Pool isn’t exactly right wing. He’s got more in common with Joe Rogan than with MAGA in general. So I have observed. He also interviewed Kanye, who left the interview after Pool mentioned anti-semetic things Kanye was saying.
I think almost certainly because he prefers Herrera winning the primary to push the seat right, but hasn't publicly endorsed bc leadership was pressuring incumbents not to (and the Roy endorsement is bc he's retiring/doesn't care).
Metro area so includes Williamson, Hays, and maybe Bell county. It's the reason why SA is so red in the 2022 vote - you're also dealing with some of the super red Hill Country counties.
That's why I've been hoping for an expansion of the map to Kansas. If Alaska, Texas, Ohio, and Iowa are all very vulnerable, Kansas probably is too. I think just think Laura Kelly is probably the only one who can take advantage of that. Davids should run for governor instead if she wants to go statewide.
I realize that, I just hope she changes her mind. I don’t think Davids can win a Senate race, whereas Kelly is the only one with the trust among center-right swing voters statewide to potentially pull off an upset. I hope she takes one for the team since she has nothing to lose.
Well, she does have something to lose, which would be the time and effort of a campaign and then if she won, being in the Senate when she apparently wanted to be out of politics. If she's genuinely going to be miserable in DC, she should not run. (Maybe her LG, if a Dem, should, using their record. With caveat that I don't know much about KS politics.)
A proportionately shrinking part of the electorate every year that the GOP has staked their entire existence on now that they decided to set their massive gains with noncollege Hispanics, Asians and blacks on fire
Unless we're talking about black conservatives, beats me.
But what constitutes as "support?" I can only think of certain black voters who cast their votes for Trump but more against Democrats because they were not satisfied with them in 2024 over what they were doing for the black community.
From a voter sentiment standpoint, based on the polls I'd say 2006 or more fierce than that would be appropriate.
Democrats winning back the House is pretty much predicted to be a done deal barring any unusual circumstances that get in the way. It's a matter of how many Senate seats Democrats win. Certainly it's more probable now that Democrats could win back control over the Senate but if so, by how much?
Fair although based on the notion Democrats could win control over the Senate, it's less probable than the ability of the party to win control over the House.
That said, we could look at any of the following five races with sentiment as follows:
AK-SEN - Senator Dan Sullivan is extremely vulnerable, as shown in recent polls. Mary Peltola is his worst nightmare.
IA-SEN - Recent Iowa election results show that the state hasn't lost its swingy status.
ME-SEN - If sentiment towards Graham Platner proves to be the case where he can win the primary and take it to the general election, he could have leverage over beating Susan Collins in the general election.
NC-SEN - Very swingy and past Senate elections including 2020 and 2024 have shown Senator Thom Tillis winning re-election and Senator Ted Budd winning election by small percentage points.
TX-SEN - If James Talarico is the nominee, he may be able to cut down on the margin that Beto O'Rourke lost to Ted Cruz back in 2018. Polling shows the TX-SEN race and even the TX-GOV race to be very competitive.
For federal races they have Villegas (CA-22) and Platner (ME-Sen) as Dems challenging Rep incumbents. Compare to the 2 open seat endorsements (Babb Tomlinson in CA-6, Peters in IL-2) and 4 primary endorsements (Allam in NC-4, McKinney in MI-13, Pearson in TN-9, and Roath in MA-8).
Last weekend, the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC waded into the UT-01 primary, throwing their weight behind Nate Blouin. This marks the third (!) race this cycle that they're going head-to-head with the New Democratic Coalition Action Fund, which announced their support of Ben McAdams months back.
The other two races are CA-22 (NDC: Jasmeet Bains vs. CPC: Randy Villegas) and IL-08 (NDC: Melissa Bean vs CPC: Junaid Ahmed). Some of the candidates the CPC has endorsed came as a surprise to me. Nevertheless I wouldn't read too much into this endorsement game. Each cycle, a number of NDC-endorsees end up joining the CPC and vice versa; joining these ideological caucuses is sometimes just a way for members to put themselves out there.
i think the utah race is one where ideology, at least with the choice of mcadams v. blouin is really on the ballot. Don't know utah politics at all, but from everything i've read I'd be for blouin
Nope. The Villegas vs Bains race is also about ideology and identity.
As Joshua wrote yesterday: "Jasmeet Bains is the single most evil Democrat in the CA State Assembly. She's a medical doctor who advocates on behalf of oil companies, big agribusiness and other polluters "rights" to continue their polluting activities without regulation in the area (San Joaquin Valley) that on most days has the worst air pollution in the USA(especially ozone & particulates). She's a reprehensible disgrace with a viable progressive challenger in the 22nd Congressional district ace she's running in--Randy Villegas(Latino in a heavily Latino district)."
My two cents: She also voted against Prop 50, banning ICE masks, is a Blue Dog Caucus endorsed candidate and is being backed by the California establishment, DCCC and Hakeem Jeffries in an overwhelmingly Hispanic district where Prop 50 redistricting won by a whopping 20-25 points. Meanwhile, Randy Villegas' campaign is backed by the CPC, Bernie Sanders, Khanna, David Hogg and Fight Agency (founded by Fetterman and Reid alums who also advise Mamdani and Platner).
Edit: Valadao outran Trump by 1 in a Biden +13 district and Trump +6 district. It’s now redrawn to be Trump +1, Padilla +8 and Biden +17 and somewhere around +20 for 2025’s Prop 50 which Bains voted against.
Why are you giving the wrong idea about the district’s lean and Valadeo’s electoral prowess? Valadao outran Trump by 1 in a Biden +13 district and Trump +6 district. It’s now redrawn to be Trump +1, Padilla +8 and Biden +17 and somewhere around +25 for 2025’s Prop 50 which Bains voted against.
When did we start running Democrats In Name Only in such districts? Josh Turek is half a turn more liberal than Bains running in R+15 Iowa, comparing him to her is disingenuous.
Ok. I am not and was not mad but it seems like you are. You should have stated your disagreements with the language to Joshua yesterday instead of going on rants against me.
"Audacity to dare to disagree" This because I correctly said that you gave the wrong info about the district's lean, Valadeo's electoral performance and wrongly campared it to Iowa which you did? I also agree that discussing with you is a waste of time and energy. I said what I said.
I don't think the issue is with your analysis per se - debating things like that is why we are all here. The issue is with using terms like "evil" and " reprehensible disgrace" just because a Democrat is to your right. For the record, the same would apply to someone using language like that to describe someone to their left. This type of demonization helps no one.
Joshua used them yesterday and I quoted it. Dragonfire5004 should have disagreed with him yesterday if they disagreed and found it unacceptable instead of going rants against me.
all this is true. And just to put to rest any doubt, Villegas' T-shirts unveiled at convention had a Bernie-style disclaimer: "Paid for by Villegas for Congress -- not by corporate donors."
Article written before November: Conservative Dem Compares Ad About Her Corporate Donations to ‘Political Violence’
Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains took PAC money from 53 corporations that also donated to the incumbent Republican she’s running against. She said a progressive challenger pointing that out is a form of violence.
"Hours after Villegas released the ad on September 18, Bains posted a message to Facebook that began: “As political violence increases in America, I myself have experienced a heightened level of it.” Bains then alleges that she, a woman of color, is being attacked because of her identity. (Villegas, incidentally, is Mexican American.) “What gave a man the permission to resort to spreading lies just because his campaign is going nowhere,” Bains wrote, using the word “lie” four times without articulating what the lie was. She was only referred to in the ad in the context of her political donations, which are public and documented. Bains followed this up with two other Facebook posts expressing anger over being called out with what she claims are “lies,” while highlighting her own work providing health care and claiming that any attack on her is “an attack on all healthcare providers.” In one post, she writes, "Throwing punches at me makes you look ridiculously phony especially when you have nothing in your resume that could match up to half of what I’ve done."
“The corporate coziness doesn’t stop with Big Oil, even on issues of affordability that will likely dominate the campaign. Bains voted against a bill to limit corporate landlords from owning more than 1,000 single-family properties. She voted against stronger tenant protections. She voted against giving the state attorney general authority to block private equity purchases of medical providers. She voted against disclosure of pesticides on pretreated seeds sold in California. She voted against requiring employers to create a workplace violence plan. And separately, she recently voted against ACA 8, the bill that put Prop 50 on the ballot to rewrite congressional maps in reaction to the attempted Republican gerrymander in Texas and elsewhere. (The new CA-22 map would be slightly more friendly to a Democrat but still quite competitive.) In addition, Bains chose not to vote at least 40 times, which in the California legislature is partially akin to a no vote.
These skipped votes include a barring ICE agents from wearing masks, a law near school locations, and a law known as PFAS in consumer products (on this bill, she abstained, but supported the bill on final passage). Villegas took particular umbrage at the lack of support for the ICE masking bill, considering that he has family members who are undocumented.
Money, like the 53 corporate PAC donations to Bains that mirror contributions to Valadao, sits behind these votes, Villegas argues. “Politicians like my opponents are bought and paid for,” he said."
The Illinois race between Bean vs Ahmed is also about ideology. She is a former Blue Dog seeking to return to the House. Newspapers called her "Wall Street's favorite Democrat" since she voted to cut taxes for larger corporations and the rich, voted to deregulate the financial sectors and is backed by millions from AIPAC and two A.I Super PACs.
I moved to NC4 just last year so I don’t know Foushee much, but I’ve been surprised at the lack of campaigning. I saw my first in-person sign for her yesterday and have seen no ads for her as opposed to many from Allam. I’ll be very interested to see the results! There’s been no polling unfortunately so we’ve been a little in the dark and it’s hard to tell what will matter more, campaigning, money, and momentum or incumbency and endorsements.
Oh nice! Do you mind me asking what they focus on? I’ve been curious what her pitch is.
I haven’t loved Allam’s focus on AIPAC since Foushee said she would stop taking their money, but I feel like we need institutional reforms and it seems like Allam would be more enthusiastic about and pushing for those types of reforms.
Interesting, that tracks with the few things I’ve seen mentioned in news articles, mainly running on her record.
I feel like that’s probably not good enough in an age where people are rabidly demanding their elected democrats to do more and be more forceful, but she also has a lot of high profile local endorsements. My impression could be from being too online where it isn’t real life.
The district is a lot different from the 2022 version, no more rural counties, but the affluent suburbs/exurbs.
Wake portion only has slightly more registered Ds than Rs. (Actually less registered Ds than Orange County) And a lot of unaffiliated, almost as twice many as Ds. Wondering how many would vote the D ballot.
He was way better than Foushee, definitely. Saw him briefly several times but never got to thank him for his votes for the CARES Act, ARP, CHIPS and infrastructure bills.
Has there been discussion for the Dowbballot to publish presidential election results based on the upcoming congressional districts? Curious to see those numbers based on the redistricting, but also not sure how feasible that is to calculate. Thanks!
For the states that have already passed their maps like CA, TX, UT, etc. I'd like to see the 2024 presidential results overlaid onto the new districts. The states still not locked in would be interesting but no need to do the work until we know for certain.
MD-5: David Sundberg, a former top FBI official ousted by Trump, will run in the crowded Democratic primary in the Steny Hoyer seat south and east of D.C.
Considering the ample supply of ambitious DC figures and Maryland politicos in proximity to this seat I’m not surprised it’s becoming a clown car primary (I don’t mean that as a bad thing either)
Well, KS-Gov has two strong candidates already who I doubt would switch to running for Senate if Davids ran for Gov. Plus, I could see Davids helping downballot races if she ran statewide.
Harris did only modestly worse in Kansas (-16) than she did in Florida (-13), Iowa (-13), Alaska (-13), or Texas (-13) in 2024.
I wouldn't bet on it but if we're seeing the kind of wave that can put multiple of those senate seats on the board, it's not impossible that a strong candidate could do similar for us in Kansas.
There's reasons to be a bit more optimistic about most of those states than the margin by itself suggests. Though I'm deeply skeptical of Florida.
Even taking that into account: those -13 states are going to be senate competitive in a 2018-ish environment. What if we get something meaningfully better than 2018? There's data to suggest that's possible. In that huge wave scenario, Kansas' senate seat could be competitive.
I highly doubt it'd happen, but it's worth keeping an eye on and not ruling out as impossible right away.
Yeah I haven't heard a good argument why Kansas is less likely to flip for a strong candidate like Davids than Iowa, Texas, or Florida which put up relatively comparable numbers in 2024. And while gubernatorial races are more elastic than Senate races, Kansas' willingness to support Laura Kelly twice speaks to more Kansas voters having an openness to vote Democrat than anything I've seen in Texas in the last decade. With that in mind, I'd put Davids odds of taking out a backbencher like Roger Marshall at no worse than James Talarico's odds of taking out Ken Paxton.
I think he'll win by more than the "skin of his teeth" against anyone, including Davids (who I do not support giving up her house seat to run) or Kelly. Kansas is just too red. Would love to be proven wrong, though....
This is reassuring, although I don't think she has the leverage she may think she does. 1) KS is still quite red (even if slowly trending in our direction), 2) it's not clear that Davids, as awesome as she is, is a particularly strong statewide candidate.
CA-1: Democratic state Sen. Mike McGuire, who lives about 2 hours outside of the current district, will run in the special election to succeed the late Republican Rep. Doug LaMalfa.
Agree with the first part, I don't know that the Dem base has really shifted though. The NJ11 result was mostly a function of one mainstream Dem kneecapping another and allowing a progressive to sneak through with about 30% of the vote.
Unfortunately, the special election results for state legislative elections in California in 2025 were pretty unremarkable, with one mild overperformance and one unerperformance
Three-judge VRA panel thru the district court decline to block the new UT map. Michael Li anticipates the state to file a SCOTUS emergency stay application.
Given that this is a rehash of Moore v. Harper and the panel was unanimous with 2 conservative appointees, I don't think SCOTUS will accept the appeal. But I also don't trust SCOTUS.
Sentiment wise, the message is understandable. But with Katie Porter being behind Eric Swalwell in polls, I question the timing and sincerity of what she's trying to do here.
However, being that Swalwell not only led delegate count at the CADem Convention but has also had a history of invetigating Trump and his administration as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, Porter's support may be questioned at this point.
Should also be noted that Betty Yee and Xavier Becerra came in 2nd and 3rd place in delegate count.
Those words, no. Sentiment wise, I'm sure Porter for a long time hated Trump but given we're talking about the 2026 CADem Convention only a few months into the primary, the timing is odd.
Also, if Porter really felt this way about Trump, why didn't she have this slogan in her Senate primary campaign back in 2024? It's not as if we've needed to say it in 2026 all of a sudden as opposed to years prior when all of us believed this for a long time. I mean, Project 2025 was pushed by Russell Vought before all this massive out of control police state attacks by ICE.
I recall Porter was being anti-Trump for a long time but yes, you have a point here.
It’s more of the words and messaging that I am focused on. I have no doubt Porter would be able to fight back against Trump on day one. She has balls. Lots of them.
Porter should speak her mind. She's been excellent in following the footsteps of her law professor, Senator Elizabeth Warren, on questioning the status quo on the financial services sector. On other issues, Porter can be blunt and truthful at without coming off as a typical politician with polished campaign rhetoric.
It's putting "Fuck Trump" as a campaign slogan that I question, especially considering Porter is running for Governor and should ideally be running the state. She's got two years of battling Trump and then after two years, she won't battle him anymore.
But do we need to see that in a campaign slogan as opposed to simply saying "No More Trump?" Eric Swalwell doesn't have it and he's already comfortable firing back at Trump with no hesitation. And he's polling better.
My concern is that Katie Porter's campaign is going to be overshadowed by this in the news like what happened when her outburst was reported last year. If she wants to show she can fight against Trump, I'd like her to do more than hold up a "Fuck Trump" sign.
Anyway, I'm not in any way criticizing Porter for doing this. This video is why I've been impressed with what she'd offer as governor.
This year's melee should make people see how bad CA's top-two primary system is. IIRC, both parties opposed it when Arnold proposed it. Arnold claimed that it would get rid of extreme candidates and we would have a moderate Democrat and a moderate Republican run against each other in most races in November. This just doesn’t happen. Instead, both parties game the election, sometimes rallying around one candidate; sometimes fighting for both slots. And no evidence that it moderates the top-two. I think CA should seriously look at ending it or at least changing it, perhaps to something like Alaska has (top four then ranked choice).
He's probably going to endorse his fellow adulterer, Paxton.
When you’ve lost Tim fucking Pool…
...then you're behind the 8 ball
Pool isn’t exactly right wing. He’s got more in common with Joe Rogan than with MAGA in general. So I have observed. He also interviewed Kanye, who left the interview after Pool mentioned anti-semetic things Kanye was saying.
I am not surprised Pool is turning against Trump.
I've seen Boebert, Gill (who's also part of the TX delegation), Burchett and Mace with Luna almost saying so.
Gill, huh? Not an expected name
I think almost certainly because he prefers Herrera winning the primary to push the seat right, but hasn't publicly endorsed bc leadership was pressuring incumbents not to (and the Roy endorsement is bc he's retiring/doesn't care).
I don't see what this has to do with her districting being redrawn?
To your point, it isn't just the high profile races that could get attention. It's the ones that are not as much to keep an eye out for.
I thought Austin was very very blue. How was the early primary vote in 2022 only D+6.5 ?
Metro area so includes Williamson, Hays, and maybe Bell county. It's the reason why SA is so red in the 2022 vote - you're also dealing with some of the super red Hill Country counties.
Does someone have the RGV number for 2024? Possibly of the more interesting "snapback" comparisons.
Oh I can definitely sense in the general election we could be headed to a single digit race as far as the TX-SEN race is concerned.
Where this could go with the TX-GOV race, one can only imagine!
*Kylo Ren “More” GIF*
Great starting point for eight months out, and on the eve of SOTU no less!
I wonder how many Senate seats we’d win with an electorate with numbers like these.
That's why I've been hoping for an expansion of the map to Kansas. If Alaska, Texas, Ohio, and Iowa are all very vulnerable, Kansas probably is too. I think just think Laura Kelly is probably the only one who can take advantage of that. Davids should run for governor instead if she wants to go statewide.
I realize that, I just hope she changes her mind. I don’t think Davids can win a Senate race, whereas Kelly is the only one with the trust among center-right swing voters statewide to potentially pull off an upset. I hope she takes one for the team since she has nothing to lose.
Well, she does have something to lose, which would be the time and effort of a campaign and then if she won, being in the Senate when she apparently wanted to be out of politics. If she's genuinely going to be miserable in DC, she should not run. (Maybe her LG, if a Dem, should, using their record. With caveat that I don't know much about KS politics.)
If he ever goes underwater with White No College voters (especially White No College Men), it's over.
A proportionately shrinking part of the electorate every year that the GOP has staked their entire existence on now that they decided to set their massive gains with noncollege Hispanics, Asians and blacks on fire
Shocking—shocking, I tell you!—that MAGA isn't interested in becoming a multiracial coalition.
if he is ever 50/50 with WNC voters it is over
Senate will flip Dem if that happens. And it might not be close either in that scenario.
I will never understand 1 in 5 blacks supporting this racist white supremacist.
I remain baffled as well
Did you ever see the Key & Peele sketch about black Republicans?
Link, please!
https://youtu.be/G2tLyqfJd54?si=KFgfYbiY427_PFXQ
Uncle Toms.
Unless we're talking about black conservatives, beats me.
But what constitutes as "support?" I can only think of certain black voters who cast their votes for Trump but more against Democrats because they were not satisfied with them in 2024 over what they were doing for the black community.
That Indy (dis)approval number is crazy
From a voter sentiment standpoint, based on the polls I'd say 2006 or more fierce than that would be appropriate.
Democrats winning back the House is pretty much predicted to be a done deal barring any unusual circumstances that get in the way. It's a matter of how many Senate seats Democrats win. Certainly it's more probable now that Democrats could win back control over the Senate but if so, by how much?
Fair although based on the notion Democrats could win control over the Senate, it's less probable than the ability of the party to win control over the House.
That said, we could look at any of the following five races with sentiment as follows:
AK-SEN - Senator Dan Sullivan is extremely vulnerable, as shown in recent polls. Mary Peltola is his worst nightmare.
IA-SEN - Recent Iowa election results show that the state hasn't lost its swingy status.
ME-SEN - If sentiment towards Graham Platner proves to be the case where he can win the primary and take it to the general election, he could have leverage over beating Susan Collins in the general election.
NC-SEN - Very swingy and past Senate elections including 2020 and 2024 have shown Senator Thom Tillis winning re-election and Senator Ted Budd winning election by small percentage points.
TX-SEN - If James Talarico is the nominee, he may be able to cut down on the margin that Beto O'Rourke lost to Ted Cruz back in 2018. Polling shows the TX-SEN race and even the TX-GOV race to be very competitive.
Simple question: Is David Hogg’s PAC, "Leaders We Deserve", trying to oust Republican incumbents as well – or only Democratic incumbents?
Does anyone have a list of Republicans that Hogg & Co are trying to unseat, and, if so, which Democratic candidates he’s supporting in those races?
I didn't realise there was a "Leaders We Deserve" PAC... I always said Trump was the president America deserved, but I never meant that kindly...
https://leaderswedeserve.com/2026-candidates/
For federal races they have Villegas (CA-22) and Platner (ME-Sen) as Dems challenging Rep incumbents. Compare to the 2 open seat endorsements (Babb Tomlinson in CA-6, Peters in IL-2) and 4 primary endorsements (Allam in NC-4, McKinney in MI-13, Pearson in TN-9, and Roath in MA-8).
Thank you.
Why would they get involved in Republican primaries? They don’t have any leaders we deserve.
Not primaries. General elections.
MichaelFlutist read exactly what I meant. I didn’t say one word about getting involved in Republican primaries.
I hope Foushee loses huge.
Crypto, AIPAC, and cannot even stand up against concentration camps.
Good riddance.
Last weekend, the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC waded into the UT-01 primary, throwing their weight behind Nate Blouin. This marks the third (!) race this cycle that they're going head-to-head with the New Democratic Coalition Action Fund, which announced their support of Ben McAdams months back.
The other two races are CA-22 (NDC: Jasmeet Bains vs. CPC: Randy Villegas) and IL-08 (NDC: Melissa Bean vs CPC: Junaid Ahmed). Some of the candidates the CPC has endorsed came as a surprise to me. Nevertheless I wouldn't read too much into this endorsement game. Each cycle, a number of NDC-endorsees end up joining the CPC and vice versa; joining these ideological caucuses is sometimes just a way for members to put themselves out there.
i think the utah race is one where ideology, at least with the choice of mcadams v. blouin is really on the ballot. Don't know utah politics at all, but from everything i've read I'd be for blouin
Nope. The Villegas vs Bains race is also about ideology and identity.
As Joshua wrote yesterday: "Jasmeet Bains is the single most evil Democrat in the CA State Assembly. She's a medical doctor who advocates on behalf of oil companies, big agribusiness and other polluters "rights" to continue their polluting activities without regulation in the area (San Joaquin Valley) that on most days has the worst air pollution in the USA(especially ozone & particulates). She's a reprehensible disgrace with a viable progressive challenger in the 22nd Congressional district ace she's running in--Randy Villegas(Latino in a heavily Latino district)."
My two cents: She also voted against Prop 50, banning ICE masks, is a Blue Dog Caucus endorsed candidate and is being backed by the California establishment, DCCC and Hakeem Jeffries in an overwhelmingly Hispanic district where Prop 50 redistricting won by a whopping 20-25 points. Meanwhile, Randy Villegas' campaign is backed by the CPC, Bernie Sanders, Khanna, David Hogg and Fight Agency (founded by Fetterman and Reid alums who also advise Mamdani and Platner).
Edit: Valadao outran Trump by 1 in a Biden +13 district and Trump +6 district. It’s now redrawn to be Trump +1, Padilla +8 and Biden +17 and somewhere around +20 for 2025’s Prop 50 which Bains voted against.
Why are you giving the wrong idea about the district’s lean and Valadeo’s electoral prowess? Valadao outran Trump by 1 in a Biden +13 district and Trump +6 district. It’s now redrawn to be Trump +1, Padilla +8 and Biden +17 and somewhere around +25 for 2025’s Prop 50 which Bains voted against.
When did we start running Democrats In Name Only in such districts? Josh Turek is half a turn more liberal than Bains running in R+15 Iowa, comparing him to her is disingenuous.
Ok. I am not and was not mad but it seems like you are. You should have stated your disagreements with the language to Joshua yesterday instead of going on rants against me.
"Audacity to dare to disagree" This because I correctly said that you gave the wrong info about the district's lean, Valadeo's electoral performance and wrongly campared it to Iowa which you did? I also agree that discussing with you is a waste of time and energy. I said what I said.
I don't think the issue is with your analysis per se - debating things like that is why we are all here. The issue is with using terms like "evil" and " reprehensible disgrace" just because a Democrat is to your right. For the record, the same would apply to someone using language like that to describe someone to their left. This type of demonization helps no one.
Joshua used them yesterday and I quoted it. Dragonfire5004 should have disagreed with him yesterday if they disagreed and found it unacceptable instead of going rants against me.
got it, i haven't been following the caucuses that closely since we returned to the minority, proud believer in the cpc though.
all this is true. And just to put to rest any doubt, Villegas' T-shirts unveiled at convention had a Bernie-style disclaimer: "Paid for by Villegas for Congress -- not by corporate donors."
Article written before November: Conservative Dem Compares Ad About Her Corporate Donations to ‘Political Violence’
Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains took PAC money from 53 corporations that also donated to the incumbent Republican she’s running against. She said a progressive challenger pointing that out is a form of violence.
https://prospect.org/2025/09/25/2025-09-25-conservative-dem-ad-corporate-donations-violence-bains-california/
"Hours after Villegas released the ad on September 18, Bains posted a message to Facebook that began: “As political violence increases in America, I myself have experienced a heightened level of it.” Bains then alleges that she, a woman of color, is being attacked because of her identity. (Villegas, incidentally, is Mexican American.) “What gave a man the permission to resort to spreading lies just because his campaign is going nowhere,” Bains wrote, using the word “lie” four times without articulating what the lie was. She was only referred to in the ad in the context of her political donations, which are public and documented. Bains followed this up with two other Facebook posts expressing anger over being called out with what she claims are “lies,” while highlighting her own work providing health care and claiming that any attack on her is “an attack on all healthcare providers.” In one post, she writes, "Throwing punches at me makes you look ridiculously phony especially when you have nothing in your resume that could match up to half of what I’ve done."
“The corporate coziness doesn’t stop with Big Oil, even on issues of affordability that will likely dominate the campaign. Bains voted against a bill to limit corporate landlords from owning more than 1,000 single-family properties. She voted against stronger tenant protections. She voted against giving the state attorney general authority to block private equity purchases of medical providers. She voted against disclosure of pesticides on pretreated seeds sold in California. She voted against requiring employers to create a workplace violence plan. And separately, she recently voted against ACA 8, the bill that put Prop 50 on the ballot to rewrite congressional maps in reaction to the attempted Republican gerrymander in Texas and elsewhere. (The new CA-22 map would be slightly more friendly to a Democrat but still quite competitive.) In addition, Bains chose not to vote at least 40 times, which in the California legislature is partially akin to a no vote.
These skipped votes include a barring ICE agents from wearing masks, a law near school locations, and a law known as PFAS in consumer products (on this bill, she abstained, but supported the bill on final passage). Villegas took particular umbrage at the lack of support for the ICE masking bill, considering that he has family members who are undocumented.
Money, like the 53 corporate PAC donations to Bains that mirror contributions to Valadao, sits behind these votes, Villegas argues. “Politicians like my opponents are bought and paid for,” he said."
”
The Illinois race between Bean vs Ahmed is also about ideology. She is a former Blue Dog seeking to return to the House. Newspapers called her "Wall Street's favorite Democrat" since she voted to cut taxes for larger corporations and the rich, voted to deregulate the financial sectors and is backed by millions from AIPAC and two A.I Super PACs.
Looks like we've got quite a historic race in Utah!
I moved to NC4 just last year so I don’t know Foushee much, but I’ve been surprised at the lack of campaigning. I saw my first in-person sign for her yesterday and have seen no ads for her as opposed to many from Allam. I’ll be very interested to see the results! There’s been no polling unfortunately so we’ve been a little in the dark and it’s hard to tell what will matter more, campaigning, money, and momentum or incumbency and endorsements.
I think Foushee's TV ad buys are mostly for ABC-11 and WRAL/Fox 50.
Ah there you go, I never watch anything cable related so that’s it. Thanks that honestly clears up a mystery for me haha
I notice her ads during the nightly news block (4-6:30 p.m.) on those two channels.
Oh nice! Do you mind me asking what they focus on? I’ve been curious what her pitch is.
I haven’t loved Allam’s focus on AIPAC since Foushee said she would stop taking their money, but I feel like we need institutional reforms and it seems like Allam would be more enthusiastic about and pushing for those types of reforms.
Foushee's ads emphasize how much she's stood up against the Trump administration, blah blah blah. But they should be harder hitting and direct.
No personal swipes at Nida though, which is refreshing.
Interesting, that tracks with the few things I’ve seen mentioned in news articles, mainly running on her record.
I feel like that’s probably not good enough in an age where people are rabidly demanding their elected democrats to do more and be more forceful, but she also has a lot of high profile local endorsements. My impression could be from being too online where it isn’t real life.
It’ll be interesting to see how it goes!
Crazy timing, I literally just got a pro-Foushee PAC ad on YouTube haha
The district is a lot different from the 2022 version, no more rural counties, but the affluent suburbs/exurbs.
Wake portion only has slightly more registered Ds than Rs. (Actually less registered Ds than Orange County) And a lot of unaffiliated, almost as twice many as Ds. Wondering how many would vote the D ballot.
i wish david price had never retired, he was an excellent congressman for so long, but yes I know we need a new generation.
He was way better than Foushee, definitely. Saw him briefly several times but never got to thank him for his votes for the CARES Act, ARP, CHIPS and infrastructure bills.
Has there been discussion for the Dowbballot to publish presidential election results based on the upcoming congressional districts? Curious to see those numbers based on the redistricting, but also not sure how feasible that is to calculate. Thanks!
Isn’t there a lot of uncertainty as to exactly how the redistricting will end up?
For the states that have already passed their maps like CA, TX, UT, etc. I'd like to see the 2024 presidential results overlaid onto the new districts. The states still not locked in would be interesting but no need to do the work until we know for certain.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/23/us/politics/former-fbi-official-congress-maryland.html
MD-5: David Sundberg, a former top FBI official ousted by Trump, will run in the crowded Democratic primary in the Steny Hoyer seat south and east of D.C.
Considering the ample supply of ambitious DC figures and Maryland politicos in proximity to this seat I’m not surprised it’s becoming a clown car primary (I don’t mean that as a bad thing either)
Personally, out of all of them I feel like Harry Dunn would be the best, but it seems like Adrian Boafo is the frontrunner.
https://amp.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article314775555.html
Sharice Davis is looking to run for Senate.
I believe it's because she thinks the Governor's mansion will flip in November and Republicans will gerrymander her out without the current Dem veto.
Well, KS-Gov has two strong candidates already who I doubt would switch to running for Senate if Davids ran for Gov. Plus, I could see Davids helping downballot races if she ran statewide.
Tsunami insurance.
You think Davids could flip the KS Sen seat? If it's not outgoing Governor Kelly, Marshall will likely hang on by the skin of his teeth.
I wouldn't hold my breath, but it's not impossible.
I would be pleasantly shocked if the Democratic candidate ousts Marshall. Which means that the AK, IA, OH and likely TX seats flip as well.
Harris did only modestly worse in Kansas (-16) than she did in Florida (-13), Iowa (-13), Alaska (-13), or Texas (-13) in 2024.
I wouldn't bet on it but if we're seeing the kind of wave that can put multiple of those senate seats on the board, it's not impossible that a strong candidate could do similar for us in Kansas.
There's reasons to be a bit more optimistic about most of those states than the margin by itself suggests. Though I'm deeply skeptical of Florida.
Even taking that into account: those -13 states are going to be senate competitive in a 2018-ish environment. What if we get something meaningfully better than 2018? There's data to suggest that's possible. In that huge wave scenario, Kansas' senate seat could be competitive.
I highly doubt it'd happen, but it's worth keeping an eye on and not ruling out as impossible right away.
Yeah I haven't heard a good argument why Kansas is less likely to flip for a strong candidate like Davids than Iowa, Texas, or Florida which put up relatively comparable numbers in 2024. And while gubernatorial races are more elastic than Senate races, Kansas' willingness to support Laura Kelly twice speaks to more Kansas voters having an openness to vote Democrat than anything I've seen in Texas in the last decade. With that in mind, I'd put Davids odds of taking out a backbencher like Roger Marshall at no worse than James Talarico's odds of taking out Ken Paxton.
Mostly agree, but I think Talarico would have a better shot mainly because Paxton is much more extreme and problematic than Marshall.
I think he'll win by more than the "skin of his teeth" against anyone, including Davids (who I do not support giving up her house seat to run) or Kelly. Kansas is just too red. Would love to be proven wrong, though....
Davids says it's about redistricting:
On a potential Senate run: "That option has to stay on the table until I know that they’re not continuing to look at that."
Says if no new map: "Then I will absolutely look forward to continuing to serve the people in the 3rd District."
This is reassuring, although I don't think she has the leverage she may think she does. 1) KS is still quite red (even if slowly trending in our direction), 2) it's not clear that Davids, as awesome as she is, is a particularly strong statewide candidate.
Is something wrong with The Downballot’s Special Elections Tracker? I don’t see any Special Elections dated 2026 in the 2025–26 overview.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JGk1r1VXnxBrAIVHz1C5HTB5jxCO6Zw4QNPivdhyWHw/edit?gid=415249345#gid=415249345
I think the two years are in separate tags or folders within the sheet
It's on this tab https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JGk1r1VXnxBrAIVHz1C5HTB5jxCO6Zw4QNPivdhyWHw/edit?gid=1173601967#gid=1173601967
Thank you! I didn’t scroll down far enough to see that there were two tabs. Apologies.
https://www.actionnewsnow.com/news/state-senator-mike-mcguire-announces-candidacy-in-upcoming-special-election-for-californias-1st-congressional-district/article_10750c38-1d04-4a8e-bd0e-11e31c565ece.html
CA-1: Democratic state Sen. Mike McGuire, who lives about 2 hours outside of the current district, will run in the special election to succeed the late Republican Rep. Doug LaMalfa.
Hell in the current polling environment why not
Agree with the first part, I don't know that the Dem base has really shifted though. The NJ11 result was mostly a function of one mainstream Dem kneecapping another and allowing a progressive to sneak through with about 30% of the vote.
Unfortunately, the special election results for state legislative elections in California in 2025 were pretty unremarkable, with one mild overperformance and one unerperformance
Three-judge VRA panel thru the district court decline to block the new UT map. Michael Li anticipates the state to file a SCOTUS emergency stay application.
https://x.com/mcpli/status/2025984340207779854
Given that this is a rehash of Moore v. Harper and the panel was unanimous with 2 conservative appointees, I don't think SCOTUS will accept the appeal. But I also don't trust SCOTUS.
CA-GOV:
Sentiment wise, the message is understandable. But with Katie Porter being behind Eric Swalwell in polls, I question the timing and sincerity of what she's trying to do here.
However, being that Swalwell not only led delegate count at the CADem Convention but has also had a history of invetigating Trump and his administration as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, Porter's support may be questioned at this point.
Should also be noted that Betty Yee and Xavier Becerra came in 2nd and 3rd place in delegate count.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5750207-katie-porter-trump-protest/
https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/02/democratic-convention-crowded-governors-race/
You don't think "fuck Trump" is sincere from her???
Those words, no. Sentiment wise, I'm sure Porter for a long time hated Trump but given we're talking about the 2026 CADem Convention only a few months into the primary, the timing is odd.
Also, if Porter really felt this way about Trump, why didn't she have this slogan in her Senate primary campaign back in 2024? It's not as if we've needed to say it in 2026 all of a sudden as opposed to years prior when all of us believed this for a long time. I mean, Project 2025 was pushed by Russell Vought before all this massive out of control police state attacks by ICE.
Why now?
I recall Porter was being anti-Trump for a long time but yes, you have a point here.
It’s more of the words and messaging that I am focused on. I have no doubt Porter would be able to fight back against Trump on day one. She has balls. Lots of them.
FYI, I want to clarify:
Porter should speak her mind. She's been excellent in following the footsteps of her law professor, Senator Elizabeth Warren, on questioning the status quo on the financial services sector. On other issues, Porter can be blunt and truthful at without coming off as a typical politician with polished campaign rhetoric.
It's putting "Fuck Trump" as a campaign slogan that I question, especially considering Porter is running for Governor and should ideally be running the state. She's got two years of battling Trump and then after two years, she won't battle him anymore.
I get you, but the counterpoint is that opposing Trump is absolutely vital to do now and necessary if the last two years are to be meaningful.
100% agree.
But do we need to see that in a campaign slogan as opposed to simply saying "No More Trump?" Eric Swalwell doesn't have it and he's already comfortable firing back at Trump with no hesitation. And he's polling better.
My concern is that Katie Porter's campaign is going to be overshadowed by this in the news like what happened when her outburst was reported last year. If she wants to show she can fight against Trump, I'd like her to do more than hold up a "Fuck Trump" sign.
Anyway, I'm not in any way criticizing Porter for doing this. This video is why I've been impressed with what she'd offer as governor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVVzv5N9WfA
This year's melee should make people see how bad CA's top-two primary system is. IIRC, both parties opposed it when Arnold proposed it. Arnold claimed that it would get rid of extreme candidates and we would have a moderate Democrat and a moderate Republican run against each other in most races in November. This just doesn’t happen. Instead, both parties game the election, sometimes rallying around one candidate; sometimes fighting for both slots. And no evidence that it moderates the top-two. I think CA should seriously look at ending it or at least changing it, perhaps to something like Alaska has (top four then ranked choice).