I had to look up who headed the DCCC it's Suzan DelBene (D-WA) -- and I've never heard of her (not saying no one else has) maybe if Jamie Raskin or AOC headed this up (not in the same camp but both are media savvy) they would make better choices and find candidates likely to actually win
She's a suburban moderate New Democrat and isn't fond of the left. That's all I know about her.
I think Squad 2.0 should hold Jeffries hostage in exchange for concessions, such as firing her—a reverse "Unbreakable Nine." His other recruits, like Shannon Bird and Jasmeet Bains, have also been terrible, and Joe Baldacci Bob Casey'd his race by taking positions that were out of step with the primary electorate.
but bob always won his primaries? i don't understand the connection, though I agree baldacci was held to a standard that golden was never held to and the seat is now at risk because of it. Saying this as someone that is not fond of "New Democrats," in fact I trust the older iterations of blue dogs more because it felt like they were more centrist because they had to win re-election, not because that donor money made it look so appetizing
He wasn't pushed out; he didn't want to be accountable to the voters - he tied himself to Trump's policies on ICE, tariffs, War with Iran, and, to an extent, to Biden's IRA policy - and was wrong on all counts. We keep saying the left needs to admit when they get things wrong on policy; why can't centrists?
I guess maybe you could argue Dunlap's primary challenger didn't help things?
But like, if he didn't want to be "pushed out," maybe he shouldn't have supported policies far beyond the pale for Democratic voters everywhere, like being the deciding vote and only Democrat to vote against a War Powers resolution to put checks on Trump's war in Iran and... supporting Trump's tariffs???
> Golden expressed concern over Trump backing down from his tariff policy, telling Axios, "My biggest worry is that they're going to do this and lose faith and political will and back away."
I'm not even super against protectionism if it's needed to help American workers, but *come on.* This was the turning point of Trump's (short-lived) boost in popularity and good will and you're supporting it? That's like running as a Pro-Obamacare Republican in 2010, at least in a political sense.
I'm a progressive, yes, but I'm all for centrist-y candidates in red districts if that's what it takes to win. But Maine's second district is not West Virginia, there was no reason for him to take these positions that were unpopular with the Democratic base (and are becoming unpopular with other voter groups too like independents and even some Republicans)
Is Dunlap a weaker candidate? Maybe. But while Jared Golden has held the ire of progressives (such as myself, even if I recognize sometimes representatives like him are a necessary evil) for a while, he didn't face a primary challenger until this election cycle. Maybe if he didn't try to tack to the right further after Trump's win, he'd still be the nominee for ME-2.
That's why I stopped contributing to the DNC. (That and their potential complicity in the 2024 scam pack scandal.
I moved most of my monthly donation money over to the NC Democratic Party, since I live in NC and really like what Anderson Clayton is doing here. I also donate to several national and local grassroots organizations on a regular basis.
With respect to donating to candidates directly, I am migrating over to Oath (https://app.oath.vote/) which doesn't share your contact information with the candidates.
As long as it’s not the New Jersey Democratic State Committee! There may be worse state parties somewhere in the country. But I’ve never had to interact with them (or work for them) so I reserve a special dislike for NJDSC.
(If I remember correctly the ‘Hudson’ in your name is a reference to Hudson. If you live on the Hudson River in upstate New York, then you have a different poorly-run state party to deal with.
Picking a more progressive DCCC chair can create problems in the opposite direction, as relatively mainstream candidates tend to be needed to win in most swing districts. I don't know if DelBene is the ideal chair, but she's an improvement over past chairs who had to spend extra money to try to keep their swing seats (Bustos, Patrick Maloney).
I don't think the DCCC should be a locus of intrafactional warfare. The person who runs it should be the person who is best at fundraising and identifying good candidates.
I mean, I’m not arguing for that. I am staunchly progressive myself, including on some issues like humane prisons and copyright reform support where I am to the left of a lot of Americans. (Among my most extreme positions is that public utilities such as those of power and water should be nationalized and run by the government. After the PG&E saga in California with the fires, and after watching ConEdison do an absolute shit job in my area with the power, I don’t trust private industry government-sanctioned monopolies to do it anymore. At that point I think the government should just do it.)
Good candidates can be progressive too. Katie Porter won her swing seat multiple times. Brian Poindexter is running a very progressive, working-class campaign for OH-7 with support from Dems in general. While Fetterman turned out to be awful, he originally ran a progressive campaign that paid off in getting him elected. If you want to go back several decades David Bonior was a (for his time) progressive Dem in the 90s in a tough Michigan seat. Matt Cartwright held his seat for longer than a lot of other Dems could have, he only got taken out by the 2024 Trump wave. And I’ve seen posters here call for progressives to run in some seats where they’d be fantastic fits — the push for Troy Jackson for one, plus I feel like I remember seeing a lot of people (even the DCCC) feel Andy Levin should have tried for MI-10. (And centrists can prove to be lousy candidates too — that is why I suspect Jasmeet Bains didn’t even make it to the runoff, and Sean Patrick Maloney ran an atrocious campaign in my home NY-17 that gave us the detestable Mike Lawler.)
For me it’s about the district and characteristics within. What is the district like? Who lives there? Race, ethnicity, religion, income level, etc. Are there any important industries there that pissing off those involved would be disastrous? Much as I detest the power and influence of the dairy industry, a hypothetical anti-dairy candidate would be slaughtered in WI, for instance. On the flip side, Mary Peltola’s focus on Alaska’s fishing industry has worked well for her. What kinds of candidates do well in such a district?
I feel like ideological battles have taken over political discussion in general to such a degree it blinds us from other, highly important characteristics. I’m not going to lie, I’ve been guilty of this myself, I think most people here have. It’s something to consider in a political environment where our democracy and the safety of our populace, especially minority groups, is at stake. We can’t afford to screw up.
No you're right, I wasn't thinking before I typed.
Question -- who might that person be? If DelBene is on bad terms with the left and has recruited lousy candidates, and a left-wing member may do the same, but on the opposite, who could be a competent, fit leader of the DCCC?
I think you probably need to be more familiar with intracaucus dynamics than anyone who doesn't work on the hill is. I don't think it's necessarily about uniting the party though. I'd be equally fine with AOC and Gottheimer. They're both great fundraisers and if they left some of their unpopular ideological positions in their district office and recruited candidates who fit their districts they'd both do a fine job. Point being, it takes pragmatism and fundraising skills more than coalition management imo.
FL-Gov: Republican candidate James Fishback has been confirmed to vote in the District of Columbia instead of Florida and could potentially be kicked off the ballot.
I'm actually shocked that Evnen accepted Burbank's resignation from the Senate race. Would've thought he would've done what he can to keep her on the ballot.
Cornyn is now blocking nominations - including of Kari Lake to be ambassador to Jamaica - unless Trump spends the millions of dollars for global AIDS relief allocated by Congress.
he was so good in 2006, i think he got every race but harold ford v bob corker right that year, first year following politics closely and god did I think we had it made
He's probably been wrong before, but I wouldn't say this is a crazy bet to be making. Rob Sand has a documented track record of winning statewide office even in tough environments, so it stands to reason that he has a good chance of winning the governorship against a nobody in a very Democratic environment. While Turek's won in hostile territory, he hasn't run a statewide campaign, and while Hinson is offensive to people with eyes and ears she's a pretty standard MAGA Republican without as much baggage as Joni Ernst, so given the uncertainty and dynamics of that race it isn't weird to believe that race might follow the typical voting pattern of Iowa even in a blue wave.
Hard to see a scenario where we're favored for any statewide election in Iowa, but I certainly think he could have beaten Ernst (and can also beat Hinson).
My takeaway from that article is that he already has IA-Sen as a 25% probability for Dems and it's only July. I'll bet he has it at Tossup by November.
Is Cook any better than most of us on guessing who will win? We've all seen the polls that show Sand up a couple points and Hinson up a couple points, not really a hot take by Cook.
Fred Hubbell had only lost by 2.73% points the IA-GOV race back in 2018 so this isn't a surprise. It's a tougher battle to win the Senate race than the Gubernatorial race.
On the other hand, in the IA-SEN race, Josh Turek was leading by four points in a recent Fox News poll. Anything can happen.
Charlie Cook, as with the rest in Cook Political Report, tends to be very metholodical and conservative in polling analysis. I respect his reasoning although I tend to view in the bigger picture than just polls.
I don't think it's controversial to say that Sand seems more likely to win than Turek. I don't disagree with Cook's take that a Turek win has about one-in-four odds. But I continue to struggle to see what a winning Ashley Hinson message sounds like that would lead to significant numbers of voters splitting their tickets. The quality of Turek's candidacy under the spotlight looms large but if he can avoid giving Hinson anything to work with in terms of alignment with the party's left flank on cultural issues, I don't see him underperforming Sand by multiple points.
Here's hoping for the first Dem trifecta in AZ since the GOP flipped the state House in 1966 (the only time that body has ever flipped since 1912 statehood).
Pretty much everybody voting in the primary will have voted for him in the general last cycle. He's a 3 term state House rep as well, under two different sets of district lines.
I get that, but it didn’t seem like he was the choice of either centrists/liberals, the establishment, or the far left. So it must be just name recognition, right?
I can't say I have my ear to the ground in the district anymore, and it was never my part of the Valley culturally (I grew up in the kind of circles that called Scottsdale Snotsdale), but I'd guess that both voters were comfortable if not delighted with him and that he got close enough last cycle to be seen as a good bet for a win in November.
Absolutely there is. The Democrats I’d argue have four factions at this point: centrists, liberals (often called “moderates” erroneously), progressives, and now socialists.
People online and journalists alike have been conflating liberals and moderates under the nebulous “establishment” umbrella for years now, and it’s gotten much worse this cycle.
Name recognition might've played a role, although Galan-Woods scored a close third in the primary in 2024 (only two points separated her and Shah then) so it's not like she was unknown. Shah might've had some broad appeal as... not necessarily an "anti-establishment" candidate, but not the establishment's candidate, as well as being a standard liberal rather than a moderate
NV-Gov: tied at 44-44. Apparently Lombardo used his position/name to get out of a traffic stop and it was on body cam. Ford/DGA need to hammer him over this nonstop. I also wish they tested the AG and SOS races for a baseline comparison.
He happened to be county sheriff in the county he was pulled over in. When I posted this, I included his pretty out of touch quote: "I'm Joe Lombardo. Come on man!"
And Ford also has traffic misdemeanors from the 1990s; apparently he was rambunctious in his 20s.
I agree - Trump seems to skate on things that stick to other Republicans. I do think this could hurt Lombardo at the margins, which could be very useful in a race that's likely to be within 2-3 percentage points.
I'm so frustrated! Am I the only person who sees a plus sign with a number that hides a subthread, and then around 80% of the time I click it, a previous subthread opens and when I press the back arrow, it goes back to the digest and out of the comments entirely? This happens over and over to me on mobile and is exceedingly annoying!!!!
Let's make sure Democrats come out on top in AZ in November! Here are some postcard campaigns - current and upcoming. Postcards are a great way to stay involved and beat the beastly summer heat!
➡️ Arizona Native Democrats have several current "Protect Our Vote" postcard campaigns on their Cardzilla platform: https://cardzilla.persontoperson.net/. These are "mail as you go" with a mailing deadline of Sep.1st.
➡️ Field Team 6 (https://postcards.fieldteam6.org/) has a voter registration outreach campaign for AZ-06. These are also "mail as you go" but no specifical mailing deadline is provided.
AZ-02 has a large Native American population, no? I wonder if the postcard campaign efforts by the Arizona Native Democrats you mentioned could contribute to us potentially pulling off a close result or even an upset there. We do have a strong candidate in former Navajo Nation head Jonathan Nez.
It has the highest AIAN population proportion of any district in the country, just a hair ahead of AK-AL and NM-03. All 3 are over 20%, No other district is over 10%.
Massive indigenous turnout is a necessary but not sufficient condition for winning AZ-02, even in a blue wave. One thing that will help on that front is that the Navajo Nation presidential elections will be held at the same times and places as the congressional general, and there seems to be a lot of energy in the Navajo election this cycle.
I've given the most money I've ever given a politican to Jackson. I really think he brings this home and sends collins packing finally. Gonna be a fight the whole way though
My vibes are bad on Ohio... but I think much better on NV/WI/MI.
With Texas, it's impossible to judge -- even a big overperformance (which I think I do expect) may not be enough, but whether that makes the vibes sweet or sour is hard to say.
I'm at the point where I'm wondering if we should just prepare for a Hong win. Is there any way we can come close to salvaging the Gov race if Hong wins? Or at least lessen the blow? Or is it a guaranteed GOP blowout up and down the ticket?
If Dems lose the governors race, but still somehow win the legislature they need to vote get independent redistricting on the ballot almost immediately after they are sworn in. I don’t want Tiffany and a likely R legislature drawing the lines again after 2030.
Heck they should do this even if Hong wins, since I don’t see her surviving a Presidem midterm in 2030.
I think I’d put it at Lean/Likely R where the margin is somewhat close, but yeah, I think Tiffany narrowly wins in the vast majority of permutations/outcomes.
The margin will probably be deceptively narrow because it’s Wisconsin and our floor is high. But I think she’s going to really tank in places like WOW, where we’ve made huge gains recently to offset our bleeding in Driftless.
Not sure I'd go that far in this environment. She could still win, but we're certainly making it much harder on ourselves by nominating her (which seems likely at this point)...
No it's not. Trump+1 state in a likely bue wave, and Tiffany is not an amazing candidate. I think she's weak enough to make it a toss up but not to make it a guaranteed loss.
Tossup? I'll believe that when I see it in general election polling after relentless Republican ads about Hong wanting to abolish prisons and disband police forces.
I saw online that there’s a path for us to stop an R trifecta through the state senate since the median seat there is a few points to the left of the state. So Hong would need to keep a loss close.
That’s not exactly reassuring if the argument is that this isn’t Safe R. I agree it’s not Safe R nor is it a guaranteed loss. I think she’s highly unlikely to win. Our best chance to salvage or stop a Republican trifecta might be to win the state senate on easier turf.
I think it's fair to say that Hong has some pretty easy lines of attack for Republicans, but it's not as if Tiffany doesn't have weaknesses too, as a sitting GOP congressmember who can directly be tied to the Big Beautiful Bill, tariffs, the Iran War, ICE, and more.
Obviously, the money issue will also come into play if the Dem big money groups decide they don't want to invest out of spite and sore loserdom.
I feel like Hong-Tiffany starts at tilt R at worst.
There are 38 gubernatorial races with about a dozen of them likely to be competitive. The outside Dem groups can only devote so much to this race at the expense of others.
People are acting as if the polls have her down by double digits. She's not running against Tommy Thompson
Regardless I'm not looking forward to progressives being demonized for supporting a candidate and unifying around them. If you want someone to blame, blame Sarah Rodriguez for having poor judgement in who she hired for her campaign. Blame Gov. Evers for encouraging a candidate who withdrew to jump back into the race instead of just endorsing Barnes and consolidating establishment, centrist and liberal support around him.
At this point, I have more faith in Minnesota Republicans not being dumb enough to nominate Lindell than I have in Wisconsin Democrats not being dumb enough to nominate Hong. This will likely go down with the 2010 Delaware GOP Senate as a "what were they thinking?!?!" moment if Wisconsin Dems really go through with this. You'd think Wisconsin Democrats would have a better memory of the consequences of letting a noxious Republican Governor get elected.
Apples and Oranges. Delaware was, and still is, a deep blue state, so of course nominating a bad candidate was going to throw away that senate seat. O'Donnell may very well have won if she was running in an actual swing state.
Hong doesn't have Wisconsin's partisanship working against her.
But at the same time Hong doesn’t have Wisconsin’s partisanship working for her. If this was Minnesota, that might be enough of a buffer for her. Dems don’t start with any partisan advantage in Wisconsin.
That's true. which is where other advantages Hong has, like the national environment or Democrat's turnout advantage, could come into play. Will they be enough to outweigh her candidate quality issues?
It appears that the Likely Voter model (more reliable, arguably) has Hong tied to Tiffany.
At this point, I think WI Dems are better off rallying around Hong and supporting her, rather than continuing any of the nonsense. There clearly is a path to Hong winning, and establishment Dems supporting her will only help her.
Marquette has Hong losing to Tiffany, 40-43. Meanwhile, Barnes is the only named Democrat to lead Tiffany at 44-40. David Crowley was not tested since he had dropped out while poll was in the field.
Most swing voters aren't aware yet that Hong wants to abolish prisons and defend the police. If she is the candidate, you can bet that they will know that and the polls will get ugly.
Not great for Hong, but not terrible. It shows she's a risky candidate who could blow the race. But it does undercut the idea that Tiffany is outright favored if she's nominated. Getting those MAGA voters to the polls are probably his biggest challenge.
I said "might". Not arguing she isn't more likely to lose than the other candidates and a risky bet even in this environment. "She could blow a winnable race" and "she will blow a winnable race" are two different things.
I mean, I'm no fan of Hong's and would really prefer she not be our nominee, but no way any D loses a statewide race in WI by 20 points (or even 10) in this environment.
SC-Sen: Minor correction on this item - you refer to South Carolina as North Carolina at one point.
Yes, Russell Fry likely doesn’t have Tar Heel State endorsements either, but that’s probably not what was meant.
LOL yes, thanks!
I had to look up who headed the DCCC it's Suzan DelBene (D-WA) -- and I've never heard of her (not saying no one else has) maybe if Jamie Raskin or AOC headed this up (not in the same camp but both are media savvy) they would make better choices and find candidates likely to actually win
I think most of us have heard of her because we remember her runs for Congress.
She's a suburban moderate New Democrat and isn't fond of the left. That's all I know about her.
I think Squad 2.0 should hold Jeffries hostage in exchange for concessions, such as firing her—a reverse "Unbreakable Nine." His other recruits, like Shannon Bird and Jasmeet Bains, have also been terrible, and Joe Baldacci Bob Casey'd his race by taking positions that were out of step with the primary electorate.
Great idea
but bob always won his primaries? i don't understand the connection, though I agree baldacci was held to a standard that golden was never held to and the seat is now at risk because of it. Saying this as someone that is not fond of "New Democrats," in fact I trust the older iterations of blue dogs more because it felt like they were more centrist because they had to win re-election, not because that donor money made it look so appetizing
Bob Casey'd meaning threw away an election that should have been winnable.
The seat was likely lost the second we pushed Golden out. Hope people upset with Golden are happy with LePage.
Not yet, Golden won it in 2018 due to it being a blue wave while being endorsed by the CPC, M4A PAC and Pramila Jayapal.
We pushed Golden out? That's news to me. I thought he was just dissatisfied with Washington.
He was trailing pretty badly in early polls against Dunlap. Do with that what you will.
He wasn't pushed out; he didn't want to be accountable to the voters - he tied himself to Trump's policies on ICE, tariffs, War with Iran, and, to an extent, to Biden's IRA policy - and was wrong on all counts. We keep saying the left needs to admit when they get things wrong on policy; why can't centrists?
I guess maybe you could argue Dunlap's primary challenger didn't help things?
But like, if he didn't want to be "pushed out," maybe he shouldn't have supported policies far beyond the pale for Democratic voters everywhere, like being the deciding vote and only Democrat to vote against a War Powers resolution to put checks on Trump's war in Iran and... supporting Trump's tariffs???
> Golden expressed concern over Trump backing down from his tariff policy, telling Axios, "My biggest worry is that they're going to do this and lose faith and political will and back away."
I'm not even super against protectionism if it's needed to help American workers, but *come on.* This was the turning point of Trump's (short-lived) boost in popularity and good will and you're supporting it? That's like running as a Pro-Obamacare Republican in 2010, at least in a political sense.
I'm a progressive, yes, but I'm all for centrist-y candidates in red districts if that's what it takes to win. But Maine's second district is not West Virginia, there was no reason for him to take these positions that were unpopular with the Democratic base (and are becoming unpopular with other voter groups too like independents and even some Republicans)
Is Dunlap a weaker candidate? Maybe. But while Jared Golden has held the ire of progressives (such as myself, even if I recognize sometimes representatives like him are a necessary evil) for a while, he didn't face a primary challenger until this election cycle. Maybe if he didn't try to tack to the right further after Trump's win, he'd still be the nominee for ME-2.
Pushed him out? He pushed himself out. And Baldacci would have had a good shot at winning.
That's why I stopped contributing to the DNC. (That and their potential complicity in the 2024 scam pack scandal.
I moved most of my monthly donation money over to the NC Democratic Party, since I live in NC and really like what Anderson Clayton is doing here. I also donate to several national and local grassroots organizations on a regular basis.
With respect to donating to candidates directly, I am migrating over to Oath (https://app.oath.vote/) which doesn't share your contact information with the candidates.
state party giving is the way to go imo
As long as it’s not the New Jersey Democratic State Committee! There may be worse state parties somewhere in the country. But I’ve never had to interact with them (or work for them) so I reserve a special dislike for NJDSC.
(If I remember correctly the ‘Hudson’ in your name is a reference to Hudson. If you live on the Hudson River in upstate New York, then you have a different poorly-run state party to deal with.
Picking a more progressive DCCC chair can create problems in the opposite direction, as relatively mainstream candidates tend to be needed to win in most swing districts. I don't know if DelBene is the ideal chair, but she's an improvement over past chairs who had to spend extra money to try to keep their swing seats (Bustos, Patrick Maloney).
I think what we should want is someone who is objective as possible about politics in their role as DCCC leader and is solely concerned with winning.
And solely concerned with winning means not supporting DSA candidates in swingy seats.
Yes it does.
Perhaps we can find some kind of middle ground, where a candidate in between the center and left can lead the DCCC?
I don't think the DCCC should be a locus of intrafactional warfare. The person who runs it should be the person who is best at fundraising and identifying good candidates.
I mean, I’m not arguing for that. I am staunchly progressive myself, including on some issues like humane prisons and copyright reform support where I am to the left of a lot of Americans. (Among my most extreme positions is that public utilities such as those of power and water should be nationalized and run by the government. After the PG&E saga in California with the fires, and after watching ConEdison do an absolute shit job in my area with the power, I don’t trust private industry government-sanctioned monopolies to do it anymore. At that point I think the government should just do it.)
Good candidates can be progressive too. Katie Porter won her swing seat multiple times. Brian Poindexter is running a very progressive, working-class campaign for OH-7 with support from Dems in general. While Fetterman turned out to be awful, he originally ran a progressive campaign that paid off in getting him elected. If you want to go back several decades David Bonior was a (for his time) progressive Dem in the 90s in a tough Michigan seat. Matt Cartwright held his seat for longer than a lot of other Dems could have, he only got taken out by the 2024 Trump wave. And I’ve seen posters here call for progressives to run in some seats where they’d be fantastic fits — the push for Troy Jackson for one, plus I feel like I remember seeing a lot of people (even the DCCC) feel Andy Levin should have tried for MI-10. (And centrists can prove to be lousy candidates too — that is why I suspect Jasmeet Bains didn’t even make it to the runoff, and Sean Patrick Maloney ran an atrocious campaign in my home NY-17 that gave us the detestable Mike Lawler.)
For me it’s about the district and characteristics within. What is the district like? Who lives there? Race, ethnicity, religion, income level, etc. Are there any important industries there that pissing off those involved would be disastrous? Much as I detest the power and influence of the dairy industry, a hypothetical anti-dairy candidate would be slaughtered in WI, for instance. On the flip side, Mary Peltola’s focus on Alaska’s fishing industry has worked well for her. What kinds of candidates do well in such a district?
I feel like ideological battles have taken over political discussion in general to such a degree it blinds us from other, highly important characteristics. I’m not going to lie, I’ve been guilty of this myself, I think most people here have. It’s something to consider in a political environment where our democracy and the safety of our populace, especially minority groups, is at stake. We can’t afford to screw up.
No you're right, I wasn't thinking before I typed.
Question -- who might that person be? If DelBene is on bad terms with the left and has recruited lousy candidates, and a left-wing member may do the same, but on the opposite, who could be a competent, fit leader of the DCCC?
I think you probably need to be more familiar with intracaucus dynamics than anyone who doesn't work on the hill is. I don't think it's necessarily about uniting the party though. I'd be equally fine with AOC and Gottheimer. They're both great fundraisers and if they left some of their unpopular ideological positions in their district office and recruited candidates who fit their districts they'd both do a fine job. Point being, it takes pragmatism and fundraising skills more than coalition management imo.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2026/07/21/fishback-admits-to-voting-in-d-c-in-2020-as-he-fights-to-stay-on-ballot/
FL-Gov: Republican candidate James Fishback has been confirmed to vote in the District of Columbia instead of Florida and could potentially be kicked off the ballot.
Get rekked Nazi.
Always a Republican...
I'm actually shocked that Evnen accepted Burbank's resignation from the Senate race. Would've thought he would've done what he can to keep her on the ballot.
I figured he took the Bill Cassidy/John Cornyn route of "well I lost my primary so I really don't care what the base thinks"
Cornyn is now blocking nominations - including of Kari Lake to be ambassador to Jamaica - unless Trump spends the millions of dollars for global AIDS relief allocated by Congress.
I’m not surprised that Big Bad John would do this
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IA4DiZasp2U&pp=ygUbSm9obiBjb3JueW4gYWQgYmlnIGJhZCBqb2hu
Cornyn has already caved on that!
One of the only times where I support Cornyn if it means stopping Trump.
The state supreme court shut him down when he tried to bar her from running, I assume he knew they would do the same here.
Charlie Cook, founder of the Cook Report, thinks the Iowa governor's seat will flip, but not the US Senate seat. Has he been wrong before?
https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2026/07/20/iowa-is-acting-different-political-expert-discusses-democrats-chances-in-iowa/
I mean that's a pretty reasonable prediction
He’s been around forever so he’s been right and wrong lots of times.
he was so good in 2006, i think he got every race but harold ford v bob corker right that year, first year following politics closely and god did I think we had it made
He does rate a lot of elections as “tossups “. It’s impossible to be wrong if that’s the rating.
That's reasonable. Governor races are not as nationally polarized as Senate ones.
He's probably been wrong before, but I wouldn't say this is a crazy bet to be making. Rob Sand has a documented track record of winning statewide office even in tough environments, so it stands to reason that he has a good chance of winning the governorship against a nobody in a very Democratic environment. While Turek's won in hostile territory, he hasn't run a statewide campaign, and while Hinson is offensive to people with eyes and ears she's a pretty standard MAGA Republican without as much baggage as Joni Ernst, so given the uncertainty and dynamics of that race it isn't weird to believe that race might follow the typical voting pattern of Iowa even in a blue wave.
I think Turek would be favored against Ernst
Hard to see a scenario where we're favored for any statewide election in Iowa, but I certainly think he could have beaten Ernst (and can also beat Hinson).
really hoping he pulls through in Iowa, he is a quality candidate.
He has been wrong before, but I think this is a pretty reasonable prediction right now.
That would be my guess right now too, but I think Sand is better positioned than Hinson is, if that makes sense.
That’s not an entirely unreasonable guess with more than three months out
My takeaway from that article is that he already has IA-Sen as a 25% probability for Dems and it's only July. I'll bet he has it at Tossup by November.
it is a toss up now and Turek will win
Is Cook any better than most of us on guessing who will win? We've all seen the polls that show Sand up a couple points and Hinson up a couple points, not really a hot take by Cook.
Fred Hubbell had only lost by 2.73% points the IA-GOV race back in 2018 so this isn't a surprise. It's a tougher battle to win the Senate race than the Gubernatorial race.
On the other hand, in the IA-SEN race, Josh Turek was leading by four points in a recent Fox News poll. Anything can happen.
Charlie Cook, as with the rest in Cook Political Report, tends to be very metholodical and conservative in polling analysis. I respect his reasoning although I tend to view in the bigger picture than just polls.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5951256-iowa-senate-race-ashley-hinson-josh-turek-fox-news-poll/
I don't think it's controversial to say that Sand seems more likely to win than Turek. I don't disagree with Cook's take that a Turek win has about one-in-four odds. But I continue to struggle to see what a winning Ashley Hinson message sounds like that would lead to significant numbers of voters splitting their tickets. The quality of Turek's candidacy under the spotlight looms large but if he can avoid giving Hinson anything to work with in terms of alignment with the party's left flank on cultural issues, I don't see him underperforming Sand by multiple points.
AZ GOP is going to LOSE big time with Kolodin and Biggs on the ballot. Hobbs will likely win 55% of the vote.
Here's hoping for the first Dem trifecta in AZ since the GOP flipped the state House in 1966 (the only time that body has ever flipped since 1912 statehood).
Can someone explain to me what faction Shah actually appealed to in AZ-01? Did he just skate by based on name rec as the previous nominee?
Also, Joanna Mendoza got more votes than Juan Ciscomani despite the uncontested statewide Dem races compared to contested GOP primaries.
Pretty much everybody voting in the primary will have voted for him in the general last cycle. He's a 3 term state House rep as well, under two different sets of district lines.
I get that, but it didn’t seem like he was the choice of either centrists/liberals, the establishment, or the far left. So it must be just name recognition, right?
I can't say I have my ear to the ground in the district anymore, and it was never my part of the Valley culturally (I grew up in the kind of circles that called Scottsdale Snotsdale), but I'd guess that both voters were comfortable if not delighted with him and that he got close enough last cycle to be seen as a good bet for a win in November.
Same😂 been a while since I heard that
I'm a little confused on your terminology here. Isn't there a difference between centrists and liberals?
I thought so, but I don’t even know anymore based on the stupid purity fights we’ve been having.
I think there is.
Absolutely there is. The Democrats I’d argue have four factions at this point: centrists, liberals (often called “moderates” erroneously), progressives, and now socialists.
See, I group moderates in with centrists.
People online and journalists alike have been conflating liberals and moderates under the nebulous “establishment” umbrella for years now, and it’s gotten much worse this cycle.
Name recognition might've played a role, although Galan-Woods scored a close third in the primary in 2024 (only two points separated her and Shah then) so it's not like she was unknown. Shah might've had some broad appeal as... not necessarily an "anti-establishment" candidate, but not the establishment's candidate, as well as being a standard liberal rather than a moderate
It's more that Marlene Galan Woods did not appeal to anyone as a former Cuban neocon backed by the DCCC who refused to say that she supports UHC.
NV-Gov: tied at 44-44. Apparently Lombardo used his position/name to get out of a traffic stop and it was on body cam. Ford/DGA need to hammer him over this nonstop. I also wish they tested the AG and SOS races for a baseline comparison.
https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/lombardo-ford-tied-in-nevada-governors-race-dem-poll-shows
He happened to be county sheriff in the county he was pulled over in. When I posted this, I included his pretty out of touch quote: "I'm Joe Lombardo. Come on man!"
And Ford also has traffic misdemeanors from the 1990s; apparently he was rambunctious in his 20s.
Being dumb in your 20s is less egregious than name dropping yourself to get out of a stop though. That needs to be plastered on the airwaves.
If I lived in Vegas in my 20s I’d have been real rambunctious too!
This...does not sound like something that will resonate (to Lombardo's detriment) in this day and age. Sadly.
Because?
Trump has neutralized the effectiveness of minor scandals
I don't know if you're right. He somehow gets a pass because loads of idiots think he has charisma. A lot of his sycophants don't get the same pass.
I agree - Trump seems to skate on things that stick to other Republicans. I do think this could hurt Lombardo at the margins, which could be very useful in a race that's likely to be within 2-3 percentage points.
It did get a fair bit of attention, FWIW https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/four-reasons-why-im-joe-lombardo-traffic-stop-went-viral
I'm so frustrated! Am I the only person who sees a plus sign with a number that hides a subthread, and then around 80% of the time I click it, a previous subthread opens and when I press the back arrow, it goes back to the digest and out of the comments entirely? This happens over and over to me on mobile and is exceedingly annoying!!!!
Happens to me too, it’s been annoying me
I experience the same on mobile, and even run into issues where I can no longer like a comment the further I go down the comment threads.
Send me an email and I'll loop you with Substack Support.
Let's make sure Democrats come out on top in AZ in November! Here are some postcard campaigns - current and upcoming. Postcards are a great way to stay involved and beat the beastly summer heat!
➡️ Arizona Native Democrats have several current "Protect Our Vote" postcard campaigns on their Cardzilla platform: https://cardzilla.persontoperson.net/. These are "mail as you go" with a mailing deadline of Sep.1st.
➡️ Activate America (www.activateamerica.vote/postcards) lists AZ amongst the states with campaigns "coming soon".
➡️ Field Team 6 (https://postcards.fieldteam6.org/) has a voter registration outreach campaign for AZ-06. These are also "mail as you go" but no specifical mailing deadline is provided.
AZ-02 has a large Native American population, no? I wonder if the postcard campaign efforts by the Arizona Native Democrats you mentioned could contribute to us potentially pulling off a close result or even an upset there. We do have a strong candidate in former Navajo Nation head Jonathan Nez.
It has the highest AIAN population proportion of any district in the country, just a hair ahead of AK-AL and NM-03. All 3 are over 20%, No other district is over 10%.
Massive indigenous turnout is a necessary but not sufficient condition for winning AZ-02, even in a blue wave. One thing that will help on that front is that the Navajo Nation presidential elections will be held at the same times and places as the congressional general, and there seems to be a lot of energy in the Navajo election this cycle.
https://navajotimes.com/reznews/sixteen-file-for-navajo-presidency-as-council-turnover-builds/
We also need massive student turnout at NAU, among other things.
ME Sen: Troy Jackson has raised $1 million in the less than two weeks with $613,000 raised since Sunday. (Worth noting, however, that Collins had raised over $18 million and had $11 million COH as of 6/30. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/07/22/congress/troy-jackson-raises-1-million-maine-senate-01007681
I have this feeling that Jackson will raise money in 3Q like we have seen from Talarico and Ossoff.
One of those two almost always pops up asking for money on most of the YouTube videos I put on.
Yes, Ossoff. And I and my family see ads for Talarico on social media.
Proud to say I’m one. Donated $10 to Jackson
He's already in the top 5 on ActBlue.
I've given the most money I've ever given a politican to Jackson. I really think he brings this home and sends collins packing finally. Gonna be a fight the whole way though
What my own, super unreliable gut says:
Good Vibes - NC, AZ, MN, ME, GA, OH
Bad Vibes - TX, FL, NV, WI, MI, SC
As always, YMMV.
AK?
His gut hasn’t made it that far yet
It's a long haul I get it.
My vibes are bad on Ohio... but I think much better on NV/WI/MI.
With Texas, it's impossible to judge -- even a big overperformance (which I think I do expect) may not be enough, but whether that makes the vibes sweet or sour is hard to say.
We talking Senate or Governor here? What are your vibes on Iowa?
"Wisconsin Governor Dem Primary (Crowley internal)
🟦 Francesca Hong: 35%
🟦 Mandela Barnes: 15%
🟦 David Crowley: 14%
🟦 Missy Hughes: 5%
🟦 J. Brennan: 3%
@ppppolls
| 708 LV | 7/20-22"
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2079967308663943578
"Impact Research poll | 7/18-7/20 LV
Wisconsin Governor Democratic primary 2026
🟦Francesca Hong 39%
🟦Mandela Barnes 26%
🟦David Crowley 11%
🟦Kelda Roys 7%
🟦Joel Brennan 6%
(Mandela Barnes internal)"
https://x.com/polltracker2024/status/2079974751250854313
I'm at the point where I'm wondering if we should just prepare for a Hong win. Is there any way we can come close to salvaging the Gov race if Hong wins? Or at least lessen the blow? Or is it a guaranteed GOP blowout up and down the ticket?
It's probably a guaranteed loss.
The general election campaign hasn't even started.
If Dems lose the governors race, but still somehow win the legislature they need to vote get independent redistricting on the ballot almost immediately after they are sworn in. I don’t want Tiffany and a likely R legislature drawing the lines again after 2030.
Heck they should do this even if Hong wins, since I don’t see her surviving a Presidem midterm in 2030.
I think I’d put it at Lean/Likely R where the margin is somewhat close, but yeah, I think Tiffany narrowly wins in the vast majority of permutations/outcomes.
The margin will probably be deceptively narrow because it’s Wisconsin and our floor is high. But I think she’s going to really tank in places like WOW, where we’ve made huge gains recently to offset our bleeding in Driftless.
Not sure I'd go that far in this environment. She could still win, but we're certainly making it much harder on ourselves by nominating her (which seems likely at this point)...
No it's not. Trump+1 state in a likely bue wave, and Tiffany is not an amazing candidate. I think she's weak enough to make it a toss up but not to make it a guaranteed loss.
Tossup? I'll believe that when I see it in general election polling after relentless Republican ads about Hong wanting to abolish prisons and disband police forces.
I saw online that there’s a path for us to stop an R trifecta through the state senate since the median seat there is a few points to the left of the state. So Hong would need to keep a loss close.
There's no guarantee she will lose in a blue wave in a very polarized state especially if she is able to reassure the public on public safety.
That’s not exactly reassuring if the argument is that this isn’t Safe R. I agree it’s not Safe R nor is it a guaranteed loss. I think she’s highly unlikely to win. Our best chance to salvage or stop a Republican trifecta might be to win the state senate on easier turf.
I think it's fair to say that Hong has some pretty easy lines of attack for Republicans, but it's not as if Tiffany doesn't have weaknesses too, as a sitting GOP congressmember who can directly be tied to the Big Beautiful Bill, tariffs, the Iran War, ICE, and more.
Obviously, the money issue will also come into play if the Dem big money groups decide they don't want to invest out of spite and sore loserdom.
I feel like Hong-Tiffany starts at tilt R at worst.
There are 38 gubernatorial races with about a dozen of them likely to be competitive. The outside Dem groups can only devote so much to this race at the expense of others.
People are acting as if the polls have her down by double digits. She's not running against Tommy Thompson
Regardless I'm not looking forward to progressives being demonized for supporting a candidate and unifying around them. If you want someone to blame, blame Sarah Rodriguez for having poor judgement in who she hired for her campaign. Blame Gov. Evers for encouraging a candidate who withdrew to jump back into the race instead of just endorsing Barnes and consolidating establishment, centrist and liberal support around him.
She isn't even "highly unlikely" to win. It's a Tilt R race at worst honestly. The polling isn't showing a blowout for Tiffany.
At this point, I have more faith in Minnesota Republicans not being dumb enough to nominate Lindell than I have in Wisconsin Democrats not being dumb enough to nominate Hong. This will likely go down with the 2010 Delaware GOP Senate as a "what were they thinking?!?!" moment if Wisconsin Dems really go through with this. You'd think Wisconsin Democrats would have a better memory of the consequences of letting a noxious Republican Governor get elected.
Apples and Oranges. Delaware was, and still is, a deep blue state, so of course nominating a bad candidate was going to throw away that senate seat. O'Donnell may very well have won if she was running in an actual swing state.
Hong doesn't have Wisconsin's partisanship working against her.
But at the same time Hong doesn’t have Wisconsin’s partisanship working for her. If this was Minnesota, that might be enough of a buffer for her. Dems don’t start with any partisan advantage in Wisconsin.
They start with a midterm high prop turnout advantage.
That's true. which is where other advantages Hong has, like the national environment or Democrat's turnout advantage, could come into play. Will they be enough to outweigh her candidate quality issues?
Marquette poll | 7/8-7/16
Wisconsin Governor Democratic primary 2026
Francesca Hong 26%
Mandela Barnes 15%
Sara Rodriguez 11% (dropped out)
Joel Brennan 2%
Kelda Roys 1%
General election matchups
Tom Tiffany 43%
Francesca Hong 40%
Mandela Barnes 44%
Tom Tiffany 40%
https://x.com/mulawpoll?s=21&t=ur470cc8I-pVBsEowCJVTg
Trump's net approval in WI, now at -18, is an all-time low for Trump and has consistently gone down in recent polls.
Approval of the job Tony Evers is doing as governor rose to 51% in July from 47% in March
It appears that the Likely Voter model (more reliable, arguably) has Hong tied to Tiffany.
At this point, I think WI Dems are better off rallying around Hong and supporting her, rather than continuing any of the nonsense. There clearly is a path to Hong winning, and establishment Dems supporting her will only help her.
Marquette has Hong losing to Tiffany, 40-43. Meanwhile, Barnes is the only named Democrat to lead Tiffany at 44-40. David Crowley was not tested since he had dropped out while poll was in the field.
Hong vs. Tiffany
Tiffany (R) 43%
Hong (D) 40%
Barnes vs. Tiffany
Barnes (D) 44%
Tiffany (R) 40%
Ouch!
It's a shame WI Democrats aren't coalescing around Barnes or Crowley.
General election matchups among likely voters: Barnes, 47%, Tiffany 42%, undecided, 10%. Brennan, 43%, Tiffany 44%, undecided 13%. Hong 44%, Tiffany 44%, undecided 11%.
That’s not as bad as I thought. Still, why take the risk?
Most swing voters aren't aware yet that Hong wants to abolish prisons and defend the police. If she is the candidate, you can bet that they will know that and the polls will get ugly.
You keep repeating stuff she has disavowed/walked back.
Are you unaware or lying on purpose?
You can't unring that bell.
Not great for Hong, but not terrible. It shows she's a risky candidate who could blow the race. But it does undercut the idea that Tiffany is outright favored if she's nominated. Getting those MAGA voters to the polls are probably his biggest challenge.
I’m actually surprised Hong isn’t losing by more. I was excepting 50-30 personally.
She won’t lose by that much because it’s Wisconsin and both parties have a high floor.
She might not lose at all. She's still tied in LV screen.
How reassuring.
I said "might". Not arguing she isn't more likely to lose than the other candidates and a risky bet even in this environment. "She could blow a winnable race" and "she will blow a winnable race" are two different things.
I mean, I'm no fan of Hong's and would really prefer she not be our nominee, but no way any D loses a statewide race in WI by 20 points (or even 10) in this environment.
Wisconsin Governor General Poll
🟦 Barnes 47%
🟥 Tiffany 42%
🟦 Hong 44%
🟥 Tiffany 44%
🟦 Brennan 43%
🟥 Tiffany 44%
🟦 Roys 42%
🟥 Tiffany 44%
Marquette University Law School
(Jul 8–16, 695 LV)
https://x.com/BaselineNow/status/2079987379830473105