Thanks for a great, informative summary on upcoming state supreme court elections!
I am curious: Why was there no organized campaign last year to oust conservative Arizona Supreme Court justices Clint Block and Kathryn Hackett King? Seems like a huge missed opportunity!
Correction: I believe it is Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh – with a C, and no U.
The AZ court justice was Clint Bolick. There was a PAC that was tied to Arizona's branch of Planned Parenthood that ran ads and did mailers against Bolick and King, but it didn't get traction.
There was also an associated campaign to ban retention votes which failed, fortunately. Had that passed, the Bolick and King retention votes would have been irrelevant, as it was retroactive.
Well, we definitely can get a "better man"--or woman--in his place. But in competitive states like AZ and NC we've had "a good run of bad luck" regarding court appointments and elections.
Given that the Riggs/Griffin fight not only made national headlines, it went international too. I hope my fellow NC voters who are Dems or D-leaning realize that the GOP controlled SC (and the NC GOP) wants to keep a power lock on their legislature by ruling in wildly unconstitutional and partisan ways. So I pray that these voters not only vote to oust Thom Tillis but retain Anita Earls by a bigger margin than Riggs in 2026.
The Earls/Stevens showdown is going to be nasty for sure. And given that the NC Supreme Court voted along partisan lines (5-2) for the state auditor to hold control over the NC State Board of Elections, Boliek and the GOP majority are going to exploit loopholes and such to suppress voters.
And if Earls prevails and Tillis is out, 2028 is going to be a very pivotal one for NC. It gives Dems a chance to flip the second US Senate seat, flip the state SC majority and state auditor seats .
Not to mention other down ballot races. After all there are no fewer than TEN members of the North Carolina Council of State. We have five of them while the Trump Party has the other five.
I think several GOP state House legislators will also lose their seats. Would be nice to flip a few state Senate seats too.
There's an open NC Court of Appeals seat left by a Democratic judge next year, and the other two Democratic judges on that are running for re-election next year.
We need to flip one dozen seats in the North Carolina House to regain control of the chamber. Hopefully we can at least put a dent in that, if not regain control.
The only way to recapture control of the NC state legislature is flipping the state Supreme Court in 2028 or 2030 to get the maps redrawn fairly. As Anderson Clayton found out, you can't out-organize a gerrymandered district, so we have to take away the obstacle (voting out the five GOP judges in statewide races).
If by some miracle, NC Dems flip control of the state legislature next year, it'll be because of loyal R voters staying home or voting for D candidates as a FU to the NC GOP and FDJT. More realistic option is further eating away at the GOP supermajority in the state Senate and majority in the state House next year.
Lee has narrowly hung on and was briefly ousted in 2018. I think with the right candidate for the Wilmington area, he'll be out on his behind next year.
In Lee’s district, the part of New Hanover county that was cut out of the district (due to population growth making the county too large to house just one state senate district) just happen to be the most heavily Democratic precincts in the county. How convenient.
I know Stefany personally so I'm hoping she wins. That said, I hope the primary doesn't get too nasty. Especially since NH still insists on having September primaries.
Ugh. I'm so tired of people getting somewhere in politics because of their last name. I'd vote for Sullivan 100 times over in a primary. That's even before taking into account my being pissed at Sen Shaheen for her CR vote... I'm in NH-02 though, so my opinion doesn't matter.
I expect she'll be the favorite in the primary and consequently in the general, but I'd love Sullivan or someone else to prove me wrong by winning the primary instead.
I do wish we'd find strong candidate for Governor and the Executive Council though. It's bad enough that Republicans control both chambers of the New Hampshire General Court (legislature).
Ayotte will win in a cake walk unless something unexpected happens. I cannot blame anyone for staying out of that race. The EC should be winnable in a wave year but I'm not worried yet about a lack of strong candidates. NH doesn't pay much attention to that position and I'd be hard pressed to find someone that knows anything about anyone running for it other than political party.
Lowest hanging fruit for a pickup in NH should be the state house. The gerrymanders have consistently been weaker there than in the senate and EC.
Also, since we need to keep our focus on chipping away at GOP super-majorities, 2 Ohio Supreme Court Justices are up next year--Brunner, the only Democratic on the court who likely won't run again, and Hawkins, a Republican. Winning both of them would move the court to 5R, 2D--not great, but a little better.
It'd be nice if they flipped back one state SC seat, especially in a D-favorable midterm. Wish the Ohio Democratic Party didn't have a party chair position available, but maybe a native Ohioan with the same determination that Anderson Clayton, Lavora Barnes and Ben Wikler can get the party back on track there.
I think McMorrow is probably functioning as Generic D. Stevens has a bit more recognition. El-Sayed is polling lower simply due to racism and xenophobia.
Honestly considering his association with Bernie I think his polling numbers are *inflated* compared to what his profile would suggest, dude's only been a County Health Director
He was Bernie-aligned back then too. I'm sure he's talented as a politician but his experience is just as a county health director so it's weird to attribute his double-digit showing in a poll to racism as if it's supposed to be higher.
I am not rooting for him but his name recognition is 35 in poll compared to 44 for Stevens. Yeah, I also think that it is due to Bernie and the campaigning in 2018 Gubernatorial primary now.
The comment about racism would be referring to the GE match-ups. 100% agree. It was my first thought, too. It’s too bad winning is everything and numbers like that are kind of damning. That’s a big percentage of racism. Steven’s’ is the favorite anyway so not much of a concern.
It's good to see Benson ahead, but a 5% margin is still basically a tossup with Duggan in the mix. He isn't going to win, and he isn't going to attract MAGA voters either (they have already been told what to think), so there's only one place for his support to come from.
Yup, as an election approaches voters start to realize their vote could elect someone they really don’t like and go back to their partisan camps. If anything’s held true over the Trump era politics of America, it’s that a majority of voters always make their voting decision based on what they don’t want.
Voters didn’t want Clinton, then voters didn’t want a GOP trifecta, then voters didn’t want another Trump term, then voters didn’t want a Dem trifecta, then voters didn’t want Biden’s economy. Trump has been successful because he focuses constantly on attacking his opponent, making voters vote for him by default from making them not want to vote for his opponent.
The experts two NRK journalists spoke with about what is happening in the United States right now dare not come forward for fear of the reprisals.
New revelations claim that vast amounts of personal information on millions of Americans collected by DOGE collect information from various government agencies is being poured into a giant, searchable "master" database. Everything in one place.
One expert compares it to present-day China, and Stasi’s East Germany during the Cold War. Stasi had physical folders on 97 percent of the population!
Even the security expert we contacted do not dare to give his name or title, and all contact takes place via encrypted services.
"I have to take some precautions to keep myself and my family safe, I cannot risk being deported or detained without trial," explains the anonymous source.
The EU has now asked its senior representatives not to bring their own phones or computers when they travel to the US. The security expert NRK spoke to also recommends that Norwegians avoid bringing their phones with them if they are traveling to the United States.
"You need to bring a “dummy phone.” You shouldn't bring a phone you used to talk to your aunt about how you think Trump is creepy," the expert advises.
On March 9, a French researcher was denied entry to the United States after being accused of having "hateful messages" about American politics on his phone.
I would. Also: avoid enabling email on your phone, and don’t enter your social media logins. Better yet, don’t even include your contacts; instead keep that info in a little notebook. Keep your phone totally antiseptic.
The new Economist/YouGov weekly tracker is out. Here is where Trump’s job approval is today compared to his first week in office. (Spoiler alert: it’s not good.)
Overall 49%-43% (+6) to 44%-52% (-8) – 14 pt decline
18-29 48%-43% (+5) to 36%-59% (-23) – 28 pt decline
Hispanic 42%-47% (-5) to 31%-61% (-30) – 25 pt decline
Black 29%-60% (-31) to 24%-70% (-46) – 15 pt decline
Indie 38%-41% (-3) to 27%-60% (-33) – 30 pt decline
Less $50k 46%-42% (+4) to 39%-55% (-16) – 20 pt decline
$50-100k 51%-44% (+7) to 48%-48% (even) – 7 pt decline
Inflation 45%-39% (+6) to 38%-56% (-18) – 24 pt decline
There goes the vibe shift and the "generational realignment" and the Trump-Obama coalition! We need good candidates in the midterms to use this to our advantage.
Every demographic Trump and Republicans gained in for the 2024 election has completely collapsed. That independent number is wild. Who knew Trump would wreck America again with his backasswards policies again? Everyone with a properly functioning brain, that’s who. Americans only remember why they hate Trump after they elect him. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Obviously not all of the disapprovers will vote for Democrats in 2026 or even vote and things can change before then, but these kinds of numbers are bigger than 2018 when Democrats won I’s 55-40. I would be extremely interested to see how the ancestral Democrats demographic of the non-college educated WWC look as far as approval goes, but this poll doesn’t break that down sadly.
If they are also souring on Trump/GOP, there’s a much bigger House and Senate battlefield in 2026 then conventional wisdom indicates right now.
non college educated WWCs are the most pro Trump demographic in every poll breakdown that I've seen and white voters both college educated and non college educated have shifted the least relatively since the 2024 election.
Yes, they are the backbone of what got Trump elected twice. But there’s no indication in this poll of a breakdown of that demographic. I’m absolutely certain that they will be the least moved from 2024, but this is still the largest demographic of voters, so it doesn’t take much of a shift among them to have a huge impact, hence my curiosity on if anything has changed amongst them or not.
With the appointment of Noah Hood to the SCOMI (born 1986), we are rapidly approaching the time when there will be a Supreme Court Justice that is younger than me and I don't know how to handle that.
In the House spending bill, House Republicans have put in a provision that stops states from AI regulation. Multiple organizations are pushing back against this provision.
Meanwhile, Democrats have a clear strategy on House Republicans:
Texas elects judges for both the Supreme Court (which deals only with civil matters) and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (criminal matters) on a partisan basis, with candidates identified on the ballot by party affiliation. All current members of both courts are Republicans.
In 2026, Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock, who was appointed in January 2025, will be running for re-election.. Justices James Sullivan and Brett Busby will also be up for re-election. Justice Jeff Boyd announced his retirement in April 2025, meaning his appointed replacement will also be on the 2026 ballot.
For the Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge Bert Richardson's seat is up for election, Justice David Newell's seat is up for election, and the seat in Place 4 is also up for election.
Texas Senate poll: Cornyn, Paxton and Hunt with narrow leads over Allred and O’Rourke. Paxton with a 7 point lead over Cornyn in a three-way race, 9 in a two-way race.
This is more what I’d think Texas would currently look like rather than the university poll that seems to always overestimate Democrats. Allred is viewed favorably (+7) and is obviously the strongest candidate to run regardless of who his opponent is, though he’s still behind all of them, which is to be expected. O’Rourke’s run for president killed his electability in the state as we saw from the 2022 results and from the negative favorables he still has, so I really hope he doesn’t run again.
If Talarico runs for Governor, that’s a potent political duo at the top of the ticket for 2026. There is also a noticeable crack in the Texas red wall however for Republicans, Trump’s underwater 49-51 on the economy there even though overall they approve of him as president. And only 50% of high school educated voters approve of the tariffs/trade policy. Hopefully at the very least whoever runs will narrow MJ Hegars margin loss from double digits to single digits, but if Paxton is the GOP opponent, could be even better, anywhere from a 5 point loss to a 2 point victory.
A lot of stark differences in Michigan Polls between definite voters and registered voters. It's probably a lean R poll since Trump's approval is relatively very high (-0.9) and it's sponsored by a CoC.
Feels like with Haley Stevens it would be a comfortable victory, with Mallory McMorrow it’s a close victory and with Abdul El-Sayed it’s probably a Tossup or narrow loss. Not just based on this 1 single poll, but in general.
Voters really seem to like more moderate Democrats and Haley Stevens for all intents and purposes is basically Elissa Slotkin’s carbon copy campaign running again, but this time in a far more favorable political environment.
She’s not necessary as the nominee to win this time like Slotkin was in 2024, but she’d be a big boost to down ballot when Democrats are going to be trying to earn back their trifecta again with the State Senate and State House up for grabs.
It’s going to be very interesting to see what direction Democratic primary voters decide the party should go in that state.
Plus, if you have both a Gen X woman (Elissa Slotkin) and a Millennial woman (Haley Stevens) in the Senate representing MI, it’s quite the change considering both former Senator Debbie Stabenow and Senator Gary Peters are baby boomers.
It depends on the state, swing states will always be more favorable for moderate Democrats. McMorrow has a low name recognition otherwise she could also coast to victory. Elissa Slotkin wasn't beholden to special interests unlike Stevens though.
Obama world loses its shine in a changing, hurting Democratic Party:
Obama White House and campaign alumni have been setting the course of the Democratic Party for years. After 2024, more Democrats want to see that change.
I mean, given that the Obama crew oversaw the absolute decimation of the party after it gained so much in 06 and 08, and only Biden could briefly stitch it back together, a change sure could be warranted. What kind of change is the rub.
Just as the Clinton crew decimated the party in 1994. Except for 1980, no two elections have done more damage to the Democratic party in the last 100 years.
1980 was a walk in the park compared to 1994 and 2010. Dems still kept the House and most state legislatures in 1980 (1981-1982 was the last redistricting cycle that Democrats indisputably won). 1994 wiped out the Dem state legislature and gubernatorial advantage and led to a pretty bad redistricting cycle in 2001-2002 with Republicans in control in big states like PA, MI, OH, and FL. They only had control in NC and GA thanks to a decent Clinton second midterm in 1998 where they won key races in those states. 2010 (and 2014) of course was a disaster of epic proportions and Obama and the DNC under him were completely asleep at the switch when they needed to be working early on to prevent disaster.
Jane Kleeb has the exact strategy right for Democrats. One that was extremely successful in the Omaha Mayoral race. Turn their culture war attacks against them. Why on gods green earth Democrats didn’t do that in 2024 is probably the most frustrating part of that campaign.
“Republicans are focused on potties, Democrats want to fix the pot holes”. Turn their insane obsessions over LGBTQ matters and hammer them hard in ads to turn it into a liability. Republican mayor Stothert lost by 14 points after winning by 30 in her last campaign. It’s effective, persuasive and a winning strategy that is replicable for any state or race.
That’s not true. It WAS working until Harris decided to change the message from Trump/Republicans are weird to “they’re a danger to democracy”. There were countless articles written about how those attacks were rattling the GOP and rallying Democrats. It was effective, it was easy to understand and turned their culture war crusade against them until Harris became the nominee and abruptly decided to go back to the Clinton 2016 campaign strategy.
It feels like the "weird" attack line got consultant'd out. Walz was being used as an attack dog to test it out, everyone seemed to be responding well, then it disappeared. Feels like a consultant or other got a focus group result and used it to can the whole attack line.
Regardless of why it stopped, that stop was a huge mistake.
Which is exactly why the article is true and I agree entirely on it. Democrats need to stop running elections to try to recreate Obama’s old coalition and start running to create a new coalition that wins and works today, not the campaigns that worked nearly 2 decades ago.
I do agree that all Democrats need to be rowing with the same oar in the same direction for 2026 and 2028 general elections, but high end party consultants should only be those experienced with running and winning right now. The difference in the country between 2024 and 2008 is astronomical. The old playbook doesn’t work anymore. Time for a new playbook that works in today’s America.
Whether that’s moving the party to the right or left of where it is and which issues to move in which direction is the debate we’re having right now as a party from grassroots to leaders. But what we all should agree on is that these Obama gurus aren’t effective anymore and someone else needs to replace them with fresh blood and fresh ideas.
Moving left or right I don’t think means anything - voters don’t care about policy that much. They say they do but elections are won with great candidates with great messaging. We didn’t have that the past three cycles. The political operatives chattering kind of just proves why we shouldn’t listen to any of them too much. They want to get an article written about them talking about all this insider crap. Good candidates gets good results. We should have won in 2016 but that was the beginning of the end of normal politics.
And elections are won when people are simply tired with the President and his party. Barack Obama could have spent most of 2008 vacationing in Hawaii and we wouldn't have lost because the country was done with George W Bush and the War in Iraq. Not to mention the Wall Street collapse.
I don’t think anyone here is wrongly suggesting that rural areas will start suddenly having a majority of people voting for Democrats, but it’s about inches in a political world this closely divided. Getting 1-2% more of the vote in Republican areas is a massive impact and could be the difference between a loss or victory in a countless number of states both up and down the ballot.
I don’t doubt that 90% of Republican or R-leaning voters love this red meat attack against everything not white and conservative, especially transgender Americans. But there are still persuadable voters out there. If we can convince even a small number that the GOP is only focused on enriching themselves and controlling our private lives instead of fixing the problems, that’s more voters than we have now and is a good thing.
This all assumes it does work, which we don’t know right now, TBD on that one, but it did work in the Omaha Mayoral race, there can be no doubt about that.
Using that kind of strategy ("[insert Republican candidate's name] is focused on potties, [insert Democrat's name] is focused on potties" would help us a LOT in North Carolina.
It already started to happen during Obama’s 2nd term when he pushed the toxic chained CPI and TPP.
I have no idea what was going on through his head but Obama would have given Democrats less problems in 2016 had he pushed against chained CPI and the TPP.
Instead, Hillary Clinton had to go against the TPP even after she was initially for it. Trump hammered her and the Democrats on this issue constantly.
unlike slick willie, president obama didn't need to triangulate in 2015-16 and say what you will about the tenets of triangulation but at least its ethos is finding popular ground. tpp was critically unpopular and hurt labor-cedeing the mahoning valley for a generation to please wall street
i did not know that, i thought most majority of voters instinctively would be against it but had no support for the thought people were that defecit focused. nvm very clintonian
Obama actually got pretty good shit done on foreign policy in his 2nd term thanks to John Kerry being Secretary of State. No disrespect to Hillary Clinton but under Kerry’s leadership, we had the following:
-Iran Nuclear Deal
-Normalizing relations with Cuba for the first time since the early 1960’s.
-Stronger progress in relations with Israel and Palestine. Could have possibly gotten a peace deal if Clinton was elected POTUS (I would have said she should have kept Kerry on as SoS if this was the case).
Otherwise, domestic relations was the biggest liability for Obama.
I would agree with you on this although if Trump were not elected, then how would the US have handled the issue of trade after Obama left office if Clinton became POTUS?
The TPP had a lack of real transparency and was observed to have given corporations more power to be dominant. Trump killing the TPP was the best thing to happen for Democrats as free trade was pushed more by them for a long time before.
If we're talking about young voters, Chained CPI and the TPP were not issues that young voters were impacted by the most. They didn't directly affect them, at least not if you were a millennial who graduated from college during the mid 2000's to early 2010's.
The main issue for young voters that President Obama didn't address was holding the corporate powers that be in Wall Street accountable for their contributions to the 2008 financial crisis. When Occupy Wall Street emerged in 2011 and the energy contributed to Obama winning re-election, the movement fizzled out and Obama as POTUS really didn't do anything in his 2nd term on reforming Wall Street. Naturally, in 2013 he had a divided Congress to deal with as the House was run by the GOP whereas the Senate was controlled by Democrats.
Of course, we had the Dodd Frank Act that was signed into law by Obama. However, Glass Steagall not being reintroduced by the Democratic Party in Congress at any point in 2009-2010 was a real problem that Democrats should have already dealt with when they had the chance. Warren Buffett would have supported this as he’s not a fan of the banking system post-Glass Steagall repeal back in 1999.
One issue Obama did do great with in his 2nd term as POTUS was holding for-profit universities accountable. Lots of them, including ITT Tech, were forced to close down due to fraud, something the U.S. Education Department did a deep investigation into. This wasn't financial services-based but this kind of energy with the Education Department going after for-profit colleges should have been emphasized on Wall Street.
I don't put Clinton to blame for what happened in the Obama years. She was just a Democratic Presidential Candidate and never had the chance to be POTUS. I would have scrutinized her as POTUS far more than as a candidate.
Obama stacked his cabinet with New Democrats and hardcore neolibs like Emanuel unlike Biden. He should have pushed much harder for a big beautiful stimulus.
A new Emerson College Polling/PIX11/The Hill survey of New York City’s Democratic Primary for Mayor finds 35% of voters support former Governor Andrew Cuomo on the first round of the ballot, 23% support State Rep. Zohran Mamdani, 11% support Comptroller Brad Lander, 9% former State Rep. Scott Stringer, 8% City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, and 5% State Senator Zellnor Myrie.
After ten rounds of rank choice simulation, Cuomo passes the 50% threshold with 54%, and Mamdani ends with 46%.
Getting awfully late early for anyone to get past Mamdani for 2nd place if this poll is correct. Doubling the support for any other non-Cuomo candidate would require some of them dropping out or a major scandal/gaffe with such a crowded field and only 9% of voters left undecided. Hopefully further polls also show the Cuomo-not Cuomo matchup narrowing.
Thanks for a great, informative summary on upcoming state supreme court elections!
I am curious: Why was there no organized campaign last year to oust conservative Arizona Supreme Court justices Clint Block and Kathryn Hackett King? Seems like a huge missed opportunity!
Correction: I believe it is Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh – with a C, and no U.
No good reason, TBH. There was talk of a campaign but it fizzled out. Feels like a mistake to me.
The AZ court justice was Clint Bolick. There was a PAC that was tied to Arizona's branch of Planned Parenthood that ran ads and did mailers against Bolick and King, but it didn't get traction.
There was also an associated campaign to ban retention votes which failed, fortunately. Had that passed, the Bolick and King retention votes would have been irrelevant, as it was retroactive.
Clint Block?
Seems like he's just "killin' time" on the court
Well, we definitely can get a "better man"--or woman--in his place. But in competitive states like AZ and NC we've had "a good run of bad luck" regarding court appointments and elections.
Given that the Riggs/Griffin fight not only made national headlines, it went international too. I hope my fellow NC voters who are Dems or D-leaning realize that the GOP controlled SC (and the NC GOP) wants to keep a power lock on their legislature by ruling in wildly unconstitutional and partisan ways. So I pray that these voters not only vote to oust Thom Tillis but retain Anita Earls by a bigger margin than Riggs in 2026.
The Earls/Stevens showdown is going to be nasty for sure. And given that the NC Supreme Court voted along partisan lines (5-2) for the state auditor to hold control over the NC State Board of Elections, Boliek and the GOP majority are going to exploit loopholes and such to suppress voters.
And if Earls prevails and Tillis is out, 2028 is going to be a very pivotal one for NC. It gives Dems a chance to flip the second US Senate seat, flip the state SC majority and state auditor seats .
Not to mention other down ballot races. After all there are no fewer than TEN members of the North Carolina Council of State. We have five of them while the Trump Party has the other five.
I think several GOP state House legislators will also lose their seats. Would be nice to flip a few state Senate seats too.
There's an open NC Court of Appeals seat left by a Democratic judge next year, and the other two Democratic judges on that are running for re-election next year.
We need to flip one dozen seats in the North Carolina House to regain control of the chamber. Hopefully we can at least put a dent in that, if not regain control.
Dems need 6 seats in the NH house to get back to their post 2011 high watermark of 55 seats that they reached in 2018. I think that’s doable.
And by NH, I presume you mean NC.
Yes that’s correct.
The only way to recapture control of the NC state legislature is flipping the state Supreme Court in 2028 or 2030 to get the maps redrawn fairly. As Anderson Clayton found out, you can't out-organize a gerrymandered district, so we have to take away the obstacle (voting out the five GOP judges in statewide races).
If by some miracle, NC Dems flip control of the state legislature next year, it'll be because of loyal R voters staying home or voting for D candidates as a FU to the NC GOP and FDJT. More realistic option is further eating away at the GOP supermajority in the state Senate and majority in the state House next year.
Yeah, I think Cotham is cooked next year. Chesser, Pare, and Schietzelt are also in big trouble.
For the senate going after Barnes and Lee will be key.
Lee has narrowly hung on and was briefly ousted in 2018. I think with the right candidate for the Wilmington area, he'll be out on his behind next year.
In Lee’s district, the part of New Hanover county that was cut out of the district (due to population growth making the county too large to house just one state senate district) just happen to be the most heavily Democratic precincts in the county. How convenient.
And to the surprise of nobody who knows Granite State politics, Stefany Shaheen (D-NH), yes Senator Jeanne Shaheen's oldest daughter is running for NH-01: https://www.wmur.com/article/stefany-shaheen-2026-campaign-congress-nh-05272025/64897611
I'd be genuinely torn between her and Maura Sullivan.
2 superb Democrats in what should be a relatively easy hold given the likely environment!! 💙🇺🇲
I know Stefany personally so I'm hoping she wins. That said, I hope the primary doesn't get too nasty. Especially since NH still insists on having September primaries.
Ugh. I'm so tired of people getting somewhere in politics because of their last name. I'd vote for Sullivan 100 times over in a primary. That's even before taking into account my being pissed at Sen Shaheen for her CR vote... I'm in NH-02 though, so my opinion doesn't matter.
I expect she'll be the favorite in the primary and consequently in the general, but I'd love Sullivan or someone else to prove me wrong by winning the primary instead.
I do wish we'd find strong candidate for Governor and the Executive Council though. It's bad enough that Republicans control both chambers of the New Hampshire General Court (legislature).
Ayotte will win in a cake walk unless something unexpected happens. I cannot blame anyone for staying out of that race. The EC should be winnable in a wave year but I'm not worried yet about a lack of strong candidates. NH doesn't pay much attention to that position and I'd be hard pressed to find someone that knows anything about anyone running for it other than political party.
Lowest hanging fruit for a pickup in NH should be the state house. The gerrymanders have consistently been weaker there than in the senate and EC.
Great summary. There's a chance for real change by winning these races.
One thing--I think AZSC has 7 members, not 9.
Thank you for the kind words and the good catch!
Also, since we need to keep our focus on chipping away at GOP super-majorities, 2 Ohio Supreme Court Justices are up next year--Brunner, the only Democratic on the court who likely won't run again, and Hawkins, a Republican. Winning both of them would move the court to 5R, 2D--not great, but a little better.
It'd be nice if they flipped back one state SC seat, especially in a D-favorable midterm. Wish the Ohio Democratic Party didn't have a party chair position available, but maybe a native Ohioan with the same determination that Anderson Clayton, Lavora Barnes and Ben Wikler can get the party back on track there.
Brunner sounds like she's planning to run again: https://signalcleveland.org/republican-ohio-supreme-court-justice-to-challenge-justice-jennifer-brunner/
Interesting. I thought she would have to quit due to the age limit, but the article says if she's less than 70 when the term starts, she could run.
General Election Matchups:
49% 🔵 Haley Stevens (+6)
43% 🔴 Mike Rogers
8% 🤷 Undecided
46% 🔵 Mallory McMorrow (+2)
44% 🔴 Mike Rogers
9% 🤷 Undecided
47% 🔴 Mike Rogers (+2)
45% 🔵 Abdul El-Sayed
9% 🤷 Undecided
Glengariff | 396 LVs | 05/27/25 | MOE 4%
https://bsky.app/profile/postpolls.bsky.social/post/3lq6wa4tw222s
🔵 Democratic Primary:
34% Haley Stevens (+12)
22% Abdul El-Sayed
14% Mallory McMorrow
30% Undecided
🔴 Republican Primary:
61% Mike Rogers (+44)
17% Bill Huizenga
22% Undecided
Glengariff | 600 RVs | 05/27/25 | MOE 4%
I wonder how much of that is name recognition for McMorrow, she’s lower profile than Stevens and El-Sayed.
I think McMorrow is probably functioning as Generic D. Stevens has a bit more recognition. El-Sayed is polling lower simply due to racism and xenophobia.
Honestly considering his association with Bernie I think his polling numbers are *inflated* compared to what his profile would suggest, dude's only been a County Health Director
He was Bernie-aligned back then too. I'm sure he's talented as a politician but his experience is just as a county health director so it's weird to attribute his double-digit showing in a poll to racism as if it's supposed to be higher.
I am not rooting for him but his name recognition is 35 in poll compared to 44 for Stevens. Yeah, I also think that it is due to Bernie and the campaigning in 2018 Gubernatorial primary now.
The comment about racism would be referring to the GE match-ups. 100% agree. It was my first thought, too. It’s too bad winning is everything and numbers like that are kind of damning. That’s a big percentage of racism. Steven’s’ is the favorite anyway so not much of a concern.
Very low, 20 percent compared to 35 for El-Sayed and 44 for Stevens, see for yourself.
A very poor move by Bernie to back him, given his identity in a swing state. We could be in a real mess if he wins the primary.
https://www.detroitchamber.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Detroit-Regional-Chamber_Glengariff-Group_May-2025-Political-Survey-Report.pdf
General Election Matchups:
38% 🔵 Jocelyn Benson (+5)
33% 🔴 John James
22% ⚪️ Mike Duggan (Ind.)
6% 🤷 Undecided
40% 🔵 Jocelyn Benson (+9)
31% 🔴 Tudor Dixon
23% ⚪️ Mike Duggan (Ind.)
6% 🤷 Undecided
🔵 Democratic Primary:
59% Jocelyn Benson (+51)
8% Chris Swanson
7% Garlin Gilchrist
26% Undecided
🔴 Republican Primary:
42% John James (+22)
20% Tudor Dixon
11% Mike Cox
5% Aric Nesbitt
22% Undecided
It's good to see Benson ahead, but a 5% margin is still basically a tossup with Duggan in the mix. He isn't going to win, and he isn't going to attract MAGA voters either (they have already been told what to think), so there's only one place for his support to come from.
He's equally attracting Ds and Rs according to the full Poll. https://www.detroitchamber.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Detroit-Regional-Chamber_Glengariff-Group_May-2025-Political-Survey-Report.pdf
I’d expect his support to plummet closer to the election so it is pretty unpredictable with him drawing pretty equal support.
Yup, as an election approaches voters start to realize their vote could elect someone they really don’t like and go back to their partisan camps. If anything’s held true over the Trump era politics of America, it’s that a majority of voters always make their voting decision based on what they don’t want.
Voters didn’t want Clinton, then voters didn’t want a GOP trifecta, then voters didn’t want another Trump term, then voters didn’t want a Dem trifecta, then voters didn’t want Biden’s economy. Trump has been successful because he focuses constantly on attacking his opponent, making voters vote for him by default from making them not want to vote for his opponent.
I’m surprised Gilchrist is polling so poorly, 7% is basically nothing.
View from Norway: IT’S MUCH WORSE THAN YOU THINK
The experts two NRK journalists spoke with about what is happening in the United States right now dare not come forward for fear of the reprisals.
New revelations claim that vast amounts of personal information on millions of Americans collected by DOGE collect information from various government agencies is being poured into a giant, searchable "master" database. Everything in one place.
One expert compares it to present-day China, and Stasi’s East Germany during the Cold War. Stasi had physical folders on 97 percent of the population!
Even the security expert we contacted do not dare to give his name or title, and all contact takes place via encrypted services.
"I have to take some precautions to keep myself and my family safe, I cannot risk being deported or detained without trial," explains the anonymous source.
https://www-nrk-no.translate.goog/norge/eksperter-vegrer-seg-for-a-snakke-om-usa-1.17420296?_x_tr_sl=no&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp
(My excerpts and translation above; link to complete English via Google Translate.)
DON’T BRING YOUR OWN PHONE TO THE USA
The EU has now asked its senior representatives not to bring their own phones or computers when they travel to the US. The security expert NRK spoke to also recommends that Norwegians avoid bringing their phones with them if they are traveling to the United States.
"You need to bring a “dummy phone.” You shouldn't bring a phone you used to talk to your aunt about how you think Trump is creepy," the expert advises.
On March 9, a French researcher was denied entry to the United States after being accused of having "hateful messages" about American politics on his phone.
I'm going back to the USA for a wedding this summer. Maybe I should leave phone and computer and buy a Walmart burner when I'm here.
I would. Also: avoid enabling email on your phone, and don’t enter your social media logins. Better yet, don’t even include your contacts; instead keep that info in a little notebook. Keep your phone totally antiseptic.
It might not matter if you aren't a Caucasian evangelical Christian-you'll probably be deported no matter what you try.
CRASHING APPROVAL RATES
The new Economist/YouGov weekly tracker is out. Here is where Trump’s job approval is today compared to his first week in office. (Spoiler alert: it’s not good.)
Overall 49%-43% (+6) to 44%-52% (-8) – 14 pt decline
18-29 48%-43% (+5) to 36%-59% (-23) – 28 pt decline
Hispanic 42%-47% (-5) to 31%-61% (-30) – 25 pt decline
Black 29%-60% (-31) to 24%-70% (-46) – 15 pt decline
Indie 38%-41% (-3) to 27%-60% (-33) – 30 pt decline
Less $50k 46%-42% (+4) to 39%-55% (-16) – 20 pt decline
$50-100k 51%-44% (+7) to 48%-48% (even) – 7 pt decline
Inflation 45%-39% (+6) to 38%-56% (-18) – 24 pt decline
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/explore/topic/The_Economist_YouGov_polls
(Courtesy of Simon Rosenberg, Hopium)
There goes the vibe shift and the "generational realignment" and the Trump-Obama coalition! We need good candidates in the midterms to use this to our advantage.
Every demographic Trump and Republicans gained in for the 2024 election has completely collapsed. That independent number is wild. Who knew Trump would wreck America again with his backasswards policies again? Everyone with a properly functioning brain, that’s who. Americans only remember why they hate Trump after they elect him. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Obviously not all of the disapprovers will vote for Democrats in 2026 or even vote and things can change before then, but these kinds of numbers are bigger than 2018 when Democrats won I’s 55-40. I would be extremely interested to see how the ancestral Democrats demographic of the non-college educated WWC look as far as approval goes, but this poll doesn’t break that down sadly.
If they are also souring on Trump/GOP, there’s a much bigger House and Senate battlefield in 2026 then conventional wisdom indicates right now.
non college educated WWCs are the most pro Trump demographic in every poll breakdown that I've seen and white voters both college educated and non college educated have shifted the least relatively since the 2024 election.
Yes, they are the backbone of what got Trump elected twice. But there’s no indication in this poll of a breakdown of that demographic. I’m absolutely certain that they will be the least moved from 2024, but this is still the largest demographic of voters, so it doesn’t take much of a shift among them to have a huge impact, hence my curiosity on if anything has changed amongst them or not.
Makes sense that the most elastic segments of the electorate have seen the biggest shifts.
With the appointment of Noah Hood to the SCOMI (born 1986), we are rapidly approaching the time when there will be a Supreme Court Justice that is younger than me and I don't know how to handle that.
Hood is only a year older than me, which feels pretty good. I want more younger people on state Supreme Courts and federal judicial appointees.
As long as they're not GOP hacks like that Mizelle woman who did away with mask mandates on commercial aircraft.
Yeah Mizelle is like 6 months older than me, so we haven't broken that barrier either (yet)
House Republicans Aiming To Stop AI Regulations
In the House spending bill, House Republicans have put in a provision that stops states from AI regulation. Multiple organizations are pushing back against this provision.
Meanwhile, Democrats have a clear strategy on House Republicans:
Boot them out of office. As many as possible.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/19/tech/house-spending-bill-ai-provision-organizations-raise-alarm
Texas elects judges for both the Supreme Court (which deals only with civil matters) and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (criminal matters) on a partisan basis, with candidates identified on the ballot by party affiliation. All current members of both courts are Republicans.
In 2026, Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock, who was appointed in January 2025, will be running for re-election.. Justices James Sullivan and Brett Busby will also be up for re-election. Justice Jeff Boyd announced his retirement in April 2025, meaning his appointed replacement will also be on the 2026 ballot.
For the Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge Bert Richardson's seat is up for election, Justice David Newell's seat is up for election, and the seat in Place 4 is also up for election.
Texas Senate poll: Cornyn, Paxton and Hunt with narrow leads over Allred and O’Rourke. Paxton with a 7 point lead over Cornyn in a three-way race, 9 in a two-way race.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/67aa7aa3e284b002cd6a420e/t/6835d0b18a1b152870969a2b/1748357299241/2026+TEXAS+U.S.+SENATE+REPORT+.pdf
You didn't mention Joaquin Castro.
It's all in the name, Texans oppose "school vouchers" in some polls, back "school choice" in some, and back "Educational Savings Accounts" in all.
This is more what I’d think Texas would currently look like rather than the university poll that seems to always overestimate Democrats. Allred is viewed favorably (+7) and is obviously the strongest candidate to run regardless of who his opponent is, though he’s still behind all of them, which is to be expected. O’Rourke’s run for president killed his electability in the state as we saw from the 2022 results and from the negative favorables he still has, so I really hope he doesn’t run again.
If Talarico runs for Governor, that’s a potent political duo at the top of the ticket for 2026. There is also a noticeable crack in the Texas red wall however for Republicans, Trump’s underwater 49-51 on the economy there even though overall they approve of him as president. And only 50% of high school educated voters approve of the tariffs/trade policy. Hopefully at the very least whoever runs will narrow MJ Hegars margin loss from double digits to single digits, but if Paxton is the GOP opponent, could be even better, anywhere from a 5 point loss to a 2 point victory.
https://www.detroitchamber.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Detroit-Regional-Chamber_Glengariff-Group_May-2025-Political-Survey-Report.pdf
A lot of stark differences in Michigan Polls between definite voters and registered voters. It's probably a lean R poll since Trump's approval is relatively very high (-0.9) and it's sponsored by a CoC.
Feels like with Haley Stevens it would be a comfortable victory, with Mallory McMorrow it’s a close victory and with Abdul El-Sayed it’s probably a Tossup or narrow loss. Not just based on this 1 single poll, but in general.
Voters really seem to like more moderate Democrats and Haley Stevens for all intents and purposes is basically Elissa Slotkin’s carbon copy campaign running again, but this time in a far more favorable political environment.
She’s not necessary as the nominee to win this time like Slotkin was in 2024, but she’d be a big boost to down ballot when Democrats are going to be trying to earn back their trifecta again with the State Senate and State House up for grabs.
It’s going to be very interesting to see what direction Democratic primary voters decide the party should go in that state.
Plus, if you have both a Gen X woman (Elissa Slotkin) and a Millennial woman (Haley Stevens) in the Senate representing MI, it’s quite the change considering both former Senator Debbie Stabenow and Senator Gary Peters are baby boomers.
It depends on the state, swing states will always be more favorable for moderate Democrats. McMorrow has a low name recognition otherwise she could also coast to victory. Elissa Slotkin wasn't beholden to special interests unlike Stevens though.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/obama-world-loses-shine-changing-hurting-democratic-party-rcna207181
Obama world loses its shine in a changing, hurting Democratic Party:
Obama White House and campaign alumni have been setting the course of the Democratic Party for years. After 2024, more Democrats want to see that change.
I mean, given that the Obama crew oversaw the absolute decimation of the party after it gained so much in 06 and 08, and only Biden could briefly stitch it back together, a change sure could be warranted. What kind of change is the rub.
Just as the Clinton crew decimated the party in 1994. Except for 1980, no two elections have done more damage to the Democratic party in the last 100 years.
1980 was a walk in the park compared to 1994 and 2010. Dems still kept the House and most state legislatures in 1980 (1981-1982 was the last redistricting cycle that Democrats indisputably won). 1994 wiped out the Dem state legislature and gubernatorial advantage and led to a pretty bad redistricting cycle in 2001-2002 with Republicans in control in big states like PA, MI, OH, and FL. They only had control in NC and GA thanks to a decent Clinton second midterm in 1998 where they won key races in those states. 2010 (and 2014) of course was a disaster of epic proportions and Obama and the DNC under him were completely asleep at the switch when they needed to be working early on to prevent disaster.
the senators we lost in 80 are the patron saints of some of the greatest legislation in the modern era
That’s true, but we got back most of those seats six years later in 1986.
The 1964 civil rights was going to trickle down to the house and the senate one day or the other if not in 1994.
Jane Kleeb has the exact strategy right for Democrats. One that was extremely successful in the Omaha Mayoral race. Turn their culture war attacks against them. Why on gods green earth Democrats didn’t do that in 2024 is probably the most frustrating part of that campaign.
“Republicans are focused on potties, Democrats want to fix the pot holes”. Turn their insane obsessions over LGBTQ matters and hammer them hard in ads to turn it into a liability. Republican mayor Stothert lost by 14 points after winning by 30 in her last campaign. It’s effective, persuasive and a winning strategy that is replicable for any state or race.
They did. it's what the whole "weird" thing was about. It wasn't really working.
That’s not true. It WAS working until Harris decided to change the message from Trump/Republicans are weird to “they’re a danger to democracy”. There were countless articles written about how those attacks were rattling the GOP and rallying Democrats. It was effective, it was easy to understand and turned their culture war crusade against them until Harris became the nominee and abruptly decided to go back to the Clinton 2016 campaign strategy.
It feels like the "weird" attack line got consultant'd out. Walz was being used as an attack dog to test it out, everyone seemed to be responding well, then it disappeared. Feels like a consultant or other got a focus group result and used it to can the whole attack line.
Regardless of why it stopped, that stop was a huge mistake.
Which is exactly why the article is true and I agree entirely on it. Democrats need to stop running elections to try to recreate Obama’s old coalition and start running to create a new coalition that wins and works today, not the campaigns that worked nearly 2 decades ago.
I do agree that all Democrats need to be rowing with the same oar in the same direction for 2026 and 2028 general elections, but high end party consultants should only be those experienced with running and winning right now. The difference in the country between 2024 and 2008 is astronomical. The old playbook doesn’t work anymore. Time for a new playbook that works in today’s America.
Whether that’s moving the party to the right or left of where it is and which issues to move in which direction is the debate we’re having right now as a party from grassroots to leaders. But what we all should agree on is that these Obama gurus aren’t effective anymore and someone else needs to replace them with fresh blood and fresh ideas.
Moving left or right I don’t think means anything - voters don’t care about policy that much. They say they do but elections are won with great candidates with great messaging. We didn’t have that the past three cycles. The political operatives chattering kind of just proves why we shouldn’t listen to any of them too much. They want to get an article written about them talking about all this insider crap. Good candidates gets good results. We should have won in 2016 but that was the beginning of the end of normal politics.
And elections are won when people are simply tired with the President and his party. Barack Obama could have spent most of 2008 vacationing in Hawaii and we wouldn't have lost because the country was done with George W Bush and the War in Iraq. Not to mention the Wall Street collapse.
And yet in internal polling she was losing with that message
It doesn't work in areas that care more about potties than pot holes, sadly that's a lot of Americans
I don’t think anyone here is wrongly suggesting that rural areas will start suddenly having a majority of people voting for Democrats, but it’s about inches in a political world this closely divided. Getting 1-2% more of the vote in Republican areas is a massive impact and could be the difference between a loss or victory in a countless number of states both up and down the ballot.
I don’t doubt that 90% of Republican or R-leaning voters love this red meat attack against everything not white and conservative, especially transgender Americans. But there are still persuadable voters out there. If we can convince even a small number that the GOP is only focused on enriching themselves and controlling our private lives instead of fixing the problems, that’s more voters than we have now and is a good thing.
This all assumes it does work, which we don’t know right now, TBD on that one, but it did work in the Omaha Mayoral race, there can be no doubt about that.
Using that kind of strategy ("[insert Republican candidate's name] is focused on potties, [insert Democrat's name] is focused on potties" would help us a LOT in North Carolina.
It already started to happen during Obama’s 2nd term when he pushed the toxic chained CPI and TPP.
I have no idea what was going on through his head but Obama would have given Democrats less problems in 2016 had he pushed against chained CPI and the TPP.
Instead, Hillary Clinton had to go against the TPP even after she was initially for it. Trump hammered her and the Democrats on this issue constantly.
The good ‘ol days of triangulating Democratic presidents.
unlike slick willie, president obama didn't need to triangulate in 2015-16 and say what you will about the tenets of triangulation but at least its ethos is finding popular ground. tpp was critically unpopular and hurt labor-cedeing the mahoning valley for a generation to please wall street
Chained CPI was popular ground?
i did not know that, i thought most majority of voters instinctively would be against it but had no support for the thought people were that defecit focused. nvm very clintonian
Obama actually got pretty good shit done on foreign policy in his 2nd term thanks to John Kerry being Secretary of State. No disrespect to Hillary Clinton but under Kerry’s leadership, we had the following:
-Iran Nuclear Deal
-Normalizing relations with Cuba for the first time since the early 1960’s.
-Stronger progress in relations with Israel and Palestine. Could have possibly gotten a peace deal if Clinton was elected POTUS (I would have said she should have kept Kerry on as SoS if this was the case).
Otherwise, domestic relations was the biggest liability for Obama.
TPP, and free trade in general, probably look better now in comparison to Trump tariffs. Chained CPI not so much, especially with higher inflation.
And it's not as if Obama's (and Clinton's, and Biden's) left wing critics have any great record of national political success.
I would agree with you on this although if Trump were not elected, then how would the US have handled the issue of trade after Obama left office if Clinton became POTUS?
The TPP had a lack of real transparency and was observed to have given corporations more power to be dominant. Trump killing the TPP was the best thing to happen for Democrats as free trade was pushed more by them for a long time before.
What's the solution? What would have kept dems from bleeding so many voters? It's overly simplistic to blame Obama and Clinton.
If we're talking about young voters, Chained CPI and the TPP were not issues that young voters were impacted by the most. They didn't directly affect them, at least not if you were a millennial who graduated from college during the mid 2000's to early 2010's.
The main issue for young voters that President Obama didn't address was holding the corporate powers that be in Wall Street accountable for their contributions to the 2008 financial crisis. When Occupy Wall Street emerged in 2011 and the energy contributed to Obama winning re-election, the movement fizzled out and Obama as POTUS really didn't do anything in his 2nd term on reforming Wall Street. Naturally, in 2013 he had a divided Congress to deal with as the House was run by the GOP whereas the Senate was controlled by Democrats.
Of course, we had the Dodd Frank Act that was signed into law by Obama. However, Glass Steagall not being reintroduced by the Democratic Party in Congress at any point in 2009-2010 was a real problem that Democrats should have already dealt with when they had the chance. Warren Buffett would have supported this as he’s not a fan of the banking system post-Glass Steagall repeal back in 1999.
One issue Obama did do great with in his 2nd term as POTUS was holding for-profit universities accountable. Lots of them, including ITT Tech, were forced to close down due to fraud, something the U.S. Education Department did a deep investigation into. This wasn't financial services-based but this kind of energy with the Education Department going after for-profit colleges should have been emphasized on Wall Street.
I don't put Clinton to blame for what happened in the Obama years. She was just a Democratic Presidential Candidate and never had the chance to be POTUS. I would have scrutinized her as POTUS far more than as a candidate.
Obama stacked his cabinet with New Democrats and hardcore neolibs like Emanuel unlike Biden. He should have pushed much harder for a big beautiful stimulus.
Yes although I think in retrospect if we’re talking about a larger stimulus, it would have been more effective if at least the following occurred:
1) UBI related payments. They would have increased consumer spending and given a boost to economic development more quickly.
2) Considerably more infrastructure and road repairs than what was in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.
A new Emerson College Polling/PIX11/The Hill survey of New York City’s Democratic Primary for Mayor finds 35% of voters support former Governor Andrew Cuomo on the first round of the ballot, 23% support State Rep. Zohran Mamdani, 11% support Comptroller Brad Lander, 9% former State Rep. Scott Stringer, 8% City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, and 5% State Senator Zellnor Myrie.
After ten rounds of rank choice simulation, Cuomo passes the 50% threshold with 54%, and Mamdani ends with 46%.
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/nyc-2025-poll/
That's certainly a narrowing
Is this the first poll that indicates something other than an all but certain Cuomo win?
Maybe the vote will consolidate on time! Not holding my breath, but it'd be nice if Adams was replaced with someone that isn't also terrible.
Getting awfully late early for anyone to get past Mamdani for 2nd place if this poll is correct. Doubling the support for any other non-Cuomo candidate would require some of them dropping out or a major scandal/gaffe with such a crowded field and only 9% of voters left undecided. Hopefully further polls also show the Cuomo-not Cuomo matchup narrowing.