As Mark Twain says, "The report of my death was an exaggeration." Miraculously, a commenter was kind enough to gift me an annual subscription, so I can still comment here.
Anyways, pleasantly surprised at Blair's win and disappointed Graham and Mazzei won.
Glad to hear you will still be around! And yeah I was excited for the possibility of Drummond winning, such a close loss. I know he’s not a liberal by any means but by far seemed like the lesser of two evils
Hey Jaz, not miraculous! People her are just cool and want to do what is right. If everyone acted that way we would have never gotten into this f'ing mess we are in. But Dems will kill it like never b4 in Nov. and just think how sweet it is going to be undoing all of dumps shit in '29. BTW, so glad you are still a force on TDB!
No miracle at all; I was in the process of reaching out to you as well but was too slow. :-) And if that sponsorship/gift ever gets interrupted, please DM me. Glad to see you here today!
Back in 2018, it took Beto many months to gain in the polls against Ted Cruz while campaigning across TX. From a polling sense, this was not a competitive race right off the bat. I could be wrong but I believe at this point Beto was already closing in on the polls and making the race closer than expected. He got a lot of attention in the news,
By contrast, James Talarico has been head in the polls for quite some time, build up a massive following and is far more of fundraising juggarnaur than Beto was.
Given Beto lost to Cruz by less than 3% points, if 2026 were him vs. Cruz for the first time, it's possible Beto could have won the Senate race.
This is something that pisses me off whenever people moan and whine and say shit like "people have been saying Texas is going to go blue for so long but Ted Cruz still won in 2018!" among other bad faith reasons why "Texas can't go blue."
By all accounts, it was Ted Cruz's race to lose in 2018. O'Rourke only led him in two polls, and tied him in two others. When you look at polling in August/September, that's about when the polls started to look more competitive. Talarico, on the other hand, has kept the race competitive from the start, and Ken Paxton is (somehow) a far more odious and weaker candidate, running in a weaker Republican environment, without a political lightning rod like Kavanaugh's confirmation to motivate Republicans to vote in competitive senate races. Never get complacent, obviously, but I definitely think Talarico is the frontrunner right now, given that the polls of those gerrymandered congressional districts are suggesting a voter base closer to 2018 than 2024
Back in 2014, TX Democrats had grassroots groups like Battleground TX but they weren’t enough to help Democrats win in the state. Maxey Scherr was the Senate candidate that had the most enthusiasm but Lyndon LaRouche Crazy Keisha Rogers got 21.6% of the votes in the primary, making it hard for Scherr to have a chance at defeating David Alameel in the primary. Had Rogers not been in the race, it would have been a different story.
In fact, after losing the Senate race Alameel had attacked the TX Democratic Party for being too insider driven. If people wanted TX to go blue, then how realistically would that have happens 10 years ago?
AZ and GA are progressively moving away from the GOP (GA more so) but Democrats still have to win races before we’re in any position of arguing if TX is going blue at some point.
I agree. I'm more referring to this pessimistic attitude some people have about Texas flipping and giving up before it's over because "Texas is a red state, we can't win it."
I have been thinking this for a while....but it would be really weird to me if Republicans laid an egg in Texas. It looks entirely possible that Dems could unseat De La Cruz, Cuellar hold on, Gonzalez hold on, Dems manage to win the San Antonio seat meant to go R, and then also Herrera blow his race, leading to a net gain of 0 for Republicans in Texas despite an aggressive gerrymander, while somehow Republicans in Florida managed to make it next impossible for Democrats to hold more than 4 seats in the whole state.
I remain convinced that the Hinson lead is illusory. She's an empty suit and has a horrid voting record she can't run from. That typed, Turek needs to get some name recog and has work to do. Some debates with the less-than-inspiring Rep. Hinson ought to do it; I assume she'll actively duck them.
More results were posted last night bringing the current total counted from 133,725 to 147,765 (80% to 88% per AP).
At the top, Peltola (D) increased her vote from 48.1% to 48.2% while incumbent Sullivan (R) had his percentage decrease from 42.7% to 42.6%.
Retired schoolteacher Dan Sullivan stayed in 3rd place and seems certain to make the top-4.
The fourth place finisher changed. It had been David Leslie, a progressive Democrat, but his vote total was passed by Gerald Heikes (R). Republicans will likely try to convince Heikes to withdraw, giving Leslie the fourth slot. Based on an interview he gave recently, it does not sound like Leslie will drop out. He argues that he will draw to the polls progressive Democrats who find Peltola not progressive enough and they will choose Peltola as second choice.
Or, hear me out Leslie... you drop out. The last thing we need is another Ralph Nader to give progressives a bad name. I think progressives (and Democrats in general) would be more likely to *actually* take advantage of the ranked choice system and avoid being a spoiler vote - I feel like, for example, Al Gore would've won in 2000 if ranked choice voting existed then - but why risk it? The way I see it, the primary *was* his chance to draw progressives to the polls and make a statement about Peltola, and he might not even get within the top four on his own without Republican ratfuckery. Also, it's Alaska. I'd get the rationale in a blue state or even in a swing state but in Alaska? Let's just focus on helping Peltola drag the overton window leftwards first, *then* we can try more liberal candidates in the future.
I get the argument from Leslie though - it sounds like he's saying that he'd be staying in the race to help Peltola by getting progressive voters to the polls not because he's trying to hurt her. He might be wrong about it working out like that, but it doesn't sound like he's trying to play spoiler.
If he's dead set on staying in and polls show him gaining some voters, enough to cause a potential headache if roughly half of his potentially voters don't rank Peltola, I wonder if he and Peltola could do some sort of "cross endorsement" thing, like what we saw in the Democratic primaries in New York City with Mamdani and Lander and in Maine. Obviously its de facto an endorsement of Peltola, but you could say the same about Mamdani-Lander, and it might lessen the chances of Leslie voters exhausting their ballots if they feel like it goes "both ways."
We're talking about someone who got 1% of the vote. Peltola is going to ignore him. The last thing any Alaska Dem wants to do is increase his name rec. There's no way someone who performed like that is going to meaningfully drive turnout. Anyone who would earnestly vote for him and then rank Peltola 2nd would just vote Peltola in his absence. Best thing for all if the last slot goes to another Republican.
That's fair, and I don't think he's trying to be a spoiler candidate or sabotage Peltola. I just wonder if it's worth the risk, even if he has good intentions. He got so little of the vote that he's not exactly turning out progressives super well (unless progressives are *that* sparse in Alaska), while still getting just the right amount to potentially spoil the election if his voters opt not to rank Peltola, which if he's not careful in how he campaigns is a very real possibility.
If he actively encourages his supporters to rank Peltola as the 2nd choice, it could help her win in the end. But Peltola is close to getting 50% outright anyway...
I think a campaign by Leslie that says "vote for me to express your solidarity with progressive principles but make sure you rank Mary second to defeat Trump and Sullivan" (or something like that) would be a reasonable (and likely effective) approach.
"Under Alaska's top-four primary system, if a general election candidate drops out, the director of elections may replace them with the name of the fifth-place finisher. Shortly after the primary, Al Gross dropped out of the general election, but Division of Elections Director Gail Fenumiai did not advance Tara Sweeney in his place because there were less than 64 days remaining until the general election as required by law. After a lawsuit, the Alaska Supreme Court upheld Fenumiai's decision."
So Republicans have five days to try and convince (or more likely, force) Heikes out. Hopefully Leslie has a change of heart and drops out after the deadline, which would prevent another candidate from getting into the top four and make the election a three way between Mary Peltola, Dan Sullivan, and Dan Sullivan
I feel like there's no real point to a ranked choice voting system like this if it can be gamed this easily. I think this problem is a result of the all party primary system. If two members of the same party get into the top four, the lesser scoring one is incentivized to just drop out and try to consolidate voter support behind one candidate, which defeats the entire purpose of the ranked choice voting system. I don't know why states keep trying all party primaries. Alaska's ranked choice and top four primary is, on paper, the best way to hold an all party primary and prevent most of the obvious issues associated the format (ahem, California), and yet the only reason it's better than other states with all party primaries is because, worst case scenario, it won't lock any party out of the election and just becomes another Democrat vs Republican race, but with worse potential for spoiler candidates... with Dan Sullivan (not to be confused with Dan Sullivan) being a prime example. It's incredibly hilarious and it benefits us for the most part, but it is objectively anti-democratic, and overall I think electoral systems that only elect one representative need voting systems where each party gets one candidate. I like Maine's system most for that reason.
I mean, I definitely think RCV should exist in some capacity. I feel like a candidate should have to be able to garner atleast 50% of voter support. I guess you could argue electoral alliances are still gaming the system, but it's not like it's that different from losing candidates consolidating behind one of the winners in a runoff style electoral system. We've had a handful of elections now that show the impact and problems with a simple, first-past-the-post electoral system that I feel make it incompatible with democracy. If Georgia had a standard FPTP system, for example, Jon Ossoff wouldn't be cruising to re-election this year.
In 2024's house race, both the 3rd and 4th place candidates (both Republicans) withdrew, putting the 5th and 6th place candidates who got half a percent of the vote each on the general election ballot. They were an Alaska Independence Party candidate and a nominal "Democrat" (Eric Hafner) who is actually a prison inmate in New York who has never even visited Alaska. The state party tried to disqualify him (which would have passed his slot to the 7th place candidate, Gerald Heikes as it so happens), but failed.
Hafner "ran" again (i.e. got someone to pay the filing fee) this year and managed to grab 4th place in the house race. I think this is going to become a very common outcome for top 4, where spots 3 and 4 go to nobodies or cranks, as the more serious Democrats and Republicans with a future in the party drop out to not risk splitting the vote in the general.
In the governor's race, JKT expanded his margin over Begich slightly, mainly due to a pretty high percentage of the votes in this dump coming from the southeast coast. Most of what's left is in Anchorage, which will break towards Begich.
And now a big dump from Anchorage, about 10% still left to be counted there
Governor: Begich gained but not by enough to overcome JKT's lead (who also gained slightly), so he will probably withdraw. Bronson seems certain to come 4th, and it seems more likely than not Taylor beats out Bishop for 5th. Don't know if the Republicans are planning to withdraw for each other or not.
Senate: Peltola gains and is just under 49%, Leslie moves into 4th over Heikes
House: Hill gains, but Hafner and whoever John Williams is will come 4th and 5th. Don't know if Williams is willing to withdraw, but obviously Hafner isn't.
If one of the Dems withdraws for gov, that would make it a 1 D vs 3 R race. Quite a number of Republicans would have to withdraw to make it anything else, as a run of them took places 3 thru 8 (9th place was independent former gov. Bill Walker??)
I mean, the other two Republicans could also just wait until the deadline passes (64 days before the election, so five days from now) and *then* withdraw. Then they couldn't be replaced by additional Republicans. Of course that's assuming any of them would be willing to do so. Of the three Republicans who scored behind Bernadette Wilson, only Click Bishop (who is currently sixth but very close behind fifth place) stands out politically as more moderate-ish Republican, so I don't know how likely it is he'd drop out for the benefit of Wilson. And at the same time, the other two trailers seem like typical wacko Republicans, so I think there's an equally high chance they drop out in wacko solidarity with Wilson, or stay in to try and claim the Wacko Mandate. It's a nice little mess
Edit: According to this article (https://alaskapublic.org/news/politics/elections/2026-08-26/primary-standings-largely-unchanged-as-alaska-elections-officials-update-ballot-count), Bronson did say he'd wait until all votes were counted before deciding if he'd drop out or stay in, which basically sounds like he's planning to drop out. That would make the other two Republicans Treg Taylor and Click Bishop. Honestly I expect Taylor to withdraw as well because he was apparently caught doing some shady shit in regards to campaign finance, so I don't know if he'll even want to bother continue running in a general election he wasn't even supposed to make it to. Click Bishop, as mentioned above, I could see either staying in or withdrawing without endorsing Wilson.
9,000 more voters were posted this morning. Peltola (D) increased her lead to 48.9%-42.1%. Impressive. 94% counted.
And Leslie (D) is now in 4th place.
It's pretty clear that late votes (likely mailed from afar) are heavily pro Peltola. Of the votes for the top-two posted in the last 24 hours, Peltola has topped Sullivan 58.4%-41.6%.
The only votes left are in Anchorage, the south and southeast coast, and the Bush. The places Republicans actually net votes, being the Kenai Peninsula, Mat-Su Valley, and the eastern Fairbanks area, are all in. She'll probably just miss out on 50%.
I suspect that Peltola should be at around 48.5% of the vote once all is said and counted, and up nearly 6%. I suspect the trade wars with Canada and ongoing conflicts will make the November environment even better for her.
Back in May, the Conservative Party of British Columbia decided to elect Kerry-Lynne Findlay, a very conservative and Trumpy figure, as its leader, replacing an already rather conservative and incompetent leader. The results have been wonderful (for the province)
Offending your own MPs into leaving the party is an interesting strategy, as is trying to get non-hardliners to step down so you can run in their seat. She's not making it 2027, much less the next provincial election.
Those 8 were all party switches, so I'd compare that 44 to the B.C. Liberal's 28 in 2020, but otherwise yeah, the party is clearly imploding. Of the 12, 10 left/were forced out for ideologically reasons (three were far-right, the others were more moderate), 1 was forced out after having been charged with a crime, and the last resigned their seat so Findlay could try to get her own seat.
Fair cop. BC Liberals won 28 seats in 2020, BC Conservatives none. BC Liberals rebranded as BC United, then stood down for the 2024 election and endorsed the BC Conservatives.
I hope not very close since that cuts both ways and would have wildly unpredictable and wide-ranging consequences. This is just a local GOP county judge, let's see what appellate and state SC do.
It took the State SC to nullify it though. A better example might be the local GOP judge that threw out NY's a few years ago but they went back and corrected it through the State SC eventually.
There will always be some reliable rural "jurist" that Republicans can run to on this stuff. Many high-profile election law cases start that way. As UpstateNYer says, watch the appellate-level courts. But your sentiment is on the mark. Dems won't just start ignoring these eminent legal scholars, but I believe workarounds are absolutely on the way, like reform of the SCOTUS when—not if—Dems regain power.
This is a race I'd definitely be worried about if I'm Hinson or Thune. Rob Sand has the clear edge in the governor's race, and in the modern day, split ticket voting only goes so far. Hinson is in a decent position to benefit from it since she's more "Normal MAGA" and not "Psycho MAGA" like Ken Paxton, but regardless it's a race where she's gotta keep an eye on both her race's polling but also the governor race's polling.
Thank you. That is a wonderful piece by Laura. My favorite parts: Hinson calling herself a "bipartisan fighter," and Laura pointing out the presence of Thomas Laehn the Libertarian, whom public polls just can't quite seem to include in their surveys.
Good piece here. I got a good amount of feeling here in PA-01 with Fitzpatrick and the Republicans attacking Bob Harvie with very misleading and false ads and signs similar to Hinson against Turek. So whatever polling candidates like Hinson and Fitzpatrick are seeing, they are desperate and willing to go to lows that were probably never seen in their respective races. Emphasis on "probably".
someone should photoshop Tony Evers onto a house of cards poster if we end up with the trifecta. He'll have near-single handedly done a 180 on the state's political trajectory.
Tiffany will probably do well in his rural North Wisconsin district (outside of the Bayfield area), but I think he's going to way underperform Trump in the driftless area and the Wisconsin Dell area, as well as in the Milwaukee metro, likely only win Ozaukee by mid-single digits and lose Kenosha as well.
Massachusetts state Rep. Francisco Paulino (D) was arrested on charges of fraud and money laundering. This comes weeks after Lawrence mayor Brian DePeña was indicted on similar but separate charges.
The biggest issue for me isn't so much that it's from a Dem aligned pollster but also the fact that they're both at 41%. 41% isn't exactly a high mark to reach as a Democrat in South Carolina. 41% for Graham seems interesting at first but we don't have much to go off of because of the very large amount of undecideds. How many of them are *actually* undecided voters who could break either way, and how many are just unsatisfied Republicans? I feel like partisan pollsters get a little bit funny when it comes to undecided and independent voters, and getting a read on this election is made harder by the fact that so far, every single poll of the state has been conducted by Dem aligned pollster. So unfortunately a 41-41 doesn't mean much to me. A 44-44 tie? Then it gets interesting because 44 is around the high point of Democratic performances we've seen in recent years, so Andrews is in a decent position while Graham is having some difficulties consolidating the base. A 47-47 tie? The race is competitive. We really need an independent pollster to survey the race.
Well, the political climate is shaping up to be more uniformly awful for Republicans than 2018, and Graham just barely limped over the finish line of the primary despite a massive spending advantage, universal establishment support and as big and aggressive a push as I have ever seen Trump give a candidate. Darlene Graham is completely unready for prime time and it shows. She's a very awkward candidate and stunningly uninformed and uncurious about basic national issues, including high topical political flash points right now. I think it gives Democrats a very very narrow opening, especially if a lot of Freedom caucus Rs, already frustrated with Trump, sit the race out or vote third party.
A new UNH poll has Pappas down by 2 against Sununu, which is third poll of this pollster in a row with his support sliding. The poll also shows that his democratic primary might not be a walk in the park after all, with him being up only 47-34 against Manzur, down from 61-18 in April.
Nominating Manzur would be a pretty bad own goal, so hopefully that doesn't happen. It's possible that his dip in the general election polling is being caused by hardcore Manzur supporters, as the other three nobodies running have suspiciously high unfavorable percentages (compared to their name recognition) in the most progressive demographics, and the undecided and write-ins in the general skew similarly progressive and young. Something similar is going on with the nobodies in the NH-01 primary, I think a decent percentage of leftists in New Hampshire are trying to make their point, and will hopefully come around in the general election.
I don’t comment too much on here. But I live in NH and have been following this race closely so I thought I would opine.
I will be voting for Manzur in the Democratic primary and most of my friends will be too. It has less to do with how great she is and more to do with how awful Pappas is.
I think there are two main issues he faces with the Democratic voters.
First is his support from, and support FOR AIPAC. About a month ago, he created a short commercial thing of him endorsing them! Usually it goes the other way. People freaked out and many in the base were horrified by his unwavering endorsement of them and the statements he maid regarding their main advocacy issue.
The second issue deals with political dynasties. Many of us are so amazingly frustrated with Senators Shaheen and Hassan. I can’t even tell you how disappointed I am in them and how much I am ashamed of myself for supporting them in years past. They have completely let us down in the Senate and I am appalled aghast. They enable Trump at every turn and it’s disgusting. This may seem like hyperbole but the base is PISSED! This leads to the issue, specifically with Sen. Shaheen. Her daughter is running for the open HD-1 created by Pappas’ senate run. She is not doing as well in the polls as many would have thought because the democratic base hates her Mom. Pappas, in turn, is Shaheen’s hand chosen political successor. It’s all the old school, monied, painfully moderate Democrats who think that the succession plan engineered by Shaheen is pre-destined in a biblical sense. The rest of us think it’s stupid, undemocratic and of a bygone era. Again, the plan is Pappas taking Shaheen’s Senate seat and Shaheen Jr. taking his now open House seat.
Anyway, I’m pissed at these rich democrats who never had to work in their life and think that they are entitled to these seats.
Regarding Manzur being a poor general election candidate. That’s probably correct. But Pappas is a shockingly bad candidate too. They’ll both have a fight against the Sununu name. So, I figure that I may as well go with the candidate who I agree with.
My point about NH-01 had nothing to do with Shaheen (or Sullivan or the progressive candidates), but about the candidates with no campaigns to speak of with strangely high negative ratings among socialists and progressives.
While Pappas is clearly being handed a seat by the establishment and was their favored candidate in 2018, that doesn't make him lazy or a bad candidate. He's won a swing seat for 4 cycles, running roughly even with Biden, winning by 9 points in 2022 (which wasn't a great year for NH Republicans but not a terrible one either) and then overperforming Harris by 6 points. Whatever you think of him and his policies (he's certainly well to my right), he's a strong candidate. I'd also push back against the notion than Hassan and Shaheen have enabled Trump at every turn, as while they've voted with him too much, they still usually vote against him.
Given New Hampshire's... tendencies, I can honestly see the general election being more competitive than expected because the Republican candidate has that magic last name that makes it okay to vote for a Republican *just* this once, I promise! If we end up in the nightmare scenario where he and Susan Collins win their races, maybe they can form the Concerned Caucus. Just so people *really* know that he didn't like having to vote for the Puppy and Kitten Murder Act of 2027, y'know?
But with regards to the primary numbers, that's pretty bad on Pappas' part. Every poll done by UNH has him losing support in the general election and the primary election. I personally don't have an affinity for Democrats in his mold, but is there anything specific about him that points to him being a weak candidate or campaigner, or does D S's hypothesis explain it better?
This seems like the most likely explanation to me. We just watched Hickenlooper get a close shave, and Bennet get defeated in CO. We also saw El Sayed and Nixon win in MI and FL respectively, and Hong nearly won in WI, I don't think Pappas weak polling speaks much about him specifically as opposed to anger at establishment candidates generally (of course its his skill as a politician that will likely determine if he closes the deal or is defeated in the primary)
I hope these voters are aware that Pappas fought to get reform for sellers on EBay, Etsy, etc. so they wouldn’t be taxed unnecessarily by the IRS for things they sell for much needed money. Lots of Gen Y and Gen Z on these platforms.
Voters should definitely aim to be informed but it is also Pappas’ responsibility to get this information *out* to them as well. I don’t think Pappas is… *that* bad, atleast for NH, he definitely has a record to run on. He should use it
I am not sure I buy it. Why, with the dismal state of polling, and also the famously dismal quality of NH polling that tends to be all over the place, are people here reading this much into one poll? In addition, Maine and New Hampshire are probably the two states singularly most screwed over and harmed by a trade war with Canada, which just makes things even harder to Sununu and Collins.
As Mark Twain says, "The report of my death was an exaggeration." Miraculously, a commenter was kind enough to gift me an annual subscription, so I can still comment here.
Anyways, pleasantly surprised at Blair's win and disappointed Graham and Mazzei won.
Same! I was approached by no less than three community members offering to sponsor me. I am overwhelmed by the generosity of folks sometimes.
I'm also happy Blair won, just wish he could have won the regular primary as well.
Glad to hear you will still be around! And yeah I was excited for the possibility of Drummond winning, such a close loss. I know he’s not a liberal by any means but by far seemed like the lesser of two evils
Graham will be an easier opponent. Drummond not winning was disappointing but he came damn close.
Not gonna lie I was a little disgusted with the drug test gambit by Drummond.
Hey Jaz, not miraculous! People her are just cool and want to do what is right. If everyone acted that way we would have never gotten into this f'ing mess we are in. But Dems will kill it like never b4 in Nov. and just think how sweet it is going to be undoing all of dumps shit in '29. BTW, so glad you are still a force on TDB!
No miracle at all; I was in the process of reaching out to you as well but was too slow. :-) And if that sponsorship/gift ever gets interrupted, please DM me. Glad to see you here today!
Same here.
I wish soon-to-be-former Rep. Norman a long and boring retirement in obscurity.
The Texas polls that have all the buzz this morning:
TSU poll | 8/18-8/22
TX-15 (Trump +18)
🟦Bobby Pulido 50%
🟥Mónica De La Cruz 45% (incumbent)
——
TX-28 (Trump +10)
🟦Henry Cuellar 45% (incumbent)
🟥Tano Tijerina 34%
——
TX-34 (Trump +10)
🟦Vicente Gonzalez 45% (incumbent)
🟥Eric Flores 42%
And the Talarico numbers within (although maybe someone can compare this to Beto since the districts were different):
TX-15 (Trump +18)
🟦James Talarico: 50%
🟥Ken Paxton: 42%
——
TX-28 (Trump +11)
🟦James Talarico: 51%
🟥Ken Paxton: 41%
——
TX-34 (Trump +11)
🟦James Talarico: 53%
🟥Ken Paxton: 42%
Under the current districts, Beto would've won each by:
TX-15: Beto +11.3
TX-28: Beto +32.3
TX-34: Beto +10.8
So aside from TX-28, Talarico is matching Beto's performance
Also some perspective:
Back in 2018, it took Beto many months to gain in the polls against Ted Cruz while campaigning across TX. From a polling sense, this was not a competitive race right off the bat. I could be wrong but I believe at this point Beto was already closing in on the polls and making the race closer than expected. He got a lot of attention in the news,
By contrast, James Talarico has been head in the polls for quite some time, build up a massive following and is far more of fundraising juggarnaur than Beto was.
Given Beto lost to Cruz by less than 3% points, if 2026 were him vs. Cruz for the first time, it's possible Beto could have won the Senate race.
This is something that pisses me off whenever people moan and whine and say shit like "people have been saying Texas is going to go blue for so long but Ted Cruz still won in 2018!" among other bad faith reasons why "Texas can't go blue."
By all accounts, it was Ted Cruz's race to lose in 2018. O'Rourke only led him in two polls, and tied him in two others. When you look at polling in August/September, that's about when the polls started to look more competitive. Talarico, on the other hand, has kept the race competitive from the start, and Ken Paxton is (somehow) a far more odious and weaker candidate, running in a weaker Republican environment, without a political lightning rod like Kavanaugh's confirmation to motivate Republicans to vote in competitive senate races. Never get complacent, obviously, but I definitely think Talarico is the frontrunner right now, given that the polls of those gerrymandered congressional districts are suggesting a voter base closer to 2018 than 2024
“Texas is going to go blue for so long”
Back in 2014, TX Democrats had grassroots groups like Battleground TX but they weren’t enough to help Democrats win in the state. Maxey Scherr was the Senate candidate that had the most enthusiasm but Lyndon LaRouche Crazy Keisha Rogers got 21.6% of the votes in the primary, making it hard for Scherr to have a chance at defeating David Alameel in the primary. Had Rogers not been in the race, it would have been a different story.
In fact, after losing the Senate race Alameel had attacked the TX Democratic Party for being too insider driven. If people wanted TX to go blue, then how realistically would that have happens 10 years ago?
AZ and GA are progressively moving away from the GOP (GA more so) but Democrats still have to win races before we’re in any position of arguing if TX is going blue at some point.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k1-kKZtAQ-4&pp=ygUNRGF2aWQgYWxhbWVlbNIHCQkTDAGHKiGM7w%3D%3D&ra=m
I agree. I'm more referring to this pessimistic attitude some people have about Texas flipping and giving up before it's over because "Texas is a red state, we can't win it."
These are amazing numbers.
I have been thinking this for a while....but it would be really weird to me if Republicans laid an egg in Texas. It looks entirely possible that Dems could unseat De La Cruz, Cuellar hold on, Gonzalez hold on, Dems manage to win the San Antonio seat meant to go R, and then also Herrera blow his race, leading to a net gain of 0 for Republicans in Texas despite an aggressive gerrymander, while somehow Republicans in Florida managed to make it next impossible for Democrats to hold more than 4 seats in the whole state.
Iowa Governor and Senate Poll from Suffolk University
Senate:
Hinson: 45%
Turek: 41%
Governor:
Sand: 48%
Lahn: 44%
https://www.suffolk.edu/academics/research-at-suffolk/political-research-center/polls/other-states
I remain convinced that the Hinson lead is illusory. She's an empty suit and has a horrid voting record she can't run from. That typed, Turek needs to get some name recog and has work to do. Some debates with the less-than-inspiring Rep. Hinson ought to do it; I assume she'll actively duck them.
Iowa Suffolk:
Hinson 45-41
Sand 48-44
https://www.suffolk.edu/academics/research-at-suffolk/political-research-center/polls/other-states
Lahn and Hinson both at 44-45% is the tell
AK Sen Update:
More results were posted last night bringing the current total counted from 133,725 to 147,765 (80% to 88% per AP).
At the top, Peltola (D) increased her vote from 48.1% to 48.2% while incumbent Sullivan (R) had his percentage decrease from 42.7% to 42.6%.
Retired schoolteacher Dan Sullivan stayed in 3rd place and seems certain to make the top-4.
The fourth place finisher changed. It had been David Leslie, a progressive Democrat, but his vote total was passed by Gerald Heikes (R). Republicans will likely try to convince Heikes to withdraw, giving Leslie the fourth slot. Based on an interview he gave recently, it does not sound like Leslie will drop out. He argues that he will draw to the polls progressive Democrats who find Peltola not progressive enough and they will choose Peltola as second choice.
Or, hear me out Leslie... you drop out. The last thing we need is another Ralph Nader to give progressives a bad name. I think progressives (and Democrats in general) would be more likely to *actually* take advantage of the ranked choice system and avoid being a spoiler vote - I feel like, for example, Al Gore would've won in 2000 if ranked choice voting existed then - but why risk it? The way I see it, the primary *was* his chance to draw progressives to the polls and make a statement about Peltola, and he might not even get within the top four on his own without Republican ratfuckery. Also, it's Alaska. I'd get the rationale in a blue state or even in a swing state but in Alaska? Let's just focus on helping Peltola drag the overton window leftwards first, *then* we can try more liberal candidates in the future.
I get the argument from Leslie though - it sounds like he's saying that he'd be staying in the race to help Peltola by getting progressive voters to the polls not because he's trying to hurt her. He might be wrong about it working out like that, but it doesn't sound like he's trying to play spoiler.
Then he basically needs to make his whole campaign for the last couple months about ranking Peltola second.
If he's dead set on staying in and polls show him gaining some voters, enough to cause a potential headache if roughly half of his potentially voters don't rank Peltola, I wonder if he and Peltola could do some sort of "cross endorsement" thing, like what we saw in the Democratic primaries in New York City with Mamdani and Lander and in Maine. Obviously its de facto an endorsement of Peltola, but you could say the same about Mamdani-Lander, and it might lessen the chances of Leslie voters exhausting their ballots if they feel like it goes "both ways."
We're talking about someone who got 1% of the vote. Peltola is going to ignore him. The last thing any Alaska Dem wants to do is increase his name rec. There's no way someone who performed like that is going to meaningfully drive turnout. Anyone who would earnestly vote for him and then rank Peltola 2nd would just vote Peltola in his absence. Best thing for all if the last slot goes to another Republican.
That's fair, and I don't think he's trying to be a spoiler candidate or sabotage Peltola. I just wonder if it's worth the risk, even if he has good intentions. He got so little of the vote that he's not exactly turning out progressives super well (unless progressives are *that* sparse in Alaska), while still getting just the right amount to potentially spoil the election if his voters opt not to rank Peltola, which if he's not careful in how he campaigns is a very real possibility.
If he actively encourages his supporters to rank Peltola as the 2nd choice, it could help her win in the end. But Peltola is close to getting 50% outright anyway...
I think a campaign by Leslie that says "vote for me to express your solidarity with progressive principles but make sure you rank Mary second to defeat Trump and Sullivan" (or something like that) would be a reasonable (and likely effective) approach.
I didn’t realize that if someone withdraws it gives the next runner-up their slot
"Under Alaska's top-four primary system, if a general election candidate drops out, the director of elections may replace them with the name of the fifth-place finisher. Shortly after the primary, Al Gross dropped out of the general election, but Division of Elections Director Gail Fenumiai did not advance Tara Sweeney in his place because there were less than 64 days remaining until the general election as required by law. After a lawsuit, the Alaska Supreme Court upheld Fenumiai's decision."
So Republicans have five days to try and convince (or more likely, force) Heikes out. Hopefully Leslie has a change of heart and drops out after the deadline, which would prevent another candidate from getting into the top four and make the election a three way between Mary Peltola, Dan Sullivan, and Dan Sullivan
I feel like there's no real point to a ranked choice voting system like this if it can be gamed this easily. I think this problem is a result of the all party primary system. If two members of the same party get into the top four, the lesser scoring one is incentivized to just drop out and try to consolidate voter support behind one candidate, which defeats the entire purpose of the ranked choice voting system. I don't know why states keep trying all party primaries. Alaska's ranked choice and top four primary is, on paper, the best way to hold an all party primary and prevent most of the obvious issues associated the format (ahem, California), and yet the only reason it's better than other states with all party primaries is because, worst case scenario, it won't lock any party out of the election and just becomes another Democrat vs Republican race, but with worse potential for spoiler candidates... with Dan Sullivan (not to be confused with Dan Sullivan) being a prime example. It's incredibly hilarious and it benefits us for the most part, but it is objectively anti-democratic, and overall I think electoral systems that only elect one representative need voting systems where each party gets one candidate. I like Maine's system most for that reason.
I think ultimately RCV is not the best electoral system for single-member districts, there's always going to be the impulse to game it.
I mean, I definitely think RCV should exist in some capacity. I feel like a candidate should have to be able to garner atleast 50% of voter support. I guess you could argue electoral alliances are still gaming the system, but it's not like it's that different from losing candidates consolidating behind one of the winners in a runoff style electoral system. We've had a handful of elections now that show the impact and problems with a simple, first-past-the-post electoral system that I feel make it incompatible with democracy. If Georgia had a standard FPTP system, for example, Jon Ossoff wouldn't be cruising to re-election this year.
In 2024's house race, both the 3rd and 4th place candidates (both Republicans) withdrew, putting the 5th and 6th place candidates who got half a percent of the vote each on the general election ballot. They were an Alaska Independence Party candidate and a nominal "Democrat" (Eric Hafner) who is actually a prison inmate in New York who has never even visited Alaska. The state party tried to disqualify him (which would have passed his slot to the 7th place candidate, Gerald Heikes as it so happens), but failed.
Hafner "ran" again (i.e. got someone to pay the filing fee) this year and managed to grab 4th place in the house race. I think this is going to become a very common outcome for top 4, where spots 3 and 4 go to nobodies or cranks, as the more serious Democrats and Republicans with a future in the party drop out to not risk splitting the vote in the general.
Fun fact: Eric Hafner's mother, Carol Hafner, is also a perennial candidate and ran in the senate primary this year. She got 7th
In the governor's race, JKT expanded his margin over Begich slightly, mainly due to a pretty high percentage of the votes in this dump coming from the southeast coast. Most of what's left is in Anchorage, which will break towards Begich.
And now a big dump from Anchorage, about 10% still left to be counted there
Governor: Begich gained but not by enough to overcome JKT's lead (who also gained slightly), so he will probably withdraw. Bronson seems certain to come 4th, and it seems more likely than not Taylor beats out Bishop for 5th. Don't know if the Republicans are planning to withdraw for each other or not.
Senate: Peltola gains and is just under 49%, Leslie moves into 4th over Heikes
House: Hill gains, but Hafner and whoever John Williams is will come 4th and 5th. Don't know if Williams is willing to withdraw, but obviously Hafner isn't.
If one of the Dems withdraws for gov, that would make it a 1 D vs 3 R race. Quite a number of Republicans would have to withdraw to make it anything else, as a run of them took places 3 thru 8 (9th place was independent former gov. Bill Walker??)
I mean, the other two Republicans could also just wait until the deadline passes (64 days before the election, so five days from now) and *then* withdraw. Then they couldn't be replaced by additional Republicans. Of course that's assuming any of them would be willing to do so. Of the three Republicans who scored behind Bernadette Wilson, only Click Bishop (who is currently sixth but very close behind fifth place) stands out politically as more moderate-ish Republican, so I don't know how likely it is he'd drop out for the benefit of Wilson. And at the same time, the other two trailers seem like typical wacko Republicans, so I think there's an equally high chance they drop out in wacko solidarity with Wilson, or stay in to try and claim the Wacko Mandate. It's a nice little mess
Edit: According to this article (https://alaskapublic.org/news/politics/elections/2026-08-26/primary-standings-largely-unchanged-as-alaska-elections-officials-update-ballot-count), Bronson did say he'd wait until all votes were counted before deciding if he'd drop out or stay in, which basically sounds like he's planning to drop out. That would make the other two Republicans Treg Taylor and Click Bishop. Honestly I expect Taylor to withdraw as well because he was apparently caught doing some shady shit in regards to campaign finance, so I don't know if he'll even want to bother continue running in a general election he wasn't even supposed to make it to. Click Bishop, as mentioned above, I could see either staying in or withdrawing without endorsing Wilson.
9,000 more voters were posted this morning. Peltola (D) increased her lead to 48.9%-42.1%. Impressive. 94% counted.
And Leslie (D) is now in 4th place.
It's pretty clear that late votes (likely mailed from afar) are heavily pro Peltola. Of the votes for the top-two posted in the last 24 hours, Peltola has topped Sullivan 58.4%-41.6%.
The only votes left are in Anchorage, the south and southeast coast, and the Bush. The places Republicans actually net votes, being the Kenai Peninsula, Mat-Su Valley, and the eastern Fairbanks area, are all in. She'll probably just miss out on 50%.
I suspect that Peltola should be at around 48.5% of the vote once all is said and counted, and up nearly 6%. I suspect the trade wars with Canada and ongoing conflicts will make the November environment even better for her.
Back in May, the Conservative Party of British Columbia decided to elect Kerry-Lynne Findlay, a very conservative and Trumpy figure, as its leader, replacing an already rather conservative and incompetent leader. The results have been wonderful (for the province)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/teresa-wat-leaving-bc-conservatives-9.7320971
Offending your own MPs into leaving the party is an interesting strategy, as is trying to get non-hardliners to step down so you can run in their seat. She's not making it 2027, much less the next provincial election.
In the last (2024) general election the BC Cons went from 8 seats to 44 seats out of 93 in the Assembly. They are down to 32...
Those 8 were all party switches, so I'd compare that 44 to the B.C. Liberal's 28 in 2020, but otherwise yeah, the party is clearly imploding. Of the 12, 10 left/were forced out for ideologically reasons (three were far-right, the others were more moderate), 1 was forced out after having been charged with a crime, and the last resigned their seat so Findlay could try to get her own seat.
Fair cop. BC Liberals won 28 seats in 2020, BC Conservatives none. BC Liberals rebranded as BC United, then stood down for the 2024 election and endorsed the BC Conservatives.
RE: The MD redistricting ruling. How close are Dem states to just ignoring GOP partisan hack decisions?
I hope not very close since that cuts both ways and would have wildly unpredictable and wide-ranging consequences. This is just a local GOP county judge, let's see what appellate and state SC do.
A local GOP county judge is what ended up stopping the Virginia redistricting effort as well
It took the State SC to nullify it though. A better example might be the local GOP judge that threw out NY's a few years ago but they went back and corrected it through the State SC eventually.
There will always be some reliable rural "jurist" that Republicans can run to on this stuff. Many high-profile election law cases start that way. As UpstateNYer says, watch the appellate-level courts. But your sentiment is on the mark. Dems won't just start ignoring these eminent legal scholars, but I believe workarounds are absolutely on the way, like reform of the SCOTUS when—not if—Dems regain power.
I hope you will forgive the non-elections story, but: in the worst double whammy of all time with yesterday, Tim Curry has also passed away.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/26/movies/tim-curry-dead.html
the wrong Home Alone 2 stars are passing this year... :(
very sad! so sorry to hear!
That's truly sad. Great talent and, by all accounts, a great person too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1Sq1Nr58hM
Underrated role as Cardinal Richelieu in the 1990s version of Three Musketeers (great cast, fun watch)
That can BE!... ARRANGED!
Iowa Sen: ICYMI, Laura Belin wrote a great on the ground piece on the Iowa race on Monday. https://www.bleedingheartland.com/2026/08/24/republicans-seem-increasingly-worried-about-iowas-u-s-senate-race/
This is a race I'd definitely be worried about if I'm Hinson or Thune. Rob Sand has the clear edge in the governor's race, and in the modern day, split ticket voting only goes so far. Hinson is in a decent position to benefit from it since she's more "Normal MAGA" and not "Psycho MAGA" like Ken Paxton, but regardless it's a race where she's gotta keep an eye on both her race's polling but also the governor race's polling.
Thank you. That is a wonderful piece by Laura. My favorite parts: Hinson calling herself a "bipartisan fighter," and Laura pointing out the presence of Thomas Laehn the Libertarian, whom public polls just can't quite seem to include in their surveys.
Good piece here. I got a good amount of feeling here in PA-01 with Fitzpatrick and the Republicans attacking Bob Harvie with very misleading and false ads and signs similar to Hinson against Turek. So whatever polling candidates like Hinson and Fitzpatrick are seeing, they are desperate and willing to go to lows that were probably never seen in their respective races. Emphasis on "probably".
New Marquette poll. Crowley 49-44 (LVs) https://x.com/jrrosswrites/status/2092663716021952618?s=20
someone should photoshop Tony Evers onto a house of cards poster if we end up with the trifecta. He'll have near-single handedly done a 180 on the state's political trajectory.
Tiffany will probably do well in his rural North Wisconsin district (outside of the Bayfield area), but I think he's going to way underperform Trump in the driftless area and the Wisconsin Dell area, as well as in the Milwaukee metro, likely only win Ozaukee by mid-single digits and lose Kenosha as well.
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2026/08/26/appalling-methuen-state-rep-arrested-on-pandemic-relief-fraud-charges/
Massachusetts state Rep. Francisco Paulino (D) was arrested on charges of fraud and money laundering. This comes weeks after Lawrence mayor Brian DePeña was indicted on similar but separate charges.
I know its Resistlib fodder but new SC Poll Andrews-Graham tied https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/2092688424017031300?s=20
The biggest issue for me isn't so much that it's from a Dem aligned pollster but also the fact that they're both at 41%. 41% isn't exactly a high mark to reach as a Democrat in South Carolina. 41% for Graham seems interesting at first but we don't have much to go off of because of the very large amount of undecideds. How many of them are *actually* undecided voters who could break either way, and how many are just unsatisfied Republicans? I feel like partisan pollsters get a little bit funny when it comes to undecided and independent voters, and getting a read on this election is made harder by the fact that so far, every single poll of the state has been conducted by Dem aligned pollster. So unfortunately a 41-41 doesn't mean much to me. A 44-44 tie? Then it gets interesting because 44 is around the high point of Democratic performances we've seen in recent years, so Andrews is in a decent position while Graham is having some difficulties consolidating the base. A 47-47 tie? The race is competitive. We really need an independent pollster to survey the race.
Well, the political climate is shaping up to be more uniformly awful for Republicans than 2018, and Graham just barely limped over the finish line of the primary despite a massive spending advantage, universal establishment support and as big and aggressive a push as I have ever seen Trump give a candidate. Darlene Graham is completely unready for prime time and it shows. She's a very awkward candidate and stunningly uninformed and uncurious about basic national issues, including high topical political flash points right now. I think it gives Democrats a very very narrow opening, especially if a lot of Freedom caucus Rs, already frustrated with Trump, sit the race out or vote third party.
sending money to the good Dr. Andrews!!
WI-Gov - DGA out with an ad saying Tom Tiffany may oppose data centers in the streets, but is in bed with them in the sheets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhjDYxdRVlI
Both David Crowley and Tom Tiffany have been in a race to outflank each other on the left on this issue.
TX: Catching up, Sabato has moved TX Senate and TX-15 from Lean R to Toss-Up. Also moved TX Gov from Safe R to Likely R.
A new UNH poll has Pappas down by 2 against Sununu, which is third poll of this pollster in a row with his support sliding. The poll also shows that his democratic primary might not be a walk in the park after all, with him being up only 47-34 against Manzur, down from 61-18 in April.
https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1987&context=survey_center_polls
Wow. That primary number is pretty dismal.
Another poll last week had Pappas up 48-41.
Meanwhile UNH also has Ed Markey up 63-28 in the Mass senate primary.
https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1988&context=survey_center_polls
Nominating Manzur would be a pretty bad own goal, so hopefully that doesn't happen. It's possible that his dip in the general election polling is being caused by hardcore Manzur supporters, as the other three nobodies running have suspiciously high unfavorable percentages (compared to their name recognition) in the most progressive demographics, and the undecided and write-ins in the general skew similarly progressive and young. Something similar is going on with the nobodies in the NH-01 primary, I think a decent percentage of leftists in New Hampshire are trying to make their point, and will hopefully come around in the general election.
Yeah, that recent debacle between Wade going after Howard and Howard dropping out and endorsing Beriont was weird.
I don’t comment too much on here. But I live in NH and have been following this race closely so I thought I would opine.
I will be voting for Manzur in the Democratic primary and most of my friends will be too. It has less to do with how great she is and more to do with how awful Pappas is.
I think there are two main issues he faces with the Democratic voters.
First is his support from, and support FOR AIPAC. About a month ago, he created a short commercial thing of him endorsing them! Usually it goes the other way. People freaked out and many in the base were horrified by his unwavering endorsement of them and the statements he maid regarding their main advocacy issue.
The second issue deals with political dynasties. Many of us are so amazingly frustrated with Senators Shaheen and Hassan. I can’t even tell you how disappointed I am in them and how much I am ashamed of myself for supporting them in years past. They have completely let us down in the Senate and I am appalled aghast. They enable Trump at every turn and it’s disgusting. This may seem like hyperbole but the base is PISSED! This leads to the issue, specifically with Sen. Shaheen. Her daughter is running for the open HD-1 created by Pappas’ senate run. She is not doing as well in the polls as many would have thought because the democratic base hates her Mom. Pappas, in turn, is Shaheen’s hand chosen political successor. It’s all the old school, monied, painfully moderate Democrats who think that the succession plan engineered by Shaheen is pre-destined in a biblical sense. The rest of us think it’s stupid, undemocratic and of a bygone era. Again, the plan is Pappas taking Shaheen’s Senate seat and Shaheen Jr. taking his now open House seat.
Anyway, I’m pissed at these rich democrats who never had to work in their life and think that they are entitled to these seats.
Regarding Manzur being a poor general election candidate. That’s probably correct. But Pappas is a shockingly bad candidate too. They’ll both have a fight against the Sununu name. So, I figure that I may as well go with the candidate who I agree with.
My point about NH-01 had nothing to do with Shaheen (or Sullivan or the progressive candidates), but about the candidates with no campaigns to speak of with strangely high negative ratings among socialists and progressives.
While Pappas is clearly being handed a seat by the establishment and was their favored candidate in 2018, that doesn't make him lazy or a bad candidate. He's won a swing seat for 4 cycles, running roughly even with Biden, winning by 9 points in 2022 (which wasn't a great year for NH Republicans but not a terrible one either) and then overperforming Harris by 6 points. Whatever you think of him and his policies (he's certainly well to my right), he's a strong candidate. I'd also push back against the notion than Hassan and Shaheen have enabled Trump at every turn, as while they've voted with him too much, they still usually vote against him.
Given New Hampshire's... tendencies, I can honestly see the general election being more competitive than expected because the Republican candidate has that magic last name that makes it okay to vote for a Republican *just* this once, I promise! If we end up in the nightmare scenario where he and Susan Collins win their races, maybe they can form the Concerned Caucus. Just so people *really* know that he didn't like having to vote for the Puppy and Kitten Murder Act of 2027, y'know?
But with regards to the primary numbers, that's pretty bad on Pappas' part. Every poll done by UNH has him losing support in the general election and the primary election. I personally don't have an affinity for Democrats in his mold, but is there anything specific about him that points to him being a weak candidate or campaigner, or does D S's hypothesis explain it better?
It might just be Pappas is perceived as establishment, and a lot of Dem primary voters are upset with the establishment right now.
This seems like the most likely explanation to me. We just watched Hickenlooper get a close shave, and Bennet get defeated in CO. We also saw El Sayed and Nixon win in MI and FL respectively, and Hong nearly won in WI, I don't think Pappas weak polling speaks much about him specifically as opposed to anger at establishment candidates generally (of course its his skill as a politician that will likely determine if he closes the deal or is defeated in the primary)
I hope these voters are aware that Pappas fought to get reform for sellers on EBay, Etsy, etc. so they wouldn’t be taxed unnecessarily by the IRS for things they sell for much needed money. Lots of Gen Y and Gen Z on these platforms.
Voters should definitely aim to be informed but it is also Pappas’ responsibility to get this information *out* to them as well. I don’t think Pappas is… *that* bad, atleast for NH, he definitely has a record to run on. He should use it
I am not sure I buy it. Why, with the dismal state of polling, and also the famously dismal quality of NH polling that tends to be all over the place, are people here reading this much into one poll? In addition, Maine and New Hampshire are probably the two states singularly most screwed over and harmed by a trade war with Canada, which just makes things even harder to Sununu and Collins.
That poll also had a slightly higher Republican voter sample when you look at the voter registration breakdown.