Georgia is tracking to be a disaster for the Republicans this year and the leading Republican candidates are nuking each other. I think even Bottoms could be favored.
I know the instinct for pundits and prognosticators is to view a state like Kansas as naturally shifting or reverting to red because it's traditionally conservative is a safe and probably reasonable view, but it's still nonetheless myopic and narrow. We're in the midst of 1 of the worst presidencies now presided by any president, Democrat or Republican, worse than even Trump's 1st term. Moreover, there's virtually ZERO polling of the governor race in Kansas thus far. To add to that, I'm not even sure there have been any recent local elections in Kansas, at least not until the primaries in August. It's probably just me, but given the national environment I'd put the Kansas governor race at Lean R at the very worst.
Agreed, I never for a moment expected us to win in 2018 (had no idea who Laura Kelly was) and she won very resoundingly…also never expected her to hang on in 2022 either.
I don't think Republicans realize the scope of the blue tsunami heading their way. Because if enough R voters stay home in the fall (and not vote), they're going to lose their gerrymandered state legislative majorities here in NC and GA.
And should that happen (and Dems gain state trifectas), there's going to be pent up demand to undo the abortion bans.
i think a lot of us, myself included don't fully recognize the (edit massive economic) dangers of keeping the strait closed indefinitely. much care needs to be taken in making sure the coming economic chaos is handled closer to the way democrats handled the depression as opposed to the way obama handled the recession. i.e., prosecutions and decisive action from the jump
These examples weren't necessarily in wave years, though. I guess the last wave examples could be Scott Brown almost ousting Jeanne Shaheen and Thom Tillis beating Kay Hagan in 2014.
Maybe it wasn't in 2014, but you could make the argument NH is blue now. Sure, it has a Republican governor, but red states like Kentucky and Kansas have Democrats.
NH is federally light blue at best. I don't think it's a swing state anymore but calling it blue without qualifiers is going too far. It's a lot like Minnesota: we usually win but not by huge margins and it's easy to imagine a loss with the wrong conditions.
Peltola is more popular than him, has shown she can win statewide, and is leading in both the polls and in fundraising. What’s hard to see about it? Why would Sullivan need to make specific mistakes to lose?
None of this makes sense to me. Peltola won in 2022. This is a much stronger cycle for us than 2022. Peltola is popular. Sullivan isn’t. Peltola has more money than Sullivan. We’re even more ahead in the gubernatorial race than we are in the Senate race. And the polling is showing us winning. What reason is there to doubt her?
Ah ok, sorry for misunderstanding! I have had a couple conversations with Alaskans, one of whom referred to Sullivan as do-nothing Dan, if that helps lend some context. I think he’s seen as a party line backbencher in a state with a more independent streak and that hasn’t helped him.
The backlash to Republicans /Trump looks more severe in Alaska than most places. Dunleavy is in the toilet, not helping the state brand. Out of control cost of living probably isn’t helping.
Alaska is demographically atypical and has strong upsides for us. The rural population is heavily indigenous people, who largely lean towards us. Biden and Harris both won Anchorage, which comprises roughly half the state's population.
The state is more promising for us than its historical voting results have been. Which isn't to say it's going to become a purple or blue state, but that it has the potential to get there. Get the right candidate, which we have, and there's cause to be hopeful.
Sullivan voted on One Big Beautiful Bill and has been steadfast in his support of it whereas Murkowski was conflicted, voted for it and got real heat back home in AK for it.
I would not underestimate what YAY votes of BBB are doing to make an impact on key races.
Being a generic Republican in a midterm year with a historically unpopular Republican president is dangerous and hostile to your career, even if you're in an other conservative state. Besides, Alaska has elected left leaning governors and senators fairly recently and Peltola's not only popular but has also won statewide twice already, including in the much weaker 2022 year for Democrats. You also have to realize that the overwhelming share of Alaska voters have no party affiliation, so many won't care how conservative or liberal a candidate is. They likely tend to care more what a candidate has done for them and their communities, and with high inflation, unemployment and instability on top of all the federal corruption and incompetence, that's not likely to be positive right now.
Landry got spanked by a federal judge over the weekend who declared his racist law unconstitutional and allowed the duly elected Calvin Duncan to assume office today.
I’ve got high hopes that the people of this country are disgusted with the racism (among other undesirable attributes) of elected republicans and show up in force for the midterms. 🤞
Thank you for your reporting. It’s become my first read, and often my only read, of the day.
I'm hoping that the apathetic voters (those who claim they're "above" politics or claim their vote doesn't matter) are jolted by Rs eager to draw their voices out of existence.
Tomorrow is primary day in Indiana. Secretary of State, Treasurer, and Comptroller will be elected this year, but the candidates are determined by party convention. We vote for delegates. The problem is that there is no information anywhere on which candidates for these offices the individual delegates support.
Here is what the Indiana Chronicle states: "Both the Democratic and Republican conventions this year appear headed to spirited contests for the Secretary of State nominations. If you care who your chosen party nominates for Secretary of State, you need to figure out which state convention candidates on your ballot are pledged to your preference. This is no mean feat, because there is no public source for this granular information. Accordingly, if you want to vote for like-minded state convention delegates, you need to call the campaign of your preferred Secretary of State candidate and get guidance on which convention delegates on your ballot support them."
And the Indiana Democratic party wonders why Democratic turnout is so low. I heard both candidates for Secretary of State speak, and i know which one I prefer, but who of the 11 delegates on the ballot, ten of whom would be elected, supports that person?
I have also been unable to find more than minimal information on the two Democratic primary candidates for the 2nd district. I found a detailed platform from the Independent who understands that he should work to earn votes, and whose views align with mine.
I moved to Indiana in 2017 and have been trying to understand its political system ever since. It seems to me that the county-level party leaders should be conveying some of this information. My understanding is that the Indiana constitution sets up the system of party delegates voting for who that party's candidates will be, but I find that system outdated--rather like the electoral college. The candidates for governor are decided directly in the primary elections.
My fear is that Bayh loses at the convention, and with it, our best shot at beating Morales. Please tell me that’s a low chance of happening? Potter cant win with $40,000 in fundraising.
While I wish that I had more information on Jamee Decio, I plan to vote for her in the primary, as her opponent has declared his support for the Second Amendment but says nothing about what he would do to curb gun violence.
The "logic" of the Roberts Court is truly sickening. It's unconstitutional to use race as a factor in preventing discrimination, but the Jim Crowers are allowed to use race so long as it isn't their "primary" motivation. Which of course is nigh impossible to prove, since they can just say that they're motivated by partisanship, which is totally fine, even encouraged, despite the fact that partisan Gerrymanders are highly pernicious to Democracy. It really feels like the Calvinball Court.
“The way to stop discrimination (against Black people) on the basis of race is to stop discriminating (against white people) on the basis of race.” - John Roberts
I know you're not actually defending them, but it's a completely nonsensical position, much more than the university admission case. The VRA doesn't favor racial minorities, it simply prevents States from disfavoring them, which is pretty much impossible to do without using race as a factor when drawing maps.
It in effect restored the 1980 Bolden test that Congress overturned in 1982. An activist court to the core. Much like the court in the 1880s that brought a halt to Reconstruction permitting the confederacy to “redeem” the southern states
And of course, Gorsuch appeared on this morning's "Fox and Friends" to talk about America 250 (ironically the weekend after Callais). If the infamous 20 cases that asshole decided in the nine years on the court didn't show his political alliances, his Fox appearances do.
Thank you! Reposting from the weekend thread: We're trying to avoid comment sections that become full of prediction market movements as we get closer to November. They reveal nothing more than conventional wisdom anyway which is better reflected in traditional forecaster ratings, election models, and poll aggregates. They're also quite frequently wrong, and can be manipulated by "whales" placing large bets. And ideologically a lot of us are opposed to helping promote these companies and their "product" which is only intended to get more people betting and giving them money. So please, no kalshi/polymarket odds here, we have much better ways of analyzing elections.
I think Ohio is dead last amongst the four reach states for a similar reason. I think we’re currently favored in Texas and Alaska and probably tied in Iowa.
I think NC deserves its own tier; the R looks DOA. The problem with "consistent lead" in ME is the same thing could have been said 6 years ago. Still 2nd in the rankings though, as it's a blue-leaning state in a strong D year.
I'd rank Iowa 4th. Unlike Texas, there is at least some recent history of success, even if it was back to Obama, and unlike Ohio, the polls are actually promising. Ohio, I fear, may be going the way of West Virginia, but Iowa could revert to closer to Minn/Wisc like it was for years. Texas is a mini-Florida to me. I'll believe it when I see it. But like Georgia, once it happens once (in a significant race), it could open the floodgates to true purple statehood.
Very good point, one I forgot to list. I think we're seeing a similar thing with GA-GOV, where Bottoms is relatively bloodlessly and comfortably out in front on the D side, and the Rs are slicing each other's throats. Until the primary is over and had a chance to settle, not sure the polls are all that meaningful.
It's disappointing to see Montana drop so far down in the numbers, but I question if Ds are further behind in Montana than South Carolina and Kansas. The silver lining I see with Montana is that thanks to the 2024 redistricting in Montana favoring Democrats and resulting in more state seats and what is a good shot at a pickup in MT-01, the Democrats should at the very least be building up more grassroot and hopefully federal visibility and support. Hopefully these can offset some of the conservative migration into the state alongside the continuing growth of the colleges.
Without ranking them per se, I think the only legitimate flip chances we have are: NC, ME, OH, AK, TX, and IA. There's a meme on Twitter I see occasionally that's something like "a million Likely R races!" and that's how I feel about FL, NE, MT, KS, and a few others. Dems might get close, but we won't win.
And I think MI is going to be a tougher hold than many realize, depending on the nominee. The GOP blew plenty of seats during their waves, so I kind of cringe when people say "the wave will be too blue for that to matter." I think GA and NH will be fine for us.
I generally agree, but I’d throw Kansas and Nebraska on there. A Dem won’t win in the latter, but Osborne could if things get really bad. Kansas is also about as red as Iowa, Texas, Alaska, and Ohio with a better recent track record than most of these in electing Dems statewide.
Why do you think that the biggest overperformer of 2024, Dan Osborn, won't make it even closer in a less republican year? Nebraska will be closer than Florida imo.
Sounds logical to me considering where the races have been heading for some time.
I still think even with Graham Platner as the presumptive Senate nominee in the ME-SEN race, Platner and Democrats should not make any assumptions of Susan Collins.
any other cycle beyond this one I would agree with you, that said I dont understand anyone's fascination with the risky centrist option (stevens) or the risky leftist option (sayed) when there's the mainstream democratic option (mcmorrow)
I do think McMorrow winning the primary would not alienate too many people. I occasionally peruse left wing parts of Bluesky and I remember some Abdul supporters saying they’d be alright with McMorrow winning — Stevens was the one they didn’t like.
Stevens is far, far less risky than people think. She would alienate a lot of voters in Dearborn/Hamtramck, but those are smaller cities than conventional wisdom would suggest, and in a blue wave, would be drowned out by gains elsewhere. McMorrow is still the safest choice, but let's dispel with this fiction that choosing the slightly cringy candidate who is doing the best out of all 3 of them in the polling averages is poor strategy.
tbh i'm much more worried about a loyal haley stevens than I am on a loyal graham platner when it comes to party loyalty. stevens is the most corporate dem I can think of running in a senate race
I agree with you that any other year, I'd be nervous but not this year. Even Abdul-Sayed, who would be straight-up giving the R's the seat any other year, I think would win this year if the's the nominee. McMorrow's twitter musings a few year are potentially problematic but I think she'd also still be fine. Stevens would win in a walk this November if she's the nominee.
Normally I'd agree with you. But MI is pretty parochial and old tweets trashing the state (and the Midwest in general) in favor of CA, are exactly the type of thing that could hurt her.
Totally agree. Just posted above, but the GOP blew plenty of seats during their waves, so I kind of cringe when people say "the wave will be too blue for that to matter."
I’d say 5. Need to account for a likely Fetterman switch in case a SCOTUS seat opens up. I think those five are NC, ME, TX, AK, and IA in that order, with hopefully Ohio as well. I just don’t feel as good about the Ohio Senate race, but I think we’re favored in the gubernatorial race.
For this November, if we hold the senate majority than we can simply never schedule a vote for SCOTUS seats. Fetterman would only matter if he tried to change the majority leader then. For filling seats with people we want, that wouldn't come about until after the 2028 elections and we would hopefully have replaced Fetterman either way.
Schumer's spine is what we should worry about for that context.
Yes, I can see a scenario where we end up with 51 seats, a GOP justice dies or retires, and Fetterman is the lone Dem to vote with the Republicans to fill the vacancy
My point is that the vote doesn't happen if we hold the majority. Fetterman cannot vote for something that doesn't reach the floor. The person who determines if the vote happens is Schumer if we hold 51 seats. Thus, our worry in that scenario is Schumer, not Fetterman.
I'm not worried at all. The whole Dem establishment has woken up with the need to fight fire with fire (e.g. undoing redistricting commissions). No chance Schumer lets a Trump nomination come to the floor.
Wellman is associated with The Bulwark, so he's already pretty accustomed to national politics. MO-2 was once a swing seat in the St. Louis suburbs (think rich and high education) that they drew to be deep red in 2022 and even redder now.
What timeframe is this over?
65 years old and married with an adult child by the way (his son tragically committed suicide in 2018, when Edwards was a state senator)
I think we’re more likely to win the governors race in Alaska than Ohio or Georgia
How come? Just the ranked choice voting aspect?
We’re polling better there, and while Bill Walker was an independent, he still showed that Republicans don’t always win the governorship in Alaska.
Georgia is tracking to be a disaster for the Republicans this year and the leading Republican candidates are nuking each other. I think even Bottoms could be favored.
I know the instinct for pundits and prognosticators is to view a state like Kansas as naturally shifting or reverting to red because it's traditionally conservative is a safe and probably reasonable view, but it's still nonetheless myopic and narrow. We're in the midst of 1 of the worst presidencies now presided by any president, Democrat or Republican, worse than even Trump's 1st term. Moreover, there's virtually ZERO polling of the governor race in Kansas thus far. To add to that, I'm not even sure there have been any recent local elections in Kansas, at least not until the primaries in August. It's probably just me, but given the national environment I'd put the Kansas governor race at Lean R at the very worst.
Agreed, I never for a moment expected us to win in 2018 (had no idea who Laura Kelly was) and she won very resoundingly…also never expected her to hang on in 2022 either.
Do you know how it was in 2022/2024 for comparison?
The fact that the anti-choice crowd hates him now gives me immense joy. Let them stab and backbite themselves.
I don't think they hate him, they just (correctly) blame him for the party's bad prospects in the midterms.
I don't think Republicans realize the scope of the blue tsunami heading their way. Because if enough R voters stay home in the fall (and not vote), they're going to lose their gerrymandered state legislative majorities here in NC and GA.
And should that happen (and Dems gain state trifectas), there's going to be pent up demand to undo the abortion bans.
i think a lot of us, myself included don't fully recognize the (edit massive economic) dangers of keeping the strait closed indefinitely. much care needs to be taken in making sure the coming economic chaos is handled closer to the way democrats handled the depression as opposed to the way obama handled the recession. i.e., prosecutions and decisive action from the jump
These examples weren't necessarily in wave years, though. I guess the last wave examples could be Scott Brown almost ousting Jeanne Shaheen and Thom Tillis beating Kay Hagan in 2014.
Maybe it wasn't in 2014, but you could make the argument NH is blue now. Sure, it has a Republican governor, but red states like Kentucky and Kansas have Democrats.
Harris won by 3, Biden by 7, HRC by 0.4.
NH is federally light blue at best. I don't think it's a swing state anymore but calling it blue without qualifiers is going too far. It's a lot like Minnesota: we usually win but not by huge margins and it's easy to imagine a loss with the wrong conditions.
Peltola is more popular than him, has shown she can win statewide, and is leading in both the polls and in fundraising. What’s hard to see about it? Why would Sullivan need to make specific mistakes to lose?
None of this makes sense to me. Peltola won in 2022. This is a much stronger cycle for us than 2022. Peltola is popular. Sullivan isn’t. Peltola has more money than Sullivan. We’re even more ahead in the gubernatorial race than we are in the Senate race. And the polling is showing us winning. What reason is there to doubt her?
Ah ok, sorry for misunderstanding! I have had a couple conversations with Alaskans, one of whom referred to Sullivan as do-nothing Dan, if that helps lend some context. I think he’s seen as a party line backbencher in a state with a more independent streak and that hasn’t helped him.
The backlash to Republicans /Trump looks more severe in Alaska than most places. Dunleavy is in the toilet, not helping the state brand. Out of control cost of living probably isn’t helping.
Alaska is demographically atypical and has strong upsides for us. The rural population is heavily indigenous people, who largely lean towards us. Biden and Harris both won Anchorage, which comprises roughly half the state's population.
The state is more promising for us than its historical voting results have been. Which isn't to say it's going to become a purple or blue state, but that it has the potential to get there. Get the right candidate, which we have, and there's cause to be hopeful.
As I've come to expect from you - intelligently and succinctly stated.
According to Morning Consult, Sullivan is the third least popular senator. Last poll I saw: https://pro.morningconsult.com/trackers/senator-approval-ratings
Sullivan voted on One Big Beautiful Bill and has been steadfast in his support of it whereas Murkowski was conflicted, voted for it and got real heat back home in AK for it.
I would not underestimate what YAY votes of BBB are doing to make an impact on key races.
https://www.sullivan.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sullivan-shapes-one-big-beautiful-bill-to-unleash-alaskas-economy-create-good-paying-jobs-provide-historic-tax-cuts-for-working-families-and-strengthen-health-care
Being a generic Republican in a midterm year with a historically unpopular Republican president is dangerous and hostile to your career, even if you're in an other conservative state. Besides, Alaska has elected left leaning governors and senators fairly recently and Peltola's not only popular but has also won statewide twice already, including in the much weaker 2022 year for Democrats. You also have to realize that the overwhelming share of Alaska voters have no party affiliation, so many won't care how conservative or liberal a candidate is. They likely tend to care more what a candidate has done for them and their communities, and with high inflation, unemployment and instability on top of all the federal corruption and incompetence, that's not likely to be positive right now.
Landry got spanked by a federal judge over the weekend who declared his racist law unconstitutional and allowed the duly elected Calvin Duncan to assume office today.
https://www.nola.com/news/politics/calvin-duncan-orleans-clerk-ruling/article_721cb604-c963-4830-bf1b-12a4cc1a2816.html
Oooh! That’s gonna hurt.
Republicans never learn.
That Georgia poll: 6 months later and the top 2 both lose ground while Dooley stays flat (moe). Lol. Hope all those undecideds vote D.
I’ve got high hopes that the people of this country are disgusted with the racism (among other undesirable attributes) of elected republicans and show up in force for the midterms. 🤞
Thank you for your reporting. It’s become my first read, and often my only read, of the day.
I'm hoping that the apathetic voters (those who claim they're "above" politics or claim their vote doesn't matter) are jolted by Rs eager to draw their voices out of existence.
Sigh, they will be this year, and maybe in 2028, but the U.S. is likely fucked for the medium and long term. It's still worth fighting for, though.
Tomorrow is primary day in Indiana. Secretary of State, Treasurer, and Comptroller will be elected this year, but the candidates are determined by party convention. We vote for delegates. The problem is that there is no information anywhere on which candidates for these offices the individual delegates support.
Here is what the Indiana Chronicle states: "Both the Democratic and Republican conventions this year appear headed to spirited contests for the Secretary of State nominations. If you care who your chosen party nominates for Secretary of State, you need to figure out which state convention candidates on your ballot are pledged to your preference. This is no mean feat, because there is no public source for this granular information. Accordingly, if you want to vote for like-minded state convention delegates, you need to call the campaign of your preferred Secretary of State candidate and get guidance on which convention delegates on your ballot support them."
Call the campaign? Every voter?
https://indianacitizen.org/from-the-publisher-may-their-memory-be-a-blessing/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_source_platform=mailpoet&utm_campaign=new-stories-from-the-indiana-citizen-40
And the Indiana Democratic party wonders why Democratic turnout is so low. I heard both candidates for Secretary of State speak, and i know which one I prefer, but who of the 11 delegates on the ballot, ten of whom would be elected, supports that person?
I have also been unable to find more than minimal information on the two Democratic primary candidates for the 2nd district. I found a detailed platform from the Independent who understands that he should work to earn votes, and whose views align with mine.
How can we fix this system?
I moved to Indiana in 2017 and have been trying to understand its political system ever since. It seems to me that the county-level party leaders should be conveying some of this information. My understanding is that the Indiana constitution sets up the system of party delegates voting for who that party's candidates will be, but I find that system outdated--rather like the electoral college. The candidates for governor are decided directly in the primary elections.
My fear is that Bayh loses at the convention, and with it, our best shot at beating Morales. Please tell me that’s a low chance of happening? Potter cant win with $40,000 in fundraising.
That worries me as well.
using the extremely unscientific method of "keeping an eye out for lawn signs", Jamee Decio is probably going to win the IN-2 primary.
While I wish that I had more information on Jamee Decio, I plan to vote for her in the primary, as her opponent has declared his support for the Second Amendment but says nothing about what he would do to curb gun violence.
The "logic" of the Roberts Court is truly sickening. It's unconstitutional to use race as a factor in preventing discrimination, but the Jim Crowers are allowed to use race so long as it isn't their "primary" motivation. Which of course is nigh impossible to prove, since they can just say that they're motivated by partisanship, which is totally fine, even encouraged, despite the fact that partisan Gerrymanders are highly pernicious to Democracy. It really feels like the Calvinball Court.
The "logic" of the Roberts court:
“The way to stop discrimination (against Black people) on the basis of race is to stop discriminating (against white people) on the basis of race.” - John Roberts
And the VRA discriminates against White people, how?
I know you're not actually defending them, but it's a completely nonsensical position, much more than the university admission case. The VRA doesn't favor racial minorities, it simply prevents States from disfavoring them, which is pretty much impossible to do without using race as a factor when drawing maps.
Remember, for these corrupt fascists, freedom is slavery, war is peace...
It in effect restored the 1980 Bolden test that Congress overturned in 1982. An activist court to the core. Much like the court in the 1880s that brought a halt to Reconstruction permitting the confederacy to “redeem” the southern states
And of course, Gorsuch appeared on this morning's "Fox and Friends" to talk about America 250 (ironically the weekend after Callais). If the infamous 20 cases that asshole decided in the nine years on the court didn't show his political alliances, his Fox appearances do.
I have now updated my potential flips for the Senate:
1. NC
———————
2. ME
3. AK
———————
4. TX
5. IA
6. OH
7. FL
———————
8. NE
9. KS
10. MS
———————
11. SC
12. MT
Don't post about "prediction markets" here. Please delete.
Thank you! Reposting from the weekend thread: We're trying to avoid comment sections that become full of prediction market movements as we get closer to November. They reveal nothing more than conventional wisdom anyway which is better reflected in traditional forecaster ratings, election models, and poll aggregates. They're also quite frequently wrong, and can be manipulated by "whales" placing large bets. And ideologically a lot of us are opposed to helping promote these companies and their "product" which is only intended to get more people betting and giving them money. So please, no kalshi/polymarket odds here, we have much better ways of analyzing elections.
Why Ohio ranked so low?
I find it worrying the lack of traction in polling Brown has whilst still trailing.
I think Ohio is dead last amongst the four reach states for a similar reason. I think we’re currently favored in Texas and Alaska and probably tied in Iowa.
If we're doing tiers:
Dems with consistent leads in blue/purple states:
1. NC
2. ME
Dems with slight leads in red states:
3. AK
4. TX
Dems slightly trailing in marginally competitive states:
5. OH
6. IA
Independents competitive in red states:
7. NE
8. MT
Never count on Florida and you'll never be disappointed:
9. FL
Reach states:
10. KS
11. SC
I think NC deserves its own tier; the R looks DOA. The problem with "consistent lead" in ME is the same thing could have been said 6 years ago. Still 2nd in the rankings though, as it's a blue-leaning state in a strong D year.
I'd rank Iowa 4th. Unlike Texas, there is at least some recent history of success, even if it was back to Obama, and unlike Ohio, the polls are actually promising. Ohio, I fear, may be going the way of West Virginia, but Iowa could revert to closer to Minn/Wisc like it was for years. Texas is a mini-Florida to me. I'll believe it when I see it. But like Georgia, once it happens once (in a significant race), it could open the floodgates to true purple statehood.
I'd add that the R runoff still hasn't happened in Texas. I'll give the polling there more weight once they have had a chance to consolidate the vote
Very good point, one I forgot to list. I think we're seeing a similar thing with GA-GOV, where Bottoms is relatively bloodlessly and comfortably out in front on the D side, and the Rs are slicing each other's throats. Until the primary is over and had a chance to settle, not sure the polls are all that meaningful.
LOL at "Never count on FL and you'll never be disappointed".
So true, unfortunately...
I’d put Texas 6th and Nebraska 7th.
I’d rate the races like this
1. NC
—————
2. ME
3. AK
—————
4. TX
—————
5. IA
6. OH
7. NE
—————
8. FL
9. KS
—————
10. SC
11. MT
12. MS
—————
13. KY
14. LA
I think we’re ahead in the first 4 already and will win the first 7 in the end.
That's very optimistic. I'm very skeptical about NE. But if the bottom falls out of the economy, everything down to KS could flip.
It's disappointing to see Montana drop so far down in the numbers, but I question if Ds are further behind in Montana than South Carolina and Kansas. The silver lining I see with Montana is that thanks to the 2024 redistricting in Montana favoring Democrats and resulting in more state seats and what is a good shot at a pickup in MT-01, the Democrats should at the very least be building up more grassroot and hopefully federal visibility and support. Hopefully these can offset some of the conservative migration into the state alongside the continuing growth of the colleges.
I'd put a line between IA and OH and MT above both SC and MS
For MT having a democratic candidate on the candidate alongside Bodnar is what makes it unlikely for me.
Without ranking them per se, I think the only legitimate flip chances we have are: NC, ME, OH, AK, TX, and IA. There's a meme on Twitter I see occasionally that's something like "a million Likely R races!" and that's how I feel about FL, NE, MT, KS, and a few others. Dems might get close, but we won't win.
And I think MI is going to be a tougher hold than many realize, depending on the nominee. The GOP blew plenty of seats during their waves, so I kind of cringe when people say "the wave will be too blue for that to matter." I think GA and NH will be fine for us.
I generally agree, but I’d throw Kansas and Nebraska on there. A Dem won’t win in the latter, but Osborne could if things get really bad. Kansas is also about as red as Iowa, Texas, Alaska, and Ohio with a better recent track record than most of these in electing Dems statewide.
Yep. The Laura Kelly coalition is right there for the taking this year in Kansas if anybody wants it. But nobody does.
Why do you think that the biggest overperformer of 2024, Dan Osborn, won't make it even closer in a less republican year? Nebraska will be closer than Florida imo.
I think so too.
I'd be shocked if it wasn't. I could see Nebraska being closer than either Ohio or Texas too.
Sounds logical to me considering where the races have been heading for some time.
I still think even with Graham Platner as the presumptive Senate nominee in the ME-SEN race, Platner and Democrats should not make any assumptions of Susan Collins.
Is it just me who is worried on MI flipping this election cycle?
any other cycle beyond this one I would agree with you, that said I dont understand anyone's fascination with the risky centrist option (stevens) or the risky leftist option (sayed) when there's the mainstream democratic option (mcmorrow)
I do think McMorrow winning the primary would not alienate too many people. I occasionally peruse left wing parts of Bluesky and I remember some Abdul supporters saying they’d be alright with McMorrow winning — Stevens was the one they didn’t like.
Stevens is far, far less risky than people think. She would alienate a lot of voters in Dearborn/Hamtramck, but those are smaller cities than conventional wisdom would suggest, and in a blue wave, would be drowned out by gains elsewhere. McMorrow is still the safest choice, but let's dispel with this fiction that choosing the slightly cringy candidate who is doing the best out of all 3 of them in the polling averages is poor strategy.
tbh i'm much more worried about a loyal haley stevens than I am on a loyal graham platner when it comes to party loyalty. stevens is the most corporate dem I can think of running in a senate race
I agree with you that any other year, I'd be nervous but not this year. Even Abdul-Sayed, who would be straight-up giving the R's the seat any other year, I think would win this year if the's the nominee. McMorrow's twitter musings a few year are potentially problematic but I think she'd also still be fine. Stevens would win in a walk this November if she's the nominee.
May god strike me down if McMorrow's years-old tweets move a single vote.
Normally I'd agree with you. But MI is pretty parochial and old tweets trashing the state (and the Midwest in general) in favor of CA, are exactly the type of thing that could hurt her.
If they nominate the wrong candidate yes.
Totally agree. Just posted above, but the GOP blew plenty of seats during their waves, so I kind of cringe when people say "the wave will be too blue for that to matter."
Not just you. I am too.
Inside the Quiet Republican Effort to Flip Fetterman
As the Pennsylvania Democrat increasingly is isolated within his own party, Republicans are quietly trying to win him over.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/05/04/fetterman-switch-parties-republican-00904177
Need to flip 4 Senate seats in November.
And even if he doesn't flip, obv can't count on him down the line to add seats to SCOTUS or outlaw gerrymandering or make DC/PR states.
I’d say 5. Need to account for a likely Fetterman switch in case a SCOTUS seat opens up. I think those five are NC, ME, TX, AK, and IA in that order, with hopefully Ohio as well. I just don’t feel as good about the Ohio Senate race, but I think we’re favored in the gubernatorial race.
For this November, if we hold the senate majority than we can simply never schedule a vote for SCOTUS seats. Fetterman would only matter if he tried to change the majority leader then. For filling seats with people we want, that wouldn't come about until after the 2028 elections and we would hopefully have replaced Fetterman either way.
Schumer's spine is what we should worry about for that context.
Yes, I can see a scenario where we end up with 51 seats, a GOP justice dies or retires, and Fetterman is the lone Dem to vote with the Republicans to fill the vacancy
My point is that the vote doesn't happen if we hold the majority. Fetterman cannot vote for something that doesn't reach the floor. The person who determines if the vote happens is Schumer if we hold 51 seats. Thus, our worry in that scenario is Schumer, not Fetterman.
Our worry is Fetterman switching to give power back to Thune to schedule a vote. That’s why we need to aim for 52 seats to negate that scenario.
After what McConnell did with Scalia's seat, no shot Schumer caves.
I'm not worried at all. The whole Dem establishment has woken up with the need to fight fire with fire (e.g. undoing redistricting commissions). No chance Schumer lets a Trump nomination come to the floor.
I don’t see it happening.
Fetterman’s votes are more liberal than what would be allowed in today’s GOP.
Do you have anything on the Fred Wellman race in MO-02?
I haven't seen his name mentioned. What would you like (us) to know about that race?
Wellman is associated with The Bulwark, so he's already pretty accustomed to national politics. MO-2 was once a swing seat in the St. Louis suburbs (think rich and high education) that they drew to be deep red in 2022 and even redder now.
The Florida meathead just signed the rigged Congressional maps. Marc Elias is preparing to file suit against him.
Yep.
https://bsky.app/profile/marcelias.bsky.social/post/3ml23ffvvwk27