority of economists agree that rent control has negative long term impacts on affordability. You only need to have a casual understanding of the costs of being a landlord to understand the negative impacts the rent stabilization has. And the other side of his plan is, what, what if we gave builders huge amounts of money to build a few theoretically seni-affordable units. It's the same basic plan that has been around forever. This is nothing remotely new. The only way NY becomes more affordable is if less people move there or we have a recession again.
Maybe this is a problem in NYC. However, with Berkeley as well as San Francisco, rent control doesn't typically involve rent freezes. It's generally a broad measure that limits the amount of increases rent can go up and the right amount of time that but that's not the same as stopping rent increases all together.
At my family house in Berkeley, we get renters on a regular basis (namely UC Berkeley students as we're close to campus) although if we have the option for increasing the rent, we have to abide by the following guidelines per state and local government rules:
1) Rent increase by 10% or less requires a one month notice to tenants.
2) Rent increase by more than 10% requires a three month notice.
At the same time, Berkeley, which used to be notoriously anti-development for decades, is building more housing these days that's affordable and even for the homeless as well. Developers are involved, namely sustainable housing developers. It will take time for prices to go down though.
That said, just from the perspective of someone who has lived in San Francisco for years, there's a reason why rent control exists. It's to prevent further displacement and allow those who aren't wealthy to be able to not keep moving around and getting priced out of the market too quickly.
Yes, building housing is the solution but at the same time until new housing actually lowers prices across the board where anyone can afford, you also have to keep the diversity of residents in the city as well or you lose the character of it.
I mean, that's always the problem in politics, everyone wants something for nothing.
I don't think there's a dichotomy at all. Builders build useful things, landlords are rent seekers who at best maintain things.