Mail ballots that are postmarked by Thursday, and arrive by next Wednesday, may still be counted, and Essex County officials indicated that they would restart their tally on Friday afternoon. Election officials in New Jersey cannot count any provisional ballots until after the mail deadline has passed.
Is it just me or are there a lot more retracted calls this decade than there used to be? Feels like groups are rushing to be first/early to call a race in order to maximize clicks, and just accepting the cost of being wrong about them more often than they should be. A call for a major election should be 99.99% correct. One in 10,000 error rates.
Unlikely, I don't think she would have won against any of Malinowski, Gill, or Way in a 2 way. Clearly some strength in the progressive movement, but not overwhelming.
I'm not sure she was viewed as such, being implicitly AIPAC backed and by mainstream national organizations, and having been the lieutenant governor of the fairly normie Phil Murphy. I certainly lumped her in with Gill as the moderate establishment.
In a one-on-one race, she might not have won. But this is also suburban NJ and very wealthy, mostly Gen X, and mostly homeowners in a state that still has a heavy machine influence. It’s not a place you’d expect someone like Mejia to go far in at all. Plus she was heavily outspent by 4 of her opponents
Looking at what's left in Essex County (besides mail-in and provisional), 5 precincts in Montclair, 2 precincts in Bloomfield, and 1 in Livingston, where those precincts are in Montclair and Bloomfield will determine who nets votes out of them (north is rich and White, south is middle class and Black and Hispanic) but probably good for Mejia, Livingston is good for Malinowski
I love the fact that Bobby Pulido decided to throw his hat in the ring for Congress. He's iconic in the Tejano music space, just like the late great Selena Quintanilla.
Makes sense. If the wave is so high it's sweeping places like Texas and Alaska, then Iowa, Ohio, and even Kansas should be on everyone's radars. Harris got in the low 40s in all of those places.
Imagine this scenario: Republicans waste $100 million to stop Paxton in vain and he ends up winning the runoff election in May anyway. The Kansas filing deadline is a week later. Hope Laura Kelly grabs a surfboard. Imagine how much the GOP would be shitting their pants.
I think Davids would make it single digits, but I don't see a path for her to win. Maybe if she ran for governor. Kelly is the only Democrat who can win, though it'd probably start at Lean or Tilt R. She has credibility with center-right voters and a 60% approval rating. Meanwhile Roger Marshall spends more time in Florida than Kansas.
I agree with you generally on the second paragraph. Wo is the "she" in your first paragraph? If it's Davids, I agree it's probably Likely R. If it's Kelly, I think her popularity moves it to at least Lean R. Marshall has a lot of issues a competent campaign can exploit.
I think this assessment (and the ones above) are correct in terms of race ratings. That said, I'll believe we can win a Senate race in Kansas (particularly against a relatively "average R" incumbent) when I see it and not before. Would love to be surprised though.
You're probably right, and I would tend to start a race of her against Marshall as Likely R, but a shocking upset would not be inconceivable in a big enough wave, and I also don't consider it impossible for a Democrat to hold the governorship.
everyone on here is talking about a reverse 2010 or a better 2028, im imagining in the senate and governor races a reverse 1980, generational losses in senate and governors races but house doesnt shift as much because of very effective gerrymandering now and the solid south holding then
Oh I was just poking fun at the GOP’s expense here but know well that from 2020-2024, Democrats did not get any traction in the state.
Point being, irrespective of whether it’s IA or another state, the GOP should not get too comfortable and assuming that they can ride Trump’s rise in 2024 to further success. That’s the colossal mistake they’ve made.
I don’t think the GOP has ever figured out that Trump won 2016 and 2024 in spite of the economy, inflation and disenchantment, not because he was their Ronald Reagan.
2016 - Trump won in spite of the economy doing quite well where for over a year it had been in expansion mode. There were certainly issues raised by Bernie Sanders and Trump in their campaigns over the economy not working for everyone but no one complained about inflation at the time.
2020 - Trump won directly because of inflation and the blunder over President Biden stopping his re-election campaign and Kamala Harris having a limited time to put her presidential campaign together.
I think we're past the point of 2018, personally. That much has been clear to me since November 4, 2025. It’s on us not to squander it with candidate quality issues or playing into culture war distractions, which we have been generally pretty good at avoiding the past year.
I think elected democrats, especially in congress, are making a mistake by not going all out anti-ICE. I've seen more anti-ICE backlash online that I saw of any other political topic in the past ~20 years.
I'd caution against assuming everyone who is against ICE or even Trump will vote that was in November, I think the country is too polarized to have a true landslide. No party has won the national House vote by more than 10 points since 2008. 2026 might just be over 10 points, but not far enough over for a true wipeout.
you start playing with house districts on 270 to win, for example, and it's hard to see us get past 240 seats +- 5 seats, but its also very difficult for us to conceivably end up with less than 230. the gerrymandering has removed so many states from having true swing seats
Just so long as we have *somebody* legit, I'm happy, though I agree, it's not a great look. It's a pity Brandon Whipple lost his Wichita mayoralty reelection campaign by so much in 2023, as he could've been formidable.
So really more of an 8-2-1 map? 8D, 2 light D, 1R?
We'll almost certainly come in at 10-1 for 2026. With incumbency we should reliably hold the 2 light blue seats in 2028 even if it's a neutral year. In 2030 they'd be at risk if it's a dem president midterm.
I think I'd prefer 9-2, but a lot depends on how they are defining "narrow." If it's like Harris +4 or something then this is probably preferable for a map that needs to last 3 cycles only.
Infuriating, especially when literal teenagers are able to draw safe 10-1 maps. Whatever. Those seats will go blue anyway in 2026. It's 2030 I'm worried about.
For this year, absolutely. For this map my concerns are (a) survive 2028 election if we are seeing a close presidential race, and (b) survive a potential 2030 backlash against us if we win the presidency in 2028. I like to keep an eye on the future with every assessment.
I think an 8-2-1 map easily passes the 2028 scenario, but the 2030 scenario could become an 8-3 result for us. Depends on how much Harris' "narrow" wins are for that assessment.
You have to remember the plan right now is to go back to the commission in 2030. So 10-1 naturally settling to a 7-4/8-3 map in 2032 might be the goal here. If you draw a super safe 10-1 and the commissions does a hard reset then you basically have a bunch of rental seats.
That's an interesting concept...trying to draw a map that serves us in the short term and sets us up for a "least change" map in a commission scenario in 2030.
Hilarious that Cornyn is fighting for a spot in the RUNOFF. Like, he may not make it past March. What a terrible place to be in. Not sure any amount of $$$ can reverse that. I think even if he somehow survives the primary he'd lose to Talarico.
This made me wonder for the first time: what does the runoff and the general election look like if the runoff is Paxton versus Hunt, with Cornyn coming in 3rd?
Does the Cornyn pro-establishment wing support Hunt as the not-Paxton candidate, do they sit out, does it stay just as expensive? So many questions for this scenario I hadn't previously considered.
The best-case scenario is Paxton-Cornyn where Paxton comes in a clear first in March, leading Trump to either endorse him in the runoff or be deterred from endorsing Cornyn.
Josh Stein has endorsed the primary challenger against problematic Democratic incumbent Karla Cunningham who has voted with Republicans on a lot of things.
There was Cecil Brockman from Guilford (reliably blue district), but he resigned last year after statutory sex offense charges. His replacement is a reliably Democratic woman Amanda Cook.
Stein endorsed Rev. Sadler to run against traitor Carla Cunningham. Nasif Majeed, another veto override caucus member, is facing a primary against Veleria Levy and Tucker Neal. Both Cunningham and Majeed are in Mecklenburg, so they need to go along with Traitor Tricia.
Seems to me that Ken Paxton and Jasmine Crocket share two key qualities: a massive ego and unearned self-esteem. That, of course, raises a third disturbing element: either would bring a serious handicap to their party in the general election. And this Texas race is vital to keeping the Senate Red or flipping it Blue.
For these reasons, I really do hope it’ll be Talarico vs Paxton in November!
Is Cornyn that screwed with GOP primary voters in TX? Wow. And the ratfucking they did with getting Jasmine Crockett to run for the Senate seat might end up with her and Cornyn not being on the Nov ballot.
My MAGA mom thinks Paxton is too corrupt and Cornyn is too old. I almost have her talked into Talarico. I prob can’t get her to vote in a Dem primary, but I have a strong chance of getting her to pull the lever for Talarico in the general, esp if Paxton is on the ballot. (Btw, she thinks Crockett is crazy).
Not even on her radar. He’s significant enough to cause a run-off between Paxton and Cornyn though, extending that race and directing money to be spent against each other until May.
Isn't "unearned self-esteem" a little harsh toward Crockett? Sure, we wish she hadn't run for the Senate and would just support Talarico, but she's been great in the House. I love seeing her being a confident House member and just wish she had stayed in the House.
Idk man, while i was originally a Crockett fan, the mess with Allred and just her overall primary campaign has convinced me that she's all sizzle/no steak.
She'd be lovely as a liberal media correspondent, but the 2010s style ID-pol forward campaign isn't suitable for this current climate, and is especialy unsuitable in a Trump+14 state
Don’t get me wrong, I love Crocket and her great takedowns of Trump and MAGA Trumpists! But although it may seem a bit harsh, Crocket’s ego dictating that she is ready for the Senate and can win in Texas, well – it may seem harsh – but I think that self-esteem is premature and unearned.
It was evident during the debate as well that she isn’t ready. She’s great in the house though, repping a solid blue district. Wish she had stayed there. Talarico flipped a red district and is as measured and sure-footed a candidate I’ve ever seen. Republicans are right to be scared of him. I knock on doors daily for him. We must get him to the general.
The recent gerrymander pretty much destroyed Crockett's district. It's not a given she could have stayed in the House. All over the state, Republicans played the game of pitting the powerhouses against each other so they could knock out at least one of them. Just like they did with Cesar and Doggett.
Yes, definite power games afoot. Republicans are extremely good at them. But as an accomplished lawyer she could have filed for a something with excellent state power, like Lt. Gov or AG.
Not really? Although she was (just barely) drawn out of her district, it didn't change that much, especially compared to other DFW area Dems, and no one would have faulted her for running for re-election in a district she doesn't quite live in. The fact no notable candidate was prepared to run against her in the primary suggests the seat was hers if she wanted it.
I agree. Crocket reminds me of Katie Porter in California who was not ready for the Senate and lost to Adam Schiff. Both Porter and Crocket should have stayed in the House where they are needed.
Crockett probably would have stayed in the House if Abbott and Dan Patrick hadn't gerrymandered her district out of existence when they supposedly created five seats for Trump in the gerrymander. So, with the Republicans taking credit for sending her push polls that she could win right after they took her district away sure makes it look like they think the only way they can win in the general is against her and by playing the race card with their base.
Now, that said, it doesn't mean she can't thread the needle and win even if they play the race card. But the Allred "mediocre black man" kerfuffle makes me very nervous. I actually think she's too smart to play into the Republicans' trap. I mean, how insulting that they think they can just "run" her that way?
Yes, they squeezed her out of the house by design. But then her having Allred file back in the house so she could run against Talarico is self-aggrandizing behavior and not what we need right now. She should have sought a different path that would have diminished intra-party fighting, not favor it.
Fair assessment although I think Porter is a smarter messenger and strategist contrast to Crockett. She’s more suitable to serve in the Senate than Crockett.
The Talarico campaign is contending with the fallout from his allegedly having referred to Colin Allred, the Democratic nominee for Senate in the last cycle, as "a mediocre black man." The Crockett-Talarico race is threatening to polarize the state's black and Latino populations.
Talarico is white not Latino, and the source of the allegation was a "pro-woke" social media influencer. Talarico later admitted to calling Allred's campaign "mediocre" but denied using the racial descriptor "mediocre Black man". Allred went on a very harsh rant even insulting Talarico's faith by saying that Rev Warnock had already reclaimed Christianity for Dems and it need not be preached by a mediocre racist.
Although I am not a Christian, this really irked me and I rage donated to Julie Johnson. Why couldn't Allred simply call Talarico? Then Crockett further fanned the flames.
embellishing 100 percent, which is why we are here. Can't always tell what's in someone's heart, but Talarico doesn't strike me as someone who would call anyone mediocre.
Is there dispute about whether he used the word "mediocre"? I was under the (mis)impression that the debate was over the alleged use of the phrase "Black man".
He called Allred's campaign mediocre (accurately, imo). The phrase "mediocre Black man" was not used by anyone except the person trying to tar Talarico with it.
This reminds me that I heard that the GOP is worried about the the race to replace MTG in Georgia's special election because there are 16 Republicans running and only 3 Democrats and the GOP is worried that they will get locked out since this race will have a top 2 runoff.
I don't get why national progressive senators and groups skipped this race? They seem to be interested in Maine, Michigan, Minnesota and Texas but not Illinois.
Is it because two progressive Black women are running and they didn't want to weigh in?
When will we get more numbers and a call?
Mail ballots that are postmarked by Thursday, and arrive by next Wednesday, may still be counted, and Essex County officials indicated that they would restart their tally on Friday afternoon. Election officials in New Jersey cannot count any provisional ballots until after the mail deadline has passed.
Decision Desk finally retracted their call.
Is it just me or are there a lot more retracted calls this decade than there used to be? Feels like groups are rushing to be first/early to call a race in order to maximize clicks, and just accepting the cost of being wrong about them more often than they should be. A call for a major election should be 99.99% correct. One in 10,000 error rates.
I think this is a DDHQ-specific problem. Not that other folks don't do it too, but DDHQ very much wants to be first.
Super impressive for Mejia & also feels like a sign that primary season might be bad for incumbent Dems.
Unlikely, I don't think she would have won against any of Malinowski, Gill, or Way in a 2 way. Clearly some strength in the progressive movement, but not overwhelming.
Tahesha Way took generally progressive stances on most issues like Abolishing ICE and called herself a progressive.
I'm not sure she was viewed as such, being implicitly AIPAC backed and by mainstream national organizations, and having been the lieutenant governor of the fairly normie Phil Murphy. I certainly lumped her in with Gill as the moderate establishment.
In a one-on-one race, she might not have won. But this is also suburban NJ and very wealthy, mostly Gen X, and mostly homeowners in a state that still has a heavy machine influence. It’s not a place you’d expect someone like Mejia to go far in at all. Plus she was heavily outspent by 4 of her opponents
That is an excellent tweet hahaha
I mean...I'd rather have Malinowski, but gotta hand it to Mejia's team - that is pretty solid...
Keep in mind there will be a primary in June. Filing deadline is March 23.
Malinowski and Gill declined to run if they lost. Way expressed interest.
She pulls ahead by several hundred with 90% in AP. First candidate to surpass 17,000 votes.
https://apnews.com/article/house-elections-new-jersey-0000019c2a0bddd0abfcff1f58880000
AP update: Difference is *34*
Mejia takes lead
Lead will grow once all same-day counted, we will see what the late mail-in votes do, they may be decisive
A real stunner. I just hope there’s a clear winner.
There definitely won't be, Mejia is not going to break 30% of the vote unless the late mail-in votes are closer to early voting than other mail-ins
Looking at what's left in Essex County (besides mail-in and provisional), 5 precincts in Montclair, 2 precincts in Bloomfield, and 1 in Livingston, where those precincts are in Montclair and Bloomfield will determine who nets votes out of them (north is rich and White, south is middle class and Black and Hispanic) but probably good for Mejia, Livingston is good for Malinowski
3 precincts just came in from Montclair, Mejia only netted a few votes, so probably from the north
Very good article. Love to see candidates outside the typical mold running.
Now we’re talking!
I like the sound of winning more elections in red and deep red turf. DNC Chair Ken Martin’s become one of the better ones in recent memory.
Great article. Thanks for the archive link!
I love the fact that Bobby Pulido decided to throw his hat in the ring for Congress. He's iconic in the Tejano music space, just like the late great Selena Quintanilla.
Makes sense. If the wave is so high it's sweeping places like Texas and Alaska, then Iowa, Ohio, and even Kansas should be on everyone's radars. Harris got in the low 40s in all of those places.
Imagine this scenario: Republicans waste $100 million to stop Paxton in vain and he ends up winning the runoff election in May anyway. The Kansas filing deadline is a week later. Hope Laura Kelly grabs a surfboard. Imagine how much the GOP would be shitting their pants.
I think Davids would make it single digits, but I don't see a path for her to win. Maybe if she ran for governor. Kelly is the only Democrat who can win, though it'd probably start at Lean or Tilt R. She has credibility with center-right voters and a 60% approval rating. Meanwhile Roger Marshall spends more time in Florida than Kansas.
I agree with you generally on the second paragraph. Wo is the "she" in your first paragraph? If it's Davids, I agree it's probably Likely R. If it's Kelly, I think her popularity moves it to at least Lean R. Marshall has a lot of issues a competent campaign can exploit.
I think this assessment (and the ones above) are correct in terms of race ratings. That said, I'll believe we can win a Senate race in Kansas (particularly against a relatively "average R" incumbent) when I see it and not before. Would love to be surprised though.
You're probably right, and I would tend to start a race of her against Marshall as Likely R, but a shocking upset would not be inconceivable in a big enough wave, and I also don't consider it impossible for a Democrat to hold the governorship.
GOP: “OMG! OMG! OMG! We’re going to lose Iowa!”
You’re worried about losing? As a result of not giving a damn? From ass kissing ICE and Trump like Ashley Hinson does?
What do you expect?
https://littlevillagemag.com/cedar-rapids-ice-field-office-protest-hinson-disturbed/
I hope she brings Feenstra and other statewide people like Bird down with her. And of course Miller-Meeks and Nunn.
I’d love to see at least IA-01, IA-02 and IA-03 along with the Senate race going to Democrats. That would be excellent!
They didn't expect trouble because Iowa has been so Republican for a few cycles.
everyone on here is talking about a reverse 2010 or a better 2028, im imagining in the senate and governor races a reverse 1980, generational losses in senate and governors races but house doesnt shift as much because of very effective gerrymandering now and the solid south holding then
That would be surprising. I think there will be substantial turnover in the House, at least 20 seats. My elections predictions are crap, though.
A reverse 1980 would be AMAZING and definitely possible if there wasn't the kind of political polarization there is now.
Oh I was just poking fun at the GOP’s expense here but know well that from 2020-2024, Democrats did not get any traction in the state.
Point being, irrespective of whether it’s IA or another state, the GOP should not get too comfortable and assuming that they can ride Trump’s rise in 2024 to further success. That’s the colossal mistake they’ve made.
I don’t think the GOP has ever figured out that Trump won 2016 and 2024 in spite of the economy, inflation and disenchantment, not because he was their Ronald Reagan.
I think you mean because of the economy, etc., not in spite of it, although what was the explanation in 2016?
To be clear,
2016 - Trump won in spite of the economy doing quite well where for over a year it had been in expansion mode. There were certainly issues raised by Bernie Sanders and Trump in their campaigns over the economy not working for everyone but no one complained about inflation at the time.
2020 - Trump won directly because of inflation and the blunder over President Biden stopping his re-election campaign and Kamala Harris having a limited time to put her presidential campaign together.
This is pretty damn big. First WV Democrats fielded candidates for the vast majority of legislative seats up this year, and now Indiana.
I think we're past the point of 2018, personally. That much has been clear to me since November 4, 2025. It’s on us not to squander it with candidate quality issues or playing into culture war distractions, which we have been generally pretty good at avoiding the past year.
I think elected democrats, especially in congress, are making a mistake by not going all out anti-ICE. I've seen more anti-ICE backlash online that I saw of any other political topic in the past ~20 years.
I'd caution against assuming everyone who is against ICE or even Trump will vote that was in November, I think the country is too polarized to have a true landslide. No party has won the national House vote by more than 10 points since 2008. 2026 might just be over 10 points, but not far enough over for a true wipeout.
How do you define a "true wipeout", and what would you expect the composition of the House and Senate to be in a D+10 election?
you start playing with house districts on 270 to win, for example, and it's hard to see us get past 240 seats +- 5 seats, but its also very difficult for us to conceivably end up with less than 230. the gerrymandering has removed so many states from having true swing seats
edit: my personal prediction is 239.
About 240 is what I would guess too.
With the stock market suddenly showing weakness and crypto starting to trend down, we might see an economic crash in the coming months.
I am not rooting for the economy to fail. But if so...I can only imagine that Trump's numbers are going to get even worse.
Just so long as we have *somebody* legit, I'm happy, though I agree, it's not a great look. It's a pity Brandon Whipple lost his Wichita mayoralty reelection campaign by so much in 2023, as he could've been formidable.
It's not a great look, you say? How did it work out for a first-term senator named...what was it...Barack something?
So really more of an 8-2-1 map? 8D, 2 light D, 1R?
We'll almost certainly come in at 10-1 for 2026. With incumbency we should reliably hold the 2 light blue seats in 2028 even if it's a neutral year. In 2030 they'd be at risk if it's a dem president midterm.
I think I'd prefer 9-2, but a lot depends on how they are defining "narrow." If it's like Harris +4 or something then this is probably preferable for a map that needs to last 3 cycles only.
Infuriating, especially when literal teenagers are able to draw safe 10-1 maps. Whatever. Those seats will go blue anyway in 2026. It's 2030 I'm worried about.
Any Harris seat in Virginia would probably be pretty solid for us, considering Harris ran two points behind Biden.
For this year, absolutely. For this map my concerns are (a) survive 2028 election if we are seeing a close presidential race, and (b) survive a potential 2030 backlash against us if we win the presidency in 2028. I like to keep an eye on the future with every assessment.
I think an 8-2-1 map easily passes the 2028 scenario, but the 2030 scenario could become an 8-3 result for us. Depends on how much Harris' "narrow" wins are for that assessment.
You have to remember the plan right now is to go back to the commission in 2030. So 10-1 naturally settling to a 7-4/8-3 map in 2032 might be the goal here. If you draw a super safe 10-1 and the commissions does a hard reset then you basically have a bunch of rental seats.
That's an interesting concept...trying to draw a map that serves us in the short term and sets us up for a "least change" map in a commission scenario in 2030.
Having to deal with incumbent demands AND ambitious delegates & senators made a solid 10-1 super unlikely.
Hilarious that Cornyn is fighting for a spot in the RUNOFF. Like, he may not make it past March. What a terrible place to be in. Not sure any amount of $$$ can reverse that. I think even if he somehow survives the primary he'd lose to Talarico.
This made me wonder for the first time: what does the runoff and the general election look like if the runoff is Paxton versus Hunt, with Cornyn coming in 3rd?
Does the Cornyn pro-establishment wing support Hunt as the not-Paxton candidate, do they sit out, does it stay just as expensive? So many questions for this scenario I hadn't previously considered.
Most polling I've seen has Hunt beating Paxton in the runoff, which I don't think we actually want, from an electoral perspective.
The best-case scenario is Paxton-Cornyn where Paxton comes in a clear first in March, leading Trump to either endorse him in the runoff or be deterred from endorsing Cornyn.
As the dog-dad to a Pomeranian I’m not sure if this should offend me or not (the breed does often live up to its reputation)
"its a pomeranian dude"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4o2MppKiTs
Sucks to suck!
-Giddy Hoosier
Josh Stein has endorsed the primary challenger against problematic Democratic incumbent Karla Cunningham who has voted with Republicans on a lot of things.
I think so.
What office does she hold?
What race is this?
NC House. NC Republicans have a supermajority in the state Senate but need the veto override caucus in the state House.
There was Cecil Brockman from Guilford (reliably blue district), but he resigned last year after statutory sex offense charges. His replacement is a reliably Democratic woman Amanda Cook.
Stein endorsed Rev. Sadler to run against traitor Carla Cunningham. Nasif Majeed, another veto override caucus member, is facing a primary against Veleria Levy and Tucker Neal. Both Cunningham and Majeed are in Mecklenburg, so they need to go along with Traitor Tricia.
Levy probably does, she's very active on IG and TikTok. No polling otherwise.
If they’re willing to admit this publicly…
... then they're unwilling to admit how much trouble their state legislative majorities are in purple (GA, NC) to light red states (IA, FL).
Really wish Shawn Harris wasn't running, I think he'll hoover up too much Democratic support for any chance of two Dems advancing
Seems to me that Ken Paxton and Jasmine Crocket share two key qualities: a massive ego and unearned self-esteem. That, of course, raises a third disturbing element: either would bring a serious handicap to their party in the general election. And this Texas race is vital to keeping the Senate Red or flipping it Blue.
For these reasons, I really do hope it’ll be Talarico vs Paxton in November!
Is Cornyn that screwed with GOP primary voters in TX? Wow. And the ratfucking they did with getting Jasmine Crockett to run for the Senate seat might end up with her and Cornyn not being on the Nov ballot.
My MAGA mom thinks Paxton is too corrupt and Cornyn is too old. I almost have her talked into Talarico. I prob can’t get her to vote in a Dem primary, but I have a strong chance of getting her to pull the lever for Talarico in the general, esp if Paxton is on the ballot. (Btw, she thinks Crockett is crazy).
Wesley Hunt?
Not even on her radar. He’s significant enough to cause a run-off between Paxton and Cornyn though, extending that race and directing money to be spent against each other until May.
Isn't "unearned self-esteem" a little harsh toward Crockett? Sure, we wish she hadn't run for the Senate and would just support Talarico, but she's been great in the House. I love seeing her being a confident House member and just wish she had stayed in the House.
Idk man, while i was originally a Crockett fan, the mess with Allred and just her overall primary campaign has convinced me that she's all sizzle/no steak.
She'd be lovely as a liberal media correspondent, but the 2010s style ID-pol forward campaign isn't suitable for this current climate, and is especialy unsuitable in a Trump+14 state
Don’t get me wrong, I love Crocket and her great takedowns of Trump and MAGA Trumpists! But although it may seem a bit harsh, Crocket’s ego dictating that she is ready for the Senate and can win in Texas, well – it may seem harsh – but I think that self-esteem is premature and unearned.
Ok, I understand what you mean now.
It was evident during the debate as well that she isn’t ready. She’s great in the house though, repping a solid blue district. Wish she had stayed there. Talarico flipped a red district and is as measured and sure-footed a candidate I’ve ever seen. Republicans are right to be scared of him. I knock on doors daily for him. We must get him to the general.
The recent gerrymander pretty much destroyed Crockett's district. It's not a given she could have stayed in the House. All over the state, Republicans played the game of pitting the powerhouses against each other so they could knock out at least one of them. Just like they did with Cesar and Doggett.
Yes, definite power games afoot. Republicans are extremely good at them. But as an accomplished lawyer she could have filed for a something with excellent state power, like Lt. Gov or AG.
Not really? Although she was (just barely) drawn out of her district, it didn't change that much, especially compared to other DFW area Dems, and no one would have faulted her for running for re-election in a district she doesn't quite live in. The fact no notable candidate was prepared to run against her in the primary suggests the seat was hers if she wanted it.
I agree. Crocket reminds me of Katie Porter in California who was not ready for the Senate and lost to Adam Schiff. Both Porter and Crocket should have stayed in the House where they are needed.
Crockett probably would have stayed in the House if Abbott and Dan Patrick hadn't gerrymandered her district out of existence when they supposedly created five seats for Trump in the gerrymander. So, with the Republicans taking credit for sending her push polls that she could win right after they took her district away sure makes it look like they think the only way they can win in the general is against her and by playing the race card with their base.
Now, that said, it doesn't mean she can't thread the needle and win even if they play the race card. But the Allred "mediocre black man" kerfuffle makes me very nervous. I actually think she's too smart to play into the Republicans' trap. I mean, how insulting that they think they can just "run" her that way?
Yes, they squeezed her out of the house by design. But then her having Allred file back in the house so she could run against Talarico is self-aggrandizing behavior and not what we need right now. She should have sought a different path that would have diminished intra-party fighting, not favor it.
Are you thinking of Veasey or Johnson's district?
Veasey
Fair assessment although I think Porter is a smarter messenger and strategist contrast to Crockett. She’s more suitable to serve in the Senate than Crockett.
Crockett's good at trolling Rs, but I get the sense that she's more interested in building her brand than in helping the party.
That's definitely a valid point of view. I love her calling them out, though, and that's needed.
More like Crockett likes the sound of her voice.
The Talarico campaign is contending with the fallout from his allegedly having referred to Colin Allred, the Democratic nominee for Senate in the last cycle, as "a mediocre black man." The Crockett-Talarico race is threatening to polarize the state's black and Latino populations.
Talarico is white not Latino, and the source of the allegation was a "pro-woke" social media influencer. Talarico later admitted to calling Allred's campaign "mediocre" but denied using the racial descriptor "mediocre Black man". Allred went on a very harsh rant even insulting Talarico's faith by saying that Rev Warnock had already reclaimed Christianity for Dems and it need not be preached by a mediocre racist.
Although I am not a Christian, this really irked me and I rage donated to Julie Johnson. Why couldn't Allred simply call Talarico? Then Crockett further fanned the flames.
Who used the phrase "mediocre Black man"? Talarico, or someone embellishing what he said?
embellishing 100 percent, which is why we are here. Can't always tell what's in someone's heart, but Talarico doesn't strike me as someone who would call anyone mediocre.
Is there dispute about whether he used the word "mediocre"? I was under the (mis)impression that the debate was over the alleged use of the phrase "Black man".
He called Allred's campaign mediocre (accurately, imo). The phrase "mediocre Black man" was not used by anyone except the person trying to tar Talarico with it.
I did not say that Talarico is Latino. However, he seems to be galvanizing Latino support, while Crockett is doing the same with Black voters.
Ohh, I thought you were confused since the surname "Talarico" ends with a vowel.
Yes, the voting coalitions seem to be polarized but I am not sure up to what extent.
There are now 18 declared candidates in the Democratic NJ 12 primary.
Election Day poll workers will have to dust off their best non-answers to "Who should I vote for?"
This reminds me that I heard that the GOP is worried about the the race to replace MTG in Georgia's special election because there are 16 Republicans running and only 3 Democrats and the GOP is worried that they will get locked out since this race will have a top 2 runoff.
That would be a shocker.
That would be a hilarious and well-deserved outcome
Last night Trump endorsed DA Clayton Fuller in order to prevent that outcome.
There's still a lot of time left until June for the field to winnow.
And I thought NY-12 was a clown car.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DUYIYgdkS2o/
IL-Sen: Sen. Elizabeth Warren endorses Stratton
I don't get why national progressive senators and groups skipped this race? They seem to be interested in Maine, Michigan, Minnesota and Texas but not Illinois.
Is it because two progressive Black women are running and they didn't want to weigh in?