Yesterday David suggested free membership so they can reach 60,000 subscribers by election day. Today he stressed for those who can, subscribe at $60 annually or $7 per month. There is a third way.
The downballot has an Act Blue account where you can make a contribution. I'm not a subscriber and am uncomfortable at $60 for one source of information, but I have contributed through Act Blue. That site is also available for additional contributions if you subscribe at $60, but think the $250 subscription level is too steep for your budget. Maybe the site provides you $100 of value, so you can add $40 to get there.
If you want more paid subscribers, get off of Substack. I would be happy to support your work, but I can't justify supporting Substack and enabling their platfoming of Nazis and other far-right voices. Substack subscriptions gave them the money to platform Bari Weiss and raise her profile high enough for her to get hired by CBS as their Editor in Chief. Plenty of newsletters have made the transition to platforms that don't enable the rightward shift in media and normalization of far-right views.
I think purity politics can end up hurting our own movement. We need to make our voices heard everywhere, even on platforms that aren’t perfect. If progressives leave spaces like Substack or X, we just make it easier for bad actors to dominate the conversation.
I’d actually love to see The Downballot back on X for that reason.
it is not "purity politics" to have incredibly simple value-based boundaries, especially when it comes to money, or to choose not to knowingly enter spaces that are increasingly hostile to not just people's political goals, but the people themselves.
i wish this train of thought would die. I'll talk to a Republican or a MAGA in real life, I'll engage with local elected officials of the opposite party, sure. That's constructive.
I have absolutely no desire to give Elon Musk another user on his sit and withstand hordes of Nazis telling me to kill myself. That has no constructive value whatsoever, and neither does giving money to a website that knowingly perpetuates extreme far right views.
There is a broad, wide space between “ceding every platform to the Right” and “continuing to fund platforms with a long track record of knowingly platforming and promoting actual self-identified Nazis.”
Substack also hosts The Bulwark, Jim Acosta, Joy Reid, Terry Moran, etc. who are definitely not far right Nazis. I mean if you accused The Bulwark's Jonathan V. Last of aiding and abetting Nazis he'd probably throw a punch your way...
I've called him out in the past too over this. It's not an opinion - subscriptions to Substack fund a company that openly admits it has a Nazi problem but won't act to fix it.
I really wish Democratic governors and legislatures would get together, cover the funding shortfall for SNAP in their states, and make this part of our national messaging on the shutdown (I know it’s happening in some places but not as a national strategy). I don’t know why we aren’t doing more to promote a national message on this outside of Congress.
I think a big part of the problem is that with the way federal spending is going, states are seeing a lot of areas where they would want to cover gaps. Compounding that, with less money going into the state, their economies will shrink relative to what they could be. They have fewer dollars to spend, but more to spend it on.
Suing to force the government to keep SNAP open is the more sustainable option, especially if the shutdown continues into December.
I’m more just saying they should do it till the shutdown is over, it would be great messaging and it would help a lot of people in the short term. And even if we’re talking about this lasting a year, some additional state spending on this isn’t going to tank any state’s economy. And there’s no reason we can’t sue and fund state programs at the same time.
We need to message how cutting SNAP will hurt rural voters in red states by far more than urban voters, since a higher percentage of them are on SNAP. Additional, so many rural areas have one grocery store that is dependent on SNAP customers, and with purchases dropping and desperate people stealing, their sole grocer may go out of business. The exact same thing Republicans are doing to rural hospitals with ACA and Medicaid cuts.
Speaking from California, we don't have the budgetary headroom to be able to cover the shortfall from SNAP being disrupted unless we dip into budget reserves which opens its own can of worms/problems.
Politico: Texas Democratic congresswoman Jasmine Crockett is taking further steps toward launching a Senate campaign, including spending significant money on polling and meeting with a potential campaign manager.
I remember. There was the very pretty but empty-headed lady who was not a witch (DE-Sen) and the one from the west with too many "r"s in her name (Sharrrron Angle, NV-Sen). I can't bring up any House races without research, but there were some there too.
Her biggest flaw is that she is divisive and attacks Republican voters. She is just attracted to the primary as she sees herself leading every hypothetical poll without even campaigning. She's very popular among regular Resist Libs.
Yes but as someone who is staunchly liberal, Crockett to me is no Barbara Lee and she’s got a massive ego. I do not know what she has done in the House besides making headlines with her rhetoric.
Attacking Republicans? Great! What else does she have?
Don't almost all politicians have massive egos? Barbara Lee was one of the very best Representatives ever, but no way would I diss Crockett. She's just not a possible Senate winner in Texas today.
That's true but as it relates to Crockett, her ego is getting in the way of actually helping her evolve as an effective politician who can get things done as opposed to someone who is trying to go for soundbytes and be an attack dog all the time. I get it that the GOP has to be put on the spot a lot but if you aren't getting shit done and Democrats aren't getting elected, what's the point?
Crockett has only been in her 2nd term in the House, was running for the Ways & Means Committee Chairman, which she didn't even get close to winning. Now she's gearing for a Senate campaign and we have no idea if she's really up to the task of running a statewide campaign. All depends on what she decides how to execute the campaign.
I think Crockett should stay focused and evolve as a politician, not just be driven to skyrocket to the top of the ladder without anything to show. Barbara Lee I cite as an example of a House Democrat who had built years of experience and ability to get legislation passed into law by even Republican Governors like Pete Wilson! We're talking about California Schools Hate Crimes Prevention Act and the California Violence Against Women Act as well as getting the Three-Strikes Law ended.
AOC is another example of someone Crockett could learn from. At least she should give us something to show, not get distracted from one race to another.
When you mentioned Barbara Lee working with Pete Wilson, I was thinking Republicans were different then. Even though Wilson was a racist, he was not reluctant to work with Democrats on things of mutual interest. AOC is a different story. But when you say "what's the point"? The point is precisely to make effective points against the Republicans, and we desperately need that, just not in a Senate race in Texas.
I know she has a lot of name recognition but i'm curious if she ends up diluting the Dallas/Ft. Worth vote with Allred allowing Talirico to finish first?
I know she’s a rising star, but I fear she is rapidly burning political capital with moves like this. I also fear she and Talarico will split the more liberal part of the Dem vote and allow Allred to win - who I fear will lose the general.
I think Talarico is not necessarily perceived as a raging liberal and still has a path in between them. He has a different 1% vs 99% progressive Christian populist brand of politics while Crockett is a more identity-focused left-liberal fighter and Allred is a centrist establishment Dem.
I keep seeing her pop up a lot in the news, and I've heard that description of her before in at least one news outlet. Hence why this proposed Senate run is idiotic.
Fortunately, James Talarico’s just about owning the Senate race as he’s become the next Beto O’Rourke. Being a smarter one this time around.
Crockett’s Senate race will certainly fire up the base, especially with her key base of supporters. However, I do not see how she’s got a shot at winning the nomination. Talarico’s taking too much steam.
For that reason, I think Kaptur would probably be at least an even bet in 2026 even in this district.
But she turns 80 next year, and while this is one case where we're better off with an older incumbent running, she won't be around forever. If the seat is vacant then it would probably be favoured to flip red, unless it's either a noticeably blue year or the GOP chooses badly, either or both of which are entirely possible (see 2022).
It moved 3.8 more points to the right. The aggregate House vote in 2024 was about R+3, so Kaptur could probably make that seat at least a tossup in a D+1 or better environment. That new OH1 is a basic 50-50 seat, and I think Landsman could hold it in anything but a red wave.
Probably conceded seats in Columbus (Joyce Beatty) and Cleveland (Shontel Brown), with everything else leaning red by slicing up blue cities and counties to (beyond?) the maximum allowed by law.
Though what may have looked red based on 2024 results may not always be so in 2026, so it might not have ultimately turned out entirely as planned.
This is a "deal"? They're stealing one seat, making another D seat a tossup, and pushing two reach seats out of play, in exchange for one D seat becoming slightly bluer. Love being on this team.
They could have completely eliminated Sykes's district and made Landsman's even redder. This is better than the worst case. Whoever wins the house will have a small majority, so every seat matters.
A chance for 5 seats vs a guaranteed 2 seats for Democrats. Not a hard choice here honestly. As someone used to Republican ruthlessness when redrawing maps, I quite honestly don’t know why they drew this map compromise. We’d be stupid not to take the deal and that’s why we took it.
Otherwise we’re relying on a special referendum to collect enough signatures in enough districts (not at all guaranteed), a special ballot election about gerrymandering (not at all guaranteed to win) and even if we get all of this and win both times, the State Supreme Court (which is controlled by the GOP 6-1) could easily just draw a different 13-2 map, call it constitutional and have it in place for the 2026 midterms.
There’s also the other possibility that a new temporary map be drawn just for the 2026 election by the court while litigation and the referendum plays out. Do you expect them to do another 10-5 map? Because I sure don’t. 1 thing is certain whether we like it or not. The current OH map has been ruled unconstitutional and needs to be redrawn for 2026, so a new map is coming.
So the question to you I ask is: Do you want to take that risk and assume the Supreme Court will draw a better map for us then this one or do you take this one and the chance at winning 5 seats in Ohio vs the complete unknown map likely drawn by the 6-1 Republican majority Supreme court? You gotta think 10 steps ahead in politics, not just the before and after change of step 1 from the previous map to this one.
Compared to this current map, I hate the new one too, but compared to the possible worst case scenario? I love it and you should too.
Going further than this would blow up the argument that Republicans had in 2024 against the proposed commission. They argued that the current commission protected against gerrymandering. If they pass a heavily gerrymandered map, they have no argument the next time Dems put a real commission on the ballot.
OH Redistricting: Punchbowl is reporting that the parties have reached a compromise on a new map. The R’s showed the D’s a 13-2 map they planned to enact but they were wary of the prospect of the referendum campaign the D’s have planned. Thus, the parties seem to have compromised with a map that, as the story puts it, “[t]wo [Democratic] seats get worse, but one gets slightly better” and "[i]n a very strong Democratic year, Kaptur, Landsman and Sykes could win reelection.” “Meanwhile, Republicans accepted a worse map than they may have had otherwise in exchange for avoiding the uncertainty of a referendum.” https://punchbowl.news/article/campaigns/ohio-redistricting/
This is exactly why we fight fire with fire, we were supposed to lose 3 seats in Ohio from a new map, but because of our threats to push a ballot referendum now we likely don’t lose any in the state. We realistically have a chance of making the GOP lose seats in the war they started to cement King Trump’s power. Which is wild considering the King’s party wanted +15-20 seats for 2026.
Hypothetical best case scenario as of right now:
California: +5 D seats
Indiana: -1 D seat
Missouri: -1 D seat
North Carolina: -1 D seat
Ohio: Even
Texas: -3 D seats
Virginia: +3 D seats
Result: D+2 seats.
Notes/Reasoning: Don Davis could hold on in NC, but I think that’s unlikely. Indiana could hold strong on not redrawing, but I also think that’s unlikely. Kansas and Nebraska could redraw, but I think that’s unlikely (though Kansas is more likely than Nebraska imo).
Of course this is the best case scenario, it could end up way worse for us and the Supreme Court could gut the VRA entirely, but considering where we started to where we are now, fighting fire with fire works because we’re miles ahead of where we thought we’d be.
This is best case scenario as of right now (save the likely IN redraw, which I expect the GOP holdouts to cave). Lots of moving parts obviously in any number of these states. But right now today, with the exception of IN, which is a future prediction, this is the best case for us. Missouri hasn’t got the signatures currently. That doesn’t mean they won’t, this is the on the ground hypothetical best case today. That could very well change next week for all I know, but today this is how it looks.
Could the referendum get enough signatures? Yes, I’m almost certain it will. Will the GOP meddle with the wording of the amendment to confuse voters or add on other popular things like voter ID to the amendment? Yes, also likely true. Do I expect the Republican State Attorney General, Republican Secretary of State or Republican State Supreme Court to block them from doing that? No, no I do not, which is why I think the outcome of a voter referendum is not at all clear imo and is why I had the -1 for MO.
My math above is what I consider to be all, but a done deal barring a change in the future. That change could happen! And I do hope you’re right and we can net even more seats in the redistricting battle for 2026. But I’m not at all convinced even a clean amendment resolution would pass in MO with however weirdly the GOP decides to word it as, hence my caution.
If Ohio Republicans passed a new map through the legislature instead of the commission, it could be put on hold by a referendum. The digest outlines it well.
Democrats in Michigan and Washington are growing more critical of Democratic Rep. Haley Stevens’ Senate campaign, which has been dogged by public missteps, underwhelming fundraising and a rising concern that her more liberal primary opponents are running more dynamic races.
“She’s bought herself some time with fundraising reports, but it’s not going well,” a Democratic strategist told me. “Anybody with two brain cells to rub together sees that.”"
I don’t think McMorrow is. She’s not well known but that could change with more name recognition - and she seems to be putting a serious campaign together.
Fully agreed. Some of my views border on socialist (and some, like support for nationalizing utilities, actually are) and I love her and plan to donate to her. She also is running as a kind of anti-machine candidate which helps — what is Stevens running on?
Completely agree. I'm a pretty hardcore "normie" and I'm a McMorrow fan. For the record, I'm also pretty fine with Stevens. TBH I'm not sure which one is a better GE candidate, but either should be favored in this environment.
Especially since given his past run for higher office and Cabinet service, there would be a natural suspicion that he's not really interested in serving Michigan as Senator, but rather just wants to use it as a jump off point to run for something bigger.
Of the candidates running, I too am thinking McMorrow may be the best blend of someone who can excite the party base while appealing to enough swing voters to win. I wouldn't write Stevens off yet but so far she's looking like an example of a candidate who looks good on paper proving somewhat lacklustre in practice. I also have doubts about Al-Sayed's general election potential--especially as he's never actually won an election to anything IIRC, and so far seems to be mostly saying things that fire up progressive activists but have questionable appeal to the broader electorate.
I suspect he could have gotten away with a run for an open house seat. People have higher expectations for senators and governors than for representatives.
That said, he wouldn't have wanted to make such a career move after being in Biden's cabinet and with clear ambitions for much higher office.
this is one of the biggest "well, no sh*t sherlock" moments of all time
she is a bland speaker, does very few worthwhile campaign events, and doesn't really have an awesome record to speak of. Money cannot buy you office: but it can make getting into office way easier if you're at a base level of competency. but Stevens was not, just as David Trone wasn't in the 2024 Maryland Senate primary (he spent $66 million dollars, his opponent a fraction of that. lost by 11 points)
I really don't think anyone but a very plugged-in Democrat would see a material ideological difference between Stevens and McMorrow. The number of general election voters who would vote for Stevens but not McMorrow on ideological grounds is probably close to zero.
Tbf, from my understanding McMorrow is a Warren/Baldwin/Merkley type of progressive while Stevens is more of a Biden/Schumer/Klobuchar type of moderate, I don’t think you have to be particularly dialed in to understand the differences there.
McMorrow and AES are also promoting economic diversification and apprenticeships while Stevens is focusing solely on manufacturing and called those ideas out of touch college liberal talk (paraphrased).
Stevens volunteered for Hillary and got her to make robocalls for her in her first primary while McMorrow and AES were Warren 2020 and Bernie 2020's leading Michigan surrogate respectively.
McMorrow is like Warren minus M4A. She and AES also have way different views on I/P compared to Haley. Primary voters also tend to be more tuned in than in general ones.
Although McMorrow is against M4A, she does support a public option. Better than the (probably intentionally, given their donors) vague and meaningless “expand Medicare” pablum so many Dems push.
“Create a public option available to any Michigander who wants it, so that your ability to get guaranteed healthcare is no longer tied to your job, your marital status, or your luck.”
Ideologically interchangeable to most voters. McMorrow is more telegenic and I suspect she might be the stronger candidate, but she's also arguably riskier than Stevens because she hasn't faced a serious negative campaign while Stevens has.
I don't think money from any quarter will get her into the Senate, since she's obviously not impressing Michiganders. That said, you'd do better betting against my record of election predictions than for it.
It should certainly be emphasized that Michigan isn't the same reliably blue state that Democrats have been able to elect incumbent Senators by comfortable margins (Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow the last ones who were fortunate to have been re-elected by double digit margins).
Democrats need to nominate a Senate candidate who is able to be tough and not complacent when it comes to campaigning and firing up the troops as MI is in a post-Trump world. Clearly Haley Stevens isn't up to the task.
recc'd not because I agree (I think she'd have a pretty decent chance in both the Primary and General) but because your second sentence made me laugh out loud.
Fair although you’d think Stevens would actually make them proud and bust her chops to run a more robust campaign. Did she feel like she was forced to run out of loyalty to Schumer and Gillibrand?
Goes to show establishment picks for Senate runs don’t always fair well in the primary process.
I think weighting to 2021 elections in NJ and VA is going to look comically stupid on election day by these pollsters. But hey maybe they know something we don’t.
So by your logic Trafalgar is a great pollster and we should follow Sean Trende’s RCP poll average because they got 2024 right. Do you also believe that? Because I sure don’t. We’ll see on Tuesday what the voters have to say in any case.
This damning article on culture warrior Paul Newby, chief Justice of the NC Supreme Court, makes me so furious. Proves beyond a doubt how Republicans weaponize the judicial system nationwide.
One good thing is that he is not expected to run for re-election in 2028 but will retire. And we have a state Democratic Party chair who is competent and will run a strong candidate to run for the seat. As well as candidates to unseat Berger's nepo baby son and Tamara Barringer.
"Finally, Ferguson suggests that a redraw could lead to a dilution of Black voting power. A new map, however, could easily boost the number of majority-Black districts in Maryland from two to three. African American leaders have called for just such a change since 2011, but lawmakers have held off—likely because doing so could endanger Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer, who is white, in a primary against a Black opponent."
You know what would also lead to dilution of black voting power? Not winning the House next year. And don't even get me started about worrying about the election prospects of an 86-year-old House member. Really undercuts all the Dem messaging about Democracy being on the ballot.
Pelosi hasn't announced she's retiring....yet. I don't think Hoyer automatically leaves if she does, but there's also not much point in staying much longer--at age 87 he isn't going to automatically be returned to his House leadership position now that there's a full complement of younger legislative leaders in place.
Pelosi has all but retired. There’s been talk she already has a successor lined up (Connie Chan). Apparently she’s waiting for Prop 50 to inevitably pass.
My thought about Hoyer was that someone as big as Pelosi retiring (even when not in a leadership role) would lead to other retirements potentially, although given how snotty and entitled much of the older Dem leadership is being I’m not so sure about that admittedly.
With San Francisco, regardless of whether it’s Connie Chan or Scott Weiner replacing Nancy Pelosi, there are plenty of politicians to chose from in the city. After all, Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris got their start in politics hailing from SF.
In Steney Hoyer’s district, I cannot comment as I don’t know it well. Hopefully Democrats have enough candidates to chose from who would be able to replace Hoyer at some point.
My completely baseless guess is that Hoyer will want to stay for an additional term after Pelosi retires. He's spent his career trying to get one up on her and consistently falling short. Staying for another two years after her would be something he could find to be an emotional victory.
Filled out my ballot for local elections. Voted D for state Senate special election (incumbent D passed away in March just two months into his term, this is for full three years for his appointed successor). One note this year was a unique case in the school district of a major fissure between white liberals and South Asian moderates. The candidate for Issaquah School Board representing the latter community is a BJP-loving Hindu nationalist whacko basically running a campaign on the same themes an evangelical would in the South and getting support from members of his community who are otherwise reliably D voters. I expect this to become an increasingly live theme in affluent West Coast suburbs in future years even as they stay solidly Democratic
I live on Mercer Island the school board races here are bananas this year and super vitriolic. It sucks that the national political "vibe" has come for my bucolic town...
That the second challenger Berge has raised over a $100K for a primary and Cooke has raised over a million shows a lot of enthusiasm for that House seat.
Answer is pretty much the same as Kevin's above then; Dems basically have a permanent majority in the Assembly so if you want to deliver for your constituents, side with the majority as much as you need to.
He’s a conservative Democrat in a conservative district, I think you just answered your own question. As long as they vote for a Democratic leader, or at least some legislation priorities, I’d rather have them in our caucus than a Republican in their seat.
Here at the Miyares rally in eastern Chesterfield County which just begun. There are about 60 people in the room (not including staff). This room is so quiet you could hear a mouse fart.
Yesterday David suggested free membership so they can reach 60,000 subscribers by election day. Today he stressed for those who can, subscribe at $60 annually or $7 per month. There is a third way.
The downballot has an Act Blue account where you can make a contribution. I'm not a subscriber and am uncomfortable at $60 for one source of information, but I have contributed through Act Blue. That site is also available for additional contributions if you subscribe at $60, but think the $250 subscription level is too steep for your budget. Maybe the site provides you $100 of value, so you can add $40 to get there.
If you want more paid subscribers, get off of Substack. I would be happy to support your work, but I can't justify supporting Substack and enabling their platfoming of Nazis and other far-right voices. Substack subscriptions gave them the money to platform Bari Weiss and raise her profile high enough for her to get hired by CBS as their Editor in Chief. Plenty of newsletters have made the transition to platforms that don't enable the rightward shift in media and normalization of far-right views.
For folks who'd like to support us in a different way, we offer the option to contribute to us via ActBlue: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/thedownballot
Done!
I think purity politics can end up hurting our own movement. We need to make our voices heard everywhere, even on platforms that aren’t perfect. If progressives leave spaces like Substack or X, we just make it easier for bad actors to dominate the conversation.
I’d actually love to see The Downballot back on X for that reason.
“Refusing to knowingly fund our enemies” is not “purity politics”.
right? cmon. what happened to "vote with your wallet"?
it is not "purity politics" to have incredibly simple value-based boundaries, especially when it comes to money, or to choose not to knowingly enter spaces that are increasingly hostile to not just people's political goals, but the people themselves.
i wish this train of thought would die. I'll talk to a Republican or a MAGA in real life, I'll engage with local elected officials of the opposite party, sure. That's constructive.
I have absolutely no desire to give Elon Musk another user on his sit and withstand hordes of Nazis telling me to kill myself. That has no constructive value whatsoever, and neither does giving money to a website that knowingly perpetuates extreme far right views.
I have to say, this makes perfect sense to me. And I'm a subscriber.
Do you have an alternative? Or should we just cede every platform to the right
There is a broad, wide space between “ceding every platform to the Right” and “continuing to fund platforms with a long track record of knowingly platforming and promoting actual self-identified Nazis.”
https://thehandbasket.substack.com/p/we-got-substack-to-admit-its-nazi
There are a number of other platforms for newsletters out there. Several writers I follow have switched and I gladly supported them for doing so.
the right already has almost every platform. you're living under a rock.
this precept that we can somehow control the paid or earned media space is farcical. that's never been a thing!
regardless of what platforms you are on, you have a voice, a wallet, and a vote. use them. No one can take them away from you.
Substack also hosts The Bulwark, Jim Acosta, Joy Reid, Terry Moran, etc. who are definitely not far right Nazis. I mean if you accused The Bulwark's Jonathan V. Last of aiding and abetting Nazis he'd probably throw a punch your way...
I've called him out in the past too over this. It's not an opinion - subscriptions to Substack fund a company that openly admits it has a Nazi problem but won't act to fix it.
I really wish Democratic governors and legislatures would get together, cover the funding shortfall for SNAP in their states, and make this part of our national messaging on the shutdown (I know it’s happening in some places but not as a national strategy). I don’t know why we aren’t doing more to promote a national message on this outside of Congress.
I think a big part of the problem is that with the way federal spending is going, states are seeing a lot of areas where they would want to cover gaps. Compounding that, with less money going into the state, their economies will shrink relative to what they could be. They have fewer dollars to spend, but more to spend it on.
Suing to force the government to keep SNAP open is the more sustainable option, especially if the shutdown continues into December.
I’m more just saying they should do it till the shutdown is over, it would be great messaging and it would help a lot of people in the short term. And even if we’re talking about this lasting a year, some additional state spending on this isn’t going to tank any state’s economy. And there’s no reason we can’t sue and fund state programs at the same time.
We need to message how cutting SNAP will hurt rural voters in red states by far more than urban voters, since a higher percentage of them are on SNAP. Additional, so many rural areas have one grocery store that is dependent on SNAP customers, and with purchases dropping and desperate people stealing, their sole grocer may go out of business. The exact same thing Republicans are doing to rural hospitals with ACA and Medicaid cuts.
Seize Tax Dollars meant for the federal government and reroute them to the constituents.
How?
Speaking from California, we don't have the budgetary headroom to be able to cover the shortfall from SNAP being disrupted unless we dip into budget reserves which opens its own can of worms/problems.
Politico: Texas Democratic congresswoman Jasmine Crockett is taking further steps toward launching a Senate campaign, including spending significant money on polling and meeting with a potential campaign manager.
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1983871939044065546
Oh c’mon. She should stay in the House and give Talarico a shot.
People forget that the Tea Party candidates actually cost GOP moderate seats.
I haven't forgotten.
I remember. There was the very pretty but empty-headed lady who was not a witch (DE-Sen) and the one from the west with too many "r"s in her name (Sharrrron Angle, NV-Sen). I can't bring up any House races without research, but there were some there too.
Also Akin in MO, Mourdock in IN.
That sounds like it would be a big mistake. I struggle to see her being able to win statewide. Would she have an advantage in the primary, even?
Her biggest flaw is that she is divisive and attacks Republican voters. She is just attracted to the primary as she sees herself leading every hypothetical poll without even campaigning. She's very popular among regular Resist Libs.
Yes but as someone who is staunchly liberal, Crockett to me is no Barbara Lee and she’s got a massive ego. I do not know what she has done in the House besides making headlines with her rhetoric.
Attacking Republicans? Great! What else does she have?
Don't almost all politicians have massive egos? Barbara Lee was one of the very best Representatives ever, but no way would I diss Crockett. She's just not a possible Senate winner in Texas today.
That's true but as it relates to Crockett, her ego is getting in the way of actually helping her evolve as an effective politician who can get things done as opposed to someone who is trying to go for soundbytes and be an attack dog all the time. I get it that the GOP has to be put on the spot a lot but if you aren't getting shit done and Democrats aren't getting elected, what's the point?
Crockett has only been in her 2nd term in the House, was running for the Ways & Means Committee Chairman, which she didn't even get close to winning. Now she's gearing for a Senate campaign and we have no idea if she's really up to the task of running a statewide campaign. All depends on what she decides how to execute the campaign.
I think Crockett should stay focused and evolve as a politician, not just be driven to skyrocket to the top of the ladder without anything to show. Barbara Lee I cite as an example of a House Democrat who had built years of experience and ability to get legislation passed into law by even Republican Governors like Pete Wilson! We're talking about California Schools Hate Crimes Prevention Act and the California Violence Against Women Act as well as getting the Three-Strikes Law ended.
AOC is another example of someone Crockett could learn from. At least she should give us something to show, not get distracted from one race to another.
https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/barbara-lee-for-congress-3009824.php
https://oac.cdlib.org/static_findaids/ark:/13030/c8sx6kkw.html
When you mentioned Barbara Lee working with Pete Wilson, I was thinking Republicans were different then. Even though Wilson was a racist, he was not reluctant to work with Democrats on things of mutual interest. AOC is a different story. But when you say "what's the point"? The point is precisely to make effective points against the Republicans, and we desperately need that, just not in a Senate race in Texas.
Is this just a vanity run or have overly-scrupulous advisors actually told her she has a chance?
I know she has a lot of name recognition but i'm curious if she ends up diluting the Dallas/Ft. Worth vote with Allred allowing Talirico to finish first?
I don't see what good this would do. You need crossover cred to have a shot in a red state.
I know she’s a rising star, but I fear she is rapidly burning political capital with moves like this. I also fear she and Talarico will split the more liberal part of the Dem vote and allow Allred to win - who I fear will lose the general.
I think Talarico is not necessarily perceived as a raging liberal and still has a path in between them. He has a different 1% vs 99% progressive Christian populist brand of politics while Crockett is a more identity-focused left-liberal fighter and Allred is a centrist establishment Dem.
Isn't Crockett also a Christian?
She is but her brand of politics is not focused on Christianity like Talarico or Beshear.
She's a rising star? Not sure I agree with that statement.
I keep seeing her pop up a lot in the news, and I've heard that description of her before in at least one news outlet. Hence why this proposed Senate run is idiotic.
Fortunately, James Talarico’s just about owning the Senate race as he’s become the next Beto O’Rourke. Being a smarter one this time around.
Crockett’s Senate race will certainly fire up the base, especially with her key base of supporters. However, I do not see how she’s got a shot at winning the nomination. Talarico’s taking too much steam.
Repost: The OH lege struck a deal to approve a non-savage map: https://nitter.poast.org/OPoliticsguru/status/1983732664625721607#m
The 1st is irritating, but whatever.
Anyway, I wonder if Trump is going to threaten them to kill this deal.
Sykes may be safe. But Kaptur is gone. Landsman in a near tossup.
Kaptur has a decent chance in 2026. Landsman should have the edge for 2026.
Kaptur won by 0.7% last time. Barring a huge wave there’s no way she can win with those numbers. She may retire instead.
But we're talking about a midterm under an R president.
For that reason, I think Kaptur would probably be at least an even bet in 2026 even in this district.
But she turns 80 next year, and while this is one case where we're better off with an older incumbent running, she won't be around forever. If the seat is vacant then it would probably be favoured to flip red, unless it's either a noticeably blue year or the GOP chooses badly, either or both of which are entirely possible (see 2022).
It moved 3.8 more points to the right. The aggregate House vote in 2024 was about R+3, so Kaptur could probably make that seat at least a tossup in a D+1 or better environment. That new OH1 is a basic 50-50 seat, and I think Landsman could hold it in anything but a red wave.
She survived with MAGA turnout in a district that leans republican she has a chance in 2026.
I’m kind of surprised they aren’t eliminating Sykes’ district before going after Landsman.
Her dad was a longtime state legislator and has good relationships with Republicans. I'm sure that played into who to protect.
That 11th is wild
In what way? It looks pretty compact.
I misremembered the number I meant the 15th.
Sykes looks solid. Isn’t her dad in the state legislature? Maybe he pulled some strings.
If that's the not-so-bad map, then I'm really wondering what the even worse 13-2 map looked like.
Redder 1st and dismantled Sykes maybe. Perhaps Kaptur even redder.
Probably conceded seats in Columbus (Joyce Beatty) and Cleveland (Shontel Brown), with everything else leaning red by slicing up blue cities and counties to (beyond?) the maximum allowed by law.
Though what may have looked red based on 2024 results may not always be so in 2026, so it might not have ultimately turned out entirely as planned.
This is a "deal"? They're stealing one seat, making another D seat a tossup, and pushing two reach seats out of play, in exchange for one D seat becoming slightly bluer. Love being on this team.
They could have completely eliminated Sykes's district and made Landsman's even redder. This is better than the worst case. Whoever wins the house will have a small majority, so every seat matters.
Everyone was saying it could be R+2 or 3. Now it's more an R+1. Sadly they cannot use the current map anymore as it did not pass with enough support.
A chance for 5 seats vs a guaranteed 2 seats for Democrats. Not a hard choice here honestly. As someone used to Republican ruthlessness when redrawing maps, I quite honestly don’t know why they drew this map compromise. We’d be stupid not to take the deal and that’s why we took it.
Otherwise we’re relying on a special referendum to collect enough signatures in enough districts (not at all guaranteed), a special ballot election about gerrymandering (not at all guaranteed to win) and even if we get all of this and win both times, the State Supreme Court (which is controlled by the GOP 6-1) could easily just draw a different 13-2 map, call it constitutional and have it in place for the 2026 midterms.
There’s also the other possibility that a new temporary map be drawn just for the 2026 election by the court while litigation and the referendum plays out. Do you expect them to do another 10-5 map? Because I sure don’t. 1 thing is certain whether we like it or not. The current OH map has been ruled unconstitutional and needs to be redrawn for 2026, so a new map is coming.
So the question to you I ask is: Do you want to take that risk and assume the Supreme Court will draw a better map for us then this one or do you take this one and the chance at winning 5 seats in Ohio vs the complete unknown map likely drawn by the 6-1 Republican majority Supreme court? You gotta think 10 steps ahead in politics, not just the before and after change of step 1 from the previous map to this one.
Compared to this current map, I hate the new one too, but compared to the possible worst case scenario? I love it and you should too.
Well put...
Going further than this would blow up the argument that Republicans had in 2024 against the proposed commission. They argued that the current commission protected against gerrymandering. If they pass a heavily gerrymandered map, they have no argument the next time Dems put a real commission on the ballot.
OH Redistricting: Punchbowl is reporting that the parties have reached a compromise on a new map. The R’s showed the D’s a 13-2 map they planned to enact but they were wary of the prospect of the referendum campaign the D’s have planned. Thus, the parties seem to have compromised with a map that, as the story puts it, “[t]wo [Democratic] seats get worse, but one gets slightly better” and "[i]n a very strong Democratic year, Kaptur, Landsman and Sykes could win reelection.” “Meanwhile, Republicans accepted a worse map than they may have had otherwise in exchange for avoiding the uncertainty of a referendum.” https://punchbowl.news/article/campaigns/ohio-redistricting/
Not happy about it. But I’ll defer to the Democrats on the ground.
Enact the map… then do a referendum later.
They should absolutely be trying to do a referendum this year.
This is exactly why we fight fire with fire, we were supposed to lose 3 seats in Ohio from a new map, but because of our threats to push a ballot referendum now we likely don’t lose any in the state. We realistically have a chance of making the GOP lose seats in the war they started to cement King Trump’s power. Which is wild considering the King’s party wanted +15-20 seats for 2026.
Hypothetical best case scenario as of right now:
California: +5 D seats
Indiana: -1 D seat
Missouri: -1 D seat
North Carolina: -1 D seat
Ohio: Even
Texas: -3 D seats
Virginia: +3 D seats
Result: D+2 seats.
Notes/Reasoning: Don Davis could hold on in NC, but I think that’s unlikely. Indiana could hold strong on not redrawing, but I also think that’s unlikely. Kansas and Nebraska could redraw, but I think that’s unlikely (though Kansas is more likely than Nebraska imo).
Of course this is the best case scenario, it could end up way worse for us and the Supreme Court could gut the VRA entirely, but considering where we started to where we are now, fighting fire with fire works because we’re miles ahead of where we thought we’d be.
Wouldn't the best case have no change in MO if the referendum gets enough signatures?
This is best case scenario as of right now (save the likely IN redraw, which I expect the GOP holdouts to cave). Lots of moving parts obviously in any number of these states. But right now today, with the exception of IN, which is a future prediction, this is the best case for us. Missouri hasn’t got the signatures currently. That doesn’t mean they won’t, this is the on the ground hypothetical best case today. That could very well change next week for all I know, but today this is how it looks.
Could the referendum get enough signatures? Yes, I’m almost certain it will. Will the GOP meddle with the wording of the amendment to confuse voters or add on other popular things like voter ID to the amendment? Yes, also likely true. Do I expect the Republican State Attorney General, Republican Secretary of State or Republican State Supreme Court to block them from doing that? No, no I do not, which is why I think the outcome of a voter referendum is not at all clear imo and is why I had the -1 for MO.
My math above is what I consider to be all, but a done deal barring a change in the future. That change could happen! And I do hope you’re right and we can net even more seats in the redistricting battle for 2026. But I’m not at all convinced even a clean amendment resolution would pass in MO with however weirdly the GOP decides to word it as, hence my caution.
What was the referendum?
If Ohio Republicans passed a new map through the legislature instead of the commission, it could be put on hold by a referendum. The digest outlines it well.
"New with
@Alex_Roarty
:
Democrats in Michigan and Washington are growing more critical of Democratic Rep. Haley Stevens’ Senate campaign, which has been dogged by public missteps, underwhelming fundraising and a rising concern that her more liberal primary opponents are running more dynamic races.
“She’s bought herself some time with fundraising reports, but it’s not going well,” a Democratic strategist told me. “Anybody with two brain cells to rub together sees that.”"
https://x.com/DaniellaMicaela/status/1983872572207841624
https://www.notus.org/2026-election/haley-stevens-michigan-democrats-concerns
Good. Senator Heinrich endorsed McMorrow today.
Good for him. These things are always subjective but she’s head and shoulders the best of the three
Wish heinrich ran to replace Durbin as whip instead of Schatz or Klobuchar
I wish Buttigieg would have run, these three candidates are lackluster.
I don’t think McMorrow is. She’s not well known but that could change with more name recognition - and she seems to be putting a serious campaign together.
She's the one with appeal to the "normies" and the "more progressive" lanes in the primary. Unifiers have the secret sauce, in my view.
Fully agreed. Some of my views border on socialist (and some, like support for nationalizing utilities, actually are) and I love her and plan to donate to her. She also is running as a kind of anti-machine candidate which helps — what is Stevens running on?
Completely agree. I'm a pretty hardcore "normie" and I'm a McMorrow fan. For the record, I'm also pretty fine with Stevens. TBH I'm not sure which one is a better GE candidate, but either should be favored in this environment.
I am fully a Pete fan but I don't think it would have gone over well for such a recent transplant to run for federal office.
Especially since given his past run for higher office and Cabinet service, there would be a natural suspicion that he's not really interested in serving Michigan as Senator, but rather just wants to use it as a jump off point to run for something bigger.
Of the candidates running, I too am thinking McMorrow may be the best blend of someone who can excite the party base while appealing to enough swing voters to win. I wouldn't write Stevens off yet but so far she's looking like an example of a candidate who looks good on paper proving somewhat lacklustre in practice. I also have doubts about Al-Sayed's general election potential--especially as he's never actually won an election to anything IIRC, and so far seems to be mostly saying things that fire up progressive activists but have questionable appeal to the broader electorate.
I suspect he could have gotten away with a run for an open house seat. People have higher expectations for senators and governors than for representatives.
That said, he wouldn't have wanted to make such a career move after being in Biden's cabinet and with clear ambitions for much higher office.
Agree and Pete is probably my single favorite politician out there today. I enthusiastically voted for him in the primary in 2020.
this is one of the biggest "well, no sh*t sherlock" moments of all time
she is a bland speaker, does very few worthwhile campaign events, and doesn't really have an awesome record to speak of. Money cannot buy you office: but it can make getting into office way easier if you're at a base level of competency. but Stevens was not, just as David Trone wasn't in the 2024 Maryland Senate primary (he spent $66 million dollars, his opponent a fraction of that. lost by 11 points)
I really don't think anyone but a very plugged-in Democrat would see a material ideological difference between Stevens and McMorrow. The number of general election voters who would vote for Stevens but not McMorrow on ideological grounds is probably close to zero.
Tbf, from my understanding McMorrow is a Warren/Baldwin/Merkley type of progressive while Stevens is more of a Biden/Schumer/Klobuchar type of moderate, I don’t think you have to be particularly dialed in to understand the differences there.
McMorrow and AES are also promoting economic diversification and apprenticeships while Stevens is focusing solely on manufacturing and called those ideas out of touch college liberal talk (paraphrased).
Stevens volunteered for Hillary and got her to make robocalls for her in her first primary while McMorrow and AES were Warren 2020 and Bernie 2020's leading Michigan surrogate respectively.
McMorrow is like Warren minus M4A. She and AES also have way different views on I/P compared to Haley. Primary voters also tend to be more tuned in than in general ones.
Although McMorrow is against M4A, she does support a public option. Better than the (probably intentionally, given their donors) vague and meaningless “expand Medicare” pablum so many Dems push.
https://www.mcmorrowformichigan.com/agenda#block-2a4cb417-1406-45d4-bacf-68de068f9e0d
“Create a public option available to any Michigander who wants it, so that your ability to get guaranteed healthcare is no longer tied to your job, your marital status, or your luck.”
"expand ACA" and "affordable healthcare" doesn't mean shit
edit: I mean props to her for avoiding this vague language.
I/P? Intellectual Property? What are the different views?
I think he's referring to Israel/Palestine.
I suspect most Americans couldn't tell you who Baldwin, Merkley or Klobuchar are. I agree with sacman that they're probably interchangeable in a GE.
Ideologically interchangeable to most voters. McMorrow is more telegenic and I suspect she might be the stronger candidate, but she's also arguably riskier than Stevens because she hasn't faced a serious negative campaign while Stevens has.
Why did Haley Stevens bother to run in the Senate race in the first place?
Clearly she’s in over her head even while she’s still a House member.
Ambition and she will have millions in AIPAC backing later in the campaign acc to CNN, Semafor and Politico.
I sincerely hope AIPAC alone doesn’t coast her to victory.
Although there’s been a real anti-establishment streak among Dem voters as of late so who knows.
I don't think money from any quarter will get her into the Senate, since she's obviously not impressing Michiganders. That said, you'd do better betting against my record of election predictions than for it.
It should certainly be emphasized that Michigan isn't the same reliably blue state that Democrats have been able to elect incumbent Senators by comfortable margins (Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow the last ones who were fortunate to have been re-elected by double digit margins).
Democrats need to nominate a Senate candidate who is able to be tough and not complacent when it comes to campaigning and firing up the troops as MI is in a post-Trump world. Clearly Haley Stevens isn't up to the task.
I don't know how reliably blue Michigan was, but there was more crossover voting for incumbents then.
recc'd not because I agree (I think she'd have a pretty decent chance in both the Primary and General) but because your second sentence made me laugh out loud.
If she managed to win the primary, I do think she'd be a favorite in the general.
Schumer and Gillibrand recruited her that's why.
Fair although you’d think Stevens would actually make them proud and bust her chops to run a more robust campaign. Did she feel like she was forced to run out of loyalty to Schumer and Gillibrand?
Goes to show establishment picks for Senate runs don’t always fair well in the primary process.
Two new NJ Gov polls out today. Emerson Sherrill +2 and Suffolk Sherrill +4. Quinnipiac is supposed to release one later today.
Suffolk needed to push more undecideds.
If Emerson says she's' up 2 then she's probably up 3, which to me feels about right.
I think weighting to 2021 elections in NJ and VA is going to look comically stupid on election day by these pollsters. But hey maybe they know something we don’t.
Pollsters can be wrong but 2024 proved that they're not far off. If they're showing a low single digit race I'm believing them.
Let's hope that Emerson is channeling 2022 then.
Different year. Previous performance doesn't guarantee continued success.
So by your logic Trafalgar is a great pollster and we should follow Sean Trende’s RCP poll average because they got 2024 right. Do you also believe that? Because I sure don’t. We’ll see on Tuesday what the voters have to say in any case.
Agree 100%. My bet is more like Sherrill plus 5 or 6, maybe even more like 7. Spanbarger should win by well into double digits.
Quinnipiac has her up by 8: https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3941
This feels about right to me...
This damning article on culture warrior Paul Newby, chief Justice of the NC Supreme Court, makes me so furious. Proves beyond a doubt how Republicans weaponize the judicial system nationwide.
https://www.propublica.org/article/paul-newby-north-carolina-supreme-court
One good thing is that he is not expected to run for re-election in 2028 but will retire. And we have a state Democratic Party chair who is competent and will run a strong candidate to run for the seat. As well as candidates to unseat Berger's nepo baby son and Tamara Barringer.
"Finally, Ferguson suggests that a redraw could lead to a dilution of Black voting power. A new map, however, could easily boost the number of majority-Black districts in Maryland from two to three. African American leaders have called for just such a change since 2011, but lawmakers have held off—likely because doing so could endanger Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer, who is white, in a primary against a Black opponent."
You know what would also lead to dilution of black voting power? Not winning the House next year. And don't even get me started about worrying about the election prospects of an 86-year-old House member. Really undercuts all the Dem messaging about Democracy being on the ballot.
*snaps*
To say nothing of what happens if the VRA goes.
Hoyer is an awful politician. His wiki page's record is just awful.
There was some speculation he may retire. Since Pelosi is doing so, part of me wonders if he’s next.
Apparently Harry Dunn (the Jan 6 cop who lost to Elfreth last cycle) was considering in the event Hoyer does call it quits.
Pelosi hasn't announced she's retiring....yet. I don't think Hoyer automatically leaves if she does, but there's also not much point in staying much longer--at age 87 he isn't going to automatically be returned to his House leadership position now that there's a full complement of younger legislative leaders in place.
Pelosi has all but retired. There’s been talk she already has a successor lined up (Connie Chan). Apparently she’s waiting for Prop 50 to inevitably pass.
My thought about Hoyer was that someone as big as Pelosi retiring (even when not in a leadership role) would lead to other retirements potentially, although given how snotty and entitled much of the older Dem leadership is being I’m not so sure about that admittedly.
With San Francisco, regardless of whether it’s Connie Chan or Scott Weiner replacing Nancy Pelosi, there are plenty of politicians to chose from in the city. After all, Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris got their start in politics hailing from SF.
In Steney Hoyer’s district, I cannot comment as I don’t know it well. Hopefully Democrats have enough candidates to chose from who would be able to replace Hoyer at some point.
My completely baseless guess is that Hoyer will want to stay for an additional term after Pelosi retires. He's spent his career trying to get one up on her and consistently falling short. Staying for another two years after her would be something he could find to be an emotional victory.
Filled out my ballot for local elections. Voted D for state Senate special election (incumbent D passed away in March just two months into his term, this is for full three years for his appointed successor). One note this year was a unique case in the school district of a major fissure between white liberals and South Asian moderates. The candidate for Issaquah School Board representing the latter community is a BJP-loving Hindu nationalist whacko basically running a campaign on the same themes an evangelical would in the South and getting support from members of his community who are otherwise reliably D voters. I expect this to become an increasingly live theme in affluent West Coast suburbs in future years even as they stay solidly Democratic
I live on Mercer Island the school board races here are bananas this year and super vitriolic. It sucks that the national political "vibe" has come for my bucolic town...
I hadn’t heard that! Sorry to hear.
It’s a weird election in our area. I’ve become less impressed with Katie Wilson as the fall has gone on but unfortunately she’s
Probably Seattle’s next Mayor.
Yeah, the Wilson thing I really don't get. Harrell has done a great job, in my opinion, and I don't really understand the objection to him.
Final Quinnipiac poll of NJ has Sherrill up 51-43: https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3941
Wonder how much trump approval sinking is helping Sherrill and Spanberger? https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5579661-trump-approval-rating-drop-economist-yougov/
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/americans-largely-oppose-trump-tearing-white-house-east/story?id=126993522
That the second challenger Berge has raised over a $100K for a primary and Cooke has raised over a million shows a lot of enthusiasm for that House seat.
Helps that the incumbent is nuts. And I’m not just talking about his positions:
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/29/1190926613/van-orden-curses-senate-pages
Why is the conservative state rep. Kalman Yeger of NYC a Democrat in a conservative district and why does he face no opposition?
They run as democrats i'm assuming to stay on the good side of the majority of city council. Same reason they run as democrats for state legislature.
I forgot to mention it but he's a state Rep.
Answer is pretty much the same as Kevin's above then; Dems basically have a permanent majority in the Assembly so if you want to deliver for your constituents, side with the majority as much as you need to.
see avi Schnall in jersey
He’s a conservative Democrat in a conservative district, I think you just answered your own question. As long as they vote for a Democratic leader, or at least some legislation priorities, I’d rather have them in our caucus than a Republican in their seat.
My question meant not that he should be kicked out but that how does being a Democrat help him.
Gotcha! The other posters explained well. He gets more for his constituents being a part of the majority.
Another NJ Gov poll. Fox: Sherrill 52-45.
https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2025/10/fox_october-24-28-2025_nj-gov_topline_october-30-release.pdf
This is an anecdotal reason in Chesterfield Virginia (a formerly swing area) why I think Jones wins and it won’t be close.
2021: https://x.com/ChazNuttycombe/status/1984016888524108288
4 years ago this was a packed room.
2025: https://x.com/ChazNuttycombe/status/1984015201562481113
Here at the Miyares rally in eastern Chesterfield County which just begun. There are about 60 people in the room (not including staff). This room is so quiet you could hear a mouse fart.
This is good news for Winsome Earle-Sears’ campaign. /s