If Democrat Aftyn Behn pulls off a miracle and actually beats Republican candidate Matt Van Epps in Tennessee’s 7th Congressional district, it will be yet another political earthquake – and very high on the Richter Scale! I’ll make sure to have plenty of nachos on hand on 2 December, which is Election Night for this special election.
If Aftyn Behn gets close or flips the seat, that's great news for us in North Carolina as well next year. Republicans here in the South need a brutal beating down at the ballot box, be it in TN, NC, GA, FL and elsewhere.
It's worth noting that based on 2024 election results, TN-07 is more Republican than literally ALL of North Carolina's 14 congressional districts.
The most Republican is NC-08, which went 59.0-39.6 Trump. As the digest notes, TN-07 is 60-38 Trump.
If Behn wins, NC Dems better be ready to put all Republican-held seats and NC-01 in play. Even if a special election is different than a midterm, NC will hopefully benefit from having a strong Dem (Cooper) at the top of the ticket, likely facing a weaker Republican.
In 2018, Democrat Phil Bredesen got 49.1% in the current TN-07, Marsha Blackburn 49.6 so D -0.5 (Data from Dave’s Redistricting App).
Two further notable features of that election in the first Trump midterm:
1 Bredesen (former Nashville mayor and Tennessee governor) did much better than Clinton in 2016 (-17.2) primarily by losing by less in the Republican parts of the district.
2 Turnout seems to have been about 10% lower in Democratic precincts than the rest of the district. (rough estimate: total votes/CVAP).
The Downballot’s Special Election Big Board shows that in April, in FL-01, a Harris -37 district, Democrat Gay Valimont lost by 15, a 23-point swing.
Valimont founded Engage Y’All, “a woman-led, Southern-rooted” PAC; the first candidate endorsed by Engage Y’All: Aftyn Behn. 23 point swing would win in TN-07.
Trying to imagine what the coalition would look like....presumably a 2-1 Behn win in Clarksville and no worse than 50-50 in Williamson County. The old TVA counties in the rural part of the district were Yellow Dog Democrat strongholds into the 2000s but since they all voted by 20+ points even against Bredesen in 2018, it's hard to see them reverting to form now.
That CA-GOV poll suggests there's a decent chance that California could have a Republican governor for the next four years of the Democratic field doesn't consolidate.
On the one hand, sure, that would be bad. But it would probably get them to finally get rid of their stupid top two rules.
It is getting ridiculous that so many Democrats are piling into the governor's race in California. The same appears to be happening in Michigan and Wisconsin. I think of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez's comment on the presidential race in 2020: too many Democrats running for President, not enough running for Senate.
My read of the poll is that Californians aren't really paying attention to the 2026 races yet. We just overwhelming supported expanding Democratic control with Prop 50, and will probably not pay much attention to politics until after January 1. California is not going to have a Republican governor, nor is there going to be a top tier 2 Republican lockout. If there was even a hint of that happening, our Democratic leaders would intervene in the primary.
This is what I'm thinking of most likely. Once it drops to 3 or 4 serious contenders the top 2 lockout becomes rather improbable, at least for the Dems.
because it almost always leads to electing the more moderate candidate. (I actually did the math a few years ago using the Cal state legislative races. In almost every election where a progressive ran against a mod, the mod won.)
Ah gotcha. What do people want to replace it with then? Something like Alaska's top-4 primary then RCV general? Or RCV everything?
I like the idea that voters get to have their preferred candidates, regardless of party, on the general election ballot. That seems like a good system from a democracy perspective. But I recognize that the top two can have similar pitfalls to first past the post.
Within the confines of our election system, it occupies a great intersection between "least change" and "improvement." It doesn't fundamentally restructure how we run elections but it does mean that election outcomes are more accurate reflections of the will of the electorate in fields of more than two candidates.
There's similarities but they don't work identically on that front.
In Top 2, it favors the moderate relative to the entire electorate. In RCV, it favors the moderate relative to the majority voting block in the electorate.
In RCV republicans are always going to have a republican to vote for and democrats will always have a democrat to vote for. You will not have party A pushing the more moderate of two party B candidates to the win, as the base conditions (two candidates of same party) will not be present.
The difference there is that in sufficiently blue or sufficiently red seats the resultant winner will more accurately reflect the desires of that majority party than they will the desires of the overall district. This is a downgrade. But it comes with the upgrade of avoiding Top 2 lockouts, and the upgrade of the actual final candidates better reflecting the will of the electorate. Top 2, like we're seeing right now, can have a huge split field where the plurality winners might get some small portion of the vote share (20-40%) and not be a proper reflection of who voters would be happiest with as their candidates. RCV, applying to both primaries and general elections, avoids this.
I find the upgrade of RCV over Top 2 to be, on net, larger and more desirable.
First I've heard that RCV favors moderate candidates. That's not the case across the board in elections. San Francisco is an example of such. Same with Berkeley.
A debate can be had about the tactical merits of RCV, but its large-scale enactment would immediately and permanently end my lifelong excitement about election tracking.
I think we're using the term "extremist" differently. I don't think Postcards meant extremist in the way that MAGA Republicans are extremist but rather to mean far left candidates who may or may not be electable in purple or light blue/red districts.
More like pandering to their respective parties rather than responding to people. (I’m having a hard time coming up an example of an extreme Democrat, unless Eugene McCarthy counts, and he was national, not state or local.) Mea culpa.
it makes sense in a moderate district, but there are a lot of progressive districts in California. Most of the Dems prefer the progressive, but the moderate siphons off enough votes from GOPers to win.
I dislike it because it leads to the party anointing someone when there's a lockout risk. And that it sometimes does lock one party out of a competitive race. The moderates being more likely to win is a plus in my view.
Because it has the potential to lock out Democrats and give Republicans guaranteed pickups in one of the bluest states in America.
It's really that simple. Any system that has the possibility, no matter how remote, of locking Democrats out of the general election is a terrible system and should be discarded.
I would make the same argument in a deep red GOP district. Inasmuch as we have a two-party system, both parties need to be represented in general elections when at all possible.
As a resident of California, it's undemocratic irrespective of which two candidates emerge in the general election. Spearheaded by former GOP Lt. Governor Abel Maldonado, the top two primary system was advocated by him and others specifically to try to get more moderate politicians serving in CA.
We could have the traditional primary system back or we could have ranked choice voting, which is more popular as it's looked at as the more democratic choice. With RCV, we've seen plenty of positive results locally in San Francisco and even at the state level in Alaska and Maine).
But the top two primary system is stupid. Absolutely stupid. Normal elections allow candidates from each political party and Independents to be able to run irrespective of what the results end up being. Same with RCV.
Do we want no Democrats to be able to appear in the general election ballot in some races?
Do we want no Republicans to be able to appear in the general election ballot in some races?
Same with third party candidates and Independents.
Should be noted that Governor Gavin Newsom unseated Abel Maldonado back in 2010 in the Lt. Governor's race. Now that Newsom not only defeated the 2021 recall, won re-election in 2022 and got Prop 50 passed by wide margins, the push should be to repeal the top-two system.
I do think there is a real risk that a top two lockout could happen, but right now, it is looking unlikely. Polling doesn't actually show the two Republicans in the lead, and many of the Undecided voters will probably end up choosing a Democrat.
Also, if a leader does emerge, they could try to elevate a Republican with attack ads that tie one of the candidates (likely Chad Bianco) to Trump.
However, unlikely isn't impossible, and I do think the dynamics of this election make it more likely than most. I am worried and really wish we'd just amend the law to prevent top two lockouts, or pursue Ranked Choice Voting.
After the disaster of the Chilean election, some good news from yesterday's Ecuadorian elections. The country soundly rejected referendums designed as power grabs by increasingly right wing President Noboa, including permitting foreign military bases in the country, shrinking the size of the legislature, and rewriting rhe country's progressive constitution.
Of the existing field, I would support Becerra, but I have been hoping for a qualified candidate with a little more room presence who isn't Katie Porter. Becerra seems to have governor Davis vibes.
I am from the other coast, so I really don't have any knowledge here. asking this sincerely. Acknowledging that Gavin went to the mat and saved us five seats when no one else was stepping up, what else has he done that would suggest Katie Porter isn't an upgrade? Gav didn't get along with the legislature, at least from national reports, and at least back east I view katie porter as synonymous with holding people accountable. Re her staffers: I'm a guy who's worked for public and private folks and I'm spoken to worse on a regular basis. I think most folks are, I don't love it but lord I do not find it disqualifying.
I live in Porter's former congressional district, CA 47 (and previously 45), and I know some of her staffers and dismiss the abuse claims. I believe Porter would be better in a legislative function than in an administrative one based on her huge talents and personality. I did support her in the Senate race.
That being said, if it's Porter vs a Repug, Porter would have my full support.
Long answer: No, because he's not going to make a big difference. Porter isn't going to drop out just because he enters -- if anything she'll probably beef up some feminist messaging ("the only prominent woman running"). Clooless may drop out but he was never a factor in the 1st place. Swalwell and Becerra can run to the center in the OG Trump Resistance lane but Swalwell's presence won't make Becerra drop out. Nor will he move AV, who's already locked up some union endorsements. The only "clear the field" I see happening is that Tony Thurmond is going to drop out but that's because he's out of money, not because of Swalwell. Also, Betty Three Percent should drop out -- same boat as Thurmond -- but she won't, she says.
No but Swalwell will certainly make the gubernatorial race more competitive. He's got a reputation as a straight shooter and would make the debates more challenging to Porter and the rest of the gubernatorial candidates.
Only Kamala Harris would be considered field clearing at this point (at least Attorney General Rob Bonta had said this at the time many months ago) and she could still jump in the race. However, months ago Harris said no.
Arizona isn't New Jersey. Arizona did have some elections that seemed to show support for government doing stuff. Maricopa County had bonds for indigent health care win, and school bond overrides did unusually well. How well Hobbs does depends on her Republican opponent, but I would guess she wins by 3-4 points.
They have very different Latino communities. Arizona used to be part of Mexico (and the New Mexico territory) and is mostly Mexican-American. I don't know New Jersey as well, but I would assume it is more Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican and others.
Sure. Hispanic communities in the East have traditionally been mostly Dominican and Puerto Rican, but an increasing percentage of them are Mexican, and I remember reading an article in the New York Times several years ago about the Mexican percentage of the population overtaking the traditional Puerto Rican majority in Spanish Harlem. The Hispanic communities in many places in New Jersey are diverse, including immigrants from Colombia, Peru, Central American countries, as you said, Cuba, and so on, but I'm sure the same phenomenon has been happening there.
I think it's more likely Hobbs wins by double digits against Biggs than that she loses or even comes close to losing, yes. The Emerson poll weighting off 2024 only reinforces that opinion.
So I decided to revisit the Republican gerrymanders of Virginia's legislative districts that I drew before the election, to see how well they would have held up, and to see if it would've even been possible for Republicans to gerrymander themselves into a majority amidst such a strong Democratic wave.
My HoD map has 45 districts that voted for Sears, and therefore would've elected Republicans. There are also three districts that voted for Spanberger by less than 2 percent - one in Amelia/Chesterfield and two in Virginia Beach - that most likely would've elected Republican Delegates. The districts I drew in the Petersburg area were too aggressive and would've backfired this year, but Republicans could've squeezed one more district out of there. After that, the pickings are slim - they could've tried to dismantle the Roanoke district by splitting it four ways, but I don't know if even Republicans would be willing to do that. And don't forget that Republicans would've had to win 51 seats to get a majority thanks to Hashmi winning the LG race.
As for my state Senate map, it held up well in NoVA where I was able to connect light-blue suburban areas with the heavily Republican Shenandoah Valley, but I was too aggressive in Hampton Roads where all my narrow Trump districts ended up being about Spanberger+6. However, with a slight redrawing to concede one more Democratic seat in Hampton Roads and in the Richmond area, it's quite possible to draw a state Senate map that would've elected 22 Republicans last year.
So Republicans could've drawn themselves a majority in the state Senate despite the Democratic wave, but I don't think they could've realistically done the same in the House of Delegates.
As a postscript, and now that 2025 election data is in DRA, I looked up the numbers in the actual state Senate districts. All three Democrats won the 17th, 24th, and 27th districts (even Jones won them by 5, 8, and 6 respectively), so they should be easy pickups in 2027. The 4th and 12th both voted for Spanberger and Hashmi while voting for Miyares by identical 2-point margins, so they should still be major Democratic targets. The 20th voted for Spanberger but for Republicans for LG and AG, so it's more of a reach seat. The 13 other R-held seats all voted for all three Republicans and are safe for them.
Of the Democratic seats, the 31st is the only one that voted for Spanberger by less than 20. Just like this year in the HoD, Dems will be almost entirely on offense in the 2027 state Senate races.
To be fair, SD-24 was more Republican than Virginia as a whole prior to 2024. The district was Hillary+2.8 in 2016, Northam+6.7 in 2017, Kaine+13.4 in 2018, and Youngkin+3.4 in 2021.
Monty Mason lost reelection because of turnout disparities and because Danny Diggs won York County and Poquoson City by extra large margins. Also, Mason didn't win the Newport News portion of SD-24 by the margin he needed. He won it by 16, but Democrats normally need a 19-20 point margin in this part of the district to win districtwide.
If Way doesn't make a commercial with people saying things about them, with the response being "No way!" and then ending the commercial with "Yes, Way!" and an introduction to them on camera with a good voiceover, they will have missed their chance.
Then add in a "This is the Way" to reference the internet meme. Could be good for anything that millennials and younger will see. And as time marches on, the cut-off for us millennials is not all that young of an age anymore.
Kim’s endorsements feel inconsistent. Malinowski’s makes sense as a friend and early backer, but backing Angie Craig and others like her doesn’t fit someone who joined the Progressive Caucus from a swing district, is seen as anti-establishment, and holds standard progressive, dovish positions.
I think he’s likely to lose, though he won’t have to resign to run, and if he does win he could easily become the next AOC or Mamdani. It’s frustrating to see Mamdani pressuring DSA leadership not to endorse him. If anything, his priority should be blocking Alexa Avilés from running and preventing Goldman from advancing further.
Mamdani has to work with people for the good of the city. If he goes all Huey Long on everyone without being in control of his state like Long was, he and the city will be left way out on a limb.
Correct—and Mamdani should oppose his bid publicly and privately, just not try to persuade others to nip it in the bud. Let Osse try to pull it off with his 10/90 odds. Mamdani was himself an insurgent. Even Warren is said to be working behind the scenes to stop Osse. It’s rich coming from left-wing insurgents themselves.
If this keeps going on, Bernie and AOC will try to talk Osse out next.
I think the logic is that Torres and Goldman are more compelling primary races, for the broader NY left beyond just the DSA, and more winnable. If you had picked one race to cut out, Jeffries would be the one; besides, ousting two incumbents with massive war chests would probably influence Jeffries just as much as a competitive primary.
This is important. It takes energy and focus to pull off primary challenges. If they divide their attention too much, they diminish their chances in other primaries without gaining much of a chance in another one.
Focusing on Goldman in particular and Torres second makes a lot of strategic sense. They require less resources, will see less defensive investments from the party nationally, and are more vulnerable.
Additionally, a win against them will not result in the party establishment being furious, which would be the case with unseating a party leader in a primary. They still need to work with democrats, even just as members of the house. Let alone Mamdani as a city executive.
It's a perfectly logical prioritization of resources.
Idk if it will flip votes, but could it help in demonstrating to less informed voters who otherwise may just default-vote for the incumbent that Blake is the progressive candidate?
This is an unpopular opinion, but I do think de Blasio's tenure will be remembered more fondly in the future than it is now.
Don't get me wrong, he had a whole host of problems, both out of his control and self-created, but there were some significant accomplishments (universal pre-k being the most notable). Though I agree this won't move many, if any, votes.
I'll also add some of Adams' accomplishments will be remembered particularly fondly. It's a shame he couldn't resist the corruption. City of Yes, citywide composting, and containerizing the trash were such massive policy victories.
I think that's a big part of it. The national narrative around de Blasio's tenure was also super influenced by the NY Post.
I will say de Blasio had major deficiencies in staff management, being thin-skinned, and being super arrogant, but it was nothing like the last four years.
Scandal-plagued Rep. Cory Mills has a relatively serious Democratic challenger: former NASA chief of staff Bale Dalton. Unlikely this seat will ever flip, but there you go.
I don’t think NY-06 is a great place for a primary challenge from the left, at least if the only issue is Meng not being progressive enough.
It shifted about as much to the right as almost anyplace in 2024, and while it may be swinging back somewhat, Cuomo twice beat Mamdani there. Anti-Trump sentiment may be enough to keep it blue in 2026 anyway, but a primary upset would unnecessarily at least put another seat on the board in the general.
I don't disagree that the odds of success are low based on the Trump and both Cuomo vote totals. I also would not at all be sad to see Meng go if Park can hold it through a 2026 (and hopefully 2028) wave. lol
His opponent is a conservative Democrat who supports ICE and was opposed to Prop 50. Despite the seat becoming bluer after redistricting, the DCCC still recruited him. In many ways, this cycle feels like Bernie’s third run, with proxy battles playing out in states like Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, and Massachusetts. It's interesting to see Bernie leading the way by taking a more hawkish stance on "open borders", border patrol and policing again, back to his 1980s – 2018 position.
In Michigan, Maine and many other states, primary candidates will decide the party’s direction on a host of policy issues, and ultimately whether it has a center-left or left-wing vision."
What do you mean by "open borders"? I doubt Bernie wants to give everyone in the world who crosses the border a green card, and we need to be responsible about avoiding the use of right-wing framing that is inaccurate.
What do you mean by "open borders"? Literally closing the borders would be idiotic and insane, and the borders are not closed, but when Americans use the phrase "open borders," they tend to mean absolutely unrestricted immigration. What do -you- mean?
What I mean is that he was for Decriminalizing border crossings and in favor of reducing funding for border protection. Very famously most (including him) candidates raised their hands at a debate when asked if they were in favor of decriminalizing border crossings. It wasn't exactly a smart political move.
Can someone try to explain TACO's turnaround on Epstein-gate? Does he think by letting the gates open early, he can "get it over with" before the 2026 midterms? Has his name been wiped from the whole files? He's in a lose-lose position either way.
The House will probably pass it with a veto proof majority tomorrow. Not sure about whether enough Rs will break to make it to 67. But it's not unanimous, they will be painted as "protecting the pedophile in the White House." And that is a salient wedge issue Democrats have against the Republican Party, apart from inflation and health care.
you can bet that they went through it with a fine tooth comb to protect him, using state power, and taxpayer resources. However, they are stupid, and an operation of this scale with this many humans will inevitably produce small slipups which can be mined later.
I saw discussions elsewhere that argue that because Trump ordered the DOJ to investigate democrats on the list, they can block releasing everything because it's part of an active investigation.
I don't know if that is legally correct, but I'd expect them to try and then drag it out on court even if it is not correct.
The Democratic primary to challenge Rep. Tom Kean Jr. (R-Westfield) in the 7th congressional district has been stable for several months, but it’s getting a late entrant who could shake things up: Somerset County Commissioner Sara Sooy (D-Bedminster).
The 33-year-old Sooy is the ninth Democrat to enter the race against Kean, a top Democratic target in 2026. And while she’ll have some work to do to catch up to many of her primary opponents, her status as the only countywide elected official in the race and her political connections in Somerset County, which makes up around one-fifth of the 7th district’s electorate, are likely to instantly make her a serious contender.
Tom Kean Jr. has also just been in the House for what is now his 2nd term. Given the NJ gubernatorial election results two weeks ago, Kean's going to have a tough time in his re-election bid.
Look forward to seeing whoever emerges as the Democratic nominee.
Pleading to fight Donald Trump, Assemblywoman Verlina Reynolds-Jackson, a five-term lawmaker from Trenton, will seek the Democratic nomination for Congress in New Jersey’s 12th district to succeed Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-Ewing).
She becomes the third declared candidate for the safely Democratic open seat, which will be the first cycle to begin without county lines in primary elections, and the first candidate from Mercer County. Somerset County Commissioner Shanel Robinson (D-Franklin) and East Brunswick Mayor Brad Cohen quickly joined the field last Monday after Watson Coleman, 80, made an unexpected retirement announcement.
If Democrat Aftyn Behn pulls off a miracle and actually beats Republican candidate Matt Van Epps in Tennessee’s 7th Congressional district, it will be yet another political earthquake – and very high on the Richter Scale! I’ll make sure to have plenty of nachos on hand on 2 December, which is Election Night for this special election.
If Aftyn Behn gets close or flips the seat, that's great news for us in North Carolina as well next year. Republicans here in the South need a brutal beating down at the ballot box, be it in TN, NC, GA, FL and elsewhere.
It's worth noting that based on 2024 election results, TN-07 is more Republican than literally ALL of North Carolina's 14 congressional districts.
The most Republican is NC-08, which went 59.0-39.6 Trump. As the digest notes, TN-07 is 60-38 Trump.
If Behn wins, NC Dems better be ready to put all Republican-held seats and NC-01 in play. Even if a special election is different than a midterm, NC will hopefully benefit from having a strong Dem (Cooper) at the top of the ticket, likely facing a weaker Republican.
Friendly amendment: NC-03 Harris -22 is the most R district in NC (Downballot data) but your initial point remains correct!
No, not anymore. Republicans in the legislature passed new maps congressional, remember?
NC-01 is now 55.3-43.7 Trump, while NC-03 is now 56.3-42.7 Trump. Under the old map, NC-03 was +22 Trump.
It would be hilarious if TN-07 flips, and Republicans in the legislature then frantically change the map back!
Ah, thanks!
Hopeful context for this Harris -22 district.
In 2018, Democrat Phil Bredesen got 49.1% in the current TN-07, Marsha Blackburn 49.6 so D -0.5 (Data from Dave’s Redistricting App).
Two further notable features of that election in the first Trump midterm:
1 Bredesen (former Nashville mayor and Tennessee governor) did much better than Clinton in 2016 (-17.2) primarily by losing by less in the Republican parts of the district.
2 Turnout seems to have been about 10% lower in Democratic precincts than the rest of the district. (rough estimate: total votes/CVAP).
The Downballot’s Special Election Big Board shows that in April, in FL-01, a Harris -37 district, Democrat Gay Valimont lost by 15, a 23-point swing.
Valimont founded Engage Y’All, “a woman-led, Southern-rooted” PAC; the first candidate endorsed by Engage Y’All: Aftyn Behn. 23 point swing would win in TN-07.
Trying to imagine what the coalition would look like....presumably a 2-1 Behn win in Clarksville and no worse than 50-50 in Williamson County. The old TVA counties in the rural part of the district were Yellow Dog Democrat strongholds into the 2000s but since they all voted by 20+ points even against Bredesen in 2018, it's hard to see them reverting to form now.
That CA-GOV poll suggests there's a decent chance that California could have a Republican governor for the next four years of the Democratic field doesn't consolidate.
On the one hand, sure, that would be bad. But it would probably get them to finally get rid of their stupid top two rules.
It is getting ridiculous that so many Democrats are piling into the governor's race in California. The same appears to be happening in Michigan and Wisconsin. I think of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez's comment on the presidential race in 2020: too many Democrats running for President, not enough running for Senate.
But CA has a top two runoff, the others states do not. That's why it's worse
My read of the poll is that Californians aren't really paying attention to the 2026 races yet. We just overwhelming supported expanding Democratic control with Prop 50, and will probably not pay much attention to politics until after January 1. California is not going to have a Republican governor, nor is there going to be a top tier 2 Republican lockout. If there was even a hint of that happening, our Democratic leaders would intervene in the primary.
This is an accurate take.
"our Democratic leaders would intervene in the primary".
So much Democracy, I can barely handle it.
Too early for that speculation, primary is far away. Hopefully once it's clear that some of them aren't getting any traction they start to drop out
This is what I'm thinking of most likely. Once it drops to 3 or 4 serious contenders the top 2 lockout becomes rather improbable, at least for the Dems.
Why do people dislike the top-two primary?
because it almost always leads to electing the more moderate candidate. (I actually did the math a few years ago using the Cal state legislative races. In almost every election where a progressive ran against a mod, the mod won.)
Ah gotcha. What do people want to replace it with then? Something like Alaska's top-4 primary then RCV general? Or RCV everything?
I like the idea that voters get to have their preferred candidates, regardless of party, on the general election ballot. That seems like a good system from a democracy perspective. But I recognize that the top two can have similar pitfalls to first past the post.
I would favor RCV.
Within the confines of our election system, it occupies a great intersection between "least change" and "improvement." It doesn't fundamentally restructure how we run elections but it does mean that election outcomes are more accurate reflections of the will of the electorate in fields of more than two candidates.
Like top-two, RCV is also modeled to favor "moderate" candidates, because they "better represent the entire electorate." So no difference, really.
There's similarities but they don't work identically on that front.
In Top 2, it favors the moderate relative to the entire electorate. In RCV, it favors the moderate relative to the majority voting block in the electorate.
In RCV republicans are always going to have a republican to vote for and democrats will always have a democrat to vote for. You will not have party A pushing the more moderate of two party B candidates to the win, as the base conditions (two candidates of same party) will not be present.
The difference there is that in sufficiently blue or sufficiently red seats the resultant winner will more accurately reflect the desires of that majority party than they will the desires of the overall district. This is a downgrade. But it comes with the upgrade of avoiding Top 2 lockouts, and the upgrade of the actual final candidates better reflecting the will of the electorate. Top 2, like we're seeing right now, can have a huge split field where the plurality winners might get some small portion of the vote share (20-40%) and not be a proper reflection of who voters would be happiest with as their candidates. RCV, applying to both primaries and general elections, avoids this.
I find the upgrade of RCV over Top 2 to be, on net, larger and more desirable.
What?
First I've heard that RCV favors moderate candidates. That's not the case across the board in elections. San Francisco is an example of such. Same with Berkeley.
A debate can be had about the tactical merits of RCV, but its large-scale enactment would immediately and permanently end my lifelong excitement about election tracking.
That’s arguably better than what we end up with the party primaries — extremist candidates no one wants.
Democrats are very rarely extremist.
I think we're using the term "extremist" differently. I don't think Postcards meant extremist in the way that MAGA Republicans are extremist but rather to mean far left candidates who may or may not be electable in purple or light blue/red districts.
More like pandering to their respective parties rather than responding to people. (I’m having a hard time coming up an example of an extreme Democrat, unless Eugene McCarthy counts, and he was national, not state or local.) Mea culpa.
it makes sense in a moderate district, but there are a lot of progressive districts in California. Most of the Dems prefer the progressive, but the moderate siphons off enough votes from GOPers to win.
Got it. I was thinking nationally (or locally elsewhere).
Yes, much better in D districts and states to get candidates who believe in strongly worded letters than actual opposition to straight-up fascism. /s
I dislike it because it leads to the party anointing someone when there's a lockout risk. And that it sometimes does lock one party out of a competitive race. The moderates being more likely to win is a plus in my view.
Though I see pretty much zero benefit to California rules over Alaska's top 4, other than slightly simpler ballot design
Because it has the potential to lock out Democrats and give Republicans guaranteed pickups in one of the bluest states in America.
It's really that simple. Any system that has the possibility, no matter how remote, of locking Democrats out of the general election is a terrible system and should be discarded.
I would make the same argument in a deep red GOP district. Inasmuch as we have a two-party system, both parties need to be represented in general elections when at all possible.
I'd like the fascist party to disappear.
I agree - it's another own goal, just like redistricting commissions in blue states.
As a resident of California, it's undemocratic irrespective of which two candidates emerge in the general election. Spearheaded by former GOP Lt. Governor Abel Maldonado, the top two primary system was advocated by him and others specifically to try to get more moderate politicians serving in CA.
We could have the traditional primary system back or we could have ranked choice voting, which is more popular as it's looked at as the more democratic choice. With RCV, we've seen plenty of positive results locally in San Francisco and even at the state level in Alaska and Maine).
But the top two primary system is stupid. Absolutely stupid. Normal elections allow candidates from each political party and Independents to be able to run irrespective of what the results end up being. Same with RCV.
Do we want no Democrats to be able to appear in the general election ballot in some races?
Do we want no Republicans to be able to appear in the general election ballot in some races?
Same with third party candidates and Independents.
Should be noted that Governor Gavin Newsom unseated Abel Maldonado back in 2010 in the Lt. Governor's race. Now that Newsom not only defeated the 2021 recall, won re-election in 2022 and got Prop 50 passed by wide margins, the push should be to repeal the top-two system.
"Do we want no Republicans to be able to appear in the general election ballot in some races?"
Absolutely! The rest of your points are well made.
I do think there is a real risk that a top two lockout could happen, but right now, it is looking unlikely. Polling doesn't actually show the two Republicans in the lead, and many of the Undecided voters will probably end up choosing a Democrat.
Also, if a leader does emerge, they could try to elevate a Republican with attack ads that tie one of the candidates (likely Chad Bianco) to Trump.
However, unlikely isn't impossible, and I do think the dynamics of this election make it more likely than most. I am worried and really wish we'd just amend the law to prevent top two lockouts, or pursue Ranked Choice Voting.
Ecuador:
After the disaster of the Chilean election, some good news from yesterday's Ecuadorian elections. The country soundly rejected referendums designed as power grabs by increasingly right wing President Noboa, including permitting foreign military bases in the country, shrinking the size of the legislature, and rewriting rhe country's progressive constitution.
Can Swalwell clear the field ?
I don't see why he would. What is a little odd to me is that the statewide elected AG isn't doing better.
Of the existing field, I would support Becerra, but I have been hoping for a qualified candidate with a little more room presence who isn't Katie Porter. Becerra seems to have governor Davis vibes.
I am curious, what are your reservations about Katie Porter?
I believe that Porter would be a horrible administrator and would be unable to get along with the California legislature, a task that isn't easy.
I am from the other coast, so I really don't have any knowledge here. asking this sincerely. Acknowledging that Gavin went to the mat and saved us five seats when no one else was stepping up, what else has he done that would suggest Katie Porter isn't an upgrade? Gav didn't get along with the legislature, at least from national reports, and at least back east I view katie porter as synonymous with holding people accountable. Re her staffers: I'm a guy who's worked for public and private folks and I'm spoken to worse on a regular basis. I think most folks are, I don't love it but lord I do not find it disqualifying.
I live in Porter's former congressional district, CA 47 (and previously 45), and I know some of her staffers and dismiss the abuse claims. I believe Porter would be better in a legislative function than in an administrative one based on her huge talents and personality. I did support her in the Senate race.
That being said, if it's Porter vs a Repug, Porter would have my full support.
Google "Katie Porter staff treatment" and that about sums it up. Plus seeing those videos in republican ads will not be great.
Short answer: No.
Long answer: No, because he's not going to make a big difference. Porter isn't going to drop out just because he enters -- if anything she'll probably beef up some feminist messaging ("the only prominent woman running"). Clooless may drop out but he was never a factor in the 1st place. Swalwell and Becerra can run to the center in the OG Trump Resistance lane but Swalwell's presence won't make Becerra drop out. Nor will he move AV, who's already locked up some union endorsements. The only "clear the field" I see happening is that Tony Thurmond is going to drop out but that's because he's out of money, not because of Swalwell. Also, Betty Three Percent should drop out -- same boat as Thurmond -- but she won't, she says.
What are chances Dems get blocked out of that second voting line? Newsweek having a field day already saying that California is going red ….. whatever
No but Swalwell will certainly make the gubernatorial race more competitive. He's got a reputation as a straight shooter and would make the debates more challenging to Porter and the rest of the gubernatorial candidates.
Only Kamala Harris would be considered field clearing at this point (at least Attorney General Rob Bonta had said this at the time many months ago) and she could still jump in the race. However, months ago Harris said no.
So no worries that Dems get blocked out by cannibalizing each other ?
Emerson has Hobbs up 1 in Arizona, so i guess she wins by 10?
I think Hobbs will win by a comfortable margin, at least compared to 2022.
If you go by New Jersey, it would be 12.
if you go by their polls of indiana in 2016, evan bayh would have one more senate term. Really my least favorite legit pollster
Arizona isn't New Jersey. Arizona did have some elections that seemed to show support for government doing stuff. Maricopa County had bonds for indigent health care win, and school bond overrides did unusually well. How well Hobbs does depends on her Republican opponent, but I would guess she wins by 3-4 points.
They both have big Hispanic communities.
They have very different Latino communities. Arizona used to be part of Mexico (and the New Mexico territory) and is mostly Mexican-American. I don't know New Jersey as well, but I would assume it is more Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican and others.
Sure. Hispanic communities in the East have traditionally been mostly Dominican and Puerto Rican, but an increasing percentage of them are Mexican, and I remember reading an article in the New York Times several years ago about the Mexican percentage of the population overtaking the traditional Puerto Rican majority in Spanish Harlem. The Hispanic communities in many places in New Jersey are diverse, including immigrants from Colombia, Peru, Central American countries, as you said, Cuba, and so on, but I'm sure the same phenomenon has been happening there.
In Arizona, approximately 85% of Latinos are of Mexican descent, and many can trace ancestry back to territorial days.
Most brown Americans had similar shifts based on similar issues last year regardless of ethnicity.
I think it's more likely Hobbs wins by double digits against Biggs than that she loses or even comes close to losing, yes. The Emerson poll weighting off 2024 only reinforces that opinion.
My current guess would be Hobbs by 4 or so
So I decided to revisit the Republican gerrymanders of Virginia's legislative districts that I drew before the election, to see how well they would have held up, and to see if it would've even been possible for Republicans to gerrymander themselves into a majority amidst such a strong Democratic wave.
My HoD map has 45 districts that voted for Sears, and therefore would've elected Republicans. There are also three districts that voted for Spanberger by less than 2 percent - one in Amelia/Chesterfield and two in Virginia Beach - that most likely would've elected Republican Delegates. The districts I drew in the Petersburg area were too aggressive and would've backfired this year, but Republicans could've squeezed one more district out of there. After that, the pickings are slim - they could've tried to dismantle the Roanoke district by splitting it four ways, but I don't know if even Republicans would be willing to do that. And don't forget that Republicans would've had to win 51 seats to get a majority thanks to Hashmi winning the LG race.
As for my state Senate map, it held up well in NoVA where I was able to connect light-blue suburban areas with the heavily Republican Shenandoah Valley, but I was too aggressive in Hampton Roads where all my narrow Trump districts ended up being about Spanberger+6. However, with a slight redrawing to concede one more Democratic seat in Hampton Roads and in the Richmond area, it's quite possible to draw a state Senate map that would've elected 22 Republicans last year.
So Republicans could've drawn themselves a majority in the state Senate despite the Democratic wave, but I don't think they could've realistically done the same in the House of Delegates.
As a postscript, and now that 2025 election data is in DRA, I looked up the numbers in the actual state Senate districts. All three Democrats won the 17th, 24th, and 27th districts (even Jones won them by 5, 8, and 6 respectively), so they should be easy pickups in 2027. The 4th and 12th both voted for Spanberger and Hashmi while voting for Miyares by identical 2-point margins, so they should still be major Democratic targets. The 20th voted for Spanberger but for Republicans for LG and AG, so it's more of a reach seat. The 13 other R-held seats all voted for all three Republicans and are safe for them.
Of the Democratic seats, the 31st is the only one that voted for Spanberger by less than 20. Just like this year in the HoD, Dems will be almost entirely on offense in the 2027 state Senate races.
Losing 24 with an Incumbent was really something of an own goal in 2023. Even Hillary Clinton won that district in 2016.
To be fair, SD-24 was more Republican than Virginia as a whole prior to 2024. The district was Hillary+2.8 in 2016, Northam+6.7 in 2017, Kaine+13.4 in 2018, and Youngkin+3.4 in 2021.
Monty Mason lost reelection because of turnout disparities and because Danny Diggs won York County and Poquoson City by extra large margins. Also, Mason didn't win the Newport News portion of SD-24 by the margin he needed. He won it by 16, but Democrats normally need a 19-20 point margin in this part of the district to win districtwide.
Friendly reminder for future newsletter references that MSNBC is now officially MSNOW :)
NJ 11. Kin endorses Malinowski.
https://newjerseyglobe.com/congress/tom-malinowskis-comeback-campaign-earns-endorsement-from-andy-kim/
One of my favorite senators but personally I would back Way
If Way doesn't make a commercial with people saying things about them, with the response being "No way!" and then ending the commercial with "Yes, Way!" and an introduction to them on camera with a good voiceover, they will have missed their chance.
Then add in a "This is the Way" to reference the internet meme. Could be good for anything that millennials and younger will see. And as time marches on, the cut-off for us millennials is not all that young of an age anymore.
Us older millennials are approaching if not already middle-aged.
Yep! I'm not in the elder bracket so I'm not there yet but it's getting a lot closer.
Peak millennial who would turn my head at the reference haha.
Kim’s endorsements feel inconsistent. Malinowski’s makes sense as a friend and early backer, but backing Angie Craig and others like her doesn’t fit someone who joined the Progressive Caucus from a swing district, is seen as anti-establishment, and holds standard progressive, dovish positions.
NY-8:
https://www.axios.com/2025/11/17/hakeem-jeffries-chi-osse-primary-mamdani
It’s official. Chi Ossé is challenging Jeffries — he’s filed paperwork.
Jeffries.
Whoops, corrected. Thanks Paleo!
I don't think he stands a chance but I'm excited regardless.
Thank God. Jeffries hasn’t caught as much heat as Schumer but he still deserves a challenge.
I think he’s likely to lose, though he won’t have to resign to run, and if he does win he could easily become the next AOC or Mamdani. It’s frustrating to see Mamdani pressuring DSA leadership not to endorse him. If anything, his priority should be blocking Alexa Avilés from running and preventing Goldman from advancing further.
Mamdani has to work with people for the good of the city. If he goes all Huey Long on everyone without being in control of his state like Long was, he and the city will be left way out on a limb.
Correct—and Mamdani should oppose his bid publicly and privately, just not try to persuade others to nip it in the bud. Let Osse try to pull it off with his 10/90 odds. Mamdani was himself an insurgent. Even Warren is said to be working behind the scenes to stop Osse. It’s rich coming from left-wing insurgents themselves.
If this keeps going on, Bernie and AOC will try to talk Osse out next.
I don't think any of those people should be working against him, but I don't blame Mamdani. When insurgents win, they have to govern.
I think the logic is that Torres and Goldman are more compelling primary races, for the broader NY left beyond just the DSA, and more winnable. If you had picked one race to cut out, Jeffries would be the one; besides, ousting two incumbents with massive war chests would probably influence Jeffries just as much as a competitive primary.
This is important. It takes energy and focus to pull off primary challenges. If they divide their attention too much, they diminish their chances in other primaries without gaining much of a chance in another one.
Focusing on Goldman in particular and Torres second makes a lot of strategic sense. They require less resources, will see less defensive investments from the party nationally, and are more vulnerable.
Additionally, a win against them will not result in the party establishment being furious, which would be the case with unseating a party leader in a primary. They still need to work with democrats, even just as members of the house. Let alone Mamdani as a city executive.
It's a perfectly logical prioritization of resources.
NY-15:
https://x.com/JCColtin/status/1990413097316520430
Former NYC mayor Bill de Blasio endorsed ex-mayoral candidate Michael Blake, who is challenging Ritchie Torres in the Dem primary.
I endorse him, too, and probably will flip the same number of votes...
Idk if it will flip votes, but could it help in demonstrating to less informed voters who otherwise may just default-vote for the incumbent that Blake is the progressive candidate?
Considering how unpopular de Blasio was at the end of his administration, I doubt it will do anything.
This is an unpopular opinion, but I do think de Blasio's tenure will be remembered more fondly in the future than it is now.
Don't get me wrong, he had a whole host of problems, both out of his control and self-created, but there were some significant accomplishments (universal pre-k being the most notable). Though I agree this won't move many, if any, votes.
I'll also add some of Adams' accomplishments will be remembered particularly fondly. It's a shame he couldn't resist the corruption. City of Yes, citywide composting, and containerizing the trash were such massive policy victories.
I think this historical lens on de Blasio's tenure has been the informed consensus basically since Adams won the 2021 primary.
I think that's a big part of it. The national narrative around de Blasio's tenure was also super influenced by the NY Post.
I will say de Blasio had major deficiencies in staff management, being thin-skinned, and being super arrogant, but it was nothing like the last four years.
Adams also trashed the city, using right-wing bullshit lines, but I agree that some of his policies were not bad.
FL-7:
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/florida-playbook/2025/11/17/from-nasa-to-a-house-race-00653974
Scandal-plagued Rep. Cory Mills has a relatively serious Democratic challenger: former NASA chief of staff Bale Dalton. Unlikely this seat will ever flip, but there you go.
I can't believe Politico is now requiring a login. What's the PVI of that district?
R+5, according to Wikipedia.
So by no means impossible in a wave.
It’s basically the same partisanship as the state.
So basically practically impossible atm?
In hindsight, yes.
What do you mean about hindsight? This would be foresight.
My comment was referencing me being wrong. Maybe a poor choice of words.
you can give politico fake info, and the site will happily eat it, and let you through.
email: "fuckoff@gmail.com"
company: "no"
title "nunya"
there are also more sophisticated ways to defeat cetain paywalls.
Sure, if I want to bother with all that.
Attorney Noah Widmann is a good option, too. Endorsed by Kansas historian and YouTuber Matt Beat.
Former chief of staff to city councillor Shekar Krishnan is primarying Grace Meng.
https://x.com/taliaotg/status/1990415853326598387
I don’t think NY-06 is a great place for a primary challenge from the left, at least if the only issue is Meng not being progressive enough.
It shifted about as much to the right as almost anyplace in 2024, and while it may be swinging back somewhat, Cuomo twice beat Mamdani there. Anti-Trump sentiment may be enough to keep it blue in 2026 anyway, but a primary upset would unnecessarily at least put another seat on the board in the general.
I don't disagree that the odds of success are low based on the Trump and both Cuomo vote totals. I also would not at all be sad to see Meng go if Park can hold it through a 2026 (and hopefully 2028) wave. lol
CA-22:
https://x.com/BernieSanders/status/1990517597377605677
Bernie Sanders has endorsed Visalia school board trustee Randy Villegas.
His opponent is a conservative Democrat who supports ICE and was opposed to Prop 50. Despite the seat becoming bluer after redistricting, the DCCC still recruited him. In many ways, this cycle feels like Bernie’s third run, with proxy battles playing out in states like Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, and Massachusetts. It's interesting to see Bernie leading the way by taking a more hawkish stance on "open borders", border patrol and policing again, back to his 1980s – 2018 position.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/09/us/politics/democrats-midterms-senate-house.html
https://archive.ph/JuRQh "Where Democrats Will Duel Next for the Party’s Future
In Michigan, Maine and many other states, primary candidates will decide the party’s direction on a host of policy issues, and ultimately whether it has a center-left or left-wing vision."
What do you mean by "open borders"? I doubt Bernie wants to give everyone in the world who crosses the border a green card, and we need to be responsible about avoiding the use of right-wing framing that is inaccurate.
He has himself spoken out against it using the exact term this year and famously in 2016 in a viral Ezra Klein interview.
YouTube · Vox
388.4K+ views · 10 years ago
Bernie Sanders: "Open borders? That's a Koch brothers proposal"
Politico
https://www.politico.com 6 years ago
Bernie Sanders says he does not support open borders
Sanders has flip flopped back to his old positions on wanting stronger borders, after supporting open borders in 2020.
What do you mean by "open borders"? Literally closing the borders would be idiotic and insane, and the borders are not closed, but when Americans use the phrase "open borders," they tend to mean absolutely unrestricted immigration. What do -you- mean?
What I mean is that he was for Decriminalizing border crossings and in favor of reducing funding for border protection. Very famously most (including him) candidates raised their hands at a debate when asked if they were in favor of decriminalizing border crossings. It wasn't exactly a smart political move.
OK, that's a _very far cry_ from unrestricted immigration! That was the status quo before 2001!
Keep in mind that this district is still a Trump district even after the new map! No way a progressive wins here, this is a dumb move by Bernie
It's a Biden Trump district won by Newsom.
Can someone try to explain TACO's turnaround on Epstein-gate? Does he think by letting the gates open early, he can "get it over with" before the 2026 midterms? Has his name been wiped from the whole files? He's in a lose-lose position either way.
The House will probably pass it with a veto proof majority tomorrow. Not sure about whether enough Rs will break to make it to 67. But it's not unanimous, they will be painted as "protecting the pedophile in the White House." And that is a salient wedge issue Democrats have against the Republican Party, apart from inflation and health care.
Either they’ll “redact” his name or they’ll say they can’t release everything because of “ongoing investigations.”
Yeah, I fully just don't think they'll release anything with his name. Sloppy copy+paste and fully blacked out pages, I expect.
Truth is stranger than fiction these days but, yeah, this is what I expect...
But then you have Epstein’s estate leaking their own details about his shenanigans.
by their own admission, they had north of 1k staff at FBI working on redactions
https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/fbi-deployed-1-000-agents-to-search-epstein-files-for-trump-mentions-whistleblower-says/ar-AA1ISfzU
you can bet that they went through it with a fine tooth comb to protect him, using state power, and taxpayer resources. However, they are stupid, and an operation of this scale with this many humans will inevitably produce small slipups which can be mined later.
I believe the excuse of investigations is going to be their ticket.
I assume they've managed to cover it all up at this point. They sure as hell had enough time.
I think they'll redact his name.
I saw discussions elsewhere that argue that because Trump ordered the DOJ to investigate democrats on the list, they can block releasing everything because it's part of an active investigation.
I don't know if that is legally correct, but I'd expect them to try and then drag it out on court even if it is not correct.
The Democratic primary to challenge Rep. Tom Kean Jr. (R-Westfield) in the 7th congressional district has been stable for several months, but it’s getting a late entrant who could shake things up: Somerset County Commissioner Sara Sooy (D-Bedminster).
The 33-year-old Sooy is the ninth Democrat to enter the race against Kean, a top Democratic target in 2026. And while she’ll have some work to do to catch up to many of her primary opponents, her status as the only countywide elected official in the race and her political connections in Somerset County, which makes up around one-fifth of the 7th district’s electorate, are likely to instantly make her a serious contender.
https://newjerseyglobe.com/congress/tom-kean-jr-gets-a-new-democratic-challenger-somerset-county-commissioner-sara-sooy/
I feel like Rebecca Bennett is a solidified frontrunner due to her fundraising and the fact that she's been in the race for almost 10 months
Tom Kean Jr. has also just been in the House for what is now his 2nd term. Given the NJ gubernatorial election results two weeks ago, Kean's going to have a tough time in his re-election bid.
Look forward to seeing whoever emerges as the Democratic nominee.
Pleading to fight Donald Trump, Assemblywoman Verlina Reynolds-Jackson, a five-term lawmaker from Trenton, will seek the Democratic nomination for Congress in New Jersey’s 12th district to succeed Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-Ewing).
She becomes the third declared candidate for the safely Democratic open seat, which will be the first cycle to begin without county lines in primary elections, and the first candidate from Mercer County. Somerset County Commissioner Shanel Robinson (D-Franklin) and East Brunswick Mayor Brad Cohen quickly joined the field last Monday after Watson Coleman, 80, made an unexpected retirement announcement.
https://newjerseyglobe.com/congress/verlina-reynolds-jackson-five-term-trenton-lawmaker-will-run-for-nj-12/