"James Talarico raised over $27 million in the first quarter, including more than $10 million since the March 3 primary, his campaign announces. #TXSEN"
Based on your observations, I’d say Talarico is far stronger than O’Rourke was in social media, influencer and podcast strategy.
O’Rourke was doing a lot of road trips and went to all counties in the state but had the Senate race to himself against Ted Cruz. I think his approach was mainly in person accompanied by social media.
Talarico’s fundraising success suggests more than just an in-person campaigning strategy factors in here.
I don't think you should underestimate the impact of Talarico's appearance on Colbert and the fact that Trump's stooge at the FCC tried to make sure it never saw the light of day. Which naturally drew more attention to it when Colbert posted it on YouTube.
Even though he came very close, I think people were still in disbelief that a Dem would win. People reallt think Talarico has a shot, and that helps tremendously
Yes I agree, But I don't think that they anticipated the viral impact of the FCC telling Colbert that they couldn't air the show. I think that was the most watched Colbert episode EVER.
Yeah, that is definitely a factor. Colbert’s popularity skyrocketed as a result FCC Chairman Brendan Cart’s antics and it helped Talarico’s popularity significantly as a result.
Does anyone know WTF is wrong with the Hungarian diaspora?
In the election last weekend, TISZA won every county in Hungary - the closest one was by a 2.6% margin, and most were won by TISZA much more decisively. But the Hungarian diaspora voted 88-10 for Fidesz. That alone dropped TISZA's margin of victory from 17.5 percent to 12.6 percent, and undoubtedly cost them a few party-list seats.
Is there some sort of historical reason why the Hungarian diaspora is so insanely right-wing?
Interesting. Do we think Peter Magyar should take away these people's ability to vote in Hungary? He certainly has the votes to do that. Or do we think these people will stop being so one-sidedly supportive of Fidesz now that Orban is no longer the incumbent?
Yes. Military or folks on TDY exempted, folks living permanently in other countries shouldn't get a vote in an election of their "home" country simply from ethnic ties.
So if I move to Germany, you think I should be stripped of my American citizenship. Noted. I think that's wrong. The point here would be that if you were not born in the country, neither of your parents were from the country and you are not a naturalized citizen of the country, you shouldn't have a vote, not that you should be stripped of your citizenship and voting rights because you are a permanent resident of another country. I don't want the U.S. to be that kind of country, and Israelis who live abroad find it agonizing to have to fly back to Israel in order to be able to vote - always for the losing side. And even they don't strip citizens abroad of their voting rights; they just refuse to allow them to do absentee voting from abroad, which I will be doing for the primaries in June and possibly the general election in November.
As someone who has studied the results of the most recent Israeli election, I feel obligated to point out that not all Israelis who live abroad vote for the losing side. In the 2022 election, about 50% of voters from abroad voted for the right-wing coalition, while about 42% voted for the center-left coalition and about 6% voted for the Arab parties. These numbers, unlike in Hungary, are actually fairly similar to the overall results.
By the looks of it, that was a smidge better for Bibi's coalition than the overall results were.
His coalition actually got around 48-49% of the vote in 2022. He became PM because the anti-Bibi side was split 8-10 ways and a couple of the parties failed to qualify for the Knesset. Bibi kept his entire coalition to four parties.
This year he's polling lower and the anti-Bibi bloc have consolidated into fewer parties.
You're most certainly relying on misleading data. Israeli citizens who live abroad can be divided into three groups:
1. People who live abroad due to their line of work within the Israeli government or National Institutions,* as well as their nuclear family.
They can vote in Israeli embassies and consulates.
2. People who live abroad for any other reason, but have not been removed from Israel's Population Registry.
They still count as residing in their last Israeli address. Their only way of voting is flying to Israel and voting in the polling place closest to their official Israeli address.
3. People who live abroad for any other reason and have been removed from the Population Registry due to non-residency.
They are forbidden from voting.
Any statistics about voters from abroad would only include the first group. They are far from representative of the political leaning of Israelis who live abroad.
As far as I understand, these are largely Hungarian-minority voters in neighboring countries, primarily Romania, Serbia and Ukraine. Many of these people consider themselves to be Hungarian, and consider themselves to still be living in Hungary, despite the borders being redrawn after WW1.
There is more in the Reuters article that FFFFFF linked to.
And it is understandable- if you have a nation that has had relatively defined borders for almost 1,000 years and then it loses a majority of its land due to losing a war that at least arguably was more the Austrian ruling class’s fault, a lot of people are going to be mad about it. Doesn’t mean that they’re right, and obviously self determination is more important than Hungarians feeling they’re entitled to Hungary’s historical lands, but there’s a reason people haven’t gotten over it.
I don't think this was about self-determination. Wasn't there a Hungarian plurality if not majority in Transylvania in 1914? This was about the losers in a world war having territory taken from them.
Hitler partitioned Transylvania into a Hungarian and Romanian portion. Obviously the allies reversed that because it was Hitler! But it wasn't a bad solution to the problem.
Part of the issue is that the largest Hungarian majority areas are not actually on the border with Hungary. So you need to include some Romanian regions if you were to adjust the boundaries.
Transylvania was majority Romanian in 1910 and 1919 according to wiki, but would have had a sizable Hungarian population and likely sub-regions that were majority Hungarian.
The same wiki page notes the real reason: the Entente promised Transylvania to Romania if they joined the war and attacked Hungary with the Treaty of Bucharest in 1916.
Depends on where in Transylvania. The problem was that there was a large Hungarian majority area (that still today is the nucleus of Romania’s Magyar-speaking minority) that was disconnected from the rest of Hungary by Romanian areas. Both groups couldn’t win
The creation of Austria-Hungary was responsible for rising Slav nationalism. This is because the Hungarian crown was given their historic territories in Slovakia, Transylvania and interior Croatia. Austria retained Czechia, Slovenia, Dalmatia and Bosnia, but it was the Hungarians, now given autonomy, who pursued an aggressive program of Magyarization that alienated the other minorities in their territories and hastened the demise of the empire.
The same is true in Croatia, where my wife is from. There, the largest section of the diaspora is the people who left after WWII and their descendants. Many of them members or supporters of the genocidal collaborationist regime that took power there during the war. And, yes, they vote overwhelmingly for right wing parties. I can only imagine the same is true in Hungary.
I should add, per the rest of the thread, Herzegovinans also get a vote in Croatia and are also a key right-wing constituency. But they are actually counted separately from Diaspora.
State Navigate says that the Yes is likely to prevail by 5 points in the Virginia referendum to redraw four more House seats next week.
They also assert that Gov Spanberger is one of the most unpopular governors according to Morning Consult, which is BS. Only Republicans are saying that.
Spanberger is only serving one term as Governor and you had your chance in getting your candidate in the general election. Instead, you got Winsome Earle-Sears, who ran an inept campaign from the beginning.
Gun ban is part, but I think a lot of center-right/"moderate" types thought she was gonna come in on an "anti-woke" crusade, instead she pushed back against ICE and didn't throw trans people under the bus.
AR-15 style guns and magazine over 15 rounds. The bans were always going to be controversial and I'm not sure how it is going to play in VA given its still much a southern state. I tend to think its smarter politically to stick to expanding background checks & red flag laws than targeting certain guns.
What are people mostly using AR-15s for? Target practice? If so, I'd support allowing gun ranges to own them, with them required to be kept on premises at all times and locked up securely when not in use.
One thing that stands out pretty substantially to me from this poll: Trump’s approval in it.
A -15 (42-57) approval result in Virginia does not matchup with a -20 overall national approval. So that means 1 of 3 things. Either A) This is probably a red leaning sample, B) Republicans are outvoting Democrats as a share of the electorate, or C) The GOP is winning a significant number of crossover Democratic/Independent No voters.
Personally, I think A is more likely because we literally just had an election in November where the AG race was thought to be a Tossup where shy Jones voters didn’t want to admit they were going to vote for him to pollsters even though they did. On the other hand, this isn’t a general election, it’s a ballot amendment, so maybe the dynamics are flipped and the GOP are winning significant crossovers. Or the rightwing is fired up to vote on this specific issue.
We’ll find out shortly, but in any case, a Trump -15 approval in Virginia would probably look like a range of -5 to -10 approval nationally, which no polling average shows. My 2 cents.
The 42/57 JA just seems really off. Chaz didn't really have a good explanation for it in his writeup. We saw this phenomenon in the NJ-GOV race last years where every poll had Trump with unusually high JA in NJ that didn't mesh with his national rating.
Just moving his JA to the 35-36 he should be at to match his -20 national approval and you have a very different poll.
Looks like State Navigate was created by Chaz Nuttycombe, so surely it has some credibility with Virginia politics. Still Morning Consult is far from the most reliable source to be citing, so I still treat this with a large grain of salt.
In the Peru election, the leftist Sanchez moves into second place behind Fujimori because of support from rural areas. So maybe the second round won't be far-right vs further-right. Sanchez is a supporter of the previous president Pedro Castillo who is in prison for trying to dissolve Peruvian Congress, although his supporters say he was a victim of a coup attempt.
Wild. Probably would have been better if Nieto made the runoff instead, rather than someone tied to Castillo. I fear Sanchez is more likely to lose to Fujimori and Nieto maybe would put up a better fight. But Peru is so polarized against her, so maybe she'll still lose a fourth time.
It's wild that in Peru you still see urban-rural divides (educated urbanitea more conservative, poor uneducated rurals more left wing) that were common 50 years ago across the globe but which in many countries (including practically the entire developed world) have reversed.
A lot of rural areas in Latin America have a sizable indigenous population right? The rural areas with higher indigenous populations voted for the leftist candidates in Ecuador and Colombia recently.
Mexico is the same way as well, with the added axis of Morena (the leftist ruling party) being more conservative in rhetoric at the national level vs state leges while the PAN (its main conservative opponent) acts the other way around.
Most countries (especially developed ones) vote increasingy based on social issues (most often immigration) and nationalist rhetoric, so the current spilt makes sense.
It's understandable as political analysis but doesn't make much logical sense to the extent that voting for socially conservative parties redounds to the economic detriment of such voters. It's an example of the enduring success of appeals to bigotry, religious prejudice, animus toward cities and anti-intellectualism against logic and rational self-interest.
Perhaps from a financial standpoint, this makes sense since financial institutions are concentrated in cities and tend to favor conservative fiscal policy. But I wonder if the left-of-center nature of cities has to do with where population diversity is located? As Jay suggested above, there's a significant Indigenous population in rural areas of Peru. In the US, cities are incredibly diverse by measures of race, ethnicity, nationality, religion/religiosity, class, gender identity and sexuality, etc. I can't say definitively about Europe, but I imagine it's similar over there.
Cities are also where there's a high concentration of labor, so I wouldn't be surprised if that contributes to left-wing voting behaviors, especially in Europe.
Cities also have a concentration of higher education institutions which attract diversity and provide opportunities to learn about different people's experiences in the world. At least from my personal observations this seems to contribute to more left wing politics.
This is all just speculating off of my own observations and thinking. I don't have hard data. I'd be interested to read if anyone has more insight into this.
Rural-left, urban-right: rural areas are typically poorer and in a broad sociological sense people are going to become more conservative when they have things to conserve.
Rural-right, urban-left: urban areas are typically better educated and modern political ideologies are increasingly seeing parties on the right take stances that are less aligned with what educated people would support.
Part of it is that often the rural indigenous populations are historically oppressed by some in the cities, and the only groups that have ever sought to organize the rural areas are various left parties and/or liberation theology-minded priests, who tend to direct them into left parties; the cities are more likely to have evangelical-dominated right-wing parties. Look at Brazil.
You know, that's really interesting because it just struck me:
I wonder if that's some of what we saw just now in Hungary and is perhaps (?) beginning to happen in the U.S.:
Is it possible that, if there's a severe enough regression economically, the rural conservative areas will start to become more response to classic left positions again? Or does that ship sail irrevocably due to appeals to xenophobia (and white supremacy, where applicable) still resonating more in the rural areas than cities?
Also, even in the U.S. it varies somehwat-Alaska, for instance, I believe has a more left/liberal base in the rural regions because that's where the indigenous folk are concentrated.
For the US I think it's entirely possible, but personally I think it's not particularly likely. Even if social issues become less salient to the electorate, Obama-Trump voters have been conservative for at least a decade. They've been living in a world of conservative economic messaging and will be predisposed towards conservative economic policies.
It's not impossible for us to win them back, but it takes a huge shock (bigger than the 2008 recession) and a lot of consistent work to pull it off. Or an enormous amount of consistent work. The risk there is that the efforts there could alienate some of the other parts of our coalition: there's rarely a free lunch in elections.
All that pessimism aside, we can still see some short/medium term growth with those groups and gain a small but meaningful advantage, but we're not going to see a durable reversion that puts us into a major winning streak.
Alaska is one state I'm really hopeful for us to invest in and gain ground. The combination of indigenous heavy rural areas and winnable suburban/urban areas is promising. I think Alaska is a strong exception to my above pessimism.
There are plenty of developed countries where the rural urban split is either nonexistent or the other way round. Look at Sweden for example. Or Spain. I think have a strongly Conservative countryside is more an Anglo-American thing than anything else.
As a Colombian, I'd advice against equating Europe's social-democrats and greens with the Latin American dinosour burn-everything-down left. At the end of the day, the Castillos and Petros of the continent offer the same thing that the European far-right does: populism and the promise that everything will magically improve by attacking someone else, paired with even more incompetence and corruption than the already incompetent, corrupt establishment.
I thought that Sanchez's party, Together for Peru, was generally at odds with Castillo, as they sat in opposition. Certainly a much more socially progressive party than Castillo's.
I think I missed the fact that Together for Peru was previously in Castillo's government, and only left after things went insane and Castillo's more conservative successors came into power.
Another good reminder that when we vote for Senators and President, we are voting for who will be our federal judges. Too much of the electorate--and too many candidates--do not make that connection.
As long as Gulbranson becomes a better reality TV Star-turned politician than The Real World’s Sean Duffy and a real Democrat, fine with me that he’s in the race.
It's a surprisingly popular show. Frankly, I'm not sure why it is. I guess it's the allure of The Hamptons and wealthy socialites? That vibe doesn't seem to jive with a district like MN-08.
I took a look at his website and he seems like a serious candidate, not a vanity play. I don't think we should judge him for coming from a reality background if he's genuine with his beliefs and ideals and treats this run like he actually has a chance.
A video of Eric Swalwell making out with a younger woman (not his wife) in a hotel room is making the rounds on social media while another guy is videoing them. It was verified real by Newsweek (not exactly a nonpartisan news outlet).
Maybe that's what Gallego is getting worried about.
Unless Gallego was involved in threesomes or is shown to have known about Swalwell's apparent criminal activity and other bad behavior, I don't see what he needs to worry about?
The specific video that’s been thrown around has been rumored to include Gallego along with Swalwell. However, Gallego shot this down immediately when being questioned by the media.
If there is a video showing Gallego raping women, we should move as quickly as we did with Swalwell to get rid of him. We know the Republicans are going to make as much hay as they can from this scandal, and we shouldn't try to help them.
I wasn't making assumptions, I was actually expressing skepticism if you might re-read my comments. The right wing media is trying to blow this up into something it probably isn't, and we shouldn't be helping them.
there is a) no indication of any wrongdoing on Gallego's part (as of yet) and b) no indication from anyone that we would do anything different if he were implicated in any such activities, so making a comment that says "If [thing that we have no evidence of] happens, we should [do the exact same thing we already did] and not do [thing no one is suggesting we do]" does imply some assumptions.
Yes but the video I am referring to which MPC is referencing is the only one even being looked at as rumored to have Gallego there with Swalwell. It has not been verified that he has done this. Only speculated.
It was once considered a solid second place to TIME, and had a robust reputation for their coverage and journalism.... that has been gone for a long, long time. Heck, I remember getting "Newsweek for Kids" in elementary school, 25 years ago. Appears that broad media landscape changes/consolidations and the general decline of print and magazine media that have been taking place for the last decade, and accelerated greatly by COVID, really helped do them in.
If Gallego was somehow involved, then let's hear it from actual witnesses tied to the incident so we may compare and corroborate. Otherwise it's still in the land of speculation and fiction.
W gave us Roberts who basically gutted the Civil Rights Act via Shelby and co-authored Citizens United for unlimited and unrestricted corporate "speech" spending in campaigns. Despite that, Alito has proven to be consistently worse, including compared to all of Trump's Supreme court appointments. I still prefer both Bushes over Trump any day, but boy was their legacy a mess we still have to clean up.
In California municipal elections are nonpartisan. Sometimes members of the minority party in an area are able to win because they are not labelled partisans on the ballot. In the past I have had GOP city council members or school board trustees. My area does not elect Repubs to partisan offices like Congress or the California Assembly.
Today's results drop added about 4600 ballots in addition to those shown above, with only minor changes in the percentages shown. There will be another drop Friday and another Tuesday. Turnout is up dramatically over 2022, when Joey V. got 77% of the vote on 16% turnout.
In Q1 Democrats have almost every Republican incumbent Senate seat’s challenger/nominee for the midterms basically decided except for the swing/purple state of Michigan, which has had several very close Democratic wins, but hasn’t voted in a GOP Senator since 1994.
Democrats in 2024 literally couldn’t have dreamed of a better result for their chances of taking the Senate in 2026. Now it’s about fighting it out in Michigan and raising the cash to beat them all. So far, so good:
3 AM today: Flanagan Hauls in $1.35 Million from Grassroots to Power Campaign
ST. LOUIS PARK, MN [04/15/26]—Lt. Governor Peggy Flanagan’s campaign announced today that they raised over $1.35 million in the first quarter of 2026. The campaign added 17,000 new donors in the first quarter for a total of over 71,000 contributors this cycle with over 97 percent of contributions under $100. This raise also marks Flanagan’s largest fundraising haul to date with an increase of 35 percent quarter over quarter. Flanagan will report $1.15 million cash on hand. Flanagan is the only candidate in the Senate race that is not taking corporate PAC money.
All the polls, even Craig's internals, agree that Flanagan is leading. And she is definitely taking the mantle of the insurgent compared to Craig. So I think (and hope) she can still get there.
I agree, but a significant CoH advantage can be used by Craig to potentially close that gap. Forced to guess I'd say Flanagan is favored (caveat that I am biased towards her) but her advantage isn't substantial enough that Craig cannot catch up. More financial resources is exactly the kind of tool needed to pull that off.
Looks like for the most interesting senate primaries/states, we're only missing Stevens (MI), all of IA, and both Flanegan and Craig in MN.
Curious what the field total is in IA and how McMorrow/Stevens and Flanagan/Craig compare. If I remember right, last quarter Stevens and McMorrow were basically tied while Craig had a decent fundraising advantage over Flanagan.
Last quarter all three Michigan candidates were within a couple hundred thousand of each other. Stevens' numbers are going to be very telling, since there seems to have been establishment movement towards McMorrow.
I think that recent poll that was posted yesterday still had Wahls name identification quite a bit higher. I think Josh Turek may have gotten in the race a tad too late.
St. Paul, Minnesota - The Republican controlled House of Representatives failed to impeach outgoing Gov. Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison, both Democrats, for their supposed role in rampant fraud relating to government funds in Minneapolis.
They do have a GOP speaker but not a majority leader, the GOP tried to pick one but the courts struck their attempt down. Now both parties have their own floor leader http://house.mn.gov/sessiondaily/Story/18447
CA-Supreme Court: Just realized that there's a seat that's been vacant on the California Supreme Court since October and Newsom hasn't even named a nominee?! What gives?
Also, Newsom is a busy guy--he's got podcasts to record, press events to attend, a speaking circuit to give talks on...oh right, and I guess he's also a Governor, too!
Are the Never Trump Republicans that are now joining Democratic primaries getting help from the artificial intelligence groups and crypto groups? I have not studied it, so I may not be fair in my assessment.
NY-4: D'Esposito was the first Republican in 26 years, not 16.
Thank you, I've corrected.
TX-Sen: Money printer go brrr
https://x.com/PatrickSvitek/status/2044372354126487893
"James Talarico raised over $27 million in the first quarter, including more than $10 million since the March 3 primary, his campaign announces. #TXSEN"
It's staggering how someone could raise so much money! I can't really fathom how, though I'm sure it's all explainable from individual donations.
For comparison, O'Rourke raised $6.7m in Q1 2018 and $80m all cycle. Talarico is on track to absolutely crush that.
Q3 is the biggest fundraising quarter, right? I wonder if anyone will hit $100m in a single quarter.
Based on your observations, I’d say Talarico is far stronger than O’Rourke was in social media, influencer and podcast strategy.
O’Rourke was doing a lot of road trips and went to all counties in the state but had the Senate race to himself against Ted Cruz. I think his approach was mainly in person accompanied by social media.
Talarico’s fundraising success suggests more than just an in-person campaigning strategy factors in here.
I don't think you should underestimate the impact of Talarico's appearance on Colbert and the fact that Trump's stooge at the FCC tried to make sure it never saw the light of day. Which naturally drew more attention to it when Colbert posted it on YouTube.
Oh for sure! I do believe though Talarico’s appearance on Colbert’s show was strategically planned.
Even though he came very close, I think people were still in disbelief that a Dem would win. People reallt think Talarico has a shot, and that helps tremendously
Yes I agree, But I don't think that they anticipated the viral impact of the FCC telling Colbert that they couldn't air the show. I think that was the most watched Colbert episode EVER.
Yeah, that is definitely a factor. Colbert’s popularity skyrocketed as a result FCC Chairman Brendan Cart’s antics and it helped Talarico’s popularity significantly as a result.
Does anyone know WTF is wrong with the Hungarian diaspora?
In the election last weekend, TISZA won every county in Hungary - the closest one was by a 2.6% margin, and most were won by TISZA much more decisively. But the Hungarian diaspora voted 88-10 for Fidesz. That alone dropped TISZA's margin of victory from 17.5 percent to 12.6 percent, and undoubtedly cost them a few party-list seats.
Is there some sort of historical reason why the Hungarian diaspora is so insanely right-wing?
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/outside-hungarys-borders-a-growing-power-base-for-pm-orban-idUSBRE94T0TD/
Interesting. Do we think Peter Magyar should take away these people's ability to vote in Hungary? He certainly has the votes to do that. Or do we think these people will stop being so one-sidedly supportive of Fidesz now that Orban is no longer the incumbent?
Yes. Military or folks on TDY exempted, folks living permanently in other countries shouldn't get a vote in an election of their "home" country simply from ethnic ties.
So if I move to Germany, you think I should be stripped of my American citizenship. Noted. I think that's wrong. The point here would be that if you were not born in the country, neither of your parents were from the country and you are not a naturalized citizen of the country, you shouldn't have a vote, not that you should be stripped of your citizenship and voting rights because you are a permanent resident of another country. I don't want the U.S. to be that kind of country, and Israelis who live abroad find it agonizing to have to fly back to Israel in order to be able to vote - always for the losing side. And even they don't strip citizens abroad of their voting rights; they just refuse to allow them to do absentee voting from abroad, which I will be doing for the primaries in June and possibly the general election in November.
As someone who has studied the results of the most recent Israeli election, I feel obligated to point out that not all Israelis who live abroad vote for the losing side. In the 2022 election, about 50% of voters from abroad voted for the right-wing coalition, while about 42% voted for the center-left coalition and about 6% voted for the Arab parties. These numbers, unlike in Hungary, are actually fairly similar to the overall results.
Thanks. I should have clarified that I was talking about Israelis I know.
By the looks of it, that was a smidge better for Bibi's coalition than the overall results were.
His coalition actually got around 48-49% of the vote in 2022. He became PM because the anti-Bibi side was split 8-10 ways and a couple of the parties failed to qualify for the Knesset. Bibi kept his entire coalition to four parties.
This year he's polling lower and the anti-Bibi bloc have consolidated into fewer parties.
You're most certainly relying on misleading data. Israeli citizens who live abroad can be divided into three groups:
1. People who live abroad due to their line of work within the Israeli government or National Institutions,* as well as their nuclear family.
They can vote in Israeli embassies and consulates.
2. People who live abroad for any other reason, but have not been removed from Israel's Population Registry.
They still count as residing in their last Israeli address. Their only way of voting is flying to Israel and voting in the polling place closest to their official Israeli address.
3. People who live abroad for any other reason and have been removed from the Population Registry due to non-residency.
They are forbidden from voting.
Any statistics about voters from abroad would only include the first group. They are far from representative of the political leaning of Israelis who live abroad.
* These ones: https://www.wzo.org.il/sub/39th-zionist-congress/national-institutions/en
I don't think he'll want to engender the firestorm of protest that kind of change would trigger. He has a lot of other things to take care of.
As far as I understand, these are largely Hungarian-minority voters in neighboring countries, primarily Romania, Serbia and Ukraine. Many of these people consider themselves to be Hungarian, and consider themselves to still be living in Hungary, despite the borders being redrawn after WW1.
There is more in the Reuters article that FFFFFF linked to.
Trianon was far, far more traumatic to the Hungarian collective psyche than Versailles to the German, and the diaspora definitely isn’t over it
And it is understandable- if you have a nation that has had relatively defined borders for almost 1,000 years and then it loses a majority of its land due to losing a war that at least arguably was more the Austrian ruling class’s fault, a lot of people are going to be mad about it. Doesn’t mean that they’re right, and obviously self determination is more important than Hungarians feeling they’re entitled to Hungary’s historical lands, but there’s a reason people haven’t gotten over it.
I don't think this was about self-determination. Wasn't there a Hungarian plurality if not majority in Transylvania in 1914? This was about the losers in a world war having territory taken from them.
Hitler partitioned Transylvania into a Hungarian and Romanian portion. Obviously the allies reversed that because it was Hitler! But it wasn't a bad solution to the problem.
Part of the issue is that the largest Hungarian majority areas are not actually on the border with Hungary. So you need to include some Romanian regions if you were to adjust the boundaries.
Transylvania was majority Romanian in 1910 and 1919 according to wiki, but would have had a sizable Hungarian population and likely sub-regions that were majority Hungarian.
The same wiki page notes the real reason: the Entente promised Transylvania to Romania if they joined the war and attacked Hungary with the Treaty of Bucharest in 1916.
Were there any majority-German areas before World War II?
Also: Romania was an Axis power. I guess they opportunistically switched to the Allies roughly around the time Hungary was occupied by the Nazis?
Depends on where in Transylvania. The problem was that there was a large Hungarian majority area (that still today is the nucleus of Romania’s Magyar-speaking minority) that was disconnected from the rest of Hungary by Romanian areas. Both groups couldn’t win
The creation of Austria-Hungary was responsible for rising Slav nationalism. This is because the Hungarian crown was given their historic territories in Slovakia, Transylvania and interior Croatia. Austria retained Czechia, Slovenia, Dalmatia and Bosnia, but it was the Hungarians, now given autonomy, who pursued an aggressive program of Magyarization that alienated the other minorities in their territories and hastened the demise of the empire.
I didn't know that. I thought Bosnia was part of the Ottoman Empire and never the Austrian Empire, though. When did Austria take it?
treaty of berlin 1878, internal balkans uprisings resulted in large portions of ottoman empire ceded to Habsburg rule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herzegovina_uprising_(1875%E2%80%931877)
Classic example of the my nationalism is bigger than your nationalism mania that caused so much grief in the 19th and 20th centuries.
The same is true in Croatia, where my wife is from. There, the largest section of the diaspora is the people who left after WWII and their descendants. Many of them members or supporters of the genocidal collaborationist regime that took power there during the war. And, yes, they vote overwhelmingly for right wing parties. I can only imagine the same is true in Hungary.
I should add, per the rest of the thread, Herzegovinans also get a vote in Croatia and are also a key right-wing constituency. But they are actually counted separately from Diaspora.
State Navigate says that the Yes is likely to prevail by 5 points in the Virginia referendum to redraw four more House seats next week.
They also assert that Gov Spanberger is one of the most unpopular governors according to Morning Consult, which is BS. Only Republicans are saying that.
What would be making her unpopular?
Couple of my friends have been complaining about the automatic weapons ban. But they are republicans and probably wouldn’t like her regardless
Oh cry a river.
My message to VA Republicans:
Spanberger is only serving one term as Governor and you had your chance in getting your candidate in the general election. Instead, you got Winsome Earle-Sears, who ran an inept campaign from the beginning.
Gun ban is part, but I think a lot of center-right/"moderate" types thought she was gonna come in on an "anti-woke" crusade, instead she pushed back against ICE and didn't throw trans people under the bus.
Why did they think she'd do those things? Also, just what type of guns are banned now?
AR-15 style guns and magazine over 15 rounds. The bans were always going to be controversial and I'm not sure how it is going to play in VA given its still much a southern state. I tend to think its smarter politically to stick to expanding background checks & red flag laws than targeting certain guns.
What are people mostly using AR-15s for? Target practice? If so, I'd support allowing gun ranges to own them, with them required to be kept on premises at all times and locked up securely when not in use.
Dems in state messaged the gerrymandering vote horribly.
GOP lies about "taxes" and other BS she didn't do were not refuted timely or strongly.
Still, who cares, she can only serve 1 term
One thing that stands out pretty substantially to me from this poll: Trump’s approval in it.
A -15 (42-57) approval result in Virginia does not matchup with a -20 overall national approval. So that means 1 of 3 things. Either A) This is probably a red leaning sample, B) Republicans are outvoting Democrats as a share of the electorate, or C) The GOP is winning a significant number of crossover Democratic/Independent No voters.
Personally, I think A is more likely because we literally just had an election in November where the AG race was thought to be a Tossup where shy Jones voters didn’t want to admit they were going to vote for him to pollsters even though they did. On the other hand, this isn’t a general election, it’s a ballot amendment, so maybe the dynamics are flipped and the GOP are winning significant crossovers. Or the rightwing is fired up to vote on this specific issue.
We’ll find out shortly, but in any case, a Trump -15 approval in Virginia would probably look like a range of -5 to -10 approval nationally, which no polling average shows. My 2 cents.
Maybe C. Per the poll: "56%of true Independents (meaning they don’t lean toward either party) are voting No, and 32% are voting Yes."
The 42/57 JA just seems really off. Chaz didn't really have a good explanation for it in his writeup. We saw this phenomenon in the NJ-GOV race last years where every poll had Trump with unusually high JA in NJ that didn't mesh with his national rating.
Just moving his JA to the 35-36 he should be at to match his -20 national approval and you have a very different poll.
Question: is Morning Consult polling Virginians only? Or are they allowing people in very-red states and all across the country to weigh in?
Looks like State Navigate was created by Chaz Nuttycombe, so surely it has some credibility with Virginia politics. Still Morning Consult is far from the most reliable source to be citing, so I still treat this with a large grain of salt.
In the Peru election, the leftist Sanchez moves into second place behind Fujimori because of support from rural areas. So maybe the second round won't be far-right vs further-right. Sanchez is a supporter of the previous president Pedro Castillo who is in prison for trying to dissolve Peruvian Congress, although his supporters say he was a victim of a coup attempt.
Wild. Probably would have been better if Nieto made the runoff instead, rather than someone tied to Castillo. I fear Sanchez is more likely to lose to Fujimori and Nieto maybe would put up a better fight. But Peru is so polarized against her, so maybe she'll still lose a fourth time.
Would far prefer Nieto but I’m afraid we can’t have nice things
It's wild that in Peru you still see urban-rural divides (educated urbanitea more conservative, poor uneducated rurals more left wing) that were common 50 years ago across the globe but which in many countries (including practically the entire developed world) have reversed.
Peru isn't exactly at the development / economic level that of a lot of a countries that have undergone that shift.
A lot of rural areas in Latin America have a sizable indigenous population right? The rural areas with higher indigenous populations voted for the leftist candidates in Ecuador and Colombia recently.
I feel like that’s a big part of it. Same in neighboring Bolivia
Yes. Peru is one of the most indigenous-heavy countries in Latin America. I'd guess that's the core of the political coalition fault lines.
Yes, my (non-Hispanic white) younger sister, who lived in rural Peru for 3 years, speaks fluent Spanish, but with a Quechua accent, lol.
Mexico is the same way as well, with the added axis of Morena (the leftist ruling party) being more conservative in rhetoric at the national level vs state leges while the PAN (its main conservative opponent) acts the other way around.
It's wild to me that the reverse is true in other countries. This seems like more intuitive voting behavior.
Most countries (especially developed ones) vote increasingy based on social issues (most often immigration) and nationalist rhetoric, so the current spilt makes sense.
It's understandable as political analysis but doesn't make much logical sense to the extent that voting for socially conservative parties redounds to the economic detriment of such voters. It's an example of the enduring success of appeals to bigotry, religious prejudice, animus toward cities and anti-intellectualism against logic and rational self-interest.
Perhaps from a financial standpoint, this makes sense since financial institutions are concentrated in cities and tend to favor conservative fiscal policy. But I wonder if the left-of-center nature of cities has to do with where population diversity is located? As Jay suggested above, there's a significant Indigenous population in rural areas of Peru. In the US, cities are incredibly diverse by measures of race, ethnicity, nationality, religion/religiosity, class, gender identity and sexuality, etc. I can't say definitively about Europe, but I imagine it's similar over there.
Cities are also where there's a high concentration of labor, so I wouldn't be surprised if that contributes to left-wing voting behaviors, especially in Europe.
Cities also have a concentration of higher education institutions which attract diversity and provide opportunities to learn about different people's experiences in the world. At least from my personal observations this seems to contribute to more left wing politics.
This is all just speculating off of my own observations and thinking. I don't have hard data. I'd be interested to read if anyone has more insight into this.
I agree with you, and in particular, cities tend to be -socially- liberal.
I can see a logical argument for either setup.
Rural-left, urban-right: rural areas are typically poorer and in a broad sociological sense people are going to become more conservative when they have things to conserve.
Rural-right, urban-left: urban areas are typically better educated and modern political ideologies are increasingly seeing parties on the right take stances that are less aligned with what educated people would support.
Part of it is that often the rural indigenous populations are historically oppressed by some in the cities, and the only groups that have ever sought to organize the rural areas are various left parties and/or liberation theology-minded priests, who tend to direct them into left parties; the cities are more likely to have evangelical-dominated right-wing parties. Look at Brazil.
You know, that's really interesting because it just struck me:
I wonder if that's some of what we saw just now in Hungary and is perhaps (?) beginning to happen in the U.S.:
Is it possible that, if there's a severe enough regression economically, the rural conservative areas will start to become more response to classic left positions again? Or does that ship sail irrevocably due to appeals to xenophobia (and white supremacy, where applicable) still resonating more in the rural areas than cities?
Also, even in the U.S. it varies somehwat-Alaska, for instance, I believe has a more left/liberal base in the rural regions because that's where the indigenous folk are concentrated.
For the US I think it's entirely possible, but personally I think it's not particularly likely. Even if social issues become less salient to the electorate, Obama-Trump voters have been conservative for at least a decade. They've been living in a world of conservative economic messaging and will be predisposed towards conservative economic policies.
It's not impossible for us to win them back, but it takes a huge shock (bigger than the 2008 recession) and a lot of consistent work to pull it off. Or an enormous amount of consistent work. The risk there is that the efforts there could alienate some of the other parts of our coalition: there's rarely a free lunch in elections.
All that pessimism aside, we can still see some short/medium term growth with those groups and gain a small but meaningful advantage, but we're not going to see a durable reversion that puts us into a major winning streak.
Alaska is one state I'm really hopeful for us to invest in and gain ground. The combination of indigenous heavy rural areas and winnable suburban/urban areas is promising. I think Alaska is a strong exception to my above pessimism.
There are plenty of developed countries where the rural urban split is either nonexistent or the other way round. Look at Sweden for example. Or Spain. I think have a strongly Conservative countryside is more an Anglo-American thing than anything else.
It's easy to think of other countries that also have that split, though. Malaysia, Hungary, Poland, Turkey...
As a Colombian, I'd advice against equating Europe's social-democrats and greens with the Latin American dinosour burn-everything-down left. At the end of the day, the Castillos and Petros of the continent offer the same thing that the European far-right does: populism and the promise that everything will magically improve by attacking someone else, paired with even more incompetence and corruption than the already incompetent, corrupt establishment.
That’s good news.
I thought that Sanchez's party, Together for Peru, was generally at odds with Castillo, as they sat in opposition. Certainly a much more socially progressive party than Castillo's.
This article calls Sanchez Castillo’s heir. Not sure how fair the source is though.
https://elpais.com/america/2026-04-15/el-candidato-de-la-izquierda-en-peru-da-pelea-gracias-al-escrutinio-del-voto-rural.html
I think I missed the fact that Together for Peru was previously in Castillo's government, and only left after things went insane and Castillo's more conservative successors came into power.
GA Sen: Jon Ossoff raised $14M in 1Q and has $31M COH. "Nearly 98% of the donations were $100 or less, with an average contribution of $38." https://www.ajc.com/politics/2026/04/jon-ossoff-posts-record-14m-haul-in-high-stakes-georgia-senate-race/
Indiana's effort to restrict College ID use for voting is struck down:
https://indianacapitalchronicle.com/2026/04/14/federal-judge-blocks-indianas-ban-on-use-of-student-ids-for-voting/?emci=10907260-1f38-f111-8ef2-000d3a14b640&emdi=c9177380-be38-f111-8ef2-000d3a14b640&ceid=630426
The case was handled by Democracy Docket, founded by Marc Elias.
They should file a similar lawsuit against the newly-passed law in New Hampshire that does the same thing.
It's possible they already do.
Richard Young is a Senior Judge on the Southern District of Indiana appointed by Clinton in 1998
Another good reminder that when we vote for Senators and President, we are voting for who will be our federal judges. Too much of the electorate--and too many candidates--do not make that connection.
Judges are insanely important, yes.
https://www.startribune.com/reality-tv-star-luke-gulbranson-to-challenge-republican-rep-pete-stauber/601667116
MN-8: Reality TV star Luke Gulbranson of Summer House fame will challenge Republican Rep. Pete Stauber as a Democrat.
"Summer House fame" this is literally the first time I've heard of this show xD
Can't say that I have either, but apparently it's popular
As long as Gulbranson becomes a better reality TV Star-turned politician than The Real World’s Sean Duffy and a real Democrat, fine with me that he’s in the race.
It's a surprisingly popular show. Frankly, I'm not sure why it is. I guess it's the allure of The Hamptons and wealthy socialites? That vibe doesn't seem to jive with a district like MN-08.
Gulbranson said something along the lines of "that was fake. My campaign is genuine" or some bs
So he said that and Paris Hilton has “that’s hot.”
I took a look at his website and he seems like a serious candidate, not a vanity play. I don't think we should judge him for coming from a reality background if he's genuine with his beliefs and ideals and treats this run like he actually has a chance.
A video of Eric Swalwell making out with a younger woman (not his wife) in a hotel room is making the rounds on social media while another guy is videoing them. It was verified real by Newsweek (not exactly a nonpartisan news outlet).
Maybe that's what Gallego is getting worried about.
Unless Gallego was involved in threesomes or is shown to have known about Swalwell's apparent criminal activity and other bad behavior, I don't see what he needs to worry about?
The specific video that’s been thrown around has been rumored to include Gallego along with Swalwell. However, Gallego shot this down immediately when being questioned by the media.
If there is a video showing Gallego raping women, we should move as quickly as we did with Swalwell to get rid of him. We know the Republicans are going to make as much hay as they can from this scandal, and we shouldn't try to help them.
Key word "if", let's not make assumptions without evidence.
I wasn't making assumptions, I was actually expressing skepticism if you might re-read my comments. The right wing media is trying to blow this up into something it probably isn't, and we shouldn't be helping them.
there is a) no indication of any wrongdoing on Gallego's part (as of yet) and b) no indication from anyone that we would do anything different if he were implicated in any such activities, so making a comment that says "If [thing that we have no evidence of] happens, we should [do the exact same thing we already did] and not do [thing no one is suggesting we do]" does imply some assumptions.
Yes but the video I am referring to which MPC is referencing is the only one even being looked at as rumored to have Gallego there with Swalwell. It has not been verified that he has done this. Only speculated.
It is so clearly not Gallego that it should not be repreated on this thread
I agree.
Newsweek is partisan?
Very.
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/newsweek-embraces-anti-democracy-hard-right/
That's horrible! I see the change was in 2020.
It was once considered a solid second place to TIME, and had a robust reputation for their coverage and journalism.... that has been gone for a long, long time. Heck, I remember getting "Newsweek for Kids" in elementary school, 25 years ago. Appears that broad media landscape changes/consolidations and the general decline of print and magazine media that have been taking place for the last decade, and accelerated greatly by COVID, really helped do them in.
David Ansen was a great film critic for Newsweek back in the day. But he left in 2008.
Wow. I had no idea they made this pivot.
If Gallego was somehow involved, then let's hear it from actual witnesses tied to the incident so we may compare and corroborate. Otherwise it's still in the land of speculation and fiction.
https://x.com/birenbomb/status/2044431928078618645
TX-Sen: Former Pres. George W. Bush has donated to the campaign of Sen. John Cornyn.
This is good news for Cornyn's campaign! /s
That's all I care to read about Bush for the rest of the decade. I hope he is happy painting.
To be fair, he is pretty good at that.
Unindicted criminal, in my opinion. Contrary to Julius' opinion, I haven't seen any good paintings out of him.
His portrait exhibit at the American section of Epcot is pretty good.
Not at all, IMO.
All art is subjective, to be fair
W gave us Roberts who basically gutted the Civil Rights Act via Shelby and co-authored Citizens United for unlimited and unrestricted corporate "speech" spending in campaigns. Despite that, Alito has proven to be consistently worse, including compared to all of Trump's Supreme court appointments. I still prefer both Bushes over Trump any day, but boy was their legacy a mess we still have to clean up.
It's -only- because Trump was the next Republican that people forget G.W. Bush was one of the 2-4 worst presidents in U.S. history up till then.
He finally found a way to do something without doing anything at all.
Another downballot wipeout for Republicans in elections:
https://x.com/VoteHub/status/2044260322677080080
Whittier, CA Results
Mayor:
✅🔵 James Becerra – 7,905 (67.8%)
🔴 Joe Vinatieri – 3,606 (30.9%) (I)
City Council 2:
✅🔵 Vicky Santana – 2,162 (63.6%)
🔴 Octavio Martinez – 804 (23.7%) (I)
City Council 4:
✅🔵 Aida Macedo – 2,367 (69.3%)
🔴 Fernando Dutra – 862 (25.2%) (I)
How did the Republicans win in the first place? Whittier is blue enough that there has to be more of an explanation than just low turnout.
In California municipal elections are nonpartisan. Sometimes members of the minority party in an area are able to win because they are not labelled partisans on the ballot. In the past I have had GOP city council members or school board trustees. My area does not elect Repubs to partisan offices like Congress or the California Assembly.
Nonpartisan race in APRIL (!!!) instead of the June normal primary
Not out of the ordinary in this environment considering Whittier is right by Hacienda Heights and not too far away from Los Angeles.
Whittier: R M Nixon's old stomping ground. Times have changed!
Today's results drop added about 4600 ballots in addition to those shown above, with only minor changes in the percentages shown. There will be another drop Friday and another Tuesday. Turnout is up dramatically over 2022, when Joey V. got 77% of the vote on 16% turnout.
In Q1 Democrats have almost every Republican incumbent Senate seat’s challenger/nominee for the midterms basically decided except for the swing/purple state of Michigan, which has had several very close Democratic wins, but hasn’t voted in a GOP Senator since 1994.
Democrats in 2024 literally couldn’t have dreamed of a better result for their chances of taking the Senate in 2026. Now it’s about fighting it out in Michigan and raising the cash to beat them all. So far, so good:
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2044444618192822574
POLITICO: Q1 Senate Fundraising (so far)
🔵 Talarico (TX) — $27M
🔵 Ossoff (GA) — $14M
🔵 Cooper (NC) — $13.8M
🔵 Brown (OH) — $12.5M
🔵 Peltola (AK) — $8.9M
🔴 Whatley (NC) — $5M
🔵 Platner (ME) — $4M
🔵 McMorrow (MI) — $3M
🔵 Mills (ME) — $2.6M
🔵 El-Sayed (MI) — $2.2M
🔴 Cornyn (TX) — $1.7M
https://politico.com/live-updates/2026/04/15/congress/senate-democrats-talarico-ossoff-fundraising-numbers-00872685
Do we have Peggy Flanagan numbers? I consider her the frontrunner for MN Senate.
3 AM today: Flanagan Hauls in $1.35 Million from Grassroots to Power Campaign
ST. LOUIS PARK, MN [04/15/26]—Lt. Governor Peggy Flanagan’s campaign announced today that they raised over $1.35 million in the first quarter of 2026. The campaign added 17,000 new donors in the first quarter for a total of over 71,000 contributors this cycle with over 97 percent of contributions under $100. This raise also marks Flanagan’s largest fundraising haul to date with an increase of 35 percent quarter over quarter. Flanagan will report $1.15 million cash on hand. Flanagan is the only candidate in the Senate race that is not taking corporate PAC money.
Disappointing. Far less than Craig and less than 1/3 of Craig's COH.
Money isn't everything, but being outraised nearly 2:1 is not encouraging. Hoping Flanagan can pick up the pace.
All the polls, even Craig's internals, agree that Flanagan is leading. And she is definitely taking the mantle of the insurgent compared to Craig. So I think (and hope) she can still get there.
I agree, but a significant CoH advantage can be used by Craig to potentially close that gap. Forced to guess I'd say Flanagan is favored (caveat that I am biased towards her) but her advantage isn't substantial enough that Craig cannot catch up. More financial resources is exactly the kind of tool needed to pull that off.
Looks like for the most interesting senate primaries/states, we're only missing Stevens (MI), all of IA, and both Flanegan and Craig in MN.
Curious what the field total is in IA and how McMorrow/Stevens and Flanagan/Craig compare. If I remember right, last quarter Stevens and McMorrow were basically tied while Craig had a decent fundraising advantage over Flanagan.
Last quarter all three Michigan candidates were within a couple hundred thousand of each other. Stevens' numbers are going to be very telling, since there seems to have been establishment movement towards McMorrow.
Have Husted or Sullivan released numbers? And Collins?
Sullivan's came out the same day Peltola's did, he raised $2.1m and has $7.5m COH.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/04/13/senate-midterms-peltola-fundraising-sullivan-alaska-00868627
Iowa Democrats released a while ago:
Josh Turek (D): $1.1 million raised
Zach Wahls (D): $1.1 million raised
Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.
Let's hope the election is not a tie.
I think that recent poll that was posted yesterday still had Wahls name identification quite a bit higher. I think Josh Turek may have gotten in the race a tad too late.
Angie Craig announced earlier: $2.5 million raised, $5 million COH.
NJ 11
1 day out, 58,456 voters have voted in the special election between Analilia Mejia (D) and Joe Hathaway (R)
Vote-by-mail: 36,634 voters
Early voting: 21,822 voters
🔵 Democratic 61.3% / 35,801
🔴 Republican 25.1% / 14,679
⚪️ Unaffiliated 13.6% / 7,976
https://x.com/umichvoter/status/2044474274904170760?s=46&t=sbdQQeYBqp0h_Zql717iTw
Soon we will have Rep. Analilia Mejia.
Weird that the special is on the Thursday
Didn't realize it was tomorrow already!! Thought it was the 23rd. The primary date was also a Thursday, they're probably keeping continuity
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/politics/republican-effort-to-initiate-impeachment-effort-against-walz-ellison-fails/89-6705c2f0-949f-483d-942b-82077c1cb4a6
St. Paul, Minnesota - The Republican controlled House of Representatives failed to impeach outgoing Gov. Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison, both Democrats, for their supposed role in rampant fraud relating to government funds in Minneapolis.
TIL they were trying to do that.
Same. And I live here!
TIL=today I learned. I had to look that up. I was thinking "the idea like".
Should go, TIL what TIL is. Hahaha…
"Republican controlled House of Representatives" pretty sure the house is tied at 67 seats each, unless there is a vacancy i haven't heard of?
They have a Republican speaker, speaker pro tem, and majority leader.
They do have a GOP speaker but not a majority leader, the GOP tried to pick one but the courts struck their attempt down. Now both parties have their own floor leader http://house.mn.gov/sessiondaily/Story/18447
CA-Supreme Court: Just realized that there's a seat that's been vacant on the California Supreme Court since October and Newsom hasn't even named a nominee?! What gives?
Newsom is as Newsom does it seems.
How can he possibly find time for nominating a justice when he has a podcast to run?
Apparently this is not new for California:
Tino Cuellar retired October 2021, Patricia Guerrero wasn't appointed until February 2022
Kathryn Werdegar retired August 2017, Joshua Groban wasn't appointed until November 2018
WTF? It's not like that's an important position or something...
There’s a lot of pressure and push to get Supreme Court justices nominated, confirmed or delayed (in McConnell’s case with Merrick Garland).
But apparently we can’t get that with the California Supreme Court!
Come on Newsom.
His staff probably is vetting people extensively.
Also, Newsom is a busy guy--he's got podcasts to record, press events to attend, a speaking circuit to give talks on...oh right, and I guess he's also a Governor, too!
How does Newsom do it? Inquiring minds would like to know.
Not to mention he also needs time to be anti - lgbt.
Are the Never Trump Republicans that are now joining Democratic primaries getting help from the artificial intelligence groups and crypto groups? I have not studied it, so I may not be fair in my assessment.