I will never, in my entire life, give a single nickel to the DSCC (or DCCC). Wahls and Sage are not threats to our chances in Iowa. I wonder if Jasmine Crockett's going to get the same treatment, given that she likely is a threat to our chances in Texas.
Also, they had no reason to intervene in blue Minnesota by backing corporate aligned crypto darling and neoliberal ideologue Angie Craig. This ultimately pissed off progressives in the Senate which lead to them organizing their own efforts.
A cynical part of me thinks it's that their donors wanted it, but it could just as easily be genuine stupidity (or wrongly believing Minnesota is competitive) on their part.
"The Democratic primary election between the progressive Lt. Governor Peggy Flanagan and moderate Representative Angie Craig is widely seen as a part of the national struggle between the progressive and moderate wings of the Democratic party over its future, with endorsements split by ideology, following the 2024 U.S. elections.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]
Craig is reportedly receiving the private backing of the Democratic Senate leadership, including Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). However, they have yet to publicly take sides in the Democratic primary.[16][17][18][19][15]"
Schumer and Gillibrand are just ideologically opposed to progressives in my view. It is funny in hindsight that Gillibrand pretended to be a super feminist progressive Senator for a while in 2018-20 to run for President.
Though that doesn't always translate when you run for larger offices. Some people are really good at door knocking and retail campaigning. Turns out to be pretty much irrelevant when you're running for a constituency of 3.2 million. (Or 760,000 for that matter)
Likable. Great story. Stronger social media game so far. Walls is great, but he's an unimpressive speaker (aside from his Iowa House speech when he was 17). Being from Western Iowa will help Turek in a general.
As someone who has management consulting experience but in the private sector, I find the notion of consultants in the political sphere to be absolute BS.
What do they do anyway that real consultants who work in my field don’t do?
I would love to see detailed reporting on the MAGA threats that were voiced against Indiana lawmakers and their families – both before and in the aftermath of the failed gerrymandering vote.
Surely the threats by Heritage Action alone ought to be a basis for legal action and severe political repercussions!
The New York Times had an article a couple years ago which I could try to dig up that detailed the baseline level of threats that women in politics receive. Near daily threats of violence, including sexual violence and threats against their families, are routine. I can't imagine how much this gets amplified when the President singles them out specifically.
I think it’s a matter of them choosing not to look for those people making the threats, not them being unable to find them. That’s not the narrative that the NYT, CNN, etc want to tell (so long as they are not the targets anyway)
Heritage Action and The Heritage Foundation should really be named what they really are so they don’t try to hide from the fact of what they really are about.
"Crockett, who was first elected to Congress in 2022, is better known among primary voters than Talarico. The poll found that 94% of likely primary voters know enough about Crockett to have an opinion of her. She’s popular with primary voters, with 85% of likely voters with a favorable opinion, versus 9% with an unfavorable opinion.
In contrast, 79% of poll respondents knew enough about Talarico, an Austin Democrat, to form an opinion of him. He also had a strong approval rating, with 77% of respondents viewing him favorably, and only 2% with an unfavorable opinion.
“The good news for Talarico is that he has room to grow,” Jones said.
Texas Democrats haven’t won a statewide race since 1994, so an issue in the primary campaign will be who can best mobilize voters. Poll respondents thought Crockett would be able to “mobilize Democratic-leaning low propensity voters” for the general election by a 53% 34% margin over Talarico.
Respondents by a 58% to 29% margin said Talarico would be better at winning the votes of crossover Republicans."
I honestly think Talarico is gonna win in the end. Crockett has the name recognition and that's obviously helping her early on, but once the primary heats up I think Talarico's gonna win voters over. His vision is so much clearer than Crockett's, which seems just to be "I'm gonna do what I did in the House, just now in the Senate"
It's interesting though, because there's the progressive vs center-left comparison (Bernie/Crockett vs. Hillary/Talarico), but it's also inverted with the name recognition gap (Bernie/Talarico vs. Hillary/Crockett).
No, Talarico is not similar to Hillary. Why do you think that? He has a fairly progressive reputation but seems moderate when compared to Crockett's style. He is a class reductionist like Sanders but with his unique faith-based message.
I figured Crockett would have a decent social media operation too given her selling swag and getting into high profile moments designed for it. I have seen friends in ther late 20s and early 30s from other states who I consider low to mid informed on politics post things from Talarico on their social media so maybe he has a stronger operation there.
If there was no quid pro quo going on between TACO and Berger, then I'm the King of England. Berger's ally Galey basically said to WRAL what NC Rs are thinking out loud.
I pray this blows up on them next year. They need a serious electoral spanking -- not just losing the open Senate seat and state Supreme Court seat but losing their supermajority (or losing a state house) would be a MASSIVE blow to them.
IL-Sen: Seems like Stratton is, either intentionally or not, employing something similar to Alsobrooks' MD-Sen strategy, letting her flush opponent spend a bunch to drive up his poll numbers but ultimately more people settle on the woman of color.
Now this is less likely to work since Raja has more friends in his corner than Trone did (and also there are two women of color running), but I can see some parallels.
Alsobrooks started from a more prominent position--she was an executive who actually had responsibilities. Stratton has been LG, and not a very prominent one. She hasn't seized on any one issue to distinguish herself, and Kelly is also in the race, with a higher profile. I still don't see Stratton coming in any place higher than 3rd.
No way. Pritzker forced out Kelly as chair of the state party and she's not going to defer to Stratton, who's Pritzker's candidate (even if he's not exactly been pouring time and money into her campaign).
Indiana Republican state legislators standing up to Trump, Vance, and threats to funding is the most hopeful news involving Republicans since maybe Raffensperger.
If only Republicans in Congress showed a little spine.
Even if the culture is more reasonable there, they deserve a lot of credit. After all, this pushback hasn’t come from Indiana’s US Senators and House members.
For all the "Dems blew the shutdown" pieces, I think what the shutdown did was help break Trump's stranglehold on the party. His frustration and incompetence following Dems digging in showed he didn't have this mystical aura anymore to bend everything to his whim.
Add to that that his syncopants in the White House have treated every Republican elected official across the country like shit and basically regarded them as peons to do the White House's bidding, and everyone is fed up. Most Republicans will still ride or die with him through the midterms, but I think the 100% subservience we saw in the initial 6 months is over.
I’m not apologizing or turn the other cheek when it comes to Republicans. Abbott is an absolute disgrace to the disabled community and he screwed over people who sue for settlements when they end up disabled. So he deserves every insult thrown his way.
If Schumer is going to pick his favorites behind the scenes, can he at least do something like try to persuade Laura Kelly to run? He has about six months to get her to change her mind.
I think Montana is too far gone. The oil boom killed Dems here when it drove Republican workers to eastern Montana and the Dakotas. I do think Kansas is winnable with Kelly next year.
Tester was an incumbent and Sheehy was pretty weak though. Tester is probably the strongest we can get, but I’m just not sure Montana is winnable anymore. Trump’s approvals there are far higher than they are in Kansas, for instance. In all of Morning Consult, the Economist, and Civiqs.
I’d rather Schumer and co. focus candidate recruitment on the Governor with 60% approvals in a blue-trending state where Trump might be just underwater or barely treading it.
I'm glad they're convinced of their own defeat. The Senate is still a bit of a stretch. And while the House currently looks likely to flip, the Supreme Court seems on track to destroy the remainder of the VRA, which could hand them another 10-15 seats. No reason to expect anything better of this Supreme Court or these southern state legislatures.
I think if the VRA still remains after next year, Dems could potentially flip 40 House seats (even with gerrymandering), but a completely gutted VRA will narrow it down to 20.
Chances are good Democrats will flip back the House either way.
That’s why if the VRA is gutted, Dems need to be working on redrawing NY and CO for 2028 as a buffer in the likely case that the environment swings back a bit (like from 2018 to 2020).
The local endorsements for Donovan McKinney against Shri Thanedar are a total bloodbath. Moderates, progressives, labor – everyone has come together to unseat him. This is a race that hasn't gotten much attention.
"Mayor Muriel Bowser is calling on her supporters to back Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie as her preferred successor, even though McDuffie has not yet announced if he’ll run to succeed the retiring incumbent."
But isn't she unpopular, and thus, is her endorsement likely to hurt whomever she endorses?
The other story that struck me was the one about Iowa-Senate, and I agree with bpfish. That kind of scorched earth policy against 2 candidates doesn't seem the least bit appropriate to me.
I got an email from the DLCC today, but it wasn't specific enough to be genuinely informative, so I went to their web page and present this information to you:
Battlegrounds
These are the state legislative chambers where majorities are on the line in 2026 that Democrats must win and defend.
Alaska (defense)
Arizona (potential flip of both chambers)
️Michigan (defend one-seat majority in the Senate and work to flip the four-seats Republican majority in the House)
️Minnesota (defend one-seat majority in the Senate, turn the current tie in the House into a Democratic majority)
New Hampshire (flip both chambers)
️Pennsylvania (expand single-seat majority in the House)
️Wisconsin ("make a play" for a majority in both Houses, which now have Republican majorities)
These states are where we have the best chance in 2026 to build power (but the DLCC doesn't expect it to take 1 election to flip the chambers) and pick up seats by voting out Republicans:
While Senators Bill Cassidy and Mike Crapo tried to be Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid, as in Bill Cassidy and the Crapo Kid, with their healthcare bill to turn the subsidies into health savings accounts, there are still two Democratic Senate Candidates running against Cassidy:
I will never, in my entire life, give a single nickel to the DSCC (or DCCC). Wahls and Sage are not threats to our chances in Iowa. I wonder if Jasmine Crockett's going to get the same treatment, given that she likely is a threat to our chances in Texas.
Also, they had no reason to intervene in blue Minnesota by backing corporate aligned crypto darling and neoliberal ideologue Angie Craig. This ultimately pissed off progressives in the Senate which lead to them organizing their own efforts.
A cynical part of me thinks it's that their donors wanted it, but it could just as easily be genuine stupidity (or wrongly believing Minnesota is competitive) on their part.
Wikipedia says:
"The Democratic primary election between the progressive Lt. Governor Peggy Flanagan and moderate Representative Angie Craig is widely seen as a part of the national struggle between the progressive and moderate wings of the Democratic party over its future, with endorsements split by ideology, following the 2024 U.S. elections.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]
Craig is reportedly receiving the private backing of the Democratic Senate leadership, including Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). However, they have yet to publicly take sides in the Democratic primary.[16][17][18][19][15]"
Schumer and Gillibrand are just ideologically opposed to progressives in my view. It is funny in hindsight that Gillibrand pretended to be a super feminist progressive Senator for a while in 2018-20 to run for President.
That too. Ideology is often a factor, you're right.
While I generally don't support DC meddling, Turek and Talerico are the best candidates.
What makes Turek best? Sincere question, I don’t know the candidates here.
Turek flipped a marginal seat in the State House, which suggests a strong campaigner
Though that doesn't always translate when you run for larger offices. Some people are really good at door knocking and retail campaigning. Turns out to be pretty much irrelevant when you're running for a constituency of 3.2 million. (Or 760,000 for that matter)
He holds by far the reddest state House seat currently held by a Democrat. Not even Rob Sand won it in 2022.
Likable. Great story. Stronger social media game so far. Walls is great, but he's an unimpressive speaker (aside from his Iowa House speech when he was 17). Being from Western Iowa will help Turek in a general.
Republicans trying to elevate Wahls show they fear Turek.
Ditto about Republicans elevating Crockett fearing Talarico.
Ken Martin is not trying to influence primary elections. Don't get him confused with Chuck Schumer, whose picks can backfire.
Sage, Wahls or Turek would be fantastic Senators -- let Iowa Democrats make the call who they want facing the GOP candidate.
Some of our "consultants" are part of the problem.
Some of them staying away might actually help.
You mean consultants like the Obama ones? Yes, they need to stay FAR away -- like Plouffe.
Or the ones raking in tons of $$ on the fundraising scam PACs that give next to nothing to the candidates.
Or the ones like Carville who were urging Dems to not fight back and "play dead" just months ago.
Consultants?
As someone who has management consulting experience but in the private sector, I find the notion of consultants in the political sphere to be absolute BS.
What do they do anyway that real consultants who work in my field don’t do?
They tell candidates to raise lots of money to put up expensive TV ads, of which they get a cut of the buy.
I would love to see detailed reporting on the MAGA threats that were voiced against Indiana lawmakers and their families – both before and in the aftermath of the failed gerrymandering vote.
Surely the threats by Heritage Action alone ought to be a basis for legal action and severe political repercussions!
The New York Times had an article a couple years ago which I could try to dig up that detailed the baseline level of threats that women in politics receive. Near daily threats of violence, including sexual violence and threats against their families, are routine. I can't imagine how much this gets amplified when the President singles them out specifically.
When I handled mail for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2001, I came across at least one rape threat. The letter went right to the FBI.
I don't understand why they can't find these people making threats of violence with any greater regularity.
I think it’s a matter of them choosing not to look for those people making the threats, not them being unable to find them. That’s not the narrative that the NYT, CNN, etc want to tell (so long as they are not the targets anyway)
You mean Conservative Heritage Action?
Same as The Conservative Heritage Foundation.
Heritage Action and The Heritage Foundation should really be named what they really are so they don’t try to hide from the fact of what they really are about.
"Politics & Poll Tracker 📡
@PollTracker2024
TSU poll | 12/9-12/11 LV
Texas Senate Democratic primary (crosstabs)
Women (57/36 Crockett)
Men (52/42 Talarico)
White (53/40 Talarico)
Latino (51/41 Talarico)
Black (89/8 Crockett)
18-34 (63/34 Talarico)
35-44 (51/42 Talarico)
55+ (59/34 Crockett)
4 year college degree (48/45 Crockett)
No 4 year degree (53/41 Crockett)
Democrat (53/42 Crockett)
Independent (49/41 Talarico)"
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1999466594280353968
Overall: Senate primary poll - Texas
🔵 Crockett 51%
🔵 Talarico 43%
TSU #B - LV - 12/11
"Crockett, who was first elected to Congress in 2022, is better known among primary voters than Talarico. The poll found that 94% of likely primary voters know enough about Crockett to have an opinion of her. She’s popular with primary voters, with 85% of likely voters with a favorable opinion, versus 9% with an unfavorable opinion.
In contrast, 79% of poll respondents knew enough about Talarico, an Austin Democrat, to form an opinion of him. He also had a strong approval rating, with 77% of respondents viewing him favorably, and only 2% with an unfavorable opinion.
“The good news for Talarico is that he has room to grow,” Jones said.
Texas Democrats haven’t won a statewide race since 1994, so an issue in the primary campaign will be who can best mobilize voters. Poll respondents thought Crockett would be able to “mobilize Democratic-leaning low propensity voters” for the general election by a 53% 34% margin over Talarico.
Respondents by a 58% to 29% margin said Talarico would be better at winning the votes of crossover Republicans."
https://archive.ph/8zYg1
I honestly think Talarico is gonna win in the end. Crockett has the name recognition and that's obviously helping her early on, but once the primary heats up I think Talarico's gonna win voters over. His vision is so much clearer than Crockett's, which seems just to be "I'm gonna do what I did in the House, just now in the Senate"
I feel like this race has some eerie similarities to the 2016 Presidential primary.
It's interesting though, because there's the progressive vs center-left comparison (Bernie/Crockett vs. Hillary/Talarico), but it's also inverted with the name recognition gap (Bernie/Talarico vs. Hillary/Crockett).
No, Talarico is not similar to Hillary. Why do you think that? He has a fairly progressive reputation but seems moderate when compared to Crockett's style. He is a class reductionist like Sanders but with his unique faith-based message.
Not really.
Seems to be the only primary where the insurgents and establishment agree, actually.
Yeah, if her lead is this weak this early when she should be at her peak, I don’t see her winning the primary.
Given the name rec difference not at all a bad place for Talarico to start.
I’m sure plenty of Hispanic voters are registered Independents in this case.
Age difference is somewhat surprising.
The old like her MSNBC appearances while the youth like Talarico’s social media and progressive stances on anti corruption etc.
I figured Crockett would have a decent social media operation too given her selling swag and getting into high profile moments designed for it. I have seen friends in ther late 20s and early 30s from other states who I consider low to mid informed on politics post things from Talarico on their social media so maybe he has a stronger operation there.
Another reason I think would be that younger voters always break for the more progressive option and they simply see Talarico as that.
If there was no quid pro quo going on between TACO and Berger, then I'm the King of England. Berger's ally Galey basically said to WRAL what NC Rs are thinking out loud.
I pray this blows up on them next year. They need a serious electoral spanking -- not just losing the open Senate seat and state Supreme Court seat but losing their supermajority (or losing a state house) would be a MASSIVE blow to them.
IL-Sen: Seems like Stratton is, either intentionally or not, employing something similar to Alsobrooks' MD-Sen strategy, letting her flush opponent spend a bunch to drive up his poll numbers but ultimately more people settle on the woman of color.
Now this is less likely to work since Raja has more friends in his corner than Trone did (and also there are two women of color running), but I can see some parallels.
Alsobrooks started from a more prominent position--she was an executive who actually had responsibilities. Stratton has been LG, and not a very prominent one. She hasn't seized on any one issue to distinguish herself, and Kelly is also in the race, with a higher profile. I still don't see Stratton coming in any place higher than 3rd.
Unless something radically changes I don't think Kelly is going to overtake Stratton
Agreed, and I pointed that out, I just think the idea that Stratton will finish 3rd or lower is ridiculous.
I think Kelly drops out in the end. It would be bad for her political future if she would be seen as causing the loss of another Black woman.
Not much time to do it, primary is March! Plus, at 70 years old on election day 2026, not sure what kind of political future Kelly needs to preserve.
No way. Pritzker forced out Kelly as chair of the state party and she's not going to defer to Stratton, who's Pritzker's candidate (even if he's not exactly been pouring time and money into her campaign).
Indiana Republican state legislators standing up to Trump, Vance, and threats to funding is the most hopeful news involving Republicans since maybe Raffensperger.
If only Republicans in Congress showed a little spine.
Imagine if they’d had this courage in January of 2021
TACO would never be back in the White House had nine more Senate Republicans stepped up in 2021.
Still shameful and disgusting.
Indiana Republicans have long had a reputation as reasonable people - Lugar and Daniels come to mind...good to see it here.
True.
Even if the culture is more reasonable there, they deserve a lot of credit. After all, this pushback hasn’t come from Indiana’s US Senators and House members.
For all the "Dems blew the shutdown" pieces, I think what the shutdown did was help break Trump's stranglehold on the party. His frustration and incompetence following Dems digging in showed he didn't have this mystical aura anymore to bend everything to his whim.
Add to that that his syncopants in the White House have treated every Republican elected official across the country like shit and basically regarded them as peons to do the White House's bidding, and everyone is fed up. Most Republicans will still ride or die with him through the midterms, but I think the 100% subservience we saw in the initial 6 months is over.
Can we freakin STOP using epithets based on a person being in a wheelchair? I feel like the mods should start suspending people for doing this shit.
Yes! Seriously, can we please have some accountability for this type of behavior here?
I’m not apologizing or turn the other cheek when it comes to Republicans. Abbott is an absolute disgrace to the disabled community and he screwed over people who sue for settlements when they end up disabled. So he deserves every insult thrown his way.
Stop acting like the thought police.
I'll report to the mods and let them decide.
Nah, that's not gonna fly here. You can attack Abbott in a million different ways. We're not gonna mock people's disabilities.
Also helps when the White House approval drops into the mid-30s!
If Schumer is going to pick his favorites behind the scenes, can he at least do something like try to persuade Laura Kelly to run? He has about six months to get her to change her mind.
Ditto for Jon Tester as well. He can absolutely win back his seat next year when the special elections are this blue.
I think Montana is too far gone. The oil boom killed Dems here when it drove Republican workers to eastern Montana and the Dakotas. I do think Kansas is winnable with Kelly next year.
Democrats have been able to make inroads in the MT state legislature last year, so I don't think it's too far gone.
That was thanks to a favorable remap, I thought?
Tester lost by a little over 7 points as Trump won MT by almost 20 points in 2024.
If the D shift is 7-13 points, that could be in play.
I would not leave any stone unturned in this environment.
I don't want to have regrets later is someone else loses by 5 and we all think Tester could have done better.
Likely? Probably not. Boy, but if things get more sour for the GOP, it could get there.
Tester was an incumbent and Sheehy was pretty weak though. Tester is probably the strongest we can get, but I’m just not sure Montana is winnable anymore. Trump’s approvals there are far higher than they are in Kansas, for instance. In all of Morning Consult, the Economist, and Civiqs.
I’d rather Schumer and co. focus candidate recruitment on the Governor with 60% approvals in a blue-trending state where Trump might be just underwater or barely treading it.
Unearthed audio from the RNC Chair: "We are facing almost certain defeat."
https://nitter.net/factpostnews/status/1999490220807385329#m
I'm glad they're convinced of their own defeat. The Senate is still a bit of a stretch. And while the House currently looks likely to flip, the Supreme Court seems on track to destroy the remainder of the VRA, which could hand them another 10-15 seats. No reason to expect anything better of this Supreme Court or these southern state legislatures.
I think if the VRA still remains after next year, Dems could potentially flip 40 House seats (even with gerrymandering), but a completely gutted VRA will narrow it down to 20.
Chances are good Democrats will flip back the House either way.
That’s why if the VRA is gutted, Dems need to be working on redrawing NY and CO for 2028 as a buffer in the likely case that the environment swings back a bit (like from 2018 to 2020).
SCROTUS will certainly gut the VRA. Have been working toward it for years.
Well the VRA decision is unlikely to take effect until 2028.
Also after Indiana, we might see some pushback to redrawing in some of the southern states too.
Delicious
Good! Good!
But Democrats should be sure to finish off in defeating as many Republicans in office as possible, even the red and deep red races.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Michigan#District_13
The local endorsements for Donovan McKinney against Shri Thanedar are a total bloodbath. Moderates, progressives, labor – everyone has come together to unseat him. This is a race that hasn't gotten much attention.
"Mayor Muriel Bowser is calling on her supporters to back Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie as her preferred successor, even though McDuffie has not yet announced if he’ll run to succeed the retiring incumbent."
But isn't she unpopular, and thus, is her endorsement likely to hurt whomever she endorses?
The other story that struck me was the one about Iowa-Senate, and I agree with bpfish. That kind of scorched earth policy against 2 candidates doesn't seem the least bit appropriate to me.
I got an email from the DLCC today, but it wasn't specific enough to be genuinely informative, so I went to their web page and present this information to you:
Battlegrounds
These are the state legislative chambers where majorities are on the line in 2026 that Democrats must win and defend.
Alaska (defense)
Arizona (potential flip of both chambers)
️Michigan (defend one-seat majority in the Senate and work to flip the four-seats Republican majority in the House)
️Minnesota (defend one-seat majority in the Senate, turn the current tie in the House into a Democratic majority)
New Hampshire (flip both chambers)
️Pennsylvania (expand single-seat majority in the House)
️Wisconsin ("make a play" for a majority in both Houses, which now have Republican majorities)
These states are where we have the best chance in 2026 to build power (but the DLCC doesn't expect it to take 1 election to flip the chambers) and pick up seats by voting out Republicans:
⭐️Georgia House and Senate
⭐️Maine House and Senate
⭐️Nebraska Legislature
⭐️Pennsylvania Senate
⭐️Texas House
Break and Prevent Republican Supermajorities
⭐️Florida House and Senate
⭐️Indiana House
⭐️Iowa House and Senate
⭐️Kansas House
⭐️Missouri House and Senate
⭐️North Carolina House and Senate
⭐️Ohio House
⭐️South Carolina House
Build Democratic Supermajorities
⭐️Colorado House and Senate
⭐️Delaware House
⭐️Nevada Assembly
⭐️New Mexico House
⭐️New York Senate
⭐️Oregon Senate
⭐️Vermont House and Senate
⭐️Washington House
All just FYI.
Maybe they can run a candidate in every seat in Vermont this time around...
It's shocking if that doesn't happen every time. What number of seats out of how many were Republicans running unopposed?
4 in the Senate (1 of which had an independent running) and 24 in the House (including a couple of flips)
Did the Democrats support the independent? If so, that doesn't count. But wow, 24 is shocking! How many members does the Vermont House have?
LA-SEN:
While Senators Bill Cassidy and Mike Crapo tried to be Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid, as in Bill Cassidy and the Crapo Kid, with their healthcare bill to turn the subsidies into health savings accounts, there are still two Democratic Senate Candidates running against Cassidy:
Jamie Davis - https://www.jamieforlouisiana.com/
Tracie Burke - https://www.tracieburke.com/
I would mention Senator Crapo running for re-election but he isn’t going to face voters until 2028.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5644280-senate-gop-health-care-plan-cassidy-crapo/amp/