"Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton raised over $1 million last quarter, her campaign announced. Cash on hand wasn't disclosed. Stratton continues to be at a major fundraising deficit to Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, who pulled in $3 million in 3Q + has $17.5 million in the bank. #ILSen #twill
However, Illinois Future PAC, led by a political operative with close ties to Gov. Pritzker, launched last week in support of Stratton's candidacy. It's already raised $1 million and can take in unlimited contributions. My colleague
Been discussed here a lot so summarizing. Little to no substantive legislative achievements after nearly a decade in Congress. He's an asshole who's a bad boss and mediocre relations with his colleagues because he's notably more self-absorbed than even that high median. Big AIPAC recipient. Modi/RSS/Hindutva connections. Total downgrade from Durbin on all these points, which isn't the highest bar.
In 2024 37.4% of the house vote went to democrats, 48.5% to republicans, and 10.5% to independents. We won three seats to republicans' one seat. There was no dem in the R vote sink, so for simplicity we can model it as us getting 47-48% of the vote and still winning 75% of the seats.
Basically the same as 2022: 47.6% D, 51% R, we won three seats.
Jerry Demings, a popular moderate mayor of Orlando County with fundraising prowess would be a huge get for Dems. Additionally, a Black nominee vs Black nominee dynamic would also give him free press attention. FWIW, Hillary lost Florida by 1 point and Biden lost it by 3.5.
It's not just identity politics, it's linguistic politics. Florida Dems are extraordinarily bad and behind on how they message to Spanish-speakers, and Jeb Bush started honing the Repub apparatus in 1994. Dems did not have a Spanish speaker as a statewide nominee as Crist's LG running mate in 2014 and then DMP for Senate last year. I could be wrong, don't think they've had a single row office nominee who speaks Spanish let alone drive it into their campaign comms effectively.
The state has gone to hell in the past eight years, and I've lost my sense of it. I don't know of if historic Trump unpopularity could be seized upon better by Demings or Jolly. But I do agree and wish there was a prominent Spanish speaker as an option. More importantly is to make strong inroads in their messaging strategy the way Repubs have for over three decades at this point.
I had heard that. The GOP also went on Spanish-speaking media (which the Dems didn’t do) and it’s believed that’s a key reason why Hispanics went for Trump until the ICE raids.
Which is extremely absurd. What kind of idiotic malpractice is that? Every single Democrat responsible for not advertising on the Spanish-language media should have been fired!
Yeah, that's a historic issue. Repubs run a ton of ads on Spanish radio/TV and papers and Dems don't counter enough. It's a financial issue too--it's hard enough to counter mis/disinfo in English before adding Spanish. But the longtime lack of investment has led to worsening results.
It was not a problem of base turnout. Latinos, including traditionally Democratic Puerto Ricans had a huge shift towards the GOP after 2020 in Florida as well as New York, partly in response to DeSantis opposing lockdowns and school closures which turned out to be popular and Biden's unpopularity. I think they are very anti-establishment and can swing back.
House is meeting in a pro forma session today at 3 PM, which means that Adelita Grijalva could be sworn in today, 15 days after winning her special election. But there are no plans to swear her in.
The election wasn't certified at first (not that it mattered in previous circumstances), the House isn't in session (not that that mattered before). So there are excuses, but the real reason of course is to not allow a vote on the Epstein files and to maximize their puny majority.
Sens Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly actually got into House Speaker Johnson's face today about him not swearing in Rep. Grijalva. And Johnson admitted he wasn't swearing her in unless Senate Ds voted for his "clean CR."
This is blatantly illegal behavior from Johnson, and Dems should've started filing lawsuits about this a week ago. The law is clear - Johnson doesn't have a choice in the matter.
What is the legal case? To be honest, I thought Congress controls their own memberships and can in theory deny seating (like Eugene Debs). Roland Burris was denied for some time before the Senate finally accepted his appointment and Pelosi toyed with not seating Marianette Miller-Meeks when her six-vote win wasn't super clear.
If this continues, it's going to soon result in the majority party in the House simply refusing to swear in any of the minority party's Representatives at the beginning of each Congress.
Pearson was always the most interesting of the TN Three to me. Would be great to get him in the House. Such a shame that Nashville is so cracked, but hopefully Justin Jones can get in somehow too.
Should be noted that Justin Pearson is black and he’s challenging Rep. Steve Cohen in a Congressional District where black residents make up 60% of the population.
Cohen has easily defeated several prominent Black challengers over the years, many of whom made race a central reason for their challenge.
I think Cohen's luck may have run out now, though, due to a confluence of factors: his age, Pearson's prominence and political momentum, a terrified base eager to see someone doing more to fight.
I will need to see evidence that actual voters are feeling the same way about these politicians as the perpetually online before assuming someone like Cohen, who has had zero issue with these challengers, actually losses.
In fairness to Cohen, all of his challengers did attempt to make it about race, but they were all also to his right as more conservative democrats. That probably won't be the case here.
Pearson is younger, more talented, very well-connected, and more representative of the district. He built up a big base of donors due to being a part of the Tennessee 3. And there are certain wedge issues that favor Pearson in the primary.
As others have noticed, the past primary challengers to Cohen were not exactly high caliber candidates. That's why I think this time, it will be different.
I'm definitely inclined to prefer Pearson, I'm just advising temperance of expectations, since unseating an incumbent (especially one who's done nothing "wrong" per se) is quite tough.
Another thought — Memphis is one of the cities Trump is sending troops to, I believe. If Cohen is seen as weak in his response, it could harm him in a primary.
Does someone have how the current configuration of AZ-01 voted between Lake and Hobbs in 2022? Would be so funny to have her do a hat trick of losing close races for governor, senator and representative three cycles in a row lol
The ND superintendent was confirmed along with the huge raft of other nominees yesterday, but she's not sure if she can be sworn in until the end of the shutdown.
They nuked part of the filibuster rule with a simple majority vote. I think only cabinet and judicial nominees now require a filibuster-proof majority. They could do the same thing (change the specific rule) for the CR if they wanted to re-open gov. Which they do not. They could change the rule, open the gov., and change the rule back all with a simple majority.
I knew that part, but I feel like confirming 100+ nominees in a single vote didn't happen under Biden, particularly for high-profile offices like U.S. Attorney.
This was a new rules change under Thune that they rammed through last month. Advice and consent isn't supposed to have bloc confirmation votes, each nominee is supposed to be assessed separately so that an objectionable person doesn't slip through cracks. Dems wanted a deal to limit it to 10-15 nominees per committee (still a huge number) but I don't think even that happened and Repubs pretty much cleared the Executive Calendar of all nominees awaiting a floor vote.
Republicans are going to regret changing that rule when Dems have trifecta control again. Just like they did when they eliminated the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees back in 2017.
New analysis of how republicans would gerrymander if section 2 of the VRA is struck down. Republicans will probably gain 19 seats across states in the south.
CA-Gov - A reporter for the CBS/Paramount-owned stations in California (KCBS and KCAL in Los Angeles and KPIX in San Francisco) learned first-hand what happens when you try to mess with Katie Porter (in this case, trying to bait Porter into personally attacking Trump supporters).
This kind of badgering by the media is a big reason why Zohran Mamdani won the NYC mayoral primary, and, given by comments I've seen on Instagram, it might help Porter in the California governor's race despite even some left-leaning outlets referring to the interview as a "meltdown" by Porter.
I don't think there's an inherent wrong to the question. But there is something wrong with the way the question is wielded: it's used to shift the political conversation towards one of sympathy towards conservative voters.
It seems to be far more often asked of democrats than the converse is asked of republicans. When republicans are asked they usually say something similar to what Porter said (they don't need democratic voters) and the media shrugs and moves on. While democrats get scrutinized for their answer no matter what the answer is.
My own take: she has been another case of a person being a good politician... until they aren't (usually when they go from winning as a Representative to a statewide office). Bruce Braley is another good example (before his poor performance in 2014 he was considered a very good campaigner)
Katie Porter won narrowly in CA 45 in 2018 against incumbent Mimi Walters who had won by 17 points in 2016. She went on to win that district again in 2020 and the mostly new CA 47 in 2022. She has won in Orange County, so she knows how to talk to Republicans and independents.
I've seen her at campaign events, in the grocery store, at Starbucks, and in front of my house. She knows how to campaign and has fantastic constituent service.
I do question if she has the temperament to deal with the California legislature as governor.
I think an alternative view of that might be that she got swept in on a blue wave and managed to hold on through incumbency and some skill. When she first went to a bigger stage she ran a pretty damn poor campaign and got just 15% in the primary.
I think her senate primary performance is reflective of an issue with a primary, not a general election. And it's an issue she'll face this time around too, although (so far) only part of it. Namely that the party establishment didn't and still doesn't favor her, with the possibly non-repeating detail being that the party establishment did particularly favor a single specific candidate.
In context saying she got "just 15%" of the vote is misleading, because Schiff didn't do that much better, at 32%, effectively tied with a republican candidate. By typical numerical standards nobody received an impressive vote share.
In her senate campaign she had a republican opponent that consolidated the majority of the republican vote, and a democratic opponent that consolidated about half of the democratic vote and had the establishment lane all to himself. Porter had to split the remaining of the party vote with Lee.
In 2026 she will still not be favored by the party establishment. But at least so far nobody has pulled off the role of Schiff, uniting the establishment support behind them. If we end up her versus a republican in the general nobody should worry at all about the final result. It's only if it's her against another democrat that it gets interesting for the general.
Yeah it's unquestionable that she's a brawler and would win as the nominee lol. Her flaws as a politician are in interpersonal relations, which can cause some unforced errors like this but are more of an obstacle to driving her legislative agenda. She would probably have an amazing regulatory agenda, but even agency heads require relationship management.
I'm still thinking Senator Alex Padilla will jump in. I think he said he's currently focused on helping Prop 50 pass, and then will decide.
It's an interesting choice for him:
1. keeping the essentially lifetime cushy Senate job, but being in the powerless minority for the foreseeable future.
2. Taking a free shot at the rare chance of being in charge of the fourth-largest economy in the world. (remember: he doesn't need to give up his seat to run)
Indeed. If we want to move on from Newsom (irrespective of what his political future may be), Padilla would be a welcome change. He's not divisive, doesn't go for headlines and aims to serve.
And being Hispanic helps with the turnout for Democrats, especially considering Padilla had the June incident when questioning Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
I'm flattered that you think we have the ability to cover so many elections! But alas, we don't. We have just two full-time staff. We have to make choices every day about what to cover, and smaller cities and towns (Mobile is under 200K, Fairbanks is just 30K) can't make the cut.
That's especially so given how long the Digest already is each day. Today's edition was a hefty 2,500 words—and that's not abnormal. What's more, we gotta sleep sometime! Alaska results usually hit in the middle of the night, East Coast time.
If we're ever able to grow, I'd love to produce a newsletter focused solely on municipal elections that covers cities like the ones you have in mind. We'd need a lot more funding to be able to do that, though.
Totally understand - thanks for the thoughtful reply. I really appreciate the work you and the team put into the Digest each day. A municipal-focused newsletter would be amazing someday if the resources allow, but in the meantime, the coverage you do provide is incredibly valuable. Keep up the great work!
"Mayor David Pruhs is a conservative who fought protections for LGBTQ+ residents; he made comments this year drew condemnation this year from Alaska Natives."
Reminds me of Anchorage's ex-mayor, Dave Bronson, another MAGA type who horrifically mismanaged his city and lost by 10-ish points in the last mayor race there. I think he's trying for Governor now, what a fool.
I was happy to see Aftyn Behn will be the Democratic candidate in the Tennessee 7th district. I was impressed with her grasp of local and national issues in an interview that I watched earlier this week. I do not usually contribute to primary candidates in other states, but I made a small donation to her primary campaign. I will be making another for her congressional campaign. The other Democrats need to unite behind her, and EMILY'S list needs to endorse her.
Last night, someone said she seemed to be the progressive candidate in the primary. Wouldn't that make it even more unlikely for her to get an upset win in that very Republican district?
Jess Piper interviewed her on the Substack "The View from Rural Missouri." It's an interview worth checking out. I think that this propensity to label obfuscates more than enlightens.
Back in Trump I, during Michael Cohen's testimony before a House committee, I was irritated with the quality of grandstanding questions from most of the Democrats. However, AOC, asked several pointed, direct questions, which Cohen answered, about practical matters, such as who had the Trump organization materials with the needed information. SNL actually did a joke about it, when the actor portraying Bennie Johnson (?) said something about now the actor portraying AOC would do a little dance, to which the actor said, "I was going to ask some pointed questions." She is a serious person, with whom I agree some of the time and disagree at others.
I'm not sure what to make of Jared Golden. What I know is that he is able to get elected in a heavily Trump district. That does not mean I support his vote for the continuing resolution. He seems to be more a product of the odd political dynamics of Maine. The Independent senator from Maine also voted for the continuing resolution.
EXCLUSIVE: Virginia Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears in a 2022 interview warned supporters of reproductive rights that "one day it’s going to be your turn."
"Murder is murder. And one day it's going to be your turn." "
Technically, Republican primary voters didn't pick her, because she was the only declared candidate for Governor, and thus, there was no GOP primary for Governor. As far as why the VA GOP establishment coalesced around her, it's probably because she was already a statewide officeholder, and it wouldn't make sense for both Sears and Miyares to run for Governor and leave both the LG and AG races without incumbents.
As far back as I can remember, Virginia has always had an incumbent LG or AG or a former governor be a major party nominee for Governor. In 2021, the Democratic nominee was former Governor Terry McAuliffe. In 2017, the Dem nominee was incumbent LG Ralph Northam. In 2013 and 2009, the GOP nominees were incumbent AGs Ken Cuccinelli and Bob McDonnell, respectively. In 2005, the nominees were incumbent LG Tim Kaine and incumbent AG Jerry Kilgore. In 2001, the GOP nominee was incumbent AG Mark Earley. In 1997, the Dem nominee was incumbent LG Don Beyer. In 1993, the Dem nominee was incumbent AG Mary Sue Terry.
I looked this up on Wikipedia, and it turns out that 1969 was the last time that neither of the major candidates for Virginia Governor were an incumbent LG or AG or a former governor. In other words, if the Republican nominee for Governor this year were someone other than Sears or Miyares, that would be very unusual in Virginia politics.
Politico speculates on potential candidates for Seth Moulton’s seat should he run for Senate. (I’d be curious to hear for Pressley’s seat too, if she runs, but this article was just about Moulton’s seat.)
Auchincloss is a neoliberal ideologue and a Bill Clinton fan. He has other eclectic interests like social media regulation, permitting reform and the forbidden topic though.
Moulton and Auchincloss would be about equally terrible. Ideologically Moulton would be better, but on personality and temperament he would be worse. Auchincloss is big on shifting the party towards pro-rich moderation. Moulton is big on promoting himself and inserting himself into everything to try and become the hero of the story.
Massachusetts can do way better than both of them.
Think Aunchincloss doesn't have the juice to be a real contender tbh. I also imagine other people will want to jump into an open Senate seat in MA, so these three would unlikely to have the field to themselves. But ideally, yeah, Pressley and Moulton as the main two and Auchincloss takes enough off Moulton for Pressley to win.
Auchincloss has more juice, connections and fundraising talent compared to the weirdo Moulton. Ohh, and he's the current chair of the resurrected DLC and a Lis Smith candidate.
Eh. It's kind of a mid-off. Moulton is awful but I think is a better speaker and has a generic soldier to Harvard story. Auchincloss is a silver spoon nepobaby from a Republican political family who wasn't a Democrat himself for a period. Him forming a PAC that's trying to emulate the DLC and signing Smith on doesn't mean much to me. But they both suck, especially compared to Pressley, especially as potential senators for a state like Massachusetts.
Edit: I forgot Auchincloss was a Marine too (and reservist now)
“They killed Charlie Kirk — the least that we can do is go through a legal process and redistrict Indiana into a nine to zero map,” Sen. Jim Banks, the Republican of Indiana, told POLITICO last month.
Really? I’d almost forgotten that happened. The media lost interest real fast once it was clear the shooter was a maladjusted wierdo and nobody watched the funeral that brilliantly counter programmed the NFL
Yeah, something was always going to come up that would take Americans' attention away from Kirk. In this case it was the government shutdown. But if the government hadn't shut down, it would've been something else.
Similarly, I highly doubt that anything Jay Jones texted three years ago will be at the forefront of Virginia voters' minds by November 4. Especially if the government is still shut down, which is looking increasingly likely.
This is, of course, a double-edged sword - voters last November weren't thinking about all the hundreds (thousands?) of horrible things that Trump said or did over the past decade.
Is it just me or is the shutdown not getting significant attention? It's been a week and discussion of it around the politically aware parts of the internet seems minimal. I don't watch TV so maybe it's getting attention on cable news but somehow I doubt it.
Am I remembering wrong or is this atypical? My recollection is that the past few shutdowns dominated political discourse from the start, other than the extremely brief one that Ted Cruz started during Obama.
Newsweek really is trying too hard to get headlines when it is suggesting from the outset of the latest poll that Katie Porter could lose to GOP Candidate Steve Hilton in the general election.
Per the latest Zogby poll, Porter is down to Hilton by 6% points. Not only does Hilton not apart of the Hilton family, he endorsed Trump back in 2016, supported 2020 election fraud claims and has become a regular contributor to Fox News.
Just keep in mind that Zogby’s credibility has forever changed since it predicted John Kerry was going to win the 2004 presidential election.
Of course, per a thread earlier in today’s TDB post, Porter’s temperament seems to be a challenge.
Senator Padilla would be a safer choice as governor than Katie Porter from the standpoint of experience working in state government (Padilla was in the State Senate from 2006-2014 and then served as Secretary of State from 2015-2021 before Newsom appointed him to the U.S. Senate) and temperament.
Rob Bonta would be a solid choice as he's only 53 and has quite a good record as Attorney General. He'd also be the first Asian and Filipino Senator in CA history (that I recall).
I would say Eleni Kounalakis would be ok but she just jumped into the State Treasurer race after not getting traction in her gubernatorial primary race. Libby Schaaf had dropped out of the State Treasurer race immediately when Kounalakis jumped in. The optics arent the best for Kounalakis and she hasn't been battle tested, even as Lt. Governor.
CA State Controller Malia Cohen would be interesting as she's black and Jewish as well as having served as Supervisor in SF for 8 years and being the President of the Board of Supervisors for less than a year.
I’m sure though Hayakawa would have been disgusted with today’s GOP and even the Tea Party. I don’t know enough about his politics but it did seem that he was a long time Democrat who, like Ronald Reagan, moved to the Republican Party. I can only suspect he was your typical, classic conservative Republican.
Still, politics aside, being an English professor and former president at my alumna matter before he became Senator is quite something. I have the greatest respect for those teachers and professors who teach the subject of English. Among the most important level of critical thinking and writing for me came from English classes. I’m sure Hayakawa saw a lot going on at SFSU at the time he was President given it like UC Berkeley was caught in the thick of the Vietnam War.
A month old push poll from a has been hack - I’m sweating bullets over here.
Push poll:
“The Zogby Strategies poll of 1,000 likely voters found that when campaign messaging is taken into account, Hilton received 29 percent of the vote share while Porter garnered 23 percent. A further 23 percent said they were undecided.”
Also was this a head to head for the general or a primary poll? There’s a much better chance it’s an all Dem general than Hilton being in the general and being competitive.
Yes although Steve Hilton himself isn't exactly right wing. He may be a personality (especially having worked for Fox News) but he's also British and has ties to former PM David Cameron as he was the former head of strategy to him when he was in office. Hilton also voted for the Green Party in Britain and pushed Cameron to go move into a pro-environment direction (which mystifies me as to why he's supported Trump in the first place)
He also has been directly involved in efforts to resolve CA's housing crisis although they have been criticized for being too pro-development driven as opposed to the ongoing efforts by the CA State Legislature and Governor Newsom to crack down on the crisis.
Which is why I want to state for the record that Newsweek seems to be trying too hard to make headlines instead of actually focusing on the real reporting and headlines that matter.
Steve Hilton is an extremist nobody with a British accent. He may not even win the Republican primary. Chad Bianco at least has run for office and won, though he's a jerk too. There's no chance Hilton would win a general against any of the Democrats. Bianco would be more likely, but he has virtually no chance either. The next governor will be a Democrat.
Also, 29, 23, and 23% only add up to 75%. Who are the other 25% who don't fit into any category, not even "undecided"? Space aliens?
"According to polling by Zogby Strategies, while the Democrat is leading among other Democrats ahead of the upcoming primary for the election, she is behind a Republican candidate, conservative commentator Steve Hilton, by six percentage points. This suggests that if the two advance to the gubernatorial election, Hilton might beat Porter."
No, it doesn't. That's an asinine reading of results from a besmirched firm. If it's a Dem-Repub top two, the Dem will win the runoff with 61% of the vote at a minimum.
"Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton raised over $1 million last quarter, her campaign announced. Cash on hand wasn't disclosed. Stratton continues to be at a major fundraising deficit to Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, who pulled in $3 million in 3Q + has $17.5 million in the bank. #ILSen #twill
However, Illinois Future PAC, led by a political operative with close ties to Gov. Pritzker, launched last week in support of Stratton's candidacy. It's already raised $1 million and can take in unlimited contributions. My colleague
@BenSzalinski
's story:"
https://x.com/brendenmoore13/status/1975595094150656420
EMILY's List backing her will also bring cash in. But Illinois has an early primary, so time is running out.
Thank God that Pritzker's finally on the move for her, but yeah, also fear that it could be too late.
Is there any problem with Krishnamoorthi other than the fact that he is a moderate.
He's collected a lot of money from crypto folks, I thought.
That's Ro Khanna.
I'm not confusing the two.
Ohh.
Been discussed here a lot so summarizing. Little to no substantive legislative achievements after nearly a decade in Congress. He's an asshole who's a bad boss and mediocre relations with his colleagues because he's notably more self-absorbed than even that high median. Big AIPAC recipient. Modi/RSS/Hindutva connections. Total downgrade from Durbin on all these points, which isn't the highest bar.
Question for the day: What do we feel is the best Democratic gerrymander currently in use right now, and why?
"Best" can be defined however you feel.
The first map that comes to mind for me is Illinois's congressional map, since it's highly effective and pretty much a maximalist map.
Illinois is a great answer; other than that, can any map really be considered a Democratic gerrymander, really?
Nevada, New Mexico, and Oregon are all dem gerrymanders.
True. Maryland as well. But those only net us 1-2 seats each. So to the question "what's the best Dem gerrymander", I feel like it has to be Illinois.
No question that it's Illinois.
Nevada state assembly. Dems won 45.6% of the vote last year but won over 60% of seats.
Based.
Also the US house map in Nevada.
In 2024 37.4% of the house vote went to democrats, 48.5% to republicans, and 10.5% to independents. We won three seats to republicans' one seat. There was no dem in the R vote sink, so for simplicity we can model it as us getting 47-48% of the vote and still winning 75% of the seats.
Basically the same as 2022: 47.6% D, 51% R, we won three seats.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/florida-playbook/2025/10/07/inside-demings-timeline-and-thinking-00595887
Jerry Demings is almost confirmed to be running for Governor of Florida.
https://civiqs.com/results/approve_president_trump_2025?uncertainty=true&zoomIn=true&annotations=true&home_state=Florida
Trump's approval in Florida is -6 and and the biggest change has been among Florida Latinos who are now Trump -16.
https://civiqs.com/results/approve_president_trump_2025?uncertainty=true&zoomIn=true&annotations=true&home_state=Florida&race=Hispanic%2FLatino
Jerry Demings, a popular moderate mayor of Orlando County with fundraising prowess would be a huge get for Dems. Additionally, a Black nominee vs Black nominee dynamic would also give him free press attention. FWIW, Hillary lost Florida by 1 point and Biden lost it by 3.5.
I think we need a Hispanic male candidate who speaks Spanish to win statewide in Florida ever again. Ideally, someone who is Cuban.
There hasn't been a recent Hispanic Governor of Florida. I don't think such identity politics will work.
Bob Martinez?
I forgot about him.
It's not just identity politics, it's linguistic politics. Florida Dems are extraordinarily bad and behind on how they message to Spanish-speakers, and Jeb Bush started honing the Repub apparatus in 1994. Dems did not have a Spanish speaker as a statewide nominee as Crist's LG running mate in 2014 and then DMP for Senate last year. I could be wrong, don't think they've had a single row office nominee who speaks Spanish let alone drive it into their campaign comms effectively.
The state has gone to hell in the past eight years, and I've lost my sense of it. I don't know of if historic Trump unpopularity could be seized upon better by Demings or Jolly. But I do agree and wish there was a prominent Spanish speaker as an option. More importantly is to make strong inroads in their messaging strategy the way Repubs have for over three decades at this point.
I had heard that. The GOP also went on Spanish-speaking media (which the Dems didn’t do) and it’s believed that’s a key reason why Hispanics went for Trump until the ICE raids.
Which is extremely absurd. What kind of idiotic malpractice is that? Every single Democrat responsible for not advertising on the Spanish-language media should have been fired!
Yeah, that's a historic issue. Repubs run a ton of ads on Spanish radio/TV and papers and Dems don't counter enough. It's a financial issue too--it's hard enough to counter mis/disinfo in English before adding Spanish. But the longtime lack of investment has led to worsening results.
Well, the problem remains turnout by FL Democrats so what you are describing seems to confirm this to be the case.
We really can’t have any conversation about making FL less red or win elections if the base isn’t showing up.
It was not a problem of base turnout. Latinos, including traditionally Democratic Puerto Ricans had a huge shift towards the GOP after 2020 in Florida as well as New York, partly in response to DeSantis opposing lockdowns and school closures which turned out to be popular and Biden's unpopularity. I think they are very anti-establishment and can swing back.
Well, these communities aren't the base because we don't talk to them.
He’s also the husband of former House Rep and Senate Candidate Val Demings.
House is meeting in a pro forma session today at 3 PM, which means that Adelita Grijalva could be sworn in today, 15 days after winning her special election. But there are no plans to swear her in.
And Jeffries and Co. will do nothing. At least pull an all nighter to draw attention to it.
What is the legal basis for Mike Johnson’s delay? Is there any precedence?
The election wasn't certified at first (not that it mattered in previous circumstances), the House isn't in session (not that that mattered before). So there are excuses, but the real reason of course is to not allow a vote on the Epstein files and to maximize their puny majority.
Sens Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly actually got into House Speaker Johnson's face today about him not swearing in Rep. Grijalva. And Johnson admitted he wasn't swearing her in unless Senate Ds voted for his "clean CR."
This all was caught on camera, mind you.
This is blatantly illegal behavior from Johnson, and Dems should've started filing lawsuits about this a week ago. The law is clear - Johnson doesn't have a choice in the matter.
What is the legal case? To be honest, I thought Congress controls their own memberships and can in theory deny seating (like Eugene Debs). Roland Burris was denied for some time before the Senate finally accepted his appointment and Pelosi toyed with not seating Marianette Miller-Meeks when her six-vote win wasn't super clear.
If this continues, it's going to soon result in the majority party in the House simply refusing to swear in any of the minority party's Representatives at the beginning of each Congress.
Under McCormick v. Powell, the house cannot refuse to seat a legitimately elected Representative
TN-9: Democrat Justin Pearson (of Tennessee 3 fame) is running against Steve Cohen.
Pearson is 30, Cohen is 76. There's also a forbidden topic dimension, which Cohen (possibly) left the Progressive Caucus over.
https://x.com/hollyotterbein/status/1975923124672581755
However you feel ideologically as a Dem, you have to admit Pearson is a pretty big get for progressives.
He’s a big get – if he wins.
Indeed. I do think his chances are quite good.
Pearson was always the most interesting of the TN Three to me. Would be great to get him in the House. Such a shame that Nashville is so cracked, but hopefully Justin Jones can get in somehow too.
Should be noted that Justin Pearson is black and he’s challenging Rep. Steve Cohen in a Congressional District where black residents make up 60% of the population.
https://www.census.gov/mycd/?st=47&cd=09
Cohen has easily defeated several prominent Black challengers over the years, many of whom made race a central reason for their challenge.
I think Cohen's luck may have run out now, though, due to a confluence of factors: his age, Pearson's prominence and political momentum, a terrified base eager to see someone doing more to fight.
I will need to see evidence that actual voters are feeling the same way about these politicians as the perpetually online before assuming someone like Cohen, who has had zero issue with these challengers, actually losses.
In fairness to Cohen, all of his challengers did attempt to make it about race, but they were all also to his right as more conservative democrats. That probably won't be the case here.
It seems likely that Pearson wins this one. I hope he does.
I wouldn't say "likely"; beating an incumbent is hard. But definitely the highest-profile challenger Cohen has gotten since Willie Herenton in 2010.
Pearson is younger, more talented, very well-connected, and more representative of the district. He built up a big base of donors due to being a part of the Tennessee 3. And there are certain wedge issues that favor Pearson in the primary.
As others have noticed, the past primary challengers to Cohen were not exactly high caliber candidates. That's why I think this time, it will be different.
I'm definitely inclined to prefer Pearson, I'm just advising temperance of expectations, since unseating an incumbent (especially one who's done nothing "wrong" per se) is quite tough.
Why do you think Pearson is more talented? An older white man holding down a 60+% AA seat speaks to a fairly high talent level, no?
Now THIS is exciting. Hoping for some generational change in this seat.
Really mixed feelings on this one. Have to see how the campaign plays out.
Is there something wrong with Pearson? Or do you like Cohen?
I like them both.
Another thought — Memphis is one of the cities Trump is sending troops to, I believe. If Cohen is seen as weak in his response, it could harm him in a primary.
Was looking through Cohen's Wikipedia page, and found that he has a history of opposing Armenian genocide recognition... swell guy?
Does someone have how the current configuration of AZ-01 voted between Lake and Hobbs in 2022? Would be so funny to have her do a hat trick of losing close races for governor, senator and representative three cycles in a row lol
It's in DRA. In 2022, Hobbes beat Lake in AZ-01 51.5-48.1.
In 2024, Lake also lost AZ-01 to Gallego by a 5% margin, 51.5.-46.6.
Thanks!!
The ND superintendent was confirmed along with the huge raft of other nominees yesterday, but she's not sure if she can be sworn in until the end of the shutdown.
https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/10/07/us-senate-confirms-baesler-to-education-post-chase-as-us-attorney-for-north-dakota/
How did they confirm 100 nominees in a single vote? Feels like Republicans never allowed this under Biden.
They nuked part of the filibuster rule with a simple majority vote. I think only cabinet and judicial nominees now require a filibuster-proof majority. They could do the same thing (change the specific rule) for the CR if they wanted to re-open gov. Which they do not. They could change the rule, open the gov., and change the rule back all with a simple majority.
I knew that part, but I feel like confirming 100+ nominees in a single vote didn't happen under Biden, particularly for high-profile offices like U.S. Attorney.
Oh, of course. Sorry!
This was a new rules change under Thune that they rammed through last month. Advice and consent isn't supposed to have bloc confirmation votes, each nominee is supposed to be assessed separately so that an objectionable person doesn't slip through cracks. Dems wanted a deal to limit it to 10-15 nominees per committee (still a huge number) but I don't think even that happened and Repubs pretty much cleared the Executive Calendar of all nominees awaiting a floor vote.
Republicans are going to regret changing that rule when Dems have trifecta control again. Just like they did when they eliminated the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees back in 2017.
It almost seems like they think they won't ever have to worry about being in the minority again...
New analysis of how republicans would gerrymander if section 2 of the VRA is struck down. Republicans will probably gain 19 seats across states in the south.
www.politico.com/f/?id=00000199-c097-dae2-ab9d-ded7d6fb0000
CA-Gov - A reporter for the CBS/Paramount-owned stations in California (KCBS and KCAL in Los Angeles and KPIX in San Francisco) learned first-hand what happens when you try to mess with Katie Porter (in this case, trying to bait Porter into personally attacking Trump supporters).
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPjYNpfkYJB/?igsh=MWo1cmtzbncyYzZ3eQ
This kind of badgering by the media is a big reason why Zohran Mamdani won the NYC mayoral primary, and, given by comments I've seen on Instagram, it might help Porter in the California governor's race despite even some left-leaning outlets referring to the interview as a "meltdown" by Porter.
I don't think the reporter is at fault here, at all. How hard is it to say that I want every vote possible? Now I get the complaints of her staff.
I don't think there's an inherent wrong to the question. But there is something wrong with the way the question is wielded: it's used to shift the political conversation towards one of sympathy towards conservative voters.
It seems to be far more often asked of democrats than the converse is asked of republicans. When republicans are asked they usually say something similar to what Porter said (they don't need democratic voters) and the media shrugs and moves on. While democrats get scrutinized for their answer no matter what the answer is.
She said that. Her answers were fine. Why she decided to end the interview is another question.
She didn't end the interview, it went on for another 20 minutes.
She's not a very good politician. Some might where it as a badge of honor but instances like this don't really help a candidate.
My own take: she has been another case of a person being a good politician... until they aren't (usually when they go from winning as a Representative to a statewide office). Bruce Braley is another good example (before his poor performance in 2014 he was considered a very good campaigner)
Bruce ran into 2014, and a red shifting Iowa. He could have run the best race ever and would have lost easily
Agree ...and Braley also ran a bad campaign lol
winning and holding a swing seat aside?
Lmao, Porter is absolutely in the wrong here.
If Porter is out nominee, I hope the Republicans don't end up with a strong candidate. I could see some negative coattails to her.
Oh please
Oh please what? She's not a strong campaigner and I could see her having a negative effect on some house races.
Katie Porter won narrowly in CA 45 in 2018 against incumbent Mimi Walters who had won by 17 points in 2016. She went on to win that district again in 2020 and the mostly new CA 47 in 2022. She has won in Orange County, so she knows how to talk to Republicans and independents.
I've seen her at campaign events, in the grocery store, at Starbucks, and in front of my house. She knows how to campaign and has fantastic constituent service.
I do question if she has the temperament to deal with the California legislature as governor.
I think an alternative view of that might be that she got swept in on a blue wave and managed to hold on through incumbency and some skill. When she first went to a bigger stage she ran a pretty damn poor campaign and got just 15% in the primary.
I think her senate primary performance is reflective of an issue with a primary, not a general election. And it's an issue she'll face this time around too, although (so far) only part of it. Namely that the party establishment didn't and still doesn't favor her, with the possibly non-repeating detail being that the party establishment did particularly favor a single specific candidate.
In context saying she got "just 15%" of the vote is misleading, because Schiff didn't do that much better, at 32%, effectively tied with a republican candidate. By typical numerical standards nobody received an impressive vote share.
In her senate campaign she had a republican opponent that consolidated the majority of the republican vote, and a democratic opponent that consolidated about half of the democratic vote and had the establishment lane all to himself. Porter had to split the remaining of the party vote with Lee.
In 2026 she will still not be favored by the party establishment. But at least so far nobody has pulled off the role of Schiff, uniting the establishment support behind them. If we end up her versus a republican in the general nobody should worry at all about the final result. It's only if it's her against another democrat that it gets interesting for the general.
Yeah it's unquestionable that she's a brawler and would win as the nominee lol. Her flaws as a politician are in interpersonal relations, which can cause some unforced errors like this but are more of an obstacle to driving her legislative agenda. She would probably have an amazing regulatory agenda, but even agency heads require relationship management.
Unforced errors, for example claiming that the Senate primary she badly lost was rigged...
(she finally had to walk that back)
This is why I was not a fan of Katie Porter being the candidate of choice to many Democrats in the first place.
We still have other Democrats in the race and I hope they stay in the race. This includes Betty Yee and Xavier Becerra.
I believe there are plenty of undecided voters at this early in the race.
I'm still thinking Senator Alex Padilla will jump in. I think he said he's currently focused on helping Prop 50 pass, and then will decide.
It's an interesting choice for him:
1. keeping the essentially lifetime cushy Senate job, but being in the powerless minority for the foreseeable future.
2. Taking a free shot at the rare chance of being in charge of the fourth-largest economy in the world. (remember: he doesn't need to give up his seat to run)
Indeed. If we want to move on from Newsom (irrespective of what his political future may be), Padilla would be a welcome change. He's not divisive, doesn't go for headlines and aims to serve.
And being Hispanic helps with the turnout for Democrats, especially considering Padilla had the June incident when questioning Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Mindy O'Neall, the Democratic candidate, ousted MAGA Fairbanks mayor David Pruhs in last night's municipal election, by around 8 points.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/perfect-storm-alaska-democrats-flip-gop-seat-for-the-first-time-in-10-years/ar-AA1O5Ipa?ocid=BingNewsVerp
Surprised that this didn't make it to the Morning Digest.
Morning Digest missed recent Alabama mayoral elections too.
I'm flattered that you think we have the ability to cover so many elections! But alas, we don't. We have just two full-time staff. We have to make choices every day about what to cover, and smaller cities and towns (Mobile is under 200K, Fairbanks is just 30K) can't make the cut.
That's especially so given how long the Digest already is each day. Today's edition was a hefty 2,500 words—and that's not abnormal. What's more, we gotta sleep sometime! Alaska results usually hit in the middle of the night, East Coast time.
If we're ever able to grow, I'd love to produce a newsletter focused solely on municipal elections that covers cities like the ones you have in mind. We'd need a lot more funding to be able to do that, though.
Totally understand - thanks for the thoughtful reply. I really appreciate the work you and the team put into the Digest each day. A municipal-focused newsletter would be amazing someday if the resources allow, but in the meantime, the coverage you do provide is incredibly valuable. Keep up the great work!
Until then, it is good to have commentators like you and MPC, so that the news gets out. We can all help with reporting.
We continue to benefit from very low turnout.
"Mayor David Pruhs is a conservative who fought protections for LGBTQ+ residents; he made comments this year drew condemnation this year from Alaska Natives."
https://x.com/Taniel/status/1975912279435845686
I think cultural issues may also have played a role, Pruhs is MAGA.
Reminds me of Anchorage's ex-mayor, Dave Bronson, another MAGA type who horrifically mismanaged his city and lost by 10-ish points in the last mayor race there. I think he's trying for Governor now, what a fool.
I was happy to see Aftyn Behn will be the Democratic candidate in the Tennessee 7th district. I was impressed with her grasp of local and national issues in an interview that I watched earlier this week. I do not usually contribute to primary candidates in other states, but I made a small donation to her primary campaign. I will be making another for her congressional campaign. The other Democrats need to unite behind her, and EMILY'S list needs to endorse her.
Last night, someone said she seemed to be the progressive candidate in the primary. Wouldn't that make it even more unlikely for her to get an upset win in that very Republican district?
I wouldn't assume so. With a district this red, turnout matters a lot more than persuasion.
Jess Piper interviewed her on the Substack "The View from Rural Missouri." It's an interview worth checking out. I think that this propensity to label obfuscates more than enlightens.
Do you feel that's true generally? Surely, it would be meaningful to say that AOC is progressive and Jared Golden is not.
Back in Trump I, during Michael Cohen's testimony before a House committee, I was irritated with the quality of grandstanding questions from most of the Democrats. However, AOC, asked several pointed, direct questions, which Cohen answered, about practical matters, such as who had the Trump organization materials with the needed information. SNL actually did a joke about it, when the actor portraying Bennie Johnson (?) said something about now the actor portraying AOC would do a little dance, to which the actor said, "I was going to ask some pointed questions." She is a serious person, with whom I agree some of the time and disagree at others.
I'm not sure what to make of Jared Golden. What I know is that he is able to get elected in a heavily Trump district. That does not mean I support his vote for the continuing resolution. He seems to be more a product of the odd political dynamics of Maine. The Independent senator from Maine also voted for the continuing resolution.
Thanks for the substantive post. I think it's clear that Golden is not progressive, though.
"MeidasTouch
@MeidasTouch
EXCLUSIVE: Virginia Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears in a 2022 interview warned supporters of reproductive rights that "one day it’s going to be your turn."
"Murder is murder. And one day it's going to be your turn." "
https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/1975980637388763371
Another October surprise.
Jason Miyares' campaign staff must hate her so much right now.
Question for those here: is Sears at Martha Coakley levels of awful campaigning yet?
And why on God’s green, arid earth teeming with life did the GOP pick her as their nominee?
Because she's a big "own the libs" poster and speech giver. They eat that crap up and it continues to hurt them in competitive elections
Yep, a combination of that and the tradition in VA of LGs running to succeed their one-term bosses.
Technically, Republican primary voters didn't pick her, because she was the only declared candidate for Governor, and thus, there was no GOP primary for Governor. As far as why the VA GOP establishment coalesced around her, it's probably because she was already a statewide officeholder, and it wouldn't make sense for both Sears and Miyares to run for Governor and leave both the LG and AG races without incumbents.
As far back as I can remember, Virginia has always had an incumbent LG or AG or a former governor be a major party nominee for Governor. In 2021, the Democratic nominee was former Governor Terry McAuliffe. In 2017, the Dem nominee was incumbent LG Ralph Northam. In 2013 and 2009, the GOP nominees were incumbent AGs Ken Cuccinelli and Bob McDonnell, respectively. In 2005, the nominees were incumbent LG Tim Kaine and incumbent AG Jerry Kilgore. In 2001, the GOP nominee was incumbent AG Mark Earley. In 1997, the Dem nominee was incumbent LG Don Beyer. In 1993, the Dem nominee was incumbent AG Mary Sue Terry.
I looked this up on Wikipedia, and it turns out that 1969 was the last time that neither of the major candidates for Virginia Governor were an incumbent LG or AG or a former governor. In other words, if the Republican nominee for Governor this year were someone other than Sears or Miyares, that would be very unusual in Virginia politics.
Have Miyares and Reid disavowed this yet?
It was said on Reid's radio show!
"Winsome Earle-Sears is once again fundraising off of slavery and DEI. She caught flack in May for doing the same https://politico.com/news/2025/05/19/virginia-gop-winsome-earle-sears-worries-00357698"
https://x.com/Bencjacobs/status/1976026570859889061
Earle-Sears really doesn't know how to run a winning campaign.
I'm sure her stock with the GOP as far as being a political candidate for anything will drop significantly after this election.
MA-6:
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/massachusetts-playbook/2025/10/02/a-way-too-early-look-at-mass-s-maybe-open-congressional-seat-00591179
Politico speculates on potential candidates for Seth Moulton’s seat should he run for Senate. (I’d be curious to hear for Pressley’s seat too, if she runs, but this article was just about Moulton’s seat.)
If Markey decides not to run, I think Auchincloss jumps in 100%.
That could get interesting. A 3-way showdown - Moulton vs. Auchincloss vs. Pressley.
I suspect the first two would split the centrist vote and allow Pressley to win.
Massachusetts can do better than Moulton. (I suspect Auchincloss would be a boring party-line Dem.)
Auchincloss is a neoliberal ideologue and a Bill Clinton fan. He has other eclectic interests like social media regulation, permitting reform and the forbidden topic though.
Moulton and Auchincloss would be about equally terrible. Ideologically Moulton would be better, but on personality and temperament he would be worse. Auchincloss is big on shifting the party towards pro-rich moderation. Moulton is big on promoting himself and inserting himself into everything to try and become the hero of the story.
Massachusetts can do way better than both of them.
Think Aunchincloss doesn't have the juice to be a real contender tbh. I also imagine other people will want to jump into an open Senate seat in MA, so these three would unlikely to have the field to themselves. But ideally, yeah, Pressley and Moulton as the main two and Auchincloss takes enough off Moulton for Pressley to win.
Auchincloss has more juice, connections and fundraising talent compared to the weirdo Moulton. Ohh, and he's the current chair of the resurrected DLC and a Lis Smith candidate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_Democrats
Eh. It's kind of a mid-off. Moulton is awful but I think is a better speaker and has a generic soldier to Harvard story. Auchincloss is a silver spoon nepobaby from a Republican political family who wasn't a Democrat himself for a period. Him forming a PAC that's trying to emulate the DLC and signing Smith on doesn't mean much to me. But they both suck, especially compared to Pressley, especially as potential senators for a state like Massachusetts.
Edit: I forgot Auchincloss was a Marine too (and reservist now)
Indiana redistricting efforts running into some turbulence
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/08/vance-indiana-redistricting-00598104
Important to note - Indiana, the Governor cannot call legislators into a special session and force a vote on the question, unlike TX/MO.
“They killed Charlie Kirk — the least that we can do is go through a legal process and redistrict Indiana into a nine to zero map,” Sen. Jim Banks, the Republican of Indiana, told POLITICO last month.
I feel like I’m going to be hearing about Kirk until I’m dead.
Really? I’d almost forgotten that happened. The media lost interest real fast once it was clear the shooter was a maladjusted wierdo and nobody watched the funeral that brilliantly counter programmed the NFL
On second thought you’re right. Quite frankly I’m glad because they were threatening ideological crackdowns based on it.
They still are:
Hegseth’s Hunt for Charlie Kirk Critics Expands
https://politicalwire.com/2025/10/08/hegseths-hunt-for-charlie-kirk-critics-expands/
Not good.
Yeah, something was always going to come up that would take Americans' attention away from Kirk. In this case it was the government shutdown. But if the government hadn't shut down, it would've been something else.
Similarly, I highly doubt that anything Jay Jones texted three years ago will be at the forefront of Virginia voters' minds by November 4. Especially if the government is still shut down, which is looking increasingly likely.
This is, of course, a double-edged sword - voters last November weren't thinking about all the hundreds (thousands?) of horrible things that Trump said or did over the past decade.
From Republicans playing the Horst Wessel card, yes.
or at least until trump is dead
Or at least until we wish we were…
What do the people of Indianapolis have to do with a murder that happened in Utah?
Is it just me or is the shutdown not getting significant attention? It's been a week and discussion of it around the politically aware parts of the internet seems minimal. I don't watch TV so maybe it's getting attention on cable news but somehow I doubt it.
Am I remembering wrong or is this atypical? My recollection is that the past few shutdowns dominated political discourse from the start, other than the extremely brief one that Ted Cruz started during Obama.
Because it’s being overshadowed by Trump/Miller’s police state thuggery.
https://bsky.app/profile/joycewhitevance.bsky.social/post/3m2pbwo2wnc2r
CA-GOV:
Newsweek really is trying too hard to get headlines when it is suggesting from the outset of the latest poll that Katie Porter could lose to GOP Candidate Steve Hilton in the general election.
Per the latest Zogby poll, Porter is down to Hilton by 6% points. Not only does Hilton not apart of the Hilton family, he endorsed Trump back in 2016, supported 2020 election fraud claims and has become a regular contributor to Fox News.
Just keep in mind that Zogby’s credibility has forever changed since it predicted John Kerry was going to win the 2004 presidential election.
Of course, per a thread earlier in today’s TDB post, Porter’s temperament seems to be a challenge.
https://www.newsweek.com/katie-porters-chances-of-winning-california-governor-election-suffer-blow-10845001
I think Senator Padilla will jump in. If he wins, I wonder he will appoint as Senator though.
Senator Padilla would be a safer choice as governor than Katie Porter from the standpoint of experience working in state government (Padilla was in the State Senate from 2006-2014 and then served as Secretary of State from 2015-2021 before Newsom appointed him to the U.S. Senate) and temperament.
Rob Bonta would be a solid choice as he's only 53 and has quite a good record as Attorney General. He'd also be the first Asian and Filipino Senator in CA history (that I recall).
I would say Eleni Kounalakis would be ok but she just jumped into the State Treasurer race after not getting traction in her gubernatorial primary race. Libby Schaaf had dropped out of the State Treasurer race immediately when Kounalakis jumped in. The optics arent the best for Kounalakis and she hasn't been battle tested, even as Lt. Governor.
CA State Controller Malia Cohen would be interesting as she's black and Jewish as well as having served as Supervisor in SF for 8 years and being the President of the Board of Supervisors for less than a year.
S.I. Hayakawa was a Republican senator from California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._I._Hayakawa
Woah! He also was President of San Francisco State University, my alumna matter, during the Vietnam War from 1968-1973!
Why have I not learned this history? This is amazing.
He was an important guy. Definitely not my cup of tea, though.
I’m sure though Hayakawa would have been disgusted with today’s GOP and even the Tea Party. I don’t know enough about his politics but it did seem that he was a long time Democrat who, like Ronald Reagan, moved to the Republican Party. I can only suspect he was your typical, classic conservative Republican.
Still, politics aside, being an English professor and former president at my alumna matter before he became Senator is quite something. I have the greatest respect for those teachers and professors who teach the subject of English. Among the most important level of critical thinking and writing for me came from English classes. I’m sure Hayakawa saw a lot going on at SFSU at the time he was President given it like UC Berkeley was caught in the thick of the Vietnam War.
A month old push poll from a has been hack - I’m sweating bullets over here.
Push poll:
“The Zogby Strategies poll of 1,000 likely voters found that when campaign messaging is taken into account, Hilton received 29 percent of the vote share while Porter garnered 23 percent. A further 23 percent said they were undecided.”
Also was this a head to head for the general or a primary poll? There’s a much better chance it’s an all Dem general than Hilton being in the general and being competitive.
Yes although Steve Hilton himself isn't exactly right wing. He may be a personality (especially having worked for Fox News) but he's also British and has ties to former PM David Cameron as he was the former head of strategy to him when he was in office. Hilton also voted for the Green Party in Britain and pushed Cameron to go move into a pro-environment direction (which mystifies me as to why he's supported Trump in the first place)
He also has been directly involved in efforts to resolve CA's housing crisis although they have been criticized for being too pro-development driven as opposed to the ongoing efforts by the CA State Legislature and Governor Newsom to crack down on the crisis.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/19/former-david-cameron-strategy-chief-steve-hilton-signs-fox-news-deal
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/steve-hilton-ballot-measure-18348202.php
Push polls aren't completely useless, but the topline should never be taken as the actual state of the race.
Which is why I want to state for the record that Newsweek seems to be trying too hard to make headlines instead of actually focusing on the real reporting and headlines that matter.
Steve Hilton is an extremist nobody with a British accent. He may not even win the Republican primary. Chad Bianco at least has run for office and won, though he's a jerk too. There's no chance Hilton would win a general against any of the Democrats. Bianco would be more likely, but he has virtually no chance either. The next governor will be a Democrat.
Also, 29, 23, and 23% only add up to 75%. Who are the other 25% who don't fit into any category, not even "undecided"? Space aliens?
"According to polling by Zogby Strategies, while the Democrat is leading among other Democrats ahead of the upcoming primary for the election, she is behind a Republican candidate, conservative commentator Steve Hilton, by six percentage points. This suggests that if the two advance to the gubernatorial election, Hilton might beat Porter."
No, it doesn't. That's an asinine reading of results from a besmirched firm. If it's a Dem-Repub top two, the Dem will win the runoff with 61% of the vote at a minimum.
Edit: The article's author is British who started covering the States a couple years ago. She doesn't know what she's talking about. https://www.newsweek.com/authors/kate-plummer
Like I said, this is Newsweek so the author of the article is effectively speaking on behalf of the publication even if this is her article.
Have at it.
Okay, then both she and the publication are making a really stupid claim based off a misreading of the results from a has been pollster.
Agreed!
Newsweek was a far better publication back in the 90's and 2000's, especially when it had David Ansen as its film critic. Nowadays, I am conflicted.