I heard a while ago that Schumer was trying to recruit him to run for Senate. If it forces the GOP to have to spend more money than JBE would, then that itself makes it worth it.
Seeing as the tweet was deleted, we could guess that he probably won't do it.
In the event that JBE did jump in, he might do so as wave+scandal insurance. We wouldn't win with just one of those, but with a big wave and a sufficiently damaged republican candidate and our best candidate possible... maybe? I wouldn't bet on it but it wouldn't be impossible.
That's exactly what I was thinking of with a sufficiently damaged republican. Cassidy did vote to impeach Trump in 2021 for Jan 6, and voted to certify the election results. A crazy reactionary could use that to their advantage to beat him in the jungle primary. With some luck JBE could spend the election season relatively unharmed as Cassidy and Crazy-candidate went all out to destroy each other.
I am so sick and tired of Phil Berger's antics. I've said this last night, he is the NC state version of Mitch McConnell (he would consider THAT a compliment). I hope his plan to win the primary (by making Rep Davis' area redder) blows up in his face.
And I hope that more Ds and left leaning independents come out in full force next year and not only replace the D representatives who let Rs override the governor's vetoes -- but that Rs lose more seats in bluer areas like Alamance and New Hanover. I'm tired of Berger and his minions not funding our state government because they're fighting over their special interest pet projects.
Unless New Jersey Democrats wake up and pass either universal vote by mail (as they once had and saved the D governor in his first election) or combine the local elections with the even year midterm elections they may not only lose this November's election but future ones as well. They also seem to have lost Italian-Americans which they need to reach out to.
Someone on Bluesky pointed out too that NJ hasn't always been uniformly blue. Chris Christie won multiple terms, for one, and there have been plenty of Republicans in government in NJ in the past. So even if we lose this one, it's not like NJ was some uber-blue state that's suddenly a MAGA stronghold. It's always been a bit swingy.
Yes but Chris Christie also won both of his elections as Governor when Obama was POTUS, the very first year of each of his terms (2009 and 2013). Additionally, Jack Ciatterelli’s performance as GOP gubernatorial candidate back in 2021 made Governor Phil Murphy’s election significantly more narrow than his original election back in 2017. This was the first year of Biden’s term as POTUS.
Since 1994 (when Christine Todd Whitman), there has not been a Republican gubernatorial candidate who has won the race when a Republican POTUS has been in office.
I am not being dismissive of any vulnerabilities Sherrill has but just providing historical context.
That said, I agree with your concerns. Frankly, if we had Ras Baraka as the gubernatorial nominee, he and his campaign would be on top of the ads and messaging taking into account how fearless he is.
As I’ve pointed out, numerous times, no party has won three consecutive gubernatorial races in over 60 years. If a Democrat were president, I think Ciatarelli would be the favorite. But that has nothing to do with the political leaning of the state, where Democrats have control of the state legislature, both senate seats and the House delegation.
Agreed. You've been saying this since at least Feb. I was much more bullish on Mikie, given her strength in Morris County potentially countering what is usually a reliable republican vote producer. I admit I now am concerned. Mikie has expanded canvas launches, but for all the ad spending we hear about from her I am not seeing many pro Mikie, anti Jack ads in my blue bastion of Essex. And we need to run up the margin in Essex. A head scratching campaign by someone who previously ran well disciplined campaigns.
Of note: someone I follow on Bluesky (Nick Tagliaferro, the author of Primary School, who lives in NJ) argued that if Sherrill wins this election, she actually may lose the Dem primary in 2029. She is not well liked by progressives, and she doesn't strike me as someone who is particularly politically savvy. I agree that it's a possibility. (Do also note that Fulop and Baraka split the progressive vote in the Governor primary -- it's plausible one could have won if the other hadn't run.)
I really like Primary School and Nick Tagliaferro but I think worrying about a re-election primary in 2029 is such a waste of time and energy and presumptuous as well.
It'd be interesting to see a breakdown as I have no idea if a Democrat like Clinton or Gore was still winning among Italians. Pretty safe bet they've consolidated to the GOP during the Trump years, and especially in 2024. Interestingly though, the most Italian state in the country is Rhode Island and they still vote deeply blue.
Scandinavians remain the most Democratic, ethnic-white groups like Poles, Italians, and Irish are in the middle, while Anglo-Saxons are the most Republican. The biggest 2024 shift toward Trump came from ethnic-whites.
Interesting. I would have thought French would have been a worse group given that Cajuns are overwhelmingly Republican now. Seems the ones in New England and elsewhere are more mixed.
The Dutch might have been the most Republican group as recently as 2014, but at least the Calvinist types tend to be pretty high-minded and don't like Trump. The Grand Rapids-Holland area used to be the reddest area in Michigan, now at least Kent county typically goes Dem.
I wonder how much of this is geography rather than ethnic background?
Italian-Americans are heavily concentrated in the northeast. A heavily democratic area. French-Americans are heavily concentrated in Louisiana and New England, one very red area and one very blue area. German-Americans are most common in the rural midwest and prairie states.
It would seem on balance that most of the explanation comes down to where these ethnic-white groups live in the country, rather than enduring cultural tendencies pushing them towards an ideology. I expect there is some of the latter at play, just thinking that geography is playing a much bigger part.
Whoa! Thanks much for this. Not surprising that Scandinavians are the least Republican group of whites, although I bet Norwegians and Swedes were vastly bluer in the Bush and Obama years. Most of the Obama-Trump counties in the Upper Midwest whose PVIs have stampeded to the right in the last decade are full of Norwegian and Swedish settlements.
Wild that the Dutch are less Republican than the English. I get that the English and Scots-Irish are heavily weighted in the south and Appalachia but at least in the Midwest, Dutch communities rival white Southern Baptists for their margins to the GOP.
It also appears my hunch was correct that Italians aren't THAT Republican now. I would have suspected they'd have been stronger for Trump honestly.
NJ, CT, RI, NY, MA, NH, PA. Only PA and NH are competitive and NH has a low population. Of the non-competitive states, they're all blue. I don't see data on it, but I'd take a guess that within those regions they're more concentrated in the blue parts (mostly cities) of those states.
I’ve said it before and I guess I have to say it again: If Republicans actually thought they could win NJ, they’d be spending money there right now. It’s not as if their party has limited funding as the party in power. The fact that they aren’t investing like it’s a real competitive race despite having gobs of money to spend says it all.
Golden rule of politics: follow the money, not the rhetoric. You can blow smoke out your ass all you want about how competitive a state or election is, but real competition brings real campaign cash and the GOP isn’t putting their money where their lying as they breathe loud mouths are.
Not true. The Republican candidate almost outspent the incumbent Democratic Governor. The RGA also outspent the DGA in that race despite them having an incumbent running again.
“Independent” groups are what saved Murphy that year because he got $21.2m out of the $28.3m total spent by them. Every other sign from campaign cash showed the GOP competitive and like I said, if it’s competitive, parties invest in it. Otherwise, they don’t.
I think the reference is to the massively expanded VBM only option that we employed as a state in 2020. Every voter was mailed a ballot. Was clerking in trial court at the time and had election day challenge duty. Anyone that tried to vote in person on election day had to cast a provisional ballot iirc. Democratic turnout in Jersey has eroded massively since that election.
I've been thinking about Ken Martin's tenure as DNC chair and I'm actually worried he'll be pushed out. Not because of any real attachment to him, mind you, but because I suspect those who want him out (largely donors at this point) will not replace him with someone like Ben Wikler -- they'll replace him with someone like Rahm Emanuel or a similar neoliberal/Clinton-like Dem who will actively try to tip the scales for centrists in Dem primaries, among other possible outcomes.
Woah, enough with the hostility! I was under the impression that the DNC is involved in political campaigns to an extent that makes this on-topic. If it is not, I will knock it off. Please stop with the needless aggressive personal attacks.
Where is your evidence? My username was "techno" (from my love of electronic music) and "00" (my birth year). I don't give out my name on the internet (besides Facebook) because I don't want to be located by anyone.
What is with the personal attacks? Seriously, knock it off!
EDIT: And how am I anti-Dem? I have made it crystal clear that I vote Dem in every election. I voted for Sean Patrick Maloney and I hated him. I am most assuredly not "anti-Dem", otherwise I'd be an independent.
The donors who probably want him out forgot or ignore that he mentored Ben Wikler, the one guy that Pelosi and Schumer wanted. Wikler is a fantastic guy in terms of GOTV campaigns and fundraising, but most of the things he did in WI are what he learned from Martin.
If Dems make bigger gains than expected next year, they won't get rid of Ken.
I don’t think we should automatically assume the mentor is better than the mentee just because they were taught everything they know by them. Ben Wikler knows how to run in today’s America with media strategies that consistently keeps our base motivated. Ken Martin is very good at winning Minnesota with the DFL as a boost the party doesn’t get anywhere else in the country.
I’m still in wait and see mode. Party and public branding wise he’s done terrible with, but elections wise we’ve had a lot of good results. Is it the case he’s a workhorse who knows how to do all the important behind the scenes work everywhere who is terrible in public/party branding?
Or is it a mirage where his capabilities begin and end with MN with that specific brand and Democrats have more to gain in special elections from Trump’s second term than the first because Democrats fell further in 2024 than in 2016 giving an illusion of party gains under his stewardship?
I think either can be fairly argued. All I know for sure is that Wikler’s stewardship of Wisconsin has led it to having the highest party fundraising year after year, in election year cycles and out of them as well as locking up the State Supreme Court for us in a state Trump won twice that used to be controlled for decades by the GOP. He also re-elected Tammy Baldwin in an extremely difficult year for our party.
My take is that the importance of DNC/RNC chair is way overhyped. Martin or Wikler or anyone else doesn't have the ability to force members of congress and governors to have a consistent message.
The role isn't impotent but the power and importance are oversold. Their biggest job is fundraising and managerial. With the power of super PACs today, along with the strength of small dollar fundraising for individual candidates, power has shifted away from the central party apparatuses.
I don’t agree at all. It’s overhyped up until the party has the right person in the position. Most of the time both parties have placeholders, so yeah, it’s overhyped a lot of the time, but not always.
For example I don’t think any of us Democrats can argue against Reince Priebus being one of the best party chairs ever for the GOP in terms of fundraising and his win/loss election record over his tenure. Republicans almost had 2/3rds of the states completely under their control. If that isn’t a sign of competency and a good party chair, I don’t know what would count.
Just because it’s a useless position because we have the wrong people running it doesn’t mean it can’t be an incredible and powerful tool for our party to use if the organization is utilized properly and to the full extent of its capabilities. Every political organization can become a difference maker, but only if the people leading it make it one.
The goal of the party chair is party/public branding, fundraising and winning elections. All of those are key ingredients to gain power.
How much of republican gains during Priebus' years were because of him and how much of it was because we held the presidency for two terms during a slog of an economic recession at a time when blue collar white voters were leaving us in droves? The trend for the latter having started in full force before Priebus took the RNC chair in 2011.
This is a classic case of assuming causation due to correlation.
I would suggest comparing RNC vs DNC fundraising during these periods despite Democrats holding power to further understand the difference a good party chair can make.
Ken Martin is struggling to win over the donors to the Democratic Party but at the same time Democrats are winning lots of races this year, especially in Iowa. More so than even back in 2017, namely special election races?
Former DNC Chair Jaime Harrison mentioned in article #1 you shared that in 2017 Democrats struggled for months to get on it as far as donations. This came when Tom Perez was at the helm of the DNC. Then the NJ and VA elections got won by Democrats and the midterms gave Democrats major mojo in House races as well as gubernatorial wins. And Biden won the 2020 presidential election while Perez was still DNC Chair?
What are these donors really complaining about? More importantly, why don’t they show us any of them can be the DNC Chair if they really want this badly to fight back in Trump?
That makes two Ed Case primary challengers. State Rep. Della Au Belatti is in as a Dem. Not sure of ideology but she seems to be arguing that Case isn't fighting enough.
GOP Rep. Scott Perry has a primary challenger from the center. GOP State House staff attorney Karen Lynn Dalton is challenging Perry, arguing he is too close to Trump.
Good luck with that. Anti-Trump candidates don't fare too well in the modern GOP.
I’m totally ok with him being hit from the left by a Republican in the primary to then immediately follow being hit by the left by a Democrat in the general election. Whatever it takes to make the GOP incumbent bloody, bruised and broke. This is good for us regardless of how much of the vote they get.
If she runs, makes a bit of a name for herself, and then endorses the Democrat in the general election, then this could help flip the seat. But maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.
Even if she just dings Perry without coming close to winning, that's helpful to us, especially as Perry isn't operating with much room for error, having won by just 2% last time in an environment redder than 2026 is likely to be.
KS-Gov if Republicans fail at their mid decade efforts this time around feel pretty certain they will try again in 27 if they get a compliant governor. Curious what are chances are here with Kelly termed out.
Honestly, if we lose that race by 10, it would probably be a good result for us. 3 terms for one party almost never happens because voters get tired of the incumbent (especially true in red states with blue governors). In a still conservative state, we don’t have much of a chance after Laura Kelly had 2 terms. I’m thankful we had a Democratic Governor at all in the first place and who managed to flip the State Supreme Court over her 2 terms for the next GOP trifecta to be reigned in by.
If a Republican had held the Governorship these last 8 years I’d put it closer to 50/50 of winning it in a Trump midterm. But partisanship is working massively against us in that red state. This isn’t what I want to happen obviously and we should fight to win, but we should also be very clear on how low are chances are in this race barring a Kobach/Brownback type GOP nominee.
My only wish right now is that all Kelly appointees to the court stay on for the next 10 years minimum to block any stupidity/shenanigans the Republicans try. No early resignations for any reason, we can’t afford that with 1 Democratic seat at stake.
Seems like two of them are up for retention next year (one in a special) and the rest of the court in 2028. Both of Sebelius's remaining appointees do have to leave by 2028 but if Kelly's survive retention, they youngest could be there until 2037.
Not surprised that NC GOP bootlicker Dave Boliek appointed Dallas Woodhouse to lead the so-called "election integrity" efforts for NC State Board of Elections, ie do everything to suppress legally cast votes made by Dems or left-leaning independents. (The only reason it's known is because it got leaked.)
While I am probably more in line with Bush politically than Bell, she has more of a volatile presence than even someone like Rashida Tlaib so I'm not sure this will go well for her.
On Bluesky people were pissed at Bush and Bell both because the two appeared at an event with Sen. Josh Hawley. I distinctly remember one comment joking about wanting a primary where they both lose.
With regard to bombthrower types, if the GOP can have Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, we can afford a Cori Bush.
A STL-based friend noted that Hawley had been instrumental in getting the funds related to that event (funds for those exposed to nuclear waste radiation in Missouri), funds Bush had championed while in the House (and for some reason Bell opposed), which is why Hawley and Bush seemed so friendly at it.
I don't agree with that. We can, yes. Should we, no. Some of her politics injures the party's standing, in my opinion, and is not required to be a socialist. But after seeing that assault by Wesley's bodyguards, I think he's worse.
And Greene and Boebert's don't hurt the GOP? Yet they keep winning anyway.
I'm of the opinion that this political "high ground" mentality is not helping us. We refuse to do things to be better than the GOP, then the GOP does them and eats our lunch. This leads to things like the Dems who are against gerrymandering California. At some point we're going to have to accept that this is all politics in the end, and politics sometimes is dirty. The alternative is not being a democracy anymore.
What about her politics do you dislike specifically?
Well, we have to avoid a topic, but other than that (and for the record, I mostly agree with her positions on that topic, but with an important exception), she has consistently supported "defunding" the police, and this is from the Wikipedia article about her:
"Bush advocated defunding the United States Armed Forces during her campaign. After receiving criticism from California Representative Kevin McCarthy and a St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial, Bush clarified that she supported reallocating defense funding to healthcare and low-income communities."
It's a big problem for the party when people choose wrong phrasings that are perfect for Republican attack ads. Also:
On August 5, 2021, Bush defended spending tens of thousands of dollars on personal security for herself as a member of Congress while also saying Democrats should defund the police, saying, "I get to be here to do the work, so suck it up—and defunding the police has to happen. We need to defund the police."[50][51][52] On November 5, 2021, Bush was one of six House Democrats to break with their party and vote with a majority of Republicans against the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act because it was not accompanied by the Build Back Better Act.[53]
Separating IIJA from BBBA was clearly a stupid idea and is the whole reason Manchin/Sinema were able to logjam it for months so it got watered down to IRA. A rare moment where Jayapal really knew what she was doing, and I wish she could have marshaled enough of CPC to say they'd vote against it without the rec bill moving to keep Pelosi from even moving it to the floor just because Biden was pressuring her to whip it.
Wesley Bell's bodyguard assaulted and punched Jewish women For Peace group's protestors who staged a protest at his townhall leading to Bush mulling a comeback according to Ryan Grim's reporting a few weeks back. But I don't know if she is the right person to primary Bell.
We don't even know what caused it. The video conveniently starts with the bodyguard trying to drag her out of the venue. I say it's possible she rushed the stage first.
Yes, I would. I encountered this before with a 2009 college incident with Mike Tracey (yes, the famous political contrarian Mike Tracey). We were in the College Democrats together and we attended an Ann Coulter guest speech in the auditorium so we could do a walkout. He stayed behind to do a gonzo interview with Coulter while she was autographing books at the end. He tried to rush up to get a surprise interview, but security nabbed him and pinned him to the ground. He misrepresented what he did to us all and we took him at his word, going by footage showing him pinned down. We then heard from more witnesses that he did indeed try to rush at Coulter and we realized over time he was a bit of a liability and a drama queen.
We haven't seen the full incident. I haven't seen any punching. Pulling someone out by the collar (until the woman's cohorts block the bodyguard) and shoving seems to be all that's happening in the vid.
I'm in the same boat as you. Also it's plain hard to take out an incumbent in a primary without some negative story bearing over them. Has Bell done anything to attract negative attention she needs?
Early voting data from Virginia governors race is not looking encouraging for Democrats based on ballots returned by district. Republican districts dominate highest responses while almost all lowest response districts are Dem
Don’t care the reason. Just good to see it. Try to put as many races on the board as possible.
It's being refuted by a Punchbowl reporter.
https://x.com/allymutnick/status/1971660168648970440
Yeah, the tweet in the post has been deleted. Oh well.
I heard a while ago that Schumer was trying to recruit him to run for Senate. If it forces the GOP to have to spend more money than JBE would, then that itself makes it worth it.
I’m not sure the GOP will have to spend much. I think they know Edwards won’t get more than 44-45% in a federal race statewide.
I mean...this would be amazing but why on earth would he do this?
Seeing as the tweet was deleted, we could guess that he probably won't do it.
In the event that JBE did jump in, he might do so as wave+scandal insurance. We wouldn't win with just one of those, but with a big wave and a sufficiently damaged republican candidate and our best candidate possible... maybe? I wouldn't bet on it but it wouldn't be impossible.
More likely, it would be in case Cassidy lost the primary to some far-right crazy with baggage. And that's a real possibility.
That's exactly what I was thinking of with a sufficiently damaged republican. Cassidy did vote to impeach Trump in 2021 for Jan 6, and voted to certify the election results. A crazy reactionary could use that to their advantage to beat him in the jungle primary. With some luck JBE could spend the election season relatively unharmed as Cassidy and Crazy-candidate went all out to destroy each other.
Not likely, but not impossible.
I am so sick and tired of Phil Berger's antics. I've said this last night, he is the NC state version of Mitch McConnell (he would consider THAT a compliment). I hope his plan to win the primary (by making Rep Davis' area redder) blows up in his face.
And I hope that more Ds and left leaning independents come out in full force next year and not only replace the D representatives who let Rs override the governor's vetoes -- but that Rs lose more seats in bluer areas like Alamance and New Hanover. I'm tired of Berger and his minions not funding our state government because they're fighting over their special interest pet projects.
NH-St. House: Is there a source for the Lunney resignation? not finding one anywhere
Unless New Jersey Democrats wake up and pass either universal vote by mail (as they once had and saved the D governor in his first election) or combine the local elections with the even year midterm elections they may not only lose this November's election but future ones as well. They also seem to have lost Italian-Americans which they need to reach out to.
Coming from New Jersey, I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Someone on Bluesky pointed out too that NJ hasn't always been uniformly blue. Chris Christie won multiple terms, for one, and there have been plenty of Republicans in government in NJ in the past. So even if we lose this one, it's not like NJ was some uber-blue state that's suddenly a MAGA stronghold. It's always been a bit swingy.
Yes but Chris Christie also won both of his elections as Governor when Obama was POTUS, the very first year of each of his terms (2009 and 2013). Additionally, Jack Ciatterelli’s performance as GOP gubernatorial candidate back in 2021 made Governor Phil Murphy’s election significantly more narrow than his original election back in 2017. This was the first year of Biden’s term as POTUS.
Since 1994 (when Christine Todd Whitman), there has not been a Republican gubernatorial candidate who has won the race when a Republican POTUS has been in office.
Perhaps. I'm aware this is (at least supposed to be) a Dem-friendly environment, and that does bring some concern.
Hopefully Sherrill can pull it off. I've seen as many Ciattarelli ads here in NY as Sherrill ones, and I'm a bit concerned myself. We'll see.
Ciattarelli's campaign doxxing Sherrill should blow up on them and tick off squishy Rs/independent voters from voting for him.
I am not being dismissive of any vulnerabilities Sherrill has but just providing historical context.
That said, I agree with your concerns. Frankly, if we had Ras Baraka as the gubernatorial nominee, he and his campaign would be on top of the ads and messaging taking into account how fearless he is.
As I’ve pointed out, numerous times, no party has won three consecutive gubernatorial races in over 60 years. If a Democrat were president, I think Ciatarelli would be the favorite. But that has nothing to do with the political leaning of the state, where Democrats have control of the state legislature, both senate seats and the House delegation.
Agreed. You've been saying this since at least Feb. I was much more bullish on Mikie, given her strength in Morris County potentially countering what is usually a reliable republican vote producer. I admit I now am concerned. Mikie has expanded canvas launches, but for all the ad spending we hear about from her I am not seeing many pro Mikie, anti Jack ads in my blue bastion of Essex. And we need to run up the margin in Essex. A head scratching campaign by someone who previously ran well disciplined campaigns.
Of note: someone I follow on Bluesky (Nick Tagliaferro, the author of Primary School, who lives in NJ) argued that if Sherrill wins this election, she actually may lose the Dem primary in 2029. She is not well liked by progressives, and she doesn't strike me as someone who is particularly politically savvy. I agree that it's a possibility. (Do also note that Fulop and Baraka split the progressive vote in the Governor primary -- it's plausible one could have won if the other hadn't run.)
their two bases of support could not have been more different. Baraka and Fulop were not attracting the same voters
Admittedly I was looking from an outsider's perspective, so I'll concede to those who live in NJ.
I think worrying about a primary 4 years from now might be a little premature. Let's just hope she gets through this general election.
Hahah ya think?
Indeed
But how will this position us for the 2037 gubernatorial election?
I really like Primary School and Nick Tagliaferro but I think worrying about a re-election primary in 2029 is such a waste of time and energy and presumptuous as well.
I feel like we lost Italian Americans a long time ago. They've been conservative for decades.
It'd be interesting to see a breakdown as I have no idea if a Democrat like Clinton or Gore was still winning among Italians. Pretty safe bet they've consolidated to the GOP during the Trump years, and especially in 2024. Interestingly though, the most Italian state in the country is Rhode Island and they still vote deeply blue.
Scandinavians remain the most Democratic, ethnic-white groups like Poles, Italians, and Irish are in the middle, while Anglo-Saxons are the most Republican. The biggest 2024 shift toward Trump came from ethnic-whites.
https://x.com/ZacharyDonnini/status/1970975279368880212
Here you go
Interesting. I would have thought French would have been a worse group given that Cajuns are overwhelmingly Republican now. Seems the ones in New England and elsewhere are more mixed.
The Dutch might have been the most Republican group as recently as 2014, but at least the Calvinist types tend to be pretty high-minded and don't like Trump. The Grand Rapids-Holland area used to be the reddest area in Michigan, now at least Kent county typically goes Dem.
I wonder how much of this is geography rather than ethnic background?
Italian-Americans are heavily concentrated in the northeast. A heavily democratic area. French-Americans are heavily concentrated in Louisiana and New England, one very red area and one very blue area. German-Americans are most common in the rural midwest and prairie states.
It would seem on balance that most of the explanation comes down to where these ethnic-white groups live in the country, rather than enduring cultural tendencies pushing them towards an ideology. I expect there is some of the latter at play, just thinking that geography is playing a much bigger part.
Whoa! Thanks much for this. Not surprising that Scandinavians are the least Republican group of whites, although I bet Norwegians and Swedes were vastly bluer in the Bush and Obama years. Most of the Obama-Trump counties in the Upper Midwest whose PVIs have stampeded to the right in the last decade are full of Norwegian and Swedish settlements.
Wild that the Dutch are less Republican than the English. I get that the English and Scots-Irish are heavily weighted in the south and Appalachia but at least in the Midwest, Dutch communities rival white Southern Baptists for their margins to the GOP.
It also appears my hunch was correct that Italians aren't THAT Republican now. I would have suspected they'd have been stronger for Trump honestly.
Italians being bluer than you'd otherwise expect makes a lot of sense when you look at the states where they're most common. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Americans_with_Italian_Ancestry_by_state.svg
NJ, CT, RI, NY, MA, NH, PA. Only PA and NH are competitive and NH has a low population. Of the non-competitive states, they're all blue. I don't see data on it, but I'd take a guess that within those regions they're more concentrated in the blue parts (mostly cities) of those states.
I’ve said it before and I guess I have to say it again: If Republicans actually thought they could win NJ, they’d be spending money there right now. It’s not as if their party has limited funding as the party in power. The fact that they aren’t investing like it’s a real competitive race despite having gobs of money to spend says it all.
Golden rule of politics: follow the money, not the rhetoric. You can blow smoke out your ass all you want about how competitive a state or election is, but real competition brings real campaign cash and the GOP isn’t putting their money where their lying as they breathe loud mouths are.
To be fair, I don’t think they put much of anything in the 2021 NJ-GOV race and they still almost won that.
Not true. The Republican candidate almost outspent the incumbent Democratic Governor. The RGA also outspent the DGA in that race despite them having an incumbent running again.
https://www.elec.nj.gov/publicinformation/gub_spendtotals.htm
2021 Governor General Election:
Phil Murphy Spent $16.4m
Jack Ciattarelli Spent $15.8m
https://www.elec.nj.gov/pdffiles/press_releases/pr_2021/pr_11242021.pdf
2021 Governor General Election:
RGA Spent $3.8m
DGA Spent $2.3m
“Independent” groups are what saved Murphy that year because he got $21.2m out of the $28.3m total spent by them. Every other sign from campaign cash showed the GOP competitive and like I said, if it’s competitive, parties invest in it. Otherwise, they don’t.
I’m also a little confused about the vote by mail implications…which Gov race was that? 2017?
I think the reference is to the massively expanded VBM only option that we employed as a state in 2020. Every voter was mailed a ballot. Was clerking in trial court at the time and had election day challenge duty. Anyone that tried to vote in person on election day had to cast a provisional ballot iirc. Democratic turnout in Jersey has eroded massively since that election.
I've been thinking about Ken Martin's tenure as DNC chair and I'm actually worried he'll be pushed out. Not because of any real attachment to him, mind you, but because I suspect those who want him out (largely donors at this point) will not replace him with someone like Ben Wikler -- they'll replace him with someone like Rahm Emanuel or a similar neoliberal/Clinton-like Dem who will actively try to tip the scales for centrists in Dem primaries, among other possible outcomes.
Thoughts?
“As do you” — not appreciating the implied personal attack. Please keep the focus on politics.
Woah, enough with the hostility! I was under the impression that the DNC is involved in political campaigns to an extent that makes this on-topic. If it is not, I will knock it off. Please stop with the needless aggressive personal attacks.
What the hell? Are you alleging I'm a bot?
Where is your evidence? My username was "techno" (from my love of electronic music) and "00" (my birth year). I don't give out my name on the internet (besides Facebook) because I don't want to be located by anyone.
What is with the personal attacks? Seriously, knock it off!
EDIT: And how am I anti-Dem? I have made it crystal clear that I vote Dem in every election. I voted for Sean Patrick Maloney and I hated him. I am most assuredly not "anti-Dem", otherwise I'd be an independent.
But didn't they say that the DNC shouldn't be actively tipping the scales in primaries? /s
The donors who probably want him out forgot or ignore that he mentored Ben Wikler, the one guy that Pelosi and Schumer wanted. Wikler is a fantastic guy in terms of GOTV campaigns and fundraising, but most of the things he did in WI are what he learned from Martin.
If Dems make bigger gains than expected next year, they won't get rid of Ken.
I don’t think we should automatically assume the mentor is better than the mentee just because they were taught everything they know by them. Ben Wikler knows how to run in today’s America with media strategies that consistently keeps our base motivated. Ken Martin is very good at winning Minnesota with the DFL as a boost the party doesn’t get anywhere else in the country.
I’m still in wait and see mode. Party and public branding wise he’s done terrible with, but elections wise we’ve had a lot of good results. Is it the case he’s a workhorse who knows how to do all the important behind the scenes work everywhere who is terrible in public/party branding?
Or is it a mirage where his capabilities begin and end with MN with that specific brand and Democrats have more to gain in special elections from Trump’s second term than the first because Democrats fell further in 2024 than in 2016 giving an illusion of party gains under his stewardship?
I think either can be fairly argued. All I know for sure is that Wikler’s stewardship of Wisconsin has led it to having the highest party fundraising year after year, in election year cycles and out of them as well as locking up the State Supreme Court for us in a state Trump won twice that used to be controlled for decades by the GOP. He also re-elected Tammy Baldwin in an extremely difficult year for our party.
My take is that the importance of DNC/RNC chair is way overhyped. Martin or Wikler or anyone else doesn't have the ability to force members of congress and governors to have a consistent message.
The role isn't impotent but the power and importance are oversold. Their biggest job is fundraising and managerial. With the power of super PACs today, along with the strength of small dollar fundraising for individual candidates, power has shifted away from the central party apparatuses.
I don’t agree at all. It’s overhyped up until the party has the right person in the position. Most of the time both parties have placeholders, so yeah, it’s overhyped a lot of the time, but not always.
For example I don’t think any of us Democrats can argue against Reince Priebus being one of the best party chairs ever for the GOP in terms of fundraising and his win/loss election record over his tenure. Republicans almost had 2/3rds of the states completely under their control. If that isn’t a sign of competency and a good party chair, I don’t know what would count.
Just because it’s a useless position because we have the wrong people running it doesn’t mean it can’t be an incredible and powerful tool for our party to use if the organization is utilized properly and to the full extent of its capabilities. Every political organization can become a difference maker, but only if the people leading it make it one.
The goal of the party chair is party/public branding, fundraising and winning elections. All of those are key ingredients to gain power.
How much of republican gains during Priebus' years were because of him and how much of it was because we held the presidency for two terms during a slog of an economic recession at a time when blue collar white voters were leaving us in droves? The trend for the latter having started in full force before Priebus took the RNC chair in 2011.
This is a classic case of assuming causation due to correlation.
I would suggest comparing RNC vs DNC fundraising during these periods despite Democrats holding power to further understand the difference a good party chair can make.
Rahm Emanuel won't be chosen since he would trigger fierce reactions, being one of the top enemies of the left over the past two decades.
What is your rationale for this? I've not heard anything about this anywhere.
I've seen a number of articles talking about Ken Martin and his management of the DNC being poor.
https://apnews.com/article/democratic-national-committee-trump-meeting-ken-martin-3e605c6441f69de360e83e6aaf36f393
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/18/us/politics/dnc-ken-martin.html
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/25/politics/dnc-ken-martin-finances
The Emanuel part is my own personal concern. If not him specifically, my fear is it will be someone like him.
So let me get this straight:
Ken Martin is struggling to win over the donors to the Democratic Party but at the same time Democrats are winning lots of races this year, especially in Iowa. More so than even back in 2017, namely special election races?
Former DNC Chair Jaime Harrison mentioned in article #1 you shared that in 2017 Democrats struggled for months to get on it as far as donations. This came when Tom Perez was at the helm of the DNC. Then the NJ and VA elections got won by Democrats and the midterms gave Democrats major mojo in House races as well as gubernatorial wins. And Biden won the 2020 presidential election while Perez was still DNC Chair?
What are these donors really complaining about? More importantly, why don’t they show us any of them can be the DNC Chair if they really want this badly to fight back in Trump?
So the donors apparently forgot that Ken Martin was elected as DNC Chair and not anointed?
What do they want? Power?
HI-01:
https://www.kitv.com/news/politics/hawaii-rep-della-au-belatti-announces-plans-to-run-for-congress/article_c2247f97-c101-4cd1-9aa5-77e430f46ca6.html
That makes two Ed Case primary challengers. State Rep. Della Au Belatti is in as a Dem. Not sure of ideology but she seems to be arguing that Case isn't fighting enough.
Well, it’s not news that Case isn’t fighting enough.
Agreed.
Didn't mention this when it happened so I might as well shoot now.
PA-10:
https://www.politicspa.com/dalton-enters-pa-10-contest-against-perry/144340/
GOP Rep. Scott Perry has a primary challenger from the center. GOP State House staff attorney Karen Lynn Dalton is challenging Perry, arguing he is too close to Trump.
Good luck with that. Anti-Trump candidates don't fare too well in the modern GOP.
I’m totally ok with him being hit from the left by a Republican in the primary to then immediately follow being hit by the left by a Democrat in the general election. Whatever it takes to make the GOP incumbent bloody, bruised and broke. This is good for us regardless of how much of the vote they get.
If she runs, makes a bit of a name for herself, and then endorses the Democrat in the general election, then this could help flip the seat. But maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.
Even if she just dings Perry without coming close to winning, that's helpful to us, especially as Perry isn't operating with much room for error, having won by just 2% last time in an environment redder than 2026 is likely to be.
CA-07, CA-22:
https://x.com/WorkingFamilies/status/1968710393456443873
https://x.com/CA_WFP/status/1947340973815538152/photo/1
The California Working Families Party is backing Sacramento City Councillor Mai Vang in her primary challenge to Dem Rep. Doris Matsui.
They're also backing Visalia school board trustee Randy Villegas in his challenge to GOP Rep. David Valadao.
KS-Gov if Republicans fail at their mid decade efforts this time around feel pretty certain they will try again in 27 if they get a compliant governor. Curious what are chances are here with Kelly termed out.
Honestly, if we lose that race by 10, it would probably be a good result for us. 3 terms for one party almost never happens because voters get tired of the incumbent (especially true in red states with blue governors). In a still conservative state, we don’t have much of a chance after Laura Kelly had 2 terms. I’m thankful we had a Democratic Governor at all in the first place and who managed to flip the State Supreme Court over her 2 terms for the next GOP trifecta to be reigned in by.
If a Republican had held the Governorship these last 8 years I’d put it closer to 50/50 of winning it in a Trump midterm. But partisanship is working massively against us in that red state. This isn’t what I want to happen obviously and we should fight to win, but we should also be very clear on how low are chances are in this race barring a Kobach/Brownback type GOP nominee.
I pretty much agree, hopefully the courts can step in if this is the case in 27.
My only wish right now is that all Kelly appointees to the court stay on for the next 10 years minimum to block any stupidity/shenanigans the Republicans try. No early resignations for any reason, we can’t afford that with 1 Democratic seat at stake.
Seems like two of them are up for retention next year (one in a special) and the rest of the court in 2028. Both of Sebelius's remaining appointees do have to leave by 2028 but if Kelly's survive retention, they youngest could be there until 2037.
Not surprised that NC GOP bootlicker Dave Boliek appointed Dallas Woodhouse to lead the so-called "election integrity" efforts for NC State Board of Elections, ie do everything to suppress legally cast votes made by Dems or left-leaning independents. (The only reason it's known is because it got leaked.)
https://www.wral.com/story/former-ncgop-director-to-oversee-election-boards-lead-state-election-integrity-efforts-says-nc-auditor/22175491/
MO-01:
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/government-politics/article_69f027dc-ed6b-4f2d-a6bb-7bdbadfa9f4e.html
Former Rep. Cori Bush is prepping a comeback against Rep. Wesley Bell, who had primaried her.
Make of this what you will.
While I am probably more in line with Bush politically than Bell, she has more of a volatile presence than even someone like Rashida Tlaib so I'm not sure this will go well for her.
On Bluesky people were pissed at Bush and Bell both because the two appeared at an event with Sen. Josh Hawley. I distinctly remember one comment joking about wanting a primary where they both lose.
With regard to bombthrower types, if the GOP can have Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, we can afford a Cori Bush.
A STL-based friend noted that Hawley had been instrumental in getting the funds related to that event (funds for those exposed to nuclear waste radiation in Missouri), funds Bush had championed while in the House (and for some reason Bell opposed), which is why Hawley and Bush seemed so friendly at it.
I don't agree with that. We can, yes. Should we, no. Some of her politics injures the party's standing, in my opinion, and is not required to be a socialist. But after seeing that assault by Wesley's bodyguards, I think he's worse.
And Greene and Boebert's don't hurt the GOP? Yet they keep winning anyway.
I'm of the opinion that this political "high ground" mentality is not helping us. We refuse to do things to be better than the GOP, then the GOP does them and eats our lunch. This leads to things like the Dems who are against gerrymandering California. At some point we're going to have to accept that this is all politics in the end, and politics sometimes is dirty. The alternative is not being a democracy anymore.
What about her politics do you dislike specifically?
Well, we have to avoid a topic, but other than that (and for the record, I mostly agree with her positions on that topic, but with an important exception), she has consistently supported "defunding" the police, and this is from the Wikipedia article about her:
"Bush advocated defunding the United States Armed Forces during her campaign. After receiving criticism from California Representative Kevin McCarthy and a St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial, Bush clarified that she supported reallocating defense funding to healthcare and low-income communities."
It's a big problem for the party when people choose wrong phrasings that are perfect for Republican attack ads. Also:
On August 5, 2021, Bush defended spending tens of thousands of dollars on personal security for herself as a member of Congress while also saying Democrats should defund the police, saying, "I get to be here to do the work, so suck it up—and defunding the police has to happen. We need to defund the police."[50][51][52] On November 5, 2021, Bush was one of six House Democrats to break with their party and vote with a majority of Republicans against the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act because it was not accompanied by the Build Back Better Act.[53]
Separating IIJA from BBBA was clearly a stupid idea and is the whole reason Manchin/Sinema were able to logjam it for months so it got watered down to IRA. A rare moment where Jayapal really knew what she was doing, and I wish she could have marshaled enough of CPC to say they'd vote against it without the rec bill moving to keep Pelosi from even moving it to the floor just because Biden was pressuring her to whip it.
Wesley Bell's bodyguard assaulted and punched Jewish women For Peace group's protestors who staged a protest at his townhall leading to Bush mulling a comeback according to Ryan Grim's reporting a few weeks back. But I don't know if she is the right person to primary Bell.
https://www.facebook.com/trtworld/videos/st-louis-police-and-security-forces-violently-assaulted-pro-palestine-protesters/779450791289399/
well damn
Yeah - Bell needs to be primaried - that townhall alone is disqualifying. He’s a hack and not a particularly likable one at that.
Was anyone arrested? They need to press charges. Felonious assault!
We don't even know what caused it. The video conveniently starts with the bodyguard trying to drag her out of the venue. I say it's possible she rushed the stage first.
They refused to leave private property.
Ethan thinks that’s an instant capital offense.
"Conveniently"? Are you implying they would remove content in a manipulative manner? That's a hell of an assumption to make off no footage.
Yes, I would. I encountered this before with a 2009 college incident with Mike Tracey (yes, the famous political contrarian Mike Tracey). We were in the College Democrats together and we attended an Ann Coulter guest speech in the auditorium so we could do a walkout. He stayed behind to do a gonzo interview with Coulter while she was autographing books at the end. He tried to rush up to get a surprise interview, but security nabbed him and pinned him to the ground. He misrepresented what he did to us all and we took him at his word, going by footage showing him pinned down. We then heard from more witnesses that he did indeed try to rush at Coulter and we realized over time he was a bit of a liability and a drama queen.
What happened to cause the confrontation? It's missing crucial context. For all we know, the protestor tried to bum rush the Congressman.
They refused to leave private property.
I guess they got multiple warnings they were trespassing then?
Is that a reason to punch someone?
We haven't seen the full incident. I haven't seen any punching. Pulling someone out by the collar (until the woman's cohorts block the bodyguard) and shoving seems to be all that's happening in the vid.
I'm in the same boat as you. Also it's plain hard to take out an incumbent in a primary without some negative story bearing over them. Has Bell done anything to attract negative attention she needs?
Look at the link PollJunkie posted above, not sure if that would be enough of an ongoing to story to affect the primary though.
Good.
Oh brother!
Early voting data from Virginia governors race is not looking encouraging for Democrats based on ballots returned by district. Republican districts dominate highest responses while almost all lowest response districts are Dem
https://www.vpap.org/visuals/visual/early-voting-by-house-district-nov-2025/