Have we got any good or relevant candidates in FL-27? It seems they have similar demographics there than in FL-28 where Mujica is now running at a prominent polling level.
I'm pretty sure its portion of Miami (about half of the district) went blue in last year's mayoral race, and there's other blue leaning sections, so maybe. It was a big Democratic performance in 2018.
That one is uniquely conservative. The last time it was within 10 points was 2008, and it was targeted in 2018. Diaz-Balart is entrenched, as was his late brother.
FL-26 has a lot of historically Cuban-American Republican communities that are extremely averse to anything that sounds like "socialism," so it is a much heavier lift than FL-27 and FL-28 (which have many Cuban-American voters but also have more diversity among voters in political leanings and Hispanic ethnic groups).
However, it's worth noting that according to Dave's Redistricting App, FL-26 as currently drawn did vote for Hillary Clinton for President in 2016 by a slim 50.5-46.6 margin. The only other time it came close to voting Dem in the races they list is Obama 2012 (49.4-50.6 Romney). I wonder about the accuracy of their 2012 data, though.
Basically, if there is an extreme crashout against Trump with Cuban-Americans, it's conceivable a Dem could be carried across on a blue wave. However, Dems currently lack a strong Hispanic candidate for the district, and I expect that would be needed to beat Diaz-Balart (who has already distanced himself from Trump a bit on some of the most unpopular issues right now).
I get the feeling that South and Central American will make up more of the backlash than Cuban Americans in central Florida. But what the hell do I know as a Mexican American from California (with substantial time in the midwest).
its crazy how Parnas has managed to try to make himself look like a clean, reasonable politician. He and Fruman were some of he greasiest operators in those circles.
That NE-02 line of attack is bizarre. Unless I'm missing something, Cavanaugh is vacating his seat, win or lose, and another Dem is running to hold the district? So you're essentially arguing that he is the only one capable of holding that seat and that there's no chance of a pickup anywhere in the State. Both of which seem rather unlikely given how the year is shaping up. Also unless you successfully convince him to drop out and seek reelection instead, it won't make a difference. So it's not a coherent reason to vote against him.
Edit: This is largely wrong. I mistakenly thought it was a two year term. He is half way through a four year term.
It doesn't look like his legislative seat is up for election this year, but even then there are 4 Trump < 10 seats up that could flip given the currently environment (including one R-held seat that Kamala won in 2024)
Like the item points out, Cavanaugh's seat is not up this November, and apparently Gov. Pillen would able to appoint his replacement for two years, without restrictions, which is insane.
I got misled by looking at the Wikipedia article "Nebraska Senate" which is about the old bicameral body that had a two year term. Should have been more careful before posting.
I wonder whether the resignations by Gonzales and Swalwell are coordinated? Whether perhaps the party leaderships in the House had a hand in this? Seems to me this avoids significant headaches for both parties, and also avoids ugly gamesmanship in the House.
My next question is this: who is likely to have a voting replacement first, Swalwell or Gonzales?
I think it's less coordinated and more that Swalwell jumped first and Gonzales was told by leadership that he needed to go too. I think they don't want a precedent of holding expulsion votes before the Ethics process has gone thru they way it has with SCM, and so want to avoid them.
Obviously it's better to have an investigation before you expel someone willy-nilly, but it's a little lawyerbrained to call this "without due process" (aimed at Swalwell, not you), because the House rules allow the chamber to expel anyone for any reason as long as 2/3 agree.
Totally, but that's how the House as an institution and much of leadership (and rank and file members) want it. Some to prevent slippery slope expulsions, some out of self-interest...
tbh, I don't know which privileges they lose on expulsion? I think it took a new vote to keep Santos from having access to the House Floor as a former member. Was trying to look into it yesterday and didn't find a good explainer.
More DC delegate drama. Brooke Pinto's campaign website has a "Media" page with a 67-page oppo dump on Robert White, including personal info on his family members and a photo of their house. She says it's was all gathered from open-source information, and the page is still up rn. White is calling on her to drop out.
WTF? I just read Pinto's Wikipedia page, and nothing there suggested that she is even remotely close to being a fascist.
Frankly, I'm tired of far-left people claiming that anyone to the right of Bernie is a fascist. That's simply not true, and it minimizes the impact of the term when describing actual fascists.
I meant that she was establishment. Wasn't really calling any candidate fascist, just comparing the lengths the establishment is going here to that of other races
Its largely what she said when representing the burbs in SoCal. She has long supported the don't build anything faction of the party. But she has said all of the right things in the gubernatorial race.
Quite honestly, Democrats in general are continuing to evolve on the issue of housing, especially as it relates to combating homelessness. What used to be real hard core NIMBYism is now becoming a more inclusive and forward thinking discourse. Katie Porter’s certainly embracing this.
State Senator Jesse Arreguin, who represents Berkeley as well as Oakland, used to be a fired up NIMBY in the Mission District in San Francisco (where he grew up) back in the day. Being someone who had him as Mayor of Berkeley, he was able to balance pro tenant interests while getting more housing built.
I'd say it's more influence from the younger generations than what traditional establishment Democrats have traditionally proposed. Of course, it also makes sense because being priced out of the housing market has become all too common with younger people. State Senator Jesse Arreguin himself doesn't own a home and has been a life-long renter. He has been transparent about him not being able to afford a typical home in Berkeley.
For Democrats in general, it depends on who you talk to. With Senator Adam Schiff, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Katie Porter, Arreguin, CA State Senator Scott Weiner, etc. bringing up their ideas on housing, it's clear they are putting more thought into it than simply basic talking points.
On the other hand, GOP Gubernatorial Candidate Steve Hilton is pro-single family zoning and not ashamed to admit that.
Stu Rothenberg on X says he would not be surprised by D+4-6 in the Senate. My mind changes constantly on the order in which the seats fall, but I’d guess:
1. North Carolina
2. Maine
———Gap———
3. Texas w/Paxton
4. Alaska
5. Ohio
———Gap———
6. Iowa
Kansas and Nebraska as dark horses thrown in there too. Florida is probably seat #55 or 56.
I’d put it as 11, behind Montana and Kansas. To me, those three are a tier of seats that could flip in the scenario of a republican apocalypse, but are not as safe as a state like West Virginia or Wyoming
Agreed. I could conceivably see FL and NE flipping (with FL far more likely in my mind). I cannot fathom a world where SC does, short of a massive scandal and maybe not even then.
Not sure about Ohio below Iowa...Brown only lost by a point or so as Trump carried Ohio by double digits. Husted is a stronger candidate, but the year is not favorable for him.
That's pretty close to my thinking. It's hard for me to fully mentally nail down the 4 reach seats. I think Texas/Alaska as a pair and Ohio/Iowa as another pair makes sense, but really I think it's going to be hard to get the order down until the summer when we know the candidates everywhere and more polling starts to happen.
I really want to see the media sensation of a democrat winning statewide in Texas. Strategically Alaska is very promising sooner than Texas is, and I hope a strong performance from Peltola gives us a stronger bench there for future cycles.
I wonder if that kind of wave would make the media more receptive to covering Trump's cognitive decline. They've ignored it outright and whitewashing his TruthSocial insanity as actual policy.
Actually no, since the wave would have been fueled by people the media ignore (middle-class and lower, POCs) and the people who own the media will ensure that reporting focuses on the wealthy and dismsses the results as unrepresentative.
I mean, come on, can you see CBS, NYT, WAPO or an Elllison-owned CNN say "gosh, the people have spoken. Maybe see what they're so upset about." Not going to happen.
The MSM outlets have been sanewashing TACO since 2015. If they think attacking him on his mental faculties would gain them viewers (like they thought they did with Biden), they'd do it.
What are you talking about? I cannot count how many articles the NYT (and the others too, I'm sure) have published about "blue collar America" since 2016.
I’m not predicting us flipping Texas Governor, but I think it will get a lot closer than expected. Things seem to be getting so bad for Republicans that they’re going to be distracted trying to plug holes in the sinking boat without enough plugs, manpower, or bandwidth.
In that case, we’d probably also be flipping at least 7-8 Senate seats, at least 45 House seats, and at least 4-5 other governorships (Iowa, Ohio, Nevada, Georgia, and maybe Florida, Alaska, or New Hampshire). It would be a massive wave.
Lakysha Jain was interviewed on The Lincoln Project yesterday or the day prior about the chances of Democrats flipping the Senate.
He said that a year ago, it would’ve been 15%. He says it’s gone up to 40-45%— and he’s optimistic about the AK-Sen seat flipping. But he’s very conservative in his estimates.
As am I to the extent where I believe it’s a Lean Democrat race.
Based on polling, fundraising and Peltola being the Senate candidate against Senator Dan Sullivan, she has been consistently ahead in polls and has led in fundraising. This taking into account Sullivan having recently gone from a 38% approval rating to 36% approval rating.
Of course, Sullivan could pull off a hat trick and miraculously beat Peltola at her game in campaigning and fundraising. However, if he doesn’t intend to heavily campaign, he’s likely going to be consistently behind in the race.
I think we’re already ahead in the first 3, that we’ll be ahead in the first 6 by November, that we have a strong shot in everything through 9th, and that if things get bad enough for Trump everything as far down as Mississippi is in play.
Agreed! I'm not sure how popular Ricketts is or isn't, but I think if Osborn was running against Deb Fischer again this year, we'd be looking at at least a second-tier pick-up opportunity.
Although this was a different time, should be noted that back in 2006 Pete Ricketts lost the Senate election to Senator Ben Nelson by a bit less than 13% points.
That said, Ricketts got elected to the Senate back in 2024 with the special election (after being appointed) but hasn’t been in office long enough to build stature like McConnell, Thune, etc. have. He also won the special Senate election by 25% points.
The big recruiting fail here is Kansas. Here we have an incumbent freshman intractably wedded to MAGA who has no geographic or legacy connection to any of the state's Democratic-trending population centers, and all in a state that elected a Democratic Governor twice in the previous four cycles. And yet I'm looking at lists where people are speculating that South Carolina is a better pick-up opportunity. If that's true, there's no good excuse for it. And if a limp Democratic campaign gets within 5 points of Roger Marshall, our side is gonna look pretty silly.
Kansas is still very tough in federal races. Even in a great D year, I don’t think Marshall will be held to as narrow as 5 points. Maybe more like 9-10.
Same 2014 margin as Alaska and Texas, only with two actual Democratic wins in the last decade. I'm not buying that the other two are structurally more winnable or elastic. Not at all.
We lost in 2014 by 10.5 points and in 2020 by 11.5 points. If this is a much stronger year for us than 2014 or 2020, why would the margin barely shift?
Is Patrick Schmidt a bad candidate in Kansas? On paper, a young State Senator who’s a veteran is the kind of candidate we’d want to run here, especially since it’s not like we have many obvious options other than Laura Kelly (who at 76 would be the oldest freshman Senator in US history) and Sharice Davids.
Maybe he'll be a good candidate. Either way, nobody's taking the race seriously right now and I think there's a good chance they will regret that five months from now.
I agree. I don’t think we’ve even gotten a poll of the race. We need to start treating the map like we have more than 8 potential targets - Kansas, Montana, and South Carolina are all flippable if things keep getting worse for Trump.
Basically she's threatening to run to try and prevent state Republicans from (further) gerrymandering her seat. I think her inclination is to stay in the House if that's available.
Didn't see this mentioned here: Virginia joins the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The total now stands at 222 EVs. Virginia is the first state to join since Maine in 2024 and Minnesota in 2023.
Other than NH and PA (depending on what region you lump PA into) the entire Northeast is now in the compact. Future growth is going to require swing states joining.
NH isn’t joining as long as Ayotte is Governor. Hopefully she can lose in a big blue tsunami, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Winning full control of the state governments of PA, WI, MI, and NV seems like the most likely way for it to move forward. AZ would be a good fallback state. All those together would finally allow the compact to take effect.
Except Democrats had full control of Nevada from 2018-2022 and Michigan from 2022-2024. I know Sisolak in Nevada vetoed it for some bizarre reason. Did Whitmer veto it in Michigan as well, or did it never even reach her desk?
For NV, my assumption is Ford would sign it into law. He doesn't seem like he'd have the same hang ups as Sisolak.
I don't believe Whitmer vetoed it, but they had a small margin in the legislature for their brief period of unified control of government. Hopefully, Benson wins, and they'll have a much bigger margin to pass it after the midterms.
I don't see NH joining anytime soon, regardless of the party in charge. The state political establishment loves the prestige of being a swing state similar to their love of the first primary. They will fight to keep it, I expect.
Maybe if NH stopped being light-blue swingy and became reliably blue that would change. I doubt that will happen any time soon.
Not sure what this comment means? It's currently at 222, so with PA (19), MI (15), WI (10), and NV (6), the compact would get 272 electoral votes and would go into effect. AZ is an additional state that could put it over the top, but it isn't required.
If we can get trifectas and pass it in PA (19), MI (15), AZ (11), WI (10), NV (6) and NH (4), we'll be at 287, which should keep it safe past the reapportionment by the 2032 election.
Other edge cases would be to win TX (40), FL (30), OH (17), GA (16), NC (16) and AK (3).
Interstate compacts are legal if given congressional consent. If/when we hit 270 EVs in the compact, a congressional vote affirming support would be sufficient, unless SCOTUS makes something up to block it.
Which they very well could do, but we cannot stop ourselves from seeking good things simply because of maleficence from SCOTUS.
The reality of it is that an amendment is monumentally difficult, borderline impossible. America is too politically fractured today to reach the majorities required to pass an amendment.
The NPVIC is a solution for that. There's no good legal basis to rule against it, especially if it reaches 270+ EVs and congress passes a resolution granting consent. We know that won't stop the current SCOTUS.
I'm not saying we should assume it's ironclad by default. I'm saying we shouldn't preemptively surrender their bias.
The fatal problem with this is that the blue states would flip an election won by the popular vote to a Republican, but not vice versa. The only way to get nationwide agreement to abolish the anti-democratic Electoral College, and it might not be sufficient, would be for a Democratic candidate to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. In case these states throw an election to the Democrat, watch the corrupt Republican Supreme Court steal another election.
Uggh....why on earth do we keep doing this. It reminds me of all of the redistricting commissions we put in place in blue states while Republicans did nothing of the sort. Unilateral disarmament that only potentially benefits Republicans.
This isn't unilateral disarmament. It only goes into effect when there are 270+ EVs governed by it, then all of them award those EVs by national popular vote. Virginia will still award its EVs to the statewide winner until and unless the compact reaches 270 EVs.
OK, so how does that prevent a scenario where the compact is ratified by enough states to pass the 270 threshold. Then, the following cycle, the Democrat wins the EC, but loses the Popular Vote and that block of blue states has to cast their electoral votes for the Republican. What am I missing here? Or, to look at it another way, what benefit comes from this? Honestly, I've never understood this.
There are 5 elections where the presidential candidate with more votes lost the EC: 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016
Of those 5, in 4 of them the candidate that won the popular vote but lost the election was a democrat. In the 5th, the democratic and republican parties didn't even exist yet.
In recent elections republicans have had an advantage in the electoral college. Biden won the popular vote by 4.5 points in 2020; he won the tipping point state (WI) by 0.63%. Based on trends with voter coalitions and EV distribution with each census, this advantage is unlikely to disappear.
It creates a more democratically representative outcome for presidential elections, which is good in and of itself. Pertinent to your worry though, it is also a strategic advantage for us. I would favor it even if it wasn't.
That is the district they're running for - the current seat number is held by Eugene Vindman, who said he would run in the 1st. Republican Rep. John McGuire of the 5th district also lives in this redrawn one.
So what did you mean when you said “all for a seat that may not exist this time in 8 days”? Doesn’t that imply that you’re saying there’s little point to all these Dems running? Because if they’re all running for the current or the redrawn seat, I don’t see how that statement makes sense since they’ll be running for a seat regardless of what it looks like.
I think we should be pretty confident that the new map will pass. Reports are showing that the trajectory in VA is following the prop 50 path, Republican outperformance at the beginning then Dem wave following activation closer to the election, especially since the satellite places are open now.
DeSantis looking at pushing back the FL special session (due to start on 4/20) until past the results from the VA referendum the next day, and in hopes that Callais comes down before they start to pressure for a maximum gerrymander.
The NY-04 substitute Repub nominee will NOT be Anthony D'Esposito. The Nassau County state party chose Jeanine Driscoll, the receiver of taxes for Hempstead, instead.
NH-Gov: Minor Democratic candidate Jon Kiper will now form his own third party called "Community First" in his run, meaning former Executive Council member Cinde Warmington is the clear frontrunner to take on Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte.
Kiper did little to attack Republicans in his switch, instead attacking his former Democrats primarily for issues I can't speak to.
When was the last time an incumbent Senator with -20 approval won their race, not including legislative leaders? So McConnell and Schumer wouldn’t count. Asking for a soon to be retired Senator (your pick which one I’m referencing):
In that poll Ashley Moody in Florida has a 43% approval rating with a 27% disapproval rating, Pete Ricketts in Nebraska has 46% approval with a 41% disapproval, Roger Marshall in Kansas is at 44% approval with 36% disapproval, and Lindsey Graham is underwater by 3 with 43% approving and 46% disapproving, if anyone was wondering about the next tier of targets.
I have no knowledge of any polling from the time, but I wonder if Daniel Inouye had a negative approval rating in 1992 after news of his affair came out. He was reelected with only 57% of the vote that year I believe, far lower than he would otherwise have gotten.
Does Cohen keep his house seat in TN because too many people filed for that seat for Pearson to get a near one on one contest against him? I was looking at the number of candidates that filed there yesterday.
The Spring 2026 Yale Youth Poll results are now live. Lots of interesting results on 2026/28 elections, AI, ICE, executive power, and antisemitism. Full results at https://youthpoll.yale.edu/spring-2026-results
Have we got any good or relevant candidates in FL-27? It seems they have similar demographics there than in FL-28 where Mujica is now running at a prominent polling level.
Eliott Rodriguez and Robin Peguero. Former Giuliani aide Lev Parnas is also running.
How could they do in the general election? As good as Mujica?
Better. The seat is bluer than the 28th and Rodriguez is a known local journalist.
Could we be looking at a flip?
I'm pretty sure its portion of Miami (about half of the district) went blue in last year's mayoral race, and there's other blue leaning sections, so maybe. It was a big Democratic performance in 2018.
How about 26th the GOP won that by 40 points in 24 but it’s 70% hispanic.
That one is uniquely conservative. The last time it was within 10 points was 2008, and it was targeted in 2018. Diaz-Balart is entrenched, as was his late brother.
FL-26 has a lot of historically Cuban-American Republican communities that are extremely averse to anything that sounds like "socialism," so it is a much heavier lift than FL-27 and FL-28 (which have many Cuban-American voters but also have more diversity among voters in political leanings and Hispanic ethnic groups).
However, it's worth noting that according to Dave's Redistricting App, FL-26 as currently drawn did vote for Hillary Clinton for President in 2016 by a slim 50.5-46.6 margin. The only other time it came close to voting Dem in the races they list is Obama 2012 (49.4-50.6 Romney). I wonder about the accuracy of their 2012 data, though.
Basically, if there is an extreme crashout against Trump with Cuban-Americans, it's conceivable a Dem could be carried across on a blue wave. However, Dems currently lack a strong Hispanic candidate for the district, and I expect that would be needed to beat Diaz-Balart (who has already distanced himself from Trump a bit on some of the most unpopular issues right now).
What strong Hispanic candidate could run there?
I get the feeling that South and Central American will make up more of the backlash than Cuban Americans in central Florida. But what the hell do I know as a Mexican American from California (with substantial time in the midwest).
its crazy how Parnas has managed to try to make himself look like a clean, reasonable politician. He and Fruman were some of he greasiest operators in those circles.
That NE-02 line of attack is bizarre. Unless I'm missing something, Cavanaugh is vacating his seat, win or lose, and another Dem is running to hold the district? So you're essentially arguing that he is the only one capable of holding that seat and that there's no chance of a pickup anywhere in the State. Both of which seem rather unlikely given how the year is shaping up. Also unless you successfully convince him to drop out and seek reelection instead, it won't make a difference. So it's not a coherent reason to vote against him.
Edit: This is largely wrong. I mistakenly thought it was a two year term. He is half way through a four year term.
It doesn't look like his legislative seat is up for election this year, but even then there are 4 Trump < 10 seats up that could flip given the currently environment (including one R-held seat that Kamala won in 2024)
Like the item points out, Cavanaugh's seat is not up this November, and apparently Gov. Pillen would able to appoint his replacement for two years, without restrictions, which is insane.
Thanks.
I got misled by looking at the Wikipedia article "Nebraska Senate" which is about the old bicameral body that had a two year term. Should have been more careful before posting.
The Politico writeup of how Ms Frazzled and other influencers broke the Swalwell story is worth the read.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/04/13/influencers-allegations-eric-swalwell-00869517
Thank you for posting this link.
I wonder whether the resignations by Gonzales and Swalwell are coordinated? Whether perhaps the party leaderships in the House had a hand in this? Seems to me this avoids significant headaches for both parties, and also avoids ugly gamesmanship in the House.
My next question is this: who is likely to have a voting replacement first, Swalwell or Gonzales?
100%. That timing was not coincidental. A paired expulsion vote was probably relayed to them beforehand.
I think it's less coordinated and more that Swalwell jumped first and Gonzales was told by leadership that he needed to go too. I think they don't want a precedent of holding expulsion votes before the Ethics process has gone thru they way it has with SCM, and so want to avoid them.
Obviously it's better to have an investigation before you expel someone willy-nilly, but it's a little lawyerbrained to call this "without due process" (aimed at Swalwell, not you), because the House rules allow the chamber to expel anyone for any reason as long as 2/3 agree.
Totally, but that's how the House as an institution and much of leadership (and rank and file members) want it. Some to prevent slippery slope expulsions, some out of self-interest...
I'm guessing they lose their pension if expelled
tbh, I don't know which privileges they lose on expulsion? I think it took a new vote to keep Santos from having access to the House Floor as a former member. Was trying to look into it yesterday and didn't find a good explainer.
Rapists should lose their pensions. Taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for that.
More DC delegate drama. Brooke Pinto's campaign website has a "Media" page with a 67-page oppo dump on Robert White, including personal info on his family members and a photo of their house. She says it's was all gathered from open-source information, and the page is still up rn. White is calling on her to drop out.
https://www.dcnewsnow.com/news/local-news/washington-dc/robert-white-calls-for-brooke-pinto-to-withdraw-from-congressional-race/
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/politics/brooke-pinto-robert-white-opposition-research-report/65-f0ee8f6d-ccf3-4936-bf9a-8475767c41c9
The establishment would rather elect a fascist than a progressive.
WTF? I just read Pinto's Wikipedia page, and nothing there suggested that she is even remotely close to being a fascist.
Frankly, I'm tired of far-left people claiming that anyone to the right of Bernie is a fascist. That's simply not true, and it minimizes the impact of the term when describing actual fascists.
I meant that she was establishment. Wasn't really calling any candidate fascist, just comparing the lengths the establishment is going here to that of other races
The word has been diluted completely and utterly beyond its academic and dictionary definition. Useless, kind of like the word "leftist"
Correct, and those aren't the only examples I can think of.
A Republican is not winning in D.C anytime in the next century.
My initial comment was poorly written. That isn't what I meant
Cal Gov poll. 80% before Swalwell news broke:
🔵 Steyer 21%
🔴 Hilton 18%
🔵 Swalwell 9%
🔴 Bianco 8%
🔵 Porter 8%
Survey USA #A - RV - 4/10
As much as we don't need another billionaire pushing 70, Steyer seems to be the only real YIMBY in this race. California probably needs it.
Steyer would be fine; I don't get all the heartburn about him.
I really don’t get your argument about Steyer and housing.
Katie Porter has argued in her platform she wants to build housing of all types and increase the supply. Sounds pretty YIMBY to me.
https://katieporter.com/priorities/
https://katieporteroc.substack.com/p/housing-for-all
Its largely what she said when representing the burbs in SoCal. She has long supported the don't build anything faction of the party. But she has said all of the right things in the gubernatorial race.
Quite honestly, Democrats in general are continuing to evolve on the issue of housing, especially as it relates to combating homelessness. What used to be real hard core NIMBYism is now becoming a more inclusive and forward thinking discourse. Katie Porter’s certainly embracing this.
State Senator Jesse Arreguin, who represents Berkeley as well as Oakland, used to be a fired up NIMBY in the Mission District in San Francisco (where he grew up) back in the day. Being someone who had him as Mayor of Berkeley, he was able to balance pro tenant interests while getting more housing built.
Dunno, are Democrats in general changing their approaches, or is it only some of them?
I'd say it's more influence from the younger generations than what traditional establishment Democrats have traditionally proposed. Of course, it also makes sense because being priced out of the housing market has become all too common with younger people. State Senator Jesse Arreguin himself doesn't own a home and has been a life-long renter. He has been transparent about him not being able to afford a typical home in Berkeley.
For Democrats in general, it depends on who you talk to. With Senator Adam Schiff, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Katie Porter, Arreguin, CA State Senator Scott Weiner, etc. bringing up their ideas on housing, it's clear they are putting more thought into it than simply basic talking points.
On the other hand, GOP Gubernatorial Candidate Steve Hilton is pro-single family zoning and not ashamed to admit that.
Porter actually got the best YIMBY score out of all candidates, including Steyer
Porter: B+
Steyer: C+
https://yimbyaction.org/blog/grading-the-candidates-a-yimby-action-scorecard-on-the-california-yimby-gubernatorial-forum/
That's not surprising, especially considering the article you are citing reveals Porter has said she would be a partner with YIMBY.
You and I posted a minute apart so I am deleting mine. You should correct your errors though. If you read what Survey USA wrote, candidate preference was only asked of 788 likely voters--not RV's. And the survey was over three days (4/8-4/10) not just one. https://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=ee26505b-573e-4077-bf28-3596b3dd8245
Stu Rothenberg on X says he would not be surprised by D+4-6 in the Senate. My mind changes constantly on the order in which the seats fall, but I’d guess:
1. North Carolina
2. Maine
———Gap———
3. Texas w/Paxton
4. Alaska
5. Ohio
———Gap———
6. Iowa
Kansas and Nebraska as dark horses thrown in there too. Florida is probably seat #55 or 56.
Yeah, I think that is pretty spot on. I change a lot as well.
I'd go:
1. NC
-------Gap-----
2. ME
------Gap-----
3. AK
4. OH
5. TX (vs Paxton)
----------Gap---
6. IA
------Big gap----
7. NE
8. FL
9. SC
Once we have a candidate in IA it vould jump the gap, especially with Sands a clear facorite for Gov, more so than Acton in OH or AK/TX.
Good ranking. I can see 3/4 being either way and would put a gap between 4 & 5.
Too bullish on SC.
I’d put it as 11, behind Montana and Kansas. To me, those three are a tier of seats that could flip in the scenario of a republican apocalypse, but are not as safe as a state like West Virginia or Wyoming
Agree. But I think it ranks more like 15th. Put LA, MS, OK, KY ahead of SC too, perhaps.
Agreed. I could conceivably see FL and NE flipping (with FL far more likely in my mind). I cannot fathom a world where SC does, short of a massive scandal and maybe not even then.
To me, Iowa and Texas are roughly the same. Iowa is swingier, but Texas has a higher floor
Honestly I would flip 3 and 4 but other than that, agreed
1. NC
2. ME
3. AK
4. TX
5. IA
6. OH
7. FL
8. NE
9. KS
10. SC
11. MS
12. MT
I think Florida has the potential to fluctuate wildly, depending on margin/turnout in and around Miami.
Not sure about Ohio below Iowa...Brown only lost by a point or so as Trump carried Ohio by double digits. Husted is a stronger candidate, but the year is not favorable for him.
My reasoning is that Iowa is more exposed to the fallout from the Iran War, in addition to the problems from tariffs/renewable energy cancellations.
1pt? Your memory is a bit rusty on 2024
Yeah, I had 1 in my head for some reason, but it was 3. Must have mixed it up with Casey.
Haha
That's pretty close to my thinking. It's hard for me to fully mentally nail down the 4 reach seats. I think Texas/Alaska as a pair and Ohio/Iowa as another pair makes sense, but really I think it's going to be hard to get the order down until the summer when we know the candidates everywhere and more polling starts to happen.
I really want to see the media sensation of a democrat winning statewide in Texas. Strategically Alaska is very promising sooner than Texas is, and I hope a strong performance from Peltola gives us a stronger bench there for future cycles.
Talarico winning the seat in TX would be a massive deal, but if Hinojosa rides his coattails to oust Abbott too— earthquake in TX politics.
If we have the kind of night where we win Texas-Gov then we're looking at the probably the biggest wave since Watergate.
At that point the media spectacle would be insane.
I wonder if that kind of wave would make the media more receptive to covering Trump's cognitive decline. They've ignored it outright and whitewashing his TruthSocial insanity as actual policy.
Actually no, since the wave would have been fueled by people the media ignore (middle-class and lower, POCs) and the people who own the media will ensure that reporting focuses on the wealthy and dismsses the results as unrepresentative.
I mean, come on, can you see CBS, NYT, WAPO or an Elllison-owned CNN say "gosh, the people have spoken. Maybe see what they're so upset about." Not going to happen.
The MSM outlets have been sanewashing TACO since 2015. If they think attacking him on his mental faculties would gain them viewers (like they thought they did with Biden), they'd do it.
Ellison's outlets won't.
Nobody's buying the MSM's spin about Trump anymore though.
What are you talking about? I cannot count how many articles the NYT (and the others too, I'm sure) have published about "blue collar America" since 2016.
I’m not predicting us flipping Texas Governor, but I think it will get a lot closer than expected. Things seem to be getting so bad for Republicans that they’re going to be distracted trying to plug holes in the sinking boat without enough plugs, manpower, or bandwidth.
In that case, we’d probably also be flipping at least 7-8 Senate seats, at least 45 House seats, and at least 4-5 other governorships (Iowa, Ohio, Nevada, Georgia, and maybe Florida, Alaska, or New Hampshire). It would be a massive wave.
Lakysha Jain was interviewed on The Lincoln Project yesterday or the day prior about the chances of Democrats flipping the Senate.
He said that a year ago, it would’ve been 15%. He says it’s gone up to 40-45%— and he’s optimistic about the AK-Sen seat flipping. But he’s very conservative in his estimates.
I too am very bullish on Peltola.
As am I to the extent where I believe it’s a Lean Democrat race.
Based on polling, fundraising and Peltola being the Senate candidate against Senator Dan Sullivan, she has been consistently ahead in polls and has led in fundraising. This taking into account Sullivan having recently gone from a 38% approval rating to 36% approval rating.
Of course, Sullivan could pull off a hat trick and miraculously beat Peltola at her game in campaigning and fundraising. However, if he doesn’t intend to heavily campaign, he’s likely going to be consistently behind in the race.
For me it’s
1. North Carolina
2. Maine
3. Alaska
4. Texas
5. Ohio
6. Iowa
7. Nebraska
8. Florida
9. Kansas
10. Montana
11. South Carolina
12. Mississippi
13. Louisiana
14. Kentucky
15. South Dakota
16. Oklahoma
17. Arkansas
18. Tennessee
19. Alabama
20. Idaho
21. Wyoming
22. West Virginia
I think we’re already ahead in the first 3, that we’ll be ahead in the first 6 by November, that we have a strong shot in everything through 9th, and that if things get bad enough for Trump everything as far down as Mississippi is in play.
Wow, you are really bullish! It seems pie in the sky to me, but I can't say I know it's impossible.
I think people are underestimating Nebraska. Hot take, but I honestly think Osborn has a better shot a winning than Talarico.
Why not both? Trump's disastrous trade policies are hurting Nebraska farmers big time, especially the skyrocketing fertilizer costs.
Agreed! I'm not sure how popular Ricketts is or isn't, but I think if Osborn was running against Deb Fischer again this year, we'd be looking at at least a second-tier pick-up opportunity.
Although this was a different time, should be noted that back in 2006 Pete Ricketts lost the Senate election to Senator Ben Nelson by a bit less than 13% points.
That said, Ricketts got elected to the Senate back in 2024 with the special election (after being appointed) but hasn’t been in office long enough to build stature like McConnell, Thune, etc. have. He also won the special Senate election by 25% points.
The big recruiting fail here is Kansas. Here we have an incumbent freshman intractably wedded to MAGA who has no geographic or legacy connection to any of the state's Democratic-trending population centers, and all in a state that elected a Democratic Governor twice in the previous four cycles. And yet I'm looking at lists where people are speculating that South Carolina is a better pick-up opportunity. If that's true, there's no good excuse for it. And if a limp Democratic campaign gets within 5 points of Roger Marshall, our side is gonna look pretty silly.
Kansas is still very tough in federal races. Even in a great D year, I don’t think Marshall will be held to as narrow as 5 points. Maybe more like 9-10.
Same 2014 margin as Alaska and Texas, only with two actual Democratic wins in the last decade. I'm not buying that the other two are structurally more winnable or elastic. Not at all.
I think Alaska is, as they've elected Democrats to both Houses of Congress in living memory.
We lost in 2014 by 10.5 points and in 2020 by 11.5 points. If this is a much stronger year for us than 2014 or 2020, why would the margin barely shift?
Maybe to a weak sacrificial lamb D. I think someone like Davids can get it within 5.
Is Patrick Schmidt a bad candidate in Kansas? On paper, a young State Senator who’s a veteran is the kind of candidate we’d want to run here, especially since it’s not like we have many obvious options other than Laura Kelly (who at 76 would be the oldest freshman Senator in US history) and Sharice Davids.
Maybe he'll be a good candidate. Either way, nobody's taking the race seriously right now and I think there's a good chance they will regret that five months from now.
I agree. I don’t think we’ve even gotten a poll of the race. We need to start treating the map like we have more than 8 potential targets - Kansas, Montana, and South Carolina are all flippable if things keep getting worse for Trump.
I'm skeptical, but as things likely deteriorate further, I'm sure more races will be looked at.
I think there's been speculation on Davids running.
Basically she's threatening to run to try and prevent state Republicans from (further) gerrymandering her seat. I think her inclination is to stay in the House if that's available.
If running for the Senate is the last resort for Sharice Davids, then her reason is justified.
Dems effectively need +5 in the Senate for control since I don't trust John Fetterman not to switch parties if *he's* the deciding vote for control.
Rothenberg is not one given to going off half cocked, is he? So he is really taking Democratic Senate prospects seriously, and so should we.
I think FL is likely R, NE might be or is safe R/race to watch like KS.
Didn't see this mentioned here: Virginia joins the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The total now stands at 222 EVs. Virginia is the first state to join since Maine in 2024 and Minnesota in 2023.
Other than NH and PA (depending on what region you lump PA into) the entire Northeast is now in the compact. Future growth is going to require swing states joining.
https://www.npr.org/2026/04/14/nx-s1-5742595/virginia-popular-vote-compact
NH isn’t joining as long as Ayotte is Governor. Hopefully she can lose in a big blue tsunami, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Winning full control of the state governments of PA, WI, MI, and NV seems like the most likely way for it to move forward. AZ would be a good fallback state. All those together would finally allow the compact to take effect.
Except Democrats had full control of Nevada from 2018-2022 and Michigan from 2022-2024. I know Sisolak in Nevada vetoed it for some bizarre reason. Did Whitmer veto it in Michigan as well, or did it never even reach her desk?
Never reached her desk, died in committee in the Michigan state senate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Bills_receiving_floor_votes_in_previous_sessions
That was in 2007-2008, not when we had a trifecta. So it didn't even make it to the floor in either chamber
I missed the years on that, good catch!
For NV, my assumption is Ford would sign it into law. He doesn't seem like he'd have the same hang ups as Sisolak.
I don't believe Whitmer vetoed it, but they had a small margin in the legislature for their brief period of unified control of government. Hopefully, Benson wins, and they'll have a much bigger margin to pass it after the midterms.
I don't see NH joining anytime soon, regardless of the party in charge. The state political establishment loves the prestige of being a swing state similar to their love of the first primary. They will fight to keep it, I expect.
Maybe if NH stopped being light-blue swingy and became reliably blue that would change. I doubt that will happen any time soon.
48 short.
PA is 19. 29 with that.
MI (15)
AZ (11)
WI (10)
NV (6)
Any 3 including MI gets it done beyond that.
Not sure what this comment means? It's currently at 222, so with PA (19), MI (15), WI (10), and NV (6), the compact would get 272 electoral votes and would go into effect. AZ is an additional state that could put it over the top, but it isn't required.
in theory a Republican Congress could revoke DC's authorization of it so I would want a cushion of at least 4.
If WI and PA gain Dem trifectas after Nov, they need to pass this.
Just 48 EVs to go! Then the legal fight begins.
If we can get trifectas and pass it in PA (19), MI (15), AZ (11), WI (10), NV (6) and NH (4), we'll be at 287, which should keep it safe past the reapportionment by the 2032 election.
Other edge cases would be to win TX (40), FL (30), OH (17), GA (16), NC (16) and AK (3).
The gap seems unlikely to close soon. The swing states are not incentived to join and the red states have been convinced that it's a bad idea.
It will be struck down as an interstate compact by SCOTUS quicker than you can blink.
Interstate compacts are legal if given congressional consent. If/when we hit 270 EVs in the compact, a congressional vote affirming support would be sufficient, unless SCOTUS makes something up to block it.
Which they very well could do, but we cannot stop ourselves from seeking good things simply because of maleficence from SCOTUS.
I disagree. This is too important. Amendment or bust.
I agree we should pursue an amendment as well.
The reality of it is that an amendment is monumentally difficult, borderline impossible. America is too politically fractured today to reach the majorities required to pass an amendment.
The NPVIC is a solution for that. There's no good legal basis to rule against it, especially if it reaches 270+ EVs and congress passes a resolution granting consent. We know that won't stop the current SCOTUS.
I'm not saying we should assume it's ironclad by default. I'm saying we shouldn't preemptively surrender their bias.
We disagree.
Expand SCROTUS.
The fatal problem with this is that the blue states would flip an election won by the popular vote to a Republican, but not vice versa. The only way to get nationwide agreement to abolish the anti-democratic Electoral College, and it might not be sufficient, would be for a Democratic candidate to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. In case these states throw an election to the Democrat, watch the corrupt Republican Supreme Court steal another election.
Uggh....why on earth do we keep doing this. It reminds me of all of the redistricting commissions we put in place in blue states while Republicans did nothing of the sort. Unilateral disarmament that only potentially benefits Republicans.
This isn't unilateral disarmament. It only goes into effect when there are 270+ EVs governed by it, then all of them award those EVs by national popular vote. Virginia will still award its EVs to the statewide winner until and unless the compact reaches 270 EVs.
OK, so how does that prevent a scenario where the compact is ratified by enough states to pass the 270 threshold. Then, the following cycle, the Democrat wins the EC, but loses the Popular Vote and that block of blue states has to cast their electoral votes for the Republican. What am I missing here? Or, to look at it another way, what benefit comes from this? Honestly, I've never understood this.
There are 5 elections where the presidential candidate with more votes lost the EC: 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016
Of those 5, in 4 of them the candidate that won the popular vote but lost the election was a democrat. In the 5th, the democratic and republican parties didn't even exist yet.
In recent elections republicans have had an advantage in the electoral college. Biden won the popular vote by 4.5 points in 2020; he won the tipping point state (WI) by 0.63%. Based on trends with voter coalitions and EV distribution with each census, this advantage is unlikely to disappear.
It creates a more democratically representative outcome for presidential elections, which is good in and of itself. Pertinent to your worry though, it is also a strategic advantage for us. I would favor it even if it wasn't.
VA-07 (D): Olivia Troye joins the VA-07 Democratic Primary.
https://www.threads.com/@oliviaoftroye/post/DXG_k8OiIkk
https://www.instagram.com/p/DXHCA5wDrWG/
This is crowded
Very - and if Delegates Guzman and Lopez jump in even more so. All for a seat that may not exist this time in 8 days.
Aren’t they all running for the newly redrawn district too if the map amendment passes?
That is the district they're running for - the current seat number is held by Eugene Vindman, who said he would run in the 1st. Republican Rep. John McGuire of the 5th district also lives in this redrawn one.
So what did you mean when you said “all for a seat that may not exist this time in 8 days”? Doesn’t that imply that you’re saying there’s little point to all these Dems running? Because if they’re all running for the current or the redrawn seat, I don’t see how that statement makes sense since they’ll be running for a seat regardless of what it looks like.
They're not running for a seat regardless - just the one made by a potential redraw. Sorry, I should have been more concise.
Ah cripes I thought this was today
I think we should be pretty confident that the new map will pass. Reports are showing that the trajectory in VA is following the prop 50 path, Republican outperformance at the beginning then Dem wave following activation closer to the election, especially since the satellite places are open now.
DeSantis looking at pushing back the FL special session (due to start on 4/20) until past the results from the VA referendum the next day, and in hopes that Callais comes down before they start to pressure for a maximum gerrymander.
https://x.com/mcpli/status/2044113298556145672
RDS is going to dummymander those districts like Abbott did in TX last year.
Which he didn't do.
The NY-04 substitute Repub nominee will NOT be Anthony D'Esposito. The Nassau County state party chose Jeanine Driscoll, the receiver of taxes for Hempstead, instead.
https://x.com/HouseInSession/status/2044082483373695397
I'm getting the impression that the GOP doesn't think they can win this.
It's not like D'Esposito is strong as a candidate. He lost in 2024 because of the scandal where he hired his lover.
He underperformed Trump as an incumbent.
And where there's smoke, there's usually fire. I'm guessing they have a bunch of oppo research on him that moved them towards Driscoll.
Receiver of taxes - she must be rich...
https://nhjournal.com/former-dem-kiper-forming-third-party-staying-in-govs-race/
NH-Gov: Minor Democratic candidate Jon Kiper will now form his own third party called "Community First" in his run, meaning former Executive Council member Cinde Warmington is the clear frontrunner to take on Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte.
Kiper did little to attack Republicans in his switch, instead attacking his former Democrats primarily for issues I can't speak to.
Question for anyone with the knowledge.
When was the last time an incumbent Senator with -20 approval won their race, not including legislative leaders? So McConnell and Schumer wouldn’t count. Asking for a soon to be retired Senator (your pick which one I’m referencing):
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2043831060211855615
Morning Consult poll | Q1 2026
🟥Senator Susan Collins approval (Maine)
❌Disapprove 57% (+3)
✅Approve 37% (-4)
——
🟥Senator Dan Sullivan approval (Alaska)
❌Disapprove 54% (+7)
✅Approve 36% (-5)
——
🟦Senator Jon Ossoff approval (Georgia)
✅Approve 52% (+1)
❌Disapprove 34% (no change)
——
🟥Senator Jon Husted approval (Ohio)
✅Approve 43% (-1)
❌Disapprove 32% (+3)
(Shift from Q4 2025)
Link to poll: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J-vPAS1XXmBtiDUw4rDA4p3G7jHbQ6b7/view
In that poll Ashley Moody in Florida has a 43% approval rating with a 27% disapproval rating, Pete Ricketts in Nebraska has 46% approval with a 41% disapproval, Roger Marshall in Kansas is at 44% approval with 36% disapproval, and Lindsey Graham is underwater by 3 with 43% approving and 46% disapproving, if anyone was wondering about the next tier of targets.
I have no knowledge of any polling from the time, but I wonder if Daniel Inouye had a negative approval rating in 1992 after news of his affair came out. He was reelected with only 57% of the vote that year I believe, far lower than he would otherwise have gotten.
Does Cohen keep his house seat in TN because too many people filed for that seat for Pearson to get a near one on one contest against him? I was looking at the number of candidates that filed there yesterday.
How many candidates total?
I counted 5 total, but I could be wrong.
68-75% Trump disapproval from 18-34 year olds.
https://x.com/j_kalla/status/2043699843625824277
The Spring 2026 Yale Youth Poll results are now live. Lots of interesting results on 2026/28 elections, AI, ICE, executive power, and antisemitism. Full results at https://youthpoll.yale.edu/spring-2026-results
These Gen-X people, ugh.
Overlays neatly with measurements tracking the greatest lifetime exposure to lead /s
How did I escape?
We’re at the point in the cycle where multiple Republicans in swing states are announcing retirement within hours, not days.
https://x.com/jrrosswrites/status/2044056918545629637
Retirement news: GOP Rep. Scott Allen won't seek reelection this fall after losing his bid for Waukesha mayor last week.
He's the 10th member of the Assembly to announce plans to retire or seek higher office.
7:15 AM · Apr 14, 2026
https://x.com/jrrosswrites/status/2044076414152978726
More retirement news:
@SenJesseJames
announces he won't seek reelection, dealing a blow to Republicans' chances of holding the state Senate.
The GOP will now be without an incumbent in three of the four races considered in play.
8:32 AM · Apr 14, 2026
Inject these WI legislative retirements into my veins!
Glorious.
Allen's seat is Trump +8, while James was drawn into a Harris +2 seat with a Democratic incumbent.
Jesse James - named after this Confederate outlaw, I'll bet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_James