This actually isn't true. She's not a particularly strong incumbent and that district is trending very left. Split Ticket has underperforming almost every cycle in their WAR models. If Dems can convince state senator, Doug Beck, who is term-limited in 2028, to run, she will be in for a difficult race this cycle.
The doomer talk is voter suppression and elections are happening this year across the country in addition to the midterms next year. Democrats are either winning these seats outright or cutting heavily into Republican win margins.
I hope resounding wins in Virginia and New Jersey this fall for the gubernatorial and state legislative Dem candidates quiet this fear mongering.
I don't particularly care. Defending democracy is the current calling, and he declined, so it's clearly not enough of a motivator for him. We need the right people stepping up now.
I live in the St. Louis area. Adam Wainwright would probably be the strongest electoral candidate you could run, but he's never been particularly political. He's done a lot of charity work, but the article linking him to MO-02 never made a lot of sense. For starters, he has five kids ranging from ~5 to high school age and they live in Georgia. He may have been approached, but I don't think that is something he sought out. Probably not fair to fault someone for rebuffing overtures in this type of situation. Doug Beck would be a very strong candidate and that district is being severely underdiscussed as a Dem pick up opportunity.
Why do we think he's even a Democrat btw? I mean, I know the poll tested him as such, but I've not found any evidence to bolster that idea and his profile certainly doesn't scream Democrat...
I think we're just entering an era where too many politicians (even those who should know better) make promises they can never realistically deliver...and then wonder why their approval plummets to subterranean levels upon taking office.
You can make big promises, but you can’t make too many at once. Whitmer made “fix the roads” her one big thing, for instance. Trying to do too much at once is the bane of politicians rather than the scope of one or two things they can do
The media cycle incentivizes this. Candidates only get media coverage if they do something that gets attention. That's true for traditional media but also for social media too. A candidate that gets no coverage usually has no real chance of winning. Making big policy promises is an easy way to get attention.
If realistic promises make it more or less impossible to get elected, there's no point in making realistic promises. Better to win and be unpopular than to lose and be nobody, is my guess for their thought process.
If we want it to change we need to get voters on board with supporting realistic promises and get the general populace on board with giving attention to "boring" candidates rather than giving all their attention to the most bombastic people around.
And what irritates me even more about this is that the media could easily cover said promises in a "here's why they're unrealistic" manner (i.e., mini civics lessons!), but they've largely abdicated that responsibility.
Yep. Worse than abdicating, media is complicit in this system. They get more eyeballs and thus more advertising revenue if they cover the more unrealistic policies.
Why spend time detailing a mayoral candidate's policies on zoning reform or water management when nobody is going to tune in to watch it? Better to get the $$$ from highlighting policies that the candidates support that are wholly outside the purview of mayors in the first place.
This extends to national politics too. Far too often democrats get stuck in a mud fight over e.g. healthcare policy when both the moderate and progressive proposals are untenable at present due to not having 60 seats in the senate, and even worse in all likelihood having a bare majority — if we're lucky!
That mud fight gets amplified by the media because it makes them money, and our base commits to it because its a topic we feel strongly about. Yet it's largely a waste of time that just makes it harder for our candidates to win, whether they be running for house, senate, or president.
Yeah, I mean, the last 10 years has absolutely sent the message that lying like a lunatic is better than telling the voters the truth and that delivering for voters isn't exactly rewarded.
Rightly or wrongly, the electorate rewards confidence. Which I would be onboard for us doing except for the fact that we don't get away with it the way Republicans do. We Democrats as the "government is good" party are actually expected to be adults and to govern and govern well. It doesn't work that way for Republicans.
Yes, for Republicans. By contrast, look at how Biden, and Harris by association, suffered from doing practically miraculous things, because they weren't actually genies.
There are more than 2 candidates. I plan on giving Mamdani my 5th-place vote, but I don't think he can win, and if he did, I have doubts that he would be a very good mayor.
the great thing about cuomo is that its impossible for him to get worse, given his dozens of credible sexual harassment issues, helping hand the house to republicans with his indepednent redistricting committee and his desire to put himself above the people of new york shipping covid patients to nursing homse /snark. It's disheartening for democratic folks to say "that's not possible." Republicans do not tell their voters its impossible for anything. They fight like hell to avoid shifting the Overton window, and that is the only aspect of their message we should mimic
The fact that the standard bearer of the Democratic Party rose to prominence with a speech saying “there is not a liberal America, there is not a conservative America, there is the United States of America” speaks for itself. And BTW, voters can call themselves whatever they want. How they vote is ultimately what counts.
You operate on the notion that Democrats get the same leeway from voters as Republicans do. We simply don't. We make "unrealistic" promises, we get chastised for it at best, ridiculed at worst. Like it or not, there ARE double standards in American politics and we have to work with that.
That’s nothing but weak, defeatist talk. There are only double standards if you go along with them. Why do you think Republicans have been attacking the “media” (working the refs) for decades, while the Democrats are always wringing their hands about attacking the Republicans. Yesterday, a Democratic senator was assaulted by Republican goons. The Democratic leader’s response?
Absolutely pathetic. What answers? It’s as clear as day. He should be bringing the senate to a crawl until there is an apology. This is typical of this overall attitude and a big reason why Democrats lose.
Republicans attack “the media” because their base LETS them and buys into the notion that the world is out to get them. Most Democratic voters are simply not motivated that same way. If they were, Democratic politicians would be pushing that narrative. I get that you want Democratic politicians to imitate Republicans. That’s not going to happen. Refusing to pretend that Democrats are mirror Republicans is not “defeatist.” It’s called being honest and realistic.
You get it ass backwards. Democratic politicians are not attacking, so their voters are not responding. Maybe that’s why the percentage of Democratic voters in the electorate is at a 100 year low.
Some of Biden's best moments with dem voters during his presidency were when he got aggressive with the media. "What a stupid son of a bitch" worked amazingly well with dems.
There's far more appetite for this than you give it credit for.
Ultimately a lot of partisanship is following rather than leading anyway. If democratic officials fought with the media more, there'd be more open support for doing so.
I want to add to this comment. For the sake of the argument, let's assume that it is true that democratic voters do not want us to fight with the media.
It's still a strategy that has been hurting us for years now. The media treats republicans with kid gloves and we do the same failed shit over and over again.
I've heard numerous times over the years that the party cannot do XYZ that democratic voters universally or near universally support because doing XYZ would make it too hard to win. Which is a compelling argument if the reasoning is credibly true.
Following the logic, if that assumption was true it would still be 100% practical and correct to do what needs to be done to improve our shot at winning. They cannot have their cake (can't do what the base wants because winning is important) and have it too (refuse to do something to make winning easier because the base doesn't want it).
I agree with this. Making the media the enemy without inciting people to murder reporters has been popular for a really, really long time. Like since the early 19th century at least.
Nearly 80 percent of Democrats and Dem leaners want leaders to fight harder against Reps and Trump according to recent polls I saw. This is the proverbial 80-20 issue that Democrats are again on the wrong side of.
Demonstrations are not immediately relevant to elections, but they're certainly relevant to whether we have dissent or any kind of democracy or not. I took off tomorrow from work and will be at the No Kings demonstration in New York. Are all of you taking to the streets tomorrow?
Zohran Mamdani and Brad Lander, the leading progressive candidates in the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City, will cross-endorse each other on Friday, creating a late-stage partnership designed to help one of them surpass former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo in ranked-choice balloting.
Don’t blame Mamdani if he wins, as AOC put it bluntly, there were a lot of Democrats with different ideologies in the race other than the brat Cuomo but the establishment chose to line up behind him. Lander and Adrienne made the most sense but Mamdani has been taking popularist positions like rent freeze which is obviously bad economic policy to a policy wonk like me but a huge majority of NYers support it according to a poll I saw.
I want Brad Lander because he seems far more pragmatic, whereas some of Mamdani’s proposal seem totally unrealistic. Given that Mamdani is polling better, I would think it more likely that Lander helps lift him over the top than the other way around.
Susan Storey Rubio, a rancher from Cotulla, launched her campaign for Texas's 23rd Congressional District Thursday evening, positioning herself to the right of Republican incumbent Tony Gonzales. She is said to be putting $350,000 of her own money into the campaign. Two years ago, Gonzales won the Republican primary by only 400 votes, and he was sanctioned by the Texas GOP for supporting a bipartisan gun bill. However, Gonzales, who votes consistently for the MAGA agenda, was endorsed in 2024 by Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson.
Of course, we should keep a healthy skepticism about opinion polling. It's actually true that the only votes that matter are the ones that are actually tallied.
Prediction: We’ll flip seats in South California, South Texas and South Florida in 2026. The Dummymander may backfire badly if we flip Rio Grande valley again as Inside Elections warned.
For SoCal, the only districts left to flip are CA-40 and CA-41, all of which are doable but tough. I guess CA-22, too, but I wouldn't really call the Central Valley "SoCal."
If things get really bad for Republicans, CA-48 and CA-23 could flip, but then we're looking at Dems winning upwards of 280 congressional seats.
Republicans are going to get a BIG shellacking this November in Virginia. I think Spanberger will probably hit the margin Northam did in 2017, which also helped pace the way for Virginia Dems to regain their first trifecta in 21 years in 2019.
FDJT keeps stepping in it and making things worse each day.
Not happy about AG/LG numbers, but with a R+4 electorate sample (which is not happening in November), Democrats would be ahead in both races even with a 2024 red skewing electorate.
This is why I despise putrid Golden and would rather see a normal Democratic run in Maine and lose the Senate seat than him try his hand statewide. If you can’t stand up for your own, you aren’t a Democrat. He would be Sinema on steroids and worked for Collins anyways.
I meant the Senate seat not the house. One Republican less in the House without a Democrat more is also a gain for Democrats. But his district is not asking for this conservative a Democrat, the Cook partisan lean is +4R, Dems lost the Governor race there by a point and Senator King won it along with Trump.
Basically zero. Maine needs 2/3 of the state legislature to vote in favor of any districts drawn. Democrats hold 20/35 senate seats and 76/151 house seats (there are also 2 independents who I do not know who they caucus with).
It is effectively impossible. If we want ME-02 to be less red, we'd need to prevent any districts from being passed after the 2030 census, then hope that the courts draw something that accomplishes that. It's not a great bet.
2) He can’t win a Democratic primary for Governor.
3) With Trump in office, now is the time to break with Democrats on issues that have no bearing on legislation passing or not.
4) This is smart politics from a guy who represents a district that voted for Trump by 10. Do you ever wonder why almost every other red district Democrat got tossed over the modern era, while he keeps winning re-election? This, this is why. Him doing stuff like this is the only reason he still holds this red district.
5) He’s better than a Republican.
Use your brain, not your heart (and just in case anyone reads something into this post: I hate Golden’s position here, but I support him having it).
Waino not running in MO-02: Not a surprising response.
MO-2 probably will not be competitive this decade (unless Ann Wagner retires before then-she's a very strong entrenched incumbent.).
This actually isn't true. She's not a particularly strong incumbent and that district is trending very left. Split Ticket has underperforming almost every cycle in their WAR models. If Dems can convince state senator, Doug Beck, who is term-limited in 2028, to run, she will be in for a difficult race this cycle.
With his "now is not the time" comment, I'm guessing defending democracy is not a factor in his potential political career. Hard pass.
You could make a good argument for democracy dying in 2000, but this country has never been a full democracy in terms of presidential elections.
Why was the post I responded to deleted?
If David, Jeff, or someone who runs this site deleted it, maybe because the “democracy died in 2016” or similar arguments were considered “doomerism”.
David’s especially been getting pissed about that type of talk in the DB Discord server.
Ok, thanks for the explanation.
The doomer talk is voter suppression and elections are happening this year across the country in addition to the midterms next year. Democrats are either winning these seats outright or cutting heavily into Republican win margins.
I hope resounding wins in Virginia and New Jersey this fall for the gubernatorial and state legislative Dem candidates quiet this fear mongering.
I mean, the Electoral College and the Senate are both profoundly un-democratic (and intentionally so).
Exactly.
We have the Senate for the same reason Australia does, it was the only way to get everybody on board for a union of states.
That’s a cheap shot, IMO.
I don't particularly care. Defending democracy is the current calling, and he declined, so it's clearly not enough of a motivator for him. We need the right people stepping up now.
Yes, but does that mean he's on your shit list forever?
Do we even know *anything* about this guy's politics/acumen?
No.
Then...he's not the right person, and we move on.
Was it personally not the time? Because 2026 is the time to run as a dem if you want wind at your back
I live in the St. Louis area. Adam Wainwright would probably be the strongest electoral candidate you could run, but he's never been particularly political. He's done a lot of charity work, but the article linking him to MO-02 never made a lot of sense. For starters, he has five kids ranging from ~5 to high school age and they live in Georgia. He may have been approached, but I don't think that is something he sought out. Probably not fair to fault someone for rebuffing overtures in this type of situation. Doug Beck would be a very strong candidate and that district is being severely underdiscussed as a Dem pick up opportunity.
Why do we think he's even a Democrat btw? I mean, I know the poll tested him as such, but I've not found any evidence to bolster that idea and his profile certainly doesn't scream Democrat...
Mamdani is getting worse. How can the Mayor of New York freeze grocery prices? Can he also turn my water into wine?
How can they freeze rent?
In theory, the Rent Stabilization Board could freeze rent, but only for rent stabilized tenants.
And the only time such a freeze ever happened was when there was almost no inflation in the teeth of the pandemic.
I think we're just entering an era where too many politicians (even those who should know better) make promises they can never realistically deliver...and then wonder why their approval plummets to subterranean levels upon taking office.
You can make big promises, but you can’t make too many at once. Whitmer made “fix the roads” her one big thing, for instance. Trying to do too much at once is the bane of politicians rather than the scope of one or two things they can do
The media cycle incentivizes this. Candidates only get media coverage if they do something that gets attention. That's true for traditional media but also for social media too. A candidate that gets no coverage usually has no real chance of winning. Making big policy promises is an easy way to get attention.
If realistic promises make it more or less impossible to get elected, there's no point in making realistic promises. Better to win and be unpopular than to lose and be nobody, is my guess for their thought process.
If we want it to change we need to get voters on board with supporting realistic promises and get the general populace on board with giving attention to "boring" candidates rather than giving all their attention to the most bombastic people around.
And what irritates me even more about this is that the media could easily cover said promises in a "here's why they're unrealistic" manner (i.e., mini civics lessons!), but they've largely abdicated that responsibility.
Yep. Worse than abdicating, media is complicit in this system. They get more eyeballs and thus more advertising revenue if they cover the more unrealistic policies.
Why spend time detailing a mayoral candidate's policies on zoning reform or water management when nobody is going to tune in to watch it? Better to get the $$$ from highlighting policies that the candidates support that are wholly outside the purview of mayors in the first place.
This extends to national politics too. Far too often democrats get stuck in a mud fight over e.g. healthcare policy when both the moderate and progressive proposals are untenable at present due to not having 60 seats in the senate, and even worse in all likelihood having a bare majority — if we're lucky!
That mud fight gets amplified by the media because it makes them money, and our base commits to it because its a topic we feel strongly about. Yet it's largely a waste of time that just makes it harder for our candidates to win, whether they be running for house, senate, or president.
Yeah, I mean, the last 10 years has absolutely sent the message that lying like a lunatic is better than telling the voters the truth and that delivering for voters isn't exactly rewarded.
Rightly or wrongly, the electorate rewards confidence. Which I would be onboard for us doing except for the fact that we don't get away with it the way Republicans do. We Democrats as the "government is good" party are actually expected to be adults and to govern and govern well. It doesn't work that way for Republicans.
Yes, for Republicans. By contrast, look at how Biden, and Harris by association, suffered from doing practically miraculous things, because they weren't actually genies.
"Can [Mamdani] also turn my water into wine?"
No, but he can probably turn your good wine into vinegar.
and he didn't have to resign under threat of impeachment for sexual harrassment, grifting the taxpayers, and sending covid patients to nursing homes
Just to be clear, I want *both* Cuomo and Mamdani defeated. I far prefer Brad Lander.
There are more than 2 candidates. I plan on giving Mamdani my 5th-place vote, but I don't think he can win, and if he did, I have doubts that he would be a very good mayor.
I trust he won't sexually assault/harass anyone on his staff and be forced to resign in disgrace for that.
the great thing about cuomo is that its impossible for him to get worse, given his dozens of credible sexual harassment issues, helping hand the house to republicans with his indepednent redistricting committee and his desire to put himself above the people of new york shipping covid patients to nursing homse /snark. It's disheartening for democratic folks to say "that's not possible." Republicans do not tell their voters its impossible for anything. They fight like hell to avoid shifting the Overton window, and that is the only aspect of their message we should mimic
Exactly. It’s the point I’ve been making over and over again for a while. But it seems to fall on a lot of deaf ears on here.
Maybe if Democratic voters LET Democratic politicians get away with it the way Republicans voters do........
And when have they not? You mean they will respond, “oh please don’t attack Fox News. I may not vote for you if you do.”
The fact that the standard bearer of the Democratic Party rose to prominence with a speech saying “there is not a liberal America, there is not a conservative America, there is the United States of America” speaks for itself. And BTW, voters can call themselves whatever they want. How they vote is ultimately what counts.
What standard bearer? That’s 17 years ago. You’re living in the past. And guess who that type of passive politics gave us?
You operate on the notion that Democrats get the same leeway from voters as Republicans do. We simply don't. We make "unrealistic" promises, we get chastised for it at best, ridiculed at worst. Like it or not, there ARE double standards in American politics and we have to work with that.
That’s nothing but weak, defeatist talk. There are only double standards if you go along with them. Why do you think Republicans have been attacking the “media” (working the refs) for decades, while the Democrats are always wringing their hands about attacking the Republicans. Yesterday, a Democratic senator was assaulted by Republican goons. The Democratic leader’s response?
https://bsky.app/profile/schumer.senate.gov/post/3lrifjmjqck2w
Absolutely pathetic. What answers? It’s as clear as day. He should be bringing the senate to a crawl until there is an apology. This is typical of this overall attitude and a big reason why Democrats lose.
Republicans attack “the media” because their base LETS them and buys into the notion that the world is out to get them. Most Democratic voters are simply not motivated that same way. If they were, Democratic politicians would be pushing that narrative. I get that you want Democratic politicians to imitate Republicans. That’s not going to happen. Refusing to pretend that Democrats are mirror Republicans is not “defeatist.” It’s called being honest and realistic.
You get it ass backwards. Democratic politicians are not attacking, so their voters are not responding. Maybe that’s why the percentage of Democratic voters in the electorate is at a 100 year low.
Again Democrats. Are. NOT. Mirror. Republicans.
Some of Biden's best moments with dem voters during his presidency were when he got aggressive with the media. "What a stupid son of a bitch" worked amazingly well with dems.
There's far more appetite for this than you give it credit for.
Ultimately a lot of partisanship is following rather than leading anyway. If democratic officials fought with the media more, there'd be more open support for doing so.
I want to add to this comment. For the sake of the argument, let's assume that it is true that democratic voters do not want us to fight with the media.
It's still a strategy that has been hurting us for years now. The media treats republicans with kid gloves and we do the same failed shit over and over again.
I've heard numerous times over the years that the party cannot do XYZ that democratic voters universally or near universally support because doing XYZ would make it too hard to win. Which is a compelling argument if the reasoning is credibly true.
Following the logic, if that assumption was true it would still be 100% practical and correct to do what needs to be done to improve our shot at winning. They cannot have their cake (can't do what the base wants because winning is important) and have it too (refuse to do something to make winning easier because the base doesn't want it).
I agree with this. Making the media the enemy without inciting people to murder reporters has been popular for a really, really long time. Like since the early 19th century at least.
Nearly 80 percent of Democrats and Dem leaners want leaders to fight harder against Reps and Trump according to recent polls I saw. This is the proverbial 80-20 issue that Democrats are again on the wrong side of.
Cuomo could get far worse than that.
oh no doubt, i am not a mahmandani backer, I simply would vote for mickey mouse before I ranked cuomo
Demonstrations are not immediately relevant to elections, but they're certainly relevant to whether we have dissent or any kind of democracy or not. I took off tomorrow from work and will be at the No Kings demonstration in New York. Are all of you taking to the streets tomorrow?
Nothing in our area, but there is a candidate forum for a school board special election that I'll attend.
Zohran Mamdani and Brad Lander, the leading progressive candidates in the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City, will cross-endorse each other on Friday, creating a late-stage partnership designed to help one of them surpass former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo in ranked-choice balloting.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/13/nyregion/mamdani-lander-endorsement-nyc-mayor.html
That doesn't make me very happy about Lander, who's tentatively been my first choice, but it's probably smart tactics.
Don’t blame Mamdani if he wins, as AOC put it bluntly, there were a lot of Democrats with different ideologies in the race other than the brat Cuomo but the establishment chose to line up behind him. Lander and Adrienne made the most sense but Mamdani has been taking popularist positions like rent freeze which is obviously bad economic policy to a policy wonk like me but a huge majority of NYers support it according to a poll I saw.
My problem is not only that he's insulting our intelligence but that I fear he could lose to Sliwa.
I really don't care much about NYC politics, but I'm surprised Adrienne Adams and Brad Lander haven't been getting more traction.
I hope this helps Brad Lander win. Sadly, it’s more likely to help Mamdani.
Why?
I want Brad Lander because he seems far more pragmatic, whereas some of Mamdani’s proposal seem totally unrealistic. Given that Mamdani is polling better, I would think it more likely that Lander helps lift him over the top than the other way around.
I'll be content if Cuomo loses.
Susan Storey Rubio, a rancher from Cotulla, launched her campaign for Texas's 23rd Congressional District Thursday evening, positioning herself to the right of Republican incumbent Tony Gonzales. She is said to be putting $350,000 of her own money into the campaign. Two years ago, Gonzales won the Republican primary by only 400 votes, and he was sanctioned by the Texas GOP for supporting a bipartisan gun bill. However, Gonzales, who votes consistently for the MAGA agenda, was endorsed in 2024 by Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson.
Now that conservative and swingy Latinos are turning on Trump, I'm hopeful that TX-23 could end up in play.
Of course, we should keep a healthy skepticism about opinion polling. It's actually true that the only votes that matter are the ones that are actually tallied.
Prediction: We’ll flip seats in South California, South Texas and South Florida in 2026. The Dummymander may backfire badly if we flip Rio Grande valley again as Inside Elections warned.
We shall see. I'm certainly not making my own predictions on House races.
Really, SC? Which district? SC1-Mace? Or Timmons district? I live here. I don't see a flip except maaaaaybe Mace, because Republicans don't like her.
They said South California, but I too made that misreading mistake at first and had an identical reaction.
For SoCal, the only districts left to flip are CA-40 and CA-41, all of which are doable but tough. I guess CA-22, too, but I wouldn't really call the Central Valley "SoCal."
If things get really bad for Republicans, CA-48 and CA-23 could flip, but then we're looking at Dems winning upwards of 280 congressional seats.
VA R poll for state races. Even with a +3 R sample they can't get Sears a lead and have a +4 D GB.https://x.com/ChazNuttycombe/status/1933597638424997935
Republicans are going to get a BIG shellacking this November in Virginia. I think Spanberger will probably hit the margin Northam did in 2017, which also helped pace the way for Virginia Dems to regain their first trifecta in 21 years in 2019.
FDJT keeps stepping in it and making things worse each day.
I think you mean 2017, and while it didn't give them a trifecta immediately, it paved the way for winning it in 2019.
You’re right. I will fix that.
You Winsome, you Losesome...
Very good.
Not happy about AG/LG numbers, but with a R+4 electorate sample (which is not happening in November), Democrats would be ahead in both races even with a 2024 red skewing electorate.
https://www.axios.com/2025/06/12/alex-padilla-lamonica-mciver-jared-golden
This is why I despise putrid Golden and would rather see a normal Democratic run in Maine and lose the Senate seat than him try his hand statewide. If you can’t stand up for your own, you aren’t a Democrat. He would be Sinema on steroids and worked for Collins anyways.
Well, Chuck Schumer would be very comfortable with his performative appeasement.. But he’s not running for senate anyway.
I'd still rather have him than a Republican in that House seat. He sucks, but less than they do.
I meant the Senate seat not the house. One Republican less in the House without a Democrat more is also a gain for Democrats. But his district is not asking for this conservative a Democrat, the Cook partisan lean is +4R, Dems lost the Governor race there by a point and Senator King won it along with Trump.
You think someone more liberal than him could win that district? I don't see the evidence for that.
What are the chances we can get a mid-decade redraw in Maine that makes ME-2 bluer (I know it's low, but the thought is still nice)
Basically zero. Maine needs 2/3 of the state legislature to vote in favor of any districts drawn. Democrats hold 20/35 senate seats and 76/151 house seats (there are also 2 independents who I do not know who they caucus with).
It is effectively impossible. If we want ME-02 to be less red, we'd need to prevent any districts from being passed after the 2030 census, then hope that the courts draw something that accomplishes that. It's not a great bet.
The courts are mostly likely gonna pass a least change map.
Yup. It's why it's a poor bet.
1) He’s not running for Senate.
2) He can’t win a Democratic primary for Governor.
3) With Trump in office, now is the time to break with Democrats on issues that have no bearing on legislation passing or not.
4) This is smart politics from a guy who represents a district that voted for Trump by 10. Do you ever wonder why almost every other red district Democrat got tossed over the modern era, while he keeps winning re-election? This, this is why. Him doing stuff like this is the only reason he still holds this red district.
5) He’s better than a Republican.
Use your brain, not your heart (and just in case anyone reads something into this post: I hate Golden’s position here, but I support him having it).