It seems like it's going to barely pass. Democrats love voting for things that seem pro-voting, pro-democracy, pro-good-government, etc., and I doubt most of them are thinking about how this could enable all-Republican general elections in solidly blue House seats.
From trying to convince people it's a bad idea, I have to say that I agree. A lot of people have responded, "well I see your point, but I'm still going to vote for it because more choice is good" or something to that effect.
Brian Fitzpatrick has paid a supporter, who was also at his wedding, to write inflammatory articles about Bob Harvie that the Fitzpatrick campaign has cited as sources in its negative ads against Bob. The Fitzpatrick supporter was also arrested for trafficking in protected turtles.
Calling Fitzpatrick's supporter here a fake is not correct, as he personally knows Fitz and was at Fitz's wedding to the Faux News anchor. But regarding the level of how low this is in terms of campaigning, this line in the Politico article, I think, summarizes it the best.
"Campaigns around the country have drawn scrutiny for leaning on articles in their campaign materials from partisan sources or that misrepresent their origin — but rarely are they citing sources that have such direct ties to the candidate".
I have a question for any SF posters, or just anyone who knows.
I’ve noticed a tendency for NIMBY types in SF to be on the left, while YIMBY types tend to be on the relative right. Not universal, mind you, but it is interesting compared to NY, where it’s the opposite - conservative NIMBYs and left YIMBYs.
Why is this the case? Is there a history of NIMBYism being on the left in SF? Are there ideological reasons why this is the case? I’m interested to know why SF is the inverse of cities like NY where affordable housing is a big left thing.
answering on behalf of California, not just SF. YIMBY/NIMBY has scrambled the typical left/right politics. Your average 50+ homeowner is a NIMBY and if they live in SF or West LA they're also a common or garden variety Democrat. Your average apartment dweller is young, YIMBY, angry, and quite possibly a DSA member -- but also possibly a young MAGAt.
I was looking at a cursory glance. I know there are some left NIMBYs like Brad Hoylman and I believe Jumaane Williams. I just felt like I’d seen this more in SF, where there are/were left NIMBYs like Connie Chan and Dean Preston and some centrist YIMBYs like Scott Wiener. I can definitely see where there’s a mix though — see: the Joel Engardio recall.
This is why I bristle at the term NIMBY. It dehumanizes the accused, who has a lot to lose, while bestowing an artificial moral high ground to the accuser who has no skin in the game.
No skin in the game meaning what? Do you think you have to own a house to have the right to affordable housing? Renters and homeless people have "no skin" in your game and can go to Hell?
I'm not talking about housing units. Where I'm from, NIMBY is more commonly spoken in reference to corporate energy and ag developments becoming your new, unwelcome neighbor.
Nimby/yimby cuts across political spectrums and both sides have some valid points. Every policy isn't clear cut. And I would say there are plenty of left leaning/wing nimby folks in NY. I'm often one of them.
It's easy to make this to be a typical NIMBY vs. YIMBY debate but the reality is that it's not so black and white.
If you go as far back to when Willie Brown was Mayor of San Francisco, who pushed pro-development policies in the city decades in the making. Traditionally speaking, those considered "NIMBYs" in San Francisco are both renters and homeowners, not just homeowners.
The real NIMBYs that YIMBYs fight against are homeowners in wealthy parts of SF like the Marina, Sea Cliff, etc. who argue that any new housing development in their neighborhood ruins the character, blocks their views, etc.
However, renters in neighborhoods like the Mission have a history of fighting against housing developments because of the following reasons:
-They will create a ripple effect of unwanted redevelopment in general (not just housing) that could force them out of their homes due to landlords jacking up rent just to get higher paying tenants. Throughout the 2000's and 2010's there were plenty of such renters. Most of them had income even less than most YIMBYs these days who live in SF.
-Gentrifying neighborhoods where small businesses like cafes, restaurnts and nail salons are forced out due to no fault of their own.
-Wealthier tenants are more able to afford market rate housing, even if politicians like State Senator Scott Weiner argue that the goal of such housing is not to appeal to the wealthy.
-State laws like the Costa Hawkins Act and the Ellis Act. Landlords in San Francisco have typically used these laws to get out of the apartment rental business. They've also taken measures to evict tenants like filing applications to state in-laws would be moving in, which as it turns out ended up being mostly fraudulent.
YIMBYs in San Francisco certainly are renters but since the tech boom in the 2010's, I've observed they primarily work in tech or white collar professions. There are those with the YIMBY philosophy who didn't grow up wealthy but I'm not convinced that's the case with all YIMBYs.
Being that I'm neither NIMBY or YIMBY and also a native-born San Franciscan, my views are a hybrid of both worlds.
I definitely see the problem. Thanks all. We actually had a debate like this in my hometown of Chappaqua NY. They wanted to pass something known as the form-based code, basically changing the zoning (as I recall) to allow for more development such as affordable housing. While much of the opposition was indeed about affordable housing, I opposed the code due to concerns that it was a Trojan horse for big businesses (e.g. chain stores and restaurants) to replace the primarily (although not exclusively) local businesses in town. So I get it.
I wish there were rent regulations in New York City that helped long-standing small businesses to avoid being suddenly priced out, but I don't think that makes me a NIMBY.
Yes, that's where balance is helpful in the housing debate.
In Berkeley, for months now there's been pushback by residents in or near the Thousand Oaks neighborhood over the up zoning proposal City Council is floating as a way to solve the housing crisis. This neighborhood happens to be where Kamala Harris' elementary school, Thousand Oaks Elementary, is located and is for the most part upper middle class as far as home ownership is concerned.
Turns out most of the pushback has more to do with supporting small businesses and ensuring they are not dealing with adverse effects as a result of what upzoning could do.
I’ve been seeing many, many ads attacking Tom Suozzi, and some attacking Laura Gillen lately. I’m getting nervous, because I am not seeing as much of the opposite, and Long Island has been trending rightward as of late. (For example, Bruce Blakeman won re election for Nassau County Exec in last year’s blue environment, and I recall it not being close.)
Could Suozzi and/or Gillen go down even in this environment, or is the environment too blue for them to lose? I do think if Gillen survives, she’ll lose in a more GOP-friendly year, maybe even 2028 depending on what the environment looks like, as she’s a weak candidate who if I recall correctly, bungled the congestion pricing response. Thoughts?
I feel like the environment is too blue for them to lose unless they completely forgo doing any actual campaigning because of it and get too comfortable. Gillen's opponent has barely raised any money however, and even Suozzi's has only raised a fifth of his total.
I have seen those ads, yes. Maybe I’m just seeing more anti Suozzi ads myself. I don’t know.
I do see the points made that these seats aren’t especially vulnerable now. I still think Gillen may eventually go down but if this really is a D+10-15 environment, both are likely safe then. Thanks for the feedback again all.
Blakeman at the top of the ticket could be concerning for that area but my guess is they both win with a decent margin. I'd be more worried in a red leaning year if their seats are basically the same.
Very interesting article in Bolts Magazine about the LA City Attorney race. The scandal plagued incumbent Hydee Feldstein Soto didn’t make the runoff, and there will now be a contest between left wing Marissa Roy, and tough-on-crime type John McKinney. The DSA and other left groups are backing the former, while DA Nathan Hochman and several police groups are backing the latter. Worth a read.
TX-23: Republican nominee Brandon Herrera said in a resurfaced 2022 clip that COVID should have targeted fat people.
This seat reminds me of NC-11 in a few ways. Large and expansive, predominantly rural conservative with a few blue dots, has similar partisanship, both home to a national park based in a mountain range. But both traded terrible representation for garbage representation. Cawthorn to Edwards and Gonzales to Herrera.
It’s interesting this topic is brought up because I’m actually heading to a funeral of a 67 year-old good girlfriend of mine who was severely obese and contracted Covid six years ago and it totally destroyed her body. She was on a ventilator for five days in 2020. With her lungs and heart being severely damaged, it led to her death just a few weeks ago.
AL-Gov - An anti-Tuberville group (not the Jones campaign) put up a billboard along Interstate 59 in the Birmingham metro comparing the data center boom to Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman burning Atlanta during the Civil War:
I see folks fretting about lower-than-expected Dem polling in CA, MN, OR, and elsewhere. I imagine we'll win all of the key races (well, maybe not OR-Gov...) by normal margins, but the "Dem incumbent penalty" is real. Speaking from the CA perspective, the waves don't hit as hard because everyone knows which party has controlled the state for decades, so it's harder to point fingers at Republicans broadly the way you can in OH, IA, etc.. The danger of losing is lower, but the waves don't crest as high either. I imagine Xaiver will win by 20-24 pts, which you wouldn't expect given the D+10 polls. And yet, Peltola and Sherrod will overperform their states' baselines by 15% at the same time.
A concern I have about Oregon is if we lose the Gov seat, and especially if we lose some of the legislature, we can kiss a new congressional map goodbye. Maybe even worry about a GOP-friendly one, worst case scenario. (Not that that’s particularly likely, mind you, just something to consider.)
We won’t lose the governor seat. This has been an ongoing thing since 2006. The closest call came in 2010, but even then Kitzhaber managed to win due to late counted votes out of Portland. The Republican brand is just too toxic for Lane and Multnomah counties.
Even longer. Apart from 1998, every gubernatorial election since 1986 has been decided by single digits, which happens to be the same amount of time Democrats have occupied the office (Kotek, Brown, Kitzhaber, Kulongoski, Roberts and Goldschmidt).
That includes the blue-leaning years of 1990, 2006 and 2018.
New Marquette Law School Poll of Wisconsin finds that in the race for governor, Democrat David Crowley is supported by 49% of likely voters and Republican Tom Tiffany is supported by 46%, with 5% undecided.
TX-Sen: Ken Paxton got some unhelpful coverage from Charlie White, known as penguinz0 online, a commentator on a variety of topics with over 18 million subscribers. White pointed out Paxton's lenient prosecution of attorney Adam Hoffman, who sexually assaulted a young boy and spent 29 days in jail.
White is a beloved online figure particularly with Gen Z, who find his commentary entertaining and boisterous yet thoughtful.
Can't pretend to be too fond of him, but he's definitely popular among not-super-political 18-25 men, and this might just get a few additional people to vote against Paxton.
Would help out if he touched on the corruption of his home state politicians Ashley Moody and Ron DeSantis. But in all fairness we have a better shot in Texas.
TX-Sen: So apparently there was an internal poll done by Talarico that also includes Senate and Gov numbers for Texas Congressional District 9. This was Al Green's old district that Republicans changed. According to The Downballot (https://www.the-downballot.com/p/texas-republicans-pass-new-gerrymander), the old district was 71-27 Harris (2024), 76-23 Biden (2020). The new district is 59-40 Trump (2024), 54-45 Trump (2020).
According to the internal Sen: Paxton 48% - Talarico 47%; Gov: Abbott 48% - Hinojosa 47%.
Getting nervous about Question 3 passing in MA. How likely is it it succeed?
It seems like it's going to barely pass. Democrats love voting for things that seem pro-voting, pro-democracy, pro-good-government, etc., and I doubt most of them are thinking about how this could enable all-Republican general elections in solidly blue House seats.
From trying to convince people it's a bad idea, I have to say that I agree. A lot of people have responded, "well I see your point, but I'm still going to vote for it because more choice is good" or something to that effect.
While it effectively limits the choice to two candidates and in some cases the majority of voters choices are denied. ugh.
Not to mention that unlike a normal primary, strategic voting is sometimes necessary to avoid a lock-out.
Have been writing a lot of post cards for state house races in Missouri, glad to hear the work I am doing can help end the gerrymandering there.
New Development in PA-01
Brian Fitzpatrick has paid a supporter, who was also at his wedding, to write inflammatory articles about Bob Harvie that the Fitzpatrick campaign has cited as sources in its negative ads against Bob. The Fitzpatrick supporter was also arrested for trafficking in protected turtles.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/30/brian-fitzpatrick-attack-ads-01098450
What's with Republicans hiring fake supporters? This guy, the one that attacked Amy Acton, Joe the Plumber.
To be fair, Chuck Schumer has the Baileys on his side.
Calling Fitzpatrick's supporter here a fake is not correct, as he personally knows Fitz and was at Fitz's wedding to the Faux News anchor. But regarding the level of how low this is in terms of campaigning, this line in the Politico article, I think, summarizes it the best.
"Campaigns around the country have drawn scrutiny for leaning on articles in their campaign materials from partisan sources or that misrepresent their origin — but rarely are they citing sources that have such direct ties to the candidate".
The trafficking in protected turtles is the little cherry on top that makes this an amazing story
Yeah, as a turtle owner I hope other advocates for animal rights in Bucks County keep this in mind.
Is Fitzpatrick really trying to lose the election at this point?
Yup he is!
A news source called Raw Story picked up the article and literally titled it:
"GOP candidate's ads traced to felon turtle trafficker who went to his wedding: report"
PETA is going to hammer Fitzpatrick over this.
I don't think I've ever seen a campaign ad from PETA. Do they ever do those, and if so, do they manage to seem reasonable?
I have a question for any SF posters, or just anyone who knows.
I’ve noticed a tendency for NIMBY types in SF to be on the left, while YIMBY types tend to be on the relative right. Not universal, mind you, but it is interesting compared to NY, where it’s the opposite - conservative NIMBYs and left YIMBYs.
Why is this the case? Is there a history of NIMBYism being on the left in SF? Are there ideological reasons why this is the case? I’m interested to know why SF is the inverse of cities like NY where affordable housing is a big left thing.
answering on behalf of California, not just SF. YIMBY/NIMBY has scrambled the typical left/right politics. Your average 50+ homeowner is a NIMBY and if they live in SF or West LA they're also a common or garden variety Democrat. Your average apartment dweller is young, YIMBY, angry, and quite possibly a DSA member -- but also possibly a young MAGAt.
Are you sure about New York?
I was looking at a cursory glance. I know there are some left NIMBYs like Brad Hoylman and I believe Jumaane Williams. I just felt like I’d seen this more in SF, where there are/were left NIMBYs like Connie Chan and Dean Preston and some centrist YIMBYs like Scott Wiener. I can definitely see where there’s a mix though — see: the Joel Engardio recall.
In California, your home is your retirement nest egg, and anything that seems to lessen its value (ie apartments next door) is frowned upon.
This is why I bristle at the term NIMBY. It dehumanizes the accused, who has a lot to lose, while bestowing an artificial moral high ground to the accuser who has no skin in the game.
No skin in the game meaning what? Do you think you have to own a house to have the right to affordable housing? Renters and homeless people have "no skin" in your game and can go to Hell?
I'm not talking about housing units. Where I'm from, NIMBY is more commonly spoken in reference to corporate energy and ag developments becoming your new, unwelcome neighbor.
Nimby/yimby cuts across political spectrums and both sides have some valid points. Every policy isn't clear cut. And I would say there are plenty of left leaning/wing nimby folks in NY. I'm often one of them.
It's easy to make this to be a typical NIMBY vs. YIMBY debate but the reality is that it's not so black and white.
If you go as far back to when Willie Brown was Mayor of San Francisco, who pushed pro-development policies in the city decades in the making. Traditionally speaking, those considered "NIMBYs" in San Francisco are both renters and homeowners, not just homeowners.
The real NIMBYs that YIMBYs fight against are homeowners in wealthy parts of SF like the Marina, Sea Cliff, etc. who argue that any new housing development in their neighborhood ruins the character, blocks their views, etc.
However, renters in neighborhoods like the Mission have a history of fighting against housing developments because of the following reasons:
-They will create a ripple effect of unwanted redevelopment in general (not just housing) that could force them out of their homes due to landlords jacking up rent just to get higher paying tenants. Throughout the 2000's and 2010's there were plenty of such renters. Most of them had income even less than most YIMBYs these days who live in SF.
-Gentrifying neighborhoods where small businesses like cafes, restaurnts and nail salons are forced out due to no fault of their own.
-Wealthier tenants are more able to afford market rate housing, even if politicians like State Senator Scott Weiner argue that the goal of such housing is not to appeal to the wealthy.
-State laws like the Costa Hawkins Act and the Ellis Act. Landlords in San Francisco have typically used these laws to get out of the apartment rental business. They've also taken measures to evict tenants like filing applications to state in-laws would be moving in, which as it turns out ended up being mostly fraudulent.
YIMBYs in San Francisco certainly are renters but since the tech boom in the 2010's, I've observed they primarily work in tech or white collar professions. There are those with the YIMBY philosophy who didn't grow up wealthy but I'm not convinced that's the case with all YIMBYs.
Being that I'm neither NIMBY or YIMBY and also a native-born San Franciscan, my views are a hybrid of both worlds.
I definitely see the problem. Thanks all. We actually had a debate like this in my hometown of Chappaqua NY. They wanted to pass something known as the form-based code, basically changing the zoning (as I recall) to allow for more development such as affordable housing. While much of the opposition was indeed about affordable housing, I opposed the code due to concerns that it was a Trojan horse for big businesses (e.g. chain stores and restaurants) to replace the primarily (although not exclusively) local businesses in town. So I get it.
I wish there were rent regulations in New York City that helped long-standing small businesses to avoid being suddenly priced out, but I don't think that makes me a NIMBY.
No, it doesn't. Any city should allow a fair environment for small businesses to be able to thrive and compete.
Yes, that's where balance is helpful in the housing debate.
In Berkeley, for months now there's been pushback by residents in or near the Thousand Oaks neighborhood over the up zoning proposal City Council is floating as a way to solve the housing crisis. This neighborhood happens to be where Kamala Harris' elementary school, Thousand Oaks Elementary, is located and is for the most part upper middle class as far as home ownership is concerned.
Turns out most of the pushback has more to do with supporting small businesses and ensuring they are not dealing with adverse effects as a result of what upzoning could do.
Is there a way to protect small businesses while also promoting new housing? I think there should be.
NY-3, NY-4:
I’ve been seeing many, many ads attacking Tom Suozzi, and some attacking Laura Gillen lately. I’m getting nervous, because I am not seeing as much of the opposite, and Long Island has been trending rightward as of late. (For example, Bruce Blakeman won re election for Nassau County Exec in last year’s blue environment, and I recall it not being close.)
Could Suozzi and/or Gillen go down even in this environment, or is the environment too blue for them to lose? I do think if Gillen survives, she’ll lose in a more GOP-friendly year, maybe even 2028 depending on what the environment looks like, as she’s a weak candidate who if I recall correctly, bungled the congestion pricing response. Thoughts?
I feel like the environment is too blue for them to lose unless they completely forgo doing any actual campaigning because of it and get too comfortable. Gillen's opponent has barely raised any money however, and even Suozzi's has only raised a fifth of his total.
Suozzi +14 and Gillen +7. Take it or leave it.
If they survived in 2024, they’re going to survive in this election
Especially considering Pou, Davis, Kaptur, Cuellar, etc. are expected to win reelection in Trump seats as well.
I don't own a TV but was at my girlfriend's mother's place the other day and saw a TV ad on behalf of Suozzi against his opponent.
I have seen those ads, yes. Maybe I’m just seeing more anti Suozzi ads myself. I don’t know.
I do see the points made that these seats aren’t especially vulnerable now. I still think Gillen may eventually go down but if this really is a D+10-15 environment, both are likely safe then. Thanks for the feedback again all.
Blakeman at the top of the ticket could be concerning for that area but my guess is they both win with a decent margin. I'd be more worried in a red leaning year if their seats are basically the same.
LA City Attorney:
https://boltsmag.org/los-angeles-city-attorney-election-roy-mckinney-feldstein-soto/
Very interesting article in Bolts Magazine about the LA City Attorney race. The scandal plagued incumbent Hydee Feldstein Soto didn’t make the runoff, and there will now be a contest between left wing Marissa Roy, and tough-on-crime type John McKinney. The DSA and other left groups are backing the former, while DA Nathan Hochman and several police groups are backing the latter. Worth a read.
https://www.expressnews.com/news/texas/article/brandon-herrera-ak-guy-covid-target-fat-people-22454187.php
TX-23: Republican nominee Brandon Herrera said in a resurfaced 2022 clip that COVID should have targeted fat people.
This seat reminds me of NC-11 in a few ways. Large and expansive, predominantly rural conservative with a few blue dots, has similar partisanship, both home to a national park based in a mountain range. But both traded terrible representation for garbage representation. Cawthorn to Edwards and Gonzales to Herrera.
Covid did target fat people.
It’s interesting this topic is brought up because I’m actually heading to a funeral of a 67 year-old good girlfriend of mine who was severely obese and contracted Covid six years ago and it totally destroyed her body. She was on a ventilator for five days in 2020. With her lungs and heart being severely damaged, it led to her death just a few weeks ago.
I'm so sorry for your loss.
I am as well. Wishing you the best Morgan.
That was my first thought when I saw that headline
I’m sure this will go over well with Donny. Paxton blames Trump’s convention for his falling numbers. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/6119925-paxton-claims-gop-convention-hurt/mlite/
Keep up the good work Trump! /s
AL-Gov - An anti-Tuberville group (not the Jones campaign) put up a billboard along Interstate 59 in the Birmingham metro comparing the data center boom to Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman burning Atlanta during the Civil War:
https://www.instagram.com/p/DdXgaz8teig/?stkn=MWFpemFnZ2VhNXR1dg
That's a clever idea.
Hot/lukewarm take?
I see folks fretting about lower-than-expected Dem polling in CA, MN, OR, and elsewhere. I imagine we'll win all of the key races (well, maybe not OR-Gov...) by normal margins, but the "Dem incumbent penalty" is real. Speaking from the CA perspective, the waves don't hit as hard because everyone knows which party has controlled the state for decades, so it's harder to point fingers at Republicans broadly the way you can in OH, IA, etc.. The danger of losing is lower, but the waves don't crest as high either. I imagine Xaiver will win by 20-24 pts, which you wouldn't expect given the D+10 polls. And yet, Peltola and Sherrod will overperform their states' baselines by 15% at the same time.
A concern I have about Oregon is if we lose the Gov seat, and especially if we lose some of the legislature, we can kiss a new congressional map goodbye. Maybe even worry about a GOP-friendly one, worst case scenario. (Not that that’s particularly likely, mind you, just something to consider.)
We won’t lose the governor seat. This has been an ongoing thing since 2006. The closest call came in 2010, but even then Kitzhaber managed to win due to late counted votes out of Portland. The Republican brand is just too toxic for Lane and Multnomah counties.
Agreed...I have zero concern about OR-Gov in this environment...
Even longer. Apart from 1998, every gubernatorial election since 1986 has been decided by single digits, which happens to be the same amount of time Democrats have occupied the office (Kotek, Brown, Kitzhaber, Kulongoski, Roberts and Goldschmidt).
That includes the blue-leaning years of 1990, 2006 and 2018.
Dems in CA tend to get complacent...especially when a clown like hilton is their opponent. In the end Becerra will likely get 62-64% of the vote.
Becerra came across very well in "debate" tonite. Hilton, like I said, a clown!!
New Marquette Law School Poll of Wisconsin finds that in the race for governor, Democrat David Crowley is supported by 49% of likely voters and Republican Tom Tiffany is supported by 46%, with 5% undecided.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D7tcrMYo5M
TX-Sen: Ken Paxton got some unhelpful coverage from Charlie White, known as penguinz0 online, a commentator on a variety of topics with over 18 million subscribers. White pointed out Paxton's lenient prosecution of attorney Adam Hoffman, who sexually assaulted a young boy and spent 29 days in jail.
White is a beloved online figure particularly with Gen Z, who find his commentary entertaining and boisterous yet thoughtful.
First time I heard White be mentioned here. I used to watch him when he was a gaming YouTuber way back.
Can't pretend to be too fond of him, but he's definitely popular among not-super-political 18-25 men, and this might just get a few additional people to vote against Paxton.
Would help out if he touched on the corruption of his home state politicians Ashley Moody and Ron DeSantis. But in all fairness we have a better shot in Texas.
Two of these are mentioned in the poll pile, two are not:
https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/2105165211443274209
New - Marist Senate polling
🔵 Ohio - Brown +8 (Flip)
🔵 Iowa - Turek +8 (Flip)
🔵 Texas - Talarico +6 (Flip)
🔵 Michigan - El-Sayed +7
Solid stuff!
Yes, this is definite moment happening just a few weeks before the midterms.
TX-Sen: So apparently there was an internal poll done by Talarico that also includes Senate and Gov numbers for Texas Congressional District 9. This was Al Green's old district that Republicans changed. According to The Downballot (https://www.the-downballot.com/p/texas-republicans-pass-new-gerrymander), the old district was 71-27 Harris (2024), 76-23 Biden (2020). The new district is 59-40 Trump (2024), 54-45 Trump (2020).
According to the internal Sen: Paxton 48% - Talarico 47%; Gov: Abbott 48% - Hinojosa 47%.
Poll was done 9/18-9/19
https://www.threads.com/share/_kQZGrnDW/
In 2018, the new District 9 would've voted for Beto with 50.1%
A 59-40 Trump '24 district is now a 1 pt race? Is that correct?