Regarding the IA-Gov race: Zach Lahn has very low name ID, and I question whether he has time to bring it up before the June 2 primary.
I was intrigued to see this week that Adam Steen (who is going for the social conservative lane in the primary) is encouraging his supporters to attend off-year Iowa caucuses on February 2. If no candidate receives 35% of the vote in the June primary, a state convention will select the nominee. So getting Steen supporters to those precinct caucuses (where county convention delegates are chosen) could be helpful.
More on this in the last story I covered on my radio show/podcast from Monday.
The Bob Vander Plaats/Family Leader types. Steen already has the endorsement of talk radio host/Blaze contributor Steve Deace, a DeSantis endorser before the Iowa caucuses.
One example: Steen has called himself "the Jesus guy" and emphasized how he used his state government position to prevent the Satanic Temple of Iowa from holding a holiday event in the state capitol building.
⬆️ "Democrats have a smaller, but more closely watched, primary this summer that pits Rep. Angie Craig against Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan."
Angie Craig is clearly the candidate favored by establishment Democrats. If you want to see Democratic leadership change in the Senate, electing Angie Craig will not further that cause. Her yes vote on the Laken Riley act clearly defines her as a "go along to get along" Democrat.
Indivisible is encouraging their local chapters to get involved in the primaries and on at least one Zoom call the MN senate race has been cited as a prime example. I hope the MN Indivisible chapters take up the call. Choosing the "safe option" isn't the best way IMO to boost turnout in the general election. But that seems to be the Democratic leadership's default plan. (Look at how well that turned out in the NYC mayor's race. They need to quit putting their thumbs on the scale!!
FYI, if you want to help ensure that MN returns a Democrat to the Senate, but you don't want to make a bet on the primary winner, ActBlue has a directory of Nominee funds where the funds go to the Democratic winner of the primary for seats that are open or where the incumbent is a Republican. Here is a link to the MN senate race:
We don't even need to choose between boosting turnout and persuading voters in Minnesota. It's a lean Democratic state at worst and this is a midterm with all the ICE raids happening. Paul Wellstone and Al Franken, both notable progressive populists, were running on similar platforms in Minnesota decades ago. And moreover, Flanagan and Craig both poll similarly against Tafoya.
Choosing the safe option is probably smart in Republican states, so I don't agree with making not choosing the safe option the general case everywhere, but I totally agree on Minnesota.
As a Minnesotan, I can confidently say Angie Craig is not the establishment favorite. I support Flanagan, but painting Craig as some sort of Kristen Sinema clone is absurd, let alone be soneone to drive down turnout. She is a mainstream down the line liberal. Having workhorses in the party isn't a bad thing. There are already too many show ponies in Washington. Craig would make a fine Senator, along the lines of Tina Smith. I just happen to think Flanagan would make a better one and have a longer shelf life.
Well put. I'm pretty indifferent between the two of them - they'd both be fine Senators and whichever one wins the primary is a borderline shoe-in in the general in this political environment.
Maybe not the establishment favorite of the *Minnesota* establishment, but isn't she preferred by the Washington establishment e.g. Schumer and Gillibrand? Or am I mixing her up with Stevens in Michigan.
You're blatantly lying. "Angie Craig is a mainstream liberal" Tell me which mainstream liberal votes against Biden more than 30 percent of the time, more than Suozzi or Gottheimer, brags about voting with her Republican colleague 40 percent of the time, and stands by the Laken Riley Act.
Klobuchar had a 99 percent voting record with Biden's stated positions. It's nuts to call her a liberal. Craig has repeatedly said that toeing the party line is equivalent to being in a cult.
Looks like Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre will run in yet another riding instead, his third in just a few years. The previous incumbent of that seat before Poilievre parachuted in, Damien Kurek, will run again instead. Can any Canadian friends tell us, how common is this? Is he really that effective of a leader, and the Conservatives so desperate, they are willing to offer him a third riding to run in, or is this a perk of leadership?
Speaking of Canada, Prime Minister Mark Carney's WEF Speech in Davos was really quite something, please go watch it if you haven't. Absolutely era defining speech. So happy its Carney pushing back and not PP up there, acquiescing to Trump.
The Conservatives have boxed themselves in somewhat, rather like the Republicans with Trump, in that the party base is so devoted to Poilievre that nobody would dare challenge him, but his personal popularity lags the party with the general public. The parties are in a near statistical tie, but Carney is the preferred leader by a 2-1 margin:
As far as him running in another riding, I believe that was always the plan, that Kurek was making a temporary sacrifice. However, this term of Parliament may go a bit longer than the Conservatives thought, now that their MPs keep defecting and the government remains reasonably popular. I expect he will likely run in either the Calgary area, where he grew up, or in suburban Toronto, which is where the Tories have to make deeper inroads in order to overtake the Big Red Machine.
A near tie at high 30s or very low 40s, if realized as the actual vote share, is not going to hand PP government. At that position even leading a couple of points in popular votes could leave the Conservatives behind in seats.
Was thinking the same thing, but those numbers will probably converge as we get closer to the midterms. They did in 2018 and in 2025. 2022 was a big exception, but we can probably thank the GOP for being really stupid with its choice of candidates that year.
My recollection is the Republicans were in the dumps approval wise in 10/14. Went ahead and looked up the generic ballot polls for January for those cycles in 2010 ranged from D + 2- R + 9. in 14 they were more consistently +1-2 R not counting Rasmussen which weridly had Democrats up, but that was after the shutdown I think?
Such an odd characteristic of the American electorate that people will not fully line up with how they're going to vote until late summer at the earliest, usually more late Sept through Oct to get the full picture.
Or, perhaps more accurately, the electorate has lined up but will not admit to themselves and is consequently incapable of admitting it to pollsters.
As a huge movie enthusiast please excuse this non-political news: with the nominations for the 98th Academy Awards announced today, Sinners has broken the record for the most Oscar nominations *ever* for a single film, with 16!
Wow! I really enjoyed Sinners (watched it twice in theaters) but didn’t expect it to be that big of an awards season heavyweight. Coogler/Jordan really don’t miss when they work together so they! A modern day Scorcese and De Niro
Ever since seeing Boogie Nights at the theaters during high school, I've wanted Paul Thomas Anderson to get the best Director award. Perhaps he will finally get it this time.
I think Sinners will win a ton of awards but not any kind of sweep of the majors. For one thing OBAA is so perfect for the national moment (right down to having a Bovino character before anyone knew who Bovino was), and it is practically flawless on its own. Those two films are light years better than anything Hollywood has done in the last three years IMO.
This guy was always a thinly veiled Republican who never attended caucus meetings, voted against most Biden priorities and was Susan Collins' former CoS. Baldacci who's very moderate but still a Democrat will be a huge upgrade if he wins. His recent interests also included codifying the filibuster in the constitution, bashing Jeffries for forcing a vote on 3 year ACA subsidies and praising Noem and ICE for tackling Alex Padilla and Brad Lander.
It seems funny in retrospect that Dems, especially neoliberal thinktanks, tried to recruit him against Collins at first. He's looking for a job at Fox News where he becomes their nominal former Democrat who screeches about how socialist and radical the Democrats have become.
He is and was always better than a Republican. He also is and was always the worst Democrat after Manchin left. In a Trump + 10 district, I’m thankful we got his vote for speaker each and every congress. There are many issues I disagree with him on, but he allowed our party to hold power, like Manchin before him.
The only thing I feel towards him safeguarding a red Trump seat in election cycles good and bad for our party when many others did not, is gratitude. If we as a party were willing to support and had more Golden like candidates run in Trump territory who are right wing on immigration or social issues, we’d hold power right now and be blocking most of Trump’s agenda.
Too many people here and in our broader party don’t understand this very simple fact:
If we had more conservative reps in Congress, each centre-left/progressive issue would get a majority of our caucus to support it because we’d have a big enough caucus where the reps who’re rightwing on whatever subject would be able to vote against it, earning the trust and support of their constituents for more than 1 term regardless of election year.
But we’d still have enough normal Democrats and/or ones who are rightwing on some other subject to pass whatever party policy priority we want. I’d much rather have Democrats who I absolutely despise on what they say or what they vote for/against on some issues, than a Republican who I absolutely despise at all times on everything.
Normal centrist or centre left Democrats can’t win white majority Trump seats. We’ve tried and failed that countless times with a wide range of candidates. In an ideal world we go back to Obama 2008 where we have 20-50 conservative Democrats who held seats long term for us until the black man got elected and the rightwing lost its mind voting that wing completely out of power in favour of the GOP.
Is right now actually better than that? Can anyone here credibly argue it is? Because I think we need to be more tolerant in red areas of what we’re willing to swallow in our candidates in order to have a shot at winning that seat long term instead of our reps being washed out in the next wave against us. Food for thought.
Those conservative Democrats were not primaried by liberals, they lost in landslides to Republicans in 2010, 2012 and 2014.
And no, I don't think our tent should be big enough for putrid ICE boosters like Golden. If you support reforming and keeping ICE, deporting criminals and keeping the border airtight, that's fine but supporting these inhumane raids in your state are a bridge too far. A party should stand for something, the tent needs to have a pole. I'm glad that he was forced to retire and if any other Democrat supports these raids, they need speak out and be primaried as well.
Then enjoy only having a bare majority that's always subject to flipping at the drop of a hat.
You guys forget that a representative's job is to properly represent their district, not kiss up to the party they're apart of. Politics shouldn't be team sports, what the constituents want and what's good for them is what a representative should prioritize. If a Rep in a R+10 district behaved more like Katie Porter, then you could argue that they aren't being a good representative for that district.
Those blue dogs in 2010-2014 helped get the ACA passed, and a litany of other bills that funded infrastructure and transportation projects, investments into clean energy, and overall were vital to rebuilding this country from the Bush dumpster fire.
Katie Porter famously represented a swing district. And the America of 2026 is simply different than the America of 2008. The age old Solid South white majority dem districts and non-southern rural Dem areas are thoroughly over due to polarization. The clock cannot be turned back. Those Blue dog conservadems were not primaried by liberals, they lost in landslides to Republicans in 2010, 2012 and 2014 and are not coming back. You'd need to change the primary electorate to nominate those people again and even then, they'd lose in maximum cases to Republicans.
So by that logic Rs shouldn't moderate at all? If that's the case how do you explain the success of people like Phil Scott, Larry Hogan, Susan Collins, Kim Wyman, Brian Fitzpatrick, ect. The point is running more conservative and moderate dems in redder districts is the only way to actually stand a chance in winning a redder district. On the flip side, look at how well Manchin did, and how Tester overperformed Harris by double digits in a red year.
Polarization and nationalization has made many of these former districts untennable, but that doesn't mean the core idea of meeting voters in the middle is wrong.
I never argued against moderating to a large extent like Tester or Glueskamp Perez, I am arguing against conservative Democrats or Democrats In Name Only.
Phil Scott is not a moderate Republican, he's a liberal Republican who'd be a Democrat in any other state. Susan Collins and Fitzpatrick, who both have a decades old political brand, support most controversial Republicans nominees and flagship bills and never attack Republicans like Golden attacks Democrats. And new conservadem nominees will never be able to to win West Virginia without the decades old Manchin brand. The 2024 WV nominee Glenn Elliot was also a conservative Democrat and Manchin's handpicked candidate.
Meeting voters in the middle is fine, especially as it relates to the district and serving constituents.
But Jared Golden became ridiculous when he went after the base of the Democratic Party as the reason for the shutdown happening. I had been tolerant of him up until that point and even pointed out here on TDB that he had been pro-union. Golden could be counted on votes as they related to labor.
Meeting in the middle, being conservative Democrat or being a liberal Democrat, irrespective of what district the House Democrat represents, you don't bash the Democratic Party for the shutdown. It's bad optics.
So you're saying that the goal should be 218 center-left to progressive Dems and another x# of conservadems who could stab the party in the back by voting with Republicans and allowing the media to engage in "Dems in disarray" narratives...and that's your ideal?
Despite what you say, Blue Dogs almost killed the ACA. There were about 255 Dems in the House at the time, and 219 votes for passage. They weren't taking one for the team on the tough vote.
The fact that you view it as "stabbing from the back" shows that you don't actually want people who properly represent their district, you just want party footsoldiers who unilaterally fight for your agenda. I'm sorry, but a candidate like Gen Eric Dem will not be a good fit in places that are more conservative. You need guys who have stances that may make you uncomfortable if you want to have reps that you can actually reason and negotiate with in Congress.
Also, how many of those votes were just symbolic since they had exactly the number of votes needed to pass it? I don't think you understand ball.
Actually, yeah, I do want Congressmembers who will support progressive policies. That's the whole point of this--pass bills that benefit people.
You and others who make this argument are never really clear on what issues you think these oh-so-valuable conservadems should be allowed to vote with Republicans without real Dems being upset with them. Given the move of the Republican Party toward fascism, the Civil Rights Act would not have passed under your model, since the constituents in the conservadems districts would have had a sad that Black people's rights were being acknowledged. The conservadems would have joined with Republicans to kill it. Ditto the Voting Rights Act. What kind of a bargain is that?
A representative's role includes bringing their constituents along to good policies. Are you going to make me whip out Burke? “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays you instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion." The idea of a representative as a bot who votes their constituents prejudices and ill-informed policy preferences is worthless.
I never said they were primaried by liberals, so you are just trying to argue the point you want to argue against instead of the point I made in order to debate from a perceived stronger position. It’s classic projection and deflection.
To clarify my position for you: These reps weren’t replaced by liberals and didn’t lose to primary challengers. They lost the seats TO Republicans.
I agree 100% with what you say personally, I’m the furthest left of almost anyone on here. That doesn’t mean I think we should run candidates who think like I do in red territory, because they’d get and have gotten slaughtered and that is the exact reason we don’t have a majority to check Trump right now.
You also conveniently didn’t answer my question: Is right now, today, in Trump’s 2nd term as the GOP controls everything better than having more Golden’s in Congress firmly entrenched and voting with Trump on some of his legislation instead of all of it?
Because the realistic answer to that is no. Tester and MGP are not moderates. Like if you think they are your whole entire political world view is far to the left of any average voter and you should accept that you’re a minority and these positions can’t win red areas.
If you do accept that logical reasoning, then again I ask: Is today better right now without them? If you don’t accept that reasoning prepare to be mad at every Democrat in the party who runs for anything except the DSA, for which the wing is not anywhere close to winning a majority of voters in America.
Your question is a strawman and not realistic. With or without Golden, Trump would have a majority and do the same things. And I am not a DSA member, that's irrelevant. And those Blue dogs wrote their own well deserved obituaries by stripping down the stimulus.
I agree with most of what you posted, but we can't ignore how much the right flank of the Congressional Democrats sabotaged them by, for example, killing Build Back Better and finally substituting a much smaller bill over a precious year later, refusing to suspend the filibuster to pass -voting rights legislation-, etc., etc. Were they better than Republicans? You bet your ass they were! But their inaction and obstructionism was very costly for the party, the country and the world.
My argument is less that having conservative Democrats representing red seats in Congress/Senate is a perfect world and more “It would be better than the situation we have right now”, even with some bills not passing as wide reaching as we want. The part of being a progressive is cheering and legislating progress on policy issues. Progress on any political subject is a good thing.
If we had conservative Democrats right now in office we definitely wouldn’t get to pass much and many would vote with Trump on many of the bills, but we would be able to block ALL of the absolutely unacceptable agenda of the GOP, including making sure MAGA compatriots aren’t elected to lifetime judicial nominations.
Which is better? Complete Republican control over everything or having at least some guard rails on Trump when absolutely necessary? I know which I’d pick.
Now, having agreed with you, I'd also make the point that the sabotage by the right flank of the party may have a lot to do with the fact that the Democrats are now in the minority in both Houses of Congress and lost the Presidency. Had they passed a bigger Build Back Better law earlier, voting rights, and given statehood to D.C., things would have been at least somewhat better.
You really think having more conservative Dems in the Senate would stymie Trump's judicial nominees? Have you seen how often the (allegedly) liberal Dems in the present Senate are voting for Trump's nominees? The patina of being bipartisan and "working across the aisle" would be too much for the conservative Dems to resist, and he'd get his judges just as he gets them now.
And these Blue Dogs lost due to their own actions. They stripped down the original stimulus leading to prolonged financial pain for millions and the 2010 tea party. This is why I have no sympathy for DINOs.
I think Golden (and others before him) miscalculated the degree to which they had to distance themselves from the national party to keep their swing seat, end up in a no man’s land they can’t return from, and just have to reinvent themselves.
I’m sorry, I think you’re emphatically and empirically wrong. Did we just memory hole what happened in the 2024 election in ME-02? Golden won re-election by the skin of his teeth. Had he voted with us more or not said what he said, we would have yet another incumbent Republican to try to beat in 2026 instead of an open seat to defend.
Try to think of it this way as a left Democrat. Who is a better opponent to battle against? A conservative Democrat? Or a Republican. With 1 we agree on economic issues. With the other we disagree on everything.
I’d rather as a progressive battle the red district Democrats in pushing for more who vote for our party to be in power and then vote however their district wants them to the next 2 years than a Republican who is going to always vote for their party to be in power.
When I’ve argued our party needs to be rebuilt and reset in countless comments since 2024 I’m talking about from the left AND right side of the party. I support these safe seat primaries, because those are the districts that swung the most to Republicans, meaning the data shows we’re doing something wrong there.
Conversely the data shows we can’t win red seats except in a Trump midterm backlash. So therefore we need to reopen that currently closed/nonexistent wing of the party and start nominating people who we absolutely despise on some political topics (mostly immigration, social issues or fiscal ones) in Trump +5-15 districts. Our objective goal as a party is to obtain power AND hold it.
You're right, in fact. But right now, when the Republican president is trying to create a dictatorship and ICE is being used as his personal lawless army against the American people, any Democrat who supports them is helping to threaten the continued existence of any kind of democracy here.
"I think Golden (and others before him) miscalculated the degree to which they had to distance themselves from the national party to keep their swing seat, end up in a no man’s land they can’t return from, and just have to reinvent themselves."
Empirically he's right. Golden had a net negative favorable among all political groups in his district and certain Democrats said they wouldn't rank him either way in internals which is why he retired. He was also losing to LePage. Why should I as a Democrat think of it as a moderate Republican vs hard line Republican? I wouldn't even vote in such an election. That's imaginary. I am a Democrat for a reason.
So is her campaign slogan "Nixon's the One" or perhaps "Nixon: Now More than Ever"?
I wish her luck in her race and am glad there is a visible Democratic candidate in that contest (but FL is way down my list of priorities in 2026 Senate races.)
Nixon might atleast be able to strongly turn out Dem voters but I believe that her Squad-like politics and dilapidated state of the Dem party in Florida gives her little chance of winning despite Trump's approvals there being as bad as Texas and Ohio. I wish her luck though and hope she somehow gains steam.
How that evolves in her Senate campaign we will have to see.
But being Jennifer Jenkins is also running for the Senate talking about affordability as well, she may have a different approach in her campaign in addressing this issue as opposed to Nixon.
she's probably gonna get steamrolled by Moskowitz after he gets drawn out in redistricting, though. not that i want that to happen, but it probably will
Just that it seems extremely unlikely that someone whose experience in politics is being a former schoolboard member is going to win a Senate seat in Florida.
Question: Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia's standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?"
My dream scenario I made up long ago about Democrats winning the redistricting war back when Trump was proudly bragging he’d net his puppet party 15-20 seats for 2026 is petty close to fruition as the push has backfired spectacularly on the GOP. Trump started the war, but Democrats ended it.
It would be the cherry on top of the battle if Florida doesn’t redistrict or does and has a ton of seats flip in November that wouldn’t have if they kept the old map.
CA +5 (also 5 seats shorn up and taken out of swing status)
FL 0 to -5? (range between no change and max change)
IN N/A
MD N/A
MO 0 (subject to ballot referendum)
NC 0 to -1
NY 0 to +1
TX -3 to -5
UT +1
VA +3 to +4 (this ballot referendum is passing, no doubt)
Absolute worst case scenario for Democrats in the upcoming midterms is now a net -2 seats. Best case? +8 seats (9 if MD decides to belatedly move). A far cry from what Trump wanted, all because Democrats fought back instead of allowing the GOP to once again punch them in the face to knock them down without retaliating.
The cynic in me says the Trump Republican SCOTUS sees this obvious result and decides the VRA needs to go to give their party an edge to try to desperately hold power, but if they don’t, Democrats unarguably win this fight they didn’t start.
I just hope NY is preparing for the VRA getting gutted. Need two different legislative sessions there, so they better get on it. Get Colorado on an amendment too.
how do you count 5 seats shored up and taken out of swing status? I count three: 9/Harder, 13/Gray, and 27/Whitesides. I didn't count 45/Tran, 47/Min, or others where the PVI changed by small amounts.
I think you’re splitting hairs here a bit. Shored up to me means moved left. It doesn’t mean safe in all environments, but moved to a better position for Democrats and locked in for the 2026 midterms. After that election, yes, Min and Tran could lose, absolutely, but we’re trying to stop the leak in the dam first, not try to rebuild a whole new dam in time for 2026.
The dam rebuild will be 2028. For 2026, that’s not our goal and these 5 seats moved to a place from complete Tossups to at least Lean Dem furthers that objective aka shoring up our were to be vulnerable reps where we can now free up spending those tens of millions of dollars in expensive media markets to hold them, elsewhere on offense.
That to me is very much shoring up, though your subjective definition could be different than mine.
What's the point of running as a "DINO" even in such a red state? That won't excite what there is of a Democratic base or probably win over many crossover voters who usually prefer Republicans but are open to an argument for change.
Maybe he, or any credible non-Republican, should try the independent-against-the GOP route.
I think a self-described DINO label is stupid--why would anyone vote for you? I don't mind people like John Bel Edwards or Joe Manchin running well to the right of most Democrats on most social issues in red states. I'd rather take them agreeing with us on 70% of issues than having a Jeff Landry in office that will be just as terrible on things like abortion and guns while also much worse on other issues. I honestly wish we'd see more of a pragmatic approach in some of these deep red states. You can't just run a standard party-line Democrat in red states and expect to win.
I would crank that threshold up to 45% myself. Places like Texas, Iowa, and Alaska fall into that category. It will be interesting to see how Talarico navigates the general election if he wins the nomination. Crockett basically killed any shot she might have had with her "If we're going to lose anyway, why not nominate me?" line.
“My theory of the case is this: If you believe we’re going to lose anyway then what difference does it make if it’s me or anybody else?” Crockett said, according to the Post. “If you think it’s a losing cause, then who cares? But at least you could say we tried something new, and we learned something from this experience.”
I constantly say that Dems need to move to Jackson Hole and Laramie lol. There were ~270K votes in the 2024 presidential, with Trump winning 71.6% on just a bit 195K votes to Harris at 25.8% and ~70K votes. Add just 65K Dems and it's a swing state.
They've almost made Montana competitive and they seem to be trying to in Idaho. Colorado is already solidly blue. Maybe Wyoming and Utah are next? I'd say Utah goes before Wyoming, though.
Totally, on trend lines it's far from those. I just think it would take comparatively much less to start swinging WY just bc of how small the population is, and that it could come fast and catch everyone off guard if it ever does. I'd love to have one election where people hadn't been paying attention to yuppie population growth and Repubs are suddenly sweating a close margin haha.
I think they're gradually turning up D voters, as evidenced in the Miami and Jacksonville mayoral races. On the statewide races though, FL has continuously disappointed me the last 4 cycles.
I don't want to give up on it, but the massive protests across the country since last year (particularly in red FL counties) give me a bit of hope. I want every eligible person who protested vote in every election going forward... and bring a friend or two.
I was looking at the electoral performances of prominent liberal Democrats who may be positioning themselves for higher office in the coming years, and I took a closer look at JB Pritzker's electoral performances in the 2018 and 2022 Illinois gubernatorial elections. In 2018, he defeated Bruce Rauner 54.5–39, with a Conservative Party candidate taking about 4 percent. In 2022, he won re-election against Darren Bailey 55–43.5.
What stood out to me is that Pritzker appears to have underperformed recent Democratic presidential nominees in Illinois, and roughly matched Kamala Harris's margins, despite running during a blue-wave year in 2018. Harris won Illinois 54.5–43.5, Joe Biden won 57.5–40.5, and Hillary Clinton won 55–38.
What might explain this gap? Is it primarily a function of Illinois-specific political dynamics, differences in turnout between gubernatorial and presidential elections, or does Pritzker being a billionaire limit his electoral ceiling in a way that national candidates don't really have to deal with? Or is Pritzker simply a bad campaigner?
Illinois statewide Democratic candidates seem to just underperform presidential candidates. Democrats have carried the state in every presidential election since 1992 yet there's been 3 Republican governors, 2 Republican senators and a Republican state attorney general in that time period. Additionally, in 2018, Pritzker was running against a well-funded incumbent, Rauner, and 2022 saw poor performances for Democrats in some places in the Midwest (Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa).
Iowa I would agree, JD Vance seemed to underperform even with DeWine cruising and Democrats did win most of the statewide office in Wisconsin while losing against an incumbent senator by 1 point.
JD Vance probably underperformed because he's JD Vance - pretty much inherently unlikable. Johnson made enough mistakes in his time as senator to be defeated, but Barnes still managed to lose. 2022 Iowa was honestly just pathetic, with the rare bright spot of Rob Sand barely hanging on.
JD Vance underperformed the rest of the ticket by almost 20 points. He’s a very overrated candidate who got lucky he ran in a red state and got lucky Trump picked him in 2024. Of course we need to take it seriously in 2028 regardless, but he is not some electoral powerhouse.
i can personally speak to the frustration voters in the state had against both parties as late as 2017 regarding former governor rauner's idiotic refusal to negotiate with madigan on a budget. Right before graduating and heading back east, it was astonishing that so many students would walk around Evanston saying impeach trump, but then say yea state dems are corrupt. By 2022 I had not set foot in Illinois for five years so idk that one
A lot of our statewide nominees aren't progressive favorites, thus underperforming in the blue pockets downstate and in the more progressive parts of the Chicago metro, and most of our statewide nominees are from the Chicago area, meaning they underperform downstate in general. Our presidential nominees in recent decades aren't as easily associated with the "Chicago machine" (this was even the case for Obama) as our statewide nominees are.
Also, I can say this from personal experience, but there is nothing more politically isolating for a voter in this country than being a Democratic voter in a Republican area of a Democratic state. Democratic statewide candidates don't have to invest heavily in establishing connections with the electorate in Republican areas, and local Democratic organizations are politically weak or virtually non-existent because most Democrats have zero chance of being elected to local office. Democratic presidential candidates aren't going to invest a ton of resources in areas with few Democratic voters in primaries or in non-swing states in general elections.
It's pretty rough being a progressive person in one of the most conservative states in the country, too. I do live in a moderately blue pocket of my county, but every county in West Virginia is red now.
Primary isn't until August, it looks like. For some reason I thought it was sooner. That gives Craig time to use her fundraising and time for ICE to be less salient of an issue. I overwhelmingly prefer Flanagan, but as your comment suggests, caution is warranted. That said it is a rather wide gap that Craig has to overcome, so I'd still be more optimistic in Flanagan's camp than not.
I remember there's been drama about it's relevance/continuation in the past, but I do not remember the details. Does the DFL convention and the outcome of that matter all that much for this primary?
The convention might lead to a small degree of momentum in terms of getting the winner's name in the headlines for a hot minute but Minnesota "convention winners" have a pretty extensive history of being obliterated in primaries.
Judging from the campaign social media pages for Flanagan and Craig, Craig seems to be completely ignoring the DFL caucus and convention process, whereas Flanagan has done a lot of "commit to caucus" messaging on social media.
The statewide DFL convention delegate pool is usually quite a bit to the left of the statewide DFL primary electorate, so Flanagan narrowly winning the convention endorsement might be seen as an indicator of trouble for her campaign in the primary.
I agree, but in Minnesota it might go from an issue that completely dominates primary voters' thoughts, which is where I think it is today, to one that's "merely" in the top 5 issues. Of course that requires ICE to focus on somewhere else, but that's entirely possible.
It's money vs endorsements. Flanagan has endorsements from most national progressives, most state legislators, local leaders and has a history of organizing with Wellstone action, including against ICE. And isn't it 800k vs 3 million, more like 4:1?
Not completely insurmountable for Craig (there's a lot of undecided voters), but I'd rather be Flanagan than Craig at this point.
Also, judging from Flanagan's and Craig's social media pages, Craig is touting a lot of endorsements from people and organizations outside of Minnesota (mostly her colleagues in the U.S. House), and, while she has plenty of in-state endorsements, a much higher percentage of Flanagan's endorsements that she's featuring on her social media accounts are in-state.
GA Sen: Derek Dooley raised $1.1M in 4Q and has $2.1M COH. Republican primary opponents Buddy Carter and Mike Collins have not yet reported. (Sen. Ossoff ended 2025 with $25 Million COH. )
I don't get the vibe that Dooley knows what he is doing as a candidate. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen much from him. Kemp is there and his people may get him through the primary.
He's too good and won't go negative at all. I won't ask for it since it would be hypocritical on my part but Schumer running negative ads against Crockett through his dark money groups wouldn't be wrong here.
I think it would be wrong. There's no real need to go negative on her if Talarico/national Dems think he's going to win the primary anyway. All it would do is create unneeded bad blood.
Gillum and Nelson losing send the FL Dems into an absolute death spiral which ended up locking a massive swing state in the GOP column. If Graham had won the primary she would have almost certainly done at least .5% better, won the general, and we'd be in a significantly better state in Florida. Nominating Crockett doesn't fuck us over *this* badly especially since it's a reach anyways.
Regarding the IA-Gov race: Zach Lahn has very low name ID, and I question whether he has time to bring it up before the June 2 primary.
I was intrigued to see this week that Adam Steen (who is going for the social conservative lane in the primary) is encouraging his supporters to attend off-year Iowa caucuses on February 2. If no candidate receives 35% of the vote in the June primary, a state convention will select the nominee. So getting Steen supporters to those precinct caucuses (where county convention delegates are chosen) could be helpful.
More on this in the last story I covered on my radio show/podcast from Monday.
https://laurabelin.substack.com/p/governors-speech-other-officials
What is the social conservative lane in Republican primaries? Like the Ted Cruz 2016 lane?
The Bob Vander Plaats/Family Leader types. Steen already has the endorsement of talk radio host/Blaze contributor Steve Deace, a DeSantis endorser before the Iowa caucuses.
One example: Steen has called himself "the Jesus guy" and emphasized how he used his state government position to prevent the Satanic Temple of Iowa from holding a holiday event in the state capitol building.
I think Hill could deprive Begich of another House term if the Democratic candidate is solid.
⬆️ "Democrats have a smaller, but more closely watched, primary this summer that pits Rep. Angie Craig against Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan."
Angie Craig is clearly the candidate favored by establishment Democrats. If you want to see Democratic leadership change in the Senate, electing Angie Craig will not further that cause. Her yes vote on the Laken Riley act clearly defines her as a "go along to get along" Democrat.
Indivisible is encouraging their local chapters to get involved in the primaries and on at least one Zoom call the MN senate race has been cited as a prime example. I hope the MN Indivisible chapters take up the call. Choosing the "safe option" isn't the best way IMO to boost turnout in the general election. But that seems to be the Democratic leadership's default plan. (Look at how well that turned out in the NYC mayor's race. They need to quit putting their thumbs on the scale!!
FYI, if you want to help ensure that MN returns a Democrat to the Senate, but you don't want to make a bet on the primary winner, ActBlue has a directory of Nominee funds where the funds go to the Democratic winner of the primary for seats that are open or where the incumbent is a Republican. Here is a link to the MN senate race:
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/mn-sen-2026-democratic-nominee-fund-1?refcode=directory
Here is a link to the main directory:
https://secure.actblue.com/directory/all/nominee_fund/
We don't even need to choose between boosting turnout and persuading voters in Minnesota. It's a lean Democratic state at worst and this is a midterm with all the ICE raids happening. Paul Wellstone and Al Franken, both notable progressive populists, were running on similar platforms in Minnesota decades ago. And moreover, Flanagan and Craig both poll similarly against Tafoya.
https://www.scribd.com/document/967381321/MEMO-Poll-Memo-MN-Senate-Dec-2025
Choosing the safe option is probably smart in Republican states, so I don't agree with making not choosing the safe option the general case everywhere, but I totally agree on Minnesota.
I don’t think the Minnesota establishment favors Craig.
They dont. At all. Most everyone is sitting on their hands seeing both as good options, or quietly favoring Flanagan.
Interesting. Makes sense, though, since Flanagan is the Lieutenant Governor.
I meant that I agree on Flanagan being the better pick in the primary there.
As a Minnesotan, I can confidently say Angie Craig is not the establishment favorite. I support Flanagan, but painting Craig as some sort of Kristen Sinema clone is absurd, let alone be soneone to drive down turnout. She is a mainstream down the line liberal. Having workhorses in the party isn't a bad thing. There are already too many show ponies in Washington. Craig would make a fine Senator, along the lines of Tina Smith. I just happen to think Flanagan would make a better one and have a longer shelf life.
Yeah the hair-on-fire condemnations of Angie Craig around here are nuts.
Well put. I'm pretty indifferent between the two of them - they'd both be fine Senators and whichever one wins the primary is a borderline shoe-in in the general in this political environment.
Craig was at a crypto conference where one of the other speakers praised the GOP defeat of Sherrod Brown. That is disqualifying for me.
and praised the defeat of tester, disgraceful
She’s not Sinema but she’s not a “down the line liberal” either.
She would have an undeniably worse voting record than Tina Smith lol.
She has a much worse record than Klobuchar.
Maybe not the establishment favorite of the *Minnesota* establishment, but isn't she preferred by the Washington establishment e.g. Schumer and Gillibrand? Or am I mixing her up with Stevens in Michigan.
You're blatantly lying. "Angie Craig is a mainstream liberal" Tell me which mainstream liberal votes against Biden more than 30 percent of the time, more than Suozzi or Gottheimer, brags about voting with her Republican colleague 40 percent of the time, and stands by the Laken Riley Act.
Klobuchar had a 99 percent voting record with Biden's stated positions. It's nuts to call her a liberal. Craig has repeatedly said that toeing the party line is equivalent to being in a cult.
Canada - https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/pierre-poilievre-conservative-party-riding-9.7053418
Looks like Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre will run in yet another riding instead, his third in just a few years. The previous incumbent of that seat before Poilievre parachuted in, Damien Kurek, will run again instead. Can any Canadian friends tell us, how common is this? Is he really that effective of a leader, and the Conservatives so desperate, they are willing to offer him a third riding to run in, or is this a perk of leadership?
Speaking of Canada, Prime Minister Mark Carney's WEF Speech in Davos was really quite something, please go watch it if you haven't. Absolutely era defining speech. So happy its Carney pushing back and not PP up there, acquiescing to Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE981Z_TaVo&t=1s
Kudos to PM Mark Carney – that was one of the very best content-driven political speeches I’ve ever heard!
Meanwhile in Canada:
“Please continue, Pierre. You have a lot riding on this riding.”
Our longest serving PM, William Lyon Mackenzie King, ran in 5 different ridings over the course of his career as an MP, 3 of them as Prime Minister https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lyon_Mackenzie_King
The Conservatives have boxed themselves in somewhat, rather like the Republicans with Trump, in that the party base is so devoted to Poilievre that nobody would dare challenge him, but his personal popularity lags the party with the general public. The parties are in a near statistical tie, but Carney is the preferred leader by a 2-1 margin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_46th_Canadian_federal_election#Leadership_polls
As far as him running in another riding, I believe that was always the plan, that Kurek was making a temporary sacrifice. However, this term of Parliament may go a bit longer than the Conservatives thought, now that their MPs keep defecting and the government remains reasonably popular. I expect he will likely run in either the Calgary area, where he grew up, or in suburban Toronto, which is where the Tories have to make deeper inroads in order to overtake the Big Red Machine.
A near tie at high 30s or very low 40s, if realized as the actual vote share, is not going to hand PP government. At that position even leading a couple of points in popular votes could leave the Conservatives behind in seats.
🇺🇸 NATIONAL POLL By NYT/Siena (A+)
Pres. Trump
Approve: 40% [-3]
Disapprove: 56% [+2]
——
Generic Ballot
🟦 Democrats: 48% [+1]
🟥 Republicans: 43% [-2]
——
Trump's net approval on key issues
🟢 Border Security: +3
🟤 Venezuela: -13
🟤 Immigration: -17 (was -5 in Sept)
🟤 Israeli/Palestinian conflict: -17
🟤 The Economy: -18 (new low)
🟤 Russia/Ukraine war: -24
🟤 Cost of living: -29
🟤 The Epstein files: -44
——
D45/R44 (with leans) | 1/12-17 | 1,625 RV
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/22/us/politics/trump-poll-second-term.html
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2014324749334171953
Boy I sure there’s some more clear-eyed Republicans right now wishing the WH was capable of taking feedback and making adjustments
With the numbers for everything else, that Generic Ballot margin is pretty pathetic.
Was thinking the same thing, but those numbers will probably converge as we get closer to the midterms. They did in 2018 and in 2025. 2022 was a big exception, but we can probably thank the GOP for being really stupid with its choice of candidates that year.
My recollection is the Republicans were in the dumps approval wise in 10/14. Went ahead and looked up the generic ballot polls for January for those cycles in 2010 ranged from D + 2- R + 9. in 14 they were more consistently +1-2 R not counting Rasmussen which weridly had Democrats up, but that was after the shutdown I think?
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/state-of-the-union/2010/generic-congressional-vote
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/state-of-the-union/2014/generic-congressional-vote
Such an odd characteristic of the American electorate that people will not fully line up with how they're going to vote until late summer at the earliest, usually more late Sept through Oct to get the full picture.
Or, perhaps more accurately, the electorate has lined up but will not admit to themselves and is consequently incapable of admitting it to pollsters.
For early January they're fine.
On the LA-5 item: Rick Edmonds declared yesterday
https://amp/s/www.businessreport.com/article/state-sen-rick-edmonds-launches-bid-for-5th-congressional-district%3famp=1
As a huge movie enthusiast please excuse this non-political news: with the nominations for the 98th Academy Awards announced today, Sinners has broken the record for the most Oscar nominations *ever* for a single film, with 16!
Wow! I really enjoyed Sinners (watched it twice in theaters) but didn’t expect it to be that big of an awards season heavyweight. Coogler/Jordan really don’t miss when they work together so they! A modern day Scorcese and De Niro
I think it's primed for a sweep akin to Titanic or Lord of the Rings: Return of the King with that number of nominations. Or a big snub.
Bit disappointed Hailee Steinfeld wasn't nominated for Best Supporting Actress.
with Sinners' nom for Best Original Song going up against Golden from KPop Demon Hunters, I am not expecting a sweep lol.
Also between the two Supporting Actress options from Sinners, I think Wunmi Mosaku is the right choice, if they can only do one.
If Golden doesn’t win Best Song we riot
It doesn't need to win all of it's nominations to be called a sweep, just most of them (particularly in the "major" categories)
that is not how the definition of the word "sweep" works.
It's how it's used in the world.
That is very incorrect but you do you, I dislike interacting with you.
It’s not expected to win Best Picture, the front runner for that has been One Battle After Another, which also performed well with 13 Oscar noms.
Haven't seen Sinners but was absolutely enamored with One Battle After Another. Probably the best movie I saw in 2025.
Ever since seeing Boogie Nights at the theaters during high school, I've wanted Paul Thomas Anderson to get the best Director award. Perhaps he will finally get it this time.
I think Sinners will win a ton of awards but not any kind of sweep of the majors. For one thing OBAA is so perfect for the national moment (right down to having a Bovino character before anyone knew who Bovino was), and it is practically flawless on its own. Those two films are light years better than anything Hollywood has done in the last three years IMO.
My eyes are set on a Norwegian film, "Affeksjonsverdi" ("Sentimental Value"), which I believe has nine nominations.
Terrific film
"Democrat Jared Golden: ICE activity in Maine 'serves the public interest'"
https://x.com/PabloReports/status/2014335200604409922
This guy was always a thinly veiled Republican who never attended caucus meetings, voted against most Biden priorities and was Susan Collins' former CoS. Baldacci who's very moderate but still a Democrat will be a huge upgrade if he wins. His recent interests also included codifying the filibuster in the constitution, bashing Jeffries for forcing a vote on 3 year ACA subsidies and praising Noem and ICE for tackling Alex Padilla and Brad Lander.
It seems funny in retrospect that Dems, especially neoliberal thinktanks, tried to recruit him against Collins at first. He's looking for a job at Fox News where he becomes their nominal former Democrat who screeches about how socialist and radical the Democrats have become.
Hopefully we will never have to hear from again come 2027.
(He'll probably be some CNN/Fox hack but hopefully not in a position of power)
He'll probably be the Dem version of Scott Jennings on CNN.
Eh, I don't think Golden on his worst day could even come within a mile of Jennings's level of obsequious, willfully-ignorant hackery.
He is and was always better than a Republican. He also is and was always the worst Democrat after Manchin left. In a Trump + 10 district, I’m thankful we got his vote for speaker each and every congress. There are many issues I disagree with him on, but he allowed our party to hold power, like Manchin before him.
The only thing I feel towards him safeguarding a red Trump seat in election cycles good and bad for our party when many others did not, is gratitude. If we as a party were willing to support and had more Golden like candidates run in Trump territory who are right wing on immigration or social issues, we’d hold power right now and be blocking most of Trump’s agenda.
Too many people here and in our broader party don’t understand this very simple fact:
If we had more conservative reps in Congress, each centre-left/progressive issue would get a majority of our caucus to support it because we’d have a big enough caucus where the reps who’re rightwing on whatever subject would be able to vote against it, earning the trust and support of their constituents for more than 1 term regardless of election year.
But we’d still have enough normal Democrats and/or ones who are rightwing on some other subject to pass whatever party policy priority we want. I’d much rather have Democrats who I absolutely despise on what they say or what they vote for/against on some issues, than a Republican who I absolutely despise at all times on everything.
Normal centrist or centre left Democrats can’t win white majority Trump seats. We’ve tried and failed that countless times with a wide range of candidates. In an ideal world we go back to Obama 2008 where we have 20-50 conservative Democrats who held seats long term for us until the black man got elected and the rightwing lost its mind voting that wing completely out of power in favour of the GOP.
Is right now actually better than that? Can anyone here credibly argue it is? Because I think we need to be more tolerant in red areas of what we’re willing to swallow in our candidates in order to have a shot at winning that seat long term instead of our reps being washed out in the next wave against us. Food for thought.
Those conservative Democrats were not primaried by liberals, they lost in landslides to Republicans in 2010, 2012 and 2014.
And no, I don't think our tent should be big enough for putrid ICE boosters like Golden. If you support reforming and keeping ICE, deporting criminals and keeping the border airtight, that's fine but supporting these inhumane raids in your state are a bridge too far. A party should stand for something, the tent needs to have a pole. I'm glad that he was forced to retire and if any other Democrat supports these raids, they need speak out and be primaried as well.
Then enjoy only having a bare majority that's always subject to flipping at the drop of a hat.
You guys forget that a representative's job is to properly represent their district, not kiss up to the party they're apart of. Politics shouldn't be team sports, what the constituents want and what's good for them is what a representative should prioritize. If a Rep in a R+10 district behaved more like Katie Porter, then you could argue that they aren't being a good representative for that district.
Those blue dogs in 2010-2014 helped get the ACA passed, and a litany of other bills that funded infrastructure and transportation projects, investments into clean energy, and overall were vital to rebuilding this country from the Bush dumpster fire.
Katie Porter famously represented a swing district. And the America of 2026 is simply different than the America of 2008. The age old Solid South white majority dem districts and non-southern rural Dem areas are thoroughly over due to polarization. The clock cannot be turned back. Those Blue dog conservadems were not primaried by liberals, they lost in landslides to Republicans in 2010, 2012 and 2014 and are not coming back. You'd need to change the primary electorate to nominate those people again and even then, they'd lose in maximum cases to Republicans.
So by that logic Rs shouldn't moderate at all? If that's the case how do you explain the success of people like Phil Scott, Larry Hogan, Susan Collins, Kim Wyman, Brian Fitzpatrick, ect. The point is running more conservative and moderate dems in redder districts is the only way to actually stand a chance in winning a redder district. On the flip side, look at how well Manchin did, and how Tester overperformed Harris by double digits in a red year.
Polarization and nationalization has made many of these former districts untennable, but that doesn't mean the core idea of meeting voters in the middle is wrong.
I never argued against moderating to a large extent like Tester or Glueskamp Perez, I am arguing against conservative Democrats or Democrats In Name Only.
Phil Scott is not a moderate Republican, he's a liberal Republican who'd be a Democrat in any other state. Susan Collins and Fitzpatrick, who both have a decades old political brand, support most controversial Republicans nominees and flagship bills and never attack Republicans like Golden attacks Democrats. And new conservadem nominees will never be able to to win West Virginia without the decades old Manchin brand. The 2024 WV nominee Glenn Elliot was also a conservative Democrat and Manchin's handpicked candidate.
Meeting voters in the middle is fine, especially as it relates to the district and serving constituents.
But Jared Golden became ridiculous when he went after the base of the Democratic Party as the reason for the shutdown happening. I had been tolerant of him up until that point and even pointed out here on TDB that he had been pro-union. Golden could be counted on votes as they related to labor.
Meeting in the middle, being conservative Democrat or being a liberal Democrat, irrespective of what district the House Democrat represents, you don't bash the Democratic Party for the shutdown. It's bad optics.
So you're saying that the goal should be 218 center-left to progressive Dems and another x# of conservadems who could stab the party in the back by voting with Republicans and allowing the media to engage in "Dems in disarray" narratives...and that's your ideal?
Despite what you say, Blue Dogs almost killed the ACA. There were about 255 Dems in the House at the time, and 219 votes for passage. They weren't taking one for the team on the tough vote.
The fact that you view it as "stabbing from the back" shows that you don't actually want people who properly represent their district, you just want party footsoldiers who unilaterally fight for your agenda. I'm sorry, but a candidate like Gen Eric Dem will not be a good fit in places that are more conservative. You need guys who have stances that may make you uncomfortable if you want to have reps that you can actually reason and negotiate with in Congress.
Also, how many of those votes were just symbolic since they had exactly the number of votes needed to pass it? I don't think you understand ball.
Actually, yeah, I do want Congressmembers who will support progressive policies. That's the whole point of this--pass bills that benefit people.
You and others who make this argument are never really clear on what issues you think these oh-so-valuable conservadems should be allowed to vote with Republicans without real Dems being upset with them. Given the move of the Republican Party toward fascism, the Civil Rights Act would not have passed under your model, since the constituents in the conservadems districts would have had a sad that Black people's rights were being acknowledged. The conservadems would have joined with Republicans to kill it. Ditto the Voting Rights Act. What kind of a bargain is that?
A representative's role includes bringing their constituents along to good policies. Are you going to make me whip out Burke? “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays you instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion." The idea of a representative as a bot who votes their constituents prejudices and ill-informed policy preferences is worthless.
I never said they were primaried by liberals, so you are just trying to argue the point you want to argue against instead of the point I made in order to debate from a perceived stronger position. It’s classic projection and deflection.
To clarify my position for you: These reps weren’t replaced by liberals and didn’t lose to primary challengers. They lost the seats TO Republicans.
I agree 100% with what you say personally, I’m the furthest left of almost anyone on here. That doesn’t mean I think we should run candidates who think like I do in red territory, because they’d get and have gotten slaughtered and that is the exact reason we don’t have a majority to check Trump right now.
You also conveniently didn’t answer my question: Is right now, today, in Trump’s 2nd term as the GOP controls everything better than having more Golden’s in Congress firmly entrenched and voting with Trump on some of his legislation instead of all of it?
Because the realistic answer to that is no. Tester and MGP are not moderates. Like if you think they are your whole entire political world view is far to the left of any average voter and you should accept that you’re a minority and these positions can’t win red areas.
If you do accept that logical reasoning, then again I ask: Is today better right now without them? If you don’t accept that reasoning prepare to be mad at every Democrat in the party who runs for anything except the DSA, for which the wing is not anywhere close to winning a majority of voters in America.
Your question is a strawman and not realistic. With or without Golden, Trump would have a majority and do the same things. And I am not a DSA member, that's irrelevant. And those Blue dogs wrote their own well deserved obituaries by stripping down the stimulus.
I agree with most of what you posted, but we can't ignore how much the right flank of the Congressional Democrats sabotaged them by, for example, killing Build Back Better and finally substituting a much smaller bill over a precious year later, refusing to suspend the filibuster to pass -voting rights legislation-, etc., etc. Were they better than Republicans? You bet your ass they were! But their inaction and obstructionism was very costly for the party, the country and the world.
My argument is less that having conservative Democrats representing red seats in Congress/Senate is a perfect world and more “It would be better than the situation we have right now”, even with some bills not passing as wide reaching as we want. The part of being a progressive is cheering and legislating progress on policy issues. Progress on any political subject is a good thing.
If we had conservative Democrats right now in office we definitely wouldn’t get to pass much and many would vote with Trump on many of the bills, but we would be able to block ALL of the absolutely unacceptable agenda of the GOP, including making sure MAGA compatriots aren’t elected to lifetime judicial nominations.
Which is better? Complete Republican control over everything or having at least some guard rails on Trump when absolutely necessary? I know which I’d pick.
No question.
Now, having agreed with you, I'd also make the point that the sabotage by the right flank of the party may have a lot to do with the fact that the Democrats are now in the minority in both Houses of Congress and lost the Presidency. Had they passed a bigger Build Back Better law earlier, voting rights, and given statehood to D.C., things would have been at least somewhat better.
You really think having more conservative Dems in the Senate would stymie Trump's judicial nominees? Have you seen how often the (allegedly) liberal Dems in the present Senate are voting for Trump's nominees? The patina of being bipartisan and "working across the aisle" would be too much for the conservative Dems to resist, and he'd get his judges just as he gets them now.
And these Blue Dogs lost due to their own actions. They stripped down the original stimulus leading to prolonged financial pain for millions and the 2010 tea party. This is why I have no sympathy for DINOs.
Extremely well put
I think Golden (and others before him) miscalculated the degree to which they had to distance themselves from the national party to keep their swing seat, end up in a no man’s land they can’t return from, and just have to reinvent themselves.
I’m sorry, I think you’re emphatically and empirically wrong. Did we just memory hole what happened in the 2024 election in ME-02? Golden won re-election by the skin of his teeth. Had he voted with us more or not said what he said, we would have yet another incumbent Republican to try to beat in 2026 instead of an open seat to defend.
Try to think of it this way as a left Democrat. Who is a better opponent to battle against? A conservative Democrat? Or a Republican. With 1 we agree on economic issues. With the other we disagree on everything.
I’d rather as a progressive battle the red district Democrats in pushing for more who vote for our party to be in power and then vote however their district wants them to the next 2 years than a Republican who is going to always vote for their party to be in power.
When I’ve argued our party needs to be rebuilt and reset in countless comments since 2024 I’m talking about from the left AND right side of the party. I support these safe seat primaries, because those are the districts that swung the most to Republicans, meaning the data shows we’re doing something wrong there.
Conversely the data shows we can’t win red seats except in a Trump midterm backlash. So therefore we need to reopen that currently closed/nonexistent wing of the party and start nominating people who we absolutely despise on some political topics (mostly immigration, social issues or fiscal ones) in Trump +5-15 districts. Our objective goal as a party is to obtain power AND hold it.
You're right, in fact. But right now, when the Republican president is trying to create a dictatorship and ICE is being used as his personal lawless army against the American people, any Democrat who supports them is helping to threaten the continued existence of any kind of democracy here.
"I think Golden (and others before him) miscalculated the degree to which they had to distance themselves from the national party to keep their swing seat, end up in a no man’s land they can’t return from, and just have to reinvent themselves."
Empirically he's right. Golden had a net negative favorable among all political groups in his district and certain Democrats said they wouldn't rank him either way in internals which is why he retired. He was also losing to LePage. Why should I as a Democrat think of it as a moderate Republican vs hard line Republican? I wouldn't even vote in such an election. That's imaginary. I am a Democrat for a reason.
FL-Sen: State Rep. Angie Nixon in
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/775376-angie-nixon-launches-senate-run/
So is her campaign slogan "Nixon's the One" or perhaps "Nixon: Now More than Ever"?
I wish her luck in her race and am glad there is a visible Democratic candidate in that contest (but FL is way down my list of priorities in 2026 Senate races.)
Nixon might atleast be able to strongly turn out Dem voters but I believe that her Squad-like politics and dilapidated state of the Dem party in Florida gives her little chance of winning despite Trump's approvals there being as bad as Texas and Ohio. I wish her luck though and hope she somehow gains steam.
Mosckowitz really needs to jump in
I think he will if DeSantis redistricts him out of the House.
Squad like politics? What do you mean?
Like ideology similar to AOC and Ayanna Pressley.
How that evolves in her Senate campaign we will have to see.
But being Jennifer Jenkins is also running for the Senate talking about affordability as well, she may have a different approach in her campaign in addressing this issue as opposed to Nixon.
she's probably gonna get steamrolled by Moskowitz after he gets drawn out in redistricting, though. not that i want that to happen, but it probably will
Glad we at least have a real candidate now
Do you have something against Jennifer Jenkins?
Just that it seems extremely unlikely that someone whose experience in politics is being a former schoolboard member is going to win a Senate seat in Florida.
Virginia ballot question set for April 21.
Question: Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia's standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?"
My dream scenario I made up long ago about Democrats winning the redistricting war back when Trump was proudly bragging he’d net his puppet party 15-20 seats for 2026 is petty close to fruition as the push has backfired spectacularly on the GOP. Trump started the war, but Democrats ended it.
It would be the cherry on top of the battle if Florida doesn’t redistrict or does and has a ton of seats flip in November that wouldn’t have if they kept the old map.
CA +5 (also 5 seats shorn up and taken out of swing status)
FL 0 to -5? (range between no change and max change)
IN N/A
MD N/A
MO 0 (subject to ballot referendum)
NC 0 to -1
NY 0 to +1
TX -3 to -5
UT +1
VA +3 to +4 (this ballot referendum is passing, no doubt)
Absolute worst case scenario for Democrats in the upcoming midterms is now a net -2 seats. Best case? +8 seats (9 if MD decides to belatedly move). A far cry from what Trump wanted, all because Democrats fought back instead of allowing the GOP to once again punch them in the face to knock them down without retaliating.
The cynic in me says the Trump Republican SCOTUS sees this obvious result and decides the VRA needs to go to give their party an edge to try to desperately hold power, but if they don’t, Democrats unarguably win this fight they didn’t start.
It's getting kind of late for the VRA ruling to affect 2026. MS's filing deadline was in December, plus AL is tomorrow and LA In three weeks.
I just hope NY is preparing for the VRA getting gutted. Need two different legislative sessions there, so they better get on it. Get Colorado on an amendment too.
i would imagine they are waiting to see what Florida does. that would be the moment to maximize the salience and political will to move forward
how do you count 5 seats shored up and taken out of swing status? I count three: 9/Harder, 13/Gray, and 27/Whitesides. I didn't count 45/Tran, 47/Min, or others where the PVI changed by small amounts.
I think you’re splitting hairs here a bit. Shored up to me means moved left. It doesn’t mean safe in all environments, but moved to a better position for Democrats and locked in for the 2026 midterms. After that election, yes, Min and Tran could lose, absolutely, but we’re trying to stop the leak in the dam first, not try to rebuild a whole new dam in time for 2026.
The dam rebuild will be 2028. For 2026, that’s not our goal and these 5 seats moved to a place from complete Tossups to at least Lean Dem furthers that objective aka shoring up our were to be vulnerable reps where we can now free up spending those tens of millions of dollars in expensive media markets to hold them, elsewhere on offense.
That to me is very much shoring up, though your subjective definition could be different than mine.
fair 'nuff... was wondering if I'd missed someone else. I just did a presentation on this exact subject so it's super fresh in my head.
https://capcity.news/community/elections/2026/01/20/sheridan-resident-gabriel-green-throws-hat-in-governor-race/
WY-Gov: 29 year old Gabriel Green is the first Democrat to run, running as a self-proclaimed "DINO".
Wyoming is probably the reddest state in the country (on par with my native WV) so it's not happening.
What's the point of running as a "DINO" even in such a red state? That won't excite what there is of a Democratic base or probably win over many crossover voters who usually prefer Republicans but are open to an argument for change.
Maybe he, or any credible non-Republican, should try the independent-against-the GOP route.
I think a self-described DINO label is stupid--why would anyone vote for you? I don't mind people like John Bel Edwards or Joe Manchin running well to the right of most Democrats on most social issues in red states. I'd rather take them agreeing with us on 70% of issues than having a Jeff Landry in office that will be just as terrible on things like abortion and guns while also much worse on other issues. I honestly wish we'd see more of a pragmatic approach in some of these deep red states. You can't just run a standard party-line Democrat in red states and expect to win.
When the presidential candidate for your party can't even crack 30% in the state, you try different approaches.
I would crank that threshold up to 45% myself. Places like Texas, Iowa, and Alaska fall into that category. It will be interesting to see how Talarico navigates the general election if he wins the nomination. Crockett basically killed any shot she might have had with her "If we're going to lose anyway, why not nominate me?" line.
She said -that-?
https://mingooland.com/2026/01/crockett-accuses-liberal-podcast-hosts-of-racial-motive-in-criticism-of-her-texas-senate-bid/
“My theory of the case is this: If you believe we’re going to lose anyway then what difference does it make if it’s me or anybody else?” Crockett said, according to the Post. “If you think it’s a losing cause, then who cares? But at least you could say we tried something new, and we learned something from this experience.”
Even in a Republican stronghold like Wyoming, openly self-identifying as a DINO sounds like an absolutely stupid idea.
I constantly say that Dems need to move to Jackson Hole and Laramie lol. There were ~270K votes in the 2024 presidential, with Trump winning 71.6% on just a bit 195K votes to Harris at 25.8% and ~70K votes. Add just 65K Dems and it's a swing state.
They've almost made Montana competitive and they seem to be trying to in Idaho. Colorado is already solidly blue. Maybe Wyoming and Utah are next? I'd say Utah goes before Wyoming, though.
Totally, on trend lines it's far from those. I just think it would take comparatively much less to start swinging WY just bc of how small the population is, and that it could come fast and catch everyone off guard if it ever does. I'd love to have one election where people hadn't been paying attention to yuppie population growth and Repubs are suddenly sweating a close margin haha.
what? Montana and Idaho are not competitive.
I said they were trying to make those places competitive
I did my PhD in Laramie. It's actually a very nice place, if you don't mind 8 months of winter. We called it Laradise.
You and other alums should launch an ad campaign just on encouraging people to come stay (and leave unsaid the political change agenda lmao)
Yeah good luck staying in academia at the institution where you did your PhD...
I assume most graduates of the University of Wyoming are not PhDs... But this isn't serious.
FL-SEN:
Angie Nixon's Senate campaign announcement video is brilliant because she makes the focus mainly on affordability and cost of living.
If she can focus on this in her campaign, it could give her unique traction considering how difficult Florida is for Democrats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&time_continue=49&v=WuKaArrcDqY&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fangienixon.com%2F&source_ve_path=MzY4NDIsMjg2NjY
I'm curious if dems in florida can claw their way back to at least the high 40's
In the last few elections, Democrats had a turnout problem that has to be corrected if they want any chance at ever winning statewide in FL again.
Certainly, FL Democrats have their work cut out for them.
I think they're gradually turning up D voters, as evidenced in the Miami and Jacksonville mayoral races. On the statewide races though, FL has continuously disappointed me the last 4 cycles.
I don't want to give up on it, but the massive protests across the country since last year (particularly in red FL counties) give me a bit of hope. I want every eligible person who protested vote in every election going forward... and bring a friend or two.
I was looking at the electoral performances of prominent liberal Democrats who may be positioning themselves for higher office in the coming years, and I took a closer look at JB Pritzker's electoral performances in the 2018 and 2022 Illinois gubernatorial elections. In 2018, he defeated Bruce Rauner 54.5–39, with a Conservative Party candidate taking about 4 percent. In 2022, he won re-election against Darren Bailey 55–43.5.
What stood out to me is that Pritzker appears to have underperformed recent Democratic presidential nominees in Illinois, and roughly matched Kamala Harris's margins, despite running during a blue-wave year in 2018. Harris won Illinois 54.5–43.5, Joe Biden won 57.5–40.5, and Hillary Clinton won 55–38.
What might explain this gap? Is it primarily a function of Illinois-specific political dynamics, differences in turnout between gubernatorial and presidential elections, or does Pritzker being a billionaire limit his electoral ceiling in a way that national candidates don't really have to deal with? Or is Pritzker simply a bad campaigner?
Illinois statewide Democratic candidates seem to just underperform presidential candidates. Democrats have carried the state in every presidential election since 1992 yet there's been 3 Republican governors, 2 Republican senators and a Republican state attorney general in that time period. Additionally, in 2018, Pritzker was running against a well-funded incumbent, Rauner, and 2022 saw poor performances for Democrats in some places in the Midwest (Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa).
Iowa I would agree, JD Vance seemed to underperform even with DeWine cruising and Democrats did win most of the statewide office in Wisconsin while losing against an incumbent senator by 1 point.
JD Vance probably underperformed because he's JD Vance - pretty much inherently unlikable. Johnson made enough mistakes in his time as senator to be defeated, but Barnes still managed to lose. 2022 Iowa was honestly just pathetic, with the rare bright spot of Rob Sand barely hanging on.
JD Vance underperformed the rest of the ticket by almost 20 points. He’s a very overrated candidate who got lucky he ran in a red state and got lucky Trump picked him in 2024. Of course we need to take it seriously in 2028 regardless, but he is not some electoral powerhouse.
“What if Richard Nixon was aggressively unlikeable” is my standard read on Vance
i can personally speak to the frustration voters in the state had against both parties as late as 2017 regarding former governor rauner's idiotic refusal to negotiate with madigan on a budget. Right before graduating and heading back east, it was astonishing that so many students would walk around Evanston saying impeach trump, but then say yea state dems are corrupt. By 2022 I had not set foot in Illinois for five years so idk that one
A lot of our statewide nominees aren't progressive favorites, thus underperforming in the blue pockets downstate and in the more progressive parts of the Chicago metro, and most of our statewide nominees are from the Chicago area, meaning they underperform downstate in general. Our presidential nominees in recent decades aren't as easily associated with the "Chicago machine" (this was even the case for Obama) as our statewide nominees are.
Also, I can say this from personal experience, but there is nothing more politically isolating for a voter in this country than being a Democratic voter in a Republican area of a Democratic state. Democratic statewide candidates don't have to invest heavily in establishing connections with the electorate in Republican areas, and local Democratic organizations are politically weak or virtually non-existent because most Democrats have zero chance of being elected to local office. Democratic presidential candidates aren't going to invest a ton of resources in areas with few Democratic voters in primaries or in non-swing states in general elections.
It's pretty rough being a progressive person in one of the most conservative states in the country, too. I do live in a moderately blue pocket of my county, but every county in West Virginia is red now.
POLITICO: "Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan leads Rep. Angie Craig by 12 points in #MNSen Dem primary, per PPP poll for pro-Flanagan group.
Also shows ICE becoming a key issue — 70% would abolish it. Neither candidate has called for that.
First in @politico ’s Morning Score"
https://x.com/lisakashinsky/status/2014350124999184445
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000019b-e2b1-d452-a99b-ebff5f110000
Exciting poll! I hope Flanagan does end up winning!
We'll see if this holds with Craig's 5-1 fund-raising advantage.
Primary isn't until August, it looks like. For some reason I thought it was sooner. That gives Craig time to use her fundraising and time for ICE to be less salient of an issue. I overwhelmingly prefer Flanagan, but as your comment suggests, caution is warranted. That said it is a rather wide gap that Craig has to overcome, so I'd still be more optimistic in Flanagan's camp than not.
I remember there's been drama about it's relevance/continuation in the past, but I do not remember the details. Does the DFL convention and the outcome of that matter all that much for this primary?
The convention might lead to a small degree of momentum in terms of getting the winner's name in the headlines for a hot minute but Minnesota "convention winners" have a pretty extensive history of being obliterated in primaries.
Judging from the campaign social media pages for Flanagan and Craig, Craig seems to be completely ignoring the DFL caucus and convention process, whereas Flanagan has done a lot of "commit to caucus" messaging on social media.
The statewide DFL convention delegate pool is usually quite a bit to the left of the statewide DFL primary electorate, so Flanagan narrowly winning the convention endorsement might be seen as an indicator of trouble for her campaign in the primary.
ICE raids and MAGA's war on Minnesota aren't ending till the midterms.
I agree, but in Minnesota it might go from an issue that completely dominates primary voters' thoughts, which is where I think it is today, to one that's "merely" in the top 5 issues. Of course that requires ICE to focus on somewhere else, but that's entirely possible.
It's money vs endorsements. Flanagan has endorsements from most national progressives, most state legislators, local leaders and has a history of organizing with Wellstone action, including against ICE. And isn't it 800k vs 3 million, more like 4:1?
Fundraising isn't everything.
Not completely insurmountable for Craig (there's a lot of undecided voters), but I'd rather be Flanagan than Craig at this point.
Also, judging from Flanagan's and Craig's social media pages, Craig is touting a lot of endorsements from people and organizations outside of Minnesota (mostly her colleagues in the U.S. House), and, while she has plenty of in-state endorsements, a much higher percentage of Flanagan's endorsements that she's featuring on her social media accounts are in-state.
GA Sen: Derek Dooley raised $1.1M in 4Q and has $2.1M COH. Republican primary opponents Buddy Carter and Mike Collins have not yet reported. (Sen. Ossoff ended 2025 with $25 Million COH. )
I don't get the vibe that Dooley knows what he is doing as a candidate. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen much from him. Kemp is there and his people may get him through the primary.
"My theory of the case is this: If you believe
we're going to lose anyway then what
difference does it make if it's me or anybody
else?" Crockett said. "If you think it's a losing
cause, then who cares? But at least you could
say we tried something new and we learned
something from this experience." - Crockett
https://x.com/daveweigel/status/2014362449093263412
"Jasmine Crockett is daring Democrats to rethink electability. Some aren’t sold.
‘I get that I’m not a traditional candidate. And that’s exactly why I’m going to win,’ the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Texas said."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/01/22/jasmine-crockett-democrats-talarico-texas/
What a stupid reason to run. “I might lose, but at least we learned something!”
Talarico needs to win badly.
He's too good and won't go negative at all. I won't ask for it since it would be hypocritical on my part but Schumer running negative ads against Crockett through his dark money groups wouldn't be wrong here.
I think it would be wrong. There's no real need to go negative on her if Talarico/national Dems think he's going to win the primary anyway. All it would do is create unneeded bad blood.
If they're reasonably sure he'll win the primary, yes.
i concur with this. Crockett is losing and it seems like she's the only person that doesn't know that yet.
are TX Dems that lame that they would nominate Crockett? seems like an own goal like Gillum over Graham.
This wouldn’t be as bad as Gillum, but it’d be close
Gillum and Nelson losing send the FL Dems into an absolute death spiral which ended up locking a massive swing state in the GOP column. If Graham had won the primary she would have almost certainly done at least .5% better, won the general, and we'd be in a significantly better state in Florida. Nominating Crockett doesn't fuck us over *this* badly especially since it's a reach anyways.
no. she's going to lose
What a brilliant message, well done 10/10 no notes. Nominate her for the Presidency immediately with that level of astuteness
Crockett is not focused in her Senate campaign. She needs to spend more time connecting with voters and less time opening up her mouth.
That's mission impossible for her.
At least she's not tone deaf and knows that she's not a good candidate statewide, let's hope Talirico wins the primary.