A Republican candidate has not won a state-wide race in Minnesota in twenty years (and a GOP presidential candidate hasn’t taken the state in 52). Light blue?
My understanding is that a lot of the races have been reasonably close, in the range of 5 points or fewer, with a few exceptions like Senator Klobuchar. The state is blue, but not with the tilt of a Massachusetts or California.
I agree with your point, but in the spirit of "close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades" I'll make the opposite quip that "a miss is as good as a mile."
kinda like how carolina is only light red, we have the gov, lg, sos, ag, supertindent of public education. the republicans have never elected a republican attorney general nor a republican secretary of state since 1873, only three republican governors since 1868, and yet it would be hard to characterize the old north state as anything other than light red, given that we have won two presidential races total since 76 there, and have been locked out of us senate seats for more than a decade
The text to speech option to listen to the Daily Digest has streamlined my mornings. And the voice is pretty pleasant. Though I do occasionally have to translate some abbreviations that become words, like cosen.
I really kind of like the voters to decide and not have California's governor pick their successor. We have statewide televised debates this week, and ballots drop in a couple weeks, so the undecided needle will start to move. I'm actually getting less concerned about a Republican lockout than before Swalwell's fall from grace.
Xmentum continues! With two weeks until voting starts, I think it's time for an endorsement the big dogs would rather have avoided. This is probably about 99% likely to be Becerra.
I've seen a lot of support for Becerra here, but I remember a couple months back RL Miller said she was on "Team Never Becerra." When I asked why she mentioned a maximum contribution of $39,200 from Chevron. I'm not from California so I don't know his full environmental record, but that kind of contribution is not a great look and California is a state where it's really important to have a strong environmental advocate as governor. I'd be curious if people here have more insight into Becerra's record on the environment (and other issues), as well as why people here seem to like him
He's raised almost $3 million, so that's slightly more than 1% of his fundraising and from Chevron's perspective that is an even more insignificant amount of their budget. Not really seeing the problem here.
Perhaps, but I still find it concerning that the chair of the California Democrats' environmental caucus earlier said she was "never Becerra." Plus, the amount he raised from Chevron was a maximum contribution (according to RL Miller) so who knows how much they would have donated if possible.
I had been leaning toward Swalwell before his abrupt disappearance in a puff of smoke, but now I'm leaning toward Becerra. I like Porter too, but it turns out she's pretty bad at politics. Becerra is the best prepared of all of them to serve, and probably with distinction.
I honestly wasn't even aware Becerra is Becerra is in the race until recently. I've been hearing that he's even more progressive than Porter. At the very least he lacks her bad temper and staff abuse issues. I was leaning heavily towards Porter, but now I'm gravitating towards Becerra.
The problem with Becerra is that despite his long resume of positions held, he has very little to show for it. And there are rumors that he's not a very good governmental administrator, with a mixed record overseeing agencies.
That's why even though I would be okay with Becerra, I am still planning to vote for Porter. Becerra will be a continuation of the Newsom-coasting that the state has seen over the last 8 years, with very little progress actually being made on the key problems facing our state.
Conversely, Porter will be laser focused on addressing the lag times for construction projects and is supporting a single-payer plan that sounds feasible. I'm hoping she can break through in the end.
Separate CA-Gov poll dropped this morning. This one is from an outfit called Kreate Strategies. I'd never heard of them but a quick search shows that they also did a poll in early April in the same race, not for any candidate.
It wouldn't surprise me if our Democratic establishment aren't using sharp elbows behind the scenes to encourage people who aren't going to win to drop out.
Considering both this poll and the one above, it's time to increase the polling threshold for debate participation to 10%. That way, the same five candidates would be included, and DINO Matt Mahan would be out of it.
Blowout result for Progressive Bulgaria, winning an absolute majority in a heretofore fractured parliament, and many of the existing parties not even making the electoral threshold. Wikipedia describes them as "left-wing populist, left-wing nationalist, and left-wing conservative". I've see various takes on the degree to which they are pro-Russian. But they were clearly able to capture an electorate fed up with the status quo.
Losing 1 in 8 MAGA voters on an issue that is overwhelmingly partisan is pretty bad. Even worse to lose 1 in 4 republicans on the war.
Media will paint it as conservatives still being in republicans' corner on this. Which is correct, but missing the point. Portions of the base larger than statistical noise being opposed to the party's stance on a major issue is always bad for the party.
What races, in y'all opinion, do you think democrats dropped the ball, in terms of candidate quality? I'm gonna say Georgia Governor and Wisconsin governor, still winnable races but ONLY in this environment.
I don't think losing to the very unpopular Johnson is a plus any way you look at it. Losing by 1% in a GOP midterm would be a plus against a popular opponent, but not against Johnson, which just further proves Barnes is a risk.
RoJo has beaten an LG, ousted a former Senator, and then beaten that former senator again. Might it be time to start considering him an actually formidable person to run against?
I don't get why Kaul declined. This would have been the easiest chance he'll probably have at a promotion to governor or Senate, in both a primary and a general election. Maybe he really wants that Senate seat in 2028? Or he just really likes being AG that much?
It’s not like he’s the only candidate- we also have the current lieutenant governor, the Milwaukee county executive, a state senator, and a state rep running. Other than Josh Kaul and maybe Ben Wikler, is there anyone who was an obviously better choice who didn’t run?
I don't think Georgia is a dropped ball by any means, at least yet. You don't always need a statewide officer or a Congressmember to have a star candidate. Same with Wisconsin. My only worry in those states is that we go with weaker candidates electorally, but a generic Dem is favored in both states in 2026.
Nevada Supreme Court and the third GA Supreme Court seat are the only real answers here.
Georgia is a 50-50 state and the leading Republicans are busy nuking each other. Neither of them seem strong on their own merits. With the year shaping up as blue as it is, why would it be a shock for a generic Democrat to be favored against a generic Republican in an open gubernatorial race there?
If Peggy Flanagan is elected to the Senate to succeed Tina Smith and Amy Klobuchar is elected governor, will Angie Craig be the frontrunner for Klobuchar's Senate seat?
There was a good breakdown of candidates a bit back, I think when Klobuchar was rumored or launched for gov (I wish Substack had a better post and liking history on accounts, or better comment searches...). But broadly, I think no. Craig is more moderate than Klobuchar, and I think she's going to want to pick someone more like herself (ideologically between Craig and Flanagan).
Unlikely. Klobuchar has her own political apparatus going back 2 decades, and Craig being a relative newcomer and not from Klobuchar's political machine, it is unlikely she gets appointed.
As a Minnesotan, I believe former State Senator Melisa Lopez Franzen is the frontrunner if Klobuchar wants to have a long-term replacement (which seems likely). Lopez Franzen is part of Klobuchar's inner circle, a former Dem Senate Leader who got redistricted out, and breifly ran for Senate this year as an also-ran against Flanagan and Craig.
But if she wants a short term cup-of-coffee replacement and hold a January 2027 special (Minnesota holds special elections quite quickly) former Hennepin County Attorney Michael Freeman seems most likely. Klobuchar came up as an acolyte/underling of Freeman, and Freeman more recently became prominent as the prosecuting attorney against George Floyd's murderers.
I'm not really that thrilled by this development because it shows how immature the public is when it comes to artificially expensive gas at all times. We were paying $4 a gallon for gas in the summer of 2008, before nearly two decades of inflation, and people still feel entitled to pay less than $3 a gallon today? I get that Republicans might die by this sword in November, which is good, but the next governing party will have to live and die based on the same irrational expectations.
Cheap gas is considered a birthright here, and a key benchmark of "are things good right now" for the average schmuck. Coupled with the mechanics of how gasoline price is determined (The President gets the blame and the credit, when in reality they affect the price very little)* and you have the situation you have.
*unless it involves large scale tinkering with the SPR or they do something like start a war that involves the Strait of Hormuz or other critical energy infrastructure/geology.
Nevermind that its already pretty cheap, compared to Europe and other places.
Michigan Democrats need to get rid of the convention process for the downballot races. It favors only the candidates with the most fervent supporters. It's insane that they had to wait until 9pm on a Sunday evening when many people are meal prepping for the week or putting kids to bed to finish.
There are so many bizarre quirks in individual primaries and elections that make no sense and often create chaos. MI and CO with the convention process, VA’s party-run firehouse primaries, NY having special election nominees be party-chosen, CA’s top two system, etc. I think we’d all benefit from some semblance of a consistent system. What that system would be could be a contentious question — I’m a staunch RCV supporter myself — but at least it wouldn’t lead to weird shit constantly going on in races.
AK does top four primaries before RCV generals, CA does top two and FPTP generals. And at least the CO convention is just the technically party endorsements (this isn't very unusual, at least MN and CA notably do this too) and the NY special nominees and VA firehouse primaries are ONLY for specials.
The MI convention essentially DIRECTLY nominates nearly every statewide race (as the digest describes, this was technically just the endorsement convention and there's a later formal nominating convention in August around the time of the actual primaries for gov/sen/everything else).
Yeah only governor is subject to a primary before the voters, at least for state races. Indiana is the only other state that does it that way, that I'm aware of.
What do you mean by VA’s party-run firehouse primaries? I just moved to Virginia recently - in time for the 2025 election but after the primaries so I’m not super familiar with the process
From what I understand, special elections in VA have the party run the primary. This was how James Walkinshaw controversially got in Congress — when Gerry Connolly died, Walkinshaw won a party-run primary that was alleged to have been biased in his favor (he had party support going in) over a number of other candidates.
One whiny activist doesn’t make it controversial. This system is odd, but it’s been that way for a long time. The problem is that it’s a cheap/efficient answer to conducting what is an essentially a party-run process.
That would require a constitutional amendment - Article 5, Sec21 of the Constitution of 1963 requires the LG, AG, and SoS candidates to “be nominated at party conventions in a manner as proscribed in law.”
Many have wanted to change this but there’s not much interest in a constitutional amendment effort.
It is interesting that this fall will be the every 20 (or maybe it’s 30) year required ballot question that asks voters if they want to have a new Constitutional Convention. Seems like it has potential for trouble so my good friend was passing “No to the Con-Con” buttons at the MDP endorsement convention yesterday.
Darializa Avila Chevalier has a new internal out. She trails Espaillat 42-28 just off name recognition - but after being given “positive messaging” about her campaign it goes up to 46 DAC - 35 Espaillat.
Thoughts? Kevin/formerly Nick Tagliaferro, ex-author of Primary School, noted on Bluesky that the 42-28 result predates campaigning — not a great result for an incumbent.
I’m curious though about the investment going into this race on the left. Of course that doesn’t mean anything — Robert Peters imploded and there was a lot of support for him, for one — but I do feel like DAC is getting more attention than, say, Chuck Park or Michael Blake. There’s also the post-Mamdani factor to consider. Who knows, I could be wrong. Like I said, Peters had a lot of support and lost, as did Kat Abghuzaleh. But we live in crazy times, lots of unexpected shit could happen. (On the GOP side, who saw Dan Crenshaw losing as a possibility?)
Candidate quality still matters, Kat parachuting into that district was probably why she lost, she only got close because she was the DSA darling or whatever group she associated with. Crenshaw losing wasn't a surprise, MAGA had his targets on him because he would occasionally say something truthful.
It was precisely 8 months, which is a long time politically speaking. Also, if she can't move cities, why aren't we attacking Darrell Issa and Dennis Kucinich for even considering moving to a different state while *in Congress*?
There was also a split in the progressive vote in IL-2, although I don't remember the name of the other candidate off the top of my head (although it wasn't Peters, Miller, or JJ2).
Honestly Crenshaw loosing wasn't a shock, Toth clearly had a lot of Republican backing, and Crenshaw was held to 19 points against a lower-profile challenger in 2024.
Wouldn't be shocked if Espillat goes down, Getting just shy of 60% of the vote against two random candidates in 2020 does not scream "loved, entrenched incumbent".
VA Senator Mark Warner’s daughter has died at age 36 after a long health battle :( very sad news. He is up for reelection this November and doesn’t have any serious primary challengers. Wonder if this will have any effect on his decision to run again. Wishing him and his family peace and solace
I'm not a big Vindman fan either, but if he actually wins or even keeps it very close, we are having a FANTASTIC night and I could give less of a crap. Moody is a psycho.
I don't have a problem with Angie Nixon, but name recognition and money means a lot in a big state like Florida. If Vindman plays a huge haul correctly, he can put a lot of money into demographics that have trended away in recent years.
I think Vindman can pull away a sliver of GOP Cuban voters because he can challenge their notion of Democrats as "freedom stealing commies" since he and his brother escaped the Soviet Union because of communism.
Call me paranoid, but I just get the heebie-jeebies that so many spooks are getting into high office. They’ve been doing enough damage behind the curtains as it is.
I agree that intelligence officials part of the so-called "deep state" shouldn't be in politics, but think your lingo of "heebie jeebies" and "spook" is a bit childish. And I'm Gen Z.
It’s only childish if one hasn’t lived long enough and educated themselves regarding how the CIA and its ilk have been creating chaos for the benefit of the corporate state for most of modern history. I can offer some reading recommendations for that purpose, starting with David Talbot’s The Devil’s Chessboard.
Speaking as someone probably old enough to be your grandmother who doesn’t appreciate being condescended to by someone claiming to be barely old enough to vote. If that.
The problem is that Vindman most likely won't win. Maybe he'll be within 5 points at best, but that is a stretch. So the potential nomination of Nixon mentioned below wouldn't change much.
but not functionally, i am no fan of the national security state but to suggest national security advisors are the same as clandestine agents isn't really fair to either group. Heck, senator andy kim was a national security advisor to obama and he is now one of the senate's leading doves on foreign wars
when you paint in broad strokes without identifying specific examples even aside from the i/p discussion banned on here, wherein it seems like andy kim would be on the anti side of the new dems. I can't stand the new dems. we can achieve what we are hoping without switching arguments midstream and labeling senator kim a new dem, when he was in the cpc during his time in the house and has no association now or ever with new dems
curiously, i am drawing a blank as to what foreign wars a democratic president entered into. obama's assistance in toppling Qaddafi maybe, but this reeks of both siderism. Clinton arguably went too slow in stopping the serbs. Obama ignored his own redlines in syria. This argument ignores historical realities
And when neoliberalism renders most of the working class too poor to afford to travel, all those places relying on tourism are going to be up the creek without a paddle.
It's simple really: making a competitive race in Florida requires insane amounts of money. Vindman has it.
I'm still a bit skeptical that Vindman can win, but if he forces Republicans to spend lots of money in Florida, it could force them to cut NC and ME loose, which would unquestionably be good for Dems' chances at winning back the Senate. Same with Talarico in Texas, except I do see a path to Talarico winning.
If the Republibertarians here continue to rely on their arrogant assumption they can fool the plebes with their trigger-worded propaganda, Talarico has more than a path. The real problem is the New Democrats don’t want him, and I’ve learned from bitter experience they are perfectly willing to have Ken Paxton in the Senate if it will keep James Talarico out.
New Democrats? As in the Crockett influencers still being sour grapes about the primary and telling people to leave the Senate option blank in Nov?
I will never understand it. Crockett wasn't able to get a coalition to win the primary and her being on the ballot would've energized Rs to vote against her in November, even with Paxton on the ticket.
Ms. Crockett was tossed onto the primary ballot because Colin Allred couldn’t win a nomination for dog catcher, and they were sure they could beat Talarico by giving her a massive level of media attention for six months to enhance her checkbox identity-politics charisma. She couldn’t get a coalition because her entire campaign consisted of shouting “Trump bad” and talking about everything she would do in the Senate without actually saying what constituted “everything” in any kind of substantive detail.
She’s obviously a talented, highly educated young woman, but the best thing she could do is stop bowing to the DNC and their overpaid consultants and figure out who she is and who she stands for then go after something bigger.
As much as I’d love to engage in a tutorial and review of the process by which the DSCC set Crockett up as a last-minute fill-in to try and keep Talarico from winning, I have other, more important things that need done. So, here’s your assignment: Track down at least a dozen of her speeches during the primary campaign and find at least one where she discussed the kind of detailed ideas of how to address the very real problems facing the working class. Let me know when you find one.
"Former spooks" and those adjacent to them have been fairly decent for the party. People like Kelly, Goodlander, Sherrill, and Slotkin are, at worst, OK relative to what we can expect out of their districts/states. They've been a big part of the push back against politicizing the military and related agencies.
They're not going to be in the AOC wing of the party -- but we're not going to elect a progressive statewide in Florida anyway.
They need to trot him and JDV out for the competitive Senate races and fire up Democratic turnout.
Presler gets one "win" in PA for the 2024 presidential race and has failed spectacularly ever since, like last year's SCOWI and SCOPA retention elections.
There's little correlation between them, but if the Senate flips I could see a big enough wave possible for Democrats to hold it. Maybe if Republicans nominate Jim Comer it could be competitive.
The fact Coleman has never run for office solo is a bit worrying, Adkins would probably be a stronger candidate but realistically would struggle to make it out of a primary. Coleman will probably do well enough, but my guess is Republicans flip it fairly easily.
A Republican candidate has not won a state-wide race in Minnesota in twenty years (and a GOP presidential candidate hasn’t taken the state in 52). Light blue?
My understanding is that a lot of the races have been reasonably close, in the range of 5 points or fewer, with a few exceptions like Senator Klobuchar. The state is blue, but not with the tilt of a Massachusetts or California.
Well, as we used to say when I was a kid, “Close only counts in horseshoes and atom bombs.”
We would say "horseshoes and hand grenades". You had significantly more firepower.
Margins and vote share define competitiveness in elections analysis, not win/loss scorecards.
Yeah, I know. But that old phrase from my youth popped into my brain and I felt compelled to share.
Horseshoes hand grenades and relationships
Since Minnesota's DFL-only streak began in 2008, there have been seven statewide races that Democrats have won by less than one percentage point.
I agree with your point, but in the spirit of "close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades" I'll make the opposite quip that "a miss is as good as a mile."
Democrats usually win, but it's often by single digits. Harris won the state by 4%. Walz was re-elected by 7%. So yes, LIGHT blue.
kinda like how carolina is only light red, we have the gov, lg, sos, ag, supertindent of public education. the republicans have never elected a republican attorney general nor a republican secretary of state since 1873, only three republican governors since 1868, and yet it would be hard to characterize the old north state as anything other than light red, given that we have won two presidential races total since 76 there, and have been locked out of us senate seats for more than a decade
And "Republican" meant something rather different in 1868 and 1873. ;-)
Very confused here for a second cause as a Gamecock to me Carolina means South Carolina ;)
y'all are the real usc, that one in southern California is actually correctly called the university of spoiled children
Both USCs have team nicknames that lend themselves to tasteless jokes.
They work well together
light blue is the color of the sheets used by Democratic bed-wetters.
The text to speech option to listen to the Daily Digest has streamlined my mornings. And the voice is pretty pleasant. Though I do occasionally have to translate some abbreviations that become words, like cosen.
https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/2046222671382208971
New - California governor poll
🔴 Hilton 20%
🔵 Becerra 15%
🔵 Steyer 15%
🔴 Bianco 14%
🔵 Porter 13%
🔵 Mahan 6%
Gudelunas S #C - LV - 4/18
Never thought I'd see Becerra leading the D pack in one these polls... interesting!
Becerra, Steyer, and Porter all within 2%. And Bianco.
Here's the actual poll.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000019d-a825-d182-a9fd-be3d42280000
This tweet also describes them as anti-Steyer fwiw.
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2046218102338142670
We really need Newsom, Harris, Schiff, and Padilla to choose someone and be done with this lockout nightmare.
Newsom is considering endorsing Becerra but he hasn't done it yet.
I really kind of like the voters to decide and not have California's governor pick their successor. We have statewide televised debates this week, and ballots drop in a couple weeks, so the undecided needle will start to move. I'm actually getting less concerned about a Republican lockout than before Swalwell's fall from grace.
Plus he picked a couple of our Senators recently!
There's no real nightmare. The undecided are mainly Democrats. At least one Democrat will make the finals.
Meh. California having a one term Republican governor won't the be the end of the world.
Never heard of this pollster.
Xmentum continues! With two weeks until voting starts, I think it's time for an endorsement the big dogs would rather have avoided. This is probably about 99% likely to be Becerra.
Now that Becerra has a puncher's chance (and Porter didn't soak up Swalwell support post-exit), I'd probably go with him as well.
I've seen a lot of support for Becerra here, but I remember a couple months back RL Miller said she was on "Team Never Becerra." When I asked why she mentioned a maximum contribution of $39,200 from Chevron. I'm not from California so I don't know his full environmental record, but that kind of contribution is not a great look and California is a state where it's really important to have a strong environmental advocate as governor. I'd be curious if people here have more insight into Becerra's record on the environment (and other issues), as well as why people here seem to like him
He's raised almost $3 million, so that's slightly more than 1% of his fundraising and from Chevron's perspective that is an even more insignificant amount of their budget. Not really seeing the problem here.
Perhaps, but I still find it concerning that the chair of the California Democrats' environmental caucus earlier said she was "never Becerra." Plus, the amount he raised from Chevron was a maximum contribution (according to RL Miller) so who knows how much they would have donated if possible.
I did!. And if the big Dems get of their collective asses and endorse him this klown kar event will be over!!
I had been leaning toward Swalwell before his abrupt disappearance in a puff of smoke, but now I'm leaning toward Becerra. I like Porter too, but it turns out she's pretty bad at politics. Becerra is the best prepared of all of them to serve, and probably with distinction.
I honestly wasn't even aware Becerra is Becerra is in the race until recently. I've been hearing that he's even more progressive than Porter. At the very least he lacks her bad temper and staff abuse issues. I was leaning heavily towards Porter, but now I'm gravitating towards Becerra.
The problem with Becerra is that despite his long resume of positions held, he has very little to show for it. And there are rumors that he's not a very good governmental administrator, with a mixed record overseeing agencies.
That's why even though I would be okay with Becerra, I am still planning to vote for Porter. Becerra will be a continuation of the Newsom-coasting that the state has seen over the last 8 years, with very little progress actually being made on the key problems facing our state.
Conversely, Porter will be laser focused on addressing the lag times for construction projects and is supporting a single-payer plan that sounds feasible. I'm hoping she can break through in the end.
Separate CA-Gov poll dropped this morning. This one is from an outfit called Kreate Strategies. I'd never heard of them but a quick search shows that they also did a poll in early April in the same race, not for any candidate.
🟥Steve Hilton 18%
🟦Tom Steyer 16%
🟥Chad Bianco 14%
🟦Xavier Becerra 10%
🟦Katie Porter 10%
🟦Matt Mahan 4%
🟦Betty Yee 2%
🟦Antonio Villaraigosa 1%
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2046231687088988619
Link to this full poll:
https://kstrat.net/press/california-2026-governor-affordability-integrity
Nice to see Betty running ahead of Antonio. Yee-haw!
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2026-04-20/former-state-controller-betty-yee-drops-out-of-governors-race
And she dropped out.
It wouldn't surprise me if our Democratic establishment aren't using sharp elbows behind the scenes to encourage people who aren't going to win to drop out.
They d*mn well better be!
They should’ve used them before the filing deadline. This is folks finaaaaaally seeing the writing on the wall
Considering both this poll and the one above, it's time to increase the polling threshold for debate participation to 10%. That way, the same five candidates would be included, and DINO Matt Mahan would be out of it.
Blowout result for Progressive Bulgaria, winning an absolute majority in a heretofore fractured parliament, and many of the existing parties not even making the electoral threshold. Wikipedia describes them as "left-wing populist, left-wing nationalist, and left-wing conservative". I've see various takes on the degree to which they are pro-Russian. But they were clearly able to capture an electorate fed up with the status quo.
Some of the chat about this last night:
https://www.the-downballot.com/p/weekly-open-thread-475/comment/246080415
The floor for Trump is no longer there. I don’t think I’ve seen independents be -75 on any issue either, ever.
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2045856379198484836
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2045857506870591580
📊 NBC News/Survey Monkey Poll
Pres. Trump
Approve: 37% (-2)
Disapprove: 63% (+2)
Lowest second term approval
——
Trump's net approval on key issues
🟤 Border Security: -12
🔴 Iran: -34
🔴 Cost of living: -36 (new low)
——
3/30-4/13 | 31,443 A
https://nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/poll-trumps-approval-rating-hits-second-term-low-economy-iran-war-rcna331462
NBC POLL: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling the war with Iran?
Approve: 33%
Disapprove: 67%
——
🟢 MAGA Supporters: 87-13 (+74)
🟢 Republicans: 74-26 (+48)
🟤 Independents: 18-82 (-74)
Losing 1 in 8 MAGA voters on an issue that is overwhelmingly partisan is pretty bad. Even worse to lose 1 in 4 republicans on the war.
Media will paint it as conservatives still being in republicans' corner on this. Which is correct, but missing the point. Portions of the base larger than statistical noise being opposed to the party's stance on a major issue is always bad for the party.
Absolutely. I know we won't, but if we won Republicans 74-26 and Indies 82-18 in November, we'd be looking at a blue tsunami of epic proportions.
What races, in y'all opinion, do you think democrats dropped the ball, in terms of candidate quality? I'm gonna say Georgia Governor and Wisconsin governor, still winnable races but ONLY in this environment.
Nevada supreme court
100%
How did we drop the ball in Wisconsin?
When Mandela Barnes is arguably your strongest candidate running, i'd say we dropped the ball.
Yeah I'd rather be running someone who hasnt proven to be a statewide loser. But in this environment he may be okay.
Sure in this environment there's a chance
He lost by less than a point in a GOP-favorable midterm to a very unpopular incumbent.
I wouldn't count him out yet.
I don't think losing to the very unpopular Johnson is a plus any way you look at it. Losing by 1% in a GOP midterm would be a plus against a popular opponent, but not against Johnson, which just further proves Barnes is a risk.
RoJo has beaten an LG, ousted a former Senator, and then beaten that former senator again. Might it be time to start considering him an actually formidable person to run against?
I don't get why Kaul declined. This would have been the easiest chance he'll probably have at a promotion to governor or Senate, in both a primary and a general election. Maybe he really wants that Senate seat in 2028? Or he just really likes being AG that much?
Not well connected to the base.
It’s not like he’s the only candidate- we also have the current lieutenant governor, the Milwaukee county executive, a state senator, and a state rep running. Other than Josh Kaul and maybe Ben Wikler, is there anyone who was an obviously better choice who didn’t run?
Ron Kind would have been pretty good, electability wise.
Sure, but he’d have been worse governing-wise, and it’s not like he was gonna come out of retirement for this.
Francesca Hong seems good.
I don't think Georgia is a dropped ball by any means, at least yet. You don't always need a statewide officer or a Congressmember to have a star candidate. Same with Wisconsin. My only worry in those states is that we go with weaker candidates electorally, but a generic Dem is favored in both states in 2026.
Nevada Supreme Court and the third GA Supreme Court seat are the only real answers here.
A generic Dem is favored for GA-Gov? Keisha Lance Bottoms is leading the polls.
Georgia is a 50-50 state and the leading Republicans are busy nuking each other. Neither of them seem strong on their own merits. With the year shaping up as blue as it is, why would it be a shock for a generic Democrat to be favored against a generic Republican in an open gubernatorial race there?
I can remember in 2018 when people thought an older, low-profile state superintendent of Ed had no chance to beat Scott Walker.
No one thought that. And the Georgia contenders are not Evers.
Maine Senate. I think Platner still beats Collins, though.
That's a good one too, but I also think he still wins in the end too.
yeah, I would hate my primary choices there, like if MI lacked a "McMorrow lane" option
The Maine equivalent of Stevens (say, if Pingree were younger and more moderate) would probably be cruising in both the primary and the general.
If Peggy Flanagan is elected to the Senate to succeed Tina Smith and Amy Klobuchar is elected governor, will Angie Craig be the frontrunner for Klobuchar's Senate seat?
There was a good breakdown of candidates a bit back, I think when Klobuchar was rumored or launched for gov (I wish Substack had a better post and liking history on accounts, or better comment searches...). But broadly, I think no. Craig is more moderate than Klobuchar, and I think she's going to want to pick someone more like herself (ideologically between Craig and Flanagan).
Unlikely. Klobuchar has her own political apparatus going back 2 decades, and Craig being a relative newcomer and not from Klobuchar's political machine, it is unlikely she gets appointed.
As a Minnesotan, I believe former State Senator Melisa Lopez Franzen is the frontrunner if Klobuchar wants to have a long-term replacement (which seems likely). Lopez Franzen is part of Klobuchar's inner circle, a former Dem Senate Leader who got redistricted out, and breifly ran for Senate this year as an also-ran against Flanagan and Craig.
But if she wants a short term cup-of-coffee replacement and hold a January 2027 special (Minnesota holds special elections quite quickly) former Hennepin County Attorney Michael Freeman seems most likely. Klobuchar came up as an acolyte/underling of Freeman, and Freeman more recently became prominent as the prosecuting attorney against George Floyd's murderers.
Shot:
https://x.com/DashaBurns/status/2046214071809143279
NEW: Strategists in and around the White House are under no illusions about how the midterms will likely play out if energy prices don't come down.
"If we don't see the $3 gallon of gas, we’re gonna get killed," one person close to the White House told me.
Latest in @playbookdc https://politico.com/playbook
Chaser:
https://x.com/atrupar/status/2045856130220323240
TAPPER: When do you think it's realistic for Americans to expect that gas will go back below under $3 a gallon?
CHRIS WRIGHT: I don't know. That could happen later this year. (BOLD) That might happen until next year (BOLD). But prices have likely peaked.
I'm not really that thrilled by this development because it shows how immature the public is when it comes to artificially expensive gas at all times. We were paying $4 a gallon for gas in the summer of 2008, before nearly two decades of inflation, and people still feel entitled to pay less than $3 a gallon today? I get that Republicans might die by this sword in November, which is good, but the next governing party will have to live and die based on the same irrational expectations.
Cheap gas is considered a birthright here, and a key benchmark of "are things good right now" for the average schmuck. Coupled with the mechanics of how gasoline price is determined (The President gets the blame and the credit, when in reality they affect the price very little)* and you have the situation you have.
*unless it involves large scale tinkering with the SPR or they do something like start a war that involves the Strait of Hormuz or other critical energy infrastructure/geology.
Nevermind that its already pretty cheap, compared to Europe and other places.
Michigan Democrats need to get rid of the convention process for the downballot races. It favors only the candidates with the most fervent supporters. It's insane that they had to wait until 9pm on a Sunday evening when many people are meal prepping for the week or putting kids to bed to finish.
There are so many bizarre quirks in individual primaries and elections that make no sense and often create chaos. MI and CO with the convention process, VA’s party-run firehouse primaries, NY having special election nominees be party-chosen, CA’s top two system, etc. I think we’d all benefit from some semblance of a consistent system. What that system would be could be a contentious question — I’m a staunch RCV supporter myself — but at least it wouldn’t lead to weird shit constantly going on in races.
California has a top 2 not 4.
Whoops, my bad. Will correct
AK does top four primaries before RCV generals, CA does top two and FPTP generals. And at least the CO convention is just the technically party endorsements (this isn't very unusual, at least MN and CA notably do this too) and the NY special nominees and VA firehouse primaries are ONLY for specials.
The MI convention essentially DIRECTLY nominates nearly every statewide race (as the digest describes, this was technically just the endorsement convention and there's a later formal nominating convention in August around the time of the actual primaries for gov/sen/everything else).
Yeah only governor is subject to a primary before the voters, at least for state races. Indiana is the only other state that does it that way, that I'm aware of.
Well, at least all the legislative offices too (US Senate, US House, state senate, state house).
right I meant row offices
What do you mean by VA’s party-run firehouse primaries? I just moved to Virginia recently - in time for the 2025 election but after the primaries so I’m not super familiar with the process
From what I understand, special elections in VA have the party run the primary. This was how James Walkinshaw controversially got in Congress — when Gerry Connolly died, Walkinshaw won a party-run primary that was alleged to have been biased in his favor (he had party support going in) over a number of other candidates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehouse_primary
I’ll note I live in NY so I may not be the best source here.
One whiny activist doesn’t make it controversial. This system is odd, but it’s been that way for a long time. The problem is that it’s a cheap/efficient answer to conducting what is an essentially a party-run process.
This was not one activist, there was quite a bit of blowback online that I saw when it happened. I think elections should be publicly funded myself.
That would require a constitutional amendment - Article 5, Sec21 of the Constitution of 1963 requires the LG, AG, and SoS candidates to “be nominated at party conventions in a manner as proscribed in law.”
Many have wanted to change this but there’s not much interest in a constitutional amendment effort.
It is interesting that this fall will be the every 20 (or maybe it’s 30) year required ballot question that asks voters if they want to have a new Constitutional Convention. Seems like it has potential for trouble so my good friend was passing “No to the Con-Con” buttons at the MDP endorsement convention yesterday.
Easy to say now, but given the current folks in the White House, all these quirks are the price of having states, not the feds, run elections.
That is a very good point. I didn’t consider that.
NY-13:
https://www.thecity.nyc/2026/04/20/espaillat-poll-darializa-avila-chevalier-ny13/
Darializa Avila Chevalier has a new internal out. She trails Espaillat 42-28 just off name recognition - but after being given “positive messaging” about her campaign it goes up to 46 DAC - 35 Espaillat.
Thoughts? Kevin/formerly Nick Tagliaferro, ex-author of Primary School, noted on Bluesky that the 42-28 result predates campaigning — not a great result for an incumbent.
https://bsky.app/profile/reginageorgebush.bsky.social/post/3mjwngqt6oc2k
DAC is also gaining attention and endorsements. Could an upset be brewing? Or is Espaillat still safe, particularly since this is an internal?
My thoughts are the "positive messaging" polling is garbage. LOL "my candidates amazing but that guy over there sucks, so what do you think now?"
I’m curious though about the investment going into this race on the left. Of course that doesn’t mean anything — Robert Peters imploded and there was a lot of support for him, for one — but I do feel like DAC is getting more attention than, say, Chuck Park or Michael Blake. There’s also the post-Mamdani factor to consider. Who knows, I could be wrong. Like I said, Peters had a lot of support and lost, as did Kat Abghuzaleh. But we live in crazy times, lots of unexpected shit could happen. (On the GOP side, who saw Dan Crenshaw losing as a possibility?)
Candidate quality still matters, Kat parachuting into that district was probably why she lost, she only got close because she was the DSA darling or whatever group she associated with. Crenshaw losing wasn't a surprise, MAGA had his targets on him because he would occasionally say something truthful.
Perhaps.
Saying she "parachuted in" implies her candidacy was impromptu. She announced a year before the primary.
And only a few months after moving to Chicago, parachuting is the right descriptor.
It was precisely 8 months, which is a long time politically speaking. Also, if she can't move cities, why aren't we attacking Darrell Issa and Dennis Kucinich for even considering moving to a different state while *in Congress*?
Robert Peters was trounced by outside money (Miller) and name recognition (Jackson), not necessarily by his "implosion".
He was a pretty good fundraiser, but he didn't really have that much support.
Still, I wouldn't say there was an "implosion" regarding his candidacy.
Peters lost because he was boring and lived outside of the district. I'm saying that as someone who voted for him in the primary.
There was also a split in the progressive vote in IL-2, although I don't remember the name of the other candidate off the top of my head (although it wasn't Peters, Miller, or JJ2).
Yumeka Brown?
Yes.
Peters + Brown would still have finished 3rd, I don't think a progressive could have ever won that race.
Espaillat is still further to the left than some of his New York colleagues, but Chevalier could be good for new blood at some point.
Honestly Crenshaw loosing wasn't a shock, Toth clearly had a lot of Republican backing, and Crenshaw was held to 19 points against a lower-profile challenger in 2024.
Under 50 for an incumbent isn't great.
Wouldn't be shocked if Espillat goes down, Getting just shy of 60% of the vote against two random candidates in 2020 does not scream "loved, entrenched incumbent".
https://www.wavy.com/news/u-s-sen-mark-warners-daughter-dies-after-decades-long-health-battle/amp/
VA Senator Mark Warner’s daughter has died at age 36 after a long health battle :( very sad news. He is up for reelection this November and doesn’t have any serious primary challengers. Wonder if this will have any effect on his decision to run again. Wishing him and his family peace and solace
Oh, goody, just what we need—another former spook in Congress, and from Florida.
I'm not a big Vindman fan either, but if he actually wins or even keeps it very close, we are having a FANTASTIC night and I could give less of a crap. Moody is a psycho.
What’s wrong with getting behind Nixon?
I don't have a problem with Angie Nixon, but name recognition and money means a lot in a big state like Florida. If Vindman plays a huge haul correctly, he can put a lot of money into demographics that have trended away in recent years.
I think Vindman can pull away a sliver of GOP Cuban voters because he can challenge their notion of Democrats as "freedom stealing commies" since he and his brother escaped the Soviet Union because of communism.
Call me paranoid, but I just get the heebie-jeebies that so many spooks are getting into high office. They’ve been doing enough damage behind the curtains as it is.
I agree that intelligence officials part of the so-called "deep state" shouldn't be in politics, but think your lingo of "heebie jeebies" and "spook" is a bit childish. And I'm Gen Z.
It’s only childish if one hasn’t lived long enough and educated themselves regarding how the CIA and its ilk have been creating chaos for the benefit of the corporate state for most of modern history. I can offer some reading recommendations for that purpose, starting with David Talbot’s The Devil’s Chessboard.
Speaking as someone probably old enough to be your grandmother who doesn’t appreciate being condescended to by someone claiming to be barely old enough to vote. If that.
The problem is that Vindman most likely won't win. Maybe he'll be within 5 points at best, but that is a stretch. So the potential nomination of Nixon mentioned below wouldn't change much.
I'm confused, is Vindman a spy?
He’s a “former National Security advisor”. Same thing, psychologically.
ok cool
but not functionally, i am no fan of the national security state but to suggest national security advisors are the same as clandestine agents isn't really fair to either group. Heck, senator andy kim was a national security advisor to obama and he is now one of the senate's leading doves on foreign wars
Well, on the ones launched by the “opposing party”, anyway. He doesn’t have a bit of a problem with the ones the New Democrats are responsible for.
when you paint in broad strokes without identifying specific examples even aside from the i/p discussion banned on here, wherein it seems like andy kim would be on the anti side of the new dems. I can't stand the new dems. we can achieve what we are hoping without switching arguments midstream and labeling senator kim a new dem, when he was in the cpc during his time in the house and has no association now or ever with new dems
curiously, i am drawing a blank as to what foreign wars a democratic president entered into. obama's assistance in toppling Qaddafi maybe, but this reeks of both siderism. Clinton arguably went too slow in stopping the serbs. Obama ignored his own redlines in syria. This argument ignores historical realities
Except it literally isn’t?
And when neoliberalism renders most of the working class too poor to afford to travel, all those places relying on tourism are going to be up the creek without a paddle.
henrik didn't say anything that would prompt that answer, i don't anyone on here purporting to defend neoliberalism
It's simple really: making a competitive race in Florida requires insane amounts of money. Vindman has it.
I'm still a bit skeptical that Vindman can win, but if he forces Republicans to spend lots of money in Florida, it could force them to cut NC and ME loose, which would unquestionably be good for Dems' chances at winning back the Senate. Same with Talarico in Texas, except I do see a path to Talarico winning.
If the Republibertarians here continue to rely on their arrogant assumption they can fool the plebes with their trigger-worded propaganda, Talarico has more than a path. The real problem is the New Democrats don’t want him, and I’ve learned from bitter experience they are perfectly willing to have Ken Paxton in the Senate if it will keep James Talarico out.
Would you consider James Carville, who advised a New Democrat president, a New Democrat? He endorsed Talarico.
New Democrats? As in the Crockett influencers still being sour grapes about the primary and telling people to leave the Senate option blank in Nov?
I will never understand it. Crockett wasn't able to get a coalition to win the primary and her being on the ballot would've energized Rs to vote against her in November, even with Paxton on the ticket.
Ms. Crockett was tossed onto the primary ballot because Colin Allred couldn’t win a nomination for dog catcher, and they were sure they could beat Talarico by giving her a massive level of media attention for six months to enhance her checkbox identity-politics charisma. She couldn’t get a coalition because her entire campaign consisted of shouting “Trump bad” and talking about everything she would do in the Senate without actually saying what constituted “everything” in any kind of substantive detail.
She’s obviously a talented, highly educated young woman, but the best thing she could do is stop bowing to the DNC and their overpaid consultants and figure out who she is and who she stands for then go after something bigger.
How, exactly, is Crockett "bowing to the DNC and their overpaid consultants"?
As much as I’d love to engage in a tutorial and review of the process by which the DSCC set Crockett up as a last-minute fill-in to try and keep Talarico from winning, I have other, more important things that need done. So, here’s your assignment: Track down at least a dozen of her speeches during the primary campaign and find at least one where she discussed the kind of detailed ideas of how to address the very real problems facing the working class. Let me know when you find one.
"Former spooks" and those adjacent to them have been fairly decent for the party. People like Kelly, Goodlander, Sherrill, and Slotkin are, at worst, OK relative to what we can expect out of their districts/states. They've been a big part of the push back against politicizing the military and related agencies.
They're not going to be in the AOC wing of the party -- but we're not going to elect a progressive statewide in Florida anyway.
You know Virginia Rs are on a losing streak when they bring in grifter Scott Presler to gin up GOP voters to "vote no on gerrymandering."
Ugh. They brought in that idiot? I thought Republicans were mostly homophobic.
They need to trot him and JDV out for the competitive Senate races and fire up Democratic turnout.
Presler gets one "win" in PA for the 2024 presidential race and has failed spectacularly ever since, like last year's SCOWI and SCOPA retention elections.
When the maps pass, and they will, I wonder what presler is going to say and who they will blame.
I do not live in VA so the most I can do is watch the excuses fly from the no side when they lose.
KY Gov '27: LG Jacqueline Coleman (D) is in. Would like a ticket with her and Rocky Adkins.
I would say it's an uphill battle for a victory at this point, but who knows. Crazier thing have happened in politics lately.
With Trump still in office? I could see it.
There's little correlation between them, but if the Senate flips I could see a big enough wave possible for Democrats to hold it. Maybe if Republicans nominate Jim Comer it could be competitive.
best recruit we could get here, adkins would be a perfect lg, or hell i wish he would run for his old state house seat
The fact Coleman has never run for office solo is a bit worrying, Adkins would probably be a stronger candidate but realistically would struggle to make it out of a primary. Coleman will probably do well enough, but my guess is Republicans flip it fairly easily.
This may be the oppo hit coming against Byron Donalds in the FL R Gov primary. "sold drugs to kids" if born out would be very bad. https://x.com/NikkiFried/status/2046272090601410777?s=20
Not him.
FL Rs will likely still vote for pick-me Donalds because of TACO's endorsement.
Florida Governor James Fishback is a genuinely scary thought. Fishback is a Groyper-type who makes Ron DeSantis look liberal by comparison.
If not, that is one ugly dogwhistle.