Genuine question: what's the logic for the late arriving mail ballots probably favoring Malinowski? I know in general elections the latest arriving mail ballots consistently tend to be the most left leaning. Do we see the opposite trend in our primaries? I'd have guessed that they would favor Mejia based on that.
Yes, but as time went on, the mail ballots shifted more to Mejia, so the late ballots may not be enough for Malinowski to catch up. That said, 6k mail ballots left is not a good sign for Mejia and is a very good sign for Malinowski. I didn’t expect that many.
Yes, most of the shift was from in person ED votes, however, similar to Mejia’s campaign momentum on the ground and in person, mail ballots also became less Malinowski dominant (he still won them, but not the 3 or 2 to 1 margins he was previously winning them by).
Yes and no, the mail ins didn’t change from all mail ballots cast before ED, but the late mail ballots had yet to be counted and as we can see by the latest counts, late mail actually flipped and started to go to Mejia just like her campaign on the ground did.
My logic was very simple in this analysis. Mejia had late campaign momentum on the ground. So logic would dictate it would also occur in the mail vote depending on when someone voted. Early mail and early in person voting was far more Malinowski favoured, but not the later ballots.
Regardless of how many votes are ultimately added, voter turnout has already vastly exceeded expectations, especially given the primary’s timing on a wintry Thursday; more than 61,000 votes have been counted thus far, far more than the 51,848 cast in the regularly scheduled 2024 primary.
One of the advantages Cameron has had over Barr and Morris is statewide name recognition from his term as AG and his 2023 campaign for Governor. I'd expect that to fade at least a little as Barr and Morris become more known. Also, the MOE is 4.2%, so Barr and Cameron are almost even - and the true leader of the poll is Undecided.
I think it would be beneficial to include the MOE when known when reporting out poll numbers (both for The Downballot and as a best practice that all of us should be doing).
I wonder why GOP electeds in Texas largely avoided running for the open 8th, 10th, 19th, 21st, 32nd, and 38th districts. Almost all of the candidates for those seats are complete unknowns.
People like Steinmann (8th) and Gober (10th) are known to party insiders, while Teixeira (21st) is known somewhat nationally despite not being a politician. The 19th, 32nd and 38th seem barren, though.
The majority of baseball players tend to lean to the right (at least the white American ones). If you want a counter example Spencer Strider, the ace pitcher for my Atlanta Braves, is an outspoken progressive and has endorsed Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris at different times
So true, i was looking on politics1 to see who was running in these districts and saw a bunch of B, C tier candidates. The only other state where politicians value being in the state legislature more than congress might be California, but maybe not to this extent.
Two quick comments. Regarding the Washington Post, what is happening now is absolutely frustrating and maddening. I cancelled my subscription a couple of years ago when Bezos refused to back Kamala. Loved the paper but hated the owner. On subscribing to the 'Downballot' - I just can't afford to subscribe to all the new news outlets. $60 a year times xx - too stiff for this guy. I aleady subscribe to my local - local newspaper, to my local (Kansas City Star), to Boston Globe and New York Times!! Maybe I hit the "Downballot" later. You are doing a great job.
I stopped paying for NYT because of Pamela Paul some years ago and Kathleen Kingsbury hasn't been much better to make me come back lol. I default to archive.ph for a lot minus any small papers I want to support and the Financial Times as the best mainstream news org lol.
I get access online to the NYT the through my library. They grant 3 days at a time (only one day for cooking and crossword)and it takes about 1 minutes to activate all 3.
I just realized something: if we manage to get a trifecta in 2029 and pass a bill banning partisan gerrymandering, it would actually be the perfect time to expand the House because it would allow many if not all of the reps in gerrymandered seats a way to stay in office. It still probably won't happen, but it could be a way to increase political support for a ban on gerrymandering.
And codifying Roe into federal law. That, banning gerrymandering, and expanding the Supreme Court (or accountability for rogue justices like Thomas and Alito).
I think he's saying a structural change to government institutions themselves can only be swallowed one at a time, so SC reform v more reps would have to pick the court. And gerrymandering and reproductive rights wouldn't be a part of that; we of course need an aggressive policy-driven agenda.
From a pure good-government perspective we should massively expand the circuit and district courts too. Major legal cases take far longer than they should.
Obviously politically if we do it and fill all the seats that's best for us, but I suspect that would go over slightly worse than a lead balloon. Filling appointees in proportion to existing appointees should be politically viable.
Can you help me understand that argument? I'm not against packing the court, but not sure I follow the rationale that there's a relationship between the population of the country and the number of justices on the Supreme court.
Expand the court then DC, PR statehood to avoid the current MAGA majority inventing some interpretation of the Constitution that bans DC, PR statehood.
For those of you curious about why I think Alan Wilson will eventually have trouble in his run for SC Gov, the first 3/4 of this podcast episode summarize his ties to pay for play scandals that hit SC 10ish years ago and his apparent protection of a Friend of Police who chased a guy down the road for 9 miles before shooting him to death and is now claiming a stand your ground defense. The last 15-20 minutes plays recordings of phone calls where the shooters brag about it which I recommend skipping if you've been triggered enough by videos from Minneapolis. Nancy Mace will surely exploit all this. It might work to get Pam Evette elected, but I suspect Nancy would rather have Evette than Alan Wilson. https://pdst.fm/e/swap.fm/track/JhoQDAATtO1l0y8tdKNa/traffic.megaphone.fm/ADL1688248398.mp3
Bonus, RJ May, the SC senator whose child sex trafficking case spurred the flurry of SC specials around Christmas was sentenced to 17 years in federal court.
Arizona is processing a bill through the legislature to move the primary from the first Tuesday in August to the second to last Tuesday in July. It's to provide more time to cure ballots among other things.
It passed the house with unanimous bipartisan support. I don't recall the last time that happened on anything. Hobbs will sign it.
Too bad AZ Republicans won't be bipartisan on other election issues and rather than address it, they merely put amendments on the ballot to bypass Hobbs and hope voters are dumb enough to vote for it.
"A group of moderate Democrats is kicking off the midterm season by targeting one of the mightiest, if least-known, forces in their party: the interest group questionnaire-industrial complex.
Rohan Patel and Seth London, who oversee Majority Democrats — a group of young Democrats that have won competitive races — want their candidates to know they shouldn’t feel obliged to complete the often-expansive advocacy group forms. They’re also telling these organizations’ donors to think twice about contributing and urging the groups to heal thyselves by overhauling or mothballing the documents, which are typically used to determine endorsements."
"Consider: When Barack Obama was first sworn in as president, his party had five of the six Senate seats in Montana and the two Dakotas. Now Republicans have all six.
Yes, winning a bare Senate majority, breaking the filibuster and then granting Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood is one path to additional Senate seats. Yet that still won’t better the party’s chances across the South and Great Plains, which are vital to building a majority with cushion.
“You look at the next two to three Senate cycles, we’ll be scratching and clawing to get and hold 50 or 51 seats,” as London put it.
Then he lowered the boom, insert trigger warning here, invoking the names of the three current and former Senate Democrats the left most despises.
“We want more Manchins and Sinemas and Fettermans,” London said. “That is the cost of having a fucking majority. And our donors need to understand when you have a majority, you get to set the agenda.”
Last, but certainly not least, there’s the matter of Democrats’ coronary-inducing path to winning the presidency, as seen for a decade. Yes, they can still find their way to a significant Electoral College majority — see 2020 — but it’s built on extraordinarily thin margins in swing states. Does the party really want to keep betting American democracy on Philadelphia’s suburbs, turnout in Madison and how the auto economy and ancient Mideast enmities will shape metro Detroit?"
Some are very questionable while some other "questionable" commitments"
"Do you support and will you co-sponsor Medicare for All legislation, (S. 1655 and H.R. 3421) in the 118th Congress?
National Nurses United (NNU)
Federal Endorsement Questionnaire, 2026
I understand that I must maintain a 100% voting record while in office in order to be endorsed by Planned Parenthood Votes South Atlantic.
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic
If elected, do you promise not to join the Blue Dog Caucus, the New Democrat Caucus, and Third Way?
I think they are just salty that one of their candidates who Majority Dems, Patel, Lis Smith etc saw as a future leader and presidential material nationally, Angie Craig, is getting hit hard by these aforementioned groups, activists and Peggy Flanagan for her terrible voting record.
PCCC, NNU and Planned Parenthood are not attacking swing district dems.
I think that what JMart writes about is a good development overall. Let the Republicans fall over themselves seeking support from right wing interest groups far out of step with the public (as well as from Trump, Musk, etc.). We’ll reclaim the centre of the electorate.
We need Manchins but absolutely not Sinemas and Fettermans in states like Arizona and Pennsylvania. Fetterman needs to be primaried out.
Wisconsin and NC are flips in 2028 if the national environment is good while Pennsylvania is in 2030. I get that there is an incentive to fearmonger for donors, but the Senate is in reach long-term and adding PR, DC will solve most problems. We already have competitive races in Alaska, Ohio, Iowa and Texas this cycle.
We don't need Sinemas for a Senate Majority (who was so iconoclast in the oddest way that she was able to become hated by practically everyone) but yes to Testers and Manchins, but without the humongous ego/Beltway media whoring of the latter.
I do think a drive away from the dumb questionnaires makes eminent sense, regardless of the questionable allegiances of this particular group.
I get so frustrated by people who insist "we need more Manchins," because it seems like they willfully ignore why so many of us dislike politicians like him. People didn't complain about moderate politicians like Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, Mary Peltola, etc., because they're decent people. Manchin, Sinema, and Fetterman just come off as jerks who think the only way to demonstrate their independence is by antagonizing the rest of us. I hate it when we try to explain this to people and they respond with "you can't run Bernie Sanders in every race and we need to be a big tent party." I just want to shake them, because it totally misses the point.
Yeah one of the reasons Manchin was so awful is that he was also blatantly self-enriching just as Sinema was, he just happened to also be more in touch with his state than her and had a more folksy demeanor. I do also hate his impulse-based negotiating style over BBBA. "This number sounds too high!" is not a serious way to discuss tax policy.
You're not wrong about Manchin's personality but, honestly, I'd be willing to tolerate just about anything from a Democrat holding a senate seat in a state as red as WV.
The absolute basic logic is sound: we're better served by having conservative democrats in red seats and red states than we are by having any republican. Manchin, consequently, is a solid of example of candidates we want.
The problem is everything beyond that base logic. Sinema and Fetterman are horrible options. Sinema was replaced by another democrat. A competent one that doesn't try to sabotage our party, and Fetterman is in a swing state that had another reliable-if-moderate democratic senator at the time of his election.
Beyond 2/3 of their examples being garbage, they also completely miss the mark. Does anyone here think any left leaning interest group questionnaires are the reason Tester and Brown lost in 2024? Or Jones in 2020? Heitkamp, McCaskill, and Donelly, in 2018? No, it's because their states were too damned red and the partisan consolidation could no longer be put off.
We need more senators like Tester, Heitkamp, and Jones. Unfortunately, there's not much we can do by moderating to win those kinds of seats back. In anything short of the most extreme scenarios, those states are off the table for us, just like no amount of moderation is going to see a republican win a senate seat in New Jersey or Maryland outside of extremely abnormal conditions that cannot be banked on. That's what it took for Jones to win; that's also what it took Scott Brown to win in Massachusetts too. Both of them immediately lost reelection.
These groups always show their true colors with their examples. We don't need more Fettermans or Sinemas. Their goal isn't more wins; their goal is moving the party to the right.
Let's run candidates like Dan Osborn, Bobby Pulido - let them do their own thing and not subject them to purity tests while avoiding trying to broadly turn the national party to the right to ostensibly make it more competitive in Iowa and Ohio like DecidingToWin and Simon Bazelon, a very related endeavor which involves Majority Dems, proposed.
Setting the agenda and implementing it aren't the same thing - would probably be wise for folks to check how many Democrats voted against the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts in Congress and the number of Republicans needed to pass both, even with Democratic supermajorities allowing us to "set the agenda"
One of the funnier things I've seen in discussions after Mejia's upset win is Republicans thinking that Democrats are now about to nominate Crockett, AES, and Platner. No, just because you guys throw winnable Senate and gubernatorial races left and right doesn't mean our voters operate the same way.
Well, some of them are dumb. Republicans would be holding a Senate supermajority right now if they were competent after blowing four winnable races in 2022 and four in 2024.
With respect to the ME-SEN race, I’d say the GOP really ought to watch if they want Platner in the race.
They have no assurances his presence, should he be the Democratic nominee, will make it easier for Collins to win re-election. Platner comes with his own issues but he has more appeal to Republicans than Crockett does and is actually being proactive in this regard.
I will share a campaign video Platner just recently posted where he has a sit down with an undecided ME GOP voter.
Touche on Mejia not winning yet, I assumed it had been called. El-Sayed and Platner carry a lot of unnecessary risk but could still win, whereas I don't see a path for Crockett even against Paxton. In that light, you're right, they are not the same.
I think there are distinct gaps in candidate downsides.
Crockett is the only one in the group that takes the seat off the table for us. Crockett all but guarantees we do not win TX-Sen.
Platner and Mills carry comparable uncertainty. I would not say it is clear that Platner is meaningfully riskier than Mills is. Platner should have a lower floor than Mills, but their odds of winning look about the same to me. Serious risks of age and refusal to go on the attack for Mills; serious risks of negative coverage for Platner.
El-Sayed is definitely the weakest candidate in Michigan senate, no way around that. I suspect he'd win this year but would be at serious risk of losing reelection. Even if he does win this year, him as our nominee means it's a lot more work and money to get there. Unlike Crockett he does not take the seat off the table, or close to it.
Collins’ age makes me less concerned about Mills’ age in a hypothetical matchup. If Collins were ten years younger, I’d feel different. Mills looks and sounds much younger than Collins. Plus her gubernatorial approvals, while not fantastic, are still positive. That’s a much less risky proposition for a general election than Platner being spammed with Nazi ads for five months straight.
Republicans want to run against Platner. I have no idea why that doesn’t give more people pause.
We've already seen that the electorate treats candidate age differently between democrats and republicans. Trump was clearly more indisposed by his age than Biden was in 2024, but you'd never know it from the coverage. Likewise, election chatter for this senate race has no mention of Collins' age but does have chatter about Mills' age.
It's unfortunate but we cannot bank on republican candidates also being old to cancel out or mitigate the dangers to our candidates from age.
Trump was more indisposed? Biden could barely form a cogent sentence by the summer of 2024. His biggest crime was not bowing out and letting a Dem primary play out.
Do you have evidence Republicans would prefer to run against Platner or are you just stating your opinion as fact?
To me, the push poll recently released by Collins-aligned PAC showing her beating Platner by more than Mills seems like a Republican attempt to rat**** against Platner. Otherwise, why would a Republican PAC release that— I don’t think they are just trying to help Democrats, lol. My opinion, though.
I try to avoid reading right wing trash in general, but every now and then I go to Republican-leaning sites to get a sense of what the more strategic conservative minds think. They think Platner is a gold mine of opposition research. I can’t say I disagree.
Agree with your analysis. Crockett almost certainly puts TX-Sen out of reach. I think Platner and AES are our weaker options in ME and MI, respectively, but neither would be a guaranteed loss. That said, I see no reason to shoot ourselves in the foot by nominating either one of them.
Agreed I support McMorrow because I think she is talented, does not throw bombs and is electable but let's not pretend AES will lose atleast this year.
she is because she's a husk of a candidate. She has nothing to offer except hollow rhetoric. she does few public events and has been outraised or at least matched by both McMorrow and El-Sayed - and that's *with* a lot of large dollar support, something the other two rely on less.
The ability of the candidate to campaign effectively and connect with voters does actually matter! That should not be a hot take in the mostly-progressive Downballot comment section!
Also, polls are a snapshot in time, and have all three losing to Rogers right now. So if you believe those (Stabenow won easily in 2018, as did Whitmer) are predictive, then I don't know what to tell you. The electorate is almost certainly going to be bluer than 2018.
Let's start with your strawman at the bottom - no one is suggesting that the electorate is not going to be bluer than 2018. Regarding Stevens, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but it does not appear to be an opinion broadly held by the electorate.
Platner is the favorite in his race no matter what we think of him while Talarico is the real progressive choice in Texas. Progressive influencers as well as the PCCC have closed their ranks around him. Crockett is about throwing bombs not progressivism.
Of course Talarico is not going to advocate single payer or banning guns in Texas but most of his stances on economic policies like a wealth tax, healthcare like capping all drug prices, Medicare-buy in and auto-enrollment, foreign policy, filibuster, PRO act are fairly progressive.
Have to disagree that Platner is worse than Mills in a GE. He has the ability to fire up voters in a way Mills can't compete with. In a battle between two 70-something women I have a feeling Mainers either stay home or go with the "moderate" Collins.
Trump will be doing enough “firing up” for Mills or any Democrat to not have to worry much about base turnout. I don’t know why that’s even a concern in the year 2026. This race will be won or lost based on how older voters feel.
this is like, head-in-sand levels of analytical ability. yes, it matters which side has more energy, as it brings you money and volunteers, not just votes.
Are you saying Democrats will sit at home if Janet Mills is the nominee? I don’t know how one can argue that with any evidence other than feelings when we have strong evidence of high turnout for Democrats in the Trump era across the board, regardless of our candidate’s ideology.
I am not sure what Politico seems to understand about CA state politics that I as a resident of the state do not. Just because Mahan gets a cash infusion this amount doesn't mean anything much like Tom Steyer's self funding in the millions doesn't mean anything.
Unless Mahan actually has enough support by Democrats and a real visible GOTV machine, I don't see how he's going to make this more of a race than it already is.
Their reporters need work. "Could help" and "make up ground" could mean he dumps seven figures and gains 3%. Sure, he made up ground, in the most technical sense....
Yes, it's all speculation at this point but nothing more than that.
But the question again comes, how is Mahan going to do anything different than Tom Steyer won't? The only real distinction here is that Mahan is likely not going to self-fund as he doesn't have the wealth like Steyer does. Ro Khanna's district includes San Jose so any of the donors Mahan has access to are likely taking advantage of the fact that he's against the proposed state wealth tax.
Katie Porter and Eric Swalwell have already been visible for months and held multiple campaign events, Swalwell especially. Even Antonio Villaraigosa and Xavier Becerra have been in the race for a while now and have held up well with their cash-at-hand.
When Morris County ballots got counted. She won some really wealthy suburban Italian precincts in Hanover township. She performed really well with upper middle-income (100k-250k) voters, not a progressive demographic.
Teamsters Joint Council 58 and Joint Council 80, which represent 40,000 rank-and-file Teamsters across Texas, have jointly endorsed Greg Abbott (R-TX) in his re-election for governor.
Because they don't really give a shit about workers' rights and interests as workers? It's hard to understand that historically corrupt, gangster-associated union.
For the first time, GOP strategists are telling Axios that losing the Senate — where Republicans have a 53-47 majority — is a distinct possibility, and that they'll have to fight harder than expected to keep control.
Operatives say they've reviewed polling that shows the GOP facing competitive Senate races not just in traditional battlegrounds such as Michigan, Maine and North Carolina, but also in conservative states like Alaska, Iowa and Ohio.
Top GOP strategists acknowledge that immigration and the economy — the two issues that drove Trump's win in 2024 — are now liabilities.
"A year ago, I would have told you we were almost guaranteed to win the Senate," one GOP operative who's reviewed internal polling told Axios. "Today, I would have to tell you it's far less certain."
I think Alito cares more about conservatism. Thomas cares more about himself.
No guarantees but I think Alito is more likely to strategically retire than Thomas is. The risk for Thomas is that he decides he wants to enjoy his "gifts" without having a day job taking up his time.
Elie Mystal has a piece in The Atlantic saying that Alito will probably retire at the end of this term, and uses the publication date of his upcoming date as a clue.
I would be very surprised if he did. He takes too much pleasure from the damage he can do on the court to walk away after only 20 years and at “only” 75.
🚨 UAW ENDORSES INDEPENDENT DAN OSBORN IN NEBRASKA U.S. SENATE RACE 🚨
The UAW has voted to endorse Dan Osborn, an Independent candidate for U.S. Senate from Nebraska.
“Dan Osborn is one of us. A union member who came up through the ranks to fight for economic and social justice for the working class,” said UAW President Shawn Fain. “We don’t need another lawyer or corporate hack who only cares about the richest Americans in the U.S. Senate, we need independent blue-collar fighters like Dan. Wealth inequality is out of control in our country. The rich continue to take all the profits while the affordability crisis leaves working class people scraping to get by paycheck to paycheck. If we’re going to change this system, we need to elect working-class people to the halls of Congress who understand this. We’re proud to stand with Dan Osborn and ready to elect him to take on corporate greed and our rigged political system.”
A really interesting point made was that many people voted for Collins as a moderate check on Biden and Trump got out his low propensity voters as well. This time voting for a Democrat is seen as a block on Trump’s fascism and a referendum on him.
Cornyn is not strong. I heard the top Dem strategist in Texas on a cable channel, either CNN or MSNBC, he has really high negatives among the base and the larger electorate which will hurt him in a low R turnout election.
I would put FL above NE for the reason that FL has Trump at -5 to -10 and was a swing state until 2022. Republican as well as other polling shows Talarico leading Paxton. We haven't had public polling in Iowa and Hinson is not an overperformer according to Lakshya Jain's Split Ticket but can fundraise well.
I don't think TX is impossible by any means, particularly in a Talarico vs. Paxton matchup. Paxton would be favored no doubt, but no way it's off the board.
I can definitely see the argument there, but for me Ohio has the worst trend of the three states.
Texas has been moving towards us with only one abatement for the past generation. Like a time shifted Georgia, basically. We did worse in 2024 but the context strongly suggests, although it is not confirmed, that this was an aberration and the state has otherwise continued its trend. Demographics would suggest strong potential upside for us to make gains in Texas.
Ohio has been moving away from us for the same past generation. Brown is a great candidate and that's worth something, but he lost his greatest strength in hostile terrain by no longer being the incumbent. Demographics would suggest no real growth potential in Ohio, and if anything there's room for further decay for us.
Iowa has had a similar trend as Ohio, but the loss of the Appalachian demographics helps, and Iowa has also had a history of responding negatively to republicans when republicans fuck with their farming exports. Will that happen again? Unknown, but it leaves me more optimistic than I am about Ohio.
All three are winnable, all three have us as the underdog. I just think Ohio is certainly not a whole tier easier than the other two, and if anything I think it's slightly harder but within the same tier of difficulty.
1/2 ME/NC: Lean D - Maine candidate potential disadvantages in a bluer state equals the opportunity in North Carolina with candidate advantages in a redder state. They’re both pretty equivalent.
------------------------------
3. AK: Tossup - Peltola was the only one who could put Alaska in play and lost by less than Brown in Ohio despite him having more incumbency and her facing a more Trump electorate than the other state in 2024.
------------------------------
4. OH: Lean R - Brown is the only one who could put it in play and with Ramaswamy leading the GOP ticket, he won’t get anywhere near the blowout past statewide results Republicans got, even if he does win, including Trump, and could end up losing.
Husted is not MAGA and is an appointed incumbent (who have awful electoral records), so you could see the base stay home, instead of coming out in droves like they did to support the extremely flawed MAGA Moreno.
------------------------------
Not sure:
5-6* IA: Lean R to Likely R - With 3 Democrats running and former local tv anchor Hinson solely running for Republicans this is a very uphill battle. Again it depends on who Democrats nominate. Wahls hasn’t won a competitive race. Sage hasn’t either. As loathe as I am to back the DSCC meddling and Schumer, Turek actually has won a tough race, so he would put this in play. The others I don’t think would.
3-6* TX: Tossup to Likely R - It depends on the primaries for Democrats and Republicans for where it goes. This race would jump to a tie with Alaska if it’s a Cornyn/Paxton runoff and Paxton nomination. It would fall almost completely off the board if Hunt got a runoff spot or if Crockett won the nomination. Wayyyyyyy too many potential outcomes and moving parts to put this race anywhere right now.
------------------------------
7. NE: Likely R - He wouldn’t be a Democratic victory if he won, but Osborn has an opening here if the environment gets bad enough for Republicans. As much as I want him to win, I don’t think he can as it sits right now. Political environment has to deteriorate to like D+9-10 for him to have a realistic shot at an upset. He’ll get 45% of the vote, but that last 5 points is going to be extremely hard for him to get, even while running as an Independent, not a Democrat.
------------------------------
8. FL/KS* Safe R to Likely R - These two states are tsunami territory. And KS is only here if Davids decides to run (which I think she will given the evidence, but we’ll have to see). Vindman will raise a ton of money here, but has almost no chance. The only thing going for him is that Moody is an appointed incumbent who again, have terrible electoral records in Senate races. If she were already elected, even a tsunami wouldn’t have a chance to elect Vindman.
Speaking of Nebraska, the state lege has advanced a bill to LOWER pay for everyone age 13-20, setting a "youth minimum wage" (in their eyes anyone 20 or younger) at 13.50 an hour. It now goes to Gov. Pillen's desk.
Absolutely horrendous. Teens and Adults 18-20 that were making the state $15 minimum will now get a healthy 1.50/hr pay cut. Some of the comments on this issue i have read from "Nebraska small business owners" were absolutely vile. They treat their workers like servants...
Osborn should be front and center on this, framing this correctly as the pay cut that it is. Imagine you're 18 or 19, moved out and trying to make rent on some bs min wage jobs. The republicans just cut your pay by 10%. Anyone scraping by just got kicked in the teeth.
Yeah, it is. Raise the Wage should've circulated it as a constitutional amendment and now, like in MO and OH, NE Rs is undoing the will of the people just because they can via simple legislation.
Osborn should be HAMMERING this as part of the affordability issue and how Republicans screwed over voters who voted themselves a wage increase.
Genuine question: what's the logic for the late arriving mail ballots probably favoring Malinowski? I know in general elections the latest arriving mail ballots consistently tend to be the most left leaning. Do we see the opposite trend in our primaries? I'd have guessed that they would favor Mejia based on that.
Because the non-late arriving mail ballots strongly favored him.
Yes, but as time went on, the mail ballots shifted more to Mejia, so the late ballots may not be enough for Malinowski to catch up. That said, 6k mail ballots left is not a good sign for Mejia and is a very good sign for Malinowski. I didn’t expect that many.
I thought it was the in person voting that was responsible for the shift.
Yes, most of the shift was from in person ED votes, however, similar to Mejia’s campaign momentum on the ground and in person, mail ballots also became less Malinowski dominant (he still won them, but not the 3 or 2 to 1 margins he was previously winning them by).
As far as I'm aware, the mail-ins didn't change, they all came in as polls closed.
Yes and no, the mail ins didn’t change from all mail ballots cast before ED, but the late mail ballots had yet to be counted and as we can see by the latest counts, late mail actually flipped and started to go to Mejia just like her campaign on the ground did.
My logic was very simple in this analysis. Mejia had late campaign momentum on the ground. So logic would dictate it would also occur in the mail vote depending on when someone voted. Early mail and early in person voting was far more Malinowski favoured, but not the later ballots.
Regardless of how many votes are ultimately added, voter turnout has already vastly exceeded expectations, especially given the primary’s timing on a wintry Thursday; more than 61,000 votes have been counted thus far, far more than the 51,848 cast in the regularly scheduled 2024 primary.
https://newjerseyglobe.com/congress/mejia-retains-narrow-lead-in-nj-11-nailbiter-i-do-think-that-we-have-emerged-victorious/
The last of the Essex same-day is in and the lead is 676 votes
Already posted here twice.
The Miguez (lives far from district) and Yarbrough (not familiar with him) endorsements as well as Barr winning the Senate (KY) poll are surprising.
One of the advantages Cameron has had over Barr and Morris is statewide name recognition from his term as AG and his 2023 campaign for Governor. I'd expect that to fade at least a little as Barr and Morris become more known. Also, the MOE is 4.2%, so Barr and Cameron are almost even - and the true leader of the poll is Undecided.
I think it would be beneficial to include the MOE when known when reporting out poll numbers (both for The Downballot and as a best practice that all of us should be doing).
I wonder why GOP electeds in Texas largely avoided running for the open 8th, 10th, 19th, 21st, 32nd, and 38th districts. Almost all of the candidates for those seats are complete unknowns.
People like Steinmann (8th) and Gober (10th) are known to party insiders, while Teixeira (21st) is known somewhat nationally despite not being a politician. The 19th, 32nd and 38th seem barren, though.
Teixeira was a great first baseman for the Yankees. It's disappointing that he's a Republican.
The majority of baseball players tend to lean to the right (at least the white American ones). If you want a counter example Spencer Strider, the ace pitcher for my Atlanta Braves, is an outspoken progressive and has endorsed Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris at different times
As anyone who watches Survivor knows, Jeff Kent is certainly not a fan of President Obama.
The TX legislature is actually a pretty chill gig for a lot of them, and being in Congress right now fucking sucks
So true, i was looking on politics1 to see who was running in these districts and saw a bunch of B, C tier candidates. The only other state where politicians value being in the state legislature more than congress might be California, but maybe not to this extent.
In theory, in Texas especially the legislature is pretty powerful and the Gov is pretty weak.
Plus TX state senators have a bigger constituency than congressmen and they only sit every other year
Two quick comments. Regarding the Washington Post, what is happening now is absolutely frustrating and maddening. I cancelled my subscription a couple of years ago when Bezos refused to back Kamala. Loved the paper but hated the owner. On subscribing to the 'Downballot' - I just can't afford to subscribe to all the new news outlets. $60 a year times xx - too stiff for this guy. I aleady subscribe to my local - local newspaper, to my local (Kansas City Star), to Boston Globe and New York Times!! Maybe I hit the "Downballot" later. You are doing a great job.
I stopped paying for NYT because of Pamela Paul some years ago and Kathleen Kingsbury hasn't been much better to make me come back lol. I default to archive.ph for a lot minus any small papers I want to support and the Financial Times as the best mainstream news org lol.
I get access online to the NYT the through my library. They grant 3 days at a time (only one day for cooking and crossword)and it takes about 1 minutes to activate all 3.
I cancelled it when Bezos purged the opinion column and replaced the talented writers with ostensibly libertarian anti-(anti-Trump) sycophant thrash.
I think the narrow NJ primary race will determine whether other blue district primary challenges (like Allam vs. Foushee in NC) are successful.
Bit of a unique situation. There were four relatively strong candidates and a major interest group went all kamikaze on the front runner.
I just realized something: if we manage to get a trifecta in 2029 and pass a bill banning partisan gerrymandering, it would actually be the perfect time to expand the House because it would allow many if not all of the reps in gerrymandered seats a way to stay in office. It still probably won't happen, but it could be a way to increase political support for a ban on gerrymandering.
I think gerrymandering reform is 100% on the docket the next time we have a federal trifecta, and the public would be behind us
But I think beyond that, Dems only have the stomach for only one “pie in the sky” structural change. Expanding the Supreme Court should be it
And codifying Roe into federal law. That, banning gerrymandering, and expanding the Supreme Court (or accountability for rogue justices like Thomas and Alito).
I think he's saying a structural change to government institutions themselves can only be swallowed one at a time, so SC reform v more reps would have to pick the court. And gerrymandering and reproductive rights wouldn't be a part of that; we of course need an aggressive policy-driven agenda.
If the Democrats have a trifecta in 2029 and don't put through a bunch of really imperative changes, they won't get another chance for a long time.
Exactly. Just talking democracy reforms, not a broader policy agenda
DC and PR statehood right away
Then expand the court to make up for the Ginsburg and Scalia seats.
Doesn't even have to be about revenge, it should just be bigger.
Senate Rs would scream about it being a revenge move either way.
So what, in my opinion. There's a great logical argument that the country is so much more populous now that it needs more judges.
From a pure good-government perspective we should massively expand the circuit and district courts too. Major legal cases take far longer than they should.
Obviously politically if we do it and fill all the seats that's best for us, but I suspect that would go over slightly worse than a lead balloon. Filling appointees in proportion to existing appointees should be politically viable.
Can you help me understand that argument? I'm not against packing the court, but not sure I follow the rationale that there's a relationship between the population of the country and the number of justices on the Supreme court.
Who cares?
Expand the court then DC, PR statehood to avoid the current MAGA majority inventing some interpretation of the Constitution that bans DC, PR statehood.
For those of you curious about why I think Alan Wilson will eventually have trouble in his run for SC Gov, the first 3/4 of this podcast episode summarize his ties to pay for play scandals that hit SC 10ish years ago and his apparent protection of a Friend of Police who chased a guy down the road for 9 miles before shooting him to death and is now claiming a stand your ground defense. The last 15-20 minutes plays recordings of phone calls where the shooters brag about it which I recommend skipping if you've been triggered enough by videos from Minneapolis. Nancy Mace will surely exploit all this. It might work to get Pam Evette elected, but I suspect Nancy would rather have Evette than Alan Wilson. https://pdst.fm/e/swap.fm/track/JhoQDAATtO1l0y8tdKNa/traffic.megaphone.fm/ADL1688248398.mp3
Bonus, RJ May, the SC senator whose child sex trafficking case spurred the flurry of SC specials around Christmas was sentenced to 17 years in federal court.
True Sunlight podcast episode 135 if that's easier than the link.
https://www.votebeat.org/arizona/2026/02/04/2026-primary-election-date-move-earlier-legislature-bill-kolodin-hobbs/
Arizona is processing a bill through the legislature to move the primary from the first Tuesday in August to the second to last Tuesday in July. It's to provide more time to cure ballots among other things.
It passed the house with unanimous bipartisan support. I don't recall the last time that happened on anything. Hobbs will sign it.
Sounds like an eminently reasonable and prudent reform. Besides, I’ll always endorse earlier primaries
Too bad AZ Republicans won't be bipartisan on other election issues and rather than address it, they merely put amendments on the ballot to bypass Hobbs and hope voters are dumb enough to vote for it.
This bill has passed the Senate and has been sent to Hobbs.
Meh. We used to have primaries in September in New York and it wasn't a problem.
I don't like late primaries because the presidential nomination is usually decided before New Yorkers get to vote on it.
New endeavor from the successor of the DLC:
"A group of moderate Democrats is kicking off the midterm season by targeting one of the mightiest, if least-known, forces in their party: the interest group questionnaire-industrial complex.
Rohan Patel and Seth London, who oversee Majority Democrats — a group of young Democrats that have won competitive races — want their candidates to know they shouldn’t feel obliged to complete the often-expansive advocacy group forms. They’re also telling these organizations’ donors to think twice about contributing and urging the groups to heal thyselves by overhauling or mothballing the documents, which are typically used to determine endorsements."
"Consider: When Barack Obama was first sworn in as president, his party had five of the six Senate seats in Montana and the two Dakotas. Now Republicans have all six.
Yes, winning a bare Senate majority, breaking the filibuster and then granting Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood is one path to additional Senate seats. Yet that still won’t better the party’s chances across the South and Great Plains, which are vital to building a majority with cushion.
“You look at the next two to three Senate cycles, we’ll be scratching and clawing to get and hold 50 or 51 seats,” as London put it.
Then he lowered the boom, insert trigger warning here, invoking the names of the three current and former Senate Democrats the left most despises.
“We want more Manchins and Sinemas and Fettermans,” London said. “That is the cost of having a fucking majority. And our donors need to understand when you have a majority, you get to set the agenda.”
Last, but certainly not least, there’s the matter of Democrats’ coronary-inducing path to winning the presidency, as seen for a decade. Yes, they can still find their way to a significant Electoral College majority — see 2020 — but it’s built on extraordinarily thin margins in swing states. Does the party really want to keep betting American democracy on Philadelphia’s suburbs, turnout in Madison and how the auto economy and ancient Mideast enmities will shape metro Detroit?"
Some are very questionable while some other "questionable" commitments"
"Do you support and will you co-sponsor Medicare for All legislation, (S. 1655 and H.R. 3421) in the 118th Congress?
National Nurses United (NNU)
Federal Endorsement Questionnaire, 2026
I understand that I must maintain a 100% voting record while in office in order to be endorsed by Planned Parenthood Votes South Atlantic.
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic
If elected, do you promise not to join the Blue Dog Caucus, the New Democrat Caucus, and Third Way?
Progressive Campaign Change Committee"
https://thequestionable.org/
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/02/06/democrats-questionnaire-interest-group-00767764
Sounds like Politico isn't happy about Analilia Mejia getting close to winning her primary.
Christ I hate Politico.
I think they are just salty that one of their candidates who Majority Dems, Patel, Lis Smith etc saw as a future leader and presidential material nationally, Angie Craig, is getting hit hard by these aforementioned groups, activists and Peggy Flanagan for her terrible voting record.
PCCC, NNU and Planned Parenthood are not attacking swing district dems.
I think that what JMart writes about is a good development overall. Let the Republicans fall over themselves seeking support from right wing interest groups far out of step with the public (as well as from Trump, Musk, etc.). We’ll reclaim the centre of the electorate.
Let's not pretend that we lost Montana and Dakotas because we became far left or whatever. Obama also lost them and polarization caught up. (https://split-ticket.org/2025/06/07/the-real-reason-democrats-cant-compete-for-60-senate-seats/)
We need Manchins but absolutely not Sinemas and Fettermans in states like Arizona and Pennsylvania. Fetterman needs to be primaried out.
Wisconsin and NC are flips in 2028 if the national environment is good while Pennsylvania is in 2030. I get that there is an incentive to fearmonger for donors, but the Senate is in reach long-term and adding PR, DC will solve most problems. We already have competitive races in Alaska, Ohio, Iowa and Texas this cycle.
I will be absolutely jaw-on-the-floor shocked if Fetterman runs again.
I think he pulls a Zell Miller and vigorously campaigns for the GOP up and down the ticket while going out the door in 2028.
I'm not sure his health will allow that.
We don't need Sinemas for a Senate Majority (who was so iconoclast in the oddest way that she was able to become hated by practically everyone) but yes to Testers and Manchins, but without the humongous ego/Beltway media whoring of the latter.
I do think a drive away from the dumb questionnaires makes eminent sense, regardless of the questionable allegiances of this particular group.
Yeah - right message, wrong messenger for getting away from the questionnnariws
I get so frustrated by people who insist "we need more Manchins," because it seems like they willfully ignore why so many of us dislike politicians like him. People didn't complain about moderate politicians like Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, Mary Peltola, etc., because they're decent people. Manchin, Sinema, and Fetterman just come off as jerks who think the only way to demonstrate their independence is by antagonizing the rest of us. I hate it when we try to explain this to people and they respond with "you can't run Bernie Sanders in every race and we need to be a big tent party." I just want to shake them, because it totally misses the point.
Yeah one of the reasons Manchin was so awful is that he was also blatantly self-enriching just as Sinema was, he just happened to also be more in touch with his state than her and had a more folksy demeanor. I do also hate his impulse-based negotiating style over BBBA. "This number sounds too high!" is not a serious way to discuss tax policy.
You're not wrong about Manchin's personality but, honestly, I'd be willing to tolerate just about anything from a Democrat holding a senate seat in a state as red as WV.
The absolute basic logic is sound: we're better served by having conservative democrats in red seats and red states than we are by having any republican. Manchin, consequently, is a solid of example of candidates we want.
The problem is everything beyond that base logic. Sinema and Fetterman are horrible options. Sinema was replaced by another democrat. A competent one that doesn't try to sabotage our party, and Fetterman is in a swing state that had another reliable-if-moderate democratic senator at the time of his election.
Beyond 2/3 of their examples being garbage, they also completely miss the mark. Does anyone here think any left leaning interest group questionnaires are the reason Tester and Brown lost in 2024? Or Jones in 2020? Heitkamp, McCaskill, and Donelly, in 2018? No, it's because their states were too damned red and the partisan consolidation could no longer be put off.
We need more senators like Tester, Heitkamp, and Jones. Unfortunately, there's not much we can do by moderating to win those kinds of seats back. In anything short of the most extreme scenarios, those states are off the table for us, just like no amount of moderation is going to see a republican win a senate seat in New Jersey or Maryland outside of extremely abnormal conditions that cannot be banked on. That's what it took for Jones to win; that's also what it took Scott Brown to win in Massachusetts too. Both of them immediately lost reelection.
These groups always show their true colors with their examples. We don't need more Fettermans or Sinemas. Their goal isn't more wins; their goal is moving the party to the right.
Let's run candidates like Dan Osborn, Bobby Pulido - let them do their own thing and not subject them to purity tests while avoiding trying to broadly turn the national party to the right to ostensibly make it more competitive in Iowa and Ohio like DecidingToWin and Simon Bazelon, a very related endeavor which involves Majority Dems, proposed.
I think Pulido is well positioned for an upset. Osborn? Less so.
Setting the agenda and implementing it aren't the same thing - would probably be wise for folks to check how many Democrats voted against the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts in Congress and the number of Republicans needed to pass both, even with Democratic supermajorities allowing us to "set the agenda"
One of the funnier things I've seen in discussions after Mejia's upset win is Republicans thinking that Democrats are now about to nominate Crockett, AES, and Platner. No, just because you guys throw winnable Senate and gubernatorial races left and right doesn't mean our voters operate the same way.
Mejia hasn't won yet and el-Sayed and Platner are not the same as Crockett, but I get your point.
There's a reason Republicans want to run against them, and I don't think they're wrong in that preference.
a little sus to agree with republicans on their preferences in our primaries
Is it sus for national Republicans to agree with us that Paxton is the weakest option in Texas? That makes no sense.
Yeah, Republicam operatives aren't dumb. Agreeing with Republicans that the sky js blue isn't sus.
Well, some of them are dumb. Republicans would be holding a Senate supermajority right now if they were competent after blowing four winnable races in 2022 and four in 2024.
Republicans are bad and Democrats are not, hope this helps
Wow, thanks. Still don’t know how that changes the calculation of who they want to run against in a general election.
That's not what anyone is saying. I do agree with their assessment, though. Specifically that Crockett is the far weaker of our options in TX-Sen
you can disagree with me, but that's what they said.
I agree that Crockett is the weakest candidate. I don't agree with the rationale "because Republicans say so."
There are myriad reasons why she's the weakest candidate. The fact that Republicans are eager to run against her is clearly one of those reasons.
With respect to the ME-SEN race, I’d say the GOP really ought to watch if they want Platner in the race.
They have no assurances his presence, should he be the Democratic nominee, will make it easier for Collins to win re-election. Platner comes with his own issues but he has more appeal to Republicans than Crockett does and is actually being proactive in this regard.
I will share a campaign video Platner just recently posted where he has a sit down with an undecided ME GOP voter.
Touche on Mejia not winning yet, I assumed it had been called. El-Sayed and Platner carry a lot of unnecessary risk but could still win, whereas I don't see a path for Crockett even against Paxton. In that light, you're right, they are not the same.
I think there are distinct gaps in candidate downsides.
Crockett is the only one in the group that takes the seat off the table for us. Crockett all but guarantees we do not win TX-Sen.
Platner and Mills carry comparable uncertainty. I would not say it is clear that Platner is meaningfully riskier than Mills is. Platner should have a lower floor than Mills, but their odds of winning look about the same to me. Serious risks of age and refusal to go on the attack for Mills; serious risks of negative coverage for Platner.
El-Sayed is definitely the weakest candidate in Michigan senate, no way around that. I suspect he'd win this year but would be at serious risk of losing reelection. Even if he does win this year, him as our nominee means it's a lot more work and money to get there. Unlike Crockett he does not take the seat off the table, or close to it.
Collins’ age makes me less concerned about Mills’ age in a hypothetical matchup. If Collins were ten years younger, I’d feel different. Mills looks and sounds much younger than Collins. Plus her gubernatorial approvals, while not fantastic, are still positive. That’s a much less risky proposition for a general election than Platner being spammed with Nazi ads for five months straight.
Republicans want to run against Platner. I have no idea why that doesn’t give more people pause.
We've already seen that the electorate treats candidate age differently between democrats and republicans. Trump was clearly more indisposed by his age than Biden was in 2024, but you'd never know it from the coverage. Likewise, election chatter for this senate race has no mention of Collins' age but does have chatter about Mills' age.
It's unfortunate but we cannot bank on republican candidates also being old to cancel out or mitigate the dangers to our candidates from age.
Trump was more indisposed? Biden could barely form a cogent sentence by the summer of 2024. His biggest crime was not bowing out and letting a Dem primary play out.
Do you have evidence Republicans would prefer to run against Platner or are you just stating your opinion as fact?
To me, the push poll recently released by Collins-aligned PAC showing her beating Platner by more than Mills seems like a Republican attempt to rat**** against Platner. Otherwise, why would a Republican PAC release that— I don’t think they are just trying to help Democrats, lol. My opinion, though.
I try to avoid reading right wing trash in general, but every now and then I go to Republican-leaning sites to get a sense of what the more strategic conservative minds think. They think Platner is a gold mine of opposition research. I can’t say I disagree.
Agree with your analysis. Crockett almost certainly puts TX-Sen out of reach. I think Platner and AES are our weaker options in ME and MI, respectively, but neither would be a guaranteed loss. That said, I see no reason to shoot ourselves in the foot by nominating either one of them.
Crockett is the only one of those people that would go on to lose the general election.
Agreed I support McMorrow because I think she is talented, does not throw bombs and is electable but let's not pretend AES will lose atleast this year.
McMorrow is AWESOME. I fell in love with her in 2018 when her speech went viral and she's been kicking ass ever since.
MI would be so lucky to have her in the U.S. Senate.
McMorrow definitely wins by the most of the three, the only person that could even get close to throwing it to Rogers is Haley Stevens
No way is Stevens a worse GE candidate than AES. The polling is clear on this, as is, frankly, logic.
she is because she's a husk of a candidate. She has nothing to offer except hollow rhetoric. she does few public events and has been outraised or at least matched by both McMorrow and El-Sayed - and that's *with* a lot of large dollar support, something the other two rely on less.
The ability of the candidate to campaign effectively and connect with voters does actually matter! That should not be a hot take in the mostly-progressive Downballot comment section!
Also, polls are a snapshot in time, and have all three losing to Rogers right now. So if you believe those (Stabenow won easily in 2018, as did Whitmer) are predictive, then I don't know what to tell you. The electorate is almost certainly going to be bluer than 2018.
Let's start with your strawman at the bottom - no one is suggesting that the electorate is not going to be bluer than 2018. Regarding Stevens, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but it does not appear to be an opinion broadly held by the electorate.
Platner is the favorite in his race no matter what we think of him while Talarico is the real progressive choice in Texas. Progressive influencers as well as the PCCC have closed their ranks around him. Crockett is about throwing bombs not progressivism.
Of course Talarico is not going to advocate single payer or banning guns in Texas but most of his stances on economic policies like a wealth tax, healthcare like capping all drug prices, Medicare-buy in and auto-enrollment, foreign policy, filibuster, PRO act are fairly progressive.
Have to disagree that Platner is worse than Mills in a GE. He has the ability to fire up voters in a way Mills can't compete with. In a battle between two 70-something women I have a feeling Mainers either stay home or go with the "moderate" Collins.
Trump will be doing enough “firing up” for Mills or any Democrat to not have to worry much about base turnout. I don’t know why that’s even a concern in the year 2026. This race will be won or lost based on how older voters feel.
this is like, head-in-sand levels of analytical ability. yes, it matters which side has more energy, as it brings you money and volunteers, not just votes.
Are you saying Democrats will sit at home if Janet Mills is the nominee? I don’t know how one can argue that with any evidence other than feelings when we have strong evidence of high turnout for Democrats in the Trump era across the board, regardless of our candidate’s ideology.
No. That's not what I said.
Money + volunteers = ability to make voter contacts with anyone. this is relatively elementary political organzing.
Well put.
"Donors give over $3 million to boost tech-friendly California governor candidate
The cash infusion could help the moderate San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan make up ground after a late entry into the governor’s race."
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/05/mahan-tech-donors-white-00767433
I am not sure what Politico seems to understand about CA state politics that I as a resident of the state do not. Just because Mahan gets a cash infusion this amount doesn't mean anything much like Tom Steyer's self funding in the millions doesn't mean anything.
Unless Mahan actually has enough support by Democrats and a real visible GOTV machine, I don't see how he's going to make this more of a race than it already is.
Their reporters need work. "Could help" and "make up ground" could mean he dumps seven figures and gains 3%. Sure, he made up ground, in the most technical sense....
Yes, it's all speculation at this point but nothing more than that.
But the question again comes, how is Mahan going to do anything different than Tom Steyer won't? The only real distinction here is that Mahan is likely not going to self-fund as he doesn't have the wealth like Steyer does. Ro Khanna's district includes San Jose so any of the donors Mahan has access to are likely taking advantage of the fact that he's against the proposed state wealth tax.
Katie Porter and Eric Swalwell have already been visible for months and held multiple campaign events, Swalwell especially. Even Antonio Villaraigosa and Xavier Becerra have been in the race for a while now and have held up well with their cash-at-hand.
What was the "Loudoun County" moment of last night, where you realized Mejia could actually pull this off?
When Morris County ballots got counted. She won some really wealthy suburban Italian precincts in Hanover township. She performed really well with upper middle-income (100k-250k) voters, not a progressive demographic.
Teamsters Joint Council 58 and Joint Council 80, which represent 40,000 rank-and-file Teamsters across Texas, have jointly endorsed Greg Abbott (R-TX) in his re-election for governor.
https://x.com/Teamsters/status/2019508987339604372
Teamsters have already endorsed radical right libertarian lunatics like Ramaswamy and Abbott this cycle for cultural issues.
Why are Teamsters supporting RW lunacy?
They’ve always been a right-leaning union; I believe they backed Nixon pretty hard back in the day, for one
Because they don't really give a shit about workers' rights and interests as workers? It's hard to understand that historically corrupt, gangster-associated union.
Blue collar union members are increasingly prioritizing cultural wins over economic wins.
For the first time, GOP strategists are telling Axios that losing the Senate — where Republicans have a 53-47 majority — is a distinct possibility, and that they'll have to fight harder than expected to keep control.
Operatives say they've reviewed polling that shows the GOP facing competitive Senate races not just in traditional battlegrounds such as Michigan, Maine and North Carolina, but also in conservative states like Alaska, Iowa and Ohio.
Top GOP strategists acknowledge that immigration and the economy — the two issues that drove Trump's win in 2024 — are now liabilities.
"A year ago, I would have told you we were almost guaranteed to win the Senate," one GOP operative who's reviewed internal polling told Axios. "Today, I would have to tell you it's far less certain."
https://www.axios.com/2026/02/06/gop-senate-midterms-2026
As long as Thomas and Alito don't find out.
I hope they're arrogant enough to stay on after 11/3/26.
Alito is more arrogant than Thomas, but also more strategic. So one wonders what wins out there
Thomas will stay on the court until he dies, that much is certain. Probably wants to protect his seditious wife too.
I think Alito cares more about conservatism. Thomas cares more about himself.
No guarantees but I think Alito is more likely to strategically retire than Thomas is. The risk for Thomas is that he decides he wants to enjoy his "gifts" without having a day job taking up his time.
Oh my God this has been my number one worry. I don’t want them to freak out and retire too soon this year.
Elie Mystal has a piece in The Atlantic saying that Alito will probably retire at the end of this term, and uses the publication date of his upcoming date as a clue.
I would be very surprised if he did. He takes too much pleasure from the damage he can do on the court to walk away after only 20 years and at “only” 75.
His upcoming what? Memoir, maybe?
Yes, memoir. Sorry for the typo.
🚨 UAW ENDORSES INDEPENDENT DAN OSBORN IN NEBRASKA U.S. SENATE RACE 🚨
The UAW has voted to endorse Dan Osborn, an Independent candidate for U.S. Senate from Nebraska.
“Dan Osborn is one of us. A union member who came up through the ranks to fight for economic and social justice for the working class,” said UAW President Shawn Fain. “We don’t need another lawyer or corporate hack who only cares about the richest Americans in the U.S. Senate, we need independent blue-collar fighters like Dan. Wealth inequality is out of control in our country. The rich continue to take all the profits while the affordability crisis leaves working class people scraping to get by paycheck to paycheck. If we’re going to change this system, we need to elect working-class people to the halls of Congress who understand this. We’re proud to stand with Dan Osborn and ready to elect him to take on corporate greed and our rigged political system.”
https://x.com/UAW/status/2019820850367582256
I think NE-Sen is in play. Technically not a Dem gain, but I'll take a GOO loss. In terms of Sen gains:
1. NC (Cooper)
2. ME (either candidate)
----------------
3. AK (Peltola)
4. OH (Brown)
----------
5. IA
6. TX (Talarico v Paxon)
7. NE (Osborn)
8. TX (Talarico v Cornyn)
9. FL
Winning 4 or even all 9 races sounds impossible right now.
Did you mean possible?
Yes and no. Trying to be realistic about winning at least NC and ME since the last several cycles disappointed or were a gut punch.
A really interesting point made was that many people voted for Collins as a moderate check on Biden and Trump got out his low propensity voters as well. This time voting for a Democrat is seen as a block on Trump’s fascism and a referendum on him.
Cornyn is not strong. I heard the top Dem strategist in Texas on a cable channel, either CNN or MSNBC, he has really high negatives among the base and the larger electorate which will hurt him in a low R turnout election.
I would put FL above NE for the reason that FL has Trump at -5 to -10 and was a swing state until 2022. Republican as well as other polling shows Talarico leading Paxton. We haven't had public polling in Iowa and Hinson is not an overperformer according to Lakshya Jain's Split Ticket but can fundraise well.
My rating:
1. NC (Cooper)
2. ME (either candidate)
----------------
3. AK (Peltola)
4. OH (Brown)
----------
5. TX (Talarico v Paxon)
6. TX (Talarico v Cornyn)
7. IA
8. FL
9. NE (Osborn)
Two cents:
1. NC (Cooper)
2. ME (either candidate)
----------------
3. AK (Peltola)
4. OH (Brown)
----------
5.. IA
6. NE (Osborn)
(end of list)
😭😭
I just won't believe TX nor FL until I see it actually happen. I'd believe even South Cakalaky first.
No way that SC flips before TX. SC and FL I would look at similarly, but the demographics are better for us in FL.
People are allowed to disagree with you.
The crying emoji is more “lol” or “I can’t even” than actual sadness/mockery. I don’t think he meant anything unkind by it.
I don't think TX is impossible by any means, particularly in a Talarico vs. Paxton matchup. Paxton would be favored no doubt, but no way it's off the board.
I'm not sure Ohio is or isn't more winnable than Texas or Iowa right now. And I think there's another big gap between those states and Florida.
I agree. I also think Texas can catapult to #3 or even #2 depending on nominees for both it and Maine. I will take my downvotes.
I think Ohio is more winnable for Brown than Texas or Iowa is for a fresh face Democrat.
That's logical, whether it turns out that way or not.
I can definitely see the argument there, but for me Ohio has the worst trend of the three states.
Texas has been moving towards us with only one abatement for the past generation. Like a time shifted Georgia, basically. We did worse in 2024 but the context strongly suggests, although it is not confirmed, that this was an aberration and the state has otherwise continued its trend. Demographics would suggest strong potential upside for us to make gains in Texas.
Ohio has been moving away from us for the same past generation. Brown is a great candidate and that's worth something, but he lost his greatest strength in hostile terrain by no longer being the incumbent. Demographics would suggest no real growth potential in Ohio, and if anything there's room for further decay for us.
Iowa has had a similar trend as Ohio, but the loss of the Appalachian demographics helps, and Iowa has also had a history of responding negatively to republicans when republicans fuck with their farming exports. Will that happen again? Unknown, but it leaves me more optimistic than I am about Ohio.
All three are winnable, all three have us as the underdog. I just think Ohio is certainly not a whole tier easier than the other two, and if anything I think it's slightly harder but within the same tier of difficulty.
Since we’re all doing it, imo:
1/2 ME/NC: Lean D - Maine candidate potential disadvantages in a bluer state equals the opportunity in North Carolina with candidate advantages in a redder state. They’re both pretty equivalent.
------------------------------
3. AK: Tossup - Peltola was the only one who could put Alaska in play and lost by less than Brown in Ohio despite him having more incumbency and her facing a more Trump electorate than the other state in 2024.
------------------------------
4. OH: Lean R - Brown is the only one who could put it in play and with Ramaswamy leading the GOP ticket, he won’t get anywhere near the blowout past statewide results Republicans got, even if he does win, including Trump, and could end up losing.
Husted is not MAGA and is an appointed incumbent (who have awful electoral records), so you could see the base stay home, instead of coming out in droves like they did to support the extremely flawed MAGA Moreno.
------------------------------
Not sure:
5-6* IA: Lean R to Likely R - With 3 Democrats running and former local tv anchor Hinson solely running for Republicans this is a very uphill battle. Again it depends on who Democrats nominate. Wahls hasn’t won a competitive race. Sage hasn’t either. As loathe as I am to back the DSCC meddling and Schumer, Turek actually has won a tough race, so he would put this in play. The others I don’t think would.
3-6* TX: Tossup to Likely R - It depends on the primaries for Democrats and Republicans for where it goes. This race would jump to a tie with Alaska if it’s a Cornyn/Paxton runoff and Paxton nomination. It would fall almost completely off the board if Hunt got a runoff spot or if Crockett won the nomination. Wayyyyyyy too many potential outcomes and moving parts to put this race anywhere right now.
------------------------------
7. NE: Likely R - He wouldn’t be a Democratic victory if he won, but Osborn has an opening here if the environment gets bad enough for Republicans. As much as I want him to win, I don’t think he can as it sits right now. Political environment has to deteriorate to like D+9-10 for him to have a realistic shot at an upset. He’ll get 45% of the vote, but that last 5 points is going to be extremely hard for him to get, even while running as an Independent, not a Democrat.
------------------------------
8. FL/KS* Safe R to Likely R - These two states are tsunami territory. And KS is only here if Davids decides to run (which I think she will given the evidence, but we’ll have to see). Vindman will raise a ton of money here, but has almost no chance. The only thing going for him is that Moody is an appointed incumbent who again, have terrible electoral records in Senate races. If she were already elected, even a tsunami wouldn’t have a chance to elect Vindman.
I'm not as bearish on FL as you are, but that's a very good writeup. To be clear, FL is Likely-R, but I don't think it's less likely than Nebraska.
Speaking of Nebraska, the state lege has advanced a bill to LOWER pay for everyone age 13-20, setting a "youth minimum wage" (in their eyes anyone 20 or younger) at 13.50 an hour. It now goes to Gov. Pillen's desk.
https://www.ketv.com/article/nebraska-lawmakers-minimum-wage-bill-advances/70258945
Absolutely horrendous. Teens and Adults 18-20 that were making the state $15 minimum will now get a healthy 1.50/hr pay cut. Some of the comments on this issue i have read from "Nebraska small business owners" were absolutely vile. They treat their workers like servants...
Osborn should be front and center on this, framing this correctly as the pay cut that it is. Imagine you're 18 or 19, moved out and trying to make rent on some bs min wage jobs. The republicans just cut your pay by 10%. Anyone scraping by just got kicked in the teeth.
Oh that is gross! And potentially extremely unpopular. This is indeed Osborn’s chance.
Yeah, it is. Raise the Wage should've circulated it as a constitutional amendment and now, like in MO and OH, NE Rs is undoing the will of the people just because they can via simple legislation.
Osborn should be HAMMERING this as part of the affordability issue and how Republicans screwed over voters who voted themselves a wage increase.