The CA result definitely; I'm curious what the race was like. The AL result though is kinda hard to gauge considering it's a Trump +*82* district. Just the fact a Dem ran at all is impressive imo.
A candidate is better than no candidate. But I would expect that having a candidate would actually create an artificial over performance. Like Republicans aren’t motivated because they always win, but Democrats are excited just to have someone sticking their neck out.
I don't understand the idea of an " artificial overperformance". Of course if there is no Democratic candidate at all, there's no way to vote Democratic (except for write-ins). Having a candidate produces an accurate result.
I mean that having a candidate when there is usually no candidate would make the side with a candidate turn out a higher percentage of their voters than the other side would. But that this boost is unique to that election, and wouldn’t be there at the midterms or the next Presidential election. That’s why I called it “artificial”.
It's important to understand that CA legislative elections regularly underperform the rest of the country. While some unions did try to support the Democrat in the race, it was not heavily contested and shouldn't be read into too much, in my opinion.
I think this data might be a bit misleading. In safe Democratic districts, the Democratic incumbents tend to overperform, as incumbents generally do. However, in competitive districts, there is a history of Democrats in California legislative races underperforming. It was more pronounced before Trump but still is largely true, with a number of Democratic Assembly candidates losing districts Harris won in 2024. Since there are a lot of Democratic incumbents who overperform, the aggregate data doesn't show this nuance.
In 2024, only one Democrat won a district that Trump won, and before 2024, I don't believe there ever was a Democrat who won an Assembly or State Senate seat that Trump won with exception to a top-two lockout scenario (like Maria Alvarado Gil before she switched parties). Historically, the competitive seats were usually ones that Leaned Dem at the Presidential level.
The best measuring stick for the CA race was the same race in the 2024 general which was R+14.6. This result is better, although it was also an open seat.
Please explain the incongruence of these following two paragraphs. How could the polls show numbers for Hashmi and Jones if they did not ask about them?
“The pollster also finds the race for lieutenant governor tied at 43 apiece between Democrat Ghazala Hashmi and Republican John Reid, while Democrat Jay Jones has a skinny 45-44 lead over Republican incumbent Jason Miyares in the battle for the attorney general's post.
Co/efficient's last poll was released before Hashmi and Jones won their respective primaries, and the firm did not ask about either Democrat.”
If that’s the case, they should have said “prior” instead of “last” poll. But why would they even mention how a prior poll that didn’t include them? It’s irrelevant.
“Last” poll clearly refers to the last poll released before the current poll being discussed. The phrase “was released before Hashmi and Jones won” is a very obvious context clue for that. And the last, er, “prior,” poll was mentioned because it was already referred to for the gubernatorial numbers. As we always like compare the numbers from previous polls, noting that these races were not included in the previous poll preemptively answers whether there was a shift in support. So it is relevant. It’s really not difficult at all, unless you’re just intentionally looking for little things to complain about instead of providing substantive contributions.
That’s simply incorrect usage. The “last” poll is literally the very last one done. “Prior” would refer to the one before the most recent. If you want to use “last,” you need to clarify by saying something like “the last poll before this one.”
But regardless of that, even if you accept that “last” refers to the prior poll, why even mention it without any reason? Just saying a couple candidates weren’t included in the prior poll is meaningless without explaining who WAS included, and what the results were, or including a link to it.
Is Mills still taking her time? You'd figure after how much money Roy Cooper raked in the first day after announcing his Senate bid, she'd be encouraged to jump in the ME Senate race.
My guess is that she doesn't really want to run, but will take one for the team if she feels there are no good candidates. The November deadline is probably to see if any of the current candidates have what it takes to run a strong campaign. If they do, she'll pass, and if they don't, she'll jump in.
I hope so! Platner seems promising but I hope the best candidate that can beat Susan Collins runs in the primary, wins it and wins the general election in 11/3/2026.
Platner's my pick honestly. He seems to have an appeal that I don't think Mills would have, what with his background and the way he contrasts with Collins. Mills is too old, and I worry she doesn't have enough juice the way a Platner would. That's just my thoughts though.
I totally agree. Mills could have cleared the field months ago, and now someone fresh and more exciting has come along, soaking up all the attention. I've definitely been supportive of Mills entering the race, despite her age, but now I wish she would stay out. Platner may be a stronger candidate, simply because he offers more of a contrast with Collins and is obviously willing to be bold. He's also tied to Troy Jackson via Bernie and the two of them can easily coordinate on a working class-focused, economic populist message.
I wonder whether Platner is too left-wing for Maine. As usual, I got an unwanted text from him the day he announced, and it put me off as overly aggressive toward the _Democratic_ Party. I'm not his target audience, though.
It could be that he is, if his primary identity to voters becomes ideological. If he instead is identified primarily on style I think he'll be OK on that front.
What he's going for is not a bad combo if he can execute successfully. People broadly like anti-rich/anti-corporate "everyday person" populism. More erudite styled, policy-first, progressivism tends to do worse. Even though the policy solutions have overwhelming overlap between the two, at least from democrats doing it.
It’s definitely not a message aimed at you, it’s aimed squarely at our base, which is extremely angry right now. The voters who make up our party want fighters who will take on any Republican OR Democrat who gets in the way and is not up to the task of fighting tooth and nail against Trump and his party as well as fighting for all of us just as hard.
There are bad and ineffective Democrats right now in power, that’s absolutely undeniable. What our base has been and is hungering for is not wishy washy moves to the middle, abandoning parts of our coalition in order to be deemed more politically “electable”. But candidates who will take on anyone who puts up a roadblock to us creating a better, fairer country and world.
This is exactly what GOP primary voters went for in the tea party wave/s. They abandoned their “move to the middle, compassionate conservatism” roadmap after Obama. They instead went to activate the non-voters who were disillusioned by politics as usual to build a bigger party by supporting the meanest, cruelest most ruthless people in politics.
The GOP base is always given red meat, over and over all day every day and what happens? Well, they turnout to vote for that party that gives them what they want so badly over and over again. They almost freaking won in 2020 after a pandemic ended the world economy and Trump killed 1m Americans.
That is what our base wants and I’m almost certain that if we morph into this “take no prisoners, fight to the death” party that doesn’t sound like a cooked up in the lab to be elected inauthentic political party, our base will start showing up for us every election like the MAGA/GOP base does for their side.
Elections today aren’t won in the 5% or less (and dwindling further) true swing voters, but by revving up and turning out your base. There are more of us than there is of them, but we need to give our voters something to vote for, not against or else they just decide to stay home (see Harris campaign).
I'm not sure you know where I stand. I insist on as strong an effective opposition as possible, but I don't see it as making sense for someone running to defeat a Republican to show some kind of evenhandedness in blaming Democrats for what the Republicans are doing or for being "corporate" when the only vital struggle right now is to save the country from turning into a dictatorship. Furthermore, he sent an unsolicited fundraising text to me, so if his message wasn't aimed at me, that was a self-own. Also, do you think I'm not part of the Democratic Party's base? I vote for them every freakin time though I'm to the party's left.
If she in fact really doesn't want to run, then she may not be the best candidate despite her high office. She's not the only Democrat capable of winning in Maine, even against Collins who recent polling shows may not be as formidable as we think (then again, Collins has been underestimated before.)
I'm not entirely sold on the Platner hype, but sometimes the best candidates aren't the initially most obvious ones.
This race and a whole bunch of other races it would behoove Democrats to break the mold when it comes to candidates and find more people like Planter, Dan Osborn especially in more winnable races since Dems have the image of being the party of the aloof elite.
I'm more interested in the timeline for Susan Collins to officially announce that she's actually running for reelection. I'm holding out hope she decides against running again.
If she retires, it's going to be so fucking annoying watching a bunch of opportunistic Dems jump into the race, trying to make the case that they're the fighter we need right now, when they weren't willing to challenge Collins. Her seat is the second-most-likely Dem flip, and there is no path to Dem control of the Senate without it. For a Mainer wanting to protect democracy, this is your specific battle, and yet--crickets. Or more accurately, oysters. And I'm here for it. I think Platner can win and would make an excellent Senator.
IMHO: November is way too late for her to decide if she was actually thinking about running. This is her roundabout way of saying she’s not going to do it (age, tenure, family for whatever reason). She can’t beat a social media sensation candidate Platner who has 3 months running a campaign basically unopposed.
Yes, I know Wood was in already and others are considering, but only Mills has the juice to beat Platner (and that’s not actually what I want, but she’s his only impediment barring a campaign catastrophe).
Only way Platner doesn’t win the nomination at this point is if there’s some serious skeletons in his closet (which tbd, but if that DailyCaller article is all they can dig up on him, he’s cruising). Mills is basically telling Platner, it’s his race to run with this timetable.
Not that it's much of a problem but I think Rep. Elfreth (D-Annapolis) lives in this 1st district. Also, is Cecil County severable from the rest of the Eastern Shore without making them lose their sh*t (fwiw)?
I still like my 8-0-1 map which keeps all incumbents in their districts, keeps the Eastern Shore whole, and shores up the 6th some. I also further edited the 1st to make sure Clinton won it in 2016 and Congressional Dem candidates won it in 2024: https://davesredistricting.org/join/6c6271c4-a9cf-4792-bb3f-29c5fd81bd6b
In Tuesday’s special election victory, Democrat Catelin Drey won a Sioux City-area district with 55% of the vote to Republican Christopher Prosch’s 45%, according to unofficial results with all precincts reporting. That’s a 22-point shift from the margin the presidential election last year, when Harris lost the district by 12 percentage points, according to data crunched by The Downballot, a left-leaning political site.
Democrats recorded double-digit improvements in three other special legislative elections in Iowa earlier this year. In April, Democrats held a seat in a special legislative election in a reliably blue Cedar Rapids district but expanded on Harris’ margin of victory by 26 percentage points, according to The Downballot’s analysis.
Trump is planning a 2026 midterms Republican National Convention after Axios reported that Ken Martin for proposing a 2026 DNC to showcase up and coming Democrats.
It's such a terrible idea. If Trump loses either the House or the Senate or both in 2026 and there are some good performances in the RNC like Obama's "Audacity of Hope", the next 2 years will be totally consumed by Republicans infighting for 2028 while Trump becomes a powerless lame-duck.
An additional reason this idea is awful is, assuming the GOP would be promoting candidates as well, said candidates could end up saying or doing things that make them look stupid to potential voters on a national scale. Dumb all around.
I don't like the idea of a Dem mini-convention either until they trash moronic practices like land acknowledgements for good. Also, it's an unnecessary expenditure.
Land acknowledgements are "moronic"? You could say how they harm Democratic electoral chances if you have evidence, but right now, your remark is verging on the offensive.
I see this as the kind of thing that's good for him but bad for the party.
The outcome will be to tie them even more to him, to orient the republican party even further into a cult of personality focused on one person and one person only. That makes that person more powerful within the party.
That person is also unpopular with the electorate, and that unpopularity is increasing. That hurts every republican running for election in 2026. Even the ones that do not go. It puts them in a catch-22 where if they do not disavow him they get no credit for it, but if they do disavow him then the conservative base will be pissed and some will change their vote.
I agree...and would love to see it for this reason. It also would reinforce the notion that there is no obvious heir apparent to him in the Republican party, which would also serve our purposes. I'm luke warm on the concept of us holding one, but could be convinced if someone can explain to me how it would help our electoral chances...
And after the 1974 midterms, and also in the summer of 1982 (before that year's midterms.) Paul Kirk put a stop to them after he became DNC chair in 1985, and I don't think the party was any worse off without them.
1974 was a fantastic year and 1982 was pretty good too for Dems. My legit (non-controversial) concern is money. How much will it cost and can it be coupled with a jump in fundraising?
There are at most five Democratic Florida U.S. representatives whose districts would be targeted during a potential redraw, according to two Florida GOP operatives familiar with discussions among lawmakers.
Democratic U.S. Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Lois Frankel, Jared Moskowitz and Frederica Wilson, as well as Rep. Darren Soto, in Orlando, could see their districts become more competitive by including more Republican-leaning areas, or be drawn into the same district to set up an intraparty primary.
CA GOP Lawmaker Wants To Split California Into Two States
This initiative has no chance at becoming law just like venture capitalist Tim Draper's two attempts at splitting up California into multiple Californias failed miserably at the ballot.
Nevertheless, who do we have who can challenge CA State Assembly Member James Gallagher?
ACRAMENTO (KABC) -- Amidst the high-profile redistricting fight, a California lawmaker is proposing that the map be permanently redrawn to split the state in two.
James Gallagher, the top Republican in the California State Assembly, announced the alternate plan to Gov. Gavin Newsom's redistricting plan, which is set to go before voters in November.
Instead of carving up individual congressional districts, Gallagher is proposing the state be split in two, calling it a "two-state solution."
"We don't want any part of a government that won't give us a voice," said Gallagher during a press conference Wednesday.
Gallagher's plan would cleave the state into two distinct parts, with the bluer coastal counties separated from the more GOP-heavy inland portions of the state. The inland area would have more than 10 million people and would be larger than 40 other states.
I edited my original comment to emphasize how the initiative has absolutely zero chance at succeeding. I remember years ago riding BART and a couple of ballot petition volunteers for the 2nd of Tim Draper's attempt to split up California into multiple states
The main goal I am trying to accomplish is to get Assemblyman James Gallagher challenged.
Yes but even Tim Draper's original push to get California split up into different states did not take into account GOP bias or any political bias in particular. His approach was putting a mixture of different parts of CA into separate states.
Assemblyman James Gallagher's approach goes for a straight split up between California's bluest parts vs. California's reddest parts. That doesn't make CA as two states any smaller than it was before, which is what Draper was arguing for in the first place.
Gallagher's going to have a harder time than Draper did to convince his initiative at the ballot is going to actually be able to pass.
However, in Gallagher’s district in terms of voter registration the GOP lead Democrats by just 6% points. Hispanic population also is 25.6% along with 7.2% Asian population. If Democrats own these demographics along with the nearly 23% Independent vote, it’s a closer race.
It’s not that red of a district if you examine party registration. Of course, for a close race Democrats would need to be at their game with owning the Democratic and Independent voter base GOTV wise.
So an update on State Assembly 3 district per latest data:
The data I cited was data that Wikipedia has referenced. However, it's out of date and the district has gotten a bit redder since then.
Here are the current voter registration statistics for the district that Gallagher represents as of February 10, 2025:
Democratic - 28.57%
Republican - 43.67%
Democratic voter registration dropped while GOP voter registration increased by several % points. However, as far as Independent voters, registration hasn't really moved down or up much since the last data I cited:
Independents - 18.28%
Additionally, although these are tiny, insignificant numbers compared to the main three voter demographics in double digits, Green Party and Peace & Freedom Party voters are as follows:
Green Party - 0.46%
Peace & Freedom - 0.56%
Realistically, if you add up Democrats and Independents together, that's 28.57% + 18.25% = 46.82%, which in an ideal situation with high turnout suggests the case could be closer than expected even if Gallagher doesn't end up winning (odds are he'll still win re-election no matter how much Democrats try to make the race close).
FYI, I included the Green Party & Peace & Freedom Party voter statistics only as a hypothetical in the event that a Democratic State Assembly Candidate emerges and happens to be a very liberal type of candidate. Otherwise, it's unlikely these voter demographics would even consider a Democratic Candidate.
Public Policy Polling shows Ernst edging out Wahls 43-42, while she leads Des Moines School Board Chair Jackie Norris by a slightly larger 45-42 spread. Two other Democrats, military veteran Nathan Sage and state Rep. Josh Turek, trail Ernst 45-41.
I think this is more a product of name recognition than anything else. Wahls is known for his 2011 speech describing his experience growing up with two mothers during a gay marriage ban hearing, LGBTQ+ activism and was the Senate minority leader till 2023 while the other three are mostly unknown. Josh Turek is a huge election overperformer, has a compelling life story and should also be a good moderate candidate.
I can see potential for a moderate candidate like Josh Turek to become an ideal Senate Candidate to challenge Joni Ernst. While he's only been in the IA State Senate since 2023, in this environment he might be what the Democrats need as a general election candidate.
It makes all the difference that even a moderate Senate candidate is being against what's in the Big, Beautiful Bill.
Mark Warner included as he is a moderate Democratic Senator in VA who just happens to be, unlike Manchin and Sinema were, a reliable vote for the Democratic Party agenda.
Would Indiana Republicans be able to draw a 9-0 map or is the Indianapolis district a VRA district? As quickly as IN-01 is zooming to the right, it seems like they could just wait that one out.
I don't think the Indianapolis district is VRA protected, it's 45% white, 33% black. I really thought republicans would flip IN-01 in 2022, but they couldn't do it. Dems might keep hemorrhaging support in Lake county, but Mrvan outran Harris by 9 points so he has a decent shot of keeping the district for the next couple cycles if republicans don't gerrymander it.
It's less that Dems are hemorrhaging support in Lake County, and more that Democratic voters are dying or moving away. Harris got only slightly more than *half* of the votes in Gary and East Chicago that John Kerry did in 2004 (when Dubya won Indiana by a slightly larger margin than Trump did last year), while Trump got just barely more votes than Dubya did. Outside of those two cities, changes between 2004 and 2024 in Lake County were minor and largely canceled themselves out.
Yeah, it's a testament to the Democratic trend in places like Belleville, Fairview Heights, and O'Fallon that St. Clair County still leans Democratic even with East St. Louis getting hollowed out.
The Democrat-turned-Republican turncoat NC Rep Tricia Cotham will be temporarily absent from the NC legislature due to “serious complications” requiring surgery.
“I’ve been recovering the last few weeks from medical procedures,” she said on Facebook. “Due to serious complications, I must have a big surgery this week.” Cotham wrote her “recovery will be intense and lengthy”
I think a lot of us thought about this, but it's really not good to suggest that God or karma made someone sick. Lots of evil people live out their lives in luxury and lots of good people are cut down in their youth.
Her turning on the will of NC voters in early 2023 enabled Republicans to gleefully override almost every single veto by outgoing governor Cooper -- like on that 12-week abortion ban, eliminating concealed gun permits, eliminating the 3-day grace period for VBM ballots and especially that shameful sore loser law they pushed through giving power of NCSBE to the state auditor.
I don't feel one bit sorry for her. And if she finally loses her seat next year, it will be well deserved. The NC GOP has done so much damage to our state and indirectly our country -- I've had it with them. I'm not being nice anymore.
You missed my point. Do you really think evildoers get what they deserve in their life? Her health problems are just something that happened. Even people for whom karma is a fundamental religious belief as far as I know don't think it operates within one lifetime.
does anyone think the taking control of DC by this so-called administration has anything to do with trying to prevent DC from becoming the 51st when Dems take over control of Congress next year?
No. The 51st state proposal for DC has nothing to do directly with the issue of crime, which is what Trump is fixated about and blowing way out of proportion so he can be infatuated with his image.
You and I may be on the same page but to be clear, I am referring to Trump’s perception of DC, not any specific issues the city has as it relates to anything.
Trump is making the issue of “crime in DC” out of thin air without any thought. He wants attention and that’s all it boils down to, not just how he’s using the military on matters crime related, whether crime is a real issue or not.
Where we might or might not differ is that I don't believe he thinks or cares whether what he is saying is true. And as someone from Queens, I don't believe he's obsessed with some street crime.
The CA and AL special election results are weak, well below the average thus far this year right?
The CA result definitely; I'm curious what the race was like. The AL result though is kinda hard to gauge considering it's a Trump +*82* district. Just the fact a Dem ran at all is impressive imo.
A candidate is better than no candidate. But I would expect that having a candidate would actually create an artificial over performance. Like Republicans aren’t motivated because they always win, but Democrats are excited just to have someone sticking their neck out.
I don't understand the idea of an " artificial overperformance". Of course if there is no Democratic candidate at all, there's no way to vote Democratic (except for write-ins). Having a candidate produces an accurate result.
I mean that having a candidate when there is usually no candidate would make the side with a candidate turn out a higher percentage of their voters than the other side would. But that this boost is unique to that election, and wouldn’t be there at the midterms or the next Presidential election. That’s why I called it “artificial”.
I understand what you mean.
It's important to understand that CA legislative elections regularly underperform the rest of the country. While some unions did try to support the Democrat in the race, it was not heavily contested and shouldn't be read into too much, in my opinion.
Do you mean underperform in special elections? Or generally underperform the Presidential ticket?
Both.
The 2024 and 2020 results seem pretty similar. Trump drags the GOP a little, but the Dem candidates are within a point of the Presidential ticket.
2020 Dem assembly candidates: 62.78%
2020 Biden: 63.48%
2020 GOP Assembly candidates: 35.51%
2020 Trump: 34.32%
2024 Dem Assembly candidates: 58.76%
2024 Harris: 58.47%
2024 GOP Assembly candidates: 40.64%
2024 Trump: 38.33%
I think this data might be a bit misleading. In safe Democratic districts, the Democratic incumbents tend to overperform, as incumbents generally do. However, in competitive districts, there is a history of Democrats in California legislative races underperforming. It was more pronounced before Trump but still is largely true, with a number of Democratic Assembly candidates losing districts Harris won in 2024. Since there are a lot of Democratic incumbents who overperform, the aggregate data doesn't show this nuance.
In 2024, only one Democrat won a district that Trump won, and before 2024, I don't believe there ever was a Democrat who won an Assembly or State Senate seat that Trump won with exception to a top-two lockout scenario (like Maria Alvarado Gil before she switched parties). Historically, the competitive seats were usually ones that Leaned Dem at the Presidential level.
Thanks for the further explanation.
What were the prez numbers in this district?
Trump+12.8 in 2024. So no underperformance either, comparing to that.
The best measuring stick for the CA race was the same race in the 2024 general which was R+14.6. This result is better, although it was also an open seat.
Please explain the incongruence of these following two paragraphs. How could the polls show numbers for Hashmi and Jones if they did not ask about them?
“The pollster also finds the race for lieutenant governor tied at 43 apiece between Democrat Ghazala Hashmi and Republican John Reid, while Democrat Jay Jones has a skinny 45-44 lead over Republican incumbent Jason Miyares in the battle for the attorney general's post.
Co/efficient's last poll was released before Hashmi and Jones won their respective primaries, and the firm did not ask about either Democrat.”
They're referring to an earlier poll.
If that’s the case, they should have said “prior” instead of “last” poll. But why would they even mention how a prior poll that didn’t include them? It’s irrelevant.
“Last” poll clearly refers to the last poll released before the current poll being discussed. The phrase “was released before Hashmi and Jones won” is a very obvious context clue for that. And the last, er, “prior,” poll was mentioned because it was already referred to for the gubernatorial numbers. As we always like compare the numbers from previous polls, noting that these races were not included in the previous poll preemptively answers whether there was a shift in support. So it is relevant. It’s really not difficult at all, unless you’re just intentionally looking for little things to complain about instead of providing substantive contributions.
That’s simply incorrect usage. The “last” poll is literally the very last one done. “Prior” would refer to the one before the most recent. If you want to use “last,” you need to clarify by saying something like “the last poll before this one.”
But regardless of that, even if you accept that “last” refers to the prior poll, why even mention it without any reason? Just saying a couple candidates weren’t included in the prior poll is meaningless without explaining who WAS included, and what the results were, or including a link to it.
Is Mills still taking her time? You'd figure after how much money Roy Cooper raked in the first day after announcing his Senate bid, she'd be encouraged to jump in the ME Senate race.
My guess is that she doesn't really want to run, but will take one for the team if she feels there are no good candidates. The November deadline is probably to see if any of the current candidates have what it takes to run a strong campaign. If they do, she'll pass, and if they don't, she'll jump in.
I hope so! Platner seems promising but I hope the best candidate that can beat Susan Collins runs in the primary, wins it and wins the general election in 11/3/2026.
Platner's my pick honestly. He seems to have an appeal that I don't think Mills would have, what with his background and the way he contrasts with Collins. Mills is too old, and I worry she doesn't have enough juice the way a Platner would. That's just my thoughts though.
I totally agree. Mills could have cleared the field months ago, and now someone fresh and more exciting has come along, soaking up all the attention. I've definitely been supportive of Mills entering the race, despite her age, but now I wish she would stay out. Platner may be a stronger candidate, simply because he offers more of a contrast with Collins and is obviously willing to be bold. He's also tied to Troy Jackson via Bernie and the two of them can easily coordinate on a working class-focused, economic populist message.
It's not Mills fault, Schumer and Gillibrand have been putting a lot of pressure on her.
I wonder whether Platner is too left-wing for Maine. As usual, I got an unwanted text from him the day he announced, and it put me off as overly aggressive toward the _Democratic_ Party. I'm not his target audience, though.
It could be that he is, if his primary identity to voters becomes ideological. If he instead is identified primarily on style I think he'll be OK on that front.
What he's going for is not a bad combo if he can execute successfully. People broadly like anti-rich/anti-corporate "everyday person" populism. More erudite styled, policy-first, progressivism tends to do worse. Even though the policy solutions have overwhelming overlap between the two, at least from democrats doing it.
It’s definitely not a message aimed at you, it’s aimed squarely at our base, which is extremely angry right now. The voters who make up our party want fighters who will take on any Republican OR Democrat who gets in the way and is not up to the task of fighting tooth and nail against Trump and his party as well as fighting for all of us just as hard.
There are bad and ineffective Democrats right now in power, that’s absolutely undeniable. What our base has been and is hungering for is not wishy washy moves to the middle, abandoning parts of our coalition in order to be deemed more politically “electable”. But candidates who will take on anyone who puts up a roadblock to us creating a better, fairer country and world.
This is exactly what GOP primary voters went for in the tea party wave/s. They abandoned their “move to the middle, compassionate conservatism” roadmap after Obama. They instead went to activate the non-voters who were disillusioned by politics as usual to build a bigger party by supporting the meanest, cruelest most ruthless people in politics.
The GOP base is always given red meat, over and over all day every day and what happens? Well, they turnout to vote for that party that gives them what they want so badly over and over again. They almost freaking won in 2020 after a pandemic ended the world economy and Trump killed 1m Americans.
That is what our base wants and I’m almost certain that if we morph into this “take no prisoners, fight to the death” party that doesn’t sound like a cooked up in the lab to be elected inauthentic political party, our base will start showing up for us every election like the MAGA/GOP base does for their side.
Elections today aren’t won in the 5% or less (and dwindling further) true swing voters, but by revving up and turning out your base. There are more of us than there is of them, but we need to give our voters something to vote for, not against or else they just decide to stay home (see Harris campaign).
I'm not sure you know where I stand. I insist on as strong an effective opposition as possible, but I don't see it as making sense for someone running to defeat a Republican to show some kind of evenhandedness in blaming Democrats for what the Republicans are doing or for being "corporate" when the only vital struggle right now is to save the country from turning into a dictatorship. Furthermore, he sent an unsolicited fundraising text to me, so if his message wasn't aimed at me, that was a self-own. Also, do you think I'm not part of the Democratic Party's base? I vote for them every freakin time though I'm to the party's left.
And the filing deadline is not until March.
If she in fact really doesn't want to run, then she may not be the best candidate despite her high office. She's not the only Democrat capable of winning in Maine, even against Collins who recent polling shows may not be as formidable as we think (then again, Collins has been underestimated before.)
I'm not entirely sold on the Platner hype, but sometimes the best candidates aren't the initially most obvious ones.
This race and a whole bunch of other races it would behoove Democrats to break the mold when it comes to candidates and find more people like Planter, Dan Osborn especially in more winnable races since Dems have the image of being the party of the aloof elite.
A more pessimistic view is that she has seen internal polling that doesn't give her as much optimism as she would like...
Planter has raised a million already. She could very well be an afterthought by November.
Platner* :D
Not that I don’t believe this, but I don’t remember any news articles about it being posted here. Do you have a link to share?
https://www.bangordailynews.com/2025/08/28/politics/elections/maine-graham-platner-senate-candidate-fundraising-first-nine-days-election-2026/
Thank you!
So to recap:
Susan Collins raised $2.4m in 90 days or $26,667 each day.
Graham Platner raised $1m in 9 days or $111,111 each day.
Pretty clear contrast.
I'm more interested in the timeline for Susan Collins to officially announce that she's actually running for reelection. I'm holding out hope she decides against running again.
If she retires, it's going to be so fucking annoying watching a bunch of opportunistic Dems jump into the race, trying to make the case that they're the fighter we need right now, when they weren't willing to challenge Collins. Her seat is the second-most-likely Dem flip, and there is no path to Dem control of the Senate without it. For a Mainer wanting to protect democracy, this is your specific battle, and yet--crickets. Or more accurately, oysters. And I'm here for it. I think Platner can win and would make an excellent Senator.
We're always complaining about still relying on boomers to win elections i say just go with Platner here.
Keep in mind Mills is also serving her 2nd term as Governor and is fighting Trump and his administration at the same time.
Not an easy decision considering what she needs to do to run the state.
IMHO: November is way too late for her to decide if she was actually thinking about running. This is her roundabout way of saying she’s not going to do it (age, tenure, family for whatever reason). She can’t beat a social media sensation candidate Platner who has 3 months running a campaign basically unopposed.
Yes, I know Wood was in already and others are considering, but only Mills has the juice to beat Platner (and that’s not actually what I want, but she’s his only impediment barring a campaign catastrophe).
Only way Platner doesn’t win the nomination at this point is if there’s some serious skeletons in his closet (which tbd, but if that DailyCaller article is all they can dig up on him, he’s cruising). Mills is basically telling Platner, it’s his race to run with this timetable.
I'm still waiting for Democrats in Indiana to get organized for the 2026 election. Sigh.
If the Florida legislature does not begin to consider redistricting until January, is that surely not too late to affect the 2026 elections?
Filing deadline is late April. Primary in August. Also, I assume they can push the filing deadline back.
In MAD fashion, a Maryland State Senator threatens a likely 8-0 map based on one of the options from 2021: https://marylandmatters.org/2025/08/27/maryland-redistricting-proposal-texas/
Not that it's much of a problem but I think Rep. Elfreth (D-Annapolis) lives in this 1st district. Also, is Cecil County severable from the rest of the Eastern Shore without making them lose their sh*t (fwiw)?
I still like my 8-0-1 map which keeps all incumbents in their districts, keeps the Eastern Shore whole, and shores up the 6th some. I also further edited the 1st to make sure Clinton won it in 2016 and Congressional Dem candidates won it in 2024: https://davesredistricting.org/join/6c6271c4-a9cf-4792-bb3f-29c5fd81bd6b
If water contiguity is allowed, then they should split up the Eastern Shore into 3+ districts and make all 8 seats safely Democratic.
Splitting the Eastern Shore into three districts isn't necessary to make all 8 districts safely Democratic.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/f26ca4f9-f429-4a47-832d-f883c7c4cc72
NBC news covered The Downballot.
In Tuesday’s special election victory, Democrat Catelin Drey won a Sioux City-area district with 55% of the vote to Republican Christopher Prosch’s 45%, according to unofficial results with all precincts reporting. That’s a 22-point shift from the margin the presidential election last year, when Harris lost the district by 12 percentage points, according to data crunched by The Downballot, a left-leaning political site.
Democrats recorded double-digit improvements in three other special legislative elections in Iowa earlier this year. In April, Democrats held a seat in a special legislative election in a reliably blue Cedar Rapids district but expanded on Harris’ margin of victory by 26 percentage points, according to The Downballot’s analysis.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/special-election-win-spurs-excitement-iowa-democrats-republicans-are-c-rcna227519
Trump is planning a 2026 midterms Republican National Convention after Axios reported that Ken Martin for proposing a 2026 DNC to showcase up and coming Democrats.
https://x.com/admcrlsn/status/1961087863426060479
It's such a terrible idea. If Trump loses either the House or the Senate or both in 2026 and there are some good performances in the RNC like Obama's "Audacity of Hope", the next 2 years will be totally consumed by Republicans infighting for 2028 while Trump becomes a powerless lame-duck.
An additional reason this idea is awful is, assuming the GOP would be promoting candidates as well, said candidates could end up saying or doing things that make them look stupid to potential voters on a national scale. Dumb all around.
I don't like the idea of a Dem mini-convention either until they trash moronic practices like land acknowledgements for good. Also, it's an unnecessary expenditure.
Land acknowledgements are "moronic"? You could say how they harm Democratic electoral chances if you have evidence, but right now, your remark is verging on the offensive.
It comes off as weird, like some esoteric shibboleth, to most people. It's also an empty gesture to boot so you lose nothing.
Let's move along, please.
I see this as the kind of thing that's good for him but bad for the party.
The outcome will be to tie them even more to him, to orient the republican party even further into a cult of personality focused on one person and one person only. That makes that person more powerful within the party.
That person is also unpopular with the electorate, and that unpopularity is increasing. That hurts every republican running for election in 2026. Even the ones that do not go. It puts them in a catch-22 where if they do not disavow him they get no credit for it, but if they do disavow him then the conservative base will be pissed and some will change their vote.
I agree...and would love to see it for this reason. It also would reinforce the notion that there is no obvious heir apparent to him in the Republican party, which would also serve our purposes. I'm luke warm on the concept of us holding one, but could be convinced if someone can explain to me how it would help our electoral chances...
Democrats had one after the ‘78 midterms.
And after the 1974 midterms, and also in the summer of 1982 (before that year's midterms.) Paul Kirk put a stop to them after he became DNC chair in 1985, and I don't think the party was any worse off without them.
1974 was a fantastic year and 1982 was pretty good too for Dems. My legit (non-controversial) concern is money. How much will it cost and can it be coupled with a jump in fundraising?
That's not an auspicious precedent.
There are at most five Democratic Florida U.S. representatives whose districts would be targeted during a potential redraw, according to two Florida GOP operatives familiar with discussions among lawmakers.
Democratic U.S. Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Lois Frankel, Jared Moskowitz and Frederica Wilson, as well as Rep. Darren Soto, in Orlando, could see their districts become more competitive by including more Republican-leaning areas, or be drawn into the same district to set up an intraparty primary.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-republican-redistricting-2026-elections/
Already posted in the digest and seems to rehash earlier reports. It seems like they may pull the trigger if CA Dems succeed is my read.
I’m sure Debbie’s south Florida Republican friends will step up for her. /obvious snark
CA GOP Lawmaker Wants To Split California Into Two States
This initiative has no chance at becoming law just like venture capitalist Tim Draper's two attempts at splitting up California into multiple Californias failed miserably at the ballot.
Nevertheless, who do we have who can challenge CA State Assembly Member James Gallagher?
https://abc7.com/post/california-republican-lawmaker-proposes-state-solution-response-redistricting-fight/17658941/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACRAMENTO (KABC) -- Amidst the high-profile redistricting fight, a California lawmaker is proposing that the map be permanently redrawn to split the state in two.
James Gallagher, the top Republican in the California State Assembly, announced the alternate plan to Gov. Gavin Newsom's redistricting plan, which is set to go before voters in November.
Instead of carving up individual congressional districts, Gallagher is proposing the state be split in two, calling it a "two-state solution."
"We don't want any part of a government that won't give us a voice," said Gallagher during a press conference Wednesday.
Gallagher's plan would cleave the state into two distinct parts, with the bluer coastal counties separated from the more GOP-heavy inland portions of the state. The inland area would have more than 10 million people and would be larger than 40 other states.
This is an old (non-)story. Won't happen.
Right, kind of like the state of jefferson scam to get people to donate money to some non-existent cause.
I edited my original comment to emphasize how the initiative has absolutely zero chance at succeeding. I remember years ago riding BART and a couple of ballot petition volunteers for the 2nd of Tim Draper's attempt to split up California into multiple states
The main goal I am trying to accomplish is to get Assemblyman James Gallagher challenged.
Couldn’t be a new state for federal representation purposes. I guess they could have separate legislatures.
Yes but even Tim Draper's original push to get California split up into different states did not take into account GOP bias or any political bias in particular. His approach was putting a mixture of different parts of CA into separate states.
Assemblyman James Gallagher's approach goes for a straight split up between California's bluest parts vs. California's reddest parts. That doesn't make CA as two states any smaller than it was before, which is what Draper was arguing for in the first place.
Gallagher's going to have a harder time than Draper did to convince his initiative at the ballot is going to actually be able to pass.
This is just theater. Gallagher won by 32.6 points in 2024, the district is deep red so there would be little point in funding a challenge.
Of course it’s just theater.
However, in Gallagher’s district in terms of voter registration the GOP lead Democrats by just 6% points. Hispanic population also is 25.6% along with 7.2% Asian population. If Democrats own these demographics along with the nearly 23% Independent vote, it’s a closer race.
It’s not that red of a district if you examine party registration. Of course, for a close race Democrats would need to be at their game with owning the Democratic and Independent voter base GOTV wise.
So an update on State Assembly 3 district per latest data:
The data I cited was data that Wikipedia has referenced. However, it's out of date and the district has gotten a bit redder since then.
Here are the current voter registration statistics for the district that Gallagher represents as of February 10, 2025:
Democratic - 28.57%
Republican - 43.67%
Democratic voter registration dropped while GOP voter registration increased by several % points. However, as far as Independent voters, registration hasn't really moved down or up much since the last data I cited:
Independents - 18.28%
Additionally, although these are tiny, insignificant numbers compared to the main three voter demographics in double digits, Green Party and Peace & Freedom Party voters are as follows:
Green Party - 0.46%
Peace & Freedom - 0.56%
Realistically, if you add up Democrats and Independents together, that's 28.57% + 18.25% = 46.82%, which in an ideal situation with high turnout suggests the case could be closer than expected even if Gallagher doesn't end up winning (odds are he'll still win re-election no matter how much Democrats try to make the race close).
FYI, I included the Green Party & Peace & Freedom Party voter statistics only as a hypothetical in the event that a Democratic State Assembly Candidate emerges and happens to be a very liberal type of candidate. Otherwise, it's unlikely these voter demographics would even consider a Democratic Candidate.
https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ror/ror-odd-year-2025/assembly.pdf
Public Policy Polling shows Ernst edging out Wahls 43-42, while she leads Des Moines School Board Chair Jackie Norris by a slightly larger 45-42 spread. Two other Democrats, military veteran Nathan Sage and state Rep. Josh Turek, trail Ernst 45-41.
I think this is more a product of name recognition than anything else. Wahls is known for his 2011 speech describing his experience growing up with two mothers during a gay marriage ban hearing, LGBTQ+ activism and was the Senate minority leader till 2023 while the other three are mostly unknown. Josh Turek is a huge election overperformer, has a compelling life story and should also be a good moderate candidate.
I can see potential for a moderate candidate like Josh Turek to become an ideal Senate Candidate to challenge Joni Ernst. While he's only been in the IA State Senate since 2023, in this environment he might be what the Democrats need as a general election candidate.
It makes all the difference that even a moderate Senate candidate is being against what's in the Big, Beautiful Bill.
I don't think any moderate Democrat supports the BBB or even the TCJA. Sinema and Manchin who did left politics.
Mark Warner included as he is a moderate Democratic Senator in VA who just happens to be, unlike Manchin and Sinema were, a reliable vote for the Democratic Party agenda.
The summary wording for California's redistricting amendment (PDF link): https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/public-display/prop-50-title-summary.pdf
Would Indiana Republicans be able to draw a 9-0 map or is the Indianapolis district a VRA district? As quickly as IN-01 is zooming to the right, it seems like they could just wait that one out.
I don't think the Indianapolis district is VRA protected, it's 45% white, 33% black. I really thought republicans would flip IN-01 in 2022, but they couldn't do it. Dems might keep hemorrhaging support in Lake county, but Mrvan outran Harris by 9 points so he has a decent shot of keeping the district for the next couple cycles if republicans don't gerrymander it.
It's less that Dems are hemorrhaging support in Lake County, and more that Democratic voters are dying or moving away. Harris got only slightly more than *half* of the votes in Gary and East Chicago that John Kerry did in 2004 (when Dubya won Indiana by a slightly larger margin than Trump did last year), while Trump got just barely more votes than Dubya did. Outside of those two cities, changes between 2004 and 2024 in Lake County were minor and largely canceled themselves out.
And Cairo and East St. Louis, IL are doing worse than Gary.
And people here in South Jersey like to clown on Camden, but at least they've stemmed the bleeding and are redeveloping and renewing in key areas.
Yeah, it's a testament to the Democratic trend in places like Belleville, Fairview Heights, and O'Fallon that St. Clair County still leans Democratic even with East St. Louis getting hollowed out.
The Democrat-turned-Republican turncoat NC Rep Tricia Cotham will be temporarily absent from the NC legislature due to “serious complications” requiring surgery.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article311883801.html
Her absence will make it trickier for Berger and Hall to override Stein’s vetoes on remaining bills.
from that link:
“I’ve been recovering the last few weeks from medical procedures,” she said on Facebook. “Due to serious complications, I must have a big surgery this week.” Cotham wrote her “recovery will be intense and lengthy”
Karma is coming for Cotham. The fact that she’s out of commission makes the “working supermajority” even slower.
I think a lot of us thought about this, but it's really not good to suggest that God or karma made someone sick. Lots of evil people live out their lives in luxury and lots of good people are cut down in their youth.
Her turning on the will of NC voters in early 2023 enabled Republicans to gleefully override almost every single veto by outgoing governor Cooper -- like on that 12-week abortion ban, eliminating concealed gun permits, eliminating the 3-day grace period for VBM ballots and especially that shameful sore loser law they pushed through giving power of NCSBE to the state auditor.
I don't feel one bit sorry for her. And if she finally loses her seat next year, it will be well deserved. The NC GOP has done so much damage to our state and indirectly our country -- I've had it with them. I'm not being nice anymore.
You missed my point. Do you really think evildoers get what they deserve in their life? Her health problems are just something that happened. Even people for whom karma is a fundamental religious belief as far as I know don't think it operates within one lifetime.
does anyone think the taking control of DC by this so-called administration has anything to do with trying to prevent DC from becoming the 51st when Dems take over control of Congress next year?
I don't really see how. It's more because he can and because he's doing whatever he can to make himself more of an unaccountable, corrupt autocrat.
If anything it makes a stronger case for why DC should have statehood.
No question about it!
Yes, of course.
Eleanor Holmes Norton should have been given the power to vote a LONG time ago.
No. The 51st state proposal for DC has nothing to do directly with the issue of crime, which is what Trump is fixated about and blowing way out of proportion so he can be infatuated with his image.
Crime has nothing to do with his invasions of L.A. or DC - or rather, his domestic use of the military is the crime.
You and I may be on the same page but to be clear, I am referring to Trump’s perception of DC, not any specific issues the city has as it relates to anything.
Trump is making the issue of “crime in DC” out of thin air without any thought. He wants attention and that’s all it boils down to, not just how he’s using the military on matters crime related, whether crime is a real issue or not.
Where we might or might not differ is that I don't believe he thinks or cares whether what he is saying is true. And as someone from Queens, I don't believe he's obsessed with some street crime.
I completely agree with what you are saying.
Emily Jashinsky
@emilyjashinsky
Here
@Timodc
tells me he’s heard from Dems since his viral interview with Hakeem Jeffries that Jeffries’ hesitancy to endorse
@ZohranKMamdani
stems from a fear that Mamdani could ignite a chain reaction of primary challenges
https://x.com/emilyjashinsky/status/1961132464497102935
God willing.
Agreed. Is Emily Jashinsky someone we should know, though?
They are contributors to The Bulwark.