The Republicans never turned from racism, they toned it down in hopes of getting some black votes, hopefully enough blacks, brown, red, yellow and WHITE people see the truth and vote Democrat.
Indiana Republican Gov. Mike Braun called Monday for state lawmakers to return to Indianapolis for a special session to redraw the state’s congressional boundaries
It’s unclear whether enough of the GOP majority Senate will back new maps.
Interesting piece on a competitive NYC Council race from City and State NY. Democrat Kayla Santosuosso, chief counsel to outgoing Councilman Justin Brannan and previous head of one of the Arab associations in NY, faces GOP operative and landlord/businessman George Sarantopoulos. Curious to see how this will go — Santosuosso is to Brannan’s left from what I’ve heard, and there was a nasty GOP primary between Sarantopoulos and local GOP chairman Richie Barsamian that heated that race up. Plus we’re in a Trump-unfriendly environment. Who knows.
We need to have a united front against the evil, selfish, billionaire-driven agenda that the Republicans are shoving on us. Every Democrat needs to be saying the same thing - that Republicans need to give us the health care subsidies before we re-open the government, and that the government shutdown is entirely on them.
It sickens me when people or groups that should be allied with us instead undermine our cause. Democrats in Congress need to hold firm and never cave!
this thursday, I know my paycheck will hit my bank account. I hate the right wing and what they've done to this country, but I cannot imagine being in a situation where I had to choose between supporting a continued shutdown (for good policy reasons) versus putting food on the table.
I am not suggesting we cave, I am suggesting we give folks that are lining up at food banks across NoVa a little grace.
This is part of the problem - Republicans wrongly believe that only Democrats are suffering from the shutdown.
Where are all the ads featuring Republican government employees, or Republicans on food stamps, or Republicans whose health care premiums are about to massively increase? There are plenty such people out there.
Both sides are not budging. I think the best off-ramp for Dems is relent after Nov 1st when the premium hikes are evident and tell voters they did everything they could prevent while hammering the GOP on health care next year.
This is one of those “both are right” situations imo. From the union’s perspective, ending the shut down and publicly stating so is what their members want and is what is the best option for them to do. From the party’s perspective, keeping things shutdown until the ACA healthcare subsidies get extended is the right thing to do for them both because the subsidies are popular, healthcare is a third rail poison for their opponents and it’s the right thing to do for Americans.
I don’t have a problem with some Democratic backing organization saying what they need to in order to actually represent and fight for their members. Saying nothing when people are going without their pay would feel like a dereliction of duty and weaken the already small power of unions and their workers/organizations. “Why am I in a union if they won’t even fight for my pay check”, especially with union members already shifting right with so few having a full education.
Where I have a problem is the Shawn Fain’s who cozy up to the right wing in the hopes of getting spared the brunt of their policies, that was and is never going to happen. The GOP is anti-union and always will be. We need to normalize having our allies break from us sometimes. I’d say if anything it would lessen the “unions are only in Democrats pockets” pervasive thinking among union members. It may even make their endorsements persuasive to union members again when they’re the most crucial in elections.
This all said if Democrats do cave citing things like this union, oh boy, this coming civil war in our party is going to rival that of the tea party tenfold. They need to hold strong regardless of what unions say or do or else the 2026 primaries are going to be biblical.
I wonder if they think that the end of the healthcare subsidies will not affect them, in which case, it is a matter of "I've got mine, and I don't care about everyone else."
They also ignore that all Mike Johnson has to do is to call the House into session and start negotiating, but of course when he does, the Epstein files will rise up.
The group, called Welcome, consulted hundreds of thousands of voters over six months for its broad findings, including that 70% of voters think the Democratic Party is “out of touch.” Most voters, the group found, believe the party over-prioritizes issues like “protecting the rights of LGBTQ+ Americans,” and “fighting climate change” while not caring about “securing the border” or “lowering the rate of crime.”[...]
Inspired by “The Politics of Evasion,” an influential 1989 paper that inspired the party’s more centrist shift under Bill Clinton, the 70-page “Deciding to Win” document argues that Democrats must be “willing to break with unpopular party orthodoxies.” Its prescription for getting the party out of its current wilderness isn’t simple: avoidance of “both a pivot to corporate centrism and the pursuit of progressive ideology purity.”
Greg Schultz, who managed Joe Biden’s 2020 primary campaign but was replaced for the general election, worked with Welcome to shape the report.
“For the last 20 years, Democrats have just misunderstood how you actually win elections,” he told Semafor. “I thought Biden had proven in the 2020 primary that the base of the Democratic Party is a 58-year old woman without a college degree. But when you hear people in DC say ‘the base,’ they mean white intellectuals that live in a few coastal cities.”
Their poll also showed that 65 percent of voters think the Republican Party is out of touch; interesting to see if the RNC pivots to the left in response.
The Republicans have truly painted themselves in a box ideologically. Republican primaries in the vast majority of the country are so thoroughly dominated by far-right voters (the only notable exception to this is Vermont), any Republican who isn't a fascist at heart is effectively forced to rule or vote like one out of fear of losing a primary to a further-right candidate over even the slightest break from fascist political orthodoxy.
I'm increasingly finding all these takes about whether Democrats need to be more centrist or more progressive or tweak some policy stance to be incredibly annoying.
The problem isn't Democratic policies. The main problem is the lack of any semblance of pro-Democratic media infrastructure beyond a couple of podcasts and MSNBC (which fewer than a million people watch regularly anymore).
If a consultant crafts the allegedly perfect, winning political campaign message in a forest, and nobody hears it, does it make an electoral victory?
Jettisoning the LGBTQIA+ community to pander to white supremacists would guarantee the Democratic Party's downfall. One in eight people who voted for Harris in 2024 are part of the LGBTQIA+ community, and we're simply not going to win over more than one in eight Trump supporters to make up for depressed turnout and/or a left-wing third party being built around pro-LGBTQIA+ policies.
Also, centrism in the last few decades within the Democratic Party has been defined by corporate, pro-Wall Street centrism. Centrism is inherently an avoidance of progressive ideology, but what would a Democratic Party built around an ideology that is an avoidance of corporate centrism look like? It would be built around either fascism (which is what the Republican Party stands for right now and is not centrist) or an American version of Peronism (leftist economic policies combined with cultural conservatism), and there isn't really much of a market for the latter ideology here.
On a related note, for someone who had arguably the most progressive accomplishments of any Democratic POTUS since LBJ, Biden never really surrounded or associated himself with progressive-leaning individuals (the most notable exception to this was Deb Haaland), and he surrounded himself with some of the least progressive people in the Democratic Party (especially in regard to his choices for White House advisory positions and top campaign officials).
According to exit polls, 8% of the 2024 general election electorate is part of the LGBTQIA+ community (although it wasn't exactly phrased that way), and Harris got 86% of the vote from LGBTQIA+ voters. That comes out to about 6.9% of the total electorate being LGBTQIA+ Harris voters; Harris got 48.3% of the national popular vote. That actually means that one in seven (14.3%) Harris voters are LGBTQIA+, not one in eight!
I don't know if I'd say there's not much of a market for American Peronism. I think many of the reactions to Trump's econ policies among the GOP from stimulus checks onward have shown that at least their side will follow whatever they do under the right words. Now if you say that Americans aren't resilient enough to keep the faith under an actual Argentinian style downturn i'd agree.
I think there is some market for socially conservative, economically social democratic-leaning politics. I don't support that, of course, but Pew studies have shown that that is a much more common political viewpoint in the U.S. than corporate, socially liberal politics.
The New Deal policies were also economically conservative for certain groups. To match that coalition again, we would need to redline out people from participating in it.
of course, it would need to be tailored to the modern era. Just echoing a belief that the average American is way more with us on the economy than they are social issues. Doesn’t mean we abandon our voters, but it does mean we need to recalibrate to the economy.
For example: Climate change=rich people driving up your energy bills.
I’ll admit it is harder to simply our position on welcoming immigrants into a concise message as to why immigrants have and always will help this country’s economy. (But I’ve never been a concise speaker so someone out there could easily do it)
Would a policy built around maintaining the current status quo on social welfare but taxing the rich and corporations more, in order to reduce the deficit, fall under the umbrella of anti-corporate centrism?
I think putting a centrist perspective into an economic vs social issues lens is the wrong approach to understanding what it could look like.
It is incredibly distressing how many Americans fail to see climate change as an existential threat to humanity and instead see it as do-gooder nonsense promoted by overeducated "elites." It is also distressing how many people believe the strawman argument that the Democrats are obsessed with trans people because cultural conservatives constantly talk about how much they hate trans people. I am amazed at how often MAGA supporters rant about transgender people compared to how often these issues come up when talking to Democrats. Finally, the Democratic party does need to make a case for a reasonable border security bill that will do more to secure the border while making it easier for immigrants to come to America and to become citizens legally. This is again more evidence that far too many of our countrymen and women are gullible, stupid and bigoted.
The big problem with environmentalists lately has been a spate of fatalism that we are doomed regardless even as the consequences haven't been as dramatic as feared (though still happening, just not as drastically) as well as Malthusian mumbo-jumbo even as global fertility rates are sinking to equilibrium levels. If the view that gradually switching from fossil fuels is just "useless deck chair arranging" then what's the point? Not to mention the anti-nuclear streak even as nuclear power plants of today's designs are vastly superior to what we built in the 1970s.
This, this, 100% this. What especially makes this problem worse is that climate deniers have exploited it and changed their tune — “if we’re all screwed, why bother?”
We need to show the positive side of environmental change too. There’s a reason Bernie and Mamdani did so well with progressivism while so many others failed — they carried messages of hope, of a better life. Whatever you think of them or their policies, it’s important to note that it was likely this that made them so popular. Likewise, we could discuss benefits of environmental change — clean air, beautiful parks and nature preserves coming from preservation, more comfortable and faster transit via an expanded high speed rail system, etc. Like, I and my family are big on native plants and anti-lawn stuff — a benefit to this is being able to walk outside our house in the morning and hear birds chirping and see all sorts of signs of life in our yard. Wouldn’t that be a benefit for a suburban voter? Why would people fight back if they feel hopeless?
Wait, is someone on this board claiming that the results of global warming have been -less- severe than expected? While a category-5 hurricane may dump 2 feet of rain on Jamaica tomorrow, no less? Unbelievable!
I think what’s being argued is more, messaging is everything. Climate change certainly is a serious issue. But people need to feel like fighting back will mean something. As I said, this is why climate deniers are taking advantage of this line of thought. It’s possible to say “climate change is an existential threat”, but there has to be a “and here’s how you can fight back” or else people will feel hopeless and in despair, and will then feel like what they do doesn’t matter (and it absolutely does!)
I suspect the winning message on climate change has long been energy independence and long term cost reductions.
Solar and wind energy have minimal operating costs; the marginal cost of a kWh of energy from either could be argued to be effectively zero. Not exactly zero as there is still basic maintenance and similar, but very low. The total cost comes from the lifespan amortization of the upfront costs to buy and install the relevant equipment.
The US is the world's largest oil producer. We're approaching the point of production and consumption at parity, although we still consume more than we produce. If America had 100% BEVs across our vehicle fleet, we would be able to export the majority of that oil. It would be hundreds of billions of dollars as a trade surplus.
I do care about the environment, I do care about climate change, I do worry about the continued impacts of CO2 emissions. You can make a completely compelling argument for renewable energy without mentioning the climate at all, and for reaching the average voter that might be the right approach.
All of that is good and goes back to President Carter's arguments, but I think pointing out that the weather is getting more and more severe and these steps will also stop that from getting totally out of control should be part of the argument.
And the solutions for "fighting back" have to be ones that people feel will do something but without demanding too much sacrifice.
This may sound sort of two-faced, but scoldiness such as "No more air travel", "No more air conditioning", and "Stop eating meat" won't get results, whatever their scientific merit.
I've been saying this for a while. The climate crisis will not be solved by telling people "don't do that". We need to get less heavy-handed and use economic incentives more.
That's always been the argument of the people who have fought for the Green New Deal, Build Back Better, etc. Why do I get the sense that even some people on this board have been overly influenced by right-wing propaganda and haven't really listened to what Democrats have said?
This is a clear sign that whatever Democrats are saying is obviously not breaking through, if even other Democrats don't know about it. Democrats need to change how we do our messaging.
The problem is not that that argument wasn’t used, it’s that that’s the argument many saw. The positive aspects were either not broadcast enough, or not publicized enough.
The other posters are right, we really, really need a functioning media ecosystem. The GOP has their entire Fox News/radio/what have you network. What do we have?
They need to actually campaign on this issue. Too many Democrats are afraid of offending the left fringe by actually talking about the border and crime.
They should, but I don't think they should ever seem to make it the #1 issue. Going into 2028, the theme should be to get all the corrupt people who have abused the country out and make the government of and for the people again. That includes orderly immigration procedures that work for everyone, but that's very much a secondary issue when everything has to be fixed.
I disagree. No one's talking about the border anymore, just like no one was talking about the pandemic in 2024. I don't think running on issues that are out of sight, out of mind gets you anywhere.
Nobody's talking about the border anymore? Trump sure is....and he's gonna talk a lot more about it next year in the lead up to the midterms. Don't think for a second this issue has lost its salience.
To my understanding, the border is very peaceful and has very little to do with crime, unless you're talking about gun-smuggling from the U.S. to Mexican gangs or considering mere unauthorized entry to the U.S. as a crime.
Yeah, but most voters don't want a comprehensive "border bill". They just want fewer immigrants. Biden showed he was perfectly capable of doing that on his own, about 2 years too late.
I really struggle to see how that border bill would have been either politically or legislatively effective. At its core was the border closing after "5,000 entrants per day". Extrapolating to 365 days per year, that's an allowance of more than 1.8 million asylum seekers per year. That would not have disincentivized the surge of humanity at the border nor would the public be satisfied with limiting border crossings to "only" 1.8 million per year.
Maybe I'm missing something but nothing about that legislation seemed remotely like a panacea to me.
Actually the they/them ad did not work in a vacuum, it worked in the context of an inflation surge and border crisis with Dems being perceived as focused on "they/them".
A recent University of Virginia poll found Democrat Abigail Spanberger with a +14 approval on "Transgender or Trans policies" making it her second best issue despite most of Losesome Earle Sears ads focusing on Jay Jones, bathrooms and locker rooms. It also found that most voters did not rank it among their top issues.
I hate to potentially jinx a victory, but Earle-Sears' campaign has a sort of grabbing-at-straws quality to it. The emphasis on transgender issues seems a sort of "it worked in some races before, let's try it again" when the stuff that's currently most important to voters isn't working for her, and talking about Jay Jones as if she were running against him evidently is hope for reverse coattails that probably seldom win elections--and Miyares may not even win his own race.
That said, it's not as if Spanberger needs to go out of her way to win over the transgender vote so she can win the gubernatorial election.
These polling numbers are great but with Earle-Sears doing absolutely nothing constructive with her campaign that is making a real impact on Virginia voters, anything she says about transgender people is a byproduct of how awful her candidacy is.
What made 'they/them' so more effective than what we're seeing in Virginia is the clip in that ad of Kamala essentially saying she supported gender affirming care for inmates.
Just found out that this is the centrist Murdoch funded Welcome PAC operated by the rabid Liam Kerr who went to news networks attacking Bernie and AOC for releasing the healthcare shutdown video which they released in coordination with the Dem leadership.
So this has been in the news for some time. Apparently the DOJ wants to “monitor” polling sites in certain areas — conveniently in the two states with major elections that affect the GOP (NJ governors and Prop 50 in Cali).
I’m not going to doomsay or offer commentary regarding this matter. Made that mistake before, not doing it again. I’m going to instead ask — what effects, if any, do people here feel this will have on the elections proper?
As long as they merely observe it shouldn't have an adverse effect. They could be used to attempt discredit the result in the right-wing fever swamp. And New Jersey, at least, has faced more blatant Republican attempts at voter suppression:
In 1981, amid a tight race for governor between Republican Tom Kean and Democrat Jim Florio, the Republican National Committee put together a “Ballot Security Task Force” of armed, off-duty police officers, ostensibly deployed to prevent voter fraud.
They patrolled polling places in the state’s urban and heavily Democratic areas on Election Day, and sent out targeted mailers warning voters about the penalties for election fraud. On Election Day, they put up posters warning that the areas were “being patrolled by the Ballot Security Task Force” and offering $1,000 rewards for tips that lead to arrests and conviction for voter fraud.
It's a bunch of hot air. There are always election monitors for state elections, and the TACO regime is trying to scare or deter people from voting by proclaiming something that's been done for years.
if I was in charge of the doj and a horrible person I would send these so called "observers" to hudson or essex. Maybe trump is proud he managed to carry passaic and doesn't want jack to lose it
none in CA...in "honor" of gop goon squads I am donating $500 to local food bank and $500 to local homeless shelter in south Orange County, CA...two of their favorite charities :-)
In South Carolina we have strict rules for what poll monitors can do and where they can be during voting. This would be a nothingburger here on election day. It's only effect would be if it kept people away. Which of course is the idea
it's one of those things that's kind of sad, because afaik Goldman hasn't done anything *wrong* per se, he's just not as liberal as the district can support. Would be stoked to have a Goldman instead of Gottheimer, e.g.
Agreed, he isn’t Gottheimer-level bad as you said. He’s also not utterly useless like Thanedar.
I think he’s primarily being targeted for not being representative of his district — totally fair in my mind, it’s called the “House of Representatives” for a reason.
Sure, if he were running against Gottheimer, he'd be a great improvement, but he's not. He should get a position in the next Democratic Justice Department.
idk I think we shouldn’t stack the next Democratic admin with people like Goldman, and especially not in the justice department when he voted w Republicans to condemn the world court.
Yes he's rich; he was also a high-ranking staffer for the House Intelligence Committee and the lead counsel in Trump's first impeachment. People contain multitudes.
That's amazing! I've never seen a politician say "Don't send money: I have enough." I did see an unusual thing from AOC, though, which was "please keep sending money, but it's for help for needy constituents of mine," etc.
The charity that has done that quite frequently is Doctors Without Borders. They announce they have all they can use for a specific disaster, but can always use monies in their general fund.
I have a great deal of respect for them for doing that. I've never heard that from Red Cross.
The charity that has done that quite frequently is Doctors Without Borders. They announce they have all they can use for a specific disaster, but can always use monies in their general fund.
I have a great deal of respect for them for doing that. I've never heard that from Red Cross.
My prior has been 10-15 for a long time. It polls better than that, but most ballot measures tend to get about the raw number they poll at because undecideds usually vote no.
Question: Are Senators still able to read emails sent to their government email address during the government shutdown (i.e. are their staff still going through them)?
The October survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds that 25% of Hispanic adults have a “somewhat” or “very” favorable view of Trump, down from 44% in an AP-NORC poll conducted just before the Republican took office for the second time. The percentage of Hispanic adults who say the country is going in the wrong direction has also increased slightly over the past few months, from 63% in March to 73%.
In March, 41% of Hispanic adults approved of the way Trump was handling his job as president, but now that has fallen to 27%.
In the latest poll, 66% of Hispanic Republicans said they have a “very” or “somewhat” favorable view of Trump. That’s a slight shift compared with where Trump stood in an AP-NORC poll from September 2024, when 83% of Hispanic Republicans viewed him at least “somewhat” favorably.
About two-thirds of Hispanic adults under age 45 and Hispanic men now view Trump unfavorably, according to the new poll. That’s a slight uptick from September 2024, when about half in both groups had a negative opinion of him.
It would be the peak own goal of the decade if Republicans redrew Texas and Democrats actually didn’t lose seats there while California also passed its gerrymander. It would be a well earned f*** you to the fascist GOP to actually lose seats in the redistricting war they started to try to ensure Trump and the king’s say yes party hold onto power.
We’ll see if “we don’t approve of Trump” turns into “we will vote for Democrats” though. That’s the biggest question mark and not at all guaranteed.
That would be hilarious. I still think we’d lose the Houston and Dallas redrawn seats but we have a decent chance in the SA/RGV triad if things break correctly
I agree, I think we lose all except the incumbent seats, but 27-73 approval for Trump is right around the mark we’d need in 2026 (because we all know Republicans will get a higher share of the vote from entrenched partisanship) to pull off a crazy result.
Even if that is the case though, they tried to take 5 seats in TX, so getting only 3 and Democrats getting 5 in CA would still put us ahead of the game. OH probably would pull us break even and maybe they gain a seat or three from IN/MO/NC, but not at all like the 15-20 seats they were trying to get by redrawing states for their party.
The one wild card of course is the VRA if it gets thrown out. Now, will these numbers be a low point and rebound? Or will it stay like this until 2026? I don’t think anyone can say for certain either way, but if this is the same for election day 2026, the impossible could very well happen.
Once again 46% for Miyares, if he loses, the signs were there beforehand. Also D+8 generic ballot is almost certainly going to be enough for shy Jones voters to hold their nose for him. He will be the worst performing Democrat on the ticket obviously, but not enough to lose and I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if he crossed the 50% mark. We shall see soon enough!
The big question is - Would there be any Spanberger voters who would vote against Jones?
I’d say the likely scenario will be that Jones will benefit from the performance of Spanberger to the extent where the larger the margin of victory she gets, the more likely Jones will get elected.
It’s certainly reasonable to say Jones won’t get as much of a margin of victory as Spanberger if he does win the VA Attorney General election.
There will most definitely be Spanbarger voters who vote against Jones. There will also be Spanbarger voters who don't vote in the AG race. The questions are 1) how much does Spanbarger win by and 2) how much dropoff is there between her and Jones?
Why do you think certain Spanberger voters won’t cast a vote at all for VA Attorney General? Is there no likelihood there will be a protest vote towards a random some dude who is say an Independent candidate?
I don’t know. I haven’t paid attention to these numbers. It’s possible these voters exist but I can’t comment on percentage wise how much they would represent.
I was just pointing out that the VA Attorney General Race is the one that could give Spanberger voters a bit more to think about given the issues Jones has. To my understanding, the rest of the races are not complicated for Spanberger voters in general to cast votes for if there are Democratic Candidates running.
Sports commentator Paul Finebaum, who recently moved to the Birmingham suburb of Mountain Brook (also home to former Sen. Doug Jones), will decide soon whether to run for Tommy Tuberville's seat in Alabama.
The Republicans never turned from racism, they toned it down in hopes of getting some black votes, hopefully enough blacks, brown, red, yellow and WHITE people see the truth and vote Democrat.
I think those two seats are going to flip. It's like those special elections in Iowa, GOP turnout is low while Dems are energized and angry.
Indiana Republican Gov. Mike Braun called Monday for state lawmakers to return to Indianapolis for a special session to redraw the state’s congressional boundaries
It’s unclear whether enough of the GOP majority Senate will back new maps.
https://apnews.com/article/indiana-redistricting-special-session-braun-63f3447efcc34529dfc363a96a763b6e?taid=68ff71ee7add8a0001c598f4&utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter
Braun is an ass kissing POS.
This is also curious, the spokeswoman for the Senate leader reiterated what she said last Wednesday: https://nitter.poast.org/adamwren/status/1982811396430499861#m
Also, the original article from last Wednesday mentioned the Gov would likely try this.
I guess they're taking a shot on some senators wilting under the public pressure of actually having to stand up and vote against Trump.
As a Hoosier, I believe most will cave and vote for it.
Ditto
Wouldn't surprise me. Unless people like Daniels and Pence give them cover. And, to some extent, whether it's 8-1 or 9-0.
Agreed. This was always going to happen.
A2 polls (new pollster this year I think) has Sherrill up 5%, Spanberger and Hashmi up 8%, and VA-AG roughly tied: https://www.a2insights.org/public-polls
This is an improvement over their last poll for Spanberger and Hashmi. About the same for Sherrill.
NYC-Council-47
https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2025/10/real-city-council-race-brooklyns-purplest-district/409035/?oref=csny-skybox-hp
Interesting piece on a competitive NYC Council race from City and State NY. Democrat Kayla Santosuosso, chief counsel to outgoing Councilman Justin Brannan and previous head of one of the Arab associations in NY, faces GOP operative and landlord/businessman George Sarantopoulos. Curious to see how this will go — Santosuosso is to Brannan’s left from what I’ve heard, and there was a nasty GOP primary between Sarantopoulos and local GOP chairman Richie Barsamian that heated that race up. Plus we’re in a Trump-unfriendly environment. Who knows.
Well this sucks -AFGE union calling on Dems to end shutdown - historically huge democratic backers
I don't blame them. Their members are suffering and there's no clear end in sight.
At least call on the Republicans to negotiate and return
Or better yet, a general strike. It may not be the most effective, but it certainly would help.
Federal employees can't strike
Dems hand tough, and their supporters say "don't hang tough like this".
If they were truly Democratic backers, they'd be calling on Republicans to extend the health care subsidies, not fighting their own party.
Maybe they're not such big Democratic backers after all.
they've gone weeks without a paycheck. Let's not bash folks that are honestly worried about feeding their children.
So? That's not Democrats' fault!
We need to have a united front against the evil, selfish, billionaire-driven agenda that the Republicans are shoving on us. Every Democrat needs to be saying the same thing - that Republicans need to give us the health care subsidies before we re-open the government, and that the government shutdown is entirely on them.
It sickens me when people or groups that should be allied with us instead undermine our cause. Democrats in Congress need to hold firm and never cave!
this thursday, I know my paycheck will hit my bank account. I hate the right wing and what they've done to this country, but I cannot imagine being in a situation where I had to choose between supporting a continued shutdown (for good policy reasons) versus putting food on the table.
I am not suggesting we cave, I am suggesting we give folks that are lining up at food banks across NoVa a little grace.
Regarding your last paragraph, I'm not sure what the difference is.
The Dems would actually listen to them. Republicans would take any complaint by the AFGE as a compliment that they’re doing the right thing.
This is part of the problem - Republicans wrongly believe that only Democrats are suffering from the shutdown.
Where are all the ads featuring Republican government employees, or Republicans on food stamps, or Republicans whose health care premiums are about to massively increase? There are plenty such people out there.
So now what? How does Schumer respond ?
Predictable ending. I'm just surprised it didn't happen two weeks ago.
Both sides are not budging. I think the best off-ramp for Dems is relent after Nov 1st when the premium hikes are evident and tell voters they did everything they could prevent while hammering the GOP on health care next year.
This is one of those “both are right” situations imo. From the union’s perspective, ending the shut down and publicly stating so is what their members want and is what is the best option for them to do. From the party’s perspective, keeping things shutdown until the ACA healthcare subsidies get extended is the right thing to do for them both because the subsidies are popular, healthcare is a third rail poison for their opponents and it’s the right thing to do for Americans.
I don’t have a problem with some Democratic backing organization saying what they need to in order to actually represent and fight for their members. Saying nothing when people are going without their pay would feel like a dereliction of duty and weaken the already small power of unions and their workers/organizations. “Why am I in a union if they won’t even fight for my pay check”, especially with union members already shifting right with so few having a full education.
Where I have a problem is the Shawn Fain’s who cozy up to the right wing in the hopes of getting spared the brunt of their policies, that was and is never going to happen. The GOP is anti-union and always will be. We need to normalize having our allies break from us sometimes. I’d say if anything it would lessen the “unions are only in Democrats pockets” pervasive thinking among union members. It may even make their endorsements persuasive to union members again when they’re the most crucial in elections.
This all said if Democrats do cave citing things like this union, oh boy, this coming civil war in our party is going to rival that of the tea party tenfold. They need to hold strong regardless of what unions say or do or else the 2026 primaries are going to be biblical.
I wonder if they think that the end of the healthcare subsidies will not affect them, in which case, it is a matter of "I've got mine, and I don't care about everyone else."
They also ignore that all Mike Johnson has to do is to call the House into session and start negotiating, but of course when he does, the Epstein files will rise up.
"""
Keeping in mind that how or in what order questions are asked can have a huge impact on polling results, what do you make of this?
https://www.semafor.com/article/10/27/2025/democrats-urged-to-jettison-progressive-rhetoric-favored-by-highly-educated-and-affluent
The group, called Welcome, consulted hundreds of thousands of voters over six months for its broad findings, including that 70% of voters think the Democratic Party is “out of touch.” Most voters, the group found, believe the party over-prioritizes issues like “protecting the rights of LGBTQ+ Americans,” and “fighting climate change” while not caring about “securing the border” or “lowering the rate of crime.”[...]
Inspired by “The Politics of Evasion,” an influential 1989 paper that inspired the party’s more centrist shift under Bill Clinton, the 70-page “Deciding to Win” document argues that Democrats must be “willing to break with unpopular party orthodoxies.” Its prescription for getting the party out of its current wilderness isn’t simple: avoidance of “both a pivot to corporate centrism and the pursuit of progressive ideology purity.”
Greg Schultz, who managed Joe Biden’s 2020 primary campaign but was replaced for the general election, worked with Welcome to shape the report.
“For the last 20 years, Democrats have just misunderstood how you actually win elections,” he told Semafor. “I thought Biden had proven in the 2020 primary that the base of the Democratic Party is a 58-year old woman without a college degree. But when you hear people in DC say ‘the base,’ they mean white intellectuals that live in a few coastal cities.”
Wow, a Democratic consultant arguing that the party needs to ignore progressives and instead pivot to the right? Now I've seen everything.
Their poll also showed that 65 percent of voters think the Republican Party is out of touch; interesting to see if the RNC pivots to the left in response.
The Republicans have truly painted themselves in a box ideologically. Republican primaries in the vast majority of the country are so thoroughly dominated by far-right voters (the only notable exception to this is Vermont), any Republican who isn't a fascist at heart is effectively forced to rule or vote like one out of fear of losing a primary to a further-right candidate over even the slightest break from fascist political orthodoxy.
I'm increasingly finding all these takes about whether Democrats need to be more centrist or more progressive or tweak some policy stance to be incredibly annoying.
The problem isn't Democratic policies. The main problem is the lack of any semblance of pro-Democratic media infrastructure beyond a couple of podcasts and MSNBC (which fewer than a million people watch regularly anymore).
If a consultant crafts the allegedly perfect, winning political campaign message in a forest, and nobody hears it, does it make an electoral victory?
Our lack of a true media wing is the main thing that has been killing us for years.
Jettisoning the LGBTQIA+ community to pander to white supremacists would guarantee the Democratic Party's downfall. One in eight people who voted for Harris in 2024 are part of the LGBTQIA+ community, and we're simply not going to win over more than one in eight Trump supporters to make up for depressed turnout and/or a left-wing third party being built around pro-LGBTQIA+ policies.
Also, centrism in the last few decades within the Democratic Party has been defined by corporate, pro-Wall Street centrism. Centrism is inherently an avoidance of progressive ideology, but what would a Democratic Party built around an ideology that is an avoidance of corporate centrism look like? It would be built around either fascism (which is what the Republican Party stands for right now and is not centrist) or an American version of Peronism (leftist economic policies combined with cultural conservatism), and there isn't really much of a market for the latter ideology here.
On a related note, for someone who had arguably the most progressive accomplishments of any Democratic POTUS since LBJ, Biden never really surrounded or associated himself with progressive-leaning individuals (the most notable exception to this was Deb Haaland), and he surrounded himself with some of the least progressive people in the Democratic Party (especially in regard to his choices for White House advisory positions and top campaign officials).
"One in eight people who voted for Harris in 2024 are part of the LGBTQIA+ community."
Is this true?
According to exit polls, 8% of the 2024 general election electorate is part of the LGBTQIA+ community (although it wasn't exactly phrased that way), and Harris got 86% of the vote from LGBTQIA+ voters. That comes out to about 6.9% of the total electorate being LGBTQIA+ Harris voters; Harris got 48.3% of the national popular vote. That actually means that one in seven (14.3%) Harris voters are LGBTQIA+, not one in eight!
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/lgbt-voters-away-from-trump-2024-election-record-change-rcna178939
If my math is still wrong, let me know.
I don't know if I'd say there's not much of a market for American Peronism. I think many of the reactions to Trump's econ policies among the GOP from stimulus checks onward have shown that at least their side will follow whatever they do under the right words. Now if you say that Americans aren't resilient enough to keep the faith under an actual Argentinian style downturn i'd agree.
I think there is some market for socially conservative, economically social democratic-leaning politics. I don't support that, of course, but Pew studies have shown that that is a much more common political viewpoint in the U.S. than corporate, socially liberal politics.
some would call it the premise of the new deal coalition
The New Deal policies were also economically conservative for certain groups. To match that coalition again, we would need to redline out people from participating in it.
of course, it would need to be tailored to the modern era. Just echoing a belief that the average American is way more with us on the economy than they are social issues. Doesn’t mean we abandon our voters, but it does mean we need to recalibrate to the economy.
For example: Climate change=rich people driving up your energy bills.
I’ll admit it is harder to simply our position on welcoming immigrants into a concise message as to why immigrants have and always will help this country’s economy. (But I’ve never been a concise speaker so someone out there could easily do it)
I think this is undeniably true, unfortunately. Signed, a corporate-friendly social liberal
Would a policy built around maintaining the current status quo on social welfare but taxing the rich and corporations more, in order to reduce the deficit, fall under the umbrella of anti-corporate centrism?
I think putting a centrist perspective into an economic vs social issues lens is the wrong approach to understanding what it could look like.
It is incredibly distressing how many Americans fail to see climate change as an existential threat to humanity and instead see it as do-gooder nonsense promoted by overeducated "elites." It is also distressing how many people believe the strawman argument that the Democrats are obsessed with trans people because cultural conservatives constantly talk about how much they hate trans people. I am amazed at how often MAGA supporters rant about transgender people compared to how often these issues come up when talking to Democrats. Finally, the Democratic party does need to make a case for a reasonable border security bill that will do more to secure the border while making it easier for immigrants to come to America and to become citizens legally. This is again more evidence that far too many of our countrymen and women are gullible, stupid and bigoted.
The big problem with environmentalists lately has been a spate of fatalism that we are doomed regardless even as the consequences haven't been as dramatic as feared (though still happening, just not as drastically) as well as Malthusian mumbo-jumbo even as global fertility rates are sinking to equilibrium levels. If the view that gradually switching from fossil fuels is just "useless deck chair arranging" then what's the point? Not to mention the anti-nuclear streak even as nuclear power plants of today's designs are vastly superior to what we built in the 1970s.
This, this, 100% this. What especially makes this problem worse is that climate deniers have exploited it and changed their tune — “if we’re all screwed, why bother?”
We need to show the positive side of environmental change too. There’s a reason Bernie and Mamdani did so well with progressivism while so many others failed — they carried messages of hope, of a better life. Whatever you think of them or their policies, it’s important to note that it was likely this that made them so popular. Likewise, we could discuss benefits of environmental change — clean air, beautiful parks and nature preserves coming from preservation, more comfortable and faster transit via an expanded high speed rail system, etc. Like, I and my family are big on native plants and anti-lawn stuff — a benefit to this is being able to walk outside our house in the morning and hear birds chirping and see all sorts of signs of life in our yard. Wouldn’t that be a benefit for a suburban voter? Why would people fight back if they feel hopeless?
That's a rather broad generalization.
Wait, is someone on this board claiming that the results of global warming have been -less- severe than expected? While a category-5 hurricane may dump 2 feet of rain on Jamaica tomorrow, no less? Unbelievable!
I think what’s being argued is more, messaging is everything. Climate change certainly is a serious issue. But people need to feel like fighting back will mean something. As I said, this is why climate deniers are taking advantage of this line of thought. It’s possible to say “climate change is an existential threat”, but there has to be a “and here’s how you can fight back” or else people will feel hopeless and in despair, and will then feel like what they do doesn’t matter (and it absolutely does!)
I suspect the winning message on climate change has long been energy independence and long term cost reductions.
Solar and wind energy have minimal operating costs; the marginal cost of a kWh of energy from either could be argued to be effectively zero. Not exactly zero as there is still basic maintenance and similar, but very low. The total cost comes from the lifespan amortization of the upfront costs to buy and install the relevant equipment.
The US is the world's largest oil producer. We're approaching the point of production and consumption at parity, although we still consume more than we produce. If America had 100% BEVs across our vehicle fleet, we would be able to export the majority of that oil. It would be hundreds of billions of dollars as a trade surplus.
I do care about the environment, I do care about climate change, I do worry about the continued impacts of CO2 emissions. You can make a completely compelling argument for renewable energy without mentioning the climate at all, and for reaching the average voter that might be the right approach.
All of that is good and goes back to President Carter's arguments, but I think pointing out that the weather is getting more and more severe and these steps will also stop that from getting totally out of control should be part of the argument.
And the solutions for "fighting back" have to be ones that people feel will do something but without demanding too much sacrifice.
This may sound sort of two-faced, but scoldiness such as "No more air travel", "No more air conditioning", and "Stop eating meat" won't get results, whatever their scientific merit.
I've been saying this for a while. The climate crisis will not be solved by telling people "don't do that". We need to get less heavy-handed and use economic incentives more.
That's always been the argument of the people who have fought for the Green New Deal, Build Back Better, etc. Why do I get the sense that even some people on this board have been overly influenced by right-wing propaganda and haven't really listened to what Democrats have said?
This is a clear sign that whatever Democrats are saying is obviously not breaking through, if even other Democrats don't know about it. Democrats need to change how we do our messaging.
The problem is not that that argument wasn’t used, it’s that that’s the argument many saw. The positive aspects were either not broadcast enough, or not publicized enough.
The other posters are right, we really, really need a functioning media ecosystem. The GOP has their entire Fox News/radio/what have you network. What do we have?
They did have a border bill, as you know, and the Republicans blocked it because Trump ordered them to do so.
They need to actually campaign on this issue. Too many Democrats are afraid of offending the left fringe by actually talking about the border and crime.
Most swing state and swing seat Democrats talked about working with police, ICE, DHS and securing the border in 2024. You can check their ads.
They should, but I don't think they should ever seem to make it the #1 issue. Going into 2028, the theme should be to get all the corrupt people who have abused the country out and make the government of and for the people again. That includes orderly immigration procedures that work for everyone, but that's very much a secondary issue when everything has to be fixed.
I disagree. No one's talking about the border anymore, just like no one was talking about the pandemic in 2024. I don't think running on issues that are out of sight, out of mind gets you anywhere.
Nobody's talking about the border anymore? Trump sure is....and he's gonna talk a lot more about it next year in the lead up to the midterms. Don't think for a second this issue has lost its salience.
To my understanding, the border is very peaceful and has very little to do with crime, unless you're talking about gun-smuggling from the U.S. to Mexican gangs or considering mere unauthorized entry to the U.S. as a crime.
Yeah, but most voters don't want a comprehensive "border bill". They just want fewer immigrants. Biden showed he was perfectly capable of doing that on his own, about 2 years too late.
Exactly. He could have fixed the border with EOs.
I really struggle to see how that border bill would have been either politically or legislatively effective. At its core was the border closing after "5,000 entrants per day". Extrapolating to 365 days per year, that's an allowance of more than 1.8 million asylum seekers per year. That would not have disincentivized the surge of humanity at the border nor would the public be satisfied with limiting border crossings to "only" 1.8 million per year.
Maybe I'm missing something but nothing about that legislation seemed remotely like a panacea to me.
How many of the entrants would have been ordinary commuters and businesspeople?
Yeah that's a good question. If the bill had come up for a vote, more of those kinds of details could have been addressed.
I don't think it's a question. Your math proves that the entrants wouldn't have all been admitted as immigrants.
Actually the they/them ad did not work in a vacuum, it worked in the context of an inflation surge and border crisis with Dems being perceived as focused on "they/them".
A recent University of Virginia poll found Democrat Abigail Spanberger with a +14 approval on "Transgender or Trans policies" making it her second best issue despite most of Losesome Earle Sears ads focusing on Jay Jones, bathrooms and locker rooms. It also found that most voters did not rank it among their top issues.
I hate to potentially jinx a victory, but Earle-Sears' campaign has a sort of grabbing-at-straws quality to it. The emphasis on transgender issues seems a sort of "it worked in some races before, let's try it again" when the stuff that's currently most important to voters isn't working for her, and talking about Jay Jones as if she were running against him evidently is hope for reverse coattails that probably seldom win elections--and Miyares may not even win his own race.
I suspect that the well is about dry when it comes to GOP transphobia among swing voters. The GOP will just find another group to demonize next.
That said, it's not as if Spanberger needs to go out of her way to win over the transgender vote so she can win the gubernatorial election.
These polling numbers are great but with Earle-Sears doing absolutely nothing constructive with her campaign that is making a real impact on Virginia voters, anything she says about transgender people is a byproduct of how awful her candidacy is.
What made 'they/them' so more effective than what we're seeing in Virginia is the clip in that ad of Kamala essentially saying she supported gender affirming care for inmates.
Yeah the inmates part is what made that ad so damning.
Dropping environmental messaging is not going to work in the long term, it's an existential issue for most young people (including myself)
It's an existential issue for everyone; it's just that lies and denial have enabled loads of people to pretend it isn't.
Just found out that this is the centrist Murdoch funded Welcome PAC operated by the rabid Liam Kerr who went to news networks attacking Bernie and AOC for releasing the healthcare shutdown video which they released in coordination with the Dem leadership.
Their acknowledgements lol : https://x.com/simon_bazelon/status/1982824983991881844
https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/24/politics/doj-monitor-polling-sites-california-new-jersey
So this has been in the news for some time. Apparently the DOJ wants to “monitor” polling sites in certain areas — conveniently in the two states with major elections that affect the GOP (NJ governors and Prop 50 in Cali).
I’m not going to doomsay or offer commentary regarding this matter. Made that mistake before, not doing it again. I’m going to instead ask — what effects, if any, do people here feel this will have on the elections proper?
As long as they merely observe it shouldn't have an adverse effect. They could be used to attempt discredit the result in the right-wing fever swamp. And New Jersey, at least, has faced more blatant Republican attempts at voter suppression:
In 1981, amid a tight race for governor between Republican Tom Kean and Democrat Jim Florio, the Republican National Committee put together a “Ballot Security Task Force” of armed, off-duty police officers, ostensibly deployed to prevent voter fraud.
They patrolled polling places in the state’s urban and heavily Democratic areas on Election Day, and sent out targeted mailers warning voters about the penalties for election fraud. On Election Day, they put up posters warning that the areas were “being patrolled by the Ballot Security Task Force” and offering $1,000 rewards for tips that lead to arrests and conviction for voter fraud.
And thereby stole the election for Kean by a couple of thousand votes. I remember they specifically targeted heavily Black areas.
It's a bunch of hot air. There are always election monitors for state elections, and the TACO regime is trying to scare or deter people from voting by proclaiming something that's been done for years.
question for the NJ folk: poll monitors only going to Passaic County, correct? this is NJ-09? and this is the most Hispanic county in NJ?
Yes (for the most part) and yes.
if I was in charge of the doj and a horrible person I would send these so called "observers" to hudson or essex. Maybe trump is proud he managed to carry passaic and doesn't want jack to lose it
none in CA...in "honor" of gop goon squads I am donating $500 to local food bank and $500 to local homeless shelter in south Orange County, CA...two of their favorite charities :-)
In South Carolina we have strict rules for what poll monitors can do and where they can be during voting. This would be a nothingburger here on election day. It's only effect would be if it kept people away. Which of course is the idea
TX-10: State Sen. Sarah Eckhardt is running. Doesn't have to give up her current position.
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/10/27/sarah-eckhardt-district-10-congress-campaign/
Post-gerrymander, that seat is pretty red, no? Does she have a chance of at least making it slightly less red?
It wasn’t super red in 2020 and she may be banking on a SnapBack from those numbers
Interesting. We’ll see I guess.
"SCOOP: Brad Lander is telling allies he plans to challenge Rep. Dan Goldman"
https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2025/10/sources-brad-lander-making-plans-challenge-goldman/409086/
Barring a miracle, Goldman's toast and I'm thrilled for Congressman Lander.
Also in that story, apparently a lawsuit challenging NY-11 is out. Should this go in our favor, NY may have a different map.
I'd be delighted to vote for him again.
it's one of those things that's kind of sad, because afaik Goldman hasn't done anything *wrong* per se, he's just not as liberal as the district can support. Would be stoked to have a Goldman instead of Gottheimer, e.g.
Well the ICC vote was pretty bad. The ICC do a lot more than just the forbidden topic — they’ve been prosecuting Russian war criminals in Ukraine too.
yeah fair I know he's not perfect, but nor is he some Blue Dog, was my point.
Agreed, he isn’t Gottheimer-level bad as you said. He’s also not utterly useless like Thanedar.
I think he’s primarily being targeted for not being representative of his district — totally fair in my mind, it’s called the “House of Representatives” for a reason.
Sure, if he were running against Gottheimer, he'd be a great improvement, but he's not. He should get a position in the next Democratic Justice Department.
idk I think we shouldn’t stack the next Democratic admin with people like Goldman, and especially not in the justice department when he voted w Republicans to condemn the world court.
I get you, but he can still be a useful prosecutor of people like the Trump crime organization under U.S. laws.
Eh, he spent nearly $5M to buy the seat in 2022. Bored millionaires are over-represented in Congress at the moment.
Yes he's rich; he was also a high-ranking staffer for the House Intelligence Committee and the lead counsel in Trump's first impeachment. People contain multitudes.
Newsom finally sent out an email to stop sending money on prop 50, he has enough.
I finally got my ballot on the third mailing, and it was deposited in an OC vote drop box yesterday morning.
That's amazing! I've never seen a politician say "Don't send money: I have enough." I did see an unusual thing from AOC, though, which was "please keep sending money, but it's for help for needy constituents of mine," etc.
Zohran Mamdani made several ads saying something similar to newsom
The charity that has done that quite frequently is Doctors Without Borders. They announce they have all they can use for a specific disaster, but can always use monies in their general fund.
I have a great deal of respect for them for doing that. I've never heard that from Red Cross.
The charity that has done that quite frequently is Doctors Without Borders. They announce they have all they can use for a specific disaster, but can always use monies in their general fund.
I have a great deal of respect for them for doing that. I've never heard that from Red Cross.
Prop 50 will pass with +25% margin
I think it will almost certainly pass, probably by double digits. 25% seems unlikely, but who knows. That's what the Babka contest is for...
My prior has been 10-15 for a long time. It polls better than that, but most ballot measures tend to get about the raw number they poll at because undecideds usually vote no.
Question: Are Senators still able to read emails sent to their government email address during the government shutdown (i.e. are their staff still going through them)?
New poll on Latino adults:
EDIT: Correction, this is a poll of Latino adults, not of voters, my apologies for that incorrect information.
https://apnews.com/article/hispanics-trump-popularity-poll-presidential-approval-favorability-6d33973a92db786df0c6a55a8c6872ca
President Trump approval (among Hispanics)
Disapprove 73% (+8)
Approve 27% (-6)
From previous poll in September
The October survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds that 25% of Hispanic adults have a “somewhat” or “very” favorable view of Trump, down from 44% in an AP-NORC poll conducted just before the Republican took office for the second time. The percentage of Hispanic adults who say the country is going in the wrong direction has also increased slightly over the past few months, from 63% in March to 73%.
In March, 41% of Hispanic adults approved of the way Trump was handling his job as president, but now that has fallen to 27%.
In the latest poll, 66% of Hispanic Republicans said they have a “very” or “somewhat” favorable view of Trump. That’s a slight shift compared with where Trump stood in an AP-NORC poll from September 2024, when 83% of Hispanic Republicans viewed him at least “somewhat” favorably.
About two-thirds of Hispanic adults under age 45 and Hispanic men now view Trump unfavorably, according to the new poll. That’s a slight uptick from September 2024, when about half in both groups had a negative opinion of him.
Hopefully most or half of these are registered to vote or doing so. And that they vote in every election going forward.
Our campaigns need to be all over this.
Those are good enough numbers to ruin that Texas gerrymander, right?
At least for the SA/RGV seats, quite possibly
It would be the peak own goal of the decade if Republicans redrew Texas and Democrats actually didn’t lose seats there while California also passed its gerrymander. It would be a well earned f*** you to the fascist GOP to actually lose seats in the redistricting war they started to try to ensure Trump and the king’s say yes party hold onto power.
We’ll see if “we don’t approve of Trump” turns into “we will vote for Democrats” though. That’s the biggest question mark and not at all guaranteed.
That would be hilarious. I still think we’d lose the Houston and Dallas redrawn seats but we have a decent chance in the SA/RGV triad if things break correctly
I agree, I think we lose all except the incumbent seats, but 27-73 approval for Trump is right around the mark we’d need in 2026 (because we all know Republicans will get a higher share of the vote from entrenched partisanship) to pull off a crazy result.
Even if that is the case though, they tried to take 5 seats in TX, so getting only 3 and Democrats getting 5 in CA would still put us ahead of the game. OH probably would pull us break even and maybe they gain a seat or three from IN/MO/NC, but not at all like the 15-20 seats they were trying to get by redrawing states for their party.
The one wild card of course is the VRA if it gets thrown out. Now, will these numbers be a low point and rebound? Or will it stay like this until 2026? I don’t think anyone can say for certain either way, but if this is the same for election day 2026, the impossible could very well happen.
At this point I think Cuellar and Gonzalez are looking pretty good.
VA CNU POLL:
Spanberger 50-43
Hashmi +2
Miyares +1
Generic D 51-43
https://cnu.edu/wasoncenter/surveys/archive/2025-10-27.html
Final CNU poll has Spanberger up 50-43, Hashmi up 47-45, Miyares up 46-45, and Dems leading generic legislative ballot 51-43: https://cnu.edu/wasoncenter/surveys/archive/2025-10-27.html
This is about where their last polls of the 2017 races were, except for the AG race (they had Herring up by mid single digits).
Once again 46% for Miyares, if he loses, the signs were there beforehand. Also D+8 generic ballot is almost certainly going to be enough for shy Jones voters to hold their nose for him. He will be the worst performing Democrat on the ticket obviously, but not enough to lose and I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if he crossed the 50% mark. We shall see soon enough!
The big question is - Would there be any Spanberger voters who would vote against Jones?
I’d say the likely scenario will be that Jones will benefit from the performance of Spanberger to the extent where the larger the margin of victory she gets, the more likely Jones will get elected.
It’s certainly reasonable to say Jones won’t get as much of a margin of victory as Spanberger if he does win the VA Attorney General election.
There will most definitely be Spanbarger voters who vote against Jones. There will also be Spanbarger voters who don't vote in the AG race. The questions are 1) how much does Spanbarger win by and 2) how much dropoff is there between her and Jones?
Why do you think certain Spanberger voters won’t cast a vote at all for VA Attorney General? Is there no likelihood there will be a protest vote towards a random some dude who is say an Independent candidate?
You don't think there are plenty of people who vote for Governor and not downballot? I'd think that would be a universally accepted fact.
I don’t know. I haven’t paid attention to these numbers. It’s possible these voters exist but I can’t comment on percentage wise how much they would represent.
I was just pointing out that the VA Attorney General Race is the one that could give Spanberger voters a bit more to think about given the issues Jones has. To my understanding, the rest of the races are not complicated for Spanberger voters in general to cast votes for if there are Democratic Candidates running.
I can definitely conceive of a voter who happily votes for Spanberger and Hashmi but leaves AG blank because Jones's jokes gave them the vapors.
https://www.al.com/news/2025/10/paul-finebaum-getting-close-to-decision-on-2026-alabama-senate-run.html
Sports commentator Paul Finebaum, who recently moved to the Birmingham suburb of Mountain Brook (also home to former Sen. Doug Jones), will decide soon whether to run for Tommy Tuberville's seat in Alabama.
one sports loser following another