UT-Redistricting: Late last night, Judge Dianna Gibson overruled Utah Republicans' map that created two single-digit Trump districts and instead selected a map offered by the plaintiffs that has an entirely Salt Lake County district, which is Harris +24.
While it would have been hilarious for Republicans to potentially lose two moderately Republican districts instead of one Safe D seat, I believe this is unquestionably the kind of map that was intended by the initiative.
While Donald Trump is uniquely unpopular amongst Utah Republicans so his numbers are closer a floor, I also felt the Republicans trying that meant they really don't get how atrophied their non-Trump GOTV apparatus is at the moment.
Ironically, this new map is best for both parties. Democrats get a guaranteed pick-up and Republicans near completely avoid the risk of non-SLC Utahans learning the superiority of Democratic representation.
iirc, they drew districts where the Trump margins were actually beneath how strong downballot Repubs did for Senate and Gov and that they felt were actually not as competitive as the presidential margins indicated. Utah Repubs had been uniquely resistant to Trump (more religious Mormons), but that has definitely been broken down compared to 2016 ofc.
Hakeem Jeffries publicly endorsed McAdams last week when The Bulwark was interviewing him on their election night coverage so he'll have institutional support behind him which in a state like Utah is nothing to sneeze at. Of course this is now a safe D seat within Salt Lake County and D primary voters may revolt at any sign of outside meddling from D.C....
In my opinion, the only way this map does not get used in the 2026 midterms is if Republicans appeal to a federal district court that flagrantly disregards all the facts in Gibson's ruling and issues a stay on her order somehow. The Utah state courts have backed up Gibson surprisingly well.
Even with SCOTUS, they'd have to go against their previous rulings to justify a stay on the map. I wouldn't rule anything out given the times we live in, but this case seems pretty close to closed.
A damning article from Jennifer Rubin on the eight Senate Democrats who voted with Republicans. Furious, the former Washing Post columnist accuses those eight of "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory".
My thought (one of many) on this: Senator Dick Durbin is one of those eight. As Minority Whip, his job is to keep the caucus united under its leadership. Not that we have seen much of that from Senator Durbin! But for the Whip to break with the majority, instead of preventing that, Durbin instead chose to cast his vote with the Thune and the Republicans.
I hope we are all prepared (myself included) in the event we have a 51 seat majority after next November, it’s not gonna be one filled with members ready to toss out the filibuster if the time comes, meddle with the Supreme Court, etc. Maybe if we’re lucky we’ll get some mild redistricting reform (assuming we win in 2028) solely because Republicans are the victims now too.
I’m prepared for it and I am dreading it. Our caucus is filled with people who aren’t willing to do what it takes to hold Trump accountable or pass the sweeping changes we need to actually improve things across the country. This is why I hope we can primary out some Senators before then - maybe if they’re more scared of losing reelection they’ll fall in line.
I think DM probably means that a Dem Senate majority post-2026 should be prepared to prevent Trump from filling a Supreme Court vacancy, though I am admittedly a little confused about which timeframe AnthonySf is talking about.
It’s a problematic dilemma when one side is willing to do untold harm and cause unspeakable suffering to advance their agenda and grow their power. In such a dynamic, the side with empathy and compassion will constantly be forced to cede ground.
This is what we are witnessing now – and there are no easy solutions. Trump just used hunger and the threat of literal starvation to make his political gains.
We haven't even hit the California filing deadline. I suspect we could get a few more retirements as we approach it, especially with the redrawn districts.
Really disappointing from Al Green - particularly with the district that has been in and out of proper representation for years now because septuagenarians keep running. He'll be the oldest person to ever represent TX-18 - 9 years older than Turner and 5 years older than Jackson Lee. Age is important context in this race and it's sad to see.
And "before Jackson Lee" is only 22 years (1973-94), when it was represented by Barbara Jordan (6 years, retired voluntarily even after becoming well regarded nationally), Mickey Leland (10 1/2 years, killed in plane crash), and Craig Washington (5 1/2 years before losing to SJL). None of these is an especially long tenure.
So…given last Tuesday, I’m not very concerned about Ossoff and Cooper. The only thing that does concern me is my increasing fear that we might shoot ourselves in the foot like the GOP did in 2022 by nominating terrible candidates. I call these people “Blue MAGA.” Platner, AES, and to a lesser extent Mandela Barnes. People who have all said or done things that are politically suicidal. I worry in particular about the people taking Jay Jones’ 6-points as some sort of affirmation for other offensive candidates like Platner. Yet he still did 9 points worse than Spanberger.
Whereas if we nominate Mills and McMorrow, frankly I’d expect both to win by double digits next year after last Tuesday.
Mills, Cooper, Brown, McMorrow, Talarico, Osborn and Peltola are the dream team to flip the Senate. Esteves, Acton, Sand and Ford should be able to flip governors seats, too.
I'd rather Peltola go for Governor and take the surest thing for her own longevity and to show Alaska that Democrats can competently govern their state. She can run for Senate in 2034 when Murkowski likely retires. I'd rather someone like Scott Kawasaki take the run against Sullivan. Proven overperformer who held on last year even while Peltola lost his senate district. Wouldn't need to give up his seat either.
Also have a slight preference for Tim Ryan over Acton, but I don't feel very strongly.
Would like Laura Kelly to take a stab at the Kansas Senate seat. She's got nothing to lose. Late filing deadline too of June 1.
As I’ve long pointed out, a U.S. Senator holds far more national influence than the Governor of a small state like Alaska. A single Senator can block Supreme Court nominees, stall or advance major legislation, and even play a decisive role in eliminating the filibuster.
And I favor building our party brand in the state with a race she is 99% likely to win instead of gambling our strongest candidate for an office that she is at best 50-50 to win. Contest the Senate seat for sure, but have her flip the governorship and build voter trust in the party as a whole through competent governance.
I've gone back and forth on that and really see the logic of your position. But with the Senate so tilted against us (and getting worse, as noted in those Nevada numbers posted in the comments), I think we have to take any shot we can at grabbing a seat. But it's not a clear-cut choice.
I respect your position for sure. I would fully support Peltola for whichever race she decides to run. But just making the tactical/long-term strategic argument for her to take Governor now and Senate later.
I'd take a 33 percent chance of 2 Dem SC Justices after Thomas and Alito retire over a long term project which will be relevant only if Democracy survives.
Sorry, but Mills has her own problems. Aside from her age, she has indicated she will not oppose the filibuster, which has become an issue among those who are interested in actually implementing the Democrats’ agenda.
This is not a defense of Platner, mind you. This is a call for someone else to run.
(Also, I am a progressive and I very much do not appreciate the comparisons to MAGA. I have yet to see anyone on our team besides Jay Jones call for anyone to be killed, which is depressingly more than I can say for MAGA.)
Honestly I'm watching the enthusiasm from Platners supporters still and am wavering between being disgusted by his past reddit comments and crossing my fingers he can overcome. It's a very weird feeling. As someone with a gay son his slurs are inexcusable but I also want to believe people can grow and shouldn't be held to their worst moment online. I do not like his handful of comments at all but I'm not yet believing his candidacy is irredeemable.
Later in the 2010s after he wrote about his shift to the left due to Bernie and the late Michael Brooks, he abused homophobes and anti-gay Republicans on Reddit threads too.
Well then I think this change in philosophy (and any other things that could indicate or prove a shift and evolution in political and social philosophy) needs to be pushed. People can certainly change, but they need to prove it (not just say so). Platner made very victim-blamey statements against SA survivors; he needs to prove he views SA differently now and is an ally for survivors. He made derrisive comments against Black people; he needs to prove he no longer views Black people in this way and is a true advocate for racial justice. And he can't just say that he's changed, or try one time to prove that he's changed. This will have to be a continuous process of proving these views of his have changed. This applies to other comments he's made as well.
No one is saying he can't overcome past mistakes. I would rather he show his growth in a less consequential race than the literal U.S. Senate race when we have no idea at all how Platner would operate if he actually did win. I would not at all be shocked if he went full Fetterman.
He never made any racist statements in his entire comment history — in fact, he often made anti-racist ones. The comment about Black people tipping was posted in a thread where users were encouraged to ask people of another race something they’d never dared to ask before, and a Black woman even replied to his question (which was downvoted). You’re right about his other comments, though.
There is no evidence of him supporting Nazism or Fascism on reddit where he posted in a pretty unrestrained fashion. His stepbrother and much of his extended family is Jewish and some live in Israel.
Having it be permanently inked into your skin through a painful process at a sketchy tattoo parlor takes commitment. If he got it as a bone headed move while drunk or something, he should have had that filth lasered out of his flesh as soon as he could, not wait for everyone to find out about it before doing a half-ass temporary tattoo on top of it like he did here.
Two different topics here I think. I agree with you that people need a chance at redemption and the opportunity to learn and grow, rather than be held back by their worst moment(s), particularly if those worst moments were driven by PTSD. That said, we absolutely do NOT need to gamble a must win senate race on the public agreeing to that redemption.
I don't see it really as blue MAGA What I do see it as is blue TEA Party. MAGA's core ideology is sycophancy to a tyrannical strong man. TEA Party's core ideology was who could out virtue signal further on the fringe and win support by being the wingiest nuttiest wing nut, regardless of personal shortcomings. That's much closer to where Democrats are inching towards in 2026 than blue MAGA.
Blue TEA Party is probably a more apt comparison. In any event, Blue MAGA was intended to reference high-risk candidates staking out toxic positions or have jarring pasts. The GOP has thrown away about a dozen Senate seats over the past decade through trash candidates. And maybe a dozen governorships. I would prefer we not do that here just because Platner said things that make people feel good.
Sometimes you have to be willing to lose a battle to win the war.
The goal, for me at least, is to have Dem party that fights for needed change against not just MAGA, but billionaires, and will fix a broken system.
Filibuster reform, SCROTUS reform, add DC, repair the VRA, go after coup participants aggressively, tax the rich/big corps, Green new deal, Medicare for all, etc.
Yeah, Trump/MAGA threw away some races, but everyone's in line now. I want corporate Dems sweating losing primaries all over the place.
Go Blue no matter who in the General, but go for the bigger change agent in the primary if they have a chance at all.
Your last sentence is the key though. Fine if you want to push more progressive candidates in blue seats/states. I disagree with that approach, but it's not likely to cost us winnable seats. It's where we push aside more electable candidates in tossup/lean races that we shoot ourselves in the foot.
Agree with your MAGA/tea party distinction, but at least since 2022 I think the trend among Dems has been to value electability above purity. Platner was trying to run as Dan Osborn, the leaked comments weren't his idea and they haven't helped him. Jones probably would have had to withdraw from the primary if his texts had come out earlier.
I fully support a blue tea party - but not necessarily on ideological lines. We don’t need to bring back 2020-style purity testing about whether a candidate supports single payer or not. What we need is a party that is fully willing to use its power to advance its goals - and that means not voting to end our shutdowns, being willing to abolish the filibuster, being willing to expand the Supreme Court, and being willing to use the power of the federal government as forcefully against authoritarian politicians and activists and the institutions that support them as Trump is doing against us now. And any Democrat who doesn’t support that needs to be primaried.
Janet Mills is a an extremely moderate Democrat being set up to be the next rotating villain for the Democratic president in 2029. Mills is very anti-labor, anti-red flag laws, has AIPAC operatives on her team and supports the filibuster. Mills was only above water based on partisanship and has shown no particular strength with moderates in polls. Maine being a blue state, I believe she and Platner will win on partisanship alone in a blue wave.
But she's never faced a backlash midterm electorate a la 2006 or 2018. I'm trying not to underestimate her, but I'm also trying not to assign her overstated survivor powers based on victories either in Republican years (2002, 2014) or years when voters assumed a Democratic President and felt safe in splitting their tickets (2008, 2020).
What, no she is not. Remember when she stood strong on LGBT issues? Or is that worth nothing? And "rotating villain" is a pile of crap from 2009-2010 that won't fully die like it should have. I definitely prefer her over Herr Graham Totenkopf.
I didn’t believe in the rotating villain then, but do you honestly believe only the 8 Democrats who voted to end the shut down wanted to end it, but they all coincidentally weren’t up for reelection next year? Or that Manchin and Sinema were the only Democrats who were against abolishing the filibuster and if we had just two more seats we would have been able to? Mills has already said she won’t support abolishing the filibuster - if we have a 50 vote Senate with her being the deciding vote there’s no way we’re legalizing abortion, passing the For the People Act, passing the PRO Act, raising the minimum wage to $15, establishing a public option, or expanding the Supreme Court.
We'd be more likely out of the majority than with it, so that would come back to bite us hard. Also, Senate terms are 6 years long and people not facing an imminent reelection can vote their principles more. Rotating villain is conspiracy theory dreck.
I"m not sure I see this from her. She's not going to be a Manchin/Sinema type. I suspect she'll fit in quite nicely with institutionalists like Warner, Klobuchar etc.
The snideness is unwarranted. Not all progressives are on board with all of this, in fact on Bluesky everyone gave up on Platner. The implication I read was that we are as bad as Trump supporters, which I believe to be wholly false. If that was not the intention I apologize, it's how I read it.
The comparison is to the trash MAGA candidates like Doug Mastriano, Mehmet Oz, Kari Lake, Blake Masters, Mark Robinson, Tudor Dixon, Sarah Palin, JR Majewski --need I go on? They all lost very winnable races because of how bad they were, often by a landslide. I do not want to risk that with anyone associated with defunding the police, Nazi tattoos, or ACAB. Sorry, not sorry.
Then my original comment about wasn't about you? Don't know what to tell you but to grow a thicker skin. It's about the morons sticking with people like AES and Platner.
I fear that Mills and Platner are both getting just enough outside support that they successfully block anyone else from jumping in.
If Mills wasn't running, would Troy Jackson being eyeing a switch to the senate instead of a switch to ME-02? I don't know, but I think there's a good chance he would.
I, too, fear candidate quality issues but wouldn't call it Blue MAGA. Aside from the Maine fiasco I am concerned with Lance Bottoms getting the nomination for gov in GA and ElSayd in MI.
Mills' problem isn't that she's a bad Democrat unless you're the type to apply purity tests. It's that she's got the 'establishment stink' on her now and may well not excite Democrats to vote. Very a-la Joe Biden. Fine track record but.... boring?
I think willingness to abolish the filibuster is the single most important position for any Senate Democrat to take. If you don’t want to abolish the filibuster, you aren’t sincerely pro choice, you don’t sincerely support universal healthcare, you don’t sincerely support a living wage, and you don’t sincerely support ending gerrymandering across the country. And Janet Mills doesn’t support abolishing the filibuster, so she wouldn’t be useful in passing large chunks of our agenda.
You've now said this in some way or another multiple times on this thread. One can debate whether the filibuster should go or not (for the record, I agree with you that it's time to kill it) but definitive statements like "then you aren't pro-choice" about people who disagree with you are condescending, untrue, and not conducive to the type of dialogue we aim for here.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to describe people who wouldn’t vote to pass a law legalizing abortion as not being pro choice, and I don’t see a substantive difference between people who would vote against such a law and people who would vote for it but wouldn’t vote to get rid of the filibuster if it was stopping it from being passed. Either way, the outcome would be the same - women not being able to legally get abortions.
Dems nominating Lance Bottoms would be a disaster which is a view political insiders in Georgia have been expressing. I'm willing not to be sold on Geoff Duncan, but if it's between him and Bottoms come primary time I'll pick the former every time.
Both of those candidates have strong and well-liked brands in their states, and they know how to differentiate themselves from the establishment. I'm not worried about them.
Platner, on the other hand, seems more likely than ever to become the nominee. Folks should prepare for that.
Anyone wondering why CCM and Rosen voted to reopen? Nevada is continuing to trend Republican. Both of them last won by literally hundredths of a percent.
Not everyone over 65 needs to be put out on an ice flow. I know we're all traumatized by Biden falling apart but we don't need to bring that to every situation, in my opinion.
I don't want to keep fighting the same fights but the flip side of that would be, "some folks here are fine with a Nazi tattoo wearing weirdo mercenary with no political experience" or "some folks here are fine with some guy who was deeply involved with a seemingly scam dark money group".
It would be helpful if someone on here from Maine could explain why there isn't yet another alternative who might get in, since filing is pretty far off and Maine seems like a state where it's not too expensive to run (exemplified by Gideon sitting on $14m by Election Day). Pointing out Platner's and Woods's flaws doesn't make Mills any more progressive.
I just don't get the constant "we have to have younger candidates! All the olds should retire!" by the same people who say "Mills is the only Dem who can win in Maine!" Our problem isn't the age of our candidates, it's that they're too cautious and unwilling to fight for social democratic policies.
Yeah, in addition to what we saw last Tuesday in NJ (VA had a significantly weaker R ticket leader and there are roughly twice as many Hispanic people in NJ than VA as a percentage of population). Also, the decline in NV tourism lately could really be a problem since it all comes back to Trump.
Yet Democrats are still fighting independent redistricting there. That’s one state where they should be supporting it due to the likelihood of not having a trifecta in a redistricting cycle there again anytime soon.
Nevada Democrats may end up looking as braindead as the North Carolina Democrats in the 2000s that wouldn’t pass independent redistricting.
And you neglect to mention over 12k registered unaffiliated. It's disingenuous all of these folks tracking party reg numbers never note how many people are simply registering as independent.
And Republicans outpaced Democrats in new registration in New Jersey this year. It’s not, by itself, determinative. How independents break is far more important
Agreed. There's certainly trends that can be observed over years and decades of partisan registration shifts, but I've never understood this fixation on month to month D vs R numbers (ignoring independents). We're counting 1700 voters upthread as if that's determinative in a state that cast almost 1.5 million votes last year. Jack Ciattarelli went from coming up 3 points short of getting elected NJ Gov to losing by 14 last week...none of that granular analysis of new partisan registrations over the past year would have pointed to that. Because that's not how election results shift from year to year!
NJ is an even crazier example when we take into account polling too. There was a lot of worry before the election that Sherrill wasn't doing great, supported by the occasional poll of her only ahead by 2-3 points. She won by 14. The skepticism before the election was not entirely unfounded, but it ended up being unwarranted.
Now, it could come to pass that next year's elections will show warning signs or worse for Nevada. Maybe we win but not impressively. Maybe we lose a high profile office. Or, it could be that we bounce back and completely dominate the state's elections.
It's worth being cautious, but we have at least one election before we need to seriously assess our prospects in Nevada. We should wait for those results before we get seriously pessimistic or optimistic!
There were more than "occasional polls" showing Sherrill barely ahead, but many of them came from right leaning or otherwise questionable pollsters. Simon Rosenberg today provided this list of 6 such results in the last several weeks before the election:
Atlas Intel Sherrill 50%-49% (+1)
Emerson Sherrill 50%-48% (+2)
co/efficient Sherrill 48%-47% (+1)
Quantas Sherrill 49%-46% (+3)
Neighborhood Sherrill 44%-44% (even)
Trafalgar/IA Sherrill 45%-44% (+1) IA = Insider Advantage
Note the herding effect: they all seemed to bunch together showing a tie or near it, but none actually put Ciattarelli ahead. This is reminiscent of the flood of GOP-aligned pollsters who warped the 2022 averages and punditry with their forecasts of a massive red wave that didn't materialize. (Of course, even most nonpartisan pollsters ultimately lowballed Sherrill.)
I don't think saying that Nevada is "trending Republican" is accurate. We have 3/4 house seats, both Senate seats, control both houses of the legislature and have won it's electoral votes 4 out of the last 5 presidential elections. What's your basis for the "trending Republican"?
Reps. Chris Deluzio (D-PA) and Pat Ryan (D-NY) had a great interview on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night. Could be primary challengers for their states' establishment senators in 2028.
If she runs for president, Ryan is a good alternative. He's not super progressive or anything (other than endorsing Mamdani) but is much better than Schumer.
How is Ryan more conservative than Schumer? Schumer is the embodiment of establishment politics that conservatives pretend to hate, but from my understanding, Ryan is one of the few who are more progressive, while still winning over key groups of conservatives, like in Kiryas Joel.
Ideology matters less than the means of using power at this point. If someone supports left wing policy but wouldn’t be willing to get rid of the filibuster to pass it, they will have less progressive results than a more centrist politician who would be willing to abolish the filibuster to vote to pass a less left wing bill.
“‘Between 30 and 40 percent’ of the Zoomers who work in official Republican Washington are fans of Nick Fuentes…
Even young Christians — especially trad Catholics, I learned — are neck-deep in anti-Semitism. They even use it as a litmus test of who can and can’t join their informal social groups…
I asked one astute Zoomer what the Groypers actually wanted (meaning, what were their demands). He said, ‘They don’t have any. They just want to tear everything down.’”
While the Fuentes stuff is alarming, knowing that it’s just a subset of a subset is good. From what I’ve heard (and seen myself as a Gen Zer), Gen Z is starting to move away from the GOP anyway so that’s good at least.
Weimar did not fall because the left (Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists and Communists) did not cooperate but because the Right stopped believing in democracy.
And this is why we need to make the top priority of the next administration attacking fascism, authoritarianism, and Nazism in this country with the same force that Trump is targeting progressive institutions. I don’t have much confidence that the conciliatory people we elect in our party have the stomach for that, but if we don’t fully dismantle these movements with every tool we can use we’ll have an actual Neo Nazi president in the near future.
Young Republicans just like their mentor old Republicans are all racist, homophobic, antisemitic, xenophobic, white nationalist scumbags. This is my shocked face.
There is an emerging divide in MAGA with the Groypers and trad Catholics on one side due to their antisemitism and the Evangelicals and the GOP establishment on the other over support for Israel. We have had an ugly time with this issue and now the MAGA movement is seeing their coalition being divided on this issue.
Is there any sense that Christine Pelosi running for Wiener's seat when it's next up in 2028 may indicate some tacit endorsement of the Pelosis to him? Seems really odd to announce for a state senate seat a whole cycle in advance unless they think it might become open sooner in 2026 and position her to win the special. (She could just say "I won't be running to succeed my mother in Congress" and leave it at that.) Could just be smart hedging their bets, he either wins and she has a jump for the special, or he loses and is term limited anyway and she's been preparing longer. But just feels like an odd thing to do without intending to make a signal to me.
Even if it's not an endorsement per se (other commenters have intimated that Weiner doesn't have a great relationship with Pelosi; or if they did, it has soured), it seems like she expects that he's likely to win.
I doubt it. Christine is probably getting her ducks in a row especially since there's speculation Assemblyman Matt Haney would run for Wiener's state senate seat either if it's open in a 2027 special election or in 2028 when Wiener would be termed out of the legislature. Christine maybe trying to scare Haney off especially if Wiener falls short in his House run which would mean the seat comes up in 2028 which would force Haney to choose to give up his seat which he would have for 8 more years or stay put in the Assembly.
Also re: Arrington's retirement, next in line after him on Budget are Ralph Norman (running for SC gov), Tom McClintock (may lose CA primary bunking), Glenn Grothman (WI) and Lloyd Smucker (PA). There aren't a ton of especially young upstarts or notably interesting more junior members below them who seem on first reflection to try and jump the line and succeed in running over them, but I could be very wrong on that lol
Edit: Also noting this is definitely an early retirement for Arrington. He has another term left to be the lead Repub on the committee, so it seems a pretty good indication that he thinks he'll be ranking member and not chair, or maybe he just hates it and the combo of spending legislation he's been involved with have been really taxing and he's over it (like Granger opting out of Approps early, but ofc we later found out she also has dementia).
McClintock seems stronger than Kiley, but he could have vulnerability. Kiley might be seen as younger and more vigorous. Although McClintock has been in NorCal for some time, he is originally from Ventura County and represented parts of SoCal in the CA Legislature. I would still have Tom as the favorite to win, but Kevin might have a chance. I am not in that part of the state so I would defer to locals who know the situation better.
I'm in Kiley's current district. His constituent service is pretty good and he ran about 7 points (margin, not vote share) ahead of Trump in 2024. He's much more of a Paul Ryan type than a MAGA type, so pre-Trump Republicans who can't stomach Trump are mostly ok with him.
His problem would be that the new district 5 wouldn't have much of his old district apart from Alpine, Mono, and Inyo counties which are all very small. Most of the population is in McClintock's current district. Unless McClintock retires (he'll be 70 on election day) I'd give him the edge.
The new district 3, which would probably be unwinnable for a Republican even in a good year for them. Seems likely that my rep will be Ami Bera again, as was the case before 2022.
Clear signals of what their party elected reps think is coming in the 2026 midterms are adding up rapidly. This retirement + Schweikert = rats abandoning the soon to be sunk GOP ship. Neither of them would leave if they thought their party could still hold the majority.
When does the Illinois signature-checking knife fight end? And does anyone have intel on where it's happening? I'm eyeing IL-02, IL-07, IL-08, IL-09 for potential endorsements.
Trying to look at the "2026 Abbreviated Election Calendar" from the candidate guides of the IL SOS website. Looks like yesterday was the last day to file objections (my feed hasn't seen reports of who has done, but I fully could have just missed with so much going on), and the ballot certification deadline by the IL State Board of Elections is 1/8/26. But a lot of these races are
A lot of these races are also under the jurisdiction of the Chicago Board of Elections, which says it'll start hearings on 11/18. They have a separate line for the Cook County ballot certification deadline by 1/14/26, and I'm not sure if federal races fall under that or just the county board, etc.
I've had enough of the wing of the party that constantly complains that if they don't get their way, they will take their ball and go home. No one will care about this three or four months from now.
Taking their ball and going home isn't limited to any wing of the party. We saw the moderates do that with Mamdani recently, and I'd argue that we saw the same with Barnes. Progressives do it too. I'm not trying to imply otherwise. Just that it isn't limited to us.
No one should give up, the fight is too important for that. But it is hugely demoralizing to think that we’re going to organize to elect a bunch of people who might just roll over and not resist even after we’ve put in all that work. This isn’t about ideological purity, it’s about electing people for the purpose of resisting Trump and expecting them to do that.
Long term, doubtful knowing the history of government shutdowns and how they affect turnout in these kinds of situations.
Besides, realistically speaking what leverage would Democrats have been able to have over this? Government unions and SNAP recipients could not wait any longer.
When Democrats have control over both chambers of Congress, they need to push to get a law that bans government shutdowns and the debt ceiling. This crap is getting insane.
The midterms will likely be better for us, but demotivating the base can hurt volunteer and fundraising efforts. Especially for senate candidates. It's not the type of thing that causes the elections to go from (very) good to bad, or even very good to good. That isn't the same as having absolutely no impact.
More generally, it's rare for any one thing to be the decisive factor in an election. Even the biggest stories. Elections are battles of inches. We want every inch in our favor as possible. Does this one matter that much for election purposes? Probably not. Doesn't mean it doesn't matter at all.
Interestingly enough none of the Dem centrist pundits/talking heads are thrilled Dems caved here. Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Jessica Tarlov, etc. share Chait's view and are furious. Only Tim Miller and Will Saletan at The Bulwark have been saying Dems should raise the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner and prepare for the next political fight.
Let the wise man graciously make way for the next generation!
UT-Redistricting: Late last night, Judge Dianna Gibson overruled Utah Republicans' map that created two single-digit Trump districts and instead selected a map offered by the plaintiffs that has an entirely Salt Lake County district, which is Harris +24.
https://www.abc4.com/news/politics/inside-utah-politics/redistricting-ruling-judge-rules-against-utah-legislature-and-picks-plaintiffs-map-1-for-utahs-2026-midterms/
While it would have been hilarious for Republicans to potentially lose two moderately Republican districts instead of one Safe D seat, I believe this is unquestionably the kind of map that was intended by the initiative.
While Donald Trump is uniquely unpopular amongst Utah Republicans so his numbers are closer a floor, I also felt the Republicans trying that meant they really don't get how atrophied their non-Trump GOTV apparatus is at the moment.
Ironically, this new map is best for both parties. Democrats get a guaranteed pick-up and Republicans near completely avoid the risk of non-SLC Utahans learning the superiority of Democratic representation.
iirc, they drew districts where the Trump margins were actually beneath how strong downballot Repubs did for Senate and Gov and that they felt were actually not as competitive as the presidential margins indicated. Utah Repubs had been uniquely resistant to Trump (more religious Mormons), but that has definitely been broken down compared to 2016 ofc.
Wondering if Ben McAdams would even win the primary here in a significantly less conservative seat now....
Yeah I think a primary is warranted here.
If Ben McAdams were to win the primary, I have a feeling he might shift some of his views to become more liberal.
However, it's worth noting that this still is Utah. A lot of those Harris voters are moderate Dems.
Salt Lake City is actually fairly progressive, and it's only been moving in that direction. Utah was very friendly to Sanders in his two primary runs.
Hakeem Jeffries publicly endorsed McAdams last week when The Bulwark was interviewing him on their election night coverage so he'll have institutional support behind him which in a state like Utah is nothing to sneeze at. Of course this is now a safe D seat within Salt Lake County and D primary voters may revolt at any sign of outside meddling from D.C....
Republicans will appeal to UT Supreme Court per Punchbowl
Considering they already slapped them down once for attempting to repeal the initiative, I doubt it will work, but who knows.
In my opinion, the only way this map does not get used in the 2026 midterms is if Republicans appeal to a federal district court that flagrantly disregards all the facts in Gibson's ruling and issues a stay on her order somehow. The Utah state courts have backed up Gibson surprisingly well.
Even with SCOTUS, they'd have to go against their previous rulings to justify a stay on the map. I wouldn't rule anything out given the times we live in, but this case seems pretty close to closed.
Yeah I don't see a leg to stand on for a move to federal court, but they'll definitely try.
A damning article from Jennifer Rubin on the eight Senate Democrats who voted with Republicans. Furious, the former Washing Post columnist accuses those eight of "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory".
https://contrarian.substack.com/p/words-and-phrases-we-could-do-without-d03
My thought (one of many) on this: Senator Dick Durbin is one of those eight. As Minority Whip, his job is to keep the caucus united under its leadership. Not that we have seen much of that from Senator Durbin! But for the Whip to break with the majority, instead of preventing that, Durbin instead chose to cast his vote with the Thune and the Republicans.
Shame!
I hope we are all prepared (myself included) in the event we have a 51 seat majority after next November, it’s not gonna be one filled with members ready to toss out the filibuster if the time comes, meddle with the Supreme Court, etc. Maybe if we’re lucky we’ll get some mild redistricting reform (assuming we win in 2028) solely because Republicans are the victims now too.
Could you clarify your last sentence? Not sure what you mean.
I'm interpreting it as if it was supposed to say redistricting
Sorry yes that was typo. I corrected it
I’m prepared for it and I am dreading it. Our caucus is filled with people who aren’t willing to do what it takes to hold Trump accountable or pass the sweeping changes we need to actually improve things across the country. This is why I hope we can primary out some Senators before then - maybe if they’re more scared of losing reelection they’ll fall in line.
Agreed.
Warner & Hickenlooper should face challenges this time.
Hopefully Durbin & Shaheen will be replaced with uogrades.
Coons, Booker, and Reed deserve challenges too. Ossoff, Merkley, and Lujan are the only Democrats from this class who I actually want us to run again.
If we were to have 51, I'm hoping the coalition would hold to create payback time for Merrick Garland in the event of a vacancy on SCOTUS.
After his lackluster term as the head of the Justice Department, I don't want Garland on the Supreme Court.
Not to mention that he'll be 76 years old at the earliest time a Democratic president could make an appointment.
I think DM probably means that a Dem Senate majority post-2026 should be prepared to prevent Trump from filling a Supreme Court vacancy, though I am admittedly a little confused about which timeframe AnthonySf is talking about.
Filibuster reform won't matter much in 2026, while Mango Unchained is still President.
Rubin just isn't right about this one. Political gains cannot come at the expense of literal starvation, and that shouldn't be a controversial stance.
I hear what you are saying.
It’s a problematic dilemma when one side is willing to do untold harm and cause unspeakable suffering to advance their agenda and grow their power. In such a dynamic, the side with empathy and compassion will constantly be forced to cede ground.
This is what we are witnessing now – and there are no easy solutions. Trump just used hunger and the threat of literal starvation to make his political gains.
Can we go a day without some unexpected house retirement? Garcia. Watson Coleman. Arrington
Filing deadline is that time of year where we start to see these!
Are you saying Bonnie Watson Coleman (80) should be running for reelection?
No, but declaring reelection and then dropping out suddenly shouldn't be this common
True. But better than the opposite from an octogenarian.
It certainly keeps us on our toes lol
We haven't even hit the California filing deadline. I suspect we could get a few more retirements as we approach it, especially with the redrawn districts.
Really disappointing from Al Green - particularly with the district that has been in and out of proper representation for years now because septuagenarians keep running. He'll be the oldest person to ever represent TX-18 - 9 years older than Turner and 5 years older than Jackson Lee. Age is important context in this race and it's sad to see.
And tenure, too - TX 18 only had *3* representatives in its entire history before Jackson Lee, even though it is a 52 year old district
That's not a particularly odd amount of time. There were some representatives who were in office longer than 52 years.
And "before Jackson Lee" is only 22 years (1973-94), when it was represented by Barbara Jordan (6 years, retired voluntarily even after becoming well regarded nationally), Mickey Leland (10 1/2 years, killed in plane crash), and Craig Washington (5 1/2 years before losing to SJL). None of these is an especially long tenure.
Rep. Green has a ready-made campaign slogan, courtesy of the other Al Green: "Let's Stay Together".
I love the fact that Katie Wilson now has taken a massive 0.04 % lead over Bruce Harrell in the Seattle Mayor’s race!
So…given last Tuesday, I’m not very concerned about Ossoff and Cooper. The only thing that does concern me is my increasing fear that we might shoot ourselves in the foot like the GOP did in 2022 by nominating terrible candidates. I call these people “Blue MAGA.” Platner, AES, and to a lesser extent Mandela Barnes. People who have all said or done things that are politically suicidal. I worry in particular about the people taking Jay Jones’ 6-points as some sort of affirmation for other offensive candidates like Platner. Yet he still did 9 points worse than Spanberger.
Whereas if we nominate Mills and McMorrow, frankly I’d expect both to win by double digits next year after last Tuesday.
Mills, Cooper, Brown, McMorrow, Talarico, Osborn and Peltola are the dream team to flip the Senate. Esteves, Acton, Sand and Ford should be able to flip governors seats, too.
I'd rather Peltola go for Governor and take the surest thing for her own longevity and to show Alaska that Democrats can competently govern their state. She can run for Senate in 2034 when Murkowski likely retires. I'd rather someone like Scott Kawasaki take the run against Sullivan. Proven overperformer who held on last year even while Peltola lost his senate district. Wouldn't need to give up his seat either.
Also have a slight preference for Tim Ryan over Acton, but I don't feel very strongly.
Would like Laura Kelly to take a stab at the Kansas Senate seat. She's got nothing to lose. Late filing deadline too of June 1.
As I’ve long pointed out, a U.S. Senator holds far more national influence than the Governor of a small state like Alaska. A single Senator can block Supreme Court nominees, stall or advance major legislation, and even play a decisive role in eliminating the filibuster.
It's definitely higher risk for Peltola, higher reward for Democrats if she wins a Senate seat.
And I favor building our party brand in the state with a race she is 99% likely to win instead of gambling our strongest candidate for an office that she is at best 50-50 to win. Contest the Senate seat for sure, but have her flip the governorship and build voter trust in the party as a whole through competent governance.
I've gone back and forth on that and really see the logic of your position. But with the Senate so tilted against us (and getting worse, as noted in those Nevada numbers posted in the comments), I think we have to take any shot we can at grabbing a seat. But it's not a clear-cut choice.
I respect your position for sure. I would fully support Peltola for whichever race she decides to run. But just making the tactical/long-term strategic argument for her to take Governor now and Senate later.
I'd take a 33 percent chance of 2 Dem SC Justices after Thomas and Alito retire over a long term project which will be relevant only if Democracy survives.
More national influence does not mean more impact. A Governor usually has way more impact on her constituents than a Senator does.
Sorry, but Mills has her own problems. Aside from her age, she has indicated she will not oppose the filibuster, which has become an issue among those who are interested in actually implementing the Democrats’ agenda.
This is not a defense of Platner, mind you. This is a call for someone else to run.
(Also, I am a progressive and I very much do not appreciate the comparisons to MAGA. I have yet to see anyone on our team besides Jay Jones call for anyone to be killed, which is depressingly more than I can say for MAGA.)
I just want someone who will beat Collins. I have no doubt that Mills will. Platner creates uncertainty.
Sorry you don't like the Blue MAGA comparisons. I don't like throwing away winnable races or creating uncertainty where there need not be such.
Honestly I'm watching the enthusiasm from Platners supporters still and am wavering between being disgusted by his past reddit comments and crossing my fingers he can overcome. It's a very weird feeling. As someone with a gay son his slurs are inexcusable but I also want to believe people can grow and shouldn't be held to their worst moment online. I do not like his handful of comments at all but I'm not yet believing his candidacy is irredeemable.
Later in the 2010s after he wrote about his shift to the left due to Bernie and the late Michael Brooks, he abused homophobes and anti-gay Republicans on Reddit threads too.
Well then I think this change in philosophy (and any other things that could indicate or prove a shift and evolution in political and social philosophy) needs to be pushed. People can certainly change, but they need to prove it (not just say so). Platner made very victim-blamey statements against SA survivors; he needs to prove he views SA differently now and is an ally for survivors. He made derrisive comments against Black people; he needs to prove he no longer views Black people in this way and is a true advocate for racial justice. And he can't just say that he's changed, or try one time to prove that he's changed. This will have to be a continuous process of proving these views of his have changed. This applies to other comments he's made as well.
No one is saying he can't overcome past mistakes. I would rather he show his growth in a less consequential race than the literal U.S. Senate race when we have no idea at all how Platner would operate if he actually did win. I would not at all be shocked if he went full Fetterman.
He never made any racist statements in his entire comment history — in fact, he often made anti-racist ones. The comment about Black people tipping was posted in a thread where users were encouraged to ask people of another race something they’d never dared to ask before, and a Black woman even replied to his question (which was downvoted). You’re right about his other comments, though.
The dude rocked an SS-totenkopf tattoo on his chest for years. That's beyond being a scheisskopf on Reddit.
There is no evidence of him supporting Nazism or Fascism on reddit where he posted in a pretty unrestrained fashion. His stepbrother and much of his extended family is Jewish and some live in Israel.
Having it be permanently inked into your skin through a painful process at a sketchy tattoo parlor takes commitment. If he got it as a bone headed move while drunk or something, he should have had that filth lasered out of his flesh as soon as he could, not wait for everyone to find out about it before doing a half-ass temporary tattoo on top of it like he did here.
Two different topics here I think. I agree with you that people need a chance at redemption and the opportunity to learn and grow, rather than be held back by their worst moment(s), particularly if those worst moments were driven by PTSD. That said, we absolutely do NOT need to gamble a must win senate race on the public agreeing to that redemption.
I don't see it really as blue MAGA What I do see it as is blue TEA Party. MAGA's core ideology is sycophancy to a tyrannical strong man. TEA Party's core ideology was who could out virtue signal further on the fringe and win support by being the wingiest nuttiest wing nut, regardless of personal shortcomings. That's much closer to where Democrats are inching towards in 2026 than blue MAGA.
Blue TEA Party is probably a more apt comparison. In any event, Blue MAGA was intended to reference high-risk candidates staking out toxic positions or have jarring pasts. The GOP has thrown away about a dozen Senate seats over the past decade through trash candidates. And maybe a dozen governorships. I would prefer we not do that here just because Platner said things that make people feel good.
The Tea Party through away races too. More than I can think of with MAGA actually.
Sometimes you have to be willing to lose a battle to win the war.
The goal, for me at least, is to have Dem party that fights for needed change against not just MAGA, but billionaires, and will fix a broken system.
Filibuster reform, SCROTUS reform, add DC, repair the VRA, go after coup participants aggressively, tax the rich/big corps, Green new deal, Medicare for all, etc.
Yeah, Trump/MAGA threw away some races, but everyone's in line now. I want corporate Dems sweating losing primaries all over the place.
Go Blue no matter who in the General, but go for the bigger change agent in the primary if they have a chance at all.
Your last sentence is the key though. Fine if you want to push more progressive candidates in blue seats/states. I disagree with that approach, but it's not likely to cost us winnable seats. It's where we push aside more electable candidates in tossup/lean races that we shoot ourselves in the foot.
Agree with your MAGA/tea party distinction, but at least since 2022 I think the trend among Dems has been to value electability above purity. Platner was trying to run as Dan Osborn, the leaked comments weren't his idea and they haven't helped him. Jones probably would have had to withdraw from the primary if his texts had come out earlier.
I fully support a blue tea party - but not necessarily on ideological lines. We don’t need to bring back 2020-style purity testing about whether a candidate supports single payer or not. What we need is a party that is fully willing to use its power to advance its goals - and that means not voting to end our shutdowns, being willing to abolish the filibuster, being willing to expand the Supreme Court, and being willing to use the power of the federal government as forcefully against authoritarian politicians and activists and the institutions that support them as Trump is doing against us now. And any Democrat who doesn’t support that needs to be primaried.
There is a direct connection between ideology and advancing goals - we saw this firsthand this past weekend with part of the Senate caucus.
Janet Mills is a an extremely moderate Democrat being set up to be the next rotating villain for the Democratic president in 2029. Mills is very anti-labor, anti-red flag laws, has AIPAC operatives on her team and supports the filibuster. Mills was only above water based on partisanship and has shown no particular strength with moderates in polls. Maine being a blue state, I believe she and Platner will win on partisanship alone in a blue wave.
Don't underestimate Collins who has survived Dem favored years before.
But she's never faced a backlash midterm electorate a la 2006 or 2018. I'm trying not to underestimate her, but I'm also trying not to assign her overstated survivor powers based on victories either in Republican years (2002, 2014) or years when voters assumed a Democratic President and felt safe in splitting their tickets (2008, 2020).
What, no she is not. Remember when she stood strong on LGBT issues? Or is that worth nothing? And "rotating villain" is a pile of crap from 2009-2010 that won't fully die like it should have. I definitely prefer her over Herr Graham Totenkopf.
I didn’t believe in the rotating villain then, but do you honestly believe only the 8 Democrats who voted to end the shut down wanted to end it, but they all coincidentally weren’t up for reelection next year? Or that Manchin and Sinema were the only Democrats who were against abolishing the filibuster and if we had just two more seats we would have been able to? Mills has already said she won’t support abolishing the filibuster - if we have a 50 vote Senate with her being the deciding vote there’s no way we’re legalizing abortion, passing the For the People Act, passing the PRO Act, raising the minimum wage to $15, establishing a public option, or expanding the Supreme Court.
We'd be more likely out of the majority than with it, so that would come back to bite us hard. Also, Senate terms are 6 years long and people not facing an imminent reelection can vote their principles more. Rotating villain is conspiracy theory dreck.
I"m not sure I see this from her. She's not going to be a Manchin/Sinema type. I suspect she'll fit in quite nicely with institutionalists like Warner, Klobuchar etc.
The snideness is unwarranted. Not all progressives are on board with all of this, in fact on Bluesky everyone gave up on Platner. The implication I read was that we are as bad as Trump supporters, which I believe to be wholly false. If that was not the intention I apologize, it's how I read it.
The comparison is to the trash MAGA candidates like Doug Mastriano, Mehmet Oz, Kari Lake, Blake Masters, Mark Robinson, Tudor Dixon, Sarah Palin, JR Majewski --need I go on? They all lost very winnable races because of how bad they were, often by a landslide. I do not want to risk that with anyone associated with defunding the police, Nazi tattoos, or ACAB. Sorry, not sorry.
And I do not support those things. Enough insinuations. Good lord you’re being obnoxious.
Then my original comment about wasn't about you? Don't know what to tell you but to grow a thicker skin. It's about the morons sticking with people like AES and Platner.
I have a lot of doubts that Mills will - she hasn’t exactly shown that she’s running an energetic campaign at the moment.
I doubt Mills and Platner equally, despite the opposite kinds of drawbacks.
Need a Maine varietal of Mallory McMorrow...
I fear that Mills and Platner are both getting just enough outside support that they successfully block anyone else from jumping in.
If Mills wasn't running, would Troy Jackson being eyeing a switch to the senate instead of a switch to ME-02? I don't know, but I think there's a good chance he would.
I have plenty of doubt that Mills would win. I think Platner would be the stronger GE candidate. At least at this point.
A win where we cannot win because the person who won won't fix anything is not what we need right now.
Not quite Pyrrhic, but close.
I'd rather gamble and at least send the message that corporate Dems are vulnerable in the primary to those advocating real reform.
The alternative IS problematic, though.
I, too, fear candidate quality issues but wouldn't call it Blue MAGA. Aside from the Maine fiasco I am concerned with Lance Bottoms getting the nomination for gov in GA and ElSayd in MI.
Mills' problem isn't that she's a bad Democrat unless you're the type to apply purity tests. It's that she's got the 'establishment stink' on her now and may well not excite Democrats to vote. Very a-la Joe Biden. Fine track record but.... boring?
I don't think supporting the right of workers to discuss pay and working conditions or unionize is a purity test.
yea shes horrible on labor and older than biden was when we decided to throw him over aboard because....vibes
I'd prefer a third option or someone in the clown car for governor but looks like it's Mills and she'll have to confront and overcome the age issue.
I'd say Biden's problems in the summer of 2024 were a lot worse than vibes...
It is, though. It's a _good_ purity test!
I think willingness to abolish the filibuster is the single most important position for any Senate Democrat to take. If you don’t want to abolish the filibuster, you aren’t sincerely pro choice, you don’t sincerely support universal healthcare, you don’t sincerely support a living wage, and you don’t sincerely support ending gerrymandering across the country. And Janet Mills doesn’t support abolishing the filibuster, so she wouldn’t be useful in passing large chunks of our agenda.
You've now said this in some way or another multiple times on this thread. One can debate whether the filibuster should go or not (for the record, I agree with you that it's time to kill it) but definitive statements like "then you aren't pro-choice" about people who disagree with you are condescending, untrue, and not conducive to the type of dialogue we aim for here.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to describe people who wouldn’t vote to pass a law legalizing abortion as not being pro choice, and I don’t see a substantive difference between people who would vote against such a law and people who would vote for it but wouldn’t vote to get rid of the filibuster if it was stopping it from being passed. Either way, the outcome would be the same - women not being able to legally get abortions.
Dems nominating Lance Bottoms would be a disaster which is a view political insiders in Georgia have been expressing. I'm willing not to be sold on Geoff Duncan, but if it's between him and Bottoms come primary time I'll pick the former every time.
Both of those candidates have strong and well-liked brands in their states, and they know how to differentiate themselves from the establishment. I'm not worried about them.
Platner, on the other hand, seems more likely than ever to become the nominee. Folks should prepare for that.
Mills vetoed some really good pro-labor legislation, IIRC.
Not from Maine, but she screams corporate Dem to me.
Doesn’t Andrew Cuomo know Halloween is over? His political career should stay dead.
Anyone wondering why CCM and Rosen voted to reopen? Nevada is continuing to trend Republican. Both of them last won by literally hundredths of a percent.
They are scared.
New - voter registration update - Nevada
🔴 Republicans: +1306
🔵 Democrats: +411
@MichaelPruser
Rosen should retire anyway. She'll be 73 at her next election.
and be replaced by a republican?
It’s far from a given Republicans will win an open Senate seat in Nevada.
If she retires it will possibly be a PresiDem midterm in 2032. May not be ideal for an open seat.
Rosen is up in the 2030 midterms. 2032 is a presidential year.
Not everyone over 65 needs to be put out on an ice flow. I know we're all traumatized by Biden falling apart but we don't need to bring that to every situation, in my opinion.
No, but in most cases people probably shouldn’t be running for terms that will end when they are almost 80.
And yet Mills will be 85 by 2032 and that's okay for some folks here. Got it.
I don't want to keep fighting the same fights but the flip side of that would be, "some folks here are fine with a Nazi tattoo wearing weirdo mercenary with no political experience" or "some folks here are fine with some guy who was deeply involved with a seemingly scam dark money group".
Id chose a sane 80 year old over a 40 year old nazi to have one of the most powerful positions in the country any day.
It would be helpful if someone on here from Maine could explain why there isn't yet another alternative who might get in, since filing is pretty far off and Maine seems like a state where it's not too expensive to run (exemplified by Gideon sitting on $14m by Election Day). Pointing out Platner's and Woods's flaws doesn't make Mills any more progressive.
I just don't get the constant "we have to have younger candidates! All the olds should retire!" by the same people who say "Mills is the only Dem who can win in Maine!" Our problem isn't the age of our candidates, it's that they're too cautious and unwilling to fight for social democratic policies.
I agree with you, but this comes more from the three Democratic vacancies in the House due to deaths.
there is a massive gulf in cognition, function, energy and everything else between 65 and 80+
Nevada ain't looking good in the long-term; we better hope for a big Latino backlash the next two cycles.
Yeah, in addition to what we saw last Tuesday in NJ (VA had a significantly weaker R ticket leader and there are roughly twice as many Hispanic people in NJ than VA as a percentage of population). Also, the decline in NV tourism lately could really be a problem since it all comes back to Trump.
Yet Democrats are still fighting independent redistricting there. That’s one state where they should be supporting it due to the likelihood of not having a trifecta in a redistricting cycle there again anytime soon.
Nevada Democrats may end up looking as braindead as the North Carolina Democrats in the 2000s that wouldn’t pass independent redistricting.
We got it last week.
And you neglect to mention over 12k registered unaffiliated. It's disingenuous all of these folks tracking party reg numbers never note how many people are simply registering as independent.
12k in the same time span?
And Republicans outpaced Democrats in new registration in New Jersey this year. It’s not, by itself, determinative. How independents break is far more important
Agreed. There's certainly trends that can be observed over years and decades of partisan registration shifts, but I've never understood this fixation on month to month D vs R numbers (ignoring independents). We're counting 1700 voters upthread as if that's determinative in a state that cast almost 1.5 million votes last year. Jack Ciattarelli went from coming up 3 points short of getting elected NJ Gov to losing by 14 last week...none of that granular analysis of new partisan registrations over the past year would have pointed to that. Because that's not how election results shift from year to year!
NJ is an even crazier example when we take into account polling too. There was a lot of worry before the election that Sherrill wasn't doing great, supported by the occasional poll of her only ahead by 2-3 points. She won by 14. The skepticism before the election was not entirely unfounded, but it ended up being unwarranted.
Now, it could come to pass that next year's elections will show warning signs or worse for Nevada. Maybe we win but not impressively. Maybe we lose a high profile office. Or, it could be that we bounce back and completely dominate the state's elections.
It's worth being cautious, but we have at least one election before we need to seriously assess our prospects in Nevada. We should wait for those results before we get seriously pessimistic or optimistic!
There were more than "occasional polls" showing Sherrill barely ahead, but many of them came from right leaning or otherwise questionable pollsters. Simon Rosenberg today provided this list of 6 such results in the last several weeks before the election:
Atlas Intel Sherrill 50%-49% (+1)
Emerson Sherrill 50%-48% (+2)
co/efficient Sherrill 48%-47% (+1)
Quantas Sherrill 49%-46% (+3)
Neighborhood Sherrill 44%-44% (even)
Trafalgar/IA Sherrill 45%-44% (+1) IA = Insider Advantage
Note the herding effect: they all seemed to bunch together showing a tie or near it, but none actually put Ciattarelli ahead. This is reminiscent of the flood of GOP-aligned pollsters who warped the 2022 averages and punditry with their forecasts of a massive red wave that didn't materialize. (Of course, even most nonpartisan pollsters ultimately lowballed Sherrill.)
This is disingenuous. Independents have long leaned D. 12.6K new indies registered.
I don't think saying that Nevada is "trending Republican" is accurate. We have 3/4 house seats, both Senate seats, control both houses of the legislature and have won it's electoral votes 4 out of the last 5 presidential elections. What's your basis for the "trending Republican"?
Reps. Chris Deluzio (D-PA) and Pat Ryan (D-NY) had a great interview on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night. Could be primary challengers for their states' establishment senators in 2028.
I live in PA. Any normal democrat is better than what we have now.
Fetterman isn't establishment. He's a loose cannon who has become obsessed with bipartisanship for its own sake.
I heard that Fetterman hasn't been raising any money, which is a big hint- that he will retire in 2028.
I can't imagine he'll run again. He really doesn't seem to enjoy being in the Senate, and he's been through a lot.
AOC in NY.
If she runs for president, Ryan is a good alternative. He's not super progressive or anything (other than endorsing Mamdani) but is much better than Schumer.
Since Ryan is more conservative than Schumer I'm assuming you mean "better" as in "more of a fighter"?
How is Ryan more conservative than Schumer? Schumer is the embodiment of establishment politics that conservatives pretend to hate, but from my understanding, Ryan is one of the few who are more progressive, while still winning over key groups of conservatives, like in Kiryas Joel.
Ryan has the 3rd most conservative voting record of any NY Dem on Progressive Punch. Nobody wins over Kiryas Joel, they just bend the knee to them.
Ideology matters less than the means of using power at this point. If someone supports left wing policy but wouldn’t be willing to get rid of the filibuster to pass it, they will have less progressive results than a more centrist politician who would be willing to abolish the filibuster to vote to pass a less left wing bill.
Derek Thompson
@DKThomp
“‘Between 30 and 40 percent’ of the Zoomers who work in official Republican Washington are fans of Nick Fuentes…
Even young Christians — especially trad Catholics, I learned — are neck-deep in anti-Semitism. They even use it as a litmus test of who can and can’t join their informal social groups…
I asked one astute Zoomer what the Groypers actually wanted (meaning, what were their demands). He said, ‘They don’t have any. They just want to tear everything down.’”
https://x.com/DKThomp/status/1988248643107737848
Terrifying
Question — is that referring to GOP Gen Z specifically, or all Gen Z?
I believe it's referring to Gen Z that work as republican staffers in DC. So it's more narrow even than "GOP Gen Z."
Ah, got it.
While the Fuentes stuff is alarming, knowing that it’s just a subset of a subset is good. From what I’ve heard (and seen myself as a Gen Zer), Gen Z is starting to move away from the GOP anyway so that’s good at least.
Weimar did not fall because the left (Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists and Communists) did not cooperate but because the Right stopped believing in democracy.
Perhaps. I’m skeptical the right will ever go back though, which is alarming in and of itself.
It was both.
Unfortunately, it's the subset currently in control of the government, and apparently all of its social media accounts.
I take it as a bad sign. Staffer ideology is probably a good preview of future official ideology.
And this is why we need to make the top priority of the next administration attacking fascism, authoritarianism, and Nazism in this country with the same force that Trump is targeting progressive institutions. I don’t have much confidence that the conciliatory people we elect in our party have the stomach for that, but if we don’t fully dismantle these movements with every tool we can use we’ll have an actual Neo Nazi president in the near future.
Young Republicans just like their mentor old Republicans are all racist, homophobic, antisemitic, xenophobic, white nationalist scumbags. This is my shocked face.
There is an emerging divide in MAGA with the Groypers and trad Catholics on one side due to their antisemitism and the Evangelicals and the GOP establishment on the other over support for Israel. We have had an ugly time with this issue and now the MAGA movement is seeing their coalition being divided on this issue.
Is there any sense that Christine Pelosi running for Wiener's seat when it's next up in 2028 may indicate some tacit endorsement of the Pelosis to him? Seems really odd to announce for a state senate seat a whole cycle in advance unless they think it might become open sooner in 2026 and position her to win the special. (She could just say "I won't be running to succeed my mother in Congress" and leave it at that.) Could just be smart hedging their bets, he either wins and she has a jump for the special, or he loses and is term limited anyway and she's been preparing longer. But just feels like an odd thing to do without intending to make a signal to me.
Is there a special election if Wiener wins the House seat?
Yep! https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CONS§ionNum=SEC.%202.&article=IV
There was one this year. https://www.ocregister.com/2025/03/03/tony-strickland-declares-victory-in-36th-state-senate-district-special-election/
Even if it's not an endorsement per se (other commenters have intimated that Weiner doesn't have a great relationship with Pelosi; or if they did, it has soured), it seems like she expects that he's likely to win.
I doubt it. Christine is probably getting her ducks in a row especially since there's speculation Assemblyman Matt Haney would run for Wiener's state senate seat either if it's open in a 2027 special election or in 2028 when Wiener would be termed out of the legislature. Christine maybe trying to scare Haney off especially if Wiener falls short in his House run which would mean the seat comes up in 2028 which would force Haney to choose to give up his seat which he would have for 8 more years or stay put in the Assembly.
Also re: Arrington's retirement, next in line after him on Budget are Ralph Norman (running for SC gov), Tom McClintock (may lose CA primary bunking), Glenn Grothman (WI) and Lloyd Smucker (PA). There aren't a ton of especially young upstarts or notably interesting more junior members below them who seem on first reflection to try and jump the line and succeed in running over them, but I could be very wrong on that lol
Edit: Also noting this is definitely an early retirement for Arrington. He has another term left to be the lead Repub on the committee, so it seems a pretty good indication that he thinks he'll be ranking member and not chair, or maybe he just hates it and the combo of spending legislation he's been involved with have been really taxing and he's over it (like Granger opting out of Approps early, but ofc we later found out she also has dementia).
Is McClintock really vulnerable in California even if Kiley goes for his seat?
Just explaining the possibility that he could not be in Congress next year.
McClintock seems stronger than Kiley, but he could have vulnerability. Kiley might be seen as younger and more vigorous. Although McClintock has been in NorCal for some time, he is originally from Ventura County and represented parts of SoCal in the CA Legislature. I would still have Tom as the favorite to win, but Kevin might have a chance. I am not in that part of the state so I would defer to locals who know the situation better.
I'm in Kiley's current district. His constituent service is pretty good and he ran about 7 points (margin, not vote share) ahead of Trump in 2024. He's much more of a Paul Ryan type than a MAGA type, so pre-Trump Republicans who can't stomach Trump are mostly ok with him.
His problem would be that the new district 5 wouldn't have much of his old district apart from Alpine, Mono, and Inyo counties which are all very small. Most of the population is in McClintock's current district. Unless McClintock retires (he'll be 70 on election day) I'd give him the edge.
Which district will you be in for 2026?
The new district 3, which would probably be unwinnable for a Republican even in a good year for them. Seems likely that my rep will be Ami Bera again, as was the case before 2022.
Clear signals of what their party elected reps think is coming in the 2026 midterms are adding up rapidly. This retirement + Schweikert = rats abandoning the soon to be sunk GOP ship. Neither of them would leave if they thought their party could still hold the majority.
I wish Green would retire. I like his verve and pushing for more Trump impeachments, but we need the House majority in order for that to happen.
He had the perfect opportunity to hand it off gracefully and be a mentor to the younger members.
When does the Illinois signature-checking knife fight end? And does anyone have intel on where it's happening? I'm eyeing IL-02, IL-07, IL-08, IL-09 for potential endorsements.
Trying to look at the "2026 Abbreviated Election Calendar" from the candidate guides of the IL SOS website. Looks like yesterday was the last day to file objections (my feed hasn't seen reports of who has done, but I fully could have just missed with so much going on), and the ballot certification deadline by the IL State Board of Elections is 1/8/26. But a lot of these races are
https://www.elections.il.gov/RunningForOffice.aspx?MID=rOlNCTNZd9A%3d
A lot of these races are also under the jurisdiction of the Chicago Board of Elections, which says it'll start hearings on 11/18. They have a separate line for the Cook County ballot certification deadline by 1/14/26, and I'm not sure if federal races fall under that or just the county board, etc.
https://chicagoelections.gov/getting-ballot/election-calendar
https://chicagoelections.gov/getting-ballot/petition-filing-chicago-electoral-board
Senate Democrats Just Made a Huge Mistake
The shutdown was hurting Trump. Ending it helps him.
By Jonathan Chait
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2025/11/democrats-shutdown-mistake/684878/
https://archive.ph/TGGaz
Yes but not enough to make much of an impact on the midterms that I can see.
I'd be concerned about demoralized and depressed Democratic voters who might tune out. It really stomps on them after they worked so hard.
I've had enough of the wing of the party that constantly complains that if they don't get their way, they will take their ball and go home. No one will care about this three or four months from now.
Taking their ball and going home isn't limited to any wing of the party. We saw the moderates do that with Mamdani recently, and I'd argue that we saw the same with Barnes. Progressives do it too. I'm not trying to imply otherwise. Just that it isn't limited to us.
I never said Progressives. I dislike it when all parts of the party do this.
It seemed implied from the context. Sorry, I didn't mean to read you wrong!
No one should give up, the fight is too important for that. But it is hugely demoralizing to think that we’re going to organize to elect a bunch of people who might just roll over and not resist even after we’ve put in all that work. This isn’t about ideological purity, it’s about electing people for the purpose of resisting Trump and expecting them to do that.
People whose health care costs doubled will care about this three or four months from now.
Dem candidates literally now have mounds of clips of Republicans saying they don't want to help those on the exchanges, so . . ..
In the short term, sure.
Long term, doubtful knowing the history of government shutdowns and how they affect turnout in these kinds of situations.
Besides, realistically speaking what leverage would Democrats have been able to have over this? Government unions and SNAP recipients could not wait any longer.
When Democrats have control over both chambers of Congress, they need to push to get a law that bans government shutdowns and the debt ceiling. This crap is getting insane.
The midterms will likely be better for us, but demotivating the base can hurt volunteer and fundraising efforts. Especially for senate candidates. It's not the type of thing that causes the elections to go from (very) good to bad, or even very good to good. That isn't the same as having absolutely no impact.
More generally, it's rare for any one thing to be the decisive factor in an election. Even the biggest stories. Elections are battles of inches. We want every inch in our favor as possible. Does this one matter that much for election purposes? Probably not. Doesn't mean it doesn't matter at all.
It's Chait, so.....
Interestingly enough none of the Dem centrist pundits/talking heads are thrilled Dems caved here. Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Jessica Tarlov, etc. share Chait's view and are furious. Only Tim Miller and Will Saletan at The Bulwark have been saying Dems should raise the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner and prepare for the next political fight.