Well, this year is off to an amazing electoral start already. Hope the momentum continues and we land serious candidates for our last two big recruitment holes: KS-Sen and NH-Gov. I assume Vermont is entirely contingent on whether Phil Scott runs again. Other than that, seems like we’re basically just waiting for primaries. Looks like we have:
March 3: Texas and North Carolina. Hopefully Texas sends the Rs to a runoff and we nominate Talarico early
April 7: WISC.
May 19: Georgia. Would love Rs to go to runoffs in both gubernatorial and Senate primaries. Dems are basically guaranteed to go to a runoff for governor.
May 26: Texas runoff. Let’s start our prayer circles for Paxton! 🙏
June 2: Iowa. Rooting for Turek.
June 9: Maine. Can’t come soon enough.
June 16: Georgia runoffs.
August 4: Michigan. I hope McMorrow starts running away with it. She needs to pick up her fundraising.
August 11: Wisconsin. I’m anybody but Mandela Barnes.
Hoping for a third Senate candidate – a heavyweight who is a credible alternative to Mills and Platner.
ME-02. Despite the fact that Jared Golden statements and votes have been incredibly annoying at times, I lament the fact that he is retiring. Although this district is quite red, I hope a Democrat can once again win it. I really do NOT want to see former-governor Paul LePage elected to Congress!
Sadly I don’t think we’re getting a viable alternative in Maine. The filing deadline is in a month. We’ll have to make our peace with the 79-year-old governor who has qualms about ending the filibuster or the ex-Blackwater mercenary who decided to show his Nazi tattoo to a national audience before covering it up.
Interestingly, though, the percentage of in-state donations is roughly similar for both of them. 12.5% for Mills and 11% for Platner (assuming I'm understanding correctly that the numbers you gave are the number of individual donations?) Still significant how many more donations Platner received though. More than 6 times as many
Caveat that his burn rate is absurdly high. That signals a lot of money spent on mailing lists, digital footprint, etc. Basically spending money to make money.
Still, this is not a great figure for Mills. She’ll probably need some outside help to come to her aid in the primary. Her free publicity as governor is only good for so much.
Especially when you consider that only 162,681 people total voted in the 2020 Democratic Maine primary. Over 30,000 Maine donations is quite strong in that context, since I think most voters don’t donate. I assume anyone motivated enough to donate is also a very strong likely voter for that candidate. **edited to clarify Democratic 2020 primary. https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_election_in_Maine,_2020_(July_14_Democratic_primary)
2 months ago, I would’ve disagreed with you and saw that ME-02 was a guaranteed loss with Republican Paul LePage running and incumbent Rep Jared Golden not. But with Baldacci jumping in? We’ve now got a good chance, we were screwed otherwise.
As a bit of an addendum to my post down below about being thankful for Smith stepping down when she did: I’m extremely thankful Jared Golden chose this year to retire. Any other time, we’d be guaranteed to lose this seat. He could’ve easily decided in 2024 to hang it up knowing how difficult the election would be for him. He ran hard, barely held the seat, but that was 2 more years of holding a seat we realistically shouldn’t.
He may have always been a PITA for us and our party, but he’s a Democrat through and through, a more conservative one, sure, but a true bleeding blue Democrat. There’s a million different ways he could’ve fucked us over as a big middle finger to our party (and many red seat Dems in the past did do exactly that), but he didn’t and I respect the hell out of him for what he managed to do for us and our party in a seat we never should’ve had in the first place.
We only get annoyed about Jared Golden when he reinforces false GOP talking points, whether through his comments or his votes for meaningless GOP messaging bills that are mainly intended to smear or set up Democrats. He's allowed to be a moderate and vote like one. He doesn't ALSO have to undermine the party.
Nah, good riddance. He repeatedly undermined Democrats, bashed Jeffries repeatedly for ICE and healthcare extension votes, approved of ICE DHS violence against Dem congressmembers and praised ICE activity. He was known to be arrogant and desperately tried to be a contraritarian for the sake of it nowadays. I read a comment about him – "When you invite murderers into the tent, you get kicked out of it."
Are there any other special elections coming up in the next couple of months? The possibility of Democratic flips in them notably increased considering the recent result in Texas.
I there’s a smattering of stuff, but nothing probably truly competitive until March. There’s a Georgia special election in two weeks, but the jungle primary numbers were kind of rough for us.
GA-14 is coming up on 3/10 (MTG's seat), but it would be a tough lift, even with just one D (Shawn Harris) and lots of Rs. If Harris gets to the run-off, we'll see what happens, since a lot can happen by then (4/7).
Politico reported Whitmer is being pressured by the party to endorse either of McMorrow or Stevens and it's also stated that she has "bad blood" with AES from 2018.
Is Whitmer still popular *in Michigan*? Because her national stock has tanked after she showed up in the Oval Office while Trump was announcing Miles Taylor and Chris Krebbs should lawyer up.
Both things can be true. She was unusually prominent on the national stage in the early 2020s, but has since faded from the political spotlight. Her deliberate shift to a lower-key approach—particularly in how she’s dealt with Trump—has arguably benefited her state, even as it led to her falling off the radar of national politicos and coincided with very high approval ratings.
Saying she hasn't been in the spotlight isn't the same as saying her "stock has tanked", though. this person was specifically alleging that her in-state approvals should tank because of a stupid mishap at the White House.
At this point with where the winds are flowing (i.e McMorrow), endorsing Stevens will tank her national reputation for her future endeavors and make her the enemy number 1 for progressives who support AES and liberals who support McMorrow, inheriting that mantle from another governor who I won't name.
I feel like we need some candidates who could be viable in reach years, assuming this could be one of those, if only to also set the stage for 2028 also. Senate: MT, KY, AR, TN, LA. Assuming filing deadlines haven't passed.
I'm thinking about the NY redistricting. How likely is it that we'll be able to redraw the entire map to make red districts blue and shore up incumbents? Or is the map just gonna change NY 11 and its neighboring districts?
I think it's a tossup at this point, the majority of judges on the court of appeals were appointed by Cuomo over objections from the party's left flank and have ruled against us before.
Two judges since the 5-4 ruling have been appointed by Hochul. One was a liberal judge made chief justice already on the court. And another is a new part of the liberal bloc.
I would just add that in the 4-3 decision in Matter of Hoffman v. NYS Independent Redistricting Commission, which ordered the IRC to redraw the state's congressional districts for 2024, Judge Caitlin Halligan recused herself from the case and Presiding Appellate Division Justice Dianne Renwick was vouched onto the Court to fill in. Nevertheless, I agree Judge Halligan more often sides with the liberal bloc than the conservative bloc
As in that was specifically instructed in the ruling? If so that's disappointing. I'm unfamiliar with the full logistics of redistricting cases, so maybe NY is different, but when other states get challenged over issues of minority representation, don't they redraw all of their districts? I'm thinking of Alabama, which redrew the boundaries of all their districts fairly substantially, even though they could have only adjusted the 1st, 2nd, 6th and 7th districts with maybe only minor changes to the others.
New York is a lot bigger than Alabama. What happens in Staten Island doesn't affect Buffalo. There's no general right to redistrict mid-decade under current New York law. Only NY 11 was challenged. Therefore, only it, and the adjacent district(s), can legally be changed.
That makes sense. The other reason I asked is because the Wikipedia page on mid-decade redistricting says that there is a possibility for 4-5 Democratic seats. I don't know how accurate that is though. Would that only be if the commission can't come to an agreement and the state legislature draws it?
Not a New Yorker, but Wikipedia is right that there’s a possibility of gaining 4-5 seats in mid decade districting in New York, but that can only happen in 2028, not in time for the 2026 midterms. The NY11 ruling is the only one that can change a Republican seat to Democratic for 2026. Both would technically qualify as “mid-decade redistricting”, but it’s the timing that matters to differentiate the two.
I have to imagine the ruling gets appealed and thrown out, I cannot see how NY-11 dilutes Black/Hispanic voting power in any reasonable way. In a city with 11 congressional districts (excluding NY-3 and NY-16), there are 4 plurality/majority White districts, 3 majority Hispanic districts, 3 plurality Black districts, and 1 plurality Asian district, which map onto the overall demographics of the city extremely well. While there are problems with the current map (drawing the upper east and west sides into the same district), NY-11 isn't a problem design wise. That isn't to say I'm against redrawing it to make it bluer, but that the argument presented is poor.
I think the TX state Senate race flip on Sat was a five alarm bell for the GOP nationwide. Even though their state legislative lines encompass more people, the fact that independents/unaffiliated voters broke overwhelmingly for the D (as well as a fraction of GOP voters) show that voters are FED UP with the Trump Republican Party.
Gives me hope that the NC legislature races shock the GOP in November.
The actual number of votes on Saturday were remarkably consistent with the amount of votes each candidate received in the first round in November, only differing by a few thousand each. One could credibly argue that the election result was because Rehmet & Wambsganss kept their people, but all the people who voted for the other R/indy candidates stayed home rather than support Wambsganss.
I am one of her biggest critics but I will push back a bit on this. She would be in the Cortez Masto–Hassan–Shaheen camp if elected not the Sinema–Fetterman camp. Her 70 percent voting record with Biden, Laken Riley Act, support from AIPAC and crypto and endorsements from moderates like Cortez-Masto, Rosen, Gallego, Buttigieg, Spanberger, McBride, Torres, Jeffries, Philips also line up with this.
Fwiw that record probably puts her to the right of both Fetterman and Sinema before they were elected. I understand she has a tough district, but you're comparing pre-election record of Craig to post-election record for the others. Doesn't make a ton of sense to risk her becoming a pain in the ass for a future Dem president from a D+8 state in a really blue year.
Big is a massive understatement. I never in a million years expected Smith to endorse anyone. A complete bombshell.
Three things I want to add:
1st: I’m extremely grateful Senator Smith felt she couldn’t do the job at her peak ability for another term and decided to not run again. If all of our Democratic elected officials had the self awareness and humility she has shown, we’d never be in this mess in the first place.
2nd: I’m also thankful she chose a year to step down that would likely advantage her party, whereas most politicians seem to continue to run in good years and retire in bad years even well past their prime. She’s given an invisible boost to our nominee to start building seniority and gaining popularity at the very start of their Senate career. Again, this is not something most politicians give to their successors.
3rd: If this primary winds up with Flanagan as Senator and a real progressive Democrat in a now blue seat, with Angie Craig no longer hamstringing our party’s messaging and votes whenever Republicans are in control, not only is it an upgrade in the seat, it’s an upgrade for our party and bonus it’s the best possible outcome from a progressive perspective (it’s a wait and see for who replaces her though).
Considering how often these things wind up with the worst of both worlds with a moderate Senator and a moderate Democratic replacement in blue congressional districts, it’s nice for the best case scenario to come true this time for a change (if it does, but Smith’s endorsement is the nail in the coffin for Craig imo).
In your first paragraph, I think you're relitigating the cause of Trump's 2024 victory again, and I maintain that it's overwhelmingly because of an obsession about inflation that Americans didn't know or care was the least in the world and incredible stupidity and irresponsibility in being willing to reelect a convicted felon con man. I agree with the rest, but I strongly disagree with blaming attitudes about a man who ultimately was not on the ballot for the pathological rot in American society that is leading to the country's downfall.
We’re just never going to agree on whether or not our older Democratic reps are a partial cause of the 2024 results.
The results where our bluest safe district reps showed the most movement to Trump out of any in the entire country. Where polls show voters think our party is old and out of touch. That when the average voter who doesn’t pay attention to politics glances to a tv program at a restaurant, they see an older Democrat and a younger Republican as the guests who then goes immediately back to eating or the conversation with friends or family.
That’s fine btw, we don’t have to agree, you’re welcome to your opinion. I also agree with you that inflation/Trump 1.0 memory was the main driver of the election for voters. Where I disagree is the insistence that there was 0 effect whatsoever of having older Democrats in safe seats. I don’t see much evidence of that, but again, you’re free to have your opinion on it.
Since we’ve had this debate a lot, and since you seem to be misunderstanding what I’m trying to say, here’s a full fleshed out opinion instead of just me saying “older reps are part of the problem”, or that “they were a part of the reason for 2024 elections”. Sorry for the length, but I want you to fully understand my opinion so that even if we can’t agree, we at least understand each other’s position.
My thinking is that our safe seat reps that are older no longer know how to run a campaign in modern America or how to do their jobs after getting elected. That means, they’re not on social media, they’re not making videos, they’re not going on podcasts. What they do during their term in office is go on cable television and write op-eds in newspapers because that’s what used to work in gaining support.
They talk to the same people they always talk to, they run campaigns and vote how they always used to instead of updating to today. This is a massively fragmented media environment in the US. We shouldn’t be just talking to the people who already vote for us. No one watches cable news, no one reads newspapers and those who do are reliable Democrats or voters who catch a glance when doing other more important things in their lives.
We will never get these people to pay attention to politics no matter how much we wished they would, there will always be a huge chunk of voters who “don’t do politics”, but still decide they have to vote. The esthetic currently is terrible for our party and elections are won on branding and image.
We’re not talking to the people we should be talking to in these districts and everywhere: those who don’t vote for us and those who swing between us and Republicans. It’s not just 2024 either. These safe district reps have been there for decades.
The cities and urban areas have been massively falling in turnout in every election since Obama. Rural voters always outvote Urban areas as a percentage of population, even in wave years. We have atrophied the Obama youth and excitement for Democrats to be replaced with older reps talking about bipartisanship and what bills they signed. Voters there aren’t voting for us anymore because they don’t see themselves in our party or even think we get what the problems people face are.
It’s not what we believe that’s the biggest problem for Democrats, it’s who is delivering our message. Why do I believe that? Take a look at Rehmet’s special election upset. His campaign issues webpage is a progressive Democrat’s dream. He talks about everything we all believe in.
It’s the same as any safe district Democrat and obviously Trump being president plays a factor, no doubt. But we nominated a young union working man to preach everything exactly the same as we would like and Republicans nominated an older woman politician and the shift was far beyond “generic Democrat” or “Trump” would cause. That side by side image advantage is so powerful. People want to see the future in politics, not the past.
Voters liked him as a candidate, they liked the exact things that we can almost never win on in red seats. My opinion is that in an era with hyper polarization and both parties locked in with 80-90% of voters before any campaign or vote can take place, that the small things now matter more than they ever have.
Small things that didn’t matter when campaigns were won or lost on policy. Stuff that didn’t matter when most voters were persuadable. Things that didn’t matter 10, 20 or 30+ years ago that now do matter in today’s country with margins so tight in every election.
Small things like who is giving our message, where we’re giving our message and who we’re giving our message to in campaigns and after getting elected into office. Most voters today don’t care about how someone voted on a bill, they care who is giving a political message.
Age becomes a problem when image is everything in politics. Almost every time I see a news program and a Democratic rep is on, they’re old. And the Republican they have is younger. That matters. We already know that attractive candidates get a higher percentage of the vote then unattractive ones do regardless of ideology, so logic to me dictates, that’s probably the same thing with older vs younger candidates (though it would be awesome if someone actually did a political study on this).
Now, maybe I’m completely wrong, maybe with young progressives in these blue seats, turnout still is awful for Democrats for a bunch of other reasons that have nothing to do with age. But we did just see the highest turnout election in NYC mayorship history with a young progressive who obviously does know how to campaign today.
He didn’t talk just to Democrats. He didn’t just campaign in person. He went to where the voters are, both Democratic and not. He didn’t just write op-eds or make political ads. He went everywhere on the street everyday and talked to everyone about his campaign and what he was fighting for. He made videos about his policies in short, easy to digest simple videos. What happened? He got the most votes of any Democratic mayor ever.
So my basic thinking is: it’s not working now, people in urban areas are staying home or voting Republican and it hasn’t worked for decades with these same people in office in these districts, so why don’t we try someone new and see what happens? What do we honestly have to lose? It can’t get much worse than a majority of US voters who already see our party as old, elitist and out of touch /fin
Having someone in 2024 who had been able to message more effectively about inflation and the convicted felon con man would have helped though, and we didn’t have that.
walz was effectively making them squirm by calling the rwnjs "weird," but then our team effectively sidelined him, suggesting even when we changed "messengers" something strategic wasn't there. mistakes were made but we know now we need to unite and kick ass from here on out to get this country to a place we recognize again
I would argue that the 1st paragraph is pretty general though, perhaps w the exception of the last line. Dianne Feinstein should have retired long before she did, luckily we can hold California. Ben Nelson, oops. Ted Kennedy should have retired and let someone fill his seat during a better cycle. Same applies to RBG, but without her having to run for office.
Not unique to Ds though. It's the overly self confident "I can do better than my replacement" attitude that's inherent in most pols. Or them listening to folks say they are irreplaceable. Everyone is replaceable.
Examples of worst of both worlds? Slotkin is similar to Stabenow, Gallego is much better than Sinema and Yassamin Ansari is in turn much better than Gallego….
I'd say Auchincloss is a perfect example of worst of both worlds.
Worse for the party: he doesn't bring anything compelling to the party. No interesting story, no diversity, no strong advocacy for anything, no charisma, he's not someone the party is going to be excited about seeing promoted even if that is what he wants. All he contributes is being a good fundraiser, and that's not all that essential for the dem party in the state of MA.
Less progressive: don't think I really need to expand on this here, he's openly anti-progressive.
JPK3 was purely better than Aunchincloss on both fronts, and Memel was even better.
For senate seats I think we've been doing pretty good at upgrades the past generation or so. Lieberman -> Murphy was huge. Dodd -> Blumenthal was great too. Shaheen -> Pappas this year will be a solid upgrade. I'm not a fan of Schiff but he's a clear upgrade over Feinstein. Menendez -> Kim was a substantial upgrade.
The problem senators are more often long time incumbents or people who recently replaced a republican.
This is a huge surprise (although a pleasant one); I was expecting Smith to stay neutral in the primary and endorse the winner of the primary as soon as there's a nominee.
I definitely think that's more likely than appointing Flanagan if the shoe were on the other foot, but I could also see her not wanting to make a divisive pick like that.
I think she’ll just choose someone that she sees in her mold. Whoever that is, I have no idea. I don’t think giving Craig a consolation prize will be a consideration at all.
As I recall, Smith being appointed herself was a surprise for most.
Governors frequently appoint people that aren't on the radar of people like us. Ducey appointing McSally is the only recent example that immediately comes to my mind of a governor appointing the "obvious" pick for senate.
McSally was, arguably, the biggest name in the Arizona GOP (other than Ducey himself) who wasn't seen as a total wacko-bird.
Ducey, I'm guessing, wanted someone who could hold the seat. It turned out that McSally couldn't, but she was still probably the best bet out of the limited options.
Ultimately, I could see that being the reason Smith endorsed Flanagan. If Flanagan wins the nomination and gets a six-year term, then Klobuchar can appoint Craig and have a less electorally turbulent Democratic Senator on the ballot in 2028 and 2030.
Former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola launched her Senate bid in mid-January, so her fourth quarter FEC report did not capture her Senate fundraising. But she raised $1.5 million in the first 24 hours.
The clear pattern is that Dems are waiting to see who wins the primary. In all the races with just one Dem, they're swamping the GOP. In the states with primaries, the numbers are a lot lower.
Exactly right. Unlike those of us who live and breathe politics, most Democrats just want to beat the Republican and don’t care about or see any differences between our candidates.
Yeah, Maine and Iowa are probably going to pop off in D fundraising after the June primaries. The winner of the Maine primary will probably raise $10 million within a week after the primary.
Yeah wtf happened to Allred? I used to be a big fan of his but his actions in the last two months will keep me from ever supporting him for any office again. I hope this is the end of his career.
Was this before or after Bowen Yang was skewered on social media for a perfectly defensible take that donors shouldn't waste their time with Jasmine Crockett?
Yes, the conspicuously Chinese-American and progressive, openly gay comedian is definitely a white supremacist for having the gall to lightly question the electability of a clearly inferior candidate who has shown a penchant for foot-in-mouth syndrome (Governor Hot Wheels)
I hope Talarico beats Crockett by double digits - her public persona is hugely unhelpful in this all-hands-on-deck hour
Just noting Yang didn't really actually say anything, he literally just said "agreed" to everything Matt Rogers said lol. He was just in the movie with Ariana and Spongebob, so the sheeple latched onto attacking him more.
The way today's news cycle is going has me feeling like Crockett is trying to position herself in 2027 to take advantage of being a failed candidate more than anything.
Maybe I'm extrapolating too much, but this does not feel like the way a candidate would make this attack for prioritizing win chance. It's how it would to done to maximize attention.
Damn. Misstep by Talarico. Not very Christian of him to call someone mediocre, especially a person who has worked hard to get to where he's at in life. Neither Crockett nor Allred would have been my candidate if I still lived in Texas, but Talarico should apologize and do better since it's the right thing to do.
And if he needs a cynical reason -- even if Talarico survives the primary and ends up the Senate nod, he won't get very far in Texas without sky-high Black turnout and like 90% of Black support. Crockett won't get far if she can't get Latino voters to cast a ballot for her -- and she has her own struggles there -- so I imagine it might be a jump ball at this point.
It's a baseless accusation with zero evidence and filled with holes, almost certainly because it's a blatant lie from a desperate grifter for a desperate grifter's campaign.
"Mediocre" isn't exactly the most damning of insults. It's rather mild. That he's trying to make a story out of this speaks far worse about Allred to me.
He's since put out a statement that clarified the private conversation that is being taken massively out of context; he called Allred's campaign ability mediocre, which is accurate. It's a clear attempt at a smear campaign as the origination of the allegation is some random tiktok influencer speaking about her talking with Talarico privately.
So yeah, I wish more people would think before they speak. And maybe not take every political attack at face value.
I don't remember Allred ever coming to my community in his senate campaign, Talirico did 3 weeks ago. Of course these Dallas politicians think the whole state is Dallas.
Mills takes questions about her age head-on and reiterates that she would serve just one term if elected, given she’d be the oldest Senate freshman ever sworn into office if she wins in November.
“Good Lord. I’m not Joe Biden for God’s sake,” she told CNN in a recent interview.
“I’m healthy, I’m me, I get stuff done. People see me at work every day, and they know what I can do. They know that I can deliver, and I have delivered,” she said after wrapping up a roundtable meeting with a handful of local health care professionals and business owners at a coffee shop in Portland.
If Susan Collins wins again despite the fundamentals it's because Dems royally screwed up with candidate recruitment here because neither Platner or Mills are optimal candidates against Collins.
I’m sure there exists more than a few state legislators under the age of 60 who weren’t in Blackwater and didn’t knowingly have a Nazi tattoo on their bodies.
You probably already know this and are just trying to start a fight, but Platner worked for Constellis doing a 6 month stint providing security for diplomats at the US embassy— not Blackwater which had ceased to exist earlier and been broken up into multiple security companies, including Constellis. I doubt many people on this site will change their opinion one way or another based on this—or on your later use of the word ‘knowingly’— but it is still good form not to twist the truth into friendly fire—the Collins campaign will do plenty of that to whichever candidate wins the primary.
Question is what is the cause and what is the effect.
Did nobody else jump in because the DSCC was strongly urging Mills to run, and signaling to other mainstream candidates to stay out? Or did Mills jump in at the DSCC's request when they failed to get other mainstream candidates to run?
Both scenarios are plausible. The former is a recruitment failure by the party; the latter is not. Problem for this discussions is that we don't really know which case applies.
What we are seeing right now is the far left fell in love with Platner and are having a meltdown since he was exposed as a seriously flawed crackpot and they are taking it out on Mills. Do we really want to nominate a "defend the police" leftist who called rural people stupid and racist and who also has a Nazi tattoo?
"If anyone wondered if this Texas Senate race was going to get ugly - here's Colin Allred pretty much calling Talarico a racist and endorsing Jasmine Crockett"
I feel like he also isn’t well liked by his colleagues. A majority of New Dems endorsed Julie Johnson and AOC put out her first endorsement of the season by endorsing her. He could easily have been a team player by running for AG or Lt Gov.
I’ve been trying to decipher this but it’s giving me a headache. Talarico is just going to have to rise above it as there may be some Republican rat fucking going on.
Considering Crockett loves the sound of her voice and wants attention, Talarico in general inspires more and I think has greater awareness of the bigger picture.
Apparently Talarico’s comment was misconstrued - he was referring to Allred’s mediocre campaign as a reason he jumped in, and was commenting to the influencer (privately) that Crockett was more formidable, apparently intended to compliment her
“Last year we lost 70,000 manufacturing jobs. We lost 145,000 blue collar jobs...Blue-collar consumer confidence is at a record low since 1976 when they began asking the question.”
Rove started and ENCOURAGED this mess. He and everyone else in his party only have themselves to blame if a blue tsunami washes in a Democratic House and Senate.
Yes, but has Fox News told their viewers that manufacturing jobs are down and blue collar workers consumer confidence is the lowest in 50 years? I never watch that garbage, so maybe they have been doing that, but it seems like a big deal to me to allow something that damaging to Trump and Republicans to be aired.
Haven't followed the candidates but know he's unpopular. Why is he vulnerable in a primary? Is he progressive, establishment or moderate? And what is Foulkes in that regard?
His issues aren't really ideological its more mismanagement. A busy bridge in RI ended up being shut down for awhile because maintenance was deferred for so long.
60-29 for Laura Kelly. Four months til filing deadline.
While +8 for Mills is pretty meh compared to most of the other governors, compare that to Susan Collins’s -13 figure. We’re supposed to believe that Susan Collins would beat Janet Mills?
Mills' +8 is really weak in the context of the full chart, third least popular dem governor and 8th lowest rated across the whole field.
I think that speaks more to the consequences of running for federal office than anything about her as governor, though. People generally like local politicians far more than they like national politicians. Chances are the moment she announced, she caused a big pile of republicans to switch from approve to disapprove by default. Most governors would see the same.
That it's not really a reflection on her doesn't change that +8 isn't high enough to be a meaningful asset in the senate primary/general, either.
She has always had weak approval ratings. Maine is a high cost of living state thats not growing so she has a challenging situation in keeping everyone happy.
I'd throw in Wes Moore (+33) and Gretchen Whitmer (+26) as also being significant, since Moore's high approval gives him more leverage to redistrict and high outgoing approval for Whitmer will probably help Benson and state legislative candidates.
Is it unusual that only 2 governors out of 50 have negative approval ratings? That seems to fly in the face of the anti-incumbency bias of recent years. I would think at least some other states are itching to get a change in governance this year.
That governors overall are broadly popular makes sense to me. That it's only two in the negatives is a bit odd, but the overall picture makes sense.
American consciousness for politics is overwhelmingly centered around DC and the federal government. Local office holders, including governors, are able to operate separate from this. It's why there's able to be a democratic governor in Kentucky or a republican governor of Vermont. Both states have a roughly 0% chance of voting for the governor's party for senate or president, but both governors are very popular.
Members of both chambers of congress need to wade into national politics, and are expected to care about every controversy or event of national importance. Governors can zero in and focus on local politics. They can go around talking about schools, roads, bridges, local employers, etc. They don't need to wade into arguments about Veteran's Affairs, the nation debt, various statements by their own or the opposing party, they're not expected to do anything about abortion, or immigration, or SNAP, or trade, or...
Local governors are also often powerful enough to do things and get something done. What's the most recent legislative accomplishment of everyone's favorite or least favorite senator? Probably not much, in both cases. This is in contrast to parliamentary systems, where a government is expected to have some capacity to pass legislation by default.
American politics set federal office holders up to be hated. This makes local office holders even more liked than they would be otherwise.
"in a termination report filed earlier this month, Mendoza reported raising just $1,630 in total."
I don't know how many of you are familiar with the baseball expression "the Mendoza line". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendoza_Line. Maybe we can define $1,630 in contributions for a House race as the new Mendoza line. And then she craps all over the party on the way out. Enjoy your trip into obscurity, asshole!
“This experience confirmed for me what many Americans feel right now: I’m uncomfortable associating myself with either major party,” she said. “It seems that Democrats have become the new Republicans, while Republicans have shifted towards outright fascism. I identify as neither and refuse to accept the notion that the lesser of two evils is good enough.”
My reaction to that is: Fuck you! We're trying to stave off dictatorship and you're being a fucking Green?
Certain leaders (I'd argue a majority of the party's current members of Congress) aren't meeting the moment in staving off said dictatorship. But most voters and members of the base as well as organizers that fund candidates like her are helping, and it is insulting for generalizations to be made against the entire party in this case.
Agreed 100%. But she's doing something worse than merely slamming the entire party as milquetoast: she's calling it Republican and encouraging people not to support it. That's why my reaction to her is fuck you, you're part of the problem.
We’ve seen lots of liberal and progressive candidates not get traction, especially some dude ones running in blue races and swing races. Plenty of them either decide political office isn’t for them or they may end up running for a local election such as serving on the city council and working their way up from there.
One does not have to start in Congress in order to make a difference.
Well, this year is off to an amazing electoral start already. Hope the momentum continues and we land serious candidates for our last two big recruitment holes: KS-Sen and NH-Gov. I assume Vermont is entirely contingent on whether Phil Scott runs again. Other than that, seems like we’re basically just waiting for primaries. Looks like we have:
March 3: Texas and North Carolina. Hopefully Texas sends the Rs to a runoff and we nominate Talarico early
April 7: WISC.
May 19: Georgia. Would love Rs to go to runoffs in both gubernatorial and Senate primaries. Dems are basically guaranteed to go to a runoff for governor.
May 26: Texas runoff. Let’s start our prayer circles for Paxton! 🙏
June 2: Iowa. Rooting for Turek.
June 9: Maine. Can’t come soon enough.
June 16: Georgia runoffs.
August 4: Michigan. I hope McMorrow starts running away with it. She needs to pick up her fundraising.
August 11: Wisconsin. I’m anybody but Mandela Barnes.
Maine, Senate:
Hoping for a third Senate candidate – a heavyweight who is a credible alternative to Mills and Platner.
ME-02. Despite the fact that Jared Golden statements and votes have been incredibly annoying at times, I lament the fact that he is retiring. Although this district is quite red, I hope a Democrat can once again win it. I really do NOT want to see former-governor Paul LePage elected to Congress!
Sadly I don’t think we’re getting a viable alternative in Maine. The filing deadline is in a month. We’ll have to make our peace with the 79-year-old governor who has qualms about ending the filibuster or the ex-Blackwater mercenary who decided to show his Nazi tattoo to a national audience before covering it up.
If Mills wins the primary expect Republicans to contrast her "frailty" vs. the vigor of Susan Collins.
Platner....ugh.
They can try all they want. Compare any speech by Mills to Collins and see who comes across as sharper and younger.
I think there's a good chance that Platner wins the nomination and the seat and that Baldacci does the same in ME 2.
Donations (Maine Donations)
Platner: 272,296 (30,393)
Mills: 44,308 (5,539)
This is a crazy stat.
Interestingly, though, the percentage of in-state donations is roughly similar for both of them. 12.5% for Mills and 11% for Platner (assuming I'm understanding correctly that the numbers you gave are the number of individual donations?) Still significant how many more donations Platner received though. More than 6 times as many
Caveat that his burn rate is absurdly high. That signals a lot of money spent on mailing lists, digital footprint, etc. Basically spending money to make money.
Still, this is not a great figure for Mills. She’ll probably need some outside help to come to her aid in the primary. Her free publicity as governor is only good for so much.
Especially when you consider that only 162,681 people total voted in the 2020 Democratic Maine primary. Over 30,000 Maine donations is quite strong in that context, since I think most voters don’t donate. I assume anyone motivated enough to donate is also a very strong likely voter for that candidate. **edited to clarify Democratic 2020 primary. https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_election_in_Maine,_2020_(July_14_Democratic_primary)
2 months ago, I would’ve disagreed with you and saw that ME-02 was a guaranteed loss with Republican Paul LePage running and incumbent Rep Jared Golden not. But with Baldacci jumping in? We’ve now got a good chance, we were screwed otherwise.
As a bit of an addendum to my post down below about being thankful for Smith stepping down when she did: I’m extremely thankful Jared Golden chose this year to retire. Any other time, we’d be guaranteed to lose this seat. He could’ve easily decided in 2024 to hang it up knowing how difficult the election would be for him. He ran hard, barely held the seat, but that was 2 more years of holding a seat we realistically shouldn’t.
He may have always been a PITA for us and our party, but he’s a Democrat through and through, a more conservative one, sure, but a true bleeding blue Democrat. There’s a million different ways he could’ve fucked us over as a big middle finger to our party (and many red seat Dems in the past did do exactly that), but he didn’t and I respect the hell out of him for what he managed to do for us and our party in a seat we never should’ve had in the first place.
Yep, if there were ever a year for him to retire, it was now.
We only get annoyed about Jared Golden when he reinforces false GOP talking points, whether through his comments or his votes for meaningless GOP messaging bills that are mainly intended to smear or set up Democrats. He's allowed to be a moderate and vote like one. He doesn't ALSO have to undermine the party.
Deleted a couple of comments in here. Don't make things personal, people.
Nah, good riddance. He repeatedly undermined Democrats, bashed Jeffries repeatedly for ICE and healthcare extension votes, approved of ICE DHS violence against Dem congressmembers and praised ICE activity. He was known to be arrogant and desperately tried to be a contraritarian for the sake of it nowadays. I read a comment about him – "When you invite murderers into the tent, you get kicked out of it."
At this point, Golden can join No Labels if he wants to. He’d fit right in.
There's no need to join. He recently put out a statement with No Labels calling for the filibuster to be adopted into the constitution.
His statements seemed too damaging to me, so I'm apathetic about his retirement although he's way, way better than LePage!
Given that Golden is way better than LePage would be, it’s impossible for me to be apathetic about my Congressman’s retirement.
Sure, especially because that's your district!
Are there any other special elections coming up in the next couple of months? The possibility of Democratic flips in them notably increased considering the recent result in Texas.
I there’s a smattering of stuff, but nothing probably truly competitive until March. There’s a Georgia special election in two weeks, but the jungle primary numbers were kind of rough for us.
GA-14 is coming up on 3/10 (MTG's seat), but it would be a tough lift, even with just one D (Shawn Harris) and lots of Rs. If Harris gets to the run-off, we'll see what happens, since a lot can happen by then (4/7).
Politico reported Whitmer is being pressured by the party to endorse either of McMorrow or Stevens and it's also stated that she has "bad blood" with AES from 2018.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/01/michigan-senate-mcmorrow-stevens-el-sayed-00758408
Is Whitmer still popular *in Michigan*? Because her national stock has tanked after she showed up in the Oval Office while Trump was announcing Miles Taylor and Chris Krebbs should lawyer up.
Highest ever approvals for a Governor in decades.
she's got one of the highest approvals of any Governor in America.
don't let the online commentariat fool you
Both things can be true. She was unusually prominent on the national stage in the early 2020s, but has since faded from the political spotlight. Her deliberate shift to a lower-key approach—particularly in how she’s dealt with Trump—has arguably benefited her state, even as it led to her falling off the radar of national politicos and coincided with very high approval ratings.
Saying she hasn't been in the spotlight isn't the same as saying her "stock has tanked", though. this person was specifically alleging that her in-state approvals should tank because of a stupid mishap at the White House.
If she's smart, she'd go with McMorrow. But if she wants to cater to donors and the like for future ambitions, she'll endorse Stevens.
At this point with where the winds are flowing (i.e McMorrow), endorsing Stevens will tank her national reputation for her future endeavors and make her the enemy number 1 for progressives who support AES and liberals who support McMorrow, inheriting that mantle from another governor who I won't name.
Why won't you name another governor?
Irrational Mills hatred from the same people that fell for Fetterman.
I see. Well, that's not because of who she endorses. If it's about the filibuster, I share the consternation about her expressed views on it.
This isn't about Mills. When did Fetterman ever advocate arming the working class or train socialists in the use of guns?
I feel like we need some candidates who could be viable in reach years, assuming this could be one of those, if only to also set the stage for 2028 also. Senate: MT, KY, AR, TN, LA. Assuming filing deadlines haven't passed.
I'm thinking about the NY redistricting. How likely is it that we'll be able to redraw the entire map to make red districts blue and shore up incumbents? Or is the map just gonna change NY 11 and its neighboring districts?
I think it's a tossup at this point, the majority of judges on the court of appeals were appointed by Cuomo over objections from the party's left flank and have ruled against us before.
Two judges since the 5-4 ruling have been appointed by Hochul. One was a liberal judge made chief justice already on the court. And another is a new part of the liberal bloc.
I would just add that in the 4-3 decision in Matter of Hoffman v. NYS Independent Redistricting Commission, which ordered the IRC to redraw the state's congressional districts for 2024, Judge Caitlin Halligan recused herself from the case and Presiding Appellate Division Justice Dianne Renwick was vouched onto the Court to fill in. Nevertheless, I agree Judge Halligan more often sides with the liberal bloc than the conservative bloc
Only NY 11 is at issue and subject to redistricting.
As in that was specifically instructed in the ruling? If so that's disappointing. I'm unfamiliar with the full logistics of redistricting cases, so maybe NY is different, but when other states get challenged over issues of minority representation, don't they redraw all of their districts? I'm thinking of Alabama, which redrew the boundaries of all their districts fairly substantially, even though they could have only adjusted the 1st, 2nd, 6th and 7th districts with maybe only minor changes to the others.
New York is a lot bigger than Alabama. What happens in Staten Island doesn't affect Buffalo. There's no general right to redistrict mid-decade under current New York law. Only NY 11 was challenged. Therefore, only it, and the adjacent district(s), can legally be changed.
That makes sense. The other reason I asked is because the Wikipedia page on mid-decade redistricting says that there is a possibility for 4-5 Democratic seats. I don't know how accurate that is though. Would that only be if the commission can't come to an agreement and the state legislature draws it?
Not a New Yorker, but Wikipedia is right that there’s a possibility of gaining 4-5 seats in mid decade districting in New York, but that can only happen in 2028, not in time for the 2026 midterms. The NY11 ruling is the only one that can change a Republican seat to Democratic for 2026. Both would technically qualify as “mid-decade redistricting”, but it’s the timing that matters to differentiate the two.
Interesting. Then the wikipedia page is inaccurate because it draws a connection between the ruling and gaining 4-5 Democratic seats
I have to imagine the ruling gets appealed and thrown out, I cannot see how NY-11 dilutes Black/Hispanic voting power in any reasonable way. In a city with 11 congressional districts (excluding NY-3 and NY-16), there are 4 plurality/majority White districts, 3 majority Hispanic districts, 3 plurality Black districts, and 1 plurality Asian district, which map onto the overall demographics of the city extremely well. While there are problems with the current map (drawing the upper east and west sides into the same district), NY-11 isn't a problem design wise. That isn't to say I'm against redrawing it to make it bluer, but that the argument presented is poor.
Great news. Go blue!
I think the TX state Senate race flip on Sat was a five alarm bell for the GOP nationwide. Even though their state legislative lines encompass more people, the fact that independents/unaffiliated voters broke overwhelmingly for the D (as well as a fraction of GOP voters) show that voters are FED UP with the Trump Republican Party.
Gives me hope that the NC legislature races shock the GOP in November.
The actual number of votes on Saturday were remarkably consistent with the amount of votes each candidate received in the first round in November, only differing by a few thousand each. One could credibly argue that the election result was because Rehmet & Wambsganss kept their people, but all the people who voted for the other R/indy candidates stayed home rather than support Wambsganss.
The makeup of the electorate doesn't really substantiate that claim, unless Rehmet won a ton of Rs and Indies in the Nov election
MN Sen: Sen. Tina Smith has endorsed Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan over Rep. Angie Craig in the US Senate race. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/02/tina-smith-endorses-lt-gov-peggy-flanagan-in-minnesota-senate-race-00759890
Caucuses are tomorrow
Woah, that's big. She had repeatedly promised to stay neutral since months. I get the feeling that Craig's not really well liked.
She reminds me of Kyrsten Sinema in some ways. I feel like they would be similar Senate wise.
I am one of her biggest critics but I will push back a bit on this. She would be in the Cortez Masto–Hassan–Shaheen camp if elected not the Sinema–Fetterman camp. Her 70 percent voting record with Biden, Laken Riley Act, support from AIPAC and crypto and endorsements from moderates like Cortez-Masto, Rosen, Gallego, Buttigieg, Spanberger, McBride, Torres, Jeffries, Philips also line up with this.
Fwiw that record probably puts her to the right of both Fetterman and Sinema before they were elected. I understand she has a tough district, but you're comparing pre-election record of Craig to post-election record for the others. Doesn't make a ton of sense to risk her becoming a pain in the ass for a future Dem president from a D+8 state in a really blue year.
The district is not that red. It's D+6. Plenty of Reps have a far better record in similar districts.
Big is a massive understatement. I never in a million years expected Smith to endorse anyone. A complete bombshell.
Three things I want to add:
1st: I’m extremely grateful Senator Smith felt she couldn’t do the job at her peak ability for another term and decided to not run again. If all of our Democratic elected officials had the self awareness and humility she has shown, we’d never be in this mess in the first place.
2nd: I’m also thankful she chose a year to step down that would likely advantage her party, whereas most politicians seem to continue to run in good years and retire in bad years even well past their prime. She’s given an invisible boost to our nominee to start building seniority and gaining popularity at the very start of their Senate career. Again, this is not something most politicians give to their successors.
3rd: If this primary winds up with Flanagan as Senator and a real progressive Democrat in a now blue seat, with Angie Craig no longer hamstringing our party’s messaging and votes whenever Republicans are in control, not only is it an upgrade in the seat, it’s an upgrade for our party and bonus it’s the best possible outcome from a progressive perspective (it’s a wait and see for who replaces her though).
Considering how often these things wind up with the worst of both worlds with a moderate Senator and a moderate Democratic replacement in blue congressional districts, it’s nice for the best case scenario to come true this time for a change (if it does, but Smith’s endorsement is the nail in the coffin for Craig imo).
In your first paragraph, I think you're relitigating the cause of Trump's 2024 victory again, and I maintain that it's overwhelmingly because of an obsession about inflation that Americans didn't know or care was the least in the world and incredible stupidity and irresponsibility in being willing to reelect a convicted felon con man. I agree with the rest, but I strongly disagree with blaming attitudes about a man who ultimately was not on the ballot for the pathological rot in American society that is leading to the country's downfall.
I agree with the rest of your post.
We’re just never going to agree on whether or not our older Democratic reps are a partial cause of the 2024 results.
The results where our bluest safe district reps showed the most movement to Trump out of any in the entire country. Where polls show voters think our party is old and out of touch. That when the average voter who doesn’t pay attention to politics glances to a tv program at a restaurant, they see an older Democrat and a younger Republican as the guests who then goes immediately back to eating or the conversation with friends or family.
That’s fine btw, we don’t have to agree, you’re welcome to your opinion. I also agree with you that inflation/Trump 1.0 memory was the main driver of the election for voters. Where I disagree is the insistence that there was 0 effect whatsoever of having older Democrats in safe seats. I don’t see much evidence of that, but again, you’re free to have your opinion on it.
I didn't think you were talking about downballot races. I don't deny that there could have been some effect at the margins.
Since we’ve had this debate a lot, and since you seem to be misunderstanding what I’m trying to say, here’s a full fleshed out opinion instead of just me saying “older reps are part of the problem”, or that “they were a part of the reason for 2024 elections”. Sorry for the length, but I want you to fully understand my opinion so that even if we can’t agree, we at least understand each other’s position.
My thinking is that our safe seat reps that are older no longer know how to run a campaign in modern America or how to do their jobs after getting elected. That means, they’re not on social media, they’re not making videos, they’re not going on podcasts. What they do during their term in office is go on cable television and write op-eds in newspapers because that’s what used to work in gaining support.
They talk to the same people they always talk to, they run campaigns and vote how they always used to instead of updating to today. This is a massively fragmented media environment in the US. We shouldn’t be just talking to the people who already vote for us. No one watches cable news, no one reads newspapers and those who do are reliable Democrats or voters who catch a glance when doing other more important things in their lives.
We will never get these people to pay attention to politics no matter how much we wished they would, there will always be a huge chunk of voters who “don’t do politics”, but still decide they have to vote. The esthetic currently is terrible for our party and elections are won on branding and image.
We’re not talking to the people we should be talking to in these districts and everywhere: those who don’t vote for us and those who swing between us and Republicans. It’s not just 2024 either. These safe district reps have been there for decades.
The cities and urban areas have been massively falling in turnout in every election since Obama. Rural voters always outvote Urban areas as a percentage of population, even in wave years. We have atrophied the Obama youth and excitement for Democrats to be replaced with older reps talking about bipartisanship and what bills they signed. Voters there aren’t voting for us anymore because they don’t see themselves in our party or even think we get what the problems people face are.
It’s not what we believe that’s the biggest problem for Democrats, it’s who is delivering our message. Why do I believe that? Take a look at Rehmet’s special election upset. His campaign issues webpage is a progressive Democrat’s dream. He talks about everything we all believe in.
It’s the same as any safe district Democrat and obviously Trump being president plays a factor, no doubt. But we nominated a young union working man to preach everything exactly the same as we would like and Republicans nominated an older woman politician and the shift was far beyond “generic Democrat” or “Trump” would cause. That side by side image advantage is so powerful. People want to see the future in politics, not the past.
Voters liked him as a candidate, they liked the exact things that we can almost never win on in red seats. My opinion is that in an era with hyper polarization and both parties locked in with 80-90% of voters before any campaign or vote can take place, that the small things now matter more than they ever have.
Small things that didn’t matter when campaigns were won or lost on policy. Stuff that didn’t matter when most voters were persuadable. Things that didn’t matter 10, 20 or 30+ years ago that now do matter in today’s country with margins so tight in every election.
Small things like who is giving our message, where we’re giving our message and who we’re giving our message to in campaigns and after getting elected into office. Most voters today don’t care about how someone voted on a bill, they care who is giving a political message.
Age becomes a problem when image is everything in politics. Almost every time I see a news program and a Democratic rep is on, they’re old. And the Republican they have is younger. That matters. We already know that attractive candidates get a higher percentage of the vote then unattractive ones do regardless of ideology, so logic to me dictates, that’s probably the same thing with older vs younger candidates (though it would be awesome if someone actually did a political study on this).
Now, maybe I’m completely wrong, maybe with young progressives in these blue seats, turnout still is awful for Democrats for a bunch of other reasons that have nothing to do with age. But we did just see the highest turnout election in NYC mayorship history with a young progressive who obviously does know how to campaign today.
He didn’t talk just to Democrats. He didn’t just campaign in person. He went to where the voters are, both Democratic and not. He didn’t just write op-eds or make political ads. He went everywhere on the street everyday and talked to everyone about his campaign and what he was fighting for. He made videos about his policies in short, easy to digest simple videos. What happened? He got the most votes of any Democratic mayor ever.
So my basic thinking is: it’s not working now, people in urban areas are staying home or voting Republican and it hasn’t worked for decades with these same people in office in these districts, so why don’t we try someone new and see what happens? What do we honestly have to lose? It can’t get much worse than a majority of US voters who already see our party as old, elitist and out of touch /fin
Having someone in 2024 who had been able to message more effectively about inflation and the convicted felon con man would have helped though, and we didn’t have that.
walz was effectively making them squirm by calling the rwnjs "weird," but then our team effectively sidelined him, suggesting even when we changed "messengers" something strategic wasn't there. mistakes were made but we know now we need to unite and kick ass from here on out to get this country to a place we recognize again
That's a very questionable "what if".
I would argue that the 1st paragraph is pretty general though, perhaps w the exception of the last line. Dianne Feinstein should have retired long before she did, luckily we can hold California. Ben Nelson, oops. Ted Kennedy should have retired and let someone fill his seat during a better cycle. Same applies to RBG, but without her having to run for office.
Not unique to Ds though. It's the overly self confident "I can do better than my replacement" attitude that's inherent in most pols. Or them listening to folks say they are irreplaceable. Everyone is replaceable.
Examples of worst of both worlds? Slotkin is similar to Stabenow, Gallego is much better than Sinema and Yassamin Ansari is in turn much better than Gallego….
I'd say Auchincloss is a perfect example of worst of both worlds.
Worse for the party: he doesn't bring anything compelling to the party. No interesting story, no diversity, no strong advocacy for anything, no charisma, he's not someone the party is going to be excited about seeing promoted even if that is what he wants. All he contributes is being a good fundraiser, and that's not all that essential for the dem party in the state of MA.
Less progressive: don't think I really need to expand on this here, he's openly anti-progressive.
JPK3 was purely better than Aunchincloss on both fronts, and Memel was even better.
For senate seats I think we've been doing pretty good at upgrades the past generation or so. Lieberman -> Murphy was huge. Dodd -> Blumenthal was great too. Shaheen -> Pappas this year will be a solid upgrade. I'm not a fan of Schiff but he's a clear upgrade over Feinstein. Menendez -> Kim was a substantial upgrade.
The problem senators are more often long time incumbents or people who recently replaced a republican.
MN-Sen - Here's the endorsement video of Smith endorsing Flanagan:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUQx_hZkf9w/?igsh=MXJqb29sdTF4dmk5ZQ
This is a huge surprise (although a pleasant one); I was expecting Smith to stay neutral in the primary and endorse the winner of the primary as soon as there's a nominee.
Indeed, both Smith and Klobuchar originally said they would be neutral, so Smith breaking with that is big.
I'm thinking Klobuchar appoints Craig.
I definitely think that's more likely than appointing Flanagan if the shoe were on the other foot, but I could also see her not wanting to make a divisive pick like that.
I think she’ll just choose someone that she sees in her mold. Whoever that is, I have no idea. I don’t think giving Craig a consolation prize will be a consideration at all.
I hope you are right
Steve Simon, maybe? Or a State Senator she’s close to?
In this scenario Simon would have just been reelected as SoS in November '26, so not sure how that might factor in?
What about former AG Lori Swanson? She's definitely in the Klobuchar mold and she's only 59.
Definitely a dark horse possibility, she ran for Governor in 2018 so it's not like she was done with elected office when she left the AG office.
Didn’t she burn a lot of bridges on the way out in 2018?
I think so, but there's only really one "bridge" that would matter in this scenario, so who knows.
As I recall, Smith being appointed herself was a surprise for most.
Governors frequently appoint people that aren't on the radar of people like us. Ducey appointing McSally is the only recent example that immediately comes to my mind of a governor appointing the "obvious" pick for senate.
McSally was, arguably, the biggest name in the Arizona GOP (other than Ducey himself) who wasn't seen as a total wacko-bird.
Ducey, I'm guessing, wanted someone who could hold the seat. It turned out that McSally couldn't, but she was still probably the best bet out of the limited options.
Yeah it’s hard to say McSally wasn’t the correct choice for Ducey, it’s just the state’s change caught up to her - twice
If from the house, maybe Kelly Morrison?
nah, nobody in the House is going to agree to a year-long senate appointment right after they take the majority back
I strongly doubt that she'd do that. not when the seat will be up for a special election in 2027.
she's smart enough not to go against primary voters and the DFL, should they choose to endorse Flanagan tomorrow
she'll appoint a random caretaker, perhaps Walz, someone that doesn't want to run, and then let it play itself out from there
Yes, I thibk Walz is a likely choice
I'm not sure Walz would want anything to do with returning to Washington while the Orange Trash Bag is still in office.
Oh, I think the exact opposite. Walz could say whatever he wanted about 47 for a very limited amount of time without having to face the voters.
there's not another obvious person who will only want to be a Senator for a year.
Ultimately, I could see that being the reason Smith endorsed Flanagan. If Flanagan wins the nomination and gets a six-year term, then Klobuchar can appoint Craig and have a less electorally turbulent Democratic Senator on the ballot in 2028 and 2030.
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2018031013851508909
U.S. SENATE: Cash on Hand per Politico
GEORGIA
🟦 Jon Ossoff - $25.5M
🟥 Buddy Carter - $4.1M
🟥 Mike Collins - $2.3M
🟥 Dereck Dooley - $2.1M
——
NORTH CAROLINA
🟦 Roy Cooper - $12.3M
🟥 Michael Whatley - $3.7M
——
MAINE
🟥 Susan Collins - $8M
🟦 Graham Platner - $3.7M
🟦 Janet Mills - $1.3M
——
OHIO
🟦 Sherrod Brown - $9.9M
🟥 Jon Husted - $6M
——
MICHIGAN
🟥 Mike Rogers - $3.5M
🟦 Haley Stevens - $3M
🟦 Mallory McMorrow - $1.9M
🟦 Abdul El-Sayed - $1.9M
——
NEW HAMPSHIRE
🟦 Chris Pappas - $3.2M
🟥 John Sununu - $1.1M
🟥 Scott Brown - $907k
——
TEXAS
🟥 John Cornyn - $15M
🟦 James Talarico - $7.1M
🟦 Jasmine Crockett - $5.6M
🟥 Ken Paxton - $3.7M
🟥 Wesley Hunt - $779k
——
IOWA
🟥 Ashley Hinson - $5.2M
🟦 Zach Wahls - $733k
🟦 Josh Turek - $400k
🟦 Nathan Sage - $86k
——
MINNESOTA
🟦 Angie Craig - $3.7M
🟦 Peggy Flanagan - $811k
——
ALASKA
🟥 Dan Sullivan - $5.8M
Former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola launched her Senate bid in mid-January, so her fourth quarter FEC report did not capture her Senate fundraising. But she raised $1.5 million in the first 24 hours.
https://politico.com/news/2026/02/01/senate-fundraising-campaign-finance-fec-00759078
The clear pattern is that Dems are waiting to see who wins the primary. In all the races with just one Dem, they're swamping the GOP. In the states with primaries, the numbers are a lot lower.
Exactly right. Unlike those of us who live and breathe politics, most Democrats just want to beat the Republican and don’t care about or see any differences between our candidates.
Yeah, Maine and Iowa are probably going to pop off in D fundraising after the June primaries. The winner of the Maine primary will probably raise $10 million within a week after the primary.
https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/2018079252441170317
Generic Ballot Polling recap (Independent voters)
🔵 PPP - Democrats +21
🔵 Echelon - Democrats +26
🔵 Fox - Democrats +31
🔵 Morning Consult - Democrats +21
🔵 Quantus - Democrats +19
🔵 Emerson - Democrats +21
Colin Allred attacked James Talarico and endorsed Jasmine Crockett in this post. Talarico allegedly called him a "mediocre Black man."
https://x.com/ColinAllredTX/status/2018384625899294820
Welp, this primary is officially a dumpster fire.
Feels like one campaign has some really bad internals, and they are going scorched Earth.
Which one? Crockett, Allred or Talarico?
Take a guess at which one is more desperate. I hope Johnson thrashes Allred in their primary after this.
Yeah wtf happened to Allred? I used to be a big fan of his but his actions in the last two months will keep me from ever supporting him for any office again. I hope this is the end of his career.
Was this before or after Bowen Yang was skewered on social media for a perfectly defensible take that donors shouldn't waste their time with Jasmine Crockett?
Nothing Yang said was incorrect or, as was plainly the implication from the braying online mob, racist
And Crockett shamefully joined her supporters in calling him a misogynist racist.
Yes, the conspicuously Chinese-American and progressive, openly gay comedian is definitely a white supremacist for having the gall to lightly question the electability of a clearly inferior candidate who has shown a penchant for foot-in-mouth syndrome (Governor Hot Wheels)
I hope Talarico beats Crockett by double digits - her public persona is hugely unhelpful in this all-hands-on-deck hour
Just noting Yang didn't really actually say anything, he literally just said "agreed" to everything Matt Rogers said lol. He was just in the movie with Ariana and Spongebob, so the sheeple latched onto attacking him more.
The way today's news cycle is going has me feeling like Crockett is trying to position herself in 2027 to take advantage of being a failed candidate more than anything.
Maybe I'm extrapolating too much, but this does not feel like the way a candidate would make this attack for prioritizing win chance. It's how it would to done to maximize attention.
Jasmine Crockett is one messy divorce from turning into Alan Grayson at this point.
Thank goodness its in a month, and theyre not going to have to spend the next four months destroying each other, like in Maine
And Michigan.
a pretty one sided dumpster fire. seems like Crockett is the one screwing everything up and drawing people like Allred into it
He knows that Crockett shit talks him too, right? Massively during his 2024 campaign.
Damn. Misstep by Talarico. Not very Christian of him to call someone mediocre, especially a person who has worked hard to get to where he's at in life. Neither Crockett nor Allred would have been my candidate if I still lived in Texas, but Talarico should apologize and do better since it's the right thing to do.
And if he needs a cynical reason -- even if Talarico survives the primary and ends up the Senate nod, he won't get very far in Texas without sky-high Black turnout and like 90% of Black support. Crockett won't get far if she can't get Latino voters to cast a ballot for her -- and she has her own struggles there -- so I imagine it might be a jump ball at this point.
Wish people would think more before they speak!
I would not take Allred's word for it.
It's a baseless accusation with zero evidence and filled with holes, almost certainly because it's a blatant lie from a desperate grifter for a desperate grifter's campaign.
"Mediocre" isn't exactly the most damning of insults. It's rather mild. That he's trying to make a story out of this speaks far worse about Allred to me.
He's since put out a statement that clarified the private conversation that is being taken massively out of context; he called Allred's campaign ability mediocre, which is accurate. It's a clear attempt at a smear campaign as the origination of the allegation is some random tiktok influencer speaking about her talking with Talarico privately.
So yeah, I wish more people would think before they speak. And maybe not take every political attack at face value.
I don't remember Allred ever coming to my community in his senate campaign, Talirico did 3 weeks ago. Of course these Dallas politicians think the whole state is Dallas.
My read is he said "mediocre" and Allred is editoralizing the "black man" in there.
That editorializing would be an out and out smear.
yeah. it's a smear. duh.
Had he just left it at mediocre it’d be a fair thing to complain about - the editorializing makes it much worse (on Allred’s part)
If that's the case, he's fine.
Pretty pathetic on his part, obviously the Crocket campaign wants to pull that card.
Talarico says he just called Allred a mediocre campaigner, which seems more believable than 'mediocre black man'.
also just accurate lmao
Mills uncharacteristically is starting to show signs of cracking from the pressure.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/01/politics/maine-senate-mills-platner-collins-age
Mills takes questions about her age head-on and reiterates that she would serve just one term if elected, given she’d be the oldest Senate freshman ever sworn into office if she wins in November.
“Good Lord. I’m not Joe Biden for God’s sake,” she told CNN in a recent interview.
“I’m healthy, I’m me, I get stuff done. People see me at work every day, and they know what I can do. They know that I can deliver, and I have delivered,” she said after wrapping up a roundtable meeting with a handful of local health care professionals and business owners at a coffee shop in Portland.
If Susan Collins wins again despite the fundamentals it's because Dems royally screwed up with candidate recruitment here because neither Platner or Mills are optimal candidates against Collins.
eh, both of them would be favored against Collins. she's a dead woman walking especially post DHS murders.
How did they screw up? They were hoping that Troy Jackson would get in and he refused. They can’t create a candidate in the laboratory.
I’m sure there exists more than a few state legislators under the age of 60 who weren’t in Blackwater and didn’t knowingly have a Nazi tattoo on their bodies.
well, none of them are running, so you're stuck with the candidate that doesn't want it or the candidate that does.
You probably already know this and are just trying to start a fight, but Platner worked for Constellis doing a 6 month stint providing security for diplomats at the US embassy— not Blackwater which had ceased to exist earlier and been broken up into multiple security companies, including Constellis. I doubt many people on this site will change their opinion one way or another based on this—or on your later use of the word ‘knowingly’— but it is still good form not to twist the truth into friendly fire—the Collins campaign will do plenty of that to whichever candidate wins the primary.
I do already know this. What company did Constellis originate from?
Didn't they want Troy Jackson for Golden's seat? Not the Senate race?
After he declined to run for senate.
Question is what is the cause and what is the effect.
Did nobody else jump in because the DSCC was strongly urging Mills to run, and signaling to other mainstream candidates to stay out? Or did Mills jump in at the DSCC's request when they failed to get other mainstream candidates to run?
Both scenarios are plausible. The former is a recruitment failure by the party; the latter is not. Problem for this discussions is that we don't really know which case applies.
What we are seeing right now is the far left fell in love with Platner and are having a meltdown since he was exposed as a seriously flawed crackpot and they are taking it out on Mills. Do we really want to nominate a "defend the police" leftist who called rural people stupid and racist and who also has a Nazi tattoo?
How is what she said signs of cracking under pressure? She answered that about as well as she could have.
Having a 79-year-old in this race is far from ideal, but she’s obviously not Joe Biden.
"If anyone wondered if this Texas Senate race was going to get ugly - here's Colin Allred pretty much calling Talarico a racist and endorsing Jasmine Crockett"
https://x.com/DavidGriscom/status/2018397819934048599
Found the source of the comments who says Talarico called Allred “mediocre” - seems pretty off the cuff for Allred to come so hard over this
https://x.com/DavidGriscom/status/2018402892546249117
Allred needs to understand he’s got to help Democrats get elected, not try to get more attention.
I feel like he also isn’t well liked by his colleagues. A majority of New Dems endorsed Julie Johnson and AOC put out her first endorsement of the season by endorsing her. He could easily have been a team player by running for AG or Lt Gov.
Allred could have stayed in the House as well. He didn’t need to run for the Senate back in 2024.
I’ve been trying to decipher this but it’s giving me a headache. Talarico is just going to have to rise above it as there may be some Republican rat fucking going on.
I’m sure he will.
Considering Crockett loves the sound of her voice and wants attention, Talarico in general inspires more and I think has greater awareness of the bigger picture.
Apparently Talarico’s comment was misconstrued - he was referring to Allred’s mediocre campaign as a reason he jumped in, and was commenting to the influencer (privately) that Crockett was more formidable, apparently intended to compliment her
The regime is falling apart before our very eyes. Fox News:
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2018345322343235882
Karl Rove slams the Trump economy:
“Last year we lost 70,000 manufacturing jobs. We lost 145,000 blue collar jobs...Blue-collar consumer confidence is at a record low since 1976 when they began asking the question.”
Rove started and ENCOURAGED this mess. He and everyone else in his party only have themselves to blame if a blue tsunami washes in a Democratic House and Senate.
Rove has been anti-Trump for awhile though; this isn't some massive turnabout.
Yes, but has Fox News told their viewers that manufacturing jobs are down and blue collar workers consumer confidence is the lowest in 50 years? I never watch that garbage, so maybe they have been doing that, but it seems like a big deal to me to allow something that damaging to Trump and Republicans to be aired.
Fine with me. I will take anything damaging to Trump and the GOP if it can contribute in any way to help Democrats win elections.
I might break my donation dry spell to give to Julie Johnson out of spite.
I was gonna stay out of their primary, but donated to her today too lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi2hy9kAOlA
TX-Sen: James Talarico was on The View today and seemed to get pretty decent reception, despite Colin Allred endorsing Jasmine Crockett also today.
I mean, Allred dropped out for a reason.
Every time I see him speak I am floored to what extent he has “it.” He’s honestly more impressive than 2018 Beto
Morning Consult released their 50 state governor job approval survey today, and here are some notable ones to watch for 2026:
Josh Shapiro (PA): +35(2nd most popular Dem governor)
Joe Lombardo (NV): +18
Kelly Ayotte (NH): +18
Katie Hobbs (AZ): +18
Kathy Hochul (NY): +18
Daniel McKee (RI): +13
Janet T. Mills (ME): +8
Tina Kotek (OR): +6(least popular Dem governor)
Kim Reynolds (IA): -6
Mike Dunleavy (AK): -11(least popular gov in the country)
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/2018439535466606693
Talk about a turnaround for McKee
Haven't followed the candidates but know he's unpopular. Why is he vulnerable in a primary? Is he progressive, establishment or moderate? And what is Foulkes in that regard?
Just standard “Rhode Islanders hate their political establishment” unpopularity
So Foulkes is playing the "I'm a populist outsider (not necessarily since she's a nepo baby) independent businesswoman" card
She is basically a carbon copy of Gina Raimondo who also ran as an outsider with a business background.
His issues aren't really ideological its more mismanagement. A busy bridge in RI ended up being shut down for awhile because maintenance was deferred for so long.
60-29 for Laura Kelly. Four months til filing deadline.
While +8 for Mills is pretty meh compared to most of the other governors, compare that to Susan Collins’s -13 figure. We’re supposed to believe that Susan Collins would beat Janet Mills?
Mills' +8 is really weak in the context of the full chart, third least popular dem governor and 8th lowest rated across the whole field.
I think that speaks more to the consequences of running for federal office than anything about her as governor, though. People generally like local politicians far more than they like national politicians. Chances are the moment she announced, she caused a big pile of republicans to switch from approve to disapprove by default. Most governors would see the same.
That it's not really a reflection on her doesn't change that +8 isn't high enough to be a meaningful asset in the senate primary/general, either.
Mills’ approvals have been tepid long before she announced for Senate. In fact, her numbers are actually up from her previous +5 before her launch.
I didn't know that. My bad. Thanks for the info (same to derkmc!).
She has always had weak approval ratings. Maine is a high cost of living state thats not growing so she has a challenging situation in keeping everyone happy.
Might be a huge opening in Alaska for Tom Begich to squeak through if that Dunleavy number is accurate. We already know Iowa is on the board.
I think in combination with Peltola on the ballot, AK-Gov should be considered - at best, for republicans - a tossup.
AK has had a democratic statewide elected in the early 00s, so it's not like Texas where it's been 3 decades.
I'd throw in Wes Moore (+33) and Gretchen Whitmer (+26) as also being significant, since Moore's high approval gives him more leverage to redistrict and high outgoing approval for Whitmer will probably help Benson and state legislative candidates.
Is it unusual that only 2 governors out of 50 have negative approval ratings? That seems to fly in the face of the anti-incumbency bias of recent years. I would think at least some other states are itching to get a change in governance this year.
For reference, here is a poll of approval ratings for the provincial premiers up here: https://angusreid.org/premiers-performance-december-2025-approval-ratings-reflect-a-divided-country/
Y'all don't seem to like your premiers much
That governors overall are broadly popular makes sense to me. That it's only two in the negatives is a bit odd, but the overall picture makes sense.
American consciousness for politics is overwhelmingly centered around DC and the federal government. Local office holders, including governors, are able to operate separate from this. It's why there's able to be a democratic governor in Kentucky or a republican governor of Vermont. Both states have a roughly 0% chance of voting for the governor's party for senate or president, but both governors are very popular.
Members of both chambers of congress need to wade into national politics, and are expected to care about every controversy or event of national importance. Governors can zero in and focus on local politics. They can go around talking about schools, roads, bridges, local employers, etc. They don't need to wade into arguments about Veteran's Affairs, the nation debt, various statements by their own or the opposing party, they're not expected to do anything about abortion, or immigration, or SNAP, or trade, or...
Local governors are also often powerful enough to do things and get something done. What's the most recent legislative accomplishment of everyone's favorite or least favorite senator? Probably not much, in both cases. This is in contrast to parliamentary systems, where a government is expected to have some capacity to pass legislation by default.
American politics set federal office holders up to be hated. This makes local office holders even more liked than they would be otherwise.
https://newjerseyglobe.com/congress/mendoza-ends-nj-7-campaign-saying-dems-have-become-the-new-republicans/
NJ-7: Vale Mendoza, a Democratic attorney, is out, criticizing Democrats in the process and comparing them to Republicans.
https://www.northwestgeorgianews.com/polk_standard_journal/news/local/republican-drops-out-of-crowded-ga-14-congressional-race/article_932bf44f-0ec8-4b18-bc33-98d6837a3a4c.html
GA-14: Marine veteran Christian Hurd, a leading Republican, is out, and has transferred to running for the state House.
This seems like the real story of Mendoza:
"in a termination report filed earlier this month, Mendoza reported raising just $1,630 in total."
I don't know how many of you are familiar with the baseball expression "the Mendoza line". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendoza_Line. Maybe we can define $1,630 in contributions for a House race as the new Mendoza line. And then she craps all over the party on the way out. Enjoy your trip into obscurity, asshole!
I'm fine with criticizing the Democrats, but yeah, that's probably a good reason for her withdrawal.
I hope you're not fine with this:
“This experience confirmed for me what many Americans feel right now: I’m uncomfortable associating myself with either major party,” she said. “It seems that Democrats have become the new Republicans, while Republicans have shifted towards outright fascism. I identify as neither and refuse to accept the notion that the lesser of two evils is good enough.”
My reaction to that is: Fuck you! We're trying to stave off dictatorship and you're being a fucking Green?
Certain leaders (I'd argue a majority of the party's current members of Congress) aren't meeting the moment in staving off said dictatorship. But most voters and members of the base as well as organizers that fund candidates like her are helping, and it is insulting for generalizations to be made against the entire party in this case.
Agreed 100%. But she's doing something worse than merely slamming the entire party as milquetoast: she's calling it Republican and encouraging people not to support it. That's why my reaction to her is fuck you, you're part of the problem.
We’ve seen lots of liberal and progressive candidates not get traction, especially some dude ones running in blue races and swing races. Plenty of them either decide political office isn’t for them or they may end up running for a local election such as serving on the city council and working their way up from there.
One does not have to start in Congress in order to make a difference.
100% on board with calling a candidate who raises a laughably small amount of money "below the Mendoza line"- love this idea