Texas voters are split on the proposal to redraw Texas’ congressional map ahead of the 2026 Midterm Elections: 36% support, 38% oppose, and 26% are unsure.
Could the preference of Texas Republicans really have swung that much towards Senator John Cornyn in such a short time? I find that hard to believe.
Emerson states:
"The Emerson College Polling Texas survey was conducted August 11-12, 2025. […] The 2026 Republican Primary consists of n=491, with a credibility interval of +/- 4.4%."
I presume "credibility interval" is the same as "margin of error". If so, an MoE of 4.4% is huge!
Meh, I expect the Texas Senate race numbers to go back and forth and it looks like they only polled Allred since he's declared but none of the potential candidates like Talarico. Keeping an eye on this one.
Befuddle you why? Just because you can't understand why people vote Republican? Is that more befuddling in Texas than in Nebraska, Mississippi or Indiana?
They get such terrible results from the Republicans they elect, seemingly worse than other states, and yet they keep doing it with gusto. Paxton, Abbott, and Cruz especially have all let Texans down in massive ways, and yet they all would be easily re-elected, probably by double-digit margins. Ted Cruz could probably run for Governor and win easily, despite abandoning his state twice during natural disasters and being one of the least likable people in existence.
Right. I can think of some GOP run states that are run way better than Texas. Georgia, Utah and South Carolina come to mind. And it’s the same literal gang of dudes fucking it up over a decade
it shouldn't befuddle you...have you ever spoken at length with folks who live outside of the big citieis in TX? They are still in the 19th century. Still commonplace to hear N bombs. Their economy depends on "illegals" but they have nothing but contempt for immigrants. trump really could shoot someone in Times Square and he still would win the vote in rural TX. Now I know I generalize and my statements are not true of everyone but they are far too true to think TX is anything but a red neck former slave state and millions of Texans wouldn't mind one bit if they became their own nation.
Considering the toxic impact they have on the USA’s politics (especially the oil and gas industry) maybe we should tell them sayonara and good luck, then
It’s odd that the Senate GOP’s own polling has a completely different race in their data, but throw it on the pile, it’s going to be a hard election to win even against Paxton and with Allred having a clear primary (both of which aren’t guaranteed either).
Paxton will probably say more extreme things on Fox News and podcasts than Cornyn, but there would be zero difference between their votes as a Senator. If they're going to vote the same anyway, I'd rather have Paxton as a weaker opponent. And if he wins, he'll just be another reminder of GOP extremism, corruption, and lunacy. There is no argument to be made that Cornyn will be a more reasonable legislator than Paxton, certainly not in this political era.
I love how the Republican Party continues to nominate or embrace – or at least tolerate – candidates that ought to be totally unelectable. (But you never know in these Trumpian times.) This bodes well for Democrats in 2026!
Bizarre! DePerno accuses AG Nessel of being a "groomer". Well, judging by appearances, Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel certainly seems far more well-groomed than Matthew DePerno.
I genuinely think calling anyone a groomer or a pedophile should be sued for defamation and pay steep damages. It's a disgusting and incredibly serious accusation being smeared against queer and trans people, and they should be punished severely for saying it. They can call us assholes and hate our policies, but a felony accusation for not being cishet is evil.
Political scientists and historians have observed that while the modern Republican Party became more ruthless about defeating its political enemies, breaking whatever norms were required, Democrats effectively stood in place, hoping for a return to bipartisan comity and defending the status quo that their opponents were smashing. The Democrats became the party of procedure.
By embracing a high-minded, technical style of governance, the party has diminished its ability to excite the public with ideas that tangibly affect people’s lives. Meanwhile, campaign promises that do have mass appeal — whether they are from Mr. Trump, Senator Bernie Sanders or the New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani — are often vetted and laughed out of the classroom by the party’s leaders and in-house technocrats.
This is exactly why we need primaries in 2026 to clean house of most of our elected leadership. It’s up to our voters if we continue doing the same old thing based on hopium to return to a political time that will never exist again or to rip up the old playbook for a new, exciting and motivating message based on inspiration of what we could become if we elected a new generation of Democrats. Stop focusing on what’s possible now, start focusing on turning what’s impossible to possible.
The tea party of the left can’t come fast enough and I’m hoping our younger generation political talent continues stepping up to the plate to take out those who led our party to catastrophe based on old school thinking (which got us into this mess starting in 2016) by not understanding the threat and urgency needed to defeat the far right fascist party at the ballot box.
Nothing will ever be the same again, this is who we will face in every single election until they get hit so hard by voters in a landslide loss that they don’t try to get back up again with Trumpism and MAGA. A bully only stops when you punch him so hard you knock his teeth in and kick him on the ground repeatedly to make him stay down.
That is the ferocious attitude needed today from our party officials and anything less won’t win this war.
Here are some of my choices: Political Wire, Talking Points Memo, Heather Cox Richardson, The Contrarian (founded by Jen Rubin, who left WaPo in disgust), The Guardian, and "The World" with Marco Werman on NPR.
And for positive news: "Fix the News." Here is their latest:
Anderson Clayton, our state Democratic Party chair, mocked the polling Carolina Journal did of the Cooper vs. Whatley race -- asking on X "wonder how badly it hurt Republicans to put out this poll???" And then she did a press release about tariffs, mocking Trump's "Truth" postings like Newsom's press office did.
She, Hogg, Mamdani, Garcia, AOC, Crockett and a whole host of other young Democratic leaders are showing exactly how strong we could be as a party that excites our voters to show up for us every election if only our older leaders would step aside and let the younger generation take over. They know what it takes to beat the GOP and that the failed political tactics of the past won’t do it.
There’s more young people than any older voter generation demographic in America, imagine if they all voted and how screwed Republicans would be. The time is now to inspire and fight like hell because that’s what our voters have been begging the party to do for decades.
Only one thing missing from this recipe: young Americans actually showing up to effing vote! As though their lives and future depend on it – which it does.
Bernie has been talking about young voters bringing real change, even revolution, since forever – and yet those young voters don’t turn up to vote, even for him and the Progressive candidates he is promoting. So, to start the examination there: What do Bernie & Co need to try that’s different?
Bernie doesn’t lead the party. The one time young voters showed up was for Obama who coincidentally (not really!) pushed a message of hope and change for a better future, INSPIRING them to turnout.
It’s not the Bernie party, they only make up a small wing of the party that doesn’t have control. This needs to be a consistent message from our party and candidates from the top of the ticket to the bottom. Then the voters will start to identify with our party and believe the Democratic Party is not the one of the Trump era anymore.
There’s a reason they’re the most popular Democrats among conservatives, young people and Trump voters, because at least they understand and constantly espouse the biggest problem in America: the rich, corporations and oligarchy trying to hold the average Joe down while accumulating even more power to enable them to continue to do so.
Trump was completely lying, but he also said he’d take on the Deep State and fight for you over them. If people believed Trump of all people would actually do that, how hard is it to imagine voters would believe Democrats if they started pushing these economic populist messages? Seems pretty easy to believe if you ask me.
I agree with everything that you’re saying. I’m well aware that Bernie isn’t the Democratic Party (heck, he’s not even a member). But I really admire Bernie Sanders for his authenticity.
My point is that the results of the efforts of Bernie and his alliance to turn out young voters to vote for Progressive candidates has been less than impressive. Which raises some doubts about the proposed formula.
Except that those conservatives and Trump voters don't VOTE for those candidates on the left. It's one thing to claim to like a candidate, it's another thing to actually vote for them. If they "like Bernie" as his acolytes claim they do, it's precisely because he is anti Democratic Party. They aren't for him, they are anti Democratic Party. This notion that if the Democratic Party were just a left populist party that we'd get the same electoral results as in the 1930s and early 1940s remains wishful thinking. Especially since we are a far more suburban and demographically diverse country now than we were in those days.
Didn't they show up only a couple percentage points more for Obama, during a near-depression? I seem to remember the figures not showing a huge groundswell of voting from the 18-25 crowd.
I like some of those guys but i need it explained to me how we're going to win over the heartland with those politicians and not just safely blue cities?
Anderson Clayton has been doing multiple rural county listening tours around North Carolina, and she usually brings several incumbent judges with her to emphasize how important down ballot races are.
Last year, SCONC justice Allison Riggs did that leading up to the 2024 election -- and for 2026, SCONC incumbent Anita Earls is doing the same. They boil the legalese down to plain understandable terms. Justice Earls frequently brings up the Leandro and gerrymandering cases that the Republican majority have either paused or completely reversed previous rulings on.
Candidates can be bold without being progressive. The unfortunate reality is that our party's internal fault lines have unnecessarily entrenched the idea that anyone that wants to be more than milquetoast needs to be a M4A/GND Sanders-acolyte. But that isn't true. Center-left democrats can be bold in trying to accomplish things, with those things simply not being at the more progressive end of the party's ideology.
Candidates like Mamdani, AOC, Crockett are great for their districts. Some of what makes them strong: clear and skilled communication, being bold on wanting to get things done, are good in any district or state.
Unfortunately I cannot really think of a non-progressive example for congress, but I'd point to a lot of dem governors for the bold-but-not-progressive description. Look at Walz for example. He's absolutely not in the progressive wing of the party: he's not going to be aligned with Sanders or Warren or AOC on ideology. But he got a lot done when MN dems had a trifecta. A byproduct of the aforementioned incorrect association between boldness and progressivism has resulted in a lot of people calling him a progressive in the wake of that, but the stuff he was bold on getting done is all rather bog standard democratic policy.
Short answer, we aren’t. If that were the case, there would be some states with single payer healthcare and $30 minimum wages. The fact that not even Vermont has single payer healthcare shows you how ineffective they are at policy.
I largely agree with you, except that you seem to be more impressed with Hogg than I am. I used to like him but was immediately turned off when he blamed the Democratic as well as the Republican Party for things the Republicans plus maybe Sinema and Manchin blocked. Getting people unreasonably upset at the one party that did so many things when they had the narrowest possible trifecta is not smart and no kind of good politics.
Hogg cares more about clout chasing online and unfortunately since Democrats are the sin-eaters of American politics you get clout from bashing them. It’s probably the biggest blind spot for online progs, honestly
David Hogg impressed me initially. Then he thoroughly showed the world that he wasn’t a team player – but rather a "pissing-inside-the-tent" Democrat. That was most certainly not what the DNC needed!
Actually winning more followers on social media DOES win more elections and that’s what the party establishment supporters refuse to understand. We need to be more online, not less!
I soured on Hogg when he made a big deal about backing primary challengers who would enact change and then backed a centrist in VA (Irene Shin) who was supported by crypto money and entered the state legislature initially by primarying a left-wing Dem (Ibraheem Samirah) from the center.
Does anyone else think the Ohio “wealthy businessman” Democrat who announced only after Brown did is a GOP plant/operative designed to force him into a bruising, resource draining primary? Or is it just me? Is there any background info on him? Because “wealthy Democratic businessman who self funds” is a very rare instance in today’s politics. There’s a reason they’re almost all Republicans and make up most of the swing state candidates for their party.
The timing just makes me extremely suspicious. Even if he says all the right things, he still could have ulterior motives to aid Republicans. I’d give him the benefit of the doubt if he filed before Brown ran, but literally 1 week later after he says he’s running? Hard not to see something smells off here.
Yeah, it was my first thought too lmao. But in a way... (trying to find a positive spin lol) it maybe gives Brown an even older oligarch foil to help prove his mettle and vigor for the fight to younger voters in the general? So long as it doesn't drain his campaign funds too much...
“Probably not” with hesitation. He says he has self funding ability. If he can loan his campaign say 10m to use on attacking Brown, even if Brown does win, we’re pretty much screwed in OH, barring a blue tsunami. So it does matter, I just really hope my worst fears don’t actually happen. We will see.
There is already going to be tens of millions of dollars spent attacking Brown - not sure that this would really change whatever impact that does or does not have.
I think there’s a hard floor in the mid-30s as far as approvals go but still, that’s remarkable considering how much more Trumpified the culture is in the 2020s than eight years ago.
If we spend significant time around this level for the next year then it’s going to be a very rough 2026 for the GOP.
I’m convinced that if Democrats truly run an aggressive 50-state, 3244-county campaign, with candidates in every single (!) downballot race, then we’re in for some very pleasant surprises in 2026. Even in deep-red territory.
I guess you're being intentionally hyperbolic, as there are tiny, extremely Republican counties in West Texas that are irrelevant, Democrats can't win statewide races in Wyoming, etc.
Yeah, but not by much. As I understand it, Democrats failed to run a candidate for 1000 state legislative seats. I sincerely doubt those were all absolutely out of reach.
As for e.g. Wyoming, you rebuild the party running candidates even there – albeit candidates that are well-suited to the state. Moreover, the investment required to begin rebuilding the Democratic Party in low-population states such Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota, is a pittance! (Compare with, say, Florida.) It would be irresponsibly to not make that modest investment, and in time it may well pay dividends.
Maximizing the reach in races is the way to go, not minimizing things to just the high profile races.
Democrats have one objective - Defeat the GOP anywhere and everywhere they can, no excuses like Rahm Emanuel when he had his rift with Howard Dean back during his days as DNC Chair.
I know one or two of these SC legislators resigning was originally reported on The Downballot like yesterday or the day before that, but there are THREE special elections being held on December 23rd -- highly unusual.
RJ May is resigning because he allegedly traffics child porn, despite being part of the religious caucus. That's been percolating for awhile. He worked for AG and Gov candidate Allen Wilson before being elected. Sen Nutt announced he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's at age 59. He thought it was long covid. Rep Cox is resigning to run for Nutt's seat. The latter two were in the comments a few days ago.
It would be incredibly stupid for the TX state reps to end the walkout... The //possibility// that California will be able to execute on fighting back against Texas? When there is a !!guarantee!! that Texas will succeed in their rigging? No. A rallying cry against unilateral disarmament ending with them... unilaterally disarming? It'll evaporate any grassroots support as a betrayal from the people who have been told (by them!) to expect them to fight. Caving early only kneecaps any voter enthusiasm and righteous anger against the Republicans, and actually becomes an added hindrance to turning out your base and the moveable middle. It is paramount above everything else that they drag this out until December and stop it from happening now. Clinging to democracy is more important that almost anything else--fines, fees, jail time, agony. It really sucks, wish it wasn't, but it is.
They were always going to return early; they returned early 20 years ago. I get it from a personal standpoint it was asking too much to be away for months to stop this. Might as well return now and let California get the ball rolling on what they're going to do.
just wondering, has there been another banned topic for discussion added to The Downballot? No comments about today's summitt in Russia...oops, I mean Alaska
Where's the campaigns and elections angle? It's not so much that everything else is banned from discussion but that this is not a general news or general discussion site.
New Orleans Mayor Cantrell has apparently been whacked with a corruption indictment after several years of investigation, but that probably doesn’t matter big picture since she’s term limited this year
Texas Emerson poll:
Senate
Cornyn 30 Paxton 29 Undecided 37
Cornyn 45 Allred 38
Paxton 46 Allred 41
Trump job approval 49/42
Abbott job approval 46/42
Texas voters are split on the proposal to redraw Texas’ congressional map ahead of the 2026 Midterm Elections: 36% support, 38% oppose, and 26% are unsure.
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/texas-2026-poll-cornyn-and-paxton-in-dead-heat-for-gop-senate-nomination/
Could the preference of Texas Republicans really have swung that much towards Senator John Cornyn in such a short time? I find that hard to believe.
Emerson states:
"The Emerson College Polling Texas survey was conducted August 11-12, 2025. […] The 2026 Republican Primary consists of n=491, with a credibility interval of +/- 4.4%."
I presume "credibility interval" is the same as "margin of error". If so, an MoE of 4.4% is huge!
Yes, and with that margin of error the results are a statistical tie.
I think they might have had a GOP skewing sample. But time will tell.
Yeah, I think that Senate seat stays in GOP hands unless Paxton beats Cornyn -- and even then it's still Lean Republican.
Meh, I expect the Texas Senate race numbers to go back and forth and it looks like they only polled Allred since he's declared but none of the potential candidates like Talarico. Keeping an eye on this one.
Agree - Likely R, bordering on Safe R, with Cornyn; Lean R with Paxton.
Depressing numbers. Texas will always befuddle me.
Befuddle you why? Just because you can't understand why people vote Republican? Is that more befuddling in Texas than in Nebraska, Mississippi or Indiana?
They get such terrible results from the Republicans they elect, seemingly worse than other states, and yet they keep doing it with gusto. Paxton, Abbott, and Cruz especially have all let Texans down in massive ways, and yet they all would be easily re-elected, probably by double-digit margins. Ted Cruz could probably run for Governor and win easily, despite abandoning his state twice during natural disasters and being one of the least likable people in existence.
Right. I can think of some GOP run states that are run way better than Texas. Georgia, Utah and South Carolina come to mind. And it’s the same literal gang of dudes fucking it up over a decade
Because Paxton due to his numerous scandals and extremism should be toxic in an urban state like Texas, and seemingly he's close to Generic R.
And Trump with his numerous scandals and extremism?
it shouldn't befuddle you...have you ever spoken at length with folks who live outside of the big citieis in TX? They are still in the 19th century. Still commonplace to hear N bombs. Their economy depends on "illegals" but they have nothing but contempt for immigrants. trump really could shoot someone in Times Square and he still would win the vote in rural TX. Now I know I generalize and my statements are not true of everyone but they are far too true to think TX is anything but a red neck former slave state and millions of Texans wouldn't mind one bit if they became their own nation.
Considering the toxic impact they have on the USA’s politics (especially the oil and gas industry) maybe we should tell them sayonara and good luck, then
I take it those German immigrants are still causing problems in Texas?
/s
Emerson gonna Emerson
Yes regardless of the year, Emerson is a notoriously conservative leaning pollster that often has high undecideds.
It’s odd that the Senate GOP’s own polling has a completely different race in their data, but throw it on the pile, it’s going to be a hard election to win even against Paxton and with Allred having a clear primary (both of which aren’t guaranteed either).
Paxton will probably say more extreme things on Fox News and podcasts than Cornyn, but there would be zero difference between their votes as a Senator. If they're going to vote the same anyway, I'd rather have Paxton as a weaker opponent. And if he wins, he'll just be another reminder of GOP extremism, corruption, and lunacy. There is no argument to be made that Cornyn will be a more reasonable legislator than Paxton, certainly not in this political era.
I love how the Republican Party continues to nominate or embrace – or at least tolerate – candidates that ought to be totally unelectable. (But you never know in these Trumpian times.) This bodes well for Democrats in 2026!
Bizarre! DePerno accuses AG Nessel of being a "groomer". Well, judging by appearances, Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel certainly seems far more well-groomed than Matthew DePerno.
It's because she's a lesbian, no other reason. All LGBTQ people are ipso facto groomers to these nudniks
I genuinely think calling anyone a groomer or a pedophile should be sued for defamation and pay steep damages. It's a disgusting and incredibly serious accusation being smeared against queer and trans people, and they should be punished severely for saying it. They can call us assholes and hate our policies, but a felony accusation for not being cishet is evil.
why doesn't anyone sue them?
Because lawsuits are expensive and it's not worth the effort.
Political scientists and historians have observed that while the modern Republican Party became more ruthless about defeating its political enemies, breaking whatever norms were required, Democrats effectively stood in place, hoping for a return to bipartisan comity and defending the status quo that their opponents were smashing. The Democrats became the party of procedure.
By embracing a high-minded, technical style of governance, the party has diminished its ability to excite the public with ideas that tangibly affect people’s lives. Meanwhile, campaign promises that do have mass appeal — whether they are from Mr. Trump, Senator Bernie Sanders or the New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani — are often vetted and laughed out of the classroom by the party’s leaders and in-house technocrats.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/15/magazine/gerrymandering-democrats-texas.html?unlocked_article_code=1.eU8.JTlD.D0QHLkcJc3i0&smid=url-share
This is exactly why we need primaries in 2026 to clean house of most of our elected leadership. It’s up to our voters if we continue doing the same old thing based on hopium to return to a political time that will never exist again or to rip up the old playbook for a new, exciting and motivating message based on inspiration of what we could become if we elected a new generation of Democrats. Stop focusing on what’s possible now, start focusing on turning what’s impossible to possible.
The tea party of the left can’t come fast enough and I’m hoping our younger generation political talent continues stepping up to the plate to take out those who led our party to catastrophe based on old school thinking (which got us into this mess starting in 2016) by not understanding the threat and urgency needed to defeat the far right fascist party at the ballot box.
Nothing will ever be the same again, this is who we will face in every single election until they get hit so hard by voters in a landslide loss that they don’t try to get back up again with Trumpism and MAGA. A bully only stops when you punch him so hard you knock his teeth in and kick him on the ground repeatedly to make him stay down.
That is the ferocious attitude needed today from our party officials and anything less won’t win this war.
The NY Times is no longer a reliable source in political news or analysis.
What's your preference, particularly on the news part?
Here are some of my choices: Political Wire, Talking Points Memo, Heather Cox Richardson, The Contrarian (founded by Jen Rubin, who left WaPo in disgust), The Guardian, and "The World" with Marco Werman on NPR.
And for positive news: "Fix the News." Here is their latest:
https://fixthenews.com/p/307-solar-is-liberation?publication_id=4861955
C'mon now...you can't be serious with this...
Anderson Clayton, our state Democratic Party chair, mocked the polling Carolina Journal did of the Cooper vs. Whatley race -- asking on X "wonder how badly it hurt Republicans to put out this poll???" And then she did a press release about tariffs, mocking Trump's "Truth" postings like Newsom's press office did.
Love her. She's taking no prisoners.
She, Hogg, Mamdani, Garcia, AOC, Crockett and a whole host of other young Democratic leaders are showing exactly how strong we could be as a party that excites our voters to show up for us every election if only our older leaders would step aside and let the younger generation take over. They know what it takes to beat the GOP and that the failed political tactics of the past won’t do it.
There’s more young people than any older voter generation demographic in America, imagine if they all voted and how screwed Republicans would be. The time is now to inspire and fight like hell because that’s what our voters have been begging the party to do for decades.
Only one thing missing from this recipe: young Americans actually showing up to effing vote! As though their lives and future depend on it – which it does.
Yes and they don’t vote right now, so we’ve gotta try something different to get them to actually do it.
Bernie has been talking about young voters bringing real change, even revolution, since forever – and yet those young voters don’t turn up to vote, even for him and the Progressive candidates he is promoting. So, to start the examination there: What do Bernie & Co need to try that’s different?
Bernie doesn’t lead the party. The one time young voters showed up was for Obama who coincidentally (not really!) pushed a message of hope and change for a better future, INSPIRING them to turnout.
It’s not the Bernie party, they only make up a small wing of the party that doesn’t have control. This needs to be a consistent message from our party and candidates from the top of the ticket to the bottom. Then the voters will start to identify with our party and believe the Democratic Party is not the one of the Trump era anymore.
There’s a reason they’re the most popular Democrats among conservatives, young people and Trump voters, because at least they understand and constantly espouse the biggest problem in America: the rich, corporations and oligarchy trying to hold the average Joe down while accumulating even more power to enable them to continue to do so.
Trump was completely lying, but he also said he’d take on the Deep State and fight for you over them. If people believed Trump of all people would actually do that, how hard is it to imagine voters would believe Democrats if they started pushing these economic populist messages? Seems pretty easy to believe if you ask me.
I agree with everything that you’re saying. I’m well aware that Bernie isn’t the Democratic Party (heck, he’s not even a member). But I really admire Bernie Sanders for his authenticity.
My point is that the results of the efforts of Bernie and his alliance to turn out young voters to vote for Progressive candidates has been less than impressive. Which raises some doubts about the proposed formula.
Except that those conservatives and Trump voters don't VOTE for those candidates on the left. It's one thing to claim to like a candidate, it's another thing to actually vote for them. If they "like Bernie" as his acolytes claim they do, it's precisely because he is anti Democratic Party. They aren't for him, they are anti Democratic Party. This notion that if the Democratic Party were just a left populist party that we'd get the same electoral results as in the 1930s and early 1940s remains wishful thinking. Especially since we are a far more suburban and demographically diverse country now than we were in those days.
Didn't they show up only a couple percentage points more for Obama, during a near-depression? I seem to remember the figures not showing a huge groundswell of voting from the 18-25 crowd.
I like some of those guys but i need it explained to me how we're going to win over the heartland with those politicians and not just safely blue cities?
Anderson Clayton has been doing multiple rural county listening tours around North Carolina, and she usually brings several incumbent judges with her to emphasize how important down ballot races are.
Last year, SCONC justice Allison Riggs did that leading up to the 2024 election -- and for 2026, SCONC incumbent Anita Earls is doing the same. They boil the legalese down to plain understandable terms. Justice Earls frequently brings up the Leandro and gerrymandering cases that the Republican majority have either paused or completely reversed previous rulings on.
Candidates can be bold without being progressive. The unfortunate reality is that our party's internal fault lines have unnecessarily entrenched the idea that anyone that wants to be more than milquetoast needs to be a M4A/GND Sanders-acolyte. But that isn't true. Center-left democrats can be bold in trying to accomplish things, with those things simply not being at the more progressive end of the party's ideology.
Candidates like Mamdani, AOC, Crockett are great for their districts. Some of what makes them strong: clear and skilled communication, being bold on wanting to get things done, are good in any district or state.
Unfortunately I cannot really think of a non-progressive example for congress, but I'd point to a lot of dem governors for the bold-but-not-progressive description. Look at Walz for example. He's absolutely not in the progressive wing of the party: he's not going to be aligned with Sanders or Warren or AOC on ideology. But he got a lot done when MN dems had a trifecta. A byproduct of the aforementioned incorrect association between boldness and progressivism has resulted in a lot of people calling him a progressive in the wake of that, but the stuff he was bold on getting done is all rather bog standard democratic policy.
Walz has been described as both progressive and moderate. He supports M4A and has called for universal healthcare multiple times.
Short answer, we aren’t. If that were the case, there would be some states with single payer healthcare and $30 minimum wages. The fact that not even Vermont has single payer healthcare shows you how ineffective they are at policy.
I largely agree with you, except that you seem to be more impressed with Hogg than I am. I used to like him but was immediately turned off when he blamed the Democratic as well as the Republican Party for things the Republicans plus maybe Sinema and Manchin blocked. Getting people unreasonably upset at the one party that did so many things when they had the narrowest possible trifecta is not smart and no kind of good politics.
Hogg cares more about clout chasing online and unfortunately since Democrats are the sin-eaters of American politics you get clout from bashing them. It’s probably the biggest blind spot for online progs, honestly
David Hogg impressed me initially. Then he thoroughly showed the world that he wasn’t a team player – but rather a "pissing-inside-the-tent" Democrat. That was most certainly not what the DNC needed!
We need people that know how to win elections and less people who just want to win more followers on social media.
Actually winning more followers on social media DOES win more elections and that’s what the party establishment supporters refuse to understand. We need to be more online, not less!
Not just to get more followers for personal vanity.
I soured on Hogg when he made a big deal about backing primary challengers who would enact change and then backed a centrist in VA (Irene Shin) who was supported by crypto money and entered the state legislature initially by primarying a left-wing Dem (Ibraheem Samirah) from the center.
Does anyone else think the Ohio “wealthy businessman” Democrat who announced only after Brown did is a GOP plant/operative designed to force him into a bruising, resource draining primary? Or is it just me? Is there any background info on him? Because “wealthy Democratic businessman who self funds” is a very rare instance in today’s politics. There’s a reason they’re almost all Republicans and make up most of the swing state candidates for their party.
It's possible. But I did a search on the guy and didn't find any hints as to possible political biases.
https://www.odefamilycompanies.com/
https://ed-rev.org/founder-letter/
The timing just makes me extremely suspicious. Even if he says all the right things, he still could have ulterior motives to aid Republicans. I’d give him the benefit of the doubt if he filed before Brown ran, but literally 1 week later after he says he’s running? Hard not to see something smells off here.
Yeah, it was my first thought too lmao. But in a way... (trying to find a positive spin lol) it maybe gives Brown an even older oligarch foil to help prove his mettle and vigor for the fight to younger voters in the general? So long as it doesn't drain his campaign funds too much...
I had the same thought but, honestly, I doubt it really would have much impact on Brown...
“Probably not” with hesitation. He says he has self funding ability. If he can loan his campaign say 10m to use on attacking Brown, even if Brown does win, we’re pretty much screwed in OH, barring a blue tsunami. So it does matter, I just really hope my worst fears don’t actually happen. We will see.
There is already going to be tens of millions of dollars spent attacking Brown - not sure that this would really change whatever impact that does or does not have.
There are some really fascinating numbers in the latest poll from the Pew Research Center. Lots of details, for instance:
– Trump’s approval rating: 38% approve, 60% disapprove
– Hispanic approval numbers: 27% approve, 70% disapprove (Eyes on Texas!)
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/08/14/trumps-tariffs-and-one-big-beautiful-bill-face-more-opposition-than-support-as-his-job-rating-slips/
I think there’s a hard floor in the mid-30s as far as approvals go but still, that’s remarkable considering how much more Trumpified the culture is in the 2020s than eight years ago.
If we spend significant time around this level for the next year then it’s going to be a very rough 2026 for the GOP.
I’m convinced that if Democrats truly run an aggressive 50-state, 3244-county campaign, with candidates in every single (!) downballot race, then we’re in for some very pleasant surprises in 2026. Even in deep-red territory.
(The number 3,244 includes county-equivalents.)
Just gotta find candidates who are in it and eager
I guess you're being intentionally hyperbolic, as there are tiny, extremely Republican counties in West Texas that are irrelevant, Democrats can't win statewide races in Wyoming, etc.
Yeah, but not by much. As I understand it, Democrats failed to run a candidate for 1000 state legislative seats. I sincerely doubt those were all absolutely out of reach.
As for e.g. Wyoming, you rebuild the party running candidates even there – albeit candidates that are well-suited to the state. Moreover, the investment required to begin rebuilding the Democratic Party in low-population states such Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota, is a pittance! (Compare with, say, Florida.) It would be irresponsibly to not make that modest investment, and in time it may well pay dividends.
Maximizing the reach in races is the way to go, not minimizing things to just the high profile races.
Democrats have one objective - Defeat the GOP anywhere and everywhere they can, no excuses like Rahm Emanuel when he had his rift with Howard Dean back during his days as DNC Chair.
I know one or two of these SC legislators resigning was originally reported on The Downballot like yesterday or the day before that, but there are THREE special elections being held on December 23rd -- highly unusual.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/3-south-carolina-lawmakers-have-resigned-what-s-next/ar-AA1Kp5q1?ocid=BingNewsVerp
RJ May is resigning because he allegedly traffics child porn, despite being part of the religious caucus. That's been percolating for awhile. He worked for AG and Gov candidate Allen Wilson before being elected. Sen Nutt announced he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's at age 59. He thought it was long covid. Rep Cox is resigning to run for Nutt's seat. The latter two were in the comments a few days ago.
It would be incredibly stupid for the TX state reps to end the walkout... The //possibility// that California will be able to execute on fighting back against Texas? When there is a !!guarantee!! that Texas will succeed in their rigging? No. A rallying cry against unilateral disarmament ending with them... unilaterally disarming? It'll evaporate any grassroots support as a betrayal from the people who have been told (by them!) to expect them to fight. Caving early only kneecaps any voter enthusiasm and righteous anger against the Republicans, and actually becomes an added hindrance to turning out your base and the moveable middle. It is paramount above everything else that they drag this out until December and stop it from happening now. Clinging to democracy is more important that almost anything else--fines, fees, jail time, agony. It really sucks, wish it wasn't, but it is.
They were always going to return early; they returned early 20 years ago. I get it from a personal standpoint it was asking too much to be away for months to stop this. Might as well return now and let California get the ball rolling on what they're going to do.
Being arrested when they return won't keep them away from their jobs?
I don't think they'd return at this point if they thought they'd be arrested.
What they think could easily be wrong in several ways.
And there we go, what everyone expected. So why they’re returning now is baffling.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott immediately calls second special session for redistricting
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/15/texas-abbott-second-special-session-redistricting-00511787
So, will the Democrats reconsider coming back or are they fucking jellyfish?
just wondering, has there been another banned topic for discussion added to The Downballot? No comments about today's summitt in Russia...oops, I mean Alaska
Where's the campaigns and elections angle? It's not so much that everything else is banned from discussion but that this is not a general news or general discussion site.
everything trump does has an elections angle...unfortunately.
Then flesh it out, keeping in mind a downballot angle specifically.
I don't think there is much to discuss until we better understand the result of the summit.
My assumption is, like most things Trump does, it's a publicity stunt.
Valuable information. Thank you.
New Orleans Mayor Cantrell has apparently been whacked with a corruption indictment after several years of investigation, but that probably doesn’t matter big picture since she’s term limited this year
Sad to hear, though. I guess we'll all hear the details soon.
"If you're aware of more than one way to interpret calls to "DONATE" to a campaign committee, The Downballot would love to hear from you!"
Could be a missing space and it means Don Ate, or Do Nate. Makes as much sense as a lot of other GOP nonsense.