155 Comments
User's avatar
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 23
Comment deleted
Techno00's avatar

I said it before and I'll say it again: that we won at all is, to me, an overperformance. Can you imagine VA voting to redistrict at all in an unfriendly cycle?

I do worry about this eventually trickling down to swing seat results that don't quite go our way. Is that a valid worry? Or is this referendum-specific?

Goldenhawk99's avatar

In six months, are voters more likely to be upset about cost of living problems, corruption, foreign misadventures, and a president in clear mental decline, or a referendum result? I can't see it being the latter.

Techno00's avatar

Indeed. Good point.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 23
Comment deleted
axlee's avatar

They move rating fairly cautiously.

ME-Sen stays tilt R for a long while;

NC, GA, and MI are all toss-up.

MPC's avatar

NC is Lean Democratic according to the Cook Report.

axlee's avatar

Cook becomes the most aggressive prognosticator this early in the cycle. lol.

Zero Cool's avatar

Sounds appropriate to me.

On the following:

OH-SEN - This has been looked at as a competitive race so not a surprise for it to go from Lean GOP to Tilt GOP. I don't think it would be as competitive if Sherrod Brown were not running.

NE-SEN - It's Dan Osborn's 2nd run but Senator Pete Ricketts has also only been Senator for three years now whereas Senator Deb Fischer had been running for re-election for a third term. Could potentially be just as or even more competitive as what Osborn faced in 2024 but remains to be seen.

SC-SEN - Definitely a race here but Annie Andrews would have to show she's got a stronger campaign if Jaime Harrison couldn't do in 2020 in order to unseat Senator Lindsay Graham. This may be the best environment though to defeat Graham considering he's pro-Iran War all the way.

michaelflutist's avatar

I'm very skeptical about SC-Senate, but likely is a reasonable rating for now.

Zero Cool's avatar

Yes. I’m skeptical too considering how tough an incumbent Graham is.

Mark's avatar

I don't think Graham is such a strong incumbent at this point. My skepticism about this race is because South Carolina is such a red state.

axlee's avatar

It has been growing at a staggering rate, but kinda different sets of newcomers than its neighbors.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 23
Comment deleted
JazElections's avatar

Wtf??? Why is it so hard to not have inappropriate/criminal relationships with subordinates?

Techno00's avatar

When we take power back, we're going to need to go on a serious anti-corruption/ethics crusade to clean all this shit out.

Henrik's avatar

As long as we have a good hook to dovetail it into cost of living concerns, crusade away!

Guy Cohen's avatar

She'll be the easiest candidate to beat in a general for sure, but Sheahan still has to win the primary first.

Henrik's avatar

Ah, yes, as one does

In fairness I did not have her pegged for secret lesbian lover scandal

Zero Cool's avatar

Should be stated for the record that Sheahan didn’t actually start working for ICE until 2025. She’s also in her late 20’s.

It’s possible the actual relationship happened when Sheahan was at her mid 20’s and still working as a political director for Kristi Noem when she was still Governor of South Dakota. With Sheahan being in her mid 20’s and her staffer being 19, their respective ages weren’t that far apart at the time.

Nevertheless, this is weird shit heading to the campaign season. Rep. Marcy Kaptur might just win re-election again.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 24
Comment deleted
Zero Cool's avatar

I agree. Being in power and abusing it to take advantage of an affair with your own staffer is crossing the line with ethics and acceptable behavior. I believe Sheahan mainly worked for ICR because of her past history in working for Noem.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 23Edited
Comment deleted
MPC's avatar

Delegate Glass's comments had me smiling big time.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 23
Comment deleted
MPC's avatar

Yes, absolutely.

ClimateHawk's avatar

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.

Bryce Moyer's avatar

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

schwortz's avatar

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.

Zero Cool's avatar

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.

Noah's avatar

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.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 23
Comment deleted
Peter Steffen's avatar

I view this announcement as an attempt to scare Florida Republicans away from redistricting.

Peter Steffen's avatar

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.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 23Edited
Comment deleted
Wolfpack Dem's avatar

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.

Henrik's avatar

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

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 23
Comment deleted
User's avatar
Comment removed
Apr 23
Comment removed
MPC's avatar

I think his appointment needs to be rescinded and that the General Assembly appoints all these judges going forward.

Paleo's avatar

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.

MPC's avatar

I still think he needs to be disciplined for interfering with the will of voters.

stevk's avatar

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.

User's avatar
Comment removed
Apr 23
Comment removed
the lurking ecologist's avatar

6-5, but better than six-seven

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 23
Comment deleted
MPC's avatar

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.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 23Edited
Comment deleted
AWildLibAppeared's avatar

Lol, good luck burning money trying to beat Cuellar or Gonzalez this year.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 23
Comment deleted
MPC's avatar

Since 2010? Because that means a blue tsunami.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 23Edited
Comment deleted
AWildLibAppeared's avatar

Worth noting that more than half of these districts are currently held by Republicans.

MPC's avatar

Let this play out the same way with state legislative seats too. The GOP (super) majority in NC needs to go.

User's avatar
Comment deleted
Apr 23
Comment deleted
Paleo's avatar

Fox has D +5, Marquette D+10.

Louise Purfield-Coak's avatar

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.

Toiler On the Sea's avatar

At this point in 2010 I think the R advantage was like 2 points.

User's avatar
Comment removed
Apr 23
Comment removed
Louise Purfield-Coak's avatar

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.

bpfish's avatar

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.

Zero Cool's avatar

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.

Miguel Parreno's avatar

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.

Zero Cool's avatar

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.

Miguel Parreno's avatar

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.

Miguel Parreno's avatar

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.

Zero Cool's avatar

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.

Miguel Parreno's avatar

“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.

Zack from the SFV's avatar

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...

brendan fka HoosierD42's avatar

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?

Paleo's avatar

Unless there's a Georgia law to the contrary, all votes, including for dead candidates, are usually counted.

axlee's avatar

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.

MPC's avatar

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.

JazElections's avatar

Especially as a resident of a swing state like Georgia where his vote counts more than other places.

Hudson Democrat's avatar

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

JazElections's avatar

Agreed, like how Jim Clyburn is probably running again mostly due to family

michaelflutist's avatar

They might not be to blame, if Scott insisted on continuing, regardless of advice.

axlee's avatar

He doesn’t live in his district. Probably without the satisfaction of voting for himself, he didn’t bother.

JazElections's avatar

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.

axlee's avatar

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.

JazElections's avatar

Where is McCormick in Fulton? Johns Creek?

JazElections's avatar

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?

bpfish's avatar

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.

axlee's avatar

Not showing up. Can see in 12, 20 etc.

axlee's avatar

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.