I am curious, does anyone have suggestions for additional undeclared Democratic "dream candidates" for any other potentially-winnable Senate races? (I know we’ve talked about Janet Mills in Maine, with reservations about her advanced age...)
With the exception of Maine, we've really landed top-tier candidates in all the races that are likely to be competitive. I don't know that any of the other seats are "potentially-winnable". But we're still waiting for Peltola in Alaska (who sounds more likely to run for Governor), and things could get interesting with John Bel Edwards in Louisiana and Doug Jones in Alabama. I'd love for us to land a solid recruit in Montana as well.
I think Alabama and Louisiana are too far gone. But I still believe Florida isn't, although there doesn't appear to be any big fishes there. Peltoa would be a big fish.
If New Orleans weren't continuing to decline it wouldn't be. Unfortunately it is and other cities like Baton Rouge and Shreveport can't and won't make up for that.
A state is only "too far gone" if there is not an effective candidate. Texas was considered "too far gone," but Beta O'Rourke ran strong campaigns twice, and even though he did not win, he has lit a fire that continues to spread. We need candidates everywhere who will take the message to the voters. Getting attention in a red-dominated state is the first step. I say that as someone who lives in ostensibly red Indiana.
Dream team not announced yet (only in terms of strongest candidate/s in each red state, not whether I think they even have a slight chance of winning nor whether I think they’d actually run):
AK - Former Congresswoman Mary Peltola or State Senator Scott Kawasaki
AL - Former Senator Doug Jones
AR - Former Governor Mike Beebe or State Senator Clarke Tucker
FL - Former Congresswoman Gwen Graham, Former Congresswoman Stephanie Murphy or Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava
ID - The Republican AG who ran as a Democrat for Attorney General and got 40% of the vote.
LA - Former Governor John Bel Edwards
KS - Governor Laura Kelly or Congresswoman Sharice Davids
KY - Governor Beshear or former State Senator Rocky Adkins
MS - Former Public Service Commissioner North/Gubernatorial nominee Brandon Presley
MT - Former Governor Steve Bullock, Former Senator Jon Tester or Former Governor Brian Schweitzer
OK - Former Republican Superintendent/Former Gubernatorial nominee Joy Hofmeister or Former Governor Drew Edmondson
SC - Former Congressman Joe Cunningham
SD - Former State Senator/Former Gubernatorial nominee Billie Sutton
TN - Former Congressman Jim Cooper
WV Former Senator Joe Manchin
WY - Nobody would probably be a better nominee than any named Democrat. That or Former Congresswoman Liz Cheney.
I don't want Joe Manchin to make a comeback. He and that smug Krysten Sinema kneecapped or watered down a lot of progressive Biden proposals. Give me a 51-52 Dem majority that wants to increase the minimum wage, reform the federal judicial system and eliminate partisan gerrymandering.
I would love to see Joe Manchin make a comeback in West Virginia! For the simple reason that he might make the difference between gaining a Democratic majority or not gaining it. Moreover, while I have little love for him, Manchin was/is better than Jim Justice, his Republican successor.
Manchin didn't run for Senate again because he knew he couldn't win, even with his track record of blocking key Democratic legislation. Manchin has controlled the Democratic party in West Virginia for too long. It is time for others to step up and make their mark by helping the coal miners who Manchin voted against helping even though their union was begging him to support the legislation that would have helped with training for different jobs as well as healthcare for black lung.
One thing to consider is that running ex-Governors for Senate historically hasn't always worked. See: Phil Bredesen, Steve Bullock, Larry Hogan, Linda Lingle, etc.
Thompson wasn’t even a Tea Party Republican and ran in an election year, 2012, where he made a flip flop on cutting Medicare and Obama was running for re-election.
I think the standards voters expect out of governors are different than what they look for in those serving in the Senate.
That said, Senators John Hickenlooper, John Warner and Tim Kaine previously were Governors. They made the transition to the Senate quite well and have had no problem winning their Senate elections (except with Warner in his close Senate race vs 2014 but that was when he was serving his first term).
I mean, there’s definitely new blood with promising political potential in every state legislature, but if I have to choose between untested young politician, vs has actually won older politician in red states as to who is a stronger candidate, imo it’s the old guys.
I also don’t feel like searching up 15 state legislatures and going through hundreds of Democrats to figure out how their district voted in order to give you a list of newer representatives who could theoretically be strong candidates.
If you want to do that though and share with us your findings I’m sure we’d all appreciate you taking out the time and effort to do so!
The Substack, Strength in Numbers, is actually putting together an interesting model on electability that would be worth checking out. That model just launched.
Appreciate the additions! I admit the rockbed red states I don’t have a wide enough depth of knowledge about in regards to their Democratic politicians and was mostly just choosing the most recent elected Democrats or the over performance statewide Democrats for these states.
Surprised Montana hasn't gotten more traction in discussion. Schweitzer will be 71 next fall, fwiw. Bullock will be 61.
SC. The dream candidate is Stephen Colbert. Shaheen was defeated by his own district. Cunningham ran a terrible campaign for Gov. Bakari Sellers or Jamie Harrison would still be better than both those two, and they would not be good. Annie Andrews is running, and as a woman and a pediatrician in a state that now charges women for felony desecration of a corpse when they've had a miscarriage at home at 18 weeks, she could break through. (You can look up the ref, happened in Florence.)
Bullock seems pretty done with electoral politics, and had to be dragged into the Senate race in 2020 (to his great credit he gave it a hell of an effort). If anything I could see him trying for the Governorship again in 2028 or seeking a cabinet role.
In the second paragraph of the Indiana redistricting it says: "Two represent potentially competitive legislative districts in the Indianapolis suburbs." Wasn't sure if this was a mistype or if I'm missing something....
Per IA-Sen: I have nothing against bipartisanship and think it's a good thing, but why would you launch your campaign by saying you're going to "work across the aisle?" If voters want a candidate who will work with republicans, they can just vote for republicans. It feels like dems are scared to take a strong position on anything, so they fall back to "finding common ground" and other platitudes. You can be bipartisan and have strong beliefs on certain issues, like Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Right to Repair. But Josh Turek has a solid record holding down a competitive seat, so maybe I'm being too critical.
The proof is in the pudding imo. If a Democrat can win a competitive seat, they’re obviously doing something right. That said, I agree with you it’s very unlikely that argument at this point in time under these circumstances will at all be persuasive to Democratic primary voters.
His path is basically consolidating the chunk of electorate that prioritizes winning above anything else, but even that argument is hard to make given the massive field of eminently electable candidates running already. Since he holds a swing seat, I hope he abandons his campaign a few months in after not getting much traction and runs for re-election instead.
I feel like I’ve been screaming into the ether for years now, but we’ve got to stop trying to win from the top down and instead build small from the bottom up. It doesn’t work just putting a competitive campaign at the top without building the bench and political infrastructure ant the lower levels underneath. Republicans figured this out decades ago and it’s well past time for us to copy them by investing big down ballot first.
It takes many years for the payoff to come, but when it does, it sticks. How many former blue states are now bright red and how did it happen? Well it took decades of sizable investments in state legislatures, city councils and every lever of power while Democrats were winning at the top. Then they pulled those lower ballot candidates to run for the top races after seasoning themselves as politicians. Now Democrats can’t win these states.
Pretty clear what needs to happen, but will the party actually follow through on a promise of a payout decades from now instead of trying to win 1 race at the top? I doubt that very much sadly.
I'd like to see if there's ever a Republican running for Congress who says they're going to "reach across the aisle to work with Democrats". Let's just stop pretending at this point. How many voters does that actually work on?
If they're not trying that in D+ constituencies, they're missing their chance, and in fact, Republicans like Fitzgerald and Collins do make bipartisan gestures for local consumption.
I, too, am turned off by any Democratic candidate talking about reaching across the aisles and being bipartisan because it is the Republicans who refuse to reach across the aisle and pass bipartisan legislation. There was a bipartisan bill to start immigration reform, and the Republicans killed it. Republicans only talk about bipartisan when they are out of power.
See, this is one of those fairly obvious cases of a push poll designed to backup a narrative they want to be true.
First of all, why would they not poll the Democrat by name who is the actual elected mayor instead of generic Democrat? Secondly I’d bet a large chunk of those “generic Republican” supporters do vote for Deegan as the incumbent. Thirdly, Trump is president now, so it’s far more likely voters want a check on his party instead of another greenlight rubber stamp.
The only thing this poll tells us is that our national party image is so far in the toilet, we might as well be the sewer. We already knew this, so that doesn’t tell us much.
Also Gorsuch is a lefty on LGBT rights, Kavanaugh and Roberts are institutionalists and will probably also just leave it in place to not piss people off. VRA Section 2 is doa.
Gorsuch wrote Bostock but he also wrote Masterpiece Cake Shop. He is decidedly *not* a lefty on LGBT rights, he just occasionally sides with us when it lines up with his judicial philosophy.
Kim Davis has ASKED the SCOTUS to reverse the Obergefell decision. However they have yet to decide whether to take it -- it's entirely possible they could decline to take it up via their shadow docket.
I think this is the most likely outcome. The conservative bloc might realize the votes aren't there to overturn Obergefell, and they don't want to reinforce a precedent.
Also, Obergefell is kind of a moot point now that DOMA was repealed and replaced with ROMA.
However, it's also possible that Roberts will want to pursue a narrower ruling that throws the Kim Davis types a bone--not outright repeal, but acknowledging that the state cannot force an employee to act against their strongly held religious beliefs, or some other BS like that.
And they need three judges to agree to hear it. Alito and Clarence Thomas would agree to rehear it, but I don't think any of Trump's SCOTUS picks would.
Roberts and friends like to make decisions that more or less get them what they want ideologically but avoid the worst headlines.
That in mind, I think on the VRA they will find some narrow ruling that keeps the VRA legally extant while also hobbling it substantially enough to not make too much of a distinction.
For Obergefell they would rather punt than anything else I think. They saw the damage Dobbs did to their party electorally and unlike abortion ending gay marriage is not currently a core identity of the conservative movement. If they can delay the consequences until later they will. Maybe they'll let Kim Davis off the hook for the fines.
The VRA case likely depends on Kavanaugh. He joined in upholding the creation of a second AA district in Alabama two years ago. But wrote a squeamish concurrence.
VA Rs are going to get an electoral spanking and early voting doesn't start for another month. I bet there will be lines of angry voters come September 19th and on Election Day proper.
The last time a Democrat won the Governorship here by double digits was in 1985 with Gerald Baliles. Fun factoid: that election also saw Doug Wilder elected (barely) as LG, and Mary Sue Terry as AG, THE first time the Old Dominion elected an African American and woman to statewide office.
It’s kind of hard to not think that the “S” word may even come into play in November, which is crazy to think about. At least for the hopeful trifecta, most of the thorns in our side Democrats have been replaced in the State Senate after losing primaries, so they should be able to get a lot done over the next 2 years.
It’s ok, I wasn’t very clear, but I’ve seen VA election analysts use that phrasing before. “Supermajority” is the word I was talking about. And if I said “SM” instead, well, that’d raise a lot of eyebrows I’d guess lol.
I think Chaz Nuttycombe said that VA Democrats have a 15% chance of achieving a supermajority in the House of Delegates this year, but way better chance to expand upon their bare majority from 2023.
I was about to post this. They endorsed Reid for LG and Miyares for AG, but not Sears for Governor. This is NOTHING to scoff at. BTW, the Old Dominion's next Governor's - knock on wood - name is Spanberger.
Is that a jab at the left because Hashmi won? I don't think it would have mattered who was the LG candidate. Sears just happened to be a shockingly awful GOP candidate with close to zero chance of winning. In addition, both Rouse and Stoney are black, and unfortunately that probably would have been a motivating factor for a Southern police union endorsement anyway.
In this case the PBA stands for Police Benevolent Association. My first thought was Professional Bowlers Assn. but that doesn't make any sense.
While on sports stuff, the IA-Sen race now has a basketball player as well as a baseball guy (Scholten). Shouldn't there also be a footballer and a hockey player?
It will be nice in a few months when Attorney General MAGA Miyares will lose his career and no longer be in elected office. He never should have won in the first place, but at least voters know now how terrible he is and how much taxpayer money he’s cost voters on fruitless lawsuits in the name of MAGA.
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) at the ILDCCA Brunch: "The biggest crime scene that hurts everyday Americans in Washington, DC right now is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That's the crime scene that we need to clean up!" AMEN!
I attended the last two brunches of theirs prior to this one.
For many years until the last few years, the ILDCCA was effectively doing what the Democratic Party of Illinois should have been doing: be the state party arm of the Democratic Party.
This has changed, however, and the DPI is a serious organization.
After years of calling Clinton a "socialist" , Gingrich agrees that he was a moderate and he liked Clinton's "Democrat party" rather than the "big government socialist" party of Warren and Mamdani.
I look forward to reading Gringrich's obituary when the time comes. He's done a lot to radicalize the GOP alongside Mitch McConnell and that convicted felon.
If Republicans were doing as well as Newt says in the second piece, hardly any reason to do mid-decade redistricting in states like Indiana. GOP about to learn a lot about polls and "trends" in 2026.
I don’t know why voters expressed so much more concern about Biden than Trump. I range from infuriated to befuddled depending on the day.
But Democrats are much older in the House then Republicans which not only hurts when we have members die in office (3 this year, all less then 6 months from November’s election). The Senate is about the same. The problem is that it isn’t our Senators vs theirs, it’s Schumer (old, boring, predictable) vs Trump, a great showman, propped on top of a fantastic propaganda network.
I think we should learn the lessons of 2024 but not over-learn them. Biden is old, but it was a career-ending liability because he had a really hard time speaking in public. Cooper is 12 years younger than him and he's running for the Senate, not President. Brown is 8 years younger and just ran a vigorous campaign. Biden would probably be fine in the Senate right now if we're being realistic, POTUS is just a uniquely brutal job that requires constant public maintenance of your image which he just wasn't up to. If we have a popular former governor who is 68 or 72 or even 76 we can run them for the Senate as long as they don't actively present as being too old for the job.
But I think our issues are larger than just Biden. Senator Feinstein had this multi-decade career of distinction yet stayed well past her ability to lead. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an awesome Supreme Court Justice. Maybe it would have behooved her to retire at 80. That would still have been 30 years on the Supreme Court! We have 14 Senators age 73+. 13 Reps of 80 and 56 over 70. Currently Schumer is embarrassing himself every time he speaks in public. No move that we know of to remove him from leadership and ask him to announce his retirement.
Both parties have this problem, and Democrats have it worse. And since Americans all over the political spectrum say our politicians are old and out of touch, maybe Democrats should be more rigorous about new leadership.
You don't have to persuade this New York that Schumer sucks and we could do better, but what do you mean about him "embarrassing himself every time he speaks in public"?
I want candidates who have a fighting chance of flipping the Senate either next year or in 2028 -- if it's 60-70 year old candidates, so be it. Flipping the House next year would be a big thing in stopping FDJT's vengeance tour, but flipping the Senate keeps him from confirming more unqualified candidates like Bove as a lifetime federal judge.
I disagree. As great as Jeff Jackson may be, he should not be on the ballot again until 2028. If he runs for another office sooner than that, Republicans will attack him for job hopping.
That's what I mean. If by some miracle Ds flip back the Senate next year, the momentum is going to be on Jeff Jackson's side (plus the presidential year) to run against MAGA Senator Ted Budd in 2028.
I think we keep him for Budd in 2028, which will be a really tough race. Nickel will probably slot into his AG spot and Stein can run for either of the Senate seats if we lose in 26 or 28.
Nope. When people decide the economy sucks, your party is going to lose. No Democrat was going to win with an electorate that decided #1. the economy sucks and #2. COVID NEVER happened. We do ourselves no favors by pretending otherwise.
We probably would have seen something closer to that if the Republican candidate had been Reagan or, say, John Kasich. That said, despite the obsession with inflation, the economy was by no means as bad as either of those other years, and that was probably reflected in the margin, too.
I sort of agree. I do not think Biden's age was the inciting problem for him.
I do think that once Biden had a problem, which is more or less inevitable for any president, that his age became an enduring issue that would not go away. A lot of inflation issues had started to improve meaningfully early enough to impact the election, but by that point Biden as "too old" had cemented itself into the electorate and would not go away. Then the debate happened and the bottom fell out.
A younger president could have used things improving and maybe turned this around.
It's Afghanistan. Biden ran on competency and the Afghanistan withdrawal completely undermined that narrative. His poll numbers tanked and never recovered. Age and inflation played a part in hindering any sort of comeback, but the die was cast in August 2021.
Most voters aren't all that tuned in to foreign policy; I've always felt that the resurgence of covid in summer 2021 was the beginning of the end for Biden. (Like it or not, he was voted into office largely to "end" the pandemic.) Covid was also the reason Youngkin won in Virginia and Murphy significantly underperformed in New Jersey.
The resurgence of covid coincided with the Afghanistan withdrawal and was certainly a compounding factor in Biden's poll drop. Both factors speak to "incompetency". I'll agree to disagree on which one is more important 😊
Republicans certainly made sure they were tuned in for that but of foreign policy. It certainly hurt him. Afghanistan, inflation, immigration and his age/infirmity walloped the heck out of Biden.
Even if Biden had been deemed a good manager by voters for the first three years of his Presidency, I think he still would have had an age perception problem based on what we saw in that last year. The Biden we saw on that debate stage would have showed up elsewhere in 2024, and even if he'd had a 55% approval rating, it's hard to imagine voters wouldn't have balked at reelecting "that guy".
I think if he had gone his term without any issues, no one complaining, basically the utopian few years, that he could have gotten away with it. Not because voters would forgive him having such a terrible debate that put his age on such unfortunate display. Instead because voters would forgive him not doing much of anything in public in order to hide that.
That's basically what Reagan did for 1984, isn't it?
Yes, but Reagan also put his acting training to good use, so even when he didn't know what the fuck he was talking about, he played the role of a good-natured grandpa. Biden truly was one, but Reagan's "aw, shucks" act was different.
Biden was NEVER as popular as Reagan was. Reagan - and I say this as the son of a man who LEFT the Republican Party due to him - was a political phenomenon who essentially only appears once every generation. He had more than one quarter century of right wing activism, was twice elected Governor of the most populous US state, and won the 1980 election with 44 states.
Biden BARELY won the 2020 Presidential Election and served for 36 years as the US Senate of a great, but small state that many joke is an overgrown suburb of Philadelphia. His two runs for President were both disasters and he would have been relegated as being Senator for life from Delaware had Barack Obama not chosen him for VP. Without the Vice Presidency - and I say this as a long time admirer of his - he NEVER becomes President.
TLDR: Biden is not Reagan from an historical nor political perspective.
I know Biden was not as popular as Reagan. The whole point of my comment was my take on how it would play out in the hypothetical scenario where he was widely popular and had a trouble free first term.
You can be old and you can still be sharp. For example, Trump's gaffes and erratic behavior didn't go viral on social media before 2025 because they was less horrible compared to Biden. Biden's age and his subsequent advisor orchestrated hide from the spotlight also contributed to his many communication issues of his admin.
I live in Europe, and the one thing everyone here "knew" about the race was that Biden was old, Biden was senile to the point of incapacity, Biden couldn't string two words together. These memes were so pervasive they reached all over the world, and I think any denial that the "Biden old" meme contributed significantly to his likely loss is detached from reality. Obviously perceptions of the economy mattered too, but it wasn't the only thing.
The reality in American politics though is that in a Presidential election, the incumbent is ALWAYS on the ballot , even when his/her name is not. No matter whom Democrats nominated in 2024, we were still going to be expected to answer for the Biden administration.
I think a Governor could have run on Biden’s successes without like Harris being so closely related to his failures. It was still a close election. We’re only talking about flipping 1/100 people from Trump to the Democratic nominee.
Might have held the PA Senate seat without Biden baggage especially the since that they lied to everyone about it
Nope. The "outsider" or "change" argument NEVER works when you're the incumbent party. No matter whom you nominate. If it did, William Jennings Bryan wins the 1896 election and John McCain the 2008 election. Both candidates were running to succeed unpopular Presidents from their own party. Both candidates were essentially everything the man they were trying to succeed was not. Nobody cared.
I am one of the biggest proponents here of our party moving towards younger candidates and officials, that we need new blood. That said, rigid adherence to a preference is not a sound strategy. We need to know when to be flexible, and both states are cases where that applies.
Cooper is by far our strongest candidate in North Carolina. He is at least a full tier upgrade over our next best options, and since our last federal statewide win in NC was in 2008, we should pursue every advantage we can get.
For Ohio this is even more stark. Brown isn't merely our strongest candidate. He is realistically our only credible candidate. Without him our chances of winning the seat nose dive. He's old but should have enough years in him to run in 2026 and 2028. He should be too old for a strong campaign in 2034, but it's better to win the seat now and lose it later than it is to never hold it at all.
I’m just concerned that we have old politicians and old big donors who have forgotten to a 20 year old that 40 is old and they are ancient. Hence they look to the impressive resume and might not see that the charisma and the activity has dropped.
But yeah, with Brown and Cooper they were both the obvious first choice.
I get it, and for the majority of seats I am completely on board. I was immensely relieved when Shaheen announced her retirement. I'm stressed that Markey is running again, even if he is awesome he's also absolutely ancient and risks a primary from an infinitely worse Auchincloss. King and Sanders both should have retired last year. I don't care how much people love Bernie he's ancient and the governor is a republican; it was a needless, stupid risk. Welch running to become a senate freshman in his 70s was frustrating. Etc. etc.
I am 100% on board with wishing our elected officials would start to retire and allow younger candidates to replace them. It wasn't that long ago that the US would regularly elect people to senate or governor in their 40s or even younger. Now it really stands out when it does happen.
I’ve been relieved that at least in IL Durbin, Schakowsky and Davis all announced their retirements and did it before the petition collecting period started. And maybe Smith and Peters retiring in their 60s!!!! will start a trend.
This cycle is the absolute best time for any swing state senator over 60 to consider retirement. With six year terms it's not often that everything lines up to make it a good cycle for your party more likely than not. Peters is 66; by the time the next midterm comes around he would be 79 years old! And for all he knows that next midterm will be one that favors republicans, not democrats. Same story with Smith at 67.
Illinois retirements have been nice. I wish Warner, Hickenlooper, and Reed were retiring too; they'll be in their late 70s by 2032 and we have a decent enough bench in their states. Reed will actually be in his 80s by then.
I think you're not old enough to remember when the Democratic chairmen of most House and Senate committees were Southerners in their 80s and 90s. Look up John Stennis, as one example. So I really don't think the number of really old members of Congress is nearly as great now as it was then (through the 80s or so).
GA Sec. of State Brad Raffensberger has hinted he could seek the GOP nomination for either Governor or Senator. Given his reputation among MAGA diehards, good luck.
Apparently State Rep. Ruwa Romman is considering running as a Dem. I like her, she's very progressive, but she unfortunately will likely not win in a state that's still red in large parts due to Islamophobia and anti-Arabism. I personally think Jason Esteves has a better shot.
David and Jeff are the arbiters here, not me. But my understanding is that the ban on the topic is broader than going into I/P and what is happening there and our opinions on it. The ban, as I understand, includes even the mention of candidates' stance on the topic and if/how it impacts them electorally.
Hence why when they mentioned it in the digest for a candidate the other week that they mentioned in the comments that they know it's weird that they banned something and then go over it in the digest, but the ban on it in comments stands.
I find this makes a lot of sense because it's a very easy emotional slope to go down: "Candidate 1 is harmed electorally because they agree with side A or B in I/P" can easily result in a mud fight in the comments about how it doesn't, shouldn't, about the influence of side A or B... People will be arguing I/P via the proxy of the electoral impact. It's easiest and best if we avoid it entirely.
This is correct. Please don't bring this topic up. At all. Whether you think you're "discussing" it or not. It leads to nothing but agony in the comments, and we simply don't have enough hours in the day to police such fights.
I would also like to see a ban on commenting on Biden's mental health and infirmities since most people here don't have training in psychiatry and medicine. And no, I'm not joking.
CA-Gov: Barbara Boxer is showing her increasing irrelevance in modern California. She went from endorsing Kounalakis to Antonio Villaraigosa !?! I have as much chance to be the next Governor as Antonio does, and I am not running. She should have switched to Atkins, Porter or Yee. It is time for the Golden State to elect our first woman Governor, not an ancient retread like Antonio who has drifted rightward over time.
The other surprise so far is that Steve Hilton is stronger in recent polling than Sheriff Bianco among the Repubs running. It is still a long way to the June primary, but it would be interesting to see the GOPs split their votes and allow an all-Dem runoff for Governor. That will help the GOP turnout to tank in the competitive House races...
I'm surprised he's even bothering. Villaraigosa was trounced in the 2018 first round and he's only become less relevant since then. He has no reason to assume he'd do better this time around. Is he a glutton for punishment?
I assume Boxer built up a working relationship with him when he was mayor and she was senator and that's the reason for her endorsement? It's the explanation that makes the most sense to me.
I don't think it would matter whoever she endorsed. People don't really pay attention to these sort of things anymore. (Unless they're a really top name politician, and then only a little.) Boxer's been out of office for seven years now and has done nothing to maintain a public profile since then, but rather has been focused on making as much money as possible. (She even briefly registered as an agent of the Chinese government, as part of her lobbying career, though reversed course when this got negative publicity.)
Talking about weird endorsements by irrelevant politicians: I heard on WINS radio this morning that former New York Governor Patterson decided to endorse Adams for reelection for New York Mayor after having endorsed Cuomo in the primary as the person most likely to stop Mamdani. He supposedly hesitated to endorse a felon for reelction but says it's the "right time." Patterson was always known as very progressive, but I guess he's gotten more conservative and his politics have gotten weird in his old age.
I was honestly surprised Hasen didn't expect SCOTUS to list the VRA case for fall argument. It was immediately clear that Kavanaugh and the other Republican justices want to move as fast as possible to avoid the (now thin) Purcell limitations and redistrict BEFORE 2026. It's incumbent on the Democratic justices to drag out the revision and editing process for their dissent(s) to avoid a decision being issued before the summer.
Do we have any poll between Susan Collins and Janet Mills? I have seen only comparative approval/favorability ratings, in which Mills scores far higher than the long-time senator.
NY-22 Julie Abbott was the strongest potential recruit for the Republicans and she's not running.
For now, that leaves John Salka, a 70 year old former Assemblyman from a red district that barely overlaps with the congressional district. As much I fear downballot R strength in these parts, this guy doesn't scare me at all.
There were very few (but they turned out to be very important) strong candidates recruited in 2024 to try to flip GOP seats and almost snuck Democrats a majority at the same time Trump won easily. Mannion was one of them along with Tran and Gillen.
Surprisingly none have drawn any strong Republican challengers yet, which is very odd for a first term incumbent when they’re most vulnerable. I think we all know why no one has stepped up to run given the political climate and challenges Trump and the GOP are facing, but there should be at least somebody to run for the party.
Crickets so far though from Republicans against the Democrats who flipped GOP seats in 2024.
I mean, Salka is a stronger candidate than Ann Marie Burkle in 2010. But Mannion is a stronger freshman than Maffei and there's a Republican in the White House.
On paper, sure, but he has zero reason to run for Congress. He's not an ideologue/true believer type, kind of like his predecessor Joanie Mahoney who also way overperformed presidential numbers, who eventually got herself appointed to lead the local SUNY hospital. That feels more like McMahon's path to me.
We’re told Gavin Newsom, the California Congressional Delegation, and the California Legislature will gather in Los Angeles tomorrow at 11:30AM for a high-profile press conference to officially launch California’s redistricting push.
I just love how Newsom and his press office mocked Trump's social media posts the past few days with posts written like FDJT's. He really gets under the convicted felon's skin.
I don't think it's surprising that the Court scheduled the Louisiana case for argument in October since the case is a holdover from last term.
I am curious, does anyone have suggestions for additional undeclared Democratic "dream candidates" for any other potentially-winnable Senate races? (I know we’ve talked about Janet Mills in Maine, with reservations about her advanced age...)
I don't know if Rocky Adkins has ruled out a run, but he would be a very strong candidate in Kentucky.
With the exception of Maine, we've really landed top-tier candidates in all the races that are likely to be competitive. I don't know that any of the other seats are "potentially-winnable". But we're still waiting for Peltola in Alaska (who sounds more likely to run for Governor), and things could get interesting with John Bel Edwards in Louisiana and Doug Jones in Alabama. I'd love for us to land a solid recruit in Montana as well.
I think Alabama and Louisiana are too far gone. But I still believe Florida isn't, although there doesn't appear to be any big fishes there. Peltoa would be a big fish.
If New Orleans weren't continuing to decline it wouldn't be. Unfortunately it is and other cities like Baton Rouge and Shreveport can't and won't make up for that.
Yes but LA Democratic voter turnout is still subpar. At least from those living in LA have argued in DKE and The Downballot in previous discussions.
Win or lose, Democrats still need to turn out in LA.
That's more or less true in every state. Even turnout in Minnesota could be better.
A state is only "too far gone" if there is not an effective candidate. Texas was considered "too far gone," but Beta O'Rourke ran strong campaigns twice, and even though he did not win, he has lit a fire that continues to spread. We need candidates everywhere who will take the message to the voters. Getting attention in a red-dominated state is the first step. I say that as someone who lives in ostensibly red Indiana.
There isn't a candidate in the world who could win a U.S. Senate election for the Democrats in a whole bunch of states notably including Wyoming.
In the current status quo, that is true. However, it will never change if we do not make the effort.
Dream team not announced yet (only in terms of strongest candidate/s in each red state, not whether I think they even have a slight chance of winning nor whether I think they’d actually run):
AK - Former Congresswoman Mary Peltola or State Senator Scott Kawasaki
AL - Former Senator Doug Jones
AR - Former Governor Mike Beebe or State Senator Clarke Tucker
FL - Former Congresswoman Gwen Graham, Former Congresswoman Stephanie Murphy or Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava
ID - The Republican AG who ran as a Democrat for Attorney General and got 40% of the vote.
LA - Former Governor John Bel Edwards
KS - Governor Laura Kelly or Congresswoman Sharice Davids
KY - Governor Beshear or former State Senator Rocky Adkins
MS - Former Public Service Commissioner North/Gubernatorial nominee Brandon Presley
MT - Former Governor Steve Bullock, Former Senator Jon Tester or Former Governor Brian Schweitzer
OK - Former Republican Superintendent/Former Gubernatorial nominee Joy Hofmeister or Former Governor Drew Edmondson
SC - Former Congressman Joe Cunningham
SD - Former State Senator/Former Gubernatorial nominee Billie Sutton
TN - Former Congressman Jim Cooper
WV Former Senator Joe Manchin
WY - Nobody would probably be a better nominee than any named Democrat. That or Former Congresswoman Liz Cheney.
Great list! Great basis for detailed discussions!
Perhaps consider adding someone for Pennsylvania?
Thanks! Pennsylvania doesn’t have a Senate seat up in 2026 though?
You’re right. Far better to keep a laser focus on 2026!
I mean Connor Lamb is most definitely going to rematch Fetterman in 2028, right?
I don’t think so – but only because I doubt Fetterman seeks reelection.
Texas has elections for both governor and senator. The strongest candidates for either would be Joaquin Castro, Beto O'Rourke, and James Talarico.
Beto probably is a B-tier candidate at this point--he's now got a lot of baggage from his past campaigns.
I'm hopeful either Talarico or Castro will challenge Abbott.
Castro would get a lot of Latino support. Talarico is really solid though.
Castro has just as much baggage from his past campaign, no?
That was his twin brother, the former Mayor of San Antonio. Joaquin is the member of Congress who is still in the House of Reps.
Ah got it. He was talking about Joaquin and not Julian.
I don't want Joe Manchin to make a comeback. He and that smug Krysten Sinema kneecapped or watered down a lot of progressive Biden proposals. Give me a 51-52 Dem majority that wants to increase the minimum wage, reform the federal judicial system and eliminate partisan gerrymandering.
You'll never again have to worry about a Senator from West Virginia who only votes with the Democrats 80% of the time!
I would love to see Joe Manchin make a comeback in West Virginia! For the simple reason that he might make the difference between gaining a Democratic majority or not gaining it. Moreover, while I have little love for him, Manchin was/is better than Jim Justice, his Republican successor.
Manchin didn't run for Senate again because he knew he couldn't win, even with his track record of blocking key Democratic legislation. Manchin has controlled the Democratic party in West Virginia for too long. It is time for others to step up and make their mark by helping the coal miners who Manchin voted against helping even though their union was begging him to support the legislation that would have helped with training for different jobs as well as healthcare for black lung.
Sure, others should step up, but it won't have much effect.
I think Liz Cheney is a candidate with no chance of winning in Wyoming.
One thing to consider is that running ex-Governors for Senate historically hasn't always worked. See: Phil Bredesen, Steve Bullock, Larry Hogan, Linda Lingle, etc.
Add Tommy Thompson to that list. What a fiasco that campaign was!
Thompson wasn’t even a Tea Party Republican and ran in an election year, 2012, where he made a flip flop on cutting Medicare and Obama was running for re-election.
Yes, the skill set of a governor is different from that of a senator.
It is, but Techno00's point was that former governors usually fail to win senatorial elections, not how they perform in office when they do.
I think the standards voters expect out of governors are different than what they look for in those serving in the Senate.
That said, Senators John Hickenlooper, John Warner and Tim Kaine previously were Governors. They made the transition to the Senate quite well and have had no problem winning their Senate elections (except with Warner in his close Senate race vs 2014 but that was when he was serving his first term).
Long list of "formers"...no new blood on the horizon?
I mean, there’s definitely new blood with promising political potential in every state legislature, but if I have to choose between untested young politician, vs has actually won older politician in red states as to who is a stronger candidate, imo it’s the old guys.
I also don’t feel like searching up 15 state legislatures and going through hundreds of Democrats to figure out how their district voted in order to give you a list of newer representatives who could theoretically be strong candidates.
If you want to do that though and share with us your findings I’m sure we’d all appreciate you taking out the time and effort to do so!
The Substack, Strength in Numbers, is actually putting together an interesting model on electability that would be worth checking out. That model just launched.
I mostly agree with this list, but I would also add the following:
ID - Former Congressman Walt Minnick
MS - Former Attorney General Jim Hood
OK - Former Governor Brad Henry
SC - Former State Senator Vincent Sheheen
TN - Former Congressmen Bart Gordon, John Tanner, and Lincoln Davis
WY - Former Governor Dave Freudenthal
Appreciate the additions! I admit the rockbed red states I don’t have a wide enough depth of knowledge about in regards to their Democratic politicians and was mostly just choosing the most recent elected Democrats or the over performance statewide Democrats for these states.
Surprised Montana hasn't gotten more traction in discussion. Schweitzer will be 71 next fall, fwiw. Bullock will be 61.
SC. The dream candidate is Stephen Colbert. Shaheen was defeated by his own district. Cunningham ran a terrible campaign for Gov. Bakari Sellers or Jamie Harrison would still be better than both those two, and they would not be good. Annie Andrews is running, and as a woman and a pediatrician in a state that now charges women for felony desecration of a corpse when they've had a miscarriage at home at 18 weeks, she could break through. (You can look up the ref, happened in Florence.)
Bullock seems pretty done with electoral politics, and had to be dragged into the Senate race in 2020 (to his great credit he gave it a hell of an effort). If anything I could see him trying for the Governorship again in 2028 or seeking a cabinet role.
In the second paragraph of the Indiana redistricting it says: "Two represent potentially competitive legislative districts in the Indianapolis suburbs." Wasn't sure if this was a mistype or if I'm missing something....
The "Two" refers back to "A trio of notable Indiana Republicans..."
Ahhh....gotcha. My bad. Thanks!
No worries! Probably could have included "lawmakers" after the word "two" for clarity.
Per IA-Sen: I have nothing against bipartisanship and think it's a good thing, but why would you launch your campaign by saying you're going to "work across the aisle?" If voters want a candidate who will work with republicans, they can just vote for republicans. It feels like dems are scared to take a strong position on anything, so they fall back to "finding common ground" and other platitudes. You can be bipartisan and have strong beliefs on certain issues, like Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Right to Repair. But Josh Turek has a solid record holding down a competitive seat, so maybe I'm being too critical.
A general election line running in a Republican state. But he has to get the nomination first.
The proof is in the pudding imo. If a Democrat can win a competitive seat, they’re obviously doing something right. That said, I agree with you it’s very unlikely that argument at this point in time under these circumstances will at all be persuasive to Democratic primary voters.
His path is basically consolidating the chunk of electorate that prioritizes winning above anything else, but even that argument is hard to make given the massive field of eminently electable candidates running already. Since he holds a swing seat, I hope he abandons his campaign a few months in after not getting much traction and runs for re-election instead.
I feel like I’ve been screaming into the ether for years now, but we’ve got to stop trying to win from the top down and instead build small from the bottom up. It doesn’t work just putting a competitive campaign at the top without building the bench and political infrastructure ant the lower levels underneath. Republicans figured this out decades ago and it’s well past time for us to copy them by investing big down ballot first.
It takes many years for the payoff to come, but when it does, it sticks. How many former blue states are now bright red and how did it happen? Well it took decades of sizable investments in state legislatures, city councils and every lever of power while Democrats were winning at the top. Then they pulled those lower ballot candidates to run for the top races after seasoning themselves as politicians. Now Democrats can’t win these states.
Pretty clear what needs to happen, but will the party actually follow through on a promise of a payout decades from now instead of trying to win 1 race at the top? I doubt that very much sadly.
He's running in a state Donald won by 13 points, dude. He's not running in Vermont
I’m not saying he needs to be Bernie Sanders. I’m saying he needs to stand for something more than working with republicans.
You're suggesting that's the -only- thing he's running on, no ideas at all?
I'd like to see if there's ever a Republican running for Congress who says they're going to "reach across the aisle to work with Democrats". Let's just stop pretending at this point. How many voters does that actually work on?
If they're not trying that in D+ constituencies, they're missing their chance, and in fact, Republicans like Fitzgerald and Collins do make bipartisan gestures for local consumption.
Dude people like Bacon and Fitzpatrick do that stuff all the time. Even more conservative Rs like Newhouse and Schweikert do calls for bipartisanship
I, too, am turned off by any Democratic candidate talking about reaching across the aisles and being bipartisan because it is the Republicans who refuse to reach across the aisle and pass bipartisan legislation. There was a bipartisan bill to start immigration reform, and the Republicans killed it. Republicans only talk about bipartisan when they are out of power.
Couple of polls:
Jacksonville Mayor:
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/751317-jax-mayor-2027-poll/
Generic Republican leads Generic Democrat 42-37, with 21 undecided. Concerning, but it's also two years out so maybe too early to tell.
Miami Mayor:
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/750574-poll-eileen-higgins-leads-race-for-miami-mayor-but-not-enough-to-avoid-a-runoff/
Internal poll for Democrat Eileen Higgins. Higgins leads, but not enough to prevent a runoff from occurring. Here's the results:
Eileen Higgins (D) - 35%
Emilio Gonzalez (R) - 15%
Ken Russell (D) - 12%
Xavier Suarez (R) - 7%
Other - 11%
Undecided - 19%
Interestingly, Dems doing well in this poll. I hope that ends up translating into results in November.
Tyson is a Republican firm.
Good to know. Plus, as I said, it’s two years away.
is runoff threshold 50 or 40?
See, this is one of those fairly obvious cases of a push poll designed to backup a narrative they want to be true.
First of all, why would they not poll the Democrat by name who is the actual elected mayor instead of generic Democrat? Secondly I’d bet a large chunk of those “generic Republican” supporters do vote for Deegan as the incumbent. Thirdly, Trump is president now, so it’s far more likely voters want a check on his party instead of another greenlight rubber stamp.
The only thing this poll tells us is that our national party image is so far in the toilet, we might as well be the sewer. We already knew this, so that doesn’t tell us much.
What will Roberts court decide on the VRA and Obergefell? Your thoughts?
I fully expect them to rule the VRA unconstitutional. Marriage equality might be dicier for them, since it's so popular.
Also Gorsuch is a lefty on LGBT rights, Kavanaugh and Roberts are institutionalists and will probably also just leave it in place to not piss people off. VRA Section 2 is doa.
Gorsuch wrote Bostock but he also wrote Masterpiece Cake Shop. He is decidedly *not* a lefty on LGBT rights, he just occasionally sides with us when it lines up with his judicial philosophy.
Kim Davis has ASKED the SCOTUS to reverse the Obergefell decision. However they have yet to decide whether to take it -- it's entirely possible they could decline to take it up via their shadow docket.
I think this is the most likely outcome. The conservative bloc might realize the votes aren't there to overturn Obergefell, and they don't want to reinforce a precedent.
Also, Obergefell is kind of a moot point now that DOMA was repealed and replaced with ROMA.
However, it's also possible that Roberts will want to pursue a narrower ruling that throws the Kim Davis types a bone--not outright repeal, but acknowledging that the state cannot force an employee to act against their strongly held religious beliefs, or some other BS like that.
I agree--it would complicate marriage for some same-sex couples, but at least it wouldn't make the right to marriage outlawed.
And they need three judges to agree to hear it. Alito and Clarence Thomas would agree to rehear it, but I don't think any of Trump's SCOTUS picks would.
Four.
Roberts and friends like to make decisions that more or less get them what they want ideologically but avoid the worst headlines.
That in mind, I think on the VRA they will find some narrow ruling that keeps the VRA legally extant while also hobbling it substantially enough to not make too much of a distinction.
For Obergefell they would rather punt than anything else I think. They saw the damage Dobbs did to their party electorally and unlike abortion ending gay marriage is not currently a core identity of the conservative movement. If they can delay the consequences until later they will. Maybe they'll let Kim Davis off the hook for the fines.
The VRA case likely depends on Kavanaugh. He joined in upholding the creation of a second AA district in Alabama two years ago. But wrote a squeamish concurrence.
Significant watering down of the VRA without a full overturn.
Davis’ petition has main questions that are tangential to Obergefell so there I doubt they do much, especially now with RFMA in place
Showing how bad the Rs are doingin VA. The VA PBA has endorsed Spansburger. It only has endorsed Rs in the past. https://x.com/samshirazim/status/1955643968324247933
VA Rs are going to get an electoral spanking and early voting doesn't start for another month. I bet there will be lines of angry voters come September 19th and on Election Day proper.
The last time a Democrat won the Governorship here by double digits was in 1985 with Gerald Baliles. Fun factoid: that election also saw Doug Wilder elected (barely) as LG, and Mary Sue Terry as AG, THE first time the Old Dominion elected an African American and woman to statewide office.
It’s kind of hard to not think that the “S” word may even come into play in November, which is crazy to think about. At least for the hopeful trifecta, most of the thorns in our side Democrats have been replaced in the State Senate after losing primaries, so they should be able to get a lot done over the next 2 years.
I guess I'm having some kind of mental block, but what S word?
Exactly what I was trying to figure out. Am I missing something?
It’s ok, I wasn’t very clear, but I’ve seen VA election analysts use that phrasing before. “Supermajority” is the word I was talking about. And if I said “SM” instead, well, that’d raise a lot of eyebrows I’d guess lol.
I think Chaz Nuttycombe said that VA Democrats have a 15% chance of achieving a supermajority in the House of Delegates this year, but way better chance to expand upon their bare majority from 2023.
Hah!
Thanks. The thing is, the "S word" to my mind has 4 letters...
Same here!
I was about to post this. They endorsed Reid for LG and Miyares for AG, but not Sears for Governor. This is NOTHING to scoff at. BTW, the Old Dominion's next Governor's - knock on wood - name is Spanberger.
That's especially saying something considering Reid has been the subject of a civil war in the Virginia GOP.
Which leads me to ask what would have happened had Rouse or Stoney had won the nomination for Team Blue.
Is that a jab at the left because Hashmi won? I don't think it would have mattered who was the LG candidate. Sears just happened to be a shockingly awful GOP candidate with close to zero chance of winning. In addition, both Rouse and Stoney are black, and unfortunately that probably would have been a motivating factor for a Southern police union endorsement anyway.
Don’t think there would have been much difference, Rouse and Stoney aren’t any less mainstream than Hashmi imo
Could easily look at this that they endorsed the white candidates over the candidates of color (Miyares is Cuban but they're already GOP-coded)
In this case the PBA stands for Police Benevolent Association. My first thought was Professional Bowlers Assn. but that doesn't make any sense.
While on sports stuff, the IA-Sen race now has a basketball player as well as a baseball guy (Scholten). Shouldn't there also be a footballer and a hockey player?
I also had to look this up.
I was guessing it was Pro-business Assn
It will be nice in a few months when Attorney General MAGA Miyares will lose his career and no longer be in elected office. He never should have won in the first place, but at least voters know now how terrible he is and how much taxpayer money he’s cost voters on fruitless lawsuits in the name of MAGA.
It'll be nice to see Virginia join the lawsuits against the convicted felon's EOs and DOGE cuts, rather than support them.
Oooh! That’s gonna hurt.
Can’t wait to see Spanberger take over Youngkin and turn VA around.
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) at the ILDCCA Brunch: "The biggest crime scene that hurts everyday Americans in Washington, DC right now is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That's the crime scene that we need to clean up!" AMEN!
This organization: https://idcca.org. I looked it up so the I'm guessing 90+% of you who didn't know what that long initialism was don't have to.
I attended the last two brunches of theirs prior to this one.
For many years until the last few years, the ILDCCA was effectively doing what the Democratic Party of Illinois should have been doing: be the state party arm of the Democratic Party.
This has changed, however, and the DPI is a serious organization.
After years of calling Clinton a "socialist" , Gingrich agrees that he was a moderate and he liked Clinton's "Democrat party" rather than the "big government socialist" party of Warren and Mamdani.
https://gingrich360.com/2025/08/08/the-big-government-socialist-democratic-party/
Another gem:
https://gingrich360.com/2025/08/12/president-trump-and-the-expanding-gop/
I look forward to reading Gringrich's obituary when the time comes. He's done a lot to radicalize the GOP alongside Mitch McConnell and that convicted felon.
wasn't his contract on America what really got things rolling?
Absolutely.
More importantly, it wasn’t really a contract. More like a Con On America instead of a Contract On America.
A contract on someone means a mob hit that kills them.
If Republicans were doing as well as Newt says in the second piece, hardly any reason to do mid-decade redistricting in states like Indiana. GOP about to learn a lot about polls and "trends" in 2026.
Yeah, last year's "victory" for them is going to be fool's gold come November 3, 2026.
Once again, Newt Gingrich wouldn’t stand a chance of being elected to any office if he ran again.
Brown was a great Senator and Cooper a successful governor, but is anyone else concerned with the age of these recruits?
Don’t we have an image problem in part because our leadership is so old they didn’t see Biden’s decline as a dealbreaker for much of the country?
How old is Trump? McConnell? Grassley?
I don’t know why voters expressed so much more concern about Biden than Trump. I range from infuriated to befuddled depending on the day.
But Democrats are much older in the House then Republicans which not only hurts when we have members die in office (3 this year, all less then 6 months from November’s election). The Senate is about the same. The problem is that it isn’t our Senators vs theirs, it’s Schumer (old, boring, predictable) vs Trump, a great showman, propped on top of a fantastic propaganda network.
I think we should learn the lessons of 2024 but not over-learn them. Biden is old, but it was a career-ending liability because he had a really hard time speaking in public. Cooper is 12 years younger than him and he's running for the Senate, not President. Brown is 8 years younger and just ran a vigorous campaign. Biden would probably be fine in the Senate right now if we're being realistic, POTUS is just a uniquely brutal job that requires constant public maintenance of your image which he just wasn't up to. If we have a popular former governor who is 68 or 72 or even 76 we can run them for the Senate as long as they don't actively present as being too old for the job.
I agree in part.
But I think our issues are larger than just Biden. Senator Feinstein had this multi-decade career of distinction yet stayed well past her ability to lead. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an awesome Supreme Court Justice. Maybe it would have behooved her to retire at 80. That would still have been 30 years on the Supreme Court! We have 14 Senators age 73+. 13 Reps of 80 and 56 over 70. Currently Schumer is embarrassing himself every time he speaks in public. No move that we know of to remove him from leadership and ask him to announce his retirement.
Both parties have this problem, and Democrats have it worse. And since Americans all over the political spectrum say our politicians are old and out of touch, maybe Democrats should be more rigorous about new leadership.
You don't have to persuade this New York that Schumer sucks and we could do better, but what do you mean about him "embarrassing himself every time he speaks in public"?
I want candidates who have a fighting chance of flipping the Senate either next year or in 2028 -- if it's 60-70 year old candidates, so be it. Flipping the House next year would be a big thing in stopping FDJT's vengeance tour, but flipping the Senate keeps him from confirming more unqualified candidates like Bove as a lifetime federal judge.
Yes, flipping the Senate is essential. 100% agree.
I’m not sure my concern is valid. Maybe Cooper and Brown are the best candidates for those states.
I would prefer our AG Jeff Jackson run instead of Cooper, but I think he has an eye on the governor's mansion or unseating Ted Budd in 2028.
I disagree. As great as Jeff Jackson may be, he should not be on the ballot again until 2028. If he runs for another office sooner than that, Republicans will attack him for job hopping.
That's what I mean. If by some miracle Ds flip back the Senate next year, the momentum is going to be on Jeff Jackson's side (plus the presidential year) to run against MAGA Senator Ted Budd in 2028.
I think we keep him for Budd in 2028, which will be a really tough race. Nickel will probably slot into his AG spot and Stein can run for either of the Senate seats if we lose in 26 or 28.
I don't think there's any doubt that they are the best candidates available to us. Particularly so in the case of Brown.
You're saying something unlikely is essential. What does that mean for everyone's life if it doesn't happen?
It wasn't his age. It was a perceived downturn in the economy and the fact that the majority of Americans chose to pretend that COVID NEVER happened.
It was his invisibility.
Nope. When people decide the economy sucks, your party is going to lose. No Democrat was going to win with an electorate that decided #1. the economy sucks and #2. COVID NEVER happened. We do ourselves no favors by pretending otherwise.
I disagree with that. If that were the case we would have seen a 1980 or 2008 margin.
1980 is long gone politically speaking and 2008 is the outer limit the current electorate will stretch and even that is outdated.
We probably would have seen something closer to that if the Republican candidate had been Reagan or, say, John Kasich. That said, despite the obsession with inflation, the economy was by no means as bad as either of those other years, and that was probably reflected in the margin, too.
I sort of agree. I do not think Biden's age was the inciting problem for him.
I do think that once Biden had a problem, which is more or less inevitable for any president, that his age became an enduring issue that would not go away. A lot of inflation issues had started to improve meaningfully early enough to impact the election, but by that point Biden as "too old" had cemented itself into the electorate and would not go away. Then the debate happened and the bottom fell out.
A younger president could have used things improving and maybe turned this around.
It's Afghanistan. Biden ran on competency and the Afghanistan withdrawal completely undermined that narrative. His poll numbers tanked and never recovered. Age and inflation played a part in hindering any sort of comeback, but the die was cast in August 2021.
Most voters aren't all that tuned in to foreign policy; I've always felt that the resurgence of covid in summer 2021 was the beginning of the end for Biden. (Like it or not, he was voted into office largely to "end" the pandemic.) Covid was also the reason Youngkin won in Virginia and Murphy significantly underperformed in New Jersey.
The resurgence of covid coincided with the Afghanistan withdrawal and was certainly a compounding factor in Biden's poll drop. Both factors speak to "incompetency". I'll agree to disagree on which one is more important 😊
Republicans certainly made sure they were tuned in for that but of foreign policy. It certainly hurt him. Afghanistan, inflation, immigration and his age/infirmity walloped the heck out of Biden.
Even if Biden had been deemed a good manager by voters for the first three years of his Presidency, I think he still would have had an age perception problem based on what we saw in that last year. The Biden we saw on that debate stage would have showed up elsewhere in 2024, and even if he'd had a 55% approval rating, it's hard to imagine voters wouldn't have balked at reelecting "that guy".
I think if he had gone his term without any issues, no one complaining, basically the utopian few years, that he could have gotten away with it. Not because voters would forgive him having such a terrible debate that put his age on such unfortunate display. Instead because voters would forgive him not doing much of anything in public in order to hide that.
That's basically what Reagan did for 1984, isn't it?
Yes, but Reagan also put his acting training to good use, so even when he didn't know what the fuck he was talking about, he played the role of a good-natured grandpa. Biden truly was one, but Reagan's "aw, shucks" act was different.
Biden was NEVER as popular as Reagan was. Reagan - and I say this as the son of a man who LEFT the Republican Party due to him - was a political phenomenon who essentially only appears once every generation. He had more than one quarter century of right wing activism, was twice elected Governor of the most populous US state, and won the 1980 election with 44 states.
Biden BARELY won the 2020 Presidential Election and served for 36 years as the US Senate of a great, but small state that many joke is an overgrown suburb of Philadelphia. His two runs for President were both disasters and he would have been relegated as being Senator for life from Delaware had Barack Obama not chosen him for VP. Without the Vice Presidency - and I say this as a long time admirer of his - he NEVER becomes President.
TLDR: Biden is not Reagan from an historical nor political perspective.
I know Biden was not as popular as Reagan. The whole point of my comment was my take on how it would play out in the hypothetical scenario where he was widely popular and had a trouble free first term.
You can be old and you can still be sharp. For example, Trump's gaffes and erratic behavior didn't go viral on social media before 2025 because they was less horrible compared to Biden. Biden's age and his subsequent advisor orchestrated hide from the spotlight also contributed to his many communication issues of his admin.
They're not less horrible, not at all! He just spouts off a bunch of shit with more force!
I live in Europe, and the one thing everyone here "knew" about the race was that Biden was old, Biden was senile to the point of incapacity, Biden couldn't string two words together. These memes were so pervasive they reached all over the world, and I think any denial that the "Biden old" meme contributed significantly to his likely loss is detached from reality. Obviously perceptions of the economy mattered too, but it wasn't the only thing.
The reality in American politics though is that in a Presidential election, the incumbent is ALWAYS on the ballot , even when his/her name is not. No matter whom Democrats nominated in 2024, we were still going to be expected to answer for the Biden administration.
I think a Governor could have run on Biden’s successes without like Harris being so closely related to his failures. It was still a close election. We’re only talking about flipping 1/100 people from Trump to the Democratic nominee.
Might have held the PA Senate seat without Biden baggage especially the since that they lied to everyone about it
Nope. The "outsider" or "change" argument NEVER works when you're the incumbent party. No matter whom you nominate. If it did, William Jennings Bryan wins the 1896 election and John McCain the 2008 election. Both candidates were running to succeed unpopular Presidents from their own party. Both candidates were essentially everything the man they were trying to succeed was not. Nobody cared.
I am one of the biggest proponents here of our party moving towards younger candidates and officials, that we need new blood. That said, rigid adherence to a preference is not a sound strategy. We need to know when to be flexible, and both states are cases where that applies.
Cooper is by far our strongest candidate in North Carolina. He is at least a full tier upgrade over our next best options, and since our last federal statewide win in NC was in 2008, we should pursue every advantage we can get.
For Ohio this is even more stark. Brown isn't merely our strongest candidate. He is realistically our only credible candidate. Without him our chances of winning the seat nose dive. He's old but should have enough years in him to run in 2026 and 2028. He should be too old for a strong campaign in 2034, but it's better to win the seat now and lose it later than it is to never hold it at all.
I concede those points.
I’m just concerned that we have old politicians and old big donors who have forgotten to a 20 year old that 40 is old and they are ancient. Hence they look to the impressive resume and might not see that the charisma and the activity has dropped.
But yeah, with Brown and Cooper they were both the obvious first choice.
I get it, and for the majority of seats I am completely on board. I was immensely relieved when Shaheen announced her retirement. I'm stressed that Markey is running again, even if he is awesome he's also absolutely ancient and risks a primary from an infinitely worse Auchincloss. King and Sanders both should have retired last year. I don't care how much people love Bernie he's ancient and the governor is a republican; it was a needless, stupid risk. Welch running to become a senate freshman in his 70s was frustrating. Etc. etc.
I am 100% on board with wishing our elected officials would start to retire and allow younger candidates to replace them. It wasn't that long ago that the US would regularly elect people to senate or governor in their 40s or even younger. Now it really stands out when it does happen.
I’ve been relieved that at least in IL Durbin, Schakowsky and Davis all announced their retirements and did it before the petition collecting period started. And maybe Smith and Peters retiring in their 60s!!!! will start a trend.
This cycle is the absolute best time for any swing state senator over 60 to consider retirement. With six year terms it's not often that everything lines up to make it a good cycle for your party more likely than not. Peters is 66; by the time the next midterm comes around he would be 79 years old! And for all he knows that next midterm will be one that favors republicans, not democrats. Same story with Smith at 67.
Illinois retirements have been nice. I wish Warner, Hickenlooper, and Reed were retiring too; they'll be in their late 70s by 2032 and we have a decent enough bench in their states. Reed will actually be in his 80s by then.
Right, there is a big difference between relatively safe D states and flip opportunities.
I think you're not old enough to remember when the Democratic chairmen of most House and Senate committees were Southerners in their 80s and 90s. Look up John Stennis, as one example. So I really don't think the number of really old members of Congress is nearly as great now as it was then (through the 80s or so).
I turn 78 next month. I'm not old!! :-)
Beautifully put
GA-Gov, GA-Sen:
https://www.wtoc.com/2025/08/11/all-options-are-table-ga-secretary-state-brad-raffensperger-talks-2026-political-plans/
GA Sec. of State Brad Raffensberger has hinted he could seek the GOP nomination for either Governor or Senator. Given his reputation among MAGA diehards, good luck.
In other GA-Gov news:
https://www.ajc.com/politics/2025/08/what-donald-trumps-endorsement-of-burt-jones-means-for-governors-race/
Apparently State Rep. Ruwa Romman is considering running as a Dem. I like her, she's very progressive, but she unfortunately will likely not win in a state that's still red in large parts due to Islamophobia and anti-Arabism. I personally think Jason Esteves has a better shot.
We're not supposed to discuss I-P here, for the record, but I do get your point.
(Also, shame on "Democratic" donors for implying they wouldn't back a Dem over one single foreign policy issue.)
Got it. I do agree for the record that that position could be a liability in a state like Georgia.
David and Jeff are the arbiters here, not me. But my understanding is that the ban on the topic is broader than going into I/P and what is happening there and our opinions on it. The ban, as I understand, includes even the mention of candidates' stance on the topic and if/how it impacts them electorally.
Hence why when they mentioned it in the digest for a candidate the other week that they mentioned in the comments that they know it's weird that they banned something and then go over it in the digest, but the ban on it in comments stands.
I find this makes a lot of sense because it's a very easy emotional slope to go down: "Candidate 1 is harmed electorally because they agree with side A or B in I/P" can easily result in a mud fight in the comments about how it doesn't, shouldn't, about the influence of side A or B... People will be arguing I/P via the proxy of the electoral impact. It's easiest and best if we avoid it entirely.
This is correct. Please don't bring this topic up. At all. Whether you think you're "discussing" it or not. It leads to nothing but agony in the comments, and we simply don't have enough hours in the day to police such fights.
I would also like to see a ban on commenting on Biden's mental health and infirmities since most people here don't have training in psychiatry and medicine. And no, I'm not joking.
Not really.
https://www.ajc.com/politics/2025/07/ossoff-warnock-vote-to-curb-us-arms-sales-to-israel-amid-hunger-crisis-in-gaza/
That he even voted for one of them shows he hasn't done a 180.
CA-Gov: Barbara Boxer is showing her increasing irrelevance in modern California. She went from endorsing Kounalakis to Antonio Villaraigosa !?! I have as much chance to be the next Governor as Antonio does, and I am not running. She should have switched to Atkins, Porter or Yee. It is time for the Golden State to elect our first woman Governor, not an ancient retread like Antonio who has drifted rightward over time.
The other surprise so far is that Steve Hilton is stronger in recent polling than Sheriff Bianco among the Repubs running. It is still a long way to the June primary, but it would be interesting to see the GOPs split their votes and allow an all-Dem runoff for Governor. That will help the GOP turnout to tank in the competitive House races...
I'm surprised he's even bothering. Villaraigosa was trounced in the 2018 first round and he's only become less relevant since then. He has no reason to assume he'd do better this time around. Is he a glutton for punishment?
I assume Boxer built up a working relationship with him when he was mayor and she was senator and that's the reason for her endorsement? It's the explanation that makes the most sense to me.
villaraigosa has a major ego issue and he apparently failed the California Bar exam 4 times
I don't think it matters that he failed the bar exam x number of times.
I agree...I have never cared for him and I was throwing daggers... if you delve into his bio there are much worse things
I don't think it would matter whoever she endorsed. People don't really pay attention to these sort of things anymore. (Unless they're a really top name politician, and then only a little.) Boxer's been out of office for seven years now and has done nothing to maintain a public profile since then, but rather has been focused on making as much money as possible. (She even briefly registered as an agent of the Chinese government, as part of her lobbying career, though reversed course when this got negative publicity.)
Nancy Pelosi's endorsement helped Adam Schiff in terms of votes as well as donors.
Boxer and Villaraigosa are colleagues: left Mercury together, founded Actum together. Not really surprising.
Talking about weird endorsements by irrelevant politicians: I heard on WINS radio this morning that former New York Governor Patterson decided to endorse Adams for reelection for New York Mayor after having endorsed Cuomo in the primary as the person most likely to stop Mamdani. He supposedly hesitated to endorse a felon for reelction but says it's the "right time." Patterson was always known as very progressive, but I guess he's gotten more conservative and his politics have gotten weird in his old age.
I was honestly surprised Hasen didn't expect SCOTUS to list the VRA case for fall argument. It was immediately clear that Kavanaugh and the other Republican justices want to move as fast as possible to avoid the (now thin) Purcell limitations and redistrict BEFORE 2026. It's incumbent on the Democratic justices to drag out the revision and editing process for their dissent(s) to avoid a decision being issued before the summer.
Upswing Research & Strategy poll
Maine Senate
🟥Susan Collins 43%
🟦Jordan Wood 42%
Undecided 15%
(Jordan Wood internal)
3/21-3/25 LV
"First poll conducted in Maine’s Senate race for next year.
Unfortunately it was fielded months ago and a lot has changed since then."
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1955675189355876771
I believe Jordan Wood acts like Generic Dem here.
Why on earth are they releasing in August a poll that was taken in March???
We've seen polls like that in previous cycles, and we know what happened, so I remain skeptical.
Do we have any poll between Susan Collins and Janet Mills? I have seen only comparative approval/favorability ratings, in which Mills scores far higher than the long-time senator.
Why is a five-month old internal poll in any way comment-worthy?
NY-22 Julie Abbott was the strongest potential recruit for the Republicans and she's not running.
For now, that leaves John Salka, a 70 year old former Assemblyman from a red district that barely overlaps with the congressional district. As much I fear downballot R strength in these parts, this guy doesn't scare me at all.
There were very few (but they turned out to be very important) strong candidates recruited in 2024 to try to flip GOP seats and almost snuck Democrats a majority at the same time Trump won easily. Mannion was one of them along with Tran and Gillen.
Surprisingly none have drawn any strong Republican challengers yet, which is very odd for a first term incumbent when they’re most vulnerable. I think we all know why no one has stepped up to run given the political climate and challenges Trump and the GOP are facing, but there should be at least somebody to run for the party.
Crickets so far though from Republicans against the Democrats who flipped GOP seats in 2024.
I mean, Salka is a stronger candidate than Ann Marie Burkle in 2010. But Mannion is a stronger freshman than Maffei and there's a Republican in the White House.
Ryan McMahon would be the strongest GOP candidate here.
On paper, sure, but he has zero reason to run for Congress. He's not an ideologue/true believer type, kind of like his predecessor Joanie Mahoney who also way overperformed presidential numbers, who eventually got herself appointed to lead the local SUNY hospital. That feels more like McMahon's path to me.
We’re told Gavin Newsom, the California Congressional Delegation, and the California Legislature will gather in Los Angeles tomorrow at 11:30AM for a high-profile press conference to officially launch California’s redistricting push.
https://x.com/republicsignal/status/1955710968534851614
I just love how Newsom and his press office mocked Trump's social media posts the past few days with posts written like FDJT's. He really gets under the convicted felon's skin.
Is it infrastructure week in California?😁
PST or est?
PST I believe