The subheading of the article: Tarrant County early vote precinct-level data suggests a whiter electorate, potentially benefiting James Talarico over Jasmine Crockett
This polling data convinces me once again that 2024 was more of a swing election year that Trump benefitted from than it had to do with what he offered.
While I'm always wary of boiling down a complex election to a single issue, I do believe that 2024 was mostly a result of voters being pissed off about the post-Covid economy and having collectively decided that the 2017-2019 economy (over which Trump presided) was fabulous by comparison.
I think Biden did pretty damn well with the lousy hand he was dealt, but "I stopped things from being even worse!" isn't typically a winning argument in American politics.
True although Biden did not end any of the tariffs that were already in place when Trump was POTUS in his first term. This was absolute negligence on his part and came in light of the pressure he was getting to combat inflation. Big fail for Biden here if you ask me considering tariffs happen to increase prices of goods to begin with.
I'm guessing organized labor wanted those tariffs to remain in place, for better or worse.
The American Rescue Plan was probably larger than it needed to be as well, with the benefit of hindsight. But neither of those things would have changed the main issue that drove inflation (the post-pandemic global surge in consumer demand). Arguably, the pandemic and its aftermath doomed the incumbent party in both 2020 and 2024.
No, ending the tariffs wouldn't have stopped everything. The issue that lead to inflation to begin with wasn't the tariffs but if we're taking into account the ability to lower costs of goods, I don't see why Biden ending the tariffs wouldn't have given some relief (if not tons of it).
Ban companies from shipping jobs overseas for cheap labor. Problem solved as it relates to concerns over the tariffs by organized labor.
I wouldn't say I'm a Kat *fan* but her views align more with mine. Wasn't a big fan of the recent answers Biss gave on the issues at a recent event with Abughazaleh and Fine.
Like my opinion on SOTUs above, candidate forums and debates are becoming increasingly meaningless as actual demonstrations of policy goals. Just more theater.
He is listed as "Daniel Bliss" in the results graphs provided for that poll. Very sloppy. They spell Kat Abughazaleh's name wrong next. Really rushing to get it out, eh?
The only people the GOP have to blame for this are themselves. One wonders what these polls would look like if they decided to run a normal administration.
At any rate, the GOP can have fun watching their majority dissipate as their dear leader's brain melts in front of the whole country/world and the party does jack-diddly-shit to stop it. You earned this GOP.
It needs to be made brutally clear to the media/tech/corporate powers that be that they miscalculated, that they like Trump far more than the general public does. And the only way that happens is a big win.
Not in Texas, but count me in. I'm a staunch progressive (borderline socialist even -- I think public utilities should be nationalized, for one) and I'm on Team Talarico. I think it would do wonders having an avowed Christian leftist on our side -- I think it'd potentially help break the GOP stranglehold on Christianity, even if just a little (and every bit counts! There are elections that have been decided by a single vote!)
Indeed. It’s hard to read the New Testament and interpret it as some kind of right wing treatise. Talarico (and Warnock before him) centering a more genuine, imo, interpretation of that faith is a huge net for us
Q and A with Adam Green, chair of the Progressive Campaign Change Committee (PCCC), who is thought to be aligned with Elizabeth Warren.
"One thing that gets oddly discounted in Democratic politics is authenticity, in actually believing in something. Do you see that as part of Talarico’s appeal?
Yes. One big lesson we’ve learned over time, it’s not sufficient to be “on message.” It has to be from the gut. One thing that is inspiring to see is how effortless Talarico is in talking about his vision. In a town hall, he was asked about welfare queens, and he said the real welfare queens are corporations who don’t pay their taxes. In a town hall, he was asked about class warfare, and he said we’ve had class warfare waged against us. He is an authentic messenger for his bold economic vision and fighting corporate power."
"To her credit, Jasmine Crockett is known as an effective partisan jouster for Team Blue against Team Red. But she has never really shown up for any economic fight and is unfortunately landing on the wrong side of history. Crypto and other super PACs throw lots of money behind candidates to support their candidates and chill other politicians. It’s notable that Crockett sided with Trump and the Republicans on crypto and stablecoin bills that many say will enrich Donald Trump and his family. Our sister organization P Street has led efforts on the bill to end insider stock trading. Crockett weirdly has not signed on to that. We’re talking about that as a supporting detail on this fight: whether you’re just going to ride the rising anti-Trump energy or build a new Democratic populist economic vision."
Bravo. That's exactly it. One of the reasons Trump came to power was that a number of foolish voters believed he was genuine. Fetterman (pre-stroke) won in part because he was seen as genuine, compared to Dr. Oz. And in 2012, Obama's win partially occurred due to effectively portraying Mitt Romney as an out-of-touch, job-killing billionaire.
When voters see a candidate they feel they can trust, it does wonders for the party they represent. That's just my thoughts though.
"In 2016, we saw Trump outflank Hillary Clinton on various corporate issues, including NAFTA. We saw that again in 2024, he was campaigning at McDonald’s when Kamala Harris had no credible voice on economic populism. If Paxton has had a couple broken-clock moments in his career, that’s all the more reason why we need someone on the side of working people to go up against him."
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.
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.
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.
VoteHub did a precinct analysis of the Dem Primary early vote in Tarrant County: https://votehub.com/2026/02/25/decoding-texas-democratic-early-vote-and-insights-from-tarrant-county/
The subheading of the article: Tarrant County early vote precinct-level data suggests a whiter electorate, potentially benefiting James Talarico over Jasmine Crockett
Good trendline, pre-Colbert too.
A trifecta in PA, MI, WI, MN and possibly AZ this fall would be awesome.
How much did Mastriano lose by?
I fully expect Shapiro to do a few points better this year, even though Garrity is a (marginally) stronger opponent.
70% among Republicans is crazy bad.
The party stands for little these days beyond slavish devotion to one man. And now it appears like even that has its limits.
It will be interesting to see how things realign once their Orange Lard and Savior is out of politics.
This polling data convinces me once again that 2024 was more of a swing election year that Trump benefitted from than it had to do with what he offered.
While I'm always wary of boiling down a complex election to a single issue, I do believe that 2024 was mostly a result of voters being pissed off about the post-Covid economy and having collectively decided that the 2017-2019 economy (over which Trump presided) was fabulous by comparison.
I think Biden did pretty damn well with the lousy hand he was dealt, but "I stopped things from being even worse!" isn't typically a winning argument in American politics.
True although Biden did not end any of the tariffs that were already in place when Trump was POTUS in his first term. This was absolute negligence on his part and came in light of the pressure he was getting to combat inflation. Big fail for Biden here if you ask me considering tariffs happen to increase prices of goods to begin with.
I'm guessing organized labor wanted those tariffs to remain in place, for better or worse.
The American Rescue Plan was probably larger than it needed to be as well, with the benefit of hindsight. But neither of those things would have changed the main issue that drove inflation (the post-pandemic global surge in consumer demand). Arguably, the pandemic and its aftermath doomed the incumbent party in both 2020 and 2024.
No, ending the tariffs wouldn't have stopped everything. The issue that lead to inflation to begin with wasn't the tariffs but if we're taking into account the ability to lower costs of goods, I don't see why Biden ending the tariffs wouldn't have given some relief (if not tons of it).
Ban companies from shipping jobs overseas for cheap labor. Problem solved as it relates to concerns over the tariffs by organized labor.
Good. Bids remains the best choice
Would agree to disagree but he isn't as bad as Laura Fine and he's the obvious choice.
He's the best choice of the viable candidates, I think it's fair to say. Unless you're a Kat fan.
I wouldn't say I'm a Kat *fan* but her views align more with mine. Wasn't a big fan of the recent answers Biss gave on the issues at a recent event with Abughazaleh and Fine.
Like my opinion on SOTUs above, candidate forums and debates are becoming increasingly meaningless as actual demonstrations of policy goals. Just more theater.
He is listed as "Daniel Bliss" in the results graphs provided for that poll. Very sloppy. They spell Kat Abughazaleh's name wrong next. Really rushing to get it out, eh?
Good choice on selecting Peters for IL-02. Villa's a decent shout, too (even though I prefer Kim).
The only people the GOP have to blame for this are themselves. One wonders what these polls would look like if they decided to run a normal administration.
At any rate, the GOP can have fun watching their majority dissipate as their dear leader's brain melts in front of the whole country/world and the party does jack-diddly-shit to stop it. You earned this GOP.
If he deleted his TS account and did nothing but golf he’d be net positive today
Flipping both houses would be a massive F-you to both TACO and compliant Republicans.
It needs to be made brutally clear to the media/tech/corporate powers that be that they miscalculated, that they like Trump far more than the general public does. And the only way that happens is a big win.
I wonder what they would even do to adjust, though
Interesting how they asked about Obama's favorability but not Biden's.
Not in Texas, but count me in. I'm a staunch progressive (borderline socialist even -- I think public utilities should be nationalized, for one) and I'm on Team Talarico. I think it would do wonders having an avowed Christian leftist on our side -- I think it'd potentially help break the GOP stranglehold on Christianity, even if just a little (and every bit counts! There are elections that have been decided by a single vote!)
Indeed. It’s hard to read the New Testament and interpret it as some kind of right wing treatise. Talarico (and Warnock before him) centering a more genuine, imo, interpretation of that faith is a huge net for us
Q and A with Adam Green, chair of the Progressive Campaign Change Committee (PCCC), who is thought to be aligned with Elizabeth Warren.
"One thing that gets oddly discounted in Democratic politics is authenticity, in actually believing in something. Do you see that as part of Talarico’s appeal?
Yes. One big lesson we’ve learned over time, it’s not sufficient to be “on message.” It has to be from the gut. One thing that is inspiring to see is how effortless Talarico is in talking about his vision. In a town hall, he was asked about welfare queens, and he said the real welfare queens are corporations who don’t pay their taxes. In a town hall, he was asked about class warfare, and he said we’ve had class warfare waged against us. He is an authentic messenger for his bold economic vision and fighting corporate power."
"To her credit, Jasmine Crockett is known as an effective partisan jouster for Team Blue against Team Red. But she has never really shown up for any economic fight and is unfortunately landing on the wrong side of history. Crypto and other super PACs throw lots of money behind candidates to support their candidates and chill other politicians. It’s notable that Crockett sided with Trump and the Republicans on crypto and stablecoin bills that many say will enrich Donald Trump and his family. Our sister organization P Street has led efforts on the bill to end insider stock trading. Crockett weirdly has not signed on to that. We’re talking about that as a supporting detail on this fight: whether you’re just going to ride the rising anti-Trump energy or build a new Democratic populist economic vision."
https://prospect.org/2026/02/24/talarico-crockett-senate-primary-texas-adam-green-qa/
Bravo. That's exactly it. One of the reasons Trump came to power was that a number of foolish voters believed he was genuine. Fetterman (pre-stroke) won in part because he was seen as genuine, compared to Dr. Oz. And in 2012, Obama's win partially occurred due to effectively portraying Mitt Romney as an out-of-touch, job-killing billionaire.
When voters see a candidate they feel they can trust, it does wonders for the party they represent. That's just my thoughts though.
Their podcasts are invariably stellar!
Our job is to authentically make the case that there’s nothing authentic about being a bigoted, hateful person.
Exactly. Hence why candidates like Talarico and Dan Osborn and so on are so fantastic for us.
Well, quite a few Americans are authentically bigoted...
He has some words on that topic as well:
"In 2016, we saw Trump outflank Hillary Clinton on various corporate issues, including NAFTA. We saw that again in 2024, he was campaigning at McDonald’s when Kamala Harris had no credible voice on economic populism. If Paxton has had a couple broken-clock moments in his career, that’s all the more reason why we need someone on the side of working people to go up against him."
Thank you very much for this important catch! We will update and issue a correction.
We wrote about it in the Digest the other day, though, and got that contingency wrong!
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.
Thank you, appreciate that!
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.
Thank you for the catch, we've corrected!
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.
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.