Thank you very much! I turned off all engagements, but was still getting emails. I didn’t realize it was under the messaging section and not engagements section, which I had turned off. Deleted my post.
I think the Jewish space lasers and chem trails woman to her disadvantage will definitely try to use antisemitic tropes like his 2020 senate opponent did.
Unless there is a total economic meltdown, and Trump successfully blames it on "Jewish bankers" and "the globalist Jewish cabal", I think MTG’s antisemitic tropes are going to boomerang right back at her.
Anyone interested in how Australian Labor achieved its overwhelming election victory? Here is a terrific article on the strategist and strategy behind Anthony Albanese and Labor’s wildly successful campaign.
I read on another forum too that the Coalition fired their longtime pollster because he told them Dutton going scorched earth on the Voice Referendum was unhelpful (in part since it was already going to lose, and lose badly) and then agreed to do polling for the Yes campaign afterwards. Their new pollster mostly just told Dutton what he wanted to hear and wouldn’t poll marginal districts (including Dutton’s!) for fear of “revealing” that the Coalition suspected they were in play
Sore loser Jefferson Griffin finally conceded his election challenge against incumbent NC Supreme Court justice Allison Riggs, following Myers’ ruling. He won’t be appealing the ruling further.
Unfortunately, in NC all the justices in our state system are elected. The only time a governor can appoint justices is if they resign, retire or die.
Not only have Republicans made judicial races openly partisan, but they also recently overrode outgoing Governor Cooper's veto on a law forcing the governor to appoint replacement justices of the same party as outgoing justices (like a day or two before their supermajority went sayonara). Meaning that if one of the GOP justices on the SCONC were to die or retire, Gov Stein can't replace fill the vacancy with one of his choosing. He has to choose from three candidates picked by the NC GOP.
If the control of SCONC flips back to Dem control in 2028, redraws the maps and Dems recapture the state legislature -- there needs to be MASSIVE overhaul during that trifecta. I hope Phil Berger is still around to get demoted to minority leader and see everything he and Tim Moore forced through get gutted and undone.
Riggs and Earls have said outright that if the court switches back after 2028, they will revisit the gerrymandered state and Congressional maps.
And the only way to get an independent redistricting commission here in NC if it's a law passed by lawmakers or legislatively referred constitutional amendment (which has to pass by 60% in both houses before going to voters). Since Rs have that gerrymandered majority, they won't do it. They'll have to be forced by court order to redraw the maps.
That just sounds like chaos to me. At least in my experience, judicial races in NY are extremely boring and I never really hear about Republican judges making insane rulings, in part because everyone knows the Governor's race is really where statewide judicial politics is litigated.
To put it another way, judicial elections shouldn't be about making policy, which is what these high court elections in various states seem to be now.
NC GOP is power hungry as can be and chaos is what they do and LOVE. They do EVERYTHING possible to entrench their power. They got rid of straight party voting because it benefits Democrats, they got rid of a three-day grace period for absentee ballots postmarked on or before Election Day to be counted.
And what's really egregious is that they took away the governor's power to appoint members of the NCSBE and gave it to the state auditor (a Republican). And that was after being rejected by federal judges AND voters over years of court battles. That auditor has now appointed three Republicans (with Phil Berger's approval), kept two Democrats and got rid of election director Karen Brinson Bell -- a holdover from Cooper/Stein.
The Court of Appeals did make some bad rulings, but no, nothing insane. Cuomo was essentially a moderate Republican, and even Pataki was not an extremist, so there would be little reason for the New York Court of Appeals to make an insane ruling.
I don't think it really makes sense to elect any judges. They should ideally be nominated by a panel of experts and confirmed or rejected by a vote of the Legislature.
I know Alaskans love Alaska but saving the nation, the Supreme Court and the Senate is more important ATM. I really really hope that former Rep. Peltola runs for Senate. If we win Maine, North Carolina, Texas and Alaska, it would be enough to stop Alito and Thomas from retiring. I bet they won't bow down to the pressure from Nov 2026 to Jan 2027.
If Republicans badly lose only the House but not the Senate in the midterms, I am confident that they'll put a lot of pressure on Alito and Thomas to retire.
Better yet, divine intervention in the form of old age and ill health may well retire Alito and Thomas. I would love to see Trump unable to fill these two SCOTUS seats, shifting the balance of the court for his last two years – and then have the next Democratic President name their replacements!
Dems would have to not only win the Senate but also find the courage to play hardball and defy the Constitution in order to fight fire with fire. However, since McConnell set the precedent and went first, which Dems would never have done themselves, I'm fairly confident even traditionalist Dems will refuse to fill Supreme Court seats with nominees from Republican presidents.
Schumer could give him a list of Biden nominees and refuse any Federalist Society picks from the WH. Play hardball and say "you can pick these judges or we won't confirm ANYONE."
Pick one of these judges or – true to the tradition established by Mitch McConnell – we won’t even give your nominee a hearing. (Except, perhaps, to eviscerate them and highlight how they’re unqualified, before rejecting them.)
I agree on what dems should do in that scenario. I am far less confident in Schumer's actually committing to it. Refusing to commit to long fights that go against political tradition is a habit he's making...
There's nothing in the constitution that requires the Senate to approve any nominees, and on the contrary, the Founding Fathers expected each branch of government to jealously guard its power, which Congress hasn't been doing under a trifecta.
Caveat that I don’t live in Alaska, so maybe I’m way off base, but I think State Senator Scott Kawasaki would be Democrats strongest option for either the Senate or the House. He currently holds a Trump/Sullivan district in the State Senate.
He first rose to power in the legislature during the 2018 wave. In 2014 the district he won (Senate district A) voted 60-39 for Republican Pete Kelly. He unseated the then State Senate president by 51-49 (you’ll become very familiar with this margin as I explain further below), a flip to the Democrats. Redistricting changed the district to Senate district P and massively changed the boundaries from including the coastline to mostly downtown Fairbanks.
Still, the new district voted for Trump in 2020 and 2024. Meanwhile for 2022 the rules of elections in Alaska changed and instead a 1 v 1 race, it was a nonpartisan primary then general/runoff. This is where he pulled off 2 even more impressive feats than taking down the Senate President. In the 2022 primary he was down 51-49 R-D in the primary to the 2 Republicans running. He won 51-42-6 D-R-R (or 51-48 combined R vote) in the general election.
In 2024 he pulled off an even more astounding victory, suggesting a strong personal brand separating him from Democrats overall in Alaska. He was once again down in the primary 51-49, but this time to a single GOP opponent. In the general election though he beat his opponent by (you probably have already guessed it by now) 51-48.
I don’t think there’s a stronger Democrat able to consistently win extremely close and hard fought campaigns in red territory, earning crucial Trump crossover voters save for maybe Mary Peltola who is no longer in office, while Scott Kawasaki is still a State Senator. Who’s actually the stronger candidate can be debated obviously, but there’s no doubt regarding Kawasaki’s electoral strength imo: he’s in the same league as her.
A Kawasaki/Peltola federal ticket is probably the dream scenario for Democrats regardless of who runs for Senate or House. If I’m a Democratic recruiter I’m blowing up his phone to get Kawasaki to run for Senate, because the House district isn’t needed for a Democratic majority, but the Senate seat likely would be.
Jon Ossoff's statement that: "I don't think that she's got the guts to do it" was not expressing doubt about Marjorie Taylor Greene's intention to run against him. He was taunting her into doing it. Ossoff knows that Greene would surely get Trump's endorsement, and the result would be even more disastrous for the GOP than the Herschel Walker debacle.
He's clearly baiting her. She would take the R Gubernatorial nominee, other statewide nominees and the legislature down with her just like the "Black Nazi" from North Carolina.
Yup. And he’s probably also noticing her side talking about how she can win a primary. She doesn’t say anything about the GE. It all sounds like conjecture to build her up and be in the press, which is getting to be common for Congressmembers. Rep Omar in MN wasn’t ever going to run for Senate, but she wanted to keep her name out there for no reason.
I think Ossoff is loosening up after Brian Kemp declining to run in the Senate election and realizing he has more flexibility in his re-election campaign than he did when he was a candidate back in 2020.
So who do y'all think is the favorite in Illinois senate? Krishnamoorthi, Kelly and Stratton are in and i guess we're waiting on Underwood? Priztker and Duckworth are behind Stratton but i'm not sure how much pull they have nor how well known she is.
I think Stratton is currently the favorite because of those two endorsements and the fact that Pritzker said he'll help fund her campaign. I'd put Krishnamoorthi second for his own impressive fundraising ability and his Obama creds. This kinda puts Kelly as third, which is no shade, I think she's wonderful, but the two above are definitely gonna put up a fight. Though Kelly's arguably overcome even more daunting odds, so I wouldn't be surprised if she surges to a top spot.
For what it's worth, Robin Kelly will be 70 years old when the next Congress is sworn in. Stratton will be 60, and Krisnamoorthi will be 52. 70 seems a bit old to start a Senate career, especially with age becoming more of a focus after all the recent deaths and health issues among older Democratic members. Dem voters are eager for generational change, and I'm not sure replacing an 80-year-old with a 70-year-old achieves that.
Minnesota secretary of state Steve Simon is running in Minnesota senate. It's good to see competition and not just coronations. I feel like lately races are just one candidate clearing out the field, let's give voters a choice.
There is no coronation happening in MN, with or without Simon. We have the Lt. Governor (Flanagan), a prominent House member (Craig), and a former leader of the Senate Dems (Franzen) already running, any of which could win the primary.
Chris Pappas is, however, being coronated in New Hampshire, but that's not because of anything other than (a) he's the strongest candidate and everyone knows it, and (b) the bench is thin in NH these days. Knowing who your nominee is going to be early in the process (i.e. by coronation) isn't always bad, as it allows the candidate to focus on the general election. That's especially helpful in NH, with it's really late primaries.
Yeah. At-Large states with a young enough Rep to run is almost always a coronation if they go for it. Why bother running against them when you could just run for their seat.
A two congressional state seat is going to function as close as any other state could. And, NH is cute where both Reps are young enough and both Senators are old enough. Papas has the seniority out of the two reps so the other can wait for Hassan to retire.
NH also really likes our incumbents. If Sununu had narrowly lost in 2016 instead of narrowly won, I'd expect the governor right now would be a democrat of some kind. Once someone becomes an incumbent here they're likely to survive even wave years.
Lynch won in 2010 by 7 points. Hassan won in 2014 by 5 points. Sununu won in 2018 by 7 points. NH governors (generally) quickly become popular and hard to unseat, even with waves. The rest of the state basically follows the legislative gerrymanders that the 2010 (veto proof republican majority that year) and 2020 elections gave republicans the ability to create.
Frankly, I think Sununu declining to run for the Senate, like Kemp in GA, was a smart move. If you're looking to remain relevant in the GOP, running for federal office in a state like NH might not be the best option right now in light of Trump and his administration.
Senators like Chuck Grassley are being hounded at town halls by constituents over DOGE and what's going on in the Trump administration. Sununu wouldn't be able to handle the heat like this as a Senate candidate.
Yeah but being that the GOP hasn't won a NH at the presidential level since 2000, whatever the NH GOP has at the state level doesn't translate at the federal level.
And there, we've already got at least three credible candidates (Flanagan, Craig, and ex-State Sen. Minority Leader Melissa Franzen), with possibly more to follow.
Again, I don't see a coronation in MN when there are multiple competitive candidates running against each other. Flanagan and Craig especially will probably have to fight each other hard for the nomination. You might have a point if Craig had stayed out and Flanagan was the only major nominee...
You definitely implied it would be a coronation without Simon running, which he is not. Presumably you meant Flanagan was being coronated, even though Craig and Franzen are also running? Then you said your "point still stands," which I took to mean you still think your point about MN is valid. Maybe your "point still stands" was about coronations in general, because I don't see a point still standing about MN.
After the new GOP majority on the NCSBE was sworn in this morning, they promptly fired elections director Karen Brinson Bell. Now they're spouting veiled election integrity BS, even though Brinson and the formerly Dem majority on the NCSBE unanimously certified Trump's wins in 2020 and 2024.
I hope this backfires on the NC GOP in the following years. And Boliek is going to be a top target in 2028 -- and if he loses, Dems gain back the majority on NCSBE.
Tillis won by the skin of his teeth in 2014 and 2020 in R-favorable years. With the right Dem candidate and political winds, Tillis can kiss his seat goodbye next year.
He is not invincible. And if NC voters are fed up enough, Tillis won't lose by a small amount of votes (and try to pull a Jefferson Griffin). It'll be by a number big enough that Boliek and the GOP-majority NCSBE can't contest either.
Agreed. 2014 was a shocker of a win in a landslide year bigger than expected. 2020 we ended up with a dude cheating on his wife. Trump still won the state in 2020 but we had an upper hand on the Senate race for most of the time. Tillis always done better than expected but that doesn’t mean he’s good. I can put a basketball in a hoop sometimes.
Yeah. NC GOP made Bell a punching bag for years -- all for doing her freaking job WELL. She requested to make a short speech at the NCSBE today, but they refused and promptly ended the meeting.
The way they treated her is appalling. And so, Democrats need to do the same with Francis De Luca.
In the same article about John Bel Edwards, it says
Mr. Schumer has told associates that he sees an intriguing opportunity in Mississippi, which has the largest percentage of Black residents of any state. One possible candidate there is Scott Colom, a district attorney who was appointed by President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to a federal judgeship — only to be blocked by Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, whom Mr. Colom would be running against in 2026. The state is also appealing for Democrats because it is small and relatively cheap to compete in.
Let's see the maths: (from Wikipedia)
White Americans: 55.4
Black Americans: 36.4
Latinos: 3.6
Asians: 1.1
Native: 0.5
Around 16% of the African American voting age population is disenfranchised, let's assume that in contrast 8 percent of the rest of the population is disenfranchised (and the Mississippi delta suffers from systemic poverty).
So assuming 90 percent of Black people vote for Democrats and taking into account the disenfranchisement, you get ≈ 30 percent of the vote.
Would we be able to get another 20 percent of the vote that too in Mississippi? Maybe it's a loser's game or maybe running a pro life candidate with the midterm electorate differences may make it possible.
We win 30% of the white vote in Georgia.
Note: The largest shifts in Trump's approval have been seen in non-white voters.
I think it’s very possible to get to 45% in MS, but nearly impossible to get that last 5%.
The only pathways I could imagine are four scenarios imo (and to be quite honest some of these are 1 in a million chances to occur, but these are the only options)
1) Is if no candidate in the primary/general election hits 50% and a runoff is required with a lower turnout 1v1 popular D vs damaged/unpopular R (think Roy Moore level).
2) Is a runoff with 3 candidates (2 R’s, 1D) after 2nd and 3rd place candidates tie in the primary/general, while 1st place is below 50%.
Considering Republicans have an incumbent these 2 seem all, but impossible.
3) Is if a popular politician runs as an Independent, holds the incumbent below 50% in the primary/general while making 1 of the top 2 spots, then wins the runoff.
4) Is if a popular politician runs as an Independent and wins 50% outright against the incumbent with no other Democrat/left/centrist candidate running.
Running as a Democrat in the Deep South, regardless of who that is, makes it not possible to win a federal race. Doesn’t matter how pro-life or conservative they are, the party name alone dooms them.
The only politicians who could theoretically run as Independents who are popular in the state is Gubernatorial candidate Brandon Presley or maybe former State Attorney General Jim Hood. And even if they do run (Presley was looking at a 2027 Gov rematch against the unpopular R Reeves), that’s a lot of ifs, hurdles and obstacles to get past.
TLDR: Florida is probably a better pickup opportunity for Democrats than Mississippi even though it has a much lower floor than MS does. Or in other words, extremely unlikely.
Running as a Independent in the South makes you lose Black voters who may be very socially conservative but are extremely loyal to Democrats according to a Split ticket Analysis. So that's out of the equation.
That’s why I said no Democrat runs against the Independent.
From the link you provided:
RED scores also don’t predict the success of specific independent campaigns, only a state’s suitability for one. For example, Al Gross’s campaign in Alaska veered too close to the national Democratic campaign, contributing to his loss. Yet, by RED score, Alaska remains fertile ground for a strong independent campaign.
Brandon Presley almost won with Biden in the White House and strong minority turnout in an off year election. Yes, he ran as a Democrat, but if an Independent candidate shows up and actively courts black voters, they can get strong support from minority voters.
This analysis makes a lot of assumptions I don’t agree with, starting with the fact we know minority turnout is lower in midterms than it is in presidential years. So is it the Independent label turning them off? Or is it them just tuning out any politics until the next presidential and any Democrat running would face the same lower minority turnout in off year elections as an Independent, thus shifting the precincts rightward?
2 of the only 4 examples (which is already far too low a sample size to draw conclusions from) are from midterm elections. In Presidential years when minority turnout goes up, we have 2 examples of Independents running. 1 of which had the I basically run as a D with an I label, the other put actual distance between his views and the D party. The latter gained among all voters. So not only is it an extremely small sample size to make conclusions from, but the type of campaign matters too.
Another one is saying a Libertarian vs a Republican is the same as an Independent vs Republican race in the minds of voters. That’s ludicrous. Voters know libertarians are on the right. It’s equally plausible (if not the actual case) that Democratic voters (aka black voters) saw no choice to vote for and decided to stay home. To assume they would also stay home in an I vs R race has no actual evidence to back it up.
Finally, the only presidential year where the independent candidate actually tried to distance themselves from the party resulted in vote gains among all voters! So that’s 1 race that confirmed the theory, 1 race that doesn’t. And 2 races with lower minority turnout regardless of if an I or D is running. I’d bet that Democrats also had minority voter precincts shift right these same years and for all we know, maybe even worse than the I!
It’s not enough data to definitively say Independents running would have trouble in the Deep South. Even more so because there hasn’t actually been an Independent statewide run in the Deep South! But if you look at the Independents who ran for office in State House/State Senate, you can see them outperforming the district Democratic baseline overall, which means even if this theory is correct, Democrats gain more voters than they lose, so it’s still worth it to run as I’s instead of D’s.
In the end imo this conclusion is flawed at best and is extremely misleading, portraying shaky assumptions as facts.
According to the link you gave me, it says that minority precincts shifted more towards the Independent in Nebraska compared to Democrats? Or am I misunderstanding what you’re saying?
Good post. If 2 candidates have a tied vote for 2nd place, they really have a 3-person runoff instead of doing some kind of coin flip or something? Same if there are 2 candidates tied for 1st?
Yup, here’s the constitutional word on ties (I didn’t include the full write up of the state constitution, only the relevant parts, you can look up the entire thing if you wish)
Mississippi Code Title 23. Elections § 23-15-833
The two (2) candidates who receive the highest popular votes for the office shall have their names submitted as the candidates to the runoff and the candidate who leads in the runoff election shall be elected to the office. When there is a tie in the first election of those receiving the next highest vote, these two (2) and the one receiving the highest vote, none having received a majority, shall go into the runoff election and whoever leads in the runoff election shall be entitled to the office.
It's worth a half court shot because if Cassidy manages to win a bloody primary, there're potential for a lot of R voter drop-off. I don't think it'd be enough, but if it's a blue tsunami environment, it's worth a go for at least money diversion purposes.
I too think that’s the most likely outcome. However, I do think there’s a path to victory (although very narrow) only if Cassidy after a brutal primary and JBE make it to the runoff. Republicans despise Cassidy in the way many of them hated Tate Reeves in MS or Roy Moore in AL (not for the same reasons obviously, but the intensity of the dislike) causing those Republicans to massively underperform the GOP baseline. If it’s anyone, but Cassidy, JBE’s toast.
You could easily imagine part of them sitting out though if he’s in the runoff, lowering the threshold for JBE to be victorious. With Trump in the White House turbocharging D turnout, that might just barely be enough for a conservative Democrat to pull off a remarkable major upset with 48-51% of the vote (I say less than 50% is possible for him to still win because of blank ballots or write-in protest votes).
It depends on if JBE runs or not, but theoretically in a Cassidy vs JBE runoff, it’s definitely possible!
Whether the tradeoff of any potential gain among swing voters is worth losing the number of MAGA GOP who already turnout at lower rates than the rest of the electorate when Trump is not on the ballot is not at all clear and imo given how few swing voters there are (especially in MS), I’d be far more worried if less Trump voters showed up if I was the GOP than any potential gains among swing voters for having Cassidy make the runoff.
Any other R no matter how controversial is a slam dunk win. Cassidy is the bigger risk for the GOP imo. It’s basic math, there’s more Trump voters than there are swing voters, so more of a base turnout problem is a bigger concern than say a non-Cassidy Republican turning off swing voters.
Especially facing a Democratic candidate Louisiana voters voted for not once, but twice into the Governorship. It could be arguable Cassidy could theoretically face two simultaneous serious, if not catastrophic electoral problems in the runoff, which could lead to a major upset: low GOP turnout and high crossover/swing voters going for JBE.
One caveat: If there’s a runoff in Louisiana and control of the Senate is up for grabs, Cassidy will still win fairly easily as partisanship takes hold (and I still think that’s the most plausible outcome in a JBE vs Cassidy runoff).
But if there’s a bloody primary, if Cassidy advances damaged and broke, if JBE runs a great campaign and advances to the runoff with a large amount of cash and if Senate control is already settled whether by D’s or R’s, then there’s a narrow path along the lines of AL 2017 to squeak a 6 year term. Lot of ifs obviously, so the path in LA is very small, but probably larger than MS and maybe even FL.
I see that Raffensperger did poorly in one opinion poll, but now that Governor Kemp has stated he won't run for the Senate, I'd have to believe that Raffensperger, with his record of resistance to Trump while otherwise supporting him, would be the strongest candidate if he were to run and win a Republican primary. Do any of you disagree?
Like Kemp, It's almost impossible for Raffensberger to win a Primary ( indeed, I think part of the reason Kemp didn't run was because he had internal polling showing that he would lose in the Republican Primary).
I don't think so, media reports said that Kemp simply didn't want to serve in the Senate and didn't see any allure in it. He's going to remain involved in the 2026 state elections and maybe try a run in 2028. He is a very popular Georgia Republican.
I’m curious, is Gabriel Sterling a credible Republican candidate, if not for Senate then perhaps for some state-level office? I know little about his politics, but he does seem very personable. And to his credit, he ran perhaps the best official state election cycle in the country.
Raffensperger barely avoided a runoff in 2022 on the back of Democrats crossing over to vote for him since both Warnock and Abrams were uncontested. He won’t get that luxury in 2026 because the gubernatorial primary will be wide open.
Also I think most Democrats knew the GOP would hold the SOS seat in 2022. It’s a very different ballgame when there’s an incumbent Democrat to defend.
It is under settings in your profile.
Thank you very much! I turned off all engagements, but was still getting emails. I didn’t realize it was under the messaging section and not engagements section, which I had turned off. Deleted my post.
Please, oh please! I would gladly donate $5 to MTG’s campaign if she promises to run.
Please don't, but I do hope she runs.
The only reason to do that would be to ensure her victory in the Republican primary.
I will send $1.49
Nah, send $6.66. It’s the Devil’s number.
I will check with my accountant to see if I can afford it!
I think the Jewish space lasers and chem trails woman to her disadvantage will definitely try to use antisemitic tropes like his 2020 senate opponent did.
Unless there is a total economic meltdown, and Trump successfully blames it on "Jewish bankers" and "the globalist Jewish cabal", I think MTG’s antisemitic tropes are going to boomerang right back at her.
Anyone interested in how Australian Labor achieved its overwhelming election victory? Here is a terrific article on the strategist and strategy behind Anthony Albanese and Labor’s wildly successful campaign.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/may/06/paul-erickson-labor-party-strategist-profile
I read on another forum too that the Coalition fired their longtime pollster because he told them Dutton going scorched earth on the Voice Referendum was unhelpful (in part since it was already going to lose, and lose badly) and then agreed to do polling for the Yes campaign afterwards. Their new pollster mostly just told Dutton what he wanted to hear and wouldn’t poll marginal districts (including Dutton’s!) for fear of “revealing” that the Coalition suspected they were in play
Sore loser Jefferson Griffin finally conceded his election challenge against incumbent NC Supreme Court justice Allison Riggs, following Myers’ ruling. He won’t be appealing the ruling further.
https://www.wral.com/story/republican-concedes-long-unsettled-north-carolina-court-election-to-democratic-incumbent/21996287/
In NY the highest court is appointed, the "district" courts are elected. Which makes a lot more sense to me.
Unfortunately, in NC all the justices in our state system are elected. The only time a governor can appoint justices is if they resign, retire or die.
Not only have Republicans made judicial races openly partisan, but they also recently overrode outgoing Governor Cooper's veto on a law forcing the governor to appoint replacement justices of the same party as outgoing justices (like a day or two before their supermajority went sayonara). Meaning that if one of the GOP justices on the SCONC were to die or retire, Gov Stein can't replace fill the vacancy with one of his choosing. He has to choose from three candidates picked by the NC GOP.
If the control of SCONC flips back to Dem control in 2028, redraws the maps and Dems recapture the state legislature -- there needs to be MASSIVE overhaul during that trifecta. I hope Phil Berger is still around to get demoted to minority leader and see everything he and Tim Moore forced through get gutted and undone.
The overhaul should include independent redistricting for sure. We can’t have another 2010-2011 situation.
Riggs and Earls have said outright that if the court switches back after 2028, they will revisit the gerrymandered state and Congressional maps.
And the only way to get an independent redistricting commission here in NC if it's a law passed by lawmakers or legislatively referred constitutional amendment (which has to pass by 60% in both houses before going to voters). Since Rs have that gerrymandered majority, they won't do it. They'll have to be forced by court order to redraw the maps.
That just sounds like chaos to me. At least in my experience, judicial races in NY are extremely boring and I never really hear about Republican judges making insane rulings, in part because everyone knows the Governor's race is really where statewide judicial politics is litigated.
To put it another way, judicial elections shouldn't be about making policy, which is what these high court elections in various states seem to be now.
NC GOP is power hungry as can be and chaos is what they do and LOVE. They do EVERYTHING possible to entrench their power. They got rid of straight party voting because it benefits Democrats, they got rid of a three-day grace period for absentee ballots postmarked on or before Election Day to be counted.
And what's really egregious is that they took away the governor's power to appoint members of the NCSBE and gave it to the state auditor (a Republican). And that was after being rejected by federal judges AND voters over years of court battles. That auditor has now appointed three Republicans (with Phil Berger's approval), kept two Democrats and got rid of election director Karen Brinson Bell -- a holdover from Cooper/Stein.
Because I assume not everyone will know what the NCSBE is, as I didn't: https://www.ncsbe.gov/ North Carolina State Board of Elections.
The Court of Appeals did make some bad rulings, but no, nothing insane. Cuomo was essentially a moderate Republican, and even Pataki was not an extremist, so there would be little reason for the New York Court of Appeals to make an insane ruling.
I don't think it really makes sense to elect any judges. They should ideally be nominated by a panel of experts and confirmed or rejected by a vote of the Legislature.
Griffin didn't want to be considered an even sorer loser than Norm Coleman.
I know Alaskans love Alaska but saving the nation, the Supreme Court and the Senate is more important ATM. I really really hope that former Rep. Peltola runs for Senate. If we win Maine, North Carolina, Texas and Alaska, it would be enough to stop Alito and Thomas from retiring. I bet they won't bow down to the pressure from Nov 2026 to Jan 2027.
I think Alito and Thomas enjoy the perks and power far too much to ever retire, even if it means risking handing their seats to liberals.
If Republicans badly lose only the House but not the Senate in the midterms, I am confident that they'll put a lot of pressure on Alito and Thomas to retire.
They’re also clearly team players considering who don’t care about the law at all. They’ll do what’s best for their beliefs is my guess.
Better yet, divine intervention in the form of old age and ill health may well retire Alito and Thomas. I would love to see Trump unable to fill these two SCOTUS seats, shifting the balance of the court for his last two years – and then have the next Democratic President name their replacements!
Dems would have to not only win the Senate but also find the courage to play hardball and defy the Constitution in order to fight fire with fire. However, since McConnell set the precedent and went first, which Dems would never have done themselves, I'm fairly confident even traditionalist Dems will refuse to fill Supreme Court seats with nominees from Republican presidents.
Schumer could give him a list of Biden nominees and refuse any Federalist Society picks from the WH. Play hardball and say "you can pick these judges or we won't confirm ANYONE."
Pick one of these judges or – true to the tradition established by Mitch McConnell – we won’t even give your nominee a hearing. (Except, perhaps, to eviscerate them and highlight how they’re unqualified, before rejecting them.)
I agree on what dems should do in that scenario. I am far less confident in Schumer's actually committing to it. Refusing to commit to long fights that go against political tradition is a habit he's making...
There's nothing in the constitution that requires the Senate to approve any nominees, and on the contrary, the Founding Fathers expected each branch of government to jealously guard its power, which Congress hasn't been doing under a trifecta.
Peltola's preference for the governorship over the Senate is understandable. Commuting between D.C. and Anchorage is utterly exhausting.
I suspect that it is also an easier race to win and it would keep her politically relevant for a future senate race.
Have we got any good candidates in Alaska for whatever race Peltola does not run in?
Caveat that I don’t live in Alaska, so maybe I’m way off base, but I think State Senator Scott Kawasaki would be Democrats strongest option for either the Senate or the House. He currently holds a Trump/Sullivan district in the State Senate.
He first rose to power in the legislature during the 2018 wave. In 2014 the district he won (Senate district A) voted 60-39 for Republican Pete Kelly. He unseated the then State Senate president by 51-49 (you’ll become very familiar with this margin as I explain further below), a flip to the Democrats. Redistricting changed the district to Senate district P and massively changed the boundaries from including the coastline to mostly downtown Fairbanks.
Still, the new district voted for Trump in 2020 and 2024. Meanwhile for 2022 the rules of elections in Alaska changed and instead a 1 v 1 race, it was a nonpartisan primary then general/runoff. This is where he pulled off 2 even more impressive feats than taking down the Senate President. In the 2022 primary he was down 51-49 R-D in the primary to the 2 Republicans running. He won 51-42-6 D-R-R (or 51-48 combined R vote) in the general election.
In 2024 he pulled off an even more astounding victory, suggesting a strong personal brand separating him from Democrats overall in Alaska. He was once again down in the primary 51-49, but this time to a single GOP opponent. In the general election though he beat his opponent by (you probably have already guessed it by now) 51-48.
I don’t think there’s a stronger Democrat able to consistently win extremely close and hard fought campaigns in red territory, earning crucial Trump crossover voters save for maybe Mary Peltola who is no longer in office, while Scott Kawasaki is still a State Senator. Who’s actually the stronger candidate can be debated obviously, but there’s no doubt regarding Kawasaki’s electoral strength imo: he’s in the same league as her.
A Kawasaki/Peltola federal ticket is probably the dream scenario for Democrats regardless of who runs for Senate or House. If I’m a Democratic recruiter I’m blowing up his phone to get Kawasaki to run for Senate, because the House district isn’t needed for a Democratic majority, but the Senate seat likely would be.
What a great post!
Griffin gives up Riggs wins Its finally over https://x.com/Taniel/status/1920130317358125388
Jon Ossoff's statement that: "I don't think that she's got the guts to do it" was not expressing doubt about Marjorie Taylor Greene's intention to run against him. He was taunting her into doing it. Ossoff knows that Greene would surely get Trump's endorsement, and the result would be even more disastrous for the GOP than the Herschel Walker debacle.
He's clearly baiting her. She would take the R Gubernatorial nominee, other statewide nominees and the legislature down with her just like the "Black Nazi" from North Carolina.
That would be a HOOT. MTG running for governor would almost certainly flip the governor's seat blue and possibly the state legislature.
Not to mention the down ballot statewide offices.
"Almost certainly" seems a bit strong, but yeah it would definitely boost our chances across the board...
Completely agree - that was my first thought as well.
Yup. And he’s probably also noticing her side talking about how she can win a primary. She doesn’t say anything about the GE. It all sounds like conjecture to build her up and be in the press, which is getting to be common for Congressmembers. Rep Omar in MN wasn’t ever going to run for Senate, but she wanted to keep her name out there for no reason.
I think Ossoff is loosening up after Brian Kemp declining to run in the Senate election and realizing he has more flexibility in his re-election campaign than he did when he was a candidate back in 2020.
So who do y'all think is the favorite in Illinois senate? Krishnamoorthi, Kelly and Stratton are in and i guess we're waiting on Underwood? Priztker and Duckworth are behind Stratton but i'm not sure how much pull they have nor how well known she is.
I think Stratton is currently the favorite because of those two endorsements and the fact that Pritzker said he'll help fund her campaign. I'd put Krishnamoorthi second for his own impressive fundraising ability and his Obama creds. This kinda puts Kelly as third, which is no shade, I think she's wonderful, but the two above are definitely gonna put up a fight. Though Kelly's arguably overcome even more daunting odds, so I wouldn't be surprised if she surges to a top spot.
Krishnamoorthi must have some mighty expensive bills already. I live in IL and received four fundraising texts from his campaign today alone.
He has $19m in his Senate account. He got it somehow.
For what it's worth, Robin Kelly will be 70 years old when the next Congress is sworn in. Stratton will be 60, and Krisnamoorthi will be 52. 70 seems a bit old to start a Senate career, especially with age becoming more of a focus after all the recent deaths and health issues among older Democratic members. Dem voters are eager for generational change, and I'm not sure replacing an 80-year-old with a 70-year-old achieves that.
Oh…. Kelly is 70? No no no. She wants a career cap. No no no.
I'm solidly behind Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton, she reminds me of Carol Moseley-Braun and she's solid!! 💙🇺🇲
Is that a good thing?!? She served one term for a reason.
I didn't mean in a bad way; she's obviously a huge upgrade. 💙🇺🇲
Minnesota secretary of state Steve Simon is running in Minnesota senate. It's good to see competition and not just coronations. I feel like lately races are just one candidate clearing out the field, let's give voters a choice.
There is no coronation happening in MN, with or without Simon. We have the Lt. Governor (Flanagan), a prominent House member (Craig), and a former leader of the Senate Dems (Franzen) already running, any of which could win the primary.
Chris Pappas is, however, being coronated in New Hampshire, but that's not because of anything other than (a) he's the strongest candidate and everyone knows it, and (b) the bench is thin in NH these days. Knowing who your nominee is going to be early in the process (i.e. by coronation) isn't always bad, as it allows the candidate to focus on the general election. That's especially helpful in NH, with it's really late primaries.
I suppose it's hard to avoid in smaller states when THE congressman runs. It helped that Kuster wasn't interested.
Yeah. At-Large states with a young enough Rep to run is almost always a coronation if they go for it. Why bother running against them when you could just run for their seat.
A two congressional state seat is going to function as close as any other state could. And, NH is cute where both Reps are young enough and both Senators are old enough. Papas has the seniority out of the two reps so the other can wait for Hassan to retire.
Pappas is the best you can get from New Hampshire which is basically a red state at the state level.
NH also really likes our incumbents. If Sununu had narrowly lost in 2016 instead of narrowly won, I'd expect the governor right now would be a democrat of some kind. Once someone becomes an incumbent here they're likely to survive even wave years.
Lynch won in 2010 by 7 points. Hassan won in 2014 by 5 points. Sununu won in 2018 by 7 points. NH governors (generally) quickly become popular and hard to unseat, even with waves. The rest of the state basically follows the legislative gerrymanders that the 2010 (veto proof republican majority that year) and 2020 elections gave republicans the ability to create.
Frankly, I think Sununu declining to run for the Senate, like Kemp in GA, was a smart move. If you're looking to remain relevant in the GOP, running for federal office in a state like NH might not be the best option right now in light of Trump and his administration.
Senators like Chuck Grassley are being hounded at town halls by constituents over DOGE and what's going on in the Trump administration. Sununu wouldn't be able to handle the heat like this as a Senate candidate.
Yeah but being that the GOP hasn't won a NH at the presidential level since 2000, whatever the NH GOP has at the state level doesn't translate at the federal level.
I highly doubt Franzen is in serious contention to win.
??
Simon is NOT running.
https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-secretary-of-state-steve-simon-wont-run-for-us-senate/601345152
Ok my bad, thought it said he was running. Regardless, point still stands.
And there, we've already got at least three credible candidates (Flanagan, Craig, and ex-State Sen. Minority Leader Melissa Franzen), with possibly more to follow.
Again, I don't see a coronation in MN when there are multiple competitive candidates running against each other. Flanagan and Craig especially will probably have to fight each other hard for the nomination. You might have a point if Craig had stayed out and Flanagan was the only major nominee...
I didn't say there was a coronation, i said it's good there's no coronation. Who are you arguing with?
You definitely implied it would be a coronation without Simon running, which he is not. Presumably you meant Flanagan was being coronated, even though Craig and Franzen are also running? Then you said your "point still stands," which I took to mean you still think your point about MN is valid. Maybe your "point still stands" was about coronations in general, because I don't see a point still standing about MN.
After the new GOP majority on the NCSBE was sworn in this morning, they promptly fired elections director Karen Brinson Bell. Now they're spouting veiled election integrity BS, even though Brinson and the formerly Dem majority on the NCSBE unanimously certified Trump's wins in 2020 and 2024.
https://www.wral.com/story/nc-elections-director-fired-as-new-gop-majority-takes-control-calling-for-trust-in-the-election-system/21996284/
I hope this backfires on the NC GOP in the following years. And Boliek is going to be a top target in 2028 -- and if he loses, Dems gain back the majority on NCSBE.
Maybe we can finally breakthrough in North Carolina and win a senate seat.
Tillis won by the skin of his teeth in 2014 and 2020 in R-favorable years. With the right Dem candidate and political winds, Tillis can kiss his seat goodbye next year.
He is not invincible. And if NC voters are fed up enough, Tillis won't lose by a small amount of votes (and try to pull a Jefferson Griffin). It'll be by a number big enough that Boliek and the GOP-majority NCSBE can't contest either.
Agreed. 2014 was a shocker of a win in a landslide year bigger than expected. 2020 we ended up with a dude cheating on his wife. Trump still won the state in 2020 but we had an upper hand on the Senate race for most of the time. Tillis always done better than expected but that doesn’t mean he’s good. I can put a basketball in a hoop sometimes.
I fear these kinds of things will be too inside baseball for most voters to even hear about them.
Yeah. NC GOP made Bell a punching bag for years -- all for doing her freaking job WELL. She requested to make a short speech at the NCSBE today, but they refused and promptly ended the meeting.
The way they treated her is appalling. And so, Democrats need to do the same with Francis De Luca.
In the same article about John Bel Edwards, it says
Mr. Schumer has told associates that he sees an intriguing opportunity in Mississippi, which has the largest percentage of Black residents of any state. One possible candidate there is Scott Colom, a district attorney who was appointed by President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to a federal judgeship — only to be blocked by Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, whom Mr. Colom would be running against in 2026. The state is also appealing for Democrats because it is small and relatively cheap to compete in.
Let's see the maths: (from Wikipedia)
White Americans: 55.4
Black Americans: 36.4
Latinos: 3.6
Asians: 1.1
Native: 0.5
Around 16% of the African American voting age population is disenfranchised, let's assume that in contrast 8 percent of the rest of the population is disenfranchised (and the Mississippi delta suffers from systemic poverty).
So assuming 90 percent of Black people vote for Democrats and taking into account the disenfranchisement, you get ≈ 30 percent of the vote.
Would we be able to get another 20 percent of the vote that too in Mississippi? Maybe it's a loser's game or maybe running a pro life candidate with the midterm electorate differences may make it possible.
We win 30% of the white vote in Georgia.
Note: The largest shifts in Trump's approval have been seen in non-white voters.
Odd last sentence. No, it didn't look like you were being racist. Good post, too.
The Georgia white vote is not the Mississippi white vote. Not many northern transplants or metropolitan areas like Atlanta.
Yeah I know that, I emphasized "that too in Mississippi".
I think it’s very possible to get to 45% in MS, but nearly impossible to get that last 5%.
The only pathways I could imagine are four scenarios imo (and to be quite honest some of these are 1 in a million chances to occur, but these are the only options)
1) Is if no candidate in the primary/general election hits 50% and a runoff is required with a lower turnout 1v1 popular D vs damaged/unpopular R (think Roy Moore level).
2) Is a runoff with 3 candidates (2 R’s, 1D) after 2nd and 3rd place candidates tie in the primary/general, while 1st place is below 50%.
Considering Republicans have an incumbent these 2 seem all, but impossible.
3) Is if a popular politician runs as an Independent, holds the incumbent below 50% in the primary/general while making 1 of the top 2 spots, then wins the runoff.
4) Is if a popular politician runs as an Independent and wins 50% outright against the incumbent with no other Democrat/left/centrist candidate running.
Running as a Democrat in the Deep South, regardless of who that is, makes it not possible to win a federal race. Doesn’t matter how pro-life or conservative they are, the party name alone dooms them.
The only politicians who could theoretically run as Independents who are popular in the state is Gubernatorial candidate Brandon Presley or maybe former State Attorney General Jim Hood. And even if they do run (Presley was looking at a 2027 Gov rematch against the unpopular R Reeves), that’s a lot of ifs, hurdles and obstacles to get past.
TLDR: Florida is probably a better pickup opportunity for Democrats than Mississippi even though it has a much lower floor than MS does. Or in other words, extremely unlikely.
Running as a Independent in the South makes you lose Black voters who may be very socially conservative but are extremely loyal to Democrats according to a Split ticket Analysis. So that's out of the equation.
https://split-ticket.org/2025/03/26/where-should-democrats-run-independents/
That’s why I said no Democrat runs against the Independent.
From the link you provided:
RED scores also don’t predict the success of specific independent campaigns, only a state’s suitability for one. For example, Al Gross’s campaign in Alaska veered too close to the national Democratic campaign, contributing to his loss. Yet, by RED score, Alaska remains fertile ground for a strong independent campaign.
Brandon Presley almost won with Biden in the White House and strong minority turnout in an off year election. Yes, he ran as a Democrat, but if an Independent candidate shows up and actively courts black voters, they can get strong support from minority voters.
This analysis makes a lot of assumptions I don’t agree with, starting with the fact we know minority turnout is lower in midterms than it is in presidential years. So is it the Independent label turning them off? Or is it them just tuning out any politics until the next presidential and any Democrat running would face the same lower minority turnout in off year elections as an Independent, thus shifting the precincts rightward?
2 of the only 4 examples (which is already far too low a sample size to draw conclusions from) are from midterm elections. In Presidential years when minority turnout goes up, we have 2 examples of Independents running. 1 of which had the I basically run as a D with an I label, the other put actual distance between his views and the D party. The latter gained among all voters. So not only is it an extremely small sample size to make conclusions from, but the type of campaign matters too.
Another one is saying a Libertarian vs a Republican is the same as an Independent vs Republican race in the minds of voters. That’s ludicrous. Voters know libertarians are on the right. It’s equally plausible (if not the actual case) that Democratic voters (aka black voters) saw no choice to vote for and decided to stay home. To assume they would also stay home in an I vs R race has no actual evidence to back it up.
Finally, the only presidential year where the independent candidate actually tried to distance themselves from the party resulted in vote gains among all voters! So that’s 1 race that confirmed the theory, 1 race that doesn’t. And 2 races with lower minority turnout regardless of if an I or D is running. I’d bet that Democrats also had minority voter precincts shift right these same years and for all we know, maybe even worse than the I!
It’s not enough data to definitively say Independents running would have trouble in the Deep South. Even more so because there hasn’t actually been an Independent statewide run in the Deep South! But if you look at the Independents who ran for office in State House/State Senate, you can see them outperforming the district Democratic baseline overall, which means even if this theory is correct, Democrats gain more voters than they lose, so it’s still worth it to run as I’s instead of D’s.
In the end imo this conclusion is flawed at best and is extremely misleading, portraying shaky assumptions as facts.
Good analysis but how do we explain Dan Osborn’s underperformance with Black voters compared to Kamala?
According to the link you gave me, it says that minority precincts shifted more towards the Independent in Nebraska compared to Democrats? Or am I misunderstanding what you’re saying?
Good post. If 2 candidates have a tied vote for 2nd place, they really have a 3-person runoff instead of doing some kind of coin flip or something? Same if there are 2 candidates tied for 1st?
Yup, here’s the constitutional word on ties (I didn’t include the full write up of the state constitution, only the relevant parts, you can look up the entire thing if you wish)
Mississippi Code Title 23. Elections § 23-15-833
The two (2) candidates who receive the highest popular votes for the office shall have their names submitted as the candidates to the runoff and the candidate who leads in the runoff election shall be elected to the office. When there is a tie in the first election of those receiving the next highest vote, these two (2) and the one receiving the highest vote, none having received a majority, shall go into the runoff election and whoever leads in the runoff election shall be entitled to the office.
Wild! Probably fairer than a coin flip, though.
Prediction: If JBE runs for Senate:
1) He'll substantially outperform the Democratic baseline, and
2) He'll still lose.
Trump won Louisiana 60-38 last year. I suspect JBE would get about 45% if he ran.
Agree.
It's worth a half court shot because if Cassidy manages to win a bloody primary, there're potential for a lot of R voter drop-off. I don't think it'd be enough, but if it's a blue tsunami environment, it's worth a go for at least money diversion purposes.
Personally, I'd rather he run for governor again in 2027. (Governors in Louisiana are limited to two consecutive terms, but not two lifetime terms.)
I'd be shocked if he broke 42%
I too think that’s the most likely outcome. However, I do think there’s a path to victory (although very narrow) only if Cassidy after a brutal primary and JBE make it to the runoff. Republicans despise Cassidy in the way many of them hated Tate Reeves in MS or Roy Moore in AL (not for the same reasons obviously, but the intensity of the dislike) causing those Republicans to massively underperform the GOP baseline. If it’s anyone, but Cassidy, JBE’s toast.
You could easily imagine part of them sitting out though if he’s in the runoff, lowering the threshold for JBE to be victorious. With Trump in the White House turbocharging D turnout, that might just barely be enough for a conservative Democrat to pull off a remarkable major upset with 48-51% of the vote (I say less than 50% is possible for him to still win because of blank ballots or write-in protest votes).
Would Cassidy get more swing voters, though?
It depends on if JBE runs or not, but theoretically in a Cassidy vs JBE runoff, it’s definitely possible!
Whether the tradeoff of any potential gain among swing voters is worth losing the number of MAGA GOP who already turnout at lower rates than the rest of the electorate when Trump is not on the ballot is not at all clear and imo given how few swing voters there are (especially in MS), I’d be far more worried if less Trump voters showed up if I was the GOP than any potential gains among swing voters for having Cassidy make the runoff.
Any other R no matter how controversial is a slam dunk win. Cassidy is the bigger risk for the GOP imo. It’s basic math, there’s more Trump voters than there are swing voters, so more of a base turnout problem is a bigger concern than say a non-Cassidy Republican turning off swing voters.
Especially facing a Democratic candidate Louisiana voters voted for not once, but twice into the Governorship. It could be arguable Cassidy could theoretically face two simultaneous serious, if not catastrophic electoral problems in the runoff, which could lead to a major upset: low GOP turnout and high crossover/swing voters going for JBE.
One caveat: If there’s a runoff in Louisiana and control of the Senate is up for grabs, Cassidy will still win fairly easily as partisanship takes hold (and I still think that’s the most plausible outcome in a JBE vs Cassidy runoff).
But if there’s a bloody primary, if Cassidy advances damaged and broke, if JBE runs a great campaign and advances to the runoff with a large amount of cash and if Senate control is already settled whether by D’s or R’s, then there’s a narrow path along the lines of AL 2017 to squeak a 6 year term. Lot of ifs obviously, so the path in LA is very small, but probably larger than MS and maybe even FL.
Mike Espy should run again.
3rd time's the charm?
Real shot, in this environment!!
💙🇺🇲
Where are you getting these "disenfranchisement" numbers?
Presumably how many were convicted of a felony at some point.
I see that Raffensperger did poorly in one opinion poll, but now that Governor Kemp has stated he won't run for the Senate, I'd have to believe that Raffensperger, with his record of resistance to Trump while otherwise supporting him, would be the strongest candidate if he were to run and win a Republican primary. Do any of you disagree?
Would Trump hold his nose and endorse him? Otherwise, the cult won't let him win.
Well, would he have endorsed Kemp? It seemed possible.
Like Kemp, It's almost impossible for Raffensberger to win a Primary ( indeed, I think part of the reason Kemp didn't run was because he had internal polling showing that he would lose in the Republican Primary).
That's very plausible.
I don't think so, media reports said that Kemp simply didn't want to serve in the Senate and didn't see any allure in it. He's going to remain involved in the 2026 state elections and maybe try a run in 2028. He is a very popular Georgia Republican.
I think Kemp is saving his powder for a Presidential run in 28.
I’m curious, is Gabriel Sterling a credible Republican candidate, if not for Senate then perhaps for some state-level office? I know little about his politics, but he does seem very personable. And to his credit, he ran perhaps the best official state election cycle in the country.
I think he's more of a technocrat type.
But since he fails the election-denialism test, he'd probably be toast in pretty much any GOP primary.
You’re probably right.
Raffensperger barely avoided a runoff in 2022 on the back of Democrats crossing over to vote for him since both Warnock and Abrams were uncontested. He won’t get that luxury in 2026 because the gubernatorial primary will be wide open.
Also I think most Democrats knew the GOP would hold the SOS seat in 2022. It’s a very different ballgame when there’s an incumbent Democrat to defend.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna205358
Jefferson Griffen has conceded defeat in the last unresolved race in the country.
Flattering MAGA by demonizing Haitians didn't really work out for Yost, did it?
MS Senate map approved by court https://x.com/RedistrictNet/status/1920179695384985883
Is this a bad gerrymander?
Appears they didn’t take his advice.
https://bsky.app/profile/msmalarkey24.bsky.social/post/3loldpgie422x
It would be funny just how anathematic he is if he didn't have so much power