I do. He'd probably be obnoxiously "centrist" (so, actually fairly conservative) and then switch back to caucusing with Republicans if/when they retake the majority. All the while, he'd be s***-talking Democrats and amplifying whatever attack Republicans come up with, occasionally taking a few symbolic votes against Trump to prove he's "independent." It probably won't work, but if it does, it would actually be kind of a good position to be in, because you get to always be in the majority and never have to actually do anything if you don't want.
He is not going to be elected. The district is too Democratic. Had he run against McClintock he would not have been elected either. He will not be in the next Congress. The party-switch might make it harder for him to get a lobbyist job with a GOP oriented firm. Guess he will have to find a "real job"!
To be clear, I don't think what he's doing will work, I just think that's what his strategy is. I agree that the district will probably flip to a Democrat.
That's my rep. His policy stances have been pretty consistent: he's an old school, Paul Ryan type Republican. That doesn't fit Trump's GOP very well, but it doesn't fit the Dem party at all.
Yep, kinda like my old senator Pat "Sock It" Toomey, who was widely seen as an extremist in 2010 (so much so that there was significant doubt that he could win statewide in Pennsylvania even in a GOP wave), and a "moderate" by the time he left the Senate twelve years later.
The interesting thing about elections since at least 2008 (from my observation), you can have weird shifts in political party member sentiment to the point where those who used to be Republicans decided to be Democrats. This happened with numerous McCain '08 supporters, Romney '12 supporters and even Trump '16 supporters/voters up to a certain extent. It might eventually happen with Trump '24 supporters/voters.
"The one thing every political movement decides to adjust future tactics for? Losing elections."
A clear exception seems to be the Trumpist MAGA movement. As far as I can see, they seem totally unwilling to make any meaningful adjustments whatsoever to either their policies or tactics. Except, of course, to seek ways to disenfranchise the "wrong" voters.
I have doubts the GOP will make a real effort to adjust their tactics in 2028 if 2026 is a tsunami. How would that work?
I see only the following directions for the party:
1) Be like Trump in MAGA form
2) Be MAGA in their own form, similarly to how Ron DeSantis has been doing.
3) Go to pre-Trump days in the Tea Party direction pre-MAGA.
4) Become more crypto, Silicon Valley and tech driven with JD Vance, Peter Thiel and other Libertarian influencers and PACS. This might give the GOP the most legs although it could also isolate the party from MAGA as they want the GOP to go after Big Tech last I checked.
5) Go back to old Republican classic pre-Obama.
3) and 5) are the least likely simply because they were from different eras with Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama in office.
Yes, tactics for sure could be changed although it remains to be seen how the key voters that Trump in 2024 was targeting will react to what the GOP plans to do in 2028 in out reach. DHS is still going to be an albatross on the GOP's head so no matter how many methods of outreach they change, they may not be enough.
Back in 2024, I remember Hispanic & Latino voters felt the GOP and Trump represented more common sense on crime and economy when they didn't see that with Democrats. This was a good basis for why DAs like Chesa Boudin and Pamela Price were recalled.
Also, with Trump termed out of office in 2029, how will his influence be in the 2028 election if he decides to campaign? He won't be on the ballot and in my view it's unlikely he will be able to persuade the base to vote big in 2028. His track record in the 2018 and 2022 midterms isn't great and he will have to pull a hat trick somehow while still having remaining months in office.
The problem with that is that the progressive movement is quite fractured and has a long history of being hostile towards the idea of the progressive movement being run in a top-down fashion, as well as the concept of a political power broker within the progressive movement. Furthermore, there are voters in Democratic primaries who are open to voting for either moderate or progressive candidates and are not locked into one faction or another, and there are even candidates who try to appeal to moderate and progressive Democratic voters alike.
What about the DSA’s attempt to punish AOC for not being supportive enough of certain positions taken by their national organization? That inarguably seems a "top-down" dictate to me.
(Whether the DSA nationally is actually a progressive organization is of course another question...)
Absolutely! I respected him a lot. He was my father's colleague at Queens College and he liked him as a colleague and person and respected his politics and intellectual thinking.
There is nothing they could've done in IL - even among the left/progs, there is a deep hostility to outside influence in IL/Chicago politics. I'd guess the response in IL pol circles I spend time in would be "who the f**k is Greg Cesar?"
Seriously, this shows the potential weakness of the NV GOP. I hope that this year the Nevada Democratic Party can get back the governor's office and maintain the other statewide offices.
More like VA. 5 out of the 7 Justices were elected in a nonpartisan election, and those haven't been polarized like Wisconsin's. I think they're pretty middle of the road.
I have really been wondering why the Nevada Democratic Party failed to get any candidates to run for the State Supreme Court. Anyone have insights into the background and reason for what can only described as a monumental fail?
That seems to be what is happening in Maine. Platner having lots of public events, all over Maine, where he answers unscreened questions. Mills doesn’t seem to want to campaign and actually talk to unscreened voters.
Yeah, I've long been advocating for Mills as the safer choice, and Platner still makes me nervous, but it does seem like he has the energy and fortitude for this in a way she may not.
Now I'm starting to wonder if having senators represent states with excessively large populations is a bit much. I'm not trying to endorse the whole state secession movements you see in CA and OR and other places, but it does get logistically and absurdly difficult for 1 senator to try and listen to the concerns of over say, 4 million constituents, especially in places as geographically large as California, Florida or New York.
I think the Gallego endorsement is the most meaningful. Warren and especially Bernie are willing to endorse the more progressive option, even when they don't have a good chance. Gallego is young and may have higher ambitions, so he is sticking his neck out a bit here.
As is Jared Golden, the retiring Congressman representing Maine’s 2nd Congressional District. I wonder whether his endorsement might carry weight? That said, I expect Golden to remain radio silent, given that he once worked as a staffer for Senator Susan Collins.
He also seemed a little bitter when he withdrew from the race, as if his own party had made his re-election impossible. So maybe he doesn't want to help, even if he didn't maintain a higher loyalty to Collins.
Interesting. I think Warren and Bernie are much more significant because they are famous senators from New England. If even 1/10 of 1% of voters in Maine have heard of Gallego, I'd be surprised.
Didn't mean to imply that Gallego's endorsement will move more voters than Bernie's or Warren's...just that it gives his campaign some legitimacy that may help reassure donors and other establishment types that Platner is acceptable and encourage other Senators to endorse. Bernie can certainly move some numbers, but he pays zero attention to electability when making endorsements, so his endorsements aren't always helpful to the party and movement in general (and I say this as someone who considers him their favorite politican). Warren seems to at least try to balance electability with ideology. For someone like Gallego, who is very young and still making a reputation for themselves as a Senator, this is a much bigger risk to take, which I think makes a statement in itself.
McMorrow I support, Platner I want to but I'm not sure. However, I think he had a good response to Mills' ad. I love Warren, but I'd go with Turek over Wahls.
I’ve got to say I don’t totally get the CBC’s sniping at Pritzker for supporting Stratton. I’d get their pique if he had recruited, say, Sean Casten into the race against Raja and Kelly. This just makes it seem like sour grapes and gatekeeping in the CBC’s part
I'd say you're correct on that, particularly the gatekeeping. Obama didn't have the best relationship with them at the beginning because he came up outside their existing power structures.
Nah not at all, just reminiscing about some bullshit from back in the day where CBC types were suggesting (allegedly including Jesse Jackson, at least initially) that Obama’s life experiences as a biracial man without much (indeed, any) relationship to his Kenyan father or extended family with white grandparents from Kansas who had spent his childhood in Hawaii couldn’t “relate” to the traditions experiences of black people in the South or Midwest who were descendants of the Atlantic slave trade’s forcible African diaspora.
I get what they were getting at at a very base level, but also, c’mon
Also seemed like their criticism came really late in the campaign. Like, they've been campaigning for most of a year--where was the CBC giving $ or coming to IL to campaign for Kelly?
Does the CBC criticism of Pritzker have anything to do with the family of Jesse Jackson Sr arguing against making an endorsement of Stratton’s campaign? After all, Rep. Robin Kelly replaced Jesse Jackson Jr in the House after he resigned back in 2012 soon after President Obama got re-elected.
Perhaps they should maintain perspective - we will still end up with a Black female Senator, and she will be 10 years younger than their preferred candidate and can probably serve a term or two longer.
Yeah, the choice between Juliana Stratton and Robin Kelly isn't something to really have a fuss about. Both Kelly and Stratton while being black women politicians also ran their candidates with almost identical agendas:
A Democrat hasn't won for governor in over a quarter of a century. None of the Democrats strike me as particularly strong statewide candidates. Thurmond and Duncan are probably the strongest and I don't see Duncan winning a runoff in the unlikely event he makes it that far. Jackson has a ton of money and Jones will not be easy to beat.
Raised the most money, with a background as an educator and small business owner. He also served on the Atlanta school board that came in after the cheating scandal and helped clean things up. He is very charismatic and photogenic. Lastly, all the Republicans who served with him in the state senate will tell you off the record that he is the Democratic candidate they fear most.
This is nowhere near enough - I don't see why Nevada wouldn't be a Tossup, Texas wouldn't be Likely Republican, or Wisconsin wouldn't be Leans Democratic at this point.
The lean of the year is strong enough to make a generic D a moderate favorite against a generic R in open governorships in swing states like Georgia and Wisconsin. Michigan is the only swing state open governorship I’d keep at a tossup due to Duggan’s presence as a spoiler.
Because this concerning the New York state constitution, the effect of a ruling would probably have been minimal, but it was also very clear that this case wasn't going to be sucessful.
It was really going to be framed as to whether a state could EVER consider race. Based on how SCOTUS framed the question presented, this could have been real bad
Fetterman not only went to Mar A Lago but also tried to talk to more MAGA folks and even Steve Bannon as a way to reach out and understand them better. While there can be valid reasons to get to the root of issues, I don't think Fetterman has exactly been forthcoming with his agenda.
Yes, in most cases Fetterman is a reliable vote for what the Democrats have in their agenda. However, if Thom Tillis has more balls than Fetterman does on getting Kristi Noem and even now Stephen Miller out of DHS, then we have a problem.
I think that's his point precisely. To be clear, I'm no fan of Fetterman and he clearly needs to go, and I don't even agree with the point he's making here, but he is, in fact, against the SAVE act.
I have seen my first 2 ads of the midterms, both for the CT Gov R primary (which isn't until August). Erin Stewart would like you to know that Hartford politicians hate cops(she loves them), whereas Ryan Fazio is going to lower taxes and deport people(somehow).
[Ottawa – March 18, 2026] At the end of 2024, the Liberals trailed the Conservatives by a massive and seemingly insurmountable 25 points. Today, that deficit has flipped to a 20-point Liberal lead.
He seems to have been perfectly cast for this moment and the fact that he has broad personal appeal even among other parties' voters gives me hope that we are not as divided as, uh, some other countries.
Thank you for sharing. I feel the same way – it’s complicated. And with the cost of healthcare (esp. in the US), I fear some may seriously ill people may feel compelled to choose death in order to leave more for their heirs.
It pains me to know that medical expenses are the single most common cause of personal bankruptcy in this country. Imho, no-one should have to forego expensive lifesaving treatment.
I don’t agree. A Ricketts opposing Democrat would.
According to Nebraskan law, it should be allowed for her to run a write-in campaign.
love the quiet desperation
His desperation seems rather loud to me.
Would anyone believe that?
I do. He'd probably be obnoxiously "centrist" (so, actually fairly conservative) and then switch back to caucusing with Republicans if/when they retake the majority. All the while, he'd be s***-talking Democrats and amplifying whatever attack Republicans come up with, occasionally taking a few symbolic votes against Trump to prove he's "independent." It probably won't work, but if it does, it would actually be kind of a good position to be in, because you get to always be in the majority and never have to actually do anything if you don't want.
He is not going to be elected. The district is too Democratic. Had he run against McClintock he would not have been elected either. He will not be in the next Congress. The party-switch might make it harder for him to get a lobbyist job with a GOP oriented firm. Guess he will have to find a "real job"!
I'd be all for this if he was running in a light red district, but in the district he's actually running in....good luck with that....
To be clear, I don't think what he's doing will work, I just think that's what his strategy is. I agree that the district will probably flip to a Democrat.
Interesting. I'd believe that only if we see it, but it sounds halfway plausible.
:eyeroll:
That's my rep. His policy stances have been pretty consistent: he's an old school, Paul Ryan type Republican. That doesn't fit Trump's GOP very well, but it doesn't fit the Dem party at all.
How times change! I remember when Paul Ryan was seen as truly radical and extreme – rather than as an old-school Republican.
Yep, kinda like my old senator Pat "Sock It" Toomey, who was widely seen as an extremist in 2010 (so much so that there was significant doubt that he could win statewide in Pennsylvania even in a GOP wave), and a "moderate" by the time he left the Senate twelve years later.
Oh for pete's sake, just join the Democratic Party already and get it over with! What's with the charade?
Same can be said for Fetterman and the Republicans...
True!
The interesting thing about elections since at least 2008 (from my observation), you can have weird shifts in political party member sentiment to the point where those who used to be Republicans decided to be Democrats. This happened with numerous McCain '08 supporters, Romney '12 supporters and even Trump '16 supporters/voters up to a certain extent. It might eventually happen with Trump '24 supporters/voters.
He's just trying to get reelected, he's not going to caucus with dems.
If I'm reading the chart right, it's also the most republican retirements across the entire dataset, starting in 1930.
Wow, what a stat. Just crossed my mind they will probably all be replaced by even more crazy MAGA types. How do we get back to sanity?
In the end, 110 representatives either retired, ran for other offices, or lost primaries or general elections in 1992.
When there was the house banking scandal, which now seems down right quaint.
and a redistricting year too
I'm just guessing: Wisconsin?
"The one thing every political movement decides to adjust future tactics for? Losing elections."
A clear exception seems to be the Trumpist MAGA movement. As far as I can see, they seem totally unwilling to make any meaningful adjustments whatsoever to either their policies or tactics. Except, of course, to seek ways to disenfranchise the "wrong" voters.
I have doubts the GOP will make a real effort to adjust their tactics in 2028 if 2026 is a tsunami. How would that work?
I see only the following directions for the party:
1) Be like Trump in MAGA form
2) Be MAGA in their own form, similarly to how Ron DeSantis has been doing.
3) Go to pre-Trump days in the Tea Party direction pre-MAGA.
4) Become more crypto, Silicon Valley and tech driven with JD Vance, Peter Thiel and other Libertarian influencers and PACS. This might give the GOP the most legs although it could also isolate the party from MAGA as they want the GOP to go after Big Tech last I checked.
5) Go back to old Republican classic pre-Obama.
3) and 5) are the least likely simply because they were from different eras with Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama in office.
Oh I see what you mean there.
Yes, tactics for sure could be changed although it remains to be seen how the key voters that Trump in 2024 was targeting will react to what the GOP plans to do in 2028 in out reach. DHS is still going to be an albatross on the GOP's head so no matter how many methods of outreach they change, they may not be enough.
Back in 2024, I remember Hispanic & Latino voters felt the GOP and Trump represented more common sense on crime and economy when they didn't see that with Democrats. This was a good basis for why DAs like Chesa Boudin and Pamela Price were recalled.
Also, with Trump termed out of office in 2029, how will his influence be in the 2028 election if he decides to campaign? He won't be on the ballot and in my view it's unlikely he will be able to persuade the base to vote big in 2028. His track record in the 2018 and 2022 midterms isn't great and he will have to pull a hat trick somehow while still having remaining months in office.
Let's see if he's even alive in 2028.
The problem with that is that the progressive movement is quite fractured and has a long history of being hostile towards the idea of the progressive movement being run in a top-down fashion, as well as the concept of a political power broker within the progressive movement. Furthermore, there are voters in Democratic primaries who are open to voting for either moderate or progressive candidates and are not locked into one faction or another, and there are even candidates who try to appeal to moderate and progressive Democratic voters alike.
What about the DSA’s attempt to punish AOC for not being supportive enough of certain positions taken by their national organization? That inarguably seems a "top-down" dictate to me.
(Whether the DSA nationally is actually a progressive organization is of course another question...)
Good luck to those clowns for that!
Well, certainly today’s DSA is now light-years removed from leadership of the honorable Michael Harrington and his well-considered positions.
Absolutely! I respected him a lot. He was my father's colleague at Queens College and he liked him as a colleague and person and respected his politics and intellectual thinking.
I'd say DSA should join the Green Party at this point. Anytime you try to push purity at politicians this way, you aren't being a big enough tent.
Why doesn't the DSA go after Zohran Mamdani for meeting with Trump? I'm sure it would be an absolutely excellent use of their time! /s
We had a term for this on DKE, taken from Monty Python's Life of Brian: The "People's Front of Judea/Judean People's Front" Problem.
Splitters!
Isn't this part of the argument against the DSCC/DCC here, that the committees should not put their fingers on the scales of primaries?
There is nothing they could've done in IL - even among the left/progs, there is a deep hostility to outside influence in IL/Chicago politics. I'd guess the response in IL pol circles I spend time in would be "who the f**k is Greg Cesar?"
Sharrrron Angle is back! My morning is complete.
Seriously, this shows the potential weakness of the NV GOP. I hope that this year the Nevada Democratic Party can get back the governor's office and maintain the other statewide offices.
If the national electoral environment is D+9 in all 50 states, then Lombardo becomes a one-and-done.
Is the NV Supreme Court an hard ideological GOP court like here in NC or OH? Or is it more like VA?
More like VA. 5 out of the 7 Justices were elected in a nonpartisan election, and those haven't been polarized like Wisconsin's. I think they're pretty middle of the road.
I have really been wondering why the Nevada Democratic Party failed to get any candidates to run for the State Supreme Court. Anyone have insights into the background and reason for what can only described as a monumental fail?
I read that the top destination for republicans fleeing California is Nevada, i bet that's why it has started moving back to the dark side.
If those NV refugees from CA are sick of Trump too, they'll vote against him or sit out the midterms.
I'd imagine those republicans are not sick of him
Maine Senator:
Elizabeth Warren endorses Platner.
https://x.com/grahamformaine/status/2034603306404765726?s=20
That seems to be what is happening in Maine. Platner having lots of public events, all over Maine, where he answers unscreened questions. Mills doesn’t seem to want to campaign and actually talk to unscreened voters.
I wonder whether Janet Mills’ heart is really in this campaign? My impression is that it isn’t and that she felt compelled to run.
If her heart had been in it, she would have jumped in sooner and possibly cleared the field.
Yeah, I've long been advocating for Mills as the safer choice, and Platner still makes me nervous, but it does seem like he has the energy and fortitude for this in a way she may not.
Now I'm starting to wonder if having senators represent states with excessively large populations is a bit much. I'm not trying to endorse the whole state secession movements you see in CA and OR and other places, but it does get logistically and absurdly difficult for 1 senator to try and listen to the concerns of over say, 4 million constituents, especially in places as geographically large as California, Florida or New York.
Wow! I didn't expect Warren to do that.
I expected her to endorse Mills.
Warren also endorsed Zach Wahls today
I was just reading her email this morning in which she endorsed Mallory McMorrow for MI-Sen.
Mallory is a fighter. Glad EW endorsed her.
Interesting. Bernie endorsed Abdul while Warren backed Mallory. At least neither of them backed Stevens.
Ok but we're trying to win Iowa and Turek is the better candidate for a red state.
I think the Gallego endorsement is the most meaningful. Warren and especially Bernie are willing to endorse the more progressive option, even when they don't have a good chance. Gallego is young and may have higher ambitions, so he is sticking his neck out a bit here.
Gallego's endorsement of Platner may have impact in part because both of them are Marine Corps veterans.
As is Jared Golden, the retiring Congressman representing Maine’s 2nd Congressional District. I wonder whether his endorsement might carry weight? That said, I expect Golden to remain radio silent, given that he once worked as a staffer for Senator Susan Collins.
He also seemed a little bitter when he withdrew from the race, as if his own party had made his re-election impossible. So maybe he doesn't want to help, even if he didn't maintain a higher loyalty to Collins.
Eh, Golden did this to himself. Going after Democrats during the shutdown was not a good look for him.
Come on Golden. You're a Democrat. Act like one.
More importantly, would Golden supporters in ME-02 gravitate towards Platner?
Whether Golden endorses Platner or not won't really matter. If he endorses Mills, that will likely divide his supporters though.
Interesting. I think Warren and Bernie are much more significant because they are famous senators from New England. If even 1/10 of 1% of voters in Maine have heard of Gallego, I'd be surprised.
Didn't mean to imply that Gallego's endorsement will move more voters than Bernie's or Warren's...just that it gives his campaign some legitimacy that may help reassure donors and other establishment types that Platner is acceptable and encourage other Senators to endorse. Bernie can certainly move some numbers, but he pays zero attention to electability when making endorsements, so his endorsements aren't always helpful to the party and movement in general (and I say this as someone who considers him their favorite politican). Warren seems to at least try to balance electability with ideology. For someone like Gallego, who is very young and still making a reputation for themselves as a Senator, this is a much bigger risk to take, which I think makes a statement in itself.
What's the risk for him?
Platner turns out to be a Fetterman or something worse than the tattoo shows up,, etc..
McMorrow I support, Platner I want to but I'm not sure. However, I think he had a good response to Mills' ad. I love Warren, but I'd go with Turek over Wahls.
I’ve got to say I don’t totally get the CBC’s sniping at Pritzker for supporting Stratton. I’d get their pique if he had recruited, say, Sean Casten into the race against Raja and Kelly. This just makes it seem like sour grapes and gatekeeping in the CBC’s part
I'd say you're correct on that, particularly the gatekeeping. Obama didn't have the best relationship with them at the beginning because he came up outside their existing power structures.
Bobby Rush
I'm sure that didn't help.
Ah yes that takes me back to that brief moment in late 2007 where it was an open question if Obama was “black enough”
Was Stratton not black enough?
I think it is sour grapes that her candidacy possibly cost Robin Kelly the seat.
If Stratton didn't run, I imagine Underwood would have, so I'm not sure Kelly would have won the seat anyway.
Right, and that would probably have been a flagship primary earlier than this one was; Underwood would have been more formidable from the jump
Than Stratton. She’d been presumed to be Durbin’s preferred successor for a while after all
Nah not at all, just reminiscing about some bullshit from back in the day where CBC types were suggesting (allegedly including Jesse Jackson, at least initially) that Obama’s life experiences as a biracial man without much (indeed, any) relationship to his Kenyan father or extended family with white grandparents from Kansas who had spent his childhood in Hawaii couldn’t “relate” to the traditions experiences of black people in the South or Midwest who were descendants of the Atlantic slave trade’s forcible African diaspora.
I get what they were getting at at a very base level, but also, c’mon
That's a strange comparison from the CBC types because Obama didn't grow up privileged.
Hence “c’mom”
Also seemed like their criticism came really late in the campaign. Like, they've been campaigning for most of a year--where was the CBC giving $ or coming to IL to campaign for Kelly?
I don't think Yvette Clarke is very logical or pragmatic
Does the CBC criticism of Pritzker have anything to do with the family of Jesse Jackson Sr arguing against making an endorsement of Stratton’s campaign? After all, Rep. Robin Kelly replaced Jesse Jackson Jr in the House after he resigned back in 2012 soon after President Obama got re-elected.
Perhaps they should maintain perspective - we will still end up with a Black female Senator, and she will be 10 years younger than their preferred candidate and can probably serve a term or two longer.
Yeah, the choice between Juliana Stratton and Robin Kelly isn't something to really have a fuss about. Both Kelly and Stratton while being black women politicians also ran their candidates with almost identical agendas:
-Both for Medicare for All
-Raising the federal minimum wage
-Housing affordability
https://www.julianastratton.com/issues
https://www.robinforsenate.com/people-over-profits
Relevance is going down in many respects. Reads more like a reaction to that.
Moving in the right direction!
https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/2034600330797744550
New - Crystal Ball rating changes - Governor
Arizona - 🟡 -> 🔵
Georgia - 🔴 -> 🟡
Minnesota - 🟡 Likely D -> 🔵 Safe D
NY - 🟡 Likely D -> 🔵 Safe D
Rhode Island - 🟡 Likely D -> 🔵 Safe D
Ohio - 🔴 Likely R -> 🟡 Leans R
These are all pretty reasonable, should have already switched
I don't see the Georgia race as a tossup. At least not yet.
Why not?
A Democrat hasn't won for governor in over a quarter of a century. None of the Democrats strike me as particularly strong statewide candidates. Thurmond and Duncan are probably the strongest and I don't see Duncan winning a runoff in the unlikely event he makes it that far. Jackson has a ton of money and Jones will not be easy to beat.
I actually think Jackson will be VERY tough to beat even if we had a non-sucky candidate, which looks unlikely.
Jason Esteves would be the strongest candidate. He has also raised the most money and currently is the only Democratic candidate on air
Why would he be the strongest candidate?
Raised the most money, with a background as an educator and small business owner. He also served on the Atlanta school board that came in after the cheating scandal and helped clean things up. He is very charismatic and photogenic. Lastly, all the Republicans who served with him in the state senate will tell you off the record that he is the Democratic candidate they fear most.
I agree, now if Geoff Duncan miraculously won the primary we'd be slight favorites, but i don't think he can win a democratic primary in Georgia
100% this. Too bad. Seriously fumbling here.
This is nowhere near enough - I don't see why Nevada wouldn't be a Tossup, Texas wouldn't be Likely Republican, or Wisconsin wouldn't be Leans Democratic at this point.
Are our candidates in WI strong enough to warrant that?
The lean of the year is strong enough to make a generic D a moderate favorite against a generic R in open governorships in swing states like Georgia and Wisconsin. Michigan is the only swing state open governorship I’d keep at a tossup due to Duggan’s presence as a spoiler.
Tom Tiffany isn't a generic R, even - the WI GOP were begging anyone with a pulse to run in the primary against him. Lean Democratic seems smart.
GA is nowhere near the same level of swing state as WI.
It is at the national level. GA is still generically light red at the state level, WI seems to be light blue.
Ohio doesn't seem like it should lean R based on polling, if we believe it.
Trust but verify etc
Right, but the true verification won't occur until the election results come in.
NY 11. Case voluntarily dismissed after U.S. Supreme Court's stay.
https://x.com/mcpli/status/2034651960792490298?s=20
The plaintiffs decided not to pursue it?
They decided not to give SCOTUS the ability to make bad law
Because this concerning the New York state constitution, the effect of a ruling would probably have been minimal, but it was also very clear that this case wasn't going to be sucessful.
It was really going to be framed as to whether a state could EVER consider race. Based on how SCOTUS framed the question presented, this could have been real bad
Yes
WISCO GOP sen majority leader not running - https://x.com/mattsmith_news/status/2034694213187534858?s=46
so both Wisconsin's senate majority leader and assembly speaker call it quits within an hour of each other? hmmmm
OK-Sen: Markwayne Mullin advances to a full Senate vote on his confirmation as DHS head 8-7, with John Fetterman being the tie breaker
I wake up every morning happy with the knowledge that Fetterman is one day closer to not being Senator any more. I'm sure he does the same.
Because he'll be our next President. /s
He didn't really go full MAGA on other issues besides the forbidden one until after Trump was re-elected.
Fetterman not only went to Mar A Lago but also tried to talk to more MAGA folks and even Steve Bannon as a way to reach out and understand them better. While there can be valid reasons to get to the root of issues, I don't think Fetterman has exactly been forthcoming with his agenda.
Yes, in most cases Fetterman is a reliable vote for what the Democrats have in their agenda. However, if Thom Tillis has more balls than Fetterman does on getting Kristi Noem and even now Stephen Miller out of DHS, then we have a problem.
Fuckin Fetterman! It's to be expected by now.
I think him being the deciding vote on something is new though.
He also, reportedly, favors the SAVE act.
No, he’s come out against that. At least in its current form
Reported where? Count me skeptical.
The "at least in its current form" is doing a lot of the work there. https://www.fetterman.senate.gov/fetterman-statement-on-voting-against-debate-on-the-save-america-act/
A "clean voter ID bill" is far from what this legislation is.
I think that's his point precisely. To be clear, I'm no fan of Fetterman and he clearly needs to go, and I don't even agree with the point he's making here, but he is, in fact, against the SAVE act.
WI-SD-9 - Wisconsin State Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu (R-Oostburg) not seeking re-election.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DWE-Ib6FF3C/?igsh=N3NsaGJ1OTIxemlp
Well well well
IL-Comp (D): AP finally calls it for State Rep. Margaret Croke. https://bsky.app/profile/capitolfax.bsky.social/post/3mhgvjunzck25
I have seen my first 2 ads of the midterms, both for the CT Gov R primary (which isn't until August). Erin Stewart would like you to know that Hartford politicians hate cops(she loves them), whereas Ryan Fazio is going to lower taxes and deport people(somehow).
News from the North: It is one poll, and I don't know that is it the most reliable, but if it was remotely true, it would be proof that G-d loves me and wants me to be happy: https://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2026/03/from-collapse-to-dominance/
[Ottawa – March 18, 2026] At the end of 2024, the Liberals trailed the Conservatives by a massive and seemingly insurmountable 25 points. Today, that deficit has flipped to a 20-point Liberal lead.
He seems to have been perfectly cast for this moment and the fact that he has broad personal appeal even among other parties' voters gives me hope that we are not as divided as, uh, some other countries.
Eloquent as usual. The one term I didn't know was MAID. Medical Assistance in Dying. We just got that in New York I think last year.
Thank you for sharing. I feel the same way – it’s complicated. And with the cost of healthcare (esp. in the US), I fear some may seriously ill people may feel compelled to choose death in order to leave more for their heirs.
It pains me to know that medical expenses are the single most common cause of personal bankruptcy in this country. Imho, no-one should have to forego expensive lifesaving treatment.
I agree. To my understanding, such laws in the U.S. require the individual being assisted in dying to have a terminal illness and be of sound mind.
Oh, and this was before Poilievre decided to visit the United States and go on the Joe Rogan podcast for some reason. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-joe-rogan-podcast-9.7135349