WV independent voters are breaking heavily for Democrats, but potential WV Democratic gains in 2026 won't be as big as the ones in 2018 and 2020 (right before census redistricting).
Haven't really done a deep dive on the House of Delegates, but I expect 1-2 Senate seats to flip, including my own.
-The 1st in Wheeling has a great candidate with Del. Shawn Fluharty, but Trump won it by almost 20 points. Republican Sen. Laura Chapman seems like a backbencher we can defeat in a really good year.
-The 13th (my district), that includes Morgantown, Fairmont and areas in between, is already expected to flip from red to blue with Del. John Williams. Republican Sen. Mike Oliverio is a longtime local figure, but I think his time might be up.
-However, Republicans will likely flip the open 5th in Huntington with businessman Chris Miller, the son of Rep. Carol Miller. Democratic Sen. Mike Woelfel chose to retire after barely winning in 2022.
-A wildcard for Democrats to flip could be the 17th, which Republicans gerrymandered to split Democratic-leaning Charleston with. Republican Sen. Tom Takubo is already unpopular with his party due to ideological divides between him and Lt. Gov. Randy Smith.
Everyone was wrong on that one, so I don’t think he stands out bad on that. However he starts to poll places he knows nothing about, which probably doesn’t yield much useful information. See the discussions on our discord server.
BTW, 24 election eve, he changed Georgia to likely D, North Carolina to tilt D. Really didn’t know where he got that.
To be honest, I blame Buc-ee's more than I do Greg Abbott for this one; this was part of an opening ceremony for a new Buc-ee's gas station/mega convenience store. To expect a wheelchair user like Abbott to chop brisket while seated at a table of that height amounts to effectively humiliating a disabled person.
I am obviously not defending Abbott's horrific politics in any way.
I don't know why Buc-ee's being a shitty company never really occurred to me. A Texas based gas station store with a questionable work environment? Alarm bells really should've been going off the whole time
I ripped my bumper sticker off. But I'll keep the little car trash can... I think it fits
To be fair, Buc-ee's actually pays pretty well compared to other businesses in the area, at least in the locations near Austin. $20+ starting wage for their entry-level roles. Don't know how that translates to broader management/company culture, but it does explain why employees there don't look miserable whenever I visit because with such high traffic, I wouldn't blame them for hating everything.
yeah I think Buc-ees treats their employees the way we'd want them to. I also don't find having the Governor at an opening event to be that egregious. They're a Texas based company and he's the Governor of Texas and the most popular pol in the state. They're never in the news for discriminating against LGBTQ folks or employment issues which imo is a better indication of a company's values than if they shun political leaders they probably need to not piss off.
KS-AG: Conservative anti-trans laws pushed by Attorney General Kris Kobach seem to be backfiring. For starters, the law that forces trans residents to change their drivers license to their birth gender has resulted in legal and economic trouble for many residents. And the law that forces trans people to use bathrooms of their birth gender has resulted in awkward and dangerous situations of men going into women's bathrooms and being arrested.
These laws will likely come into play for Kobach's reelection bid.
Kansas isn’t much redder than any of Iowa, Ohio, Texas, or Alaska, all of which we seem to have an excellent shot of winning statewide offices in this year.
However, AG is probably the easiest lift for us in Kansas this year by far.
If that holds or flips by October, Hamilton might have a shot.
Frankly, I'm surprised the ACLU of Kansas and trans Kansans affected by the anti-trans laws haven't filed suit against Kobach and appeal to the state Supreme Court.
I'm not convinced it's any less red that Texas at this point. And certainly less red than Florida. We have 20 years' worth of data points in the Sunflower State showing both a trendline and a willingness to split tickets. It's a head-scratcher to me that everybody still treats it as a more hopeless target than South Carolina.
Looking increasingly likely that Talarico will win and Hinojosa may lose only because of massive fundraising disparities. Purplexas may finally be close to a reality.
Getting outspent and not having the cash to get your message out are two different things. Texas is extremely expensive and Abbott has very high name ID. If Hinojosa could raise $80 and gets outspent 120-80 I'd feel a lot better about her chances. As is, I think she's going to get outspent 80-20 which is not enough to get a message deep into the RGV and in the major media markets. Getting outspent in a primary is also very different than getting outspent in a general.
Hinojosa's easiest path to victory is hoping that Talarico wins by a decent enough margin (5ish points?) and carries her across the finish line with enough straight ticket voting.
I think if she could raise $100 million I'd give her an outside chance of winning. Abbott won by 10 against an arguably worse candidate 4 years ago and this environment will probably be ten points bluer.
Fundraising would certainly make the difference although Talarico in the TX-SEN has a far greater and more magnetic media presence. I don't think Hinojosa in the TX-GOV race compares in this case.
Probably not, but our best dem performers aren't always the best political athletes. Especially in the south, money and normalcy go a long way such as with Ossoff, Warnock, Cooper etc...
To make a very banal observation, it'll all depend on which way the undecideds go once people start really locking in after Labor Day. I could see this ending up anywhere from Hinojosa winning narrowly to losing by 10, but we'll probably have a better sense of it in a month.
Yeah. He has a much better shot of winning than Hong so I'm not disappointed that she lost. Barnes seemed like he probably had something to worry about too.
But there was enough of a field that we could and should have ended up with someone way better than Crowley without being stuck with a candidate as weak as Hong.
i would be one of those, not a necessary crowley supporter, just looking for someone to prevent the election of scott walker 2.0, with all new features like election denial
I imagine there are also donors who would support either, but want to know who is advancing to the general before spending money. I feel like for most of the contested primaries, whoever won got a surge of donations.
If anyone wants to support Brandon Dukes in the PA special election, his campaign is running a virtual phone bank with several sessions available including a bunch next Tuesday (election day). . Register here: https://www.mobilize.us/mobilize/event/980301/
When it comes to special elections, juicing the turnout by reminding voters that there IS an election is critical.
1 - Do a soft/"prettymander" of the state that leaves both parties with 4 seats each *and* doesn't look awful, to counteract claims of overt partisanship. Messaging: evening out the score after years of GOP malfeasance.
2 - Pass a commission for 2032 onward. Bonus: if there can be some requirement for competitiveness among the seats, or the split/partisanship has to reflect the average of the last 2 presidential elections. Our geography is so bad in WI that a "fair" map may still lock in a 6-2 GOP delegation
Are we sure about that? Worst case scenario is that we implement good government reforms when we're in power, hamstring our own trifecta's ability to gerrymander, and then rapidly get screwed after the census. By put it to the voters do you mean a constitutional amendment?
Takes the power away from the legislature to rig the maps in either party's favor, which is what happened in Wisconsin during the REDMAP wave when Walker and the GOP majority got into power.
Ideally, I would like to see gerrymandering banned on the federal level (and require state legislatures to follow federal standards), but it will take a Democratic trifecta and willingness to do away with the filibuster to get it passed.
Democrats will never get a trifecta if we only gerrymander California and Maryland. We are looking at a median seat that is 5 points to the right of the country.
Well also never get one if Republicans get to gerrymander all the states they control now…and also Wisconsin and Pennsylvania which is quite possible after 2030 without commissions there.
I'd be in favor of what Michigan did, where members of the citizen redistricting committee are instructed to factor in competitiveness and proportionality. It seems like it worked out pretty well, with both parties having the chance to win a solid majority in the legislature and congressional delegation.
Yeah but it was a mistake in Michigan because we could've drawn brutal gerrymanders and we're going to hold the Governorship for at least 4 more years and probably longer than that.
I disagree. For all we knew at the time, at this point we'd have a Democratic president facing an anti-incumbent midterm where Republicans could've taken a trifecta and done their own gerrymanders. The redistricting amendment in Michigan ensures that we can't be screwed over in a perpetual swing state, which I'll take as a win. It'd be different if it was more of a solid democratic state, like Colorado.
The issue with this line of thinking is that there's 18 blue states and 24 red states. Even if we managed to implement neutral commissions in all eight swing states, we'd be at a severe and perpetual disadvantage that could cost us control of the House several times over the course of a decade. Michigan is very close to a blue state at the non-presidential level, it's been more than a decade since a Republican won any statewide election there. This is just setting us up for failure.
Hard disagree. MI is totally not a blue state at the state level. We just happened to be in a period where Dems have done well in midterms there because Trump was in office and we had strong incumbents. In the Obama era, despite him winning the state by 15+ points, we got 8 years of Rick Snyder. I have no doubt that if Kamala had won in '24, the GOP would be favored to take over the Gov mansion. States like MI, WI, PA and a handful of others have consistently swung back and forth between the parties without a clear trendline in one direction or the other (at least in terms of Gov races).
In contrast, CO and VA went from red to swing to blue. GA has gone from red to swing. FL and OH have gone from swing to red.
I would never bet the farm on Michigan Dems consistently being in power. Just look how that worked out for North Carolina..
Yeah I’m not for fucking around and finding out in swing states like Dems did between 2006-2010. We had to deal with over 10 years of Republican gerrymanders (and even longer in cases of OH and NC) because Dems didn’t put commissions in place when they could have in 2009/early 2010 even when there were clear signs they were gonna lose their seats at the redistricting table in 2010.
We have no idea how long we’ll hold the governorship in Michigan. If 2030 is a midterm of a Dem President, I am not willing to bet that we would. And Republicans have controlled the legislature much more often than Dems in the state.
WI and especially PA fall into this same basket, as Shapiro is term limited in 2030 and Republicans hold all the statewide elected non-federal partisan offices.
I'll just reiterate my previous comment that we're not playing on a level playing field. Trump won 24 states by 10 or more points. If we also cede opportunities in places like Michigan it's going to cost us the House once both sides reach maximum gerrymandering in safe states, which is likely over the next four years.
I'll also add I think that we should probably be somewhat empirical here on what our expected seat outcome is. If there's a gerrymander in 2027 in Michigan, the likelihood that we lose the Governorship and both houses of the legislature is worse than 50/50 because the legislature will be gerrymandered. I think the expected value here is undoubtedly positive, even if there's downside risk. I just don't think you're factoring in downside risk where Texas, Florida, Tennessee etc... are maximally gerrymandered and places like Colorado and Virginia still have commissions in place. We would actually be locked out of the House for a decade.
There is simply no way to gerrymander the MI (or WI) lege in a way that both passes political/court muster and would prevent an R+8 wave from cresting (which is the reverse of what Republicans are facing now) the next time a Dem is president.. which could be as soon as 2030. You are setting up a false premise.
And as I said previously, I am all in favor of blue states like VA and CO doing away with commissions. I would never have put them in in the first place because.. they are states going from swing to blue, not stagnating.
Colorado and Virginia should have Dem gerrymanders. Those are both states where it’s almost impossible for Republicans to get a trifecta (the timing of when the VA state senate is up for election helps Dems immensely ).
In states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the chances of Republicans getting a trifecta and the ability to gerrymander us out of legislature control for a decade or more is very real. Taking this risk off the table would be completely worth it for Dems and they could devote more resources to breaking Republican control in NC, TX, and FL rather than having to worry about these three swing states.
PA too. From your lips to the Dem leadership in those states’ ears. Any Dem trifectas in those states needed to be treated like a temporary gift from god.
I'm with you on the general approach, but no reason to make the gerrymander "soft" with control of the supreme court. Let's target a 6-2 gerrymander (or 5-3 if 6 isn't viable) and do the commission.
Environmental Voter Project (https://www.environmentalvoter.org/) is gearing up for a postcard campaign in TX to low propensity voters who rate the environment as their top issue.
The orientation session will be tomorrow (Aug 14th) at 12 noon ET. New volunteers must attend an orientation session before they can request postcards.
No one should ever move a race rating because of a single poll. I don't care how high quality the pollster is. Even when polling was in a better place, a single poll would not be a strong enough data point on its own to do that.
Toss up is appropriate. Moving it from Lean D to toss up because of this pole is not appropriate.
PA-7: A group of Green Party voters are suing to get their nominee Andrew Tupone *off* of the ballot after allegations of being a Republican spoiler to make sure Democrat Bob Brooks does not defeat Rep. Ryan Mackenzie.
The West Virginia affiliate called the Mountain Party isn't in complete disarray like the national one. There's not any elected officials of course but there's a decent presence.
Historically a lot of Mountain Party folks are also Democrats, much more so than Green Party types elsewhere. It functions more like WFP than other GP affiliates.
I've mentioned this previously, but the party really needs to get more focused and organize messaging around data centers. Voters would be receptive methinks.
"Polling on data centers is really, really brutal. In WI, 76% of voters said "the costs outweigh the benefits," including 67% of Republicans. Gallup found 71% of Americans oppose one being built near them, incl. 80% of 18–34yos. Heatmap found 55% would support a *national ban.*"
Data centers spike energy bills, create noise and environmental pollution, and many create single digit amounts of permanent jobs, overall negatively impacting many communities around which they are built. Voters seem to think so too. A Luddite-style blanket ban is obviously not the way to go. But the relatively wild-west atmosphere in which they are operating now, with locals at the mercy of millions in lobbying and lawfare from suits against investigative journos, to eminent domain cannot be allowed to continue, at least un-messaged and unaddressed by Dems. . This is a "fresh" issue, on which Democrats are not held down by a multidecade track record like with others. A perfect opportunity to reach out to these voters.
So in WI, Dems just nominated a candidate who's for "regulating" (not banning) data centers, while 76% of voters say the costs outweigh the benefits. And somehow that Dem is more electable than the candidate who was more firmly against them.
Hope Crowley wins, but this tired neoliberal b.s. when we need candidates who are firmly on the side of voters is really frustrating.
people, myself included are hypocritical on this issue. I was let down that Governor Hochul only placed a yearlong moratorium on data center construction in new york, for me two years seemed more appropriate.
Yet, I wanted hong to lose (was rooting for Barnes initially) not because of her policy positions but because she's the type of candidate even traditional dem constituencies would look at with suspicion. I tried explaining to my dad (a proud george mcgovern voter) why though I don't think any politician running for office should be reckless with tweets, objectively Hong was right we shouldn't whitewash Thanskgiving. But if I had to explain that to a dyed in the wool democrat from the northeast, i think it's reasonable to have been fearful of hon's chances in Wisconsin.
TLDR: It bothers me more when safe state dems are spineless on issues like data centers, but I hypocritically cut swing staters a lot of rope because it's a swing state and they'll always be better than the rethugs. And I've been wrong before with swing seaters, see my comments from last year defending Jared Golden (yuck).
I don't think the problem in this case is ideological. Opposition to data centers is not something that requires a particularly progressive world view. It's more populism than anything else. Moderate populists aren't as common but do exist, and certainly the average democrat (neither progressive nor moderate) can logically be a populist on this issue.
Hong comes down to her superior stance on one issue for electability reasons not having enough weight to override her electability issues from other matters.
You might be the only person who thinks Hong is more electable than Crowley. People don't like datacenters, but I'd be shocked if the % of voters who call that one of their top three issues is higher than 3% or so.
I think “regulate data centers more” is a pretty safe position for Ds who think a ban or moratorium is a step too far. How that regulation works in practice is of course why we have 50 different states.
100% agree...and that's my personal position on the topic too. In particular, data centers should pay enough to cover both the cost of their electricity and water consumption PLUS enough to absorb any resulting impact on citizen's costs for those services.
And everyone should get a pony for their birthday, too. Once a data center is approved, it will never be regulated on electricity and water, and in proposal phase, its supporters will never agree to those restrictions. Late capitalism requires grifting public coffers and proclaiming your wealth self-made. Once the shovels are in the ground, no politician is going to forego the campaign $ that comes from data center owners by trying to regulate them.
In WI, it appears that Ds who think a ban or moratorium is a step too far is a relatively small minority of the population, according to the poll. Why not take the position that the majority of voters favor?
Perhaps because that's what Crowley actually believes. More importantly, I just don't think it's an issue that strongly motivates voters. I also suspect tighter regulation would be sufficient for most voters. I'd be curious to see the poll you are referencing, though.
It won't motivate at the top, but in out state local legislative races, it's more likely to cause ticket-splitting which could keep Dems from winning the legislature in WI.
"Regulate more" is, however, definitely a devil in the details position. For more business aligned candidates it's going to mean placate voters and then hope to do as little as possible on it once elected. For others they actually will want to regulate more, which is a reasonable position to take.
Nope, didn't say that Hong was more electable, I said that people here have been saying that she's unelectable, and here we have the electable candidate taking a position in opposition to 3/4s of the electorate.
Also, how relevant the issue is to people's vote will likely change between now and November as more data centers are proposed. Electoral outcomes can change quickly (see Crowley, David).
I mean, you did say "And somehow that Dem is more electable than the candidate who was more firmly against them." To me, that implies that you think Hong is the more electable candidate.
WI-Gov: Newly minted Democratic nominee David Crowley is doubling down on his opposition to a data center moratorium and sounds reluctant to campaign with his primary opponent Francesca Hong and her supporters. Of course, Hong surrogate and national progressive commentator Hasan Piker was mentioned, as he seems to be these days, and Crowley says he won't campaign with him either.
Why would Crowley campaign with Piker? I doubt Piker would even campaign with Crowley if Crowley asked, and frankly, campaigning with Piker does nothing to improve a candidate's chances, especially in a general election.
Good question. Seems like kind of a gotcha question to me from Politico. But I would beg to differ that campaigning with him does nothing to improve chances when it comes to primaries. His media network has come in handy in recent races.
I don't really think that Abdul campaigning with Piker was seen as a plus for him, and if Piker had never gotten involved in that race he probably would have performed at least as well as he ended up performing. Maybe Piker is more of a plus in primaries in safe-D seats, but I don't think that he makes much of a net positive impact for a candidate.
By recent I did moreso mean ones in safe-D seats you speak of, not really for El-Sayed. For example, Melat Kiros, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Chris Rabb.
AES’ near-loss to Stevens and Hong’s actual narrow loss to Crowley definitely calls into question Piker’s value - less in a “does he actually hurt that much way” and I more in a “do you actually gain anything through the association?”
I think the effect Piker has on elections is, frankly, absolutely zero for the most part. Or maybe not *zero,* but it basically adds into being endorsed by AOC, Bernie, etc - solidifying one as the progressive candidate. I don't think anyone makes their voting decisions on who Hasan Piker endorses... atleast I hope not, it's just as dumb as voting based on who Joe Rogan endorses (which unfortunately is a lot more common)
The only effect I could see it having is turning off voters off of moderate to liberal candidates who make a big deal about Piker's endorsements, because they're focused on something/someone nobody really gives a shit about and not important issues. But even then the effect is probably still minimal, and again ties more into the general fabric of how a candidate acts and the way they campaign rather than being a deciding factor
Right. I don’t think we have evidence that he’s an active harm or anything, but I also don’t think AES/Hong actually added anything by campaigning with him
(I’d caveat this with my own view that D candidates should stay as far away from him as possible because he’s a shock jock who says horrible things and I have no doubt he’s cut from the same cloth as his uncle Cenk Uygur/is a millionaire cosplaying as revolutionary, but that’s my bias, not evidentiary)
Who cares about Piker? Did everyone miss the part where Crowley is reluctant to campaign with Hong? Remember all the "she better endorse him if she loses, because he'll surely endorse her if he loses"? Unity is a one-way street in WI, it seems.
I read the article as Crowley seeing Hong as toxic. FWIW, I see both sides of that argument, but when you won by 3k votes and change you need all the support you can get
Huh? There is a big difference between endorsing the winning candidate and choosing to campaign with the loser. The latter should be a decision driven solely by electability. It'd be different if he was trashing her publicly, but he's not (that I've seen anyway). Whether he campaigns with her is up to him and his campaign staff.
Yeah, I don’t exactly want Jasmine Crockett out campaigning at the hip with James Talarico after the incendiary things she’s said about hispanics and other groups.
I don't think the issue is where to campaign with Piker or not but rather why we should even think he's got this in-depth mind that knows a lot more than what we're led to believe.
During the WI-GOV primary process, Piker said regarding the Democratic socialist movement that once Hong & others win Republicans won't ever be elected again in WI. While I'm not denying Democratic socialists have influence and can get elected, it's cocky to assert that a swing state like WI would be able to not elect Republicans again.
I assume with how much his name gets inserted into matters that he's probably making a pretty penny. If he's doing a grift on purpose he might actually be pretty smart. It's surprisingly difficult to be dumb in the right ways.
It’s great seeing Brown up, but those numbers for El-Sayed aren’t great. Hopefully he does better the further we get from the primary.
I’m a bit surprised by that massive delta between Brown and Acton, but it’s not that surprising - Acton doesn’t seem like someone who will appeal to many people who aren’t Democrats.
I feel like both races in Michigan seem off here. I don't think Rogers would lead that much over El-Sayed in this environment, and I don't think Benson's going to win by that little
I'm inclined to agree. There's likely too much weight being placed on 2024 voters. With past elections you could often attribute them to often occurring in presidential years and Trump being on the ballot like in 2024, both which would account for lower propensity voters turning out for Republicans. Here in a midterm with a historically unpopular incumbent, that's highly unlikely. Note also that this Fox poll is using registered voters, so the sample is even more suspect even before accounting for bias. I can buy the race being close to a tie, but a lead here seems quite unlikely.
Acton is being outspent like 5-1 by Vivek so its not surprising to see the delta. They've been going after her hard since the primaries. It seems Acton is saving her money for after Labor Day so hopefully she can get her footing again.
OH: I love seeing Brown that far ahead but it is hard to believe. Good pollster but even the good ones get weird results sometimes. Let's hope to see another one this good.
MI: Disappointing but it's right after the primary and the wounds need to heal. I expect/hope to see better polls after Labor Day.
The one distinctive difference in context that the MI-SEN race is an open race whereas in NV-SEN back in 2010 Harry Reid was still running for re-election.
Harry Reid was polling horrifically at the start of that cycle, so I don’t know if incumbency was what save him so much as ruthlessly destroying Angle after she won the primary.
I agree with you. The problem with Angle and O'Donnell, with voters, wasn't so much the fact that they were more conservative. It was that they were kooky, inarticulate candidates. Not just very right but with weird views.
Hong is closer to them in that sense. AES is articulate and charismatic. He avoids kooky positions. He's not at all comparable to Angle or O'Donnell in practice.
Both of those are to the left of many of the states that flipped, and also 2010 was a time with a very different media environment and level of partisanship.
MI-Sen could be like VA-AG last year, where a relatively unpopular candidate gets swept in to office due to the opposition party being extremely unpopular. AES will underperform Benson, although probably not by as drastic of a margin as some polls may suggest (and probably by less than the percentage Jones underperformed Spanberger in Virginia).
In the crosstabs, I saw that the poll had AES only +1 among female voters, which I doubt will be the case with the actual general election electorate. This is an election where a good debate performance by AES, if there are any general election debates, probably seals the deal for him.
Clacton: Despite no official results, former Reform MP Nigel Farage has declared an "overwhelming" victory over perennial and novelty candidate Count Binface, and strangely will not attend the ceremony that announces a winner.
The Argument put out an excellent analysis saying that the MI Senate race is El Sayed’s to lose due to the national environment and how unpopular Trump is in the state.
A well written and well argued analysis. Jain is pretty conservative with his analysis and predictions, too (to his credit) so that’s good to see him being bullish
WV independent voters are breaking heavily for Democrats, but potential WV Democratic gains in 2026 won't be as big as the ones in 2018 and 2020 (right before census redistricting).
https://statenavigate.org/wv/state-navigate-poll-shows-democrats-leading-west-virginia-independent-voters/
Haven't really done a deep dive on the House of Delegates, but I expect 1-2 Senate seats to flip, including my own.
-The 1st in Wheeling has a great candidate with Del. Shawn Fluharty, but Trump won it by almost 20 points. Republican Sen. Laura Chapman seems like a backbencher we can defeat in a really good year.
-The 13th (my district), that includes Morgantown, Fairmont and areas in between, is already expected to flip from red to blue with Del. John Williams. Republican Sen. Mike Oliverio is a longtime local figure, but I think his time might be up.
-However, Republicans will likely flip the open 5th in Huntington with businessman Chris Miller, the son of Rep. Carol Miller. Democratic Sen. Mike Woelfel chose to retire after barely winning in 2022.
-A wildcard for Democrats to flip could be the 17th, which Republicans gerrymandered to split Democratic-leaning Charleston with. Republican Sen. Tom Takubo is already unpopular with his party due to ideological divides between him and Lt. Gov. Randy Smith.
I wouldn’t take whatever Chaz says that is not about Virginia seriously.
You mean after the polling flop he did of WI where Hong was leading by 22 points? That's a BIG black eye for him.
Everyone was wrong on that one, so I don’t think he stands out bad on that. However he starts to poll places he knows nothing about, which probably doesn’t yield much useful information. See the discussions on our discord server.
BTW, 24 election eve, he changed Georgia to likely D, North Carolina to tilt D. Really didn’t know where he got that.
Lots of delusional wishcasting going on on Election '24 eve.
TX-Gov - Move over Thanksgiving-gate, we have Brisketgate!
https://www.instagram.com/p/Db9oSFlOWuM/
To be honest, I blame Buc-ee's more than I do Greg Abbott for this one; this was part of an opening ceremony for a new Buc-ee's gas station/mega convenience store. To expect a wheelchair user like Abbott to chop brisket while seated at a table of that height amounts to effectively humiliating a disabled person.
I am obviously not defending Abbott's horrific politics in any way.
I am all for humiliating MAGAt governors like Abbott, DeSatan, and Huckabeast.
He looks like a toddler playing with a new toy for the first time
I don't know why Buc-ee's being a shitty company never really occurred to me. A Texas based gas station store with a questionable work environment? Alarm bells really should've been going off the whole time
I ripped my bumper sticker off. But I'll keep the little car trash can... I think it fits
To be fair, Buc-ee's actually pays pretty well compared to other businesses in the area, at least in the locations near Austin. $20+ starting wage for their entry-level roles. Don't know how that translates to broader management/company culture, but it does explain why employees there don't look miserable whenever I visit because with such high traffic, I wouldn't blame them for hating everything.
yeah I think Buc-ees treats their employees the way we'd want them to. I also don't find having the Governor at an opening event to be that egregious. They're a Texas based company and he's the Governor of Texas and the most popular pol in the state. They're never in the news for discriminating against LGBTQ folks or employment issues which imo is a better indication of a company's values than if they shun political leaders they probably need to not piss off.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/13/opinion/kansas-anti-trans-laws-drivers-license.html
KS-AG: Conservative anti-trans laws pushed by Attorney General Kris Kobach seem to be backfiring. For starters, the law that forces trans residents to change their drivers license to their birth gender has resulted in legal and economic trouble for many residents. And the law that forces trans people to use bathrooms of their birth gender has resulted in awkward and dangerous situations of men going into women's bathrooms and being arrested.
These laws will likely come into play for Kobach's reelection bid.
Trump should nominate Kris Kobach as US Attorney General. I’d like to see him humiliated by him at the national stage beyond what goes on in KS.
KS is so red though. It's going to take a massive blue wave in that state to retain the governor's seat and flip the state AG and U.S. Sen seats.
I have a feeling that a few decades from now it won't be solidly red anymore.
Kansas isn’t much redder than any of Iowa, Ohio, Texas, or Alaska, all of which we seem to have an excellent shot of winning statewide offices in this year.
However, AG is probably the easiest lift for us in Kansas this year by far.
Yet PPP is showing Roger Marshall leading Adam Hamilton by only one point.
If that holds or flips by October, Hamilton might have a shot.
Frankly, I'm surprised the ACLU of Kansas and trans Kansans affected by the anti-trans laws haven't filed suit against Kobach and appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Hamilton's fundraising has been strong as well.
We flipped the governorship in the last blue wave, it's not implausible that in another blue wave we can retain it.
and held it during the red ripple of 22
I'm not convinced it's any less red that Texas at this point. And certainly less red than Florida. We have 20 years' worth of data points in the Sunflower State showing both a trendline and a willingness to split tickets. It's a head-scratcher to me that everybody still treats it as a more hopeless target than South Carolina.
100% agreed we have a more realistic shot in KS than we do FL.
As a fellow normie Methodist (as regarding the D candidate), that KS-Sen race has me super-intrigued. Gonna need one helluva wave, though.
Relentless, empty evil.
TX-GOV: This was from Monday from Jacob Rubashkin at Inside Elections: https://nitter.net/JacobRubashkin/status/2086942791444156912#m
"Abbott campaign going up tomorrow with 7,500 GRPs across 9 markets tomorrow; buy kicks up to nearly 10,000 GRPs next week."
The Buccee toddler must see some REALLY bad polling if he's upping the TV ad buys.
Looking increasingly likely that Talarico will win and Hinojosa may lose only because of massive fundraising disparities. Purplexas may finally be close to a reality.
We've had candidates winning even though they were massively outspent. Abbott has been running TX for over a decade and he's worn out his welcome.
Getting outspent and not having the cash to get your message out are two different things. Texas is extremely expensive and Abbott has very high name ID. If Hinojosa could raise $80 and gets outspent 120-80 I'd feel a lot better about her chances. As is, I think she's going to get outspent 80-20 which is not enough to get a message deep into the RGV and in the major media markets. Getting outspent in a primary is also very different than getting outspent in a general.
Hinojosa's easiest path to victory is hoping that Talarico wins by a decent enough margin (5ish points?) and carries her across the finish line with enough straight ticket voting.
It's not impossible but not something I'd bet on.
True although how much of a margin Hinojosa loses by is the real question.
I think if she could raise $100 million I'd give her an outside chance of winning. Abbott won by 10 against an arguably worse candidate 4 years ago and this environment will probably be ten points bluer.
Fundraising would certainly make the difference although Talarico in the TX-SEN has a far greater and more magnetic media presence. I don't think Hinojosa in the TX-GOV race compares in this case.
Probably not, but our best dem performers aren't always the best political athletes. Especially in the south, money and normalcy go a long way such as with Ossoff, Warnock, Cooper etc...
Or she could win. Just saying.
To make a very banal observation, it'll all depend on which way the undecideds go once people start really locking in after Labor Day. I could see this ending up anywhere from Hinojosa winning narrowly to losing by 10, but we'll probably have a better sense of it in a month.
Agreed. Times are achanging in Texas, not sure if they're changing fast enough to catch Hinojosa though.
Perplex us, Purplexas.
I see what you did there
David Crowley raised more than most Senate candidates do the day after their primaries.
https://www.wispolitics.com/2026/crowley-campaign-breaking-david-crowley-announces-raising-over-1-5-million-in-first-24-hours-of-the-campaign/
Seems like the relief of Hong not winning the primary gave a huge relief fundraising wise for Crowley post-primary.
Could also be a lot of Crowley supporters/anti-Hong voters who had their wallets closed when it seemed like Hong was a shoe-in
Probably the charter/voucher school and data center folks opening up their wallets now that they've got their candidate.
Just a massive fuck up that Democrats ended up with him as the nominee.
Yeah. He has a much better shot of winning than Hong so I'm not disappointed that she lost. Barnes seemed like he probably had something to worry about too.
But there was enough of a field that we could and should have ended up with someone way better than Crowley without being stuck with a candidate as weak as Hong.
i would be one of those, not a necessary crowley supporter, just looking for someone to prevent the election of scott walker 2.0, with all new features like election denial
Scott Walker?
I was gonna say - Paul is the late Fast and Furious actor. Would probably be better than Scott, maybe even in death.
indeed, will fix
I imagine there are also donors who would support either, but want to know who is advancing to the general before spending money. I feel like for most of the contested primaries, whoever won got a surge of donations.
If anyone wants to support Brandon Dukes in the PA special election, his campaign is running a virtual phone bank with several sessions available including a bunch next Tuesday (election day). . Register here: https://www.mobilize.us/mobilize/event/980301/
When it comes to special elections, juicing the turnout by reminding voters that there IS an election is critical.
I'm a bit busy, but I have asked my family in the district to vote
Wisconsin dreams (if trifecta achieved):
1 - Do a soft/"prettymander" of the state that leaves both parties with 4 seats each *and* doesn't look awful, to counteract claims of overt partisanship. Messaging: evening out the score after years of GOP malfeasance.
2 - Pass a commission for 2032 onward. Bonus: if there can be some requirement for competitiveness among the seats, or the split/partisanship has to reflect the average of the last 2 presidential elections. Our geography is so bad in WI that a "fair" map may still lock in a 6-2 GOP delegation
Could a 2032 GOP trifecta repeal the commission?
Not if WI Ds pass an independent redistricting amendment and put it to voters...
Are we sure about that? Worst case scenario is that we implement good government reforms when we're in power, hamstring our own trifecta's ability to gerrymander, and then rapidly get screwed after the census. By put it to the voters do you mean a constitutional amendment?
Takes the power away from the legislature to rig the maps in either party's favor, which is what happened in Wisconsin during the REDMAP wave when Walker and the GOP majority got into power.
Ideally, I would like to see gerrymandering banned on the federal level (and require state legislatures to follow federal standards), but it will take a Democratic trifecta and willingness to do away with the filibuster to get it passed.
Democrats will never get a trifecta if we only gerrymander California and Maryland. We are looking at a median seat that is 5 points to the right of the country.
Well also never get one if Republicans get to gerrymander all the states they control now…and also Wisconsin and Pennsylvania which is quite possible after 2030 without commissions there.
Nope. They’d have to put repeal of the commission on the ballot to voters, who would likely never vote for repeal of an independent commission.
Are we sure this is the case in Wisconsin? I'm totally unfamiliar with the process for both passing and repealing constitutional amendments.
100%
I'd be in favor of what Michigan did, where members of the citizen redistricting committee are instructed to factor in competitiveness and proportionality. It seems like it worked out pretty well, with both parties having the chance to win a solid majority in the legislature and congressional delegation.
Yeah but it was a mistake in Michigan because we could've drawn brutal gerrymanders and we're going to hold the Governorship for at least 4 more years and probably longer than that.
I disagree. For all we knew at the time, at this point we'd have a Democratic president facing an anti-incumbent midterm where Republicans could've taken a trifecta and done their own gerrymanders. The redistricting amendment in Michigan ensures that we can't be screwed over in a perpetual swing state, which I'll take as a win. It'd be different if it was more of a solid democratic state, like Colorado.
Exactly. Until we address it federally, it's commissions for thee (swing states) but not for me (blue states).
I wish we would adress it federally so this can be avoided.
The issue with this line of thinking is that there's 18 blue states and 24 red states. Even if we managed to implement neutral commissions in all eight swing states, we'd be at a severe and perpetual disadvantage that could cost us control of the House several times over the course of a decade. Michigan is very close to a blue state at the non-presidential level, it's been more than a decade since a Republican won any statewide election there. This is just setting us up for failure.
Hard disagree. MI is totally not a blue state at the state level. We just happened to be in a period where Dems have done well in midterms there because Trump was in office and we had strong incumbents. In the Obama era, despite him winning the state by 15+ points, we got 8 years of Rick Snyder. I have no doubt that if Kamala had won in '24, the GOP would be favored to take over the Gov mansion. States like MI, WI, PA and a handful of others have consistently swung back and forth between the parties without a clear trendline in one direction or the other (at least in terms of Gov races).
In contrast, CO and VA went from red to swing to blue. GA has gone from red to swing. FL and OH have gone from swing to red.
I would never bet the farm on Michigan Dems consistently being in power. Just look how that worked out for North Carolina..
Yeah I’m not for fucking around and finding out in swing states like Dems did between 2006-2010. We had to deal with over 10 years of Republican gerrymanders (and even longer in cases of OH and NC) because Dems didn’t put commissions in place when they could have in 2009/early 2010 even when there were clear signs they were gonna lose their seats at the redistricting table in 2010.
We have no idea how long we’ll hold the governorship in Michigan. If 2030 is a midterm of a Dem President, I am not willing to bet that we would. And Republicans have controlled the legislature much more often than Dems in the state.
WI and especially PA fall into this same basket, as Shapiro is term limited in 2030 and Republicans hold all the statewide elected non-federal partisan offices.
I'll just reiterate my previous comment that we're not playing on a level playing field. Trump won 24 states by 10 or more points. If we also cede opportunities in places like Michigan it's going to cost us the House once both sides reach maximum gerrymandering in safe states, which is likely over the next four years.
I'll also add I think that we should probably be somewhat empirical here on what our expected seat outcome is. If there's a gerrymander in 2027 in Michigan, the likelihood that we lose the Governorship and both houses of the legislature is worse than 50/50 because the legislature will be gerrymandered. I think the expected value here is undoubtedly positive, even if there's downside risk. I just don't think you're factoring in downside risk where Texas, Florida, Tennessee etc... are maximally gerrymandered and places like Colorado and Virginia still have commissions in place. We would actually be locked out of the House for a decade.
There is simply no way to gerrymander the MI (or WI) lege in a way that both passes political/court muster and would prevent an R+8 wave from cresting (which is the reverse of what Republicans are facing now) the next time a Dem is president.. which could be as soon as 2030. You are setting up a false premise.
And as I said previously, I am all in favor of blue states like VA and CO doing away with commissions. I would never have put them in in the first place because.. they are states going from swing to blue, not stagnating.
Colorado and Virginia should have Dem gerrymanders. Those are both states where it’s almost impossible for Republicans to get a trifecta (the timing of when the VA state senate is up for election helps Dems immensely ).
In states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the chances of Republicans getting a trifecta and the ability to gerrymander us out of legislature control for a decade or more is very real. Taking this risk off the table would be completely worth it for Dems and they could devote more resources to breaking Republican control in NC, TX, and FL rather than having to worry about these three swing states.
PA too. From your lips to the Dem leadership in those states’ ears. Any Dem trifectas in those states needed to be treated like a temporary gift from god.
I'm with you on the general approach, but no reason to make the gerrymander "soft" with control of the supreme court. Let's target a 6-2 gerrymander (or 5-3 if 6 isn't viable) and do the commission.
Environmental Voter Project (https://www.environmentalvoter.org/) is gearing up for a postcard campaign in TX to low propensity voters who rate the environment as their top issue.
The orientation session will be tomorrow (Aug 14th) at 12 noon ET. New volunteers must attend an orientation session before they can request postcards.
https://www.environmentalvoter.org/get-involved/texas-postcarding-orientation/2026-08-14
To find out about more volunteer opportunities with EVP, scroll to the bottom of this page and sign up to receive emails.
https://www.environmentalvoter.org/get-involved
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/texas-2026-poll-paxton-and-talarico/
Emerson
TX-Sen
Ken Paxton (R) 47%
James Talarico (D) 46%
TX-Gov:
Greg Abbott (R-inc) 49%
Gina Hinojosa (D) 45%
https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2026-midterm-election-polls-model
Nate Silver also moves the Senate race to Leans Democratic.
Too heavily weighed for Republicans and the 2024 electorate.
See, I think this could be a pretty realistic result. I don't see Talarico winning yet.
How was it weighed?
That’s the first Paxton lead I’ve seen in a minute
Admittedly shocking call on Silver's part.
Actually, Silver wrote today that "the new poll tipped it . . . back into the “toss-up” range."
Lol pay no attention to this guy, we know the same as him
No one should ever move a race rating because of a single poll. I don't care how high quality the pollster is. Even when polling was in a better place, a single poll would not be a strong enough data point on its own to do that.
Toss up is appropriate. Moving it from Lean D to toss up because of this pole is not appropriate.
It's not a made call, just a twitch of the needle over the line.
I mean...I think we have a reasonable shot at the Senate race, but calling it anything better than Toss-up seems nuts to me in Texas.
https://penncapital-star.com/election-2026/why-is-the-green-party-trying-to-kick-a-green-party-candidate-off-the-ballot-in-the-pa/
PA-7: A group of Green Party voters are suing to get their nominee Andrew Tupone *off* of the ballot after allegations of being a Republican spoiler to make sure Democrat Bob Brooks does not defeat Rep. Ryan Mackenzie.
Ahhh, the times being a Green Party member these days.
The West Virginia affiliate called the Mountain Party isn't in complete disarray like the national one. There's not any elected officials of course but there's a decent presence.
Historically a lot of Mountain Party folks are also Democrats, much more so than Green Party types elsewhere. It functions more like WFP than other GP affiliates.
I've mentioned this previously, but the party really needs to get more focused and organize messaging around data centers. Voters would be receptive methinks.
https://x.com/StatisticUrban/status/2087893551871095251 - Hunter on X
"Polling on data centers is really, really brutal. In WI, 76% of voters said "the costs outweigh the benefits," including 67% of Republicans. Gallup found 71% of Americans oppose one being built near them, incl. 80% of 18–34yos. Heatmap found 55% would support a *national ban.*"
Data centers spike energy bills, create noise and environmental pollution, and many create single digit amounts of permanent jobs, overall negatively impacting many communities around which they are built. Voters seem to think so too. A Luddite-style blanket ban is obviously not the way to go. But the relatively wild-west atmosphere in which they are operating now, with locals at the mercy of millions in lobbying and lawfare from suits against investigative journos, to eminent domain cannot be allowed to continue, at least un-messaged and unaddressed by Dems. . This is a "fresh" issue, on which Democrats are not held down by a multidecade track record like with others. A perfect opportunity to reach out to these voters.
In the Texas poll I posted above Emerson found a 60-33 unfavorable rating, including 47-43 among Republicans.
So in WI, Dems just nominated a candidate who's for "regulating" (not banning) data centers, while 76% of voters say the costs outweigh the benefits. And somehow that Dem is more electable than the candidate who was more firmly against them.
Hope Crowley wins, but this tired neoliberal b.s. when we need candidates who are firmly on the side of voters is really frustrating.
people, myself included are hypocritical on this issue. I was let down that Governor Hochul only placed a yearlong moratorium on data center construction in new york, for me two years seemed more appropriate.
Yet, I wanted hong to lose (was rooting for Barnes initially) not because of her policy positions but because she's the type of candidate even traditional dem constituencies would look at with suspicion. I tried explaining to my dad (a proud george mcgovern voter) why though I don't think any politician running for office should be reckless with tweets, objectively Hong was right we shouldn't whitewash Thanskgiving. But if I had to explain that to a dyed in the wool democrat from the northeast, i think it's reasonable to have been fearful of hon's chances in Wisconsin.
TLDR: It bothers me more when safe state dems are spineless on issues like data centers, but I hypocritically cut swing staters a lot of rope because it's a swing state and they'll always be better than the rethugs. And I've been wrong before with swing seaters, see my comments from last year defending Jared Golden (yuck).
I don't think it's hypocritical to have different expectations in swing states/districts than in blue ones. You have to win to enact legislation...
I don't think the problem in this case is ideological. Opposition to data centers is not something that requires a particularly progressive world view. It's more populism than anything else. Moderate populists aren't as common but do exist, and certainly the average democrat (neither progressive nor moderate) can logically be a populist on this issue.
Hong comes down to her superior stance on one issue for electability reasons not having enough weight to override her electability issues from other matters.
You might be the only person who thinks Hong is more electable than Crowley. People don't like datacenters, but I'd be shocked if the % of voters who call that one of their top three issues is higher than 3% or so.
I think “regulate data centers more” is a pretty safe position for Ds who think a ban or moratorium is a step too far. How that regulation works in practice is of course why we have 50 different states.
100% agree...and that's my personal position on the topic too. In particular, data centers should pay enough to cover both the cost of their electricity and water consumption PLUS enough to absorb any resulting impact on citizen's costs for those services.
And everyone should get a pony for their birthday, too. Once a data center is approved, it will never be regulated on electricity and water, and in proposal phase, its supporters will never agree to those restrictions. Late capitalism requires grifting public coffers and proclaiming your wealth self-made. Once the shovels are in the ground, no politician is going to forego the campaign $ that comes from data center owners by trying to regulate them.
In WI, it appears that Ds who think a ban or moratorium is a step too far is a relatively small minority of the population, according to the poll. Why not take the position that the majority of voters favor?
Perhaps because that's what Crowley actually believes. More importantly, I just don't think it's an issue that strongly motivates voters. I also suspect tighter regulation would be sufficient for most voters. I'd be curious to see the poll you are referencing, though.
For the poll, see Politics and Economiks's post above.
It won't motivate at the top, but in out state local legislative races, it's more likely to cause ticket-splitting which could keep Dems from winning the legislature in WI.
"Regulate more" is, however, definitely a devil in the details position. For more business aligned candidates it's going to mean placate voters and then hope to do as little as possible on it once elected. For others they actually will want to regulate more, which is a reasonable position to take.
Nope, didn't say that Hong was more electable, I said that people here have been saying that she's unelectable, and here we have the electable candidate taking a position in opposition to 3/4s of the electorate.
Also, how relevant the issue is to people's vote will likely change between now and November as more data centers are proposed. Electoral outcomes can change quickly (see Crowley, David).
I mean, you did say "And somehow that Dem is more electable than the candidate who was more firmly against them." To me, that implies that you think Hong is the more electable candidate.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/13/david-crowley-wisconsin-governor-election-strategy-01036209
WI-Gov: Newly minted Democratic nominee David Crowley is doubling down on his opposition to a data center moratorium and sounds reluctant to campaign with his primary opponent Francesca Hong and her supporters. Of course, Hong surrogate and national progressive commentator Hasan Piker was mentioned, as he seems to be these days, and Crowley says he won't campaign with him either.
Why would Crowley campaign with Piker? I doubt Piker would even campaign with Crowley if Crowley asked, and frankly, campaigning with Piker does nothing to improve a candidate's chances, especially in a general election.
Good question. Seems like kind of a gotcha question to me from Politico. But I would beg to differ that campaigning with him does nothing to improve chances when it comes to primaries. His media network has come in handy in recent races.
I don't really think that Abdul campaigning with Piker was seen as a plus for him, and if Piker had never gotten involved in that race he probably would have performed at least as well as he ended up performing. Maybe Piker is more of a plus in primaries in safe-D seats, but I don't think that he makes much of a net positive impact for a candidate.
By recent I did moreso mean ones in safe-D seats you speak of, not really for El-Sayed. For example, Melat Kiros, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Chris Rabb.
I would slightly disagree as McMorrow's downfall started when she started attacking Abdul for campaigning with Piker.
Her dip in the polling only really came a few weeks after that, I'm not sure it cost her anything.
AES’ near-loss to Stevens and Hong’s actual narrow loss to Crowley definitely calls into question Piker’s value - less in a “does he actually hurt that much way” and I more in a “do you actually gain anything through the association?”
I think the effect Piker has on elections is, frankly, absolutely zero for the most part. Or maybe not *zero,* but it basically adds into being endorsed by AOC, Bernie, etc - solidifying one as the progressive candidate. I don't think anyone makes their voting decisions on who Hasan Piker endorses... atleast I hope not, it's just as dumb as voting based on who Joe Rogan endorses (which unfortunately is a lot more common)
The only effect I could see it having is turning off voters off of moderate to liberal candidates who make a big deal about Piker's endorsements, because they're focused on something/someone nobody really gives a shit about and not important issues. But even then the effect is probably still minimal, and again ties more into the general fabric of how a candidate acts and the way they campaign rather than being a deciding factor
Right. I don’t think we have evidence that he’s an active harm or anything, but I also don’t think AES/Hong actually added anything by campaigning with him
(I’d caveat this with my own view that D candidates should stay as far away from him as possible because he’s a shock jock who says horrible things and I have no doubt he’s cut from the same cloth as his uncle Cenk Uygur/is a millionaire cosplaying as revolutionary, but that’s my bias, not evidentiary)
Solid hypthesis, though.
Who cares about Piker? Did everyone miss the part where Crowley is reluctant to campaign with Hong? Remember all the "she better endorse him if she loses, because he'll surely endorse her if he loses"? Unity is a one-way street in WI, it seems.
Exactly. We're skimming past the first part of my comment.
I read the article as Crowley seeing Hong as toxic. FWIW, I see both sides of that argument, but when you won by 3k votes and change you need all the support you can get
Huh? There is a big difference between endorsing the winning candidate and choosing to campaign with the loser. The latter should be a decision driven solely by electability. It'd be different if he was trashing her publicly, but he's not (that I've seen anyway). Whether he campaigns with her is up to him and his campaign staff.
Just seems like shunning 300,000+ voters is not a winning strategy, but YMMV.
Yeah, I don’t exactly want Jasmine Crockett out campaigning at the hip with James Talarico after the incendiary things she’s said about hispanics and other groups.
I don't think the issue is where to campaign with Piker or not but rather why we should even think he's got this in-depth mind that knows a lot more than what we're led to believe.
During the WI-GOV primary process, Piker said regarding the Democratic socialist movement that once Hong & others win Republicans won't ever be elected again in WI. While I'm not denying Democratic socialists have influence and can get elected, it's cocky to assert that a swing state like WI would be able to not elect Republicans again.
Piker also has waxed poetic on the brilliance of Chairman Mao so between that and this I’m inclined to think he ain’t too bright
I assume with how much his name gets inserted into matters that he's probably making a pretty penny. If he's doing a grift on purpose he might actually be pretty smart. It's surprisingly difficult to be dumb in the right ways.
Well, Piker has Uncle Cenk Uygur to thank for helping him get started.
An association that makes me immediately recoil
MN-Gov - VoteHub erroneously had the party affiliations for both of the major party nominees swapped; they've since fixed this error:
https://www.threads.com/share/_1RnRPXin/
FOX Polls:
MICHIGAN
Benson +5 over James (52-47)
Rogers +4 over El-Sayed(51-47)
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-senate-battle-looms-michigan
OHIO
Brown +10 (54-44)
Vivek +2 (50-48)
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-economic-anxiety-candidate-concerns-define-ohio-senate-race
It’s great seeing Brown up, but those numbers for El-Sayed aren’t great. Hopefully he does better the further we get from the primary.
I’m a bit surprised by that massive delta between Brown and Acton, but it’s not that surprising - Acton doesn’t seem like someone who will appeal to many people who aren’t Democrats.
I feel like both races in Michigan seem off here. I don't think Rogers would lead that much over El-Sayed in this environment, and I don't think Benson's going to win by that little
I'm inclined to agree. There's likely too much weight being placed on 2024 voters. With past elections you could often attribute them to often occurring in presidential years and Trump being on the ballot like in 2024, both which would account for lower propensity voters turning out for Republicans. Here in a midterm with a historically unpopular incumbent, that's highly unlikely. Note also that this Fox poll is using registered voters, so the sample is even more suspect even before accounting for bias. I can buy the race being close to a tie, but a lead here seems quite unlikely.
This polling is pretty in line with polls prior to the primary. He's been trailing Roger's pretty consistently.
This is a state that has voted for Trump 2 times, almost a 3rd. You're putting too much faith in Michigan voters to do the right thing.
Acton is being outspent like 5-1 by Vivek so its not surprising to see the delta. They've been going after her hard since the primaries. It seems Acton is saving her money for after Labor Day so hopefully she can get her footing again.
Bad strategy if true
OH: I love seeing Brown that far ahead but it is hard to believe. Good pollster but even the good ones get weird results sometimes. Let's hope to see another one this good.
MI: Disappointing but it's right after the primary and the wounds need to heal. I expect/hope to see better polls after Labor Day.
What will folks say if we win all the tough GOP Senate seats only to lose Michigan (and possibly the majority)
If that happens, we will say the Democratic primary voters picked the wrong candidate in Michigan. You can guarantee that.
It will hard for any progressive to get nominated anywhere if that happens.
I disagree. It may be hard to nominate any progressives with controversial views and records in swing districts, not everywhere.
While I suppose anything is possible, I find it hard to believe we would win states like Ohio, Alaska, or Texas, but lose Michigan.
Most likely, if we lose Michigan, we also have not won more than Maine and North Carolina.
In 2010 Republicans lost NV and DE despite sweeping elsewhere due to candidate issues
The question is if Abdul El-Sayed is a Sharron Angle or a Christine O'Donnell. I beg to differ, but I guess we'll see.
The one distinctive difference in context that the MI-SEN race is an open race whereas in NV-SEN back in 2010 Harry Reid was still running for re-election.
Harry Reid was polling horrifically at the start of that cycle, so I don’t know if incumbency was what save him so much as ruthlessly destroying Angle after she won the primary.
I agree with you. The problem with Angle and O'Donnell, with voters, wasn't so much the fact that they were more conservative. It was that they were kooky, inarticulate candidates. Not just very right but with weird views.
Hong is closer to them in that sense. AES is articulate and charismatic. He avoids kooky positions. He's not at all comparable to Angle or O'Donnell in practice.
Hong is way more of an Angle/Not a Witch type.
I saw somebody else compare AES to a Pat Toomey type, which is a bit of a stretch imo, but more accurate than the comp above at least
Both of those are to the left of many of the states that flipped, and also 2010 was a time with a very different media environment and level of partisanship.
MI-Sen could be like VA-AG last year, where a relatively unpopular candidate gets swept in to office due to the opposition party being extremely unpopular. AES will underperform Benson, although probably not by as drastic of a margin as some polls may suggest (and probably by less than the percentage Jones underperformed Spanberger in Virginia).
In the crosstabs, I saw that the poll had AES only +1 among female voters, which I doubt will be the case with the actual general election electorate. This is an election where a good debate performance by AES, if there are any general election debates, probably seals the deal for him.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c5y40d11zewt
Clacton: Despite no official results, former Reform MP Nigel Farage has declared an "overwhelming" victory over perennial and novelty candidate Count Binface, and strangely will not attend the ceremony that announces a winner.
The Argument put out an excellent analysis saying that the MI Senate race is El Sayed’s to lose due to the national environment and how unpopular Trump is in the state.
https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/the-michigan-senate-race-is-abdul
He says that the data is pointing to a potential blue tsunami.
All depends on how much he can pull the Stevens voters back in. He just has to not fall too far behind Benson.
I doubt Benson outruns him by more than six, as somebody else suggested the other day. That feels right to me. That’s what I’ll keep my eye on
A well written and well argued analysis. Jain is pretty conservative with his analysis and predictions, too (to his credit) so that’s good to see him being bullish