Why are the Kochs throwing their weight behind the NC GOP's sacrificial lamb (Michael Whatley) when Roy Cooper is almost a shoo-in as the next U.S. Senator from NC?
I think it's Cooper's race to win if he runs a strong campaign, but he won't be able to win with no effort (example: all state-level Dems in California in 2022) which to me is the definition of a shoo-in race.
Agreed. I'll say post this for the third day in a row: I believe Cooper will win, but it will be a 52-47 race. He hasn't hit 50% in any poll despite being universally known and liked. NC is too inelastic for Dem blowouts unless the GOP nominee is truly vile (like the Gov race last year).
Agreed, although I would argue NC-Sen is one of the likeliest flips this cycle. Certainly easier than Ohio or Texas.
This does not guarantee Cooper a win, mind you, it just says that he is one of the best-positioned of our candidates targeting flip Senate seats to win.
I think the Left gets a lot of grief from the MSM for living in a bubble, but the Right is even more prone to it, since their $ shields them from facts and consequences. The Kochs probably feel like they can buy this one for Whatley, Trump, and the GOP in general. A Dem Senate is not good for them, and they think they can keep it from happening.
I'm looking at how dark money PACs like Americans for Prosperity can spend and spend -- but when GOP voters are angry at the GOP, they're either going to sit out the midterms entirely or vote against their own party.
It was a tilt R state because Rs have been fortunate to run in good or neutral cycles for the party. Since 2008, NC senate races have come up in two Obama midterms, an election Trump won, an election Trump barely lost, and a Biden midterm.
2028 will be heavily competitive, esp since Ted Budd only won his seat by 3 points in 2022. Had we had competent party leadership back then, he probably would've lost outright.
With competent leadership Dems would have knocked out Tillis in 2020 as well and probably kept those state Supreme Court seats from flipping. Biden probably gets over the hump as well.
I don't think you can blame 2020 on anyone other than Cunningham not being able to keep his pants on and then having no idea how to handle once he got caught.
Cooper is a stellar candidate with a history of wins but I don’t think we should presume any NC race is a slam dunk for the Dems…the right has seemingly bottomless cash reserves, they would be fools not to spend here.
Can guarantee Allred is needing to go negative in his House race because his internals have gone down after his stupid Senate intervention. Hoping it's enough for him to lose.
I don't know. This district seems like it'll have a crappy representative whoever it is, considering Johnson's situation mentioned in the Digest. I guess Zeeshan Hafeez is interesting but there's probably no way he'll even get 10%.
The Virginia supreme court just (1) agreed to take the case pertaining to Dems' gerrymander maneuver, (2) scheduled deadlines for briefs on April 13, (3) basically says the April 21 referendum can go forward in the meantime.
They still could strike down the map after the vote.
when are we going to dispense with this fantasy? it's never happened before and it's not magically going to start now. Swalwell has been leading most polls recently, Trump's approvals in CA are atrocious, and none of the R candidates are doing well in funding or endorsements.
I imagine one of the many Democrats will start to coalesce support, and the Dems can always spend to coalesce the GOP around a single candidate as well.
No, he has not led in most polls. He's been the top Dem in most polls, and in his internal, he was in second place, behind one Republican and ahead of a second Republican by 1 point.
People need to start taking this seriously. The two Republicans are combining for about ~35% of the vote, which is what you'd expect their total share to be. It is totally not inconceivable that Mahan, Swalwell, Steyer, and Porter all cluster around 14-16%, with the other Dems down below getting 2-5% each. And the egos are too immense to thin the field (for now).
A better strategy would be to get a 3rd Republican in the race somehow to siphon off even a few %.
Yeah, no, it's not happening. and Swalwell *has* led recent polls. just not all of them.
It *is* basically inconcievable in a Trump midterm, because there's no reason to assume some of the Dems won't drop out/pull ahead. I view the conversation about the miniscule risk of this happening as a form of Politico-esque concern trolling, and little more.
A top 2 lockout has historically happened when most politicos are in denial about it happening.
It isn't as much of a fantasy as people on Election Twitter and around these parts think. While the possibility is low, it is real enough that people should take a top 2 lockout seriously.
In this case, Bianco and Hilton do cater to somewhat different demographics within the CA GOP electorate (wealthy, Fox News addicted and more coastal/suburban Republicans vs. more inland/rural, more working class Republicans). That natural divide is why the both of them keep on getting the top 2 spots in polls--and also why other Republican candidates have not gotten traction so far.
If Swalwell coalesces endorsements or a third Republican gains traction, then the top 2 fears likely won't pan out. But right now, people should be paying attention to what the polls are saying.
Even if you assume a good chunk of the Undecided voters choose Democratic candidates in the end, if you redistribute that sample to Dems in some of these polls, Swalwell still doesn't get enough to break the top 2. So yeah, California Democrats should be paying attention and act a bit worried at this point.
I agree with this. It's better to be careful than not. The risk is low but real, and the costs of it are high. It's not exactly a hugely distracting effort to take this seriously and minimize the risk, so why shouldn't we do so? Most of the effort is in getting people to take the risk as real, as that's when voters are more likely to coalesce around the top dems.
Ideally there would also be a strong pressure campaign by influential parts of the party to get the candidates with no chance to drop out. Becerra, Villaraigosa, Steyer, and Yee all have no chance but are currently taking up ~20% of the polling combined. Even just one of them dropping out would do a lot of the work needed.
According to the Twin app (linked in another comment), having just Yee or Becerra drop out isn't enough. For the lower polling candidates, a couple of them have to drop out to mitigate the risk of a top two lockout.
Steyer is the only candidate where if he is removed, the top two lockout risk is mitigated. He's the one who could most easily drop out, too...but his ego seems to be getting in the way.
I agree Steyer is the least likely to drop out but the one who most "should" do so.
Using that link, what I see: if I drop just Becerra in the app with no other changes, the chance of an RvR top two drops in half, from ~11% to ~5%. For only Villaraigosa it's down to ~6%; Steyer ~3%; and Yee ~9%. I'd say apart from Yee those are all meaningful mitigations! Remove all 4 and there were zero simulation results with two republicans in the top two. If we can eliminate any two of them it's particularly substantial, going from a 1 in 9 chance to about 1 in 30 or less, simulated.
I don't want to pay attention to what polls are saying. They're a snapshot in time. Plenty of time for people more invested than I to resolve this.
Again, Trump's approval is in the gutter and it's California, not Michigan or North Carolina. No reason but histrionics to default to 'it's gonna be a top 2 lockout'.
a) Trump's approval rating has little to do with whether or not a top 2 lockout would occur. His approval rating could be 20%, and if the candidate dynamics in the race allowed it, a top 2 lockout could still occur. So, that's irrelevant.
b) The possibility of a top 2 lockout is inherent to the electoral system and the rules in place. That's why it could happen in California. If Michigan or NC had a top 2 voting system, top 2 lockouts could potentially happen there, too, with perhaps slightly more likelihood. But the state and its politics don't really matter.
I don't get why this is so hard for people to understand--whether or not a top 2 lockout occurs has everything to do with candidate dynamics and math and little to do with the political environment. That's precisely why it's so unfair.
Lock outs have happened in Washington, which is almost as Democratic as California. Granted it was a much lower profile race (state Treasurer) but it shows it can happen even in safe states under the right conditions.
When the top two system is scrapped. Never may apply to CA-Gov but See WA Treasuer 2016 race that Rs won through a lockout or the 2024 WA public lands commissioner race where the top Dem avoided an R-R lockout by 49 votes.
from my other reply to a similar comment: i think governor of california is a slightly different race and has more eyes on it than washington public lands commissioner
I think this race is slightly different from the three CA-Gov races run under the top two system (2014, 2018 and 2022) you don't have Jerry Brown or Gavin Newsom as the obvious frontrunner.
To be fair, this almost did happen in the Public Lands Commissioner race is Washington in 2024, although granted California is a few points more Democratic on average than Washington.
i think governor of california is a slightly different race and has more eyes on it than washington public lands commissioner. the dynamics are a bit different
Well, the poster above implied it was some wildly incorrect assertion and that's why we might get a top-two lockout. The point stands that it's a deep blue state that shouldn't have 2 GOP governor candidates.
I would like to point out that when top 2 lockouts have occurred at the district level in the past, people in the party that loses out have said your point #1 repeatedly up until it was too late to stop the lockout.
Have lots of time on your hands? Want to game out how likely it is for two R’s or two Dems to emerge from the top-two primary?
Political data expert Paul Mitchell has put online an election simulator to let campaign junkies game it out. You can enter or change variables, including polling data, campaign spending and the partisan make-up of the electorate. And one I like is that you can remove (uncheck) individual candidates (my equivalent of having them drop out). https://twins-production-9381.up.railway.app/
Clicking just now with the current data has the chance of an all-Dem top two as 6.6%; the chance of an all-R to two as 10.4%; and the chance of a R v. D top-two as 83%.
BTW, I just ran the simulator with no changes other than having the worst-polling Democrats removed (drop out or lose all support) keeping five Democrats. Chance of R's first and second? 1.4%. Democrats winning both? 21.7%.
"You know who doesn't think Dems will get locked out of #CAGov? Republicans. Politico reports that Steve Hilton has told the other GOP candidate, Chad Bianco, that they "decide who should step aside ... to avoid splitting the GOP vote."
That didn't work, so now they're hating on one another."
Quite honestly, in all fairness to the GOP, this top two primary system is utter BS. All political candidates in any party should have equal opportunity to run in the general election.
That said, Hilton’s full of himself. Not a smart move for him to talk with Bianco about this considering no current Democratic candidate out of the whole bunch has dropped out. Still 3+ months until the primary.
Democrats have veto proof majorities in the legislature, does getting locked out of the gubernatorial race make any impact on that? If anything, "divided government" voters will stick with their Democratic legislators.
Governors are not powerless, and do more than sign or veto legislation. Governor of California will have real consequences that cannot be papered over by a legislature disagreeing with them.
It depends on whether we’re talking about the Governor’s agenda vs the agenda of the party in control of the state legislature.
Providing somehow CA elects a Republican like Steve Hilton, he’s not going to be able to make much change in what he promises. He has power in how state government agencies respond to such issues as wildfires but when it comes to legislation, that’s where it gets complicated.
The Dem race will coalesce at some point. Maybe Swalwell against Porter, or maybe Swalwell against one of the others--or maybe two others altogether will rise to the top. The fact that the two leading Repubs are equally strong will works against either of them winning a spot in the general. There will end up being at least one Dem in the general, or maybe two, but whatever the case, the Dem will win. Repubs are hopeless in California, especially with Latinos coming home.
Why do you think the Dems will coalesce and not the Republicans? You have it exactly wrong — the fact that the two Republicans are equally strong (getting roughly 18% of the vote) is what makes this dicey. If one was far superior (and the split was 25% to 10%) there’d be no chance of a Dem lockout.
“Today, COURIER Newsroom, one of the fastest-growing independent news media networks and one of the largest news brands on TikTok in the United States, announced the launch of nine additional newsrooms in California, Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Utah. This expansion will add to the company’s network, which already consists of 11 state-based newsrooms and a national bureau.”
I’m very happy that an independent news company is growing at a time when legacy media refuse to report a fact as a fact and a lie as a lie. That said, this is a bizarre list of states to expand into without any geographical or partisan similarities. I wonder why these specific states were chosen.
foushee is the reason many of my former classmates that still live in durham/chapel hill don't vote straight democratic, they leave her spot on the ballot blank. don't really know much about her other than the unc law class of 2020 very much didn't like her
I don't leave my options blank. Foushee is a downgrade from David Price, but she's way more acceptable than a Republican. Allam by comparison feels more accessible and less standoff-ish than Foushee.
I voted for Allam absentee by mail last month. But whomever wins the Dem nomination next month will get my vote in November.
She is from the local establishment and a political dynasty. She got heavily boosted in the 2022 primary, which she won by 8 points, with millions from AIPAC and crypto donors. She denounced and cut off ties with AIPAC in August 2025, but her more left-leaning critics didn’t find that enough. Then NC Republicans changed her district boundaries, and it now has fewer African Americans and more first- and second-generation immigrants, which should conventionally favor Allam. She is a member of the CPC and the NDC, while Allam is more left-leaning and has politics similar to Maxwell Frost who is a friend of her.
"Lujan isn’t the only Democrat running statewide who will go unopposed. Republicans failed to put forth any names at all for the posts of treasurer and auditor, allowing the Democrats who hold both posts to stroll to second terms."
From an approval rating standpoint, I don’t think even Dubya was this unpopular at this point in his 2nd term, unless I’m mistaken.
I do recall though that when OH Governor Bob Taft finished his 2nd term as Governor, his approval ratings were even worse than Dubya’s. He left office with less than a 20% approval rating!
Oh boy, if Trump were to get Taft’s approval ratings that would be glorious.
There's also been a lot of calcification in partisan attitudes in the last 20 years. It's hard to go far below 40 in this day and age absent a recession. Trump's probably pretty close to his floor unless there's an economic downturn.
I used to buy the calcification theory. There is merit to it. I thought Trump's floor was low 40s. He is well below that now.
Maybe the theory is sound & I just miscalculated the floor. But there has always been a floor, somewhere.
I now think more along the lines, not of calcification, but more like a glacier. Both seem hardened & unyielding, but eventually the glacier can begin to melt.
I don't know that Gallup's decision is so sad. They gave up predicting presidential elections because their track record had been bad for a long time. How do we know their presidential approval numbers were accurate?
Election polling being off by small amounts can cause a disastrously inaccurate perspective. Approval polling being off by small amounts does not.
There is a huge difference between a 51-49 election coming in after a 49-51 poll; the error is only four points, but the outcome is wildly different. On the other hand, the difference between 51-49 approve and 49-51 approve is largely immaterial -- either way, the conclusion is that the person is roughly neutral.
Gallop's errors might have been too much for presidential elections, but for approval I think it was fine. From an analytical standpoint, the having data from a single source is hugely valuable, as you're removing the variance introduced by switching to different pollsters. We can largely compare like to like for historical data. Or we could, and will not be able to do so for the future since they stopped.
Bloomberg piece that says Alex Bores's claims to had quit Palantir over it's ICE work in 2019 coincides with a written warning from HR that week about "sexually explicit comments" that could proceed to disciplinary action if repeated, and that he didn't mention being opposed to ICE in his exit interview.
Bores 1) refutes that he had an offer letter for his new job unrelated to these allegations, 2) that he did complain about ICE in his exit interview and an anon current Palantir employee (lol) can confirm that and 3) says the comments were a dumb joke about a client who sold tissue paper.
If Bores is telling the truth about the "sexually explicit comments", it seems immaterial to me. But ofc using those words is enough of a scare tactic for many. I don't care about the exit interview thing at all. Also this is Palantir leaking, so that's suspect if not conspiratorial enough to think there are outright lies.
NEW: Former Nevada Assembly Majority Leader Teresa Benitez-Thompson (D), who is now chief of staff to Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, is "seriously considering" a run in #NV02.
This is big news in open NV congressional seat as TBT has a built-in northern base and would challenge self-funder Greg Kidd in Dem primary. It looked as if all the action would be on R side to fill
They probably have internal polling showing that it's at least fringe-competitive. Dems in that district typically do well to get multiple whodats or one serious candidate. Two serious candidates is unusual.
The Supreme Court of Canada annulled the results of a closely contested riding from last spring's election on Friday.
The ruling means that a new byelection will have to be called for the Montreal-area riding of Terrebonne.
The electoral district was initially declared for the Bloc Québécois, but a judicial recount later found the Liberals had won the seat by one vote.
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, the Bloc candidate, called on the courts to annul the results and call a new election after CBC News reported that a voter had their mail-in ballot returned to them due to a misprint on the return envelope.
The voter, Emmanuelle Bossé, had marked her ballot for the Bloc.
Elections Canada acknowledged the error but said the results had already been finalized.
That election was legitimately stolen from Democrats. The Democratic candidate was up by one vote after a recount. But then, Republicans found a ballot where the circles for both candidates had been filled in. It was an obvious overvote, and therefore should've been discarded, but Republicans got the most corrupt judge in Virginia to rule that somehow it was a vote for the Republican candidate (which "tied" the race).
So the picking names out of a hat should never have happened in the first place, since the Democrat actually won that election by one vote.
It wasn't a corrupt judge - it was a three judge panel. Yes, the circles through both candidates had been filled in but a slash was put through the Democrat's circle, indicating that it was a mistake. The rest of the ballot was straight GOP. I'm a Democrat, but saw the ballot (posted on the front page of local papers) and it looked to me as if the intent was a GOP vote. So unfortunately I agreed with the ruling.
IMO the slash doesn't matter. If both candidates' circles are filled in, then it's an overvote, period. If the voter made a mistake, the correct course of action is to ask the poll workers for a new ballot. But since they didn't do that, then the ballot was officially an overvote and therefore legally doesn't count.
State Sen. Brian Kavanagh is retiring. The race after may be one to watch -- former progressive State Assemb. and 2022 NY-10 candidate Yuh-Line Niou is running for the seat, and Niou's centrist State Assembly successor Grace Lee has indicated she may run too. Seeing as Lee had tried to primary Niou in the past (and Niou herself briefly tried to primary Kavanagh before the gerrymander blow up created the current NY-10), this race could get ugly.
Also, have you read this article? Niou is interviewed here and mentions at the time she had a fiancé who has ADHD. This was back in 2016 although still a good read.
Yes, I recall you’ve mentioned this before. Niou seems tenacious in her political ambitions, which is a good thing for the autistic community.
As someone with ADHD, what Niou described about her fiancé is spot on with many ADHDers. I haven’t dated a woman with autism before but there are certainly things to relate to if a couple otherwise personally gets along well.
"California Gov. Gavin Newsom is headlining a fundraiser for former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms’ bid for governor next weekend while he’s in Atlanta for his book tour. #gapol"
I'm not a huge Newsom fan but this seems like a standard for Presidential candidates we've invented out of thin air. All the Governors and Senators who ran in 2008 and 2020 and are going to run in 2028 do this type of stuff. Let's critique our candidates on real shortcomings, not imagined ones.
Newsom isn’t perfect but he had the balls to push our wavering party to fight back nationwide, state by state on redistricting when way too many Dem leaders seemed willing to “triangulate” with fascists.
I don't think it was bravery that caused Newsom to push for the redistricting initiative. If anything I'd say it was the exact opposite. Politically he is a weather vane, and will chase whatever he thinks the popular sentiment is at that time. It's the same reasoning behind Newsom inviting Charlie Kirk onto the very first episode of his podcast (started early 2025, post 2024 election), with Michael Savage as his second guest, and Steve Bannon as his third guest.
He is not someone we can count on to have "the balls" to do what needs to be done in the future, because whether or not he's willing to do it is entirely a result of what is most politically expedient for him.
I put a snark tag on my comment as I believe it may have been taken the wrong way. My comment was meant as snark to begin with.
That said, I want to emphasize this is about Newsom’s political career and ambitions, not on what I believe of him as a person. I believe he’s genuinely liberal but sometimes projects himself differently because of the Democratic Party machine and what’s needed of him at the given time.
However, criticism of him putting out the book now while he’s been doing a podcast for years and Newsom’s continued tendency to deflect criticism without confronting it head on is fair game. I’ve been doing this since Newsom was first Mayor and not a ton has changed about him.
We ought to scrutinize Newsom and any Democrats in general so they fight back harder and prove the GOP wrong, not just simply because of messaging and social media.
Yeah, that’s a problem. I have my issues with Eric Swalwell but I have not seen anything with his personal behavior that makes me question his judgment. Likewise, Katie Porter offers more than Newsom does. Her outburst(s) are minor to me as far as I’m concerned vs Newsom.
Why are the Kochs throwing their weight behind the NC GOP's sacrificial lamb (Michael Whatley) when Roy Cooper is almost a shoo-in as the next U.S. Senator from NC?
He’s not almost a shoo-in.
I think it's Cooper's race to win if he runs a strong campaign, but he won't be able to win with no effort (example: all state-level Dems in California in 2022) which to me is the definition of a shoo-in race.
I agree with this. Probably Likely D, but you should never rest on laurels in any state, especially a swing state.
If you’re resting on your laurels, you’re keeping ’em in the wrong place.
I'd argue for Lean D, just based on the relative partisanship of the state, but that's probably splitting hairs. Definitely not a shoo-in, though.
yes, he is.
Agreed. I'll say post this for the third day in a row: I believe Cooper will win, but it will be a 52-47 race. He hasn't hit 50% in any poll despite being universally known and liked. NC is too inelastic for Dem blowouts unless the GOP nominee is truly vile (like the Gov race last year).
Agreed, although I would argue NC-Sen is one of the likeliest flips this cycle. Certainly easier than Ohio or Texas.
This does not guarantee Cooper a win, mind you, it just says that he is one of the best-positioned of our candidates targeting flip Senate seats to win.
I think the Left gets a lot of grief from the MSM for living in a bubble, but the Right is even more prone to it, since their $ shields them from facts and consequences. The Kochs probably feel like they can buy this one for Whatley, Trump, and the GOP in general. A Dem Senate is not good for them, and they think they can keep it from happening.
I'm looking at how dark money PACs like Americans for Prosperity can spend and spend -- but when GOP voters are angry at the GOP, they're either going to sit out the midterms entirely or vote against their own party.
Nine months before the election is a little too early to claim victory.
NC is a toss-up or even tilt-R state, particularly in federal elections. While we have a great candidate, this will be a tough race.
It was a tilt R state because Rs have been fortunate to run in good or neutral cycles for the party. Since 2008, NC senate races have come up in two Obama midterms, an election Trump won, an election Trump barely lost, and a Biden midterm.
2028 will be heavily competitive, esp since Ted Budd only won his seat by 3 points in 2022. Had we had competent party leadership back then, he probably would've lost outright.
With competent leadership Dems would have knocked out Tillis in 2020 as well and probably kept those state Supreme Court seats from flipping. Biden probably gets over the hump as well.
I don't think you can blame 2020 on anyone other than Cunningham not being able to keep his pants on and then having no idea how to handle once he got caught.
Cunningham lost because Biden lost the state.
IOW, Democrats haven't won a statewide federal election in NC since 2008. Tilt R is generous.
NC hasn't had a statewide federal election in a blue wave year since 2008.
Cooper is a stellar candidate with a history of wins but I don’t think we should presume any NC race is a slam dunk for the Dems…the right has seemingly bottomless cash reserves, they would be fools not to spend here.
There is only one Koch remaining. Charles is still alive, but David died in 2019.
MD-05: Yesterday, Charles County Commissioner President Reuben Collins filed to run https://www.elections.maryland.gov/elections/2026/primary_candidates/gen_cand_lists_2026_4_5.html
Posted this last night but thanks for doing it again
Can guarantee Allred is needing to go negative in his House race because his internals have gone down after his stupid Senate intervention. Hoping it's enough for him to lose.
He can't stop whining and calling Talarico racist on podcasts. Johnson should also go negative on him for his votes for the Laken Riley Act etc.
At this point, I’d rather support Julie Johnson in the race instead of Colin Allred. This accusation of racism crap is really pissing me off.
I don't know. This district seems like it'll have a crappy representative whoever it is, considering Johnson's situation mentioned in the Digest. I guess Zeeshan Hafeez is interesting but there's probably no way he'll even get 10%.
Whoever represents TX-33 I am not going to be critical of as long as constituents vote their conscience.
Allred really ought to be ashamed of himself. If President Obama never did this, why should Allred do it? What is he looking to gain?
I'm bummed about this because I have always liked Allred, and thought he had a bright future, but yeah I agree - I'm pretty much done with him.
We can only hope
VA Supreme Court lets redistricting go forward https://x.com/bluevirginia/status/2022338686868930822?s=20
Here's hoping the amendment passes in April...if last year's statewide races are any indication, it will
Though they didn't stay the Tazewell County judge's order, this is a good sign.
The Virginia supreme court just (1) agreed to take the case pertaining to Dems' gerrymander maneuver, (2) scheduled deadlines for briefs on April 13, (3) basically says the April 21 referendum can go forward in the meantime.
They still could strike down the map after the vote.
For sure, but I don't know why they would allow it to go forward if they plan to kill it. Usually this is a sign that the challenge will succeed.
It's hard for a neutral court to overturn the will of the voters
The Nation’s Most Democratic State Might Elect a Trump-Friendly Governor
California’s nonpartisan primary pits eight Democrats against two Republicans; only the top two finishers advance. Do the math.
https://prospect.org/2026/02/09/california-nations-most-democratic-state-might-elect-trump-friendly-governor/
when are we going to dispense with this fantasy? it's never happened before and it's not magically going to start now. Swalwell has been leading most polls recently, Trump's approvals in CA are atrocious, and none of the R candidates are doing well in funding or endorsements.
It get clicks
I imagine one of the many Democrats will start to coalesce support, and the Dems can always spend to coalesce the GOP around a single candidate as well.
No need to spend, probably. We're not about to elect a MAGA candidate, which both of the leading Repubs are, under any circumstances.
THe spending is to ensure the other candidate can't make the runoff over the top democrat.
No, he has not led in most polls. He's been the top Dem in most polls, and in his internal, he was in second place, behind one Republican and ahead of a second Republican by 1 point.
People need to start taking this seriously. The two Republicans are combining for about ~35% of the vote, which is what you'd expect their total share to be. It is totally not inconceivable that Mahan, Swalwell, Steyer, and Porter all cluster around 14-16%, with the other Dems down below getting 2-5% each. And the egos are too immense to thin the field (for now).
A better strategy would be to get a 3rd Republican in the race somehow to siphon off even a few %.
Yeah, no, it's not happening. and Swalwell *has* led recent polls. just not all of them.
It *is* basically inconcievable in a Trump midterm, because there's no reason to assume some of the Dems won't drop out/pull ahead. I view the conversation about the miniscule risk of this happening as a form of Politico-esque concern trolling, and little more.
Yes, absolutely. We have enough real things to worry about. We don't have to worry about this.
A top 2 lockout has historically happened when most politicos are in denial about it happening.
It isn't as much of a fantasy as people on Election Twitter and around these parts think. While the possibility is low, it is real enough that people should take a top 2 lockout seriously.
In this case, Bianco and Hilton do cater to somewhat different demographics within the CA GOP electorate (wealthy, Fox News addicted and more coastal/suburban Republicans vs. more inland/rural, more working class Republicans). That natural divide is why the both of them keep on getting the top 2 spots in polls--and also why other Republican candidates have not gotten traction so far.
If Swalwell coalesces endorsements or a third Republican gains traction, then the top 2 fears likely won't pan out. But right now, people should be paying attention to what the polls are saying.
Even if you assume a good chunk of the Undecided voters choose Democratic candidates in the end, if you redistribute that sample to Dems in some of these polls, Swalwell still doesn't get enough to break the top 2. So yeah, California Democrats should be paying attention and act a bit worried at this point.
I agree with this. It's better to be careful than not. The risk is low but real, and the costs of it are high. It's not exactly a hugely distracting effort to take this seriously and minimize the risk, so why shouldn't we do so? Most of the effort is in getting people to take the risk as real, as that's when voters are more likely to coalesce around the top dems.
Ideally there would also be a strong pressure campaign by influential parts of the party to get the candidates with no chance to drop out. Becerra, Villaraigosa, Steyer, and Yee all have no chance but are currently taking up ~20% of the polling combined. Even just one of them dropping out would do a lot of the work needed.
According to the Twin app (linked in another comment), having just Yee or Becerra drop out isn't enough. For the lower polling candidates, a couple of them have to drop out to mitigate the risk of a top two lockout.
Steyer is the only candidate where if he is removed, the top two lockout risk is mitigated. He's the one who could most easily drop out, too...but his ego seems to be getting in the way.
I agree Steyer is the least likely to drop out but the one who most "should" do so.
Using that link, what I see: if I drop just Becerra in the app with no other changes, the chance of an RvR top two drops in half, from ~11% to ~5%. For only Villaraigosa it's down to ~6%; Steyer ~3%; and Yee ~9%. I'd say apart from Yee those are all meaningful mitigations! Remove all 4 and there were zero simulation results with two republicans in the top two. If we can eliminate any two of them it's particularly substantial, going from a 1 in 9 chance to about 1 in 30 or less, simulated.
This quote nails the situation perfectly:
"The risk is low but real, and the costs of it are high."
I am always impressed with your ability to summarize a situation succinctly. It's helpful on these boards.
Thanks! I often feel like I am the exact opposite of succinct, so it's nice to hear that I can, even if by accident, be good at it.
I don't want to pay attention to what polls are saying. They're a snapshot in time. Plenty of time for people more invested than I to resolve this.
Again, Trump's approval is in the gutter and it's California, not Michigan or North Carolina. No reason but histrionics to default to 'it's gonna be a top 2 lockout'.
a) Trump's approval rating has little to do with whether or not a top 2 lockout would occur. His approval rating could be 20%, and if the candidate dynamics in the race allowed it, a top 2 lockout could still occur. So, that's irrelevant.
b) The possibility of a top 2 lockout is inherent to the electoral system and the rules in place. That's why it could happen in California. If Michigan or NC had a top 2 voting system, top 2 lockouts could potentially happen there, too, with perhaps slightly more likelihood. But the state and its politics don't really matter.
I don't get why this is so hard for people to understand--whether or not a top 2 lockout occurs has everything to do with candidate dynamics and math and little to do with the political environment. That's precisely why it's so unfair.
It's not that I don't understand, it's that I don't agree.
If you understand what I'm saying, then why bring up Trump's approval rating?
At any rate, we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out. Hopefully, some candidates drop out soon, rendering this debate moot.
Lock outs have happened in Washington, which is almost as Democratic as California. Granted it was a much lower profile race (state Treasurer) but it shows it can happen even in safe states under the right conditions.
Sure, doesn't mean it will happen here.
CADems convention is in a few weeks, imagine some folks will bow out after that.
yeah it feels rather insane to me to assert that there will be zero field consolidation between now and the primary.
When the top two system is scrapped. Never may apply to CA-Gov but See WA Treasuer 2016 race that Rs won through a lockout or the 2024 WA public lands commissioner race where the top Dem avoided an R-R lockout by 49 votes.
from my other reply to a similar comment: i think governor of california is a slightly different race and has more eyes on it than washington public lands commissioner
I think this race is slightly different from the three CA-Gov races run under the top two system (2014, 2018 and 2022) you don't have Jerry Brown or Gavin Newsom as the obvious frontrunner.
That doesn't mean it's going to happen this time.
To be fair, this almost did happen in the Public Lands Commissioner race is Washington in 2024, although granted California is a few points more Democratic on average than Washington.
i think governor of california is a slightly different race and has more eyes on it than washington public lands commissioner. the dynamics are a bit different
How is he leading? He’s still behind both the R candidates and is in a virtual tie with Porter.
Agreed - while Top 2 does set us up for a potential own goal situation, I would be pretty shocked if it happened in a statewide race.
1: It won't happen. There will be one or two Dems who gobble up the others' supporters as we get close to election day.
2: California's decidedly not the most Democratic state. It's barely Top 5. Behind Vermont, Maryland, Massachusetts and Hawaii.
That's a bit semantic. It's one of the top 5, no question.
It's either semantics or it's "top 5 no question", I'm not sure it can be both.
Well, the poster above implied it was some wildly incorrect assertion and that's why we might get a top-two lockout. The point stands that it's a deep blue state that shouldn't have 2 GOP governor candidates.
Sure, no question there
I would like to point out that when top 2 lockouts have occurred at the district level in the past, people in the party that loses out have said your point #1 repeatedly up until it was too late to stop the lockout.
And Vermont has a Republican governor and so did Maryland and Massachusetts very recently and the world didn't end.
Have lots of time on your hands? Want to game out how likely it is for two R’s or two Dems to emerge from the top-two primary?
Political data expert Paul Mitchell has put online an election simulator to let campaign junkies game it out. You can enter or change variables, including polling data, campaign spending and the partisan make-up of the electorate. And one I like is that you can remove (uncheck) individual candidates (my equivalent of having them drop out). https://twins-production-9381.up.railway.app/
Clicking just now with the current data has the chance of an all-Dem top two as 6.6%; the chance of an all-R to two as 10.4%; and the chance of a R v. D top-two as 83%.
BTW, I just ran the simulator with no changes other than having the worst-polling Democrats removed (drop out or lose all support) keeping five Democrats. Chance of R's first and second? 1.4%. Democrats winning both? 21.7%.
I'm going to quote an obscure source for this group here, a site called The Downballot.
https://bsky.app/profile/the-downballot.com/post/3meltfh566k2x
"You know who doesn't think Dems will get locked out of #CAGov? Republicans. Politico reports that Steve Hilton has told the other GOP candidate, Chad Bianco, that they "decide who should step aside ... to avoid splitting the GOP vote."
That didn't work, so now they're hating on one another."
Quite honestly, in all fairness to the GOP, this top two primary system is utter BS. All political candidates in any party should have equal opportunity to run in the general election.
That said, Hilton’s full of himself. Not a smart move for him to talk with Bianco about this considering no current Democratic candidate out of the whole bunch has dropped out. Still 3+ months until the primary.
Two things can be true
1) It is not likely
2) A stupid system that makes this a possibility should be scrapped.
The majorities in the legislature are impenetrable, who cares?
The Titanic is unsinkable, who cares? =P
Democrats have veto proof majorities in the legislature, does getting locked out of the gubernatorial race make any impact on that? If anything, "divided government" voters will stick with their Democratic legislators.
Governors are not powerless, and do more than sign or veto legislation. Governor of California will have real consequences that cannot be papered over by a legislature disagreeing with them.
Governors have limited powers. And it's hard for me to see an accidental Republican incumbent governor win reelection four years from now.
It depends on whether we’re talking about the Governor’s agenda vs the agenda of the party in control of the state legislature.
Providing somehow CA elects a Republican like Steve Hilton, he’s not going to be able to make much change in what he promises. He has power in how state government agencies respond to such issues as wildfires but when it comes to legislation, that’s where it gets complicated.
The Dem race will coalesce at some point. Maybe Swalwell against Porter, or maybe Swalwell against one of the others--or maybe two others altogether will rise to the top. The fact that the two leading Repubs are equally strong will works against either of them winning a spot in the general. There will end up being at least one Dem in the general, or maybe two, but whatever the case, the Dem will win. Repubs are hopeless in California, especially with Latinos coming home.
Why do you think the Dems will coalesce and not the Republicans? You have it exactly wrong — the fact that the two Republicans are equally strong (getting roughly 18% of the vote) is what makes this dicey. If one was far superior (and the split was 25% to 10%) there’d be no chance of a Dem lockout.
“Today, COURIER Newsroom, one of the fastest-growing independent news media networks and one of the largest news brands on TikTok in the United States, announced the launch of nine additional newsrooms in California, Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Utah. This expansion will add to the company’s network, which already consists of 11 state-based newsrooms and a national bureau.”
https://couriernewsroom.com/news/courier-is-expanding-its-footprint-to-20-states-in-2026/
I’m very happy that an independent news company is growing at a time when legacy media refuse to report a fact as a fact and a lie as a lie. That said, this is a bizarre list of states to expand into without any geographical or partisan similarities. I wonder why these specific states were chosen.
Bernie is throwing his weight behind Nida Allam, he's visiting the Triangle to boost turnout in her primarying my state House Rep Valerie Foushee.
https://www.wral.com/news/local/bernie-sanders-nida-allam-durham-visit-feb-2026/
foushee is the reason many of my former classmates that still live in durham/chapel hill don't vote straight democratic, they leave her spot on the ballot blank. don't really know much about her other than the unc law class of 2020 very much didn't like her
I don't leave my options blank. Foushee is a downgrade from David Price, but she's way more acceptable than a Republican. Allam by comparison feels more accessible and less standoff-ish than Foushee.
I voted for Allam absentee by mail last month. But whomever wins the Dem nomination next month will get my vote in November.
What's the issue with Foushee?
She is from the local establishment and a political dynasty. She got heavily boosted in the 2022 primary, which she won by 8 points, with millions from AIPAC and crypto donors. She denounced and cut off ties with AIPAC in August 2025, but her more left-leaning critics didn’t find that enough. Then NC Republicans changed her district boundaries, and it now has fewer African Americans and more first- and second-generation immigrants, which should conventionally favor Allam. She is a member of the CPC and the NDC, while Allam is more left-leaning and has politics similar to Maxwell Frost who is a friend of her.
Thanks, that's helpful. Not saying I agree, mind you, but appreciate the explanation.
What are the other 2 (from headline)
"Lujan isn’t the only Democrat running statewide who will go unopposed. Republicans failed to put forth any names at all for the posts of treasurer and auditor, allowing the Democrats who hold both posts to stroll to second terms."
Thanks. I missed that
TX-Sen GOP Primary poll:
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2022395272920523035
📊 Texas Senate Republican Primary
Ken Paxton — 36%
John Cornyn — 27%
Wesley Hunt — 15%
Not sure: 22%
If no candidate gets >50%, runoff between top two is on May 26th
——
• Commissioned by Pro- Paxton group
• Pulse Decision Science | 2/8-11 | 800 LV
Trump approval starting to hit mid 30’s in more than 1 poll:
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2021956759426945333
AP/NORC - Trump Approval
Approve: 36% (-4)
Disapprove: 62% (+3)
——
Trump's net approval on key issues
🟤 Economy: -20
🟤 Immigration: -22 (was -2 in May)
——
Feb. 2/5-8 | 1,156 A
From an approval rating standpoint, I don’t think even Dubya was this unpopular at this point in his 2nd term, unless I’m mistaken.
I do recall though that when OH Governor Bob Taft finished his 2nd term as Governor, his approval ratings were even worse than Dubya’s. He left office with less than a 20% approval rating!
Oh boy, if Trump were to get Taft’s approval ratings that would be glorious.
Based on Gallup Bush was at about the same spot in Feb 2006: mid-high 30s. He got even less popular at his nadir, reaching a low of 25 approve. Early 2006 disapprove was lower, mid-high 50s. https://news.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx
The consistency of the data and availability makes Gallup ending their approval polls extra disappointing.
There's also been a lot of calcification in partisan attitudes in the last 20 years. It's hard to go far below 40 in this day and age absent a recession. Trump's probably pretty close to his floor unless there's an economic downturn.
I used to buy the calcification theory. There is merit to it. I thought Trump's floor was low 40s. He is well below that now.
Maybe the theory is sound & I just miscalculated the floor. But there has always been a floor, somewhere.
I now think more along the lines, not of calcification, but more like a glacier. Both seem hardened & unyielding, but eventually the glacier can begin to melt.
Trump's support is melting.
I don't know that Gallup's decision is so sad. They gave up predicting presidential elections because their track record had been bad for a long time. How do we know their presidential approval numbers were accurate?
Election polling being off by small amounts can cause a disastrously inaccurate perspective. Approval polling being off by small amounts does not.
There is a huge difference between a 51-49 election coming in after a 49-51 poll; the error is only four points, but the outcome is wildly different. On the other hand, the difference between 51-49 approve and 49-51 approve is largely immaterial -- either way, the conclusion is that the person is roughly neutral.
Gallop's errors might have been too much for presidential elections, but for approval I think it was fine. From an analytical standpoint, the having data from a single source is hugely valuable, as you're removing the variance introduced by switching to different pollsters. We can largely compare like to like for historical data. Or we could, and will not be able to do so for the future since they stopped.
Bloomberg piece that says Alex Bores's claims to had quit Palantir over it's ICE work in 2019 coincides with a written warning from HR that week about "sexually explicit comments" that could proceed to disciplinary action if repeated, and that he didn't mention being opposed to ICE in his exit interview.
Bores 1) refutes that he had an offer letter for his new job unrelated to these allegations, 2) that he did complain about ICE in his exit interview and an anon current Palantir employee (lol) can confirm that and 3) says the comments were a dumb joke about a client who sold tissue paper.
If Bores is telling the truth about the "sexually explicit comments", it seems immaterial to me. But ofc using those words is enough of a scare tactic for many. I don't care about the exit interview thing at all. Also this is Palantir leaking, so that's suspect if not conspiratorial enough to think there are outright lies.
https://archive.ph/idBc0
So, basically, dishonest behavior from a Peter Thiel-run AI company that we know opposes this guy?
Typical. Fuck AI.
We may have a primary battle in NV-02:
https://x.com/MiniRacker/status/2022453040369049768
NEW: Former Nevada Assembly Majority Leader Teresa Benitez-Thompson (D), who is now chief of staff to Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, is "seriously considering" a run in #NV02.
Jon Ralston (the NV guru) take:
https://x.com/RalstonReports/status/2022453929897005071
This is big news in open NV congressional seat as TBT has a built-in northern base and would challenge self-funder Greg Kidd in Dem primary. It looked as if all the action would be on R side to fill
@MarkAmodeiNV2's seat. Not so.
Still uphill climb for any Dem in this district.
The fact that a candidate with this base is even running is a really good sign. Especially given the issues the NV Dems have been having.
They probably have internal polling showing that it's at least fringe-competitive. Dems in that district typically do well to get multiple whodats or one serious candidate. Two serious candidates is unusual.
She hasn’t announced a run yet, just to be clear.
Still, that she’s considering is itself a good sign. Were this a bad or even neutral year, she likely wouldn’t have even bothered considering.
The D primary might actually be the more interesting one here. The R side could be a real snoozefest if Brown gets in.
Never let anyone tell you that one vote cannot make a difference. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/terrebonne-tatiana-auguste-supreme-court-result-9.7088850
The Supreme Court of Canada annulled the results of a closely contested riding from last spring's election on Friday.
The ruling means that a new byelection will have to be called for the Montreal-area riding of Terrebonne.
The electoral district was initially declared for the Bloc Québécois, but a judicial recount later found the Liberals had won the seat by one vote.
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, the Bloc candidate, called on the courts to annul the results and call a new election after CBC News reported that a voter had their mail-in ballot returned to them due to a misprint on the return envelope.
The voter, Emmanuelle Bossé, had marked her ballot for the Bloc.
Elections Canada acknowledged the error but said the results had already been finalized.
I still remember the Virginia election that got decided by a coin toss. Every vote counts.
If you're thinking of the 2017 one, that wasn't a special election, and also decided the control of the House of Delegates
Oh whoops. Misremembered
That election was legitimately stolen from Democrats. The Democratic candidate was up by one vote after a recount. But then, Republicans found a ballot where the circles for both candidates had been filled in. It was an obvious overvote, and therefore should've been discarded, but Republicans got the most corrupt judge in Virginia to rule that somehow it was a vote for the Republican candidate (which "tied" the race).
So the picking names out of a hat should never have happened in the first place, since the Democrat actually won that election by one vote.
It wasn't a corrupt judge - it was a three judge panel. Yes, the circles through both candidates had been filled in but a slash was put through the Democrat's circle, indicating that it was a mistake. The rest of the ballot was straight GOP. I'm a Democrat, but saw the ballot (posted on the front page of local papers) and it looked to me as if the intent was a GOP vote. So unfortunately I agreed with the ruling.
IMO the slash doesn't matter. If both candidates' circles are filled in, then it's an overvote, period. If the voter made a mistake, the correct course of action is to ask the poll workers for a new ballot. But since they didn't do that, then the ballot was officially an overvote and therefore legally doesn't count.
Decided to share an interesting state legislative race in NY.
NY-SD-27:
https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2026/02/brian-kavanagh-wont-seek-reelection-state-senate/411176/?oref=csny-category-lander-river
State Sen. Brian Kavanagh is retiring. The race after may be one to watch -- former progressive State Assemb. and 2022 NY-10 candidate Yuh-Line Niou is running for the seat, and Niou's centrist State Assembly successor Grace Lee has indicated she may run too. Seeing as Lee had tried to primary Niou in the past (and Niou herself briefly tried to primary Kavanagh before the gerrymander blow up created the current NY-10), this race could get ugly.
I am supporting Niou. I like her and Lee is a close ally of Jeffries and Goldman.
Ditto. I like her.
Her opponent being a close ally of Jeffries is enough for me to prefer Niou in a primary.
Good to see Yuh-Line Niou running again.
Also, have you read this article? Niou is interviewed here and mentions at the time she had a fiancé who has ADHD. This was back in 2016 although still a good read.
https://thepoliticalstudent.com/2016/06/we-put-the-able-in-disabled-local-politician-yuh-line-niou-on-autism-spectrum-disorder/
I know she is autistic herself (as I am) -- I'll have to read the article when I get a chance.
Yes, I recall you’ve mentioned this before. Niou seems tenacious in her political ambitions, which is a good thing for the autistic community.
As someone with ADHD, what Niou described about her fiancé is spot on with many ADHDers. I haven’t dated a woman with autism before but there are certainly things to relate to if a couple otherwise personally gets along well.
"California Gov. Gavin Newsom is headlining a fundraiser for former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms’ bid for governor next weekend while he’s in Atlanta for his book tour. #gapol"
https://x.com/bluestein/status/2022426756888875350
Can’t Newsom just focus on the job of being Governor for once?
No he can’t! He’s a celebrity! /s
EDIT: My comment was originally meant as snark but I neglected to put the snark tag out there.
I'm not a huge Newsom fan but this seems like a standard for Presidential candidates we've invented out of thin air. All the Governors and Senators who ran in 2008 and 2020 and are going to run in 2028 do this type of stuff. Let's critique our candidates on real shortcomings, not imagined ones.
The real shortcoming might be his judgment.
Like, say, his ex-wife?
Hehehe
Newsom isn’t perfect but he had the balls to push our wavering party to fight back nationwide, state by state on redistricting when way too many Dem leaders seemed willing to “triangulate” with fascists.
I don't think it was bravery that caused Newsom to push for the redistricting initiative. If anything I'd say it was the exact opposite. Politically he is a weather vane, and will chase whatever he thinks the popular sentiment is at that time. It's the same reasoning behind Newsom inviting Charlie Kirk onto the very first episode of his podcast (started early 2025, post 2024 election), with Michael Savage as his second guest, and Steve Bannon as his third guest.
He is not someone we can count on to have "the balls" to do what needs to be done in the future, because whether or not he's willing to do it is entirely a result of what is most politically expedient for him.
I put a snark tag on my comment as I believe it may have been taken the wrong way. My comment was meant as snark to begin with.
That said, I want to emphasize this is about Newsom’s political career and ambitions, not on what I believe of him as a person. I believe he’s genuinely liberal but sometimes projects himself differently because of the Democratic Party machine and what’s needed of him at the given time.
However, criticism of him putting out the book now while he’s been doing a podcast for years and Newsom’s continued tendency to deflect criticism without confronting it head on is fair game. I’ve been doing this since Newsom was first Mayor and not a ton has changed about him.
We ought to scrutinize Newsom and any Democrats in general so they fight back harder and prove the GOP wrong, not just simply because of messaging and social media.
I appreciate his fighting, but I still consider him a man of poor character because of his personal behavior.
Yeah, that’s a problem. I have my issues with Eric Swalwell but I have not seen anything with his personal behavior that makes me question his judgment. Likewise, Katie Porter offers more than Newsom does. Her outburst(s) are minor to me as far as I’m concerned vs Newsom.
Why is he supporting Buttons?
Why not support Esteves then?
Path of least resistance.
His calculation that this helps him further down the road if she wins. Her being one of the weaker candidates in the field be damned.
That's irresponsible.
What's irresponsible?
Endorsing someone who's likely to lose on the basis anonymouse stated. Presuming that that's actually his calculus.
I guess that’s not his political judgment. We’ll find out if he’s right.
I doubt it is the case but I could be mistaken.
No open/weekend thread?
Maybe today? It is a holiday on Monday, so no digest
Maybe today? 😁
This is the weekend thread it appears :)