Probably not. Before Chan entered, she was considered the candidate most likely to get the Pelosi endorsement. I don't think she will make it to November, but who knows.
Chan is polling quite well vs Chakrabarti but it remains to be seen. It’s not really a Chan problem so much as this being the first time in over 30 years that San Francisco is finally getting the really competitive House race it deserves. I say this as a Chan supporter.
That said, I honestly wouldn’t be surprised Chakrabarti advances to the general election. If he didn’t run, the Pelosi endorsement would have made a bigger impact.
Agreed. The root problem of the Great Recession was banking and the shady subprime mortgage crisis. The problems took longer to heal primarily because the financial sector had to take more time to recover.
By contrast, what a Democratic POTUS after Trump would need to do aside from addressing the housing crisis is end the damn tariffs and then price relief will happen. It will be a psychological relief for many average Americans. They might even start spending more depending on whether they chose to save or not.
Good points although corporations and businesses essentially go by what the market dictates to them. They are not going to be beholden to a moral obligation to lower prices, unless they see their customers are fleeing or want to offer incentives to keep customers more loyal shoppers to their brand.
Unfortunately, with the tariffs in place now, it’s hard to really analyze what-ifs unless they are ended. I really can’t comment on how prices are going to go even further, stay the same or even increase unless the tariffs are no longer in place.
Anything else corporate wise we would need to see how things play out. Quite honestly, I do not think corporations across the board want higher prices for customers unless for traditionally luxury or expensive goods. As as much as I’d like to see prices lower than they are, lowering interest rates and ending tariffs are right now the best chance government has.
Practically speaking, if tariffs are ended and prices drop but not in deflation territory, the economy can continue to grow and swing back to the extent where voters can start saving and feeling less of the punch since the pandemic. It would be a quick recovery and bounce back although it would take time for real saving to happen.
It is not. Price controls are the best chance the government has. That doesn't mean they'll do them and isn't an argument that they are or are not good economic policy, but if you're really determined to lower prices, that's the way you can be sure to do it.
Which is why I keep saying that we need to start preparing now for 2030 likely being a bad year for us. That means starting now to try and get independent redistricting commissions established in any state where there is a chance we may not have a seat at the redistricting negotiating table after 2030.
The most frustrating thing about 2010 is that all the warning signs were there as early as early 2009 (poor polling, aggregate special election underperformances) that 2010 was gonna be an awful year. Dems could have looked at these results early on in states where they controlled legislatures that these indicators said they would likely lose in 2010 (AL, WI, NC) and put independent redistricting on the ballot. Instead they sat back and twiddled their thumbs while the house was burning down.
Much straighter line between Trump and the current global fiasco than between Obama and the Great Recession.
Furthermore, I'd argue that the majority of Americans came out of the Great Recession not much worse for wear. Those who lost their jobs or their homes bore the brunt of the hardship while the majority weathered the storm. Now we're seeing inflation that's hitting everybody and economic growth limited to people with a large portfolio of Nvidia stock. I'd venture to say more people are feeling the pain in 2026 compared to 2010.
Prices aren't going down anytime soon, and we are likely to see a convergence of high prices, extreme weather, reduced farm productivity (those three combined will be brutal for food prices), and the oil shock/utility prices, all hitting around the same time in about 6 to 8 weeks. Admin is already draining the SPR, and the worst of the oil shock hasn't even arrived.
"Much straighter line between Trump and the current global fiasco than between Obama and the Great Recession." Voters didn't hesitate to blame Obama in a huge way for the economy in 2010 and 2014. Counting on voters to blame the right politician for the right things is not a good bet.
Voters will almost always blame the president for the state of things. But I agree with Mark's point: voters, in net, are going to cast more blame on the president the easier it is to logically link the president to whatever bad things are happening.
The blame of being perceived as not doing enough to fix things is bad. The blame of being perceived as having broken things is worse.
Which thing did voters blame the Democrats for enough to elect Trump to a 2nd term? That's why I don't fucking credit voters with blaming the right people for the right things. They do, sometimes, when the problem is right in front of their noses.
Yes. It’s easy to attribute blame to Obama because in their minds he didn’t do enough to stop the sentiment of those recovering from the Great Recession who were not seeing the economy recovering quickly enough. Obama and his administration could have done more but those like Christine Roemer were sidelined in favor of Larry Summers & Co.
Of course, recovery would have been better if community and regional banks were supported better and bailed out.
I graduated college during the Great Recession in 2009. It was incredibly difficult to get full time employment (like it is now), it was all part time work. I was able to get better pay and better hours in the same field in 2015, but I did not secure a full time job until 4 years ago. I kept being told I was either overqualified, they found another candidate or not experienced enough.
It took Bidenomics to help get me through the door to full time work. The Trump fiasco is causing people to lose jobs and made it an employer’s market again.
I don't care what the GA judicial commission says. The one in NC ignored and buried Justice Anita Earls' complaints against MAGA Chief Justice Paul Newby's conduct.
I think voters should know who their judges are and what their values are, not GOP operatives hiding behind the nonpartisan label. Janet Protasiewicz did a great job conveying her values on the campaign trail in WI.
Is the GA judicial commission staffed by GOP appointees?
A federal judge has blocked the body that oversees state judicial elections in Georgia from issuing ethics criticism against a pair of liberal state Supreme Court candidates
finding that kind of late-campaign disclosure could chill protected political speech without meaningful constitutional review."
A federal judge has blocked the body that oversees state judicial elections in Georgia from issuing ethics criticism against a pair of liberal state Supreme Court candidates
finding that kind of late-campaign disclosure could chill protected political speech without meaningful constitutional review."
It would be helpful and interesting to include turnout numbers for primaries so that readers start to get an idea of how many people are determining the direction of each state, district, etc.
Landry had it coming with angry voters voting down every single amendment on the ballot.
Legislative Rs here in NC want to put an amendment capping state income tax at 3.49% (to prevent a future Dem trifecta from raising taxes on their donors like Duke Energy). If Landry and Berger’s primary loss is any indication, I expect those to fail in a D leaning midterm.
I mean, the voters are still sour. Democrats are doing this well partly because of a resistance to Trump and the general trend of angst during midterms.
I think this is probably going to come back to bite us later. The Dems are about to be handed a large amount of power simply because they are not Republicans, not because of their policy proposals. We need to start developing a vision for the party and voters to coalesce around, like a new New Deal. If voters don't see results or have something to latch onto, we're just going to see-saw right back to the fascist right-wing.
i agree, however local democratic parties are not nearly as hated and if the end of trump one should teach us anything its that we get an inflated bump up until he is out of office see: e.g., La-Gov 2019, Ky gov 2019, Va state elections 2019, 2020 Georgia runoffs. The problem will be if our next pres nominee has no vision for how to fix and make america the land it should be
Agreed. This has to be sorted out by 2028. I don't see anything like that happening with the current leadership (Martin is incompetent and in over his head, and Schumer and Jeffries are not "ideas" people, they have shadowy donors to please, and they seem to want to just revert back to the good old days). So a new platform for a new future will probably have to be a result of the presidential campaign and the ideas generated by the base and candidates through that whole process.
For sure. But then what? That's the question everyone will have after 2028. If there is no answer, or it's not a good one, we all know what happens next.
We sort of had this problem after 2006 and 2008. Voters voted against Republicans but weren’t really “for” us. Once Bush was gone, our support ended up evaporating very quickly.
They can still model an agenda. Pass bills and let Trump veto them. Moreover, they can start the process of reforming Congress to make it more effective. A big part of the reason why the Executive branch has taken so much power over the years is that the Legislative has grown more and more impotent.
I’d say this all boils down to several fundamental rules:
-Be competent in governing. No disastrous rollouts of important tech and implementations like Healthcare.gov. Please Democrats, work to improve government on an ongoing basis so it works for voters instead of just simply defending things all the time.
-No stupid policy like Chained CPI, TPP that depresses Democrats’ enthusiasm.
-No bad PR like what happened the Affordable Healthcare Act legislative process and explaining to voters what the ACA really contained.
-No more running away from the Democratic Party like what they did when they were wimps to defend Obama even after re-electing him. This includes Democrats in red states too.
If Democrats can’t win in red states, well, running away from the Democratic Party isn’t helping either. Alison Grimes did this back in 2014 and while she had a good turnout machine, she still didn’t beat Mitch McConnell. She was the establishment choice.
At least stand for what you believe in instead of trying to be wishy washy or GOP lite.
I agree on all but I will say on that second bullet point some people would say that they aren't stupid policies but definitely stupid politics-wise. Even then I think that for ex. wrt to free trade some candidates (especially in the sun belt) will find it that running on an agenda that leans that way is probably the best way to go beyond just "repealing the Trump tariffs" and further lowering prices.
I would love to see a blue tsunami, hence my rooting for 2010-in-reverse wave. Especially since Rs and TACO aren't doing squat on gas prices and the Strait of Hormuz.
I know you’re talking about raw numbers of seats when you say 2010 in reverse, but it’s worth pointing out that the GOP only won the generic ballot by 6.8 points in 2010 and in 1994. We’re probably going to win by more on that metric this year than they have in any House election since at least 1946, when Republicans won by 8.5 points and potentially since 1928, when they won by 14.8 points.
I'm rooting for a blue tsunami here in NC to overcome the gerrymandered GOP majority in our state legislature (I know flipping our state Supreme Court in 2028 is more realistic). Because if NC Ds get a one-seat majority like MN did in 2023-2024, they'll be able to pass a TON of legislation on party lines and undo quite a bit of R red meat legislation.
Every state should use the Iowa redistricting standards, which (among other things) prohibit mapmakers from using partisan data and prohibit dividing counties and cities more than necessary. In other words, a city must be kept whole unless its population is too large to be contained in one district. In that case, it must be divided into the fewest number of districts possible.
Yup. This is the model we should shoot for if we get trifectas in WI and PA after 2026. We should have tried again in OH too as it only failed 53-47 in 2025 with Trump on the ballot. Without him on the ballot and a Dem leaning year, it would have had a better chance of passing in OH, even with the R Secretary of State writing misleading ballot language.
Dems should also be doing something in MO, where ballot initiatives from the public are allowed.
I'd prefer an Arizona- or Michigan- style commission that explicitly promotes political competitiveness as tertiary qualification, after compactness/COI
I get the sentiment, but trying to figure out how this works in practice. At present, Chicago (=2.6m population) stretches out to 8 congressional districts, but if compactness is the standard, it would be 3.5 (assuming districts of 750,000). The suburbs to which most of the present Chicago districts adjoin share many common demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, but they'd be barred from being joined to a Chicago district (except for the .5 Chicago district).
Should a predominantly Black working-class suburb be joined to a wealthy white suburb just for the sake of compactness, or does it make sense for the Black suburb to be part of a Black urban district? Again, it seems like in the Iowa example, it would only be possible to do this with one Chicago district.
I guess my question is, how is the Iowa standard not an example of packing? And if it is a worthy standard, why is compactness so important?
The problem with this is that I'm going to guess mapmakers know the general way most counties and towns voted based on location and size. Also, Iowa's current maps aren't perfect, it's odd that Story County (Ames/Iowa State) is not in the same district as Polk (Des Moines) and Dallas County (purple suburbs), despite being close to each other.
I do not feel sorry for Senator Bill Cassidy. While I applaud that he had the integrity to vote to convict Trump, his subsequent pathetic attempts to get back into Trump's good graces, most notably with advancing the RFK Jr. nomination, will be his Senate legacy.
“When you participate in democracy, sometimes it doesn’t turn out the way you want it to. But you don’t pout. You don’t whine. You don’t claim the election was stolen.”
Still torn on whether I want Paxton to win to give us the best chance to flip the seat, or Cornyn to win cause Paxton is the slimiest worst possible person to be in that role should the GOP still win
I think we need to let go of this idea that Paxton will be worse than Cornyn as a Senator. They will vote exactly the same way, whether their vote matters or not. Paxton will have the added bonus of reminding everyone of the GOP's rampant, ever-present corruption and hypocrisy, which may benefit us in the long term.
It's not about votes. It's about how bipartisan they are behind the scenes in negotiations. This is why losing Cassidy is a big deal; yes he would toe the line in public statements but he was fairly reasonable in backroom dealings. Paxton would be like a combo of Rick Scott and Tuberville.
Cornyn flipped positions on the filibuster just to win this primary. I'm not sure what more he could do to signal he is no longer interested in bipartisanship or good governance. His party certainly does not want that.
But that's exactly what I'm talking about. Coming out against the filibuster was so clearly a performative gesture that did nothing substantially (Trump seemed to agree). In the Senate you have to look at how they interact with colleagues, not the dumb crap they're saying on Fox News. The difference seems small but it's substantial in terms of having a functioning government.
I don't disagree with anything you're saying. I just think the upside of having Paxton as the nominee (i.e. a more likely Senator Talarico) is greater than the downside of having one more clown among many in the Senate.
Well, Texans have voted for Paxton, even with his slimy record, in more than one election, so I'm not sure that enough would desert him this time around.
Can anyone provide some insight into the LA ballot items? On the surface it seems the school district and tax measures are decent and the teacher pay one seems like it would be good? I know they were passed by Republicans so maybe they’re not as good as it seems. Did people oppose them simply because they wanted to vote against Landry or were they actually bad measures?
They were bad measures. The teacher pay one would have eliminated several education trust funds, basically defunding them for a one-time teacher pay raise.
The first amendment on the ballot would've given the legislature authority over which state jobs are unclassified and overriding the current civil service protections.
Ah okay. I could immediately tell that I didn't support the civil service one, but yeah that makes more sense for why the teacher pay amendment wasn't supported
FL-9: Farmer Ben Butler will run against Democratic Rep. Darren Soto as a Republican. He is endorsed by Republican Reps. Kat Cammack and Greg Steube.
Butler joins businessman Tom Chalifoux in the Republican primary. Osceola County commissioner Ricky Booth and former state Rep. Mike La Rosa are expected to join.
Probably not. Before Chan entered, she was considered the candidate most likely to get the Pelosi endorsement. I don't think she will make it to November, but who knows.
Chan is polling quite well vs Chakrabarti but it remains to be seen. It’s not really a Chan problem so much as this being the first time in over 30 years that San Francisco is finally getting the really competitive House race it deserves. I say this as a Chan supporter.
That said, I honestly wouldn’t be surprised Chakrabarti advances to the general election. If he didn’t run, the Pelosi endorsement would have made a bigger impact.
Makes me wish GA Republicans made these races partisan years ago. They’d get screwed faster.
The Trump Hormuz fiasco is a WAY bigger problem for Rs than Obama dealing with the Bush-induced Great Recession.
Is it? The Great Recession was a way worse economic crisis than this one is - so far.
Agreed. The root problem of the Great Recession was banking and the shady subprime mortgage crisis. The problems took longer to heal primarily because the financial sector had to take more time to recover.
By contrast, what a Democratic POTUS after Trump would need to do aside from addressing the housing crisis is end the damn tariffs and then price relief will happen. It will be a psychological relief for many average Americans. They might even start spending more depending on whether they chose to save or not.
Good points although corporations and businesses essentially go by what the market dictates to them. They are not going to be beholden to a moral obligation to lower prices, unless they see their customers are fleeing or want to offer incentives to keep customers more loyal shoppers to their brand.
Unfortunately, with the tariffs in place now, it’s hard to really analyze what-ifs unless they are ended. I really can’t comment on how prices are going to go even further, stay the same or even increase unless the tariffs are no longer in place.
Anything else corporate wise we would need to see how things play out. Quite honestly, I do not think corporations across the board want higher prices for customers unless for traditionally luxury or expensive goods. As as much as I’d like to see prices lower than they are, lowering interest rates and ending tariffs are right now the best chance government has.
I was going to add:
Practically speaking, if tariffs are ended and prices drop but not in deflation territory, the economy can continue to grow and swing back to the extent where voters can start saving and feeling less of the punch since the pandemic. It would be a quick recovery and bounce back although it would take time for real saving to happen.
It is not. Price controls are the best chance the government has. That doesn't mean they'll do them and isn't an argument that they are or are not good economic policy, but if you're really determined to lower prices, that's the way you can be sure to do it.
Which is why I keep saying that we need to start preparing now for 2030 likely being a bad year for us. That means starting now to try and get independent redistricting commissions established in any state where there is a chance we may not have a seat at the redistricting negotiating table after 2030.
The most frustrating thing about 2010 is that all the warning signs were there as early as early 2009 (poor polling, aggregate special election underperformances) that 2010 was gonna be an awful year. Dems could have looked at these results early on in states where they controlled legislatures that these indicators said they would likely lose in 2010 (AL, WI, NC) and put independent redistricting on the ballot. Instead they sat back and twiddled their thumbs while the house was burning down.
Much straighter line between Trump and the current global fiasco than between Obama and the Great Recession.
Furthermore, I'd argue that the majority of Americans came out of the Great Recession not much worse for wear. Those who lost their jobs or their homes bore the brunt of the hardship while the majority weathered the storm. Now we're seeing inflation that's hitting everybody and economic growth limited to people with a large portfolio of Nvidia stock. I'd venture to say more people are feeling the pain in 2026 compared to 2010.
Direct pain yes.
But how long would it last is the question should the tariffs and/or prices go down at some point. The direct problem has to do with the costs.
Prices aren't going down anytime soon, and we are likely to see a convergence of high prices, extreme weather, reduced farm productivity (those three combined will be brutal for food prices), and the oil shock/utility prices, all hitting around the same time in about 6 to 8 weeks. Admin is already draining the SPR, and the worst of the oil shock hasn't even arrived.
"Much straighter line between Trump and the current global fiasco than between Obama and the Great Recession." Voters didn't hesitate to blame Obama in a huge way for the economy in 2010 and 2014. Counting on voters to blame the right politician for the right things is not a good bet.
Voters will almost always blame the president for the state of things. But I agree with Mark's point: voters, in net, are going to cast more blame on the president the easier it is to logically link the president to whatever bad things are happening.
The blame of being perceived as not doing enough to fix things is bad. The blame of being perceived as having broken things is worse.
Which thing did voters blame the Democrats for enough to elect Trump to a 2nd term? That's why I don't fucking credit voters with blaming the right people for the right things. They do, sometimes, when the problem is right in front of their noses.
Yes. It’s easy to attribute blame to Obama because in their minds he didn’t do enough to stop the sentiment of those recovering from the Great Recession who were not seeing the economy recovering quickly enough. Obama and his administration could have done more but those like Christine Roemer were sidelined in favor of Larry Summers & Co.
Of course, recovery would have been better if community and regional banks were supported better and bailed out.
What did you mean instead of sentiment?
In that comparison, I would argue we are in 2007 still. The drop has not come yet, but the internals are deteriorating hard
I graduated college during the Great Recession in 2009. It was incredibly difficult to get full time employment (like it is now), it was all part time work. I was able to get better pay and better hours in the same field in 2015, but I did not secure a full time job until 4 years ago. I kept being told I was either overqualified, they found another candidate or not experienced enough.
It took Bidenomics to help get me through the door to full time work. The Trump fiasco is causing people to lose jobs and made it an employer’s market again.
Trump being underwater with Whites with no degree is something I’d never thought I’d see
Will the R-leaning ones stay home or vote for Dems out of spite?
More likely the former imo
Which would be pretty awesome. Be nice to get one or more shock R-to-D Senate seat flips.
The Nate Silver aggregator now has Trump at below -20 approval.
You mean below -20?
Yes, my bad. Fixed!
So now what? How might this effect the election?
Can this agency actually impose consequences?
I don't care what the GA judicial commission says. The one in NC ignored and buried Justice Anita Earls' complaints against MAGA Chief Justice Paul Newby's conduct.
I think voters should know who their judges are and what their values are, not GOP operatives hiding behind the nonpartisan label. Janet Protasiewicz did a great job conveying her values on the campaign trail in WI.
Is the GA judicial commission staffed by GOP appointees?
What does this actually mean for the election?
I don't think it means squat when GA Dems are fired up.
I meant does this actually affect their ability to serve as judges or the election process? Or is this basically just a hit piece?
I think it's a hit piece.
They were blocked from doing anything about this
Battleground state's Supreme Court race sees bizarre last-minute ethics twist
https://www.rawstory.com/georgia-supreme-court-2676909989/
A federal judge has blocked the body that oversees state judicial elections in Georgia from issuing ethics criticism against a pair of liberal state Supreme Court candidates
finding that kind of late-campaign disclosure could chill protected political speech without meaningful constitutional review."
They were blocked from doing anything about this
Battleground state's Supreme Court race sees bizarre last-minute ethics twist
https://www.rawstory.com/georgia-supreme-court-2676909989/
A federal judge has blocked the body that oversees state judicial elections in Georgia from issuing ethics criticism against a pair of liberal state Supreme Court candidates
finding that kind of late-campaign disclosure could chill protected political speech without meaningful constitutional review."
Yaas, get it, gurl. /s
Enriquez: “I’m in love with gay men like you won’t believe.”
Also Enriquez: “I want them oppressed!”
Quite the oxymoron there sir!
For those, such as I, who need the acronyms decoded:
HELP is Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
HSGAC is Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
It would be helpful and interesting to include turnout numbers for primaries so that readers start to get an idea of how many people are determining the direction of each state, district, etc.
I am very curious about the Georgia results and data from Tuesday cause that will provide so good insights into 2026.
I'm excited to see the results for the SCOGA races tomorrow. Be nice if the Dem-backed challengers unseat Bethel and Warren.
Small correction on the headline item: the Ford duo held the seat from 1975 to 2007, not 1983 to 2007. It started being numbered as the 9th in 1983.
And Justin Pearson is 31.
Thank you, I've fixed.
Landry had it coming with angry voters voting down every single amendment on the ballot.
Legislative Rs here in NC want to put an amendment capping state income tax at 3.49% (to prevent a future Dem trifecta from raising taxes on their donors like Duke Energy). If Landry and Berger’s primary loss is any indication, I expect those to fail in a D leaning midterm.
NYT/Siena D+10 GCB
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/05/18/polls/times-siena-national-poll-toplines.html
And of course the write-up buries the lede and prefaces it with "but voters are still sour on the Democratic Party . ." 🙄
I mean, the voters are still sour. Democrats are doing this well partly because of a resistance to Trump and the general trend of angst during midterms.
I think this is probably going to come back to bite us later. The Dems are about to be handed a large amount of power simply because they are not Republicans, not because of their policy proposals. We need to start developing a vision for the party and voters to coalesce around, like a new New Deal. If voters don't see results or have something to latch onto, we're just going to see-saw right back to the fascist right-wing.
i agree, however local democratic parties are not nearly as hated and if the end of trump one should teach us anything its that we get an inflated bump up until he is out of office see: e.g., La-Gov 2019, Ky gov 2019, Va state elections 2019, 2020 Georgia runoffs. The problem will be if our next pres nominee has no vision for how to fix and make america the land it should be
Agreed. This has to be sorted out by 2028. I don't see anything like that happening with the current leadership (Martin is incompetent and in over his head, and Schumer and Jeffries are not "ideas" people, they have shadowy donors to please, and they seem to want to just revert back to the good old days). So a new platform for a new future will probably have to be a result of the presidential campaign and the ideas generated by the base and candidates through that whole process.
Even if Dems win both houses with Trump as President they'll basically be able to play prevent defense for 2 years.
For sure. But then what? That's the question everyone will have after 2028. If there is no answer, or it's not a good one, we all know what happens next.
We sort of had this problem after 2006 and 2008. Voters voted against Republicans but weren’t really “for” us. Once Bush was gone, our support ended up evaporating very quickly.
They can still model an agenda. Pass bills and let Trump veto them. Moreover, they can start the process of reforming Congress to make it more effective. A big part of the reason why the Executive branch has taken so much power over the years is that the Legislative has grown more and more impotent.
I’d say this all boils down to several fundamental rules:
-Be competent in governing. No disastrous rollouts of important tech and implementations like Healthcare.gov. Please Democrats, work to improve government on an ongoing basis so it works for voters instead of just simply defending things all the time.
-No stupid policy like Chained CPI, TPP that depresses Democrats’ enthusiasm.
-No bad PR like what happened the Affordable Healthcare Act legislative process and explaining to voters what the ACA really contained.
-No more running away from the Democratic Party like what they did when they were wimps to defend Obama even after re-electing him. This includes Democrats in red states too.
If Democrats can’t win in red states, well, running away from the Democratic Party isn’t helping either. Alison Grimes did this back in 2014 and while she had a good turnout machine, she still didn’t beat Mitch McConnell. She was the establishment choice.
At least stand for what you believe in instead of trying to be wishy washy or GOP lite.
I agree on all but I will say on that second bullet point some people would say that they aren't stupid policies but definitely stupid politics-wise. Even then I think that for ex. wrt to free trade some candidates (especially in the sun belt) will find it that running on an agenda that leans that way is probably the best way to go beyond just "repealing the Trump tariffs" and further lowering prices.
Ok. Stupid politics vs stupid policies I agree sounds better.
Trade though has to have balance between worker rights and business rights.
50-39 Dem
Trump disapproval 59-37
Here are the GCB polls by pollster since the start of May:
AtlasIntel: D+15
Siena: D+11
RMG: D+9
Cygnal: D+7
Focaldata: D+7
Looks like we’re at a wave on the low end and a tsunami on the high end right now.
I would love to see a blue tsunami, hence my rooting for 2010-in-reverse wave. Especially since Rs and TACO aren't doing squat on gas prices and the Strait of Hormuz.
I know you’re talking about raw numbers of seats when you say 2010 in reverse, but it’s worth pointing out that the GOP only won the generic ballot by 6.8 points in 2010 and in 1994. We’re probably going to win by more on that metric this year than they have in any House election since at least 1946, when Republicans won by 8.5 points and potentially since 1928, when they won by 14.8 points.
I'm rooting for a blue tsunami here in NC to overcome the gerrymandered GOP majority in our state legislature (I know flipping our state Supreme Court in 2028 is more realistic). Because if NC Ds get a one-seat majority like MN did in 2023-2024, they'll be able to pass a TON of legislation on party lines and undo quite a bit of R red meat legislation.
Every state should use the Iowa redistricting standards, which (among other things) prohibit mapmakers from using partisan data and prohibit dividing counties and cities more than necessary. In other words, a city must be kept whole unless its population is too large to be contained in one district. In that case, it must be divided into the fewest number of districts possible.
These standards prevent cracking and packing.
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/42.4.pdf
Or the MI redistricting amendment that voters enacted in 2018. Both are very good policy.
Yup. This is the model we should shoot for if we get trifectas in WI and PA after 2026. We should have tried again in OH too as it only failed 53-47 in 2025 with Trump on the ballot. Without him on the ballot and a Dem leaning year, it would have had a better chance of passing in OH, even with the R Secretary of State writing misleading ballot language.
Dems should also be doing something in MO, where ballot initiatives from the public are allowed.
They'll probably do that next if they can get their Respect MO Voters amendment on the ballot and enacted.
Yeah, the "don't split counties" rule isn't going to work in the west.
I'd prefer an Arizona- or Michigan- style commission that explicitly promotes political competitiveness as tertiary qualification, after compactness/COI
I get the sentiment, but trying to figure out how this works in practice. At present, Chicago (=2.6m population) stretches out to 8 congressional districts, but if compactness is the standard, it would be 3.5 (assuming districts of 750,000). The suburbs to which most of the present Chicago districts adjoin share many common demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, but they'd be barred from being joined to a Chicago district (except for the .5 Chicago district).
Should a predominantly Black working-class suburb be joined to a wealthy white suburb just for the sake of compactness, or does it make sense for the Black suburb to be part of a Black urban district? Again, it seems like in the Iowa example, it would only be possible to do this with one Chicago district.
I guess my question is, how is the Iowa standard not an example of packing? And if it is a worthy standard, why is compactness so important?
The problem with this is that I'm going to guess mapmakers know the general way most counties and towns voted based on location and size. Also, Iowa's current maps aren't perfect, it's odd that Story County (Ames/Iowa State) is not in the same district as Polk (Des Moines) and Dallas County (purple suburbs), despite being close to each other.
I do not feel sorry for Senator Bill Cassidy. While I applaud that he had the integrity to vote to convict Trump, his subsequent pathetic attempts to get back into Trump's good graces, most notably with advancing the RFK Jr. nomination, will be his Senate legacy.
I liked his parting shot at Trump in his concession speech.
Yes, but I would like to see some integrity-fueled votes from him during the rest of his time in the Senate.
I would too. Him and Tillis have nothing left to lose.
Tillis is still a spineless coward. I can't wait for Cooper to replace his ass in the U.S. Senate.
I was thinking the same. I'm hoping to see seven months of a Cassidy revenge tour.
What did he say
“When you participate in democracy, sometimes it doesn’t turn out the way you want it to. But you don’t pout. You don’t whine. You don’t claim the election was stolen.”
He and Lindsay Graham proposed a god awful healthcare plan that was going to do serious damage for patients.
Texas YouGov:
Talarico 45 Paxton 45
Cornyn 45 Talarico 44
Abbott 49 Hinojosa 43
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/67aa7aa3e284b002cd6a420e/t/6a0addffcba58d0751053542/1779097087749/TSUTexasNov2026.pdf
Still torn on whether I want Paxton to win to give us the best chance to flip the seat, or Cornyn to win cause Paxton is the slimiest worst possible person to be in that role should the GOP still win
I think we need to let go of this idea that Paxton will be worse than Cornyn as a Senator. They will vote exactly the same way, whether their vote matters or not. Paxton will have the added bonus of reminding everyone of the GOP's rampant, ever-present corruption and hypocrisy, which may benefit us in the long term.
It's not about votes. It's about how bipartisan they are behind the scenes in negotiations. This is why losing Cassidy is a big deal; yes he would toe the line in public statements but he was fairly reasonable in backroom dealings. Paxton would be like a combo of Rick Scott and Tuberville.
Cornyn flipped positions on the filibuster just to win this primary. I'm not sure what more he could do to signal he is no longer interested in bipartisanship or good governance. His party certainly does not want that.
But that's exactly what I'm talking about. Coming out against the filibuster was so clearly a performative gesture that did nothing substantially (Trump seemed to agree). In the Senate you have to look at how they interact with colleagues, not the dumb crap they're saying on Fox News. The difference seems small but it's substantial in terms of having a functioning government.
I don't disagree with anything you're saying. I just think the upside of having Paxton as the nominee (i.e. a more likely Senator Talarico) is greater than the downside of having one more clown among many in the Senate.
Rich and ignorant?
Well, Texans have voted for Paxton, even with his slimy record, in more than one election, so I'm not sure that enough would desert him this time around.
Can anyone provide some insight into the LA ballot items? On the surface it seems the school district and tax measures are decent and the teacher pay one seems like it would be good? I know they were passed by Republicans so maybe they’re not as good as it seems. Did people oppose them simply because they wanted to vote against Landry or were they actually bad measures?
They were bad measures. The teacher pay one would have eliminated several education trust funds, basically defunding them for a one-time teacher pay raise.
The first amendment on the ballot would've given the legislature authority over which state jobs are unclassified and overriding the current civil service protections.
Ah okay. I could immediately tell that I didn't support the civil service one, but yeah that makes more sense for why the teacher pay amendment wasn't supported
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/796971-ben-butler-jumps-into-arena-against-darren-soto-in-cd-9/
FL-9: Farmer Ben Butler will run against Democratic Rep. Darren Soto as a Republican. He is endorsed by Republican Reps. Kat Cammack and Greg Steube.
Butler joins businessman Tom Chalifoux in the Republican primary. Osceola County commissioner Ricky Booth and former state Rep. Mike La Rosa are expected to join.
Hmmm, an untested Republican candidate...hopefully there are oppo teams already looking into him! I bet they can find some dirt.
Way to tank your 2028 prospects, JDV.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/16/midwest-republicans-vance-midterms-00924595
https://archive.ph/CQ0xW
Fine with me!