I wonder if perhaps it would be easier for the undecideds to make decisions in the general election as opposed to the primary. Of course, we’re also talking mainly about primary voters and not general election voters.
Well, overpromising is typical of many politicians. Even Barack Obama had this when he first ran as POTUS and did not accomplish as much as he claimed he would back in 2008. He accomplished a lot but many supporters who were drawn to the hype of Obama’s bid got underwhelmed after he took office.
That said, it all boils down to who is the right fit to have the broadest statewide appeal. I can’t comment on knowing enough about the candidates though. If you believe this strongly about Turek, then perhaps it’s because you are seeing something in him that you are not seeing in Wahls.
Trump and his cronies flooded Indiana with outside money and outside pressure in what is normally an intrastate election with local issues. My money is on the actual midterm and will wait and see what the true measure is come November.
I'm starting to get more concerned about 2028/30 and an actual, real, permanent Republican majority. I think we will be able to win the House this year, albeit more narrowly than we would've without the redistricting wars. But even if we are able to hold onto some of the lean/likely seats in November (Castor/Moskowitz in FL for example, or Landsman/Kaptur in OH) I think they are toast with presidential turnout in districts where the GOP nominee is likely to win upballot by ~10ish points, even if Dems win the Prez race overall.
We literally will never pass any sort of gerrymandering reform without holding all 3 branches in 2028. I'd put it less than 50-50 if IN, TN, SC and the rest of the Southern states go through with these wild maps. I wouldn't count on Dems successfully responding in kind.
That is a very good point, and it's also why I'm not worried about 2028. I've been saying this for a while -- who is the next Trump? Could one even exist? Trump, to me, is one of those FDR/Reagan types (and I'm talking strictly popularity, not policy) that appear once in a generation, do wonders for their party, then disappear and future examples don't come about. I don't think Vance, Rubio, or any of the other Pres. GOP candidates have even a 50th of Trump's charisma and appeal (to say nothing of Trump's declining health and potentially even death, if it gets bad enough, which also takes out the "who will he endorse" factor), and if the Dems get a strong candidate (which I won't elaborate on due to the Dem Presidential Primary topic ban), we may be very well-positioned for that year. In short, don't worry. (To say nothing of the possibility of future Dem waves if an unpopular Republican eventually wins.)
No, this site is very far from becoming that. Dem presidential primary talk is banned due to it becoming contentious and starting fights in the past. I wasn't there for the rule being implemented but I believe it was related to the 2016/2020 primary divisions? (Perhaps one of the authors of The Downballot can correct me on that.)
I get your concern, but I wouldn’t get too worried yet, there are a lot of moving pieces that can still go either way. CO and NY are serious about redistricting, and that would lessen the impact from IN and the southern states. MO might overturn its gerrymander. I would only start getting worried if dems win a very small House majority this year (like 218-220 seats), as that would bode poorly for 28 and beyond given the lean/likely seats you mention. If dems win 228 seats or above I’ll feel pretty good about holding a majority in 28 even with republican gerrymandering.
Then we need to go 52-0 in California, 17-0 in Illinois, 26-0 in New York and make the maps so ugly that it forces Republicans to come to the table for a Constitutional Amendment to ban the practice.
We don’t need a Constitutional Amendment. We only need a transformed (packed?) Supreme Court that does its job and bans partisan and racial gerrymandering! (And reverses the heinous Citizens United decision.)
Alternatively, with a Democratic federal trifecta, legislation that does the same – and which clearly stipulates that it is NOT subject to SCOTUS review!
Today, courtesy of the Alito/Roberts court, we have an imperial presidency – as well as what is essentially an “imperial” Supreme Court. They’re just making shit up as they go along, and thoroughly abusing the Shadow Docket.
We do need a Constitutional amendment, and it should also note that corporations aren't people. We should have some other amendments too...to clarify the second amendment, to protect one's right to privacy, etc.
You're not wrong about the Court though. But we should take any nuance out of its hands with an amendment.
The current 7 House members will feel cautious if their margins are cut by 10-15 points. They won’t want to absorb extra Democratic voters. So maybe they make it an 8-1 map instead of 7-2. Worse case for them is they cut it too finely and Democrats pick up another seat.
But I would think it would require attracting more than 46-47% of the total vote. Possible, but on the far edge of probably.
Well republicans are usually told to shutup and get in line, and they do. Democrats bitch and complain until the state leadership backs down. God forbid their seats are made slightly less democratic
Thus far to my knowledge, Republicans have not risked any House seats. For example in TX, they got rid of Democratic seats mostly by making Democratic districts more Democratic and then around Dallas snaking the new seat deep into rural areas. They didn’t risk making a single TX rep vulnerable. In contrast, Indiana reps have to absorb all the Indiana Democratic voters. They’ll only do it if they think it increases their power. It’s probably easier to break up the NW Democratic seat. But maybe harder to split Indianapolis enough ways that everyone is safe. Or maybe I’m wrong and they’ll tolerate creating lean Republican seats. Or maybe it’s a moot point because they hold enough votes overall.
USA Today reports that five of the Indiana Republican state senators who opposed redistricting have lost. One prevailed, and the other race has yet to be called as it is so close.
The Trumpian Republicans will always vote in Indiana. The other Republicans stay home. Unless the Indiana Democratic party can take some lessons from G. Elliott Morris' work at Strength in Numbers and learn how to speak to less engaged voters and to win their votes, I'm not sure that there will be much change in my state.
Does anyone know where raw vote totals for Ohio's uncontested races live? Would love to see how Dems in the 7th/10th stacked up against Miller/Turner, and how Kaptur did against the R field.
If you want to pedantic, technically it's not his seat, as his was the Class 1 that he lost 2 years ago and this is the Class 2 that Vance won in 2022.
Pretty crazy numbers compared to 2022 when Republicans outvoted Democrats by 2 to 1 in the primary.
Also worth noting, Husted and Ramaswamy clearly suffered a MAGA voter penalty for entirely different reasons. Both of which gives Democrats an opening and is really hard to reconcile 2 completely different election issues for Republicans going into November in each contest.
Ramaswamy did terrible in rural white areas considering the fundraising and endorsements he got. He was the anointed standard bearer a year ago. Racism obviously played a factor with the white candidate Putsch getting 30% in some counties. If rural white voters blank the Governor race or stay home, it would be a massive boon to Acton.
On the other side of things you have Husted who experienced a colossal drop off from Republican voters who voted for Governor. Almost 100k Republicans voted for Governor, but not for Senate. As a traditionally old school GOP Senator who has no MAGA bonafides, their base rejected him enough to the point where Democrats actually got more votes for the Senate.
So simultaneously Republicans have a problem for the Governors race in rural areas and a problem for the Senate race from the MAGA base. You can argue both overlap, which is fair, but 2 races with problems from your voter base in a hostile political environment just adds to the headaches the GOP has going into November.
Here's an interesting question: given Vivek and Husted's problems, could this also have further effects down the ticket in Ohio? Could reach seats like OH-7 and OH-15 get closer than expected? Might this benefit Greg Landsman? Marcy Kaptur?
Dem totals were way ahead in the Sykes, Kaptur, Landsman seats, so that's good news. The Mike Turner seat is an eye-opener, but he always seems to find a way to win.
My State Senator was one of the ones defeated last night, Linda Rogers. I considered voting for her but a) I have only voted for one Republican in my life (Richard Lugar in 2006 when there wasn't a Dem on the ballot) and didn't want to break that 20-year streak and b) Rogers was running some truly disgusting anti-trans ads to try and save her skin and I didn't feel like validating that.
Was she the one quoted as saying "when I go to door-to-door all I hear about is boys in girls lockers rooms, not one person ever mentions redistricting"?
I like those results. Can you tell me what the turnout figures were in for each party in the Indiana State Senate races were? A friend of mine, who I just forwarded this Downballot Post to asked me for. I'm not so hot at getting info from government sites.
If anyone was curious, a 10 point win in the House nationwide on election night would be the third-largest for either party in 50 years, behind only 2008’s 10.4 point win and 1982’s 11.8 point win.
Wow! So glad we Michigan Dems. hung on to the State Senate Seat in Michigan. And by so much! Again, I would love to see the actual vote totals. This is a very Purple district leaning Republican in the past. Rivet's Election to Congress was a huge flip for Democrats and frankly unexpected at the time. According to her fund raising letters, her Congressional Seat may be the most competitive in Michigan, this year. More signs of a Blue Blowout coming in the November Elections. Tuesday's Election was so tiny that my little city didn't even have a ballot to present to the voters. Close to me on the other side of the County Line, there was a bond issue vote for a nearby school district. That was about it. Primaries are in August.
Obituaries: CNN founder Ted Turner, outspoken and brash on his views regarding politics and journalism, has died at 87.
Turner was the pioneer of the 24 hour news cycle, which has increased division in America's political discourse for decades and has only intensified since the rise of social media.
No, the state of media today was from a combination of factors, including him. He didn't have as much of a negative impact as say, Rupert Murdoch, though, and you're right about TCM.
You could also argue news media has always been this bitter and biased, dating back to yellow journalism during the Spanish-American War.
Yeah, I wouldn’t blame Ted Turner himself. He was part of a broader problem of media incentives (and not just in the United States), but he was hardly its driving force
"He once called it a “disgrace” that the U.S. was “the only first-world country that doesn't have universal healthcare” during one 2016 interview, and at a Reuters event in 2006 he suggested it is hypocritical for the U.S. to criticize Iran for wanting to have nuclear weapons."
I fervently agree about TCM. What a fantastic network. They show a lot of interesting old movies, including some without physical or streaming releases (I watched part of a 1920s one called The Student Prince of Old Heidelberg that got a Laserdisc release and no others), they've done fantastic work towards film preservation, and they have some genuinely educational and interesting pieces about old films and so on -- I watched a fascinating one about the sad history of the use of blackface in old films. I still remember when WB's then-CEO David Zaslav tried to kill TCM, and multiple prominent film directors stepped in to help save it.
The resolution would require a two-thirds vote to pass. Republicans have a supermajority, but some are concerned that an attempt to redraw the map to get rid of the state’s lone Democratic representative could backfire and create up to two districts where Democrats are competitive.
Given the geography, it will be very difficult to eliminate Clyburn’s seat without endangering many neighboring districts, and that’s not even counting SC-01, which is somewhat competitive as is. A dummymander backfire (which is definitely in the cards this year) would further the longer term strategy of getting Republicans to the table to agree to do something to limit gerrymandering.
I'd like to say the dummymander, but something worth noting is that Charleston and Columbia recently elected GOP mayors (and if I remember correctly, low turnout among the black population was a factor) so I wouldn't necessarily assume they'd be swing seats in that case.
That being said, in a wave I could absolutely see two swing seats emerging. Especially given how despised the current administration is.
Dummymander talks are too optimistic in my view. Not just SC but in general right now. Most of them are framed in light of the likely wave we have this year. A gerrymander that falls under an enormous wave isn't a dummymander.
A dummymander is when the outcome is worse for the party drawing the maps within the scopes of more typical election environments. A dummymander would be if we picked up seats in net in a D+0 to D+4 type of environment in a state that republicans re-gerrymandered .
That in mind, I'd say it's obvious that we want the map to stay as-is. The possibility for 2 seats in a wave is only worth so much. A near-certain 1 seat during a close environment is much more valuable, and that's what we get from the maps staying as-is.
Leave it as is. They'll carve it up enough to where it'll be 7-0 GOP almost all of the time. Even if a Democrat sneaks in once a while, it'll be a Joe Cunningham driftwood situation.
As someone from SC, we should leave as is. The GOP has been quite successful at gerrymandering the state legislature, and they'd find a way to make 7-0 pretty safe.
Also we have no options for citizen supported referenda here, so no way to overcome this.
His predecessor, Lamar Smith, was pretty bad too. Smith co-sponsored the Stop Online Piracy Act (a glorified internet censorship bill), which was my introductory point to politics at age 12 -- I heard about it via YouTube, and was horrified, and it taught me to pay attention to politics because horrible elected officials can and will take away your freedoms if you aren't watching. I believe his stances on other issues were little better.
Roy is himself nuts too. I welcome his end myself.
I used to like Roy a little better than Smith cause Roy did have a libertarian bent but he's spent the last 18 months declaring holy war against muslims and non-white immigration into texas while abandoning any such notion of respecting basic human rights. Middleton is also crazy but I have a more visceral disdain for Roy. The racism that has been flourishing in Texas the past few years is unlike anything I've seen in my life. Good news is I would expect the dems to have more of a shot at the AG seat than for Gov or Lt. Gov. so hopefully they both lose in the end.
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if a substantial number of Republicans want holy war against Muslims, along with other religious minorities such as Jews. (See: James Fishback, Nick Fuentes, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson.) Recently it came out that some members of the U.S. military described the Iran war as a Christian holy war.
"Two people familiar with the case said the search was related to an investigation opened during the Biden administration that has continued, examining possible corruption and bribery related to marijuana dispensary businesses."
CA-Gov: At last night's high-profile debate, former Rep. Katie Porter said she was the "daughter of farmers" to compare herself positively to billionaire businessman Tom Steyer. Steyer responded with "we are both traitors to our class".
Steyer has really impressed me. This is the latest I've considered myself undecided going into a primary. I started out as a Porter supporter, shifted to Becerra after Swalwell dropped out, but I think I'm leaning Steyer now. I might just hold onto my ballot for a bit until I decide.
It is. One of the very best presidents, with all his faults, was considered by most of his fellow rich people a class traitor. His name was Franklin D. Roosevelt, and he's why although I'm a socialist who doesn't believe billionaires should exist in the U.S., arguments that all candidates who are billionaires should be opposed just because they're billionaires ring hollow to me.
I don't think she actually said that, at least not in this clip. Pretty sure Noah's paraphrasing a joke people said Pritzker could use against Buttigieg and/or Harris for having leftist, immigrant professor parents but not going far enough on economic policy proposals.
Regarding the actual clip, Porter is doing a terrible job trying to create a moment and muddy the waters over something he was clearly emphatic and unequivocal in answering. Trying to legalese her way into it being a bad answer instead of trying to pivot to stronger ground.
California does have a lot of farmers, especially in the Hispanic-heavy San Joaquin Valley that includes populous cities such as Stockton, Modesto and Fresno.
Didn't he say that to Swalwell as well? Also, that doesn't ring true when said to Porter. Even if you don't like her, I wouldn't call her a working class traitor.
Just a heads up, the text of the tweet mentioned is a reference to a meme. Steyer didn't actually say "we are both traitors to our class" but did say that the taxes on billionaires could go further than what the current proposed ballot measure (that both Porter and Steyer support) would enact.
Although California has a major agriculture industry, Porter was born in Iowa, and, having watched the CNN debate, I could tell by the candidates' accents that Porter and Hilton are not originally from California, whereas the others (not sure about Mahan) had more typical California accents.
Last I heard, IL and a CA re-do are still on the menu too.
One more thing to consider -- if Indiana could primary their state legislators who wouldn't redistrict, we can too. (Looking at you, Bill Ferguson in MD.)
Quite honestly, if electing Stevens to the Senate results in a Senator a bit more moderate than McMorrow, that shouldn’t be a surprise. It may be more in line with where MI is as a result of Trump winning the state in 2016 and 2024.
Slotkin is more moderate than McMorrow but has quite a number of liberal views, especially with her consistency in wanting to overturn Citizens United.
The main concern is making sure the next Democratic Senator does fight and shows spine.
I am legit curious how that scandal with play out. Like with the success of Platner in Maine you can make a strong argument that old posts/opinions don't hit the way they used to, but when those posts are "fuck the people I want to represent" specifically, that may hit different. Especially with Stevens/El-Sayed having a lot more local cred and proudly flaunting it lately. (Though I do think McMorrow's campaign has other issues, who's campaign for senate doesn't lol)
I S2G there was a four month period where I thought Stevens/Scholten/Slotkin were the same person, and I try to keep up with this! lmao. At this point you could make a solid argument to vote McMorrow/El-Sayed solely on the grounds that you can tell the two MI senators apart lol
I think it's helpful to not watch and prognosticate as election results roll in. There's nothing to be done at that point but wait, and impartial impressions that can turn out wrong minutes later just isn't a very productive use of energy imo. I usually go out or just do something else and then check back in when the picture is clearer an hour or two later, maybe glancing at them on my phone to see if there are calls before then.
No problem although I think it’s still fair to assess as to whether a Democratic candidate may be too liberal, too moderate or just simply not a right fit for the district. We don’t have to be purists about it but it’s still a healthy discussion to know more about what election results tell us.
Oh absolutely. Sometimes a candidate genuinely does not represent their district - Jamaal Bowman poorly represented NY-16, Dan Goldman is poorly representing NY-10, and numerous candidates have lost throughout political history for inadequately representing their communities. I’m with you there.
What state?
I believe Tyler is referring to Iowa
We know that presidential debates mean very little, i'm curious how important debates for state office are, is anybody watching?
I wonder if perhaps it would be easier for the undecideds to make decisions in the general election as opposed to the primary. Of course, we’re also talking mainly about primary voters and not general election voters.
Well, overpromising is typical of many politicians. Even Barack Obama had this when he first ran as POTUS and did not accomplish as much as he claimed he would back in 2008. He accomplished a lot but many supporters who were drawn to the hype of Obama’s bid got underwhelmed after he took office.
That said, it all boils down to who is the right fit to have the broadest statewide appeal. I can’t comment on knowing enough about the candidates though. If you believe this strongly about Turek, then perhaps it’s because you are seeing something in him that you are not seeing in Wahls.
Trump and his cronies flooded Indiana with outside money and outside pressure in what is normally an intrastate election with local issues. My money is on the actual midterm and will wait and see what the true measure is come November.
I'm starting to get more concerned about 2028/30 and an actual, real, permanent Republican majority. I think we will be able to win the House this year, albeit more narrowly than we would've without the redistricting wars. But even if we are able to hold onto some of the lean/likely seats in November (Castor/Moskowitz in FL for example, or Landsman/Kaptur in OH) I think they are toast with presidential turnout in districts where the GOP nominee is likely to win upballot by ~10ish points, even if Dems win the Prez race overall.
We literally will never pass any sort of gerrymandering reform without holding all 3 branches in 2028. I'd put it less than 50-50 if IN, TN, SC and the rest of the Southern states go through with these wild maps. I wouldn't count on Dems successfully responding in kind.
That is a very good point, and it's also why I'm not worried about 2028. I've been saying this for a while -- who is the next Trump? Could one even exist? Trump, to me, is one of those FDR/Reagan types (and I'm talking strictly popularity, not policy) that appear once in a generation, do wonders for their party, then disappear and future examples don't come about. I don't think Vance, Rubio, or any of the other Pres. GOP candidates have even a 50th of Trump's charisma and appeal (to say nothing of Trump's declining health and potentially even death, if it gets bad enough, which also takes out the "who will he endorse" factor), and if the Dems get a strong candidate (which I won't elaborate on due to the Dem Presidential Primary topic ban), we may be very well-positioned for that year. In short, don't worry. (To say nothing of the possibility of future Dem waves if an unpopular Republican eventually wins.)
Yeah, I will say I get tired of the "MAGA is not going away!" predictions. Sure, they're not disappearing, but without Trump, they'll surely splinter.
That's what personality cults tend to do.
So we can not talk about the dem presidental primary yet we can talk anout the republican presidental primary.
Solunds like the downballot is becoming a far reich wing site.
No, this site is very far from becoming that. Dem presidential primary talk is banned due to it becoming contentious and starting fights in the past. I wasn't there for the rule being implemented but I believe it was related to the 2016/2020 primary divisions? (Perhaps one of the authors of The Downballot can correct me on that.)
I get your concern, but I wouldn’t get too worried yet, there are a lot of moving pieces that can still go either way. CO and NY are serious about redistricting, and that would lessen the impact from IN and the southern states. MO might overturn its gerrymander. I would only start getting worried if dems win a very small House majority this year (like 218-220 seats), as that would bode poorly for 28 and beyond given the lean/likely seats you mention. If dems win 228 seats or above I’ll feel pretty good about holding a majority in 28 even with republican gerrymandering.
Bad news in Indiana.
It’ll be extra important for Democrats to put up big numbers in November so Republicans feel they have to be cautious redistricting.
especially rep. carson, as much as I like mrvan we should be realistic and boost Indianapolis turnout high enough that they won't crack it
Republicans will not feel caution about anything. Assume 9-0 for 2028.
Then we need to go 52-0 in California, 17-0 in Illinois, 26-0 in New York and make the maps so ugly that it forces Republicans to come to the table for a Constitutional Amendment to ban the practice.
Nope we passed commissions in those states, we have to play by these rules.
Not in Illinois. It will just take some political will to overturn them in the other states.
Well in fairness to Illinois they've already done alot when other democratic states were sitting on their asses with their stupid commissions.
Again. They just need to overturn them and maximize the Democratic advantage and make Republicans cry uncle so we can get Gerrymandering reform.
I want to see the most delicious, finely sliced bacon strips, cooked to perfection, extending from Chicago, all the way to freakin' Cave-in-Rock IL.
Which was an act of ungodly stupidity.
No. It was in support of good government.
In co it only applies to if the state legislature did this.
That is why an outside group is doing it this year.
They are not bound by the law.
We don’t need a Constitutional Amendment. We only need a transformed (packed?) Supreme Court that does its job and bans partisan and racial gerrymandering! (And reverses the heinous Citizens United decision.)
Alternatively, with a Democratic federal trifecta, legislation that does the same – and which clearly stipulates that it is NOT subject to SCOTUS review!
But the Supreme Court can and will ignore that unless it is expanded.
Today, courtesy of the Alito/Roberts court, we have an imperial presidency – as well as what is essentially an “imperial” Supreme Court. They’re just making shit up as they go along, and thoroughly abusing the Shadow Docket.
Exactly.
We do need a Constitutional amendment, and it should also note that corporations aren't people. We should have some other amendments too...to clarify the second amendment, to protect one's right to privacy, etc.
You're not wrong about the Court though. But we should take any nuance out of its hands with an amendment.
The current 7 House members will feel cautious if their margins are cut by 10-15 points. They won’t want to absorb extra Democratic voters. So maybe they make it an 8-1 map instead of 7-2. Worse case for them is they cut it too finely and Democrats pick up another seat.
But I would think it would require attracting more than 46-47% of the total vote. Possible, but on the far edge of probably.
Well republicans are usually told to shutup and get in line, and they do. Democrats bitch and complain until the state leadership backs down. God forbid their seats are made slightly less democratic
Thus far to my knowledge, Republicans have not risked any House seats. For example in TX, they got rid of Democratic seats mostly by making Democratic districts more Democratic and then around Dallas snaking the new seat deep into rural areas. They didn’t risk making a single TX rep vulnerable. In contrast, Indiana reps have to absorb all the Indiana Democratic voters. They’ll only do it if they think it increases their power. It’s probably easier to break up the NW Democratic seat. But maybe harder to split Indianapolis enough ways that everyone is safe. Or maybe I’m wrong and they’ll tolerate creating lean Republican seats. Or maybe it’s a moot point because they hold enough votes overall.
desantis put one of the south florida republicans in danger, on mobile tried google which one but no luck
USA Today reports that five of the Indiana Republican state senators who opposed redistricting have lost. One prevailed, and the other race has yet to be called as it is so close.
The Trumpian Republicans will always vote in Indiana. The other Republicans stay home. Unless the Indiana Democratic party can take some lessons from G. Elliott Morris' work at Strength in Numbers and learn how to speak to less engaged voters and to win their votes, I'm not sure that there will be much change in my state.
Does anyone know where raw vote totals for Ohio's uncontested races live? Would love to see how Dems in the 7th/10th stacked up against Miller/Turner, and how Kaptur did against the R field.
Gov: GOP 820k, Dem 762k
Sen: GOP 733k, Dem 791k
OH15: GOP 39k, Dem 44k
OH9: GOP 57k, Den 46k
OH7: Dem 62k, GOP 50k
OH10: Dem 45k, GOP 44k
The more contested race got more votes in every instance.
https://liveresults.ohiosos.gov/
Thank you!
I'm impressed by the Senate and House numbers for the primary. Gives me hope that Sherrod can win back his seat.
If you want to pedantic, technically it's not his seat, as his was the Class 1 that he lost 2 years ago and this is the Class 2 that Vance won in 2022.
Pretty crazy numbers compared to 2022 when Republicans outvoted Democrats by 2 to 1 in the primary.
Also worth noting, Husted and Ramaswamy clearly suffered a MAGA voter penalty for entirely different reasons. Both of which gives Democrats an opening and is really hard to reconcile 2 completely different election issues for Republicans going into November in each contest.
Ramaswamy did terrible in rural white areas considering the fundraising and endorsements he got. He was the anointed standard bearer a year ago. Racism obviously played a factor with the white candidate Putsch getting 30% in some counties. If rural white voters blank the Governor race or stay home, it would be a massive boon to Acton.
On the other side of things you have Husted who experienced a colossal drop off from Republican voters who voted for Governor. Almost 100k Republicans voted for Governor, but not for Senate. As a traditionally old school GOP Senator who has no MAGA bonafides, their base rejected him enough to the point where Democrats actually got more votes for the Senate.
So simultaneously Republicans have a problem for the Governors race in rural areas and a problem for the Senate race from the MAGA base. You can argue both overlap, which is fair, but 2 races with problems from your voter base in a hostile political environment just adds to the headaches the GOP has going into November.
Here's an interesting question: given Vivek and Husted's problems, could this also have further effects down the ticket in Ohio? Could reach seats like OH-7 and OH-15 get closer than expected? Might this benefit Greg Landsman? Marcy Kaptur?
Dem totals were way ahead in the Sykes, Kaptur, Landsman seats, so that's good news. The Mike Turner seat is an eye-opener, but he always seems to find a way to win.
My State Senator was one of the ones defeated last night, Linda Rogers. I considered voting for her but a) I have only voted for one Republican in my life (Richard Lugar in 2006 when there wasn't a Dem on the ballot) and didn't want to break that 20-year streak and b) Rogers was running some truly disgusting anti-trans ads to try and save her skin and I didn't feel like validating that.
SD-11 voted for Trump 54-44 in 2020, I haven't seen data for 2024 but I imagine a little bit worse. So, theoretically competitive in a wave.
Was she the one quoted as saying "when I go to door-to-door all I hear about is boys in girls lockers rooms, not one person ever mentions redistricting"?
I don't believe so.
Yeah, sometimes there aren't any good guys.
Any chance of a Dem upset in November? For any of those seats?
Marist poll GCB: Dems 52-42
https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/NPR_PBS-News_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_202605011058.pdf
I like those results. Can you tell me what the turnout figures were in for each party in the Indiana State Senate races were? A friend of mine, who I just forwarded this Downballot Post to asked me for. I'm not so hot at getting info from government sites.
If anyone was curious, a 10 point win in the House nationwide on election night would be the third-largest for either party in 50 years, behind only 2008’s 10.4 point win and 1982’s 11.8 point win.
Democrats picked up 21 seats in 2008, on top the 31 they flipped in 2006.
Winning 50+ House seats this year seems out of the question due to the gerrymandering, but 30-40 is still doable.
What margin do you figure it would take to flip more than 40 seats?
The dems will win 50+ seats easily.
Wow! So glad we Michigan Dems. hung on to the State Senate Seat in Michigan. And by so much! Again, I would love to see the actual vote totals. This is a very Purple district leaning Republican in the past. Rivet's Election to Congress was a huge flip for Democrats and frankly unexpected at the time. According to her fund raising letters, her Congressional Seat may be the most competitive in Michigan, this year. More signs of a Blue Blowout coming in the November Elections. Tuesday's Election was so tiny that my little city didn't even have a ballot to present to the voters. Close to me on the other side of the County Line, there was a bond issue vote for a nearby school district. That was about it. Primaries are in August.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/06/us/ted-turner-death
Obituaries: CNN founder Ted Turner, outspoken and brash on his views regarding politics and journalism, has died at 87.
Turner was the pioneer of the 24 hour news cycle, which has increased division in America's political discourse for decades and has only intensified since the rise of social media.
Don’t think it’s quite fair to blame him for the state of the media today. And in leaving behind TCM, he left a positive mark.
No, the state of media today was from a combination of factors, including him. He didn't have as much of a negative impact as say, Rupert Murdoch, though, and you're right about TCM.
You could also argue news media has always been this bitter and biased, dating back to yellow journalism during the Spanish-American War.
Yeah, I wouldn’t blame Ted Turner himself. He was part of a broader problem of media incentives (and not just in the United States), but he was hardly its driving force
Even further than that. 19th-century American political cartoons and caricatures were absolutely brutal!
Something interesting about Turner was he supported universal healthcare, and was fairly left-wing in general.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-pays-tribute-ted-turner-152815222.html?guccounter=1 (it's from The Independent)
"He once called it a “disgrace” that the U.S. was “the only first-world country that doesn't have universal healthcare” during one 2016 interview, and at a Reuters event in 2006 he suggested it is hypocritical for the U.S. to criticize Iran for wanting to have nuclear weapons."
I fervently agree about TCM. What a fantastic network. They show a lot of interesting old movies, including some without physical or streaming releases (I watched part of a 1920s one called The Student Prince of Old Heidelberg that got a Laserdisc release and no others), they've done fantastic work towards film preservation, and they have some genuinely educational and interesting pieces about old films and so on -- I watched a fascinating one about the sad history of the use of blackface in old films. I still remember when WB's then-CEO David Zaslav tried to kill TCM, and multiple prominent film directors stepped in to help save it.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/tcm-collaboration-steven-spielberg-martin-scorsese-paul-thomas-anderson-1235787117/
Bless that network.
https://www.abccolumbia.com/2026/05/06/south-carolina-joins-southern-redistricting-push-after-us-supreme-court-ruling-on-minority-districts/
Without the support of Gov. Henry McMaster, South Carolina will still attempt to redistrict.
The resolution would require a two-thirds vote to pass. Republicans have a supermajority, but some are concerned that an attempt to redraw the map to get rid of the state’s lone Democratic representative could backfire and create up to two districts where Democrats are competitive.
What are we rooting for here, them leaving the map as it stands or accidentally creating a dummymander?
Without seeing the map, can’t say.
Given the geography, it will be very difficult to eliminate Clyburn’s seat without endangering many neighboring districts, and that’s not even counting SC-01, which is somewhat competitive as is. A dummymander backfire (which is definitely in the cards this year) would further the longer term strategy of getting Republicans to the table to agree to do something to limit gerrymandering.
It won't be difficult, they'll meander those districts into safe seats. The whole dummymander thing is wishful thinking.
Exactly. With enough pinwheels, they'll be able to pull it off and configure seats that are R+7 or more.
And t he dems will still be able tyo take them.
The are over perfoming by more than 19 which is more than twice of 7.
Ummmmm no.
I'd like to say the dummymander, but something worth noting is that Charleston and Columbia recently elected GOP mayors (and if I remember correctly, low turnout among the black population was a factor) so I wouldn't necessarily assume they'd be swing seats in that case.
That being said, in a wave I could absolutely see two swing seats emerging. Especially given how despised the current administration is.
Dummymander talks are too optimistic in my view. Not just SC but in general right now. Most of them are framed in light of the likely wave we have this year. A gerrymander that falls under an enormous wave isn't a dummymander.
A dummymander is when the outcome is worse for the party drawing the maps within the scopes of more typical election environments. A dummymander would be if we picked up seats in net in a D+0 to D+4 type of environment in a state that republicans re-gerrymandered .
That in mind, I'd say it's obvious that we want the map to stay as-is. The possibility for 2 seats in a wave is only worth so much. A near-certain 1 seat during a close environment is much more valuable, and that's what we get from the maps staying as-is.
Leave it as is. They'll carve it up enough to where it'll be 7-0 GOP almost all of the time. Even if a Democrat sneaks in once a while, it'll be a Joe Cunningham driftwood situation.
As someone from SC, we should leave as is. The GOP has been quite successful at gerrymandering the state legislature, and they'd find a way to make 7-0 pretty safe.
Also we have no options for citizen supported referenda here, so no way to overcome this.
They'll get McMaster aboard soon enough. This is happening, folks.
If Chip Roy loses the AG primary I will be so goddamn happy, he's my congressman and he's gotta be one of the worst.
His predecessor, Lamar Smith, was pretty bad too. Smith co-sponsored the Stop Online Piracy Act (a glorified internet censorship bill), which was my introductory point to politics at age 12 -- I heard about it via YouTube, and was horrified, and it taught me to pay attention to politics because horrible elected officials can and will take away your freedoms if you aren't watching. I believe his stances on other issues were little better.
Roy is himself nuts too. I welcome his end myself.
I used to like Roy a little better than Smith cause Roy did have a libertarian bent but he's spent the last 18 months declaring holy war against muslims and non-white immigration into texas while abandoning any such notion of respecting basic human rights. Middleton is also crazy but I have a more visceral disdain for Roy. The racism that has been flourishing in Texas the past few years is unlike anything I've seen in my life. Good news is I would expect the dems to have more of a shot at the AG seat than for Gov or Lt. Gov. so hopefully they both lose in the end.
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if a substantial number of Republicans want holy war against Muslims, along with other religious minorities such as Jews. (See: James Fishback, Nick Fuentes, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson.) Recently it came out that some members of the U.S. military described the Iran war as a Christian holy war.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/03/us-israel-iran-war-christian-rhetoric
Scary shit -- and it's why we have to keep fighting.
I got to be introduced to politics in 2016 by Trump's "grab them by the pussy" comment! Fun times.
FBI raided the offices of VA state Senator L. Louise Lucas.
https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/local/mycity/portsmouth/fbi-raid-louise-lucas-portsmouth-va/291-cdb5e179-b8bc-460d-878b-b04db87374d9
Lucas is going to take Kashapp to the cleaners once everything is said and done with. Black women don't play around.
Another use of the Justice Department by Trump to take revenge on a political opponent
NYT is saying the investigation started under Biden DOJ
Please summarize their claims. What did they claim Garland's weak-assed Justice Department was investigating?
"Two people familiar with the case said the search was related to an investigation opened during the Biden administration that has continued, examining possible corruption and bribery related to marijuana dispensary businesses."
It didn't work for Tish James, and I don't think it will work here. Lucas is also tough -- the kind of fighter Dems need more of.
Apparently this is about her cannabis business as they raided that too: https://virginiamercury.com/2026/05/06/fbi-raids-sen-louise-lucas-portsmouth-office-cannabis-business/
No word on if they then proceeded to raid the nearby convenience stores to "impound" every snack food as part of this.
https://x.com/noahpasaran/status/2051855422190215565
CA-Gov: At last night's high-profile debate, former Rep. Katie Porter said she was the "daughter of farmers" to compare herself positively to billionaire businessman Tom Steyer. Steyer responded with "we are both traitors to our class".
That’s a really good line
Steyer has really impressed me. This is the latest I've considered myself undecided going into a primary. I started out as a Porter supporter, shifted to Becerra after Swalwell dropped out, but I think I'm leaning Steyer now. I might just hold onto my ballot for a bit until I decide.
It is. One of the very best presidents, with all his faults, was considered by most of his fellow rich people a class traitor. His name was Franklin D. Roosevelt, and he's why although I'm a socialist who doesn't believe billionaires should exist in the U.S., arguments that all candidates who are billionaires should be opposed just because they're billionaires ring hollow to me.
I don't think she actually said that, at least not in this clip. Pretty sure Noah's paraphrasing a joke people said Pritzker could use against Buttigieg and/or Harris for having leftist, immigrant professor parents but not going far enough on economic policy proposals.
Regarding the actual clip, Porter is doing a terrible job trying to create a moment and muddy the waters over something he was clearly emphatic and unequivocal in answering. Trying to legalese her way into it being a bad answer instead of trying to pivot to stronger ground.
According to the comments it is originally a quote attributed to Zhou Enlai in an exchange with Nikita Khrushchev.
Yea Porter going for the all-important farmers vote in the primary.
California does have a lot of farmers, especially in the Hispanic-heavy San Joaquin Valley that includes populous cities such as Stockton, Modesto and Fresno.
I just don't see her appealing to Hispanic workers in the valley, especially with other Hispanic surnames on the ballot.
Didn't he say that to Swalwell as well? Also, that doesn't ring true when said to Porter. Even if you don't like her, I wouldn't call her a working class traitor.
Just a heads up, the text of the tweet mentioned is a reference to a meme. Steyer didn't actually say "we are both traitors to our class" but did say that the taxes on billionaires could go further than what the current proposed ballot measure (that both Porter and Steyer support) would enact.
Although California has a major agriculture industry, Porter was born in Iowa, and, having watched the CNN debate, I could tell by the candidates' accents that Porter and Hilton are not originally from California, whereas the others (not sure about Mahan) had more typical California accents.
https://x.com/tnsenategop/status/2052034274988015720
New Tennessee congressional map. Make of it what you will, but I don't think it will be a dummymander
They split Shelby County into three districts apparently.
Yep, no other way to dilute it.
I believe Davidson is still in 3 as well.
That just looks obnoxious but hey. If this is the game the GOP wants to play, we can play.
Can we?
We can and we absolutely should and anyone who doesn't go along with it can get primaried out of office.
IDK New York, Illinois aren't moving and California isn't going back for a double dip.
New York is moving.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/05/new-york-democrats-amplify-their-push-for-a-2028-redistricting-00906858
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/politics/2026/05/01/new-york-redistricting-war-
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5862987-jeffries-redistricting-plan-new-york/
Last I heard, IL and a CA re-do are still on the menu too.
One more thing to consider -- if Indiana could primary their state legislators who wouldn't redistrict, we can too. (Looking at you, Bill Ferguson in MD.)
Yes they are.
Democrats eye sweeping 2026 redistricting: "Everything's on the table"
https://www.axios.com/2026/05/01/supreme-court-voting-rights-2028-maps-democrats
Ogles now apparently has one of the Shelby splits rather than the Davidson ones.
Are they planning on having it in place for 2026? (Yeah, I'm pretty sure the answer is not good, but just to confirm.)
They are - the primary doesn't happen until August, but the candidate filing deadline was in February or March IIRC, so they will have to reopen.
Democrats should try to sue over this.
MI Senate: Former senator Stabenow endorses Stevens.
https://x.com/ethanhiguain/status/2051999115765027300?s=46&t=sbdQQeYBqp0h_Zql717iTw
She also endorsed Slotkin to succeed her, and you could make the argument Slotkin and Stevens are similar in some ways.
Quite honestly, if electing Stevens to the Senate results in a Senator a bit more moderate than McMorrow, that shouldn’t be a surprise. It may be more in line with where MI is as a result of Trump winning the state in 2016 and 2024.
Slotkin is more moderate than McMorrow but has quite a number of liberal views, especially with her consistency in wanting to overturn Citizens United.
The main concern is making sure the next Democratic Senator does fight and shows spine.
Michigan has too many centrist leaning democratic white women who's names start with S it's too much for my Texas ass to keep track of.
I am legit curious how that scandal with play out. Like with the success of Platner in Maine you can make a strong argument that old posts/opinions don't hit the way they used to, but when those posts are "fuck the people I want to represent" specifically, that may hit different. Especially with Stevens/El-Sayed having a lot more local cred and proudly flaunting it lately. (Though I do think McMorrow's campaign has other issues, who's campaign for senate doesn't lol)
Honestly the fact that the tweets keep getting brought up is driving me crazy. She said she missed California, quelle horreur.
Don't forget Scholten who hasn't run for Senate yet!
I S2G there was a four month period where I thought Stevens/Scholten/Slotkin were the same person, and I try to keep up with this! lmao. At this point you could make a solid argument to vote McMorrow/El-Sayed solely on the grounds that you can tell the two MI senators apart lol
Well I had egg on my face from yesterday. I was unduly worried about FitzGerald, and I was wrong.
I would like to apologize for being paranoid again. I really have to get my mental health under better control.
It happens to the best of us, no big deal.
yes!
What does this mean?
I'd forgotten about him. Does his scandal and horrific loss in 2014 OH-Gov still hang over him?
I suspect it’s why he lost.
I think it's helpful to not watch and prognosticate as election results roll in. There's nothing to be done at that point but wait, and impartial impressions that can turn out wrong minutes later just isn't a very productive use of energy imo. I usually go out or just do something else and then check back in when the picture is clearer an hour or two later, maybe glancing at them on my phone to see if there are calls before then.
No problem although I think it’s still fair to assess as to whether a Democratic candidate may be too liberal, too moderate or just simply not a right fit for the district. We don’t have to be purists about it but it’s still a healthy discussion to know more about what election results tell us.
Oh absolutely. Sometimes a candidate genuinely does not represent their district - Jamaal Bowman poorly represented NY-16, Dan Goldman is poorly representing NY-10, and numerous candidates have lost throughout political history for inadequately representing their communities. I’m with you there.