At this point, I suspect either the GOP thinks they can steal the election (unlikely), or they are legitimately in a different universe and have lost touch with reality.
The Tea Party/MAGA GOP has no interest in actual governing; it acts like an opposition party even when it holds every lever of power.
On a related note, I'm very tired of the media comparing Republicans' outright reality denial with Democratic economic messaging during the Biden years. Biden's talking points were real, even if they didn't move the needle much (e.g., wages outpacing inflation). Republicans are making shit up.
Yep. It feels like ancient history now, but up to most of Obama 1.0, right-wing media (then dominated by Fox and Limbaugh) were still at least somewhat in the orbit of reality. There was plenty of paranoia and phony performative outrage, but it was usually based around something real (a piece of legislation, a statistic, etc.).
The re-election of Obama—much more so than his first victory, which many on the right side of the aisle had convinced themselves was a one-time fluke—broke a LOT of brains and sent us down the path to Trump hell.
I agree. I still think we're potentially punting what should be a Lean D race by nominating him, but his percentage of the primary vote isn't necessarily indicative one way or the other about his GE electability.
She used to be an Atlantic contributor, prob a bit more heteredox liberal than most of the site (not a Bari Weiss-type, more like Ezra Klein x10 in vibes/opinions). Imo pretty good writer but definitely a bit out there sometimes
Moore is my representative. I would be surprised if he gets Labor, especially this early into his congressional tenure. But crazier things have happened.
It sounds like they're also targeting Alaska. Their news release does not list the names of all races, just the states.
BTW, a humble request to everyone here: when you see a tweet like the PollTracker one, or even if you see a New York Times story (which is paywalled for many), please try to find the original source. It doesn't take that much effort to Google "American Bridge PAC" and click the "News" link on their website to find the original press release all this info is based on. Primary sources are always better (and that PollTracker account gets things wrong often).
I just think primary sources always are best. Even credible news outlets sometimes put spin on what a progressive group says in a press release. In this case, the New York Times paywall also poses an issue.
Music to my ears. The GOP has no one but themselves to blame for this, they pushed all of Trump’s deranged policies, they refused to show even a little independence, they thought they could just gerrymander their way out of being voted out, and now they’re paying the price.
having been to plenty of lame fundraisers in my life, she sounds way more desperate than i'm used to. but then again, I've never been to a republican fundraiser so maybe this is what they sound like
That wasn't my question. I was asking how him losing a primary indicates that he is less effective at fighting MAGA, whatever that means. I understand that people may be mad at him for not...somehow magically fighting Trump as a Senator in the minority party, but that's not the same as an indication that he is less equipped to do so. I'm also unclear what impact, if any, he would have on a function (redistricting) that is under the control of state legislators and the Governor. For the record, I think that Democrats who don't support maximal redistricting are pretty few and far between at this point. It's not like Hickenlooper is some hidden MAGA person - he's a pretty standard issue moderate Democrat.
ahhh but there's there rub. A senator is much more than just their votes. Tone, tenor, posture, visibility, messaging, actually being a fighter, the type of fights picked, and more importantly, the types of fights on which he remained silent.
All relevant. And in that sense, Hick has been found wanting.
Liberal does not equate to "left wing". Actual real world evidence shows center-left voters still predominate the Dem electorate. I'm not sure what definition of "moderate" is being employed here; yes Dem moderates circa the Clinton years are largely no more. That doesn't say anything substantive vis a vis someone like AOC.
“Moderate,” “progressive,” and “liberal” are so meaningless to me. Graham Platner is very idiosyncratic himself for example on many issues and I would say he doesn’t fit neatly into any camp. There’s a lot of other people like that too.
Even on the economy, I might be considered more “moderate” because I do not think corporations should cease to exist and that a health, competitive market-based economy should exist. I just don’t want corporations to have the power they do over the economy and all Main Street businesses should be able to profit fairly like corporations. I mean, having a fair shot at the American dream is pretty apolitical if you think about it.
I agree with you for the most part but I differ in your view about liberal as a label.
I’ve always looked at liberal as being the correct way of being described “on the left” compared to being progressive, which is a term that the Green Party used for a long time before Bernie Sanders ran for POTUS. The reason being is that liberals are open-minded and for the most part on the right side on the issues with where the Democratic Party should be.
Not every liberal should have to be defined 100% on the issues but everyone evolves differently. A close friend of mine is liberal but happens to be pro-death penalty. I don’t want him to feel like he’s not liberal just because he supports the death penalty.
Of course, if someone doesn’t consider themselves “liberal” or “progressive,” they should have every right to define how they think they are in a political spectrum sense.
Meaning it is allowing postmarked ballots to be received days after the election and wanting to ensure every ballot is counted first that delays the reassigning of votes, right?
⬆️"The issue is just that they can’t start re-assigning votes until they’ve counted all or nearly all of the ballots once already."
Exactly! Americans are addicted to instant gratification and there is an elaborate political infrastructure devoted to figuring out ASAP when the "winner" becomes inevitable.
Just look at how quickly lopsided races get called. Abigail Spanberger was declared the winner within an hour after the polls closed in VA.
Although everyone expects instant results these days, I doubt that instant results were available so fast in the earlier days of our republic. Travel and lack of communication would have slowed matters, and no result was official until the electoral college met. Local elections were likely faster. Also, a lot of people were not included in the electorate until amendments to the constitution, so there were fewer ballots to count.
I won’t argue that our addiction to instant gratification is a positive. It isn’t.
It does however exist. And thus if we (anyone who believes in democracy) should want votes counted fast and results verified and published accurately and quickly.
I think it would be better to legislate that all ballots arrive via Election Day if that would allow all the counting to be finished that night.
I would rather not be represented by someone who won only 15% of the vote in a 10-way primary. Especially if it is a gerrymandered state where that almost guarantees that the primary IS the election!
Plus, RCV is a good way to overcome an unpopular incumbent when there is more than one qualified challenger who split the remainder of the vote.
I agree. My house district IL - 7 as well as IL - 9 will both be represented by candidates who couldn’t get 30% of the vote.
I wish RCV happened all over.
I just don’t think you can successfully move to RCV without ensuring that the initial votes are counted/uploaded quickly and then the reassignment process happens quickly and transparently.
"Instant gratification" will win the argument when it comes to counting votes. More than just Republican die-hards will become suspicious of a process that has no tangible way for casual observers to comprehend how winners are determined. RCV is gonna feel like smoke-filled room bullshit to most people, and the increased frequency with which second-place vote-getters are ultimately declared winners will create a rising tide of skeptics across the spectrum.
RCV basically looks and feels like a second version of the Electoral College....complicated and undemocratic. The sooner it goes away the better.
It’s not complicated. Ireland has used it for decades.
But if you make people wait a week for results, especially when they already know who finished first among voters’ first preferences it definitely won’t win.
It's not complicated in the voting process but it's complicated in the vote-counting process. And there's no quantifiable way for the person sitting on their home computer tracking results to visualize the vote count as it unfolds beyond the first round. That makes the whole process suspicious, especially when the time comes for leads to be overturned outside the observation of everybody except a small number of election judges in a closed room. It's a system that can't survive Trump-era low social trust.
But the reassigning process could easily be both fast and transparent.
Can we agree that this is uncomplicated math that a computer can do instantly?
As for transparency
1000 voters wrote in a candidate. Their second place choices were distributed as follows…
At this point, candidate Z was in last place with 2000 votes. Their second place choices were distributed as follows…
At this point, candidate Y was in last place with 3000 votes. Distributing their votes to the next yielded candidates added 1500 to candidate A, 1000 to candidate B, … After this allocation, candidate A reached 50% to clinch victory.
The main thing would be getting all the ballots uploaded quickly. It’s done at the moment of casting with in person votes done with a computer and should be easy to do with in person votes done on paper. If mail-in ballots have their signatures matched in advance then these ballots can be easily uploaded on Election Day as well. You could even have a too close to call provision so that no results are announced until provisional ballots are verified or tossed as appropriate.
Complicated... maybe, that's ultimately a subjective determination
But undemocratic? RCV is way more democratic than First Past the Post voting, which is what Americans treat as the default method of voting unfortunately.
I don't see why you couldn't just do an "unofficial" run of the election night numbers? I mean it might change in more chaotic ways than with a plurality election, but it would still be a data point that the press could report.
You are kidding right? That would be an unmitigated disaster IMO!!
Trump is already claiming fraud in CA because they had a larger % of GOP votes in early than Democrats since Dems were waiting to see which candidates for the governor were polling better.
Too few people understand the mechanics of Ranked choice voting, so the issues related to rankings changing as the rounds were conducted would greatly magnify the GOP misinformation!
I understand where you're coming from, but I think it would actually help in the long run. The first round winner losing in 10 days later is an equally potent misinformation story. (As we've seen multiple times) Explaining how the process works and seeing how the multiple rounds change over time would educate the public on how the process works and would make folks feel better than a mysterious declaration of a new winner a couple weeks after the fact.
They have done this in San Francisco and Oakland—run RCV tallies based on partial results. I admit I really disliked the idea at first, but ultimately I don't see how it's different from releasing partial results, period, even in plurality-winner races. Leads can always change.
This is why RCV is not long for this world. Look at the purple-faced tantrums across the world when Iowa wasn't able to report its 2020 caucus night results on the evening of the vote...and the Iowa Democratic Party being sentenced to death by the national party on the next judgment day. The first time a high-profile election hangs in the balance for multiple days because of the mind-bending machinations of RCV multiple-round vote counts will be the last it's allowed to. Ultimately, I don't see Democrats choosing to die on this hill.
I never realized that Republicans had so much animus towards rank choice voting. Is that because, in general, that they are more interested in winning than serving their constituents? I can definitely see how cross-endorsing a rival would not sit well with a typical Republican.
I'm in NC, so have no personal experience using it, but IMO it offers a better chance of avoiding a fringe candidate winning the primary because the "normal" voters split their vote between many candidates in a wide-open standard primary leaving the fringe candidate to win the most votes.
I know many activists in NYC through a virtual postcard-writing group and prior to the NYC mayoral election last year, it seemed like conventional wisdom had Cuomo being the top pick in the first round ballot. (IOW, without RCV they thought he would have won outright had RCV not been in place). This was clearly not the case, but they spent a lot of time handing out palm cards to explain ranked choice voting and the need to not stop at just voting for the top candidate.
Republicans are against ranked choice voting because they think that it hurts them in elections. This tends to be true because RCV tends to benefit more moderate candidates.
I think it's also somewhat a reflection of the reality that most Green Party/DSA/WFP voters would list a Dem second while Libertarians leave the rest of their ballots blank.
well put, as much as hassan isn't my ideal picture of a senator, it's high time the party recruit someone like her or lynch as a check on that crazy stat legislature
The state Senate is small, Republicans have a 2-1 margin, only half is up and it is extermely gerrymandered. It is almost impossible to flip. The House is much more likely to flip.
Based on the 2024 margins in state senate races only, not presidential or any other weighted measure, the tipping point seats (seats 12 and 13 of 24) would be District 7 and District 12, which Rs won by 11 and 11.8.
I hope RW media and Republicans get the reverse 2010 and 2014 they so richly deserve.
From what I see the leader keeps flipping between the three. I expect this one will be decided with RCV.
If we can get a mix of reverse 2010, reverse 2014, and 2018 for Nov— that would be a stunning rebuke of the GOP.
The messaging plan is going to be a fire-sale of negativity and apocalyptic language. They know they have nothing substantive to run on.
Graham under 60% with over 20% reported.
I'm going to be chugging Pepto-Bismol about this race all the way to November 3, aren't I?
Christine O'Donnell level rhetoric.
Here's what you're looking for
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/09/graham-platner-maine-voters-concerns-00953986
At this point, I suspect either the GOP thinks they can steal the election (unlikely), or they are legitimately in a different universe and have lost touch with reality.
The Tea Party/MAGA GOP has no interest in actual governing; it acts like an opposition party even when it holds every lever of power.
On a related note, I'm very tired of the media comparing Republicans' outright reality denial with Democratic economic messaging during the Biden years. Biden's talking points were real, even if they didn't move the needle much (e.g., wages outpacing inflation). Republicans are making shit up.
Their information ecosystem has worked overtime to defend its inhabitants from reality especially since 2012, now to their detriment
Yep. It feels like ancient history now, but up to most of Obama 1.0, right-wing media (then dominated by Fox and Limbaugh) were still at least somewhat in the orbit of reality. There was plenty of paranoia and phony performative outrage, but it was usually based around something real (a piece of legislation, a statistic, etc.).
The re-election of Obama—much more so than his first victory, which many on the right side of the aisle had convinced themselves was a one-time fluke—broke a LOT of brains and sent us down the path to Trump hell.
You could hand wave its historic nature and the 2008 crash as reasons for his first win if you were on the right
Exactly. Which is why, in 2012, the constant refrain was that the polls were "oversampling Democrats."
100% The number of people who still think Trump is a popular president is pretty shocking.
People live on their screens nowadays. It's much easier to fence out reality that way.
I agree. I still think we're potentially punting what should be a Lean D race by nominating him, but his percentage of the primary vote isn't necessarily indicative one way or the other about his GE electability.
I'm hoping he does well, but...this race is giving me MAJOR heartburn.
Thanks. I've never heard of The Argument. What should we know about that magazine?
I've never heard of Demsas.
She used to be an Atlantic contributor, prob a bit more heteredox liberal than most of the site (not a Bari Weiss-type, more like Ezra Klein x10 in vibes/opinions). Imo pretty good writer but definitely a bit out there sometimes
Moore is my representative. I would be surprised if he gets Labor, especially this early into his congressional tenure. But crazier things have happened.
Fuck yeah. Expand that map!
It sounds like they're also targeting Alaska. Their news release does not list the names of all races, just the states.
BTW, a humble request to everyone here: when you see a tweet like the PollTracker one, or even if you see a New York Times story (which is paywalled for many), please try to find the original source. It doesn't take that much effort to Google "American Bridge PAC" and click the "News" link on their website to find the original press release all this info is based on. Primary sources are always better (and that PollTracker account gets things wrong often).
https://americanbridgepac.org/american-bridge-21st-century-launches-50-million-paid-media-program/
I just think primary sources always are best. Even credible news outlets sometimes put spin on what a progressive group says in a press release. In this case, the New York Times paywall also poses an issue.
Music to my ears. The GOP has no one but themselves to blame for this, they pushed all of Trump’s deranged policies, they refused to show even a little independence, they thought they could just gerrymander their way out of being voted out, and now they’re paying the price.
Could be true, but could also just be a play to get donations.
having been to plenty of lame fundraisers in my life, she sounds way more desperate than i'm used to. but then again, I've never been to a republican fundraiser so maybe this is what they sound like
That is exactly what I thought. Scaring the choir is a time honored why to get donations and volunteers
Now we need to get Gina up there, because Abbott will almost certainly get re-elected with the margins he has now.
I would be very surprised if Gonzales got more than 30% of the vote.
Help me understand how Hickenlooper losing the primary would be a message about who is most effective at fighting MAGA?
That wasn't my question. I was asking how him losing a primary indicates that he is less effective at fighting MAGA, whatever that means. I understand that people may be mad at him for not...somehow magically fighting Trump as a Senator in the minority party, but that's not the same as an indication that he is less equipped to do so. I'm also unclear what impact, if any, he would have on a function (redistricting) that is under the control of state legislators and the Governor. For the record, I think that Democrats who don't support maximal redistricting are pretty few and far between at this point. It's not like Hickenlooper is some hidden MAGA person - he's a pretty standard issue moderate Democrat.
"not magically fighting"
ahhh but there's there rub. A senator is much more than just their votes. Tone, tenor, posture, visibility, messaging, actually being a fighter, the type of fights picked, and more importantly, the types of fights on which he remained silent.
All relevant. And in that sense, Hick has been found wanting.
Liberal does not equate to "left wing". Actual real world evidence shows center-left voters still predominate the Dem electorate. I'm not sure what definition of "moderate" is being employed here; yes Dem moderates circa the Clinton years are largely no more. That doesn't say anything substantive vis a vis someone like AOC.
“Moderate,” “progressive,” and “liberal” are so meaningless to me. Graham Platner is very idiosyncratic himself for example on many issues and I would say he doesn’t fit neatly into any camp. There’s a lot of other people like that too.
Speaking for myself, I'm not a big fan of labels, either. I'm further left than the average person on some positions; I lean to the right on others.
Which is fine.
Even on the economy, I might be considered more “moderate” because I do not think corporations should cease to exist and that a health, competitive market-based economy should exist. I just don’t want corporations to have the power they do over the economy and all Main Street businesses should be able to profit fairly like corporations. I mean, having a fair shot at the American dream is pretty apolitical if you think about it.
I agree with you for the most part but I differ in your view about liberal as a label.
I’ve always looked at liberal as being the correct way of being described “on the left” compared to being progressive, which is a term that the Green Party used for a long time before Bernie Sanders ran for POTUS. The reason being is that liberals are open-minded and for the most part on the right side on the issues with where the Democratic Party should be.
Not every liberal should have to be defined 100% on the issues but everyone evolves differently. A close friend of mine is liberal but happens to be pro-death penalty. I don’t want him to feel like he’s not liberal just because he supports the death penalty.
Of course, if someone doesn’t consider themselves “liberal” or “progressive,” they should have every right to define how they think they are in a political spectrum sense.
I agree...it's not always clear who is "progressive" or "moderate". It seems like it's frequently more about demeanor than actual positions.
Do anyone know why it takes so much longer to tabulate the results from ranked choice voting?
To me it seems like a process that computers should be able to calculate immediately once all the information from individual ballots is uploaded.
I ask because the delay of knowing the result is one of the flaws stated in IL to not introduce ranked choice voting.
Meaning it is allowing postmarked ballots to be received days after the election and wanting to ensure every ballot is counted first that delays the reassigning of votes, right?
Republicans go apeshit if they lose Los Angeles. Lol.
That's been happening for me lately too - I think it's when expletives are used.
Yeah this is weird. It must be automatic. Let me put it this way: There's no fucking way I'd turn on a setting to squelch cursing!
Do you have any idea why I seem to be able to like some posts and not others? It seems to me that this has been the case only pretty recently.
The issue is just that they can’t start re-assigning votes until they’ve counted all or nearly all of the ballots once already.
⬆️"The issue is just that they can’t start re-assigning votes until they’ve counted all or nearly all of the ballots once already."
Exactly! Americans are addicted to instant gratification and there is an elaborate political infrastructure devoted to figuring out ASAP when the "winner" becomes inevitable.
Just look at how quickly lopsided races get called. Abigail Spanberger was declared the winner within an hour after the polls closed in VA.
Although everyone expects instant results these days, I doubt that instant results were available so fast in the earlier days of our republic. Travel and lack of communication would have slowed matters, and no result was official until the electoral college met. Local elections were likely faster. Also, a lot of people were not included in the electorate until amendments to the constitution, so there were fewer ballots to count.
I won’t argue that our addiction to instant gratification is a positive. It isn’t.
It does however exist. And thus if we (anyone who believes in democracy) should want votes counted fast and results verified and published accurately and quickly.
I think it would be better to legislate that all ballots arrive via Election Day if that would allow all the counting to be finished that night.
No it would not! Depending on the Postal Service to deliver ballots on time is a good way to make election-stealing easier.
I wish I could upvote this response multiple times!
If someone at the post office wanted to exclude ballots, couldn’t they just as easily delay a postmark as delay delivery?
And right now there are states that mandate mailed ballots arrive by Election Day and thus far I am unaware that has decreased votes counted.
I would rather not be represented by someone who won only 15% of the vote in a 10-way primary. Especially if it is a gerrymandered state where that almost guarantees that the primary IS the election!
Plus, RCV is a good way to overcome an unpopular incumbent when there is more than one qualified challenger who split the remainder of the vote.
I agree. My house district IL - 7 as well as IL - 9 will both be represented by candidates who couldn’t get 30% of the vote.
I wish RCV happened all over.
I just don’t think you can successfully move to RCV without ensuring that the initial votes are counted/uploaded quickly and then the reassignment process happens quickly and transparently.
"Instant gratification" will win the argument when it comes to counting votes. More than just Republican die-hards will become suspicious of a process that has no tangible way for casual observers to comprehend how winners are determined. RCV is gonna feel like smoke-filled room bullshit to most people, and the increased frequency with which second-place vote-getters are ultimately declared winners will create a rising tide of skeptics across the spectrum.
RCV basically looks and feels like a second version of the Electoral College....complicated and undemocratic. The sooner it goes away the better.
It’s not complicated. Ireland has used it for decades.
But if you make people wait a week for results, especially when they already know who finished first among voters’ first preferences it definitely won’t win.
It's not complicated in the voting process but it's complicated in the vote-counting process. And there's no quantifiable way for the person sitting on their home computer tracking results to visualize the vote count as it unfolds beyond the first round. That makes the whole process suspicious, especially when the time comes for leads to be overturned outside the observation of everybody except a small number of election judges in a closed room. It's a system that can't survive Trump-era low social trust.
But the reassigning process could easily be both fast and transparent.
Can we agree that this is uncomplicated math that a computer can do instantly?
As for transparency
1000 voters wrote in a candidate. Their second place choices were distributed as follows…
At this point, candidate Z was in last place with 2000 votes. Their second place choices were distributed as follows…
At this point, candidate Y was in last place with 3000 votes. Distributing their votes to the next yielded candidates added 1500 to candidate A, 1000 to candidate B, … After this allocation, candidate A reached 50% to clinch victory.
The main thing would be getting all the ballots uploaded quickly. It’s done at the moment of casting with in person votes done with a computer and should be easy to do with in person votes done on paper. If mail-in ballots have their signatures matched in advance then these ballots can be easily uploaded on Election Day as well. You could even have a too close to call provision so that no results are announced until provisional ballots are verified or tossed as appropriate.
Why is your response that we should destroy systems that some people dislike rather than try to rebuild trust?
Complicated... maybe, that's ultimately a subjective determination
But undemocratic? RCV is way more democratic than First Past the Post voting, which is what Americans treat as the default method of voting unfortunately.
I don't see why you couldn't just do an "unofficial" run of the election night numbers? I mean it might change in more chaotic ways than with a plurality election, but it would still be a data point that the press could report.
You are kidding right? That would be an unmitigated disaster IMO!!
Trump is already claiming fraud in CA because they had a larger % of GOP votes in early than Democrats since Dems were waiting to see which candidates for the governor were polling better.
Too few people understand the mechanics of Ranked choice voting, so the issues related to rankings changing as the rounds were conducted would greatly magnify the GOP misinformation!
I understand where you're coming from, but I think it would actually help in the long run. The first round winner losing in 10 days later is an equally potent misinformation story. (As we've seen multiple times) Explaining how the process works and seeing how the multiple rounds change over time would educate the public on how the process works and would make folks feel better than a mysterious declaration of a new winner a couple weeks after the fact.
They have done this in San Francisco and Oakland—run RCV tallies based on partial results. I admit I really disliked the idea at first, but ultimately I don't see how it's different from releasing partial results, period, even in plurality-winner races. Leads can always change.
This is why RCV is not long for this world. Look at the purple-faced tantrums across the world when Iowa wasn't able to report its 2020 caucus night results on the evening of the vote...and the Iowa Democratic Party being sentenced to death by the national party on the next judgment day. The first time a high-profile election hangs in the balance for multiple days because of the mind-bending machinations of RCV multiple-round vote counts will be the last it's allowed to. Ultimately, I don't see Democrats choosing to die on this hill.
Wasn't the problem in Iowa the caucus system rather than RCV or even regular voting?
I never realized that Republicans had so much animus towards rank choice voting. Is that because, in general, that they are more interested in winning than serving their constituents? I can definitely see how cross-endorsing a rival would not sit well with a typical Republican.
I'm in NC, so have no personal experience using it, but IMO it offers a better chance of avoiding a fringe candidate winning the primary because the "normal" voters split their vote between many candidates in a wide-open standard primary leaving the fringe candidate to win the most votes.
I know many activists in NYC through a virtual postcard-writing group and prior to the NYC mayoral election last year, it seemed like conventional wisdom had Cuomo being the top pick in the first round ballot. (IOW, without RCV they thought he would have won outright had RCV not been in place). This was clearly not the case, but they spent a lot of time handing out palm cards to explain ranked choice voting and the need to not stop at just voting for the top candidate.
Republicans are against ranked choice voting because they think that it hurts them in elections. This tends to be true because RCV tends to benefit more moderate candidates.
I think it's also somewhat a reflection of the reality that most Green Party/DSA/WFP voters would list a Dem second while Libertarians leave the rest of their ballots blank.
As do apparently Republicans.
We certainly saw this in the 2022 AK At-Large House race where Sarah Palin was angry at the RCV voting process.
It confirms once again that the GOP doesn’t like change that benefits democracy.
NH-Gov: Welp, congrats on another term, Kelly. That ad is brutal.
well put, as much as hassan isn't my ideal picture of a senator, it's high time the party recruit someone like her or lynch as a check on that crazy stat legislature
We'll flip the state legislature this year presumably? It seems like it flips to whichever party wins nationally every two years.
The House regularly flip flops all over but the senate I believe is lean R at the moment. Dems would need to flip 4 seats to tie, 5 to win.
The state Senate is small, Republicans have a 2-1 margin, only half is up and it is extermely gerrymandered. It is almost impossible to flip. The House is much more likely to flip.
i have no idea as to its flippability so defer to you, my point was I'm just bummed we can't seem to find a good gov candidate for the last ten years
Based on the 2024 margins in state senate races only, not presidential or any other weighted measure, the tipping point seats (seats 12 and 13 of 24) would be District 7 and District 12, which Rs won by 11 and 11.8.
I was just going by what Wikipedia said
It was, unfortunately, close to a sure thing before the ads aired.