Who do people support for Georgia Governor now that Abrams is out? I have my doubts about Duncan running so fast after a party switch. Nor do I think he’s needed to win. Keisha Lance Bottoms’s lack of support from Atlanta elected officials suggests those that worked with her the closest don’t want her to be an executive again. Many of them endorsed Esteves. I cannot find any obvious weaknesses on him, but he’s also probably the most unknown of the field.
Er. Different situations. That was for two Senate seats, same power and responsibility just different terms. This would be for two completely different offices.
If any doubt, look back 2022, on how people voted on Gov vs Sen. Partially on how unqualified Herschel is, but ig also 50%+ people thought Sen Warnock was doing ok, but at least some 200k of them didn’t think they should fire Gov Kemp for Abrams.
2022 is different. Warnock kept his distance from Abrams because he correctly assumed she wouldn't win, so there was no benefit to campaigning together. In 2026, it's a completely different picture. The governorship is imminently more winnable, and Ossoff is nowhere near as vulnerable as Warnock was in 2022. Little downside to Ossoff of campaigning as a team this time.
I don't understand why Bottoms is even running. She declined to run for re-election because of the stress. Have things gotten less stressful since then?
I wouldn't expect a low name rec state senator to be polling that well in the primary yet this far out. The question is if he can fundraise enough to make his case.
I think Duncan would be strongest in the general, but I'm skeptical that he can win the primary.
Warnock and Ossoff have shown that mainstream Dems can win statewide, although like many heavily suburban states it's bluer at the federal level than at the state level. The key will be the Kemp-Warnock voters from 2022. I think a mainstream Dem could pick enough of them to win this year, although a more conservative Dem might have an easier road.
Ventura said the reason why he did not run for re-election was because of the media attention and privacy violations his family was facing at the time he was Governor.
WTF did he expect as such a nonconventional candidate? As an elected official you basically lose a certain level of privacy and every aspect of your life is ripe for scrutiny, fair or not.
Ventura also was a wrestler for the WWF (before it became the WWE) and has been married to his same wife since 1975. He had not gotten the same problems then as he did as Governor.
The main issue here was that he was trying to be protective of his son, who Ventura believed was slandered by the media over his behavior. Ventura's approval ratings were also taking a dive and he was not popular like he originally was. It wasn't as if dealing with the media was a problem but when your own children are affected, it's a decision any parent has to make if in political office.
I do get your point of view though. Any time someone runs for Mayor, Governor or even POTUS, they are knowingly giving up more of their privacy unless it happens to be within the inside of their own house.
When entering politics, it's easier to be a candidate than it is when actually serving in office. Governors also can get greater media attention scrutiny than even State Assemblymembers or State Senators as what goes on in State Legislature isn't always attributed to one particular member. Even in Congress, which has for years now gotten low approval ratings, one member isn't the sole one responsible for approval ratings.
But with governors, the buck stop with them and what goes on in the executive office. Quite honestly, I didn't think Jesse Ventura was prepared enough for being Governor but he was Mayor of Brooklyn Park for one term prior to running for Governor.
Not sure the best Democratic candidate is a person who endorsed Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and RFK Jr. in their respective presidential campaigns. Yes, he did endorse Democratic candidates as well, but it sounds like it was more as a last resort than anything else.
Ventura endorsed Ron Paul and Gary Johnson because of their stances on war. Also, he was highly critical of RFK Jr's decision to select Nicole Shanahan as his running mate. Otherwise, his political views are quite liberal considering he also joined the Green Party at one point.
Fair enough, all I am saying is that his allegiance to the Democratic Party seems paper-thin, and I would hope that Minnesota would have a deeper bench of candidates than Ventura. Also, the man is 75 this year, which would presumably be a strike in the current anti-geriatric environment.
That I agree. However, Ventura heading toward the end of his term as Governor was becoming unpopular and it's not certain what he would be able to do to reinvigorate enough enthusiasm like he originally got when he first ran for Governor back in 1998.
I think Garrison Keillor (I know, I know) summed up Ventura—AKA Trump Before Trump—quite well in this passage from his book "Homegrown Democrat":
"In Minnesota we had an angry skinhead governor named Jesse (The Body) Ventura who slouched into office on 37% of the vote and turned out to be an opportunist whose first act in office was to sell the book rights. He was a troubled soul, thin-skinned, a growler and ranter and snit thrower. After four years of him it was a relief to go back to politics as usual, where soft-spoken people with ordinary chest sizes sit down and negotiate and get the job done. He was a professional wrestler, used to working within a simple story structure, but politics isn't a story, it's a process."
Quite honestly, I think Ventura should have never been a wrestler. He was too smart to enter the field and possessed a personality that suited him for greater things than this. He was more honest and to blunt than other wrestlers were.
But Ventura’s history serving in the Vietnam War as a Navy SEAL may have made the most impact on him and his life decisions.
Ventura certainly has a few wacky ideas (9/11 twin towers being the biggest one I'm aware of) but by and large he's a traditional left-of-center populist. And he's shown to be level-headed/intelligent.
Indeed Ventura is level headed. His trajectory in politics is similar to Trump’s but with notable differences:
1) Ventura knew when he felt he needed to give it up. He never wanted power like Trump does and was less controversy driven than him.
2) He’s got a much better relationship with women and keep his marriage with his wife Terri quite private over the years before and after he was Governor. No signs of divorce, marriage conflicts or tensions. Married to her since 1975. He’s also quite a gentlemen and civil even with his public image intact.
Ventura has also sided with women on multiple occasions because he was angry at stupid decisions men make. He supported Maria Shriver over Arnold Schwarzenegger when he cheated. Trump would have never done this.
3) And yes, Ventura respects the Constitution and rule of law.
I don't know if he's level-headed, but I appreciate your points.
One of my best friends is from Minnesota, and he considered the election and time in office of Ventura acutely embarrassing. He considered Ventura an incompetent blowhard who should have never gotten anywhere near the statehouse. By the way, he went to school with Steve Simon, says he's a great guy and is very impressed with him, and has been telling me for a few years that he's a politician to watch who might be not only a governor but could eventually become president. Of course whenever he might run for -that- office, we wouldn't talk about it here...
It’s certainly easier to run as a candidate for ego reasons as Ventura did, just like Trump did back in 2015. However, I do not think Ventura was up to the task of being Governor and might have not enjoyed his job as much as it seemed when he was in the limelight.
Yeah for a marriage to last from the 70s through the 90s with the husband in pro wrestling, Hollywood acting AND politics is kind of like the King Arthur's sword of monogamy.
Have you seen Ventura specifically specify he wants to run as a Democrat instead of remaining unaligned? He clearly hates Trump, but also says, "Somebody has to clean up what the Democrats and Republicans constantly wreck. And you notice I lump them together." (6:45 mark.) https://www.fox9.com/video/fmc-fwhyi8dnudvv7u3b
He then compares Democrats and Republicans to the Crips and the Bloods.
I’ve read Ventura’s books like I Ain’t Got Time To Bleed. Originally warmed up to him in my early 20’s when in college but before I became a Democrat back in 2003. At the time, to me he was a refreshing dose of common sense but while in being Governor while Al Gore was running for POTUS, he had an increasingly difficult time dealing with Democrats in the State Legislature.
It only spiked up when he nominated his 1998 gubernatorial campaign chairman Dean Barkley to replace the late Senator Paul Wellstone out of anger towards Democrats in how he believed they made Wellstone’s funeral more political than it should have been.
Ventura is going directly at the establishment and what he believes to be the two-party dictatorship. His experience being Governor certainly added to this but he was also shaped at an early age by his parents on how they (namely his father) griped about certain officeholders.
Ventura though was a fan of Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic Presidential Primary and sought to give Sanders an endorsement at one point only for Sanders to decline. Both though strongly believe in getting the money powers that be that corrupt elections.
Regarding Ventura, one of Pablo Torre's most notable moments was cohosting Dan LeBatard's show on the day Ventura popped on and having to listen to the latter pop off conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. Torre was also dressed as an Orca on that day.
JUST IN: The U.S. economy added only 50,000 jobs in December and a meager 584,000 jobs in all of 2025. That’s the worst year for job gains outside of a recession since 2003. And nearly 85% of the job gains happened by April. There was little hiring the rest of the year.
Unemployment rate: 4.4% in December, up from 4% in January.
Wages: 3.8% wage growth in 2025, which is above ~3% inflation.
A good question, but most of BLS' work is done by career professionals who presumably resist political pressure.
And if they were janking the statistics to make Trump look better, they presumably would have come up with more robust numbers than a monthly average of 49K, less than a third of Biden's final year and making 2025 the worst year for hiring since 2020--and, if we leave out that COVID-related aberration, the worst since the Great Recession period.
I think what pisses me off the most is that even when a non-dictatorial POTUS returns to power, formerly-reliable resources like BLS data, federal government websites, CDC guidelines, etc. will forever be considered untrustworthy and partisan.
The sad fact is that a lot of professional cynics thought that those resources were untrustworthy and partisan even before Trump came in.
I know people like this at work. Anything that Trump does, no matter how insane, these people will wave away by claiming (falsely, most of the time) that Democrats do it too.
I work with BLS data all the time. The surveys have their limitations and the numbers are often heavily revised in response to administrative data from unemployment insurance and other programs that take longer to collect, but there's no reason to believe they are being manipulated. If there were political manipulation, the people who work on the estimates would be leaking left and right.
While markets are ripping upwards. Most of our economic growth is now a result of near circular investing and capital expenditures by the top 15 tech companies.
And it shows one of the central problems with AI, AI spending, and growth driven by AI.
Its mostly jobless growth. Data centers are windowless buildings without parking lots a lot of the time, some don't even have daytime lighting, because the remaining human staff, security, is outside, and human IT only shows up onsite when needed.
For the first time, we have economic growth while destroying jobs. Quality, white collar jobs are being destroyed. Those new jobs being created? Its all service based, shit pay jobs for retail and fast food, and some healthcare growth, as a large portion of the tax base ages into retirement.
We are sprinting towards medium-term and long-term brick walls in a number of ways, from demographics to employment, to social programs. Congress has utterly abdicated its responsibility.
The markets are surging on the hopes that AI eliminates millions of jobs. If that fails, the markets will tank, and if it succeeds, the markets will tank along with the entire economy. We pretty much seem f***ed either way.
I am so thankful that I secured full-time work in 2022 in a career field where it's booked and busy. This is like graduating college back in 2009-2014 during the lingering Great Recession and employers ghosted me or told me I was "overqualified" while I worked a horrid part-time job.
How far into the year is "too late" for the GOP to take any forthcoming ruling and cram through non-VRA maps? If the ruling is in June, is that enough to screw the midterms?
The only state that could maybe take advantage if there's a June ruling is Florida because they moved their filing deadline to June 12. Although that would be cutting it close. I guess other states could move their deadlines and primary elections back, but I'm not sure how that works state by state. I know Alabama's primary is in May, so they probably can't do anything with a June ruling.
"Rep. Steny Hoyer’s decision to retire this week...” is ambiguous. Because of the placement of “this week,” it appears to say that he is RETIRING THIS WEEK. The modifying phrase “this week” should be placed next to the word that it is modifying, “decision.” The sentence should be “Rep. Steny Hoyer’s decision this week to retire at the end of this term...” or “Rep. Steny Hoyer’s decision this week not to seek reelection...”
This isn’t about grammar purity, but about clarity in writing. The ambiguity caused by the incorrect placement of “this week” makes readers do additional research to find out what Hoyer actually said.
Bruce Leon is staying in the race for Illinois’ 9th Congressional District after all, confirming to the RoundTable on Thursday that he has not withdrawn after initially ending his campaign last week under pressure from AIPAC and some local Orthodox Rabbis.
Good - these campaigns that pressure candidates out so others can win suck. Even on the other side - Lawler should be in the mix for New York governor, but Stefanik stopped him
I'm thinking about the Maine Senate race, and am suprised that (previously I said "curious why" but surprised seems more accurate) even with ranked choice voting strong alternative candidates to Mills and Platner didn't emerge. With ranked choice voting there's no risk of being a spoiler. I'm thinking of this in comparison to Michigan where Stevens can be compared to Mills, and El-Sayed can be compared to Platner, yet we also have McMorrow as a strong progressive option between them. Michigan, though, doesn't use ranked choice voting so there's risk involved with having these three candidates. In Maine there would be no risk of splitting the vote, yet there is no McMorrow-type candidate.
I get that, but I'm still surprised that out of over 90 Democratic state legislators (plus local officials) none decided to run in that progressive lane because there wouldn't be as much risk
There are other candidates running. They just are getting no traction—as evidenced by a discussion on an elections-related site not being aware of them. I think some people are in denial about how much support Platner has—not just people thinking he’s better than Mills (who does have a lot of negatives beyond the typical she’s old. Read about her pardon of a child sex predator and her official, on the record comment sympathizing with him). A new entry may win over some of the pox-on-both -their houses voters but don’t discount that many voters may already be locked down by Platner and Mills. This was discussed yesterday but recent repotting by Axios shared that Jordan Woods dropped out of tis Senate primary because his internal polling showed Platner leading the field by by 9 in first round of RCV and this lead growing by final round.
I'm aware there are other candidates, but none of them are strong. I know I said I was curious in my original post, but maybe a better way to express my sentiments about this rather than curious would be surprised. I'm surprised that Wood and other existing candidates didn't gain traction, nor did other candidates jump into the progressive lane given the existence of ranked choice voting in the state. Frankly, I'm also slightly surprised that other establishment candidates and left-wing candidates didn't enter the race to counter Mills and Platner respectively.
Maybe there just aren't very many strong candidates in Maine? Most mayors struggle for statewide offices. I think (but might be wrong) that member of legislatures usually don't make the jump directly from the legislature to Senate.
Thom Tillis, Joni Ernst, Deb Fischer, John Barrasso, Patty Murray, Jeff Merkley and Lisa Murkowski all jumped from the legislature to the senate. Tillis and Ernst are retiring of course and Barrasso and Murkowski were appointed.
Hoping to see Mallory McMorrow, Josh Turek and James Talarico be able to pull off wins so they can expand the list!
I don’t have data to support this, but I think the decision-making process that primary voters typically go through usually right before the primary got moved up by 1)the controversy: this was everywhere on the news and social media and was not ‘boring policy’ but rather prime gossip that even normies would have discussed and taken sides on and 2) Platner has been everywhere doing in- person events that have been overflowing even in low population areas and his volunteers have been doing lots of canvassing already so many people are again confronted with thinking about this race earlier than a typical primary. I’m sure there are still plenty of undecided voters but I think many voters have already had to think about this race earlier than typical and a decent chunk are locked in strongly to either Platner or Mills so less opportunity for a new person to enter.
That all makes sense. In the scenario you suggest, I wonder if people are locked in for Mills or Platner mainly because they strongly dislike the other candidate, or because they genuinely like either Mills or Platner. If it's the former then that would be a good environment for another candidate to jump in, but if it's the latter then yeah that would make sense for why Mills and Platner are the only major candidates.
I’m not all that surprised. The DSCC is very obviously putting its feet on the scales of who they prefer to win the primaries in competitive states. There’s no political oxygen left for anyone else to run and likely threats of consequences for anyone who does.
Mills takes the establishment lane + national group backing. Platner takes the left lane as well as the unconventional outsider group backing. If Mills didn’t have the entire establishment or Platner only had part of the left groups, there would be a lane to run between the two like there is in MI.
Because both sides are in totality lined up behind one or the other, no one else can run. McMorrow in Michigan got parts of both sides for her campaign when Stevens and Abdul El-Sayed didn’t get everyone in their lane on board.
Stevens lost some of her support due to her lackadaisical campaigning ability that worried some establishment members she couldn’t run a campaign to win. Abdul El-Sayed lost some of his support due to fears he was too left to win the state.
It’s also important to remember there’s a big difference between representing small states and representing large ones. Maine isn’t that large, so having 3 candidates running probably isn’t possible, whereas in large Michigan, there’s enough room for 3.
Platner has also gotten the left leaning Senate Democratic "Fight Club" backing and attended a fundraiser in DC recently while Schumer opened a joint fundraising account with Mills. It was mentioned that the Fight Club themself is divided on Michigan but oppose Stevens.
I am supporting McMorrow but El-Sayed has a far less controversial past than Platner. His controversies were deleting a few Abolish ICE and Defund the Police tweets made in 2020.
Michigan is a weird instance where McMorrow is attracting the electability-minded Democrats who typically gravitate towards moderates, as well as a slice of the progressives, who themselves may have issues with El-Sayed or think he cannot win a general election. Texas is probably the only instance of a two-way race where the electability-focused primary voters align with the progressives for Talarico. There's no such candidate that has that overlap in Maine. The electability-focused people think Platner is walking red flag. The progressives don't trust Mills at all. Both camps have very strong feelings on Platner and Mills, and I think they're irreconcilable until after the primary.
As a wrestling fan and a follower of politics, I am entertained by Jesse. His show Conspiracy Theories or whatever it was turned some rural Dems in my part of the country into Q'Anon types. Jesse understands policy and he's not dumb, but it is all about self promotion. He threatens to run all of the time. He will try to sell anything to make a buck, and on a certain level, I don't blame him given the fact that wrestlers have no pension and battle severe health issues.
I would be happy if Jesse Ventura overtake Trump in self-promotion and messaging. If you could have both of them at a debate, I would get front row seats. Ventura could body slam Trump, argumentatively of course. ;)
Ventura got out of wrestling at the right time. While he served in the WWF, Hulk Hogan has outed him because he was trying to push unionizing for wrestlers. Hogan’s issues with racism were not the only problems he had.
Let me say this. I take Jesse serious as a former elected official performer and business person. He throws his name out there to stay in the news. I was happy to see him doing wrestling commentary again. The WWE decided not to renew his contract because I think he admitted he really didn't care for their product, LOL.
I salute Jesse for unionizing, but I think he tends to put his finger to the wind and just say what is obviously popular at the moment. I have seen him praise Gary Johnson, the Pauls, all kinds of right leaning characters. I get it that he touts independence, but work with the Ralph Nader third party types if you are truly pro-union, pro-worker and pro-Keynesian. You don't blame footsie with ABOLISH THE FED stuff unless you have a true plan. That's Ron Paul territory, and again if you watch some of his work since leaving office in media, it leaves plenty to be desired.
Full disclosure: I was an Iowa staffer for Amy Klobuchar's campaign in 2020.
Yeah, Ventura’s hard to pin down on his true allegiance. At one point, he went from talking about the two-party dictatorship to then saying all political parties should be abolished.
Very true. This is off topic, but I wish Ralph Nader and Ron Paul would have had debates around the country when they were both younger, so people can learn the significant differences between Green/left leaning parties and Libertarians/right wing third parties.
The media only brings these two groups together when the two parties go overboard with the military industrial complex. or CIA oversight, just as two examples. The truth is that there is a broad difference between Nader and Paul, but the media only gives them time when they are agreeing with each other. Nader and Paul should have debated the FDA, EPA, all the alphabet soup agencies so people could see the real differences.
Jesse kind of fits in this group, he will pop his head out when there is obvious overreached by the Democratic or Republican President. It is entertaining, but I have seen this movie before.
WV-SD-13: Democrats are trying to flip one of the seats here, with Del. Williams taking on Republican Sen. Oliverio. The other seat in this district is held by Democrat Joey Garcia, who was elected in 2024.
However, I heard today from a trusted source that Garcia will not be running again in 2028. Democrats need to flip the seat this year and hold it that year in order to have *any* presence in the Senate, since the other Democratic senator is retiring in a competitive/red leaning seat. This is a race to watch so that Republicans do not have unanimous control of one of the chambers of our legislature.
So, basically, it's a wash. Half say it's too much, half thinks it's fine, not enough or don't care. America needs to change its voters before it can change its policy.
I would not lump not sure in with not forceful enough. Adding about right and not forceful enough together makes clear sense, but not sure has different connotations.
That leaves it at 51-37-12. That's very different from a wash.
People who support Trump are willing to go all the way with the Trump fascist project. They’re not a majority of the country but they are a frighteningly large minority, considering where they’re willing to go.
I think it’s extremely telling that only 33% of Republicans are willing to give an answer on this question while double that number of independents are.
The GOP is a partisan cult, their voters never actually say they disapprove of Trump on any issue because it’s perceived as disloyalty to him, but the sign of discontent among that party isn’t in the opposition numbers, it’s in how many will answer a question about an issue they all know looks terrible for their party.
When inflation/economy numbers show 60-75% R approval and this issue doesn’t, it doesn’t take a political science major to come to the obvious conclusion they refuse to answer in order to avoid giving the satisfaction to the media and Democrats that his own base dislikes something he’s done.
I think a big part of our strategy needs to be to heighten the contradiction between “must show absolute loyalty to Trump” and “Trump is dragging us all down” in the minds of every single Republican
If whoever our nominee is doesn’t play that clip/statement 24/7 on Fox News, oan and every right wing propaganda media rag online in ads, they don’t deserve to win that race.
In fact, it’s probably a smart idea for the DSCC to start running those ads right now. Doesn’t matter who wins the nomination, it would help either candidate. Enough MAGA voters staying home or blanking the ballot makes it that much easier for us to defeat Collins.
Well, the success part is kinda their job, right? And their failures do things like cost us health care and get nutjobs confirmed for lifetime judicial posts.
Laugh all you want, the DSCC isn't as incompetent as they're made out to be. Could be better, for sure, but there's a reason Democrats won four Senate seats in states that Trump won on the same ballot in 2024. Including two open seats at that.
I think Dems won Senate seats in Trump states in '24 because occasional voters voted Trump and left the rest of the ballot blank.
If you want to get serious, I think the DSCC/Schumer is going to f'k up the ME-SEN race this year. I'm not a Maine voter, but I was a Platner person, and after all the stuff that's come out, I don't see how he can win a general. But as many others have said here, that should have been the occasion for Schumer to look toward the next generation of ME Dems for an alternative. Instead, he dragged Mills into the race (it appears she didn't want to do it and I won't get into her obvious flaws here). DSCC will never back a dynamic progressive with personal appeal when they can choose a White older moderate who they have convinced themselves will win MAGA votes. (Hint--they won't). Mills is the Breseden of '26 and we're going to fall one vote short in the Senate because of this recruitment.
Ironically this is one way RCV hurts us: we can't rely on a 3rd party MAGAT to siphon off a lot of GOP votes and thus aid (ensure?) a Democratic win. (Of course, without RCV there might be just as much risk of Dems being hurt by a spoiler.)
What we can hope for is that a lot of them just don't vote for Collins, but we don't know if Trump will be saying similar things closer to the election or how many in the state really won't vote even for a Republican they don't really like while control of the Senate may be at stake.
But tbh, she is not some super candidate, nor the state’s registration gain or moving political balance had a lot to do with her effort. It will be better that she is not running.
We need to ratfuck to get Paxton as the nominee. Nothing to lose. Need our nominee (hopefully Talarico) to play the immigration issue smart and do what other border state Dems do. Throw the Biden admin under the bus on the issue too in their ads to show their independence. I don't care. Whatever it takes to win.
Allred already threw Biden under the bus a lot in his votes and ads, and nobody (on our side) cared. And most pols have thrown him under now: Newsom, Bernie, Schatz (next in line to be Majority leader after Schumer), Murphy (who wrote the Border bill), Khanna and Talarico too. Talarico has an interesting way of talking about the border likening it to a locked door with a welcome mat in front of it.
Good. I don't care if Talarico or Crockett needs to trash the Democratic Party as much as Fetterman does. Do it if that's what it takes to win. I can tolerate that behavior from a red state Democrat. Not from a Pennsylvania Senator.
Who do people support for Georgia Governor now that Abrams is out? I have my doubts about Duncan running so fast after a party switch. Nor do I think he’s needed to win. Keisha Lance Bottoms’s lack of support from Atlanta elected officials suggests those that worked with her the closest don’t want her to be an executive again. Many of them endorsed Esteves. I cannot find any obvious weaknesses on him, but he’s also probably the most unknown of the field.
Probably Bottoms or Esteves. Not Duncan and the other candidates who aren't gaining traction.
Ossoff and Warnock should enter the race and boost the candidate who they think is the most electable.
I also think whoever wins the Dem primary for governor needs to run alongside Ossoff like Warnock did in 2021 to encourage people to vote for both.
Er. Different situations. That was for two Senate seats, same power and responsibility just different terms. This would be for two completely different offices.
If any doubt, look back 2022, on how people voted on Gov vs Sen. Partially on how unqualified Herschel is, but ig also 50%+ people thought Sen Warnock was doing ok, but at least some 200k of them didn’t think they should fire Gov Kemp for Abrams.
2022 is different. Warnock kept his distance from Abrams because he correctly assumed she wouldn't win, so there was no benefit to campaigning together. In 2026, it's a completely different picture. The governorship is imminently more winnable, and Ossoff is nowhere near as vulnerable as Warnock was in 2022. Little downside to Ossoff of campaigning as a team this time.
FWIW, it seems like Warnock pulled Ossoff over the finish line much more so than the other way around.
I don't see Duncan getting the requisite AA support so Esteves is the hope. Bottoms would be a dumpster fire.
I don't understand why Bottoms is even running. She declined to run for re-election because of the stress. Have things gotten less stressful since then?
Thurmond would probably be the strongest nominee
He's in his 70s and been out of statewide office almost two decades.
Esteves would probably be a fresher and non-controversial face. But he's not polling well in the primary.
I wouldn't expect a low name rec state senator to be polling that well in the primary yet this far out. The question is if he can fundraise enough to make his case.
No . . . .
Jason Esteves is the best overall candidate and the ones republicans have told me off record they fear the most.
I think Duncan would be strongest in the general, but I'm skeptical that he can win the primary.
Warnock and Ossoff have shown that mainstream Dems can win statewide, although like many heavily suburban states it's bluer at the federal level than at the state level. The key will be the Kemp-Warnock voters from 2022. I think a mainstream Dem could pick enough of them to win this year, although a more conservative Dem might have an easier road.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jesse-ventura-trump-minnesota-governor-ice-b2897278.html
MN-Gov: Former Gov. Jesse Ventura considering a bid. Not as a Republican FWIW
Immediate thoughts: he probably couldn't win the party endorsement at the convention, but winning the primary election? Possible.
He's definitely getting ready. Talk about a strong opening statement:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cnF-DFTcpo8
I always thought he kind of got unfairly railroaded out of running for re-election in 2002.
Ventura said the reason why he did not run for re-election was because of the media attention and privacy violations his family was facing at the time he was Governor.
WTF did he expect as such a nonconventional candidate? As an elected official you basically lose a certain level of privacy and every aspect of your life is ripe for scrutiny, fair or not.
Ventura also was a wrestler for the WWF (before it became the WWE) and has been married to his same wife since 1975. He had not gotten the same problems then as he did as Governor.
The main issue here was that he was trying to be protective of his son, who Ventura believed was slandered by the media over his behavior. Ventura's approval ratings were also taking a dive and he was not popular like he originally was. It wasn't as if dealing with the media was a problem but when your own children are affected, it's a decision any parent has to make if in political office.
That’s a very nuanced and helpful explanation, thank you…I can see why that would affect his decision not to run again in 2002.
I do get your point of view though. Any time someone runs for Mayor, Governor or even POTUS, they are knowingly giving up more of their privacy unless it happens to be within the inside of their own house.
When entering politics, it's easier to be a candidate than it is when actually serving in office. Governors also can get greater media attention scrutiny than even State Assemblymembers or State Senators as what goes on in State Legislature isn't always attributed to one particular member. Even in Congress, which has for years now gotten low approval ratings, one member isn't the sole one responsible for approval ratings.
But with governors, the buck stop with them and what goes on in the executive office. Quite honestly, I didn't think Jesse Ventura was prepared enough for being Governor but he was Mayor of Brooklyn Park for one term prior to running for Governor.
Speaking of getting railroaded, what is Al Franken up to these days?
Not sure the best Democratic candidate is a person who endorsed Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and RFK Jr. in their respective presidential campaigns. Yes, he did endorse Democratic candidates as well, but it sounds like it was more as a last resort than anything else.
Ventura endorsed Ron Paul and Gary Johnson because of their stances on war. Also, he was highly critical of RFK Jr's decision to select Nicole Shanahan as his running mate. Otherwise, his political views are quite liberal considering he also joined the Green Party at one point.
Fair enough, all I am saying is that his allegiance to the Democratic Party seems paper-thin, and I would hope that Minnesota would have a deeper bench of candidates than Ventura. Also, the man is 75 this year, which would presumably be a strike in the current anti-geriatric environment.
That I agree. However, Ventura heading toward the end of his term as Governor was becoming unpopular and it's not certain what he would be able to do to reinvigorate enough enthusiasm like he originally got when he first ran for Governor back in 1998.
I also haven't forgotten how much of a raging asshole he was after Paul Wellstone's tragic death (and I was 17 at the time!).
Yeah, that was out of line. A smarter Governor at the time would have stayed out of this.
I think Garrison Keillor (I know, I know) summed up Ventura—AKA Trump Before Trump—quite well in this passage from his book "Homegrown Democrat":
"In Minnesota we had an angry skinhead governor named Jesse (The Body) Ventura who slouched into office on 37% of the vote and turned out to be an opportunist whose first act in office was to sell the book rights. He was a troubled soul, thin-skinned, a growler and ranter and snit thrower. After four years of him it was a relief to go back to politics as usual, where soft-spoken people with ordinary chest sizes sit down and negotiate and get the job done. He was a professional wrestler, used to working within a simple story structure, but politics isn't a story, it's a process."
Quite honestly, I think Ventura should have never been a wrestler. He was too smart to enter the field and possessed a personality that suited him for greater things than this. He was more honest and to blunt than other wrestlers were.
But Ventura’s history serving in the Vietnam War as a Navy SEAL may have made the most impact on him and his life decisions.
There's no excusing an RFK Jr. endorsement. None.
Honestly we'd have a lot more success with non-college voters if we ran more candidates like Ventura.
Incompetent conspiracy theory whack jobs?
No, unconventional celebrities that have a populist and outsider message. That's what elected the president, but he also happens to be what you said.
Ventura certainly has a few wacky ideas (9/11 twin towers being the biggest one I'm aware of) but by and large he's a traditional left-of-center populist. And he's shown to be level-headed/intelligent.
Indeed Ventura is level headed. His trajectory in politics is similar to Trump’s but with notable differences:
1) Ventura knew when he felt he needed to give it up. He never wanted power like Trump does and was less controversy driven than him.
2) He’s got a much better relationship with women and keep his marriage with his wife Terri quite private over the years before and after he was Governor. No signs of divorce, marriage conflicts or tensions. Married to her since 1975. He’s also quite a gentlemen and civil even with his public image intact.
Ventura has also sided with women on multiple occasions because he was angry at stupid decisions men make. He supported Maria Shriver over Arnold Schwarzenegger when he cheated. Trump would have never done this.
3) And yes, Ventura respects the Constitution and rule of law.
4) Not really a narcissist like Trump.
I don't know if he's level-headed, but I appreciate your points.
One of my best friends is from Minnesota, and he considered the election and time in office of Ventura acutely embarrassing. He considered Ventura an incompetent blowhard who should have never gotten anywhere near the statehouse. By the way, he went to school with Steve Simon, says he's a great guy and is very impressed with him, and has been telling me for a few years that he's a politician to watch who might be not only a governor but could eventually become president. Of course whenever he might run for -that- office, we wouldn't talk about it here...
It’s certainly easier to run as a candidate for ego reasons as Ventura did, just like Trump did back in 2015. However, I do not think Ventura was up to the task of being Governor and might have not enjoyed his job as much as it seemed when he was in the limelight.
I like Steve Simon quite a bit. He's a bit short on charisma though. Hard to see him becoming President.
Yeah for a marriage to last from the 70s through the 90s with the husband in pro wrestling, Hollywood acting AND politics is kind of like the King Arthur's sword of monogamy.
Lol yea kinda, seems like that's who they respond to.
Have you seen Ventura specifically specify he wants to run as a Democrat instead of remaining unaligned? He clearly hates Trump, but also says, "Somebody has to clean up what the Democrats and Republicans constantly wreck. And you notice I lump them together." (6:45 mark.) https://www.fox9.com/video/fmc-fwhyi8dnudvv7u3b
He then compares Democrats and Republicans to the Crips and the Bloods.
"We have a system here — it’s called a Constitution, and we have a party, the Republicans, who don’t seem to want to abide by the Constitution.”
From the article I listed. Doesn't really prove he wants to be a Democrat but Wikipedia seems to think so (which can be reliable on occasion)
I listened, and he does not say anything about running as a Democrat. Whole thing is here if you want to check it out. https://www.fox9.com/video/fmc-fwhyi8dnudvv7u3b
Wikipedians regularly quote The Downballot and I suspect they will update it now.
Already done
Wikipedian and Downballoter here, can confirm!
I’ve read Ventura’s books like I Ain’t Got Time To Bleed. Originally warmed up to him in my early 20’s when in college but before I became a Democrat back in 2003. At the time, to me he was a refreshing dose of common sense but while in being Governor while Al Gore was running for POTUS, he had an increasingly difficult time dealing with Democrats in the State Legislature.
It only spiked up when he nominated his 1998 gubernatorial campaign chairman Dean Barkley to replace the late Senator Paul Wellstone out of anger towards Democrats in how he believed they made Wellstone’s funeral more political than it should have been.
Ventura is going directly at the establishment and what he believes to be the two-party dictatorship. His experience being Governor certainly added to this but he was also shaped at an early age by his parents on how they (namely his father) griped about certain officeholders.
Ventura though was a fan of Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic Presidential Primary and sought to give Sanders an endorsement at one point only for Sanders to decline. Both though strongly believe in getting the money powers that be that corrupt elections.
Regarding Ventura, one of Pablo Torre's most notable moments was cohosting Dan LeBatard's show on the day Ventura popped on and having to listen to the latter pop off conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. Torre was also dressed as an Orca on that day.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C4dOj82AK-U/?hl=en
Ventura jumping in as an indy, i'm sure republicans would approve of that.
It depends. Tim Penny made Roger Moe lose but Dean Barkley helped Al Franken win.
If he's running as a Trump hating lefty he probably won't peel off to many republicans.
I love reading about the history of some of these storied lawmakers! Thank you!
The fact that Spellman was in a coma for 8 years is insane to me
Another fun fact: she succeeded Larry Hogan Sr. in the House
Thank you, we enjoy writing them!
JUST IN: The U.S. economy added only 50,000 jobs in December and a meager 584,000 jobs in all of 2025. That’s the worst year for job gains outside of a recession since 2003. And nearly 85% of the job gains happened by April. There was little hiring the rest of the year.
Unemployment rate: 4.4% in December, up from 4% in January.
Wages: 3.8% wage growth in 2025, which is above ~3% inflation.
#jobs
https://x.com/byHeatherLong/status/2009620984811102333
For the full year, payroll gains averaged 49,000 a month, compared to 168,000 in 2024, according to the BLS.
Thanks, folks. Do we believe BLS statistics at this point?
A good question, but most of BLS' work is done by career professionals who presumably resist political pressure.
And if they were janking the statistics to make Trump look better, they presumably would have come up with more robust numbers than a monthly average of 49K, less than a third of Biden's final year and making 2025 the worst year for hiring since 2020--and, if we leave out that COVID-related aberration, the worst since the Great Recession period.
There exists the possibility that the real statistics are even worse, though.
I think what pisses me off the most is that even when a non-dictatorial POTUS returns to power, formerly-reliable resources like BLS data, federal government websites, CDC guidelines, etc. will forever be considered untrustworthy and partisan.
The sad fact is that a lot of professional cynics thought that those resources were untrustworthy and partisan even before Trump came in.
I know people like this at work. Anything that Trump does, no matter how insane, these people will wave away by claiming (falsely, most of the time) that Democrats do it too.
I work with BLS data all the time. The surveys have their limitations and the numbers are often heavily revised in response to administrative data from unemployment insurance and other programs that take longer to collect, but there's no reason to believe they are being manipulated. If there were political manipulation, the people who work on the estimates would be leaking left and right.
While markets are ripping upwards. Most of our economic growth is now a result of near circular investing and capital expenditures by the top 15 tech companies.
And it shows one of the central problems with AI, AI spending, and growth driven by AI.
Its mostly jobless growth. Data centers are windowless buildings without parking lots a lot of the time, some don't even have daytime lighting, because the remaining human staff, security, is outside, and human IT only shows up onsite when needed.
For the first time, we have economic growth while destroying jobs. Quality, white collar jobs are being destroyed. Those new jobs being created? Its all service based, shit pay jobs for retail and fast food, and some healthcare growth, as a large portion of the tax base ages into retirement.
We are sprinting towards medium-term and long-term brick walls in a number of ways, from demographics to employment, to social programs. Congress has utterly abdicated its responsibility.
The markets are surging on the hopes that AI eliminates millions of jobs. If that fails, the markets will tank, and if it succeeds, the markets will tank along with the entire economy. We pretty much seem f***ed either way.
I am so thankful that I secured full-time work in 2022 in a career field where it's booked and busy. This is like graduating college back in 2009-2014 during the lingering Great Recession and employers ghosted me or told me I was "overqualified" while I worked a horrid part-time job.
*Sighs in 2008 Rust Belt college graduate*
Yep. And the moneyed interests desperately wanted the pandemic to usher in another long-term period of high unemployment and stagnant wages.
If a jobs report like this dud had come out under Biden, the media would have flogged him over it for days on end.
Instead, tonight's report didn't even get discussed at all on NBC Nightly News.
NO VRA case today. Only one is Bowe v US
I don't know why people thought SCOTUS would rule on VRA or tariffs today. They'll probably wait until June before issuing both.
If both are released within the next few weeks or this spring, I'd be surprised.
Because the VRA case was also argued last term
How far into the year is "too late" for the GOP to take any forthcoming ruling and cram through non-VRA maps? If the ruling is in June, is that enough to screw the midterms?
The only state that could maybe take advantage if there's a June ruling is Florida because they moved their filing deadline to June 12. Although that would be cutting it close. I guess other states could move their deadlines and primary elections back, but I'm not sure how that works state by state. I know Alabama's primary is in May, so they probably can't do anything with a June ruling.
"Rep. Steny Hoyer’s decision to retire this week...” is ambiguous. Because of the placement of “this week,” it appears to say that he is RETIRING THIS WEEK. The modifying phrase “this week” should be placed next to the word that it is modifying, “decision.” The sentence should be “Rep. Steny Hoyer’s decision this week to retire at the end of this term...” or “Rep. Steny Hoyer’s decision this week not to seek reelection...”
This isn’t about grammar purity, but about clarity in writing. The ambiguity caused by the incorrect placement of “this week” makes readers do additional research to find out what Hoyer actually said.
Fair. I reworked to make it more clear.
Thanks. For fixing it, and also for recognizing constructive criticism and not responding defensively.
They always thank people for pointing out errors.
Bruce Leon is staying in the race for Illinois’ 9th Congressional District after all, confirming to the RoundTable on Thursday that he has not withdrawn after initially ending his campaign last week under pressure from AIPAC and some local Orthodox Rabbis.
Good - these campaigns that pressure candidates out so others can win suck. Even on the other side - Lawler should be in the mix for New York governor, but Stefanik stopped him
This move backfired badly on Fine since neither did Leon drop out nor did Schakowsky, known to loathe AIPAC, stay out.
I'm thinking about the Maine Senate race, and am suprised that (previously I said "curious why" but surprised seems more accurate) even with ranked choice voting strong alternative candidates to Mills and Platner didn't emerge. With ranked choice voting there's no risk of being a spoiler. I'm thinking of this in comparison to Michigan where Stevens can be compared to Mills, and El-Sayed can be compared to Platner, yet we also have McMorrow as a strong progressive option between them. Michigan, though, doesn't use ranked choice voting so there's risk involved with having these three candidates. In Maine there would be no risk of splitting the vote, yet there is no McMorrow-type candidate.
As an incumbent governor Mills cleared the field of elected officials
I get that, but I'm still surprised that out of over 90 Democratic state legislators (plus local officials) none decided to run in that progressive lane because there wouldn't be as much risk
Sen. Rachel Talbot Ross has been floated as a statewide candidate. Maybe she can make a late run. She's a progressive and will be 65 this year.
I know nothing about her, but with ranked choice voting, why not?
Too late, she has nothing to gain by losing and will earn a place on the establishment and DSCC's bad book.
Probably true.
There are other candidates running. They just are getting no traction—as evidenced by a discussion on an elections-related site not being aware of them. I think some people are in denial about how much support Platner has—not just people thinking he’s better than Mills (who does have a lot of negatives beyond the typical she’s old. Read about her pardon of a child sex predator and her official, on the record comment sympathizing with him). A new entry may win over some of the pox-on-both -their houses voters but don’t discount that many voters may already be locked down by Platner and Mills. This was discussed yesterday but recent repotting by Axios shared that Jordan Woods dropped out of tis Senate primary because his internal polling showed Platner leading the field by by 9 in first round of RCV and this lead growing by final round.
I'm aware there are other candidates, but none of them are strong. I know I said I was curious in my original post, but maybe a better way to express my sentiments about this rather than curious would be surprised. I'm surprised that Wood and other existing candidates didn't gain traction, nor did other candidates jump into the progressive lane given the existence of ranked choice voting in the state. Frankly, I'm also slightly surprised that other establishment candidates and left-wing candidates didn't enter the race to counter Mills and Platner respectively.
Maybe there just aren't very many strong candidates in Maine? Most mayors struggle for statewide offices. I think (but might be wrong) that member of legislatures usually don't make the jump directly from the legislature to Senate.
Thom Tillis, Joni Ernst, Deb Fischer, John Barrasso, Patty Murray, Jeff Merkley and Lisa Murkowski all jumped from the legislature to the senate. Tillis and Ernst are retiring of course and Barrasso and Murkowski were appointed.
Hoping to see Mallory McMorrow, Josh Turek and James Talarico be able to pull off wins so they can expand the list!
I don’t have data to support this, but I think the decision-making process that primary voters typically go through usually right before the primary got moved up by 1)the controversy: this was everywhere on the news and social media and was not ‘boring policy’ but rather prime gossip that even normies would have discussed and taken sides on and 2) Platner has been everywhere doing in- person events that have been overflowing even in low population areas and his volunteers have been doing lots of canvassing already so many people are again confronted with thinking about this race earlier than a typical primary. I’m sure there are still plenty of undecided voters but I think many voters have already had to think about this race earlier than typical and a decent chunk are locked in strongly to either Platner or Mills so less opportunity for a new person to enter.
That all makes sense. In the scenario you suggest, I wonder if people are locked in for Mills or Platner mainly because they strongly dislike the other candidate, or because they genuinely like either Mills or Platner. If it's the former then that would be a good environment for another candidate to jump in, but if it's the latter then yeah that would make sense for why Mills and Platner are the only major candidates.
I’m not all that surprised. The DSCC is very obviously putting its feet on the scales of who they prefer to win the primaries in competitive states. There’s no political oxygen left for anyone else to run and likely threats of consequences for anyone who does.
Mills takes the establishment lane + national group backing. Platner takes the left lane as well as the unconventional outsider group backing. If Mills didn’t have the entire establishment or Platner only had part of the left groups, there would be a lane to run between the two like there is in MI.
Because both sides are in totality lined up behind one or the other, no one else can run. McMorrow in Michigan got parts of both sides for her campaign when Stevens and Abdul El-Sayed didn’t get everyone in their lane on board.
Stevens lost some of her support due to her lackadaisical campaigning ability that worried some establishment members she couldn’t run a campaign to win. Abdul El-Sayed lost some of his support due to fears he was too left to win the state.
It’s also important to remember there’s a big difference between representing small states and representing large ones. Maine isn’t that large, so having 3 candidates running probably isn’t possible, whereas in large Michigan, there’s enough room for 3.
Platner has also gotten the left leaning Senate Democratic "Fight Club" backing and attended a fundraiser in DC recently while Schumer opened a joint fundraising account with Mills. It was mentioned that the Fight Club themself is divided on Michigan but oppose Stevens.
Could you elaborate on how fewer candidates can get visibility or significant popular support in lower-population states. I don't get that.
I am supporting McMorrow but El-Sayed has a far less controversial past than Platner. His controversies were deleting a few Abolish ICE and Defund the Police tweets made in 2020.
Michigan is a weird instance where McMorrow is attracting the electability-minded Democrats who typically gravitate towards moderates, as well as a slice of the progressives, who themselves may have issues with El-Sayed or think he cannot win a general election. Texas is probably the only instance of a two-way race where the electability-focused primary voters align with the progressives for Talarico. There's no such candidate that has that overlap in Maine. The electability-focused people think Platner is walking red flag. The progressives don't trust Mills at all. Both camps have very strong feelings on Platner and Mills, and I think they're irreconcilable until after the primary.
Small mistake in the digest: Sherill is Gov-elect, she takes office on the 20th :)
Thank you, I've fixed.
As a wrestling fan and a follower of politics, I am entertained by Jesse. His show Conspiracy Theories or whatever it was turned some rural Dems in my part of the country into Q'Anon types. Jesse understands policy and he's not dumb, but it is all about self promotion. He threatens to run all of the time. He will try to sell anything to make a buck, and on a certain level, I don't blame him given the fact that wrestlers have no pension and battle severe health issues.
Fan of real wrestling – or WWE? (Ducks to avoid tomatoes.)
Both actually. I'm from Iowa. We have a decorated real wrestling program at the University of Iowa.
I would be happy if Jesse Ventura overtake Trump in self-promotion and messaging. If you could have both of them at a debate, I would get front row seats. Ventura could body slam Trump, argumentatively of course. ;)
Ventura got out of wrestling at the right time. While he served in the WWF, Hulk Hogan has outed him because he was trying to push unionizing for wrestlers. Hogan’s issues with racism were not the only problems he had.
Let me say this. I take Jesse serious as a former elected official performer and business person. He throws his name out there to stay in the news. I was happy to see him doing wrestling commentary again. The WWE decided not to renew his contract because I think he admitted he really didn't care for their product, LOL.
I salute Jesse for unionizing, but I think he tends to put his finger to the wind and just say what is obviously popular at the moment. I have seen him praise Gary Johnson, the Pauls, all kinds of right leaning characters. I get it that he touts independence, but work with the Ralph Nader third party types if you are truly pro-union, pro-worker and pro-Keynesian. You don't blame footsie with ABOLISH THE FED stuff unless you have a true plan. That's Ron Paul territory, and again if you watch some of his work since leaving office in media, it leaves plenty to be desired.
Full disclosure: I was an Iowa staffer for Amy Klobuchar's campaign in 2020.
play footsie
Yeah, Ventura’s hard to pin down on his true allegiance. At one point, he went from talking about the two-party dictatorship to then saying all political parties should be abolished.
Very true. This is off topic, but I wish Ralph Nader and Ron Paul would have had debates around the country when they were both younger, so people can learn the significant differences between Green/left leaning parties and Libertarians/right wing third parties.
The media only brings these two groups together when the two parties go overboard with the military industrial complex. or CIA oversight, just as two examples. The truth is that there is a broad difference between Nader and Paul, but the media only gives them time when they are agreeing with each other. Nader and Paul should have debated the FDA, EPA, all the alphabet soup agencies so people could see the real differences.
Jesse kind of fits in this group, he will pop his head out when there is obvious overreached by the Democratic or Republican President. It is entertaining, but I have seen this movie before.
WV-SD-13: Democrats are trying to flip one of the seats here, with Del. Williams taking on Republican Sen. Oliverio. The other seat in this district is held by Democrat Joey Garcia, who was elected in 2024.
However, I heard today from a trusted source that Garcia will not be running again in 2028. Democrats need to flip the seat this year and hold it that year in order to have *any* presence in the Senate, since the other Democratic senator is retiring in a competitive/red leaning seat. This is a race to watch so that Republicans do not have unanimous control of one of the chambers of our legislature.
I guess that makes Garcia the Sam Slom of West Virginia.
I hope he runs again in 2028. He's only 43
Real TDB-heads know
"Politics & Poll Tracker 📡
@PollTracker2024
YouGov poll | 1/7
How would you describe the tactics currently used by ICE?
Too forceful 51%
Not forceful enough 10%
About right 27%
Not sure 12%
🟦Democratic (83/2 too forceful)
🟥Republican (17/16 not forceful enough)
⬜️Independent (56/9 too forceful)
Link to poll: https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2026/01/08/2246e/"
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2009652922192404600
So, basically, it's a wash. Half say it's too much, half thinks it's fine, not enough or don't care. America needs to change its voters before it can change its policy.
I would not lump not sure in with not forceful enough. Adding about right and not forceful enough together makes clear sense, but not sure has different connotations.
That leaves it at 51-37-12. That's very different from a wash.
Still a clear minority, thankfully.
People who support Trump are willing to go all the way with the Trump fascist project. They’re not a majority of the country but they are a frighteningly large minority, considering where they’re willing to go.
That means our majoity should work hard on pushing back against them and mitigating whatever damage they are able to cause?
I think it’s extremely telling that only 33% of Republicans are willing to give an answer on this question while double that number of independents are.
The GOP is a partisan cult, their voters never actually say they disapprove of Trump on any issue because it’s perceived as disloyalty to him, but the sign of discontent among that party isn’t in the opposition numbers, it’s in how many will answer a question about an issue they all know looks terrible for their party.
When inflation/economy numbers show 60-75% R approval and this issue doesn’t, it doesn’t take a political science major to come to the obvious conclusion they refuse to answer in order to avoid giving the satisfaction to the media and Democrats that his own base dislikes something he’s done.
I think a big part of our strategy needs to be to heighten the contradiction between “must show absolute loyalty to Trump” and “Trump is dragging us all down” in the minds of every single Republican
Trump's statement yesterday that Susan Collins "should never be elected to office again" is music to the ears of Janet Mills and Graham Platner.
If whoever our nominee is doesn’t play that clip/statement 24/7 on Fox News, oan and every right wing propaganda media rag online in ads, they don’t deserve to win that race.
In fact, it’s probably a smart idea for the DSCC to start running those ads right now. Doesn’t matter who wins the nomination, it would help either candidate. Enough MAGA voters staying home or blanking the ballot makes it that much easier for us to defeat Collins.
That's a good one--you use "smart" and "DSCC" in the same sentence. Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
I said it was a smart idea, not that DSCC would actually implement the smart idea.
Got it.
They're not always stupid.
Is that like "you should date my friend, they have a great personality"?
No. We pay attention to their mistakes but tend to ignore their successes.
Well, the success part is kinda their job, right? And their failures do things like cost us health care and get nutjobs confirmed for lifetime judicial posts.
Laugh all you want, the DSCC isn't as incompetent as they're made out to be. Could be better, for sure, but there's a reason Democrats won four Senate seats in states that Trump won on the same ballot in 2024. Including two open seats at that.
I think Dems won Senate seats in Trump states in '24 because occasional voters voted Trump and left the rest of the ballot blank.
If you want to get serious, I think the DSCC/Schumer is going to f'k up the ME-SEN race this year. I'm not a Maine voter, but I was a Platner person, and after all the stuff that's come out, I don't see how he can win a general. But as many others have said here, that should have been the occasion for Schumer to look toward the next generation of ME Dems for an alternative. Instead, he dragged Mills into the race (it appears she didn't want to do it and I won't get into her obvious flaws here). DSCC will never back a dynamic progressive with personal appeal when they can choose a White older moderate who they have convinced themselves will win MAGA votes. (Hint--they won't). Mills is the Breseden of '26 and we're going to fall one vote short in the Senate because of this recruitment.
There--get my point?
Ironically this is one way RCV hurts us: we can't rely on a 3rd party MAGAT to siphon off a lot of GOP votes and thus aid (ensure?) a Democratic win. (Of course, without RCV there might be just as much risk of Dems being hurt by a spoiler.)
What we can hope for is that a lot of them just don't vote for Collins, but we don't know if Trump will be saying similar things closer to the election or how many in the state really won't vote even for a Republican they don't really like while control of the Senate may be at stake.
These two free articles are really eye-opening about the Stacey Abrams myth.
https://www.ettingermentum.news/p/the-art-of-losing-a-stacey-abrams
https://www.ettingermentum.news/p/the-art-of-losing-a-stacey-abrams-914
The tone is quite harsh and condescending.
But tbh, she is not some super candidate, nor the state’s registration gain or moving political balance had a lot to do with her effort. It will be better that she is not running.
He addresses how the registration had got nothing to do with her and had everything to do with a good governance law.
"InteractivePolls
@IAPolls2022
📊 TEXAS POLL by
@TxPolProject
Fav-unfav
🟦 Talarico: 22-12 (+10)
🟦 Hinojosa: 15-11 (+4)
🟥 Abbott: 45-43 (+2)
🟦 Crockett: 33-31 (+2) - new high
🟥 Hunt: 16-19 (-3)
🟥 Paxton: 28-44 (-16)
🟥 Cornyn: 24-43 (-19)
——
TX Generic Ballot
US House: GOP 41-39
Legislative: GOP 40-39
——
Pres. Trump
Approve: 44%
Disapprove: 50%
Trump's approval on handling...
🟢 Border Security: +12
🟢 Immigration: +4
🟢 Crime: +4
🟤 Economy: -12
🟤 Inflation: -20
🟤 Healthcare: -22
——
Net job approval:
• Gov. Abbott: (-3)
• Sen. Cruz: (-13)
• AG Paxton: (-17)
• Sen. Cornyn: (-21)
——
Favs among Reps
• Ken Paxton: 50-22 (+28)
• Wesley Hunt: 28-11 (+17)
• John Cornyn: 38-27 (+11)
Favs among Dems
• Jasmine Crockett: 70-5 (+65)
• James Talarico: 46-6 (+40)
——
Dec. 9-16 (released today) | 1,200 RV
https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/blog/health-care-prices-top-texans-voters-economic-worries-on-eve-of-critical-midterm-election-year-2"
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2009671578078892260
We need to ratfuck to get Paxton as the nominee. Nothing to lose. Need our nominee (hopefully Talarico) to play the immigration issue smart and do what other border state Dems do. Throw the Biden admin under the bus on the issue too in their ads to show their independence. I don't care. Whatever it takes to win.
Allred already threw Biden under the bus a lot in his votes and ads, and nobody (on our side) cared. And most pols have thrown him under now: Newsom, Bernie, Schatz (next in line to be Majority leader after Schumer), Murphy (who wrote the Border bill), Khanna and Talarico too. Talarico has an interesting way of talking about the border likening it to a locked door with a welcome mat in front of it.
Good. I don't care if Talarico or Crockett needs to trash the Democratic Party as much as Fetterman does. Do it if that's what it takes to win. I can tolerate that behavior from a red state Democrat. Not from a Pennsylvania Senator.
Normally i'd vote in the repug primary but i need to help Talarico instead.
https://x.com/i/status/2009676762871967947
Louise Lucas is not fucking around
There is a reason why she is nicknamed Lion Louise Lucas.
Louise Lucas is a fierce woman. I wish we could clone her and have her in the state Senate in NC. She would light Phil Berger’s ass up.
Might as well go the 10-1 route, esp if polling shows that Rs are going to lose it WITHOUT gerrymandering.