Someone mentioned yesterday (or in the open thread) that Keisha Lance Bottoms would likely benefit from Sen Ossoff's coattails. And we've seen in these special elections last year and this year that well-funded incumbents don't always win re-election.
Quite possible although I think Trump's margin of victory in GA is worth noting considering his margin dropped 2.9% in 2024 vs 2016. By contrast, in MI and PA, his margins of victory in both states increased a bit in 2024 vs. 2016.
GA
2016 - 5.1%
2024 - 2.2%
Ossoff may be benefitting because of the trajectory of where GA is going these days and it's not getting any redder.
I would 100% support a constitutional amendment to give us a defined campaign season and limits on total spending within that season, like they have in Canada. Spending astronomical sums has a diminishing margin of return anyway.
That will take a while, if ever, though I am with you.
I think it is a political winner and we should start the process. It would put the GOP in an awkward position of having to oppose it. Ditto corporate Dems, which is why it will never happen.
In the meantime, when we get control, kill the fill, expand SCROTUS, pass a law doing the same thing.
I agree it would be better if Talarico was at 48 or so, but if this ends up a wave election, the late deciding voters will probably break for us, so I'm less worried than I'd normally be. I'm also increasingly confidant that the "October surprise" will be a spike in oil prices or something equally bad with Republicans, since Trump is backing himself farther and farther into a corner with Iran. We shouldn't count on that, but it seems to be the direction in which we're heading.
Honestly, those are catastrophic numbers among Hispanic voters for Paxton. Obviously, things can change, and turnout numbers will count tremendously (duh). But if those trend lines continue, or even stay put, the GOP might have a historic collapse in Texas.
Talarico leads 45%-40%. Poll is by Texas Public Opinion Research. (7/15-7/17 with m/e ±3.4%)
Talarico has the highest net favorability of anyone tested and (+12) and Paxton has the worst (-13).
Talarico trails among white voters 53%-33% but leads among Blacks 71%-8% and among Latinos 66%-20%.
“In the Governor’s race, Greg Abbott leads Gina Hinojosa by 3 points (45% to 42%) with 10% still undecided. In the Attorney General’s race, Republican Mayes Middleton and Democrat Nathan Johnson are in a dead heat (39% to 38%) with 18% undecided."
I hope we seriously invest in these downballot races. If Talarico breaks the dry spell, there’s no telling if other offices will fall too. When Sinema broke the dry spell in Arizona in 2018, we won a few downballot statewide offices along with the Senate race.
I think that was mostly due to the 2018 climate rather than campaign coattails, but I expect it didn't hurt that Sinema spent almost $25M winning the seat for the first time since Deconcini won re-election in 1988.
Unlike Texas, there had only been a 6 year period without Democratic statewide officeholders and that was unprecedented in AZ history.
We gained 4 seats in the state House, bringing it to 29-31 (our best result in that body since the GOP flipped it in 1966). Ann Kirkpatrick flipped the House seat McSally vacated, restoring the Dem majority in the House delegation that we'd lost in 2014. Katie Hobbs flipped SoS and Kathy Hoffman flipped SPI (the first time we'd won either post since the 1994 GOP wave swept us out). Sandra Kennedy retook a Corporation Commission seat (she's won twice (2008 and 2018) and lost 3 times(2012, 2014, and 2022), twice as the incumbent).
Yeah, from what I've heard, Talarico has been doing a ton of outreach to the black community, but Jasmine Crockett just can't admit that she lost because she ran a bad campaign.
From what I’ve gleaned she’s not encouraging shitty black influencers to poison the well, but she’s done nothing to discourage them, either, which honestly might be worse. If you want Talarico to lose because you’re bitter then have the courage of your convictions
I'm no fan of Crockett's and am glad Talarico won the primary but to be fair, she did say:
"This morning I called James and congratulated him on becoming the Senate nominee. Texas is primed to turn blue and we must remain united because this is bigger than any one person. This is about the future of all 30 million Texans and getting America back on track. With the primary behind us, Democrats must rally around our nominees and win.....I'm committed to doing my part and will continue working to elect Democrats up and down the ballot."
So, I think some of us are being a little unfair to her here.
"Perhaps the biggest outlier was Talarico’s lead among non-college-educated voters, who favored the Democrat by nine percentage points — 45% to 36%" - This seems highly suspect.
I had a chance to meet Pia Dandiya at a PBC Democratic Party event, she’s very impressive and will make a fantastic congresswoman. Good to see that the DCCC is taking notice.
Related - apparently the DSA co chair went on Fox or whatever and said a bunch of controversial things. It has made Fox, Newsweek, apparently PBS, and Morning Joe angry. I have not heard about it anywhere else, which is a good sign because 3/4 of those are conservative/conservative-leaning. (Look it up if you’re curious. I refuse to give Fox, et al clicks.)
Before anyone says anything, I’ll note that the DSA, although I don’t like them, are not a monolith — different branches have different approaches to politics. The national and state branches can also disagree, and state branches disagree with each other. For example, the Rhode Island DSA is a gigantic dumpster fire that I believe does not even contest elections much, whereas the NYC branch is a powerful political machine. Something to consider. (Also Abdul is not DSA.)
One of the best things about AES is his willingness to distance himself from toxic labels. I also loved his “USA! USA! USA!” chant at the Republican operative trying to hijack his event. I think the left would do well to lean into more overt patriotism like that. It’s a sad state of affairs that Islamophobia might be severely costing him electorally when neither his campaign nor his past statements have been bad enough to warrant it.
If it means anything, the fact that a GOP operative tried to hijack his event tells me that the GOP are in truly bad shape and are desperate for anything that will make their losses slightly less bad. I mean, does that seem like the behavior of a confident campaign? (If I recall, Rogers also underperformed Trump in 2024, in what was otherwise a good year for the GOP. Maybe they’re worried…)
National DSA seems to be much more tankie adjacent than its state and city chapters usually are, to their credit, so whoever let her go on Fox to say stupid shit has some poor judgement. You gotta know the lions den isn’t going to be a forum for open debate, guys
According to the poll, AES is majorly underperforming Stevens with key left-leaning constituencies: women, Black voters, and urban voters. These voters are likely to choose either Dem in the end. He is not losing to Rogers by 10%, but this poll definitely shows where his weaknesses are, similar to Talarico's.
I don't think the margin is the concerning part, it's the losing part but this is a Trump state so am i shocked even in this environment that El-Sayed could lose? No.
This is not directed at you specicially, but many on election twitter and elsewhere still can't fathom he'd be a worse general election candiate than Stevens -- simply because they don't like her for a number of reasons. Voters (not pundits) seem to be generally fine with her.
Poll was sponsored by Business Leaders for Michigan/Michigan Education Association . I don’t know whether the MEA has endorsed, but there’s little question who the other group does not want.
To be fair, this is the only poll I've seen that shows much of a difference in the general election between Stevens and El-Sayed, which means that it is probably an outlier.
I live in Michigan and will probably vote for Mallory in the primary. I cannot get beyond holding my nose re: Stevens (some policies, AIPAC, communication skills, personality, etc) or AES (amazingly arrogant and saying stupid things, including this quote below, and running for gov and sen not having won any prior election). Of course I will hold my nose and vote for whichever in November, but McMorrow is my protest vote. I agree with AES on the issues but cannot abide his arrogance. Wise thoughts on this are appreciated.
Madison County, IL: Cory Davenport's The Lovejoy Desk briefed both Madison County Clerk and Recorder nominees on election security and received answers from both incumbent Linda Andreas (R) and challenger Rachelle Bauerle (D).
The answers submitted by both reveal one thing: Rachelle Bauerle is the nominee worth voting for.
Right? It's not implausible to imagine a Libertarian getting 5% in MT. They've generally averaged 2.5-3.5% in recent MT Senate elections, but Dan Cox got 6.5% in 2012. I could see 5% in this environment.
This is a really good point and encapsulates my fear that we are going down the same path as the Republicans in nominating candidates who are 1) not ready for prime time and/or 2) a bad fit for their state/district. We've won quite a few races because the GOP did this, we don't need to do this too...
Sadly this seems like wish casting. The Democrat, Bankhead, has strongly said already that she refuses to drop out. So this hypothetical is mostly just that- a fun unrealistic hypothetical.
44 percent would be higher than the margin Tony Evers got in the 2018 primary (42 percent). I don't think 44 percent of Wisconsin Democratic primary voters are in DSA.
No one said is saying all (or even most) of the 44% is DSA, a much broader chunk of the Wisconsin electorate is clearly prepared to make a stupid decision.
She should be ahead by a couple of points instead of tied or slightly behind, if you're consistently doing worse in polls compared to other candidates, you are the weaker candidate. Something that isn't statistically significant by itself can become significant if the small difference is seen repatidlly.
Like most DSA politicians, Hong is appealing to Democratic primary voters who aren't DSA members or consider themselves democratic socialists, aided by a massive fail by the Democratic establishment to field a candidate without a ton of baggage and with a convincing electability argument.
Question: if El-Sayed and Hong win their primaries, how many people here would write off the generals as wins for Republicans? Because I swear to God people are treating those races as auto-flips if that were the case despite both candidates being strong fundraisers and doing about on par in polling with their primary opponents, and it's really fucking frustrating.
Many would, although I don't think this is true: "doing about on par in polling with their primary opponents." Barnes has had a clear lead vs. Tiffany over Hong in WI. No question she'd be a weaker nominee considering everything she's said in the past.
MI has been more of a mixed bag since both candidtaes have their weakness, and both could point to polls showing them doing better vs. James (although many of AES's are internals/from ideological groups).
Dem insiders in WI said their internal polling has Barnes down, which is why they encouraged Crowley to get back in. Everybody has a poll they can point to confirm their priors.
I hadn't heard that. I've heard insiders have knowledge of "scandals" about Barnes but not polling evidence. Hong may very well win the general, but I find it hard to beleive *right now* there's a poll showing her doing better than Barnes vs. Tiffany.
But you're right, everyone can point to something that confirms their priors.
What does that even mean? It's up to Hong to convince voters that she was just kidding about closing prisons. We're in the FAFO stage with these DSA candidates.
If Hong is the candidate a whole lot of people will find out that the type of ideology that is popular at Blue sky Social is not at all popular among real voters in a real swing state. We have been trying to recover from the 2010 election where the GOP took control and since the legislature has ruled Wisconsin with an iron fist for 16 years.It just kills me that our best chance to break this rule and win back the state government is being wasted because Hong had to be so selfish as to run for governor on a platform so extreme that she would struggle to win a seat on the Madison city council. I hope that I am wrong, but I fail to see how she doesn't get absolutely slaughtered in the suburbs and small towns in rural Wisconsin. This is why some of us are furious with the DSA for running terrible candidates that are either too extreme or completely unvetted who will blow several crucial races this fall . Politics isn't a joke and those losses will have real consequences that hurt real people.
Honestly all things equal this is the stove I'd rather DSA touch. It's impossible to convince them that their policies are actually broadly unpopular and unfortunately I think it's going to take a major loss to wake them and primary voters up. This is a race where WISC will be a bulwark against the worst impulses of a GOP trifecta in Madison, it doesn't cost us a senate seat, and it's a genuine swing state against an unobjectionable (by ridiculous contemporary standards) Republican nominee so she will lose and she'll likely do so badly. Hong running 10 points behind KLB and Hobbs and 15 points behind Benson and 30 points behind Shapiro is about as incontrovertible as can be that we will be blowing winnable races by nominating candidates like her in competitive races.
Separately, I again want to reup my criticism of Obama for not intervening in a race like this. There are going to be bad consequences for Wisconsinites and for redistricting because of this. He need stop acting like a monarch and start behaving like the leader of a political movement. It would take him 15 minutes to cut an ad that would put this race to bed and do nothing to damage his brand among the Hollywood socialites who now constitute his social circle.
Hong was selfish for running? LOL. She had every right to run. She’s just as selfish as everyone else who ran. If the voters choose her, blame them if you feel the need to blame someone. Or her opponents and possible opponents for either not running, running and then dropping out, or running, dropping out and then getting back in.
? Fortunately I don’t live in Wisconsin so I won’t need to deal with the fallout of this ill-advised nomination. I’m hardly quitting anything. I just don’t realistically think she has many paths to victory. You asked the question whether people would write it off. I answered that I don’t think she can win barring a massive source of money coming to her rescue against Tiffany. Don’t ask questions you don’t want the answer to if you’re dissatisfied with contrary viewpoints.
I understand she has made bad comments and taken a few policy positions that will be weaponized. But the evidence still suggests she's got a path to victory--that is, if the Democratic establishment chooses to make an effort.
I'd agree with this. I don't think we're in a worse spot in Michigan with AES either.
On Hong, I've never cared too much to dive into the details on WI-Gov. But I've observed that all the discussion of Hong talks about her past statements, not what she's currently saying. To me that suggests her odds lean heavily on whether or not (a) that is accurate and she hasn't taken anti-police views in this election, and (b) if she is able to respond effectively to those attacks in the general election.
Those aren't crazy things to have both be true, but also far from guaranteed. If they do apply, I think she'll do OK.
No one who understands how elections work would think that we are "writing off" either race. What we would be doing is taking relatively sure things (in this environment) and turning them into tossup races. I know I'm a broken record on this topic....
I’d rather not find out the answer to that question if we could avoid it. This state has constantly shown it will choose a far right fascist over someone they thinks is too far left.
Given that Wisconsin has chosen a fascist twice against normie Democrats in the Presidential race, I'm pretty confident they'll also choose a fascist over a socialist.
Need to correct this just a bit. Regardless of ideology, this sentiment gets tossed around a lot and it's just not true: "If they cannot beat AES/Hong with the establishment and, in Stevens' case, $60 mil in AIPAC $$, how good of a candidate are they?"
Great performance in a primary does not correlate with great performance in a general election. Can throw around countless examples on the right: Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Todd Rokita, etc. You are trying to appeal to completely different groups of people. I just hope we are not making the same mistake on our side.
I don't disagree with the overall point. But: did any of those republicans win a primary against an opponent with a well run campaign? Side note: I'm not sure what Rokita is doing in there, as I do not believe he has ever lost a general election.
Angle only had two opponents with any real votes in the 2010 primary, and one of them was perennial loser Danny Tarkanian. The other is Sue Lowden, whose record isn't any better than Tarkanian's. Christine O'Donnell did have a very serious, very real opponent in the primary but I don't recall ever having seen a single positive thing said about Castle's primary campaign -- only that he would have been the by far stronger general election opponent. Candidates coasting on general election strength can falter very easily and probably aren't as strong as they appear from afar.
People need to get used to the reality that Hong will likely be the candidate. We need to do all we can to make sure she crosses the finish line, vote blue not matter who, right?
It seems like this community is developing some tension when it doesn't really seem necessary. Can people just occasionally have opposing views without treating it like some big argument?
Personally, I'm just tired of the defeatism as if a Hong or AES primary win is an auto-flip for the Republicans. Yes, they are riskier choices but they either are or might be the voters choices for better or worse. We either live in a democracy and abide by the wishes of the voters or we go back to the smoke filled cloakrooms where Party Bosses make the decisions on who you get to vote for.
Incidentally there’s an argument to be made that the smoke filled room era produced superior candidates for both national and state office than the primary system does
Sure. That argument can be made. But if we’re the party of democracy we have to be for it, warts and all. That system certainly would never have produced Trump for sure. But would it have produced Obama?
Such a system was anti-democratic though, and shouldn't our primary focus be democracy? Plus, do you think voters would be happy with a system where they have zero say over which candidates they can vote for?
Also, define "superior". Superior as in, got more done, or superior as in, you ideologically agreed with them?
But other countries that I would argue are far more functional democracies than we are don’t have primary systems, and for good reason. That’s all I’m saying
So, this is kind of what I mean. In one comment you escalated a disagreement in the electabiltiy of some candidates into suggesting that those on the other side of the argument are in favor of smoke filled rooms.
Just last week Marquette's poll showed Barnes beating Tiffany 47-42, but Hong tied 44-44. She's only led in 1 of the past 6 polls, but Barnes has led in all. What makes you so sure, despite much evidence to the contrary?
3 months until the election and I have confidence in the Trump administration to mess things up even more than they already have. Tiffany has a ceiling in these polls of 44%. For all of Hong's faults, she's never voted against certification of a free and fair election like Tiffany has. Barnes has led in them but he's not winning the primary. She is the likely choice of the electorate but I think that there's such hostility toward Republicans this election that even a candidate as risky as Hong will likely win. This isn't 2010. This isn't 2012. Negative Partisanship rules the land and people are pissed at the Republicans and will seek to punish them.
No one is suggesting otherwise - everyone here will support whoever our nominee is. The issue is whether WI General Election voters will do so and that is very much open to debate.
Where are they now? - Ruby Rippey, who had an affair with California Gov. Gavin Newsom from 2005 until 2007, has gone more into detail about their relationship, explaining when they had emotional and romantic encounters.
Rippey was married to one of Newsom's campaign staffers, and Newsom was dating his now-wife Jennifer.
By Rippey's latest comments, she seems to agree with Jennifer that she was the "culprit", but also explained she felt connected to Newsom's power through his position as mayor of San Francisco, and that he should have known better.
Rippey's lawyer also represented Monica Lewinsky and Kristin Cabot, two other women whose lives were negatively effected by affairs with powerful men.
It appears to be the relative boost the gubernatorial candidate will get from the national environment alone.
They say “Keep in mind that in Governor races, the partisan bent of a state means half as much as it does for Senate or Presidential races.” I think there’s a long list of evidence to back up the idea that they’d national environment won’t save a bad gubernatorial candidate. They have Tiffany highly favored due to his massive cash advantage, not the polls.
Honestly AES at 60 is better than Hong’s chances in WI.
Question — I’ve heard a lot about how Hong might hurt us downballot. How bad might she? How many offices are out of reach if she wins? Is it a slaughter across the entire ticket? Will some candidates win and others lose? Will the damage be primarily focused on Hong? I’m curious to see what people think.
*My opinion* is that I think it depends on how close Hong can keep it. If she wins, great. Everything is fine. If it’s a narrow loss, maybe we can salvage some other races like Rebecca Cooke’s race against DVO, get Josh Kaul reelected, and maybe win the legislature. Winning AG and a house in the legislature would at least stop the R trifecta from turning the state into another Florida. I shudder to think if it’s not a close loss.
According to The Argument, 4% in SC and 14% in FL. But they've increased the likelihood of the NC Sen seat flipping to 83% and upped it to Likely D flip.
Those odds seem quite reasonable to me. Maybe we have a SLIGHTLY better chance in FL than 14% and SLIGHTLY worse in NC than 83% but, in general, no disagreements.
Flipping the Senate btw doesn't assume if it happens that it will be done by any amount of more than four Senate seats, assuming Democrats do this and not lose the MI-SEN race.
I can't give a solid % chance, but I'd say if we're flipping either of those seats, we're winning the GCB by margins unheard of in the modern era. I'm all for paying attention to reach seats, but I can't imagine there's really any scenario where we win either of those seats, barring a major scandal on the Republican side of things. These aren't the states where a wave election will give us a win, since the voters we'd need to win are just so intractably conservative.
Sure, they won't be the tipping point seats in 2026, but the seats are for six years, so it's an extra seat banked for the 2028 and 2030 cycles. Getting beyond 51 would be big deal, not just for the flexibility in the next congress but for the chance of holding the Senate later.
Apparently the local SEIU is backing Oliver Larkin. Given the district, can’t say I’m happy.
Question: who is most likely to win the GOP primary here? Because I happen to hate the candidate Dan Franzese for intensely personal reasons (I can’t divulge the details due to confidentiality) so I am curious to see who is favored in that primary/potentially the general if Larkin blows it.
I think the biggest threat for a Hong candidacy right now is national Dems deciding its a better investment to spend in Georgia for KLB given the spending disparity now. This is what seemed to happen with Platner towards the end where Dems weren't investing much in the race and he was being outspent heavily. She is going to need some strong showing in GE polls over the next few weeks to keep the party invested in this race.
One of the things that worries me is how does Hong compete with the massive cash disparity? She swore off PACs, she’s only raised $1.1 million, and the DGA can’t make up all that imbalance by themselves. There are 37 other gubernatorial races and a finite amount to go around. Does Tom Steyer or another progressive billionaire come in to save the day?
Someone mentioned yesterday (or in the open thread) that Keisha Lance Bottoms would likely benefit from Sen Ossoff's coattails. And we've seen in these special elections last year and this year that well-funded incumbents don't always win re-election.
No, but why would Ossoff lose this year?
I'm referring to Republican incumbents or R candidates in R+10 districts, not someone like Ossoff.
Who are you thinking of in Georgia?
Jim Kingston, Houston Gaines, Rick Allen, perhaps. The latter of which being the only incumbent.
I'm referring to her deep-pocketed R rival on the ballot. He doesn't have incumbency but thinks he can get in with lots of ad buys.
OK. Georgia isn't R+10, though.
Quite possible although I think Trump's margin of victory in GA is worth noting considering his margin dropped 2.9% in 2024 vs 2016. By contrast, in MI and PA, his margins of victory in both states increased a bit in 2024 vs. 2016.
GA
2016 - 5.1%
2024 - 2.2%
Ossoff may be benefitting because of the trajectory of where GA is going these days and it's not getting any redder.
https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/states/georgia#president
https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/results/president?election-data-id=2024-PG&election-painting-mode=projection-with-lead&filter-key-races=false&filter-flipped=false&filter-remaining=false
New IA-1 poll Bohannon up over Miller-Meeks https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/2082088228429897736?s=20
Be nice if 3 out the 4 IA Congressional seats flipped.
Quite possible. Meanwhile I am sending a donation to Dawson.
Incumbent at 35%? Yiiiikes.
I believe the margin, but would like to see another pollster besides Bullfinch without 25% undecided.
I have a feeling Mariannette "Landslide" Miller-Meeks won't pull this one out
A nice feeling, that.
I would 100% support a constitutional amendment to give us a defined campaign season and limits on total spending within that season, like they have in Canada. Spending astronomical sums has a diminishing margin of return anyway.
That will take a while, if ever, though I am with you.
I think it is a political winner and we should start the process. It would put the GOP in an awkward position of having to oppose it. Ditto corporate Dems, which is why it will never happen.
In the meantime, when we get control, kill the fill, expand SCROTUS, pass a law doing the same thing.
Constitutional amendment, would never passs (sadly)
Even a regular bill would fail, I suspect. Too many people benefit from the current system.
On the other hand, I doubt the congresscriters enjoy having to fundraiser 24/7, so it could possibly gain traction.
As long as we are dreaming, I'd like to see House terms at 3 years and Senate at 5.
Why?
TX Sen poll. Talarico up and major positives +12 to Paxton -13. https://x.com/BryanRAnderson/status/2082091947359940642?s=20
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2082078028046217586?s=20 Better link:
TEXAS POLL - Senate
🟦 James Talarico: 45%
🟥 Ken Paxton: 40%
May Poll: Talarico +3
——
• Texas Public Opinion Research | LV
• Recalled: Trump 53-42 | 7/15-17
https://texastribune.org/2026/07/28/texas-senate-poll-james-talarico-ken-paxton-july-2026/
---------------------------------------
I dislike that Talarico is only at 45
I agree it would be better if Talarico was at 48 or so, but if this ends up a wave election, the late deciding voters will probably break for us, so I'm less worried than I'd normally be. I'm also increasingly confidant that the "October surprise" will be a spike in oil prices or something equally bad with Republicans, since Trump is backing himself farther and farther into a corner with Iran. We shouldn't count on that, but it seems to be the direction in which we're heading.
How reliable is the polling?
Honestly, those are catastrophic numbers among Hispanic voters for Paxton. Obviously, things can change, and turnout numbers will count tremendously (duh). But if those trend lines continue, or even stay put, the GOP might have a historic collapse in Texas.
Here is a link to the pollster’s substack with results from all three races and a discussion by the pollster:
https://texaspublicopinionresearch.substack.com/p/new-poll-james-talaricos-lead-over Of note:
Talarico leads 45%-40%. Poll is by Texas Public Opinion Research. (7/15-7/17 with m/e ±3.4%)
Talarico has the highest net favorability of anyone tested and (+12) and Paxton has the worst (-13).
Talarico trails among white voters 53%-33% but leads among Blacks 71%-8% and among Latinos 66%-20%.
“In the Governor’s race, Greg Abbott leads Gina Hinojosa by 3 points (45% to 42%) with 10% still undecided. In the Attorney General’s race, Republican Mayes Middleton and Democrat Nathan Johnson are in a dead heat (39% to 38%) with 18% undecided."
While I would obviously love to sweep it would be a little funny if Greg Abbott wins and has to deal with a Democratic senator and attorney general
I hope we seriously invest in these downballot races. If Talarico breaks the dry spell, there’s no telling if other offices will fall too. When Sinema broke the dry spell in Arizona in 2018, we won a few downballot statewide offices along with the Senate race.
I think that was mostly due to the 2018 climate rather than campaign coattails, but I expect it didn't hurt that Sinema spent almost $25M winning the seat for the first time since Deconcini won re-election in 1988.
Unlike Texas, there had only been a 6 year period without Democratic statewide officeholders and that was unprecedented in AZ history.
We gained 4 seats in the state House, bringing it to 29-31 (our best result in that body since the GOP flipped it in 1966). Ann Kirkpatrick flipped the House seat McSally vacated, restoring the Dem majority in the House delegation that we'd lost in 2014. Katie Hobbs flipped SoS and Kathy Hoffman flipped SPI (the first time we'd won either post since the 1994 GOP wave swept us out). Sandra Kennedy retook a Corporation Commission seat (she's won twice (2008 and 2018) and lost 3 times(2012, 2014, and 2022), twice as the incumbent).
What's SPI?
Superintendent of Public Instruction
It’s noteworthy that more Black voters are undecided than white or Latino voters.
Whether it’s anger over Crockett losing or just poor outreach by the Talarico campaign, he would be wise to focus on closing that gap.
Jasmine Crockett has been a VERY sore loser in this race.
Yeah, from what I've heard, Talarico has been doing a ton of outreach to the black community, but Jasmine Crockett just can't admit that she lost because she ran a bad campaign.
She entered the campaign literally on the last day she could file and she is still upset that Talarico didn't drop out of the race.
I'm still shocked that she underestimated Talarico, how bad are her political instincts?
From what I’ve gleaned she’s not encouraging shitty black influencers to poison the well, but she’s done nothing to discourage them, either, which honestly might be worse. If you want Talarico to lose because you’re bitter then have the courage of your convictions
All she has to say is "I enthusiastically endorse Talarico and hope he wins, please vote for him." The bare minimum. She won't do it
Nope. Dodged a massive bullet on that one
I'm no fan of Crockett's and am glad Talarico won the primary but to be fair, she did say:
"This morning I called James and congratulated him on becoming the Senate nominee. Texas is primed to turn blue and we must remain united because this is bigger than any one person. This is about the future of all 30 million Texans and getting America back on track. With the primary behind us, Democrats must rally around our nominees and win.....I'm committed to doing my part and will continue working to elect Democrats up and down the ballot."
So, I think some of us are being a little unfair to her here.
"Perhaps the biggest outlier was Talarico’s lead among non-college-educated voters, who favored the Democrat by nine percentage points — 45% to 36%" - This seems highly suspect.
The college ed voters are also too low.. swap those samples and it evens out I guess
It's possible non-college skews fairly Black/Hispanic in Texas?
Are they counting people who identify as both white and Latino as both whites and Latinos?
DCCC backs 5 more candidates for Red to Blue program:
#AZ01 (open): Amish Shah (after backing Marlene Galán-Woods in primary)
#FL22: (open) Pia Dandiya (8/18 primary)
#IA02 (open): Lindsay James
#MN01 (Finstad): Jake Johnson (8/11 primary)
#MT01 (open): Sam Forstag
And still no Matt Dunlap (ME-02)? Sigh.
I think Baldacci was our one hope there.
There never is “one hope” when a blue wave is in the works.
I had a chance to meet Pia Dandiya at a PBC Democratic Party event, she’s very impressive and will make a fantastic congresswoman. Good to see that the DCCC is taking notice.
Michigan: full disclosure, I think this poll smells like bullshit, but Glengariff has some bad numbers for AES.
Governor
Benson(D) 44%
James (R) 39%
Benson (D) 48%
Perry (R) 37%
US Senate
Stevens (D) 46%
Rogers (R) 45%
Rogers (R) 49%
El-Sayed (D) 39%
https://mea.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/MICHIGAN-EDUCATION-SURVEY-REPORT-FINAL54.pdf
No primary numbers.
Related - apparently the DSA co chair went on Fox or whatever and said a bunch of controversial things. It has made Fox, Newsweek, apparently PBS, and Morning Joe angry. I have not heard about it anywhere else, which is a good sign because 3/4 of those are conservative/conservative-leaning. (Look it up if you’re curious. I refuse to give Fox, et al clicks.)
Before anyone says anything, I’ll note that the DSA, although I don’t like them, are not a monolith — different branches have different approaches to politics. The national and state branches can also disagree, and state branches disagree with each other. For example, the Rhode Island DSA is a gigantic dumpster fire that I believe does not even contest elections much, whereas the NYC branch is a powerful political machine. Something to consider. (Also Abdul is not DSA.)
One of the best things about AES is his willingness to distance himself from toxic labels. I also loved his “USA! USA! USA!” chant at the Republican operative trying to hijack his event. I think the left would do well to lean into more overt patriotism like that. It’s a sad state of affairs that Islamophobia might be severely costing him electorally when neither his campaign nor his past statements have been bad enough to warrant it.
It is sad.
If it means anything, the fact that a GOP operative tried to hijack his event tells me that the GOP are in truly bad shape and are desperate for anything that will make their losses slightly less bad. I mean, does that seem like the behavior of a confident campaign? (If I recall, Rogers also underperformed Trump in 2024, in what was otherwise a good year for the GOP. Maybe they’re worried…)
National DSA seems to be much more tankie adjacent than its state and city chapters usually are, to their credit, so whoever let her go on Fox to say stupid shit has some poor judgement. You gotta know the lions den isn’t going to be a forum for open debate, guys
According to the poll, AES is majorly underperforming Stevens with key left-leaning constituencies: women, Black voters, and urban voters. These voters are likely to choose either Dem in the end. He is not losing to Rogers by 10%, but this poll definitely shows where his weaknesses are, similar to Talarico's.
True, and I don’t think even Stevens supporters actually think he would lose by 10 points. Rogers being at 49% in that matchup is the scarier part.
Glengariff is based in MI. They are a C+ pollster with a slight democratic lean.
Whether they have a dog in this fight, IDK.
I don't think the margin is the concerning part, it's the losing part but this is a Trump state so am i shocked even in this environment that El-Sayed could lose? No.
This is not directed at you specicially, but many on election twitter and elsewhere still can't fathom he'd be a worse general election candiate than Stevens -- simply because they don't like her for a number of reasons. Voters (not pundits) seem to be generally fine with her.
BlueSky is not real life
Does that include the thousands of primary voters who will likely sit on their hands in November rather than vote for her?
That's too bad for them, then. We have a democracy with two, and only two, parties who can win most elections.
Hmm looks like more are going to sit if El-Sayed wins the nomination.
I was responding to the comment that voters seem fine with her.
Where do you get that number from?
2024.
What do you mean? How does 2024 show that "thousands" of voters will stay home rather than vote for Stevens?
Good analysis here
Poll was sponsored by Business Leaders for Michigan/Michigan Education Association . I don’t know whether the MEA has endorsed, but there’s little question who the other group does not want.
That is my inclination.
To be fair, this is the only poll I've seen that shows much of a difference in the general election between Stevens and El-Sayed, which means that it is probably an outlier.
I live in Michigan and will probably vote for Mallory in the primary. I cannot get beyond holding my nose re: Stevens (some policies, AIPAC, communication skills, personality, etc) or AES (amazingly arrogant and saying stupid things, including this quote below, and running for gov and sen not having won any prior election). Of course I will hold my nose and vote for whichever in November, but McMorrow is my protest vote. I agree with AES on the issues but cannot abide his arrogance. Wise thoughts on this are appreciated.
https://www.mlive.com/politics/2026/07/el-sayed-and-stevens-spar-over-outside-spending-incivility-in-final-debate-before-primary.html
Madison County, IL: Cory Davenport's The Lovejoy Desk briefed both Madison County Clerk and Recorder nominees on election security and received answers from both incumbent Linda Andreas (R) and challenger Rachelle Bauerle (D).
The answers submitted by both reveal one thing: Rachelle Bauerle is the nominee worth voting for.
https://lastdamnchimp.substack.com/p/a-look-at-madison-county-election
The infamous Berger-Page primary fight here in NC cost almost $13 million before Berger conceded.
https://www.theassemblync.com/news/politics/elections/berger-page-election-fight-cost-more-than-13-million/
That's $12M less to allocate for competitive state legislative races this fall.
MT-Sen:
https://x.com/gelliottmorris/status/2082047172866904141
Bodnar leads Alme 50-44 in a h2h, and leads 44-40 if Bankhead drops out but the Libertarian stays in.
Hard time believing a random Libertarian will get 5%, much less 10% is any scenario
The Libertarian Party has grown less relevant since then, looking at their presidential results in 2012 and 2016 to 2020 and especially 2024.
Montana is a state where I could potentially believe it.
Right? It's not implausible to imagine a Libertarian getting 5% in MT. They've generally averaged 2.5-3.5% in recent MT Senate elections, but Dan Cox got 6.5% in 2012. I could see 5% in this environment.
Maybe, but 10% is something I find entirely unbelievable. Third party candidates have a tendency to poll higher than their results.
Wild that we are in an environment where we could flip TX-Sen/MT-Sen while losing WI-Gov because primary voters want to do a stupid
Sounds like what the GOP went through during their stints in the wilderness. They won Illinois and Massachusetts but blew multiple swing states.
This is a really good point and encapsulates my fear that we are going down the same path as the Republicans in nominating candidates who are 1) not ready for prime time and/or 2) a bad fit for their state/district. We've won quite a few races because the GOP did this, we don't need to do this too...
Ehh i'm skeptical that a republican can lose a statewide race in Montana right now.
Sadly this seems like wish casting. The Democrat, Bankhead, has strongly said already that she refuses to drop out. So this hypothetical is mostly just that- a fun unrealistic hypothetical.
State Navigate WI Gov primary poll:
🚨NEW @StateNavigate POLL🚨
@FrancescaHongWI -- 44%
@DavidCCrowley -- 15%
@TheOtherMandela -- 14%
DSA candidates on cusp of losing us 2 major statewide Midwest races
44 percent would be higher than the margin Tony Evers got in the 2018 primary (42 percent). I don't think 44 percent of Wisconsin Democratic primary voters are in DSA.
No one said is saying all (or even most) of the 44% is DSA, a much broader chunk of the Wisconsin electorate is clearly prepared to make a stupid decision.
She's not polling the way a swing state Democrat should be in a favorable midterm, and there is a clear ideological reason for that.
She should be ahead by a couple of points instead of tied or slightly behind, if you're consistently doing worse in polls compared to other candidates, you are the weaker candidate. Something that isn't statistically significant by itself can become significant if the small difference is seen repatidlly.
Like most DSA politicians, Hong is appealing to Democratic primary voters who aren't DSA members or consider themselves democratic socialists, aided by a massive fail by the Democratic establishment to field a candidate without a ton of baggage and with a convincing electability argument.
El Sayed is not DSA. And it’s an open question whether Stevens would be stronger.
It's also an open question if Hong would lose the general election.
Don’t know the quality of the polling outfit.
Question: if El-Sayed and Hong win their primaries, how many people here would write off the generals as wins for Republicans? Because I swear to God people are treating those races as auto-flips if that were the case despite both candidates being strong fundraisers and doing about on par in polling with their primary opponents, and it's really fucking frustrating.
Many would, although I don't think this is true: "doing about on par in polling with their primary opponents." Barnes has had a clear lead vs. Tiffany over Hong in WI. No question she'd be a weaker nominee considering everything she's said in the past.
MI has been more of a mixed bag since both candidtaes have their weakness, and both could point to polls showing them doing better vs. James (although many of AES's are internals/from ideological groups).
Dem insiders in WI said their internal polling has Barnes down, which is why they encouraged Crowley to get back in. Everybody has a poll they can point to confirm their priors.
I hadn't heard that. I've heard insiders have knowledge of "scandals" about Barnes but not polling evidence. Hong may very well win the general, but I find it hard to beleive *right now* there's a poll showing her doing better than Barnes vs. Tiffany.
But you're right, everyone can point to something that confirms their priors.
I would basically write off Wisconsin and hope we can mitigate the damage downballot.
I think Michigan with AES is still winnable unless another poll corroborates Glengariff.
Quitter mentality
What does that even mean? It's up to Hong to convince voters that she was just kidding about closing prisons. We're in the FAFO stage with these DSA candidates.
I think that comment is accusing posters here of abandoning Hong and AES should they win.
I don’t think that’s what people are doing, for the record. Although again, Abdul is not DSA.
If Hong is the candidate a whole lot of people will find out that the type of ideology that is popular at Blue sky Social is not at all popular among real voters in a real swing state. We have been trying to recover from the 2010 election where the GOP took control and since the legislature has ruled Wisconsin with an iron fist for 16 years.It just kills me that our best chance to break this rule and win back the state government is being wasted because Hong had to be so selfish as to run for governor on a platform so extreme that she would struggle to win a seat on the Madison city council. I hope that I am wrong, but I fail to see how she doesn't get absolutely slaughtered in the suburbs and small towns in rural Wisconsin. This is why some of us are furious with the DSA for running terrible candidates that are either too extreme or completely unvetted who will blow several crucial races this fall . Politics isn't a joke and those losses will have real consequences that hurt real people.
Honestly all things equal this is the stove I'd rather DSA touch. It's impossible to convince them that their policies are actually broadly unpopular and unfortunately I think it's going to take a major loss to wake them and primary voters up. This is a race where WISC will be a bulwark against the worst impulses of a GOP trifecta in Madison, it doesn't cost us a senate seat, and it's a genuine swing state against an unobjectionable (by ridiculous contemporary standards) Republican nominee so she will lose and she'll likely do so badly. Hong running 10 points behind KLB and Hobbs and 15 points behind Benson and 30 points behind Shapiro is about as incontrovertible as can be that we will be blowing winnable races by nominating candidates like her in competitive races.
Separately, I again want to reup my criticism of Obama for not intervening in a race like this. There are going to be bad consequences for Wisconsinites and for redistricting because of this. He need stop acting like a monarch and start behaving like the leader of a political movement. It would take him 15 minutes to cut an ad that would put this race to bed and do nothing to damage his brand among the Hollywood socialites who now constitute his social circle.
Hong was selfish for running? LOL. She had every right to run. She’s just as selfish as everyone else who ran. If the voters choose her, blame them if you feel the need to blame someone. Or her opponents and possible opponents for either not running, running and then dropping out, or running, dropping out and then getting back in.
? Fortunately I don’t live in Wisconsin so I won’t need to deal with the fallout of this ill-advised nomination. I’m hardly quitting anything. I just don’t realistically think she has many paths to victory. You asked the question whether people would write it off. I answered that I don’t think she can win barring a massive source of money coming to her rescue against Tiffany. Don’t ask questions you don’t want the answer to if you’re dissatisfied with contrary viewpoints.
Why would you write off Hong when she's been tied or ahead in the polls that have been released?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Wisconsin_gubernatorial_election#Polling_3
I understand she has made bad comments and taken a few policy positions that will be weaponized. But the evidence still suggests she's got a path to victory--that is, if the Democratic establishment chooses to make an effort.
Auto-flip is a strong word. I think AES is probably narrowly favored in Michigan, and he’s not DSA as Paleo points out.
Hong isn’t an auto-flip either but I think she’s in a much worse position than AES would be
I'd agree with this. I don't think we're in a worse spot in Michigan with AES either.
On Hong, I've never cared too much to dive into the details on WI-Gov. But I've observed that all the discussion of Hong talks about her past statements, not what she's currently saying. To me that suggests her odds lean heavily on whether or not (a) that is accurate and she hasn't taken anti-police views in this election, and (b) if she is able to respond effectively to those attacks in the general election.
Those aren't crazy things to have both be true, but also far from guaranteed. If they do apply, I think she'll do OK.
No one who understands how elections work would think that we are "writing off" either race. What we would be doing is taking relatively sure things (in this environment) and turning them into tossup races. I know I'm a broken record on this topic....
No they aren't.
I mean, we COULD lose them, sure. That has not happened yet. But we COULD lose with Stevens or Barnes/Crowley as well.
If they cannot beat AES/Hong with the establishment and, in Stevens' case, $60 mil in AIPAC $$, how good of a candidate are they?
But the things Hong/AES have said are small potatoes compared to what the GOP is trying to do every day. And already done/said.
In this environment, I think AES can win, and though Hong is a bigger risk, so can she.
TBH, think AES has a better chance to win than Stevens does to be a vote for the things we need. WI is a different calculus.
WI is an interesting test case where it's extremist vs. extremist. Who will the electorate prefer? A Fascist or a Democratic Socialist?
I’d rather not find out the answer to that question if we could avoid it. This state has constantly shown it will choose a far right fascist over someone they thinks is too far left.
Any example for that other than Trump?
2022. Mandela Barnes v. Ron Johnson.
But he's the alternative to Hong in the primary. How might he perform better if that's the logic being used?
Barnes still almost beat Johnson in a Republican leaning year.
WI has a 3-term Republican senator.
Who won in 3 elections that were favorable to incredibly favorable to Republicans and barely won the last time.
Given that Wisconsin has chosen a fascist twice against normie Democrats in the Presidential race, I'm pretty confident they'll also choose a fascist over a socialist.
Need to correct this just a bit. Regardless of ideology, this sentiment gets tossed around a lot and it's just not true: "If they cannot beat AES/Hong with the establishment and, in Stevens' case, $60 mil in AIPAC $$, how good of a candidate are they?"
Great performance in a primary does not correlate with great performance in a general election. Can throw around countless examples on the right: Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Todd Rokita, etc. You are trying to appeal to completely different groups of people. I just hope we are not making the same mistake on our side.
Wish I could like this about a million times.
I don't disagree with the overall point. But: did any of those republicans win a primary against an opponent with a well run campaign? Side note: I'm not sure what Rokita is doing in there, as I do not believe he has ever lost a general election.
Angle only had two opponents with any real votes in the 2010 primary, and one of them was perennial loser Danny Tarkanian. The other is Sue Lowden, whose record isn't any better than Tarkanian's. Christine O'Donnell did have a very serious, very real opponent in the primary but I don't recall ever having seen a single positive thing said about Castle's primary campaign -- only that he would have been the by far stronger general election opponent. Candidates coasting on general election strength can falter very easily and probably aren't as strong as they appear from afar.
Oops.. meant Richard Mourdock
People need to get used to the reality that Hong will likely be the candidate. We need to do all we can to make sure she crosses the finish line, vote blue not matter who, right?
It seems like this community is developing some tension when it doesn't really seem necessary. Can people just occasionally have opposing views without treating it like some big argument?
Personally, I'm just tired of the defeatism as if a Hong or AES primary win is an auto-flip for the Republicans. Yes, they are riskier choices but they either are or might be the voters choices for better or worse. We either live in a democracy and abide by the wishes of the voters or we go back to the smoke filled cloakrooms where Party Bosses make the decisions on who you get to vote for.
Incidentally there’s an argument to be made that the smoke filled room era produced superior candidates for both national and state office than the primary system does
Sure. That argument can be made. But if we’re the party of democracy we have to be for it, warts and all. That system certainly would never have produced Trump for sure. But would it have produced Obama?
Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy were instrumental in Obama's primary win.
Such a system was anti-democratic though, and shouldn't our primary focus be democracy? Plus, do you think voters would be happy with a system where they have zero say over which candidates they can vote for?
Also, define "superior". Superior as in, got more done, or superior as in, you ideologically agreed with them?
Well, no, that cat is long out of the bag here.
But other countries that I would argue are far more functional democracies than we are don’t have primary systems, and for good reason. That’s all I’m saying
Superior as in candidates more likely to win
So, this is kind of what I mean. In one comment you escalated a disagreement in the electabiltiy of some candidates into suggesting that those on the other side of the argument are in favor of smoke filled rooms.
That's funny because someone did indeed respond arguing in favor of smoke filled rooms. (Not meant as an attack on that position or your comment BTW)
To be fair, I suspect that AES will be a far stronger candidate than Hong.
I'd vote for her if I lived in WI. But will soft R's who live in Ozaukee and Waukesha?
If their gas at at $4 a gallon and inflation is through the roof? Yeah. I think they will.
Just last week Marquette's poll showed Barnes beating Tiffany 47-42, but Hong tied 44-44. She's only led in 1 of the past 6 polls, but Barnes has led in all. What makes you so sure, despite much evidence to the contrary?
3 months until the election and I have confidence in the Trump administration to mess things up even more than they already have. Tiffany has a ceiling in these polls of 44%. For all of Hong's faults, she's never voted against certification of a free and fair election like Tiffany has. Barnes has led in them but he's not winning the primary. She is the likely choice of the electorate but I think that there's such hostility toward Republicans this election that even a candidate as risky as Hong will likely win. This isn't 2010. This isn't 2012. Negative Partisanship rules the land and people are pissed at the Republicans and will seek to punish them.
I hate to say this but no one cares about January 6th. Trump won Wisconsin in 2024. Let's be real here.
Probably not
No one is suggesting otherwise - everyone here will support whoever our nominee is. The issue is whether WI General Election voters will do so and that is very much open to debate.
Who's the other one?
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/28/us/gavin-newsom-ruby-rippey-affair.html
Where are they now? - Ruby Rippey, who had an affair with California Gov. Gavin Newsom from 2005 until 2007, has gone more into detail about their relationship, explaining when they had emotional and romantic encounters.
Rippey was married to one of Newsom's campaign staffers, and Newsom was dating his now-wife Jennifer.
By Rippey's latest comments, she seems to agree with Jennifer that she was the "culprit", but also explained she felt connected to Newsom's power through his position as mayor of San Francisco, and that he should have known better.
Rippey's lawyer also represented Monica Lewinsky and Kristin Cabot, two other women whose lives were negatively effected by affairs with powerful men.
Race to WH has, currently, with this newest poll in there:
Stevens with the better chance to win the General (74% to AES at 60%) and AES with the better chance to win the primary (65/35).
This is based on the environment. Stevens is dead even in polling average and AES is behind.
The have the GOP chances to win WI Gov going up by 25 points this week. They now give the GOP a 67% chance to win, when before is was 42%.
They have Hong with a 70% chance to win the prmary and 30% in the general.
Barnes under 50% in the general at 47.5% but 22% to win the primary.
Crowley at 8% in primary and 21% in the general.
They are quite bouncy with their forecasts.
It’s not even August, no surprise forecasts are quite bouncy.
FWIW I think their Michigan numbers seem fair
What is their Barnes and Crowley general election forecasting based on? There’s no polls to backup the notion that they’d be underdogs.
Go to site and check the methodology.
Barnes is ahead in polling with Tiffany. I did not see Hong numbers. Or Crowley.
Their factors are National Environment, H2H polling, state lean, approval polls, experience winning, and fundraising.
Now, they have a D +0.7% national environment, which I think is laughably low, but other than that, I think they are pretty on the money.
How in the fuck do they arrive at D+1
It appears to be the relative boost the gubernatorial candidate will get from the national environment alone.
They say “Keep in mind that in Governor races, the partisan bent of a state means half as much as it does for Senate or Presidential races.” I think there’s a long list of evidence to back up the idea that they’d national environment won’t save a bad gubernatorial candidate. They have Tiffany highly favored due to his massive cash advantage, not the polls.
Honestly AES at 60 is better than Hong’s chances in WI.
Question — I’ve heard a lot about how Hong might hurt us downballot. How bad might she? How many offices are out of reach if she wins? Is it a slaughter across the entire ticket? Will some candidates win and others lose? Will the damage be primarily focused on Hong? I’m curious to see what people think.
*My opinion* is that I think it depends on how close Hong can keep it. If she wins, great. Everything is fine. If it’s a narrow loss, maybe we can salvage some other races like Rebecca Cooke’s race against DVO, get Josh Kaul reelected, and maybe win the legislature. Winning AG and a house in the legislature would at least stop the R trifecta from turning the state into another Florida. I shudder to think if it’s not a close loss.
What % chance of winning Senate seats in SC and FL do Dems have?
According to The Argument, 4% in SC and 14% in FL. But they've increased the likelihood of the NC Sen seat flipping to 83% and upped it to Likely D flip.
https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/split-ticket-2026-midterms-model
However, they have given Democrats a 51% chance of flipping the Senate (thanks to Troy Jackson) and 81% for the House of Representatives.
thanks!
Those odds seem quite reasonable to me. Maybe we have a SLIGHTLY better chance in FL than 14% and SLIGHTLY worse in NC than 83% but, in general, no disagreements.
Flipping the Senate btw doesn't assume if it happens that it will be done by any amount of more than four Senate seats, assuming Democrats do this and not lose the MI-SEN race.
I can't give a solid % chance, but I'd say if we're flipping either of those seats, we're winning the GCB by margins unheard of in the modern era. I'm all for paying attention to reach seats, but I can't imagine there's really any scenario where we win either of those seats, barring a major scandal on the Republican side of things. These aren't the states where a wave election will give us a win, since the voters we'd need to win are just so intractably conservative.
thanks!
Sure, they won't be the tipping point seats in 2026, but the seats are for six years, so it's an extra seat banked for the 2028 and 2030 cycles. Getting beyond 51 would be big deal, not just for the flexibility in the next congress but for the chance of holding the Senate later.
Race to WH has:
Vindman at 18.5%.
Andrews at 17.1% vs Graham's sister.
thanks!
Extremely low and very low, respectively.
FL-25:
https://bsky.app/profile/reginageorgebush.bsky.social/post/3mrq6alucnc2u
Apparently the local SEIU is backing Oliver Larkin. Given the district, can’t say I’m happy.
Question: who is most likely to win the GOP primary here? Because I happen to hate the candidate Dan Franzese for intensely personal reasons (I can’t divulge the details due to confidentiality) so I am curious to see who is favored in that primary/potentially the general if Larkin blows it.
George Moraitis. Former state legislator with high profile endorsements and fundraising.
I think the biggest threat for a Hong candidacy right now is national Dems deciding its a better investment to spend in Georgia for KLB given the spending disparity now. This is what seemed to happen with Platner towards the end where Dems weren't investing much in the race and he was being outspent heavily. She is going to need some strong showing in GE polls over the next few weeks to keep the party invested in this race.
One of the things that worries me is how does Hong compete with the massive cash disparity? She swore off PACs, she’s only raised $1.1 million, and the DGA can’t make up all that imbalance by themselves. There are 37 other gubernatorial races and a finite amount to go around. Does Tom Steyer or another progressive billionaire come in to save the day?
Very true. Though the fundraising for Barnes/Crowley has been pretty mediocre, too. That’s a concern across the board in Wisconsin
Yep.
Wisconsin should really move its primary earlier than August
Looks like Rhoden got all the votes of the other two candidates in the runoff.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/07/28/us/elections/results-south-dakota-governor-runoff.html
That’s a crazy come-from-behind win after his bad first round performance.