I am interested in any Trump +10, +15, or beyond seat that may be vulnerable. In the interest of giving us all seats to watch on Election Night, I’ll ask: which of the seats described might be most likely to become a surprise flip/hold? Who might be most likely to pull off an upset? Includes Senate, House, even Governor and other state and local races if you want. Thoughts?
No one is considering WA-5 as a competitive seat even though it only voted for Trump by 11 points and the Republican got under 50% in the combined primary. I think we’ll win it.
Baumgartner is a former GOP U.S. Senate nominee, county Treasurer, and long time state Senator from the area. Conroy was the local Democratic Party chair with an impressive bio in things WA-05 doesn't give a toss about. Don't think it's any more complicated than that.
Baumgartner is a freshman (albeit one who has been in other elected offices in the area since 2010), freshmen tend to be more vulnerable to waves. Last cycle Conroy got just 1.2 percentage points less in the general than the combined non-GOP share of the top-two primary vote. This cycle, Baumgartner got 47.4% in the August 2026 primary with no other Republicans on the ballot. However, besides an assortment of Democrats, this cycle there were a number of "Independent Party of Washington" voters who combined for 18% of the vote, in a phenomenon not seen last cycle. It remains to be seen whether Conroy can consolidate that vote, or whether many folks in WA-05 disillusioned with the GOP will be unable to overcome their longstanding reluctance to give their votes to someone with a D next to their name.
CO-04 seems like one to watch that isn't on anybody's big board. Boebert's scandal, Marx at the top of the ticket, and the district shifting slightly toward Dems in 2024 all suggest to me an insane upset is possible.
She underperformed Trump pretty significantly in the district 2 years ago and her opponent has outraised her by a factor of 10. She could be legitimately vulnerable
The last time a Democrat represented the 4th was back in 2008 with Betsy Markey, which arguably was close to matching the 2006 midterms. Even with Southern and rural realignment aside, there was quite a few very conservative districts that Democrats managed to win in 2008, despite McCain otherwise winning in them. Most of those Democrats eventually did lose reelection alongside most Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats and many seemingly disappeared from politics and the media.
I wouldn't exactly put my predictions of the three states in a straight line. It's more of a Venn diagram. In terms of % chance of an outright victory, Minnesota is probably still the most likely, even if I think Flanagan is most likely to underperform to the point of having a reasonable chance of losing. But I think Turek and Hamilton have a strong likelihood of overperforming to the point of having a reasonable chance of winning.
And based on the full-blown panic Ashley Hinson's campaign seems to be in, I think she genuinely might be the underdog right now in Iowa.
Also, the fact that both Iowa and Kansas as states have a large farming industry. This may be a big factor as to how the Senate races in both states are faring out.
I am a bit disappointed that the Democrats aren't performing better in the governor race in Kansas. Yea sure no party in the past decade has historically won the governor's seat for consecutive beyond that of the maximum possible term of a sitting governor. Maybe it's also the lack of polling or the lack of a Libertarian candidate, but I guess we will see how both the senate and governor race in Kansas play out.
I also hope that a decent candidate is running in Kansas' 2nd. Paul Davis came within less than a point of winning it in 2018 and it was last won by a Democrat in 2006 by Nancy Boyda. Ironically she was among the few Democrats that lost in the 2008 wave year.
Don Coover, D candidate in KS-2: farmer, veterinarian, and veteran - inside elections said interesting profile, but like Cook and Sabato, rates it solid R (for now). FiftyPlusOne estimates only 3% of Coover winning. He had raised about 750k thru 2nd q, about half the incumbent, Trump +20 district. BlueVoterGuide reports endorsements from KS AFL-CIO, UAW, local Indivisible, and Committee to Protect Health Care.
In 2018, that seat was probably only as close as it was because the Republican was hit by credible carpetbagging and lying-about-resume scandals. The Democrat running there is fairly well funded but has no previous political or campaign experience.
In 2018, voters there were still blaming Obama for everything wrong in their lives. I won't say the scales have fallen from their eyes, but I think they are a lot more open to blaming Trump at this point.
I actually agree with you. In 2018, the economy was also better, and the things Trump did were a bit more tame (although that isn’t saying much) than today’s ICE raids, Greenland and Canada annexation threats, trade war with the latter, open attempts (and not just threats) to destroy the free press, etc.
Yes, under a 2026-like environment that seat would have flipped in 2018. However, Schmidt does not have Watkins' weaknesses, and this a Trump +20 seat with a not-super-remarkable challenger. The generic ballot does not suggest a 20 point swing is possible at this point in time, in what is functionally a generic R vs generic D race.
And I know I said this in 2006 and 2018 as well, with mixed results, but I think MN-01 is a sleeper race to keep an eye on. It's impossible to overstate how unlikable Brad Finstad is and how much of a cipher he is. He has zero natural appeal for the population centers of the district in a cycle where the wind isn't at his back. MN-01 has a relatively similar demographic profile as WI-03 and especially IA-02. If those districts are considered part of the battleground, I feel like MN-01 is going to be as well.
I am catching up on podcasts this morning. Greg Sargent interviewed Iowa Democratic Party chair Rita Hart. he thinks 3 of the 4 House seats in IA could be in play:
So in the several-month period before the August primary election, the Missouri Secretary of State was well aware that conducting the August primary election with the 2025 map carried significant risks. The Secretary nonetheless chose to proceed with the 2025 map for the primary.
I don't understand why the MO Supreme Court didn't rule before the primary. I know the judiciary likes to take their time, but presumably they're aware of the real world. In Massachusetts our Supreme Judicial Court makes a point of ruling on anything related to the upcoming election a couple months ahead of time.
It wan’t “ripe” until he certified the signatures. I don’t recall if they tried to force him to do it before the voting started for the primary by filing a writ of mandamus.
Back in May, the state supreme court rejected a lawsuit seeking to block H.B. 1 while the secretary of state’s certification process was still ongoing. Had the court found a way to rule on this conflict at that stage, it could have moved the primary, for example, or set a hard deadline for certifying the referendum petition. In a world of election hardball, courts should look hard at how they can use their powers flexibly to protect voters.
I think SC1 could flip, like OK5. But SC7 could be far closer than expected. Fry made himself a target with his Senate flirtation. Dems in the district are fired up.
Just read it. One thing that hasn't changed is that every time I read a George Will column I think that he didn't get pasted one often enough in elementary school.
CA-34/WATN - Former AZ-7 congressional candidate Deja Foxx, who now hosts the Deja's Download publication here on Substack, interviewed CA-34 progressive Democratic challenger Angela Gonzales-Torres for her publication.
A lot of former political candidates have launched Substack publications, but Deja's Download is one of my favorite publications on here by a former political candidate.
Next question, related to the previous but not exclusive to it. Can anyone on the board name some specific candidates that I should donate to, in swing or reach races? I’m thinking of giving some political donations but I have to watch my budget a little. I am planning to donate to the DLCC already, but are there any candidates in particular who could use a donation? Could be any race.
Mitchell Berman (WI-01) may be a good pick. He's underfunded compared to most Democrats running for similarly competitive seats, and unlike some reach seats, he might be able to hold the seat after this year.
I suggest Lindsay James in IA-2. The race has been moving to the left all year from Likely R to Lean R to a mix of same and toss-up. I believe in synergy and Iowa seems the place, what with competitive races for Governor, Senator, and two other house races which also have moved toward the left all year and are now either toss-up or lean-D. (I think they are lean-D and IA-2 is a toss-up.) In 2Q, she had out-raised her R opponent 885K to 588K but as of 6/30, she trailed in COH 895K to 795K.
Worth noting IA-1 and IA-3, which are expected to flip to Democrats, also went blue in 2018. You know what else went blue in 2018? IA-2. And all of that was without winning the governor's race or even the Senate race, which seem to either favor Democrats (Sand) or at least be a tossup (Turek).
I mentioned him a few weeks ago, but Don Leonard, running against Mike Carey in Ohio. He has a shot and would be, I think, the only member of Congress with an urban planning background.
"Kaptur began her career in urban planning, working as an urban planner on the Toledo-Lucas County Plan Commissions from 1969 to 1975."
I probably will give to Leonard though. IIRC as an added bonus he ran to the left of his primary opponent, and I believe this seat is more friendly to us than other more red districts in Ohio.
-Bob Harvie in PA-1. Yes, he's down in the polls, but I appreciate the analysis done the other day by someone from the district that shows that Brian Fitzpatrick usually underperforms his poll margins on election day. Fitzpatrick +9 in a poll probably means something around Fitzpatrick +1-2 on November 3.
-Shannon Taylor in VA-1 and Sean McCann in MI-4. Both of these seats were narrowly won by Trump in 2024 despite being won with big margins by their longtime Republican incumbents. I think they should flip like the rest of the swing seats in their states.
-Raymond Smith in NC-3.
-Pia Dandiya in FL-22. She needs it more than Eliott Rodriguez as it's a closer seat.
-Johnny Garcia in TX-35. Cuellar and Gonzalez as well as Pulido are looking like they're in good shape to hold/flip their seats, but this seat had similar margins in 2024 but is not getting as nearly as much attention. It should be.
-Sam Forstag in MT-1. I'm bullish on him, but most forecasters have it as Lean R.
-Skip anyone in Colorado other than Manny Rutinel. No offense to Alex Keloff, Eileen Laubacher or Jessica Killin, but I don't see it even with Marx.
I was the one who analyzed the Fitzpatrick poll throughout the years he was up, so I appreciate the compliment on the analysis I did. I looked and it's in last week's Weekly Open Thread. But Harvie is definitely someone who you should be donating to because he has been campaigning nonstop and has done a lot of online videos that go pretty well, especially the one where he had an anniversary cake for Fitzpatrick's only town hall, which was back in 2017.
Agreed, but Black and Hispanic voters are too low as are Dem voters, unless you assume all independents vote dem. That said, 6% say they'll vote for other, and maybe they will because they don't have an allegiance to Darline but 6% to the Libertarians and Constitutional parties seems quite high to me. I'd guess half that 6% reverts to Graham and 2/3 of the 9% of undecided which would make it 52%-45% -- a typical SC result. I'd love to be wrong, but past is prologue here until there evidence otherwise.
Unlikely but I can see it. Collins has a sticky hold in Maine. She should have lost 6 years ago but won easily. If she survives it will be due to constituent services and the image as a moderate. I think Jackson will win because of the year, but she could win.
Hinson has spent six years doing everything Trump wants. Iowa voters are hurting and turning on the GOP. In a state that has been very red and pro-Trump recently, she could go down with a wave. To me, this race is a true toss-up.
If the next Democratic POTUS gets elected in 2028, unlike most Republicans in Congress Collins won’t try to stop the Democratic Party’s agenda like the GOP at large in 2029-2033 if she’s re-elected as Senator.
That’s what makes her unique. Not saying this a sign of support so much as an observation.
She's shown her ass more in this session. I wouldn't be confident if she were to be reelected that she wouldn't be a lot more obstructionist than she has been during previous Democratic administrations.
I don’t think Collins will be exactly as she used to be pre-Trump but she did help lead bipartisan negotiations for the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This was the same bill that cost Rep. David McKinley his seat in WV-01 even while what he was doing here was helping WV get much needed infrastructure. Collins has not gotten a primary challenge from any Republican as a result of her involvement.
Most of the issues with Collins are when Trump is in office as POTUS.
To clarify the numbers are rounded up here for Maine. The actual numbers are Collins 45.6 and Jackson 46.4. Moreover Turek is doing slightly better than these presented numbers, which again where rounded. In Iowa, the actual numbers are Hinson 45.7 and Turek 47.4.
The key for Maine though is that they use ranked choice, so Jackson needs to keep her below 50%, which thus far all pollsters, regardless of whether she's led in them or not, have all shown her below 50%. It would be nice if he could break 50% more in polls, but keeping her below that number also ensures a runoff. The question is whether Collins or Jackson can motivate more voters to turn out.
It can be and it seems there are 6 write in candidates for the senate race. In a year where the incumbent party is historically unpopular and with high inflation, gas prices and job losses, there's a good chance that at least a decent size of the electorate will have a protest vote. The bigger point is if polling is more accurate here, then Collins won't easily reach 50% and can be forced into a runoff where left leaning voters may be more motivated to vote and engaged.
Also for anyone comparing this to 2020, this is a midterm year, NOT a presidential election year. Thus, lower propensity voters that turned out in a presidential year are far less likely to turn out now. Of course Collins has the advantage of incumbency and having a better known and respected brand, but she's still a member of the party in power and has a major bribery scandal that just came out. Jackson has a far stronger chance than people are crediting him for.
Missed that write-ins were running, thank you. I also wasn't trying to say that ranked choice was never a factor, just that it wasn't likely to be one in this race.
Maine doesn't have separate runoffs, instant-runoff voting is just another name for ranked choice voting.
When a poll has a M/E of 2.7%, the tenth of a percent has no meaning and, in fact, suggests an accuracy that does not exist. The ancient book "How To Lie With Statistics" used this as an example of false precision. A fair way to post the Maine poll would be: Jackson 49.2-43.6; Collins 48.4-42.8. Per the poll, Jackson could be ahead by as much as 6.4% and Collins could be ahead by as much as 4.8%.
MS-Gov: 2023 Democratic nominee Brandon Presley, who gave outgoing Republican Gov. Tate Reeves a close race, is considering a run next year. If he does run, he will face educator Priscilla Williams-Till, cousin of civil rights martyr Emmett Till, in the primary.
Attorney General Lynn Fitch, state Auditor Shad White, Agriculture Commissioner Andy Gipson and former state Rep. Philip Gunn are already running on the Republican side. Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann, who would be 80 upon assuming the office, is also considering a Republican bid, while Republican businessman Thomas Duff could either run as a Republican or independent, potentially forcing Presley and the Republican nominee into a runoff.
I would tell you if I could access the archived page again. I found this article from a separate source that stated Presley's intentions, so it's probably best to take it with a grain of salt unless we can see the full page.
Trump amplified 14 tweets attacking Salazar. One called her “nothing but a back stabber,” another said, “She tried a stunt and it back fired!” and another urged, “Primary her in two years.”
My guess would be about a wash. If Trump actually called for people not to vote for Salazar in November that would be another story. But "primary her" is implicitly admitting that he needs her votes in the meantime.
(And it's not like Salazar has threatened to withhold those votes. She framed her objections as the personal appeal of an otherwise loyal apparatchik, and never promised to vote differently, even on immigration.)
Got some general questions about races coming up for posters here.
How likely is California’s wealth tax to pass? How likely is Maryland to vote to redistrict? Will Massachusetts vote to instate a top-two primary? And will Missouri vote to reject the gerrymandered map?
Curious to know people’s thoughts on those 4, as I’ll be watching those on election night.
can only answer as to Cal wealth tax. IMO it's going to fail. The opponents have succeeded, so far, in making the story about Dave Regan (the head of SEIU-UHW, main org pushing it) and not about the billionaires. Its support is declining in polls. Currently Yes leads narrowly, but conventional wisdom is that undecideds break NO and so you need a 60 percent YES vote in polls to pass a ballot measure.
correct. Apologies for not being clear. Conventional wisdom is that ballot measures (all needing 50 percent to pass) should be polling at 60 percent or above in the weeks leading up to the vote.
It's worth noting that even if it does get 50%, polling shows at least one of the two "competing" initiatives (41 or 42) getting more votes than 40, which would cause 40 to lose anyway.
I'm still voting Yes on 40 even though I'm skeptical of it, but I really hope 41 and 42 get a majority of No votes so neither go into effect.
Missouri will be close, it will depend on how much money republicans spend to support the map and make it a pure partisan issue. At the same time, Missouri voters love to veto laws passed by the legislature. Last time there was a veto referendum, voters overwhelmingly overturned the “right to work” law state politicians passed.
Thing is, a lot of those past referendum issues were objectively good things that weren't necessarily partisan in nature. Given that a victory would result in one less Democrat representing the state, it's very possible Missouri voters will approve the map unless the backlash to the GOP is *that* bad.
For students growing up in the mid-late 2010s like myself, it was common to see Matt Beat in history classrooms, a high school history teacher that later became an advocate for civil rights and championing uncapping the House, his current project. He recently announced an ACLU-sponsored podcast with UC Berkeley professor Shereen Marisol Meraji, for anyone who's interested.
My daughter is about your age and had an AP env sci class where the teacher only showed youtube vids, primarily from one source. I watched it a few times, it was both inaccurate and emphasized points that were less important than major trends in data (I am v well versed in the topic, as you might guess based on my handle here). The teacher was pretty good when she taught biology, but was pretty clearly mailing it in for AP EnvSci. We let our daughter drop the class.
I have no objections to well-done, accurate youtube sites being used. Our teachers used movies and filmstrips when I was a kid. Same thing, different tech, potentially less QC. But I'm curious how they are vetted in curriculum standards these days, with as strict as they have become.
Like Techno said, Hank Green is also another big one. I primarily had Matt Beat videos in my AP Gov and APUSH classes. Sometimes Green, but he was usually more science oriented.
The videos usually go along with whatever lecture we were currently doing, so they're kind of just filler in lesson plans. We also watched History Channel documentaries, but that was usually just in middle school. I got 5s on both of those AP exams, so maybe it helped a little.
I watched my first YouTube video in an educational institutional instruction environment this year. GenX didn't see a lot of them in our classes, lol. Have you ever seen a filmstrip? I'm old enough that they were still using audible tones to cue someone to manually advance the strip to the next slide. Not old enough for the audio to have been on records or 8-track, We had modern cassette tapes!
Presidents Cup - This is a golf team match play event for male professional golfers between a U.S. team and an International team consisting of players who are not eligible for the Ryder Cup (which is between U.S. and European teams).
This seems to be the one sports event that has historically been immune from the Trump sports curse. Trump is in attendance for the final day of the event, but the International team had a 10½-7½ lead going into the final day of play, with 12 matches at stake (the winning team in each match gets one point, with a half point for each team for tied matches).
There is a Presidents Cup Rule for midterm elections (although my Ryder Cup Rule for presidential elections did not hold in 2024). If the Americans win, the party that doesn't hold the White House gains seats in the House, but, if the Internationals win, the party that holds the White House gains seats in the House.
To be fair, there's only been three prior Presidents Cup playings in midterm elections years: 1994 (USA win), 1998 (International win), and 2022 (USA win), so not as big of a sample size.
UPDATE: Team USA has come from behind to win the Presidents Cup!
Looks like my Presidents Cup Rule is likely going to hold, as an American victory under a Republican president would predict a Democratic net gain of seats in the House.
CBS’s news-related programming is getting worse and worse. I’ve always enjoyed CBS Sunday Morning, it’s tonally and content-wise very different from their other programming - a bit classier and also more interesting.
Today they had a piece labeled “reality check” on AI, purporting to “fact check” (or whatever they called it) the recent warning about AI from a now-ex member of Anthropic. I couldn’t bring myself to watch it, but zipping through and I saw interviews with AI industry people and at least one story about “AI saved this doctor’s life!” Now, I could be wrong, and it could be nuanced, but it looked pretty propagandistic to me.
Oh, and they also did an interview with Sylvester Stallone, a celebrity who is now known to be a Trump supporter/“ambassador to Hollywood” for Trump (yes really).
Shameful. I dread what CNN will become if even CBS’ less directly political programming is becoming like this.
CBS News has been pushing corporatist conservative politics since the Ellison/Weiss takeover, even though that is the *least* popular political ideology right now.
Having a very pro-Big Tech/AI editorial slant (obviously in the Ellisons' financial interests, as they own Oracle) when the median voter is strongly skeptical of AI is going to lead to low viewership. There is a segment of the right that might be interested in CBS News's current brand, but there isn't a huge audience for more scholarly and less overtly patriotic right-wing media.
I am interested in any Trump +10, +15, or beyond seat that may be vulnerable. In the interest of giving us all seats to watch on Election Night, I’ll ask: which of the seats described might be most likely to become a surprise flip/hold? Who might be most likely to pull off an upset? Includes Senate, House, even Governor and other state and local races if you want. Thoughts?
No one is considering WA-5 as a competitive seat even though it only voted for Trump by 11 points and the Republican got under 50% in the combined primary. I think we’ll win it.
Conroy did terribly in 2024, underperforming Harris by nearly 10 points. I don't think she can make it competitive.
Was there any special reason for the underperformance? If it seemed kind of random, things might be different this time.
Baumgartner is a former GOP U.S. Senate nominee, county Treasurer, and long time state Senator from the area. Conroy was the local Democratic Party chair with an impressive bio in things WA-05 doesn't give a toss about. Don't think it's any more complicated than that.
Baumgartner is a freshman (albeit one who has been in other elected offices in the area since 2010), freshmen tend to be more vulnerable to waves. Last cycle Conroy got just 1.2 percentage points less in the general than the combined non-GOP share of the top-two primary vote. This cycle, Baumgartner got 47.4% in the August 2026 primary with no other Republicans on the ballot. However, besides an assortment of Democrats, this cycle there were a number of "Independent Party of Washington" voters who combined for 18% of the vote, in a phenomenon not seen last cycle. It remains to be seen whether Conroy can consolidate that vote, or whether many folks in WA-05 disillusioned with the GOP will be unable to overcome their longstanding reluctance to give their votes to someone with a D next to their name.
CO-04 seems like one to watch that isn't on anybody's big board. Boebert's scandal, Marx at the top of the ticket, and the district shifting slightly toward Dems in 2024 all suggest to me an insane upset is possible.
A clean sweep in Colorado would make for a lovely election night.
She underperformed Trump pretty significantly in the district 2 years ago and her opponent has outraised her by a factor of 10. She could be legitimately vulnerable
The last time a Democrat represented the 4th was back in 2008 with Betsy Markey, which arguably was close to matching the 2006 midterms. Even with Southern and rural realignment aside, there was quite a few very conservative districts that Democrats managed to win in 2008, despite McCain otherwise winning in them. Most of those Democrats eventually did lose reelection alongside most Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats and many seemingly disappeared from politics and the media.
1. TX-15: I know it's already on your radar screen, but Trump won the current version of TX-15 by 18 and it is a toss-up right now.
2. KS-Sen. Trump won Kansas by 16 and it could surprise a lot of people.
I've been bullish on Kansas for a year now. Roger Marshall seemed uniquely vulnerable then....before all the recent dirt that came out about him.
Wow. You are up on Kansas, but down on Iowa and Minnesota?
I wouldn't exactly put my predictions of the three states in a straight line. It's more of a Venn diagram. In terms of % chance of an outright victory, Minnesota is probably still the most likely, even if I think Flanagan is most likely to underperform to the point of having a reasonable chance of losing. But I think Turek and Hamilton have a strong likelihood of overperforming to the point of having a reasonable chance of winning.
And based on the full-blown panic Ashley Hinson's campaign seems to be in, I think she genuinely might be the underdog right now in Iowa.
Also, the fact that both Iowa and Kansas as states have a large farming industry. This may be a big factor as to how the Senate races in both states are faring out.
Doesn't Minnesota also have a big farming industry?
I’m aware although more familiar with Iowa and Kansas.
It definitely does, especially in MN-01 and MN-07. As a percentage of the population and the economy though, Iowa and Kansas are more ag-centered.
I am a bit disappointed that the Democrats aren't performing better in the governor race in Kansas. Yea sure no party in the past decade has historically won the governor's seat for consecutive beyond that of the maximum possible term of a sitting governor. Maybe it's also the lack of polling or the lack of a Libertarian candidate, but I guess we will see how both the senate and governor race in Kansas play out.
I also hope that a decent candidate is running in Kansas' 2nd. Paul Davis came within less than a point of winning it in 2018 and it was last won by a Democrat in 2006 by Nancy Boyda. Ironically she was among the few Democrats that lost in the 2008 wave year.
Don Coover, D candidate in KS-2: farmer, veterinarian, and veteran - inside elections said interesting profile, but like Cook and Sabato, rates it solid R (for now). FiftyPlusOne estimates only 3% of Coover winning. He had raised about 750k thru 2nd q, about half the incumbent, Trump +20 district. BlueVoterGuide reports endorsements from KS AFL-CIO, UAW, local Indivisible, and Committee to Protect Health Care.
In 2018, that seat was probably only as close as it was because the Republican was hit by credible carpetbagging and lying-about-resume scandals. The Democrat running there is fairly well funded but has no previous political or campaign experience.
In 2018, voters there were still blaming Obama for everything wrong in their lives. I won't say the scales have fallen from their eyes, but I think they are a lot more open to blaming Trump at this point.
I actually agree with you. In 2018, the economy was also better, and the things Trump did were a bit more tame (although that isn’t saying much) than today’s ICE raids, Greenland and Canada annexation threats, trade war with the latter, open attempts (and not just threats) to destroy the free press, etc.
Yes, under a 2026-like environment that seat would have flipped in 2018. However, Schmidt does not have Watkins' weaknesses, and this a Trump +20 seat with a not-super-remarkable challenger. The generic ballot does not suggest a 20 point swing is possible at this point in time, in what is functionally a generic R vs generic D race.
Same!
And I know I said this in 2006 and 2018 as well, with mixed results, but I think MN-01 is a sleeper race to keep an eye on. It's impossible to overstate how unlikable Brad Finstad is and how much of a cipher he is. He has zero natural appeal for the population centers of the district in a cycle where the wind isn't at his back. MN-01 has a relatively similar demographic profile as WI-03 and especially IA-02. If those districts are considered part of the battleground, I feel like MN-01 is going to be as well.
Are you on the TDB discord server?
Not really sure to be honest!
Should join. Hehehe
I am catching up on podcasts this morning. Greg Sargent interviewed Iowa Democratic Party chair Rita Hart. he thinks 3 of the 4 House seats in IA could be in play:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/maga-radio-host-humiliates-trump-by-leaking-truly-brutal/id1728152109?i=1000791595118
SCOTUS rejects the Missouri gerrymander. Again.
In light of that:
NEW POLL in MO-2
(Remington)
Wagner 43
Wellman 42
Generic D beats generic R, 47-46.
Trump underwater in St. Louis County (-16) AND St. Charles County (-8).
65% don't know Fred Wellman yet.
And the Court took at shot at Hoskins:
So in the several-month period before the August primary election, the Missouri Secretary of State was well aware that conducting the August primary election with the 2025 map carried significant risks. The Secretary nonetheless chose to proceed with the 2025 map for the primary.
I don't understand why the MO Supreme Court didn't rule before the primary. I know the judiciary likes to take their time, but presumably they're aware of the real world. In Massachusetts our Supreme Judicial Court makes a point of ruling on anything related to the upcoming election a couple months ahead of time.
It wan’t “ripe” until he certified the signatures. I don’t recall if they tried to force him to do it before the voting started for the primary by filing a writ of mandamus.
Back in May, the state supreme court rejected a lawsuit seeking to block H.B. 1 while the secretary of state’s certification process was still ongoing. Had the court found a way to rule on this conflict at that stage, it could have moved the primary, for example, or set a hard deadline for certifying the referendum petition. In a world of election hardball, courts should look hard at how they can use their powers flexibly to protect voters.
https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/chaos-missouris-redistricting-litigation
It was frustrating, but they explained their posture pretty thoroughly in the case that went before them in May: https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2026/sc101581.html
I think SC1 could flip, like OK5. But SC7 could be far closer than expected. Fry made himself a target with his Senate flirtation. Dems in the district are fired up.
Interesting that George Will endorsed Andrews in the Post a couple weeks ago.
It's a mad, mad, mad world.
Just read it. One thing that hasn't changed is that every time I read a George Will column I think that he didn't get pasted one often enough in elementary school.
CA-34/WATN - Former AZ-7 congressional candidate Deja Foxx, who now hosts the Deja's Download publication here on Substack, interviewed CA-34 progressive Democratic challenger Angela Gonzales-Torres for her publication.
https://substack.com/@dejafoxx/note/p-217454963?r=7bnixi
A lot of former political candidates have launched Substack publications, but Deja's Download is one of my favorite publications on here by a former political candidate.
Thanks everyone for the responses.
Next question, related to the previous but not exclusive to it. Can anyone on the board name some specific candidates that I should donate to, in swing or reach races? I’m thinking of giving some political donations but I have to watch my budget a little. I am planning to donate to the DLCC already, but are there any candidates in particular who could use a donation? Could be any race.
Mitchell Berman (WI-01) may be a good pick. He's underfunded compared to most Democrats running for similarly competitive seats, and unlike some reach seats, he might be able to hold the seat after this year.
I suggest Lindsay James in IA-2. The race has been moving to the left all year from Likely R to Lean R to a mix of same and toss-up. I believe in synergy and Iowa seems the place, what with competitive races for Governor, Senator, and two other house races which also have moved toward the left all year and are now either toss-up or lean-D. (I think they are lean-D and IA-2 is a toss-up.) In 2Q, she had out-raised her R opponent 885K to 588K but as of 6/30, she trailed in COH 895K to 795K.
Worth noting IA-1 and IA-3, which are expected to flip to Democrats, also went blue in 2018. You know what else went blue in 2018? IA-2. And all of that was without winning the governor's race or even the Senate race, which seem to either favor Democrats (Sand) or at least be a tossup (Turek).
Dan Osborn in Nebraska Senate. Despite his billionaire opponent, he has a real chance at winning and is polling close to sometimes ahead.
Katy Padilla Stout in Texas-23. Given how Texas is going she has a chance. May be ours for just two years but we can worry about that in 2028.
I mentioned him a few weeks ago, but Don Leonard, running against Mike Carey in Ohio. He has a shot and would be, I think, the only member of Congress with an urban planning background.
Wait wasn't Marcy Kaptur an urban planner?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcy_Kaptur
"Kaptur began her career in urban planning, working as an urban planner on the Toledo-Lucas County Plan Commissions from 1969 to 1975."
I probably will give to Leonard though. IIRC as an added bonus he ran to the left of his primary opponent, and I believe this seat is more friendly to us than other more red districts in Ohio.
Never knew this about Kaptur!
Yes, other than Max Miller's seat, this would be the easiest pickup for Democrats. Mike Turner's would also be good if he ever retired.
-Bob Harvie in PA-1. Yes, he's down in the polls, but I appreciate the analysis done the other day by someone from the district that shows that Brian Fitzpatrick usually underperforms his poll margins on election day. Fitzpatrick +9 in a poll probably means something around Fitzpatrick +1-2 on November 3.
-Shannon Taylor in VA-1 and Sean McCann in MI-4. Both of these seats were narrowly won by Trump in 2024 despite being won with big margins by their longtime Republican incumbents. I think they should flip like the rest of the swing seats in their states.
-Raymond Smith in NC-3.
-Pia Dandiya in FL-22. She needs it more than Eliott Rodriguez as it's a closer seat.
-Johnny Garcia in TX-35. Cuellar and Gonzalez as well as Pulido are looking like they're in good shape to hold/flip their seats, but this seat had similar margins in 2024 but is not getting as nearly as much attention. It should be.
-Sam Forstag in MT-1. I'm bullish on him, but most forecasters have it as Lean R.
-Skip anyone in Colorado other than Manny Rutinel. No offense to Alex Keloff, Eileen Laubacher or Jessica Killin, but I don't see it even with Marx.
I was the one who analyzed the Fitzpatrick poll throughout the years he was up, so I appreciate the compliment on the analysis I did. I looked and it's in last week's Weekly Open Thread. But Harvie is definitely someone who you should be donating to because he has been campaigning nonstop and has done a lot of online videos that go pretty well, especially the one where he had an anniversary cake for Fitzpatrick's only town hall, which was back in 2017.
SC Sen: Graham Nordone 43% - Andrews 42%
1087 LVs; 9/23-9/25; M/E 2.9%
https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/SC-Midterms-Survey-Report-0926.pdf
Wow! A decidedly Republican polling firm shows Democrat Annie Andrews virtually tied.
Yes, but is Trafalgar a real poll?
Nope!
Undecided is too high.
Nevertheless, it shows there’s a real race and undecided SC voters may be conflicted as to how they are going to vote in the general election.
But of course as you point out the percentage of undecided voters in this poll is too high.
Agreed, but Black and Hispanic voters are too low as are Dem voters, unless you assume all independents vote dem. That said, 6% say they'll vote for other, and maybe they will because they don't have an allegiance to Darline but 6% to the Libertarians and Constitutional parties seems quite high to me. I'd guess half that 6% reverts to Graham and 2/3 of the 9% of undecided which would make it 52%-45% -- a typical SC result. I'd love to be wrong, but past is prologue here until there evidence otherwise.
ME Sen: Jackson 46%-Collins 46%.
IA Sen: Turek 47%-Hinson 46%.
Both polls by Insider Advantage. 9/22-23; 1200 LVs; M/E 2.83%
https://insideradvantage.com/insideradvantage-senate-surveys-maine-collins-46-jackson-46-iowa-turek-47-hinson-46/
Sorry, but I don't see a world where Turek flips Iowa but Collins holds Maine.
I don't think that's impossible. But is Insider Advantage considered a real poll?
It is a Republican poll but Silver give it a B+.
Unlikely but I can see it. Collins has a sticky hold in Maine. She should have lost 6 years ago but won easily. If she survives it will be due to constituent services and the image as a moderate. I think Jackson will win because of the year, but she could win.
Hinson has spent six years doing everything Trump wants. Iowa voters are hurting and turning on the GOP. In a state that has been very red and pro-Trump recently, she could go down with a wave. To me, this race is a true toss-up.
Consider this:
If the next Democratic POTUS gets elected in 2028, unlike most Republicans in Congress Collins won’t try to stop the Democratic Party’s agenda like the GOP at large in 2029-2033 if she’s re-elected as Senator.
That’s what makes her unique. Not saying this a sign of support so much as an observation.
She's shown her ass more in this session. I wouldn't be confident if she were to be reelected that she wouldn't be a lot more obstructionist than she has been during previous Democratic administrations.
That remains to be seen.
I don’t think Collins will be exactly as she used to be pre-Trump but she did help lead bipartisan negotiations for the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This was the same bill that cost Rep. David McKinley his seat in WV-01 even while what he was doing here was helping WV get much needed infrastructure. Collins has not gotten a primary challenge from any Republican as a result of her involvement.
Most of the issues with Collins are when Trump is in office as POTUS.
Right, but if she gets away with all of this, why should she show signs of moderation she doesn't really want to show?
Plus, quite frankly, Dems should want to elect Dems. If the shoe were on the other foot...
Not more signs of moderation. Just only what Collins is able to moderate but only up to a certain extent.
Otherwise, since voting for Brett Kavanaugh for SCOTUS Collins blew it.
To clarify the numbers are rounded up here for Maine. The actual numbers are Collins 45.6 and Jackson 46.4. Moreover Turek is doing slightly better than these presented numbers, which again where rounded. In Iowa, the actual numbers are Hinson 45.7 and Turek 47.4.
The key for Maine though is that they use ranked choice, so Jackson needs to keep her below 50%, which thus far all pollsters, regardless of whether she's led in them or not, have all shown her below 50%. It would be nice if he could break 50% more in polls, but keeping her below that number also ensures a runoff. The question is whether Collins or Jackson can motivate more voters to turn out.
I'm not sure ranked choice voting is a major factor in Maine, there's no 3rd party candidate or qualified write-ins as far as I'm aware.
It can be and it seems there are 6 write in candidates for the senate race. In a year where the incumbent party is historically unpopular and with high inflation, gas prices and job losses, there's a good chance that at least a decent size of the electorate will have a protest vote. The bigger point is if polling is more accurate here, then Collins won't easily reach 50% and can be forced into a runoff where left leaning voters may be more motivated to vote and engaged.
Also for anyone comparing this to 2020, this is a midterm year, NOT a presidential election year. Thus, lower propensity voters that turned out in a presidential year are far less likely to turn out now. Of course Collins has the advantage of incumbency and having a better known and respected brand, but she's still a member of the party in power and has a major bribery scandal that just came out. Jackson has a far stronger chance than people are crediting him for.
Missed that write-ins were running, thank you. I also wasn't trying to say that ranked choice was never a factor, just that it wasn't likely to be one in this race.
Maine doesn't have separate runoffs, instant-runoff voting is just another name for ranked choice voting.
When a poll has a M/E of 2.7%, the tenth of a percent has no meaning and, in fact, suggests an accuracy that does not exist. The ancient book "How To Lie With Statistics" used this as an example of false precision. A fair way to post the Maine poll would be: Jackson 49.2-43.6; Collins 48.4-42.8. Per the poll, Jackson could be ahead by as much as 6.4% and Collins could be ahead by as much as 4.8%.
https://www.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/2026/09/22/gop-ms-governor-candidates-piling-up-while-democrats-are-lagging/91872448007/?gnt-cfr=1&gca-cat=p&gca-uir=true&gca-epti=z119446p002550c002550e001500v119446d--45--b--45--&gca-ft=108&gca-ds=sophi
MS-Gov: 2023 Democratic nominee Brandon Presley, who gave outgoing Republican Gov. Tate Reeves a close race, is considering a run next year. If he does run, he will face educator Priscilla Williams-Till, cousin of civil rights martyr Emmett Till, in the primary.
Attorney General Lynn Fitch, state Auditor Shad White, Agriculture Commissioner Andy Gipson and former state Rep. Philip Gunn are already running on the Republican side. Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann, who would be 80 upon assuming the office, is also considering a Republican bid, while Republican businessman Thomas Duff could either run as a Republican or independent, potentially forcing Presley and the Republican nominee into a runoff.
Is there a direct quote from Presley in the article? Or even a "sources say"?
I would tell you if I could access the archived page again. I found this article from a separate source that stated Presley's intentions, so it's probably best to take it with a grain of salt unless we can see the full page.
FL 27. I don’t if this will help or hurt her.
Trump amplified 14 tweets attacking Salazar. One called her “nothing but a back stabber,” another said, “She tried a stunt and it back fired!” and another urged, “Primary her in two years.”
https://meidasnews.com/news/nothing-but-a-back-stabber-trump-sours-on-salazar
My guess would be about a wash. If Trump actually called for people not to vote for Salazar in November that would be another story. But "primary her" is implicitly admitting that he needs her votes in the meantime.
(And it's not like Salazar has threatened to withhold those votes. She framed her objections as the personal appeal of an otherwise loyal apparatchik, and never promised to vote differently, even on immigration.)
Got some general questions about races coming up for posters here.
How likely is California’s wealth tax to pass? How likely is Maryland to vote to redistrict? Will Massachusetts vote to instate a top-two primary? And will Missouri vote to reject the gerrymandered map?
Curious to know people’s thoughts on those 4, as I’ll be watching those on election night.
can only answer as to Cal wealth tax. IMO it's going to fail. The opponents have succeeded, so far, in making the story about Dave Regan (the head of SEIU-UHW, main org pushing it) and not about the billionaires. Its support is declining in polls. Currently Yes leads narrowly, but conventional wisdom is that undecideds break NO and so you need a 60 percent YES vote in polls to pass a ballot measure.
I'm curious about the other 3 too!
I thought it was in Florida and not California where 60% was needed to pass a ballot measure, and that in CA, a simple majority was sufficient.
correct. Apologies for not being clear. Conventional wisdom is that ballot measures (all needing 50 percent to pass) should be polling at 60 percent or above in the weeks leading up to the vote.
That's different.
It's worth noting that even if it does get 50%, polling shows at least one of the two "competing" initiatives (41 or 42) getting more votes than 40, which would cause 40 to lose anyway.
I'm still voting Yes on 40 even though I'm skeptical of it, but I really hope 41 and 42 get a majority of No votes so neither go into effect.
Missouri will be close, it will depend on how much money republicans spend to support the map and make it a pure partisan issue. At the same time, Missouri voters love to veto laws passed by the legislature. Last time there was a veto referendum, voters overwhelmingly overturned the “right to work” law state politicians passed.
Thing is, a lot of those past referendum issues were objectively good things that weren't necessarily partisan in nature. Given that a victory would result in one less Democrat representing the state, it's very possible Missouri voters will approve the map unless the backlash to the GOP is *that* bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqDR7HNpLcI&list=PLcMHP-9UQDEY
For students growing up in the mid-late 2010s like myself, it was common to see Matt Beat in history classrooms, a high school history teacher that later became an advocate for civil rights and championing uncapping the House, his current project. He recently announced an ACLU-sponsored podcast with UC Berkeley professor Shereen Marisol Meraji, for anyone who's interested.
Were you history teachers showing youtube videos?
Yes, as well as teachers for every other subject. They have been as long as I can remember.
Believe it or not, there's many channels like Beat's that know their history and get deep down into research.
My daughter is about your age and had an AP env sci class where the teacher only showed youtube vids, primarily from one source. I watched it a few times, it was both inaccurate and emphasized points that were less important than major trends in data (I am v well versed in the topic, as you might guess based on my handle here). The teacher was pretty good when she taught biology, but was pretty clearly mailing it in for AP EnvSci. We let our daughter drop the class.
I have no objections to well-done, accurate youtube sites being used. Our teachers used movies and filmstrips when I was a kid. Same thing, different tech, potentially less QC. But I'm curious how they are vetted in curriculum standards these days, with as strict as they have become.
If you’re familiar with Hank Green, his Crash Course videos were used occasionally when I was in high school.
Like Techno said, Hank Green is also another big one. I primarily had Matt Beat videos in my AP Gov and APUSH classes. Sometimes Green, but he was usually more science oriented.
The videos usually go along with whatever lecture we were currently doing, so they're kind of just filler in lesson plans. We also watched History Channel documentaries, but that was usually just in middle school. I got 5s on both of those AP exams, so maybe it helped a little.
I watched my first YouTube video in an educational institutional instruction environment this year. GenX didn't see a lot of them in our classes, lol. Have you ever seen a filmstrip? I'm old enough that they were still using audible tones to cue someone to manually advance the strip to the next slide. Not old enough for the audio to have been on records or 8-track, We had modern cassette tapes!
Used to be a source of pride if you got picked to advance the filmstrip. Also kept you awake.
I guess that's the equivalent of Jaz and Techno reminding teach where the full screen button is on Youtube.
Presidents Cup - This is a golf team match play event for male professional golfers between a U.S. team and an International team consisting of players who are not eligible for the Ryder Cup (which is between U.S. and European teams).
This seems to be the one sports event that has historically been immune from the Trump sports curse. Trump is in attendance for the final day of the event, but the International team had a 10½-7½ lead going into the final day of play, with 12 matches at stake (the winning team in each match gets one point, with a half point for each team for tied matches).
There is a Presidents Cup Rule for midterm elections (although my Ryder Cup Rule for presidential elections did not hold in 2024). If the Americans win, the party that doesn't hold the White House gains seats in the House, but, if the Internationals win, the party that holds the White House gains seats in the House.
Totally random coincidence, and it sounds like it might not obtain again this year.
To be fair, there's only been three prior Presidents Cup playings in midterm elections years: 1994 (USA win), 1998 (International win), and 2022 (USA win), so not as big of a sample size.
Three points make a line, but don't make alignment. 🙂
UPDATE: Team USA has come from behind to win the Presidents Cup!
Looks like my Presidents Cup Rule is likely going to hold, as an American victory under a Republican president would predict a Democratic net gain of seats in the House.
CBS’s news-related programming is getting worse and worse. I’ve always enjoyed CBS Sunday Morning, it’s tonally and content-wise very different from their other programming - a bit classier and also more interesting.
Today they had a piece labeled “reality check” on AI, purporting to “fact check” (or whatever they called it) the recent warning about AI from a now-ex member of Anthropic. I couldn’t bring myself to watch it, but zipping through and I saw interviews with AI industry people and at least one story about “AI saved this doctor’s life!” Now, I could be wrong, and it could be nuanced, but it looked pretty propagandistic to me.
Oh, and they also did an interview with Sylvester Stallone, a celebrity who is now known to be a Trump supporter/“ambassador to Hollywood” for Trump (yes really).
Shameful. I dread what CNN will become if even CBS’ less directly political programming is becoming like this.
CBS News has been pushing corporatist conservative politics since the Ellison/Weiss takeover, even though that is the *least* popular political ideology right now.
Having a very pro-Big Tech/AI editorial slant (obviously in the Ellisons' financial interests, as they own Oracle) when the median voter is strongly skeptical of AI is going to lead to low viewership. There is a segment of the right that might be interested in CBS News's current brand, but there isn't a huge audience for more scholarly and less overtly patriotic right-wing media.
CA mails ballots to voters in 8 days; I'm sure other states are doing the same very soon.