I appreciate the coverage we obtain from "The Down Ballot" and this commentary on the Colorado situation is both informative and useful. Trump has so poisoned the Republican Party today that anything else is preferable.
Substack offers a number of very good authors. I can't subscribe to all of them and I will not accept the "auto-renew" subscription model. It would be nice to be able to have a fixed length subscription with an option to have subscription/donations split among favorite authors.
Agreed - "Auto-pay" is an abomination. It's basically just a scam to try to get us to continue paying for things even after we stop using them. I have always steadfastly refused to subscribe to any automatic payments regardless of how much various utilities and streaming services want me to.
Yup, AT&T was going to raise our bill unless we allowed them direct access to our bank account. We dropped AT&T. A lot of this is pushed by the banking & credit card processing industry. They sell the steady income tale to Substack so they can keep their steady fees rolling in. Maybe someday we will get back the CFPB, you know, like after Trump & the demolition of the "Epstein Class".
Generally when I subscribe to a newspaper on an auto renewal, as soon as I process, I cancel, and you have access through the end of your current subscription. The newspaper that automatically cancels access is the AZ Republic, and I put a cancel date in my calendar about a week before renewal.
This is the Act Blue page for The Downballot, you can make a donation there instead, maybe equivalent to what several months of subscription would get you. No auto renewal forced on you!
You mean they would try to take money from my card automatically next year without my making an affirmative decision to subscribe again? How do I configure my account not to do that? My income may be too low this year to justify that.
Yes, they often run $1 for 6 or 12 months. As part of the fine print, you agree they have the right to bill your credit card at a new rate of say $8 per week billed in 4 week increments. If you miss by 1 day, you get billed $32 in this case, and they claim you've already used the service so they won't refund. If disputed, CC companies side with the newspaper. They hope people don't look at the agreement or statements and they have a subscription at outrageous rates.
I posted this yesterday, but Mother Jones seems convinced that 2026 will be 2010 in reverse for Democrats. Me? I'm hoping it'll be a mix of that and 2006 (Dems flipping back control of House and Senate).
If Dems are able to win trifectas in a bunch of new states in 2026 and or 2028, they can’t assume they are going to be permanently like they did after 2006/2008. They need to start on day one of those trifectas to pass laws to make it very difficult or impossible to have another 2011-2021 where Republicans got control in several states (NC, WI, PA) and drew themselves impenetrable legislative majorities that lasted over a decade. If Dems win legislative majorities in any of these three states they need to do one of these two things:
1. immediately redraw the legislative boundaries to make it impossible for Republicans to get legislative majorities in 2030 for redistricting even if it is a midterm of another unpopular Dem president (probably wouldn’t work in NC due to Republicans having control of the State Supreme Court)
2. Put independent redistricting modeled after the Michigan commission on the ballot in all three in these states so Dems have a guaranteed seat at the table in future redistrictings even if Republicans win trifectas in these states in 2030.
Either one of these two things has to be done by Dem trifectas in these three states immediately. There are no other options. Either option 1 or option 2, that’s it.
NC Democrats would have to flip the supermajorities in the legislature (or gain 60% approval from a mix of GOP and Dem legislators) in order to place a MI style independent redistricting amendment on the ballot. Ditto if they want to enshrine power to give governor control of the state board of elections and veto power over the legislative and Congressional map drawing in the future.
I do see a Democratic legislative majority in NC (should the blue tsunami wash it in this year) aggressively moving like VA and MN did. Higher minimum wage, eliminating the abortion ban, funding public schools, defunding the voucher scam, redrawing the legislative maps, making voting easier, removing the GOP statute mandating that the governor appoint replacement judges of the same party, and moving up the mandatory retirement age for judges to force extremists like Newby out earlier.
The realistic plan to flip NC is flipping control of the state Supreme Court in 2028. First part of Anderson Clayton's three-part plan (retaining Justice Allison Riggs on the SCONC) is achieved. Second part (re-electing Anita Earls) is in motion, and then the most crucial part is unseating two or all three judges (Newby, Berger Jr., Barringer) in 2028.
Yeah obviously Dems aren’t getting 60% of the seats in NC, so they are gonna have to go with option 2, which probably won’t work unless Dems win the state Supreme Court in 2028. Problem is that Dems probably can’t hold the legislature in a more neutral environment under the current lines.
Republicans have cleverly put us in this continuous catch 22 situation until we can somehow get independent redistricting on the ballot or have a huge wave election that gives us control of the legislature at the same time we have control of the state Supreme Court to allow us to gerrymander the legislative districts in our favor.
I’d prefer an independent commission here (also in WI and PA)to take the unpredictability of future elections here out of the equation.
When it was under Democratic control (or moderate Rs under the nonpartisan label), the NC Supreme Court acted like the Virginia Supreme Court. But ever since Paul Newby got into the judicial system and control flipped in 2022, it's been an arm of the NC GOP since.
One of the 2028 candidates has worked for the NC ACLU and voting rights -- and sitting justices Riggs and Earls were also voting rights attorneys. A 4-3 or 5-2 Democratic controlled SCONC will almost certainly reverse the 2023 decision on voter ID and gerrymandering (as well as Leandro), but I don't see them stepping in and ordering the BOE to remove a candidate the way the GOP majority did with RFK Jr in fall 2024.
newby is a scourge. he got on the court by defeating the equivalent of political royalty in nc originally. actively worked with nc legislature to strip funding from my alma mater unc law because our faculty dared to run a clinic for those that had their civil rights violated by state or federal officials
It's annoying that we will have another midterm under a possible Dem presidency before the next census, meaning any state lege gains we make in '26/'28 could be wiped out just in time for another cycle of map-drawing. If we miraculously end up with a federal trifecta beforehand, gerrymandering must be priority #1 (hell, throw in voter ID as well).
Which is why we need independent redistricting in states where Rs could get a trifecta (PA and WI are the blinking red lights here) after the 2030 elections.
Dems had a trifecta in WI after 2008 and it was clear they could lose it all in 2010 (governor Doyle was very unpopular) yet Dems didn’t do anything to get independent redistricting on the ballot and just sat and twiddled their thumbs while the house was burning down.
In 1991, NJ Dems knew they’d get wiped out in the legislative elections that year due to Florio being super unpopular and they actually saw around the corner and implemented independent redistricting so a new Republican supermajority couldn’t gerrymander the state. That’s what Dems need to do in WI and PA prior to 2030.
Do you think the extremely partisan Republican court in WI would have respected independent redistricting any more than the courts in Ohio and Florida?
It would have had to if it was clearly laid out in the state constitution that there would be a commission and its rules. FL didn’t have a commission, just a bunch of vague guidelines. Ohio’s was purposely written like swiss chyeese to allow Republicans control of the commission based on statewide elected offices and laid out that certain counties (most convenient to Republicans) could be split.
The AZ commission language is strong enough that the Republican state Supreme Court can’t really do much to defang it. Republicans got a tiebreaker that was favorable to them, but there map still wasn’t the kind of gerrymander Republicans would draw if they had control without a commission.
I'm aware that FL doesn't have a commission, but their Supreme Court has treated the Fair Districting measure as a dead letter, and the Ohio Supreme Court has not given any more respect to their law. Are you sure the AZ Supreme Court isn't less partisan and extremist?
Whoever wins the Presidency in 2028 will inherit the AI recession and will almost assuredly be a one-termer who takes on catastrophic losses in the 2030 midterms.
But we’ve gotta prep now for 2030 being a bad midterm. It can’t be like 2010 where everyone just assumed everything would be fine and that “voters were smart” and would never go back to Republicans and that “redistricting can only do so much”.
I agree with you, but I don't agree that "It's annoying that we will have another midterm under a possible Dem presidency before the next census". Considering how exceedingly disastrous it is for the country and the world for a Republican to be President, no, it's not "annoying".
Which is why Dems need to lock in independent redistricting in any state where Republicans might have a trifecta after the 2030 midterms. They should should even be doing it in Minnesota, because it is possible there.
Absolutely possible in Minnesota. If 5,000 people had voted differently for Governor in 2010, Minnesota would have had a Republican trifecta going into 2011.
And it’s not like Dems have a good track record of winning and holding trifectas even in good environments in MN. All they needed to do in 2020 was knock out Carla Nelson in a double digit Biden Rochester district and they would have had a trifecta for redistricting. They managed to blow that. They really should have passed independent redistricting when they were lucky enough to get a trifecta for two years in 2012 or 2022. They better do it in 2026 if they get a trifecta again, because it’s gonna vanish in 2030 if a Dem is president.
We do have a risk with independent redistricting systems: if republicans gain a trifecta they can repeal any systems that are implemented by statute only.
Constitutional amendments are far more robust but a lot harder. Not sure of the durability of ballot initiatives in most states but those have tended to be at least politically harder to repeal, even if mechanically it's just as easy as repealing a statute.
Still useful for ensuring that with split control the outcome is fair instead of a least change map that reinforces an existing gerrymander or highly subject to the whims of courts. Also particularly desirable in North Carolina, where a democratic governor could veto legislation but not redistricting maps. But it is a fix with holes in it. Federal legislation and codifying it into norms over 2 cycles would be preferable.
PA and WI can have constitutional amendments placed on the ballot by the legislature. An independent redistricting one would almost certain pass in both states. Any future repeal amendment would have basically no chance of ever passing there.
It's a sad reflection of how political cycles have worked out. Our best chance to change the cycle was if we won in 2024 and had gotten two terms in a row.
I wish some states were willing to try some proportional systems for their own legislature. It wouldn't help with federal gerrymandering but it would preclude local gerrymandering. For all the ink spilled over the states being "laboratories of democracy", 49/50 states have very similar governing systems. The 50th isn't that different either, just going from 2 legislative chambers to 1.
But how getting two terms in a row have helped us in this department. Without the senate, basically nothing can be done and Republicans would hold any SCOTUS seats open until the next Republican president.
The best chance was doing something in 2009-2010 in several states where Dems had trifectas and should have known they were gonna get wiped out in 2010. If they had done independent redistricting in WI and NC then, we probably would have had at least 3 or 4 more House seats throughout the 2010s and a the legislatures of those states would have shifted back and forth throughout the decade.
If Dems win trifectas in several competitive states in 2026 and 2028 and don’t immediately work to ensure that Republicans can’t gerrymander them again after 2030, they have no right to complain if Republicans gerrymander the House and legislatures again so we can’t win them.
Pretty crazy that in 2006 the country had divided so much into rural/urban and educational polarization that a D+6 year could produce such sweeping gains. We'd definitely need something close to D+9-10 IMO to take the Senate.
I think you’re a couple points high from candidate quality gulf in these Senate races under less likely, but realistically possible results in a less Democratic year, so I’d add a * to your post and say it’s still possible in a more GOP year with these following factors.
Husted has already had his oops viral moment saying that people living in poverty are not experienced at navigating the real world and Brown was a Senator 2 years ago. Sullivan is invisible, has low name recognition, negative approval and Peltola is a power house who was an elected representative only 2 years ago. North Carolina, Governor Roy Cooper vs RNC chair, yeah that’s hard to decide which way that seat falls.
ME is a muddled mess of a primary in a state that hasn't voted Republican for President since Reagan? (going off memory, could be wrong), it’s a very blue state nationally and Collins can’t pull the “not from here” deadly attack she did successfully on her former losing opponents.
Talarico vs Paxton in TX is a genuine Tossup. Paxton got impeached by Republicans and a wife divorce for “biblical reasons” and Talarico flipped a former Trump/Republican voting district to elect him and to top it off Talarico basically has the manosphere king’s political support from the guy who supported Trump twice. That bodes well for his continued campaign to win undecideds/moderate Republicans with a positive all of us message for Democrats. Add the cherry on top, Democrats outvoted Republicans in a primary for the first time since, hell, not a clue, but it was a long time ago.
These races all seem potentially winnable even in only a D+6 wave year if everything falls right for us. Which is actually pretty possible, since waves don’t differ much from state to state. Aka if we win TX, we’ve almost certainly already won less Republican seats like AK, OH, NC and ME, maybe even IA.
To guarantee a Senate Majority for Democrats though, I think 9 or 10 points is probably needed, as you’ve stated here, which I agree with. Do I think above scenario is likely? No, of course not, but percentages and chances that aren’t a majority happen in politics a lot, so worth considering that could happen in November.
Nebraska Supreme Court orders Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Cynthia Burbank back on the ballot. Last week, SoS Bob Evnen booted her, claiming she wasn't a legitimate candidate because she intended to drop out to help indie Dan Osborn.
We discussed the California governor debate tomorrow at 5 tomorrow and the below link lists tv schedules in LA, SF and Fresno. Noticably missing is San Diego and Sacramento.
They also have a summary of how they selected and excluded candidates, which on its face is nonsense. Based on this, I would assume Steyer is likely to be our next governor, lol. Not.
The criteria used was polling and fundraising. Mahan is getting credit for all if the IE tech money. The concept is that the money give the resources to influence voters.
The article links to a document on how they calculate the scores.
The tl;dr is that Mahan is benefiting a lot from jumping in late.
The formula is a weighted sum of a candidate's share of polling + fundraising scores. Polling is given a higher weight (multiplier of 65 vs 35 for fundraising). But they calculate the fundraising relative to how long the candidate has been running. Since he jumped in late his score gets a boost. Unreasonably so, in my opinion.
Steyer is also inherently lowering everyone else's fundraising scores, since everyone's final score is divided by the sum of everyone's pre-division score. Given the multiplier of 35, Steyer's 29 "viability points" is probably monopolizing 25ish of the 35 points available for the fundraising portion of the score.
I almost posted that I suspect they designed the formula exactly with the intent that he make the cut but the other people in single digits did not. But without evidence it felt slightly too conspiratorial. Knowing that the organizers have ties to Mahan makes me no longer doubt this.
What puzzles me is that Rick Caruso and his colleague at USC are based in Los Angeles but somehow decided to be enthusiastic supporters of Mahan in only a short time after he jumped in the gubernatorial race. Mahan was a low profile Democrat heading to the gubernatorial race to begin with while still being Mayor.
I suspect the story behind Mahan giving GOP Candidate Steve Hilton a tour of San Jose made Caruso believe in him. But this is yet again more wealthy donor interests that are trying to influence the gubernatorial race.
Am I wrong to point out that if these Democrats were so incensed they weren’t included in a debate to accuse Democrats of racism, wouldn’t something so monumentally unjust cause 1 of them to consolidate support as the rest drop out, so there’s actually a Democratic POC represented in the primary?
If it’s such an existential issue as racism, for the good of the party in having some representation, why isn’t that happening? Oh right, it’s racist to not include all the candidates of colour because they have low support from voters, but not at all racist to refuse to drop out with 3% support in the state, so at least some race is actually represented in our party. Refusing to actually fix the racism, and instead complain about it. Seriously? I mean come on.
And no I don’t think it’s racist at all to not include low polling candidates. Look, sometimes in politics voters don’t always vote how we wished they would, candidates get support that don’t speak to us, we have a bunch of white people are leading the campaign in a diverse state, that’s ok, that’s normal, not every wing/section of a party is always represented, that’s reality and that’s politics. The most support wins.
Let’s move on to decide who of the candidates who have actual voter support should be the next Governor of a state the size of most countries, with more people. That seems kind of more important for the 3-6 leading candidates to discuss in public, than having a free for all with low poll candidates trying to sound bite into a real campaign and nothing of substance is actually talked about because the front runners are fending off attacks all night from people who will get 5% support in November.
You’ve had your chances as candidates to run and build campaigns Californians actually support, but you couldn’t do it, thanks for running, but it’s time for you to go.
CA-6: Looks like the Democratic race to challenge Rep. Kevin Kiley (I) is pretty competitive. Local support in Sacramento seems to be going to DA Thien Ho (per his publicized endorsements which you can find in the source), while other major California players have gone to former state Sen. Richard Pan, the perceived frontrunner. Former Planned Parenthood official Lauren Babb Tomlinson has mixed support, from some of the establishment like Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and also some progressive outsiders like Leaders We Deserve.
FWIW, I would vote for Thien Ho if I lived in the district.
“I’m not feeling bullish about it,” said one Republican strategist. “[Ossoff] has wisely avoided the temptation of going on cable news for six years and playing to the base for social media likes. ... I think he’s going to reap the benefits of that.”
I wonder how much political capital he'll stake on helping our gubernatorial candidate. From a pure self-interest standpoint he can afford to wait quite a few cycles before trying to get in as VP or Pres, if that's his goal.
It is. There's different incentives for officials in different positions. Ossoff is in one of the purplest states in the country and won his first election by about one point in a runoff. He has a huge incentive to not make waves, to avoid controversy of all kinds, and to be seen as much of a "generic dem" as possible.
Schiff came from a deep blue seat (D+22), as does Swalwell (D+20). There was never a risk of either losing an election to a republican. Their only risk was intraparty foes. Which means taking actions to stand out is essential, especially if they want a promotion. Ossoff is also already elected statewide, while the two of them were both just 1 of 52 members of the house in California. It's easy to be lost in the noise unless they do something to stand out.
Nothing to do with elections, but it’s about time Americans feel the full impact of GOP policies in every state. They’ve been sheltered and safeguarded from the consequences of their voting habits for far too long, many decades too long.
It’s actually a good thing that Americans are seeing high gas prices and long lines at airports. These are direct results of Republican policies
More people need to feel the direct pain of Republican policies in their lives
Politics is not some abstract concept. It is your grocery bill, your medical insurance costs, your ability to get childcare and hold companies accountable for fraud, and wealthy guys like me getting massive unnecessary tax cuts while you pay thousands more for a pointless war and tariffs
100% agreed. This downturn is going to start late enough that Trump can't blame it on Biden and early enough that the voters can't ignore that it's Trump's doing. There's going to be quite a bit of FAFO over the next few years. Hopefully the lesson sticks this time, although I fear it won't.
Trump is bringing European gas prices to America. That is going to be a calamity for the Republican Party in November. (On this website, you can choose to see European prices recalculated in dollars per gallon.)
Democrats are finally waking up to branding and image as being necessities to win elections in politics, not as just an afterthought after a fully painstakingly researched 10 page report on local zoning laws that 5 people will read.
No more think tanks or polished candidates, the kinds of things that have led us to ruin, focus on the emotional, primal impacts on voters that doesn’t make any logical sense in our commendable aim in electing the most qualified person to office. Forget all that. Just run people who look good.
Be still my heart, for Democrats are actually remaking the party for the better and learning the right lessons from 2024.
Thirst Traps Over Think Tanks: Dems Want Hotter Candidates on the Ballot
What if the key to winning was to run more “hot” people?
Don’t laugh.
The idea that the Democratic party has a hotness deficit it needs to address has come up repeatedly in conversations I’ve had over the past few months as I’ve talked to strategists about what the party can do to improve how it’s perceived. Yes, they say, Democrats need to shed litmus tests, put aside purity politics, and drop the academic-sounding language. But they also would benefit from simply having more thirst-traps on the ticket, more candidates who could make voters swoon.
“It’s easier to elect hot people. America is a superficial nation, and we want our politicians—especially those that are representing us on an international stage, as the number-one world power—to be hot, to look good,” said Yemisi Egbewole, the former Biden White House press office chief of staff, adding that this had become a “foundational brunch time conversation” among the D.C. Democratic class.
“We are drawn to attractive people. That’s just science.”
It's surprising to get non-retired political operatives on the record that Americans are superficial. This reads almost like The Onion, but their satire is reality now....
There’s definitely something to this, tbh. I don’t think it hurt either Mamdani or AOC that they’re conventionally attractive even more so by typical politician standards and that may have helped offset some voters’ concerns about their views in their initial runs
Republicans: “Mr. president, how can we get our immigration approval up and shorten wait times at airports?”
Trump: “I know! We can use ICE to remove illegal immigrants from the massive lines, that way voters will be happy their lines are shorter and thankful we’re enforcing immigration.”
Republican advisors: “Brilliant, we can pressure the left to cave on ICE funding, remove illegals and gain support, let’s do it!”
'I just had to check this. Ocean County GOP Chair George Gilmore: "Chris Smith is absolutely running and he'll file his petition on Monday."'
But if he doesn't today, the co-longest current House Repub would be gone. (Technically Hal Rogers has higher seniority since his name is first alphabetically, but he's 88 and Smith is 73. I'm hoping for Marcy Kaptur to end her career as dean.)
NJ-4: I guess Rep. Chris Smith (R) is running for re-election after all. His team gave voters the *wrong paperwork*, so there was a last-minute push these past few days to get signatures all over again.
You'd think after 46 years you'd be able to file properly.
💙🩵💙
I appreciate the coverage we obtain from "The Down Ballot" and this commentary on the Colorado situation is both informative and useful. Trump has so poisoned the Republican Party today that anything else is preferable.
Substack offers a number of very good authors. I can't subscribe to all of them and I will not accept the "auto-renew" subscription model. It would be nice to be able to have a fixed length subscription with an option to have subscription/donations split among favorite authors.
Keep up the good work.
Agreed - "Auto-pay" is an abomination. It's basically just a scam to try to get us to continue paying for things even after we stop using them. I have always steadfastly refused to subscribe to any automatic payments regardless of how much various utilities and streaming services want me to.
Yup, AT&T was going to raise our bill unless we allowed them direct access to our bank account. We dropped AT&T. A lot of this is pushed by the banking & credit card processing industry. They sell the steady income tale to Substack so they can keep their steady fees rolling in. Maybe someday we will get back the CFPB, you know, like after Trump & the demolition of the "Epstein Class".
Generally when I subscribe to a newspaper on an auto renewal, as soon as I process, I cancel, and you have access through the end of your current subscription. The newspaper that automatically cancels access is the AZ Republic, and I put a cancel date in my calendar about a week before renewal.
The Downballot has an ActBlue page.
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/thedownballot
This is the Act Blue page for The Downballot, you can make a donation there instead, maybe equivalent to what several months of subscription would get you. No auto renewal forced on you!
Thank you. This is definitely useful information. I just bookmarked the site.
You mean they would try to take money from my card automatically next year without my making an affirmative decision to subscribe again? How do I configure my account not to do that? My income may be too low this year to justify that.
Yes, they often run $1 for 6 or 12 months. As part of the fine print, you agree they have the right to bill your credit card at a new rate of say $8 per week billed in 4 week increments. If you miss by 1 day, you get billed $32 in this case, and they claim you've already used the service so they won't refund. If disputed, CC companies side with the newspaper. They hope people don't look at the agreement or statements and they have a subscription at outrageous rates.
Mods: Do I need to cancel my subscription now to have the option not to resubscribe after a year?
Berger needs to take a hint and concede. Unless he wants to get spanked the way Jefferson Griffin did last year by Justice Myers.
Too many Jeffs? Jeff Hurd is in CO-3, Jeff Crank (in photo) is in CO-5.
Thank you, we've fixed!
-Another Jeff
LOL
& Jeff-ries, Hakeem.
I posted this yesterday, but Mother Jones seems convinced that 2026 will be 2010 in reverse for Democrats. Me? I'm hoping it'll be a mix of that and 2006 (Dems flipping back control of House and Senate).
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/12/state-house-democrats-dlcc-midterm-blue-wave/
If Dems are able to win trifectas in a bunch of new states in 2026 and or 2028, they can’t assume they are going to be permanently like they did after 2006/2008. They need to start on day one of those trifectas to pass laws to make it very difficult or impossible to have another 2011-2021 where Republicans got control in several states (NC, WI, PA) and drew themselves impenetrable legislative majorities that lasted over a decade. If Dems win legislative majorities in any of these three states they need to do one of these two things:
1. immediately redraw the legislative boundaries to make it impossible for Republicans to get legislative majorities in 2030 for redistricting even if it is a midterm of another unpopular Dem president (probably wouldn’t work in NC due to Republicans having control of the State Supreme Court)
2. Put independent redistricting modeled after the Michigan commission on the ballot in all three in these states so Dems have a guaranteed seat at the table in future redistrictings even if Republicans win trifectas in these states in 2030.
Either one of these two things has to be done by Dem trifectas in these three states immediately. There are no other options. Either option 1 or option 2, that’s it.
NC Democrats would have to flip the supermajorities in the legislature (or gain 60% approval from a mix of GOP and Dem legislators) in order to place a MI style independent redistricting amendment on the ballot. Ditto if they want to enshrine power to give governor control of the state board of elections and veto power over the legislative and Congressional map drawing in the future.
I do see a Democratic legislative majority in NC (should the blue tsunami wash it in this year) aggressively moving like VA and MN did. Higher minimum wage, eliminating the abortion ban, funding public schools, defunding the voucher scam, redrawing the legislative maps, making voting easier, removing the GOP statute mandating that the governor appoint replacement judges of the same party, and moving up the mandatory retirement age for judges to force extremists like Newby out earlier.
The realistic plan to flip NC is flipping control of the state Supreme Court in 2028. First part of Anderson Clayton's three-part plan (retaining Justice Allison Riggs on the SCONC) is achieved. Second part (re-electing Anita Earls) is in motion, and then the most crucial part is unseating two or all three judges (Newby, Berger Jr., Barringer) in 2028.
Yeah obviously Dems aren’t getting 60% of the seats in NC, so they are gonna have to go with option 2, which probably won’t work unless Dems win the state Supreme Court in 2028. Problem is that Dems probably can’t hold the legislature in a more neutral environment under the current lines.
Republicans have cleverly put us in this continuous catch 22 situation until we can somehow get independent redistricting on the ballot or have a huge wave election that gives us control of the legislature at the same time we have control of the state Supreme Court to allow us to gerrymander the legislative districts in our favor.
I’d prefer an independent commission here (also in WI and PA)to take the unpredictability of future elections here out of the equation.
When it was under Democratic control (or moderate Rs under the nonpartisan label), the NC Supreme Court acted like the Virginia Supreme Court. But ever since Paul Newby got into the judicial system and control flipped in 2022, it's been an arm of the NC GOP since.
One of the 2028 candidates has worked for the NC ACLU and voting rights -- and sitting justices Riggs and Earls were also voting rights attorneys. A 4-3 or 5-2 Democratic controlled SCONC will almost certainly reverse the 2023 decision on voter ID and gerrymandering (as well as Leandro), but I don't see them stepping in and ordering the BOE to remove a candidate the way the GOP majority did with RFK Jr in fall 2024.
newby is a scourge. he got on the court by defeating the equivalent of political royalty in nc originally. actively worked with nc legislature to strip funding from my alma mater unc law because our faculty dared to run a clinic for those that had their civil rights violated by state or federal officials
Absolutely. I read that ProPublica expose on him -- and I got so mad I almost threw my phone against the wall.
More NC voters are realizing how important these judicial races are -- and probably why Newby hasn't announced a re-election bid yet.
Yep. Flipping the state supreme court was crucial in WI and PA and for fair districts in NC the first time
It's annoying that we will have another midterm under a possible Dem presidency before the next census, meaning any state lege gains we make in '26/'28 could be wiped out just in time for another cycle of map-drawing. If we miraculously end up with a federal trifecta beforehand, gerrymandering must be priority #1 (hell, throw in voter ID as well).
Which is why we need independent redistricting in states where Rs could get a trifecta (PA and WI are the blinking red lights here) after the 2030 elections.
Dems had a trifecta in WI after 2008 and it was clear they could lose it all in 2010 (governor Doyle was very unpopular) yet Dems didn’t do anything to get independent redistricting on the ballot and just sat and twiddled their thumbs while the house was burning down.
In 1991, NJ Dems knew they’d get wiped out in the legislative elections that year due to Florio being super unpopular and they actually saw around the corner and implemented independent redistricting so a new Republican supermajority couldn’t gerrymander the state. That’s what Dems need to do in WI and PA prior to 2030.
Do you think the extremely partisan Republican court in WI would have respected independent redistricting any more than the courts in Ohio and Florida?
It would have had to if it was clearly laid out in the state constitution that there would be a commission and its rules. FL didn’t have a commission, just a bunch of vague guidelines. Ohio’s was purposely written like swiss chyeese to allow Republicans control of the commission based on statewide elected offices and laid out that certain counties (most convenient to Republicans) could be split.
The AZ commission language is strong enough that the Republican state Supreme Court can’t really do much to defang it. Republicans got a tiebreaker that was favorable to them, but there map still wasn’t the kind of gerrymander Republicans would draw if they had control without a commission.
I'm aware that FL doesn't have a commission, but their Supreme Court has treated the Fair Districting measure as a dead letter, and the Ohio Supreme Court has not given any more respect to their law. Are you sure the AZ Supreme Court isn't less partisan and extremist?
Whoever wins the Presidency in 2028 will inherit the AI recession and will almost assuredly be a one-termer who takes on catastrophic losses in the 2030 midterms.
It's not annoying if a Democrat is elected President in 2028. It's imperative.
But we’ve gotta prep now for 2030 being a bad midterm. It can’t be like 2010 where everyone just assumed everything would be fine and that “voters were smart” and would never go back to Republicans and that “redistricting can only do so much”.
I agree with you, but I don't agree that "It's annoying that we will have another midterm under a possible Dem presidency before the next census". Considering how exceedingly disastrous it is for the country and the world for a Republican to be President, no, it's not "annoying".
I think what they are saying is that the timing is annoying, which is true. Like why can’t it happen at a more opportune time.
Democrats have made an artform of having wave elections mid-decade and setting themselves up for an apocalyptic cycle just ahead of redistricting.
Which is why Dems need to lock in independent redistricting in any state where Republicans might have a trifecta after the 2030 midterms. They should should even be doing it in Minnesota, because it is possible there.
Absolutely possible in Minnesota. If 5,000 people had voted differently for Governor in 2010, Minnesota would have had a Republican trifecta going into 2011.
And it’s not like Dems have a good track record of winning and holding trifectas even in good environments in MN. All they needed to do in 2020 was knock out Carla Nelson in a double digit Biden Rochester district and they would have had a trifecta for redistricting. They managed to blow that. They really should have passed independent redistricting when they were lucky enough to get a trifecta for two years in 2012 or 2022. They better do it in 2026 if they get a trifecta again, because it’s gonna vanish in 2030 if a Dem is president.
We do have a risk with independent redistricting systems: if republicans gain a trifecta they can repeal any systems that are implemented by statute only.
Constitutional amendments are far more robust but a lot harder. Not sure of the durability of ballot initiatives in most states but those have tended to be at least politically harder to repeal, even if mechanically it's just as easy as repealing a statute.
Still useful for ensuring that with split control the outcome is fair instead of a least change map that reinforces an existing gerrymander or highly subject to the whims of courts. Also particularly desirable in North Carolina, where a democratic governor could veto legislation but not redistricting maps. But it is a fix with holes in it. Federal legislation and codifying it into norms over 2 cycles would be preferable.
PA and WI can have constitutional amendments placed on the ballot by the legislature. An independent redistricting one would almost certain pass in both states. Any future repeal amendment would have basically no chance of ever passing there.
It's a sad reflection of how political cycles have worked out. Our best chance to change the cycle was if we won in 2024 and had gotten two terms in a row.
I wish some states were willing to try some proportional systems for their own legislature. It wouldn't help with federal gerrymandering but it would preclude local gerrymandering. For all the ink spilled over the states being "laboratories of democracy", 49/50 states have very similar governing systems. The 50th isn't that different either, just going from 2 legislative chambers to 1.
But how getting two terms in a row have helped us in this department. Without the senate, basically nothing can be done and Republicans would hold any SCOTUS seats open until the next Republican president.
The best chance was doing something in 2009-2010 in several states where Dems had trifectas and should have known they were gonna get wiped out in 2010. If they had done independent redistricting in WI and NC then, we probably would have had at least 3 or 4 more House seats throughout the 2010s and a the legislatures of those states would have shifted back and forth throughout the decade.
If Dems win trifectas in several competitive states in 2026 and 2028 and don’t immediately work to ensure that Republicans can’t gerrymander them again after 2030, they have no right to complain if Republicans gerrymander the House and legislatures again so we can’t win them.
We have managed to lose the most important POTUS elections timing-wise for decades.
I hope it's a mix of 2010 in reverse along with 2006 and worse for the GOP.
Pretty crazy that in 2006 the country had divided so much into rural/urban and educational polarization that a D+6 year could produce such sweeping gains. We'd definitely need something close to D+9-10 IMO to take the Senate.
I think you’re a couple points high from candidate quality gulf in these Senate races under less likely, but realistically possible results in a less Democratic year, so I’d add a * to your post and say it’s still possible in a more GOP year with these following factors.
Husted has already had his oops viral moment saying that people living in poverty are not experienced at navigating the real world and Brown was a Senator 2 years ago. Sullivan is invisible, has low name recognition, negative approval and Peltola is a power house who was an elected representative only 2 years ago. North Carolina, Governor Roy Cooper vs RNC chair, yeah that’s hard to decide which way that seat falls.
ME is a muddled mess of a primary in a state that hasn't voted Republican for President since Reagan? (going off memory, could be wrong), it’s a very blue state nationally and Collins can’t pull the “not from here” deadly attack she did successfully on her former losing opponents.
Talarico vs Paxton in TX is a genuine Tossup. Paxton got impeached by Republicans and a wife divorce for “biblical reasons” and Talarico flipped a former Trump/Republican voting district to elect him and to top it off Talarico basically has the manosphere king’s political support from the guy who supported Trump twice. That bodes well for his continued campaign to win undecideds/moderate Republicans with a positive all of us message for Democrats. Add the cherry on top, Democrats outvoted Republicans in a primary for the first time since, hell, not a clue, but it was a long time ago.
These races all seem potentially winnable even in only a D+6 wave year if everything falls right for us. Which is actually pretty possible, since waves don’t differ much from state to state. Aka if we win TX, we’ve almost certainly already won less Republican seats like AK, OH, NC and ME, maybe even IA.
To guarantee a Senate Majority for Democrats though, I think 9 or 10 points is probably needed, as you’ve stated here, which I agree with. Do I think above scenario is likely? No, of course not, but percentages and chances that aren’t a majority happen in politics a lot, so worth considering that could happen in November.
Nebraska Supreme Court orders Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Cynthia Burbank back on the ballot. Last week, SoS Bob Evnen booted her, claiming she wasn't a legitimate candidate because she intended to drop out to help indie Dan Osborn.
Linking to an article.
https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/en/news/news-articles/nebraska-supreme-court-sides-with-democratic-senate-candidate-in-last-minute-dispute-over-her-removal-from-the-ballot/
Major black eye to MAGA Evnen.
Nebraska’s back on the menu.
Hell yeah, that’s great news!
We discussed the California governor debate tomorrow at 5 tomorrow and the below link lists tv schedules in LA, SF and Fresno. Noticably missing is San Diego and Sacramento.
They also have a summary of how they selected and excluded candidates, which on its face is nonsense. Based on this, I would assume Steyer is likely to be our next governor, lol. Not.
https://dornsife.usc.edu/center-for-political-future/news/california-governor-debate-2026/
Candidate viability scores were as follows:
1. Steyer, 28.96
2. Hilton, 10.23
3. Swalwell, 9.37
4. Porter, 9.01
5. Mahan, 8.70
6. Bianco, 8.09
Candidates whose lower polling and fundraising scores fell below the top six include:
7. Becerra, 3.73
8. Villaraigosa, 3.72
9. Yee, 3.44
10. Thurmond, 1.40
11. Ware, 1.30
12. All other candidates, <1.00
The thing that stands out to me is weird is including Mahan. The other top 5 make sense.
It's almost solely based on his fundraising.
The criteria used was polling and fundraising. Mahan is getting credit for all if the IE tech money. The concept is that the money give the resources to influence voters.
The article links to a document on how they calculate the scores.
The tl;dr is that Mahan is benefiting a lot from jumping in late.
The formula is a weighted sum of a candidate's share of polling + fundraising scores. Polling is given a higher weight (multiplier of 65 vs 35 for fundraising). But they calculate the fundraising relative to how long the candidate has been running. Since he jumped in late his score gets a boost. Unreasonably so, in my opinion.
Steyer is also inherently lowering everyone else's fundraising scores, since everyone's final score is divided by the sum of everyone's pre-division score. Given the multiplier of 35, Steyer's 29 "viability points" is probably monopolizing 25ish of the 35 points available for the fundraising portion of the score.
That's likely because Mahan's supporters include a co-chair of the center at USC as well as Rick Caruso, a USC alumnus.
I am smelling something fishy here.
I almost posted that I suspect they designed the formula exactly with the intent that he make the cut but the other people in single digits did not. But without evidence it felt slightly too conspiratorial. Knowing that the organizers have ties to Mahan makes me no longer doubt this.
What puzzles me is that Rick Caruso and his colleague at USC are based in Los Angeles but somehow decided to be enthusiastic supporters of Mahan in only a short time after he jumped in the gubernatorial race. Mahan was a low profile Democrat heading to the gubernatorial race to begin with while still being Mayor.
I suspect the story behind Mahan giving GOP Candidate Steve Hilton a tour of San Jose made Caruso believe in him. But this is yet again more wealthy donor interests that are trying to influence the gubernatorial race.
Mahan's running ads now. Steyer's still running the most, but Swalwell has also started running them and Tony V actually went up a few weeks ago.
Am I wrong to point out that if these Democrats were so incensed they weren’t included in a debate to accuse Democrats of racism, wouldn’t something so monumentally unjust cause 1 of them to consolidate support as the rest drop out, so there’s actually a Democratic POC represented in the primary?
If it’s such an existential issue as racism, for the good of the party in having some representation, why isn’t that happening? Oh right, it’s racist to not include all the candidates of colour because they have low support from voters, but not at all racist to refuse to drop out with 3% support in the state, so at least some race is actually represented in our party. Refusing to actually fix the racism, and instead complain about it. Seriously? I mean come on.
And no I don’t think it’s racist at all to not include low polling candidates. Look, sometimes in politics voters don’t always vote how we wished they would, candidates get support that don’t speak to us, we have a bunch of white people are leading the campaign in a diverse state, that’s ok, that’s normal, not every wing/section of a party is always represented, that’s reality and that’s politics. The most support wins.
Let’s move on to decide who of the candidates who have actual voter support should be the next Governor of a state the size of most countries, with more people. That seems kind of more important for the 3-6 leading candidates to discuss in public, than having a free for all with low poll candidates trying to sound bite into a real campaign and nothing of substance is actually talked about because the front runners are fending off attacks all night from people who will get 5% support in November.
You’ve had your chances as candidates to run and build campaigns Californians actually support, but you couldn’t do it, thanks for running, but it’s time for you to go.
https://www.thienhoca.com/news/congressman-adam-gray-endorses-democrat-thien-ho-in-ca-06-race
CA-6: Looks like the Democratic race to challenge Rep. Kevin Kiley (I) is pretty competitive. Local support in Sacramento seems to be going to DA Thien Ho (per his publicized endorsements which you can find in the source), while other major California players have gone to former state Sen. Richard Pan, the perceived frontrunner. Former Planned Parenthood official Lauren Babb Tomlinson has mixed support, from some of the establishment like Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and also some progressive outsiders like Leaders We Deserve.
FWIW, I would vote for Thien Ho if I lived in the district.
I like Pan as a former state senator and doctor who has a strong pro-vaccine record. But I think any of the major candidates would be good.
It seems only the new pollsters in the game are showing these wave numbers like Verasight and Argument, while legacy polls show a much closer battle.
https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/2036025387114025168
New poll from us
@TheArgumentMag
. D+7 generic ballot, -18 Trump approval. Worst poll for Republicans yet.
A big reason 2026 might be worse for the GOP than 2018 was: the economy is worse, and people are far angrier about that now than they were back then.
https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/americans-would-trade-jobs-for-cheaper
Numbers only:
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2036067132539011358
The Argument poll | 3/12-3/17
(Registered voters)
Generic congressional ballot 2026
🟦Democratic 54%
🟥Republican 46%
——
(Probably/definite voters)
Generic congressional ballot 2026
🟦Democratic 55%
🟥Republican 45%
——
(Registered voters)
President Trump approval
❌Disapprove 58%
✅Approve 40%
I don’t think it’s just newer pollsters showing a wave, Emerson’s last poll was D+7 and Marist’s was D+9.
reuters ipsos and yahoo all have scary close generic ballots, but you're right emerson and marist are promising
Are… Are Republicans writing off GA-Sen already? In March?
https://x.com/aidnmclaughlin/status/2036062107246944612
“I’m not feeling bullish about it,” said one Republican strategist. “[Ossoff] has wisely avoided the temptation of going on cable news for six years and playing to the base for social media likes. ... I think he’s going to reap the benefits of that.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/03/23/ossoff-georgia-senate-midterms-democrats-republicans/
https://archive.ph/P2FSQ
Republicans fear this Democrat in Georgia Senate race: ‘This guy’s no slouch’
Behind closed doors, Republicans have tamped down their hopes of unseating Jon Ossoff, a 39-year-old powerhouse fundraiser, as he seeks another term.
Not feeling bullish about the GA-SEN race?
Dude, you guys are going to lose the House and possibly multiple Senate seats. Hell of a time to say this!
If Republicans are writing off a Senate seat in GA, phew! That's a sign of a blue tsunami, not simply a repeat of 2018.
Ossoff has high potential an a VP nominee in 2028 (so long as he wins re-election).
Not if there's a republican governor of Georgia to fill the vacancy that becoming VP would create.
Good point. Another incentive for Ossoff to fight for the whole ticket.
I wonder how much political capital he'll stake on helping our gubernatorial candidate. From a pure self-interest standpoint he can afford to wait quite a few cycles before trying to get in as VP or Pres, if that's his goal.
I mean, playing to the base is why Adam Schiff is a Senator and why Swalwell might be a governor.
It is. There's different incentives for officials in different positions. Ossoff is in one of the purplest states in the country and won his first election by about one point in a runoff. He has a huge incentive to not make waves, to avoid controversy of all kinds, and to be seen as much of a "generic dem" as possible.
Schiff came from a deep blue seat (D+22), as does Swalwell (D+20). There was never a risk of either losing an election to a republican. Their only risk was intraparty foes. Which means taking actions to stand out is essential, especially if they want a promotion. Ossoff is also already elected statewide, while the two of them were both just 1 of 52 members of the house in California. It's easy to be lost in the noise unless they do something to stand out.
Nothing to do with elections, but it’s about time Americans feel the full impact of GOP policies in every state. They’ve been sheltered and safeguarded from the consequences of their voting habits for far too long, many decades too long.
https://x.com/ramit/status/2035896290979275172
It’s actually a good thing that Americans are seeing high gas prices and long lines at airports. These are direct results of Republican policies
More people need to feel the direct pain of Republican policies in their lives
Politics is not some abstract concept. It is your grocery bill, your medical insurance costs, your ability to get childcare and hold companies accountable for fraud, and wealthy guys like me getting massive unnecessary tax cuts while you pay thousands more for a pointless war and tariffs
100% agreed. This downturn is going to start late enough that Trump can't blame it on Biden and early enough that the voters can't ignore that it's Trump's doing. There's going to be quite a bit of FAFO over the next few years. Hopefully the lesson sticks this time, although I fear it won't.
Trump is bringing European gas prices to America. That is going to be a calamity for the Republican Party in November. (On this website, you can choose to see European prices recalculated in dollars per gallon.)
https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/Europe/
Yes, I’ve been saying since 2024 that everyone needs their pain. Pain is the hallmark of change.
Democrats are finally waking up to branding and image as being necessities to win elections in politics, not as just an afterthought after a fully painstakingly researched 10 page report on local zoning laws that 5 people will read.
No more think tanks or polished candidates, the kinds of things that have led us to ruin, focus on the emotional, primal impacts on voters that doesn’t make any logical sense in our commendable aim in electing the most qualified person to office. Forget all that. Just run people who look good.
Be still my heart, for Democrats are actually remaking the party for the better and learning the right lessons from 2024.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/thirst-traps-over-think-tanks-democrats-want-hotter-candidates-beauty-attractiveness
Thirst Traps Over Think Tanks: Dems Want Hotter Candidates on the Ballot
What if the key to winning was to run more “hot” people?
Don’t laugh.
The idea that the Democratic party has a hotness deficit it needs to address has come up repeatedly in conversations I’ve had over the past few months as I’ve talked to strategists about what the party can do to improve how it’s perceived. Yes, they say, Democrats need to shed litmus tests, put aside purity politics, and drop the academic-sounding language. But they also would benefit from simply having more thirst-traps on the ticket, more candidates who could make voters swoon.
“It’s easier to elect hot people. America is a superficial nation, and we want our politicians—especially those that are representing us on an international stage, as the number-one world power—to be hot, to look good,” said Yemisi Egbewole, the former Biden White House press office chief of staff, adding that this had become a “foundational brunch time conversation” among the D.C. Democratic class.
“We are drawn to attractive people. That’s just science.”
It's surprising to get non-retired political operatives on the record that Americans are superficial. This reads almost like The Onion, but their satire is reality now....
There’s definitely something to this, tbh. I don’t think it hurt either Mamdani or AOC that they’re conventionally attractive even more so by typical politician standards and that may have helped offset some voters’ concerns about their views in their initial runs
I've been banging this drum for years! Of course, people are subliminally more likely to listen to someone attractive.
Politics are at least 90% sales.
Fun fun fun in California. https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/22/us/chad-bianco-riverside-california-ballots
Republicans: “Mr. president, how can we get our immigration approval up and shorten wait times at airports?”
Trump: “I know! We can use ICE to remove illegal immigrants from the massive lines, that way voters will be happy their lines are shorter and thankful we’re enforcing immigration.”
Republican advisors: “Brilliant, we can pressure the left to cave on ICE funding, remove illegals and gain support, let’s do it!”
Narrator in November: “Sir, we’ve lost Texas.”
And scene.
https://x.com/kpottermn/status/2036055480460591522
NEW:
@CNN
has published a list of the 13 U.S. airports where ICE has been deployed this morning:
Atlanta (ATL)
Chicago (ORD)
Cleveland (CLE)
Houston (HOU)
Ft. Myers (RSW)
New Orleans (MSY)
New York (JFK)
New York-LaGuardia (LGA)
Newark (EWR)
Philadelphia (PHL)
Phoenix (PHX)
Pittsburgh (PIT)
San Juan, PR (SJU)
https://cnn.com/us/live-news/laguardia-collision-ice-airports-tsa-03-23-26
Hope this doesn't last long. I will be going through Pittsburgh this summer.
Saw a few at Sky Harbor (PHX) this morning just standing around
'I just had to check this. Ocean County GOP Chair George Gilmore: "Chris Smith is absolutely running and he'll file his petition on Monday."'
But if he doesn't today, the co-longest current House Repub would be gone. (Technically Hal Rogers has higher seniority since his name is first alphabetically, but he's 88 and Smith is 73. I'm hoping for Marcy Kaptur to end her career as dean.)
https://x.com/MattFriedmanNJ/status/2035355120288891067
Well, he has less than an hour. Better get to work.
Edit: my comment below says he finally filed.
rip
https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/chris-smith-campaign-had-voters-sign-wrong-petiton-form-sending-gop-into-panic-over-weekend-sources-report/
NJ-4: I guess Rep. Chris Smith (R) is running for re-election after all. His team gave voters the *wrong paperwork*, so there was a last-minute push these past few days to get signatures all over again.
You'd think after 46 years you'd be able to file properly.