It's hard to protect the country if we don't win the senate, craig gives us the best chance to do that. At the end of the day that's what matters. I think either Craig or Flanagan would be favored but neither is a done deal, it's minnesota not california. However, I also think Craig gives us a better chance to win and given the current stakes I don't think it's wise to do anything that even lowers our odds of winning the senate a little. If we can't nothing else really matters.
We are going to win in Minnesota no matter what unless we have a truly toxic candidate (which Flanagan is not) or the environment is so bad that we have no chance of winning the Senate. We don’t need to nominate the most electable candidate regardless of policy positions in light blue states that haven’t elected a Republican Governor since 2006, Senator since 2002, or presidential candidate since 1972. There is no universe in which Flanagan would lose Minnesota but we’d win somewhere like Texas, Iowa, Ohio, or Alaska, there’s probably not even a universe where Flanagan would lose but we’d win North Carolina. If we are gaining any seats in the Senate, Minnesota won’t be a tough fight with either of the candidates.
Um, no, no they wouldn’t. Flanagan is a perfectly respectable candidate who is extremely likely to win even if we somehow have a political environment like 2022 or 2020 in Minnesota. And frankly, if the midterms somehow result in the kind of red wave that would be necessary for Flanagan to lose Minnesota (and we’d likely also lose Michigan, Georgia, and New Hampshire if we were losing Minnesota), our democracy is doomed and there’s no point to worrying about individual Senate seats.
Also Senate terms are 6 years. Minnesota will not be the tipping point state in 2026, but a one-seat difference going into 2028 or 2030 could easily end up deciding Senate control.
That said Flanagan would probably win comfortably but I agree that the possibility of disaster is higher with her than with Craig.
I don't have any particular beef with Craig but I think your analysis is correct. If Flanagan isn't winning MN, we are definitely not winning NC or ME...
If we're losing the senate race in MN next year, we're having a really, really bad night. Atrociously bad. Flanagan should not be facing any serious general election handicap.
Also why are you treating Craig like some electoral juggernaut? She underperformed:
- 2024 Klobuchar
- 2022 Walz
- 2020 Biden and Smith
- 2018 Klobuchar, Smith, and Walz
She matched HRC in 2016 (both barely lost the district), and overperformed Harris in 2024. Across MN gov, senate, and presidential elections her 2024 performance vs Harris is her only overperformance across her congressional career.
This is not a record that tells us we need her for purely electoral reasons. It is not an impressive record. Her electoral record isn't horrible either, but there is no merit to saying she "consistently overperforms" or arguing that she is an atypically strong candidate based on her record.
Perhaps a better framing of it is that she peaks at the right time....and based on her performance in 2022 and 2024 with the very demographic of voters that are now needed to eke out a win in Minnesota, it seems like a no-brainer to me.
Again, her only overperformance is 2024 president. If she didn't overperform then she still would have won reelection. Harris won the district comfortably — she didn't benefit from "peaking" then.
If she peaked in 2016 and did better than HRC and won, that would make sense for arguing that she peaked at the right time. That didn't happen. She always did worse than Smith, Klobuchar, and Walz. Every time she shared the ballot with them she did worse than them in her district. She did worse than Biden, and no better than HRC.
What do you mean peaking at the right time? I'm not seeing what data would support saying such. Can you expand on that?
Let’s not judge Angie Craig by one vote she made when Biden was still president. She’s always a fairly reliable Democratic vote. She’s not Sinema or Fetterman.
Flanagan is only a "better option" if she can win. She's heavily tied to a Governor's office that's already losing steam and gaining vulnerabilities. I'm not at all confident that a Flanagan nomination would age well in November 2026.
We are going to win Minnesota no matter who the nominee is and Angie Craig is bad on policy + has been endorsed by all the wrong people (Moulton, Torres, Philips etc).
It's probably worthwhile noting that he doesn't actually support Cuomo and you're freaking insane if you think Dems can win while shrinking the tent to exclude Andrew Yang, who is personally to the left of like 60% of the country. 2024 ended up being a vindication of a lot of Dean Phillips' theory of modern politics. If we want to just play seven degrees of separation to discredit that then whatever, but it's not the way a serious political movement engages in politics.
Andrew Yang is a grifter and Cuomo is a creep so fine with those two individuals leaving the tent they do more harm in it. The general point on ideology is fair though.
Actually, I'd say that at this time in 2023 that WAS the most important issue. And we're living the darkest possible consequences today for not recognizing what Dean Phillips did recognize.
I'm still baffled by Democrats' never-ending overconfidence that a D+1 state in a region that has monothically turned against them is forever gonna remain in "we're gonna win there no matter what" territory. The law of averages said that one of the Dems' long list of >1 point victories is Minnesota is bound to at some point go the other way.
And the Republicans didn’t lose any Senate seats in light red states in 2022. We’d need a midterm worse than 2022 was for the Republicans to lose Minnesota, what reason is there to think that would happen?
I agree, but republicans would have to recruit a strong candidate to have a decent shot at winning and they haven’t done that yet. If Royce White is their nominee again, either Craig or Flanagan will probably be fine.
Name a time in a D-leaning environment when we’ve lost an open Senate race in a state that’s at least D+1. Unless you actually think we’re going to lose the midterms next year, and frankly in that case we are just kind of screwed and have no path forward as a party regardless of who wins in Minnesota, then what reason is there to think that even in a mildly D-leaning midterm we’d lose a Senate seat in Minnesota, a place we were able to hold Senate seats in red years like 2014 and 2024?
Perhaps I'm too far in front of my skis in inferring that Angie Craig is the indisputably better choice than Peggy Flanagan, but I'd say you're too far in front of your skis in your assurance that next year is gonna be a D-leaning environment. Particularly in Minnesota, I expect the tide to crest a little short of expectations because swing voter disgust will be split between Trump and the state DFL dealing with a huge deficit brought on by controversial mega-spending that's not aging well.
I think it’s fair to say that Craig is less likely to face headwinds in a general than Flanagan (agreed there in fact), but I think it’s far too early to discern to what degree. I think both would enter as solid favorites over, say, Royce White
Give me a single reason why this won’t be an at least mildly blue environment nationwide. Even 2022, the worst midterm performance we’ve seen by the out party since 9/11, still was a red leaning electorate. And the idea that voters will vote against a Democratic Senate candidate because of state budget problems is a relic of a bygone era. Senate campaigns aren’t local anymore, they’re national and they have been for a long time.
Sorry to pile on, but one critical thing absent from this discussion so far is the Republican candidate. To capitalize on the dominant party weakness you're suggesting, the weaker party typically still needs a pretty good candidate, right? Looking at Wikipedia's candidate and declined-to-run lists, doesn't seem like Republicans are feeling too optimistic so far.
That's true. If Minnesota manages to oversee blistering population growth primarily from Democrat-friendly demographics--an inverse version of Florida in the last 15 years--then the Dems' winning streak will almost certainly continue. Not seeing any evidence yet of that kind of growth though.
VA-1 went for Glenn Youngkin in the last Gubernatorial Election by a 58-41 margin. If Abigail Spanberger wins it or comes close to winning it in November, Wittman is in trouble. Whoever wins our nomination next year will likely need to have military ties as it is a strongly military district.
Fort Lee (which is in VA-04) is closer to Richmond than several towns in my county are to me, it's less than a fifteen minute drive. When I was in AIT Richmond was the place to go on weekend passes and I'm sure plenty of the permeant cadre make their homes there.
It has, but the counties surrounding it have not been. If York County goes for Spanberger, she would be the first Democrat to win it statewide since Mark Warner did back in 2008.
If the Monkees song "Last Train to Clarksville," about a man going off to war, was not inspired by Clarksville, Tennessee, which Clarksville was it? Songwriters Tommy Boyce and Bobby Hart have said they loosely based the name on Clarksville, Tennessee, because it’s near Fort Campbell, a major U.S. Army base.
I'm still a bit skeptical that TN-07 can be flipped. I think it's just a bit too conservative, even with a special election bump.
However, if Democrats do succeed in flipping TN-07, you can bet that TN-05 will suddenly heat up in the 2026 elections. In 2024, TN-05 voted for Trump by about a 58-40 margin, making it significantly more competitive than TN-07.
The question is not whether "X district can be flipped". Rather, it's how seriously can Democrats contest the seat and make it close. Even in ruby red states, there should be credible candidates. You need to engage the voters, have visible presence and make an effort. Otherwise the voters won't even know who you are and that's how minority parties stay in the minority. They give up before they even make an effort and the voters seeing that you made no effort to reach out to them, see no reason to support you. A self fulfilling prophecy is true mostly because we believe it to be.
Yes, but a special election is vastly different from a general. In fact, I'm fairly certain that, even if we win the TN-07 special, we'd give it right back again next year. I'll still take the 1 year of D representation, though.
I think voters will support it if it’s framed as a way to fight back against a republican power grab. Or they could use very manipulative language like republicans have done in Missouri and Ohio.
Well, the tentative ballot initiative title appears to be called the "Election Rigging Response Act." So they're off to a good start on the language front!
Politico's poll is awfully flawed. The question was:
”In both 2008 and 2010, California voters passed initiatives to give an Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission the power to draw the state’s legislative and congressional districts, in order to reduce the influence of politicians. Governor Newsom has suggested returning congressional line drawing authority back to the Legislature, citing concerns that redistricting efforts in Republican states. Do you support or oppose?”
Asked like that, I'd vote for"no." It looks like a political power grab by Newsom to destroy fairness and "good government" by the people. It's going to take a real campaign but it is not so dire as the poll results suggest.
BTW, Common Cause, which strongly oppses gerrymandering, will not oppose Newsom's proposal.
politico and punchbowl news, at least since about 2020, have been more interested in making excuses for supposed liberal republicans. Jake Sherman's twitter feed was giddy with excitement as the votes materialized to gut medicaid and give billionaires another tax cut
If this district—which is so red—flips or comes close, hopefully it makes some GOP reps in all the states considering new gerrymandering nervous about potential dummymandering. If so, there may be more internal GOP resistance to going forward.
a few weeks ago just about everyone here was insistent that NC-Gov would be very tight in spite of Cooper entering race. I still maintain it will be Cooper +5 or more.
We had crappy state party leadership in 2022. Had Anderson Clayton been in charge a year earlier, Budd would've probably lost and there wouldn't be a 5-2 Republican SCONC majority. (Maybe a 4-3 GOP majority or 5-2 Dem majority.)
NC Dems have been quickly painting Whatley as Trump's puppet and yes-man, while letting Cooper remain above the fray.
We won governor, LG, AG, superintendent and kept the SCONC seat -- those were the major ones. Do I wish we'd kept more like the state auditor seat? Hell yes. But the GOP legislature would've given the power of the state board of elections to ANY statewide elected Republican after losing more statewide races than they expected.
Hell, they probably would've given it to Steve Troxler if Boliek didn't win the auditor's race.
When Evan Bayh started running for Senate in July 2016, there were polls even from Todd Young's side that showed Bayh leading by 10+ points. Young won by 10. Counting chickens, etc.
i remember that painfully well, the polls flipped right around the end of july, and I'm not even from Indiana. But having gone to school in Carolina i can tell you the only thing those two states have in common is they both preferred obama to mccain. Even my most conservative law school classmates had to pretend to like roy because he's that perfect southern democrat (pretends to be a good ol boy) but is actually just a good guy with folksy charm
can't disagree. Roy is gonna need all the money and help he can get, but imo he's not bayh simply because bayh last won a contested election twelve years before running for senate again in a reddening state. Roy won with trump on the ballot twice, in a state that remains forever purple with a red hue
Why not, it's pretty consistent with North Carolina. His voters aren't going to fall away unless the economy implodes, they all voted for his antics last November.
very fair, my point was regarding the pollster, a republican pollster: Harper, on behalf of carolina journal (very right wing publication they have jefferson griffin nc supreme court election denial on their homepage). i think us being up by this much with these pollsters is reassuring. underlying fundamentals I agree with you 100%
If he was able to bring himself to do that, he wouldn't be Trump.
As an aside it's infuriating how often that is true of republicans. If, after being elected, they shut up and made as few headlines as possible they would more often than not be absurdly popular. That's more or less what Baker, Hogan, and Sununu did.
Those three guys were working with Democratic legislatures, though only for a bit with Sununu. They were a check against the populist forces of the other side, not pushing forward the populist forces of their own side.
I don't think anyone has ever considered the MA legislature populists, least of all in MA. Sununu was broadly popular while starting with a republican legislature for his first term. Being a check on opposite party populism doesn't make sense for either of them.
Maybe that can apply with MD, I don't know the state well internally.
He might be in the high 40s instead of the low 40s. He still would have slipped some among the low-info voters who actually expected prices to go down. In that world, the economy would be growing faster, inflation and interest rates would be lower, and his administration wouldn't have engaged in the brutality and buffoonery currently turning people off, but he would still pay a price for being unable to keep his impossible promises.
I like this poll, though. 27-70 among Latinos, 31-66 among Asians, 33-66 among 18-29 year olds. It looks more and more like 2024 was a swing (much like 2008), not a realignment.
And one of the good ones. In the House, Castle voted to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy before he left Congress. Well respected by Democrats and a true moderate Republican.
Not hard to imagine him winning reelection in 2016 if he had won in 2010. Not guaranteed, but considering how the cycle went it's not at all implausible. If he pulled that off I suspect he would have retired in 2022 based on age.
Don’t agree. They achieved their purpose by calling attention to the issue and getting California to act to offset the Texas changes. To expect them to stay out of the state for months with this accomplished is asking too much, in my view.
Democrats need to stop pursuing "attention" victories in places where we can achieve actually victories. Even if that victory amounts to maintaining the status quo in the face of a much worse outcome.
Texas dems can, with work, out wait republicans and win this exchange. Why settle for getting some headlines instead?
If this was something where there was no real practical way to get our desired outcome, yeah I'd settle for this. There is a real, practical way to get it. Surrendering now is what I'd expect out of Schumer.
If they no longer have the numbers to maintain a quorum break, then staying away makes no sense. This is probably the only off-ramp to even come close to saving face (not that I am happy about it).
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling Thursday, striking down Louisiana’s state legislative maps for violating the Voting Rights Act.
I was informed before about anti-establishment types who are willing to support both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump because they're just for shaking things up in any way, but I didn't know about -this-. This truly makes me sick!
I think dragonfire is talking about a group that I'd describe as anti-establishment with limited partisan views. Their ideological goals are populist left but they consider the obstacle to those goals to be "the establishment" and the biggest examples they see of that establishment is the democrats that end up our presidential nominees.
They heard Trump saying anti-establishment stuff and decided he was their guy because in their mind anti-establishment = populist left success. Now that this outcome is not happening they are realizing he is not their guy. Maybe they're not realizing that getting their ideological goals accomplished is actually really fucking difficult, but they're aware that Trump is an obstacle and not a pathway to their goals.
Flanagan’s a better choice regardless.
Angie Craig is a battle tested swing district rep who consistently overperforms, sounds like a good senate nominee to me in a light blue state.
It's hard to protect the country if we don't win the senate, craig gives us the best chance to do that. At the end of the day that's what matters. I think either Craig or Flanagan would be favored but neither is a done deal, it's minnesota not california. However, I also think Craig gives us a better chance to win and given the current stakes I don't think it's wise to do anything that even lowers our odds of winning the senate a little. If we can't nothing else really matters.
Don’t need to be excused by you
I agree with you re: Flanagan (Craig would win too), but your second statement absurd. Supporting Angie Craig is "inexcusable"? C'mon man...
We are going to win in Minnesota no matter what unless we have a truly toxic candidate (which Flanagan is not) or the environment is so bad that we have no chance of winning the Senate. We don’t need to nominate the most electable candidate regardless of policy positions in light blue states that haven’t elected a Republican Governor since 2006, Senator since 2002, or presidential candidate since 1972. There is no universe in which Flanagan would lose Minnesota but we’d win somewhere like Texas, Iowa, Ohio, or Alaska, there’s probably not even a universe where Flanagan would lose but we’d win North Carolina. If we are gaining any seats in the Senate, Minnesota won’t be a tough fight with either of the candidates.
Or......we could lose all of those other states AND lose Minnesota.
The odds of that would be much higher with Flanagan than with Craig.
Um, no, no they wouldn’t. Flanagan is a perfectly respectable candidate who is extremely likely to win even if we somehow have a political environment like 2022 or 2020 in Minnesota. And frankly, if the midterms somehow result in the kind of red wave that would be necessary for Flanagan to lose Minnesota (and we’d likely also lose Michigan, Georgia, and New Hampshire if we were losing Minnesota), our democracy is doomed and there’s no point to worrying about individual Senate seats.
Also Senate terms are 6 years. Minnesota will not be the tipping point state in 2026, but a one-seat difference going into 2028 or 2030 could easily end up deciding Senate control.
That said Flanagan would probably win comfortably but I agree that the possibility of disaster is higher with her than with Craig.
I don't have any particular beef with Craig but I think your analysis is correct. If Flanagan isn't winning MN, we are definitely not winning NC or ME...
I’d prefer not to risk another Sinema with a better choice available.
A better choice only if she can win.
Why do you think Flanagan can’t win?
If we're losing the senate race in MN next year, we're having a really, really bad night. Atrociously bad. Flanagan should not be facing any serious general election handicap.
Also why are you treating Craig like some electoral juggernaut? She underperformed:
- 2024 Klobuchar
- 2022 Walz
- 2020 Biden and Smith
- 2018 Klobuchar, Smith, and Walz
She matched HRC in 2016 (both barely lost the district), and overperformed Harris in 2024. Across MN gov, senate, and presidential elections her 2024 performance vs Harris is her only overperformance across her congressional career.
This is not a record that tells us we need her for purely electoral reasons. It is not an impressive record. Her electoral record isn't horrible either, but there is no merit to saying she "consistently overperforms" or arguing that she is an atypically strong candidate based on her record.
Perhaps a better framing of it is that she peaks at the right time....and based on her performance in 2022 and 2024 with the very demographic of voters that are now needed to eke out a win in Minnesota, it seems like a no-brainer to me.
Again, her only overperformance is 2024 president. If she didn't overperform then she still would have won reelection. Harris won the district comfortably — she didn't benefit from "peaking" then.
If she peaked in 2016 and did better than HRC and won, that would make sense for arguing that she peaked at the right time. That didn't happen. She always did worse than Smith, Klobuchar, and Walz. Every time she shared the ballot with them she did worse than them in her district. She did worse than Biden, and no better than HRC.
What do you mean peaking at the right time? I'm not seeing what data would support saying such. Can you expand on that?
Let’s not judge Angie Craig by one vote she made when Biden was still president. She’s always a fairly reliable Democratic vote. She’s not Sinema or Fetterman.
thank you!
She hasn't been, but if there's a better option who's a strong candidate, I know how I'd vote if I had the chance and responsibility to do so.
Flanagan is only a "better option" if she can win. She's heavily tied to a Governor's office that's already losing steam and gaining vulnerabilities. I'm not at all confident that a Flanagan nomination would age well in November 2026.
What is the evidence that the voters dislike Flanagan or Walz in Minnesota and would prefer a Republican to them?
She actually underperformed Biden in 2020 and 2022. But yes, in 2024 she ran well ahead of Harris.
We are going to win Minnesota no matter who the nominee is and Angie Craig is bad on policy + has been endorsed by all the wrong people (Moulton, Torres, Philips etc).
Dean Phillips had more sense and courage than 90% of the party. He was clearly right!
It's probably worthwhile noting that he doesn't actually support Cuomo and you're freaking insane if you think Dems can win while shrinking the tent to exclude Andrew Yang, who is personally to the left of like 60% of the country. 2024 ended up being a vindication of a lot of Dean Phillips' theory of modern politics. If we want to just play seven degrees of separation to discredit that then whatever, but it's not the way a serious political movement engages in politics.
Andrew Yang is a grifter and Cuomo is a creep so fine with those two individuals leaving the tent they do more harm in it. The general point on ideology is fair though.
He was also clearly right in asking the party to purity test progressives!
He was right on that, but that's not the only important issue, and it's not so relevant going forward.
Actually, I'd say that at this time in 2023 that WAS the most important issue. And we're living the darkest possible consequences today for not recognizing what Dean Phillips did recognize.
I'm saying it is not now the most important issue.
Right point, bad messenger.
I'm still baffled by Democrats' never-ending overconfidence that a D+1 state in a region that has monothically turned against them is forever gonna remain in "we're gonna win there no matter what" territory. The law of averages said that one of the Dems' long list of >1 point victories is Minnesota is bound to at some point go the other way.
We hope. Too early to say that with confidence. The Republicans undoubtedly felt the same about their next midterm at this point in 2021.
And the Republicans didn’t lose any Senate seats in light red states in 2022. We’d need a midterm worse than 2022 was for the Republicans to lose Minnesota, what reason is there to think that would happen?
I agree, but republicans would have to recruit a strong candidate to have a decent shot at winning and they haven’t done that yet. If Royce White is their nominee again, either Craig or Flanagan will probably be fine.
Name a time in a D-leaning environment when we’ve lost an open Senate race in a state that’s at least D+1. Unless you actually think we’re going to lose the midterms next year, and frankly in that case we are just kind of screwed and have no path forward as a party regardless of who wins in Minnesota, then what reason is there to think that even in a mildly D-leaning midterm we’d lose a Senate seat in Minnesota, a place we were able to hold Senate seats in red years like 2014 and 2024?
Perhaps I'm too far in front of my skis in inferring that Angie Craig is the indisputably better choice than Peggy Flanagan, but I'd say you're too far in front of your skis in your assurance that next year is gonna be a D-leaning environment. Particularly in Minnesota, I expect the tide to crest a little short of expectations because swing voter disgust will be split between Trump and the state DFL dealing with a huge deficit brought on by controversial mega-spending that's not aging well.
I think it’s fair to say that Craig is less likely to face headwinds in a general than Flanagan (agreed there in fact), but I think it’s far too early to discern to what degree. I think both would enter as solid favorites over, say, Royce White
Give me a single reason why this won’t be an at least mildly blue environment nationwide. Even 2022, the worst midterm performance we’ve seen by the out party since 9/11, still was a red leaning electorate. And the idea that voters will vote against a Democratic Senate candidate because of state budget problems is a relic of a bygone era. Senate campaigns aren’t local anymore, they’re national and they have been for a long time.
Sorry to pile on, but one critical thing absent from this discussion so far is the Republican candidate. To capitalize on the dominant party weakness you're suggesting, the weaker party typically still needs a pretty good candidate, right? Looking at Wikipedia's candidate and declined-to-run lists, doesn't seem like Republicans are feeling too optimistic so far.
You could have said the same thing about Florida for Republicans (you did) and it never ended up going the other way since 2012.
That's true. If Minnesota manages to oversee blistering population growth primarily from Democrat-friendly demographics--an inverse version of Florida in the last 15 years--then the Dems' winning streak will almost certainly continue. Not seeing any evidence yet of that kind of growth though.
I was surprised to see this, but if you check the graphs here, it seems that since 2016, Minnesota has actually trended left almost as fast as Florida has trended right: https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/how-the-states-vote-relative-to-the-nation-a-2024-update/
You'd think after the "blue wall" of midwestern states had been obliterated people would get the message.
I'm suddenly more curious about VA-01. I just saw that it actually trended bluer from 2020-2024 in a rarity. R+3 isn't too daunting.
VA-1 went for Glenn Youngkin in the last Gubernatorial Election by a 58-41 margin. If Abigail Spanberger wins it or comes close to winning it in November, Wittman is in trouble. Whoever wins our nomination next year will likely need to have military ties as it is a strongly military district.
I'm not aware of VA-01 having a strong military presence. You might be thinking of VA-02, which is based in Hampton Roads.
VA-1 does as well. It covers many Richmond suburbs and Williamsburg where a lot of military families end up living.
Fort Lee (which is in VA-04) is closer to Richmond than several towns in my county are to me, it's less than a fifteen minute drive. When I was in AIT Richmond was the place to go on weekend passes and I'm sure plenty of the permeant cadre make their homes there.
Williamsburg has always been quite liberal too.
It has, but the counties surrounding it have not been. If York County goes for Spanberger, she would be the first Democrat to win it statewide since Mark Warner did back in 2008.
If the Monkees song "Last Train to Clarksville," about a man going off to war, was not inspired by Clarksville, Tennessee, which Clarksville was it? Songwriters Tommy Boyce and Bobby Hart have said they loosely based the name on Clarksville, Tennessee, because it’s near Fort Campbell, a major U.S. Army base.
I'm still a bit skeptical that TN-07 can be flipped. I think it's just a bit too conservative, even with a special election bump.
However, if Democrats do succeed in flipping TN-07, you can bet that TN-05 will suddenly heat up in the 2026 elections. In 2024, TN-05 voted for Trump by about a 58-40 margin, making it significantly more competitive than TN-07.
Especially since Nashville’s growth, especially since 2019ish, is mostly right wingers from other states, similar to Florida or SC
Do you have any stats on that?
The election returns from recent years don't really indicate that. Nashville keeps getting bluer each cycle. Or are you talking about the suburbs?
Yes, the metro area generally. Nashville proper on its own isn’t enough, and its suburbs don’t appear to be blueing the way they are in other states
I don't think this is true, but am open to being proven wrong with data...
The question is not whether "X district can be flipped". Rather, it's how seriously can Democrats contest the seat and make it close. Even in ruby red states, there should be credible candidates. You need to engage the voters, have visible presence and make an effort. Otherwise the voters won't even know who you are and that's how minority parties stay in the minority. They give up before they even make an effort and the voters seeing that you made no effort to reach out to them, see no reason to support you. A self fulfilling prophecy is true mostly because we believe it to be.
Yes, but a special election is vastly different from a general. In fact, I'm fairly certain that, even if we win the TN-07 special, we'd give it right back again next year. I'll still take the 1 year of D representation, though.
Thoughts? How difficult will it be to get voters to agree to change the map?
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/14/california-redistricting-newsom-poll-00508930
it's got to be a partisan campaign which i assume Newsom will wage. I think it can pass if it's in response to Texas.
I think voters will support it if it’s framed as a way to fight back against a republican power grab. Or they could use very manipulative language like republicans have done in Missouri and Ohio.
Well, the tentative ballot initiative title appears to be called the "Election Rigging Response Act." So they're off to a good start on the language front!
That’s not the question that will be posed. And with the alternative at least 5 seats being taken off the board, there is nothing to lose.
newsom internal has the ballot measure at 52% before the partisan messaging, looking for the link.
Politico's poll is awfully flawed. The question was:
”In both 2008 and 2010, California voters passed initiatives to give an Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission the power to draw the state’s legislative and congressional districts, in order to reduce the influence of politicians. Governor Newsom has suggested returning congressional line drawing authority back to the Legislature, citing concerns that redistricting efforts in Republican states. Do you support or oppose?”
Asked like that, I'd vote for"no." It looks like a political power grab by Newsom to destroy fairness and "good government" by the people. It's going to take a real campaign but it is not so dire as the poll results suggest.
BTW, Common Cause, which strongly oppses gerrymandering, will not oppose Newsom's proposal.
politico and punchbowl news, at least since about 2020, have been more interested in making excuses for supposed liberal republicans. Jake Sherman's twitter feed was giddy with excitement as the votes materialized to gut medicaid and give billionaires another tax cut
If we flip anything in Tennessee then we're having a better night then we could ever imagen. These districts aren't really flipable.
They sure don't seem to be, but we've seen lightning strike before in wave elections. Whether 2026 will be a wave election, we have yet to know.
It's a special election, it's winnable now. Holding it in the general election in 2026 is unlikely. Both things can be true.
Even the FL specials moved our way dramatically....
If this district—which is so red—flips or comes close, hopefully it makes some GOP reps in all the states considering new gerrymandering nervous about potential dummymandering. If so, there may be more internal GOP resistance to going forward.
North Carolina poll Harper (R)
Cooper 47 Whatley 39
Trump job approval 48/50
Stein job approval 51/30
GCB and GLB Even. Not that it matters with the gerrymandering.
https://mcusercontent.com/259a50ef0a1608ab2bc2cf891/files/4a9143f4-25aa-a30e-ddb7-9e7e8ac5e2ad/H23232_CJ_NC_Aug_039_25_Toplines.pdf
a few weeks ago just about everyone here was insistent that NC-Gov would be very tight in spite of Cooper entering race. I still maintain it will be Cooper +5 or more.
We had crappy state party leadership in 2022. Had Anderson Clayton been in charge a year earlier, Budd would've probably lost and there wouldn't be a 5-2 Republican SCONC majority. (Maybe a 4-3 GOP majority or 5-2 Dem majority.)
NC Dems have been quickly painting Whatley as Trump's puppet and yes-man, while letting Cooper remain above the fray.
We won governor, LG, AG, superintendent and kept the SCONC seat -- those were the major ones. Do I wish we'd kept more like the state auditor seat? Hell yes. But the GOP legislature would've given the power of the state board of elections to ANY statewide elected Republican after losing more statewide races than they expected.
Hell, they probably would've given it to Steve Troxler if Boliek didn't win the auditor's race.
When Evan Bayh started running for Senate in July 2016, there were polls even from Todd Young's side that showed Bayh leading by 10+ points. Young won by 10. Counting chickens, etc.
i remember that painfully well, the polls flipped right around the end of july, and I'm not even from Indiana. But having gone to school in Carolina i can tell you the only thing those two states have in common is they both preferred obama to mccain. Even my most conservative law school classmates had to pretend to like roy because he's that perfect southern democrat (pretends to be a good ol boy) but is actually just a good guy with folksy charm
My only point is we don't want to get too cocky. Bayh won landslide victories for Governor and Senate too
can't disagree. Roy is gonna need all the money and help he can get, but imo he's not bayh simply because bayh last won a contested election twelve years before running for senate again in a reddening state. Roy won with trump on the ballot twice, in a state that remains forever purple with a red hue
Don’t you mean Cooper entering the race for Senate – not NC-Gov?
Ok, this is encouraging right off the bat. I expect it to tighten come fall 2026 once the mudslinging begins in earnest.
I find it hard to believe that the Orange Blob is only two points underwater in NC.
Why not, it's pretty consistent with North Carolina. His voters aren't going to fall away unless the economy implodes, they all voted for his antics last November.
take with grain of salt, just like josh stein's crazy high approval rating in the same poll
very fair, my point was regarding the pollster, a republican pollster: Harper, on behalf of carolina journal (very right wing publication they have jefferson griffin nc supreme court election denial on their homepage). i think us being up by this much with these pollsters is reassuring. underlying fundamentals I agree with you 100%
Henry Cuellar gets a lifeline as 2 charges are dropped and the trial is delayed: https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Business/wireStory/judge-dismisses-2-counts-us-rep-cuellar-texas-124654450
BTW, he opposes the redistricting mulligan despite the fact he gets a better district (i.e. one where some metropolitan lefty can't threaten him): https://www.lmtonline.com/local/article/texas-gop-redistricting-cuellar-democrats-warning-20803372.php
Cuellar has always been buddy buddy with republicans in Austin, not surprising they gave him a winnable district
Pew Poll has Trump approval continuing to decay, with racial breakdown: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/08/14/trumps-job-approval-and-views-of-his-personal-traits/
Way to squander crossover vote after bamboozling them into thinking "Mass Deportations Now" doesn't mean exactly what it says. What a joke.
If he had simply chilled in Mar a Lago starting 1/20 and not done a single thing he’d be way net positive right now but, nah
If he was able to bring himself to do that, he wouldn't be Trump.
As an aside it's infuriating how often that is true of republicans. If, after being elected, they shut up and made as few headlines as possible they would more often than not be absurdly popular. That's more or less what Baker, Hogan, and Sununu did.
Those three guys were working with Democratic legislatures, though only for a bit with Sununu. They were a check against the populist forces of the other side, not pushing forward the populist forces of their own side.
I don't think anyone has ever considered the MA legislature populists, least of all in MA. Sununu was broadly popular while starting with a republican legislature for his first term. Being a check on opposite party populism doesn't make sense for either of them.
Maybe that can apply with MD, I don't know the state well internally.
He might be in the high 40s instead of the low 40s. He still would have slipped some among the low-info voters who actually expected prices to go down. In that world, the economy would be growing faster, inflation and interest rates would be lower, and his administration wouldn't have engaged in the brutality and buffoonery currently turning people off, but he would still pay a price for being unable to keep his impossible promises.
I like this poll, though. 27-70 among Latinos, 31-66 among Asians, 33-66 among 18-29 year olds. It looks more and more like 2024 was a swing (much like 2008), not a realignment.
I agree with your version of the counterfactual. When I say net positive I mean like +1 or +2 with some undecideds
The 18-34 Trump voter number is encouraging.
Former Governor and US Representative Mike Castle (R-DE) has died at 86. https://www.delawarepublic.org/politics-government/2025-08-14/former-delaware-gov-and-congressman-mike-castle-dies
And one of the good ones. In the House, Castle voted to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy before he left Congress. Well respected by Democrats and a true moderate Republican.
He was supposed to win Biden's Senate seat in a romp in 2010—until that whole Tea Party thing happened.
I sometimes wonder how long he could have held on to it.
Not hard to imagine him winning reelection in 2016 if he had won in 2010. Not guaranteed, but considering how the cycle went it's not at all implausible. If he pulled that off I suspect he would have retired in 2022 based on age.
2016 would have been at least a jump ball if he’d been a bit less partisan than Mark Kirk. Small state and Castle was always liked by the electorate.
Whether he could have survived a primary is another question
Newsom calls for special election vote on redistricting while Texas House Democrats appear about to return
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/firing-back-at-texas-redistricting-newsom-calls-special-election-to-authorize-california-countermove/
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2025/08/14/texas-house-democrats-release-demands-for-ending-quorum-break-returning-to-capitol/
Don’t agree. They achieved their purpose by calling attention to the issue and getting California to act to offset the Texas changes. To expect them to stay out of the state for months with this accomplished is asking too much, in my view.
And made me glad I haven't sent a red cent to any fund for them.
Democrats need to stop pursuing "attention" victories in places where we can achieve actually victories. Even if that victory amounts to maintaining the status quo in the face of a much worse outcome.
Texas dems can, with work, out wait republicans and win this exchange. Why settle for getting some headlines instead?
If this was something where there was no real practical way to get our desired outcome, yeah I'd settle for this. There is a real, practical way to get it. Surrendering now is what I'd expect out of Schumer.
If they no longer have the numbers to maintain a quorum break, then staying away makes no sense. This is probably the only off-ramp to even come close to saving face (not that I am happy about it).
Speaking of Newsom,
https://bsky.app/profile/jeromecylin.bsky.social/post/3lwf5bjh4d22l
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/14/us/newsom-la-immigration-agents.html?smtyp=cur&smid=bsky-nytimes
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling Thursday, striking down Louisiana’s state legislative maps for violating the Voting Rights Act.
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/federal-court-delivers-major-win-for-black-voters-in-louisiana-state-redistricting-battle/
Eye popping data from Pew
Change in Trump approval among Trump voters by age:
65 and up: -4
18 to 34: -25
https://x.com/williamjordann/status/1956060231395377516
I suspect a lot of that 18-34 are “apolitical” (sure) low info indies who swung for him but aren’t particularly MAGa
A -large chunk- of liberals? Please provide a citation with stats, as I'm skeptical.
I was informed before about anti-establishment types who are willing to support both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump because they're just for shaking things up in any way, but I didn't know about -this-. This truly makes me sick!
I think dragonfire is talking about a group that I'd describe as anti-establishment with limited partisan views. Their ideological goals are populist left but they consider the obstacle to those goals to be "the establishment" and the biggest examples they see of that establishment is the democrats that end up our presidential nominees.
They heard Trump saying anti-establishment stuff and decided he was their guy because in their mind anti-establishment = populist left success. Now that this outcome is not happening they are realizing he is not their guy. Maybe they're not realizing that getting their ideological goals accomplished is actually really fucking difficult, but they're aware that Trump is an obstacle and not a pathway to their goals.
Just received a text with these links:
https://stopelectionrigging.com/
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/erra-web25
It's happening!