Following my analysis of the Democrats legislative future in yesterdays digest, I thought I would note what i think the Democrats strategy should be going forward.
In my opinion, we should take notes from Howard Dean's fifty-state strategy, as people all across the political system become increasingly disenfranchised with this Trump administration, and basically nothing doing well, we are set up for winning the house back for sure and it makes me think that we should invest largely into potential infrastructure in potential democratic states in ~50 years or 50 years ago, sort of something similar to the tea party movement but have candidates that suit the district they're running in whilst also having them being connected to crucial ideology of the democratic party. We can then move onto having progressives in deep blue seats, because then every caucus benefit of having democrats in congress whilst benefiting the main democrats agenda, representing every ideology in the broad tent party we are.
Yes! We need a 50-State, 3144-County Strategy! And yes to investing in party infrastructure everywhere – and yes to running candidates that suit the district. Let me add that in some cases, that means supporting Independents.
In many (most?) states, the chair of the state Democratic party isn't a full-time paid position and IIRC, in some states it may not be paid at all. They definitely don't have year round staff and must reinvent the wheel every election.
I have redirected the money that I was sending to the DNC to the NC Democratic party, because I think I get more bang for my buck here. I am super impressed with what Chair Anderson Clayton is doing. She has once again recruited candidates to challenge all but 2 seats and there should be independents running for those two seats (if they get the necessary signatures by Tuesday, which is the date of our state primary.
Apparently, the NC GOP is dismissive of the need to run everywhere, especially in my county of Mecklenburg. I think they are making a BIG mistake. Democrats did very well in statewide races in 2024 with the same "run everywhere" strategy and won 5 of the 10 "council of state" races - governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, and Superintendent of Public Education. The Lt. Governor and Superintendent were flips - in a red wave election year with Trump on the ballot.
In the 2024 election, a state senate candidate, Kate Barr, ran in a heavily gerrymandered GOP district with the slogan "Kate Barr Can't Win". She was correct, but she likely goosed up turnout in her district and took a very respectable 35% of the vote. Allison Riggs won her race for the NC Supreme Court by less than 750 votes (out of 5.5M votes cast). Kate's viral campaign may very well have made the difference in Allison Riggs win. This year has another "must win" Supreme Court battle to reelect Justice Anita Earls.
With Roy Cooper running well ahead in the polls for the open US Senate seat and the US house delegation from NC gerrymandered to within an inch of its life, who is to say how many Republicans may decide to stay home in November if they don't have state legislative candidates for which to vote. Don't get me wrong - I am definitely not complaining if Democrats catch a break for once here in NC!
Cheryl, Ms Clayton is awesome and look at all that she has done to change NC.
There is enough money in play to have full-time staffs in every state. It is worth it even if it takes money from elections budgets. We would do so much better if we engaged farmers and the working poor regularly by reaching out to them, listen to their concerns, and adjust our policies to fit their needs, rather than come election and ask for their votes without tailoring our policies to their needs.
if fdr could cobble together the new deal coalition out of what at the time was party reduced to winning in northern big cities and the solid south because it was effectively limited to northern catholics, labor unions, and southern segregationists, we can certainly hew closer to crucial ideology while expanding our tent to be more inclusive than the new deal coalition
90 years ago, and at the depth of the Great Depression, yes he did. How wide pur coalition is (aka the size or possibility of majority) will be inversely proportionate to the ideological hegemony of the coalition. Where's the line/balance?
He was able to get some of his New Deal through and fight a war by making compromises like not fighting for _anti-lynching legislation_. What crucial ideology are you willing to compromise on?
i cannot speak for the entire party as a rank and file donor and voter, but whoever does end up facing that question shouldn't negotiate against themselves by saying what they'd compromise on. My personal red-lines are left wing courts unions civil liberties across the board and climate change policy but its a pretty broad umbrella and i'm just one person
Yes, of course not stating what basic principles you'd be willing to compromise for what agreement is negotiations 101. But I think you missed my point, which is that Northerners whose votes were needed by FDR did not hew close to crucial ideology but instead had to swallow very hard to allow FDR to pander to violent racism.
and i think we are going to have to make some choices, however we can learn from the past and not make the same mistakes. Cactus jack garner, fdr's first vp though himself a virulent racist, believed there was a path to passing anti-lynching legislation in the late 30's, but fdr got cold feet. this is detailed better in unlikely heroes by derek leebart. I see your point and candidly was dodging the direct question, but i acknowledge we will have to swallow some bad bills to broadly remake the country into a more equitable, prosperous for all society
link to the book if you're interested, really shows FDR's weakspots, dealing with the South and his revolving door of cabinet heads aside from the wallace, hopkins, ickes, and perkins
The Great Depression was needed to trigger FDR's New Deal coalition. It would take a similarly momentous historical event to put that kind of coalition together, but considering the AI revolution looks poised to make the Great Depression look like a mere tropical storm by comparison, we may well have the making of that kind of coalition.
But look at Spanberger & Sherrill. Two "centrist/mainstream" Dems, but laser focused on affordability & getting things done while still talking frankly and directly abot Trump corruption and ICE murdering people in the street.
It is possible to be mainstream without being mushy GOP-lite and a corporate kiss-@$$. THOSE are the Dems that need to go.
Yes, I am thrilled at the rise of the Bernie-Warren-Jaypapal-AOC-Mamdani-DSA wing of the party. They are larger and more influential than at any time in my voting lifetime (1985).
But the shift in the middle is just as exciting, and may be more consequential. The Klobuchar-Spanberger-Sherrill chunk of the party. Willing to be unabashedly pro working class, government solutions, AND confrontational on immigration & corruption. That will play well almost everywhere.
If we do it right, the Manchin-Sinema-Lieberman-Golden GOP light, corporate Dem wing should become virtually extinct in 2 cycles.
Klobuchar, Spanberger and Sherrill represent Minnesota., Virginia, and New Jersey: solidly blue states. Not at all remotely comparable to Ohio, Iowa or Alaska (places we desperately need to win in 2026). And that says nothing of Louisiana, West Virginia, or Idaho.
Sherrod Brown is Ohio, he isn't a corporate Dem. Compare Gallego and Hayes to Sinema in AZ. That is a swing state.
Who cares about ID & WV, we are not winning there regardless. So you might as well stand strong and plant seeds for the future.
Look at where Manchin triangulation got us. You have to try and move the opinions of the electorate AND make calculations about what is a bridge too far. Not oushing back eventually gets the rug pulled out from underneath you (Manchin, McCaskill, Landrieu, Pryor, Heidtkamp, etc.).
Anyway, we have to push back. And it should be a no-brainer on stuff like ICE, immigration, and billionaire/corporate greed, and Epstein. MAGA ageees with us there.
1. Manchin got us a judge on the Supreme Court most importantly
2. He was the best Dems could get from WV and now the Senator is a pos MAGA.
3. You can criticize Manchin’s triangulation and conservatism since he killed the BBB, child tax credit, paid maternity leave since parents would allegedly become lazy, thrashed Dems virulently in his new book and book tour, said he should have switched parties in 2017, did not vote for Harris and wished Dems lost because they wanted to carve out the filibuster while appreciating his utility for holding that crucial WV Senate seat and his electoral prowess.
4. I would have supported Manchin if he ran for re election.
Those aren't generally solidly blue states, at least not recently. The GOP thought they could win NJ a few months ago, and were salivating at a chance to win in MN this fall before Walz stepped down.
I’m giving you an upvote, with reservations. As frustrating as I found Congressman Jared Golden and Senator Joe Manchin, I regret that they’re retiring/retired.
Manchin is the only Democrat who could possibly win in West Virginia – and I think it most unfortunate that he is now replaced by a Republican. I would far rather have a Democratic majority with Manchin caucusing with us than have the Senate majority out of reach because of our purity tests!
Likewise Jared Golden! His very red Maine district, ME-02, now runs a very real risk of being represented by Paul LePage, the ingrate who has proudly said "I was Trump before Trump."
Curious how Donald is holding up in ME-02. Seems lie a great time to raise a Florida Grandpa competency/age question particularly if Mills is not the senate nominee.
Look, while I certainly think Golden & Manchin were better than having GOPers there short term, they seriously undermine Dem messaging in major issues.
Manchin/Sinema seriously limited what we could do under Biden, which helped the GOP. Any Dem majority dependent on Manchin or Sinema types is limited in what it can achieve and vulnerable to Trump style populism and locks us into the run on hope, deliver little, get creamed in the midterms, nothing ever changes, voter apathy/desperation cycle. That HAS to change.
Plus, I disagree with your analysis. Purity tests didn't cost us WV, it was already gone. Manchin chose not to run again. He knew he couldn't win. The only way to create conditions there where Dems can win is to push back.
And do you regret swapping out Sinema for Gallego? Remember when that was seen as too risky?
The problem with your complaints about Manchin and Sinema is that without them, the Democrats wouldn't have had a majority in the Senate and things would have been worse. Then, who would you have blamed for the Democratic candidate losing to Trump?
And without Sinema, Martha McSally might still be a Senator from Arizona. In 2024, Ruben Gallego beat Kari Lake by less than 3% in a race for an open seat, so saying that he might have narrowly lost to an incumbent doesn't seem like that much of a reach.
Defend Manchin all you want I agree but why are we defending Sinema here? She basically sold out once in office and misappropriated her congressional and campaign funds while wrecking homes as well. Biden and Kelly won Arizona in 2020 and Kelly won it in a redder year in 2022. I see no reason to defend Sinema or the way she voted. She’s a corporate lobbyist for ai and crypto enjoying her corporate campaign slush fund now.
She won a swing state in a blue wave, it’s not as if she was holding the reddest state east of the Mississippi like Manchin and basically killed the limited tax hikes that Manchin supported as well.
Again, I do not know where "purity tests" came into this? I never suggested anything of the sort.
I love Peltola in Alaska.
But red district/state Dems cannot be allowed to sabotage major agenda items that would benefit the electorate and help Dems in the midterms. Or face the consequences come primary season. Find smaller ways (or more strategic ones) to show your independence.
There has to be consequences. I love what NC Dems are doing.
Majorities based on those types are essentially defensive in nature. They cannot get much positive done, but prevent the opposition from doing bad things.
But we are at a point where we actually need to accomplish things. Pass big things. Save democracy, reign in the Epstein class & hols them accoutable, make government work for a erage fild, get the $$ out, court reform, kill the fill, build housing & infrasteucture, M4A, climate change, etc.
Now, if the handful or corporate/red state Dems act like Susan Collins & don't block stuff, then fine. I see the benefit. But if not, then not so much.
We need to have a majority that can either rely on or isn't dependent on those votes. And, atm, I think having real consequences for corporate Dems helps make that happen. Fear of God needs to be there.
And I think the number of places where Spanberger types don't play well (or Peltola or Talarico or Platner) is VERY small.
For me the goal is a MAJ that can actually do big things, and I do not think Manchin/Sinema/Golden tyles help us there.
If I have to have a couple riskier candidates win in primaries (Platner over Mills) to put the fear of God into the heard, so be it. And I do not think Platner is less likely to win vs Collins. Crockett, different story. But she is gonna win the primary, I think. And neither she nor Takarico is in Manchin/Sinema/Mills territory for me.
Again, purity tests didn't force Golden out. When the going got tough, he bailed. Virtually useless.
If the agenda relies on his vote, he cripples you, and if it doesn't, losing him does not matter. And he and his types do not help in changing public opinion one whitt.
The left wing has moved left and shown viability in a lot of places. Most deep blue districts can support real progressive candidates. Not all, certainly, but most.
The middle has moved left and shown increased viability as well. Gallego, Sherrill, Spanberger, Klobochar, etc.
There are VERY few red district House members, and a good amount are pretty solid (Kaptur, OH).
The Hamstringer/Oragami caucus is shrinking, and the sooner it is irrelevant the better we will all be.
I like Indivisible's strategy to promote more progressive candidates - or at least ones that will put up a fight Trump more aggressively in the primaries in districts where the primary IS the election because a GOP candidate has little to no chance to win in the general election. We definitely need some new blood with new ideas.
And if this strategy works in 2026, then maybe some of the complacent corporate Democrats in safe seats will choose to retire rather than run again next time.
I am sympathetic to Manchin’s position and wanted him to run again but how exactly did we “purity test” him out of office? Schumer practically begged him to run as an Independent but he saw his polling, polarization, WV’s red lean in a Presidential cycle and saw the writing on the wall.
Love this! A strategy that only ever focuses on swing states neglects the states that could become swing states in the future. Those states need infrastructure build up to become competitive.
The only caution I’ll give is we still need to be wary of grifters that run against high profile R’s like those who ran against McConnell and MTG, sucked up a ton of money, built no infrastructure, and lost in a blowout.
PACs like Welcome PAC, which were created to support centrists in competitive swing districts, should focus on that mission rather than attacking progressives running in safely blue districts, such as Nate Blouin. Using misleading fundraising texts and fearmongering that a progressive will lose the "swing district" in a deep-blue area is not right.
I respect that McAdams managed to win such a tough seat in 2018. But at the same time, a conservative Democrat who like McAdams may be well-suited for a reddish swing district; not for representing a deep-blue city that Kamala Harris carried by 23 points and has shifted relatively to the left every 4 years.
that first point is not my point, we don’t need centrists in swing districts necessarily as you see with platner in maine, we need candidates who suite and benefit their district, however I do agree with the rest that you said
WelcomePAC funders include the Murdochs, the Waltons, Bloomberg, and Reid Hoffman. It's primarily interested in pushing the caucus rightward, despite how it's billed.
Predicting what tomorrow's coalitions will look like isn't as easy as we think it is. A 50-state strategy positions us to be ready when conditions on the ground change. We didn't "win" in Idaho or Wyoming in 2006 (Jerry Brady, Gary Trauner) when the 50-state strategy was at its peak, but we certainly made it competitive in a way few would have imagined in 2004.
1. The much higher level of political polarization that exists today makes winning in these areas impossible at the moment, and I wouldn't count on that level of polarization to decrease to pre-2016-ish levels.
2. The problem is that even if inroads can be made in those areas on economic issues, they aren't going to become socially more moderate anytime soon. To bring large numbers of socially conservative voters into the party, a lot of groups would have to be thrown under the bus.
It is exhausting, demoralizing, and dangerous to run a campaign in hostile territory. Under the circumstances, it is hard to recruit a strong Democratic candidate to run in, say, Wyoming. And running a weak candidate only reinforces the Republican hegemony.
As DNC Chair, Ken Martin's efforts in leading the DNC are the closest the Democratic Party has gotten to what once was Howard Dean's 50 state strategy. I'm not sure yet this has been perfectly executed but Martin's had a lot to work with since Trump got elected for a 2nd term.
After Trump is out of office, that's where the Democratic Party needs to aim higher heading to 2030 and 2034. A 50 state strategy shouldn't be conveniently used just because we don't have a POTUS who is Bush, Trump or anyone in the GOP.
"[Blake] Fiechter never filed any fundraising reports during his short-lived bid," while Travis Holdman has more than $430,000 in his campaign account.
Trump is sitting on a campaign chest of more than half a billion dollars. How telling that he wouldn’t even support Fiecther with his spare change!
When Trump’s eagerness to hold onto power collides with his grift, he has quite the dilemma.
One quick note about the Maine special election: One reason why the Republican candidate got as close as she did may have been that she had a French last name while the Democratic candidate did not. Lewiston has a large Franco-American population, and these things really can make a difference.
I remember that in the early 2010s, there was a special election in Massachusetts, for a district south of Boston, an area with a lot of people of Irish descent. The Republican candidate had an Irish name - Patrick O'Connor - while the Democratic candidate did not. The district had voted for Obama, but the Republican won the special election, and I maintain to this day that he won because he had an Irish name while the Democrat did not.
People underestimate how much of a role surnames play among low-information voters. People around here were speculating a month or so ago why Julie Blaha underperformed in the 2022 Minnesota Auditor's race. There were a few reasons.
First, there were candidates from both of the pot parties running in the Auditor's race, which was not the case in the Secretary of State and Attorney General race, and they combined for more than 4% of the vote that likely came at Blaha's expense.
Second, people tend to like the idea of a "fiscal conservative" in an office like State Auditor.
Third, from all I can tell, Julie Blaha has spectacularly low name recognition even after two terms. I'd be shocked if even 10% of Minnesotans could identify who our Auditor is, and shocked if 20% would recognize the name once they were told.
And last, "Blaha" is not a phonetically pleasing surname. Wilson, the surname of her challenger, was more mainstream. I'd wager that that was the difference for at least a four-figure share of voters, possibly even five-figure share, in a name where the vast majority of voters doesn't know who either candidate is. I remember talking to a Minnesota Secretary of State candidate who mentioned how the party loved to recruit candidates with plain or familiar surnames for downballot races, confident that doing so was worth a point or two.
I heard a story about an African-American woman with the surname O'Neal who was running for judge- her signs had her picture on them in black neighborhoods and had a shamrock on them in the white neighborhoods.
What's the the likelihood that the Democratic primary in TX ultimately has higher turnout than the Republicans? That sounds like it would be a huge deal.
I don't think flop is the right word. But tepidly positive with his base at best. The immediate polling showed modest upticks with Republican voters' perception compared to before the speech. Absolutely did nothing to win back moderates or independents to his cause though.
Also didn’t watch but concerned that Dems are being poor sports about the USA Hockey team. I truly want to believe that most of them are too young/apolitical to really internalize the state of affairs.
Some people out there really just don’t follow the ins and outs of politics on a daily basis! (no one on this board of course)
It’s important re hockey at least to distinguish between the Tkachuk bros who are probably the most openly MAGA pro athletes in America short of Harrison Butker and young guys excited to go to the White House, but what the former do/say colors perceptions of the latter
My housemate (much less political than I am, but a Black Democrat) had it on for the duration. I couldn't bear to watch. I tried to watch the responses this morning and couldn't bear those either, the only one I could handle watching was Padilla (with subtitles).
We are probably going to have to work something out in Montana, unless Bodnar has some interesting proosals that appeal to a wide variety of voters. There aren't enough anti-Daines voters where we can afford to split the anti-Daines constitutency, to even make the race competitive.
The Virginia primary deadlines have changed to 8/4 for this election cycle only! The Downballot's election calendar will need this update.
House candidate filing deadlines are now 5/26 for party candidates and 8/4 for independents. Candidates for all other offices must file by 4/2 for party candidate and 6/16 for independents. The VA DOE already updated their site.
She's put her body on the line for the district. She was at Broadview from the start, protesting. One could cynically say that she was doing this just to support her campaign but I really admire what she's done with her campaign and I'm interested to see if it will show up in the results.
It’s my home district and yes, I do. She has no ties to the district or qualifications and only ran there to try and use the generational divide to primary out one of the most progressive democrats in congress. I’m more qualified to represent IL-9 than she is and I am not qualified to be a congressperson.
The Indiana Republican state senators who opposed redistricting wanted not to rock the boat by giving the tepid state Democratic party something to rally around.
lol. In this moment, it's TX sen by a LONG SHOT. But thankfully ending in six days. Will probably bring MI sen back, mostly because Mills hasn't gone too negative to spur energy in ME gov.
I think the ME Senate primary is over and done with, given that Mills fumbled on the outset. What's really concerning is if Platner will prevail against Collins or whether his history (particularly his tattoo) puts her back in office for a sixth term.
Yeah, I"m starting to make my peace with the fact that Platner is likely to be our nominee. He wouldn't have been my choice, but it's time to get on board and make sure he beats Collins. We can sort out replacing him with a better Dem next cycle....
I’m just going to be a poll denier on this race and maintain that the Democratic primary polls are not modeling the electorate right. I just can’t imagine Democrats willingly blowing a race like this.
Unfortunately, I believe that "electability" matters less to Democratic primary voters now since Biden, for whatever reasons, was not able to bring back normalcy and prevent the return of Trumpism which was the main promise of the electability argument. Don't take my comment as indicating support for Crockett.
My view is, while it’s true that sometimes the candidates that lose in primaries would have fared better in the general than the candidates that won, no candidate that loses their own parties’ primary should ever be considered to be “strong”. If they were truly strong, they would have convinced their own people of that first.
Appealing to primary voters and general election voters are different games: Herschel Walker, Doug Mastriano, Mehmet Oz, Kari Lake, Blake Masters, Kristina Karamo, Joe Kent, JD Vance and now Ken Paxton are good examples.
I wasn’t trying to say the winning candidates weren’t weak, clearly they were, I was saying the losing candidates weren’t strong. If they were that talented they wouldn’t have gotten tripped up like they did.
No offense, but this is a ridiculous sentiment. Primary voters and general election voters are miles apart in terms of what appeals to them, and being strong with one group never necessarily means you'd be strong with the other.
Remember Mike Castle? Sharron Angle? Numerous examples
Authenticity, on the other hand, actually works in Talarico's favor. Say what you will about MAGA primary candidates they came off as the "authentic" ones to primary voters.
Maybe in the past, but in her recent campaign she seems to be phoning it in. Beto 2.0 seems more authentically Texan than a Dallas version of Kamala Harris.
Only 369 TX Democratic voters were polled. "For the Democratic primary, pollsters from the University of Texas’ Texas Politics Project surveyed a sample of 369 voters, producing a margin of error of +/-5.1 points."
And it took two weeks to complete. I know it's hard to reach enough people to get a good polling sample, especially nowadays, but should it really take that long? This reached on average only about 25 people a day.
The main problem with polling is getting a uniform sample. This is so difficult that most, if not all, pollsters assume they will fail and instead weight their samples to try to simulate one. "Margin of Error" represents a 95% confidence interval. But it doesn't mean that you're equally likely to fall anywhere within that interval. You would have higher probability distribution closer to the poll result than at the edges of the MoE. Again, assuming you truly have a uniform at random sample of the people who are actually going to cast valid ballots, which you almost certainly do not.
Even though model weights are the main reason why polls are wrong, that doesn't mean sample size doesn't matter. To the contrary, the fact that you're weighting the sample based on Demographic data means that a small sample size could result in giving very high weight to a couple responses, if they represent a bigger portion of your population.
So when I said earlier that you would need the same sample size for Vermont, that wasn't not entirely true. Not because Vermont is smaller in population, but because it is less diverse, meaning you're less likely to have problems with undersampling a demographic subset.
Wasn’t the 2024 Congress vote R+18? Having it even seems very surprising 2 years later. Though most will likely shift back to their party as the campaigns heat up, it’s still a massive shift.
I don't believe this. I think a net positive approval for Crockett, let alone two digits, is simply impossible to be true on a statewide poll. She is going to have negligible support from any Repubs and conservatives, and she's become extremely toxic among a solid portion of informed Dems and liberals/progressives.
Did the poll do a territorial breakdown of primary voters? East/West/South/North/Central? The sample size almost meets the TDB standard but I feel with a state like Texas when it comes to polling that state, territory and regions should be heavily considered. I expect Crockett to do well in the Houston and Dallas Fort-Worth area and Talarico to do well in the Austin and neighboring regions but I think pushing for regional and territorial support data in polling like this where half the state is in a different time zone is the more important factor to examine.
I mean...are we trying to throw away a winnable race? One of our key advantages over Republicans used to be that we nominated more electable candidates. Seems like maybe we're moving away from that....
Either this 2 week poll conducted before the Talarico Colbert FCC interview blockage is incorrect or the Harris County TX poll done the other week is incorrect. The two are not compatible with one another and show wildly different results. We’ll find out shortly which is more accurate.
Crockett viscerally captures those type of voters better than Talarico does. As did Trump on the other side. Once a voter believes the candidate is fighting for them, it is usually a done deal going forward and takes a ton to break that link.
Most people base their votes on emotion, not logic.
For better or worse, that is the voter universe/behavior we are dealing with, and I think it is likely to get more emotional & visceral rather than more detached & logical. Read the room as it is, not as you'd want it to be.
Good trendline, pre-Colbert too.
Good choice on selecting Peters for IL-02. Villa's a decent shout, too (even though I prefer Kim).
Thank you, appreciate that!
Following my analysis of the Democrats legislative future in yesterdays digest, I thought I would note what i think the Democrats strategy should be going forward.
In my opinion, we should take notes from Howard Dean's fifty-state strategy, as people all across the political system become increasingly disenfranchised with this Trump administration, and basically nothing doing well, we are set up for winning the house back for sure and it makes me think that we should invest largely into potential infrastructure in potential democratic states in ~50 years or 50 years ago, sort of something similar to the tea party movement but have candidates that suit the district they're running in whilst also having them being connected to crucial ideology of the democratic party. We can then move onto having progressives in deep blue seats, because then every caucus benefit of having democrats in congress whilst benefiting the main democrats agenda, representing every ideology in the broad tent party we are.
Would love to know your thoughts.
Yes! We need a 50-State, 3144-County Strategy! And yes to investing in party infrastructure everywhere – and yes to running candidates that suit the district. Let me add that in some cases, that means supporting Independents.
We need to do that all year long, not only when there is an election. We need to continuously support dems in red states for this to happen.
In many (most?) states, the chair of the state Democratic party isn't a full-time paid position and IIRC, in some states it may not be paid at all. They definitely don't have year round staff and must reinvent the wheel every election.
I have redirected the money that I was sending to the DNC to the NC Democratic party, because I think I get more bang for my buck here. I am super impressed with what Chair Anderson Clayton is doing. She has once again recruited candidates to challenge all but 2 seats and there should be independents running for those two seats (if they get the necessary signatures by Tuesday, which is the date of our state primary.
https://www.wunc.org/politics/2025-12-22/nc-legislators-running-unopposed-democrats-primary-early-voting
Apparently, the NC GOP is dismissive of the need to run everywhere, especially in my county of Mecklenburg. I think they are making a BIG mistake. Democrats did very well in statewide races in 2024 with the same "run everywhere" strategy and won 5 of the 10 "council of state" races - governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, and Superintendent of Public Education. The Lt. Governor and Superintendent were flips - in a red wave election year with Trump on the ballot.
In the 2024 election, a state senate candidate, Kate Barr, ran in a heavily gerrymandered GOP district with the slogan "Kate Barr Can't Win". She was correct, but she likely goosed up turnout in her district and took a very respectable 35% of the vote. Allison Riggs won her race for the NC Supreme Court by less than 750 votes (out of 5.5M votes cast). Kate's viral campaign may very well have made the difference in Allison Riggs win. This year has another "must win" Supreme Court battle to reelect Justice Anita Earls.
With Roy Cooper running well ahead in the polls for the open US Senate seat and the US house delegation from NC gerrymandered to within an inch of its life, who is to say how many Republicans may decide to stay home in November if they don't have state legislative candidates for which to vote. Don't get me wrong - I am definitely not complaining if Democrats catch a break for once here in NC!
All senior positions for State Democratic Parties should be paid in my opinion, as well as training for the chairs.
Cheryl, Ms Clayton is awesome and look at all that she has done to change NC.
There is enough money in play to have full-time staffs in every state. It is worth it even if it takes money from elections budgets. We would do so much better if we engaged farmers and the working poor regularly by reaching out to them, listen to their concerns, and adjust our policies to fit their needs, rather than come election and ask for their votes without tailoring our policies to their needs.
"Suit the districts they're running in" and "connected to crucial ideology" are often mutually exclusive in much of the country.
if fdr could cobble together the new deal coalition out of what at the time was party reduced to winning in northern big cities and the solid south because it was effectively limited to northern catholics, labor unions, and southern segregationists, we can certainly hew closer to crucial ideology while expanding our tent to be more inclusive than the new deal coalition
90 years ago, and at the depth of the Great Depression, yes he did. How wide pur coalition is (aka the size or possibility of majority) will be inversely proportionate to the ideological hegemony of the coalition. Where's the line/balance?
He was able to get some of his New Deal through and fight a war by making compromises like not fighting for _anti-lynching legislation_. What crucial ideology are you willing to compromise on?
i cannot speak for the entire party as a rank and file donor and voter, but whoever does end up facing that question shouldn't negotiate against themselves by saying what they'd compromise on. My personal red-lines are left wing courts unions civil liberties across the board and climate change policy but its a pretty broad umbrella and i'm just one person
Yes, of course not stating what basic principles you'd be willing to compromise for what agreement is negotiations 101. But I think you missed my point, which is that Northerners whose votes were needed by FDR did not hew close to crucial ideology but instead had to swallow very hard to allow FDR to pander to violent racism.
and i think we are going to have to make some choices, however we can learn from the past and not make the same mistakes. Cactus jack garner, fdr's first vp though himself a virulent racist, believed there was a path to passing anti-lynching legislation in the late 30's, but fdr got cold feet. this is detailed better in unlikely heroes by derek leebart. I see your point and candidly was dodging the direct question, but i acknowledge we will have to swallow some bad bills to broadly remake the country into a more equitable, prosperous for all society
link to the book if you're interested, really shows FDR's weakspots, dealing with the South and his revolving door of cabinet heads aside from the wallace, hopkins, ickes, and perkins
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwinzLv7w_eSAxVcL1kFHZJ7OpkQFnoECBoQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fus.macmillan.com%2Fbooks%2F9781250274694%2Funlikelyheroes%2F&usg=AOvVaw3W5NsMI4w_AeeugE7V0F8n&opi=89978449
The Great Depression was needed to trigger FDR's New Deal coalition. It would take a similarly momentous historical event to put that kind of coalition together, but considering the AI revolution looks poised to make the Great Depression look like a mere tropical storm by comparison, we may well have the making of that kind of coalition.
If we survive.
God, this is all so fucking depressing.
True.
But look at Spanberger & Sherrill. Two "centrist/mainstream" Dems, but laser focused on affordability & getting things done while still talking frankly and directly abot Trump corruption and ICE murdering people in the street.
It is possible to be mainstream without being mushy GOP-lite and a corporate kiss-@$$. THOSE are the Dems that need to go.
Yes, I am thrilled at the rise of the Bernie-Warren-Jaypapal-AOC-Mamdani-DSA wing of the party. They are larger and more influential than at any time in my voting lifetime (1985).
But the shift in the middle is just as exciting, and may be more consequential. The Klobuchar-Spanberger-Sherrill chunk of the party. Willing to be unabashedly pro working class, government solutions, AND confrontational on immigration & corruption. That will play well almost everywhere.
If we do it right, the Manchin-Sinema-Lieberman-Golden GOP light, corporate Dem wing should become virtually extinct in 2 cycles.
Klobuchar, Spanberger and Sherrill represent Minnesota., Virginia, and New Jersey: solidly blue states. Not at all remotely comparable to Ohio, Iowa or Alaska (places we desperately need to win in 2026). And that says nothing of Louisiana, West Virginia, or Idaho.
Lieberman was from CT.
Sherrod Brown is Ohio, he isn't a corporate Dem. Compare Gallego and Hayes to Sinema in AZ. That is a swing state.
Who cares about ID & WV, we are not winning there regardless. So you might as well stand strong and plant seeds for the future.
Look at where Manchin triangulation got us. You have to try and move the opinions of the electorate AND make calculations about what is a bridge too far. Not oushing back eventually gets the rug pulled out from underneath you (Manchin, McCaskill, Landrieu, Pryor, Heidtkamp, etc.).
Anyway, we have to push back. And it should be a no-brainer on stuff like ICE, immigration, and billionaire/corporate greed, and Epstein. MAGA ageees with us there.
What Manchin got us was everything that passed during the Biden Administration.
Absolutely! People forget thst without Manchin, zero of Biden's achievements happen
Thank you for putting it so succinctly.
Some nuanced thoughts on Manchin:
1. Manchin got us a judge on the Supreme Court most importantly
2. He was the best Dems could get from WV and now the Senator is a pos MAGA.
3. You can criticize Manchin’s triangulation and conservatism since he killed the BBB, child tax credit, paid maternity leave since parents would allegedly become lazy, thrashed Dems virulently in his new book and book tour, said he should have switched parties in 2017, did not vote for Harris and wished Dems lost because they wanted to carve out the filibuster while appreciating his utility for holding that crucial WV Senate seat and his electoral prowess.
4. I would have supported Manchin if he ran for re election.
And that got us Trump 2.0.
Not being a corporate Dem does not mean being on board with abolishing ICE. The former is a much easier sell in Ohio than the latter.
Those aren't generally solidly blue states, at least not recently. The GOP thought they could win NJ a few months ago, and were salivating at a chance to win in MN this fall before Walz stepped down.
I’m giving you an upvote, with reservations. As frustrating as I found Congressman Jared Golden and Senator Joe Manchin, I regret that they’re retiring/retired.
Manchin is the only Democrat who could possibly win in West Virginia – and I think it most unfortunate that he is now replaced by a Republican. I would far rather have a Democratic majority with Manchin caucusing with us than have the Senate majority out of reach because of our purity tests!
Likewise Jared Golden! His very red Maine district, ME-02, now runs a very real risk of being represented by Paul LePage, the ingrate who has proudly said "I was Trump before Trump."
Paul Baldacci is polling to neck with neck with LePage.
I sincerely hope he succeeds. LePage should go back to the swamps of Florida.
I've always wondered whether LePage would have won if there were no third-party runs in his first two gubernatorial races.
Curious how Donald is holding up in ME-02. Seems lie a great time to raise a Florida Grandpa competency/age question particularly if Mills is not the senate nominee.
Look, while I certainly think Golden & Manchin were better than having GOPers there short term, they seriously undermine Dem messaging in major issues.
Manchin/Sinema seriously limited what we could do under Biden, which helped the GOP. Any Dem majority dependent on Manchin or Sinema types is limited in what it can achieve and vulnerable to Trump style populism and locks us into the run on hope, deliver little, get creamed in the midterms, nothing ever changes, voter apathy/desperation cycle. That HAS to change.
Plus, I disagree with your analysis. Purity tests didn't cost us WV, it was already gone. Manchin chose not to run again. He knew he couldn't win. The only way to create conditions there where Dems can win is to push back.
And do you regret swapping out Sinema for Gallego? Remember when that was seen as too risky?
The problem with your complaints about Manchin and Sinema is that without them, the Democrats wouldn't have had a majority in the Senate and things would have been worse. Then, who would you have blamed for the Democratic candidate losing to Trump?
And without Sinema, Martha McSally might still be a Senator from Arizona. In 2024, Ruben Gallego beat Kari Lake by less than 3% in a race for an open seat, so saying that he might have narrowly lost to an incumbent doesn't seem like that much of a reach.
Defend Manchin all you want I agree but why are we defending Sinema here? She basically sold out once in office and misappropriated her congressional and campaign funds while wrecking homes as well. Biden and Kelly won Arizona in 2020 and Kelly won it in a redder year in 2022. I see no reason to defend Sinema or the way she voted. She’s a corporate lobbyist for ai and crypto enjoying her corporate campaign slush fund now.
She won a swing state in a blue wave, it’s not as if she was holding the reddest state east of the Mississippi like Manchin and basically killed the limited tax hikes that Manchin supported as well.
Again, I do not know where "purity tests" came into this? I never suggested anything of the sort.
I love Peltola in Alaska.
But red district/state Dems cannot be allowed to sabotage major agenda items that would benefit the electorate and help Dems in the midterms. Or face the consequences come primary season. Find smaller ways (or more strategic ones) to show your independence.
There has to be consequences. I love what NC Dems are doing.
Majorities based on those types are essentially defensive in nature. They cannot get much positive done, but prevent the opposition from doing bad things.
But we are at a point where we actually need to accomplish things. Pass big things. Save democracy, reign in the Epstein class & hols them accoutable, make government work for a erage fild, get the $$ out, court reform, kill the fill, build housing & infrasteucture, M4A, climate change, etc.
Now, if the handful or corporate/red state Dems act like Susan Collins & don't block stuff, then fine. I see the benefit. But if not, then not so much.
We need to have a majority that can either rely on or isn't dependent on those votes. And, atm, I think having real consequences for corporate Dems helps make that happen. Fear of God needs to be there.
And I think the number of places where Spanberger types don't play well (or Peltola or Talarico or Platner) is VERY small.
For me the goal is a MAJ that can actually do big things, and I do not think Manchin/Sinema/Golden tyles help us there.
Sorry for the length.
If I have to have a couple riskier candidates win in primaries (Platner over Mills) to put the fear of God into the heard, so be it. And I do not think Platner is less likely to win vs Collins. Crockett, different story. But she is gonna win the primary, I think. And neither she nor Takarico is in Manchin/Sinema/Mills territory for me.
Again, purity tests didn't force Golden out. When the going got tough, he bailed. Virtually useless.
If the agenda relies on his vote, he cripples you, and if it doesn't, losing him does not matter. And he and his types do not help in changing public opinion one whitt.
The left wing has moved left and shown viability in a lot of places. Most deep blue districts can support real progressive candidates. Not all, certainly, but most.
The middle has moved left and shown increased viability as well. Gallego, Sherrill, Spanberger, Klobochar, etc.
There are VERY few red district House members, and a good amount are pretty solid (Kaptur, OH).
The Hamstringer/Oragami caucus is shrinking, and the sooner it is irrelevant the better we will all be.
I like Indivisible's strategy to promote more progressive candidates - or at least ones that will put up a fight Trump more aggressively in the primaries in districts where the primary IS the election because a GOP candidate has little to no chance to win in the general election. We definitely need some new blood with new ideas.
And if this strategy works in 2026, then maybe some of the complacent corporate Democrats in safe seats will choose to retire rather than run again next time.
I am sympathetic to Manchin’s position and wanted him to run again but how exactly did we “purity test” him out of office? Schumer practically begged him to run as an Independent but he saw his polling, polarization, WV’s red lean in a Presidential cycle and saw the writing on the wall.
Love this! A strategy that only ever focuses on swing states neglects the states that could become swing states in the future. Those states need infrastructure build up to become competitive.
The only caution I’ll give is we still need to be wary of grifters that run against high profile R’s like those who ran against McConnell and MTG, sucked up a ton of money, built no infrastructure, and lost in a blowout.
PACs like Welcome PAC, which were created to support centrists in competitive swing districts, should focus on that mission rather than attacking progressives running in safely blue districts, such as Nate Blouin. Using misleading fundraising texts and fearmongering that a progressive will lose the "swing district" in a deep-blue area is not right.
I respect that McAdams managed to win such a tough seat in 2018. But at the same time, a conservative Democrat who like McAdams may be well-suited for a reddish swing district; not for representing a deep-blue city that Kamala Harris carried by 23 points and has shifted relatively to the left every 4 years.
that first point is not my point, we don’t need centrists in swing districts necessarily as you see with platner in maine, we need candidates who suite and benefit their district, however I do agree with the rest that you said
Amen.
Fit is super important.
Fight is also important atm.
WelcomePAC funders include the Murdochs, the Waltons, Bloomberg, and Reid Hoffman. It's primarily interested in pushing the caucus rightward, despite how it's billed.
The Manchins as well.
I think the idea of a 50-state strategy is oversold. Democrats are not going to win states like Idaho and Arkansas.
Predicting what tomorrow's coalitions will look like isn't as easy as we think it is. A 50-state strategy positions us to be ready when conditions on the ground change. We didn't "win" in Idaho or Wyoming in 2006 (Jerry Brady, Gary Trauner) when the 50-state strategy was at its peak, but we certainly made it competitive in a way few would have imagined in 2004.
You have a point, but so do I. I'm talking about now.
Hell we did win ID-01 for a term in 08.
Thank you Bill Sali.
1. The much higher level of political polarization that exists today makes winning in these areas impossible at the moment, and I wouldn't count on that level of polarization to decrease to pre-2016-ish levels.
2. The problem is that even if inroads can be made in those areas on economic issues, they aren't going to become socially more moderate anytime soon. To bring large numbers of socially conservative voters into the party, a lot of groups would have to be thrown under the bus.
It is exhausting, demoralizing, and dangerous to run a campaign in hostile territory. Under the circumstances, it is hard to recruit a strong Democratic candidate to run in, say, Wyoming. And running a weak candidate only reinforces the Republican hegemony.
As DNC Chair, Ken Martin's efforts in leading the DNC are the closest the Democratic Party has gotten to what once was Howard Dean's 50 state strategy. I'm not sure yet this has been perfectly executed but Martin's had a lot to work with since Trump got elected for a 2nd term.
After Trump is out of office, that's where the Democratic Party needs to aim higher heading to 2030 and 2034. A 50 state strategy shouldn't be conveniently used just because we don't have a POTUS who is Bush, Trump or anyone in the GOP.
"[Blake] Fiechter never filed any fundraising reports during his short-lived bid," while Travis Holdman has more than $430,000 in his campaign account.
Trump is sitting on a campaign chest of more than half a billion dollars. How telling that he wouldn’t even support Fiecther with his spare change!
When Trump’s eagerness to hold onto power collides with his grift, he has quite the dilemma.
Quick correction: VA-SD-17 is a Harris district, voting for her by a 52-47 margin according to DRA.
Your Spanberger numbers are correct though - she won it by about 11%.
Thank you for the catch, we've corrected!
One quick note about the Maine special election: One reason why the Republican candidate got as close as she did may have been that she had a French last name while the Democratic candidate did not. Lewiston has a large Franco-American population, and these things really can make a difference.
I remember that in the early 2010s, there was a special election in Massachusetts, for a district south of Boston, an area with a lot of people of Irish descent. The Republican candidate had an Irish name - Patrick O'Connor - while the Democratic candidate did not. The district had voted for Obama, but the Republican won the special election, and I maintain to this day that he won because he had an Irish name while the Democrat did not.
Names matter. This is why O’Bama did so well amongst Irish-Americans!
never forget palin calling obama barrack obiden
I think she called Biden that, not Obama. I believe that's why she asked "can I call you Joe?" at the VP debate
I actually find this kind of old-timey ethnic bloc voting among Northeastern and Midwestern white Catholics kind of quaint and charming
People underestimate how much of a role surnames play among low-information voters. People around here were speculating a month or so ago why Julie Blaha underperformed in the 2022 Minnesota Auditor's race. There were a few reasons.
First, there were candidates from both of the pot parties running in the Auditor's race, which was not the case in the Secretary of State and Attorney General race, and they combined for more than 4% of the vote that likely came at Blaha's expense.
Second, people tend to like the idea of a "fiscal conservative" in an office like State Auditor.
Third, from all I can tell, Julie Blaha has spectacularly low name recognition even after two terms. I'd be shocked if even 10% of Minnesotans could identify who our Auditor is, and shocked if 20% would recognize the name once they were told.
And last, "Blaha" is not a phonetically pleasing surname. Wilson, the surname of her challenger, was more mainstream. I'd wager that that was the difference for at least a four-figure share of voters, possibly even five-figure share, in a name where the vast majority of voters doesn't know who either candidate is. I remember talking to a Minnesota Secretary of State candidate who mentioned how the party loved to recruit candidates with plain or familiar surnames for downballot races, confident that doing so was worth a point or two.
I heard a story about an African-American woman with the surname O'Neal who was running for judge- her signs had her picture on them in black neighborhoods and had a shamrock on them in the white neighborhoods.
What's the the likelihood that the Democratic primary in TX ultimately has higher turnout than the Republicans? That sounds like it would be a huge deal.
If they can meet that turnout in November too, that would be a big deal.
I did not watch TACO's SOTU, simply to preserve my sanity. I did watch the social media reactions up until I went to bed at 11 p.m.
Seems like his speech was a flop with his base and pissed off everyone else.
I don't think flop is the right word. But tepidly positive with his base at best. The immediate polling showed modest upticks with Republican voters' perception compared to before the speech. Absolutely did nothing to win back moderates or independents to his cause though.
This Bluesky post is the best summary of it. Notable Trump did not mention ICE by name:
https://bsky.app/profile/joemarshall.bsky.social/post/3mfnsp7bqbk2g
Didn't mention the Epstein files, but relished recounting stories of women getting brutally murdered. Sounds familiar.
Also didn’t watch but concerned that Dems are being poor sports about the USA Hockey team. I truly want to believe that most of them are too young/apolitical to really internalize the state of affairs.
Some people out there really just don’t follow the ins and outs of politics on a daily basis! (no one on this board of course)
It’s important re hockey at least to distinguish between the Tkachuk bros who are probably the most openly MAGA pro athletes in America short of Harrison Butker and young guys excited to go to the White House, but what the former do/say colors perceptions of the latter
Also, five members of the men’s team didn’t go (four of whom are from Minnesota)!
Auston Matthew's and Brady Tkachuk are going to have interesting receptions when they come back to Toronto and Ottawa in the next few days.
I haven't watched any SOTUs in a long time, they're just theatre.
My housemate (much less political than I am, but a Black Democrat) had it on for the duration. I couldn't bear to watch. I tried to watch the responses this morning and couldn't bear those either, the only one I could handle watching was Padilla (with subtitles).
We are probably going to have to work something out in Montana, unless Bodnar has some interesting proosals that appeal to a wide variety of voters. There aren't enough anti-Daines voters where we can afford to split the anti-Daines constitutency, to even make the race competitive.
It's possible he keeps the race closer than Tester did, or at least Bullock 2020. That could go a long way in ousting Zinke.
Sam Forstag is our guy, right?
Correct, although he needs to survive the primary first.
He's a solid candidate, though he gives me classic one-term wonder wave baby vibes should he pull it off.
I fear he’s just too left for the district.
there's no such thing. Voters don't walk into the booth thinking about esoteric ideological concerns.
The Virginia primary deadlines have changed to 8/4 for this election cycle only! The Downballot's election calendar will need this update.
House candidate filing deadlines are now 5/26 for party candidates and 8/4 for independents. Candidates for all other offices must file by 4/2 for party candidate and 6/16 for independents. The VA DOE already updated their site.
https://www.wdbj7.com/2026/02/24/virginia-primary-elections-moved-august/
https://www.elections.virginia.gov/casting-a-ballot/upcoming-elections.html
https://www.the-downballot.com/p/the-downballots-2026-election-calendar
Thank you very much for this important catch! We will update and issue a correction.
It only just changed five days ago! So not sure if it's really a correction, the info was correct the day you posted.
We wrote about it in the Digest the other day, though, and got that contingency wrong!
Ah, gotcha!
*Detroit Regional Chamber endorsed Mike Duggan.
Thank you for the catch, we've added this and noted the initial omission.
late-breaking poll last night in IL-09. All I can say is... Laura Fine's unfavorables are nearly equal to her favorables. Confident in the Climate Hawks Vote endorsement of Biss. https://evanstonroundtable.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/RoundTable-PPP-IL-09-crosstabs-Feb.-20-21.pdf
This poll seems to indicate there's a path for Kat to pull a Mejia.
I hope not.
Do you have an issue with her?
She has zero connection to the STATE, let alone the district. Not even visiting an aunt in the summer.
She's put her body on the line for the district. She was at Broadview from the start, protesting. One could cynically say that she was doing this just to support her campaign but I really admire what she's done with her campaign and I'm interested to see if it will show up in the results.
https://theintercept.com/2025/12/26/kat-abughazaleh-mutual-aid-campaign-illinois/
Yeah, she'll have a nice career in comms and organizing. She can run when her policies are actually informed by the constituency.
She's a carpetbagging influencer running for the national legislature, I don't believe she has the chops to actually do the job.
It’s my home district and yes, I do. She has no ties to the district or qualifications and only ran there to try and use the generational divide to primary out one of the most progressive democrats in congress. I’m more qualified to represent IL-9 than she is and I am not qualified to be a congressperson.
The Indiana Republican state senators who opposed redistricting wanted not to rock the boat by giving the tepid state Democratic party something to rally around.
VERY IMPORTANT POLL TO VOTE IN! most annoying primary! pls vote! https://x.com/RL_Miller/status/2026461040003920182
lol. In this moment, it's TX sen by a LONG SHOT. But thankfully ending in six days. Will probably bring MI sen back, mostly because Mills hasn't gone too negative to spur energy in ME gov.
I think the ME Senate primary is over and done with, given that Mills fumbled on the outset. What's really concerning is if Platner will prevail against Collins or whether his history (particularly his tattoo) puts her back in office for a sixth term.
Yeah, I"m starting to make my peace with the fact that Platner is likely to be our nominee. He wouldn't have been my choice, but it's time to get on board and make sure he beats Collins. We can sort out replacing him with a better Dem next cycle....
"University of Texas/Texas Politics Project poll | 2/2-2/16 LV
US Senate Texas primaries 2026
🟦Democratic
Jasmine Crockett 56%
James Talarico 44%
—
🟥Republican
Ken Paxton 36%
John Cornyn 34%
Wesley Hunt 26%"
Favorables (net)
🟦✅James Talarico (+18)
🟦✅Gina Hinojosa (+11)
🟦✅Jasmine Crockett (+10)
🟥✅Greg Abbott (+4)
🟥✅Wesley Hunt (+3)
🟥❌John Cornyn (-8)
🟥❌Ken Paxton (-10)"
Update:
"Democrats: Crockett +14
Independents: Talarico +20
Black: Crockett +75
White: Talarico +6
Hispanic: Crockett +4
Asian: Talarico +60
Ages 18-29: Talarico +48
Ages 30-44: Talarico +5
Ages 45-64: Crockett +16
Ages 65+: Crockett +28
No college: Crockett+24
4 year grad: Talarico +8
Urban: Even
Suburban: Crockett +12
Rural: Crockett +38"
Yelp.
I’m just going to be a poll denier on this race and maintain that the Democratic primary polls are not modeling the electorate right. I just can’t imagine Democrats willingly blowing a race like this.
I still believe Talarico will win too. Betting markets are still convinced he'll win, even if they've tightened a bit from before.
Betting markets prove nothing.
Unfortunately, I believe that "electability" matters less to Democratic primary voters now since Biden, for whatever reasons, was not able to bring back normalcy and prevent the return of Trumpism which was the main promise of the electability argument. Don't take my comment as indicating support for Crockett.
My view is, while it’s true that sometimes the candidates that lose in primaries would have fared better in the general than the candidates that won, no candidate that loses their own parties’ primary should ever be considered to be “strong”. If they were truly strong, they would have convinced their own people of that first.
Appealing to primary voters and general election voters are different games: Herschel Walker, Doug Mastriano, Mehmet Oz, Kari Lake, Blake Masters, Kristina Karamo, Joe Kent, JD Vance and now Ken Paxton are good examples.
I wasn’t trying to say the winning candidates weren’t weak, clearly they were, I was saying the losing candidates weren’t strong. If they were that talented they wouldn’t have gotten tripped up like they did.
Mike Castle would like a word from the grave.
TIL he died, lol
No offense, but this is a ridiculous sentiment. Primary voters and general election voters are miles apart in terms of what appeals to them, and being strong with one group never necessarily means you'd be strong with the other.
Remember Mike Castle? Sharron Angle? Numerous examples
Authenticity, on the other hand, actually works in Talarico's favor. Say what you will about MAGA primary candidates they came off as the "authentic" ones to primary voters.
Crockett is also authentic as hell.
Maybe in the past, but in her recent campaign she seems to be phoning it in. Beto 2.0 seems more authentically Texan than a Dallas version of Kamala Harris.
she definitely is not
Disagree completely.
It might matter more in Texas since Democrats haven't won in three decades but we'll see.
The whole Stephen Colbert thing happened on Feb 16th, so if that had any effect, it wouldn't be picked up in this poll.
I feel like the Colbert dividing line is a bit overyuped as a before/after crux of this campaign.
More curious how their paid TV spending stacks up against each other.
Only 369 TX Democratic voters were polled. "For the Democratic primary, pollsters from the University of Texas’ Texas Politics Project surveyed a sample of 369 voters, producing a margin of error of +/-5.1 points."
https://www.texastribune.org/2026/02/25/texas-senate-poll-crockett-talarico-university-of-texas-paxton-cornyn-hunt-2026/
That's not a good sample for a state as big as Texas.
And it took two weeks to complete. I know it's hard to reach enough people to get a good polling sample, especially nowadays, but should it really take that long? This reached on average only about 25 people a day.
It's a misconception that you need a larger sample for a larger state. The margin of error would be the same for Vermont.
The minimum for TDB is still 400 to be statistically reliable, I believe.
Yes, it's still too small a sample, but it would be too small for almost any constituency.
Agreed
And the polling error can go both ways.
True.
The main problem with polling is getting a uniform sample. This is so difficult that most, if not all, pollsters assume they will fail and instead weight their samples to try to simulate one. "Margin of Error" represents a 95% confidence interval. But it doesn't mean that you're equally likely to fall anywhere within that interval. You would have higher probability distribution closer to the poll result than at the edges of the MoE. Again, assuming you truly have a uniform at random sample of the people who are actually going to cast valid ballots, which you almost certainly do not.
Even though model weights are the main reason why polls are wrong, that doesn't mean sample size doesn't matter. To the contrary, the fact that you're weighting the sample based on Demographic data means that a small sample size could result in giving very high weight to a couple responses, if they represent a bigger portion of your population.
So when I said earlier that you would need the same sample size for Vermont, that wasn't not entirely true. Not because Vermont is smaller in population, but because it is less diverse, meaning you're less likely to have problems with undersampling a demographic subset.
Is she acting like she's up by 12?
The most interesting part of this poll? TX GCB is tied:
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2026693957275537616
TEXAS POLL: Generic Ballot
🟥 Republicans: 42%
🟦 Democrats: 42%
🟨 Other: 3%
⬜ Not sure: 6%
——
Net Favs
🟢 Talarico: (+18)
🟢 Hinojosa: (+11)
🟢 Crockett: (+10)
🟢 Abbott: (+4)
🟤 Cornyn: (-8)
🟤 Paxton: (-10)
@TxPolProject
| 1,300 RV | 2/2-16
Honestly, this was not a surprise to me. People forget that Texas was only +5.5 in 2020 when Biden had a mediocre state operation there.
Wasn’t the 2024 Congress vote R+18? Having it even seems very surprising 2 years later. Though most will likely shift back to their party as the campaigns heat up, it’s still a massive shift.
I don't believe this. I think a net positive approval for Crockett, let alone two digits, is simply impossible to be true on a statewide poll. She is going to have negligible support from any Repubs and conservatives, and she's become extremely toxic among a solid portion of informed Dems and liberals/progressives.
Did the poll do a territorial breakdown of primary voters? East/West/South/North/Central? The sample size almost meets the TDB standard but I feel with a state like Texas when it comes to polling that state, territory and regions should be heavily considered. I expect Crockett to do well in the Houston and Dallas Fort-Worth area and Talarico to do well in the Austin and neighboring regions but I think pushing for regional and territorial support data in polling like this where half the state is in a different time zone is the more important factor to examine.
I mean...are we trying to throw away a winnable race? One of our key advantages over Republicans used to be that we nominated more electable candidates. Seems like maybe we're moving away from that....
Either this 2 week poll conducted before the Talarico Colbert FCC interview blockage is incorrect or the Harris County TX poll done the other week is incorrect. The two are not compatible with one another and show wildly different results. We’ll find out shortly which is more accurate.
A lot of people are pissed.
Crockett viscerally captures those type of voters better than Talarico does. As did Trump on the other side. Once a voter believes the candidate is fighting for them, it is usually a done deal going forward and takes a ton to break that link.
Most people base their votes on emotion, not logic.
For better or worse, that is the voter universe/behavior we are dealing with, and I think it is likely to get more emotional & visceral rather than more detached & logical. Read the room as it is, not as you'd want it to be.
I will say this, of the 30%-40% of folk who do vote logically, more of them tend to be Dems.
If logic prevails I think it bodes well for Talarico.
I seem to remember a lot of folk on here confidently predicting Crockett would get creamed in the primary.
Now, this is just one poll, to be sure. And I decinitely think Talarico is the better candidate in the general.
But I do not think Crockett is DOA vs Paxton. A longer shot, but both are underdogs. But there will be fireworks if she is the nominee.
I'll trade fireworks for, you know...actually winning the race...