Comment deleted. Few things make me angrier when it comes to moderating this community than people trying to get around our ban on two (just two!) topics by using cutesy references to "the unmentionable topic" or "the banned topic" or whatever.
Do you think we're stupid? Do you think speaking in not-at-all-concealed code is somehow a cheat-code to get around our rules? Why would we even have the rules in the first place if we allowed this thinly veiled bullshit?
Out of curiosity, how should people copy and paste information from other sources when the content of those sources are mostly about downballot races with only a little bit in the middle referring to the presidential election (since the original authors aren't constrained by the same rules against presidential election talk)?
Because that's what the original post here was, it was a copy paste of (if I remember correctly, a tweet although it may have been a news article) that reported on how Governor Shapiro is contributing resources to a campaign to support downballot Democrats in Pennsylvania. But the original author of the tweet had one sentence mentioning Shapiro's likely presidential bid because it is relevant information in the larger news-sphere and that author isn't prevented from mentioning it.
The answer to this may be to just summarize the social media post/article rather than copy paste, but there are instances where the wording used by the original author is useful or important or just explains the situation better than any summary could.
Alternatively, was your concern here that the original poster gave reference to the original author's mention of the presidential election?
By not copy and pasting to begin with. I always paraphrase an article I'm sourcing when I make a comment. I get that leaves out wording the author used that is useful, and sometimes commenters point out key details I left out of my summary.
Can someone who's closer to the ground in Wisconsin tell me why Democrats there have decided to fumble the ball on the one yard line in the Governor's race? The fact there's a better chance the sitting Lt. Governor gets indicted on campaign finance fraud than being elected Governor says a lot.
You'd think the state party machine that Ben Wilker built wouldn't let something like this happen.
What Dems do best is fighting each other, with barely any pushback against Republicans who are doing all they can to destroy our democracy.
Dem leadership needs to be completely replaced with more progressive, even socialist Dems that know how to fight for our country and stand up for their constituents.
This fits the mold of a lot of times that we have a problematic primary, even if many of them work out OK in the end.
Too many people running, aware that if the others drop out they can win. They hold out to be the last one standing. Which leads to them all staying in for as long as they can financially sustain a campaign.
We saw similar in CA-Gov. That it worked out for Becerra there is something that candidates in large primaries will note and remember.
Tbf it was different in California because which ever Dem made it to November would become governor.
It's different in Wisconsin. Look, I like Hong, but Wisconsin ain't the safe D house seats DSAer have been winning and I'd really like another swing state where Dems run things.
Part of me wonders if Hong should have waited to see if Mark Pocan ran for higher office, then ran for his seat in Congress - correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t Hong in his district?
Hong could win a deep blue seat easily but I am concerned about a bad enough Governor result to threaten potential gains in the state legislature, along with WI-3/WI-1 and the other statewide races in the process. Wisconsin has elected progressives in the past (La Follette, Russ Feingold, Milwaukee’s socialist mayors) but I worry Hong is too much at this particular moment in time.
Tbf "waiting your turn" hasn't worked out in Dem politics recently. Just ask the legions of Democrats who waited for Diana DeGette in Denver to finally hang it up or Tish James in NYC who'll cap at AG because she waited too long to run for something else.
I think it's less about Hong trying to challenge Pocan, or more about "if you choose to wait your turn for office... be prepared to WAIT." And because Pocan is a progressive, and as Jaz said, not *ancient,* maybe that's why Hong decided to jump into the race for governor instead of challenging him? And if he chose to retire this year, perhaps she would've jumped into the race to replace him instead.
I would probably argue that there weren't many avenues of advancement for her. She probably wasn't going to win a primary challenge to Hochul. She might have been able to win NYC mayor but that is not usually a great job to have. As NY AG you are generally a hero. When you go to something else after that, it becomes less fun.
I think it depends on how well she campaigns and whether or not she focuses on economic populism and popular policies, or more importantly whether or not she can keep the voter population focused on her economic populism and popular policies.
I'm a progressive, obviously, and probably further to the left than a lot of people here; I'm a big believer in the idea that progressive candidates need to focus mainly, if not exclusively, on left-wing economic populism. That doesn't mean shifting to the right on social issues, but pushing the economic populism whenever right-wingers pull from their culture war playbook. Shes gotta be careful not to make her "defund the police" stuff too present in the race - firstly by not bringing it up or expressing too much support for it, yes, but also by not getting hung up on trying to dispel the notion that she supports that. I think a lot of Democratic candidates tend to do the latter a lot and I think it's a bad strategy, you can't really spend your whole campaign going "nuh uhhh, I don't actually like THAT! I HATE that! I hate it more than the Republicans do!" Every attack against Hong has to be turned around towards the economy, ICE, and Trump being a child rapist.
I think Hong would win this year. I think you could nominate the corpse of Robert La Follette and it would win too. It was the closest swing state in 2024, and this political environment all but guarantees swing state Republicans are going to falter and flop. But as much as I want more progressive leaders and politicians... I can't help but be a *little* worried about Hong. Not because I think she'd lose, but because I don't really know how much some of her flaws would hold her back. It really feels like at this point that voters shouldn't be distracted by culture war, social issue shit... but I feel like I've been saying that for years, now. And of course, 2030 will almost certainly be a Democratic president midterm, and someone like Hong might be at increased risk of losing especially if she faces gridlock. And again, after the mess that is the Trump admin I would hope that voters aren't stupid enough to just instinctively elect Republicans because the Democrat inevitably didn't fix all of the damage Trump did... but come on.
I feel pretty confident with either Hong or Barnes, who are the frontrunners.
People do not make serious campaigns for statewide office if they do not believe they can win a general election -- the whole Wisconsin field will think they can win if they get the nod.
In California, the struggle wasn't being the democratic candidate, it was getting a democrat into the top two in the first place! There was a stretch of time where there was a credible risk of an all republican top two. And that risk originated in the fact that too many democrats were running and none of them were consolidating the field.
The middle step is different but the starting and ending point is the same.
Wisconsin: too many credible candidates run, none stand out -> risk that weakest one wins primary -> republican wins general election
California: too many credible candidates run, none stand out -> risk that top two vote getters are republicans -> republican wins general election
In both cases the field stayed too large for too long because the democrats running wanted to be the one that the field consolidated into. For California that was Becerra and it worked out for him: he's all but guaranteed to be governor come January.
I thought, from my understanding, was that Rodriguez herself was not the person doing financial mishandling, that was the campaign manager, who Rodriguez has now fired.
I mean that's probably still enough to sink her campaign or significantly weaken it, regardless, because of what voters might think it says about her judgement
It may seem maddening how much Republicans can get away with compared to Democrats, but remember: There are still standards in politics, but only for Democrats, because if we pretend a Democrat making a misstep is just as bad (if not worse) than a Republican committing treason or protecting a child rapist, we can still pretend both sides are the same and thus never have to challenge the Republicans too much on committing treason or protecting a child rapist
GA-GOV: State Navigate conducted a poll between 7/10 - 7/13 that shows Democratic candidate Keisha Lance Bottoms with a 7 point lead over Republican Rick Jackson. Lieutenant Governor candidate Josh McLaurin is also leading by 4 points.
The biggest finding that Chaz Nuttycombe's State Navigate found in the survey that the Georgia state House is in play, despite Nuttycombe's prediction of Republicans having a 75% chance of keeping it.
Worth noting that the recalled vote is Harris +6, which is too blue leaning of a sample, but Democrats still hold leads at a Harris +1 electorate by several points, so it’s not detrimental to the poll either and I think it’s reasonable to see more Democrats voting in 2026 than they did in 2024. A GCB of 51-43 would be an 11 point swing left from 2024 since Trump won Georgia by 3. Another piece of evidence to the pile that there’s a GCB shift of double digits in the national political environment from 2024.
One other thing to note, that I think is going to be EXTREMELY important to how big a wave in the fall gets for the midterm elections. Trump backlash only voters (my own term I use). 18% of the likely electorate only voted in 1 of the last 4 elections. That’s almost all going to be made up entirely of 2018 or 2020 voters. These progressives or nonpolitical people only ever show up to the ballot box after being activated to vote against Trump when he’s president. They won’t vote at any other time because they don’t like the current Democratic Party.
If they show up again in force this year at the polls, that takes a potential 2018 wave to a 2006 or 2010 level of wipeout because Democrats are already doing much better among always voting and mostly voting voters than they were doing in 2018 thanks to the crappy economy now, which wasn’t a factor back then to anchor down Trump’s voter support levels. They’re also far more likely to be missed from too stringent likely voter screens. They don’t vote very often because they’re disconnected from our party and/or politics in general.
I mean, I wouldn't expect special election margins to translate 1-to-1 in November, given that Republican turnout will be a bit better. But it doesn't have to; the fact that Democrats are flipping such deep red seats is 100% a sign of what's to come, and gives us a good idea about voting patterns, dynamics, demographics etc. It's not necessarily about these super deep red seats flipping to Democrats in special elections, it's about the underlying trends that are either going to remain in place or snowball further as we head towards November
100%. I still think a lot of pundits and people are underestimating how bad this year is going to be for the GOP. We're still in primary season, still a few months out from the *real* campaigning and when a lot of voters start to look at the elections and deliberate who to vote for. And even still the current numbers are already dismal for Republicans. I think Democrats winning 50 senate seats is a low estimate.l
"While the pollsters expect the 2026 electorate to be friendlier to Democrats than the one that voted in 2024, they acknowledge their sample is about 8 points bluer than the presidential electorate, a gap they believe is too favorable to Democrats.
How is he compared to Starmer? Is he any better, just the same, worse, etc.? I can’t imagine he’d be worse than Starmer, Starmer was pretty awful. Just curious to see if he does anything better.
I think he'll be better but some here seem to think he'll be the same. He's a self-identified socialist that has pivoted slightly to the right since national stardom.
I liked Manchester under his control (except for the airport. One of the worst I've ever been to.)
He's a better public communicator who has an actual vision to run the country even if a lot of it is powered on resentment the North of England has towards London sucking all the energy in the country since post industrialization.
Starmer never had a plan to govern after he won the election and it showed from day one.
Less likely to engage in left and immigrant punching, likely a better administrator based on his time as mayor. Should bring back center-left voters from the Lib Dems and prog voters from the Greens. With the right splintering into 3 groups, rallying the base back into Labour should be a priority.
Speaking of left and immigrant punching, we'll finally get Shabana Mahmoud out of Home. And I'm glad Streeting left Health and chose not to run for PM because his NHS was openly against gender affirming care.
Politico article that suggests Morris Katz and Dan Moraff basically had to badger Platner into running, largely to burnish their own credential. Same with Nathan Sage
Only problem is unlike Iowa, no stronger candidates really jumped into the race. They all deferred to Mills, who then proceeded to struggle and flop (I still remember how shocked I was at the first poll that had Platner trouncing her by 40 points). Platner didn't really have any reason to drop out, especially once he survived the Nazi tattoo scandal and realized he could survive almost anything up until the allegations came out this month.
It's really funny though, on a cosmic level. If he had pushed away these dudes and just refused to run, he'd probably be relaxing at home right now. But now his life is ruined - every terrible thing he's said and every horrific action he's done is out in the open. Almost everybody who meets him will *know* the exact kind of person he is. And if his wife ends up divorcing after this? Good luck ever finding anybody else that won't dart in the opposite direction once they realize who he is. All because he was too stupid to think none of his MANY skeletons could escape the Oyster farm.
I agree that Katz, et al did tremendous damage with the Platner fiasco, but I do question why Rahm Emanuel was interviewed for this article. How is he relevant? Because he doesn’t like progressives? I guess he was DCCC chair, but if I recall his tenure was not well received in part because some of his picks while there were among those who voted against Obamacare.
I'll never understand why people keep asking Rahm Emanuel what he thinks. Literally who gives a shit about him? He's an irrelevant creep who hasn't seen a mirror he didn't like.
Trump’s endorsement is now more detrimental to a candidate than being a socialist is. Though both still have a majority of voters being less likely to support them. Being a socialist is also more positive for a candidate than the other 2 right wing options.
When socialism becomes permanently less unpopular than Trump or MAGA, that’s when Democrats can win power and keep it long term. If the radical socialism red scare tactic doesn’t work anymore, that’s when Republicans are completely fucked in elections, because that’s all they’ve got to attack us on.
Agreed. The idea that a Republican is going to win Maine's governor's race is laughable by now, especially considering the national environment and the fact they nominated a nobody. Paul LePage, former governor, got trounced by 13 points in 2022, a much better year for Republicans than this year.
Speaking of LePage, I think rating ME-2 as Likely R is a bit much. ME-2 is a Republican district, yes, and Dunlap is perhaps less suited for flipping the district than someone like Baldacci, but there's more to consider than that. It has a Cook PVI of R+4 (or R+10 if you want to go by margin of victory and not how it voted relative to the nation), which I would say is certainly within reach this election cycle. Paul LePage is also really old, and would be the oldest freshman representative ever, and is definitely not lacking in outlandish, controversial claims for the Dunlap campaign to use. Plus if Troy Jackson tops the ballot for senate, which is looking far more likely, it could help Dunlap a bit - probably not a lot due to reduced ticket splitting, but anything counts
LePage is going to be exactly the kind of republican that ME-02 likes, though. Voters there was the basis of his two gubernatorial wins.
I think Likely R is appropriate. We don't have a star candidate, it's a tough district, the republican candidate is well known and running in territory that will favor him. But the environment might be enough for us to win anyway.
You're not wrong. Against a 13 point Democratic victory in 2022 he still carried the district by just 2 points. But in terms of gubernatorial performance we might see a stronger victory than 13 points, especially since early polling already has Pingree winning from around 11 to 15 points. Whether or not a more localized race will help LePage depends to be seen. I'd personally put at Lean R due to the political environment alone, and adjust it based on further polling (which is scarce right now)
Redistricting is done by a bipartisan advisory commission and requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature. We currently have a bare majority of the House, so I doubt we can gerrymander.
What Brendan said, but also taking too much blue from ME-1 would just make a dummymander and create two swing districts, not a blue-leaning and a red-leaning one
Politico: House Dem challengers are printing money
A POLITICO analysis of new campaign finance data found seven of the 10 top House battleground fundraisers were Democratic challengers.
And as Democrats posted most of the top fundraising hauls, it was mainly Republicans at the other end of the spectrum. Nine of the 10 lowest fundraising totals in battleground districts were posted by Republican incumbents or challengers.
Hard for me to see how Trey Gowdy would run for the Senate if this were a possibility. He originally declined to run for re-election in the House back in 2018 after Trump became president and was critical of his campaign back in 2016 in colluding with Russia. That didn't sit well with Trump who also went after Gowdy when he supported Marco Rubio's presidential campaign in the 2016 primaries. Gowdy also in being interviewed by Michael Moynihan of VICE News did not like the job of serving in the House even while he enjoyed meeting people in Congress.
Of course, if Gowdy runs for the Senate and wins the election, Trump would only have two years remaining left of his presidency. After that, it remains to be seen what the political environment will be. Being a Senator is much different in influence compared to being a member of the House.
Alright, I've had kind of an unpopular opinion or hot take that appointing Darlene Graham as a *temporary* replacement wasn't super weird. It wasn't uncommon in the past for the widows of dead senators to be appointed in their place, such as Muriel Humphrey in 1978 and Jean Carnahan in 2000 (who ran for a full term in the 2002 special election and lost). Graham was, of course, unmarried, so his sister, who had appeared with Graham and assisted him in previous runs for office, was the next option. And she's held a handful of positions within state government, even heading a state governmental agency, so technically speaking she's no more or less qualified for senate than someone like Abdul El-Sayed, as horrible as that sounds to say. Railing against her appointment as an example government corruption felt a little bit like slopulism to me, especially because she's just a temporary replacement... or so I thought
If she *does* run, basically everything I just said and have been saying is wrong and would be a pretty disgusting display of corruption and nepotism, particularly because of the role Trump has and would further play in it. At the very least, Jean Carnahan was a pretty active first lady of Missouri.
Wisconsin is pretty far to the left of Florida, and, like I've said in the past, Tiffany is as far right as Hong is far left. She can't be portrayed as weak and then have Tiffany's misgivings ignored.
Tiffany is more of an ideologue than Walker. Again, he's in the Freedom Caucus, and is purely just MAGA. Not a moderate, which is someone who *should* represent the Northwoods in Congress.
And the popular Democratic incumbent that year (Jim Doyle) chose to retire. Now Evers is also retiring but the differences are that it's probably a blue wave year and Tiffany is to the right of Walker.
Understandable but Florida is kind of it's own beast in regards to polling, especially in recent years. I think Bill Nelson's loss to Rick Scott (which I'd argue is far more embarrassing than Gillum's) might've played a role... polling seemed to be a bit more accurate with that race, and when election day came not enough voters chose not to split their ballots. Florida is a state is also just more hostile to progressive and even just relatively liberal candidates and politicians, even back in 2018 before the mass conservative/elderly pilgrimage to Florida happened.
In regards to Wisconsin, it has a history of electing more progressive, populist politicians than Florida. And, of course, 2026 is shaping up to be significantly bluer than 2018. In a political environment such as this one I really have a hard time believing any Republican will win an open seat in a swing state, especially Wisconsin which was the closest swing state in 2024.
Gillum underperformed with black women, similar to Abrams underperforming with black men, situations I don't think the national party would've been able to address.
Agreed. Barnes lost by what, a point? And Hong needs to walk back defund the police, but not giving them military equipment is okey-dokey. And real oversight and accountability.
She can certainly win in this environment.
Let WI voters have their say and unite vs the right for the fall.
I don't think people understand what a terrible candidate Francesca Hong would be. She has called for the abolition of prisons and the police. She would drag down the entire Democratic ticket this year. Fox news would have a field day with this nut.
I don't think calling her "terrible" and a "nut" if she's the nominee will also do her any favors in terms of winning either. Even if that's what you think she is, I hope you won't be singing the same tune if she wins the nomination. Because the competition isn't any better.
I’m fine with whatever candidates like Barnes. I think he’s getting too much heat for a narrow loss in middling conditions to a two term incumbent. He’s not amazing and he doesn’t suck.
This benefits all of the non-Hong candidates who are still running, even though there may be some former Rodriguez supporters who may decide to support Hong with Rodriguez out of the running. I don't see a path for Crowley to unsuspend his campaign, however.
The WSJ editorial board takes a bat to the House GOP's budget resolution.
"They could use the opportunity to advance reforms that show voters they are serious about governing. Instead, Republicans have decided to go small and go home to campaign. ...
"It’s hard to view the plan as anything but a disappointment. ...
"The bigger problem is the plan’s lack of pro-growth tax and spending reforms. ...
"Mr. Arrington can’t be blamed for the skinny reconciliation bill since he had to navigate vetoing interests in his caucus. But the GOP’s lack of ambition and governing agenda doesn’t give Americans much reason to vote for Republicans in November."
NYT: Ken Paxton and James Talarico Agree to Debate
“Ken Paxton, a Republican, has not debated in more than a decade. A showdown with James Talarico, a Democrat, could be a key moment in the hard-fought race.”
Allred and O'Rourke smoked Cruz in debates in 2024 and 2018, but both still lost. This might not be a "key moment", but could sway some voters, I guess.
Just because a candidate lost doesn't mean that everything they did failed to benefit them. Texas was -- and remains -- tough territory to win. Our candidates will invariably see many things happen that did benefit them, even while still capable of losing.
Talarico wants some positive headlines out of this. Doing well in the debate can basically act as a free round of advertising. Even if it comes up neutral, it could help him get his name recognition up. There's a lot of potential upside for him.
Paxton is probably seeing polls he doesn't like and is hoping if he gets asked about a scandal and has a good enough answer prepared that the media will lose interest in it and/or he'll galvanize the conservative base to support him by playing on being attacked unfairly.
2024 probably isn’t a fair comp considering national environment.
Cruz is also a talented debater who was a national champion at it in college. Paxton seems entirely unable to function outside of sycophantically friendly media bubbles
Trent Kelly, Scott DesJarlais and Ben Cline? Jesus. Have never even heard of Cliff Johnson but Mike Cortese and Beth Macy are formidable candidates, I guess.
MSNOW: The DNC is sending organizers to FIFA Fan Zones, sports bars, and watch parties across nearly two dozen states to register thousands of new Democratic voters
Comment deleted. Few things make me angrier when it comes to moderating this community than people trying to get around our ban on two (just two!) topics by using cutesy references to "the unmentionable topic" or "the banned topic" or whatever.
Do you think we're stupid? Do you think speaking in not-at-all-concealed code is somehow a cheat-code to get around our rules? Why would we even have the rules in the first place if we allowed this thinly veiled bullshit?
If this happens again, there will be bannings.
Out of curiosity, how should people copy and paste information from other sources when the content of those sources are mostly about downballot races with only a little bit in the middle referring to the presidential election (since the original authors aren't constrained by the same rules against presidential election talk)?
Because that's what the original post here was, it was a copy paste of (if I remember correctly, a tweet although it may have been a news article) that reported on how Governor Shapiro is contributing resources to a campaign to support downballot Democrats in Pennsylvania. But the original author of the tweet had one sentence mentioning Shapiro's likely presidential bid because it is relevant information in the larger news-sphere and that author isn't prevented from mentioning it.
The answer to this may be to just summarize the social media post/article rather than copy paste, but there are instances where the wording used by the original author is useful or important or just explains the situation better than any summary could.
Alternatively, was your concern here that the original poster gave reference to the original author's mention of the presidential election?
I think clarity here would be nice.
By not copy and pasting to begin with. I always paraphrase an article I'm sourcing when I make a comment. I get that leaves out wording the author used that is useful, and sometimes commenters point out key details I left out of my summary.
Can someone who's closer to the ground in Wisconsin tell me why Democrats there have decided to fumble the ball on the one yard line in the Governor's race? The fact there's a better chance the sitting Lt. Governor gets indicted on campaign finance fraud than being elected Governor says a lot.
You'd think the state party machine that Ben Wilker built wouldn't let something like this happen.
What Dems do best is fighting each other, with barely any pushback against Republicans who are doing all they can to destroy our democracy.
Dem leadership needs to be completely replaced with more progressive, even socialist Dems that know how to fight for our country and stand up for their constituents.
This fits the mold of a lot of times that we have a problematic primary, even if many of them work out OK in the end.
Too many people running, aware that if the others drop out they can win. They hold out to be the last one standing. Which leads to them all staying in for as long as they can financially sustain a campaign.
We saw similar in CA-Gov. That it worked out for Becerra there is something that candidates in large primaries will note and remember.
Tbf it was different in California because which ever Dem made it to November would become governor.
It's different in Wisconsin. Look, I like Hong, but Wisconsin ain't the safe D house seats DSAer have been winning and I'd really like another swing state where Dems run things.
Part of me wonders if Hong should have waited to see if Mark Pocan ran for higher office, then ran for his seat in Congress - correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t Hong in his district?
Hong could win a deep blue seat easily but I am concerned about a bad enough Governor result to threaten potential gains in the state legislature, along with WI-3/WI-1 and the other statewide races in the process. Wisconsin has elected progressives in the past (La Follette, Russ Feingold, Milwaukee’s socialist mayors) but I worry Hong is too much at this particular moment in time.
Tbf "waiting your turn" hasn't worked out in Dem politics recently. Just ask the legions of Democrats who waited for Diana DeGette in Denver to finally hang it up or Tish James in NYC who'll cap at AG because she waited too long to run for something else.
Pocan is very progressive though, more than DeGette was -- he was a Bernie backer, for one. It wouldn't make sense for Hong to go ahead with it.
Then again, Kat Abghuzaleh challenged Jan Schakowsky and Schakowsky was quite progressive (and a Warren backer, if I remember correctly) so who knows.
Schakowsky was more of a generational thing. Pocan is only in his early 60s and in Congress 14 years less than Schakowsky.
I think it's less about Hong trying to challenge Pocan, or more about "if you choose to wait your turn for office... be prepared to WAIT." And because Pocan is a progressive, and as Jaz said, not *ancient,* maybe that's why Hong decided to jump into the race for governor instead of challenging him? And if he chose to retire this year, perhaps she would've jumped into the race to replace him instead.
My understanding is that Tish James stayed at her post because she knew the importance of the work she was doing there and is still doing.
I would probably argue that there weren't many avenues of advancement for her. She probably wasn't going to win a primary challenge to Hochul. She might have been able to win NYC mayor but that is not usually a great job to have. As NY AG you are generally a hero. When you go to something else after that, it becomes less fun.
I think it depends on how well she campaigns and whether or not she focuses on economic populism and popular policies, or more importantly whether or not she can keep the voter population focused on her economic populism and popular policies.
I'm a progressive, obviously, and probably further to the left than a lot of people here; I'm a big believer in the idea that progressive candidates need to focus mainly, if not exclusively, on left-wing economic populism. That doesn't mean shifting to the right on social issues, but pushing the economic populism whenever right-wingers pull from their culture war playbook. Shes gotta be careful not to make her "defund the police" stuff too present in the race - firstly by not bringing it up or expressing too much support for it, yes, but also by not getting hung up on trying to dispel the notion that she supports that. I think a lot of Democratic candidates tend to do the latter a lot and I think it's a bad strategy, you can't really spend your whole campaign going "nuh uhhh, I don't actually like THAT! I HATE that! I hate it more than the Republicans do!" Every attack against Hong has to be turned around towards the economy, ICE, and Trump being a child rapist.
I think Hong would win this year. I think you could nominate the corpse of Robert La Follette and it would win too. It was the closest swing state in 2024, and this political environment all but guarantees swing state Republicans are going to falter and flop. But as much as I want more progressive leaders and politicians... I can't help but be a *little* worried about Hong. Not because I think she'd lose, but because I don't really know how much some of her flaws would hold her back. It really feels like at this point that voters shouldn't be distracted by culture war, social issue shit... but I feel like I've been saying that for years, now. And of course, 2030 will almost certainly be a Democratic president midterm, and someone like Hong might be at increased risk of losing especially if she faces gridlock. And again, after the mess that is the Trump admin I would hope that voters aren't stupid enough to just instinctively elect Republicans because the Democrat inevitably didn't fix all of the damage Trump did... but come on.
I feel pretty confident with either Hong or Barnes, who are the frontrunners.
Yes and no.
People do not make serious campaigns for statewide office if they do not believe they can win a general election -- the whole Wisconsin field will think they can win if they get the nod.
In California, the struggle wasn't being the democratic candidate, it was getting a democrat into the top two in the first place! There was a stretch of time where there was a credible risk of an all republican top two. And that risk originated in the fact that too many democrats were running and none of them were consolidating the field.
The middle step is different but the starting and ending point is the same.
Wisconsin: too many credible candidates run, none stand out -> risk that weakest one wins primary -> republican wins general election
California: too many credible candidates run, none stand out -> risk that top two vote getters are republicans -> republican wins general election
In both cases the field stayed too large for too long because the democrats running wanted to be the one that the field consolidated into. For California that was Becerra and it worked out for him: he's all but guaranteed to be governor come January.
I thought, from my understanding, was that Rodriguez herself was not the person doing financial mishandling, that was the campaign manager, who Rodriguez has now fired.
I mean that's probably still enough to sink her campaign or significantly weaken it, regardless, because of what voters might think it says about her judgement
It may seem maddening how much Republicans can get away with compared to Democrats, but remember: There are still standards in politics, but only for Democrats, because if we pretend a Democrat making a misstep is just as bad (if not worse) than a Republican committing treason or protecting a child rapist, we can still pretend both sides are the same and thus never have to challenge the Republicans too much on committing treason or protecting a child rapist
Murc’s Law strikes again
That was my read as well. We don't need false information, so that comment above should be edited by the poster accordingly.
Rodriguez just suspended her campaign.
GA-GOV: State Navigate conducted a poll between 7/10 - 7/13 that shows Democratic candidate Keisha Lance Bottoms with a 7 point lead over Republican Rick Jackson. Lieutenant Governor candidate Josh McLaurin is also leading by 4 points.
https://statenavigate.org/ga/state-navigate-poll-shows-lance-bottoms-with-7-point-lead-in-georgia-governor-race/
The biggest finding that Chaz Nuttycombe's State Navigate found in the survey that the Georgia state House is in play, despite Nuttycombe's prediction of Republicans having a 75% chance of keeping it.
Worth noting that the recalled vote is Harris +6, which is too blue leaning of a sample, but Democrats still hold leads at a Harris +1 electorate by several points, so it’s not detrimental to the poll either and I think it’s reasonable to see more Democrats voting in 2026 than they did in 2024. A GCB of 51-43 would be an 11 point swing left from 2024 since Trump won Georgia by 3. Another piece of evidence to the pile that there’s a GCB shift of double digits in the national political environment from 2024.
One other thing to note, that I think is going to be EXTREMELY important to how big a wave in the fall gets for the midterm elections. Trump backlash only voters (my own term I use). 18% of the likely electorate only voted in 1 of the last 4 elections. That’s almost all going to be made up entirely of 2018 or 2020 voters. These progressives or nonpolitical people only ever show up to the ballot box after being activated to vote against Trump when he’s president. They won’t vote at any other time because they don’t like the current Democratic Party.
If they show up again in force this year at the polls, that takes a potential 2018 wave to a 2006 or 2010 level of wipeout because Democrats are already doing much better among always voting and mostly voting voters than they were doing in 2018 thanks to the crappy economy now, which wasn’t a factor back then to anchor down Trump’s voter support levels. They’re also far more likely to be missed from too stringent likely voter screens. They don’t vote very often because they’re disconnected from our party and/or politics in general.
It's like the inverse of presidential election years. Pollsters clearly haven't been able to adjust to either.
Yeah, it's like that FL special election where Emily Gregory flipped the Mar-a-Lago legislative seat in a R-10+ district.
I mean, I wouldn't expect special election margins to translate 1-to-1 in November, given that Republican turnout will be a bit better. But it doesn't have to; the fact that Democrats are flipping such deep red seats is 100% a sign of what's to come, and gives us a good idea about voting patterns, dynamics, demographics etc. It's not necessarily about these super deep red seats flipping to Democrats in special elections, it's about the underlying trends that are either going to remain in place or snowball further as we head towards November
I think this year will be 2018 on steroids, like a mix of 2018 and 2006. And if things get even worse for the GOP, a reverse 2010 can happen.
100%. I still think a lot of pundits and people are underestimating how bad this year is going to be for the GOP. We're still in primary season, still a few months out from the *real* campaigning and when a lot of voters start to look at the elections and deliberate who to vote for. And even still the current numbers are already dismal for Republicans. I think Democrats winning 50 senate seats is a low estimate.l
From the AJC, which sponsored the poll:
"While the pollsters expect the 2026 electorate to be friendlier to Democrats than the one that voted in 2024, they acknowledge their sample is about 8 points bluer than the presidential electorate, a gap they believe is too favorable to Democrats.
The difficulty of reaching some rural white voters in July may have inflated the party’s margins. Even after the pollsters reweighted the survey, however, Bottoms led by 4 points, McLaurin by 3 and Democrats by 5 on the state House ballot." https://www.ajc.com/politics/2026/07/new-poll-shows-promise-and-peril-for-democrats-in-key-georgia-races/
https://apnews.com/article/andy-burnham-uk-labour-party-leadership-eba3703e98f3f9790f74f2cd7ee4cee1
As expected, Andy Burnham will lead Labour and thus become Prime Minister. He will be sworn in Monday.
How is he compared to Starmer? Is he any better, just the same, worse, etc.? I can’t imagine he’d be worse than Starmer, Starmer was pretty awful. Just curious to see if he does anything better.
I think he'll be better but some here seem to think he'll be the same. He's a self-identified socialist that has pivoted slightly to the right since national stardom.
I liked Manchester under his control (except for the airport. One of the worst I've ever been to.)
He's a better public communicator who has an actual vision to run the country even if a lot of it is powered on resentment the North of England has towards London sucking all the energy in the country since post industrialization.
Starmer never had a plan to govern after he won the election and it showed from day one.
Marginally better.
He's a fellow Evertonian, so I love him unconditionally.
That is pretty controversial as a former Manchester mayor, though. Liverpool and Manchester have a long-standing rivalry, and not just in sports.
Less likely to engage in left and immigrant punching, likely a better administrator based on his time as mayor. Should bring back center-left voters from the Lib Dems and prog voters from the Greens. With the right splintering into 3 groups, rallying the base back into Labour should be a priority.
Speaking of left and immigrant punching, we'll finally get Shabana Mahmoud out of Home. And I'm glad Streeting left Health and chose not to run for PM because his NHS was openly against gender affirming care.
Politico article that suggests Morris Katz and Dan Moraff basically had to badger Platner into running, largely to burnish their own credential. Same with Nathan Sage
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/17/platner-is-finished-does-the-same-fate-await-the-out-of-state-consultants-who-recruited-him-01002652
If only Platner was wise enough to meet the same fate Sage did, dropping out before any national scandals came to be
Only problem is unlike Iowa, no stronger candidates really jumped into the race. They all deferred to Mills, who then proceeded to struggle and flop (I still remember how shocked I was at the first poll that had Platner trouncing her by 40 points). Platner didn't really have any reason to drop out, especially once he survived the Nazi tattoo scandal and realized he could survive almost anything up until the allegations came out this month.
It's really funny though, on a cosmic level. If he had pushed away these dudes and just refused to run, he'd probably be relaxing at home right now. But now his life is ruined - every terrible thing he's said and every horrific action he's done is out in the open. Almost everybody who meets him will *know* the exact kind of person he is. And if his wife ends up divorcing after this? Good luck ever finding anybody else that won't dart in the opposite direction once they realize who he is. All because he was too stupid to think none of his MANY skeletons could escape the Oyster farm.
Platner should have kept telling Moraff to literally get off his lawn like he did the first time.
I agree that Katz, et al did tremendous damage with the Platner fiasco, but I do question why Rahm Emanuel was interviewed for this article. How is he relevant? Because he doesn’t like progressives? I guess he was DCCC chair, but if I recall his tenure was not well received in part because some of his picks while there were among those who voted against Obamacare.
Yeah, we shouldn't listen to him. Ever.
Because Politico is also taking advantage of the opportunity to attack anti-corporatists lol
I'll never understand why people keep asking Rahm Emanuel what he thinks. Literally who gives a shit about him? He's an irrelevant creep who hasn't seen a mirror he didn't like.
I mean you answer your question in the last sentence - when reporters call he answers and makes comments on the record. That’s really it.
Steve Bannon is the same way, a comparison that would usually be profoundly unfair to Rahm, warts and all
Covered up the murder of a teenager to win re-election; the fact that he is still greeted warmly by some is a real shame.
And made sure Obama didn't include universal healthcare in the ACA and pushed against several other popular Obama policies
Trump’s endorsement is now more detrimental to a candidate than being a socialist is. Though both still have a majority of voters being less likely to support them. Being a socialist is also more positive for a candidate than the other 2 right wing options.
When socialism becomes permanently less unpopular than Trump or MAGA, that’s when Democrats can win power and keep it long term. If the radical socialism red scare tactic doesn’t work anymore, that’s when Republicans are completely fucked in elections, because that’s all they’ve got to attack us on.
We’ve officially crossed the rubicon in America.
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2078090522393034770
CNBC (Hart/POS) poll | 7/8-7/12 RV
Political labels that make U.S. voters more or less likely to support a candidate
Self-described Democratic Socialists
Less likely 50%
More likely 32%
—
Endorsements from President Trump
Less likely 52%
More likely 29%
—
Self-described supporters of the MAGA movement
Less likely 57%
More likely 27%
Link to poll: https://cnbc.com/2026/07/17/democratic-socialists-top-maga-candidates-all-america-poll.html
The different in numbers between Trump endorsements and describing oneself as a MAGA supporter is a bit humorous
"I can excuse being endorsed by Trump, but I draw the line at supporting MAGA!"
Crystal Ball Ratings Changes. 2 left, one right.
https://x.com/kkondik/status/2077838748046299441
Crystal Ball rating changes in California and Maine
House
Valadao CA-22 Toss-up to Leans D
ME-2 open Leans R to Likely R
Governor
ME Open Leans D to Likely D
Conservative estimates. For all of them.
Agreed. The idea that a Republican is going to win Maine's governor's race is laughable by now, especially considering the national environment and the fact they nominated a nobody. Paul LePage, former governor, got trounced by 13 points in 2022, a much better year for Republicans than this year.
Speaking of LePage, I think rating ME-2 as Likely R is a bit much. ME-2 is a Republican district, yes, and Dunlap is perhaps less suited for flipping the district than someone like Baldacci, but there's more to consider than that. It has a Cook PVI of R+4 (or R+10 if you want to go by margin of victory and not how it voted relative to the nation), which I would say is certainly within reach this election cycle. Paul LePage is also really old, and would be the oldest freshman representative ever, and is definitely not lacking in outlandish, controversial claims for the Dunlap campaign to use. Plus if Troy Jackson tops the ballot for senate, which is looking far more likely, it could help Dunlap a bit - probably not a lot due to reduced ticket splitting, but anything counts
LePage is going to be exactly the kind of republican that ME-02 likes, though. Voters there was the basis of his two gubernatorial wins.
I think Likely R is appropriate. We don't have a star candidate, it's a tough district, the republican candidate is well known and running in territory that will favor him. But the environment might be enough for us to win anyway.
You're not wrong. Against a 13 point Democratic victory in 2022 he still carried the district by just 2 points. But in terms of gubernatorial performance we might see a stronger victory than 13 points, especially since early polling already has Pingree winning from around 11 to 15 points. Whether or not a more localized race will help LePage depends to be seen. I'd personally put at Lean R due to the political environment alone, and adjust it based on further polling (which is scarce right now)
If Democrats are making inroads in Trump +15 and Trump +20 districts, we should be able to do better in a Trump +8 seat.
Agree. Should be lean. Hopefully Troy Jackson will help. Unless Maine Democrats shoot themselves in the foot again.
Even if Troy Jackson comfortably beats Collins, I highly doubt he comes very close to winning ME-02. His utility there is in keeping the margins down.
What's the redistricting process in Maine? Could the legislature redraw ME-02 in 2028 to take in some blue portions from ME-01?
Redistricting is done by a bipartisan advisory commission and requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature. We currently have a bare majority of the House, so I doubt we can gerrymander.
What Brendan said, but also taking too much blue from ME-1 would just make a dummymander and create two swing districts, not a blue-leaning and a red-leaning one
The cash wave builds.
Politico: House Dem challengers are printing money
A POLITICO analysis of new campaign finance data found seven of the 10 top House battleground fundraisers were Democratic challengers.
And as Democrats posted most of the top fundraising hauls, it was mainly Republicans at the other end of the spectrum. Nine of the 10 lowest fundraising totals in battleground districts were posted by Republican incumbents or challengers.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/16/house-dem-challengers-are-printing-money-01000665
It's funny how some of the House Dems are raising more money than Senate Republicans. That's nuts.
Darline Graham might run for the full term lol
https://www.semafor.com/article/07/17/2026/darline-graham-eyeing-a-run-for-a-full-senate-term
You know, I was suspecting this but didn't think it would come into fruition. Will the other candidates drop or run against the grieving sister?
They'd run against her and almost certainly win tbh
If Trump endorsed her, maybe a few of them would, but his track record with endorsements in South Carolina doesn't seem *amazing* right now
This article also says Tim Scott could support Trey Gowdy if he ran
Hard for me to see how Trey Gowdy would run for the Senate if this were a possibility. He originally declined to run for re-election in the House back in 2018 after Trump became president and was critical of his campaign back in 2016 in colluding with Russia. That didn't sit well with Trump who also went after Gowdy when he supported Marco Rubio's presidential campaign in the 2016 primaries. Gowdy also in being interviewed by Michael Moynihan of VICE News did not like the job of serving in the House even while he enjoyed meeting people in Congress.
Of course, if Gowdy runs for the Senate and wins the election, Trump would only have two years remaining left of his presidency. After that, it remains to be seen what the political environment will be. Being a Senator is much different in influence compared to being a member of the House.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQt0gZt3zDg
Alright, I've had kind of an unpopular opinion or hot take that appointing Darlene Graham as a *temporary* replacement wasn't super weird. It wasn't uncommon in the past for the widows of dead senators to be appointed in their place, such as Muriel Humphrey in 1978 and Jean Carnahan in 2000 (who ran for a full term in the 2002 special election and lost). Graham was, of course, unmarried, so his sister, who had appeared with Graham and assisted him in previous runs for office, was the next option. And she's held a handful of positions within state government, even heading a state governmental agency, so technically speaking she's no more or less qualified for senate than someone like Abdul El-Sayed, as horrible as that sounds to say. Railing against her appointment as an example government corruption felt a little bit like slopulism to me, especially because she's just a temporary replacement... or so I thought
If she *does* run, basically everything I just said and have been saying is wrong and would be a pretty disgusting display of corruption and nepotism, particularly because of the role Trump has and would further play in it. At the very least, Jean Carnahan was a pretty active first lady of Missouri.
Breaking news: Rodriguez drops out for WI-Gov.
https://x.com/jessieopie/status/2078127935018455447
NEW:
@saraforwi
says issues in her campaign “would be an ongoing distraction.”
“I cannot in good conscience allow these questions to become a cloud over an election that Democrats need to win.”
Good for her. Thinking about the bigger picture.
Say hello to Governor Hong. Or Barnes, I don't mind.
And I dismiss talk that if Hong is the nominee her loss is inevitable. Nothing is off the table in this current political environment.
Im still scarred from the Andrew Gillum experience in FL in 2018. Polls showed him doing fine in the general and he ended up losing in the end.
Wisconsin is pretty far to the left of Florida, and, like I've said in the past, Tiffany is as far right as Hong is far left. She can't be portrayed as weak and then have Tiffany's misgivings ignored.
You mean like Scott Walker?
Tiffany is more of an ideologue than Walker. Again, he's in the Freedom Caucus, and is purely just MAGA. Not a moderate, which is someone who *should* represent the Northwoods in Congress.
Wisconsin is a swing state, it's not exactly shocking that a Republican would be elected governor in a red wave year like 2010
And the popular Democratic incumbent that year (Jim Doyle) chose to retire. Now Evers is also retiring but the differences are that it's probably a blue wave year and Tiffany is to the right of Walker.
Understandable but Florida is kind of it's own beast in regards to polling, especially in recent years. I think Bill Nelson's loss to Rick Scott (which I'd argue is far more embarrassing than Gillum's) might've played a role... polling seemed to be a bit more accurate with that race, and when election day came not enough voters chose not to split their ballots. Florida is a state is also just more hostile to progressive and even just relatively liberal candidates and politicians, even back in 2018 before the mass conservative/elderly pilgrimage to Florida happened.
In regards to Wisconsin, it has a history of electing more progressive, populist politicians than Florida. And, of course, 2026 is shaping up to be significantly bluer than 2018. In a political environment such as this one I really have a hard time believing any Republican will win an open seat in a swing state, especially Wisconsin which was the closest swing state in 2024.
Gillum underperformed with black women, similar to Abrams underperforming with black men, situations I don't think the national party would've been able to address.
Agreed. Barnes lost by what, a point? And Hong needs to walk back defund the police, but not giving them military equipment is okey-dokey. And real oversight and accountability.
She can certainly win in this environment.
Let WI voters have their say and unite vs the right for the fall.
Good for her. Barnes it is
I don't think people understand what a terrible candidate Francesca Hong would be. She has called for the abolition of prisons and the police. She would drag down the entire Democratic ticket this year. Fox news would have a field day with this nut.
No, they don’t. The entire campaign would revolve around that as a result, whether Hong wants to talk about it or not.
I don't think calling her "terrible" and a "nut" if she's the nominee will also do her any favors in terms of winning either. Even if that's what you think she is, I hope you won't be singing the same tune if she wins the nomination. Because the competition isn't any better.
Barnes isn't the best candidate but I think he's electable, he almost beat Johnson in a bad Dem environment. Hong would probably lose big.
I’m fine with whatever candidates like Barnes. I think he’s getting too much heat for a narrow loss in middling conditions to a two term incumbent. He’s not amazing and he doesn’t suck.
Hong fucking sucks
Party above self. Rare.
The writing was on the wall already though, hardly selfless.
This benefits all of the non-Hong candidates who are still running, even though there may be some former Rodriguez supporters who may decide to support Hong with Rodriguez out of the running. I don't see a path for Crowley to unsuspend his campaign, however.
Actually sounds like there is an effort to get Crowley back in - https://x.com/jessieopie/status/2078133947033125302?s=46
WSJ gives a campaign gift to Democrats:
https://x.com/JakeSherman/status/2078119641461694525
OOF....
The WSJ editorial board takes a bat to the House GOP's budget resolution.
"They could use the opportunity to advance reforms that show voters they are serious about governing. Instead, Republicans have decided to go small and go home to campaign. ...
"It’s hard to view the plan as anything but a disappointment. ...
"The bigger problem is the plan’s lack of pro-growth tax and spending reforms. ...
"Mr. Arrington can’t be blamed for the skinny reconciliation bill since he had to navigate vetoing interests in his caucus. But the GOP’s lack of ambition and governing agenda doesn’t give Americans much reason to vote for Republicans in November."
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/house-republicans-budget-reconciliation-bill-47cb6b6a?mod=opinion_lead_pos1
"Mr. Arrington" also conveniently doesn't have to campaign like the others
The ingredients for a blue tsunami are much more present than 2018 ever had.
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2078101339805040880
CNBC POLL: Trump Approval: Pre-Midterms 2018 vs Now
Reg. voters
🟤 Oct 2018: 41-49 (-8)
🔴 July 2026: 40-59 (-19)
Net change: -11
——
On the Economy
🟢 Oct 2018: 51-38 (+13)
🔴 July 2026: 38-60 (-22)
Net change: -35
——
Generic Ballot
🔵 Oct 2018: Dems +6
🔵 July 2026: Dems +4
Except for the generic. Due to the self-inflicted damage to the Democratic brand name.
Honestly surprising.
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2077965967800303709
#TexasSenate
NYT: Ken Paxton and James Talarico Agree to Debate
“Ken Paxton, a Republican, has not debated in more than a decade. A showdown with James Talarico, a Democrat, could be a key moment in the hard-fought race.”
Link to article: https://nytimes.com/2026/07/16/us/paxton-talarico-debate-texas-senate.html
Allred and O'Rourke smoked Cruz in debates in 2024 and 2018, but both still lost. This might not be a "key moment", but could sway some voters, I guess.
Just because a candidate lost doesn't mean that everything they did failed to benefit them. Texas was -- and remains -- tough territory to win. Our candidates will invariably see many things happen that did benefit them, even while still capable of losing.
Talarico wants some positive headlines out of this. Doing well in the debate can basically act as a free round of advertising. Even if it comes up neutral, it could help him get his name recognition up. There's a lot of potential upside for him.
Paxton is probably seeing polls he doesn't like and is hoping if he gets asked about a scandal and has a good enough answer prepared that the media will lose interest in it and/or he'll galvanize the conservative base to support him by playing on being attacked unfairly.
2024 probably isn’t a fair comp considering national environment.
Cruz is also a talented debater who was a national champion at it in college. Paxton seems entirely unable to function outside of sycophantically friendly media bubbles
2018 is a fair comp. And South Texas has eluded Democrats since then.
Embrace the future or get left in the past.
https://x.com/Jlrube/status/2077818432242729327
There isn't a single mayor in the country with the social media reach that Zohran has.
On insta, Zohran has more followers than there are people in NYC and more followers than every other mayor in the 10 largest cities combined.
25 Republicans were outraised in Q2. Just 7 Democrats were.
EDIT: Replaced tweet with 1 with article.
https://x.com/allymutnick/status/2078135301696839836
Some crazy FEC stats from
@PunchbowlNews
AM: 25 House GOP incumbents were outraised by a Dem challenger in Q2
And 11 of them trailed a Dem challenger in cash on hand (!)
To compare: 7 Dem incumbents were outraised by a GOP challenger
https://punchbowl.news/article/campaigns/midterm-windfall/
Trent Kelly, Scott DesJarlais and Ben Cline? Jesus. Have never even heard of Cliff Johnson but Mike Cortese and Beth Macy are formidable candidates, I guess.
In a deluge of bad news concerning Ken Martin and the DNC, finally something to actually cheer about.
https://x.com/factpostnews/status/2078120362055745925
MSNOW: The DNC is sending organizers to FIFA Fan Zones, sports bars, and watch parties across nearly two dozen states to register thousands of new Democratic voters