It's time to be realistic about our chances in TN-07 tonight (a district that voted for Trump by 22%), and set our expectations accordingly.
A good night would be Van Epps winning by less than 15%.
A great night would be Van Epps winning by less than 10%.
A superb night would be Behn winning Montgomery County, which voted for Trump by 18% last year.
And of course, an absolutely mind-blowingly amazing night would be Behn winning the election.
I'm still predicting Van Epps winning by 15%, so a moderate-to-good night. But we'll see what actually happens. My point here is that if Van Epps wins by 10, Democrats should be thrilled, not disappointed.
I'm still hoping she brings it within single digits, but any over-performance is a good thing.
I still remember how Ossoff's GA-6 loss in 2017 was supposed to be some kind of huge body blow to the Democrats—never mind that he lost by <4 when the previous Democratic nominee had lost by >22!
Tempering expectations on stuff like this is important. I am thinking an 11% Van Epps win. Republicans preen because its a double digit win. Democrats preen because it's a double digit overperformance. Both are right, and Americans go on in their respective echo chambers moving forward.
I do think there are signs that an upset is possible, although I still agree that Matt Van Epps is favored.
As I noted on BlueSky: currently, on Twitter, the new season of Ru Paul's Drag Race is a higher trending topic in Tennessee than anything about the election. Aftyn Behn may benefit from most GOP voters simply not knowing there is an election going on today.
I think Mrvan would have a shot at reelection if the Indiana gerrymander becomes the new map. Trump +12 isn’t completely out of reach for an incumbent who outran Harris by 8 in 2024, especially in a bluer year. Maybe he holds on for one more term.
How much of that was more due to the economy crashing and Bush having 25% approval ratings though? When you factor in those fundamentals, Obama’s 2008 win was kinda meh. I do think racism probably hurt him a lot compared to what another potential candidate would’ve gotten.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that with the economy crashing in 2025 heading into 2026 that we’re now competitive in some places than we were in 2018.
It was more than just the economy. It was the war in Iraq and the historic campaign financing imbalance in Obama's favor, which allowed him to campaign without competition in a number of states, including Indiana.
Also keep in mind that Indiana went just as blue in 2006 when Joe Donnelly, Brad Ellsworth, and Baron Hill all easily unseated Republican incumbents. There was a genuine Democratic boomlet in the Hoosier State in Bush's second term.
It's not unreasonable, however, that Obama's margin was kind of "meh" given the fundamentals. His race definitely kept him from being more competitive in Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia, all states that were winnable in a perfect storm with a nominee who didn't have so much melanin.
I wonder if it would have been materially different. For all the talk of connections to Arkansas and the blue dog south I never got the sense from her campaign that she would have done meaningfully better in those blue dog areas in a general election. Her time in NY saw to that.
We'll never know but my first instinct is that the coalition would have been similar though of course not identical. Maybe she would have won Missouri and lost Indiana: Obama was uniquely strong in the midwest across both his campaigns.
That's a really interesting counterfactual. I was confident in predicting that Hillary would have run much better in Appalachia and the South up until Hillary was the general election nominee in 2016 and got crushed worse than Obama in those states. Definitely not an apples-to-apples comparison given the vast difference between the electoral environment and the challenger, but ultimately I think the coalitions would have shook out more similarly to the way they did with Obama than I thought back in 2013 when I would have guessed Hillary would have gotten far more electoral votes in 2008.
I think the "meh" margin of victory is essentially baked into the modern electorate. The floor for both parties is too high for anyone to aspire for margins much beyond the 5-10 point range depending on all the factors at play.
RIght but I don't think that "modern electorate" was fully baked in yet in 2008.....nothing resembling what we see today at least. When you look at the Democrats prevailing at the Congressional level back in 2008, and not just forever incumbents like Ike Skelton but newbies like Travis Childers, I suspect a Democratic Jesus existed who could have really stampeded in the 2008 Electoral College.
I’m not sure that we’re confined to close elections. 2008 and possibly 2016 and 2024 were the only real elections where a landslide was probably even possible given the conditions, but Republicans squandered that potential in 2016 and 2024 by nominating someone as flawed as Trump. Many polls had Clinton losing to Rubio and Kasich by landslide margins in 2016, yet had her leading Trump and Cruz.
I don’t buy that we’re as polarized as people make us out to be. Candidates matter. Otherwise we wouldn’t see Democratic governors in Kansas and Kentucky or Republican win gubernatorial races in Vermont or Maryland.
I really don’t think Hillary would have won any of these states either. She would done better than Obama in them and probably would have kept Arkansas (similar to Kerry’s loss margin) and West Virginia within single digits. Kentucky and Tennessee probably would have been more like 10 point losses rather than 16 points.
I do think it's conceivable she could have won MO, but maybe not, as Obama won IN and almost won MO in large part due to representing a neighboring state.
I think she flips Missouri. Arkansas is a tough call. I hate comparing 2016 to 2008 since she was coming off two terms of Obama and the environment was just much redder.
WI-Gov: Former LG Mandela Barnes in. The article says he likely won't make it out of the primary, but he leads primary polls. Personally, I would support state representative Fran Hong.
Howard Zinn had some enlightening things to say about Senator McCarthy and McCarthyism. In my humble opinion, Zinn’s brilliant "A People's History of the United States" ought to be a required part of America’s high school curriculum!
My high school history teacher did use Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" right alongside our textbook, in rural Utah! I've always thought he got away with it because none of the parents realized what it was.
I 100% agree. Look back to some of the ads the GOP ran against him in 2022, Barnes had a lot of damaging oppo dumps against him and never responded effectively to them. A lot of the attacks were particularly hard to refute since they had clips of him saying XYZ.
The lean of the year would likely carry him, but I don’t want to take that risk. I’m fine with either Crowley or Rodriguez, neither of whom are tied to the idiotic defund the police or holding an “Abolish ICE” shirt. Barnes said some damaging things in interviews that will forever be held against him.
I kind of wonder if an “outsider” politician like a DSA member could be popular in Wisconsin. It’s hard to say because Tony Evers is pretty mild mannered but Wisconsin did vote for Bernie in 2016.
Wisconsin has elected progressives statewide before. Baldwin, Feingold, if you want to go really far back La Follette.
I suspect, unfortunately, race is an issue for Barnes. That and he wasn’t as well-funded in his 2022 campaign — money was going to doomed candidates like Val Demings instead. I think one of our regulars Janus had a post about it here a while back.
Ok, looking at OpenSecrets it is true Demings campaign raised more $$ from small donors than Barnes but she received significantly less PAC support than he did. Barnes had nearly $50 million in PAC support while Demings less than $3 million. Demings raising more $$ seems more of a result of her getting more attention from ActBlue and small donors at the time more than anything else.
Like what Techno00 said above, Wisconsin is known for electing prominent progressives. Also, depending on what happens tonight in Tennessee, progressives may be able to win difficult turf.
It was always the correct position, but unfortunately, being right or being prematurely right in a political sense often tends not to win elections. My parents were early opponents of the U.S. war in Vietnam and had the cold comfort of their friends coming around to their position later. We opponents of the aggression against Iraq could also say "We told you so" after a million some-odd Iraqi dead and thousands of Americans dying for nothing.
On the one hand, he definitely received less support than any of our other priority senate candidates that year and he still came close to winning.
On the other hand, even so much as it might not reflect poorly on him, he still lost. I stand by my evaluation that running a candidate that lost previously is a bad idea, no matter the reasons for their defeat. As such I'd rather he not be the nominee.
I mean no incumbent senator lost in 22 and national dems did seem to abandon the race too early but I agree at the very least would like Barnes to show some electoral strength in other races since 22 before putting top office at risk.
There are serious reservations about him within the party, so much so that there was a lengthy NYT article with a party insiders basically begging him not to run. His standing has deteriorated a lot from the days when he was able to get everybody to drop out and endorse him in the 2022 primary.
Graham Platner was up big after the one month honeymoon too. I highly doubt he would be now if an independent poll went into the field today. Primaries are very fluid, and Barnes probably benefits a lot more from residual name recognition than Rodriguez or Crowley.
“If our victory margin is single digits, the conference may come unhinged,” one senior House Republican said. A loss would be catastrophic and the conference would “explode,” the Republican added.
But how much of the Bluesky user base is truly representative of Virginia?
Keep in mind it's a much different state than California and New York. Although I have my issues with Warner, his moderate persona fits the state and to date most of the elected politicians in the Democratic Party have a moderate image one way or another. Even Spanberger can be moderate at times. He was also a popular Governor.
If a primary challenge to Warner comes from a more liberal Democrat than him, that candidate isn't assured to win the primary.
By Bluesky, Virginia wasn’t what I had in mind. I find Bluesky to be fairly representative of the left-wing of the Dems, particularly the online left. I’m aware they do not accurately represent individual areas very well.
Well, Bluesky was founded by Jack Dorsey as an alternative to Twitter, which he co-founded over 15 years ago. It can have influence one way or another depending on how the dialog and word of mouth applies in certain cases.
But since Elon Musk went manic with his energy by turning Twitter into X, Bluesky for many left-wingers was the response to this. Generally speaking, the activist base can be fired up through the platform.
For Virginia, at best NoVa would be where the left-wingers on Bluesky reside the most. However, I wouldn't be surprised a lot of moderates are there as well, particularly those who work in federal government jobs in Arlington. Depends on who you meet for the nmost part.
People who refuse to allow ideas to register in their heads no matter how many times those ideas are presented to them cannot see a way forward. It's a personal defect of theirs.
I don't disagree and healthcare is the main reason I'm on the left end of the U.S. political spectrum even though I'm doubtful we will get universal healthcare anytime soon.
Mostly not because people can't imagine how to do it but because people who depend on campaign contributions from medical insurance companies have personal reasons to refuse to see the way forward.
EDITED: Spanberger leaves office as Governor in 2030, not 2031.
If Mark Warner, a moderate Democratic Senator, wants universal healthcare, that means the push will be on for Democrats in 2029 to get this if the next Democratic Presidential Candidate is elected in 2028. Certainly, the political environment over healthcare has been complicated because of the ACA subsidies extension not being done and the backdrop of the assassination of former United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
For when he retires, certainly Abigail Spanberger could be a leading candidate who could be a great Senator to replace Warner. Keep in mind though when Spanberger finishes her four-year term as Goveror, it will be at the beginning of 2030 so there will be a three year gap for her until 2033. If she intends to run for the Senate seat, which will have the first open race since 2008, she ought to do that early on in 2031.
For now, better let Spanberger serve as Governor first as she was just elected.
There are better opportunities for Kaine's seat in 2030. Congressmen Vindman, Subramanyam and Walkinshaw in NOVA as well as Congresswoman McClellan in Richmond. 2032 is perfect for Spanberger.
I didn't realize that when I made my comment. However, just to clarify, I edited my comment to point out that Spanberger actually finishes off as Governor in 2030, not 2031. Therefore, a Senate run in 2030 could suit Spanberger quite well and she could be field clearing if this is the case.
Spanberger would have to announce her run for the Senate in 2029 but at a reasonable time so she's still able to focus on her job as Governor.
We can also do better than Subramanyam, who takes a lot of money from a certain ideological PAC. Walkinshaw and McClellan are the best members of the House delegation.
I mean, no one would have any clue who the Vindmans were if it weren't for Trump being a piece of trash. What are the issues with Eugene's voting record?
Don't forget that Virginia dems are working on a plan to draw new congressional districts. There could be 1-3 extra house democrats with three terms under their belts by 2032. Any of these presently unknown officials could make good candidates too.
Sure although new House districts aren't going to change anything statewide that Virginia voters aren't otherwise going to believe in the Democrats they decide to elect. Unless the voter demographics overtime change this.
Whoever these House Democrats end up becoming from the new districts, assuming they were more left wing than Mark Warner when they were elected, they may have to move to the center or it could complicate their chances as general election candidates for Governor, Senator, etc.
If Elaine Luria wins her old House seat back (which is quite doable even if it isn't redrawn), I'd love to see her as a statewide candidate in the future.
Voting record wise Warner is solidly liberal. However, he has stated years ago that he was a moderate and has served as Senator with that mantra in mind.
Warner’s moderate image is because of his willingness to compromise, which he has done on multiple occasions.
Kaine and Spanberger I would consider more liberal than Warner but they do also project a similar mantra as he does. Spanberger worked with Rep. Young Kim on police reform but not because of what most liberals would want them to.
Spanberger, a solid liberal like Kaine? She used the 2020, 2022 and 2026 post election cycles to criticize her party whether on big scary "socialism"; FDR, BBB and inflation or the shutdown as in this year. She's more moderate than Sherill.
.....actually never mind. Jones should appreciate being AG for the next 4 years because that's how far his political career should advance (assuming his unacceptable texts aren't a hint as to how he'll run the AG's office).
Eh, IMO Jones's future political career will depend on what he does as Attorney General in the next four years. If he does a good job, he could certainly be considered for another political office. The texting stuff will be old news in four years (so long as he doesn't send any more stupid texts, of course).
I would caution in thinking he is out of the woods completely. Waves tend to carry flawed candidates all the times only for them to lose in more neutral years. Vitter is a very good example of this.
I would prefer that he retire now to get some fresh blood in. He's old enough for it to be desirable. But he's also not quite so old to make it a big problem. It's workable, so long as he truly retires in 2032.
And because Hillary Clinton pushed universal healthcare back in the early 90’s when Bill Clinton was POTUS, best Democrats regain their spine on this issue. We were to have solved it decades ago.
Steve Mitchell is the worst pollster in a state of terrible pollsters. He just makes numbers up - and MIRS is a state capital news organization that is definitely gop friendly. So, yeah a laugh and hope it gives Rogers unearned confidence for his eventual crushing.
The precinct that includes the Belmont campus voted fairly heavily for Harris in 2024, IIRC.
Williamson County (partially in TN-7) is seeing abnormally high turnout for a special election, but the source cited (WTVF-TV in Nashville) didn't post about exactly how high Election Day turnout there is. Williamson was the only county Behn won in the Democratic primary (and barely at that); she'd probably have to be within single digits of winning Williamson to win districtwide.
The 1 poll we’ve seen already has Moulton with a quarter of the primary vote before the campaign even really begins. The age thing could wind up biting us in the ass hard, because voters here could easily decide that youth trumps policy.
Honestly, I’m extremely nervous about this race and I don’t think people are really understanding just how possible it is to have Moulton as a Senator for MA for the next 2 decades or more even without Pressley running.
I don't know. I don't expect Markey's 50+ year political career to end in any way other than on his own or upon his death. Besides, Kennedy apparently posed quite the challenge in 2020, but was defeated by double digits.
The key difference is 1 race happened before Biden had to withdraw from running for re-election as president because of his age/mental fitness problems and 1 happens after. Things change! That’s the only constant in politics and pointing to Kennedy as a reason Markey doesn’t have much to worry about is missing the forest for the trees.
If Moulton ran in 2020, he’d lose by the same margin Kennedy did. But he’s not running back then, he’s running right now after the Biden debacle and we’d be wise to acknowledge the different circumstances comparing now and then.
When the incumbent who has universal name recognition in the state only gets 30% of Democrats in the primary, that’s a flashing red warning sign that Markey has got a tougher fight on his hands than most people are thinking.
It’s not that 25% support is impressive (it’s definitely not), it’s that before Moulton really starts to campaign and hammer Markey on his age and ability to fight Trump with attack ads, a quarter of our voters are already choosing the “not Markey” option even with him being so conservative compared to the state itself.
That’s not to say Markey is toast by any means, but winning 20% more of the vote in the primary as a universally known long time multi-decade incumbent Senator from people who already know him and are undecided is a much harder climb then winning 25% more of our voters as someone virtually unknown.
I think in the end Markey wins his primary because Moulton is way too conservative and Democrats aren’t at risk of losing the seat, so they’ll go with their preference over the more moderate option. But Moulton absolutely has a path to winning and we should recognize how doable it would be for him to pull it off.
I think Moulton's ideology is a problem he has, but another problem he has is that the party establishment, both in state and out of state, dislike him. He's too moderate to get the most active part of our base to support him. He's too selfish and difficult to work with to win over the establishment. He lacks a lane.
He's still dangerous because relative youth could very well be a compelling message against a near 80 year old incumbent. That's the plausible pathway for him. I hope it doesn't happen but you're right that it could.
As a Massachusetts Democrat myself I don’t think Markey should take the primary for granted but I don’t think Moulton will catch fire. Markey gave a real barnburner of a speech at the convention in September and other than the age issue has no true defects to hold against him.
Not that I don’t worry about our Senators being so old but if that’s Moulton’s main line of attack he is just gonna sound like a dick.
Really sad. Hope Markey gets pressured out and she can reverse tack then. I imagine she doesn't see a solid path to victory in a three-way/it increases Moulton winning, so she's keeping powder dry from attacking Markey.
I do still wonder about Trump using the federal case against him as a political drag. I think if they thought it would work, they'd ask him to switch parties in exchange for dropping the rest of the charges. These are the latest news I've seen on the case's progression.
Thinking on a separate track leading off from here, I've been grateful that Underwood is leading approps negotiations for Homeland Security in his stead during this time. I think it helped give her a line directly to the Coast Guard commandant after the weird "swastikas and nooses aren't hate symbols" brief policy change. It is annoying that she's still called the "acting" ranking member of the subcommittee until if/when Cuellar's indictment is cleared (per caucus rules). Ben Cardin was fully ranking member of Foreign Relations until Menendez took it back in 2018, and the same with Brad Sherman taking the Foreign Affairs subcommittee on MENA issues for Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick last week.
The candidates here in NC are officially filing to run for re-election. Not too surprisingly, GOP candidates/incumbents (like Sarah Stevens) are taking potshots at the Democratic candidates.
Several candidates have filed for the Democratic and GOP primary for the U.S. Senate, which it's possible TACO ass kisser Whatley won't be on the November 2026 ballot.
Honduras: The moderate conservative candidate, Nasralla, has taken the lead over the Trump-backed right-wing candidate in the presidential race. With 65% counted.
Nasralla would definitely be an improvement over Asfura. Still not sure how LIBRE fell apart in recent weeks; the incumbent president reportedly had high approvals.
Rand Paul is notoriously Libertarian and against interventionist in foreign countries as far as war. Not surprising he’s taking charge here. He has to date not really faced any serious opposition to him in the primary.
But Hegseth is a delusional fraud who should have never been Secretary of Defense.
It's time to be realistic about our chances in TN-07 tonight (a district that voted for Trump by 22%), and set our expectations accordingly.
A good night would be Van Epps winning by less than 15%.
A great night would be Van Epps winning by less than 10%.
A superb night would be Behn winning Montgomery County, which voted for Trump by 18% last year.
And of course, an absolutely mind-blowingly amazing night would be Behn winning the election.
I'm still predicting Van Epps winning by 15%, so a moderate-to-good night. But we'll see what actually happens. My point here is that if Van Epps wins by 10, Democrats should be thrilled, not disappointed.
I'm still hoping she brings it within single digits, but any over-performance is a good thing.
I still remember how Ossoff's GA-6 loss in 2017 was supposed to be some kind of huge body blow to the Democrats—never mind that he lost by <4 when the previous Democratic nominee had lost by >22!
But Hillary Clinton only lost GA-06 by like 2 points. Harris loss TN-07 by 22 points. If we lose TN-07 by anything less than 10, it’s a great showing.
I forgot that Hillary did so well there (albeit not with coattails). The geographic distribution in that election was just SO bizarre.
I scaled my expectations in comparison to both the FL-6 and the average. So:
R +22% Don't want to think of it
R 21-16% Meh. Overperformance but on the lower range of this year's average
R 16-11% Ok. The propensity gap is still holding up.
R 11-6% Good. A sign that TN voters are unhappy with Trump (as much as they'll admit). This range is my expectation.
R 6-0% Excellent. At this range Van Epps is doing worse than Randy Fine - think about that.
And it looks like, if Behn overperforms here as much as Valimont did in FL-01, she would narrowly win. It is possible!
If the weather is bad today in TN-07, it's bad for the Rs.
Looks decent, if maybe slightly chilly. Not the snowstorm we're getting further north.
Cloudy, with a high near 35. North northwest wind 5 to 10 mph.
Damn.
Tempering expectations on stuff like this is important. I am thinking an 11% Van Epps win. Republicans preen because its a double digit win. Democrats preen because it's a double digit overperformance. Both are right, and Americans go on in their respective echo chambers moving forward.
Yes, but that type of overperformance has decent predictive value, I think.
I'll also say about Epps by 15, this is a conservative white district so i just can't see the margin less than 10
Put me down for Van Epps by low double digits. 12% to put down an actual number
I'll split the difference between you and Mark and say 10%.
I'll guess Van Epps by 8. The race got attention too early and GOP turnout will rise from what it would have been.
That's where I'm at too. Anywhere in the 7-10% range.
I do think there are signs that an upset is possible, although I still agree that Matt Van Epps is favored.
As I noted on BlueSky: currently, on Twitter, the new season of Ru Paul's Drag Race is a higher trending topic in Tennessee than anything about the election. Aftyn Behn may benefit from most GOP voters simply not knowing there is an election going on today.
https://bsky.app/profile/awildlibappeared.bsky.social/post/3m6zhhxagy22j
GOP Super PACs are flooding the airways and TV stations with ads though.
I agree with your analysis, but I think most people on here are pretty realistic about the contours of the race and have been all along.
https://www.insidernj.com/lt-governor-and-secretary-of-state-tahesha-way-launches-congressional-bid-for-nj-11/
NJ-11: Way in
I should mention the filing deadline was yesterday, which is when she filed (announced this morning)
No way!
Way.
Holy '90s, Batman!
She's not just in; she's WAY in.
Way to go!
This race is more crowded than:
1) The PATH heading to Manhattan during rush hour.
2) The United Polaris lounge at Newark Airport when all the United flights are flying off to Europe.
3) The New Jersey Turnpike at all hours of the day.
And somehow it still has fewer candidates than IL-9 does this year.
I read this in Dan Rather voice.
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/12/01/texas-election-2026-gary-vandeaver-greg-abbott/
Yesterday's news but don't think it was mentioned: TX state Rep. VanDeaver (R), an Abbott foe, retiring
He opposed him on the invidious voucher vote.
Pretty sure VanDeaver is a guy named Gary
You are of course right.
I think Mrvan would have a shot at reelection if the Indiana gerrymander becomes the new map. Trump +12 isn’t completely out of reach for an incumbent who outran Harris by 8 in 2024, especially in a bluer year. Maybe he holds on for one more term.
The Democratic party in Indiana needs to learn to fight in EVERY district.
It’s funny because that Indiana map would have been such a dummymander as recently as 2008. Obama would have carried all but two districts I bet.
Then again, Obama would have won many other modern Republican districts in the Midwest and across the country
How much of that was more due to the economy crashing and Bush having 25% approval ratings though? When you factor in those fundamentals, Obama’s 2008 win was kinda meh. I do think racism probably hurt him a lot compared to what another potential candidate would’ve gotten.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that with the economy crashing in 2025 heading into 2026 that we’re now competitive in some places than we were in 2018.
It was more than just the economy. It was the war in Iraq and the historic campaign financing imbalance in Obama's favor, which allowed him to campaign without competition in a number of states, including Indiana.
Also keep in mind that Indiana went just as blue in 2006 when Joe Donnelly, Brad Ellsworth, and Baron Hill all easily unseated Republican incumbents. There was a genuine Democratic boomlet in the Hoosier State in Bush's second term.
It's not unreasonable, however, that Obama's margin was kind of "meh" given the fundamentals. His race definitely kept him from being more competitive in Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia, all states that were winnable in a perfect storm with a nominee who didn't have so much melanin.
I wonder what a Hillary Clinton 2008 coalition would have looked like
I wonder if it would have been materially different. For all the talk of connections to Arkansas and the blue dog south I never got the sense from her campaign that she would have done meaningfully better in those blue dog areas in a general election. Her time in NY saw to that.
We'll never know but my first instinct is that the coalition would have been similar though of course not identical. Maybe she would have won Missouri and lost Indiana: Obama was uniquely strong in the midwest across both his campaigns.
That's a really interesting counterfactual. I was confident in predicting that Hillary would have run much better in Appalachia and the South up until Hillary was the general election nominee in 2016 and got crushed worse than Obama in those states. Definitely not an apples-to-apples comparison given the vast difference between the electoral environment and the challenger, but ultimately I think the coalitions would have shook out more similarly to the way they did with Obama than I thought back in 2013 when I would have guessed Hillary would have gotten far more electoral votes in 2008.
I think the "meh" margin of victory is essentially baked into the modern electorate. The floor for both parties is too high for anyone to aspire for margins much beyond the 5-10 point range depending on all the factors at play.
RIght but I don't think that "modern electorate" was fully baked in yet in 2008.....nothing resembling what we see today at least. When you look at the Democrats prevailing at the Congressional level back in 2008, and not just forever incumbents like Ike Skelton but newbies like Travis Childers, I suspect a Democratic Jesus existed who could have really stampeded in the 2008 Electoral College.
I’m not sure that we’re confined to close elections. 2008 and possibly 2016 and 2024 were the only real elections where a landslide was probably even possible given the conditions, but Republicans squandered that potential in 2016 and 2024 by nominating someone as flawed as Trump. Many polls had Clinton losing to Rubio and Kasich by landslide margins in 2016, yet had her leading Trump and Cruz.
I don’t buy that we’re as polarized as people make us out to be. Candidates matter. Otherwise we wouldn’t see Democratic governors in Kansas and Kentucky or Republican win gubernatorial races in Vermont or Maryland.
I really don’t think Hillary would have won any of these states either. She would done better than Obama in them and probably would have kept Arkansas (similar to Kerry’s loss margin) and West Virginia within single digits. Kentucky and Tennessee probably would have been more like 10 point losses rather than 16 points.
I'd have disagreed with you 10 years ago but now I suspect you're right.
I do think it's conceivable she could have won MO, but maybe not, as Obama won IN and almost won MO in large part due to representing a neighboring state.
I think she flips Missouri. Arkansas is a tough call. I hate comparing 2016 to 2008 since she was coming off two terms of Obama and the environment was just much redder.
i agree, but there's now way she does as well in Michigan as obama did. 17 points in a swing state. still blows my mind
According to DRA, he carried 5 of them and barely lost another 3 by less than 6%.
Only IN-05 was a decidedly McCain district, which speaks to how much political coalitions have changed.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/02/mandela-barnes-wisconsin-governor-00671918
WI-Gov: Former LG Mandela Barnes in. The article says he likely won't make it out of the primary, but he leads primary polls. Personally, I would support state representative Fran Hong.
He lost against the worst Senator in the state back in 2022. What makes him think 2026 won't be a repeat?
One could argue that Joe McCarthy is Wisconsin's worst senator, but I get what you're saying
Howard Zinn had some enlightening things to say about Senator McCarthy and McCarthyism. In my humble opinion, Zinn’s brilliant "A People's History of the United States" ought to be a required part of America’s high school curriculum!
https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/mccarthy-red-scare
Zinn’s book is stellar. I’ve read (large parts of) it and Zinn did a fantastic job. Highly recommend it.
My high school history teacher did use Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" right alongside our textbook, in rural Utah! I've always thought he got away with it because none of the parents realized what it was.
Excellent!
I 100% agree. Look back to some of the ads the GOP ran against him in 2022, Barnes had a lot of damaging oppo dumps against him and never responded effectively to them. A lot of the attacks were particularly hard to refute since they had clips of him saying XYZ.
The lean of the year would likely carry him, but I don’t want to take that risk. I’m fine with either Crowley or Rodriguez, neither of whom are tied to the idiotic defund the police or holding an “Abolish ICE” shirt. Barnes said some damaging things in interviews that will forever be held against him.
Crowley would be my next option after Hong
I have serious doubts about a DSA member being able to win statewide in Wisconsin. Rodriguez seems like the best bet here.
I kind of wonder if an “outsider” politician like a DSA member could be popular in Wisconsin. It’s hard to say because Tony Evers is pretty mild mannered but Wisconsin did vote for Bernie in 2016.
Wisconsin has elected progressives statewide before. Baldwin, Feingold, if you want to go really far back La Follette.
I suspect, unfortunately, race is an issue for Barnes. That and he wasn’t as well-funded in his 2022 campaign — money was going to doomed candidates like Val Demings instead. I think one of our regulars Janus had a post about it here a while back.
Ok, looking at OpenSecrets it is true Demings campaign raised more $$ from small donors than Barnes but she received significantly less PAC support than he did. Barnes had nearly $50 million in PAC support while Demings less than $3 million. Demings raising more $$ seems more of a result of her getting more attention from ActBlue and small donors at the time more than anything else.
https://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary?cycle=2022&id=FLS2
https://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary?cycle=2022&id=WIS2
Like what Techno00 said above, Wisconsin is known for electing prominent progressives. Also, depending on what happens tonight in Tennessee, progressives may be able to win difficult turf.
Turns out he was prescient about "Abolish ICE" and now seems to be the correct position.
It was always the correct position, but unfortunately, being right or being prematurely right in a political sense often tends not to win elections. My parents were early opponents of the U.S. war in Vietnam and had the cold comfort of their friends coming around to their position later. We opponents of the aggression against Iraq could also say "We told you so" after a million some-odd Iraqi dead and thousands of Americans dying for nothing.
On the one hand, he definitely received less support than any of our other priority senate candidates that year and he still came close to winning.
On the other hand, even so much as it might not reflect poorly on him, he still lost. I stand by my evaluation that running a candidate that lost previously is a bad idea, no matter the reasons for their defeat. As such I'd rather he not be the nominee.
I mean no incumbent senator lost in 22 and national dems did seem to abandon the race too early but I agree at the very least would like Barnes to show some electoral strength in other races since 22 before putting top office at risk.
He won't make it out of the primary? Isn't he leading in the couple polls that are out there? If he is the nominee, he needs a better strategy.
There are serious reservations about him within the party, so much so that there was a lengthy NYT article with a party insiders basically begging him not to run. His standing has deteriorated a lot from the days when he was able to get everybody to drop out and endorse him in the 2022 primary.
True but the voters have the final say and he has name recognition so it's a little soon to assume he won't win the primary.
Graham Platner was up big after the one month honeymoon too. I highly doubt he would be now if an independent poll went into the field today. Primaries are very fluid, and Barnes probably benefits a lot more from residual name recognition than Rodriguez or Crowley.
Here’s to hoping!
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/12/02/congress/house-republicans-tennessee-special-election-00672582
“If our victory margin is single digits, the conference may come unhinged,” one senior House Republican said. A loss would be catastrophic and the conference would “explode,” the Republican added.
Win or lose, the GOP loses. Big time.
Republicans in Disarray!
Larry Sabato saying that Mark Warner told a gathering this will be his last term and that he wants universal Healthcare.
Sabato also speculates that Tim Kaine is currently in his last term.
I'd love to see Spanberger run to replace one or the other.
You mean to say he retires in 2032?
Yes
Warner is despised on Bluesky and a number of the left there want him primaried.
The universal healthcare bit is promising though, that’s long been a pet issue of mine.
But how much of the Bluesky user base is truly representative of Virginia?
Keep in mind it's a much different state than California and New York. Although I have my issues with Warner, his moderate persona fits the state and to date most of the elected politicians in the Democratic Party have a moderate image one way or another. Even Spanberger can be moderate at times. He was also a popular Governor.
If a primary challenge to Warner comes from a more liberal Democrat than him, that candidate isn't assured to win the primary.
By Bluesky, Virginia wasn’t what I had in mind. I find Bluesky to be fairly representative of the left-wing of the Dems, particularly the online left. I’m aware they do not accurately represent individual areas very well.
Well, Bluesky was founded by Jack Dorsey as an alternative to Twitter, which he co-founded over 15 years ago. It can have influence one way or another depending on how the dialog and word of mouth applies in certain cases.
But since Elon Musk went manic with his energy by turning Twitter into X, Bluesky for many left-wingers was the response to this. Generally speaking, the activist base can be fired up through the platform.
For Virginia, at best NoVa would be where the left-wingers on Bluesky reside the most. However, I wouldn't be surprised a lot of moderates are there as well, particularly those who work in federal government jobs in Arlington. Depends on who you meet for the nmost part.
No, Bluesky is not representative of the Left. Its representative of resist liberals imo.
In my experience, I've seen both on Bluesky. I'd say you're half right then.
The leftists on Bluesky are more politically correct than those on X.
I'm sure there are more moderate Dem senators and congresspeople who deep down want universal healthcare but see no path to get there.
People who refuse to allow ideas to register in their heads no matter how many times those ideas are presented to them cannot see a way forward. It's a personal defect of theirs.
I don't disagree and healthcare is the main reason I'm on the left end of the U.S. political spectrum even though I'm doubtful we will get universal healthcare anytime soon.
Mostly not because people can't imagine how to do it but because people who depend on campaign contributions from medical insurance companies have personal reasons to refuse to see the way forward.
EDITED: Spanberger leaves office as Governor in 2030, not 2031.
If Mark Warner, a moderate Democratic Senator, wants universal healthcare, that means the push will be on for Democrats in 2029 to get this if the next Democratic Presidential Candidate is elected in 2028. Certainly, the political environment over healthcare has been complicated because of the ACA subsidies extension not being done and the backdrop of the assassination of former United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
For when he retires, certainly Abigail Spanberger could be a leading candidate who could be a great Senator to replace Warner. Keep in mind though when Spanberger finishes her four-year term as Goveror, it will be at the beginning of 2030 so there will be a three year gap for her until 2033. If she intends to run for the Senate seat, which will have the first open race since 2008, she ought to do that early on in 2031.
For now, better let Spanberger serve as Governor first as she was just elected.
There are better opportunities for Kaine's seat in 2030. Congressmen Vindman, Subramanyam and Walkinshaw in NOVA as well as Congresswoman McClellan in Richmond. 2032 is perfect for Spanberger.
I didn't realize that when I made my comment. However, just to clarify, I edited my comment to point out that Spanberger actually finishes off as Governor in 2030, not 2031. Therefore, a Senate run in 2030 could suit Spanberger quite well and she could be field clearing if this is the case.
Spanberger would have to announce her run for the Senate in 2029 but at a reasonable time so she's still able to focus on her job as Governor.
Vindman is a Resist Lib grifter based off his voting record. We can do better than him.
We can also do better than Subramanyam, who takes a lot of money from a certain ideological PAC. Walkinshaw and McClellan are the best members of the House delegation.
I mean, no one would have any clue who the Vindmans were if it weren't for Trump being a piece of trash. What are the issues with Eugene's voting record?
Spanberger leaves office in Jan. 2030, not 2031.
Thanks. Made corrections.
And this would be a three year gap for Spanberger if she were to run for the Senate in 2032.
Same gap for Warner when he ran for senate in 08 after the end of his term as governor in Jan 06.
Yes although I have an instinctive feeling Spanberger won’t wait until the 2032 Senate race to run.
She ran for Governor right after she left the House. It would be interesting though for her to back to Congress after being Governor.
Don't forget that Virginia dems are working on a plan to draw new congressional districts. There could be 1-3 extra house democrats with three terms under their belts by 2032. Any of these presently unknown officials could make good candidates too.
Sure although new House districts aren't going to change anything statewide that Virginia voters aren't otherwise going to believe in the Democrats they decide to elect. Unless the voter demographics overtime change this.
Whoever these House Democrats end up becoming from the new districts, assuming they were more left wing than Mark Warner when they were elected, they may have to move to the center or it could complicate their chances as general election candidates for Governor, Senator, etc.
Democrats ought not to have another 2021 again.
If Elaine Luria wins her old House seat back (which is quite doable even if it isn't redrawn), I'd love to see her as a statewide candidate in the future.
Even Spanberger will be better than her. Luria is and has been Virginia's Gottheimer/Torres.
We're going to need that number to be 3 considering Florida and Indiana have gotten into the act.
Is Spanberger any different from Warner or Kaine? They're solid liberals, perfect for Virginia, just not DSA types.
Agree - I'm a big fan of all three of them
Rather moderate, methinks.
Voting record wise Warner is solidly liberal. However, he has stated years ago that he was a moderate and has served as Senator with that mantra in mind.
Warner’s moderate image is because of his willingness to compromise, which he has done on multiple occasions.
Kaine and Spanberger I would consider more liberal than Warner but they do also project a similar mantra as he does. Spanberger worked with Rep. Young Kim on police reform but not because of what most liberals would want them to.
https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/blog?ID=F9FDD702-AC8A-458C-A7E1-5F815B189BFD
Spanberger, a solid liberal like Kaine? She used the 2020, 2022 and 2026 post election cycles to criticize her party whether on big scary "socialism"; FDR, BBB and inflation or the shutdown as in this year. She's more moderate than Sherill.
Great news for Jay Jon......
.....actually never mind. Jones should appreciate being AG for the next 4 years because that's how far his political career should advance (assuming his unacceptable texts aren't a hint as to how he'll run the AG's office).
Eh, IMO Jones's future political career will depend on what he does as Attorney General in the next four years. If he does a good job, he could certainly be considered for another political office. The texting stuff will be old news in four years (so long as he doesn't send any more stupid texts, of course).
Jones would make a good anti establishment progressive Senate.
He won the election, the voters had their referendum on him, this issue is done unless something new comes up.
So thought David Vitter after voters reelected him to the Senate in 2010.
I would caution in thinking he is out of the woods completely. Waves tend to carry flawed candidates all the times only for them to lose in more neutral years. Vitter is a very good example of this.
I was at the gathering last night. Warner did indeed say that the next term would be his last.
I would prefer that he retire now to get some fresh blood in. He's old enough for it to be desirable. But he's also not quite so old to make it a big problem. It's workable, so long as he truly retires in 2032.
So why doesn't he speak out loudly for universal healthcare? That could be helpful, especially in 2029.
Agreed. Warner can do it now.
And because Hillary Clinton pushed universal healthcare back in the early 90’s when Bill Clinton was POTUS, best Democrats regain their spine on this issue. We were to have solved it decades ago.
VA-Sen: Mark Warner officially announces his reelection campaign, as expected.
https://bsky.app/profile/markwarnerva.bsky.social/post/3m6zg5g3thc2r
If anyone needed a laugh:
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/1995935455133499570?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1995935455133499570%7Ctwgr%5Ef2a46898254c1216b17ad925c1bdf71231df0dd3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftalkelections.org%2FFORUM%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D650363.msg10146378new
Steve Mitchell is the worst pollster in a state of terrible pollsters. He just makes numbers up - and MIRS is a state capital news organization that is definitely gop friendly. So, yeah a laugh and hope it gives Rogers unearned confidence for his eventual crushing.
Anyone have an on the ground update on the Tennessee voters from the applicable counties?
The precinct that includes Belmont University in Nashville is reporting turnout above 2024 presidential election levels:
https://www.threads.com/@noahprince.2/post/DRx_qbNAf70
The precinct that includes the Belmont campus voted fairly heavily for Harris in 2024, IIRC.
Williamson County (partially in TN-7) is seeing abnormally high turnout for a special election, but the source cited (WTVF-TV in Nashville) didn't post about exactly how high Election Day turnout there is. Williamson was the only county Behn won in the Democratic primary (and barely at that); she'd probably have to be within single digits of winning Williamson to win districtwide.
https://www.threads.com/@allie4tn/post/DRxzzwUjcGW
MA-Sen, MA-7:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/12/02/nation/pressley-running-house-not-senate/
Pressley isn’t running for Senate. Running for House re-election instead.
This probably means that Markey will remain committed to his re-election, and hopefully handily defeat Moulton
The 1 poll we’ve seen already has Moulton with a quarter of the primary vote before the campaign even really begins. The age thing could wind up biting us in the ass hard, because voters here could easily decide that youth trumps policy.
Honestly, I’m extremely nervous about this race and I don’t think people are really understanding just how possible it is to have Moulton as a Senator for MA for the next 2 decades or more even without Pressley running.
I don't know. I don't expect Markey's 50+ year political career to end in any way other than on his own or upon his death. Besides, Kennedy apparently posed quite the challenge in 2020, but was defeated by double digits.
The key difference is 1 race happened before Biden had to withdraw from running for re-election as president because of his age/mental fitness problems and 1 happens after. Things change! That’s the only constant in politics and pointing to Kennedy as a reason Markey doesn’t have much to worry about is missing the forest for the trees.
If Moulton ran in 2020, he’d lose by the same margin Kennedy did. But he’s not running back then, he’s running right now after the Biden debacle and we’d be wise to acknowledge the different circumstances comparing now and then.
I don't think having a quarter of the primary vote is much of an achievement.
When the incumbent who has universal name recognition in the state only gets 30% of Democrats in the primary, that’s a flashing red warning sign that Markey has got a tougher fight on his hands than most people are thinking.
It’s not that 25% support is impressive (it’s definitely not), it’s that before Moulton really starts to campaign and hammer Markey on his age and ability to fight Trump with attack ads, a quarter of our voters are already choosing the “not Markey” option even with him being so conservative compared to the state itself.
That’s not to say Markey is toast by any means, but winning 20% more of the vote in the primary as a universally known long time multi-decade incumbent Senator from people who already know him and are undecided is a much harder climb then winning 25% more of our voters as someone virtually unknown.
I think in the end Markey wins his primary because Moulton is way too conservative and Democrats aren’t at risk of losing the seat, so they’ll go with their preference over the more moderate option. But Moulton absolutely has a path to winning and we should recognize how doable it would be for him to pull it off.
I think Moulton's ideology is a problem he has, but another problem he has is that the party establishment, both in state and out of state, dislike him. He's too moderate to get the most active part of our base to support him. He's too selfish and difficult to work with to win over the establishment. He lacks a lane.
He's still dangerous because relative youth could very well be a compelling message against a near 80 year old incumbent. That's the plausible pathway for him. I hope it doesn't happen but you're right that it could.
As a Massachusetts Democrat myself I don’t think Markey should take the primary for granted but I don’t think Moulton will catch fire. Markey gave a real barnburner of a speech at the convention in September and other than the age issue has no true defects to hold against him.
Not that I don’t worry about our Senators being so old but if that’s Moulton’s main line of attack he is just gonna sound like a dick.
Really sad. Hope Markey gets pressured out and she can reverse tack then. I imagine she doesn't see a solid path to victory in a three-way/it increases Moulton winning, so she's keeping powder dry from attacking Markey.
Good.
Markey is an excellent Senator and both Pressley & Markey are way more progressive than the most odious opportunist Moulton.
TX-28:
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/12/02/webb-county-judge-tano-tijerina-congressional-run/
Webb County Judge Tano Tijerina is officially in as a Republican, running against Cuellar.
I’m not particularly worried, given the Hispanic swing back towards Dems.
I do still wonder about Trump using the federal case against him as a political drag. I think if they thought it would work, they'd ask him to switch parties in exchange for dropping the rest of the charges. These are the latest news I've seen on the case's progression.
https://www.kgns.tv/2025/11/11/federal-judge-approves-international-depositions-cuellar-bribery-case/
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/08/14/henry-cuellar-judge-dismisses-2-charges-bribery-delays-trial/
Thinking on a separate track leading off from here, I've been grateful that Underwood is leading approps negotiations for Homeland Security in his stead during this time. I think it helped give her a line directly to the Coast Guard commandant after the weird "swastikas and nooses aren't hate symbols" brief policy change. It is annoying that she's still called the "acting" ranking member of the subcommittee until if/when Cuellar's indictment is cleared (per caucus rules). Ben Cardin was fully ranking member of Foreign Relations until Menendez took it back in 2018, and the same with Brad Sherman taking the Foreign Affairs subcommittee on MENA issues for Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick last week.
The candidates here in NC are officially filing to run for re-election. Not too surprisingly, GOP candidates/incumbents (like Sarah Stevens) are taking potshots at the Democratic candidates.
https://www.theassemblync.com/news/politics/elections/theyre-running/
Several candidates have filed for the Democratic and GOP primary for the U.S. Senate, which it's possible TACO ass kisser Whatley won't be on the November 2026 ballot.
Why wouldn't Whatley be on the ballot?
if he lost the primary to any of the folks that followed is how i read the post
That’s what I meant.
Honduras: The moderate conservative candidate, Nasralla, has taken the lead over the Trump-backed right-wing candidate in the presidential race. With 65% counted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Honduran_general_election
Oh thank God. At least the Trump one is losing.
Nasralla would definitely be an improvement over Asfura. Still not sure how LIBRE fell apart in recent weeks; the incumbent president reportedly had high approvals.
Sen. Rand Paul's opinion of Hegseth: https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/02/politics/rand-paul-hegseth-boat-strike
Good luck trying to primary him. I'm sure that's what will come of it.
Rand Paul is notoriously Libertarian and against interventionist in foreign countries as far as war. Not surprising he’s taking charge here. He has to date not really faced any serious opposition to him in the primary.
But Hegseth is a delusional fraud who should have never been Secretary of Defense.
Kegseth is a war criminal. Full stop.
100% agreed!
Secretary of War? What a joke!
and a wife beater.
UT-1:
https://x.com/BernieSanders/status/1995614339357925803
Bernie Sanders endorses State Sen. Nate Blouin.
That was quick
Bernie volunteer and delegate in 2016.