It seems as if we keep running into yet another “Radical Left Lunatic” judge, appointed by…………Trump?
Since MAGATs just LOVE conspiracy theories, maybe they should consider whether Donnie himself is actually a Leftie who has successfully infiltrated MAGA in order to take it down from within. (We should be so lucky.)
In light of the GA Senate news, I wanted to go through and look at the state of affairs in the Senate for 2026. While it will be tightly contested, Democratic control of the Senate is emerging as more and more of an actual possibility. With Kemp out, GA is looking more and more like a hold, especially if MTG is the nominee. If she is the nominee, I don't think it's Lean D, I think it's an easy D hold.
Heading over to TX, it seems very likely that John Cornyn, who is a Senate institution, is not gonna be the nominee. The base is done with him regardless of whether they go with Paxton, Jackson, or Hunt. In the unlikely chance he is the nominee, he will be an extremely damaged one. Now more than ever, I really see TX as a Dem pick up. Not due to Democratic strength per se, but due to the context of the race on the GOP side of things. A win is a win, though. (+1)
NC will be close, but Thillis reminds me of Cornyn in many ways. While he is not in as much danger of losing his nomination, he is still bruised with the GOP base, and I can easily see many skipping his race and holding back their votes over his impeachment vote. With how close NC races are, any part of your base withholding their votes puts you in danger. I consider his seat a lean pickup, but it becomes a likely/safe pick up imo if Gov. Cooper is the nominee. (+2)
The next race that I think goes to the Dem is Ohio. Sen. Brown only lost by 3.6%. With the types of Democratic over-performances we are seeing, we are due for another 2018 blue wave that will more than make up for that margin. Husted's heart is not in the Senate either (this was a consolation prize for him), so from a psychological standpoint, he is not gonna mount the same type of intense campaign that a Senate giant like Brown will. Trump's not on the ballot either this time around, so there won't be that down-ballot coattail advantage to help Husted like it helped now Senator Moreno. (+3)
Maine, Maine, Maine. This one is a must for Democratic control of the Senate, and yet to me, it is the most uncertain. Susan Collins is likely running for reelection. If she does, she will be the nominee, and unless we match her with a high-quality, battle-tested Democratic nominee, she will keep the seat. I am no fan of her, but she has clearly built a brand that people buy into. The way to break that is to put up someone with an equally strong brand. A state house speaker, local state legislator, mayor, etc -- are not gonna work. That's the hard truth. We need someone with a very strong personality, image, and brand that can at least match Collins. For me, that is either Governor Mills or Rep. Jared Golden. Because of the age factor, I'd rather it be Golden. If he is the nominee, I think this race finally goes Dem. (+4)
I wanted to give an honorable mention and urge everyone to take a look at Iowa. Special election after special election, Iowa is giving Democrats the largest swings of the entire nation. This is happening everywhere from the state's reddest districts to the bluest ones. While a federal election is different than a low affairs legislative special election, the trends at the least show that there is a willingness within the electorate to support Democrats. If Democrats can get a good nominee that can generate some excitement for the base, I think this is one where a wave can easily carry that nominee across the finish line, even against a good GOP nominee. Same goes for Iowa's gubernatorial race.
Some of you are probably beginning to wonder about Florida. I am unfortunately not seeing the right context materialize there for a flip. Moody is beatable, but I don't see the urgency, resources, and recruitment happening there that I see in these other states. It is disappointing to be honest, but understandable given how far the state has skewed to the right. The good thing is that Florida is not needed, but it would've been nice icing on the cake.
I'm in NC and there is WAY more resistance and calling out Tillis on his cowardly BS now than there was back in 2020. I pray Gov Cooper decides to run against him; it will be a relatively easy D pickup if that's the case.
As for Maine, Gov Mills is more battle tested than Jared Golden (I don't see him running against his former boss Collins) -- and I think she could beat Susan. Especially in a D-favorable midterm cycle.
Mills is the preference for me from an ideological standpoint too; however, I don't see her running due to the age factor. She'd be a freshman Senator at 77/78 -- that is way too old even by Senate standards. But regardless, I hope that either she or Golden go for it, because otherwise, I think the seat is unfortunately a very likely GOP hold.
Worth noting: Former governor Paul LePage has just announced that he’s challenging Jared Golden for ME-02. LePage has proudly described himself as "Trump before Trump"; it’s clear he was itching for an appointment in the former Trump Administration. Paul LePage is 76 years old (but seems far older from the neck up).
Imho, Janet Mills could and should run against Collins despite her age. Mills is the only potential candidate I see with a good chance to unseat the "chronically concerned" Susan Collin. It’s imperative that we retake the Senate – not least to stop further judicial appointments by Trump. Janet Mills can serve one term and then leave an open seat for a younger successor.
Collins keeps surprising us, in election after election, there is no denying that.
Ok, I’ll make an effort to say one thing positive about her: Susan Collins is a hard-working senator. She rarely – if ever – misses a Senate vote. Imho, Democrats should try to replicate that, the latest example being Senator Whitehouse missing a key vote that enabled Republicans to table the bill.
I'm not fully in touch with the hold that Collins allegedly has over Maine voters but I think her air of infallibility is likely overstated. If the partisan tide is strong enough, she's not gonna be able to withstand it. I don't see her being a forever outlier to the laws of political gravity any more than Collin Peterson, Jon Tester, or Sherrod Brown were. Nor do I think it'll take a rock star Democratic challenger to take her down.
Bottom line: any scenario where the Democrats win back or tie the Senate in 2026 will include picking up the seat in Maine. There's no scenario where they pick up Iowa, Alaska, or Texas and don't get Maine. Either the tide is strong enough to wash away Collins or the tide falls far short.
It's important to remember that Collins won her last race with just 51% of the vote. The Democrat got 42%, and the remainder was split across two independents. Since Collins cracked 50%, the instant-runoff calculation was never completed, so we don't actually know how close it truly would have been from a D vs. R standpoint if she'd gotten slightly fewer votes. This comes after winning her three prior elections with 58-68% of the vote. I'm not getting my hopes up, but her luck may have finally run out, especially as the alleged moderates are asked to further enable an extremist authoritarian government with every vote.
We must remember that Maine as a state is not a Blue juggernaut. The Maine House of Reps sits 76 D - 73 R. The Maine Senate is 20 D - 15 R. This is no Massachusetts.
I think an outsider could win but I hope those two decide quickly so said person can start putting together a campaign that is not frozen by them. Collins limped across the line in 20 with 51% of the vote she is not some unbeatable juggernaut.
The polling at this point in the 20 cycle actually mostly had Collins ahead by a comfortable amount. I can see her winning again by bringing home enough Rs and keeping enough moderates to get another low fifties win but the commentary here makes it seem like 71% of voters right of the bat think she deserves to be reelected.
Agreed. An outsider could win. Either the laws of political gravity catch up to Collins in a toxic electoral environment or else the electoral environment simply wasn't toxic enough.
It's not a very likely GOP hold, polls show that only a very small fraction of Harris voters support her. She has a bad approval rating too. She will be the next Jon Tester imo. Maine is a blue state which will vote in a potential blue wave, let's act like it.
Given you're in NC, what are your thoughts on Cooper vs. Nickel? Or what are the dynamics there? Would Wiley Nickel be a strong nominee if Cooper passes on the race?
Nickel has said that if Cooper were to enter the race, he would throw his support behind him.
Cooper, were he to run against Tillis, would garner support from partisan Dems, independents, and some squishy R voters. He's never lost a statewide race since winning AG and then governor's seat.
Nickel would benefit from a D-favorable midterm but he has not run a statewide election before. Nickel v. Tillis would be much narrower.
He was never SoS. He served four terms as AG. It should be noted that he barely won the 2016 governor race (by 0.2%) against the controversial incumbent McCrory.
An NC senate race will never be an easy pickup. Sure, with Cooper Dems might have a slight edge but it would almost certainly be a close and hard fought fight.
Anderson Clayton has done an amazing job revitalizing the state Democratic Party since she was elected in 2023. I think if Cooper entered the race, he would win by roughly the same margin Jeff Jackson did for AG last year.
People forget that Tillis won by the skin of his teeth in both R-favorable years (2014 midterms and 2020 presidential). In a D-favorable midterm with a candidate like Cooper, he's toast. With Wiley Nickel, it's a bit iffier.
That's a meaty post, but I think you're way too optimistic. Let's at least wait to see who the candidates are in TX and look at a few polls (however problematic polling is) before concluding that's a likely D pickup.
The optimistic case: Trump is underwater in Texas in a statewide poll and even in another. Nationally, he is polling horribly among Independents, Latinos and young voters incl Gen Z. Colin Allred is leading Paxton by more than 15 points in one recent poll by a Republican firm and a generic Democratic was even with him in an older one. Cornyn is done and trailing bigly in the primary polls.
Colin Allred also has a positive statewide approval rating, performed 5 points better than Kamala and Texas' cities and minorities have only grown since 2018. There are a lot of other Dems currently looking to duke it out in the Senate primary, another good sign.
James Talarico, a progressive firebrand whose rhetoric reminds me of Beshear might run against Abbott for Governor. Abbott's aggressive school voucher program is totally underwater is polls and Talarico has been highlighting the out of state and in state evangelical Oligarchs funding him.
Texas has shifted left every election except 2024 which was arguably a gut punch for us but trends take atleast two elections to solidify. It was the second closest loss in 2020.
Texas becoming a swing state would change our politics for a generation, just say it: Republicans agree to abolish the electoral college; PR, DC get statehood and much more.
I don't think we can assume Democrats would pass our dream list the next time they have a trifecta. Look at what they didn't do the last couple of times. Good analysis of Texas, though.
Brown is not running for Senate -- it's Governor or nothing (he'd have to run again in 2 years for the full term and 3 campaigns in a right-leaning state in 4 years just won't happen). If Tim Ryan hadn't run already I'd say he would've been our best bet. I think the one's off the table just because our bench is non-existent. Maybe if Greg Landsman changes his mind because his seat gets nuked in redistricting.
Yes -- ME is the main frustruation point. You can't beat somebody with nobodoy, and I hope the lack of strong challenger doesn't deter Collins from retiring when a strong challenger otherwise might. Word of caution: I feel like Jared Golden would be Sinema and Manchin rolled into one annoying body as a Senator. But.. you take what you can get.
Given King has been a reliable vote for and has caucused with Democrats in the Senate ever since he was originally elected, there’s no energy to unseat him.
All of King’s Democratic challengers have barely been able to mount a credible campaign.
To nuke Landsman’s seat in redistricting you’d need to make it much more ridiculous looking than it already is. It would make an even bigger mockery of the “independent” redistricting commission that “banned gerrymandering” that Republicans defended last year.
It’s not like Kaptur’s seat where Republicans can just attach blood red counties to the West to Lucas county.
I'm more inclined to believe Golden would be Kirsten Gillibrand if elected to the Senate, giving up the pretense of being a conservadem when no longer have to split hairs to win in a tough rural district.
How are we going to win over socially conservative rural white voters and WWC voters in Iowa and Kansas? Urbanised states with diverse populations should be our target with the kind of polling Trump currently has with all minority groups. The largest shifts in Trump's approval have been seen in non white voters.
Gubernatorial elections are much more localised compared to Senatorial ones.
Dan Osborn though is a formidable candidate in Nebraska who fell short by just 6.5 points last year.
Texas and Florida were the closest states that we lost in both 2018 and 2020. Florida would be tougher now as the state party there is in shambles without a deep bench. Texas' Senate election in contrast has seen a lot of interest from many Democratic candidates.
Tariff loving "Progressive Conservative" ex-Collins staffer Golden will be a horrible candidate who's 100 percent going to be a Sinema. We need a unabashed Liberal against Collins to turnout the base and be a consistent vote representing a blue state in the Senate.
Probably worth considering primarying Golden if he runs for reelection instead. If the seat flips-nothing changes, Golden is already essentially a Republican.
Golden is a pain in the ass but he's undeniably better than any republican in congress this century. He's generally there when we really need his vote. The difficulty with him is damaging our messaging more than anything.
I'll continue to be annoyed with him but I'd rather have him than a republican any day of the week. Even while annoying I'm glad we have him.
If the only thing he ever does for us is provide a vote for a dem speaker, he will be better than a republican.
Disagree-Golden already is a Republican (just not in Party ID), and if he's not, he's no better than one-I'd rather lose the seat than have him in the house.
He voted for the IRA, which zero republicans in the house and senate did. He supports abortion rights. He's in favor of gun control now, even if he wasn't earlier. He voted for Jeffries to be speaker.
I'm not going to pretend this is some high bar to clear. It isn't. He's the biggest pain in the ass in our congressional caucus and he routinely finds ways to piss us off. He makes tons of bad votes.
But he is clearly and unambiguously to the left of every elected republican in congress right now. He is not a republican. In a country with more than two functioning political parties he wouldn't be a democrat either, and would likely align with a center-right or centrist party. That isn't what the US has though and he is easily better than every republican in congress.
Put another way: What republican member of the house do you think is no worse than him? If he is a de facto republican then there should be a republican with a similar voting record out there. What republican voted for the IRA and to make Jeffries speaker?
I agree with this comment and any Democrats is useful in a Republicans seat than an actual Republican but here's his phony populism on rejecting Build Back Better:
Also, he co-sponsored statehood for DC, opposes efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and has a good pro-union record (sponsored a bill strengthening union organizing).
Far from being a Republican but I get your sentiment.
I would primary Josh Gottheimer, not Jared Golden.
It’s not an improbable thing that Gottheimer will stick around if he loses the gubernatorial primary. He represents a waspy, extremely wealthy part of NJ and he’ll still want to be relevant in a district which he’s had no problem holding and winning re-election in.
I’m still amazed that Gottheimer pulled off one of the few upset House wins in 2016 by unseating Scott Garrett, who was always notoriously difficult for Democrats to beat in previous elections.
This is not a good analysis. Dems are higher propensity voters and are going to be fired up to vote next year no matter who the nominee is. Golden would have a great chance to beat Collins, but I doubt he'd run against her, so it's a moot point most likely.
Even if he wins, we simply don't need a Manchinema 2.0 when you could run any other normal Democrat. Politicians like him make sense representing a R leaning district in the House but not even a swing state in the Senate. Republicans hate any guy to the left of Reagan, why do we need someone to the right of Sinema? We have had enough of such Liebermans and Manchins already.
Oh, I agree. I think we can beat her with a standard Dem if this year turns out the way we think it's going to. I was just pointing out that saying he's not a good statewide candidate is wrong.
I don't think so. Remember that Maine as a state is not a Blue juggernaut. The Maine House of Reps sits 76 D - 73 R. The Maine Senate is 20 D - 15 R. It had a Republican Governor for almost the entirety of Obama's Presidency. This is no Massachusetts.
+9D in 2020 is definitely a Blue state. By this train of thought, even Minnesota which has a deadlocked house is not a Blue state. State legislative elections have different dynamics to national ones.
Here's how I might put the potentially competitive races, in my order. I'm assuming that this will be a bad cycle for the GOP, probably similar to 2018. Of course many of these would change once we know the candidates.
Minnesota, New Hampshire: likely D and only because they're open. Those states are generically lean D.
Michigan: lean D. Generically, it's tilt D.
Georgia: lean D. It would have been a tossup with Kemp, but now it's Ossoff's race to win. If he plays his cards right he should beat anyone by at least a few points.
Maine: tilt D. Collins is unpopular, but people are still used to voting for her. This is still a Harris +7 state in what is shaping up as a terrible cycle for the GOP. Her 2020 margin would have been a lot closer if the second place votes had been counted, and I think her luck is likely to run out this year if Dems put up a strong candidate who runs a good race.
North Carolina: tossup to tilt D. Maybe tilt D if Cooper gets in. Tillis won't be an easy out, but I'd rather be us than them this cycle.
Ohio: tilt R. The GOP won by 3.6 (granted, against Brown) in 2024 and 6.1 in 2022, both of which were terrible cycles for Dems. Husted is an appointed incumbent. This will be in play.
Texas: lean R. Cornyn wouldn't be *that* safe, he won by just 9.6 in 2020. If he loses the primary, this one is definitely in play. Wide range of possibilities here depending on the extent to which Latinos snap back against Trump.
Iowa: lean R. Ernst is a pretty good fit for the state. She ran behind Trump in 2020, but her race was much more contested. The GOP has gotten buried in recent specials in Iowa. Ernst should win, but probably by less than in 2020. If for whatever reason she isn't the nominee, this could go either way.
Florida: lean R but only because it has an appointed incumbent. Dems nearly won with an incumbent in 2018, but the state has moved far to the right since then and demographic creep there is still very unfavorable.
Alaska: lean R to likely R. Unlike Ernst, Sullivan won easily in 2020. Peltola might give him a hard time if she gets in.
No way NC is likely D no matter who the nominees are. Cooper might make that race a tossup. TX is lean R for now, I suppose it could edge into tossup territory but it's hard to see that. These are waaaaay too optimistic, even for what I think will likely be a Dem wave year.
Living in NC, I can't stress how much of a relief this is. And considering how ticked off Dems and independents are, there will be some state legislative flips too.
And I think Earls will not only win re-election, but she'll also have a more comfortable margin against the state legislator running against her.
I applaud all Judges who actually follow the law these days. If the ballots were legal on election day, they are legal. I am 💯 MAGA - and part of what makes America great is when our rule of law is BLIND as it was intended! Who cares who appointed him? Judges are SUPPOSED to be neutral! My opinion could change if more FACTS where presented, but not this nonsense of blaming everything on party affiliations. With the small amount of information here I hope Myles' ruling stands and NC GOP needs to get off their assets for the next election if they don't want their court flipped!
"Judges are SUPPOSED to be neutral! My opinion could change if more FACTS where presented, but not this nonsense of blaming everything on party affiliations."
Do you pay attention to NC politics? NC GOP is power hungry and will do everything to hold onto their power. They scrapped straight party ticket voting, made voting harder for Americans, made judicial races partisan again and the Republican majorities on the NC Court of Appeals and NC Supreme Court are doing the bidding of the GOP (rather than be independent and fair-minded).
Most of the GOP doesn't give a shit about the rule of law.
No, I admit I do not follow NC that closely- that's why I said if I had more facts my opinion could change. I in no way believe all GOP are good, as most people I know also do not believe that. Actions speak louder than party affiliation 😉. That's why I was agreeing that the Democrat who won should keep the position and not have some judge overturn the election. (Unless I read the article wrong?) Assuming all votes were valid on election day, and counted lawfully (which by what the judge's opinion I gather that to be true) - I want the person who was elected to take the position!
Interesting. I salute you for your post, but I'm quite confused that there could be someone who's 100% MAGA yet believes in rule of law. How do you square that?
But according to rule of law, Trump should be in prison and never should have been able to run for office again. And in a larger sense, Trump has been a career criminal for decades, the very antithesis of rule of law.
Um, every MAGA I know believes in the rule of law and most importantly that it is applied equally to everyone. Real laws, nothing made up just to throw your enemies in jail. But all who break the law should face the appropriate consequences. No group is 100% the same of course, so I'm not saying you're never gonna find someone who claims to love America (MAGA) that says something I don't agree with. But that's ok. We value different points and ideas, and Facts. That's why (I think I said) more information could change my view.
And someone asked if I follow NC Politics- no, I do not. Which is why I said based on what was given in the article, that was my opinion. 🙂
Does every MAGA you know believe that a criminal conspiracy was committed on January 6, 2020, that all guilty of crimes on or in preparation for that day should have been prosecuted and punished to the extent of the law, and that it is wrong to pardon them?
Side note - ignorance of the law is not a defense. So yes they are still guilty of trespass- but they do not deserve years of solitary confinement for simply walking in and around, assuming they didn't damage or steal anything.
No-one who merely walked around was sentenced to years of solitary confinement, and I don't think you'll find people here who seriously think people should have been sentenced to years of solitary confinement for that. Can you cite an example?
If only MAGA had consistent beliefs that applied to EVERYONE, we’d be in a much better world, but the “laws for who we hate, but we don’t care if MAGA/Trump do it” selective hypocrisy you people continue to showcase on issue after issue among your cultic cabal make these words you speak ring the shallowest of the shallow. You are absolutely right, but your words mean literally less than nothing.
Call me when you start speaking out against Trump and Republicans for disobeying Trump appointed judge orders loudly on pro-GOP websites and your social media accounts even if it goes against what you want to happen, then we’ll talk. Or is law and order just another useful phrase you use to manipulate the uneducated people of America into voting for you? I’m pretty sure I know the answer to that.
Until then, nope, save it for someone dumb enough to believe you actually mean that and enjoy the coming blue tsunami wiping your party out in 2026 from top to bottom. The orange stain of your party will be washed away as if you never existed. Grab your popcorn. It’s going to be biblical! =D
IL-Sen/IL-2/IL-9: Robin Kelly is running in the U.S. Senate primary in Illinois, and Jan Schakowsky is not seeking re-election, so IL-Sen, IL-2, and IL-9 are all open seats.
The IL-2 Democratic primary might be very interesting, as, although it's a district that is based in the Chicago Southland region of the state, the district extends from the southeastern part of Chicago in Cook County to my hometown of Westville in Vermilion County. Potential IL-2 candidates include Mary Catherine Roberson, the 2018 Democratic nominee for Vermilion County Clerk who lost in a landslide but now works in Kelly's congressional office, as well a bunch of potential candidates from the Cook and Will County portions of the district that would take about ten hours for me to list. There are two media markets covering IL-2: Chicago, which contains most of the Democratic primary electorate and is an extremely expensive market to advertise in, and Champaign-Springfield, which covers the southern-most parts of the district. The district is dominated by the Chicago and Suburban Cook portions of the district, even though Iroquois, which is extremely Republican and provides very few Democratic primary votes, is the only county entirely in the district. If several Chicago-area candidates get in, a downstate-based candidate could win the primary with far less than a majority of the vote by running up a massive margin south of Interstate 80 against a split field of Chicago-area candidates.
IL-9's Democratic primary has already been interesting, with Kat Abughazaleh having outraised Schakowsky before the latter's retirement, although Abughazaleh will probably lose in a landslide to someone with more extensive ties to that part of the state, such as Daniel Biss or Laura Fine.
She thought she could retire after Clinton won and be replaced by another progressive. She in her hubris did not retire during 2008-10, the only other period where she could have.
Yeah, Clyburn comes off as incredibly selfish and entitled in that quote. He is a public servant, but instead of pointing to some issue he's fighting for that justifies staying in public office even after he's aged out of leadership, he's just whining about having to give up his cushy lifestyle.
Crazy thing is he shouldn't even need to give up his cushy lifestyle! He's been in congress long enough to have a pension. If he's stuck only able to get by with his congressional salary then he made some big mistakes somewhere.
More like a longtime Congressman who thinks he's earned the right to decide when to retire. You don't have to agree, but people like him are usually given that respect. There's a strong argument to be made that the margins in the House and the imminent threat to democracy dictate a different kind of thinking, but this is probably more the rule than the exception for members of Congress regarded as institutions in themselves.
If everyone left after 2 years, the lobbyists would rule even much more than they do now, so I think that's a really off the wall extremist point of view. On the other hand. I'm not saying he shouldn't retire now. In fact, I think that would be the most honorable thing for him to do. But the number of historical precedents behind his actions is innumerable. And he's done quite enough for it to be repugnant for anyone to call him a "bitch", which is also a gendered insult that means to belittle him as female. You didn't do that, but I think the level of vituperation against him should be toned down a little bit.
I get that thinking but it's a wholly selfish viewpoint for him and anyone else in that position.
Fact is that these jobs are at their core positions of public service. They exist to help steward the nation and its people in a direction that aligns with the values and enrichment (in all meanings of the word, not only financial) of its people. It is not a job that exists as a hobby or for the benefit of the people filling it. Staying in the position when they are sufficiently aged that they are not able to give it their all, that they are sufficiently divorced from the future needs of the nation and its people, that they are sufficiently divorced from the zeitgeist, should not be the norm. Should there be exceptions, people who are good choices despite that? Yes. But they should be exactly that: exceptions.
Yes, there's been a lot of backsliding on this with greed and disappointment abound. When someone like Clyburn sticks around for what seems like the reason of "I've done this as long as I can remember" it reflects poorly on him. If he was going around talking about it with less entitlement and more like he felt that for reasons XYZ that he was specifically suited to handle the challenges of the present era and that he felt he was still suited to the job it might be different.
Is there evidence that he's not able to give his all or is divorced from the needs of the people? I wouldn't overconclude from something he was quoted as saying on one occasion to mean that he's lost core values he's committed to working toward.
The big picture is Clyburn wants to be able to play kingmaker again in the next Presidential cycle. And given the way Biden was able to stack the primary map, it's extremely likely that Clyburn will get to.
If Angus King III ends up as governor of Maine, while his father, Angus King, Jr. is senator, it would seem to be an unprecedented situation of simultaneous governor and senator from the same family. The closest - but still quite different - analogy might have occurred when Ted Kennedy was senator from Massachusetts and his niece Kathleen Kennedy Townsend served as lieutenant governor of Maryland.
"Murkowski is the daughter of former U.S. senator and governor of Alaska Frank Murkowski. She was appointed to the Senate by her father, who resigned his seat in December 2002 to become Alaska's governor. Murkowski became the first Alaskan-born member of Congress and completed her father's unexpired Senate term, which ended in January 2005."
Coincidentally, she's now been in the senate just about as long as her father had been, probably exceeding his time? (I don't have the numbers of when Frank began his first term)
But they did not serve simultaneously. Other non-simultaneous dynasties were those of the Adams Harrison, Roosevelt, Brown, Cheney, and Cuomo families.
IMO there could not be a stronger candidate than Brian Kemp for the GOP in 2028. Good news is that the Maga base is not fond of him because he is ideologically a Reagan Republican. Greg Abbott and Haley have a lot of baggage like the deaths due to their libertarian grid failure and failed 2024 run, banning confederate flags respectively.
In general I agree with this statement, but I don't think he's really a Reagan Republican. He's pretty MAGA but just has general respect for laws, which (sadly) sets him apart from the rest of that crew.
Voters across Texas clearly and consistently punished the people who have been restricting students’ reading and learning. They delivered a message: Texans are sick of book bans, sick of attacks on educators and librarians, sick of leaders waging culture war battles at the expense of good governance.
My feeling is the sharp swing towards Trump with young men has a lot to do with Trump personally. Think about it, the entire cohort of male voters 18-25 went from adolescence into adulthood with a juvenile braggard getting away with outrageous things and never being held accountable as a role model.
When Trump used the defense "locker room talk", those 2024 voters were 10-17. If we made a pie chart of which demographics routinely engage in such talk, boys 10-17 would be an enormous slice.
The good thing though is that he has seen a sharp fall in approval even among Gen Z men in all polls except that Yale one which was hyped up by the media. If this admin is a failure and the next democratic administration is a success, Gen Z as a whole can become as liberal as Gen X became conservative due to the Reagan era.
And that makes sense too, my theory includes the idea that this support is wide but shallow. Casting a vote for Trump in 2024 was the last act of adolescence for these young men who now actually have to live in the real world, I could see them shifting our way and the 18-25 cohort in 2028 will see Trump as a failed old man and probably not be as interested in whatever BS the Republicans put up next.
Thank you. There are some things I like a lot about this article. However, we have to keep in mind that reactionary viewpoints are much less attractive to members of groups that did terribly in the past, notably Black people. That doesn't always prevent Black men, for example, from being reactionaries, but there is definitely a clear element among the men discussed in that essay of wanting to restore dominance over society, and that's stated in the article even if in a soft way, while the advancement of women seems overstated, as their salaries have never achieved parity with men's, they are certainly not close to parity among CEOs or in bodies like the Senate, and of course have never won a presidential election (not counting one popular vote victory). And we could go on.
Got a poll yesterday testing ex-House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler as a candidate against Ilhan Omar in MN-05. Not sure who sponsored it - I got positive and negative batteries for both candidates.
Any and all! In 2024, Indiana did have strong candidates for governor in Jennifer McCormick and for attorney general in Destiny Wells. Both started early and garnered about 40% of the vote. We did not have strong Senate candidates in the primary, and thus not in that year's general election. Indiana's 2nd Congressional District did draw Lori Camp, who entered the race before the deadline before the primary because she was so frustrated that no candidate had emerged. She ran a determined campaign. There was no Democratic candidate in our state representative race. Many local races have people pulled in, like sacrificial lambs, to run AFTER the primary. That does not make for strong campaigns.
Part of what is needed is candidates who either are well known or can become well known. In red Indiana, that probably means running more than once after losing and continuing to speak publicly after the election to lay the groundwork for the next campaign.
Democratic candidates in Indiana need to reach out to the 60% of voting eligible people in Indiana who do not vote at all. Indiana Democrats also tend to focus on those who are already Democrats instead of seeking to expand the party. One of McCormick's strengths is that she was a Republican who, upon seeing how poorly Republicans were running the state and examining her own values, realized that the Democrats were more aligned with her views on fiscal responsibility and education.
It seems as if we keep running into yet another “Radical Left Lunatic” judge, appointed by…………Trump?
Since MAGATs just LOVE conspiracy theories, maybe they should consider whether Donnie himself is actually a Leftie who has successfully infiltrated MAGA in order to take it down from within. (We should be so lucky.)
The NC GOP is very silent about the Trump appointee ruling in Riggs’ favor. They can’t use the DEI or radical leftist excuse to smear Myers with.
In light of the GA Senate news, I wanted to go through and look at the state of affairs in the Senate for 2026. While it will be tightly contested, Democratic control of the Senate is emerging as more and more of an actual possibility. With Kemp out, GA is looking more and more like a hold, especially if MTG is the nominee. If she is the nominee, I don't think it's Lean D, I think it's an easy D hold.
Heading over to TX, it seems very likely that John Cornyn, who is a Senate institution, is not gonna be the nominee. The base is done with him regardless of whether they go with Paxton, Jackson, or Hunt. In the unlikely chance he is the nominee, he will be an extremely damaged one. Now more than ever, I really see TX as a Dem pick up. Not due to Democratic strength per se, but due to the context of the race on the GOP side of things. A win is a win, though. (+1)
NC will be close, but Thillis reminds me of Cornyn in many ways. While he is not in as much danger of losing his nomination, he is still bruised with the GOP base, and I can easily see many skipping his race and holding back their votes over his impeachment vote. With how close NC races are, any part of your base withholding their votes puts you in danger. I consider his seat a lean pickup, but it becomes a likely/safe pick up imo if Gov. Cooper is the nominee. (+2)
The next race that I think goes to the Dem is Ohio. Sen. Brown only lost by 3.6%. With the types of Democratic over-performances we are seeing, we are due for another 2018 blue wave that will more than make up for that margin. Husted's heart is not in the Senate either (this was a consolation prize for him), so from a psychological standpoint, he is not gonna mount the same type of intense campaign that a Senate giant like Brown will. Trump's not on the ballot either this time around, so there won't be that down-ballot coattail advantage to help Husted like it helped now Senator Moreno. (+3)
Maine, Maine, Maine. This one is a must for Democratic control of the Senate, and yet to me, it is the most uncertain. Susan Collins is likely running for reelection. If she does, she will be the nominee, and unless we match her with a high-quality, battle-tested Democratic nominee, she will keep the seat. I am no fan of her, but she has clearly built a brand that people buy into. The way to break that is to put up someone with an equally strong brand. A state house speaker, local state legislator, mayor, etc -- are not gonna work. That's the hard truth. We need someone with a very strong personality, image, and brand that can at least match Collins. For me, that is either Governor Mills or Rep. Jared Golden. Because of the age factor, I'd rather it be Golden. If he is the nominee, I think this race finally goes Dem. (+4)
I wanted to give an honorable mention and urge everyone to take a look at Iowa. Special election after special election, Iowa is giving Democrats the largest swings of the entire nation. This is happening everywhere from the state's reddest districts to the bluest ones. While a federal election is different than a low affairs legislative special election, the trends at the least show that there is a willingness within the electorate to support Democrats. If Democrats can get a good nominee that can generate some excitement for the base, I think this is one where a wave can easily carry that nominee across the finish line, even against a good GOP nominee. Same goes for Iowa's gubernatorial race.
Some of you are probably beginning to wonder about Florida. I am unfortunately not seeing the right context materialize there for a flip. Moody is beatable, but I don't see the urgency, resources, and recruitment happening there that I see in these other states. It is disappointing to be honest, but understandable given how far the state has skewed to the right. The good thing is that Florida is not needed, but it would've been nice icing on the cake.
I'm in NC and there is WAY more resistance and calling out Tillis on his cowardly BS now than there was back in 2020. I pray Gov Cooper decides to run against him; it will be a relatively easy D pickup if that's the case.
As for Maine, Gov Mills is more battle tested than Jared Golden (I don't see him running against his former boss Collins) -- and I think she could beat Susan. Especially in a D-favorable midterm cycle.
Mills is the preference for me from an ideological standpoint too; however, I don't see her running due to the age factor. She'd be a freshman Senator at 77/78 -- that is way too old even by Senate standards. But regardless, I hope that either she or Golden go for it, because otherwise, I think the seat is unfortunately a very likely GOP hold.
Worth noting: Former governor Paul LePage has just announced that he’s challenging Jared Golden for ME-02. LePage has proudly described himself as "Trump before Trump"; it’s clear he was itching for an appointment in the former Trump Administration. Paul LePage is 76 years old (but seems far older from the neck up).
Imho, Janet Mills could and should run against Collins despite her age. Mills is the only potential candidate I see with a good chance to unseat the "chronically concerned" Susan Collin. It’s imperative that we retake the Senate – not least to stop further judicial appointments by Trump. Janet Mills can serve one term and then leave an open seat for a younger successor.
I would bet on Collins winning reelection until she dies or retires, regardless of opinion polling. We shall see.
Collins keeps surprising us, in election after election, there is no denying that.
Ok, I’ll make an effort to say one thing positive about her: Susan Collins is a hard-working senator. She rarely – if ever – misses a Senate vote. Imho, Democrats should try to replicate that, the latest example being Senator Whitehouse missing a key vote that enabled Republicans to table the bill.
Why did he miss that vote?
Unfortunately I fear you may be right. Everyone assumed she was gone in 2020 but ended up winning even as Biden won Maine by near double digits.
I'm not fully in touch with the hold that Collins allegedly has over Maine voters but I think her air of infallibility is likely overstated. If the partisan tide is strong enough, she's not gonna be able to withstand it. I don't see her being a forever outlier to the laws of political gravity any more than Collin Peterson, Jon Tester, or Sherrod Brown were. Nor do I think it'll take a rock star Democratic challenger to take her down.
Bottom line: any scenario where the Democrats win back or tie the Senate in 2026 will include picking up the seat in Maine. There's no scenario where they pick up Iowa, Alaska, or Texas and don't get Maine. Either the tide is strong enough to wash away Collins or the tide falls far short.
It's important to remember that Collins won her last race with just 51% of the vote. The Democrat got 42%, and the remainder was split across two independents. Since Collins cracked 50%, the instant-runoff calculation was never completed, so we don't actually know how close it truly would have been from a D vs. R standpoint if she'd gotten slightly fewer votes. This comes after winning her three prior elections with 58-68% of the vote. I'm not getting my hopes up, but her luck may have finally run out, especially as the alleged moderates are asked to further enable an extremist authoritarian government with every vote.
Agree with this analysis. She's a force but is definitely beatable, particularly in a D wave year.
We must remember that Maine as a state is not a Blue juggernaut. The Maine House of Reps sits 76 D - 73 R. The Maine Senate is 20 D - 15 R. This is no Massachusetts.
I would bet on her being "concerned" with what to do for the rest of her time after losing reelection in 2026.
“I was Trump before Trump.”
Not going to help him win the race. Only one person can be Trump and that’s Trump himself.
I think an outsider could win but I hope those two decide quickly so said person can start putting together a campaign that is not frozen by them. Collins limped across the line in 20 with 51% of the vote she is not some unbeatable juggernaut.
"Frustration from both sides is clearly reflected in the poll results released Thursday.
Overall, 21% of Maine residents believe Collins deserves to be reelected, while 71% believe she does not, according to the survey.
Among Democrats, 84% believe she does not deserve another term, while 67% of independents and 57% of Republicans agree."
https://www.pressherald.com/2025/04/24/most-mainers-dont-think-susan-collins-deserves-another-term-survey-says/?uuid=ea30f625-7e77-4a7c-8b4c-b41e82f5ab80&lid=60747
I'm skeptical they're getting the polling right, though, after last time.
The polling at this point in the 20 cycle actually mostly had Collins ahead by a comfortable amount. I can see her winning again by bringing home enough Rs and keeping enough moderates to get another low fifties win but the commentary here makes it seem like 71% of voters right of the bat think she deserves to be reelected.
Agreed. An outsider could win. Either the laws of political gravity catch up to Collins in a toxic electoral environment or else the electoral environment simply wasn't toxic enough.
It's not a very likely GOP hold, polls show that only a very small fraction of Harris voters support her. She has a bad approval rating too. She will be the next Jon Tester imo. Maine is a blue state which will vote in a potential blue wave, let's act like it.
https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-chances-defeating-susan-collins-maine-according-polls-2064775
But polls seemed to show that last time.
Given you're in NC, what are your thoughts on Cooper vs. Nickel? Or what are the dynamics there? Would Wiley Nickel be a strong nominee if Cooper passes on the race?
Nickel has said that if Cooper were to enter the race, he would throw his support behind him.
Cooper, were he to run against Tillis, would garner support from partisan Dems, independents, and some squishy R voters. He's never lost a statewide race since winning AG and then governor's seat.
Nickel would benefit from a D-favorable midterm but he has not run a statewide election before. Nickel v. Tillis would be much narrower.
When did Cooper run for SOS? It has been held by Marshall for almost 30 years.
:)
Whoops, I totally forgot about Elaine Marshall being SOS. Edited my earlier post.
He was never SoS. He served four terms as AG. It should be noted that he barely won the 2016 governor race (by 0.2%) against the controversial incumbent McCrory.
To be fair, in 2016 Cooper had to deal with Trump winning at the top of the ticket by four points.
If he can beat Tillis even by that .2% margin in 2026, I’ll take it.
An NC senate race will never be an easy pickup. Sure, with Cooper Dems might have a slight edge but it would almost certainly be a close and hard fought fight.
Anderson Clayton has done an amazing job revitalizing the state Democratic Party since she was elected in 2023. I think if Cooper entered the race, he would win by roughly the same margin Jeff Jackson did for AG last year.
People forget that Tillis won by the skin of his teeth in both R-favorable years (2014 midterms and 2020 presidential). In a D-favorable midterm with a candidate like Cooper, he's toast. With Wiley Nickel, it's a bit iffier.
The killing of the EXTREMELY VITAL biotech industry (especially in the Triangle) needs to be wrapped firmly around Tillis' neck.
From a cutoff in Federal funding?
That's a meaty post, but I think you're way too optimistic. Let's at least wait to see who the candidates are in TX and look at a few polls (however problematic polling is) before concluding that's a likely D pickup.
The optimistic case: Trump is underwater in Texas in a statewide poll and even in another. Nationally, he is polling horribly among Independents, Latinos and young voters incl Gen Z. Colin Allred is leading Paxton by more than 15 points in one recent poll by a Republican firm and a generic Democratic was even with him in an older one. Cornyn is done and trailing bigly in the primary polls.
Colin Allred also has a positive statewide approval rating, performed 5 points better than Kamala and Texas' cities and minorities have only grown since 2018. There are a lot of other Dems currently looking to duke it out in the Senate primary, another good sign.
James Talarico, a progressive firebrand whose rhetoric reminds me of Beshear might run against Abbott for Governor. Abbott's aggressive school voucher program is totally underwater is polls and Talarico has been highlighting the out of state and in state evangelical Oligarchs funding him.
https://www.270towin.com/states/texas
Texas has shifted left every election except 2024 which was arguably a gut punch for us but trends take atleast two elections to solidify. It was the second closest loss in 2020.
Texas becoming a swing state would change our politics for a generation, just say it: Republicans agree to abolish the electoral college; PR, DC get statehood and much more.
Allred was a strong candidate. I definitely hope it's him again next year.
I don't think we can assume Democrats would pass our dream list the next time they have a trifecta. Look at what they didn't do the last couple of times. Good analysis of Texas, though.
Brown is not running for Senate -- it's Governor or nothing (he'd have to run again in 2 years for the full term and 3 campaigns in a right-leaning state in 4 years just won't happen). If Tim Ryan hadn't run already I'd say he would've been our best bet. I think the one's off the table just because our bench is non-existent. Maybe if Greg Landsman changes his mind because his seat gets nuked in redistricting.
Yes -- ME is the main frustruation point. You can't beat somebody with nobodoy, and I hope the lack of strong challenger doesn't deter Collins from retiring when a strong challenger otherwise might. Word of caution: I feel like Jared Golden would be Sinema and Manchin rolled into one annoying body as a Senator. But.. you take what you can get.
Maine hasn't elected a Democratic Senator since 1988. Damn right I'll take what we can get.
Angus King is basically a liberal Democrat except on some economic issues. He has very high rating from Liberal orgs.
That's not the point, he never won an election as a Democrat.
Have Democrats run any credible candidate against him? He's basically a moderate Bernie Sanders.
Given King has been a reliable vote for and has caucused with Democrats in the Senate ever since he was originally elected, there’s no energy to unseat him.
All of King’s Democratic challengers have barely been able to mount a credible campaign.
But he's not a Democrat. Democrats in Maine are not all that successful statewide.
I'll take Golden over Collins and I don't know that some liberal Democrat would have a better chance.
To nuke Landsman’s seat in redistricting you’d need to make it much more ridiculous looking than it already is. It would make an even bigger mockery of the “independent” redistricting commission that “banned gerrymandering” that Republicans defended last year.
It’s not like Kaptur’s seat where Republicans can just attach blood red counties to the West to Lucas county.
I'm more inclined to believe Golden would be Kirsten Gillibrand if elected to the Senate, giving up the pretense of being a conservadem when no longer have to split hairs to win in a tough rural district.
I'm not sure why anyone would believe that. He *worked* for Collins. And Maine is nowhere near as Democratic as NY to warrant such a change.
Exactly, you're optimistic but Democrats need to BELIEVE in Blexas, Bluerida and Blaska first for any of them to HAPPEN!
It is really hard to believe in Bluerida though, even Blansas, Bliowa, and Blubraska seem like more plausible targets.
How are we going to win over socially conservative rural white voters and WWC voters in Iowa and Kansas? Urbanised states with diverse populations should be our target with the kind of polling Trump currently has with all minority groups. The largest shifts in Trump's approval have been seen in non white voters.
Gubernatorial elections are much more localised compared to Senatorial ones.
Is there a way to win statewide elections in those states without conservative votes?
https://www.notus.org/2026-election/independent-dan-osborn-succeed-this-time
Dan Osborn though is a formidable candidate in Nebraska who fell short by just 6.5 points last year.
Texas and Florida were the closest states that we lost in both 2018 and 2020. Florida would be tougher now as the state party there is in shambles without a deep bench. Texas' Senate election in contrast has seen a lot of interest from many Democratic candidates.
Edit : 6.5 not 3
3 points? He lost by 6.5 points.
Tariff loving "Progressive Conservative" ex-Collins staffer Golden will be a horrible candidate who's 100 percent going to be a Sinema. We need a unabashed Liberal against Collins to turnout the base and be a consistent vote representing a blue state in the Senate.
Probably worth considering primarying Golden if he runs for reelection instead. If the seat flips-nothing changes, Golden is already essentially a Republican.
Golden is a pain in the ass but he's undeniably better than any republican in congress this century. He's generally there when we really need his vote. The difficulty with him is damaging our messaging more than anything.
I'll continue to be annoyed with him but I'd rather have him than a republican any day of the week. Even while annoying I'm glad we have him.
If the only thing he ever does for us is provide a vote for a dem speaker, he will be better than a republican.
Disagree-Golden already is a Republican (just not in Party ID), and if he's not, he's no better than one-I'd rather lose the seat than have him in the house.
No Republican has ever voted 90% of the time for Biden’s policies or for a Democratic House Speaker. Just saying.
He voted for the IRA, which zero republicans in the house and senate did. He supports abortion rights. He's in favor of gun control now, even if he wasn't earlier. He voted for Jeffries to be speaker.
I'm not going to pretend this is some high bar to clear. It isn't. He's the biggest pain in the ass in our congressional caucus and he routinely finds ways to piss us off. He makes tons of bad votes.
But he is clearly and unambiguously to the left of every elected republican in congress right now. He is not a republican. In a country with more than two functioning political parties he wouldn't be a democrat either, and would likely align with a center-right or centrist party. That isn't what the US has though and he is easily better than every republican in congress.
Put another way: What republican member of the house do you think is no worse than him? If he is a de facto republican then there should be a republican with a similar voting record out there. What republican voted for the IRA and to make Jeffries speaker?
He wouldn't have done any of those things if Republicans needed his vote
I agree with this comment and any Democrats is useful in a Republicans seat than an actual Republican but here's his phony populism on rejecting Build Back Better:
https://golden.house.gov/media/press-releases/golden-opposes-tax-breaks-millionaires-commits-working-senate-improve-build
This is nonsense. You'd rather lose the seat? Why on earth would you want to take a vote away from a potential D speakership. C'mon man...
Either way it's a vote for a Republican Speaker
The vote for Speaker of the House changes, that's the most important thing.
If Golden's vote was needed to elect a Republican Speaker, he would vote for the Republican
I highly, highly doubt that.
Based on what? Seriously man, you are just trolling at this point...
He's good enough for the House but definitely not for the Senate.
Worth noting Golden is pro-choice.
Also, he co-sponsored statehood for DC, opposes efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and has a good pro-union record (sponsored a bill strengthening union organizing).
Far from being a Republican but I get your sentiment.
I would primary Josh Gottheimer, not Jared Golden.
https://www.ontheissues.org/House/Jared_Golden.htm
I wonder if Gottheimer sticks around if he loses the Gubernatorial primary next month.
It’s not an improbable thing that Gottheimer will stick around if he loses the gubernatorial primary. He represents a waspy, extremely wealthy part of NJ and he’ll still want to be relevant in a district which he’s had no problem holding and winning re-election in.
I’m still amazed that Gottheimer pulled off one of the few upset House wins in 2016 by unseating Scott Garrett, who was always notoriously difficult for Democrats to beat in previous elections.
Excuse me, WASPy? He represents the 5th District:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey%27s_5th_congressional_district
Ethnicity
59.2% White
16.2% Hispanic
15.9% Asian
5.2% Black
2.8% Two or more races
0.7% other
I believe there are a lot of Jews and Catholics (particularly Italians) there, too. It's Northern New Jersey. So what are you saying?
This is not a good analysis. Dems are higher propensity voters and are going to be fired up to vote next year no matter who the nominee is. Golden would have a great chance to beat Collins, but I doubt he'd run against her, so it's a moot point most likely.
Even if he wins, we simply don't need a Manchinema 2.0 when you could run any other normal Democrat. Politicians like him make sense representing a R leaning district in the House but not even a swing state in the Senate. Republicans hate any guy to the left of Reagan, why do we need someone to the right of Sinema? We have had enough of such Liebermans and Manchins already.
Oh, I agree. I think we can beat her with a standard Dem if this year turns out the way we think it's going to. I was just pointing out that saying he's not a good statewide candidate is wrong.
Trouble is, any other Democrat isn't running (yet)
I don't think so. Remember that Maine as a state is not a Blue juggernaut. The Maine House of Reps sits 76 D - 73 R. The Maine Senate is 20 D - 15 R. It had a Republican Governor for almost the entirety of Obama's Presidency. This is no Massachusetts.
+9D in 2020 is definitely a Blue state. By this train of thought, even Minnesota which has a deadlocked house is not a Blue state. State legislative elections have different dynamics to national ones.
Presidential toplines are not the be all and end all. Especially outdated ones. It regressed to +7D last year.
Here's how I might put the potentially competitive races, in my order. I'm assuming that this will be a bad cycle for the GOP, probably similar to 2018. Of course many of these would change once we know the candidates.
Minnesota, New Hampshire: likely D and only because they're open. Those states are generically lean D.
Michigan: lean D. Generically, it's tilt D.
Georgia: lean D. It would have been a tossup with Kemp, but now it's Ossoff's race to win. If he plays his cards right he should beat anyone by at least a few points.
Maine: tilt D. Collins is unpopular, but people are still used to voting for her. This is still a Harris +7 state in what is shaping up as a terrible cycle for the GOP. Her 2020 margin would have been a lot closer if the second place votes had been counted, and I think her luck is likely to run out this year if Dems put up a strong candidate who runs a good race.
North Carolina: tossup to tilt D. Maybe tilt D if Cooper gets in. Tillis won't be an easy out, but I'd rather be us than them this cycle.
Ohio: tilt R. The GOP won by 3.6 (granted, against Brown) in 2024 and 6.1 in 2022, both of which were terrible cycles for Dems. Husted is an appointed incumbent. This will be in play.
Texas: lean R. Cornyn wouldn't be *that* safe, he won by just 9.6 in 2020. If he loses the primary, this one is definitely in play. Wide range of possibilities here depending on the extent to which Latinos snap back against Trump.
Iowa: lean R. Ernst is a pretty good fit for the state. She ran behind Trump in 2020, but her race was much more contested. The GOP has gotten buried in recent specials in Iowa. Ernst should win, but probably by less than in 2020. If for whatever reason she isn't the nominee, this could go either way.
Florida: lean R but only because it has an appointed incumbent. Dems nearly won with an incumbent in 2018, but the state has moved far to the right since then and demographic creep there is still very unfavorable.
Alaska: lean R to likely R. Unlike Ernst, Sullivan won easily in 2020. Peltola might give him a hard time if she gets in.
These might be a touch optimistic (particularly FL and OH) but are pretty defensible...
Cornyn is losing the primary on all counts either to Hunt or Paxton, why are we still discussing him? He is deeply unpopular among Texan Republicans.
It's 2025, the primary is a long way off.
No way NC is likely D no matter who the nominees are. Cooper might make that race a tossup. TX is lean R for now, I suppose it could edge into tossup territory but it's hard to see that. These are waaaaay too optimistic, even for what I think will likely be a Dem wave year.
Just wanted to say wowza -- this is one of my first big comments on this site and the amount of engagement is crazy. Thank you guys! :)
Living in NC, I can't stress how much of a relief this is. And considering how ticked off Dems and independents are, there will be some state legislative flips too.
And I think Earls will not only win re-election, but she'll also have a more comfortable margin against the state legislator running against her.
I applaud all Judges who actually follow the law these days. If the ballots were legal on election day, they are legal. I am 💯 MAGA - and part of what makes America great is when our rule of law is BLIND as it was intended! Who cares who appointed him? Judges are SUPPOSED to be neutral! My opinion could change if more FACTS where presented, but not this nonsense of blaming everything on party affiliations. With the small amount of information here I hope Myles' ruling stands and NC GOP needs to get off their assets for the next election if they don't want their court flipped!
"Judges are SUPPOSED to be neutral! My opinion could change if more FACTS where presented, but not this nonsense of blaming everything on party affiliations."
Do you pay attention to NC politics? NC GOP is power hungry and will do everything to hold onto their power. They scrapped straight party ticket voting, made voting harder for Americans, made judicial races partisan again and the Republican majorities on the NC Court of Appeals and NC Supreme Court are doing the bidding of the GOP (rather than be independent and fair-minded).
Most of the GOP doesn't give a shit about the rule of law.
No, I admit I do not follow NC that closely- that's why I said if I had more facts my opinion could change. I in no way believe all GOP are good, as most people I know also do not believe that. Actions speak louder than party affiliation 😉. That's why I was agreeing that the Democrat who won should keep the position and not have some judge overturn the election. (Unless I read the article wrong?) Assuming all votes were valid on election day, and counted lawfully (which by what the judge's opinion I gather that to be true) - I want the person who was elected to take the position!
Interesting. I salute you for your post, but I'm quite confused that there could be someone who's 100% MAGA yet believes in rule of law. How do you square that?
I'm sure such people exist-they're the people who would prefer Vance to a third Trump term.
But according to rule of law, Trump should be in prison and never should have been able to run for office again. And in a larger sense, Trump has been a career criminal for decades, the very antithesis of rule of law.
I never said that viewpoint made sense.
Um, every MAGA I know believes in the rule of law and most importantly that it is applied equally to everyone. Real laws, nothing made up just to throw your enemies in jail. But all who break the law should face the appropriate consequences. No group is 100% the same of course, so I'm not saying you're never gonna find someone who claims to love America (MAGA) that says something I don't agree with. But that's ok. We value different points and ideas, and Facts. That's why (I think I said) more information could change my view.
And someone asked if I follow NC Politics- no, I do not. Which is why I said based on what was given in the article, that was my opinion. 🙂
Does every MAGA you know believe that a criminal conspiracy was committed on January 6, 2020, that all guilty of crimes on or in preparation for that day should have been prosecuted and punished to the extent of the law, and that it is wrong to pardon them?
Side note - ignorance of the law is not a defense. So yes they are still guilty of trespass- but they do not deserve years of solitary confinement for simply walking in and around, assuming they didn't damage or steal anything.
No-one who merely walked around was sentenced to years of solitary confinement, and I don't think you'll find people here who seriously think people should have been sentenced to years of solitary confinement for that. Can you cite an example?
If only MAGA had consistent beliefs that applied to EVERYONE, we’d be in a much better world, but the “laws for who we hate, but we don’t care if MAGA/Trump do it” selective hypocrisy you people continue to showcase on issue after issue among your cultic cabal make these words you speak ring the shallowest of the shallow. You are absolutely right, but your words mean literally less than nothing.
Call me when you start speaking out against Trump and Republicans for disobeying Trump appointed judge orders loudly on pro-GOP websites and your social media accounts even if it goes against what you want to happen, then we’ll talk. Or is law and order just another useful phrase you use to manipulate the uneducated people of America into voting for you? I’m pretty sure I know the answer to that.
Until then, nope, save it for someone dumb enough to believe you actually mean that and enjoy the coming blue tsunami wiping your party out in 2026 from top to bottom. The orange stain of your party will be washed away as if you never existed. Grab your popcorn. It’s going to be biblical! =D
IL-Sen/IL-2/IL-9: Robin Kelly is running in the U.S. Senate primary in Illinois, and Jan Schakowsky is not seeking re-election, so IL-Sen, IL-2, and IL-9 are all open seats.
The IL-2 Democratic primary might be very interesting, as, although it's a district that is based in the Chicago Southland region of the state, the district extends from the southeastern part of Chicago in Cook County to my hometown of Westville in Vermilion County. Potential IL-2 candidates include Mary Catherine Roberson, the 2018 Democratic nominee for Vermilion County Clerk who lost in a landslide but now works in Kelly's congressional office, as well a bunch of potential candidates from the Cook and Will County portions of the district that would take about ten hours for me to list. There are two media markets covering IL-2: Chicago, which contains most of the Democratic primary electorate and is an extremely expensive market to advertise in, and Champaign-Springfield, which covers the southern-most parts of the district. The district is dominated by the Chicago and Suburban Cook portions of the district, even though Iroquois, which is extremely Republican and provides very few Democratic primary votes, is the only county entirely in the district. If several Chicago-area candidates get in, a downstate-based candidate could win the primary with far less than a majority of the vote by running up a massive margin south of Interstate 80 against a split field of Chicago-area candidates.
IL-9's Democratic primary has already been interesting, with Kat Abughazaleh having outraised Schakowsky before the latter's retirement, although Abughazaleh will probably lose in a landslide to someone with more extensive ties to that part of the state, such as Daniel Biss or Laura Fine.
Sen. Robert Peters, a close ally of County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, is also a strong contender in IL-2 I'd imagine.
I'm still solidly behind Juliana Stratton. 💙🇺🇲
Clyburn honestly needs to go off that quote alone. What a b*tch
Some people die quickly if they don't have work to do. Clyburn has had a great career. Who are you to call him a bitch?
That’s the ONLY reason why I have ANY empathy with RBG.
Exactly. But her decision not to leave earlier had way more serious results than Clyburn staying is likely to have.
I don't see how that's relevant, the calls for RBG to retire started way before 2016.
She thought she could retire after Clinton won and be replaced by another progressive. She in her hubris did not retire during 2008-10, the only other period where she could have.
Edit: It was 2012-14, I got it wrong.
Yeah, Clyburn comes off as incredibly selfish and entitled in that quote. He is a public servant, but instead of pointing to some issue he's fighting for that justifies staying in public office even after he's aged out of leadership, he's just whining about having to give up his cushy lifestyle.
Crazy thing is he shouldn't even need to give up his cushy lifestyle! He's been in congress long enough to have a pension. If he's stuck only able to get by with his congressional salary then he made some big mistakes somewhere.
He's refusing to cede power.
He kind of comes off like a feudal lord who thinks it's up to him when to cede power.
More like a longtime Congressman who thinks he's earned the right to decide when to retire. You don't have to agree, but people like him are usually given that respect. There's a strong argument to be made that the margins in the House and the imminent threat to democracy dictate a different kind of thinking, but this is probably more the rule than the exception for members of Congress regarded as institutions in themselves.
I don't agree at all. Being a member of the House is a two year job, acting like it's some kind of lifetime appointment is straight up insulting.
If everyone left after 2 years, the lobbyists would rule even much more than they do now, so I think that's a really off the wall extremist point of view. On the other hand. I'm not saying he shouldn't retire now. In fact, I think that would be the most honorable thing for him to do. But the number of historical precedents behind his actions is innumerable. And he's done quite enough for it to be repugnant for anyone to call him a "bitch", which is also a gendered insult that means to belittle him as female. You didn't do that, but I think the level of vituperation against him should be toned down a little bit.
I get that thinking but it's a wholly selfish viewpoint for him and anyone else in that position.
Fact is that these jobs are at their core positions of public service. They exist to help steward the nation and its people in a direction that aligns with the values and enrichment (in all meanings of the word, not only financial) of its people. It is not a job that exists as a hobby or for the benefit of the people filling it. Staying in the position when they are sufficiently aged that they are not able to give it their all, that they are sufficiently divorced from the future needs of the nation and its people, that they are sufficiently divorced from the zeitgeist, should not be the norm. Should there be exceptions, people who are good choices despite that? Yes. But they should be exactly that: exceptions.
Yes, there's been a lot of backsliding on this with greed and disappointment abound. When someone like Clyburn sticks around for what seems like the reason of "I've done this as long as I can remember" it reflects poorly on him. If he was going around talking about it with less entitlement and more like he felt that for reasons XYZ that he was specifically suited to handle the challenges of the present era and that he felt he was still suited to the job it might be different.
Is there evidence that he's not able to give his all or is divorced from the needs of the people? I wouldn't overconclude from something he was quoted as saying on one occasion to mean that he's lost core values he's committed to working toward.
The big picture is Clyburn wants to be able to play kingmaker again in the next Presidential cycle. And given the way Biden was able to stack the primary map, it's extremely likely that Clyburn will get to.
That's even worse.
Bingo.
Does he have to be in the House to do that?
If Angus King III ends up as governor of Maine, while his father, Angus King, Jr. is senator, it would seem to be an unprecedented situation of simultaneous governor and senator from the same family. The closest - but still quite different - analogy might have occurred when Ted Kennedy was senator from Massachusetts and his niece Kathleen Kennedy Townsend served as lieutenant governor of Maryland.
Not unprecedented. Remember this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Murkowski
"Murkowski is the daughter of former U.S. senator and governor of Alaska Frank Murkowski. She was appointed to the Senate by her father, who resigned his seat in December 2002 to become Alaska's governor. Murkowski became the first Alaskan-born member of Congress and completed her father's unexpired Senate term, which ended in January 2005."
I remember nepotism being an issue in the 2004 Alaska Senate election. It’s one reason why Murkowski underperformed Bush significantly that year.
Another reason might be that she has always depended on the liberal vote to win and is not popular among the GOP base for her centrism.
I'm thinking that wasn't an issue until after she had a U.S. Senate record, but correct me if I'm wrong.
Coincidentally, she's now been in the senate just about as long as her father had been, probably exceeding his time? (I don't have the numbers of when Frank began his first term)
Frank was at just under 22 years and Lisa is past 22 now. There has been a Murkowski in that Senate seat since I was less than five months old.
Fun fact: A member of the Dingell family has served in Congress from Michigan continuously since 1933.
I also remember the two Georges: Herbert Walker and Walker.
But they did not serve simultaneously. Other non-simultaneous dynasties were those of the Adams Harrison, Roosevelt, Brown, Cheney, and Cuomo families.
The 2 Roosevelt presidents were from different parties, though and were distantly related.
But FDR and Congressman James Roosevelt II (D-CA) were both Democrats and father and son.
Ah, I had forgotten that.
IMO there could not be a stronger candidate than Brian Kemp for the GOP in 2028. Good news is that the Maga base is not fond of him because he is ideologically a Reagan Republican. Greg Abbott and Haley have a lot of baggage like the deaths due to their libertarian grid failure and failed 2024 run, banning confederate flags respectively.
Kemp may be a strong candidate for President, but R primary voters will want someone Trump-lite.
In general I agree with this statement, but I don't think he's really a Reagan Republican. He's pretty MAGA but just has general respect for laws, which (sadly) sets him apart from the rest of that crew.
Respect for laws – except for his proclivity to purge voter rolls to his advantage.
TEXAS VOTERS PUNISH BOOK BANNERS AT THE POLLS
Voters across Texas clearly and consistently punished the people who have been restricting students’ reading and learning. They delivered a message: Texans are sick of book bans, sick of attacks on educators and librarians, sick of leaders waging culture war battles at the expense of good governance.
https://franklinstrong.substack.com/p/texas-voters-punish-book-banners?utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true
Why are men so much more right-wing than women now?
>Don’t blame Joe Rogan too much — one theory says that the roots of this gender gap go back decades.
https://www.vox.com/politics/410419/political-divide-men-women-economics-policy
https://archive.ph/zTBis
My feeling is the sharp swing towards Trump with young men has a lot to do with Trump personally. Think about it, the entire cohort of male voters 18-25 went from adolescence into adulthood with a juvenile braggard getting away with outrageous things and never being held accountable as a role model.
When Trump used the defense "locker room talk", those 2024 voters were 10-17. If we made a pie chart of which demographics routinely engage in such talk, boys 10-17 would be an enormous slice.
The good thing though is that he has seen a sharp fall in approval even among Gen Z men in all polls except that Yale one which was hyped up by the media. If this admin is a failure and the next democratic administration is a success, Gen Z as a whole can become as liberal as Gen X became conservative due to the Reagan era.
Millennials became conservative due to the Reagan era?
I made another silly mistake lol. I meant Gen X.
your are allowed an unlimited # of such errors
You can edit your otherwise excellent post.
And that makes sense too, my theory includes the idea that this support is wide but shallow. Casting a vote for Trump in 2024 was the last act of adolescence for these young men who now actually have to live in the real world, I could see them shifting our way and the 18-25 cohort in 2028 will see Trump as a failed old man and probably not be as interested in whatever BS the Republicans put up next.
agree, they will flee the repub party like rats on a sinking ship when the POTUS nominee is some white bread run-of-the-mill repub dude....like Vance
Special feature for Vox members only. Is the gist that men want to reestablish dominance in all areas of life?
I use Brave browser, can't subscribe to them all.
https://archive.ph/zTBis : here's an archive today link.
Thank you. There are some things I like a lot about this article. However, we have to keep in mind that reactionary viewpoints are much less attractive to members of groups that did terribly in the past, notably Black people. That doesn't always prevent Black men, for example, from being reactionaries, but there is definitely a clear element among the men discussed in that essay of wanting to restore dominance over society, and that's stated in the article even if in a soft way, while the advancement of women seems overstated, as their salaries have never achieved parity with men's, they are certainly not close to parity among CEOs or in bodies like the Senate, and of course have never won a presidential election (not counting one popular vote victory). And we could go on.
Got a poll yesterday testing ex-House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler as a candidate against Ilhan Omar in MN-05. Not sure who sponsored it - I got positive and negative batteries for both candidates.
Is he running? Or just testing the waters for sharks? 😉
State Senator Laura Fine is officially running for IL-9 to succeed Schakowsky.
https://abc7chicago.com/post/illinois-state-senator-laura-fine-announces-run-congress-9th-district/16339314/
Trump approval poll - Michigan
🟤 Disapprove 56%
🟢 Approve 41%
EPIC MRA - LV - 5/3
Net approval rating (🟢 positive / 🔴 negative)
18-34
Trump: 🔴 -25% / Whitmer: 🟢 +42%
35-49:
Trump: 🔴 -15% / Whitmer: 🟢 +2%
50-64:
Trump: 🟢 +7% / Whitmer: 🟢 +1%
65+:
Trump 🔴 -8% / Whitmer: 🟢 +24%
Incredibly good poll for Whitmer, she has had her highest ever approval ratings in recent polls even before meeting with Trump.
and, remind me, did trump actually win MI 6 months ago?
Are you an election denier?
No, just wondering how in the world these same people could have voted for trump. It is not like they didn't know who he was.
Right. They voted wrong when it really counted.
Likely 2026 voters. Not the same voting pool.
https://www.mlive.com/politics/2025/05/trumps-immigration-policy-earns-highest-marks-in-michigan-poll-showing-overall-disapproval.html
Maybe but there's been a lot of swing since the honeymoon period too.
I think America is about to see a new kind of election denier: People who will vehemently deny that they ever voted for Trump.
Jeez! Does your girlfriend have a name? Or, is it Brilliant?
I would like to see viable Democratic candidates in Indiana.
For what offices?
Any and all! In 2024, Indiana did have strong candidates for governor in Jennifer McCormick and for attorney general in Destiny Wells. Both started early and garnered about 40% of the vote. We did not have strong Senate candidates in the primary, and thus not in that year's general election. Indiana's 2nd Congressional District did draw Lori Camp, who entered the race before the deadline before the primary because she was so frustrated that no candidate had emerged. She ran a determined campaign. There was no Democratic candidate in our state representative race. Many local races have people pulled in, like sacrificial lambs, to run AFTER the primary. That does not make for strong campaigns.
Part of what is needed is candidates who either are well known or can become well known. In red Indiana, that probably means running more than once after losing and continuing to speak publicly after the election to lay the groundwork for the next campaign.
Democratic candidates in Indiana need to reach out to the 60% of voting eligible people in Indiana who do not vote at all. Indiana Democrats also tend to focus on those who are already Democrats instead of seeking to expand the party. One of McCormick's strengths is that she was a Republican who, upon seeing how poorly Republicans were running the state and examining her own values, realized that the Democrats were more aligned with her views on fiscal responsibility and education.