Not necessarily, if as I suggest Republicans have become more negative toward -early- voting, specifically. Only time will tell what the overall votes will be.
But that guy did run, declared earlier than Mills and dropped out because he didn't go anywhere. I don't thibk abyone was was beating Platner, he had a massive national campaign apparatus behind him.
Yeah if IL and NC were held today you would have to think Abughazaleh and Nida Allam would win for sure based on their narrow loss margins and Progressive momentum
Dems and the GOP and Indies all know it. Though these want different solutions and place the blame differently.
But we are fed up with things as they are. Will some good Dems get bounced because of that? Yeah, probably. Will some of the folks who ride in on an anti-establishment/generation argument be either too lefty or total fakes (Mouton)? Yeah, probably.
But putting the fear of God into sitting electeds to get off their asses and make real change happen is a neccessary precondition to it actually happening.
And I am excited to see that that could be happening.
Democratic governors have been historically unpopular in Oregon, but not to a point that voters want them defeated. There has been a few polls, including some before the primary, with Republicans a few points away from beating Kotek, who fits the mold of someone unpopular.
Just from me, though, I have several close family friends in different parts of Oregon and definitely don't think the polls will come into reality. Kotek will win reelection.
You've got to be sweating right now if you're Shri Thanedar or Jimmy Gomez.
Shri Thanedar is a weirdo animal killing centimillionaire with poor constituent services and strong AIPAC support, and for the first time his progressive opponents, along with moderate Black leaders, have consolidated behind DSA-affiliated state Rep. Donavan McKinney.
Jimmy Gomez used to be a standard progressive Democrat, but ever since he started facing serious challenges from Democratic socialist Davide Kim, he sold himself to AIPAC and the OpenAI Super PACs, especially in 2024. He's now despised by many leftists as well as Republicans who consolidate against him in the general election. Add the Swalwell debacle, the multiple affairs that are under investigation by the House ethics committee, a Gen Z left-wing Latina challenger, Angela Gonzales-Torres, and the fact that he captured only 46% percent of the primary vote before the scandals broke through (his lowest ever), and he looks toast in the general election.
I’m not so sure about that with Gomez. He got 46% support, but all of the others Dems in the primary and the left wing independent only add up to 37%, he was still significantly ahead of them even when they’re all put together.
I would qualify that to say they usually vote against incumbents, regardless of ideology (to the extent they vote at all, there's usually an undervote).
Thanedar is probably going to lose his primary. I read somewhere that Rashida Tlaib, who represents a neighboring Congressional district, has a reputation for providing better constituent services in Thanedar's district than Thanedar.
Doris Matsui def belongs on that list after Mai Vang placed ahead of her in the California jungle primary, and clearly won more Democratic voters. I'd also be worried if I were Wesley Bell, Ed Case, John Larson, or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Larson & DWS start off as the favorites in their primaries but in Larson's case, it's clear Luke Bronin has captured most of the energy among the challengers. I also think DWS has a relatively low ceiling and if one challenger garners a high enough percent of the vote, they could take her down. I also think even if either of them survive they either go down or retire in 2028
They unanimously agree that they need to consolidate support behind a single Black candidate, but unfortunately it sounds like each of them also believes they must be that candidate. Whoever becomes "the one" is going to have to earn it the hard way.
Even if DWS wins, she'll almost certainly lose in 2028. What a pathetic way to end a long, influential career...aiding in the elimination of Black representation in the South just so she can cling to relevance for two more years.
Matsui is absolutely cooked in November. She not only is running the same campaign Diana DeGette ran (heavy on her seniority in Washington DC, blowing off local media when they ask to meet with her), but she's in her 80s and has been a relatively anonymous backbencher for her entire Congressional career.
You have to feel bad for David Kim. He came close to unseating Jimmy Gomez 3 times, and the one cycle he decides to sit out is the one where Gomez has a huge scandal.
No, I think he was great and selfless in sitting it out and rallying his community for Gonzales-Torres. His negatives are probably too high to win after the AIPAC ad campaign against him in 2024 highlighting his pre-Bernie evangelical conservative past.
It reminds me of Dan Seals in Illinois. He lost because of how strong of an incumbent Mark Kirk was in 2006 and 2008 and when he finally had the chance to run for an open seat in 2010 he ran right into the Republican wave election.
Dianne DeGette, who lost the primary last night, co-sponsored Medicare for All legislation.
If Jimmy Gomez, a founding member of the Medicare for All House Caucus loses the general election to Angela Gonzales-Torres, then it's not enough anymore just on this one issue.
That too. But folks aren't giving Martin the credit he deserves either.
Martin had a similarly hard job building up a demoralized MN DFL party after the 2010 shellacking. It's going to take time for him to do the same on the national level.
Martin has absolutely not impressed me ever since he became DNC chair. Not only did he let David Hogg run rough shot over him for months, the debacle over the 2024 autopsy which he caused because he DEMANDED to go on Pod Save America because he got mad at something Ben Rhodes tweeted about him, but the DNC is deeply in debt despite the fact Democrats are willing to open the wallets and donate to everywhere except the DNC.
My biggest concern with the DNC debt while the RNC is nearing 9 figures (or at least high 8). Remember all the committees and most Democratic candidates had significant financial leads in 18 and it is very much the opposite this year (at least so far).
We believe in a growing, fair, and competitive economy that rewards hard work, innovation, entrepreneurship, and ownership. Full-time work should make it possible to own a home, raise a family, afford healthcare, and retire with dignity. Economic, permitting, and tax policy should expand opportunity and lower costs for workers, families, entrepreneurs, and those striving to join the middle class, not disproportionately favor those already at the top.
Almost all Republicans could sign on to that. It’s proclamations like these that cause a lot of Democrats to back left-wing candidates.
Few Republicans would sign onto that, as they absolutely disproportionately favor those already at the top, and I fail to see what's wrong with at least that excerpt of the statement.
I think it's fine that you want to do more than that but at face value 80% of Americans wouldn't disagree with anything there. Those signators are not in safe districts and i wouldn't oppose them.
I want to hear detailed specifics, with vote counts, about WHAT those proposals are, and how they are going to pass the current legislative, judicial, and financial/lobbying structure currently in place, or even given a fantasy scenario of 55-56 seats in the Senate.
They are both living in the past and think we're still in the early 2000s when politics was still polite and civil and 3rd Way nonsense was still tolerable. We are well past the days of Tom Daschle and Blue Dogs leading the Democrats.
It's a complete joke that the Senate Democrats barely put up a token resistance and the leader is one of Wall St.'s biggest beneficiaries. I would take Harry Reid over Schumer any day. At least he fought back and got things done.
I’m getting tired of people making Ken Martin the punching bag. For those of saying you haven’t been impressed with him as DNC, what would he need to do to impress you? In fact, given everything he’s had to deal with, he’s been doing a good job and he embraced Mamdani before Jeffries and Hochul did and he’s been outspoken about welcoming DSA members into the party. He’s also made funding for state parties his priority. Yeah, the wealthy donors aren’t giving to the DNC like they have before but he also said the DNC will only take money from billionaires that share our values. The RNC has a lot more money not because of small donors but because of folks like Ellison, Thiel, Musk, Zuckerberg and Altman. Harris raised over a billion dollars and that didn’t help her. Martin has had to deal with David Hogg’s dumb publicity stunt because Hogg’s Super PAC would be nothing without him. Martin has been strict about the DNC staying out of primaries. Martin has also had to deal with a shitty autopsy and took ownership of the fallout from the Jon Faveru interview. By the way, that interview made me dislike Favs. I don’t mind him pushing Martin but I always thought Favs came off as a dick in that one. But I digress. The job of the DNC chairman is to build the infrastructure and shake shit up and his initiatives to increase Democratic voter registration numbers are paying off. It’s easy to make the DNC Chairman the go to punching bag after losing a presidential election, especially after losing to Trump again. And no, I don’t think Ben Winkler would’ve done a better job despite being an awesome WI Dems Chairman. He’s undone so much of the damage Scott Walker and the GOP have done to Wisconsin, nabbed us some big Supreme Court wins and got Tammy Baldwin re-elected in 2024. Winkler would be DNC chairman if he could’ve made Wisconsin go to Harris but he’s not a miracle worker despite being great at his job. In fact, I remember on the Daily Kos, the commenters turned against Winkler because he was spending too much time talking to Soros and the donors and earned Schumer, Jeffries and Pelosi’s endorsements. Just like that, he went from the savior of our party to the establishment tool in the Daily Kos community’s perspective. Then when David Hogg pulled his stunt, Ken Martin went from being the savior to “centrist Dem establishment tool” who should resign. I understand our frustration and anger with our party but constantly taking it all out on Martin solves nothing. Martin deserves more praise than the shit that’s flung at him but he knows that’s the job.
As for Schumer and Jeffries, yeah I get all the criticism and I share it with a lot of you but here’s the reality of the situation: Jeffries isn’t going anywhere. He has the votes to be the next Leader and Speaker and even AOC backs him and don’t think she can’t convince Lander, Valdez, Lasher and Chevalier to back Jeffries because she’s working with him on home affordability and public housing. So to the Blusky, Threads and Twitter crowd who only want to make the argument that Democratic Party is so unpopular solely because of Jeffries and Schumer and omit the facts that Dem voters are pissed Biden didn’t step aside, we didn’t have a primary in 2024 and right now don’t have a clear leader, get used to Jeffries. He’s not going anywhere.
As for Schumer, unless someone like Chris Van Hollen or Chris Murphy can make a strong case to his caucus to take over as leader after the 2026 midterms, the best we can hope for is Schumer gets one last hurrah at the leadership and he announces his retirement in 2028. Even Ezra Levin and his team at Indivisible couldn’t muster up the calls needed for Schumer to step aside. It’s easier for DSA members to out House incumbents in blue districts but Senators in primaries is a whole different beast that they aren’t ready for. Look at John Hickenlooper in last nights results. Yeah, a tighter win in the primary given his last electoral history but still double digits and I never believed he was in trouble of losing his primary like DeGette was. Bennet I knew would lose because he just wants to leave the Senate early and voters could tell.
IMO what's killing the Dems is their unwillingness to ditch the unspoken but understood seniority system of who gets to run and who gets backed. How dare DeGette be challenged by a novice 29yo...shovel a couple million to try and save her. How dare Gonzales not wait her turn to get rid of do-nothing Hickenlooper...freeze out her campaign. Jeffries and Schumer pretty much ignored Mamdani until he won. Establishment Dems are crying DSA boogeyman almost as loudly as the repubes. Party leadership seems to think someone should own their seat until they pull a Feinstein. I don't blame David Hogg and his generation one bit for being unwilling to sit and wait.
To be clear, I have no objections to what Hogg is doing I just didn’t like how he did it when he was Vice Chair of the DNC. You can’t be a vice chair and run a Super PAC. Also, the DSCC and DCCC are always going to prioritize incumbents. They’ll get on board whether it’s their preferred candidate or not when the primary is over. We also don’t know how much the DSCC spent on saving Hickenlooper. Gonzalez had the backing of the Colorado AFL-CIO so it’s not like she didn’t have any financial backing or infrastructure. DeGette had been in Congress since 1990, had a decent record but it was time for new leadership. Hickenlooper built up his name across the state as Governor then Senator. That’s a tougher hill for the DSA folks to climb.
Also, Jeffries did end up endorsing Mamdani. Took him a while but he did. Schumer didn’t. As for the Dems yelling DSA boogie men stuff like the Republicans, last time I checked, Josh Gottmeier, Jaime Harrison and James Carville don’t speak for the whole party. Now I do know people who are running the DNC’s socials and they were promoting Mamadani and his agenda way before Jeffries and Hochul got on board. No way in hell the DNC’s social team would have promoted Mamdani without Martin’s blessing, who again, has welcomed the DSA folks into the party. So if you were to take someone who is meant to be the spokesperson for the entire Democratic Party, then it would be our current DNC Chairman Ken Martin who is absolutely not pushing DSA GOP boogie man talking points.
"I’m getting tired of people making Ken Martin the punching bag. For those of saying you haven’t been impressed with him as DNC, what would he need to do to impress you?"
Jump start fundraising, give interviews that convince normies the Democratic Party is worth giving another look. I don't blame Ken or the DNC for everything nor do I expect they can solve everything or even a good chunk of things but my hope would be someone who can kickass at the basics.
He’s done both things you mentioned but in his own way. Normie Dems I guarantee you don’t know who he is or think about him all the time. They’ll know who their candidates are and they don’t need to know Ken Martin as a house hold name. His job is to raise money and understand how to utilize it. Hell, I give him praise for going on Pod Save America and having to defend his calls to Favs. That interview was to explain his job and why he made those calls. Normie Dems aren’t at home anxiously wondering why the DNC didn’t release its autopsy report. The people I know who obsess about that are campaign consultants. Normie Dems aren’t spending every waking hour on Blusky or watching all of Hasan Piker’s streams. That’s not to say they can’t have an influence but as someone who’s worked in the digital world for a very long time, I can tell you that viewership and follower numbers don’t always equate to reality. What Normie Dems are thinking about can their Dem rep, Senator, Governor and anyone else who has a D next to their can fight Trump and make their lives better. They are thinking about who can be the next President. Yeah, they probably think Jeffries and Schumer aren’t doing much but ask yourself this question, why hasn’t Normie Dem anger at the party risen to the level to demand for Jeffries and Schumer to step aside? They’ll rise up to take out DeGette and Goldman but not enough to demand Senate Dems push Schumer aside. Answer: because Normie Dems don’t know who the fuck they want to run things. Again, Ezra Levin and Indivisible couldn’t even keep the momentum going to push Schumer aside after the government shutdown. Yeah, they can go and yell at their reps at the town halls all they want, but if they aren’t screaming for them to call on someone to step up and challenge the ranks then leadership isn’t going to change. At least not until after the next Presidential election.
Yeah i'm not getting into the weeds of that just saying someone who has charisma that can pull some people off the sidelines and close the $$$ gap with the RNC would be enough for me.
I'll just say I hope all of these folks comparing the current insurgency to the 2010-14 Tea Party wave in the GOP realize the Tea Party and its offspring the Freedom Caucus have been one of the biggest factors in conservatives not achieving legislative policy wins in the past decade +.
I mean, they've still won in plenty of other ways, up to and including two Trump terms and a total takeover of state legislatures and the federal judiciary
I'm talking particularly about far right insurgent Reps and Senators at the federal level. You can't credit the Tea Party for Trump, the reddening of the Midwest/Plains or gerrymandering.
That's a very narrow interpretation of the Tea Party movement. The wider anti-liberal, populist movement is almost directly responsible for Trump and the push further right of Midwest demos like blue collar White workers. If the Tea Party wasn't as successful as it was, Trump wouldn't have made it past Super Tuesday and Rubio or Bush would've been the 2016 nom.
Trump was anti-tea party especially in his first iteration. Had no big plans to cut spending, pledged to not touch entitlements and was relatively laissez faire on social issues. Club for Growth and Tea Party Patriots all spent big against him.
There was always going to be a RW backlash to Obama, the tea party wave with its inflexibility just ensured that a) GOP lost multiple winnable races in GEs and b) Once in power, leadership often had to go compromise with Pelosi instead of dealing with them because of their impossible demands. Just now the House had to adjourn because they have a handful of House reps who simply DGAF about passing anything.
You think potential DSA wins (some in red/swingy territory) will lead to Dems winning the presidency for 8 years and taking over the courts? I believe the opposite — we’re gonna blow a bunch of winnable seats with candidates who don’t fit their electorates. Republicans have structural advantages with redistricting and the Senate that Dems simply do not have (ie we need to sweep a bunch of deep red states for a Senate majority, while they can lose 3 seats and still keep it).
Legislatively Dems have had way more success than the GOP at the federal level when you look at the big picture, and that's with a severely gerrymandered House and increasingly extremely difficult to win Senate.
My larger point is, especially given our Senate woes, I think people seeing this as a positive politically are fooling themselves. DSA style candidates are not going to help us in Iowa, Montana, Alaska, North Carolina or any tipping point states at the Senate or presidential level (and I don't just mean running there, I mean outside elected reps' comments getting amplified by the national press).
In addition, no-one should be looking at what's happened to the GOP the past 15 years and go "let's do what they did!"-they are a dysfunctional mess. I'm all for a big tent open to center-right moderates and left wing progressives, but candidates like Kiros and Chevalier have foot in mouth syndrome along with bringing over a cohort with ridiculous litmus tests on unpopular issues (see what happened in San Francisco over the weekend). Heck it'd be better of they were just straight old school 1930s socialists.
As an admirer of Eugene V. Debs, despite his great mistake that led to the disastrous victory of Woodrow Wilson, I'd like that. And consider that 1920s/30s socialists helped usher in the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Wilson was a racist, interventionist piece of shit. I don't think Debs caused his victory, though. It's common knowledge that was because of a split field between Republicans William Howard Taft and Theodore Roosevelt, the latter of which I believe is one of the greatest presidents of our country (who was also interventionist like Wilson).
One thing elements of the left and the right seem to agree on is hating Woodrow Wilson. Yes, he was racist, had a terrible civil liberties record during and after WWII, and should not have intervened in the Russian Civil War, but he also pushed through progressive legislation in his first term that set the foundation for the New Deal. And was the first president who was solidly pro-labor. Plus his idea for a League of Nations was visionary, as befit a former university professor and president.
I'm ngl I don't think that anyone cares about what happened in San Francisco enough so that they'll change their votes. People panicked about AOC alienating voters in swing seats, and now she's one of the most popular Democrats in the country (not that the bar is that high). Ofc we shouldn't run DAC/Kiros types in competitive seats, but if Harlem and Denver want to be represented by socialists then that's what they want- and trying to marginalize the ascendant left coalition among Democrats will only depress turnout and support among renters and young voters that carried them to victory.
And for how dysfunctional the Republicans have become, it's embarrassing that Democrats somehow manage to keep losing to them. Leaders & backbenchers need to at least be kept on their toes, because they've failed to stop Trump twice and aren't doing much to obstruct him during his second term.
Let me be clear; I'm not against deep blue districts electing socialists or a new generation emerging in the party (I concur with many that Schumer needs to retire). It's a particular brand of both candidate and "socialism" embodied by those two aformentioned candidates that carries with it baggage that will hurt the party nationally.
Basically a left wing politics that dovetails with the Sunrise Movement X account is just extremely toxic to your median voter.
It’s less about “is anyone going to care about what happened in SF” specifically, and more the general lack of self-restraint a lot of the activist left has and a stubborn refusal to appeal to groups that aren’t already converts
I kind of agree with you here. Progressive seats should have progressive representatives and moderate seats moderate ones. That said, gerrymandering is going to continue to create more and more safe seats and we're going to wind up with more extreme candidates of both parties. My bigger concern is that we seem to marching towards matching the Republicans habit of nominating unserious people (Kiros, Chevalier). That is a bad trend.
I think it’s great that we’re getting a very broad coalition of voices wanting to run in primaries this year. I think it’s not great that lefty groups still haven’t learned, despite what I think is a clear lesson of the last decade, that self-anointment of oneself as a gatekeeper of who is and is not in “good standing” with activists on whatever issue du jour of the day only makes the tent smaller and doesn’t actually achieve anything other than the dopamine hit of self righteousness.
Weiner’s harassment this weekend being case in point
I'm not going to talk about the topic for obvious reasons but as it relates to being harassed for appearing at events, Connie Chan and Nancy Pelosi came out against the treatment of Scott Weiner.
Sometimes activists and protesters really waste their energy by getting physical and extreme towards a sitting politician like Weiner when they could get more involved in unseating him. You'd think instead of harassing Weiner that the protestors would use their might more wisely for productive use.
DSA style candidates are not our nominees in Iowa, Montana, Alaska, North Carolina, or any tipping point states.
Approximately zero people in Alaska are going to decide whether or not to vote for Peltola based on the fact that democrats nominated a DSA member to some district in Colorado or NYC. Same deal for the other states.
There's a major difference between nihilists and socialists. I have strong misgivings about bigotry in the ranks of the American Left, but in no way do I think they have any intention to sit still on work that the American people need. Providing that the Democrats can actually flip a trifecta - a bigger if after the court decisions - as long as a strong left does not prevent half measures that are doable from getting done out of misguided maximalism, it will help to drive positive changes that we have to hope are not undone later by Republicans. It's all highly provisional, but I'm here for it, and I think the radical newcomers to Congress can learn a lot from Mayor Mamdani, Ayanna Presley and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
That’s deeply disappointing, really hoped we’d be ahead in at least one state other than North Carolina and a slim lead in Maine at this point. If we can’t win anything to the left of North Carolina even in this year when everything should be in our favor, then I have no hope for our country or our party. Really hope this changes between now and November.
I hope you're right. It just feels a LOT like 2024 right now with Democrats losing momentum by the day (and more focused on defeating each other than on defeating fascism).
The socials (Bluesky, Threads, X) are absolutely toxic. I don't recommend logging on.
No, but in environmental terms, it's worse. I'm sitting here in Berlin, where there's no air conditioning, and there were record temperatures this past weekend - above 39 degrees (~103 F.). Thank goodness the weather broke on Monday, but I fully believe I'm likely to live to see 50 C. (122 F.) become a normal summer temperature throughout the previously temperate zone.
I take climate change seriously, but I don’t think that over the course of the next 70 or so years we’ll get to the point where summer temperatures are regularly 11 degrees Celsius higher than current temperatures in Germany. Only 23 countries have ever hit that temperature even once, and none of those were in Europe.
I don't think we'll lose MI, even with AES. Nominating him will make us sweat a seat that should be a layup, and he could well lose in 2032, but the environment is just too blue for us to lose a Michigan Senate race this year.
That’s not good enough. Peltola and Brown have as much or more name rec as their opponents and plenty of money, and we can’t count on the national environment getting better for us by November with the war winding down (and we’re starting to see that in the generic ballot too, the average fell from us leading by 7.1 at the end of May to only leading by 6.2 now). We should be winning now, and I’m not confident we’ll be winning in November in these races if we aren’t.
the generic ballots here are super red relative to the national environment. Nate Cohn's discussion of polling methodology makes sense, but it did also shift Ohio and Iowa from D to R leads. It's a not great high quality poll, but throw it on the pile and get back to work. We can win any of these races.
Edit to add that getting to 50/50 is a huge deal because it makes Murkowski the swing vote on everything.
But winning 51-52 seats makes her and Fetterman irrelevant, ie judicial confirmations. Means that Schumer can (and should) not confirm any more Trump appointees should Dems win back the Senate.
Fetterman is a pretty down the line Dem he's just annoying. Manchin was from West Virginia and the party was basically united behind getting Sinema out of office in 2024.
The big headwind we face is that to win the Senate we're going to need three time Trump voters to either vote for a Democrat or stay home in November. That hasn't happened since 2012 which was the last time a significant number of voters went for the candidate instead of the party label in front of the candidate's name on the ballot.
Yea voters are inelastic these days. Considering we didn't get destroyed in 2022 because Trump only voters stayed home i think it's possible to steal a couple of these republican Trump voting states.
Throw it on the pile. Mostly within the margin of error. I will say that Siena, despite it's top tier status, tends to be one of the more conservative pollsters like Emerson, and does tend to underestimate voter turnout and support. This was also the case in several house races they polled in 2018.
Not a bad polling result, even with weighing an electorate looking similar to 2024, which it won’t. MOE territory not a bad place for our candidates to be four months out but sure does suck if you’re an incumbent like Sullivan and Husted. To anyone freaking out about these results, chill out. I know in an ideal world Brown would be crushing Husted like he did DeWine in 2006 or Peltola would be crushing Sullivan by ten points or Cooper crushing Whatley by 20 points or Turek posting Tom Harkin 2008 double digits but that’s not the world we live in. Yeah, I heard the whole “Trump has the lowest expectations so even gas going down just a little bit could still save Republicans” argument. The economy is still bad and what’s incredible is how fast he moved to fuck it all up with tariffs and shutdowns and ICE raids and letting the AI tech bros run wild and starting a war with Iran. What’s clear though with the NYT/Siena poll is our base, despite how unhappy they are with the Democratic Party, are insanely motivated to vote whereas the MAGA GOP base isn’t. If the GOP MAGA reached our level of motivation and were winning Independents over and weren’t losing 10-30% of their voters to the Democrats like we saw in a lot of special elections in Trump +15 to Trump +20 districts, Hinson would be ahead of Turek 7-10 points, Sullivan and Husted would be locked in for re-election but in the low double digits and Cooper would be eeking out a win by 2 points.
Not to mention, Trump pissed away a lot of the Gen Z male and Hispanic and Latino male voters he won over in 2024. Case in point, Talarico and Paxton are tied in every poll or Talarico has had a 2 point lead. Beto O’Rourke only lead in like one or two polls in all of 2018 yet he still made it a 2.6 point race. Or even Graham Platner going through so much of a shit storm is still ahead of Collins, even if it is a tougher race which we should’ve always expected it to be because Collins is a different case. Now Platner isn’t the answer to winning back non-college educated white voters but he’s overperforming Sara Gideon with college educated voters. And despite all of Platner’s flaws, Democrats are sticking with him because if someone like Trump whose baggage is one million times worse than Platner’s can still get elected, then fuck this setting the bar way to high for our candidates bull shit. Ossoff is another great example because he is a new generation of Democrat who flipped a state that’s gone out of purple territory into res territory back into purple territory. In some ways, Georgia in 2026 is looking like Arizona in 2022 where the Democrats not only can save their incumbent in the U.S. Senate but also make gains on the state level. I don’t know yet if Democrats in Georgia can sweep every office like Hobbs and her fellow Dems did in Arizona but I think Ossoff has coattails to raise up Keisha Lance Bottoms to become the next Governor. The question I have is can Ossoff and Bottoms help Dems win the LG, SoS and AG offices. That would be a dream come true.
Also, Trump’s strengths were always getting people in the rural area who don’t vote to vote. We’re talking the swastika and confederate flag tattoo folks who live on the dark web to come out of the woods. They love him and will come out for him when he’s on the ballot. But when he’s not, they don’t care.
Cook finally updated AK-Sen to Toss-Up. Definitely seems to be at the top of the second tier. I almost feel better about Peltola's chances than Platner's.
The Tea Party moment for the Democratic Party, plus the special legislative wins in IA, TX, and FL make me think we're going to win seats that were deemed Safe R. Not necessarily U.S. Sen or House seats, but state legislative seats.
Imagine OH, FL, and AR losing their GOP supermajorities in both state Houses. I think it's guaranteed that NC GOP will lose their legislative supermajorities (and the ability to push bad bills on the ballot as confusing constitutional amendments), maybe the state House outright.
Arkansas Republicans are taking aim at Hallie Shoffner, even though Tom Cotton will likely have a layup re-election in November.
If Shoffner manages to gin up Democratic turnout somewhat (even while losing the general), it makes a difference. If there's several less legislative Rs willing to sign off on Sarah Huckabee Sanders' agenda in 2027, that says something.
As an Arkansas native I feel like I'm seeing a lot of energy and excitement around Shoffner, and conversely a lot more Tom Cotton ads than you'd expect given that he's an incumbent in a safe Red state. She's doing pretty good in terms of fundraising as a Democrat in a red state - compare her numbers to similar candidates in Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee etc.
She won't win, but she might put up a strong fight. Tom Cotton isn't even over 50% in approvals, so I think she can definitely overperform the typical baseline for a Democrat here. In any case, it's still great to see a strong candidate actually put in effort in deep red states like mine. If Democrats want long term success they're going to need to start investing and building up strong state parties in states that may be hostile to them... with the right message, I feel like there's untapped potential everywhere.
What are the Cotton ads talking about? Affordability? If he's not talking about affordability and just talking points about secure borders and other GOP bullshit, it's going to turn off voters.
Actually they are. He talks a lot about affordability and working for Arkansas families, surprisingly without diving into the usual GOP rhetoric you'd expect from him
Just kidding it's 99% "CHINA CHINA CHINA LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL HALLIE SHOFFNER HATES FARMERS." The usual GOP bullshit, the ones I've seen atleast.
I don't have confidence in AR voters. The rural Rs consistently outvote the Democrats there-- and they elect some of the worst people statewide outside of OH and FL.
But also, AR voter turnout isn't robust. 54% of the registered voters turn out to the polls regularly, compared to NC (70%), GA (68%), and FL (67%).
If more AR Democrats and left-leaning unaffiliated/independent voters turned up at the polls in EVERY SINGLE ELECTION, they can start digging themselves out of the hole they're in.
It’ll keep the rural voters in line and that’s why Cotton will win, but I’m not as confident that line of attack will work in the rapidly growing NWA area where affordability and cost of living are a huge problem. Given how quickly it’s growing, if Cotton/Republican underperform there, it may be a bad omen. Probably won’t turn the whole state blue but if we can make the 3rd district bluer, it’ll be harder to gerrymander away a blue district (which Arkansas currently could support and has been robbed of due to racial gerrymandering)
I agree with the idea that we're likely to win a LOT of state house seats, including a bunch of surprises. This is the untold story of the 2010 election - we got wiped out federally but we got DESTROYED in state houses and we're still feeling the repercussions of that today. Not sure I follow why our current "Tea Party" moment will help us do that (rather than hinder us).
Just found out that Ken Block is running as an independent in the Rhode Island gubernatorial election. Polling higher than the Republican candidate too. Interesting.
Looking at the polling, McKee better stay losing. It's interesting that Guckian is far behind in the one poll of the Republican primary, so the polling might not mean that much, but still.
I know the record is mixed on Manny Rutinel, but according to this NYT article, Shannon Bird, who was the more moderate of the two, ran AGAINST "aggressive A.I. regulation" -
Rutinel is Latino, it’s a heavily Latino seat and his progressivism is WAY overstated. I think he’s narrowly the better candidate, and I think in this environment either one would be taking out Evans with room to spare
The big red flag for Rutinel is he's literally changed basically everything he believed in order to be competitive in this seat which makes John Kerry a model of consistency by comparison. But if the electoral climate is still this bad for Republicans in November it probably won't matter.
He moved more mainstream. He was a progressive through much of his time in the legislature but has attempted to broaden his appeal for his congressional run. Bird has always been a centrist; Rutinel's trajectory is in that direction.
Not just that, but it comes off as transparently inauthentic. For example, Rutinel told Kyle Clark he abandoned veganism because he wanted to "enjoy the beautiful products or the delicious products that Colorado's ranchers make." Clark said a lot of the answers Rutinel gave were craven.
I mean he's still friends with Mamdani and Maxwell Frost from their activist days and even quietly went to NYC to march with him.
In a year, he's basically flip-flopped on everything, even Israel and veganism, which was/is the core of his identity, to move to the center in a purple electorate but he was still the more progressive option on ICE, taxes, housing, A.I, guns, AIPAC, corporate PACs and is generally called a progressive by the media so make of that what you will. He's quite an interesting character lol.
Bird was a Gottheimer-type Blue Dog while Rutinel transitioned from a Maxwell Frost type to a middle of the road Democrat.
It depends on authenticity, like ehstronghold pointed out, and strong convictions that people have seemingly had in the past but have given up. Like how so many anti-Trump Republicans from 2016 are now suddenly on his side after he won.
I’m not trying to be pessimistic here since I do think we’ll win the House and Senate in November. But if we lose the Senate and then GOP gerrymanders are able to lock in a House majority in anything except wave years for us, what actually would be the response of Democrats and especially the activist base to Democrats being locked out of power in Congress and the Supreme Court?
So much of how we’ve responded to all of this has been predicated on the idea that we can win in 2028 and with control of the presidency and Congress pass our policy agenda, put safeguards around our democracy, fix the Supreme Court, and then get things back on track. If we can’t do that and we’re instead in a position where we can never pass our policies, the Supreme Court is always on the verge of rolling back basic fundamental rights, and any presidency we have is ineffectual because we don’t have control of Congress and can’t do anything, I’m not sure how many activists on the left or even the broader Democratic voting base will continue to accept the legitimacy of the system of government we’re under.
Honestly, many would probably pivot to political violence, which is already on the rise. But that's in a nightmare scenario where fascists manage to keep control of the government.
I’m especially curious on what would happen if we win the presidency in 2028 but don’t control both houses of Congress and can’t fix the Supreme Court (having president JD Vance in 2028 is a different nightmare scenario). If the fascists aren’t in charge of the presidency but we can’t actually do anything that would stick to fix anything or make people’s lives better, and there’s no realistic hope of getting the power to do those things, and we are expecting to lose power fully to the other side in 2032 or 2036 because of our inability to do anything, what would we all do about it? And how would the mainstream respond to the way the fringes of the party might react to that situation?
It’s a valid concern. Constitutional government is predicated on everybody believing in the same set of rules. Ironically, that’s one of the things I think conservatives don’t grasp - their prosperity and way of life is also entirely predicated on said rules
Basically we need 2 years of a Dem trifecta to save the voting/elections element of our democracy to have any semblance of fairness going forward. Otherwise we really will be in the permanent minority as it relates to SCOTUS, gerrymandering, etc.
That requires running the table in the Senate both now and in ‘28.
I know that. And I both think and hope we’ll win. My question is what will happen if we don’t, and we have a powerless Democratic presidency in 2028 and an angry base that has lost all faith in the fairness of the system.
i don't think it benefits anyone to consider three straight election cycles of horrific losses, I see what you're saying, but the answer is we have to fight every day between now and november, and then all of next year to get new york map over line, and then on and on. it's unfortunate, but we have to keep going
We’d have to have the Democratic president visibly fighting back at the system. Constant executive orders regarding popular policies and highly publicized fights with the Supreme Court over them. That’s the only way to channel the base’s anger into productive anger at the other side. Being above the fray and preaching bipartisanship isn’t going to fly anymore.
I don't think there is a plan B. There should be, but too much of the party, especially those in power, operate as if the game is not actively being biased against us.
Practically speaking, the plan is two part. (1) Have the party base get absolutely fucking pissed at do-nothing incumbents and get them on board with aggressive counter-gerrymanders. (2) Rely on republicans being so unpopular that we do get that wave.
It's not exactly an encouraging back up plan, but it's basically the reality of it.
Well, the timing couldn't be better. Received clearance from cardiologist to resume full activity after heart surgery earlier this year so am headed to Canadian Rockies for 3 weeks. Seems like too many folks here have renewed their lifetime membership in Chicken Little Society after the NYT/Siena poll. Now the consensus of opinion seems to be more negative than a few days ago. So, see you all in about 3-4 weeks if the world is still here.
Congrats and have fun! Three weeks is a great duration for a vacation. It'll almost be August so the polling picture will be close to the time where it really cements in the political environment.
This is just about the early vote. Could the main difference be that Republicans are more negative toward early voting in particular?
Well the tweet person said they are comparing early vote with previous year early votes, so it should be the same sample set
Not necessarily, if as I suggest Republicans have become more negative toward -early- voting, specifically. Only time will tell what the overall votes will be.
Schumer really has shot himself in the foot here.
But that guy did run, declared earlier than Mills and dropped out because he didn't go anywhere. I don't thibk abyone was was beating Platner, he had a massive national campaign apparatus behind him.
Yeah if IL and NC were held today you would have to think Abughazaleh and Nida Allam would win for sure based on their narrow loss margins and Progressive momentum
The status quo is broken.
Dems and the GOP and Indies all know it. Though these want different solutions and place the blame differently.
But we are fed up with things as they are. Will some good Dems get bounced because of that? Yeah, probably. Will some of the folks who ride in on an anti-establishment/generation argument be either too lefty or total fakes (Mouton)? Yeah, probably.
But putting the fear of God into sitting electeds to get off their asses and make real change happen is a neccessary precondition to it actually happening.
And I am excited to see that that could be happening.
I hope so. A lot has to go right for that to happen, and it's the country's only hope, with all the minefields in it.
Lol. If Oregon flips we might as well forget about Congress.
Why was OR downgraded from Solid to Lean Dem?
Democratic governors have been historically unpopular in Oregon, but not to a point that voters want them defeated. There has been a few polls, including some before the primary, with Republicans a few points away from beating Kotek, who fits the mold of someone unpopular.
Just from me, though, I have several close family friends in different parts of Oregon and definitely don't think the polls will come into reality. Kotek will win reelection.
You can count on two things: Kotek will win, and she will badly underperform in doing so. Just how it is
Besides, when was the last time a Republican was elected as Governor of OH?
Vic Atiyeh back in 1979. Served two terms.
That is a ridiculous change in this environment. In what world is OR-Gov anything besides Safe D???
Hell yeah
Now if Trump’s disapproval rating can go below 40% in TX. That would be sweet.
Just fyi the Rules of the Road https://www.the-downballot.com/p/the-downballots-community-rules-of ask you to refrain from discussing candidates' physical appearances :)
Didn’t see that one, thanks.
You've got to be sweating right now if you're Shri Thanedar or Jimmy Gomez.
Shri Thanedar is a weirdo animal killing centimillionaire with poor constituent services and strong AIPAC support, and for the first time his progressive opponents, along with moderate Black leaders, have consolidated behind DSA-affiliated state Rep. Donavan McKinney.
Jimmy Gomez used to be a standard progressive Democrat, but ever since he started facing serious challenges from Democratic socialist Davide Kim, he sold himself to AIPAC and the OpenAI Super PACs, especially in 2024. He's now despised by many leftists as well as Republicans who consolidate against him in the general election. Add the Swalwell debacle, the multiple affairs that are under investigation by the House ethics committee, a Gen Z left-wing Latina challenger, Angela Gonzales-Torres, and the fact that he captured only 46% percent of the primary vote before the scandals broke through (his lowest ever), and he looks toast in the general election.
I’m not so sure about that with Gomez. He got 46% support, but all of the others Dems in the primary and the left wing independent only add up to 37%, he was still significantly ahead of them even when they’re all put together.
Republicans always vote for the left-wing anti-establishment candidate in that district and in many other majority-minority California districts.
https://ballotpedia.org/Jimmy_Gomez
Ah got it, I can see the problem there for him then
I would qualify that to say they usually vote against incumbents, regardless of ideology (to the extent they vote at all, there's usually an undervote).
Thanedar is probably going to lose his primary. I read somewhere that Rashida Tlaib, who represents a neighboring Congressional district, has a reputation for providing better constituent services in Thanedar's district than Thanedar.
I heard the same from many people too!
Climate Hawks Vote has endorsed Donavan McKinney. We and other climate groups are phonebanking for him and Will Lawrence (MI-07) all of July.
Doris Matsui def belongs on that list after Mai Vang placed ahead of her in the California jungle primary, and clearly won more Democratic voters. I'd also be worried if I were Wesley Bell, Ed Case, John Larson, or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Larson & DWS start off as the favorites in their primaries but in Larson's case, it's clear Luke Bronin has captured most of the energy among the challengers. I also think DWS has a relatively low ceiling and if one challenger garners a high enough percent of the vote, they could take her down. I also think even if either of them survive they either go down or retire in 2028
Larson's opponent is way more centrist and pro-Big tech than him though.
But is he a 30 year incumbent in poor health?
What is the ethnic makeup of the district DWS is running in? If it has a lot of AA voters i don't think she has a chance.
They unanimously agree that they need to consolidate support behind a single Black candidate, but unfortunately it sounds like each of them also believes they must be that candidate. Whoever becomes "the one" is going to have to earn it the hard way.
Even if DWS wins, she'll almost certainly lose in 2028. What a pathetic way to end a long, influential career...aiding in the elimination of Black representation in the South just so she can cling to relevance for two more years.
I feel like DWS will win this one, only to get Shri Thanedar'd or Dan Goldman'd in 2028.
Lynch is hopefully toast too
Matsui is absolutely cooked in November. She not only is running the same campaign Diana DeGette ran (heavy on her seniority in Washington DC, blowing off local media when they ask to meet with her), but she's in her 80s and has been a relatively anonymous backbencher for her entire Congressional career.
your lips to God's ears
You have to feel bad for David Kim. He came close to unseating Jimmy Gomez 3 times, and the one cycle he decides to sit out is the one where Gomez has a huge scandal.
No, I think he was great and selfless in sitting it out and rallying his community for Gonzales-Torres. His negatives are probably too high to win after the AIPAC ad campaign against him in 2024 highlighting his pre-Bernie evangelical conservative past.
I also think running a Latina challenger will help chip away at Gomez' coalition in a way that David Kim couldn't
It reminds me of Dan Seals in Illinois. He lost because of how strong of an incumbent Mark Kirk was in 2006 and 2008 and when he finally had the chance to run for an open seat in 2010 he ran right into the Republican wave election.
Dianne DeGette, who lost the primary last night, co-sponsored Medicare for All legislation.
If Jimmy Gomez, a founding member of the Medicare for All House Caucus loses the general election to Angela Gonzales-Torres, then it's not enough anymore just on this one issue.
I hope Chuck and Hakeem are having a "come to Jesus" coffee with Ken Martin this morning after the CO primary
None of those three guys have a clue about how to harness the energy of this moment, so hopefully they all just slept in.
If Democrats have a good-to-amazing night on 11/3/26, they're going to be thanking Ken Martin. Not Jeffries or Schumer.
Will they? I think they'd mainly have one man to thank: Donald Trump.
That too. But folks aren't giving Martin the credit he deserves either.
Martin had a similarly hard job building up a demoralized MN DFL party after the 2010 shellacking. It's going to take time for him to do the same on the national level.
Martin has absolutely not impressed me ever since he became DNC chair. Not only did he let David Hogg run rough shot over him for months, the debacle over the 2024 autopsy which he caused because he DEMANDED to go on Pod Save America because he got mad at something Ben Rhodes tweeted about him, but the DNC is deeply in debt despite the fact Democrats are willing to open the wallets and donate to everywhere except the DNC.
My biggest concern with the DNC debt while the RNC is nearing 9 figures (or at least high 8). Remember all the committees and most Democratic candidates had significant financial leads in 18 and it is very much the opposite this year (at least so far).
Most people never hear of the DNC Chair. Just who is going to credit him with what?
They’re more likely writing a strongly worded letter to the DSA asking them to be nicer to incumbents. They know how to win.
They already did. Seriously. Everyone from known centrists like Josh Gottheimer to underdog candidates like Jamie Ager support this.
https://www.thepromisetoamerica.com/
We believe in a growing, fair, and competitive economy that rewards hard work, innovation, entrepreneurship, and ownership. Full-time work should make it possible to own a home, raise a family, afford healthcare, and retire with dignity. Economic, permitting, and tax policy should expand opportunity and lower costs for workers, families, entrepreneurs, and those striving to join the middle class, not disproportionately favor those already at the top.
Almost all Republicans could sign on to that. It’s proclamations like these that cause a lot of Democrats to back left-wing candidates.
Few Republicans would sign onto that, as they absolutely disproportionately favor those already at the top, and I fail to see what's wrong with at least that excerpt of the statement.
I think it's fine that you want to do more than that but at face value 80% of Americans wouldn't disagree with anything there. Those signators are not in safe districts and i wouldn't oppose them.
This is all boilerplate pablum.
I want to hear detailed specifics, with vote counts, about WHAT those proposals are, and how they are going to pass the current legislative, judicial, and financial/lobbying structure currently in place, or even given a fantasy scenario of 55-56 seats in the Senate.
Tell me why you oppose that?
I didn't say if I supported or opposed it, it's the example of the dreaded "strongly worded letter" Miguel referenced
What does Ken Martin have to do with anything?
They are both living in the past and think we're still in the early 2000s when politics was still polite and civil and 3rd Way nonsense was still tolerable. We are well past the days of Tom Daschle and Blue Dogs leading the Democrats.
It's a complete joke that the Senate Democrats barely put up a token resistance and the leader is one of Wall St.'s biggest beneficiaries. I would take Harry Reid over Schumer any day. At least he fought back and got things done.
I’m getting tired of people making Ken Martin the punching bag. For those of saying you haven’t been impressed with him as DNC, what would he need to do to impress you? In fact, given everything he’s had to deal with, he’s been doing a good job and he embraced Mamdani before Jeffries and Hochul did and he’s been outspoken about welcoming DSA members into the party. He’s also made funding for state parties his priority. Yeah, the wealthy donors aren’t giving to the DNC like they have before but he also said the DNC will only take money from billionaires that share our values. The RNC has a lot more money not because of small donors but because of folks like Ellison, Thiel, Musk, Zuckerberg and Altman. Harris raised over a billion dollars and that didn’t help her. Martin has had to deal with David Hogg’s dumb publicity stunt because Hogg’s Super PAC would be nothing without him. Martin has been strict about the DNC staying out of primaries. Martin has also had to deal with a shitty autopsy and took ownership of the fallout from the Jon Faveru interview. By the way, that interview made me dislike Favs. I don’t mind him pushing Martin but I always thought Favs came off as a dick in that one. But I digress. The job of the DNC chairman is to build the infrastructure and shake shit up and his initiatives to increase Democratic voter registration numbers are paying off. It’s easy to make the DNC Chairman the go to punching bag after losing a presidential election, especially after losing to Trump again. And no, I don’t think Ben Winkler would’ve done a better job despite being an awesome WI Dems Chairman. He’s undone so much of the damage Scott Walker and the GOP have done to Wisconsin, nabbed us some big Supreme Court wins and got Tammy Baldwin re-elected in 2024. Winkler would be DNC chairman if he could’ve made Wisconsin go to Harris but he’s not a miracle worker despite being great at his job. In fact, I remember on the Daily Kos, the commenters turned against Winkler because he was spending too much time talking to Soros and the donors and earned Schumer, Jeffries and Pelosi’s endorsements. Just like that, he went from the savior of our party to the establishment tool in the Daily Kos community’s perspective. Then when David Hogg pulled his stunt, Ken Martin went from being the savior to “centrist Dem establishment tool” who should resign. I understand our frustration and anger with our party but constantly taking it all out on Martin solves nothing. Martin deserves more praise than the shit that’s flung at him but he knows that’s the job.
As for Schumer and Jeffries, yeah I get all the criticism and I share it with a lot of you but here’s the reality of the situation: Jeffries isn’t going anywhere. He has the votes to be the next Leader and Speaker and even AOC backs him and don’t think she can’t convince Lander, Valdez, Lasher and Chevalier to back Jeffries because she’s working with him on home affordability and public housing. So to the Blusky, Threads and Twitter crowd who only want to make the argument that Democratic Party is so unpopular solely because of Jeffries and Schumer and omit the facts that Dem voters are pissed Biden didn’t step aside, we didn’t have a primary in 2024 and right now don’t have a clear leader, get used to Jeffries. He’s not going anywhere.
As for Schumer, unless someone like Chris Van Hollen or Chris Murphy can make a strong case to his caucus to take over as leader after the 2026 midterms, the best we can hope for is Schumer gets one last hurrah at the leadership and he announces his retirement in 2028. Even Ezra Levin and his team at Indivisible couldn’t muster up the calls needed for Schumer to step aside. It’s easier for DSA members to out House incumbents in blue districts but Senators in primaries is a whole different beast that they aren’t ready for. Look at John Hickenlooper in last nights results. Yeah, a tighter win in the primary given his last electoral history but still double digits and I never believed he was in trouble of losing his primary like DeGette was. Bennet I knew would lose because he just wants to leave the Senate early and voters could tell.
"Get used to Boehner/Ryan/McCarthy, they're not going anywhere" They're inevitable until they're not.
IMO what's killing the Dems is their unwillingness to ditch the unspoken but understood seniority system of who gets to run and who gets backed. How dare DeGette be challenged by a novice 29yo...shovel a couple million to try and save her. How dare Gonzales not wait her turn to get rid of do-nothing Hickenlooper...freeze out her campaign. Jeffries and Schumer pretty much ignored Mamdani until he won. Establishment Dems are crying DSA boogeyman almost as loudly as the repubes. Party leadership seems to think someone should own their seat until they pull a Feinstein. I don't blame David Hogg and his generation one bit for being unwilling to sit and wait.
To be clear, I have no objections to what Hogg is doing I just didn’t like how he did it when he was Vice Chair of the DNC. You can’t be a vice chair and run a Super PAC. Also, the DSCC and DCCC are always going to prioritize incumbents. They’ll get on board whether it’s their preferred candidate or not when the primary is over. We also don’t know how much the DSCC spent on saving Hickenlooper. Gonzalez had the backing of the Colorado AFL-CIO so it’s not like she didn’t have any financial backing or infrastructure. DeGette had been in Congress since 1990, had a decent record but it was time for new leadership. Hickenlooper built up his name across the state as Governor then Senator. That’s a tougher hill for the DSA folks to climb.
Also, Jeffries did end up endorsing Mamdani. Took him a while but he did. Schumer didn’t. As for the Dems yelling DSA boogie men stuff like the Republicans, last time I checked, Josh Gottmeier, Jaime Harrison and James Carville don’t speak for the whole party. Now I do know people who are running the DNC’s socials and they were promoting Mamadani and his agenda way before Jeffries and Hochul got on board. No way in hell the DNC’s social team would have promoted Mamdani without Martin’s blessing, who again, has welcomed the DSA folks into the party. So if you were to take someone who is meant to be the spokesperson for the entire Democratic Party, then it would be our current DNC Chairman Ken Martin who is absolutely not pushing DSA GOP boogie man talking points.
"I’m getting tired of people making Ken Martin the punching bag. For those of saying you haven’t been impressed with him as DNC, what would he need to do to impress you?"
Jump start fundraising, give interviews that convince normies the Democratic Party is worth giving another look. I don't blame Ken or the DNC for everything nor do I expect they can solve everything or even a good chunk of things but my hope would be someone who can kickass at the basics.
He’s done both things you mentioned but in his own way. Normie Dems I guarantee you don’t know who he is or think about him all the time. They’ll know who their candidates are and they don’t need to know Ken Martin as a house hold name. His job is to raise money and understand how to utilize it. Hell, I give him praise for going on Pod Save America and having to defend his calls to Favs. That interview was to explain his job and why he made those calls. Normie Dems aren’t at home anxiously wondering why the DNC didn’t release its autopsy report. The people I know who obsess about that are campaign consultants. Normie Dems aren’t spending every waking hour on Blusky or watching all of Hasan Piker’s streams. That’s not to say they can’t have an influence but as someone who’s worked in the digital world for a very long time, I can tell you that viewership and follower numbers don’t always equate to reality. What Normie Dems are thinking about can their Dem rep, Senator, Governor and anyone else who has a D next to their can fight Trump and make their lives better. They are thinking about who can be the next President. Yeah, they probably think Jeffries and Schumer aren’t doing much but ask yourself this question, why hasn’t Normie Dem anger at the party risen to the level to demand for Jeffries and Schumer to step aside? They’ll rise up to take out DeGette and Goldman but not enough to demand Senate Dems push Schumer aside. Answer: because Normie Dems don’t know who the fuck they want to run things. Again, Ezra Levin and Indivisible couldn’t even keep the momentum going to push Schumer aside after the government shutdown. Yeah, they can go and yell at their reps at the town halls all they want, but if they aren’t screaming for them to call on someone to step up and challenge the ranks then leadership isn’t going to change. At least not until after the next Presidential election.
Yeah i'm not getting into the weeds of that just saying someone who has charisma that can pull some people off the sidelines and close the $$$ gap with the RNC would be enough for me.
I'll just say I hope all of these folks comparing the current insurgency to the 2010-14 Tea Party wave in the GOP realize the Tea Party and its offspring the Freedom Caucus have been one of the biggest factors in conservatives not achieving legislative policy wins in the past decade +.
I mean, they've still won in plenty of other ways, up to and including two Trump terms and a total takeover of state legislatures and the federal judiciary
I'm talking particularly about far right insurgent Reps and Senators at the federal level. You can't credit the Tea Party for Trump, the reddening of the Midwest/Plains or gerrymandering.
That's a very narrow interpretation of the Tea Party movement. The wider anti-liberal, populist movement is almost directly responsible for Trump and the push further right of Midwest demos like blue collar White workers. If the Tea Party wasn't as successful as it was, Trump wouldn't have made it past Super Tuesday and Rubio or Bush would've been the 2016 nom.
Trump was anti-tea party especially in his first iteration. Had no big plans to cut spending, pledged to not touch entitlements and was relatively laissez faire on social issues. Club for Growth and Tea Party Patriots all spent big against him.
There was always going to be a RW backlash to Obama, the tea party wave with its inflexibility just ensured that a) GOP lost multiple winnable races in GEs and b) Once in power, leadership often had to go compromise with Pelosi instead of dealing with them because of their impossible demands. Just now the House had to adjourn because they have a handful of House reps who simply DGAF about passing anything.
You think potential DSA wins (some in red/swingy territory) will lead to Dems winning the presidency for 8 years and taking over the courts? I believe the opposite — we’re gonna blow a bunch of winnable seats with candidates who don’t fit their electorates. Republicans have structural advantages with redistricting and the Senate that Dems simply do not have (ie we need to sweep a bunch of deep red states for a Senate majority, while they can lose 3 seats and still keep it).
I agree with you in general, but the damage has been contained to mostly deep blue seats (with CO-08 a possible exception).
They certainly pushed their party and arguably the country's Overton Window very far to the right.
tbf Democrats haven't done a great job at winning & making policy achievements the past decade or so anyways
Legislatively Dems have had way more success than the GOP at the federal level when you look at the big picture, and that's with a severely gerrymandered House and increasingly extremely difficult to win Senate.
My larger point is, especially given our Senate woes, I think people seeing this as a positive politically are fooling themselves. DSA style candidates are not going to help us in Iowa, Montana, Alaska, North Carolina or any tipping point states at the Senate or presidential level (and I don't just mean running there, I mean outside elected reps' comments getting amplified by the national press).
In addition, no-one should be looking at what's happened to the GOP the past 15 years and go "let's do what they did!"-they are a dysfunctional mess. I'm all for a big tent open to center-right moderates and left wing progressives, but candidates like Kiros and Chevalier have foot in mouth syndrome along with bringing over a cohort with ridiculous litmus tests on unpopular issues (see what happened in San Francisco over the weekend). Heck it'd be better of they were just straight old school 1930s socialists.
As an admirer of Eugene V. Debs, despite his great mistake that led to the disastrous victory of Woodrow Wilson, I'd like that. And consider that 1920s/30s socialists helped usher in the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
What was his great mistake? And how was his victory disastrous?
Wilson was a racist, interventionist piece of shit. I don't think Debs caused his victory, though. It's common knowledge that was because of a split field between Republicans William Howard Taft and Theodore Roosevelt, the latter of which I believe is one of the greatest presidents of our country (who was also interventionist like Wilson).
Yeah I was about to say, Wilson won because of TR vs Taft - Debs had little to do with it
I've got bad news, 95% of white people back then were racists.
One thing elements of the left and the right seem to agree on is hating Woodrow Wilson. Yes, he was racist, had a terrible civil liberties record during and after WWII, and should not have intervened in the Russian Civil War, but he also pushed through progressive legislation in his first term that set the foundation for the New Deal. And was the first president who was solidly pro-labor. Plus his idea for a League of Nations was visionary, as befit a former university professor and president.
I'm ngl I don't think that anyone cares about what happened in San Francisco enough so that they'll change their votes. People panicked about AOC alienating voters in swing seats, and now she's one of the most popular Democrats in the country (not that the bar is that high). Ofc we shouldn't run DAC/Kiros types in competitive seats, but if Harlem and Denver want to be represented by socialists then that's what they want- and trying to marginalize the ascendant left coalition among Democrats will only depress turnout and support among renters and young voters that carried them to victory.
And for how dysfunctional the Republicans have become, it's embarrassing that Democrats somehow manage to keep losing to them. Leaders & backbenchers need to at least be kept on their toes, because they've failed to stop Trump twice and aren't doing much to obstruct him during his second term.
Let me be clear; I'm not against deep blue districts electing socialists or a new generation emerging in the party (I concur with many that Schumer needs to retire). It's a particular brand of both candidate and "socialism" embodied by those two aformentioned candidates that carries with it baggage that will hurt the party nationally.
Basically a left wing politics that dovetails with the Sunrise Movement X account is just extremely toxic to your median voter.
It’s less about “is anyone going to care about what happened in SF” specifically, and more the general lack of self-restraint a lot of the activist left has and a stubborn refusal to appeal to groups that aren’t already converts
The DSA types will marginalize themselves because they can't win outside solid to safe seats.
I kind of agree with you here. Progressive seats should have progressive representatives and moderate seats moderate ones. That said, gerrymandering is going to continue to create more and more safe seats and we're going to wind up with more extreme candidates of both parties. My bigger concern is that we seem to marching towards matching the Republicans habit of nominating unserious people (Kiros, Chevalier). That is a bad trend.
I’m with you.
I think it’s great that we’re getting a very broad coalition of voices wanting to run in primaries this year. I think it’s not great that lefty groups still haven’t learned, despite what I think is a clear lesson of the last decade, that self-anointment of oneself as a gatekeeper of who is and is not in “good standing” with activists on whatever issue du jour of the day only makes the tent smaller and doesn’t actually achieve anything other than the dopamine hit of self righteousness.
Weiner’s harassment this weekend being case in point
What happened to Weiner?
I’d google it because a discussion of the fracas here may run afoul of site rules
OK, I can imagine.
I'm not going to talk about the topic for obvious reasons but as it relates to being harassed for appearing at events, Connie Chan and Nancy Pelosi came out against the treatment of Scott Weiner.
Sometimes activists and protesters really waste their energy by getting physical and extreme towards a sitting politician like Weiner when they could get more involved in unseating him. You'd think instead of harassing Weiner that the protestors would use their might more wisely for productive use.
DSA style candidates are not our nominees in Iowa, Montana, Alaska, North Carolina, or any tipping point states.
Approximately zero people in Alaska are going to decide whether or not to vote for Peltola based on the fact that democrats nominated a DSA member to some district in Colorado or NYC. Same deal for the other states.
There's a major difference between nihilists and socialists. I have strong misgivings about bigotry in the ranks of the American Left, but in no way do I think they have any intention to sit still on work that the American people need. Providing that the Democrats can actually flip a trifecta - a bigger if after the court decisions - as long as a strong left does not prevent half measures that are doable from getting done out of misguided maximalism, it will help to drive positive changes that we have to hope are not undone later by Republicans. It's all highly provisional, but I'm here for it, and I think the radical newcomers to Congress can learn a lot from Mayor Mamdani, Ayanna Presley and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
100% Going the way of the Republicans by letting the far left flank of our party take over isn't going to help us achieve any policy aims.
Times/Siena poll of four senate races:
Hinson +2, Husted +3, Cooper +7, Sullivan +2.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/01/us/politics/polls-senate-control.html
Sounds about right, and lines up with my latest predictions. I'd think Hinson would outperform Husted.
That sounds about right for four months out
If I had to choose one, would rather be leading in October than now.
The problem is that we should be leading now.
How many polls are you considering?
That’s deeply disappointing, really hoped we’d be ahead in at least one state other than North Carolina and a slim lead in Maine at this point. If we can’t win anything to the left of North Carolina even in this year when everything should be in our favor, then I have no hope for our country or our party. Really hope this changes between now and November.
Husted, Hinson, and Sullivan are within the swing margin though.
Ugh, I just have a really bad feeling that we end up with a 53-47 R Senate again (win NC, lose MI, everything else status quo).
This is not 2018 or 2024. Relax, take one day at a time.
I hope you're right. It just feels a LOT like 2024 right now with Democrats losing momentum by the day (and more focused on defeating each other than on defeating fascism).
The socials (Bluesky, Threads, X) are absolutely toxic. I don't recommend logging on.
Should never log on to those to begin with!
No, but in environmental terms, it's worse. I'm sitting here in Berlin, where there's no air conditioning, and there were record temperatures this past weekend - above 39 degrees (~103 F.). Thank goodness the weather broke on Monday, but I fully believe I'm likely to live to see 50 C. (122 F.) become a normal summer temperature throughout the previously temperate zone.
I take climate change seriously, but I don’t think that over the course of the next 70 or so years we’ll get to the point where summer temperatures are regularly 11 degrees Celsius higher than current temperatures in Germany. Only 23 countries have ever hit that temperature even once, and none of those were in Europe.
Damn it's still that bad? I'll be in Berlin in the next two weeks. (We should meet in real life if you're still there.)
We have to get 49 seats to have at least an even chance of winning back the majority in 2028.
Yeah, I know. Which is why all of this is so damn depressing.
I'm starting to wonder if we can even keep GA.
We’re definitely keeping GA
Ok, that’s just pessimism talking, what reason is there to have any doubt about us holding Georgia?
Georgia will be absolutely fine.
I don't think we'll lose MI, even with AES. Nominating him will make us sweat a seat that should be a layup, and he could well lose in 2032, but the environment is just too blue for us to lose a Michigan Senate race this year.
That’s not good enough. Peltola and Brown have as much or more name rec as their opponents and plenty of money, and we can’t count on the national environment getting better for us by November with the war winding down (and we’re starting to see that in the generic ballot too, the average fell from us leading by 7.1 at the end of May to only leading by 6.2 now). We should be winning now, and I’m not confident we’ll be winning in November in these races if we aren’t.
My concerns exactly.
Trump benefits from rock-bottom expectations. Hell, he's probably benefiting from the incremental drop in gas prices that's happening right now.
Cooper +7? Wow, if that's true, then he MIGHT win by double digits by November.
Ds don’t usually outperform the polls in NC. I’m expecting this race to look like his 2020 reelection for governor (52-47 margin).
I think we'll do better than that. He is popular and the environment is deep blue. I could see double digits.
First lead I've seen for Sullivan since *checks notes* August 2025
the generic ballots here are super red relative to the national environment. Nate Cohn's discussion of polling methodology makes sense, but it did also shift Ohio and Iowa from D to R leads. It's a not great high quality poll, but throw it on the pile and get back to work. We can win any of these races.
Edit to add that getting to 50/50 is a huge deal because it makes Murkowski the swing vote on everything.
But winning 51-52 seats makes her and Fetterman irrelevant, ie judicial confirmations. Means that Schumer can (and should) not confirm any more Trump appointees should Dems win back the Senate.
I mean yeah that'd be great but winning NC + ME + TX is a good outcome that gives us a lot of leverage and is more realistic than running the table.
lol and then there's always another Fetterman/Manchin/Sinema that pops up to protect special interests.
Fetterman is a pretty down the line Dem he's just annoying. Manchin was from West Virginia and the party was basically united behind getting Sinema out of office in 2024.
is there a free link to the writeup anywhere, trying to understand the polling sample?
Try this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/01/us/politics/polls-senate-control.html?unlocked_article_code=1.uVA.r6l8.9HSDWsFJYztL&smid=url-share
if I'm reading this correctly, they're still somewhat weighting by 2024 vote. if that's the case I think we are fine
Its good to get a reality check, every now and then.
The big headwind we face is that to win the Senate we're going to need three time Trump voters to either vote for a Democrat or stay home in November. That hasn't happened since 2012 which was the last time a significant number of voters went for the candidate instead of the party label in front of the candidate's name on the ballot.
Yea voters are inelastic these days. Considering we didn't get destroyed in 2022 because Trump only voters stayed home i think it's possible to steal a couple of these republican Trump voting states.
Winning Iowa, Ohio and Alaska is like trying to win R+9-13 congressional districts, it's doable with the right candidate but very tough.
Throw it on the pile. Mostly within the margin of error. I will say that Siena, despite it's top tier status, tends to be one of the more conservative pollsters like Emerson, and does tend to underestimate voter turnout and support. This was also the case in several house races they polled in 2018.
The only thing we should be doing with any poll, ever, is throwing it on the pile. Data points tell a story together not in isolation!
Not a bad polling result, even with weighing an electorate looking similar to 2024, which it won’t. MOE territory not a bad place for our candidates to be four months out but sure does suck if you’re an incumbent like Sullivan and Husted. To anyone freaking out about these results, chill out. I know in an ideal world Brown would be crushing Husted like he did DeWine in 2006 or Peltola would be crushing Sullivan by ten points or Cooper crushing Whatley by 20 points or Turek posting Tom Harkin 2008 double digits but that’s not the world we live in. Yeah, I heard the whole “Trump has the lowest expectations so even gas going down just a little bit could still save Republicans” argument. The economy is still bad and what’s incredible is how fast he moved to fuck it all up with tariffs and shutdowns and ICE raids and letting the AI tech bros run wild and starting a war with Iran. What’s clear though with the NYT/Siena poll is our base, despite how unhappy they are with the Democratic Party, are insanely motivated to vote whereas the MAGA GOP base isn’t. If the GOP MAGA reached our level of motivation and were winning Independents over and weren’t losing 10-30% of their voters to the Democrats like we saw in a lot of special elections in Trump +15 to Trump +20 districts, Hinson would be ahead of Turek 7-10 points, Sullivan and Husted would be locked in for re-election but in the low double digits and Cooper would be eeking out a win by 2 points.
Not to mention, Trump pissed away a lot of the Gen Z male and Hispanic and Latino male voters he won over in 2024. Case in point, Talarico and Paxton are tied in every poll or Talarico has had a 2 point lead. Beto O’Rourke only lead in like one or two polls in all of 2018 yet he still made it a 2.6 point race. Or even Graham Platner going through so much of a shit storm is still ahead of Collins, even if it is a tougher race which we should’ve always expected it to be because Collins is a different case. Now Platner isn’t the answer to winning back non-college educated white voters but he’s overperforming Sara Gideon with college educated voters. And despite all of Platner’s flaws, Democrats are sticking with him because if someone like Trump whose baggage is one million times worse than Platner’s can still get elected, then fuck this setting the bar way to high for our candidates bull shit. Ossoff is another great example because he is a new generation of Democrat who flipped a state that’s gone out of purple territory into res territory back into purple territory. In some ways, Georgia in 2026 is looking like Arizona in 2022 where the Democrats not only can save their incumbent in the U.S. Senate but also make gains on the state level. I don’t know yet if Democrats in Georgia can sweep every office like Hobbs and her fellow Dems did in Arizona but I think Ossoff has coattails to raise up Keisha Lance Bottoms to become the next Governor. The question I have is can Ossoff and Bottoms help Dems win the LG, SoS and AG offices. That would be a dream come true.
Also, Trump’s strengths were always getting people in the rural area who don’t vote to vote. We’re talking the swastika and confederate flag tattoo folks who live on the dark web to come out of the woods. They love him and will come out for him when he’s on the ballot. But when he’s not, they don’t care.
Cook finally updated AK-Sen to Toss-Up. Definitely seems to be at the top of the second tier. I almost feel better about Peltola's chances than Platner's.
Peltola has led Sullivan in almost every major poll. If 2026 is an inverse of 2014, she can pull the same kind of upset.
Bittersweet, given the dud of a poll that dropped today.
For a tossup race to not have polls showing either candidate within 2 points would be bizarre.
The Tea Party moment for the Democratic Party, plus the special legislative wins in IA, TX, and FL make me think we're going to win seats that were deemed Safe R. Not necessarily U.S. Sen or House seats, but state legislative seats.
Imagine OH, FL, and AR losing their GOP supermajorities in both state Houses. I think it's guaranteed that NC GOP will lose their legislative supermajorities (and the ability to push bad bills on the ballot as confusing constitutional amendments), maybe the state House outright.
I doubt Rs lose their legislative supermajorities in Arkansas.
Arkansas Republicans are taking aim at Hallie Shoffner, even though Tom Cotton will likely have a layup re-election in November.
If Shoffner manages to gin up Democratic turnout somewhat (even while losing the general), it makes a difference. If there's several less legislative Rs willing to sign off on Sarah Huckabee Sanders' agenda in 2027, that says something.
As an Arkansas native I feel like I'm seeing a lot of energy and excitement around Shoffner, and conversely a lot more Tom Cotton ads than you'd expect given that he's an incumbent in a safe Red state. She's doing pretty good in terms of fundraising as a Democrat in a red state - compare her numbers to similar candidates in Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee etc.
She won't win, but she might put up a strong fight. Tom Cotton isn't even over 50% in approvals, so I think she can definitely overperform the typical baseline for a Democrat here. In any case, it's still great to see a strong candidate actually put in effort in deep red states like mine. If Democrats want long term success they're going to need to start investing and building up strong state parties in states that may be hostile to them... with the right message, I feel like there's untapped potential everywhere.
What are the Cotton ads talking about? Affordability? If he's not talking about affordability and just talking points about secure borders and other GOP bullshit, it's going to turn off voters.
Actually they are. He talks a lot about affordability and working for Arkansas families, surprisingly without diving into the usual GOP rhetoric you'd expect from him
Just kidding it's 99% "CHINA CHINA CHINA LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL HALLIE SHOFFNER HATES FARMERS." The usual GOP bullshit, the ones I've seen atleast.
You have more confidence in Arkansas voters than I do if you think continued Republican talking points will turn them off.
I don't have confidence in AR voters. The rural Rs consistently outvote the Democrats there-- and they elect some of the worst people statewide outside of OH and FL.
But also, AR voter turnout isn't robust. 54% of the registered voters turn out to the polls regularly, compared to NC (70%), GA (68%), and FL (67%).
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/voter-turnout-by-state
If more AR Democrats and left-leaning unaffiliated/independent voters turned up at the polls in EVERY SINGLE ELECTION, they can start digging themselves out of the hole they're in.
It’ll keep the rural voters in line and that’s why Cotton will win, but I’m not as confident that line of attack will work in the rapidly growing NWA area where affordability and cost of living are a huge problem. Given how quickly it’s growing, if Cotton/Republican underperform there, it may be a bad omen. Probably won’t turn the whole state blue but if we can make the 3rd district bluer, it’ll be harder to gerrymander away a blue district (which Arkansas currently could support and has been robbed of due to racial gerrymandering)
How many seats would they have to lose for that, and how Republican are they? Anyone know?
Republicans control 81 of the 100 state House seats, and 28 of the 35 state Senate seats.
Some of that is gerrymandering. Democrats would have to flip 35 state House seats and 10 state Senate seats to break the supermajorities.
That seems very challenging.
Most of the Dem seats in AR are in the Fayetteville and Little Rock areas. And even then Rs have gerrymandered some of the seats there for themselves.
I agree with the idea that we're likely to win a LOT of state house seats, including a bunch of surprises. This is the untold story of the 2010 election - we got wiped out federally but we got DESTROYED in state houses and we're still feeling the repercussions of that today. Not sure I follow why our current "Tea Party" moment will help us do that (rather than hinder us).
Just found out that Ken Block is running as an independent in the Rhode Island gubernatorial election. Polling higher than the Republican candidate too. Interesting.
Throwback name there
Too bad Robert Healey won't be able to join him, RIP
Looking at the polling, McKee better stay losing. It's interesting that Guckian is far behind in the one poll of the Republican primary, so the polling might not mean that much, but still.
I know the record is mixed on Manny Rutinel, but according to this NYT article, Shannon Bird, who was the more moderate of the two, ran AGAINST "aggressive A.I. regulation" -
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/30/us/politics/manny-rutinel-colorado-8th-district-democrats.html
This seems like a massive misread of the electorate in general, but definitely a Democratic primary electorate in 2026.
I think Rutinel is definitely more progressive than Bird, I also don’t think I’d describe him as an insurgent
My question is who was the better candidate for the general? This ain't a safe Denver seat.
Rutinel is Latino, it’s a heavily Latino seat and his progressivism is WAY overstated. I think he’s narrowly the better candidate, and I think in this environment either one would be taking out Evans with room to spare
The big red flag for Rutinel is he's literally changed basically everything he believed in order to be competitive in this seat which makes John Kerry a model of consistency by comparison. But if the electoral climate is still this bad for Republicans in November it probably won't matter.
IOW politicians serve their constituents and should mold their policies accordingly. Quelle horreur
Worked for Gillibrand too (but the other direction)
So he moved to the center?
He moved more mainstream. He was a progressive through much of his time in the legislature but has attempted to broaden his appeal for his congressional run. Bird has always been a centrist; Rutinel's trajectory is in that direction.
Not just that, but it comes off as transparently inauthentic. For example, Rutinel told Kyle Clark he abandoned veganism because he wanted to "enjoy the beautiful products or the delicious products that Colorado's ranchers make." Clark said a lot of the answers Rutinel gave were craven.
Clark goes into Rutinel in the linked video.
https://www.youtube.com/live/c0UrB0ViKc0?si=1dgaYJFGnydchRAR&t=1068
I mean he's still friends with Mamdani and Maxwell Frost from their activist days and even quietly went to NYC to march with him.
In a year, he's basically flip-flopped on everything, even Israel and veganism, which was/is the core of his identity, to move to the center in a purple electorate but he was still the more progressive option on ICE, taxes, housing, A.I, guns, AIPAC, corporate PACs and is generally called a progressive by the media so make of that what you will. He's quite an interesting character lol.
Bird was a Gottheimer-type Blue Dog while Rutinel transitioned from a Maxwell Frost type to a middle of the road Democrat.
I may be a weirdo but I actually don’t think it’s THAT bad when politicians adjust their priors and promises to appeal to a different electorate
It depends on authenticity, like ehstronghold pointed out, and strong convictions that people have seemingly had in the past but have given up. Like how so many anti-Trump Republicans from 2016 are now suddenly on his side after he won.
Yeah, I'd rather have Bird, but I don't think Rutinel is an extremist. I suspect he'll win handily in November.
I’m not trying to be pessimistic here since I do think we’ll win the House and Senate in November. But if we lose the Senate and then GOP gerrymanders are able to lock in a House majority in anything except wave years for us, what actually would be the response of Democrats and especially the activist base to Democrats being locked out of power in Congress and the Supreme Court?
So much of how we’ve responded to all of this has been predicated on the idea that we can win in 2028 and with control of the presidency and Congress pass our policy agenda, put safeguards around our democracy, fix the Supreme Court, and then get things back on track. If we can’t do that and we’re instead in a position where we can never pass our policies, the Supreme Court is always on the verge of rolling back basic fundamental rights, and any presidency we have is ineffectual because we don’t have control of Congress and can’t do anything, I’m not sure how many activists on the left or even the broader Democratic voting base will continue to accept the legitimacy of the system of government we’re under.
Honestly, many would probably pivot to political violence, which is already on the rise. But that's in a nightmare scenario where fascists manage to keep control of the government.
I don't know about "many", but a relatively small number of armed people can cause a lot of mayhem.
For those of us who don’t pivot to political violence, what would we do in a scenario where we are fully locked out of power?
Civil disobedience including general strikes, maybe.
I’m especially curious on what would happen if we win the presidency in 2028 but don’t control both houses of Congress and can’t fix the Supreme Court (having president JD Vance in 2028 is a different nightmare scenario). If the fascists aren’t in charge of the presidency but we can’t actually do anything that would stick to fix anything or make people’s lives better, and there’s no realistic hope of getting the power to do those things, and we are expecting to lose power fully to the other side in 2032 or 2036 because of our inability to do anything, what would we all do about it? And how would the mainstream respond to the way the fringes of the party might react to that situation?
I am afraid a realistic possibility is the we win the House this year but lose it in 28 even as we narrowly win the White House
I'd probably bet on this unless we are able to gerrymander the crap out of a whole bunch of states (CO, WA, NY, VA, MN, PA, WI) after this Fall.
It’s a valid concern. Constitutional government is predicated on everybody believing in the same set of rules. Ironically, that’s one of the things I think conservatives don’t grasp - their prosperity and way of life is also entirely predicated on said rules
Basically we need 2 years of a Dem trifecta to save the voting/elections element of our democracy to have any semblance of fairness going forward. Otherwise we really will be in the permanent minority as it relates to SCOTUS, gerrymandering, etc.
That requires running the table in the Senate both now and in ‘28.
I know that. And I both think and hope we’ll win. My question is what will happen if we don’t, and we have a powerless Democratic presidency in 2028 and an angry base that has lost all faith in the fairness of the system.
i don't think it benefits anyone to consider three straight election cycles of horrific losses, I see what you're saying, but the answer is we have to fight every day between now and november, and then all of next year to get new york map over line, and then on and on. it's unfortunate, but we have to keep going
We’d have to have the Democratic president visibly fighting back at the system. Constant executive orders regarding popular policies and highly publicized fights with the Supreme Court over them. That’s the only way to channel the base’s anger into productive anger at the other side. Being above the fray and preaching bipartisanship isn’t going to fly anymore.
I don't think there is a plan B. There should be, but too much of the party, especially those in power, operate as if the game is not actively being biased against us.
Practically speaking, the plan is two part. (1) Have the party base get absolutely fucking pissed at do-nothing incumbents and get them on board with aggressive counter-gerrymanders. (2) Rely on republicans being so unpopular that we do get that wave.
It's not exactly an encouraging back up plan, but it's basically the reality of it.
Well, the timing couldn't be better. Received clearance from cardiologist to resume full activity after heart surgery earlier this year so am headed to Canadian Rockies for 3 weeks. Seems like too many folks here have renewed their lifetime membership in Chicken Little Society after the NYT/Siena poll. Now the consensus of opinion seems to be more negative than a few days ago. So, see you all in about 3-4 weeks if the world is still here.
Enjoy.
Thanks!
Have fun
Congratulations, and have a wonderful time!
Congrats and have fun! Three weeks is a great duration for a vacation. It'll almost be August so the polling picture will be close to the time where it really cements in the political environment.