I'm afraid I don't much care what Skokie thinks about a Chicago (not Skokie) alderman who is (considering) running for a congressional district that does not contain Skokie.
I made a comment somewhat skeptical of Sigcho-Lopez's viability yesterday, and the flag burning is the only one that I think is a real impediment here--not because I think he actually did anything especially wrong (other than not having the nous to maybe not be there as an elected) but because it will be easily manipulated in a boogeyman way for easily swayed low info voters in a similar way to what you're doing here. The other links are more your gripes than the much more effective oppo in his record in office that Patty Garcia will use if she's savvier than this.
Is that the sole reason you don’t like him? That he’s on the left?
Because I’ve got bad news for you — Chuy was too and quite frankly Patty Garcia likely also will be given Chuy’s leaning. I’m backing Sigcho-Lopez because what Chuy did was dirty and undemocratic but your faction of the party likely isn’t going to win this seat.
None of these seem as disqualifying as what García & Garcia pulled. Also if DSA members can share a party with Spanberger and Sherrill moderates can share a party w DSA electeds.
Exactly. In the absence of a multi party system the Dems are going to have to put up with simultaneously having Jared Golden and Rashida Tlaib types in the same party. There’s a reason I was against Dunlap’s primary bid against Golden.
Like it or not, socialists are electorally active and here to stay. We are not going anywhere. The smart ones like AOC will even work within the system and even potentially avoid certain positions that may make us toxic on a national scale — I don’t see AOC advocating for police abolition, for one. In return, I expect some level of compromise from the center.
A good example of this is the healthcare debate. I am a staunch supporter of universal healthcare, owing to the misery I dealt with as a type 1 diabetic with multiple mental conditions in the healthcare system. Some Dems are against universal healthcare, or at least the Medicare for All proposal supported by Bernie Sanders and like-minded progressives — the term I usually hear from them regarding healthcare is “expand Medicare”.
A good solution then would be a public option, which allows for both universal healthcare and private healthcare. It’s not the exact solution either side wants, but it’s a good mid-way point between the two that at least would hopefully get enough support from both sides to pass. (We almost had it, actually — you can thank Joe Lieberman for murdering it.) Incidentally, this is the system used in the UK, and has been a substantial success there — I think it’d be worth considering here.
What I just described is an example of center-progressive compromise. More acts like this would do us wonders I think, and demonstrate how, at least in my mind, we can coexist.
The system in the UK is not for people to have private Social Security policies like here, but actual socialized medicine, with people having the option to go to private doctors if they prefer.
Exactly — Medicare for All is a fully government-subsidized healthcare system, whereas the NHS represents true socialized medicine.
Fun fact: back in high school, Buttigieg actually wrote an award-winning essay defending Medicare for All, making these same arguments and expressing admiration and support for Bernie Sanders. He WAS the original Bernie bro.
If the plan worked, why is Sigcho-Lopez even considering running at all, and why is there support for his plan? And furthermore, why has there been backlash to this plan if it was so successful?
What Chuy did was flagrantly undemocratic and ethically wrong. Less of this please.
He had a very competitive first and second round for his first election, and a competitive reelection. And if he loses this House race, he will stay on the city council and be elected again in 2027. Luck has very little to do with it.
David Trone is apparently considering primarying April Delaney to get his seat back for some reason. Maybe he should lobby the state senate to redistrict so he can run again against Andy Harris instead lol
After the racist comment scandal from his Senate bid, no thanks. MD-06 still isn’t totally blue and unless someone talks Bill Ferguson into letting them redistrict, it won’t be. I don’t know a lot about Delaney (although I detested her husband for his support of reviving the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was one of the issues that got me into politics due to my opposition to it) but Trone is not someone I want back in Congress.
Although on the flip side, an older relative of mine lived in his district prior to the 2022 redistricting (he’s in Raskin’s seat now) and he told me he liked Trone, so who knows.
After Texas kicked off the redistricting battle by trying to add 5 Republican seats, TDB wrote a morning digest that what Texas did wasn't a dummymander.
Given what we saw Tuesday with 7-9 point shifts toward Democrats and even wilder swings amongst Latino voters, does the Texas gerrymander get dummier?
The new Trump+10 Hispanic majority district based in San Antonio could go Democratic if trends this year continue (and as long as Dems have a strong candidate here - do we?). I've said from the start that Cuellar and Gonzalez would probably still win their new districts even under the new gerrymander.
But the DFW and Houston Dem districts that were axed are gone. Republicans did a very effective job in those areas.
What they did to balloon TX-32 way out into the rural areas is just asking for a further baconmander of Chicago to create a 15-2 map in Illinois. Other than the crack of Kansas City in Missouri, that is the most outrageous and infuriating thing they’ve done yet.
Problem is that Latino voters in New Jersey and Latino voters in South Texas are not the same. Doesn't mean there can't be a similar shift back, but Latino voters only shifted in 2024 while Texas Latinos shifted in both 2020 and 2024.
I understand they are different as are ones in Florida and California, but I would think the racial hatred by the trump administration against Latinos would be salient everywhere.
Latinos shifted everywhere in both 2020 and 2024. It's always most visible along the border in TX because those are whole counties, but the precinct results in NY, NJ, PA, CA, and elsewhere were just as apparent in 2020. Point taken that the voters of south TX, Miami, east LA, the Bronx, and Reading (PA) for example are all unique and have their own dynamics and politics, but for whatever reason, they all moved towards Trump in 2020 and then again in 2024.
Reason to be cautious that the huge swings back among NJ and VA Latino voters might not necessarily replicate in south TX (everything is a trend until it isn't), but there's definitely cause to be more optimistic now.
Perth Amboy was also Clinton +65. We're not quite there, but getting back to a baseline between Clinton and Biden after what happened last year is incredible and beyond my wildest predictions for this election. And with high turnout, its not like Trump voters sat out; Sherrill was blowing past Harris' raw vote totals in these towns.
Too soon to tell. I wouldn't necessarily expect partisan shifts between Puerto Ricans in New Jersey and Mexican-Americans from the Rio Grande Valley to be interchangeable.
Running as an independent for a Chicago House seat is very difficult.
But gathering the signatures doesn’t really add much difficulty. It’s true that Sigcho-López will need 10K+ verified signatures which means in practice he needs 30-35K signatures to ensure he’s on the ballot. But he has until May. Frankly if he can not generate enough enthusiasm to gather those signatures he has no chance. And he is going for a district with a number of Independent Political Organizations whose politics are progressive and suspicious of or against establishment Democratic politics. So maybe he has a chance.
Full disclosure, I volunteered for Sigcho-Lopez’s first campaign for alderman when he was challenging a longtime incumbent. The race became easy when the incumbent withdrew in a corruption scandal (if I recall correctly, he wore a wire for the FBI to collect evidence on a colleague).
And also bold to run against an entrenched incumbent and run a strong enough campaign that the incumbent didn’t think he could win with the scandal. After all, the alderman caught on tape then indicted by the Justice Department still won his reelection campaign!
Without Nancy Pelosi, America would not have had the Affordable Care Act.
(On the other hand, had we been spared the vindictiveness of Senator Joe Lieberman, America would have been blessed with *public-option* healthcare!)
I angrily recall Seth Moulton trying to sabotage Pelosi’s re-election as the most effective Speaker in my lifetime, without even being able to present an alternative candidate. I hope Massachusetts voters aren’t foolish enough to put Moulton in the Senate.
*) EDIT: Thanks to correction by AWildLibAppeared.
Well, many leading Republicans want to cut Social Security – or would be perfectly happy to see the Fund go bankrupt. Most certainly they refuse to improve the Fund’s financial stability by increasing the obligatory payments by America’s wealthier classes.
Consider this: if the Trump Regime pushes the USA into serious liquidity problems, where it’s difficult to honor debts, do you think Social Security would have high priority? I certainly don’t. In fact, I think Social Security recipients would be just as screwed as SNAP recipients are during the current government shutdown.
This is the background for my proposal, however clumsily expressed.
I think you mean a public option, not single payer.
There were and are many more obstacles to a single-payer healthcare system in America than Joe Lieberman. And I say that as someone who supports the concept.
When you consider how narrow the margin was in passing the Affordable Care Act in Congress, that’s how difficult it was to accomplish any change to healthcare. I know anything like single payer or universal healthcare in general would have likely failed in Congress anywhere from 2009-2010 just because of the timing and with the rise of the Tea Party in full force.
ACA has never been a perfect solution but as it so happens, I get my insurance through Covered California. I’m likely to turn to my employer next year for health insurance in the even my premiums skyrocket but right now as of next year health insurance is just below $200 per month, a bargain compared to other plans. My dental and vision insurance are otherwise through my employer. I cannot emphasize how much this has been progress considering what the healthcare system was like pre-2010.
Hey all! What do we think right now about Bernadette Greene-Placentia (running in AZ-08 against Hamadeh) and Eileen Laubacher (running in CO-04 against Boebert) in terms of odds? Laubacher's fundraising total is ludicrously high for the district
I am sitting drinking coffee this morning in AZ 8, and the thought of it flipping is unlikely. Given the mood of the country now, if that holds into 2026, flipping 1 and 6 is very possible, especially with 1 being an open seat. Flipping anything else in Arizona is not likely.
What we need to do is win the state legislature in 2026 and statewide offices to be positioned to get a fair redistricting commission for the 2030 census. We got railroaded on redistricting in 2020.
Anyone who runs against the Democratic Party’s #1 enemies get ludicrous fundraising because our voters despise these GOP lunatics (MTG, Boebert, Jordan etc). It’s not a sign of political strength, just wasted campaign dollars. Neither district is even close to flipping imo.
The only reach district in AZ at risk in a big wave is Crane’s in AZ-02. These 2 candidates may outperform the party baseline due to their insane opponents or their own strength in the campaign thanks to their massive cash flow (money can create a very good ground organization, key word can, not all do), but there’s no chance to actually win those 2 districts.
Hamadeh’s opponent interests me though. Hamadeh is a really extreme Republican but he isn’t exactly a nationally-known one like MTG or Boebert or Mace. Curious as to why his opponent is fundraising so well.
Pretty sure Arizona Democrats know him as the guy who tried to overturn Democratic AG Kris Mayes election, which would probably be why his opponent is fundraising so well against him.
That’s my educated guess, I don’t know for sure, but he was very loud in courts and public about a stolen election, so that’s what I’d think would be the main cause.
I agree with your comments on fundraising, but unfortunately Hamadeh represents the views of his constituency on the NW side of Phoenix, including the large Sun City retirement communities that are very MAGA. They are basically Florida's the Villages, Arizona style.
I think it would take someone like former state sen. Judy Schweibert to flip Az-8, but I bet it’ll be closer than people expect in 2026.
I was hoping state rep & ex-Republican Bob Marshall would challenge Boebert, but given the latter’s underperformance last year + the trend of Co-4 means Laubacher has an outside chance if she wins the primary.
I mean that Rep. Betsy Markey was elected, not who concurrently won it in the presidential race. Should have been more clear. Also, I can't see the exact data, but I do wonder what Markey's performance against Musgrave would have been without Larimer - she won 57-43 with it - could Weld have still allowed her to win anyway?
Yes and it's not close. 1) Bobert is running in a Trump +20 district no Democrat holds anything close to that red in the House. 2) The 5th is moving left quickly. 3) The carpetbagger issue is not going to matter as much in 26 as it did in 24. 4) Democrats spent millions to beat her and still lost by double digits. 5) Crank beat an opponent who barely raised anything in 24 that is not the case this time. 6) from the digest today: "Killin’s survey, conducted by Global Strategy Group, finds Crank ahead by a 43-40 margin, while Army veteran Matt Cavanaugh takes 5% of the vote and 13% are undecided. Killin, a former White House official under Joe Biden who also served in the Army, was also one of the top fundraisers among Democratic House candidates during the third quarter of the year, bringing in more than $1 million from donors—double Crank’s haul."
I don't necessarily think that Bobert can be beaten short of a miracle, but within 5 points isn't far-fetched; she won by 11.5 in 2024 against an unknown candidate, and has proven to have the opposite of an incumbency advantage, as seen by her weaker performance in 2022 than 2020, with her least bad performances (compared to Trump 2020) being in new counties to CO-03. I'm not really convinced she underperformed due to being a carpetbagger, voter just hate her vibe
Something I noticed about the Virginia results is that the Democratic trend of the Charlottesville area, which is still quite strong in Albemarle County (Spanberger got 70% there), is now spilling over into the neighboring counties as well.
Fluvanna came within 50 votes of voting for Spanberger, and the bluest part of it is the Lake Monticello area near the border with Albemarle. The precinct of Louisa County directly adjacent to Fluvanna and Albemarle has been trending Democratic, and flipped for Spanberger. The Ruckersville area in Greene County, north of Charlottesville, only barely voted for Sears after going to Trump by 12 percent last year. Waynesboro, west of Charlottesville along I-64, flipped Democratic this year, and it hasn't voted Democratic for President since 1964. And Nelson came back into the Democratic column after having voted for Trump three times.
Goochland is getting new apartment complexes near its border with Henrico. Those complexes didn't exist 10 years ago. That's why Goochland now has a Democratic precinct along its eastern border.
Hopefully Goochland will get more soon! Looking at Google Earth, there's plenty of space for more.
Sears is only ahead in Fluvanna by 16 votes. And they still haven't reported their provisional ballots yet. So it's possible that Spanberger might actually win it when all is said and done.
Sears really didn’t even try hard with her campaign. It was like she was expecting all would flow in her direction just riding high from the 2021 election results.
The only conceivable argument for Emily's List to endorse Jasmeet Bains in CA-22 is that she's a woman. But she opposed Prop 50, has donated to Republicans, and has a conservative corporate record in the state Assembly. There is a progressive Latino Democrat running in this Latino district, and if Emily's List can't support him because he's not female, they should at least stay out of it.
How much of her opposition to Prop. 50 and her Assembly votes were performative though? She'll still be running in a marginal Trump 2024 district after all.
No, the only conceivable argument is that she’s a woman who is pro choice. That’s literally Emily’s List’s entire criteria for endorsements, their mission is to, and I quote: “elect more pro choice women into office”. Given that Roe no longer exists I don’t think it’s fair to fault an organization for doing what they’ve done for I don’t know the exact year, but for decades even if it’s for a candidate to the right of progressives.
This is the wrong hill to die on even if with this new district I prefer a more progressive option in Villegas. They don’t endorse pro choice men, because it’s literally an organization built from the very start to get more women into office. I don’t have a problem with them endorsing, but I do hope Villegas gets the second slot.
Look, for you and me, we’re progressive, we’d never support Bains in a blue district, that’s our modus operendi. For Emily’s List they don’t care about (I’m going to caps lock it to emphasize something I hoped you’d understand by reading my post) ANYTHING OTHER THAN PRO CHOICE WOMEN.
Doesn’t matter any other policy position, they’re a women’s pro choice organization dedicated to electing specifically pro choice women (they endorsed against Dave Min in that race and against Kurt Schraedar in that race).
I don’t get why you’re arguing this point about “well she’s a Republican so they shouldn’t endorse her” after I clearly laid out exactly why they’re doing what they’re doing from their perspective and their organization’s political goals. Just because we feel different doesn’t mean they can’t do what their organization was literally created and built for. That’s unfair and is an unrealistic expectation.
Their candidates don’t always win the primary and/or the general but they always endorse the pro choice woman in every Democratic primary race if there’s only 1. This isn’t new and getting mad over it is dumb. They’re an integral part of our party, doesn’t mean they have to be in lockstep for every race.
That’s a very good question and to my knowledge, the answer is no. They endorse the pro choice woman in hopeless races and as favourites as long as they’re the only pro choice and woman candidate, that person gets their endorsement.
They’ve already endorsed for MI AG and NV AG despite there being potentially stronger candidates who aren’t pro choice women. They don’t ever change their method. It’s the same every cycle. The only difference from year to year is when they give out the endorsements and if there’s multiple pro choice women running.
I reluctantly have to agree with you about Emily's List, and I say that as a pro-choice woman. I cannot forget that they endorsed Kristin Sinema in her Senate race, and they have primaried Democrats who are pro-choice but male. I had donated to the group before I recognized the pattern. Now I donate to individual candidates.
In this Dem-friendly environment, nominating a MAGAloon like her is doomed to fail. But then again, so were a lot of the dumbass candidates the GOP moronically put their faith in like Kari Lake and Winsome Sears and Herschel Walker and so on. Have fun losing again and again Republicans!
State Delegate Jazz Lewis, a Hoyer protege, withdrew from the open Md-4 race in 2022. Since then I’ve had a feeling he could run for Md-5 with Hoyer’s endorsement.
How much of a Democratic electorate do we need to have to take the Senate in 26?
We took the House in 18 but only after weeks of counting and a lot of races by tight margins and we did not take the Senate. What % of that electorate was Democratic? 7%?
Can someone breakdown what we need in 26 VS the 18 electorate for me?
It depends entirely on whether Tuesday’s elections in rural areas can be replicated, or if we’re at just another 2018 with suburbs and urban areas outnumbering rural ones for the midterms. If it’s 2018, we’re not likely winning the Senate Majority. If it’s 2025, we may be winning it with seats to spare.
We need a very good year to win the senate. Maybe D+8 or better?
The order of senate seat difficulty is something like:
Easiest: NC
Doable, but we're not advantaged: ME
Stretch but viable: OH, TX, IA,
Highly candidate dependent, could join stretch: AK
The gap between Maine and Ohio, Texas, and Iowa (and Alaska) is large. There's a lot of outcomes that cover us only winning two senate seats. We could win only those two in an otherwise merely decent night. We could win only those two in an otherwise excellent night. It's only at the excellent range of outcomes that the others start to become possible. And the problem is that we need two from that group, not just one.
It's not what we want to acknowledge but the most realistic goal for the senate year is to do well enough that we set ourselves up to win the senate in 2028. If we win two seats next year, it's doable. If we win three seats it's very likely. Three is a good target, allowing us to pick up the senate in 2028 via either holding steady at 50 seats + pick up the presidency, or by winning one of NC or WI that year without any losses. Two pick ups mean we need the presidency plus at least one of those seats.
Of course while a bare majority is far preferable to the alternative, we would very much want more of a buffer than that.
And a caveat on Ohio: if Brown wins next year, he would need to win again in 2028, which may be more difficult of an environment.
I agree with almost everything you have to say here, but there’s 1 wildcard factor that you’re forgetting about with Dan Osborn in Nebraska. Him potentially winning as an Independent lowers the threshold we need to have a practical majority. I seriously doubt he caucuses with us, but I also don’t see him caucusing with Republicans either, which is still good for us as it’s -1 vote for the GOP’s majority leader from what the makeup is right now.
I don’t know how exactly it would work because this is something that’s never really happened before to my recollection. A potential 50-49-1 Senate is completely new, so I don’t think anyone can say for certain how it would work if Osborn wins. Completely uncharted territory.
Small point I think Alaska can be put in play without Peltola but i'd prefer she run for senate over the other offices. In her first congressional race she only got 10% in the top four and then took off from there. I think another candidate can emerge here and put up a fight.
I agree, but that's still candidate dependent! We need someone strong there. That doesn't have to be Peltola, although I, at least, have no capacity to identify who else besides her can fill that role.
I think if Roy Cooper wins the Senate race next year by a decent percentage (like 3 points or more), NC Dems are going to be ENERGIZED to oust Ted Budd and the three GOP-held seats on the NC Supreme Court in 2028.
Paul Newby is supposedly leaving after 2028 according to that ProPublica article, so he'll probably endorse a protege to succeed him. Tamara Barringer would hit mandatory retirement three years into another term, so she might retire as well. 100% sure Phil Berger Jr. (aka the state Senate leader's nepo baby son) will run for re-election in 2028.
I know, don't count Susan Collins out and all that...with that qualifier out of the way, I struggle seeing her winning the number of crossover votes she needs to hold on in what will likely be a bluer statewide electorate than any of 2018, 2020 and 2022. I think Mills essentially strolls into that seat based on what we saw on Tuesday night. Platner would be dicey for sure, but even Jones narrowly did better than Harris despite his scandals. I obviously prefer Mills just to get the job done.
All of this could have been avoided had Mills launched over the summer. Sure, she can win a general, but will she even make it out of the primary she created?
I mean, yes? Platner’s numbers seemed to have cratered across the three successive primary polls during the week of his scandals hitting, and we have no idea where he is at now. I would hope Democrats wouldn’t knowingly nominate a Blackwater mercenary who knowingly had a Nazi tattoo on his chest for nearly two decades for our top offensive Senate seat. But who knows.
I’d be wary of polling exactly at the time of a scandal of any politician. That’s more likely their lowest point than highest. Remember the first polls after Jones text scandal was reported? How many points was Miyares up then? How much money did Republicans pour into the race, outspending Jones because they thought they could win it based on them?
How about the Hollywood Access tape, January 6th or 34 felony convictions for Trump? I hope that you are right, but imo we’re probably going to see the next primary polls showing him in a stronger position than at the time of the reporting as voters get used to the scandal.
It would be nice to see a poll after the dust settled from the bombshell. I don’t think those instant response polls are much use other than to say where the floor for someone is. Maybe I’m very wrong in that assumption, but we’ll just see, because I fear I won’t be.
I don't wholly disagree, but I also have a tendency to be overly optimistic.
Considering the amount of unknowns there I think thinking of it as a tossup and using language appropriate to that kind of rating is the best approach. I can imagine scenarios where Collins' ability to thread the needle comes crashing down and she loses, maybe even spectacularly, but I can also imagine her just barely keeping her coalition together for one last election.
Yes, I've long felt that the election would hinge on whether a critical mass of Mainers is FINALLY tired of her shtick. I honestly don't think her opponent will matter much in the end, unless said person is the Democratic equivalent of Roy Moore.
You really cannot really use a generic ballot style analysis for the senate but here's one back of the envelope way to look at it.
In 2026, the nine most competitive seats are currently GA, MN, NH, MI, NC, ME, OH, IA and TX. To win the senate, we need to hold the four Dem-held seats (I'm pretty optimistic there) and win four of five R-held seats. In short, win 8 of 9.
So look at how much we lost in what are probably the toughest two states (IA and TX) in the past few years.
In 2024, Ted Cruz won in TX by 8.5%. Nationally, Trump won the popular vote by 1.5% and R's got 2.7% more votes for Congress. So you could say Texas was about 7 points more Republican than the country as a whole and we need to win the country by more than 7% to win Texas. It's not that simple but there's your number.
IA has been trending away from us a lot but I have hopes there due to the economic devastation Trump has caused. Still, in the last senate race (2022), Grassley won by 12.2%. In 2020, Ernst won by 6.6%. In 2024, Trump won Iowa by 13.2 points.
I'm hoping Peltola runs for U.S. Senate, she could really turn out the indigenous Alaskan vote. And in a state where the COL is as high or higher than Hawaii, tariffs and government shutdown is hitting Alaskans HARD.
All she has to do is run on affordability and point at incumbent Dan Sullivan as the guy who "voted to make our daily lives even more expensive."
In hindsight, hitting D+8 in 2018 was pretty amazing, considering that voters were still pretty bullish on the economy and (IIRC) Trump's stewardship of it at that point.
MI-SEN: In an interview Whitmer threw some shade against senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, mostly about his previous run against her in 2018. Needless to say if she does endorse someone in the primary it won't be him.
I like El-Sayed’s policies a bit more than McMorrow’s but I’m rooting for her bc I think AES needs to be elected to literally anything before jumping statewide again.
I do think El-Sayed would make a good candidate for Mi-6 if Debbie Dingell retires tho
El-Sayed had so many opportunities to run for something(congress/legislature) after his primary loss in 2018 and he just didn't. Him never having won elected office should give alot of people pause.
But for the realignment theorists, it’s actually worse than it looks. From 2024 to 2025 Republicans lost the most support — 25 points, on average — among the very voters they theorized would remake the GOP into a vast, multi-racial, working-class coalition. Today’s Chart of The Week looks at subgroup vote choice in 2025. The data suggests Trump’s winning coalition has all but evaporated — if it ever existed at all.
It’s the anti-incumbent economic anxiety, stupid
To me, these trends look an awful lot like what you’d expect as a result of retrospective economic voting. The exit polls suggest the same: Among voters who said the economy was their top issue, partisan trust on the economy moved 93 points toward Democrats between 2024 and this year’s New Jersey and Virginia elections.
But the 2025 election was predictable in another way, too. If, as I’m arguing you should, you viewed the 2024 election through the lens of political science instead of partisan priors, then the obvious conclusion was that voters were mad at Democrats because of inflation. The implication of that for forecasting future elections was any incumbent party would be in trouble if economic sentiment was sour again in the future. This is, like, political science 101.
There is also evidence of backlash against the GOP among Trump voters. According to the exit polls, 7% of people who voted for Donald Trump in 2024 in Virginia voted for Abigail Spanberger (the Democratic candidate) this year. In New Jersey, the percent of cross-over voters was also 7%. Across both states, non-voters went 2:1 (66% to 33%) for Democrats. If swings like this persist, Democrats would enter 2026 as clear favorites in the House, and with a decent (sub-50%) probability to win the Senate.
Porter has the lead but 11% is far from commanding. Although Becerra's 8% and Villaraigosa's 5% (next best) are even less impressive. Curious to see when this consolidates and what happens as a result.
Interesting question will be what happens after that 44% is allocated. Will the field remain split enough to enable a D/R top two, or will it become an all dem top two?
I think that having two relatively equally strong Repubs splitting the 35% or so of Californians who lean GOP makes it more likely that we end up all-Dem in the runoff. There has to be two Dems who are seen as the leaders, with Becerra and Porter as possibilities. It ain't gonna be Antonio V. and Cloobeck, that's for sure.
I'm glad to see Becerra gaining more traction. With Porter on the outs, he seems like the next best thing.
I'd say I'm undecided between the two of them right now, but leaning heavily toward Becerra. I need to hear more of his housing policies to be sure about him.
This is not another Tricia Cotham, she’s running to give voters an actual choice. With the gerrymandered congressional maps here in NC, she couldn’t win that race as a Democrat. But if she can beat Moore, she can win the general next year.
What kind of primary system does NC have? Could Dem voters in the district vote for her in the republican primary, and if so, would they be able to also participate in other Dem primaries?
Our primaries are first week of March now for both midterms and presidential years.
I don’t live in Barr’s area so I’m not sure what other primaries are going to be key.
But Barr is the real deal. She’s at Crooked Con this weekend with all different Democratic content creators (like Amanda Nelson), party activists (Anderson Clayton, Ben Wikler), candidates and current officeholders (like Ruben Gallego and Allison Riggs).
Gotcha, so definitely something that you think would be worth giving up other primaries in order to vote for.
It's an interesting strategy to run as the opposite party in order to have a chance, but I'm all for Dems trying new things in order to win. I'll take your word for her being a good candidate, so I hope it pans out!
I noticed that there's already a Dem running for the seat so I wonder how/if that will impact/complicate things
She ran for state Senate as a Democrat last year, even though her district was unwinnable. She started the Can't Win Victory Fund after her campaign last year to support other NC grassroots candidates.
Do you care to elaborate?
I'm afraid I don't much care what Skokie thinks about a Chicago (not Skokie) alderman who is (considering) running for a congressional district that does not contain Skokie.
lol
I made a comment somewhat skeptical of Sigcho-Lopez's viability yesterday, and the flag burning is the only one that I think is a real impediment here--not because I think he actually did anything especially wrong (other than not having the nous to maybe not be there as an elected) but because it will be easily manipulated in a boogeyman way for easily swayed low info voters in a similar way to what you're doing here. The other links are more your gripes than the much more effective oppo in his record in office that Patty Garcia will use if she's savvier than this.
Is that the sole reason you don’t like him? That he’s on the left?
Because I’ve got bad news for you — Chuy was too and quite frankly Patty Garcia likely also will be given Chuy’s leaning. I’m backing Sigcho-Lopez because what Chuy did was dirty and undemocratic but your faction of the party likely isn’t going to win this seat.
None of these seem as disqualifying as what García & Garcia pulled. Also if DSA members can share a party with Spanberger and Sherrill moderates can share a party w DSA electeds.
Exactly. In the absence of a multi party system the Dems are going to have to put up with simultaneously having Jared Golden and Rashida Tlaib types in the same party. There’s a reason I was against Dunlap’s primary bid against Golden.
Like it or not, socialists are electorally active and here to stay. We are not going anywhere. The smart ones like AOC will even work within the system and even potentially avoid certain positions that may make us toxic on a national scale — I don’t see AOC advocating for police abolition, for one. In return, I expect some level of compromise from the center.
A good example of this is the healthcare debate. I am a staunch supporter of universal healthcare, owing to the misery I dealt with as a type 1 diabetic with multiple mental conditions in the healthcare system. Some Dems are against universal healthcare, or at least the Medicare for All proposal supported by Bernie Sanders and like-minded progressives — the term I usually hear from them regarding healthcare is “expand Medicare”.
A good solution then would be a public option, which allows for both universal healthcare and private healthcare. It’s not the exact solution either side wants, but it’s a good mid-way point between the two that at least would hopefully get enough support from both sides to pass. (We almost had it, actually — you can thank Joe Lieberman for murdering it.) Incidentally, this is the system used in the UK, and has been a substantial success there — I think it’d be worth considering here.
What I just described is an example of center-progressive compromise. More acts like this would do us wonders I think, and demonstrate how, at least in my mind, we can coexist.
AOC did support police abolition.
Does she currently though?
Who did she think would arrest violent criminals?
The system in the UK is not for people to have private Social Security policies like here, but actual socialized medicine, with people having the option to go to private doctors if they prefer.
Exactly — Medicare for All is a fully government-subsidized healthcare system, whereas the NHS represents true socialized medicine.
Fun fact: back in high school, Buttigieg actually wrote an award-winning essay defending Medicare for All, making these same arguments and expressing admiration and support for Bernie Sanders. He WAS the original Bernie bro.
And what Chuy did is no less right than when they did it. Are you seriously arguing that that’s OK?
If the plan worked, why is Sigcho-Lopez even considering running at all, and why is there support for his plan? And furthermore, why has there been backlash to this plan if it was so successful?
What Chuy did was flagrantly undemocratic and ethically wrong. Less of this please.
It's not OK, but Obama got his start in a somewhat similar way.
Just saying that I've looked around the internet a tiny bit and this person is a Trump supporter. So nothing going on here is in good faith. 🤷🏻
Are you a Trump supporter?
Tbh, I got that to read this single article and I've unsubscribed after this month, I think he's an idiot lol
https://www.ettingermentum.news/p/who-should-replace-schumer-and-jeffries
Some of his articles are good though, especially the one on the Great Awokening.
https://www.ettingermentum.news/p/the-left-is-being-greatly-underestimated
This one is great while some are really stupid
Well, then good thing Skokie isn't in the 4th district
He had a very competitive first and second round for his first election, and a competitive reelection. And if he loses this House race, he will stay on the city council and be elected again in 2027. Luck has very little to do with it.
David Trone is apparently considering primarying April Delaney to get his seat back for some reason. Maybe he should lobby the state senate to redistrict so he can run again against Andy Harris instead lol
https://x.com/JacobRubashkin/status/1986594446599651496
Kind of liked him and don't really like Delaney
After the racist comment scandal from his Senate bid, no thanks. MD-06 still isn’t totally blue and unless someone talks Bill Ferguson into letting them redistrict, it won’t be. I don’t know a lot about Delaney (although I detested her husband for his support of reviving the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which was one of the issues that got me into politics due to my opposition to it) but Trone is not someone I want back in Congress.
Although on the flip side, an older relative of mine lived in his district prior to the 2022 redistricting (he’s in Raskin’s seat now) and he told me he liked Trone, so who knows.
I too live in a neighboring district and liked him
I sure I knew about it at the time, but I don't remember what comment he made?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/22/maryland-senate-candidate-slur-apology
Trone used the word "jigaboo" instead of "bugaboo", apparently by accident if he is to be believed.
Right right thanks. Yeah I think it was probably a mistake but the fact he knew that word at all was sus.
AIPAC megadonor? No thanks.
After Texas kicked off the redistricting battle by trying to add 5 Republican seats, TDB wrote a morning digest that what Texas did wasn't a dummymander.
Given what we saw Tuesday with 7-9 point shifts toward Democrats and even wilder swings amongst Latino voters, does the Texas gerrymander get dummier?
The new Trump+10 Hispanic majority district based in San Antonio could go Democratic if trends this year continue (and as long as Dems have a strong candidate here - do we?). I've said from the start that Cuellar and Gonzalez would probably still win their new districts even under the new gerrymander.
But the DFW and Houston Dem districts that were axed are gone. Republicans did a very effective job in those areas.
What they did to balloon TX-32 way out into the rural areas is just asking for a further baconmander of Chicago to create a 15-2 map in Illinois. Other than the crack of Kansas City in Missouri, that is the most outrageous and infuriating thing they’ve done yet.
Luckily Dems do have a strong candidate to hold Tx-35 with Bexar County Deputy Sherrif Johnny Garcia.
State senator Roland Gutierrez would have been the go-to candidate, but he is running for re-election
Problem is that Latino voters in New Jersey and Latino voters in South Texas are not the same. Doesn't mean there can't be a similar shift back, but Latino voters only shifted in 2024 while Texas Latinos shifted in both 2020 and 2024.
I understand they are different as are ones in Florida and California, but I would think the racial hatred by the trump administration against Latinos would be salient everywhere.
Latinos shifted everywhere in both 2020 and 2024. It's always most visible along the border in TX because those are whole counties, but the precinct results in NY, NJ, PA, CA, and elsewhere were just as apparent in 2020. Point taken that the voters of south TX, Miami, east LA, the Bronx, and Reading (PA) for example are all unique and have their own dynamics and politics, but for whatever reason, they all moved towards Trump in 2020 and then again in 2024.
Reason to be cautious that the huge swings back among NJ and VA Latino voters might not necessarily replicate in south TX (everything is a trend until it isn't), but there's definitely cause to be more optimistic now.
Results from Perth Amboy, the state’s most Hispanic municipality: Biden +44 in 2020, Harris +9 last year, Sherrill +56 this year.
That is....pretty stark...
Perth Amboy was also Clinton +65. We're not quite there, but getting back to a baseline between Clinton and Biden after what happened last year is incredible and beyond my wildest predictions for this election. And with high turnout, its not like Trump voters sat out; Sherrill was blowing past Harris' raw vote totals in these towns.
Too soon to tell. I wouldn't necessarily expect partisan shifts between Puerto Ricans in New Jersey and Mexican-Americans from the Rio Grande Valley to be interchangeable.
Running as an independent for a Chicago House seat is very difficult.
But gathering the signatures doesn’t really add much difficulty. It’s true that Sigcho-López will need 10K+ verified signatures which means in practice he needs 30-35K signatures to ensure he’s on the ballot. But he has until May. Frankly if he can not generate enough enthusiasm to gather those signatures he has no chance. And he is going for a district with a number of Independent Political Organizations whose politics are progressive and suspicious of or against establishment Democratic politics. So maybe he has a chance.
Full disclosure, I volunteered for Sigcho-Lopez’s first campaign for alderman when he was challenging a longtime incumbent. The race became easy when the incumbent withdrew in a corruption scandal (if I recall correctly, he wore a wire for the FBI to collect evidence on a colleague).
And also bold to run against an entrenched incumbent and run a strong enough campaign that the incumbent didn’t think he could win with the scandal. After all, the alderman caught on tape then indicted by the Justice Department still won his reelection campaign!
i believe you're referring to Solis
That sounds right. I didn’t look it up
Without Nancy Pelosi, America would not have had the Affordable Care Act.
(On the other hand, had we been spared the vindictiveness of Senator Joe Lieberman, America would have been blessed with *public-option* healthcare!)
I angrily recall Seth Moulton trying to sabotage Pelosi’s re-election as the most effective Speaker in my lifetime, without even being able to present an alternative candidate. I hope Massachusetts voters aren’t foolish enough to put Moulton in the Senate.
*) EDIT: Thanks to correction by AWildLibAppeared.
But the Subaru I recently bought still cost too much!
;)
We also might have seen social security privatized during Bush's second term if not for her refusal to put forward a democratic plan.
The only Democratic plan should have been to remove the payroll tax cap.
And impose Social Security tax on capital gains.
Let me add: acknowledge the debt to the National Security Fund, and to write into law that this debt must have priority over other.
Please elaborate a bit on your 2nd sentence.
Well, many leading Republicans want to cut Social Security – or would be perfectly happy to see the Fund go bankrupt. Most certainly they refuse to improve the Fund’s financial stability by increasing the obligatory payments by America’s wealthier classes.
Consider this: if the Trump Regime pushes the USA into serious liquidity problems, where it’s difficult to honor debts, do you think Social Security would have high priority? I certainly don’t. In fact, I think Social Security recipients would be just as screwed as SNAP recipients are during the current government shutdown.
This is the background for my proposal, however clumsily expressed.
We should have progressive social security and Medicare taxes with rates increasing as income increases instead of regressive ones.
Yes.
Also, social security should really be increased for seniors. I don’t think they get enough in it but just my opinion.
At least benefits are indexed to inflation unlike so many things (e.g. minimum wage).
True!
I think you mean a public option, not single payer.
There were and are many more obstacles to a single-payer healthcare system in America than Joe Lieberman. And I say that as someone who supports the concept.
When you consider how narrow the margin was in passing the Affordable Care Act in Congress, that’s how difficult it was to accomplish any change to healthcare. I know anything like single payer or universal healthcare in general would have likely failed in Congress anywhere from 2009-2010 just because of the timing and with the rise of the Tea Party in full force.
ACA has never been a perfect solution but as it so happens, I get my insurance through Covered California. I’m likely to turn to my employer next year for health insurance in the even my premiums skyrocket but right now as of next year health insurance is just below $200 per month, a bargain compared to other plans. My dental and vision insurance are otherwise through my employer. I cannot emphasize how much this has been progress considering what the healthcare system was like pre-2010.
I wish we had an Affordable Car Act haha 🚗
Well, the US certainly does have an Affordable Gasoline Act. Compare your price at the pump with that of just about any European country.
Oh, and please also compare the price of automobiles in Norway and the other Nordic country with prices in the USA. You’re getting a helluva deal!
I think he was referencing a typo you made! :)
How embarrassing! I didn’t spot that until just now.
Hey all! What do we think right now about Bernadette Greene-Placentia (running in AZ-08 against Hamadeh) and Eileen Laubacher (running in CO-04 against Boebert) in terms of odds? Laubacher's fundraising total is ludicrously high for the district
I am sitting drinking coffee this morning in AZ 8, and the thought of it flipping is unlikely. Given the mood of the country now, if that holds into 2026, flipping 1 and 6 is very possible, especially with 1 being an open seat. Flipping anything else in Arizona is not likely.
What we need to do is win the state legislature in 2026 and statewide offices to be positioned to get a fair redistricting commission for the 2030 census. We got railroaded on redistricting in 2020.
Anyone who runs against the Democratic Party’s #1 enemies get ludicrous fundraising because our voters despise these GOP lunatics (MTG, Boebert, Jordan etc). It’s not a sign of political strength, just wasted campaign dollars. Neither district is even close to flipping imo.
The only reach district in AZ at risk in a big wave is Crane’s in AZ-02. These 2 candidates may outperform the party baseline due to their insane opponents or their own strength in the campaign thanks to their massive cash flow (money can create a very good ground organization, key word can, not all do), but there’s no chance to actually win those 2 districts.
Hamadeh’s opponent interests me though. Hamadeh is a really extreme Republican but he isn’t exactly a nationally-known one like MTG or Boebert or Mace. Curious as to why his opponent is fundraising so well.
Pretty sure Arizona Democrats know him as the guy who tried to overturn Democratic AG Kris Mayes election, which would probably be why his opponent is fundraising so well against him.
Ah, so it’s a state thing then. Got it.
That’s my educated guess, I don’t know for sure, but he was very loud in courts and public about a stolen election, so that’s what I’d think would be the main cause.
I agree with your comments on fundraising, but unfortunately Hamadeh represents the views of his constituency on the NW side of Phoenix, including the large Sun City retirement communities that are very MAGA. They are basically Florida's the Villages, Arizona style.
I think it would take someone like former state sen. Judy Schweibert to flip Az-8, but I bet it’ll be closer than people expect in 2026.
I was hoping state rep & ex-Republican Bob Marshall would challenge Boebert, but given the latter’s underperformance last year + the trend of Co-4 means Laubacher has an outside chance if she wins the primary.
It's viable. The district (CO 4) elected a Democrat as recent as Obama.
No, that was under the old district lines when it included all of Larimar county and even then McCain still narrowly won it in 2008.
I mean that Rep. Betsy Markey was elected, not who concurrently won it in the presidential race. Should have been more clear. Also, I can't see the exact data, but I do wonder what Markey's performance against Musgrave would have been without Larimer - she won 57-43 with it - could Weld have still allowed her to win anyway?
Democrats have a better shot at every other R held district in Colorado.
Even Crank?
Crank's district is shifting pretty far to the left, despite electing Republicans since its creation in 1973.
Yes and it's not close. 1) Bobert is running in a Trump +20 district no Democrat holds anything close to that red in the House. 2) The 5th is moving left quickly. 3) The carpetbagger issue is not going to matter as much in 26 as it did in 24. 4) Democrats spent millions to beat her and still lost by double digits. 5) Crank beat an opponent who barely raised anything in 24 that is not the case this time. 6) from the digest today: "Killin’s survey, conducted by Global Strategy Group, finds Crank ahead by a 43-40 margin, while Army veteran Matt Cavanaugh takes 5% of the vote and 13% are undecided. Killin, a former White House official under Joe Biden who also served in the Army, was also one of the top fundraisers among Democratic House candidates during the third quarter of the year, bringing in more than $1 million from donors—double Crank’s haul."
I don't necessarily think that Bobert can be beaten short of a miracle, but within 5 points isn't far-fetched; she won by 11.5 in 2024 against an unknown candidate, and has proven to have the opposite of an incumbency advantage, as seen by her weaker performance in 2022 than 2020, with her least bad performances (compared to Trump 2020) being in new counties to CO-03. I'm not really convinced she underperformed due to being a carpetbagger, voter just hate her vibe
Something I noticed about the Virginia results is that the Democratic trend of the Charlottesville area, which is still quite strong in Albemarle County (Spanberger got 70% there), is now spilling over into the neighboring counties as well.
Fluvanna came within 50 votes of voting for Spanberger, and the bluest part of it is the Lake Monticello area near the border with Albemarle. The precinct of Louisa County directly adjacent to Fluvanna and Albemarle has been trending Democratic, and flipped for Spanberger. The Ruckersville area in Greene County, north of Charlottesville, only barely voted for Sears after going to Trump by 12 percent last year. Waynesboro, west of Charlottesville along I-64, flipped Democratic this year, and it hasn't voted Democratic for President since 1964. And Nelson came back into the Democratic column after having voted for Trump three times.
Goochland County near Richmond is also shifting blue. Maybe Richmond and Charlottesville combine?
Goochland is getting new apartment complexes near its border with Henrico. Those complexes didn't exist 10 years ago. That's why Goochland now has a Democratic precinct along its eastern border.
Hopefully Goochland will get more soon! Looking at Google Earth, there's plenty of space for more.
absolute S tier county name
I was surprised Spanberger didn't win Fluvanna. If I remember correctly, Tim Kaine won it last year.
Cao actually won Fluvanna by 4
Sears is only ahead in Fluvanna by 16 votes. And they still haven't reported their provisional ballots yet. So it's possible that Spanberger might actually win it when all is said and done.
Ahead by just 16 votes?
Sears really didn’t even try hard with her campaign. It was like she was expecting all would flow in her direction just riding high from the 2021 election results.
The only conceivable argument for Emily's List to endorse Jasmeet Bains in CA-22 is that she's a woman. But she opposed Prop 50, has donated to Republicans, and has a conservative corporate record in the state Assembly. There is a progressive Latino Democrat running in this Latino district, and if Emily's List can't support him because he's not female, they should at least stay out of it.
How much of her opposition to Prop. 50 and her Assembly votes were performative though? She'll still be running in a marginal Trump 2024 district after all.
No, the only conceivable argument is that she’s a woman who is pro choice. That’s literally Emily’s List’s entire criteria for endorsements, their mission is to, and I quote: “elect more pro choice women into office”. Given that Roe no longer exists I don’t think it’s fair to fault an organization for doing what they’ve done for I don’t know the exact year, but for decades even if it’s for a candidate to the right of progressives.
This is the wrong hill to die on even if with this new district I prefer a more progressive option in Villegas. They don’t endorse pro choice men, because it’s literally an organization built from the very start to get more women into office. I don’t have a problem with them endorsing, but I do hope Villegas gets the second slot.
But they could choose not to support a quasi-Republican.
Look, for you and me, we’re progressive, we’d never support Bains in a blue district, that’s our modus operendi. For Emily’s List they don’t care about (I’m going to caps lock it to emphasize something I hoped you’d understand by reading my post) ANYTHING OTHER THAN PRO CHOICE WOMEN.
Doesn’t matter any other policy position, they’re a women’s pro choice organization dedicated to electing specifically pro choice women (they endorsed against Dave Min in that race and against Kurt Schraedar in that race).
I don’t get why you’re arguing this point about “well she’s a Republican so they shouldn’t endorse her” after I clearly laid out exactly why they’re doing what they’re doing from their perspective and their organization’s political goals. Just because we feel different doesn’t mean they can’t do what their organization was literally created and built for. That’s unfair and is an unrealistic expectation.
Their candidates don’t always win the primary and/or the general but they always endorse the pro choice woman in every Democratic primary race if there’s only 1. This isn’t new and getting mad over it is dumb. They’re an integral part of our party, doesn’t mean they have to be in lockstep for every race.
Have they ever chosen not to endorse a pro-choice woman when only one was running in a race? They take a vote on whether to do so, don't they?
That’s a very good question and to my knowledge, the answer is no. They endorse the pro choice woman in hopeless races and as favourites as long as they’re the only pro choice and woman candidate, that person gets their endorsement.
They’ve already endorsed for MI AG and NV AG despite there being potentially stronger candidates who aren’t pro choice women. They don’t ever change their method. It’s the same every cycle. The only difference from year to year is when they give out the endorsements and if there’s multiple pro choice women running.
https://emilyslist.org/state-and-local-candidates/
When your mission is to elect more pro-choice Democratic women, it doesn't matter much "stronger" people think another candidate is.
I reluctantly have to agree with you about Emily's List, and I say that as a pro-choice woman. I cannot forget that they endorsed Kristin Sinema in her Senate race, and they have primaried Democrats who are pro-choice but male. I had donated to the group before I recognized the pattern. Now I donate to individual candidates.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/former-astronaut-terry-virts-drops-senate-bid-announces-run-for-congress-in-redrawn-houston-area-district/ar-AA1Hgh3s?ocid=BingNewsVerp
Stefanik in for NY governor officially earlier today
In this Dem-friendly environment, nominating a MAGAloon like her is doomed to fail. But then again, so were a lot of the dumbass candidates the GOP moronically put their faith in like Kari Lake and Winsome Sears and Herschel Walker and so on. Have fun losing again and again Republicans!
I hope Kari Lake runs for congress so democrats can flip AZ 1
Maybe Trump can rename Havasu "Kari Lake."
But who can really say? Lmao
https://x.com/addisondick0/status/1986751224708837744?s=46
What is it with major figures considering runs for months then botching campaign announcements? We just had Mills a month ago.
Sloppiness and bad staff reviewers.
And Hochul immediately up calling her a sellout.
https://x.com/TeamHochul/status/1986750862765572376?t=6OrbiRs_HY6C66I0mH80Hw&s=19
The brilliant thing about this ad is that it helps Stefanik in the primary.
The Team Hochul account isn't on BlueSky, so I posted the ad there for anyone who doesn't want to visit the upside down.
https://bsky.app/profile/awildlibappeared.bsky.social/post/3m52ixeeibc2i
Talk about tone deaf after the walloping Rs got on Tuesday. At least she won't be in the House anymore if she makes it to the general.
I would love to see Elise Stefanik and Nancy Mace duke it out as presidential candidates in the 2028 GOP Primary.
Oh man, imagine the cat fighting between the two. Getting out popcorn for this if it happens. ;)
Steny Hoyer also eyeing retirement per Axios
Apparently he'll only retire when he finds a successor. Aside from run of the mill state senators and delegates, what is the bench in southern MD?
State Delegate Jazz Lewis, a Hoyer protege, withdrew from the open Md-4 race in 2022. Since then I’ve had a feeling he could run for Md-5 with Hoyer’s endorsement.
Love the name Jazz
I heard Harry Dunn (the Jan 6 cop who lost to Elfreth) was interested too.
Not to worry as Hoyer’s House seat is a solid D+17 district.
Only due to gerrymandering unfortunately
Trivia: Larry Hogan ran against Hoyer for this seat in 1992.
And it appears Hogan lost to Hoyer then by nearly 12% points!
Good, an awful politician he is.
https://x.com/__Guntar__/status/1986616132632191258?t=UDnjnfiYQ9G8TM4GPlseWA&s=19
How much of a Democratic electorate do we need to have to take the Senate in 26?
We took the House in 18 but only after weeks of counting and a lot of races by tight margins and we did not take the Senate. What % of that electorate was Democratic? 7%?
Can someone breakdown what we need in 26 VS the 18 electorate for me?
It depends entirely on whether Tuesday’s elections in rural areas can be replicated, or if we’re at just another 2018 with suburbs and urban areas outnumbering rural ones for the midterms. If it’s 2018, we’re not likely winning the Senate Majority. If it’s 2025, we may be winning it with seats to spare.
Also depends on statewide Democratic GOTV efforts and overall candidate quality.
What % Dem was it in 18? D+7?
8
I thought it was D+9, but rounded down to 8 from uncontested seats?
I've seen 8.3 and 8.6.
We need a very good year to win the senate. Maybe D+8 or better?
The order of senate seat difficulty is something like:
Easiest: NC
Doable, but we're not advantaged: ME
Stretch but viable: OH, TX, IA,
Highly candidate dependent, could join stretch: AK
The gap between Maine and Ohio, Texas, and Iowa (and Alaska) is large. There's a lot of outcomes that cover us only winning two senate seats. We could win only those two in an otherwise merely decent night. We could win only those two in an otherwise excellent night. It's only at the excellent range of outcomes that the others start to become possible. And the problem is that we need two from that group, not just one.
It's not what we want to acknowledge but the most realistic goal for the senate year is to do well enough that we set ourselves up to win the senate in 2028. If we win two seats next year, it's doable. If we win three seats it's very likely. Three is a good target, allowing us to pick up the senate in 2028 via either holding steady at 50 seats + pick up the presidency, or by winning one of NC or WI that year without any losses. Two pick ups mean we need the presidency plus at least one of those seats.
Of course while a bare majority is far preferable to the alternative, we would very much want more of a buffer than that.
And a caveat on Ohio: if Brown wins next year, he would need to win again in 2028, which may be more difficult of an environment.
I agree with almost everything you have to say here, but there’s 1 wildcard factor that you’re forgetting about with Dan Osborn in Nebraska. Him potentially winning as an Independent lowers the threshold we need to have a practical majority. I seriously doubt he caucuses with us, but I also don’t see him caucusing with Republicans either, which is still good for us as it’s -1 vote for the GOP’s majority leader from what the makeup is right now.
Wouldn't he have to caucus with a party to get any committee seats?
I don’t know how exactly it would work because this is something that’s never really happened before to my recollection. A potential 50-49-1 Senate is completely new, so I don’t think anyone can say for certain how it would work if Osborn wins. Completely uncharted territory.
Small point I think Alaska can be put in play without Peltola but i'd prefer she run for senate over the other offices. In her first congressional race she only got 10% in the top four and then took off from there. I think another candidate can emerge here and put up a fight.
I agree, if she runs for Governor, I still think we have a strong enough bench in Alaska to make a serious play for the Senate seat nonetheless.
I agree, but that's still candidate dependent! We need someone strong there. That doesn't have to be Peltola, although I, at least, have no capacity to identify who else besides her can fill that role.
Agreed though I wonder how many people outside of close Alaska politics followers could have named Peltola prior to her first run.
For that matter I'm not even sure how many people who followed Alaska politics closely could have identified her before her win!
Agreed. She'd been out of elective office for more than a decade prior to her House bid.
I think if Roy Cooper wins the Senate race next year by a decent percentage (like 3 points or more), NC Dems are going to be ENERGIZED to oust Ted Budd and the three GOP-held seats on the NC Supreme Court in 2028.
Paul Newby is supposedly leaving after 2028 according to that ProPublica article, so he'll probably endorse a protege to succeed him. Tamara Barringer would hit mandatory retirement three years into another term, so she might retire as well. 100% sure Phil Berger Jr. (aka the state Senate leader's nepo baby son) will run for re-election in 2028.
I know, don't count Susan Collins out and all that...with that qualifier out of the way, I struggle seeing her winning the number of crossover votes she needs to hold on in what will likely be a bluer statewide electorate than any of 2018, 2020 and 2022. I think Mills essentially strolls into that seat based on what we saw on Tuesday night. Platner would be dicey for sure, but even Jones narrowly did better than Harris despite his scandals. I obviously prefer Mills just to get the job done.
All of this could have been avoided had Mills launched over the summer. Sure, she can win a general, but will she even make it out of the primary she created?
I mean, yes? Platner’s numbers seemed to have cratered across the three successive primary polls during the week of his scandals hitting, and we have no idea where he is at now. I would hope Democrats wouldn’t knowingly nominate a Blackwater mercenary who knowingly had a Nazi tattoo on his chest for nearly two decades for our top offensive Senate seat. But who knows.
I’d be wary of polling exactly at the time of a scandal of any politician. That’s more likely their lowest point than highest. Remember the first polls after Jones text scandal was reported? How many points was Miyares up then? How much money did Republicans pour into the race, outspending Jones because they thought they could win it based on them?
How about the Hollywood Access tape, January 6th or 34 felony convictions for Trump? I hope that you are right, but imo we’re probably going to see the next primary polls showing him in a stronger position than at the time of the reporting as voters get used to the scandal.
It would be nice to see a poll after the dust settled from the bombshell. I don’t think those instant response polls are much use other than to say where the floor for someone is. Maybe I’m very wrong in that assumption, but we’ll just see, because I fear I won’t be.
Unless Janet Mills changes her tune on the Filibuster, she will always be the worst choice despite all of Platner's issues.
The best choice is whoever has the best chance to beat Collins. The worst choice is whoever has the worst chance. End of list.
I don't wholly disagree, but I also have a tendency to be overly optimistic.
Considering the amount of unknowns there I think thinking of it as a tossup and using language appropriate to that kind of rating is the best approach. I can imagine scenarios where Collins' ability to thread the needle comes crashing down and she loses, maybe even spectacularly, but I can also imagine her just barely keeping her coalition together for one last election.
Yes, I've long felt that the election would hinge on whether a critical mass of Mainers is FINALLY tired of her shtick. I honestly don't think her opponent will matter much in the end, unless said person is the Democratic equivalent of Roy Moore.
You really cannot really use a generic ballot style analysis for the senate but here's one back of the envelope way to look at it.
In 2026, the nine most competitive seats are currently GA, MN, NH, MI, NC, ME, OH, IA and TX. To win the senate, we need to hold the four Dem-held seats (I'm pretty optimistic there) and win four of five R-held seats. In short, win 8 of 9.
So look at how much we lost in what are probably the toughest two states (IA and TX) in the past few years.
In 2024, Ted Cruz won in TX by 8.5%. Nationally, Trump won the popular vote by 1.5% and R's got 2.7% more votes for Congress. So you could say Texas was about 7 points more Republican than the country as a whole and we need to win the country by more than 7% to win Texas. It's not that simple but there's your number.
IA has been trending away from us a lot but I have hopes there due to the economic devastation Trump has caused. Still, in the last senate race (2022), Grassley won by 12.2%. In 2020, Ernst won by 6.6%. In 2024, Trump won Iowa by 13.2 points.
Wow. I forgot Alaska. In Peltola runs, I think she has a better shot than we have in TX or IA.
I'm hoping Peltola runs for U.S. Senate, she could really turn out the indigenous Alaskan vote. And in a state where the COL is as high or higher than Hawaii, tariffs and government shutdown is hitting Alaskans HARD.
All she has to do is run on affordability and point at incumbent Dan Sullivan as the guy who "voted to make our daily lives even more expensive."
Wasn't 2018 D+8 nationally? I think we exceed 2018 next year.
In hindsight, hitting D+8 in 2018 was pretty amazing, considering that voters were still pretty bullish on the economy and (IIRC) Trump's stewardship of it at that point.
https://x.com/MIForward_Net/status/1985395598988583003
MI-SEN: In an interview Whitmer threw some shade against senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, mostly about his previous run against her in 2018. Needless to say if she does endorse someone in the primary it won't be him.
I hope she endorses McMorrow. Mallory is badass.
I like El-Sayed’s policies a bit more than McMorrow’s but I’m rooting for her bc I think AES needs to be elected to literally anything before jumping statewide again.
I do think El-Sayed would make a good candidate for Mi-6 if Debbie Dingell retires tho
El-Sayed had so many opportunities to run for something(congress/legislature) after his primary loss in 2018 and he just didn't. Him never having won elected office should give alot of people pause.
My friend in Michigan describes Mallory as having "moxie". That is a word you don't hear very often these days, lol...
I know that if Mallory wins the primary and general, she is going to SCORCH Senate Republicans like Moreno, Budd and Mullin in committee hearings.
The kid's got spunk!
Obligatory Better Call Saul link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgBtBJDkIvA
Best tv show oat
A great read, with some highlighted quotes from G Elliott Morris:
The 2024 Trump "realignment" is already over
Claims of a conservative realignment of non-whites, the working class, and young voters have been highly exaggerated
https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/trumps-winning-2024-coalition-has
But for the realignment theorists, it’s actually worse than it looks. From 2024 to 2025 Republicans lost the most support — 25 points, on average — among the very voters they theorized would remake the GOP into a vast, multi-racial, working-class coalition. Today’s Chart of The Week looks at subgroup vote choice in 2025. The data suggests Trump’s winning coalition has all but evaporated — if it ever existed at all.
It’s the anti-incumbent economic anxiety, stupid
To me, these trends look an awful lot like what you’d expect as a result of retrospective economic voting. The exit polls suggest the same: Among voters who said the economy was their top issue, partisan trust on the economy moved 93 points toward Democrats between 2024 and this year’s New Jersey and Virginia elections.
But the 2025 election was predictable in another way, too. If, as I’m arguing you should, you viewed the 2024 election through the lens of political science instead of partisan priors, then the obvious conclusion was that voters were mad at Democrats because of inflation. The implication of that for forecasting future elections was any incumbent party would be in trouble if economic sentiment was sour again in the future. This is, like, political science 101.
There is also evidence of backlash against the GOP among Trump voters. According to the exit polls, 7% of people who voted for Donald Trump in 2024 in Virginia voted for Abigail Spanberger (the Democratic candidate) this year. In New Jersey, the percent of cross-over voters was also 7%. Across both states, non-voters went 2:1 (66% to 33%) for Democrats. If swings like this persist, Democrats would enter 2026 as clear favorites in the House, and with a decent (sub-50%) probability to win the Senate.
California Governor - Berkeley IGS
Bianco (R) - 13%
Porter (D) - 11%
Becerra (D) - 8%
Hilton (R) - 8%
Looks like the overall poll is 44% undecided.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8wp3s6qw
Porter has the lead but 11% is far from commanding. Although Becerra's 8% and Villaraigosa's 5% (next best) are even less impressive. Curious to see when this consolidates and what happens as a result.
Interesting question will be what happens after that 44% is allocated. Will the field remain split enough to enable a D/R top two, or will it become an all dem top two?
I think that having two relatively equally strong Repubs splitting the 35% or so of Californians who lean GOP makes it more likely that we end up all-Dem in the runoff. There has to be two Dems who are seen as the leaders, with Becerra and Porter as possibilities. It ain't gonna be Antonio V. and Cloobeck, that's for sure.
I'm glad to see Becerra gaining more traction. With Porter on the outs, he seems like the next best thing.
I'd say I'm undecided between the two of them right now, but leaning heavily toward Becerra. I need to hear more of his housing policies to be sure about him.
Kate Barr has changed her affiliation to Republican and will challenge current Congressman Rep Tim Moore in the March 2026 primary.
https://www.katebarrcanwin.com/
This is not another Tricia Cotham, she’s running to give voters an actual choice. With the gerrymandered congressional maps here in NC, she couldn’t win that race as a Democrat. But if she can beat Moore, she can win the general next year.
What kind of primary system does NC have? Could Dem voters in the district vote for her in the republican primary, and if so, would they be able to also participate in other Dem primaries?
It's a semi-closed primary system. Unaffiliated and registered Republicans can vote for her, but Democrats can't.
Barr said voters in her area can change their status to 'unaffiliated' up until February 6, 2026 and change it back after the primary.
Are there any other important primaries happening on that day that Dems in the district may want to vote for instead?
Our primaries are first week of March now for both midterms and presidential years.
I don’t live in Barr’s area so I’m not sure what other primaries are going to be key.
But Barr is the real deal. She’s at Crooked Con this weekend with all different Democratic content creators (like Amanda Nelson), party activists (Anderson Clayton, Ben Wikler), candidates and current officeholders (like Ruben Gallego and Allison Riggs).
Gotcha, so definitely something that you think would be worth giving up other primaries in order to vote for.
It's an interesting strategy to run as the opposite party in order to have a chance, but I'm all for Dems trying new things in order to win. I'll take your word for her being a good candidate, so I hope it pans out!
I noticed that there's already a Dem running for the seat so I wonder how/if that will impact/complicate things
Are we supposed to know who Kate Barr is?
She ran for state Senate as a Democrat last year, even though her district was unwinnable. She started the Can't Win Victory Fund after her campaign last year to support other NC grassroots candidates.
https://www.cantwinvictoryfund.com/
Thanks!
Moore is going to steamroll her next year.
It doesn’t hurt her to at least try. Make that scumbag actually work to keep his seat.