I wish Washington amended its Top Two law so that if there are only two candidates (or less) in a special election, you don't need to do a primary. What a waste of time.
Indeed. Caldier is a tenured politician too she’ll be a tough beat. That said, that district has trended blue consistently over the last decade (the top two in 2013 to replace Kilmer augured a blowout Rep win) and I’m confident we’ll hold
This has become a pretty common occurrence in states which have a lot of votes by mail, whether the ballots are sent through the postal system or put into a dropbox. Even in 2024 a lot of results looked much different when the votes were all counted than they did on election night, and usually in a much bluer way.
This is probably especially so in states like Washington where VBM has become the main default method of voting.
Were there only 2 candidates or only 2 -notable- candidates, and does Washington allow write-ins? Also, the electorate for primaries is different from and smaller than a general electorate. You could eliminate primaries and have ranked choice, but the general election shouldn't be eliminated.
I posted the link so you can see for yourself, in 6 of the 9 primaries there were two candidates -total- or less (2 races had only one candidate).
Yes write-ins are allowed, but they're also allowed for the general election. So they're literally running the exact same election twice. And yes what you said is basically what I'm advocating; if two candidates or less file, skip the primary and just run the general. It's a waste of taxpayer money to do it this way.
Ralph Norman, a Republican representative and gubernatorial candidate in South Carolina, has called for the elimination of the state’s only black majority Congressional district, currently held by James Clyburn. The population of the state is roughly 30 percent African-American. The disassembly of the Voting Rights Act at work. A less representative delegation from each state means the entire Congress will be less representative. Whether you live in or ever visit South Carolina or Texas (or Illinois or California), this is why districts matter.
I’m not an expert, but I’d say it depends on how tough the governors and their legislatures are willing to be. I don’t have the breakdowns handy (how many D vs R), and it also depends on deadlines. Follow Marc Elias for updates. He’s more up on the details.
The other Thing that’s important is not to get discouraged. Turnout still matters. Not every state requires registration by party. Not everyone is a D or an R. Vote in every election. Voting matters. Lots of small elections are decided by a few votes. Get out there.
52-0 map in CA, 17-0 map in IL, 12-0 map in NJ and 10-0 map in WA would immediately be enacted. I would also bet on NY netting a few seats, because then there’s nothing stopping NY-11, NY-2 and NY-1 from stretching into Brooklyn, or NY-17, 18, and 19 from stretching into the Bronx or Manhattan. While the GOP would net some seats in TX, GA, NC and FL, they would also have to create Dem vote sinks to prevent a dummymander. outside of those 3, it would be single seat pickups in SC, MS and TN, while messy redraws to prevent dummymanders in LA and AL would have to be done. The Dem gerrymanders would also be messy, but not as much as eliminating LA-2 or AL-7 would be. Also now there’s zero reason as to why MD-1 can’t have any of Baltimore in the district.
I can't see every Democratic state choosing to eliminate minority-majority districts unless they're forced to do so. Democrats actually care about representation for minorities.
In some instances, the VRA hurts, and has hurt, Democrats. For example a significant minority representation can bring 2 seats rather than 1, depending on the geography and demography.
Yeah, a post-VRA GOP could easily great all Republican delegations in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina (and maybe Louisiana) without breaking a sweat if they pinwheeled the district lines enough.
Unnecessary county splitting being allowed is Dems’ next biggest enemy. If county splitting wasn’t allowed (unless a county was is too populous to only be contained in one district), a lot of Republicans’ ability to do this would be curtailed.
That’s a thought. The 4th is getting less safe, too. You point out something crucial, though, what is sometimes an argument made during discussions about single-member districts in cities and counties, that it packs the representation into one district, and eliminates it from all the others.
We lost the house popular vote by two points in 2024, so a five point lead would result in a seven point swing towards us.
There are 20 seats that we lost by seven points or less in 2024, and 15 seats we lost by five points or less. Taken as-is with no other changes it would result in a 20 seat gain. Of course even without the re-gerrymandering going on things would not carry over with a perfectly uniform swing in every individual seat, but it gives us the ballpark of what is plausible.
Also the pickings after those 20 seats get bare quite quickly. Going from seven points to eight points only adds one more seat; eight to nine adds one more; and nine to ten adds one more. The difference between a seven point swing towards us and a ten point swing towards us is three seats with uniform swing. However, a ten point swing towards us would have big implications for the senate, I expect...
We’d probably need around a D+7-12 year in 2026 to realistically have a shot at a Senate Majority. Of course with the usual caveats of candidate quality, ability to run a campaign, the opponent, how bruising the primary is, fundraising ability etc. But yeah high single to low double digits would almost definitely put the chamber in play.
This would not be true if Brown runs in OH and Paxton wins in Texas. Brown would significantly overperform the baseline in OH and Paxton would significantly underperform the baseline in TX. Obviously, this is predicated on Cooper winning in NC and ME Dems getting their shit together. As others have noted, 2024 was R+2.
Brown lost by 3
Allred lost by 8.5
Trump won NC by 3
Collins is a little trickier to project because of RCV, but Husted is probably stronger than Moreno, but wouldn't guess by much. Paxton is going to be far weaker than Cruz.
If Sherrod announces and Paxton wins, I'd feel relatively confident at D+4.
I disagree with you on a D+4 year doing it. Ohio and Texas voters are still very used to voting for any kind of Republican as long as they’re a Republican (See Moreno, Vance, Cruz, Paxton who all won in their races). It’s going to take a lot to make them not vote for 1.
I do think the potential is absolutely there for them both to vote Democratic, but imo it needs to be a wave to pull them over. Ohio is moving more Republican and Texas is, moving Democratic, but very slowly due to conservative transplants flocking there from blue states.
Texas already elected Paxton twice. Ohio just tossed their last Democratic statewide office holder and now Brown doesn’t have the benefit of incumbency (which is as small as it’s ever been in history, but it still matters in close races). I think that MAGA voters in Ohio could stay home and a chunk of Republican voters could crossover in Texas, I’m just not willing to say it will happen in a slightly D year.
You’re obviously absolutely welcome to your own opinion, I’m just fleshing out my own one.
Also worth noting this is a poll of all adults, not registered/likely voters, which would probably be even more Democratic leaning.
Our party may be at historic unpopularity, but so was the GOP in 2010 and it didn’t stop Democrats being wiped out. We are the only party alternative to the Republicans and when voters don’t like what’s happening with the party in power, they vote for the other party. As Trump has been the benefit of in both presidential elections: You don’t have to be liked, just less disliked than your opponent.
As I said before, the only way to do a mid-decade Census is through a 1976 law that also explicitly forbids such a census from being used in apportionment and redistricting. And aside from that, Congress has to approve funding I assume.
I think they're going to pursue this hard, legal or not. They've always had a bee in their little red bonnets about the census, in particular how it provides representation to noncitizens. They tried to manipulate the census last time, and they are already using census and other government data to target noncitizens and others they don't like. I think the only thing that will stop them is the lack of time before the midterms, not any law or precedent.
I also suspect there would be a mass boycott of any such attempt. But that has the potential to backfire as well, if liberals boycott and only people who complete the census (Trump supporters) are counted. This administration absolutely would reapportion based on that data and intentionally exclude people they don't think are "real Americans". Totally on brand.
This isn't some court interpretation thing, the 1976 law (Public Law 94-521) has a paragraph that reads:
"Information obtained in any mid-decade census shall not be used for apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States, nor shall such information be used in prescribing congressional districts."
It also reiterates that a proper Census can only be undertaken in years that end with a 0.
Also, re-reading it, I'm pretty sure it says a mid-decade Census can only be done in a year that ends in 5 and they need to give Congress 3 years notice on its scope and 2 years notice on the wording of the questionnaire. So it can't be done this year.
Under current federal law, a mid-decade Census could be used for federal funding appropriations purposes, etc., but not for apportionment or redistricting.
Any law authorizing a mid-decade Census for apportionment and redistricting purposes would probably be considered unconstitutional (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3); if it weren't deemed unconstitutional, it would still require a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate unless Republicans were to nuke the filibuster for either the specific piece of legislation or general legislation, which Republicans would have done the latter of on January 3rd of this year if they had the votes to do so.
"Sublette, who served as the chief meteorologist for the Richmond Times-Dispatch before founding his own weather forecasting company, told his old paper he was motivated to run because of the GOP's "conspiracy theories" about science."
Interesting to see a lot of former TV news people run for public office - Kari Lake, Rep. Mark Alford, Janelle Stelson, Christina Pascucci. Is this a new trend or has this been going on for awhile?
John Wydra was an anchor on WCBS news radio in New York and ran as a Democrat unsuccessfully for the House seat in New Jersey that was eventually flipped by Rush Holt, a scientist who was one of my favorite U.S. Representatives.
I bet the changing media market is a factor. It used to be that local TV anchors were local celebrities with jobs for life and that's not really the way it works anymore. Makes sense that people who are immersed in politics go into politics mid-career.
That's fairly common, although it's not a guarantee of electoral success. Eric Sorenson (D-IL-17) is currently the only meteorologist who serves in either house of Congress; he used to be a TV meteorologist for the NBC affiliate in Rockford and the ABC affiliate in Moline. Notably, one of the stations Sorenson worked for no longer produces its own weather forecasts due to budget cuts affecting local TV stations owned by Byron Allen, who owns both the NBC affiliate in Rockford (as well as numerous other local TV stations in mostly small and medium-sized DMAs) and The Weather Channel.
There was a Congressional race a few years ago between two former co-workers at the ABC affiliate in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, if I recall correctly.
I’ve noticed Colorado Democrats have been awfully silent in regards to redrawing their maps. They could easily eliminate a couple GOP districts there and they need to start preparing to do so. If we don’t fight back in every state we have control, the GOP will outdraw us, period. Existential threats to the country require doing whatever it takes to stop them, time for them to start getting serious yesterday.
It is definitely in reach. Dems currently have 43 out of 65 seats in the state house and you need 44 for a 2/3rds majority. They lost that 44th seat by 3 votes last year. In the senate dems also need one more seat to have 24 out of 35. Next year there’s a seat Kamala won by 2 points that has a republican incumbent up for reelection, but dems also have to defend a seat trump won by 5 in Pueblo.
Why not pass a law to say it requires a simple majority instead of 2/3rds or change it to a simple majority.
I keep hearing people on TDB and elsewhere say “they can’t do this because of this requirement” in reference to redrawing maps in blue states because of the state constitution or current law. To me, there seems to be a lack of perspective and bigger picture thought about the simplest solution: change them!
That’s what the GOP Does. All. The. Time! When they get stopped, they change the rules. When they get power they change the rules. When they lose power, they change the rules. They never wait for a court to give them permission, they change any of the rules that blocks them from their agenda and then dare the courts to stop them. That is the cut throat take no prisoners attitude we need to have to win this fight.
Democrats have control in these states, new laws can be passed to override old laws, old requirements can be changed to new ones. If we aren’t thinking about and willing to do the nuclear option in these states then we are fighting with both hands tied behind our backs while Republicans have both hands holding guns at us. How’s that going to turn out for the party? It’d be a massacre.
If we can’t do it because of “insert reason here”, then change it. It really is that simple.
Is it? Is there a legal way to change that law with a simple majority? Democrats should be much tougher, but they should not violate the law, because then both parties will be authoritarian.
My question is whether it's legal to pass a law allowing this law to be changed by a simple majority. It sounds dubious, but maybe someone can express a legal opinion about the fine print. I think this is when we would need Quin Yeargain.
In Colorado, any amendment would also have to address a 2003 state Supreme Court ruling that forbade mid-decade redistricting. In a case brought by Democrats.
Yes and now there’s a State Supreme Court made up entirely of Democrats. I don’t really care if it makes us look hypocritical. Republicans just overruled their own court ruling in NC because control of the court changed parties and they got 3 new seats mid-decade.
The only thing we need is for a majority to agree to redraw by overruling the last ruling. This is the kind of thing I’m talking about: think a little bit bigger than what the current circumstances allow. If it gets blocked, fine, then we replace who blocked it in the next election (again, what the GOP does to anyone who stops them).
The issue is that Democratic voters have to be okay with it. Republican voters don't punish their politicians when they break the rules. Democratic voters, in many cases very much so. Because "high road" or something like that.
Yes, this has been true in the past. I’m not so sure it’s true in the 2nd term of Trump without any guardrails. It’s going to be very interesting to see what the margin in California will be for the upcoming redistricting ballot measure. That’ll give us a pretty good idea if all Democrats are onboard or not. Time will tell.
I dont think so; he and his family have gotten numerous death threats and harassment since 2020. I think his conversion is real.
I also think he's much more electable than any of the other candidates being floated, but struggle to see him getting enough base support out of Atlanta to get the nom.
If this was New York and California where we have plenty of conservadems i'd say yea, this is political convienance, but this is Georgia where there is no advantage really to running as a dem and tbh a white dem where you would have a disadvantage in a democratic primary. So i applaud his courage in going against the tide even though he may be too conservative for my taste but hey, we say we want a big tent.
Like someone said the other day, there’s a difference between letting someone join the big tent (all are welcome imo) and nominating someone to lead that big tent. I agree though that his change of heart is most likely genuine. I still wouldn’t rule him out for my support, I’m just not full on backing him to win the nomination either.
For me and I think most Democratic voters, they’re open to hearing what he wants to do in his campaign. I also think they’re hesitant to just choose him immediately because he won statewide representing a different party. Some caution is warranted until we/see hear him and the policies he wants to enact if he wins.
Understood, but is that really much of a thing? People who are furious at the party in power turn up and vote for whoever is running against them, including Mickey Mouse. Look, they elected Trump last year...
Cory Mills sure sounds like a piece of work! Any chance he gets defeated, or are Republicans just fine with people beating the fuck out of their partners now?
Sorry, who? Are you perchance talking about the former Lieutenant Governor of Georgia who just became a Democrat? If so, people who change parties usually change their politics substantially to go toward or to the mainstream of their new party, so it's wise to give him a chance to see where he settles out.
Before that "give him a chance" preconsent, I suggest you might go with skepticism as wisdom before backing a let's see after the fact. Some creature dont change their stripes. This isn't a moment in time to take a chance on him. I prefer a known progressive candidate. There is a known change in the MAGA and Republican voter poles that would cause an avoristic Republican opportunist to decide it best to present themselves in a different light just to retain a seat at the table. One question one might ask, is where are his campaign finances coming from. Wall Street and corporate ownership would disqualify him at the get go. Our working class problems start with the fact that the United States government is a by definition, a two party Corporate Duopoly system of government. That's due to the by and large part of corporate deregulation to the point of an unfettered capitalisms' overthrow of American democracy. Changing tactics in midstream is probable with this guy. Why take a chance on this guy. He said a lot BS when he was running on the Republican ticket. I look at this as nothing other than proof, that the Republicans are running scared. Another issue is that of carreer politicians, they defy the Rules of Statemanship, We need new blood truly dedicated to being servants of the public. The American working class have suffered dearly under their so-called leadership for centuries going back to the Gilded Age. FDR changed that for awhile. Sorry but, leadership must be taken back by and for the people, and this guy's past voting record defies trust at the voting booth. Its obvious that he's been in it for the money, power, a prestige. Self gain.
I'm a socialist, but most Americans are not, and certainly not in Georgia. The idea that a Republican would break with their party, endorse Harris for President and face death threats in order to subvert the Democratic Party is a pretty absurd conspiracy story.
Manchin I’ll give you although the rebuttal is that he was a Democrat in West Virginia, a state Trump won 3 times by 30 points. But Sinema was not expected to be the Senator she was. She was a Green Party member, then Democrat, then Independent.
She was far left, centre left, then slightly right or left depending on the issue. If we go by these qualifications as disqualifying, no progressive Democrat should ever be nominated because they could change once in office.
I don’t think that’s right or fair to do. Most party switchers stay true to their new party’s ideology. Duncan absolutely could become a thorn in Democrats’ side if he’s elected Governor, but I don’t think that’s a guarantee, especially given his experience over Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
Sinema had been a conservative Dem in the House for years; people just speculated she was an inner progressive because of her Green Party background a decade before and they were wrong.
Conservative might be too strong, but she was absolutely a moderate in the house.
I remember the expectations that she would move left if she won her senate race. Often said that she'd do it "like Gillibrand" - I doubt that comparison is going to be used much in the future...
Do you have data to back this up? I’m not saying I don’t believe you because I could have easily just forgotten, but I’d like some proof that she was a moderate/conservative in her voting record before I can be convinced she was that.
Decent amount of data there, including that in her last term in the house she voted for Trump's position nearly half the time. She also self-identified as bipartisan, joined the Blue Dogs, joined the New Democrats, and joined the Problem Solvers caucuses. The latter being the stand out in particular: I don't think there's a dem in that caucus that wouldn't be called a moderate.
Point is, Machin was a millionaire maybe billionaire industrialist who makes his money off coal. What would any coal miner, or anyone else in the impoverished state of West Virginia, think they were sending someone to Congress dedicated to insuring anything but his own best interest. The Republicans in Congress and the Whitehouse have been the deregulators of corporate interest since Ronald Reagan. They pushed Citizens United. Manchin bought his election through Citizens United unfettered capitalism, and then voted along with the Republicans. Wolf in sheep's clothing I do believe applies here.
The guy literally shot through the cap and trade bill with a gun in his campaign commercial. He never advertised himself as anything but a pretty conservative Democrat.
Just gonna put this out there, but it's blatantly obvious and pathetic how desperate Republicans are acting so corrupt just to try and protect a sex trafficking ring and a convicted felon.
Point taken. Sinema is and was an opportunist. She saw publicity and money in being an out lier. When there was more money to be had she switched to Democrat. Once in office the schemer saw where the real corporate/Wall Street money was going and took to voting their way, which is primarily Republican, although there are plenty of DNC Democrats who vote for Republican anti-social legislation that stiffles good government in the care and happiness of we the working class, and I find that they are more right of center than left of center, or even center. As such they are corporate lapdogs with the label Democrat because that is how the state they represent is Blue, and wouldn't stand a chance of being elected on a Republican ticket. For a long time now narcissism has become a plague on US politics and the people we send to represent us, whether Democrat or Republican.
We're in a full on class war, so for me the moto is, Trust No One in politics. If change is to be had the burden falls on the American working-class to force it through loud sustained dissent on the streets. I am for an all out nationwide General Strike until we brake the corporate domination of Our government. Personal sacrifice and community support is what's needed. We have come to this point in government through primarily voter apathy and disregard for overall civic responsibility.
I know Cali Dems are aiming for a 48-4 map but how realistic is 49-3 or 50-2? They really should be putting as many seats on the board with MO, IN, and now FL trying to redraw and not just to negate only Texas.
Yeah, I mean, re-gerrymandering MO and IN can only eliminate two Democratic-leaning seats (Cleaver and Mrvan, respectively) and I have no idea about FL (Moskowitz?).
But the idea of simply trying to neutralize TX seems short-sighted.
50-2 can neatly negate TX & MO+IN with a -7/+7 swap. While IL/MD can net us +2 vs the +3-5 from OH/FL. All in all probably +3-4 gain for the GOP if Dems max out where they can right now.
Which Candidate has the ability to not only react strategically to republican induced chaos and narratives, but also has what it takes to CONTROL the narrative.
This is why I like Geoff because he knows the Republican’s weakness’ and he also may.be able to accomplish a few things in spite of the extreme maga lawmakers.
We know the Republican candidate will be chosen for his (or her🙄 likely not a her) willingness to lie and cheat for Trump with zero empathy. Dems need to be Strategic with our candidate this time. Not only who do we like but who can actually win. Every vote has to be calculated.
We can’t have our entire party’s platform boil down to being about standing against Trump. I’m happy to welcome everyone into the anti-Trump coalition, but we have to actually stand for something too, we have to have an argument for how we’ll make people’s lives better that goes beyond stopping Trump.
I agree that we shouldn’t have to, but unfortunately most if not all of Biden’s accomplishments have now been completely erased because nobody charged Trump with his crimes in a timely manner.
There will be no progress for any of us until we unite against all things MAGA.
I’m so tired of thinking about Trump. It’s exhausting
She says the 2026 will be fair because the states will run them, which is the argument Guy Cohen and several other folks here are making. Elias is a bit more hedged on how high-quality the elections will be. Both believe it's vital for as many people as possible to vote. But there's a lot more they cover in this 46-minute 42-second interview. It didn't feel lengthy to listen to; Bellows is an excellent speaker and storyteller (and of course I mean true stories).
I really do hope this ends up true, but if you’re not at least somewhat fearing some form of military/police deployment/MAGA militia intimidation in every blue city and district voting center in the country on election day with a metric ton of guns on them and visible, then I don’t think you’re fully grasping the realistic obstacles we could be facing in the 2026 election.
The GOP will do anything to win power, whatever it takes, even if that means illegal voter intimidation by the cult crazies brandishing their AK-47’s. Do we really think the police would stop them? Or would they turn a blind eye/join them as “safety voter integrity officers” there to make sure only citizens vote? I think I know which they’d do.
If anything I think currently we are vastly underestimating the nightmare scenarios possible for the midterm elections up to blocking “the wrong people” people from voting or shooting up a polling center in a Democratic stronghold to close it down on election day. We aren’t really preparing ourselves for this because just like January 6th we thought it couldn’t possibly happen until it did.
I’m more concerned about such a scenario in November 2028, since Presidential races tend to be much more of a culturally dominant phenomenon than midterms
Former Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, a Republican who broke with President Donald Trump before campaigning extensively for former Vice President Kamala Harris last year, announced on Tuesday he is running for the state’s governorship as a Democrat. ~ Huffington Post
Former Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan got kicked out of the Republican Party for the optics. If he was really serious about breaking with the Republican Party, he would’ve left on his own.
Now he’s running by using a brief moment in time he campaigned for a Democrat when in actuality, he was probably a Trojan Horse.
I’m sorry, but this guy has NOT earned his stripes nor have they changed. If he wanted to prove that he is working for democratic/progressive ideals, he would continue working for years in the background to earn our trust. He has done nothing to indicate he is a changed man. So ask yourself, why is this guy so quick to run as a Democrat right NOW?
Democrats have a Big Tent and he is welcome, but NOT to the table…not yet.
I wish Washington amended its Top Two law so that if there are only two candidates (or less) in a special election, you don't need to do a primary. What a waste of time.
Indeed. Caldier is a tenured politician too she’ll be a tough beat. That said, that district has trended blue consistently over the last decade (the top two in 2013 to replace Kilmer augured a blowout Rep win) and I’m confident we’ll hold
Well i guess it's good we'll get a second crack since the dem came in second in one of the districts.
Which one? This page shows Dems ahead in all races.
https://results.vote.wa.gov/results/20250805/legislative-all.html
Oh my bad, i saw the initial results on election night with the republican ahead.
Ok, but it's certainly happened a lot in California and I believe i remember it happening in some close elections in Washington, too.
This has become a pretty common occurrence in states which have a lot of votes by mail, whether the ballots are sent through the postal system or put into a dropbox. Even in 2024 a lot of results looked much different when the votes were all counted than they did on election night, and usually in a much bluer way.
This is probably especially so in states like Washington where VBM has become the main default method of voting.
Were there only 2 candidates or only 2 -notable- candidates, and does Washington allow write-ins? Also, the electorate for primaries is different from and smaller than a general electorate. You could eliminate primaries and have ranked choice, but the general election shouldn't be eliminated.
There were only two candidates in both of the Senate special primaries (Dems lead in both)
I posted the link so you can see for yourself, in 6 of the 9 primaries there were two candidates -total- or less (2 races had only one candidate).
Yes write-ins are allowed, but they're also allowed for the general election. So they're literally running the exact same election twice. And yes what you said is basically what I'm advocating; if two candidates or less file, skip the primary and just run the general. It's a waste of taxpayer money to do it this way.
Thanks for posting the link, but I either had to subscribe or allow ads, and I'm not willing to do either. I appreciate the additional information!
Ralph Norman, a Republican representative and gubernatorial candidate in South Carolina, has called for the elimination of the state’s only black majority Congressional district, currently held by James Clyburn. The population of the state is roughly 30 percent African-American. The disassembly of the Voting Rights Act at work. A less representative delegation from each state means the entire Congress will be less representative. Whether you live in or ever visit South Carolina or Texas (or Illinois or California), this is why districts matter.
Question, and I apologize if the answer is obvious — if the VRA is disassembled, can the Dems still win the House again?
I’m not an expert, but I’d say it depends on how tough the governors and their legislatures are willing to be. I don’t have the breakdowns handy (how many D vs R), and it also depends on deadlines. Follow Marc Elias for updates. He’s more up on the details.
The other Thing that’s important is not to get discouraged. Turnout still matters. Not every state requires registration by party. Not everyone is a D or an R. Vote in every election. Voting matters. Lots of small elections are decided by a few votes. Get out there.
Easily
52-0 map in CA, 17-0 map in IL, 12-0 map in NJ and 10-0 map in WA would immediately be enacted. I would also bet on NY netting a few seats, because then there’s nothing stopping NY-11, NY-2 and NY-1 from stretching into Brooklyn, or NY-17, 18, and 19 from stretching into the Bronx or Manhattan. While the GOP would net some seats in TX, GA, NC and FL, they would also have to create Dem vote sinks to prevent a dummymander. outside of those 3, it would be single seat pickups in SC, MS and TN, while messy redraws to prevent dummymanders in LA and AL would have to be done. The Dem gerrymanders would also be messy, but not as much as eliminating LA-2 or AL-7 would be. Also now there’s zero reason as to why MD-1 can’t have any of Baltimore in the district.
I can't see every Democratic state choosing to eliminate minority-majority districts unless they're forced to do so. Democrats actually care about representation for minorities.
In some instances, the VRA hurts, and has hurt, Democrats. For example a significant minority representation can bring 2 seats rather than 1, depending on the geography and demography.
Considering repugs control alot of these southern states with these districts i'm sure they'll dissemble them effectively.
Yeah, a post-VRA GOP could easily great all Republican delegations in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina (and maybe Louisiana) without breaking a sweat if they pinwheeled the district lines enough.
Unnecessary county splitting being allowed is Dems’ next biggest enemy. If county splitting wasn’t allowed (unless a county was is too populous to only be contained in one district), a lot of Republicans’ ability to do this would be curtailed.
If they eliminate Clyburn’s seat, it probably results in two other districts becoming swing districts (one in Charleston and one in Columbia).
That’s a thought. The 4th is getting less safe, too. You point out something crucial, though, what is sometimes an argument made during discussions about single-member districts in cities and counties, that it packs the representation into one district, and eliminates it from all the others.
Not really, it’s easy to stuff the bluest parts of Charleston in SC-07, where it’ll always be outvoted by Horry and Georgetown.
And just have deep-red SC-03 snake into Columbia.
That's really blatant racism in a state with one of the worst records of persecution of Black people.
Yep.
Strom Thurmond's shadow still looms.
Please consider moving to Beehiiv or another platform that doesn't support Nazis. https://www.thehandbasket.co/p/substack-extemist-nazi-problem-update
Primary School is now on Ghost.
CNBC GCB: Dems 49-44. (Adults)
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2025/08/07/cnbc-all-america-economic-survey-45-percent-approve-of-pres-trumps-handling-of-the-economy.html
Thanks for posting that. About how many flips would a 5-point lead be likely to cause?
Depends on how gerrymandered things are. Dems won by 8 in 2018 and gained over 40 seats.
We lost the house popular vote by two points in 2024, so a five point lead would result in a seven point swing towards us.
There are 20 seats that we lost by seven points or less in 2024, and 15 seats we lost by five points or less. Taken as-is with no other changes it would result in a 20 seat gain. Of course even without the re-gerrymandering going on things would not carry over with a perfectly uniform swing in every individual seat, but it gives us the ballpark of what is plausible.
Also the pickings after those 20 seats get bare quite quickly. Going from seven points to eight points only adds one more seat; eight to nine adds one more; and nine to ten adds one more. The difference between a seven point swing towards us and a ten point swing towards us is three seats with uniform swing. However, a ten point swing towards us would have big implications for the senate, I expect...
We’d probably need around a D+7-12 year in 2026 to realistically have a shot at a Senate Majority. Of course with the usual caveats of candidate quality, ability to run a campaign, the opponent, how bruising the primary is, fundraising ability etc. But yeah high single to low double digits would almost definitely put the chamber in play.
This would not be true if Brown runs in OH and Paxton wins in Texas. Brown would significantly overperform the baseline in OH and Paxton would significantly underperform the baseline in TX. Obviously, this is predicated on Cooper winning in NC and ME Dems getting their shit together. As others have noted, 2024 was R+2.
Brown lost by 3
Allred lost by 8.5
Trump won NC by 3
Collins is a little trickier to project because of RCV, but Husted is probably stronger than Moreno, but wouldn't guess by much. Paxton is going to be far weaker than Cruz.
If Sherrod announces and Paxton wins, I'd feel relatively confident at D+4.
I disagree with you on a D+4 year doing it. Ohio and Texas voters are still very used to voting for any kind of Republican as long as they’re a Republican (See Moreno, Vance, Cruz, Paxton who all won in their races). It’s going to take a lot to make them not vote for 1.
I do think the potential is absolutely there for them both to vote Democratic, but imo it needs to be a wave to pull them over. Ohio is moving more Republican and Texas is, moving Democratic, but very slowly due to conservative transplants flocking there from blue states.
Texas already elected Paxton twice. Ohio just tossed their last Democratic statewide office holder and now Brown doesn’t have the benefit of incumbency (which is as small as it’s ever been in history, but it still matters in close races). I think that MAGA voters in Ohio could stay home and a chunk of Republican voters could crossover in Texas, I’m just not willing to say it will happen in a slightly D year.
You’re obviously absolutely welcome to your own opinion, I’m just fleshing out my own one.
Also worth noting this is a poll of all adults, not registered/likely voters, which would probably be even more Democratic leaning.
Our party may be at historic unpopularity, but so was the GOP in 2010 and it didn’t stop Democrats being wiped out. We are the only party alternative to the Republicans and when voters don’t like what’s happening with the party in power, they vote for the other party. As Trump has been the benefit of in both presidential elections: You don’t have to be liked, just less disliked than your opponent.
This is just getting silly: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5440548-trump-orders-new-census/
As I said before, the only way to do a mid-decade Census is through a 1976 law that also explicitly forbids such a census from being used in apportionment and redistricting. And aside from that, Congress has to approve funding I assume.
I think they're going to pursue this hard, legal or not. They've always had a bee in their little red bonnets about the census, in particular how it provides representation to noncitizens. They tried to manipulate the census last time, and they are already using census and other government data to target noncitizens and others they don't like. I think the only thing that will stop them is the lack of time before the midterms, not any law or precedent.
I also suspect there would be a mass boycott of any such attempt. But that has the potential to backfire as well, if liberals boycott and only people who complete the census (Trump supporters) are counted. This administration absolutely would reapportion based on that data and intentionally exclude people they don't think are "real Americans". Totally on brand.
This isn't some court interpretation thing, the 1976 law (Public Law 94-521) has a paragraph that reads:
"Information obtained in any mid-decade census shall not be used for apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States, nor shall such information be used in prescribing congressional districts."
It also reiterates that a proper Census can only be undertaken in years that end with a 0.
Check it out, it's a pretty succinct law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/13/141
That’s pretty cut and dry
Also, re-reading it, I'm pretty sure it says a mid-decade Census can only be done in a year that ends in 5 and they need to give Congress 3 years notice on its scope and 2 years notice on the wording of the questionnaire. So it can't be done this year.
Laws can be changed, and this is a lawless Supreme Court we can't depend on for anything except stuff like keeping abortion unprotected.
Something like this can be blocked in the Senate. And he isn't even asking Congress to act.
Then it would depend solely on whether the Supreme Court would arrogate the power to him.
There is no "silence is consent" legal wiggle room though. The law is explicit. This is not at all like the tariff situation.
I don’t see any way this gambit succeeds. The courts will strike it down and the states won’t recognize a new census as legit.
Surprised he didn't call for this already.
It's probably just for distraction. Also to keep DeSantis strung along on the delusion that such a thing is legally doable.
That's certainly possible.
Under current federal law, a mid-decade Census could be used for federal funding appropriations purposes, etc., but not for apportionment or redistricting.
Any law authorizing a mid-decade Census for apportionment and redistricting purposes would probably be considered unconstitutional (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3); if it weren't deemed unconstitutional, it would still require a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate unless Republicans were to nuke the filibuster for either the specific piece of legislation or general legislation, which Republicans would have done the latter of on January 3rd of this year if they had the votes to do so.
"Sublette, who served as the chief meteorologist for the Richmond Times-Dispatch before founding his own weather forecasting company, told his old paper he was motivated to run because of the GOP's "conspiracy theories" about science."
Interesting to see a lot of former TV news people run for public office - Kari Lake, Rep. Mark Alford, Janelle Stelson, Christina Pascucci. Is this a new trend or has this been going on for awhile?
I think it's pretty common, historically. Often as Republicans, I think.
John Wydra was an anchor on WCBS news radio in New York and ran as a Democrat unsuccessfully for the House seat in New Jersey that was eventually flipped by Rush Holt, a scientist who was one of my favorite U.S. Representatives.
Prebuilt trust and name recognition are worth their weight in gold
Going on for some time. It’s a great way to build a quick go
I bet the changing media market is a factor. It used to be that local TV anchors were local celebrities with jobs for life and that's not really the way it works anymore. Makes sense that people who are immersed in politics go into politics mid-career.
That's fairly common, although it's not a guarantee of electoral success. Eric Sorenson (D-IL-17) is currently the only meteorologist who serves in either house of Congress; he used to be a TV meteorologist for the NBC affiliate in Rockford and the ABC affiliate in Moline. Notably, one of the stations Sorenson worked for no longer produces its own weather forecasts due to budget cuts affecting local TV stations owned by Byron Allen, who owns both the NBC affiliate in Rockford (as well as numerous other local TV stations in mostly small and medium-sized DMAs) and The Weather Channel.
There was a Congressional race a few years ago between two former co-workers at the ABC affiliate in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, if I recall correctly.
I’ve noticed Colorado Democrats have been awfully silent in regards to redrawing their maps. They could easily eliminate a couple GOP districts there and they need to start preparing to do so. If we don’t fight back in every state we have control, the GOP will outdraw us, period. Existential threats to the country require doing whatever it takes to stop them, time for them to start getting serious yesterday.
Requires 2/3 legislative majorities which Democrats don’t have.
Is that margin attainable I wonder.
It is definitely in reach. Dems currently have 43 out of 65 seats in the state house and you need 44 for a 2/3rds majority. They lost that 44th seat by 3 votes last year. In the senate dems also need one more seat to have 24 out of 35. Next year there’s a seat Kamala won by 2 points that has a republican incumbent up for reelection, but dems also have to defend a seat trump won by 5 in Pueblo.
So there's a good chance in a midterm.
Why not pass a law to say it requires a simple majority instead of 2/3rds or change it to a simple majority.
I keep hearing people on TDB and elsewhere say “they can’t do this because of this requirement” in reference to redrawing maps in blue states because of the state constitution or current law. To me, there seems to be a lack of perspective and bigger picture thought about the simplest solution: change them!
That’s what the GOP Does. All. The. Time! When they get stopped, they change the rules. When they get power they change the rules. When they lose power, they change the rules. They never wait for a court to give them permission, they change any of the rules that blocks them from their agenda and then dare the courts to stop them. That is the cut throat take no prisoners attitude we need to have to win this fight.
Democrats have control in these states, new laws can be passed to override old laws, old requirements can be changed to new ones. If we aren’t thinking about and willing to do the nuclear option in these states then we are fighting with both hands tied behind our backs while Republicans have both hands holding guns at us. How’s that going to turn out for the party? It’d be a massacre.
If we can’t do it because of “insert reason here”, then change it. It really is that simple.
Is it? Is there a legal way to change that law with a simple majority? Democrats should be much tougher, but they should not violate the law, because then both parties will be authoritarian.
That’s why I’m advocating for changing the law or the constitution or going ahead with it until a court blocks it.
My question is whether it's legal to pass a law allowing this law to be changed by a simple majority. It sounds dubious, but maybe someone can express a legal opinion about the fine print. I think this is when we would need Quin Yeargain.
In Colorado, any amendment would also have to address a 2003 state Supreme Court ruling that forbade mid-decade redistricting. In a case brought by Democrats.
Yes and now there’s a State Supreme Court made up entirely of Democrats. I don’t really care if it makes us look hypocritical. Republicans just overruled their own court ruling in NC because control of the court changed parties and they got 3 new seats mid-decade.
The only thing we need is for a majority to agree to redraw by overruling the last ruling. This is the kind of thing I’m talking about: think a little bit bigger than what the current circumstances allow. If it gets blocked, fine, then we replace who blocked it in the next election (again, what the GOP does to anyone who stops them).
The issue is that Democratic voters have to be okay with it. Republican voters don't punish their politicians when they break the rules. Democratic voters, in many cases very much so. Because "high road" or something like that.
Yes, this has been true in the past. I’m not so sure it’s true in the 2nd term of Trump without any guardrails. It’s going to be very interesting to see what the margin in California will be for the upcoming redistricting ballot measure. That’ll give us a pretty good idea if all Democrats are onboard or not. Time will tell.
Extremely well said. I completely agree.
Dems can also petition their way onto the ballot.
Geoff Duncan, former GOP Lt Gov. running for GA Gov as Dem!!A wolf in sheep’s clothing.???
I dont think so; he and his family have gotten numerous death threats and harassment since 2020. I think his conversion is real.
I also think he's much more electable than any of the other candidates being floated, but struggle to see him getting enough base support out of Atlanta to get the nom.
If this was New York and California where we have plenty of conservadems i'd say yea, this is political convienance, but this is Georgia where there is no advantage really to running as a dem and tbh a white dem where you would have a disadvantage in a democratic primary. So i applaud his courage in going against the tide even though he may be too conservative for my taste but hey, we say we want a big tent.
Like someone said the other day, there’s a difference between letting someone join the big tent (all are welcome imo) and nominating someone to lead that big tent. I agree though that his change of heart is most likely genuine. I still wouldn’t rule him out for my support, I’m just not full on backing him to win the nomination either.
For me and I think most Democratic voters, they’re open to hearing what he wants to do in his campaign. I also think they’re hesitant to just choose him immediately because he won statewide representing a different party. Some caution is warranted until we/see hear him and the policies he wants to enact if he wins.
I agree 100%. Give him a chance while not forgetting any aspect of his record.
My concern is turnout for the senate race. Duncan may not gin up Democratic turnout.
Understood, but is that really much of a thing? People who are furious at the party in power turn up and vote for whoever is running against them, including Mickey Mouse. Look, they elected Trump last year...
Not sure that will be a problem next year.
We want to win.
100%. And this seems more like a religious conversion than anything else to me. He takes "Love thy neighbor" seriously.
He also endorsed Harris in 2024 (unlike, say, spineless wonder Mitt Romney).
I mean, hey, the cosmic irony of it all is begging for an answer to Nathan Deal
Cory Mills sure sounds like a piece of work! Any chance he gets defeated, or are Republicans just fine with people beating the fuck out of their partners now?
Florida.
Right, but at least a Republican primary?
Probably an asset in an R primary honestly.
Do Republican women have _ANY_ self-respect, ever?
I'd be hard pressed to trust him. Remember Sinema and Manchin? I think he's a Republican in Democratic disguise.
He’s more of a Kinzinger or Cheney type.
Sorry, who? Are you perchance talking about the former Lieutenant Governor of Georgia who just became a Democrat? If so, people who change parties usually change their politics substantially to go toward or to the mainstream of their new party, so it's wise to give him a chance to see where he settles out.
Before that "give him a chance" preconsent, I suggest you might go with skepticism as wisdom before backing a let's see after the fact. Some creature dont change their stripes. This isn't a moment in time to take a chance on him. I prefer a known progressive candidate. There is a known change in the MAGA and Republican voter poles that would cause an avoristic Republican opportunist to decide it best to present themselves in a different light just to retain a seat at the table. One question one might ask, is where are his campaign finances coming from. Wall Street and corporate ownership would disqualify him at the get go. Our working class problems start with the fact that the United States government is a by definition, a two party Corporate Duopoly system of government. That's due to the by and large part of corporate deregulation to the point of an unfettered capitalisms' overthrow of American democracy. Changing tactics in midstream is probable with this guy. Why take a chance on this guy. He said a lot BS when he was running on the Republican ticket. I look at this as nothing other than proof, that the Republicans are running scared. Another issue is that of carreer politicians, they defy the Rules of Statemanship, We need new blood truly dedicated to being servants of the public. The American working class have suffered dearly under their so-called leadership for centuries going back to the Gilded Age. FDR changed that for awhile. Sorry but, leadership must be taken back by and for the people, and this guy's past voting record defies trust at the voting booth. Its obvious that he's been in it for the money, power, a prestige. Self gain.
I'm a socialist, but most Americans are not, and certainly not in Georgia. The idea that a Republican would break with their party, endorse Harris for President and face death threats in order to subvert the Democratic Party is a pretty absurd conspiracy story.
Kinzinger and Cheney are still Republicans.
Yes, and still conservative.
Manchin I’ll give you although the rebuttal is that he was a Democrat in West Virginia, a state Trump won 3 times by 30 points. But Sinema was not expected to be the Senator she was. She was a Green Party member, then Democrat, then Independent.
She was far left, centre left, then slightly right or left depending on the issue. If we go by these qualifications as disqualifying, no progressive Democrat should ever be nominated because they could change once in office.
I don’t think that’s right or fair to do. Most party switchers stay true to their new party’s ideology. Duncan absolutely could become a thorn in Democrats’ side if he’s elected Governor, but I don’t think that’s a guarantee, especially given his experience over Trump and the GOP trying to steal the 2020 election.
Sinema had been a conservative Dem in the House for years; people just speculated she was an inner progressive because of her Green Party background a decade before and they were wrong.
I don’t remember her taking any conservative votes in the House when she was a Rep there, though that may just be me forgetting.
Conservative might be too strong, but she was absolutely a moderate in the house.
I remember the expectations that she would move left if she won her senate race. Often said that she'd do it "like Gillibrand" - I doubt that comparison is going to be used much in the future...
Do you have data to back this up? I’m not saying I don’t believe you because I could have easily just forgotten, but I’d like some proof that she was a moderate/conservative in her voting record before I can be convinced she was that.
DW-nominate's page, which I like to use for quick and dirty assessments like this, is down. Her wiki page links to this article: https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/kyrsten-sinemas-voting-record-immigration-refugees-health-care-ada-9682545
Decent amount of data there, including that in her last term in the house she voted for Trump's position nearly half the time. She also self-identified as bipartisan, joined the Blue Dogs, joined the New Democrats, and joined the Problem Solvers caucuses. The latter being the stand out in particular: I don't think there's a dem in that caucus that wouldn't be called a moderate.
Do I remember having a Democratic Senator from West Virginia? Yes I do. What is your point?
Point is, Machin was a millionaire maybe billionaire industrialist who makes his money off coal. What would any coal miner, or anyone else in the impoverished state of West Virginia, think they were sending someone to Congress dedicated to insuring anything but his own best interest. The Republicans in Congress and the Whitehouse have been the deregulators of corporate interest since Ronald Reagan. They pushed Citizens United. Manchin bought his election through Citizens United unfettered capitalism, and then voted along with the Republicans. Wolf in sheep's clothing I do believe applies here.
Who gives a shit? He voted for Schumer to be majority leader, that's the most important thing.
Yep. He could have changed parties in 2014 (when the Senate went GOP) or 2017 (with Jim Justice), but he didn't.
The guy literally shot through the cap and trade bill with a gun in his campaign commercial. He never advertised himself as anything but a pretty conservative Democrat.
Just gonna put this out there, but it's blatantly obvious and pathetic how desperate Republicans are acting so corrupt just to try and protect a sex trafficking ring and a convicted felon.
Point taken. Sinema is and was an opportunist. She saw publicity and money in being an out lier. When there was more money to be had she switched to Democrat. Once in office the schemer saw where the real corporate/Wall Street money was going and took to voting their way, which is primarily Republican, although there are plenty of DNC Democrats who vote for Republican anti-social legislation that stiffles good government in the care and happiness of we the working class, and I find that they are more right of center than left of center, or even center. As such they are corporate lapdogs with the label Democrat because that is how the state they represent is Blue, and wouldn't stand a chance of being elected on a Republican ticket. For a long time now narcissism has become a plague on US politics and the people we send to represent us, whether Democrat or Republican.
We're in a full on class war, so for me the moto is, Trust No One in politics. If change is to be had the burden falls on the American working-class to force it through loud sustained dissent on the streets. I am for an all out nationwide General Strike until we brake the corporate domination of Our government. Personal sacrifice and community support is what's needed. We have come to this point in government through primarily voter apathy and disregard for overall civic responsibility.
I know Cali Dems are aiming for a 48-4 map but how realistic is 49-3 or 50-2? They really should be putting as many seats on the board with MO, IN, and now FL trying to redraw and not just to negate only Texas.
Yeah, I mean, re-gerrymandering MO and IN can only eliminate two Democratic-leaning seats (Cleaver and Mrvan, respectively) and I have no idea about FL (Moskowitz?).
But the idea of simply trying to neutralize TX seems short-sighted.
50-2 can neatly negate TX & MO+IN with a -7/+7 swap. While IL/MD can net us +2 vs the +3-5 from OH/FL. All in all probably +3-4 gain for the GOP if Dems max out where they can right now.
As a GA native I’m happy about Duncan running as a Dem. I don’t know him personally but people I know who do know him say he’s genuinely a good man.
We may disagree on some policies but he had the courage to stand up to Trump and do the right thing.
People should reserve their opinions about him until after they’ve watched a few of his past interviews😇
Besides at this point I personally think think our voting priorities should reduced to two sides:
Is the candidate:
Pro Constitution- protecting all of the rights and freedoms that come along with it.
Or
Pro Trump- protecting one man’s rights and freedoms by staying out of prison.
Simple as that.
Anyone who tries to say otherwise either has nefarious intentions or is just not being rational.
Yes, in the general election. What factors will you consider in the Democratic primaries?
I’ll be looking for
Which Candidate has the ability to not only react strategically to republican induced chaos and narratives, but also has what it takes to CONTROL the narrative.
This is why I like Geoff because he knows the Republican’s weakness’ and he also may.be able to accomplish a few things in spite of the extreme maga lawmakers.
We know the Republican candidate will be chosen for his (or her🙄 likely not a her) willingness to lie and cheat for Trump with zero empathy. Dems need to be Strategic with our candidate this time. Not only who do we like but who can actually win. Every vote has to be calculated.
We can’t have our entire party’s platform boil down to being about standing against Trump. I’m happy to welcome everyone into the anti-Trump coalition, but we have to actually stand for something too, we have to have an argument for how we’ll make people’s lives better that goes beyond stopping Trump.
I agree that we shouldn’t have to, but unfortunately most if not all of Biden’s accomplishments have now been completely erased because nobody charged Trump with his crimes in a timely manner.
There will be no progress for any of us until we unite against all things MAGA.
I’m so tired of thinking about Trump. It’s exhausting
Great interview of Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows by Marc Elias: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R0XPPKLHSA
She says the 2026 will be fair because the states will run them, which is the argument Guy Cohen and several other folks here are making. Elias is a bit more hedged on how high-quality the elections will be. Both believe it's vital for as many people as possible to vote. But there's a lot more they cover in this 46-minute 42-second interview. It didn't feel lengthy to listen to; Bellows is an excellent speaker and storyteller (and of course I mean true stories).
I really do hope this ends up true, but if you’re not at least somewhat fearing some form of military/police deployment/MAGA militia intimidation in every blue city and district voting center in the country on election day with a metric ton of guns on them and visible, then I don’t think you’re fully grasping the realistic obstacles we could be facing in the 2026 election.
The GOP will do anything to win power, whatever it takes, even if that means illegal voter intimidation by the cult crazies brandishing their AK-47’s. Do we really think the police would stop them? Or would they turn a blind eye/join them as “safety voter integrity officers” there to make sure only citizens vote? I think I know which they’d do.
If anything I think currently we are vastly underestimating the nightmare scenarios possible for the midterm elections up to blocking “the wrong people” people from voting or shooting up a polling center in a Democratic stronghold to close it down on election day. We aren’t really preparing ourselves for this because just like January 6th we thought it couldn’t possibly happen until it did.
Of course I agree with you.
This obviously a major concern, but it’s not an inevitability. Nor is it inevitable that they succeed in what they’re trying to do.
No-one has said it's inevitable. What I would say is a definite is that they will try to cheat somehow. They're already doing so.
I’m more concerned about such a scenario in November 2028, since Presidential races tend to be much more of a culturally dominant phenomenon than midterms
⛔️ WARNING! WARNING!
Former Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, a Republican who broke with President Donald Trump before campaigning extensively for former Vice President Kamala Harris last year, announced on Tuesday he is running for the state’s governorship as a Democrat. ~ Huffington Post
Former Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan got kicked out of the Republican Party for the optics. If he was really serious about breaking with the Republican Party, he would’ve left on his own.
Now he’s running by using a brief moment in time he campaigned for a Democrat when in actuality, he was probably a Trojan Horse.
I’m sorry, but this guy has NOT earned his stripes nor have they changed. If he wanted to prove that he is working for democratic/progressive ideals, he would continue working for years in the background to earn our trust. He has done nothing to indicate he is a changed man. So ask yourself, why is this guy so quick to run as a Democrat right NOW?
Democrats have a Big Tent and he is welcome, but NOT to the table…not yet.