I think governors are put in harder positions where you need to find nuance to not completely fuck over one of their communities or other priorities. That might be why he hasn’t called for a blanket ban on them yet.
Whitmer and Mills got torched for their recent vetoes of bills, and the headlines make them seem egregious or outrageous. But if you read their reasonings for why they vetoed them, it makes sense. The Maine data center bill would have completely shuttered a town. I forget what Whitmer’s reasons were, but they were defensible.
Yea they employ what 30 people and you know most of those jobs are not going to come from the local population besides security. The construction jobs are not permanent obviously.
Yep here in Texas i'm hoping Talarico and Hinojosa hammer their opponents on this issue. It's a loser in rural areas, i doubt the dems can win their votes but if they stay home it could make a big difference.
I'm skeptical of the data center issue being able to flip MAGA & rural voters. You pretty much need alot of them to be single issue voters but probably resonates with swing voters if its apart of a broader message on affordability.
We're not exactly going to lose voters by opposing data centers. It's borderline free as a political position to take.
We also need to remember that the vote buckets aren't split 50/50 with us fighting for people that would otherwise vote republican, and them fighting for people that would otherwise vote democratic. Both parties are fighting very hard for people that would otherwise not vote at all. Conversion is an important part of vote getting, but motivation is also important.
We can gain votes through this without converting a single republican voter.
The fundraising numbers, generic ballot edge, Trump's persistently poor numbers, the economic situation on the ground, Iran, historical trends, special election overperformance, and the polling all are pointing in the same direction.
Slotkin's endorsement of Maasdam probably handed the primary to Lawrence. Brink and Maasdam are going for basically the same group of voters, whereas Lawrence is running to the left of both Brink and Maasdam.
"Collins’ statement: Rep. Collins’ lifelong support for Israel is unquestionable and backed by his consistent record in Congress of standing up for Israel and her people.” Scheer did not respond to CNN’s requests for comment."
Yikes, he's basically saying he cannot hate Jews because he supports Israel.
"U.S. Representative Mike Collins (R-GA) sparked significant controversy in May 2024 when he shared a video of a mostly white mob at the University of Mississippi taunting a Black female pro-Palestinian demonstrator, captioning the post "Ole Miss taking care of business". The clip included a counter-protester making ape-like noises at the student."
I hope Turek’s and the Michigan nominee’s fundraising take off. The new Maine nominee will need a LOT of help as well. I might donate once the new nominee is chosen there.
It's not about nationalization. He has always been a poor fundraiser because he was only a state house member, doesn't have an online game and doesn't seem to have big dollar fundraising networks. Iowa has a cheap media market so that helps.
I loved that podcast interview with Colom. He's on point, highly qualified and relentlessly attacking Hyde-Smith as "High Prices." And he's right on the math statement.
If I could pick an upset Senate loss this year, Hyde-Smith would be in my top 3.
Hyde-Smith is already a pretty bad underpeformer, in a blue wave with a competent opponent she very well could lose even if I wouldn't put it on my radar for now
I would agree except for the fact that Ty Pinkins (who was the Democratic nominee in 2024) is also running in this race as an Independent. What keeps me hopeful though is the possibility for a runoff if Hyde-Smith can be kept below 50%
I'm not exactly sure what Ty Pinkins thinks he's accomplishing with his bid, aside from increasing the likelihood of a Hyde-Smith victory. If it ends up close enough to need a runoff, it would likely juice up Republican turnout in the runoff. I assume a runoff would probably get a lot of Republicans who sat out in the initial election to suck up their disapproval of the Iran war, shit economy, Epstein files etc in order to stop something even worse: A black, democratic senator.
But there's also a chance that, if the midterms are bad enough for Mississippi to become competitive, Republican voters might be even further deflated if it went to a runoff, vis a vis Democratic voters being even more pumped up if it goes to a runoff
Pinkins initially ran in this cycle as a Democrat before switching his bid to Independent, all before Colom entered the race. I think Pinkins saw how Osborne did in NE last cycle and wanted to try it in Mississippi (which, to be fair, I don't think is a terrible strategy in red states). I think he also thought his chance of being a spoiler was much lower than in other states (such as South Dakota) since Mississippi uses a runoff system (also not a terrible calculation in my opinion). Overall, though, I agree with you that it likely doesn't help the Democratic candidate to have Pinkins also running (unless he can manage to pull enough votes from Hyde-Smith to keep her under 50%).
If there is a runoff, I'm hoping that having a bunch of national attention on the race can help boost Democratic turnout
I wonder if the Deep South would be less friendly to a liberal running as an independent because of the strong relationship between the Democratic party and black voters. Since it's my understanding that one of the reasons black voters support the Democratic party is because of that longstanding relationship, and it's not as much about policy, I wonder if we end up losing a lot of trust in the communities we need the most if we abandon the party label. I could see it going either way, especially as many minority voters feel like the party hasn't really listened to them in recent years.
I could be mistaken, but I thought that Georgia was the only state with run-offs if no one gets a majority in the general election. If I'm correct the above series of comments are based on incorrect premises. If I'm wrong , apologies in advance. I asked Claude but got non-germane responses.
Mississippi is actually the only other state that uses a run-off election for general elections besides Georgia. Alaska and Maine (in primary and federal general elections) use Ranked Choice Voting which is kind of similar to runoffs, in spirit
Without judgement I'd recommend relying less on generative AI. It's advanced enough to get a lot of basic things right but it always has the potential to mess up or make something up without indicating as such
Thing is that strategy only really works depending on the candidate themselves and if it's coordinated well. Osborn worked well in Nebraska because he pushes for popular policy wrapped in populist rhetoric without the (D) label pulling him down, as well as the fact there was an effort made to ensure that he was the only candidate facing the Republican nominee. That last point is also why Bodnar's efforts in Montana are doomed - Tester trying to maneuver around the party was not a great idea, and it doesn't even look like they tried to elevate/field a candidate who they could convince to drop out or tried to reach out the state Democratic party to discuss a strategy, unlike Nebraska. If anything it looks like Bodnar backers might've elevated Bankhead over state rep Reilly Neill *HOPING* that she would drop out. She's been adamant so far that she won't drop out, so unless something changes her mind, Montana has gone from *potentially* flippable to guaranteed Republican hold unless Democratic voters in Montana move to Bodnar in droves. And if Bodnar were to drop out, Bankhead has no shot at winning at all. I don't have much confidence that Reilly Neill would've done too well either, but at the very least she raised more than $20,000 like Bankhead.
If it weren't for Mississippi's runoff alleviating the spoiler potential, I would've said Pinkins' independent bid is the worst so far of these examples. He *just* ran as a Democrat for statewide office, twice in the last three years, so he's a lot less likely to really carve out his own base of voters. Democratic voters will just stick with the actual Democratic nominee, 99% of Republican voters in Mississippi would never consider voting for a black former Democrat instead of the Republican, and those who are mad enough at the Trump administration to oppose Hyde-Smith would more likely just vote for Colom or sit out the election. So while Osborn and Bodnar are clearly backed by the Democrats, Pinkins is, in effect, just a second Democrat running for the seat. While the other two major independents running for senate this year make a point to rail against "both parties," they have a specific message that underlines that, whereas with Pinkins it seems more like he's upset the Democratic party wasn't keen to run him and lose for a third time and backed a stronger candidate. Already that's a pretty weak central campaign message and motivation for running, but it probably hurts a bit worse in a state like Mississippi compared to others. In states towards the west like Montana or Nebraska, they tend to have much more dynamic and "weird" politics even if they're still red states. But ancestral voting is very common and present in deep south states like Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, and of course Mississippi. That alone already hurts Colom's chances of winning, let alone Pinkins' chances of being a serious, legitimate candidate. Mr. Rochester also makes a great point in regards to the ties the Democratic Party label has to black voters, which is of increased importance in Mississippi since the population has the largest percentage of black Americans of any state. And, on top of that, Pinkins hasn't exactly raised... money. But he's still raised more than Bankhead in Montana, which is kind of embarrassing. But since Mississippi has a runoff system and thus Pinkins is unable to truly spoil the election, his bid for senate is still less damaging than Bodnar's (even if blame there can be shared with the state Democratic party and Bankhead).
I can see your point about the national attention boosting Democratic turnout in the runoff, sort of like Georgia in 2020. If anything it could even be a benefit for Colom, if his race ends up receiving little attention/funding and it still ends up going to a runoff, because it'd mean he has a higher ceiling. But when it comes to things like this I prefer it when there's as little rogue, uncontrollable elements as possible, y'know? If it has the potential to be a surprise upset, a 50.1% - 49.9% Colom victory is far more preferable than a 49.9% - 49.8% result that gives the GOP an extra month or two to get their bearings and potentially save the seat.
Apologies for how long this comment ended up being... I take Adderall to manage ADHD and it leads to me doing shit like this lmao
I think people overlook the obvious that some politicians are stupid and don't understand politics while others are vengeful when they are overlooked by their party.
I would like to clarify once and for all (because this has come up a fair bit!) that there are ***no general election runoffs for regularly scheduled elections for federal offices in Mississippi***.
I think folks got confused because of two things.
1) In November of 2018, MS held a *special* election for the Senate for the final two years of Thad Cochran's term. Under MS law, specials operate quite differently from regular elections. They are officially nonpartisan, and you *must* win a majority or else there's a runoff.
That race *did* go to a runoff between appointed GOP Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith and Democrat Mike Espy because a third Republican (remember Chris McDaniel?) split the GOP vote. Hyde-Smith ultimately beat Espy by 7 points in a runoff at the end of November.
2) In 2020, voters approved an amendment to the state constitution mandating runoffs, but *only* for statewide officials elected at the state level. So that's governor, AG, SoS, etc. It does not apply to federal offices, state legislature, etc.
So does that mean this introductory paragraph on the wikipedia page for Mississippi's Senate election (and specifically the sentence between the double-asterisks) is incorrect?
"The 2026 United States Senate election in Mississippi will be held on November 3, 2026, to elect a member of the United States Senate to represent the state of Mississippi.[1] **A runoff election will be held December 1, 2026, if no candidate gets a majority of the vote.** Republican incumbent Cindy Hyde-Smith is seeking re-election to a second full term. She is being challenged by Democratic Lowndes County district attorney Scott Colom."
This introductory paragraph on ballotpedia would also need to be fixed then:
"Voters in Mississippi will elect one member to the U.S. Senate in the general election on November 3, 2026. The primary was March 10, 2026. A primary runoff was scheduled for April 7, 2026, but it was not needed. The general runoff is December 1, 2026. The filing deadline was December 26, 2025. The election will fill the Class II Senate seat held by Cindy Hyde-Smith (R), who first took office in 2018."
I am curious, though, I tried looking into this and found very little information. Even the article David linked doesn't actually mention federal elections. Why would both wikipedia and ballotpedia have the same potential runoff date listed (December 1) if there is no runoff?
Well shit that's my bad. Funny thing is I was worried it was exclusive to special elections but the information I found misled me. Either I forgot to specify "federal elections" or Google just ignored that and showed me sources referring to regular statewide races
It's an interesting quandary in SC poltical regulations. If Fry runs in the special primary and wins, if he can't run for two seats at once, his line on SC07 should become vacant, which would then potentially trigger another special primary. There's not time for that in the calendar. Senate special primary is Aug 11 and runoff Aug 25. One month for filing would be Sept 25, 2 weeks to prep election is roughly Oct 14 and run off would be Oct 28. But early vote starts Oct 19. Even with no run off there isn't time for ballot prep for overseas and absentee.
If he can run for both at once and wins both, 😡, then he'd vacate his house seat on Jan 3. Which would trigger a special that would occur in mid/late February. But running for two seats at once seems problematic. So if he vacates the house line, either the D, John Vincent, wins, or somehow they have to refill the line, but I don't think SC has an option like Maine does, or the deadline has passed.
I think if Fry wins special primary then he pulls out of house race. But law says SC can't use a convention for a race previously determined by primary. So someone else would have to run write in as an R. That probably works. Our D candidate isn't great, but he's not terrible either. Outside funding could make it surprising. When we first got our 7th seat, this district, the race was pretty close. (Tinobu D, vs Ton Rice 2012).
It sounds like state rep. Case Brittain is the frontrunner to succeed Fry if the seat opens up, so it's not hard to see district Republicans uniting behind him for a write-in campaign.
I don't know South Carolinian election laws but it would be incredibly funny if we ended up winning a seat in deep red territory simply because Trump decided he wanted this random representative instead of just endorsing one of the many other candidates that wanted to/plan to run for the seat
Fry isn't really random, he's young, represents the fastest growing part of the state and was personally recruited by Trump to run against Tom Rice after he voted to impeach Trump. All of the other current potential candidates have big problems, Norman and Mace have both committed Trump apostasies and aren't well-liked at all around the state (seee their miserable Gov primary showings). LG Evette was just trounced in the Gov runoff even with the Trump endorsement so she embarrassed him and Mark Lynch was just on the wrong side of Graham's primary and was pilloried by Trump himself.
That leaves Fry as probably the best choice that can unite the wings of party and still have the best chance of winning somewhat easily.
Well, he does probably have a profile among the One America crowd. But I don't think he's that well known across the state. Norman is now, though you'll note that the counties he won were all in/near his district. I agree that he's probably the likeliest best candidate for the Maga crowd.
Yes, Norman is only really popular in his base. Mace doesn't even have that as Wilson and Evette cleaned up in the Charleston area. Fry would almost certainly carry Myrtle Beach area handily and that's a huge base of GOP primary votes in and of itself.
Excellent points actually. I always forget that Trump doesn't really operate on what makes the most sense strategically, but what makes the most sense to his ego.
But Trump (or his handlers) have been pretty careful this year in regards to house members because of how small their majority is. There seems to be a strategy around ensuring house members stay around as long as they can as well as ensuring they don't alienate/irritate any house reps that aren't already a bit mavericky (which I guess is why he felt fine endorsing Evette over Norman - Norman's too much of a bootlicker to try and get even). I feel like Trump and his team wouldn't back Fry knowing it could lead to an accidental Democratic gain, so maybe he and the state GOP plan on brute forcing a special primary anyway even if it's far too late, or just allowing Fry to run on both ballots even if it goes against regulations. When have they ever been hindered by laws and regulations anyway?
Edit: Somehow I forgot that write-in campaigns are thing. There might be a chance they just go ahead and try that and avoid the potential controversy of the other options
He won the democratic primary for senate as a write-in, and at the time winning the democratic primary in South Carolina was basically the same as winning the general election. As recently as 2010 Lisa Murkowski won re-election as a write-in, in Alaska
In a much smaller constituency like a congressional district, a write-in candidate will probably be easy to rally around especially with Trump making sure GOP voters fall in line and do as he says
Also interesting to game out the competition for Dr. Andrews now in SC. My gut said she was better running against Graham because there are many Rs who dislike him. But he dispatched Mark Lynch and Thomas Dismukes pretty easily. So probably better for Andrews now.
Lynch was damaged pretty badly by Graham. I'm surprised he didn't dent Graham more. And Lynch is very far right. Doubt he can beat Norman in a primary but Lynch wouldn't be a strong candidate vs Andrews.
Nancy Mace is likely to run and that would be a tasty race vs Dr Andrews. Mace will default to her worst instincts about trans and gay bashing because she's done that with Andrews before. Andrews could turn a lot of female voters against Mace. Easily Andrew's preferred opponent, I'd think.
I think Evette would be the strongest candidate against Andrews, but considering how little support she got in the run off, maybe Rs don't like her as much as I thought. Or they're just sexist.
Norman is probably the strongest R who could run. He has DC experience and Maga bona fides and just did reasonably well in Gov race, but only 5% better than Mace. If Dr Andrews is correct and the Nikki Haley Rs in the state are ready to jump ship from the Maga right, then that could be a problem. But he's older than Graham was.
Fry is Norman but younger + and less well known -.
Regardless, I think Andrews loses, but she has a better shot now. As to which R candidate will win...search me...as the Gen X kids said back in the day.
I have no idea *how* to look at the race now, honestly.
Respectfully, I don't really think Graham was as strong/popular among Republicans as you say. He was a four term incumbent, endorsed by Trump, outraised Lynch four times over, and he still only captured 57% of the vote. Less than what Andrews got in her primary, hell less than what Paxton got over incumbent Cornyn. It wasn't close at all, but when you're running for re-election in a wave year, you don't want to have a voter base that isn't *overwhelmingly* supportive of you.
At the same time, Graham was also the most vocal cheerleader of continued war with Iran, which is only getting more and more unpopular with just about everybody. That, combined with a not very enthusiastic base, while being intimately tied to Trump and all of his problems, created an opening for a bit of an upset. Now most of those factors are gone.
Of course whoever comes next will still be tied to Trump and will likely support continuing the Iran war, of course, but they won't really have the baggage that Graham carried (unless they nominate Mace or Lynch who have their own, somehow worse baggage). I don't think Graham was ever able to truly shake off the "RINO" stuff and his initial opposition to Trump, whereas the new nominee will basically be a clean slate.
But at the same time, Graham was an incumbent, one that was admittedly pretty adept at campaigning. And I feel like Graham's previous opposition to Trump and his... "uniqueness" in the Republican caucus probably helped him out with independents. But that said, I don't know if his incumbency would've outweighed the potential for MAGA faithful like Lynch voters to sit this one out.
Here's my viewpoint: This race was already a peripheral pick-up opportunity that was heavily dependent on Graham's unique shortcomings, sort of like Texas in 2018 or a less intense version of Alabama in 2017. Now, I'd say it's gotten harder initially, but how much harder or if it'll stay that way depends on both the nominee the Republicans choose and how that nominee campaigns. My gut feeling is that almost every candidate is stronger than Graham, with Evette maybe being on par given how badly she imploded in the governor's race, and Lynch and Mace being weaker.
All those things you said about Graham align with my opinion too. Though 57% isn't strong, I thought it would be closer because Lynch would exploit the stated weaknesses. Even run off potential. That's why my gut thought she'd be better running against him. But, today at least, I'm leaning more toward better not facing an incumbent. 50:50.
Fair point. I had expected a runoff to be avoided given that polling began showing Graham either above 50% or close enough to it where it'd be difficult for him *not* to reach 50% with undecideds.
I think the main reason why Graham performed as well (or... "well?" Depending on how you view it) as he did was simply because Lynch was a pretty weak opponent. He was just someone who could self-fund his campaign, and not even that well. There's no telling how he would've performed against an established figure with a stronger base of support than Lynch, but any candidate like that was probably scared off by Trump's endorsement.
When you look at the polling though you could also make the argument that the Pro-Lindsay and Anti-Lindsay camps were pretty solidified to begin with. Neither Graham's nor Lynch's/non Graham candidate's polling changed much at all. Graham's polling, in particular, ranged from 43% to a maximum of 58%. Perhaps Graham reached his ceiling in the primary, meaning there would still be 44% of Republican voters who didn't want Graham. Obviously there will be something similar with a competitive special primary - a certain amount of voters who didn't vote for/choose the eventual nominee first. But given Graham's past beef with MAGA and his incumbency meaning he *should* have performed stronger, I'd argue his weakness there was a bigger drag than the boost incumbency would've provided, and depending on who wins the primary would've had a harder time uniting the voterbase and turning them out in this political environment.
But, admittedly, it's easy for me to say that Graham would've been an easier candidate to beat, because he was a known quality. We knew his weaknesses, we had polling that showed him potentially in danger, a primary result that showed a party with a non-insignificant minority still skeptical of him, etc. We don't really have as much to go off of with the potential replacements in that regard. And another factor I failed to consider is, like Maine, whoever the nominee is is going to have to cobble together a Senate campaign on short notice. It's not as problematic as it is for Democrats in Maine, necessarily, because Andrews is a non-incumbent in a red leaning state and Republicans could probably double whatever Andrews has in fundraising by tomorrow if they wanted to or thought it was necessary, but it's still not *great.* And unlike Maine, none of the former gubernatorial/senate candidates with statewide operations ready to go are very strong candidates - Evette was about to get trounced even when only she had Trump's endorsement, Norman is older than Graham was and didn't perform too great either in the primary, Mark Lynch only got as far as he did because he was the only anti-Graham candidate with money, and Nancy Mace. So I'd probably also say it's 50-50 as to who would've been better to run again - it's already a race on the edge of the battleground so it's not likely to be a dramatic change in any case
Per my comment above, I think Fry is seen as the best choice by Republicans in the state. Norman and Mace are toxic and Trump hates them. Evette was just embarrassed in the Gov runoff and Lynch was just carpet bombed by Trump in the primary. Fry is young, scandal-free and personally recruited by Trump. He's not as far-right, at least vocally, as Norman and crucially he didn't endorse Nikki Haley in the Prez primary.
As far as ranking against Andrews, I would say Fry then Evette are the strongest, as being basically geneic GOPer. I think she would have at least a shot against any other currently talked about candidate. I don't think she was ever going to beat Graham but it would have been moderately close probably.
SC-Sen: Treasury head Scott Bessent and former Gov. Nikki Haley, considered to be potential dark horse candidates, will not make runs, which was to be expected.
It'd honestly be the smartest thing for Haley's career. She'd be an easy choice for a high level cabinet role in the next Republican administration but she's likely to be irrelevant by then.
Man, I hope Ed Case loses. He’s been a pointless pain in the ass for decades. I’m willing to be a lot more forgiving of Democrats like Jared Golden and MGP in tough seats, but I have zero patience for anyone in a blue seat doing that crap.
I’m also surprised by the Slotkin endorsement of Maasdam in MI-7. It had seemed like the establishment was coalescing behind Brink, but it seems like Brink has her own issues.
Maybe if Shapiro comes out stronger against data centers he breaks 60% and outs Fitzpatrick downballot
I think governors are put in harder positions where you need to find nuance to not completely fuck over one of their communities or other priorities. That might be why he hasn’t called for a blanket ban on them yet.
Whitmer and Mills got torched for their recent vetoes of bills, and the headlines make them seem egregious or outrageous. But if you read their reasonings for why they vetoed them, it makes sense. The Maine data center bill would have completely shuttered a town. I forget what Whitmer’s reasons were, but they were defensible.
Can you link something for that Maine claim? I don't see how shutting down data centers is something that could harm the public.
Yea they employ what 30 people and you know most of those jobs are not going to come from the local population besides security. The construction jobs are not permanent obviously.
the maine data center carveout that janet demaned after the passage of the bill would not have saved the town, i cannot speak re michigan's situation
Yep here in Texas i'm hoping Talarico and Hinojosa hammer their opponents on this issue. It's a loser in rural areas, i doubt the dems can win their votes but if they stay home it could make a big difference.
I'm skeptical of the data center issue being able to flip MAGA & rural voters. You pretty much need alot of them to be single issue voters but probably resonates with swing voters if its apart of a broader message on affordability.
We're not exactly going to lose voters by opposing data centers. It's borderline free as a political position to take.
We also need to remember that the vote buckets aren't split 50/50 with us fighting for people that would otherwise vote republican, and them fighting for people that would otherwise vote democratic. Both parties are fighting very hard for people that would otherwise not vote at all. Conversion is an important part of vote getting, but motivation is also important.
We can gain votes through this without converting a single republican voter.
It’s crazy that they had TX15 at Likely R this long.
The fundraising numbers, generic ballot edge, Trump's persistently poor numbers, the economic situation on the ground, Iran, historical trends, special election overperformance, and the polling all are pointing in the same direction.
Andy Barr’s seat is Lean R now per Cook Political Report?
Not bad!
He's still pouty that he can't get his precious SAVE Act rammed through via reconcilation.
Look, if Trump doesn’t sign any bills by Democrats if they win both chambers of Congress and they become law, who can complain about it?
Nationwide AI data center moratorium
Increase the federal minimum wage
More renewable energy and climate change stimulus
I’d rather Trump not sign than veto Democrats legislation if this is the case. Jk
Is that how Ispos put it, "The situation with Iran"?
An illegal, undeclared war at that.
Slotkin's endorsement of Maasdam probably handed the primary to Lawrence. Brink and Maasdam are going for basically the same group of voters, whereas Lawrence is running to the left of both Brink and Maasdam.
I'd be shocked if Lawrence got more than 15% in the end. But we'll see.
Lawrence is not Phillips-Staley.
"Collins’ statement: Rep. Collins’ lifelong support for Israel is unquestionable and backed by his consistent record in Congress of standing up for Israel and her people.” Scheer did not respond to CNN’s requests for comment."
Yikes, he's basically saying he cannot hate Jews because he supports Israel.
And Nazis have never been only Jew-haters. What about his views of Black people, etc., etc.?
"U.S. Representative Mike Collins (R-GA) sparked significant controversy in May 2024 when he shared a video of a mostly white mob at the University of Mississippi taunting a Black female pro-Palestinian demonstrator, captioning the post "Ole Miss taking care of business". The clip included a counter-protester making ape-like noises at the student."
We have actual Nazis running in elections now.
Oh, I'm very much aware of that.
McMorrow's campaign went into free fall in the final stretch of the quarter and she still outraised Stevens. Ouch.
A campaign entirely astroturfed by AIPAC, centrist groups and Bloomberg.
I hope Turek’s and the Michigan nominee’s fundraising take off. The new Maine nominee will need a LOT of help as well. I might donate once the new nominee is chosen there.
Tough balance for Turek; probably better not to nationalize his race, but it limits his small donor base, I'd bet.
It's not about nationalization. He has always been a poor fundraiser because he was only a state house member, doesn't have an online game and doesn't seem to have big dollar fundraising networks. Iowa has a cheap media market so that helps.
Republicans just prefer to have their fundraising come from mega-donors through super PACs which I imagine will equal out the field.
Or tilt it in their favor, most likely.
Angela probably kicked him out of the house in McKinney and Frisco is still nearby, so...
Less than $26K 💀
No wonder she dropped out
I don't see how those are the only numbers that matter.
Clearly, Roys is going to come 2nd in the primary
I loved that podcast interview with Colom. He's on point, highly qualified and relentlessly attacking Hyde-Smith as "High Prices." And he's right on the math statement.
If I could pick an upset Senate loss this year, Hyde-Smith would be in my top 3.
Hyde-Smith is already a pretty bad underpeformer, in a blue wave with a competent opponent she very well could lose even if I wouldn't put it on my radar for now
I would agree except for the fact that Ty Pinkins (who was the Democratic nominee in 2024) is also running in this race as an Independent. What keeps me hopeful though is the possibility for a runoff if Hyde-Smith can be kept below 50%
I'm not exactly sure what Ty Pinkins thinks he's accomplishing with his bid, aside from increasing the likelihood of a Hyde-Smith victory. If it ends up close enough to need a runoff, it would likely juice up Republican turnout in the runoff. I assume a runoff would probably get a lot of Republicans who sat out in the initial election to suck up their disapproval of the Iran war, shit economy, Epstein files etc in order to stop something even worse: A black, democratic senator.
But there's also a chance that, if the midterms are bad enough for Mississippi to become competitive, Republican voters might be even further deflated if it went to a runoff, vis a vis Democratic voters being even more pumped up if it goes to a runoff
Pinkins initially ran in this cycle as a Democrat before switching his bid to Independent, all before Colom entered the race. I think Pinkins saw how Osborne did in NE last cycle and wanted to try it in Mississippi (which, to be fair, I don't think is a terrible strategy in red states). I think he also thought his chance of being a spoiler was much lower than in other states (such as South Dakota) since Mississippi uses a runoff system (also not a terrible calculation in my opinion). Overall, though, I agree with you that it likely doesn't help the Democratic candidate to have Pinkins also running (unless he can manage to pull enough votes from Hyde-Smith to keep her under 50%).
If there is a runoff, I'm hoping that having a bunch of national attention on the race can help boost Democratic turnout
I wonder if the Deep South would be less friendly to a liberal running as an independent because of the strong relationship between the Democratic party and black voters. Since it's my understanding that one of the reasons black voters support the Democratic party is because of that longstanding relationship, and it's not as much about policy, I wonder if we end up losing a lot of trust in the communities we need the most if we abandon the party label. I could see it going either way, especially as many minority voters feel like the party hasn't really listened to them in recent years.
I could be mistaken, but I thought that Georgia was the only state with run-offs if no one gets a majority in the general election. If I'm correct the above series of comments are based on incorrect premises. If I'm wrong , apologies in advance. I asked Claude but got non-germane responses.
Mississippi is actually the only other state that uses a run-off election for general elections besides Georgia. Alaska and Maine (in primary and federal general elections) use Ranked Choice Voting which is kind of similar to runoffs, in spirit
Without judgement I'd recommend relying less on generative AI. It's advanced enough to get a lot of basic things right but it always has the potential to mess up or make something up without indicating as such
Thing is that strategy only really works depending on the candidate themselves and if it's coordinated well. Osborn worked well in Nebraska because he pushes for popular policy wrapped in populist rhetoric without the (D) label pulling him down, as well as the fact there was an effort made to ensure that he was the only candidate facing the Republican nominee. That last point is also why Bodnar's efforts in Montana are doomed - Tester trying to maneuver around the party was not a great idea, and it doesn't even look like they tried to elevate/field a candidate who they could convince to drop out or tried to reach out the state Democratic party to discuss a strategy, unlike Nebraska. If anything it looks like Bodnar backers might've elevated Bankhead over state rep Reilly Neill *HOPING* that she would drop out. She's been adamant so far that she won't drop out, so unless something changes her mind, Montana has gone from *potentially* flippable to guaranteed Republican hold unless Democratic voters in Montana move to Bodnar in droves. And if Bodnar were to drop out, Bankhead has no shot at winning at all. I don't have much confidence that Reilly Neill would've done too well either, but at the very least she raised more than $20,000 like Bankhead.
If it weren't for Mississippi's runoff alleviating the spoiler potential, I would've said Pinkins' independent bid is the worst so far of these examples. He *just* ran as a Democrat for statewide office, twice in the last three years, so he's a lot less likely to really carve out his own base of voters. Democratic voters will just stick with the actual Democratic nominee, 99% of Republican voters in Mississippi would never consider voting for a black former Democrat instead of the Republican, and those who are mad enough at the Trump administration to oppose Hyde-Smith would more likely just vote for Colom or sit out the election. So while Osborn and Bodnar are clearly backed by the Democrats, Pinkins is, in effect, just a second Democrat running for the seat. While the other two major independents running for senate this year make a point to rail against "both parties," they have a specific message that underlines that, whereas with Pinkins it seems more like he's upset the Democratic party wasn't keen to run him and lose for a third time and backed a stronger candidate. Already that's a pretty weak central campaign message and motivation for running, but it probably hurts a bit worse in a state like Mississippi compared to others. In states towards the west like Montana or Nebraska, they tend to have much more dynamic and "weird" politics even if they're still red states. But ancestral voting is very common and present in deep south states like Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, and of course Mississippi. That alone already hurts Colom's chances of winning, let alone Pinkins' chances of being a serious, legitimate candidate. Mr. Rochester also makes a great point in regards to the ties the Democratic Party label has to black voters, which is of increased importance in Mississippi since the population has the largest percentage of black Americans of any state. And, on top of that, Pinkins hasn't exactly raised... money. But he's still raised more than Bankhead in Montana, which is kind of embarrassing. But since Mississippi has a runoff system and thus Pinkins is unable to truly spoil the election, his bid for senate is still less damaging than Bodnar's (even if blame there can be shared with the state Democratic party and Bankhead).
I can see your point about the national attention boosting Democratic turnout in the runoff, sort of like Georgia in 2020. If anything it could even be a benefit for Colom, if his race ends up receiving little attention/funding and it still ends up going to a runoff, because it'd mean he has a higher ceiling. But when it comes to things like this I prefer it when there's as little rogue, uncontrollable elements as possible, y'know? If it has the potential to be a surprise upset, a 50.1% - 49.9% Colom victory is far more preferable than a 49.9% - 49.8% result that gives the GOP an extra month or two to get their bearings and potentially save the seat.
Apologies for how long this comment ended up being... I take Adderall to manage ADHD and it leads to me doing shit like this lmao
I have ADHD as well so I completely understand. :)
I think people overlook the obvious that some politicians are stupid and don't understand politics while others are vengeful when they are overlooked by their party.
I wonder if Pinkins could be persuaded to go the way of Mike Duggan if this race starts to look competitive.
I would like to clarify once and for all (because this has come up a fair bit!) that there are ***no general election runoffs for regularly scheduled elections for federal offices in Mississippi***.
I think folks got confused because of two things.
1) In November of 2018, MS held a *special* election for the Senate for the final two years of Thad Cochran's term. Under MS law, specials operate quite differently from regular elections. They are officially nonpartisan, and you *must* win a majority or else there's a runoff.
That race *did* go to a runoff between appointed GOP Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith and Democrat Mike Espy because a third Republican (remember Chris McDaniel?) split the GOP vote. Hyde-Smith ultimately beat Espy by 7 points in a runoff at the end of November.
2) In 2020, voters approved an amendment to the state constitution mandating runoffs, but *only* for statewide officials elected at the state level. So that's governor, AG, SoS, etc. It does not apply to federal offices, state legislature, etc.
This amendment was passed because the state's previous system for handling races where no one won a majority, which dated from Mississippi's 1890 Jim Crow constitution, was very likely unconstitutional. Background here: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/7/2/1957542/elections/Morning-Digest-Repeal-of-Jim-Crow-election-law-in-Mississippi-could-still-harm-Black-voters/
-----
So, just to sum up, the MS-Sen matchup between Hyde-Smith and Scott Colom will be decided in November in a single election, no matter what.
So does that mean this introductory paragraph on the wikipedia page for Mississippi's Senate election (and specifically the sentence between the double-asterisks) is incorrect?
"The 2026 United States Senate election in Mississippi will be held on November 3, 2026, to elect a member of the United States Senate to represent the state of Mississippi.[1] **A runoff election will be held December 1, 2026, if no candidate gets a majority of the vote.** Republican incumbent Cindy Hyde-Smith is seeking re-election to a second full term. She is being challenged by Democratic Lowndes County district attorney Scott Colom."
Fixed, thanks for bringing it up!
This introductory paragraph on ballotpedia would also need to be fixed then:
"Voters in Mississippi will elect one member to the U.S. Senate in the general election on November 3, 2026. The primary was March 10, 2026. A primary runoff was scheduled for April 7, 2026, but it was not needed. The general runoff is December 1, 2026. The filing deadline was December 26, 2025. The election will fill the Class II Senate seat held by Cindy Hyde-Smith (R), who first took office in 2018."
I am curious, though, I tried looking into this and found very little information. Even the article David linked doesn't actually mention federal elections. Why would both wikipedia and ballotpedia have the same potential runoff date listed (December 1) if there is no runoff?
I don't have a ballotpedia account
Nice! The TDB comments section: We get results!
Certified Wiki-board warrior here!
Well shit that's my bad. Funny thing is I was worried it was exclusive to special elections but the information I found misled me. Either I forgot to specify "federal elections" or Google just ignored that and showed me sources referring to regular statewide races
It's an interesting quandary in SC poltical regulations. If Fry runs in the special primary and wins, if he can't run for two seats at once, his line on SC07 should become vacant, which would then potentially trigger another special primary. There's not time for that in the calendar. Senate special primary is Aug 11 and runoff Aug 25. One month for filing would be Sept 25, 2 weeks to prep election is roughly Oct 14 and run off would be Oct 28. But early vote starts Oct 19. Even with no run off there isn't time for ballot prep for overseas and absentee.
If he can run for both at once and wins both, 😡, then he'd vacate his house seat on Jan 3. Which would trigger a special that would occur in mid/late February. But running for two seats at once seems problematic. So if he vacates the house line, either the D, John Vincent, wins, or somehow they have to refill the line, but I don't think SC has an option like Maine does, or the deadline has passed.
Could be a very busy year for us poll managers.
I think if Fry wins special primary then he pulls out of house race. But law says SC can't use a convention for a race previously determined by primary. So someone else would have to run write in as an R. That probably works. Our D candidate isn't great, but he's not terrible either. Outside funding could make it surprising. When we first got our 7th seat, this district, the race was pretty close. (Tinobu D, vs Ton Rice 2012).
It sounds like state rep. Case Brittain is the frontrunner to succeed Fry if the seat opens up, so it's not hard to see district Republicans uniting behind him for a write-in campaign.
I think Delaware had that law specifically because of Joe Biden
Yeah there are definitely others. I think Texas has or had it for a while because LBJ wanted it specifically.
I remember when Lloyd Bentsen successfully ran for reelection to the Senate at the same time he was Michael Dukakis's running mate.
Didn't Tim Kaine do the same?
I don't know South Carolinian election laws but it would be incredibly funny if we ended up winning a seat in deep red territory simply because Trump decided he wanted this random representative instead of just endorsing one of the many other candidates that wanted to/plan to run for the seat
Fry isn't really random, he's young, represents the fastest growing part of the state and was personally recruited by Trump to run against Tom Rice after he voted to impeach Trump. All of the other current potential candidates have big problems, Norman and Mace have both committed Trump apostasies and aren't well-liked at all around the state (seee their miserable Gov primary showings). LG Evette was just trounced in the Gov runoff even with the Trump endorsement so she embarrassed him and Mark Lynch was just on the wrong side of Graham's primary and was pilloried by Trump himself.
That leaves Fry as probably the best choice that can unite the wings of party and still have the best chance of winning somewhat easily.
Well, he does probably have a profile among the One America crowd. But I don't think he's that well known across the state. Norman is now, though you'll note that the counties he won were all in/near his district. I agree that he's probably the likeliest best candidate for the Maga crowd.
Yes, Norman is only really popular in his base. Mace doesn't even have that as Wilson and Evette cleaned up in the Charleston area. Fry would almost certainly carry Myrtle Beach area handily and that's a huge base of GOP primary votes in and of itself.
Excellent points actually. I always forget that Trump doesn't really operate on what makes the most sense strategically, but what makes the most sense to his ego.
But Trump (or his handlers) have been pretty careful this year in regards to house members because of how small their majority is. There seems to be a strategy around ensuring house members stay around as long as they can as well as ensuring they don't alienate/irritate any house reps that aren't already a bit mavericky (which I guess is why he felt fine endorsing Evette over Norman - Norman's too much of a bootlicker to try and get even). I feel like Trump and his team wouldn't back Fry knowing it could lead to an accidental Democratic gain, so maybe he and the state GOP plan on brute forcing a special primary anyway even if it's far too late, or just allowing Fry to run on both ballots even if it goes against regulations. When have they ever been hindered by laws and regulations anyway?
Edit: Somehow I forgot that write-in campaigns are thing. There might be a chance they just go ahead and try that and avoid the potential controversy of the other options
In South Carolina, write ins can definitely matter. I believe that Strom Thurmond was elected to the Senate, or won a primary, as a write in
He won the democratic primary for senate as a write-in, and at the time winning the democratic primary in South Carolina was basically the same as winning the general election. As recently as 2010 Lisa Murkowski won re-election as a write-in, in Alaska
In a much smaller constituency like a congressional district, a write-in candidate will probably be easy to rally around especially with Trump making sure GOP voters fall in line and do as he says
Also interesting to game out the competition for Dr. Andrews now in SC. My gut said she was better running against Graham because there are many Rs who dislike him. But he dispatched Mark Lynch and Thomas Dismukes pretty easily. So probably better for Andrews now.
Lynch was damaged pretty badly by Graham. I'm surprised he didn't dent Graham more. And Lynch is very far right. Doubt he can beat Norman in a primary but Lynch wouldn't be a strong candidate vs Andrews.
Nancy Mace is likely to run and that would be a tasty race vs Dr Andrews. Mace will default to her worst instincts about trans and gay bashing because she's done that with Andrews before. Andrews could turn a lot of female voters against Mace. Easily Andrew's preferred opponent, I'd think.
I think Evette would be the strongest candidate against Andrews, but considering how little support she got in the run off, maybe Rs don't like her as much as I thought. Or they're just sexist.
Norman is probably the strongest R who could run. He has DC experience and Maga bona fides and just did reasonably well in Gov race, but only 5% better than Mace. If Dr Andrews is correct and the Nikki Haley Rs in the state are ready to jump ship from the Maga right, then that could be a problem. But he's older than Graham was.
Fry is Norman but younger + and less well known -.
Regardless, I think Andrews loses, but she has a better shot now. As to which R candidate will win...search me...as the Gen X kids said back in the day.
I have no idea *how* to look at the race now, honestly.
Respectfully, I don't really think Graham was as strong/popular among Republicans as you say. He was a four term incumbent, endorsed by Trump, outraised Lynch four times over, and he still only captured 57% of the vote. Less than what Andrews got in her primary, hell less than what Paxton got over incumbent Cornyn. It wasn't close at all, but when you're running for re-election in a wave year, you don't want to have a voter base that isn't *overwhelmingly* supportive of you.
At the same time, Graham was also the most vocal cheerleader of continued war with Iran, which is only getting more and more unpopular with just about everybody. That, combined with a not very enthusiastic base, while being intimately tied to Trump and all of his problems, created an opening for a bit of an upset. Now most of those factors are gone.
Of course whoever comes next will still be tied to Trump and will likely support continuing the Iran war, of course, but they won't really have the baggage that Graham carried (unless they nominate Mace or Lynch who have their own, somehow worse baggage). I don't think Graham was ever able to truly shake off the "RINO" stuff and his initial opposition to Trump, whereas the new nominee will basically be a clean slate.
But at the same time, Graham was an incumbent, one that was admittedly pretty adept at campaigning. And I feel like Graham's previous opposition to Trump and his... "uniqueness" in the Republican caucus probably helped him out with independents. But that said, I don't know if his incumbency would've outweighed the potential for MAGA faithful like Lynch voters to sit this one out.
Here's my viewpoint: This race was already a peripheral pick-up opportunity that was heavily dependent on Graham's unique shortcomings, sort of like Texas in 2018 or a less intense version of Alabama in 2017. Now, I'd say it's gotten harder initially, but how much harder or if it'll stay that way depends on both the nominee the Republicans choose and how that nominee campaigns. My gut feeling is that almost every candidate is stronger than Graham, with Evette maybe being on par given how badly she imploded in the governor's race, and Lynch and Mace being weaker.
All those things you said about Graham align with my opinion too. Though 57% isn't strong, I thought it would be closer because Lynch would exploit the stated weaknesses. Even run off potential. That's why my gut thought she'd be better running against him. But, today at least, I'm leaning more toward better not facing an incumbent. 50:50.
Fair point. I had expected a runoff to be avoided given that polling began showing Graham either above 50% or close enough to it where it'd be difficult for him *not* to reach 50% with undecideds.
I think the main reason why Graham performed as well (or... "well?" Depending on how you view it) as he did was simply because Lynch was a pretty weak opponent. He was just someone who could self-fund his campaign, and not even that well. There's no telling how he would've performed against an established figure with a stronger base of support than Lynch, but any candidate like that was probably scared off by Trump's endorsement.
When you look at the polling though you could also make the argument that the Pro-Lindsay and Anti-Lindsay camps were pretty solidified to begin with. Neither Graham's nor Lynch's/non Graham candidate's polling changed much at all. Graham's polling, in particular, ranged from 43% to a maximum of 58%. Perhaps Graham reached his ceiling in the primary, meaning there would still be 44% of Republican voters who didn't want Graham. Obviously there will be something similar with a competitive special primary - a certain amount of voters who didn't vote for/choose the eventual nominee first. But given Graham's past beef with MAGA and his incumbency meaning he *should* have performed stronger, I'd argue his weakness there was a bigger drag than the boost incumbency would've provided, and depending on who wins the primary would've had a harder time uniting the voterbase and turning them out in this political environment.
But, admittedly, it's easy for me to say that Graham would've been an easier candidate to beat, because he was a known quality. We knew his weaknesses, we had polling that showed him potentially in danger, a primary result that showed a party with a non-insignificant minority still skeptical of him, etc. We don't really have as much to go off of with the potential replacements in that regard. And another factor I failed to consider is, like Maine, whoever the nominee is is going to have to cobble together a Senate campaign on short notice. It's not as problematic as it is for Democrats in Maine, necessarily, because Andrews is a non-incumbent in a red leaning state and Republicans could probably double whatever Andrews has in fundraising by tomorrow if they wanted to or thought it was necessary, but it's still not *great.* And unlike Maine, none of the former gubernatorial/senate candidates with statewide operations ready to go are very strong candidates - Evette was about to get trounced even when only she had Trump's endorsement, Norman is older than Graham was and didn't perform too great either in the primary, Mark Lynch only got as far as he did because he was the only anti-Graham candidate with money, and Nancy Mace. So I'd probably also say it's 50-50 as to who would've been better to run again - it's already a race on the edge of the battleground so it's not likely to be a dramatic change in any case
Per my comment above, I think Fry is seen as the best choice by Republicans in the state. Norman and Mace are toxic and Trump hates them. Evette was just embarrassed in the Gov runoff and Lynch was just carpet bombed by Trump in the primary. Fry is young, scandal-free and personally recruited by Trump. He's not as far-right, at least vocally, as Norman and crucially he didn't endorse Nikki Haley in the Prez primary.
As far as ranking against Andrews, I would say Fry then Evette are the strongest, as being basically geneic GOPer. I think she would have at least a shot against any other currently talked about candidate. I don't think she was ever going to beat Graham but it would have been moderately close probably.
Yes, I agree with your ranking. I don't think Norman is super toxic, based on his Gov run.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/congressional/4648442/scott-bessent-no-chance-run-for-lindsey-graham-seat/
SC-Sen: Treasury head Scott Bessent and former Gov. Nikki Haley, considered to be potential dark horse candidates, will not make runs, which was to be expected.
Scott Bessent was looked at as a potential dark house candidate? Oh dear god.
Bessent has declined, per wiki
Exactly. Which is why I said he will not make a run.
I can read, I promise!
It'd honestly be the smartest thing for Haley's career. She'd be an easy choice for a high level cabinet role in the next Republican administration but she's likely to be irrelevant by then.
MAGA would make it a priority to defeat her, so she'd just be taking another loss. She has no career in politics as long as MAGA runs the GOP.
https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/in-your-community/milwaukee-county/milwaukee-alderman-suspends-congressional-campaign
WI-1: Democratic Milwaukee alder Peter Burgelis is out, instead endorsing physician Mitchell Berman. Milwaukee is not in the 1st district.
Berman now faces nominal opposition in the primary, as ironworker Randy Bryce also dropped his bid.
Man, I hope Ed Case loses. He’s been a pointless pain in the ass for decades. I’m willing to be a lot more forgiving of Democrats like Jared Golden and MGP in tough seats, but I have zero patience for anyone in a blue seat doing that crap.
I’m also surprised by the Slotkin endorsement of Maasdam in MI-7. It had seemed like the establishment was coalescing behind Brink, but it seems like Brink has her own issues.
He's more like a headcase...
Ayyyyyyy
It took me way longer than it should’ve to get that.
What are Brink's issues? I haven't heard about this.