NYC should keep its election in the odd number year. It will lose attention if it's moved, especially to a presidential year. Plus, from an observer point of view, it's nice to have odd year elections.
This is always the question. Does it benefit democracy more to be free from the distractions of the presidential race or to hold the poll at a time when higher turnout is virtually guaranteed.
I'm of the view that it's better to get higher turnout. NYC had 23% turnout in 2021, 26% in 2017, 26% in 2013, and 28% in 2009. No amount of increased focus in the world is worth that utterly pathetic level of turnout.
I do not know NYC's turnout for 2024 presidential, but the statewide turnout was 62%, and 70% in 2020. It's not hard to imagine that NYC would have at least twice the turnout in presidential years.
The primary last cycle was extremely competitive and saw a similar number of votes as the general election. Still too low even for the parts that are competitive.
Also Bloomberg only won by four points in 2009. I'd absolutely consider such a small margin to indicate a competitive race. He won by just over two points in 2001.
Where's the >50%, let alone >60%, turnout for those competitive elections? Maybe if turnout was at appropriate levels the results might have even changed! Maybe not, but we'll never know.
Those elections were also over 30 years ago. Fact is turnout is shit today, and it undermines the attention argument. If ~3/4 of voters are not showing up to vote, there's no credible way to argue that the local election is benefiting from not sharing the spotlight. Any extra attention or coverage that might be happening is being ignored.
NY state was not competitive at the presidential level in 2020 or 2024 and turnout was ~2.5x that of NYC's mayoral elections in the neighboring years. This isn't simply people refusing to show up because an election isn't competitive.
Don’t think the turnout actually hit 70% in 2020. There were 8.69m votes in 2020. The turnout rates are dependent on which denominator you use. If you use the state’s active registration back then of 12.36m, that is 70%. But the more reliable estimate of voting eligible citizen population is around 14.22m. That is, unlike the states with automatic registration, NYS has a large chunk of unregistered but eligible citizen pool, almost 2m people. That denominator gives you a rate of only 61%.
2024 turnout rate based on active registration would be 8.38m out of 12.43m at 67%, and about 60% of the eligible pool. The turnout rate drop is minimal, but the population has shrunk quite a bit.
Using registration as denominator, 2024 general election, NYC’s turnout rate was only 59%. Outside of NYC the rate was 73%. A 14% turnout difference!
"I like having elections to watch" is not a good reason to keep a system that thrives on low turnout. Like the item itself mentions, the "losing attention" angle doesn't really work either since of course people don't pay attention in elections they're not voting in. 23% turnout in 2021! 25% in 2017! They're not paying attention now!
It doesn't "thrive on low turnout." When there are competitive races, such as the Giuliani-Dinkins races of '89 and '93, turnout has been big. I'll bet turnout this November will rival those turnouts.
That's the undemocratic argument! Besides, mayoral elections will get plenty of coverage in New York, no matter what. If they get less national coverage, who cares?
I'm 100% for less national coverage of NYC mayoral elections. It's an outlier city and it's antics just give the GOP more fodder to attack Dems in states situated south or west of NY that don't touch the Pacific Ocean.
Just watched a clip of Stephen Colbert on Instagram (can't link, unfortunately) where he suggested he might run for Senate against Lindsay Graham in 2026, now that will be available to campaign next year. He said he's always wanted to do this, and now seems like it might be the time. As most of you know, his sister ran for a House seat in SC a few years ago.
We're going to need comedians and other highly charismatic personalities to help break through to people and generate a movement. The Zelenskyy Model.
In the Senate, Stephen Colbert would surely prove himself to be a worthy heir of Al Franken. Both are highly articulate and very serious people, not withstanding the fact that they are comedians.
Colbert could successfully run campaign ads featuring his current persona aimed at Democrats and Independents – and ads with his faux-rightwing persona aimed at Republican voters!
He could file as an independent as late as July 15, 2026. I hope he does it. Of course, there would need to be coordination with the Democratic nominee to drop out - and I don't know if S.C. law allows a party nominee to drop out and not appear on the November ballot.
I would be so anxious about Colbert becoming a McGrath/Hegar/Harrison style money sink that distracts low information people rather than winnable races elsewhere and downballot.
That is true, but it’s going to be true whether or not Colbert runs. If he does, I imagine the number of donors who give money to him that they would have given to a downballot race if he wasn’t running will be infinitesimally small.
Being that Stephen Colbert’s sister, Elizabeth Colbert-Jones, could not beat Mark Sanford in the SC-01 special election back in 2013 even with his backing, I am not sure Colbert himself would be able to get enough support to turn out Democrats in the general election beyond the normal amount.
SC is still a difficult state for Democrats to make gains compared to NC. Besides Colbert’s persona and image, what else does he have to offer?
Al Franken was already active in politics and on platforms like Air America well after his days at Saturday Night Live. Colbert projects a more apolitical image whereas Franken was an outspoken liberal.
NY 17, Lawler has, probably unsurprisingly, chosen to run for reelection rather than go for Governor. I think he's beatable in this environment with a decent campaign.
I am surprised. I think he had a better shot in the general than Stefanik. But I guess he believes Stefanik will run and he wouldn't be able to win the primary.
That's my interpretation. He was doing so badly in those primary polls - more money in a potential congressional retirement fund thank losing a primary for Governor.
He cleared the primary for her, so that was definitely his plan until Trump decided to fire federal government employees and do his usual extremist policies while in office. Why Youngkin ever thought any Republican could escape backlash to Trump is beyond me.
But maybe that’s why his super PAC hasn’t spent a dime on down ballot races for the GOP (which they were anticipating to help minimize the deficit from the green cash wave flowing into Democratic campaigns). He probably knows throwing money at any VA races this year is akin to lighting it on fire.
This article says Lawler got intense pressure from Trump to go for re-election, to help defend the GOP's majority. And of course Lawler acquiesced. Trump has really been focused on keeping the House, what with all the redistricting efforts he's pushing
I think this is 100,000% guaranteed. There will be no Democratic Party left if they do nothing with the power they are given after the midterms. They would be completely abdicating all responsibility and trust given to them, once again, to try to prevent this from happening. Even if it fails to remove him, and it will fail unless MAGA turns on him too, it is important to document history.
The reality is even if Democrats win both chambers (which is an uphill climb to say the least), they aren’t going to be able to convict him of anything and still have to get his support for any legislation to become law. It might be better off to pull the Pelosi move praising his fragile ego while moving almost entirely pro Democratic legislation that Trump rolls over on like he did last time.
I’m very unsure what exactly the best move to do is, because the impeachment hearings did serious damage to Trump, but they were too far away from anything to make an electoral impact. Will Democrats be willing to rev up the depressed GOP base and unite the infighting with the party against their perceived enemy: Democrats by pursuing another impeachment? Is that risk worth it?
Is history enough of a reason to give a potential lifeline to Republicans who are once again faltering with Trump in office? I honestly don’t know the answer to that and I think the partisan part of me has a completely different opinion than the practical part of me.
We win this seat if we don’t nominate Sean Patrick Maloney or Mondaire Jones again. Basically any generic D should be able to flip this district back in 2026.
It’s not so much me seeing Lawler as a very weak candidate, but more him representing a Harris won district and only winning 2024 against an extremely flawed and damaged candidate with a ton of baggage by 52.2-47.9 in a Republican leaning year (yes WFP endorsed someone other than Jones, but for purpose of accurately assessing Lawler’s performance I combined them).
Put another way, Lawler’s WAR is 3.7. He overperformed Trump by just 2.9%. That’s not anywhere close to a strong incumbent performance and certainly isn’t unbeatable. It’s just above the average incumbent performance today. Lawler is only still in office because he got lucky when Democrats screwed up our nominee against him not once, but twice. A D+4 year almost certainly ends his career.
Even a small Democratic advantage with a generic D candidate would sweep him out of office. He’s not entrenched and he’s not popular. He is going to lose in 2026 in any sort of D leaning year just like many former GOP representatives and party held seats found themselves on the wrong end of political polarization in 2018.
In hindsight, 2024 was a pretty weak performance by him given how red of a year it was.
To add on to that, I live in NY-17 and the local Dems are incredibly fired up. They may prove to be adept campaigners as well -- neither SPM nor Mondaire were strong campaigners at all (in fact, neither fucking showed up.)
It blows my mind that our nominees for a swing seat took it easy in showing up to meet voters in person. Like that is literally the best opportunity to earn a new vote. This year hopefully these crop of candidates will work the district hard this time to win the primary and then the general.
Given the massive field of Democrats and your local perspective, would love to know your opinion in who is gaining ground and/or momentum in the sprawling primary unfolding? The only candidate I really know of is Cait Conley as a West Point graduate and combat veteran with an attractive unassailable career that no Republican could credibly attack as a socialist/far left radical. But I have no idea what in district Democrats are seeing/hearing.
While Jones was weak, I wouldn't call him "extremely flawed". Not right for the district, yep, but "extreme" would be putting a little too much mustard on it.
She might have lost in 2022 if Republicans had been disciplined enough to run a bland, little-known moderate against her (similar to Pataki in 1994), but that's pretty much a non-starter these days.
In 2026? She'll probably underperform, but still win with room to spare.
I don't know enough about Delgado to have an opinion. I remember people being angry that he resigned from Congress to become LG because it jeopardized the seat.
Lawler’s “by the book” defense of the deportation of Mohammad Khalil should be enough to fire up the troops, even if there are plenty of other issues to be fired up about a well.
To be clear, I am talking about what the Mohammad Khalil deportation case represents as a matter of legal affairs, not as it relates to his specific agenda on campus at Columbia University (which I am not going to discuss here for obvious reasons).
What residents in NY-17 would likely pay attention to is the fact Mike Lawler is pro-ICE and has not shown any independence from Trump and his administration on this issue. The Khalil case got a lot of attention nationwide, namely with younger voters. Just recently, Khalil’s case got cleared and now he’s suing the Justice Department for the hell he’s had to face in this deportation fiasco.
This all boils down to due process and if anyone, even those accused of a crime, has the right to it and defending themselves in court. Even 9/11 terrorists had the right to attorneys in court. If Lawler isn’t going to budge on this issue, it’s going to be a big liability for him as he runs it re-election.
Trump is now at minus 40 approval with young people, down from roughly even at the start of his term, per YouGov. The buyers remorse with Gen Z is real.
Moreover, according to data journalist G. Elliott Morris: "Democrats now have a lead over Republicans in trust to handle immigration, the economy and inflation. It’s not 2024 anymore!"
This is fascinating data. Not even so much the GCB of D+8, but that once again with Trump being in office he breaks the Republican Party apart while uniting the Democratic Party at the same time. Part of why 2018 was such a big wave is how many Republicans broke from their party.
Democrat plan to vote for Democratic candidate: 98%
Democrat unsure who to vote for: 1%
Democrat plan to vote for Republican candidate: 1%
Republican plan to vote for Republican candidate: 92%
Republican unsure who to vote for: 3%
Republican plan to vote for Democratic candidate: 5%
The race breakdown is equally intriguing. Hispanic voters are back to their normal voting pattern. Pulling even with white voters is also huge. But in the bad news: Black voters and Asian voters haven’t shifted back and are staying more Republican than they had been previously. Something to watch out for in other polls/future elections.
At least in terms of black voter numbers, those are more closely aligned with pre-Obama numbers (Kerry received 88 percent to Bush's 11 percent), which is probably to be expected moving forward.
Our long term support from Asian voters is something I've had as a potential worry spot for a while. I never got the sense that our language or focus has ever given them anywhere near a similar focus as other racial minorities. They're a growing chunk of the electorate and a bigger part of our coalition.
Falung Gong advertises their stupid dance show all over the place in my town. I make a point of mentioning to the owners of the business that they are advertising for a cult but all but one has never given a damn.
I'm not much familiar with the former and only vaguely with the latter, but I get the idea. I agree that's an issue but I was thinking even more broadly than that. I get the sense that as a party we largely do not give them anywhere near the focus you'd expect going into this without any knowledge.
Glad you posted this - the culture war moderates over at The Liberal Patriot are still utilizing exit poll data from November to make their arguments, when anyone with access to the internet can find polling shows a full-on collapse for Trump among other voters under 29 and Latinos.
I have a gut feeling student loan fiasco is what is hitting Gen Z the most along with the attacks on funding for universities, ICE, etc. Student loans being at the top of the list.
No doubt Gen Z is mad at Trump for not giving a damn about them. Even Ronald Reagan wasn’t this much of an asshole when it came to college education (except when it came to pushing public universities to charge students in their defiance towards the Vietnam War).
However, sending student tuition loans not paid to collections leaves an even more detrimental effect as each student’s credit rating would adversely be affected. I’m not sure Reagan went this extreme back in the day.
There’s another equally dramatic drop in support from a rockbed red voting group: Gen X voters 45-64 years old. They have been the strongest Republican voting age group out of any other age category for a long time in recent elections. 30 to 44 year olds and seniors haven’t shifted their opinions on Trump, but these 2 groups (Gen Z, Gen X) have.
Gen X at the start of Trump’s term were +10, now they’re -10. That’s a massive shift among the 2nd most consistent age voting group out there. Might just be a blip, but if there’s a realignment or protest vote from these voters in 2026, that would completely upend the actual battlefield in play. Worth following to see if other polls show this in any future polls.
EDIT: I just checked to confirm a hunch I had. Gen X voters in 2016 voted 51-46 for Trump. Gen X voters in 2018 voted for the Democratic candidate 50-48. So if this bares out in 2026 like it did in Trump’s first midterm, we’re almost certainly assured of a wave, the only question would be how high it goes.
I would love it to be 2006-sized, not 2018. Enough shock Dem flips to flip back the Senate and House to Dem control and actually hold the Trump regime accountable.
That would definitely be the ideal scenario for Democrats for sure. Would be a dream come true because in 2028, we could probably easily hold any majority we pick up in 2026 compared to how unfavorable this map is. Hopefully giving a Democratic president the trifecta to undo every single thing Trump has done and removing every single person Trump has put into office.
…unfortunately, that cannot include removing Kavanaugh, Gorsuch or Coney-Barrett. But a good alternative is to expand SCOTUS so that the number of justices equal the courts of appeal.
If Roy Cooper wins the open Senate seat in North Carolina next year, there's going to be a bigger fire lit under NC Dems for future cycles.
2028 is going to be expensive for Rs in NC to hold these seats:
- MAGA U.S. Senator Tedd Budd
- Retaining the MAGA majority on the NC Supreme Court (either by retaining the 5-2 or 4-3).
- Keeping Dave Boliek as state auditor (and control of the state board of elections).
If they lose all three, that's sign of a sea change in NC politics. Flipping the SCONC alone will be massive, but there's potential for a perfect storm for all three to flip. And if Phil Berger loses his primary next year, that'd be even better.
As someone squarely in Gen X, I'd advise to never count on the voting patterns of Gen X (unless you are a Republican).
But, what concerns me is that Gen Z may be duplicating our voting patterns. That they shifted toward trump at all worries me. That they are shifting away is great, but that has to include voting, and voting for Ds downballot. And if the issue is college loans, then what are the issues non-college Gen Z voters will follow to support Dems?
FYI, regarding the youngest Gen X age from 45-47, many of us in this bracket (including me) identify more as xennials than Gen Xers. Xennial is where someone typically looked at as a Gen Xer actually identifies more with the millennial generation. We are right above the age of the oldest millennials. Not everyone this age knows about what a xennial is but would likely identify as one if they knew what it meant.
Many Gen X/xennial friends I know of at this age do not vote for Trump or the GOP. There are those I know who voted for Trump to rebel against the “two party dictatorship” but prior to that never voted for the GOP. I also dated a millennial who grew up in El Centro and was a traditional Bush Republican, pro-immigration kind a woman who ended up moving to the left because of Trump.
Gen X otherwise the older they are the more likely they can potentially vote for Trump depends on who you talk to.
That said, I have a feeling the numbers of Gen Xers who are against Trump are younger than the older generation.
Yeah, the gubernatorial races in NJ and VA are going to be mighty interesting. Especially if GOP voter turnout craters or a fraction of them vote for Democrats.
What percentage of Republican voters voted Democratic in 2022? I was under the impression that it was much more the fact that too many of them turn out only in presidential years.
I don't remember exact figures but I know that there were significant crossover votes in NV and AZ, for two examples. (I was on Election Twitter back then and followed number-crunchers from both states.)
It was 94-4 for Republican voters voting their party’s candidate and 96-3 for Democratic voters voting their party’s candidate. So a bit more of a divide in the GOP than Dems, but far less than 2018. Independents were what eliminated any red wave in 2022 because they backed Democrats 49-47 over Republicans.
Hopefully New York and Virginia will both move to have all local elections in even year midterm elections- this will boost voter turnout and save tax money which will be needed to make up for money Trump is keeping from the states!!! After Trump is gone this money ($42 million for New York every 2 years) can be used for free all day kindergarten and free Pre-K education. All the blue states need to combine the local elections with the even year midterm elections!
"We will have reduced drug prices by 1000%. By 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 700, 600. Not 30 or 40 or 50%, but numbers the likes of which you’ve never even dreamed of before."
– Donald J. Trump
Reality check: Such an impressive reduction of drug prices would require drug companies to pay Americans to take them!
I was reading yesterday's comments regarding state legislature sizes. And it occurred to me that in California, the size of the CA Assembly and CA Senate is 80 and 40 and hasn't changed since its 1879 Constitution. In 1880, California's population was 864K, and the 2024 pop. est. is 39.4M, which is about 45.6 times greater.
Therefore, to keep the same level of representation as when California was founded, the Assembly would be 3648 seats and the Senate would be 1824 seats!
"The Commission, whose 13 members were appointed by Mayor Eric Adams last year, said in a report that the higher turnout that accompanies presidential elections would make the municipal electorate more reflective of the city's diverse population."
So when Adams won on the back of significant black and Latino voters, the electorate didn't reflect the city's diverse population?
the LA County Dem Party debated extensively the question of moving from odd to even years in about 2015, with both sides claiming that their position was better for democracy. What it really came down to was: odd numbered years are better for candidates. Local candidates with lower name recognition don't have to compete for attention with bigger names. But even numbered years are better for voters. Voters (most of them) don't like needing to vote a lot. And I landed on the side of voter convenience, and thus higher voter turnout, rather than candidate egos. LA County did move to even numbered years and I haven't seen any ill effects from it.
Good trouble has not only helped break Trump’s MAGA base apart, but it’s also upended the House’s plans completely with Johnson sending lawmakers home early to prevent a certain to pass vote on the Epstein scandal/coverup.
Using GOP’s political tactics WORKS! That’s why they do it all the time against Democrats. And it’s already had an incredibly consequential impact for a party that holds no power in Washington to effectively stop the House from running at all. 1 week less of horrible policy passed.
Stop trying to be the better person and start trying to beat the worse person.
That’s the article I posted haha! Just without the email subscription wall for those who don’t want to subscribe. I’m not sure why the headlines are different (maybe it got changed after archive took the screenshot?) though.
VA-Gov: RGA is trying to figure out how little it can spend in the race to not seem like abandoning it. They spent $500k so far on Winsome Sears. They spent $10.7m for Youngkin’s run. A sure sign of confidence when the party as a whole is basically stating Miyares and not losing more seats in the State House is their priority in 2025 elections.
Republican gubernatorial nominee Jack Ciattarelli introduced Morris County Sheriff Jim Gannon as his running mate on Wednesday morning, launching the Jack and Jim ticket as the GOP seeks to retake the governorship.
As for Sherrill, two who many thought to be leading candidates, Troy Singleton and Benjie Wimberly, have "taken themselves" out of the running.
Sherrill does not appear to be considering sitting elected officials or members of Gov. Phil Murphy’s administration.
Less traditional, outside-the-box candidates are on Sherrill’s short list, including former Assistant Attorney General and former Newark mayoral candidate Shavar Jeffries, Statewide Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of New Jersey President Carlos Medina, Centenary College President Dale Caldwell, and Samuel A. Delgado, the vice chair of the New Jersey State Cannabis Regulatory Commission.
Not an overly impressive list in my view. Caldwell probably the best of the group. Jeffries was a rival of Ras Baraka, so I can't see him making Baraka happy. Decision has to be made by Monday.
it seems like a dead end job in a lot of ways, but no disagreement the list went from rumblings of mayor baraka to a bunch of folks that haven't been elected to anything
He has won SIX statewide races (attorney general, governor) here in NC. Voters know who he is, so attacks from Rs calling him a "crazy liberal socialist" or any other incendiary insult will fall flat.
He may very well be the favorite, and I agree with your main point that he’ll be harder to caricature, but past successes are never a guarantee of future wins. Bill Nelson won five consecutive statewide races in Florida before losing in 2018. Sherrod Brown was elected statewide in Ohio 5 times (though w/ a loss in 1990) before losing in 2024. Bob Casey won six statewide elections in Pennsylvania (with a primary loss in 2002) before losing in 2024. Evan Bayh won five times in a row in Indiana before losing in 2016. Mary Landrieu won five elections in Louisiana (with a loss in 2002) before losing in 2014. And popular governors don’t always make the transition to senate successfully, just ask Larry Hogan, Steve Bullock, Phil Bredesen, Linda Lingle, or Tommy Thompson.
North Carolina is a purple state and is slowly getting bluer each cycle thanks to the tech and science hubs, plus several well renowned universities. Most of the Senators and governors you mentioned are in red to red-leaning states like FL, OH, PA and LA.
NC has elected Democrats to the federal level but after 2008, state party leadership failed to counteract the state Republican Party. Now the NC GOP has been entrenched in legislative power for over 15 years with little to show apart from voter suppression, corruption and partisan power grabs.
Now we have state party leadership that gives a damn, it’s going to take work and several election cycles to undo the gerrymandering and flipping the two Senate seats blue. The fact that Anderson Clayton helped flip several statewide seats blue is a testament to her hard work— which ticked the NC GOP off big time. That’s why they rammed through veto overrides of two final power grab laws before they lost their supermajority this past January.
This is a nitpick, but since when is NC purple but PA is red-leaning?
More broadly speaking I totally agree that Anderson Clayton is great and is doing a lot to whip the state party back into shape. I’m actually bullish on Roy Cooper’s chances.
BUT we should always be cautious on our predictions, whether those are optimistic or pessimistic. Sometimes when people predict a state is trending our way it pans out (Georgia, Virginia) but sometimes those trends stop or reverse, or the underlying parameters driving the trend shift. There have been predictions of blue Texas for at least the last 15 years, and I remember when blue Florida was treated as something of an inevitability because of the state’s diverse population. Likewise, a proven history of winning is the probably the single best predictor of future success, so it’s hard to imagine a stronger candidate than Cooper. But even strong candidates can find themselves at the mercy of the electoral winds. Weak candidates can win in favorable years and can benefit from unexpected shifts in voting patterns, and even strong and well known candidates can fall unexpectedly in the face of a hostile environment.
Cooper may be the strongest candidate, but in a swing state like NC I don’t think either party can ever treat victory as ‘almost certain’
He's won a bunch of tough elections, but they've all been at the state level and for executive offices where he's basically the boss. Now he's running for a federal legislature where he's going to pledge to vote for Chuck Schumer to be his leader. It's not the same.
I would think the likeliness of it flipping is very high in the end, but I don’t think it’ll ever get to a point where he comfortably wins, so I think a Tilt D/Lean D rating is probably the most appropriate at the start of the campaign and I seriously doubt it ever gets to Likely D. It’s a red tinged purple state, Republicans won’t just give up on this race (unless Morrow or Robinson wins the nomination) no matter how strong a candidate Cooper is for Democrats.
I really have doubts any political prognosticator/pundit would ever move a purple state to Safe for either party, regardless of how bad the candidate is. Case in point: Robinson vs Stein 2024. He lost by almost 15 points.
Here’s the last update on the race after the Black Nazi bombshell from the 3 biggest nonpartisan ratings organizations. They didn’t move the race after these changes.
If they didn’t do it with Robinson running as the incumbent Attorney General Democrat Josh Stein’s opponent, this Senate race is not going to be ever rated Safe D with a likely less awful GOP candidate. And I highly doubt they’d go to Likely D at any point either (unless Robinson or Morrow run and win the nomination).
Actually you’re wrong. The state is starting to shift left.
Anderson Clayton fought hard to help Dems score several more wins last year, particularly AG, Superintendent, LG and the SCONC seat.
And had we had fair state legislative maps in place last year, NC Dems would’ve scored a trifecta. A slim majority of N.C. voters voted for Dem legislators but because our state is so gerrymandered, Rs control 59-60% of the seats.
It would seem that after a sluggish quiet start, the election in Iowa 2nd is starting to pick up steam and attract more notable Democratic challengers. Notably, all the congressional races in Iowa, including for the blood red 4th have at least 2 challengers in the Democratic primaries, which means that there should be quite a bit of energy among the left leaning voters and candidates. Still I wonder why Kevin Techau's bid for the 2nd fell so flat with fundraising. He's a well decorated Air Force veteran and his a solid background as a US Attorney appointed under Obama. Perhaps his candidacy was announced too early, but it's still surprising given 2026 is projected to be a strong year for Democrats especially with a toxic incumbent in the Oval Office.
When talking about Epstein, should Democrats starting making the Republican-pedophilia-sexual abuse connections go beyond Epstein?
For example, while talking about Epstein, should leading voices in the Democratic party start reminding people about Dennis Hastert, Mark Foley, Jim Jordan as a coach at Ohio State, etc.?
I have a feeling that there is an opportunity to help certain MAGA-inclined, conspiratorial voters start to see the Republican Party differently. And frankly, in my personal opinion, it would lead to them seeing the GOP more accurately: as a party that's welcomed and even advocated for sexual abusers.
For most of us talking about this, yes, I think it's great to do so. The first two of those predators may be less effective as they are dated, but Jordan is still an active politician and in the US house. There is a real culture of sexual predation there.
For candidates, maybe, maybe not? They shouldn't avoid it, but just with opportunity costs and focusing on their overall message, I'd guess they'll typically center their campaigns on cost of living issues. But there's certainly nothing inherently wrong with bringing it up incidentally.
I actually wouldn't do that. The last thing we want to do is provoke negative partisanship and make Republicans rally around the flag because they hate us more than they do pedophiles. Various commentators I've heard are suggesting that instead of posting our own content on Epstein, we just repost outraged MAGA content so that we amplify Republicans' anger rather than get in the middle of it, which I think is the right approach. If we try to add on other issues of people most Republicans have either forgotten about or have decided they don't care about, it'll only make it into a partisan issue.
True, the MAGA influencers are stoking the flames on this and are turning the outrage machine against Trump, but I don't think they'll allow non-Epstein pedophilia stories to enter the narrative. It's easier for them to say that Trump betrayed them on this specific campaign promise than it is for them to admit they're enabling a party of lecherous creeps. If we try to force the issue, it'll only provoke their defensive instincts and get them to rally around the GOP. Without those influencers and so-called "MAGA elites," we can't use this issue because we have zero credibility with the voters who care about it and who we're trying to turn on Trump/the GOP. We get the most mileage out of this by letting them fight amongst themselves and occasionally egging them on.
The problem with going down that rabbit hole is that you find Bill Clinton. Democrats ran interference for a sexual predator throughout the 90s purely for politics. And he might be on "the list".
In the short term, yes. In the long term, the embrace of neoliberalism (I believe) led to Trump — I’m of the opinion that Trump appealed to people tired of the economic platform embraced since Clinton (even if he did blame it on immigrants), with mass cuts to welfare, in particular, have been credited with creating our current poverty nightmare.
And not even getting the House back in 1996 when it should have been a layup (Clinton won like 280 House seats in 1996 and there were several freshmen Republicans in seats that Clinton easily carried).
How would you define “righted”? Ideological? I don’t exactly approve of welfare cuts, for one. Was that something you think we should have been doing?
Furthermore, we haven’t exactly been doing great recently — only Trump’s re election seems to have changed that. How has Clinton’s ideological push worked out in the long term?
Also, even if it were true, does that justify his actions with Epstein? Must we defend this shit?
I mean "righted" in that we could rarely get a president elected. A huge part of our judicial problems started with that. We largely moved away from Clinton's influences at least a decade ago.
What do you mean? At the uttermost worst, he committed workplace sexual harassment with Lewinsky (but he didn't offer bribes, special treatment, or make any threats so that's hazy). Broaderick was a crackpot that not even Ken Starr would bring into the fray.
NYC should keep its election in the odd number year. It will lose attention if it's moved, especially to a presidential year. Plus, from an observer point of view, it's nice to have odd year elections.
This is always the question. Does it benefit democracy more to be free from the distractions of the presidential race or to hold the poll at a time when higher turnout is virtually guaranteed.
I'm of the view that it's better to get higher turnout. NYC had 23% turnout in 2021, 26% in 2017, 26% in 2013, and 28% in 2009. No amount of increased focus in the world is worth that utterly pathetic level of turnout.
I do not know NYC's turnout for 2024 presidential, but the statewide turnout was 62%, and 70% in 2020. It's not hard to imagine that NYC would have at least twice the turnout in presidential years.
There hasn't been a truly competitive general election for mayor since 1993. The problem isn't the year, it's the lack of competition.
The primary last cycle was extremely competitive and saw a similar number of votes as the general election. Still too low even for the parts that are competitive.
Also Bloomberg only won by four points in 2009. I'd absolutely consider such a small margin to indicate a competitive race. He won by just over two points in 2001.
Where's the >50%, let alone >60%, turnout for those competitive elections? Maybe if turnout was at appropriate levels the results might have even changed! Maybe not, but we'll never know.
I forgot about 2001. In the aftermath of 9/11, turnout was a little over 40%. In 1989 and 1993, it was nearly 60%.
Those elections were also over 30 years ago. Fact is turnout is shit today, and it undermines the attention argument. If ~3/4 of voters are not showing up to vote, there's no credible way to argue that the local election is benefiting from not sharing the spotlight. Any extra attention or coverage that might be happening is being ignored.
NY state was not competitive at the presidential level in 2020 or 2024 and turnout was ~2.5x that of NYC's mayoral elections in the neighboring years. This isn't simply people refusing to show up because an election isn't competitive.
Don’t think the turnout actually hit 70% in 2020. There were 8.69m votes in 2020. The turnout rates are dependent on which denominator you use. If you use the state’s active registration back then of 12.36m, that is 70%. But the more reliable estimate of voting eligible citizen population is around 14.22m. That is, unlike the states with automatic registration, NYS has a large chunk of unregistered but eligible citizen pool, almost 2m people. That denominator gives you a rate of only 61%.
2024 turnout rate based on active registration would be 8.38m out of 12.43m at 67%, and about 60% of the eligible pool. The turnout rate drop is minimal, but the population has shrunk quite a bit.
Using registration as denominator, 2024 general election, NYC’s turnout rate was only 59%. Outside of NYC the rate was 73%. A 14% turnout difference!
"I like having elections to watch" is not a good reason to keep a system that thrives on low turnout. Like the item itself mentions, the "losing attention" angle doesn't really work either since of course people don't pay attention in elections they're not voting in. 23% turnout in 2021! 25% in 2017! They're not paying attention now!
It doesn't "thrive on low turnout." When there are competitive races, such as the Giuliani-Dinkins races of '89 and '93, turnout has been big. I'll bet turnout this November will rival those turnouts.
Maybe you're right, but even those high water marks (from 30-40 years ago, mind) are less than the 60-70% in presidential elections.
Yes. Plus likely cost savings by not having to run so many elections all the time.
That's the undemocratic argument! Besides, mayoral elections will get plenty of coverage in New York, no matter what. If they get less national coverage, who cares?
I'm 100% for less national coverage of NYC mayoral elections. It's an outlier city and it's antics just give the GOP more fodder to attack Dems in states situated south or west of NY that don't touch the Pacific Ocean.
New York has rarely elected very left-wing mayors in my lifetime, but point taken.
Just watched a clip of Stephen Colbert on Instagram (can't link, unfortunately) where he suggested he might run for Senate against Lindsay Graham in 2026, now that will be available to campaign next year. He said he's always wanted to do this, and now seems like it might be the time. As most of you know, his sister ran for a House seat in SC a few years ago.
We're going to need comedians and other highly charismatic personalities to help break through to people and generate a movement. The Zelenskyy Model.
In the Senate, Stephen Colbert would surely prove himself to be a worthy heir of Al Franken. Both are highly articulate and very serious people, not withstanding the fact that they are comedians.
Colbert could successfully run campaign ads featuring his current persona aimed at Democrats and Independents – and ads with his faux-rightwing persona aimed at Republican voters!
Colbert is employed thru May 2026. However, the SC primary is June 9, 2026. It's a cool idea, but the timing doesn't work. He'd be a good senator.
Colbert also has “fuck you” levels of money and doesn’t owe CBS anything if he wants to bounce early
He could file as an independent as late as July 15, 2026. I hope he does it. Of course, there would need to be coordination with the Democratic nominee to drop out - and I don't know if S.C. law allows a party nominee to drop out and not appear on the November ballot.
The primary would probably be a cake-walk. He wouldn't need to campaign much, just have ads and people on the ground.
But the timing does work to run against Tim Scott in 2028!
Ehh i'd rather not see Colbert go down in South Carolina, the numbers just aren't there...yet.
Given where SC is at, I'd say that accurate.
He'd likely overperform (as his sister did on her race, albeit against Mark Sanford), but that's not enough to win a solidly red state.
How much of his life has he spent in NYC now? Maybe he could primary Hochul instead...
Yeah does he even maintain a residence in SC?
Yes. And he has published a book with his wife recently on Southern food (complimentary, not critical)
Of all the things to criticize the South for, the food is not one lol
It's worth a shot given environment uncertainties.
What's the downside? He'd be a lot better than Joe Walsh.
Particularly excellent comment.
Exactly. And he'd be helping to fuel a national movement, even if he doesn't win South Carolina.
I would be so anxious about Colbert becoming a McGrath/Hegar/Harrison style money sink that distracts low information people rather than winnable races elsewhere and downballot.
All of our candidates will have enough money no matter where they’re running, money hasn’t been a problem for us in recent cycles.
There are other offices beyond US Senator and Governor and even US Rep that do not get donor attention.
True. Democratic attention on races needs to be far broader.
That is true, but it’s going to be true whether or not Colbert runs. If he does, I imagine the number of donors who give money to him that they would have given to a downballot race if he wasn’t running will be infinitesimally small.
Being that Stephen Colbert’s sister, Elizabeth Colbert-Jones, could not beat Mark Sanford in the SC-01 special election back in 2013 even with his backing, I am not sure Colbert himself would be able to get enough support to turn out Democrats in the general election beyond the normal amount.
SC is still a difficult state for Democrats to make gains compared to NC. Besides Colbert’s persona and image, what else does he have to offer?
Al Franken was already active in politics and on platforms like Air America well after his days at Saturday Night Live. Colbert projects a more apolitical image whereas Franken was an outspoken liberal.
NY 17, Lawler has, probably unsurprisingly, chosen to run for reelection rather than go for Governor. I think he's beatable in this environment with a decent campaign.
I am surprised. I think he had a better shot in the general than Stefanik. But I guess he believes Stefanik will run and he wouldn't be able to win the primary.
That's my interpretation. He was doing so badly in those primary polls - more money in a potential congressional retirement fund thank losing a primary for Governor.
Stefanik's gubernatorial bid is going to go down quicker than the Hindenburg. Just like Youngkin's heir apparent will this fall.
I never thought that Earle-Sears was Youngkin's heir apparent, and was surprised that she won the nomination unopposed.
It's not like Virginia has any shortage of bland conservative rich dudes.
He cleared the primary for her, so that was definitely his plan until Trump decided to fire federal government employees and do his usual extremist policies while in office. Why Youngkin ever thought any Republican could escape backlash to Trump is beyond me.
But maybe that’s why his super PAC hasn’t spent a dime on down ballot races for the GOP (which they were anticipating to help minimize the deficit from the green cash wave flowing into Democratic campaigns). He probably knows throwing money at any VA races this year is akin to lighting it on fire.
Hmm, I thought they'd at least try to save Miyares.
Republicans definitely are, Youngkin’s SuperPAC, not so much.
Spirit of Virginia amount raised
2021: 1.1m
2022: 6.6m
2023: 25.2m
2024: 3.4m
2025 (As of End of May): 2.5m
Spirit of Virginia amount spent on all campaigns (including his own)
2021: 1.025m
2022: 5.2m
2023: 25.6m
2024: 4m
2025 (As of End of May): 1.3m
His PAC has donated just 80k to political candidates in 2025 elections compared to the 14.1m he spent in 2023.
https://www.vpap.org/committees/374333/spirit-of-virginia/
This article says Lawler got intense pressure from Trump to go for re-election, to help defend the GOP's majority. And of course Lawler acquiesced. Trump has really been focused on keeping the House, what with all the redistricting efforts he's pushing
https://politicalwire.com/2025/07/23/mike-lawler-will-seek-re-election-to-house/
He knows that investigations and impeachment will be on the menu if Democrats win back the house.
Will they impeach him, knowing that the Senate again won't convict? I doubt it. But I get the point that he fears hearings.
Why not? They did it twice already. And there are tons more grounds this time around.
There are grounds for a lot of things that Jeffries, and still less Schumer, are not doing.
And that's a part of why I'm personally supportive of a primary challenge for Jeffries.
I don't think he has the courage to stand up to Trump.
I think this is 100,000% guaranteed. There will be no Democratic Party left if they do nothing with the power they are given after the midterms. They would be completely abdicating all responsibility and trust given to them, once again, to try to prevent this from happening. Even if it fails to remove him, and it will fail unless MAGA turns on him too, it is important to document history.
No Democratic Party left, replaced by what?
The reality is even if Democrats win both chambers (which is an uphill climb to say the least), they aren’t going to be able to convict him of anything and still have to get his support for any legislation to become law. It might be better off to pull the Pelosi move praising his fragile ego while moving almost entirely pro Democratic legislation that Trump rolls over on like he did last time.
I’m very unsure what exactly the best move to do is, because the impeachment hearings did serious damage to Trump, but they were too far away from anything to make an electoral impact. Will Democrats be willing to rev up the depressed GOP base and unite the infighting with the party against their perceived enemy: Democrats by pursuing another impeachment? Is that risk worth it?
Is history enough of a reason to give a potential lifeline to Republicans who are once again faltering with Trump in office? I honestly don’t know the answer to that and I think the partisan part of me has a completely different opinion than the practical part of me.
I'd suggest hearings about Epstein, and if they cause tremendous damage to Trump with his base, impeach him for that and the coverup.
We win this seat if we don’t nominate Sean Patrick Maloney or Mondaire Jones again. Basically any generic D should be able to flip this district back in 2026.
I'm not as sure as you are. Lawler seems to be a talented campaigner.
It’s not so much me seeing Lawler as a very weak candidate, but more him representing a Harris won district and only winning 2024 against an extremely flawed and damaged candidate with a ton of baggage by 52.2-47.9 in a Republican leaning year (yes WFP endorsed someone other than Jones, but for purpose of accurately assessing Lawler’s performance I combined them).
Put another way, Lawler’s WAR is 3.7. He overperformed Trump by just 2.9%. That’s not anywhere close to a strong incumbent performance and certainly isn’t unbeatable. It’s just above the average incumbent performance today. Lawler is only still in office because he got lucky when Democrats screwed up our nominee against him not once, but twice. A D+4 year almost certainly ends his career.
Even a small Democratic advantage with a generic D candidate would sweep him out of office. He’s not entrenched and he’s not popular. He is going to lose in 2026 in any sort of D leaning year just like many former GOP representatives and party held seats found themselves on the wrong end of political polarization in 2018.
In hindsight, 2024 was a pretty weak performance by him given how red of a year it was.
Thanks, that's a very number-based analysis.
To add on to that, I live in NY-17 and the local Dems are incredibly fired up. They may prove to be adept campaigners as well -- neither SPM nor Mondaire were strong campaigners at all (in fact, neither fucking showed up.)
It blows my mind that our nominees for a swing seat took it easy in showing up to meet voters in person. Like that is literally the best opportunity to earn a new vote. This year hopefully these crop of candidates will work the district hard this time to win the primary and then the general.
Given the massive field of Democrats and your local perspective, would love to know your opinion in who is gaining ground and/or momentum in the sprawling primary unfolding? The only candidate I really know of is Cait Conley as a West Point graduate and combat veteran with an attractive unassailable career that no Republican could credibly attack as a socialist/far left radical. But I have no idea what in district Democrats are seeing/hearing.
While Jones was weak, I wouldn't call him "extremely flawed". Not right for the district, yep, but "extreme" would be putting a little too much mustard on it.
NY-17 is still redder than the state as a whole, so IMO this makes sense.
I definitely think he's beatable, though.
She might have lost in 2022 if Republicans had been disciplined enough to run a bland, little-known moderate against her (similar to Pataki in 1994), but that's pretty much a non-starter these days.
In 2026? She'll probably underperform, but still win with room to spare.
I'm still hoping she might be defeated by Delgado in the primary.
I don't know enough about Delgado to have an opinion. I remember people being angry that he resigned from Congress to become LG because it jeopardized the seat.
I remember that, too, but I don't think it's a reason not to vote for him for Governor.
Lawler’s “by the book” defense of the deportation of Mohammad Khalil should be enough to fire up the troops, even if there are plenty of other issues to be fired up about a well.
Lawler is almost 100% free of substance.
All Republicans are.
I don't think that is a terribly compelling issue to the average voter in the district.
To be clear, I am talking about what the Mohammad Khalil deportation case represents as a matter of legal affairs, not as it relates to his specific agenda on campus at Columbia University (which I am not going to discuss here for obvious reasons).
What residents in NY-17 would likely pay attention to is the fact Mike Lawler is pro-ICE and has not shown any independence from Trump and his administration on this issue. The Khalil case got a lot of attention nationwide, namely with younger voters. Just recently, Khalil’s case got cleared and now he’s suing the Justice Department for the hell he’s had to face in this deportation fiasco.
This all boils down to due process and if anyone, even those accused of a crime, has the right to it and defending themselves in court. Even 9/11 terrorists had the right to attorneys in court. If Lawler isn’t going to budge on this issue, it’s going to be a big liability for him as he runs it re-election.
Young Voters Turn Against Trump
Trump is now at minus 40 approval with young people, down from roughly even at the start of his term, per YouGov. The buyers remorse with Gen Z is real.
https://nitter.poast.org/pic/orig/media%2FGweg8v0XsAIa01j.jpg
https://politicalwire.com/2025/07/23/young-voters-turn-on-trump/
The real question is what this portends for the Trump-allied MAGA Republican candidates in the Midterms.
Moreover, according to data journalist G. Elliott Morris: "Democrats now have a lead over Republicans in trust to handle immigration, the economy and inflation. It’s not 2024 anymore!"
https://nitter.poast.org/gelliottmorris/status/1948010965942862133#m
(Nitter is a way to access Tweets without having to visit Musk’s Xitter.)
This is fascinating data. Not even so much the GCB of D+8, but that once again with Trump being in office he breaks the Republican Party apart while uniting the Democratic Party at the same time. Part of why 2018 was such a big wave is how many Republicans broke from their party.
Democrat plan to vote for Democratic candidate: 98%
Democrat unsure who to vote for: 1%
Democrat plan to vote for Republican candidate: 1%
Republican plan to vote for Republican candidate: 92%
Republican unsure who to vote for: 3%
Republican plan to vote for Democratic candidate: 5%
The race breakdown is equally intriguing. Hispanic voters are back to their normal voting pattern. Pulling even with white voters is also huge. But in the bad news: Black voters and Asian voters haven’t shifted back and are staying more Republican than they had been previously. Something to watch out for in other polls/future elections.
At least in terms of black voter numbers, those are more closely aligned with pre-Obama numbers (Kerry received 88 percent to Bush's 11 percent), which is probably to be expected moving forward.
Our long term support from Asian voters is something I've had as a potential worry spot for a while. I never got the sense that our language or focus has ever given them anywhere near a similar focus as other racial minorities. They're a growing chunk of the electorate and a bigger part of our coalition.
Epoch Times and Hindutva groups remain a problem we haven’t really cracked there
Epoch Times?? Which demographics read that rag? As far as I know, the Falun Gong is not particularly strong in this country.
Epoch Times newspapers and visual media are quite common amongst older Chinese immigrants who otherwise have nothing to do with Falun Gong itself
Falung Gong advertises their stupid dance show all over the place in my town. I make a point of mentioning to the owners of the business that they are advertising for a cult but all but one has never given a damn.
I'm not much familiar with the former and only vaguely with the latter, but I get the idea. I agree that's an issue but I was thinking even more broadly than that. I get the sense that as a party we largely do not give them anywhere near the focus you'd expect going into this without any knowledge.
Glad you posted this - the culture war moderates over at The Liberal Patriot are still utilizing exit poll data from November to make their arguments, when anyone with access to the internet can find polling shows a full-on collapse for Trump among other voters under 29 and Latinos.
I have a gut feeling student loan fiasco is what is hitting Gen Z the most along with the attacks on funding for universities, ICE, etc. Student loans being at the top of the list.
No doubt Gen Z is mad at Trump for not giving a damn about them. Even Ronald Reagan wasn’t this much of an asshole when it came to college education (except when it came to pushing public universities to charge students in their defiance towards the Vietnam War).
Did you mean "funding" rather than "finding"?
Funding, not finding.
Thanks for pointing this out. This is what I get from making a comment with my smartphone!
Ronald Reagan made grants and scholarships taxable income. Screwed a lot of us back then.
For sure!
However, sending student tuition loans not paid to collections leaves an even more detrimental effect as each student’s credit rating would adversely be affected. I’m not sure Reagan went this extreme back in the day.
There’s another equally dramatic drop in support from a rockbed red voting group: Gen X voters 45-64 years old. They have been the strongest Republican voting age group out of any other age category for a long time in recent elections. 30 to 44 year olds and seniors haven’t shifted their opinions on Trump, but these 2 groups (Gen Z, Gen X) have.
Gen X at the start of Trump’s term were +10, now they’re -10. That’s a massive shift among the 2nd most consistent age voting group out there. Might just be a blip, but if there’s a realignment or protest vote from these voters in 2026, that would completely upend the actual battlefield in play. Worth following to see if other polls show this in any future polls.
EDIT: I just checked to confirm a hunch I had. Gen X voters in 2016 voted 51-46 for Trump. Gen X voters in 2018 voted for the Democratic candidate 50-48. So if this bares out in 2026 like it did in Trump’s first midterm, we’re almost certainly assured of a wave, the only question would be how high it goes.
I would love it to be 2006-sized, not 2018. Enough shock Dem flips to flip back the Senate and House to Dem control and actually hold the Trump regime accountable.
That would definitely be the ideal scenario for Democrats for sure. Would be a dream come true because in 2028, we could probably easily hold any majority we pick up in 2026 compared to how unfavorable this map is. Hopefully giving a Democratic president the trifecta to undo every single thing Trump has done and removing every single person Trump has put into office.
…unfortunately, that cannot include removing Kavanaugh, Gorsuch or Coney-Barrett. But a good alternative is to expand SCOTUS so that the number of justices equal the courts of appeal.
If Roy Cooper wins the open Senate seat in North Carolina next year, there's going to be a bigger fire lit under NC Dems for future cycles.
2028 is going to be expensive for Rs in NC to hold these seats:
- MAGA U.S. Senator Tedd Budd
- Retaining the MAGA majority on the NC Supreme Court (either by retaining the 5-2 or 4-3).
- Keeping Dave Boliek as state auditor (and control of the state board of elections).
If they lose all three, that's sign of a sea change in NC politics. Flipping the SCONC alone will be massive, but there's potential for a perfect storm for all three to flip. And if Phil Berger loses his primary next year, that'd be even better.
We just need Mark Robinson and Michele Morrow to be the GOP nominees for every office in North Carolina...forever.
That would be great!
More Mark Robinson and Michele Morrows to be lean, mean, fundraising and turning out the vote machines for Democrats. :)
Good post, providing that sea changes can flip back, because we know better than to think NC would flip irrevocably.
As someone squarely in Gen X, I'd advise to never count on the voting patterns of Gen X (unless you are a Republican).
But, what concerns me is that Gen Z may be duplicating our voting patterns. That they shifted toward trump at all worries me. That they are shifting away is great, but that has to include voting, and voting for Ds downballot. And if the issue is college loans, then what are the issues non-college Gen Z voters will follow to support Dems?
FYI, regarding the youngest Gen X age from 45-47, many of us in this bracket (including me) identify more as xennials than Gen Xers. Xennial is where someone typically looked at as a Gen Xer actually identifies more with the millennial generation. We are right above the age of the oldest millennials. Not everyone this age knows about what a xennial is but would likely identify as one if they knew what it meant.
Many Gen X/xennial friends I know of at this age do not vote for Trump or the GOP. There are those I know who voted for Trump to rebel against the “two party dictatorship” but prior to that never voted for the GOP. I also dated a millennial who grew up in El Centro and was a traditional Bush Republican, pro-immigration kind a woman who ended up moving to the left because of Trump.
Gen X otherwise the older they are the more likely they can potentially vote for Trump depends on who you talk to.
That said, I have a feeling the numbers of Gen Xers who are against Trump are younger than the older generation.
Team MAGA voters are already fighting each other over the Trump-Epstein connection and the regime's coverup.
Insert Popcorn and TACO emojis.
Yeah, the gubernatorial races in NJ and VA are going to be mighty interesting. Especially if GOP voter turnout craters or a fraction of them vote for Democrats.
We got persuasion votes from the GOP in many races in 2022—and that was without Trump in power. I'm certain it will happen again.
What percentage of Republican voters voted Democratic in 2022? I was under the impression that it was much more the fact that too many of them turn out only in presidential years.
I don't remember exact figures but I know that there were significant crossover votes in NV and AZ, for two examples. (I was on Election Twitter back then and followed number-crunchers from both states.)
It was 94-4 for Republican voters voting their party’s candidate and 96-3 for Democratic voters voting their party’s candidate. So a bit more of a divide in the GOP than Dems, but far less than 2018. Independents were what eliminated any red wave in 2022 because they backed Democrats 49-47 over Republicans.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/07/12/voting-patterns-in-the-2022-elections/
🌮🍿 as requested 😁
:thumbsup:
Hopefully New York and Virginia will both move to have all local elections in even year midterm elections- this will boost voter turnout and save tax money which will be needed to make up for money Trump is keeping from the states!!! After Trump is gone this money ($42 million for New York every 2 years) can be used for free all day kindergarten and free Pre-K education. All the blue states need to combine the local elections with the even year midterm elections!
Bizarre Quote of the Day:
"We will have reduced drug prices by 1000%. By 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 700, 600. Not 30 or 40 or 50%, but numbers the likes of which you’ve never even dreamed of before."
– Donald J. Trump
Reality check: Such an impressive reduction of drug prices would require drug companies to pay Americans to take them!
https://politicalwire.com/2025/07/23/trump-claims-hell-slash-drug-prices-by-1400/
One of the most innocuous things about him that gets under my skin is just how often he engages in hyperbole. Drives me up a wall.
He shoots the "underpromise and overdeliver" political axiom to smithereens—and gets away with it!
Um, Peters hardly "scored an endorsement" from Preckwinkle. She's his main political sponsor. The surprise would have been if she hadn't endorsed him.
I was reading yesterday's comments regarding state legislature sizes. And it occurred to me that in California, the size of the CA Assembly and CA Senate is 80 and 40 and hasn't changed since its 1879 Constitution. In 1880, California's population was 864K, and the 2024 pop. est. is 39.4M, which is about 45.6 times greater.
Therefore, to keep the same level of representation as when California was founded, the Assembly would be 3648 seats and the Senate would be 1824 seats!
California's state senators have larger constituencies than the U.S. House members! Something like 20-25% more people per district.
Same with TX Senators
"The Commission, whose 13 members were appointed by Mayor Eric Adams last year, said in a report that the higher turnout that accompanies presidential elections would make the municipal electorate more reflective of the city's diverse population."
So when Adams won on the back of significant black and Latino voters, the electorate didn't reflect the city's diverse population?
"significant black and Latino voters" of 23% of the voting population.
Do elections only count when there is a majority of the voting population?
Of course not, no one is saying otherwise, but isn't it better when when they do?
Yes, and I'm shocked by how much pushback it's getting. Some regulars seem to think they're members of the Undemocratic Party or something...
the LA County Dem Party debated extensively the question of moving from odd to even years in about 2015, with both sides claiming that their position was better for democracy. What it really came down to was: odd numbered years are better for candidates. Local candidates with lower name recognition don't have to compete for attention with bigger names. But even numbered years are better for voters. Voters (most of them) don't like needing to vote a lot. And I landed on the side of voter convenience, and thus higher voter turnout, rather than candidate egos. LA County did move to even numbered years and I haven't seen any ill effects from it.
Good trouble has not only helped break Trump’s MAGA base apart, but it’s also upended the House’s plans completely with Johnson sending lawmakers home early to prevent a certain to pass vote on the Epstein scandal/coverup.
Using GOP’s political tactics WORKS! That’s why they do it all the time against Democrats. And it’s already had an incredibly consequential impact for a party that holds no power in Washington to effectively stop the House from running at all. 1 week less of horrible policy passed.
Stop trying to be the better person and start trying to beat the worse person.
https://archive.ph/ny8vo
They need to hammer EVERY Republican on the Trump-Epstein connection. Do it for state legislative and judicial races too.
It even managed to draw praise from Politico
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/07/23/house-democrats-jeffrey-epstein-trump-politics-00469042
That’s the article I posted haha! Just without the email subscription wall for those who don’t want to subscribe. I’m not sure why the headlines are different (maybe it got changed after archive took the screenshot?) though.
VA-Gov: RGA is trying to figure out how little it can spend in the race to not seem like abandoning it. They spent $500k so far on Winsome Sears. They spent $10.7m for Youngkin’s run. A sure sign of confidence when the party as a whole is basically stating Miyares and not losing more seats in the State House is their priority in 2025 elections.
https://archive.ph/VPnXr
NJ Gov:
Republican gubernatorial nominee Jack Ciattarelli introduced Morris County Sheriff Jim Gannon as his running mate on Wednesday morning, launching the Jack and Jim ticket as the GOP seeks to retake the governorship.
https://newjerseyglobe.com/campaigns/ciattarelli-officially-introduces-gannon-as-running-mate/
they're clearly nervous about morris county giving jack the margins he would need to win
Two middle aged white guys from the northwest part of the state does not strike me as a balanced ticket.
I agree that it's an awful pick, but is there really any evidence that a "balanced ticket" changes much electorally?
As for Sherrill, two who many thought to be leading candidates, Troy Singleton and Benjie Wimberly, have "taken themselves" out of the running.
Sherrill does not appear to be considering sitting elected officials or members of Gov. Phil Murphy’s administration.
Less traditional, outside-the-box candidates are on Sherrill’s short list, including former Assistant Attorney General and former Newark mayoral candidate Shavar Jeffries, Statewide Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of New Jersey President Carlos Medina, Centenary College President Dale Caldwell, and Samuel A. Delgado, the vice chair of the New Jersey State Cannabis Regulatory Commission.
https://newjerseyglobe.com/governor/sherrill-ciattarelli-narrowing-list-of-lg-candidates-as-three-senators-bow-out/
Not an overly impressive list in my view. Caldwell probably the best of the group. Jeffries was a rival of Ras Baraka, so I can't see him making Baraka happy. Decision has to be made by Monday.
it seems like a dead end job in a lot of ways, but no disagreement the list went from rumblings of mayor baraka to a bunch of folks that haven't been elected to anything
Medina at least has media experience. Which is a plus.
https://quepasatv.org/
But he also lives in Morris County, although originally from Hudson.
Living in Morris County is problematic?
Only because Sherrill also lives there.
Sherrill represents most of Morris in her district, but actually resides in Essex County.
Out of those options listed, I definitely prefer Medina given what happened with Hispanic/Latino voters in New Jersey 2024.
Per Axios Cooper is in for NC Sen https://x.com/Mwilburn123/status/1948082709529530634
YAY! This is almost certainly a R-to-D Senate flip.
He'll bring in a lot of needed funds for the state Democratic Party, which will help us get Anita Earls re-elected too.
I wouldn't say "almost certainly" but it sure makes things a hell of a lot easier.
He has won SIX statewide races (attorney general, governor) here in NC. Voters know who he is, so attacks from Rs calling him a "crazy liberal socialist" or any other incendiary insult will fall flat.
He may very well be the favorite, and I agree with your main point that he’ll be harder to caricature, but past successes are never a guarantee of future wins. Bill Nelson won five consecutive statewide races in Florida before losing in 2018. Sherrod Brown was elected statewide in Ohio 5 times (though w/ a loss in 1990) before losing in 2024. Bob Casey won six statewide elections in Pennsylvania (with a primary loss in 2002) before losing in 2024. Evan Bayh won five times in a row in Indiana before losing in 2016. Mary Landrieu won five elections in Louisiana (with a loss in 2002) before losing in 2014. And popular governors don’t always make the transition to senate successfully, just ask Larry Hogan, Steve Bullock, Phil Bredesen, Linda Lingle, or Tommy Thompson.
North Carolina is a purple state and is slowly getting bluer each cycle thanks to the tech and science hubs, plus several well renowned universities. Most of the Senators and governors you mentioned are in red to red-leaning states like FL, OH, PA and LA.
NC has elected Democrats to the federal level but after 2008, state party leadership failed to counteract the state Republican Party. Now the NC GOP has been entrenched in legislative power for over 15 years with little to show apart from voter suppression, corruption and partisan power grabs.
Now we have state party leadership that gives a damn, it’s going to take work and several election cycles to undo the gerrymandering and flipping the two Senate seats blue. The fact that Anderson Clayton helped flip several statewide seats blue is a testament to her hard work— which ticked the NC GOP off big time. That’s why they rammed through veto overrides of two final power grab laws before they lost their supermajority this past January.
This is a nitpick, but since when is NC purple but PA is red-leaning?
More broadly speaking I totally agree that Anderson Clayton is great and is doing a lot to whip the state party back into shape. I’m actually bullish on Roy Cooper’s chances.
BUT we should always be cautious on our predictions, whether those are optimistic or pessimistic. Sometimes when people predict a state is trending our way it pans out (Georgia, Virginia) but sometimes those trends stop or reverse, or the underlying parameters driving the trend shift. There have been predictions of blue Texas for at least the last 15 years, and I remember when blue Florida was treated as something of an inevitability because of the state’s diverse population. Likewise, a proven history of winning is the probably the single best predictor of future success, so it’s hard to imagine a stronger candidate than Cooper. But even strong candidates can find themselves at the mercy of the electoral winds. Weak candidates can win in favorable years and can benefit from unexpected shifts in voting patterns, and even strong and well known candidates can fall unexpectedly in the face of a hostile environment.
Cooper may be the strongest candidate, but in a swing state like NC I don’t think either party can ever treat victory as ‘almost certain’
He's won a bunch of tough elections, but they've all been at the state level and for executive offices where he's basically the boss. Now he's running for a federal legislature where he's going to pledge to vote for Chuck Schumer to be his leader. It's not the same.
"almost certainly" is a huge stretch in such a competitive state, but it's definitely a positive development.
I would think the likeliness of it flipping is very high in the end, but I don’t think it’ll ever get to a point where he comfortably wins, so I think a Tilt D/Lean D rating is probably the most appropriate at the start of the campaign and I seriously doubt it ever gets to Likely D. It’s a red tinged purple state, Republicans won’t just give up on this race (unless Morrow or Robinson wins the nomination) no matter how strong a candidate Cooper is for Democrats.
I really have doubts any political prognosticator/pundit would ever move a purple state to Safe for either party, regardless of how bad the candidate is. Case in point: Robinson vs Stein 2024. He lost by almost 15 points.
Here’s the last update on the race after the Black Nazi bombshell from the 3 biggest nonpartisan ratings organizations. They didn’t move the race after these changes.
Cook: Likely D https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/governors/north-carolina-governor
Sabato: Likely D https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2024-rating-changes/
Inside Elections: Likely D https://www.insideelections.com/news/article/north-carolina-governor-slips-from-republicans-mark-robinson-josh-stein
If they didn’t do it with Robinson running as the incumbent Attorney General Democrat Josh Stein’s opponent, this Senate race is not going to be ever rated Safe D with a likely less awful GOP candidate. And I highly doubt they’d go to Likely D at any point either (unless Robinson or Morrow run and win the nomination).
No certainty in NC, the voters definitely lean right. We've lost more than we've won in these close contests.
Actually you’re wrong. The state is starting to shift left.
Anderson Clayton fought hard to help Dems score several more wins last year, particularly AG, Superintendent, LG and the SCONC seat.
And had we had fair state legislative maps in place last year, NC Dems would’ve scored a trifecta. A slim majority of N.C. voters voted for Dem legislators but because our state is so gerrymandered, Rs control 59-60% of the seats.
None of that proves I'm wrong.
Link to Axios story. https://www.axios.com/2025/07/23/roy-cooper-run-north-carolina-senate-democrat
It would seem that after a sluggish quiet start, the election in Iowa 2nd is starting to pick up steam and attract more notable Democratic challengers. Notably, all the congressional races in Iowa, including for the blood red 4th have at least 2 challengers in the Democratic primaries, which means that there should be quite a bit of energy among the left leaning voters and candidates. Still I wonder why Kevin Techau's bid for the 2nd fell so flat with fundraising. He's a well decorated Air Force veteran and his a solid background as a US Attorney appointed under Obama. Perhaps his candidacy was announced too early, but it's still surprising given 2026 is projected to be a strong year for Democrats especially with a toxic incumbent in the Oval Office.
Question I have for folks here:
When talking about Epstein, should Democrats starting making the Republican-pedophilia-sexual abuse connections go beyond Epstein?
For example, while talking about Epstein, should leading voices in the Democratic party start reminding people about Dennis Hastert, Mark Foley, Jim Jordan as a coach at Ohio State, etc.?
I have a feeling that there is an opportunity to help certain MAGA-inclined, conspiratorial voters start to see the Republican Party differently. And frankly, in my personal opinion, it would lead to them seeing the GOP more accurately: as a party that's welcomed and even advocated for sexual abusers.
Just keep it simple and direct. Reminding them of Hastert should be enough.
Yes.
For most of us talking about this, yes, I think it's great to do so. The first two of those predators may be less effective as they are dated, but Jordan is still an active politician and in the US house. There is a real culture of sexual predation there.
For candidates, maybe, maybe not? They shouldn't avoid it, but just with opportunity costs and focusing on their overall message, I'd guess they'll typically center their campaigns on cost of living issues. But there's certainly nothing inherently wrong with bringing it up incidentally.
I actually wouldn't do that. The last thing we want to do is provoke negative partisanship and make Republicans rally around the flag because they hate us more than they do pedophiles. Various commentators I've heard are suggesting that instead of posting our own content on Epstein, we just repost outraged MAGA content so that we amplify Republicans' anger rather than get in the middle of it, which I think is the right approach. If we try to add on other issues of people most Republicans have either forgotten about or have decided they don't care about, it'll only make it into a partisan issue.
True, the MAGA influencers are stoking the flames on this and are turning the outrage machine against Trump, but I don't think they'll allow non-Epstein pedophilia stories to enter the narrative. It's easier for them to say that Trump betrayed them on this specific campaign promise than it is for them to admit they're enabling a party of lecherous creeps. If we try to force the issue, it'll only provoke their defensive instincts and get them to rally around the GOP. Without those influencers and so-called "MAGA elites," we can't use this issue because we have zero credibility with the voters who care about it and who we're trying to turn on Trump/the GOP. We get the most mileage out of this by letting them fight amongst themselves and occasionally egging them on.
The problem with going down that rabbit hole is that you find Bill Clinton. Democrats ran interference for a sexual predator throughout the 90s purely for politics. And he might be on "the list".
So? I’m sure he is.
If he is, so be it. Quite frankly his ideological influence on the party in the 90s was poisonous anyway, so I would be glad to be rid of him.
Yea, that winning the white house twice was the pits
In the short term, yes. In the long term, the embrace of neoliberalism (I believe) led to Trump — I’m of the opinion that Trump appealed to people tired of the economic platform embraced since Clinton (even if he did blame it on immigrants), with mass cuts to welfare, in particular, have been credited with creating our current poverty nightmare.
Can’t say I appreciate your snarky tone either.
NAFTA, the Telecomm Act, financial deregulation. Wall Street first.
Trump is a direct follow up to Nixon and Reagan. did Bill Clinton also cause Nixon and Reagan?
So was losing control of congress for the first time in 40 years.
And not even getting the House back in 1996 when it should have been a layup (Clinton won like 280 House seats in 1996 and there were several freshmen Republicans in seats that Clinton easily carried).
I disagree that Clinton was poisonous. Prior to Clinton we had 20, arguably 24, years of failure as party. He righted that
How would you define “righted”? Ideological? I don’t exactly approve of welfare cuts, for one. Was that something you think we should have been doing?
Furthermore, we haven’t exactly been doing great recently — only Trump’s re election seems to have changed that. How has Clinton’s ideological push worked out in the long term?
Also, even if it were true, does that justify his actions with Epstein? Must we defend this shit?
I mean "righted" in that we could rarely get a president elected. A huge part of our judicial problems started with that. We largely moved away from Clinton's influences at least a decade ago.
What do you mean? At the uttermost worst, he committed workplace sexual harassment with Lewinsky (but he didn't offer bribes, special treatment, or make any threats so that's hazy). Broaderick was a crackpot that not even Ken Starr would bring into the fray.
If so, so be it.