We have an incredibly strong slate of Senate candidates!
Question: What additional Senate candidates would you love to see recruited, and in which states?) Feel free to include people who have so far said they won’t run.) Here are a few of my wishes:
– Andrew Beshear in Kentucky. Our strongest card for this open seat!
– Jon Tester in Montana. I know. Who else has even a marginal chance?
– Laura Kelly in Kansas. I trust all the DB posters rooting for her to run.
– Maine? I’d like to see a strong alternative to Mills and Platner.
– Joe Manchin in West Virginia. Sadly, the best we can hope for.
– Do we want Tina Smith (MN) or Gary Peters (MI) to reconsider and run?
– Do Dems have anyone, declared or undeclared, with a chance in Florida?
– Oh, and I’d like to see Jasmine Crocket withdraw in Texas.
Yeah idk why people sleep on Davids. She's incredibly strong, and KS isn't super socially conservative so her being a lesbian won't be a dealbreaker for most voters.
KY: Andy Beshear will lose as soon as he faces national polarization in a Senate race in deep red Kentucky. It would be a huge waste of money. There isn’t a legislature to override all of his vetoes.
MT: Jon Tester has ruled it out.
KS: It might be worth running Gov. Kelly in a blue-wave year.
WV: We don’t need to enrich that putrid guy. He won’t win anymore; polarization eventually catches up.
ME: One of Platner or Mills will be the nominee. Let’s wait and see. It's shaping up to be a blockbuster primary between a controversial left-wing populist and a moderate Governor.
MN and MI: Smith and Peters are not going to run.
FL:Democrats might have a chance in Florida if a Representative who gets redistricted out by DeSantis decides to run statewide.
A very anti-labor record, opposition to red-flag laws, a weak stance against ICE, no support for universal health care, and the revocation of the executive order encouraging ICE cooperation just two weeks ago. I’m sure there’s more.
Remember that it was the labor unions who recruited Platner.
Also she killed a bill for tracking rape kits , leaving Maine as the only state without this. And while not on the liberal-moderate spectrum but especially relevant in the age of Epstein scandal, Collins would probably have a field day with attack ads on Mills pardon of a child sex predator who admitted he was guilty— here is a quote from her trying to evoke sympathy for him ““We certainly hope that the incident does not result in a devastating blow to his academic and professional career,” Janet Mills, who was then a state lawmaker, said in January 2002,”. https://www.newsbreak.com/bangor-daily-news-1696700/3770194479117-janet-mills-pardoned-a-man-she-defended-in-a-sexual-assault-case
she vetoed almost as legislation from her state senate president (same party) Troy Jackson as did Paul LePage did when he was governor. Not a good comp, as lepage and mills are massively different but again I do not know how she will inspire the working folks of maine
Tester wants peace, and Beshear is working on another job opportunity. I think Laura Kelly could really make Roger Marshall squirm. He's one of the most extreme far-right Senators and completely useless to Kansas.
Maine has been problematic from the start. Collins will either get an opponent with plenty of baggage to exploit or another moderate woman in her 70s who recently praised her. We're going to sweat this one to the very end.
I love Jasmine Crockett. We need her voice in Congress and in the public sphere. But she's not winning Texas. I think she would struggle to win statewide in much bluer states like MN, MI, PA, etc. Is she seeing something others are not, or is the objective not necessarily to win the Senate race?
I don't think anyone is clamoring for Gary Peters to stay. He's continuing to vote with Republicans a lot (even more?) on his way out the door. Tina Smith has been great, so it's very sad to see her retire, but we have solid candidates in MN (and MI). I think the bigger worry with states like these is that most of the Democrats are clustered into one major city, which makes it easy for voter intimidation and suppression to have an effect on the state-wide race.
I have never heard of anyone by the name of Joe Manchin or this place called "Florida".
Jasmine Crockett is only running to appease her ego. She hasn't really done anything aside from going on MNSBC and The View since her launch, while Talarico has actually been working
That’s what I was thinking. I have yet to see anything Crockett is doing that resembles a robust ground game and outreach efforts that can match what Talarico has been doing for some time.
I have a lot of confidence Talarico will prevail. It seems like the main perspective dems have on Crockett entering is "I like her but she won't win in Texas"
I don't think Talarico can win solely based on electability. A lot of people have taken the wrong lessons about electabiltiy and don't care about it anymore.
He needs to make an affirmative case and appeal to both the left and the centre which he is doing really well. On some issues, he takes the moderate position, on some others he takes the left one. I don't think Crockett talks about policy at all.
I think a more valuable question is which leader with integrity could run in deep red states as an Independent or even first run as an anti-MAGA Republican and then run as an independent after the primary.
David French once wrote he considered running against Trump in 2016. Could he put TN in play?
For 2028, Utah Republicans are some of the least MAGA Republicans and Lee only got 53.2% of the vote last time. Who can replace McMullin.
Even a conservative Independent who voted with Democrats only a third or quarter of the time would be better than the cowed Republicans and MAGA Republicans who never buck the party.
Mike Lee is an asshole who is on record wanting to eliminate Social Security! He’s been credibly described as "Ted Cruz’s less-intelligent sidekick". I was really hoping Evan McMullin would replace him.
It seems like she's interested despite that. Even a gerrymandered district would be less of an uphill climb than running statewide. And Marshall is a weak incumbant
- Laura Kelly has ruled it out, but Sharice Davids hasn't and she would be a much better candidate. Laura Kelly is a 78 year old conservative that told the DGA to stop talking about trans issues.
- It will be Mills or Platner (most likely Platner, he has more money and has led more polls) any suggestion of a 3rd candidate is fantasy.
- Joe Manchin can burn in hell. He wouldn't win anyway.
- Why would we want Smith or Peters to reconsider? Flanagan and McMorrow are both stronger candidates, respectively. We're not losing ground in Senate races, we're gaining it. No reason to retreat
- Google is your friend in Florida. Jared Moskowitz (ugh) is reportedly considering it if he's drawn out in redistricting. Otherwise, Jennifer Jenkins is probably the only bet
- Crockett doesn't have to withdraw. Candidates should always face voters and the voters should decide. (it's quite obvious who they are going to choose here, too, and it's not her.)
If one says stop talking about the trans issues, that doesn't by default make the politician conservative. Bias judgement, bigotry and hatred towards trans people and their rights, yes it does. I would really need to see Laura Kelly actually do something cruel as Governor to really justify if she's conservative on trans issues.
She wants to abolish the death penalty, supports medical marijuana, pro choice, against school vouchers (which conservatives have traditionally been for), is against cuts to the EPA, and is pro-Medicaid expansion. We're talking about a Democratic Governor in Kansas.
Whitmer or Nessel in Michigan. If only to put the race away with a proven statewide winner instead of what there is now with two weakish candidates (AES/Stevens) and one decent but unproven one (McMorrow).
Michigan is a state Democrats carried easily in 2018. I am not sure why people are concern trolling about the candidates almost a year after that primary started.
edit: also, Nessel has a terrible relationship with the Arab-American community and elected officials in Michigan. Being pro-Israel is one thing; destroying relationships with a voting bloc is another.
Honestly it's the behind-the-scenes strongarming that annoys me the most. Either be public about it or don't do it. Behavior like this is (part of) why the party has such a low approval rating, imo.
Turek is like leagues better than those other 2 goobers. Sage never actually ran in an election before and Wahls has never faced a Republican plus he doesn't work well with other legislators. Turek actually has bona fides to his name
As an Iowa Democrat. I support Turek. I won't highlight my issues with Wahls. I do so in the name of civility. I like Sage's stance on data centers. We need to get the other candidates to embrace his stance freezing the development of new data centers. I think it will finish as an overall civil primary.
My question is why are they opposed to those two? I don't complain in the abstract about "meddling"; it could be crucial for a victory sometimes. But why are these two so much worse than Turek?
I think in their mind it isn’t so much that those other two are much worse. They think that Turek is that much better. Paralympic gold medalist who holds the reddest seat for Democrats in the legislature. He also went from a 6 vote 0.1% win out of 6,807 votes cast in 2022 in his first election to a 561 vote 5% win out of 11,208 votes cast in his first re-election campaign in 2024, a year obviously much worse nationally for the Democratic Party with far higher Republican voter turnout.
Hard not to argue with that background/resume being able to win a now red state. I also think Turek would be strongest, but ironically Schumer inserting himself into the primary I could see backfire spectacularly into making his chosen candidate lose the race from a “pox on the establishment” base vote if our party voters decide to go full tea party in 2026 primaries.
The other 2 candidates are basically untested with GOP/Trump voters who Democrats need to win a large chunk of in order to flip the Senate seat. State Senator Zach Wahls won both his elections with minimal (libertarian) opposition in 2018 winning 78-21 and no opposition in 2022. Nathan Sage has never faced voters before. Pretty obvious why DSCC/Schumer are backing Turek.
Worth mentioning that Wahls was elected Senate Minority Leader by our caucus, but left that post just 2 years in after he and the rest of our caucus disagreed on firing two longtime Democratic staffers. I take no position on which side was right on that issue, but abandoning your top leadership position and creating caucus drama in an already red difficult state to win leaves a bad taste in my mouth and those kinds of things can prevent the Democratic team from rowing in the same direction for 2026 over grudges/animosity behind the scenes, with which is a complete necessity to pull off an upset.
About 2024 being worse than 2022: it certainly felt that way because of the top line result. Just how much of a percentage of the votes did the Democrats lose by in the House, overall? I'm sure this has been covered, but I don't remember. I think it was close to 3% in 2022?
Sage is running as a populist but has a weak fundraising and gathered no endorsments or elite support like Osborn or Platner or El-Sayed. He is out of the contention.
Wahls went viral for a hard hitting speech, as a teenager with lesbian moms, at the Iowa legislature after which he became an LGBTQ activist and later politician. He is also the former minority leader. He is a liberal associated with the Iowa Dem establishment.
Turek is a paraolympic champion who won a red seat. He has a moderate and populist underdog branding.
Laura Belin at Bleeding Heartland noted that Turek and Wahls have essentially the same voting record and platforms.
Turek has an independent mind and is not an establishmentarian like Stevens or Craig. He would clearly be the strongest candidate but DSCC intervening could backfire.
It does seem like Turek has the best opportunity to win over those red leaning "independents" that have been voting republican lately, and we'll need those voters to have a chance to win in Iowa.
Because Turek is basically the only one who could make that seat competitive. He outperformed Harris by 13 in 2024 and won a seat that not even Rob Sand won in 2022
It doesn't guarantee but it sure as hell informs a lot. To not use past performances to judge what a candidate is capable of is frankly stupid.
Are you gonna believe someone like Todd Akin or Christine O'Donnell would be stronger candidates than someone like Phil Scott. After all, past performance does not guarantee future results
You seem to be arguing with a strawman, and rudely to boot. I believe what I actually said was: just because a candidate has a strong record of overperformance doesn't mean he's the "only one who could make that seat competitive"
I am only going off of the evidence we have, and that is that Turek is a proven overperformer who has shown he can appeal to moderate and conservative voters. Sage and Wahls haven't shown any evidence that they are capable of doing so. Therefore, I believe Turek is the best choice.
There is actually no particular obligation to hold a primary, or for leadership not to put their thumbs on the scale for their preferred candidate. Now, whether these types of maneuvers hurt us at the ballot box is another question...
NY-12: Health activist Nina Schwalbe is running. She joins a crowded Democratic primary that includes Micah Lasher, Cam Kasky, Jack Schlossberg, Alex Bores, George Conway, Alan Pardee, Jami Floyd and Matt Shurka.
It seems like it - from my understanding, Lasher, Kasky, Schlossberg, Bores and Shurka are the progressives while Conway, Pardee, Floyd and Schwalbe are moderates
Besides Mr. Kennedy and Social Media Obsessor Jack Schlossberg and would be Democrat George Conway, who would be the most credible candidate out of the bunch?
Fantastic. I particularly detest Hoffman and Gillibrand’s DSCC so Warren’s comments are welcome.
Question — Gillibrand has been discussed as a possible primary target before. Who could do it, in the event AOC goes for Schumer’s seat? Tish James will be too old by that point so I’m out of ideas.
Pat Ryan is further to the left than Gillibrand but not as lefty as AOC - he has a broad appeal in his district
I'm sure that Zohran Mamdani will be confronted with higher aspirations in the future, but he could run for re election as mayor in 2029, too.
I should add that Goldman and Torres (if they make it out of primaries) are potential statewide candidates, but probably not for a primary against Gillibrand
For one, Ryan endorsed Mamdani for mayor. Gillibrand is pro Medicare For All (so more liberal than Ryan on healthcare), and both take money from a certain ideological PAC associated with a foreign nation but Ryan has taken steps to clean up his record and broaden his appeal with the base on the issue.
Reid Hoffman did call out billionaires for supporting Trump in 2020 but he’s also one of those tech billionaires who is not receptive to tech regulation (especially AI regulation) and not a fan of Lina Khan.
As someone who grew up in Berkeley and went to the same junior high as Hoffman, I am going to say he is one of those rare exceptions of Berkeley natives who just doesn’t speak for the overwhelming liberal crowd of folks here. About the best thing Hoffman has going to him is being pro-democracy and that’s pretty much it.
Look, I’m personally one of the most progressive people out there. I welcome the primary fights to come as a needed direction for our party to head in and creating a backbone of what we stand for, not just against.
I hope almost every older rep loses the nomination to a younger progressive. But even I don’t think we should be attacking a billionaire who has sent our party a LOT of millions in funding for campaigns. Who cares if he’s not a progressive? Big tents win elections.
Trump has a cadre of unmovable Republican billionaires in his back pocket who just saved billions thanks to his tax giveaway to the wealthy. They’re going to be spending hundreds of millions of that for Republicans in the midterms and have the wealthiest man on the planet backing him.
We need Hoffman in this fight. His candidates won’t always win in the primaries (or generals for that matter), but his millions to combat some of the onslaught of cash we face in 2026? He becomes a crucial ally in that fight. Money doesn’t mean that much anymore, but the candidate who raises the most almost always wins.
However, we need to also recognize that at the same time, Reid Hoffman like many in Silicon Valley can be resistent to enough accountability to where the tech industry is these days. He's intelligent and has independent thinking which we don't see enough of leaders and VCs in Silicon Valley but up to a certain extent.
If he elects Democrats, great. But there still should be push back against Hoffman if he along with tech billionaires are not in favor of AI regulation. We had the most embarrassing sign of caving in last year with the bipartisan cryptocurrency bill.
I hope we don't have another one of these when the real AI regulation comes, not just because of national security and security reasons.
"Almost always" seems like an overstatement. Don't challengers who win very frequently get outspent by the incumbent? Otherwise, though, I agree with you.
The first domino falls. Definitely a seat Democrats should target, only on the outskirts of competitiveness, but they can sometimes fall in a wave, ala OK-05 Kendra Horn 2018.
Correction: FL-2, the Tallahassee panhandle district, not FL-4, Jax area. Current iteration of FL-2 is Trump +18, while current iteration of FL-4 is Trump +12
MA-4: Word is Ihssane Leckey (D) is considering a primary challenge to the noxious Rep. Auchincloss. Love to see her or Paul Heroux take the plunge and boot Auchincloss.
I wasn’t living in the district at the time of the 2020 race, so I’m not entirely sure of the dynamics at play back then. I guess I’m more excited at just having anyone, or at least a somewhat viable candidate, as an option. Would love to hear more about her prior campaign from anyone in the know.
Why do you think Leckey would be a strong candidate? Last thing she did was come in 5th in the primary in 2020. I don't think she's run for any office before or since.
Heroux would likely be competitive otoh. He has an interesting political career, (State Rep, Mayor, Sheriff), and he would be able to play the geographic angle being from the South Coast rather than Newton.
Heroux feels like the ideal candidate to run here, and would be my personal top choice. Frankly, I know very little about Leckey and it’s probably not encouraging that she performed so poorly in 2020. I just continue to be so disappointed with Auchincloss that I’m willing to accept any progressive who can mount some semblance of a legitimate campaign. The only challenger currently running, Jason Poulos, doesn’t seem to have the resources to be a credible candidate. Lots of self shot videos on social media that give the appearance of an amateur out of his depth.
Heroux, a former state representative and former Attleboro mayor, told Playbook Monday night that “a lot of people have been asking” him to run for the seat “starting as far away as five years ago, and as recently as this weekend.”
IN-SOS: love to see that massive figure for a key downballot race. We have slept on the importance of AG, Supreme Court, and SOS races for too long, and I’m glad the party has woken up to that reality post-January 6th. Need to stop the threats to democracy in these offices.
SoS is particularly important in Indiana because the order of parties on the ballot is determined by who won the election in each county in the last SoS election; studies have shown that ballot order does have an effect, though small.
Just a note that Indiana does not have a primary for Secretary of State. The candidate is determined by delegate votes at the party convention. There is another candidate. I recently heard her speak, and based on her talk and her resume, I do not consider her ready for a statewide campaign or a statewide office. t I am looking forward to hearing Bayh, when he speaks to our local county group.
I am not a delegate. As I learned recently, any Democrat in good standing (must have voted in Democratic primary for the past two elections) can put his or her name on the ballot, which is also the primary ballot for state races. Precinct chairs are automatically delegates as well. My county Democrats can then elect from among those candidates the ten delegates who go to the convention.
While I am not a delegate, I will support financially the candidate of my choice during the period to select the candidate. However, for me to support financially a candidate in the general election, I need to have a reasonable certainty that the candidate could win. In this case, I think Bayh could win and the other candidate cannot.
"60% support “criminally prosecuting any ICE agent who kills someone,” reducing ICE’s size and funding at +11, but the most incredible stat is “keeping ICE in its current form” is ***10 points*** less popular than abolishing it entirely."
I want to reiterate the conventional political wisdom that it takes 2 weeks before voters fully process national events in polling. We might get to a majority support for abolishing ice at that point, the movement has been swift and large even before the murder heard round the country.
Lord, let's keep the far left away from our sloganeering, why is everything "abolish" to them. How about professionalize and get rid of the fat loser facists who joined for the easy paycheck.
Probably because many on the left see “professionalize ICE” as a meek response to state violence. I’m not saying it’s a winning slogan, but people should be allowed to be angry and want serious change.
It’s not just getting rid of the fat loser fascists. Immigration enforcement needs a complete overhaul, everyone who has been complicit in the cruelty we have seen needs to be fired, and a lot of those people need to be in prison.
Not just immigration enforcement but immigration entirely needs an overhaul.
Something that needs to be acknowledged on the political and electoral side of things is the anti-immigration efforts are currently a self-exacerbating problem.
People are unhappy about the number of immigrants that are here without legal residency status (green card, citizenship, visa, whatever). Conservatives use this to push through anti-immigrant efforts, which end up making it harder for immigrants to come here legally. This makes the problem worse, which increases support for anti-immigrant efforts, which gives conservatives cause to pressure for more anti-immigrant laws. Repeat endlessly.
Caving to demands for tough-on-immigration laws is short term beneficial for us in elections but long term detrimental. I don't know what the proper balance is to thread the needle as we obviously cannot do anything if we lose elections in the short term, but the current trajectory is bad for us.
I'm sympathetic to your point of view, but which problem is made worse by brutality toward immigrants has to be specified. It doesn't increase illegal immigration. It instead causes short-term and long-term damage to the economy. But you may mean something else.
To explain further... This comment specifically isn't going into the anti-immigrant brutality of today, but instead the general anti-immigrant efforts that are commonly pushed. Things that make it harder for people to come here legally. The long wait times for green cards (which gets much worse with specific countries), the long wait times to convert green cards into citizenship, the limits on visas, the limits on asylum status, other stuff I'm not thinking of off the top of my head. All of that. When I say "the problem" I mean the issue of people being here without that legal support.
When we make it harder for people to come here legally, they don't simply give up and stop. Many of them still come here. The typical "anti-immigration" legislative response is to put more and more limits on the legal methods to come here, which means a greater share of people will be here without that legal approval. Which means there will be more furor over people being here illegally, which will result in conservatives pushing for more anti-immigration laws. Etc. etc.
What we want is for it to be a lot easier for people to come here legally. It's only so many generations ago that people came here off a boat, gave their name, and they were allowed to stay here. That easy probably isn't right for today, but there is an enormous, enormous gulf between those two points.
Point being that when we cave to those efforts to push for tougher laws, we make the problem worse. It has a short-term electoral payoff but results in a bigger electoral problem not far down the line.
Got it. They actually did send some people back from Ellis Island, but for the most part, if you were arguably white, able-bodied, had someone claim they were your sponsor, and you weren't a communist, you were let in.
How about it's vitally important for the survival of democracy to get rid of any organization that can be used as a lawless private army, the country never needed ICE, and it did fine without it for 225 years?
Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-WI) adds to the Republicans missing votes due to a health issue with his wife. Rep. Doug LaMalfa died last week and Rep. Jim Baird is recovering from a car accident. Now, Republicans only have 216 votes compared to Democrats' 213, a number expanding to 214 after a Texas election later this month.
A West-friendly puppet government will result in an authoritarian takeover. We already saw it with the first revolution. Here's hoping a functioning, independent democracy is established instead of the oligarchy Trump wants.
That doesn’t appear entirely true. That said - after his entire adult life abroad I’m skeptical that even well meaning, that Reza Pahlavi can meet the moment in what would be an extraordinarily chaotic Day One if, big if, the Islamic Republic were to fall
I don't give people credit things simply because they happen while they're in charge. Trump didn't cause this and if the Iranian government falls, I currently see no reason to give him credit for it. Similar to how Clinton didn't cause the 90s economic boom from the rise of computers, or Bush Sr didn't cause the USSR to fall.
Iran has been having internal problems for decades. Trump did not create those problems. The main cause of the current protests is Iranian inflation, especially food inflation, along with an ongoing water crisis.
I guess we could say Trump has done everything he could to make climate change worse, itself exacerbating the water crisis, which exacerbates the food inflation, but I don't think that's exactly a reasonable route to credit someone.
Iran’s chief issue is that the Mullahs have several competing cliques of corruption to keep happy in order for their theocracy to be tolerated, chief among them the IRGC (which has its own factions). Like a lot of autocracies, the number of plates you need to keep spinning to keep power bases happy eventually catches up to you
Led to what? What you’re seeing in western propaganda, I mean news? I wouldn’t presume to know the extent of the uprising and I certainly wouldn’t swallow what’s in the western media and social media on blind faith.
The Iranian government itself has stated its killed 2000 people so far which would be one of the worst massacres of protests in the last five decades, rivaled only by Tiananmen. That’s also likely an undercount.
That said, with the Internet blackout and Starlink being jammed we really have no idea what’s going on in the country. My base case is still that the regime survives
If it’s true - and with the Internet blackout we can’t really know - that the IRGC just Tiananmen’d the protesters then I get the impulse (and it is an impulse) to hit IRGC logistics, but WAY too much could go wrong. Ugly times.
It’s all about where you get your information. If you’re a self-ID’d Republican in 2026, it’s almost certainly somewhere MAGA-friendly. It’s the cult that ate the party.
The pollster that people were saying this about last time was was MPRC— a different pollster. I don’t know anything about Workbench Strategies. Do you have information on them or just assuming? It just seems strange to assume this is an internal when the campaign just released a different internal two days ago with different results.
One of the commenters says it’s a Platner internal and I think I remember Workbench being his campaign’s pollster. So it’s expected, though, if anything, I’m kind of surprised this was the best result they could get, just a 2 point over performance from Mills as an internal poll.
I wonder if these three primary voters that voted were on the Griffin list, ie the Registration Repair project pushed by the GOP-controlled state board of elections?
GOP Rep. Rob Bresnahan last year bought stock in a major supplier for data centers that subsequently boomed in value — at the same time he was encouraging data centers to be built in his Pennsylvania district.
If he were a squeaky clean fairly moderate politician like Kiley, I’d agree with you, not with the stock trading scandal as well as various “wtf is he doing, is he trying to lose” background comments from multiple GOP operatives in reference to his votes, his decisions in office and his campaign.
Add to that the AFP who bankrolls Republicans just withdrew all support for him and yeah, in my mind he’s a sitting duck. He won’t lose by a large margin imo because of the aforementioned partisanship, but a 52-48/53-47 loss for him is all, but guaranteed in my mind given the factors I mention above.
Even without a wave that’s what happens. Plus Cognetti is Scranton’s current mayor and a fairly popular one at that, which anchors the district, so Democrats in a year where at the very least they have a slight breeze at their back win this district under these conditions.
No, keep Biden far away from Democrats in 2026 and 2028. Same with all the other Democratic presidential nominees not named Obama. He helps, anyone else hurts.
I was just suggesting this district because of Biden’s roots in Scranton. But I get your point.
Biden wouldn’t want to campaign just in Scranton if this is the case. He also recently got diagnosed with prostate cancer and has to manage that as well.
Because of desire to turnout Democrats more than just that district. Biden’s also lived in Delaware for decades and is more in tune with DC Democrats and the machine.
In reality, with Hunter Biden having recovered from his legal problems and Biden pardoning him after Trump won the election, I think he wants to lay low for a while.
You almost had it. No evidence that Obama moves any race in a meaningful way. In other words, no one wins who wasn't going to win because Obama endorses them.
I can't give that, but I think endorsements rarely make a difference for votes but can matter for money and to psych the crowd up. Why do you think people other than the candidate speak at rallies?
Uh, him showing up increases black voter turnout and Democratic turnout. This isn’t something that’s debatable. Obama helps when he campaigns for a candidate.
Endorsements, however, like you said, mean bupkis, no voter pays attention to them. His candidate endorsees could win or lose. Showing up in the district/state though? Yeah, that has a positive effect for a former politician with a 60% approval rating to associate with our candidates. His phone is going to blow up for the midterms with requests.
There’s literally no way to actually prove this data wise or scientifically, but there’s a reason every single Democratic candidate wants Obama to campaign with them in their districts and never wants anyone else associated with the national party to come there. Logic dictates that being the obvious reason.
I remember when I attended my first Meetup in Berkeley for John Kerry’s presidential campaign back in 2003 and got a print out of his endorsements.
Among numerous of them included Mark Leno (when he was an Assemblyman), State Treasurer Phil Angelides, Ted Kennedy, RFK Jr (when he was less controversial and more focused on environmental justice issues) and others. I don’t recall most really moved the needle with their endorsements but Kennedy was one of Kerry’s best assets on the campaign trail.
"Uh, him showing up increases black voter turnout and Democratic turnout. This isn’t something that’s debatable. Obama helps when he campaigns for a candidate."
Obama campaigned for Harris, didn't he? How's her Administration going? And wasn't there a notable drop-off of Black voter turnout in '24? Yeah, that's not debatable.
You're right about one thing--"There’s literally no way to actually prove this data wise or scientifically." I simply can't understand the "we need to shove out every Dem officeholder who's over 50" and "oh, we need a former politician whose juice is in 2008 to save us" from the same people.
With the retirement of Rep. Neal Dunn, the first Republican to express interest in running is Florida GOP Chair Evan Power, who is "strongly considering running for this seat" per the article.
I think you answered your own question. They're party chairs because they're egotistical and power hungry, so they try to leverage their connections into running for higher office. Also, don't forget Gina Swoboda in AZ.
Party chair to elected office and vice-versa is far from uncommon. Most famously Pelosi, some other current reps/former chairs are Anne Wagner and Mark Amodei from Repubs and Robin Kelly and Nikema Williams from Dems (both were sitting reps during their chair terms). Raul Labrador, Steve Pearce, Pat Saiki, Donna Christensen, etc all served after their elected offices and Curtis Hertel, Nikki Fried, Eugene DePasquale, Rita Hart are current chairs who ran very recently (and several could run again). Sharif Street ofc is running right now. And nearly endless well of examples lol
What gets me about Nikema Williams is that the state party held a convention in which they placed her on the ballot for her congressional seat...the same state party that she led at the time
We have an incredibly strong slate of Senate candidates!
Question: What additional Senate candidates would you love to see recruited, and in which states?) Feel free to include people who have so far said they won’t run.) Here are a few of my wishes:
– Andrew Beshear in Kentucky. Our strongest card for this open seat!
– Jon Tester in Montana. I know. Who else has even a marginal chance?
– Laura Kelly in Kansas. I trust all the DB posters rooting for her to run.
– Maine? I’d like to see a strong alternative to Mills and Platner.
– Joe Manchin in West Virginia. Sadly, the best we can hope for.
– Do we want Tina Smith (MN) or Gary Peters (MI) to reconsider and run?
– Do Dems have anyone, declared or undeclared, with a chance in Florida?
– Oh, and I’d like to see Jasmine Crocket withdraw in Texas.
I'm hoping Laura Kelly reconsiders her decision not to run for Senate this year in KS. In a D-leaning midterm she could pull off an upset.
Sharice Davids is right there... and she's not 78...
Yeah idk why people sleep on Davids. She's incredibly strong, and KS isn't super socially conservative so her being a lesbian won't be a dealbreaker for most voters.
KY: Andy Beshear will lose as soon as he faces national polarization in a Senate race in deep red Kentucky. It would be a huge waste of money. There isn’t a legislature to override all of his vetoes.
MT: Jon Tester has ruled it out.
KS: It might be worth running Gov. Kelly in a blue-wave year.
WV: We don’t need to enrich that putrid guy. He won’t win anymore; polarization eventually catches up.
ME: One of Platner or Mills will be the nominee. Let’s wait and see. It's shaping up to be a blockbuster primary between a controversial left-wing populist and a moderate Governor.
MN and MI: Smith and Peters are not going to run.
FL:Democrats might have a chance in Florida if a Representative who gets redistricted out by DeSantis decides to run statewide.
TX:Crockett isn’t withdrawing.
What other than her idiotic views on the filibuster makes Mills "moderate"?
A very anti-labor record, opposition to red-flag laws, a weak stance against ICE, no support for universal health care, and the revocation of the executive order encouraging ICE cooperation just two weeks ago. I’m sure there’s more.
Remember that it was the labor unions who recruited Platner.
Update: She posted a video supporting UHC.
Also she killed a bill for tracking rape kits , leaving Maine as the only state without this. And while not on the liberal-moderate spectrum but especially relevant in the age of Epstein scandal, Collins would probably have a field day with attack ads on Mills pardon of a child sex predator who admitted he was guilty— here is a quote from her trying to evoke sympathy for him ““We certainly hope that the incident does not result in a devastating blow to his academic and professional career,” Janet Mills, who was then a state lawmaker, said in January 2002,”. https://www.newsbreak.com/bangor-daily-news-1696700/3770194479117-janet-mills-pardoned-a-man-she-defended-in-a-sexual-assault-case
What is the logic behind that as a policy choice???? Clearing backlogs of rape evidence seems like such an obvious thing to do?
Here is an article on it but even after reading the article, I’m not able to understand why the veto. https://wgme.com/news/local/rape-kit-reform-bill-pocket-vetoed-by-governor-prosecutors-challenged-to-find-justice
That pardon seems insane. Why can't there be a Democratic senate candidate in Maine without horrible blemishes on their record?
She was the guy's defense attorney back when he was convicted. I guess she thought he was actually innocent.
I don't know, but that's not gonna change, so we all better saddle up and get ready to send one of them to the Senate
(and by polling, money, and enthusiasm metrics, that person is going to be Platner)
Her record as Governor of Maine, including bad moves on local indigenous rights and opposing red flag laws.
This is freely available information on Google.
she vetoed almost as legislation from her state senate president (same party) Troy Jackson as did Paul LePage did when he was governor. Not a good comp, as lepage and mills are massively different but again I do not know how she will inspire the working folks of maine
Tester wants peace, and Beshear is working on another job opportunity. I think Laura Kelly could really make Roger Marshall squirm. He's one of the most extreme far-right Senators and completely useless to Kansas.
Maine has been problematic from the start. Collins will either get an opponent with plenty of baggage to exploit or another moderate woman in her 70s who recently praised her. We're going to sweat this one to the very end.
I love Jasmine Crockett. We need her voice in Congress and in the public sphere. But she's not winning Texas. I think she would struggle to win statewide in much bluer states like MN, MI, PA, etc. Is she seeing something others are not, or is the objective not necessarily to win the Senate race?
I don't think anyone is clamoring for Gary Peters to stay. He's continuing to vote with Republicans a lot (even more?) on his way out the door. Tina Smith has been great, so it's very sad to see her retire, but we have solid candidates in MN (and MI). I think the bigger worry with states like these is that most of the Democrats are clustered into one major city, which makes it easy for voter intimidation and suppression to have an effect on the state-wide race.
I have never heard of anyone by the name of Joe Manchin or this place called "Florida".
I think Crockett could win in Minnesota in a normal environment (Keith Ellison does), but not in any state to the right of it.
Jasmine Crockett is only running to appease her ego. She hasn't really done anything aside from going on MNSBC and The View since her launch, while Talarico has actually been working
That’s what I was thinking. I have yet to see anything Crockett is doing that resembles a robust ground game and outreach efforts that can match what Talarico has been doing for some time.
I have a lot of confidence Talarico will prevail. It seems like the main perspective dems have on Crockett entering is "I like her but she won't win in Texas"
Electability matters way more to dems than Rs.
I don't think Talarico can win solely based on electability. A lot of people have taken the wrong lessons about electabiltiy and don't care about it anymore.
He needs to make an affirmative case and appeal to both the left and the centre which he is doing really well. On some issues, he takes the moderate position, on some others he takes the left one. I don't think Crockett talks about policy at all.
I never said that was the sole reason he'd win, just that dems value that more than Rs do.
We do have some good candidates in many races.
I think a more valuable question is which leader with integrity could run in deep red states as an Independent or even first run as an anti-MAGA Republican and then run as an independent after the primary.
David French once wrote he considered running against Trump in 2016. Could he put TN in play?
For 2028, Utah Republicans are some of the least MAGA Republicans and Lee only got 53.2% of the vote last time. Who can replace McMullin.
Even a conservative Independent who voted with Democrats only a third or quarter of the time would be better than the cowed Republicans and MAGA Republicans who never buck the party.
Mike Lee is an asshole who is on record wanting to eliminate Social Security! He’s been credibly described as "Ted Cruz’s less-intelligent sidekick". I was really hoping Evan McMullin would replace him.
Lee also posted those two awful memes on Xitter mocking the Hortmans' murder last year, which he later deleted after public backlash.
His tweets are still widely circulating as a set of memes showing how awful Republicans are when a Democrat is harmed.
Lee may have tried to moderate his image a bit, but this guy is a Libertarian true believer in ways that would make even Rand Paul blush,
Mike Lee has literally never tried to moderate his image. He is a far-right zealot. Rand Paul is also barely a libertarian.
Candidate filing closed in Kentucky last week, so Beshear is definitely not running. https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article314284209.html
Kansas with Kelly is the only one on that list worth the time or effort to persuade. Maybe Moscowitz if he’s drawn out in Florida.
Sharice Davids.
If she's drawn out.
and?
It seems like she's interested despite that. Even a gerrymandered district would be less of an uphill climb than running statewide. And Marshall is a weak incumbant
- Beshear is a weakling.
- Jon (not John) Tester has said no.
- Laura Kelly has ruled it out, but Sharice Davids hasn't and she would be a much better candidate. Laura Kelly is a 78 year old conservative that told the DGA to stop talking about trans issues.
- It will be Mills or Platner (most likely Platner, he has more money and has led more polls) any suggestion of a 3rd candidate is fantasy.
- Joe Manchin can burn in hell. He wouldn't win anyway.
- Why would we want Smith or Peters to reconsider? Flanagan and McMorrow are both stronger candidates, respectively. We're not losing ground in Senate races, we're gaining it. No reason to retreat
- Google is your friend in Florida. Jared Moskowitz (ugh) is reportedly considering it if he's drawn out in redistricting. Otherwise, Jennifer Jenkins is probably the only bet
- Crockett doesn't have to withdraw. Candidates should always face voters and the voters should decide. (it's quite obvious who they are going to choose here, too, and it's not her.)
Laura Kelly is not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. That's insulting.
It's true.
If one says stop talking about the trans issues, that doesn't by default make the politician conservative. Bias judgement, bigotry and hatred towards trans people and their rights, yes it does. I would really need to see Laura Kelly actually do something cruel as Governor to really justify if she's conservative on trans issues.
She wants to abolish the death penalty, supports medical marijuana, pro choice, against school vouchers (which conservatives have traditionally been for), is against cuts to the EPA, and is pro-Medicaid expansion. We're talking about a Democratic Governor in Kansas.
"If one says stop talking about the trans issues, that doesn't by default make the politician conservative"
It does by Democratic party standards, which is what I meant and was obvious with context.
Whitmer or Nessel in Michigan. If only to put the race away with a proven statewide winner instead of what there is now with two weakish candidates (AES/Stevens) and one decent but unproven one (McMorrow).
Michigan is a state Democrats carried easily in 2018. I am not sure why people are concern trolling about the candidates almost a year after that primary started.
edit: also, Nessel has a terrible relationship with the Arab-American community and elected officials in Michigan. Being pro-Israel is one thing; destroying relationships with a voting bloc is another.
And Whitmer has ruled it out multiple times.
Why is Schumer trying to stonewall Sage and Walls? It’s not your decision who faces Ashley Hinson, it’s Iowa voters.
Honestly it's the behind-the-scenes strongarming that annoys me the most. Either be public about it or don't do it. Behavior like this is (part of) why the party has such a low approval rating, imo.
Schumer better not pout if his wanted candidate loses the primary. He'll have to buck up and support whoever is the Democratic nominee.
The DSCC is not going to throw an election away because their preferred candidate didn't win the primary.
Still, I wish Schumer would stop pushing a preferred nominee. All three of these guys are solid and could flip that Senate seat blue.
Turek is like leagues better than those other 2 goobers. Sage never actually ran in an election before and Wahls has never faced a Republican plus he doesn't work well with other legislators. Turek actually has bona fides to his name
Wahls has more money and more endorsements than Sage and Turek combined, including many from local labor.
So much for "let Iowa voters pick", huh?
Thanks for explaining the reasoning. I appreciate it even if it's not popular on this board.
As an Iowa Democrat. I support Turek. I won't highlight my issues with Wahls. I do so in the name of civility. I like Sage's stance on data centers. We need to get the other candidates to embrace his stance freezing the development of new data centers. I think it will finish as an overall civil primary.
Of course he will
Didn't the DCCC get in trouble for doing shit like this with primary challengers back in 2018? Have they learned nothing?
Power is never given up; it has to be taken.
He tried to do that same for Angie Craig, Janet Mills and Haley Stevens which led to the Senate revolt.
Party control is over.
Josh Turek is my preferred candidate in Iowa but Schumer should stay out of the primary.
My question is why are they opposed to those two? I don't complain in the abstract about "meddling"; it could be crucial for a victory sometimes. But why are these two so much worse than Turek?
I think in their mind it isn’t so much that those other two are much worse. They think that Turek is that much better. Paralympic gold medalist who holds the reddest seat for Democrats in the legislature. He also went from a 6 vote 0.1% win out of 6,807 votes cast in 2022 in his first election to a 561 vote 5% win out of 11,208 votes cast in his first re-election campaign in 2024, a year obviously much worse nationally for the Democratic Party with far higher Republican voter turnout.
Hard not to argue with that background/resume being able to win a now red state. I also think Turek would be strongest, but ironically Schumer inserting himself into the primary I could see backfire spectacularly into making his chosen candidate lose the race from a “pox on the establishment” base vote if our party voters decide to go full tea party in 2026 primaries.
The other 2 candidates are basically untested with GOP/Trump voters who Democrats need to win a large chunk of in order to flip the Senate seat. State Senator Zach Wahls won both his elections with minimal (libertarian) opposition in 2018 winning 78-21 and no opposition in 2022. Nathan Sage has never faced voters before. Pretty obvious why DSCC/Schumer are backing Turek.
Worth mentioning that Wahls was elected Senate Minority Leader by our caucus, but left that post just 2 years in after he and the rest of our caucus disagreed on firing two longtime Democratic staffers. I take no position on which side was right on that issue, but abandoning your top leadership position and creating caucus drama in an already red difficult state to win leaves a bad taste in my mouth and those kinds of things can prevent the Democratic team from rowing in the same direction for 2026 over grudges/animosity behind the scenes, with which is a complete necessity to pull off an upset.
About 2024 being worse than 2022: it certainly felt that way because of the top line result. Just how much of a percentage of the votes did the Democrats lose by in the House, overall? I'm sure this has been covered, but I don't remember. I think it was close to 3% in 2022?
I think it’s moreso that Turek is perceived as stronger. He won a seat that not even Rob Sand could win in 2022.
I agree with Schumer’s assessment that Turek is probably the strongest candidate in Iowa, but the DSCC pressuring the other two is a bad look.
It would be a bad look if most voters knew and cared about it.
Sage is running as a populist but has a weak fundraising and gathered no endorsments or elite support like Osborn or Platner or El-Sayed. He is out of the contention.
Wahls went viral for a hard hitting speech, as a teenager with lesbian moms, at the Iowa legislature after which he became an LGBTQ activist and later politician. He is also the former minority leader. He is a liberal associated with the Iowa Dem establishment.
Turek is a paraolympic champion who won a red seat. He has a moderate and populist underdog branding.
Laura Belin at Bleeding Heartland noted that Turek and Wahls have essentially the same voting record and platforms.
Turek has an independent mind and is not an establishmentarian like Stevens or Craig. He would clearly be the strongest candidate but DSCC intervening could backfire.
It does seem like Turek has the best opportunity to win over those red leaning "independents" that have been voting republican lately, and we'll need those voters to have a chance to win in Iowa.
Exactly. Turek has zero baggage and an inspiring background which could appeal to them.
Because Turek is basically the only one who could make that seat competitive. He outperformed Harris by 13 in 2024 and won a seat that not even Rob Sand won in 2022
I hesitate to use words like "only"; to borrow a phrase from the money world, past performance does not guarantee future results.
It doesn't guarantee but it sure as hell informs a lot. To not use past performances to judge what a candidate is capable of is frankly stupid.
Are you gonna believe someone like Todd Akin or Christine O'Donnell would be stronger candidates than someone like Phil Scott. After all, past performance does not guarantee future results
You seem to be arguing with a strawman, and rudely to boot. I believe what I actually said was: just because a candidate has a strong record of overperformance doesn't mean he's the "only one who could make that seat competitive"
I am only going off of the evidence we have, and that is that Turek is a proven overperformer who has shown he can appeal to moderate and conservative voters. Sage and Wahls haven't shown any evidence that they are capable of doing so. Therefore, I believe Turek is the best choice.
That is valid! I was just *mildly* pushing back on the word "only"
There is actually no particular obligation to hold a primary, or for leadership not to put their thumbs on the scale for their preferred candidate. Now, whether these types of maneuvers hurt us at the ballot box is another question...
https://www.ourtownny.com/news/exclusive-health-activist-nina-schwalbe-enters-race-to-replace-congressman-nadler-YG5448212
NY-12: Health activist Nina Schwalbe is running. She joins a crowded Democratic primary that includes Micah Lasher, Cam Kasky, Jack Schlossberg, Alex Bores, George Conway, Alan Pardee, Jami Floyd and Matt Shurka.
We may be headed to somebody winning this primary with like 20% of the vote lol
Auchincloss and Goldman 2.0
I hope not.
Goldman should have switched to this race, i know he doesn't live here, but close enough.
Patiently awaiting the day where someone, somehow, wins a primary with 1% or less. The immediate shitshow would be objectively hilarious
No ranked choice for federal elections, right?
It’s happened. In 1996, in TN-1, Bill Jenkins won the Republican primary with something like 17% of the vote
Looks like both the progressive and moderate votes are going to be split multiple ways.
It seems like it - from my understanding, Lasher, Kasky, Schlossberg, Bores and Shurka are the progressives while Conway, Pardee, Floyd and Schwalbe are moderates
Besides Mr. Kennedy and Social Media Obsessor Jack Schlossberg and would be Democrat George Conway, who would be the most credible candidate out of the bunch?
"Elizabeth Warren’s Third Act
The Massachusetts senator could belatedly become what she always should have been."
https://archive.ph/GDrUp
"New: Sen. Elizabeth Warren lays out vision for a 'big tent,' telling Democrats not to cater to wealthy donors
In an unusual move, she calls out figures in the party she considers part of the problem — including the DSCC, Kyrsten Sinema and Reid Hoffman.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/elizabeth-warren-vision-big-tent-democratic-party-rcna253591"
https://x.com/sahilkapur/status/2010752711332086051?s=20
Fantastic. I particularly detest Hoffman and Gillibrand’s DSCC so Warren’s comments are welcome.
Question — Gillibrand has been discussed as a possible primary target before. Who could do it, in the event AOC goes for Schumer’s seat? Tish James will be too old by that point so I’m out of ideas.
Pat Ryan is further to the left than Gillibrand but not as lefty as AOC - he has a broad appeal in his district
I'm sure that Zohran Mamdani will be confronted with higher aspirations in the future, but he could run for re election as mayor in 2029, too.
I should add that Goldman and Torres (if they make it out of primaries) are potential statewide candidates, but probably not for a primary against Gillibrand
Zohran first needs to be a successful mayor.
Gillibrand is actually further to the left than Ryan.
Lander will get a lot of name recognition in his primary and is the favorite against Goldman. He can primary Gillibrand.
How are you two judging the ideological differences between Ryan and Gillibrand?
For one, Ryan endorsed Mamdani for mayor. Gillibrand is pro Medicare For All (so more liberal than Ryan on healthcare), and both take money from a certain ideological PAC associated with a foreign nation but Ryan has taken steps to clean up his record and broaden his appeal with the base on the issue.
Not really. Ryan and Gillibrand are both in lockstep with AIPAC. There's no difference there.
I am judging based on other stuff like M4A and voting history.
Tom DiNapoli </s>
Reid Hoffman did call out billionaires for supporting Trump in 2020 but he’s also one of those tech billionaires who is not receptive to tech regulation (especially AI regulation) and not a fan of Lina Khan.
As someone who grew up in Berkeley and went to the same junior high as Hoffman, I am going to say he is one of those rare exceptions of Berkeley natives who just doesn’t speak for the overwhelming liberal crowd of folks here. About the best thing Hoffman has going to him is being pro-democracy and that’s pretty much it.
He funds anti Squad and anti progressive Super PACs like “Mainstream Democrats”.
Look, I’m personally one of the most progressive people out there. I welcome the primary fights to come as a needed direction for our party to head in and creating a backbone of what we stand for, not just against.
I hope almost every older rep loses the nomination to a younger progressive. But even I don’t think we should be attacking a billionaire who has sent our party a LOT of millions in funding for campaigns. Who cares if he’s not a progressive? Big tents win elections.
Trump has a cadre of unmovable Republican billionaires in his back pocket who just saved billions thanks to his tax giveaway to the wealthy. They’re going to be spending hundreds of millions of that for Republicans in the midterms and have the wealthiest man on the planet backing him.
We need Hoffman in this fight. His candidates won’t always win in the primaries (or generals for that matter), but his millions to combat some of the onslaught of cash we face in 2026? He becomes a crucial ally in that fight. Money doesn’t mean that much anymore, but the candidate who raises the most almost always wins.
In general, you are right.
However, we need to also recognize that at the same time, Reid Hoffman like many in Silicon Valley can be resistent to enough accountability to where the tech industry is these days. He's intelligent and has independent thinking which we don't see enough of leaders and VCs in Silicon Valley but up to a certain extent.
If he elects Democrats, great. But there still should be push back against Hoffman if he along with tech billionaires are not in favor of AI regulation. We had the most embarrassing sign of caving in last year with the bipartisan cryptocurrency bill.
I hope we don't have another one of these when the real AI regulation comes, not just because of national security and security reasons.
"Almost always" seems like an overstatement. Don't challengers who win very frequently get outspent by the incumbent? Otherwise, though, I agree with you.
It’s not an overstatement. You can however argue that the money isn’t the causation of the victory (which is fair), but correlation wise you can’t.
90% victory rate of candidates who spend the most for the House.
80% victory rate of candidates who spend the most for the Senate.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/
How much of this is another version of "incumbents usually win"? But point taken.
FL-04: Neal Dunn (R) not seeking re-election in his 59-41 Trump seat.
https://www.wjhg.com/2026/01/13/representative-neal-dunn-will-not-be-seeking-re-election/
Does he see bad polling too? Fingers crossed.
Thought he was a lock on that seat. He is pretty old
Do Dems have a good candidate for this district?
Maybe former rep Al Lawson?
Or former rep Gwen Graham
The first domino falls. Definitely a seat Democrats should target, only on the outskirts of competitiveness, but they can sometimes fall in a wave, ala OK-05 Kendra Horn 2018.
Correction: FL-2, the Tallahassee panhandle district, not FL-4, Jax area. Current iteration of FL-2 is Trump +18, while current iteration of FL-4 is Trump +12
MA-4: Word is Ihssane Leckey (D) is considering a primary challenge to the noxious Rep. Auchincloss. Love to see her or Paul Heroux take the plunge and boot Auchincloss.
https://www.politico.com/massachusettsplaybook
I still feel bad about this primary. The forbidden topic divided the Squad and progressive organizations badly and stopped them from coalescing.
Didn't Leckey face controversies which led to her surge ending?
I wasn’t living in the district at the time of the 2020 race, so I’m not entirely sure of the dynamics at play back then. I guess I’m more excited at just having anyone, or at least a somewhat viable candidate, as an option. Would love to hear more about her prior campaign from anyone in the know.
Why do you think Leckey would be a strong candidate? Last thing she did was come in 5th in the primary in 2020. I don't think she's run for any office before or since.
Heroux would likely be competitive otoh. He has an interesting political career, (State Rep, Mayor, Sheriff), and he would be able to play the geographic angle being from the South Coast rather than Newton.
Heroux feels like the ideal candidate to run here, and would be my personal top choice. Frankly, I know very little about Leckey and it’s probably not encouraging that she performed so poorly in 2020. I just continue to be so disappointed with Auchincloss that I’m willing to accept any progressive who can mount some semblance of a legitimate campaign. The only challenger currently running, Jason Poulos, doesn’t seem to have the resources to be a credible candidate. Lots of self shot videos on social media that give the appearance of an amateur out of his depth.
Heroux, a former state representative and former Attleboro mayor, told Playbook Monday night that “a lot of people have been asking” him to run for the seat “starting as far away as five years ago, and as recently as this weekend.”
IN-SOS: love to see that massive figure for a key downballot race. We have slept on the importance of AG, Supreme Court, and SOS races for too long, and I’m glad the party has woken up to that reality post-January 6th. Need to stop the threats to democracy in these offices.
SoS is particularly important in Indiana because the order of parties on the ballot is determined by who won the election in each county in the last SoS election; studies have shown that ballot order does have an effect, though small.
Just a note that Indiana does not have a primary for Secretary of State. The candidate is determined by delegate votes at the party convention. There is another candidate. I recently heard her speak, and based on her talk and her resume, I do not consider her ready for a statewide campaign or a statewide office. t I am looking forward to hearing Bayh, when he speaks to our local county group.
Are you a delegate? How do you become one?
I am not a delegate. As I learned recently, any Democrat in good standing (must have voted in Democratic primary for the past two elections) can put his or her name on the ballot, which is also the primary ballot for state races. Precinct chairs are automatically delegates as well. My county Democrats can then elect from among those candidates the ten delegates who go to the convention.
While I am not a delegate, I will support financially the candidate of my choice during the period to select the candidate. However, for me to support financially a candidate in the general election, I need to have a reasonable certainty that the candidate could win. In this case, I think Bayh could win and the other candidate cannot.
Abolish ICE at -2 in YouGov
"60% support “criminally prosecuting any ICE agent who kills someone,” reducing ICE’s size and funding at +11, but the most incredible stat is “keeping ICE in its current form” is ***10 points*** less popular than abolishing it entirely."
https://x.com/isaiah_bb/status/2010888416129327450
I want to reiterate the conventional political wisdom that it takes 2 weeks before voters fully process national events in polling. We might get to a majority support for abolishing ice at that point, the movement has been swift and large even before the murder heard round the country.
Lord, let's keep the far left away from our sloganeering, why is everything "abolish" to them. How about professionalize and get rid of the fat loser facists who joined for the easy paycheck.
Don't think it's the far left driving poll numbers as we see above.
Probably because many on the left see “professionalize ICE” as a meek response to state violence. I’m not saying it’s a winning slogan, but people should be allowed to be angry and want serious change.
It’s not just getting rid of the fat loser fascists. Immigration enforcement needs a complete overhaul, everyone who has been complicit in the cruelty we have seen needs to be fired, and a lot of those people need to be in prison.
Not just immigration enforcement but immigration entirely needs an overhaul.
Something that needs to be acknowledged on the political and electoral side of things is the anti-immigration efforts are currently a self-exacerbating problem.
People are unhappy about the number of immigrants that are here without legal residency status (green card, citizenship, visa, whatever). Conservatives use this to push through anti-immigrant efforts, which end up making it harder for immigrants to come here legally. This makes the problem worse, which increases support for anti-immigrant efforts, which gives conservatives cause to pressure for more anti-immigrant laws. Repeat endlessly.
Caving to demands for tough-on-immigration laws is short term beneficial for us in elections but long term detrimental. I don't know what the proper balance is to thread the needle as we obviously cannot do anything if we lose elections in the short term, but the current trajectory is bad for us.
I'm sympathetic to your point of view, but which problem is made worse by brutality toward immigrants has to be specified. It doesn't increase illegal immigration. It instead causes short-term and long-term damage to the economy. But you may mean something else.
That's also a problem too.
To explain further... This comment specifically isn't going into the anti-immigrant brutality of today, but instead the general anti-immigrant efforts that are commonly pushed. Things that make it harder for people to come here legally. The long wait times for green cards (which gets much worse with specific countries), the long wait times to convert green cards into citizenship, the limits on visas, the limits on asylum status, other stuff I'm not thinking of off the top of my head. All of that. When I say "the problem" I mean the issue of people being here without that legal support.
When we make it harder for people to come here legally, they don't simply give up and stop. Many of them still come here. The typical "anti-immigration" legislative response is to put more and more limits on the legal methods to come here, which means a greater share of people will be here without that legal approval. Which means there will be more furor over people being here illegally, which will result in conservatives pushing for more anti-immigration laws. Etc. etc.
What we want is for it to be a lot easier for people to come here legally. It's only so many generations ago that people came here off a boat, gave their name, and they were allowed to stay here. That easy probably isn't right for today, but there is an enormous, enormous gulf between those two points.
Point being that when we cave to those efforts to push for tougher laws, we make the problem worse. It has a short-term electoral payoff but results in a bigger electoral problem not far down the line.
Got it. They actually did send some people back from Ellis Island, but for the most part, if you were arguably white, able-bodied, had someone claim they were your sponsor, and you weren't a communist, you were let in.
Even when the voters agree with the "far left" position on their own? lmao.
How about it's vitally important for the survival of democracy to get rid of any organization that can be used as a lawless private army, the country never needed ICE, and it did fine without it for 225 years?
https://bsky.app/profile/premthakker.bsky.social/post/3mccrtfisu22e
Is this the same poll? Prem saying Abolish is plus 3 here
Different.
https://x.com/RepVanOrden/status/2010823537385259050?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-WI) adds to the Republicans missing votes due to a health issue with his wife. Rep. Doug LaMalfa died last week and Rep. Jim Baird is recovering from a car accident. Now, Republicans only have 216 votes compared to Democrats' 213, a number expanding to 214 after a Texas election later this month.
I’m pretty sure that’s just VanOrden trying to get sympathy support
I mean if his wife is in poor health I feel bad but that won't change how I think he's unfit for office
I encourage all republican representatives to spend as much time at home with their spouses as they can
Trump has terminated negotiations with Iran and chosen instead to help the protesters.
https://x.com/Faytuks/status/2011088278209106379
He can't help Iranian protesters if he doesn't treat our protesters properly.
If he ends the Islamic Republic, I'll give him credit for that even though he is a fascist.
A West-friendly puppet government will result in an authoritarian takeover. We already saw it with the first revolution. Here's hoping a functioning, independent democracy is established instead of the oligarchy Trump wants.
Establishment of a constitutional monarchy like the UK could be put on a popular ballot.
Reza has no popular support in the country, and a new 21st-century constitutional monarchy seems a bit regressive.
He actually kinda has some decent support as per reporting right now. Without him, the protests wouldn’t sustain.
That doesn’t appear entirely true. That said - after his entire adult life abroad I’m skeptical that even well meaning, that Reza Pahlavi can meet the moment in what would be an extraordinarily chaotic Day One if, big if, the Islamic Republic were to fall
So nice of you to decide for the people of Iran what form of government they should have.
Chill out, I just suggested an option.
I mean...aren't we all expressing our opinions on that sort of thing here? Seems like an odd statement to take exception to.
I don't give people credit things simply because they happen while they're in charge. Trump didn't cause this and if the Iranian government falls, I currently see no reason to give him credit for it. Similar to how Clinton didn't cause the 90s economic boom from the rise of computers, or Bush Sr didn't cause the USSR to fall.
Trump’s "maximum pressure" campaign and strikes on Iran shattered the reputation of the Mullahs and led to this.
Iran has been having internal problems for decades. Trump did not create those problems. The main cause of the current protests is Iranian inflation, especially food inflation, along with an ongoing water crisis.
I guess we could say Trump has done everything he could to make climate change worse, itself exacerbating the water crisis, which exacerbates the food inflation, but I don't think that's exactly a reasonable route to credit someone.
Iranian inflation started to increase as soon as the nuclear deal was junked by Trump and maximum pressure campaign was started!
Iran’s chief issue is that the Mullahs have several competing cliques of corruption to keep happy in order for their theocracy to be tolerated, chief among them the IRGC (which has its own factions). Like a lot of autocracies, the number of plates you need to keep spinning to keep power bases happy eventually catches up to you
Led to what? What you’re seeing in western propaganda, I mean news? I wouldn’t presume to know the extent of the uprising and I certainly wouldn’t swallow what’s in the western media and social media on blind faith.
The Iranian government itself has stated its killed 2000 people so far which would be one of the worst massacres of protests in the last five decades, rivaled only by Tiananmen. That’s also likely an undercount.
That said, with the Internet blackout and Starlink being jammed we really have no idea what’s going on in the country. My base case is still that the regime survives
The only people who have caused Iran to get to this point are the Mullahs
Before we rush to give him credit for this very hypothetical victory, let's see what takes its place and how things pan out over the ensuing 5 years.
The Islamic Republic is ending itself. Trump has not and can not do anything to help that process.
And even if he didn't, I don't think you should give him credit for anything
If it’s true - and with the Internet blackout we can’t really know - that the IRGC just Tiananmen’d the protesters then I get the impulse (and it is an impulse) to hit IRGC logistics, but WAY too much could go wrong. Ugly times.
"help" needs to be in quotes.
The best way he can help the protestors is to stay the fuck away from them. He taints their movement as pro-enemy.
Indeed. Last thing they need is a rally around the Ayatollah effect
"Do you think the ICE agent was justified or not justified in the amount of force he used in shooting the woman in Minneapolis?"
All:
Not justified: 53%
Justified: 28%
Those who say justified:
Republicans: 61%
Independents: 20%
Democrats: 4%
YouGov / January 11, 2026
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/2010854163375407366
MAGA’s certainly alive in the polling numbers for GOP voters.
It’s all about where you get your information. If you’re a self-ID’d Republican in 2026, it’s almost certainly somewhere MAGA-friendly. It’s the cult that ate the party.
And even then, only 60% said it was justified.
They're also bigots.
That Indy number is pretty staggering...
AK-SEN:
For those who haven’t seen Mary Peltola’s Senate campaign announcement video, here it is.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdgs-jID4T4&pp=ygUMbWFyeSBwZWx0b2xh
Love that she gave a shout out to public media in this.
Yes. Peltola did mention that the late Don Young and Ted Stevens supported public media when they were in office.
New - Senate poll - Maine
🔵 Platner 50%
🔴 Collins 50%
🔴 Collins 51%
🔵 Mills 49%
Workbench Strategy #V - RV - 12/16
https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/2011160580791677099?s=20
Looks like an internal.
The internal poll that was released a couple days ago had Platner up by 3 on Collins so this seems like a different poll
These are people affiliated with his campaign that worked for Mamdani and now are associated with Platner. Call it what you want.
The pollster that people were saying this about last time was was MPRC— a different pollster. I don’t know anything about Workbench Strategies. Do you have information on them or just assuming? It just seems strange to assume this is an internal when the campaign just released a different internal two days ago with different results.
One of the commenters says it’s a Platner internal and I think I remember Workbench being his campaign’s pollster. So it’s expected, though, if anything, I’m kind of surprised this was the best result they could get, just a 2 point over performance from Mills as an internal poll.
The internal poll released on Zeteo a couple days ago had Platner up by 3 on Collins and up by 15 on Mills. So this seems like a different poll.
https://zeteo.com/p/graham-platner-campaign-poll-maine-senate
I wonder if these three primary voters that voted were on the Griffin list, ie the Registration Repair project pushed by the GOP-controlled state board of elections?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/first-2026-midterm-votes-nc-154245518.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFT_MJyVe7oT0gZVlIxr7pOLOu278Quw4xPqtsIWT8VRAgM7I1j-J4lrdL-PKpUz2VLBG8i-fb_M28E9Zb0B4ztW9U2cmE4RfcJVecqddogA3jijHpdIYoQL1TkMmt9hbm87RgfCziUWjTlvhtqKpEUcl02lMgid5PwbJ3fe1UfH
I don't understand how they were already able to vote.
GOP Rep. Rob Bresnahan last year bought stock in a major supplier for data centers that subsequently boomed in value — at the same time he was encouraging data centers to be built in his Pennsylvania district.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/12/bresnahan-stock-trade-data-centers-00721852
That guy is a walking scandal. Hopefully Paige Cognetti can knock him out this cycle.
Rob Bresnahan is the definition of driftwood. He goes out in a high tide, let alone a blue wave.
I would not have guessed he was younger than me based on his portrait
I have nearly a half-decade on him. He needs to use less hair gel.
I hope you're right. He represents an ancestrally-Democratic district that has gone MAGA in recent cycles (though Shapiro did win it by 10).
If he were a squeaky clean fairly moderate politician like Kiley, I’d agree with you, not with the stock trading scandal as well as various “wtf is he doing, is he trying to lose” background comments from multiple GOP operatives in reference to his votes, his decisions in office and his campaign.
Add to that the AFP who bankrolls Republicans just withdrew all support for him and yeah, in my mind he’s a sitting duck. He won’t lose by a large margin imo because of the aforementioned partisanship, but a 52-48/53-47 loss for him is all, but guaranteed in my mind given the factors I mention above.
Even without a wave that’s what happens. Plus Cognetti is Scranton’s current mayor and a fairly popular one at that, which anchors the district, so Democrats in a year where at the very least they have a slight breeze at their back win this district under these conditions.
I'd love to see Perry, Bresnahan, and Mackenzie all lose (and of course Fitzpatrick, but...he's been maddeningly resilient).
Ahhh yes, Bresnahan is a millennial House Republican. Of COURSE data centers would appeal to him.
But he should be able to be unseated in November as he represents a Lean GOP House district. Biden’s hometown of Scranton is also in PA-08.
Maybe if President Biden is up to it, he can campaign for the Democratic candidate running against Bresnahan.
No, keep Biden far away from Democrats in 2026 and 2028. Same with all the other Democratic presidential nominees not named Obama. He helps, anyone else hurts.
Biden might help in Scranton, if he's up to it.
I was just suggesting this district because of Biden’s roots in Scranton. But I get your point.
Biden wouldn’t want to campaign just in Scranton if this is the case. He also recently got diagnosed with prostate cancer and has to manage that as well.
Why wouldn't he want to campaign just in Scranton?
Because of desire to turnout Democrats more than just that district. Biden’s also lived in Delaware for decades and is more in tune with DC Democrats and the machine.
In reality, with Hunter Biden having recovered from his legal problems and Biden pardoning him after Trump won the election, I think he wants to lay low for a while.
Hey there, a Michael Dukakis comeback could do wonders!
Dukakis was never president. Some people in Scranton may miss Biden.
You almost had it. No evidence that Obama moves any race in a meaningful way. In other words, no one wins who wasn't going to win because Obama endorses them.
He could perhaps increase enthusiasm sometimes, though.
Any evidence of that would be greatly appreciated.
I can't give that, but I think endorsements rarely make a difference for votes but can matter for money and to psych the crowd up. Why do you think people other than the candidate speak at rallies?
Uh, him showing up increases black voter turnout and Democratic turnout. This isn’t something that’s debatable. Obama helps when he campaigns for a candidate.
Endorsements, however, like you said, mean bupkis, no voter pays attention to them. His candidate endorsees could win or lose. Showing up in the district/state though? Yeah, that has a positive effect for a former politician with a 60% approval rating to associate with our candidates. His phone is going to blow up for the midterms with requests.
There’s literally no way to actually prove this data wise or scientifically, but there’s a reason every single Democratic candidate wants Obama to campaign with them in their districts and never wants anyone else associated with the national party to come there. Logic dictates that being the obvious reason.
You have a point there regarding endorsements.
I remember when I attended my first Meetup in Berkeley for John Kerry’s presidential campaign back in 2003 and got a print out of his endorsements.
Among numerous of them included Mark Leno (when he was an Assemblyman), State Treasurer Phil Angelides, Ted Kennedy, RFK Jr (when he was less controversial and more focused on environmental justice issues) and others. I don’t recall most really moved the needle with their endorsements but Kennedy was one of Kerry’s best assets on the campaign trail.
"Uh, him showing up increases black voter turnout and Democratic turnout. This isn’t something that’s debatable. Obama helps when he campaigns for a candidate."
Obama campaigned for Harris, didn't he? How's her Administration going? And wasn't there a notable drop-off of Black voter turnout in '24? Yeah, that's not debatable.
You're right about one thing--"There’s literally no way to actually prove this data wise or scientifically." I simply can't understand the "we need to shove out every Dem officeholder who's over 50" and "oh, we need a former politician whose juice is in 2008 to save us" from the same people.
Maybe it comes off worse in the article, but just based on what you posted, it sounds like some kind of front office person betting for their team.
Sounds like an inherent conflict of interest. In any event, betting on your own team is what got Pete Rose banned from baseball
But for a coach, betting for your team is standard in other countries such as the UK, to my understanding, and shows confidence in it.
FL-2:
https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2026/01/13/north-florida-congressman-neal-dunn-says-he-wont-run-again-in-2026/88158106007/
With the retirement of Rep. Neal Dunn, the first Republican to express interest in running is Florida GOP Chair Evan Power, who is "strongly considering running for this seat" per the article.
What is it with egotistical GOP party chairs running for Congress? First it's Michael Whatley, now this Power clown.
I think you answered your own question. They're party chairs because they're egotistical and power hungry, so they try to leverage their connections into running for higher office. Also, don't forget Gina Swoboda in AZ.
Don't Democratic chairs also run for Congress sometimes? You have to be ambitious to be a politician.
Party chair to elected office and vice-versa is far from uncommon. Most famously Pelosi, some other current reps/former chairs are Anne Wagner and Mark Amodei from Repubs and Robin Kelly and Nikema Williams from Dems (both were sitting reps during their chair terms). Raul Labrador, Steve Pearce, Pat Saiki, Donna Christensen, etc all served after their elected offices and Curtis Hertel, Nikki Fried, Eugene DePasquale, Rita Hart are current chairs who ran very recently (and several could run again). Sharif Street ofc is running right now. And nearly endless well of examples lol
What gets me about Nikema Williams is that the state party held a convention in which they placed her on the ballot for her congressional seat...the same state party that she led at the time
Yep, and the candidates included Andre Dickens, who's now Mayor of Atlanta. I was hoping for Park Cannon.
There was talk of Ben Wikler running for Senate in 2028 against Ron Johnson/for his seat if he retires too.
No problem with me.