I posted it in yesterday’s comments section, but this is worth reposting: even after a Trump endorsement and re-gerrymandering the Congressional maps, NC state Senate leader Phil Berger (the most corrupt and damaging man in NC politics) could lose his primary race to Sam Page. Page is polling 10 points ahead of Berger in a recent GOP leaning survey.
He very well can lose, especially if he barely makes it through the primary (and if the Page voters don't vote for him in Nov). Ditto for Buck Newton who also won by 54-55%.
Berger's right-hand woman, Amy Galey, won by 60% though.
Alamance county has been very tough for Dems to crack. The best chance for Dems to beat her was in 2020 when it got paired with Dem leaning eastern Guilford county rather than heavily Republican Randolph county.
It is getting bluer for people who are priced out of Durham, Wake, Orange and Chatham counties. And the mayoral wins in Graham and Burlington give me hope.
Alamance County isn’t the issue. Cooper probably wins it next year. The issue is the Randolph slice. Josh Stein only barely won the district, and he won Alamance by 11.5 points.
Mo Green was the only other Democrat to win Alamance County last year, and he still lost the district by 10 points.
I'm curious if some R voters won't vote downballot next year here, they might vote for the R Senate candidate and judicial races but leave the legislature races blank.
Also, Berger has made a LOT of enemies in his own party (not just NC Democrats), especially in the state House. Destin Hall won't be sorry to see him go.
I always wondered how far these constitutional rights to "hunt and fish" actually went. Indiana passed one while I lived there, and I wondered if I now had the right to hunt the rabbits in my backyard, the city pigeons, etc.
Some of the wealthy (and more Republican) towns on the Southern tier of Western Massachusetts have local ordinances that require written permission from the landowner to hunt or fish, rather than allowing it everywhere that's not posted..I suspect that's the sort of thing that such a rule tries to prohibit, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Thank you to The Downballot team for all of your hard work this year! I've read every one of your digests in 2025. Each one is so informative. They're the reason my family and friends think I know so much about politics and elections. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to afford any new subscriptions this year, but there's a chance I'll be getting a raise soon and upgrading to paid will be at the top of my list if so! And thanks to everyone who comments here too. I love reading your perspectives and analyses on election news.
Thank you for these immensely kind words, Jay, and for taking the time to share them. This kind of support and feedback really boosts us. And fingers crossed for that raise! Happy holidays!
Democratic officials and strategists blasted the Democratic National Committee on Thursday for withholding its autopsy of the party's loss in the 2024 presidential election, despite repeatedly pledging to release it.
I think it depends on how long you think this potential drama would last. For me, I think it would last a month or two tops, not ideal going into an election year obviously, but how long is our base going to be upset at the establishment as yet another example of doing something they don’t want? My guess? All the way up to the midterms, giving an energy drink like boost to the left of our party.
So is it better to have yet another item to the already large and growing pile of evidence that our leaders aren’t representing what our voters want anymore? Or is it better to be transparent and honest about what went wrong in order to start to repair our base’s broken trust, endure the Republican attacks for a 1-2 month news story before prices go crazy in January/February and the economy that’s already held together with string and chewing gum starts to finally crumble as business no longer eat the cost increases to keep their prices lower?
I think the answer is fairly obvious, there’s already an anti-establishment fervor bubbling below the surface in our party, this just makes the “throw out everyone and replace them with progressive fighters” crowd louder and more persuasive to those unsure of what exactly our party should be doing differently. This move pleases absolutely no one, creates more division then releasing it would temporarily create that becomes a long term battle in our party and the other option would at least get some of our party supportive.
Because what happens now is that the news media goes to every elected Democratic leader asking them if they agree or disagree with not sharing the autopsy, of which, many already have and will continue to not agree with, prolonging a short term story into one that lasts into the midterms with Democratic infighting over whether the report should’ve been released.
So if your goal is to not have that happen, which you state as a reason for supporting hiding it, then your position should be to support the full publication of our party’s autopsy. To be frank: even if my opinions of what happens are wrong or that releasing it would be more damaging, it is always better to be straightforward to our voters, ALWAYS. You wonder why Democrats don’t trust our party and have such a dim view of us? This is a great example why that does little to tamp down the narrative that our leaders aren’t representing us and we need to change the people who do in order to get what we want.
Probably going to be decided by the State Supreme Court in the end and let’s just say I have high doubts they’re going to agree with the Trump administration on the charge.
She was found not guilty of the lesser charge of concealment which could be grounds for reversing the obstruction charge if the trial or appellate court should conclude that that constitutes a fatal inconsistency.
Barring a Roy Moore-level scandal, the GOP is not going to win the Minnesota Senate race no matter who they run. They haven't won a Senate race there since 2002, and even that had bizarre circumstances. They aren't going to win this year in what's shaping up as a terrible cycle for them.
The Senate playing field in general is not what the forecasters think it is. They are operating under the assumption that it will be like November 2024 when it clearly is not.
Take Georgia where Jon Ossoff has a near-$20 million COH advantage, has solid approvals in a blue-trending state (one of the few states with notable swings left last year in its metro area), and his likely opponent is going to be the male version of MTG. Or that Democrats just won statewide races there by more than 25 points last month and flipped a Trump+12 legislative seat last week. Or Trump being horribly unpopular in Georgia, with some polls even showing him doing worse there than his national numbers. I don’t know how the big three forecasters can call this a tossup with a straight face.
The polling there makes me nervous but I 100% believe McMorrow can win this one, she takes no shit and goes on the offense better than most current Democrats.
The polling there is bullshit. Are we seriously supposed to believe the guy that did 2 points worse than Trump last year is somehow leading there now when Trump is double digits underwater there?
Sure, I can believe him getting to the 44% or whatever he’s polling at now when all is said and done. But there’s no reason to think he’s favored or that the race is even really a tossup in this national environment. Maybe if el-Sayed is the nominee Rogers would have an opening with the defund the police stuff he said. But even then I’d be shocked if Rogers won.
As for the forbidden topic, I’ll just say that I would be shocked if Dearborn doesn’t swing back our way, no matter who we nominate. The masked clowns terrorizing brown people made sure of that.
The fear is that if either of the other two candidates win the primary, we are likely to have yet another internal fight over the forbidden issue, which will be a huge problem.
It’s competitive right now according to polling and Rogers has high name ID, so that’s why forecasters rate it as a Tossup. As the cycle actually begins for most voters starting to pay attention to the election in Summer/Fall, it’ll probably shift towards Democrats.
Slightly off topic, downballot note, do we know if that idiot elected Democratic mayor in MI who endorsed Trump is on the ballot in 2026? Would love for our voters to give him the middle finger there. If you endorsed/supported Trump, you have no place in our party, period.
Forecasters always play it safe. That’s just how they operate. And even if in the imo likely event Ossoff wins re-election in 2026, it also imo likely won’t be by more than 5-6 points. So tossup is a fair rating as it sits right now.
I expect by summer/fall it’ll move to Lean D and stay the way, but let’s remember Georgia still has a LOT of partisan hardcore vote for every Republican voters, their floor is very high there and the Republican regardless of who will always get around 47% of the vote, even in a Trump midterm barring a black swan event or economic collapse.
I also want to reiterate what I wrote late last night in the previous digest: do not set expectations of 2026 performance on the 2025 elections for a commission that specifically sets utility rates that’s greenlit every rate increase over the last 4 years. You’re going to be VERY disappointed if you do.
Our goal in 2026 should be to cut down the GOP State House Majority to 5-10 seats (currently 18) and GOP State Senate Majority to 5 seats (currently 10). That would be a great year for us in Georgia with Ossoff winning 52-53% of the vote at the top of the ticket.
Georgia will always have a 47% R floor. Until it doesn’t. People were literally saying the same about Georgia heading into 2020 about the R floor being 50%.
No one is using the 25 point wins in the PSC race to set expectations for next year. But you can’t ignore that in conjunction with the other Georgia elections and say this is still a tossup. It’s the forecasters being lazy/conservative.
One prominent example where the forecasters definitely didn't play itself was in December 2016 right after Trump won his first election. The Cook Report came out predicting Montana (Tester), North Dakota (Heitkamp), and Florida (Nelson) as Likely Dem while predicting Missouri (McCaskill), Indiana (Donnelly), and West Virginia (Manchin) as Lean Dem. That was some pretty bold forecasting that mostly didn't bear fruit.
2002 was when Wellstone was killed in a plane crash, right? And they had to literally last-second stick Mondale on the ballot, and then-Gov. Jesse Ventura appointed someone from his own party, and through this chaos Norm Coleman won, if I'm not mistaken. (And then in 2008 Al Franken knocked out Coleman.)
Wellstone was a legend. He did amazing work for the American people in the Senate. A tragic loss, to this day.
That 7 point Mondale margin in Hennepin county was nothing short of shameful. The 14 point Ramsey margin wasn’t much less pitiful. He needed those margins to be 15 and 20 like Gore’s were 2 years earlier.
Because of the profusion of Democratic candidates dividing the vote in the top-two primary, two Republicans could advance to the general election for governor of California.
I hope not. Yee or Thurmond or one of the lower-polling candidates should drop out.
I remember someone here saying Thurmond could run for Congress if Garamendi retires. Since Garamendi is very old, and I'm not aware of anything he's really done in Congress, I'm tempted to say Thurmond should just primary him to needle him into retiring (like Kat Abghuzaleh did with Jan Schakowsky) but since that could be politically risky I'll just say he should drop out for now.
How would Thurmond be able to run for Garamendi’s House seat? He’s based in Richmond, which Rep. Mark DeSaulnier currently represents.
I live in Berkeley, which is in Alameda County, right next to Contra Costa County, which Richmond as well as El Cerrito are based in. Garamendi’s district is far away from Contra Costa.
FYI, Garamendi was out of the East Bay over a decade before Prop 50. His current district, before 2027 hits, is far away from Richmond. It doesn’t cover any of the East Bay. That’s my point.
In fact, Garamendi’s first run for Congress, the CA-10 special election race in 2009 after Rep. Ellen Taucsher resigned, put him and Mark DeSaulnier against each other in the race There was confusion about Garamendi’s residence at the time but as it turns out, he didn’t actually live in it. Garamendi served everywhere that DeSaulnier does now but he had done so for just two years. Due to redistricting back in 2013, Garamendi has been completely out of DeSaunlier’s turf. In fact, DeSaulnier replaced Rep. George Miller and has most of Contra Costa to himself now.
Evans had been ill and Schakowsky was a term over her previous intended retirement. The primary announcements had little to nothing to do with either retirement.
Doubtful. We still have just over five months until the primary and a lot can happen then. Eric Swalwell is also polling quite well against the two leading GOP candidates Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton.
I do anticipate several Democratic gubernatorial candidates will drop out in the coming weeks and months, which will free up the race so that there’s less vote splintering with each candidate.
FYI, in my honest opinion I think Hilton is a saner candidate compared to Bianco but that’s because he is more pro-business in his candidacy whereas Bianco is pro-MAGA all the way. Don’t take this as me endorsing Hilton though.
As someone at RRH Elections said today, these polls have a lot of undecided voters, and it's unlikely most of them are simply trying to decide between two Republicans.
More likely no GOP candidate is an option for the bulk of the undecideds, and the Democratic field is likely to cull itself with several candidates either withdrawing or becoming irrelevant as attention focuses on the front runners, whomever they end up being.
Also the primary is months away, voters aren't thinking about this right now. If two republicans are still leading a week before the primary then that's different but I would imagine at least one dem would have coalesed enough support to prevent that.
Is there any way to donate online except via act blue? Even a single donation there, for me, results in an endless tidal wave of political text spam. (and Apple‘s Messages app on iPhone and Mac does not have a gosh darn spam filter.) Thanks.
P.S. I realize that this might NOT be Act Blue's doing. (But it might be!)
Most/many left orgs use NGP VAN to manage their messaging and fundraising. Say a fundraiser gets your donation (via AB or whatever); their NGP donors data is updated (this person gave money today!) I'm pretty sure that when other NGP VAN fundraisers pull a list of "Recent donors" on NGP VAN, and send text spams to that list, you're on it.
There's no way for you to request that NGP VAN *not* share that information about you.
"We do not send fundraising emails on behalf of any campaigns or organizations, and we do not share your email address with anyone but the campaign or organization you donate to."
I can assure you in the strongest possible terms that we do not share email addresses. Not only is it scuzzy, it would undermine our own email list and erode trust with our readers.
We have an entirely different business model from the ephemeral campaigns that largely populate ActBlue, where the goal is to simply burn as hard as possible in the hopes of winning on Election Day. For campaigns, that often involves things like list swaps or joint fundraising sends, or after they're over, simply renting or selling lists.
We on the other hand guard our list jealously because we're in it for the long haul. So if you donate to us on AB, your information will go no further than The Downballot.
Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) announced she's not running for re-election. Things must be REALLY bad if safe R Senators feel like they need to jump ship.
It's Wyoming, so she obviously isn't retiring for her own electoral reasons. A dead republican would beat a live democrat in that state.
I see three likely explanations. (1) She's 71: she wants to enjoy her retirement instead of being stuck voting on legislation dictated by leadership. (2) She's afraid of republicans losing the senate majority and being downgraded from irrelevant non-leadership member of majority caucus to even more irrelevant non-leadership member of minority caucus. Or (3) She doesn't want to deal with MAGA leadership anymore, which has been very "my way or the high way" with elected republicans this year in particular.
The last was my first though, but all three would make sense.
Probably, but Hochul will win just based on the environment alone. There was a real chance Stefanik could have lost the primary to Blakeman if Trump endorsed him instead, too.
I’m worried about Gillen. She apparently bungled the congestion pricing response, her comments about Mamdani likely alienated some of the base, and she didn’t win by a lot last time against an opponent who was in a massive scandal. We’re in a good environment but I still fear she could lose.
He will have to do better in his own county to win statewide most likely. He won 55.6-44.3 in Nassau County last month, but that's pretty much the same as Zeldin's 55.3-44.7 Nassau margin in 2022. So maybe he can match Zeldin's performance, but I'm not sure where he can find the votes to win.
Like I said, I agree he would, but does this sudden departure from the race have the connotation of smart Republican politics or disarray, and does that matter?
Lummis is such a strange member. An old school ERA (and I think softly pro-choice) supporter, but one of the founding members of the Freedom Caucus (think she'd been/stayed a Study Committee member before, and had styled herself with the Tea Party and Liberty caucuses too) and the only woman HFC member for a long time, but was a pretty regular leadership ally regardless. Then leaves when Trump comes on the scene (doesn't seem to have outright opposed him), but then comes back after being totally fallow for four years to take Enzi's seat in the Senate when Liz Cheney stupidly decides to stay in the House as a Trump ally but clearly much more lowkey about it, aside from her weird/probably corrupt special interest in cryptocurrency, and now leaving after just one term. Trump already endorsed her for reelection super early, and her signature legislation hasn't really advanced. So odd.
Hageman's intimation that she'd chosen between House reelect and governor campaigns, but wonder if she was given a heads up from Lummis? Honestly, I'd really prefer Hageman go for governor (assuming Gordon doesn't try to strike down the term limits and go again), because I'd really hate to see another person that toxic in the Senate.
Seemed she was running to become the RSC chair for the 2015–2017 term even while she was also an HFC member (which I think shows how leadership accommodating she was compared to most others), but pulled out when her husband (a former longtime Democratic state legislator) died. Seems this may have been part of her 2016 retirement, but she also sort of hinted at a 2018 run for governor that never happened. (Maybe Enzi had already hinted he'd be retiring in 2020 to her? But Cheney was expected to succeed him regardless until she got the idea of being the first Republican woman speaker in her head.)
I posted it in yesterday’s comments section, but this is worth reposting: even after a Trump endorsement and re-gerrymandering the Congressional maps, NC state Senate leader Phil Berger (the most corrupt and damaging man in NC politics) could lose his primary race to Sam Page. Page is polling 10 points ahead of Berger in a recent GOP leaning survey.
https://x.com/PDSebastian/status/2001028130337669400/photo/1
Page was polling 18 pts ahead of Berger back in June.
https://www.axios.com/local/raleigh/2025/06/06/north-carolina-most-powerful-republican-poll-sam-page-phil-berger
I’m wondering if Berger could actually lose a general election in 2026. He only got 54% in 2024.
He very well can lose, especially if he barely makes it through the primary (and if the Page voters don't vote for him in Nov). Ditto for Buck Newton who also won by 54-55%.
Berger's right-hand woman, Amy Galey, won by 60% though.
Alamance county has been very tough for Dems to crack. The best chance for Dems to beat her was in 2020 when it got paired with Dem leaning eastern Guilford county rather than heavily Republican Randolph county.
It is getting bluer for people who are priced out of Durham, Wake, Orange and Chatham counties. And the mayoral wins in Graham and Burlington give me hope.
Alamance County isn’t the issue. Cooper probably wins it next year. The issue is the Randolph slice. Josh Stein only barely won the district, and he won Alamance by 11.5 points.
Mo Green was the only other Democrat to win Alamance County last year, and he still lost the district by 10 points.
I'm curious if some R voters won't vote downballot next year here, they might vote for the R Senate candidate and judicial races but leave the legislature races blank.
Also, Berger has made a LOT of enemies in his own party (not just NC Democrats), especially in the state House. Destin Hall won't be sorry to see him go.
I always wondered how far these constitutional rights to "hunt and fish" actually went. Indiana passed one while I lived there, and I wondered if I now had the right to hunt the rabbits in my backyard, the city pigeons, etc.
Some of the wealthy (and more Republican) towns on the Southern tier of Western Massachusetts have local ordinances that require written permission from the landowner to hunt or fish, rather than allowing it everywhere that's not posted..I suspect that's the sort of thing that such a rule tries to prohibit, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Just do _not_ take ducks from public ponds in Springfield!
Thank you to The Downballot team for all of your hard work this year! I've read every one of your digests in 2025. Each one is so informative. They're the reason my family and friends think I know so much about politics and elections. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to afford any new subscriptions this year, but there's a chance I'll be getting a raise soon and upgrading to paid will be at the top of my list if so! And thanks to everyone who comments here too. I love reading your perspectives and analyses on election news.
Thank you for these immensely kind words, Jay, and for taking the time to share them. This kind of support and feedback really boosts us. And fingers crossed for that raise! Happy holidays!
Democratic officials and strategists blasted the Democratic National Committee on Thursday for withholding its autopsy of the party's loss in the 2024 presidential election, despite repeatedly pledging to release it.
https://bsky.app/profile/raymondnorman.bsky.social/post/3madufu5uf22p
I have a feeling the report would dredge up drama and grudges and be counter-productive. It may be better to keep it internal.
I agree. MSM and RW media especially would make hay out of it if were released.
But if there ever were a time to release it, the same day as the Epstein Files is that day.
Believe me, no one made note of the fact that Aldous Huxley died on November 22, 1963.
Or the fact that Farrah Fawcett died the same day Michael Jackson did.
Nickelback and Jay-Z released albums with some of their biggest hits on 9/11
And CS Lewis died that same day too!
Both the Phil Spector Christmas LP and With the Beatles were released that day as well.
Silence all dissent and criticism. The MSM and RW media might make hay out of it.
Isn't it bound to get leaked sooner or later? Might as well get it over with.
That's probably right.
I think it depends on how long you think this potential drama would last. For me, I think it would last a month or two tops, not ideal going into an election year obviously, but how long is our base going to be upset at the establishment as yet another example of doing something they don’t want? My guess? All the way up to the midterms, giving an energy drink like boost to the left of our party.
So is it better to have yet another item to the already large and growing pile of evidence that our leaders aren’t representing what our voters want anymore? Or is it better to be transparent and honest about what went wrong in order to start to repair our base’s broken trust, endure the Republican attacks for a 1-2 month news story before prices go crazy in January/February and the economy that’s already held together with string and chewing gum starts to finally crumble as business no longer eat the cost increases to keep their prices lower?
I think the answer is fairly obvious, there’s already an anti-establishment fervor bubbling below the surface in our party, this just makes the “throw out everyone and replace them with progressive fighters” crowd louder and more persuasive to those unsure of what exactly our party should be doing differently. This move pleases absolutely no one, creates more division then releasing it would temporarily create that becomes a long term battle in our party and the other option would at least get some of our party supportive.
Because what happens now is that the news media goes to every elected Democratic leader asking them if they agree or disagree with not sharing the autopsy, of which, many already have and will continue to not agree with, prolonging a short term story into one that lasts into the midterms with Democratic infighting over whether the report should’ve been released.
So if your goal is to not have that happen, which you state as a reason for supporting hiding it, then your position should be to support the full publication of our party’s autopsy. To be frank: even if my opinions of what happens are wrong or that releasing it would be more damaging, it is always better to be straightforward to our voters, ALWAYS. You wonder why Democrats don’t trust our party and have such a dim view of us? This is a great example why that does little to tamp down the narrative that our leaders aren’t representing us and we need to change the people who do in order to get what we want.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/us/milwaukee-county-judge-found-guilty-obstructing-federal-immigration-agents-courthouse-incident.amp
Milwaukee judge Hannah Dugan convicted in her trial yesterday
Oh that is not good.
Question for posters here -- what, if any, long-term effects could sprout from this?
I mean she's going to appeal, I feel like judicial immunity should attach.
Ah, good.
Probably going to be decided by the State Supreme Court in the end and let’s just say I have high doubts they’re going to agree with the Trump administration on the charge.
I think this is a federal case
Yes, it is, but I feel the 7th Circuit will be incredulous to uphold this. We shall see…
Incredulous meaning you think they'll overturn the conviction?
That IS bad news.
She was found not guilty of the lesser charge of concealment which could be grounds for reversing the obstruction charge if the trial or appellate court should conclude that that constitutes a fatal inconsistency.
What was wrong with that jury?
Barring a Roy Moore-level scandal, the GOP is not going to win the Minnesota Senate race no matter who they run. They haven't won a Senate race there since 2002, and even that had bizarre circumstances. They aren't going to win this year in what's shaping up as a terrible cycle for them.
The Senate playing field in general is not what the forecasters think it is. They are operating under the assumption that it will be like November 2024 when it clearly is not.
Take Georgia where Jon Ossoff has a near-$20 million COH advantage, has solid approvals in a blue-trending state (one of the few states with notable swings left last year in its metro area), and his likely opponent is going to be the male version of MTG. Or that Democrats just won statewide races there by more than 25 points last month and flipped a Trump+12 legislative seat last week. Or Trump being horribly unpopular in Georgia, with some polls even showing him doing worse there than his national numbers. I don’t know how the big three forecasters can call this a tossup with a straight face.
I don't see how the MI Senate race will be "competitive" if Mallory McMorrow wins the primary. She's the right candidate and takes no BS.
The polling there makes me nervous but I 100% believe McMorrow can win this one, she takes no shit and goes on the offense better than most current Democrats.
The polling there is bullshit. Are we seriously supposed to believe the guy that did 2 points worse than Trump last year is somehow leading there now when Trump is double digits underwater there?
Since he just lost a close race for the Senate last year, Rogers has a huge edge on name ID.
Sure, I can believe him getting to the 44% or whatever he’s polling at now when all is said and done. But there’s no reason to think he’s favored or that the race is even really a tossup in this national environment. Maybe if el-Sayed is the nominee Rogers would have an opening with the defund the police stuff he said. But even then I’d be shocked if Rogers won.
As for the forbidden topic, I’ll just say that I would be shocked if Dearborn doesn’t swing back our way, no matter who we nominate. The masked clowns terrorizing brown people made sure of that.
The fear is that if either of the other two candidates win the primary, we are likely to have yet another internal fight over the forbidden issue, which will be a huge problem.
It’s competitive right now according to polling and Rogers has high name ID, so that’s why forecasters rate it as a Tossup. As the cycle actually begins for most voters starting to pay attention to the election in Summer/Fall, it’ll probably shift towards Democrats.
Slightly off topic, downballot note, do we know if that idiot elected Democratic mayor in MI who endorsed Trump is on the ballot in 2026? Would love for our voters to give him the middle finger there. If you endorsed/supported Trump, you have no place in our party, period.
The mayor of Hamtramck that endorsed trump is outgoing, a new mayor was elected last month
Great news! Glad he’s no longer representing us.
Forecasters always play it safe. That’s just how they operate. And even if in the imo likely event Ossoff wins re-election in 2026, it also imo likely won’t be by more than 5-6 points. So tossup is a fair rating as it sits right now.
I expect by summer/fall it’ll move to Lean D and stay the way, but let’s remember Georgia still has a LOT of partisan hardcore vote for every Republican voters, their floor is very high there and the Republican regardless of who will always get around 47% of the vote, even in a Trump midterm barring a black swan event or economic collapse.
I also want to reiterate what I wrote late last night in the previous digest: do not set expectations of 2026 performance on the 2025 elections for a commission that specifically sets utility rates that’s greenlit every rate increase over the last 4 years. You’re going to be VERY disappointed if you do.
Our goal in 2026 should be to cut down the GOP State House Majority to 5-10 seats (currently 18) and GOP State Senate Majority to 5 seats (currently 10). That would be a great year for us in Georgia with Ossoff winning 52-53% of the vote at the top of the ticket.
Georgia will always have a 47% R floor. Until it doesn’t. People were literally saying the same about Georgia heading into 2020 about the R floor being 50%.
No one is using the 25 point wins in the PSC race to set expectations for next year. But you can’t ignore that in conjunction with the other Georgia elections and say this is still a tossup. It’s the forecasters being lazy/conservative.
One prominent example where the forecasters definitely didn't play itself was in December 2016 right after Trump won his first election. The Cook Report came out predicting Montana (Tester), North Dakota (Heitkamp), and Florida (Nelson) as Likely Dem while predicting Missouri (McCaskill), Indiana (Donnelly), and West Virginia (Manchin) as Lean Dem. That was some pretty bold forecasting that mostly didn't bear fruit.
Many assumed that Dems in red states would be basically safe in a Trump midterm the way they were in Bush’s 2006 midterm.
Cook historically always inflates the power of incumbency early on.
Except for Georgia this cycle for some reason. It should’ve been moved to Leans D the minute Brian Kemp declined.
Trump didn't win re-election in 2016. Are you trying to say when he won election in 2016 or re-election in 2024? Hard to tell.
Oops....when Trump won his first election. I'll make the edit.
2002 was when Wellstone was killed in a plane crash, right? And they had to literally last-second stick Mondale on the ballot, and then-Gov. Jesse Ventura appointed someone from his own party, and through this chaos Norm Coleman won, if I'm not mistaken. (And then in 2008 Al Franken knocked out Coleman.)
Wellstone was a legend. He did amazing work for the American people in the Senate. A tragic loss, to this day.
That's correct. Early in 2026, I'm gonna do a deep dive on "Would Wellstone Have Won" and will share it here for those interested.
That 7 point Mondale margin in Hennepin county was nothing short of shameful. The 14 point Ramsey margin wasn’t much less pitiful. He needed those margins to be 15 and 20 like Gore’s were 2 years earlier.
Because of the profusion of Democratic candidates dividing the vote in the top-two primary, two Republicans could advance to the general election for governor of California.
I hope not. Yee or Thurmond or one of the lower-polling candidates should drop out.
I remember someone here saying Thurmond could run for Congress if Garamendi retires. Since Garamendi is very old, and I'm not aware of anything he's really done in Congress, I'm tempted to say Thurmond should just primary him to needle him into retiring (like Kat Abghuzaleh did with Jan Schakowsky) but since that could be politically risky I'll just say he should drop out for now.
Garamendi is running
I’m aware. My argument was that Thurmond running could get him to withdraw, like what happened with Schakowsky and Dwight Evans.
How would Thurmond be able to run for Garamendi’s House seat? He’s based in Richmond, which Rep. Mark DeSaulnier currently represents.
I live in Berkeley, which is in Alameda County, right next to Contra Costa County, which Richmond as well as El Cerrito are based in. Garamendi’s district is far away from Contra Costa.
I think Techno00 may have been thinking of the old pre Prop 50 map, which put Richmond in Garamendi's district
I was. My bad.
DeSaulnier is also old and on retirement watch, but his House record has been pretty good, so Thurmond could wait for him for retire and then run.
FYI, Garamendi was out of the East Bay over a decade before Prop 50. His current district, before 2027 hits, is far away from Richmond. It doesn’t cover any of the East Bay. That’s my point.
In fact, Garamendi’s first run for Congress, the CA-10 special election race in 2009 after Rep. Ellen Taucsher resigned, put him and Mark DeSaulnier against each other in the race There was confusion about Garamendi’s residence at the time but as it turns out, he didn’t actually live in it. Garamendi served everywhere that DeSaulnier does now but he had done so for just two years. Due to redistricting back in 2013, Garamendi has been completely out of DeSaunlier’s turf. In fact, DeSaulnier replaced Rep. George Miller and has most of Contra Costa to himself now.
Evans had been ill and Schakowsky was a term over her previous intended retirement. The primary announcements had little to nothing to do with either retirement.
Got it. Seems I misread why they initially announced.
No.
Doubtful. We still have just over five months until the primary and a lot can happen then. Eric Swalwell is also polling quite well against the two leading GOP candidates Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton.
I do anticipate several Democratic gubernatorial candidates will drop out in the coming weeks and months, which will free up the race so that there’s less vote splintering with each candidate.
FYI, in my honest opinion I think Hilton is a saner candidate compared to Bianco but that’s because he is more pro-business in his candidacy whereas Bianco is pro-MAGA all the way. Don’t take this as me endorsing Hilton though.
As someone at RRH Elections said today, these polls have a lot of undecided voters, and it's unlikely most of them are simply trying to decide between two Republicans.
More likely no GOP candidate is an option for the bulk of the undecideds, and the Democratic field is likely to cull itself with several candidates either withdrawing or becoming irrelevant as attention focuses on the front runners, whomever they end up being.
Nah.
That polling has 20% undecided. When that dwindles, 1, if not 2 Dems, will pull ahead.
There are now three major GOP candidates dividing up a relatively small pool of GOP votes. I think this is very unlikely.
Also the primary is months away, voters aren't thinking about this right now. If two republicans are still leading a week before the primary then that's different but I would imagine at least one dem would have coalesed enough support to prevent that.
Is there any way to donate online except via act blue? Even a single donation there, for me, results in an endless tidal wave of political text spam. (and Apple‘s Messages app on iPhone and Mac does not have a gosh darn spam filter.) Thanks.
P.S. I realize that this might NOT be Act Blue's doing. (But it might be!)
Most/many left orgs use NGP VAN to manage their messaging and fundraising. Say a fundraiser gets your donation (via AB or whatever); their NGP donors data is updated (this person gave money today!) I'm pretty sure that when other NGP VAN fundraisers pull a list of "Recent donors" on NGP VAN, and send text spams to that list, you're on it.
There's no way for you to request that NGP VAN *not* share that information about you.
I donate via ActBlue using a secondary email designated for spam myself.
That is very kind of you to want to donate, Steve. Unfortunately, we don't have another option at present. However, the problem is not ActBlue but rather many of the organizations that *use* ActBlue. Here is what AB says about its own policies: https://help.actblue.com/hc/en-us/articles/16869100091159-How-do-I-unsubscribe-from-your-email-list
"We do not send fundraising emails on behalf of any campaigns or organizations, and we do not share your email address with anyone but the campaign or organization you donate to."
I can assure you in the strongest possible terms that we do not share email addresses. Not only is it scuzzy, it would undermine our own email list and erode trust with our readers.
We have an entirely different business model from the ephemeral campaigns that largely populate ActBlue, where the goal is to simply burn as hard as possible in the hopes of winning on Election Day. For campaigns, that often involves things like list swaps or joint fundraising sends, or after they're over, simply renting or selling lists.
We on the other hand guard our list jealously because we're in it for the long haul. So if you donate to us on AB, your information will go no further than The Downballot.
Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) announced she's not running for re-election. Things must be REALLY bad if safe R Senators feel like they need to jump ship.
https://www.wyomingnewsnow.tv/news/lummis-announces-decision-to-not-seek-re-election-in-2026/article_5c48a0b7-4d04-49cd-8ffd-9fc06138d339.html
Will Crazy Eyes Hageman run for her seat?
Whoa!
Hageman would be dumb not to though this also does give Mark Gordon a landing spot rather than his long shot bid to get a third term “approved”
Not great; she was relatively moderate given the state's lean. The replacement will be far worse.
It's Wyoming, so she obviously isn't retiring for her own electoral reasons. A dead republican would beat a live democrat in that state.
I see three likely explanations. (1) She's 71: she wants to enjoy her retirement instead of being stuck voting on legislation dictated by leadership. (2) She's afraid of republicans losing the senate majority and being downgraded from irrelevant non-leadership member of majority caucus to even more irrelevant non-leadership member of minority caucus. Or (3) She doesn't want to deal with MAGA leadership anymore, which has been very "my way or the high way" with elected republicans this year in particular.
The last was my first though, but all three would make sense.
NY-21, NY-Gov: Stefanik dropping out of NY-GOV, not running for re-election.
https://x.com/VaughnEGolden/status/2002121940535030257?s=20
See ya
Not good. I think Blakeman will be a tougher opponent.
Probably, but Hochul will win just based on the environment alone. There was a real chance Stefanik could have lost the primary to Blakeman if Trump endorsed him instead, too.
I think Hochul still wins but could cause problems in NY-04 and lesser extend NY-03 but Blakeman could collapse too will see.
I’m worried about Gillen. She apparently bungled the congestion pricing response, her comments about Mamdani likely alienated some of the base, and she didn’t win by a lot last time against an opponent who was in a massive scandal. We’re in a good environment but I still fear she could lose.
I wish Carolyn McCarthy was still alive, well and in office
He will have to do better in his own county to win statewide most likely. He won 55.6-44.3 in Nassau County last month, but that's pretty much the same as Zeldin's 55.3-44.7 Nassau margin in 2022. So maybe he can match Zeldin's performance, but I'm not sure where he can find the votes to win.
Hochul will probably run about 5 or so points better than she did in 2022, as 2022 was infamously really bad for New York Democrats.
I'd agree with that.
Like I said, I agree he would, but does this sudden departure from the race have the connotation of smart Republican politics or disarray, and does that matter?
I wonder if Lawler will reconsider running for governor now that there's an opening.
Please do. Would make it even easier to flip his seat.
I mean, it's pretty flippable regardless.
Extraordinary. So Blakeman now figures to be the Republican candidate.
Holy crap. The announcements from Lummis and Stefanik today...unexpected
LOL I know. I was supposed to start my staycation today! Can't say I'm sad to see Elise Stefanik's career end this way, though.
Lummis is such a strange member. An old school ERA (and I think softly pro-choice) supporter, but one of the founding members of the Freedom Caucus (think she'd been/stayed a Study Committee member before, and had styled herself with the Tea Party and Liberty caucuses too) and the only woman HFC member for a long time, but was a pretty regular leadership ally regardless. Then leaves when Trump comes on the scene (doesn't seem to have outright opposed him), but then comes back after being totally fallow for four years to take Enzi's seat in the Senate when Liz Cheney stupidly decides to stay in the House as a Trump ally but clearly much more lowkey about it, aside from her weird/probably corrupt special interest in cryptocurrency, and now leaving after just one term. Trump already endorsed her for reelection super early, and her signature legislation hasn't really advanced. So odd.
Hageman's intimation that she'd chosen between House reelect and governor campaigns, but wonder if she was given a heads up from Lummis? Honestly, I'd really prefer Hageman go for governor (assuming Gordon doesn't try to strike down the term limits and go again), because I'd really hate to see another person that toxic in the Senate.
Gordon could go for Senate, Hageman for Governor, and Gray for House. Seems pretty logical.
Hageman staying as a DC legislator and Gordon staying state governor is just as logical lol. It all remains to be seen.
Seemed she was running to become the RSC chair for the 2015–2017 term even while she was also an HFC member (which I think shows how leadership accommodating she was compared to most others), but pulled out when her husband (a former longtime Democratic state legislator) died. Seems this may have been part of her 2016 retirement, but she also sort of hinted at a 2018 run for governor that never happened. (Maybe Enzi had already hinted he'd be retiring in 2020 to her? But Cheney was expected to succeed him regardless until she got the idea of being the first Republican woman speaker in her head.)
https://archive.ph/wtOLt
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2025/12/19/jay-feely-running-for-congress-in-scottsdale
AZ 1, AZ 5: Jay Feely is running for Schweikert's seat rather than Biggs', at the President's nagging.
https://www.wxxv25.com/state-rep-jeffrey-hulum-iii-announces-run-for-congress/
MS-4: State Rep. Jeff Hulum is in as a Democrat against Republican Rep. Mike Ezell
MI-4, MI-HD-41:
https://www.wsjm.com/2025/12/19/swartz-drops-out-of-race-for-congress-in-fourth-district/
Jessica Swartz is out, running for State House instead.