D +15 on a generic congressional ballot of 28 swing districts after being told of ACA premium increases.
This is a Republican poll and a great sign. I’m surprised that they are specifically polling the political effects of the impending ACA premium increase as there are so many issues they could choose. I guess this is what scares them the most. Also, why conduct the poll now, AFTER they passed the budget monstrosity? I’d poll beforehand but I suppose they want to know how screwed they are regardless.
These arrogant bastards all believed Mitch McConnell ("seen here watching an orphanage burn down on Christmas Eve") when he said that voters would forget it by fall 2026—and to be fair, there's plenty of precedent for believing that.
The idea that the effects wouldn't be felt until after the midterm was always total fantasy pundit-brained babble, though. (The sticker shock and cancellation notices will start hitting well before.)
It's up to our candidates and our advertising to keep voters from forgetting it when fall 2026 arrives. And informing voters who aren't presently paying attention.
Great news. My swing district is represented by Juan Ciscomani, a trump toadie. In this district 158K are on Medicaid, and 32K receive subsidies for the ACA. Almost 30K people receive SNAP benefits in AZ CD-06, and of those 17K are at risk of losing some amount for SNAP. Ciscomani threw his most ardent supporters under the bus, not to mention that he's an immigrant who has pulled up the ladder behind him.
To me, the key import of this R poll is the straight generic question, asked before voters are told about the tax credit. When asked the standard generic question, among all RVs in these 28 districts, Dems lead by 3. Among most motivated voters, Dems lead by 7.
And the choice of districts seems sound: "The 28 Congressional Districts surveyed include fifteen where the Republican won in 2024 by a margin of 5% or less and thirteen won by both the Democrat and President Trump. In aggregate, the Congressional vote was tied and President Trump won these districts by 4 points. It will be these districts that decide control of the House after the midterm election."
It was D +3 with all voters and D +7 with “motivated” voters before any issues were mentioned. That is still encouraging but shows that we really need a clear message and narrative if we want a landslide midterm.
The tariffs are kicking in according to latest economic reports. I hope that Trump doesn't turbocharge it on August 1, we have to live here, after all.
Assuming I’m reading Wikipedia correctly that gives us the following list of R-held seats with Trump24 margin in brackets:
AK-AL (13.14)
AZ-01 (3.11)
AZ-06 (0.75)
CA-41 (5.93)
CO-03 (9.73)
CO-08 (1.83)
IA-01 (8.47)
IA-03 (4.41)
MI-07 (1.28)
NE-02 (-4.62)
PA-07 (3.20)
PA-08 (8.50)
PA-10 (5.23)
VA-02 (0.25)
WI-03 (7.40)
I wish we had access to the crosstabs of just the above 15 seats, but the fact that they’re such a good mix of suburban and rural; diverse and more WWC - is a great sign that gains next year might not have as low of a ceiling as I initially suspected
It’s subjective entirely. What you find positive, others find negative. Welcome to politics. Deja Foxx supporters believe Grijalva’s name is a negative, believe her endorsements are a negative, believe her experience is a negative. That’s not me btw, but that’s their POV.
It is odd that any progressive voter would consider progressive views, effective government experience, and the support of leading progressives to be a liability.
A lot of progressive voters resent any kind of political establishment, even a progressive political establishment, and, for some of them, this matters more than actual progressive ideology.
It's not odd to be skeptical of someone who has been the child of a politician her whole life and has been basically just following in his footsteps. It's not disqualifying, but it is worth questioning what she brings to the table in terms of her life experience. I certainly can't relate.
NOT looking to open can of worms here or venture into forbidden territory but I suspect there's some I/P portion of this too. Grijalva has a well known position on the issue, but Foxx has been relatively mum, allowing voters to project their desired view point onto her.
"Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo (I) is preparing an audacious run for New York City mayor as an independent and is determined to go after Democratic nominee Zohan Mamdani (D) in a way he did not in the primary, New York Magazine reports."
Sidenote: What an easy opportunity for "establishment" Dems to send a message to centrists AND leftists that ditching the party post-primary will not be tolerated.
It's too late. From what I can tell, Mamdani has kept his powder dry too, Cuomo has way more baggage, and Mamdani is the frontrunner at this point. Good luck with that Andy.
A sprawling coalition of law enforcement unions will endorse Eric Adams’ campaign this week — in what is a major win in the early days of his independent re-election bid.
The newly formed slate dubbed NYC Uniformed Forces Coalition 2025 includes nearly all the city police, corrections and sanitation unions.
…and warmly supporting Trump, whose insurrectionist mob caused injury and deaths to police officers on January 6th. Moreover, to add insult to injury, Trump pardoned the convicted violent criminals. But still the police unions support him!
Since it’s the eve of the primary in AZ07, here’s a multi-decade in the district political observer’s long take that’s worth your time reading in full, with a teaser first few paragraphs.
Everything I've ever learned about Southern Arizona politics tells me Adelita Grijalva will replace her father in Congress. She's going to win her five-way primary by double digits.
Nothing I've seen in 30 years watching elections down here tells me a candidate like Deja Foxx has a chance. She's going to lose by 30 because Democrats prefer to play it safe.
Something strange has happened, though. People have come up to me and said the exact same thing: "I like Deja Foxx. She's a breath of fresh air."
I never hear something like that; all these folks are using the same words. No, they don't know each other. They aren't democratic socialists. They just think the Democratic Party's way of doing things is failing to meet the moment.
I'm not an endorser. In fact, I'm willing to make both sides mad at me because we should understand what the primary election could mean. A Foxx win would be a cannon blast out over the political landscape telling hungry, scrappy newcomers that it's time to rally.
everything I'm hearing on the ground is that Adelita will win and it's not going to be super close. The youth vote hasn't shown up in early voting (and 95 percent of this district votes early). Rather, the so called buzz around Foxx has been generated by David Hogg and media craving drama in a sleepy race.
I think this Hillary campaign veteran is making a lot of assumptions, but if he ends up right and Adelita wins I’ll be very happy. Both her and Foxx would vote identically, so as long as 1 of the 2 comes out on top, it’s a good day.
One thing I do want to push back on though: you’re believing everything someone has written without any evidence and dripping with bias. Let’s break it down factually:
Why did he choose when she was in NYC as a place to talk about how her campaign is being run? Why not when she was in the district instead? Wouldn’t that be more accurate? I’m sure there were plenty of opportunities to see her there.
What evidence does he have that Foxx knocked on no doors and doesn’t have volunteers canvassing? He says they don’t, but anyone can say anything right? What’s the proof? How come he doesn’t post how many doors Grijalva knocked to give context?
The one thing I will give him credit on being right for is Foxx not talking about the issues very much. She’s not focusing on affordability like Mamdani did and if she falls short, that will be a big reason why. But policy has never driven a majority of voters, they don’t think like us hyper aware, always follow politics people here.
He’s not a campaign operative, he doesn’t have access to the data he says is real and to trust him on it. In fact, I’d go as far as saying he’s exactly what Deja Foxx is: a political influencer trying to convince you that their argument is right. Which is the peak of irony that he’s attacking a person for doing exactly what he’s doing: no substance, no evidence, no policy, just attacks and rhetoric.
Excellent comment. People believing what they want to believe is a huge problem in our politics. Fighting against that instinct is foundational to this site's mission.
yeah, I'll admit to confirmation bias. My intel was that this was a fairly sleepy race, Foxx wasn't distinguishing herself on issues and just arguing for generational change, Adelita herself was genuinely progressive and her establishment credentials were tied to her progressive creedentials, the youth weren't turning out/ the college students had all gone home for the summer, etc. And I was cranky about bad faith arguments made by a (what seems to be a Foxx-affiliated) SuperPAC. So this piece comes along and says what I am thinking and it's easier to link to it than to summarize the bits and pieces of intel floating my way.
This isn't inherently a negative but I personally rather dislike when someone's political career relies in no small part on their last name. Family members succeeding each other in office doesn't sit well with me. That's a major distinction between the two, at least for my purposes.
I know many people don't care, and voters generally implicitly disagree with me, at least based on their voting behavior.
This was why I was skeptical of Liz Whitmer in NY-17. I felt she was a blatant nepotism case, particularly since her other elected experience was “school board member”, and I remember people here celebrating her and how great she supposedly was while at the same time expressing skepticism of Susheela Jayapal for nepotism. (For the record, Maxine Dexter has been great and I am happy she won.) I even knew someone locally telling me she was great who couldn’t explain why. Nepotism is something I oppose, even though I do support Adelita (primarily because I’m worried about Hernandez Jr winning due to a split ticket.)
I don't mind when candidates run on their last name or family achievements so long as they have some of their own achievements to offer. Public service often "runs in the family" so scions of prominent families often do, but expecting to win based just on what their father, mother, siblings, or other relatives did sometimes smacks of entitlement or unfairness similar to "legacy admissions".
However, I don't think that such connections should be inherently dismissed or regarded as negative, just as I don't support automatically voting for younger or outsider candidates "just because".
I understand your point, but as someone who watched Justin Trudeau bring the Liberal Party of Canada back from the brink, I think in some cases a family name can be the greatest asset of all.
Very little, if anything, from an ideological standpoint: both are to the left of the median House Democrat ideologically. From a political style, background, age, and experience standpoint, a lot:
- Foxx has a social media influencer mindset to politics, for lack of a better term. Grijalva's approach to campaigning is much more conventional.
- Grijalva has lived much of her adulthood as the daughter of a Member of Congress. Foxx was homeless at one point in her life. Huge privilege gap between the two.
- Grijalva is of Mexican ancestry; Foxx is of Filipino ancestry.
- Foxx would be the first Member of Congress born in the 21st century if nominated and elected; Grijalva is a Gen-Xer.
- This is Foxx's first campaign for elected office of any kind; Grijalva was a county legislator.
A lot of the hate Ken Martin’s getting from some Democrats and the media feels unnecessary. At least give the guy a chance to settle into the job before coming after him!
The perpetually online leftists and "protest voters" because they didn't get their golden boy Ben Wikler. I like to correct them by pointing out Martin mentored Wikler and 95% of his winning strategies are what Martin is pushing now.
Yeah. People should actually wait for the races this year and the 2026 midterms before criticizing Martin. The guy revitalized the MN DFL's fortunes back in 2010 and kept it a reliably blue state on the federal level.
Not sure I agree with this. I am decidedly NOT a "perpetually online leftist" or "protest voter" - I'm about as conventional a D as you can find, and I was all in on Wikler. I'm fine with Martin, but Wikler's support wasn't confined to the far left corners of the web.
Crenshaw already has a credible primary challenger in mortgage lender Jon Bonck, so this primary could get interesting. Toth is way more high profile though, and I could easily see Bonck move to TX-38 should Hunt jump into the Senate race.
NEWS: PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP told Texas Republicans on a call this morning that the GOP will seek to get 5 new red seats in the mid-decade redistricting effort in Texas.
Big change in Texas that will have massive impact on the 2026 midterms.
I mean, what could Trump do to make that happen that TX Republicans don't already have in their own capacity? These guys redraw lines like every other election cycle, they're professionals.
First, we need to implement judicial reform. The way the 6-3 MAGA SCOTUS majority is giving FDJT these procedural wins need to be slapped down by Congress. Expand the court to 13 justices, implement 15 to 20-year term limits, and limit presidential SCOTUS appointments to 2 per term.
And make it easier to remove rogue federal justices like Kaczmaryk, Rao or Cannon for cause abusing their power via judge shopping.
Tipped, but I think some of these aims might not be possible. Judges can be removed through the impeachment process, and if you want to make that easier, a constitutional amendment would be required. I strongly believe that would also be required for term limits for federal judges.
I don't think you can even get to 5 without nuking VRA seats that even this SCOTUS wouldn't abide. Regardless, getting rid of Fletcher's seat alone would be a huge risk because the surrounding seats are not that red.
This all begs the question of what the fuck were California Democrats thinking in 2010 when allowing the nonpartisan commission to pass. I'm so tired of how asleep at the wheel are leaders have been.
Tx-08 is very far north from 7 and they probably need it to combine 18 and Sylvia's seat into one Hispanic VRA seat and produce another Republican seat out of it. There's not enough Republican votes in 8 to make 7 and 18 lean red without severely endangering one of Crenshaw and Nehls.
I doubt they actually would follow through, but Gavin Newsome and state legislative Democrats say they will find a way to redraw the maps if Texas does as well. That could more than offset any seat losses in Texas (and Ohio for that matter) if they actually pull the trigger.
Newsom's bluffing, he can't do shit. He will probably need to put an amendment on the 2026 California ballot with biased wording that would allow Democrats to gerrymander the federal districts.
I'm upset at the thought. We presently have a fair system of reapportionment that should be a model for the nation. I would be angry if it were undermined.
These "fair systems" are screwing dems while republicans screw the country with their SCOTUS approved gerrymanders. If the public doesn't care why should we?
Does California have legislature initiated amendments?
If no, I don't think it's possible even if it might be legally doable. The timeline to gather signatures, certify the signatures, certify the language, and make it through all the other legal obstacles is too tight. Realistically we're probably already after a deadline, too.
No, that's why you have to go to the voters again to change it. I suppose it's possible if it become a partisan anti-Trump campaign otherwise i don't see voters overturning it.
Redistricting commissions are straight-up unilateral disarmament and drive me insane. Think about if we could gerrymander WA and CA (plus we could have done MI before 2024 as well), not to mention NY....
When the redistricting commission passed in Michigan, it wasn’t unilateral disarmament, it was what gave us an even playing field that allowed us to flip the state legislature in the first place.
The CDP opposed the redistricting commission initiative in 2010, but lost that election. The commission was pushed by Gov. Ahhnold and Lt Gov Abel Maldonado, both Repubs.
Now you would need another vote of the CA people to overturn the ballot measure. The earliest it could be on the ballot is Nov. 2026 unless a special election is called. Short version: a long shot at best...
I think that's a terrible idea. House Democrats should be making noises now, asking questions, and pushing the issue, but ultimately this is a RW civil war that will fizzle out before the midterms and we should focus on other things.
Exactly. House Democrats should be making noises now to roil the controversy, but nobody should be planning on running their 2026 campaign on this issue. If it happens to still be relevant a year from now, that changes the equation, but I seriously doubt this controversy has legs.
"González-Rojas’ base of support goes well beyond the DSA. Queens Borough President Donovan Richards said that he would back her primary challenge against Ramos “on day one,” and she can also likely count on an endorsement from Assembly Member Catalina Cruz, whose district overlaps with Ramos’ state Senate district."
I'm curious how her district voted? If she was based in the bronx i could understand considering that was his best area but i understand she's in queens.
Does it matter? Ramos exposed herself as an unprincipled, opportunistic, power-hungry sellout when she endorsed Cuomo. I don't see how she stands a chance against a credible opponent like a sitting Assemblywoman.
Unfortunately, McMorrow and El-Sayed need to raise a lot more if they want to be competitive in the face of AIPAC which has stated that it will spend millions for Stevens in this primary.
Maybe it’s just Mamdani’s win still percolating in my brain, but I don’t think money means much in politics anymore. It’s great to raise more and generate earned media coverage, but we’ve had not 1, but 2 presidential elections out of the last 3 where the winning candidate didn’t raise the most money. We just saw the New York Mayoral Primary also have money not be a factor despite a massive amount spent on attack ads.
We can’t force a voter to vote for someone because the candidate raised the most and saturated markets with tv and digital ads. If a voter is not open to the candidate (for whatever reason), no amount of money can change things. Look how many incumbent Democrats in the Senate lost red and purple states despite raising the most against their Republican opponents since after Trump was elected.
Personally, I think McMorrow is positioning herself exactly where a majority of Democrats are. Not quite as progressive as El-Sayed, but not quite as moderate as Haley Stevens. We’ll see!
And you can use it to give a hand-picked, virtually unknown but competent candidate a fighting chance in the primary—someone who otherwise would never win.
Agreed and rec'd, but I think there's a point of diminishing returns or saturation—and perhaps even backlash. Naturally, no one can really know when that's been reached. But I don’t buy any argument that XYZ candidate will automatically lose because ABC opponent, using DEF lobby's money, will drench the airwaves.
I don't agree with your last sentence. Internal polls can be accurate or inaccurate.
The poll was modelled with the assumption of a high youth turnout.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000198-0adb-d1ba-a7ba-fbfb3de90000
D +15 on a generic congressional ballot of 28 swing districts after being told of ACA premium increases.
This is a Republican poll and a great sign. I’m surprised that they are specifically polling the political effects of the impending ACA premium increase as there are so many issues they could choose. I guess this is what scares them the most. Also, why conduct the poll now, AFTER they passed the budget monstrosity? I’d poll beforehand but I suppose they want to know how screwed they are regardless.
These arrogant bastards all believed Mitch McConnell ("seen here watching an orphanage burn down on Christmas Eve") when he said that voters would forget it by fall 2026—and to be fair, there's plenty of precedent for believing that.
The idea that the effects wouldn't be felt until after the midterm was always total fantasy pundit-brained babble, though. (The sticker shock and cancellation notices will start hitting well before.)
It's up to our candidates and our advertising to keep voters from forgetting it when fall 2026 arrives. And informing voters who aren't presently paying attention.
Considering the pains from our delayed rollout of the ACA, they might have made things worse for themselves with their own intentional delays.
Now it stays in the news cycle for longer. People see more of it and will get more pissed off or be more likely to hear of it in the first place.
Great news. My swing district is represented by Juan Ciscomani, a trump toadie. In this district 158K are on Medicaid, and 32K receive subsidies for the ACA. Almost 30K people receive SNAP benefits in AZ CD-06, and of those 17K are at risk of losing some amount for SNAP. Ciscomani threw his most ardent supporters under the bus, not to mention that he's an immigrant who has pulled up the ladder behind him.
To me, the key import of this R poll is the straight generic question, asked before voters are told about the tax credit. When asked the standard generic question, among all RVs in these 28 districts, Dems lead by 3. Among most motivated voters, Dems lead by 7.
And the choice of districts seems sound: "The 28 Congressional Districts surveyed include fifteen where the Republican won in 2024 by a margin of 5% or less and thirteen won by both the Democrat and President Trump. In aggregate, the Congressional vote was tied and President Trump won these districts by 4 points. It will be these districts that decide control of the House after the midterm election."
Informed ballot polls shouldn't really be taken so seriously.
It was D +3 with all voters and D +7 with “motivated” voters before any issues were mentioned. That is still encouraging but shows that we really need a clear message and narrative if we want a landslide midterm.
Why not a Democratic "Contract with America"? New Dems and Progs could work something out.
ACA premium increases kick in at the end of the year, the Medicaid cuts don't come into effect until after the midterms.
The tariffs are kicking in according to latest economic reports. I hope that Trump doesn't turbocharge it on August 1, we have to live here, after all.
Trump turbocharging it would be extremely helpful for us politically. Voters back Dems when Republicans screw the economy up.
It will be very bad for the working class. Tariffs are one of the most regressive taxes.
Sure. To echo Patt, Republicans are always bad for the working class.
And yet, perhaps masochistically, a huge swathe of the working class votes for Trump and MAGA Republicans. Absolutely amazing!
Which is every time there is a Republican president.
And then right back to Republicans /facepalm
Assuming I’m reading Wikipedia correctly that gives us the following list of R-held seats with Trump24 margin in brackets:
AK-AL (13.14)
AZ-01 (3.11)
AZ-06 (0.75)
CA-41 (5.93)
CO-03 (9.73)
CO-08 (1.83)
IA-01 (8.47)
IA-03 (4.41)
MI-07 (1.28)
NE-02 (-4.62)
PA-07 (3.20)
PA-08 (8.50)
PA-10 (5.23)
VA-02 (0.25)
WI-03 (7.40)
I wish we had access to the crosstabs of just the above 15 seats, but the fact that they’re such a good mix of suburban and rural; diverse and more WWC - is a great sign that gains next year might not have as low of a ceiling as I initially suspected
May Democratic voters firmly reject Jessie Jackson Jr and Cuomo.
Hopefully we can continue to get House segments as long as today’s.
Probably not. But I think Deja Foxx has a bright political future.
But what is there negative about Grijalva that she is claiming?
It’s subjective entirely. What you find positive, others find negative. Welcome to politics. Deja Foxx supporters believe Grijalva’s name is a negative, believe her endorsements are a negative, believe her experience is a negative. That’s not me btw, but that’s their POV.
It is odd that any progressive voter would consider progressive views, effective government experience, and the support of leading progressives to be a liability.
A lot of progressive voters resent any kind of political establishment, even a progressive political establishment, and, for some of them, this matters more than actual progressive ideology.
They are not really progressives if they oppose candidates with the experience and ambition to advance progressive values.
I don't know how reasonable a position that is. They presumably think Foxx, as a young person, will be more effective in the long run.
They resent Bernie Sanders?
Well, I both appreciate and resent Bernie Sanders. Why? Because he gets very little done! Whereas Senator Elizabeth Warren does.
It's not odd to be skeptical of someone who has been the child of a politician her whole life and has been basically just following in his footsteps. It's not disqualifying, but it is worth questioning what she brings to the table in terms of her life experience. I certainly can't relate.
I think this is the complaint of Foxx's supporters. They don't like the notion of legacy candidates.
No one should be supported merely because of family ties. But no one should be opposed merely because of family ties.
It was in the beginning, but doesn't she have enough of a record to consider that on its own?
NOT looking to open can of worms here or venture into forbidden territory but I suspect there's some I/P portion of this too. Grijalva has a well known position on the issue, but Foxx has been relatively mum, allowing voters to project their desired view point onto her.
What is Grijalva's position? AIPAC or J Street or neither?
Not sure but I know DMFI (Democratic Majority for Israel, basically AIPAC for Democrats only) is backing Hernandez Jr., the one I don't want to win.
He won't. The race has been called for Grijalva.
Good. I was worried about him.
Do you still think so after the election results? I'm not as sure now.
Grijalva was a shoe in. Her father was highly esteemed, and she's been on major public boards for many years.
(FYI, the expression is shoo in, nothing about shoes.)
Thx. Good to know. I always thought of it as getting a shoe in a door.
Cuomo Says He’ll Be Aggressive This Time
https://politicalwire.com/2025/07/15/cuomo-says-hell-be-aggressive-this-time/
"Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo (I) is preparing an audacious run for New York City mayor as an independent and is determined to go after Democratic nominee Zohan Mamdani (D) in a way he did not in the primary, New York Magazine reports."
Methinks Andrew Cuomo is confusing "being offensive" with "being aggressive".
Cuomo? Being aggressive? Wouldn't be the first time
Game on you creepy washed up silver spoon sex pest.
Sidenote: What an easy opportunity for "establishment" Dems to send a message to centrists AND leftists that ditching the party post-primary will not be tolerated.
It's too late. From what I can tell, Mamdani has kept his powder dry too, Cuomo has way more baggage, and Mamdani is the frontrunner at this point. Good luck with that Andy.
Empty threat. He already lost, and there isn't any substantive new argument he's likely to be able to give.
Good news for Mamdani!
A sprawling coalition of law enforcement unions will endorse Eric Adams’ campaign this week — in what is a major win in the early days of his independent re-election bid.
The newly formed slate dubbed NYC Uniformed Forces Coalition 2025 includes nearly all the city police, corrections and sanitation unions.
https://politicalwire.com/2025/07/15/eric-adams-lands-massive-endorsements/
Why is this good news for Mamdani? Because with neither Andrew Cuomo or Eric Adams backing down, they are going to split the non-Mamdani vote.
The irony of law enforcement unions lining up behind a known criminal.
…and warmly supporting Trump, whose insurrectionist mob caused injury and deaths to police officers on January 6th. Moreover, to add insult to injury, Trump pardoned the convicted violent criminals. But still the police unions support him!
He's one of their own.
“He’s our criminal”
Since it’s the eve of the primary in AZ07, here’s a multi-decade in the district political observer’s long take that’s worth your time reading in full, with a teaser first few paragraphs.
https://www.tucsonsentinel.com/opinion/report/071025_cd7_preview_op/hungry-foxx-arizonas-cd-7-race-will-turn-whether-dems-are-starving-change/
Everything I've ever learned about Southern Arizona politics tells me Adelita Grijalva will replace her father in Congress. She's going to win her five-way primary by double digits.
Nothing I've seen in 30 years watching elections down here tells me a candidate like Deja Foxx has a chance. She's going to lose by 30 because Democrats prefer to play it safe.
Something strange has happened, though. People have come up to me and said the exact same thing: "I like Deja Foxx. She's a breath of fresh air."
I never hear something like that; all these folks are using the same words. No, they don't know each other. They aren't democratic socialists. They just think the Democratic Party's way of doing things is failing to meet the moment.
I'm not an endorser. In fact, I'm willing to make both sides mad at me because we should understand what the primary election could mean. A Foxx win would be a cannon blast out over the political landscape telling hungry, scrappy newcomers that it's time to rally.
everything I'm hearing on the ground is that Adelita will win and it's not going to be super close. The youth vote hasn't shown up in early voting (and 95 percent of this district votes early). Rather, the so called buzz around Foxx has been generated by David Hogg and media craving drama in a sleepy race.
Disclaimer: my group, Climate Hawks Vote, has endorsed and fundraised for Adelita. This piece exposes the emptiness of the Foxx campaign: https://kaivanshroff.substack.com/p/deja-foxxs-campaign-exposes-the-emptiness
I think this Hillary campaign veteran is making a lot of assumptions, but if he ends up right and Adelita wins I’ll be very happy. Both her and Foxx would vote identically, so as long as 1 of the 2 comes out on top, it’s a good day.
One thing I do want to push back on though: you’re believing everything someone has written without any evidence and dripping with bias. Let’s break it down factually:
Why did he choose when she was in NYC as a place to talk about how her campaign is being run? Why not when she was in the district instead? Wouldn’t that be more accurate? I’m sure there were plenty of opportunities to see her there.
What evidence does he have that Foxx knocked on no doors and doesn’t have volunteers canvassing? He says they don’t, but anyone can say anything right? What’s the proof? How come he doesn’t post how many doors Grijalva knocked to give context?
The one thing I will give him credit on being right for is Foxx not talking about the issues very much. She’s not focusing on affordability like Mamdani did and if she falls short, that will be a big reason why. But policy has never driven a majority of voters, they don’t think like us hyper aware, always follow politics people here.
He’s not a campaign operative, he doesn’t have access to the data he says is real and to trust him on it. In fact, I’d go as far as saying he’s exactly what Deja Foxx is: a political influencer trying to convince you that their argument is right. Which is the peak of irony that he’s attacking a person for doing exactly what he’s doing: no substance, no evidence, no policy, just attacks and rhetoric.
Excellent comment. People believing what they want to believe is a huge problem in our politics. Fighting against that instinct is foundational to this site's mission.
yeah, I'll admit to confirmation bias. My intel was that this was a fairly sleepy race, Foxx wasn't distinguishing herself on issues and just arguing for generational change, Adelita herself was genuinely progressive and her establishment credentials were tied to her progressive creedentials, the youth weren't turning out/ the college students had all gone home for the summer, etc. And I was cranky about bad faith arguments made by a (what seems to be a Foxx-affiliated) SuperPAC. So this piece comes along and says what I am thinking and it's easier to link to it than to summarize the bits and pieces of intel floating my way.
What, other than age and experience, separates Grijalva and Foxx?
The only other difference is probably social media usage and/or online follower size.
This isn't inherently a negative but I personally rather dislike when someone's political career relies in no small part on their last name. Family members succeeding each other in office doesn't sit well with me. That's a major distinction between the two, at least for my purposes.
I know many people don't care, and voters generally implicitly disagree with me, at least based on their voting behavior.
Robert M. La Follette Sr. and Robert M. La Follette Jr.
This was why I was skeptical of Liz Whitmer in NY-17. I felt she was a blatant nepotism case, particularly since her other elected experience was “school board member”, and I remember people here celebrating her and how great she supposedly was while at the same time expressing skepticism of Susheela Jayapal for nepotism. (For the record, Maxine Dexter has been great and I am happy she won.) I even knew someone locally telling me she was great who couldn’t explain why. Nepotism is something I oppose, even though I do support Adelita (primarily because I’m worried about Hernandez Jr winning due to a split ticket.)
I don't mind when candidates run on their last name or family achievements so long as they have some of their own achievements to offer. Public service often "runs in the family" so scions of prominent families often do, but expecting to win based just on what their father, mother, siblings, or other relatives did sometimes smacks of entitlement or unfairness similar to "legacy admissions".
However, I don't think that such connections should be inherently dismissed or regarded as negative, just as I don't support automatically voting for younger or outsider candidates "just because".
I agree. If public service is the family trade, not corruptly trading on one's name, it can be good.
I understand your point, but as someone who watched Justin Trudeau bring the Liberal Party of Canada back from the brink, I think in some cases a family name can be the greatest asset of all.
Last name
Very little, if anything, from an ideological standpoint: both are to the left of the median House Democrat ideologically. From a political style, background, age, and experience standpoint, a lot:
- Foxx has a social media influencer mindset to politics, for lack of a better term. Grijalva's approach to campaigning is much more conventional.
- Grijalva has lived much of her adulthood as the daughter of a Member of Congress. Foxx was homeless at one point in her life. Huge privilege gap between the two.
- Grijalva is of Mexican ancestry; Foxx is of Filipino ancestry.
- Foxx would be the first Member of Congress born in the 21st century if nominated and elected; Grijalva is a Gen-Xer.
- This is Foxx's first campaign for elected office of any kind; Grijalva was a county legislator.
My guess is Adelita by high single digits but an upset wouldn’t shock me.
If she wins, Deja Foxx will certainly be much, much better than Virginia Foxx!
Hogg's organization's involvement in the Grijalva-Foxx race is the reason he had to resign as Vice Chair of the DNC.
Even when he was the chair of the Minnesota DFL, Ken Martin liked his leadership to remain neutral on primaries, unless there was a party endorsement.
A lot of the hate Ken Martin’s getting from some Democrats and the media feels unnecessary. At least give the guy a chance to settle into the job before coming after him!
He's getting a lot of hate? From whom?
The perpetually online leftists and "protest voters" because they didn't get their golden boy Ben Wikler. I like to correct them by pointing out Martin mentored Wikler and 95% of his winning strategies are what Martin is pushing now.
So probably no-one really important.
Yeah. People should actually wait for the races this year and the 2026 midterms before criticizing Martin. The guy revitalized the MN DFL's fortunes back in 2010 and kept it a reliably blue state on the federal level.
Not sure I agree with this. I am decidedly NOT a "perpetually online leftist" or "protest voter" - I'm about as conventional a D as you can find, and I was all in on Wikler. I'm fine with Martin, but Wikler's support wasn't confined to the far left corners of the web.
That's different from hating Martin. I was hoping for Wikler, too, but I'm fine with Martin.
I haven’t heard Martin once sound like a leader but a lot of the role is being a figurehead and it’s at the bottom of the list of concerns
Rep. Dan Crenshaw has a solid record of supporting MAGA in the Texas 2nd Congressional District, except for speaking out against election deniers. He is now being challenged in the Republican primary by one of the most extreme members of the state house, Steve Toth. https://www.texastribune.org/2025/07/15/steve-toth-dan-crenshaw-texas-republican-primary-congress/
I bet he only halfway saw this coming......i'll see myself out.
Crenshaw already has a credible primary challenger in mortgage lender Jon Bonck, so this primary could get interesting. Toth is way more high profile though, and I could easily see Bonck move to TX-38 should Hunt jump into the Senate race.
Attack ads from Deja Foxx, that's very politics as usual. Run on your ideas, it worked for Mamdani.
NEWS: PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP told Texas Republicans on a call this morning that the GOP will seek to get 5 new red seats in the mid-decade redistricting effort in Texas.
Big change in Texas that will have massive impact on the 2026 midterms.
First on
@PunchbowlNews
text platform.
@MicaSoellnerDC
@allymutnick
and me.
https://x.com/JakeSherman/status/1945142593945227328
I mean, what could Trump do to make that happen that TX Republicans don't already have in their own capacity? These guys redraw lines like every other election cycle, they're professionals.
Dems seriously need to be ready to blow up the filibuster to pass a federal law banning this shit if they get a trifecta in 2029.
And DC/PR statehood
First, we need to implement judicial reform. The way the 6-3 MAGA SCOTUS majority is giving FDJT these procedural wins need to be slapped down by Congress. Expand the court to 13 justices, implement 15 to 20-year term limits, and limit presidential SCOTUS appointments to 2 per term.
And make it easier to remove rogue federal justices like Kaczmaryk, Rao or Cannon for cause abusing their power via judge shopping.
Tipped, but I think some of these aims might not be possible. Judges can be removed through the impeachment process, and if you want to make that easier, a constitutional amendment would be required. I strongly believe that would also be required for term limits for federal judges.
I don't think you can even get to 5 without nuking VRA seats that even this SCOTUS wouldn't abide. Regardless, getting rid of Fletcher's seat alone would be a huge risk because the surrounding seats are not that red.
This all begs the question of what the fuck were California Democrats thinking in 2010 when allowing the nonpartisan commission to pass. I'm so tired of how asleep at the wheel are leaders have been.
TX-08 is Trump+37, so having it take the hit rather than 22 or 38 could allow 7 to be turned into a swing seat.
Tx-08 is very far north from 7 and they probably need it to combine 18 and Sylvia's seat into one Hispanic VRA seat and produce another Republican seat out of it. There's not enough Republican votes in 8 to make 7 and 18 lean red without severely endangering one of Crenshaw and Nehls.
It's actually possible. Check out this map:
https://davesredistricting.org/join/d6737a59-18e2-4bd2-a44c-a15dc6aac8ec
How many seats could Dems theoretically flip if we win a similar percentage of Texas Latinos and Asians to that of Biden 2020.
Probably only TX-15 at best. Trump won every other R-held seat on here comfortably in 2020.
I doubt they actually would follow through, but Gavin Newsome and state legislative Democrats say they will find a way to redraw the maps if Texas does as well. That could more than offset any seat losses in Texas (and Ohio for that matter) if they actually pull the trigger.
Newsom's bluffing, he can't do shit. He will probably need to put an amendment on the 2026 California ballot with biased wording that would allow Democrats to gerrymander the federal districts.
Yes that would be the plan, you sound upset at the mere thought.
No, I am not upset.
I'm upset at the thought. We presently have a fair system of reapportionment that should be a model for the nation. I would be angry if it were undermined.
These "fair systems" are screwing dems while republicans screw the country with their SCOTUS approved gerrymanders. If the public doesn't care why should we?
Do you know what really undermines the country, its people and everyone's safety? Having fascists control everything!
Is there time to put an amendment on this November?
Does California have legislature initiated amendments?
If no, I don't think it's possible even if it might be legally doable. The timeline to gather signatures, certify the signatures, certify the language, and make it through all the other legal obstacles is too tight. Realistically we're probably already after a deadline, too.
Yes, the legislature can initiate it.
Why "biased" - just straight up repeal the commission....
I mean the description of the ballot measure needs to be misleading so that voters pass it.
Why so? You don't think a straight up ballot measure with an ad campaign about putting the brakes on the MAGA agenda would do it?
And someone with money has to advertise against it -- don't assume Fuck Trump is a winning message with these types of things on their own.
Or just do it, let someone sue, and hope the Dem justices on the state court uphold it.
The obvious retort is they have commission redistricting there in CA, so is there some kind of contingency in theory to circumvent that?
No, that's why you have to go to the voters again to change it. I suppose it's possible if it become a partisan anti-Trump campaign otherwise i don't see voters overturning it.
They could have the A-G make a legal declaration against the commission and take it to court to destroy it as usurping legislative powers.
Redistricting commissions are straight-up unilateral disarmament and drive me insane. Think about if we could gerrymander WA and CA (plus we could have done MI before 2024 as well), not to mention NY....
When the redistricting commission passed in Michigan, it wasn’t unilateral disarmament, it was what gave us an even playing field that allowed us to flip the state legislature in the first place.
Yeah, good point
Colorado as well.
I mean, NY Democrats gerrymandered my incumbent Republican Congressman Brandon Williams out of office in 2024 even though we have a commission.
Yes, but they could do so much more without a commission.
The CDP opposed the redistricting commission initiative in 2010, but lost that election. The commission was pushed by Gov. Ahhnold and Lt Gov Abel Maldonado, both Repubs.
Now you would need another vote of the CA people to overturn the ballot measure. The earliest it could be on the ballot is Nov. 2026 unless a special election is called. Short version: a long shot at best...
House Democrats should be running promising to hold Epstein hearings.
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1945193499923558576
I think that's a terrible idea. House Democrats should be making noises now, asking questions, and pushing the issue, but ultimately this is a RW civil war that will fizzle out before the midterms and we should focus on other things.
I’d rather the Epstein fiasco continue to blow up in the GOP’s face so it can sink the whole party without the Democratic Party’s involvement.
Exactly. House Democrats should be making noises now to roil the controversy, but nobody should be planning on running their 2026 campaign on this issue. If it happens to still be relevant a year from now, that changes the equation, but I seriously doubt this controversy has legs.
Plus, nothing will reunite the various MAGA factions faster than Democrats getting too involved in the issue.
Let them go after themselves.
Fallout from the Cuomo endorsement obviously.
https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2025/07/gonzalez-rojas-files-run-against-ramos/406732/
This seems like a powerful challenge!
"González-Rojas’ base of support goes well beyond the DSA. Queens Borough President Donovan Richards said that he would back her primary challenge against Ramos “on day one,” and she can also likely count on an endorsement from Assembly Member Catalina Cruz, whose district overlaps with Ramos’ state Senate district."
Wow! Huge endorsements!
I'm curious how her district voted? If she was based in the bronx i could understand considering that was his best area but i understand she's in queens.
Does it matter? Ramos exposed herself as an unprincipled, opportunistic, power-hungry sellout when she endorsed Cuomo. I don't see how she stands a chance against a credible opponent like a sitting Assemblywoman.
MI-Sen: McMorrow leads the field in fundraising.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/congressional/3471422/mike-rogers-raises-million-bid-michigan-senate-seat/
McMorrow $2.1m
El-Sayed $1.8m
Stevens $1.3m (+$1.2m transfer from House)
Mike Rogers $1.5m (+ $5m SuperPAC)
Unfortunately, McMorrow and El-Sayed need to raise a lot more if they want to be competitive in the face of AIPAC which has stated that it will spend millions for Stevens in this primary.
Maybe it’s just Mamdani’s win still percolating in my brain, but I don’t think money means much in politics anymore. It’s great to raise more and generate earned media coverage, but we’ve had not 1, but 2 presidential elections out of the last 3 where the winning candidate didn’t raise the most money. We just saw the New York Mayoral Primary also have money not be a factor despite a massive amount spent on attack ads.
We can’t force a voter to vote for someone because the candidate raised the most and saturated markets with tv and digital ads. If a voter is not open to the candidate (for whatever reason), no amount of money can change things. Look how many incumbent Democrats in the Senate lost red and purple states despite raising the most against their Republican opponents since after Trump was elected.
Personally, I think McMorrow is positioning herself exactly where a majority of Democrats are. Not quite as progressive as El-Sayed, but not quite as moderate as Haley Stevens. We’ll see!
Money still matters: you need enough of it to get your message out.
And you can use it to give a hand-picked, virtually unknown but competent candidate a fighting chance in the primary—someone who otherwise would never win.
Agreed and rec'd, but I think there's a point of diminishing returns or saturation—and perhaps even backlash. Naturally, no one can really know when that's been reached. But I don’t buy any argument that XYZ candidate will automatically lose because ABC opponent, using DEF lobby's money, will drench the airwaves.
I agree. You need enough money to get your message out, not more.