Was going to post this, but saw the source “America first” and lack of any journalistic credentials and decided not to. This is why. I’m reading from the pieces she screenshot, so anyone can verify themselves.
The article doesn’t actually say they’ve abandoned the race. A quote from both their groups spokespeople said that they’re conserving resources to use right before voting for the runoff starts. Same strategy Stratton used to success. It’s correct that those groups haven’t spent any money yet and either side may be lying, so maybe they do give up on boosting Cornyn, but as of now, there’s no way we can credibly say that.
It also doesn’t say that Trump won’t endorse Cornyn. It specifically states he’s not endorsing until after the Save ACT gets passed (it won’t, but hell hold it out until Republicans get the spine to tell him it’s dead). So he’s not saying he won’t ever endorse Cornyn, he’s holding it hostage until he gets his way. There’s also the possibility he doesn’t endorse too, which wouldn’t exactly be good for Cornyn either.
Edit posts in an obvious way, like with text in square brackets, rather than deleting them if people have replied to them, unless they are, for example, illegal or libelous. We've been through this before many times...
So last night the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a funding bill for the TSA without additional funds for ICE. What are the odds Mike Johnson stalls it or Trump vetoes it?
Yes, which means Dems WON. Plus, the hours long lines at airports like ATL and HOB/IAH during springtime highlighted that travelers blamed TRUMP, not Democrats, for the TSA agents not being paid.
No can do since he's running for Senate. He'll either lose that primary or win the general, because Kentucky isn't flipping statewide in a federal race just yet, I think.
Not really. They wanted ICE reforms (no mask, no picking people up at random). However, they've always offered to fund TSA while the partial shutdown continued. So in that sense it's a win. A complete victory would be restrictions on ICE.
The funds are there from the BBB and "potentially" from a second reconciliation bill, although count me highly skeptical they manage to thread that needle with their bare majority.
But I think with airport lines getting that long and the salience of Minneapolis fading from the public, this was as good as one could hope for.
MoCs were looking at being in regular TSA lines during their own spring breaks, and some of the airports struggling the most are in red states, which is why the GOP folded.
"For when lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentler gamester is the soonest winner." From Shakespeare's Henry V. Not sure about soonest, but the polls sure show people turning away from the current cruelty.
While I love the theory of that quote being what’s happening, it ain’t cruelty that’s turning voters off Trump. It’s cruelty towards THEM that’s making them upset. Them and their family or friends. They didn’t give 1 second of care what happened to other people during Trump 1, but now that they’re the ones suffering, that’s when they broke away.
I’ll take it because it helps Democrats, but they aren’t suddenly creating a wave of morality in the country where people value good, it’s only because they’re getting hit with the bad this time too.
I think that's the point, though I'd have to go back to the play for the actual context. Leaders who are cruel will eventually show their cruelty to everyone. There are no favorites. Trump embodies that. The people will turn. Should they have turned earlier? Ofc. But a cruel will not stand forever.
He got a waiver to chair the committee for one more term this Congress (GOP has three-term term limits), so he was about to become a backbencher, probably in the minority
I was born and raised in the rural areas of this district in northwest Missouri. I don't have nice things to say about Sam Graves, except that he was a more traditional Republican who occasionally tried to bring funds to his district. Having spent a great deal of time around rural folk in this area, I can assure you Graves' replacement will be far worse.
"You might not agree with me and say I'm stuck in my ways and past my prime, but these people coming up behind me have no principles, utterly no principles at all, and will stop at nothing"- Senator Richard Russell to LBJ after passage of Voting Rights Act of 65 (allegedly)
Of course, that quote was definitely wrong, Sam Nunn and Max Cleland were the next 2 senators in that seat and I wouldn’t describe either of them in that way.
Hell, I would even say Saxby Chambliss had more principles compared to David Perdue. And Jon Ossoff is probably the best person that seat has ever elected.
Chambliss was more bipartisan and statesman-like than Perdue - he was in the Gang of 10, opposed Obama drone striking innocent civilians, and participated in other bipartisan legislation. Perdue was a hardline conservative that pretty much never did anything outside of Republican politics, and now he's in the Trump administration.
i believe the point of the quote was the old dixecrat guard versus the new republicans that basically held the same atrocious views on civil rights but also hated social programs for whites, a la gingrich trent lott etc
My exact thoughts. He was a conservative Republican but at heart an institutionalist. I worry when all of the Republicans who essentially respect the Constitution are replaced by Matt Gaetz clones. National gerrymander reform is badly needed to prevent the country from suffering permanent policy whiplash every 4 years and democratic backsliding.
It's needed, but I don't see it preventing voters from voting out the party in power when there's a little inflation or something. Germans have so far refused to give AfD a plurality, while Americans don't care if the main opposition party they elect is a bunch of corrupt, violent fascists.
But that supports my point; if Germany's Parliament was arranged akin to the House's gerrymandered seats, AfD would be well on its way to government control.
What doesn't support your point is that Trump got close to 50% of the vote nationwide, something no AfD candidate for Chancellor has ever come close to.
I remember back in 2000 when Graves won the seat against Democrat Steve Danner, son of long-time Democratic Representative Pat Danner. It was considerable a battleground that cycle. It certainly hasn't stayed that way in the 26 years since.
In 2008, I knocked doors for Kay Barnes (even though I lived in midtown KC, MO-05). Obama was a firestorm, and I thought it might at least be close..... oh well.
Buchanan county is worse now, but Clay and Platte could make this race interesting (like high single digits).
Bill Clinton won the district twice. Since I happened to have the 1986 Almanac of American Politics handy, I can confirm that even Walter Mondale only lost the district 61-39. Republican Tom Coleman, who represented the district from 1976-1992, is a sporadic guest on MSNBC now.
(Also, I have the 1976 almanac handy too, and McGovern lost the district 67-33, while Nixon won it 49-41).
Democrats in California…please unite behind the leading Democrat candidate for Governor. We don’t need to split the Democrat vote and help Republicans take the Governorship!!! This is how we continually screw our voters and our party.
What has caused this current perceived problem is we have 2 equally polling Republicans and there isn't a leading Democrat. We still have over a month before ballots drop for the primaries, and my assumption is most of the undecided (like me) will vote Democratic. I'm also of the opinion that most people who support the 0-5 percentage crowd will realize they aren't viable and support a candidate that is.
I also suspect there may be shifting between the two Republicans as we get closer to election day.
I have a little bit of angst, but I still think we will have one Democrat and one Republican advance to the general and the Democrat will win decisively.
I really would like a viable candidate debate to help me decide.
In the last three polls (all high quality), looking at just the leading Democrats, Swalwell was 1st, 3rd and 2nd; Porter was 3rd, 1st, and 1st; while Steyer was 2nd, 2nd and 3rd. Average percent of three polls: Swalwell 12.67%; Porter 11%; and Steyer 11%.
In short, we have three candidates who are virtually tied and certainly so within the margin or error.
I am the opposite, as in unwilling to support Steyer or Porter (only in the primary, of course). Don't get me wrong, Swalwell's history as a prosecutor isn't really great. I really hope that difference doesn't bode poorly for the election.
I low-key hoped Bacerra would be doing better at this point. Alas...
A substantial upgrade, yes. Probably in the same vein as current Progressive Caucus members like Jayapal or Casar. DeGette is pretty corporate and establishment, and recently had a rough go-around with a constituent regarding the forbidden issue.
To be fair, just because it /can/ happen doesn't mean it /does/ happen to every politician who's been in office long enough. I am not reflexively pro-Bernie, but I think his ability to connect with younger voters even as an octogenarian indicates he does not have the same problem that is plaguing DeGette this cycle.
I thought Bernie shouldn’t have run in 2024 and I don’t think he should run again. Anyone who has been in Washington since the Clinton impeachment should hang it up.
I’m not reflexively anti-experience. Is there anything that she has a bad position on? Does she have bad constituent services? Or is it just someone challenging a rep who has gotten too comfortable and is vulnerable to an energetic challenger (nothing wrong with that either, just curious).
A confrontation with a constituent regarding the forbidden issue is not a bad thing, unless you literally believe that any dissent on that issue from your own personal position is unacceptable.
And while we can't talk about that issue here, you need to stop automatically assuming that everyone here has the same position on it that you do.
The way DeGette reacted in the confrontation should be enough to discredit her. I'm not pushing my views on anyone by saying why people may not like her.
Tbh, I think it's overblown. They weren't fully informed and they weren't there to have a conversation with her, and them just walking out on her in the middle of a sentence is snotty and immature. DeGette was being quite responsive to them, and they were there to cause a scene and not ask her questions.
DeGette is one of the most effective at the actual job of legislating--good at passing bills, a strong questioner in committee and one of the best at parliamentary procedure to preside over complex debates. And still, yes, someone could be even more left than her (she's somewhat to the left of the median of House Dems, but not the farthest). If Kiros is like an Ayanna Pressley replacing Mike Capuano (who I gather was an amazing rep with good constituent services and even more progressive than DeGette) at being farther left while being similarly effective at the actual business of Congress, that would be great. If she's planning to just vote as left as she can, while not cooperating with colleagues and strive to be as good on constituent services, passing legislation, committee work and understanding the floor, then the win won't mean as much long term. All sort of suppositional, but this perception that DeGette is just a sort of do nothing lifer (like, say, Yvette Clarke) or snotty centrist (like a Steve Lynch) seems pretty off base.
I agree with you for the most part, and I do think the confrontation points DeGette in an unnecessary bad light, but Capuano was really only a social progressive and was a self-described "fiscal conservative", and didn't represent his district adequately compared to Pressley (it became majority-minority). Also, he literally called himself a "Washington insider" in attempt to make him sound like the Kennedys at one point. Not a good look to voters that want someone that isn't a career politician.
Has Julius edited his reply? I don’t see him trying to generalize, speak for others, or criticize dissent.
“Recently had a rough go-around with a constituent regarding the forbidden issue”—that’s his perspective. He’s allowed to disagree with DeGette’s stance, just as you’re allowed to disagree with Kiros’s stance.
Hot take, but limiting the say voters have as to who is on their primary ballot is bad
Also DeGette hasn't really done anything wrong, and I'm very tired of this drive to primary every person who has been in congress for a while. DeGette isn't even 70.
Willett is the only conservative/republican on City Council in KC. He votes no on everything. I thought he was already running for State Senate District 34, but I suppose he could drop out to run for congress.
Just a reminder that there are No Kings protests across the country tomorrow.
I am planning on attending the one in downtown Los Angeles and coordinating the protest with senior rush tickets to the Los Angeles Philharmonic's matinee performance and a visit to the Broad art museum.
Yeah, bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs are hard to avoid if you have those in your family or know those well. Especially when boys and girls are making speeches.
Closer to where I live although I’m across the bay. That said, I’m a xennial Reform Jew and typically go to Congregation Emanu-El (the largest synagogue in San Francisco) and social events by the Oshman JCC in the Peninsula and South Bay.
Any bar mitzvahs and bay mitzvahs I’ve attended have been in Berkeley.
Glad you did! Its the largest synagogue I've been to and when I was younger ended up attending the Young Adults at Emanu-El Late Shabbat once every month. Rabbi Jonathan Singer was the one I recall meeting at one point back in 2019.
Out of all the synagogues, Emanu-El has probably the tightest security I've ever seen. Putting that aside, the architecture of the synagogue is incredible.
I saw someone on Bluesky also suggest that Rep. Cory Mills also be expelled with Sheila, owing to his own litany of scandals and ethics violations. If he is found guilty, I think he should -- that way, we could also say we're willing to use Congressional tools in a bipartisan fashion against those who violate them (not that the GOP particularly cares.)
It would probably be unprecedented for two members to be expelled at once. Not sure, though - I know George Santos, Jim Traficant and Mike Myers are the only ones in recent history, dating back to Myers in 1980.
Those three are literally the only ones to be expelled since the the Civil War (in the past people had the decency to resign before they were expelled). There was something like 7 expelled together in 1861 for supporting the Confederacy (the rest of the southern members had already resigned).
The political desire is to have parity between the parties on expelling flagrantly criminal/unethical members (tbh SCC would probably be paired with Gonzales in such a scenario), but obviously current House Repubs in the majority are craven and have no reason to do that. If anything, I think they would procedurally want to go thru the grinding Ethics process of rising all the way to forming an adjudicatory subcommittee with a similarly damning public hearing before trying to expel members. (Ofc Ethics says their jurisdiction ends with the term of a member, so no almost chance of the Gonzales investigative subcommittee moving to that stage, let alone if they'll even get to make recommendations before his term ends).
First polling I've seen for CT 1st Congressional District Primary against Incumbent John Larson
This is Larson Internal poll. Poll was fielded in late January by GQR. Only released now. 400 Likely Dem Primary Voters. Crosstabs not included
John Larson (Inc.) - 49%
Luke Bronin - 26%
Jillian Gilchrest - 9%
Undecided 15%
Though Larson has a lead, he is below a majority in his internal. Also no one has been up on the airwaves yet, and former Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin had more than $1 million cash-on-hand so that could change it up the race. Debates haven't happened yet, the primary will be in August.
One competitor against him, former Hartford Board of Ed Member Ruth Fortune was not included in this polling.
Candidates are likely focused on the May Convention, where delegates formally endorse a candidate. So candidates have been running to the 27 towns in the district's Democratic Town Committees. That candidate will receive top billing on the ballot in the August primary. Candidates need 15% of delegates to make the ballot, and to avoid CT's fairly difficult signature-gathering process. This can make the field smaller.
I agree! As it stands Larson wins easily in a split field. The convention might make the field smaller. Fortune is most likely to have trouble making the ballot. Gilchrest tho is the wild factor, she said she's going all the way, despite low fundraising. She's from one of the larger towns in the district and will take a chunk of the vote if she's on the ballot. If she's not on the ballot and it becomes a 1v1 than I expect a closer race.
I'm back. I managed to get my emotions under enough control to be able to post in a stable manner. I probably will not post as much as I used to though, as I think the amount of times I posted was making me get too angry here and take everything too personally. I'll thus make an effort to also avoid engaging with anything that riles me up too much.
Anyway, might as well share some things I saw that I didn't see people post here (I haven't been posting but I have been reading posts).
A couple more candidates expressed interest in the recently-vacated seat of Rep. Sam Graves. Those being radio host Chris Stigall (who is already in), and State Rep. Mazzie Christenson (who is considering).
Bolts Magazine is out with their 40 elections to watch this April. I recommend reading it, as there's some interesting races in there (including a ton of school board races and some mayoral ones -- plus some Wisconsin court races other than the SC race that haven't gotten as much attention.)
Curious to know if anyone has any thoughts on any of this.
FWIW, I didn’t really ever see you responding in that type of manner, though maybe I missed it. The important thing though is to take care of yourself, however that looks and whatever that means. You know yourself best so just do whatever you feel you need to in order to be healthy. Glad to see you back though and wishing you positive/healing thoughts for the distress you’ve been feeling.
I have a love-hate relationship with Rachel Bitecofer (who likes to fearmonger a lot on Xitter), but she wrote a really good analysis of the incoming blue wave (and ranked vulnerable House seats into three tiers).
Would move Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Jared Golden and Ryan Zinke into Tier 2, then Kevin Kiley, Ken Calvert (under new map for both), Marie Glusenkamp Perez, Scott Perry and Derrick Van Orden into Tier 1. Maybe even some in Tier 2 to Tier 1 ATP too.
Rschel Bitcoffer is our Robert Cahaly. Absolutely horrific political acumen, grossly overestimates our performance most cycles, and relies on being right one time several cycles ago to justify her predictions.
Yeah, but I think if she's right, it's really just because it's a wave and she'll grift to claim victory based on she raw calls and directionality regardless of how off she is on margins and underlying conditions that led to the results (as is her propensity). The issue is that her base understanding of how things work is fundamentally wrong, and so her reasons to point to for the wave wins will almost inevitably be wrong too. I just wouldn't pay attention to her commentary when there are so many more effective people to read.
Pretty much. He adds Republicans to his samples until it feels right to him. She doesn't sample, but she basically adds Democrats until it feels right to her.
Just because we like what she has to say about what her prediction is for November doesn’t mean she’s someone trustworthy for election analysis. She was right in 2018. She probably will be mostly right in 2026 too, but she got every other election in between wrong and is a partisan cheerleader who always has Democrats doing the best result possible.
That’s not valuable, any single one of us could do the exact same thing with a better accuracy and more informed opinions. I trust people election analysis wise who either have done it long term in their specific respective states (MCIMapper FL, umichvoter NJ, Chaz Nuttycombe VA, fat_ugly_rat James TX etc) or lesser trust, but more than the average analyst for people who produce their own data (G Elliott Morris substack, Zach Donini votehub etc). They sometimes get things wrong, but far more often are right and can detect things well before anyone else.
For a recent example, umich was the election person I saw online who first saw Mejia as having a chance in the NJ-11 special election after a batch of votes went to Mejia by an unexpected margin in Bloomfield when most organizations had already called it for Malinowski. Or Chaz’s organization showing a poll with Mikie Sherrill up double digits in NJ when many others showed a tight nailbiter. Or GEM advocating for and noticing that Democrats didn’t need to move right on immigration, that Trump’s actions were souring the public on his strongest political issue well before most punditry caught up to public opinion and well before the ICE murders.
These are the kinds of valuable contributions to electoral analysis, data and elections. Rachel Bitecofer and those types imo, are not.
She said it was a Tossup, advantage Harris a few weeks before the election, but up until then it was Harris who was favoured. But her House predictions are way off in these years too. I don’t trust her to be a serious source of data analysis. Her entire theory of politics today is factually wrong.
There are still swing voters and they matter A LOT in elections. There’s no mistaking special elections where Republican electorate Trump +15-30 seats voted for Democrats as a country with no swing voters.
The thing about elections are: everyone has their own line of what they’re willing to tolerate in government before becoming available to the opposition. For most swing voters it’s the economy negatively hurting them when they start to turn away. So different factors change, when, one cycle they’re partisan only voters, to another where they’re swing.
I’m not going to bore you with a list of all the possibilities. In 2024 there were swing voters as more Democrats and Independemts crossed over to vote GOP. Now, it’s Republican voters swinging more to Democrats. So if she’s basing all of her predictions on one of the most bizarre theories I’ve ever seen, I don’t think it’s a reliable parameter to give her predictions more than a second thought.
Her predictions mean a little more than nothing, but way less than something put a different way.
Considering his district is bluer compared to his 2010s district, and both of his potential opponents are MUCH stronger than TJ Cox, I doubt Valadao will survive
A Cole County Circuit Court has ruled that the new Missouri congressional map is not suspended by the mere submission of ballot initiative signatures to pause and vote on the redistricting plan.
Terrible ruling not only for fate of the gerrymander but for the citizen initiative petition process in Missouri. Also goes against precedent. I hope it's overturned, but I doubt it will be.
What baffles me the most about these current Republican gerrymanders is that the maps were already gerrymandered before the redraws for this election...Missouri should have 3 safely Democratic seats, not 1 or 2.
BUT, this is more of a procedural ruling. It did not address the merits of the case. There will be further litigation that has a real chance of success.
Really? Wow.
Trump only endorses people he thinks are gonna win.
Paxton’s crooked scumbag credentials were just too overwhelming for Trump to resist.
Was going to post this, but saw the source “America first” and lack of any journalistic credentials and decided not to. This is why. I’m reading from the pieces she screenshot, so anyone can verify themselves.
The article doesn’t actually say they’ve abandoned the race. A quote from both their groups spokespeople said that they’re conserving resources to use right before voting for the runoff starts. Same strategy Stratton used to success. It’s correct that those groups haven’t spent any money yet and either side may be lying, so maybe they do give up on boosting Cornyn, but as of now, there’s no way we can credibly say that.
It also doesn’t say that Trump won’t endorse Cornyn. It specifically states he’s not endorsing until after the Save ACT gets passed (it won’t, but hell hold it out until Republicans get the spine to tell him it’s dead). So he’s not saying he won’t ever endorse Cornyn, he’s holding it hostage until he gets his way. There’s also the possibility he doesn’t endorse too, which wouldn’t exactly be good for Cornyn either.
Ohh shit, I thought it was Caroline Wren of Politico. That's Adam not Caroline.
You didn't have to therefore delete the post...
It would be misinformation.
Edit posts in an obvious way, like with text in square brackets, rather than deleting them if people have replied to them, unless they are, for example, illegal or libelous. We've been through this before many times...
So last night the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a funding bill for the TSA without additional funds for ICE. What are the odds Mike Johnson stalls it or Trump vetoes it?
Isn't that pretty much what the Democrats have been pushing for this whole time?
Yes, which means Dems WON. Plus, the hours long lines at airports like ATL and HOB/IAH during springtime highlighted that travelers blamed TRUMP, not Democrats, for the TSA agents not being paid.
Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY) even went as far as to make up a fake encounter where an airport worker reportedly told him it was the fault of the Democrats.
I would love to see this blue tsunami wash that POS out too.
No can do since he's running for Senate. He'll either lose that primary or win the general, because Kentucky isn't flipping statewide in a federal race just yet, I think.
Not really. They wanted ICE reforms (no mask, no picking people up at random). However, they've always offered to fund TSA while the partial shutdown continued. So in that sense it's a win. A complete victory would be restrictions on ICE.
The funds are there from the BBB and "potentially" from a second reconciliation bill, although count me highly skeptical they manage to thread that needle with their bare majority.
But I think with airport lines getting that long and the salience of Minneapolis fading from the public, this was as good as one could hope for.
I heard it first here Thank you!
MoCs were looking at being in regular TSA lines during their own spring breaks, and some of the airports struggling the most are in red states, which is why the GOP folded.
"For when lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentler gamester is the soonest winner." From Shakespeare's Henry V. Not sure about soonest, but the polls sure show people turning away from the current cruelty.
While I love the theory of that quote being what’s happening, it ain’t cruelty that’s turning voters off Trump. It’s cruelty towards THEM that’s making them upset. Them and their family or friends. They didn’t give 1 second of care what happened to other people during Trump 1, but now that they’re the ones suffering, that’s when they broke away.
I’ll take it because it helps Democrats, but they aren’t suddenly creating a wave of morality in the country where people value good, it’s only because they’re getting hit with the bad this time too.
I think that's the point, though I'd have to go back to the play for the actual context. Leaders who are cruel will eventually show their cruelty to everyone. There are no favorites. Trump embodies that. The people will turn. Should they have turned earlier? Ofc. But a cruel will not stand forever.
Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.), 62, chair of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, is retiring from Congress after 23 years, POLITICO reports.
He got a waiver to chair the committee for one more term this Congress (GOP has three-term term limits), so he was about to become a backbencher, probably in the minority
26 years, not 23
I was born and raised in the rural areas of this district in northwest Missouri. I don't have nice things to say about Sam Graves, except that he was a more traditional Republican who occasionally tried to bring funds to his district. Having spent a great deal of time around rural folk in this area, I can assure you Graves' replacement will be far worse.
"You might not agree with me and say I'm stuck in my ways and past my prime, but these people coming up behind me have no principles, utterly no principles at all, and will stop at nothing"- Senator Richard Russell to LBJ after passage of Voting Rights Act of 65 (allegedly)
Of course, that quote was definitely wrong, Sam Nunn and Max Cleland were the next 2 senators in that seat and I wouldn’t describe either of them in that way.
I remember Nunn. I looked him up out of curiosity. He's still alive at 87.
And David Gambrell, who was appointed to the seat after Russell died, only recently died himself.
Hell, I would even say Saxby Chambliss had more principles compared to David Perdue. And Jon Ossoff is probably the best person that seat has ever elected.
How so on Chambliss and Perdue?
Chambliss was more bipartisan and statesman-like than Perdue - he was in the Gang of 10, opposed Obama drone striking innocent civilians, and participated in other bipartisan legislation. Perdue was a hardline conservative that pretty much never did anything outside of Republican politics, and now he's in the Trump administration.
i believe the point of the quote was the old dixecrat guard versus the new republicans that basically held the same atrocious views on civil rights but also hated social programs for whites, a la gingrich trent lott etc
My exact thoughts. He was a conservative Republican but at heart an institutionalist. I worry when all of the Republicans who essentially respect the Constitution are replaced by Matt Gaetz clones. National gerrymander reform is badly needed to prevent the country from suffering permanent policy whiplash every 4 years and democratic backsliding.
It's needed, but I don't see it preventing voters from voting out the party in power when there's a little inflation or something. Germans have so far refused to give AfD a plurality, while Americans don't care if the main opposition party they elect is a bunch of corrupt, violent fascists.
But that supports my point; if Germany's Parliament was arranged akin to the House's gerrymandered seats, AfD would be well on its way to government control.
What doesn't support your point is that Trump got close to 50% of the vote nationwide, something no AfD candidate for Chancellor has ever come close to.
We don't have a multiparty Parliamentary system. If AfD and the CDU were combined they'd get an easy majority.
I remember back in 2000 when Graves won the seat against Democrat Steve Danner, son of long-time Democratic Representative Pat Danner. It was considerable a battleground that cycle. It certainly hasn't stayed that way in the 26 years since.
In 2008, I knocked doors for Kay Barnes (even though I lived in midtown KC, MO-05). Obama was a firestorm, and I thought it might at least be close..... oh well.
Buchanan county is worse now, but Clay and Platte could make this race interesting (like high single digits).
Bill Clinton won the district twice. Since I happened to have the 1986 Almanac of American Politics handy, I can confirm that even Walter Mondale only lost the district 61-39. Republican Tom Coleman, who represented the district from 1976-1992, is a sporadic guest on MSNBC now.
(Also, I have the 1976 almanac handy too, and McGovern lost the district 67-33, while Nixon won it 49-41).
Danner served in Congress for 8 years - wouldn't exactly call her longtime
Democrats in California…please unite behind the leading Democrat candidate for Governor. We don’t need to split the Democrat vote and help Republicans take the Governorship!!! This is how we continually screw our voters and our party.
What has caused this current perceived problem is we have 2 equally polling Republicans and there isn't a leading Democrat. We still have over a month before ballots drop for the primaries, and my assumption is most of the undecided (like me) will vote Democratic. I'm also of the opinion that most people who support the 0-5 percentage crowd will realize they aren't viable and support a candidate that is.
I also suspect there may be shifting between the two Republicans as we get closer to election day.
I have a little bit of angst, but I still think we will have one Democrat and one Republican advance to the general and the Democrat will win decisively.
I really would like a viable candidate debate to help me decide.
Well said. I would add that I expect very few Democrats to vote before late May.
BTW, Paul Mitchell's simulator currently only gives the chance of an R v. R top two as 19.6%. I think that will be way down by late May.
I think a lot of people are waiting to do that. It isn't even clear who the two leading Democrats are.
Porter and Swalwell. Anyone else is just noise.
I thought Swalwell and Porter were pretty well ahead of most of the pack in most of the polling no?
In the last three polls (all high quality), looking at just the leading Democrats, Swalwell was 1st, 3rd and 2nd; Porter was 3rd, 1st, and 1st; while Steyer was 2nd, 2nd and 3rd. Average percent of three polls: Swalwell 12.67%; Porter 11%; and Steyer 11%.
In short, we have three candidates who are virtually tied and certainly so within the margin or error.
there are three leading Dems: Porter, Steyer, and Swalwell. I am undecided as between the 1st two.
Same here. I wish we could use ranked choice.
Good, I'm glad there's someone else who is not a Swalwell fan.
I am the opposite, as in unwilling to support Steyer or Porter (only in the primary, of course). Don't get me wrong, Swalwell's history as a prosecutor isn't really great. I really hope that difference doesn't bode poorly for the election.
I low-key hoped Bacerra would be doing better at this point. Alas...
https://punchbowl.news/article/campaigns/degette-risk/
CO-1: 30-year Rep. Diana DeGette (D) has a real chance of being kicked off of the ballot tonight at the caucus.
I hope this happens, for no other reason than to continue the process of waking the Democratic Party up.
Is this good or bad?
Good, if you're like bpfish and I
If this happens, is Melat Kiros any good?
A substantial upgrade, yes. Probably in the same vein as current Progressive Caucus members like Jayapal or Casar. DeGette is pretty corporate and establishment, and recently had a rough go-around with a constituent regarding the forbidden issue.
Just curious, what makes DeGette bad? She’s a progressive too and she isn’t that old, she’s still in her 60s.
Even though she's not as old as some of the other Reps. being targeted, she's been in office since 1997, which can calcify your approach to politics.
Bernie Sanders has been in office since 1990. And yet the usual suspects above will insist that he can do no wrong.
To be fair, just because it /can/ happen doesn't mean it /does/ happen to every politician who's been in office long enough. I am not reflexively pro-Bernie, but I think his ability to connect with younger voters even as an octogenarian indicates he does not have the same problem that is plaguing DeGette this cycle.
I thought Bernie shouldn’t have run in 2024 and I don’t think he should run again. Anyone who has been in Washington since the Clinton impeachment should hang it up.
Bernie Sanders sets the tone of the national political debate unlike these octogenarians and he absolutely should retire after this term.
What exact votes has she taken that people have an issue with?
I’m not reflexively anti-experience. Is there anything that she has a bad position on? Does she have bad constituent services? Or is it just someone challenging a rep who has gotten too comfortable and is vulnerable to an energetic challenger (nothing wrong with that either, just curious).
I won't pretend to know specifically, it very well could just be the latter.
A confrontation with a constituent regarding the forbidden issue is not a bad thing, unless you literally believe that any dissent on that issue from your own personal position is unacceptable.
And while we can't talk about that issue here, you need to stop automatically assuming that everyone here has the same position on it that you do.
The way DeGette reacted in the confrontation should be enough to discredit her. I'm not pushing my views on anyone by saying why people may not like her.
Tbh, I think it's overblown. They weren't fully informed and they weren't there to have a conversation with her, and them just walking out on her in the middle of a sentence is snotty and immature. DeGette was being quite responsive to them, and they were there to cause a scene and not ask her questions.
DeGette is one of the most effective at the actual job of legislating--good at passing bills, a strong questioner in committee and one of the best at parliamentary procedure to preside over complex debates. And still, yes, someone could be even more left than her (she's somewhat to the left of the median of House Dems, but not the farthest). If Kiros is like an Ayanna Pressley replacing Mike Capuano (who I gather was an amazing rep with good constituent services and even more progressive than DeGette) at being farther left while being similarly effective at the actual business of Congress, that would be great. If she's planning to just vote as left as she can, while not cooperating with colleagues and strive to be as good on constituent services, passing legislation, committee work and understanding the floor, then the win won't mean as much long term. All sort of suppositional, but this perception that DeGette is just a sort of do nothing lifer (like, say, Yvette Clarke) or snotty centrist (like a Steve Lynch) seems pretty off base.
I agree with you for the most part, and I do think the confrontation points DeGette in an unnecessary bad light, but Capuano was really only a social progressive and was a self-described "fiscal conservative", and didn't represent his district adequately compared to Pressley (it became majority-minority). Also, he literally called himself a "Washington insider" in attempt to make him sound like the Kennedys at one point. Not a good look to voters that want someone that isn't a career politician.
Has Julius edited his reply? I don’t see him trying to generalize, speak for others, or criticize dissent.
“Recently had a rough go-around with a constituent regarding the forbidden issue”—that’s his perspective. He’s allowed to disagree with DeGette’s stance, just as you’re allowed to disagree with Kiros’s stance.
Also Jayapal... was a terrible CPC chair.
Disagree there.
Sure lol
Hot take, but limiting the say voters have as to who is on their primary ballot is bad
Also DeGette hasn't really done anything wrong, and I'm very tired of this drive to primary every person who has been in congress for a while. DeGette isn't even 70.
Agree with your hot take but I don't think DeGette is living up to the standards we should be setting for members, regardless of her age
https://fox4kc.com/news/kansas-city-councilman-addresses-rumors-regarding-potential-run-for-congress/
MO-6: Kansas City councilman Nate Willett and businessman Jim Ingram are the first candidates looking to succeed Rep. Sam Graves.
Willett is the only conservative/republican on City Council in KC. He votes no on everything. I thought he was already running for State Senate District 34, but I suppose he could drop out to run for congress.
Who else north of Kansas City could run?
Maybe Cindy O'Laughlin the senate majority leader?
Just a reminder that there are No Kings protests across the country tomorrow.
I am planning on attending the one in downtown Los Angeles and coordinating the protest with senior rush tickets to the Los Angeles Philharmonic's matinee performance and a visit to the Broad art museum.
going to the jersey city one with my brother and girlfriend
Going to one of the ones in NCWV with my mom
Where?
Haven't decided on going to the big one in Morgantown or one of the smaller ones in Fairmont, Clarksburg, etc. Probably Morgantown
I've been to almost all of these but unfortunately figure to miss this one. A cousin is having his bar mitzvah tomorrow, with a reception following.
Yeah, bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs are hard to avoid if you have those in your family or know those well. Especially when boys and girls are making speeches.
I didn't want to avoid it and flew to San Francisco specifically in order to be there! Otherwise, I would go to the No Kings march in New York.
Closer to where I live although I’m across the bay. That said, I’m a xennial Reform Jew and typically go to Congregation Emanu-El (the largest synagogue in San Francisco) and social events by the Oshman JCC in the Peninsula and South Bay.
Any bar mitzvahs and bay mitzvahs I’ve attended have been in Berkeley.
I went to Emanu-El for morning services on the 1st day of Rosh Hashanah last year. Beautiful synagogue, nice service.
Glad you did! Its the largest synagogue I've been to and when I was younger ended up attending the Young Adults at Emanu-El Late Shabbat once every month. Rabbi Jonathan Singer was the one I recall meeting at one point back in 2019.
Out of all the synagogues, Emanu-El has probably the tightest security I've ever seen. Putting that aside, the architecture of the synagogue is incredible.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/27/newsom-to-sign-order-banning-insider-prediction-market-bets-for-state-officials-00847938
Gavin Newsom is signing an executive order banning state officials from betting in the political. Good.
Rare Newsom W
You can dislike Newsome. That is a totally reasonable position. But he has had some real Ws lately. (SB79, for example).
I see that Raffensberger is gunning for Coward of the Year by launching an insidious and transphobic attack ad to try and save his faltering campaign.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/27/sheila-cherfilus-mccormick-guilty-ethics-00848019
FL-20: Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick is guilty of House Ethics violations. Love this for her. Please let Elijah Manley take her seat.
I saw someone on Bluesky also suggest that Rep. Cory Mills also be expelled with Sheila, owing to his own litany of scandals and ethics violations. If he is found guilty, I think he should -- that way, we could also say we're willing to use Congressional tools in a bipartisan fashion against those who violate them (not that the GOP particularly cares.)
It would probably be unprecedented for two members to be expelled at once. Not sure, though - I know George Santos, Jim Traficant and Mike Myers are the only ones in recent history, dating back to Myers in 1980.
Those three are literally the only ones to be expelled since the the Civil War (in the past people had the decency to resign before they were expelled). There was something like 7 expelled together in 1861 for supporting the Confederacy (the rest of the southern members had already resigned).
The political desire is to have parity between the parties on expelling flagrantly criminal/unethical members (tbh SCC would probably be paired with Gonzales in such a scenario), but obviously current House Repubs in the majority are craven and have no reason to do that. If anything, I think they would procedurally want to go thru the grinding Ethics process of rising all the way to forming an adjudicatory subcommittee with a similarly damning public hearing before trying to expel members. (Ofc Ethics says their jurisdiction ends with the term of a member, so no almost chance of the Gonzales investigative subcommittee moving to that stage, let alone if they'll even get to make recommendations before his term ends).
Can a bill be proposed expelling both of them together? In other words, both or neither.
First polling I've seen for CT 1st Congressional District Primary against Incumbent John Larson
This is Larson Internal poll. Poll was fielded in late January by GQR. Only released now. 400 Likely Dem Primary Voters. Crosstabs not included
John Larson (Inc.) - 49%
Luke Bronin - 26%
Jillian Gilchrest - 9%
Undecided 15%
Though Larson has a lead, he is below a majority in his internal. Also no one has been up on the airwaves yet, and former Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin had more than $1 million cash-on-hand so that could change it up the race. Debates haven't happened yet, the primary will be in August.
One competitor against him, former Hartford Board of Ed Member Ruth Fortune was not included in this polling.
Candidates are likely focused on the May Convention, where delegates formally endorse a candidate. So candidates have been running to the 27 towns in the district's Democratic Town Committees. That candidate will receive top billing on the ballot in the August primary. Candidates need 15% of delegates to make the ballot, and to avoid CT's fairly difficult signature-gathering process. This can make the field smaller.
https://www.wtnh.com/news/elections/rep-john-larson-projects-confidence-with-new-poll/
Larson might face a tough challenge in a one-on-one race. But with a split field against him, he's strongly favored to win his primary.
Agreed - if any of his challengers wanted a chance, two of them should drop out. Probably Fortune and Gilchrest, leaving Bronin as the sole candidate.
That depends on whether Fortune and Gilchrest want to act like California Democratic gubernatorial candidates.
I don't think they will – Larson is a liberal, Bronin is a moderate while Gilchrest is M4A and Abolish ICE progressive.
There isn't a consensus.
I agree! As it stands Larson wins easily in a split field. The convention might make the field smaller. Fortune is most likely to have trouble making the ballot. Gilchrest tho is the wild factor, she said she's going all the way, despite low fundraising. She's from one of the larger towns in the district and will take a chunk of the vote if she's on the ballot. If she's not on the ballot and it becomes a 1v1 than I expect a closer race.
I'm back. I managed to get my emotions under enough control to be able to post in a stable manner. I probably will not post as much as I used to though, as I think the amount of times I posted was making me get too angry here and take everything too personally. I'll thus make an effort to also avoid engaging with anything that riles me up too much.
Anyway, might as well share some things I saw that I didn't see people post here (I haven't been posting but I have been reading posts).
PA-03:
https://whyy.org/articles/philadelphia-progressives-endorse-chris-rabb-congress/
State Rep. Chris Rabb has been endorsed by a series of progressive groups, including the Working Families Party and the DSA.
MO-06:
https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/missouri-us-rep-sam-graves-retire-igniting-race-open-gop-seat
A couple more candidates expressed interest in the recently-vacated seat of Rep. Sam Graves. Those being radio host Chris Stigall (who is already in), and State Rep. Mazzie Christenson (who is considering).
In general:
https://boltsmag.org/whats-on-the-ballot/guide-to-elections-in-april-2026/
Bolts Magazine is out with their 40 elections to watch this April. I recommend reading it, as there's some interesting races in there (including a ton of school board races and some mayoral ones -- plus some Wisconsin court races other than the SC race that haven't gotten as much attention.)
Curious to know if anyone has any thoughts on any of this.
What is it with radio hosts running for Congress this cycle in particular? Aaron Flint in MT-1, Carey Coleman in OH-13, Chris Stigall in MO-6.
Media personalities have effectively run the GOP since the early 90s so why not just make it even more official than Trump did
Josh Kimbrell for SC gov
Imho, the analyses from Bolts Magazine are always good – and Bolts is a great complement to The DownBallot.
Glad to see you back
FWIW, I didn’t really ever see you responding in that type of manner, though maybe I missed it. The important thing though is to take care of yourself, however that looks and whatever that means. You know yourself best so just do whatever you feel you need to in order to be healthy. Glad to see you back though and wishing you positive/healing thoughts for the distress you’ve been feeling.
I have a love-hate relationship with Rachel Bitecofer (who likes to fearmonger a lot on Xitter), but she wrote a really good analysis of the incoming blue wave (and ranked vulnerable House seats into three tiers).
https://thecycle.substack.com/p/so-much-winning
Wish she did an analysis on state legislative seats flipping too.
Would move Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Jared Golden and Ryan Zinke into Tier 2, then Kevin Kiley, Ken Calvert (under new map for both), Marie Glusenkamp Perez, Scott Perry and Derrick Van Orden into Tier 1. Maybe even some in Tier 2 to Tier 1 ATP too.
The font in her tables and diagrams are so tiny they’re unreadable to me.
Did you scroll down to see her explain each of the categories? The boxes are a bit bigger.
That helps. Thanks!
Rschel Bitcoffer is our Robert Cahaly. Absolutely horrific political acumen, grossly overestimates our performance most cycles, and relies on being right one time several cycles ago to justify her predictions.
We'll see how off she is after November 3rd.
Yeah, but I think if she's right, it's really just because it's a wave and she'll grift to claim victory based on she raw calls and directionality regardless of how off she is on margins and underlying conditions that led to the results (as is her propensity). The issue is that her base understanding of how things work is fundamentally wrong, and so her reasons to point to for the wave wins will almost inevitably be wrong too. I just wouldn't pay attention to her commentary when there are so many more effective people to read.
Pretty much. He adds Republicans to his samples until it feels right to him. She doesn't sample, but she basically adds Democrats until it feels right to her.
Interesting article, although I’m not especially convinced Alabama is in any particular danger for the GOP.
I don't think Alabama or Arkansas is in danger of flipping blue.
Just because we like what she has to say about what her prediction is for November doesn’t mean she’s someone trustworthy for election analysis. She was right in 2018. She probably will be mostly right in 2026 too, but she got every other election in between wrong and is a partisan cheerleader who always has Democrats doing the best result possible.
That’s not valuable, any single one of us could do the exact same thing with a better accuracy and more informed opinions. I trust people election analysis wise who either have done it long term in their specific respective states (MCIMapper FL, umichvoter NJ, Chaz Nuttycombe VA, fat_ugly_rat James TX etc) or lesser trust, but more than the average analyst for people who produce their own data (G Elliott Morris substack, Zach Donini votehub etc). They sometimes get things wrong, but far more often are right and can detect things well before anyone else.
For a recent example, umich was the election person I saw online who first saw Mejia as having a chance in the NJ-11 special election after a batch of votes went to Mejia by an unexpected margin in Bloomfield when most organizations had already called it for Malinowski. Or Chaz’s organization showing a poll with Mikie Sherrill up double digits in NJ when many others showed a tight nailbiter. Or GEM advocating for and noticing that Democrats didn’t need to move right on immigration, that Trump’s actions were souring the public on his strongest political issue well before most punditry caught up to public opinion and well before the ICE murders.
These are the kinds of valuable contributions to electoral analysis, data and elections. Rachel Bitecofer and those types imo, are not.
What did she say in 2024? My memory is of her getting that one right but maybe it was selective consumption of her material.
She said it was a Tossup, advantage Harris a few weeks before the election, but up until then it was Harris who was favoured. But her House predictions are way off in these years too. I don’t trust her to be a serious source of data analysis. Her entire theory of politics today is factually wrong.
There are still swing voters and they matter A LOT in elections. There’s no mistaking special elections where Republican electorate Trump +15-30 seats voted for Democrats as a country with no swing voters.
The thing about elections are: everyone has their own line of what they’re willing to tolerate in government before becoming available to the opposition. For most swing voters it’s the economy negatively hurting them when they start to turn away. So different factors change, when, one cycle they’re partisan only voters, to another where they’re swing.
I’m not going to bore you with a list of all the possibilities. In 2024 there were swing voters as more Democrats and Independemts crossed over to vote GOP. Now, it’s Republican voters swinging more to Democrats. So if she’s basing all of her predictions on one of the most bizarre theories I’ve ever seen, I don’t think it’s a reliable parameter to give her predictions more than a second thought.
Her predictions mean a little more than nothing, but way less than something put a different way.
David Valadao is one with whom I struggle. He seems to have that magic sauce in the valley.
But he has lost before, its certainly not impossible.
Considering his district is bluer compared to his 2010s district, and both of his potential opponents are MUCH stronger than TJ Cox, I doubt Valadao will survive
"The fact college-educated workers recognize they have more in common with the working class (and in many cases, are themselves part of the working class) rather than the managers of capital is very promising for left politics https://nytimes.com/2026/03/27/business/college-graduates-economy-unemployment-.html
https://x.com/petersterne/status/2037562238349758717"
Because we are working-class!
A Cole County Circuit Court has ruled that the new Missouri congressional map is not suspended by the mere submission of ballot initiative signatures to pause and vote on the redistricting plan.
https://x.com/redistrictnet/status/2037582008310755566?s=46&t=sbdQQeYBqp0h_Zql717iTw
Obviously, will be appealed
after that stinker of a ruling the other day, i think we might have to wait until we hopefully win the referrundum
Terrible ruling not only for fate of the gerrymander but for the citizen initiative petition process in Missouri. Also goes against precedent. I hope it's overturned, but I doubt it will be.
What baffles me the most about these current Republican gerrymanders is that the maps were already gerrymandered before the redraws for this election...Missouri should have 3 safely Democratic seats, not 1 or 2.
https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::af90240c-ef91-48b9-b1f3-fb5d4a12f7e3
For example, here's a map I drew in about 5 minutes that is VRA compliant, compact, and has 3 safe Democratic seats.
I don't think MO's court is as conservative as the Cole County courts.
Oh. It is. I have practiced in both courts.
BUT, this is more of a procedural ruling. It did not address the merits of the case. There will be further litigation that has a real chance of success.