Long Island these days is pretty tough territory for Dems. It’s basically North Florida and very MAGA Bruce Blakeman won in a landslide there last year when there was blue wave everywhere else.
I see. I know the district is vulnerable and swingy. Did my own research and, if an old Primary School issue is to be believed, Darling is also despised by progressives to the point that state Party chair and opponent of progressives Jay Jacobs united with the left to stop her State Senate bid.
I have to imagine there is some concern amongst Long Island Dems about Blakeman as nominee. He did very well in Nassau county last year and I believe he’ll carry it against Hochul this year. Dems will need a lot of split tickets between federal/state and a more progressive candidate might have a harder time achieving that.
This is about 2025 - Blakeman has been one of the only Republicans in the country to overperform the 2024 Trump margins, and it happened at the same time nearby NYC elected a progressive mayor. If him winning re-election in 2025 is any indicator, then he'll carry Nassau and potentially give Gillen competition.
I’m saying Long Island is the Florida of the North basically in its voters and trends. There’s also some longstanding racial animosity and anti immigrant sentiments in Long Island for decades now that make it ripe for MAGA.
Oh boy, is this because Aunt Jemima, the Indians, the Redskins, Uncle Ben, and Cream 'o Wheat iconography didn't come back? I am uncomfortable with change and even I think the bellyaching over that is ridiculous (even when putting aside the issues that made them all go away in the first place).
Or is he angry that Trump won't issue the order to "cut down the tall trees" and "exterminate the cockroaches?"
Much of modern conservative motivations are about avenging the perceived excesses of the past 15 or so years. To them, not being able to go to California Pizza Kitchen in March of 2020 or hearing a land acknowledgment in 2015 are all deserving of the death penalty.
They also don't understand the causality. "Woke" became popular during Trump's term as a cultural backlash to him, peaking in 2019-2020. Then, there was a backlash to "woke" during Biden.
The not understanding logical causality also extends to Trump. He thought Henry Cuellar was indicted by the Biden DOJ for being a Dem who dissented on some major issues with the administration because it was something Trump would do in Biden's shoes.
How familiar are you with the long, horrific history of racist iconography in the U.S.? My father collected 19th-century American books and prints with comic illustrations, many of them racist, so I'm very much aware of the tradition and therefore do not think "the bellyaching over that is ridiculous."
I wouldn't be surprised if we flipped TX-15 either if the hispanic swings have not been flukes. There's reason to think they're not flukes. We keep seeing them all over the country.
Gen Z man here, this makes me feel a little better. I've been worried about the right-wing surge among my generational group -- let's hope this retreat sticks.
Nothing sticks in the U.S. except the persistence of racism and the tenacity of the super-rich and their corporations and foundations that subvert democracy. OK, I'm in a dark mood this morning and will try not to make any additional similar comments now.
These types of statistics are probably flawed and work better if you actually speak to Gen Z men in your own life, too - from a fellow Gen Z guy. I grew up and live in an ultraconservative area, but most people like me that I talk to don't buy into it.
But will they remember any of this in 2032? The American people suffered under G.W. Bush and the first term of Trump but after the stolen election of 2000, American voters have kept on asking for more punishment when the Democrats were hounded in the media. So sure, these folks seem all wise now, but there's no long-term basis on which to try to rebuild anyone's confidence in the United States. Sorry not to react entirely positively to people reacting negatively to Republicans based on only a worm's-eye view.
I think each geneartion has its squirrel brain/what is happening now cohort that blows in the wind but I think it is clear some impressions stick with large chunks of each generation. Late Xers/Early Boomers seem to have been solidly GOP for a while Millennnials continue to lean D. with Gen Z it's too early to say but even in their case COVID seems to have played a role if you were in grade school or not during the pandemic. That impression is still new and more moveable vs. older generations that have had decades to solidify their preference.
I think older Gen Z and younger millennials are in the bluest segment. It’s the other 2/3-3/4 of Gen Z that is harder to pin down.
If the theory of presidential popularity during formative years holds true here, we’re going to have another generation that is anti-GOP even if they might not end up particularly pro-democrat.
Eye-popping for sure. Gonna suggest that Trump was not just at -2 with voters in that age bracket last August, but, regardless, they and most people undoubtedly hate Trump now.
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.
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.
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%.
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.
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.
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 %.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Is this because of issues with Darling, or because this is a swing seat? Or both?
Long Island these days is pretty tough territory for Dems. It’s basically North Florida and very MAGA Bruce Blakeman won in a landslide there last year when there was blue wave everywhere else.
I see. I know the district is vulnerable and swingy. Did my own research and, if an old Primary School issue is to be believed, Darling is also despised by progressives to the point that state Party chair and opponent of progressives Jay Jacobs united with the left to stop her State Senate bid.
https://primaries.substack.com/p/625-primary-preview-part-i?utm_source=post-banner&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true (under SD-06)
I detest Gillen but I’ll be supporting her here.
Are we sure it'll be wave-proof in 2026 too?
I have to imagine there is some concern amongst Long Island Dems about Blakeman as nominee. He did very well in Nassau county last year and I believe he’ll carry it against Hochul this year. Dems will need a lot of split tickets between federal/state and a more progressive candidate might have a harder time achieving that.
It's not 2022 anymore. I don't see Blakeman replicating Zeldin's success.
This is about 2025 - Blakeman has been one of the only Republicans in the country to overperform the 2024 Trump margins, and it happened at the same time nearby NYC elected a progressive mayor. If him winning re-election in 2025 is any indicator, then he'll carry Nassau and potentially give Gillen competition.
What part of North Florida? Maybe the city of Jacksonville. Not the Panhandle, etc., but also definitely not Tallahassee.
I’m saying Long Island is the Florida of the North basically in its voters and trends. There’s also some longstanding racial animosity and anti immigrant sentiments in Long Island for decades now that make it ripe for MAGA.
Minus the large difference in wealth, population density and geography, yes
I used to live on Long Island. I know there are lots of misanthropes and bigots on parts of the island. But it's not Florida.
That’s not the only issue. She’s pretty dreadful and this is not 2022 or 2024. Pulling for Darling.
Darling is not a progressive. She's just not a conservative Democrat and the seat is rated Lean D or Likely D by most.
Our retribution? Talk about idiocy, expecting Trump to get some kind of righteous retribution for someone other than himself.
Oh boy, is this because Aunt Jemima, the Indians, the Redskins, Uncle Ben, and Cream 'o Wheat iconography didn't come back? I am uncomfortable with change and even I think the bellyaching over that is ridiculous (even when putting aside the issues that made them all go away in the first place).
Or is he angry that Trump won't issue the order to "cut down the tall trees" and "exterminate the cockroaches?"
Much of modern conservative motivations are about avenging the perceived excesses of the past 15 or so years. To them, not being able to go to California Pizza Kitchen in March of 2020 or hearing a land acknowledgment in 2015 are all deserving of the death penalty.
Clocks don’t turn back, fortunately
No, but history does seem to run somewhat in cycles. Racism not involving slave labor with wooden and metal implements is no less racist.
They also don't understand the causality. "Woke" became popular during Trump's term as a cultural backlash to him, peaking in 2019-2020. Then, there was a backlash to "woke" during Biden.
The not understanding logical causality also extends to Trump. He thought Henry Cuellar was indicted by the Biden DOJ for being a Dem who dissented on some major issues with the administration because it was something Trump would do in Biden's shoes.
How familiar are you with the long, horrific history of racist iconography in the U.S.? My father collected 19th-century American books and prints with comic illustrations, many of them racist, so I'm very much aware of the tradition and therefore do not think "the bellyaching over that is ridiculous."
I'm pretty sure they're saying the response to the change was ridiculous
Not as phrased.
Yeah, that's what I meant.
Thanks for clarifying.
This could explain why TX-GOV polls are showing Abbott’s leading by a smaller-than-expected margin.
I wouldn't be surprised if we flipped TX-15 either if the hispanic swings have not been flukes. There's reason to think they're not flukes. We keep seeing them all over the country.
Gen Z man here, this makes me feel a little better. I've been worried about the right-wing surge among my generational group -- let's hope this retreat sticks.
Nothing sticks in the U.S. except the persistence of racism and the tenacity of the super-rich and their corporations and foundations that subvert democracy. OK, I'm in a dark mood this morning and will try not to make any additional similar comments now.
Would tend to agree with you but I've also been a little cynical these past few days too
These types of statistics are probably flawed and work better if you actually speak to Gen Z men in your own life, too - from a fellow Gen Z guy. I grew up and live in an ultraconservative area, but most people like me that I talk to don't buy into it.
But will they remember any of this in 2032? The American people suffered under G.W. Bush and the first term of Trump but after the stolen election of 2000, American voters have kept on asking for more punishment when the Democrats were hounded in the media. So sure, these folks seem all wise now, but there's no long-term basis on which to try to rebuild anyone's confidence in the United States. Sorry not to react entirely positively to people reacting negatively to Republicans based on only a worm's-eye view.
I think each geneartion has its squirrel brain/what is happening now cohort that blows in the wind but I think it is clear some impressions stick with large chunks of each generation. Late Xers/Early Boomers seem to have been solidly GOP for a while Millennnials continue to lean D. with Gen Z it's too early to say but even in their case COVID seems to have played a role if you were in grade school or not during the pandemic. That impression is still new and more moveable vs. older generations that have had decades to solidify their preference.
You may be right. Of course my cohort (born in 1965) is terrible.
I think older Gen Z and younger millennials are in the bluest segment. It’s the other 2/3-3/4 of Gen Z that is harder to pin down.
If the theory of presidential popularity during formative years holds true here, we’re going to have another generation that is anti-GOP even if they might not end up particularly pro-democrat.
Eye-popping for sure. Gonna suggest that Trump was not just at -2 with voters in that age bracket last August, but, regardless, they and most people undoubtedly hate Trump now.
that net approval is fantasyland for repukes!
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.
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.
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 D primary might actually be the more interesting one here. The R side could be a real snoozefest if Brown gets in.
So, basically, dishonest behavior from a Peter Thiel-run AI company that we know opposes this guy?
Typical. Fuck AI.
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.
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
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.
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
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/
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 %.
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.
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.
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.
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.
CADems convention is in a few weeks, imagine some folks will bow out after that.
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.
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.
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/
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)
Thanks. I missed that