Please note: Starting tomorrow (Wednesday, Aug. 26), only paid subscribers will be able to participate in comments. This is not a choice we wished to make, but it was forced upon us.
As we explained in a detailed email yesterday, the inundation of spammers, along with a rise in trolls, has made it impossible for us to keep our comment section a civil and welcoming place given our extremely limited human resources. We have considered every possible approach and tweaked every possible setting, but the only remaining option is to paywall our comments.
To help mitigate this, if you’re a free subscriber who’s eager to continue commenting, we'd like to offer you a discount. As you may have seen, The Downballot recently raised our rates to $75 a year. But if you subscribe via this special link by Wednesday, you can upgrade at our old price of $60 a year: https://www.the-downballot.com/keepcommenting
Again, I am very sorry to have to do this. Community has always been so important to me, literally from the day I launched the Swing State Project 23 years ago. This is the only way for us to protect it, and I hope you will put your trust in our stewardship. Thank you.
Social Media companies (which is ultimately what Substack is) seem to think that bots aren't really a problem, so long as they aren't overtly malicious, since, after all, they "drive engagement". It's only once they're platforms are swarming with them to the point that the humans decide it's not worth the bother anymore that they're like "oh shit, we should do something about that."
I'm hesitant to say anything because I'm certain you've thought about this more than I have, but it feels like this might be an overreaction to what appears to be a single bad actor creating spam accounts endlessly. Did you contact Substack support, or consider opening up moderation to more trusted community members?
Yes, we've spoken to Substack support, and we already have volunteer moderators. I'm afraid that this has been a long, ongoing, and growing problem, one that we've grappled with for the better part of a year.
As a moderator on Wikivoyage, and previously on other platforms, it shocks me that there's no other way for you to deal with this, but it's true that we have/had over 2 moderators, so I get it. You could ask for volunteer moderators, though, and vet them. We have them on Wikivoyage and had them on eGullet, where I was previously a moderator.
It’s unfortunate that you have had to make this decision but I understand and support it, the bots have been quite annoying the past few weeks and really muck up a (usually) great and informative comment section. I am very saddened to see several really good commenters say they will be moving on, however, due to the requirement to pay for the subscription…you truly cannot afford to put $60 on a credit card for this incredibly professional and well-informed Substack?
That is $5 a month, .16 cents a day.
I’m also not swimming in extra money right now but the cost is well worth it for this site and I feel like all the years I was getting this for free from DKE I owe it to David and Jeff to support their efforts.
You're assuming that everyone has a credit card instead of a debit card, and that's not the case. For those who only have debit cards, and that does include me, it's not $5 a month, it's $60 straight out of the bank, all at once. That is not "chump change".
I completely understand that, and certainly am not trying to make any assumptions about your financial situation, but isn’t there also an option to sign up for a monthly subscription as opposed to a yearly one? It was $9/month, which is a much lower upfront cost if that’s the issue.
There is, and it is $9/month. I'm a senior on a fixed income, so I want to have as few automatic monthly payments as I can, because they can add up to Real Money quicker than you might think. I'll think about monthly, but $9/month is something I will need to think about -- and even if I can swing it, it's not something I'd want to drop in the last week of a month.
Not going to sugar coat it, this is gross. Yes of course The Downballot is worth the expense, I've been a community member since SwingStateProject. But I am literally in bankruptcy right now. You don't know other people's financial situations. Shaming people who can't afford things is wrong.
Believe it or not, some of us have to account and plan for every single penny spent. From full-time students with shoestring incomes, to retirees and those on fixed incomes, to people going through severe medical/financial hardship or bankruptcy, you wouldn't believe how incredibly strapped some people are.
It has been an absolute pleasure commenting and participating here, and I wish the staff and everyone nothing but the best... should I land a job after graduating, I would be happy to become a paid member.
Technically I’m supposed to be on break, so I apologize if my presence is currently unwanted or unwelcome, but I saw this and I just wanted to say that I’ll miss all the people leaving. You’ve all been wonderful contributors. I’ll especially miss JazElections, whose commitment to election data and this site I admire.
I did want to ask David and Jeff a question, and it’s one another poster asked. Have you considered appointing users as moderators to help control the bots? Is that possible on Substack? Obviously not me, I don’t even trust myself to manage political discussion (I do have a semi-staff role on the trope/fandom wiki TV Tropes but discussion of American politics is flat out banned there) but I know there are some great users here who could make stellar moderators. Is that an option, or does Substack’s structure prevent it, David and Jeff?
I'm posting my full email here, since I recognize that not everyone opened it. It explains our thinking in greater detail.
*****
Dear readers,
You’re receiving this email because, at some point, you’ve posted a comment (and likely more than one) at The Downballot.
I launched the site that would one day become The Downballot nearly 23 years ago, and from moment one, community was always central to me. I had comments turned on for my very first post, and three brave souls even logged in to share their thoughts!
Things only grew from there. The Swing State Project (as it was then known) soon became home to one of the smartest, most knowledgeable, and funniest comment sections anywhere on the internet. More than that, our users proved to be incredibly loyal, migrating with us to new sites not once but twice. I love our comment boards, and they remain essential to our identity.
But this community didn’t take shape by accident. It’s taken a lot of very careful moderation to maintain civility, which means that we read every comment and intervene regularly if things threaten to go off the rails. In the year 2026, you’ll be hard-pressed to find a comment section anywhere that isn’t just a screeching pit of toxicity filled with know-it-alls who know nothing.
We remain a shining exception as a beacon of civil discussion, and I won’t let that change.
Unfortunately, recent developments have threatened our comments in a new way. The biggest menace is spammers, who have sought to take advantage of The Downballot’s growing prominence by polluting our comment boards with ever greater frequency. This weekend, we received an astounding 31 reports about comments that violate our rules, nearly all of them due to spam bots.
The other issue we face is that, among actual humans, the most problematic commenters are virtually always free subscribers. I can count on one hand the number of paid subscribers I’ve had to ban and refund because of unacceptable behavior in our comments. A much larger number of individuals with little affection for our site, however, have taken advantage of the liberal access we offer to our comment boards to engage in drive-by trolling as unpaid subscribers.
Let me be clear: The vast majority of the folks who participate in our comment section as free subscribers are valuable contributors. That’s precisely why, when I launched The Downballot two years ago, I chose to keep our comment section free regardless of ability to pay. And until recently, it was the right choice.
It’s also why I’ve spent a lot of time carefully considering this decision. We weighed every alternative and tinkered with every setting to try to avoid this, but this weekend’s spam onslaught finally tipped us over the edge. With Election Day fast approaching, our tiny staff of two needs to be able to focus solely on news coverage, not patrolling miscreants.
Starting Wednesday, therefore, only those with paid subscriptions will be able to participate as commenters at The Downballot. I know this will likely reduce the volume of comments, and I am very sorry that this might curtail the ability of some folks to engage at all. This is not a choice I wish to make, but it’s been thrust upon us nonetheless.
To help mitigate this, if you’re a free subscriber who’s eager to continue commenting, I’d like to offer you a discount. As you may have seen, The Downballot recently raised our rates to $75 a year. But if you subscribe via this special link by Wednesday, you can upgrade at our old price of $60 a year: https://www.the-downballot.com/keepcommenting
I also want to stress that I’m not making this decision to boost revenues. (To put things in perspective, the email you’re reading now is going out to fewer than 500 people—less than 1% of our total list.) If this problem hadn’t grown so acute, we wouldn’t be touching a thing. But a paywall is the last option we have for preserving the health of such a vital part of our site.
Again, I know this is not welcome news, but I hope you will put your trust in us, just as you have for the last 23 years. And if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to write back—replies will go directly to my personal inbox, not some anonymous memory hole where they’ll never be seen.
Thank you so much for your readership, your understanding, your support, and above all, the voice you’ve contributed to our community.
I’m just thinking about this - if the goal is to stop spam by requiring people to be paid subscribers, but people are also saying that they can’t afford the cost due to various reasons like being a student or on a fixed income, is there any reason why the cost to be a paid subscriber is as high as it is? I’m happy to pay the current cost, but it seems like even a paltry fee like a $5 subscription for the year would stop spam bots from posting while also not being a problem for people of more limited means who want to participate.
Multiple reasons, but the showstopper is the platform. Substack strictly limits the number of subscriber tiers you can have to just three: free, paid, and "Founding Member."
Very disappointed in this decision. I don’t comment often, but I guess this will be the last comment I ever make here.
Bots and spam are simply a fact of life when dealing with anything online. As a reader, I just ignore them. This honestly feels less like a solution to a problem and more like an excuse to force people to subscribe.
Frankly, I come here to read the comments, not necessarily the Digest as much. And that’s what makes this decision especially disappointing. I suspect the comments will become much less active and interesting because fewer people will be willing to sign up for a subscription just to participate in the comments on a Substack.
I think undermining the incredible amount of work David and Jeff have put into building this community over decades is a rash response to a tough situation and I'd discourage anyone reading this from being part of such an effort.
I deleted a deeply ugly comment seeking to undermine this site and community. The comment above it by the same person—casting aspersions on our motives— also could not be more wrong, but if people are going to make stuff up about us, I won't stop them. However, I won't allow people to try to wreck this community.
Hey David, I am not in a position to do this now but in a year when I graduate from law school, I'd be happy to sponsor a member or two who is a frequent contributor to the site and will otherwise have to leave like Hoosier42 or oggoldy. I'd imagine there's a few others in the position to help out as well. Just wanted to circulate this as a possibility since it seems like we may lose a few people who are really integral parts of our community otherwise.
If any long time Sicko without a paid subscription comes to this thread after tomorrow so can't post and doesn't want to bother staff, but would like to advise the community they are interested in a gift subscription just DM me and I'd be happy to post their substack username in the nonpolitical discord channel to find anybody able/willing to sponsor their comments.
not a substack user other than this site, at the risk of sounding stupid, can we subscribe through actblue or must it be through substack? Thanks again for the content!
This is very unfortunate, especially given the dire financial situations for many folks, myself included. I wish you the best of luck handling the website and future endeavors. I may end up getting a subscription, even if just for the 2026 election cycle.
Trafalgar we banned from the Morning Digest in December of 2020, well *before* the 2022 debacle. The firm's principle, Robert Cahaly, spread lies about Trump's defeat:
"Cahaly baselessly claimed to Sean Hannity before the election that Trump would have to win Pennsylvania 'by 4 or 5 to overtake the voter fraud that will happen there.'
"More recently, he tweeted that his new Georgia poll is 'based on All votes we anticipate to be counted in GA Senate Runoff (both above and below the table).' That’s a reference to a soundly debunked conspiracy theory that election workers in Fulton County somehow rigged the election by counting fake ballots taken out of 'suitcases' they’d placed under a table—one that Republican officials with the secretary of state’s office blasted as 'ridiculous.'
"We take a heterodox approach to polling—there are many ways to get it right, and no one has a monopoly on the truth. But the truth is what we all must seek. Excluding polls is not something we do lightly, but when a pollster espouses beliefs about elections that are demonstrably false, we are unable to conclude that such a person does in fact believe in seeking the truth."
We aren't going to set rules on which pollsters people should and should not share, but people should use extreme caution when sharing numbers from pollsters known to be untrustworthy, like Trafalgar.
I've been saying to myself throughout 2026 that Garrity would've been a stronger candidate in 2030, when Shapiro is term-limited. If she decided to run in 2030 and NOT 2026, she would've been a much stronger candidate. But if she decides to run again in 2030, she'll have a difficult challenge with getting the nomination if someone else throws their hat into the ring (probably Dan Meuser), and the general election would probably be a headache on her end due to her loss in 2026.
The poll also shows that it's the Dems leading in the CGB 51%-44%, with 53% saying that they would prefer Dems to win Congress compared to 44% who say they prefer the Reps to win.
Also, still having Garrity not even reach 40% in any public poll released should be an omen for PA Republicans in 2026.
In 2024, the Pennsylvania vote total added up to 51-49 GOP in US congressional races, and that's considering the fact no Republican ran in the super Democratic PA-03.
So, at minimum, the poll is showing a 9-point swing from 2024. If true, it's hard to imagine Republicans holding onto PA-07, PA-08, or PA-10.
Considering that Trump won Pennsylvania by 1.5% in 2024 and McCormick won by .5 % those numbers were consistent across the board. The number of ticket splitters is shrinking and shrinking.
FWIW, it seems like Democrats need around a 13-point swing to win there. A 9 point swing is close. We'll have to see which way the wind blows as November gets closer.
The big factor as to why Harris barely won PA-01 is the Montgomery County slice, which went to Harris by a bigger percentage than Bucks to Trump.
And I think that Montco slice will be a determining factor in the PA-01 race due to Montco continuing to trend blueward, the home county of Shapiro, and Scott Wallace won a smaller slice of Montco in 2018. So if Harvie gets it close in Bucks but wins the Montco slice by a pretty substantial margin, then Fitzpatrick is gone. (Wishful thinking those last four words).
As I can only afford one paid subscription to any Substack newsletter, this will be the one I subscribe to, and I signed up for a monthly subscription.
On that note, while I'm not going to single out a single contributor to sponsor for a yearly subscription, and I'm not generous enough to make this offer on an annual basis (I'm still largely unemployed), the first 11 frequent commenters who DM me on Thursday to let me know no one has already offered them a gift subscription can have a one month gift subscription on me. Hopefully we can keep some folks around.
Substack appears to allow folks to purchase a gift subscription to someone directly, either for one month or one year. You do need the person's email, though.
If Abbott is reelected and serves out his fourth term, he would be the longest-serving governor in Texas history. But, when asked by ABC's Jonathan Karl whether this would be his last term, Abbott replied: “I may run for a fifth term, a sixth term, seventh term, who knows.” Because Texas lacks term limits, there is nothing but an informed electorate to prevent Abbott from becoming governor for life.
Abbott's in the rare situation where he has the self-awareness to know the Presidency is off the and he's in a state where being Governor is clearly a "bigger" job than the Senate and most cabinet roles AND there's no term limits. That's really only true of TX, IL, and NY. Unique confluence of factors for him to potentially serve like seven terms lol. Granted Texas's slow trend towards blue will complicate that on a long enough time horizon.
I actually think he'd be a decent general election candidate for them, at least relative to Vance, Hegseth etc... It's more just that he won't win the primary and isn't positioned to do so. He's also in his mid-60s and there likely won't be a true open seat for the GOP until 2032.
Well, it's been a good year. I was glad to be a part of this community. I was searching for a place that was able to discuss politics this in depth for a long time. As I don't have a great source of income to be able to continue commenting, I'll say that I hope to rejoin at some point.
Whether you knew me by my first name Julius or by this moniker, I hope I was a positive addition to the community for you.
MN-Gov: Failed Republican candidate Mike Lindell won't pay for a recount, saying the terms set by Secretary of State Steve Simon are unfair. He lost handily to state Rep. Lisa Demuth two weeks ago.
FL-Gov: Rep. Byron Donalds, the Republican nominee, will select state Sen. Bryan Avila as his running mate.
Avila, from heavily Cuban Hialeah, will both court a key group of voters as well as lean into Donalds' anti-communist message as the son of Cuban refugees.
Avila also resigned his seat in the state Senate in preparation for the announcement.
This may be the first multicultural gubernatorial ticket in Florida for the GOP that I can remember. And if Byron Donalds wants to get leverage over one key demographic in the state, selecting a Cuban-American like Bryan Avila may help him with FL Cuban Americans.
At the same time, Davis Jolly’s selection of Gwen Graham is brilliant as she had previously challenged Andrew Gillum in the 2018 Democratic Gubernatorial Primary. She can help widen the appeal of independents and moderates and is not going to divide Floridians in any way I can think of rhetoric wise.
Not sure if this really helps Donalds. What Republican-leaning Latino voter angry at Trump is going to be swayed by this? They're either off the train this cycle or not, but an LG pick won't be the reason.
I don't think Donalds' selection of Avila as his running mate is going to make too much of a difference (if any). However, the Cuban-American vote has always been key for the FL GOP for a long time to the extent where the party's anti-communist beliefs allow Cuban Americans to feel better about their way of life in FL as opposed to Cuba so long as Republicans run things in the state.
Considering the ticket of David Jolly/Gwen Graham in the general election, it will be much harder for throw any criticism towards the ticket as it's got more of a moderate appeal.
I guess I'll take this last chance to say I won't be reading TDB anymore.
No hard feelings; it's your substack and you have to do what's right for you. But I wouldn't feel good coming here knowing several people I'd grown accustomed to reading, who made it a regular part of their day to contribute here, will now be excluded. It would be nice if I could set that aside and enjoy what remains, but I'm an emotional person.
I'll check back at some point in case the decision is reversed, which I assume is a possibility if substack ever brings their sorry moderation features up to industry standards.
Although Former Anchorage Mayor Dan A. Sullivan endorsed Senator Dan Sullivan a few days ago, there's more history with him than this endorsement suggests.
Sullivan had filed to run for the U.S. Senate back in 2016 against Senator Lisa Murkowski just 10 days before the filing deadline due to fellow conservative Republican leaders' encouragement.
However, he left the race just days after the deadline. I'm not sure if Sullivan would have beaten Senator Murkowski back then but the idea of two Senator Dan Sullivans serving Alaska would have been eye rolling. Far more than what's happened with the presence of the infamous Dan J. Sullivan in this year's Senate race considering Senator Sullivan was just two years into his first term.
I mean, we had Senator Mark Warner running to replace Senator John Warner back in 2008 but no two Senators with the same first and last names!
In the race for MA-11 (what is now MA-7) in 1946, Boston city councilor Joe Russo and local janitor Joe Russo were both on the Democratic primary ballot.
The latter Joe Russo was said to have been told to run by Joe Kennedy I, so his son John F. Kennedy could win the race, which he ultimately did, kickstarting a career in electoral politics that culminated in the presidency.
Also, since Kennedy's departure from the seat in 1953, it's only had 4 representatives: Tip O'Neill, who served as speaker of the House, Joe Kennedy II, Mike Capuano, and Ayanna Pressley.
I was reading political history on Wikipedia last night at 4am, as one does, and Massachusetts in 1978 almost had a gubernatorial election between Democrat Edward J King and Republican Edward F King. Unfortunately Edward F lost his primary so a potential fun fact now only exists in alternate realities
It feels like there may be considerable interest in providing gift subscriptions to long time members of the community who have made frequent valuable contributions here but have not to date signed up for a paid subscription. I’d suggest that most folks who are in both those categories probably have not subscribed for financial reasons and that many of us here with less strained finances might look at sponsoring one of them as a “subscription” to their comments.
That would be me. This is the first year that I’ve been fully employed for the full year since 2022. Entertainment has been in dire straits. My family has been relying on credit cards the last three years and even when I am employed it’s been mostly lateral moves or the corporation I work for decided not to honor their unwritten rule that all entertainment employees operate under so I’m getting paid less on this gig than the last. This isn’t a sob story exactly but this is my rationale that I haven’t been able to purchase a paid subscription. Even though I’ve been wanting to.
Besides the legendary peace-minded South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Dolly Parton always impressed me with her positive mindset and her ability to show kindness towards anyone. Very pro-LGBTQ (especially transgender) and pro-human rights.
Wonderful human being. She was also one of the big stars in 9-to-5 where she, Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin terrorized Dabney Coleman, their boss in the film. And for a good reason!
9 to 5 is a classic comedy and is still funny after 45 years. It also had a great theme song written and sung by Parton. It's lyrics may be even more relevant today:
"They let you dream just to watch 'em shatter
You're just a step on the bossman's ladder
. . .
9 to 5, yeah, they got you where they want you
There's a better life and you think about it, don't you?
It's a rich man's game no matter what they call it
And you spend your life puttin' money in his wallet"
NH-1: Progressive state Rep. Heath Howard is out, endorsing attorney Carleigh Beriont. Howard would have been the youngest member of the Congress and the first born in the 21st century.
State Rep. Alice Wade, who is trans, accused Howard of being transphobic towards her, claiming that he said that if that she ran their friendship would be over because a trans person could not win higher office in New Hampshire (the first source I found on this was the New Hampshire Journal, a right-wing publication that repeatedly misgendered Wade).
I appreciate being part of the community here the last several months. I'm undecided about the paid membership (although the discount offer is very kind), because if I'm going to pay for a Substack I feel honour-bound to support a fellow Canadian like 338 Canada or The Writ. If this is the last comment I get to make, I would say this: give them hell this November, guys. No matter what dirty tricks Trump and his allies try to pull, do not let them claim victory. Donate, volunteer, vote, march, and fight. It will be a long road back towards the USA feeling normal again, and being a respected voice in the world. To paraphrase Churchill, the midterms won't be the end. They won't be the beginning of the end. But they may be the end of the beginning.
It's been great having you here. Hopefully one day soon, our national friendship will resume and I can go back to loving Canadians in general and hating them on the ice. Of all the horrible things Trump has done, one of the ones that upset me the most is taking all of fun out of beating you guys at hockey...
What seats do people here think are auto-flips at this time? I'm assuming neither candidate miraculously runs out of cash, nothing truly wild happens in these races or nationally, and I'm not including redistricted seats, as those are kind of designed to flip.
AZ-01 (Schweikert was never a strong incumbent, but its hard to see Shah doing less than 4 points better than in 2024, especially with Hobbs on track to win fairly big)
AZ-06 (Can't see Ciscomani surviving Hispanic snapback and suburban growth after a narrow win, as well as Hobbs likely winning by a wide margin)
CO-08 (Hispanic snapback would have been enough to doom Evans, and now he has to share a ballot with Marx)
IA-01 (Unless the independent plays spoiler, what would even cause Miller-Meaks to survive?)
IA-03 (Even if Sand loses, his coattails should easily flip this one)
NE-02 (Are Republicans even taking this one seriously?)
NJ-07 (Stronger opponent than 2024, weak top of ticket nominee, and going MIA for nearly 4 months is going to doom Kean Jr.)
OH-07 (Miller is toast)
PA-07 (A perennial swing district isn't going to re-elect a Republican backbencher in 2026)
PA-10 (What would cause Stelson to not do a point better than 2024?)
VA-02 (Kiggins beat a weaker opponent by 4 in 2024, before Trump made sure the Navy hated him)
FL-9, MO-5, TX-9, TX-32, UT-1, CA-1, CA-6, CA-22, CA-41, CA-48 (gerrymandered seats apart from UT-1 that Democrats and Republicans respectively have no shot at holding)
PA-8 (if the 7th and 10th go, I feel like this one will too)
MI-10 (Like you said about PA-7, "a perennial swing district isn't going to elect a Republican backbencher")
WI-3 (Cooke is a great fundraiser and Van Orden is really kind of far right and reactionary for a swing seat representative)
Completely forgot about WI-03, meant to add that to the list
Edit: Initially mixed up MI-07 and MI-10
MI-10 will likely flip, but because both candidates are first timers and it's a light red district, I'm not 100% on it.
PA-08 will also likely flip, and I almost added it, especially due to Bresnahan's stock trading in 2025, but the district is a Trump +8 and Bresnahan doesn't have Miller-Meaks's underperformance history, as it's hard to say if his narrow win was due to Cartwright being a strong incumbent or Bresnahan being a weak challenger.
Not sure I would go so far as to call anything an "auto-flip" but I'd be pretty surprised if we didn't win all of these. I assume you're intentionally not listing any of the CA seats. I think MI-07 and NY-17 are pretty likely to be ours as well
When I say "auto-flip", I don't mean "will flip no matter what", but "unless something massive happens, this seat will presumably flip".
For MI-07, its likely, but Lawrence isn't the strongest candidate and his lead in his own internals isn't huge.
For NY-17, we've gotten two different partisan polls that tell opposite stories. Considering Lawler overperformed Trump substantially in 2024, and Hochul's margins seem to be slipping, I'm worrying he may barely hold on.
I agree that Lawrence isn't our best candidate and AES's candidacy also worries me for downballot races but Benson will be a very strong candidate at the top of the ticket and MI-07 is pretty blue. Re: NY-17 I actually think people are over-estimating Lawler's strength. He's not as entrenched as Fitzpatrick and his district is very blue. It's hard to see him surviving a blue wave as big as is anticipated for this year.
MI-07 is Trump +1 and NY-17 just barely voted for Harris, so I wouldn't really call them blue districts, just slightly to the left of the national as a whole. You may be right about Lawler and Jones was a particularly weak candidate, but we'll see. I'm also somewhat worried in MI-07 as Barret overperformed Trump by 3 points, but I still suspect he loses, especially due to Benson's coatails.
Please note: Starting tomorrow (Wednesday, Aug. 26), only paid subscribers will be able to participate in comments. This is not a choice we wished to make, but it was forced upon us.
As we explained in a detailed email yesterday, the inundation of spammers, along with a rise in trolls, has made it impossible for us to keep our comment section a civil and welcoming place given our extremely limited human resources. We have considered every possible approach and tweaked every possible setting, but the only remaining option is to paywall our comments.
To help mitigate this, if you’re a free subscriber who’s eager to continue commenting, we'd like to offer you a discount. As you may have seen, The Downballot recently raised our rates to $75 a year. But if you subscribe via this special link by Wednesday, you can upgrade at our old price of $60 a year: https://www.the-downballot.com/keepcommenting
Again, I am very sorry to have to do this. Community has always been so important to me, literally from the day I launched the Swing State Project 23 years ago. This is the only way for us to protect it, and I hope you will put your trust in our stewardship. Thank you.
Welp, until my financial situation stabilizes itself, I guess this is goodbye then.
Hope we'll have you back! Good luck with everything.
Social Media companies (which is ultimately what Substack is) seem to think that bots aren't really a problem, so long as they aren't overtly malicious, since, after all, they "drive engagement". It's only once they're platforms are swarming with them to the point that the humans decide it's not worth the bother anymore that they're like "oh shit, we should do something about that."
I'm hesitant to say anything because I'm certain you've thought about this more than I have, but it feels like this might be an overreaction to what appears to be a single bad actor creating spam accounts endlessly. Did you contact Substack support, or consider opening up moderation to more trusted community members?
Yes, we've spoken to Substack support, and we already have volunteer moderators. I'm afraid that this has been a long, ongoing, and growing problem, one that we've grappled with for the better part of a year.
It's been a pleasure while it lasted. Sorry you had to make this choice. Best of luck!
As a moderator on Wikivoyage, and previously on other platforms, it shocks me that there's no other way for you to deal with this, but it's true that we have/had over 2 moderators, so I get it. You could ask for volunteer moderators, though, and vet them. We have them on Wikivoyage and had them on eGullet, where I was previously a moderator.
I'd certainly volunteer to hide spammers. Not nominating myself for wading into intra-community spats, tho.
It’s unfortunate that you have had to make this decision but I understand and support it, the bots have been quite annoying the past few weeks and really muck up a (usually) great and informative comment section. I am very saddened to see several really good commenters say they will be moving on, however, due to the requirement to pay for the subscription…you truly cannot afford to put $60 on a credit card for this incredibly professional and well-informed Substack?
That is $5 a month, .16 cents a day.
I’m also not swimming in extra money right now but the cost is well worth it for this site and I feel like all the years I was getting this for free from DKE I owe it to David and Jeff to support their efforts.
I can't speak for the others but my problem is that I don't have any way to make money. I'm a full time student, supported by family.
Hopefully I can find the time to get a part time job in between at some point.
You're assuming that everyone has a credit card instead of a debit card, and that's not the case. For those who only have debit cards, and that does include me, it's not $5 a month, it's $60 straight out of the bank, all at once. That is not "chump change".
I completely understand that, and certainly am not trying to make any assumptions about your financial situation, but isn’t there also an option to sign up for a monthly subscription as opposed to a yearly one? It was $9/month, which is a much lower upfront cost if that’s the issue.
There is, and it is $9/month. I'm a senior on a fixed income, so I want to have as few automatic monthly payments as I can, because they can add up to Real Money quicker than you might think. I'll think about monthly, but $9/month is something I will need to think about -- and even if I can swing it, it's not something I'd want to drop in the last week of a month.
Not going to sugar coat it, this is gross. Yes of course The Downballot is worth the expense, I've been a community member since SwingStateProject. But I am literally in bankruptcy right now. You don't know other people's financial situations. Shaming people who can't afford things is wrong.
Believe it or not, some of us have to account and plan for every single penny spent. From full-time students with shoestring incomes, to retirees and those on fixed incomes, to people going through severe medical/financial hardship or bankruptcy, you wouldn't believe how incredibly strapped some people are.
It has been an absolute pleasure commenting and participating here, and I wish the staff and everyone nothing but the best... should I land a job after graduating, I would be happy to become a paid member.
Technically I’m supposed to be on break, so I apologize if my presence is currently unwanted or unwelcome, but I saw this and I just wanted to say that I’ll miss all the people leaving. You’ve all been wonderful contributors. I’ll especially miss JazElections, whose commitment to election data and this site I admire.
I did want to ask David and Jeff a question, and it’s one another poster asked. Have you considered appointing users as moderators to help control the bots? Is that possible on Substack? Obviously not me, I don’t even trust myself to manage political discussion (I do have a semi-staff role on the trope/fandom wiki TV Tropes but discussion of American politics is flat out banned there) but I know there are some great users here who could make stellar moderators. Is that an option, or does Substack’s structure prevent it, David and Jeff?
Been a newer commenter but it looks like my time is done as well. Good luck.
That's a shame. It's been a pleasure.
Thank you for letting us know, and thank you for doing what needs to be done to keep the bots in check. I’ve signed up for a paid subscription.
I really appreciate that, FF—that means a lot. Great to have you around!
I appreciate that you were able to avoid it for as long as you did, and understand why you feel the need to do it even though you would rather not.
I'm posting my full email here, since I recognize that not everyone opened it. It explains our thinking in greater detail.
*****
Dear readers,
You’re receiving this email because, at some point, you’ve posted a comment (and likely more than one) at The Downballot.
I launched the site that would one day become The Downballot nearly 23 years ago, and from moment one, community was always central to me. I had comments turned on for my very first post, and three brave souls even logged in to share their thoughts!
Things only grew from there. The Swing State Project (as it was then known) soon became home to one of the smartest, most knowledgeable, and funniest comment sections anywhere on the internet. More than that, our users proved to be incredibly loyal, migrating with us to new sites not once but twice. I love our comment boards, and they remain essential to our identity.
But this community didn’t take shape by accident. It’s taken a lot of very careful moderation to maintain civility, which means that we read every comment and intervene regularly if things threaten to go off the rails. In the year 2026, you’ll be hard-pressed to find a comment section anywhere that isn’t just a screeching pit of toxicity filled with know-it-alls who know nothing.
We remain a shining exception as a beacon of civil discussion, and I won’t let that change.
Unfortunately, recent developments have threatened our comments in a new way. The biggest menace is spammers, who have sought to take advantage of The Downballot’s growing prominence by polluting our comment boards with ever greater frequency. This weekend, we received an astounding 31 reports about comments that violate our rules, nearly all of them due to spam bots.
The other issue we face is that, among actual humans, the most problematic commenters are virtually always free subscribers. I can count on one hand the number of paid subscribers I’ve had to ban and refund because of unacceptable behavior in our comments. A much larger number of individuals with little affection for our site, however, have taken advantage of the liberal access we offer to our comment boards to engage in drive-by trolling as unpaid subscribers.
Let me be clear: The vast majority of the folks who participate in our comment section as free subscribers are valuable contributors. That’s precisely why, when I launched The Downballot two years ago, I chose to keep our comment section free regardless of ability to pay. And until recently, it was the right choice.
It’s also why I’ve spent a lot of time carefully considering this decision. We weighed every alternative and tinkered with every setting to try to avoid this, but this weekend’s spam onslaught finally tipped us over the edge. With Election Day fast approaching, our tiny staff of two needs to be able to focus solely on news coverage, not patrolling miscreants.
Starting Wednesday, therefore, only those with paid subscriptions will be able to participate as commenters at The Downballot. I know this will likely reduce the volume of comments, and I am very sorry that this might curtail the ability of some folks to engage at all. This is not a choice I wish to make, but it’s been thrust upon us nonetheless.
To help mitigate this, if you’re a free subscriber who’s eager to continue commenting, I’d like to offer you a discount. As you may have seen, The Downballot recently raised our rates to $75 a year. But if you subscribe via this special link by Wednesday, you can upgrade at our old price of $60 a year: https://www.the-downballot.com/keepcommenting
I also want to stress that I’m not making this decision to boost revenues. (To put things in perspective, the email you’re reading now is going out to fewer than 500 people—less than 1% of our total list.) If this problem hadn’t grown so acute, we wouldn’t be touching a thing. But a paywall is the last option we have for preserving the health of such a vital part of our site.
Again, I know this is not welcome news, but I hope you will put your trust in us, just as you have for the last 23 years. And if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to write back—replies will go directly to my personal inbox, not some anonymous memory hole where they’ll never be seen.
Thank you so much for your readership, your understanding, your support, and above all, the voice you’ve contributed to our community.
Sincerely,
David Nir, Publisher
Thanks for laying that out in detail. You guys definitely need more than 2 moderators.
I’m just thinking about this - if the goal is to stop spam by requiring people to be paid subscribers, but people are also saying that they can’t afford the cost due to various reasons like being a student or on a fixed income, is there any reason why the cost to be a paid subscriber is as high as it is? I’m happy to pay the current cost, but it seems like even a paltry fee like a $5 subscription for the year would stop spam bots from posting while also not being a problem for people of more limited means who want to participate.
Multiple reasons, but the showstopper is the platform. Substack strictly limits the number of subscriber tiers you can have to just three: free, paid, and "Founding Member."
Very disappointed in this decision. I don’t comment often, but I guess this will be the last comment I ever make here.
Bots and spam are simply a fact of life when dealing with anything online. As a reader, I just ignore them. This honestly feels less like a solution to a problem and more like an excuse to force people to subscribe.
Frankly, I come here to read the comments, not necessarily the Digest as much. And that’s what makes this decision especially disappointing. I suspect the comments will become much less active and interesting because fewer people will be willing to sign up for a subscription just to participate in the comments on a Substack.
I think undermining the incredible amount of work David and Jeff have put into building this community over decades is a rash response to a tough situation and I'd discourage anyone reading this from being part of such an effort.
I deleted a deeply ugly comment seeking to undermine this site and community. The comment above it by the same person—casting aspersions on our motives— also could not be more wrong, but if people are going to make stuff up about us, I won't stop them. However, I won't allow people to try to wreck this community.
Hey David, I am not in a position to do this now but in a year when I graduate from law school, I'd be happy to sponsor a member or two who is a frequent contributor to the site and will otherwise have to leave like Hoosier42 or oggoldy. I'd imagine there's a few others in the position to help out as well. Just wanted to circulate this as a possibility since it seems like we may lose a few people who are really integral parts of our community otherwise.
I'm also open to sponsoring someone in the future.
If any long time Sicko without a paid subscription comes to this thread after tomorrow so can't post and doesn't want to bother staff, but would like to advise the community they are interested in a gift subscription just DM me and I'd be happy to post their substack username in the nonpolitical discord channel to find anybody able/willing to sponsor their comments.
not a substack user other than this site, at the risk of sounding stupid, can we subscribe through actblue or must it be through substack? Thanks again for the content!
Not a stupid question at all, but the only way to subscribe is indeed through Substack.
This is very unfortunate, especially given the dire financial situations for many folks, myself included. I wish you the best of luck handling the website and future endeavors. I may end up getting a subscription, even if just for the 2026 election cycle.
FWIW, Trafalgar has the South Carolina runoff tied up.
https://x.com/RobertCahaly/status/2092072107240837128?s=20
Good to see that they were able to wheel in the old dartboard for this one...
Trafalgar we banned from the Morning Digest in December of 2020, well *before* the 2022 debacle. The firm's principle, Robert Cahaly, spread lies about Trump's defeat:
"Cahaly baselessly claimed to Sean Hannity before the election that Trump would have to win Pennsylvania 'by 4 or 5 to overtake the voter fraud that will happen there.'
"More recently, he tweeted that his new Georgia poll is 'based on All votes we anticipate to be counted in GA Senate Runoff (both above and below the table).' That’s a reference to a soundly debunked conspiracy theory that election workers in Fulton County somehow rigged the election by counting fake ballots taken out of 'suitcases' they’d placed under a table—one that Republican officials with the secretary of state’s office blasted as 'ridiculous.'
"We take a heterodox approach to polling—there are many ways to get it right, and no one has a monopoly on the truth. But the truth is what we all must seek. Excluding polls is not something we do lightly, but when a pollster espouses beliefs about elections that are demonstrably false, we are unable to conclude that such a person does in fact believe in seeking the truth."
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/12/8/2000533/elections/Morning-Digest-Another-suburban-surge-saw-Biden-flip-key-Michigan-district-that-Romney-won-in-2012/#5
Just to be clear, would you prefer we do not post about these polls? I think I posted another SC-SEN one a few weeks ago.
We aren't going to set rules on which pollsters people should and should not share, but people should use extreme caution when sharing numbers from pollsters known to be untrustworthy, like Trafalgar.
I am actually going to predict a Norman win today
So, a Norman Conquest?
I'm torn. A Norman win would be a black eye for Trump. But I think Graham would be easier to beat. So I guess I'll root for the latter.
Indeed. You can imagine a 10% chance of winning against Graham, whereas it's 0% against Norman.
PA Gov Siena:
Shapiro 55 Garrity 39
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/25/us/elections/josh-shapiro-pennsylvania-poll.html?unlocked_article_code=1.8FA.fH2u.AmJZvZYidEVt&smid=url-share
Still baffling that Garrity took the plunge this year in a Trump midterm vs a popular incumbent
I've been saying to myself throughout 2026 that Garrity would've been a stronger candidate in 2030, when Shapiro is term-limited. If she decided to run in 2030 and NOT 2026, she would've been a much stronger candidate. But if she decides to run again in 2030, she'll have a difficult challenge with getting the nomination if someone else throws their hat into the ring (probably Dan Meuser), and the general election would probably be a headache on her end due to her loss in 2026.
I could see Dave Sunday running in 2030.
I can too, but Meuser popped into my head because he was most likely gearing up to run for Governor, even having Mr. Orange's endorsement.
2030 will likely be his last chance to. He'll be 66 then.
Also from the poll:
Fetterman Favorbilty ratings
🔵 Democrats: -42
🔴 Republicans: +52
This is definitively good news for Fetterman. /s
wow.
one of the crazier political arcs of the last decade.
The poll also shows that it's the Dems leading in the CGB 51%-44%, with 53% saying that they would prefer Dems to win Congress compared to 44% who say they prefer the Reps to win.
Also, still having Garrity not even reach 40% in any public poll released should be an omen for PA Republicans in 2026.
In 2024, the Pennsylvania vote total added up to 51-49 GOP in US congressional races, and that's considering the fact no Republican ran in the super Democratic PA-03.
So, at minimum, the poll is showing a 9-point swing from 2024. If true, it's hard to imagine Republicans holding onto PA-07, PA-08, or PA-10.
Considering that Trump won Pennsylvania by 1.5% in 2024 and McCormick won by .5 % those numbers were consistent across the board. The number of ticket splitters is shrinking and shrinking.
But not in PA-01, allegedly!
FWIW, it seems like Democrats need around a 13-point swing to win there. A 9 point swing is close. We'll have to see which way the wind blows as November gets closer.
The big factor as to why Harris barely won PA-01 is the Montgomery County slice, which went to Harris by a bigger percentage than Bucks to Trump.
And I think that Montco slice will be a determining factor in the PA-01 race due to Montco continuing to trend blueward, the home county of Shapiro, and Scott Wallace won a smaller slice of Montco in 2018. So if Harvie gets it close in Bucks but wins the Montco slice by a pretty substantial margin, then Fitzpatrick is gone. (Wishful thinking those last four words).
Hope your move went smoothly, Jeff! Glad you were able to get it done before the September 1st chaos.
Thank you! I'm glad to have done it before Sept. 1 ... now I just have to unpack everything ...
If you don't unpack everything there's less packing next year!
As I can only afford one paid subscription to any Substack newsletter, this will be the one I subscribe to, and I signed up for a monthly subscription.
That is extremely kind of you, Aaron! I'm incredibly grateful for your support.
Is there a way I could donate a subscription amount for one or two people?
I would kick in a few bucks to benefit some posters here that are regulars but cannot afford it
This is incredibly kind of you! Yes, you can send someone a gift subscription, and you can even do it at the lower rate of $60 we're offering through tomorrow: https://www.the-downballot.com/subscribe?coupon=7e605fde&gift=true
You do need the recipient's email address, so you might try DMing anyone you'd like to help (or drop a comment asking people to DM you).
Any possibility there's an easy way to generate a list of folks who've posted more than say 100 times who aren't paid subscribers?
I totally understand where your head (and heart!) are at here, but I wouldn't be comfortable sharing such information for a variety of reasons.
For those of us who might wince a little at $60, we might be able to take turns sponsoring folks for a month at a time.
On that note, while I'm not going to single out a single contributor to sponsor for a yearly subscription, and I'm not generous enough to make this offer on an annual basis (I'm still largely unemployed), the first 11 frequent commenters who DM me on Thursday to let me know no one has already offered them a gift subscription can have a one month gift subscription on me. Hopefully we can keep some folks around.
Substack appears to allow folks to purchase a gift subscription to someone directly, either for one month or one year. You do need the person's email, though.
This is incredibly kind of you! Yes, you can send someone a gift subscription, and you can even do it at the lower rate of $60 we're offering through tomorrow: https://www.the-downballot.com/subscribe?coupon=7e605fde&gift=true
You do need the recipient's email address, so you might try DMing anyone you'd like to help (or drop a comment asking people to DM you).
Texas UT poll:
Talarico 42 Paxton 39
Abbott 45 Hinojosa 40
https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/blog/new-ut-texas-politics-project-poll-finds-talarico-leading-paxton-abbott-leading-hinojosa-continued-resistance-to-data-centers-2
So much for pushing the leaners.
If Abbott is reelected and serves out his fourth term, he would be the longest-serving governor in Texas history. But, when asked by ABC's Jonathan Karl whether this would be his last term, Abbott replied: “I may run for a fifth term, a sixth term, seventh term, who knows.” Because Texas lacks term limits, there is nothing but an informed electorate to prevent Abbott from becoming governor for life.
Abbott's in the rare situation where he has the self-awareness to know the Presidency is off the and he's in a state where being Governor is clearly a "bigger" job than the Senate and most cabinet roles AND there's no term limits. That's really only true of TX, IL, and NY. Unique confluence of factors for him to potentially serve like seven terms lol. Granted Texas's slow trend towards blue will complicate that on a long enough time horizon.
I am not sure he entirely dismisses national possibilities. Abbott's disability softens the image of a politician who is as vicious as Vance.
I actually think he'd be a decent general election candidate for them, at least relative to Vance, Hegseth etc... It's more just that he won't win the primary and isn't positioned to do so. He's also in his mid-60s and there likely won't be a true open seat for the GOP until 2032.
Well, it's been a good year. I was glad to be a part of this community. I was searching for a place that was able to discuss politics this in depth for a long time. As I don't have a great source of income to be able to continue commenting, I'll say that I hope to rejoin at some point.
Whether you knew me by my first name Julius or by this moniker, I hope I was a positive addition to the community for you.
I'll miss your commentary.
Same
https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/mike-lindell-withholds-payment-recount-primary/
MN-Gov: Failed Republican candidate Mike Lindell won't pay for a recount, saying the terms set by Secretary of State Steve Simon are unfair. He lost handily to state Rep. Lisa Demuth two weeks ago.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/25/florida-donalds-republican-lieutenant-governor-01048726
FL-Gov: Rep. Byron Donalds, the Republican nominee, will select state Sen. Bryan Avila as his running mate.
Avila, from heavily Cuban Hialeah, will both court a key group of voters as well as lean into Donalds' anti-communist message as the son of Cuban refugees.
Avila also resigned his seat in the state Senate in preparation for the announcement.
This may be the first multicultural gubernatorial ticket in Florida for the GOP that I can remember. And if Byron Donalds wants to get leverage over one key demographic in the state, selecting a Cuban-American like Bryan Avila may help him with FL Cuban Americans.
At the same time, Davis Jolly’s selection of Gwen Graham is brilliant as she had previously challenged Andrew Gillum in the 2018 Democratic Gubernatorial Primary. She can help widen the appeal of independents and moderates and is not going to divide Floridians in any way I can think of rhetoric wise.
Not sure if this really helps Donalds. What Republican-leaning Latino voter angry at Trump is going to be swayed by this? They're either off the train this cycle or not, but an LG pick won't be the reason.
I don't think Donalds' selection of Avila as his running mate is going to make too much of a difference (if any). However, the Cuban-American vote has always been key for the FL GOP for a long time to the extent where the party's anti-communist beliefs allow Cuban Americans to feel better about their way of life in FL as opposed to Cuba so long as Republicans run things in the state.
Considering the ticket of David Jolly/Gwen Graham in the general election, it will be much harder for throw any criticism towards the ticket as it's got more of a moderate appeal.
I guess I'll take this last chance to say I won't be reading TDB anymore.
No hard feelings; it's your substack and you have to do what's right for you. But I wouldn't feel good coming here knowing several people I'd grown accustomed to reading, who made it a regular part of their day to contribute here, will now be excluded. It would be nice if I could set that aside and enjoy what remains, but I'm an emotional person.
I'll check back at some point in case the decision is reversed, which I assume is a possibility if substack ever brings their sorry moderation features up to industry standards.
If not, thanks for your work and good luck.
AK-SEN:
Although Former Anchorage Mayor Dan A. Sullivan endorsed Senator Dan Sullivan a few days ago, there's more history with him than this endorsement suggests.
Sullivan had filed to run for the U.S. Senate back in 2016 against Senator Lisa Murkowski just 10 days before the filing deadline due to fellow conservative Republican leaders' encouragement.
However, he left the race just days after the deadline. I'm not sure if Sullivan would have beaten Senator Murkowski back then but the idea of two Senator Dan Sullivans serving Alaska would have been eye rolling. Far more than what's happened with the presence of the infamous Dan J. Sullivan in this year's Senate race considering Senator Sullivan was just two years into his first term.
I mean, we had Senator Mark Warner running to replace Senator John Warner back in 2008 but no two Senators with the same first and last names!
https://www.adn.com/politics/2016/06/16/ex-anchorage-mayor-dan-sullivan-drops-out-of-senate-race/
In the race for MA-11 (what is now MA-7) in 1946, Boston city councilor Joe Russo and local janitor Joe Russo were both on the Democratic primary ballot.
The latter Joe Russo was said to have been told to run by Joe Kennedy I, so his son John F. Kennedy could win the race, which he ultimately did, kickstarting a career in electoral politics that culminated in the presidency.
Also, since Kennedy's departure from the seat in 1953, it's only had 4 representatives: Tip O'Neill, who served as speaker of the House, Joe Kennedy II, Mike Capuano, and Ayanna Pressley.
I was reading political history on Wikipedia last night at 4am, as one does, and Massachusetts in 1978 almost had a gubernatorial election between Democrat Edward J King and Republican Edward F King. Unfortunately Edward F lost his primary so a potential fun fact now only exists in alternate realities
Back in 2018 or 2020 a rando named Ron Estes challenged Rep. Ron Estes in the KS-04 Republican primary.
Can we do “gift” subscriptions for others?
This is incredibly kind of you! Yes, you can send someone a gift subscription, and you can even do it at the lower rate of $60 we're offering through tomorrow: https://www.the-downballot.com/subscribe?coupon=7e605fde&gift=true
You do need the recipient's email address, so you might try DMing anyone you'd like to help (or drop a comment asking people to DM you).
It feels like there may be considerable interest in providing gift subscriptions to long time members of the community who have made frequent valuable contributions here but have not to date signed up for a paid subscription. I’d suggest that most folks who are in both those categories probably have not subscribed for financial reasons and that many of us here with less strained finances might look at sponsoring one of them as a “subscription” to their comments.
That would be me. This is the first year that I’ve been fully employed for the full year since 2022. Entertainment has been in dire straits. My family has been relying on credit cards the last three years and even when I am employed it’s been mostly lateral moves or the corporation I work for decided not to honor their unwritten rule that all entertainment employees operate under so I’m getting paid less on this gig than the last. This isn’t a sob story exactly but this is my rationale that I haven’t been able to purchase a paid subscription. Even though I’ve been wanting to.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/25/arts/music/dolly-parton-dead.html
I'm posting this one here even though it's not inherently political.
Obituaries: Dolly Parton, the singer and entertainer, has died at 80.
Parton was also a philanthropist and advocated for civil rights.
Heartbroken. Not a diehard fan, but she was an icon.
RIP Dolly. A legend forever.
Besides the legendary peace-minded South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Dolly Parton always impressed me with her positive mindset and her ability to show kindness towards anyone. Very pro-LGBTQ (especially transgender) and pro-human rights.
Wonderful human being. She was also one of the big stars in 9-to-5 where she, Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin terrorized Dabney Coleman, their boss in the film. And for a good reason!
RIP Dolly Parton. a wonderful human.
9 to 5 is a classic comedy and is still funny after 45 years. It also had a great theme song written and sung by Parton. It's lyrics may be even more relevant today:
"They let you dream just to watch 'em shatter
You're just a step on the bossman's ladder
. . .
9 to 5, yeah, they got you where they want you
There's a better life and you think about it, don't you?
It's a rich man's game no matter what they call it
And you spend your life puttin' money in his wallet"
https://genius.com/Dolly-parton-9-to-5-lyrics
https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/politics/2026/08/25/heath-howard-exits-nh-primary-us-house-seat-endorses-carleigh-beriont/91459994007/?gnt-cfr=1&gca-cat=p&gca-uir=false&gca-epti=z111804p002050c002050e008200v111804&gca-ft=153&gca-ds=sophi
NH-1: Progressive state Rep. Heath Howard is out, endorsing attorney Carleigh Beriont. Howard would have been the youngest member of the Congress and the first born in the 21st century.
State Rep. Alice Wade, who is trans, accused Howard of being transphobic towards her, claiming that he said that if that she ran their friendship would be over because a trans person could not win higher office in New Hampshire (the first source I found on this was the New Hampshire Journal, a right-wing publication that repeatedly misgendered Wade).
I appreciate being part of the community here the last several months. I'm undecided about the paid membership (although the discount offer is very kind), because if I'm going to pay for a Substack I feel honour-bound to support a fellow Canadian like 338 Canada or The Writ. If this is the last comment I get to make, I would say this: give them hell this November, guys. No matter what dirty tricks Trump and his allies try to pull, do not let them claim victory. Donate, volunteer, vote, march, and fight. It will be a long road back towards the USA feeling normal again, and being a respected voice in the world. To paraphrase Churchill, the midterms won't be the end. They won't be the beginning of the end. But they may be the end of the beginning.
And to Canadians, if they needed advice: Keep on fighting! To paraphrase an old Tourism Canada commercial: America borders on the decent - Canada!
It's been great having you here. Hopefully one day soon, our national friendship will resume and I can go back to loving Canadians in general and hating them on the ice. Of all the horrible things Trump has done, one of the ones that upset me the most is taking all of fun out of beating you guys at hockey...
What seats do people here think are auto-flips at this time? I'm assuming neither candidate miraculously runs out of cash, nothing truly wild happens in these races or nationally, and I'm not including redistricted seats, as those are kind of designed to flip.
AZ-01 (Schweikert was never a strong incumbent, but its hard to see Shah doing less than 4 points better than in 2024, especially with Hobbs on track to win fairly big)
AZ-06 (Can't see Ciscomani surviving Hispanic snapback and suburban growth after a narrow win, as well as Hobbs likely winning by a wide margin)
CO-08 (Hispanic snapback would have been enough to doom Evans, and now he has to share a ballot with Marx)
IA-01 (Unless the independent plays spoiler, what would even cause Miller-Meaks to survive?)
IA-03 (Even if Sand loses, his coattails should easily flip this one)
NE-02 (Are Republicans even taking this one seriously?)
NJ-07 (Stronger opponent than 2024, weak top of ticket nominee, and going MIA for nearly 4 months is going to doom Kean Jr.)
OH-07 (Miller is toast)
PA-07 (A perennial swing district isn't going to re-elect a Republican backbencher in 2026)
PA-10 (What would cause Stelson to not do a point better than 2024?)
VA-02 (Kiggins beat a weaker opponent by 4 in 2024, before Trump made sure the Navy hated him)
FL-9, MO-5, TX-9, TX-32, UT-1, CA-1, CA-6, CA-22, CA-41, CA-48 (gerrymandered seats apart from UT-1 that Democrats and Republicans respectively have no shot at holding)
PA-8 (if the 7th and 10th go, I feel like this one will too)
MI-10 (Like you said about PA-7, "a perennial swing district isn't going to elect a Republican backbencher")
WI-3 (Cooke is a great fundraiser and Van Orden is really kind of far right and reactionary for a swing seat representative)
Completely forgot about WI-03, meant to add that to the list
Edit: Initially mixed up MI-07 and MI-10
MI-10 will likely flip, but because both candidates are first timers and it's a light red district, I'm not 100% on it.
PA-08 will also likely flip, and I almost added it, especially due to Bresnahan's stock trading in 2025, but the district is a Trump +8 and Bresnahan doesn't have Miller-Meaks's underperformance history, as it's hard to say if his narrow win was due to Cartwright being a strong incumbent or Bresnahan being a weak challenger.
Not sure I would go so far as to call anything an "auto-flip" but I'd be pretty surprised if we didn't win all of these. I assume you're intentionally not listing any of the CA seats. I think MI-07 and NY-17 are pretty likely to be ours as well
When I say "auto-flip", I don't mean "will flip no matter what", but "unless something massive happens, this seat will presumably flip".
For MI-07, its likely, but Lawrence isn't the strongest candidate and his lead in his own internals isn't huge.
For NY-17, we've gotten two different partisan polls that tell opposite stories. Considering Lawler overperformed Trump substantially in 2024, and Hochul's margins seem to be slipping, I'm worrying he may barely hold on.
I agree that Lawrence isn't our best candidate and AES's candidacy also worries me for downballot races but Benson will be a very strong candidate at the top of the ticket and MI-07 is pretty blue. Re: NY-17 I actually think people are over-estimating Lawler's strength. He's not as entrenched as Fitzpatrick and his district is very blue. It's hard to see him surviving a blue wave as big as is anticipated for this year.
MI-07 is Trump +1 and NY-17 just barely voted for Harris, so I wouldn't really call them blue districts, just slightly to the left of the national as a whole. You may be right about Lawler and Jones was a particularly weak candidate, but we'll see. I'm also somewhat worried in MI-07 as Barret overperformed Trump by 3 points, but I still suspect he loses, especially due to Benson's coatails.