The Digest states: "LaMalfa’s death came just one day after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s resignation from Georgia’s conservative 14th District took effect, leaving Republicans with just a 218-213 advantage."
With Jim Baird (R, IN-04), age 80, hospitalized after a horrible car accident, doesn’t this actually leave Republicans at 217–213 for the time being? Which means Speaker Mike Johnson can lose only One Single Vote, right?
(The loss of two votes would mean a 215–215 tie, resulting in whatever proposal/legislation/budget is being voted on failing, right?)
Thanks! What I read yesterday sounded very serious. Politico:
"[Speaker Mike] Johnson said he believed Baird was dealing with a spinal issue."
Naturally from a human perspective, I’m glad Jim Baird is recovering. From a purely political perspective, any temporary or long-term narrowing of the GOP majority is good news.
He has to show up for votes because the speaker banned remote and proxy voting. Recovering and flying back and forth to DC are different things, I think.
Maybe you should change your first name to Lyndon or Andrew? I got tired of having the most common name for boys born in my generation (I was Mike too) so I borrowed a name from an obscure former POTUS. My last name is not Taylor, though...
He'd probably be the best candidate in that race, at least given current candidates. I'd vote for Lander over Goldman but Goldman over anyone in NY-12, although I like Kasky.
No, using the new map would pretty blatantly violate the principle of one person one vote and be illegal. I get we need to fight fire with fire, but I don't want to use this particular brand of fire until Republicans start doing it. It's just wrong and I don't think we should be the ones to break the seal.
I expect this would be challenged in court by Republicans, since it would cause a flip. I also think a challenge to the NE-1 special election would have succeeded
I don't necessarily disagree, though do wonder how they would ground the challenge with that as precedent. And in the meantime, the seat could be left open during the challenge and continue to squeeze Johnson's margins.
A 21-vote margin is nothing! Do we know whether there are provisional votes that have yet to be tallied in South Carolina’s HD-98? And, if so, do we know how many?
Yes we do. If you vote provisional on election day, then you have until certification to show your provisional ballot is legit and should be counted. Many provisionsals are because of address issues or folks who forgot their ID at home, so it's a matter of going to the county election office with your id and showing you are a legal voting resident of your precinct.
My guess is certification will be Friday, maybe early next week.
I haven't seen a number for provisionals, but the precinct I manage (that was not involved in the special) only had 4 provisional votes for the last presidential election, and we were the second largest precinct in the country, about 3800 registered voters of (guessing) ~6000 residents. Of these, 2-3 were from voters who rarely voted. State House districts comprise about 42,000 residents. If you take extrapolate my precinct ... 6000/42000 = 8 x 4 = 32 provisionals. So maybe enough to matter, but unlikely considering this is a lower turnout election. SC had very robust election systems and back ups. So unlikely to see major clerical errors like Lake (Otsego?) Co Michigan or wherever in 2020.
SC does not have party registration, so I think it would be difficult to ID voters, however, I believe you could track by whether someone voted in the R or D primary previously. I vote R in local primaries, bc Ds don't run, and that's the only way I can figure that the R committees have my name to solicit with mailers. I sure as hell don't donate to Rs.
Since Schakowsky endorsed Daniel Biss in IL-9 — breaking her initial commitment to stay out of the race after AIPAC entered it for Laura Fine and pushed out Leon..... how popular is she in her district, and will this have a significant impact? Will candidates who were pursuing her endorsement drop out due to this?
The major candidates are all so different from each other and seem to be motivated enough on their own that it's hard to see it affecting their decisions. Kat Abughazaleh has her entire online brand invested in this. Laura Fine just got AIPAC. Some of the lesser candidates may drop out, especially if Biss continues to consolidate support from a range of factions.
Extremely. This is the single most important endorsement that could have an impact on the primary. It doesn't totally put it away for Biss against Abughazaleh, but it basically kills Fine. Her imprimatur is especially powerful among all the suburban components of the district and the masses of older liberals there, as well as influencing swaths of her Chicago components too. Hard to say if the other electeds will drop. Fine and Amiwala have probably been the closest personally to her, but they obviously represent different wings on Israel and may feel obligated/donor-impelled to continue campaigning on those. Simmons has run an alright campaign if there was more oxygen and will stay in the state senate for another two years regardless, so might be weighing his options. Huynh has been so quiet, and would have been more of a fit to try for Quigley's seat if he'd announced a mayoral run sooner (esp if he retired), but this muted campaign may have damaged him to have a good launch there should Quigley win next spring. Simmons and Huynh are obviously around Schakowsky a lot too, but I'm not sure how personally close they are and how deferent they feel toward her. But the writing is definitely on the wall.
I doubt Amiwala, who is the most grassroots level organizer in the primary, has literally any political affection for Abughazaleh helicoptering in to blatantly carpetbag. My sense is that she's fairly close to Schakowsky and Biss, and would honestly be surprised if she endorsed Abughazaleh if/when she drops out (and would not at all be surprised if she endorsed Biss).
Oh, Amiwala's supporters are definitely much more overlapped with Abughazaleh than Biss. The hyperlocal suburban issues folks who have a gripe to not default to Biss for one reason or another are one wing, and some permutation of young, South Asian and/or Arab, and Palestine single-issue voters. Her staying in the race probably helps Biss, now that Schakowsky has virtually locked the suburban base for him. Some of that former wing of hyperlocal Amiwala supporters might slide over to him from the endorsement alone and that leaves her latter supporters who are more likely to go to Abughazaleh if Amiwala drops out.
Edit: If some of your implication is Amiwala increasing Fine's chance of winning, it doesn't. Fine is dead in the water and now will only linger in the campaign with AIPAC support without Schakowsky. She has almost no chance of winning anymore.
The property purchase comes after years of Lake flirting with GOP politics in the state and ahead of the potential retirement of longtime Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley."
I just saw her bio. Lake was born in IL but grew up in Iowa. Graduated from Eldridge, which is not too far in driving distance from Davenport.
But at this point, growing up in IA or not, Lake would still make IA Democrats salivate over what she could do for them in a fundraising sense if she ran for the Senate in 2028.
Do it! Help Democrats get two US Senate seats in the state, assuming the party wins the Senate race this November.
Lake wouldn't be able to unseat Grassley in the primary if he were running for re-election but if he retires, I hope she continues her service to the Democratic Party. She helped Katie Hobbs get elected as AZ Governor and Ruben Gallego to the Senate.
Not totally inconceivable that if she loses the 2028 Senate election she could be single-handedly responsible for a Democratic Senate majority in like 2031 or something.
That seems smart. He was party chair over the 2018 election that got almost all statewide row offices within like 3-8pt margins, led by Cordray as the nominee for governor.
The state is generically R+5 per Cook, so not really. It's more that he seems like an experienced operator, fundraiser and campaign strategist, all of which are good to have in her team.
I'm sure he's fine, now if he had won those races then that's different but then again i don't give credit or blame usually to party chairs for the performance of candidates.
Two things can be true at the same time, so you’re both right imo. He helped create an impressive showing the last year Democrats not named Brown were competitive statewide, but Pepper like all Democrats that year, obviously had help from the Trump midterm backlash at the same time.
Which is more important or is a better measure of his campaign capabilities for the year 2026 can be fairly debated one way or the other. He could be 8 years behind the political ball totally out of touch or he could be the second coming of an actual Tim Ryan win in Ohio. We’ll see how he does and the results will speak for themselves.
DSA-affiliated tenant organizer Samantha Kattan has filed to run for the Assembly seat of fellow DSA member Claire Valdez. I mention this because Valdez is apparently expected to run for NY-7, Nydia Velazquez’s old seat, and this seems to confirm it. Valdez will be competing with Antonio Reynoso here.
People who naysay Mary Peltola and think Dan Sullivan is a lock for re-election this year need to look at the 2014 and 2020 numbers. He flipped the Senate seat in 2014 (a very R-favorable midterm) by only 2 points and only bested it in 2020 by an extra 2 points.
Peltola won both 2022 races by that same margin. It's possible not only that but she could exceed that number giving how bad Trump is fucking Alaska over in terms of tariffs and ACA subsidies.
There are people who think she's making a big gamble at a long shot race versus something that's more of a certainty in the governorship, yes. I count myself among them. I wouldn't say Sullivan is a "lock for re-election" though, and I hope she wins the Senate race, obviously.
The pollsters based in Alaska are usually very reliable, so unless Peltola phones it in or there's a big event that upends her campaign, the AK Senate race is a toss-up, maybe Lean R at this point.
That's well and fine. But there isn't really much argument that Senate is a riskier gamble for her. She was getting in the mid-60s in the gubernatorial polls versus polling neck-and-neck with Sullivan. That's the core of the argument in terms of what's best for her and the future of the Alaska Democratic Party. Hopefully Tom Begich wins the gubernatorial race anyhow and she wins the Senate race.
The courts will be locked for a generation and unless you can convince squishy centrists to expand the court, 2026 is THE last chance to save the judiciary. The Senate nominates the replacements.
I will never forgive conservadems for cobfirming Clarence Thomas after he started race-baiting.
I mean, it is factually accurate that she has a better shot at the governor's race than Senate, based on polling, open seat vs. incumbent, and the fact that voters across the country are far more willing to vote for "the other party" for state races rather than federal races. The crux of the story of Mary Peltola is that she's passing on an easier race for the good of the country (or at least for the good of Alaska, since she can likely do more for the state in the Senate).
I'm sure she has also evolved as a person over the past couple years after the passing of her husband. She was previously seen as wanting to return to Alaska. Maybe she sees less for her there now and she is more open to a career in Washington.
Just my own personal vibes, but this race feels like at the very worst a Lean R rating, not even Likely R. Given Peltola's past overperformances, successes and her appeal and name recognition, she's not only our best chance in Alaska, but an exceptionally strong candidate. I would go as far as to say that Peltola may be in an even stronger position than Mark Begich was in 2008, especially come November.
Are they actually albatrosses in Alaska? Do any votes actually influence voter behavior anymore? Alaska is still a red state and it's hard to argue that any Republican doesn't start out as a favorite.
I'm not naysaying Peltola, winning anything in Alaska is gravy but it will be an uphill fight beating in incumbent republican in a federal race. I think there'd be some voters who vote for her governor but not senator in this circumstance.
Agree with everything although in Q4 the economy grew more than expected, which defeats the argument over a potential recession.
If there is a recession next year, it won't be a deep one, at least for now. The tariffs and cost of living are still going to be a problem, as are any potential layoffs at the corporate level which have been going on for some time. Agriculture industry though has been hit hard.
Well alongside a potential recession, you have the T-Rex in the room - the AI bubble and it's potential pop. Even if we assume it doesn't "pop" there's increasing signs that we will see some form of a bubble deflation that's either ongoing or looming. It's being propped up by many of the Fortune 500 companies, including Microsoft are investing heavily on "AI". Still, that doesn't stop the startups from now seeing their spending and investments dry up as the hype increasingly fades. More and more, we increasingly see more startups either failing or being bought out now. Big tech once more is the wildcard, just as it was with the dot com boom.
True although the dot com era was still when online monetization was in its early days and many companies that were victims of this period had been too assuming of their ability to profit just simply by having a website present. Since then, organizations and small businesses have become increasingly smarter about their web presence.
AI though I really don't know what will happen after the bubble bursts although looming regulation could complicate its growth, not just what is currently going on in the bubble.
AI capex as a % of GDP is about half of the dotcom spend in 1998-99 and a third of fracking spend in 2010-12, and is fueled by more cash on hand than debt than either of those two famous bubbles - at least right now. Debt outlays actually could be the impetus for a deflating - Meta shares got wreaked when Zuck announced in last earnings they were issuing bonds (aka debt) to keep pace on capex and that could be an interesting canary in the coal mine.
As of now it’s not as dangerous a situation as dotcom, and the market is punishing laggards/overplayers. We’ll see if that sustains.
I'm more worried about the economy if the AI bubble doesn't pop.
The impacts on everything else using RAM, NAND flash, CPUs, GPUs, or any kind of advanced fabrication are piling up. We can afford to have the AI bubble pop more readily than we can afford for everyone making modern consumer electronics to be stuck without anything to sell for 1-3 years. I do not want to see the result of an economy where Apple and Samsung have to cut back on their phone sales by >20% because of logistical issues, rather than market preferences.
And two-thirds of the country is reducing its consumer spending even amidst the current "high-growth economy". Imagine how much it's gonna hurt when the bubble bursts and the recession is official.
Alaska is not that red and is trending to the left. Reminder that Trump only got 54.5 percent of the vote there in 2024. People underestimate how independent minded and different Alaska is compared to the Lower 48.
As someone who was a Boy Scout growing up, I never understood why Democrats didn't get more ownership of the pro-environment agenda in Alaska for decades. It literally is a wilderness state and I've always looked at preserving the wilderness in its character in the same kind environmental stewardship that Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts have always took charge in for decades.
Of course, the same argument could be made about Wyoming, which is one of the deepest red states in the U.S.
Who exactly is saying Sullivan is a lock for re-election? I would still characterize him as the favorite, even against Peltola, but she has a very legitimate shot at winning the race. I'd call it Lean R.
Does anyone think a reverse 2010 midterm wave is possible for 2026? I think we’re all expecting a blue year, but is it a high tide? A wave? A tsunami? The last of which could have Democrats win races with weak candidates no one expects to come close, let alone win them in state’s both swing and favourable to the opposite party?
Gerrymandering makes it hard to see something as dramatic as going from 61-37 D controlled state legislatures to 57-40 R controlled after the 2010 election results were tabulated. But is it at least possible for Democrats to change the current number of 57-39 R to where the Dem party holds a majority of legislative chambers after 2026? That would be about half the 2010 net swing of 41 chambers.
I feel like most people who follow politics or are journalists/pundits keep making the same mistake over and over again: to use results that have already happened as the only parameter of what’s possible in the next cycle.
What if something different, new and unexpected happens in 2026? I mean this in both directions too, so think that it is entirely possible (but unlikely), that the GOP/Trump recovers and maybe just barely loses control of the House.
Obviously I think one is more likely than the other, but both are possible and neither are really discussed because they’re “outliers”, don’t have precedent or are hopium/copium depending on which scenario you see as more likely and your political orientation.
I think it has the potential to be bigger the 2018 if we put it in that perspective. A lot of it driven by candidate quality differences. For comparison, I think there's a number of gubernatorial races we have an excellent shot at winning this year that we fell short in 2018 in:
1. Ohio. We can thank Ramaswamy for that.
2. Iowa. Rob Sand is probably our best candidate from Iowa at a gubernatorial or Senate race in nearly 20 years there, and he's boosted by Kim Reynolds' unpopularity and fatigue.
3. Georgia. It's obviously much bluer than it was eight years ago.
4. Alaska is a wild card. We'll see if Begich can take advantage of RCV and a clown car on the R side.
5. New Hampshire. Ayotte is much less popular than Sununu was at this point in 2018, and he still only won by 7 points. I'm pretty high on Donovan Fenton's chances if he runs. He seems very charismatic.
Senate races:
Unlike 2018, we're not playing any defense in a lot of deep red territory, so that's already miles better. We only have two seats in Trump-won states to defend, and I'm not worried about either of them. Jon Ossoff already has more than $20 million on hand, and that's before the Q4 reports. Georgia elections have gone horrendously for the Republicans in the past year. Plus his likely opponent, the male version of MTG, is under Congressional investigation. Michigan's primary looks like a mess, but I'm hoping it'll sort itself out. I'm not concerned about McMorrow being able to squash Rogers in the general election.
The two obvious offensive opportunities (Maine and North Carolina) are somewhat analogous to that year's offensive opportunities when Nevada was a Hillary-won state with an incumbent who won multiple statewide elections. Sounds similar to Maine. Arizona was an open seat race in a narrow Trump +3 state because Trump bullied out the weak R incumbent. Same thing happened in North Carolina. The difference in North Carolina this year is Cooper >>>Sinema in terms of candidate quality, and McSally >>> Whatley. I don't think North Carolina will be seriously considered competitive by the time the fall comes around.
Our opportunities beyond those two seats look much better than the 2018 reach seats. Our next tier of targets consists of about 4-5 states Trump won by low double digits. In 2018, those reach seats included Texas, which ended up much closer than expected, and Trump +26 Tennessee where a popular former Governor gave it a good run but still fell 11 points short. But a similar Bredesen-type overperformance would mean Democratic wins in the aforementioned targets in places like Iowa, Ohio, Texas, Alaska, and possibly Kansas.
House: Our recruiting is solid. I wouldn't be surprised if we got beyond the 235 seats we won in 2018. I count 2 seats in AZ, 5 in CA, 3 in CO, 3 in Iowa, 3 in Michigan, 1 in Nebraska, 1 in New Jersey, 1 in New York, 2 in North Carolina, 4 in Pennsylvania, 1 in Utah, up to 4 in Virginia, 1 in Washington, and 2 in Wisconsin that are vulnerable or primed for flips. I'm probably missing some. Republicans cannot gerrymander their way out of that, and I wouldn't be surprised if their gerrymanders in Texas, North Carolina, and Florida fall flat.
For state legislatures, I count AZ (both), GA House, MI House, NH (both), MN House, NC House, PA Senate, and WI (both) as being very vulnerable in a blue wave. So that would be D+11 chambers.
"I don't think North Carolina will be seriously considered competitive by the time the fall comes around."
The state is closely contested enough so that it probably should be seriously considered competitive up until E-Day. At the very least we shouldn't say "OK, that's a lock" early and take our foot off the proverbial gas pedal, no matter how good the polls might look.
Whatley may be untested as an electoral candidate but he probably won't have a Mark Robinson-type implosion, and while the "popular governor can't be elected Senator in a state that doesn't prefer his party presidentially" theme really doesn't apply here--the state's red presidential margins have easily been close enough for Cooper to overcome, especially in a nationally bluer year--we can't assume he can coast on his personal appeal.
Not to mention - we should and will run through the tape in NC because literally every House seat is winnable in a wave election (Congress, not state house).
Cook PVI has *nine* districts at R+7 to R+10, but nothing worse than that.
I would say that if the nasty primary between incumbent NC state Senator Phil Berger and Sam Page results in Berger being ousted in two months -- the NC GOP state Senate will be in disarray. Berger will have blown a lot of money otherwise earmarked for incumbents -- and the power won't simply transfer to Page.
The NC state Senate is a much bigger reach to flip but if Rs end up triaging safe seats in the legislature, R+5-6 seats are VERY vulnerable.
I posted above, but if it's a big D wave, possibly *every* Congressional seat in NC goes Dem. Cook has nine seats between R+7 and R+10 so if they go, they may all go at once
Like Republicans only netting like 2-3 seats out of Texas instead of the 5 they expected. Or Don Davis holding on in NC. Neither outcome would shock me.
The problem is that republicans vote and they love everything Dump does so don't expect them to sit home and allow dems to have a 2010 or 2014 blowout. I'm just hoping that we can take the house and lame duck the orange toad.
That’s not exactly true. Republicans voted for Democrats at higher rates than any other election cycle since Trump was first elected, in the 2018 midterm election. There was also a ton of Trump only Republican voters who stayed home without him on the ballot. Obviously many Democrats stayed home too as both parties suffer from presidential only voter coalitions, but the GOP did in far greater numbers than Democrats.
Those both may or may not happen in 2026, to be fair, but to set the expectation for the midterms as Republicans turning out and voting for Republicans in droves when the cycle most similar to 2026 didn’t have any of that seems like a problematic assumption to make.
It is true that dems picked up a more reliable affluent suburban voter in the Trump era which did allow us to avoid the 2010,2014 catastrophes in 2022. I think voters are just so inelastic in their voting habits that it's going to be hard for dems to make the gains we want. I do think we'll make gains but not like some are expecting.
I want to be very clear, that these are not my actual expectations, but are a possibility that’s worth discussion because no one is actually doing so. My set line of expectations is a reverse 2022, where Democrats barely get a House majority by 5 seats or so and flip NC, but nothing else in the Senate. I don’t think that’s the likeliest outcome in 2026, but I’m setting myself up to not be disappointed regardless of whatever happens.
What? Josh Stein won by 15 points on the same ballot where Harris lost by 3. Even if you remove his horrendous opponent being the reason for that, Democrats still got five more statewide wins out of North Carolina in 2024, with all of the winners getting at least 50,000 more votes than Harris did. Jeff Jackson got over 150,000 more votes than she did. That’s a notable amount of ticket splitting.
Kelly Ayotte won an open gubernatorial race by 9 points in a state Harris won. Phil Scott continues dominating in Vermont.
Ruben Gallego and Elissa Slotkin achieved the remarkable feats of holding open seats in states that voted for Trump at the same time. Rosen and Baldwin also held on in Trump states.
Look at the over a dozen Democrats that won House seats that Trump won: MGP, Golden, Vasquez, Gonzales, Cuellar, Davis, Kaptur, Gray, Harder, Lee, Rivet, and I’m probably missing some.
Bacon, Fitzpatrick, and Lawler all won Harris seats.
Ticket-splitting is far from dead. If anything it’s making a small bit of a comeback after the lack of it in 2016 and 2020.
For legislatures we can break it down to see what is on the table.
For state houses the most obviously on the table I would argue are: MN, AZ, and MI.
Is WI winnable? I know it got ungerrymandered but I do not recall how winnable the new court imposed maps are. NH is probably winnable too, despite the extreme gerrymander, just due to the sheer number of seats and the difficulty of properly gerrymandering districts of <4k residents.
For state senates: AZ, and PA.
As I recall PA is more difficult than the numbers suggest due to the distribution of seats up next year, but it is winnable all the same. Probably WI again if the maps are good. NH is unlikely as the gerrymander in the state senate is much more durable than in the house. What do the marginal seats in both chambers look like for Texas and Georgia? I assume they're deep red, but I wonder just how deep red. Possible in a big enough wave?
Assuming WI's legislature maps are good enough, that puts us at a reasonable target of 7 total legislative chambers: MN+MI houses, PA senate, and AZ+WI both house and senate. With a start of 57R-39D for chambers, this would shift things to 50R-46D. Adding in NH's house would get us to 49R-47D. After that we'd still need two chambers in a reach state -- Texas or Georgia, likely? -- to get to an outright majority.
The new WI maps are very winnable, the median assembly seat in Trump +0.5, and the reddest senate seat needed to win is Harris +1.
To win Pennsylvania senate, 3 districts need to be flipped (because the Lancaster seat won't stay blue in a higher turnout environment), and I don't have 2024 numbers, but three R districts only narrowly voted for Trump in 2020, so should be winnable.
I know the marginal house seat in Georgia is around Trump +7/8, although special attention should be paid to house district 81 (southeastern Henry County), which was Trump +29 in 2020 and Trump +12 in 2024. The senate isn't really competitive though, with the median set being Trump +14.
Texas Senate is impossible under the current maps, and I don't know the median house seat, although if 14 need to be flipped, I'd imagine the odds aren't great.
DEMS WIN MAJORITY IN ORANGE COUNTY: The dust has finally settled on one of last fall’s outstanding elections, and it turns out the Democratic gains were even better than expected.
Democrats flipped five seats on the Orange County Legislature in November, ending the GOP supermajority on the 21-member body. Since then, one Republican member has resigned and was replaced by a Democrat. And last night, Legislator Michael Amo — an independent from Kiryas Joel — decided to ally with Democrats. That gives the party its first outright majority in the county in over half a century.
“History was made this week,” said state Sen. James Skoufis, who helped organize the switch with county Democratic Chair Zak Constantine. “Between the excellent county legislative campaigns last year and the new opportunities to weave together a majority this year, Democrats will finally be in a position to enact a forward-looking, local agenda.” — Bill Mahoney, New York Politico
Forgetting briefly we're in '26 already, when I read "last fall's outstanding election" I thought there was still some god-forsaken 2024 race not called yet...
NY state trial court (annoying called the "supreme court") held oral argument on a potential redistricting for Brooklyn and Staten Island affecting Goldman and Malliotakis's seats.
"Potential new lines for NY10 + NY11
Were these maps to be approved, Dan Goldman would be faced with a choice: (1) Switch to NY11 and run against Republican Nicole Malliotakis in lean D seat (2) continue in NY10, with even worse odds vs. Brad Lander"
I've never heard of this, why is there a court case over a congressional district? Regardless, Staten Island has moved so far right I'm not sure attaching it to the heaviest dem area of NYC even makes it a dem seat anymore.
You're underestimating how blue Manhattan is. It's actually possible to draw a district containing Staten Island and parts of Manhattan that (narrowly) voted for Kathy Hochul in 2022, and that was the best statewide election for Republicans in many years.
The Staten Island/Manhattan district shown at the link would lean Democratic.
Yeah. Lower Manhattan voted like 90% for Harris. Even though Lower Manhattan would only cast 30% of this districts votes, Harris would still win the district.
That map would be amazing! A huge improvement over the current map. It unpacks Goldman's district by adding Republican-leaning southern Brooklyn (which would still be heavily outvoted by Park Slope and the rest of the district) and giving deep-blue sections of Manhattan to the Staten Island district (which is what Democrats like me have been pushing for for many years).
"Folks might not want to hear this, but the current NY11 boundaries (which extend into conservative pockets of Southern Brooklyn) are far more culturally-cohesive than a Staten Island—Lower Manhattan-based district."
I mean sure, the republicans in southern Brooklyn have more in common with Staten islanders than Manhattan but who cares at this point, it's a redistricting war and republicans started it so New York state dems need to get on it.
Saying the boundaries are culturally cohesive doesn’t at all say one way or the other of the likelihood of Democrats losing the lawsuit. That’s entirely correlation without causation.
Could they lose? Yes. Could they win? Yes. The statement of cultural cohesion doesn’t preclude either option happening though.
Not really, the suit to strike down the current map is on racial grounds and the defense of the proposed new map drawn by Elias Law is that it's still "culturally similar". The court(s) could look at other map configurations, including (probably Dem's fear) bring in a special master to propose other alternatives. Also Lange isn't a lawyer, he's really giving his subjective opinion. I obvi don't really know how the state VRA is written or the exact terms of the suit, but defining communities of interest and how they should be considered is always a pretty stick subject that could cut either way, but think it's hard grounds to really rest on without other stronger factors before it. And after all, Utah Repubs think an urban-rural mix is good for their districts, so why shouldn't the East Village be lumped in with Bulls Head? (kidding, they're different states lol)
There just isn't a case here, trying to argue the current NY-11 deludes minority representation feels like abuse of the VRA, and even then, the remedy would be to put the North Shore in a Dem district, not put all of Staten Island in with Manhattan
CA-14: No surprise. State Senator Aisha Wahab filed a statement of candidacy for Swalwell seat yesterday. Seven candidates now are in and, as discussed yesterday, Steve Glazer may run as well.
Thank you for flagging, I missed this over the holidays!
I assume Glazer is looking at running to succeed Mark DeSaulnier in CA-10 when DeSaulnier eventually retires rather than for CA-14, but I could be wrong!
Glazer said, "The purpose of this new committee is to determine whether I can harness the financial support to be a serious contender for this Congressional seat when the incumbent steps aside." Swalwell has already stepped aside, so don't think he'd put it that way if he wanted to run for CA-14.
Glazer may have represented the Tri Valley region as a State Senator but lives in Orinda and was on the City Council there and served as Mayor for multiple terms. If he were to run in CA-14, he would face several problems:
1) Hayward, Union City and Castro Valley would be included, which present complications demographics wise. 40% of Hayward residents are Hispanic. In Castro Valley & Union City, white residents don't even represent a majority as both Asian and Hispanic population are well in double digits. Castro Valley white population has around a 4% majority over Asian and Hispanic population, which is barely even a majority to begin with.
2) In Glazer's State Senate district, he represented cities like Orinda, Moraga, etc. which do in fact have a sizable white population. But population in Dublin is overwhelmingly Asian (50+%) and Indian and Middle Eastern population, which have accelerated in numbers for years now, are quite prevailent here. Even in the neighboring Pleasanton, Asians represent a slight majority, overtaking white population.
3) Glazer's anti-union history with BART isn't going to sit well in CA-14 and he's likely going to be hammered in the primary over this.
Aisha Wahab is also Afghan and along with Abrar Qadir is the 2nd Middle Eastern candidate in the race. Glazer entering the race would mean he's the only white candidate in there.
A good reason why Swalwell has appeal in CA-14 is that the district can be middle class and that's where he came from. Glazer in the State Senate represented more affluent demographics in Orinda, Alamo, Danville, etc. so it will be a challenge for him to connect with voters.
IDK where Steve Glazer is going to run (seeing the speculation downthread) but fwiw he's absolutely loathed by the Cal Dem Party for his anti labor work. He'd likely have Jerry Brown's endorsement, but I don't know what kind of base he'd have...anywhere.
Yes but Glazer is more to the right of Brown on unions. Brown by contrast is more pro-union, especially with him having established collective bargining with CA State public service union employees when he was Governor back in the 70's.
If I were Brown, I would not endorse Glazer if he runs in CA-14. It's bad optics, especially considering he's a native San Franciscan where the unions have a heavy influence. Brown did endorse Libby Schaaf for Mayor of Oakland back in 2014 but at the time she did not have problems with unions like Glazer does.
Really? I thought Brown was to the left of Clinton when he ran.
Brown's history of challenging the status quo in college education funding by UC Regents is quite liberal considering he went after Dianne Feinstein's late husband Richard Blum over being aloof to student issues over tuition increases due to his wealth.
As a form of opposition research I occasionally peruse r/conservative to see what those freaks are up to and there’s a weird amount of speculation across multiple unrelated threads that SCOTUS is striking down the tariffs Friday. Obviously nobody knows when rulings will happen but it was strangely specific.
I wonder what the political implications are of Trump’s signature (unpopular) policy being very cabined this far ahead of midterms
Speaking of SCOTUS, I saw a tweet from Jacob Rubashkin of Inside elections, he says that when Republicans start feeling nervous about losing the Senate, you'll start seeing them publicly pressure Thomas and Alito.
We can only hope that the two of them are as egotistical and self-centered as RBG was. It would be a kind of poetic justice if we ended up with a SCOTUS majority due to them staying on too long.
That is one of the most heavily astroturfed, botted, and foreign intelligence infested websites on the internet, and the conservative subs are even more so, literally being playgrounds for GRU and the like.
If you want conservative on the ground opinion, you will have to go deeper lol. If you can stomach all this trash: Breitbart, Daily Caller, and even more fringe sites if you want the more populist right pulse.
Politically, we should want these tariffs to stay, they’re the most unpopular part of Trump’s government by far and have caused rural voters to finally start inching away from the GOP in 2025, which hasn’t happened in any election cycle since I’d argue Obama 2008.
Practically, they’re awful, they hurt the average person, the economy and hurt the country, so we should want some of the bad of Trump’s presidency to not be as bad.
There’s no question though of which position I take, I want tariffs to stay until after the 2026 elections and into 2028 if possible. Partisanship is hardened these days. To get some of the GOP base to say “WTF” and vote blue when they haven’t through all of the Trump sycophancy and chaos up until now is a big f***ing deal and we’d be really stupid to not want that to continue happening (which probably only will if tariffs stay because they seriously screw the rural economy in every way possible).
Otherwise we’ll get the “I can tolerate Trump and Republicans screwing the economy and bailing out the rich as well as mass deportations if it means Democrats don’t gain power” justification of the Republican Party voters in 2026 elections that would mute any talk of a bigger than 2018 wave pretty quick.
The road to a tsunami instead of a wave in 2026 runs entirely through the heart of GOP rural territory. If they shift, the election is over already. If they don’t, don’t expect anything other than a 2018 repeat.
They're going to cobble tariffs together under different authorities to be litigated regardless, so they'll still be some version of them as live political issue. This FT article does a really good job laying out the different statutes they're likely to use after the SC strikes the current format down.
The Digest states: "LaMalfa’s death came just one day after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s resignation from Georgia’s conservative 14th District took effect, leaving Republicans with just a 218-213 advantage."
With Jim Baird (R, IN-04), age 80, hospitalized after a horrible car accident, doesn’t this actually leave Republicans at 217–213 for the time being? Which means Speaker Mike Johnson can lose only One Single Vote, right?
(The loss of two votes would mean a 215–215 tie, resulting in whatever proposal/legislation/budget is being voted on failing, right?)
Based on the IN-4 note, Baird has been discharged. He may mostly be recovering, but he will probably show up for any votes
Thanks! What I read yesterday sounded very serious. Politico:
"[Speaker Mike] Johnson said he believed Baird was dealing with a spinal issue."
Naturally from a human perspective, I’m glad Jim Baird is recovering. From a purely political perspective, any temporary or long-term narrowing of the GOP majority is good news.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/01/06/congress/jim-baird-hospitalized-00712230
He has to show up for votes because the speaker banned remote and proxy voting. Recovering and flying back and forth to DC are different things, I think.
I mean, you would certainly know what the Speaker is thinking.
you can see why i didnt use his name lol
Maybe you should change your first name to Lyndon or Andrew? I got tired of having the most common name for boys born in my generation (I was Mike too) so I borrowed a name from an obscure former POTUS. My last name is not Taylor, though...
"Dealing with a spinal issue" could apply to the whole GOP caucus.
Best comment of the day!
"Complete and total endorsement"....to two people.
You keep using those words. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7ny.com/amp/post/congressman-dan-goldman-launches-election-campaign-ny-district-10-has-divided-top-democrats/18363155/
NY-10: Goldman is in, again
Yeah, yesterday was the formal announcement, but he's been begging for money for a long time.
I wonder if he would have been the favorite if he went for district 12?
No, unless he bought his way in again
He'd probably be the best candidate in that race, at least given current candidates. I'd vote for Lander over Goldman but Goldman over anyone in NY-12, although I like Kasky.
So close in SC special! Still a sliver of hope, though.
Would LOVE for Newsom to use the new map. That could be a flip. Do more than troll, Gavin.
A flip would mean 219-216 once the specials are done.
Currently, 218-213, including Baird.
Jan 31, TX-18. Dem win in Turner's seat. 218-214.
March 10, MTG seat. GOP win. 219-214.
April 11, NJ special for Sherrill's seat. Dem win. 219-215.
May sometime. CA-01 under new maps. 219-216 is likely.
No, using the new map would pretty blatantly violate the principle of one person one vote and be illegal. I get we need to fight fire with fire, but I don't want to use this particular brand of fire until Republicans start doing it. It's just wrong and I don't think we should be the ones to break the seal.
They did it unchallenged with Mike Flood in NE-01, which is in the breakdown.
I expect this would be challenged in court by Republicans, since it would cause a flip. I also think a challenge to the NE-1 special election would have succeeded
I don't necessarily disagree, though do wonder how they would ground the challenge with that as precedent. And in the meantime, the seat could be left open during the challenge and continue to squeeze Johnson's margins.
Was the issue in NE-01 that the changes were not significant enough so no one bothered to challenge it?
I mean I would a violation of OPOV for even one person would be significant enough, but ymmv
I agree but just wondering if the reason it went unchallenged is the changes were not that significant?
Not sure GA14 will be decided Mar 10. Very likely from the runoff 4 weeks later, even with an R-R runoff.
A 21-vote margin is nothing! Do we know whether there are provisional votes that have yet to be tallied in South Carolina’s HD-98? And, if so, do we know how many?
SC doesn't have a provisional cure period, though.
Yes we do. If you vote provisional on election day, then you have until certification to show your provisional ballot is legit and should be counted. Many provisionsals are because of address issues or folks who forgot their ID at home, so it's a matter of going to the county election office with your id and showing you are a legal voting resident of your precinct.
My guess is certification will be Friday, maybe early next week.
Do we know how many provisionals were cast in this special election?
And does the SC Democratic Party have the infrastructure to contact their voters and get them to cure their ballots?
I haven't seen a number for provisionals, but the precinct I manage (that was not involved in the special) only had 4 provisional votes for the last presidential election, and we were the second largest precinct in the country, about 3800 registered voters of (guessing) ~6000 residents. Of these, 2-3 were from voters who rarely voted. State House districts comprise about 42,000 residents. If you take extrapolate my precinct ... 6000/42000 = 8 x 4 = 32 provisionals. So maybe enough to matter, but unlikely considering this is a lower turnout election. SC had very robust election systems and back ups. So unlikely to see major clerical errors like Lake (Otsego?) Co Michigan or wherever in 2020.
SC does not have party registration, so I think it would be difficult to ID voters, however, I believe you could track by whether someone voted in the R or D primary previously. I vote R in local primaries, bc Ds don't run, and that's the only way I can figure that the R committees have my name to solicit with mailers. I sure as hell don't donate to Rs.
Does anyone know what our overperformances were like across all the specials yesterday?
Yes, The DownBallot has excellent and complete overview! Here are yesterday’s specials:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JGk1r1VXnxBrAIVHz1C5HTB5jxCO6Zw4QNPivdhyWHw/edit?pli=1&gid=1173601967#gid=1173601967
And here are all specials (67 so far!) in the 2025–2026 cycle:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JGk1r1VXnxBrAIVHz1C5HTB5jxCO6Zw4QNPivdhyWHw/edit?pli=1&gid=415249345#gid=415249345
Thanks! Any idea why we generally overperformed by less in Tuesday's elections than we had been so far this cycle?
I’ve been wondering the same. Probably a good question to ask in a later Digest, for instance today’s.
Since Schakowsky endorsed Daniel Biss in IL-9 — breaking her initial commitment to stay out of the race after AIPAC entered it for Laura Fine and pushed out Leon..... how popular is she in her district, and will this have a significant impact? Will candidates who were pursuing her endorsement drop out due to this?
The major candidates are all so different from each other and seem to be motivated enough on their own that it's hard to see it affecting their decisions. Kat Abughazaleh has her entire online brand invested in this. Laura Fine just got AIPAC. Some of the lesser candidates may drop out, especially if Biss continues to consolidate support from a range of factions.
I also don't see Biss, Abughazaleh and Fine dropping out since they are the frontrunners.
Extremely. This is the single most important endorsement that could have an impact on the primary. It doesn't totally put it away for Biss against Abughazaleh, but it basically kills Fine. Her imprimatur is especially powerful among all the suburban components of the district and the masses of older liberals there, as well as influencing swaths of her Chicago components too. Hard to say if the other electeds will drop. Fine and Amiwala have probably been the closest personally to her, but they obviously represent different wings on Israel and may feel obligated/donor-impelled to continue campaigning on those. Simmons has run an alright campaign if there was more oxygen and will stay in the state senate for another two years regardless, so might be weighing his options. Huynh has been so quiet, and would have been more of a fit to try for Quigley's seat if he'd announced a mayoral run sooner (esp if he retired), but this muted campaign may have damaged him to have a good launch there should Quigley win next spring. Simmons and Huynh are obviously around Schakowsky a lot too, but I'm not sure how personally close they are and how deferent they feel toward her. But the writing is definitely on the wall.
Great analysis.
Amiwala will only increase the chances of her wing losing if she keeps on running.
I doubt Amiwala, who is the most grassroots level organizer in the primary, has literally any political affection for Abughazaleh helicoptering in to blatantly carpetbag. My sense is that she's fairly close to Schakowsky and Biss, and would honestly be surprised if she endorsed Abughazaleh if/when she drops out (and would not at all be surprised if she endorsed Biss).
Biss is also in the staunchly progressive wing afaik. I was referring to him actually. I am not a fan of carpetbaggers.
Oh, Amiwala's supporters are definitely much more overlapped with Abughazaleh than Biss. The hyperlocal suburban issues folks who have a gripe to not default to Biss for one reason or another are one wing, and some permutation of young, South Asian and/or Arab, and Palestine single-issue voters. Her staying in the race probably helps Biss, now that Schakowsky has virtually locked the suburban base for him. Some of that former wing of hyperlocal Amiwala supporters might slide over to him from the endorsement alone and that leaves her latter supporters who are more likely to go to Abughazaleh if Amiwala drops out.
Edit: If some of your implication is Amiwala increasing Fine's chance of winning, it doesn't. Fine is dead in the water and now will only linger in the campaign with AIPAC support without Schakowsky. She has almost no chance of winning anymore.
Why is Schakowsky popular in the suburbs? Her voting record and vocabulary is pretty hard left and she won her first primary as a leftist?
Isn't Leon thinking about getting back in?
Not really a factor in any way tbqh lol
"Kari Lake buys Iowa condo as speculation swirls about her future
https://www.ms.now/news/kari-lake-2028-politics-iowa
The property purchase comes after years of Lake flirting with GOP politics in the state and ahead of the potential retirement of longtime Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley."
Girl what
Non-zero chance that we have 2 Democratic senators from Iowa by 2029.
That’d be insane, but welcome.
IDK have you seen Iowa election results lately?
I mean...I guess it's technically a non-zero chance, but it's not much higher than zero.
*laughs in Katie Hobbs and Ruben Gallego*
Surprised she's not going for Florida, given how much time she spent at Mar-a-Lago. And she really is a "Florida man" at heart.
Yea, why Iowa? Maybe not as much competition?
She was born there.
I just saw her bio. Lake was born in IL but grew up in Iowa. Graduated from Eldridge, which is not too far in driving distance from Davenport.
But at this point, growing up in IA or not, Lake would still make IA Democrats salivate over what she could do for them in a fundraising sense if she ran for the Senate in 2028.
I didn't know that until just now. I've never gotten a Midwestern vibe from her.
Florida's 19th is calling her name...
Do it! Help Democrats get two US Senate seats in the state, assuming the party wins the Senate race this November.
Lake wouldn't be able to unseat Grassley in the primary if he were running for re-election but if he retires, I hope she continues her service to the Democratic Party. She helped Katie Hobbs get elected as AZ Governor and Ruben Gallego to the Senate.
She's got a great track record! /s
Not totally inconceivable that if she loses the 2028 Senate election she could be single-handedly responsible for a Democratic Senate majority in like 2031 or something.
A reverse Jon Kyl, it seems. Arizona Representative/Senator Kyl is originally from Iowa, and his father was a Congressman there in the 60s
Lake grew up in Eldridge, Iowa and graduated from U of I.
Dr. Amy Acton, the Democratic nominee for Ohio governorship has chosen David Pepper as her Lt. Gov. running mate.
That seems smart. He was party chair over the 2018 election that got almost all statewide row offices within like 3-8pt margins, led by Cordray as the nominee for governor.
I'd be more impressed if it wasn't 2018. Is that not the margin we get today under normal circumstances?
The state is generically R+5 per Cook, so not really. It's more that he seems like an experienced operator, fundraiser and campaign strategist, all of which are good to have in her team.
I'm sure he's fine, now if he had won those races then that's different but then again i don't give credit or blame usually to party chairs for the performance of candidates.
Two things can be true at the same time, so you’re both right imo. He helped create an impressive showing the last year Democrats not named Brown were competitive statewide, but Pepper like all Democrats that year, obviously had help from the Trump midterm backlash at the same time.
Which is more important or is a better measure of his campaign capabilities for the year 2026 can be fairly debated one way or the other. He could be 8 years behind the political ball totally out of touch or he could be the second coming of an actual Tim Ryan win in Ohio. We’ll see how he does and the results will speak for themselves.
I strongly recommend Pepper's book "Laboratories of Autocracy" to anyone interested in the Buckeye State's deeply FUBAR politics.
It's in my pile of books to read in the next months.
NY-AD-37, NY-7:
https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2026/01/dsa-member-samantha-kattan-hopes-succeed-claire-valdez-assembly/410486/?oref=csny-category-lander-river
DSA-affiliated tenant organizer Samantha Kattan has filed to run for the Assembly seat of fellow DSA member Claire Valdez. I mention this because Valdez is apparently expected to run for NY-7, Nydia Velazquez’s old seat, and this seems to confirm it. Valdez will be competing with Antonio Reynoso here.
People who naysay Mary Peltola and think Dan Sullivan is a lock for re-election this year need to look at the 2014 and 2020 numbers. He flipped the Senate seat in 2014 (a very R-favorable midterm) by only 2 points and only bested it in 2020 by an extra 2 points.
Peltola won both 2022 races by that same margin. It's possible not only that but she could exceed that number giving how bad Trump is fucking Alaska over in terms of tariffs and ACA subsidies.
There are Peltola naysayers???
There are people who think she's making a big gamble at a long shot race versus something that's more of a certainty in the governorship, yes. I count myself among them. I wouldn't say Sullivan is a "lock for re-election" though, and I hope she wins the Senate race, obviously.
The pollsters based in Alaska are usually very reliable, so unless Peltola phones it in or there's a big event that upends her campaign, the AK Senate race is a toss-up, maybe Lean R at this point.
That's well and fine. But there isn't really much argument that Senate is a riskier gamble for her. She was getting in the mid-60s in the gubernatorial polls versus polling neck-and-neck with Sullivan. That's the core of the argument in terms of what's best for her and the future of the Alaska Democratic Party. Hopefully Tom Begich wins the gubernatorial race anyhow and she wins the Senate race.
The courts will be locked for a generation and unless you can convince squishy centrists to expand the court, 2026 is THE last chance to save the judiciary. The Senate nominates the replacements.
I will never forgive conservadems for cobfirming Clarence Thomas after he started race-baiting.
I mean, it is factually accurate that she has a better shot at the governor's race than Senate, based on polling, open seat vs. incumbent, and the fact that voters across the country are far more willing to vote for "the other party" for state races rather than federal races. The crux of the story of Mary Peltola is that she's passing on an easier race for the good of the country (or at least for the good of Alaska, since she can likely do more for the state in the Senate).
I'm sure she has also evolved as a person over the past couple years after the passing of her husband. She was previously seen as wanting to return to Alaska. Maybe she sees less for her there now and she is more open to a career in Washington.
Just my own personal vibes, but this race feels like at the very worst a Lean R rating, not even Likely R. Given Peltola's past overperformances, successes and her appeal and name recognition, she's not only our best chance in Alaska, but an exceptionally strong candidate. I would go as far as to say that Peltola may be in an even stronger position than Mark Begich was in 2008, especially come November.
I think Lean R is the right rating, at least for now.
I'd argue Tossup actually. Sullivan isn't the most inspiring incumbent, and he has votes that will become albatrosses around his neck.
Are they actually albatrosses in Alaska? Do any votes actually influence voter behavior anymore? Alaska is still a red state and it's hard to argue that any Republican doesn't start out as a favorite.
Oh, you know, the national GOP and RW outlets.
Hell i'm on the page it should be competitive with or without her but glad she seems to be in.
I agree with you. Is anyone saying Sullivan is a lock against Peltola?
I'm not naysaying Peltola, winning anything in Alaska is gravy but it will be an uphill fight beating in incumbent republican in a federal race. I think there'd be some voters who vote for her governor but not senator in this circumstance.
True but Sullivan, like Murkowski, voted for the BBB. That alone will give Peltola enough ammunition.
Agree with everything although in Q4 the economy grew more than expected, which defeats the argument over a potential recession.
If there is a recession next year, it won't be a deep one, at least for now. The tariffs and cost of living are still going to be a problem, as are any potential layoffs at the corporate level which have been going on for some time. Agriculture industry though has been hit hard.
https://www.npr.org/2025/12/31/nx-s1-5660749/the-state-of-the-u-s-economy-as-2025-draws-to-a-close
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/us-economy-grew-third-quarter-rcna250644
Well alongside a potential recession, you have the T-Rex in the room - the AI bubble and it's potential pop. Even if we assume it doesn't "pop" there's increasing signs that we will see some form of a bubble deflation that's either ongoing or looming. It's being propped up by many of the Fortune 500 companies, including Microsoft are investing heavily on "AI". Still, that doesn't stop the startups from now seeing their spending and investments dry up as the hype increasingly fades. More and more, we increasingly see more startups either failing or being bought out now. Big tech once more is the wildcard, just as it was with the dot com boom.
agree 100%
True although the dot com era was still when online monetization was in its early days and many companies that were victims of this period had been too assuming of their ability to profit just simply by having a website present. Since then, organizations and small businesses have become increasingly smarter about their web presence.
AI though I really don't know what will happen after the bubble bursts although looming regulation could complicate its growth, not just what is currently going on in the bubble.
AI capex as a % of GDP is about half of the dotcom spend in 1998-99 and a third of fracking spend in 2010-12, and is fueled by more cash on hand than debt than either of those two famous bubbles - at least right now. Debt outlays actually could be the impetus for a deflating - Meta shares got wreaked when Zuck announced in last earnings they were issuing bonds (aka debt) to keep pace on capex and that could be an interesting canary in the coal mine.
As of now it’s not as dangerous a situation as dotcom, and the market is punishing laggards/overplayers. We’ll see if that sustains.
I'm more worried about the economy if the AI bubble doesn't pop.
The impacts on everything else using RAM, NAND flash, CPUs, GPUs, or any kind of advanced fabrication are piling up. We can afford to have the AI bubble pop more readily than we can afford for everyone making modern consumer electronics to be stuck without anything to sell for 1-3 years. I do not want to see the result of an economy where Apple and Samsung have to cut back on their phone sales by >20% because of logistical issues, rather than market preferences.
And two-thirds of the country is reducing its consumer spending even amidst the current "high-growth economy". Imagine how much it's gonna hurt when the bubble bursts and the recession is official.
https://www.270towin.com/states/alaska
Alaska is not that red and is trending to the left. Reminder that Trump only got 54.5 percent of the vote there in 2024. People underestimate how independent minded and different Alaska is compared to the Lower 48.
As someone who was a Boy Scout growing up, I never understood why Democrats didn't get more ownership of the pro-environment agenda in Alaska for decades. It literally is a wilderness state and I've always looked at preserving the wilderness in its character in the same kind environmental stewardship that Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts have always took charge in for decades.
Of course, the same argument could be made about Wyoming, which is one of the deepest red states in the U.S.
In a word: Oil.
Oh I am aware. That has been a big agenda for Republicans for a long time, especially with the push to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
But come on Democrats. You should OWN the environment considering the GOP really doesn't care about it.
But of course they oppose drilling on the Florida coast.
Yup, the GOP was originally for drilling for oil before they were against it in Florida!
And John Kerry was a flip flopper?
Who exactly is saying Sullivan is a lock for re-election? I would still characterize him as the favorite, even against Peltola, but she has a very legitimate shot at winning the race. I'd call it Lean R.
Does anyone think a reverse 2010 midterm wave is possible for 2026? I think we’re all expecting a blue year, but is it a high tide? A wave? A tsunami? The last of which could have Democrats win races with weak candidates no one expects to come close, let alone win them in state’s both swing and favourable to the opposite party?
Gerrymandering makes it hard to see something as dramatic as going from 61-37 D controlled state legislatures to 57-40 R controlled after the 2010 election results were tabulated. But is it at least possible for Democrats to change the current number of 57-39 R to where the Dem party holds a majority of legislative chambers after 2026? That would be about half the 2010 net swing of 41 chambers.
I feel like most people who follow politics or are journalists/pundits keep making the same mistake over and over again: to use results that have already happened as the only parameter of what’s possible in the next cycle.
What if something different, new and unexpected happens in 2026? I mean this in both directions too, so think that it is entirely possible (but unlikely), that the GOP/Trump recovers and maybe just barely loses control of the House.
Obviously I think one is more likely than the other, but both are possible and neither are really discussed because they’re “outliers”, don’t have precedent or are hopium/copium depending on which scenario you see as more likely and your political orientation.
I think it has the potential to be bigger the 2018 if we put it in that perspective. A lot of it driven by candidate quality differences. For comparison, I think there's a number of gubernatorial races we have an excellent shot at winning this year that we fell short in 2018 in:
1. Ohio. We can thank Ramaswamy for that.
2. Iowa. Rob Sand is probably our best candidate from Iowa at a gubernatorial or Senate race in nearly 20 years there, and he's boosted by Kim Reynolds' unpopularity and fatigue.
3. Georgia. It's obviously much bluer than it was eight years ago.
4. Alaska is a wild card. We'll see if Begich can take advantage of RCV and a clown car on the R side.
5. New Hampshire. Ayotte is much less popular than Sununu was at this point in 2018, and he still only won by 7 points. I'm pretty high on Donovan Fenton's chances if he runs. He seems very charismatic.
Senate races:
Unlike 2018, we're not playing any defense in a lot of deep red territory, so that's already miles better. We only have two seats in Trump-won states to defend, and I'm not worried about either of them. Jon Ossoff already has more than $20 million on hand, and that's before the Q4 reports. Georgia elections have gone horrendously for the Republicans in the past year. Plus his likely opponent, the male version of MTG, is under Congressional investigation. Michigan's primary looks like a mess, but I'm hoping it'll sort itself out. I'm not concerned about McMorrow being able to squash Rogers in the general election.
The two obvious offensive opportunities (Maine and North Carolina) are somewhat analogous to that year's offensive opportunities when Nevada was a Hillary-won state with an incumbent who won multiple statewide elections. Sounds similar to Maine. Arizona was an open seat race in a narrow Trump +3 state because Trump bullied out the weak R incumbent. Same thing happened in North Carolina. The difference in North Carolina this year is Cooper >>>Sinema in terms of candidate quality, and McSally >>> Whatley. I don't think North Carolina will be seriously considered competitive by the time the fall comes around.
Our opportunities beyond those two seats look much better than the 2018 reach seats. Our next tier of targets consists of about 4-5 states Trump won by low double digits. In 2018, those reach seats included Texas, which ended up much closer than expected, and Trump +26 Tennessee where a popular former Governor gave it a good run but still fell 11 points short. But a similar Bredesen-type overperformance would mean Democratic wins in the aforementioned targets in places like Iowa, Ohio, Texas, Alaska, and possibly Kansas.
House: Our recruiting is solid. I wouldn't be surprised if we got beyond the 235 seats we won in 2018. I count 2 seats in AZ, 5 in CA, 3 in CO, 3 in Iowa, 3 in Michigan, 1 in Nebraska, 1 in New Jersey, 1 in New York, 2 in North Carolina, 4 in Pennsylvania, 1 in Utah, up to 4 in Virginia, 1 in Washington, and 2 in Wisconsin that are vulnerable or primed for flips. I'm probably missing some. Republicans cannot gerrymander their way out of that, and I wouldn't be surprised if their gerrymanders in Texas, North Carolina, and Florida fall flat.
For state legislatures, I count AZ (both), GA House, MI House, NH (both), MN House, NC House, PA Senate, and WI (both) as being very vulnerable in a blue wave. So that would be D+11 chambers.
"I don't think North Carolina will be seriously considered competitive by the time the fall comes around."
The state is closely contested enough so that it probably should be seriously considered competitive up until E-Day. At the very least we shouldn't say "OK, that's a lock" early and take our foot off the proverbial gas pedal, no matter how good the polls might look.
Whatley may be untested as an electoral candidate but he probably won't have a Mark Robinson-type implosion, and while the "popular governor can't be elected Senator in a state that doesn't prefer his party presidentially" theme really doesn't apply here--the state's red presidential margins have easily been close enough for Cooper to overcome, especially in a nationally bluer year--we can't assume he can coast on his personal appeal.
Well, good thing I never said we should take the foot off the gas in NC.
Not to mention - we should and will run through the tape in NC because literally every House seat is winnable in a wave election (Congress, not state house).
Cook PVI has *nine* districts at R+7 to R+10, but nothing worse than that.
https://www.cookpolitical.com/cook-pvi/2025-partisan-voting-index/district-map-and-list
Agreed. Tight margin (I'd expect 4-6%) but methinks Cooper will always poll in the lead. Consistent, durable, slender lead.
I stand by my prediction from the summer that Cooper +1 is the best scenario we should expect for a federal race in North Carolina nowadays.
I think that's way too pessimistic. I could see him winning by 5 if a true wave develops, which seems eminently possible.
I would say that if the nasty primary between incumbent NC state Senator Phil Berger and Sam Page results in Berger being ousted in two months -- the NC GOP state Senate will be in disarray. Berger will have blown a lot of money otherwise earmarked for incumbents -- and the power won't simply transfer to Page.
The NC state Senate is a much bigger reach to flip but if Rs end up triaging safe seats in the legislature, R+5-6 seats are VERY vulnerable.
Excellent post, but on a side point, how would you define Republican gerrymanders "falling flat"?
I posted above, but if it's a big D wave, possibly *every* Congressional seat in NC goes Dem. Cook has nine seats between R+7 and R+10 so if they go, they may all go at once
Like Republicans only netting like 2-3 seats out of Texas instead of the 5 they expected. Or Don Davis holding on in NC. Neither outcome would shock me.
The problem is that republicans vote and they love everything Dump does so don't expect them to sit home and allow dems to have a 2010 or 2014 blowout. I'm just hoping that we can take the house and lame duck the orange toad.
That’s not exactly true. Republicans voted for Democrats at higher rates than any other election cycle since Trump was first elected, in the 2018 midterm election. There was also a ton of Trump only Republican voters who stayed home without him on the ballot. Obviously many Democrats stayed home too as both parties suffer from presidential only voter coalitions, but the GOP did in far greater numbers than Democrats.
Those both may or may not happen in 2026, to be fair, but to set the expectation for the midterms as Republicans turning out and voting for Republicans in droves when the cycle most similar to 2026 didn’t have any of that seems like a problematic assumption to make.
It is true that dems picked up a more reliable affluent suburban voter in the Trump era which did allow us to avoid the 2010,2014 catastrophes in 2022. I think voters are just so inelastic in their voting habits that it's going to be hard for dems to make the gains we want. I do think we'll make gains but not like some are expecting.
I want to be very clear, that these are not my actual expectations, but are a possibility that’s worth discussion because no one is actually doing so. My set line of expectations is a reverse 2022, where Democrats barely get a House majority by 5 seats or so and flip NC, but nothing else in the Senate. I don’t think that’s the likeliest outcome in 2026, but I’m setting myself up to not be disappointed regardless of whatever happens.
Democrats won a ton of seats and states that concurrently voted for Trump in 2024. Ticket-splitting is far from dead.
That wasn't so much ticket-splitting but who turned out to vote.
What? Josh Stein won by 15 points on the same ballot where Harris lost by 3. Even if you remove his horrendous opponent being the reason for that, Democrats still got five more statewide wins out of North Carolina in 2024, with all of the winners getting at least 50,000 more votes than Harris did. Jeff Jackson got over 150,000 more votes than she did. That’s a notable amount of ticket splitting.
Kelly Ayotte won an open gubernatorial race by 9 points in a state Harris won. Phil Scott continues dominating in Vermont.
Ruben Gallego and Elissa Slotkin achieved the remarkable feats of holding open seats in states that voted for Trump at the same time. Rosen and Baldwin also held on in Trump states.
Look at the over a dozen Democrats that won House seats that Trump won: MGP, Golden, Vasquez, Gonzales, Cuellar, Davis, Kaptur, Gray, Harder, Lee, Rivet, and I’m probably missing some.
Bacon, Fitzpatrick, and Lawler all won Harris seats.
Ticket-splitting is far from dead. If anything it’s making a small bit of a comeback after the lack of it in 2016 and 2020.
For legislatures we can break it down to see what is on the table.
For state houses the most obviously on the table I would argue are: MN, AZ, and MI.
Is WI winnable? I know it got ungerrymandered but I do not recall how winnable the new court imposed maps are. NH is probably winnable too, despite the extreme gerrymander, just due to the sheer number of seats and the difficulty of properly gerrymandering districts of <4k residents.
For state senates: AZ, and PA.
As I recall PA is more difficult than the numbers suggest due to the distribution of seats up next year, but it is winnable all the same. Probably WI again if the maps are good. NH is unlikely as the gerrymander in the state senate is much more durable than in the house. What do the marginal seats in both chambers look like for Texas and Georgia? I assume they're deep red, but I wonder just how deep red. Possible in a big enough wave?
Assuming WI's legislature maps are good enough, that puts us at a reasonable target of 7 total legislative chambers: MN+MI houses, PA senate, and AZ+WI both house and senate. With a start of 57R-39D for chambers, this would shift things to 50R-46D. Adding in NH's house would get us to 49R-47D. After that we'd still need two chambers in a reach state -- Texas or Georgia, likely? -- to get to an outright majority.
The new WI maps are very winnable, the median assembly seat in Trump +0.5, and the reddest senate seat needed to win is Harris +1.
To win Pennsylvania senate, 3 districts need to be flipped (because the Lancaster seat won't stay blue in a higher turnout environment), and I don't have 2024 numbers, but three R districts only narrowly voted for Trump in 2020, so should be winnable.
I know the marginal house seat in Georgia is around Trump +7/8, although special attention should be paid to house district 81 (southeastern Henry County), which was Trump +29 in 2020 and Trump +12 in 2024. The senate isn't really competitive though, with the median set being Trump +14.
Texas Senate is impossible under the current maps, and I don't know the median house seat, although if 14 need to be flipped, I'd imagine the odds aren't great.
Awesome. I hope we win both this November then. With numbers like that it should be extremely doable barring some extenuating problems.
OH-Gov: this made me laugh
https://x.com/i/status/2008938020821406096
DEMS WIN MAJORITY IN ORANGE COUNTY: The dust has finally settled on one of last fall’s outstanding elections, and it turns out the Democratic gains were even better than expected.
Democrats flipped five seats on the Orange County Legislature in November, ending the GOP supermajority on the 21-member body. Since then, one Republican member has resigned and was replaced by a Democrat. And last night, Legislator Michael Amo — an independent from Kiryas Joel — decided to ally with Democrats. That gives the party its first outright majority in the county in over half a century.
“History was made this week,” said state Sen. James Skoufis, who helped organize the switch with county Democratic Chair Zak Constantine. “Between the excellent county legislative campaigns last year and the new opportunities to weave together a majority this year, Democrats will finally be in a position to enact a forward-looking, local agenda.” — Bill Mahoney, New York Politico
Orange County, NY to be clear. I was assuming it was CA until I saw Skoufis' name.
Orange County, CA has been moving away from the GOP for some time and is not the conservative Reagan era county it used to be.
But if another Orange County in NY State moves away from the GOP, even better!
Hasidics are very politically smart and always strategically ally with the party in the majority.
In this case, he's creating the majority. He probably got a better deal for the Chasidim from the Democrats than whatever the Republicans offered.
Yup, that's how things are in a lot of countries with parliamentary election systems.
Forgetting briefly we're in '26 already, when I read "last fall's outstanding election" I thought there was still some god-forsaken 2024 race not called yet...
NY state trial court (annoying called the "supreme court") held oral argument on a potential redistricting for Brooklyn and Staten Island affecting Goldman and Malliotakis's seats.
"Potential new lines for NY10 + NY11
Were these maps to be approved, Dan Goldman would be faced with a choice: (1) Switch to NY11 and run against Republican Nicole Malliotakis in lean D seat (2) continue in NY10, with even worse odds vs. Brad Lander"
https://x.com/MichaelLangeNYC/status/2008928287309902116
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/07/nyregion/new-york-congressional-redistricting-democrats-republicans.html
I’m def taking on Malliotakis if I’m Goldman in that case. He’d be a decent fit for that seat
I've never heard of this, why is there a court case over a congressional district? Regardless, Staten Island has moved so far right I'm not sure attaching it to the heaviest dem area of NYC even makes it a dem seat anymore.
There's a court case over the notion that the current map dilutes black/Hispanic voters on the north shore of the island.
You're underestimating how blue Manhattan is. It's actually possible to draw a district containing Staten Island and parts of Manhattan that (narrowly) voted for Kathy Hochul in 2022, and that was the best statewide election for Republicans in many years.
The Staten Island/Manhattan district shown at the link would lean Democratic.
Would it have voted Dem in 2024? The dem candidate lost Staten Island by 66,000 votes.
Manhattan is far bluer than Staten Island is red. The seat drawn voted for Harris.
Yeah. Lower Manhattan voted like 90% for Harris. Even though Lower Manhattan would only cast 30% of this districts votes, Harris would still win the district.
Ok good to know. Goldman would be wise to move here if that's the case considering Lander seems to have the edge here atm.
That map would be amazing! A huge improvement over the current map. It unpacks Goldman's district by adding Republican-leaning southern Brooklyn (which would still be heavily outvoted by Park Slope and the rest of the district) and giving deep-blue sections of Manhattan to the Staten Island district (which is what Democrats like me have been pushing for for many years).
There's a high chance Dems lose this suit.
"Folks might not want to hear this, but the current NY11 boundaries (which extend into conservative pockets of Southern Brooklyn) are far more culturally-cohesive than a Staten Island—Lower Manhattan-based district."
https://x.com/MichaelLangeNYC/status/2008928290254262390?s=20
I mean sure, the republicans in southern Brooklyn have more in common with Staten islanders than Manhattan but who cares at this point, it's a redistricting war and republicans started it so New York state dems need to get on it.
You could argue that pairing Lower Manhattan with Staten Island makes the district more diverse.
Saying the boundaries are culturally cohesive doesn’t at all say one way or the other of the likelihood of Democrats losing the lawsuit. That’s entirely correlation without causation.
Could they lose? Yes. Could they win? Yes. The statement of cultural cohesion doesn’t preclude either option happening though.
Democrats are arguing that its racially gerrymandered and NOT culturally cohesive.
Not really, the suit to strike down the current map is on racial grounds and the defense of the proposed new map drawn by Elias Law is that it's still "culturally similar". The court(s) could look at other map configurations, including (probably Dem's fear) bring in a special master to propose other alternatives. Also Lange isn't a lawyer, he's really giving his subjective opinion. I obvi don't really know how the state VRA is written or the exact terms of the suit, but defining communities of interest and how they should be considered is always a pretty stick subject that could cut either way, but think it's hard grounds to really rest on without other stronger factors before it. And after all, Utah Repubs think an urban-rural mix is good for their districts, so why shouldn't the East Village be lumped in with Bulls Head? (kidding, they're different states lol)
There just isn't a case here, trying to argue the current NY-11 deludes minority representation feels like abuse of the VRA, and even then, the remedy would be to put the North Shore in a Dem district, not put all of Staten Island in with Manhattan
CA-14: No surprise. State Senator Aisha Wahab filed a statement of candidacy for Swalwell seat yesterday. Seven candidates now are in and, as discussed yesterday, Steve Glazer may run as well.
Thank you for flagging, I missed this over the holidays!
I assume Glazer is looking at running to succeed Mark DeSaulnier in CA-10 when DeSaulnier eventually retires rather than for CA-14, but I could be wrong!
Glazer said, "The purpose of this new committee is to determine whether I can harness the financial support to be a serious contender for this Congressional seat when the incumbent steps aside." Swalwell has already stepped aside, so don't think he'd put it that way if he wanted to run for CA-14.
https://www.independentnews.com/news/regional_and_ca/former-state-senator-steve-glazer-explores-bid-for-seat-in-u-s-house/article_d588b60f-1b2d-4a41-9413-9493e5f5b484.html
Glazer may have represented the Tri Valley region as a State Senator but lives in Orinda and was on the City Council there and served as Mayor for multiple terms. If he were to run in CA-14, he would face several problems:
1) Hayward, Union City and Castro Valley would be included, which present complications demographics wise. 40% of Hayward residents are Hispanic. In Castro Valley & Union City, white residents don't even represent a majority as both Asian and Hispanic population are well in double digits. Castro Valley white population has around a 4% majority over Asian and Hispanic population, which is barely even a majority to begin with.
2) In Glazer's State Senate district, he represented cities like Orinda, Moraga, etc. which do in fact have a sizable white population. But population in Dublin is overwhelmingly Asian (50+%) and Indian and Middle Eastern population, which have accelerated in numbers for years now, are quite prevailent here. Even in the neighboring Pleasanton, Asians represent a slight majority, overtaking white population.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/castrovalleycdpcalifornia/PST045224
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/dublincitycalifornia/PST045224
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/haywardcitycalifornia/PST045224
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/pleasantoncitycalifornia/LFE046223
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/unioncitycitycalifornia/POP010210
3) Glazer's anti-union history with BART isn't going to sit well in CA-14 and he's likely going to be hammered in the primary over this.
Aisha Wahab is also Afghan and along with Abrar Qadir is the 2nd Middle Eastern candidate in the race. Glazer entering the race would mean he's the only white candidate in there.
A good reason why Swalwell has appeal in CA-14 is that the district can be middle class and that's where he came from. Glazer in the State Senate represented more affluent demographics in Orinda, Alamo, Danville, etc. so it will be a challenge for him to connect with voters.
IDK where Steve Glazer is going to run (seeing the speculation downthread) but fwiw he's absolutely loathed by the Cal Dem Party for his anti labor work. He'd likely have Jerry Brown's endorsement, but I don't know what kind of base he'd have...anywhere.
Jerry Browns a fan huh? Gov Moonbeam is a moderate?
Glazer was Brown's chief of staff. And, yes, Brown 2.0 was very much a moderate.
Yes but Glazer is more to the right of Brown on unions. Brown by contrast is more pro-union, especially with him having established collective bargining with CA State public service union employees when he was Governor back in the 70's.
If I were Brown, I would not endorse Glazer if he runs in CA-14. It's bad optics, especially considering he's a native San Franciscan where the unions have a heavy influence. Brown did endorse Libby Schaaf for Mayor of Oakland back in 2014 but at the time she did not have problems with unions like Glazer does.
Brown ran for president on a mix of conservative to moderate positions. Pretty sure he was to the right of Clinton.
He was to the right on some issues and to the left on some issues.
Really? I thought Brown was to the left of Clinton when he ran.
Brown's history of challenging the status quo in college education funding by UC Regents is quite liberal considering he went after Dianne Feinstein's late husband Richard Blum over being aloof to student issues over tuition increases due to his wealth.
As a form of opposition research I occasionally peruse r/conservative to see what those freaks are up to and there’s a weird amount of speculation across multiple unrelated threads that SCOTUS is striking down the tariffs Friday. Obviously nobody knows when rulings will happen but it was strangely specific.
I wonder what the political implications are of Trump’s signature (unpopular) policy being very cabined this far ahead of midterms
Speaking of SCOTUS, I saw a tweet from Jacob Rubashkin of Inside elections, he says that when Republicans start feeling nervous about losing the Senate, you'll start seeing them publicly pressure Thomas and Alito.
We can only hope that the two of them are as egotistical and self-centered as RBG was. It would be a kind of poetic justice if we ended up with a SCOTUS majority due to them staying on too long.
Trump is really fond of them and he might even push against the idea like he did in December.
That is one of the most heavily astroturfed, botted, and foreign intelligence infested websites on the internet, and the conservative subs are even more so, literally being playgrounds for GRU and the like.
If you want conservative on the ground opinion, you will have to go deeper lol. If you can stomach all this trash: Breitbart, Daily Caller, and even more fringe sites if you want the more populist right pulse.
And back in the day: Free Republic.
I’m of 2 minds here. Political vs practical.
Politically, we should want these tariffs to stay, they’re the most unpopular part of Trump’s government by far and have caused rural voters to finally start inching away from the GOP in 2025, which hasn’t happened in any election cycle since I’d argue Obama 2008.
Practically, they’re awful, they hurt the average person, the economy and hurt the country, so we should want some of the bad of Trump’s presidency to not be as bad.
There’s no question though of which position I take, I want tariffs to stay until after the 2026 elections and into 2028 if possible. Partisanship is hardened these days. To get some of the GOP base to say “WTF” and vote blue when they haven’t through all of the Trump sycophancy and chaos up until now is a big f***ing deal and we’d be really stupid to not want that to continue happening (which probably only will if tariffs stay because they seriously screw the rural economy in every way possible).
Otherwise we’ll get the “I can tolerate Trump and Republicans screwing the economy and bailing out the rich as well as mass deportations if it means Democrats don’t gain power” justification of the Republican Party voters in 2026 elections that would mute any talk of a bigger than 2018 wave pretty quick.
The road to a tsunami instead of a wave in 2026 runs entirely through the heart of GOP rural territory. If they shift, the election is over already. If they don’t, don’t expect anything other than a 2018 repeat.
They're going to cobble tariffs together under different authorities to be litigated regardless, so they'll still be some version of them as live political issue. This FT article does a really good job laying out the different statutes they're likely to use after the SC strikes the current format down.
https://giftarticle.ft.com/giftarticle/actions/redeem/459370f8-0973-4e9a-a393-1bec246e14d7
Well, we know opinions are coming down on Friday but yes, we don't know which.