If Kansas republicans want to gerrymander more, they will have to split Johnson county up 2-3 ways. Which sounds strange since Johnson county was one of the most loyal republican counties in the country from 1920-2016, voting for the republican presidential candidate every time, even in all of FDRs elections. Guess they’ve given up on winning their voters back.
If they put Johnson and Wyandotte Counties in separate districts, then they may not need to split JoCo, although they may do it anyway to be on the safe side.
JoCo is blue enough at this point that even if you put it in a district with the most republican counties around it, it's still a 50/50 district. Sharice Davids would absolutely win again in that scenario.
It's pretty difficult to get a seat with all of JoCo that's better than 50-50 presidentially. It'll kind of have to be split. It's possible a seat with Johnson split twice, with the blue northeast part of the county connecting to Wyandotte and western rurals, and then the rest of the county stretching down the Missouri border.
With what's happening in Missouri and now Kansas, the entire Kansas City metro area on both sides of the state border may end up in extreme gerrymanders, spanning up to six congressional districts.
I don't think either is going to succeed, but that is the potential path.
With the huge over-performance of Democrats in the special elections this year I would venture with the onslaught of economic bad news and likely recession by November 2026 that no Republican in any district or state is safe! The population growth in Kansas is all in the urban-suburban areas with population declining in the rural areas so a congresswoman Davids would have an excellent chance of flipping a senate seat. Iowa's special elections sound the alarm for the GOP in rural Midwest America.
I really, REALLY hope that the Iowa and Texas Senate seats flip. Kansas is a really hard lift for Davids and it's a shame the term limited Gov Kelly isn't challenging Marshall instead.
Sharice Davids supported Medicare for All and Abolish ICE in 2018. She won't be able to brand herself a Dan Osborn type populist moderate after such ads play nonstop.
Those stances haven't stopped her from consistently overperforming in KS-03. In 2024, she won 53.4-42.6 while Harris only won the district 51.16-47.06.
I think she's a very likeable person who resonates with a lot of Kansans. I could see her winning statewide in a blue wave year. If she overperforms a typical Dem by 5-7% and the country shifts 10-12% toward Dems, then she'd be in winning territory for a statewide race.
Let's avoid hyperbole. There will remain safe Republican constituencies, no matter what. Democrats aren't going to flip Senate seats in places like Alabama or House seats like Wyoming-at-large.
Worth adding: I suspect in an otherwise identical re-run today that Moore would win by 5-10 points. Republicans have grown increasingly tolerant of the intolerable. That Jones "only" won by 1.5 points itself represented a big shift from how destructive such a scandal would have been in decades past.
Definitely worth a try, particularly since we'll have virtually limitless $ to fund Senate races. I certainly wouldn't want Davids to give up a winnable house seat for it,though. Nor should we count on it in any kind of majority scenario.
Virtually limitless money? Where are we getting so much money from that we can afford to spend it in Kansas rather than Maine, NC, or even Iowa, Ohio, or Texas?
This has been true for a while - we will have more than enough money to spend it wherever and you reach a saturation point in each state where more $ doesn't get you more ad time, volunteers etc. Don't get me wrong - we should absolutely prioritize the states you list before KS, but there will be plenty to go around.
Lol at Xavier Suarez seemingly only having been a Republican to support his son and his failed presidential campaign.
And KS is the longest streak of party wins for the Senate of any state... Would be really tough but tbh, I wouldn't be totally mad even if they keep district lines the same and Davids has a good replacement candidate for her House seat while she takes a crack at Marshall.
Depends on the original context of the reporting, though. Margin vs shift.
If you thought 60-40 was a 20 point win and this time you won 65-35, then, yeah, the margin increased by +10.
But, as you say, in a two person race, a 5 point shift would produce a 10 point margin.
And shift is always somewhat more nebulous than margin. Did voters really change their vote from R to D or did new voters vote? Others stayed home? Etc.
Like in the House. The GOP has a 5 seat edge (219-215, and 220-215 after last 2 specials), but Dems only need to flip 3 seats to take control. But the margin is still 5, not 3. Absences, abstensions, etc.
We've measured overperformances by margin going back to 2017, when we first introduced our special elections Big Board. The GOP won SD-21 by 23 points (61.5-38.5) compared to 34 points for Trump last year (67-33), which is how we get an 11% overperformance for Democrats.
Like Jeff said, just way easier to do it that way, especially when some elections have third party candidates. Like try to analyze a congressman's electoral history where the results went 52-48, 50-45, 49-48, 51-49. I'd describe the winning margins as 4, 5, 1, and 2 respectively, with them "gaining a point the second time, going from +4 to +5, but then dropping 4 points in their third race to only win by 1, then gaining a point to win by 2 in their last race". Rather than "losing 2%, then losing 1%, then gaining 2%". To each their own.
If a wave does materialize, I think lots of 'safe' Senate seats could be in play. I'd hate to be 2-3 prs short with a stronger candidate not having run.
Brown is in in my state of OH. But IA, TX, FL, & Alaska could be winnable, too, with the right candidate. Maybe KS, too.
Planning a federal v state campaign in a very red state take very different strategies and tactics that takes time for her to consider. Not to mention gaming out the timing itself of the announcement to determine the start of the campaign before August.
We aren't even in 2026 yet. I wouldn't call the lack of an announcement "dithering." The Alaska filing deadline is over 8 months away. It's more like trying to rest up before a very intense campaign begins.
Normally, a campaign launches early to raise money or get their name out to constituents ASAP. As a previous statewide elected with a large donor list, she can afford to wait.
That's a fair point, she doesn't need the institutional support. I do still wish she'd get going though, since it's clear to everyone she's running for *something*.
With Grijalva's win, the House is now 219-214 once she is sworn in. The petition on Epstein will have 218 votes with Massie, MTG, Bobert, and Mace already signed on.
Taniel on X / Threads said he missed yet another Iowa special election that was held yesterday. In a small rural RED county--Floyd County--Frank Rottinghaus (a Democrat) won one of the 3 seats on the county's board of supervisors. He ousted a Republican appointed to fill the seat of the Republican supervisor who passed away.
That is awesome! There were two other candidates (both Independents) in the race as well. Based on the unofficial count, Rottinghaus (a former county Treasurer) won with 39.06% of the vote (The R got 38.78%, and the Is got 18.75% and 3.41%). Of course that's not a majority, so I don't know what can be drawn from this with regards to next year, and turnout was just under 22%. But winning is always good. Trump won the county three times 62.01%-36.37% in 2024, 58.91%-39.49% in 2020, and 54.28%-39.44% in 2016. It voted for Democrats before then since 1988
OKAY, I decided to look a bit deeper because only voters in the 2nd board of supervisors district could vote in the election, so I went to DRA and filled out just the areas that are in that district to see how they've voted in the past. Turns out it's quite bluer than the county as a whole, because the district is based around the city of Charles City. According to numbers in DRA, Trump still won that distrct three times, but by smaller margins (53.6%-45.1% in 2024, 51.2%-46.9% in 2020, and 47.6%-45.5% in 2016). Obama won it 62.5%-37.5% in 2012 and 64%-33.7% in 2008. Seems like this was an underperformance then? Not sure what to make of this. I'm also unsure how the two Independent candidates impacted the race.
Considering Adelita Grijalva's large overperformance in the special election yesterday...
So much for any Charlie Kirk bump! It didn't take a genius to figure out that most Americans, except for the 5-10% of dead-enders, would quickly forget about it.
No, but the significant overperformance over last year is notable. And if the GOP had won it or even come close, they and the media would have sandblasted the land with their takes.
Scheduling his funeral rally (let’s be real, that’s what that crude display was, not a proper memorial) during NFL games was a brilliant tactic to further the coverage of his death, at that
VA-LG: Apparently sex pest and former state Sen. Joe Morrissey endorsed John Reid as part of his "Democrats for Reid" push, and Ghazala Hashmi had this to say:
The Democratic Party is having a reckoning around what it actually means to be a “big tent,” and Zohran Mamdani’s candidacy for New York City mayor is at the center of the debate.
The party’s big tent approach is “one of our greatest strengths. But, if we allow extremist views—like those of democratic socialists—into the tent, it will blow right over,” Rep. Josh Gottheimer wrote last week in an opinion piece referencing Mamdani by name.
Just because the Dems don’t want these voters, doesn’t mean they’re just going to disappear. If anything, they’ll just create third party nightmares otherwise.
Gottheimer’s apparent fantasyland of an America with no socialists isn’t happening. Sorry, but free speech allows socialism too, and whatever you think of socialists they’re going nowhere.
We absolutely are not a big tent party though. We don't really think there is a place for anti-choice people, or pro corporate folks and most of us are against those who are pro gun. Lots would want to throw someone out for one position or another on foreign matters. Mamdani himself didn't support Harris against Trump. We aren't a big tent party. We should be
Of course it wouldn't have tipped the scales. But I only learned about this yesterday. While I had been doubtful of hom being a good Mayor or good for us in a political sense, I now have a much more negative opinion of him.
People can change. Mamdani doesn’t strike me as someone who’d be the same in 2025 as in 2020. AOC was a lot more radical at first too. I don’t think we have reason to fear him.
It was a year ago. Not 2020. Of we have reason to fear him it is that he is incredibly inexperienced and promising things he can't do. He's probably going to be deeply unpopular like our last two mayors and there will be political blowback from that. This is not guaranteed, but the likelihood is greater than 50% just because the other 3 options are unacceptable does not mean he isn't probably going to be a disaster.
Emphasis on “not guaranteed”. Don’t write him off before he’s even elected. He’s going to win regardless, but I’m choosing to be optimistic. Nothing has happened yet. Don’t just assume he’ll automatically fail.
I think there’s more reason to fear that he’s not up to a job as unforgiving and complex as NYC mayor (which ripped apart the much more experienced DeBlasio who promised voters much less) than anything else
I wonder how much Mamdani will benefit from national events.
Chicago's Johnson went from a net approval of -56 last year to -12 this year. Granted I don't know the nitty-gritty of Chicago, but I'd go out on a limb and assume he hasn't gotten substantially better at his job. I assume he's benefited from being the opposition to Trump, similar to how Hochul has in NY.
Mamdani will have the first 3/4 of his term spent with that advantage baked in. How much will that shield him from potential negatives? If I remember right De Blasio wasn't well liked but he didn't truly sink until Covid hit, and he started off as mayor with Obama in office.
I am not sure about this just yet. I’ve seen interviews with Mamdani where he mentioned he was heavily involved in matters within the NYC political system for years and was able to get things done. He also seems to project a tougher persona than Bill DeBlasio.
On the other hand, running a city like NYC is a more complicated affair than simply what can be raised on the campaign trail.
Not sure I'd agree. Big tent doesn't mean biggest tent. Democrats are a party with both Warren and Warner, or Golden and Garcia. We have people of all major religions or no religion at all, most ethnic groups with any major population in the US have some representation in our party. Gender/gender identity diversity is worth mentioning too. While we are an increasingly urban and suburban party, there is still a lot of rural representation at play.
Democrats are far less homogeneous than republicans. That's true on an ideological, stylistic, and identity based level. At least based on my limited knowledge of parties in other countries, I think our intraparty diversity is greater than seen in most (all?) other major parties in western democracies.
That in mind, I'd argue we're absolutely a big tent.
With respect to Mamdani: how expected is it for a state legislator to endorse presidential candidates? Wiki has a page which did track Harris' endorsements from state legislators. There's only 18 members of the NY assembly listed, at a time when our caucus would have had 100 members. They list 6 democrats in NH's house, out of the 191 we had at the time. California's assembly is 20 out of 61.
If he made a "I refuse to endorse her because..." statement I think that would merit criticism. If he merely made no public commentary then I don't think it tells us anything. Did he do the former, making a public refusal to endorse?
Of course he was little known in a non swing state, so that can't be held too much against him now. If he'd been better known or campaigned for voting for third party candidates or nobody in competitive states that would be different, and IMO a disqualifier. (Though I wonder if he supported Jill Stein or the "Bernie or Bust" shit in 2016, before he held office.)
We can assume that he won't pull any similar shenanigans in 2028 no matter who the Dem nominee is. If he does he should be cooked.
Yeah if that is true that is a big failing and should have been used by primary opponents. That said he will still be miles ahead of Creepy Cuomo, Turkey Adams and "neighborhood watch leader of definitely not a white gang/militia" Sliwa.
It always amazes me the things that make it past opposition research. It looks like there's some dispute here on if Mamdani was only saying that for the primary or if he also did it for the general, but even if it was a primary-only effort from him it could have made a potent attack line from other candidates.
It lowers my opinion of him, but like you his opponents are so terrible it has zero impact of who I want to win.
He actively campaigned against Harris in the general election. He said this before the election, "As proud Democrats and elected officials and New Yorkers,” Mamdani declared, “we endorse the Leave it Blank campaign.”
He voted for the WFP ballot line for Harris and was a part of the uncommitted movement. We have plenty of pro corporate folks in swing seats, the New Dem caucus and Blue Dog caucus along with many Senators, Governors and AGs. Also, most anti-choice Democrats lost to Republicans not progressives over the years.
Quite the opposite actually. They make big endorsement lists of progressive candidates, and they’re committed to working within the party (minus a few people here or there that have been elected as WFP candidates. Even then, one of these candidates denied the GOP an at-large Philadelphia City Council seat once, so there’s that). I greatly prefer them to the DSA, and I admire their commitment to local races too — many of their endorsees are school board, county legislature, city council, etc. candidates.
Even if you don’t agree with their wing of the party, if they can increase local election turnout, more power to them. Local elections frequently have shit turnout, I remember voting in a board of ed race in my town and there was no one else voting with me.
Did you actually form a thought that says there isn't a place for "pro corporate folks" in the Democratic Party? What do you think neoliberalism is?
When the bankers gave themselves bonuses in 2009, Obama called them to the WH and they expected to get reamed. What did he say? "I'm here to help you." How much more pro-corporate can you get?
"Public-private partnerships." Charter schools. Weakening unions. And look where it's gotten us. If anything, the tent should include more candidates who favor policies that would strengthen the middle class and lift people out of poverty.
Another thing, I’m really sick of people implying socialism is as dangerous as (or more dangerous than) fascism. I don’t see socialists calling for ethnic cleansing and genocide, for one.
It’s a generational thing. Most older people think of the USSR, Cuba, or China when they think of socialism. Most younger people think socialism means Scandinavia.
I'm a loyal democrat and don't feel "betrayed and annoyed" by the label socialist. Especially with the way it is meant in most discourse, that is to say democratic-socialism à la Scandinavia. How is "socialist" othering themselves from the party but "blue dog" or "centrist" are not doing so?
I certainly wouldn't advise people to adopt the label in swing sweats or states, and while there's always room to argue policy merits, this isn't the place for that.
And especially today, there's an entire generation of younger democrats where the politically active among them see the best democrats as ones that specifically do adopt democratic-socialism as part of their political identity. Essentially, AOC and those most like her.
There are 10 members of the blue dog caucus, today. Clearly the distinction cannot be that they are gone when there are still people are identifying as such.
Do you have an equal problem with someone labeling themselves a democratic-socialist as you do someone labeling themselves a blue dog? I'm pretty sure there's more blue dogs in congress than democratic-socialists (DSA members or not).
Not all centrists are trying to keep their seats. Some believe in it for its own sake and their seats would be entirely winnable regardless. Certainly most are centrist (or were a centrist that was able to win the election) in response to the partisanship of their seat/state, but not all. So that isn't the difference either.
I agree, we need to work together. And maybe part of working together isn't saying that adopting a label is a grand offense to all democrats? They are loyal democrats; they're active members of the party.
Actually as someone who grew up in the cold war and practiced idiotic atomic survival drills in school, I think of the USSR, China, and Cuba as communistic, and Scandinavian as socialistic. In my younger days, the USA did quite well with 90% top marginal federal income tax rates. While that may have been too high (Kennedy thought so and reduced to 70%), our rates today are too low and collect insufficient taxes to pay for federal services.
In fact, FDR especially had direct opposition from socialists, in the form of Norman Thomas' candidacies, and there were socialist officials in some cities and states and a socialist movement that often criticised the New Deal and sometimes ran its own candidates, even as New Deal Dems appropriated and modified some of their ideas. (One reason why I never bought or liked the "Bernie Sanders is the new FDR" meme.)
FDR appropriated virtually the entire Socialist Party - USA platform, but the Supreme Court and Congress killed or didn't approve some of his ideas. But he was doing that to save capitalism.
As someone who is no fan of socialism, I 100% endorse this viewpoint. I'll take socialism (and the far left) over fascism (and the far right) all day every day.
Stalin and Mao we’re totalitarians that had no real connection to Marx or Marxist thinking. They used whatever system was available to them to have total power.
The Lonely Island (including Andy Samburg) have stated they are socialists. They don't have radical ideas so much as they are about making the world a better place. Of course, they grew up in Berkeley where liberals, socialists, moderates and plenty radical people in the city roamed during the bohemian years.
In the U.S., socialism as it's applied means something completely different than in a country like Cuba. For starters, socialism within a mixed economy and a western government system isn't taking over the government. It's working within the government system.
Scott Gottheimer’s remarks are exactly why Zohran Mamdani and others are rising up in popularity. Considering as a Congressman he represents constituents who make a median salary of $130,000, I don’t think he really understands the NYC voters and why they are gravitating towards Mamdani.
Gottheimer is right we should be a big tent party but that also requires him and other Democrats not in line with Mamdani and others more liberal to understand the issues better.
Right but what I am specifically talking about is Gottheimer’s rhetoric, which shows he’s not as in touch with those who are not as wealthy as him or his constituents.
You can elect moderate, center left or even liberal Democrats not like AOC, Mamdani, Bernie Sander, Elizabeth Warren, etc. who would have more intelligent conversations about the issues of affordability and the crisis facing voters as it relates to the cost of living. This is the central problem that Mamdani is running on and it so happens he has pointed out on Subway Takes that Mayor Eric Adams is contributing to.
If Democrats have differences of opinion with Mamdani on cost of living and housing policies, then they should come forward. Otherwise, don’t give more ammunition to the GOP.
Gottheimer and his ilk are culpable in the affordability crisis by kowtowing to the wealthy. This Third Way economic policy hasn't worked and we need a real return to New Deal-esque Keynesian economics.
Exactly. Every general election I've voted in has had a democratic candidate that is to my right. Usually a lot to my right. I've voted for them every single time, and strongly encouraged everyone I know to do the same.
Same. It's only a problem for the Centrist Dems because they've rarely had to hold their nose to vote for someone but expect the same from us every single time.
Curtis Sliwa, the Republican nominee in the race for mayor of New York City, said Wednesday that he has received at least seven calls from “emissaries” of wealthy people who have repeatedly offered him money to end his campaign.
Heading to the 2026 midterms, you know Musk's image has been taken a bigger hit than before when the Trump Administration is rehiring federal employees after the federal employees were let go.
Curious how the dynamics are going to play out heading to next year in light of this. Will more Republicans be distant from the DOGE association?
FYI, I am familiar with Musk's style of management at Tesla Motors and to say it's toxic is not saying enough.
Hundreds of federal employees who lost their jobs in Elon Musk’s cost-cutting blitz are being asked to return to work.
The General Services Administration has given the employees — who managed government workspaces — until the end of the week to accept or decline reinstatement, according to an internal memo obtained by The Associated Press.
Those who accept must report for duty on October 6 after what amounts to a seven-month paid vacation, during which time the GSA in some cases racked up high costs — passed along to taxpayers — to stay in dozens of properties whose leases it had slated for termination or were allowed to expire.
“Ultimately, the outcome was the agency was left broken and understaffed,” said Chad Becker, a former GSA real estate official. “They didn’t have the people they needed to carry out basic functions.”
Such a waste and awful for the GSA employees to be summarily fired and then get their jobs offered back due to willful ignorance and cruelty by TACO and DOGE. Anyone who got a new job after being fired from DOGE should tell them to stick their offer where the sun doesn’t shine.
But for those who didn’t get new jobs should hasten back to work.
If Kansas republicans want to gerrymander more, they will have to split Johnson county up 2-3 ways. Which sounds strange since Johnson county was one of the most loyal republican counties in the country from 1920-2016, voting for the republican presidential candidate every time, even in all of FDRs elections. Guess they’ve given up on winning their voters back.
If they put Johnson and Wyandotte Counties in separate districts, then they may not need to split JoCo, although they may do it anyway to be on the safe side.
JoCo is blue enough at this point that even if you put it in a district with the most republican counties around it, it's still a 50/50 district. Sharice Davids would absolutely win again in that scenario.
It's pretty difficult to get a seat with all of JoCo that's better than 50-50 presidentially. It'll kind of have to be split. It's possible a seat with Johnson split twice, with the blue northeast part of the county connecting to Wyandotte and western rurals, and then the rest of the county stretching down the Missouri border.
With what's happening in Missouri and now Kansas, the entire Kansas City metro area on both sides of the state border may end up in extreme gerrymanders, spanning up to six congressional districts.
I don't think either is going to succeed, but that is the potential path.
You don't think Missouri axes Cleaver? I thought that was basically a foregone conclusion.
No, because the map will most likely have to go before the voters, who are going to vote it down.
With the huge over-performance of Democrats in the special elections this year I would venture with the onslaught of economic bad news and likely recession by November 2026 that no Republican in any district or state is safe! The population growth in Kansas is all in the urban-suburban areas with population declining in the rural areas so a congresswoman Davids would have an excellent chance of flipping a senate seat. Iowa's special elections sound the alarm for the GOP in rural Midwest America.
I really, REALLY hope that the Iowa and Texas Senate seats flip. Kansas is a really hard lift for Davids and it's a shame the term limited Gov Kelly isn't challenging Marshall instead.
Sharice Davids supported Medicare for All and Abolish ICE in 2018. She won't be able to brand herself a Dan Osborn type populist moderate after such ads play nonstop.
Those stances haven't stopped her from consistently overperforming in KS-03. In 2024, she won 53.4-42.6 while Harris only won the district 51.16-47.06.
I think she's a very likeable person who resonates with a lot of Kansans. I could see her winning statewide in a blue wave year. If she overperforms a typical Dem by 5-7% and the country shifts 10-12% toward Dems, then she'd be in winning territory for a statewide race.
I think she's likeable and can hold down a redder KS-03. I would say that she has zero chance in a Senate race (as does Kelly, or any other Dem)...
Let's avoid hyperbole. There will remain safe Republican constituencies, no matter what. Democrats aren't going to flip Senate seats in places like Alabama or House seats like Wyoming-at-large.
Doug Jones might like to have a word with you.
I know, I know, I'm just saying...never say never!
Well, he also had the luxury of Roy Moore to run against.
Dems did come close to flipping Wyoming at large in the last midterm featuring a two term Republican president (2006), though it was open then.
It's worth recalling that at that same time, Wyoming had a Democrat as governor. I believe that's the last statewide elected Democrat from the state.
Gov. Dave Freudenthal was re-elected by a massive 70-30(!) margin, which undoubtedly helped Gary Trauner almost flip the at-large seat.
Worth adding: I suspect in an otherwise identical re-run today that Moore would win by 5-10 points. Republicans have grown increasingly tolerant of the intolerable. That Jones "only" won by 1.5 points itself represented a big shift from how destructive such a scandal would have been in decades past.
The scandals that doomed Todd Akin's and Richard Mourdock's Senate campaigns in 2012 wouldn't even register today.
It wasn't open; Gary Trauner nearly defeated incumbent gaffe machine Barbara Cubin, who had held the seat since 1995. She retired in 2008.
That requires a huge scandal. Mere economic trouble is insufficient.
Agreed, and KS-Sen falls in this category, at least for a few years to come...
KS is not as bad as AL, so I'm not 100% positive of that. I think it's worth a try.
Definitely worth a try, particularly since we'll have virtually limitless $ to fund Senate races. I certainly wouldn't want Davids to give up a winnable house seat for it,though. Nor should we count on it in any kind of majority scenario.
Agreed.
Virtually limitless money? Where are we getting so much money from that we can afford to spend it in Kansas rather than Maine, NC, or even Iowa, Ohio, or Texas?
This has been true for a while - we will have more than enough money to spend it wherever and you reach a saturation point in each state where more $ doesn't get you more ad time, volunteers etc. Don't get me wrong - we should absolutely prioritize the states you list before KS, but there will be plenty to go around.
Andrew White, son of the late Govenor Mark White, has now officially joined the race to take on Greg Abbott. Styling himself an "independent Democrat," White joins Bobby Cole and Benjamin Flores in the Democratic primary. https://www.expressnews.com/politics/texas/article/andrew-white-greg-abott-21063336.php?utm_source=marketing&utm_medium=copy-url-link&utm_campaign=article-share&hash=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZXhwcmVzc25ld3MuY29tL3BvbGl0aWNzL3RleGFzL2FydGljbGUvYW5kcmV3LXdoaXRlLWdyZWctYWJvdHQtMjEwNjMzMzYucGhw&time=MTc1ODcyMzU5MjI4Mg%3D%3D&rid=ZmY0NjE1YTgtZWE4OC00MGE5LWE0ZWEtM2M4NTk4MjY0MGRj&sharecount=Mg%3D%3D
Lol at Xavier Suarez seemingly only having been a Republican to support his son and his failed presidential campaign.
And KS is the longest streak of party wins for the Senate of any state... Would be really tough but tbh, I wouldn't be totally mad even if they keep district lines the same and Davids has a good replacement candidate for her House seat while she takes a crack at Marshall.
67 - 61 is 6, not 11. One doesn’t add one’s gains to the opponent’s losses to report a shift.
Depends on the original context of the reporting, though. Margin vs shift.
If you thought 60-40 was a 20 point win and this time you won 65-35, then, yeah, the margin increased by +10.
But, as you say, in a two person race, a 5 point shift would produce a 10 point margin.
And shift is always somewhat more nebulous than margin. Did voters really change their vote from R to D or did new voters vote? Others stayed home? Etc.
Like in the House. The GOP has a 5 seat edge (219-215, and 220-215 after last 2 specials), but Dems only need to flip 3 seats to take control. But the margin is still 5, not 3. Absences, abstensions, etc.
We've measured overperformances by margin going back to 2017, when we first introduced our special elections Big Board. The GOP won SD-21 by 23 points (61.5-38.5) compared to 34 points for Trump last year (67-33), which is how we get an 11% overperformance for Democrats.
Like Jeff said, just way easier to do it that way, especially when some elections have third party candidates. Like try to analyze a congressman's electoral history where the results went 52-48, 50-45, 49-48, 51-49. I'd describe the winning margins as 4, 5, 1, and 2 respectively, with them "gaining a point the second time, going from +4 to +5, but then dropping 4 points in their third race to only win by 1, then gaining a point to win by 2 in their last race". Rather than "losing 2%, then losing 1%, then gaining 2%". To each their own.
Yeah. I hoped Kelly would run for Sen.
If a wave does materialize, I think lots of 'safe' Senate seats could be in play. I'd hate to be 2-3 prs short with a stronger candidate not having run.
Brown is in in my state of OH. But IA, TX, FL, & Alaska could be winnable, too, with the right candidate. Maybe KS, too.
I'm surprised Peltola hasn't announced which seat she's running for now, so that she can start fundraising.
Agreed, the dithering is baffling
I think she'll run for AK governor or challenge Dan Sullivan for his Senate seat.
Those do seem likelier than a rematch with Begich.
She would definitely benefit more with the native vote by running for U.S. Senate. Alaska isn't as red as people think it is.
Benefit more than if she ran for other state-wide positions, or do you mean something else?
Planning a federal v state campaign in a very red state take very different strategies and tactics that takes time for her to consider. Not to mention gaming out the timing itself of the announcement to determine the start of the campaign before August.
We aren't even in 2026 yet. I wouldn't call the lack of an announcement "dithering." The Alaska filing deadline is over 8 months away. It's more like trying to rest up before a very intense campaign begins.
Normally, a campaign launches early to raise money or get their name out to constituents ASAP. As a previous statewide elected with a large donor list, she can afford to wait.
That's a fair point, she doesn't need the institutional support. I do still wish she'd get going though, since it's clear to everyone she's running for *something*.
With Grijalva's win, the House is now 219-214 once she is sworn in. The petition on Epstein will have 218 votes with Massie, MTG, Bobert, and Mace already signed on.
Taniel on X / Threads said he missed yet another Iowa special election that was held yesterday. In a small rural RED county--Floyd County--Frank Rottinghaus (a Democrat) won one of the 3 seats on the county's board of supervisors. He ousted a Republican appointed to fill the seat of the Republican supervisor who passed away.
https://kchanews.com/2025/09/23/special-election-for-floyd-co-district-2-supervisor-seat-tuesday-09-23-polls-open-until-8-pm/
https://www.kimt.com/news/floyd-county-supervisor-election-decided-by-just-two-votes/article_4cb157a3-8378-44ea-920d-fe381cef59c6.html
Rottinghaus won by a mere two votes.
That is awesome! There were two other candidates (both Independents) in the race as well. Based on the unofficial count, Rottinghaus (a former county Treasurer) won with 39.06% of the vote (The R got 38.78%, and the Is got 18.75% and 3.41%). Of course that's not a majority, so I don't know what can be drawn from this with regards to next year, and turnout was just under 22%. But winning is always good. Trump won the county three times 62.01%-36.37% in 2024, 58.91%-39.49% in 2020, and 54.28%-39.44% in 2016. It voted for Democrats before then since 1988
OKAY, I decided to look a bit deeper because only voters in the 2nd board of supervisors district could vote in the election, so I went to DRA and filled out just the areas that are in that district to see how they've voted in the past. Turns out it's quite bluer than the county as a whole, because the district is based around the city of Charles City. According to numbers in DRA, Trump still won that distrct three times, but by smaller margins (53.6%-45.1% in 2024, 51.2%-46.9% in 2020, and 47.6%-45.5% in 2016). Obama won it 62.5%-37.5% in 2012 and 64%-33.7% in 2008. Seems like this was an underperformance then? Not sure what to make of this. I'm also unsure how the two Independent candidates impacted the race.
I'm surprised if the Republicans aren't trying to "find" 3 votes.
Considering Adelita Grijalva's large overperformance in the special election yesterday...
So much for any Charlie Kirk bump! It didn't take a genius to figure out that most Americans, except for the 5-10% of dead-enders, would quickly forget about it.
Let's not read too much from a deep blue seat's election result. More relevant is the recent county supervisor flip in Iowa.
No, but the significant overperformance over last year is notable. And if the GOP had won it or even come close, they and the media would have sandblasted the land with their takes.
Scheduling his funeral rally (let’s be real, that’s what that crude display was, not a proper memorial) during NFL games was a brilliant tactic to further the coverage of his death, at that
CA-GOV:
No, I am not interested in voting for Ian Calderon even while he is a Democrat like Katie Porter and the rest of the candidates in the race.
If he wants to make his support for bitcoin a central issue as opposed to the really pressing issues we have in the state, no thanks.
VA-LG: Apparently sex pest and former state Sen. Joe Morrissey endorsed John Reid as part of his "Democrats for Reid" push, and Ghazala Hashmi had this to say:
https://x.com/SenatorHashmi/status/1970637660814483849
The Democratic Party is having a reckoning around what it actually means to be a “big tent,” and Zohran Mamdani’s candidacy for New York City mayor is at the center of the debate.
The party’s big tent approach is “one of our greatest strengths. But, if we allow extremist views—like those of democratic socialists—into the tent, it will blow right over,” Rep. Josh Gottheimer wrote last week in an opinion piece referencing Mamdani by name.
https://www.notus.org/democrats/how-big-democrats-tent-mamdani
Just because the Dems don’t want these voters, doesn’t mean they’re just going to disappear. If anything, they’ll just create third party nightmares otherwise.
Gottheimer’s apparent fantasyland of an America with no socialists isn’t happening. Sorry, but free speech allows socialism too, and whatever you think of socialists they’re going nowhere.
Socialism is an ideology, not an opposing party.
We absolutely are not a big tent party though. We don't really think there is a place for anti-choice people, or pro corporate folks and most of us are against those who are pro gun. Lots would want to throw someone out for one position or another on foreign matters. Mamdani himself didn't support Harris against Trump. We aren't a big tent party. We should be
In all fairness, Mamdani was a little-known state assemblyman when he didn’t endorse. Would his endorsement have tipped the scales?
Of course it wouldn't have tipped the scales. But I only learned about this yesterday. While I had been doubtful of hom being a good Mayor or good for us in a political sense, I now have a much more negative opinion of him.
People can change. Mamdani doesn’t strike me as someone who’d be the same in 2025 as in 2020. AOC was a lot more radical at first too. I don’t think we have reason to fear him.
It was a year ago. Not 2020. Of we have reason to fear him it is that he is incredibly inexperienced and promising things he can't do. He's probably going to be deeply unpopular like our last two mayors and there will be political blowback from that. This is not guaranteed, but the likelihood is greater than 50% just because the other 3 options are unacceptable does not mean he isn't probably going to be a disaster.
Got the date wrong, sorry.
Emphasis on “not guaranteed”. Don’t write him off before he’s even elected. He’s going to win regardless, but I’m choosing to be optimistic. Nothing has happened yet. Don’t just assume he’ll automatically fail.
I think there’s more reason to fear that he’s not up to a job as unforgiving and complex as NYC mayor (which ripped apart the much more experienced DeBlasio who promised voters much less) than anything else
I wonder how much Mamdani will benefit from national events.
Chicago's Johnson went from a net approval of -56 last year to -12 this year. Granted I don't know the nitty-gritty of Chicago, but I'd go out on a limb and assume he hasn't gotten substantially better at his job. I assume he's benefited from being the opposition to Trump, similar to how Hochul has in NY.
Mamdani will have the first 3/4 of his term spent with that advantage baked in. How much will that shield him from potential negatives? If I remember right De Blasio wasn't well liked but he didn't truly sink until Covid hit, and he started off as mayor with Obama in office.
I am not sure about this just yet. I’ve seen interviews with Mamdani where he mentioned he was heavily involved in matters within the NYC political system for years and was able to get things done. He also seems to project a tougher persona than Bill DeBlasio.
On the other hand, running a city like NYC is a more complicated affair than simply what can be raised on the campaign trail.
Not sure I'd agree. Big tent doesn't mean biggest tent. Democrats are a party with both Warren and Warner, or Golden and Garcia. We have people of all major religions or no religion at all, most ethnic groups with any major population in the US have some representation in our party. Gender/gender identity diversity is worth mentioning too. While we are an increasingly urban and suburban party, there is still a lot of rural representation at play.
Democrats are far less homogeneous than republicans. That's true on an ideological, stylistic, and identity based level. At least based on my limited knowledge of parties in other countries, I think our intraparty diversity is greater than seen in most (all?) other major parties in western democracies.
That in mind, I'd argue we're absolutely a big tent.
With respect to Mamdani: how expected is it for a state legislator to endorse presidential candidates? Wiki has a page which did track Harris' endorsements from state legislators. There's only 18 members of the NY assembly listed, at a time when our caucus would have had 100 members. They list 6 democrats in NH's house, out of the 191 we had at the time. California's assembly is 20 out of 61.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kamala_Harris_2024_presidential_campaign_sub-national_officials_endorsements
If he made a "I refuse to endorse her because..." statement I think that would merit criticism. If he merely made no public commentary then I don't think it tells us anything. Did he do the former, making a public refusal to endorse?
He specifically supported leaving the presidential line blank in the general election.
Well fuck him for that, then.
When did he say that?
Of course he was little known in a non swing state, so that can't be held too much against him now. If he'd been better known or campaigned for voting for third party candidates or nobody in competitive states that would be different, and IMO a disqualifier. (Though I wonder if he supported Jill Stein or the "Bernie or Bust" shit in 2016, before he held office.)
We can assume that he won't pull any similar shenanigans in 2028 no matter who the Dem nominee is. If he does he should be cooked.
Why should matter what his rank at the time was? He was a state rep so he can take a hike on this one
Of course it can be held against him now, just like anything else in his record!
Do you have a source for general? I know he did so in the primary but this is the first I’m hearing of the general.
Yeah if that is true that is a big failing and should have been used by primary opponents. That said he will still be miles ahead of Creepy Cuomo, Turkey Adams and "neighborhood watch leader of definitely not a white gang/militia" Sliwa.
It always amazes me the things that make it past opposition research. It looks like there's some dispute here on if Mamdani was only saying that for the primary or if he also did it for the general, but even if it was a primary-only effort from him it could have made a potent attack line from other candidates.
It lowers my opinion of him, but like you his opponents are so terrible it has zero impact of who I want to win.
The Guardian Angels were always highly diverse, I thought, not close to only white.
I'll defer to your familiarity with them. All I know them for is wearing gang colors and being led by an angry old white man.
I have to correct myself, while he pushed for uncommitted in the primary, he seems to have stayed silent in the general election.
I think it sucks, regardless, if he didn't publicly endorse her, though I take your points and thank you for quantifying them.
Mamdani said he voted for Harris earlier this year, according to this quote: “I proudly voted for Kamala Harris on the Working Families Party line.” https://www.politico.com/newsletters/new-york-playbook/2025/06/20/hot-in-herre-00414649
Maybe he wasn’t enthusiastically knocking on doors for her, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t support Harris over trump.
He actively campaigned against Harris in the general election. He said this before the election, "As proud Democrats and elected officials and New Yorkers,” Mamdani declared, “we endorse the Leave it Blank campaign.”
The “leave it blank campaign” was for the primary.
Yes, I am mistaken. While he didn't support Harris in the general election, he didn't actively campaign against her either.
He did support her though; "I proudly voted for her"
Did he really stay neutral in the prez race? If that's true then all the progressives berating politicians for not supporting him can save it.
He voted for the WFP ballot line for Harris and was a part of the uncommitted movement. We have plenty of pro corporate folks in swing seats, the New Dem caucus and Blue Dog caucus along with many Senators, Governors and AGs. Also, most anti-choice Democrats lost to Republicans not progressives over the years.
So I guess it's ok to not support the democratic line in this race?
I'd say so. The Working Families Party is not an opponent of the Democratic Party.
Quite the opposite actually. They make big endorsement lists of progressive candidates, and they’re committed to working within the party (minus a few people here or there that have been elected as WFP candidates. Even then, one of these candidates denied the GOP an at-large Philadelphia City Council seat once, so there’s that). I greatly prefer them to the DSA, and I admire their commitment to local races too — many of their endorsees are school board, county legislature, city council, etc. candidates.
https://workingfamilies.org/candidates/
Even if you don’t agree with their wing of the party, if they can increase local election turnout, more power to them. Local elections frequently have shit turnout, I remember voting in a board of ed race in my town and there was no one else voting with me.
Agreed on all counts.
He claimed that after the election but did not make any statements supporting her before the election.
If so, I definitely fault him for that.
There are plenty of pro-corporate Democratic politicians, and far from all are in favor of greatly restricting gun ownership.
Did you actually form a thought that says there isn't a place for "pro corporate folks" in the Democratic Party? What do you think neoliberalism is?
When the bankers gave themselves bonuses in 2009, Obama called them to the WH and they expected to get reamed. What did he say? "I'm here to help you." How much more pro-corporate can you get?
"Public-private partnerships." Charter schools. Weakening unions. And look where it's gotten us. If anything, the tent should include more candidates who favor policies that would strengthen the middle class and lift people out of poverty.
Another thing, I’m really sick of people implying socialism is as dangerous as (or more dangerous than) fascism. I don’t see socialists calling for ethnic cleansing and genocide, for one.
It’s a generational thing. Most older people think of the USSR, Cuba, or China when they think of socialism. Most younger people think socialism means Scandinavia.
You forget that the reason to call yourself a socialist is -because you're a freakin socialist! Ughhhhhh, this line of argumentation is so annoying!
Right but we're talking about a NYC Mayoral race here and Democrats like Josh Gottheimer are crying uncle:
Over just a mayoral race and where not even Giuliani, Bloomberg or DeBlasio ever became presidential nominees.
No, public schools, roads, fire and police don't make the country socialist.
I'm a loyal democrat and don't feel "betrayed and annoyed" by the label socialist. Especially with the way it is meant in most discourse, that is to say democratic-socialism à la Scandinavia. How is "socialist" othering themselves from the party but "blue dog" or "centrist" are not doing so?
I certainly wouldn't advise people to adopt the label in swing sweats or states, and while there's always room to argue policy merits, this isn't the place for that.
And especially today, there's an entire generation of younger democrats where the politically active among them see the best democrats as ones that specifically do adopt democratic-socialism as part of their political identity. Essentially, AOC and those most like her.
There are 10 members of the blue dog caucus, today. Clearly the distinction cannot be that they are gone when there are still people are identifying as such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition
Do you have an equal problem with someone labeling themselves a democratic-socialist as you do someone labeling themselves a blue dog? I'm pretty sure there's more blue dogs in congress than democratic-socialists (DSA members or not).
Not all centrists are trying to keep their seats. Some believe in it for its own sake and their seats would be entirely winnable regardless. Certainly most are centrist (or were a centrist that was able to win the election) in response to the partisanship of their seat/state, but not all. So that isn't the difference either.
I agree, we need to work together. And maybe part of working together isn't saying that adopting a label is a grand offense to all democrats? They are loyal democrats; they're active members of the party.
Actually as someone who grew up in the cold war and practiced idiotic atomic survival drills in school, I think of the USSR, China, and Cuba as communistic, and Scandinavian as socialistic. In my younger days, the USA did quite well with 90% top marginal federal income tax rates. While that may have been too high (Kennedy thought so and reduced to 70%), our rates today are too low and collect insufficient taxes to pay for federal services.
Indeed. But FDR and LBJ did not brand themselves as any kind of socialist.
In fact, FDR especially had direct opposition from socialists, in the form of Norman Thomas' candidacies, and there were socialist officials in some cities and states and a socialist movement that often criticised the New Deal and sometimes ran its own candidates, even as New Deal Dems appropriated and modified some of their ideas. (One reason why I never bought or liked the "Bernie Sanders is the new FDR" meme.)
FDR appropriated virtually the entire Socialist Party - USA platform, but the Supreme Court and Congress killed or didn't approve some of his ideas. But he was doing that to save capitalism.
And the Labour Party in Britain. When it was a labor party.
As someone who is no fan of socialism, I 100% endorse this viewpoint. I'll take socialism (and the far left) over fascism (and the far right) all day every day.
Tipped, but I think none of us would take the genuine far left, which is Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist/Trotskyite.
Simpler times...
Stalin and Mao we’re totalitarians that had no real connection to Marx or Marxist thinking. They used whatever system was available to them to have total power.
Agreed. But Lenin was also highly problematic.
The Lonely Island (including Andy Samburg) have stated they are socialists. They don't have radical ideas so much as they are about making the world a better place. Of course, they grew up in Berkeley where liberals, socialists, moderates and plenty radical people in the city roamed during the bohemian years.
In the U.S., socialism as it's applied means something completely different than in a country like Cuba. For starters, socialism within a mixed economy and a western government system isn't taking over the government. It's working within the government system.
If the tent is big enough to hold corporate loving, AIPAC hack, Gottheimer, it's big enough to hold Mamdani.
Scott Gottheimer’s remarks are exactly why Zohran Mamdani and others are rising up in popularity. Considering as a Congressman he represents constituents who make a median salary of $130,000, I don’t think he really understands the NYC voters and why they are gravitating towards Mamdani.
Gottheimer is right we should be a big tent party but that also requires him and other Democrats not in line with Mamdani and others more liberal to understand the issues better.
And of course the opposite, progressives supporting more conservative dems...but we both know that's not going to happen.
Right but what I am specifically talking about is Gottheimer’s rhetoric, which shows he’s not as in touch with those who are not as wealthy as him or his constituents.
You can elect moderate, center left or even liberal Democrats not like AOC, Mamdani, Bernie Sander, Elizabeth Warren, etc. who would have more intelligent conversations about the issues of affordability and the crisis facing voters as it relates to the cost of living. This is the central problem that Mamdani is running on and it so happens he has pointed out on Subway Takes that Mayor Eric Adams is contributing to.
If Democrats have differences of opinion with Mamdani on cost of living and housing policies, then they should come forward. Otherwise, don’t give more ammunition to the GOP.
Gottheimer and his ilk are culpable in the affordability crisis by kowtowing to the wealthy. This Third Way economic policy hasn't worked and we need a real return to New Deal-esque Keynesian economics.
That he’s a real jerk only makes him all the more appealing and a true leader.
Yes. Democrats can't be GOP lite in this aspect.
Isn't it? Who do you think most of us vote for for president and Senate all the time.
Exactly. Every general election I've voted in has had a democratic candidate that is to my right. Usually a lot to my right. I've voted for them every single time, and strongly encouraged everyone I know to do the same.
Same. It's only a problem for the Centrist Dems because they've rarely had to hold their nose to vote for someone but expect the same from us every single time.
Yes, and Progressives have never sabotaged the Democratic nominee for president, except for 2024- and 2016 -and 2000.
The couch humper and Trump foot kisser Whatley are, naturally, blaming the fatal Charlotte stabbing on former governor Roy Cooper.
https://www.wral.com/news/state/jd-vance-concord-visit-september-2025/
Nothing would please me more than to see both men flame out in 2028 and next year.
Can we please drop the couch humper thing? It was mildly funny a long time ago but is stupid now, IMO.
I refuse to call him VP Vance. I can call him Hillbilly Vance.
I call him “Vile Vance”.
Tech Bro Vance is more my cup of tea.
I don't have a problem with any of these.
Considering JD Vance sold out, I'm fine with any of them.
The tech association though I point out because Vance has ties to Peter Thiel and was influenced by him to run for the Senate.
Curtis Sliwa, the Republican nominee in the race for mayor of New York City, said Wednesday that he has received at least seven calls from “emissaries” of wealthy people who have repeatedly offered him money to end his campaign.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/24/curtis-sliwa-new-york-mayor-trump-mamdani-cuomo.html
Bribing a mayoral candidate so he can drop out eh? How very, very fascinating.
Oh how the GOP in NYC have fallen since the days when Rudy Giuliani was Mayor. They really just can't seem to catch a break!
Heading to the 2026 midterms, you know Musk's image has been taken a bigger hit than before when the Trump Administration is rehiring federal employees after the federal employees were let go.
Curious how the dynamics are going to play out heading to next year in light of this. Will more Republicans be distant from the DOGE association?
FYI, I am familiar with Musk's style of management at Tesla Motors and to say it's toxic is not saying enough.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/24/politics/doge-federal-workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of federal employees who lost their jobs in Elon Musk’s cost-cutting blitz are being asked to return to work.
The General Services Administration has given the employees — who managed government workspaces — until the end of the week to accept or decline reinstatement, according to an internal memo obtained by The Associated Press.
Those who accept must report for duty on October 6 after what amounts to a seven-month paid vacation, during which time the GSA in some cases racked up high costs — passed along to taxpayers — to stay in dozens of properties whose leases it had slated for termination or were allowed to expire.
“Ultimately, the outcome was the agency was left broken and understaffed,” said Chad Becker, a former GSA real estate official. “They didn’t have the people they needed to carry out basic functions.”
Such a waste and awful for the GSA employees to be summarily fired and then get their jobs offered back due to willful ignorance and cruelty by TACO and DOGE. Anyone who got a new job after being fired from DOGE should tell them to stick their offer where the sun doesn’t shine.
But for those who didn’t get new jobs should hasten back to work.
Agreed!
Wait- are you telling me that the Elon, Big Balls and company may have done an incompetent job at cutting government "waste?" I am shocked.
Jackson County, MO Executive Frank White (former KC Royals gold glove 2nd baseman) was overwhelmingly recalled in a vote last night.
https://www.kcur.org/politics-elections-and-government/2025-09-30/jackson-county-unseats-executive-frank-white-jr-in-historic-election-what-happens-now
The county is fully included in Rep. Cleaver's congressional district which Rs are trying to gerrymander out of existence.