Well, now I'm interested in California's 14th congressional race, which frankly, should have a special election soon after Congressman Eric Swalwell hopefully resigns in disgrace.
For those out of the loop, the SF Chronicle published this story today with a pretty bad sexual assault (actually, arguably, rape) accusation against Swalwell by a former staffer. And it sounds like there are more stories from other former staffers.
Much of the discourse has focused on his campaign for Governor, calling on him to drop out of the race. However, given the evidence cited in the article (contemporaneous texts, medical records, and other compelling info), I think a resignation is in order.
He has too big of an ego, too much ambition for his career, to resign. He is a narcissist. And if this is true, then he deserves to go down by losing the governor's race and being publicly shunned from electoral politics.
Edit: not sure how much of a splash it'll bring, but Rep. Jimmy Gomez just left the Swalwell campaign and told him to drop out.
You think? I'm just worried about who we coalesce behind, then. Or, well. Mostly I'm concerned he *won't* drop out but at this rate I think it's likely, this is going fast.
but still. The others in the lead were Porter, who has her own not AS heinous but still not good (verbal, emotional) abuse of staffers allegations, some on camera. The other is another billionaire who thinks money and ego are as good as actual experience if not better. But hey, if it's Steyer it's Steyer. I would like to see if it's still possible to coalesce around any of the others at this stage.
If it comes down to Steyer and Porter I think there is a good chance to avoid the top 2 R's with Hilton getting the Trump endorsement. A lot less worried but it is still a possibility.
now Pelosi and Jeffries as well, among others. Apparently he's not pulling out just yet, but the "spending time with my family" to one presumes ponder the least worst option this weekend...oh, and already hints he's gonna spin it as "I'm so very sorry to my poor beloved put-upon wife, I did have sex with that woman, but it was consensual and" blah blah blah
I can't see him lasting more than another few days, tops.
In the early 2010’s, a woman named Christine Fang seemed to be trying to cultivate relationships with rising local politicians. Fang reportedly gained access to Swalwell’s network and successfully placed an associate in his congressional office. In 2015, the FBI informed Swalwell that Fang was suspected of ties to Chinese Ministry of State Security. Swalwell cut off contact.
In 2020, Fox News, citing anonymous sources, alleged a sexual relationship between Swalwell and Fang to which Swalwell’s office declined to comment. A two-year House ethics investigation that ended in 2023 took no further action over whether Swalwell violated any House rules or “other standards of conduct” with his connection to Fang. https://eastbayinsiders.substack.com/p/the-legend-of-fang-fang-returns
The Fang thing was mostly whatever to me, although this is the first I'm seeing of a sexual affair. Which would be Not Great, but in itself, at worst it'd be a seemingly consensual relationship and a congressperson taken advantage of by a foreign influencer, which he immediately cut off once known. Also it seemed like mainly Republicans pushing the story. Forgivable. Survivable.
This is apparently only the first of a number of stories in the pipe. Maybe not all actual assault, but a LOT of receipts of harassment.
This is usually the point where I say yep assume guilty unless (somehow) proven otherwise. Not in court, but this isn't court. Time to drop. And probably resign, or at the very least not run again.
That said: is there enough time for a special election if he does? States take unnecessarily long to run these. With the kinds of time tables we typically see it could basically coincide with the general in November. Which I'd be fine with, just not sure we'd get the excitement of a special election this summer.
There's another article by CNN. Skimming it seems to mostly summarize the SF Chronicle report, however it does have a new detail that I didn't see in the original report.
"Three other women who spoke with CNN also alleged various kinds of sexual misconduct by the Democratic congressman – including Swalwell sending them unsolicited explicit messages or nude photos."
I'm a lot more interested in who can step up and make sure we're not locked out by Hilton and Bianco and *not* be an abusive POS at minimum, but sure, the House seat matters too I guess
ugh. I wish I could just say hey, Porter doesn't seem so bad in comparison and regain the excitement of yestermonth but, while not as heinous verbal abuse still kinda bad.
Hell, I said I wanted Steyer to drop, I'm over billionaires with no experience and their egos; but if that's what it takes I'll get behind it.
or, maybe 7 weeks is long enough to coalesce around someone else.
Hope so.
goddammit Kamala. You could've had the governorship. You could've had a V8. You fucked up.
Well, it's interesting-I saw another article that said apparently Bianco isn't taking this lying down. The article in question posited that as good for Dems in that they're busy hair pulling and it's likely no one gets the party endorsement (as opposed to Trump's); but, well, we could still be in a scenario where it ends up being "whichever two people are hated least."
That said I'm already feeling somewhat reassured by how fast this is already moving-worst case scenario is Swalwell stubbornly clinging on, but it looks like that actually won't even be possible at this rate.
that is, obviously Bianco's not ready to quit, but it's not at all clear that Trump's endorsement is a golden ticket at this stage.
It'll be interesting. I'm betting Swalwell's supporters split and a number of them won't want Porter or Steyer, because neither of them represent the Party in the same way Swalwell did. Porter not so much because "too progressive" as she'd already alienated herself from the party machine and now the abuse allegations. Steyer, well, outsider.
Who else is left? The thing is, the numbers are already so low-is 13% support really that much better than, whatever the next tier down was. 8%? Maybe they're all under 5% already? I dunno.
For democrats, tiers of support basically clustered at:
- 10-15% for Swalwell, Steyer, and Porter
- 2-6% for Becerra and Vilargarosa
- 1-4% for Mahan, Yee, Thurmond
All values are poll dependent, of course.
There's a very clear and very meaningful separation between the top of the pack and the bottom. The expected collapse of Swalwell's support is most obvious a boon for Steyer and Porter as the only two democrats with a credible pathway to making it to the general election + being the obvious choice for voters to coalesce around.
Most polls also had around 20% of the vote undecided; most of those people are going to have to come off the sidelines and pick a person (or abstain) and presumably they will gravitate towards the candidates they perceive as viable.
Yeah. I really don't like Porter, and generally don't support suburban SoCal dems statewide. But it seems like she has my vote now. I wish Yee or Bacerra gained a little more traction. They didn't. At least Porter will likely listen to people and fight the good fight.
Porter’s temperament allows room for improvement and is much easier to work around. This is a minor issue compared to the bigger fight at hand against Trump and running CA.
It also just occurred to me that Trump is absolutely going to crow about this, it is absolutely going to be dumb as hell because it'll just draw (more) attention back to his own accusations as well as help keep a Republican away from the office; and none of that will deter him in the slightest.
Unfortunately, that's not how California law works. There cannot be an election until he resigns his seat. At least he won't be in Congress come January
We rightfully celebrated this week’s amazing results. Now it’s time to look to the near horizon. What I’m watching:
1. May 5: Ohio primary turnout. Can Dems outvote Republicans? We couldn’t in 2018. It would be a promising sign if we continued out primary turnout streak from Texas and North Carolina here.
2. May 19: Georgia primary. The Supreme Court races are big. Hope we can turnout more Democrats yet again. Hoping Jason Esteves can get into the Democratic gubernatorial runoff. Also hoping that both Republican Senate and gubernatorial primaries go to a runoff.
3. May 26: Texas runoff. Hoping for Paxton🙏 . Rooting for Johnson in the Dem AG runoff. Don’t care much about the Dem LG race, either would be good.
Those May races are important, but let's first get Virginia those four more House seats, and (hopefully) watch the Hungarian people oust Orban. Then we can focus on the elections in May.
I don't think it's wrong to also be interested in other elections after Virginia and Hungary. After all, this is a website where we discuss elections in general, not only the one that's closest.
I think it’s mostly that Johnson is much more well-funded, which is necessary in a big state. He was already just a point or so shy of winning in the first round as it was.
Activate America (www.activateamerica.vote) has campaigns to get out the vote for both the OH and GA primaries. Both are targeting Democrats and Democratic leaning Independents:
* Ohio Primary Get Out The Vote for Newly Registered Voters (mail ASAP but no later than April 20)
* Ohio Primary Get Out The Vote for Newly Registered Voters (mail ASAP but no later than May 10)
I'm interested in the primary for my home state of West Virginia on May 12.
-I support Jeff Kessler for U.S. Senate over sex pest and progressive organizer Zach Shrewsbury and Stephanie Tomana, a teacher I had in middle school, for WV-2. There's a lot of buzz around state Sen. Tom Willis primarying Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, but I'm not sure it'll go anywhere.
-While not major primary races, state Del. John Williams, who is running for state Senate against a longtime Republican incumbent (in my district), and former Del. Linda Longstreth, who is running for her old seat (not in my district), are other local faces I'll support in November, along with Olivia Miller, who is running for Williams's seat.
-I'm interested to see which senators and delegates fall to their Republican primary challengers; Del. Bob Fehrenbacher is challenging Sen. Mike Azinger, former congressional candidate Joe Earley (who I've seen a lot of support for when I've been down in the district) is challenging Sen. Ben Queen, and former far-right Sen. Robert Karnes is challenging Sen. Bill Hamilton.
Capito is considered to be an establishment Republican, and Willis picked up a lot of support by ousting then-Lt. Gov. Craig Blair in 2024, who he considered establishment. Capito comes from a long line (and has a lot of kin) of politicians. She is old, and has been in Congress for 26 years, even longer than my lifespan.
Definitely, her voting habits is the same as any Republican in that seat. But she’s more of a “work behind the scenes” Republican, rather than a “let’s blow things up” front camera facing one. So in that way she’ll probably be better than any other Republican who could successfully primary her.
I may have referenced it before, but I recall reading that when Karnes was appointed in 1987, he was the first Senator in 40 years to have facial hair (he had a mustache).
Do you agree with AWildLibAppeared that he should just resign rather than drop out of the race, or wait for further information to come forward (Swalwell appears to be ready to sue his accuser for defamation)?
the longer he waits the worse it's going to get for him, based on the stuff I've heard WHICH LET ME EMPHASIZE IS ALL THIRD HAND RUMORS AND SPECULATION AND NOT SOCIAL MEDIA FODDER AND NOT MY STORY TO TELL. But suing the first accuser for defamation...yeah, good luck with that. The only hint I will drop is that Jimmy Gomez, founder of the Dads Caucus, was probably the 1st elected to withdraw his endorsement.
I have always thought Swalwell had a fucking scumbag vibe and was deciding between Porter and Steyer. I am voting for Porter without questions at this point.
I was turned off by Porter's own abuse allegations/the tape (not in the same ballpark as Swalwell obviously but still not great) and Steyer just on general principles of "ugh not another bloody billionaire parachuting in from Outside." I'll bandwagon behind whoever at this point.
goddammit, Kamala. We could've put this to bed months ago and had a much more preposessing governor, ah well.
CA-Gov - With Swalwell's campaign collapsing, who benefits from this in the primary?
I don't think the Republicans are going to benefit at all from this, as Swalwell's base is mostly hyperpartisan centrist and center-left Dems who aren't going to consider voting for a Republican nowadays.
The most likely beneficiary is Tom Steyer, as he's the highest in the polls among those who most people who had been supporting Swalwell would consider switching their support to.
Some other beneficiaries could include Xavier Becerra, Matt Mahan, and Tony Thurmond, but they're too far back in the polls (especially Mahan and Thurmond) for them to have a chance. Katie Porter could also benefit, but she is known for being extremely difficult for staffers to work with, and the Swalwell allegations might lead to increased media coverage of that fact, even if it's not directly related to the Swalwell allegations
I think Steyer has the best chance to benefit from this, because of Porter's earlier controversies and Steyer's surprising increase in support from progressives despite his billionaire status. The other candidates are so pathetic I would probably vote for him.
You beat me to it. I was wondering just what makes an investment immortal. Clay tablets and cuneiform styluses back in the day? Papyrus production? Gutenberg’s movable type?
(PS. Alfred Nobel’s invention and immortal investment was ... dynamite.)
Are you referring to her losing her temper when filming a piece on climate change and an aide kept getting into the shot? Not her best day but not a scandal.
No, verbal abuse is still abuse. There've been other allegations from other staffers as well. At best, she doesn't play nicely in the sandbox, which, even if you're inclined to overlook such things as venal in the greater scheme of everything, combined with how the Senate race fell out she may not actually be that great at getting an agenda across. But then, it may not matter at this point.
I don't have a problem with billionaires per se necessarily-I do have a soft spot for Pritzker. But, unlike Steyer, and Ahnold and (!) Trump and Ross Perot and whoever the hell it was the Starbucks guy and so many others, he actually worked his way up. It's a real job, dammit. I think a lot of our problem is people deciding Mr Smith Goes To Washington is a) a documentary b) exactly the same thing as some zillionaire deciding his money and ego are more valuable than actual experience and qualification.
That said: if the worst Steyer is combined with a Dem Congress is "mostly harmless," I guess I'll take it.
...now that I'm looking at it, I'm realizing actually Pritzker also seems to have gone directly to governor. I was thinking of him in terms of running for POTUS having governor under his belt. I thought he'd at least been a House Rep but Wiki sez his run was "unsuccessful."
And Zelenskyy was a comedian.
Eh, screw it. Go Steyer, I guess.
Or Porter if she pulls it out and it's that or the Republican, obviously.
My personal current ranking of the candidates are Porter, Becerra as my 1A and 1B. I'll vote for Steyer if I have to but I am depressed at all of the mediocre candidates here in California.
I'm disappointed Becerra didn't get farther off the ground. I wonder why. So many factors and most of them seem to have nothing to do with aptitude or qualification for the job. It's like voting for prom king or something.
Maybe he's been out of the CA Public Eye for too long? He was buried at HHS and while he did an adequate job he just didn't stand out. It probably would have been better for his future ambitions to just remain AG if he really wanted to be Governor. I also didn't much care for his nomination to HHS in the first place to be honest.
I think it’s hard to consolidate the amount of vote necessary to get to the 2nd slot when there’s also Villaraigosa running. Both of them have most of the same base and that’s preventing either one from breaking out from the pack.
A question just popped into my head, is there any evidence that jungle primary voters are more white in California compared to the general election? I know white voters overall almost always outvote any other demographic in general elections as a percentage of the electorate, but does that hold for the jungle primary in CA too?
It would be interesting if someone has done a study or the calculations. If that is the case (which I would suspect to be true, but I’m entirely guessing), that would also create an even lower ceiling for less well known Hispanic/Latino Democratic candidates compared to ones with more national name recognition/money to advertise themselves.
That is an interesting question, and I'd also be interested in a study. Out of curiosity, why would you expect that to be the case? I mean, relative to the general phenomenon of white voters dominating?
No, more just Hispanic/Latino voters tend not to vote as much as other demographics in general elections, so I’d assume that would also be the case with drop off for primaries.
Also, I remember past races in CA-22 where the primary had Democrats looking good in the jungle primary all just to lose in November when turnout went up a lot. So it’s more of an educated guess, rather than a firm statement or an entirely wild theory without evidence. More than nothing, less than something in other words.
I don't understand the use of the past tense here. Haven't exactly zero votes been cast so far? The race is incredibly fluid right now and Becerra might be the beneficiary of enough of Slawell's support to move up. Once he has momentum, he'll get coverage and donors, and who knows?
I'm not saying it's likely he's going to get in the top two, but I wouldn't say it's over for him yet. In 1992, the Hofeld scandal came very late in the campaign, and Carol Moseley Braun was the beneficiary. (Very little VBM at the time). She wasn't the front-runner at the time, and was third in some late polls. What we're really talking about in CA this year is, who will consolidate Dem voters? Hilton looks likely to get one of the slots, but there may be room for Becerra to make a late run before early voting starts.
I was already leaning Steyer before this dropped myself as the do no damage option. Even if the accusation is false (it is true imo), that’s way too much damage for Republicans to pound on. We gotta have at least Generic Democrat as our nominee in CA-Gov leading the party ticket with this new redraw. Once a Republican starts to get nearer to 45, that new map looks way more shaky. Democrats wouldn’t lose obviously, but the margin matters.
We’ve already had 2 actors become Governor of California, so why not a billionaire? It’s worked out great in Illinois for us. Tangent since it’s the weekend: Do you think billionaire Democrats try to be more left wing because they’re a billionaire who already gets distrust from our party base just by being one? It feels like those Democrats who want to actually win *side eyes Michael Bloomberg*, kind of just become really left wing, maybe more than they personally are ideologically in order to gain trust from our party voters.
I suspect most ultra-wealthy people's ideologies aren't changed at that level from what their life experience would have brought them to otherwise. There's a certain requirement for extreme self-interest to become a billionaire, which results in them being more often conservative or moderate. But ultimately being a billionaire means someone can be themselves as much as they like without worry about consequences; they have enough wealth and power that they're going to be surrounded by yes men that encourage their default preferences.
In that light, I suspect people like Pritzker and Steyer aren't faking it for electoral purposes.
I don’t think they’re faking it to get elected to be clear, just that maybe they run their campaigns in a more left way than they probably would ordinarily or most other Democrats would. Pritzker is campaigning on Project 2029 and prosecuting and jailing all of Trump’s government for example. Steyer I haven’t seen his campaign yet, but if he’s getting endorsed by progressives, that to me means he’s running a pretty left campaign that’s gaining traction.
FWIW, Tom Steyer has been one of the climate movement's biggest financial supporters for many years and founded NextGen America to organize and register young voters. At least for many working on climate issues, he has pretty strong bona fides.
For starters, Steyer will benefit from having Democrats in a strong majority in the state legislature. That means irrespective of the differences of opinion he has with the Assembly and State State there is little doubt he and Democrats are more aligned than they would be divided.
How Steyer operates as Governor besides his relationship with the State Legislature is the real question. We know he has been pushing the billionaire tax but he might find as Governor that he’ll have to soften this stance. Being a candidate is one thing but actually serving on the job as Governor is another.
Yeah, this is generally what aggravates me about billionaire candidates-not that they run for office, but that they go straight for the top and apparently everyone's fine with it because politics isn't a real job?
But I do like Pritzker and to my surprise it looks like he didn't have prior experience either-I'd just assumed he did.
As far as playing well with others in the Lege, at this point I'm at least as concerned about Porter, because of the tape and allegations; it's not just an ethics question although that does matter; between that and how she was in response to losing the Senate race I get the strong feeling she doesn't play well with others. That's a problem if you actually want to, you know, lead. Get things done.
But yeah I'll bandwagon behind whichever. I'm thinking it may well be Steyer.
Hey, we survived Ahnold, and at least this one's progressive on paper.
Yes he was. He destroyed our budget, underfunded infrastructure, and couldn't have appointed worse board members. It took Moonbeam years to clean up that mess.
Arnold is only somewhat decent on some social issues (on which governors don't really have an effect anyway)
Only speaking for myself, but I try to hold each individual politician to their own individual standard. Just because someone’s a billionaire doesn’t necessarily mean they shouldn’t be supported. And just because someone’s family member is accused of crimes doesn’t mean that person is also guilty by association. I know as human beings we love to try to rationalize things and one way to do that is to compare one person to another, but that’s not entirely fair, everyone is their own individual, who differ from each other in key and important ways.
I have to admit, I would be quite concerned about someone with criminal family members, but that depends on the circumstances and what the politician's relationship with the felons is. I think more reformed ex-cons should be in elective office, but if someone had active or unrepentant criminals in their family, I'd be concerned.
Oh yeah for sure, each on their own merits. I'm willing to look more closely at Steyer, particularly now it looks like he's probably our best shot at a frontrunner.
When did Bloomberg become "really left wing"? Compared to Musk, maybe, but Bloomberg is a classic neolib. He spends a lot of money trying to push back against progressive Dems.
CA-Gov: This warrants its own thread - Sen. Adam Schiff, a powerful California Democrat, rescinds his endorsement of Rep. Eric Swalwell for governor after Swalwell's sexual assault allegations.
I hope Schiff and Gomez and anyone else dropping their endorsements also go one step further and pick someone else to endorse. Ideally with some level of coordination.
Might be worse than no endorsement, hah. Becerra isn't getting to the top two. The party establishment in California needs to accept that the overwhelming likeliest options for a dem that gets to the top two is Porter and Steyer, and they should act accordingly.
Please, no! I fully agree with Janus. Don’t waste important endorsements on any candidate polling in the low- or mid-single digits; quite the contrary, we need these to withdraw ASAP.
Not too surprising, considering that Collins did get 68% of the vote in 2014.
Although... I was proudly one of the 32% that year! I knew that Collins would win, but I simply could not stomach voting for a Republican.
And in a fun little bit of irony, the Maine Secretary of State, who will be administering this election, is Shenna Bellows, the Democrat who Collins defeated in 2014.
Yeah, and Bellows has done a great job increasing voter turnout across Maine. Maine was one of only six states where Harris won more votes than Biden, and one of only two (along with Utah) that wasn't a closely divided swing state (the others were GA, NV, NC, and WI). Utah can be explained because its population is growing quickly, but Maine's is not, and yet turnout there still went up compared to 2020.
I think like most Mainer’s they voted for her because Collins was the incumbent and was doing well criss cross campaigning in the state as well as sounding moderate. But now after people have awoken to who Collins really is, they’re like “she’s gotta go”. I also don’t think it helped us that Republican Senator Olympia Snowe who actually was a moderate, was in office and revered for so long.
Voters wrongfully got the impression that the 2 as 2 moderates were perfect to represent Maine’s interests and didn’t pay attention to her actual votes. But her re-election margin has shrunk every cycle as more people wake up to her shtick. You can only fool voters for so long despite voting Republican the same way for your career in a blue state. Eventually people wake up.
As much of a critic of Platner as I am, a large number of Democrats in Maine also have. I wouldn't be surprised to find out Mills voted the same way. If he'd voted for her again in 2020, I'd be foaming at the mouth.
Sen. Sue Collins (R-ME) signed the petition to put it on the ballot.
While Democratic leaders in the state have stood by transgender people, the state’s Republican leaders have not done so. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) was one of the around 82,000 people who signed the petition to put a trans sports ban on the November ballot, her office confirmed to the Bangor Daily News.
Not to mention the maine ssc is once again stealing the senate seat for learned his lesson.
Maine Supreme Court says voter passed ranked choice voting expansion is unconstitutional • Maine Morning Star
On the same day that Mills' ad came out, Graham Platner also released this ad showing a Susan Collins form 30 years ago, promising not to serve more than two terms:
There was a new Democrat who launched recently who has a good background for KS Senate, but I’m personally still waiting to see if Davids decides to run. She raised more money than Marshall the last quarter, the year is more and more, election after election looking like an epic wipeout for Republicans and she just might be able to become Senator, which would mean 6 years before her next campaign instead of having to run every 2. That’s a pretty enticing opportunity for someone who is ambitious.
If she doesn’t end up running, this guy seems pretty decent at first glance, though I have no idea his ability to fundraise/run a campaign since I don’t think he’s ever been in office before.
Thanks. For my part, I like Sandy Spidel Neumann quite a bit, and have contributed modestly to her campaign. But I too am keeping an eye on Congresswoman Sharice Davids , to whom I have also contributed (equally modestly).
A lot of the right in the U.S. lurves Viktor, but CPAC is (maybe?) the organization that did the most legwork including I think actual field trips to Hungary to exchange ideas and support.
Hoping the Fyre fest that this last CPAC just now apparently was augurs something as well here.
Good to know thanks. I actually am at the airport flying home from a Europe trip where I went to Budapest and Bratislava amongst other places. Have been very up to date about Orban but knew nothing about Slovakian politics
Fico's weird. He's a staunch social conservative but is okay with some elements of left-wing populism. He has been in office several times (scandals jeopardized his other tenures as PM) and was nearly killed in an assassination attempt during this administration.
Not that I saw but I wasn't looking for them and was only in Bratislava for a few hours as an stop in-between Budapest and Vienna. Now Budapest was littered with political posters with Orban's face, a dozen on every block
I don't know. Like someone else said, there's been rumors for years, especially with the Christine Fang scandal. And he's very mainstream and arguably centrist on issues, and doesn't represent his constituency adequately.
I would agree with you if it were one unsubstantiated report, but when you have a pattern develop, I believe the women. Even Nancy Pelosi, who has been close to Swalwell, told him to get out of the governor's race.
Swalwell’s stance on Pamela Price being recalled as Alameda County DA is in line with his district at least in the Tri Valley region which includes Dublin, Livermore and parts of Pleasanton. I remember seeing recall Pamela Price fliers at the Stoneridge Mall in Pleasanton back in 2024 but more anti-recall and pro-Price supporters in Berkeley and Oakland, outside of Swalwell’s district. I believe he worked in the DA’s office before he entered politics.
Also, if Swalwell is voting centrist, that isn’t too far off from how the Tri Valley region is. Castro Valley and Hayward may be a different story but because Swalwell was already an incumbent to begin with, there was just no credible primary challenger who would emerge even from these cities.
Regardless, the diverse pool of Democratic candidates running in CA-14 should give residents a shot at a clean reset so a new representative with less baggage can take over.
I would say so up to a certain extent but keep in mind when Pamela Price was DA, in a general sense she was not popular with Asian residents living in Alameda County. Her lax sentencing of assailants (who happened to be black) of crimes towards Asians really pissed off affected families and they were emboldened by the 2024 recall initiative. As it so happens, Asians represent the 2nd highest majority in Alameda County, which also happens to be the case in San Francisco County (the city of San Francisco).
In Dublin, Asian residents are the majority in the city in terms of population. Unless any of them happen to be staunchly liberal, most are pretty much middle of the road types of voters.
‘Super Saturday’ is happening Virginia with satellite sites opening up in all of the blue counties. We should have a good idea whether this is going to be close or not by turnout reports on Saturday. GOP has been surging money here in the closing weeks and blasting misleading ads so it’d be nice to build a big EV lead and dispel some worries. More polling would be nice too.
Postcards to Voters (https://postcardstovoters) still has addresses for this campaign, but they must be mailed by Tuesday April 14th unless you live in VA (which gives you an extra day).
In addition, Vote Forward has a letter-writing campaign (https://votefwd.org/campaigns) although the last mail date is Tuesday April 14, so this is best for people who are already approved.
The Liberal Party of Canada is having their annual convention in Montreal this weekend, a convenient stone's throw from Terrebonne for ministers and party volunteers to help GOTV on Monday. Unfortunately there usually isn't any district-level polling done in Canada, but some pundits I generally trust and respect have looked at provincial wide polling in Quebec and estimate a Liberal win by a 2 to 4 point margin. If anyone is interested, here is a podcast called The Numbers by our equivalents of G. Elliott Morris and Harry Enten. https://youtu.be/z6Y77Vfk3Hk?si=B4RDGutkvouY7H8s
As an indicator of how invested voters in Terrebonne are about whether they will help or prevent the Liberals getting to a safer majority, the advance voting total is almost equal to the total of the two Toronto districts combined, at 18200 vs 19700. https://elections.ca/content.aspx?section=med&dir=pre&document=apr0726&lang=e
Carney will get a bare majority regardless of the outcome in Terrebonne, right? (assuming the other two ridings thought to be safely Liberal go the way they're anticipated)
He would, although given the example of the US House over the last 18 months, a majority of even 2 or 3 seats depends on members being on the same page, healthy, and on schedule, otherwise things can go sideways in a hurry.
Hungary has gotten the most attention of the elections on April 12th, but Peru also has presidential and legislative elections that day as well. Keiko Fujimori, not one to give up, is running for a 4th consecutive time and appears likely to finish first and make the runoff. It's not clear who will get second, but it could be another far-right candidate.
Yes, but with 35 candidates total, it's not clear if anyone will even break 20%, making it easier for two candidates of similar leanings to advance. Also, after the absolute mess that was the previous leftist government, many Peruvians may be looking to go way in the other direction.
I was making a joke about there being 35 candidates and liberals splitting the field, but Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco seem pretty corruptible and extreme!
I am currently interested in the VA referendum, which I am also worried about. Let’s hope we at least win.
As for other races, the CA billionaire tax referendum (if it happens) will be interesting too. Hoping for a yes vote, although I agree with Porter that it did not go far enough.
NY-17, my home district, is of course on my radar too, particularly after the debate I was at. Hopefully we won’t get Conley, and hopefully Lawler will go down in flames. I like Effie but I’m good with Beth too.
I have lots more but I’ll close my post this week with MN-Sen. Peggy Flanagan is looking better and better - but is it enough? Curious to know what people here think.
-VA: I think lately we've underestimated just how unsatisfied regular voters are with the Trump administration (and being on social media sure makes me think we're still divided as a nation, but when I actually talk to people I don't see that). We saw it in the surprise landslide of Wisconsin's latest Supreme Court race, the numerous upsets in state legislative races (Emily Gregory, Taylor Rehmet, etc.) and high turnout at No Kings and other events. With a push from national Democrats such as Barack Obama, it will probably (and hopefully) pass.
-NY-17: Davidson seems to have been the most stable candidate in standing so far - Conley had a moment where she appeared to be in the lead, and now might be at the bottom. Any of the three of them could probably defeat Lawler, but I think Davidson will be the nominee, Phillips-Staley a close second, and Conley third.
-MN-Sen: It's safe to say Flanagan is still the clear frontrunner, and I have high hopes for her. It may be close, though - I feel like there's a similar situation brewing in Massachusetts, where Sen. Ed Markey is in the lead but Rep. Seth Moulton may make the last days of the race a fight for Markey's career.
I think the YES side in VA has worked hard to portray this as a vote against Trump. With everything that's going on right now I just can't see most voters going out of their way to vote to help Trump & the Republicans. They have a reminder everyday now when they fill up their tank how Trump is screwing them.
Mostly based on institutional, establishment support and fundraising, as well as age in the case of Markey. I'm also being cautious - I would much prefer the progressive candidates of Markey and Flanagan to win, but am not counting the centrist picks of Craig and Moulton out just yet.
I wouldn't underestimate the risk of age for Markey. Not saying he's an underdog but lacking a crystal ball I do see a potential for his age to be enough to be his undoing. It's not likely but it's not so implausible that I'd write it off either.
It's also one of the last primaries in the country, Sept 1. Which means there's more time for something to come in and change the fundamentals.
I'm admittedly new to the NY-17 after many years in the city, but I cannot figure out the appeal of Conley at all. It seems like she parachuted out of nowhere and is tenuously tied to the district at best. I think I'm with you: my heart says Effie; my brain says Beth.
I think Swalwell is likely to drop out and his support will crater (it always amazes me that candidates who withdraw a week or more before the election still get votes, but that's beside the point), but I have a bigger question:
What if one of the top two candidates for the general drops out? Is the third place candidate elevated? Or does the remaining top two candidate basically get a free ride?
This all presumes that the withdrawal happens before ballots are printed or in the window before they can't be reprinted.
California's top two rules are final and absolute. If you make the general ballot, you're on it, no matter what. Even death will not remove your name, a winning deceased candidate will create a day one vacancy that will then be filled as if they had died upon taking office. So yes, a "withdrawal" means both names still on the ballot and a presumably easy win for the other candidate. California also bans write-in candidates from general elections! Insane system.
I wouldn't call rape or sexual assault a "caper".
Well, now I'm interested in California's 14th congressional race, which frankly, should have a special election soon after Congressman Eric Swalwell hopefully resigns in disgrace.
For those out of the loop, the SF Chronicle published this story today with a pretty bad sexual assault (actually, arguably, rape) accusation against Swalwell by a former staffer. And it sounds like there are more stories from other former staffers.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/eric-swalwell-allegations-22198271.php
Much of the discourse has focused on his campaign for Governor, calling on him to drop out of the race. However, given the evidence cited in the article (contemporaneous texts, medical records, and other compelling info), I think a resignation is in order.
Would anyone disagree...?
He has too big of an ego, too much ambition for his career, to resign. He is a narcissist. And if this is true, then he deserves to go down by losing the governor's race and being publicly shunned from electoral politics.
Edit: not sure how much of a splash it'll bring, but Rep. Jimmy Gomez just left the Swalwell campaign and told him to drop out.
This is moving fast, and he's losing other endorsements, too.
I think the specific nature of the story has stuck with people, so he's probably going to be pressured into dropping out.
His potential dropout combined with Trump's Hilton endorsement takes a lot of my worry of a lockout away.
You think? I'm just worried about who we coalesce behind, then. Or, well. Mostly I'm concerned he *won't* drop out but at this rate I think it's likely, this is going fast.
but still. The others in the lead were Porter, who has her own not AS heinous but still not good (verbal, emotional) abuse of staffers allegations, some on camera. The other is another billionaire who thinks money and ego are as good as actual experience if not better. But hey, if it's Steyer it's Steyer. I would like to see if it's still possible to coalesce around any of the others at this stage.
argh.
If it comes down to Steyer and Porter I think there is a good chance to avoid the top 2 R's with Hilton getting the Trump endorsement. A lot less worried but it is still a possibility.
Gomez pulling his endorsement from Swalwell is a huge signal that Swalwell's campaign is collapsing and probably finished.
Wow - just saw that Sen. Ruben Gallego, an ally of Swalwell's in Congress who is similar to him ideologically, also pulled his endorsement.
Sen. Adam Schiff now has as well.
https://x.com/RubenGallego/status/2042721607593136622
https://x.com/AdamSchiff/status/2042731289430667538
now Pelosi and Jeffries as well, among others. Apparently he's not pulling out just yet, but the "spending time with my family" to one presumes ponder the least worst option this weekend...oh, and already hints he's gonna spin it as "I'm so very sorry to my poor beloved put-upon wife, I did have sex with that woman, but it was consensual and" blah blah blah
I can't see him lasting more than another few days, tops.
Very long and detailed story with dates, multiple events etc. Quite a story. There have been rumors about Swalwell for years.
The story reminds me of an earlier one.
In the early 2010’s, a woman named Christine Fang seemed to be trying to cultivate relationships with rising local politicians. Fang reportedly gained access to Swalwell’s network and successfully placed an associate in his congressional office. In 2015, the FBI informed Swalwell that Fang was suspected of ties to Chinese Ministry of State Security. Swalwell cut off contact.
In 2020, Fox News, citing anonymous sources, alleged a sexual relationship between Swalwell and Fang to which Swalwell’s office declined to comment. A two-year House ethics investigation that ended in 2023 took no further action over whether Swalwell violated any House rules or “other standards of conduct” with his connection to Fang. https://eastbayinsiders.substack.com/p/the-legend-of-fang-fang-returns
The Fang thing was mostly whatever to me, although this is the first I'm seeing of a sexual affair. Which would be Not Great, but in itself, at worst it'd be a seemingly consensual relationship and a congressperson taken advantage of by a foreign influencer, which he immediately cut off once known. Also it seemed like mainly Republicans pushing the story. Forgivable. Survivable.
This is very much not.
“‘Arguably’ rape?” The allegation is rape. Of course I have no way of knowing exactly what the evidence is. Or how credible.
I meant that I would consider it rape, although the journalists who wrote the story describe it as sexual assault.
This is apparently only the first of a number of stories in the pipe. Maybe not all actual assault, but a LOT of receipts of harassment.
This is usually the point where I say yep assume guilty unless (somehow) proven otherwise. Not in court, but this isn't court. Time to drop. And probably resign, or at the very least not run again.
When Tony Gonzales does.
Something about Swalwell always struck me the wrong way. So not surprised.
I agree Gonzales (and Trump, for that matter) should resign, but we shouldn't be afraid to hold Dems to that same standard.
Yep. It doesn't work like that. "Your rapist is worse than our rapist and besides, he was first" isn't exactly compelling.
Based on what I've seen I'd say he should resign.
That said: is there enough time for a special election if he does? States take unnecessarily long to run these. With the kinds of time tables we typically see it could basically coincide with the general in November. Which I'd be fine with, just not sure we'd get the excitement of a special election this summer.
It would probably just be in November, as the June special to succeed the late Doug LaMalfa is happening over 5 months after he died.
There's another article by CNN. Skimming it seems to mostly summarize the SF Chronicle report, however it does have a new detail that I didn't see in the original report.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/10/us/eric-swalwell-sexual-misconduct-allegations-invs
"Three other women who spoke with CNN also alleged various kinds of sexual misconduct by the Democratic congressman – including Swalwell sending them unsolicited explicit messages or nude photos."
So it's not 1 allegation. It's 4 allegations.
Yeah, and according to the folks who were posting about this on Twitter, more accusations are going to come, too.
There's a progressive organizer who's been saying as much for months. There are even more than this where these came from, it seems.
This thing is moving so fast. Pelosi just called for him to dropout. He’s done.
https://x.com/MZanona/status/2042741347673596157
PELOSI weighs in, says she has advised Swalwell to drop his bid for governor
“The young woman who has made serious allegations against Congressman Swalwell must be respected and heard.
This extremely sensitive matter must be appropriately investigated with full transparency and accountability.
As I discussed with Congressman Swalwell, it is clear that is best done outside of a gubernatorial campaign.”
His ass should be in jail.
It sure sounds that way.
I'm a lot more interested in who can step up and make sure we're not locked out by Hilton and Bianco and *not* be an abusive POS at minimum, but sure, the House seat matters too I guess
ugh. I wish I could just say hey, Porter doesn't seem so bad in comparison and regain the excitement of yestermonth but, while not as heinous verbal abuse still kinda bad.
Hell, I said I wanted Steyer to drop, I'm over billionaires with no experience and their egos; but if that's what it takes I'll get behind it.
or, maybe 7 weeks is long enough to coalesce around someone else.
Hope so.
goddammit Kamala. You could've had the governorship. You could've had a V8. You fucked up.
I think a lot of the lockout fears have subsided now that Trump endorsed Steve Hilton. It seems very likely that Republicans will coalesce around him.
If polling is to believed, Steyer is the most likely to make the top 2, but it's unclear who Swalwell's supporters will vote for.
Well, it's interesting-I saw another article that said apparently Bianco isn't taking this lying down. The article in question posited that as good for Dems in that they're busy hair pulling and it's likely no one gets the party endorsement (as opposed to Trump's); but, well, we could still be in a scenario where it ends up being "whichever two people are hated least."
That said I'm already feeling somewhat reassured by how fast this is already moving-worst case scenario is Swalwell stubbornly clinging on, but it looks like that actually won't even be possible at this rate.
that is, obviously Bianco's not ready to quit, but it's not at all clear that Trump's endorsement is a golden ticket at this stage.
It'll be interesting. I'm betting Swalwell's supporters split and a number of them won't want Porter or Steyer, because neither of them represent the Party in the same way Swalwell did. Porter not so much because "too progressive" as she'd already alienated herself from the party machine and now the abuse allegations. Steyer, well, outsider.
Who else is left? The thing is, the numbers are already so low-is 13% support really that much better than, whatever the next tier down was. 8%? Maybe they're all under 5% already? I dunno.
For democrats, tiers of support basically clustered at:
- 10-15% for Swalwell, Steyer, and Porter
- 2-6% for Becerra and Vilargarosa
- 1-4% for Mahan, Yee, Thurmond
All values are poll dependent, of course.
There's a very clear and very meaningful separation between the top of the pack and the bottom. The expected collapse of Swalwell's support is most obvious a boon for Steyer and Porter as the only two democrats with a credible pathway to making it to the general election + being the obvious choice for voters to coalesce around.
Most polls also had around 20% of the vote undecided; most of those people are going to have to come off the sidelines and pick a person (or abstain) and presumably they will gravitate towards the candidates they perceive as viable.
I'd had some hopes for Becerra. It looks like that ship still probably isn't going to sail, though.
Yeah. I really don't like Porter, and generally don't support suburban SoCal dems statewide. But it seems like she has my vote now. I wish Yee or Bacerra gained a little more traction. They didn't. At least Porter will likely listen to people and fight the good fight.
I hear you on that.
Porter’s temperament allows room for improvement and is much easier to work around. This is a minor issue compared to the bigger fight at hand against Trump and running CA.
Not the case with sexual harassment.
It also just occurred to me that Trump is absolutely going to crow about this, it is absolutely going to be dumb as hell because it'll just draw (more) attention back to his own accusations as well as help keep a Republican away from the office; and none of that will deter him in the slightest.
oh boy.. At least this came out now and not during the general.... yup, time to go sir.
Eric Swalwell should immediately withdraw from the gubernatorial race.
And, yes, Swalwell should also resign from Congress – with the resignation effective on the day his replacement is ready to be sworn in. Not before.
Unfortunately, that's not how California law works. There cannot be an election until he resigns his seat. At least he won't be in Congress come January
We rightfully celebrated this week’s amazing results. Now it’s time to look to the near horizon. What I’m watching:
1. May 5: Ohio primary turnout. Can Dems outvote Republicans? We couldn’t in 2018. It would be a promising sign if we continued out primary turnout streak from Texas and North Carolina here.
2. May 19: Georgia primary. The Supreme Court races are big. Hope we can turnout more Democrats yet again. Hoping Jason Esteves can get into the Democratic gubernatorial runoff. Also hoping that both Republican Senate and gubernatorial primaries go to a runoff.
3. May 26: Texas runoff. Hoping for Paxton🙏 . Rooting for Johnson in the Dem AG runoff. Don’t care much about the Dem LG race, either would be good.
Those May races are important, but let's first get Virginia those four more House seats, and (hopefully) watch the Hungarian people oust Orban. Then we can focus on the elections in May.
I don't think it's wrong to also be interested in other elections after Virginia and Hungary. After all, this is a website where we discuss elections in general, not only the one that's closest.
Forgot about Virginia.
You aren’t alone. I forgot about NJ-11 being next week! That race kind of went silent after the primary for the special election.
Yikes, forgot that one too. LOL.
I am very interested in (and anxious about) Hungary. A lot of implications.
I love how Trump is flat out "yoo hoo! Foreign influencing over here! We'll pay you!"
not to mention Vance ffs. Was kind of hoping he'd do for Orban what he did for the Pope...
What’s the difference between candidates in the TX AG runoff?
I think it’s mostly that Johnson is much more well-funded, which is necessary in a big state. He was already just a point or so shy of winning in the first round as it was.
Activate America (www.activateamerica.vote) has campaigns to get out the vote for both the OH and GA primaries. Both are targeting Democrats and Democratic leaning Independents:
* Ohio Primary Get Out The Vote for Newly Registered Voters (mail ASAP but no later than April 20)
* Ohio Primary Get Out The Vote for Newly Registered Voters (mail ASAP but no later than May 10)
I'm interested in the primary for my home state of West Virginia on May 12.
-I support Jeff Kessler for U.S. Senate over sex pest and progressive organizer Zach Shrewsbury and Stephanie Tomana, a teacher I had in middle school, for WV-2. There's a lot of buzz around state Sen. Tom Willis primarying Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, but I'm not sure it'll go anywhere.
-While not major primary races, state Del. John Williams, who is running for state Senate against a longtime Republican incumbent (in my district), and former Del. Linda Longstreth, who is running for her old seat (not in my district), are other local faces I'll support in November, along with Olivia Miller, who is running for Williams's seat.
-I'm interested to see which senators and delegates fall to their Republican primary challengers; Del. Bob Fehrenbacher is challenging Sen. Mike Azinger, former congressional candidate Joe Earley (who I've seen a lot of support for when I've been down in the district) is challenging Sen. Ben Queen, and former far-right Sen. Robert Karnes is challenging Sen. Bill Hamilton.
What would be the stated basis for a primary against Moore Capito?
About Karnes: There was a Senator David Karnes of Kansas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Karnes Is Robert Karnes any relation?
Capito is considered to be an establishment Republican, and Willis picked up a lot of support by ousting then-Lt. Gov. Craig Blair in 2024, who he considered establishment. Capito comes from a long line (and has a lot of kin) of politicians. She is old, and has been in Congress for 26 years, even longer than my lifespan.
Her voting record is solidly MAGA, right? So is this just a matter of style?
Yes, as was Blair's
Definitely, her voting habits is the same as any Republican in that seat. But she’s more of a “work behind the scenes” Republican, rather than a “let’s blow things up” front camera facing one. So in that way she’ll probably be better than any other Republican who could successfully primary her.
Willis is certainly a "let's blow things up" Republican. He wants you to see his face and hear him talk.
She's from a longtime dynasty and was a pro-choice Tuesday Group member basically until her 2014 Senate campaign.
I may have referenced it before, but I recall reading that when Karnes was appointed in 1987, he was the first Senator in 40 years to have facial hair (he had a mustache).
That's a funny bit of trivia, thanks.
oh, IDK, California governor race seems interesting, no particular reason...
Do you agree with AWildLibAppeared that he should just resign rather than drop out of the race, or wait for further information to come forward (Swalwell appears to be ready to sue his accuser for defamation)?
the longer he waits the worse it's going to get for him, based on the stuff I've heard WHICH LET ME EMPHASIZE IS ALL THIRD HAND RUMORS AND SPECULATION AND NOT SOCIAL MEDIA FODDER AND NOT MY STORY TO TELL. But suing the first accuser for defamation...yeah, good luck with that. The only hint I will drop is that Jimmy Gomez, founder of the Dads Caucus, was probably the 1st elected to withdraw his endorsement.
I have always thought Swalwell had a fucking scumbag vibe and was deciding between Porter and Steyer. I am voting for Porter without questions at this point.
I was turned off by Porter's own abuse allegations/the tape (not in the same ballpark as Swalwell obviously but still not great) and Steyer just on general principles of "ugh not another bloody billionaire parachuting in from Outside." I'll bandwagon behind whoever at this point.
goddammit, Kamala. We could've put this to bed months ago and had a much more preposessing governor, ah well.
CA-Gov - With Swalwell's campaign collapsing, who benefits from this in the primary?
I don't think the Republicans are going to benefit at all from this, as Swalwell's base is mostly hyperpartisan centrist and center-left Dems who aren't going to consider voting for a Republican nowadays.
The most likely beneficiary is Tom Steyer, as he's the highest in the polls among those who most people who had been supporting Swalwell would consider switching their support to.
Some other beneficiaries could include Xavier Becerra, Matt Mahan, and Tony Thurmond, but they're too far back in the polls (especially Mahan and Thurmond) for them to have a chance. Katie Porter could also benefit, but she is known for being extremely difficult for staffers to work with, and the Swalwell allegations might lead to increased media coverage of that fact, even if it's not directly related to the Swalwell allegations
I think Steyer has the best chance to benefit from this, because of Porter's earlier controversies and Steyer's surprising increase in support from progressives despite his billionaire status. The other candidates are so pathetic I would probably vote for him.
Wait, what? Immortal investments? Is Steyer one of those life-extender guys? Or is it just a typo for immoral investments?
You beat me to it. I was wondering just what makes an investment immortal. Clay tablets and cuneiform styluses back in the day? Papyrus production? Gutenberg’s movable type?
(PS. Alfred Nobel’s invention and immortal investment was ... dynamite.)
I've never heard of a Porter scandal.
Are you referring to her losing her temper when filming a piece on climate change and an aide kept getting into the shot? Not her best day but not a scandal.
That and the more recent outburst in front of a reporter, back last fall. Scandal was perhaps not the best word.
No, verbal abuse is still abuse. There've been other allegations from other staffers as well. At best, she doesn't play nicely in the sandbox, which, even if you're inclined to overlook such things as venal in the greater scheme of everything, combined with how the Senate race fell out she may not actually be that great at getting an agenda across. But then, it may not matter at this point.
I don't have a problem with billionaires per se necessarily-I do have a soft spot for Pritzker. But, unlike Steyer, and Ahnold and (!) Trump and Ross Perot and whoever the hell it was the Starbucks guy and so many others, he actually worked his way up. It's a real job, dammit. I think a lot of our problem is people deciding Mr Smith Goes To Washington is a) a documentary b) exactly the same thing as some zillionaire deciding his money and ego are more valuable than actual experience and qualification.
That said: if the worst Steyer is combined with a Dem Congress is "mostly harmless," I guess I'll take it.
Sigh.
...now that I'm looking at it, I'm realizing actually Pritzker also seems to have gone directly to governor. I was thinking of him in terms of running for POTUS having governor under his belt. I thought he'd at least been a House Rep but Wiki sez his run was "unsuccessful."
And Zelenskyy was a comedian.
Eh, screw it. Go Steyer, I guess.
Or Porter if she pulls it out and it's that or the Republican, obviously.
Meh.
Yeah, not an expert on California politics, but I think Steyer is likely to be the biggest beneficiary.
I believe Porter will be the major beneficiary of Swallwell’s …uh… misfortune. Because of the eclipsing gender aspect of the allegations he faces.
Amazing that California Democrats have not nominated a woman for governor in over 30 years.
Interestingly, California has never had a woman governor and the state next door, Arizona, has had 5. Arizona must be more progressive. /S
Also New Mexico and Oregon have had multiple women governors, and Washington and Hawaii have had at least one each.
They almost did with Jane Harman in 1998. Maybe the Governator and the Davis recall wouldn't have happened if she won.
The last women nominated by Democrats for CA Gov: Feinstein in 1990 and Kathleen Brown in 1994.
Harris would've walked away with it. Goddammit. Still bitter.
Which really just reinforces the idea of her lack of political acumen.
She wants to run for that other office, running for governor would take to much time away from that.
Someone in her inner circle isn’t telling her how unlikely that prospect is.
My personal current ranking of the candidates are Porter, Becerra as my 1A and 1B. I'll vote for Steyer if I have to but I am depressed at all of the mediocre candidates here in California.
I'm disappointed Becerra didn't get farther off the ground. I wonder why. So many factors and most of them seem to have nothing to do with aptitude or qualification for the job. It's like voting for prom king or something.
Maybe he's been out of the CA Public Eye for too long? He was buried at HHS and while he did an adequate job he just didn't stand out. It probably would have been better for his future ambitions to just remain AG if he really wanted to be Governor. I also didn't much care for his nomination to HHS in the first place to be honest.
Agree. Few people remember him as AG or Congressman.
I think it’s hard to consolidate the amount of vote necessary to get to the 2nd slot when there’s also Villaraigosa running. Both of them have most of the same base and that’s preventing either one from breaking out from the pack.
A question just popped into my head, is there any evidence that jungle primary voters are more white in California compared to the general election? I know white voters overall almost always outvote any other demographic in general elections as a percentage of the electorate, but does that hold for the jungle primary in CA too?
It would be interesting if someone has done a study or the calculations. If that is the case (which I would suspect to be true, but I’m entirely guessing), that would also create an even lower ceiling for less well known Hispanic/Latino Democratic candidates compared to ones with more national name recognition/money to advertise themselves.
That is an interesting question, and I'd also be interested in a study. Out of curiosity, why would you expect that to be the case? I mean, relative to the general phenomenon of white voters dominating?
No, more just Hispanic/Latino voters tend not to vote as much as other demographics in general elections, so I’d assume that would also be the case with drop off for primaries.
Also, I remember past races in CA-22 where the primary had Democrats looking good in the jungle primary all just to lose in November when turnout went up a lot. So it’s more of an educated guess, rather than a firm statement or an entirely wild theory without evidence. More than nothing, less than something in other words.
I don't understand the use of the past tense here. Haven't exactly zero votes been cast so far? The race is incredibly fluid right now and Becerra might be the beneficiary of enough of Slawell's support to move up. Once he has momentum, he'll get coverage and donors, and who knows?
I'm not saying it's likely he's going to get in the top two, but I wouldn't say it's over for him yet. In 1992, the Hofeld scandal came very late in the campaign, and Carol Moseley Braun was the beneficiary. (Very little VBM at the time). She wasn't the front-runner at the time, and was third in some late polls. What we're really talking about in CA this year is, who will consolidate Dem voters? Hilton looks likely to get one of the slots, but there may be room for Becerra to make a late run before early voting starts.
I sure hope so. I'd prefer to vote for him over Porter or Steyer.
I was already leaning Steyer before this dropped myself as the do no damage option. Even if the accusation is false (it is true imo), that’s way too much damage for Republicans to pound on. We gotta have at least Generic Democrat as our nominee in CA-Gov leading the party ticket with this new redraw. Once a Republican starts to get nearer to 45, that new map looks way more shaky. Democrats wouldn’t lose obviously, but the margin matters.
We’ve already had 2 actors become Governor of California, so why not a billionaire? It’s worked out great in Illinois for us. Tangent since it’s the weekend: Do you think billionaire Democrats try to be more left wing because they’re a billionaire who already gets distrust from our party base just by being one? It feels like those Democrats who want to actually win *side eyes Michael Bloomberg*, kind of just become really left wing, maybe more than they personally are ideologically in order to gain trust from our party voters.
I suspect most ultra-wealthy people's ideologies aren't changed at that level from what their life experience would have brought them to otherwise. There's a certain requirement for extreme self-interest to become a billionaire, which results in them being more often conservative or moderate. But ultimately being a billionaire means someone can be themselves as much as they like without worry about consequences; they have enough wealth and power that they're going to be surrounded by yes men that encourage their default preferences.
In that light, I suspect people like Pritzker and Steyer aren't faking it for electoral purposes.
I don’t think they’re faking it to get elected to be clear, just that maybe they run their campaigns in a more left way than they probably would ordinarily or most other Democrats would. Pritzker is campaigning on Project 2029 and prosecuting and jailing all of Trump’s government for example. Steyer I haven’t seen his campaign yet, but if he’s getting endorsed by progressives, that to me means he’s running a pretty left campaign that’s gaining traction.
FWIW, Tom Steyer has been one of the climate movement's biggest financial supporters for many years and founded NextGen America to organize and register young voters. At least for many working on climate issues, he has pretty strong bona fides.
Steyer hasn't actually been in government before, right? So is there a reason to be confident he would perform well as Governor?
Porter at least has been in the House.
AG Bonta? He's not running.
And why was that comment deleted? Again, deleting comments people replied to looks stupid.
For starters, Steyer will benefit from having Democrats in a strong majority in the state legislature. That means irrespective of the differences of opinion he has with the Assembly and State State there is little doubt he and Democrats are more aligned than they would be divided.
How Steyer operates as Governor besides his relationship with the State Legislature is the real question. We know he has been pushing the billionaire tax but he might find as Governor that he’ll have to soften this stance. Being a candidate is one thing but actually serving on the job as Governor is another.
Yeah, this is generally what aggravates me about billionaire candidates-not that they run for office, but that they go straight for the top and apparently everyone's fine with it because politics isn't a real job?
But I do like Pritzker and to my surprise it looks like he didn't have prior experience either-I'd just assumed he did.
As far as playing well with others in the Lege, at this point I'm at least as concerned about Porter, because of the tape and allegations; it's not just an ethics question although that does matter; between that and how she was in response to losing the Senate race I get the strong feeling she doesn't play well with others. That's a problem if you actually want to, you know, lead. Get things done.
But yeah I'll bandwagon behind whichever. I'm thinking it may well be Steyer.
Hey, we survived Ahnold, and at least this one's progressive on paper.
Ahnold wasn't *that* bad compared to the likes of Pete Wilson. And I would take him in a heartbeat over basically any other Republican alive.
Yes he was. He destroyed our budget, underfunded infrastructure, and couldn't have appointed worse board members. It took Moonbeam years to clean up that mess.
Arnold is only somewhat decent on some social issues (on which governors don't really have an effect anyway)
I am curious about the governor of Vermont. Is he just the last of the New England old school Republicans? Paleolithic.
I do wonder what happens if Sanders kicks it while he's still in office. Weirdly, none of the anti gerontocracy zealots seem to ever bring that up.
Ah well, nevertheless
actually if he's pushing the billionaire tax, ironically he might be the only one-I think Porter's not? I forget the reasoning.
Hell, I'll put aside my prejudices. Zelenskyy was a comedian. Havel was a playwright. They can't ALL be Trumps, right? Right...?
Only speaking for myself, but I try to hold each individual politician to their own individual standard. Just because someone’s a billionaire doesn’t necessarily mean they shouldn’t be supported. And just because someone’s family member is accused of crimes doesn’t mean that person is also guilty by association. I know as human beings we love to try to rationalize things and one way to do that is to compare one person to another, but that’s not entirely fair, everyone is their own individual, who differ from each other in key and important ways.
I have to admit, I would be quite concerned about someone with criminal family members, but that depends on the circumstances and what the politician's relationship with the felons is. I think more reformed ex-cons should be in elective office, but if someone had active or unrepentant criminals in their family, I'd be concerned.
Oh yeah for sure, each on their own merits. I'm willing to look more closely at Steyer, particularly now it looks like he's probably our best shot at a frontrunner.
When did Bloomberg become "really left wing"? Compared to Musk, maybe, but Bloomberg is a classic neolib. He spends a lot of money trying to push back against progressive Dems.
I would think Porter would be the largest beneficiary.
Yeah, if I was in CA would have been "Solid Swalwell" before this, now I'd go with Porter.
https://x.com/AdamSchiff/status/2042731289430667538
CA-Gov: This warrants its own thread - Sen. Adam Schiff, a powerful California Democrat, rescinds his endorsement of Rep. Eric Swalwell for governor after Swalwell's sexual assault allegations.
I hope Schiff and Gomez and anyone else dropping their endorsements also go one step further and pick someone else to endorse. Ideally with some level of coordination.
Maybe Gomez can endorse Becerra, his direct predecessor in Congress.
Might be worse than no endorsement, hah. Becerra isn't getting to the top two. The party establishment in California needs to accept that the overwhelming likeliest options for a dem that gets to the top two is Porter and Steyer, and they should act accordingly.
Please, no! I fully agree with Janus. Don’t waste important endorsements on any candidate polling in the low- or mid-single digits; quite the contrary, we need these to withdraw ASAP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm097dF0nos
ME-Sen: A candid criticism of Sen. Susan Collins (R) by challenger Graham Platner, who even admits that he has voted for her in the past.
Not too surprising, considering that Collins did get 68% of the vote in 2014.
Although... I was proudly one of the 32% that year! I knew that Collins would win, but I simply could not stomach voting for a Republican.
And in a fun little bit of irony, the Maine Secretary of State, who will be administering this election, is Shenna Bellows, the Democrat who Collins defeated in 2014.
It certainly seems like you made the right call - Collins has obviously been a Republican lapdog and Shenna Bellows was and is a known progressive.
Yeah, and Bellows has done a great job increasing voter turnout across Maine. Maine was one of only six states where Harris won more votes than Biden, and one of only two (along with Utah) that wasn't a closely divided swing state (the others were GA, NV, NC, and WI). Utah can be explained because its population is growing quickly, but Maine's is not, and yet turnout there still went up compared to 2020.
I think like most Mainer’s they voted for her because Collins was the incumbent and was doing well criss cross campaigning in the state as well as sounding moderate. But now after people have awoken to who Collins really is, they’re like “she’s gotta go”. I also don’t think it helped us that Republican Senator Olympia Snowe who actually was a moderate, was in office and revered for so long.
Voters wrongfully got the impression that the 2 as 2 moderates were perfect to represent Maine’s interests and didn’t pay attention to her actual votes. But her re-election margin has shrunk every cycle as more people wake up to her shtick. You can only fool voters for so long despite voting Republican the same way for your career in a blue state. Eventually people wake up.
Her lopsided appeal has always flummoxed me, with the caveat that I am a non-Mainer.
She doesn't strike me as a particularly skilled politician.
Eh, Snowe wasn't that moderate. Much more so than Collins, though!
He voted for her? Fetterman round 2 with this guy.
A D who replaces an R.
Who could potentially pull Fetterman back from some of his more hawkish positions.
Ok!
Maybe.
As much of a critic of Platner as I am, a large number of Democrats in Maine also have. I wouldn't be surprised to find out Mills voted the same way. If he'd voted for her again in 2020, I'd be foaming at the mouth.
Speaking of learned his lesson.
Maine just released the wording of the anti-trans ballot question people will vote on in November
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2026/04/maine-just-released-the-wording-of-the-anti-trans-ballot-question-people-will-vote-on-in-november/
Sen. Sue Collins (R-ME) signed the petition to put it on the ballot.
While Democratic leaders in the state have stood by transgender people, the state’s Republican leaders have not done so. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) was one of the around 82,000 people who signed the petition to put a trans sports ban on the November ballot, her office confirmed to the Bangor Daily News.
Not to mention the maine ssc is once again stealing the senate seat for learned his lesson.
Maine Supreme Court says voter passed ranked choice voting expansion is unconstitutional • Maine Morning Star
https://mainemorningstar.com/2026/04/06/maine-supreme-court-says-proposed-ranked-choice-voting-expansion-is-not-constitutional/
These Ads Are Making Susan Collins Concerned
https://crooksandliars.com/2026/02/these-ads-should-make-susan-collins
On the same day that Mills' ad came out, Graham Platner also released this ad showing a Susan Collins form 30 years ago, promising not to serve more than two terms:
I am interested in Kansas Democratic candidates for Governor and for United States Senator.
Yes! More of this!
There was a new Democrat who launched recently who has a good background for KS Senate, but I’m personally still waiting to see if Davids decides to run. She raised more money than Marshall the last quarter, the year is more and more, election after election looking like an epic wipeout for Republicans and she just might be able to become Senator, which would mean 6 years before her next campaign instead of having to run every 2. That’s a pretty enticing opportunity for someone who is ambitious.
If she doesn’t end up running, this guy seems pretty decent at first glance, though I have no idea his ability to fundraise/run a campaign since I don’t think he’s ever been in office before.
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2033967712418816206
Topeka Capital-Journal: Afghanistan veteran Noah Taylor (D) enters U.S. Senate race for Kansas
He cites his military background as a key reason he is against "forever wars" and will fight for Kansans.
https://www.cjonline.com/story/news/state/2026/03/17/afghanistan-veteran-noah-taylor-runs-for-u-s-senate-from-kansas/89184140007/
Opening ad for his campaign:
https://x.com/DisavowTrump20/status/2035719825549402386
Thanks. For my part, I like Sandy Spidel Neumann quite a bit, and have contributed modestly to her campaign. But I too am keeping an eye on Congresswoman Sharice Davids , to whom I have also contributed (equally modestly).
Interested in if Orban actually goes down this time. Would be a huge victory against right populism worldwide if he does
Very much so
I don't think Fico will have the same level of willingness to buck the EU alone. Orban has been a useful shield.
A lot of the right in the U.S. lurves Viktor, but CPAC is (maybe?) the organization that did the most legwork including I think actual field trips to Hungary to exchange ideas and support.
Hoping the Fyre fest that this last CPAC just now apparently was augurs something as well here.
Although mostly hidden from view, I suspect the “legwork” of the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 have been far more extensive and influential.
Could well be (how much overlap is there?) Heritage also imploded recently, that said.
Who is Fico?
PM of Slovakia and Orban’s closest ally
Good to know thanks. I actually am at the airport flying home from a Europe trip where I went to Budapest and Bratislava amongst other places. Have been very up to date about Orban but knew nothing about Slovakian politics
Fico's weird. He's a staunch social conservative but is okay with some elements of left-wing populism. He has been in office several times (scandals jeopardized his other tenures as PM) and was nearly killed in an assassination attempt during this administration.
So there were no posters or billboards with big pictures of Fico there? In that case, there's less of a cult of personality than I might have feared.
Not that I saw but I wasn't looking for them and was only in Bratislava for a few hours as an stop in-between Budapest and Vienna. Now Budapest was littered with political posters with Orban's face, a dozen on every block
The whole Swalwell scandal is disgraceful. He seemed like one of the more upstanding members of Congress, not a sex pest like the orange gasbag.
I don't know. Like someone else said, there's been rumors for years, especially with the Christine Fang scandal. And he's very mainstream and arguably centrist on issues, and doesn't represent his constituency adequately.
Sometimes rumors pan out and some don’t.
I would agree with you if it were one unsubstantiated report, but when you have a pattern develop, I believe the women. Even Nancy Pelosi, who has been close to Swalwell, told him to get out of the governor's race.
I’m not saying these women lied, there’s clear evidence he sexually harassed several women (if not more) and blackmailed them.
More than harassment.
Swalwell’s stance on Pamela Price being recalled as Alameda County DA is in line with his district at least in the Tri Valley region which includes Dublin, Livermore and parts of Pleasanton. I remember seeing recall Pamela Price fliers at the Stoneridge Mall in Pleasanton back in 2024 but more anti-recall and pro-Price supporters in Berkeley and Oakland, outside of Swalwell’s district. I believe he worked in the DA’s office before he entered politics.
Also, if Swalwell is voting centrist, that isn’t too far off from how the Tri Valley region is. Castro Valley and Hayward may be a different story but because Swalwell was already an incumbent to begin with, there was just no credible primary challenger who would emerge even from these cities.
Regardless, the diverse pool of Democratic candidates running in CA-14 should give residents a shot at a clean reset so a new representative with less baggage can take over.
Do you think the average Alameda County voter knows who she is?
I would say so up to a certain extent but keep in mind when Pamela Price was DA, in a general sense she was not popular with Asian residents living in Alameda County. Her lax sentencing of assailants (who happened to be black) of crimes towards Asians really pissed off affected families and they were emboldened by the 2024 recall initiative. As it so happens, Asians represent the 2nd highest majority in Alameda County, which also happens to be the case in San Francisco County (the city of San Francisco).
In Dublin, Asian residents are the majority in the city in terms of population. Unless any of them happen to be staunchly liberal, most are pretty much middle of the road types of voters.
‘Super Saturday’ is happening Virginia with satellite sites opening up in all of the blue counties. We should have a good idea whether this is going to be close or not by turnout reports on Saturday. GOP has been surging money here in the closing weeks and blasting misleading ads so it’d be nice to build a big EV lead and dispel some worries. More polling would be nice too.
There are loads of phone banks from the Vote "YES" side if you want to help this pass.
Jess Craven of "Chop Wood, Carry Water" has been promoting this one: https://www.virginiagrassroots.org/voteYES/voteyes_phonebanks.php
Other phonebanks can be found here: https://www.mobilize.us/?event_type=2&is_virtual=true&q=Virginia%20redistricting
Postcards to Voters (https://postcardstovoters) still has addresses for this campaign, but they must be mailed by Tuesday April 14th unless you live in VA (which gives you an extra day).
In addition, Vote Forward has a letter-writing campaign (https://votefwd.org/campaigns) although the last mail date is Tuesday April 14, so this is best for people who are already approved.
The Liberal Party of Canada is having their annual convention in Montreal this weekend, a convenient stone's throw from Terrebonne for ministers and party volunteers to help GOTV on Monday. Unfortunately there usually isn't any district-level polling done in Canada, but some pundits I generally trust and respect have looked at provincial wide polling in Quebec and estimate a Liberal win by a 2 to 4 point margin. If anyone is interested, here is a podcast called The Numbers by our equivalents of G. Elliott Morris and Harry Enten. https://youtu.be/z6Y77Vfk3Hk?si=B4RDGutkvouY7H8s
As an indicator of how invested voters in Terrebonne are about whether they will help or prevent the Liberals getting to a safer majority, the advance voting total is almost equal to the total of the two Toronto districts combined, at 18200 vs 19700. https://elections.ca/content.aspx?section=med&dir=pre&document=apr0726&lang=e
Carney will get a bare majority regardless of the outcome in Terrebonne, right? (assuming the other two ridings thought to be safely Liberal go the way they're anticipated)
He would, although given the example of the US House over the last 18 months, a majority of even 2 or 3 seats depends on members being on the same page, healthy, and on schedule, otherwise things can go sideways in a hurry.
Hungary has gotten the most attention of the elections on April 12th, but Peru also has presidential and legislative elections that day as well. Keiko Fujimori, not one to give up, is running for a 4th consecutive time and appears likely to finish first and make the runoff. It's not clear who will get second, but it could be another far-right candidate.
That sounds like a disastrous choice! Isn't there anyone better running?
Yes, but with 35 candidates total, it's not clear if anyone will even break 20%, making it easier for two candidates of similar leanings to advance. Also, after the absolute mess that was the previous leftist government, many Peruvians may be looking to go way in the other direction.
No possibility of non-extremist good government? Wow.
Sounds like the California Governor race, minus the anti-left part!
I'm not seeing that. A corrupt, brutal former leader or a right-wing extremist?
I was making a joke about there being 35 candidates and liberals splitting the field, but Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco seem pretty corruptible and extreme!
Yes, but also unlikely to win.
I mean technically, the (also far-right) daughter of a corrupt and brutal leader, but is still a strong supporter of her late father.
She was also brutal while previously in office, I thought.
Latin American elections continue to be wacky horror shows
I am currently interested in the VA referendum, which I am also worried about. Let’s hope we at least win.
As for other races, the CA billionaire tax referendum (if it happens) will be interesting too. Hoping for a yes vote, although I agree with Porter that it did not go far enough.
NY-17, my home district, is of course on my radar too, particularly after the debate I was at. Hopefully we won’t get Conley, and hopefully Lawler will go down in flames. I like Effie but I’m good with Beth too.
I have lots more but I’ll close my post this week with MN-Sen. Peggy Flanagan is looking better and better - but is it enough? Curious to know what people here think.
-VA: I think lately we've underestimated just how unsatisfied regular voters are with the Trump administration (and being on social media sure makes me think we're still divided as a nation, but when I actually talk to people I don't see that). We saw it in the surprise landslide of Wisconsin's latest Supreme Court race, the numerous upsets in state legislative races (Emily Gregory, Taylor Rehmet, etc.) and high turnout at No Kings and other events. With a push from national Democrats such as Barack Obama, it will probably (and hopefully) pass.
-NY-17: Davidson seems to have been the most stable candidate in standing so far - Conley had a moment where she appeared to be in the lead, and now might be at the bottom. Any of the three of them could probably defeat Lawler, but I think Davidson will be the nominee, Phillips-Staley a close second, and Conley third.
-MN-Sen: It's safe to say Flanagan is still the clear frontrunner, and I have high hopes for her. It may be close, though - I feel like there's a similar situation brewing in Massachusetts, where Sen. Ed Markey is in the lead but Rep. Seth Moulton may make the last days of the race a fight for Markey's career.
I think the YES side in VA has worked hard to portray this as a vote against Trump. With everything that's going on right now I just can't see most voters going out of their way to vote to help Trump & the Republicans. They have a reminder everyday now when they fill up their tank how Trump is screwing them.
Why do you think Craig may be able to keep the race close? And for Moulton,
are you thinking mere age will make that race close? I'm skeptical about both races being close.
Mostly based on institutional, establishment support and fundraising, as well as age in the case of Markey. I'm also being cautious - I would much prefer the progressive candidates of Markey and Flanagan to win, but am not counting the centrist picks of Craig and Moulton out just yet.
I'd think there would be more institutional support for Markey, the incumbent. Not so?
You're right on that, I suppose I was referring to Craig.
I wouldn't underestimate the risk of age for Markey. Not saying he's an underdog but lacking a crystal ball I do see a potential for his age to be enough to be his undoing. It's not likely but it's not so implausible that I'd write it off either.
It's also one of the last primaries in the country, Sept 1. Which means there's more time for something to come in and change the fundamentals.
I'm admittedly new to the NY-17 after many years in the city, but I cannot figure out the appeal of Conley at all. It seems like she parachuted out of nowhere and is tenuously tied to the district at best. I think I'm with you: my heart says Effie; my brain says Beth.
I think Swalwell is likely to drop out and his support will crater (it always amazes me that candidates who withdraw a week or more before the election still get votes, but that's beside the point), but I have a bigger question:
What if one of the top two candidates for the general drops out? Is the third place candidate elevated? Or does the remaining top two candidate basically get a free ride?
This all presumes that the withdrawal happens before ballots are printed or in the window before they can't be reprinted.
California's top two rules are final and absolute. If you make the general ballot, you're on it, no matter what. Even death will not remove your name, a winning deceased candidate will create a day one vacancy that will then be filled as if they had died upon taking office. So yes, a "withdrawal" means both names still on the ballot and a presumably easy win for the other candidate. California also bans write-in candidates from general elections! Insane system.
Shows why it is particularly fortunate that the Swalwell stories came out before the June primary (assuming he made the top two).
Our election system is such trash. Maybe that's why it produces such lackluster candidates.