Someone has uploaded California Prop 50 precinct results into DRA. And the districts that were swingy in the 2024 election have become much more secure this year. Gray's district went from Harris +0.5 to Yes +17, Valadao's district went from Trump +1.6 to Yes +19, and Issa's district went from Harris +3 to Yes +12.
The only districts where Harris did better than Yes are in NorCal, including Districts 1, 2, and 3 - not too surprising since those areas were sliced and diced in the new gerrymander. The closest of all the Democratic districts in the election is the 3rd, which was Yes +8.6. (It was Harris +10.) This is probably Kevin Kiley's best bet to remain in Congress, and he might have a fighting chance here in a Republican-leaning year, but in 2026 he would lose even this district.
In summary, Democrats are definitely more likely to gain 5 seats from this map than Republicans are to gain 5 seats from their new Texas map.
Most people here and elsewhere have only been talking about and paying attention to the R to D flipped seats (which obviously are very important), but there’s another equally good thing they did with their map that Republicans DIDN’T get to do in Texas, which is why long ago I said Democrats were currently coming out ahead of the redistricting war Trump started. The seats no one now needs to pay attention to for 2026 that were at risk in 2024: by shoring up potential/actual Democratic swing seats.
California Democrats did both things with their map and in sheer number of districts moved left vs moved right, Democrats nationwide actually did so in more districts than the GOP did. Now we’re at the point where Democrats are beating Republicans power grab handily. And our party saves tens of millions of dollars in each race they’d otherwise have to spend to hold them in 6 other districts: CA-09, CA-13, CA-27, CA-45, CA-47, CA-49. They can use those funds now to go on offence in more reach GOP held districts.
California
R to D: +5 seats
D to more D: keep 6 seats
Elsewhere
UT R to D: +1 seat
IN: N/A
MD: N/A
MO D to R: -1 seat
NC D to R: -1 seat
TX D to R: -5 seats
VA: ?
Total: -1 seat
Even if all our TX Democrats running, lose those 5 seats, as well as Don Davis losing his in NC, even if the new MO map passes with voter approval and VA Democrats don’t redraw the map, it’s still a break even fight in terms of seat gains. I’d also argue pretty forcefully that Republicans don’t pick up all the redrawn seats in Texas, VA Dems do redraw and MO voters vote down the new map, which if those do happen, Democrats are clear winners in a fight Trump and the king’s party started.
Pretty remarkable position to be in from where people at the start were saying Democrats would lose a net 15-20 seats in a redistricting war. Of course none of this matters if SCOTUS undoes the VRA, but even if they do, Democrats are far ahead of where they would have been if our party rolled over and died as expected.
Proposition 50 shoring up several Dem swing districts was almost completely non-reported by the media in their election coverage. And as you say, might turn out to be just as important as the 5 seats we are going to flip.
Looking ahead, I'm hopeful about what redistricting VA does. House Speaker Don Scott is talking a 10D-1R map, a 4 seat flip, though Spanberger apparently is more cautious. Perhaps compromise at 9D-2R. Fingers crossed.
I think FL Republicans will draw something horrible but maybe we'll get lucky and there will be some snapback in south FL combined with adding a some seats in VA we might come out of this ok.
I’m not sure what the slicing and dicing of Sac has to do with the lack of movement from Kamala > Prop 50.
Regardless the biggest Prop 50 surprise to me was that Chico/Butte didn’t move left as much, as well as El Dorado/Placer. We seemed to have reverted almost completely with Hispanic and Asian voters, but stalled a bit in historically GOP burbs.
Neither of those were surprises at all. People in El Dorado/Placer didn't like how their old congressional district, which was fairly compact, was dismantled and replaced by what is effectively a baconmander out from the Sacramento area. Similarly, Butte County residents didn't like how their county is now sunk into a district that is now effectively based in Santa Rosa, 150 miles away on the other side of the mountains. That explains why Prop 50 did relatively poorly in those areas.
Frankly, I suspect that if the map hadn't been drawn and released until after the election, Prop 50 would've done better in Butte and El Dorado/Placer.
If you go by the numbers Prop 50 got in each district, there are only three districts where the margin of victory was <10%. Two of those, ironically, are actually the two remaining Republican districts in SoCal - the 40th went No +5 and the 23rd went No +7. It's really amazing how well Prop 50 did in SoCal - the 40th contains Lake Elsinore (Yes +10), Temescal Valley (Yes +2), Mission Viejo (Yes +2), Rancho Santa Margarita (No +0.4), and Menifee (No +2). Those are all incredible numbers for a Democrat. Meanwhile, the 23rd contains Adelanto (Yes +45!), Victorville (Yes +29!!), and Hesperia (No +0.2!!!). So I almost feel like an even better map might have been possible.
The only Democratic district that gave Yes a <10% margin of victory was the 3rd, which stretches from SE Sacramento up to Truckee and Lake Tahoe. That district voted Yes +8.6, but Harris +10.
Moral of the story is that there are no truly swingy districts left, and that it's possible that no district will be closer than 5% next year. And if not for David Valadao's strength as an incumbent, I would've said 10%.
Guess what’s old is new again. California saw zero seat changes from 2008 blue wave to 2010 red wave. Based on your data we will see more of that going forward.
Although Democrats were able to find a candidate for the Trump +35 House district 88, for some reason, they didn't run anyone in the special elections for the Trump +29 House district 21 and Trump +24.5 Senate district 12 (where they found a candidate in 2024!), which are being held at the same time.
This makes me think of how, in 2017, there was a special election for the Oklahoma State Senate district that includes the panhandle. It’s the most Republican state senate district in the state, which is saying a lot. Democrats ran a candidate, and she got about 33% of the vote. Pretty good for a district where Hillary got about 10% of the vote.
Well, I’m now interested in NY-Gov now that Stefanik is out. Could Blakeman being the nominee make this more of a risk?
Some more:
- CA-01: Is McGuire the de facto winner, or could Denney pull off an upset?
- NJ-12: Since Andrew Zwicker isn’t running, who’s the front runner now?
- CA-Gov: Since no one seems to believe we’ll be locked out, who is the likely winner? Swalwell, Porter, or someone else?
- CO-Sen: Could Gonzales pull off an upset, or is Hickenlooper safe?
- Harris County TX Judge: Is Annise Parker set, or could another candidate like Letitia Plummer win the Dem primary? And could the GOP take back the general?
- AK-AL: Could an actual Dem winner candidate appear, or is this a likely GOP hold?
- NY-04: How vulnerable is Gillen? I alluded to this on another discussion, but Blakeman being the nominee + other concerns have me worried. Is this being a safe Dem year enough?
- CT-01: Is Larson safe, or could Bronin upset him?
- FL in general: Given the infighting going on, how likely is the gerrymander to pass? And could an IN-like situation happen?
- GA-Gov: Do we have a shot here? Who are the likely Dem and GOP nominees?
- MA-Sen (hypothetical): If/when Warren retires in a number of years, who is her likeliest successor?
- VT-AL (hypothetical): Ditto with Bernie, except under the assumption Becca Balint is the likely nominee. Should that occur, who would be the likeliest winner here? Tanya Vykovsky? Someone more moderate? A different progressive?
- PA-03: Are we at risk of Sharif Street winning? Could Chris Rabb or Dave Oxman or the physician woman I forgot the name of Evans is backing win instead?
I can’t currently think of any more races ATM so I’ll stop here.
MA-Sen: Leading replacements seem to be Pressley, Wu or Auchincloss. Depends on who enters the primary, who the then Dem president favors, endorsements and who wins.
CA-1: McGuire and LaMalfa should clear the primary and Denney should get a distant third place.
NJ-12: Probably Verlina Reynolds-Jackson
CA-Gov: Swalwell or Porter - probably Swalwell at this point
CO-Sen: Hickenlooper has been a known figure statewide for decades. He has overwhelming support.
Harris County judge: The race between Parker and Plummer could be neck-and neck. Wouldn't pick a favorite.
AK-AL: Sen. Scott Kawasaki seems to be a formidable candidate. Maybe he can run
NY-4: Gillen should be fine, as the Republican bench doesn't seem to be taking shape like one might think - D'Esposito and Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, the two leading contenders, seem to be reluctant. Gillen should have a fight come 2030, though.
CT-1: The presence of Gilchrest and Fortune probably gives Larson a leg up over Bronin.
FL: The Republicans in the states of Mike Pence and Ron DeSantis are very much different. Florida's Republicans are more volatile, and the fight over redistricting could get pretty bitter. I honestly think they'll stall and then not have the time to redistrict.
GA-Gov: With Ossoff leading the ticket federally, the situation is different than Abrams 8 years ago - Democrats have a better shot. I would say Keisha Lance Bottoms and Burt Jones are the frontrunners in their parties. I can't speak for the candidates in the middle of it all, but Derrick Jackson, Ruwa Romman, Olu Brown and Chris Carr are lost causes.
MA-Sen: I agree with PollJunkie - probably Pressley, Wu or Auchincloss, and perhaps Maura Healey, as she'll be up for re-election as governor the year of Warren's next election.
VT-AL: I think Balint has more of an opening in 2028, when Welch may retire after one term. I'd say current and former statewide officials like Charity Clark and David Zimmerman could run after Sanders retires.
PA-3: The polling is getting closer here, as more people realize who Sharif Street is. Rabb should have a shot. Personally, I hope Malcolm Kenyatta upends the race and blows everyone out of the water.
"CO-Sen: Hickenlooper has been a known figure statewide for decades. He has overwhelming support." I think it's subjective to what overwhelming means but I don't see Gonzales cracking 40% but we'll see how she conducts her campaign and how Hickenlooper handles it.
The most competition he has had in a Democratic primary after being in elected office for over two decades was in his first bid for Senate, where he beat Andrew Romanoff by 18 points. He's on a glide path to securing a second term, and will likely serve it out and fulfill his promise to retire in 2032.
Additionally, he ran uncontested in the primary for both of his races for governor, and defeated opponents by double digits when he was mayor of Denver.
The fact he could only get 58% in the primary after two terms as governor isn't impressive to me. Living here there are many Democrats who are ready to turn the page. For now I don't think Gonzales gets as close as Romanoff. It would require Hick making multiple mistakes next year and Gonzales capitalizing on them. I guess I agree he is likely win by 20%+ but not so much with the certainty of that outcome.
Why is Colorado so liberal but not progressive? I can't think of a prominent Colorado progressive holding statewide for a long time. Why can't you elect the likes of Romanoff and Gonzales statewide?
Romanoff was a founding figure in the neoliberal Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and closely aligned with Bill Clinton. As Speaker, he governed in a business-friendly, anti-migrant, and broadly reactionary manner. His later shift toward the left was driven more by political expediency than conviction, and he struggled to build credibility on the Left or support within Hispanic communities.
Gonzales, in contrast, has been gotten a lot of progressive legislation passed afaik.
The fact that Romanoff got to 40 was impressive and may have had something to do with Hickenlooper's minor scandals leading up to election day and his description of Sanders as a Marxist-Leninist.
I mean I think some of the statewide officers could be considered "progressive" but that seems somewhat subjective as well. To the original point I think Hick wins comfortably but I can see a narrow path for Gonzales changing that outcome.
Because Colorado has only been a solid blue state for like 7 years now. Both Bennet and Hick were first elected when Colorado was a swing state. Polis represented a solid blue district, but he's always been weird.
I hope I never need to hear from David Zuckerman again, the vaccine stuff is hard to forgive, as is losing the lieutenant governor race, giving Phil Scott a potential Republican successor
Betcha that Elise Stefanik winds up with a nice job in 2027 in Trump's administration, perhaps as good as that UN gig she lost. She'll spend 2026 flattering Trump to help insure that.
What can she offer Trump now? She is leaving office, and won't be able to help him in any way. Trump needs money, favors, votes, or influence. She won't have any of those.
I want to make sure that Democrats don't lose focus on the potential of redistricting Colorado. Does anyone know if there have been any recent developments there with their efforts to repeal their independent commission and draw a 7D-1R map instead?
Colorado is the state that Democrats should be focusing on the most this year in terms of redistricting (along with states that have already begun the process, like Virginia). This is because while states like Maryland, Illinois, and Oregon only have the potential to give Democrats one more seat each, Colorado could give Democrats three more seats single-handedly, so the potential payoff is much larger.
The only proposal is a grassroots constitutional amendment that would give the governor emergency power to redistrict. It needs 125k signatures and 55% of the vote next year to pass.
It doesn't seem to have official party support and neither Bennet or Weiser who backed redrawing specifically supported that amendment. We will see if the party backs this idea, comes up with their own or does nothing at all.
For anyone tracking special elections, there are two coming up in VA on Jan 6th.
Lt. Governor-elect Ghazala Hashmi was in the VA state senate before winning her race in November. On Dec 7th, Mike Jones won the "firehouse" primary to run as the Democratic candidate for her senate seat.
Since Jones is currently in the House of Delegates, there was a second "Firehouse" primary for his seat 1 week later on December 14th. Charlie Schmidt won that primary by defeating the candidate favored by the "establishment" Democrats by a fairly large margin - 55% to 42% with the remainder going to the third place finisher. Schmidt is a progressive with a platform similar IMO to that of Afton Behn, who out-performed in her special election in TN-07. (Charlie Schmidt was on a Zoom call I attended yesterday and I thought he was a great candidate with a great message).
Postcards to Voters (https://postcardstovoters.org/) currently has postcard campaigns for both Mike and Charlie. While both these districts are currently blue, anything is possible in a low turnout election like this one is likely to be. It is hard to imagine a time frame when more potential voters will be tuned out and not thinking about elections.
Note: There is a week of early voting starting on Dec 27th.
I would love to see Democrats continue to overperform in the lead up to November and convince even more Republicans that it is time for them to retire!! We CAN make a difference!
If you would like to learn more about these candidates (or make a financial contribution), their websites are:
"I would love to see Democrats continue to overperform in the lead up to November and convince even more Republicans that it is time for them to retire!! We CAN make a difference!"
A fear I have is that the local Dems will deliberately recruit a centrist to stick it to Mamdani and the left. Not that said candidate will survive a future primary or even win the general if Romero runs on the WFP line, just that it will once again demonstrate the pettiness and ideological rigidity of NY's state Democratic Party.
You know my politics, but it's completely natural for someone further right to run for an open seat against a socialist in a primary. I don't see that as petty at all.
I was referring to how all special election nominees in NY are selected by the state party, at least as far as I know. There is no primary, the party picks the candidate. And since we know the NYC Dem Party branches despise the DSA and the left more broadly, I suspect they'd do something like what I described.
With the exception of the "government run grocery store" (which would represent 1% of the total city Grocery market, which therefore makes it neither a serious redistribution of ownership, or wealth) which of Mamdani's policies are socialist exactly?
In my view, he wants things that have been established policies across much of Europe.
Free buses, extensive low-cost housing construction and a freeze in the rent stabilized rents come to mind, and the reforms put into place in Europe since the 1890s were due to pressure from socialists.
Little piece of trivia I researched: there's probably more, but I counted 31 sitting U.S. Representatives that do not live in their congressional district. Among them are Randy Fine, Hakeem Jeffries, Rashida Tlaib and Maxine Waters. Overall, it's 14 Republicans and 17 Democrats.
"Furry’s bet is that Republican voters in Florida’s 6th Congressional District will prefer someone who has lived there for a long time, rather than someone who moved there recently in pursuit of political office.
“I’ve answered the call from the people of District 6 who want a representative that reflects their priorities, not someone who parachuted in and doesn’t know our community. I live here, I serve here. It’s about the Will of the People and I’m ready to take that fight to Washington” Furry said."
Regarding the others, Jeffries is the future Speaker (and his constituent services were good enough in combination with this to scare Chi Osse's primary challenge away), Maxine Waters is basically an institution at this point (although she's getting really old), and as for Tlaib, she represents probably one of the most Arab-heavy districts in the country (including Dearborn, which has effectively become the Arab capital of the U.S.) and apparently has excellent constituent services, so even if one doesn't like her, she isn't going anywhere, and I'd argue effectively represents her district.
All of the ones I mentioned apart from Fine only live a few miles (and in some cases, only a few blocks) out of the district bounds. The same can mostly be said for the dozens I didn't name. Jeffries and Tlaib have good constituent services because they're the ones that only live a few blocks away.
Jeffries literally lives a few streets over in the 9th district in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn, while Tlaib lives in the Detroit neighborhood of Corktown, not far from Dearborn, a focal point of her district.
Fine, meanwhile, lives the distance it takes me to get to Pittsburgh from my residence in West Virginia from his district - 90 minutes.
Are some of these due to the redistricting-mania that has been happening, where their district's lines were recently redrawn? Could you list the 31 you found?
I decided to take a look at how Prop 50 performed in California's state legislative districts, to see which ones are the best Democratic targets for next year.
I'll start with the Assembly. It should be no surprise that every district currently held by a Democrat voted yes, mostly by substantial margins. But plenty of Republicans hold districts that voted Yes as well. Riverside County, interestingly, is a hub of these districts - it contains AD-50 (Harris +4 to Yes +22), AD-47 (Harris +4 to Yes +13) and AD-36 (Trump +1 to Yes +14). These should all be top targets for Dems next year.
But there are others as well. AD-70, in Orange County, is the Vietnamese district, and it went from Trump +3 to Yes +12. If they like Democratic gerrymandering so much, it stands to reason they should like the politicians who will benefit from said gerrymandering. In addition, AD-74, stretching from South OC to Oceanside and Vista, had a more modest swing to the left but still went Yes +6. Heading north, AD-7, in the suburbs of Sacramento, went Yes +5 despite this area getting sliced and diced under the new congressional map. And finally, AD-22 in Stanislaus County voted Yes +4. Amazingly, that leaves only 13 districts across California that voted No on Prop 50, and some of them in SoCal were quite narrow losses.
Moving on to the state Senate, Democratic pickings are considerably slimmer there. This is first of all because only six Republican-held seats are up for election next year, and four of them voted No. The two that voted Yes are SD-36, on the OC coast, and SD-40 in inland San Diego County. SD-36 was very close, voting Yes by just a 51-49 margin, while in SD-40 the win was somewhat larger at 53-47. So neither of these will be slam dunks, but both should be top targets. In addition, SD-6 in the suburbs of Sacramento should also be strongly contested, since it voted just 51-49 No and this area didn't swing at all toward Yes this year. (It voted 49-48 for Trump last year.) So these people might just not have liked their area getting sliced and diced under the new congressional map, but they might be more willing to vote for Democratic candidates.
The other three Republican-held state senate districts that are up for election next year are all heavily Republican, and Safe R barring a top-two lockout (which of course we got in SD-4 in 2022 before the "Democrat" who won there treacherously switched parties). In fact, SD-32 is the only state senate district in the entirety of SoCal that voted No. And among the Democratic-held seats, SD-16 went from Trump +9 to Yes +8, while all the others voted Yes by wide margins. The reason why Dems can't win a bigger majority in the CA Senate is because we whiffed on SDs 23 and 37 last year.
In a general election? Pretty much nil, since No won SD-4 by a 55-45 margin.
Of course, it's possible that another Republican could beat her, but that other Republican would still have a terrible voting record and could easily have other issues as well, since so many Republicans do.
AL-Lt. Gov: State Rep. Philip Ensler is in as a Democrat, and was recruited by gubernatorial candidate Doug Jones rather than retire from politics and move to New York.
I'd say more like 20 to 1. A Democrat can't win in Alabama unless the Republican does something to actively repulse a large share of people who normally vote red.
Yeah if the 2017 Senate race with Moore was a normal election year (2018/20) i'm not sure Jones wins that senate race if the ballot has other offices on it.
WY-Sen, WY-AL, WY-Gov: Harriet Hageman appears to be a likely Senate candidate, rather than Governor or re-election to the House. An announcement could come as early as Monday.
Add another to the pile of “get the f*** out of town before I become a part of the minority in the House” club. Forget what Republicans are saying right now, instead, watch what they’re doing.
No. There are retirements (and even some bids for higher office) that fit in that bucket, but this isn't one of them. This is an early-career House member taking one of the freest opportunities for a promotion to the Senate a House member will ever get. She'd be doing this even if Republicans were a lock for a majority. Republicans are very likely to lose the House but this is about as much an indication of that as Pappas running for NH-Sen is an indication Dems will not take the House.
Several Wyoming representatives have immediately jumped into Senate races first chance they got. Craig Thomas ran for Senate after five years in the House, and Teno Roncalio (in 1966) and John Wold (in 1970) both ran for Senate after a single term in the House. Granted, both lost, so those weren’t free rides for them.
Rick Berg in ND and Steve Daines in MT also ran for Senate after one term in the House (with mixed results). I'd imagine it's much easier in an At-Large state.
Perhaps unlikely, but I would love to see Liz Cheney regain her House seat and once again be a thorn in the side of Trump. Or perhaps run for Governor of Wyoming.
(Yes, I dislike Cheney’s policy positions, but I applaud her willingness to pay the price for not being a MAGA Fascist. We need people like her in our pro-democratic (small D) coalition.)
Yeah, also it’s not like her being the republican rep there would hurt us at all. Our chances of winning that seat are low enough to be rounded down to zero. Might as well have a pro democracy republican with that limitation.
I think she had her limits, but she has never said anything about Bush and her father's election theft in 2000. She may have rationalized it away as not really theft.
General question, as a Gen Z leftist man myself: do you believe Gen Z men are going conservative as has been claimed in the media, do you not believe it, is it more nuanced, etc.?
I’ve occasionally met more conservative other Gen Z men myself, but not to the extent the media is claiming. Curious to see what posters here think about it.
As a fellow Gen Z leftist man, it's hard to say. I have a mixture of liberal friends (usually those who I associate with for my love of music and the arts), conservative friends (who grew up in more rural areas not associated with the city I live in), and even friends like the person I consider my best friend, who don't care about politics and just want to stay out of it.
Statistically yes, but its its not universal. Its impossible to deny the different voting patterns have shifted in a significant way in Gen Z vs their Millennial predecessors, particularly among men.
I don't think 'statistically yes' is correct right now. The vibe shift has undergone a vibe shift, and polls show Dems winning Gen Z men in the generic ballot and little to no difference in social attitudes in the Yale Poll compared to Millennials. MAGA wiped out their so-called permanent ascendant majority.
I think Gen Z men will swing back in the next election. Like a lot of young people, I think they are anti-establishment more than rigid conservative ideologues. It's interesting because what the "establishment" is covers a lot of ground. I think liberalism and feminism are pretty mainstream today, but so is capitalism. So an anti-establishment voter might be open to lots of different types of politics, from a redpill influencer to a socialist.
Is feminism truly mainstream now? For a while, lots of women have said objectively idiotic things like "I believe in equality but I'm not a feminist or something", which totally reminds me of Dukakis-era remarks like "I believe everyone should pay their fair share to help the poor, but I'm not a liberal or something". What I get from that is that the terms in question have (or in the case of "liberal", had) become poisoned for a majority or at least controlling minority of Americans.
I think you nailed it with “not to the extent the media is claiming.”
I think the media that Gen Z men consume is more latently conservative than that which Millennials consumed at the same time. The Manosphere and loosely associated stuff like Joe Rogan did not exist 2010-15. That said, they strike me as more slopulist/anti-establishment with an unusually bad bullshit radar than a legion of future ultra-Christian Charlie Kirks. Surveys on Gen Z religious views suggest an extremely agnostic cohort
I think they’re going anti-establishment more than anything.
Trump, and republicans by association, represent that last year. Some of the more left leaning dems (AOC, Sanders, Mamdani, etc) represent that too, but they’re not the 100% face of our party. I suspect ours are also seen as exceptions by Gen Z.
If I’m right it’d explain much of the group that loves Sanders but dislikes Warren — she’s more willing to play ball with the party establishment.
This balance will change in future elections and they might also shift their preferences as well.
Those folks thinking of Trump as anti-establishment are just dumb suckers in a con game, and Wall Street bigwigs have often been more afraid of Warren and her expert economic condemnations of them than Sanders.
Unfortunately vibes matter more than reality in our modern media environment. I fully agree on the reality. But most voters don’t give a fuck, don’t want to think, don’t want to learn, and just go with what feels “right” to them.
Not related to electoral politics, but still good news: the Lumbee tribe has finally received federal recognition in NC after being recognized by the state 140 years ago.
Definitely good news, but it does mean that Robeson County will probably remain Republican for the foreseeable future since the Lumbees won't forget which president gave them their recognition.
Frankly, it was dumb for Obama and Biden to not give them federal recognition.
I don't know. If 2024 was any indicator, NC democrats are much different than federal democrats - Trump won the state even as Josh Stein, Rachel Hunt, Jeff Jackson, Mo Green and Allison Riggs won statewide (To be fair, Mark Robinson, Hal Weatherman, Dan Bishop, Michelle Morrow and Jefferson Griffin were weak nominees, but still.)
A fair number of other tribes are not in favor of recognizing the Lumbee, as whether they are actually Native American or not is deeply questionable. DNA tests don't show any indigenous ancestry, although there is some reason to believe DNA tests aren't good at picking up on said ancestry. More telling perhaps is that the group has no record of speaking an indigenous language, ever, and some Black and White people from the region believe the Lumbee are a mixed White/Black race group who didn't want to be seen as Black.
I unsubscribed from the DLCC a few minutes ago. They were way too aggressive with their ~twice daily fundraising emails. Does that stuff really work for those organizations?
Unfortunately yes. It costs them virtually nothing to send, and they budget for a certain amount of unsubscribers. You are only a line of a data with a wallet to them.
The solution seems to be to not give them an email address that you use for anything significant. Rather, it behooves people to have one email that can be used as their spam magnet / trashcan.
PS. Don’t ever give fundraisers your cell phone number.
Someone has uploaded California Prop 50 precinct results into DRA. And the districts that were swingy in the 2024 election have become much more secure this year. Gray's district went from Harris +0.5 to Yes +17, Valadao's district went from Trump +1.6 to Yes +19, and Issa's district went from Harris +3 to Yes +12.
The only districts where Harris did better than Yes are in NorCal, including Districts 1, 2, and 3 - not too surprising since those areas were sliced and diced in the new gerrymander. The closest of all the Democratic districts in the election is the 3rd, which was Yes +8.6. (It was Harris +10.) This is probably Kevin Kiley's best bet to remain in Congress, and he might have a fighting chance here in a Republican-leaning year, but in 2026 he would lose even this district.
In summary, Democrats are definitely more likely to gain 5 seats from this map than Republicans are to gain 5 seats from their new Texas map.
Most people here and elsewhere have only been talking about and paying attention to the R to D flipped seats (which obviously are very important), but there’s another equally good thing they did with their map that Republicans DIDN’T get to do in Texas, which is why long ago I said Democrats were currently coming out ahead of the redistricting war Trump started. The seats no one now needs to pay attention to for 2026 that were at risk in 2024: by shoring up potential/actual Democratic swing seats.
California Democrats did both things with their map and in sheer number of districts moved left vs moved right, Democrats nationwide actually did so in more districts than the GOP did. Now we’re at the point where Democrats are beating Republicans power grab handily. And our party saves tens of millions of dollars in each race they’d otherwise have to spend to hold them in 6 other districts: CA-09, CA-13, CA-27, CA-45, CA-47, CA-49. They can use those funds now to go on offence in more reach GOP held districts.
California
R to D: +5 seats
D to more D: keep 6 seats
Elsewhere
UT R to D: +1 seat
IN: N/A
MD: N/A
MO D to R: -1 seat
NC D to R: -1 seat
TX D to R: -5 seats
VA: ?
Total: -1 seat
Even if all our TX Democrats running, lose those 5 seats, as well as Don Davis losing his in NC, even if the new MO map passes with voter approval and VA Democrats don’t redraw the map, it’s still a break even fight in terms of seat gains. I’d also argue pretty forcefully that Republicans don’t pick up all the redrawn seats in Texas, VA Dems do redraw and MO voters vote down the new map, which if those do happen, Democrats are clear winners in a fight Trump and the king’s party started.
Pretty remarkable position to be in from where people at the start were saying Democrats would lose a net 15-20 seats in a redistricting war. Of course none of this matters if SCOTUS undoes the VRA, but even if they do, Democrats are far ahead of where they would have been if our party rolled over and died as expected.
Proposition 50 shoring up several Dem swing districts was almost completely non-reported by the media in their election coverage. And as you say, might turn out to be just as important as the 5 seats we are going to flip.
Looking ahead, I'm hopeful about what redistricting VA does. House Speaker Don Scott is talking a 10D-1R map, a 4 seat flip, though Spanberger apparently is more cautious. Perhaps compromise at 9D-2R. Fingers crossed.
I think FL Republicans will draw something horrible but maybe we'll get lucky and there will be some snapback in south FL combined with adding a some seats in VA we might come out of this ok.
I’m not sure what the slicing and dicing of Sac has to do with the lack of movement from Kamala > Prop 50.
Regardless the biggest Prop 50 surprise to me was that Chico/Butte didn’t move left as much, as well as El Dorado/Placer. We seemed to have reverted almost completely with Hispanic and Asian voters, but stalled a bit in historically GOP burbs.
Neither of those were surprises at all. People in El Dorado/Placer didn't like how their old congressional district, which was fairly compact, was dismantled and replaced by what is effectively a baconmander out from the Sacramento area. Similarly, Butte County residents didn't like how their county is now sunk into a district that is now effectively based in Santa Rosa, 150 miles away on the other side of the mountains. That explains why Prop 50 did relatively poorly in those areas.
Frankly, I suspect that if the map hadn't been drawn and released until after the election, Prop 50 would've done better in Butte and El Dorado/Placer.
Are there any truly swingy districts left post prop 50 in CA?
If you go by the numbers Prop 50 got in each district, there are only three districts where the margin of victory was <10%. Two of those, ironically, are actually the two remaining Republican districts in SoCal - the 40th went No +5 and the 23rd went No +7. It's really amazing how well Prop 50 did in SoCal - the 40th contains Lake Elsinore (Yes +10), Temescal Valley (Yes +2), Mission Viejo (Yes +2), Rancho Santa Margarita (No +0.4), and Menifee (No +2). Those are all incredible numbers for a Democrat. Meanwhile, the 23rd contains Adelanto (Yes +45!), Victorville (Yes +29!!), and Hesperia (No +0.2!!!). So I almost feel like an even better map might have been possible.
The only Democratic district that gave Yes a <10% margin of victory was the 3rd, which stretches from SE Sacramento up to Truckee and Lake Tahoe. That district voted Yes +8.6, but Harris +10.
Moral of the story is that there are no truly swingy districts left, and that it's possible that no district will be closer than 5% next year. And if not for David Valadao's strength as an incumbent, I would've said 10%.
Guess what’s old is new again. California saw zero seat changes from 2008 blue wave to 2010 red wave. Based on your data we will see more of that going forward.
Also zero seat changes in 2004, and only one each in 2002 and 2006. 2002 if you count Steven Horn’s district becoming a safe D seat.
Although Democrats were able to find a candidate for the Trump +35 House district 88, for some reason, they didn't run anyone in the special elections for the Trump +29 House district 21 and Trump +24.5 Senate district 12 (where they found a candidate in 2024!), which are being held at the same time.
This makes me think of how, in 2017, there was a special election for the Oklahoma State Senate district that includes the panhandle. It’s the most Republican state senate district in the state, which is saying a lot. Democrats ran a candidate, and she got about 33% of the vote. Pretty good for a district where Hillary got about 10% of the vote.
Well, I’m now interested in NY-Gov now that Stefanik is out. Could Blakeman being the nominee make this more of a risk?
Some more:
- CA-01: Is McGuire the de facto winner, or could Denney pull off an upset?
- NJ-12: Since Andrew Zwicker isn’t running, who’s the front runner now?
- CA-Gov: Since no one seems to believe we’ll be locked out, who is the likely winner? Swalwell, Porter, or someone else?
- CO-Sen: Could Gonzales pull off an upset, or is Hickenlooper safe?
- Harris County TX Judge: Is Annise Parker set, or could another candidate like Letitia Plummer win the Dem primary? And could the GOP take back the general?
- AK-AL: Could an actual Dem winner candidate appear, or is this a likely GOP hold?
- NY-04: How vulnerable is Gillen? I alluded to this on another discussion, but Blakeman being the nominee + other concerns have me worried. Is this being a safe Dem year enough?
- CT-01: Is Larson safe, or could Bronin upset him?
- FL in general: Given the infighting going on, how likely is the gerrymander to pass? And could an IN-like situation happen?
- GA-Gov: Do we have a shot here? Who are the likely Dem and GOP nominees?
- MA-Sen (hypothetical): If/when Warren retires in a number of years, who is her likeliest successor?
- VT-AL (hypothetical): Ditto with Bernie, except under the assumption Becca Balint is the likely nominee. Should that occur, who would be the likeliest winner here? Tanya Vykovsky? Someone more moderate? A different progressive?
- PA-03: Are we at risk of Sharif Street winning? Could Chris Rabb or Dave Oxman or the physician woman I forgot the name of Evans is backing win instead?
I can’t currently think of any more races ATM so I’ll stop here.
MA-Sen: Leading replacements seem to be Pressley, Wu or Auchincloss. Depends on who enters the primary, who the then Dem president favors, endorsements and who wins.
CA-1: McGuire and LaMalfa should clear the primary and Denney should get a distant third place.
NJ-12: Probably Verlina Reynolds-Jackson
CA-Gov: Swalwell or Porter - probably Swalwell at this point
CO-Sen: Hickenlooper has been a known figure statewide for decades. He has overwhelming support.
Harris County judge: The race between Parker and Plummer could be neck-and neck. Wouldn't pick a favorite.
AK-AL: Sen. Scott Kawasaki seems to be a formidable candidate. Maybe he can run
NY-4: Gillen should be fine, as the Republican bench doesn't seem to be taking shape like one might think - D'Esposito and Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, the two leading contenders, seem to be reluctant. Gillen should have a fight come 2030, though.
CT-1: The presence of Gilchrest and Fortune probably gives Larson a leg up over Bronin.
FL: The Republicans in the states of Mike Pence and Ron DeSantis are very much different. Florida's Republicans are more volatile, and the fight over redistricting could get pretty bitter. I honestly think they'll stall and then not have the time to redistrict.
GA-Gov: With Ossoff leading the ticket federally, the situation is different than Abrams 8 years ago - Democrats have a better shot. I would say Keisha Lance Bottoms and Burt Jones are the frontrunners in their parties. I can't speak for the candidates in the middle of it all, but Derrick Jackson, Ruwa Romman, Olu Brown and Chris Carr are lost causes.
MA-Sen: I agree with PollJunkie - probably Pressley, Wu or Auchincloss, and perhaps Maura Healey, as she'll be up for re-election as governor the year of Warren's next election.
VT-AL: I think Balint has more of an opening in 2028, when Welch may retire after one term. I'd say current and former statewide officials like Charity Clark and David Zimmerman could run after Sanders retires.
PA-3: The polling is getting closer here, as more people realize who Sharif Street is. Rabb should have a shot. Personally, I hope Malcolm Kenyatta upends the race and blows everyone out of the water.
"CO-Sen: Hickenlooper has been a known figure statewide for decades. He has overwhelming support." I think it's subjective to what overwhelming means but I don't see Gonzales cracking 40% but we'll see how she conducts her campaign and how Hickenlooper handles it.
The most competition he has had in a Democratic primary after being in elected office for over two decades was in his first bid for Senate, where he beat Andrew Romanoff by 18 points. He's on a glide path to securing a second term, and will likely serve it out and fulfill his promise to retire in 2032.
Additionally, he ran uncontested in the primary for both of his races for governor, and defeated opponents by double digits when he was mayor of Denver.
The fact he could only get 58% in the primary after two terms as governor isn't impressive to me. Living here there are many Democrats who are ready to turn the page. For now I don't think Gonzales gets as close as Romanoff. It would require Hick making multiple mistakes next year and Gonzales capitalizing on them. I guess I agree he is likely win by 20%+ but not so much with the certainty of that outcome.
Why is Colorado so liberal but not progressive? I can't think of a prominent Colorado progressive holding statewide for a long time. Why can't you elect the likes of Romanoff and Gonzales statewide?
Romanoff was a founding figure in the neoliberal Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and closely aligned with Bill Clinton. As Speaker, he governed in a business-friendly, anti-migrant, and broadly reactionary manner. His later shift toward the left was driven more by political expediency than conviction, and he struggled to build credibility on the Left or support within Hispanic communities.
Gonzales, in contrast, has been gotten a lot of progressive legislation passed afaik.
The fact that Romanoff got to 40 was impressive and may have had something to do with Hickenlooper's minor scandals leading up to election day and his description of Sanders as a Marxist-Leninist.
I mean I think some of the statewide officers could be considered "progressive" but that seems somewhat subjective as well. To the original point I think Hick wins comfortably but I can see a narrow path for Gonzales changing that outcome.
Because Colorado has only been a solid blue state for like 7 years now. Both Bennet and Hick were first elected when Colorado was a swing state. Polis represented a solid blue district, but he's always been weird.
I hope I never need to hear from David Zuckerman again, the vaccine stuff is hard to forgive, as is losing the lieutenant governor race, giving Phil Scott a potential Republican successor
Betcha that Elise Stefanik winds up with a nice job in 2027 in Trump's administration, perhaps as good as that UN gig she lost. She'll spend 2026 flattering Trump to help insure that.
Trump is not reliable. No way to be sure what he will do.
What can she offer Trump now? She is leaving office, and won't be able to help him in any way. Trump needs money, favors, votes, or influence. She won't have any of those.
I want to make sure that Democrats don't lose focus on the potential of redistricting Colorado. Does anyone know if there have been any recent developments there with their efforts to repeal their independent commission and draw a 7D-1R map instead?
Colorado is the state that Democrats should be focusing on the most this year in terms of redistricting (along with states that have already begun the process, like Virginia). This is because while states like Maryland, Illinois, and Oregon only have the potential to give Democrats one more seat each, Colorado could give Democrats three more seats single-handedly, so the potential payoff is much larger.
https://coloradonewsline.com/2025/08/13/constitutional-amendment-colorado-redistricting/
The only proposal is a grassroots constitutional amendment that would give the governor emergency power to redistrict. It needs 125k signatures and 55% of the vote next year to pass.
It doesn't seem to have official party support and neither Bennet or Weiser who backed redrawing specifically supported that amendment. We will see if the party backs this idea, comes up with their own or does nothing at all.
Challengers launch contests against Democratic Party's problem children
https://www.axios.com/local/charlotte/2025/12/19/democrats-overrides-primaries-cunningham-majeed
Midterm elections to watch in North Carolina in 2026
https://www.axios.com/local/raleigh/2025/12/19/nc-election-triangle-republican-democrat-primary
Democrats are trying to knock out conservadems who override Gov Stein's vetoes.
Good. Get them out
For anyone tracking special elections, there are two coming up in VA on Jan 6th.
Lt. Governor-elect Ghazala Hashmi was in the VA state senate before winning her race in November. On Dec 7th, Mike Jones won the "firehouse" primary to run as the Democratic candidate for her senate seat.
Since Jones is currently in the House of Delegates, there was a second "Firehouse" primary for his seat 1 week later on December 14th. Charlie Schmidt won that primary by defeating the candidate favored by the "establishment" Democrats by a fairly large margin - 55% to 42% with the remainder going to the third place finisher. Schmidt is a progressive with a platform similar IMO to that of Afton Behn, who out-performed in her special election in TN-07. (Charlie Schmidt was on a Zoom call I attended yesterday and I thought he was a great candidate with a great message).
Postcards to Voters (https://postcardstovoters.org/) currently has postcard campaigns for both Mike and Charlie. While both these districts are currently blue, anything is possible in a low turnout election like this one is likely to be. It is hard to imagine a time frame when more potential voters will be tuned out and not thinking about elections.
Note: There is a week of early voting starting on Dec 27th.
I would love to see Democrats continue to overperform in the lead up to November and convince even more Republicans that it is time for them to retire!! We CAN make a difference!
If you would like to learn more about these candidates (or make a financial contribution), their websites are:
www.mikejonesva.com
https://charlie4va.com/
Yes! This really matters:
"I would love to see Democrats continue to overperform in the lead up to November and convince even more Republicans that it is time for them to retire!! We CAN make a difference!"
NY-AD-36: Political organizer Diana Romero has received the endorsement of the incumbent, Zohran Mamdani, in the special to succeed him
A fear I have is that the local Dems will deliberately recruit a centrist to stick it to Mamdani and the left. Not that said candidate will survive a future primary or even win the general if Romero runs on the WFP line, just that it will once again demonstrate the pettiness and ideological rigidity of NY's state Democratic Party.
You know my politics, but it's completely natural for someone further right to run for an open seat against a socialist in a primary. I don't see that as petty at all.
That wasn't what I meant.
I was referring to how all special election nominees in NY are selected by the state party, at least as far as I know. There is no primary, the party picks the candidate. And since we know the NYC Dem Party branches despise the DSA and the left more broadly, I suspect they'd do something like what I described.
You don't get to run in special elections based on signatures or anything?
I believe the party picks candidates. I remember when Pat Ryan ran, that was how he was picked.
Your neighboring district's rep could be worse. Could still be Maloney, or, hell, Nan Hayworth.
OK, I get it.
With the exception of the "government run grocery store" (which would represent 1% of the total city Grocery market, which therefore makes it neither a serious redistribution of ownership, or wealth) which of Mamdani's policies are socialist exactly?
In my view, he wants things that have been established policies across much of Europe.
Free buses, extensive low-cost housing construction and a freeze in the rent stabilized rents come to mind, and the reforms put into place in Europe since the 1890s were due to pressure from socialists.
Little piece of trivia I researched: there's probably more, but I counted 31 sitting U.S. Representatives that do not live in their congressional district. Among them are Randy Fine, Hakeem Jeffries, Rashida Tlaib and Maxine Waters. Overall, it's 14 Republicans and 17 Democrats.
Incidentally, a point of focus for at least one Randy Fine primary challenger is that he does not live in his district.
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/751301-furry-fine-cd-6/
"Furry’s bet is that Republican voters in Florida’s 6th Congressional District will prefer someone who has lived there for a long time, rather than someone who moved there recently in pursuit of political office.
“I’ve answered the call from the people of District 6 who want a representative that reflects their priorities, not someone who parachuted in and doesn’t know our community. I live here, I serve here. It’s about the Will of the People and I’m ready to take that fight to Washington” Furry said."
Regarding the others, Jeffries is the future Speaker (and his constituent services were good enough in combination with this to scare Chi Osse's primary challenge away), Maxine Waters is basically an institution at this point (although she's getting really old), and as for Tlaib, she represents probably one of the most Arab-heavy districts in the country (including Dearborn, which has effectively become the Arab capital of the U.S.) and apparently has excellent constituent services, so even if one doesn't like her, she isn't going anywhere, and I'd argue effectively represents her district.
All of the ones I mentioned apart from Fine only live a few miles (and in some cases, only a few blocks) out of the district bounds. The same can mostly be said for the dozens I didn't name. Jeffries and Tlaib have good constituent services because they're the ones that only live a few blocks away.
Jeffries literally lives a few streets over in the 9th district in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn, while Tlaib lives in the Detroit neighborhood of Corktown, not far from Dearborn, a focal point of her district.
Fine, meanwhile, lives the distance it takes me to get to Pittsburgh from my residence in West Virginia from his district - 90 minutes.
Are some of these due to the redistricting-mania that has been happening, where their district's lines were recently redrawn? Could you list the 31 you found?
Counting redistricting, the total actually expands to 35:
Republicans:
1. Nick LaLota (NY-1) - lives in Amityville, in NY-2
2. Morgan Griffith (VA-9) - lives in Salem, in VA-6,
3. Brad Knott (NC-13) - lives in North Hills, Raleigh, in NC-2
4. Rich McCormick (GA-7) - lives in Suwanee, in GA-9
5. Andrew Clyde (GA-9) - lives in Athens, in GA-10
6. Randy Fine (FL-6) - lives in Melbourne Beach, in FL-8
7. Gus Bilirakis (FL-12) - lives in Palm Harbor, in FL-13
8. Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-26) - lives in Kendall West, in FL-28
9. Carlos A. Gimenez (FL-28) - lives in Richmond Heights, in FL-27
10. Mary Miller (IL-15) - lives in Oakland, in IL-12
11. Roger Williams (TX-25) - lives in Weatherford, in TX-12 (same before and after redistricting)
12. Troy Downing (MT-2) - lives in Big Sky, in MT-1
13. Eli Crane (AZ-2) - lives in Oro Valley, in AZ-6
14. Blake Moore (UT-1) - lives in Salt Lake City, in UT-1 (he almost certainly won't run there next year after redistricting)
15. Kevin Kiley (CA-3) - lives in Rocklin, in CA-6 (misplaced by Prop 50)
16. Tom McClintock (CA-5) - lives in Elk Grove, in CA-7 (same before and after Prop 50)
17. Darrell Issa (CA-48) - lives in Bonsall, in CA-49 (misplaced by Prop 50, now ironically lives in his former district)
Democrats:
1. Nydia Velazquez (NY-7) - lives in Red Hook, Brooklyn, in NY-10
2. Hakeem Jeffries (NY-8) - lives in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn, in NY-9
3. Johnny Olszewski (MD-2) - lives in Edgemere, in MD-7
4. April McClain-Delaney (MD-6) - lives in Potomac, in MD-8
5. James Walkinshaw (VA-11) - lives in Annandale, in VA-8
6. Don Davis (NC-1) - lives in Snow Hill, in NC-3 (misplaced by redistricting)
7. Lucy McBath (GA-6) - lives in Marietta, in GA-11
8. David Scott (GA-13) - lives in Atlanta, in GA-5
9. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (FL-20) - lives in Miramar, in FL-25
10. Rashida Tlaib (MI-12) - lives in Corktown, Detroit, in MI-13
11. Vicente Gonzalez (TX-34) - lives in McAllen, in TX-28 (lived in TX-15 before redistricting, which he once represented)
12. Janelle Bynum (OR-5) - lives in Happy Valley, in OR-3
13. Ami Bera (CA-6) - lives in Elk Grove, in CA-7
14. John Garamendi (CA-8) - lives in Walnut Grove, in CA-7
15. Sam Liccardo (CA-16) - lives in San Jose, in CA-18 (same before and after Prop 50)
16. George Whitesides (CA-27) - lives in Agua Dulce, in CA-30 (misplaced by Prop 50)
17. Maxine Waters (CA-43) - lives in Windsor Square, Los Angeles, in CA-30 (same before and after Prop 50)
18. Juan Vargas (CA-52) - lives in Golden Hill, San Diego, in CA-51 (same before and after Prop 50)
I decided to take a look at how Prop 50 performed in California's state legislative districts, to see which ones are the best Democratic targets for next year.
I'll start with the Assembly. It should be no surprise that every district currently held by a Democrat voted yes, mostly by substantial margins. But plenty of Republicans hold districts that voted Yes as well. Riverside County, interestingly, is a hub of these districts - it contains AD-50 (Harris +4 to Yes +22), AD-47 (Harris +4 to Yes +13) and AD-36 (Trump +1 to Yes +14). These should all be top targets for Dems next year.
But there are others as well. AD-70, in Orange County, is the Vietnamese district, and it went from Trump +3 to Yes +12. If they like Democratic gerrymandering so much, it stands to reason they should like the politicians who will benefit from said gerrymandering. In addition, AD-74, stretching from South OC to Oceanside and Vista, had a more modest swing to the left but still went Yes +6. Heading north, AD-7, in the suburbs of Sacramento, went Yes +5 despite this area getting sliced and diced under the new congressional map. And finally, AD-22 in Stanislaus County voted Yes +4. Amazingly, that leaves only 13 districts across California that voted No on Prop 50, and some of them in SoCal were quite narrow losses.
Moving on to the state Senate, Democratic pickings are considerably slimmer there. This is first of all because only six Republican-held seats are up for election next year, and four of them voted No. The two that voted Yes are SD-36, on the OC coast, and SD-40 in inland San Diego County. SD-36 was very close, voting Yes by just a 51-49 margin, while in SD-40 the win was somewhat larger at 53-47. So neither of these will be slam dunks, but both should be top targets. In addition, SD-6 in the suburbs of Sacramento should also be strongly contested, since it voted just 51-49 No and this area didn't swing at all toward Yes this year. (It voted 49-48 for Trump last year.) So these people might just not have liked their area getting sliced and diced under the new congressional map, but they might be more willing to vote for Democratic candidates.
The other three Republican-held state senate districts that are up for election next year are all heavily Republican, and Safe R barring a top-two lockout (which of course we got in SD-4 in 2022 before the "Democrat" who won there treacherously switched parties). In fact, SD-32 is the only state senate district in the entirety of SoCal that voted No. And among the Democratic-held seats, SD-16 went from Trump +9 to Yes +8, while all the others voted Yes by wide margins. The reason why Dems can't win a bigger majority in the CA Senate is because we whiffed on SDs 23 and 37 last year.
Speaking of SD-4, what are our chances of taking out the turncoat Dem Marie Alvarado-Gil there?
EDIT: Particularly considering she was sued for sexual harassment?
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/marie-alvarado-gil-lawsuit-19750023.php
In a general election? Pretty much nil, since No won SD-4 by a 55-45 margin.
Of course, it's possible that another Republican could beat her, but that other Republican would still have a terrible voting record and could easily have other issues as well, since so many Republicans do.
https://alabamareflector.com/2025/12/18/phillip-ensler-to-seek-democratic-nomination-for-lieutenant-governor/
AL-Lt. Gov: State Rep. Philip Ensler is in as a Democrat, and was recruited by gubernatorial candidate Doug Jones rather than retire from politics and move to New York.
How do we rate Doug Jones’ and Philip Ensler’s chances?
Bad? It's Alabama, they approve of Trump by 15 to 20 points right now.
Perhaps four- or five-to-one against them? Maybe slightly better odds for Doug Jones.
I'd say more like 20 to 1. A Democrat can't win in Alabama unless the Republican does something to actively repulse a large share of people who normally vote red.
Yeah if the 2017 Senate race with Moore was a normal election year (2018/20) i'm not sure Jones wins that senate race if the ballot has other offices on it.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/20/trump-new-york-governor-endorsement-bruce-blakeman-00702013
NY-Gov: Trump quickly has endorsed Bruce Blakeman, the day after Rep. Stefanik withdrew.
I suggest Trump nominate Stefanik as the new Ambassador to Eswatini, Chad, Haiti or perhaps the Solomon Islands.
https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/state/local/harriet-hageman-likely-mulling-run-after-wyoming-sen-cynthia-lummis-announces-retirement/article_8ad6d725-abca-48ab-af4a-1159cfe36749.html
WY-Sen, WY-AL, WY-Gov: Harriet Hageman appears to be a likely Senate candidate, rather than Governor or re-election to the House. An announcement could come as early as Monday.
Add another to the pile of “get the f*** out of town before I become a part of the minority in the House” club. Forget what Republicans are saying right now, instead, watch what they’re doing.
No. There are retirements (and even some bids for higher office) that fit in that bucket, but this isn't one of them. This is an early-career House member taking one of the freest opportunities for a promotion to the Senate a House member will ever get. She'd be doing this even if Republicans were a lock for a majority. Republicans are very likely to lose the House but this is about as much an indication of that as Pappas running for NH-Sen is an indication Dems will not take the House.
Several Wyoming representatives have immediately jumped into Senate races first chance they got. Craig Thomas ran for Senate after five years in the House, and Teno Roncalio (in 1966) and John Wold (in 1970) both ran for Senate after a single term in the House. Granted, both lost, so those weren’t free rides for them.
Rick Berg in ND and Steve Daines in MT also ran for Senate after one term in the House (with mixed results). I'd imagine it's much easier in an At-Large state.
Perhaps unlikely, but I would love to see Liz Cheney regain her House seat and once again be a thorn in the side of Trump. Or perhaps run for Governor of Wyoming.
(Yes, I dislike Cheney’s policy positions, but I applaud her willingness to pay the price for not being a MAGA Fascist. We need people like her in our pro-democratic (small D) coalition.)
Probably no chance.
Yeah, also it’s not like her being the republican rep there would hurt us at all. Our chances of winning that seat are low enough to be rounded down to zero. Might as well have a pro democracy republican with that limitation.
Cheney isn’t pro-democracy, she just didn’t like which fascist clique was winning.
I think she had her limits, but she has never said anything about Bush and her father's election theft in 2000. She may have rationalized it away as not really theft.
General question, as a Gen Z leftist man myself: do you believe Gen Z men are going conservative as has been claimed in the media, do you not believe it, is it more nuanced, etc.?
I’ve occasionally met more conservative other Gen Z men myself, but not to the extent the media is claiming. Curious to see what posters here think about it.
As a fellow Gen Z leftist man, it's hard to say. I have a mixture of liberal friends (usually those who I associate with for my love of music and the arts), conservative friends (who grew up in more rural areas not associated with the city I live in), and even friends like the person I consider my best friend, who don't care about politics and just want to stay out of it.
Statistically yes, but its its not universal. Its impossible to deny the different voting patterns have shifted in a significant way in Gen Z vs their Millennial predecessors, particularly among men.
I don't think 'statistically yes' is correct right now. The vibe shift has undergone a vibe shift, and polls show Dems winning Gen Z men in the generic ballot and little to no difference in social attitudes in the Yale Poll compared to Millennials. MAGA wiped out their so-called permanent ascendant majority.
I think it's accurate through last year. As they say, the future is yet unwritten.
I think Gen Z men will swing back in the next election. Like a lot of young people, I think they are anti-establishment more than rigid conservative ideologues. It's interesting because what the "establishment" is covers a lot of ground. I think liberalism and feminism are pretty mainstream today, but so is capitalism. So an anti-establishment voter might be open to lots of different types of politics, from a redpill influencer to a socialist.
Is feminism truly mainstream now? For a while, lots of women have said objectively idiotic things like "I believe in equality but I'm not a feminist or something", which totally reminds me of Dukakis-era remarks like "I believe everyone should pay their fair share to help the poor, but I'm not a liberal or something". What I get from that is that the terms in question have (or in the case of "liberal", had) become poisoned for a majority or at least controlling minority of Americans.
I think you nailed it with “not to the extent the media is claiming.”
I think the media that Gen Z men consume is more latently conservative than that which Millennials consumed at the same time. The Manosphere and loosely associated stuff like Joe Rogan did not exist 2010-15. That said, they strike me as more slopulist/anti-establishment with an unusually bad bullshit radar than a legion of future ultra-Christian Charlie Kirks. Surveys on Gen Z religious views suggest an extremely agnostic cohort
I think it more accurate to categorize Charlie Kirk and his ilk as *Christianists* – not Christians.
This distinction corresponds with, and is just as critical as, the distinction between Islamists and Muslims.
I dont disagree
I think they’re going anti-establishment more than anything.
Trump, and republicans by association, represent that last year. Some of the more left leaning dems (AOC, Sanders, Mamdani, etc) represent that too, but they’re not the 100% face of our party. I suspect ours are also seen as exceptions by Gen Z.
If I’m right it’d explain much of the group that loves Sanders but dislikes Warren — she’s more willing to play ball with the party establishment.
This balance will change in future elections and they might also shift their preferences as well.
Those folks thinking of Trump as anti-establishment are just dumb suckers in a con game, and Wall Street bigwigs have often been more afraid of Warren and her expert economic condemnations of them than Sanders.
Unfortunately vibes matter more than reality in our modern media environment. I fully agree on the reality. But most voters don’t give a fuck, don’t want to think, don’t want to learn, and just go with what feels “right” to them.
https://www.npr.org/2025/12/20/g-s1-103223/lumbee-tribe-federal-recognition-137-years
Not related to electoral politics, but still good news: the Lumbee tribe has finally received federal recognition in NC after being recognized by the state 140 years ago.
Definitely good news, but it does mean that Robeson County will probably remain Republican for the foreseeable future since the Lumbees won't forget which president gave them their recognition.
Frankly, it was dumb for Obama and Biden to not give them federal recognition.
I don't know. If 2024 was any indicator, NC democrats are much different than federal democrats - Trump won the state even as Josh Stein, Rachel Hunt, Jeff Jackson, Mo Green and Allison Riggs won statewide (To be fair, Mark Robinson, Hal Weatherman, Dan Bishop, Michelle Morrow and Jefferson Griffin were weak nominees, but still.)
They may have stayed Republican anyways because, unless I’m totally wrong, they are generally a more socially conservative tribe
A fair number of other tribes are not in favor of recognizing the Lumbee, as whether they are actually Native American or not is deeply questionable. DNA tests don't show any indigenous ancestry, although there is some reason to believe DNA tests aren't good at picking up on said ancestry. More telling perhaps is that the group has no record of speaking an indigenous language, ever, and some Black and White people from the region believe the Lumbee are a mixed White/Black race group who didn't want to be seen as Black.
I unsubscribed from the DLCC a few minutes ago. They were way too aggressive with their ~twice daily fundraising emails. Does that stuff really work for those organizations?
Unfortunately yes. It costs them virtually nothing to send, and they budget for a certain amount of unsubscribers. You are only a line of a data with a wallet to them.
And Republicans are even worse. https://www.reddit.com/r/assholedesign/comments/j6djm1/impossible_to_unsubscribe_from_donald_trump/
I wonder how many dollars they lose from people being annoyed vs dollars gained by pestering people so much.
The solution seems to be to not give them an email address that you use for anything significant. Rather, it behooves people to have one email that can be used as their spam magnet / trashcan.
PS. Don’t ever give fundraisers your cell phone number.
Yeah, but sadly, it's too late for me.