Arizona Dems won AG and SoS in 2022, due in part to votes from folks who voted primarily for Republicans in other races. That was attributable to the clowns nominated by the AZ GOP. Based on who is running in the GOP primaries for those offices in 2026, we will have that advantage again this year.
Unless there is a major change, we'd also expect the 2026 political climate to be more favorable for us than 2022. I'd rate both of these races Lean Dem at worst.
We have also had a handful of popular, normal Republicans who have come out suggesting it's okay to vote for Democrats as long as Republicans put up these clowns. The most notable of these is Cindy McCain.
Arizona is highly dependent on international trade and specifically with Mexico. The current administration's trade "policy" is especially damaging to Arizona.
I'm hoping we not only hold the top 3 slots, but can made a dent in the legislature where we back-pedaled in 2024.
There are two statewide seats up on the 5 seat Corporation Commission (which regulates utilities). The Freedumb caucus is primarying the incumbent Republicans, and APS is asking for a 14% rate hike this year, despite significant recent increases already approved by these commissioners.
We currently hold zero seats on the commission after losing one in 2022 and one in 2024. We last had a majority before the 1996 election.
I'm not impressed with our current candidates and would love to see some filings by serious Democratic competitors.
The Superintendent of Public Instruction race is also interesting. The incumbent Republican, Tom Horne, is 900 years old, looks it, corrupt as hell, and getting primaried from the right by sitting state treasurer Kimberly Yee (who was previously believed to be one of the state's few remaining "normal" Republicans).
Whoever emerges from that primary is...not going to be in great shape.
Wow Tom Horne really does look like the friggin crypt keeper at this point, what a shame to have this ancient fool (80 years old) in charge of public education.
His quirky millennial predecessor (Kathy Hoffman) lost narrowly to him, I think, over residual school closure anger and insisting on running as a "clean elections" (i.e., underfunded) candidate. She pulled off the rare feat of losing statewide despite winning Maricopa County.
But I guess if one of the more ogre-like Republicans had to win, it was much better that it was Horne rather than Lake/Hamadeh/Finchem.
Totally, it was far better to beat those three terrors and Masters for Senate, but it such a shame that Hoffman lost by under 10K as an incumbent even as all the others won 😔
Cindy McCain has been a voice of reason ever since John McCain passed away and also has been quite involved.
Originally she was U.S. Ambassador to the UN for Food & Agriculture under President Biden. Now she's Executive Director of the World Food Programe at the UN.
I'm glad the Arizona primary is relatively late. Gives more time for these freaks to out nutty the other in the gubernatorial and AG primaries. You'd think Glassman would be embarrassed by four failed attempts to win statewide office.
That feeling in Arizona went well beyond the borders. Democratic leaders in Arizona including both US senators, the governor, the AG, and mayors of Tucson and Phoenix were carping at Biden over what he was doing to Arizona with border policy. That anger is diminishing in Arizona but still hasn't gone away. Both Phoenix and Tucson social services were overwhelmed.
I saw it coming because Casey was always a weak campaigner, and ancestral Dems who revered his father were largely either dead or full MAGA by 2024. That's it.
Sure, but he managed to slightly underperform Harris's percentage when Sherrod Brown in redder neighboring Ohio outran her percentage by 2.5%. That's what annoys me!
The economy was the biggest factor. Casey didn't have enough to justify for why he needed to be re-elected and he barely even lost to McCormick by .22% points.
Casey also in recent years completely reversed his position on abortion as he used to be anti-choice for the longest time and had in fact been such when he first ran for Senator back in 2006. I believe he changed his position before the Dobbs decision was made back in 2022.
A little late, but former Alabama agriculture commissioner Ron Sparks, a Democrat who was the nominee for governor in 2010, is running for his old post.
"The sum of these numbers is called the RED score (Republican, Evangelical, and Diffusion of Democratic Voters). Lower RED scores mean that the state is more flexible and open to a strategic independent campaign.
Low RED scores help us understand why independents in Utah, Kansas, Nebraska, and Alaska did well. By contrast, high RED scores confirm that much of the Deep South is off-limits to this kind of candidate. States like Texas and Florida aren’t any redder than Iowa, for example, but high racial-geographic diffusion makes the task for a non-Republican herculean.
Looking to 2026, Iowa stands out. With a low Evangelical population, and with low racial polarization, a conservative-coded independent could make serious headway here. Iowa shares similarity with the Midwestern states where Kamala Harris held up best in 2024, and it isn’t far off from Nebraska, where Osborn’s independent campaign did better-than-expected. Add to this the fact that Republican Joni Ernst is a WAR underperformer, and you could see a truly competitive race, especially with midterm backlash.
The other states to look at are Montana, Ohio, Kansas, Nebraska, and Alaska. Ohio’s open seat as well as those with relatively middling Republican incumbents (Roger Marshall in Kansas, Dan Sullivan in Alaska), are all plausible targets for a strategic independent campaign.
Not mentioned in this list but worth discussing is Maine, where Republican Susan Collins has beaten back five Democratic challenges over the past three decades. Given Maine’s small minority and Evangelical presence, the state would be fertile ground for an independent challenge to Collins. Maine’s other Senator, Angus King, was also elected governor and senator as an independent."
Out of the states identified as prime territory for a Dan Osborn–style moderate independent, most are already spoken for in 2026. Maine has Mills vs Platner, Ohio has Sherrod Brown running again, Iowa has a relatively strong and crowded Democratic primary field, Alaska has Mary Peltola in the race, Nebraska will see Osborn himself return, and Montana has Seth Bodnar running. That effectively leaves Kansas as the clearest remaining opportunity, and it’s a state where Schumer should seriously consider recruiting a credible labor independent candidate.
While Iowa could theoretically be an easy flip with an Osborn-like contender, the Democratic Party there is very much alive, with multiple candidates actively battling it out in the primary. That reality removes the possibility of that kind of strategic independent campaign. Kansas, by contrast, doesn't have the complication of an entrenched Democratic field.
"Kansas [is] a state where Schumer should seriously consider recruiting a credible independent-style candidate."
While I agree with your bottom line, I take issue with a key detail. Why leave recruitment to Chuck Schumer? Given his rather abysmal recruiting record, I would prefer to see Schumer keep his hands well clear of our candidate recruitment efforts!
I would say the issue with Schumer is not necessarily recruitment, he is generally pretty good at getting excellent candidates (Peltola immediately comes to mind, but I know there are more). The issue I think is more putting a thumb on the scale when there's an open primary.
Or try to persuade the Democratic Governor with 60% approvals there to launch a five-month campaign and promise to serve only one term. We don't need an independent to win in Kansas, and it reflects poorly on the party if we think we need to do so in order to win states where our Presidential nominee regularly gets over 40% of the vote.
If we are entertaining hopes of Alaska and Texas flipping in the Senate, Kansas is but a point or two redder than either. Of course it would be hard. But this defeatist attitude isn't going to do anything constructive. If Kelly put up the same overperformance as Phil Bredesen or Larry Hogan, she'd win.
Not even close. Trump won Kansas by 16 points in 2024 and under 15 points in 2020. If we think we can win in Texas and Alaska with Talarico and Peltola, there's no way you can square that with the idea that Kelly would be DOA in Kansas.
North Carolina in 2020 was really the only embarrassing Senate recruiting failure I can remember of the past decade. The GOP had like five in 2022 alone.
Still can't forget that Schumer bullied Jeff Jackson out of the race according to leaked audio and recruited a "white suburban male veteran" who also turned out to be a serial cheater.
Iowa 2014 was also a clusterfuck. Iowa used to be highly competitive those days.
Schumer's instincts on Jackson not being able to raise money were very wrong. See the 2024 North Carolina AG race where he won a lot more votes than Kamala Harris on the same ballot. I don't have much doubt that Jackson would be sitting in that Senate seat right now had he ran that year. At least we'll correct that mistake with Cooper this year, and hopefully put Jackson in the other Senate seat in 2028.
At the beginning of the cycle though Braley was basically the best possible choice and considered a decent favorite, especially when Tom Latham passed on the race
Bruce Braley got caught making numerous out of touch statements. Not enough towels in the house gym. He implied that many farmers weren't great at interepting law, there were other blunders. I'm not a Schumer fan per se, but Braley's mistakes weren't his fault and honestly Braley is a good guy with a pro-labor, union family back story. He just started off terrible and never recovered.
Serial cheater? Wasn't it just once or did I miss something?
Bruce Braley is always an easy target too. It's silly to pretend he was a uniquely disastrous candidate when he lost by the same margin as our Presidential nominee two years later. That was the trendline of the state. Nobody was beating Ernst that year, including Harkin.
The problem was not that he failed to hire a detective to uncover his affairs but that he bullied Jeff Jackson out of the primary before recruiting someone else.
“In 1992 a sitting republican County Commissioner asked me to run for the County Commission in Chouteau County. He told me he was stepping down because he had just been diagnosed with cancer. I told him I would run. We had a great conversation about the job, and what needs to be done in the county and then he stated “you are running as a Republican - right”? I said no. He said why not and I said because Stephen and Burns were an embarrassment to the state. He paused for a few seconds and then said “I can’t support you”. I said why Charley? I’m the same guy I was 5 minutes ago, I haven’t changed and he said no won’t win the primary. Gar Wood had already announced as a Democrat. Before the filing deadline Charley filed - cancer and all - and I dropped out of that race with an ad in the paper as I had already filed and couldn’t get my name off the ballot and I knew I couldn’t beat an incumbent Republican even in 1992.
The reason I think this story is important is because every race I ran as Montana Senator and US Senator it was about distancing myself from the Democratic Party. Things have changed greatly, politically in this state since I first ran for US Senate. During my last two races the democratic Party was poison in my attempts to get re-elected. That is not to say that is the only reason I got beat in 2024 by a Minnesotan who lied about his military service and had never served in public office at ant level, but it was a hell of an anvil.
BESIDES PERSONALLY I have always felt the person was far more important than the party. And the republicans have always fucked things up, but I still believe in the person.
Bottomline is this. Bodner has a great family, came from business, has what I believe is the best job in Montana, is currently in the military and is a Rhodes Scholar and would fight to stop all the insanity that is going on in our dictatorship today not rubber stamp it.
Messina has already told him he cannot win as a democrat and he is crazy to run. Other Democrats have told him the same. Polling show a generic Democrat cannot win against incumbent Daines, but a generic independent does about a 8 point swing.
I actually have been encouraging not because of party but because of the man and I fully know to win anybody has to run a near flawless race that is well funded and well staffed.
The national Democratic Party DSCC is looking at Maine and North Carolina and Ohio and maybe Iowa. Montana is so far down on the list that you’d have a hard time finding it on the list.
All that said if there is this much reservation from people I respect - there is no way I can encourage him to enter this meat grinder that really destroys life and is one of my biggest regrets as I look back on my life.
So go Riley as she is a Democrat. We can watch her talk about trans rights, democracy and bathrooms.
So maybe I have a blind spot, but Tester calling out our VP pick is interesting. Was he really a drag? Also, attacking his level of experience seems weird.
I’m going to flag this, not because of any disagreement or agreement, but because the article itself you linked to doesn’t include any of the first or last part that you wrote, yet you included it as part of a quote from the link.
That may indeed be Tester’s full text message (haven’t seen it), but stating it as part of an article, which it clearly is not a part of or even linked somewhere buried in the article for that matter, is very bad practice imo.
I suggest one of two things: include a different link to the full text itself so others can verify that is indeed what he said or change the start and end of your quote in your post, that the other parts is just what people have said it also includes, instead of quoting it like it’s a part of the article.
Based on Reilly Neill's website, I don't see any indication that she is running on the things he mentioned, so it certainly seems odd to peg her to any particular topics. She even refers to herself as a moderate, 'different kind of' democrat in the press.
It can be confusing whether someone is Evangelical or not. Most Evangelicals are also Fundamentalist Christians. This is very true in the suburbs in the South. However, in Appalachia there are large numbers of Fundamentalist Christians who are not Evangelicals. I suspect that this accounts for the different numbers.
What kind of Christian is fundamentalist but not evangelical? I was thinking you would say the reverse. Lutherans are called Evangelical in the German-speaking word but are usually not fundamentalist, to my limited knowledge.
Many strict fundamentalists in Appalachia are more isolated from the culture as large than Evangelicals, who they see as too worldly. The Fundamentalists for example, don't allow musical instruments in churches that tend to be modest and simple and they still demand formal wear for church while Evangelicals allow for musical instruments, often have large opulent churches and allow for casual attire in church. It can be difficult to draw the line and both tend to be overwhelmingly Republican and theologically conservative, but there are some cultural differences. There are also some Evangelicals who are more theologically liberal as well. While most Evangelicals are Fundamentalist and most Fundamentalists are Evangelicals, not all are both.
Perhaps it’s different with being Mormon but on my mother’s side of the family, there are your typical Mormons, who can be religious but still live in society like everyone else and are otherwise quite normal in attitude outside of their views.
Fundamentalist Mormons, whom the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has distanced themselves from for a long time, represent a tiny percent of Mormons who live in a traditionally repressive way of life although the notion that you’d meet any of them across the street is very remote. Can’t say I am aware about evangelism here but Mormons traditionally have recruited new members through missionaries and other related methods of outreach.
One thing common among all these Independents who challenge Republicans and insist they're not Democrats is that none of them won. Not McMillen. Not Osborn. Not Orman. Not one of them.
I don't deny that the Dem brand may be toxic in some places, but believing that there's a magical potion that the Independent label carries hasn't proven to be true. Maybe this year will be different, but I don't know why that would necessarily be true.
Yeah, but if you went by “but they didn’t win”, instead of comparing their result to Democrats on the exact same ballot you’d realize how dumb this position is. I guess going by your logic Jon Tester who lost and Sherrod Brown who lost were terrible Democratic candidates because they lost their races. Larry Hogan is apparently a terrible Republican candidate too.
As someone who should support real data, It’s not all about winning and losing, it’s about doing better than any other Democrat running at the same time and every independent campaign HAS by leaps and bounds. If that isn’t a clear sign and signal that we need to go all in on the independent campaigns in red states, then you’re looking at the topic way too myopically.
At some point this strategy will work for us and you’ll change your tune real quick when that happens (which I welcome even if I think it’s from being forced to).
I wonder if instead of doing this top-down strategy we do it from the bottom-up. Independent Candidates at the local level who can eventually run for State Wide Offices. If it is truly hopeless for Dems to win long term in some of these states, maybe it's time we support a Party where the brand isn't toxic and if they win, we worry about who they caucus with or not.
Even if the strategy never works in the sense of providing a win, it has and will continue to work in the sense of forcing republicans to divert more resources than they otherwise would have. Even if it's just tying up a republican incumbent and preventing them from doing (as many) campaign events for their allies in competitive states.
The important thing is for us to not sink more resources in than republicans do. That's easier with the not-democratic independents.
Diverting your opponents' resources and attention is always a good idea. But the OP claiming that we're going to sweep the red states with Independents is only wishful thinking, not serious analysis.
Of course it's about winning or losing. They don't allocate Senate chairs based on "you came really close in the last election." Losing better is the equivalent of a participation trophy.
You say you're about data, but your argument is based on a wish--''at some point this strategy will work for us." The point I'm making is simply that it hasn't--period.
There's a huge difference between incumbents (who've been elected before) who lose and doubling down on some experimental strategy that's been proven to be unsuccessful. Look, let's try the independent route as much as you want, but be prepared for Thune to be majority leader again.
I seriously doubt that Arizona will be the place for ideological fights when we try to elect a governor in what will hopefully be a midterm under a new Democratic president.
Has Mayes done anything in office as AG that's more like a republican instead of a moderate democrat? I don't know of anything. At the end of the day, moderate democrat is realistically our best bet for a state like Arizona. Especially if 2030 is a dem president midterm.
Slightly bigger margins I could see for AG, maybe as a stretch SoS, but Arizona is still the most red of the swing states in 2024 and in general, so a 53-47 D win is probably the top limit of victory we can achieve there statewide for any office. I also think it’s worth pointing out that SoS wasn’t really a close race in 2022, Fontes won by 52-48, so getting a bigger margin than that will be way tougher than AG would (which I do agree with you on).
Thirdly, the GOP nominees likely won’t run campaigns like they did in 2022 when election denial was all the rage, after the primary and in the general. So even with the wind at our backs, I’d be hard pressed to say we’ll get bigger margins in both races for 2026. AG, I think that’s a done deal, 51-49 D or so, but SoS? And we don’t have much wiggle room to improve with in a lean red state turning purple.
If we win, it’ll still be fairly close victories barring a complete collapse in Hispanic/Latino Republican support. That’s definitely possible given Trump’s national numbers right now, but I wouldn’t predict it because it hasn’t happened through anything since Trump won in 2016. Maybe this year is the year that all changes, but I’m not betting the farm on that either.
Yes, and off year elections are even less representative of midterm elections than presidential elections are. Do I HOPE that happens in November? With every fiber of my being. Will I predict that? Nope, not a chance.
To be fair, a few of the elections in question were high-profile gubernatorial and mayoral elections. Why would trends from those elections be unlikely to apply to the midterms?
I think off year elections are even less likely to feature a midterm electorate than a presidential one. Neither obviously matches midterm turnout, which is different then presidential years and off year elections, but 2022 and 2018 were closer to a presidential electorate than the 2017 and 2021 election turnout.
My point isn’t that it’s a good metric or a bad one, but that off year elections are worse than presidential elections in getting closer to the actual midterm result. We all want to know what electorate turns out in 2026 and I think 1 is better than the other, though both are imperfect obviously.
I don’t think we can speculate margins in a wave here like this yet. Having lived through several wave elections — there are always shocking things that can happen.
#NJ11 Nearly 2 million in outside dark money spending (AIPAC, DLGA and a third mystery "article one PAC") on behalf of Tahesha Way and against her top primary opponent"
Abbott is meddling in the Republican primary for Agriculture Commissioner. Incumbent Sid Miller has been a perpetual underperformer downballot and is constantly saying and doing outlandish things.
Not sure. As noted in the article, in the final 10 weeks before the latest filing period, Abbott for example got $1.6 million from a single individual. At the same, Abbott's campaign said they got 48,000 contributions during the most recent period. But as pointed out: After Anwar, Abbott’s biggest donors in the back half of 2025 were casino magnate Miriam Adelson and Texas Republican Leadership Fund, a group backed by GOP megadonor Alex Fairly, both of whom gave his campaign $1 million. Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, Roku founder Anthony Wood, data center developer Black Mountain Power, and Capital Funding Group CEO John Dwyer gave Abbott’s campaign $500,000 apiece.
$5.6 million of Abbott's $22.7 million haul came from 7 sources. Another $1.4 million came from 5 sources. So a total of $7 million (or a third of his haul) came from 12 individuals.
Well then, Democrats are just going to have to work to get as close to matching the fundraising capability as Governor Abbott has been able to do at a substantial level. Irrespective of whether this means Abbott gets unseated or not, the TX-GOV race is still worth putting a fight over.
Since Ashley Moody was appointed to the Senate by Ron DeSantis, is there any chance that an anti-DeSantis Republican would challenge her in the special election to keep her seat?
He actually said he would run at one point early last year, but there's been nothing since then. I think he's probably focused on just saving his career at this point.
You can't 100% rule it out until the filing deadline passes, but basically no, aside from the usual rando unserious candidates.
There's been no mention of anything in the year or so since the appointment aside from that 5-minute Mills interest Julius mentioned, and Moody has endorsements from all across the FL GOP spectrum, including Trump.
The FL-GOV race seems to be getting more of the attention and energy by the GOP because it's an open race to replace DeSantis, who is being termed out at the end of 2026. With Byron Donalds getting a lot of traction in the polls, any alignment with DeSantis seem to be more focused here than in other races. Unless there's something I'm missing.
With the FL-SEN primary, I really don't know. While DeSantis is still Governor, he has influence although I'd venture to say it's more likely Moody could face a more credible pro-Trump challenger than Donalds will get a more credible pro-DeSantis challenger who can defeat him in the primary.
Strength in numbers out with a model of Trump's approval rating by area. Noticeably low numbers in Texas (41.5%), Iowa (40.5%), and Arizona (38.7%) (the national average in this model is 40.8%), but he's holding up better than I would expect in Ohio (48.4%) and Florida (45.5%). https://projects.gelliottmorris.com/trump-approval/
He's at -5 in Ohio in Civiqs' tracker. Emerson had him at -2. I think it's probably around that point. I'm optimistic on Ohio because Vivek Ramaswamy is the gift that keeps on giving.
While Ohio has some diversity, it's not a particularly diverse state. About 15-20% of the state's population is Appalachian. While there are some major cities in Ohio, they're not dense urban hubs, especially relative to the total population of the state -- comparatively more people are going to be in small cities, less dense suburbs, or rural. It's not a poor state but it's not wealthy either. Not particularly well educated. No history of rural-liberalism like Vermont or prairie-populism like Iowa.
If I'm forced to imagine a stereotypical MAGA voter in the midwest, that person is going to look a lot like Ohio's demographics.
That's a great analysis. I hadn't really thought about it until you said it, but you're right in that Ohio lacks many of the demographic groups that've proven more swingy in the Trump era.
It’s also a very old state with not a lot of young people, the exact demographic makeup you’d expect to move back to their Republican Party now that they aren’t worrying about dying of COVID thanks to Trump. I said this before, but I’ll believe Ohio turns blue again (for Gov or Sen) only after it’s certified and not 1 millisecond before. It’s a really hard state for Democrats to win in today’s coalitions.
I wouldn’t say very surprised. Somewhat surprised. I would have thought those numbers would be reversed. But deportation has a bigger impact in Florida
I remember back in the day, people were saying Indiana should be winnable for Dems because it’s demographically similar to Ohio and Ohio was a swing state. First off, I think Ohio is a bit more favorable because it is on average a bit more urban (the three big cities are a higher % of the total population than Indianapolis to Indiana’s population). Second, I think Dems were probably punching above their natural weight in Ohio for quite a few years (up until around 2014).
Putting aside the OH-SEN race, it's going to be challenging for Democrats in OH heading to November. I'm not sure about the OH-GOV race but if anyone wants to comment about the House races and what else is happening statewide, feel free to chime in.
AZ and IA are going to be the states to really pay attention to with potential wins by Democrats. I can imagine at least a two U.S. House seat pickup by Democrats in IA considering the success the party has had in the state in last year's off year elections. AZ could be as successful or even more so in November vs. back in 2018.
TX could have potential for Democrats but if James Talarico is the Senate nominee, he may very well be the next Beto O'Rourke but with a larger media presence. That could have a multiplier effect down ballot, not just with what's happening at the national level.
Say what you want about Jasmine Crockett but a good reason why James Talarico has a good shot at winning the general election is that he’s willing to be fearless in how he’s reaching out to voters.
Here’s Talarico appearing on Joe Rogan’s show months before he announced his Senate run.
Got it. I would not be surprised that this could happen although if Talarico does in fact win the primary, he can in fact have the ability to fire up Crockett supporters in the general election.
The question is, how long would it take for both camps of supporters to come together?
Y'all might be interested in the toplines of the California maps webinar that I hosted yesterday for climate groups.
If all goes well, Cal goes from 43-D, 9-R to 48-D, 4-R. Of those 48, at least 8 (winners in 1, 6, 11, 14, 22, 26, 38, and 48) and as many as 12 will be new faces.
In addition, the makeup of 9, 13, and 27 is changing to be much more Democratic. These 3 legislators are known for siding with the GOP majority on tough votes, so I'm hopeful that they'll be better representatives of their Democratic majority voters. (We discussed a bit yesterday here how the makeup of 45, 47, and 49 is also changing to be more Democratic... the shifts are smaller, and IMO these reps are more reliable Dem votes on tough bills, but that's just my opinion, YMMV)
As for how I got to "up to 12" new faces: 5 Dem incumbents are facing challengers who have organized well enough to block their automatic endorsements at the party convention. All of these incumbents are old, and most are facing well funded primary challenges. They may all end up fine. But they're worth eyeballing esp if they still can't get endorsed at party convention. Those districts are 3 (Bera), 4, 7, 8, and 32.
Oh, and any climate group that endorses Jacqui Irwin in CA-26 needs to surrender their climate card.
RL I'd love to know results of the Democrats' pre-endorsement caucuses if you have any knowledge(I know the reports aren't due until tomorrow). Will they be published on the CA Dems convention web site? And if so, when? Thank you for your work.
I wanted to let all of you know, I got off the train at Union Square, I guess around 5:30, and found out I was at the gathering place for a union-led march against ICE and in support of the general strike in the Twin Cities, so I participated.The United Federation of Teachers was out in force. I don't know how many people marched, but it felt big to me. At times, I was among members of the Socialist Workers Party (Trotskyite); there will always be a diversity of opinion in these marches. I'm not a Trotskyite and didn't join some of their chants.
I will vote for every one of them
Arizona Dems won AG and SoS in 2022, due in part to votes from folks who voted primarily for Republicans in other races. That was attributable to the clowns nominated by the AZ GOP. Based on who is running in the GOP primaries for those offices in 2026, we will have that advantage again this year.
Unless there is a major change, we'd also expect the 2026 political climate to be more favorable for us than 2022. I'd rate both of these races Lean Dem at worst.
I concur with your analysis and hope you are right. Democrats need to expand our control of state-level offices.
We have also had a handful of popular, normal Republicans who have come out suggesting it's okay to vote for Democrats as long as Republicans put up these clowns. The most notable of these is Cindy McCain.
Arizona is highly dependent on international trade and specifically with Mexico. The current administration's trade "policy" is especially damaging to Arizona.
I'm hoping we not only hold the top 3 slots, but can made a dent in the legislature where we back-pedaled in 2024.
There are two statewide seats up on the 5 seat Corporation Commission (which regulates utilities). The Freedumb caucus is primarying the incumbent Republicans, and APS is asking for a 14% rate hike this year, despite significant recent increases already approved by these commissioners.
We currently hold zero seats on the commission after losing one in 2022 and one in 2024. We last had a majority before the 1996 election.
I'm not impressed with our current candidates and would love to see some filings by serious Democratic competitors.
The Superintendent of Public Instruction race is also interesting. The incumbent Republican, Tom Horne, is 900 years old, looks it, corrupt as hell, and getting primaried from the right by sitting state treasurer Kimberly Yee (who was previously believed to be one of the state's few remaining "normal" Republicans).
Whoever emerges from that primary is...not going to be in great shape.
Wow Tom Horne really does look like the friggin crypt keeper at this point, what a shame to have this ancient fool (80 years old) in charge of public education.
His quirky millennial predecessor (Kathy Hoffman) lost narrowly to him, I think, over residual school closure anger and insisting on running as a "clean elections" (i.e., underfunded) candidate. She pulled off the rare feat of losing statewide despite winning Maricopa County.
But I guess if one of the more ogre-like Republicans had to win, it was much better that it was Horne rather than Lake/Hamadeh/Finchem.
Totally, it was far better to beat those three terrors and Masters for Senate, but it such a shame that Hoffman lost by under 10K as an incumbent even as all the others won 😔
Cindy McCain has been a voice of reason ever since John McCain passed away and also has been quite involved.
Originally she was U.S. Ambassador to the UN for Food & Agriculture under President Biden. Now she's Executive Director of the World Food Programe at the UN.
I'm glad the Arizona primary is relatively late. Gives more time for these freaks to out nutty the other in the gubernatorial and AG primaries. You'd think Glassman would be embarrassed by four failed attempts to win statewide office.
Glassman...the Danny Tarkanian of Arizona!
It's really crazy how relatively well Dems did in the 22 midterms in Arizona and then tank in 24.
Kamala's campaign, whatever her other virtues, was not designed for the AZ electorate.
The simpler explanation is that Arizona border communities veered sharply right, similar to Texas, due to the mess at the border.
That feeling in Arizona went well beyond the borders. Democratic leaders in Arizona including both US senators, the governor, the AG, and mayors of Tucson and Phoenix were carping at Biden over what he was doing to Arizona with border policy. That anger is diminishing in Arizona but still hasn't gone away. Both Phoenix and Tucson social services were overwhelmed.
Gallego still won. That was huge.
Really, the only true Senate disappointment was Casey (which, as a Pennsylvanian, I saw coming from a million miles away).
Now, this discussion about Casey usually veers into a very divisive hypothetical so let's not go there.
I saw it coming because Casey was always a weak campaigner, and ancestral Dems who revered his father were largely either dead or full MAGA by 2024. That's it.
Yeah. I don't think Casey realized he might have a problem until about a month before the election. Typical long-time incumbent arrogance.
Casey won in three good to very good Democratic years. 2024 was a bad Democratic year. That’s what took him under.
Sure, but he managed to slightly underperform Harris's percentage when Sherrod Brown in redder neighboring Ohio outran her percentage by 2.5%. That's what annoys me!
The economy was the biggest factor. Casey didn't have enough to justify for why he needed to be re-elected and he barely even lost to McCormick by .22% points.
Casey also in recent years completely reversed his position on abortion as he used to be anti-choice for the longest time and had in fact been such when he first ran for Senator back in 2006. I believe he changed his position before the Dobbs decision was made back in 2022.
2022 AG race: "The race is also believed to be the only major election directly affected by the deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19."
Crazy.
https://www.alreporter.com/2026/01/14/ron-sparks-qualifies-to-run-for-alabama-agriculture-commissioner/
A little late, but former Alabama agriculture commissioner Ron Sparks, a Democrat who was the nominee for governor in 2010, is running for his old post.
We always wanted him to run against Jeff Sessions back in the day. That was a much more interesting time in many ways.
The election landscape pre-2016 was a VASTLY more interesting time!
"The sum of these numbers is called the RED score (Republican, Evangelical, and Diffusion of Democratic Voters). Lower RED scores mean that the state is more flexible and open to a strategic independent campaign.
Low RED scores help us understand why independents in Utah, Kansas, Nebraska, and Alaska did well. By contrast, high RED scores confirm that much of the Deep South is off-limits to this kind of candidate. States like Texas and Florida aren’t any redder than Iowa, for example, but high racial-geographic diffusion makes the task for a non-Republican herculean.
Looking to 2026, Iowa stands out. With a low Evangelical population, and with low racial polarization, a conservative-coded independent could make serious headway here. Iowa shares similarity with the Midwestern states where Kamala Harris held up best in 2024, and it isn’t far off from Nebraska, where Osborn’s independent campaign did better-than-expected. Add to this the fact that Republican Joni Ernst is a WAR underperformer, and you could see a truly competitive race, especially with midterm backlash.
The other states to look at are Montana, Ohio, Kansas, Nebraska, and Alaska. Ohio’s open seat as well as those with relatively middling Republican incumbents (Roger Marshall in Kansas, Dan Sullivan in Alaska), are all plausible targets for a strategic independent campaign.
Not mentioned in this list but worth discussing is Maine, where Republican Susan Collins has beaten back five Democratic challenges over the past three decades. Given Maine’s small minority and Evangelical presence, the state would be fertile ground for an independent challenge to Collins. Maine’s other Senator, Angus King, was also elected governor and senator as an independent."
https://split-ticket.org/2025/03/26/where-should-democrats-run-independents/
Out of the states identified as prime territory for a Dan Osborn–style moderate independent, most are already spoken for in 2026. Maine has Mills vs Platner, Ohio has Sherrod Brown running again, Iowa has a relatively strong and crowded Democratic primary field, Alaska has Mary Peltola in the race, Nebraska will see Osborn himself return, and Montana has Seth Bodnar running. That effectively leaves Kansas as the clearest remaining opportunity, and it’s a state where Schumer should seriously consider recruiting a credible labor independent candidate.
While Iowa could theoretically be an easy flip with an Osborn-like contender, the Democratic Party there is very much alive, with multiple candidates actively battling it out in the primary. That reality removes the possibility of that kind of strategic independent campaign. Kansas, by contrast, doesn't have the complication of an entrenched Democratic field.
"Kansas [is] a state where Schumer should seriously consider recruiting a credible independent-style candidate."
While I agree with your bottom line, I take issue with a key detail. Why leave recruitment to Chuck Schumer? Given his rather abysmal recruiting record, I would prefer to see Schumer keep his hands well clear of our candidate recruitment efforts!
I would say the issue with Schumer is not necessarily recruitment, he is generally pretty good at getting excellent candidates (Peltola immediately comes to mind, but I know there are more). The issue I think is more putting a thumb on the scale when there's an open primary.
And much more his fecklessness and sometime collaborationism as Minority Leader.
Oh yes for sure! I was compartmentalizing the elections aspect, lol
Or try to persuade the Democratic Governor with 60% approvals there to launch a five-month campaign and promise to serve only one term. We don't need an independent to win in Kansas, and it reflects poorly on the party if we think we need to do so in order to win states where our Presidential nominee regularly gets over 40% of the vote.
We've tried this run current governor with high approval in red states for Senate multiple times and it always fails due to the D next to their name.
If we are entertaining hopes of Alaska and Texas flipping in the Senate, Kansas is but a point or two redder than either. Of course it would be hard. But this defeatist attitude isn't going to do anything constructive. If Kelly put up the same overperformance as Phil Bredesen or Larry Hogan, she'd win.
Kansas is about +20R, Texas was +5.5 in 2020 and +13.5 in 2020, Alaska was +13 in 2024 and +10 in 2020.
These states are not the same.
Edit: I was mistaken about Kansas' margins.
Not even close. Trump won Kansas by 16 points in 2024 and under 15 points in 2020. If we think we can win in Texas and Alaska with Talarico and Peltola, there's no way you can square that with the idea that Kelly would be DOA in Kansas.
I don't like Schumer, but I think he has a great recruitment record.
Thom Tillis agrees.
North Carolina in 2020 was really the only embarrassing Senate recruiting failure I can remember of the past decade. The GOP had like five in 2022 alone.
Still can't forget that Schumer bullied Jeff Jackson out of the race according to leaked audio and recruited a "white suburban male veteran" who also turned out to be a serial cheater.
Iowa 2014 was also a clusterfuck. Iowa used to be highly competitive those days.
Schumer's instincts on Jackson not being able to raise money were very wrong. See the 2024 North Carolina AG race where he won a lot more votes than Kamala Harris on the same ballot. I don't have much doubt that Jackson would be sitting in that Senate seat right now had he ran that year. At least we'll correct that mistake with Cooper this year, and hopefully put Jackson in the other Senate seat in 2028.
At the beginning of the cycle though Braley was basically the best possible choice and considered a decent favorite, especially when Tom Latham passed on the race
I don't think Iowa's political trajectory is Schumer's fault.
Bruce Braley got caught making numerous out of touch statements. Not enough towels in the house gym. He implied that many farmers weren't great at interepting law, there were other blunders. I'm not a Schumer fan per se, but Braley's mistakes weren't his fault and honestly Braley is a good guy with a pro-labor, union family back story. He just started off terrible and never recovered.
Serial cheater? Wasn't it just once or did I miss something?
Bruce Braley is always an easy target too. It's silly to pretend he was a uniquely disastrous candidate when he lost by the same margin as our Presidential nominee two years later. That was the trendline of the state. Nobody was beating Ernst that year, including Harkin.
If the requirement was never having made a mistake or having a failure, no one would be considered to have been successful.
Yes because no candidate has ever lied about having an affair in vetting interviews.
The problem was not that he failed to hire a detective to uncover his affairs but that he bullied Jeff Jackson out of the primary before recruiting someone else.
No argument there.
Still, why was a one term State Senator who left office in 2003 the preferred candidate anyways?
That is definitely a good question, one I can't say I have the answer to.
Here's what Jon Tester's leaked messages are:
“In 1992 a sitting republican County Commissioner asked me to run for the County Commission in Chouteau County. He told me he was stepping down because he had just been diagnosed with cancer. I told him I would run. We had a great conversation about the job, and what needs to be done in the county and then he stated “you are running as a Republican - right”? I said no. He said why not and I said because Stephen and Burns were an embarrassment to the state. He paused for a few seconds and then said “I can’t support you”. I said why Charley? I’m the same guy I was 5 minutes ago, I haven’t changed and he said no won’t win the primary. Gar Wood had already announced as a Democrat. Before the filing deadline Charley filed - cancer and all - and I dropped out of that race with an ad in the paper as I had already filed and couldn’t get my name off the ballot and I knew I couldn’t beat an incumbent Republican even in 1992.
The reason I think this story is important is because every race I ran as Montana Senator and US Senator it was about distancing myself from the Democratic Party. Things have changed greatly, politically in this state since I first ran for US Senate. During my last two races the democratic Party was poison in my attempts to get re-elected. That is not to say that is the only reason I got beat in 2024 by a Minnesotan who lied about his military service and had never served in public office at ant level, but it was a hell of an anvil.
BESIDES PERSONALLY I have always felt the person was far more important than the party. And the republicans have always fucked things up, but I still believe in the person.
Bottomline is this. Bodner has a great family, came from business, has what I believe is the best job in Montana, is currently in the military and is a Rhodes Scholar and would fight to stop all the insanity that is going on in our dictatorship today not rubber stamp it.
Messina has already told him he cannot win as a democrat and he is crazy to run. Other Democrats have told him the same. Polling show a generic Democrat cannot win against incumbent Daines, but a generic independent does about a 8 point swing.
I actually have been encouraging not because of party but because of the man and I fully know to win anybody has to run a near flawless race that is well funded and well staffed.
The national Democratic Party DSCC is looking at Maine and North Carolina and Ohio and maybe Iowa. Montana is so far down on the list that you’d have a hard time finding it on the list.
All that said if there is this much reservation from people I respect - there is no way I can encourage him to enter this meat grinder that really destroys life and is one of my biggest regrets as I look back on my life.
So go Riley as she is a Democrat. We can watch her talk about trans rights, democracy and bathrooms.
Respectfully JT
BTW she will lose by 25, but she is a Democrat”
https://mtstandard.com/news/state-regional/education/article_af391c2a-b15a-5e0f-bc62-52f764343f8a.html
I think Tester is a tad bitter and off in his predictions of the spread in 2026.
But he is right that an Indy has a better shot in MT.
So maybe I have a blind spot, but Tester calling out our VP pick is interesting. Was he really a drag? Also, attacking his level of experience seems weird.
I think he's taking about Tim Sheehy there, not Walz. There was a controversy about Sheehy lying about being injured or something.
That makes sense, thanks.
I’m going to flag this, not because of any disagreement or agreement, but because the article itself you linked to doesn’t include any of the first or last part that you wrote, yet you included it as part of a quote from the link.
That may indeed be Tester’s full text message (haven’t seen it), but stating it as part of an article, which it clearly is not a part of or even linked somewhere buried in the article for that matter, is very bad practice imo.
I suggest one of two things: include a different link to the full text itself so others can verify that is indeed what he said or change the start and end of your quote in your post, that the other parts is just what people have said it also includes, instead of quoting it like it’s a part of the article.
Maybe they just pasted the wrong link by mistake.
Based on Reilly Neill's website, I don't see any indication that she is running on the things he mentioned, so it certainly seems odd to peg her to any particular topics. She even refers to herself as a moderate, 'different kind of' democrat in the press.
https://reillyformontana.com/
I'd hate to suggest the former senator might be a little sexist in his insights but...
"So go Riley as she is a Democrat. We can watch her talk about trans rights [...] and bathrooms."
We are not the party that's talking about that stuff, Jon
Was about to say that. Sad to see Tester of all people say this shit.
Because the Rs will make her talk about it
I don't think that's how Tester meant it
Orman ran for U.S. Senate as an Indy in KS in 2014 with our support. Chad Taylor withdrew and sued to get off the ballot.
Don't know where they are getting the idea that WV is only 13% Evangelical but they need to check their source. Pew's 2023-24 survey puts it at 37%
It can be confusing whether someone is Evangelical or not. Most Evangelicals are also Fundamentalist Christians. This is very true in the suburbs in the South. However, in Appalachia there are large numbers of Fundamentalist Christians who are not Evangelicals. I suspect that this accounts for the different numbers.
What kind of Christian is fundamentalist but not evangelical? I was thinking you would say the reverse. Lutherans are called Evangelical in the German-speaking word but are usually not fundamentalist, to my limited knowledge.
Many strict fundamentalists in Appalachia are more isolated from the culture as large than Evangelicals, who they see as too worldly. The Fundamentalists for example, don't allow musical instruments in churches that tend to be modest and simple and they still demand formal wear for church while Evangelicals allow for musical instruments, often have large opulent churches and allow for casual attire in church. It can be difficult to draw the line and both tend to be overwhelmingly Republican and theologically conservative, but there are some cultural differences. There are also some Evangelicals who are more theologically liberal as well. While most Evangelicals are Fundamentalist and most Fundamentalists are Evangelicals, not all are both.
Perhaps it’s different with being Mormon but on my mother’s side of the family, there are your typical Mormons, who can be religious but still live in society like everyone else and are otherwise quite normal in attitude outside of their views.
Fundamentalist Mormons, whom the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has distanced themselves from for a long time, represent a tiny percent of Mormons who live in a traditionally repressive way of life although the notion that you’d meet any of them across the street is very remote. Can’t say I am aware about evangelism here but Mormons traditionally have recruited new members through missionaries and other related methods of outreach.
I thought, regarding Kansas, that everyone was trying to get Laura Kelly to change her mind? Is this Plan B if Kelly says no unequivocally?
Hasn't she said no unequivocally?
"'Absolutely not' running for another political office"
https://www.kcur.org/podcast/up-to-date/2024-11-23/kansas-gov-laura-kelly-says-shes-absolutely-not-running-for-another-political-office
Can we maybe let this one go?
I think we should.
Bodnar is not running yet; it just looks like he will.
One thing common among all these Independents who challenge Republicans and insist they're not Democrats is that none of them won. Not McMillen. Not Osborn. Not Orman. Not one of them.
I don't deny that the Dem brand may be toxic in some places, but believing that there's a magical potion that the Independent label carries hasn't proven to be true. Maybe this year will be different, but I don't know why that would necessarily be true.
However, they did far ahead of the Democratic baseline in those states. It is worth a try in a state that is a long shot.
Yeah, but if you went by “but they didn’t win”, instead of comparing their result to Democrats on the exact same ballot you’d realize how dumb this position is. I guess going by your logic Jon Tester who lost and Sherrod Brown who lost were terrible Democratic candidates because they lost their races. Larry Hogan is apparently a terrible Republican candidate too.
As someone who should support real data, It’s not all about winning and losing, it’s about doing better than any other Democrat running at the same time and every independent campaign HAS by leaps and bounds. If that isn’t a clear sign and signal that we need to go all in on the independent campaigns in red states, then you’re looking at the topic way too myopically.
At some point this strategy will work for us and you’ll change your tune real quick when that happens (which I welcome even if I think it’s from being forced to).
I wonder if instead of doing this top-down strategy we do it from the bottom-up. Independent Candidates at the local level who can eventually run for State Wide Offices. If it is truly hopeless for Dems to win long term in some of these states, maybe it's time we support a Party where the brand isn't toxic and if they win, we worry about who they caucus with or not.
Even if the strategy never works in the sense of providing a win, it has and will continue to work in the sense of forcing republicans to divert more resources than they otherwise would have. Even if it's just tying up a republican incumbent and preventing them from doing (as many) campaign events for their allies in competitive states.
The important thing is for us to not sink more resources in than republicans do. That's easier with the not-democratic independents.
Diverting your opponents' resources and attention is always a good idea. But the OP claiming that we're going to sweep the red states with Independents is only wishful thinking, not serious analysis.
Of course it's about winning or losing. They don't allocate Senate chairs based on "you came really close in the last election." Losing better is the equivalent of a participation trophy.
You say you're about data, but your argument is based on a wish--''at some point this strategy will work for us." The point I'm making is simply that it hasn't--period.
There's a huge difference between incumbents (who've been elected before) who lose and doubling down on some experimental strategy that's been proven to be unsuccessful. Look, let's try the independent route as much as you want, but be prepared for Thune to be majority leader again.
Who was McMillen again?
*McMullin.
Gotcha gotcha.
I think the AZ AG and SOS are going to be re-elected by bigger margins than the ones they won by the skin of their teeth in 2022.
Maybe Mayes can succeed Hobbs as governor in 2030?
There is the joke that AG also stands for "aspiring governor"
Mayes is basically a moderate sane Republican who is on our team because her party went crazy. Hopefully by 2030 we'll be ready for a leftier option.
I seriously doubt that Arizona will be the place for ideological fights when we try to elect a governor in what will hopefully be a midterm under a new Democratic president.
Has Mayes done anything in office as AG that's more like a republican instead of a moderate democrat? I don't know of anything. At the end of the day, moderate democrat is realistically our best bet for a state like Arizona. Especially if 2030 is a dem president midterm.
In that case a moderate Dem is probably our ONLY hope at being competitive in AZ in 2030.
Slightly bigger margins I could see for AG, maybe as a stretch SoS, but Arizona is still the most red of the swing states in 2024 and in general, so a 53-47 D win is probably the top limit of victory we can achieve there statewide for any office. I also think it’s worth pointing out that SoS wasn’t really a close race in 2022, Fontes won by 52-48, so getting a bigger margin than that will be way tougher than AG would (which I do agree with you on).
Thirdly, the GOP nominees likely won’t run campaigns like they did in 2022 when election denial was all the rage, after the primary and in the general. So even with the wind at our backs, I’d be hard pressed to say we’ll get bigger margins in both races for 2026. AG, I think that’s a done deal, 51-49 D or so, but SoS? And we don’t have much wiggle room to improve with in a lean red state turning purple.
If we win, it’ll still be fairly close victories barring a complete collapse in Hispanic/Latino Republican support. That’s definitely possible given Trump’s national numbers right now, but I wouldn’t predict it because it hasn’t happened through anything since Trump won in 2016. Maybe this year is the year that all changes, but I’m not betting the farm on that either.
Did Republicans not just completely collapse in Hispanic support just a couple months ago all across the country?
Yes, and off year elections are even less representative of midterm elections than presidential elections are. Do I HOPE that happens in November? With every fiber of my being. Will I predict that? Nope, not a chance.
To be fair, a few of the elections in question were high-profile gubernatorial and mayoral elections. Why would trends from those elections be unlikely to apply to the midterms?
I think off year elections are even less likely to feature a midterm electorate than a presidential one. Neither obviously matches midterm turnout, which is different then presidential years and off year elections, but 2022 and 2018 were closer to a presidential electorate than the 2017 and 2021 election turnout.
My point isn’t that it’s a good metric or a bad one, but that off year elections are worse than presidential elections in getting closer to the actual midterm result. We all want to know what electorate turns out in 2026 and I think 1 is better than the other, though both are imperfect obviously.
I don’t think we can speculate margins in a wave here like this yet. Having lived through several wave elections — there are always shocking things that can happen.
Fun fact: Timmons has never gotten more than 55% in a primary for SC-04 except 2020, when he was unopposed.
"umichvoter
@umichvoter
#NJ11 Nearly 2 million in outside dark money spending (AIPAC, DLGA and a third mystery "article one PAC") on behalf of Tahesha Way and against her top primary opponent"
https://newjerseyglobe.com/congress/another-dark-money-group-is-spending-to-boost-way-in-nj-11/
https://x.com/umichvoter/status/2014707674286346407
Texas news, not all uplifting....No surprise, but statewide Republican candidates have more money than Democrats.
https://www.texastribune.org/2026/01/16/texas-republicans-fundraising-cash-advantage-democrats-2026-election/
Abbott is meddling in the Republican primary for Agriculture Commissioner. Incumbent Sid Miller has been a perpetual underperformer downballot and is constantly saying and doing outlandish things.
https://www.texastribune.org/2026/01/21/texas-abbott-endorse-nate-sheets-ag-commissioner/
On a brighter note, Talarico just released a Spanish-language TV ad as part of a broader Spanish-language effort by his campaign.
https://www.texastribune.org/2026/01/21/james-talarico-spanish-language-tv-ad-texas-senate-democratic-primary/
Link to the Talarico ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX7yLatBNBQ
Question: is the GOP money advantage due to PACs and big donors, or small donors? Who is doing better with small donors?
Not sure. As noted in the article, in the final 10 weeks before the latest filing period, Abbott for example got $1.6 million from a single individual. At the same, Abbott's campaign said they got 48,000 contributions during the most recent period. But as pointed out: After Anwar, Abbott’s biggest donors in the back half of 2025 were casino magnate Miriam Adelson and Texas Republican Leadership Fund, a group backed by GOP megadonor Alex Fairly, both of whom gave his campaign $1 million. Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, Roku founder Anthony Wood, data center developer Black Mountain Power, and Capital Funding Group CEO John Dwyer gave Abbott’s campaign $500,000 apiece.
$5.6 million of Abbott's $22.7 million haul came from 7 sources. Another $1.4 million came from 5 sources. So a total of $7 million (or a third of his haul) came from 12 individuals.
Well then, Democrats are just going to have to work to get as close to matching the fundraising capability as Governor Abbott has been able to do at a substantial level. Irrespective of whether this means Abbott gets unseated or not, the TX-GOV race is still worth putting a fight over.
Wouldn't a lot of the advantage be predictable and due to the Republicans being incumbents?
And to think Sid Miller was considered by Trump for Agriculture secretary.
Since Ashley Moody was appointed to the Senate by Ron DeSantis, is there any chance that an anti-DeSantis Republican would challenge her in the special election to keep her seat?
Cory Mills was considering about a year ago. Maybe with his scandal now it's different
He actually said he would run at one point early last year, but there's been nothing since then. I think he's probably focused on just saving his career at this point.
You can't 100% rule it out until the filing deadline passes, but basically no, aside from the usual rando unserious candidates.
There's been no mention of anything in the year or so since the appointment aside from that 5-minute Mills interest Julius mentioned, and Moody has endorsements from all across the FL GOP spectrum, including Trump.
That's the complicated part of this.
The FL-GOV race seems to be getting more of the attention and energy by the GOP because it's an open race to replace DeSantis, who is being termed out at the end of 2026. With Byron Donalds getting a lot of traction in the polls, any alignment with DeSantis seem to be more focused here than in other races. Unless there's something I'm missing.
With the FL-SEN primary, I really don't know. While DeSantis is still Governor, he has influence although I'd venture to say it's more likely Moody could face a more credible pro-Trump challenger than Donalds will get a more credible pro-DeSantis challenger who can defeat him in the primary.
Strength in numbers out with a model of Trump's approval rating by area. Noticeably low numbers in Texas (41.5%), Iowa (40.5%), and Arizona (38.7%) (the national average in this model is 40.8%), but he's holding up better than I would expect in Ohio (48.4%) and Florida (45.5%). https://projects.gelliottmorris.com/trump-approval/
Florida I’m unsurprised by for a variety of reasons. Ohio, though, I’m very surprised.
He's at -5 in Ohio in Civiqs' tracker. Emerson had him at -2. I think it's probably around that point. I'm optimistic on Ohio because Vivek Ramaswamy is the gift that keeps on giving.
I can see it making sense for Ohio.
While Ohio has some diversity, it's not a particularly diverse state. About 15-20% of the state's population is Appalachian. While there are some major cities in Ohio, they're not dense urban hubs, especially relative to the total population of the state -- comparatively more people are going to be in small cities, less dense suburbs, or rural. It's not a poor state but it's not wealthy either. Not particularly well educated. No history of rural-liberalism like Vermont or prairie-populism like Iowa.
If I'm forced to imagine a stereotypical MAGA voter in the midwest, that person is going to look a lot like Ohio's demographics.
That's a great analysis. I hadn't really thought about it until you said it, but you're right in that Ohio lacks many of the demographic groups that've proven more swingy in the Trump era.
It’s also a very old state with not a lot of young people, the exact demographic makeup you’d expect to move back to their Republican Party now that they aren’t worrying about dying of COVID thanks to Trump. I said this before, but I’ll believe Ohio turns blue again (for Gov or Sen) only after it’s certified and not 1 millisecond before. It’s a really hard state for Democrats to win in today’s coalitions.
Well, there aren't enough demographics in cities like Cleveland and Columbus to make up for a significant portion of the state like CA or NY.
I wouldn’t say very surprised. Somewhat surprised. I would have thought those numbers would be reversed. But deportation has a bigger impact in Florida
Ohio is demographically more MAGA friendly than many red states.
I remember back in the day, people were saying Indiana should be winnable for Dems because it’s demographically similar to Ohio and Ohio was a swing state. First off, I think Ohio is a bit more favorable because it is on average a bit more urban (the three big cities are a higher % of the total population than Indianapolis to Indiana’s population). Second, I think Dems were probably punching above their natural weight in Ohio for quite a few years (up until around 2014).
We used to do a lot better in the Ohio River valley in Indiana too.
We did, but also quite a bit worse in Marion county.
Putting aside the OH-SEN race, it's going to be challenging for Democrats in OH heading to November. I'm not sure about the OH-GOV race but if anyone wants to comment about the House races and what else is happening statewide, feel free to chime in.
AZ and IA are going to be the states to really pay attention to with potential wins by Democrats. I can imagine at least a two U.S. House seat pickup by Democrats in IA considering the success the party has had in the state in last year's off year elections. AZ could be as successful or even more so in November vs. back in 2018.
TX could have potential for Democrats but if James Talarico is the Senate nominee, he may very well be the next Beto O'Rourke but with a larger media presence. That could have a multiplier effect down ballot, not just with what's happening at the national level.
The proposed Maryland congressional map is set to be introduced in the MD House today.
It heads next to a House Rules Committee hearing Monday, with a potential floor vote by midweek.
The House is pro-redistricting, right?
Yes, I believe so.
TX-SEN:
Say what you want about Jasmine Crockett but a good reason why James Talarico has a good shot at winning the general election is that he’s willing to be fearless in how he’s reaching out to voters.
Here’s Talarico appearing on Joe Rogan’s show months before he announced his Senate run.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_jOGPvMftb8&pp=ygUYam9lIHJvZ2FuIGphbWVzIHRhbGFyaWNv
That appearance on Rogan is arguably one of the main factors in lighting the flame for his Senate run. He was great
the primary won't be close: 5-10% for JT
5-10% margin of victory or 5-10% of support for Talarico in particular demographics heading to the primary?
end margin of victory
Got it. I would not be surprised that this could happen although if Talarico does in fact win the primary, he can in fact have the ability to fire up Crockett supporters in the general election.
The question is, how long would it take for both camps of supporters to come together?
Good question. If there was ever a year for dems to come together, this is it
Go Kris Go! I am so proud of her!!
Y'all might be interested in the toplines of the California maps webinar that I hosted yesterday for climate groups.
If all goes well, Cal goes from 43-D, 9-R to 48-D, 4-R. Of those 48, at least 8 (winners in 1, 6, 11, 14, 22, 26, 38, and 48) and as many as 12 will be new faces.
In addition, the makeup of 9, 13, and 27 is changing to be much more Democratic. These 3 legislators are known for siding with the GOP majority on tough votes, so I'm hopeful that they'll be better representatives of their Democratic majority voters. (We discussed a bit yesterday here how the makeup of 45, 47, and 49 is also changing to be more Democratic... the shifts are smaller, and IMO these reps are more reliable Dem votes on tough bills, but that's just my opinion, YMMV)
As for how I got to "up to 12" new faces: 5 Dem incumbents are facing challengers who have organized well enough to block their automatic endorsements at the party convention. All of these incumbents are old, and most are facing well funded primary challenges. They may all end up fine. But they're worth eyeballing esp if they still can't get endorsed at party convention. Those districts are 3 (Bera), 4, 7, 8, and 32.
Oh, and any climate group that endorses Jacqui Irwin in CA-26 needs to surrender their climate card.
RL I'd love to know results of the Democrats' pre-endorsement caucuses if you have any knowledge(I know the reports aren't due until tomorrow). Will they be published on the CA Dems convention web site? And if so, when? Thank you for your work.
I wanted to let all of you know, I got off the train at Union Square, I guess around 5:30, and found out I was at the gathering place for a union-led march against ICE and in support of the general strike in the Twin Cities, so I participated.The United Federation of Teachers was out in force. I don't know how many people marched, but it felt big to me. At times, I was among members of the Socialist Workers Party (Trotskyite); there will always be a diversity of opinion in these marches. I'm not a Trotskyite and didn't join some of their chants.