Sure, but we always want people—especially serious candidates like him—to run against Republicans everywhere. You just never know, as Jones personifies.
Agree, we should run a qualified candidate for every seat in case something unusual happens. That doesn't mean that we should fund every race like it's competitive.
I agree that I'd rather have him as a Senator than a Governor, but we have seen far more willingness amongst voters to vote against their typical party preferences for Governor than for Senator. I'd put his chances at the Gubernatorial race around 10% and his chances at winning a Senate race at roughly zero. I'd also argue that his victory against Moore was the exception that proves the rule - winning an off-year special election against a uniquely flawed candidate.
I wish Doug Jones the best of luck! Surely Senator Tuberville is one of the dumbest people currently in Congress. Can someone please explain why Tuberville isn’t required to prove that he fulfills Alabama’s residency requirements?
PS. I’ve always considered Doug Jones to be the Attorney General that President Biden should have chosen. Had Biden done so, I think there’s a far stronger chance America and the world would not now be suffering the insane Fascist aspirations of Donald Trump.
Sure, but the point is that if Garland hadn’t slow walked everything, Trump might have been in a jail cell for his crimes before Republican primaries started.
Nope, the Supreme Court would have blocked that. I don't understand how that's not obvious to everyone. It still would have been worthwhile going through the motions, though, and loudly making the Supreme Court the enemy that had to be run against.
There *may* have been more willingness to kick Trump to the curb closer to J6 and further from an upcoming election (see: the 7 Republicans who voted for impeachment), but broadly I agree.
I'm not sure we can be 100% certain. Before he started his 2024 primary, their party establishment did seem to be trying to move on from him. If it was early 2023 or earlier I think it could have happened.
The republicans on SCOTUS would have been happy with Haley in the end, and she'd have been perceived as more likely to win.
The problem I see is, because Merrick Garland was as FeingoldFan pointed out slow walking everything in the investigation to Trump, this meant the base for the Democratic Party was trying to push NY City Attorney Alvin Bragg and NY State Attorney General Leticia James to take action right away. This was even more complicated because Bragg himself was conflicted and impotent at first about taking action against Trump only then to finally do it during 2024, which happened to be the presidential election year.
Of course, what Bragg and James did was commendable and the cases brought against Trump were decided by jury, which was not biased in its assessment of his actions. The issue was the timing was just bad and Trump kept playing the media a lot by using his presidential campaign to distract the legal affairs he had by focusing on dividing Democrats and their base even more. I am still amazed he was able to tactically do this and be able to be inaugurated as POTUS, especially considering Trump was a liability towards Republicans in the 2022 midterms.
The Supreme Court though would likely have not been biased against Trump knowing how it ruled against him on "voter fraud" issues he kept pulling out of his ass just like Mike Lindell. That doesn't mean though they would have given Trump an extremely harsh sentence.
Hard to know what would have happened but I think if there had been a better U.S. Attorney General in the vein of Doug Jones or whoever else, there likely would have been a more focused, investigative process to get all the facts together and make a case with as fair and impartial judgements early on.
I would argue Former Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood would have been even better for President Biden as Attorney General.
His years-long investigation into Google for anti-trust issues makes him a legend, which means he would have been great if Democrats wanted to go after big tech. He and Lina Khan would have gotten alone quite well. Far from a Merrick Garland.
But Hood and Doug Jones as Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General or vice versa would have been brilliant.
I don't think the reason for appointing Garland AG was because of the SCOTUS vacancy (though I'm sure it was a factor). My personal theory is they wanted a vacancy on the D.C. Cir. to appoint KBJ to the circuit court in advance of her SCOTUS nomination, and Garland was the only one plausible.
After pouring over $10 million into his own campaign but failing to gain traction, wealthy businessman Steve Cloobeck (D) ended his run for Governor and endorsed Eric Swalwell in the race.
NOTUS reports that Peltola is leaning towards running for the Senate seat reflecting concerns about American democracy and a promising 2026 electoral outlook.
Gotta take advantage of an environment like this when it comes around. Plus I've never imagined Dan Sullivan as anybody's idea of a juggernaut. Maybe he's quietly popular at home but he seems like a backbencher who would be uniquely vulnerable in a defensive midterm cycle.
Agree, at least from far away he doesn't seem to have the same popular connection a lot of Senators from low population states are able to make with their constituents.
seeing as there's been candidates jumping into the other races, shouldn't be surprising at all. they probably wouldn't have starting running for governor or AK-AL if Peltola was going to.
Definitely not a tossup - it's still Alaska after all - but certainly a winnable race. I'd put it somewhere between Lean and Likely R. If the environment continues to improve for us, I suspect that it would wind up at Lean R.
I think Peltola lost re-election to the House mainly in light of the political environment against Democrats in the 2024 presidential election and the fact that Sarah Palin was not on the ballot. She was back in 2022 and thereby split the vote with Nick Begich whereas in 2024 he didn’t have that problem.
We’d have to run the table, but Maine, North Carolina, Ohio + Alaska would give Democrats a miracle Senate Majority. Wildcard Osborn in Nebraska may even make it so we need only 3 of them. If Peltola runs, this becomes a real path for the party to blocking all remaining Trump appointees to judicial seats. Critical to the future of America.
Not forgetting, just not buying any Iowa polling until after a Democrat wins a federal race. I also purposely chose states where we have a record of winning statewide or have won with the candidates running before. That metric doesn’t include Iowa. I’d include it if Rob Sand ran for Senate instead of Governor.
To be fair, I think we could still win Iowa even if I don’t include it, but fool me once and all that.
I get it, but the electoral conditions in Iowa seem to be particularly friendly to dems this cycle with the crazy overperformances that are happening. A dem winning a R+12 seat by 10 points is nothing to sneeze at.
And Turek is probably the best possible person to run other than Sand. The guy has overperformed in his Trump won seat by 13 points in prior elections. He's a beast
I’m not entirely sure where you think I’m arguing against what you’re saying here.
Again, the ingredients look like they’re all there for a swing left in the state. At the same time all of the advantages Democrats look to have right now can reasonably be explained away. And Iowa didn’t have any of the requirements I used to outline my post.
I’m not against Iowa flipping, I’m not even downplaying the chances of Turek or whoever wins the primary. I’m just saying those other states I listed have more evidence in actual general election cycles of being won than Iowa does and I try to base all my posts on facts and data, which Iowa doesn’t really have.
My guess is Zach Wahls will be the early frontrunner just based on name ID. I hope Turek gets the nomination though as I think he'd be a stronger candidate.
That’s fair, I’m not saying which ones are more likely than others. I’m just using a specific set of criteria to illustrate the path with the most evidence of general election data victories. Nebraska is only plausibly competitive because Osborn is running as an independent, not a Democrat.
Iowa Senate statewide results:
2014: R+8
2016: R+24
2020: R+7
2022: R+12
I don’t see any data of recent elections where Iowa is winnable even if right now the data says it is. That’s not me saying it can’t be won or is less winnable than Ohio/Nebraska, that’s an entirely different stance and not one I’m advocating.
i would like to point out that past results are not always completely predictive of future ones. Tom Harkin represented Iowa not that long ago, he retired in 2014...
Democrats have pulled off steep upsets in recent memory; look at both Georgia races in 2020
I think OH is more likely than IA, just based on Brown's electoral strength if nothing else. Their presidential toplines are VERY similar and OH is both more diverse and more urban.
Is diverse a good thing electorally in states which have a low minority population? Iowa whites may be more electorally elastic due to less racial polarization dating back to the great migration, desegregation and subsequent white flight.
The more downballot the race is, the less polarized it is. I don't think Turek's win in the district proves anything with respect to Rob Sand. Other local candidates, sure.
In the end, I believe it was wise not to let a 1-5 percent chance of a few "weeks where decades happen" mess up his entire term as mayor. Jeffries is not Cuomo, nor is he Crowley. His failure will also be a huge setback for the national Left with implications in the 2028 Senate and presidential primaries. Crowley had never won a competitive primary election and was anointed like Chuy Garcia anointed his CoS and Cuomo is Cuomo.
Didn't he say that in a private setting to some DSA committee? I think because Mamdani privately pleaded to Osse not to mount a challenge invoking his name and he did it anyways.
I agree. I am no Osse fan and think his challenge to Jeffries is silly. I also get why Mamdani is creating separation there. Not sure why he thinks he needs to call him names.
Take out the names. The mayor of a city has the potential to have a President, Senate Majority leader, and Speaker of the House all from his city. What mayor would do anything to undermine that?
Mamdani has harbored animosity towards Jeffries since his political career began, and has previously likened Jeffries to George Wallace for his views on the banned topic. I believe it would be imprudent to remove the names from this context. But Jeffries is in a very strong position in his district while he and DSA will have a lot to lose. I think it comes to that. He wants to run the city not lead a revolution.
Correct. And I give him a lot of slack for that but question whether he had to be so harsh. It's ironic, because when he was the radical insurgent running against a pillar of the establishment, he had to buck resistance from establishment figures to win, but now he's thrown the ladder to the ground behind him.
Is this him pulling the ladder up after him, or is he being strategic?
Realistically, Jeffries was the overwhelming favorite to win his primary. There's the matter of big risk/big reward to consider, of course. Progressives and other left-insurgents all have finite resources for primary runs (open seat or against incumbents). Even attention is a critical and finite resource.
NYC will have several big primaries next year that are more winnable for those of us on the left. NY-07 and NY-12 are both open seats. NY-10 and NY-15 have potentially credible opportunities for someone on the left to take out an incumbent. I think NY-13 as well? That's a lot of targets already, and it might make sense to triage some of that list and direct energy to a subset.
Fundraising doesn't always come at the expanse of another candidate, but there's some degree of it, and there are only so many people able and willing to volunteer their time and energy. And as mentioned even attention is a limited in these cases.
I'd rather progressives fight strategically and maximize our chances of some major pickups than invest a lot of resources into seeing Jeffries win 65-35 and then fall short in a different seat.
Time will tell if Mamdani backs other candidates in primaries. I'd have to expect at the minimum that Lander would have his endorsement if he challenged Goldman in NY-10.
Is Jeffries awful? No. Could we have better? Yes. Should voters have a choice in 2026? *shrug* Pretty debatable depending on your own perspective.
I personally do want a primary challenge to happen, if only to nudge Jeffries into being a better Democrat if he only gets 57-63% of the vote and fears a loss in the next cycle. I’m under no illusion he can lose his race as of today because I think most voters will likely say “good enough for now”. That said, a year is an eternity in politics, so anything is possible.
I'm starting to believe that Ohio might swing blue again in 2026 with two good nominees for Governor and Senate. I have a lot of respect for Dr. Acton, but some voters who are aligned with MAGA's extremist wing—especially those who hold sexist or antisemitic biases—may be less willing to support her. Those same voters also haven't warmed to Ramaswamy, so the election dynamics could get more interesting if they atleast don't turn out. Ramaswamy is going to destroy Ohio withe his radical "National Libertarian" ideology if he wins.
I don’t think he will, and I am not overly optimistic, generally. I think he’s going to face a big anti-Indian racism penalty. Add that to the lean of the year and the state of the economy, and I suspect it will be too much to overcome. Ohio isn’t THAT red.
Okay? Sure they can. I don’t think they ultimately will, at least not in the year 2026 is shaping up to be. Vance very likely loses to Ryan if you rerun that Senate race in 2026.
I don’t want to completely close the door here, but after losing all partisan statewide races other than Brown’s senate seat even as open seat races in 2018 (a D+9 year), I have had very little faith in Ohio voters.
Oh same. And a big part of the reason I think if you forced me to choose a winner (Acton) is ugly: racism. But you can’t discount how 2026 is shaping up to be over 10-15 points bluer than 2022 was as well. Or how bad a candidate Ramaswamy is, independent of a potential racist electoral penalty.
Sure, but Ohio actually swung left relative to the nation in 2024. It was only R+9.5 relative to the national popular vote compared to being R+12.1 in 2020 and R+10.5 in 2016.
With good candidates and a lot of investment, Ohio can rebuild. It should be rebuilt too, it is a great state with lots of awesome qualities. Same with Florida
I don’t know about that. Don’t be surprised if a good number of white voters who’ve voted for Trump and Vance, don’t pull the lever for him based on prejudice.
I think partisan tribalism will ultimately prevail by most bigots. Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley were both able to overcome ethnic bias in their states, both even more conservative than Ohio and in less polarized times that now.
Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley both faced severe electoral penalties in their first runs for governor. Haley only won by 4% when every other Republican won by double digits statewide, often by more than 15 points. She likely would have lost that race in a neutral year. Jindal lost a lot of historically Republican areas in 2003.
To state the obvious, Haley’s and Jindal’s names are a lot more western than “Vivek Ramaswamy.”
That's fair. But I bet in the hyper-polarized Trump era, you'd see far more bigots vote the nonwhite candidate if he or she had an (R) next to their name than Jindal or Haley saw two decades ago.
Yeah but Ohio was only Trump +11. Say DeWine’s 3 point win in 2018 would be the expected showing in a blue wave for generic D vs R. Ranaswamy is already a weak candidate in his own right, and we don’t know how much that would shift the race. Add in a chunk of voters who won’t vote for him due to his name and religion and that easily covers the difference.
MAGA extremists like groypers and wignats hate Indians, especially a pro H1B billionaire, and Jews. There was talk of them holding their noses and voting for Ryan.
But why would Ramaswamy not face a racist electoral penalty against Acton nonetheless? We just had an election in Virginia where the margins for Governor and LG were separated by 4 points. I don’t think that’s because the Nazi fetishist was an inherently better candidate than the sitting Lieutenant Governor. Just saying.
I can also think of at least two Jewish Democratic Governors who won by 15 points apiece in states that Donald Trump won. One of whom on the same ballot. I don’t think Acton’s faith would cost her any votes of people who would have otherwise voted for her.
Fair enough. “Any” is too strong, but I think we have more than enough proof that Jewish Democrats are capable of winning over a large amount of Trump voters.
I want all of us here to prepare for the likely outcome of a Governor Ramaswamy. Doing anything else does us a disservice emotionally. Regardless of what he says or does, he has that “R” next to his name on the ballot come voting time and that will probably be enough to squeak by any candidate (save Brown if he had run) with the dreaded anchor “D” next to their name in a red state. I’d love to be wrong, but I don’t think I will.
Who Ohio voters choose to elect as their next governor will have zero impact on my life. I am merely laying out the reasons why I think if you forced me to predict a winner between Ramaswamy and Acton, I’d choose Acton.
I think you missed something here. I wasn’t responding to your post if you look closely. I chose to respond to the other person specifically because of what they said, not what you said, but you are obviously welcome to your opinion and I hope you’re right.
Freshman Senator Jim Justice, who had served as Governor for two terms from 2017-2025, has now been forced to pay $5 million in unpaid taxes due to a lawsuit by the Justice Department. Not the sharpest tool in the shed if you ask me.
I would not be surprised to see that Justice is either a one-term Senator or being pushed to resign over this. Unlikely he will be unseated by a Democrat considering the bad shape the WV Democratic Party is in along with WV being a real pain for Democrats in general.
Another Republican primarying Justice in the U.S. Senate Primary in 2030 or a special election would be more likely.
Sen. Jim Justice, a West Virginia Republican, and his wife face a lawsuit by the U.S. government seeking more than $5 million in unpaid federal income taxes.
The lawsuit alleged that Jim Justice and Cathy Justice "have neglected or refused to make full payment."
Hours after the suit was filed, a lawyer for the Justices and the DOJ filed a joint motion asking a judge to enter a consent judgment in favor of the U.S. for the amount requested.
Justice was elected in November 2024 to replace Sen. Joe Manchin, a former Democrat.
What do you suppose he did to have the Trump Justice Department go after him? And isn't whoever replaces him likely to be worse politically than a guy who has been a member of both parties and is not known as a wild-eyed ranter?
I really don't know. But Justice's problems were starting to mount last year before Trump got inaugurated. Democratic Senate Candidate Glenn Elliott did capitalize on his issues but could not gain enough traction with this that any other Senate candidate would statewide in a race like this.
Justice is considered to be the most reasonable out of any of the Republicans in WV that we can get but that doesn't mean he's someone who has the best judgement. $5 million in unpaid taxes is real negligence and he should have seen this coming.
When Elliott ran, he cited that Trump supporters were willing to listen to him as long as he was talking about running against Jim Justice. He specifically ran an anti-Justice campaign but not against Trump. This was the balancing act he had to make.
Although Elliott wasn’t successful in his campaign, he did however get more respect and support from both Democrats and Republicans throughout the state (elected officials and WV residents alike) than a typical Democratic Senate Candidate would have. He did this without having attacked Trump a single time, except if it’s to point out differences of opinion.
He could have but Joe Manchin never really campaigned for Glenn Elliott.
Manchin endorsed Elliott’s Senate campaign early on and months before the 2024 election. However, insiders in the WV Democratic Party had said if Elliott’s campaign had gotten more financial support by the DNC, DSCC, etc., the race would have been closer than it was then.
I don’t know about that anymore but Manchin offered his support to Elliott’s candidacy and didn’t do anything for him that I can recall. What reason did Manchin believe he was going to benefit from doing this? If he had done so with the right support and proactive campaigning, Elliott would have gotten this to be a 40%+ race.
How sad is it that this was my first reaction too? "Man, he must have pissed off someone in MAGA-land"? Not "hmm...he must have done something illegal". Sad state of affairs...
1) Justice isn’t resigning over unpaid taxes he’s now paid, in the world we live in, that doesn’t even count as a scandal anymore and probably never did unless you go back 50 or 100 years. He also could retire after his 1 term, but it won’t be caused by paying unpaid taxes.
2) Justice is literally the best Republican we could ever hope for in that seat, he’d be replaced by the January 6th rioter state rep. So why on god’s green earth would anyone be hoping for him to resign or retire?
I am not hoping Justice would resign. That's not what I am arguing in my original comment.
Any push for him to leave office would be done primarily by the GOP establishment within the party, not by Justice doing it himself independently. Democrats don't have enough power in WV to be able to get Justice out of office. If 2024 Democratic Senate Candidate Glenn Elliott's election results are not enough information about how bad it is for Democrats in the state, I don't know what is. Democrats trying to force Justice out of office because of this legal issue won't work.
The GOP though can still hold Justice accountable and primary challengers can potentially emerge. That's not improbable but it depends on how things play out in the coming weeks and months. I am just pointing out that one of the two scenarios could apply in Justice's case heading toward 2030.
FYI, for anyone reading who wants to know my thoughts on what could happen in the U.S. Senate Race in 2030:
1) Providing Jim Justice continues to serve his term as Senator, a primary challenger or two could emerge. Any one of them could gain traction, even more so with Trump not being on the ballot in 2030 and not being able to run for POTUS again. Justice is less popular in WV than Trump and 2024 US Senate Candidate Glenn Elliott knew this, even while this wasn't enough to help him increase the % of the votes.
As far as Democratic Candidates are concerned, all the high profile and well known names seem to have been exhausted from having previously run unsuccessful campaigns. Elliott wasn't well known statewide outside of Wheeling, where he was previously Mayor.
Former Secretary of State Natalie Tennant could try running again but I don't think after 11 years of a run (where she got just 34% of the votes) in the 2014 midterms would she be sold on wanting to give it a crack again. She has however since January of this year served as a Member of the Kanahwa County Commission so Tennant is still active in a political sense.
2) If Justice resigns due to pressure from the GOP (not by WV Democrats), then we're likely going to see a crowded GOP candidate process that may overwhelm anything Democrats could do stand out if any one or more candidates emerge.
Yes, Democrats have been able to win special elections and have a good shot at making the TN-07 special election race next week closer (or even winning it). But WV is not a good state for Democrats to get any kind of momentum, unless it's within Monogalia County, where Biden narrowly lost to Trump back in 2020.
Right now, my opinion is that #1 will be the most likely outcome.
Fun bit of insight as to how endorsements happen. A week or so ago, Peggy Flanagan, running in MN-Sen, got endorsed by Senators Van Hollen, Murphy, Sanders, Warren, Markey, Merkley, and Heinrich. I thought that was sorta an odd group. Now it turns out that there's a Senate Fight Club, whose members are...wait for it... Van Hollen, Murphy, Sanders, Warren, Markey, Merkley, and Heinrich. And Tina Smith. Whose appetite for fighting might not include the hottest primary to succeed her.
I was looking at the Pennsylvania results to compare to statewide judicial elections this year to the elections ten years ago, when those three Democrats on the PA Supreme Court were first elected. Obviously the coalitions have changed dramatically in the intervening 10 years, and I'll have more analysis on that once the state releases the precinct results for this year. But in the meantime, I noticed something else - turnout has drastically increased.
In 2015, only about 2 million Pennsylvanians turned out for the odd-year judicial elections. Even in 2017, so at the same point in Trump's first term, only 2.1 million people voted. By 2019, that had gone up to 2.5 million, in 2021 it was almost 2.8 million, in 2023 it was almost 3.1 million, and this year turnout jumped up to more than 3.6 million. That's right, turnout almost doubled in just 10 years, and that's while the actual population of Pennsylvania is barely growing at all.
More and more Pennsylvanians are realizing that these off-year are important and have a real impact on people's lives.
I hope they finally are, and I guess the trends seem to show that. It's always hard for me to have any confidence in American voters, though, and especially in states that voted for fucking Trump!
I wish our state Supreme Court races were on off years, instead of staggered even year ones. Especially when the NC GOP made the judicial races partisan after trying to impose retention races instead.
The second Democrats gain control of the trifecta/court in North Carolina they need to reinstate nonpartisan elections. It helps our candidates and hurts Republicans because they’re all extremist nutjobs who hide behind their party label whereas our nominees are impartial judges who care about “just the facts ma’am”.
There’s a reason nonpartisan judges endorsed by Democrats in these states over perform by 10 points or more, voters just want fair judges for their courts to call a spade a spade.
I generally prefer partisan elections and I think that holds in this scenario too.
If democrats are holding a trifecta in NC, it'd indicate the state has moved away from being slightly republican favored purple state. At that stage canny republicans would be able to use a lack of partisan affiliation to make themselves sound less extreme.
If we get a trifecta there I'd rather we focused on non-partisan commissions or restoring the governor's veto of districting or similar. Not sure what would be the most durable in the long term.
Oh a non-partisan redistricting commission should absolutely be the first order of business in NC if Dems ever get a trifecta there. They should do this in WI and PA too if they get trifectas there.
I think WI and PA could score a Dem trifecta next year, but any independent redistricting amendment have to be passed twice in either state before going to voters (a la Virginia).
Even if they did, the GOP will back the incumbent candidate seeking re-election or the GOP challenger. WI does that.
What's worse is that NC GOP eliminated straight ticket voting so even if a Dem governor wins by a hefty amount, a GOP candidate vying for the SCONC race can win by the down ballot drop off. Voters here have to be coached into filling out each race instead of just marking one or two bubbles.
The NC GOP used their veto proof majority to make the Circuit Court races partisan in 2016 and then passed another statute to make state Supreme Court races partisan in 2018. Their reasoning was that “Dems did it first”, which is nonsense.
I don’t know if a future Dem trifecta in NC will make the judicial races nonpartisan again. If anything they will work to undo the GOP power grabs enacted by statute, loosening the 12 week abortion ban, defunding the school voucher scam and passing a budget on time. If by some miracle the blue wave is big enough to wash out the GOP legislative majority next year, I’m sure they will have a laundry list of things to pass.
By having the partisan judicial races staggered every 8 years (always in midterm or presidential years), you get more R voters out who reliably vote the party line. It's easier for Democrats to hold seats in D-positive midterms (like 2018 and next year), but harder during presidential years and R-positive midterms (like 2022).
I'm just sorely reminded of our horrid party leadership pre-Anderson Clayton. Because had Anderson been in charge during the 2020 and 2022 cycles, Democrats would still have partisan control of the SCONC (and Paul Newby would be out of a job) and Cheri Beasley would be in the U.S. Senate.
So is it now Democrats that profit from vote-suppression? Because the problem with off-year elections is precisely that there's such a huge dropoff in participation. I think in New York City, they've helped Republicans win the mayoralty.
It's hard for me to accept the idea that anti-democratic policies are good. I embrace Democratic gerrymandering on a temporary basis until it can be banned nationwide, but I was among the minority of New York voters who voted to move (or, really, recommend moving, as it was not binding) mayoral elections to presidential years.
Nebraska petitioners just filed a ballot measure for their own Respect Nebraska Voters, a constitutional amendment that requires any legislative vote to overturn or alter voter-passed initiatives requires four-fifths of the state legislature (rather than two-thirds). They will start circulating the petitions next month.
Would have preferred that Jones run for the open senate seat. But either race is a longshot.
Sure, but we always want people—especially serious candidates like him—to run against Republicans everywhere. You just never know, as Jones personifies.
Agree, we should run a qualified candidate for every seat in case something unusual happens. That doesn't mean that we should fund every race like it's competitive.
That also shouldn't mean sending a dollar amount equivalent to that of a small nation's GDP to the same 7 states
It shouldn't, but the U.S. political system and system of campaigns is what it is.
He almost certainly has a better chance in a statewide race. Still very low chance, but better than federal.
Well, he's won a federal statewide race.
Blue moon situation.
Those circumstances were akin to winning the lottery in terms of probabilities.
I agree that I'd rather have him as a Senator than a Governor, but we have seen far more willingness amongst voters to vote against their typical party preferences for Governor than for Senator. I'd put his chances at the Gubernatorial race around 10% and his chances at winning a Senate race at roughly zero. I'd also argue that his victory against Moore was the exception that proves the rule - winning an off-year special election against a uniquely flawed candidate.
NY-21:
https://www.dailygazette.com/news/govt_politics/constantino-gop-nomination-congress-new-york/article_d00f8fea-7b7a-48c5-a2d3-5902c364e042.html
Sticker Mule CEO/MAGAloon Anthony Constantino is in in the GOP lane.
I wish Doug Jones the best of luck! Surely Senator Tuberville is one of the dumbest people currently in Congress. Can someone please explain why Tuberville isn’t required to prove that he fulfills Alabama’s residency requirements?
PS. I’ve always considered Doug Jones to be the Attorney General that President Biden should have chosen. Had Biden done so, I think there’s a far stronger chance America and the world would not now be suffering the insane Fascist aspirations of Donald Trump.
Doug Jones or Sally Yates, Garland was a terrible choice.
Why was Garland a terrible choice?
There ultimately isn't. The fix was in with this corrupt Supreme Court.
Garland is utterly indefensible
No-one is defending him, yet my points stand. This Supreme Court was not going to allow Trump to be prevented from running again as a free man.
Sure, but the point is that if Garland hadn’t slow walked everything, Trump might have been in a jail cell for his crimes before Republican primaries started.
Nope, the Supreme Court would have blocked that. I don't understand how that's not obvious to everyone. It still would have been worthwhile going through the motions, though, and loudly making the Supreme Court the enemy that had to be run against.
There *may* have been more willingness to kick Trump to the curb closer to J6 and further from an upcoming election (see: the 7 Republicans who voted for impeachment), but broadly I agree.
I'm not sure we can be 100% certain. Before he started his 2024 primary, their party establishment did seem to be trying to move on from him. If it was early 2023 or earlier I think it could have happened.
The republicans on SCOTUS would have been happy with Haley in the end, and she'd have been perceived as more likely to win.
The problem I see is, because Merrick Garland was as FeingoldFan pointed out slow walking everything in the investigation to Trump, this meant the base for the Democratic Party was trying to push NY City Attorney Alvin Bragg and NY State Attorney General Leticia James to take action right away. This was even more complicated because Bragg himself was conflicted and impotent at first about taking action against Trump only then to finally do it during 2024, which happened to be the presidential election year.
Of course, what Bragg and James did was commendable and the cases brought against Trump were decided by jury, which was not biased in its assessment of his actions. The issue was the timing was just bad and Trump kept playing the media a lot by using his presidential campaign to distract the legal affairs he had by focusing on dividing Democrats and their base even more. I am still amazed he was able to tactically do this and be able to be inaugurated as POTUS, especially considering Trump was a liability towards Republicans in the 2022 midterms.
The Supreme Court though would likely have not been biased against Trump knowing how it ruled against him on "voter fraud" issues he kept pulling out of his ass just like Mike Lindell. That doesn't mean though they would have given Trump an extremely harsh sentence.
Hard to know what would have happened but I think if there had been a better U.S. Attorney General in the vein of Doug Jones or whoever else, there likely would have been a more focused, investigative process to get all the facts together and make a case with as fair and impartial judgements early on.
Why, exactly?
I would argue Former Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood would have been even better for President Biden as Attorney General.
His years-long investigation into Google for anti-trust issues makes him a legend, which means he would have been great if Democrats wanted to go after big tech. He and Lina Khan would have gotten alone quite well. Far from a Merrick Garland.
But Hood and Doug Jones as Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General or vice versa would have been brilliant.
Amen to that on the AG. Deferring to Merrick Garland's hard feelings cost Dems everything.
I don't think the reason for appointing Garland AG was because of the SCOTUS vacancy (though I'm sure it was a factor). My personal theory is they wanted a vacancy on the D.C. Cir. to appoint KBJ to the circuit court in advance of her SCOTUS nomination, and Garland was the only one plausible.
After pouring over $10 million into his own campaign but failing to gain traction, wealthy businessman Steve Cloobeck (D) ended his run for Governor and endorsed Eric Swalwell in the race.
Now he doesn't have to say "woke is weak" anymore in his campaign ads!
One less unnecessary Democratic gubernatorial candidate out. Hopefully more to follow.
Betty Yee and Ian Calderon next.
And Tony Thurmond as well.
He finally got a cloo...
100%
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ro1vJSXLKmc
A little snippet of the ShamWow guy's political views before his run for Congress (this man is older than my father, by the way...)
NOTUS reports that Peltola is leaning towards running for the Senate seat reflecting concerns about American democracy and a promising 2026 electoral outlook.
That's good. And would be a bit surprising.
Definitely surprising, probably the toughest of the three races she could pick from.
Tom could win the Gov race fwiw, especially against Dahlstrom
Gotta take advantage of an environment like this when it comes around. Plus I've never imagined Dan Sullivan as anybody's idea of a juggernaut. Maybe he's quietly popular at home but he seems like a backbencher who would be uniquely vulnerable in a defensive midterm cycle.
Agree, at least from far away he doesn't seem to have the same popular connection a lot of Senators from low population states are able to make with their constituents.
seeing as there's been candidates jumping into the other races, shouldn't be surprising at all. they probably wouldn't have starting running for governor or AK-AL if Peltola was going to.
Now THIS is the sense of duty we need to see from our candidates.
That would automatically make the race a tossup.
Definitely not a tossup - it's still Alaska after all - but certainly a winnable race. I'd put it somewhere between Lean and Likely R. If the environment continues to improve for us, I suspect that it would wind up at Lean R.
I think she could pull off an upset. And if she prevails next year, she wouldn't have to run for re-election every 2 years.
Do you have a link? The most recent thing I can see from NOTUS involving Peltola is from August.
I've made my case for her going for Governor on here clear, but I wish her all the best if she does go for Senate.
https://www.notus.org/2026-election/democratic-senate-candidates-cooper-brown-mills-schumer-dream
I think Peltola lost re-election to the House mainly in light of the political environment against Democrats in the 2024 presidential election and the fact that Sarah Palin was not on the ballot. She was back in 2022 and thereby split the vote with Nick Begich whereas in 2024 he didn’t have that problem.
We’d have to run the table, but Maine, North Carolina, Ohio + Alaska would give Democrats a miracle Senate Majority. Wildcard Osborn in Nebraska may even make it so we need only 3 of them. If Peltola runs, this becomes a real path for the party to blocking all remaining Trump appointees to judicial seats. Critical to the future of America.
Don't forget Iowa as well. Josh Turek will make that seat a competitive one
Not forgetting, just not buying any Iowa polling until after a Democrat wins a federal race. I also purposely chose states where we have a record of winning statewide or have won with the candidates running before. That metric doesn’t include Iowa. I’d include it if Rob Sand ran for Senate instead of Governor.
To be fair, I think we could still win Iowa even if I don’t include it, but fool me once and all that.
I get it, but the electoral conditions in Iowa seem to be particularly friendly to dems this cycle with the crazy overperformances that are happening. A dem winning a R+12 seat by 10 points is nothing to sneeze at.
And Turek is probably the best possible person to run other than Sand. The guy has overperformed in his Trump won seat by 13 points in prior elections. He's a beast
I’m not entirely sure where you think I’m arguing against what you’re saying here.
Again, the ingredients look like they’re all there for a swing left in the state. At the same time all of the advantages Democrats look to have right now can reasonably be explained away. And Iowa didn’t have any of the requirements I used to outline my post.
I’m not against Iowa flipping, I’m not even downplaying the chances of Turek or whoever wins the primary. I’m just saying those other states I listed have more evidence in actual general election cycles of being won than Iowa does and I try to base all my posts on facts and data, which Iowa doesn’t really have.
I agree, but also we haven't had any heavy hitters run for office in Iowa recently compared to the other states you mentioned.
Dems ran a literal no-name random businessman in 2018 and they were able to make it close. Don't discount Iowa
My guess is Zach Wahls will be the early frontrunner just based on name ID. I hope Turek gets the nomination though as I think he'd be a stronger candidate.
Why do we think that? Genuine question - I don't really know anything about either one of them.
I don't see Ohio, still less Nebraska, as more likely victories than Iowa.
That’s fair, I’m not saying which ones are more likely than others. I’m just using a specific set of criteria to illustrate the path with the most evidence of general election data victories. Nebraska is only plausibly competitive because Osborn is running as an independent, not a Democrat.
Iowa Senate statewide results:
2014: R+8
2016: R+24
2020: R+7
2022: R+12
I don’t see any data of recent elections where Iowa is winnable even if right now the data says it is. That’s not me saying it can’t be won or is less winnable than Ohio/Nebraska, that’s an entirely different stance and not one I’m advocating.
i would like to point out that past results are not always completely predictive of future ones. Tom Harkin represented Iowa not that long ago, he retired in 2014...
Democrats have pulled off steep upsets in recent memory; look at both Georgia races in 2020
I think OH is more likely than IA, just based on Brown's electoral strength if nothing else. Their presidential toplines are VERY similar and OH is both more diverse and more urban.
Your points are valid and well stated.
Is diverse a good thing electorally in states which have a low minority population? Iowa whites may be more electorally elastic due to less racial polarization dating back to the great migration, desegregation and subsequent white flight.
You don't have to buy Iowa polling to think it's competitive. Same with Texas.
Rob Sand actually lost Turek's district in 2022. There's an argument that Turek might be stronger than Sand.
The more downballot the race is, the less polarized it is. I don't think Turek's win in the district proves anything with respect to Rob Sand. Other local candidates, sure.
In order of likelihood, IMHO:
1. NC
2. ME
3. AK (if Peltola runs)
4. IA
5. OH
I agree with 1-3, but why do we think IA is more likely than OH?
Yeah this is kinda nuts. The Prez result was nearly identical but Brown is an established name with good fundraising who has won tough races before.
I hope that Tuberville's ploy of singlehandedly blocking all senior military nominations and promotions for almost a year comes back to haunt him.
Why Mamdani Is Unafraid to Turn on the Left
By Ross Barkan
https://archive.ph/zX7vh
In the end, I believe it was wise not to let a 1-5 percent chance of a few "weeks where decades happen" mess up his entire term as mayor. Jeffries is not Cuomo, nor is he Crowley. His failure will also be a huge setback for the national Left with implications in the 2028 Senate and presidential primaries. Crowley had never won a competitive primary election and was anointed like Chuy Garcia anointed his CoS and Cuomo is Cuomo.
Did he need to suggest that Ossé was a "caricature"? What did he do to incur such a mean ad hominem attack?
Didn't he say that in a private setting to some DSA committee? I think because Mamdani privately pleaded to Osse not to mount a challenge invoking his name and he did it anyways.
I don't know, but we know he said it, and don't say mean things if you don't want them to be leaked.
I agree. I am no Osse fan and think his challenge to Jeffries is silly. I also get why Mamdani is creating separation there. Not sure why he thinks he needs to call him names.
Take out the names. The mayor of a city has the potential to have a President, Senate Majority leader, and Speaker of the House all from his city. What mayor would do anything to undermine that?
Mamdani has harbored animosity towards Jeffries since his political career began, and has previously likened Jeffries to George Wallace for his views on the banned topic. I believe it would be imprudent to remove the names from this context. But Jeffries is in a very strong position in his district while he and DSA will have a lot to lose. I think it comes to that. He wants to run the city not lead a revolution.
Correct. And I give him a lot of slack for that but question whether he had to be so harsh. It's ironic, because when he was the radical insurgent running against a pillar of the establishment, he had to buck resistance from establishment figures to win, but now he's thrown the ladder to the ground behind him.
Is this him pulling the ladder up after him, or is he being strategic?
Realistically, Jeffries was the overwhelming favorite to win his primary. There's the matter of big risk/big reward to consider, of course. Progressives and other left-insurgents all have finite resources for primary runs (open seat or against incumbents). Even attention is a critical and finite resource.
NYC will have several big primaries next year that are more winnable for those of us on the left. NY-07 and NY-12 are both open seats. NY-10 and NY-15 have potentially credible opportunities for someone on the left to take out an incumbent. I think NY-13 as well? That's a lot of targets already, and it might make sense to triage some of that list and direct energy to a subset.
Fundraising doesn't always come at the expanse of another candidate, but there's some degree of it, and there are only so many people able and willing to volunteer their time and energy. And as mentioned even attention is a limited in these cases.
I'd rather progressives fight strategically and maximize our chances of some major pickups than invest a lot of resources into seeing Jeffries win 65-35 and then fall short in a different seat.
Time will tell if Mamdani backs other candidates in primaries. I'd have to expect at the minimum that Lander would have his endorsement if he challenged Goldman in NY-10.
We can agree to disagree, and you expressed your views quite clearly, but I have an answer to this:
"Is this him pulling the ladder up after him, or is he being strategic?"
Yes.
Is Jeffries awful? No. Could we have better? Yes. Should voters have a choice in 2026? *shrug* Pretty debatable depending on your own perspective.
I personally do want a primary challenge to happen, if only to nudge Jeffries into being a better Democrat if he only gets 57-63% of the vote and fears a loss in the next cycle. I’m under no illusion he can lose his race as of today because I think most voters will likely say “good enough for now”. That said, a year is an eternity in politics, so anything is possible.
Good thing you clarified that you favor a primary challenge, dragonfire. Otherwise, MGP will introduce a resolution to denounce you.
"Dr. Amy Acton
@amyactonoh
.
@VivekGRamaswamy
’s plan for year-round school
https://x.com/amyactonoh/status/1993161684760793337 "
I'm starting to believe that Ohio might swing blue again in 2026 with two good nominees for Governor and Senate. I have a lot of respect for Dr. Acton, but some voters who are aligned with MAGA's extremist wing—especially those who hold sexist or antisemitic biases—may be less willing to support her. Those same voters also haven't warmed to Ramaswamy, so the election dynamics could get more interesting if they atleast don't turn out. Ramaswamy is going to destroy Ohio withe his radical "National Libertarian" ideology if he wins.
Year-round school with longer school day? Sounds like a political winner.
Did he actually post this AFTER declaring his gubernatorial run?
I swear if he manages to win I'll have lost all respect for the people of Ohio. A wet paper bag should be able to beat Ramaswarmy.
I don’t think he will, and I am not overly optimistic, generally. I think he’s going to face a big anti-Indian racism penalty. Add that to the lean of the year and the state of the economy, and I suspect it will be too much to overcome. Ohio isn’t THAT red.
If Ohio can elect JD Vance, then Ohio can elect Vivek Ramaswamy.
Okay? Sure they can. I don’t think they ultimately will, at least not in the year 2026 is shaping up to be. Vance very likely loses to Ryan if you rerun that Senate race in 2026.
I don’t want to completely close the door here, but after losing all partisan statewide races other than Brown’s senate seat even as open seat races in 2018 (a D+9 year), I have had very little faith in Ohio voters.
Oh same. And a big part of the reason I think if you forced me to choose a winner (Acton) is ugly: racism. But you can’t discount how 2026 is shaping up to be over 10-15 points bluer than 2022 was as well. Or how bad a candidate Ramaswamy is, independent of a potential racist electoral penalty.
Sure, but Ohio actually swung left relative to the nation in 2024. It was only R+9.5 relative to the national popular vote compared to being R+12.1 in 2020 and R+10.5 in 2016.
With good candidates and a lot of investment, Ohio can rebuild. It should be rebuilt too, it is a great state with lots of awesome qualities. Same with Florida
I don’t know about that. Don’t be surprised if a good number of white voters who’ve voted for Trump and Vance, don’t pull the lever for him based on prejudice.
I think partisan tribalism will ultimately prevail by most bigots. Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley were both able to overcome ethnic bias in their states, both even more conservative than Ohio and in less polarized times that now.
Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley both faced severe electoral penalties in their first runs for governor. Haley only won by 4% when every other Republican won by double digits statewide, often by more than 15 points. She likely would have lost that race in a neutral year. Jindal lost a lot of historically Republican areas in 2003.
To state the obvious, Haley’s and Jindal’s names are a lot more western than “Vivek Ramaswamy.”
That's fair. But I bet in the hyper-polarized Trump era, you'd see far more bigots vote the nonwhite candidate if he or she had an (R) next to their name than Jindal or Haley saw two decades ago.
Yeah but Ohio was only Trump +11. Say DeWine’s 3 point win in 2018 would be the expected showing in a blue wave for generic D vs R. Ranaswamy is already a weak candidate in his own right, and we don’t know how much that would shift the race. Add in a chunk of voters who won’t vote for him due to his name and religion and that easily covers the difference.
Is Acton Jewish? But Democrats would never win the most extremist MAGA types, so I don't see that as an electoral problem for her.
MAGA extremists like groypers and wignats hate Indians, especially a pro H1B billionaire, and Jews. There was talk of them holding their noses and voting for Ryan.
But why would Ramaswamy not face a racist electoral penalty against Acton nonetheless? We just had an election in Virginia where the margins for Governor and LG were separated by 4 points. I don’t think that’s because the Nazi fetishist was an inherently better candidate than the sitting Lieutenant Governor. Just saying.
I can also think of at least two Jewish Democratic Governors who won by 15 points apiece in states that Donald Trump won. One of whom on the same ballot. I don’t think Acton’s faith would cost her any votes of people who would have otherwise voted for her.
"Any" is a strong statement, but you backed up the thrust of your point very effectively.
Fair enough. “Any” is too strong, but I think we have more than enough proof that Jewish Democrats are capable of winning over a large amount of Trump voters.
I want all of us here to prepare for the likely outcome of a Governor Ramaswamy. Doing anything else does us a disservice emotionally. Regardless of what he says or does, he has that “R” next to his name on the ballot come voting time and that will probably be enough to squeak by any candidate (save Brown if he had run) with the dreaded anchor “D” next to their name in a red state. I’d love to be wrong, but I don’t think I will.
Who Ohio voters choose to elect as their next governor will have zero impact on my life. I am merely laying out the reasons why I think if you forced me to predict a winner between Ramaswamy and Acton, I’d choose Acton.
I think you missed something here. I wasn’t responding to your post if you look closely. I chose to respond to the other person specifically because of what they said, not what you said, but you are obviously welcome to your opinion and I hope you’re right.
WV-SEN:
Freshman Senator Jim Justice, who had served as Governor for two terms from 2017-2025, has now been forced to pay $5 million in unpaid taxes due to a lawsuit by the Justice Department. Not the sharpest tool in the shed if you ask me.
I would not be surprised to see that Justice is either a one-term Senator or being pushed to resign over this. Unlikely he will be unseated by a Democrat considering the bad shape the WV Democratic Party is in along with WV being a real pain for Democrats in general.
Another Republican primarying Justice in the U.S. Senate Primary in 2030 or a special election would be more likely.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/general/u-s-sues-sen-jim-justice-wife-for-5-1-million-in-unpaid-taxes-dating-to-2009-as-legal-woes-mount/ar-AA1R5a6v?ocid=TobArticle
.
.
.
Sen. Jim Justice, a West Virginia Republican, and his wife face a lawsuit by the U.S. government seeking more than $5 million in unpaid federal income taxes.
The lawsuit alleged that Jim Justice and Cathy Justice "have neglected or refused to make full payment."
Hours after the suit was filed, a lawyer for the Justices and the DOJ filed a joint motion asking a judge to enter a consent judgment in favor of the U.S. for the amount requested.
Justice was elected in November 2024 to replace Sen. Joe Manchin, a former Democrat.
What do you suppose he did to have the Trump Justice Department go after him? And isn't whoever replaces him likely to be worse politically than a guy who has been a member of both parties and is not known as a wild-eyed ranter?
I really don't know. But Justice's problems were starting to mount last year before Trump got inaugurated. Democratic Senate Candidate Glenn Elliott did capitalize on his issues but could not gain enough traction with this that any other Senate candidate would statewide in a race like this.
Justice is considered to be the most reasonable out of any of the Republicans in WV that we can get but that doesn't mean he's someone who has the best judgement. $5 million in unpaid taxes is real negligence and he should have seen this coming.
Who did he hire as his accountant?
I was surprised Glenn Elliott didn't run a few points ahead of Harris last year.
I think Justice was popular at the time? I could be wrong though.
When Elliott ran, he cited that Trump supporters were willing to listen to him as long as he was talking about running against Jim Justice. He specifically ran an anti-Justice campaign but not against Trump. This was the balancing act he had to make.
Although Elliott wasn’t successful in his campaign, he did however get more respect and support from both Democrats and Republicans throughout the state (elected officials and WV residents alike) than a typical Democratic Senate Candidate would have. He did this without having attacked Trump a single time, except if it’s to point out differences of opinion.
He could have but Joe Manchin never really campaigned for Glenn Elliott.
Manchin endorsed Elliott’s Senate campaign early on and months before the 2024 election. However, insiders in the WV Democratic Party had said if Elliott’s campaign had gotten more financial support by the DNC, DSCC, etc., the race would have been closer than it was then.
I don’t know about that anymore but Manchin offered his support to Elliott’s candidacy and didn’t do anything for him that I can recall. What reason did Manchin believe he was going to benefit from doing this? If he had done so with the right support and proactive campaigning, Elliott would have gotten this to be a 40%+ race.
How sad is it that this was my first reaction too? "Man, he must have pissed off someone in MAGA-land"? Not "hmm...he must have done something illegal". Sad state of affairs...
Very sad. This is a lawless administration led by an unrepentant convicted felon.
2 things:
1) Justice isn’t resigning over unpaid taxes he’s now paid, in the world we live in, that doesn’t even count as a scandal anymore and probably never did unless you go back 50 or 100 years. He also could retire after his 1 term, but it won’t be caused by paying unpaid taxes.
2) Justice is literally the best Republican we could ever hope for in that seat, he’d be replaced by the January 6th rioter state rep. So why on god’s green earth would anyone be hoping for him to resign or retire?
I am not hoping Justice would resign. That's not what I am arguing in my original comment.
Any push for him to leave office would be done primarily by the GOP establishment within the party, not by Justice doing it himself independently. Democrats don't have enough power in WV to be able to get Justice out of office. If 2024 Democratic Senate Candidate Glenn Elliott's election results are not enough information about how bad it is for Democrats in the state, I don't know what is. Democrats trying to force Justice out of office because of this legal issue won't work.
The GOP though can still hold Justice accountable and primary challengers can potentially emerge. That's not improbable but it depends on how things play out in the coming weeks and months. I am just pointing out that one of the two scenarios could apply in Justice's case heading toward 2030.
FYI, for anyone reading who wants to know my thoughts on what could happen in the U.S. Senate Race in 2030:
1) Providing Jim Justice continues to serve his term as Senator, a primary challenger or two could emerge. Any one of them could gain traction, even more so with Trump not being on the ballot in 2030 and not being able to run for POTUS again. Justice is less popular in WV than Trump and 2024 US Senate Candidate Glenn Elliott knew this, even while this wasn't enough to help him increase the % of the votes.
As far as Democratic Candidates are concerned, all the high profile and well known names seem to have been exhausted from having previously run unsuccessful campaigns. Elliott wasn't well known statewide outside of Wheeling, where he was previously Mayor.
Former Secretary of State Natalie Tennant could try running again but I don't think after 11 years of a run (where she got just 34% of the votes) in the 2014 midterms would she be sold on wanting to give it a crack again. She has however since January of this year served as a Member of the Kanahwa County Commission so Tennant is still active in a political sense.
2) If Justice resigns due to pressure from the GOP (not by WV Democrats), then we're likely going to see a crowded GOP candidate process that may overwhelm anything Democrats could do stand out if any one or more candidates emerge.
Yes, Democrats have been able to win special elections and have a good shot at making the TN-07 special election race next week closer (or even winning it). But WV is not a good state for Democrats to get any kind of momentum, unless it's within Monogalia County, where Biden narrowly lost to Trump back in 2020.
Right now, my opinion is that #1 will be the most likely outcome.
Fun bit of insight as to how endorsements happen. A week or so ago, Peggy Flanagan, running in MN-Sen, got endorsed by Senators Van Hollen, Murphy, Sanders, Warren, Markey, Merkley, and Heinrich. I thought that was sorta an odd group. Now it turns out that there's a Senate Fight Club, whose members are...wait for it... Van Hollen, Murphy, Sanders, Warren, Markey, Merkley, and Heinrich. And Tina Smith. Whose appetite for fighting might not include the hottest primary to succeed her.
Does The Club meet in the Senate basement at night, in a sleeves rolled up kind of way?
NJ-11:
https://newjerseyglobe.com/congress/analilia-mejia-will-run-for-nj-11-with-backing-from-bernie-sanders/amp/
Progressive activist and Bernie 2020 aide Analilia Mejia is in, with Bernie’s backing.
Everybody and his brother is running.
I was looking at the Pennsylvania results to compare to statewide judicial elections this year to the elections ten years ago, when those three Democrats on the PA Supreme Court were first elected. Obviously the coalitions have changed dramatically in the intervening 10 years, and I'll have more analysis on that once the state releases the precinct results for this year. But in the meantime, I noticed something else - turnout has drastically increased.
In 2015, only about 2 million Pennsylvanians turned out for the odd-year judicial elections. Even in 2017, so at the same point in Trump's first term, only 2.1 million people voted. By 2019, that had gone up to 2.5 million, in 2021 it was almost 2.8 million, in 2023 it was almost 3.1 million, and this year turnout jumped up to more than 3.6 million. That's right, turnout almost doubled in just 10 years, and that's while the actual population of Pennsylvania is barely growing at all.
More and more Pennsylvanians are realizing that these off-year are important and have a real impact on people's lives.
I hope they finally are, and I guess the trends seem to show that. It's always hard for me to have any confidence in American voters, though, and especially in states that voted for fucking Trump!
I wish our state Supreme Court races were on off years, instead of staggered even year ones. Especially when the NC GOP made the judicial races partisan after trying to impose retention races instead.
The second Democrats gain control of the trifecta/court in North Carolina they need to reinstate nonpartisan elections. It helps our candidates and hurts Republicans because they’re all extremist nutjobs who hide behind their party label whereas our nominees are impartial judges who care about “just the facts ma’am”.
There’s a reason nonpartisan judges endorsed by Democrats in these states over perform by 10 points or more, voters just want fair judges for their courts to call a spade a spade.
I generally prefer partisan elections and I think that holds in this scenario too.
If democrats are holding a trifecta in NC, it'd indicate the state has moved away from being slightly republican favored purple state. At that stage canny republicans would be able to use a lack of partisan affiliation to make themselves sound less extreme.
If we get a trifecta there I'd rather we focused on non-partisan commissions or restoring the governor's veto of districting or similar. Not sure what would be the most durable in the long term.
Oh a non-partisan redistricting commission should absolutely be the first order of business in NC if Dems ever get a trifecta there. They should do this in WI and PA too if they get trifectas there.
I think WI and PA could score a Dem trifecta next year, but any independent redistricting amendment have to be passed twice in either state before going to voters (a la Virginia).
Also, raising the veto override threshold.
Even if they did, the GOP will back the incumbent candidate seeking re-election or the GOP challenger. WI does that.
What's worse is that NC GOP eliminated straight ticket voting so even if a Dem governor wins by a hefty amount, a GOP candidate vying for the SCONC race can win by the down ballot drop off. Voters here have to be coached into filling out each race instead of just marking one or two bubbles.
Is that set by statute, or is it just a rule that can be changed by any session of the legislature by majority vote at the beginning of the session?
The NC GOP used their veto proof majority to make the Circuit Court races partisan in 2016 and then passed another statute to make state Supreme Court races partisan in 2018. Their reasoning was that “Dems did it first”, which is nonsense.
I don’t know if a future Dem trifecta in NC will make the judicial races nonpartisan again. If anything they will work to undo the GOP power grabs enacted by statute, loosening the 12 week abortion ban, defunding the school voucher scam and passing a budget on time. If by some miracle the blue wave is big enough to wash out the GOP legislative majority next year, I’m sure they will have a laundry list of things to pass.
Why do you want any elections on off years?
By having the partisan judicial races staggered every 8 years (always in midterm or presidential years), you get more R voters out who reliably vote the party line. It's easier for Democrats to hold seats in D-positive midterms (like 2018 and next year), but harder during presidential years and R-positive midterms (like 2022).
I'm just sorely reminded of our horrid party leadership pre-Anderson Clayton. Because had Anderson been in charge during the 2020 and 2022 cycles, Democrats would still have partisan control of the SCONC (and Paul Newby would be out of a job) and Cheri Beasley would be in the U.S. Senate.
So is it now Democrats that profit from vote-suppression? Because the problem with off-year elections is precisely that there's such a huge dropoff in participation. I think in New York City, they've helped Republicans win the mayoralty.
NC GOP is the worst of the worst. They deserve to get the same treatment they gave to NC Democrats, especially our former and current governors.
It's hard for me to accept the idea that anti-democratic policies are good. I embrace Democratic gerrymandering on a temporary basis until it can be banned nationwide, but I was among the minority of New York voters who voted to move (or, really, recommend moving, as it was not binding) mayoral elections to presidential years.
Muriel Bowser announced she will not run for reelection as mayor of DC.
https://wtop.com/dc/2025/11/dc-mayor-muriel-bowser-will-not-run-for-fourth-term/
Only after being pressured to leave.
I'm sure she'll love her next job as a real estate board director or senior executive lol
It's a pretty horrible job the most recent mayors before her were tossed out after a term.
Fenty deserved to be tossed for appointing Michelle Rhee *alone.*
Nebraska petitioners just filed a ballot measure for their own Respect Nebraska Voters, a constitutional amendment that requires any legislative vote to overturn or alter voter-passed initiatives requires four-fifths of the state legislature (rather than two-thirds). They will start circulating the petitions next month.
https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/en/news/news-articles/nebraska-lawmakers-tried-changing-voter-approved-laws-a-new-effort-wants-to-tamp-down-on-that/
ME-2:
https://www.wmtw.com/article/democratic-candidate-governor-troy-jackson-cd-2/69534964
Troy Jackson isn’t running — he’s sticking with his gubernatorial bid.
Clears the way for Baldacci to shake up the field. Wish there was more polling for governor on both sides
Damn. He’s never going to run for federal office. I wish he’d just come out and say it.