Or, he really is not the best candidate. It would be quite odd for a reputable polling firm to “push” one candidate like that. Sometimes the most logical answer is the correct one.
That no other poll has any result like this makes me suspicious. Just because some posters here dislike AES doesn't make the poll magically more valid, any more than it would were it Stevens.
He's had some verbal gaffes recently. Along with increasing negative ads bringing down favorables, I think it's highly probable he could be taking a hit.
Wouldn't it be nice if Darline's attempt to get a full term ended up with Annie Andrews in the U.S. Senate? I know it's hard to flip, but the thought is nice.
Darline Graham Nordone is still the Harriet Lane of Muriels Humphrey...
Harriet Lane was the niece of bachelor POTUS James Buchanan who served as his First Lady. Muriel Humphrey was the widow of Sen. Hubert Humphrey who was appointed to his Senate seat after Hubert passed away.
I honestly think this year will be a litmus test of whether this strategy works: if these Dem-backed Indies get even close to knocking out Reps in these hyper-rural conservative states, I don't think it's a bad idea to consider running more in the future. So far we have Achilles in ID-Sen, Osborn in NE-Sen, and Hill in AK-AL. Bodnar in MT-Sen and Bengs in SD-Sen are also races to watch if the Dems there drop out.
The MT SoS says Dems will have to replace their nominee, even if she drops out, which she's been very clear she's not going to do anyway. So our only shot here is for the Dem nominee to endorse and campaign with Bodnar, which she's probably not going to do either. Alani Bankhead does not appear to be a team player.
Bankhead's pissing me off. Digging your heels in the sand for what? Pride, ego? It'd be one thing if she was a credible candidate herself with decent fundraising ability or *something,* but nope. She's a run-of-the-mill, sacrificial lamb candidate. If it weren't for Bodnar, nobody would even know she's running.
It's definitely possible for red states to have strong, credible Democratic candidates. Mississippi, Kansas, South Carolina, even Arkansas. Bankhead is not one of those and needs to drop out yesterday. Is protecting your ego even worth it when all you'll ever be known as is the person who cost us the opportunity to flip a deep red state? All that to get 20-25% of the vote? Madness
Could they not just pick someone who'd immediately endorse Bodnar and withdraw from the race in everything but official capacity? It'd be a tougher climb than Nebraska but would still be more ideal than Bankhead actively running against Bodnar, and even if she were to decide to stop campaigning and endorse Bodnar I worry she'd still carry too much name recognition/sway among Democratic voters after winning the primary to effectively stand down for Bodnar.
I mean, if Bankhead were running for a swing House seat, a background as an Air Force Lt. Col. and FBI Special Agent would be at the top of the DCCC recruiting list.
Risch is the perfect candidate to target for this type of campaign- He is an 83 year old career politician who hasn't had a competitive campaign in decades.
It would probably mean that OH switches too. A 10 seat D pickup would change Washington completely as it would force R’s to abandon Trump in order to avoid being completely wiped out in 2028.
If that were to happen (I still think it's unlikely), Senate Ds would be 3 seats shy of 60 votes in 2027. And if you flipped the second NC and WI seats in 2028...
If that were to happen and Senate Democrats hold hearings on Epstein and Trump’s corruption, I think that any Republican who still voted for Trump would be in danger of losing.
It would be a long shot but it would be cheap and have no downside to try in some of these low cost rural red states. This year should be incredibly blue and many of these incumbents in deep red states haven't had to campaign in decades and will likely take their race for granted. Some like Risch are the type of entrenched geriatric career politicians that people have had more than enough of. I also suspect that we will have the best opening we have had in years in rural areas with the fallout from the tariffs and opposition to data centers. Hopefully this will be a perfect storm situation in some of these races.
To be fair, that would still be true if Risch loses. But, yes.
The GOP nominee hasn't lost since 1974. It was close in 1980 and 1986, and a reach in 1992 and 1996, but has been a write-off since. ID-Sen has not been a real possibility in a generation.
I think either tact works just with slightly different framing. For recent Dems it's "I left the Dem party for [xyz reason] and now I'm running as a true independent for this seat" while for long-time independents it's "I've always been an independent voice and I'll bring that to Congress" or something along those lines.
We won't know until November but I am very skeptical of this gambit particularly when the Idaho guy announced he was leaving for vague purposes that do not differentiate him from Democrats.
Probably not that well... we're seeing something like that in Mississippi with Ty Pinkins, who was the Democratic nominee for SoS in 2023 and senate in 2024, now running as an independent. And his campaign and reason for leaving the party seems to be entirely motivated by the national party questioning him and preferring to back Scott Colom, who, y'know, didn't lose two statewide races back to back by large margins? And actually seems to be running like a legitimate, real candidate? Independents like him probably won't do as well as ones like Bodnar or Osborn.
But I meeeaaaan, Bodnar and Osborn are both very clearly backed by Democrats and would likely caucus with Democrats. Osborn has an interesting, populist grab bag of policy that makes him well suited as an Independent but at the same time he'd clearly fit more as a Democrat than a Republican. Same with Bodnar who is basically Jon Tester without the (D).
I'm curious... how many voters, and particularly those who would typically vote R, are aware of the ties these candidates have to Democrats? Are they mostly aware and just don't care? If that's the case, it really speaks to just how much of an impact that little letter has on how people vote. Being backed almost exclusively Democrats and trying to coordinate with Democrats to take their place on the ballot is whatever, but if they had that (D) next to their name, well that's just a bridge too far!
The fact that Club for Growth is attacking Collins for supporting amnesty, and not for the insider trading that sent him to prison, says a lot about the current state of the Republican Party.
This is the same state that elected the country's worst Medicare fraudster in history to two terms as governor and then to the Senate. I am still amazed that Rick Scott dodged a prison cell.
Some movement in the challenge over the Republican primary winner in Indiana State Senate District 23. So far, the anti-redistricting candidate is ahead, but now the commission moves on to a disputed 300 votes, as the opposition attempts to dispute his victory by three votes. I'm not surprised that Copenhaver has Beckworth's support.
I'm going to be blunt, I'm getting real tired of the endless ideological shit-flinging here. I know that's hypocritical coming from me, but at least I'm working on it. Every time I open the comment section, it's an endless fight between the center and left over Michigan and Wisconsin. I feel like I'm hearing less and less about other races, just these two.
I sincerely hope we all unite around the nominee, whoever they may be. I know I will if it's Stevens or Craig in MN or whoever. Will those on the center here unite around AES or Hong?
EDIT: I have backed off my original position. See below.
I think the wide bulk of the anxiety around AES and Hong is that they'd blow winnable races in very important elections; I don't think it's because they believe that strongly they'd be terrible if elected from an ideological viewpoint.
My thing is that people like to point to the winnable races Republicans blew in 2010 and 2012 but let's look at the big picture: In the end they won. Twice. They got two trifectas in less than 10 years to run roughshod over the country. If losing a few winnable races in the short term leads to lasting power in the long term... I'll take it. I just don't think either candidate are as bad as people are saying they are, especially in this environment that will only get worse for Republicans.
They blew races in states that were already trending red, thus they won them later. These are two traditionally blue states that have trended more red the past 10+ years. Totally different dynamic.
"If losing a few winnable races in the short term leads to lasting power in the long term... "
The argument is that economically, the winning message is on the left. You see it all the time that even those in Red States support the economically populist argument you see on the Left. We see Indies doing better in these states than standard Dems. Why is that? A big part of the issue is that the Democratic Party label has been dragged through the mud by the Conservative Media Machine. Is it even possible to rehabilitate the brand in these states? What sort of work is that going to take? I think what we'll see is that the long lasting power will be an alliance between these Indy candidates and the Democratic Party and inevitably see a schism where the Democratic Party will eventually be seen as the "Conservative Party" once again.
Michigan and Wisconsin are not traditionally blue states if we do an analysis deeper than win/lose. The only dem in recent memory to perform substantially above his national performance in MI and WI is Obama. He is also the only midwestern presidential nominee in recent memory, which I think is highly correlated with the prior detail.
They were traditionally tilt blue swing states for years and years that are now just plain purple.
And at least with Michigan, I think Stevens is exactly as capable of blowing a winnable race in Michigan as AES, because she is running that feeble of a campaign with no indication of strong political instincts.
If we lose MI-Sen, it makes the math on having power at all nigh impossible. This seat isnt the difference between 55 and 56 seats. Its not like we have the margin for error Republicans did when their rigid ideologues threw Mike Castle to the wolves in that primary.
If this flippant attitude about losing Senate or governors races in pursuit of some long term power spreads, we’re toast. We don’t have that luxury of throwing races like Republicans did.
and even in this insane environment, this kind of 5.5 year trump record, background economic, political and rights situation we are in, it is still not going to be enough to get us to 60 seats in the senate, let alone 66+ to make structural changes...
from this flows the question: ok, now what? We have 54 seats lets say. Now what? You'll have a rotating cast of the worst dems like Fetterman making sure everything is watered down and made toothless, in addition to the unrelenting, but completely unwanted pushes for "bipartisanship" and "healing".
SCOTUS is under almost total regulatory and institutional capture, and must be completely reformed if this country is to survive. I don't know how we do it.
Right. I have no doubt they’d both make a fine Governor and fine Senator… if elected. No qualms on the policy front (and I say this as one of the board’s more open centrists!), it’s the November part for me
What annoys me is that there's been this idea that the seats are *only* competitive if AES/Hong are nominated. This isn't directed at you specifically, for the record. I've seen a lot of comments saying that they're NOW competitive because the progressives have a good chance of winning, which is just so stupid frankly. The seats were ALWAYS competitive since the incumbents decided to step aside. No matter who wins the primary, it's going to be a fight to keep the seat. Yes, some candidates have a harder fight than others, but if Crowley or Stevens got nominated, it doesn't guarantee them a win in November. Which, I should note, someone literally yesterday said that nominating AES turns Michigan from a safe D hold to a tossup. If anyone truly believes that MI-Sen was Safe D at ANY point this cycle, I have a bridge to sell you.
For the record, as a centrist who is deeply concerned about AES and Hong as nominees, I pushed back on that exact statement. Here is what I wrote, verbatim:
"I mean, we might well lose with Hong as the nominee, but there's no scenario in which I can picture us getting blown out in any swing state race in this type of environment."
I don't think that's really an accurate statement. Those are both safe blue districts where Socialist wins wouldn't cost us a seat. WI-Gov and MI-Sen are a very different case.
I believe you should reflect on your second sentence some more. Also, what you are doing here is trying to silence dissenting opinions and push this space into echo chamber nonsense, a condition that has destroyed many, many other places on the web. Have you seen what this kind of group think has done to Daikykos, the website we came from most recently? A healthy level of skepticism about certain things is necessary. Do you remember how most people here were Platner supporters? Dissent is necessary for healthy communities.
I assure you, I do not want an echo chamber. Just because I argue my position doesn’t mean I want everyone to always agree with me.
Also what do you mean by echo chamber? Shouldn’t we be supporting our own nominee? Is that now a controversial position?
EDIT: To clarify, if you are not accusing me of having an agenda, that was a misread on my part. I’ve erased that part of my argument. I am well aware of my past here, I’ve forced myself to go on break 3 times because of my own issues. I know I’m difficult to talk to, I suspect a lot of people here do not like me one bit, and I don’t blame them.
I just feel like we are engaging in a self-fulfilling prophecy by writing off these races if AES or Hong win. I don’t even want Hong to win (although I think AES can still win), and I’m saying that. We cannot afford to write off these races. We aren’t winning the Senate if we write AES off, for instance.
For the record, even though we disagree frequently, I like you and think of you as a thoughtful, well informed poster. I also think that Tigercourse's comment above was more directed at Lune calling us "doomers", which I agree is out of bounds.
I appreciate reading your posts here. Some of your posts, I agree with wholeheartedly while other of your posts not so much. But I like that you—and other posters on this site with a range of different perspectives — make me think.
The additional irony is the original poster preaches unity, but then uses his last sentence to try to call out moderates again on a strawman's argument.
This is literally the only political forum on the internet left where the most radical part of the left hasn't turned into an echo chamber by shouting down anyone to the right of Che Guevara. I want to make sure everyone knows that my skepticism about some of the more radical candidates is due to my belief that they will blow winnable races. If progressives win the primary I think everyone here will still support them, but I also fear that this won't be enough to win the general election. Anyone who wants to know why I think Hong will be a weak candidate needs to look at the train wreck of "progressive prosecutors" who ran on similar platforms who managed to lose county races to GOP candidates running as independents in Seattle and Los Angeles and managed to get recalled in San Francisco and Oakland. The progressive prosecutor in Portland lost renomination after one term in office. If you can't win there, what makes you think you can possibly win with the same platform in Wisconsin.
The difference is foundational to this site, going back to the very first day I launched it more than 20 years ago. Many if not most people are unable to set aside what they *want* to see happen politically from what *will* (or is likely to) happen politically.
Ideologues are always convinced that their preferred candidates are the best choice. Cold-blooded analysts—which we strive to be—try to ignore our personal preferences and describe reality as it is, not as we wish it to be.
I agree with you completely and I certainly strive for that, but that's not how I read the above statement. Almost every comment I leave is related to how I personally feel about a candidate's chances. I base those feelings on my understanding of elections, the political environment and electoral realities, but ultimately it is my opinion, nothing more.
It's not really possible to talk about elections without mentioning candidate quality and relative chances/odds, unless there was a ban on literally all primary discussions, not just presidential.
Candidate quality, yes. But conflating candidate quality with "this is the candidate I personally want to win" runs directly antithetical to proper analysis.
No, you are all right. I’ve had time to think about it and I think I went too far in my original position. Admittedly partly for a stupid reason - I wanted to hear more about races besides MI-SEN and WI-GOV — which I am hearing about in hindsight.
I do apologize to all the posters I pissed off here. I’m also exhausted from weeks of inconsistent, horrible sleep so I’m not exactly mentally focused either. Not that that’s an excuse, mind you, I should be better in control of myself. I’m just saying I’m not totally myself lately.
I appreciate the apology, and I'm sorry you're struggling, but I'm going to strongly suggest you spend a week away from the site. We'll be here when you're in a better place and ready to come back.
Given SD's 35% runoff rule, Doeden came within 4 points of winning in the first round. Of course, in 42 other states he'd have advanced to the general without a runoff on that 31% plurality.
What might be most remarkable in the fact that James Talarico has jumped into a 45-40 lead over Ken Paxton is that non-college-educated voters (usually reliably Republican) are favoring the Democrat by nine percentage points — 45% to 36%.
I suspect if you broke out White non-college voters from Black and Hispanic non-college, you'd see some pretty stark disparities. For the record, Cruz only won non-college voters 51-48 against O'Rourke in 2018.
SC-6: Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn, who is running for an 18th term at the age of 86, did not know what the very popular AI interface ChatGPT was until last week.
Could be nothing. Could also be a sign of his age and time in office.
80-something people aren't nearly as terminally online as we are. I have relatives jn the 70s abd 80s, and I dont think a single one of them could explain what ChatGPT is.
This does remind me of the classic Ted Stevens quote "The internet is a series of tubes" circa 2006. The internet was FAR more established in 2006 than ChatGPT in 2026
Your relatives are likely not in world-facing, critically important positions of power, in one of the few institutions capable of meaningfully regulating and legislating. And I don't want to hear "yeah but his staffers will tell him about this three year old tech". Completely unacceptable and indefensible given the scope and criticality of the issue.
There should be caucus wide meetings and briefings on this topic, so that EACH and EVERY member can spell out in detail what this tech is and why its current rollout, implementation, regulation and potential impacts are deeply problematic as is, and why they need regulating and legislating. This should be policy communication basics that all 257 Dems in congress should be able to absolutely crush on camera/mic... what the hell is going on???
No one who doesn’t know what Chat GPT is should be allowed to serve in office, and if that means 80-something people shouldn’t be allowed to serve in office, so be it.
Individuals do not have to be terminally online to know what ChatGPT is...
I have a parent that still uses a flip phone, doesn't know how to change the clock on a stove, and is all around one of the most tech illiterate, technophobic people out there. Zero, and I mean literal zero, internet usage. They have heard of ChatGPT.
The technology that is displacing millions of workers, that trillions have been expended on to build out, that is being integrated into the fabric of the pentagon and other govt departments...
and he doesn't even know what it is? He is supposed to be regulating it! If Sam Altman comes to testify in front of congress, will Clyburn think he is the weather guy from TV?
Point in case, the sooner this pre-color TV gerontocracy is replaced, the better, when it comes to these positions of incredible legislative and regulatory power....
I don't expect someone of Jim Clyburn's age to be as literate regarding modern technology as, for example, Yassamin Ansari or Maxwell Frost, who are each over half a century younger than Clyburn (in fact, the sum of their ages is younger than Clyburn).
That being said, I would expect sitting Members of Congress to be briefed on topics that they are not familiar with when they become relevant to their legislative work.
Amen to that. He’s also great to follow on Bluesky on election nights - he aggregates a lot of really, really downticket races, which is helpful if you’re like I am and you follow a lot of different races at once.
I hope the RSCC's meddling in the MN primary backfires "bigly".
Indivisible has issued a national endorsement for Peggy Flanagan vs. Angie Craig for the senate primary. https://indivisible.org/candidates/70230/. There is a very high bar to receive a national endorsement - IIRC a supermajority of the local MN Indivisible chapters had to back her.
Flanagan shepherded a bunch of the "progressive" bills through the state legislature that are very popular with MN voters like universal free school breakfasts and lunches. The GOP seems utterly tone deaf to the fact that rural voters are really being hurt by the Trump Regime policies around cuts to SNAP, healthcare subsidies, Medicaid cuts that are leading to the closure of rural hospitals, and other policies that hurting working class Americans.
Also see this episode of Indivisible's "What's the Plan?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPSa7HJzXm8. (The Show notes indicate that interview with Flanagan begins at the 6:58 mark in the video).
Craig is corporate Democrat getting much of her donations from big corporate donors. She also was one of the Democrats in the US House who signed the Laken Riley Act.
Considering the murders by ICE of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, and the recent murders by ICE of immigrants in TX and ME, a progressive organizer like Flanagan may turn out be the more compelling candidate in a general election.
And since when is comparing the candidate they want to diss to someone who has already won statewide election in MN an effective strategy? It is one thing to make AOC or Zohra Mamdani the bogeyman, but Sen. Tina Smith?
Yeah, them meddling here is kind of mind boggling. It's not as if Peggy Flanagan would risk the seat at all, so wouldn't they rather have someone who would occasionally vote with them? Or, you know, not do anything and save their money for races where they have a chance?
My thoughts exactly. They have Senate seats they need to defend!!
Cook Political Report rates the MN Senate seat as a likely D hold. They have rated AK, ME, MI and OH as toss ups (3 of the 4 are currently held by the GOP). The open seats in IA and TX are only rated Lean R and the Open Seat in NC (where I am) is Lean D!
I'm pro-Flanagan and pro-Republicans wasting their money so....
Oh gee!!! Peggy Flanagan is simply TOO far to the left to win, I sure hope the RSCC doesn't invest a shitload of money to meddle in her favor! We'd be so owned!!
The centerpieces of Peggy Flanagan's campaign have been AIPAC and illegal immigration apologia. This will be kryptonite in a general election campaign and it's hard to see how she pivots to issues that will have salience outside the core of the Democratic base. I remain convinced, just as I was six months ago, that Minnesota will be a Senate battleground if Flanagan emerges as the nominee.
AIPAC is disliked across the political spectrum, and I'm not sure what "illegal immigration apologia" means. Also, have you not followed what was happening in Minneapolis earlier this year?
You sound incredibly online saying AIPAC is disliked across the political spectrum. Do you really think more than 25% of the population has the vaguest hint of what AIPAC is? It's an issue that activates DFL primary voters in a few neighborhoods in Minneapolis....and nothing more.
As for "illegal immigration apologia", aside from more broadly attaching herself to Biden-era policy positions on the border, Flanagan is repeatedly taking Craig to the woodshed over the Lakin Riley Act. Policy-wise, that's fair game. Electorally, I can say with cocksure confidence that among a statewide electorate, the broad contours of the Lakin Riley Act would be about as popular as rainbows. I'd hate to be the Democratic nominee spending the entire general election campaign explaining away the tidal wave of Republican ads insisting that voters shouldn't favor it.
Still don't understand how Flanagan attacking Craig for her stances on immigration constitutes "illegal apologia".
And it's been proven that AIPAC is in fact a very salient national issue that has already decided several primaries. Not a local one that no one knows about as you suggest. (Oh, and to accuse someone of being "incredibly online" could also work if I were to say you were living under a rock. We're all "incrediby online". This is a daily online newsletter.)
Not sure why you think that's the centerpiece of Flanagan's campaign, as she's talking about many other things as well.
Assuming you meant "federal" elections, AIPAC spending has been salient in several primaries for House seats. The most prominent was probably the special election to replace Mikie Sherrill after she won her race for NJ Governor.
I'm not convinced it will activate votes, especially independents or soft Republicans. Back in January I thought it might because of the downstream economic impact on Minnesota but that doesn't seem particularly prescient right now. People vote self-interest....and I'm not sure that in their minds that includes ICE and Alex Pretti.
I didn't say more than 25% knows about AIPAC. Rather, I said that people across the political spectrum dislike them, from Candace Owens to Bernie Sanders and many moderates in between. That fact undermines any claim that Flanagan is somehow radical or leftist because she has issues with AIPAC.
You might want to take a look at Trump's approval on immigration. It is not great, and any Republican opponent will be tied to that record.
Your comments contain a lot of very confident statements without a lot of evidence to support them. For example, the Laken Riley Act being "as popular as rainbows" implies that everybody loves the act. Obviously, that's not true, as many center-left and mainstream Democrats opposed the legislation, while they too like rainbows. And with many voters now seeing what Trump's record on immigration looks like in practice, it is reasonable to believe voters would understand that the legislation might have been a mistake.
And for the record, the LRA is a deeply flaws piece of legislation that justifies the deportation of non-criminals (merely "arrested" individuals, many of whom turn out to be innocent), which is something most Americans oppose, and it's so extreme in its lack of due process that it will possibly get struck down by our current conservative and corrupt SCOTUS. I encourage you to read about this case, where a federal judge already called an LRA detention unconstitutional: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-declares-noncitizens-detention-under-laken-riley-act-unconstitutional
Lastly, I am reasonably confident that more general election voters know what AIPAC is than know what the Laken Riley Act, so putting the Laken Riley Act in ads isn't really going to make much of a difference.
It's hard to know what kind of legs this Minnesota fraud scandal will have. It's the only thing they talk about in Minnesota media, so at the very least I expect that it's gonna lower the Democratic ceiling. If I'm even 10% right, having a Senate nominee whose centers of gravity are opposing AIPAC and rolling back illegal immigration enforcement strikes me as a needlessly risky strategy in a Harris +4 state.
What on earth, why? Why on earth would Minnesota, a state that hasn't had a competitive Senate election since 2008, have one in a Democratic-leaning year? Peggy Flanagan could be running a campaign on literally nothing and win in a cycle like this. And the idea that attacking Craig over supporting AIPAC and ICE is somehow the only thing that Flanagan's campaign is about or is a turn-off for the general electorate is just false. ICE is unpopular, especially in Minnesota, and most people either don't know about AIPAC or don't like it.
Takes like these are why I have a hard time taking your more reasonable pessimistic takes seriously. There's no universe in which we lose Minnesota with a reasonably uncontroversial candidate in a blue-leaning year, and I have no idea how you could even come to that conclusion.
I don’t even understand why they’d bother meddling here. This isn’t a Maine, Michigan, or Wisconsin type of dynamic at play where a serious mistake can result in a GOP win.
A new Marquette Law School Poll survey of Democratic primary voters finds state Rep. Francesca Hong leading with 38%, followed by former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes with 16% and Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley at 7%.
It really needs to be explained why the establishment thought getting Crowley back in the race would stop Hong's momentum instead of coalescing around Barnes. They really are starting to deserve every loss.
My first thought when Crowley got back in was: Crowley and Barnes are both from Milwaukee and Hong is from Madison, surely this will split the vote in Milwaukee vote and help Hong win. Lots of primary voters aren't all that ideological and will vote for the person from their region/whose name they are most familiar with
Maybe they hoped that Barnes and Hong would both split the left vote and leave the remaining vote to Crowley. Which forgets that while voters do care about ideology, they don't look at it through the same lenses we people like us do.
Hindsight is 20/20 but it now looks like Evers REALLY f**ked the dog by pushing Crowley to get back in. He should have backed Barnes and tried to convince everyone else to get out. It's probably too late for that to work now. Hong seems like a singularly awful candidate: inexperienced, bad at answering questions, way out of the mainstream ideologically.
TN-9: Democrat Justin Pearson outraised Republicans in fundraising before the primary, with $2.35 million compared to $1.55 million for Brent Taylor and $600 thousand for Todd Warner. London Lamar, Pearson's most high-profile primary opponent, only raised $70 thousand.
I have heard Pearson is running a really good campaign, showing up and talking to people. I agree with someone on Bluesky who said this could be a test of the success rate of TN’s gerrymander. Even if he doesn’t win, a close result in such a red seat could spook the GOP, not unlike when Aftyn Behn got close in TN-7.
The issue is that Pearson can only run up the vote in Memphis so much, and no Democrat is going to make the significant inroads in the rest of the district needed to win.
I know it’s early, but wow! Keep putting your foot on the gas and vote blue up and down the ticket, people!
I looked at Allison Riggs’ reelection campaign fund in 2024 and hers wasn’t as robust as her colleague’s. She had $1.1M while the guy who tried to steal her seat raised $1.2M.
Can any one from Michigan comment on this Senate race??? Saw one poll where Al-Sayed was down TEN??! To Rogers?
I think that poll linked is a push poll. Doesn't reflect the trend of other MI-SEN polls.
Are you saying they pushed only regards to him? Because the other Dems in that poll weren't nearly as bad.
It's possible. If the polls were showing similar trends like the one linked here, AES would be in BIG trouble. Like worse than Hong's chances in WI.
I can't wait for the MI primary to be over. I pray whoever is the winner keeps the seat blue in November.
Yeah, unfortunately we have some of our own Christine O'Donnell candidates driving things in key states. Not good.
Maybe you ought to review the definition of push poll:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll
Or, he really is not the best candidate. It would be quite odd for a reputable polling firm to “push” one candidate like that. Sometimes the most logical answer is the correct one.
That no other poll has any result like this makes me suspicious. Just because some posters here dislike AES doesn't make the poll magically more valid, any more than it would were it Stevens.
He's had some verbal gaffes recently. Along with increasing negative ads bringing down favorables, I think it's highly probable he could be taking a hit.
There are always some outliers. No dishonesty is required for them.
The "best candidate" imploded after having a high-school drumline march her down a hallway... lol
Blakeman fundraising off that latest poll - nice try buddy - I don’t think nyc even knows who you are ….
LoL at Blakeman only being down 4....
Wouldn't it be nice if Darline's attempt to get a full term ended up with Annie Andrews in the U.S. Senate? I know it's hard to flip, but the thought is nice.
Annie Andrews.
Thanks! I got her name mixed up with OH's Amy Acton.
Truthfully Graham Nordone might be the only Republican candidate weaker than Lindsay himself
Yes, use her full name. She has taken to dropping Nordone when she can.
Sort of like Sarah Huckabee SANDERS here in Arkansas. Definitely not a nepo baby tho! Or in Graham Nordone's case, nepo sister
Darline Graham Nordone is still the Harriet Lane of Muriels Humphrey...
Harriet Lane was the niece of bachelor POTUS James Buchanan who served as his First Lady. Muriel Humphrey was the widow of Sen. Hubert Humphrey who was appointed to his Senate seat after Hubert passed away.
my hope is that it stays within single digits and the wave is big enough we pick up sc-01
It would be interesting although I think Annie Andrews originally got traction in the polls because she was considered the anti-Lindsey Graham.
Now that Graham is no longer around and running for re-election, it’s going to be more challenging.
ID-Sen: Dem nom David Roth drops out, boosting former Dem state rep Todd Achilles who's running as an Indy: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article316693055.html
Could end up being an upset in ID.
According to the Bullfinch Group, in a direct Risch v. Achilles matchup -- Risch only leads by 4 points with 23% of voters remaining unsure.
https://www.thebullfinchgroup.com/post/for-immediate-release-independent-todd-achilles-surges-on-informed-ballot?ref=ivn.us
I honestly think this year will be a litmus test of whether this strategy works: if these Dem-backed Indies get even close to knocking out Reps in these hyper-rural conservative states, I don't think it's a bad idea to consider running more in the future. So far we have Achilles in ID-Sen, Osborn in NE-Sen, and Hill in AK-AL. Bodnar in MT-Sen and Bengs in SD-Sen are also races to watch if the Dems there drop out.
The MT SoS says Dems will have to replace their nominee, even if she drops out, which she's been very clear she's not going to do anyway. So our only shot here is for the Dem nominee to endorse and campaign with Bodnar, which she's probably not going to do either. Alani Bankhead does not appear to be a team player.
Yeah, it does seem like MT and national Dems are doing all they can to support Bodnar at least, even to the point of DSCC cutting ties with Bankhead
Bankhead's pissing me off. Digging your heels in the sand for what? Pride, ego? It'd be one thing if she was a credible candidate herself with decent fundraising ability or *something,* but nope. She's a run-of-the-mill, sacrificial lamb candidate. If it weren't for Bodnar, nobody would even know she's running.
It's definitely possible for red states to have strong, credible Democratic candidates. Mississippi, Kansas, South Carolina, even Arkansas. Bankhead is not one of those and needs to drop out yesterday. Is protecting your ego even worth it when all you'll ever be known as is the person who cost us the opportunity to flip a deep red state? All that to get 20-25% of the vote? Madness
Bankhead would have to be replaced by another nominee, per MT law. They can't just do what the Dem nominees in NE and ID did.
Could they not just pick someone who'd immediately endorse Bodnar and withdraw from the race in everything but official capacity? It'd be a tougher climb than Nebraska but would still be more ideal than Bankhead actively running against Bodnar, and even if she were to decide to stop campaigning and endorse Bodnar I worry she'd still carry too much name recognition/sway among Democratic voters after winning the primary to effectively stand down for Bodnar.
That's one interpretation:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/lawyers-montana-democratic-party-could-233901827.html
I mean, if Bankhead were running for a swing House seat, a background as an Air Force Lt. Col. and FBI Special Agent would be at the top of the DCCC recruiting list.
Well, they have to win (not just get close) for it to be worthwhile.
The link I posted said that with informed ID voters, Achilles polls ahead of Risch by more than 50% of the vote.
Does that mean Risch loses his seat? Probably not.
Risch is the perfect candidate to target for this type of campaign- He is an 83 year old career politician who hasn't had a competitive campaign in decades.
I would be beyond shocked if Risch were to lose. Idaho last elected a Democrat to the Senate in 1974.
If Risch loses his seat, then it'll be catastrophic for the GOP in November. It means that AK, TX, IA, and FL Sen seats flip too.
That would be amazing.
It would probably mean that OH switches too. A 10 seat D pickup would change Washington completely as it would force R’s to abandon Trump in order to avoid being completely wiped out in 2028.
If that were to happen (I still think it's unlikely), Senate Ds would be 3 seats shy of 60 votes in 2027. And if you flipped the second NC and WI seats in 2028...
If that were to happen and Senate Democrats hold hearings on Epstein and Trump’s corruption, I think that any Republican who still voted for Trump would be in danger of losing.
And OH and NE, to go along with (obviously) NC & ME...
And SD perhaps as well if Brian Bengs really does get as much traction as he’s been getting in the race for some time.
It would be a long shot but it would be cheap and have no downside to try in some of these low cost rural red states. This year should be incredibly blue and many of these incumbents in deep red states haven't had to campaign in decades and will likely take their race for granted. Some like Risch are the type of entrenched geriatric career politicians that people have had more than enough of. I also suspect that we will have the best opening we have had in years in rural areas with the fallout from the tariffs and opposition to data centers. Hopefully this will be a perfect storm situation in some of these races.
That's one reason I am supporting Trygve Hammer's run for Congress in North Dakota. His resume is impressive.
To be fair, that would still be true if Risch loses. But, yes.
The GOP nominee hasn't lost since 1974. It was close in 1980 and 1986, and a reach in 1992 and 1996, but has been a write-off since. ID-Sen has not been a real possibility in a generation.
It doesn't help that Idaho has been the destination state for Nazis for a couple generations.
could have kept the great senator from idaho one more term, if carter waited until the polls closed before he conceded
No chance we win an ID senate race, even in this environment and with an Indy, but love the idea of making the R's spend some $ here.
Does this gambit work if you only left the Democratic Party very recently for the explicit purpose of running for US Senate?
Like Osborn and Bodnar are legitimate independents who have no ActBlue donations, etc.
I think either tact works just with slightly different framing. For recent Dems it's "I left the Dem party for [xyz reason] and now I'm running as a true independent for this seat" while for long-time independents it's "I've always been an independent voice and I'll bring that to Congress" or something along those lines.
We won't know until November but I am very skeptical of this gambit particularly when the Idaho guy announced he was leaving for vague purposes that do not differentiate him from Democrats.
https://idahocapitalsun.com/2025/07/01/idaho-lawmaker-steps-down-from-legislature-to-run-for-u-s-senate-seat-as-independent-candidate/
In Achilles' case he was a Republican before he became a Democrat.
The tactic has worked in Alaska before.
Probably not that well... we're seeing something like that in Mississippi with Ty Pinkins, who was the Democratic nominee for SoS in 2023 and senate in 2024, now running as an independent. And his campaign and reason for leaving the party seems to be entirely motivated by the national party questioning him and preferring to back Scott Colom, who, y'know, didn't lose two statewide races back to back by large margins? And actually seems to be running like a legitimate, real candidate? Independents like him probably won't do as well as ones like Bodnar or Osborn.
But I meeeaaaan, Bodnar and Osborn are both very clearly backed by Democrats and would likely caucus with Democrats. Osborn has an interesting, populist grab bag of policy that makes him well suited as an Independent but at the same time he'd clearly fit more as a Democrat than a Republican. Same with Bodnar who is basically Jon Tester without the (D).
I'm curious... how many voters, and particularly those who would typically vote R, are aware of the ties these candidates have to Democrats? Are they mostly aware and just don't care? If that's the case, it really speaks to just how much of an impact that little letter has on how people vote. Being backed almost exclusively Democrats and trying to coordinate with Democrats to take their place on the ballot is whatever, but if they had that (D) next to their name, well that's just a bridge too far!
If only MT would follow suit.
Should be noted that if David Roth stayed in the race and won, he’d have been the first gay Senator in Idaho’s history.
The fact that Club for Growth is attacking Collins for supporting amnesty, and not for the insider trading that sent him to prison, says a lot about the current state of the Republican Party.
This is the same state that elected the country's worst Medicare fraudster in history to two terms as governor and then to the Senate. I am still amazed that Rick Scott dodged a prison cell.
Some movement in the challenge over the Republican primary winner in Indiana State Senate District 23. So far, the anti-redistricting candidate is ahead, but now the commission moves on to a disputed 300 votes, as the opposition attempts to dispute his victory by three votes. I'm not surprised that Copenhaver has Beckworth's support.
https://indianacapitalchronicle.com/2026/07/28/voter-subpoenas-denied-in-recount-of-narrow-indiana-senate-republican-primary/?utm_source=newsletters.indianacapitalchronicle.com&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=recount-panel-denies-voter-subpoenas&_bhlid=e62debf38b0867f7c9d3e9fd4a62238fce2d4e42
I'm going to be blunt, I'm getting real tired of the endless ideological shit-flinging here. I know that's hypocritical coming from me, but at least I'm working on it. Every time I open the comment section, it's an endless fight between the center and left over Michigan and Wisconsin. I feel like I'm hearing less and less about other races, just these two.
I sincerely hope we all unite around the nominee, whoever they may be. I know I will if it's Stevens or Craig in MN or whoever. Will those on the center here unite around AES or Hong?
EDIT: I have backed off my original position. See below.
Same here, it’s getting very tiresome.
I think the wide bulk of the anxiety around AES and Hong is that they'd blow winnable races in very important elections; I don't think it's because they believe that strongly they'd be terrible if elected from an ideological viewpoint.
My thing is that people like to point to the winnable races Republicans blew in 2010 and 2012 but let's look at the big picture: In the end they won. Twice. They got two trifectas in less than 10 years to run roughshod over the country. If losing a few winnable races in the short term leads to lasting power in the long term... I'll take it. I just don't think either candidate are as bad as people are saying they are, especially in this environment that will only get worse for Republicans.
They blew races in states that were already trending red, thus they won them later. These are two traditionally blue states that have trended more red the past 10+ years. Totally different dynamic.
"If losing a few winnable races in the short term leads to lasting power in the long term... "
What leap of faith argument is this?
The argument is that economically, the winning message is on the left. You see it all the time that even those in Red States support the economically populist argument you see on the Left. We see Indies doing better in these states than standard Dems. Why is that? A big part of the issue is that the Democratic Party label has been dragged through the mud by the Conservative Media Machine. Is it even possible to rehabilitate the brand in these states? What sort of work is that going to take? I think what we'll see is that the long lasting power will be an alliance between these Indy candidates and the Democratic Party and inevitably see a schism where the Democratic Party will eventually be seen as the "Conservative Party" once again.
Michigan and Wisconsin are not traditionally blue states if we do an analysis deeper than win/lose. The only dem in recent memory to perform substantially above his national performance in MI and WI is Obama. He is also the only midwestern presidential nominee in recent memory, which I think is highly correlated with the prior detail.
They were traditionally tilt blue swing states for years and years that are now just plain purple.
And at least with Michigan, I think Stevens is exactly as capable of blowing a winnable race in Michigan as AES, because she is running that feeble of a campaign with no indication of strong political instincts.
If we lose MI-Sen, it makes the math on having power at all nigh impossible. This seat isnt the difference between 55 and 56 seats. Its not like we have the margin for error Republicans did when their rigid ideologues threw Mike Castle to the wolves in that primary.
If this flippant attitude about losing Senate or governors races in pursuit of some long term power spreads, we’re toast. We don’t have that luxury of throwing races like Republicans did.
Just so posters here know, I deleted my original reply. I’m getting too angry again, and that’s on me.
and even in this insane environment, this kind of 5.5 year trump record, background economic, political and rights situation we are in, it is still not going to be enough to get us to 60 seats in the senate, let alone 66+ to make structural changes...
from this flows the question: ok, now what? We have 54 seats lets say. Now what? You'll have a rotating cast of the worst dems like Fetterman making sure everything is watered down and made toothless, in addition to the unrelenting, but completely unwanted pushes for "bipartisanship" and "healing".
SCOTUS is under almost total regulatory and institutional capture, and must be completely reformed if this country is to survive. I don't know how we do it.
A trifecta in 2029 is needed.
Right. I have no doubt they’d both make a fine Governor and fine Senator… if elected. No qualms on the policy front (and I say this as one of the board’s more open centrists!), it’s the November part for me
What annoys me is that there's been this idea that the seats are *only* competitive if AES/Hong are nominated. This isn't directed at you specifically, for the record. I've seen a lot of comments saying that they're NOW competitive because the progressives have a good chance of winning, which is just so stupid frankly. The seats were ALWAYS competitive since the incumbents decided to step aside. No matter who wins the primary, it's going to be a fight to keep the seat. Yes, some candidates have a harder fight than others, but if Crowley or Stevens got nominated, it doesn't guarantee them a win in November. Which, I should note, someone literally yesterday said that nominating AES turns Michigan from a safe D hold to a tossup. If anyone truly believes that MI-Sen was Safe D at ANY point this cycle, I have a bridge to sell you.
There’s a difference between tossup (Hong for example) and Lean Dem (Barnes). No one said safe for him, but it’s not quite a tossup either.
For the record, as a centrist who is deeply concerned about AES and Hong as nominees, I pushed back on that exact statement. Here is what I wrote, verbatim:
"I mean, we might well lose with Hong as the nominee, but there's no scenario in which I can picture us getting blown out in any swing state race in this type of environment."
SOSDD. It was like this just last month with socialist victories in New York and Colorado.
I've never seen that as an acronym before haha
SSDD. The O is new.
Not super new. My 82 year old grandfather has said it as long as I can remember.
I don't think that's really an accurate statement. Those are both safe blue districts where Socialist wins wouldn't cost us a seat. WI-Gov and MI-Sen are a very different case.
Preach; I'm so tired of the dooming. I called it "quitter mentality" yesterday out of frustration but Imma stick by it
I believe you should reflect on your second sentence some more. Also, what you are doing here is trying to silence dissenting opinions and push this space into echo chamber nonsense, a condition that has destroyed many, many other places on the web. Have you seen what this kind of group think has done to Daikykos, the website we came from most recently? A healthy level of skepticism about certain things is necessary. Do you remember how most people here were Platner supporters? Dissent is necessary for healthy communities.
I assure you, I do not want an echo chamber. Just because I argue my position doesn’t mean I want everyone to always agree with me.
Also what do you mean by echo chamber? Shouldn’t we be supporting our own nominee? Is that now a controversial position?
EDIT: To clarify, if you are not accusing me of having an agenda, that was a misread on my part. I’ve erased that part of my argument. I am well aware of my past here, I’ve forced myself to go on break 3 times because of my own issues. I know I’m difficult to talk to, I suspect a lot of people here do not like me one bit, and I don’t blame them.
I just feel like we are engaging in a self-fulfilling prophecy by writing off these races if AES or Hong win. I don’t even want Hong to win (although I think AES can still win), and I’m saying that. We cannot afford to write off these races. We aren’t winning the Senate if we write AES off, for instance.
For the record, even though we disagree frequently, I like you and think of you as a thoughtful, well informed poster. I also think that Tigercourse's comment above was more directed at Lune calling us "doomers", which I agree is out of bounds.
I appreciate reading your posts here. Some of your posts, I agree with wholeheartedly while other of your posts not so much. But I like that you—and other posters on this site with a range of different perspectives — make me think.
Bingo. There's no poison more lethal to election analysis than groupthink.
The additional irony is the original poster preaches unity, but then uses his last sentence to try to call out moderates again on a strawman's argument.
This is literally the only political forum on the internet left where the most radical part of the left hasn't turned into an echo chamber by shouting down anyone to the right of Che Guevara. I want to make sure everyone knows that my skepticism about some of the more radical candidates is due to my belief that they will blow winnable races. If progressives win the primary I think everyone here will still support them, but I also fear that this won't be enough to win the general election. Anyone who wants to know why I think Hong will be a weak candidate needs to look at the train wreck of "progressive prosecutors" who ran on similar platforms who managed to lose county races to GOP candidates running as independents in Seattle and Los Angeles and managed to get recalled in San Francisco and Oakland. The progressive prosecutor in Portland lost renomination after one term in office. If you can't win there, what makes you think you can possibly win with the same platform in Wisconsin.
This is a site discussing elections. These are exactly the sorts of conversations we should be having.
Yes, elections. Not how we personally feel about the candidates and their chances.
Huh? What's the difference between the two?
The difference is foundational to this site, going back to the very first day I launched it more than 20 years ago. Many if not most people are unable to set aside what they *want* to see happen politically from what *will* (or is likely to) happen politically.
Ideologues are always convinced that their preferred candidates are the best choice. Cold-blooded analysts—which we strive to be—try to ignore our personal preferences and describe reality as it is, not as we wish it to be.
I agree with you completely and I certainly strive for that, but that's not how I read the above statement. Almost every comment I leave is related to how I personally feel about a candidate's chances. I base those feelings on my understanding of elections, the political environment and electoral realities, but ultimately it is my opinion, nothing more.
It's not really possible to talk about elections without mentioning candidate quality and relative chances/odds, unless there was a ban on literally all primary discussions, not just presidential.
Candidate quality, yes. But conflating candidate quality with "this is the candidate I personally want to win" runs directly antithetical to proper analysis.
No, you are all right. I’ve had time to think about it and I think I went too far in my original position. Admittedly partly for a stupid reason - I wanted to hear more about races besides MI-SEN and WI-GOV — which I am hearing about in hindsight.
I do apologize to all the posters I pissed off here. I’m also exhausted from weeks of inconsistent, horrible sleep so I’m not exactly mentally focused either. Not that that’s an excuse, mind you, I should be better in control of myself. I’m just saying I’m not totally myself lately.
I appreciate the apology, and I'm sorry you're struggling, but I'm going to strongly suggest you spend a week away from the site. We'll be here when you're in a better place and ready to come back.
No you’re right. I’ve been too unhinged.
See you all in a week, or longer, depending on if I need more time to get my shit together.
Given SD's 35% runoff rule, Doeden came within 4 points of winning in the first round. Of course, in 42 other states he'd have advanced to the general without a runoff on that 31% plurality.
IA-Sen, MI-Sen: Former POTUS Barack Obama endorses Josh Turek, Sen. Ed Markey endorses Abdul El-Sayed.
MS NOW is talking about Obama and Turek. Fun ad too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaBayzBLArA
What might be most remarkable in the fact that James Talarico has jumped into a 45-40 lead over Ken Paxton is that non-college-educated voters (usually reliably Republican) are favoring the Democrat by nine percentage points — 45% to 36%.
I suspect if you broke out White non-college voters from Black and Hispanic non-college, you'd see some pretty stark disparities. For the record, Cruz only won non-college voters 51-48 against O'Rourke in 2018.
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/rep-jim-clyburn-south-carolina-said-he-didnt-know-until-recently-what-chatgpt
SC-6: Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn, who is running for an 18th term at the age of 86, did not know what the very popular AI interface ChatGPT was until last week.
Could be nothing. Could also be a sign of his age and time in office.
80-something people aren't nearly as terminally online as we are. I have relatives jn the 70s abd 80s, and I dont think a single one of them could explain what ChatGPT is.
This does remind me of the classic Ted Stevens quote "The internet is a series of tubes" circa 2006. The internet was FAR more established in 2006 than ChatGPT in 2026
Your relatives are likely not in world-facing, critically important positions of power, in one of the few institutions capable of meaningfully regulating and legislating. And I don't want to hear "yeah but his staffers will tell him about this three year old tech". Completely unacceptable and indefensible given the scope and criticality of the issue.
There should be caucus wide meetings and briefings on this topic, so that EACH and EVERY member can spell out in detail what this tech is and why its current rollout, implementation, regulation and potential impacts are deeply problematic as is, and why they need regulating and legislating. This should be policy communication basics that all 257 Dems in congress should be able to absolutely crush on camera/mic... what the hell is going on???
No one who doesn’t know what Chat GPT is should be allowed to serve in office, and if that means 80-something people shouldn’t be allowed to serve in office, so be it.
Individuals do not have to be terminally online to know what ChatGPT is...
I have a parent that still uses a flip phone, doesn't know how to change the clock on a stove, and is all around one of the most tech illiterate, technophobic people out there. Zero, and I mean literal zero, internet usage. They have heard of ChatGPT.
oh lord have mercy....
The technology that is displacing millions of workers, that trillions have been expended on to build out, that is being integrated into the fabric of the pentagon and other govt departments...
and he doesn't even know what it is? He is supposed to be regulating it! If Sam Altman comes to testify in front of congress, will Clyburn think he is the weather guy from TV?
Point in case, the sooner this pre-color TV gerontocracy is replaced, the better, when it comes to these positions of incredible legislative and regulatory power....
I don't expect someone of Jim Clyburn's age to be as literate regarding modern technology as, for example, Yassamin Ansari or Maxwell Frost, who are each over half a century younger than Clyburn (in fact, the sum of their ages is younger than Clyburn).
That being said, I would expect sitting Members of Congress to be briefed on topics that they are not familiar with when they become relevant to their legislative work.
I mean, Ansari is younger than his congressional tenure!!
https://boltsmag.org/whats-on-the-ballot/august-2026-elections-guide/
Bolts Magazine is out with the 110 Elections to Watch this August. I recommend reading it, it’s extremely detailed and well written.
Taniel is pretty much always worth reading.
Amen to that. He’s also great to follow on Bluesky on election nights - he aggregates a lot of really, really downticket races, which is helpful if you’re like I am and you follow a lot of different races at once.
I hope the RSCC's meddling in the MN primary backfires "bigly".
Indivisible has issued a national endorsement for Peggy Flanagan vs. Angie Craig for the senate primary. https://indivisible.org/candidates/70230/. There is a very high bar to receive a national endorsement - IIRC a supermajority of the local MN Indivisible chapters had to back her.
Flanagan shepherded a bunch of the "progressive" bills through the state legislature that are very popular with MN voters like universal free school breakfasts and lunches. The GOP seems utterly tone deaf to the fact that rural voters are really being hurt by the Trump Regime policies around cuts to SNAP, healthcare subsidies, Medicaid cuts that are leading to the closure of rural hospitals, and other policies that hurting working class Americans.
Also see this episode of Indivisible's "What's the Plan?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPSa7HJzXm8. (The Show notes indicate that interview with Flanagan begins at the 6:58 mark in the video).
Craig is corporate Democrat getting much of her donations from big corporate donors. She also was one of the Democrats in the US House who signed the Laken Riley Act.
Considering the murders by ICE of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, and the recent murders by ICE of immigrants in TX and ME, a progressive organizer like Flanagan may turn out be the more compelling candidate in a general election.
And since when is comparing the candidate they want to diss to someone who has already won statewide election in MN an effective strategy? It is one thing to make AOC or Zohra Mamdani the bogeyman, but Sen. Tina Smith?
Yeah, them meddling here is kind of mind boggling. It's not as if Peggy Flanagan would risk the seat at all, so wouldn't they rather have someone who would occasionally vote with them? Or, you know, not do anything and save their money for races where they have a chance?
My thoughts exactly. They have Senate seats they need to defend!!
Cook Political Report rates the MN Senate seat as a likely D hold. They have rated AK, ME, MI and OH as toss ups (3 of the 4 are currently held by the GOP). The open seats in IA and TX are only rated Lean R and the Open Seat in NC (where I am) is Lean D!
TX and IA will be tossup before long.
I hope you are correct!
Precisely. Either one of them should win this race in a walk in this environment.
Let them spend all the money they want here instead of in NC, ME, MI, AK, OH, IA, TX, NH, GA, or NE.
LOL
There is that!
They have more than enough to go around
I'm pro-Flanagan and pro-Republicans wasting their money so....
Oh gee!!! Peggy Flanagan is simply TOO far to the left to win, I sure hope the RSCC doesn't invest a shitload of money to meddle in her favor! We'd be so owned!!
I think it's more likely meant to cause chaos within the Dem electorate. They want to generate Dems in Disarray stories.
The centerpieces of Peggy Flanagan's campaign have been AIPAC and illegal immigration apologia. This will be kryptonite in a general election campaign and it's hard to see how she pivots to issues that will have salience outside the core of the Democratic base. I remain convinced, just as I was six months ago, that Minnesota will be a Senate battleground if Flanagan emerges as the nominee.
What do you mean by "illegal immigration apologia"?
That seems very unlikely to me.
AIPAC is disliked across the political spectrum, and I'm not sure what "illegal immigration apologia" means. Also, have you not followed what was happening in Minneapolis earlier this year?
You sound incredibly online saying AIPAC is disliked across the political spectrum. Do you really think more than 25% of the population has the vaguest hint of what AIPAC is? It's an issue that activates DFL primary voters in a few neighborhoods in Minneapolis....and nothing more.
As for "illegal immigration apologia", aside from more broadly attaching herself to Biden-era policy positions on the border, Flanagan is repeatedly taking Craig to the woodshed over the Lakin Riley Act. Policy-wise, that's fair game. Electorally, I can say with cocksure confidence that among a statewide electorate, the broad contours of the Lakin Riley Act would be about as popular as rainbows. I'd hate to be the Democratic nominee spending the entire general election campaign explaining away the tidal wave of Republican ads insisting that voters shouldn't favor it.
Still don't understand how Flanagan attacking Craig for her stances on immigration constitutes "illegal apologia".
And it's been proven that AIPAC is in fact a very salient national issue that has already decided several primaries. Not a local one that no one knows about as you suggest. (Oh, and to accuse someone of being "incredibly online" could also work if I were to say you were living under a rock. We're all "incrediby online". This is a daily online newsletter.)
Not sure why you think that's the centerpiece of Flanagan's campaign, as she's talking about many other things as well.
Maybe I've missed something, but where's this proof you speak of that AIPAC has been a salient issue in national elections?
Assuming you meant "federal" elections, AIPAC spending has been salient in several primaries for House seats. The most prominent was probably the special election to replace Mikie Sherrill after she won her race for NJ Governor.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/06/centrist-democrats-are-livid-with-aipac-after-primary-meddling-00769461
I think ICE murders of Minnesotans might reduce the political salience of those attacks.
I'm not convinced it will activate votes, especially independents or soft Republicans. Back in January I thought it might because of the downstream economic impact on Minnesota but that doesn't seem particularly prescient right now. People vote self-interest....and I'm not sure that in their minds that includes ICE and Alex Pretti.
I think we are good no matter who wins this primary.
I didn't say more than 25% knows about AIPAC. Rather, I said that people across the political spectrum dislike them, from Candace Owens to Bernie Sanders and many moderates in between. That fact undermines any claim that Flanagan is somehow radical or leftist because she has issues with AIPAC.
You might want to take a look at Trump's approval on immigration. It is not great, and any Republican opponent will be tied to that record.
Your comments contain a lot of very confident statements without a lot of evidence to support them. For example, the Laken Riley Act being "as popular as rainbows" implies that everybody loves the act. Obviously, that's not true, as many center-left and mainstream Democrats opposed the legislation, while they too like rainbows. And with many voters now seeing what Trump's record on immigration looks like in practice, it is reasonable to believe voters would understand that the legislation might have been a mistake.
And for the record, the LRA is a deeply flaws piece of legislation that justifies the deportation of non-criminals (merely "arrested" individuals, many of whom turn out to be innocent), which is something most Americans oppose, and it's so extreme in its lack of due process that it will possibly get struck down by our current conservative and corrupt SCOTUS. I encourage you to read about this case, where a federal judge already called an LRA detention unconstitutional: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-declares-noncitizens-detention-under-laken-riley-act-unconstitutional
Lastly, I am reasonably confident that more general election voters know what AIPAC is than know what the Laken Riley Act, so putting the Laken Riley Act in ads isn't really going to make much of a difference.
I don't agree at all. MN-Sen should be an easy win for either of them in this environment in a blue state.
It's hard to know what kind of legs this Minnesota fraud scandal will have. It's the only thing they talk about in Minnesota media, so at the very least I expect that it's gonna lower the Democratic ceiling. If I'm even 10% right, having a Senate nominee whose centers of gravity are opposing AIPAC and rolling back illegal immigration enforcement strikes me as a needlessly risky strategy in a Harris +4 state.
What on earth, why? Why on earth would Minnesota, a state that hasn't had a competitive Senate election since 2008, have one in a Democratic-leaning year? Peggy Flanagan could be running a campaign on literally nothing and win in a cycle like this. And the idea that attacking Craig over supporting AIPAC and ICE is somehow the only thing that Flanagan's campaign is about or is a turn-off for the general electorate is just false. ICE is unpopular, especially in Minnesota, and most people either don't know about AIPAC or don't like it.
Takes like these are why I have a hard time taking your more reasonable pessimistic takes seriously. There's no universe in which we lose Minnesota with a reasonably uncontroversial candidate in a blue-leaning year, and I have no idea how you could even come to that conclusion.
I don’t even understand why they’d bother meddling here. This isn’t a Maine, Michigan, or Wisconsin type of dynamic at play where a serious mistake can result in a GOP win.
A new Marquette Law School Poll survey of Democratic primary voters finds state Rep. Francesca Hong leading with 38%, followed by former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes with 16% and Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley at 7%.
https://law.marquette.edu/poll/2026/07/29/marquette-law-poll-finds-expanded-support-for-hong-in-democratic-primary-barnes-sits-second-and-crowley-third/
Crowley's re-entry seems to have only boosted Hong. Sorry establishment. You'll lose this one.
But it remains to be seen if she will lose in November. I'm skeptical of her chances, but not to the point I would consider the seat flipping.
That is 39% unaccounted for.
If the establishment eants to stop Hong, then it needs one candidate instead of two.
Though Barnes is hardly a centrist.
Hong gets a plurality of undecideds when pushed.
It really needs to be explained why the establishment thought getting Crowley back in the race would stop Hong's momentum instead of coalescing around Barnes. They really are starting to deserve every loss.
It really makes no sense. If they believe there’s something that could sink Barnes, they should have leaked it.
My first thought when Crowley got back in was: Crowley and Barnes are both from Milwaukee and Hong is from Madison, surely this will split the vote in Milwaukee vote and help Hong win. Lots of primary voters aren't all that ideological and will vote for the person from their region/whose name they are most familiar with
Yeah, I really don't understand their thinking there, unless they know something about Barnes that we don't.
Maybe they hoped that Barnes and Hong would both split the left vote and leave the remaining vote to Crowley. Which forgets that while voters do care about ideology, they don't look at it through the same lenses we people like us do.
Hindsight is 20/20 but it now looks like Evers REALLY f**ked the dog by pushing Crowley to get back in. He should have backed Barnes and tried to convince everyone else to get out. It's probably too late for that to work now. Hong seems like a singularly awful candidate: inexperienced, bad at answering questions, way out of the mainstream ideologically.
Tiffany is way out of the mainstream ideologically and many (but certainly not all) of Hong's positions are really popular.
She is the only one running for banning data centers, for instance.
https://tennesseelookout.com/2026/07/28/tennessee-congressional-candidates-file-final-disclosure-before-primaries/
TN-9: Democrat Justin Pearson outraised Republicans in fundraising before the primary, with $2.35 million compared to $1.55 million for Brent Taylor and $600 thousand for Todd Warner. London Lamar, Pearson's most high-profile primary opponent, only raised $70 thousand.
I have heard Pearson is running a really good campaign, showing up and talking to people. I agree with someone on Bluesky who said this could be a test of the success rate of TN’s gerrymander. Even if he doesn’t win, a close result in such a red seat could spook the GOP, not unlike when Aftyn Behn got close in TN-7.
The issue is that Pearson can only run up the vote in Memphis so much, and no Democrat is going to make the significant inroads in the rest of the district needed to win.
I figured. The GOP’s gerrymander was quite extreme. My hope was more for another Aftyn Behn situation honestly, as I said.
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2082513479009710329
MI-Sen, MI-7: GSG poll (pro-Matt Maasdam)
Abdul El-Sayed 57%, Haley Stevens 35%
Will Lawrence 38%, Matt Maasdam 27%, Bridget Brink 19%
Down 11 points in his own poll 6 days out...
NC-Sen: Fox poll has Cooper up 53-44: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-democratic-enthusiasm-shapes-north-carolina-senate-race.amp
No Supreme Court election numbers I think.
I know it’s early, but wow! Keep putting your foot on the gas and vote blue up and down the ticket, people!
I looked at Allison Riggs’ reelection campaign fund in 2024 and hers wasn’t as robust as her colleague’s. She had $1.1M while the guy who tried to steal her seat raised $1.2M.