Hamilton has three major opponents in the Kansas primary (Patrick Schmidt, Anne Parelkar and Christy Davis) so I'm not sure he will be the nominee just yet. But he would probably be the strongest and get a few evangelical voters.
I saw the words “rumor mill” then “Sotomayor” which triggered a millisecond long fight or flight response in me, lol
For Montana, either she meant Nebraska or republicans are so worried about the political environment and Bodnar’s candidacy that they think Bodnar might consolidate most democratic voters around him and Alme might perform just bad enough to lose, even if Bodnar misses 5-10% of democratic voters. If that happens the GOP might just impeach and convict Trump themselves
For Kansas, I think it’s a sleeper race for sure. Kansas has been shifting to the left, very slightly but still. And Hamilton, and most of the candidates frankly, is a strong contender against Marshall
I still find that Beacon Research poll for Cooper v. Whatley unbelievable (I still think Cooper is favored to win the seat by 2-3 points). If that poll actually mirrors what happens come 11/3/26, the state legislature could flip. And incumbent NCSC justice Anita Earls would easily trounce Sarah Stevens.
But if the D+10 wave happens, I will not complain. Because NC Dems will have a mandate to undo most of Phil Berger, Destin Hall and Tim Moore's fuckery on our state.
Overall these polls are very decent. But looking back to their 2024 / 2026 on NC and GA, no matter how close their toplines are, a common theme is they overshoot Democrats’ support in rural South, by a lot.
Since the lopsided margin from rural Black voters are a given, and their guess on rural Black turnout is not far off. This means they always get a % in rural Whites incredulous to me. Always something like 30% or more in their responses supporting D.
Over the recent years’ competitive election since 16, the rural Whites votes would be nowhere near that.
NC inner coastal plains, it runs low teens. Piedmont rural/small towns, in high teens.
GA rural north of ATL, in low teens. (This is more Appalachia than Deep South)
Deep South rural, in single digit.
That said, if you trust their non rural reading, ig Cooper leading 3-4pt is quite possible. I still don’t buy the topline 9pt. Ossoff is likely in the same range, with GA having a redder but small portion of rural South (likely contributed a similar red vote margin all balanced out.)
If what the AFP people are panicking about pans out, like 20% of faithful Republican voters sitting out or vote for Democrats this year -- that throws a wrench into how reliable the polling is.
I disagree, in that I don't think the poll is that unbelievable. If you look at the voter share of the primaries, Democrats took 57% of the vote to Republican's 43%. Obviously this isn't the most reliable metric, but I think it offers a *decent* baseline, and if we assume that more Republicans sat out the primary show up in November than non-primary Democratic voters, while also assuming Cooper wins the majority of independents/other non primary voters 53% - 44% is extremely possible. This is especially when you consider that the Democratic turnout advantage in the primary was before Trump's presidency went from "fucking horrible" to "really fucking horrible" with the Iran war and gas prices spiking.
And of course we can't forget how monumentally weak Whatley is as a candidate. He has no elected experience and yet can't even claim to be some sort of outsider, and overall he's just kind of a nothingburger candidate.
Against Thom TIllis? I think 2-3 points would be a safe bet for how much Cooper would win by. But in this election, I think a victory of atleast 5 points is Cooper's floor, and admittedly the more likely result given North Carolina's political inelasticity, but I think he could definitely perform much better than that.
But, I am also not from North Carolina, so I'll defer to those who live in the state and might be more familiar with the trends happening there. Even if Cooper is a lock I hope the race still gets plenty of investment just to boost his potential margin of victory further... even if the state legislature doesn't flip (which is still likely even if Cooper were to dominate because of how badly gerrymandered it is), a Robinson-level loss for a non-Robinson candidate could probably do a lot of damage to the state GOP and put them at a huge disadvantage for 2028 when there's a senate seat and three NCSC seats up.
If Cooper wins this seat by double digits, Ted Budd is in SERIOUS trouble come 2028. He's going to have to answer for his Trump ass kissing.
And if voters are this mad in 2026, they're still going to be mad in 2028. It wouldn't surprise me if NC Dems achieve a big sweep in 2028: oust Budd, flip all three GOP-held seats on SCONC, and potentially the EV votes for the presidency.
Definitely. Ted Budd's probably fucked even if Cooper has a more modest victory... NC has a deep bench of strong Democrats, I can see Jeff Jackson making short work of Budd, and taking atleast two of the NCSC seats with him
Jackson would definitely take Budd to the cleaners. I would recommend Josh Stein, but I imagine Gov Stein wants to get a second term and potentially have a non-gerrymandered legislative body to get more of his priorities achieved.
I mean, Jackson did have a brief run for senate in 2022, and I think most of the motivation behind his run for AG was that he was drawn out of his house seat by gerrymandering. I see him running for senate again sooner than running for governor
Maybe maybe not. I agree it would be a positive sign, but Cooper is an extremely strong candidate that is particularly well suited to his state and 2028 is a presidential year. I'd be cautious about reading too much into it.
Be careful extrapolating out performance from one cycle to the next. If Cooper is winning by big margins this year it's going to be because of a blue wave, not because of a fundamental shift in North Carolina.
Winning NC in 2028 isn't made easier by having a wave year this year. Budd will be one of the most heavily targeted incumbents regardless of what happens this year.
Aren’t you also a North Carolinian? I’m in state and no one is acting like it’s close. I think people just saying it is that know it’s not but are just hedging their bets.
I am, just being super cautious considering how 50-50 the state is. I am not good at political predictions at ALL.
We were lucky that Robinson was a horrific candidate in 2024, but Whatley doesn't have as much of a stench that would give Cooper an identical MOV over him this year.
For state offices, probably fairly close. For federal offices, Rs still have a tiny but distinct advantage.
Also rural NC is still not like Deep South. Not saying it will happen, but definitely still room to fall further. Also the retirement pipeline, mostly to the coast, is still feeding a lot of conservative leaning seniors.
At the bare minimum yes, Cooper could win the Senate race by 2-3% points. After all, the late Kay Hagan was the previous Democratic Senator who represented NC before Thom Tillis unseated her in the 2014 midterms.
Obituaries: Former Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ) has died at 86.
Mitchell was mayor of the suburban Phoenix community of Tempe until serving a long career in the state legislature. His career culminated in representing part of Phoenix and the East Valley in Congress after defeating Republican Rep. J.D. Hayworth in the 2006 wave. He was subsequently ousted by Republican David Schweikert in 2010. Schweikert ran in a different district after 2012 redistricting, and two Democrats, Kyrsten Sinema and Greg Stanton, have held it since.
Calling an East Valley city suburban "Phoenix" might start fights in some quarters. Mitchell was a lifelong Tempe man who graduated from ASU and taught at Tempe High for 28 years while being elected citywide to 6 four year terms, 2 as a council member and 4 as mayor, prior to representing Tempe in the state Senate for 8 years. His local popularity was critical to our flip of the Tempe anchored but then GOP leaning AZ-05 when he won it in 2006 after terming out of the state Senate. My late mother knew him in the 1970's (she was management at a restaurant which was a gathering spot in Tempe for Valley politicos).
The restaurant was in the old house (hence the name La Casa Vieja) where Carl Hayden had been born in 1877, after his father "Don Carlos" Hayden built a cable ferry and flour mill at the site on the Salt River that became Tempe.
San Tan Valley didn't have houses until the last few years. I'm talking about Old Arizonans, like Harry Mitchell--it's a fairly small club. Mitchell's grandfather moved to Arizona before it was a state, he was a newspaper owner and land developer in the East Valley before serving in the state legislature.
When Harry was born in 1940, AZ had one congressional district and a population under half a million, Phoenix proper had 65k people, Tempe was under 3000.
House: 13 changes, including pushing 5 Leans R seats to Toss-up. Dems continue to be favored overall even with tight spread in ratings: 208 now at least Leans R, 207 at least Leans D, 20 Toss-ups
Lawler and Bresnahan are clear toss ups, so I’m glad they did this. I live in Lawler’s district and many people here are unhappy with Lawler’s votes and habit of removing people from town halls. There are also Lawler supporters, so toss-up makes sense.
As for Bresnahan, if I’ve heard correctly Paige Cognetti is a really strong candidate. She may have enough of a shot to put the seat in contention. It helps that the PA Dems got their shit together under new leader Eugene DePasquale, and they are clearly more focused and energized than before - see the PA court retention races and some special elections last year.
NY-17 is a Lean Blue district to begin with. It was after all represented by Sean Patrick Maloney until Mike Lawler unseated him back in 2022.
I suspect the only reason why Crystal Ball has moved this race to the tossup category is because Lawler has been elected to the House twice. Besides this, I can't think of any other reason why.
Maloney didn't represent the district. He ran there on 2022 after redistricting. Mondaire Jones did, and he wasn't particularly a great fit. It was anti-Trump sentiment that really helped get him in there.i think Conley seems like a better fit/campaigner than Jones was.
I think Lawler will probably lose by 3+ points. The environment is just too blue to win a seat like that and we have our strongest possible candidate against him. I'd be pretty shocked if he wound up winning.
Overdue, but good. I’d move TX-15 to tossup too. I thought Talarico was solidly winning that seat and Pulido was narrowly ahead in the last poll? Seems like a true ground zero for hispanic reversion.
The district would've voted for Trump by 18 points in 2024. But if we look at how it would've voted pre-2024 and before Hispanic voters swung hard to the right that year, it would've voted:
R +2.4 in 2020 using the presidential election as a dataset
R +0.4 in 2018 using the gubernatorial election as a dataset
D +11.3 in 2018 using the senate election as a dataset
Gerrymandered districts are always a bit hard to read, especially because I don't think we've had a gerrymander with the potential to backfire *this* badly. But if the GOP can't hold the Hispanic voters who swung to the right in their column, this district is 100% a tossup. And when you consider Talarico's vote share in heavily Hispanic counties compared to that of Cornyn/Paxton in their primary, we might be seeing just that.
To add to this, there are a handful of Safe R/Likely R/Lean R districts in Texas that suddenly become not so Safe R/Likely R/Lean R when we look at the data for an election like 2020, which I might add wasn't even *amazing* for Democrats, or atleast as good as what 2026 might be.
District 23 goes from Likely R to Lean R
District 15, as discussed, goes from Lean R to Tossup
District 35 goes from Lean R to Tossup
District 9 goes from Likely R to Lean R
And in a year like 2018, all of these districts either flip or become true tossups
NY-17 being Lean R for this long seems a bit silly, same with PA-8.
I think a good rule of thumb is that every +-5 point district should be considered a toss-up in every midterm until/unless one candidate has a sustained, substantial polling lead.
Emerson hasn’t been wrong in a dem primary yet this cycle. I hope El-Sayed is coming up with a strategy to win over the voters who aren’t supporting him in the primary, mostly older voters and black voters. Campaigning with Obama could go a long way there.
Michigan has (or had, idk if it's still the case) of low-quality Republican polling firms that used to flood the zone with right-leaning polls. Not sure why Michigan specifically.
I suspect that the Glengariff poll was a push poll because all of the other Michigan polls showed Stevens and El-Sayed running the same in the general election.
I'm not really sure how to identify a push poll though, nor am I good enough at statistics to really detect any potential flaws beyond "well that looks weird" (I got a B in statistics), so I'm curious if anyone here can give it a look and attest to it's validity or lack thereof
I don't think that the Glengariff poll was "fake" or something released to make El-Sayed look bad on purpose, necessarily, but it is hard to ignore that most Glengariff polls this cycle have been sponsored/commissioned by groups that are either Pro-Stevens or more aligned with her
There were a lot of weird things happening in that poll, like Mike Rogers winning *20%* of the black vote and El-Sayed only reaching ~57%. In general the poll seemed to really lowball El-Sayed's support among black voters, to the point where 20% chunks of different black voter demographics were just... missing. I really can't help but wonder if the poll is taking El-Sayed's low performance with black voters in primary polls and extrapolating it to the general to a somewhat unrealistic extent.
That's not to say that El-Sayed won't have work to do with appealing to these demographics of course, but I don't think we can really take that one poll from Glengariff and treat it as fact, especially since we're still in primary season. It'll depend on both El-Sayed's willingness to work with the party establishment as well as the party establishment's willingness to work with him to get out the vote.
If folks believe AES will do that poorly with black people in a GE, folks would also have to believe Talarico will as well, considering the actual narrative aimed at Talarico is far more public and intense.
I was thinking that but unsure if it was worth bringing up. I can't imagine the divide being as bad as it is Texas - and I'm already skeptical if the divide even *is* that bad in Texas
Glengariff also had Stevens up 7 in the primary a couple of weeks ago. If El-Sayed ends up winning the primary by double digits, I'll have some doubts about Glengariff's ability to poll his support accurately.
Where do you see Czuba endorsing Stevens? He was on a panel in the NYT where he suggested she is more electable, which would be consistent with what his polling shows if we believe his poll. An independent pollster endorsing a candidate (a serious pollster anyway) would be very unusual.
At the end of the day, once we confirm it is an outlier, the reasons why don't matter. Finding extra reasons to discard an outlier can get us in hot water in the future. The real reason to discard an outlier is because it is an outlier. The extra reasons could erroneously be applied to future polls that aren't outliers and result in us missing relevant polling movements.
Are El-Sayed and Hong going to sink us? Hate to be pessimistic but just wondering if any Michiganders or Wisconsinites would like to provide feedback here …
I am from neither state so take this with a bit of a grain of salt.
In my opinion, AES seems like a strong campaigner, so I actually think he has a shot at the seat. He’ll have to deal with things like past comments, and sadly racism and Islamophobia due to him being a Muslim Arab, but given that he explicitly said he is not a socialist on Jen Psaki recently, in this Dem primary environment, and given his excellent ads, I think he is a lot smarter and has a better chance than some posters here let on. He reminds me of Mamdani actually.
Hong, on the other hand, could be toast. The question is, how much. I think the current environment is too blue for it to be an outright blowout. I think this might protect other seats we’re contesting, such as WI-03, the AG race, and some of the state legislature. However, I think Hong will not win, simply due to partisanship in the modern day. Progressives have won in WI in the past - La Follette, Feingold, Milwaukee’s socialist mayors in the 1950s - but I think contemporary partisanship would not allow for someone in that mold as Governor (tellingly, Feingold lost his 2016 bid to get his seat back). That said, Tammy Baldwin is staunchly progressive and held on in 2024, a bad year for us, so who knows.
Something to consider is the national environment. People are not happy with the lousy economy and high prices on basic goods. The GOP has made no effort to even pretend to care, with multiple members making idiotically flippant comments about the matter, including Trump. When Americans for fucking Prosperity is finding large numbers of Trump core voters who aren’t voting at all, even an otherwise bad candidate could benefit. A consideration - 2022 was partially not a bad year for us not because of candidate quality (although that was a factor), but because it was right after Dobbs. Unless the GOP has a Dobbs moment, I don’t think we’re too screwed.
That being said, the ability of these candidates to survive in a bad midterm for us (which could be 2030, depending on how the presidential race goes), is a genuine concern — but who knows, maybe candidates will build up a reputation for being in their communities that shields them. Matt Cartwright held on to a swingy seat in PA for years as a progressive due to his excellent constituent services, only losing in 2024 due to the PA Dem leadership royally fucking up that year’s elections and costing us a Senate seat in the process. Likewise, as far as Dem safe seat primaries go, Rashida Tlaib’s firebrand personality and controversies haven’t sunk her due to her excellent constituent services. She even covered Shri Thanedar’s after he refused to give a shit. Candidates can prove themselves well in office, which can make or break an election even in an unfriendly year. Something else to consider.
Let's not all over-react to one bad poll for AES. I think he is a better campaigner than Hong (or Stevens). It is a blue year.
Hong will be more problematic, methinks. Both because of the DSA thing and she justcis not as charismatic or sharp on TV.
And while I get the concern about losing winnable races in the general. And I get concern, from the left, about what happens if AES/Hong lose and the centrists/establishment blame the left (and their own voters) for the loss. Which will happen.
But, the fact that AES/Hong types are winning (closely contending) prinaries in swing states is a big change as well. And it could be transformative.
Look, astute pols will get the message. Mohammed had to go to the mountain, not the other way around. If it becomes clear that AIPAC/corporate milktoast Dems are not gonna cut the mustard in Dem primaries (Craig, Stevens), then there will be fewer & fewer Dems who try and take that lane.
Now, it does not always have to be AES/Tlaib level fiery. Or full on Hong/Mamdani DSA. It can be moderated in tone or tenor, or even a bit more mainstream (Ossoff, Brown, Turek, Jackson, Sands). To downright moderate if necessary (Cooper, Peltola).
But those anti-Epstein, affordability, corruption, rigged system, get the $$ out of politics, anti AI/data center populist notes need to be sounded loudly. Repeatedly. Be it jazz, punk, country, funk, rock, pop, salsa, R&B, rap, or heavy metal.
You have to win the primary first. Transforming the types of candidates that win primaries is a much faster way to reshape the party than considering who can win in the general. Just look at what Trump has done on the other side. There are just fewer truly competitive races.
Trust me, I'd love a less risky alternative to Stevens. Or a more electable progressive than Hong. But I don't think either is available.
The voters are where they are. Dem candidates have to go to the mountain instead of bitching about the mountain not coming to them.
One point is that more moderate Democrats will blame the DSA if their candidates lose in winnable seats because it will be their fault for nominating low quality candidates. So far the left has given us a rapist in Maine, an antisemitic Sex therapist in Texas, a candidate in the swing Lansing district who has made horribly condescending comments about the African American community and are threatening to nominate a gubernatorial candidate in Wisconsin who many of us think would be an absolute train wreck. This is the left's big chance and they will blow it unless they do a much better job of picking high quality candidates like James Talarico and fewer candidates who are problematic or extreme.
We luckily course-corrected with Platner, so better late than never. The Texas seat wasn’t on the left—AOC endorsed the Blue Dog I thought?
I do wonder what the ramifications of a Hong loss would do. Would other swing state Democrats and Democratic Parties use it as a lesson in how the establishment fucked it up that bad in letting it get to that point? Would people take past comments/controversies more seriously next time? I think Wisconsin Democrats might learn from it the hard way, but I don’t know if we can extrapolate that outside of the state.
So the fault will be with the "establishment" if the DSA candidate turns out to be a disaster. If the moderate candidate loses it's the establishment's fault and if the DSA candidate loses it's the establishment's fault. Give me a break.
With how the Barnes/Crowley thing has been handled I’d say it’s fair to say it’s everybody’s fault across the spectrum in Wisconsin at this point but that’s a unique situation
Funny that you mention Talarico since he was further to the left of Crockett in that primary in some instances.
And does this mean Eric Swalwell, Matt Klein or any other establishment backed candidate is so much better than the likes of Platner or Lawrence?
Besides, the left has also given us Zohran Mamdani, Brad Lander, Bob Brooks, Brian Poindexter and Sam Forstag, who I'm sure you don't think are controversial figures, or at least to the extent of the ones you compare them to and put in a bubble.
This is a good point, and consistent with what I've been arguing for a while here. My problem isn't with the left - there are plenty of lefty pols who campaign and conduct themselves like grownups (your list is a good set of examples, to which I'd add AOC). My problem is with not ready for primetime players throwing away winnable seats for us. That applies across the spectrum of Dem politicians.
On that note: it's kind of crazy that we got saved at the last second from blowing CA-Gov and ME-Sen with Swalwell and Platner dropping out in time.
Too many deeply flawed candidates making it until the final stretch before things come to a head. Bound to bite us eventually, and WI-Gov is entirely plausible as the time for that to happen. I guess if I had to pick one of CA-Gov, ME-Sen and WI-Gov to sacrifice, WI-Gov would be the choice...
I agree with this- my point is that the progressive movement needs to weed out some of their more problematic candidates who either have personal issues like Platner and Chevalier for example, or who are so far out of the mainstream that they would be a disaster in the general election. Bad and extreme candidates not only hurt the reputation of the progressive movement as a whole, but they hurt the reputation of the Democratic party as a whole.
Well put, and I agree with your assessment. I suspect AES would probably pull out a GE victory, although it would be closer than I would like. Hong, on the other hand, might hang on by the skin of her teeth, due to the environment, but I'd put WI-Gov as a tossup with her as the nominee.
I think it's misleading to brand candidates with unique problems like Hong and to a lesser extent El Sayed as "progressive" in the same sense as La Follette and Feingold were. It was a different issue landscape that defined progressivism....an issue landscape that didn't include matters as controversial and broadly unpopular as defunding police and closing prisons.
I always return to the working-class perception of Bernie Sanders 10 years ago versus today as the line of demarcation. Progressive messaging, both real and perceived, has shifted a lot in the last 10 years, and in a way that lowers their ceiling of support.
I would also suggest that Progressives start only calling themselves Progressives and stop calling themselves "Socialists", which is a very loaded negative term, but that's a discussion for another day.
There's no credible evidence that El-Sayed is a weaker general election candidate than Haley Stevens. The main argument for that claim relies on Glengariff polling, whose CEO has publicly endorsed Stevens, raising legitimate questions about impartiality. Across polling averages, El-Sayed performs at least as well, if not better. Meanwhile, Stevens enters the race with deep skepticism and bad favs-unfavs with Democratic primary voters because of her undying alignment with corporate interests and AIPAC, making her a far weaker nominee than her supporters claim.
I think statements like this from sitting Dem Reps are what most folks are looking at when they say he would be weaker in a GE. That quote at the bottom can be used to hammer him in a GE.
"Rep. Hillary Scholten, D-Mich., who’s backing Rep. Haley Stevens in Michigan’s contentious Democratic Senate primary, told Semafor’s Nicholas Wu she was noncommittal on whether she’d support progressive candidate Abdul El-Sayed if he wins the primary. “I will not stand beside someone who has allowed distinctly anti-American sentiment to enter our public dialogue,” she said."
She also smeared William Lawrence recently by calling him '“ill-tempered” without providing evidence and also alleged that Abdul has problems with women.
Dan Goldman 2.0 speedrun. Abdul is winning her district by a large margin. I don't think voters in her own district, let alone statewide, care about her statements.
I would like to know what “distinctly anti-American sentiment” she is referring to. And what makes her the judge of what is American. That’s what Republicans do. And also does she wear a hoodie while in the capitol.
She's getting primaried out anyways. Her D+8 district with urban cores is not asking for a Gottheimer or Suozzi style Democrat. It's also becoming bluer because of evangelical boomers dying rather than some shift in the suburbs.
"I think Stevens's biggest strength is that she is the most underestimated political figure in Michigan and has been since the day she started running for office."
Right...where's the endorsement? He's a pollster expressing his opinion on a candidate's chances in a race, which makes particular sense if he's also seeing polling that supports that idea. What it isn't is an endorsement.
I think El-Sayed is in better shot as he is less exterme on policy (especially defunding police), MI is a touch more blue and people vote more on party in federal elections (as this is a blue yearl than governor. I think Hong is a significant underdog but not out of it.
I'm from neither state but after having a lot of conversations with a friend of mine who follows down ballot races too, he's made me feel better about El-Sayed's chances. I do think my friend gets overly biased blaming everything on Schumer and Jeffries for why our voters have such a sour approval of the party but I have to constantly remind him that it's not that Jeffries and Schumer don't deserve criticism or blame, it's that he completely omits that our voters are pissed the party lost to Trump again. That's the big issue here. I won't dive more into that conversation but that's a driving force with our voters to take a chance on folks like El-Sayed and Hong. Hong has been data centers a big issue which will work in her favor. Plus, we're seeing Hong rise in the polling. Wisconsin's always going to be a tight race and I think that while the vast majority of voters don't understand or like or associate with the DSA logo, what Mamdani proved is that as long as you actually care about the people you want to serve, you can still win.
MO-5: Army veteran Brad Patty, a minor Republican candidate for this new seat, has been accused of assaulting his ex wife.
State Sen. Rick Brattin and former Jackson County clerk Taylor Burks are the frontrunners to take on Democratic Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver. Democrats including state Sen. Stephen Webber are attempting to boost Burks over the allegedly more electable Brattin in the primary.
I posted this on yesterday's comments, but it bears repeating here.
Former WI Democratic chair Ben Wikler is exploring a 2028 U.S. Senate run, per NBC News. It's paywalled but apparently some Democratic strategists aren't happy with this.
He's definitely not Michael Whatley, because unlike Whatley, Wikler is a born and bred Wisconsinite who loves his state. And him (or another young candidate) would be a sharp contrast to nutty career politician RoJo.
I mean, I don't know. Looking at the 2025 DNC Chair election it looks like Ben Wikler was more of the establishment favorite with endorsements from Schumer, Jeffries, Pelosi... and Robert Reich, Jayapal, and just about everybody, actually. How in the hell did Ken Martin win?
Point being, it doesn't seem like he's disliked by the establishment even with his leftish/progressive bent. But at the same time, perhaps supporting him as party chair is one thing, whereas supporting him for a senate seat is another. Maybe there's a deep-ish bench of more moderate Dems that senate leadership is ready to back for senate in 2028 over a progressive like Wikler, whereas in regards to the DNC Leadership election it was extremely hard to ignore his immense skill and talent as a party chair.
Some back home have always felt put off by him coming back from MoveOn and DC as some savior for the state party - granted that is exactly what he did in real life - but I imagine that rubs some people the wrong way.
Maybe they prefer Kaul, but Kaul might have screwed himself by not running for a promotion this year. If he and Tiffany both win, he absolutely should not give up his AG slot to be filled by a potential Republican appointment.
I think it's fine to give up the AG spot for a Senate seat. Granted I'm not a Wisconsinite but a Republican Governor with a Republican legislature is going to do most of the damage anyway.
Too bad he's not currently running for governor. The skill-set of a state party chair, especially a successful one, seems to translate more to a governor's responsibilities than a senator's.
He would've been a wonderful candidate for governor.
As someone who likes Hong and thinks some (but not all) of the worries about her are overblown, I'd trade her for Wikler in a heartbeat and it's not even a little bit close. He'd make Wisconsin look like California.
Maybe he's more interested in federal level governance or doesn't want the day to day responsibilities of running a state, as opposed to a political party?
I agree he'd probably be better than the mediocre-to-bad choices they have now. So would probably a lot of others who didn't run.
Who else do we have as potential serious candidates? Wikler might make a lot of sense by default.
The field that ran for governor hasn't exactly impressed, so I wouldn't want any of them running for senate. Pocan could run but I never got the vibe that he wants to move chambers. Moore will be in her late 70s by 2028. Those two are our only reps in the state.
Any serious candidates from the state legislature, county executives, or mayors?
Hong again has weaker numbers but it's interesting that she still leads here, especially since the organization that commissioned the poll seems to be a right-leaning one... in fact I'm pretty sure this is Scott Rasmussen's firm.
It also shows that while identifying as a democratic socialist or a socialist isn't popular, it's still more popular than identifying as a MAGA Republican (net -8, net -17, and net -23 respectively). The whole thing really looks like a push poll in so many aspects which is why Hong leading, even if by 1 point, is surprising to me.
Napolitan News Service was founded by pollster Scott Rasmussen. And the poll was sponsored by:
The Institute for Reforming Government (IRG) is a conservative, free-market public policy think tank in Wisconsin that frequently reports on government "bias"
There's usually a difference in approval of "Democratic socialists of America" and of "Democratic socialists" lol. The former is viewed far more favorably than the latter.
As a Political Scientist, it drives me nuts that they call themselves Democratic Socialists, which basically means "communists with free elections". The vast majority are Social Democrats (including Bernie, etcl, which is very definite
Lots of major social democratic parties in Europe and Latin America call themselves socialists or democratic socialists. There isn't really a clear line between these terms.
Just to recap this week in Trump's approval rating:
Quinnipiac: 32/58 (-26). 32% approval an all-time low in that poll. Also new net lows on the economy (-32), foreign policy (-32), and Iran (-38). And 32/58 is the belle of the ball.
Abosolutely brutal. With room to go lower as the war spreads, gas prices soar (that oil reserve is running thin), and I eonder how seniors will react after Trump killed a Biden policy to reduce medicare perscription drug prices? Notices out in September.
The summary paragraph for Nate Silver's site regarding Trump's approval rating hasn't been updated in two weeks. I don't know why--maybe Eli McKown-Dawson, who writes it, is on vacation? But here's what it says:
"Donald Trump’s approval rating has improved somewhat over the last few weeks. It hit a second term low of -20.2 back in May. But today, Trump’s net approval rating is up to -17.4. Is he still less popular than he was at this point in his first term? Yes. But Trump is actually slightly more popular than Joe Biden was at the equivalent point (-19.2 net approval vs -17.4) in his term.
Over the past couple days, we’ve added a series of polls to the average — such as those from The Washington Post, Echelon Insights, and YouGov — that showed Trump’s net approval rating closer to -22. But before that, most recent polls had him in the -15 to -20 range, which is why he improved in our average. -EMD, 7/16/26"
Note the July 16 date. As of today, the Silver Bulletin Trump approval average is 38.2 approve, 58.8 disapprove: -20.6, a new second term low and a level that was probably seldom seen in the first term (unfortunately the comparable 538 archives may no longer be accessible).
AZ implemented an ID-verify option for voters who drop off their mail ballots on Election Day beginning this primary season, allowing them to bypass the signature verification process and get their ballots counted quicker. In Maricopa County, 30% of Election Day voters (23,000 folks) used this option.
I hate to say this, but this is actually a good idea in this day and age. People can still vote by mail without an ID, but those who want certainty (or wait until Election Day) can use the ID-verify option if they want to.
I don't know why more Republicans and Democrats won't get behind this. It saves hours on signature verification, throws Rs a bone on photo ID (while making it OPTIONAL), while also making ballot counting quicker.
I feel like AES and Michigan might not need as much effort as a state like Iowa, tbf
Iowa's a much redder state so there's a lot of voters who need more convincing to vote blue, like a little reminder of the good ol days. AES is a 50-50 swing state, so all AES really needs is to show people "hey Obama's cool with me" and assauge fears and reservations from black voters and blue-leaning suburban voters
Yeah... Stevens is obviously performing far better with black voters but unless AES makes absolutely zero effort to reach out to them in the general election I don't really think it'll be that bad. Unlike Texas there isn't much racial *tension* due to the fact that neither candidate is black, or if there is it's a smaller amount. I think in Abdul's case it also helps that almost all of his work has centered on Detroit and Wayne County whereas Austin, which Talarico represented, has the lowest population of African Americans of the top five major cities in Texas.
Yes, I saw some interviews of Black Haley Stevens voters in Wayne County saying stuff like, “I like Abdul and I got nothin’ against brother but I like Haley more”.
Believe it or not, non-binary folk, just as voters of color, are a big part of the Democratic Party. It makes sense they would be involved in a Democratic primary.
"The most iconic thing about the Axios article is that it never mentions any of the huge red flags about Brink or Maasdam—only Lawrence. So here they are:
Brink –
Moved to Lansing two weeks before announcing.
Many quotes and moments where she was supportive of Trump before she resigned. Definitely part of the job, but it plays badly on TV.
Real insider trading evidence... not great.
Has a lot of local endorsements. Personable but not charismatic.
Maasdam –
In my opinion, way worse than Brink.
Bought a house in the district a year ago and only moved in four weeks ago.
Used to be registered as a Republican in Florida.
Has weird international business dealings, which Michigan voters won't like.
His experience is confusing—no one on his team ever bothers to explain how carrying the nuclear football means you'd be a good congressperson.
Completely reliant on ads and Obama's name and face.
Over $5 million in Super PAC money spent boosting him, even though he claims he wants money out of politics.
Has a very shit ground game.
Essentially the same core of boomers have been supporting him from the beginning, saying "a vet has to beat a vet."
Ground game
Brink seems to have more on-the-ground support, but Lawrence has over 1,200 volunteers and has knocked 70,000+ doors. No one is close.
Overall –
Brink is much more palatable to me than Maasdam (who is a complete hypocrite), but her insider trading accusation is a real problem, and an endorsement like Blinken's could hurt in a state that's angry about Gaza and Israel. People who aren't in Michigan aren't really getting the fury.
The moderate vote is being split because neither Brink nor Maasdam are great candidates, while Lawrence has done the actual work of building a strong base and coalition.
He may not win, and Democrats like Hillary Scholten should fear making him an enemy. He is very popular.
Most people voting for Brink or Maasdam for "electability reasons" say they hope Lawrence continues in politics, and I don't think the movement he's built is going anywhere."
NM-Gov: Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard, the preferred running mate of Democratic nominee Deb Haaland, is officially the nominee for lieutenant governor.
They will face Republicans Gregg Hull and David Gallegos in November. Haaland and Richard are the large favorites.
Hamilton has three major opponents in the Kansas primary (Patrick Schmidt, Anne Parelkar and Christy Davis) so I'm not sure he will be the nominee just yet. But he would probably be the strongest and get a few evangelical voters.
The only poll (at least I have seen) showed Hamilton in the lead
I saw the words “rumor mill” then “Sotomayor” which triggered a millisecond long fight or flight response in me, lol
For Montana, either she meant Nebraska or republicans are so worried about the political environment and Bodnar’s candidacy that they think Bodnar might consolidate most democratic voters around him and Alme might perform just bad enough to lose, even if Bodnar misses 5-10% of democratic voters. If that happens the GOP might just impeach and convict Trump themselves
For Kansas, I think it’s a sleeper race for sure. Kansas has been shifting to the left, very slightly but still. And Hamilton, and most of the candidates frankly, is a strong contender against Marshall
I think she actually meant Kansas. Everyone already knew Nebraska was on the table.
I still find that Beacon Research poll for Cooper v. Whatley unbelievable (I still think Cooper is favored to win the seat by 2-3 points). If that poll actually mirrors what happens come 11/3/26, the state legislature could flip. And incumbent NCSC justice Anita Earls would easily trounce Sarah Stevens.
But if the D+10 wave happens, I will not complain. Because NC Dems will have a mandate to undo most of Phil Berger, Destin Hall and Tim Moore's fuckery on our state.
This is the Fox News poll, right?
Overall these polls are very decent. But looking back to their 2024 / 2026 on NC and GA, no matter how close their toplines are, a common theme is they overshoot Democrats’ support in rural South, by a lot.
Since the lopsided margin from rural Black voters are a given, and their guess on rural Black turnout is not far off. This means they always get a % in rural Whites incredulous to me. Always something like 30% or more in their responses supporting D.
Over the recent years’ competitive election since 16, the rural Whites votes would be nowhere near that.
NC inner coastal plains, it runs low teens. Piedmont rural/small towns, in high teens.
GA rural north of ATL, in low teens. (This is more Appalachia than Deep South)
Deep South rural, in single digit.
That said, if you trust their non rural reading, ig Cooper leading 3-4pt is quite possible. I still don’t buy the topline 9pt. Ossoff is likely in the same range, with GA having a redder but small portion of rural South (likely contributed a similar red vote margin all balanced out.)
If what the AFP people are panicking about pans out, like 20% of faithful Republican voters sitting out or vote for Democrats this year -- that throws a wrench into how reliable the polling is.
Yeah, we did see all these special elections what kinds swing could be, when significant number of red voters sat out.
In the regular primaries though, nothing suggests the rural South White voters are less intense or more willing to support Democrats.
I disagree, in that I don't think the poll is that unbelievable. If you look at the voter share of the primaries, Democrats took 57% of the vote to Republican's 43%. Obviously this isn't the most reliable metric, but I think it offers a *decent* baseline, and if we assume that more Republicans sat out the primary show up in November than non-primary Democratic voters, while also assuming Cooper wins the majority of independents/other non primary voters 53% - 44% is extremely possible. This is especially when you consider that the Democratic turnout advantage in the primary was before Trump's presidency went from "fucking horrible" to "really fucking horrible" with the Iran war and gas prices spiking.
And of course we can't forget how monumentally weak Whatley is as a candidate. He has no elected experience and yet can't even claim to be some sort of outsider, and overall he's just kind of a nothingburger candidate.
Against Thom TIllis? I think 2-3 points would be a safe bet for how much Cooper would win by. But in this election, I think a victory of atleast 5 points is Cooper's floor, and admittedly the more likely result given North Carolina's political inelasticity, but I think he could definitely perform much better than that.
But, I am also not from North Carolina, so I'll defer to those who live in the state and might be more familiar with the trends happening there. Even if Cooper is a lock I hope the race still gets plenty of investment just to boost his potential margin of victory further... even if the state legislature doesn't flip (which is still likely even if Cooper were to dominate because of how badly gerrymandered it is), a Robinson-level loss for a non-Robinson candidate could probably do a lot of damage to the state GOP and put them at a huge disadvantage for 2028 when there's a senate seat and three NCSC seats up.
If Cooper wins this seat by double digits, Ted Budd is in SERIOUS trouble come 2028. He's going to have to answer for his Trump ass kissing.
And if voters are this mad in 2026, they're still going to be mad in 2028. It wouldn't surprise me if NC Dems achieve a big sweep in 2028: oust Budd, flip all three GOP-held seats on SCONC, and potentially the EV votes for the presidency.
Definitely. Ted Budd's probably fucked even if Cooper has a more modest victory... NC has a deep bench of strong Democrats, I can see Jeff Jackson making short work of Budd, and taking atleast two of the NCSC seats with him
Jackson would definitely take Budd to the cleaners. I would recommend Josh Stein, but I imagine Gov Stein wants to get a second term and potentially have a non-gerrymandered legislative body to get more of his priorities achieved.
Gov is running for reelection ofc, and AG is the aspiring governor as always.
I mean, Jackson did have a brief run for senate in 2022, and I think most of the motivation behind his run for AG was that he was drawn out of his house seat by gerrymandering. I see him running for senate again sooner than running for governor
Maybe maybe not. I agree it would be a positive sign, but Cooper is an extremely strong candidate that is particularly well suited to his state and 2028 is a presidential year. I'd be cautious about reading too much into it.
Be careful extrapolating out performance from one cycle to the next. If Cooper is winning by big margins this year it's going to be because of a blue wave, not because of a fundamental shift in North Carolina.
Winning NC in 2028 isn't made easier by having a wave year this year. Budd will be one of the most heavily targeted incumbents regardless of what happens this year.
Its not just an unreliable metric. Primary turnout has ZERO predictive measure for the general election
Aren’t you also a North Carolinian? I’m in state and no one is acting like it’s close. I think people just saying it is that know it’s not but are just hedging their bets.
I am, just being super cautious considering how 50-50 the state is. I am not good at political predictions at ALL.
We were lucky that Robinson was a horrific candidate in 2024, but Whatley doesn't have as much of a stench that would give Cooper an identical MOV over him this year.
It is still not a 50-50 state yet, unfortunately.
For state offices, probably fairly close. For federal offices, Rs still have a tiny but distinct advantage.
Also rural NC is still not like Deep South. Not saying it will happen, but definitely still room to fall further. Also the retirement pipeline, mostly to the coast, is still feeding a lot of conservative leaning seniors.
At the bare minimum yes, Cooper could win the Senate race by 2-3% points. After all, the late Kay Hagan was the previous Democratic Senator who represented NC before Thom Tillis unseated her in the 2014 midterms.
https://www.yourvalley.net/stories/former-tempe-mayor-harry-mitchell-dies-tributes-pour-in,708407
Obituaries: Former Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ) has died at 86.
Mitchell was mayor of the suburban Phoenix community of Tempe until serving a long career in the state legislature. His career culminated in representing part of Phoenix and the East Valley in Congress after defeating Republican Rep. J.D. Hayworth in the 2006 wave. He was subsequently ousted by Republican David Schweikert in 2010. Schweikert ran in a different district after 2012 redistricting, and two Democrats, Kyrsten Sinema and Greg Stanton, have held it since.
RIP. His success in suburban Phoenix arguably paved the way for our statewide wins beginning in the latter part of last decade.
Calling an East Valley city suburban "Phoenix" might start fights in some quarters. Mitchell was a lifelong Tempe man who graduated from ASU and taught at Tempe High for 28 years while being elected citywide to 6 four year terms, 2 as a council member and 4 as mayor, prior to representing Tempe in the state Senate for 8 years. His local popularity was critical to our flip of the Tempe anchored but then GOP leaning AZ-05 when he won it in 2006 after terming out of the state Senate. My late mother knew him in the 1970's (she was management at a restaurant which was a gathering spot in Tempe for Valley politicos).
The restaurant was in the old house (hence the name La Casa Vieja) where Carl Hayden had been born in 1877, after his father "Don Carlos" Hayden built a cable ferry and flour mill at the site on the Salt River that became Tempe.
I have family in San Tan Valley, far out in the East Valley, that still say they live in Phoenix. Maybe some quarters.
San Tan Valley didn't have houses until the last few years. I'm talking about Old Arizonans, like Harry Mitchell--it's a fairly small club. Mitchell's grandfather moved to Arizona before it was a state, he was a newspaper owner and land developer in the East Valley before serving in the state legislature.
When Harry was born in 1940, AZ had one congressional district and a population under half a million, Phoenix proper had 65k people, Tempe was under 3000.
Small correction on the headline piece: it's former Rep. Larry LaRocco, not LoRocco
Thank you!
Crystal ball makes 14 ratings changes, all in Democrats' favor. Quotes of tweets follow.
--------------------------------------------
https://x.com/kkondik/status/2082790458523087308?s=20
Crystal Ball rating changes this morning
GA-SEN Leans D to Likely D
House: 13 changes, including pushing 5 Leans R seats to Toss-up. Dems continue to be favored overall even with tight spread in ratings: 208 now at least Leans R, 207 at least Leans D, 20 Toss-ups
https://x.com/kkondik/status/2082791936822227020?s=20
13 House rating changes:
Leans R to Toss-up: FL-14 Castor, NC-1 Davis, NC-11 Edwards, NY-17 Lawler, PA-8 Bresnahan
Likely R to Leans R: OH-7 Miller, TX-15 De La Cruz
Safe R to Likely R: CO-4, SC-1
Leans D to Likely D: NJ-9, NY-19
Likely D to Safe D: CT-5, KS-3
Long overdue imo. I think a lot of the forecasters are gonna move a lot more seats in D's favor over the coming months preceding the election
It'd be hilarious if Hall and Berger's rigging of our maps to try to squeeze a 11 R - 3 D Congressional map ends up with them losing two seats.
Lawler and Bresnahan are clear toss ups, so I’m glad they did this. I live in Lawler’s district and many people here are unhappy with Lawler’s votes and habit of removing people from town halls. There are also Lawler supporters, so toss-up makes sense.
As for Bresnahan, if I’ve heard correctly Paige Cognetti is a really strong candidate. She may have enough of a shot to put the seat in contention. It helps that the PA Dems got their shit together under new leader Eugene DePasquale, and they are clearly more focused and energized than before - see the PA court retention races and some special elections last year.
Lawler shouldn't win in a Democratic year in a Kamala Harris-won district where Trump +15 seats are in play.
I don't think NY 17 is a toss up. I believe it is lean D.
NY-17 is a Lean Blue district to begin with. It was after all represented by Sean Patrick Maloney until Mike Lawler unseated him back in 2022.
I suspect the only reason why Crystal Ball has moved this race to the tossup category is because Lawler has been elected to the House twice. Besides this, I can't think of any other reason why.
Maloney didn't represent the district. He ran there on 2022 after redistricting. Mondaire Jones did, and he wasn't particularly a great fit. It was anti-Trump sentiment that really helped get him in there.i think Conley seems like a better fit/campaigner than Jones was.
Sorry. I was just double checking and Maloney represented what used to be NY-18 prior to 2023.
I think Lawler will probably lose by 3+ points. The environment is just too blue to win a seat like that and we have our strongest possible candidate against him. I'd be pretty shocked if he wound up winning.
Overdue, but good. I’d move TX-15 to tossup too. I thought Talarico was solidly winning that seat and Pulido was narrowly ahead in the last poll? Seems like a true ground zero for hispanic reversion.
The district would've voted for Trump by 18 points in 2024. But if we look at how it would've voted pre-2024 and before Hispanic voters swung hard to the right that year, it would've voted:
R +2.4 in 2020 using the presidential election as a dataset
R +0.4 in 2018 using the gubernatorial election as a dataset
D +11.3 in 2018 using the senate election as a dataset
Gerrymandered districts are always a bit hard to read, especially because I don't think we've had a gerrymander with the potential to backfire *this* badly. But if the GOP can't hold the Hispanic voters who swung to the right in their column, this district is 100% a tossup. And when you consider Talarico's vote share in heavily Hispanic counties compared to that of Cornyn/Paxton in their primary, we might be seeing just that.
To add to this, there are a handful of Safe R/Likely R/Lean R districts in Texas that suddenly become not so Safe R/Likely R/Lean R when we look at the data for an election like 2020, which I might add wasn't even *amazing* for Democrats, or atleast as good as what 2026 might be.
District 23 goes from Likely R to Lean R
District 15, as discussed, goes from Lean R to Tossup
District 35 goes from Lean R to Tossup
District 9 goes from Likely R to Lean R
And in a year like 2018, all of these districts either flip or become true tossups
NY-17 being Lean R for this long seems a bit silly, same with PA-8.
I think a good rule of thumb is that every +-5 point district should be considered a toss-up in every midterm until/unless one candidate has a sustained, substantial polling lead.
For the 2026 midterms, Crystal Ball's assessments in multiple races have been slow like molasses.
CA-48 was Lean Blue right after Prop 20 passed but took Crystal Ball months to move this to Lean Blue.
MI Senate Emerson:
El-Sayed 54 Stevens 39.
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/michigan-2026-poll-abdul-el-sayed-leads-haley-stevens-for-democratic-us-senate-nomination/
Emerson hasn’t been wrong in a dem primary yet this cycle. I hope El-Sayed is coming up with a strategy to win over the voters who aren’t supporting him in the primary, mostly older voters and black voters. Campaigning with Obama could go a long way there.
More important is the strategy to win indies and soft R’s
We’re doing this. I just hope there’s nothing to that Glengariff poll.
Glengariff is a Republican pollster IIRC.
Michigan has (or had, idk if it's still the case) of low-quality Republican polling firms that used to flood the zone with right-leaning polls. Not sure why Michigan specifically.
Is Glengariff low-quality?
I suspect that the Glengariff poll was a push poll because all of the other Michigan polls showed Stevens and El-Sayed running the same in the general election.
The poll was cosponsored by a business group and the MEA.
I have the poll here if you want to look at it:
https://mea.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/MICHIGAN-EDUCATION-SURVEY-REPORT.pdf
I'm not really sure how to identify a push poll though, nor am I good enough at statistics to really detect any potential flaws beyond "well that looks weird" (I got a B in statistics), so I'm curious if anyone here can give it a look and attest to it's validity or lack thereof
A push poll in that callers were told bad things about El-Sayed before they were polled? Because that's what a push poll is.
I don't think that the Glengariff poll was "fake" or something released to make El-Sayed look bad on purpose, necessarily, but it is hard to ignore that most Glengariff polls this cycle have been sponsored/commissioned by groups that are either Pro-Stevens or more aligned with her
There were a lot of weird things happening in that poll, like Mike Rogers winning *20%* of the black vote and El-Sayed only reaching ~57%. In general the poll seemed to really lowball El-Sayed's support among black voters, to the point where 20% chunks of different black voter demographics were just... missing. I really can't help but wonder if the poll is taking El-Sayed's low performance with black voters in primary polls and extrapolating it to the general to a somewhat unrealistic extent.
That's not to say that El-Sayed won't have work to do with appealing to these demographics of course, but I don't think we can really take that one poll from Glengariff and treat it as fact, especially since we're still in primary season. It'll depend on both El-Sayed's willingness to work with the party establishment as well as the party establishment's willingness to work with him to get out the vote.
If folks believe AES will do that poorly with black people in a GE, folks would also have to believe Talarico will as well, considering the actual narrative aimed at Talarico is far more public and intense.
I was thinking that but unsure if it was worth bringing up. I can't imagine the divide being as bad as it is Texas - and I'm already skeptical if the divide even *is* that bad in Texas
Glengariff also had Stevens up 7 in the primary a couple of weeks ago. If El-Sayed ends up winning the primary by double digits, I'll have some doubts about Glengariff's ability to poll his support accurately.
Richard Czuba of Glengariff polling endorsed Haley Stevens on the NYTimes and publicly asked Whitmer to endorse her lol.
Where do you see Czuba endorsing Stevens? He was on a panel in the NYT where he suggested she is more electable, which would be consistent with what his polling shows if we believe his poll. An independent pollster endorsing a candidate (a serious pollster anyway) would be very unusual.
The poll is a major outlier.
At the end of the day, once we confirm it is an outlier, the reasons why don't matter. Finding extra reasons to discard an outlier can get us in hot water in the future. The real reason to discard an outlier is because it is an outlier. The extra reasons could erroneously be applied to future polls that aren't outliers and result in us missing relevant polling movements.
It's an outlier. Discard and move on.
Are El-Sayed and Hong going to sink us? Hate to be pessimistic but just wondering if any Michiganders or Wisconsinites would like to provide feedback here …
I am from neither state so take this with a bit of a grain of salt.
In my opinion, AES seems like a strong campaigner, so I actually think he has a shot at the seat. He’ll have to deal with things like past comments, and sadly racism and Islamophobia due to him being a Muslim Arab, but given that he explicitly said he is not a socialist on Jen Psaki recently, in this Dem primary environment, and given his excellent ads, I think he is a lot smarter and has a better chance than some posters here let on. He reminds me of Mamdani actually.
Hong, on the other hand, could be toast. The question is, how much. I think the current environment is too blue for it to be an outright blowout. I think this might protect other seats we’re contesting, such as WI-03, the AG race, and some of the state legislature. However, I think Hong will not win, simply due to partisanship in the modern day. Progressives have won in WI in the past - La Follette, Feingold, Milwaukee’s socialist mayors in the 1950s - but I think contemporary partisanship would not allow for someone in that mold as Governor (tellingly, Feingold lost his 2016 bid to get his seat back). That said, Tammy Baldwin is staunchly progressive and held on in 2024, a bad year for us, so who knows.
Something to consider is the national environment. People are not happy with the lousy economy and high prices on basic goods. The GOP has made no effort to even pretend to care, with multiple members making idiotically flippant comments about the matter, including Trump. When Americans for fucking Prosperity is finding large numbers of Trump core voters who aren’t voting at all, even an otherwise bad candidate could benefit. A consideration - 2022 was partially not a bad year for us not because of candidate quality (although that was a factor), but because it was right after Dobbs. Unless the GOP has a Dobbs moment, I don’t think we’re too screwed.
That being said, the ability of these candidates to survive in a bad midterm for us (which could be 2030, depending on how the presidential race goes), is a genuine concern — but who knows, maybe candidates will build up a reputation for being in their communities that shields them. Matt Cartwright held on to a swingy seat in PA for years as a progressive due to his excellent constituent services, only losing in 2024 due to the PA Dem leadership royally fucking up that year’s elections and costing us a Senate seat in the process. Likewise, as far as Dem safe seat primaries go, Rashida Tlaib’s firebrand personality and controversies haven’t sunk her due to her excellent constituent services. She even covered Shri Thanedar’s after he refused to give a shit. Candidates can prove themselves well in office, which can make or break an election even in an unfriendly year. Something else to consider.
Just some thoughts.
Great analysis and articulation...several excellent points here!
I agree, that was very well stated.
I agree.
Excellent post.
Let's not all over-react to one bad poll for AES. I think he is a better campaigner than Hong (or Stevens). It is a blue year.
Hong will be more problematic, methinks. Both because of the DSA thing and she justcis not as charismatic or sharp on TV.
And while I get the concern about losing winnable races in the general. And I get concern, from the left, about what happens if AES/Hong lose and the centrists/establishment blame the left (and their own voters) for the loss. Which will happen.
But, the fact that AES/Hong types are winning (closely contending) prinaries in swing states is a big change as well. And it could be transformative.
Look, astute pols will get the message. Mohammed had to go to the mountain, not the other way around. If it becomes clear that AIPAC/corporate milktoast Dems are not gonna cut the mustard in Dem primaries (Craig, Stevens), then there will be fewer & fewer Dems who try and take that lane.
Now, it does not always have to be AES/Tlaib level fiery. Or full on Hong/Mamdani DSA. It can be moderated in tone or tenor, or even a bit more mainstream (Ossoff, Brown, Turek, Jackson, Sands). To downright moderate if necessary (Cooper, Peltola).
But those anti-Epstein, affordability, corruption, rigged system, get the $$ out of politics, anti AI/data center populist notes need to be sounded loudly. Repeatedly. Be it jazz, punk, country, funk, rock, pop, salsa, R&B, rap, or heavy metal.
You have to win the primary first. Transforming the types of candidates that win primaries is a much faster way to reshape the party than considering who can win in the general. Just look at what Trump has done on the other side. There are just fewer truly competitive races.
Trust me, I'd love a less risky alternative to Stevens. Or a more electable progressive than Hong. But I don't think either is available.
The voters are where they are. Dem candidates have to go to the mountain instead of bitching about the mountain not coming to them.
One point is that more moderate Democrats will blame the DSA if their candidates lose in winnable seats because it will be their fault for nominating low quality candidates. So far the left has given us a rapist in Maine, an antisemitic Sex therapist in Texas, a candidate in the swing Lansing district who has made horribly condescending comments about the African American community and are threatening to nominate a gubernatorial candidate in Wisconsin who many of us think would be an absolute train wreck. This is the left's big chance and they will blow it unless they do a much better job of picking high quality candidates like James Talarico and fewer candidates who are problematic or extreme.
We luckily course-corrected with Platner, so better late than never. The Texas seat wasn’t on the left—AOC endorsed the Blue Dog I thought?
I do wonder what the ramifications of a Hong loss would do. Would other swing state Democrats and Democratic Parties use it as a lesson in how the establishment fucked it up that bad in letting it get to that point? Would people take past comments/controversies more seriously next time? I think Wisconsin Democrats might learn from it the hard way, but I don’t know if we can extrapolate that outside of the state.
So the fault will be with the "establishment" if the DSA candidate turns out to be a disaster. If the moderate candidate loses it's the establishment's fault and if the DSA candidate loses it's the establishment's fault. Give me a break.
With how the Barnes/Crowley thing has been handled I’d say it’s fair to say it’s everybody’s fault across the spectrum in Wisconsin at this point but that’s a unique situation
For bungling the primary so badly? Yes, partly. I’ve made it clear how I feel about Hong and the DSA’s choice of candidates, too.
Funny that you mention Talarico since he was further to the left of Crockett in that primary in some instances.
And does this mean Eric Swalwell, Matt Klein or any other establishment backed candidate is so much better than the likes of Platner or Lawrence?
Besides, the left has also given us Zohran Mamdani, Brad Lander, Bob Brooks, Brian Poindexter and Sam Forstag, who I'm sure you don't think are controversial figures, or at least to the extent of the ones you compare them to and put in a bubble.
This is a good point, and consistent with what I've been arguing for a while here. My problem isn't with the left - there are plenty of lefty pols who campaign and conduct themselves like grownups (your list is a good set of examples, to which I'd add AOC). My problem is with not ready for primetime players throwing away winnable seats for us. That applies across the spectrum of Dem politicians.
On that note: it's kind of crazy that we got saved at the last second from blowing CA-Gov and ME-Sen with Swalwell and Platner dropping out in time.
Too many deeply flawed candidates making it until the final stretch before things come to a head. Bound to bite us eventually, and WI-Gov is entirely plausible as the time for that to happen. I guess if I had to pick one of CA-Gov, ME-Sen and WI-Gov to sacrifice, WI-Gov would be the choice...
I agree with this- my point is that the progressive movement needs to weed out some of their more problematic candidates who either have personal issues like Platner and Chevalier for example, or who are so far out of the mainstream that they would be a disaster in the general election. Bad and extreme candidates not only hurt the reputation of the progressive movement as a whole, but they hurt the reputation of the Democratic party as a whole.
I think this is about where I’m at on everything.
Well put, and I agree with your assessment. I suspect AES would probably pull out a GE victory, although it would be closer than I would like. Hong, on the other hand, might hang on by the skin of her teeth, due to the environment, but I'd put WI-Gov as a tossup with her as the nominee.
I think it's misleading to brand candidates with unique problems like Hong and to a lesser extent El Sayed as "progressive" in the same sense as La Follette and Feingold were. It was a different issue landscape that defined progressivism....an issue landscape that didn't include matters as controversial and broadly unpopular as defunding police and closing prisons.
I always return to the working-class perception of Bernie Sanders 10 years ago versus today as the line of demarcation. Progressive messaging, both real and perceived, has shifted a lot in the last 10 years, and in a way that lowers their ceiling of support.
I would also suggest that Progressives start only calling themselves Progressives and stop calling themselves "Socialists", which is a very loaded negative term, but that's a discussion for another day.
There's no credible evidence that El-Sayed is a weaker general election candidate than Haley Stevens. The main argument for that claim relies on Glengariff polling, whose CEO has publicly endorsed Stevens, raising legitimate questions about impartiality. Across polling averages, El-Sayed performs at least as well, if not better. Meanwhile, Stevens enters the race with deep skepticism and bad favs-unfavs with Democratic primary voters because of her undying alignment with corporate interests and AIPAC, making her a far weaker nominee than her supporters claim.
And the partial business association sponsorship of the poll. The co-sponsor, the MEA, is neutral in the race.
I think statements like this from sitting Dem Reps are what most folks are looking at when they say he would be weaker in a GE. That quote at the bottom can be used to hammer him in a GE.
"Rep. Hillary Scholten, D-Mich., who’s backing Rep. Haley Stevens in Michigan’s contentious Democratic Senate primary, told Semafor’s Nicholas Wu she was noncommittal on whether she’d support progressive candidate Abdul El-Sayed if he wins the primary. “I will not stand beside someone who has allowed distinctly anti-American sentiment to enter our public dialogue,” she said."
She also smeared William Lawrence recently by calling him '“ill-tempered” without providing evidence and also alleged that Abdul has problems with women.
Dan Goldman 2.0 speedrun. Abdul is winning her district by a large margin. I don't think voters in her own district, let alone statewide, care about her statements.
Of course. A sitting Dem Congresswoman from the same state is all fodder for Republicans in a GE though is my point.
I would like to know what “distinctly anti-American sentiment” she is referring to. And what makes her the judge of what is American. That’s what Republicans do. And also does she wear a hoodie while in the capitol.
I would assume it's the Hassan Piker stuff she's referring to
She needs to be primaried out in 2028 if she doesn’t get on board for Abdul.
She's getting primaried out anyways. Her D+8 district with urban cores is not asking for a Gottheimer or Suozzi style Democrat. It's also becoming bluer because of evangelical boomers dying rather than some shift in the suburbs.
I'm not sure you can prove that last part...
Again, please show me where the Glengariff CEO endorsed Stevens. Arguing that she'd make a stronger GE candidate is NOT the same as endorsing her.
"I think Stevens's biggest strength is that she is the most underestimated political figure in Michigan and has been since the day she started running for office."
Right...where's the endorsement? He's a pollster expressing his opinion on a candidate's chances in a race, which makes particular sense if he's also seeing polling that supports that idea. What it isn't is an endorsement.
I agree with you on this.
The main argument is that his platform is more liberal than the state
I think El-Sayed is in better shot as he is less exterme on policy (especially defunding police), MI is a touch more blue and people vote more on party in federal elections (as this is a blue yearl than governor. I think Hong is a significant underdog but not out of it.
Bernie might need to attach himself to Hong for the next few months with those sold out Fight Oligarchy rallies…
I'm from neither state but after having a lot of conversations with a friend of mine who follows down ballot races too, he's made me feel better about El-Sayed's chances. I do think my friend gets overly biased blaming everything on Schumer and Jeffries for why our voters have such a sour approval of the party but I have to constantly remind him that it's not that Jeffries and Schumer don't deserve criticism or blame, it's that he completely omits that our voters are pissed the party lost to Trump again. That's the big issue here. I won't dive more into that conversation but that's a driving force with our voters to take a chance on folks like El-Sayed and Hong. Hong has been data centers a big issue which will work in her favor. Plus, we're seeing Hong rise in the polling. Wisconsin's always going to be a tight race and I think that while the vast majority of voters don't understand or like or associate with the DSA logo, what Mamdani proved is that as long as you actually care about the people you want to serve, you can still win.
https://amp.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article316687009.html
MO-5: Army veteran Brad Patty, a minor Republican candidate for this new seat, has been accused of assaulting his ex wife.
State Sen. Rick Brattin and former Jackson County clerk Taylor Burks are the frontrunners to take on Democratic Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver. Democrats including state Sen. Stephen Webber are attempting to boost Burks over the allegedly more electable Brattin in the primary.
Brattin is quite far-right, I wouldn’t exactly call him electable. But he’ll probably have no trouble in the new district.
Not sure why Webber seeks to boost Burks as if there's any difference between him and Brattin
If elected, he will be the 3rd GOP Congressman with credible domestic violence allegations besides Mills and Miller. Stay classy GOP.
I posted this on yesterday's comments, but it bears repeating here.
Former WI Democratic chair Ben Wikler is exploring a 2028 U.S. Senate run, per NBC News. It's paywalled but apparently some Democratic strategists aren't happy with this.
He's definitely not Michael Whatley, because unlike Whatley, Wikler is a born and bred Wisconsinite who loves his state. And him (or another young candidate) would be a sharp contrast to nutty career politician RoJo.
Wait. Why aren’t they happy with this?
Wikler too far left for them maybe?
I mean, I don't know. Looking at the 2025 DNC Chair election it looks like Ben Wikler was more of the establishment favorite with endorsements from Schumer, Jeffries, Pelosi... and Robert Reich, Jayapal, and just about everybody, actually. How in the hell did Ken Martin win?
Point being, it doesn't seem like he's disliked by the establishment even with his leftish/progressive bent. But at the same time, perhaps supporting him as party chair is one thing, whereas supporting him for a senate seat is another. Maybe there's a deep-ish bench of more moderate Dems that senate leadership is ready to back for senate in 2028 over a progressive like Wikler, whereas in regards to the DNC Leadership election it was extremely hard to ignore his immense skill and talent as a party chair.
"How in the hell did Ken Martin win?"
He resuscitated the MN DFL after the 2010 shellacking. He taught everything to Wikler when he was inaugurated as the new WI Democratic Party chair.
I agree with the rest of your comment but are you implying Reich and Jayapal are establishment?
No, I included their names just to demonstrate how broad Wikler’s support was. Endorsements out the wazoo
Some back home have always felt put off by him coming back from MoveOn and DC as some savior for the state party - granted that is exactly what he did in real life - but I imagine that rubs some people the wrong way.
Maybe they prefer Kaul, but Kaul might have screwed himself by not running for a promotion this year. If he and Tiffany both win, he absolutely should not give up his AG slot to be filled by a potential Republican appointment.
I think it's fine to give up the AG spot for a Senate seat. Granted I'm not a Wisconsinite but a Republican Governor with a Republican legislature is going to do most of the damage anyway.
Need someone to sue them up to the liberal SCOWIS or not enforce the laws.
Too bad he's not currently running for governor. The skill-set of a state party chair, especially a successful one, seems to translate more to a governor's responsibilities than a senator's.
He would've been a wonderful candidate for governor.
As someone who likes Hong and thinks some (but not all) of the worries about her are overblown, I'd trade her for Wikler in a heartbeat and it's not even a little bit close. He'd make Wisconsin look like California.
Too bad indeed. He’d crush it
Maybe he's more interested in federal level governance or doesn't want the day to day responsibilities of running a state, as opposed to a political party?
I agree he'd probably be better than the mediocre-to-bad choices they have now. So would probably a lot of others who didn't run.
I remember there being some buzz about this back when he lost to Martin that this was the next thing he was interested in
Who else do we have as potential serious candidates? Wikler might make a lot of sense by default.
The field that ran for governor hasn't exactly impressed, so I wouldn't want any of them running for senate. Pocan could run but I never got the vibe that he wants to move chambers. Moore will be in her late 70s by 2028. Those two are our only reps in the state.
Any serious candidates from the state legislature, county executives, or mayors?
New Wisconsin gubernatorial election poll: https://reforminggovernment.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/IRG_WI2026_Interested_Parties_FINAL.docx.pdf
Hong again has weaker numbers but it's interesting that she still leads here, especially since the organization that commissioned the poll seems to be a right-leaning one... in fact I'm pretty sure this is Scott Rasmussen's firm.
It also shows that while identifying as a democratic socialist or a socialist isn't popular, it's still more popular than identifying as a MAGA Republican (net -8, net -17, and net -23 respectively). The whole thing really looks like a push poll in so many aspects which is why Hong leading, even if by 1 point, is surprising to me.
Another interesting to note is that Tiffany can’t crest 44% yet again.
Napolitan News Service was founded by pollster Scott Rasmussen. And the poll was sponsored by:
The Institute for Reforming Government (IRG) is a conservative, free-market public policy think tank in Wisconsin that frequently reports on government "bias"
There's usually a difference in approval of "Democratic socialists of America" and of "Democratic socialists" lol. The former is viewed far more favorably than the latter.
I would imagine that about 2% of the electorate would know the difference those organizations.
As a Political Scientist, it drives me nuts that they call themselves Democratic Socialists, which basically means "communists with free elections". The vast majority are Social Democrats (including Bernie, etcl, which is very definite
Lots of major social democratic parties in Europe and Latin America call themselves socialists or democratic socialists. There isn't really a clear line between these terms.
Just to recap this week in Trump's approval rating:
Quinnipiac: 32/58 (-26). 32% approval an all-time low in that poll. Also new net lows on the economy (-32), foreign policy (-32), and Iran (-38). And 32/58 is the belle of the ball.
https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3964
CNN: 34/66 (-32). 19% strongly approve. All time low at 19% strong approve.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/29/politics/cnn-poll-donald-trump-midterms-polls-iran-war
AP: 33/66 (-33). Hitting the magical 2 to 1 disapprove here.
https://apnorc.org/projects/most-say-the-war-with-iran-is-not-worth-fighting/
You Gov/Economist: 34/62 (-28).
Looking under the hood on this one: 19/72 with Indies (-53), 3/95 with Dems (-92), and 81/17 (+64) with the GOP.
By race: white 39/57 (-18), Black 16/78 (-62), Hispanic 31/65 (-34).
Age: 18-29 is 31/63 (-32), 30-44 is 30/65 (-35), 45-65 is 33/63 (-30), 65+ is 41/56 (-15).
Gender: Men 37/59 (-22), Women 30/65 (-35).
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:ke6f766al4swdugyvmvyipuo/post/3mrpiigymus2j?ref_src=embed&ref_url=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.dailykos.com%252Fstories%252F2026%252F7%252F30%252F800074082%252Fcommunity%252Fwhen-you-believe-you-change-the-world-july-30%252F
Abosolutely brutal. With room to go lower as the war spreads, gas prices soar (that oil reserve is running thin), and I eonder how seniors will react after Trump killed a Biden policy to reduce medicare perscription drug prices? Notices out in September.
The summary paragraph for Nate Silver's site regarding Trump's approval rating hasn't been updated in two weeks. I don't know why--maybe Eli McKown-Dawson, who writes it, is on vacation? But here's what it says:
"Donald Trump’s approval rating has improved somewhat over the last few weeks. It hit a second term low of -20.2 back in May. But today, Trump’s net approval rating is up to -17.4. Is he still less popular than he was at this point in his first term? Yes. But Trump is actually slightly more popular than Joe Biden was at the equivalent point (-19.2 net approval vs -17.4) in his term.
Over the past couple days, we’ve added a series of polls to the average — such as those from The Washington Post, Echelon Insights, and YouGov — that showed Trump’s net approval rating closer to -22. But before that, most recent polls had him in the -15 to -20 range, which is why he improved in our average. -EMD, 7/16/26"
Note the July 16 date. As of today, the Silver Bulletin Trump approval average is 38.2 approve, 58.8 disapprove: -20.6, a new second term low and a level that was probably seldom seen in the first term (unfortunately the comparable 538 archives may no longer be accessible).
Silver includes a lof of junk and then adds special sauce to make it OK.
The highly reputable recent stuff, across 4 polls, has him at -29.5.
Trump's approval should be in the low to mid 20s, if not teens. But he still has that (shrinking) base of MAGA followers.
AZ implemented an ID-verify option for voters who drop off their mail ballots on Election Day beginning this primary season, allowing them to bypass the signature verification process and get their ballots counted quicker. In Maricopa County, 30% of Election Day voters (23,000 folks) used this option.
https://www.votebeat.org/arizona/2026/07/30/maricopa-pima-counties-id-verify-popular-voters-faster-election-results-2026/
I hate to say this, but this is actually a good idea in this day and age. People can still vote by mail without an ID, but those who want certainty (or wait until Election Day) can use the ID-verify option if they want to.
That is indeed a good idea, I like nuts and bolts stuff like this
I don't know why more Republicans and Democrats won't get behind this. It saves hours on signature verification, throws Rs a bone on photo ID (while making it OPTIONAL), while also making ballot counting quicker.
Because it improves election operations and if election operations are well run Republicans have nothing left to complain about?
EMERSON: MI Senate Primary Crosstabs
🟦 Abdul El-Sayed: 57%
🟪 Haley Stevens: 41%
——
Gender
🔵 Male: El-Sayed +15
🔵 Female: El-Sayed +16
🔵 Non-binary: El-Sayed +58
—
Party
🔵 Dem: El-Sayed +9
🔵 GOP: El-Sayed +30
🔵 Indie: El-Sayed +26
—
Age
🔵 18-29: El-Sayed +44
🔵 30-39: El-Sayed +24
🔵 40-49: El-Sayed +54
🔵 50-59: El-Sayed +12
🟣 60-69: Stevens +9
🟣 70+: Stevens +19
—
Education
🟣 High School: Stevens +2
🔵 College grad: El-Sayed +33
—
Race/Ethnicity
🔵 White: El-Sayed +32
🟣 Black: Stevens +33
7/26-27 | 700 LV | ±3.7%
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2082782035186212929
Why would AAs sit home? Haley Stevens is not Black like Crockett and Obama will endorse him and cut ads for him like he did for Josh Turek.
Will he? Obama has been and always will be very careful with his endorsements. Turek is a very different candidate than AES
Obama always endorses the Democratic nominee for swing races.
Sorry, I meant more cut ads for him. I'm sure he will endorse all Dems of course but there's a difference of how much effort he puts into it
I feel like AES and Michigan might not need as much effort as a state like Iowa, tbf
Iowa's a much redder state so there's a lot of voters who need more convincing to vote blue, like a little reminder of the good ol days. AES is a 50-50 swing state, so all AES really needs is to show people "hey Obama's cool with me" and assauge fears and reservations from black voters and blue-leaning suburban voters
Yeah... Stevens is obviously performing far better with black voters but unless AES makes absolutely zero effort to reach out to them in the general election I don't really think it'll be that bad. Unlike Texas there isn't much racial *tension* due to the fact that neither candidate is black, or if there is it's a smaller amount. I think in Abdul's case it also helps that almost all of his work has centered on Detroit and Wayne County whereas Austin, which Talarico represented, has the lowest population of African Americans of the top five major cities in Texas.
Yes, I saw some interviews of Black Haley Stevens voters in Wayne County saying stuff like, “I like Abdul and I got nothin’ against brother but I like Haley more”.
Believe it or not, non-binary folk, just as voters of color, are a big part of the Democratic Party. It makes sense they would be involved in a Democratic primary.
AES up with indies is surprising, yes?
I am not saying that is true, but if he is winnings Dens, Indies, and GOPers I don't see the point of Stevens.
Emerson has been money, but this does go against the common wisdom of the centrist appealing more to indies.
"A large union of Wayne County cops just endorsed Abdul El Sayed."
https://x.com/ZaidJilani/status/2082822057281089889?s=20
A Lansing resident's take on the MI-07 Democratic primary
(credit: https://x.com/mh0382757760749/status/2082208172530635088):
"The most iconic thing about the Axios article is that it never mentions any of the huge red flags about Brink or Maasdam—only Lawrence. So here they are:
Brink –
Moved to Lansing two weeks before announcing.
Many quotes and moments where she was supportive of Trump before she resigned. Definitely part of the job, but it plays badly on TV.
Real insider trading evidence... not great.
Has a lot of local endorsements. Personable but not charismatic.
Maasdam –
In my opinion, way worse than Brink.
Bought a house in the district a year ago and only moved in four weeks ago.
Used to be registered as a Republican in Florida.
Has weird international business dealings, which Michigan voters won't like.
His experience is confusing—no one on his team ever bothers to explain how carrying the nuclear football means you'd be a good congressperson.
Completely reliant on ads and Obama's name and face.
Over $5 million in Super PAC money spent boosting him, even though he claims he wants money out of politics.
Has a very shit ground game.
Essentially the same core of boomers have been supporting him from the beginning, saying "a vet has to beat a vet."
Ground game
Brink seems to have more on-the-ground support, but Lawrence has over 1,200 volunteers and has knocked 70,000+ doors. No one is close.
Overall –
Brink is much more palatable to me than Maasdam (who is a complete hypocrite), but her insider trading accusation is a real problem, and an endorsement like Blinken's could hurt in a state that's angry about Gaza and Israel. People who aren't in Michigan aren't really getting the fury.
The moderate vote is being split because neither Brink nor Maasdam are great candidates, while Lawrence has done the actual work of building a strong base and coalition.
He may not win, and Democrats like Hillary Scholten should fear making him an enemy. He is very popular.
Most people voting for Brink or Maasdam for "electability reasons" say they hope Lawrence continues in politics, and I don't think the movement he's built is going anywhere."
https://x.com/SGR4NM/status/2082841470545879194?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
NM-Gov: Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard, the preferred running mate of Democratic nominee Deb Haaland, is officially the nominee for lieutenant governor.
They will face Republicans Gregg Hull and David Gallegos in November. Haaland and Richard are the large favorites.