I am interested in the NJ local races. Since VA is looking good so far, I’m curious to know what our chances look like in NJ. Any locals from there with insight?
As far as the Legislature goes, the Senate is not up and Democrats are coming off gaining seats in the Assembly in 2023 due to redistricting. So I don’t expect much change.
Unless New Jersey snaps back to previous bluer lean, then I’d think it would be theoretically possible to gain seats. But if it’s 2024 again, you’re right, not a chance.
There are the double digit Harris seats in central NJ(AD-21) that could finally get picked up. The main defense are the AD-03 seats in South Jersey that Trump won easily.
The big race to watch in New Jersey is AD-08, which is an exact rematch of the 4 candidates (2 Republicans, 2 Democrats) who ran in 2023. In 2023, 1 Republican and 1 Democrat won. Hopefully, this time, both Democrats will win.
AD-21 and AD-25 are the other districts that seem inclined to flip Democratic, but some of the Republican incumbents are very much entrenched. AD-03 and AD-04 are the only real Democratic vulnerabilities, and most likely Democrats will win them.
Some could argue that seats like AD-39, AD-40, AD-02. and maybe even AD-01 could flip to Democratic if the bottom falls out for Republicans. I wouldn't count on us getting that lucky, though.
I certainly agree that Dems should win AD-04. AD-03 I’m less sure about. Ciattarelli should win that district and that area seems to be getting worse for Dems. I’d think Dems should finally be able to pick up at least one of the AD-21 seats and maybe even won of the AD-02 seats. The problem is that Atlantic City Dem turnout seems to disproportionately crater there in off years.
nice article re CA redistricting... It's heartening to see that most CA politicians apparently have the will to attempt this. Pelosi (and many other Dems) is sounding just like us here.
The most important thing is to write a ballot proposition (removing the Citizens Commission from drawing CD lines) that will be approved by the voters in a special election, AND HOW TO SELL THAT. Because you know that the GOP/Trump will easily spend what ever it takes to defeat it. IF it passes, THEN they can dicker about the actual CD changes...
some excerpts (fair use):
California Democrats are climbing on board with Newsom’s redistricting push
After a couple of weeks of public silence among Democratic leaders following Newsom’s trial balloon, California Democrats are jumping on board with the idea
California Democrats appear to be in lockstep in their response to Trump and Texas: Bring it on. We’re ready to go as low as you are to slow Trump’s fascistic stampede.
Pelosi added in a statement Thursday that “Democrats cannot unilaterally disarm. … I don’t like redistricting in the middle of a decade, but if that’s the game that the Republicans want to play, we have to make sure that they know that we’re going to put everything on the table.”
“In California, we’re saying to the Texans, you shouldn’t be going down this path. You want to go down this path, we’ll go down together,” Pelosi said Wednesday.
Even some California House Democrats whose district boundaries may change wildly under a new map support fighting back. Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Long Beach, who might see his solidly blue district stretch all the way into more conservative parts of Orange County under one unofficial proposed map being circulated online among redistricting experts musing about possible changes, is on board.
Does anyone know what the legal (VRA) and practical limitations are for us if this does go through?
I believe theoretically the state could be gerrymandered to be 52-0 if there were no limitations imposed on the situation, but there are limitations. Would they go for a simple 48-4 to counteract republicans' plans in Texas, or is something better than that practical?
With this SCOTUS it'd be fast tracked against us. Republicans are openly and blatantly weaponizing the judicial system against us as much as they can get away with.
In such a scenario the ruling against us would be fair, but the targeting it on us only and ignoring republicans doing so in eg TX and FL would be unfair, and they're very willing to use the system against us like that.
It is possible to do a 50-2 Biden gerrymander that's not only VRA compliant, but arguably MORE VRA compliant by adding:
1. A ~40% Black district in the LA area (which for some reason was allowed to be removed in redistricting this last cycle) and
2. Two additional AAPI districts in the SF Bay Area by splitting San Francisco differently (having a Marin-based district go down into predominantly white areas of SF...which also helps make CA-01 more Dem friendly) and another one by drawing the South Bay differently. Right now there are 4/5 such districts; based on demographics alone, there should be 9, so 7 is more fair.
So the VRA should not be an issue, and it's also very possible to do 48-4 or 49-3 maps.
As I note in a comment below, I think this could be another powerful argument to make to help pass this ballot initiative...we will have the chance to make California's maps more fair and more representative of everyone who lives here!
(Edit: My maps in DRA actually had two extra AAPI districts, not one, which really indicates the need to have more AAPI representation. However, there might be some objections to the second South Bay AAPI district, as it does lead to a long coastal predominantly white district.)
You mention AAPI and Black districts. But what about Chicano* or Hispanic / Latino districts? Seems to me those demographics account for a significantly larger portion of California’s population.
* (Yes, I know the word Chicano isn’t in fashion anymore, but the term certainly was much in use when I lived in our wonderfully dynamic Left Coast state.)
Chicano seems to have been popular in the late 1960s/1970s, then faded in favour or Hispanic or Latino. Still, it probably was more durable than "Latinx", which didn't even exist until about 2014 and is now probably largely seen as a relic or symbol of over-wokeism, or of how academic and activist language is not always embraced or shared by those it purports to speak for or support.
My father had Multiple Sclerosis, which eventually killed him. For many years, until the disease did him in, he was seriously handicapped. In recent years, I have been taken aback when people have corrected me – insisting that the correct term is "disabled". Which to me sounds far worse! I don’t know when the fashions of terminology changed, but from my personal point of view, so much of this is bullshit.
My comment is in regards to minority groups that do not currently have electoral power in a proportionate number of congressional districts to the state's population.
California's congressional maps currently have 18 majority Hispanic districts and a bunch of others where Hispanic voters are a plurality of the electorate, so there is already a proportionate number of predominantly Hispanic districts (20 would be the proportionate number). The proposed maps I've seen and created maintain about the same number of Hispanic districts. So, as far as making changes for redistricting goes, Hispanic representation is a non-issue. It's only AAPI and Black residents that currently lack adequate representation in the California congressional map.
So there's something I'm trying to get the word out about, and maybe somebody out there with influence with this effort will read this and say something to Newsom et. al...
To get this initiative passed, there need to be two general overall themes:
1. We need to stop Trump, and general anti-Trump messaging.
2. Passing a new congressional map is only FAIR.
Obviously, the fairness theme is in response to whatever Texas does. However, I think it would be good to add an additional "fairness" element by noting that the current maps are not fully reflective of the state's demographics, as the Voting Rights Act requires. If the ballot initiative passes, we can draw more racially equitable maps that promote fairness in that sense, too.
For some reason, in the last round of redistricting, Los Angeles's one predominantly Black district was dismantled. This decision was partially because of Black population declining/dispersing, gentrification, and the growth of Hispanic communities in historically Black parts of LA. However, it is still possible to draw a district with ~40% Black constituents. To me, our congressional maps would be more FAIR if such a district existed.
Also, California's AAPI population was just under 18% in the 2020 census. With 52 districts, that should translate to 9 congressional districts. However, the current map only has 5 predominantly AAPI districts (districts 14, 15, 17, 28, and 45), and one of those is less than 40% AAPI.
If San Francisco were split differently--with CA-02 going into San Francisco's predominantly white northern neighborhoods--it would be possible to have an additional SF-based district that is predominantly AAPI. In some of my renderings, the district ends up just over 40% AAPI. Also, if the South Bay districts were drawn a bit differently, the 16th congressional district could become a seventh AAPI district. Needless to say, additional two AAPI districts would be far more FAIR, more reflective of the state's diversity, and more fully compliant with the VRA.
So, as the messaging for this ballot initiative starts to form, I do think saying "the current maps are not as fair as they could be for AAPI and Black constituents, so we should redraw them" is a powerful secondary argument that will resonate with a lot of Californians. In fact, for some voters who aren't sure how they feel about this issue, I think it could move them from a "No" vote to a "Yes" vote.
If nothing else, it will help give an additional positive reason to redo our congressional maps, and one that it will be tough for Trump supporters to refute without turning off a lot of Californians (just imagine if Trump started calling the ballot initiative "woke" and how that might motivate liberals here to vote Yes...).
Yes--all the AAPI districts in such a map will have voted for Harris by a margin greater than 30%. In one of the test maps I've drawn, the closest district was 66.1-33.9 Harris, and that's partially because I had that district go into Livermore to balance out population without taking other AAPI turf from other AAPI districts.
I think the cleanest ballot question would be one that repeals the independent commission's oversight over drawing federal districts and keeps it in place for the legislative districts, so it doesn't seem like a complete powergrab. I also think adding 'sweeteners' for Republicans like voter ID would be key to it passing.
I'm not sure what California's regs on ballot initiatives are but if something about fairness vs. other states can be included it should be included. Need something to undermine the argument that it's just a partisan grab.
Quick history lesson. Nov. 2008: Proposition 11 narrowly passed, which created the Citizens Committee and its guidelines, and tasked with drawing the CA Assembly & CA Senate lines ONLY. Then Nov 2010: Proposition 20 passed, which simply added the task of drawing the CD lines to that existing Committee.
So simply repealing Prop. 20 should do the trick (IANAL but I assume CD line drawing then would revert back to the legislature as before).
(Also they should have a one time push back of the June 2026 primary, say to Sept, to allow time to do all this.)
As for possible 'sweeteners' in the upcoming ballot initiative, I hope they are testing with focus groups to determine the best way to offset the mas$$ive campaign TRUMP/GOP will wage against it.
So thousands of people will be evicted from unattractive housing that's torn down without compensation and beaten up as an incentive to disappear from the view of foreign visitors?
I'm not assuming this, but that's what authoritarian governments and even elected governments in countries like Brazil that hate inconvenient poor people do in the run-up to Olympics they're hosting.
Tr*mp hates California (as well as Canada and Mexico, who are co-hosting the Copa Mundial) so he will cause problems and make it less profitable for our communities.
I am more worried about the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, which will be even more of a shitshow. Thanks, Tr*mp!
As has been widely commented, all the outrageous things Trump did in June and July in Los Angeles (deployed 1000's of CA National Guards against the Governor's wishes, and deployed US Marines and their armaments on L.A. streets) was probably just a dress rehearsal. :(
I'm interested in NY-10 and have a feeling Dan Goldman is in for a tough primary this cycle, given both his recent stances and the district’s ideological lean. Are there any potential challengers beyond Brad Lander and Yuh-Line Niou? It’s pretty remarkable that he unapologetically positions himself further to the right of Clinton, Klobuchar, Slotkin, and even Wesley Bell on I/P— all while representing one of the most progressive districts in NY.
The author of Primary School, formerly known as Nick Tagliaferro, mentioned NYC Councilmembers Alexa Aviles and Shahana Hanif as possible contenders. Hanif in particular I've heard a few times -- she easily won what was expected to be a contested primary in the most recent City Council race, so I could see her possibly making the jump.
I wouldn't expect Lander to run, especially if Mamdani wins. Lander's in line to be very high up in a potential Mamdani admin. I'd much rather be first deputy mayor than a congressmember.
I’m very curious about Brad Lander’s future. He was the NYC mayoral candidate I favored. Do you have any info on the post-election dialog between Mamdani and Lander? Any strong rumors about Lander’s desires and intentions?
It seems like they're continuing to talk. Lander is the current comptroller and has been around for a while. He has links to the "permanent government" folks in real estate, finance, etc who don't love him but have accepted him as part of the landscape. I don't have direct knowledge, but it's widely expected that he's going to be rewarded with basically whatever he wants, which could be a First Deputy Mayor, Chief of Staff, or a Senior Advisor role.
I will say, most people in NYC probably didn't know Brad Lander prior to endorsing Mamdani, despite being a Citywide elected. However, I know people who know him personally, and they said the level of appreciation he's received after ensuring Cuomo did not win has been unexpected and he's having the time of his life.
I'd much rather be the one that all major decisions get run through in the biggest city in the country vs being a freshman legislator in a congress that mostly names post offices and lurches from crisis to crisis and barely making big policy decisions aside from one or two major bills at the beginning of a presidency. The job of congressmember is terrible if you want to make actual impact in this environment.
That's true, and Lander might not mind being fairly invisible but working hard for the people, as helping make the city better for the people is what he's devoted to.
I'd like to see someone more progressive representing my district, but I haven't seen any evidence that Goldman is not in a strong position, so I would be surprised if he faces strong opposition, and I hope you're not jumping to any conclusions about foreign policy being the main reason for Mamdani's primary victory. This is still New York City, or to quote the late Jesse Jackson, Sr., "Hymietown."
Ummm, the rumors of Rev. Jackson's demise might be exaggerated. Jesse Jr's political career is dead but his father is still around. In looking him up (I don't completely trust my memory these days) I saw that JJ Sr. used to be the shadow senator from DC. I had completely forgotten about that.
I thought that NYC was "Jaime-town" because of the large Puerto Rican community there... /s
I apologize for accidentally seeming to hasten his death, and having now looked him up, I see that he's much younger than I would have thought: only 83.
I have trouble seeing Goldman going down. Yes, there could be a more progressive member of congress here, but so much of this district is more MSNBC than DSA (Park Slope, Windsor Terrace, BK Heights, Carroll Gardens--all peak resistance areas). If they threw Bushwick and Williamsburg into this district, I feel like Councilmember Sandy Nurse could probably make this a real run. The others mentioned for this seat (Hanif, Aviles) I think are kinda meh personally. I also don't think Yuh-line Niou is poised for a comeback, but could be wrong.
I’m interested in a longshot proposition: retaking the Senate in 2026. What are the best strategies? Are they all state-by-state and individual – or are there over-arching joint strategies that might move the needle? Also interested in any meaningful statistical analysis that might reveal how realistic or illusory my dream of seeing Democrats retake the Senate in the Midterms is.
I don't know in the first round of the special election Peltola only got 10% and quickly turned it around. I think other Dems could emerge though of all the Alaska races I selfishly hope she runs for Senate, second choice would be House.
I'm going to need *ALL* the drugs if even Gov. Cooper can't win a federal race in this environment. The right's willful hit job on the biotech industry (very, very key to NC's economy and growth) alone should make a GOP candidate unelectable.
Thom Tillis is a hack, but a connected hack. He saw the writing on the wall.
First we need to hold our current seats (by no means guaranteed in purple states) in open MI and Ossoff in GA. MN, NH, NJ, NM and VA should be easy holds with blue leaning states and/or strong incumbents.
Next we must flip the 2 seats in ME and NC. The latter is looking more likely than the former atm, but there’s a long way to go for other potential candidates to jump in for Maine. That gets us to 51-49. This is where things start to get really uphill for Democrats.
TX is the next best opening, but only if Paxton defeats Cornyn in the GOP primary (pretty likely barring Trump endorsing Cornyn). Democrats haven’t won a statewide race in 2 decades, so this isn’t an easy task, even against Paxton.
The 1 after that is probably Iowa. Not entirely sure if it’s better for Ernst to run again or for it to be an open seat, but Democrats in Iowa smell blood because Rob Sand is running for Governor and several strong candidates are running for Senate in addition to the multiple running to flip the 3 Iowa congressional districts. Plus special election shifts have been stronger there than anywhere else.
The next tier are likely only in play if former rep Mary Peltola and former Senator Sherrod Brown run for the seats in AK and OH. Maybe AK would still be in play without her and a strong Democrat from the legislature runs, but Ohio certainly would not.
Then there’s the wildcard in NE-Sen. Dan Osborn running as an independent has aligned himself with Trump on the border wall, China and is fiscally conservative. That gives him enough crossover populist credibility to pull in a large number of Trump/GOP voters that other “Democrats running as Independents” in red states weren’t able to get.
The only other races on the peripheral would be appointed, yet to be elected Ashley Moody in FL, purpling KS and stubborn margin SC. All of which I’d say are Safe R right now. So to sum it up: We need to hold GA/MI. Then flip ME/NC. Then win 2 of AK, IA, NE, OH or TX. Just 1 seat, would still give GOP control with Vance as VP. I wouldn’t even bet $1 on winning the majority honestly.
Depends on Trump and depends on if the GOP primary becomes a clown car (if Hunt, Jackson, Paxton, Cornyn all run, or maybe more). Tons of moving factors in the race, but as of now it’s Paxton vs Cornyn, so it’s probably better to assume the field right now will be what it’s like in the end unless/until that changes with a candidate/s announcement/s.
It’s better than trying to game out what a potential future race looks like, which is quite literally impossible. If Ronny Jackson runs, it’s likely an entirely different race, because there will almost certainly need to be a runoff and Trump is the most likely to reward his doctor for lying for him during his first term than anyone else in the race. Too many variables to predict outcomes though in this hypothetical.
Currently, the GOP has 53 seats in the Senate whereas the Democratic Party has 47 (including Angus King and Bernie Sanders caucusing) That means Democrats would need to win a total of 4 Senate races and lose none in order to regain control of the Senate.
The following races present the best opportunities for being flipped or at least have signs of potential swingy ness:
AK
IA
ME
NC
TX
I am not taking into account NE if Dan Osborn wins again or the OH Special Election race in this case.
Actually, I was taking into account Angus King and Bernie Sanders caucusing for Democrats but I misread 45 as consisting of all of the Senators on the Democrats’ side with a different course of information.
I corrected the error in my original comment. 53 GOP, 47 DEM
Wikipedia puts everything together better than other pages with the information I need.
Mamdani’s Platform Very Similar to Michael Bloomberg’s?
This nugget from Political Wire raised my eyebrows this morning. Thought I would share.
“As Mamdani reshapes the city’s political map, some experts told ABC News a striking parallel is emerging. Behind the labels of ‘socialist’ and ‘technocrat,’ both men share aligned goals:
– taxing the rich during crises,
– promoting expansive transit ideas, and
– bold plans to bring fresh food to low-income communities.”
“Still, experts said, even when policies overlap, most New Yorkers do not see them as similar.”
If Mamdami wins it'll be really cruicial to see who he picks for the upper levels of his administration. Adams has been a horrible mayor but many of his deputy mayors (the ones who left en masse a few months ago) were excellent. He should bring back Maria Torres-Springer. Not only is she an incredibly effective administrator, it'll quell some of the "He's a radical communist talk" while bringing in someone who can execute his vision.
Raising property taxes, which is what Bloomberg did, is not really a tax on the wealthy, since those are usually passed on to tenants in the form of higher rents. Mamdami is proposing a tax on incomes over $1,000,000. Saying the proposals are "similar" is rather misleading, I feel.
Well, there are rich people who live in their own rather-expensive houses and thus do pay those property taxes. That said, I largely agree with your post.
Yeah, my point is that the income surcharge is really a tax exclusively on the wealthy, while property taxes have wide impacts, even if you don't pay them directly.
If Democratic states are thinking of redrawing their districts to counteract an even crazier Republican gerrymander in Texas, then Maine should consider doing it too. Even though Dems hold both seats in Maine, ME-02 is very vulnerable, having voted for Trump by 9% in 2024 and with Jared Golden winning re-election by less than 1%.
2024 election data for Maine was recently added into DRA, so here's how it could be done:
The 1st district moves north to take in the rural, Republican (in the Trump era) counties of Oxford, Franklin, and Somerset, as well as Golden's home county of Androscoggin. In exchange for those areas, it loses basically all of the coastal areas beyond Portland (but not Portland itself, which remains in the 1st). The result is a district that, while not as blue as the existing version, still voted for Harris by a 55-43 margin, so it should be safe for Democrats.
The 2nd district gains the counties of the Mid-Coast, which are the only counties in Maine to swing Democratic in 2024. It also picks up Brunswick and some well-educated coastal suburbs of Portland, which used to be only slightly Democratic but are now deep blue. And it loses the counties described above that are picked up by the 1st. The result is a district that voted for Harris by a 50-48 margin. The current ME-02 voted for Trump by 9%, so this represents an 11% shift to the left for ME-02.
The irony of this map is that Pingree lives in the 2nd district on it, while Golden lives in the 1st. But considering that the 1st is still substantially bluer than the 2nd, and that (thanks to Maine's small population) Pingree and Golden are both well-known figures all across the state, I highly doubt they'd switch districts. If Golden were to be given a district that Harris won, I think his voting record would quickly shift to the left - he was a perfectly standard Democrat in the legislature when he represented a Dem-leaning district in Lewiston, and his more recent voting record in Congress is more due to political expediency in his Republican-leaning district than actual deeply-held beliefs.
It's really bizarre how so many states, that just so happen to vote Democratic, have extra rules and regulations about redistricting, such as requiring a 2/3 majority or specifically banning mid-decade redistricting, while states that just so happen to vote Republican don't have those regulations.
It's time for Democrats to level the playing field. They should start introducing bills that would make the redistricting process in Democratic states exactly the same as in Texas - whatever Texas's process happens to be. Bills like that would ensure a level playing field for redistricting.
It's because Democrats have morals and standards related to good governance, while the GOP used to have these, but decided they were useless during the age of Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich, when the goal of governing ceased to be governance and became power mongering
When I clicked, a video about the poll played for about three minutes. There was not a lot of "why," but a discussion of what the poll found. IIRC: Dems lead generic by 3 but led by 8 at this point in 2017. On major issues, voters preferred Rs. And registration favored Dems in 2017 but now favors R's.
I'm always up for caution on future elections, especially ones over a year out.
That said my worry for 2026 isn't our party's unpopularity. For me that's a problem that is more likely to be an issue in 2028 if it has not been resolved. My worry for 2026 is all the things that have not happened yet that we do not know about, and the way that the media is being rather openly corrupted into bending further towards republicans.
We would have suffered a bloodbath in 2022 if not for Dobbs happening not long before. Is there an event coming that will do the same for 2026? I hope not, but we cannot know.
Anger at the party in power over any other factor is the 1 consistent part about election results since Trump was elected. Hard to bet against that happening again. 2016 anger at the party in power. 2018 anger at the party in power. 2020 anger at the party in power. 2022 anger at the party in power (blunted by Dobbs, but GOP won the House). 2024 anger at the party in power.
We went through a million news stories and scandals over those years. Nothing changed anything (except maybe you can argue Dobbs did). Do I think that’s a guarantee to happen again in 2026? Of course not. But the average voter will likely vote Democratic in order to put a muzzle on Trump’s chaos, regardless of how badly they think of our party. He’s disapproved of on every issue that he won 2024 on, sometimes by massive margins.
The average voter likes the idea of Trump as president rather than experiencing the reality of what he actually does in office. Of course he could get more popular, or maybe even worse with Epstein fallout. There’s no one saying it’ll happen for sure, but I do think it’s likely.
I don’t recall reading anyone on here saying for sure it’s going to be a wave, just speculation on seats in play if there is a wave, but I don’t read every digest and every comment, so maybe I missed them?
Could be. It could also be that I've seen at least one comment that assumed a more Democratic electorate in 2026 than in 2024 with "lol" and that my impression is that an assumption of some level of Democratic wave is common here and in the media, even if no guarantee is given.
I mean, I don’t think a “lol” response is someone saying it’s guaranteed instead of a snarky reply, that seems more like an assumption on your part. I think a Democratic leaning year is the most likely outcome for the reasons I outlined above, so it would make sense to me that was what the average Democratic voter or media pundit would believe.
But I think the difference between our perspectives is that I don’t consider talking about the most likely result as people guaranteeing anything. I also don’t think an assumption means a prediction.
Everyone starts their own views on upcoming elections at a certain level of assumption, it’s kind of impossible not to. Does anyone here not look at previous race results or candidate performances to guide their opinions or predictions on future races? If you do, you’re making an assumption that will matter.
So is it worth criticizing someone for having an assumption different than your own? Just like if someone here assumed the GOP would hold a trifecta after 2026 (definitely possible!). We all have our own beliefs and opinions derived from our own unique set of experiences.
The comment I was referring to did contain a specific assumption, as I said, and was not just "lol" with no other remark. Yes, we assume opposing candidates won't win safe districts, but otherwise, I try -not- to assume anything.
And Trump himself controls a stunningly-large and unheard-of chunk of that money. He’s using it to keep an iron-fist control of his MAGA-Republican Party. The upside for us is that he is likely to back a number of extreme candidates that prove to be unelectable.
Lot of caveats about that aspect. One of them ArcticStones pointed out. A few main factors I want to highlight: 1. Democrats have a lot of primaries coming up next year since we’re challenging more seats so I’m paying more attention to what individual candidates are raising while the campaign arms keep an eye on adding more seats to their target list. 2. We don’t know how many of the donations GOP campaign committees like the RNC and the NRCC raised are max donations from wealthier donors versus smaller regular donors. Last time I checked the NRCC outraised the DCCC by less than $3 million more in June. Not insignificant but not impressive. If Democratic campaign arms are raising more from smaller donors while wealthier donors are holding off for now, I’m ok with that. Which leads me to… 3. Once the DNC releases its autopsy report on how and where they need to spend money, I think the bigger donors will open their check books. Harris raised over a billion dollars and still lost. Even though Harris only had a 100 days to campaign and kept it closer, I can’t blame some bigger donors for wanting to hold tight and let the DNC make the case on how and where they can use their resources to win. 4. We’re still winning elections and surpassing 2017 voting levels. Especially 20+ Trump districts. Voters in those polls can claim all they want that Democrats are the Party of the Elites but the Party of the Elites sure have been winning big in some pretty red Trump areas. See Pennsylvania and Iowa and Nebraska. Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election saw a big Democratic turnout and a huge shift in Independent voters narrowly backing Trump in 2024 to overwhelming going to Democrat Susan Crawford. And this was after Brad Schimel decided to say “fuck it, I’m not going to run as an impartial jurist, I’m going to run as a die hard MAGA guy and hopefully Elon Musk will buy the election for me”.
I recall back in 2005-2006 there was similar sentiment towards the Democratic Party then.
After John Kerry lost the presidential election to Bush Jr back in 2004, Democrats were going through hell out of shock that Bush Jr won re-election.
Democrats were fired up about stopping Bush’s plans to cut social security but the base for Democratic members in the House and Senate were pushing their Reps and Senators to stop the Iraq War. Rep. David Obey, a notoriously liberal Representative in WI and who voted against the Iraq War was screamed at by constituents over not doing enough to stop the war. He said “we don’t have the votes!”
I see similar dynamics in Trump’s 2nd term as in Bush Jr’s term. And back in 2005-2005, the economy was growing.
True but the Supreme Court also overturned Roe v Wade and Republicans nominated some of the worst candidates in 2022 while Democrats nominated stronger candidates and incumbents. Right now, Jon Ossoff and the open Governor races in Wisconsin and Kansas are the main races next year I’m the most worried about while I’m feeling a hell of a lot better about North Carolina’s Senate race with Cooper jumping in. We just need a clear strong candidate against Collins in Maine but we have time.
I don't think anyone counted Bellows as a strong candidate ca 2014. She was someone with a background that made many of us (me included) think she would be a fantastic senator, but that's not the same thing.
Not being a nobody and being a strong candidate are different things.
Not the same thing because it involves scandals, but to get the nobody/strong candidate difference across: All of us here think Paxton will be the easier republican to beat in Texas' senate race, but he's far from a nobody.
As a general point because I know what your overall point here is: Collins isn't unbeatable simply because she was won convincingly and consistently in the past. If that was the case there would be a senator Bayh from Indiana right now. Going into 2024 people talked the same about Brown. Nelson won by double digits in 2012 before losing in 2018!
History is littered with candidates who won until they didn't, and even more littered with those that very well might have lost if they had not opted to retire.
That doesn't mean Collins will lose. This will be a tough slog of a senate race and until/unless we get a strong candidate I would consider her the favorite to win. That's not the same thing as her being certain to win. History is informative, not determinative.
I agree. But we agree that this is not a tossup, and as you know, I would not bet against her. I'll be very happy if she loses, though, because another Republican is fairly unlikely to flip that seat back in the foreseeable future unless there's a pretty big wave.
True but different scenarios and different versions of Collins. 2008 she was still moderate and popular enough to win. 2014 a great year for Republicans. 2020 was a Presidential election where she voted against Amy Coney Barrett and relied enough on Trump winning the 2nd District. Ranked Choice Voting kicked off in Maine in 2020 but it’s debatable how much of a role that really played in Collins bid.
I’m not worried about GA, especially considering Trump won GA by a smaller margin in 2024 vs back in 2016.
This doesn’t mean that Ossoff will win re-election by a larger margin of victory than back in the 2020 runoff election. However, 2024 really didn’t bring much movement to the GOP at the presidential level in GA. And when you consider that the CDC and other federal government agencies are in GA, this is a problem the GOP won’t be able to spin.
Cautiously optimistic is my mindset about GA, not overly optimistic.
2016 - Trump won GA by 5.1% points
2024 - Trump won GA by 2.2% points.
The question we should ask is:
How is it that GA didn’t swing hard to the right in 2024 but FL and TX did?
Also, in 2024 AZ went more to the right than GA did by just a few % points. Ruben Gallego was still able to get elected to the Senate in a similar margin of victory as did Mark Kelly in both his Senate elections.
I am not saying Jon Ossoff will coast to being re-elected to the Senate. However, right now with Brian Kemp having declined to challenge Ossoff, the GOP needs a change in trajectory for them in order to get momentum. Right now, I’m just not seeing it.
Remember, we’re taking about Trump being POTUS and rampant anti-GOP and Trump sentiment. Lots of blue in GA these days.
"The Republican congressman, a potential candidate for Texas’s already-ugly Senate GOP primary, discussed what he’s hearing about that race as well as the broader congressional map with White House officials..."
"[Wesley] Hunt has also met with White House aides this year."
Also:
"Trump isn’t letting past perceived transgressions stop him from endorsing lawmakers..."
Definitely less than Paxton. Whether they can be defeated depends on whether or how much anger there is against the Republican Party in general, so my not-particularly-informed take would be that there's good reason for skepticism, but it's not impossible.
Perhaps Ryan Walters was merely looking at Renaissance paintings or classical Greek statues? You know, the sort of stuff he’d never allow to be printed in an Oklahoma school book!
Ugh. Markey really shouldn't be running again but Auchincloss would be such a downgrade. I'd be willing to stomach some level of downgrade to get new blood into our offices but not to this degree in such a blue state.
I wonder if Markey retiring would be ideal. Then another progressive could run (Pressley or Wu, for one -- I've heard both be floated as possibilities.)
Wu is running for reelection now. I cannot imagine her immediately jumping over to run for senate. It'd look really bad for her. Plus, I imagine mayor is a much more enjoyable job than senator.
Pressley could run and would be a great candidate. She'd need to up her fundraising substantially but that's doable. Might be too late at this stage for her to raise enough to be able to survive the money bomb that Auchincloss will presumably have in his favor, but I don't know.
Both Wu and Pressley are sort of Warren acolytes in the state.
Boomer politicians refusing to retire seems to be a problem across the political spectrum. Do we really want another senator serving into his mid 80's who very well might not be able to serve out his term?
Senator Markey is one of the best, imho. The key question is, indeed, who is likely to replace him – and, by extension, whether his replacement leaves a problematic hole to fill.
As one of those writers noted, Auchincloss would have to give up his seat to run (which hopefully would be filled by an upgrade). So then when he (hopefully) loses to Markey, that's a win-win deal.
Considering Derek Dooley A) coached at Tennessee and B) sucked at it, I can’t say I’m totally sure who exactly this is meant to appeal to.
If Herschel Walker was increasingly irrelevant to a state that has changed dramatically since 1980, then Derek Dooley is 10x more so. Walker at least was *the* definitive Bulldog up until 2021-22
There are a lot of politicians who are themselves talented campaigners/operators with zero ability to build a machine of their own. Kemp strikes me as one of them
Roy Cooper didn’t officially announce his Senate run at the Dems Unity dinner in Raleigh last night, but he was all smiles, he heavily hinted at it and had his attack points against Republicans ready.
The most telling thing was him saying “stand up if you’re running for office” and after that he replied “well, I’m not sitting down am I?”
"“The Democratic brand is so bad that they don’t have the credibility to be a critic of Trump or the Republican Party,” Anzalone told the newspaper. “Until they reconnect with real voters and working people on who they’re for and what their economic message is, they’re going to have problems.”"
Curiously missing from Politico's piece is the fact that this is where the GOP was in 2010, as was noted elsewhere in this thread. The GOP then won 63 seats in that race. Also missing was any mention of anger from Democrats at their own leaders.
I am still concerned that the Democrats are doing so poorly but I'm not at the point where I'm giving up yet. I think Politico is being very one-sided and not taking important details into consideration.
I think this was addressed on Friday. A lot of Democrats are down on their party for good reason. Doesn’t mean they won’t vote for Democratic candidates when the time comes.
Buried deep in the WSJ poll is Dems leading the generic ballot by 3 points despite their favorability being in the toilet. So that tells you the metric is useless but the media keeps eating it up. Hopefully solid wins in VA/NJ this fall puts the 'Dems are doomed' narrative to bed.
In 2026, I would much rather be us than them – not least because of the huge enthusiasm gap that Mike in MD points out. Yes, I know a lot can happen between now and then, but so far it’s looking very promising.
I am interested in the NJ local races. Since VA is looking good so far, I’m curious to know what our chances look like in NJ. Any locals from there with insight?
As far as the Legislature goes, the Senate is not up and Democrats are coming off gaining seats in the Assembly in 2023 due to redistricting. So I don’t expect much change.
Got it. Thanks again for the local insight!
I think we have a lot of opportunities in Virginia but I suspect that we are about maxed out in New Jersey.
Unless New Jersey snaps back to previous bluer lean, then I’d think it would be theoretically possible to gain seats. But if it’s 2024 again, you’re right, not a chance.
There are the double digit Harris seats in central NJ(AD-21) that could finally get picked up. The main defense are the AD-03 seats in South Jersey that Trump won easily.
Ah yes, the district that infamously elected Ed "the Trucker" Durrrrrrrr...
does the NJ Assembly have a 2/3 super-majority rule? If so, we are very close to that.
The big race to watch in New Jersey is AD-08, which is an exact rematch of the 4 candidates (2 Republicans, 2 Democrats) who ran in 2023. In 2023, 1 Republican and 1 Democrat won. Hopefully, this time, both Democrats will win.
AD-21 and AD-25 are the other districts that seem inclined to flip Democratic, but some of the Republican incumbents are very much entrenched. AD-03 and AD-04 are the only real Democratic vulnerabilities, and most likely Democrats will win them.
Some could argue that seats like AD-39, AD-40, AD-02. and maybe even AD-01 could flip to Democratic if the bottom falls out for Republicans. I wouldn't count on us getting that lucky, though.
Excellent analysis, thanks!
I certainly agree that Dems should win AD-04. AD-03 I’m less sure about. Ciattarelli should win that district and that area seems to be getting worse for Dems. I’d think Dems should finally be able to pick up at least one of the AD-21 seats and maybe even won of the AD-02 seats. The problem is that Atlantic City Dem turnout seems to disproportionately crater there in off years.
nice article re CA redistricting... It's heartening to see that most CA politicians apparently have the will to attempt this. Pelosi (and many other Dems) is sounding just like us here.
The most important thing is to write a ballot proposition (removing the Citizens Commission from drawing CD lines) that will be approved by the voters in a special election, AND HOW TO SELL THAT. Because you know that the GOP/Trump will easily spend what ever it takes to defeat it. IF it passes, THEN they can dicker about the actual CD changes...
some excerpts (fair use):
California Democrats are climbing on board with Newsom’s redistricting push
After a couple of weeks of public silence among Democratic leaders following Newsom’s trial balloon, California Democrats are jumping on board with the idea
California Democrats appear to be in lockstep in their response to Trump and Texas: Bring it on. We’re ready to go as low as you are to slow Trump’s fascistic stampede.
Pelosi added in a statement Thursday that “Democrats cannot unilaterally disarm. … I don’t like redistricting in the middle of a decade, but if that’s the game that the Republicans want to play, we have to make sure that they know that we’re going to put everything on the table.”
“In California, we’re saying to the Texans, you shouldn’t be going down this path. You want to go down this path, we’ll go down together,” Pelosi said Wednesday.
Even some California House Democrats whose district boundaries may change wildly under a new map support fighting back. Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Long Beach, who might see his solidly blue district stretch all the way into more conservative parts of Orange County under one unofficial proposed map being circulated online among redistricting experts musing about possible changes, is on board.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/democrats-newsom-redistricting-20784400.php
Does anyone know what the legal (VRA) and practical limitations are for us if this does go through?
I believe theoretically the state could be gerrymandered to be 52-0 if there were no limitations imposed on the situation, but there are limitations. Would they go for a simple 48-4 to counteract republicans' plans in Texas, or is something better than that practical?
With this SCOTUS it'd be fast tracked against us. Republicans are openly and blatantly weaponizing the judicial system against us as much as they can get away with.
In such a scenario the ruling against us would be fair, but the targeting it on us only and ignoring republicans doing so in eg TX and FL would be unfair, and they're very willing to use the system against us like that.
They can rule in the shadow docket. Where there's a will, there's a way.
It is possible to do a 50-2 Biden gerrymander that's not only VRA compliant, but arguably MORE VRA compliant by adding:
1. A ~40% Black district in the LA area (which for some reason was allowed to be removed in redistricting this last cycle) and
2. Two additional AAPI districts in the SF Bay Area by splitting San Francisco differently (having a Marin-based district go down into predominantly white areas of SF...which also helps make CA-01 more Dem friendly) and another one by drawing the South Bay differently. Right now there are 4/5 such districts; based on demographics alone, there should be 9, so 7 is more fair.
So the VRA should not be an issue, and it's also very possible to do 48-4 or 49-3 maps.
As I note in a comment below, I think this could be another powerful argument to make to help pass this ballot initiative...we will have the chance to make California's maps more fair and more representative of everyone who lives here!
(Edit: My maps in DRA actually had two extra AAPI districts, not one, which really indicates the need to have more AAPI representation. However, there might be some objections to the second South Bay AAPI district, as it does lead to a long coastal predominantly white district.)
You mention AAPI and Black districts. But what about Chicano* or Hispanic / Latino districts? Seems to me those demographics account for a significantly larger portion of California’s population.
* (Yes, I know the word Chicano isn’t in fashion anymore, but the term certainly was much in use when I lived in our wonderfully dynamic Left Coast state.)
Chicano seems to have been popular in the late 1960s/1970s, then faded in favour or Hispanic or Latino. Still, it probably was more durable than "Latinx", which didn't even exist until about 2014 and is now probably largely seen as a relic or symbol of over-wokeism, or of how academic and activist language is not always embraced or shared by those it purports to speak for or support.
Yup, I remember it from 1970s’ California.
I have always refused to use "Latinx", considering an absurd linguistic bastardization.
Particularly a problem when the vast majority of people it purports to refer to do not like the term. I always thought Latin American made more sense.
ChicanX? I haven't seen that one, but I have seen Filipinx.
The good thing about languages is that they evolve in their usage, and the useless or unpopular versions disappear over time.
some folks I know won't use "handicapped" or "disabled" but insist on using "differently abled".
My father had Multiple Sclerosis, which eventually killed him. For many years, until the disease did him in, he was seriously handicapped. In recent years, I have been taken aback when people have corrected me – insisting that the correct term is "disabled". Which to me sounds far worse! I don’t know when the fashions of terminology changed, but from my personal point of view, so much of this is bullshit.
Agree, the folks I know personally shut up when I played a video of members of the U. S Paralympic team using the terms handicapped AND disabled.
I am with George Carlin on this. Simple, direct language. Anything else takes the human impactout of things, buried in a layer of jargon.
George Carlin was a brilliant student of language and got so many things right. Carlin’s "Baseball vs Football" is one of his many classics!
My comment is in regards to minority groups that do not currently have electoral power in a proportionate number of congressional districts to the state's population.
California's congressional maps currently have 18 majority Hispanic districts and a bunch of others where Hispanic voters are a plurality of the electorate, so there is already a proportionate number of predominantly Hispanic districts (20 would be the proportionate number). The proposed maps I've seen and created maintain about the same number of Hispanic districts. So, as far as making changes for redistricting goes, Hispanic representation is a non-issue. It's only AAPI and Black residents that currently lack adequate representation in the California congressional map.
Thank you for clarifying!
So there's something I'm trying to get the word out about, and maybe somebody out there with influence with this effort will read this and say something to Newsom et. al...
To get this initiative passed, there need to be two general overall themes:
1. We need to stop Trump, and general anti-Trump messaging.
2. Passing a new congressional map is only FAIR.
Obviously, the fairness theme is in response to whatever Texas does. However, I think it would be good to add an additional "fairness" element by noting that the current maps are not fully reflective of the state's demographics, as the Voting Rights Act requires. If the ballot initiative passes, we can draw more racially equitable maps that promote fairness in that sense, too.
For some reason, in the last round of redistricting, Los Angeles's one predominantly Black district was dismantled. This decision was partially because of Black population declining/dispersing, gentrification, and the growth of Hispanic communities in historically Black parts of LA. However, it is still possible to draw a district with ~40% Black constituents. To me, our congressional maps would be more FAIR if such a district existed.
Also, California's AAPI population was just under 18% in the 2020 census. With 52 districts, that should translate to 9 congressional districts. However, the current map only has 5 predominantly AAPI districts (districts 14, 15, 17, 28, and 45), and one of those is less than 40% AAPI.
If San Francisco were split differently--with CA-02 going into San Francisco's predominantly white northern neighborhoods--it would be possible to have an additional SF-based district that is predominantly AAPI. In some of my renderings, the district ends up just over 40% AAPI. Also, if the South Bay districts were drawn a bit differently, the 16th congressional district could become a seventh AAPI district. Needless to say, additional two AAPI districts would be far more FAIR, more reflective of the state's diversity, and more fully compliant with the VRA.
So, as the messaging for this ballot initiative starts to form, I do think saying "the current maps are not as fair as they could be for AAPI and Black constituents, so we should redraw them" is a powerful secondary argument that will resonate with a lot of Californians. In fact, for some voters who aren't sure how they feel about this issue, I think it could move them from a "No" vote to a "Yes" vote.
If nothing else, it will help give an additional positive reason to redo our congressional maps, and one that it will be tough for Trump supporters to refute without turning off a lot of Californians (just imagine if Trump started calling the ballot initiative "woke" and how that might motivate liberals here to vote Yes...).
Are you certain the new NoCal AAPI districts would elect Democrats and not candidates like those who led the school board recalls?
Yes--all the AAPI districts in such a map will have voted for Harris by a margin greater than 30%. In one of the test maps I've drawn, the closest district was 66.1-33.9 Harris, and that's partially because I had that district go into Livermore to balance out population without taking other AAPI turf from other AAPI districts.
I think the cleanest ballot question would be one that repeals the independent commission's oversight over drawing federal districts and keeps it in place for the legislative districts, so it doesn't seem like a complete powergrab. I also think adding 'sweeteners' for Republicans like voter ID would be key to it passing.
I'm not sure what California's regs on ballot initiatives are but if something about fairness vs. other states can be included it should be included. Need something to undermine the argument that it's just a partisan grab.
I agree.
Quick history lesson. Nov. 2008: Proposition 11 narrowly passed, which created the Citizens Committee and its guidelines, and tasked with drawing the CA Assembly & CA Senate lines ONLY. Then Nov 2010: Proposition 20 passed, which simply added the task of drawing the CD lines to that existing Committee.
So simply repealing Prop. 20 should do the trick (IANAL but I assume CD line drawing then would revert back to the legislature as before).
(Also they should have a one time push back of the June 2026 primary, say to Sept, to allow time to do all this.)
As for possible 'sweeteners' in the upcoming ballot initiative, I hope they are testing with focus groups to determine the best way to offset the mas$$ive campaign TRUMP/GOP will wage against it.
Voter ID would be a poison pill, not a sweetener.
I'm interested in the World Cup. How is a nativist administration going to handle an influx of foreigners and global media months before the midterms?
Maybe? It's a tri-national event involving 48 countries with multiple border crossings.
Going to be even more fun in 2028 with the Olympics in Southern California.
Probably the same way other authoritarian countries that held international sporting events did.
So thousands of people will be evicted from unattractive housing that's torn down without compensation and beaten up as an incentive to disappear from the view of foreign visitors?
Yeah, I never said it would be a good thing.
I'm not assuming this, but that's what authoritarian governments and even elected governments in countries like Brazil that hate inconvenient poor people do in the run-up to Olympics they're hosting.
Chavez Ravine before the Dodgers finalized their move to LA in '58...or was it '57?
I plan to pay it zero attention, due to the Infantino/Trump mutual, disgusting buddy act.
Tr*mp hates California (as well as Canada and Mexico, who are co-hosting the Copa Mundial) so he will cause problems and make it less profitable for our communities.
I am more worried about the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, which will be even more of a shitshow. Thanks, Tr*mp!
As has been widely commented, all the outrageous things Trump did in June and July in Los Angeles (deployed 1000's of CA National Guards against the Governor's wishes, and deployed US Marines and their armaments on L.A. streets) was probably just a dress rehearsal. :(
Dress rehearsal to what? Marines and National Guard deployed to "safeguard" Midterm elections?
The World Cup has eight games scheduled in LA.
I'm interested in NY-10 and have a feeling Dan Goldman is in for a tough primary this cycle, given both his recent stances and the district’s ideological lean. Are there any potential challengers beyond Brad Lander and Yuh-Line Niou? It’s pretty remarkable that he unapologetically positions himself further to the right of Clinton, Klobuchar, Slotkin, and even Wesley Bell on I/P— all while representing one of the most progressive districts in NY.
The author of Primary School, formerly known as Nick Tagliaferro, mentioned NYC Councilmembers Alexa Aviles and Shahana Hanif as possible contenders. Hanif in particular I've heard a few times -- she easily won what was expected to be a contested primary in the most recent City Council race, so I could see her possibly making the jump.
I wouldn't expect Lander to run, especially if Mamdani wins. Lander's in line to be very high up in a potential Mamdani admin. I'd much rather be first deputy mayor than a congressmember.
I’m very curious about Brad Lander’s future. He was the NYC mayoral candidate I favored. Do you have any info on the post-election dialog between Mamdani and Lander? Any strong rumors about Lander’s desires and intentions?
It seems like they're continuing to talk. Lander is the current comptroller and has been around for a while. He has links to the "permanent government" folks in real estate, finance, etc who don't love him but have accepted him as part of the landscape. I don't have direct knowledge, but it's widely expected that he's going to be rewarded with basically whatever he wants, which could be a First Deputy Mayor, Chief of Staff, or a Senior Advisor role.
I will say, most people in NYC probably didn't know Brad Lander prior to endorsing Mamdani, despite being a Citywide elected. However, I know people who know him personally, and they said the level of appreciation he's received after ensuring Cuomo did not win has been unexpected and he's having the time of his life.
Aren't deputy mayors pretty invisible compared to House members?
I'd much rather be the one that all major decisions get run through in the biggest city in the country vs being a freshman legislator in a congress that mostly names post offices and lurches from crisis to crisis and barely making big policy decisions aside from one or two major bills at the beginning of a presidency. The job of congressmember is terrible if you want to make actual impact in this environment.
That's true, and Lander might not mind being fairly invisible but working hard for the people, as helping make the city better for the people is what he's devoted to.
I'd like to see someone more progressive representing my district, but I haven't seen any evidence that Goldman is not in a strong position, so I would be surprised if he faces strong opposition, and I hope you're not jumping to any conclusions about foreign policy being the main reason for Mamdani's primary victory. This is still New York City, or to quote the late Jesse Jackson, Sr., "Hymietown."
Ummm, the rumors of Rev. Jackson's demise might be exaggerated. Jesse Jr's political career is dead but his father is still around. In looking him up (I don't completely trust my memory these days) I saw that JJ Sr. used to be the shadow senator from DC. I had completely forgotten about that.
I thought that NYC was "Jaime-town" because of the large Puerto Rican community there... /s
I apologize for accidentally seeming to hasten his death, and having now looked him up, I see that he's much younger than I would have thought: only 83.
No I don't think Mamdani won due to foreign policy at all.
I have trouble seeing Goldman going down. Yes, there could be a more progressive member of congress here, but so much of this district is more MSNBC than DSA (Park Slope, Windsor Terrace, BK Heights, Carroll Gardens--all peak resistance areas). If they threw Bushwick and Williamsburg into this district, I feel like Councilmember Sandy Nurse could probably make this a real run. The others mentioned for this seat (Hanif, Aviles) I think are kinda meh personally. I also don't think Yuh-line Niou is poised for a comeback, but could be wrong.
I’m interested in a longshot proposition: retaking the Senate in 2026. What are the best strategies? Are they all state-by-state and individual – or are there over-arching joint strategies that might move the needle? Also interested in any meaningful statistical analysis that might reveal how realistic or illusory my dream of seeing Democrats retake the Senate in the Midterms is.
Democrats hold all their seats and win Maine, North Carolina, Ohio (assuming Brown runs) and one of Nebraska, Iowa or Texas.
That is, take all the seats from Harris states, plus 11 out of 14 seats from the 7 swing states. That is still a minority.
and Democrats already hold 10 of the 14.
I'd add Alaska there too Sullivan has never won that overwhelmingly and even with carve outs in the BBB Alaska will likely take some punches.
I’d agree if Petola runs.
I don't know in the first round of the special election Peltola only got 10% and quickly turned it around. I think other Dems could emerge though of all the Alaska races I selfishly hope she runs for Senate, second choice would be House.
I suspect we will get North Cakalaky, and that's all.
But maybe I am just in a bad mood (until football starts).
Even that, is not a gimme.
I'm going to need *ALL* the drugs if even Gov. Cooper can't win a federal race in this environment. The right's willful hit job on the biotech industry (very, very key to NC's economy and growth) alone should make a GOP candidate unelectable.
Thom Tillis is a hack, but a connected hack. He saw the writing on the wall.
Brown isn’t running
When did he say that?
A lot has to go right.
First we need to hold our current seats (by no means guaranteed in purple states) in open MI and Ossoff in GA. MN, NH, NJ, NM and VA should be easy holds with blue leaning states and/or strong incumbents.
Next we must flip the 2 seats in ME and NC. The latter is looking more likely than the former atm, but there’s a long way to go for other potential candidates to jump in for Maine. That gets us to 51-49. This is where things start to get really uphill for Democrats.
TX is the next best opening, but only if Paxton defeats Cornyn in the GOP primary (pretty likely barring Trump endorsing Cornyn). Democrats haven’t won a statewide race in 2 decades, so this isn’t an easy task, even against Paxton.
The 1 after that is probably Iowa. Not entirely sure if it’s better for Ernst to run again or for it to be an open seat, but Democrats in Iowa smell blood because Rob Sand is running for Governor and several strong candidates are running for Senate in addition to the multiple running to flip the 3 Iowa congressional districts. Plus special election shifts have been stronger there than anywhere else.
The next tier are likely only in play if former rep Mary Peltola and former Senator Sherrod Brown run for the seats in AK and OH. Maybe AK would still be in play without her and a strong Democrat from the legislature runs, but Ohio certainly would not.
Then there’s the wildcard in NE-Sen. Dan Osborn running as an independent has aligned himself with Trump on the border wall, China and is fiscally conservative. That gives him enough crossover populist credibility to pull in a large number of Trump/GOP voters that other “Democrats running as Independents” in red states weren’t able to get.
The only other races on the peripheral would be appointed, yet to be elected Ashley Moody in FL, purpling KS and stubborn margin SC. All of which I’d say are Safe R right now. So to sum it up: We need to hold GA/MI. Then flip ME/NC. Then win 2 of AK, IA, NE, OH or TX. Just 1 seat, would still give GOP control with Vance as VP. I wouldn’t even bet $1 on winning the majority honestly.
Any thoughts on how Ronny Jackson running for TX Senate would shake things up? https://www.semafor.com/article/07/25/2025/ronny-jackson-meets-with-white-house-amid-senate-speculation
Depends on Trump and depends on if the GOP primary becomes a clown car (if Hunt, Jackson, Paxton, Cornyn all run, or maybe more). Tons of moving factors in the race, but as of now it’s Paxton vs Cornyn, so it’s probably better to assume the field right now will be what it’s like in the end unless/until that changes with a candidate/s announcement/s.
It’s better than trying to game out what a potential future race looks like, which is quite literally impossible. If Ronny Jackson runs, it’s likely an entirely different race, because there will almost certainly need to be a runoff and Trump is the most likely to reward his doctor for lying for him during his first term than anyone else in the race. Too many variables to predict outcomes though in this hypothetical.
Currently, the GOP has 53 seats in the Senate whereas the Democratic Party has 47 (including Angus King and Bernie Sanders caucusing) That means Democrats would need to win a total of 4 Senate races and lose none in order to regain control of the Senate.
The following races present the best opportunities for being flipped or at least have signs of potential swingy ness:
AK
IA
ME
NC
TX
I am not taking into account NE if Dan Osborn wins again or the OH Special Election race in this case.
Actually, I was taking into account Angus King and Bernie Sanders caucusing for Democrats but I misread 45 as consisting of all of the Senators on the Democrats’ side with a different course of information.
I corrected the error in my original comment. 53 GOP, 47 DEM
Wikipedia puts everything together better than other pages with the information I need.
Great, I’ve now deleted my comment.
Mamdani’s Platform Very Similar to Michael Bloomberg’s?
This nugget from Political Wire raised my eyebrows this morning. Thought I would share.
“As Mamdani reshapes the city’s political map, some experts told ABC News a striking parallel is emerging. Behind the labels of ‘socialist’ and ‘technocrat,’ both men share aligned goals:
– taxing the rich during crises,
– promoting expansive transit ideas, and
– bold plans to bring fresh food to low-income communities.”
“Still, experts said, even when policies overlap, most New Yorkers do not see them as similar.”
https://politicalwire.com/2025/07/26/mamdanis-platform-is-very-similar-to-bloombergs/
If Mamdami wins it'll be really cruicial to see who he picks for the upper levels of his administration. Adams has been a horrible mayor but many of his deputy mayors (the ones who left en masse a few months ago) were excellent. He should bring back Maria Torres-Springer. Not only is she an incredibly effective administrator, it'll quell some of the "He's a radical communist talk" while bringing in someone who can execute his vision.
Bloomberg really raised taxes on the rich? He was known for favoring developers of luxury housing.
If Bloomberg really wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy, he would have lobbied Democrats a long time ago.
This applies nationally, not just in NYC.
Raising property taxes, which is what Bloomberg did, is not really a tax on the wealthy, since those are usually passed on to tenants in the form of higher rents. Mamdami is proposing a tax on incomes over $1,000,000. Saying the proposals are "similar" is rather misleading, I feel.
Well, there are rich people who live in their own rather-expensive houses and thus do pay those property taxes. That said, I largely agree with your post.
Yeah, my point is that the income surcharge is really a tax exclusively on the wealthy, while property taxes have wide impacts, even if you don't pay them directly.
One can share broad goals with wildly divergent methods for achieving them
The methods part is where it gets sticky.
If Democratic states are thinking of redrawing their districts to counteract an even crazier Republican gerrymander in Texas, then Maine should consider doing it too. Even though Dems hold both seats in Maine, ME-02 is very vulnerable, having voted for Trump by 9% in 2024 and with Jared Golden winning re-election by less than 1%.
2024 election data for Maine was recently added into DRA, so here's how it could be done:
https://davesredistricting.org/join/7191a680-5ea8-4f30-a7a4-33b2b0d428d6
The 1st district moves north to take in the rural, Republican (in the Trump era) counties of Oxford, Franklin, and Somerset, as well as Golden's home county of Androscoggin. In exchange for those areas, it loses basically all of the coastal areas beyond Portland (but not Portland itself, which remains in the 1st). The result is a district that, while not as blue as the existing version, still voted for Harris by a 55-43 margin, so it should be safe for Democrats.
The 2nd district gains the counties of the Mid-Coast, which are the only counties in Maine to swing Democratic in 2024. It also picks up Brunswick and some well-educated coastal suburbs of Portland, which used to be only slightly Democratic but are now deep blue. And it loses the counties described above that are picked up by the 1st. The result is a district that voted for Harris by a 50-48 margin. The current ME-02 voted for Trump by 9%, so this represents an 11% shift to the left for ME-02.
The irony of this map is that Pingree lives in the 2nd district on it, while Golden lives in the 1st. But considering that the 1st is still substantially bluer than the 2nd, and that (thanks to Maine's small population) Pingree and Golden are both well-known figures all across the state, I highly doubt they'd switch districts. If Golden were to be given a district that Harris won, I think his voting record would quickly shift to the left - he was a perfectly standard Democrat in the legislature when he represented a Dem-leaning district in Lewiston, and his more recent voting record in Congress is more due to political expediency in his Republican-leaning district than actual deeply-held beliefs.
Unfortunately two thirds of the votes are needed to pass a redistricting plan in Maine.
Impressive hypotheticals – and certainly the first time I hear such a proposal. I don’t think it can or will happen.
It's really bizarre how so many states, that just so happen to vote Democratic, have extra rules and regulations about redistricting, such as requiring a 2/3 majority or specifically banning mid-decade redistricting, while states that just so happen to vote Republican don't have those regulations.
It's time for Democrats to level the playing field. They should start introducing bills that would make the redistricting process in Democratic states exactly the same as in Texas - whatever Texas's process happens to be. Bills like that would ensure a level playing field for redistricting.
In this day and age, I think it’s Dem vs GOP. Republicans in Ohio have also gone out of their way to gerrymander as much as possible.
Wisconsin too
It's because Democrats have morals and standards related to good governance, while the GOP used to have these, but decided they were useless during the age of Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich, when the goal of governing ceased to be governance and became power mongering
A caution for people on this board to stop assuming 2026 will be a Democratic wave: https://politicalwire.com/2025/07/25/democrats-get-lowest-rating-from-voters-in-35-years/
"The new...Wall Street Journal poll...finds that 63% of voters hold an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party..."
“That is a far weaker assessment than voters give to either President Trump or the Republican Party.”
Remember when there was definitely going to be a Republican wave in 2022, until there wasn't? A bit of caution is called for.
Did they say why? I think the reasons for such hatred are important to know. It could just be anger at the leadership, or something worse.
The rest of the quoted Wall Street Journal is paywalled, so I don't know.
When I clicked, a video about the poll played for about three minutes. There was not a lot of "why," but a discussion of what the poll found. IIRC: Dems lead generic by 3 but led by 8 at this point in 2017. On major issues, voters preferred Rs. And registration favored Dems in 2017 but now favors R's.
That’s because millions of Democrats are down on the party’s leadership, for good reason. Doesn’t mean they won’t vote Democratic in November 2026.
Yeah the counterpoint being I don't think the Republicans were particularly popular in 10 or 14.
Oh they were even less popular than Dems those years.
Does anyone have figures for this at the ready?
https://news.gallup.com/poll/24655/party-images.aspx
Thanks. Do we believe Gallup, though?
Exactly. If someone were to poll me I'd say that I disapprove of Democrats but I'll vote for Democrats down the ballot in 26.
I'm always up for caution on future elections, especially ones over a year out.
That said my worry for 2026 isn't our party's unpopularity. For me that's a problem that is more likely to be an issue in 2028 if it has not been resolved. My worry for 2026 is all the things that have not happened yet that we do not know about, and the way that the media is being rather openly corrupted into bending further towards republicans.
We would have suffered a bloodbath in 2022 if not for Dobbs happening not long before. Is there an event coming that will do the same for 2026? I hope not, but we cannot know.
Anger at the party in power over any other factor is the 1 consistent part about election results since Trump was elected. Hard to bet against that happening again. 2016 anger at the party in power. 2018 anger at the party in power. 2020 anger at the party in power. 2022 anger at the party in power (blunted by Dobbs, but GOP won the House). 2024 anger at the party in power.
We went through a million news stories and scandals over those years. Nothing changed anything (except maybe you can argue Dobbs did). Do I think that’s a guarantee to happen again in 2026? Of course not. But the average voter will likely vote Democratic in order to put a muzzle on Trump’s chaos, regardless of how badly they think of our party. He’s disapproved of on every issue that he won 2024 on, sometimes by massive margins.
The average voter likes the idea of Trump as president rather than experiencing the reality of what he actually does in office. Of course he could get more popular, or maybe even worse with Epstein fallout. There’s no one saying it’ll happen for sure, but I do think it’s likely.
Have there not been people here who've been stating outright that it will be a wave?
I don’t recall reading anyone on here saying for sure it’s going to be a wave, just speculation on seats in play if there is a wave, but I don’t read every digest and every comment, so maybe I missed them?
Could be. It could also be that I've seen at least one comment that assumed a more Democratic electorate in 2026 than in 2024 with "lol" and that my impression is that an assumption of some level of Democratic wave is common here and in the media, even if no guarantee is given.
I mean, I don’t think a “lol” response is someone saying it’s guaranteed instead of a snarky reply, that seems more like an assumption on your part. I think a Democratic leaning year is the most likely outcome for the reasons I outlined above, so it would make sense to me that was what the average Democratic voter or media pundit would believe.
But I think the difference between our perspectives is that I don’t consider talking about the most likely result as people guaranteeing anything. I also don’t think an assumption means a prediction.
Everyone starts their own views on upcoming elections at a certain level of assumption, it’s kind of impossible not to. Does anyone here not look at previous race results or candidate performances to guide their opinions or predictions on future races? If you do, you’re making an assumption that will matter.
So is it worth criticizing someone for having an assumption different than your own? Just like if someone here assumed the GOP would hold a trifecta after 2026 (definitely possible!). We all have our own beliefs and opinions derived from our own unique set of experiences.
The comment I was referring to did contain a specific assumption, as I said, and was not just "lol" with no other remark. Yes, we assume opposing candidates won't win safe districts, but otherwise, I try -not- to assume anything.
I would add to your note of caution that the R's are swimming money while the D's are struggling.
And Trump himself controls a stunningly-large and unheard-of chunk of that money. He’s using it to keep an iron-fist control of his MAGA-Republican Party. The upside for us is that he is likely to back a number of extreme candidates that prove to be unelectable.
Lot of caveats about that aspect. One of them ArcticStones pointed out. A few main factors I want to highlight: 1. Democrats have a lot of primaries coming up next year since we’re challenging more seats so I’m paying more attention to what individual candidates are raising while the campaign arms keep an eye on adding more seats to their target list. 2. We don’t know how many of the donations GOP campaign committees like the RNC and the NRCC raised are max donations from wealthier donors versus smaller regular donors. Last time I checked the NRCC outraised the DCCC by less than $3 million more in June. Not insignificant but not impressive. If Democratic campaign arms are raising more from smaller donors while wealthier donors are holding off for now, I’m ok with that. Which leads me to… 3. Once the DNC releases its autopsy report on how and where they need to spend money, I think the bigger donors will open their check books. Harris raised over a billion dollars and still lost. Even though Harris only had a 100 days to campaign and kept it closer, I can’t blame some bigger donors for wanting to hold tight and let the DNC make the case on how and where they can use their resources to win. 4. We’re still winning elections and surpassing 2017 voting levels. Especially 20+ Trump districts. Voters in those polls can claim all they want that Democrats are the Party of the Elites but the Party of the Elites sure have been winning big in some pretty red Trump areas. See Pennsylvania and Iowa and Nebraska. Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election saw a big Democratic turnout and a huge shift in Independent voters narrowly backing Trump in 2024 to overwhelming going to Democrat Susan Crawford. And this was after Brad Schimel decided to say “fuck it, I’m not going to run as an impartial jurist, I’m going to run as a die hard MAGA guy and hopefully Elon Musk will buy the election for me”.
I recall back in 2005-2006 there was similar sentiment towards the Democratic Party then.
After John Kerry lost the presidential election to Bush Jr back in 2004, Democrats were going through hell out of shock that Bush Jr won re-election.
Democrats were fired up about stopping Bush’s plans to cut social security but the base for Democratic members in the House and Senate were pushing their Reps and Senators to stop the Iraq War. Rep. David Obey, a notoriously liberal Representative in WI and who voted against the Iraq War was screamed at by constituents over not doing enough to stop the war. He said “we don’t have the votes!”
I see similar dynamics in Trump’s 2nd term as in Bush Jr’s term. And back in 2005-2005, the economy was growing.
True but the Supreme Court also overturned Roe v Wade and Republicans nominated some of the worst candidates in 2022 while Democrats nominated stronger candidates and incumbents. Right now, Jon Ossoff and the open Governor races in Wisconsin and Kansas are the main races next year I’m the most worried about while I’m feeling a hell of a lot better about North Carolina’s Senate race with Cooper jumping in. We just need a clear strong candidate against Collins in Maine but we have time.
We've had 3 seemingly strong candidates against Collins in a row, and each one was defeated.
I don't think anyone counted Bellows as a strong candidate ca 2014. She was someone with a background that made many of us (me included) think she would be a fantastic senator, but that's not the same thing.
She wasn't a nobody, and she was utterly trounced! She lost 68.46-31.50% per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_United_States_Senate_election_in_Maine and didn't win a single county!
Not being a nobody and being a strong candidate are different things.
Not the same thing because it involves scandals, but to get the nobody/strong candidate difference across: All of us here think Paxton will be the easier republican to beat in Texas' senate race, but he's far from a nobody.
As a general point because I know what your overall point here is: Collins isn't unbeatable simply because she was won convincingly and consistently in the past. If that was the case there would be a senator Bayh from Indiana right now. Going into 2024 people talked the same about Brown. Nelson won by double digits in 2012 before losing in 2018!
History is littered with candidates who won until they didn't, and even more littered with those that very well might have lost if they had not opted to retire.
That doesn't mean Collins will lose. This will be a tough slog of a senate race and until/unless we get a strong candidate I would consider her the favorite to win. That's not the same thing as her being certain to win. History is informative, not determinative.
I agree. But we agree that this is not a tossup, and as you know, I would not bet against her. I'll be very happy if she loses, though, because another Republican is fairly unlikely to flip that seat back in the foreseeable future unless there's a pretty big wave.
True but different scenarios and different versions of Collins. 2008 she was still moderate and popular enough to win. 2014 a great year for Republicans. 2020 was a Presidential election where she voted against Amy Coney Barrett and relied enough on Trump winning the 2nd District. Ranked Choice Voting kicked off in Maine in 2020 but it’s debatable how much of a role that really played in Collins bid.
How do you know she isn't still perceived of as moderate enough to win?
That I can’t define per se but I do know that last batch of polling showed her unpopular with everyone. Republicans don’t think she’s MAGA enough and Democrats and Independents think she’s too MAGA. I covered that a few months ago when PPP released their poll: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/3/25/2312463/-ME-Sen-New-PPP-Poll-Shows-Majority-Of-Maine-Voters-Are-Very-Concerned-With-Sen-Susan-Collins-R
Morning Consult’s mid July poll showed her at 38/54 approval rating: https://www.newsweek.com/susan-collins-dealt-new-polling-blow-ahead-2026-midterms-2100479
I’m not worried about GA, especially considering Trump won GA by a smaller margin in 2024 vs back in 2016.
This doesn’t mean that Ossoff will win re-election by a larger margin of victory than back in the 2020 runoff election. However, 2024 really didn’t bring much movement to the GOP at the presidential level in GA. And when you consider that the CDC and other federal government agencies are in GA, this is a problem the GOP won’t be able to spin.
I consider you too sanguine. Trump did win the state.
Cautiously optimistic is my mindset about GA, not overly optimistic.
2016 - Trump won GA by 5.1% points
2024 - Trump won GA by 2.2% points.
The question we should ask is:
How is it that GA didn’t swing hard to the right in 2024 but FL and TX did?
Also, in 2024 AZ went more to the right than GA did by just a few % points. Ruben Gallego was still able to get elected to the Senate in a similar margin of victory as did Mark Kelly in both his Senate elections.
I am not saying Jon Ossoff will coast to being re-elected to the Senate. However, right now with Brian Kemp having declined to challenge Ossoff, the GOP needs a change in trajectory for them in order to get momentum. Right now, I’m just not seeing it.
Remember, we’re taking about Trump being POTUS and rampant anti-GOP and Trump sentiment. Lots of blue in GA these days.
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/georgia
https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2024/georgia/?r=0
https://www.semafor.com/article/07/25/2025/ronny-jackson-meets-with-white-house-amid-senate-speculation
"The Republican congressman, a potential candidate for Texas’s already-ugly Senate GOP primary, discussed what he’s hearing about that race as well as the broader congressional map with White House officials..."
"[Wesley] Hunt has also met with White House aides this year."
Also:
"Trump isn’t letting past perceived transgressions stop him from endorsing lawmakers..."
Are Jackson or Hunt defeatable? Less than Paxton, I can imagine, but at all?
Definitely less than Paxton. Whether they can be defeated depends on whether or how much anger there is against the Republican Party in general, so my not-particularly-informed take would be that there's good reason for skepticism, but it's not impossible.
Definitely less than Paxton. More than Cornyn though.
Ha.
https://bsky.app/profile/girlsreallyrule.bsky.social/post/3luv5cuuunk2f
So much for “Christian family values”.
It’s always the ones you most expect
Couldn't have happened to a more evil person.
Perhaps Ryan Walters was merely looking at Renaissance paintings or classical Greek statues? You know, the sort of stuff he’d never allow to be printed in an Oklahoma school book!
/s
On the other hand, it wouldn’t surprise me if this creep is a long-standing subscriber to the American Journal of Gynecological Photography.*
.
*) Usually better known by its multiple online synonyms.
https://archive.ph/83Wkl
Will it be Auchincloss vs. Markey in 2026?
We asked three opinion writers to weigh in.
It's going to be Markey vs Auchincloss. As someone who's doesn't like Auchincloss's politics at all, I don't feel positive about Markey's chances.
Markey beat Kennedy, he can take care of Auchincloss. A classic example of why age, by itself, should not be disqualifying.
If Markey defeats a Kennedy and an Auchincloss in successive cycles, maybe he'll defeat a Skakel in 2032.
Ugh. Markey really shouldn't be running again but Auchincloss would be such a downgrade. I'd be willing to stomach some level of downgrade to get new blood into our offices but not to this degree in such a blue state.
I wonder if Markey retiring would be ideal. Then another progressive could run (Pressley or Wu, for one -- I've heard both be floated as possibilities.)
Wu is running for reelection now. I cannot imagine her immediately jumping over to run for senate. It'd look really bad for her. Plus, I imagine mayor is a much more enjoyable job than senator.
Pressley could run and would be a great candidate. She'd need to up her fundraising substantially but that's doable. Might be too late at this stage for her to raise enough to be able to survive the money bomb that Auchincloss will presumably have in his favor, but I don't know.
Both Wu and Pressley are sort of Warren acolytes in the state.
Pressley's my pick as well. Interesting fact -- she'd be the first Squad member in the Senate.
My other fear is that AIPAC will try to intervene on Auchincloss's behalf, with or without Markey.
Boomer politicians refusing to retire seems to be a problem across the political spectrum. Do we really want another senator serving into his mid 80's who very well might not be able to serve out his term?
Since the alternative is Auchincloss, yes.
If he were to retire, then the alternative could be much better.
Auchincloss is more like to be the alternative in that event. And harder to get “much better” than Markey.
Sure, but no-one can force him to do so.
Senator Markey is one of the best, imho. The key question is, indeed, who is likely to replace him – and, by extension, whether his replacement leaves a problematic hole to fill.
I assume Auchincloss is related to Jackie Kennedy Onassis..correct?
His grandfather was a first cousin once removed to Jackie's stepfather, per Wikipedia.
not much of a relative
As one of those writers noted, Auchincloss would have to give up his seat to run (which hopefully would be filled by an upgrade). So then when he (hopefully) loses to Markey, that's a win-win deal.
"when he loses to Markey"; It would really awesome *if* that happens.
Random question -- if Auchincloss runs for Senate, who might run for Auchincloss's seat?
Jesse Mermell, the runner-up in the primary Auchincloss won in 2020.
I suspect Markey could end up retiring rather than face Auchincloss. Ideally, we'd see Pressley v. Auchincloss, and Pressley winning.
He’s raising money and showing off endorsements.
GA-Sen, Kemp’s not running but he is working behind the scenes to get Vince Dooley to run against Ossoff: https://georgiarecorder.com/2025/07/27/kemp-push-to-reshape-senate-race-comes-into-focus-as-king-exits/
Derek Dooley. Vince was his father. And a Democrat.
Considering Derek Dooley A) coached at Tennessee and B) sucked at it, I can’t say I’m totally sure who exactly this is meant to appeal to.
If Herschel Walker was increasingly irrelevant to a state that has changed dramatically since 1980, then Derek Dooley is 10x more so. Walker at least was *the* definitive Bulldog up until 2021-22
Tbh, Kemp sometimes has really weird ideas of picking candidates to endorse, such as a certain billionaire trying to fake a redneck.
There are a lot of politicians who are themselves talented campaigners/operators with zero ability to build a machine of their own. Kemp strikes me as one of them
Vince passed away in 2022, at the ripe age of 90.
Would have been 94 had he run in 2026. LOL.
Roy Cooper didn’t officially announce his Senate run at the Dems Unity dinner in Raleigh last night, but he was all smiles, he heavily hinted at it and had his attack points against Republicans ready.
The most telling thing was him saying “stand up if you’re running for office” and after that he replied “well, I’m not sitting down am I?”
Well, that's pretty explicit. Maybe he wants a rollout ad?
His announcement is supposedly tomorrow.
And IL Gov. JB Pritzker was the keynote speaker at that NC Democratic Unity dinner. Hmmm... ;)
(Also, Wiley Nickel to be dropping out now)
Anyone else here really tired of Politico and their "Dems in Disarray" crap? This is how they put the new poll with Dems down:
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/26/democrats-approval-rating-poll-00478141?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
"Democrats tumble in new poll"
"“The Democratic brand is so bad that they don’t have the credibility to be a critic of Trump or the Republican Party,” Anzalone told the newspaper. “Until they reconnect with real voters and working people on who they’re for and what their economic message is, they’re going to have problems.”"
Curiously missing from Politico's piece is the fact that this is where the GOP was in 2010, as was noted elsewhere in this thread. The GOP then won 63 seats in that race. Also missing was any mention of anger from Democrats at their own leaders.
I am still concerned that the Democrats are doing so poorly but I'm not at the point where I'm giving up yet. I think Politico is being very one-sided and not taking important details into consideration.
I think this was addressed on Friday. A lot of Democrats are down on their party for good reason. Doesn’t mean they won’t vote for Democratic candidates when the time comes.
I know it was addressed, I was more making a point that Politico has a habit of doing this, making "Dems in Disarray" stories that omit key details.
Politico has been in existence since 2007. They've only been pushing that narrative for about 18 consecutive years.
Except for rare occasional articles that someone points out, I stopped reading Politico that year they discontinued readers’ comments.
Buried deep in the WSJ poll is Dems leading the generic ballot by 3 points despite their favorability being in the toilet. So that tells you the metric is useless but the media keeps eating it up. Hopefully solid wins in VA/NJ this fall puts the 'Dems are doomed' narrative to bed.
Politico didn't mention this, from the latest CNN poll: 72% of Democrats are "extremely motivated" to vote in 2026. Only 50% of Republicans are.
https://x.com/IAPolls2022/status/1949450323174846615
In 2026, I would much rather be us than them – not least because of the huge enthusiasm gap that Mike in MD points out. Yes, I know a lot can happen between now and then, but so far it’s looking very promising.
WI-Gov: Scott Walker not running after all: https://www.wisn.com/article/scott-walker-says-he-will-not-run-for-wisconsin-governor-in-2026/65521561
He knows in a D favorable midterm, he will LOSE again.