I don't live in LA and LA County so I'm not in a position to know enough.
However, I don't have reason to believe Bass has adversely affected progressives as she's the one who calls the shots and has the ability to appoint heads of Fire Department and other influential positions of public office meant to serve LA residents.
Rick Caruso could very well be a threat to Bass if he ends up running again in the mayoral race but I don't see how progressives will be challenged by less progressive/moderate politicians in the city council. Perhaps there's something I'm missing.
CO-05 CO Dems put out a fundraising email targeting Jeff Crank for U.S. Space Command moving to Alabama from Colorado Springs. This remains my sleeper race and CO Dems directly fundraising/connecting it to Crank seems like a good sign. Jessica Killian the Dem challenger is raising solid amounts and seems to be actually putting up a fight here.
It would be nice if Bobert was the first incumbent in decades to lose a seat that voted 20 points for their presidential candidate. Hopefully Calvarese can build on the millions she raised in 2024 and 42% she got to keep the carpetbagging issue fresh.
It sounds like James Talarico will run for Senate in Texas. I’m wondering if private polling showed him doing better in the general election than Colin Allred.
I dunno, but it's actually kind of refreshing to have a seriously contested primary for a major statewide race in Texas, after a long time in which we were lucky to even have one credible contender. (Now, about the governorship....)
And for anyone who's worried about the primary potentially becoming divisive, it almost certainly won't come close to the GOP's brawl in that sense.
I hope Talarico doesn't tack to the left too much to win the primary since it can be used against him in the general election. There is no doubt that he is a longtime supporter of Bernie Sanders but this is Texas. Who can forget Beto's "hell yeah"!
A good thing that I've noticed in this cycle is that progressives are not forcing purity tests. For example: Mamdani on crime and increasing police funding, Platner on opposing assault weapons ban and open borders, Rebecca Cooke opposing M4A etc. Also, politically toxic stuff like banning fracking, original version of the GND etc aren't being pushed.
I mean, we just had a competitive primary in 2020 and it didn’t turn out well for us as Hegar was broke after she won the nomination and didn’t have enough time or money to introduce herself to voters.
If Paxton wins the primary it won’t matter at all, because almost any Democrat can beat him, but if Cornyn wins? Probably best to cross this race off the board sadly with a likely late primary runoff for Democrats.
Hegar couldn't win the primary comfortably even after being backed by the DSCC and its millions in dark money. She was an awful candidate overall and she did spend a lot in the end against Cornyn, including outside spending.
Hegar had a long and distinctive career in the Air Force where she got the rank of Major.
However, she suffered the same fate as Amy McGrath did in running in the House race, lost to Rep. John Carter, and having lost Senate race the following election year in 2018 and 2020 respectively. Hegar lost the Senate race by 10% points. A better strategy for her political career would have been for Hegar to challenge Carter again in TX-31 but that didn't happen.
This shows once again that Democrats have to stop nominating candidates for the Senate who had previously lost a House race in states like TX.
I am interested in the Toronto Blue Jays race to win the (North) American League East and clinch the best record in the (North) American League for a first-round bye, plus it is always nice for us Upper Canadians to beat teams from the rebellious colonies like New York and Massachusetts ;)
Looking at a map of 2026 governor's races, there aren't that many prime pickup opportunities for us. We do have a top tier pickup in 2025 with Virginia, but I'm looking ahead to next year.
Of the states up next year, the only swing or swing-ish states we don't hold the governor's office in are NH, Georgia, and Nevada. NH is more or less off the table due to local politics, as much as I'd love to be wrong. Georgia and Nevada are the only real pickup chances and both of them look tough to me. There's a few reach states like Iowa, Ohio, and Alaska, but they're tough even in a big wave. There's also Vermont, but unless Scott opts to retire that is a harder target than even NH.
It's entirely possible that we could have a big wave for us with the midterms and end up in the net negative for governor's offices, if we lose Kansas but fail to make any pickups. Kind of the gubernatorial take on how 2018's senate map resulted in us losing two seats despite it being a big wave for us.
Fortunately there's still a lot of room for us to benefit at the statewide level: there's room to gain trifectas in multiple states, or to make progress in the legislature in others. Plus some row offices in Wisconsin, Nevada, and Arizona that are plausibly on the table.
You're underestimating New Hampshire. There's a lot of discontent with Ayotte here, particularly since she claimed she would support public employees during the campaign but has treated us like shit ever since she took office. I have a Trump-supporting friend who's definitely going to vote against Ayotte next year.
Of course, the issue is finding a strong candidate. But NH Dems have time to do so, considering how late our primary is. I'd say Lean R is an appropriate rating for NH-Gov next year, but not any more favorable to Ayotte than that.
I've lived my whole life in NH. Once someone becomes an incumbent governor it becomes difficult to dislodge them. Especially early on. Only once has in recent history has a governor been defeated on their first reelection campaign. And Ayotte isn't displaying the extent of weakness that Benson had.
Our governors have a history of surviving opposing wave years. Sununu won in 2018, Hassan won in 2014, and Lynch won in 2010.
The late primary is bad for us and makes the problem worse. It's part of why we lost the race in 2024 to start with. Ayotte had no credible competition and was able to save her resources and time; Craig was in a seriously contested primary and had to focus all of her money and time on winning that primary all the way through to September. That's more likely to repeat than not, this cycle.
I'd put the race at Likely-R without an ounce of doubt.
Considering that Ayotte has literally made Benson one of her top advisors, and that most public employees hate her the same way they hated Benson, I'm not sure why you think there's such a difference between them.
Public employees aren't what turned Benson into a one term governor. That's a constituency that is already going to lean left. Especially today, 20 years later. Benson's downfall was the endless drumbeat of negative press that cut across the political spectrum. This is something that is, quite unfortunately, difficult to have happen today. The media has been hollowed out and is far more ideologically driven today than it was in 2004. Especially in a small state like NH, with substantial overlap with the very expensive Boston media market.
I'd wager that >99% of NH voters today do not know that Benson works for Ayotte. Or if they do know either they do not know who he is or do not have a negative opinion of him.
This is not impossible to win but it's a very, very difficult race as things stand. Maybe Ayotte will do something that gets lots of attention and is broadly unpopular. Maybe something will switch and she'll face a constant barrage of modestly negative coverage. Maybe something else will make her unpopular. Maybe she'll face a serious primary opponent. Maybe we'll have such a big wave next year that it doesn't matter. None of those look particularly likely right now, but they're possible. Winning relies too much on maybe and as such it's a big uphill climb.
Sorry, but as a NH state employee, both of your first two sentences are wrong. One of the things I quickly discovered when I started working for the state of NH was how many state employees lean conservative politically. Even some of them who are members of the State Employees' Association (SEA), the union that state employees can join. Heck, the SEA even has a "Conservative Member Committee" to try to keep the right-leaning state employees involved with the union. And probably about half of the people in my bureau lean to the right politically - I know this because we sometimes discuss politics. This isn't too surprising when you consider the fact that while some state employees live in Concord, the state capital, many others live in the towns around Concord, some of which are much more conservative. The long lines of traffic every morning and evening on roads like Route 4 east of Concord are a testament to this.
And public employees are absolutely what turned Benson into a one-term governor. This is obvious when you look at the election results map from the 2004 gubernatorial election. In most of the state, Benson got the votes he needed to win re-election. It was only in Merrimack County, home to Concord and all of its surrounding towns, where he absolutely cratered. Lynch won heavily Republican Concord suburbs like Chichester, Epsom, and Loudon, which no other Democrat not named Lynch has done since then. Those voters were conservative state employees who voted for Lynch because they despised Benson thanks to Benson's mistreatment of state workers. Merrimack County was actually the bluest county in NH in that election, which has never happened since then.
So actually, 1) there are a lot more right-leaning state employees in NH than you realize, and 2) their crossing party lines to vote for Lynch in 2004 is the main reason why he won. And many of them will do it again if they're mistreated again.
A constituency leaning left is not synonymous with it being universally or near universally left. Stating that there are conservatives in that group is not new information nor does it contradict what I said.
As I’ve said before if Dems can’t finally win the governorship in Georgia with an open seat in a Dem wave year with four more years of positive demographic change, I’m gonna have real doubts about that state supposedly turning into another Virginia.
It's definitely winnable. My reasons for thinking it's a bit tougher than tossup or favoring us is that a lot of states take longer to realign at the local level than they do at the federal level. I do see a lot of potential for this race to end up one where we're in a great spot later on, but it's too early to know either way right now.
Harris got 48% last year in Georgia so I still think were on track there. If she had cratered down to 43% like in Texas, i'd say things are going backwards.
The only state in 2018 state where we couldn’t pick up an open seat where Clinton had done that well two years early was Florida and we all know what that was a harbinger of.
I think it’s worth suggesting that Brian Kemp is a formidable opponent and politician who hits the sweet spot between traditional pro-biz GOP and knowing how to throw MAGA a bone on occasion. Unless Chris Carr wins the nomination I think it’s unclear that Georgia has another Kemp sitting in the wings, and even then I don’t think Carr is nearly as formidable as Kemp has been (or would have been for Senate, or would be in a 2028 Presidential election)
Seems they all would be decent for base voters, but all have potentials to turn off non Black suburbanites.
If the gubernatorial election is also turning into a referendum on Trump, anyone of them has a chance. If it is still a choice on state level issues, none has a compelling argument, yet.
Given the recent election results in Iowa, I think there is a pretty decent chance Rob Sand (the only current statewide elected Democrat in Iowa) will beat whoever ends up being the GOP nominee. I expect the prognosticators will move that race to a Tossup by October 2026.
If Dems can win Iowa, NH, Georgia, and Nevada while holding all the others (including Kansas), that will be an epically great night. Ohio, Alaska, and Vermont would put Dems at over 30 governorships.
Of course, the big kahuna would be defeating either Greg Abbott or Byron Donalds (or whoever the FL GOP nominates). In a blue wave election, who knows--it could happen.
Definitely. I'm hoping she runs for senate so I guess I mentally discounted the possibility that she runs for governor. If she does run for governor then we have a very realistic chance of winning in Alaska.
That’s all b/c of Duggan but so far the polling is not looking good for him and he seems to be pulling from James as much as Benson. I still think Benson is in the driver’s seat but it’s far from a cakewalk.
"Radical centrism, also called the radical center, the radical centre, and the radical middle, is a concept that arose in Western nations in the late 20th century. The radical in the term refers to a willingness on the part of most radical centrists to call for fundamental reform of institutions.[1] The centrism refers to a belief that genuine solutions require realism and pragmatism, not just idealism and emotion"
Which modern-day American politicians could be considered radical centrists?
What was radical about him? Maybe Pete Buttigieg, he wanted/wants to "reinvent government", end the filibuster, electoral college and turbocharge the ACA right stopping only short of M4A among other normal centrist stuff......
This is the type of thing that really narrows down to how we define all the relevant terms.
JFK made a lot of large proposals, and I think it would be fair to describe many of them as "radical" or at least substantial shifts in how things operate. Food stamps, medicare, medicaid, civil rights... All were large programs representing large shifts in society.
It could be argued that these were "centrist" as they were watered down from the aspirations of the American left not that long before. Or by comparison to what the left were accomplishing across Europe. Or by virtue of many of the programs being at least modestly bipartisan when voted on (e.g. Medicaid had 13 republican senators vote for it, 14 vote against, and 5 not vote).
It could equally be argued that they were not centrist as ultimately the programs relied on democratic support first and foremost and that they oriented US government as further to the left. That latter part can be highlighted by noting the current balance of partisan support or opposition for these programs today: all opposition is from conservatives. It would also be worth noting that the 1960s were still a time of ideology and partisanship having a weaker alignment than today. Not all republicans were conservatives, and not all democrats were liberals.
I'm persuaded by the second argument, that ultimately JFK was not a centrist and thus doesn't fit the definition.
It's hard to get even some progressives to support fundamental reform of anything. Moderates and centrists plus fundamental reform is as far as I can recall a foreign concept in this country.
I didn't remember what that was, but I definitely remember Mayoral control over the NYC school system, instead of its being controlled by the Board of Ed Chancellor. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED561075.pdf
These reforms included:
• A governance shift from a fragmented, locally based system of 32 community
districts to mayoral control. It was the foundation for change that made other
reforms possible.
• Devolving authority to building principals who were closer to the classroom
and who could make better decisions about budgets, staffing, professional
development, and operations to support their schools.
• Creating small schools to replace large, impersonal high schools and transform
them into smaller, more personalized environments.
• Welcoming charter schools to the system while holding them just as accountable for student performance as district schools.
My comment: Or ostensibly so. Teachers I know don't think that ever happened. That said, yes, like it or not, this was a substantial change.
My mother was a teacher in the NYC schools in the 1990s and she's told me the charters siphoned off money and resources from the public schools. At the time (don't know if this is still true), they could also reject any students they wanted -- including students with mental disabilities. (This is my major criticism of charters -- on top of union-busting concerns, I do not like the lack of oversight. Especially when it comes to things like autism, which I have.)
Although she has also claimed the elected Board of Ed were ridiculously corrupt, complete with nice, modern buildings while the schools struggled with resources. So make of this what you will.
EDIT: She has also said she liked the original idea of charters as laboratories — just not what they became. (To say nothing of the far-right using them to insert religion inappropriately in schools.)
I have a friend who's a special education teacher. She's complained bitterly about how a charter school with much lower enrollment than her public school took over part of the building and grabbed equipment they needed.
The above definition of radical centrism doesn't include "radical" action.vit talks about reform of institutions and pragmatism. Again, charitably, that reminds me of Bloomberg, who made a lot of changes to the way the mayor's office and municipal departments operated.
Like what? I was trying to remember specific changes he made, as opposed to improving municipal services like sanitation and sidewalk repair. New bike lanes?
Could Andrew Yang maybe be considered a radical centrist? I'm just thinking about his opposition to the two party system and his creation of the Forward Party.
A cursory Wikipedia search describes Forward as "populist and reformist, and a representative of centrism in the United States. It considers itself to be the center within the American political spectrum, although the party has also been described as big tent or syncretic due to its unwillingness on holding any firm stances or positions, and its rejection of the left–right political spectrum." It targets Independents, supports UBI within a capitalist system, and advocates for reform of electoral institutions.
I don't know enough about Andrew Yang's politics specifically. He's just the first person who came to my mind when trying to think of politicians that have major qualms with an aspect of the current system, and has the sort of "all-sides are valid" "I'll work with anyone" vibes that reminds me of centrists.
I first heard the term "radical centrist" used to refer to Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, but I don't agree. They are certainly centrists, but they don't want to upend any systems (at least not that I can tell). I think the individual who described them that way meant the word radical more in the sense of "having strong conviction"
I'd exercise caution with anything Forward Party does, especially considering as a party it has yet to elect a single politician for office.
That said, I think being a centrist now is much different than being a centrist in the 90's or even 2000's. On the other hand, I don't see how Forward Party (which bit its name off of Obama's re-election campaign slogan back in 2012) really far off from how centrists and moderates in government really are.
Also, I wouldn't buy anything that comes out of Yang's mouth all the time. He originally supported progressive Democratic Candidate Charles Booker in the 2020 KY Senate Primary, then ran in the NY Mayoral Race, then all of a sudden decided to start Forward Party with former moderate Republican Christine Todd Whitman helping co-chair. He said he was trying to get more moderates in the Democratic Party, which Democrats still have plenty of to begin with but I doubt anyone at the DNC really had strategy meetings with Yang.
It's a meaningless term. You're one or the other. If you are a centrist, you reject the orthodoxy of either the Left or Right in favor of...what, exactly? "I want to fight poverty, but not too much"? "I favor some civil rights, but not too many"? "Health care could be a little bit better under the present system"?
Making changes in how systems operate either perpetuates the status quo or upends it. Favoring abolishing the Electoral College could be called "radical" because it upends a part of the American electoral system that is 238 years old. Also,, it shifts the balance of power to individual voters from the states. Or, a "radical" idea would be full public funding of elections. A centrist would say "we have to end polarization," to which I say "you go first."
Basically, you favor change that redistributes power, or you don't. If the same people are in charge when your reform is enacted, you're not a radical. Sorry, I don't make the rules.
I get the impression that maybe radical centrism isn't as possible under the US system. Centrism (at least how I understand it from observing centrist politicians) emphasizes compromise above all else, resulting in situations like rayspace pointed out above of "I want to fight poverty, but not too much" "I favor some civil rights, but not too many" "Health care could be a little bit better under the present system". Centrism and compromise are already favored in the US political system. I said in an earlier comment that I had once heard Manchin and Sinema described as radical centrists and that I disagreed because they don't want to upend any systems, but now I wonder if they could fit that desciption. Maybe radical centrists in American politics aren't so much radical in the sense that they're trying to change the current system, but rather if the system did change then they would try to return it to one that favors compromise (they would be considered radical in the new system)
Maybe in another country where the majority is much more able to rule without needing to work with other parties, radical centrism would be more common/easy to spot?
Your last sentence could be right, but Manchin and Sinema weren't radicals in any way (except in Sinema's former life as a Green) and just acted as a catalyst for attenuated progress and a brake to much greater progress that just might have changed the outcome of the 2024 election (but probably not because the idiotic voters were obsessed with inflation and somehow managed to con themselves a second time that a now convicted criminal would magically reverse it).
I participated in my first ever Labor Day Parade. I'm not an active member of any union, because unfortunately my gigs are all non-union and have been for years, and I'm no longer an adjunct professor anywhere, but in these times, it's important to demonstrate for workers' rights. I was temporarily adopted for the march by the American Guild of Musical Artists, which represents singers like my girlfriend. We were directly in front of the Local 802 American Federation of Musicians contingent (my union that I have a leave without prejudice from), so we were accompanied by a great jazz group throughout the march from 44th St. to 67th St. on 5th Avenue. This was much better organized than the demonstrations I've been taking part in, with each union having its own starting point and everything being carefully sequenced. SAG-Aftra and Actors Equity were in front of us and the WNBA Players Association was further behind us. Spectators, many with signs or union shirts, waved at us or sometimes shook their raised fists. The only people who were trollish were a small contingent of Sliwa supporters watching on the sidewalk. The police were very calm - I think they're very used to this march - and kept traffic well separated from the march.
I mean, Joe Biden would've fit this definition; his proposed Build Back Better bill I think aligned with fundamental reform coupled with respect for institutional norms.
I'm interested in the Ohio U.S. S. Senate Race. I hope Sherrod Brown is able to win by highlighting some local issues and can get some crossover votes from right leaning, but still somewhat independent voters. I don't see Husted as being toxic as Moreno with his blockchain stuff, and inability to discuss issues without talking points. I know that I am wishing from a political playbook of a bygone era. Maybe the primary will force Brown to spend more time in Ohio. I read different Ohio sources and it feels like voters views him as a Washington D.C. guy. I remain hopeful, but I know it will be a tough race.
Unfortunately, I am not sure of this happening with Ohio approving of Trump unlike even Iowa or Texas in polls like this one. It seems that even the Trump fatigue may not be enough but if Brown manages to outrun the trends again, he can win.
The problem is, OH since 2016 has not shown the kind of swinginess towards Democrats with the exception of Sherrod Brown winning re-election back in 2018. That was because of Trump being POTUS.
Challenge is, both seats in the Senate are held by the GOP so Democrats don’t have the same kind of leverage as they did back in 2018 with Brown in the Senate. With him out, there’s a bigger bill to climb.
"I'm curious to see how this holds up, but I would expect Democrats to make the most gains in 2026 with young, Asian and Hispanic voters — at least relative to 2024.
This is pretty self-evident in survey data, but it's very early and that may change."
Japan’s Ishiba resigns, and the game of “what LDP dinosaur will continue to not do anything to improve Japan” that has gone on since Abe stepped down will continue
This is Japan we’re talking about, where “we’ve tried nothing and are all out of ideas!” Is basically a national mantra for both the public and private sector
The first thing I notice is there are no current solidly blue states among the states that shifted Republican, while there are several solidly red states among those that shifted Democratic. Not sure what to make of that, but I think it's interesting
W won by a slightly larger but comparable popular vote margin than DT 2024. That chart would be more convincing on the long term trend.
Also the electoral votes shifted. Despite a larger popular vote margin, W was weaker in the EC. Kerry came to within 38k votes to a 269-269 tie (NV+IA+NM), while getting the last vote to win the EC would be much tougher.
I wanted to see which states shifted the most after the end of the Clinton "New Democrat" coalition while excluding the 2024's minority and youth realignment, which may very well prove to be temporary judging by the generic ballot, approval polls and Virginia/NJ polls.
I've never forgotten that there were 12-hour lines in the rain to vote in heavily Black areas and college towns and scarcely any wait elsewhere in Ohio. People have sworn up and down that that couldn't account for 100,000 voters giving up and going home, but be that as it may, that was the Republicans' intent and they didn't win fair and square.
That's an odd claim to make when turnout in many of those same heavily Black areas and college towns was lower last year than in 2004, sometimes by thousands of votes. (I have a spreadsheet with all of this data.) And I don't recall any complaints about 12-hour lines in Ohio last year.
My point is that factors like long wait times have only a very marginal impact on voter turnout. The vast majority of the time, if a potential voter doesn't cast a ballot, it's because they don't want to, and no improvements in voter access are going to change that.
It's not an odd claim at all. Black and young voters were much more highly motivated to vote against Bush in Ohio in 2004 than to vote for Harris last year. And if you think there was no significant attrition of voters standing on 12-hour lines in all-day rain and that stealing the election wasn't the intent of the Republicans in deliberately having fewer polling places per person in heavily Black areas and college towns, I really question what you are looking at. Figures are useful, but context is essential.
I am currently interested in the 2026 Los Angeles elections. There’s mayor, city council, city attorney, etc.
Question for those in the know — have progressives been hurt by Bass’s unpopularity? Will that affect the various races progressives are targeting?
I don't live in LA and LA County so I'm not in a position to know enough.
However, I don't have reason to believe Bass has adversely affected progressives as she's the one who calls the shots and has the ability to appoint heads of Fire Department and other influential positions of public office meant to serve LA residents.
Rick Caruso could very well be a threat to Bass if he ends up running again in the mayoral race but I don't see how progressives will be challenged by less progressive/moderate politicians in the city council. Perhaps there's something I'm missing.
CO-05 CO Dems put out a fundraising email targeting Jeff Crank for U.S. Space Command moving to Alabama from Colorado Springs. This remains my sleeper race and CO Dems directly fundraising/connecting it to Crank seems like a good sign. Jessica Killian the Dem challenger is raising solid amounts and seems to be actually putting up a fight here.
I think any district up to about Trump +10 is probably in play this cycle unless it has an incumbent with some crossover appeal.
Yeah Harris getting 44% and having a challenger who is actually raising money gives me some hope here.
Clearly so in Iowa, but not necessarily nationwide. I'd suggest a bit of caution.
I'm looking at the Boebert race as the sleeper race in Colorado. She won by less than Crank did.
It would be nice if Bobert was the first incumbent in decades to lose a seat that voted 20 points for their presidential candidate. Hopefully Calvarese can build on the millions she raised in 2024 and 42% she got to keep the carpetbagging issue fresh.
Dems have a new candidate here, Eileen Laubacher. I don’t think Calvarese is running again.
"Democrat Trisha Calvarese seeks 2026 rematch against Republican Lauren Boebert in Colorado's 4th CD
Calvarese told Colorado Politics in an exclusive interview that she's running "to retire" the incumbent congresswoman."
I also get spam texts and emails weekly for her.
https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/local-politics/calvarese-2026-rematch-lauren-boebert-4th-congressional-district/73-e4797b9a-46ab-4fac-8326-1ba3acc73260
Y’all should cover the Somerville MA bike path mayoral race results.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/sep/05/the-cat-mayoral-race-meet-11-runners-and-riders-in-the-uss-most-furious-and-furriest-election
I really think Ernie is gonna bring some much needed energy to the bike path. Feel the Ern!
https://bsky.app/profile/paulsluggoshellyjr.bsky.social/post/3ly2oyoyzak2y
Well played
way too many drugs!!
It sounds like James Talarico will run for Senate in Texas. I’m wondering if private polling showed him doing better in the general election than Colin Allred.
I dunno, but it's actually kind of refreshing to have a seriously contested primary for a major statewide race in Texas, after a long time in which we were lucky to even have one credible contender. (Now, about the governorship....)
And for anyone who's worried about the primary potentially becoming divisive, it almost certainly won't come close to the GOP's brawl in that sense.
I hope Talarico doesn't tack to the left too much to win the primary since it can be used against him in the general election. There is no doubt that he is a longtime supporter of Bernie Sanders but this is Texas. Who can forget Beto's "hell yeah"!
A good thing that I've noticed in this cycle is that progressives are not forcing purity tests. For example: Mamdani on crime and increasing police funding, Platner on opposing assault weapons ban and open borders, Rebecca Cooke opposing M4A etc. Also, politically toxic stuff like banning fracking, original version of the GND etc aren't being pushed.
I mean, we just had a competitive primary in 2020 and it didn’t turn out well for us as Hegar was broke after she won the nomination and didn’t have enough time or money to introduce herself to voters.
If Paxton wins the primary it won’t matter at all, because almost any Democrat can beat him, but if Cornyn wins? Probably best to cross this race off the board sadly with a likely late primary runoff for Democrats.
Hegar couldn't win the primary comfortably even after being backed by the DSCC and its millions in dark money. She was an awful candidate overall and she did spend a lot in the end against Cornyn, including outside spending.
https://prospect.org/politics/power-to-the-person-chuck-schumer-democrat-senate-candidates/
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/10/21/john-cornyn-mj-hegar-texas-2020-spending/
I do not think a contested primary damages Democrats; I see a surge in voter registration among groups that Dems are struggling to register.
I don't know if Hegar was that awful. A Democrat not winning in Texas is the default. I don't remember the margin; was it particularly bad?
Hegar had a long and distinctive career in the Air Force where she got the rank of Major.
However, she suffered the same fate as Amy McGrath did in running in the House race, lost to Rep. John Carter, and having lost Senate race the following election year in 2018 and 2020 respectively. Hegar lost the Senate race by 10% points. A better strategy for her political career would have been for Hegar to challenge Carter again in TX-31 but that didn't happen.
This shows once again that Democrats have to stop nominating candidates for the Senate who had previously lost a House race in states like TX.
That makes sense. Somewhat of a counterexample is that Jon Ossoff, who lost his first House race, proceeded to win a Senate seat.
I agree so long as we have decent candidates in the other statewide offices I’m not too sure on where we are with that.
I am interested in the Toronto Blue Jays race to win the (North) American League East and clinch the best record in the (North) American League for a first-round bye, plus it is always nice for us Upper Canadians to beat teams from the rebellious colonies like New York and Massachusetts ;)
I'm a Yankees fan, but well played!
Looking at a map of 2026 governor's races, there aren't that many prime pickup opportunities for us. We do have a top tier pickup in 2025 with Virginia, but I'm looking ahead to next year.
Of the states up next year, the only swing or swing-ish states we don't hold the governor's office in are NH, Georgia, and Nevada. NH is more or less off the table due to local politics, as much as I'd love to be wrong. Georgia and Nevada are the only real pickup chances and both of them look tough to me. There's a few reach states like Iowa, Ohio, and Alaska, but they're tough even in a big wave. There's also Vermont, but unless Scott opts to retire that is a harder target than even NH.
It's entirely possible that we could have a big wave for us with the midterms and end up in the net negative for governor's offices, if we lose Kansas but fail to make any pickups. Kind of the gubernatorial take on how 2018's senate map resulted in us losing two seats despite it being a big wave for us.
Fortunately there's still a lot of room for us to benefit at the statewide level: there's room to gain trifectas in multiple states, or to make progress in the legislature in others. Plus some row offices in Wisconsin, Nevada, and Arizona that are plausibly on the table.
You're underestimating New Hampshire. There's a lot of discontent with Ayotte here, particularly since she claimed she would support public employees during the campaign but has treated us like shit ever since she took office. I have a Trump-supporting friend who's definitely going to vote against Ayotte next year.
Of course, the issue is finding a strong candidate. But NH Dems have time to do so, considering how late our primary is. I'd say Lean R is an appropriate rating for NH-Gov next year, but not any more favorable to Ayotte than that.
I've lived my whole life in NH. Once someone becomes an incumbent governor it becomes difficult to dislodge them. Especially early on. Only once has in recent history has a governor been defeated on their first reelection campaign. And Ayotte isn't displaying the extent of weakness that Benson had.
Our governors have a history of surviving opposing wave years. Sununu won in 2018, Hassan won in 2014, and Lynch won in 2010.
The late primary is bad for us and makes the problem worse. It's part of why we lost the race in 2024 to start with. Ayotte had no credible competition and was able to save her resources and time; Craig was in a seriously contested primary and had to focus all of her money and time on winning that primary all the way through to September. That's more likely to repeat than not, this cycle.
I'd put the race at Likely-R without an ounce of doubt.
I guess we will get to test the theory…
Considering that Ayotte has literally made Benson one of her top advisors, and that most public employees hate her the same way they hated Benson, I'm not sure why you think there's such a difference between them.
Public employees aren't what turned Benson into a one term governor. That's a constituency that is already going to lean left. Especially today, 20 years later. Benson's downfall was the endless drumbeat of negative press that cut across the political spectrum. This is something that is, quite unfortunately, difficult to have happen today. The media has been hollowed out and is far more ideologically driven today than it was in 2004. Especially in a small state like NH, with substantial overlap with the very expensive Boston media market.
I'd wager that >99% of NH voters today do not know that Benson works for Ayotte. Or if they do know either they do not know who he is or do not have a negative opinion of him.
Ayotte is polling at roughly 50 approval 40 disapprove. https://pro.morningconsult.com/trackers/governor-approval-ratings
This is not impossible to win but it's a very, very difficult race as things stand. Maybe Ayotte will do something that gets lots of attention and is broadly unpopular. Maybe something will switch and she'll face a constant barrage of modestly negative coverage. Maybe something else will make her unpopular. Maybe she'll face a serious primary opponent. Maybe we'll have such a big wave next year that it doesn't matter. None of those look particularly likely right now, but they're possible. Winning relies too much on maybe and as such it's a big uphill climb.
Sorry, but as a NH state employee, both of your first two sentences are wrong. One of the things I quickly discovered when I started working for the state of NH was how many state employees lean conservative politically. Even some of them who are members of the State Employees' Association (SEA), the union that state employees can join. Heck, the SEA even has a "Conservative Member Committee" to try to keep the right-leaning state employees involved with the union. And probably about half of the people in my bureau lean to the right politically - I know this because we sometimes discuss politics. This isn't too surprising when you consider the fact that while some state employees live in Concord, the state capital, many others live in the towns around Concord, some of which are much more conservative. The long lines of traffic every morning and evening on roads like Route 4 east of Concord are a testament to this.
And public employees are absolutely what turned Benson into a one-term governor. This is obvious when you look at the election results map from the 2004 gubernatorial election. In most of the state, Benson got the votes he needed to win re-election. It was only in Merrimack County, home to Concord and all of its surrounding towns, where he absolutely cratered. Lynch won heavily Republican Concord suburbs like Chichester, Epsom, and Loudon, which no other Democrat not named Lynch has done since then. Those voters were conservative state employees who voted for Lynch because they despised Benson thanks to Benson's mistreatment of state workers. Merrimack County was actually the bluest county in NH in that election, which has never happened since then.
So actually, 1) there are a lot more right-leaning state employees in NH than you realize, and 2) their crossing party lines to vote for Lynch in 2004 is the main reason why he won. And many of them will do it again if they're mistreated again.
A constituency leaning left is not synonymous with it being universally or near universally left. Stating that there are conservatives in that group is not new information nor does it contradict what I said.
As I’ve said before if Dems can’t finally win the governorship in Georgia with an open seat in a Dem wave year with four more years of positive demographic change, I’m gonna have real doubts about that state supposedly turning into another Virginia.
It's definitely winnable. My reasons for thinking it's a bit tougher than tossup or favoring us is that a lot of states take longer to realign at the local level than they do at the federal level. I do see a lot of potential for this race to end up one where we're in a great spot later on, but it's too early to know either way right now.
But Virginia has a Republican governor now, too.
But Dems control the legislature and haven’t lost a Presidential race there in over 20 years.
But we're talking about a gubernatorial race.
Harris got 48% last year in Georgia so I still think were on track there. If she had cratered down to 43% like in Texas, i'd say things are going backwards.
The only state in 2018 state where we couldn’t pick up an open seat where Clinton had done that well two years early was Florida and we all know what that was a harbinger of.
I think it’s worth suggesting that Brian Kemp is a formidable opponent and politician who hits the sweet spot between traditional pro-biz GOP and knowing how to throw MAGA a bone on occasion. Unless Chris Carr wins the nomination I think it’s unclear that Georgia has another Kemp sitting in the wings, and even then I don’t think Carr is nearly as formidable as Kemp has been (or would have been for Senate, or would be in a 2028 Presidential election)
We need an A-tier candidate and currently there is none in the mix.
How would you evaluate the candidates already in the race?
Seems they all would be decent for base voters, but all have potentials to turn off non Black suburbanites.
If the gubernatorial election is also turning into a referendum on Trump, anyone of them has a chance. If it is still a choice on state level issues, none has a compelling argument, yet.
And the tougher thing is, Ossoff is already getting the referendum votes. Not sure the statewide races would be on the referendum line as well.
Why not?
Because the demographic changes are not all that favorable, and it is not turning Virginia.
Given the recent election results in Iowa, I think there is a pretty decent chance Rob Sand (the only current statewide elected Democrat in Iowa) will beat whoever ends up being the GOP nominee. I expect the prognosticators will move that race to a Tossup by October 2026.
If Dems can win Iowa, NH, Georgia, and Nevada while holding all the others (including Kansas), that will be an epically great night. Ohio, Alaska, and Vermont would put Dems at over 30 governorships.
Of course, the big kahuna would be defeating either Greg Abbott or Byron Donalds (or whoever the FL GOP nominates). In a blue wave election, who knows--it could happen.
I could see Democrats having a shot at IA.
The IA-GOV race in 2018 was close. Fred Hubbell only lost to Kim Reynolds by less than 3% points.
peltola is up 30 points in hypothetical matchups against generic republicans in alaska, otherwise agreed.
https://19thnews.org/2025/08/mary-peltola-alaska-governor-early-polling/
Definitely. I'm hoping she runs for senate so I guess I mentally discounted the possibility that she runs for governor. If she does run for governor then we have a very realistic chance of winning in Alaska.
I’d like to see her run for Senate and try to get somebody like Kawasaki or Wielowski in for Gov instead
I could also see us losing the Michigan Gov race considering what a cluster it’s turning out to be.
That’s all b/c of Duggan but so far the polling is not looking good for him and he seems to be pulling from James as much as Benson. I still think Benson is in the driver’s seat but it’s far from a cakewalk.
"Radical centrism, also called the radical center, the radical centre, and the radical middle, is a concept that arose in Western nations in the late 20th century. The radical in the term refers to a willingness on the part of most radical centrists to call for fundamental reform of institutions.[1] The centrism refers to a belief that genuine solutions require realism and pragmatism, not just idealism and emotion"
Which modern-day American politicians could be considered radical centrists?
Have there ever been any? If so, who? I always considered "radical" and "centrist" contradictions in terms.
Wikipedia says JFK was one.
That makes some sense to me, what with the space program and his civil rights bills that were passed after his assassination.
Wikipedia is wrong. Bill Clinton perhaps.
What was radical about him? Maybe Pete Buttigieg, he wanted/wants to "reinvent government", end the filibuster, electoral college and turbocharge the ACA right stopping only short of M4A among other normal centrist stuff......
Reinvent government is a term from the Clinton administration.
I know, but what did he do to accomplish that? Repeal welfare and end Glass-Steagall?
This is the type of thing that really narrows down to how we define all the relevant terms.
JFK made a lot of large proposals, and I think it would be fair to describe many of them as "radical" or at least substantial shifts in how things operate. Food stamps, medicare, medicaid, civil rights... All were large programs representing large shifts in society.
It could be argued that these were "centrist" as they were watered down from the aspirations of the American left not that long before. Or by comparison to what the left were accomplishing across Europe. Or by virtue of many of the programs being at least modestly bipartisan when voted on (e.g. Medicaid had 13 republican senators vote for it, 14 vote against, and 5 not vote).
It could equally be argued that they were not centrist as ultimately the programs relied on democratic support first and foremost and that they oriented US government as further to the left. That latter part can be highlighted by noting the current balance of partisan support or opposition for these programs today: all opposition is from conservatives. It would also be worth noting that the 1960s were still a time of ideology and partisanship having a weaker alignment than today. Not all republicans were conservatives, and not all democrats were liberals.
I'm persuaded by the second argument, that ultimately JFK was not a centrist and thus doesn't fit the definition.
He did also cut taxes, though.
It's hard to get even some progressives to support fundamental reform of anything. Moderates and centrists plus fundamental reform is as far as I can recall a foreign concept in this country.
If one were being somewhat charitable, I suppose that would describe Bloomberg.
In what way? What did he do as Mayor of New York that was radical in any way?
The Child First initiative, which wasn't based on fraud like the DC program under Michelle Rhee afaik.
I didn't remember what that was, but I definitely remember Mayoral control over the NYC school system, instead of its being controlled by the Board of Ed Chancellor. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED561075.pdf
These reforms included:
• A governance shift from a fragmented, locally based system of 32 community
districts to mayoral control. It was the foundation for change that made other
reforms possible.
• Devolving authority to building principals who were closer to the classroom
and who could make better decisions about budgets, staffing, professional
development, and operations to support their schools.
• Creating small schools to replace large, impersonal high schools and transform
them into smaller, more personalized environments.
• Welcoming charter schools to the system while holding them just as accountable for student performance as district schools.
My comment: Or ostensibly so. Teachers I know don't think that ever happened. That said, yes, like it or not, this was a substantial change.
My mother was a teacher in the NYC schools in the 1990s and she's told me the charters siphoned off money and resources from the public schools. At the time (don't know if this is still true), they could also reject any students they wanted -- including students with mental disabilities. (This is my major criticism of charters -- on top of union-busting concerns, I do not like the lack of oversight. Especially when it comes to things like autism, which I have.)
Although she has also claimed the elected Board of Ed were ridiculously corrupt, complete with nice, modern buildings while the schools struggled with resources. So make of this what you will.
EDIT: She has also said she liked the original idea of charters as laboratories — just not what they became. (To say nothing of the far-right using them to insert religion inappropriately in schools.)
I have a friend who's a special education teacher. She's complained bitterly about how a charter school with much lower enrollment than her public school took over part of the building and grabbed equipment they needed.
Charters are bullshit. A halfway house to privatization
The above definition of radical centrism doesn't include "radical" action.vit talks about reform of institutions and pragmatism. Again, charitably, that reminds me of Bloomberg, who made a lot of changes to the way the mayor's office and municipal departments operated.
Like what? I was trying to remember specific changes he made, as opposed to improving municipal services like sanitation and sidewalk repair. New bike lanes?
Could Andrew Yang maybe be considered a radical centrist? I'm just thinking about his opposition to the two party system and his creation of the Forward Party.
A cursory Wikipedia search describes Forward as "populist and reformist, and a representative of centrism in the United States. It considers itself to be the center within the American political spectrum, although the party has also been described as big tent or syncretic due to its unwillingness on holding any firm stances or positions, and its rejection of the left–right political spectrum." It targets Independents, supports UBI within a capitalist system, and advocates for reform of electoral institutions.
Interesting idea. Is his ideology coherent enough?
I don't know enough about Andrew Yang's politics specifically. He's just the first person who came to my mind when trying to think of politicians that have major qualms with an aspect of the current system, and has the sort of "all-sides are valid" "I'll work with anyone" vibes that reminds me of centrists.
I first heard the term "radical centrist" used to refer to Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, but I don't agree. They are certainly centrists, but they don't want to upend any systems (at least not that I can tell). I think the individual who described them that way meant the word radical more in the sense of "having strong conviction"
I'd exercise caution with anything Forward Party does, especially considering as a party it has yet to elect a single politician for office.
That said, I think being a centrist now is much different than being a centrist in the 90's or even 2000's. On the other hand, I don't see how Forward Party (which bit its name off of Obama's re-election campaign slogan back in 2012) really far off from how centrists and moderates in government really are.
Also, I wouldn't buy anything that comes out of Yang's mouth all the time. He originally supported progressive Democratic Candidate Charles Booker in the 2020 KY Senate Primary, then ran in the NY Mayoral Race, then all of a sudden decided to start Forward Party with former moderate Republican Christine Todd Whitman helping co-chair. He said he was trying to get more moderates in the Democratic Party, which Democrats still have plenty of to begin with but I doubt anyone at the DNC really had strategy meetings with Yang.
It's a meaningless term. You're one or the other. If you are a centrist, you reject the orthodoxy of either the Left or Right in favor of...what, exactly? "I want to fight poverty, but not too much"? "I favor some civil rights, but not too many"? "Health care could be a little bit better under the present system"?
Making changes in how systems operate either perpetuates the status quo or upends it. Favoring abolishing the Electoral College could be called "radical" because it upends a part of the American electoral system that is 238 years old. Also,, it shifts the balance of power to individual voters from the states. Or, a "radical" idea would be full public funding of elections. A centrist would say "we have to end polarization," to which I say "you go first."
Basically, you favor change that redistributes power, or you don't. If the same people are in charge when your reform is enacted, you're not a radical. Sorry, I don't make the rules.
Elissa Slotkin?
How is she radical?
I get the impression that maybe radical centrism isn't as possible under the US system. Centrism (at least how I understand it from observing centrist politicians) emphasizes compromise above all else, resulting in situations like rayspace pointed out above of "I want to fight poverty, but not too much" "I favor some civil rights, but not too many" "Health care could be a little bit better under the present system". Centrism and compromise are already favored in the US political system. I said in an earlier comment that I had once heard Manchin and Sinema described as radical centrists and that I disagreed because they don't want to upend any systems, but now I wonder if they could fit that desciption. Maybe radical centrists in American politics aren't so much radical in the sense that they're trying to change the current system, but rather if the system did change then they would try to return it to one that favors compromise (they would be considered radical in the new system)
Maybe in another country where the majority is much more able to rule without needing to work with other parties, radical centrism would be more common/easy to spot?
Your last sentence could be right, but Manchin and Sinema weren't radicals in any way (except in Sinema's former life as a Green) and just acted as a catalyst for attenuated progress and a brake to much greater progress that just might have changed the outcome of the 2024 election (but probably not because the idiotic voters were obsessed with inflation and somehow managed to con themselves a second time that a now convicted criminal would magically reverse it).
I participated in my first ever Labor Day Parade. I'm not an active member of any union, because unfortunately my gigs are all non-union and have been for years, and I'm no longer an adjunct professor anywhere, but in these times, it's important to demonstrate for workers' rights. I was temporarily adopted for the march by the American Guild of Musical Artists, which represents singers like my girlfriend. We were directly in front of the Local 802 American Federation of Musicians contingent (my union that I have a leave without prejudice from), so we were accompanied by a great jazz group throughout the march from 44th St. to 67th St. on 5th Avenue. This was much better organized than the demonstrations I've been taking part in, with each union having its own starting point and everything being carefully sequenced. SAG-Aftra and Actors Equity were in front of us and the WNBA Players Association was further behind us. Spectators, many with signs or union shirts, waved at us or sometimes shook their raised fists. The only people who were trollish were a small contingent of Sliwa supporters watching on the sidewalk. The police were very calm - I think they're very used to this march - and kept traffic well separated from the march.
I mean, Joe Biden would've fit this definition; his proposed Build Back Better bill I think aligned with fundamental reform coupled with respect for institutional norms.
But he really didn't govern as a centrist.
He governed as a leftist?
He governed as a liberal and was farther left than anyone since Johnson.
I'm interested in the Ohio U.S. S. Senate Race. I hope Sherrod Brown is able to win by highlighting some local issues and can get some crossover votes from right leaning, but still somewhat independent voters. I don't see Husted as being toxic as Moreno with his blockchain stuff, and inability to discuss issues without talking points. I know that I am wishing from a political playbook of a bygone era. Maybe the primary will force Brown to spend more time in Ohio. I read different Ohio sources and it feels like voters views him as a Washington D.C. guy. I remain hopeful, but I know it will be a tough race.
Unfortunately, I am not sure of this happening with Ohio approving of Trump unlike even Iowa or Texas in polls like this one. It seems that even the Trump fatigue may not be enough but if Brown manages to outrun the trends again, he can win.
https://civiqs.com/results/approve_president_trump_2025?uncertainty=true&zoomIn=true&annotations=true&map=true
The problem is, OH since 2016 has not shown the kind of swinginess towards Democrats with the exception of Sherrod Brown winning re-election back in 2018. That was because of Trump being POTUS.
Challenge is, both seats in the Senate are held by the GOP so Democrats don’t have the same kind of leverage as they did back in 2018 with Brown in the Senate. With him out, there’s a bigger bill to climb.
"I'm curious to see how this holds up, but I would expect Democrats to make the most gains in 2026 with young, Asian and Hispanic voters — at least relative to 2024.
This is pretty self-evident in survey data, but it's very early and that may change."
https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1964506188328181900
I think 2026 can genuinely be a 2006 level of wave with multiple Senate seats flipping in Maine, NC, Texas, Iowa, Alaska, Ohio and Nebraska.
https://civiqs.com/results/approve_president_trump_2025?uncertainty=true&zoomIn=true&annotations=true&map=true
More awful maps for Trump:
https://civiqs.com/results/approve_president_trump_2025?uncertainty=true&zoomIn=true&annotations=true&map=true&age=18-34
https://civiqs.com/results/approve_president_trump_2025?uncertainty=true&zoomIn=true&annotations=true&map=true&age=35-49
https://civiqs.com/results/approve_president_trump_2025?uncertainty=true&zoomIn=true&annotations=true&map=true&race=Hispanic%2FLatino
The Hispanic/Latino nationwide map is the most interesting.
Japan’s Ishiba resigns, and the game of “what LDP dinosaur will continue to not do anything to improve Japan” that has gone on since Abe stepped down will continue
I gather from your remarks that he is very unpopular because he did nothing to improve the economy?
Nobody since Abe really has
Have they tried to do anything?
This is Japan we’re talking about, where “we’ve tried nothing and are all out of ideas!” Is basically a national mantra for both the public and private sector
And the people don't revolt against that?
According to a couple of articles, a list of possible premier successors:
Sanae Takaichi
Shinjiro Koizumi
Takayuki Kobayashi
Yoshimasa Hayashi
Reuters included 2 non-LDP members because the LDP no longer has majorities in both houses:
Yoshihiko Noda
Yuichiro Tamaki
https://english.news.cn/20250908/c6927e370cb54f659917efb24106e921/c.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/who-could-replace-ishiba-japans-prime-minister-2025-09-07/
Net Presidential Margin Shift towards Democrats or Republicans 2004-2020(Chart)
https://ibb.co/Y4PT0q8Z
The first thing I notice is there are no current solidly blue states among the states that shifted Republican, while there are several solidly red states among those that shifted Democratic. Not sure what to make of that, but I think it's interesting
That is simply because 2020 nationwide margin was 7pt better than 2004.
Should do 2004-2024.
W won by a slightly larger but comparable popular vote margin than DT 2024. That chart would be more convincing on the long term trend.
Also the electoral votes shifted. Despite a larger popular vote margin, W was weaker in the EC. Kerry came to within 38k votes to a 269-269 tie (NV+IA+NM), while getting the last vote to win the EC would be much tougher.
I wanted to see which states shifted the most after the end of the Clinton "New Democrat" coalition while excluding the 2024's minority and youth realignment, which may very well prove to be temporary judging by the generic ballot, approval polls and Virginia/NJ polls.
2004 also had the so-called minority realignment. And 04-24, the baseline popular votes % would be similar, so more Apple-to-apple.
The 04-20 shift would have a baseline shift of 7pt toward Democrats, which, shall we say, doesn’t reflect a long term trend.
The same percentage of Latinos voted for Bush in 2004 and for Trump in 2020.
Patently false. 2004 was 53K-44W; 2020 65B-32T; 2024 51H-46T. 04 is much comparable to 24 than 20.
2004 also had the talk of a realignment.
I was mistaken but the 2004 figure seems to be controversial.
https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2005/06/27/iv-how-latinos-voted-in-2004/
I've never forgotten that there were 12-hour lines in the rain to vote in heavily Black areas and college towns and scarcely any wait elsewhere in Ohio. People have sworn up and down that that couldn't account for 100,000 voters giving up and going home, but be that as it may, that was the Republicans' intent and they didn't win fair and square.
That's an odd claim to make when turnout in many of those same heavily Black areas and college towns was lower last year than in 2004, sometimes by thousands of votes. (I have a spreadsheet with all of this data.) And I don't recall any complaints about 12-hour lines in Ohio last year.
My point is that factors like long wait times have only a very marginal impact on voter turnout. The vast majority of the time, if a potential voter doesn't cast a ballot, it's because they don't want to, and no improvements in voter access are going to change that.
It's not an odd claim at all. Black and young voters were much more highly motivated to vote against Bush in Ohio in 2004 than to vote for Harris last year. And if you think there was no significant attrition of voters standing on 12-hour lines in all-day rain and that stealing the election wasn't the intent of the Republicans in deliberately having fewer polling places per person in heavily Black areas and college towns, I really question what you are looking at. Figures are useful, but context is essential.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-real-gdp-growth-by-state-in-q1-2025/
Mapped: Real GDP Growth by State in Q1 2025
Key Takeaways
South Carolina (+1.7%) led the nation in real GDP growth, driven primarily by gains in real estate and rental and leasing.
Iowa and Nebraska saw the steepest declines (-6.1% each), largely due to downturns in agriculture along with forestry, fishing, and hunting.
Overall the U.S. economy contracted by 0.5%, with 39 states posting declines.
So if things continue this way, probably no chance for Democratic gains in SC, but Iowa and Nebraska are likely to see turnover.
https://x.com/mehdirhasan/status/1964746837765841295
ICE kidnapped and released 3 protestors without charges.
The Nazis kidnapped 30,000 Jewish men after Kristallnacht. All but 500 were released. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_arrests_after_Kristallnacht We know how that ended up.