There is a special election in Georgia Legislature as well. SD-21, a suburb-exurb seat at Trump +34, with 1 D and 6 Rs running, unlikely anyone will get a majority tonight. There could be a runoff in 4 weeks.
Note that the candidates tied in early votes cast. Zimmer actually carried the election day vote (surprising to me since Iowa Republicans usually win the election-day vote).
We don't know how people voted but we do know that as of yesterday, registered Democrats had cast 241 more early ballots than Republicans in Senate district 1. Democrats feel confident that the majority of no-party voters who have cast ballots are supporting Catelin Drey. I updated the early vote totals here, near the end:
"Here’s the thing about Donald Trump that too many opponents forget: When he’s challenged, he usually folds. Consider the pattern. He blusters about sweeping tariffs, then backs away — enough that Wall Street traders have dubbed him “TACO,” short for “Trump Always Chickens Out.""
I caught the last half of a podcast last night that was a discussion of trump and his health status. One of the panel members (sorry I didn't get names as I joined in late) was theorizing that trump is getting all this stuff done as quickly as possible for 2 reasons: 1) he knows he won't have Congress after 11/26 midterms and 2) he possibly will no longer be POTUS sooner than later due to failing health! Any thoughts?
As I said in a Reddit division about this, yesterday: there’s a lot of armchair doctoring going on with his health. Any of the individual things on their own could in isolation be fairly benign (the hand bruising most prominently). That being said, taken en Toto, they paint collectively a picture of a man in pretty shitty health and probably not improving, and the WH’s lies are likely for the sake of his ego but could be for something more.
I thought it was mostly bullshit until he started talking about if he’ll get into Heaven or not last week. That’s… very unusual things for even older people to start randomly bringing up, especially an egomaniac like DT
Yes, as someone very skeptical about conversations around his health (we've been saying the same things for nearly a decade at this point and he's still here and upright) that bit about heaven did raise an eyebrow from me.
Also, not to wear my conspiracy hat, but this chatter along with the Epstein fire that they seem unable to fully put out has accelerated A) after the OBBB passed and B) he started fucking with the money, aka attacking the Fed, BLS, etc.
The people who matter (we know who I mean) don’t give a shit about Medicaid recipients. They do give a very big shit about Treasury auctions and the reserve currency status.
I would only say that there is nothing benign about the level of swelling in both his legs - an 80 year old with that amount of leg swelling is not likely to live more than 12 months - that’s a significant health issue.
I think it would be better to say that Trump doubles down against individuals, particularly when he senses political weakness (see every fight against the GOP) or when there is no mechanism to stop him (disabling USAID, other DOGE cuts), but folds against forces he doesn’t have political or enforcement leverage against (bond markets, judicial system, other countries).
Firefighters union head Bob Brooks is kicking off a campaign Tuesday to unseat GOP Rep. Ryan Mackenzie in Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley, his team shared first with POLITICO. And he’s starting with a number of heavyweight endorsements from across the party spectrum that set up the possibility of edging out the candidate who had seemed like the favorite of some state and national Democrats.
As if that wasn’t enough, he has both centrist and progressive support. As a bonus, he supports universal healthcare, one of my personal pet issues as a type 1 diabetic who’s been fucked by the health system. Fantastic.
Ken Paxton was the old boss of both Aaron Reitz and Chip Roy, but he has chosen Reitz to endorse as his successor for Texas attorney general. Ted Cruz is also the old boss of both Reitz and Roy, and he has chosen to endorse Roy.
Energy prices are going up too and unlike a lot of other Trump actions it's really easy for Democrats to draw a link between energy prices going up and Trump's intent on wiping out the wind and solar industry. Energy Secretary Chris Wright is already conceding that Republicans are going to get hammered on this issue if they can't shift the blame to Biden.
Here's a video of The Bulwark's Jonathan Cohn explaining why energy prices are going up and why it's a political pain point for Republicans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQyIXPpT6ys
Frankly, I would like to see large-scale crypto mining and cryptocurrency-related data centers banned. Moreover, these should NEVER be inncuously classified as "data centers".
Moreover, I would like to see an absolute obligation placed on the shoulders of owners and operators: They should be compelled to add renewable-energy power generation that is equal to or greater than their consumption! Also, if grid upgrades are required, they should be forced to carry those costs as well.
Betting against thermostatic nuclear voter political opinion in elections seems like a bad idea. Only times it didn’t really fit the outcome was 2022 due to Dobbs/MAGA nominations in swing seats/states and 2023.
Every other year in recent history: 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2024 fits this pattern. Though I didn’t pay attention to special elections in the Obama years, so I’m not listing them because I don’t know.
Could 2025 + 2026 elections also be an aberration? 100%, it’s possible. But I think it’s pretty clear why Trump is trying to muscle more seats for himself before the midterms right now. Too bad for his rubber stamp party, they can’t gerrymander their way out of a wave.
Would you be so kind as to define this term: "thermostatic nuclear voter political opinion in elections"? And perhaps also expound on the consequences of this being the case – and likewise of not being the case?
To sum it up short and sweet: Voters want to vote for whatever party isn’t in power or vote against the party in power because the party in power does things voters either ignore or don’t like because they either overreach (Trump) or under reach (Biden). For 1 example of this phenomenon of a massive swing in public opinion on a polarizing issue, changing a majority of voters from “deport everyone illegally here” in 2024 elections to 6 months later having a majority favouring a pathway to citizenship for everyone illegally here.
It’s the sudden violent swing in public opinion in the opposite direction that whatever party is in power favours and the electoral consequences that almost always follows it. I want to be clear though: This may not happen! We don’t know, but it’s happened more often than it hasn’t, so it’s probably a good bet to make in 2025 and 2026 elections at the very least.
I don’t believe for one second Republicans will only get 41% of the vote in 2026, but even if this result is most likely from embarrassment/discontent from tariffs, deportations and/or Epstein among the GOP MAGA base with them not wanting to admit who they’re supporting (or worse for R’s: truly undecided), it’s still a really good sign for Democrats. 40% is a floor that Trump and his party hasn’t crashed through very often. We’re getting pretty close to that already and we’ve got a long time until midterms roll around.
Yes and even that very blue year, the GOP received 44.8% of the vote in the House. I’m not saying I don’t believe the margin, only that I don’t believe only 41% of Americans voting in 2026 vote for Republicans because in even a best case scenario for Democrats, they would get a higher vote share than that.
Also, Trump approval didn’t go below 40% for the 2018 midterms either, which bolsters my point as well.
We’re splitting hairs here really overall since we’re just a few points apart, but only 41% support for the GOP just will not happen in 2026 midterm elections. Why?
Well, in the last quarter century, Republicans worst 3 performances in the House (NPV) vote was getting 42.4% voter support in 2008, 44.1% in 2006 and 44.3% in 2018. Democrats 2 worst performances over that same time period was 44.8% in 2010 and 44.9% in 2014.
The margin can be 2018 like, but Republicans will get more than 41% of the vote in 2026 unless you’re expecting a wave bigger than any of the above elections were while we’re experiencing a period of time in politics with fewer ticket split voters than ever before.
The blue state governors must convene a Conference of Governors in Illinois immediately and set up the firewall to pour sand in the gears of a rogue, fascist and racist federal government that looms over our Democracy.
Voters under 30, especially young men, are spurning FDJT after voting for him last year. Several big reasons why? Tariffs, the unpopular immigration crackdowns, a deteriorated job market for men 20-24 years old (the unemployment rate is rising among that group) and the Epstein files.
Seems like a heavy lift to not only get young male Trump voters to vote in a midterm, but to switch to Democrats. Will be a good demographic to follow as 2026 plods along though.
IL-02: The Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC, to the surprise of no one, is backing State Sen. Robert Peters.
IL-09: Army veteran Sam Polan is in (this field is getting ridiculously long), and Texas State Rep. and prominent walkout figure Gene Wu has endorsed progressive State Rep. Hoan Hunyh.
MA-01: Rep. Richard Neal has a left challenger -- Jeromie Whalen, a high school teacher challenging Neal on age and ties to corporate donors.
NH-Sen: Medical researcher and nonprofit figure Karishma Manzur entered the Dem primary here, from the left.
Jersey City Mayor and Council: Katie Brennan, the unaffiliated progressive who pulled off an upset win in a state legislative primary, is backing progressive mayoral candidate and City Councillor James Solomon, but interestingly not Solomon's slatemates -- instead, she's backing two DSA endorsees, Joel Brooks in Ward B and Jake Ephros in Ward D.
(The Minneapolis DFL revoking Omar Fateh's endorsement was also mentioned, but I'm not going into detail due to my own ideological bias affecting my perception of the whole saga in a manner that makes it impossible to be impartial.)
Is being the most effective elected official passing widely popular and needed legislation listening to "the people"? I've talked to him at multiple community events that I wouldn't have even expected him to be at. Which of the other candidates approach anything close to Peters in terms of progressive record and "listening"? I haven't seen it out of Preston, Miller or Brown, and certainly not the most likely person to be elected if it's not Peters--Jackson.
So he's in favor of widely popular things--how bold. When the going gets tough, though, not so much. He waits to hear from party leadership and will change his position on a dime, regardless of what his constituents want.
Staunchly committed to working complicated and bold pieces of novel state legislation through the legislative process and the public communications campaign to beef that public support up, yep. You know, the job of an elected legislator.
But let's get to the point, which candidate are you trying to claim is better, let's savage them.
Trump hits 54% disapproval rating in NC, according to a YouGov #12 poll. Former governor Roy Cooper, in his bid for the open Senate seat next year, still maintains a high 55% approval, 38% disapproval and 6% of respondents unfamiliar with him.
Jon Favreau: Senior government official declares the opposition party domestic extremists as military and masked federal agents are deployed to opposition strongholds
Yeah - this is where I stand too. He's doing some of the things we need him to do, but he did sleep with his best friend's wife and that's tough to forget...
How do we feel about Geoff Duncan potentially (probably) running for Governor of Georgia as a democrat? On one hand, he ran with Kemp and supported him from 2019-22ish. Since then, he's been your standard Never Trump-type. I would clearly support McBath or Carter over him, but I'm not particularly impressed with the candidates the Dems have right now and really, really want to flip that mansion.
That's kind of where I'm at too. I think Georgia is primed to keep speeding left. Biden won by 0.2% in a D+4.5 year. Kamala lost by 2.2% in a R+2 year. Shifted 4.5 points left relative to the nation. I think its important to control one of the state houses or governor's mansion heading into the 2030s redistricting cycle. With fair maps, Dems probably pick up 2-3 congressional seats and both the state house and state senate would become winnable.
I’m assuming you’re assuming that he wins again in the 2030 election as an incumbent Governor? I’d probably agree that would be the most likely outcome, but it might be an important thing to add to your post to avoid any confusion. If he won in 2026 and lost in 2030 for example, he’d have no control over redistricting.
I’m with you on the need for Democrats to have 1 of the 3 branches responsible for drawing districts and that Duncan may just be one of those “we’ve lost races here for decades, maybe he’s good enough”. But I’ll wait for primary voters to have their say.
For all we know though, our voters are going to be picking the Zohran Mamdani’s, Graham Platner’s and Bob Brooks’s populist left progressivism style/lane candidates for swing seat/state nominations in 2026 and even if Duncan runs in the primary, he still loses handily.
It’s going to be one of the most fascinating primaries to watch for 2026 certainly.
Yes, the idea being that incumbent governors rarely lose re-election. The 2018 cycle helped quite a bit in insulating Dems in 2022, losing only Sisolak. There's no progressive populist candidate in this race currently. However, the current candidates are four black, former officeholders in KLB, Esteves, Jackson, and Thurmond. I wonder if they would splinter Georgia's sizeable black population in the primary, making Duncan a better possibility? Should note Esteves is afro-latino.
Fair enough. Just wanted clarification on that part. I’m also making an assumption in this potential hypothetical that Mamdani’s likely majority win in 2025 creates more candidates of this type running as Democrats in races where there aren’t currently any running. So while I think this is fairly accurate as the race stands today, I’m not entirely convinced this is the whole field that runs in the primary either.
I’d much rather have an incumbent governor up for reelection in Georgia in 2030(especially it’s a defensive cycle) than having to take chances in an open seat race. That’s the same reason I was glad Evers in WI retired this cycle rather than 2030.
This is Georgia, not California. He'll be PLENTY left wing as Governor. We didn't flip Virginia by running "bold "progressives."" We won't be flipping North Carolina and Georgia by running "bold progressives.""
Not unless voters are for it. The fact that Abigail Spanberger here in Virginia refuses to commit to it speaks for itself regarding its popularity in the south. Or rather lack thereof.
I think you should differentiate between the Squad progressive lane (Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib) and the populist economics progressive lane (Bernie Sanders, AOC). They are very different. 1 is certain to be defeated in swing/red areas, the other has not really been tested since Trump upended politics and hardened partisanship, so saying a bold progressive can’t win is being way too certain of the narrative that aligns with one’s own opinion. Especially since these types of Democrats (left economically, working class) used to be elected regularly to federal office in red states.
Do I think they will win red areas now? No, the days of Democratic Senators and Governors in the heartland (yes I know about Kelly and Beshear, but they had huge help winning from their GOP opponents) and Deep South are over barring another realignment. Do I think they at least have a chance of winning swing/purple areas though? Absolutely, so saying they can’t is going too far imo.
Nope. In the mind of most voters there is no difference. Also Sanders is no old school “left economic “working class”” politician. If he were he would have been best buddies with Tip O’Neill in the 70s and 80s, would have grown up idolizing FDR instead of Eugene Debs, and would have moved to the Midwest instead of Vermont. Furthermore he actually has been tested. He was rejected in both 2016 and 2020. The latter by a larger margin. I get you want the Democratic Party to be more left wing on economic issues. However the country simply isn’t there politically.
I think you're being too dismissive of DragonFire's thoughtful point. Like you, I am frequently frustrated with some of the progressive factions of our party. That said, I think the idea that there is a difference, both in the eyes of voters and in reality, between The Squad and some more establishment-type progressives, is kind of hard to dispute...and the electoral results back it up. The Squad pretty consistently under-performs the top of the ticket and Bernie and AOC pretty consistently over-perform.
They do well in their very blue state and district. If they represented red or even purple parts of the country I would buy the argument. That’s not what’s happening though.
Still, the lie that Sanders is an old school New Deal Democrat needs to stop. Old school New Deal Democrats didn't spend the 1970s and 1980s making tributes to Eugene Debs and claiming that JFK "made (him) sick."
If that’s the case, why is Bernie Sanders the most popular Democratic politician according to polling? You tend to dismiss any counter point made if it doesn’t match with your immovable opinion.
Can you admit it’s possible for a Dan Osborn, a Rebecca Cooke, a Bob Brooks to win an election? Because I can admit that they can lose. I want the party to be more left wing yes, but I’m also willing to entertain scenarios that don’t lineup with my preference.
Can you do that? Because I have yet to see it. I hope you can prove me wrong right here and right now.
Because Sanders represents a state that's more white, rural, and left wing than the country is as a whole. Popularity in a state doesn't always translate into nationwide popularity. Again, if he were as popular as you insist and insist and insist he is, #1. he would be President right now and #2. politicians like him would be the rule and not the exception in this country. No offense, but your "but the polls" argument is the exactly same argument that Ron Paul fans and apologists used in his runs for President in both 2008 and 2012.
Because she’s changed since she was first elected as a “squad” like member. She’s also grown as a politician. And if anyone says she is the same as she was since she got elected or that she still is a “squad” member, I don’t see any evidence of that to be honest.
Her voting may be the same/similar to back then, but that’s where any similarity ends. If someone in 2017 said AOC was going to be one of the strongest Dem party supporters in 2025 you'd be called a liar and delusional. Voters change, so do their representatives.
I think he'd be the best candidate for Democrats this cycle in Georgia. I do believe Democrats need to do more expanding of the tent rather than shrinking of it and giving Duncan a fair shot at being the Dem nominee in Georgia is one of those things Dems should do to expand the tent.
It says a lot about where America is right now that "love thy neighbor" instead of "deport/arrest my neighbor" is liberal coded rather than are you a decent human being coded.
Yep. Lest we forget this is exactly how Republicans broke through the Governorship in the Peach State. Sonny Perdue, the first Republican Governor since Reconstruction actually not only was a Democrat until 1998, he was THE Senate President Pro Tempore and widely touted as a future statewide if not nationwide Democratic candidate there. We need to knock off this "purity" nonsense.
This is simply not about purity; Duncan was a Reagan Republican as late as November 2024 and Black voters are loyal to longtime Democrats. Let's not forget Charlie Crist's struggles with Black voters. Atleast David Jolly has a history of slowly shifting towards the left. He's basically a common-sense mainstream liberal now and is trusted among Democrats. Sonny Perdue was a typical conservative Southern Dem.
Around 70% of all D primary voters are from the metro center, or Black majority exurbs and secondary cities. Round 60% would be Black, who are actually more centrist. The rest would be mostly White liberals. Don’t know how he connects with the primary voters as an exurban never Trumper.
And there is a runoff. No winning nomination with 49%.
Yeah. How many of them? Also all the partisan primaries will be running at the same time, and a voter can only choose one party ballot to vote on.
How many of them would choose R ballot to vote on the Senate primary? How many of them would rather choose the R ballot to vote against his successor LG Jones who is also running for Gov on the R line.
And Virginia former Governor Ralph Northam voted for George W Bush for President twice. And the Kennedys gave $1000 to Richard Nixon's Senate campaign in 1950. Bottom line, people change.
I'm happy to welcome newly-minted Democrats or Independents or even Republicans into an anti-Trump coalition, but they shouldn't be preferenced in running for office.
I think that’s where most of us are at honestly. We’re not closing the door on him because he was a Republican and we’re open to hearing his pitch if he should run.
We’re also not automatically going to get behind him immediately before he even announces when a lot of other Democrats are and have been running campaigns either.
Time will tell whether he can persuade our voters to back him for the nomination.
I just want the candidate with the best chance of winning and there may be an argument that he is given that Jason Carter and Lucy McBath passed. I'm just not particularly impressed with the current candidates.
If we can win, I'll take it. If the courts somehow fall for the bullshit and appeals look like a foregone conclusion, I've been fantasizing about Lisa Cook running. But her scholarship is pretty exploitable by bad faith Repub attacks, even if it's stupendous.
Because he’s not President right now. Polls mean nothing if you can’t back them up. If he were representing a purple or red state not only would be in agreement with you, I would be encouraging more politicians like him. In every state and all over the country. That isn’t the case. And yes non Republicans can run in states like Nebraska but they would have to take positions on social issues that are the antithesis of what base Democrats want.
She represents a state with some progressive history in the mold of Robert LaFollette. Her types are nothing new in the Badger State. She is no "Squad" type though and you will NEVER her see her running around calling herself a socialist in ANY form.
Yeah, Bernie is not actually a "socialist" despite whatever he might claim. Nordics are Social Democracies. In some ways, you could call social democracy "the socialism of the 21st century" or reformist socialism as in socialism which accepts the market and the failures of collectivization.
That's a very sensible post. I maintain that since Bernie has never said what his ideal society is, though, we don't know whether he is actually a socialist or not.
I hope we learned our lesson from the Jeff Van Drews of the world - better to pick a centrist Dem folks in GA already know/have vetted over a guy who ran as a Republican while Trump was president.
I'm hesitant to be optimistic, even though I know what our track record has been so far. I also know that we lost the last race that would have ended their Iowa super majority, even though we majorly over performed. I guess we'll see tonight.
If he wants a free shot at it I actually wouldn’t mind, I think he’d be great at it (and it’d be great to get a prominent Hispanic candidate who isn’t Villaraigosa)
This is the first I've heard of Padilla as a candidate for governor. (I am a Californian.) I would be surprised if he runs. There are many notable Democrats already in the race. Porter is definitely the front runner right now, both for the primary and the general. If Padilla did run, he and Porter would probably end up as co-frontrunners for a while. But I think this is reminiscent of Dianne Feinstein. In her first few years as senator she wistfully dreamed of being governor, and then got over it. I think Padilla will too.
Another example of how nobody enjoys being senator. It wasn't that long ago that they were equally desirable jobs, and it was not at all uncommon to see governors working very hard to set themselves up to become senator. Nowadays it seems every senator is wishing they were governor instead.
I'd rather Porter get it, but I assume he'd be a strong contender to make it to the top two.
And don't discount the mundane details of the required life style:
1. having two households to pay for (home + DC)
2. the tedious and constant travel back and forth between the west coast and DC
(fwiw, back in aughts I once used my miles to upgrade to 1st class on a DC-to-LA flight. and sitting a row away was then Rep. Henry Waxman who had done the same thing! I guess I never realized those guys were stuck flying coach cross-country with the rest of us.)
Those two reasons are exactly why I've always felt it a low blow to attack members of Congress for moving the bulk of their lives to DC/MD/VA (especially the non-wealthy ones).
There is a special election in Georgia Legislature as well. SD-21, a suburb-exurb seat at Trump +34, with 1 D and 6 Rs running, unlikely anyone will get a majority tonight. There could be a runoff in 4 weeks.
Here is the official canvass from Iowa Senate district 35, the Trump+21 district that Democrat Mike Zimmer flipped in January:
https://www.bleedingheartland.com/static/media/2025/08/IowaSenatedistrict35_officialcanvass.png
Note that the candidates tied in early votes cast. Zimmer actually carried the election day vote (surprising to me since Iowa Republicans usually win the election-day vote).
We don't know how people voted but we do know that as of yesterday, registered Democrats had cast 241 more early ballots than Republicans in Senate district 1. Democrats feel confident that the majority of no-party voters who have cast ballots are supporting Catelin Drey. I updated the early vote totals here, near the end:
https://laurabelin.substack.com/p/iowa-senate-district-1-election-preview
That would be nice if Drey won. Gives Dems a veto against Reynolds' unqualified picks.
Nice quote:
"Here’s the thing about Donald Trump that too many opponents forget: When he’s challenged, he usually folds. Consider the pattern. He blusters about sweeping tariffs, then backs away — enough that Wall Street traders have dubbed him “TACO,” short for “Trump Always Chickens Out.""
– Taegan Goddard, Political Wire
I don't think this is particularly accurate. He seems to also double down often as well.
He's in the late stages of dementia and heart failure, as evidenced by his cankles, poor makeup on his fat little hands and him walking sideways.
Of course he's not in his right mind.
I caught the last half of a podcast last night that was a discussion of trump and his health status. One of the panel members (sorry I didn't get names as I joined in late) was theorizing that trump is getting all this stuff done as quickly as possible for 2 reasons: 1) he knows he won't have Congress after 11/26 midterms and 2) he possibly will no longer be POTUS sooner than later due to failing health! Any thoughts?
As I said in a Reddit division about this, yesterday: there’s a lot of armchair doctoring going on with his health. Any of the individual things on their own could in isolation be fairly benign (the hand bruising most prominently). That being said, taken en Toto, they paint collectively a picture of a man in pretty shitty health and probably not improving, and the WH’s lies are likely for the sake of his ego but could be for something more.
I thought it was mostly bullshit until he started talking about if he’ll get into Heaven or not last week. That’s… very unusual things for even older people to start randomly bringing up, especially an egomaniac like DT
Yes, as someone very skeptical about conversations around his health (we've been saying the same things for nearly a decade at this point and he's still here and upright) that bit about heaven did raise an eyebrow from me.
Also, not to wear my conspiracy hat, but this chatter along with the Epstein fire that they seem unable to fully put out has accelerated A) after the OBBB passed and B) he started fucking with the money, aka attacking the Fed, BLS, etc.
The people who matter (we know who I mean) don’t give a shit about Medicaid recipients. They do give a very big shit about Treasury auctions and the reserve currency status.
I would only say that there is nothing benign about the level of swelling in both his legs - an 80 year old with that amount of leg swelling is not likely to live more than 12 months - that’s a significant health issue.
The comments I read suggested it could be a number of diagnoses so I’m open to stand corrected on that point
Not as often as he folds. Almost all his power is given quite freely
I think it would be better to say that Trump doubles down against individuals, particularly when he senses political weakness (see every fight against the GOP) or when there is no mechanism to stop him (disabling USAID, other DOGE cuts), but folds against forces he doesn’t have political or enforcement leverage against (bond markets, judicial system, other countries).
I would agrrr
Yes, I would say that is accurate.
Conor, imho that’s an astute summary.
PA 7
Firefighters union head Bob Brooks is kicking off a campaign Tuesday to unseat GOP Rep. Ryan Mackenzie in Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley, his team shared first with POLITICO. And he’s starting with a number of heavyweight endorsements from across the party spectrum that set up the possibility of edging out the candidate who had seemed like the favorite of some state and national Democrats.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/26/bob-brooks-firefighter-pa07-dem-launch-00523842
Was just coming here to post this!
This launch is in the very Morning Digest you're commenting on! https://www.the-downballot.com/p/morning-digest-why-democrats-think?open=false#%C2%A7pa
D’Oh.
Firefighter plus strong union background? Dream candidate profile.
As if that wasn’t enough, he has both centrist and progressive support. As a bonus, he supports universal healthcare, one of my personal pet issues as a type 1 diabetic who’s been fucked by the health system. Fantastic.
Oh, no—I'm very sorry to hear you've been put in that position.
Ken Paxton was the old boss of both Aaron Reitz and Chip Roy, but he has chosen Reitz to endorse as his successor for Texas attorney general. Ted Cruz is also the old boss of both Reitz and Roy, and he has chosen to endorse Roy.
New - Generic Ballot poll
🔵 Democrats 49%
🔴 Republicans 41%
🔵 July poll - Democrats +4
Strength in numbers #C - 1500 A - 8/21
Elliott's full post is worth a read (as always): https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/democrats-lead-the-us-house-generic
Very solid numbers across the board here, and I doubt that inflation/economy figure is going to improve much over the next year
Energy prices are going up too and unlike a lot of other Trump actions it's really easy for Democrats to draw a link between energy prices going up and Trump's intent on wiping out the wind and solar industry. Energy Secretary Chris Wright is already conceding that Republicans are going to get hammered on this issue if they can't shift the blame to Biden.
Here's a video of The Bulwark's Jonathan Cohn explaining why energy prices are going up and why it's a political pain point for Republicans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQyIXPpT6ys
Paul Krugman has also been writing on the rising cost of electricity in several of his recent Substack posts.
Data center construction bans are a bleeding edge wedge issue already in a number of localities for exactly this issue
Frankly, I would like to see large-scale crypto mining and cryptocurrency-related data centers banned. Moreover, these should NEVER be inncuously classified as "data centers".
Moreover, I would like to see an absolute obligation placed on the shoulders of owners and operators: They should be compelled to add renewable-energy power generation that is equal to or greater than their consumption! Also, if grid upgrades are required, they should be forced to carry those costs as well.
Whoa there, that’s socialist talk my friend (unlike patriotic “taking” 10% stakes in private companies which is totally not socialist at all)
Completely agree. In fact, I'd go further and ban all cryptocurrency entirely.
Crypto is basically just a tool to help criminals get away with their crimes.
Betting against thermostatic nuclear voter political opinion in elections seems like a bad idea. Only times it didn’t really fit the outcome was 2022 due to Dobbs/MAGA nominations in swing seats/states and 2023.
Every other year in recent history: 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2024 fits this pattern. Though I didn’t pay attention to special elections in the Obama years, so I’m not listing them because I don’t know.
Could 2025 + 2026 elections also be an aberration? 100%, it’s possible. But I think it’s pretty clear why Trump is trying to muscle more seats for himself before the midterms right now. Too bad for his rubber stamp party, they can’t gerrymander their way out of a wave.
Would you be so kind as to define this term: "thermostatic nuclear voter political opinion in elections"? And perhaps also expound on the consequences of this being the case – and likewise of not being the case?
To sum it up short and sweet: Voters want to vote for whatever party isn’t in power or vote against the party in power because the party in power does things voters either ignore or don’t like because they either overreach (Trump) or under reach (Biden). For 1 example of this phenomenon of a massive swing in public opinion on a polarizing issue, changing a majority of voters from “deport everyone illegally here” in 2024 elections to 6 months later having a majority favouring a pathway to citizenship for everyone illegally here.
It’s the sudden violent swing in public opinion in the opposite direction that whatever party is in power favours and the electoral consequences that almost always follows it. I want to be clear though: This may not happen! We don’t know, but it’s happened more often than it hasn’t, so it’s probably a good bet to make in 2025 and 2026 elections at the very least.
Thanks.
Yes just adding in that this is a term in PoliSci public opinion literature that has made it into the broader parlance recently.
I don’t believe for one second Republicans will only get 41% of the vote in 2026, but even if this result is most likely from embarrassment/discontent from tariffs, deportations and/or Epstein among the GOP MAGA base with them not wanting to admit who they’re supporting (or worse for R’s: truly undecided), it’s still a really good sign for Democrats. 40% is a floor that Trump and his party hasn’t crashed through very often. We’re getting pretty close to that already and we’ve got a long time until midterms roll around.
They did lose by 8.5 points in 2018. It can very easily happen again.
Yes and even that very blue year, the GOP received 44.8% of the vote in the House. I’m not saying I don’t believe the margin, only that I don’t believe only 41% of Americans voting in 2026 vote for Republicans because in even a best case scenario for Democrats, they would get a higher vote share than that.
Also, Trump approval didn’t go below 40% for the 2018 midterms either, which bolsters my point as well.
Uff, the undecided usually break in the same ratio. It's not that complex.
We’re splitting hairs here really overall since we’re just a few points apart, but only 41% support for the GOP just will not happen in 2026 midterm elections. Why?
Well, in the last quarter century, Republicans worst 3 performances in the House (NPV) vote was getting 42.4% voter support in 2008, 44.1% in 2006 and 44.3% in 2018. Democrats 2 worst performances over that same time period was 44.8% in 2010 and 44.9% in 2014.
The margin can be 2018 like, but Republicans will get more than 41% of the vote in 2026 unless you’re expecting a wave bigger than any of the above elections were while we’re experiencing a period of time in politics with fewer ticket split voters than ever before.
100-49-41=10
49+5=54
41+4=45
54D/45R
This is what I meant.
The blue state governors must convene a Conference of Governors in Illinois immediately and set up the firewall to pour sand in the gears of a rogue, fascist and racist federal government that looms over our Democracy.
This must happen soon….
Young Voters Who Swung Right Are Already Regretting it (op-ed from Bloomberg)
https://archive.ph/7pbcW
Voters under 30, especially young men, are spurning FDJT after voting for him last year. Several big reasons why? Tariffs, the unpopular immigration crackdowns, a deteriorated job market for men 20-24 years old (the unemployment rate is rising among that group) and the Epstein files.
An explainer from TLDR News on this:
https://youtu.be/6I3CmD8xAX8?
Who would've thunk it? Idiots! But I hope the regretters vote and vote their regrets.
Seems like a heavy lift to not only get young male Trump voters to vote in a midterm, but to switch to Democrats. Will be a good demographic to follow as 2026 plods along though.
Most likely they just stay home in 2026 (also a good outcome).
yeah, their not voting is completely fine by me.
New Primary School issue out today, following a slight delay!
https://primaryschool.ghost.io/issue-13/
Some interesting tidbits:
IL-02: The Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC, to the surprise of no one, is backing State Sen. Robert Peters.
IL-09: Army veteran Sam Polan is in (this field is getting ridiculously long), and Texas State Rep. and prominent walkout figure Gene Wu has endorsed progressive State Rep. Hoan Hunyh.
MA-01: Rep. Richard Neal has a left challenger -- Jeromie Whalen, a high school teacher challenging Neal on age and ties to corporate donors.
NH-Sen: Medical researcher and nonprofit figure Karishma Manzur entered the Dem primary here, from the left.
Jersey City Mayor and Council: Katie Brennan, the unaffiliated progressive who pulled off an upset win in a state legislative primary, is backing progressive mayoral candidate and City Councillor James Solomon, but interestingly not Solomon's slatemates -- instead, she's backing two DSA endorsees, Joel Brooks in Ward B and Jake Ephros in Ward D.
(The Minneapolis DFL revoking Omar Fateh's endorsement was also mentioned, but I'm not going into detail due to my own ideological bias affecting my perception of the whole saga in a manner that makes it impossible to be impartial.)
Make all of this what you will.
"IL-02: The Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC, to the surprise of no one, is backing State Sen. Robert Peters."
Only surprise is that they can't see through Peters's progressive posturing.
Posturing as the leading and most successful criminal legal reform legislator in the state currently has?
No, more like posturing as someone who listens to "the people," when he really defines "the people" as party leadership.
Is being the most effective elected official passing widely popular and needed legislation listening to "the people"? I've talked to him at multiple community events that I wouldn't have even expected him to be at. Which of the other candidates approach anything close to Peters in terms of progressive record and "listening"? I haven't seen it out of Preston, Miller or Brown, and certainly not the most likely person to be elected if it's not Peters--Jackson.
So he's in favor of widely popular things--how bold. When the going gets tough, though, not so much. He waits to hear from party leadership and will change his position on a dime, regardless of what his constituents want.
I don't know anything about him, but you should give examples of this.
Staunchly committed to working complicated and bold pieces of novel state legislation through the legislative process and the public communications campaign to beef that public support up, yep. You know, the job of an elected legislator.
But let's get to the point, which candidate are you trying to claim is better, let's savage them.
Trump hits 54% disapproval rating in NC, according to a YouGov #12 poll. Former governor Roy Cooper, in his bid for the open Senate seat next year, still maintains a high 55% approval, 38% disapproval and 6% of respondents unfamiliar with him.
https://catawba.edu/news/all-news/2025/yougov-12/
Somedays I long for blessed ignorance like not being familiar with a two-term governor of your own state.
When 2026 rolls in, north of 20% of the electorate probably never cast a ballot for or against him.
This is no longer 2020’s North Carolina.
What a peaceful existence that must be, although in this instance I wonder how much of that 6% are new transplants who never had him on a ballot
Every 4 year cycle, probably around 15% of the population would be new, counting ins and outs, and a net growth of 5%, accelerating after peak Covid.
Jon Favreau: Senior government official declares the opposition party domestic extremists as military and masked federal agents are deployed to opposition strongholds
https://x.com/jonfavs/status/1960332478390112468
I'll be honest, i've been very impressed Gov. Newsom. We've all been saying that we want dems to get out there and sell and he is doing that.
Fair. I still have problems with his character, but absolutely give him credit where it's due.
Yeah - this is where I stand too. He's doing some of the things we need him to do, but he did sleep with his best friend's wife and that's tough to forget...
Not true! Gavin Newsom and his best friend’s wife stayed awake. Hence the problem.
/s
How do we feel about Geoff Duncan potentially (probably) running for Governor of Georgia as a democrat? On one hand, he ran with Kemp and supported him from 2019-22ish. Since then, he's been your standard Never Trump-type. I would clearly support McBath or Carter over him, but I'm not particularly impressed with the candidates the Dems have right now and really, really want to flip that mansion.
Too centrist for my taste but might be the only dem of those running who could win right now and he'd be better than a republican in that chair.
That's kind of where I'm at too. I think Georgia is primed to keep speeding left. Biden won by 0.2% in a D+4.5 year. Kamala lost by 2.2% in a R+2 year. Shifted 4.5 points left relative to the nation. I think its important to control one of the state houses or governor's mansion heading into the 2030s redistricting cycle. With fair maps, Dems probably pick up 2-3 congressional seats and both the state house and state senate would become winnable.
I’m assuming you’re assuming that he wins again in the 2030 election as an incumbent Governor? I’d probably agree that would be the most likely outcome, but it might be an important thing to add to your post to avoid any confusion. If he won in 2026 and lost in 2030 for example, he’d have no control over redistricting.
I’m with you on the need for Democrats to have 1 of the 3 branches responsible for drawing districts and that Duncan may just be one of those “we’ve lost races here for decades, maybe he’s good enough”. But I’ll wait for primary voters to have their say.
For all we know though, our voters are going to be picking the Zohran Mamdani’s, Graham Platner’s and Bob Brooks’s populist left progressivism style/lane candidates for swing seat/state nominations in 2026 and even if Duncan runs in the primary, he still loses handily.
It’s going to be one of the most fascinating primaries to watch for 2026 certainly.
Yes, the idea being that incumbent governors rarely lose re-election. The 2018 cycle helped quite a bit in insulating Dems in 2022, losing only Sisolak. There's no progressive populist candidate in this race currently. However, the current candidates are four black, former officeholders in KLB, Esteves, Jackson, and Thurmond. I wonder if they would splinter Georgia's sizeable black population in the primary, making Duncan a better possibility? Should note Esteves is afro-latino.
Fair enough. Just wanted clarification on that part. I’m also making an assumption in this potential hypothetical that Mamdani’s likely majority win in 2025 creates more candidates of this type running as Democrats in races where there aren’t currently any running. So while I think this is fairly accurate as the race stands today, I’m not entirely convinced this is the whole field that runs in the primary either.
I’d much rather have an incumbent governor up for reelection in Georgia in 2030(especially it’s a defensive cycle) than having to take chances in an open seat race. That’s the same reason I was glad Evers in WI retired this cycle rather than 2030.
There would be a runoff in that case. Ain’t no first past the post.
You're right. Forgot Georgia has run-offs.
Also important to win the governor's mansion to let Ossoff or Warnock have a freer hand to run for President.
Good point.
This is Georgia, not California. He'll be PLENTY left wing as Governor. We didn't flip Virginia by running "bold "progressives."" We won't be flipping North Carolina and Georgia by running "bold progressives.""
Ossoff and Warnock are pretty progressive.
By Georgia standards, yes. By national standards, not as much. Neither of them are calling for the end of so called “right to work” laws.
If they’re part of a future Democratic trifecta and one of the President’s priority is ending right to work, they’ll vote for it.
Not unless voters are for it. The fact that Abigail Spanberger here in Virginia refuses to commit to it speaks for itself regarding its popularity in the south. Or rather lack thereof.
Ossoff and Warnock are more progressive than the Senators from Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Colorado and Virginia.
https://www.ajc.com/politics/too-radical-too-moderate-with-warnock-it-depends-on-whom-you-ask/QNFVWT2SD5BG7GDFJJJ4375AQU/
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/13/15786220/jon-ossoff-ad
I think you should differentiate between the Squad progressive lane (Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib) and the populist economics progressive lane (Bernie Sanders, AOC). They are very different. 1 is certain to be defeated in swing/red areas, the other has not really been tested since Trump upended politics and hardened partisanship, so saying a bold progressive can’t win is being way too certain of the narrative that aligns with one’s own opinion. Especially since these types of Democrats (left economically, working class) used to be elected regularly to federal office in red states.
Do I think they will win red areas now? No, the days of Democratic Senators and Governors in the heartland (yes I know about Kelly and Beshear, but they had huge help winning from their GOP opponents) and Deep South are over barring another realignment. Do I think they at least have a chance of winning swing/purple areas though? Absolutely, so saying they can’t is going too far imo.
Nope. In the mind of most voters there is no difference. Also Sanders is no old school “left economic “working class”” politician. If he were he would have been best buddies with Tip O’Neill in the 70s and 80s, would have grown up idolizing FDR instead of Eugene Debs, and would have moved to the Midwest instead of Vermont. Furthermore he actually has been tested. He was rejected in both 2016 and 2020. The latter by a larger margin. I get you want the Democratic Party to be more left wing on economic issues. However the country simply isn’t there politically.
I think you're being too dismissive of DragonFire's thoughtful point. Like you, I am frequently frustrated with some of the progressive factions of our party. That said, I think the idea that there is a difference, both in the eyes of voters and in reality, between The Squad and some more establishment-type progressives, is kind of hard to dispute...and the electoral results back it up. The Squad pretty consistently under-performs the top of the ticket and Bernie and AOC pretty consistently over-perform.
They do well in their very blue state and district. If they represented red or even purple parts of the country I would buy the argument. That’s not what’s happening though.
Still, the lie that Sanders is an old school New Deal Democrat needs to stop. Old school New Deal Democrats didn't spend the 1970s and 1980s making tributes to Eugene Debs and claiming that JFK "made (him) sick."
Bernie underperformed a bit comparing to Harris.
and won't be for a long, long time if ever
If that’s the case, why is Bernie Sanders the most popular Democratic politician according to polling? You tend to dismiss any counter point made if it doesn’t match with your immovable opinion.
Can you admit it’s possible for a Dan Osborn, a Rebecca Cooke, a Bob Brooks to win an election? Because I can admit that they can lose. I want the party to be more left wing yes, but I’m also willing to entertain scenarios that don’t lineup with my preference.
Can you do that? Because I have yet to see it. I hope you can prove me wrong right here and right now.
Because Sanders represents a state that's more white, rural, and left wing than the country is as a whole. Popularity in a state doesn't always translate into nationwide popularity. Again, if he were as popular as you insist and insist and insist he is, #1. he would be President right now and #2. politicians like him would be the rule and not the exception in this country. No offense, but your "but the polls" argument is the exactly same argument that Ron Paul fans and apologists used in his runs for President in both 2008 and 2012.
How do you identify AOC as not being a Squad progressive??
Because she’s changed since she was first elected as a “squad” like member. She’s also grown as a politician. And if anyone says she is the same as she was since she got elected or that she still is a “squad” member, I don’t see any evidence of that to be honest.
Her voting may be the same/similar to back then, but that’s where any similarity ends. If someone in 2017 said AOC was going to be one of the strongest Dem party supporters in 2025 you'd be called a liar and delusional. Voters change, so do their representatives.
She's changed, yes, but she's still one of the stars of the Squad and definitely progressive.
I think he'd be the best candidate for Democrats this cycle in Georgia. I do believe Democrats need to do more expanding of the tent rather than shrinking of it and giving Duncan a fair shot at being the Dem nominee in Georgia is one of those things Dems should do to expand the tent.
Does Duncan agree with Democrats on any policy issues or just on not rolling over to Trump (I actually don’t know this so I’m legitimately asking)?
He agrees with "Love thy neighbor." That's the fundamental basis for all Democratic policies.
It says a lot about where America is right now that "love thy neighbor" instead of "deport/arrest my neighbor" is liberal coded rather than are you a decent human being coded.
Indeed.
He definitely needs to slide over more and he'd be wise to do that if he wants even a prayer in the primary.
Yep. Lest we forget this is exactly how Republicans broke through the Governorship in the Peach State. Sonny Perdue, the first Republican Governor since Reconstruction actually not only was a Democrat until 1998, he was THE Senate President Pro Tempore and widely touted as a future statewide if not nationwide Democratic candidate there. We need to knock off this "purity" nonsense.
This is simply not about purity; Duncan was a Reagan Republican as late as November 2024 and Black voters are loyal to longtime Democrats. Let's not forget Charlie Crist's struggles with Black voters. Atleast David Jolly has a history of slowly shifting towards the left. He's basically a common-sense mainstream liberal now and is trusted among Democrats. Sonny Perdue was a typical conservative Southern Dem.
How does he win the primary? I don’t know.
Around 70% of all D primary voters are from the metro center, or Black majority exurbs and secondary cities. Round 60% would be Black, who are actually more centrist. The rest would be mostly White liberals. Don’t know how he connects with the primary voters as an exurban never Trumper.
And there is a runoff. No winning nomination with 49%.
Anti-Trump Republicans could vote in a primary runoff, no?
Yeah. How many of them? Also all the partisan primaries will be running at the same time, and a voter can only choose one party ballot to vote on.
How many of them would choose R ballot to vote on the Senate primary? How many of them would rather choose the R ballot to vote against his successor LG Jones who is also running for Gov on the R line.
And Virginia former Governor Ralph Northam voted for George W Bush for President twice. And the Kennedys gave $1000 to Richard Nixon's Senate campaign in 1950. Bottom line, people change.
Kennedy Sr. i don't think was all the progressive, he just wanted power.
The Wall Street anti-Semite who was probably also a bootlegger (alleged) wasn’t a progressive? Whoa no way
He was in the words of JFK “to the right of Herbert Hoover.”
I'm happy to welcome newly-minted Democrats or Independents or even Republicans into an anti-Trump coalition, but they shouldn't be preferenced in running for office.
Not automatically, no, but they should get fair and strategic consideration.
I think that’s where most of us are at honestly. We’re not closing the door on him because he was a Republican and we’re open to hearing his pitch if he should run.
We’re also not automatically going to get behind him immediately before he even announces when a lot of other Democrats are and have been running campaigns either.
Time will tell whether he can persuade our voters to back him for the nomination.
Yes, exactly.
I just want the candidate with the best chance of winning and there may be an argument that he is given that Jason Carter and Lucy McBath passed. I'm just not particularly impressed with the current candidates.
Definitely don’t disagree with you on that with who is most likely to win. I’m just not willing to jump on board with him immediately either.
Sure, that doesn't really conflict with what I said.
It doesn't. [Edited]
Clearly it was not obvious.
Do you assume any reply to you that doesn't include the phrase "I agree" is a disagreement?
If we can win, I'll take it. If the courts somehow fall for the bullshit and appeals look like a foregone conclusion, I've been fantasizing about Lisa Cook running. But her scholarship is pretty exploitable by bad faith Repub attacks, even if it's stupendous.
Because he’s not President right now. Polls mean nothing if you can’t back them up. If he were representing a purple or red state not only would be in agreement with you, I would be encouraging more politicians like him. In every state and all over the country. That isn’t the case. And yes non Republicans can run in states like Nebraska but they would have to take positions on social issues that are the antithesis of what base Democrats want.
He doesn't represent a swing state, but Tammy Baldwin is pretty liberal and does.
She represents a state with some progressive history in the mold of Robert LaFollette. Her types are nothing new in the Badger State. She is no "Squad" type though and you will NEVER her see her running around calling herself a socialist in ANY form.
She won't call herself that, but that's a matter of style more than substance, don't you think?
Yeah, Bernie is not actually a "socialist" despite whatever he might claim. Nordics are Social Democracies. In some ways, you could call social democracy "the socialism of the 21st century" or reformist socialism as in socialism which accepts the market and the failures of collectivization.
That's a very sensible post. I maintain that since Bernie has never said what his ideal society is, though, we don't know whether he is actually a socialist or not.
I hope we learned our lesson from the Jeff Van Drews of the world - better to pick a centrist Dem folks in GA already know/have vetted over a guy who ran as a Republican while Trump was president.
Looking forward to seeing the numbers from the special elections tonight.
I'm hesitant to be optimistic, even though I know what our track record has been so far. I also know that we lost the last race that would have ended their Iowa super majority, even though we majorly over performed. I guess we'll see tonight.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/californiaplaybook
Politico: Senator Alex Padilla not ruling out bid for California governor.
If he wants a free shot at it I actually wouldn’t mind, I think he’d be great at it (and it’d be great to get a prominent Hispanic candidate who isn’t Villaraigosa)
Would he become a leading candidate if he decides to run? Polling currently shows Katie Porter as the leading Dem. Would he be likely to overtake her?
Idk CA as well, but probably is my guess.
This is the first I've heard of Padilla as a candidate for governor. (I am a Californian.) I would be surprised if he runs. There are many notable Democrats already in the race. Porter is definitely the front runner right now, both for the primary and the general. If Padilla did run, he and Porter would probably end up as co-frontrunners for a while. But I think this is reminiscent of Dianne Feinstein. In her first few years as senator she wistfully dreamed of being governor, and then got over it. I think Padilla will too.
Another example of how nobody enjoys being senator. It wasn't that long ago that they were equally desirable jobs, and it was not at all uncommon to see governors working very hard to set themselves up to become senator. Nowadays it seems every senator is wishing they were governor instead.
I'd rather Porter get it, but I assume he'd be a strong contender to make it to the top two.
And don't discount the mundane details of the required life style:
1. having two households to pay for (home + DC)
2. the tedious and constant travel back and forth between the west coast and DC
(fwiw, back in aughts I once used my miles to upgrade to 1st class on a DC-to-LA flight. and sitting a row away was then Rep. Henry Waxman who had done the same thing! I guess I never realized those guys were stuck flying coach cross-country with the rest of us.)
All that hassle goes away if you're Gov.
Those two reasons are exactly why I've always felt it a low blow to attack members of Congress for moving the bulk of their lives to DC/MD/VA (especially the non-wealthy ones).