Consumer spending in several income segments has been in decline for a long time, stretching well back into last year. It’s being propped up by upper and extra-upper income earners and spenders right now but that’s a thin slice of overall consumers
That's why they are betting the house on big tech, because that's where the remaining spending is. 300k federal workers laid off probably didn't do great things for middle- and upper-middle-class spending, so if the big tech bubble pops, the economy is in big trouble.
I remember graduating college during the peak of the Great Recession in 2009. I was able to find part-time work, but the hours were terrible (and the companies would ghost you or give you the runaround even then). I was stuck in that job until late 2015 when I went to a different company for a similar job with better pay and schedule.
I wasn't able to get full-time work until 2022. It's not true for everybody but I was only able to change jobs during Democratic presidencies. I was stuck during GOP recessions.
My MAGA brother earlier this summer asked me "why do you hate Trump? I may not have liked Obama but he was a smart guy. Trump's a smart guy". That's the kind of thinking that goes through their thick heads.
The cognitive dissonance is real with TACO voters. Folks like my brother won't admit their mistake unless it hits them personally.
Last Friday's reports from the Bureau of Economic Analysis show that in August, for the third consecutive month, Americans spent more money than they earned, in short, spending down their savings.
I agree...I think this poll is 1) a mixed bag of results and 2) very far out ahead of the actual election anyway. Remember, midterms waves are typically a bit slow to develop, but all of the leading indicators are there for us.
Lakshya Jain, co-founder of Split Ticket, said on a podcast interview with Greg Sargent that Democrats are leading with independent voters on polling. He says TACO is in much bigger danger than he was in 2018 now because of the tariffs and how he tried to cancel Jimmy Kimmel.
Former Senator John E. Sununu leads 2014 GOP nominee Scott Brown for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in 2026, both of whom trail Congressman Chris Pappas for the general election. Granite Staters are divided on whether Governor Kelly Ayotte deserves another term in office but very few have an opinion on two prospective Democratic candidates for governor. In New Hampshire's First Congressional District, most likely Republican voters are undecided on whom they will support, while Democratic primary voters show a preference for Stefany Shaheen, though more than half remain undecided. In the Second District, incumbent Democratic Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander leads in a possible rematch of the 2024 race with Republican Lily Tang Williams.
Department
Granite State Poll
Publication Date
9-29-2025
Not a very good poll for Democrats. Pappas has net negative -7 favorability.
People are not happy with democrats lately. He's polling ahead, and decisively, I'll take it as good. And Goodlander is absolutely dominating in her seat.
Keep in mind this is a state that Harris won by 3 points and HRC won by less than half a point. NH has been happy with our local republican governance, repeatedly reelecting Sununu with big margins and easily electing Ayotte. While dems won every presidential election here starting with 2004, it is not a blue state. It's a competitive state with just enough of a blue tint that we will probably win federal races as long as we're not being crushed nationally.
I'd also look at the actual numbers on approval. Pappas is at 32% approve, 39% disapprove, 19% neutral, 8% don't know. That's over a quarter of the polling group that aren't giving a good or bad response. It's not a bad spot to be.
I think the last trifecta we held was after the 2008 elections.
Local/federal divergence is small but the state is close enough for it to be impactful. I think that largely comes down to the local republicans being quiet enough and "reasonable" sounding enough that they can split from the anti-intellectual federal republicans in the minds of enough voters.
The split is also magnified a bit by circumstance. If we had barely won the governor's race in 2016 instead of barely losing it, we'd have likely held onto the office for several terms successfully. Incumbent governors here are given a lot of leeway by voters. Lynch and Hassan both won reelection in the republican waves of 2010 and 2014, respectively. Just as Sununu won reelection in the democratic wave of 2018.
The last NH governor to lose reelection was Republican Craig Benson in 2004 after only one term, amidst what was obviously not a blue wave. It’s worth noting that the state sent an all-red delegation to Congress that year (for the last time to date) even as Bush narrowly fell short there.
In 2004 I had a teacher that was uniquely open about politics in class. After the election some of the class pestered him to tell us how he voted. He admitted, to our class of very anti-Bush millennials, that he had voted for Bush. Afterwards he was asked if he also voted for Benson, and he said no, with a comment that was to the effect of "I might be a republican but I'm not stupid."
I appreciate your enthusiasm, and the discussion is fine, but I really want to encourage you to actually read the Digest, because we wrote about the poll there. It can be confusing to fellow commenters if you present links as new news when they're already mentioned in the newsletter you're commenting on.
Thank you for the note. I actually did read the Digest before posting the poll. I was hoping to broaden the discussion to include Pappas' favorability and Stefany Shaheen's primary numbers as well.
With Robson and Biggs in the race, don't know how it shakes out. He seems to be less crazy than Biggs, so that will probably help Biggs in a three-way race.
Unclear what Scheikert's path to victory is, considering he won 43.6% of the vote in his 2022 primary and 62.7% in 2024. If your home turf isn't a reliable base, you aren't winning higher office.
"Castro has told me that along with the Senate, he would consider campaigns for attorney general or even lieutenant governor. O’Rourke wasn’t that specific, though it seemed obvious he preferred a Senate run. He also doesn’t see the logic of having all the formidable contenders in one primary race.
If O’Rourke doesn’t run statewide, that removes from the ballot a candidate with the potential to raise $100 million and connections all over the state, though he would help candidates through his political group Powered By People.
Another brewing situation involves U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett. The Dallas Democrat is considering whether to run for another term in Congress.
Crockett is also thinking about running for statewide office, with a Senate bid the most likely choice. She told me she won’t run for Senate unless data shows she could win a general election. A Texas Democrat hasn’t won a statewide race since 1994."
Beto can't win a statewide race anymore. If he had wanted to try again, he should have chosen his words more carefully, and it would have helped if he hadn't tried an absolutely politically stupid presidential run.
At this point, I recommend Beto go to academia. He’s had one too many elections where he lost as a high profile candidate and needs a better outlet for his agenda.
is leading a push to try to oust Maduro. The Pentagon has put 6,500 troops in the region and is drawing up possible operations against crime gangs in Venezuela. Opposition figures say they're talking to the US about plans. Our story:"
"Because administration officials assert Mr. Maduro sits atop Venezuela’s cartel network, they can argue that removing him from power is ultimately a counternarcotics operation.
Mr. Rubio repeatedly cites the Justice Department’s 2020 indictment of him and other Venezuelan officials on drug trafficking charges. He recently described Mr. Maduro as a “fugitive from American justice” and the head of “a terrorist organization and organized crime organization that have taken over a country.”
At the same time, two senior figures in Venezuela’s opposition say their movement has been planning for what to do if Mr. Maduro falls and have been talking with the Trump administration about that possibility."
6500 troops when Venezuela has an over 100,000 army is not going to do the job. And it's pretty telling when even Richard Grenell thinks it's a bad idea.
Venezuela’s army is an army only in the most liberal sense of the term but it also discounts the various paramilitaries and irregular forces that are even more loyal to Maduro - neither of which we have the logistics to actually do anything about ourselves, let alone with only half a division of Marines
Paul Finebaum states that he experienced an “awakening” following the death of Charlie Kirk that caused him to consider running for Alabama's open Senate seat. Does that mean that Finebaum, who is Jewish, has converted to Turning Point USA's version of Christianity?
He already has a slew of imitators, but they tend to underperform him *even when appearing on the same ballot.* No one seems to be able to serve up the same secret sauce, because no one else has the same "business genius" (LOL), years of tabloid/entertainment coverage, reality TV legacy, etc.
Now, another demagogue could absolutely rise on the right, but I suspect that person will be very different from Trump, and in ways that are basically impossible to predict (just as Trump's own political success—God, I hate typing that—was damn near impossible to predict).
I think it's the full, unlimited shamelessness that is the biggest part of the secret sauce. The imitators all have some degree of shame. They're willing to debase themselves and pretend otherwise to move up in politics, but the inauthentic nature of it is apparent on a base level - and they end up only able to do it partially instead of completely. That prevents them from making the imitation work.
Our norms and media systems have a lot of assumptions built around people being able to feel shame. When someone is functionally incapable of it, they can break the systems in a lot of ways.
Help me out here. Is there any scenario where the Democrats avoid being completely and unequivocally bulldozed in this shutdown that starts tomorrow? What's their leverage to accomplish anything other than humiliating surrender. I know the base wants a fight against Trump, but to what end? What's Trump's incentive to give them anything?
Yeah, it's a dilemma. I'd rather they try the 7-10 day extension to see if some credits can't be saved. However, healthcare costs spiking will backfire on Rs if they can't even get that. Let the people know what stagflation is really like.
Shutdowns look bad for the party in power. His incentive to let it end is obvious. How long it takes him to get to that point isn't obvious. Trump has a habit of backing down when actually challenged properly. Whether Schumer and Jeffries will follow through is another question entirely.
Ultimately it's the same question of why would Obama or Biden give anything to republicans when faced with a shutdown. Trump doesn't care at all about successful execution of government for the people, but he cares about appearances and he cares about power. A government in shutdown lowers his ability to use the powers of office.
A shutdown lowers his ability to use the powers of his office? That's certainly the opposite of what he's saying...and what Schumer was saying when he folded last spring, arguing that Trump got supersized power to slash and burn federal jobs during a shutdown.
(1) Firing people isn't the only power of the executive, (2) Trump lies, a lot, it's like his main thing, and (3) I've met soggy paper towels that were sturdier than Schumer, so I don't care what his justifications for preemptive surrender are.
Trump is using and abusing all of the powers of the executive office, and those rely on funding.
Historically every modern shutdown has reopened with all furloughed employees getting back pay. Trump doesn't have the authority to permanently fire federal employees if the government shuts down, and if he tries to then any agreement to reopen the government will inevitably include rehiring them before the courts sort it out anyway. It's a flimsy claim.
I guess we'll see. I certainly have my expectation for how this ends (after a week of ruthless federal job cut announcements, federal workers' unions plead Democrats to fold and they do, humiliatingly).....so I'd like to hear your alternative scenario where Democrats walk away from this with any kind of tactical victory beyond "planting the seed of health care premium increases in voters' minds for next year".
If the argument is that you think it’ll go poorly for us because democratic leadership will fold early in exchange for nothing… Then yes, I see that as very possible and agree with the logic if that is how it plays out.
If the argument is that we’ll look bad no matter what and we should fold now, then I disagree and think it’s unwise to cede claimed power to a would-be authoritarian that doesn’t have that power. We can come out well if we stand strong and recognize that republicans have more to lose from a shutdown when they’re the ones in charge.
Yep Schumer and Jefferies are playing this like it's 2015 and not 2025. They have knives to a gunfight. The ACA premium increases don't impact enough people across the spectrum to be politically salient and the issue of impoundments/recissions will have to be decided by the Supremes, at some point. They don't have the political leverage to be doing Custer's Last Stand.
I will say, any arguments that persisted to retain the filibuster are now dead as doornails. It's not long for this world.
In a sense, if we limit ourselves based off of when we can rely on SCOTUS doing the right thing, we might as well give up now.
Digging into it a bit more, I think it comes down to them not wanting to give rulings that could empower future democratic presidencies. This is the kind of scenario that I think would be hard to give their favored once-off, not-precedent rulings. When that's off the table they're more likely to do the right thing.
It also might simply never reach them in a practical sense. Shutdown happens, he fires people, district/circuit courts rule against him, government reopens weeks later with a passage requiring everyone to be rehired with backpay or similar. At that point it's all moot and SCOTUS wouldn't touch it.
Right on mootness. I'm not arguing to not do things based on the Supreme Court. Instead, we need to be prepared to fight them, too. Democratic Leadership should be leading demonstrations in the streets. But let's be very clear that this Supreme Court is partisan and not motivated by either the constitution or consistency and will not hesitate to apply completely different standards to a Democratic president or presidential candidate than they apply to a Republican one.
99% of the voters in 2026 will not remember who did what in the government shutdown talks unless we have a long and painful shutdown, which seems unlikely at this point. Furthermore, no one will blame the party that is out of power for any of this.
Yep. Republicans shut down the government around this time in 2013, took a lot of bad press for it (and were blamed in polls) and it was completely forgotten by November 2014.
That said, I don't want this to happen, and voters do have different expectations of the parties (Democrats are supposed to FiX tHiNgS even when they lack the numbers to do so; Republicans are expected to fling poo and break stuff). But I really don't think it will be a major focus in 2026.
The GOP also controlled just the House back in 2013 but not yet the Senate.
Being that the party has control over both chambers of Congress, the effect of the government shutdown is only going to add up as ammunition for Democrats. I do agree the shutdown won’t be the main focus of the midterms.
The good thing is that it highlights the health care cuts, so when people get hit with exorbitant premium increases next year, they'll know who to blame.
Sen. Mike Rounds is floating a one-year extension of soon-to-expire Affordable Care Act subsidies, followed by a one-year phasedown to return the tax credits to pre-pandemic levels.
always been my hope. Republicans watered down Biden policies after taking house in 2023 through debt negotiations. We take house and do the same thing to the medicaid snap cuts
The worst case scenario for this is probably just that we lose and everyone forgets about it by next year’s elections. The potential upside if we message well (which I admittedly am not confident that we will do) is that we can position the party as standing for protecting Americans’ healthcare and inject some energy into the opposition to Trump by showing that we aren’t just rolling over to him.
Would have been worth putting them on the table anyway, I think.
For the short term when we drop it as a demand it looks like a concession so we look better for media and base psychological purposes. Not worth a ton but it's better than nothing.
For the longer term, it would plant the seeds for doing something about tariffs after the midterms if we hold any levers of power.
Democrat Jon Rosenthal has announced that he is giving up his state House seat in northwest Houston to run for the Texas Railroad Commission, an agency that, despite its name, regulates the oil and gas industry and coal and uranium mining. No Democrat has been elected to it for several decades. To succeed him in the Texas House, Rosenthal has endorsed his former chief o staff, Odus Evbagharu. https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/29/jon-rosenthal-texas-railroad-commission-democrat-legislature-2026/
Is there anyone high profile they have in the wings to do that? I cannot think of anyone, although I admittedly care more about our southern neighbor's politics than our own.
I guess Scott Brown is enough of a sycophant that he could do it, and I can imagine him changing from the senate to governor race if John Sununu does jump in.
I think this would be an outright disaster for republicans if they did it. The best case scenario, if they try, for them is still bad: they try to unseat Ayotte but she survives the primary. She would be damaged from spending most of the election season securing her right flank and winning over the MAGA voter base, spending all of her fundraising on that. She'd lose the bigger than usual advantage that incumbents face in NH due to our extremely late primary.
OK, either way here she loses. She either doesn’t agree to redraw the map and potentially loses a GOP primary or gives in to Trump’s demands in a blue leaning state where she thrives on being a “different type of Republican” and is now seen as a rubber stamp for Trump and would have a very high chance of losing a general election.
Democrats need to move in Maryland and seriously consider adding a seat in Illinois (pushing back the filing and primary date if necessary) and Oregon. If declaring war on Portland, on top of what the Republicans may do in Indiana and New Hampshire, doesn’t move Tina Kotex to call for redistricting, she’s in the wrong line of work.
Maryland is a no brainer here. Not only can MD-01 made into at least a mid single digit Harris seat, MD-06 can move to a double digit Harris seat easily by unpacking MD-08. The only other seats that would need to take any hit in partisanship are the 80% Harris MD-07 and the 85% Harris MD-04. Those could both lose about 10 points in Dem performance and still be more than super safe.
Until it does we have no idea on how they'd rule. We cannot fail to act based on what we fear a court will do in response. Republicans win by doing whatever and hoping for court approval later. If we are in the emergency we know we all are in, we must act.
Fully agreed! I'm not counseling inaction. In fact, I'm irate that Democratic Congressional leaders aren't demanding an end to all kinds of authoritarian abuses in exchange for voting to keep the government open. They ought to be leading the resistance to all facets of this unconstitutional regime, very much including the Supreme Court. But let's not be naive about what we're facing. And specifically in terms of Maryland, hasn't there been a previous relevant ruling by their Supreme Court? There really -is- no point in putting forth a blatant partisan gerrymander in that state if we -know- it'll be shot down.
i agree that the maryland supreme court is likely to rule the way you suggest, and i agree with spirit of your comment. I hesitate to commit to it as good strategy but why not have gov moore threaten to expand the court and the legislative leaders announce the gerrymander or vice versa. keep it separate and apply the maximum amount of pressure on the maryland supreme court the same way any respective republican state goverment would do to us in a reverse situation. Again major hesitation calling for court expansion because its not a winning issue nationally, but "its maryland" just do it is also compelling
We hold 61.7% of the OR state house seats, and 60% of the state senate seats. A quorum requires 2/3 in attendance. So we have 3/5 majorities but not the 2/3 majorities to avoid a walkout situation.
I'm not sure going for 6-0 in a Harris +14 state is a terribly safe idea; a 5-1 gerrymander nearly backfired in 2022, albeit because Portland wasn't split up
my take on things FWIW: Atkins had three bases of support: the LGBTQ folk, the San Diego folk, and some sort of lane based on her being a moderate with titles (same lane as Xavier Becerra). Neither LGBTQ nor SD were big enough. She never did anything during her time as Senate Pro Tem to make a name for herself beyond simply possessing the titles. I've heard her speak several times and usually dozed off once she got beyond her origin story (which is actually quite compelling). At the Cal Dem Party conventions, she always got standing room only receptions at LGBTQ caucus but never tried to visit, e.g., the environmental or progressive caucuses.
I know EXACTLY why she didn't try to visit the enviro caucus. I'm the chair and I make candidates sign the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge, so some candidates elect to take the money rather than show up.
Right now, Katie Porter is leading the race and with her already having polled significantly higher than the rest of the pack, she’s in a better position to maintain her momentum than before.
was at a pleasant dinner the other night with people that know more than me and almost everyone not being a typical doomcasting democrat was in the mikie by 3-5 camp. (i hold out pathetic hope for a bigger than presidential win)
Consumer spending in several income segments has been in decline for a long time, stretching well back into last year. It’s being propped up by upper and extra-upper income earners and spenders right now but that’s a thin slice of overall consumers
That's why they are betting the house on big tech, because that's where the remaining spending is. 300k federal workers laid off probably didn't do great things for middle- and upper-middle-class spending, so if the big tech bubble pops, the economy is in big trouble.
I remember graduating college during the peak of the Great Recession in 2009. I was able to find part-time work, but the hours were terrible (and the companies would ghost you or give you the runaround even then). I was stuck in that job until late 2015 when I went to a different company for a similar job with better pay and schedule.
I wasn't able to get full-time work until 2022. It's not true for everybody but I was only able to change jobs during Democratic presidencies. I was stuck during GOP recessions.
My MAGA brother earlier this summer asked me "why do you hate Trump? I may not have liked Obama but he was a smart guy. Trump's a smart guy". That's the kind of thinking that goes through their thick heads.
The cognitive dissonance is real with TACO voters. Folks like my brother won't admit their mistake unless it hits them personally.
I don't know how anyone with a functioning brain can listen to Trump speak on literally any topic and think he's a "smart guy"
There are a lot of stupid people in this country.
Last Friday's reports from the Bureau of Economic Analysis show that in August, for the third consecutive month, Americans spent more money than they earned, in short, spending down their savings.
Times/Siena poll of RVs:
Trump approval 43-54
GCB 47(D)-45(R) Latinos 60(D)-28(R)
Right track/wrong track 36-58
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/09/30/polls/times-siena-poll-registered-voter-crosstabs.html
Not amazing for us
I wonder if LV would be better
Interestingly, the poll has more Republicans than Democrats in their modeled electorate. I suspect the actual electorate for 2026 will be different.
I agree...I think this poll is 1) a mixed bag of results and 2) very far out ahead of the actual election anyway. Remember, midterms waves are typically a bit slow to develop, but all of the leading indicators are there for us.
I believe that Nate Cohen believes that.
They found a 2 point Republican edge (32R-30D-32I), which became a 1 point Democratic advantage when independents’ leans were factored in.
So a possible republican candidate for governor who promotes retribution?
Who?
presumably John James based on the digest.
I'm so sorry that other site has been stealing your content. Terrible. Unforgivable.
Lakshya Jain, co-founder of Split Ticket, said on a podcast interview with Greg Sargent that Democrats are leading with independent voters on polling. He says TACO is in much bigger danger than he was in 2018 now because of the tariffs and how he tried to cancel Jimmy Kimmel.
https://newrepublic.com/article/201035/transcript-trump-failing-unpopular-brutal-new-polls-confirm
He said to just expect a Democratic House by January 2027 and that Democrats need to keep faith and continue pushing back.
Thanks for the link; I'll check it out later. But short version: did he mention the Senate, too?
https://scholars.unh.edu/survey_center_polls/888/
Early Look at 2026 NH Races 9/29/2025
Authors
UNH Survey Center
Abstract
Former Senator John E. Sununu leads 2014 GOP nominee Scott Brown for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in 2026, both of whom trail Congressman Chris Pappas for the general election. Granite Staters are divided on whether Governor Kelly Ayotte deserves another term in office but very few have an opinion on two prospective Democratic candidates for governor. In New Hampshire's First Congressional District, most likely Republican voters are undecided on whom they will support, while Democratic primary voters show a preference for Stefany Shaheen, though more than half remain undecided. In the Second District, incumbent Democratic Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander leads in a possible rematch of the 2024 race with Republican Lily Tang Williams.
Department
Granite State Poll
Publication Date
9-29-2025
Not a very good poll for Democrats. Pappas has net negative -7 favorability.
it's not a good poll when we are up over the scion of a very popular nh family?
He can gain, he has -4 net favorability.
And 52% of the vote against Scott Brown.
I don't accept your premise, and I don't know what one candidate's favorability index has to do with it.
It's New Hampshire, seems like a good poll to me.
People are not happy with democrats lately. He's polling ahead, and decisively, I'll take it as good. And Goodlander is absolutely dominating in her seat.
Keep in mind this is a state that Harris won by 3 points and HRC won by less than half a point. NH has been happy with our local republican governance, repeatedly reelecting Sununu with big margins and easily electing Ayotte. While dems won every presidential election here starting with 2004, it is not a blue state. It's a competitive state with just enough of a blue tint that we will probably win federal races as long as we're not being crushed nationally.
I'd also look at the actual numbers on approval. Pappas is at 32% approve, 39% disapprove, 19% neutral, 8% don't know. That's over a quarter of the polling group that aren't giving a good or bad response. It's not a bad spot to be.
When did Democrats last hold the trifecta in NH? Why does NH lean R locally and lean D federally?
They don't necessarily believe it. Lots of Republican politicians don't believe in the shit they're always opportunistically shoveling.
I think the last trifecta we held was after the 2008 elections.
Local/federal divergence is small but the state is close enough for it to be impactful. I think that largely comes down to the local republicans being quiet enough and "reasonable" sounding enough that they can split from the anti-intellectual federal republicans in the minds of enough voters.
The split is also magnified a bit by circumstance. If we had barely won the governor's race in 2016 instead of barely losing it, we'd have likely held onto the office for several terms successfully. Incumbent governors here are given a lot of leeway by voters. Lynch and Hassan both won reelection in the republican waves of 2010 and 2014, respectively. Just as Sununu won reelection in the democratic wave of 2018.
The last NH governor to lose reelection was Republican Craig Benson in 2004 after only one term, amidst what was obviously not a blue wave. It’s worth noting that the state sent an all-red delegation to Congress that year (for the last time to date) even as Bush narrowly fell short there.
In 2004 I had a teacher that was uniquely open about politics in class. After the election some of the class pestered him to tell us how he voted. He admitted, to our class of very anti-Bush millennials, that he had voted for Bush. Afterwards he was asked if he also voted for Benson, and he said no, with a comment that was to the effect of "I might be a republican but I'm not stupid."
Benson was uniquely unpopular here.
2007-10 was the only Democratic trifecta in NH since the 19th century.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, and the discussion is fine, but I really want to encourage you to actually read the Digest, because we wrote about the poll there. It can be confusing to fellow commenters if you present links as new news when they're already mentioned in the newsletter you're commenting on.
Thank you for the note. I actually did read the Digest before posting the poll. I was hoping to broaden the discussion to include Pappas' favorability and Stefany Shaheen's primary numbers as well.
Understood. In that case, it would be helpful if you referenced something along the lines of, "Re that UNH poll in today's Digest...". Appreciate it.
YAY Schweikert runs for AZ GOV abandons reelection to Congress. Swing seat open https://x.com/PatrickSvitek/status/1973023645640573189
The likes of Bacon, Schweikert, and Gosar retiring is a five-alarm fire for the GOP going into the 2026 midterms.
Gosar is retiring too?
Isn't he also running for AZ GOV too?
Probably being recalled to his home planet - we know he’s not going to a family reunion.
He must think he has a possibility of winning the gubernatorial primary. Why are you sure he can't?
With Robson and Biggs in the race, don't know how it shakes out. He seems to be less crazy than Biggs, so that will probably help Biggs in a three-way race.
Anybody have a preference between our candidates? Looks like 5 people running now but that could change with the seat being open.
Not sure. Shah and Galan-Woods are the frontrunners. Shah came close last time but maybe should give Galan-Woods a chance this time around.
Shah had a D+4 WAR
https://split-ticket.org/2024-house-wins-above-replacement-war/
Yeah, we did so poorly on the top of the ticket in Arizona that it placed even the over-performing swing seats out of reach.
I like Marlene, but either her or Shah will be fine.
The split primary result last year was frustrating.
I think that's where I land as well.
What district is Nez running in? Get lots of fundraiser texts from him.
This counts as a major canary in the coal mine
Score!
Win those seats! Win those seats!
Unclear what Scheikert's path to victory is, considering he won 43.6% of the vote in his 2022 primary and 62.7% in 2024. If your home turf isn't a reliable base, you aren't winning higher office.
"Castro has told me that along with the Senate, he would consider campaigns for attorney general or even lieutenant governor. O’Rourke wasn’t that specific, though it seemed obvious he preferred a Senate run. He also doesn’t see the logic of having all the formidable contenders in one primary race.
If O’Rourke doesn’t run statewide, that removes from the ballot a candidate with the potential to raise $100 million and connections all over the state, though he would help candidates through his political group Powered By People.
Another brewing situation involves U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett. The Dallas Democrat is considering whether to run for another term in Congress.
Crockett is also thinking about running for statewide office, with a Senate bid the most likely choice. She told me she won’t run for Senate unless data shows she could win a general election. A Texas Democrat hasn’t won a statewide race since 1994."
https://archive.ph/lHpwc
Saw someone quoting someone else's transphobic comments on here once without quotation marks and about came unglued.
Beto can't win a statewide race anymore. If he had wanted to try again, he should have chosen his words more carefully, and it would have helped if he hadn't tried an absolutely politically stupid presidential run.
At this point, I recommend Beto go to academia. He’s had one too many elections where he lost as a high profile candidate and needs a better outlet for his agenda.
Yes. Or a think tank.
Hmmm. A think tank might be a great use of Beto’s skill.
I mean, he got his BA at Columbia University so with an Ivy League guy like him, he should be able to land a job like this easily if he’s interested.
"NEW:
@marcorubio
is leading a push to try to oust Maduro. The Pentagon has put 6,500 troops in the region and is drawing up possible operations against crime gangs in Venezuela. Opposition figures say they're talking to the US about plans. Our story:"
https://x.com/ewong/status/1972841965512462404
"Because administration officials assert Mr. Maduro sits atop Venezuela’s cartel network, they can argue that removing him from power is ultimately a counternarcotics operation.
Mr. Rubio repeatedly cites the Justice Department’s 2020 indictment of him and other Venezuelan officials on drug trafficking charges. He recently described Mr. Maduro as a “fugitive from American justice” and the head of “a terrorist organization and organized crime organization that have taken over a country.”
At the same time, two senior figures in Venezuela’s opposition say their movement has been planning for what to do if Mr. Maduro falls and have been talking with the Trump administration about that possibility."
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/29/us/politics/maduro-venezuela-trump-rubio.html?unlocked_article_code=1.p08.mC4H.a749_xlrCJmm
We are pursuing regime change in Venezuela.
6500 troops when Venezuela has an over 100,000 army is not going to do the job. And it's pretty telling when even Richard Grenell thinks it's a bad idea.
Venezuela’s army is an army only in the most liberal sense of the term but it also discounts the various paramilitaries and irregular forces that are even more loyal to Maduro - neither of which we have the logistics to actually do anything about ourselves, let alone with only half a division of Marines
Alas no Judith Miller for this admin.
Intervening in Latin American has always been such a long term success for us. /s
Somewhere, Smedley Butler’s ghost is screaming in frustration
Paul Finebaum states that he experienced an “awakening” following the death of Charlie Kirk that caused him to consider running for Alabama's open Senate seat. Does that mean that Finebaum, who is Jewish, has converted to Turning Point USA's version of Christianity?
Who knows. He’d probably be less odious than Tuberville in the Senate, ironically
It would be hard not to be.
I wouldn’t bet on that - ever watch his “show?” It’s a brutal assault on all the senses.
oh its not that bad! but my hope that he's a secret democrat is dead and I will no longer listen to his show
Some commentators are calling it a "Great Awakening" for MAGA which may help it outlast the death of Trump or Vance's defeat.
Oh please. MAGA as presently constituted cannot survive Trump because it is, first and foremost, a personality cult.
We really have no idea how things will shake out once he leaves this mortal coil.
I tend to agree that Trump is key but that wont stop these guys from putting on their best Trump routine but it just wont hit the same.
He already has a slew of imitators, but they tend to underperform him *even when appearing on the same ballot.* No one seems to be able to serve up the same secret sauce, because no one else has the same "business genius" (LOL), years of tabloid/entertainment coverage, reality TV legacy, etc.
Now, another demagogue could absolutely rise on the right, but I suspect that person will be very different from Trump, and in ways that are basically impossible to predict (just as Trump's own political success—God, I hate typing that—was damn near impossible to predict).
We knew he was capable of trying but it was sad that the American public bought it.
I think it's the full, unlimited shamelessness that is the biggest part of the secret sauce. The imitators all have some degree of shame. They're willing to debase themselves and pretend otherwise to move up in politics, but the inauthentic nature of it is apparent on a base level - and they end up only able to do it partially instead of completely. That prevents them from making the imitation work.
Our norms and media systems have a lot of assumptions built around people being able to feel shame. When someone is functionally incapable of it, they can break the systems in a lot of ways.
hooooww cooonnnviiieeenttt! - church lady.
Help me out here. Is there any scenario where the Democrats avoid being completely and unequivocally bulldozed in this shutdown that starts tomorrow? What's their leverage to accomplish anything other than humiliating surrender. I know the base wants a fight against Trump, but to what end? What's Trump's incentive to give them anything?
Yeah, it's a dilemma. I'd rather they try the 7-10 day extension to see if some credits can't be saved. However, healthcare costs spiking will backfire on Rs if they can't even get that. Let the people know what stagflation is really like.
Shutdowns look bad for the party in power. His incentive to let it end is obvious. How long it takes him to get to that point isn't obvious. Trump has a habit of backing down when actually challenged properly. Whether Schumer and Jeffries will follow through is another question entirely.
Ultimately it's the same question of why would Obama or Biden give anything to republicans when faced with a shutdown. Trump doesn't care at all about successful execution of government for the people, but he cares about appearances and he cares about power. A government in shutdown lowers his ability to use the powers of office.
A shutdown lowers his ability to use the powers of his office? That's certainly the opposite of what he's saying...and what Schumer was saying when he folded last spring, arguing that Trump got supersized power to slash and burn federal jobs during a shutdown.
(1) Firing people isn't the only power of the executive, (2) Trump lies, a lot, it's like his main thing, and (3) I've met soggy paper towels that were sturdier than Schumer, so I don't care what his justifications for preemptive surrender are.
Trump is using and abusing all of the powers of the executive office, and those rely on funding.
Historically every modern shutdown has reopened with all furloughed employees getting back pay. Trump doesn't have the authority to permanently fire federal employees if the government shuts down, and if he tries to then any agreement to reopen the government will inevitably include rehiring them before the courts sort it out anyway. It's a flimsy claim.
I guess we'll see. I certainly have my expectation for how this ends (after a week of ruthless federal job cut announcements, federal workers' unions plead Democrats to fold and they do, humiliatingly).....so I'd like to hear your alternative scenario where Democrats walk away from this with any kind of tactical victory beyond "planting the seed of health care premium increases in voters' minds for next year".
If the argument is that you think it’ll go poorly for us because democratic leadership will fold early in exchange for nothing… Then yes, I see that as very possible and agree with the logic if that is how it plays out.
If the argument is that we’ll look bad no matter what and we should fold now, then I disagree and think it’s unwise to cede claimed power to a would-be authoritarian that doesn’t have that power. We can come out well if we stand strong and recognize that republicans have more to lose from a shutdown when they’re the ones in charge.
Yep Schumer and Jefferies are playing this like it's 2015 and not 2025. They have knives to a gunfight. The ACA premium increases don't impact enough people across the spectrum to be politically salient and the issue of impoundments/recissions will have to be decided by the Supremes, at some point. They don't have the political leverage to be doing Custer's Last Stand.
I will say, any arguments that persisted to retain the filibuster are now dead as doornails. It's not long for this world.
What makes you think the Supreme Court would suddenly decide his power to fire people is limited?
In a sense, if we limit ourselves based off of when we can rely on SCOTUS doing the right thing, we might as well give up now.
Digging into it a bit more, I think it comes down to them not wanting to give rulings that could empower future democratic presidencies. This is the kind of scenario that I think would be hard to give their favored once-off, not-precedent rulings. When that's off the table they're more likely to do the right thing.
It also might simply never reach them in a practical sense. Shutdown happens, he fires people, district/circuit courts rule against him, government reopens weeks later with a passage requiring everyone to be rehired with backpay or similar. At that point it's all moot and SCOTUS wouldn't touch it.
Right on mootness. I'm not arguing to not do things based on the Supreme Court. Instead, we need to be prepared to fight them, too. Democratic Leadership should be leading demonstrations in the streets. But let's be very clear that this Supreme Court is partisan and not motivated by either the constitution or consistency and will not hesitate to apply completely different standards to a Democratic president or presidential candidate than they apply to a Republican one.
Let's not use Custer's Last Stand as an analogy for anything, keeping the history in mind.
99% of the voters in 2026 will not remember who did what in the government shutdown talks unless we have a long and painful shutdown, which seems unlikely at this point. Furthermore, no one will blame the party that is out of power for any of this.
Yep. Republicans shut down the government around this time in 2013, took a lot of bad press for it (and were blamed in polls) and it was completely forgotten by November 2014.
That said, I don't want this to happen, and voters do have different expectations of the parties (Democrats are supposed to FiX tHiNgS even when they lack the numbers to do so; Republicans are expected to fling poo and break stuff). But I really don't think it will be a major focus in 2026.
The GOP also controlled just the House back in 2013 but not yet the Senate.
Being that the party has control over both chambers of Congress, the effect of the government shutdown is only going to add up as ammunition for Democrats. I do agree the shutdown won’t be the main focus of the midterms.
The good thing is that it highlights the health care cuts, so when people get hit with exorbitant premium increases next year, they'll know who to blame.
Sen. Mike Rounds is floating a one-year extension of soon-to-expire Affordable Care Act subsidies, followed by a one-year phasedown to return the tax credits to pre-pandemic levels.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/09/30/congress/gop-senator-pitches-off-ramp-for-impasse-over-obamacare-tax-credits-00587962
Could be an offramp.
An off-ramp that will put the pain until after 2026 elections?
That's a no. Schumer and Jeffries need to use every bit of leverage they can get, play hardball.
And, depending on the election results, may put it off for the duration of this administration and beyond.
always been my hope. Republicans watered down Biden policies after taking house in 2023 through debt negotiations. We take house and do the same thing to the medicaid snap cuts
The worst case scenario for this is probably just that we lose and everyone forgets about it by next year’s elections. The potential upside if we message well (which I admittedly am not confident that we will do) is that we can position the party as standing for protecting Americans’ healthcare and inject some energy into the opposition to Trump by showing that we aren’t just rolling over to him.
Why not center this shutdown on tariffs rather than Healthcare?
Way greater likelihood of actually extracting something viable, since tariffs are Trump’s crown Jewel (of poop)
We really should have shut down the government over tariffs earlier in the year when they were throwing the stock market into chaos.
Yeah, don’t think we have as much leverage in that specific item now.
Would have been worth putting them on the table anyway, I think.
For the short term when we drop it as a demand it looks like a concession so we look better for media and base psychological purposes. Not worth a ton but it's better than nothing.
For the longer term, it would plant the seeds for doing something about tariffs after the midterms if we hold any levers of power.
Democrat Jon Rosenthal has announced that he is giving up his state House seat in northwest Houston to run for the Texas Railroad Commission, an agency that, despite its name, regulates the oil and gas industry and coal and uranium mining. No Democrat has been elected to it for several decades. To succeed him in the Texas House, Rosenthal has endorsed his former chief o staff, Odus Evbagharu. https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/29/jon-rosenthal-texas-railroad-commission-democrat-legislature-2026/
FYI, Jon Rosenthal is a state representative, not a member of Congress.
Oops, you are right. Thanks for catching that.
IL-8:
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000199-7dbe-d096-a9df-ffbe85d80000
Don't know if anyone mentioned this, but here's an internal poll from former Rep. Melissa Bean:
- Melissa Bean, 10%
- Junaid Ahmed, 8%
- Kevin Morrison, 5%
- Yasmeen Bankole, 3%
- Dan Tully, 3%
- Other, 3%
- Undecided, 68%
Looks like she's trying to get some money in behind her, since many of the other candidates have good fundraising/endorsements already - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Illinois#District_8
I’m curious that Ahmed is doing so well. He’s the progressive here, and he hasn’t held office before.
Appears to be a good fundraiser - saw an article from 2022 when he ran for the seat that he raised over a million.
I had heard that. Seems it’s true.
I didn’t know she was thinking about running.
Not just thinking about it, she's in
Either Ahmed or Morrison would be fine here. Bean is out-of-step for this seat.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/30/redistricting-republican-loyalty-test-trump-00584932?
Trump’s team is weighing a primary challenge against New Hampshire governor Kelly Ayotte if she doesn’t redraw her state’s congressional lines.
And if she bows down to Trump on this she can be tagged as being a rubber stamp for Trump for the next year.
Is there anyone high profile they have in the wings to do that? I cannot think of anyone, although I admittedly care more about our southern neighbor's politics than our own.
I guess Scott Brown is enough of a sycophant that he could do it, and I can imagine him changing from the senate to governor race if John Sununu does jump in.
I think this would be an outright disaster for republicans if they did it. The best case scenario, if they try, for them is still bad: they try to unseat Ayotte but she survives the primary. She would be damaged from spending most of the election season securing her right flank and winning over the MAGA voter base, spending all of her fundraising on that. She'd lose the bigger than usual advantage that incumbents face in NH due to our extremely late primary.
Does anyone in NH care about moves within the state?
OK, either way here she loses. She either doesn’t agree to redraw the map and potentially loses a GOP primary or gives in to Trump’s demands in a blue leaning state where she thrives on being a “different type of Republican” and is now seen as a rubber stamp for Trump and would have a very high chance of losing a general election.
Democrats need to move in Maryland and seriously consider adding a seat in Illinois (pushing back the filing and primary date if necessary) and Oregon. If declaring war on Portland, on top of what the Republicans may do in Indiana and New Hampshire, doesn’t move Tina Kotex to call for redistricting, she’s in the wrong line of work.
Maryland is a no brainer here. Not only can MD-01 made into at least a mid single digit Harris seat, MD-06 can move to a double digit Harris seat easily by unpacking MD-08. The only other seats that would need to take any hit in partisanship are the 80% Harris MD-07 and the 85% Harris MD-04. Those could both lose about 10 points in Dem performance and still be more than super safe.
Wouldn't the Maryland Supreme Court annul partisan redistricting?
Until it does we have no idea on how they'd rule. We cannot fail to act based on what we fear a court will do in response. Republicans win by doing whatever and hoping for court approval later. If we are in the emergency we know we all are in, we must act.
Fully agreed! I'm not counseling inaction. In fact, I'm irate that Democratic Congressional leaders aren't demanding an end to all kinds of authoritarian abuses in exchange for voting to keep the government open. They ought to be leading the resistance to all facets of this unconstitutional regime, very much including the Supreme Court. But let's not be naive about what we're facing. And specifically in terms of Maryland, hasn't there been a previous relevant ruling by their Supreme Court? There really -is- no point in putting forth a blatant partisan gerrymander in that state if we -know- it'll be shot down.
i agree that the maryland supreme court is likely to rule the way you suggest, and i agree with spirit of your comment. I hesitate to commit to it as good strategy but why not have gov moore threaten to expand the court and the legislative leaders announce the gerrymander or vice versa. keep it separate and apply the maximum amount of pressure on the maryland supreme court the same way any respective republican state goverment would do to us in a reverse situation. Again major hesitation calling for court expansion because its not a winning issue nationally, but "its maryland" just do it is also compelling
There was an adverse ruling in a lower court and Dems didn't appeal, so Supreme Court hasn't weighed in.
Moore has the power to remove a judge - he should send the message to Hogan’s lackeys on the court that ALL options are on the table.
Doesn't Oregon still have the risk of republican walkout? I assume they'd actually follow through indefinitely, unlike Texas dems.
Doesn’t Oregon have a supermajority?
Checked just now.
We hold 61.7% of the OR state house seats, and 60% of the state senate seats. A quorum requires 2/3 in attendance. So we have 3/5 majorities but not the 2/3 majorities to avoid a walkout situation.
I'm not sure going for 6-0 in a Harris +14 state is a terribly safe idea; a 5-1 gerrymander nearly backfired in 2022, albeit because Portland wasn't split up
OR-03 could be unpacked quite a bit.
It was due to the Manchin of Oregon, the putrid DINO Schrader not retiring and letting a more sensible moderate replace him.
I was more so thinking of nearly losing Oregon's 6th
Bring it on!
If this helps Democrats get control over the Governor’s mansion, then all the merrier.
I’m sure Chris Sununu is relieved that he isn’t running for anything in 2026 or currently being in office.
"Why Toni Atkins’ exit from the California governor’s race is a bigger deal than it seems"
https://archive.ph/aFAUX
“I’m not 100% sure Alex (Padilla) gets in,” she said. “So I think a little time is warranted. Stay tuned.”
my take on things FWIW: Atkins had three bases of support: the LGBTQ folk, the San Diego folk, and some sort of lane based on her being a moderate with titles (same lane as Xavier Becerra). Neither LGBTQ nor SD were big enough. She never did anything during her time as Senate Pro Tem to make a name for herself beyond simply possessing the titles. I've heard her speak several times and usually dozed off once she got beyond her origin story (which is actually quite compelling). At the Cal Dem Party conventions, she always got standing room only receptions at LGBTQ caucus but never tried to visit, e.g., the environmental or progressive caucuses.
Why do you suppose she didn't?
I know EXACTLY why she didn't try to visit the enviro caucus. I'm the chair and I make candidates sign the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge, so some candidates elect to take the money rather than show up.
That should be condemned.
Right now, Katie Porter is leading the race and with her already having polled significantly higher than the rest of the pack, she’s in a better position to maintain her momentum than before.
NJ Gov Quantus (R leaning) Sherrill 48-46
https://x.com/QuantusInsights/status/1973130392673853891
Sherrill internal has her up 50-43.
https://x.com/MattKleinOnline/status/1973051169091010821
was at a pleasant dinner the other night with people that know more than me and almost everyone not being a typical doomcasting democrat was in the mikie by 3-5 camp. (i hold out pathetic hope for a bigger than presidential win)