In the GA-13 item, it says votes for Scott "won't be counted". He probably wasn't going to get many votes anyway because I think voting hasn't even started, but does that mean that the threshold for majority in the primary will be reduced by that number?
They don't have to worry about counting Scott's vote, because we found out he doesn't vote, even for himself. If someone is too out of it to vote, they probably shouldn't be in Congress?
The fact that Scott did NOT vote in several federal elections ticks me off. He represented constituents in a federally elected position, but didn't participate in them as a voter is outrageous.
i do think we become ageist at times in relation to some of our leaders, but in the true cases where retirement was long overdue, I blame the families and staffers. Too invested in being close to power to actually care about a gentleman that was clearly fading fast
A 2007 study ranked him among the most corrupt members as well. Probably didn't even care about the state of politics that much, not as much as himself.
However, Reps. McBath and McCormick in the Atlanta area also don't live in their districts, so maybe gerrymandering is to blame.
McCormick moved to North Fulton now. So in district. You can look up his voting record since moving into Georgia in mid 2000s. He didn’t vote in any local election either, and skipped 2014 midterm and 2016 general when Trump was first elected.
McBath lives in East Cobb, which is now lumped into the exurban heavy 11th. Wow, she skipped the 2016 general as well!
You're saying McBath didn't vote in the 2016 general election? That's pretty surprising, given that she spoke at the DNC that same year and kicked off her House campaign the very next year.
However, the late Rep Scott has been living in the city proper, and seems never in the various versions of GA13 he represented. That is not solely to blame on gerrymandering.
After watching the California debate last night, my main take was couldn't California do better? I really wish we could have a mulligan with new candidates.
Both Republicans came across as racist, one telling Californians that we should get over racism. Yikes.
Personally the only two I thought came across as competent were Steyer and Porter. Becerra thought California's handling of homelessness by Newsom deserved an A rating.
Both Becerra and Steyer are slightly older than I am (by a few months), and I thought both looked really old, and Becerra lacked energy.
As an outsider, I always liked Katie Porter when she was in Congress. I was watching the polls to see if she picked up any of Swalwell's voters or endorsements. Again though, I make it a habit to not donate or enter the fray, in other States Primaries.
I'd probably vote for Porter myself if I lived there, but I also wouldn't be upset to have Becerra (who has lots of experience in a variety of areas of government) or Steyer (who focuses heavily on climate/environmental issues.
I didn’t watch the debate but it’s evident that both Bianco and Hilton are clueless when it comes to racism.
I was leaning in the direction of voting for Porter as well as in light of Swalwell leaving the gubernatorial race, she has the best ideas and seems to be intent on challenging the status quo.
I’m incredibly disappointed at the state of the race. We’re supposed to be one of the most progressive states in the country and all we’ve got is mediocrity for candidates. I was gonna vote for Becerra but his answer on Newsom was tone deaf to me. I liked more of Steyer’s answers than anyone else but Porter was my initial choice. Consider me undecided once again.
Same. I feel like that could be Steyer though. At least I think he’s got the best chance to win. I don’t LOVE that he’s a billionaire but I also didn’t love when JB beat out Daniel Biss in 2018 and he’s surprised me with what he’s done in my home state.
Also it really doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things but if you’re trying to be the governor of the home of the entertainment industry you might wanna watch at least one TV show.
When Newsom was Mayor of San Francisco, he was making efforts on incentives to bring more film production to the city. However, those fell short of what the city needed. I don't see much change has happened since he's shifted to being Governor.
There's a lot of challenges from cost of doing business, not just cost of living, that are not being addressed head on. I would think the next governor should approach these with great urgency.
“Fell Short” - The Gavin Newsom Story. I wish that instead of giving incentives to big corporations we could give them straight to indie filmmakers and maybe the State could get a portion of the revenue if it does well.
I watched the first hour of the debate and I mostly agree with the comments so far. It was not especially compelling to watch (and I switched to the baseball game to watch Ohtani pitch after the first hour, instead of going to the online concluding half hour of the debate.)
None of the candidates were especially inspiring, though I found Porter, Becerra and Steyer to be more or less acceptable. Mahan was vaguely annoying; I don't trust him at all. The two Repubs appeared to be running for Governor of a different state or country, not California. I know that it takes a large ego to run for high office but I am amazed by Hilton, who has been a US citizen for five years and thinks he is the best person to lead the Golden State.
Nothing changed for me from watching this debate. I was already leaning towards voting for Katie Porter, but am open to Becerra or Steyer. There will be at least one more debate which I might watch. Polling will be interesting as more people focus on the race, but I probably will only switch my preference if needed to stop a top-two lockout or if Mahan looks like he is ahead of the other Dems. I don't think either of those scenarios is likely.
Baseball is sometimes a metaphor for life. Ohtani didn't allow any runs, but the Dodgers did not score any either, so the Giants won in the late innings...
I also find this CNBC poll a little questionable. I went to the link and found that it was a combination of a Democrat and a Republican poll. I remember in 2019 & 20, Republican polling was highly inflated. At best, if they want to keep their contracts with Trump as the head of the Party, I suspect they are fudging the numbers at best, or just plain cheating at worst. I think I would trust polls like the Marquette poll more. Even Fox has a better reputation than Most Republican polling going by previous polls. Pollsters are probably as intimidated as the media has been, in reporting just how crazy, insane this President is.
do you mean term limits for chairing a committee or for serving in the house, probably fine with committee chairs but term limiting members of congress would also need an amendment
I don't think so. You're not dealing with qualifications for office just limits on the amount of time served. The Constitution has provisions relating to the former but not the latter.
I know states cannot impose term limits on federal office, but glancing quick during my lunch break and it seems you're right there's not a case saying federally passed term limits on federal reps is unconstitutional, with the caveat that I do not believe any federal legislation attempting to do same has ever made it out of committee
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)
"In sum, after examining Powell's historical analysis and its articulation of the "basic principles of our democratic system," we reaffirm that the qualifications for service in Congress set forth in the text of the Constitution are "fixed," at least in the sense that they may not be supplemented by Congress."
In fairness, that was a 5-4 decision, and could be reversed, but the current law is that Congress may not add new qualifications (such as term limits).
In the end, and I know this isn't saying anything special, it's the voters' responsibility. Just because they are the incumbent in your party doesn't mean you have to vote for them. People should be asking questions about their incumbent politicians: Making sure they have enough of a public presence to ensure that they are still involved (especially when talking about older politicians), demanding that they release their financials (to see how much and how they are enriching themselves while in office), actually holding their feet to the fire on basic stuff like, you know, voting in elections. Scott should have been booted the first time he failed to vote in a Presidential election.
Of course, blame the candidate, their staff, and their close family/friends for situations like Scott, but in the end, the majority of the blame goes to the voters.
Yes, voters do have responsibility. If they have been electing the same House member or Senator for a long time, they should question why do they need to still be in office.
The main point I'm making about health monitoring is that politicians should not play games with their health and ignore everything. Politicians don't want to give up their perks and power but a heads up warning about their health can save a lot of pain in the process, particularly if the doctor ends up warning the politician to retire from the profession given his/her health.
What age limits would do would be to open up the process at the primary level. Not naming names here, but there are some members that voters can have all the concerns in the world about, but if there are not forced to step down, they will keep running. Voters are left without a choice in that that situation. Or rather, they can vote for a candidate they oppose, (if one is even on the ballot) which is not much of a choice.
HMP announces its ad buys. Some of these are pretty aggressive and a little unexpected. For instance, there's a big investment in the Asheville media market, an investment in Savannah (I assume for SC-01,) and a sizeable investment in Alaska. Interestingly, the biggest reservation is in South Texas, with $12 million reserved in English and Spanish ads. I assume some of these will be withdrawn as the map comes clearer into focus, but I admire their ambition.
Investments for SC01 would make more sense in Charleston, which is the majority of the district, but there is Beaufort (pronounced Byoo-fert, not Bo-fert like in NC---today's PSA) that has a D running for SC01 and is part of the district. Could be aiming at both the GA and SC districts.
KY-6 trivia: Representative John C. Watts died in 1971, and the Democrat who won the special election to succeed him hated being in DC so much that he chose not to run for a full term. I can’t think of another example where an incumbent representative voluntarily retired after less than one term, barring instances where redistricting threw two representatives together where one of them had served less than one full term. By the way, in Pennsylvania in 1972, two representatives first elected in 1971 special elections were thrown together in one district. One was future Senator John Heinz
Looking at this list again, I realize they did not include New Hampshire or New Mexico. The absence of Los Angeles or New York buys is also noteworthy--are they really that confident that Lawler and Kean Jr. will lose?
Cook Political Report: “In 2018, the last successful midterm election for Democrats, independent voters opted for a Democratic candidate by 12 points, according to exit polls. Today, Democrats are winning independent voters in the generic ballot by 25 points.
Georgia Democrats are aggressively campaigning to unseat two sitting Supreme Court justices, a marked escalation in officially nonpartisan races long treated as sleepy, low-profile contests. #gapol
The aggressive strategy has rattled defenders of the incumbent justices, putting them on their heels in races they once expected to win easily. It has also alarmed some legal observers who worry it could further erode the judiciary’s impartial standing.
One of the challengers, Jen Jordan, has argued that line was crossed years ago by governors who tapped appointees, passed laws to expand the bench and financed ads for their favored candidates.
Might as well take the fight to judicial races. Wish there had been this kind of interest and energy when that legislator ran for the GA Supreme Court last year (and lost to incumbent Pinson). The nonpartisan label helped the incumbent.
Hopefully GA voters are ready and energized for new blood on the court.
“Trump’s move to open this new front in a centuries-old gerrymandering war between the parties looks like an enormous tactical blunder. Republicans have appeared taken aback by the ferocity with which Democrats have responded—and the speed with which they’ve set aside their drive to ban gerrymandering in the name of good government.”
And speaking of Louise Lucas, it's time for the Virginia Legislature to pass a law saying that a judge whose ruling has been overturned by the VA Supreme Court is not allowed to rule again on the same case.
That would prevent all these stupid shenanigans from that asshole Tazewell County judge.
There are plenty of Republicans who feel the same about some of the federal trial level judges. I don't think tampering with the independence of the judiciary in reaction to a particular case is the way to go. That's why appellate courts exist.
“Expanding the Supreme Court is no different that redistricting in California and Virginia. It is a proportionate response to Republican attempts to degrade liberal democracy and move America toward a post-liberal order.”
I see a couple of familiar handles from time to time in the Bulwark-verse! The JVL is who/what finally got me to subscribe. His stuff makes for fascinating reading.
They’re more or less classical liberals (rather than the New Deal variety) in terms of their position in the old conservative coalition so it stands to reason they would vehemently reject illiberalism of this tendency, even if they obviously had blind spots about how illiberal the GOP had already become with them in it
It signals confidence (real or feigned) in our ability to flip seats under the current map, to convince them not to further water down Florida Republican seats by spreading Republican voters into what are currently Democratic districts.
I'm not in favor of term limits or age limits for congress because I do think that it's possible to be in ones 80s and sharp as a tack, but I think if Dems had committee chair term limits like the GOP does (where no member can lead a particular committee for more than 3 terms) it would go a long way toward naturally taking care of the gerontocracy that Dems have. Just a stray thought since it seems the reason a lot of dems in congress want to stay forever is to get those committee chairs that no one wants to give up on their own.
In this wavy environment, I think blu trifectas are in play in MN, WI, MI, PA, and AZ. Flipping the NH legislatire also possible, though Ayotte will be tough to oust. And I would not rule an IA trifecta out entirely, or even TX if things worsen. House & Gov in TX certainly reachable in a tsunami.
I'm a bit surprised and disappointed at Baldwin's weak approval. Maybe it's just the unpopularity of Democratic leadership trickling down to incumbents.
Given Baldwin won re-election by a razor thin margin compared to her previous Senate elections, this may not be a surprise. Of course Trump was on the ballot back in 2024 so that factors in.
I think this confirms that Johnson will not run again in 2028, as well as the other retiring rumours surrounding him for what seems like the last year.
In the GA-13 item, it says votes for Scott "won't be counted". He probably wasn't going to get many votes anyway because I think voting hasn't even started, but does that mean that the threshold for majority in the primary will be reduced by that number?
Unless there's a Georgia law to the contrary, all votes, including for dead candidates, are usually counted.
https://www.wrdw.com/2020/10/20/georgia-high-court-says-votes-cast-for-dead-candidate-are-void/
Ok. Thanks.
They don't have to worry about counting Scott's vote, because we found out he doesn't vote, even for himself. If someone is too out of it to vote, they probably shouldn't be in Congress?
I looked up the absentee voter file. One single electronic overseas ballot cast yesterday. May or may not be for him. Lol
But as long as the name is there, chances are someone would vote on it.
The fact that Scott did NOT vote in several federal elections ticks me off. He represented constituents in a federally elected position, but didn't participate in them as a voter is outrageous.
Especially as a resident of a swing state like Georgia where his vote counts more than other places.
i do think we become ageist at times in relation to some of our leaders, but in the true cases where retirement was long overdue, I blame the families and staffers. Too invested in being close to power to actually care about a gentleman that was clearly fading fast
Agreed, like how Jim Clyburn is probably running again mostly due to family
They might not be to blame, if Scott insisted on continuing, regardless of advice.
He doesn’t live in his district. Probably without the satisfaction of voting for himself, he didn’t bother.
A 2007 study ranked him among the most corrupt members as well. Probably didn't even care about the state of politics that much, not as much as himself.
However, Reps. McBath and McCormick in the Atlanta area also don't live in their districts, so maybe gerrymandering is to blame.
McCormick moved to North Fulton now. So in district. You can look up his voting record since moving into Georgia in mid 2000s. He didn’t vote in any local election either, and skipped 2014 midterm and 2016 general when Trump was first elected.
McBath lives in East Cobb, which is now lumped into the exurban heavy 11th. Wow, she skipped the 2016 general as well!
But 2016 was before they were seeking any office.
Where is McCormick in Fulton? Johns Creek?
Roswell
This is something I'm interested in - how can you tell when and where a member lives and moves to without skimming through articles and the like?
You're saying McBath didn't vote in the 2016 general election? That's pretty surprising, given that she spoke at the DNC that same year and kicked off her House campaign the very next year.
Not showing up. Can see in 12, 20 etc.
However, the late Rep Scott has been living in the city proper, and seems never in the various versions of GA13 he represented. That is not solely to blame on gerrymandering.
After watching the California debate last night, my main take was couldn't California do better? I really wish we could have a mulligan with new candidates.
Both Republicans came across as racist, one telling Californians that we should get over racism. Yikes.
Personally the only two I thought came across as competent were Steyer and Porter. Becerra thought California's handling of homelessness by Newsom deserved an A rating.
Both Becerra and Steyer are slightly older than I am (by a few months), and I thought both looked really old, and Becerra lacked energy.
I still plan on voting for Porter.
As an outsider, I always liked Katie Porter when she was in Congress. I was watching the polls to see if she picked up any of Swalwell's voters or endorsements. Again though, I make it a habit to not donate or enter the fray, in other States Primaries.
I'd probably vote for Porter myself if I lived there, but I also wouldn't be upset to have Becerra (who has lots of experience in a variety of areas of government) or Steyer (who focuses heavily on climate/environmental issues.
I didn’t watch the debate but it’s evident that both Bianco and Hilton are clueless when it comes to racism.
I was leaning in the direction of voting for Porter as well as in light of Swalwell leaving the gubernatorial race, she has the best ideas and seems to be intent on challenging the status quo.
I’m incredibly disappointed at the state of the race. We’re supposed to be one of the most progressive states in the country and all we’ve got is mediocrity for candidates. I was gonna vote for Becerra but his answer on Newsom was tone deaf to me. I liked more of Steyer’s answers than anyone else but Porter was my initial choice. Consider me undecided once again.
Yeah, anyone who gives a pass on Newsom on his agenda doesn’t deserve my vote as well.
The main thing I was looking for in this race was a new Governor who would shake things up.
Same. I feel like that could be Steyer though. At least I think he’s got the best chance to win. I don’t LOVE that he’s a billionaire but I also didn’t love when JB beat out Daniel Biss in 2018 and he’s surprised me with what he’s done in my home state.
Also it really doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things but if you’re trying to be the governor of the home of the entertainment industry you might wanna watch at least one TV show.
When Newsom was Mayor of San Francisco, he was making efforts on incentives to bring more film production to the city. However, those fell short of what the city needed. I don't see much change has happened since he's shifted to being Governor.
There's a lot of challenges from cost of doing business, not just cost of living, that are not being addressed head on. I would think the next governor should approach these with great urgency.
“Fell Short” - The Gavin Newsom Story. I wish that instead of giving incentives to big corporations we could give them straight to indie filmmakers and maybe the State could get a portion of the revenue if it does well.
I watched the first hour of the debate and I mostly agree with the comments so far. It was not especially compelling to watch (and I switched to the baseball game to watch Ohtani pitch after the first hour, instead of going to the online concluding half hour of the debate.)
None of the candidates were especially inspiring, though I found Porter, Becerra and Steyer to be more or less acceptable. Mahan was vaguely annoying; I don't trust him at all. The two Repubs appeared to be running for Governor of a different state or country, not California. I know that it takes a large ego to run for high office but I am amazed by Hilton, who has been a US citizen for five years and thinks he is the best person to lead the Golden State.
Nothing changed for me from watching this debate. I was already leaning towards voting for Katie Porter, but am open to Becerra or Steyer. There will be at least one more debate which I might watch. Polling will be interesting as more people focus on the race, but I probably will only switch my preference if needed to stop a top-two lockout or if Mahan looks like he is ahead of the other Dems. I don't think either of those scenarios is likely.
Baseball is sometimes a metaphor for life. Ohtani didn't allow any runs, but the Dodgers did not score any either, so the Giants won in the late innings...
New poll. The door is open for a blue tsunami, but voters who disapprove of Trump aren’t yet convinced to support Democrats yet.
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2047292384019353796
CNBC (Hart/POS) poll | 4/15-4/19
Generic congressional ballot 2026
🟦Democratic 49% (-1)
🟥Republican 45% (-1)
(Shift from December)
——
President Trump approval
❌Disapprove 58% (+6)
✅Approve 40% (-5)
(Shift from December)
—
President Trump approval on the issues (net)
❌Southern border: (-5)
❌Tariffs: (-21)
❌Dealing with Iran: (-25)
❌Inflation: (-39)
Link to poll: https://cnbc.com/2026/04/23/trumps-approval-rating-on-economy-and-overall-falls-to-lowest-of-his-two-terms-cnbc-survey-shows.html
Fox has D +5, Marquette D+10.
I also find this CNBC poll a little questionable. I went to the link and found that it was a combination of a Democrat and a Republican poll. I remember in 2019 & 20, Republican polling was highly inflated. At best, if they want to keep their contracts with Trump as the head of the Party, I suspect they are fudging the numbers at best, or just plain cheating at worst. I think I would trust polls like the Marquette poll more. Even Fox has a better reputation than Most Republican polling going by previous polls. Pollsters are probably as intimidated as the media has been, in reporting just how crazy, insane this President is.
Doesn’t need another post, but compared to 2018 got me going 👀
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2047329139456188567
CNBC POLL: Trump Approval: Pre-Midterms 2018 vs Now
Reg. voters
🟤 Oct 2018: 41-49 (-8)
🔴 Apr 2026: 40-58 (-18)
Net change: -10
——
On the Economy
🟢 Oct. 2018: 51-38 (+13)
🔴 April: 2026: 39-60 (-21)
Net change: -34
At this point in 2010 I think the R advantage was like 2 points.
Yeah, the majority making swing voters aren’t tuning in yet at this point in the election cycle. Only hardcore partisans are.
I’m not convinced on term limits— that’s what elections are for — but I’m increasingly leaning toward an upper age limit somewhere between 75 and 80.
You'd likely need a constitutional amendment for the latter, unlike term limits.
do you mean term limits for chairing a committee or for serving in the house, probably fine with committee chairs but term limiting members of congress would also need an amendment
I don't think so. You're not dealing with qualifications for office just limits on the amount of time served. The Constitution has provisions relating to the former but not the latter.
I know states cannot impose term limits on federal office, but glancing quick during my lunch break and it seems you're right there's not a case saying federally passed term limits on federal reps is unconstitutional, with the caveat that I do not believe any federal legislation attempting to do same has ever made it out of committee
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)
"In sum, after examining Powell's historical analysis and its articulation of the "basic principles of our democratic system," we reaffirm that the qualifications for service in Congress set forth in the text of the Constitution are "fixed," at least in the sense that they may not be supplemented by Congress."
In fairness, that was a 5-4 decision, and could be reversed, but the current law is that Congress may not add new qualifications (such as term limits).
That involved the states trying to impose term limits on federal offices
Pretty sure term limits would require a constitutional amendment as well.
The justification for term limits doesn't make sense, especially considering that not all elected politicians chose to stay in office forever.
A health monitoring test might be a better determination to ensure politicians aren't ignoring their health while being on the job.
In the end, and I know this isn't saying anything special, it's the voters' responsibility. Just because they are the incumbent in your party doesn't mean you have to vote for them. People should be asking questions about their incumbent politicians: Making sure they have enough of a public presence to ensure that they are still involved (especially when talking about older politicians), demanding that they release their financials (to see how much and how they are enriching themselves while in office), actually holding their feet to the fire on basic stuff like, you know, voting in elections. Scott should have been booted the first time he failed to vote in a Presidential election.
Of course, blame the candidate, their staff, and their close family/friends for situations like Scott, but in the end, the majority of the blame goes to the voters.
Yes, voters do have responsibility. If they have been electing the same House member or Senator for a long time, they should question why do they need to still be in office.
The main point I'm making about health monitoring is that politicians should not play games with their health and ignore everything. Politicians don't want to give up their perks and power but a heads up warning about their health can save a lot of pain in the process, particularly if the doctor ends up warning the politician to retire from the profession given his/her health.
What age limits would do would be to open up the process at the primary level. Not naming names here, but there are some members that voters can have all the concerns in the world about, but if there are not forced to step down, they will keep running. Voters are left without a choice in that that situation. Or rather, they can vote for a candidate they oppose, (if one is even on the ballot) which is not much of a choice.
HMP (Dem) initial ad buy for the fall:
https://x.com/cjwarnke/status/2047273141043335359
🚨NEW from WSJ🚨
➡️
@HouseMajPAC
announces $272 million in TV and digital reservations
➡️Nearly 80% of these reservations are in offensive districts - including OH+FL+TX+SC
➡️Record $80 million digital reservation
➡️Spanish language reservations have increased 140% from 2024
https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/democrats-ad-plans-show-party-going-on-offense-d5a15d84
HMP announces its ad buys. Some of these are pretty aggressive and a little unexpected. For instance, there's a big investment in the Asheville media market, an investment in Savannah (I assume for SC-01,) and a sizeable investment in Alaska. Interestingly, the biggest reservation is in South Texas, with $12 million reserved in English and Spanish ads. I assume some of these will be withdrawn as the map comes clearer into focus, but I admire their ambition.
https://www.thehousemajoritypac.com/news/hmp-announces-272-million-in-2026-tv-and-digital-reservations
Savannah could maybe also be for GA-1? It's R+8, but Carter is retiring this year so maybe it's uniquely vulnerable in this environment?
Investments for SC01 would make more sense in Charleston, which is the majority of the district, but there is Beaufort (pronounced Byoo-fert, not Bo-fert like in NC---today's PSA) that has a D running for SC01 and is part of the district. Could be aiming at both the GA and SC districts.
I saw they put $960,000 in Charleston as well. So I agree they could be going for both districts.
Lexington is the biggest surprise for me. I didn’t think they’d try to put KY-06 in play this year, even if it is an open seat.
KY-6 trivia: Representative John C. Watts died in 1971, and the Democrat who won the special election to succeed him hated being in DC so much that he chose not to run for a full term. I can’t think of another example where an incumbent representative voluntarily retired after less than one term, barring instances where redistricting threw two representatives together where one of them had served less than one full term. By the way, in Pennsylvania in 1972, two representatives first elected in 1971 special elections were thrown together in one district. One was future Senator John Heinz
Technically Jackson-Lees daughter counts, right?
Looking at this list again, I realize they did not include New Hampshire or New Mexico. The absence of Los Angeles or New York buys is also noteworthy--are they really that confident that Lawler and Kean Jr. will lose?
NY is pretty expensive. In an environment they're confident about Kean and Lawler going down they're possibly making ad buys against LaLota.
New poll: D+6 in battleground districts. The same seats voted Trump +2 in 2024.
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2047308899930218556
GENERIC BALLOT: Competitive districts (Toss Up, Lean R, or Lean D by Cook Political)
🟦 Democrats: 50%
🟥 Republicans: 44%
"If this 6-point Democratic edge holds in November, any district Trump won by 10 points or less is at serious risk of flipping"
——
Trust more to handle
🟦 Economy: D+19
🟦 Lower gas prices: D+13
——
Trump's net approval
All Voters: (-16)
Independents: (-40)
GSG/River Strategies | 4/14-17 | LV
https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/survey-research/battleground-district-project/dems-lead-six-points-battleground-districts
Image
Worth noting that more than half of these districts are currently held by Republicans.
Let this play out the same way with state legislative seats too. The GOP (super) majority in NC needs to go.
Independents only:
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2047340631878406270
Cook Political Report: “In 2018, the last successful midterm election for Democrats, independent voters opted for a Democratic candidate by 12 points, according to exit polls. Today, Democrats are winning independent voters in the generic ballot by 25 points.
First time Democrats have led on the issue of the economy since 2010 in this poll.
https://x.com/JohnAnzo/status/2047287584405987714
Not the headline you want from
@FoxNews
for Trump
73% give the economy a negative rating
60% rate their personal financial situation negatively
70% say the economy is getting worse
56% say Trump's policies hurting the economy
52% prefer Dems in generic ballot
Fox News Poll: Economic gloom, Trump ratings signal tough GOP midterm path https://foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-economic-gloom-trump-ratings-signal-tough-gop-midterm-path
Since 2010? Because that means a blue tsunami.
Yes, since 2010. Also worth mentioning it’s the highest number for Democrats on the economy since they began asking the question in the poll in 1999.
https://x.com/AaronBlake/status/2047288695913349126
For those without Twitter who’re curious:
May 4-5 2010 44-41 D
July 13-14 2010 44-39 R
Jan 18-19 2011 41-38 R
May 10-13 2014 43-42 R
Jun 25-27 2017 49-41 R
Jun 3-6 2018 43-38 R
Sept 16-19 2018 43-39 R
July 21-23 2019 45-38 R
Jan 16-19 2022 56-41 R
Feb 19-22 2023 55-40 R
July 18-21 2025 49-48 R
Apr 17-20 2026 52-48 D
CLF (GOP) initial ad buy:
https://x.com/allymutnick/status/2047269028918378875
NEWS:
@CLFSuperPAC
is placing $153.1M in initial fall ad buys to protect House R majority
Biggest spends:
>> $20.4M in Michigan
>> $18.6M in NYC
>> $13.9M against Cuellar + Gonzalez in TX
>> $12.6M in CA for Valadao + against Gray
>> $10.9M in Iowa
https://punchbowl.news/article/campaigns/house-gop-153m/
Lol, good luck burning money trying to beat Cuellar or Gonzalez this year.
GA Supreme Court:
https://x.com/bluestein/status/2047267246469226969
Georgia Democrats are aggressively campaigning to unseat two sitting Supreme Court justices, a marked escalation in officially nonpartisan races long treated as sleepy, low-profile contests. #gapol
The aggressive strategy has rattled defenders of the incumbent justices, putting them on their heels in races they once expected to win easily. It has also alarmed some legal observers who worry it could further erode the judiciary’s impartial standing.
One of the challengers, Jen Jordan, has argued that line was crossed years ago by governors who tapped appointees, passed laws to expand the bench and financed ads for their favored candidates.
“That Pandora’s box was opened.”
https://www.ajc.com/politics/2026/04/georgia-supreme-court-races-turn-into-partisan-battleground/
Might as well take the fight to judicial races. Wish there had been this kind of interest and energy when that legislator ran for the GA Supreme Court last year (and lost to incumbent Pinson). The nonpartisan label helped the incumbent.
Hopefully GA voters are ready and energized for new blood on the court.
Democrats finally decided to fight back and actually won the battle against Trump and his puppeteer Republican party. There’s a lesson here.
https://x.com/nxthompson/status/2047141408549523865
“Trump’s move to open this new front in a centuries-old gerrymandering war between the parties looks like an enormous tactical blunder. Republicans have appeared taken aback by the ferocity with which Democrats have responded—and the speed with which they’ve set aside their drive to ban gerrymandering in the name of good government.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/04/virginia-gerrymandering-redistricting-election-trump/686888/
Where would the Democratic Party be without Louise Lucas?
6-5, but better than six-seven
And speaking of Louise Lucas, it's time for the Virginia Legislature to pass a law saying that a judge whose ruling has been overturned by the VA Supreme Court is not allowed to rule again on the same case.
That would prevent all these stupid shenanigans from that asshole Tazewell County judge.
I think his appointment needs to be rescinded and that the General Assembly appoints all these judges going forward.
There are plenty of Republicans who feel the same about some of the federal trial level judges. I don't think tampering with the independence of the judiciary in reaction to a particular case is the way to go. That's why appellate courts exist.
I still think he needs to be disciplined for interfering with the will of voters.
Good lord, no. Disciplining judges for rendering verdicts is NOT a can of worms we need to open....that's why the appeals process exists.
It’s kind of wild how much former conservatives have decided every entity under control of their former party needs to be utterly annihilated.
https://x.com/BillKristol/status/2047094817784483911
“Expanding the Supreme Court is no different that redistricting in California and Virginia. It is a proportionate response to Republican attempts to degrade liberal democracy and move America toward a post-liberal order.”
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/it-is-time-for-ruthless-aggression-supreme-court-expansion
I see a couple of familiar handles from time to time in the Bulwark-verse! The JVL is who/what finally got me to subscribe. His stuff makes for fascinating reading.
They’re more or less classical liberals (rather than the New Deal variety) in terms of their position in the old conservative coalition so it stands to reason they would vehemently reject illiberalism of this tendency, even if they obviously had blind spots about how illiberal the GOP had already become with them in it
Part of the HMP ad buy is going to Florida. 5 districts targeted with the $20m:
FL-07, FL-13, FL-15, FL-27, FL-28
https://x.com/MiamiHerald/status/2047264281280864538
Major Democratic super PAC to spend $20M in Florida in first ad buy since 2020
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article315501386
I view this announcement as an attempt to scare Florida Republicans away from redistricting.
How would it do that?
It signals confidence (real or feigned) in our ability to flip seats under the current map, to convince them not to further water down Florida Republican seats by spreading Republican voters into what are currently Democratic districts.
I'm not in favor of term limits or age limits for congress because I do think that it's possible to be in ones 80s and sharp as a tack, but I think if Dems had committee chair term limits like the GOP does (where no member can lead a particular committee for more than 3 terms) it would go a long way toward naturally taking care of the gerontocracy that Dems have. Just a stray thought since it seems the reason a lot of dems in congress want to stay forever is to get those committee chairs that no one wants to give up on their own.
Agreed. One of the few good ideas from the GOP
New Wisconsin poll. Would this be enough to flip both chambers in the legislature?
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2047313402201067552
WISCONSIN GOVERNOR By RMG Research (generic ballot)
🟦 Democrat: 50%
🟥 Republican: 43%
Democrats lead by +20 among very enthusiastic voters
——
Net Approval
Gov. Evers: (+6)
Sen. Baldwin: (+1)
Sen Johnson: (-12)
Pres. Trump: (-22)
@NapolitanNews
| 4/10-14 | RV
https://napolitannews.org/posts/in-wi-democrats-up-7-on-generic-governor039-s-ballot-amid-inflation-concerns
Yes, absolutely.
In this wavy environment, I think blu trifectas are in play in MN, WI, MI, PA, and AZ. Flipping the NH legislatire also possible, though Ayotte will be tough to oust. And I would not rule an IA trifecta out entirely, or even TX if things worsen. House & Gov in TX certainly reachable in a tsunami.
IA state Sen and TX state Sen are not reachable based on that only half the seats are up and only so many seats up are reachable even in a tsunami
Hell, in a tsunami we *might* be able to flip one more Texas state senate seat, and at best a net 4-5 seat gain Iowa, which wouldn’t be enough
Have a good enough year this year, and they are absolutely gettable in ‘28
I'm a bit surprised and disappointed at Baldwin's weak approval. Maybe it's just the unpopularity of Democratic leadership trickling down to incumbents.
Given Baldwin won re-election by a razor thin margin compared to her previous Senate elections, this may not be a surprise. Of course Trump was on the ballot back in 2024 so that factors in.
I think this confirms that Johnson will not run again in 2028, as well as the other retiring rumours surrounding him for what seems like the last year.