Rumor has it that Donald Trump cast a Mail-In ballot. Surely the resident of Mar-a-Lago and the Oval Office wouldn’t participate in and support a voting method that he repeatedly has claimed is fraudulent??
MO-Redistricting: I guess my question is, is "replaces it with new congressional boundaries that keep more cities and counties intact, and are more compact" factually correct?
I live in south KC in the little corridor that shoots up and divides my neighborhood into two districts. My best friend lives just down the street in what would be a different district. The KC area would go from one primary district to three. Doesn't sound factually correct to me.
Unless you've run the numbers already and found it's not, I think the claim regarding compactness could be technically true as a result of them getting rid of the ludicrously uncompact current MO-03.
i am a special elections optimist generally, but the turnout numbers thus far don't look great. That said, I know less about Florida politics than that man in the white house knows about diplomacy so hopefully I'm missing something
not a mental math guy but right now it's approximately 33k to 26,375 advantage r in state senate turnout, with only 11.9 k ballots by non-affiliated voters, that seems like a steep hill to make up in crossover or relying on independents to win.
in the palm beach state house race it's better imo, with approx 10.5 k dem votes versus 12.9 k rethug votes with only 5k ballots by non-affiliated voters
I'm usually a pressimist too but I think these numbers are similar to what we've done in other FL specials where we've overperformed? Assume 95% of the Dem vote and 70ish% of the Ind vote gets you very close, and these days there's a smidge more GOP crossover than usual.
Markwayne Mullin was confirmed with votes from the turncoat Fetterman and Martin Heinrich. WTF does Martin Heinrich, who represents the state with the highest % of Latinos in the nation, have to gain from voting for a new Secretary of Ethnic Cleansing who is clearly not qualified and likely going to continue targeting Latinos?
Heinrich issued a press statement stating that he wanted a DHS head that wasn't going to operate without a judicial warrant -- emphasizing multiple times he did not agree with Mullin's positions but that they were on speaking terms.
That I can understand. I wouldn't have voted to confirm him if I were Heinrich, just on principle and party loyalty.
Very true. I'm surprised he didn't get more Dem votes as well, but I expected them to come from the usual suspects from Nevada, New Hampshire, and Michigan, not Martin Heinrich.
They don’t seem to understand that their colleague is simply not allowed to be the person they’re privately chummy with in their public facing life. That the whole reason they have their job in the first place is because their base voters believe they’re *not* chummy with people like them.
To some extent I can understand Heinrich’s vote as an example of comity. I think the worst is that Fetterman’s committee vote moved Mullin’s confirmation to the full Senate. Had Fetterman voted Nay with his committee colleagues, Thune would have been forced to burn un valuable Senate floor time discharging Mullin from the committee.
Imho, a deal should have been attempted with Fetterman: vote No in committee – and we won’t make noises about you voting Yes to confirm. Yeah, I know, as with all things Fetterman, that’s more easily said than done.
I can't see Fetterman going along with anything remotely tactical like that, because he simply thinks we are all stupid. He acts as though he has figured out something the rest of us have not and we are all ridiculous for it. His party, its voters, its advocacy -- all ridiculous for wanting to stop this horror show he keeps voting for.
Watch us get 51 Senate seats in 2026 only to see Fetterman switch parties.
I believe the stroke changed his politics. If he wanted to be a John Murtha Democrat he could have done that for decades and found a way to get elected to Congress. Probably not statewide, federally. He painted himself as a Bernie guy and probably lost a primary to McGinty because the party wasn't as pro-Bernie at that point, IMO. If he was still with Bernie on immigration and the banned topic Democrats would be strongly in his corner. Remember that Bernie even flipped on immigration matters from where he was in the past.
You risk inciting people to debate whether Bernie's views on the banned topic are those of most Democrats or not, which is obviously a discussion not to have because it's a banned topic!
Tonight was supposed to be a CA-Gov debate among the 3.5 leading Dem candidates -- Swalwell, Porter, Steyer, and Matt Mahan, who is not really a leading candidate but considered one by the methodology used by USC that prioritizes recent fundraising prowess. USC canceled the debate at 11 PM last night because of the persistent complaining by candidates of color, all polling in Mahan territory but not with his Silicon Valley bankroll. The final straw was a letter by Dem legislative leaders urging voters to boycott the forum.
We've also had the Energizer bunny, Antonio Villaraigosa, hopping from tv mike to TV mike screaming racism. This isn't a good look for the party, and given we already have a divided field that alarmingly gives Republicans a shot at governor, the last thing we need is some issue that could suppress minority vote.
The inclusion of Mahan was deeply suspicious. (It seems likely that Mahan's Silicon Valley backers pressured the university to come up with an eligibility formula that would allow him in despite polling in the low single digits.) But they should have the debate without him rather than cancelling it.
Making "fundraising prowess" the sole determining factor for inclusion in the debate is bad. Also don't really like the use of DEI as a pejorative here.
Just out of curiosity: Why not organize two debates? One for the viable candidates, and a second debate for Mahan and the other candidates that are polling in the single-digits?
At that point, you might as well have them all on the debate stage. Having eight people is a little unwieldy, but manageable. These people just need to accept they have no shot and don't deserve the air time that a debate would give them. Debates are for helping undecided voters make up their mind and giving them legitimate choices. If the likes of Villaraigosa and Yee haven't gotten traction after months in the race, there's no reason to believe the debate will be their breakout moment. Therefore, they shouldn't be included.
Would I like to see all of them, including Mahan, drop out? Of course I would! But lacking that, two debates would at least help counter the idiotic and frankly vile accusations some of these candidates currently are making. Those are potentially hugely damaging. It’s incredibly painful to be watching what potentially is the beginnings of a horrible, absolutely-preventable train wreck!
Counter point: by allowing them on the stage after they made those accusations, the party would be both legitimizing the accusations by making it seem like they had merit and also rewarding their tantrums. If every knucklehead sees that you can get what you want by making a spicy allegation, there will be a lot more of it in the future.
Would love to see some polling of just voters of color for this race (both collectively and as individual groups). Could put to bed any viability arguments some of the weaker candidates are trying to make.
Our party has been historically too compelled to include low tier candidates with 0% chance of winning in debates. It's a waste of everyone's time to include people polling at 5%. In a normal election where frontrunners are at 20-30% or more, it would even be a waste of time to include people polling at 10%.
More of our party needs to accept that debates aren't there to give every candidate a fair shot. Debates aren't there to give candidates a platform to spread their ideas even if they fail. Debates are there to help voters pick between viable candidates. Everything else can only dilute that purpose at best.
Is there an alternative way to look at this? Such as, what if the Cal Dem leaders were trying to make a public stand on behalf of the candidates who come from communities that are the base of the Democratic Party?
Not saying that Thurmond, Yee, Villaraigosa, etc. are viable or even that they would get the majority of vote from their rspective ethnic communities. But probably not a good idea to piss off voters whose votes you need to even get to the top 2.
Also, why would voters associate the exclusion of minroity candidates with Democrats vs. putting the blame on USC?
I’m still puzzled as to how Mahan got included in the polling that got him into the debate with USC in the first place.
It’s only pure coincidence that Mahan supporters are Rick Caruso (who has donated a lot to USC) and the USC debate center director.
That said, I believe the debate being cancelled was a major relief. We need to ensure all candidates are included in the debates. This is the gubernatorial race, not the presidential race.
Let's be serious.. is there any scenario where a debate no one watches or has on their radar would move one of the 3-4-5% candidates into first or second place? No.
True but in the world of streaming, YouTube and TikTok, it's the presidential debates that get the most attention.
Also, Mahan added to the fire that Tom Steyer already started. Sure, fundraising is a factor but I wouldn't argue two candidates running for governor (Mahan and Steyer) who are raising donations primarily from wealthy donors or primarily from their own wealth are creating a fair environment that justifies candidates that like Villaraigosa, Yee, Thurmond, etc. should be excluded from the USC debate. They were able to debate at previous debates and all of a sudden just a few months before the primary they can't at the USC debate?
Are we going to have the mayoral debates in different cities primarily favoring candidates with the most fundraising and polls? City Council debates?
You ask: "[A]re Cal Dem leaders more concerned with the appearance of DEI protecting low-tier candidates, or with actually winning this election?" I assume that is a rhetorical question. It's starting to look like a train wreck.
Personally, I think the criteria was screwed up in two ways: (1) letting Mahan into the debate with no showing of actual voter support just because of his IE money; and (2) the use of only one poll (more than a month old) being the only one considered. (Not that newer polls would have changed the five credible candidates.)
Still, we need debates and having ten or more candidates on the stage has never worked. Indeed, giving an audience to every candidate together would probably spread out the votes more, to the detriment of the Democrats.
Once again, unless we're talking about wealthy donors, no one even knew about Mahan unless they were in San Jose city government or lived in the city. Even his statement that SJ is at the heart of Silicon Valley doesn't register for me as most of SV activity is in San Francisco, Peninsula and the South Bay up to the Peninsula.
I know it's typically a fool's errand to have any hope in Florida elections turning out well for us, but I'm optimistic we flip all three seats tonight. A swing half the size of the swings from the special elections in FL-01 and FL-06 would do it.
early and same day vote numbers would really suggest that polk seat is out of reach, the others well, if we win it means we won a ton of unaffiliated so that would be sick
My guess is Trump will keep watching the polls and drop the Cornyn endorsement if he thinks Cornyn has a better chance against Talarico. If Cornyn continues polling no better against Talarico than does Paxton, he won't waste any capital on Cornyn.
I'm getting too invested in the U.S. Senate Primary here in Iowa. I have followed American politics closely (IMO) since 2002. I have been through a billion primaries that I cared about. I get too worked up when I see people that I know on the local level misrepresenting a candidate's record.
It's like the TX Senate race for me in the aftermath of the Democratic primary. You have bots and pro-Crockett influencers (likely paid by pro Cornyn/Paxton groups) trying to sway Black Crockett voters from supporting Talarico in Nov by either encouraging them to "leave the Senate race blank" or "write in Crockett."
And then these same bad actors push lies about Talarico being "Fetterman in disguise" or implying he wasn't a good legislator or failed to work to amplify Black voters' voices.
Does Talarico have to work to get Black voters? Yes, he shouldn't take them for granted. But these influencers need to stop these shenanigans.
My local county chair has endorsed Zach Wahls. Zach Wahls was a President of a Credit Union and made a good salary. One of his mothers is a wealthy physician. Josh Turek does consulting work for non-profits and small businesses on using disability friendly equipment in their offices for example.
Zach Wahls was able to take off from school to start his own tutoring business. Zach is a good progressive and his life story is great, but my local party chair is painting Turek as the candidate of the rich just because he beat Wahls out for DSCC help. Wahls met with the same people. It takes two seconds to look into their backgrounds and you know that Zach Wahls has not struggled economically the same way Josh Turek has. Not Zach's fault, but I hate people flat out lying like this.
Because their values are the same. Wahls is upset that Turek got the fundraising boost that he had a shot at. Nathan Sage made a statement asking Wahls whether he met with the DSCC team. He never responded to my knowledge. Wahls and Turek are both employing campaign managers that worked for the DSCC in the past.
These influencers are the worst case of sore losers/sour grapes I can think of. Crockett graciously and immediately conceded the next day and by all accounts fully supports Talarico. If they’re so obsessed with her, they should follow her lead!
CA-Gov: We've been discussing this on the Discord server just now (and anyone not on the Discord should subscribe to The Downballot and join it), but want to comment here too for a more public discussion:
The California Democratic Party just released its own poll of the Governor race. It's bad enough that my top-two lockout fears have moved from "Concerned" to "Worried."
(poll results copy pasted from Ryan Dack on the Discord--thank you for writing them up so neatly)
Undecided is at 24%. Assuming 16% of them are liberal-leaning and do actually end up voting for one of the 3 leading candidates, that would put one of the leading Dems barely ahead of Bianco. However, unless something injects enthusiasm into this race, it's more likely that a chunk of the Undecided voters don't bother to vote, as they figure they'll just vote for whichever Dem makes the general election...not realizing a Dem might not make the general election.
To me, it's more clear than ever that the top two lockout fears are based in reality. This was a high quality poll.
More importantly, the poll shows that even if a minor candidate were to drop out, a top two lockout very well could still happen. 3% going to the leading candidates evenly would only put them at 11% instead of 10%. Even if Yee, Thurmond, Mahan, and Becerra all dropped out, the leading candidates would get about 3% of the vote each, still keeping them behind Bianco.
The better solution would be for one of the three leading Dems to drop out and endorse one of the other leading candidates.
Barring that, we're at the stage where Newsom or Harris needs to get involved in the race: endorse one of the candidates vocally, barnstorm the state, and also explain to voters the top two lockout fears so more Dems know to vote in the primary.
We are still at a stage where the top two lockout can be avoided, but Democrats here in California need to step up their game.
Newsom, Harris, maybe Obama or some other heavyweights need to start leaning in publicly and hopefully behind the scenes, and get some of the weaker candidates out. This is unacceptable. I also have my doubts about whether there would be any institutional learning from this potential own-goal.
Again, getting weaker candidates out won't really solve this problem as much as elevating one of the three leading candidates, or convincing a leading candidate to drop out and endorse one of the other ones.
I just ran Paul Mitchell's simulation and was a bit surprised. As of now, 11.1% chance of R vs.R. Drop Yee and Thurman: 9.9%. Also drop Becerra and Villaraigosa: 2.5%.
I understand the frustrations that Yee and Thurmond have shared about being people of color running for high-profile races. There is undoubtedly a much steeper and rockier hill for them to climb versus white candidates.
THAT BEING SAID, both them and Becerra have been campaigning for a year now, and all are currently in or were recently in fairly high-profile elected positions. They aren't newbies battling name ID issues. If you have the campaign length and experience going for you, but you're still registering only 1-3% in any given poll, it's not just structural forces causing your floundering campaign.
I'm not NOT concerned about a lockout, but there are two months to go for things to change, and I have to believe some candidates will suspend and endorse one of the frontrunners.
They're fighting like hell to make it to a debate stage that has approximately zero point zero chance of elevating them to credible candidate status. I don't believe any of them will suspend their campaign.
I'm not panicking about it yet because campaigns do tend to see a lot of consolidation in the final stretch, but a top two lockout is a very real possibility and we need to act accordingly. We need big names to consolidate in support of one of the credible candidates.
Much as I prefer Porter, the most likely person to benefit from that is Swalwell. Get Obama or Harris to come out and endorse one of them. Have the state party dual endorse the two of them as the only actually credible candidates. Something significant to acknowledge the real risk here.
Actually seems like a decent option if we're a week out from voting and things are really shaping up that way to potentially get Obama or Harris involved i know they probably wouldn't want to do that but that could be a nuclear option.
Only qualification I'll make to that is such an endorsement would need to be more than a week out. Ballots start being mailed out about a month before the official voting day. We'd want first week of May or earlier for a big endorsement consolidation. Waiting until a week before election day would mean a substantial share of votes will have already been cast.
I've been moving closer to a potential lockout only because it seems to be working up to the perfect storm for that possibility. Steyer would normally be at maybe 3 but he's spending a shit ton of money and will get more votes than usual, couple that with Swallwell and Porter, you could have those candidates in the high teens. IDK it's getting dicey.
Combined D-R vote is 42%-30%. Combined D-R vote among top five candidates is 30%-30%, with 12% combined for D candidates who are each polling at less than a typical polling margin of error.
Mahan would probably be the only one among the Dems whose supporters might consider a GOP candidate (Hilton) over the other Dems if he were to drop out.
I like Deluzio and he'd make a good Senator, but I do hope he considers staying in the House if Lamb decides to run. Deluzio is super interesting to me because he's quietly one of the more progressive members of the House Dem caucus despite being in a only-slightly blue seat. He's an important voice that only grows with tenure
Those prosecuting former Rep. David Rivera (R-FL) for corruption had a popular witness today: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is from the same area near Miami as Rivera and had a similar rise.
Rumor has it that Donald Trump cast a Mail-In ballot. Surely the resident of Mar-a-Lago and the Oval Office wouldn’t participate in and support a voting method that he repeatedly has claimed is fraudulent??
He has said Florida is different because it is run by Republicans and therefore must be honest! Lol
MO-Redistricting: I guess my question is, is "replaces it with new congressional boundaries that keep more cities and counties intact, and are more compact" factually correct?
I live in south KC in the little corridor that shoots up and divides my neighborhood into two districts. My best friend lives just down the street in what would be a different district. The KC area would go from one primary district to three. Doesn't sound factually correct to me.
I think it does split up fewer counties technically, but it is absolutely not more compact.
Unless you've run the numbers already and found it's not, I think the claim regarding compactness could be technically true as a result of them getting rid of the ludicrously uncompact current MO-03.
That may technically be true, but the new map is not more respectful of communities of interest and traditional redistricting criteria.
For those interested in turnout for the Florida specials (can view breakdown by party and updates throughout the day)
SD 14 https://hillsborough.electionsfl.org/SD14UnofficialTurnout
HD 87 https://www.votepalmbeach.gov/269/Live-Election-Turnout
HD 51 https://www.polkelections.gov/196/Live-Turnout-Information
i am a special elections optimist generally, but the turnout numbers thus far don't look great. That said, I know less about Florida politics than that man in the white house knows about diplomacy so hopefully I'm missing something
I think Florida is way more VBM-focused than other states, that could be part of why?
not a mental math guy but right now it's approximately 33k to 26,375 advantage r in state senate turnout, with only 11.9 k ballots by non-affiliated voters, that seems like a steep hill to make up in crossover or relying on independents to win.
in the palm beach state house race it's better imo, with approx 10.5 k dem votes versus 12.9 k rethug votes with only 5k ballots by non-affiliated voters
I'm usually a pressimist too but I think these numbers are similar to what we've done in other FL specials where we've overperformed? Assume 95% of the Dem vote and 70ish% of the Ind vote gets you very close, and these days there's a smidge more GOP crossover than usual.
oh that's good, i was hoping to be wrong on level of indy support/gop crossover. we will see how much we overperform tonight
Markwayne Mullin was confirmed with votes from the turncoat Fetterman and Martin Heinrich. WTF does Martin Heinrich, who represents the state with the highest % of Latinos in the nation, have to gain from voting for a new Secretary of Ethnic Cleansing who is clearly not qualified and likely going to continue targeting Latinos?
Heinrich issued a press statement stating that he wanted a DHS head that wasn't going to operate without a judicial warrant -- emphasizing multiple times he did not agree with Mullin's positions but that they were on speaking terms.
That I can understand. I wouldn't have voted to confirm him if I were Heinrich, just on principle and party loyalty.
I'm honestly surprised there weren't more. Senators have a bad habit of trusting their colleagues more than they ought.
See: the 99-0 vote for Rubio. Or even the 94-2 for Clinton
I also remember those types of votes for SCOTUS.
I remember watching the RBG documentary and floored when she said her and Scalia's confirmation votes were almost unanimous.
Sad how times have changed.
Now they won't even allow a vote, let alone give a vote.
Very true. I'm surprised he didn't get more Dem votes as well, but I expected them to come from the usual suspects from Nevada, New Hampshire, and Michigan, not Martin Heinrich.
nevada senators have started toeing the line better recently i've noticed, especially after ccm and rosen defected a lot in 2025
They don’t seem to understand that their colleague is simply not allowed to be the person they’re privately chummy with in their public facing life. That the whole reason they have their job in the first place is because their base voters believe they’re *not* chummy with people like them.
Though that didn't use to be the case several decades ago.
To some extent I can understand Heinrich’s vote as an example of comity. I think the worst is that Fetterman’s committee vote moved Mullin’s confirmation to the full Senate. Had Fetterman voted Nay with his committee colleagues, Thune would have been forced to burn un valuable Senate floor time discharging Mullin from the committee.
Imho, a deal should have been attempted with Fetterman: vote No in committee – and we won’t make noises about you voting Yes to confirm. Yeah, I know, as with all things Fetterman, that’s more easily said than done.
I can't see Fetterman going along with anything remotely tactical like that, because he simply thinks we are all stupid. He acts as though he has figured out something the rest of us have not and we are all ridiculous for it. His party, its voters, its advocacy -- all ridiculous for wanting to stop this horror show he keeps voting for.
Watch us get 51 Senate seats in 2026 only to see Fetterman switch parties.
i think it's understated how much the stroke changed his politics,
Or did the stroke reveal his politics?
I believe the stroke changed his politics. If he wanted to be a John Murtha Democrat he could have done that for decades and found a way to get elected to Congress. Probably not statewide, federally. He painted himself as a Bernie guy and probably lost a primary to McGinty because the party wasn't as pro-Bernie at that point, IMO. If he was still with Bernie on immigration and the banned topic Democrats would be strongly in his corner. Remember that Bernie even flipped on immigration matters from where he was in the past.
You risk inciting people to debate whether Bernie's views on the banned topic are those of most Democrats or not, which is obviously a discussion not to have because it's a banned topic!
I'll note Gallego wasn't there to cast a vote, which is worth noting considering he had praised Mullin, considering him qualified for the job.
He voted against him in committee.
Missed that, my appoligies
Is this today or next Tuesday? Inquring minds ... :)
It's today. Trump cast a mail ballot for HD-87, even though his dementia-riddled ass wants to do away with it.
Tonight was supposed to be a CA-Gov debate among the 3.5 leading Dem candidates -- Swalwell, Porter, Steyer, and Matt Mahan, who is not really a leading candidate but considered one by the methodology used by USC that prioritizes recent fundraising prowess. USC canceled the debate at 11 PM last night because of the persistent complaining by candidates of color, all polling in Mahan territory but not with his Silicon Valley bankroll. The final straw was a letter by Dem legislative leaders urging voters to boycott the forum.
Which raises the question: are Cal Dem leaders more concerned with the appearance of DEI protecting low-tier candidates, or with actually winning this election? And the related question: do the Dem legislative leaders talk to the party leaders??? https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-03-23/california-leaders-call-to-boycott-debate-if-other-candidates-not-included
Well written.
We've also had the Energizer bunny, Antonio Villaraigosa, hopping from tv mike to TV mike screaming racism. This isn't a good look for the party, and given we already have a divided field that alarmingly gives Republicans a shot at governor, the last thing we need is some issue that could suppress minority vote.
Where's Obama when you need him?
The inclusion of Mahan was deeply suspicious. (It seems likely that Mahan's Silicon Valley backers pressured the university to come up with an eligibility formula that would allow him in despite polling in the low single digits.) But they should have the debate without him rather than cancelling it.
Bingo. And this is why Mahan should be pressured to drop out of the gubernatorial race or call out his supporters as this is not looking good for him.
Making "fundraising prowess" the sole determining factor for inclusion in the debate is bad. Also don't really like the use of DEI as a pejorative here.
Actually standing in the polls was a greater weight in the criteria but giving fundraising from millionaires such weight was ridiculous.
It was not the sole factor
Just out of curiosity: Why not organize two debates? One for the viable candidates, and a second debate for Mahan and the other candidates that are polling in the single-digits?
At that point, you might as well have them all on the debate stage. Having eight people is a little unwieldy, but manageable. These people just need to accept they have no shot and don't deserve the air time that a debate would give them. Debates are for helping undecided voters make up their mind and giving them legitimate choices. If the likes of Villaraigosa and Yee haven't gotten traction after months in the race, there's no reason to believe the debate will be their breakout moment. Therefore, they shouldn't be included.
Would I like to see all of them, including Mahan, drop out? Of course I would! But lacking that, two debates would at least help counter the idiotic and frankly vile accusations some of these candidates currently are making. Those are potentially hugely damaging. It’s incredibly painful to be watching what potentially is the beginnings of a horrible, absolutely-preventable train wreck!
Counter point: by allowing them on the stage after they made those accusations, the party would be both legitimizing the accusations by making it seem like they had merit and also rewarding their tantrums. If every knucklehead sees that you can get what you want by making a spicy allegation, there will be a lot more of it in the future.
You make a very good point. Thanks!
Sounds logical but the same objection would follow.
It sounds like dems are really gonna fuck this up and it's all going to be their fault. Since you're out there can you let them know that?
Would love to see some polling of just voters of color for this race (both collectively and as individual groups). Could put to bed any viability arguments some of the weaker candidates are trying to make.
Pathetic that the debate got cancelled.
Our party has been historically too compelled to include low tier candidates with 0% chance of winning in debates. It's a waste of everyone's time to include people polling at 5%. In a normal election where frontrunners are at 20-30% or more, it would even be a waste of time to include people polling at 10%.
More of our party needs to accept that debates aren't there to give every candidate a fair shot. Debates aren't there to give candidates a platform to spread their ideas even if they fail. Debates are there to help voters pick between viable candidates. Everything else can only dilute that purpose at best.
Is there an alternative way to look at this? Such as, what if the Cal Dem leaders were trying to make a public stand on behalf of the candidates who come from communities that are the base of the Democratic Party?
Not saying that Thurmond, Yee, Villaraigosa, etc. are viable or even that they would get the majority of vote from their rspective ethnic communities. But probably not a good idea to piss off voters whose votes you need to even get to the top 2.
Also, why would voters associate the exclusion of minroity candidates with Democrats vs. putting the blame on USC?
I’m still puzzled as to how Mahan got included in the polling that got him into the debate with USC in the first place.
It’s only pure coincidence that Mahan supporters are Rick Caruso (who has donated a lot to USC) and the USC debate center director.
That said, I believe the debate being cancelled was a major relief. We need to ensure all candidates are included in the debates. This is the gubernatorial race, not the presidential race.
Let's be serious.. is there any scenario where a debate no one watches or has on their radar would move one of the 3-4-5% candidates into first or second place? No.
And fundraising was a factor, not just polling.
True but in the world of streaming, YouTube and TikTok, it's the presidential debates that get the most attention.
Also, Mahan added to the fire that Tom Steyer already started. Sure, fundraising is a factor but I wouldn't argue two candidates running for governor (Mahan and Steyer) who are raising donations primarily from wealthy donors or primarily from their own wealth are creating a fair environment that justifies candidates that like Villaraigosa, Yee, Thurmond, etc. should be excluded from the USC debate. They were able to debate at previous debates and all of a sudden just a few months before the primary they can't at the USC debate?
Are we going to have the mayoral debates in different cities primarily favoring candidates with the most fundraising and polls? City Council debates?
You ask: "[A]re Cal Dem leaders more concerned with the appearance of DEI protecting low-tier candidates, or with actually winning this election?" I assume that is a rhetorical question. It's starting to look like a train wreck.
Personally, I think the criteria was screwed up in two ways: (1) letting Mahan into the debate with no showing of actual voter support just because of his IE money; and (2) the use of only one poll (more than a month old) being the only one considered. (Not that newer polls would have changed the five credible candidates.)
Still, we need debates and having ten or more candidates on the stage has never worked. Indeed, giving an audience to every candidate together would probably spread out the votes more, to the detriment of the Democrats.
Once again, unless we're talking about wealthy donors, no one even knew about Mahan unless they were in San Jose city government or lived in the city. Even his statement that SJ is at the heart of Silicon Valley doesn't register for me as most of SV activity is in San Francisco, Peninsula and the South Bay up to the Peninsula.
I know it's typically a fool's errand to have any hope in Florida elections turning out well for us, but I'm optimistic we flip all three seats tonight. A swing half the size of the swings from the special elections in FL-01 and FL-06 would do it.
early and same day vote numbers would really suggest that polk seat is out of reach, the others well, if we win it means we won a ton of unaffiliated so that would be sick
Texas Senate runoff Quantus:
Paxton 49
Cornyn 41.
https://quantusinsights.org/f/latest-poll-texas-runoff-takes-shape#ddfaccf9-bede-412a-8ce9-6f9ddda07554
Without a Trump endorsement, I think Cornyn is cooked.
All that groveling for nothing.
+ the $100m ad campaign Senate Republicans blew the cash on lol.
I think Cornyn is cooked either way. Good riddance.
My guess is Trump will keep watching the polls and drop the Cornyn endorsement if he thinks Cornyn has a better chance against Talarico. If Cornyn continues polling no better against Talarico than does Paxton, he won't waste any capital on Cornyn.
Arkansas state Republican House Rep. Stan Berry died today at age 71, running unopposed in November.
https://arkansasadvocate.com/2026/03/24/arkansas-republican-rep-stan-berry-dies-at-71/
We'll see how long it takes that Huckabee woman to declare a special election to fill his seat.
I'm getting too invested in the U.S. Senate Primary here in Iowa. I have followed American politics closely (IMO) since 2002. I have been through a billion primaries that I cared about. I get too worked up when I see people that I know on the local level misrepresenting a candidate's record.
It's like the TX Senate race for me in the aftermath of the Democratic primary. You have bots and pro-Crockett influencers (likely paid by pro Cornyn/Paxton groups) trying to sway Black Crockett voters from supporting Talarico in Nov by either encouraging them to "leave the Senate race blank" or "write in Crockett."
And then these same bad actors push lies about Talarico being "Fetterman in disguise" or implying he wasn't a good legislator or failed to work to amplify Black voters' voices.
Does Talarico have to work to get Black voters? Yes, he shouldn't take them for granted. But these influencers need to stop these shenanigans.
My local county chair has endorsed Zach Wahls. Zach Wahls was a President of a Credit Union and made a good salary. One of his mothers is a wealthy physician. Josh Turek does consulting work for non-profits and small businesses on using disability friendly equipment in their offices for example.
Zach Wahls was able to take off from school to start his own tutoring business. Zach is a good progressive and his life story is great, but my local party chair is painting Turek as the candidate of the rich just because he beat Wahls out for DSCC help. Wahls met with the same people. It takes two seconds to look into their backgrounds and you know that Zach Wahls has not struggled economically the same way Josh Turek has. Not Zach's fault, but I hate people flat out lying like this.
Sounds to me that both Turek and Wahls are good guys and happen to have different backgrounds.
Would rather attention be made to scrutinize their platform than the focus be made on these trivial issues.
Because their values are the same. Wahls is upset that Turek got the fundraising boost that he had a shot at. Nathan Sage made a statement asking Wahls whether he met with the DSCC team. He never responded to my knowledge. Wahls and Turek are both employing campaign managers that worked for the DSCC in the past.
These influencers are the worst case of sore losers/sour grapes I can think of. Crockett graciously and immediately conceded the next day and by all accounts fully supports Talarico. If they’re so obsessed with her, they should follow her lead!
CA-Gov: We've been discussing this on the Discord server just now (and anyone not on the Discord should subscribe to The Downballot and join it), but want to comment here too for a more public discussion:
The California Democratic Party just released its own poll of the Governor race. It's bad enough that my top-two lockout fears have moved from "Concerned" to "Worried."
Full poll release here: https://cadem.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/CA-Voter-Index-Baseline-Survey-03.23.26.pdf
Crosstabs: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qa4hYobpl0TWFD7Oui0uqVIs3XjvoQbC/edit?gid=1019700642#gid=1019700642
Results Summary for CA-Gov:
🔴 Hilton 16
🔴 Bianco 14
🔵 Swalwell 10
🔵 Porter 10
🔵 Steyer 10
🔵 Becerra 3
🔵 Villaraigosa 3
🔵 Mahan 3
🔵 Yee 2
🔵 Thurmond 1
(poll results copy pasted from Ryan Dack on the Discord--thank you for writing them up so neatly)
Undecided is at 24%. Assuming 16% of them are liberal-leaning and do actually end up voting for one of the 3 leading candidates, that would put one of the leading Dems barely ahead of Bianco. However, unless something injects enthusiasm into this race, it's more likely that a chunk of the Undecided voters don't bother to vote, as they figure they'll just vote for whichever Dem makes the general election...not realizing a Dem might not make the general election.
To me, it's more clear than ever that the top two lockout fears are based in reality. This was a high quality poll.
More importantly, the poll shows that even if a minor candidate were to drop out, a top two lockout very well could still happen. 3% going to the leading candidates evenly would only put them at 11% instead of 10%. Even if Yee, Thurmond, Mahan, and Becerra all dropped out, the leading candidates would get about 3% of the vote each, still keeping them behind Bianco.
The better solution would be for one of the three leading Dems to drop out and endorse one of the other leading candidates.
Barring that, we're at the stage where Newsom or Harris needs to get involved in the race: endorse one of the candidates vocally, barnstorm the state, and also explain to voters the top two lockout fears so more Dems know to vote in the primary.
We are still at a stage where the top two lockout can be avoided, but Democrats here in California need to step up their game.
Newsom, Harris, maybe Obama or some other heavyweights need to start leaning in publicly and hopefully behind the scenes, and get some of the weaker candidates out. This is unacceptable. I also have my doubts about whether there would be any institutional learning from this potential own-goal.
Again, getting weaker candidates out won't really solve this problem as much as elevating one of the three leading candidates, or convincing a leading candidate to drop out and endorse one of the other ones.
I just ran Paul Mitchell's simulation and was a bit surprised. As of now, 11.1% chance of R vs.R. Drop Yee and Thurman: 9.9%. Also drop Becerra and Villaraigosa: 2.5%.
https://twins-production-9381.up.railway.app/
It would certainly help, but Steyer dropping out would help a lot more.
So would Swalwell dropping out but neither is going to happen.
Ditto with Porter.
I understand the frustrations that Yee and Thurmond have shared about being people of color running for high-profile races. There is undoubtedly a much steeper and rockier hill for them to climb versus white candidates.
THAT BEING SAID, both them and Becerra have been campaigning for a year now, and all are currently in or were recently in fairly high-profile elected positions. They aren't newbies battling name ID issues. If you have the campaign length and experience going for you, but you're still registering only 1-3% in any given poll, it's not just structural forces causing your floundering campaign.
A perfect assessment of this situation.
Agree but I would add Villaraigosa. Although he has not held state-wide office, he has run and is just as well known.
I hesitated to include him because he hasn't held office since 2013. But yeah, same sentiment.
I'm not NOT concerned about a lockout, but there are two months to go for things to change, and I have to believe some candidates will suspend and endorse one of the frontrunners.
They're fighting like hell to make it to a debate stage that has approximately zero point zero chance of elevating them to credible candidate status. I don't believe any of them will suspend their campaign.
I'm not panicking about it yet because campaigns do tend to see a lot of consolidation in the final stretch, but a top two lockout is a very real possibility and we need to act accordingly. We need big names to consolidate in support of one of the credible candidates.
Much as I prefer Porter, the most likely person to benefit from that is Swalwell. Get Obama or Harris to come out and endorse one of them. Have the state party dual endorse the two of them as the only actually credible candidates. Something significant to acknowledge the real risk here.
Actually seems like a decent option if we're a week out from voting and things are really shaping up that way to potentially get Obama or Harris involved i know they probably wouldn't want to do that but that could be a nuclear option.
Only qualification I'll make to that is such an endorsement would need to be more than a week out. Ballots start being mailed out about a month before the official voting day. We'd want first week of May or earlier for a big endorsement consolidation. Waiting until a week before election day would mean a substantial share of votes will have already been cast.
Yea no that's what i mean, a week out from when people can actually start voting and mailing in their ballots.
I've been moving closer to a potential lockout only because it seems to be working up to the perfect storm for that possibility. Steyer would normally be at maybe 3 but he's spending a shit ton of money and will get more votes than usual, couple that with Swallwell and Porter, you could have those candidates in the high teens. IDK it's getting dicey.
I'm definitely moving in a more worried direction as well.
Combined D-R vote is 42%-30%. Combined D-R vote among top five candidates is 30%-30%, with 12% combined for D candidates who are each polling at less than a typical polling margin of error.
Mahan would probably be the only one among the Dems whose supporters might consider a GOP candidate (Hilton) over the other Dems if he were to drop out.
The Missouri Supreme Court rules 4–3 that Missouri lawmakers can redraw congressional maps mid-decade.
https://x.com/redistrictnet/status/2036511661507424449?s=46&t=sbdQQeYBqp0h_Zql717iTw
So they allowed the abortion amendment on the general ballot in 2024 but allowed the MO GOP to rig the maps? Make it make sense.
Well, no, they just said there’s no prohibition on drawing maps mid decade. This is silent on the pending referendum
The 4 right-wing judicial activists on the Missouri Supreme Court brough shame to the Show-Me State by ruling in favor of the rigged 7-1 map.
PHIL BERGER CONCEDED!
https://www.wral.com/news/nccapitol/berger-hand-recount-rockingham-county-nc-senate-district-23-vote-lead-march/
I was worried he'd try the same BS he did when he enabled Jefferson Griffin's seat stealing antics, but apparently, he got the memo this time.
Now to toss his nepo baby son to the curb in 2028.
PA-Sen (2028): Rumor has it former Rep. Susan Wild is considering a primary challenge to John Fetterman. She would be 71 if elected.
If Connor Lamb is making the challenge a third candidate could only harm. But I think Fetterman will either retire or run as an independent
Chris Deluzio, Lamb's successor, is also considering.
I like Deluzio and he'd make a good Senator, but I do hope he considers staying in the House if Lamb decides to run. Deluzio is super interesting to me because he's quietly one of the more progressive members of the House Dem caucus despite being in a only-slightly blue seat. He's an important voice that only grows with tenure
If Deluzio passes on 2028 how do you feel about him about taking on McCormick in 2030?
I think that really depends on which party wins the 2028 presidential election.
Yeah, I'm a big Deluzio fan....he's got future statewide candidate written all over him.
I want Fetterman out of office but I'm tired of people running for the senate in their 70s. Especially for a first term.
Lamb would be fine. If Lamb sits it out there are plenty of viable democrats in PA that can run still that aren't at retirement age.
There's a decent chance that Fetterman doesn't run for re-election (he seemed to suggest that in a book that was published recently, IIRC).
When do polls close in Florida?
7pm EST/4pm PST, so in about an hour.
How’s it looking ???
no results i can find, was just going to ask if anyone knows how long florida usually takes on specials
-Senate district 14 in Tampa (the seat that Lt. Gov Jay Collins left behind) has Democrat Brian Nathan leading 53-47
-House district 87 in Palm Beach (Trump's home district) has Democrat Emily Gregory leading 58-42
Both would be flips if the Democrats win
based on the publicly provided data that was live until 6:55 on county websites, by my bad mental math I do not see how we don't flip hd 87
senate district would be a bigger pickup obviously
Definitely. Senate districts represent 540,000 residents, while House districts represent 180,000.
Additionally, Republican Hillary Holley leads Democratic Edwin Perez 54-46 in Polk County's 51st House district.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/24/us/marco-rubio-trial-witness-miami-venezuela.html
Those prosecuting former Rep. David Rivera (R-FL) for corruption had a popular witness today: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is from the same area near Miami as Rivera and had a similar rise.