I am deeply curious if Americans for Prosperity polled GOP voters all over the country or just in swingy states. Because if it's all over the country... it could potentially be a mix of 2018 and 2010 in reverse.
I can’t help but wonder if pollsters have an accurate pulse on the electorate right now
This is the most demoralized and low energy I’ve ever seen MAGA and the Republican base. And while the Democratic brand is underwater I’m seeing a lot of excitement for individual candidates, even here in deep red Arkansas
Senate. Hallie Schoffner’s generating a decent amount of buzz and is fundraising well, especially for a Dem in Arkansas (outraised Tom Cotton in the most recent quarter I believe)
She won’t win, but I think it says a lot if there’s this much enthusiasm for a legitimate candidate even in a red state like ours
I also forgot to mention, there’s also the second congressional district. Chris Jones, the Democratic nominee for governor in 2022, is putting up a decent fight against French Hill. He’s raised about a fourth of what Hill has, which is impressive when taking into account the district’s red lean, and even had Pete Buttigieg come down and campaign with him.
I feel like Arkansas has the potential to surprise a lot of people in November with closer than expected elections that might demonstrate a promising future in the state. Or maybe it’s just wishful thinking because I live here and want this place to be better… we’ll see, I suppose
"In selecting Lesley as his nominee for lieutenant governor, Phil has made clear...that the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe will have a key partner and ally who honors and respects the Tribes’ sovereignty..."
It does not appear that Dahlkemper is associated with either tribe, as far as I can tell?
If it breaks the rules I’m happy to take it down and recontextualize it once I get into the office. I felt like it was fine because it’s more about her reaction and they don’t directly ask about the forbidden issue. The questioner asks her question in the context of a certain PAC support of pro-life Republicans.
I preferred her too. I thought she'd be able to thread the needle enough to win, but she ended up pissing off both sides and now we're stuck with two less than ideal candidates for different reasons. (Though I prefer AES and think he'd be a great Senator)
No way is it anything worse than a tossup with either candidate in this political environment. I'd consider it Tilt D with Stevens and a tossup with AES.
That sounds about right. I think once the primary's over the Dem should consolidate support. I think McMorrow might have done about a point (margin, not vote share) better than Stevens, maybe 3-4 points better than El Sayed.
I think the more people see of her and the more people see of AES they will change their mind on who is more “electable”. Many average people vote on vibes or likability more than actual policy unfortunately, and AES is miles ahead of Stevens in that department
Rachel Bitecofer is angling for Stevens to win. She thinks AES winning the primary would make it a toss-up, while Stevens would make the seat a safe D hold.
There’s no way there’s that much of a disparity between the two candidates. Maybe I’m biased but I’d rather be AES than Stevens. Atleast AES can try to convince people to back his policies, how is Stevens going to convince people she’s not annoying?
With either candidate, it’s Lean to Likely D. Especially in this political environment when Rogers couldn’t even win in a Republican environment
unless you have a son and his fiancee volunteering for one of the candidates, who calls you every couple of days just to tell you the latest developments (that you saw on Politico that morning) in which case WI-Gov becomes most annoying... and then you meet the candidate, and she promises to officiate at their wedding, in which case it becomes Greatest Primary Ever.
Not sure if I do! At least while it's still in the primary mode, there's a degree of separation before it becomes a trainwreck general election campaign!
While the House map is better for Rs than 2024's was, it's not really better than 2018's was. Compared to 2018, this year's House map has a median seat that isn't as R, fewer seats that voted right of the nation, and a similar number of plausible D targets.
Democrats lost three seats: PA-14, due to the new map, and also MN-1 and 8. They won 43 seats, for a net gain of 40. That’s bigger than either 2006 or 2008, by the way.
We're starting from a higher baseline number of seats, so getting that number of flips isn't likely, but based on his analysis getting the same number of seats (235 in 2018) wouldn't be harder than it was in that cycle.
No way - we currently have 212 seats. Leading up to 2018 we had 194. Combine that with redistricting and we won't flip anywhere close to that number. That said, we should still win the house comfortably unless something big changes between now and November.
I think just under 230 is where I would set an over/under right now. IDK, 226-227?
I would have said around 235 prior to the VA decision and VRA stuff.
But with the caveat I think over 230 is more likely than under 222 or so. And if things continue to go south for the GOP, much likelier.
If we start to get into territory where gereymander becomes dummymander, then all bets are off. There are a lot of seats in that 10-20 point range. We probably could not hold them, but ya never know.
Yeah it’s not just how many seats we’ll win this year, it’s how many we can hold going forward in a more neutral year (which presidential years usually are, except for 2008 for various reasons).
It seems I apparently missed something in the WA-09 thing I mentioned - remember how I said candidate Melissa Chaudhury was planning to become a Green on winning? That wasn’t all - she refused to commit to LGBT issues, claiming it would cost her the Muslim vote (probably bullshit). WTF
Also Kevin, the author of Primary School, seems to think Rebecca Cooke may have a tough primary against leftier challenger Emily Berge, the former Eau Claire city council president who now has a local DSA endorsement. Make of that what you will.
Oh, and Josh Elliott’s performance in the CT-Gov debate was apparently quite good too.
This makes me think Rebecca Cooke could be a good party unifier for the 2028 Senate race between the wings were she to win this year. I could give two shits about her only being in the House one term or giving up her seat to run. That Senate seat is much more important and we can’t afford to fuck it up again like we are in the gubernatorial race this year.
Honesty I suspect Ben Wikler might run, and he could be a good unifier. He’s popular on the left (he was an associate of the late progressive hacktivist/personal inspiration of mine Aaron Swartz) and a number of the center (including Jeffries, Schumer, and Reid Hoffman) wanted him as chair of the DNC too, so maybe he could do it. Lord knows he knows how to campaign.
Running a state party is much different than being the candidate yourself though. I think he was genuine when he said he didn’t want to run anything, or else he would’ve been the frontrunner in this comically weak gubernatorial field right now.
Cooke might be the rare or only person who can unite both the left and center, and we need that with how critical that Senate seat is going to be in 2028. We can’t afford another nasty primary up until August again while Ron Johnson bides his time. Plus she’ll have had the benefit of having run against an incumbent as odious as Johnson.
"if you want to cast the most effective anti-Smith vote, it won't be for Chaudhry this year". (Primary School)
OK, but voting for Ms. "Vote for Jill Stein and so what if it helps Trump win" doesn't sound particularly effective either, and in the unlikely event that Sawant were somehow elected she'd probably be a leftist purity troll who might do more to sink legislation that doesn't meet her standards of progressiveness than pass it.
High on the list of things you don’t want to say in the Seattle region is “and here’s why I, a Democrat, plan to hurl LGBT voters under the bus to appease social conservatives”
WA-9 - Melissa Chaudhry is the phoniest "progressive" ever:
"The trouble for Chaudhry, a candidate for U.S. Congressional District 9 in Seattle, began with an endorsement meeting with the city’s alt weekly publication The Stranger.
“I don’t want you to publish this,” Chaudhry blurted before explaining her planned party switch, “but if elected, my personal plan and commitment is to be the first Green Party member of Congress that would switch parties while I’m in office.”"
This is the same Melissa Chaudhry, who is listed on the primary ballot as a Democrat, who admitted to not mentioning her support for justice, health care, and housing and employment protections to avoid offending Muslim voters, most of whom probably wouldn't be offended by those things.
''Rep. Zach Nunn “This wasn’t my finest moment, I shouldn’t have responded this way, and I set a bad example,” he said. “Partisan political operatives are paid to roam Capitol Hill and harass members. ''
Yet they have no problem when far right wing fake news sources harass and intimidate true dems.
In a sign of the times, Canadian politician Bill Oliver was caught reading an AI-generated speech for the dumbest reason: he copy-pasted part of the AI's output that wasn't meant to actually be in the speech.
Oliver is a member of the "Progressive Conservative" party, which sounds oxymoronic to me. I don't know Canadian politics but Wikipedia describes them as center-right.
It was literally because of a leadership change. The Conservative Party elected John Bracken, who was the Premier of Manitoba under the Liberal-Progressive Party, as the federal leader in 1942, and it stayed like that until 2003 when it joined the Canadian Alliance (previously Reform Party, the hard right and mostly western Canadian splitters) and went back to Conservative Party.
Most of the provincial Conservative parties adapted the same PC branding, and in some cases were actually the more "progressive" of the two major parties. In Ontario, where I live, the PC Party controlled government for over 40 years post WW2, but during that time expanded public funding of education, opened more colleges and universities, implemented Medicare, expanded public transit in the Toronto area, and didn't turn hard right until the 1995 election of Mike Harris who took a page from Newt Gingrich and rolled back a lot of his own party's legacy.
AK-Gov: tensions are high due to the Michigan and Wisconsin primaries, so here is some positive news—both Democrats lapped the Republican fields in fundraising for the Alaska gubernatorial race. I hope after the top 4 primary next month that the second place Democrat drops out to consolidate. This race should probably be viewed as a tossup by now.
If both Democrats make the top 4, there's no reason to drop out. We should have an aggressive ranking campaign, not try to end-run around RCV like Republicans do.
The Republicans end ran RCV in 2024 and it ended up with Peltola getting screwed sharing the top 4 with a convicted felon using the Dem label who didn’t even live in Alaska. If Republicans consolidate around one Republican again, we need to do the same or we’re probably screwed.
Not really. Begich led Peltola by 6,800 in the first round. Hafner only got 3,550 votes so that could not have changed the outcome. Indeed, when his second place votes were distributed, Peltola only gained a bit over 1,000 and still trailed by 5,800.
If two Democrats are in the top-4, all they need to do is choose the other as a second choice. And they should urge their supporters to do just that.
That’s easier said than done. If there’s just one Republican, two Democrats, and indy Bill Walker in the top four because of dropouts and what have you, there’s a high chance of exhausted votes between the 3rd and 4th place Dem and Indy that will screw the highest-ranked Dem. The Republicans understood the risk of exhausted ballots after learning it the hard way in 2022.
The calculus probably changes if it’s two Republicans and two Democrats in the top 4, though. Assuming no one drops out, Democrats could campaign as a team, but I think that’s still taking a big gamble that voters will successfully rank their ballots without exhausting them.
As long as the Democrats publicly go easy on each other and cross-endorse, this shouldn't be too much of an issue. While early ballot exhaustion is a potential problem, it's still probably for the best voters are given more than two real options.
Where are they now: 2020 Utah gubernatorial Democratic nominee Chris Peterson has been selected by Mikie Sherrill to lead the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs.
“Mutnick also points out that Michigan Sunrise is using an obscure bank called Black Hills Community Bank that is based in South Dakota and is also used by South Dakota Republicans like Rep. Dusty Johnson and state Attorney General Marty Jackley. The bank has just two branches and ranks 1,809th in size among American banks based on total assets.“ Democrats from Andrew Jackson through William Jennings Bryan and Harry Truman would have choked on your recommendation of the somehow more appropriate JP Morgan/Chase.
“The bank has just two branches?” A great many of the banks the like of which Democrats have championed for generations do business at ONE location. Shame on you.
Shame on Tom Barrett and Michigan Sunrise PAC for stronger and more topical reasons.
This was pisted in the open thread but is so delicious, I thought it should get some play this week.
20% of reliable GOP base voters thinking of not voting or voting Dem in 2026.
Survey from a RW/Koch aligned group story in WAPO.
https://archive.ph/x2uJU
I am deeply curious if Americans for Prosperity polled GOP voters all over the country or just in swingy states. Because if it's all over the country... it could potentially be a mix of 2018 and 2010 in reverse.
I can’t help but wonder if pollsters have an accurate pulse on the electorate right now
This is the most demoralized and low energy I’ve ever seen MAGA and the Republican base. And while the Democratic brand is underwater I’m seeing a lot of excitement for individual candidates, even here in deep red Arkansas
Which races in AR?
Senate. Hallie Schoffner’s generating a decent amount of buzz and is fundraising well, especially for a Dem in Arkansas (outraised Tom Cotton in the most recent quarter I believe)
She won’t win, but I think it says a lot if there’s this much enthusiasm for a legitimate candidate even in a red state like ours
I also forgot to mention, there’s also the second congressional district. Chris Jones, the Democratic nominee for governor in 2022, is putting up a decent fight against French Hill. He’s raised about a fourth of what Hill has, which is impressive when taking into account the district’s red lean, and even had Pete Buttigieg come down and campaign with him.
I feel like Arkansas has the potential to surprise a lot of people in November with closer than expected elections that might demonstrate a promising future in the state. Or maybe it’s just wishful thinking because I live here and want this place to be better… we’ll see, I suppose
Here’s hoping Trump boosts those numbers to 40 or 50%.
Come on Trump. You can do it! /s
Those are doomsday level numbers.
CO-LG: Not sure if this was posted in the weekend thread, but Weiser announced Jefferson County Commissioner Lesley Dahlkemper as his LG pick.
https://philforcolorado.com/breaking-phil-weiser-announces-county-commissioner-lesley-dahlkemper-as-lieutenant-governor-nominee/
What does the press release mean by this?
"In selecting Lesley as his nominee for lieutenant governor, Phil has made clear...that the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe will have a key partner and ally who honors and respects the Tribes’ sovereignty..."
It does not appear that Dahlkemper is associated with either tribe, as far as I can tell?
Maybe she just has a history of working closely with them?
I wonder who Marx will get to agree to be his running mate, lol
Engels :P
Shout out this morning to “the Downballot’s invaluable collection of presidential results by congressional district” at Sabato’s Crystal Ball
https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/the-2026-house-map-versus-2018/
Not a good look for Haley Stevens. I’m sure it’s just because the questioner is a coastal elite who makes fun of the way she talks. https://bsky.app/profile/juliusgoat.bsky.social/post/3mrmxldrmgs2w
Careful mentioning this sort of thing
If it breaks the rules I’m happy to take it down and recontextualize it once I get into the office. I felt like it was fine because it’s more about her reaction and they don’t directly ask about the forbidden issue. The questioner asks her question in the context of a certain PAC support of pro-life Republicans.
I have it Tilt/Lean R with either. Likely D with McMorrow, though I am biased (and she clearly didn't run a great campaign)
I preferred her too. I thought she'd be able to thread the needle enough to win, but she ended up pissing off both sides and now we're stuck with two less than ideal candidates for different reasons. (Though I prefer AES and think he'd be a great Senator)
No way is it anything worse than a tossup with either candidate in this political environment. I'd consider it Tilt D with Stevens and a tossup with AES.
That sounds about right. I think once the primary's over the Dem should consolidate support. I think McMorrow might have done about a point (margin, not vote share) better than Stevens, maybe 3-4 points better than El Sayed.
I think the more people see of her and the more people see of AES they will change their mind on who is more “electable”. Many average people vote on vibes or likability more than actual policy unfortunately, and AES is miles ahead of Stevens in that department
Rachel Bitecofer is angling for Stevens to win. She thinks AES winning the primary would make it a toss-up, while Stevens would make the seat a safe D hold.
Honestly, she's been wrong before.
Wait wasn’t Bitecofer the one who said the U.S. should have UK-style primaries to keep the left out? Why are we listening to her?
She has some good ideas but unfortunately pushes a lot of sensationalism and sky-is-falling BS.
The one thing she's onto is negative partisanship and Democrats HAVE to get onboard with using the GOP's playbook against them going forward.
That's why I initially liked her was calling for the Dems to fight. But I don't care much for her lately, especially after here 2020 calls.
She was right once and was hailed as an election guru. She’s a grifter who has no idea what she’s talking about.
There’s no way there’s that much of a disparity between the two candidates. Maybe I’m biased but I’d rather be AES than Stevens. Atleast AES can try to convince people to back his policies, how is Stevens going to convince people she’s not annoying?
With either candidate, it’s Lean to Likely D. Especially in this political environment when Rogers couldn’t even win in a Republican environment
I think either way it starts at Lean-Dem
He is ahead on both. YMMV, of course.
The most important thing is that both are better than team red.
I really, REALLY look forward to not having to talk/read about this craptastic primary any longer.
I blame Schumer for boxing out McMorrow.
I’d feel a lot less queasy if the primary was between El-Sayed and McMorrow, for sure
it's currently leading as The Most Annoying Primary In America. Prior winners: TX-Sen, CA-Gov, and ME-Sen.
WI-Gov is a close 2nd place.
unless you have a son and his fiancee volunteering for one of the candidates, who calls you every couple of days just to tell you the latest developments (that you saw on Politico that morning) in which case WI-Gov becomes most annoying... and then you meet the candidate, and she promises to officiate at their wedding, in which case it becomes Greatest Primary Ever.
This made me laugh out loud
Not sure if I do! At least while it's still in the primary mode, there's a degree of separation before it becomes a trainwreck general election campaign!
While the House map is better for Rs than 2024's was, it's not really better than 2018's was. Compared to 2018, this year's House map has a median seat that isn't as R, fewer seats that voted right of the nation, and a similar number of plausible D targets.
https://x.com/kkondik/status/2081703091544469718?s=46&t=sbdQQeYBqp0h_Zql717iTw
Wow. Democrats won 41 seats in 2018, so even with the gerrymandering last year, we might flip close to that number again?
Well, we may flip close to that number again, but the net will be lower due to the gerrymandering/VRA stuff.
IIRC, I don't think Dems lost any (or very few) seats in 2018. The GOP flipped almost nothing.
That won't be the case this year. There are 10-15 GOP flips baked in unless it really gets to be a tsunami.
Democrats lost three seats: PA-14, due to the new map, and also MN-1 and 8. They won 43 seats, for a net gain of 40. That’s bigger than either 2006 or 2008, by the way.
His analysis takes into account post-gerrymandered districts
We're starting from a higher baseline number of seats, so getting that number of flips isn't likely, but based on his analysis getting the same number of seats (235 in 2018) wouldn't be harder than it was in that cycle.
No way - we currently have 212 seats. Leading up to 2018 we had 194. Combine that with redistricting and we won't flip anywhere close to that number. That said, we should still win the house comfortably unless something big changes between now and November.
I think just under 230 is where I would set an over/under right now. IDK, 226-227?
I would have said around 235 prior to the VA decision and VRA stuff.
But with the caveat I think over 230 is more likely than under 222 or so. And if things continue to go south for the GOP, much likelier.
If we start to get into territory where gereymander becomes dummymander, then all bets are off. There are a lot of seats in that 10-20 point range. We probably could not hold them, but ya never know.
Yeah it’s not just how many seats we’ll win this year, it’s how many we can hold going forward in a more neutral year (which presidential years usually are, except for 2008 for various reasons).
https://primaryschool.ghost.io/07-27-2/
New Primary School issue is out today.
It seems I apparently missed something in the WA-09 thing I mentioned - remember how I said candidate Melissa Chaudhury was planning to become a Green on winning? That wasn’t all - she refused to commit to LGBT issues, claiming it would cost her the Muslim vote (probably bullshit). WTF
Also Kevin, the author of Primary School, seems to think Rebecca Cooke may have a tough primary against leftier challenger Emily Berge, the former Eau Claire city council president who now has a local DSA endorsement. Make of that what you will.
Oh, and Josh Elliott’s performance in the CT-Gov debate was apparently quite good too.
Cooke appears to be the only candidate in the entire country with endorsements from both Bernie Sanders and the New Dems, which is an odd pairing.
Bob Brooks was endorsed by Bernie and the Blue Dog PAC
And the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Hakeem Jeffries, and Josh Shapiro. Apparently not liking Ryan Mackenzie is a big tent.
This makes me think Rebecca Cooke could be a good party unifier for the 2028 Senate race between the wings were she to win this year. I could give two shits about her only being in the House one term or giving up her seat to run. That Senate seat is much more important and we can’t afford to fuck it up again like we are in the gubernatorial race this year.
Honesty I suspect Ben Wikler might run, and he could be a good unifier. He’s popular on the left (he was an associate of the late progressive hacktivist/personal inspiration of mine Aaron Swartz) and a number of the center (including Jeffries, Schumer, and Reid Hoffman) wanted him as chair of the DNC too, so maybe he could do it. Lord knows he knows how to campaign.
Running a state party is much different than being the candidate yourself though. I think he was genuine when he said he didn’t want to run anything, or else he would’ve been the frontrunner in this comically weak gubernatorial field right now.
Cooke might be the rare or only person who can unite both the left and center, and we need that with how critical that Senate seat is going to be in 2028. We can’t afford another nasty primary up until August again while Ron Johnson bides his time. Plus she’ll have had the benefit of having run against an incumbent as odious as Johnson.
That’s cute that Melissa Chaudhury is talking as if she will win.
I a m just waiting for the cries of fraud and rigged and stolen election when they lose.
Would be shocked if Cooke lost that primary.
"if you want to cast the most effective anti-Smith vote, it won't be for Chaudhry this year". (Primary School)
OK, but voting for Ms. "Vote for Jill Stein and so what if it helps Trump win" doesn't sound particularly effective either, and in the unlikely event that Sawant were somehow elected she'd probably be a leftist purity troll who might do more to sink legislation that doesn't meet her standards of progressiveness than pass it.
Sawant was the most consistently useless council member yet has a gargantuan personality cult so that would indeed check out
To be fair, Kevin’s not a Sawant fan — in other newsletters as well as on Bluesky, he has not exactly expressed admiration for her.
High on the list of things you don’t want to say in the Seattle region is “and here’s why I, a Democrat, plan to hurl LGBT voters under the bus to appease social conservatives”
Wish I could like this about a billion times. Smith is my congressman and I love him. Sending him some $ right now.
NC-SC: Incumbent Democratic justice Anita Earls has over $3.5M in campaign contributions. Her R rival? Only $258K.
https://www.axios.com/local/raleigh/2026/07/24/democrats-have-a-big-funding-advantage-in-state-supreme-court-race
I expect NC Rs to spend a ton in 2028 to keep Budd in his Senate seat and retain the majority on both Circuit Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.
WA-9 - Melissa Chaudhry is the phoniest "progressive" ever:
"The trouble for Chaudhry, a candidate for U.S. Congressional District 9 in Seattle, began with an endorsement meeting with the city’s alt weekly publication The Stranger.
“I don’t want you to publish this,” Chaudhry blurted before explaining her planned party switch, “but if elected, my personal plan and commitment is to be the first Green Party member of Congress that would switch parties while I’m in office.”"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/progressive-dem-get-backlash-for-hiding-her-lgbtq-support-i-don-t-want-you-to-publish-this/ar-AA28CRDz?ocid=BingNewsSerp
This is the same Melissa Chaudhry, who is listed on the primary ballot as a Democrat, who admitted to not mentioning her support for justice, health care, and housing and employment protections to avoid offending Muslim voters, most of whom probably wouldn't be offended by those things.
These kinds of candidates (on both sides I might add) always astound me with their profound lack of sense, both political and in general
I saw Chaudhry’s bio. It really confuses me and needs a serious rewrite.
First, she says she’s secured $3.2 million in affordable housing and has a practice in cooperative economics. In what role did she do this?
Next she mentions being a USPS union worker and then also is a part-time union worker elsewhere. ????
Is Chaudhry really telling the truth about her life or is she exaggerating? I’m really lost here.
https://www.votemelissa4congress.com/about.html
She has very little chance making the top 2. It will be either Sawant or the Republican (probably Sawant)
''Rep. Zach Nunn “This wasn’t my finest moment, I shouldn’t have responded this way, and I set a bad example,” he said. “Partisan political operatives are paid to roam Capitol Hill and harass members. ''
Yet they have no problem when far right wing fake news sources harass and intimidate true dems.
In fact they cheer and clap it on.
That asshole deserves to lose his seat. Fucking LIAR.
All Republicans in both houses deserve to lose their seats.
In a sign of the times, Canadian politician Bill Oliver was caught reading an AI-generated speech for the dumbest reason: he copy-pasted part of the AI's output that wasn't meant to actually be in the speech.
"Here's a more natural, flowing version of that section that reads like a legislative speech rather than a series of short points,” he told the assembly. https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/canada-politician-ai-bill-oliver-b3022525.html
Oliver is a member of the "Progressive Conservative" party, which sounds oxymoronic to me. I don't know Canadian politics but Wikipedia describes them as center-right.
Progressive Conservative is the name most of the provincial center-right parties have chosen, for whatever reason.
Because that’s what they used to be. Up to the 80s there was not a great ideological difference between them and the Liberals.
It was literally because of a leadership change. The Conservative Party elected John Bracken, who was the Premier of Manitoba under the Liberal-Progressive Party, as the federal leader in 1942, and it stayed like that until 2003 when it joined the Canadian Alliance (previously Reform Party, the hard right and mostly western Canadian splitters) and went back to Conservative Party.
Most of the provincial Conservative parties adapted the same PC branding, and in some cases were actually the more "progressive" of the two major parties. In Ontario, where I live, the PC Party controlled government for over 40 years post WW2, but during that time expanded public funding of education, opened more colleges and universities, implemented Medicare, expanded public transit in the Toronto area, and didn't turn hard right until the 1995 election of Mike Harris who took a page from Newt Gingrich and rolled back a lot of his own party's legacy.
My favorite anecdote about Bracken is that he would only accept said election if the Conservatives adopted the new name
Funny enough Jared Golden described himself as a "progressive conservative" too
AK-Gov: tensions are high due to the Michigan and Wisconsin primaries, so here is some positive news—both Democrats lapped the Republican fields in fundraising for the Alaska gubernatorial race. I hope after the top 4 primary next month that the second place Democrat drops out to consolidate. This race should probably be viewed as a tossup by now.
https://alaskapublic.org/news/politics/elections/2026-07-24/democrat-in-alaskas-governor-race-reports-1-8-million-fundraising-haul-driven-by-californians
If both Democrats make the top 4, there's no reason to drop out. We should have an aggressive ranking campaign, not try to end-run around RCV like Republicans do.
The Republicans end ran RCV in 2024 and it ended up with Peltola getting screwed sharing the top 4 with a convicted felon using the Dem label who didn’t even live in Alaska. If Republicans consolidate around one Republican again, we need to do the same or we’re probably screwed.
Not really. Begich led Peltola by 6,800 in the first round. Hafner only got 3,550 votes so that could not have changed the outcome. Indeed, when his second place votes were distributed, Peltola only gained a bit over 1,000 and still trailed by 5,800.
If two Democrats are in the top-4, all they need to do is choose the other as a second choice. And they should urge their supporters to do just that.
That’s easier said than done. If there’s just one Republican, two Democrats, and indy Bill Walker in the top four because of dropouts and what have you, there’s a high chance of exhausted votes between the 3rd and 4th place Dem and Indy that will screw the highest-ranked Dem. The Republicans understood the risk of exhausted ballots after learning it the hard way in 2022.
The calculus probably changes if it’s two Republicans and two Democrats in the top 4, though. Assuming no one drops out, Democrats could campaign as a team, but I think that’s still taking a big gamble that voters will successfully rank their ballots without exhausting them.
As long as the Democrats publicly go easy on each other and cross-endorse, this shouldn't be too much of an issue. While early ballot exhaustion is a potential problem, it's still probably for the best voters are given more than two real options.
https://newjerseyglobe.com/governor/sherrill-chooses-ex-utah-gubernatorial-candidate-to-run-n-j-consumer-affairs/
Where are they now: 2020 Utah gubernatorial Democratic nominee Chris Peterson has been selected by Mikie Sherrill to lead the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs.
They are so out of ideas they have to steal Democrat ideas.
'Didn’t even take out the donkey': North Carolina GOP busted for ripping off Dem graphic
https://www.rawstory.com/north-carolina-gop-2677250669/
“Mutnick also points out that Michigan Sunrise is using an obscure bank called Black Hills Community Bank that is based in South Dakota and is also used by South Dakota Republicans like Rep. Dusty Johnson and state Attorney General Marty Jackley. The bank has just two branches and ranks 1,809th in size among American banks based on total assets.“ Democrats from Andrew Jackson through William Jennings Bryan and Harry Truman would have choked on your recommendation of the somehow more appropriate JP Morgan/Chase.
“The bank has just two branches?” A great many of the banks the like of which Democrats have championed for generations do business at ONE location. Shame on you.
Shame on Tom Barrett and Michigan Sunrise PAC for stronger and more topical reasons.