All these guys are basically reading the same script when they get a younger challenger, and it's not a good look. I've generally been a fan of his until the comments referenced above about how only his anointed successor could replace him. Such a king-like comment for the times we're living in.
They only ever talk about creating legislation that no voter ever pays attention to. Your job is to represent your constituents AND party to them. Of course you want to pass laws to help, but that’s just half the job! You need legislation and public messaging. Not just 1 where the old school way of making a bill and doing good for them mattered. It doesn’t.
Social media does, going on alternative media does, doing interviews with a strong voice as a younger, fresh, healthy looking person does. Branding matters! Trump of all people knows this and is how one of the most incompetent, stupid, corrupt people on this entire planet became President only to enrich himself and his family and punish his enemies, not once, but twice.
How the fuck have some Democrats not gotten this basic fact yet? No wonder our base stayed home or voted for Trump in the bluest districts in the country last year and voters think our party is old and weak. These are no longer optional things, they are essential and when you see how many young Republican influencers and congressmembers have audiences of millions of people, you start to understand why Democrats got their asses handed to them in 2024 elections.
Their party built a messaging alternative and social media operation so large and powerful, they went outside the traditional media to promote their lies and propaganda, and the uneducated voters of America bought it hook, line and sinker. That’s exactly what Democrats need to do. But we can only do that with people who can at least say “yes, we need to do that”.
Going to take a break from posting here for a bit. I'm not doing well emotionally and I keep posting panic comments here I shouldn't be.
If I can get myself under control again I'll start posting again, right now is just a really bad time for me and I'm really doing poorly. See you all later.
Take care of yourself, and best wishes for a full recovery to your normal self. All of us are going through trauma with what's happening, and it's good you're focused on your well being.
Hopefully, positive results from Virginia and New Jersey (and California) next month will help us feel at least a little bit better.
One of the things that works for me when I'm feeling down is to look at pictures and videos of my cousins' children, aged 3, 9 months, and 2 months. Their antics (and growth) never fail to cheer me up.
Wishing you the best. I've posted a handful of these myself and have deleted many more before posting them. That's a sign that you find comfort and comradery in this community, which means you should stick around.
I actually find it much easier to come here than any other source of news, because it's mostly election-focused, which brings lots of positive news, unlike the rest of the headlines.
I share your feelings. I can take only so much of PoliticalWire, mainstream media and even left-wing media at this point. The Downballot is non-alarmist, just the facts and analysis.
And Jones's numbers should only go up as the initial shock of the revelation wears off and Trump continues to dominate the news (making it clear to Jones's supporters why they were supporting him in the first place).
If this poll is to be believed, what's telling is that Miyares is still at 45% (which he's been hovering around in most polls). He doesn't seem to be gaining anything (yet).
Wondering if there's a sense of legislative session/filing deadlines (and options for special sessions) that state would have to finalize redistricting that could be added to Downballot's guide? Maybe hard to gauge beyond filing deadlines as the last possible date for changes. Just to have a sense for us readers.
couple of comments on the Katie Porter news cycle. Lots of my Cal progressive friends are hollering about it, most saying that (a) she's a horrible person and/or (b) she would be a horrible governor as well. And Betty Yee, rhymes with Three Percent In The Polls, put out a statement demanding that Porter drop out, and referring to herself as the only remaining viable female candidate.
I don't understand people's motivations here. Would Becerra be a better governor? (he would not) Are they pining for Antoni-Oil, or Stephen Clooless, or Crypto Baby Calderon, or the rumor of Padilla or Republican Rick Caruso? Do they think that if Porter drops out, all her support transmutes to Yee?
Also, I suppose it's a good thing that we're getting this out early, while most Cal Dem faithful are working to pass Prop 50.
He will not sign the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge. As AG, he would not do anything with the Exxon file that his predecessor (AG Kamala Harris) opened, and would not do anything to investigate Exxon despite numerous efforts to move him. He ended up lying to me about it on a local Dems zoom call. He never did anything interesting as HHS, or as a Congressmember. (during 24 years in Congress, he got 3 bills passed -- one appointing a Smithsonian regent, one naming a post office, one urging study of a Smithsonian Latino museum.) I find him to be a boring speaker.
Sports broadcasting legend Chris Berman got caught on tape cursing out production staff many years ago (link is to video with a ton of profanity, so listener discretion advised):
He worked for Joe Biden at one time. Let's be honest...one reason why the Democratic Party is unpopular among a lot of voters is because of the perception of the party as a revolving door unreceptive to political figures outside of its establishment (even though the Republican Party is even more of a revolving door associated with a single cult leader). Becerra is the Biden revolving door candidate; Padilla would be the Newsom revolving door candidate (Newsom appointed Becerra to the U.S. Senate) if he were to run for governor.
Deb Haaland in the New Mexico gubernatorial race, even though she's popular with a lot of progressives, might face criticism in the Democratic primary there for having worked in the Biden Administration despite being Biden's most progressive cabinet member.
Right, but the Biden Administration did great things, and the sooner he's rehabilitated for what he actually did, rather than remembered only for not being the magician who could get rid of inflation immediately and do better than presiding over the best economy in the world and for being succeeded by fucking Trump, the better. I don't think people who worked effectively to help him get great things done should be thereby marked with a stigma as a result.
Maybe history will work out to highlight the things Biden did really well, but I think that his legacy will be permanently damaged by being succeeded by Trump. So many of Biden's would-be enduring accomplishments have been or are actively being gutted. It's like if Nixon repealed all the Great Society programs that LBJ instituted. With those gone, there's not much left for the history books.
Biden's failure to pick an AG with follow through is going to haunt his legacy.
Also, Biden left office after turning 80 and, due to health reasons, won't be able to make much of a post-presidential legacy like, for example, Jimmy Carter was able to.
I don’t know the New Mexico political environment enough but I doubt being apart of the Biden Administration will impact the race that much.
Deb Haaland was Secretary of Interior, which unlike Pete Buttigeg’s role as Secretary of Transportation was not directly involved in infrastructure planning and support. Buttigeg was, as a lot of manufacturing development does in fact directly impact the transportation system.
It would be a welcome change to see a politician from the East Bay to be the next Governor. We've had too many people from LA County and San Francisco County (Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gray Davis) and San Francisco County (Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown) and could use a welcome change.
Becerra is basically as good as Porter on policy and is far far far better as a people manager to actually get a legislative agenda passed. Becerra's ten years in House leadership are not reduced to bills passed (this is the same slanted metric used against party leaders like Pelosi all the time), and it's completely false to say the way HHS drove a forceful, equitable regulatory agenda was "nothing interesting"--that's really just a lack of familiarity. I get you're a climate advocate, but Porter will not do better on these issues when no one will work with her no matter how brilliant she is. It's in the best interests of California (and given it's size, the party and country) to have a person who can actually manage and lead the state. It's not Porter, and California is not bereft of other (more) competent people to fill her space like Becerra, Yee, Thurmond or Padilla.
Edit: To be clear, Becerra SHOULD be better on climate, and should keep getting pushed on it!
And given there are a large number of undecided voters in the gubernatorial race, there’s still more than 7 months left until the primary.
I also think Toni Atkins made a mistake dropping out of the race. I hope she reconsiders, especially considering she’s got plenty of legislative experience along with being State Senate Pro Tem.
Reentering a race after dropping out is really unlikely to work. I guess there must be some counterexamples, but can you think of any in statewide races?
Yeah, I know, the optics aren’t great. I am not familiar with many candidates dropping out and jumping back in the race later but was just arguing that Toni Atkins made a mistake bowing out.
In all honesty, I don’t think Atkins would reconsider even under pressure from Democratic Party insiders. If she didn’t get traction in her gubernatorial race, I have a hunch Katie Porter was not the reason why. It was breaking through the amount of undecided voters and having to try to win them over along with Democrats that I think made this more complicated for Atkins to run a credible statewide race. If Porter hasn’t yet addressed how to close this gap, then it’s more about the dynamics of the gubernatorial race in general than just one candidate.
That said, as I said before on TDB, Atkins had the best profile out of any gubernatorial candidates and also the most relatable to voters. Her blue collar upbringing having grown up would have shown her to be a stark contrast to Porter and the others. I mean, the first LGBTQ and woman Governor of California would have been great. Amazing that Oregon has beat California in this sense.
Plenty of us want someone better than Gavin Newsom as Governor. Me personally, Newsom gets too distracted with his political agenda and celebrity status as opposed to being laser focused on his job as Governor and letting the results speak for themselves. The fact that he has time to have his own podcast is more evidence proving my point.
Having a Governor in the vein of Jerry Brown is more my cup of tea. Brown was tough, had thick skin and wasn’t afraid to call out BS, especially with Trump from 2017-2018 as well as the UC Regents efforts to raise tuition for UC students.
I can’t speak on behalf of those criticizing Katie Porter as I am not going that far. However, if Porter was originally looked at from the standpoint of being the one candidate to be ready to fight Trump on Day One of being Governor, how are we to be assured this will be the case if her temperament gets to be like this more frequently?
This isn’t about words at all. It’s the ability to buckle down under pressure in general. Porter could throw as many four letter words or anything other words in her vocabulary but if this incident she had with the press is a regular occurrence, then temperament is the problem.
FYI, if Porter swears I could care less, especially in this political environment. Newsom has done that recently so it’s not a big deal. Women shouldn’t be told to hold back their language while at the same time men can still swear.
"This trend was addressed in deep, data-driven detail by a new research paper, entitled: “Welcome to the Free State of Florida: In-Migration and Rising Republicanism in the Sunshine State.”
The 50-page report is slated to be published in an upcoming edition of Political Science Quarterly. But one of the authors, University of Florida political science professor Daniel A. Smith, was kind enough to give me a sneak peek.
The report’s numbers tell the story: The average Florida-born resident is more likely to be a Democrat (37% of Florida natives compared with only 31% Republicans). But the people moving here are way more likely to be Republicans (38% GOP compared to 28% Democrats). That’s a big difference. It means that approximately four Republicans are moving here for every three Democrats, which will redden your state in a hurry."
I'd like to see a similar analysis of New Hampshire, that divides the state into three categories: 1) Native-born New Hampshireites, 2) Transplants from Massachusetts, and 3) Transplants from all other states.
I'll bet that categories 1 and 3 lean Democratic while category 2 is heavily Republican.
I'd be particularly curious about group 3, especially from outside of New England.
If someone is moving to the area for a job in particular, then ending up in NH instead of MA is more often than not going to be a deliberate choice. I think such a group might be close to neutral on partisanship.
Interesting. I suppose there definitely could be a divide between people who moved to NH from New England states other than MA, and people who moved here from outside New England.
Personally, I'm in the former category, and I moved here for the outdoor recreational opportunities. I suspect that people who move somewhere for outdoor recreation specifically are overwhelmingly Democrats.
Yeah, I think non-New England transplants to NH are going to fall into three categories of their own, with the majority of them being the first two categories.
(1) People like yourself that picked NH over MA for outdoor activities. These people will favor democrats. I'd hedge against "overwhelming" because some of that group will be hunters, and that subset will favor republicans a lot; not enough to tilt the overall group though.
(2) People picked NH over MA for reasons of wanting to be further out from Boston. These people will favor republicans.
(3) Everyone else. Maybe MA wasn't an alternative option, maybe they had family in NH, maybe something else. They will lean neutral.
Depends on far away from the NH/MA border they're looking. For people close to the border, it is cheaper on the NH side but it's not extravagantly so.
Tax burden is perceived to be substantially lower in NH but in practice it's is lower but not as significantly as perceived. That might factor in due to perception all the same. I can only speculate based on my anecdotal experience but food and general shopping prices are not substantially different between the two states in my experience.
For housing, a quick search finds the average rent for a 1BR in Nashua NH as ~$1800/month. Same data source has Lowell MA at the same price. The immediate Boston area is going to be pricier than that, but especially people in a more professional earning class will be able to afford somewhere in that region if needed. Arlington and Everett (not far from Boston) both show up as ~$2100/month. A lot of places in the area will be a lot more, like Cambridge and Somerville, but those aren't the only options.
Much further out from the border NH does get cheaper. Concord NH is ~$1500/month for a 1BR. Keene is ~$1400/month. However, once someone is looking at living in those areas it's unlikely that MA was an alternative to them in the first place.
tl;dr I think it does factor in due to perception but it's not as big as a factor as you would expect, especially for people that do their homework before moving.
not at all surprising. In 2024 the NYT, I think, published a piece finding that recent transplants who moved to Montana from California because they hated Cal's high taxes, crime, etc were -- sit down, this is a real shocker here -- deeply conservative. Wondering if native-born Montanans are much more equally balanced.
I wonder if there are any states where people moving to them are a Democratic-leaning group. Maybe Minnesota? MN strikes me as a state that would probably be light-red (or at least a true swing state like neighboring Wisconsin) if not for people who weren't born there.
It's a big problem. Black residents in cities like Oakland and San Francisco are being priced out of the housing market and forced to move to states like GA which offer lower costs of living.
Hell, even Arlington, VA offers more cost incentives for black residents than most places in the Bay Area. A below market rate condo in San Francisco costs more than many market rate condos in Arlington.
I just got an email saying that my subscription to this site was automatically renewing after one year. I can't believe it's been a year already. (Well, probably more than a year, since I didn't immediately press subscribe on day one.) Congratulations guys, I sincerely hope we can sustain this for many years to come.
Would those who reject Rep. Steve Cohen merely because of his age (76) not welcome Janet Mills (77) as the best chance to replace Susan Collins in the Senate?
You would obviously know more but it is a rural state, and I think his background matches it perfectly. He opposes gun control except for red flag laws and doesn’t identify as a liberal.
I think Platner may have a some great qualities going for him. I was only dismissing the idea of Maine being a progressive state. And as Janus suggests, Platner isn’t exactly running as a progressive.
Is Platner running as a progressive? I got the impression he was running as a populist / anti-establishment candidate. A lot of progressives supporting him from out of state tend to also fall into one or both of those categories too.
I hope the DSCC doesn't get involved until next year. Now's not a good time, at least until we've had a chance to see how Platner and Mills' candidacies have evolved as competitive candidates.
The Ohio GOP does this all the time when they are against a ballot measure. They have done it twice on amendments to set up an independent redistricting commission.
The NC GOP pushed a ballot measure in the waning weeks of their supermajority last year to enshrine voter ID for mail voting. It's just as purposely misleading as the MO one is: "Constitutional amendment to require all voters, not just those presenting to vote in person, to present photo identification before voting"
And these Republicans know voters are required to send a copy of their photo ID or submit an ID exception form with their mail in ballots. It's all about locking in power by confusing voters.
Both your case and @buckeye73’s are good examples. But it’s a long-standing and bipartisan problem too. 25 years ago when I was a college student in California we marveled that we couldn’t understand many of the ballot measures as they were written.
Hi, Cathy! Each episode of The Downballot podcast begins with a section we call "Weekly Hits," where David Beard and I discuss some of the top stories making news on the election front over the past week. This time, we led with the TN-07 special election primaries, plus Wesley Hunt jumping into the Texas Senate race.
Then, we have a second section we call our "Deep Dive," where we typically interview a guest. This week, it was VA Del. Dan Helmer.
At the start of each show, we describe what we're going to be talking about, so in the intro, you'll see that we mention TN and TX, and then preview VA. The VA portion of the episode is in the second half.
Pizzo is simply bluffing. With the moderate Jerry Demings in the race, he has no viable path to victory - especially given his record as a racist homophobic bigot. He even voted to effectively eliminate ballot measures.
Talarico even with his relatively low name recognition is a clear favorite. Some other polls showed that among those who get to know both Talarico and Allred, they prefer the former by a wide margin.
Paxton likes to portray himself as a Christian crusader as well, and Talarico is very much a religious left guy, so a good contrast (assuming Paxton wins the primary, which I do believe he will).
- Effective ad-making strategy and ran a professional campaign
- Outperformed Harris among Hispanic voters
Weaknesses:
- Not a dynamic or charismatic speaker; rarely held town halls
- Known to be a lazy campaigner — frequently skipped events and sent surrogates instead (a couple of organizers and operatives told me this)
- Often inaccessible to local organizers and operatives, which hurt grassroots engagement
- Lacked excitement or liberal fire
- Lost to Ted Cruz, but the loss is not widely seen as his personal failure due to the environment
James Talarico
- Gifted orator — I think he can be compared to Obama in terms of public speaking ability
- Skilled at generating viral moments and commanding media attention
- Built a unique brand as a progressive Christian, blending faith with social justice messaging (stark contrast with Paxton if he wins the nom)
- Fresh, energetic figure — can be compared to early Beto O'Rourke
- Somewhat proven electoral talent; won a swing seat in the Texas House in both 2018 and 2020 before being redistricted into a deep-blue seat
- Currently rebranding as a moderate
Weaknesses:
- Previously aligned with the left and was an outspoken progressive (had "proud progressive" on his social media bio for years and has a tweet supporting single-payer healthcare, which could complicate his moderate pivot)
I was going to like this, but this is such an obvious push message for Talarico even if it may have been unintentional.
Here’s a more objective and simpler comparison imo (although it is completely subjective opinion on both our parts, so feel free to disagree). Full disclosure, I’m undecided between the two, so maybe I just see it this way from my own bias.
Fundraising: Both candidates are solid, but Talarico is raising more than Beto did. Edge Talarico.
Campaign: Talarico flipped a State House seat from red to blue and held it, but Allred massively outperformed the national party nominee when almost no other Democrat did. Much easier to win crossover votes for down ballot state elections (yes I know how large state house districts are in TX) than it is for federal ones where partisanship is more solidified and nationalized. Talarico will likely have far more volunteers than Allred, but Allred will still have a solid number of them behind him too. On the other hand Allred faced Ted Cruz. Both candidates are solid, but slightest of edges to Allred.
Ads: Same as above, both are solid, but edge to Allred for the same reason: ability to brand yourself separately from our very unpopular party. Could Talarico do the same in a statewide campaign compared to his district? Yes, but Allred has already proven he can and Talarico is untested, so that’s why I give the edge to Allred. Not all legislators make great federal candidates and sometimes the special sauce that lets them win their legislative districts doesn’t work statewide.
Public speaking: No question on this one, Talarico by a mile. He’s very good in person and in media interviews. Allred is kind of generic Dem in that regard. Big edge Talarico.
Ability to win: This is pretty much a toss up. Talarico is a progressive who’s deeply religious and progressives often have trouble winning red states. Allred is more moderate, he will absolutely win more Trump/GOP voters than Talarico. But Talarico may get more of our base to turnout. Which is most important for 2026? *shrug* Can be fairly argued either way imo.
The way I add this up to assess both candidates is that each have their strengths and weaknesses. So that’s 2 categories with an edge to Allred and 2 categories with an edge to Talarico, 1 where it’s a toss up depending on your perspective. Maybe you can make the argument of the slightest tilts to Talarico due to his public speaking advantage, but it’s not at all so one sided and Allred still has a good public branding even if he’s not a dynamic speaker.
There’s been many Senators elected based on a good perceived image (ad campaign) or devastating attack ads against their opponent who are horrible public speakers. Conversely there’s been many dynamic public speakers who’ve lost because they had a poor perceived image or poor attack campaign against their opponent. It’s not clear cut at all between the two imho.
My points—that he was a lazy campaigner, did not draw large crowds, and often relied on surrogates—were not intended as a push message. The people I spoke with acknowledged that he overperformed but noted that he failed to inspire, especially when compared to the fervor that surrounded Beto. While "inspire" is admittedly subjective, their lack of enthusiasm wasn't necessarily rooted in disagreement with his policies or ideology.
I’m just saying you had 1 negative for Talarico and 5 for Allred. Meanwhile you had 6 positives for Talarico and 4 for Allred. That doesn’t even take into consideration that your positives for Allred were short and for Talarico were long. At the same time your weaknesses were long for Allred. It’s very noticeable to me and obvious.
It’s also worth pointing out that you had much stronger positive word references for Talarico (like Obama) than Allred. I’m not saying that this was your intention, but I am saying that’s how it plainly came across. I know you like Talarico and prefer him to Allred, which is fine, at the same time it’s also impossible for me to not at least think there’s at minimum some bias towards the candidate you prefer given what you wrote.
There were other words you could’ve chosen for both candidates, but you did plain language for Allred and inspirational for Talarico. And the opposite in the weakness area for Allred. If it was consistent language/writing style for one or both candidates I would’ve upvoted and scrolled on, but it wasn’t, so I didn’t because I noticed the difference.
Maybe most other people don’t/didn’t see what I see, I’m just saying how I see it though.
I honestly think Talarico’s a great and unique candidate, so it makes sense that I ended up listing more positives about him. I didn’t mean to make Allred look bad or anything — if it came off that way, that wasn’t the goal, but I’m okay with it. I did list the caveat about his loss to Cruz.
To me the only issue is which would have a better chance to win, but that isn't clear to me. Talarico seems to have a lower floor but a higher ceiling which is usually what you want in a longshot race, but if Paxton wins the GOP primary and Trump keeps cratering especially among Latinos, Dems might be better off with the safer candidate.
We should also consider that compared to 2018 when it was just Beto O’Rourke owning the Democratic primary race and going to all counties in the state, James Talarico has the ability to tap into what Beto started.
More and more channels I am seeing where political analysts cover on the TX-SEN race show an overwhelming number of comments supporting Talarico. Right now, he’s making headlines and getting a lot of excited supporters.
I prefer Talarico. He already outraised Allred despite not having the entire quarter to work with. And fairly or not, Allred ran and lost already. I think there is a minor penalty to repeat defeated candidates from voters; we need every advantage (or lack of disadvantage) we can get in Texas, no matter how small.
Talarico's background also strikes me as a good fit for appealing to marginal voters in Texas, but I could be completely wrong about that.
Make of this what you will, but my take is that Chi Ossé won't challenge Jeffries. Unlike Schumer during the shutdown, Jeffries has handled himself relatively well. While his favorability among Democrats isn't as high as Newsom's or Bernie's, it's also not as low as Schumer's or Fetterman's.
As I mentioned yesterday, Cohen has turned back numerous African-American challengers, many of whom were connected to the older and often religious community and were solidly to the right of him. I think Pearson running as a young progressive, who is also black, will probably make him a much stronger challenger than the previous ones. Pressley defeating Capuano seems instructive here.
Now that New York City's mayoral race is down to three candidates after Mayor Eric Adams dropped out, Democrat Zohran Mamdani leads the race with 46 percent of likely voters backing him, followed by independent candidate Andrew Cuomo with 33 percent support and Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa with 15 percent support, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea- ack) University New York City poll of likely voters released today.
Adams getting out doesn’t seemed to have helped Cuomo that much, or am I mistaken? Granted that could be a byproduct of Adams having single digit support lol.
Trying to imagine who an Adams to Mamdani voter is at this point
Especially when support gets as low as Adams' was, the people involved are not going to fit into our ordered world of ideology and partisan consistency. Anyone supporting him prior to him dropping out was someone who didn't care that he had effectively zero chance of winning.
Moreover, Adams is... weird... and we could expect his supporters were also politically weird. Keep in mind there are people out there that voted for both AOC and Trump!
Two months ago he said the GOP would be facing historical headwinds.
But just a day ago, he's flipping the script by saying that Democrats are facing headwinds going into the 2026 midterms. This coming after the party is winning A LOT of elections (especially in Iowa and special elections, far more than in 2017, and is favored to win the VA gubernatorial race and possibly the NJ gubernatorial race.
Kornacki should be a numbers guy and on top of this. What's the real difference between historical headwinds and just headwinds anyway? Perhaps Kornacki needs a vacation?
From an objective analysis one could arrive to that. Democrats are facing challenges with redistricting pushes and FL has become more red since 2018. The political environment is more difficult for Democrats to manage vs back in 2018.
But saying “historic headwinds” to the GOP back in August and then saying “headwinds” to the Democratic Party when in fact election results so far in 2025 argue the contrary just seems to me like there’s not enough full analysis of the big picture. It’s just odd.
Unless both political parties are not liked right now, which I wouldn’t be surprised is a sentiment. Many independent voters, the largest growing bloc of voters, stay being this way because they don’t feel they are aligned with either Democrats or Republicans. They’re likely to vote more for Democrats in the 2026 midterms but that does not mean they will necessarily join the party. Ezra Klein has been vocal about explaining this problem Democrats have.
Then again, Democrats did do better than expected in the 2022 midterms even while polling back in 2021 suggested otherwise.
Justin Pearson would be a great new voice to add to Congress. And to Steve Cohen we can say sincerely: "Thank you for your service, sir!"
All these guys are basically reading the same script when they get a younger challenger, and it's not a good look. I've generally been a fan of his until the comments referenced above about how only his anointed successor could replace him. Such a king-like comment for the times we're living in.
They only ever talk about creating legislation that no voter ever pays attention to. Your job is to represent your constituents AND party to them. Of course you want to pass laws to help, but that’s just half the job! You need legislation and public messaging. Not just 1 where the old school way of making a bill and doing good for them mattered. It doesn’t.
Social media does, going on alternative media does, doing interviews with a strong voice as a younger, fresh, healthy looking person does. Branding matters! Trump of all people knows this and is how one of the most incompetent, stupid, corrupt people on this entire planet became President only to enrich himself and his family and punish his enemies, not once, but twice.
How the fuck have some Democrats not gotten this basic fact yet? No wonder our base stayed home or voted for Trump in the bluest districts in the country last year and voters think our party is old and weak. These are no longer optional things, they are essential and when you see how many young Republican influencers and congressmembers have audiences of millions of people, you start to understand why Democrats got their asses handed to them in 2024 elections.
Their party built a messaging alternative and social media operation so large and powerful, they went outside the traditional media to promote their lies and propaganda, and the uneducated voters of America bought it hook, line and sinker. That’s exactly what Democrats need to do. But we can only do that with people who can at least say “yes, we need to do that”.
Going to take a break from posting here for a bit. I'm not doing well emotionally and I keep posting panic comments here I shouldn't be.
If I can get myself under control again I'll start posting again, right now is just a really bad time for me and I'm really doing poorly. See you all later.
Take care of yourself, and best wishes for a full recovery to your normal self. All of us are going through trauma with what's happening, and it's good you're focused on your well being.
Hopefully, positive results from Virginia and New Jersey (and California) next month will help us feel at least a little bit better.
One of the things that works for me when I'm feeling down is to look at pictures and videos of my cousins' children, aged 3, 9 months, and 2 months. Their antics (and growth) never fail to cheer me up.
Wishing you the best. I've posted a handful of these myself and have deleted many more before posting them. That's a sign that you find comfort and comradery in this community, which means you should stick around.
I actually find it much easier to come here than any other source of news, because it's mostly election-focused, which brings lots of positive news, unlike the rest of the headlines.
I share your feelings. I can take only so much of PoliticalWire, mainstream media and even left-wing media at this point. The Downballot is non-alarmist, just the facts and analysis.
Agreed and its why it's my first stop for anything elections related...
Happy to see Hart’s memo stating that Jones still has a solid chance at winning.
And Jones's numbers should only go up as the initial shock of the revelation wears off and Trump continues to dominate the news (making it clear to Jones's supporters why they were supporting him in the first place).
I hope so. We need every Democratic AG we can get.
If this poll is to be believed, what's telling is that Miyares is still at 45% (which he's been hovering around in most polls). He doesn't seem to be gaining anything (yet).
Wondering if there's a sense of legislative session/filing deadlines (and options for special sessions) that state would have to finalize redistricting that could be added to Downballot's guide? Maybe hard to gauge beyond filing deadlines as the last possible date for changes. Just to have a sense for us readers.
couple of comments on the Katie Porter news cycle. Lots of my Cal progressive friends are hollering about it, most saying that (a) she's a horrible person and/or (b) she would be a horrible governor as well. And Betty Yee, rhymes with Three Percent In The Polls, put out a statement demanding that Porter drop out, and referring to herself as the only remaining viable female candidate.
I don't understand people's motivations here. Would Becerra be a better governor? (he would not) Are they pining for Antoni-Oil, or Stephen Clooless, or Crypto Baby Calderon, or the rumor of Padilla or Republican Rick Caruso? Do they think that if Porter drops out, all her support transmutes to Yee?
Also, I suppose it's a good thing that we're getting this out early, while most Cal Dem faithful are working to pass Prop 50.
What's wrong with Becerra?
He will not sign the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge. As AG, he would not do anything with the Exxon file that his predecessor (AG Kamala Harris) opened, and would not do anything to investigate Exxon despite numerous efforts to move him. He ended up lying to me about it on a local Dems zoom call. He never did anything interesting as HHS, or as a Congressmember. (during 24 years in Congress, he got 3 bills passed -- one appointing a Smithsonian regent, one naming a post office, one urging study of a Smithsonian Latino museum.) I find him to be a boring speaker.
Ok but what did Katie Porter do?
She got caught on tape yelling at a staffer like plenty of Male Congresspeople have before, I'm sure.
Sports broadcasting legend Chris Berman got caught on tape cursing out production staff many years ago (link is to video with a ton of profanity, so listener discretion advised):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TLG_LtWhj4
Men are more likely to be celebrated, and women are more likely to be vilified, for getting angry at employees.
Yeah, they suck too. The bar for how you treat your staff is not "what can a white man get away with?"
And it wasn't even that severe.
Yeah I was expecting it to be much worse and literally this is how practically all congressmen/women treat their staff.
He worked for Joe Biden at one time. Let's be honest...one reason why the Democratic Party is unpopular among a lot of voters is because of the perception of the party as a revolving door unreceptive to political figures outside of its establishment (even though the Republican Party is even more of a revolving door associated with a single cult leader). Becerra is the Biden revolving door candidate; Padilla would be the Newsom revolving door candidate (Newsom appointed Becerra to the U.S. Senate) if he were to run for governor.
Deb Haaland in the New Mexico gubernatorial race, even though she's popular with a lot of progressives, might face criticism in the Democratic primary there for having worked in the Biden Administration despite being Biden's most progressive cabinet member.
Right, but the Biden Administration did great things, and the sooner he's rehabilitated for what he actually did, rather than remembered only for not being the magician who could get rid of inflation immediately and do better than presiding over the best economy in the world and for being succeeded by fucking Trump, the better. I don't think people who worked effectively to help him get great things done should be thereby marked with a stigma as a result.
Maybe history will work out to highlight the things Biden did really well, but I think that his legacy will be permanently damaged by being succeeded by Trump. So many of Biden's would-be enduring accomplishments have been or are actively being gutted. It's like if Nixon repealed all the Great Society programs that LBJ instituted. With those gone, there's not much left for the history books.
Biden's failure to pick an AG with follow through is going to haunt his legacy.
Also, Biden left office after turning 80 and, due to health reasons, won't be able to make much of a post-presidential legacy like, for example, Jimmy Carter was able to.
I don’t know the New Mexico political environment enough but I doubt being apart of the Biden Administration will impact the race that much.
Deb Haaland was Secretary of Interior, which unlike Pete Buttigeg’s role as Secretary of Transportation was not directly involved in infrastructure planning and support. Buttigeg was, as a lot of manufacturing development does in fact directly impact the transportation system.
I wish Superintendent Thurmond's campaign had more traction
It would be a welcome change to see a politician from the East Bay to be the next Governor. We've had too many people from LA County and San Francisco County (Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gray Davis) and San Francisco County (Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown) and could use a welcome change.
Becerra is basically as good as Porter on policy and is far far far better as a people manager to actually get a legislative agenda passed. Becerra's ten years in House leadership are not reduced to bills passed (this is the same slanted metric used against party leaders like Pelosi all the time), and it's completely false to say the way HHS drove a forceful, equitable regulatory agenda was "nothing interesting"--that's really just a lack of familiarity. I get you're a climate advocate, but Porter will not do better on these issues when no one will work with her no matter how brilliant she is. It's in the best interests of California (and given it's size, the party and country) to have a person who can actually manage and lead the state. It's not Porter, and California is not bereft of other (more) competent people to fill her space like Becerra, Yee, Thurmond or Padilla.
Edit: To be clear, Becerra SHOULD be better on climate, and should keep getting pushed on it!
And given there are a large number of undecided voters in the gubernatorial race, there’s still more than 7 months left until the primary.
I also think Toni Atkins made a mistake dropping out of the race. I hope she reconsiders, especially considering she’s got plenty of legislative experience along with being State Senate Pro Tem.
Reentering a race after dropping out is really unlikely to work. I guess there must be some counterexamples, but can you think of any in statewide races?
Yeah, I know, the optics aren’t great. I am not familiar with many candidates dropping out and jumping back in the race later but was just arguing that Toni Atkins made a mistake bowing out.
In all honesty, I don’t think Atkins would reconsider even under pressure from Democratic Party insiders. If she didn’t get traction in her gubernatorial race, I have a hunch Katie Porter was not the reason why. It was breaking through the amount of undecided voters and having to try to win them over along with Democrats that I think made this more complicated for Atkins to run a credible statewide race. If Porter hasn’t yet addressed how to close this gap, then it’s more about the dynamics of the gubernatorial race in general than just one candidate.
That said, as I said before on TDB, Atkins had the best profile out of any gubernatorial candidates and also the most relatable to voters. Her blue collar upbringing having grown up would have shown her to be a stark contrast to Porter and the others. I mean, the first LGBTQ and woman Governor of California would have been great. Amazing that Oregon has beat California in this sense.
Plenty of us want someone better than Gavin Newsom as Governor. Me personally, Newsom gets too distracted with his political agenda and celebrity status as opposed to being laser focused on his job as Governor and letting the results speak for themselves. The fact that he has time to have his own podcast is more evidence proving my point.
Having a Governor in the vein of Jerry Brown is more my cup of tea. Brown was tough, had thick skin and wasn’t afraid to call out BS, especially with Trump from 2017-2018 as well as the UC Regents efforts to raise tuition for UC students.
I can’t speak on behalf of those criticizing Katie Porter as I am not going that far. However, if Porter was originally looked at from the standpoint of being the one candidate to be ready to fight Trump on Day One of being Governor, how are we to be assured this will be the case if her temperament gets to be like this more frequently?
Why do you think that having 4-letter words in her vocabulary would make it harder to fight Trump?
This isn’t about words at all. It’s the ability to buckle down under pressure in general. Porter could throw as many four letter words or anything other words in her vocabulary but if this incident she had with the press is a regular occurrence, then temperament is the problem.
FYI, if Porter swears I could care less, especially in this political environment. Newsom has done that recently so it’s not a big deal. Women shouldn’t be told to hold back their language while at the same time men can still swear.
"This trend was addressed in deep, data-driven detail by a new research paper, entitled: “Welcome to the Free State of Florida: In-Migration and Rising Republicanism in the Sunshine State.”
The 50-page report is slated to be published in an upcoming edition of Political Science Quarterly. But one of the authors, University of Florida political science professor Daniel A. Smith, was kind enough to give me a sneak peek.
The report’s numbers tell the story: The average Florida-born resident is more likely to be a Democrat (37% of Florida natives compared with only 31% Republicans). But the people moving here are way more likely to be Republicans (38% GOP compared to 28% Democrats). That’s a big difference. It means that approximately four Republicans are moving here for every three Democrats, which will redden your state in a hurry."
https://www.tampabay.com/viewpoints/2025/10/08/swing-state-maga-central-florida-gets-redder-grows-slower-column/
Another piece from 2018 which this reminded me of:
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2018/11/09/native-texans-voted-for-native-texan-beto-o-rourke-transplants-went-for-ted-cruz-exit-poll-shows/
I think the correct slogan would be Don't Wyoming My Texas/Florida.
I'd like to see a similar analysis of New Hampshire, that divides the state into three categories: 1) Native-born New Hampshireites, 2) Transplants from Massachusetts, and 3) Transplants from all other states.
I'll bet that categories 1 and 3 lean Democratic while category 2 is heavily Republican.
I'd be particularly curious about group 3, especially from outside of New England.
If someone is moving to the area for a job in particular, then ending up in NH instead of MA is more often than not going to be a deliberate choice. I think such a group might be close to neutral on partisanship.
Interesting. I suppose there definitely could be a divide between people who moved to NH from New England states other than MA, and people who moved here from outside New England.
Personally, I'm in the former category, and I moved here for the outdoor recreational opportunities. I suspect that people who move somewhere for outdoor recreation specifically are overwhelmingly Democrats.
Yeah, I think non-New England transplants to NH are going to fall into three categories of their own, with the majority of them being the first two categories.
(1) People like yourself that picked NH over MA for outdoor activities. These people will favor democrats. I'd hedge against "overwhelming" because some of that group will be hunters, and that subset will favor republicans a lot; not enough to tilt the overall group though.
(2) People picked NH over MA for reasons of wanting to be further out from Boston. These people will favor republicans.
(3) Everyone else. Maybe MA wasn't an alternative option, maybe they had family in NH, maybe something else. They will lean neutral.
How much would cost of living factor into people choosing NH over MA?
Depends on far away from the NH/MA border they're looking. For people close to the border, it is cheaper on the NH side but it's not extravagantly so.
Tax burden is perceived to be substantially lower in NH but in practice it's is lower but not as significantly as perceived. That might factor in due to perception all the same. I can only speculate based on my anecdotal experience but food and general shopping prices are not substantially different between the two states in my experience.
For housing, a quick search finds the average rent for a 1BR in Nashua NH as ~$1800/month. Same data source has Lowell MA at the same price. The immediate Boston area is going to be pricier than that, but especially people in a more professional earning class will be able to afford somewhere in that region if needed. Arlington and Everett (not far from Boston) both show up as ~$2100/month. A lot of places in the area will be a lot more, like Cambridge and Somerville, but those aren't the only options.
Much further out from the border NH does get cheaper. Concord NH is ~$1500/month for a 1BR. Keene is ~$1400/month. However, once someone is looking at living in those areas it's unlikely that MA was an alternative to them in the first place.
tl;dr I think it does factor in due to perception but it's not as big as a factor as you would expect, especially for people that do their homework before moving.
not at all surprising. In 2024 the NYT, I think, published a piece finding that recent transplants who moved to Montana from California because they hated Cal's high taxes, crime, etc were -- sit down, this is a real shocker here -- deeply conservative. Wondering if native-born Montanans are much more equally balanced.
https://www.ppic.org/blog/californias-republican-exodus/
From the PPIC
https://sos.idaho.gov/dashboards/moving-voters/
Great visualizations
I wonder if there are any states where people moving to them are a Democratic-leaning group. Maybe Minnesota? MN strikes me as a state that would probably be light-red (or at least a true swing state like neighboring Wisconsin) if not for people who weren't born there.
I'm pretty sure that solid majorities of people moving to Virginia, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington are Democrats.
all blue states + swing states - NH and Arizona have either balanced or Democratic leaning transplants according to a NYT Upshot analysis last year
Here's a gift link to that article for folks.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/30/upshot/voters-moving-polarization.html?unlocked_article_code=1.sU8.FwHU.wSGIE11_hP_E&smid=url-share
Ugh, that one was done before 2024 general.
NYT had since tracked the movement since 12-24, four cycles.
The consistent leftward movement outside of some pockets of college towns, are Washington state, Colorado, and most pronouncedly Atlanta suburbs.
That new analysis is not about transplants. That's simply electoral.
I see.
Georgia. It's a magnet for Democrats who want to stay in the south.
Also a magnet for California's Black exodus.
https://calmatters.org/projects/california-black-population-exodus/
It's a big problem. Black residents in cities like Oakland and San Francisco are being priced out of the housing market and forced to move to states like GA which offer lower costs of living.
Hell, even Arlington, VA offers more cost incentives for black residents than most places in the Bay Area. A below market rate condo in San Francisco costs more than many market rate condos in Arlington.
Anyone who ever argued against Florida attracting MAGA retirees turning the state redder can eat some well earned crow now.
I just got an email saying that my subscription to this site was automatically renewing after one year. I can't believe it's been a year already. (Well, probably more than a year, since I didn't immediately press subscribe on day one.) Congratulations guys, I sincerely hope we can sustain this for many years to come.
Would those who reject Rep. Steve Cohen merely because of his age (76) not welcome Janet Mills (77) as the best chance to replace Susan Collins in the Senate?
It's an open question that Mills actually is the best chance to take on Collins. Honestly the lack of polling is frustrating.
Younger Dems and progressives in the SDC are backing Platner, Politico reports.
The usual names: Warren, Murphy, Kim, Whitehouse, Heinrich etc
I think this makes official DSCC involvement and strong arming unlikely.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/09/graham-platner-senate-democrats-00599107
That’s fine, but Maine is not exactly a progressive state.
You would obviously know more but it is a rural state, and I think his background matches it perfectly. He opposes gun control except for red flag laws and doesn’t identify as a liberal.
I think Platner may have a some great qualities going for him. I was only dismissing the idea of Maine being a progressive state. And as Janus suggests, Platner isn’t exactly running as a progressive.
I was talking about the Senate Democratic Caucus not Maine.
Is Platner running as a progressive? I got the impression he was running as a populist / anti-establishment candidate. A lot of progressives supporting him from out of state tend to also fall into one or both of those categories too.
He seems like an Osborn type to me.
He has been widely described as a progressive though he staunchly opposes the label and prefers populist.
I hope the DSCC doesn't get involved until next year. Now's not a good time, at least until we've had a chance to see how Platner and Mills' candidacies have evolved as competitive candidates.
As is the mindless dithering.
I don't think she's the best chance to take on Collins and I'd like Pearson to replace Cohen.
That text in MO is so confusing.
Politicians that intentionally confuse and mislead voters are awful regardless of their political affiliation or views.
The Ohio GOP does this all the time when they are against a ballot measure. They have done it twice on amendments to set up an independent redistricting commission.
The NC GOP pushed a ballot measure in the waning weeks of their supermajority last year to enshrine voter ID for mail voting. It's just as purposely misleading as the MO one is: "Constitutional amendment to require all voters, not just those presenting to vote in person, to present photo identification before voting"
And these Republicans know voters are required to send a copy of their photo ID or submit an ID exception form with their mail in ballots. It's all about locking in power by confusing voters.
Both your case and @buckeye73’s are good examples. But it’s a long-standing and bipartisan problem too. 25 years ago when I was a college student in California we marveled that we couldn’t understand many of the ballot measures as they were written.
I’m looking for the transcript about the Virginia House of Delegates. The transcript linked is about Tennessee and other things.
Hi, Cathy! Each episode of The Downballot podcast begins with a section we call "Weekly Hits," where David Beard and I discuss some of the top stories making news on the election front over the past week. This time, we led with the TN-07 special election primaries, plus Wesley Hunt jumping into the Texas Senate race.
Then, we have a second section we call our "Deep Dive," where we typically interview a guest. This week, it was VA Del. Dan Helmer.
At the start of each show, we describe what we're going to be talking about, so in the intro, you'll see that we mention TN and TX, and then preview VA. The VA portion of the episode is in the second half.
Pizzo is simply bluffing. With the moderate Jerry Demings in the race, he has no viable path to victory - especially given his record as a racist homophobic bigot. He even voted to effectively eliminate ballot measures.
I misread "bluffing" as "baffling" and honestly both are correct
2026 TX Senate Democratic Primary (announced candidates)
🔵 Colin Allred - 46%
🔵 James Talarico - 42%
⚪ Not sure - 12%
—
Full field
🔵 Jasmine Crockett- 31%
🔵 James Talarico - 25%
🔵 Beto O'Rourke - 25%
🔵 Colin Allred - 13%
⚪ Not sure - 6%
UH/TSU | 9/19-10/1 | LVs
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/1976275868701085962
Talarico even with his relatively low name recognition is a clear favorite. Some other polls showed that among those who get to know both Talarico and Allred, they prefer the former by a wide margin.
Any consensus around here if we'd prefer Allred or Talarico?
I'd prefer Talarico. Allred already had a shot. And Talarico seems more of an aggressive candidate.
I mean Harris lost by 13, he had no shot. Not that dems are favored here next year either.
Paxton likes to portray himself as a Christian crusader as well, and Talarico is very much a religious left guy, so a good contrast (assuming Paxton wins the primary, which I do believe he will).
Colin Allred
- Generic moderate Democrat
- Was a strong fundraiser
- Effective ad-making strategy and ran a professional campaign
- Outperformed Harris among Hispanic voters
Weaknesses:
- Not a dynamic or charismatic speaker; rarely held town halls
- Known to be a lazy campaigner — frequently skipped events and sent surrogates instead (a couple of organizers and operatives told me this)
- Often inaccessible to local organizers and operatives, which hurt grassroots engagement
- Lacked excitement or liberal fire
- Lost to Ted Cruz, but the loss is not widely seen as his personal failure due to the environment
James Talarico
- Gifted orator — I think he can be compared to Obama in terms of public speaking ability
- Skilled at generating viral moments and commanding media attention
- Built a unique brand as a progressive Christian, blending faith with social justice messaging (stark contrast with Paxton if he wins the nom)
- Fresh, energetic figure — can be compared to early Beto O'Rourke
- Somewhat proven electoral talent; won a swing seat in the Texas House in both 2018 and 2020 before being redistricted into a deep-blue seat
- Currently rebranding as a moderate
Weaknesses:
- Previously aligned with the left and was an outspoken progressive (had "proud progressive" on his social media bio for years and has a tweet supporting single-payer healthcare, which could complicate his moderate pivot)
I was going to like this, but this is such an obvious push message for Talarico even if it may have been unintentional.
Here’s a more objective and simpler comparison imo (although it is completely subjective opinion on both our parts, so feel free to disagree). Full disclosure, I’m undecided between the two, so maybe I just see it this way from my own bias.
Fundraising: Both candidates are solid, but Talarico is raising more than Beto did. Edge Talarico.
Campaign: Talarico flipped a State House seat from red to blue and held it, but Allred massively outperformed the national party nominee when almost no other Democrat did. Much easier to win crossover votes for down ballot state elections (yes I know how large state house districts are in TX) than it is for federal ones where partisanship is more solidified and nationalized. Talarico will likely have far more volunteers than Allred, but Allred will still have a solid number of them behind him too. On the other hand Allred faced Ted Cruz. Both candidates are solid, but slightest of edges to Allred.
Ads: Same as above, both are solid, but edge to Allred for the same reason: ability to brand yourself separately from our very unpopular party. Could Talarico do the same in a statewide campaign compared to his district? Yes, but Allred has already proven he can and Talarico is untested, so that’s why I give the edge to Allred. Not all legislators make great federal candidates and sometimes the special sauce that lets them win their legislative districts doesn’t work statewide.
Public speaking: No question on this one, Talarico by a mile. He’s very good in person and in media interviews. Allred is kind of generic Dem in that regard. Big edge Talarico.
Ability to win: This is pretty much a toss up. Talarico is a progressive who’s deeply religious and progressives often have trouble winning red states. Allred is more moderate, he will absolutely win more Trump/GOP voters than Talarico. But Talarico may get more of our base to turnout. Which is most important for 2026? *shrug* Can be fairly argued either way imo.
The way I add this up to assess both candidates is that each have their strengths and weaknesses. So that’s 2 categories with an edge to Allred and 2 categories with an edge to Talarico, 1 where it’s a toss up depending on your perspective. Maybe you can make the argument of the slightest tilts to Talarico due to his public speaking advantage, but it’s not at all so one sided and Allred still has a good public branding even if he’s not a dynamic speaker.
There’s been many Senators elected based on a good perceived image (ad campaign) or devastating attack ads against their opponent who are horrible public speakers. Conversely there’s been many dynamic public speakers who’ve lost because they had a poor perceived image or poor attack campaign against their opponent. It’s not clear cut at all between the two imho.
My points—that he was a lazy campaigner, did not draw large crowds, and often relied on surrogates—were not intended as a push message. The people I spoke with acknowledged that he overperformed but noted that he failed to inspire, especially when compared to the fervor that surrounded Beto. While "inspire" is admittedly subjective, their lack of enthusiasm wasn't necessarily rooted in disagreement with his policies or ideology.
It can be confirmed by online accounts too:
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/colin-allred-roland-gutierrez-primary-travel/
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-red-ted-cruz-allred/
https://newrepublic.com/article/188260/allred-cruz-democrats-texas-blue
https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/colin-allred-senate-defeat/
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/08/29/colin-allred-senate-campaign-strategy-ted-cruz/
I’m just saying you had 1 negative for Talarico and 5 for Allred. Meanwhile you had 6 positives for Talarico and 4 for Allred. That doesn’t even take into consideration that your positives for Allred were short and for Talarico were long. At the same time your weaknesses were long for Allred. It’s very noticeable to me and obvious.
It’s also worth pointing out that you had much stronger positive word references for Talarico (like Obama) than Allred. I’m not saying that this was your intention, but I am saying that’s how it plainly came across. I know you like Talarico and prefer him to Allred, which is fine, at the same time it’s also impossible for me to not at least think there’s at minimum some bias towards the candidate you prefer given what you wrote.
There were other words you could’ve chosen for both candidates, but you did plain language for Allred and inspirational for Talarico. And the opposite in the weakness area for Allred. If it was consistent language/writing style for one or both candidates I would’ve upvoted and scrolled on, but it wasn’t, so I didn’t because I noticed the difference.
Maybe most other people don’t/didn’t see what I see, I’m just saying how I see it though.
I honestly think Talarico’s a great and unique candidate, so it makes sense that I ended up listing more positives about him. I didn’t mean to make Allred look bad or anything — if it came off that way, that wasn’t the goal, but I’m okay with it. I did list the caveat about his loss to Cruz.
if a candidate isn't that good, why try to make up reasons why they're secretly good actually?
Come on. Talarico is better. That was the point of that comment. No one is entitled to objectivity.
To me the only issue is which would have a better chance to win, but that isn't clear to me. Talarico seems to have a lower floor but a higher ceiling which is usually what you want in a longshot race, but if Paxton wins the GOP primary and Trump keeps cratering especially among Latinos, Dems might be better off with the safer candidate.
How would Allred be more safe?
He's already faced a well-funded negative campaign and ran 5 points ahead of Harris. Talarico is unproven.
We should also consider that compared to 2018 when it was just Beto O’Rourke owning the Democratic primary race and going to all counties in the state, James Talarico has the ability to tap into what Beto started.
More and more channels I am seeing where political analysts cover on the TX-SEN race show an overwhelming number of comments supporting Talarico. Right now, he’s making headlines and getting a lot of excited supporters.
Well put
I prefer Talarico. He already outraised Allred despite not having the entire quarter to work with. And fairly or not, Allred ran and lost already. I think there is a minor penalty to repeat defeated candidates from voters; we need every advantage (or lack of disadvantage) we can get in Texas, no matter how small.
Talarico's background also strikes me as a good fit for appealing to marginal voters in Texas, but I could be completely wrong about that.
Tossup between the two and my reasons are below in a longer post.
https://www.axios.com/2025/10/09/zohran-mamdani-ally-challenge-hakeem-jeffries
Make of this what you will, but my take is that Chi Ossé won't challenge Jeffries. Unlike Schumer during the shutdown, Jeffries has handled himself relatively well. While his favorability among Democrats isn't as high as Newsom's or Bernie's, it's also not as low as Schumer's or Fetterman's.
I think Osse not wanting to spend his 20s in DC is probably a bigger motivator than anything else.
Who? Ya'll thinking these nobodies have legit shot?
I wouldn't necessarily call an NYC Councilmember a nobody, particularly when it comes to an NYC House race.
he's a sitting New York City Council member. He represents a chunk of Jeffries' district. He's not a nobody.
If so, one of the benefits of being nearly invisible.
And how has Jeffries handled himself better than Schumer during the shutdown?
Schumer’s video the other day was pretty good - he seems to be getting it - even if he’s late to the party at least he’s here now.
His strategies, lack of vision and factionalism are bad.
As I mentioned yesterday, Cohen has turned back numerous African-American challengers, many of whom were connected to the older and often religious community and were solidly to the right of him. I think Pearson running as a young progressive, who is also black, will probably make him a much stronger challenger than the previous ones. Pressley defeating Capuano seems instructive here.
Now that New York City's mayoral race is down to three candidates after Mayor Eric Adams dropped out, Democrat Zohran Mamdani leads the race with 46 percent of likely voters backing him, followed by independent candidate Andrew Cuomo with 33 percent support and Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa with 15 percent support, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea- ack) University New York City poll of likely voters released today.
https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3935
Adams and Independent Jim Walden will still appear on the ballot
Adams getting out doesn’t seemed to have helped Cuomo that much, or am I mistaken? Granted that could be a byproduct of Adams having single digit support lol.
Trying to imagine who an Adams to Mamdani voter is at this point
Especially when support gets as low as Adams' was, the people involved are not going to fit into our ordered world of ideology and partisan consistency. Anyone supporting him prior to him dropping out was someone who didn't care that he had effectively zero chance of winning.
Moreover, Adams is... weird... and we could expect his supporters were also politically weird. Keep in mind there are people out there that voted for both AOC and Trump!
Steve Kornacki's been acting strange lately.
Two months ago he said the GOP would be facing historical headwinds.
But just a day ago, he's flipping the script by saying that Democrats are facing headwinds going into the 2026 midterms. This coming after the party is winning A LOT of elections (especially in Iowa and special elections, far more than in 2017, and is favored to win the VA gubernatorial race and possibly the NJ gubernatorial race.
Kornacki should be a numbers guy and on top of this. What's the real difference between historical headwinds and just headwinds anyway? Perhaps Kornacki needs a vacation?
Kornacki on GOP midterm prospects - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lIFwyNXv7o
Kornacki on Democratic Party midterm prospects - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv2DHzWo2sU
He needs a vacation. And he's pushing a talking point his employer wants him to go along with.
I didn’t think the report on the Democrats was unfair.
From an objective analysis one could arrive to that. Democrats are facing challenges with redistricting pushes and FL has become more red since 2018. The political environment is more difficult for Democrats to manage vs back in 2018.
But saying “historic headwinds” to the GOP back in August and then saying “headwinds” to the Democratic Party when in fact election results so far in 2025 argue the contrary just seems to me like there’s not enough full analysis of the big picture. It’s just odd.
Unless both political parties are not liked right now, which I wouldn’t be surprised is a sentiment. Many independent voters, the largest growing bloc of voters, stay being this way because they don’t feel they are aligned with either Democrats or Republicans. They’re likely to vote more for Democrats in the 2026 midterms but that does not mean they will necessarily join the party. Ezra Klein has been vocal about explaining this problem Democrats have.
Then again, Democrats did do better than expected in the 2022 midterms even while polling back in 2021 suggested otherwise.