And we’re also talking about the same John Sununu who lost re-election in 2008 to Jeanne Shaheen, and is running in the environment by which is working against the GOP.
I agree that we'd clearly be favored against him, and the track record of Sen-->Gov attempts recently by Republicans in blue states (and vice versa) is poor. That said, we'd be fools to take him lightly (not suggesting that you are). He'll be formidable in the general. Best option would be for him to get bounced in the primary for not being crazy enough...
Of course. I don't think Chris Pappas should assume anything about the Senate race although he's also been battle tested in his own House district as being a difficult incumbent to unseat by the GOP.
That said, heading to the GOP primary I can just see Scott Brown skewering and going after John Sununu in a similar fashion as Trump did with Jeb Bush in the 2016 GOP Presidential Primaries. Sununu may not realize this but he has a record on the Iraq War, which Brown does not as Brown got elected to the Senate in MA back in 2009 to replace Ted Kennedy.
Call me crazy, but I actually think Collins may have a shot, barring any other progressives entering. As far as I’ve seen, the other candidates are all very ideologically similar — Collins could run as the de facto progressive and benefit from a split field.
Of course, I could be dead wrong too, especially since this is run 4 from her. Thoughts?
If all 14(!!) candidates make it to the primary (which is an open question considering Illinois' history of candidate trying to get each other booted off the ballot), then maybe name rec alone from those three previous runs could put her over the top.
I definitely think the field is favored over any particular candidate. I expect that the race will turn into a political establishment versus outsider race rather than a progressive vs moderate race.
You’re not crazy and I feel the same. She’s run 3 times previously, which means a ton of would be 2026 Democratic primary voters have voted for her before. She never performed terribly in any of her previous runs either. It’s so much easier to win as someone with name recognition now against a large field of mostly unknowns than it was to beat an incumbent in a 1 in 1 battle. IMO her entrance means she’s the front runner and I think she knows this is her best opportunity which is probably exactly why she’s waging a 4th campaign.
If Sharice Davids runs for Kansas AG, she might actually have a solid chance. Kobach barely won in 2022 against a less well known candidate. She might have a small chance for governor too. Senate is likely not possible, she’d be lucky to make it a single digit race.
I disagree. In a Blue Wave environment, I think Sharice Davids has a shot at winning a Senate seat against somebody who voted for the OBBB and has toed the line on a lot of MAGA stuff. Thankfully, Roger Marshall has.
We’ll see I suppose. I just don't think a democrat can knock off an incumbent republican in a state that voted for trump by 16 points. Even if Davids matches her over performance from 2024 statewide, she still loses by 9. Marshall is bad but he’s not as controversial as Kobach.
Montana probably has a better shot of electing another Democrat to the U.S. Senate, as Steve Daines voted for the OBBB and toed the MAGA line on most TACO policies. And up until last year, Jon Tester got reelected on narrow margins.
I would love to see former governor Steve Bullock challenge him again. Especially in a TACO-unfriendly midterm.
Roger Marshall seems like a soulless backbencher and the exact kind of Senator that could be toppled in a perfect storm. I hope Davids swings for the fences and runs.
Isn’t it looking like Kansas legislature won’t get enough members to sign on to a special session? Could she be operating under the assumption they won’t redistrict?
She’s barely raising money at a level to protect her House state. I realize Kansas isn’t the most expensive state to run in, but she’s the 2nd most prominent Democrat in the state and the only one with a campaign in 2026 so I’d expect her to be aggressively fundraising to intimidate potential challengers.
Well, Sharice Davids is in fact potentially being in a more red KS-03 compared to back in 2018 when she won the House seats. I don’t know enough behind the scenes as far as what is going on but I wouldn’t be surprised this is what Davids is dealing with.
A federal, statewide race may be easier for Davids to work with fundraising wise if she ends up jumping in the Senate race. Remains to be seen.
We aren't "getting away" from anything. There just haven't been as many redistricting-related developments lately.
I'd also add that our coverage of redistricting has in no way impacted our coverage of specific races or candidates. The Morning Digest is as long as ever! It's also impossible to discuss candidates without discussing redistricting.
And don't worry, I'm not offended when people tell us they skim or skip certain sections!
It seems that Trump's pea brain isn't functioning very well. Cancelling a "NY" infrastructure project, that primarily helps NJ people get into NY, during a contested NJ governor's race seems like a bad idea.
But will NJ voters hold him responsible or blame it on New York? I'm from that part of the country - it is...pretty parochial, down to a neighborhood level even.
This is why some of us are skeptical of these type of regular guy candidates who have never run for office and clearly haven't been vetted. Imagine if this came out in October 2026 and cost us the Senate seat. He needs to withdraw.
Actually this is a good argument for a primary process in general. If a major scandal such as this emerges in a primary, that candidate may not make the general - which means that said scandal will not affect the general. This actually transcends political and experience lines in my opinion, anyone can have a scandal come out at any time. Hence why we have primaries.
Also, generally the media is bit disinterested in repeating old stories. If something damaging comes out in a primary and the candidate wins the primary anyway, there will be a lot less interest in covering that something during the general.
No, he needs to explain it or at least find a way to dismiss it and let voters have their say. If Dem primary voters find this or whatever else controversial he may have said or done to be disqualifying, or at least think they'll cost him the general election, then they have a chance to make that clear. It's not as if nobody else is running....
I don't think it's a matter of "fault" and definitely don't think it's black and white. I just think we aren't as smart as we think we are. Our voters are fully capable of making very stupid decisions.
It's both. Dems have been limply and tacitly attaching themselves to cultural issues with 65% disapproval ratings for the entirety of the Trump era because the donor class base demands it. The mountain of rubble we're standing upon is the direct result.
It's some stupid sarcastic and cynical comments from 2021 on reddit, Senate progressives like Heinrich, Sanders etc are still backing him. It's not like he explained Marxist theories.
He should not withdraw. A guy who says way more offensive things everyday is president of the United States. This makes him more appealing to a lot of voters, and Maine is still a Harris+7 state.
Bingo - the responses to this from a lot of posters here sounds like a room full of dccc consultants on their 4th drink after listening to focus groups all day.
I don't think you need to be a drunk dccc consultant to think that a guy who calls his voters stupid and cops bastards might have a little bit of difficulty against an established opponent who has beaten back other candidates over and over again. Perceptions of how Democrats viewed police absolutely trashed us in prior elections.
Perhaps- but lots of posters here were ready to abandon ship on the VA AG race based on some texts and the Dem there is still up in the polling. I would say let it play out before hitting eject out of reflex when a Dem makes an error.
This Senate seat is vital, and Collins has always won, regardless of opinion polls. I don't see how we have the luxury of tolerating this kind of idiocy from Platner. I'm done with him.
Call me crazy but I don't think running a candidate in a 95% white, 61% rural state who said rural white Americans are racist and stupid is likely to be a successful electoral strategy.
If a Republican said he became fascist and that urban voters were stupid, not only would he or she not withdraw but Republicans across the country would be carrying him on their shoulders.
It’s not a matter of acceptability but electability. And I think that’s something Maine primary voters should decide. Not by a candidate being pressured to drop out because he said something “politically incorrect.”
"Trump is offensive and wins" is no kind of argument for a progressive candidate at all, and that's the mildest version of a response I could give to this.
Depends. For some reason, he gets away with saying a lot more shit than many other Republicans. I guess it's that "charisma" that other people think he has...
If you don’t understand that now, voters aren’t willing to say any “scandal” or “offensive statement” is disqualifying for any politician except CP you don’t understand what’s happened in this country over the last 10 years. Who cares if a candidate says they’re a communist or a socialist? We have an actual rapist in the White House! Or did we forget that part?
This is exactly what Democratic voters have been talking about when they say the party is weak. Stop doing the Republican Party’s job for them, stop making scandals that aren’t scandals. Here’s what we do instead: Say it’s not a scandal and pivot to attack the Trump party with actual scandals.
That’s what the GOP does all the time for every member that does something unacceptable and guess what? It works! If the party completely protects the member, saying it’s no big deal, the media moves on or did we forget the umpteen dozen scandals Trump and other GOP Congress members have had that have disappeared from view?
Form ranks and end the scandal before it even starts. The only reason these things become problems is because our Democratic leaders side with the GOP and say they’re problems. Then the media reports on the division, which spreads the story to the average voter who’s completely uneducated and uninformed who’s like “some in the party say it isn’t ok, so maybe it isn’t”.
I guarantee you 1000% if every Democrat who responded to the story said “this isn’t a scandal” the media would be bored after a week and move on and voters wouldn’t think it is a problem either. We are the problem, it is us and our leaders that create these scandals. Why the hell haven’t we figured that out yet? Enough of this bullshit.
I'm going to roll my eyes right back at you and say that any Democrat in a swing state who says "you're Godamn right I'm a communist who thinks cops are bastards and my voters are stupid" is not going to win even if Chuck Schumer gives him a kiss. There are different rules for Dems and Republicans on issues like this and I don't think "owning it" will work.
Well said. Democrats need to stop expecting our candidates to be perfect human beings who have never said, done, or written anything controversial in their entire lives. Along with disqualifying a host of perfectly good candidates, in the age of the Internet you can find crazy things attributed to anybody.
Republicans have no such expectations for their candidates, and most of the time recently it hasn't hurt them.
Jamie Belsito, who ran against Moulton in 2020, and Dan Koh, a former Biden admin official who ran for the neighboring 3rd district in 2018, are the first major candidates after Moulton's retirement in MA-6.
Belsito is the progressive there from what I’ve heard — she actually attempted to primary Moulton from the left in 2020. Koh is more moderate from what I see but given his floating a primary challenge of his own after Moulton’s trans comments he may not be bad either. We’ll see.
As a mass voter... good god, I don't want to vote for EITHER of these people! I'm still pissed at Moulton for throwing trans people like me under the bus after the election... but at the same time, I thought Markey was too old to be running again LAST cycle and I was really hoping Kennedy would pull through.
Look, I get that a lot of progressives cut Markey some slack because he's one of them, but I still remember last cycle, where Markey ran an ad showing off this working class cred by mentioning he paid his way through college by working on an ice cream truck. At the time of the election, I was applying for colleges myself... and looking down the barrel of putting myself 5 figures in debt for it. So that ad kinda struck a nerve with me.
Because paying his way through college was possible for someone his age, but decidedly NOT with me. I would've had to work 25 hours a week at minimum wage, on top of dealing with a full courseload (which itself would be about 36 hours of time commitment,) to pay my way through college (if I'm doing my math right.) I don't think Markey was pulling that off on the ice cream truck, and it made me feel like he was out of touch with how the world was nowadays.
I get what you re saying but consider that his ad also showed that he did not grow up rich like so many politicians. I suspect he was contrasting to Kennedy but I have not seen the ad.
I understand your concerns in that college expenses have gone up faster than inflation and states aren't subsidizing state schools like they used to.
But it's never been easy without parent financial support. I took a fill load, graduated in 4 years, worked 15-25 hours per week, and on top waited tables on Friday and Saturday nights at a Mexican restaurant and bar when I could. What gave was sleep.
I thought you'd say something like that, and I strongly disagree. The fact that he's talking about his experience of working through college in no way means he doesn't understand the problems current college students have.
I think everyone’s pretty much hoping that either a) Markey retires or b) Pressley jumps in after seeing Moulton jump in. She can win a 3 way race combining both Markey’s strength (progressive), with Moulton’s strength (generational change).
IMO she needs to run, I get people like Markey, but Moulton would be a terrible downgrade and he could win a 1 on 1 battle after an election where an incumbent president withdrew from running for re-election solely because of his age. It’s top of mind for our voters.
Tipped, but though I'd love for Pressley to be in that seat, I don't want to see her and Markey split the progressive vote, letting Moulton win with a plurality.
I don’t think that’s possible. Moulton and the moderate wing of our party tend not to vote in primaries or if they do vote, they form a very small minority. As the party has moved left so have our voters. There is no actual reason someone who is progressive would vote for Markey over Pressley.
Lakshya Jain (not a progressive btw) for the Washington Post:
Ideologically, Democratic voters have grown more uniformly left in their outlook. Between 2016 and 2024, the percentage of Democrats self-identifying as liberal or very liberal in Gallup polling increased from 48 percent to 55 percent — while the share of those who identify as conservative or very conservative has dropped from 15 percent to 9 percent.
All in all, the data show that Democrats simply aren’t dealing with the same voter base they dealt with eight years ago. On multiple policy fronts, from immigration to foreign policy, Democrats have steadily moved left — a reality that lines up closely with the party’s changing preferences on the approach to the Trump administration. The attitudinal shift might also explain why the Democratic base is receptive to politicians like Zohran Mamdani, a self-identified Democratic socialist.
This shift may prove an ominous one for establishment Democrats, particularly as concerns about the overall age of the party’s congressional leaders grow among base voters. Observers and pundits alike will be wise to remember that the Democratic Party of 2026 is not the Democratic Party of 2018, even if the midterm dynamics seem similar.
While I’m sure if he runs, he’ll likely still get some votes as the incumbent, the amount of progressives showing up to give a message to our leaders in 2026 primaries after what the establishment led us to in 2024 I think is going to shock some people by the results that happen.
Who votes in primaries more? The wing of the party most upset. See 2010/2014 Tea Party GOP primaries. Who in our party are the most upset? The left. After Mamdani wins in NYC, that spark of discontent from the left I think is going to explode nationwide.
It’s simmering right now behind the scenes, but it’s ready to ignite and I don’t think even a 3 way race in this state is enough of a progressive split to make Pressley lose. She’s a younger, more diverse woman version of Markey’s politics who can be in office for decades building her seniority up.
I know voters are certainly not always logical, but if there’s a choice between Markey and Pressley almost everyone here would choose Pressley and I think that’s exactly what happens with primary voters facing that choice too if she does end up running.
Yes and the party’s base is the most progressive it’s ever been in history right now. This is something we as Democrats do wrong imo. History doesn’t matter, right now does. Past isn’t prologue. Just like Democrats were wrong in Obama creating an unbreakable working class/minority Democratic majority, Republicans are wrong in Trump creating an unbreakable all races working class MAGA/GOP majority.
It’s what they created in that specific moment in time that mattered and at any other point could have ended up losing the election to their opponents. We look way too much to the past instead of the current political environment. We still have people arguing we need to move right because of the 2024 vote when voters at this moment don’t even want the policies they wanted last year anymore.
Just because a progressive split has happened for a century in our party (which tbqh I dispute any assertion of it always happening, it happens sometimes, just like a moderate split sometimes does too in a primary, that’s normal in any party, each wing sometimes loses, it’s healthy) doesn’t mean it will always happen in the future.
I'd just like to know how Pressley would be a downgrade from Markey in any way? Additionally we need to start looking forward to 2029 when he would be 81 years old. Do we really want a redux of having a MA Senator die in office when we have shit that we'll need to get done with a very small window of time to get it done in?
I'm not particularly happy with them as the options. That is the case though, and it's an easy choice for me to prefer Markey. I will tolerate a decent amount of downgrade to avoid 80+ year old senators, but Moulton is far too much of a downgrade.
Plus: at the end of the day Markey will not be around that much longer. In contrast, if Moulton wins we could be stuck with him for 30+ years. That would be absolutely dreadful.
Yeah, tbh if Markey dies next term, Healthy will probably appoint Pressley or Andrea Campbell (like maybe Lori Trahan but I don't see it), and all of them are far better than Moulton.
I get the base backlash to his transphobic comments and even his blatant hyper-ambition, but would a Moulton Senate tenure really qualify as "absolutely dreadful" from a policy/legislative standpoint? He's not exactly a Josh Gottheimer is he?
We're talking about Massachusetts. Not just a very blue state, but one that is also a more progressive shade of blue. Socially and economically. Better than Gottheimer is a very, very low floor you are setting, especially in that context.
Moulton would fail to fill the kind of role that Warren, Markey, Kennedy, or to a lesser extent Kerry all filled. People that ensure we keep our core ideals in mind, that push us to do more than moderate ourselves into irrelevance. And before anyone reads too much into that: yes, we absolutely need moderates in the party, and in many states they're the best or even only viable option. For states as far left as Massachusetts, we should seek those out at the progressive end of our ideological spectrum, just as in Arizona (and many others) we should go to the other end.
Moulton specifically is also plainly unreliable. I suspect he would be like a less centrist combination of Golden and Lieberman of years past. Someone bad mouthing the party whenever they shove a microphone in front of him, and occasionally digging his heels in and voting with republicans on something while being completely intractable on that decision.
Does anyone here think we are being well served by Schumer and Gillibrand in New York, or that we could do better? Similar idea.
In context of the state at hand, yes, I consider 30 years of that to be absolutely dreadful. Even six years would be awful.
Be aware that when Ed Markey dealt with cost and expenses in college tuition it was a much different time for him. He graduated from college in the 1960’s and tuition was much less at universities then. Given he graduated from a Jesuit university, Boston College, Markey likely had to pay for private university tuition more than public university tuition. There are Jesuit universities in San Francisco like the University of San Francisco which offer less expensive tuition at certain graduate programs.
That said, I have to remind people here on The Downballot that we have to still challenge the status quo in higher education if it means either going for tuition free public colleges, lowering the tuition, finding a better funding mechanism for public universities, OR finding a way for universities to help students pay off student debt that’s not going to saddle them with undue burden for a long time. Student debt forgiveness is not enough.
I do not think it’s helpful that the Department of Education and accreditation institutions are putting pressure on universities to deliver while they are cutting programs like humanities (which is tragic and should be reversed). There needs to be middle ground and compromising here.
Btw, Senator Markey supports tuition free colleges and worked with Bernie Sanders on a bill for this. He’s more on your side than you think.
I put myself through college in the 90s and work at one now. Universal free undergrad is a bad idea. First, it's a giveaway to the rich. There are lots of college kids who have plenty of means to pay, and studies show that working part time during college increases grades. Second, lots of recent high school grads really don't know why they are in college so paying their college isn't cost effective. Better would be to vastly expand Pell Grants to underwrite costs and limit college loans to 2% interest. Also to reduce some of the many many unfunded federal reporting mandates on a variety of items so universities can cut back indirect costs and bloated administration.
1) College tuition is still sky high. One cannot argue any real distinction with a private and public university like Stanford and UC Berkeley from a cost standpoint. Undergraduate tuition in colleges like those is close to the same so aside from public universities receiving state government funding, what’s the real difference?
More importantly, why have we allowed Ronald Reagan to set the course for how public college tuition has become expensive these days compared to how it used to be say in the 1950’s or 1960’s?
2) So you say universal free education is a giveaway to the rich. Don’t the rich already get free tuition if they enroll their kids in public K-12 schools?
Public universities with free tuition would need a strong funding mechanism to ensure no draconian cuts would happen in the process. Otherwise, it won’t work.
3) No, I am not pointing out colleges should pay for the tuition. Financial aid counselors should find ways to work with students to help them pay off tuition such as getting them connected to supplemental income, other ideas for side hustles or anything students need to do to manage tuition payments without having to be forced to take just one job. This is more of counseling and advising for students.
Whatever solutions there are, I’d just prefer here be ways to make college education in reach for people so there’s no need to have to incur tuition costs for a long time.
I agree pretty much with everything you've said above. I guess in the east coast the private unis are still more. URichmond is like 4x the cost of VA Commonwealth, a few miles down the road.
Universities without tuition will shift to more fees. Without either they will need some other funding mechanism. Why shouldn't the rich pay to attend and not rely solely on taxes? K-12 ed is compulsory, a BS/BA is not. Hence the distinction with public K-12.
Absolutely college costs should be cheaper. One of the main culprits is the federal govt for requiring all sorts of reporting and programs that come ftom unfunded mandates, so cost is pushed to students. Another is bigtime athletics and NIL. Not supposed to be general fund, but students pay athletic fees, and some is absolutely general fund. Less overhead and more grant funding would help make college more affordable.
Josh Turek was endorsed by Scholten after he withdrew: he's a two-term state rep who flipped a Republican district by 6 votes in 2022. Also 4-time Paralympian athlete (he has spina bifida, been in a wheelchair since childhood), medaled three times.
Another notable candidate is State Sen. (and former minority leader) Zach Wahls, who is probably most famous for his activism as a teenager in 2011 defending his lesbian moms over a proposed constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality.
With what Trump is doing to farmers with his trade war, and raids on immigrant agricultural workers if we can't improve our performance in farm areas like Western Iowa in 2026, then it is a lost cause at this point. It's almost like Trump is doing everything he can to hurt farmers at this point.
I don't think Trump's cult will ever turn on him, but I could easily see a lot of them staying home in 2026 (they didn't exactly turn out in droves in 2022).
Western Iowa will likely remain a tough nut to crack or even to return to 2014-era numbers, but a bigger problem is that Ashley Hinson's geographic base is the state's bellwether district where she has overperformed in the last two cycles.
It’s a bit more complicated than that. The minute, unseemly bill included a ton of subsidies for farmers, but they don’t kick in until next year. So farmers are in substantial pain right now, but they may not be by election time. (I’ll put aside that most of the subsidies are there mainly to encourage whatever small farmers are left to sell their lands to big Afro and private equity - whole other topic.) Completely up in the air to see if they can survive that long and if they remember this year’s pain next year.
That's a strategy that might backfire, especially if Jordan Wood ends up winning the primary. Mills would probably be the weakest opponent to Collins, although that's debatable.
The comment I replied to stated that "Mills would probably be the weakest opponent to Collins." Your remarks aren't relevant to the truth or falsity of that statement.
If "Mills would probably be the weakest opponent to Collins," why did the Cook Political Report and Sabato's Crystal Ball, immediately upon Mills's announcement, change their race rating from "Lean R" to "Toss-Up"?
Cook seems to place a lot more weight on demonstrated appeal than on hypothesized appeal. Mills has performed well in high-profile elections in the past. I think it's fair to say she has the highest floor of any announced candidate. I think her ceiling is probably lower than Platner's, and I'm not sure whether she has a better chance to win.
If Platner runs a good campaign and doesn't make any big errors he could be an Osborn-type overperformer. I think he has much more potential appeal to downscale voters than Mills does.
That is beyond debatable. It's a silly comment on it's face. We can discuss who might be stronger, but a recently twice-elected, sitting Democratic Governor in a blue state is never the weakest candidate, barring some kind of scandal.
"Campaign finance filings from Michigan's US Senate candidates are in — they're all close. So here's who got the most (itemized) $$$ from Michiganders:
Considering that we got Joe Lieberman from Connecticut who endorsed John McCain and spoke at the 2008 RNC not too long ago, it's not THAT impossible to imagine. Also, Scott Brown being a Massachusetts senator is still fairly recent history.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was asked a question earlier today, where he fell as he was trying to walk away from answering. He got up and promptly waved and walked away.
He is retiring next cycle, though it would be funny to see which RINO Beshear appoints if he dies first. (Think there would have to be a special though, and tbh I'd rather have McConnell there until 2027 than accelerate one of the ghouls campaigning now succeeding him early.)
Couldn't Beshear appoint a Democrat? And if McConnell died now, there wouldn't be time to have a special election before November 2026, the general election date (like in California, for example, after Feinsteins death)
No, the state law is that he has to appoint someone from the same party (and it might have to be directly from a list made by the state party, so he couldn't just appoint a Never Trumper tbh). And over a year is far more than enough time to run a special, California law just has the appointee serve until the next national general.
This is a two year old article, but it's about the change in the law. Says that the governor must make a selection within 21 days of receiving a list from the state party.
I know he is, but KY lawmakers tied Gov Beshear's hands, overriding his veto on the law they forced through saying that he must appoint someone of the same party (from three picked by the state party) as the outgoing Senator.
I heard the KY Supreme Court leans left, but I have not heard anything definitive apart from MeidasTouch. If it leans left, it would probably revisit decisions like gerrymandering and GOP laws stripping the governor of his constitutional powers.
I mean, he *still* says that the reason he supports releasing the Epstein files is because he believes they'll be worse for Democrats than Republicans.
Yes, Massie in this sense is more closely aligned with Senator Rand Paul in his Libertarian philosophy. He’s not afraid to express concern over anything that goes against these values as it relates to the government.
Gerrymandering, sure, if they nuke McGarvey's seat it'll be a live controversy. There's nothing illegal or unconstitutional about changing the vacancy filling process tbh, and I can't imagine one filed now wouldn't et dismissed after so much time has passed. I'm sure there are other gubernatorial powers that have been stripped that have a more evergreen possibility to sue.
He had polio as a little boy right before the vaccine was available. He got his mobility back long ago, but I imagine his gait was never the same again.
And we’re also talking about the same John Sununu who lost re-election in 2008 to Jeanne Shaheen, and is running in the environment by which is working against the GOP.
I agree that we'd clearly be favored against him, and the track record of Sen-->Gov attempts recently by Republicans in blue states (and vice versa) is poor. That said, we'd be fools to take him lightly (not suggesting that you are). He'll be formidable in the general. Best option would be for him to get bounced in the primary for not being crazy enough...
Of course. I don't think Chris Pappas should assume anything about the Senate race although he's also been battle tested in his own House district as being a difficult incumbent to unseat by the GOP.
That said, heading to the GOP primary I can just see Scott Brown skewering and going after John Sununu in a similar fashion as Trump did with Jeb Bush in the 2016 GOP Presidential Primaries. Sununu may not realize this but he has a record on the Iraq War, which Brown does not as Brown got elected to the Senate in MA back in 2009 to replace Ted Kennedy.
Call me crazy, but I actually think Collins may have a shot, barring any other progressives entering. As far as I’ve seen, the other candidates are all very ideologically similar — Collins could run as the de facto progressive and benefit from a split field.
Of course, I could be dead wrong too, especially since this is run 4 from her. Thoughts?
If all 14(!!) candidates make it to the primary (which is an open question considering Illinois' history of candidate trying to get each other booted off the ballot), then maybe name rec alone from those three previous runs could put her over the top.
I definitely think the field is favored over any particular candidate. I expect that the race will turn into a political establishment versus outsider race rather than a progressive vs moderate race.
You’re not crazy and I feel the same. She’s run 3 times previously, which means a ton of would be 2026 Democratic primary voters have voted for her before. She never performed terribly in any of her previous runs either. It’s so much easier to win as someone with name recognition now against a large field of mostly unknowns than it was to beat an incumbent in a 1 in 1 battle. IMO her entrance means she’s the front runner and I think she knows this is her best opportunity which is probably exactly why she’s waging a 4th campaign.
I thought you were talking about Maine-Senate at first.
Same, and the next most recognizable "Collins" for me is Chris in NY/FL.
I absolutely bounced from Susan to Chris before landing on Kina! 🤣
Ah whoops, should have specified IL-7. Apologies.
No need to apologize. We all figured it out.
The Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick path to congress
If Sharice Davids runs for Kansas AG, she might actually have a solid chance. Kobach barely won in 2022 against a less well known candidate. She might have a small chance for governor too. Senate is likely not possible, she’d be lucky to make it a single digit race.
I disagree. In a Blue Wave environment, I think Sharice Davids has a shot at winning a Senate seat against somebody who voted for the OBBB and has toed the line on a lot of MAGA stuff. Thankfully, Roger Marshall has.
We’ll see I suppose. I just don't think a democrat can knock off an incumbent republican in a state that voted for trump by 16 points. Even if Davids matches her over performance from 2024 statewide, she still loses by 9. Marshall is bad but he’s not as controversial as Kobach.
Montana probably has a better shot of electing another Democrat to the U.S. Senate, as Steve Daines voted for the OBBB and toed the MAGA line on most TACO policies. And up until last year, Jon Tester got reelected on narrow margins.
I would love to see former governor Steve Bullock challenge him again. Especially in a TACO-unfriendly midterm.
I'd rather Bullock didn't try again and maybe some state legislator or mayor ran.
Long shot, but maybe.
No chance whatsoever. Love her though...
Roger Marshall seems like a soulless backbencher and the exact kind of Senator that could be toppled in a perfect storm. I hope Davids swings for the fences and runs.
Davids isn’t raising money like she intends to run statewide.
Isn’t it looking like Kansas legislature won’t get enough members to sign on to a special session? Could she be operating under the assumption they won’t redistrict?
Could be. But the threat would have more teeth is she was raising more money.
She isn’t even officially in the Senate race. What are we supposed to expect when the campaign hasn’t even started?
She’s barely raising money at a level to protect her House state. I realize Kansas isn’t the most expensive state to run in, but she’s the 2nd most prominent Democrat in the state and the only one with a campaign in 2026 so I’d expect her to be aggressively fundraising to intimidate potential challengers.
Ahh ok, I see what you are saying.
Well, Sharice Davids is in fact potentially being in a more red KS-03 compared to back in 2018 when she won the House seats. I don’t know enough behind the scenes as far as what is going on but I wouldn’t be surprised this is what Davids is dealing with.
A federal, statewide race may be easier for Davids to work with fundraising wise if she ends up jumping in the Senate race. Remains to be seen.
Barely raising money? She pulled in $678,000 in the third quarter! That's serious cash.
She’s a sitting Member of Congress when Democrats are angry and agitated. Should be easy to raise money for a purple district Member.
Good to see you getting away from all the redistricting news that were leading in your daily posting. I'm interested in the candidates running.
Redistricting directly influences which candidates run for which office. It's critically important for election analysis.
Many of us love this site and its predecessors precisely because of the details it gets into.
I think you'll find they are also not "getting away from" it, just because there were no noteworthy events today.
If the VRA is overturned sand we aren't vigilant in response, there won't be any meaningful candidate news to discuss for a couple decades.
We aren't "getting away" from anything. There just haven't been as many redistricting-related developments lately.
I'd also add that our coverage of redistricting has in no way impacted our coverage of specific races or candidates. The Morning Digest is as long as ever! It's also impossible to discuss candidates without discussing redistricting.
And don't worry, I'm not offended when people tell us they skim or skip certain sections!
I do skim through the redistricting stuff so grateful you're not offended. It's too bad that we have to focus on it at this time but it is what it is.
My comment was one of annoyance that we even have it in a discussion. Some responding took it the wrong way of which I have no control over.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/15/nyregion/trump-gateway-cancellation.html
It seems that Trump's pea brain isn't functioning very well. Cancelling a "NY" infrastructure project, that primarily helps NJ people get into NY, during a contested NJ governor's race seems like a bad idea.
But will NJ voters hold him responsible or blame it on New York? I'm from that part of the country - it is...pretty parochial, down to a neighborhood level even.
ME-Sen: Good this comes out now after Mills is running: https://politicalwire.com/2025/10/16/i-got-older-and-became-a-communist/
BTW, he was 37 when he posted this tripe to the antiwork subreddit (also a bit of a red flag).
Yikes, it looks like our oyster farmer is done.
This is why some of us are skeptical of these type of regular guy candidates who have never run for office and clearly haven't been vetted. Imagine if this came out in October 2026 and cost us the Senate seat. He needs to withdraw.
Actually this is a good argument for a primary process in general. If a major scandal such as this emerges in a primary, that candidate may not make the general - which means that said scandal will not affect the general. This actually transcends political and experience lines in my opinion, anyone can have a scandal come out at any time. Hence why we have primaries.
Also, generally the media is bit disinterested in repeating old stories. If something damaging comes out in a primary and the candidate wins the primary anyway, there will be a lot less interest in covering that something during the general.
True, but if it's damaging, expect to see it over and over in Republican attack ads.
We would have a primary with high profile Maine pols even without 77yr old Mills.
No, he needs to explain it or at least find a way to dismiss it and let voters have their say. If Dem primary voters find this or whatever else controversial he may have said or done to be disqualifying, or at least think they'll cost him the general election, then they have a chance to make that clear. It's not as if nobody else is running....
Fully agreed. We have to have at least a little faith in our base, it’s not like base Dems are anywhere near as stupid as the base GOP.
I think it's a mistake to overestimate our own intelligence and underestimate the other side. If we're so smart, why have we been losing for so long?
But is that our base’s fault alone per se? Or could there be other factors? I don’t think it’s quite that black and white.
I don't think it's a matter of "fault" and definitely don't think it's black and white. I just think we aren't as smart as we think we are. Our voters are fully capable of making very stupid decisions.
It's both. Dems have been limply and tacitly attaching themselves to cultural issues with 65% disapproval ratings for the entirety of the Trump era because the donor class base demands it. The mountain of rubble we're standing upon is the direct result.
I don't see how it can be explained, and the Democratic Party can't afford to have him run in the general election.
It's some stupid sarcastic and cynical comments from 2021 on reddit, Senate progressives like Heinrich, Sanders etc are still backing him. It's not like he explained Marxist theories.
When you're explaining, you're losing.
And he's not.
He should not withdraw. A guy who says way more offensive things everyday is president of the United States. This makes him more appealing to a lot of voters, and Maine is still a Harris+7 state.
Bingo - the responses to this from a lot of posters here sounds like a room full of dccc consultants on their 4th drink after listening to focus groups all day.
I don't think you need to be a drunk dccc consultant to think that a guy who calls his voters stupid and cops bastards might have a little bit of difficulty against an established opponent who has beaten back other candidates over and over again. Perceptions of how Democrats viewed police absolutely trashed us in prior elections.
Perhaps- but lots of posters here were ready to abandon ship on the VA AG race based on some texts and the Dem there is still up in the polling. I would say let it play out before hitting eject out of reflex when a Dem makes an error.
This Senate seat is vital, and Collins has always won, regardless of opinion polls. I don't see how we have the luxury of tolerating this kind of idiocy from Platner. I'm done with him.
Then she should have no problem beating him in the primary.
Call me crazy but I don't think running a candidate in a 95% white, 61% rural state who said rural white Americans are racist and stupid is likely to be a successful electoral strategy.
If a Republican said he became fascist and that urban voters were stupid, not only would he or she not withdraw but Republicans across the country would be carrying him on their shoulders.
I don't use what Republicans say or believe as a yardstick for acceptability and I hope you don't either.
It’s not a matter of acceptability but electability. And I think that’s something Maine primary voters should decide. Not by a candidate being pressured to drop out because he said something “politically incorrect.”
100% agree, but that has nothing to do with Platner's chances against Collins.
"I love the poorly educated...."
"Trump is offensive and wins" is no kind of argument for a progressive candidate at all, and that's the mildest version of a response I could give to this.
Wish I could like this a thousand times.
No, very few can get away with being a hateful, rotted King Lear (but without the remorse) like Trump. It's annoying, but true.
That was true in 2016. Now I think just about anybody with an (R) next to their name can get away with being a hateful, rotted King Lear.
Depends. For some reason, he gets away with saying a lot more shit than many other Republicans. I guess it's that "charisma" that other people think he has...
I agree, and even when others get away with it, I think it's at least partly because of insulation that comes from Trump's support.
This - 100% There's a reason why guys like him flame out all the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBCcM6GVLOU
Oof
I just hope this is not used as a weapon against all progressives, like implying we’re all communists or something because Platner was/is. Not good.
The Right calls anyone to the Left of Liz Cheney a Communist.
Indeed.
A Dem could say the sky is blue and some gop hack would try to make it into an attack ad. We know they will try and have to be aggressive in response.
They don't need a weapon. I don't think it matters at all for progressives outside of Maine.
I doubt this will hurt any other progressive candidates, but Graham Platner is cooked, whether or not he knows it yet.
Yeah, we're gonna get called commies regardless. The bigger damage is his other comments.
Yeah, that's why I think it's a good idea to give "some guy" candidates a little time before jumping on the bandwagon.
*insert eyeroll here*
If you don’t understand that now, voters aren’t willing to say any “scandal” or “offensive statement” is disqualifying for any politician except CP you don’t understand what’s happened in this country over the last 10 years. Who cares if a candidate says they’re a communist or a socialist? We have an actual rapist in the White House! Or did we forget that part?
This is exactly what Democratic voters have been talking about when they say the party is weak. Stop doing the Republican Party’s job for them, stop making scandals that aren’t scandals. Here’s what we do instead: Say it’s not a scandal and pivot to attack the Trump party with actual scandals.
That’s what the GOP does all the time for every member that does something unacceptable and guess what? It works! If the party completely protects the member, saying it’s no big deal, the media moves on or did we forget the umpteen dozen scandals Trump and other GOP Congress members have had that have disappeared from view?
Form ranks and end the scandal before it even starts. The only reason these things become problems is because our Democratic leaders side with the GOP and say they’re problems. Then the media reports on the division, which spreads the story to the average voter who’s completely uneducated and uninformed who’s like “some in the party say it isn’t ok, so maybe it isn’t”.
I guarantee you 1000% if every Democrat who responded to the story said “this isn’t a scandal” the media would be bored after a week and move on and voters wouldn’t think it is a problem either. We are the problem, it is us and our leaders that create these scandals. Why the hell haven’t we figured that out yet? Enough of this bullshit.
I'm going to roll my eyes right back at you and say that any Democrat in a swing state who says "you're Godamn right I'm a communist who thinks cops are bastards and my voters are stupid" is not going to win even if Chuck Schumer gives him a kiss. There are different rules for Dems and Republicans on issues like this and I don't think "owning it" will work.
Well said. Democrats need to stop expecting our candidates to be perfect human beings who have never said, done, or written anything controversial in their entire lives. Along with disqualifying a host of perfectly good candidates, in the age of the Internet you can find crazy things attributed to anybody.
Republicans have no such expectations for their candidates, and most of the time recently it hasn't hurt them.
What he said was more explicit than the whole deplorable flap. It's only lessened by the fact he didn't verbally say it.
It's a good example as to why you shouldn't post on social media, I say, ironically.
Jamie Belsito, who ran against Moulton in 2020, and Dan Koh, a former Biden admin official who ran for the neighboring 3rd district in 2018, are the first major candidates after Moulton's retirement in MA-6.
Belsito is the progressive there from what I’ve heard — she actually attempted to primary Moulton from the left in 2020. Koh is more moderate from what I see but given his floating a primary challenge of his own after Moulton’s trans comments he may not be bad either. We’ll see.
As a mass voter... good god, I don't want to vote for EITHER of these people! I'm still pissed at Moulton for throwing trans people like me under the bus after the election... but at the same time, I thought Markey was too old to be running again LAST cycle and I was really hoping Kennedy would pull through.
Look, I get that a lot of progressives cut Markey some slack because he's one of them, but I still remember last cycle, where Markey ran an ad showing off this working class cred by mentioning he paid his way through college by working on an ice cream truck. At the time of the election, I was applying for colleges myself... and looking down the barrel of putting myself 5 figures in debt for it. So that ad kinda struck a nerve with me.
I'm not understanding why an ad showing he paid his way through college upset you.
Because paying his way through college was possible for someone his age, but decidedly NOT with me. I would've had to work 25 hours a week at minimum wage, on top of dealing with a full courseload (which itself would be about 36 hours of time commitment,) to pay my way through college (if I'm doing my math right.) I don't think Markey was pulling that off on the ice cream truck, and it made me feel like he was out of touch with how the world was nowadays.
I get what you re saying but consider that his ad also showed that he did not grow up rich like so many politicians. I suspect he was contrasting to Kennedy but I have not seen the ad.
I believe he also highlighted that experience to show how affordable college used to be, and that it's something he wants America to return to.
I understand your concerns in that college expenses have gone up faster than inflation and states aren't subsidizing state schools like they used to.
But it's never been easy without parent financial support. I took a fill load, graduated in 4 years, worked 15-25 hours per week, and on top waited tables on Friday and Saturday nights at a Mexican restaurant and bar when I could. What gave was sleep.
I thought you'd say something like that, and I strongly disagree. The fact that he's talking about his experience of working through college in no way means he doesn't understand the problems current college students have.
Sir I'm 79 and still working 16/7 volunteering my time. Obviously you're not a med student where 61 hours a week is chicken feed.
Obviously you reacted differently to the ad than I did, but I did not view him as out of touch for that comment.
Here's the ad, btw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoM_RZWkAvY
I think everyone’s pretty much hoping that either a) Markey retires or b) Pressley jumps in after seeing Moulton jump in. She can win a 3 way race combining both Markey’s strength (progressive), with Moulton’s strength (generational change).
IMO she needs to run, I get people like Markey, but Moulton would be a terrible downgrade and he could win a 1 on 1 battle after an election where an incumbent president withdrew from running for re-election solely because of his age. It’s top of mind for our voters.
Tipped, but though I'd love for Pressley to be in that seat, I don't want to see her and Markey split the progressive vote, letting Moulton win with a plurality.
I don’t think that’s possible. Moulton and the moderate wing of our party tend not to vote in primaries or if they do vote, they form a very small minority. As the party has moved left so have our voters. There is no actual reason someone who is progressive would vote for Markey over Pressley.
Lakshya Jain (not a progressive btw) for the Washington Post:
https://archive.ph/mMds7
Ideologically, Democratic voters have grown more uniformly left in their outlook. Between 2016 and 2024, the percentage of Democrats self-identifying as liberal or very liberal in Gallup polling increased from 48 percent to 55 percent — while the share of those who identify as conservative or very conservative has dropped from 15 percent to 9 percent.
All in all, the data show that Democrats simply aren’t dealing with the same voter base they dealt with eight years ago. On multiple policy fronts, from immigration to foreign policy, Democrats have steadily moved left — a reality that lines up closely with the party’s changing preferences on the approach to the Trump administration. The attitudinal shift might also explain why the Democratic base is receptive to politicians like Zohran Mamdani, a self-identified Democratic socialist.
This shift may prove an ominous one for establishment Democrats, particularly as concerns about the overall age of the party’s congressional leaders grow among base voters. Observers and pundits alike will be wise to remember that the Democratic Party of 2026 is not the Democratic Party of 2018, even if the midterm dynamics seem similar.
While I’m sure if he runs, he’ll likely still get some votes as the incumbent, the amount of progressives showing up to give a message to our leaders in 2026 primaries after what the establishment led us to in 2024 I think is going to shock some people by the results that happen.
Who votes in primaries more? The wing of the party most upset. See 2010/2014 Tea Party GOP primaries. Who in our party are the most upset? The left. After Mamdani wins in NYC, that spark of discontent from the left I think is going to explode nationwide.
It’s simmering right now behind the scenes, but it’s ready to ignite and I don’t think even a 3 way race in this state is enough of a progressive split to make Pressley lose. She’s a younger, more diverse woman version of Markey’s politics who can be in office for decades building her seniority up.
I know voters are certainly not always logical, but if there’s a choice between Markey and Pressley almost everyone here would choose Pressley and I think that’s exactly what happens with primary voters facing that choice too if she does end up running.
Thanks for this detailed, well-argued point, but memories die hard. We've been screwed again and again by left-wing splits since 1914.
Yes and the party’s base is the most progressive it’s ever been in history right now. This is something we as Democrats do wrong imo. History doesn’t matter, right now does. Past isn’t prologue. Just like Democrats were wrong in Obama creating an unbreakable working class/minority Democratic majority, Republicans are wrong in Trump creating an unbreakable all races working class MAGA/GOP majority.
It’s what they created in that specific moment in time that mattered and at any other point could have ended up losing the election to their opponents. We look way too much to the past instead of the current political environment. We still have people arguing we need to move right because of the 2024 vote when voters at this moment don’t even want the policies they wanted last year anymore.
Just because a progressive split has happened for a century in our party (which tbqh I dispute any assertion of it always happening, it happens sometimes, just like a moderate split sometimes does too in a primary, that’s normal in any party, each wing sometimes loses, it’s healthy) doesn’t mean it will always happen in the future.
I don't buy "it's healthy", but I take the rest of your points, and thanks for articulating them.
I think Markey dropping out and endorsing Pressley is a possibility as well.
Everyone’s hoping that Markey retires? Au contraire.
I'd just like to know how Pressley would be a downgrade from Markey in any way? Additionally we need to start looking forward to 2029 when he would be 81 years old. Do we really want a redux of having a MA Senator die in office when we have shit that we'll need to get done with a very small window of time to get it done in?
I'm not particularly happy with them as the options. That is the case though, and it's an easy choice for me to prefer Markey. I will tolerate a decent amount of downgrade to avoid 80+ year old senators, but Moulton is far too much of a downgrade.
Plus: at the end of the day Markey will not be around that much longer. In contrast, if Moulton wins we could be stuck with him for 30+ years. That would be absolutely dreadful.
Yeah, tbh if Markey dies next term, Healthy will probably appoint Pressley or Andrea Campbell (like maybe Lori Trahan but I don't see it), and all of them are far better than Moulton.
I get the base backlash to his transphobic comments and even his blatant hyper-ambition, but would a Moulton Senate tenure really qualify as "absolutely dreadful" from a policy/legislative standpoint? He's not exactly a Josh Gottheimer is he?
We're talking about Massachusetts. Not just a very blue state, but one that is also a more progressive shade of blue. Socially and economically. Better than Gottheimer is a very, very low floor you are setting, especially in that context.
Moulton would fail to fill the kind of role that Warren, Markey, Kennedy, or to a lesser extent Kerry all filled. People that ensure we keep our core ideals in mind, that push us to do more than moderate ourselves into irrelevance. And before anyone reads too much into that: yes, we absolutely need moderates in the party, and in many states they're the best or even only viable option. For states as far left as Massachusetts, we should seek those out at the progressive end of our ideological spectrum, just as in Arizona (and many others) we should go to the other end.
Moulton specifically is also plainly unreliable. I suspect he would be like a less centrist combination of Golden and Lieberman of years past. Someone bad mouthing the party whenever they shove a microphone in front of him, and occasionally digging his heels in and voting with republicans on something while being completely intractable on that decision.
Does anyone here think we are being well served by Schumer and Gillibrand in New York, or that we could do better? Similar idea.
In context of the state at hand, yes, I consider 30 years of that to be absolutely dreadful. Even six years would be awful.
Be aware that when Ed Markey dealt with cost and expenses in college tuition it was a much different time for him. He graduated from college in the 1960’s and tuition was much less at universities then. Given he graduated from a Jesuit university, Boston College, Markey likely had to pay for private university tuition more than public university tuition. There are Jesuit universities in San Francisco like the University of San Francisco which offer less expensive tuition at certain graduate programs.
That said, I have to remind people here on The Downballot that we have to still challenge the status quo in higher education if it means either going for tuition free public colleges, lowering the tuition, finding a better funding mechanism for public universities, OR finding a way for universities to help students pay off student debt that’s not going to saddle them with undue burden for a long time. Student debt forgiveness is not enough.
I do not think it’s helpful that the Department of Education and accreditation institutions are putting pressure on universities to deliver while they are cutting programs like humanities (which is tragic and should be reversed). There needs to be middle ground and compromising here.
Btw, Senator Markey supports tuition free colleges and worked with Bernie Sanders on a bill for this. He’s more on your side than you think.
https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/markey-joins-sanders-jayapal-in-introducing-legislation-to-make-college-tuition_and-debt-free-for-working-families
I put myself through college in the 90s and work at one now. Universal free undergrad is a bad idea. First, it's a giveaway to the rich. There are lots of college kids who have plenty of means to pay, and studies show that working part time during college increases grades. Second, lots of recent high school grads really don't know why they are in college so paying their college isn't cost effective. Better would be to vastly expand Pell Grants to underwrite costs and limit college loans to 2% interest. Also to reduce some of the many many unfunded federal reporting mandates on a variety of items so universities can cut back indirect costs and bloated administration.
I appreciate the constructive discourse.
However, I should point out the following:
1) College tuition is still sky high. One cannot argue any real distinction with a private and public university like Stanford and UC Berkeley from a cost standpoint. Undergraduate tuition in colleges like those is close to the same so aside from public universities receiving state government funding, what’s the real difference?
More importantly, why have we allowed Ronald Reagan to set the course for how public college tuition has become expensive these days compared to how it used to be say in the 1950’s or 1960’s?
2) So you say universal free education is a giveaway to the rich. Don’t the rich already get free tuition if they enroll their kids in public K-12 schools?
Public universities with free tuition would need a strong funding mechanism to ensure no draconian cuts would happen in the process. Otherwise, it won’t work.
3) No, I am not pointing out colleges should pay for the tuition. Financial aid counselors should find ways to work with students to help them pay off tuition such as getting them connected to supplemental income, other ideas for side hustles or anything students need to do to manage tuition payments without having to be forced to take just one job. This is more of counseling and advising for students.
Whatever solutions there are, I’d just prefer here be ways to make college education in reach for people so there’s no need to have to incur tuition costs for a long time.
I agree pretty much with everything you've said above. I guess in the east coast the private unis are still more. URichmond is like 4x the cost of VA Commonwealth, a few miles down the road.
Universities without tuition will shift to more fees. Without either they will need some other funding mechanism. Why shouldn't the rich pay to attend and not rely solely on taxes? K-12 ed is compulsory, a BS/BA is not. Hence the distinction with public K-12.
Absolutely college costs should be cheaper. One of the main culprits is the federal govt for requiring all sorts of reporting and programs that come ftom unfunded mandates, so cost is pushed to students. Another is bigtime athletics and NIL. Not supposed to be general fund, but students pay athletic fees, and some is absolutely general fund. Less overhead and more grant funding would help make college more affordable.
IA-Sen: Jackie Norris withdraws.
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FG3YxVFbXQAA2YpN.jpg
Minus her and Scholten, who again do we have left that is running or might do so, and who would be strongest?
Josh Turek was endorsed by Scholten after he withdrew: he's a two-term state rep who flipped a Republican district by 6 votes in 2022. Also 4-time Paralympian athlete (he has spina bifida, been in a wheelchair since childhood), medaled three times.
Another notable candidate is State Sen. (and former minority leader) Zach Wahls, who is probably most famous for his activism as a teenager in 2011 defending his lesbian moms over a proposed constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality.
Turek would probably be stronger if for no other reason than he comes from western Iowa and could eat into the Republican advantage there.
With what Trump is doing to farmers with his trade war, and raids on immigrant agricultural workers if we can't improve our performance in farm areas like Western Iowa in 2026, then it is a lost cause at this point. It's almost like Trump is doing everything he can to hurt farmers at this point.
I don't think Trump's cult will ever turn on him, but I could easily see a lot of them staying home in 2026 (they didn't exactly turn out in droves in 2022).
Western Iowa will likely remain a tough nut to crack or even to return to 2014-era numbers, but a bigger problem is that Ashley Hinson's geographic base is the state's bellwether district where she has overperformed in the last two cycles.
It’s a bit more complicated than that. The minute, unseemly bill included a ton of subsidies for farmers, but they don’t kick in until next year. So farmers are in substantial pain right now, but they may not be by election time. (I’ll put aside that most of the subsidies are there mainly to encourage whatever small farmers are left to sell their lands to big Afro and private equity - whole other topic.) Completely up in the air to see if they can survive that long and if they remember this year’s pain next year.
* - Big Agro
Turek would definitely be the strongest candidate. Wahls would be seen as the college boy from, by, and of Iowa City.
ME-Sen - A Republican SuperPAC is trying to ratfuck the Democratic primary for a non-Janet Mills candidate by tying Mills to Susan Collins:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DP4J2ZMjgfZ/?igsh=NWY2enExMXJxYjFk
That's a strategy that might backfire, especially if Jordan Wood ends up winning the primary. Mills would probably be the weakest opponent to Collins, although that's debatable.
It certainly -is- debatable, considering today's news about Platner.
This assumes Platner wins though. A different candidate could, hell someone totally new could jump in and give Mills a run for her money.
The comment I replied to stated that "Mills would probably be the weakest opponent to Collins." Your remarks aren't relevant to the truth or falsity of that statement.
Ah, I misread the original comment. Sorry
Not a problem!
If "Mills would probably be the weakest opponent to Collins," why did the Cook Political Report and Sabato's Crystal Ball, immediately upon Mills's announcement, change their race rating from "Lean R" to "Toss-Up"?
Yes, she can’t be considered the weakest candidate in the field. At least not at this point.
Cook seems to place a lot more weight on demonstrated appeal than on hypothesized appeal. Mills has performed well in high-profile elections in the past. I think it's fair to say she has the highest floor of any announced candidate. I think her ceiling is probably lower than Platner's, and I'm not sure whether she has a better chance to win.
Do you still think she has a lower ceiling than Platner?
If Platner runs a good campaign and doesn't make any big errors he could be an Osborn-type overperformer. I think he has much more potential appeal to downscale voters than Mills does.
He already made big errors!
"Rating Changes: Maine Senate Moves to Leans Democratic"
https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/21000/
That's the wrong year. Sabato changed the ME Senate race to "Toss Up" for 2026.
I'm aware. Just trying to make the point that the original poster's faith in Sabato's judgment might be mistaken.
That's 2020.
I'm aware. Just trying to make the point that the original poster's faith in Sabato's judgment might be mistaken.
That is beyond debatable. It's a silly comment on it's face. We can discuss who might be stronger, but a recently twice-elected, sitting Democratic Governor in a blue state is never the weakest candidate, barring some kind of scandal.
Keep TERFs out of the Senate Democratic Caucus!
Stevens?
Moulton
You're actually calling a Moulton a "Radical Feminist"? Lol
Trans-exclusionary radical feminist?
Correct.
"Campaign finance filings from Michigan's US Senate candidates are in — they're all close. So here's who got the most (itemized) $$$ from Michiganders:
Abdul El-Sayed (D): $488,365
Haley Stevens (D): $405,775
Mallory McMorrow (D): $353,880
Mike Rogers (R): $212,314
Filings ⬇️"
https://x.com/Simon_Schuster/status/1978626961086816642
Polling's been pretty close too from what's been done. This could get interesting.
MA-Sen: Yes, Markey is too old, and no, Seth Moulton is not the solution to that.
Moulton has shown he would possible another Fetterman or Mansion.
Almost impossible to imagine being from Massachusetts.
Considering that we got Joe Lieberman from Connecticut who endorsed John McCain and spoke at the 2008 RNC not too long ago, it's not THAT impossible to imagine. Also, Scott Brown being a Massachusetts senator is still fairly recent history.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was asked a question earlier today, where he fell as he was trying to walk away from answering. He got up and promptly waved and walked away.
He should retire already, decrepit piece of shit.
He is retiring next cycle, though it would be funny to see which RINO Beshear appoints if he dies first. (Think there would have to be a special though, and tbh I'd rather have McConnell there until 2027 than accelerate one of the ghouls campaigning now succeeding him early.)
Couldn't Beshear appoint a Democrat? And if McConnell died now, there wouldn't be time to have a special election before November 2026, the general election date (like in California, for example, after Feinsteins death)
No, the state law is that he has to appoint someone from the same party (and it might have to be directly from a list made by the state party, so he couldn't just appoint a Never Trumper tbh). And over a year is far more than enough time to run a special, California law just has the appointee serve until the next national general.
Can he delay making an appointment for a long, long time?
This is a two year old article, but it's about the change in the law. Says that the governor must make a selection within 21 days of receiving a list from the state party.
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2023/07/28/heres-how-kentuckys-law-works-for-filling-u-s-senate-vacancies/70484359007/
I know he is, but KY lawmakers tied Gov Beshear's hands, overriding his veto on the law they forced through saying that he must appoint someone of the same party (from three picked by the state party) as the outgoing Senator.
I heard the KY Supreme Court leans left, but I have not heard anything definitive apart from MeidasTouch. If it leans left, it would probably revisit decisions like gerrymandering and GOP laws stripping the governor of his constitutional powers.
Massie comes to mind as a RINO they would consider
Massie isn't a RINO. He is a Freedom Caucus Libertarian true believers who has chosen his ideology over Trump.
I mean, he *still* says that the reason he supports releasing the Epstein files is because he believes they'll be worse for Democrats than Republicans.
Yes, Massie in this sense is more closely aligned with Senator Rand Paul in his Libertarian philosophy. He’s not afraid to express concern over anything that goes against these values as it relates to the government.
Gerrymandering, sure, if they nuke McGarvey's seat it'll be a live controversy. There's nothing illegal or unconstitutional about changing the vacancy filling process tbh, and I can't imagine one filed now wouldn't et dismissed after so much time has passed. I'm sure there are other gubernatorial powers that have been stripped that have a more evergreen possibility to sue.
He had polio as a little boy right before the vaccine was available. He got his mobility back long ago, but I imagine his gait was never the same again.