At the very least, he's definitely not going to end up like Sandoval 2014 and land an opponent who couldn't even win against "None of these candidates" in the Democratic primary.
I've said this once before and I'll say this again:
I want Lombardo out because he presided over the A's moving to Las Vegas, not just because of the fact that he unseated Steve Sisolak in the 2022 midterms.
And the timing couldn't be better as A's owner John Fisher (who should be booted out as owner along with Mr. Stanford MBA Dave Kaval) and management have failed to get Las Vegas Athletics trademarked thanks to the USPTO's fair and respectful decision making.
I would love a reverse 2010 result here in North Carolina despite the gerrymandering (Rs lose their majorities completely). Despite all the noise about there being marginally more Republican voters than Democratic here, the percentage of registered GOP voters has stayed the same. But unaffiliated voters have grown and the millenial/Gen Z bloc are mostly center left.
Even with MN, I think I’d err on the side of having a commission. In at least 65 years, Dems have never actually been able to score a trifecta during a redistricting cycle. The state senate is quite tough to win with the new Dem coalition in the state (I wouldn’t be shocked if Dems lost it in 2026 even if it’s a great year due to holding two tough seats on the Iron Range and the Moorhead area) and the state house is always a tossup.
Haven't we learned that independent redistricting ends up biting us in the ass? Push our advantage with high propensity voters and draw new maps gerrymandering the hell out of the state legislatures until the GOP agrees to nationwide standards.
It bites us in the ass in states like CA and NY (and probably CO at this point) where we’d never be at risk of Republicans potentially getting a trifecta (as they did in WI/MI/PA in 2010). We have a commission now in Michigan so we don’t have to worry about Republicans getting control of redistricting there. If we can get them in WI and PA, we could stop worrying about Republicans being able to gerrymander again there.
Commissions are great for swing states where we can not predict redistricting control; horrible for blue states where we have little/no chance of losing power; and a miracle in red states where we have no chance of gaining power.
If we had no chance of republican gerrymanders in red states, I'd support them in blue states too, but we need something to counter Texas and everywhere else.
This isn't exactly true, though. If we're trying to be ruthless with gerrymandering, we can make swings states guaranteed to have democratic legislatures, just look at Nevada. Republicans have no shot at winning either chamber. The GOP had a huge advantage after 2010 and gerrymandered state legislatures in the swing states that never really broke until Democratic state supreme courts stepped in or independent commissions were passed. The only reasonable outcome for Dems in redistricting is to amass so much control/power that Republicans agree to nationwide standards.
Bold prediction for this year, regarding the impending Virginia redistricting referendum:
The precinct where Yes (to implement a Democratic gerrymander) outperforms Harris the most will be Holmes #1, in Fairfax County. This precinct, near Bailey's Crossroads, contains several apartment complexes with almost entirely Hispanic populations, and is pretty much the most Hispanic precinct in Virginia. It went from Biden +62, to Harris +10, to Spanberger +52. I suspect it will vote yes by a similar margin than it did last year.
The precinct where Yes will underperform Harris the most will be Precinct 106 in Richmond. This precinct is home to Windsor Farms, a wealthy, exclusive, practically all-white area in Richmond. It has an interesting voting pattern: Bush (2004) +56, McCain +44, Trump (2020) +20, Trump (2024) +1, Spanberger +1, Miyares +26. I suspect it will vote around No +20 in the redistricting referendum.
Overall I think the redistricting referendum will pass by around 9%. It won't outperform Harris by as much as it did in California since Virginia doesn't have such a large percentage of Hispanics and Asians, but it will still outperform Harris. It will do better than Jones did, but not as well as Hashmi did.
Why? Obv the goal here is to get everyone to vote yes on things as a group, "sneaking" in the most contrvoersial one (districts) among things everyone can agree on. What would the benefit be in November? Turnout is going to be through the roof regardless then.
Interesting debate. I think I agree with you, but there's a reasonable argument that says abortion, in particular, may attract what is likely to be otherwise dispirited and disengaged Republicans.
Why squeak through an abortion constitutional amendment by 52-53% in April when they could conceivably get 57% in November (a la Ohio's Issue 1 in 2023)?
This has been mentioned in the morning digest but without the fundraising benchmark:
Biden alum Daniel Koh reportedly raised $2 million—the highest quarterly total ever in Massachusetts. He's seems to be smart, well-connected and progressive, but not a bomb thrower. I'm hoping Seth Moulton's former chief of staff, Jakius, loses. Moulton was one of the biggest supporters of "compromise" and the military-industrial complex, and Jakius seems to share much of that politics.
Was connected to him through a friend of a friend, he's one of the nicest and most down-to-earth (aspiring) politicians I've ever met. Really good guy and would be a credit to both the House Dem caucus and Massachusetts.
The new version of CA-01 is one of the districts that was designed to flip to Democratic under the new Prop 50 lines. LaMalfa was probably going to lose his seat, but his plan was to contest the seat. Now that won't happen, of course, but will the CAGOP have a serious candidate to run there?
Also his passing is far enough ahead of the general election that there should be a special election to replace him for the remainder of this year. I assume that will be under the old district lines, which would likely elect a Republican. Who wants a short-term job in DC?
Yup, we just had Greg Lopez in Colorado last cycle, and in the 2022 cycle, Connie Conway take over Devin Nunes seat and that seat was essentially eliminated with the once a decade redistricting
That is true. Who can forget the great GOP Rep. Shelley Sekula Gibbs (aka Secular Bee Gees) R-TX, who served for about two weeks in Congress a number of years ago? She felt disrespected because then prez GW Bush didn't go to her swearing-in ceremony...
Even shorter was Kwanza Hall in 2020 when there wasn't a runoff for John Lewis's seat until 12/1 and he was sworn in a few days later to serve exactly one month.
The easiest seat for Kiley is probably the 6th, which is open. Kiley lives in it, and it only voted for Harris by a few points. Not sure why LaMalfa ran, even if he was perfectly healthy. A campaign in a blue district like his new one is DOA.
With Indiana Congressman Jim Baird hospitalized after a very bad car accident, and Republicans having eliminated remote and proxy voting, won’t Speaker Johnson actually be down to 217?
I don't know - just two weeks ago, he gave a speech on the House floor advocating for the killing of wolves in his district, and sarcastically bashed his colleague, Jared Huffman, for being against it.
On the other hand, he Congressman Doug LaMalfa replaced, Walt Herger, is alive today at 80 years old.
Herger had a town hall in Redding back in the day in run up to the Affordable Care Act where one of his constituents got attention in the news over his concerns about President Obama’s agenda.
If I was going to make a guess I would be putting money on Brian Dahle running. He's got the name rec from his run for Governor and more than likely he has leftover funds from that campaign. Running for Governor statewide in California is a whole lot more expensive than running for Congress what is functionally one TV (Chico/Redding) market.
I’m increasingly convinced that 2026 could look a lot like 2006—a cycle with multiple Senate flips.
You have strong contenders across several states: Cooper in North Carolina, Talarico in Texas, Peltola in Alaska, Brown in Ohio, Turek in Iowa, and either Platner or Mills in Maine, all with realistic paths to flipping their seats. Osborn is also running as an independent in Nebraska, though his road is steeper compared to the rest.
I wouldn’t. And honestly I don’t even know if Johnson is the strongest that Republicans could run, even as incumbent. There’s so much to attack him on, from his broken term limits pledges to his extremism.
We have a term-limited Governor with 60% approvals right in that state and it blows my mind Schumer isn’t pressuring her insanely hard to give it a go. Kansas isn’t much redder than Alaska, Iowa, Ohio or Texas anymore.
It's definitely possible. Right now, I'd call NC Likely D and ME Lean D (potentially moving to Tossup if Platner wins the primary). I'd put AK at tossup with Peltola in (maybe with a slight thumb on the scales for Sullivan). OH I'd put at Lean R with Brown - tough, but by no means impossible. Iowa and Texas I'd call Likely R - I'll believe we can win those when I see it. NE is at least Likely R - no way we win it, even in a huge wave.
Iowa and Texas are not the same. Texas is more elastic and will see big minority swings compared to 2024 while Iowa is mostly white and is doing bad economically. Texas was the second closest state after Florida in 2020 and 2018, being R+4.5 in 2020.
Given Peltola already had experience doing this in her original House race back in 2022, running for the Senate would be no different as both races in Alaska are statewide.
The difference is that it's hard to run a positive campaign on your own brand when you are running against an incumbent as opposed to two non-incumbents
Also, Peltola benefitted from the fact that Don Young had passed away and the Alaska At-Large House race was an open race for the first time since 1972.
We're doing very well on that front with Peltola joining, although we also lack prominent Senate candidates in MT and FL, which are no more of a reach than KS.
For governor, we have nobody in NH (almost literally). In FL, we have a choice between yet another ex-GOP congressman from St. Pete and another cop named Demings from Orlando, neither of which worked out last time. In GA, there is no clear leader among a bunch of lower-tier candidates. The inevitable run-off may actually be helpful here, given there are no standouts.
I think Kansas with Kelly would be much more vulnerable than Montana or Florida, and they’re not even comparable. The other states don’t have a sitting Democratic governor with 60% approvals. Florida maybe could be semi-competitive if Moscowitz gives it a run after he’s likely drawn out, but I don’t have any hope in Florida remaining whatsoever. Nor Montana after Bullock’s and Tester’s pretty sizable losses.
As for gubernatorial races, I think we’ve done the best we can with recruiting aside from New Hampshire and Vermont. But there’s rumblings about state senator Donovan Fenton and state Treasurer Mike Pieciak running in those states, respectively. I think our Georgia bench is fine. I’m not very concerned with us beating Burt Jones with most our candidates in that primary.
I don't think she did anything wrong per se. The problem is people treated it like a race that was winnable when it realistically never was, as a result of where Florida is today. I think it's long past the point where it's a waste of time for us to get hopeful about a solid candidate running statewide in Florida.
My view on Florida is whatever the evolution of once bitten, twice shy is when you're at half a dozen bites. We lost with a popular incumbent there in 2018, and have only done worse since then. Incumbency isn't worth what it used to be, but it's still worth something. And Florida has moved away from us further in the intervening 8 years. How much better over 2018 do we think this November will be? It would need to be rather substantial for Florida to be on the board.
I will acknowledge that it's at least vaguely possible for us to win a senate seat in Florida in the way that is not possible in a state like Kentucky or Wyoming. In that realm of vaguely possible I'd lump it in with Kansas (with Kelly) or Nebraska. Not impossible but a big stretch, and distinctly more difficult than the Texas-Alaska-Ohio-Iowa reach seats.
I think her original plan was to run for Governor, but after realizing she only has to run campaigns every 6 years and is not term limited, instead of a max of two terms alongside the national political environment and Sullivan’s complete acquiescence/surrender to the tariffs that are hitting the Alaskan economy harder than anything else before, she decided this is a once in a generation opportunity to fight for her state and her career. This is literally the best year for a Democrat to run in Alaska since at least 2008 and I’d argue it’s even better than that electoral setup.
Trump’s president, so Democrats will be out in force, voters even when they replaced Peltola didn’t do it by much in a year where realistically Republicans should’ve won that race by close to 10 points considering how bad it was for our party even with an incumbent to defeat. Alaska voters like Peltola and are kind of unsure about Sullivan. Republicans or Trump only voters will stay home with him not on the ballot and you have the state economy currently in chaos. Couldn’t cook up a better recipe for success.
Let’s also not forget the possibility (though I think it’s lower than most here probably think) of the other Senator Murkowski cross endorsing or more likely (but still low): not endorsing Sullivan and staying neutral. Long story short: if she can’t win in 2026, Democrats can’t win in Alaska, period. Even a 6 year rental Senate seat is a monumental boost to us as a party and she may just become the next Murkowski and become firmly entrenched.
I was amazed that Peltola won her House seat the first time. And she's the perfect candidate from Alaska -- she's pro fishing, pro guns and a reliable Democratic vote on most big bills. (As well as for future SCOTUS confirmations.)
Sullivan can try to paint her as Mamdani-aligned but she's not.
AFAIK, Mamdani is far more popular than Trump is so it's pretty hilarious that Republicans are trying to turn him into the new ScArY BoOgEyMaN of politics.
He said in a podcast that he was running because Peltola was interested in the Senate and would promptly withdraw if she changed her mind. Then he withdrew his remarks the next day.
That was also almost certainly a factor to have a strong Democrat run for Governor. I don’t think it was a big reason either at the same time, more like a minor one.
Not trying to downplay any significance the AK-GOV race has for Democrats but the magnitude of winning the AK-SEN race is far greater than the AK-GOV race. I think Peltola also knows very well that she has to realistically win the AK-GOV primary, which would be more challenging than simply running in the Senate primary, where she would be field clearing.
And if Peltola wins the Senate race, then Lisa Murkowski will be under increased pressure to either retire or face the wrath of potentially losing her seat in 2028.
Your second point is kind of what I was getting at. Tom Begich is already in the race. Alaska is a tough pull as it is, so we can't afford to have multiple well-known and respected Democrats go through a possibly contentious primary. Instead, if she runs for Senate, then both races feature a strong, well-known, and respected Democrat.
More importantly, being one of 100 senators—especially when you hold the deciding vote on major legislation—is far more powerful than serving as governor of a sparsely populated, federally subsidized state where a moderate legislative supermajority can override vetoes. The ability to appoint successors to Alito and Thomas would shape the nation's direction for an entire generation.
That’s debatable. There’s a reason why we’re seeing an unusual amount of senators running for governor this year. There’s Senate is broken. The power to do things is at the state level.
And doesn't Alaska have a sane-person majority if not a Democratic one? A Governor with a legislature that will work with them (in contrast with Beshear's situation for example) is probably more powerful than a freshman Senator who will be dealing with an opposing party President for at least the first third of her term.
If Peltola wins, that means the environment was good enough for Dems to win the Senate majority and a Senate majority can bully the President in a lot of ways. And I mentioned the Alaska moderate caucus supermajority!
Good post, but yeah, no way do I see Murkowski poisoning her relationship with her colleague by not endorsing him, let alone endorsing his challenger. I also don't see a Democrat becoming entrenched in Alaska. If Peltola wins, she'll be a big target in 2032 and could easily lose, though that's getting way ahead of ourselves.
Murkowski might if she decided to become an independent. Again, this is all hypothetical and like I said it’s a low chance of happening, but could it happen? IMO, yes and the more the GOP keeps grovelling at Trump’s feet and doing his bidding, the more she’ll give it real consideration to not be a Republican anymore. Or in other words, the exact opposite of what we just saw Kyrsten Sinema do as a centre-left Democrat, this time with a centre-right Republican.
Something that I think we’ve memory holed, but every Democratic incumbent who has lost in Alaska hasn’t lost by very much, regardless of the national environment. Alaskans tend to like their incumbents. It’s very easy to imagine the state’s voters vote for the idea of a centre-left Democrat to balance the centre-right Murkowski in their Senate delegation for more than 1 term and possibly for much longer.
She obviously would be targeted in every cycle because Republicans would never give up on such a tantalizing political target: a blue Democrat representing a Trump +5-10 state. Whether they actually can beat her when they try to, that’s the part I’m more skeptical of them being successful at. They obviously could, of course, in a still red state for 2026 or beyond. Don’t count her out either, in any cycle.
I could see Murkowski looking at how Trump has turned on Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Bobert violently, focusing her mind on how much Trump hates women, likes child molestors and is a sex offender, and breaks with the Republican Party, but her bravery lately has hardly been overwhelming.
Murkowski and Peltola did cross-endorse each other back in 2022, but that was due to Peltola running for House (and not Senate) and how toxic Palin was.
Murkowski might give a pro-forma endorsement of Sullivan and then do nothing afterwards beyond the official endorsement of him. That'd be enough to preserve a working relationship with him, not poison a potential one with Peltola, and make her life easier by not taking up election related activity (joint fundraisers, campaign events, whatever).
Pulling from the Minnesota Star Tribune (rip Minneapolis Star Tribune) on other downballot effects if Ellison or Simon end up running for governor:
"If Ellison doesn’t run for attorney general, several state lawmakers, including House DFL Leader Zack Stephenson, Rep. Emma Greenman and former House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler, could be possible contenders.
Greenman is also seen as a potential candidate for Simon’s job if he doesn’t seek re-election. This summer, Ben Weisbuch, who leads the Minnesota DFL’s Jewish Community Outreach Organization, indicated he might run for Simon’s post if Simon weren’t running for re-election."
A really bad day for sitting Republican representatives. I believe this means that Speaker Mike Johnson is down to a Republican majority of ... one! His challenge of herding his sheep on upcoming budget votes (and more) just got much, much harder!
PS. I would love to see Hakeem Jeffries become Speaker long before the Midterm Elections, perhaps this Spring or Summer.
Question: Do we have a clear-cut answer as to whether the Special Election for CA-01 (the late Doug LaMalfa’s district) will take place under old maps or new maps?
If it was under the new map, then that would mean some areas would have two reps and some would have none. So it would be unconstitutional to hold it under the new map.
Republicans pulled that stunt in Nebraska in 2022; the NE-1 special election that year was held in the current NE-1, not the NE-1 that existed in the 2020 elections (which was the vacancy being filled), so you had, for a time a few years ago, some voters in Nebraska having two U.S. Representatives and some voters having none.
Paul Mitchell of PDI and Rob Pyers are pretty definitive. Mitchell also speculates, although it's still early, that Newsom might call the primary special election for June, with a general election in November, so the winner would only be in Congress for a month. Which would be really funny, and revenge for what Greg Abbott did in TX-18, but I believe Newsom will move faster than that. https://x.com/paulmitche11/status/2008555292414669218
There is a good governance reason to schedule the special like that; elections cost money! Holding a special election for a single office could cost several million dollars, it would be a savings to the taxpayer to hold it open until November.
If there is a special election runoff because nobody gets 50%+1 in the primary then the runoff would be about a month after the special primary. So it would be sometime in July most likely.
I don't have a definitive source, but my understanding is that the new maps are intended to mark representation starting with the 120th Congress.
I think that would make the most sense legally as well, because if LaMalfa's successor for the remainder of the 119th Congress were elected under the new lines, there would be some people in California who have 2 representatives simultaneously.
I think the political environment in 2027 is likely to be the same as 2026, in the absence of a major event, so I'm not terribly worried about defending an open Senate seat in Minnesota while the human embodiment of syphilis is President.
The Wyoming Supreme Court struck down the state's abortion ban pursuant to a 2012 Constitutional amendment that guarantees Wyomingites the right to make healthcare decisions for themselves.
Too bad Rs didn't try the ACA protest constitutional amendment thing here in NC, AR, TX and in Florida, ie use the same shell language like they do with abortion bans. It would've been hilarious to see the bans knocked down like in WY because how broad the language is.
Recently, Paris Hilton went to Congress to successfully get a bill passed in Congress to stop institutional abuse towards children. She was sent to an institution for children when she was a teenager and forced to conform to torture, especially being forced medication she didn’t want. She was was seriously traumatized when she was a teenager by her parents. Call it a stupid decision by filthy wealthy parents if you will.
Not saying Hilton doesn’t have problems but she went through a hell of a lot worse in her childhood than her assistant Kim Kardashian (I’m still trying to process this after all these years!)
Sabato had no chance anyway. His campaign was DOA from the beginning.
The only reason why Sabato ran was because he was a disillusioned actor whining about getting blacklisted in Hollywood. He must have loved the attention he got making his speech at the 2016 RNC Convention thanks to Trump. Otherwise, if it hadn't been for Trump, I doubt Sabato would have even bothered to become political.
I feel you there, one of the reasons I was so pissed Yuh Line Niou lost in 2022 was that she would have been the first openly autistic Rep in history, and I am autistic and recognize what a huge moment for our community that would have been.
And I can't see this being positive (from the Wikipedia article about her): "Paytas's career has been marked by numerous public controversies and online feuds. Media outlets have often described her as a polarizing and controversial figure who has maintained public relevance through her provocative online presence and statements."
On the face of it, that sounds more like Trump and the Republicans than what most Democrats want. I'll read further and see who she got into feuds with, but my first reaction is, doesn't she have anything better to do?
I’ve been seeing Eric Swalwell’s ads as well as his interviews and I have to admit, I am impressed with how on message and focused he is.
The advantage here in having Swalwell as the gubernatorial nominee is that the CA GOP is going to have a tougher time trying to characterize him than Katie Porter. On the other hand, more of the progressive base seems to want Porter as the nominee.
Swalwell thought I would say has more freedom for a gubernatorial campaign than he did running a presidential campaign in the primaries. This could be in par why he’s polling well.
Also, being a son of a cop and from a middle class family makes him much different than Newsom.
Wasn't Swalwell a rw media punching bag a few years ago when the chinese spy scandal happened? There are definitely ways for republicans to characterize him, not that it would matter much in a r vs d general election.
Given the Chinese spy scandal evaded quickly when Swalwell reported the spy right away, I would say this is a non-issue to begin with. Swalwell also has a reputation of being a straight shooter so if he’s being pressed on this, he’s not going to be beating around the bush and making excuses. That’s not how he’s wired.
Swalwell is not a Democratic socialist, extremely liberal or even divisive enough type for Republicans go after him. About the only thing the CA GOP has against him is his absence of voting in the House.
BIG deal. Barack Obama was primarily absent from the Senate when he ran for POTUS and did not cast as many votes as in the first two years he was a Senator. Did not even make a dent in the polls for him.
Points taken. Of course the Republicans will attack any Democrat as a communist-and fascist, etc. - but your point is that it won't work, and my rejoinder is that it wouldn't work in California regardless of which Democrat it's directed at.
Well, the GOP's batting average against Democrats in California since Newsom was elected as Governor back in 2018 has been 0 after 4 times at bat. And the fact that the best gubernatorial candidates are Chad Bianco, Steve Hilton, etc. says it all.
If we're worried about republican attacks on our candidate in California, then we're in for a bad election.
There may be reasons to prefer Swalwell. Truthfully I do not know much about him. There are also valid reasons for people to dislike Porter, even as I prefer her. Potential republican attacks against Porter in California, however, do not qualify for either reasons to prefer Swalwell or reasons to dislike Porter.
Fair although my assessment is not about being worried about the state of the CA-GOV race and just thinking Democrats need a good attack dog against the GOP who can be better than Newsom who Republicans will have a hard time running against at the debates.
Not trying to discount Porter’s qualities but Swalwell in my view is the best Democrats have right now in the race who can be Governor and not be like Newsom. I have run into a couple of women in the Stoneridge Mall in Pleasanton who do not like Newsom as Governor because they think he’s cocky. Porter would likely not solve this problem even while I would be more enthusiastic about her as Governor than I have been about Newsom.
Porter's skill as an attack dog, taking down republican arguments and posturing us as a pro-worker's party is, as far as I'm concerned, her #1 strength. It's the principle reason I favor her for this seat and favored her for the senate seat. She has her weaknesses as well, but for me that strength is worth those weaknesses. For other people that might be a different calculation.
If better-than-Newsom attack dog is what you are selecting for, then I would argue that Porter as your ideal candidate. If you want something else, then maybe not.
Her political persona is based heavily around being the smartest person in every room. And that's probably true at least 99 times out of 100 in Porter's case, but it can also become grating quickly.
Maybe, but my reaction tends to be, too bad if you can't handle a smart woman. We need women to push back against the misogyny and arrogance of dull-witted Republican men and rich men in general in positions of power who normally get away with having the Establishment take their propaganda line as reality. I love Mamdani for pushing back against all that bullshit. I forget who it was who recently said that the Trump government sending $40 billion to Argentina to finance their debt caused not even a ripple, but God forbid that money would be used for free childcare or free college or affordable healthcare.
Agreed on what you're saying in Paragraph #1. That's a good reason why I think she would be able to fight harder against the GOP than Newsom.
FYI, both Porter and Swalwell would be excellent attack dogs and am not trying to compare the two with who has the ability to do it better. However, with Porter's temperament, that is going to raise questions with those who are independents and moderates in the state. On the other hand, she recognizes her mistakes and doesn't run away from them, which I consider to be a good trait.
My main beef with Newsom is how he's been Governor. He just is not as focused on the job as he is with elevating his political image so he can go on to greater heights in his career. Having an attack dog to Trump is pretty low bar to begin with but besides this, I'd like the next Governor to be closer to Jerry Brown in competency in running the state.
Swalwell, like Porter, has served in the House but I think he's got the right balance between Brown and Newsom as far as what he could do if he was Governor.
100% - electibility is not a concern for us in CA. The bigger question, to me, is more about who will be a better Governor. On that front, I'd say Swalwell.
Speaking of Swalwell, his open seat may have another contender. Termed-out state senator Steve Glazer announced the formation of a congressional exploratory committee over the holidays. The 14th District seems his likely target. He is viewed as a moderate Dem, although I remember him mostly for blocking measures to allow more housing. Of note, he does not live in the 14th district.
Currently, four candidates have filed to run: Democrats Melissa Hernández, Matt Ortega and Abrar Qadir and Republican Wendy Huang. State senator Aisha Wahab is also widely expected to join the race soon.
His agenda in trying to ban BART strikes made him lose respect with unions. Like stopping BART strikes really helps in improving BART.
Matt Ortega and Abrar Qadir I like the most. Ortega intrigues me because both of his children are autistic and I come from a family of neurodivergents.
Exactly my reaction when I read Steve Glazer's name. Before he was a state senator, he ran for the Assembly in 2014, and came in third in the primary behind a Republican and a much more liberal Democrat. He endorsed the Republican, who narrowly won the general election. I've never forgiven him for that, and considered him a DINO ever since.
He needs to be kept as far away from Congress as possible. Terrible person.
Not from TX-18 but Menefee has most of the progressive endorsements. I know Amanda Edwards opposed Medicare for All when she ran against Sheila Jackson Lee, while Menefee's platform vocally supports it.
Here are their policy pages for a more in-depth look.
I hope Wisconsin regains a Democratic trifecta and do everything that MN did from 2023-2024. Make Robin Vos’s head spin .
And that Minnesota once again will have a trifecta – allowing the state to build on the great progressive achievements under Governor Walz!
Well, I'm hoping that MN, WI, PA, WI and AZ all have Democratic trifectas next year!
NV?
I forgot about NV. Yeah, Lombardo needs to go too.
I think Lombardo could easily be a one-termer.
At the very least, he's definitely not going to end up like Sandoval 2014 and land an opponent who couldn't even win against "None of these candidates" in the Democratic primary.
Aaron Ford seems solid.
I've said this once before and I'll say this again:
I want Lombardo out because he presided over the A's moving to Las Vegas, not just because of the fact that he unseated Steve Sisolak in the 2022 midterms.
And the timing couldn't be better as A's owner John Fisher (who should be booted out as owner along with Mr. Stanford MBA Dave Kaval) and management have failed to get Las Vegas Athletics trademarked thanks to the USPTO's fair and respectful decision making.
https://apnews.com/article/athletics-as-las-vegas-patent-trademark-8255412c800b4ce6c99f0a7381bb9952
And if so, need to get to work on independent redistricting in PA and WI (and maybe MN). Cant have another 2010 repeat there in 2030.
I would love a reverse 2010 result here in North Carolina despite the gerrymandering (Rs lose their majorities completely). Despite all the noise about there being marginally more Republican voters than Democratic here, the percentage of registered GOP voters has stayed the same. But unaffiliated voters have grown and the millenial/Gen Z bloc are mostly center left.
I've been wondering about this. I'd probably vote to gerrymander the crap out of MN and put commissions in place in the other two.
Even with MN, I think I’d err on the side of having a commission. In at least 65 years, Dems have never actually been able to score a trifecta during a redistricting cycle. The state senate is quite tough to win with the new Dem coalition in the state (I wouldn’t be shocked if Dems lost it in 2026 even if it’s a great year due to holding two tough seats on the Iron Range and the Moorhead area) and the state house is always a tossup.
But if we can gerrymander the MN Senate and House, can't we position ourselves to hold those for quite some time too?
Haven't we learned that independent redistricting ends up biting us in the ass? Push our advantage with high propensity voters and draw new maps gerrymandering the hell out of the state legislatures until the GOP agrees to nationwide standards.
It bites us in the ass in states like CA and NY (and probably CO at this point) where we’d never be at risk of Republicans potentially getting a trifecta (as they did in WI/MI/PA in 2010). We have a commission now in Michigan so we don’t have to worry about Republicans getting control of redistricting there. If we can get them in WI and PA, we could stop worrying about Republicans being able to gerrymander again there.
Commissions are great for swing states where we can not predict redistricting control; horrible for blue states where we have little/no chance of losing power; and a miracle in red states where we have no chance of gaining power.
If we had no chance of republican gerrymanders in red states, I'd support them in blue states too, but we need something to counter Texas and everywhere else.
100%.
This isn't exactly true, though. If we're trying to be ruthless with gerrymandering, we can make swings states guaranteed to have democratic legislatures, just look at Nevada. Republicans have no shot at winning either chamber. The GOP had a huge advantage after 2010 and gerrymandered state legislatures in the swing states that never really broke until Democratic state supreme courts stepped in or independent commissions were passed. The only reasonable outcome for Dems in redistricting is to amass so much control/power that Republicans agree to nationwide standards.
MI too
I think every single one of these are very possible, barring a massive change in environment.
They need a strong gubernatorial candidate to generate down-ballot coattails if they want to secure a trifecta.
Maybe, maybe not. Generally, I'd agree with you but 2026 is likely to be a strong enough Dem year that we may not need it.
Even with fair maps, Wisconsin has really bad political geography for Dems.
Bold prediction for this year, regarding the impending Virginia redistricting referendum:
The precinct where Yes (to implement a Democratic gerrymander) outperforms Harris the most will be Holmes #1, in Fairfax County. This precinct, near Bailey's Crossroads, contains several apartment complexes with almost entirely Hispanic populations, and is pretty much the most Hispanic precinct in Virginia. It went from Biden +62, to Harris +10, to Spanberger +52. I suspect it will vote yes by a similar margin than it did last year.
The precinct where Yes will underperform Harris the most will be Precinct 106 in Richmond. This precinct is home to Windsor Farms, a wealthy, exclusive, practically all-white area in Richmond. It has an interesting voting pattern: Bush (2004) +56, McCain +44, Trump (2020) +20, Trump (2024) +1, Spanberger +1, Miyares +26. I suspect it will vote around No +20 in the redistricting referendum.
Overall I think the redistricting referendum will pass by around 9%. It won't outperform Harris by as much as it did in California since Virginia doesn't have such a large percentage of Hispanics and Asians, but it will still outperform Harris. It will do better than Jones did, but not as well as Hashmi did.
The Democratic-controlled Virginia legislature may put all four constitutional amendments on the ballot this spring, not just redistricting.
https://www.wvtf.org/news/2026-01-06/democrats-could-put-four-constitutional-amendments-on-the-ballot-this-spring
I think they should save the abortion and marriage equality ones for November.
Why? Obv the goal here is to get everyone to vote yes on things as a group, "sneaking" in the most contrvoersial one (districts) among things everyone can agree on. What would the benefit be in November? Turnout is going to be through the roof regardless then.
Interesting debate. I think I agree with you, but there's a reasonable argument that says abortion, in particular, may attract what is likely to be otherwise dispirited and disengaged Republicans.
^ That's why.
Why squeak through an abortion constitutional amendment by 52-53% in April when they could conceivably get 57% in November (a la Ohio's Issue 1 in 2023)?
This has been mentioned in the morning digest but without the fundraising benchmark:
Biden alum Daniel Koh reportedly raised $2 million—the highest quarterly total ever in Massachusetts. He's seems to be smart, well-connected and progressive, but not a bomb thrower. I'm hoping Seth Moulton's former chief of staff, Jakius, loses. Moulton was one of the biggest supporters of "compromise" and the military-industrial complex, and Jakius seems to share much of that politics.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/massachusetts-playbook/2025/12/04/a-new-housing-road-map-00676408
Was connected to him through a friend of a friend, he's one of the nicest and most down-to-earth (aspiring) politicians I've ever met. Really good guy and would be a credit to both the House Dem caucus and Massachusetts.
CA-01: Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R) dead at 65:
https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/2008543668479873105
Sitting rep?
Yes
Where do you lurk as an ecologist?
I'm in South Carolina
Yeah, he was running for re-election in the revamped 1st
Thanks to both for responses. Hard to keep up!
The new version of CA-01 is one of the districts that was designed to flip to Democratic under the new Prop 50 lines. LaMalfa was probably going to lose his seat, but his plan was to contest the seat. Now that won't happen, of course, but will the CAGOP have a serious candidate to run there?
Also his passing is far enough ahead of the general election that there should be a special election to replace him for the remainder of this year. I assume that will be under the old district lines, which would likely elect a Republican. Who wants a short-term job in DC?
Honestly having "Former Member of Congress", even for a few months, is a career making resume item, even for non-politicians
Yup, we just had Greg Lopez in Colorado last cycle, and in the 2022 cycle, Connie Conway take over Devin Nunes seat and that seat was essentially eliminated with the once a decade redistricting
That is true. Who can forget the great GOP Rep. Shelley Sekula Gibbs (aka Secular Bee Gees) R-TX, who served for about two weeks in Congress a number of years ago? She felt disrespected because then prez GW Bush didn't go to her swearing-in ceremony...
AKA "Snelly Gibbr."
There was also Dave Curson (D), who represented 2002-12 version of MI-11 for the twilight of its existence.
Even shorter was Kwanza Hall in 2020 when there wasn't a runoff for John Lewis's seat until 12/1 and he was sworn in a few days later to serve exactly one month.
Does this give Kevin Kiley a prospective place to run or is the new CA-01 too far from his current seat?
Not too far, but it's a lock for Democrats now. Might not be worth it.
Ah, I assumed LaMalfa was running in one of the remaining safer seats.
The easiest seat for Kiley is probably the 6th, which is open. Kiley lives in it, and it only voted for Harris by a few points. Not sure why LaMalfa ran, even if he was perfectly healthy. A campaign in a blue district like his new one is DOA.
LOL Kiley is suddenly against gerrymandering. I wonder why.
With MTG leaving, I believe Republicans are down to 218
Thanks. That was going to be my next question.
With Indiana Congressman Jim Baird hospitalized after a very bad car accident, and Republicans having eliminated remote and proxy voting, won’t Speaker Johnson actually be down to 217?
65 is far too young. RIP.
He was a likely goner come fall, but retirement, not death
Agreed and, as Republicans go, he was one of the less objectionable ones.
I don't know - just two weeks ago, he gave a speech on the House floor advocating for the killing of wolves in his district, and sarcastically bashed his colleague, Jared Huffman, for being against it.
I mean, I did say "as Republicans go". That's an awfully low bar and I think he cleared it.
I did undergrad at Chico State. LaMalfa spoke to a California government class I was in.
Was he in Washington yesterday? If so, holy crap.
2026 is just getting started, Republicans. MTG and now this guy are out.
On the other hand, he Congressman Doug LaMalfa replaced, Walt Herger, is alive today at 80 years old.
Herger had a town hall in Redding back in the day in run up to the Affordable Care Act where one of his constituents got attention in the news over his concerns about President Obama’s agenda.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090831090111/http://www.mtshastanews.com/news/x1566714064/Right-wing-terrorist-says-he-misspoke
If I was going to make a guess I would be putting money on Brian Dahle running. He's got the name rec from his run for Governor and more than likely he has leftover funds from that campaign. Running for Governor statewide in California is a whole lot more expensive than running for Congress what is functionally one TV (Chico/Redding) market.
Possible. It’s hard for any Republican to win statewide to begin with.
Any word on cause of death? Don't remember anything about him being sick
they're reporting a heart attack during surgery -- he called 911 last night. https://www.actionnewsnow.com/news/congressman-doug-lamalfa-died-during-surgery-after-medical-emergency-according-to-sheriffs-office/article_010d86d5-c2a9-48c2-b337-c5aa09091f7d.html
I also saw that his House colleagues didn't know he had any health issues up until now, which surprises me.
Pretty crazy. I once had minor surgery at Enloe when I lived in Chico.
The Alaska Landmine sharing anecdotes that Mary Peltola may enter the Senate race vs Sullivan as early as this week.
Yes yes!!
https://x.com/i/status/2008300146715750665
UPDATE:
Per Axios, the announcement will come later this month.
I’m increasingly convinced that 2026 could look a lot like 2006—a cycle with multiple Senate flips.
You have strong contenders across several states: Cooper in North Carolina, Talarico in Texas, Peltola in Alaska, Brown in Ohio, Turek in Iowa, and either Platner or Mills in Maine, all with realistic paths to flipping their seats. Osborn is also running as an independent in Nebraska, though his road is steeper compared to the rest.
I'm hoping we score enough regular Senate wins this year to offset Brown winning the Ohio race this year (and losing again in 2028).
Wisconsin will take that place
RoJo is going down in 2028. Along with MAGA Ted Budd.
I would be shocked if Johnson runs again.
He's ascended to top positions on committees with clout, and gained power since McConnell retired within the caucus.
Nothing about him would shock me.
I wouldn't.
I wouldn’t. And honestly I don’t even know if Johnson is the strongest that Republicans could run, even as incumbent. There’s so much to attack him on, from his broken term limits pledges to his extremism.
Florida deserves a mention in that list.
There’s no candidate in Florida. I think someone will give it a try after DeSantis redistricts them out.
You're saying there is no Democratic Senate candidate in FL?
Not accurate. There are two current candidates running that are notable but the rest seem to be some dude types.
State Rep. Angie Nixon
https://angienixon.com/
Hector Mujica - Led Google.org’s philanthropic investments.
https://hectormujica.com/
Nixon has not announced yet.
FL needs a strong D candidate to defeat Moody this year -- and have a fighting chance of winning a full term in 2028.
If only Osborn lived in Kansas instead of Nebraska....
There have to be Osborn-like folks in Kansas, though.
We have a term-limited Governor with 60% approvals right in that state and it blows my mind Schumer isn’t pressuring her insanely hard to give it a go. Kansas isn’t much redder than Alaska, Iowa, Ohio or Texas anymore.
there are so many things chuck does that blow my mind, and very few of them have been positive since 2023
I can't imagine they haven't talked. It's quite possible that Kelly doesn't want to do it.
Right? She'd still be an underdog, but Kelly at least would force the Republicans to play some defense there...
It's definitely possible. Right now, I'd call NC Likely D and ME Lean D (potentially moving to Tossup if Platner wins the primary). I'd put AK at tossup with Peltola in (maybe with a slight thumb on the scales for Sullivan). OH I'd put at Lean R with Brown - tough, but by no means impossible. Iowa and Texas I'd call Likely R - I'll believe we can win those when I see it. NE is at least Likely R - no way we win it, even in a huge wave.
You are extremely optimistic! NC at Likely D, OH at Lean D? I don't agree.
Iowa and Texas are not the same. Texas is more elastic and will see big minority swings compared to 2024 while Iowa is mostly white and is doing bad economically. Texas was the second closest state after Florida in 2020 and 2018, being R+4.5 in 2020.
Peltola could really drive up native Alaskan voter turnout, not just the usual midterm backlash against a GOP federal trifecta.
Given Peltola already had experience doing this in her original House race back in 2022, running for the Senate would be no different as both races in Alaska are statewide.
The difference is that it's hard to run a positive campaign on your own brand when you are running against an incumbent as opposed to two non-incumbents
Yeah, true.
Also, Peltola benefitted from the fact that Don Young had passed away and the Alaska At-Large House race was an open race for the first time since 1972.
As Stone Cold Steve Austin said it best:
“Can I get a hell yeah?!”
Hope her and Tom Begich win their races. Now all we need is Laura Kelly to run for Senate and we'll have done the best we can in Senate recruiting.
We're doing very well on that front with Peltola joining, although we also lack prominent Senate candidates in MT and FL, which are no more of a reach than KS.
For governor, we have nobody in NH (almost literally). In FL, we have a choice between yet another ex-GOP congressman from St. Pete and another cop named Demings from Orlando, neither of which worked out last time. In GA, there is no clear leader among a bunch of lower-tier candidates. The inevitable run-off may actually be helpful here, given there are no standouts.
I think Kansas with Kelly would be much more vulnerable than Montana or Florida, and they’re not even comparable. The other states don’t have a sitting Democratic governor with 60% approvals. Florida maybe could be semi-competitive if Moscowitz gives it a run after he’s likely drawn out, but I don’t have any hope in Florida remaining whatsoever. Nor Montana after Bullock’s and Tester’s pretty sizable losses.
As for gubernatorial races, I think we’ve done the best we can with recruiting aside from New Hampshire and Vermont. But there’s rumblings about state senator Donovan Fenton and state Treasurer Mike Pieciak running in those states, respectively. I think our Georgia bench is fine. I’m not very concerned with us beating Burt Jones with most our candidates in that primary.
what did Val Demings do wrong?
I don't think she did anything wrong per se. The problem is people treated it like a race that was winnable when it realistically never was, as a result of where Florida is today. I think it's long past the point where it's a waste of time for us to get hopeful about a solid candidate running statewide in Florida.
It's not a top target, but considering election results in 2025 and now this year, it shouldn't be written off.
My view on Florida is whatever the evolution of once bitten, twice shy is when you're at half a dozen bites. We lost with a popular incumbent there in 2018, and have only done worse since then. Incumbency isn't worth what it used to be, but it's still worth something. And Florida has moved away from us further in the intervening 8 years. How much better over 2018 do we think this November will be? It would need to be rather substantial for Florida to be on the board.
I will acknowledge that it's at least vaguely possible for us to win a senate seat in Florida in the way that is not possible in a state like Kentucky or Wyoming. In that realm of vaguely possible I'd lump it in with Kansas (with Kelly) or Nebraska. Not impossible but a big stretch, and distinctly more difficult than the Texas-Alaska-Ohio-Iowa reach seats.
Less to do with Val Demings as it had more to do with low turnout by Democrats.
Higher turnout wouldn’t have assured her of defeating Marco Rubio but margins between her and him would have shrunk.
Wish outgoing Senator Shaheen would run against Ayotte.
Would be quite a coup for the DSCC; pretty much all of the scuttlebutt about her plans after 2024 were that she would run for Governor.
I think her original plan was to run for Governor, but after realizing she only has to run campaigns every 6 years and is not term limited, instead of a max of two terms alongside the national political environment and Sullivan’s complete acquiescence/surrender to the tariffs that are hitting the Alaskan economy harder than anything else before, she decided this is a once in a generation opportunity to fight for her state and her career. This is literally the best year for a Democrat to run in Alaska since at least 2008 and I’d argue it’s even better than that electoral setup.
Trump’s president, so Democrats will be out in force, voters even when they replaced Peltola didn’t do it by much in a year where realistically Republicans should’ve won that race by close to 10 points considering how bad it was for our party even with an incumbent to defeat. Alaska voters like Peltola and are kind of unsure about Sullivan. Republicans or Trump only voters will stay home with him not on the ballot and you have the state economy currently in chaos. Couldn’t cook up a better recipe for success.
Let’s also not forget the possibility (though I think it’s lower than most here probably think) of the other Senator Murkowski cross endorsing or more likely (but still low): not endorsing Sullivan and staying neutral. Long story short: if she can’t win in 2026, Democrats can’t win in Alaska, period. Even a 6 year rental Senate seat is a monumental boost to us as a party and she may just become the next Murkowski and become firmly entrenched.
I was amazed that Peltola won her House seat the first time. And she's the perfect candidate from Alaska -- she's pro fishing, pro guns and a reliable Democratic vote on most big bills. (As well as for future SCOTUS confirmations.)
Sullivan can try to paint her as Mamdani-aligned but she's not.
AFAIK, Mamdani is far more popular than Trump is so it's pretty hilarious that Republicans are trying to turn him into the new ScArY BoOgEyMaN of politics.
The Scary Boogeyman met Trump at the White House and got compliments by him in the front of the news.
Come on GOP, are you seriously this dumb?
No wait, you really are.
I imagine another reason for not running for governor is because Tom Begich is already running for the Democratic nomination in that race
He said in a podcast that he was running because Peltola was interested in the Senate and would promptly withdraw if she changed her mind. Then he withdrew his remarks the next day.
That was also almost certainly a factor to have a strong Democrat run for Governor. I don’t think it was a big reason either at the same time, more like a minor one.
Not trying to downplay any significance the AK-GOV race has for Democrats but the magnitude of winning the AK-SEN race is far greater than the AK-GOV race. I think Peltola also knows very well that she has to realistically win the AK-GOV primary, which would be more challenging than simply running in the Senate primary, where she would be field clearing.
And if Peltola wins the Senate race, then Lisa Murkowski will be under increased pressure to either retire or face the wrath of potentially losing her seat in 2028.
Your second point is kind of what I was getting at. Tom Begich is already in the race. Alaska is a tough pull as it is, so we can't afford to have multiple well-known and respected Democrats go through a possibly contentious primary. Instead, if she runs for Senate, then both races feature a strong, well-known, and respected Democrat.
An open seat in AK gets interesting real quick if the top 4 system remains in place. Part of why Peltola won in the first place.
More importantly, being one of 100 senators—especially when you hold the deciding vote on major legislation—is far more powerful than serving as governor of a sparsely populated, federally subsidized state where a moderate legislative supermajority can override vetoes. The ability to appoint successors to Alito and Thomas would shape the nation's direction for an entire generation.
That’s debatable. There’s a reason why we’re seeing an unusual amount of senators running for governor this year. There’s Senate is broken. The power to do things is at the state level.
And doesn't Alaska have a sane-person majority if not a Democratic one? A Governor with a legislature that will work with them (in contrast with Beshear's situation for example) is probably more powerful than a freshman Senator who will be dealing with an opposing party President for at least the first third of her term.
If Peltola wins, that means the environment was good enough for Dems to win the Senate majority and a Senate majority can bully the President in a lot of ways. And I mentioned the Alaska moderate caucus supermajority!
Good post, but yeah, no way do I see Murkowski poisoning her relationship with her colleague by not endorsing him, let alone endorsing his challenger. I also don't see a Democrat becoming entrenched in Alaska. If Peltola wins, she'll be a big target in 2032 and could easily lose, though that's getting way ahead of ourselves.
Murkowski might if she decided to become an independent. Again, this is all hypothetical and like I said it’s a low chance of happening, but could it happen? IMO, yes and the more the GOP keeps grovelling at Trump’s feet and doing his bidding, the more she’ll give it real consideration to not be a Republican anymore. Or in other words, the exact opposite of what we just saw Kyrsten Sinema do as a centre-left Democrat, this time with a centre-right Republican.
Something that I think we’ve memory holed, but every Democratic incumbent who has lost in Alaska hasn’t lost by very much, regardless of the national environment. Alaskans tend to like their incumbents. It’s very easy to imagine the state’s voters vote for the idea of a centre-left Democrat to balance the centre-right Murkowski in their Senate delegation for more than 1 term and possibly for much longer.
She obviously would be targeted in every cycle because Republicans would never give up on such a tantalizing political target: a blue Democrat representing a Trump +5-10 state. Whether they actually can beat her when they try to, that’s the part I’m more skeptical of them being successful at. They obviously could, of course, in a still red state for 2026 or beyond. Don’t count her out either, in any cycle.
I could see Murkowski looking at how Trump has turned on Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Bobert violently, focusing her mind on how much Trump hates women, likes child molestors and is a sex offender, and breaks with the Republican Party, but her bravery lately has hardly been overwhelming.
Murkowski and Peltola did cross-endorse each other back in 2022, but that was due to Peltola running for House (and not Senate) and how toxic Palin was.
Would be a great problem to have...
Murkowski might give a pro-forma endorsement of Sullivan and then do nothing afterwards beyond the official endorsement of him. That'd be enough to preserve a working relationship with him, not poison a potential one with Peltola, and make her life easier by not taking up election related activity (joint fundraisers, campaign events, whatever).
This is what I expect.
Pulling from the Minnesota Star Tribune (rip Minneapolis Star Tribune) on other downballot effects if Ellison or Simon end up running for governor:
"If Ellison doesn’t run for attorney general, several state lawmakers, including House DFL Leader Zack Stephenson, Rep. Emma Greenman and former House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler, could be possible contenders.
Greenman is also seen as a potential candidate for Simon’s job if he doesn’t seek re-election. This summer, Ben Weisbuch, who leads the Minnesota DFL’s Jewish Community Outreach Organization, indicated he might run for Simon’s post if Simon weren’t running for re-election."
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/01/06/congress/jim-baird-hospitalized-00712230
Rep. Baird, 80, hospitalized after crash
A really bad morning for sitting representatives
Esp the geriatric ones.
LaMalfa was 65.
Which to be fair, is the quintessential retirement age. Just because it's young for Congress doesn't mean it's young.
No one said it was young.
I wouldn't call it young, but it's not old, either. My father is 59 and he's as physically fit as someone a decade or so younger.
There is nothing magic about 65 as a retirement age. It's a social construct that has changed and can change again.
I didn't say that it was a magic age.
A really bad day for sitting Republican representatives. I believe this means that Speaker Mike Johnson is down to a Republican majority of ... one! His challenge of herding his sheep on upcoming budget votes (and more) just got much, much harder!
PS. I would love to see Hakeem Jeffries become Speaker long before the Midterm Elections, perhaps this Spring or Summer.
This puts the Rs at 217-213 until he can return.
Yikes. Second serious auto accident involving Indiana representatives this decade.
California Rep. Doug LaMalfa died suddenly.
Question: Do we have a clear-cut answer as to whether the Special Election for CA-01 (the late Doug LaMalfa’s district) will take place under old maps or new maps?
Old maps.
I thought so. Can you cite a definitive source?
No, but the whole map changes, not just one district at a time.
If it was under the new map, then that would mean some areas would have two reps and some would have none. So it would be unconstitutional to hold it under the new map.
Republicans pulled that stunt in Nebraska in 2022; the NE-1 special election that year was held in the current NE-1, not the NE-1 that existed in the 2020 elections (which was the vacancy being filled), so you had, for a time a few years ago, some voters in Nebraska having two U.S. Representatives and some voters having none.
True, but no one challenged it. If someone had I imagine the challenge would have succeeded.
Paul Mitchell of PDI and Rob Pyers are pretty definitive. Mitchell also speculates, although it's still early, that Newsom might call the primary special election for June, with a general election in November, so the winner would only be in Congress for a month. Which would be really funny, and revenge for what Greg Abbott did in TX-18, but I believe Newsom will move faster than that. https://x.com/paulmitche11/status/2008555292414669218
There is a good governance reason to schedule the special like that; elections cost money! Holding a special election for a single office could cost several million dollars, it would be a savings to the taxpayer to hold it open until November.
And surely the Republicans are on board with saving California’s taxpayers money?
/s
Have you met the California Republican Party?
If there is a special election runoff because nobody gets 50%+1 in the primary then the runoff would be about a month after the special primary. So it would be sometime in July most likely.
The current map is in place until the next Congress convenes.
This is the case with post-Census redraws as well.
I don't have a definitive source, but my understanding is that the new maps are intended to mark representation starting with the 120th Congress.
I think that would make the most sense legally as well, because if LaMalfa's successor for the remainder of the 119th Congress were elected under the new lines, there would be some people in California who have 2 representatives simultaneously.
Makes sense. Thank you!
And presumably some people in California would have no representative until January 2027.
"NEWS — Former Dem Rep. Mary Peltola is moving toward a Senate bid, interviewing campaign managers,
@HansNichols scoops
Peltola is Dems’ best chance at making Alaska Senate seat competitive next year
Would be another big recruiting win for Schumer"
https://www.axios.com/2026/01/06/mary-peltola-alaska-senate
Yvette said it could be this week...really good recruit
This would be excellent news
Relating to the question raised yesterday:
Per Minnesota SoS office on this very question!
“If a resignation occurs before May 25, 2027, then the special general election for the replacement would be held in November 2027.”
https://x.com/carolinevakil/status/2008284086742237393?s=46&t=sbdQQeYBqp0h_Zql717iTw
I think the political environment in 2027 is likely to be the same as 2026, in the absence of a major event, so I'm not terribly worried about defending an open Senate seat in Minnesota while the human embodiment of syphilis is President.
Thank you to you and Steve Simon lol
Kinda crazy all three major statewide offices in Minnesota might turn over in less than 12 months. I wonder how often that has happened in US history.
The Wyoming Supreme Court struck down the state's abortion ban pursuant to a 2012 Constitutional amendment that guarantees Wyomingites the right to make healthcare decisions for themselves.
https://x.com/i/status/2008590634052104493
The amendment, which was sponsored by those opposed to the Affordable Care Act, was approved by voters 77-23 in 2012
That is some delicious irony
Too bad Rs didn't try the ACA protest constitutional amendment thing here in NC, AR, TX and in Florida, ie use the same shell language like they do with abortion bans. It would've been hilarious to see the bans knocked down like in WY because how broad the language is.
I imagine that amendment could also be used to challenge their restrictions on gender affirming care, though I'm not sure about the details.
Trisha Paytas has expressed interest in a run for Congress in California. She currently lives in Julia Brownley's Ca-26:
https://x.com/PopBase/status/2008605452729196910
I believe Paris Hilton has also expressed an interest to run for this seat at some point or maybe the neighboring CA-32.
I think I’d prefer a non celebrity to be honest.
I mean, it's more that she's an idiot lol
Paris Hilton is considerably smarter than her reputation (which was largely a gimmick) would suggest.
I still think she’d be a replacement-level Congresswoman trading on her celebrity but an idiot she is not
Yeah, I think Trisha Paytas is very obviously an idiot beneath the persona.
I wouldn’t go so far with that anymore.
Recently, Paris Hilton went to Congress to successfully get a bill passed in Congress to stop institutional abuse towards children. She was sent to an institution for children when she was a teenager and forced to conform to torture, especially being forced medication she didn’t want. She was was seriously traumatized when she was a teenager by her parents. Call it a stupid decision by filthy wealthy parents if you will.
Not saying Hilton doesn’t have problems but she went through a hell of a lot worse in her childhood than her assistant Kim Kardashian (I’m still trying to process this after all these years!)
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/12/18/entertainment/paris-hilton-stop-institutional-child-abuse-act
Okay. I'm talking about Trisha Paytas, who the tweet is about.
To be clear, the discussion ended up migrating to Paris Hilton so that was what I was directly referring to.
But thanks for clarifying. I honestly don’t know who Trisha Paytas is.
The GOP ran a celebrity against Brownley in 2018. He lost. That was Antonio Sabato, an actor. She won with 62% of the vote.
Sabato had no chance anyway. His campaign was DOA from the beginning.
The only reason why Sabato ran was because he was a disillusioned actor whining about getting blacklisted in Hollywood. He must have loved the attention he got making his speech at the 2016 RNC Convention thanks to Trump. Otherwise, if it hadn't been for Trump, I doubt Sabato would have even bothered to become political.
Agreed although Paris Hilton has ADHD so that would help me feel empowered as I have this myself.
I feel you there, one of the reasons I was so pissed Yuh Line Niou lost in 2022 was that she would have been the first openly autistic Rep in history, and I am autistic and recognize what a huge moment for our community that would have been.
Briscoe Cain in Texas has autism. He's pretty likely to win.
Should be noted Briscoe Cain is a conservative Republican and the race is in the newly-redistricted TX-09 which is solidly Republican.
Cain would certainly be a fierce advocate in Congress for neurodivergents but otherwise he’s going to be a reliable vote for the GOP’s agenda.
Trisha Who? I'll have to look her up.
And I can't see this being positive (from the Wikipedia article about her): "Paytas's career has been marked by numerous public controversies and online feuds. Media outlets have often described her as a polarizing and controversial figure who has maintained public relevance through her provocative online presence and statements."
On the face of it, that sounds more like Trump and the Republicans than what most Democrats want. I'll read further and see who she got into feuds with, but my first reaction is, doesn't she have anything better to do?
And as I continued reading the Wikipedia article, it got worse and worse. We don't want this woman within 1,000 miles of any elective position!
CA-GOV:
I’ve been seeing Eric Swalwell’s ads as well as his interviews and I have to admit, I am impressed with how on message and focused he is.
The advantage here in having Swalwell as the gubernatorial nominee is that the CA GOP is going to have a tougher time trying to characterize him than Katie Porter. On the other hand, more of the progressive base seems to want Porter as the nominee.
Swalwell thought I would say has more freedom for a gubernatorial campaign than he did running a presidential campaign in the primaries. This could be in par why he’s polling well.
Also, being a son of a cop and from a middle class family makes him much different than Newsom.
Wasn't Swalwell a rw media punching bag a few years ago when the chinese spy scandal happened? There are definitely ways for republicans to characterize him, not that it would matter much in a r vs d general election.
Given the Chinese spy scandal evaded quickly when Swalwell reported the spy right away, I would say this is a non-issue to begin with. Swalwell also has a reputation of being a straight shooter so if he’s being pressed on this, he’s not going to be beating around the bush and making excuses. That’s not how he’s wired.
Swalwell is not a Democratic socialist, extremely liberal or even divisive enough type for Republicans go after him. About the only thing the CA GOP has against him is his absence of voting in the House.
BIG deal. Barack Obama was primarily absent from the Senate when he ran for POTUS and did not cast as many votes as in the first two years he was a Senator. Did not even make a dent in the polls for him.
Points taken. Of course the Republicans will attack any Democrat as a communist-and fascist, etc. - but your point is that it won't work, and my rejoinder is that it wouldn't work in California regardless of which Democrat it's directed at.
Well, the GOP's batting average against Democrats in California since Newsom was elected as Governor back in 2018 has been 0 after 4 times at bat. And the fact that the best gubernatorial candidates are Chad Bianco, Steve Hilton, etc. says it all.
If we're worried about republican attacks on our candidate in California, then we're in for a bad election.
There may be reasons to prefer Swalwell. Truthfully I do not know much about him. There are also valid reasons for people to dislike Porter, even as I prefer her. Potential republican attacks against Porter in California, however, do not qualify for either reasons to prefer Swalwell or reasons to dislike Porter.
Fair although my assessment is not about being worried about the state of the CA-GOV race and just thinking Democrats need a good attack dog against the GOP who can be better than Newsom who Republicans will have a hard time running against at the debates.
Not trying to discount Porter’s qualities but Swalwell in my view is the best Democrats have right now in the race who can be Governor and not be like Newsom. I have run into a couple of women in the Stoneridge Mall in Pleasanton who do not like Newsom as Governor because they think he’s cocky. Porter would likely not solve this problem even while I would be more enthusiastic about her as Governor than I have been about Newsom.
Porter's skill as an attack dog, taking down republican arguments and posturing us as a pro-worker's party is, as far as I'm concerned, her #1 strength. It's the principle reason I favor her for this seat and favored her for the senate seat. She has her weaknesses as well, but for me that strength is worth those weaknesses. For other people that might be a different calculation.
If better-than-Newsom attack dog is what you are selecting for, then I would argue that Porter as your ideal candidate. If you want something else, then maybe not.
Her political persona is based heavily around being the smartest person in every room. And that's probably true at least 99 times out of 100 in Porter's case, but it can also become grating quickly.
Maybe, but my reaction tends to be, too bad if you can't handle a smart woman. We need women to push back against the misogyny and arrogance of dull-witted Republican men and rich men in general in positions of power who normally get away with having the Establishment take their propaganda line as reality. I love Mamdani for pushing back against all that bullshit. I forget who it was who recently said that the Trump government sending $40 billion to Argentina to finance their debt caused not even a ripple, but God forbid that money would be used for free childcare or free college or affordable healthcare.
I agree. It's an awful double standard but recent election results have clearly shown that it's real.
Agreed on what you're saying in Paragraph #1. That's a good reason why I think she would be able to fight harder against the GOP than Newsom.
FYI, both Porter and Swalwell would be excellent attack dogs and am not trying to compare the two with who has the ability to do it better. However, with Porter's temperament, that is going to raise questions with those who are independents and moderates in the state. On the other hand, she recognizes her mistakes and doesn't run away from them, which I consider to be a good trait.
My main beef with Newsom is how he's been Governor. He just is not as focused on the job as he is with elevating his political image so he can go on to greater heights in his career. Having an attack dog to Trump is pretty low bar to begin with but besides this, I'd like the next Governor to be closer to Jerry Brown in competency in running the state.
Swalwell, like Porter, has served in the House but I think he's got the right balance between Brown and Newsom as far as what he could do if he was Governor.
100% - electibility is not a concern for us in CA. The bigger question, to me, is more about who will be a better Governor. On that front, I'd say Swalwell.
Speaking of Swalwell, his open seat may have another contender. Termed-out state senator Steve Glazer announced the formation of a congressional exploratory committee over the holidays. The 14th District seems his likely target. He is viewed as a moderate Dem, although I remember him mostly for blocking measures to allow more housing. Of note, he does not live in the 14th district.
Currently, four candidates have filed to run: Democrats Melissa Hernández, Matt Ortega and Abrar Qadir and Republican Wendy Huang. State senator Aisha Wahab is also widely expected to join the race soon.
Ugh. Steve Glazer.
His agenda in trying to ban BART strikes made him lose respect with unions. Like stopping BART strikes really helps in improving BART.
Matt Ortega and Abrar Qadir I like the most. Ortega intrigues me because both of his children are autistic and I come from a family of neurodivergents.
Exactly my reaction when I read Steve Glazer's name. Before he was a state senator, he ran for the Assembly in 2014, and came in third in the primary behind a Republican and a much more liberal Democrat. He endorsed the Republican, who narrowly won the general election. I've never forgiven him for that, and considered him a DINO ever since.
He needs to be kept as far away from Congress as possible. Terrible person.
Anybody from TX-18 who can cite any policy differences between Menefee and Edwards?
Not from TX-18 but Menefee has most of the progressive endorsements. I know Amanda Edwards opposed Medicare for All when she ran against Sheila Jackson Lee, while Menefee's platform vocally supports it.
Here are their policy pages for a more in-depth look.
https://christianmenefee.com/issues/
https://www.edwardsforhouston.com/policy