I am interested in numerous races, as usual, including some from 2028 and 2030. Here are some specific ones on my mind:
- NJ-11: Who do posters here think is favored? Tom Malinowski? Brendan Gill? Tahesha Way? Analilia Mejia? Someone else?
- MN-Sen: Flanagan is leading in this race's polls. Does this mean she has a good shot, or could Craig potentially gain later?
- MI-Sen: While Abdul El-Sayed is unlikely to win this race, I have a hypothetical to pose -- if he were to somehow win, would this race be shot, or would we still have a possible path to victory?
- MI-SD-35: A special election is to occur here, and it's come out that the GOP is running disguised ratfucking ads intending to give progressive Pamela Pugh the edge in the primary. Does this mean she's weaker in the general? If so, by how much?
- NY state legislative races: With Mamdani's win and his so far pretty good work as mayor, which seats might the DSA or other progressives pull off primary wins in? Are any state reps or state senators particularly vulnerable to such a challenge? And where might they fall short?
- SC-Sen: Annie Andrews, the Dem, raised an eye-popping amount of money in spite of her relative obscurity and the lack of Dem attention here. Is an upset brewing?
- MA-08: Might Pat Roath be able to pull off an upset primary win against Lynch?
- SC-06: Is Jim Clyburn going to actually retire? If so, will he pull a Chuy Garcia-style last-second filing, or retire in time to allow a fair primary to occur?
- LA Mayor: How is Karen Bass doing as far as re-election goes? I'd heard she wasn't popular due to the fires. If she does lose, who might defeat her? Rick Caruso isn't running, as he recently said.
- LA City Controller: How is Kenneth Mejia doing? I know he quit the Democrats recently, and two Dems are running to unseat him from the center. Who is favored?
- 2028 retirement watch: Which Reps or Senators might retire in 2028? Any people being watched closely in particular?
- OR-Sen (2028): While Ron Wyden has filed paperwork for another run, I believe, there's been speculation he may retire. If he does, who are some possible candidates who may be interested here? Someone on Bluesky floated Rep. Maxine Dexter. May she try? If she does, might State Rep. Travis Nelson try for her House seat?
- VT-AL (2030): Sen. Bernie Sanders has said this term will be his last, and Rep. Becca Balint is a shoe-in for the seat he'd leave behind. Who might be interested, then, in Balint's now-open seat?
- MA-Sen (2030): If/when Warren retires, who might run to succeed her? Who'd be her likeliest successor?
- NY-Sen (2030): Who might try to primary Kirsten Gillibrand, given her low popularity with the left? If AOC wins Schumer's seat, who else might be interested?
Tester's not wrong about there being a potential 1932-style wave but everything has to go wrong for Republicans (more Trump induced chaos) and everything right for Democrats in order for that to happen.
It's hard for me to see a blue wave being that big, and for a full 1932 we'd need to take back the WH, so 2028 would potentially be a better time for that comparison.
One might wonder why Tester isn't running if he's so optimistic about Democratic prospects. Maybe he thinks that now would be a good time to let a new generation of state Democrats come to the fore? In any case, he can't run forever.
I can’t say this enough: If 2026 is a 1932 style wave, especially in state legislatures, Democrats need to start prepping almost immediately after that for the assumption that they win the White House in 2028 and that 2030 is going to be a defensive midterm (and a redistricting table setting midterm). This means immediately working on getting independent redistricting commissions established in swing states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania if we get trifectas there. In both those states if 2030 is a Dem President’s midterm election, our majorities (and control of the governorship in PA since Shapiro will be term limited) are likely going to vanish as they did in 2010. Redistricting commissions in both those states will take the worry of Republicans getting a trifecta for redistricting off the table. I can’t repeat this or shout it from the rooftops enough.
The only way that a 1932 style landslide will happen is if the economy tanks. If Trump keeps messing with the fed and agitating our trade partners, this could happen.
NJ-11 - I presume Malinowski is in the driver's seat but not a lock. Even if only due to name recognition + facing the most attacks. There's a small upside to being everyone's target, in that all the attention goes to that person.
MN-Sen - I'd rather be Flanagan right now, but Craig can still close the gap. Can and will are different things entirely. Flanagan should hope to win the DFL convention nod and generate positive impressions off anti-ICE rhetoric in a way that advantages her over Craig. She wants to stay in a positive spotlight for as long as possible so that even as ICE begins to lower in prominence, she maintains an advantage. Craig wants to avoid being too hurt in the interim and then do a big money-bomb blitz as the primary starts to close, while selling herself as the establishment favorite. Which pathway wins is far from certain right now.
MA-08: Lynch is an overwhelming favorite. But who knows. MA's primaries a long way off and things can change. I'd love to see Lynch replaced with a good dem.
MA-Sen: Assuming Warren retires in 2030, the two people to keep an eye on are Pressley and Auchincloss. Pressley would be Warren's preferred successor; Auchincloss will be the preference of standard dem establishment organizations. Pressley will probably have a meaningful advantage for in state official support; Auchincloss will probably have a meaningful advantage for fundraising. I don't see her going for it -- I think she wants to stay mayor -- but Wu could be a darkhorse candidate if Pressley doesn't run. Healey could also run and throw such a primary into disarray. Not sure if Healey wants to be senator; she wants to be president and has yet to show interest in non-executive roles.
NJ-11: Mallinowski should be favored. I predict Gill and Way will battle for 2nd place and then Mejia will come in a distant 4th, followed by another distance between her and the others.
MN-Sen: I still predict Flanagan to win the primary, but I don't expect her to be favored in every poll. The race should get closer.
MI-Sen: It depends on if Perry Johnson becomes the nominee for governor on the Republican side - I have a feeling he'll be as volatile as someone like Doug Mastriano, who helped John Fetterman win in 2022. Rogers has also already run statewide in a year that Trump won Michigan and Tom Barrett flipped Rogers' and Slotkin's former congressional district but still lost to Slotkin, so there may be some voter fatigue there.
MI-SD-35: Since Joe Biden and even Kamala Harris won this seat and Democrats consistently overperform in special elections, this should be another seat Democrats hold. Will be interesting to see the margins to get an idea of Michigan's statewide (and other congressional and local) races.
SC-Sen: People thought Jaime Harrison could win in 2020. He didn't even make it competitive. There's no reason to believe Andrews has a shot here. It's not that big of a wave, I don't think.
MA-8: Here's hoping Roath gives Lynch a run for his money, but the latter will probably still be in Congress come January.
SC-6: Clyburn seems like the type to pull a Garcia. Probably with his daughter, if anyone. But I recently read something that said he was leaning towards running again.
LA-Mayor: With the current candidates, Beutner probably has the best shot to take down Bass but would probably perform similarly to Caruso in 2022. However, if supervisor Lindsey Horvath challenges Bass from the right, Bass could be more vulnerable.
LA-Controller: I think Zack Sokoloff has a real chance to unseat Mejia. He has raised a lot and has major establishment support.
OR-Sen: I think Wyden will retire, and I think Dexter along with Andrea Salinas and possibly Janelle Bynum will be interested.
VT-AL: I think Welch will retire after one term and Balint will run then. Not sure who will run to succeed Sanders in 2030 or Balint in 2028/30.
MA-Sen: Auchincloss, Pressley, perhaps Wu. Would say Auchincloss has the best shot but I wouldn't count Pressley out either.
NY-Sen: Maybe an NYC progressive (there are plenty).
2028: Senate: Welch (re: VT-AL), Blumenthal, Schumer, Fetterman, Johnson (iffy on him), Grassley, Boozman, Kennedy, Moran, Crapo, Wyden, Murkowski (if she doesn't run for governor this year, which it's likely she won't)
2028 House: Balint to run for Welch's seat (re: VT-AL), Neal, Larson and/or DeLauro, Hayes (to run for Blumenthal's seat), Goldman (if he makes it out of this year) and/or Torres and Ryan (if Schumer retires), Ocasio-Cortez (to either run against or succeed Schumer), Tonko, Norcross, Pallone (gives him 40 years pretty much even), Boyle and/or Dean and Deluzio (if Fetterman retires), Kelly (PA), Mfume, Scott (VA), Beyer, Foxx (really old), Clyburn (if not this year), Bishop, McCormick (to run against Warnock), Allen, Scott (GA) (if not this year), Rutherford, Webster (if not this year), Steube (seems like an early retirement kind of guy), Frankel, Wilson, Thompson, Fleischmann, Rogers (KY) (he might try for 50 years but he's like 88), Beatty (think she has some health issues already), Latta, Bergman, Baird (if not this year), Steil (if Johnson retires), Moore (WI), McCollum, one of the Iowa reps elected this year (to run for Grassley's seat), Graves, anyone from Arkansas (all somewhat longtime at this point), Self, Weber, Williams, Cloud, Carter, Babin, Lucas, Cole, Mann and/or Schmidt (to run for Moran's seat), Estes, DeGette, Simpson, Larsen, Dexter and/or Salinas (to run for Wyden's seat), Titus (if not this year), Thompson (CA), Garamendi, DeSaulnier, Lofgren (if not this year, and Robert Rivas will almost certainly be her successor), Sherman, Correa, one of the San Diego people other than Jacobs, Begich (to succeed Murkowski)
Potential wave: I don't think it'll be as big as 1932, but I think it'll be bigger than 2018.
What makes you think Auchincloss has the best shot in the state that has repeatedly elected progressives like Markey and Warren? He isn't very well known out of centrist circles as well.
I don't think he'd be the favorite, but I do think he'd be a real danger and we'd be wise to take a potential candidacy from him seriously so we can ensure a progressive does win.
He will almost certainly have a meaningful financial advantage and will be the favorite of DC based establishment groups. He's exactly the type of candidate that Schumer and the DSCC would put a thumb on the scale for. Even if Schumer is (as I hope!) out of office by 2030, he will still have influence and chances are the DSCC will be led by someone with a similar candidate preference.
I don't know. Maybe not in Massachusetts. But I think people like Jack Schlossberg (doesn't matter what we think of him) have a shot in national politics.
Not going to answer everything, but my thoughts on the ones I feel stronger about:
NJ-11: Malinowski wins, that name ID is gold for a low turnout special election. No one else stood a chance once he announced. I wouldn’t be shocked whether Mejia overperformed (2nd) or underperformed (4th-5th) either.
MN-Sen: Flanagan is favoured and Craig is probably angling for a Klobuchar appointment, which if it happens means that every debate/argument we’ve had in the comments over the last year for this race was basically for nothing lol.
MI-Sen: Any Democrat would probably win, but El-Sayed would be in a nail biter if he got nominated and could very well lose with some stupid comments he’s made or does make after being nominated.
MI-SD35: Democrats are mad, Republicans are meh, either Democrat would win the special election, so GOP funding “attacks” on Pugh is really stupid. However, whether Pugh can hold on the next time the seat is up in the November general election, that’s what the real question is.
SC-Sen: Lots of money, no chance.
MA-08: My bold prediction is I think Roath is actually favoured here, not that he is right now in the race, but that he will be come primary day. We’ll see on that one.
2030 questions will almost entirely depend on which party has the presidency. If it’s Democrats, I expect many of our swing seat reps to try for a safe Senate seat in Oregon, New York and blue states beyond, regardless of whether the incumbent retires.
If it’s a Republican, they probably stay put. Running every 6 years in a safe seat instead of every 2 in a swing seat is a huge incentive for ambitious politicians, which rarely come up and 2-3 terms seems like enough experience to credibly decide to try to move up the chain for our primary voters.
I do sincerely hope Democrats win 2028 for an obvious and unending list of reasons, but if they do, 2030 midterms are going to be a complete clusterfuck for our party in clown car primaries and a ton of incumbents leaving purple districts to try for higher office. It’ll be a 2018 in reverse where we have a huge playing field to defend with very few incumbents to do it with.
Jon Tester may be overly optimistic, but then again it’s not hard to imagine a 1932 wave being possible. Most of the ingredients needed are bubbling right now behind the scenes, but will all of them be there in November? That’s a much harder question to answer.
What would probably be required is a stock market/economic depression, continued ICE abductions and operations up until the election, drip, drip, drip revelations on Epstein, continued erosion of Trump support in polls, continued ignoring of inflation by the GOP in Congress, some more key surprise retirements and even then it would be an uphill battle making a wave that big with polarization as high as it is now.
Is all that possible? Yes, absolutely. No way in hell I’d bet even $1 on it though.
Why would Dems be leaving a bunch of purple districts for higher office in 2030 when the year is likely to be a tough one for Dems? They’d be unlikely to win higher office in a swing state in such a year.
I think you missed the part above where I said swing seat reps would run for safe Senate seats. That’s why I specifically said blue states and mentioned Oregon and New York.
“2030 questions will almost entirely depend on which party has the presidency. If it’s Democrats, I expect many of our swing seat reps to try for a safe Senate seat in Oregon, New York and blue states beyond, regardless of whether the incumbent retires.”
Yeah I’m seeing that now. Hopefully the DCCC can try and limit the number of swing seat Dems that try to run for higher office for each race. If they are trailing in the primary polls they can show the those and try and convince them not to run for that race.
An example of this is when Tom Suozzi left his House seat open to run against Kathy Hochul for governor in the Dem primary and he was polling at less than 20%. Did anyone at the DCCC say to him “hey you can’t win that race, just look at the polling. Run for re-election to the house where you can actually win”?
I think the DCCC/national orgs COULD have some success if the incumbent Democrat runs for re-election in blue seats, but for an open seat? No way, no matter how much we want that to happen. The prize is way too valuable and way too rare for any politician to pass up.
And even if the incumbent runs again I still think it would be very hard to convince them to take one for the team. Running campaigns every 2 years is exhausting, having a safe seat every 6 years to campaign for and being likely to hold that seat for life isn’t going to deter many/any people from running uphill challenges to incumbent Senators. Especially so if the 2026 primaries turnout the way I think they do.
This argument about Klobuchar appointing Craig or Flanagan seems pretty dumb to me. Why would a new Governor spend her capital by causing a controversy and appointing the loser of the a divisive primary race. I think she appoints someone uncontroversial like how Newsom appointed Padilla. Either of their careers are over for good if they lose this.
I think McMorrow or Stevens would win easily and El-Sayed would underperform the blue wave baseline but still win easily. He would not be able to hold that seat in another 6 seats which is the biggest problem imo. His comments were about abolishing ICE and defunding the police, the former doesn't work now and the latter will hurt him but he's disavowed it.
I am not so sure about an upset but a closer-than-expected margin of a win by Lindsay Graham is possible.
Past Democratic Senate Candidates haven't been able to get beyond 10% againsty Graham or even Tim Scott. Jaime Harrison got 44.2% against Graham back in 2020 although that still suggests there's room for improvement for Democrats in SC.
Malinowski probably wins, due to having appeal to both progressive and moderate voters, and high name recognition.
Mejia probably comes second, she seems pretty popular among progressives, but the Morris and western Essex portions aren't going to net her many votes.
Gill and Way are hard to predict, because they're both running as the moderate establishment candidates, and are probably cannibalizing support for each other. Gill's base is probably western Essex and Way has no base and is completely reliant on advertising. While both have raised a lot, most of Way's funding comes from outside the state and her in-state numbers are unimpressive, and Gill doesn't seem to have any small donor support to speak of. Way's sheer number of ads and slightly better small donor numbers mean she's probably likely to get 3rd and Gill 4th, but she could bomb Sabina Matos style. (useful funding numbers: (https://www.somaaction.org/voter-guide)
Beecher, Bartlett, and Grayzel will all probably finish somewhere between 5-7th, they are all running moderate campaigns of slightly different flavors (military, Passaic, and Jewish interests respectively) and won't win, but will siphon enough votes from Gill and Way to keep them from coming particularly close to winning
Croft's campaign is noteworthy for being mostly out-of-state donations that still don't amount to much, Cauvin hasn't gained traction in the resistance libs circles as far as I can tell, Strickland hasn't even put out fundraising numbers, and Williams will get 11th.
If that Pew polling is to be believed, I’m curious to know more about some of our first-tier reach seats. Not Tossup, maybe not even Lean R - what Likely R tier seats look juicy?
Might AK-AL count as a plausible reach likely-R seat? With Peltola running statewide for senate, we'll have our best possible candidate at the top of the ticket in the highest profile race in the state. The governor's office is likely to be modestly competitive too, where we have a (good) Begich running to give us a credible candidate.
I don't remember our candidate quality for the AL house seat, but if we had a credible candidate I think it would pass as a viable Likely-R seat to watch.
Well, the only year we won was when he wasn't on the ballot. And then we came close again with an incumbent, falling just short.
Alaska is a state that has all the markings of being more competitive than it has been, but is hard to work on turning around due to its distance from the continental US + unique characteristics. It's why with the right candidate of Peltola that the senate seat is competitive. Lacking that right candidate I think Likely-R in a wave is appropriate for the house seat.
Back in 2000, Alaska was as red as Wyoming and it is now on the verge of being a light pink state. It has already moved a great deal to the left and it should continue to get bluer as the Anchorage area grows and gets bluer.
I'm looking at Sabato's Crystal Ball for potential upset flips this year in the Likely R category. Apart from FL, TX, and IA (which are on the radar)-- the only other one is NE. They have SC in the Safe R category, that's the only one that I think could flip if everything goes right.
If Jon Tester reconsidered him pushing for an independent candidate, I think he could oust Daines and get his MT-Sen seat back.
Sabato is washed up nowadays. He totally bought into the permanent Republican majority caused by progressivism bullshit and spewed garbage for more than a year.
I don’t really follow the major handicappers (they tend to have terminal “Beltway Brain,” and online hobbyists are often more insightful). Walter’s “analysis” in particular is typically along the lines of “Democrats just won a Trump+17 district: Here’s why that should deeply worry Democrats.”
The races I’d be watching closely in that scenario: AK-AL, AZ-02, CA-40, CO-03, CO-05, FL-07, FL-13, FL-27, FL-28, IA-02, KY-06, MI-04, MO-02, MT-01, NE-01, NY-01, NY-02, SC-01, TX-15, TX-23, WI-01, FL-Sen, KS-Sen (if Davids or Kelly runs, removed if not), MT-Sen, NE-Sen, AK-Gov, NH-Gov and KS-Gov.
Reach seats at the edge depending on candidate quality (for one or both parties): AR-02, FL-02, FL-15, FL-16, NJ-02, NV-02, NY-11, OH-07, OH-10, OH-15, SC-02 and TN-05.
FL-28 is R+2 Cook PVI, FL-27 is Even. In 2024 Salazar won 60-40 against a Latina Democrat and Gimenez won 65-35 against a white Democrat. So they really aren’t that far apart politically, nor is Gimenez a uniquely strong incumbent over her. But these 2 only happen if there’s a Cuban revolt over ICE and we nominate a Hispanic/Latino candidate as well as the above hypothetical with Pew being true. Right now I wouldn’t put either race at Likely R yet.
For TX-23, I expect Gonzales to lose to Herrera in the primary, making it both an open seat and with a problematic to be polite (but realistically crazy, the dude is literally an insane MAGA, many of which lost 2022 races they shouldn’t have), Republican candidate as their nominee. We’d have a small opening in that scenario combined with the Pew poll being reality.
Just two weeks? I’m sure Trump and Noem are really going to scramble to push their “immigration enforcement” agenda to be finished in two weeks before the funding runs out. /s
1. The Texas state senate special tomorrow should be interesting. I’m not expecting an upset win here, but it might be a good test to see whether those ugly approvals for Trump in Texas are accurate.
2. The Michigan state senate special primary next week, followed by NJ-11 on Thursday. If I had to pick my favored candidates, I guess Chedrick Greene and Tahesha Way, but I don’t feel strongly about either primary.
3. March 3rd is the next big primary on the horizon. Hoping Talarico seals the deal in the first round and Paxton-Cornyn go to a runoff.
4. WISC on April 7th. It seems oddly quiet on that front. The past couple races seemed to really heat up after the New Years. I hope this doesn’t turn into a snoozer that allows Lazar to sneak through like Brian Hagedorn did in 2019. I think Taylor easily wins it in the end, though. Hoping she exceeds Crawford’s and Protasiewicz’s margins.
I don't think Taylor will win by the kind of blowout margins Protasiewicz and Crawford did, but WI Dems are still fired up. If Lazar keeps the seat Bradley is leaving, it's a black eye for Wikler's successor.
I wonder what the campaign spend for the WISC race will be this year.
I had a pit of dread in my stomach the moment Ben Wikler announced he was going to step down as Democratic Party Chair in Wisconsin. And so far according to fundraising in the state legislature my worry has been justified as we got annihilated in the Assembly and even though we did outraise Republicans in the State Senate, it wasn’t anywhere close to the margins we were used to.
He’s the only one who has managed to get voters and Democrats to care about these kinds of downballot races. I do think with Trump in office we can and hopefully will still win this race in April, but my inner “Dem in danger alarm” is going off constantly right now and I think it’s going to be way closer than most people expect. I also thought we’d win against Hagedorn and we didn’t. Lazar may just sneak a Hagedorn like win with Trump as president and without Wikler to consistently rally the troops.
This has been my biggest worry for the whole year for Democrats, a sleepy race, with a clear field for a Republican and no Wikler to fundraise and blanket the airwaves with ads about the upcoming election. We’re at more risk than people think and I’m very, very worried even with Taylor fundraising far outpacing Lazar.
I think it’s right to raise the alarm early about the race, though I don’t think we’ll lose in the end, or that it’ll be close. Fortunately, the party coalitions have shifted a lot since even 2019 such that there’s no way a Republican can get that kind of margin in Waukesha or Ozaukee counties anymore. Many of those Hagedorn suburban voters are now high-propensity Democrats. But some national efforts and a targeted robocall from Obama might go a long way here.
Counterpoints on Wikler and the fundraising disparities: I just don’t think party chairs are that impactful anymore. Wikler to me seemed to be more the beneficiary of wins from our new high-turnout coalition than anything special about himself. I’d say the same thing about Anderson Clayton here in North Carolina. She’s fine, but we didn’t hold up well downballot in 2024 because of her. We have Mark Robinson to thank for that. Second, incumbent party majorities will typically be able to raise much more just by being the ones currently in power. I’m not surprised Assembly Republicans outraised Democrats by a lot. It’d be a surprise if they did not. The NRSC and NRCC are outraising our committees by a lot due to this same phenomenon.
I disagree strongly about Wikler. Election wins don’t just happen because our voter base is now more educated. Wisconsin is not a Lean D state just because we have college educated voters support now. Wikler was organizing door knocking all the time, we started to finally have year round political conversations and efforts to talk with voters everywhere.
I remember him showing up to a town of 3000 to knock doors in the snow in February for the Supreme Court race in August. That’s what made us win so much in the state even in terrible years nationally for our party after the Scott Walker years. We started to get people to care about the party and not just the candidates come election time.
I also disagree strongly that Anderson Clayton is a beneficiary to this same thing. Alison Riggs won by 700 votes out of 5.5m votes when Trump won the state by 3. That doesn’t just happen and under the old party chair we would’ve lost every race except Governor and been wondering if NC was actually even turning purple.
In fact, I’d strongly argue the exact opposite of what you say: Party chairs matter, a lot, and way more than people think they do. Lastly, Democrats outraised Republicans in every single election after Ben Wikler took over, at every level of office, from Supreme Court to State Assembly.
Wisconsin Democrats raised $50m in 2024, Republicans raised $42m and Senator Tammy Baldwin won by .85% or 29k votes out of 3.3m cast while Trump won the state. If you don’t believe that slim fundraising advantage is what saved her, I really don’t know what else to say. Wikler mattered more than people give him credit for and we are going to miss him dearly.
Nothing uniquely good happened in Wisconsin in bad national years for the party that didn’t also happen in other swing states during the Trump era. Of “bad” years for us, we only have 2024 and debatably 2022 to compare. Swing state Democrats held up very well across the board in 2022, regardless of the perceived state party effectiveness. I chalk that up to our candidates’ superior quality and the typically atrocious opponents Republicans usually put up. If anything, Wisconsin was one of the biggest heartburns of the swing states in 2022 with Ron Johnson’s win.
2024 had the same thing. Tammy Baldwin’s win while Trump won the state was not unique. Three other Senate Democrats did so in Arizona, Michigan and Nevada. Democrats also won six statewide races in North Carolina. I think this is at least 90% due to the strength of our own candidates and the Republicans’ own weaknesses in choosing candidates.
I don’t think Wisconsin is a Lean D state in presidential elections. It might be in off-year elections and midterms nowadays, though. You can argue this is the case because of the new party coalitions where Trump voters don’t bother to vote when he’s not on the ballot.
This is not to say that party chairs aren’t relevant. They are. But outside of the potential sole exception of Allison Riggs’ race, I doubt it was determinative. Maybe that’s how I should have worded it initially. Party chairs will matter at the margins in recount-eligible races like that. They won’t swing a state ten points anymore like Kentucky Democrats used to do.
"They are. But outside of the potential sole exception of Allison Riggs’ race, I doubt it was determinative."
Anderson Clayton has always been about down ballot as well top-of-the-ticket races. The fact that she rallied enough voters to keep the AG, flip the LG and superintendent seats and lead a volunteer effort to cure provisional ballots that put Justice Allison Riggs over the top showed that good leadership matters.
The fact that NC Democrats won the SCONC seat fight (decided by a Trump appointed judge) pissed off NC Rs, who promptly shortened the cure period from 10 to 3 days and stole control of our state board of elections from the governor.
NC Republicans fear Anderson Clayton. And what they did last year will blow up on them this year. If Justice Anita Earls wins by a slim margin in Nov and maintains it after the 3 day ballot cure period -- they sabotaged themselves.
Why is Ben Wikler stepping down in Wisconsin? This state is absolutely crucial to Democrats – and it has finally been moving in the right direction, much of it thanks to Wikler’s immense efforts.
(I was really hoping he’d be the new DNC Chair, but no such luck.)
"Politico: Cait Conley, one of the frontrunners in the Democratic primary to unseat Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) has skipped out on every midterm election since at least 2007 — and registered as a Democrat only weeks before she launched her campaign.
Welp, there goes my preferred candidate (unless she didn’t vote from overseas deployment). She has a really strong background as a candidate, but not voting is ridiculously easy for Republicans to attack in the general election. To be fair, I do think the blueness of 2026 carries any Democrat against Lawler, but she’s probably the riskier nominee.
Side note: why in the ever loving fuck did Democratic organizations not find out about this before backing her? This is such easy opposition research to find that even a child could figure out. Why don’t we ever fully vet our candidates, instead of going with the “looks good on paper, let’s support them”. How many times has that wound up biting us?
This isn’t the first or last time it has happened and it’s extremely frustrating to have our party continually drop the ball. We know Republicans are going to be looking at every aspect of our candidates, so why don’t we do the same? It makes no bloody sense.
I’m concerned that Beth Davidson will win now — she’s polled worse than Conley, and I’ve met her and she has zero energy. Do we even have a winner at this point?
Democrats imo should try to recruit good inspiring candidates regardless of background, gender or race. They try too hard to find the right “white suburban military mom” and Conley's case has literally been reported to have been one of such recruits by Jason Crow who was tasked by Hakeem Jeffries. But we can be wrong and she’ll still win both the primary and the general very easily. Call it the Rahm Emanuel playbook.
Elaine Luria had been a literal Republican her entire life and still did pretty well.
There’s a difference between having 1st term Trump shake you from your previous political identity and only after 2nd term Trump changing your politics. There’s also a difference between not voting in midterm elections and suddenly shedding your previous ideology from the 1st Trump term.
Elaine Luria seems genuine, Cait Conley doesn’t fully pass the smell test. She could be a convert to Democrats, but not doing so for Trump 1 and not voting in midterm elections are such a huge red flag for me.
I’d be extremely interested to know who she voted for in 2024, 2020 and 2016. I have no problem welcoming voters after voting for Trump 2024, I have a big problem welcoming candidates to run to represent our party after doing that.
At the same time, maybe she’s been voting Democratic and just never changed her registration (not exactly a high priority for a 20 year military service member). I’ll support whoever wins the primary, but this primary is a mess now with no real “yes, they’re a Democrat who can win” obvious choice for primary voters.
It’s also worth noting, this could easily be a Republican/Lawler oppo dump trying to psyche Democrats out of nominating the candidate they’re most worried about facing. We all remember Janelle Stelson changing her party only just before her PA-10 run in 2024 and she’s turned out ok, so there’s a lot of factors to consider here for voters.
Conley doesn't remotely resemble the kind of candidate the party normally tries to back. She's more of a "netroots" type. My mother in law, establishment through and through, wants Davidson. Left wing local people I know prefer Conley.
Ohh, that she definitely is. It has been reported by most major outlets. She was recruited by the Rep. Jason Crow. She is a part of “Hellcats”. A centrist alternative to the Squad.
Ehhhh they can, but it’s not exactly high on the to do list when you’re fighting other forces and trying to accomplish whatever mission is in front of you. If you’re not entirely focused on the task, you run a far greater risk of death. I give people a pass on that when fighting combat overseas.
That’s why I said if she was deployed overseas at that time. If not, no pass. If she’s in a foreign country for every election, I do give her that pass.
In her defense, military ballots are a pain in the ass to deal with on deployments. I had one of mine not even arrive in time after doing all the procedures for it on my end. However, New York’s laws on late-arriving military ballots are looser than most states. So she probably doesn’t have much of an excuse.
I'm new to this area, but I've been saying for a while that none of these people seem ready to take on Lawler, and this is exactly what I'm talking about. I still think it's notable so that none of the westchester county, or state officials jumped into this race.
MI Gov - John James strikes me as the type who would drop out if Trump commands it, but if Perry Johnson and James both stay in, who wins the nomination?
The story is that Trump’s endorsement is conditional on Perry Johnson polling at 20% in the primary. Sounds like Dem groups need to run some ads to get those numbers up, just saying.
When Perry Johnson ran for MI Gov in 2022, he polled 5% in a Glengariff poll from late April (44% undecided), and 16% in Trafalgar poll from late March (12% undecided). Eventual nominee Tudor Dixon polled 2% and 3%.
WV-HD-1: Former NFL player and coach and WVU graduate Quincy Wilson is challenging state house majority leader Pat McGeehan as a Democrat. Today is the filing deadline.
He gave a speech prior to the vote which was well received by those in the conference room, but sounded all too similar to the ones he gave during the election campaign. I will be very interested to see if it moves the needle at all on his dismal personal ratings, as Prime Minister Carney currently leads him 52-24 in the preferred leader poll. It's one thing to convince 2500 die-hard party members who had the ability to go to Calgary that you are awesome, it's another to convince 25,000,000 Canadian voters.
Considering he managed to blow what should've been the easiest layup for the CPC in years, couldn't even convince the voters in his old riding to reelect him, and couldn't even keep his own back benchers from crossing the floor, I look forward to PP handing "The Natural Governing Party of Canada" their 4th consecutive win.
"according to this tt post James Talarico was supposed to run for governor but he changed his mind and decided to run for senate after meeting with Lis Smith"
Which is disappointing since the state of the TX Dem field for governor is pretty underwhelming. I get Abbott seems formidable but he’s going for a fourth term and there has to be some fatigue from voters.
Talarico is arguably our best candidate in Texas. He's certainly our best candidate running for senate there. I'd much, much rather our strongest candidate run for the office with the highest potential for an upset win by us.
Talarico running for governor and Crockett as our nominee for senate means we lose both offices in the overwhelming majority of outcomes.
I agree with this. Use our best candidate (Talarico) in the race where he is most likely to win (Senate). There are so many different ways the Senate race can go as a result of the Republican primary, but both Cornyn and Paxton are much weaker than Abbott is.
“The Radical Left Democrats are spending a fortune to beat a true MAGA Warrior, Leigh Wambsganss. You can win this Election for Leigh, who has my Complete and Total Endorsement.”
There is early voting for special elections going on in New York City now, with Election Day on Tuesday, February 3. I had no idea one was in my State Assembly district and was informed by an email from the new Manhattan Borough President whom I voted for, Brad Hoylman-Sigal. You can read about the elections here: https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2026/01/frozen-four-guide-special-elections/410920/ Some brief excerpts:
"Assembly District 36
Candidates: Diana Moreno (D, WFP), Rana Abdelhamid (Queens for All), Mary Jobaida (People First)
What’s the deal?: It’s progressives vs. socialists in the race to replace Zohran Mamdani in western Queens."
This race has been discussed on The Downballot.
"Assembly District 74
Candidates: Keith Powers (D), Joseph Foley (R, C)"
This is my district. I'm sure the Republican will lose, but Hell if I don't go and vote for Powers myself! I figure to walk to 13th St. near Ave. C today, a rare day off for me between rehearsals, performances and appointments.
"47th state Senate District
Candidates: Erik Bottcher (D, WFP), Charlotte Friedman (R)
What’s the deal?: New York City Council Member Erik Bottcher decided to drop out of the incredibly crowded race to replace Rep. Jerry Nadler and took an easy glide path into the state Senate[.]"
This has been mentioned in passing here.
This one is in Buffalo, all the way on the other end of the state (I wonder if it's colder there today):
"61st state Senate District
Candidates: Jeremy Zellner (D), Dan Gagliardo (R, C)
What’s the deal?: Erie County Democratic Committee Chair Jeremy Zellner was nominated by the county party he leads to replace Sean Ryan in the state Senate. So sometimes it’s good to be the boss. Former Buffalo mayoral candidate India Walton called the process 'wildly unethical,' but this downtown district is a Democratic stronghold, leaving Republican Dan Gagliardo with a slim chance of victory."
"North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Delaware, NH, Iowa and Illinois have all now advanced to the next round of consideration to hold the First in the Nation Democratic primary (or to be one of the first 4 to 5 states in the early window) at the DNC Rules Committee meeting this morning."
I really like the idea of all of those states except for Iowa voting early. Maybe if Iowa redeems itself with Democratic wins in the gubernatorial and Senate races this year, I’d be for keeping them early.
What happened to Nevada? NC, Georgia, Michigan, and Illinois are all pretty big states so I doubt they will be the first. Nevada is both a swing state and has a relatively small population.
Also Nevada is the only western state on (or not on) this list. NV and AZ are important western swing states. One should be among the early states to be considered. These swing states have large populations of Latinos and older voters, both groups are moving back to the Democratic party.
Sticking with non-coastal western states, New Mexico could be an interesting option too. While it isn't competitive, that does mean we can count on a friendly local government for implementation details.
Between Arizona and Nevada I'd prefer Arizona. Nevada has had too much party strife and struggles with past primaries to merit being (or staying) elevated. Plus the state has a very transient population and while it does add some much needed diversity to the calendar, we would get that same diversity from Arizona.
That's fair, but I still prefer Arizona. Party competence does matter and Nevada has not been doing well on that front, even with many cycles as an early state to incentivize improvement.
A lot of people will focus on how big or expensive states are, but I don't care at all about that. If anything, I think it's useful to have a medium/not-cheap state first. Fact is, fundraising matters a lot, and being a good fundraiser from day 1 is important. The filtering effects of big/expensive is useful for us.
Going by state:
Michigan probably makes the best sense for us in selecting candidates that represent that overall party and are likely to be stronger in the most competitive regions. Demographically the state matches the overall US fairly well. Geographically it's in the region that has had many of the closest states for generations, and is a highly competitive state itself.
Illinois isn't a competitive state, but does have the geographic location, does have a truly major city. Demographically Illinois is a bit closer to what the democratic coalition looks like and a bit less like the US overall, which is not a bad trade off.
Georgia and North Carolina are both competitive and are strong representations of the newest parts of our coalition. Both make sense, but I'd prefer one of the midwestern states instead.
Despite being a NH resident, I don't think we make much sense to get the nod. Not representative of the overall party or the nation demographically, not in a competitive region, and only somewhat competitive itself. The only advantage NH has is that we already have the 1st primary, and overcoming that will be non-trivial. There's a real argument for the DNC just saying "fuck it" and making NH the first to ensure the appropriate media attention is there and that they don't have the headache of NH moving the primary earlier and earlier to meet local laws about being first -- with candidates going there and ignoring the official first state.
Iowa fucked up their caucuses and we have a real risk of hostile local governance to contend with. Like NH they do not represent the party or the country well demographically. They do not deserve it at all.
Delaware I'm not even sure how they got their name in the ring. Why would anyone consider them? It's a shorter commute for senators to go to a campaign event from DC, I guess.
Midwest has been the decisive region for presidential elections repeatedly. Even when it wasn't decisive, it was close, like in 2000 and 2004. It's really only 2008/2012 when it was neither decisive nor close, and that's more because Obama was preternaturally strong there.
If we could guarantee ourselves candidates that are stronger in the midwest, we'd be more likely to win. Unlike some other routes to having competitive advantages, trying to advantage a candidate that is stronger in the midwest still gives us candidates that align with our core party values.
SC also advanced and is still under consideration. It will likely always be in the mix because like NH it’s easiest to change the date around. Other states you have to get the legislatures to agree & fund earlier primaries.
Georgia (true swing, large black pop), Michigan (true swing, WWC, decent black pop) or North Carolina (red swing, emerging purple state, Dems gaining ground) would make the most sense to me for going first. The rest of them don’t really have any reason to for various reasons.
Of that group, I'd vote for Delaware. Until we get rid of the popular vote, I don't think swing states should be early primary states, since it unfairly gives them more of a voice than the rest of us. My hot take is that DC should be an early primary state. It's small, easy to campaign in, would let sitting members of Congress attend votes while campaigning, has a diverse population, would give urban representation in the primaries, and would force all the candidates to take a strong position on statehood.
That is or should be the party's strategy, but giving disproportionate weight to small states like Delaware compounds the injustice of their disproportionate weight in the Senate and Electoral College.
You're making a pretty big assumption with that statement, which is that primaries held in swing states produce more electable candidates, but do they? I have a lot of arguments against that point, but first I'd like to hear your rationale. Why do you think letting swing states have the early primaries is more likely to nominating "candidates that can win?"
Because "generally" the party base in competitive states is more consciousness of producing electable candidates because they see the stakes in statewide races more than in deep blue states..
That's probably true, but I don't think we even need to look at that.
Our primary electorate in whatever state is broadly going to look more or less like the pool of voters that are willing to vote for our candidates in a general election. A punch to the left, on average, but not always and not usually by a wide margin.
In a red state, this doesn't help us much because those people can be far left or moderate or centrists and they'll still never approach the magical 50% number for general elections. In a swing state, that does matter: the people that somewhat accurately reflect the 50% of the electorate willing to consider us in e.g. Michigan are going to be good at getting us to 50%+1 in Michigan for exactly that reason.
I don't think there's any evidence to support that, and I have three counterarguments for you. First, if that was true, you'd expect the swing states to vote similar to each other in the primaries, because they're theoretically all trying to pick the most electable candidates. That doesn't happen, though. Look at 2020: of the six vaguely swingy states that voted on Super Tuesday or earlier, (NH, ME, MN, IA, NC, and NV,) they were more likely to vote like states around them than they were each other. Sanders did better in white, more northern states, and Biden did better in the South. For example, NC and TN voted almost exactly the same, but NC and NH were way different. If the party bases in both those states were more conscientious of electability, how can you explain the difference?
To me, the only way you can reconcile that is if you accept that people can have different ideas of what's electable. However, once you open the door to accepting that there are different ideas of electability, you admit that it's completely subjective, which is my second argument. Nobody knows what makes someone electable. Even if swing state voters want to produce electable candidates, if there isn't an agreed upon definition of what makes someone electable, then we have no reason to trust that those voters will actually succeed.
Lastly, look at (admittedly limited) data we have. Of the two swing states among the first four primary states in 2020, both voted for Sanders. Did Nevada and New Hampshire vote for him because they thought he was the most electable? We can avoid re-litigating the 2020 primary and still say that whatever their reasons, it seems dubious that electability greatly affected their decisions. In fact, early primary states have a bad track record of predicting who the nominee will end up being. There are simply too many candidates in modern presidential primaries to allow these states to crown a clear frontrunner, so it's actually the Super Tuesday states that wield more actual power, since the field has usually started to coalesce more by then.
I have more arguments, but it comes down to this: early primary states are bad at predicting the nominee, electability is inherently subjective, and there's no evidence that swing state voters are any different from ordinary voters. Saying swing states should go first because they're better at making decisions sounds good at first, but it just doesn't hold up. We all feel the impacts of elections and there's no reason to think that just because a state has an even blend of Dems and GOPers that makes their primary voters inherently more strategic. If that's the case and no state is inherently better at picking an electable nominee, then all that's left is fairness. While being an early primary state doesn't dramatically impact who the nominee will be, it very much impacts whether or not that state's issues get heard and addressed. Swing states get that in the general, so I think safe states should get it in the primary.
Talking about specific past and future democratic presidential primaries isn't allowed here. I think it's generally accepted that if we go back far enough it's OK, but 2020 was literally the most recent open primary we had so it's not going to be permitted regardless.
I am interested in numerous races, as usual, including some from 2028 and 2030. Here are some specific ones on my mind:
- NJ-11: Who do posters here think is favored? Tom Malinowski? Brendan Gill? Tahesha Way? Analilia Mejia? Someone else?
- MN-Sen: Flanagan is leading in this race's polls. Does this mean she has a good shot, or could Craig potentially gain later?
- MI-Sen: While Abdul El-Sayed is unlikely to win this race, I have a hypothetical to pose -- if he were to somehow win, would this race be shot, or would we still have a possible path to victory?
- MI-SD-35: A special election is to occur here, and it's come out that the GOP is running disguised ratfucking ads intending to give progressive Pamela Pugh the edge in the primary. Does this mean she's weaker in the general? If so, by how much?
- NY state legislative races: With Mamdani's win and his so far pretty good work as mayor, which seats might the DSA or other progressives pull off primary wins in? Are any state reps or state senators particularly vulnerable to such a challenge? And where might they fall short?
- SC-Sen: Annie Andrews, the Dem, raised an eye-popping amount of money in spite of her relative obscurity and the lack of Dem attention here. Is an upset brewing?
- MA-08: Might Pat Roath be able to pull off an upset primary win against Lynch?
- SC-06: Is Jim Clyburn going to actually retire? If so, will he pull a Chuy Garcia-style last-second filing, or retire in time to allow a fair primary to occur?
- LA Mayor: How is Karen Bass doing as far as re-election goes? I'd heard she wasn't popular due to the fires. If she does lose, who might defeat her? Rick Caruso isn't running, as he recently said.
- LA City Controller: How is Kenneth Mejia doing? I know he quit the Democrats recently, and two Dems are running to unseat him from the center. Who is favored?
- 2028 retirement watch: Which Reps or Senators might retire in 2028? Any people being watched closely in particular?
- OR-Sen (2028): While Ron Wyden has filed paperwork for another run, I believe, there's been speculation he may retire. If he does, who are some possible candidates who may be interested here? Someone on Bluesky floated Rep. Maxine Dexter. May she try? If she does, might State Rep. Travis Nelson try for her House seat?
- VT-AL (2030): Sen. Bernie Sanders has said this term will be his last, and Rep. Becca Balint is a shoe-in for the seat he'd leave behind. Who might be interested, then, in Balint's now-open seat?
- MA-Sen (2030): If/when Warren retires, who might run to succeed her? Who'd be her likeliest successor?
- NY-Sen (2030): Who might try to primary Kirsten Gillibrand, given her low popularity with the left? If AOC wins Schumer's seat, who else might be interested?
One more question: in a recent article (https://www.semafor.com/article/01/28/2026/tester-on-democrats-chances-horrible-message-but-a-winning-hand), former Sen. Jon Tester predicted a possible 1932-style wave for Dems. Is he overly optimistic, or might he be seeing something others aren't? Might he be hearing things on the ground in ruby-red Montana that make him think such a landslide is possible?
Tester's not wrong about there being a potential 1932-style wave but everything has to go wrong for Republicans (more Trump induced chaos) and everything right for Democrats in order for that to happen.
It's hard for me to see a blue wave being that big, and for a full 1932 we'd need to take back the WH, so 2028 would potentially be a better time for that comparison.
One might wonder why Tester isn't running if he's so optimistic about Democratic prospects. Maybe he thinks that now would be a good time to let a new generation of state Democrats come to the fore? In any case, he can't run forever.
I can’t say this enough: If 2026 is a 1932 style wave, especially in state legislatures, Democrats need to start prepping almost immediately after that for the assumption that they win the White House in 2028 and that 2030 is going to be a defensive midterm (and a redistricting table setting midterm). This means immediately working on getting independent redistricting commissions established in swing states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania if we get trifectas there. In both those states if 2030 is a Dem President’s midterm election, our majorities (and control of the governorship in PA since Shapiro will be term limited) are likely going to vanish as they did in 2010. Redistricting commissions in both those states will take the worry of Republicans getting a trifecta for redistricting off the table. I can’t repeat this or shout it from the rooftops enough.
The only way that a 1932 style landslide will happen is if the economy tanks. If Trump keeps messing with the fed and agitating our trade partners, this could happen.
NJ-11 - I presume Malinowski is in the driver's seat but not a lock. Even if only due to name recognition + facing the most attacks. There's a small upside to being everyone's target, in that all the attention goes to that person.
MN-Sen - I'd rather be Flanagan right now, but Craig can still close the gap. Can and will are different things entirely. Flanagan should hope to win the DFL convention nod and generate positive impressions off anti-ICE rhetoric in a way that advantages her over Craig. She wants to stay in a positive spotlight for as long as possible so that even as ICE begins to lower in prominence, she maintains an advantage. Craig wants to avoid being too hurt in the interim and then do a big money-bomb blitz as the primary starts to close, while selling herself as the establishment favorite. Which pathway wins is far from certain right now.
MA-08: Lynch is an overwhelming favorite. But who knows. MA's primaries a long way off and things can change. I'd love to see Lynch replaced with a good dem.
MA-Sen: Assuming Warren retires in 2030, the two people to keep an eye on are Pressley and Auchincloss. Pressley would be Warren's preferred successor; Auchincloss will be the preference of standard dem establishment organizations. Pressley will probably have a meaningful advantage for in state official support; Auchincloss will probably have a meaningful advantage for fundraising. I don't see her going for it -- I think she wants to stay mayor -- but Wu could be a darkhorse candidate if Pressley doesn't run. Healey could also run and throw such a primary into disarray. Not sure if Healey wants to be senator; she wants to be president and has yet to show interest in non-executive roles.
NJ-11: Mallinowski should be favored. I predict Gill and Way will battle for 2nd place and then Mejia will come in a distant 4th, followed by another distance between her and the others.
MN-Sen: I still predict Flanagan to win the primary, but I don't expect her to be favored in every poll. The race should get closer.
MI-Sen: It depends on if Perry Johnson becomes the nominee for governor on the Republican side - I have a feeling he'll be as volatile as someone like Doug Mastriano, who helped John Fetterman win in 2022. Rogers has also already run statewide in a year that Trump won Michigan and Tom Barrett flipped Rogers' and Slotkin's former congressional district but still lost to Slotkin, so there may be some voter fatigue there.
MI-SD-35: Since Joe Biden and even Kamala Harris won this seat and Democrats consistently overperform in special elections, this should be another seat Democrats hold. Will be interesting to see the margins to get an idea of Michigan's statewide (and other congressional and local) races.
SC-Sen: People thought Jaime Harrison could win in 2020. He didn't even make it competitive. There's no reason to believe Andrews has a shot here. It's not that big of a wave, I don't think.
MA-8: Here's hoping Roath gives Lynch a run for his money, but the latter will probably still be in Congress come January.
SC-6: Clyburn seems like the type to pull a Garcia. Probably with his daughter, if anyone. But I recently read something that said he was leaning towards running again.
LA-Mayor: With the current candidates, Beutner probably has the best shot to take down Bass but would probably perform similarly to Caruso in 2022. However, if supervisor Lindsey Horvath challenges Bass from the right, Bass could be more vulnerable.
LA-Controller: I think Zack Sokoloff has a real chance to unseat Mejia. He has raised a lot and has major establishment support.
OR-Sen: I think Wyden will retire, and I think Dexter along with Andrea Salinas and possibly Janelle Bynum will be interested.
VT-AL: I think Welch will retire after one term and Balint will run then. Not sure who will run to succeed Sanders in 2030 or Balint in 2028/30.
MA-Sen: Auchincloss, Pressley, perhaps Wu. Would say Auchincloss has the best shot but I wouldn't count Pressley out either.
NY-Sen: Maybe an NYC progressive (there are plenty).
2028: Senate: Welch (re: VT-AL), Blumenthal, Schumer, Fetterman, Johnson (iffy on him), Grassley, Boozman, Kennedy, Moran, Crapo, Wyden, Murkowski (if she doesn't run for governor this year, which it's likely she won't)
2028 House: Balint to run for Welch's seat (re: VT-AL), Neal, Larson and/or DeLauro, Hayes (to run for Blumenthal's seat), Goldman (if he makes it out of this year) and/or Torres and Ryan (if Schumer retires), Ocasio-Cortez (to either run against or succeed Schumer), Tonko, Norcross, Pallone (gives him 40 years pretty much even), Boyle and/or Dean and Deluzio (if Fetterman retires), Kelly (PA), Mfume, Scott (VA), Beyer, Foxx (really old), Clyburn (if not this year), Bishop, McCormick (to run against Warnock), Allen, Scott (GA) (if not this year), Rutherford, Webster (if not this year), Steube (seems like an early retirement kind of guy), Frankel, Wilson, Thompson, Fleischmann, Rogers (KY) (he might try for 50 years but he's like 88), Beatty (think she has some health issues already), Latta, Bergman, Baird (if not this year), Steil (if Johnson retires), Moore (WI), McCollum, one of the Iowa reps elected this year (to run for Grassley's seat), Graves, anyone from Arkansas (all somewhat longtime at this point), Self, Weber, Williams, Cloud, Carter, Babin, Lucas, Cole, Mann and/or Schmidt (to run for Moran's seat), Estes, DeGette, Simpson, Larsen, Dexter and/or Salinas (to run for Wyden's seat), Titus (if not this year), Thompson (CA), Garamendi, DeSaulnier, Lofgren (if not this year, and Robert Rivas will almost certainly be her successor), Sherman, Correa, one of the San Diego people other than Jacobs, Begich (to succeed Murkowski)
Potential wave: I don't think it'll be as big as 1932, but I think it'll be bigger than 2018.
What makes you think Auchincloss has the best shot in the state that has repeatedly elected progressives like Markey and Warren? He isn't very well known out of centrist circles as well.
I don't think he'd be the favorite, but I do think he'd be a real danger and we'd be wise to take a potential candidacy from him seriously so we can ensure a progressive does win.
He will almost certainly have a meaningful financial advantage and will be the favorite of DC based establishment groups. He's exactly the type of candidate that Schumer and the DSCC would put a thumb on the scale for. Even if Schumer is (as I hope!) out of office by 2030, he will still have influence and chances are the DSCC will be led by someone with a similar candidate preference.
I doubt an out-of-office Schumer would have much influence on Senate selection.
He's young and ambitious and would immediately have establishment support, not to mention the nepotism.
Markey ended the Kennedy dynasty with the nepo baby charge.
I don't know. Maybe not in Massachusetts. But I think people like Jack Schlossberg (doesn't matter what we think of him) have a shot in national politics.
Not going to answer everything, but my thoughts on the ones I feel stronger about:
NJ-11: Malinowski wins, that name ID is gold for a low turnout special election. No one else stood a chance once he announced. I wouldn’t be shocked whether Mejia overperformed (2nd) or underperformed (4th-5th) either.
MN-Sen: Flanagan is favoured and Craig is probably angling for a Klobuchar appointment, which if it happens means that every debate/argument we’ve had in the comments over the last year for this race was basically for nothing lol.
MI-Sen: Any Democrat would probably win, but El-Sayed would be in a nail biter if he got nominated and could very well lose with some stupid comments he’s made or does make after being nominated.
MI-SD35: Democrats are mad, Republicans are meh, either Democrat would win the special election, so GOP funding “attacks” on Pugh is really stupid. However, whether Pugh can hold on the next time the seat is up in the November general election, that’s what the real question is.
SC-Sen: Lots of money, no chance.
MA-08: My bold prediction is I think Roath is actually favoured here, not that he is right now in the race, but that he will be come primary day. We’ll see on that one.
2030 questions will almost entirely depend on which party has the presidency. If it’s Democrats, I expect many of our swing seat reps to try for a safe Senate seat in Oregon, New York and blue states beyond, regardless of whether the incumbent retires.
If it’s a Republican, they probably stay put. Running every 6 years in a safe seat instead of every 2 in a swing seat is a huge incentive for ambitious politicians, which rarely come up and 2-3 terms seems like enough experience to credibly decide to try to move up the chain for our primary voters.
I do sincerely hope Democrats win 2028 for an obvious and unending list of reasons, but if they do, 2030 midterms are going to be a complete clusterfuck for our party in clown car primaries and a ton of incumbents leaving purple districts to try for higher office. It’ll be a 2018 in reverse where we have a huge playing field to defend with very few incumbents to do it with.
Jon Tester may be overly optimistic, but then again it’s not hard to imagine a 1932 wave being possible. Most of the ingredients needed are bubbling right now behind the scenes, but will all of them be there in November? That’s a much harder question to answer.
What would probably be required is a stock market/economic depression, continued ICE abductions and operations up until the election, drip, drip, drip revelations on Epstein, continued erosion of Trump support in polls, continued ignoring of inflation by the GOP in Congress, some more key surprise retirements and even then it would be an uphill battle making a wave that big with polarization as high as it is now.
Is all that possible? Yes, absolutely. No way in hell I’d bet even $1 on it though.
Why would Dems be leaving a bunch of purple districts for higher office in 2030 when the year is likely to be a tough one for Dems? They’d be unlikely to win higher office in a swing state in such a year.
I think you missed the part above where I said swing seat reps would run for safe Senate seats. That’s why I specifically said blue states and mentioned Oregon and New York.
“2030 questions will almost entirely depend on which party has the presidency. If it’s Democrats, I expect many of our swing seat reps to try for a safe Senate seat in Oregon, New York and blue states beyond, regardless of whether the incumbent retires.”
Yeah I’m seeing that now. Hopefully the DCCC can try and limit the number of swing seat Dems that try to run for higher office for each race. If they are trailing in the primary polls they can show the those and try and convince them not to run for that race.
An example of this is when Tom Suozzi left his House seat open to run against Kathy Hochul for governor in the Dem primary and he was polling at less than 20%. Did anyone at the DCCC say to him “hey you can’t win that race, just look at the polling. Run for re-election to the house where you can actually win”?
I think the DCCC/national orgs COULD have some success if the incumbent Democrat runs for re-election in blue seats, but for an open seat? No way, no matter how much we want that to happen. The prize is way too valuable and way too rare for any politician to pass up.
And even if the incumbent runs again I still think it would be very hard to convince them to take one for the team. Running campaigns every 2 years is exhausting, having a safe seat every 6 years to campaign for and being likely to hold that seat for life isn’t going to deter many/any people from running uphill challenges to incumbent Senators. Especially so if the 2026 primaries turnout the way I think they do.
Yes, he was discouraged from running. But it didn't work.
This argument about Klobuchar appointing Craig or Flanagan seems pretty dumb to me. Why would a new Governor spend her capital by causing a controversy and appointing the loser of the a divisive primary race. I think she appoints someone uncontroversial like how Newsom appointed Padilla. Either of their careers are over for good if they lose this.
I think McMorrow or Stevens would win easily and El-Sayed would underperform the blue wave baseline but still win easily. He would not be able to hold that seat in another 6 seats which is the biggest problem imo. His comments were about abolishing ICE and defunding the police, the former doesn't work now and the latter will hurt him but he's disavowed it.
SC-SEN:
I am not so sure about an upset but a closer-than-expected margin of a win by Lindsay Graham is possible.
Past Democratic Senate Candidates haven't been able to get beyond 10% againsty Graham or even Tim Scott. Jaime Harrison got 44.2% against Graham back in 2020 although that still suggests there's room for improvement for Democrats in SC.
https://ballotpedia.org/Jaime_R._Harrison
My predictions for NJ-11:
Malinowski probably wins, due to having appeal to both progressive and moderate voters, and high name recognition.
Mejia probably comes second, she seems pretty popular among progressives, but the Morris and western Essex portions aren't going to net her many votes.
Gill and Way are hard to predict, because they're both running as the moderate establishment candidates, and are probably cannibalizing support for each other. Gill's base is probably western Essex and Way has no base and is completely reliant on advertising. While both have raised a lot, most of Way's funding comes from outside the state and her in-state numbers are unimpressive, and Gill doesn't seem to have any small donor support to speak of. Way's sheer number of ads and slightly better small donor numbers mean she's probably likely to get 3rd and Gill 4th, but she could bomb Sabina Matos style. (useful funding numbers: (https://www.somaaction.org/voter-guide)
Beecher, Bartlett, and Grayzel will all probably finish somewhere between 5-7th, they are all running moderate campaigns of slightly different flavors (military, Passaic, and Jewish interests respectively) and won't win, but will siphon enough votes from Gill and Way to keep them from coming particularly close to winning
Croft's campaign is noteworthy for being mostly out-of-state donations that still don't amount to much, Cauvin hasn't gained traction in the resistance libs circles as far as I can tell, Strickland hasn't even put out fundraising numbers, and Williams will get 11th.
If that Pew polling is to be believed, I’m curious to know more about some of our first-tier reach seats. Not Tossup, maybe not even Lean R - what Likely R tier seats look juicy?
Might AK-AL count as a plausible reach likely-R seat? With Peltola running statewide for senate, we'll have our best possible candidate at the top of the ticket in the highest profile race in the state. The governor's office is likely to be modestly competitive too, where we have a (good) Begich running to give us a credible candidate.
I don't remember our candidate quality for the AL house seat, but if we had a credible candidate I think it would pass as a viable Likely-R seat to watch.
I’d count it as a reach, yes. It’d be great if we could get Kawasaki or Wieleckowski in there
The Trump administration’s decision to deny disaster aid to Alaska that was promised is on brand, but doesn’t seem like good politics with competitive races https://alaskabeacon.com/2026/01/30/trump-administration-denies-full-disaster-funding-for-western-alaska-storms-state-files-appeal/
Was AK-AL often close only due to Don Young being a rather weak incumbent though?
Well, the only year we won was when he wasn't on the ballot. And then we came close again with an incumbent, falling just short.
Alaska is a state that has all the markings of being more competitive than it has been, but is hard to work on turning around due to its distance from the continental US + unique characteristics. It's why with the right candidate of Peltola that the senate seat is competitive. Lacking that right candidate I think Likely-R in a wave is appropriate for the house seat.
Back in 2000, Alaska was as red as Wyoming and it is now on the verge of being a light pink state. It has already moved a great deal to the left and it should continue to get bluer as the Anchorage area grows and gets bluer.
I'm looking at Sabato's Crystal Ball for potential upset flips this year in the Likely R category. Apart from FL, TX, and IA (which are on the radar)-- the only other one is NE. They have SC in the Safe R category, that's the only one that I think could flip if everything goes right.
If Jon Tester reconsidered him pushing for an independent candidate, I think he could oust Daines and get his MT-Sen seat back.
I doubt that last one, and Tester clearly disagrees.
Sabato is washed up nowadays. He totally bought into the permanent Republican majority caused by progressivism bullshit and spewed garbage for more than a year.
Are you sure that's not Cook/Amy Walter?
Maybe?
I don’t really follow the major handicappers (they tend to have terminal “Beltway Brain,” and online hobbyists are often more insightful). Walter’s “analysis” in particular is typically along the lines of “Democrats just won a Trump+17 district: Here’s why that should deeply worry Democrats.”
CO-05.
The races I’d be watching closely in that scenario: AK-AL, AZ-02, CA-40, CO-03, CO-05, FL-07, FL-13, FL-27, FL-28, IA-02, KY-06, MI-04, MO-02, MT-01, NE-01, NY-01, NY-02, SC-01, TX-15, TX-23, WI-01, FL-Sen, KS-Sen (if Davids or Kelly runs, removed if not), MT-Sen, NE-Sen, AK-Gov, NH-Gov and KS-Gov.
Reach seats at the edge depending on candidate quality (for one or both parties): AR-02, FL-02, FL-15, FL-16, NJ-02, NV-02, NY-11, OH-07, OH-10, OH-15, SC-02 and TN-05.
Agreed with all except Florida 28 and Texas 23. Would put them in reach. And NY-11 could be competitive with the new map.
FL-28 is R+2 Cook PVI, FL-27 is Even. In 2024 Salazar won 60-40 against a Latina Democrat and Gimenez won 65-35 against a white Democrat. So they really aren’t that far apart politically, nor is Gimenez a uniquely strong incumbent over her. But these 2 only happen if there’s a Cuban revolt over ICE and we nominate a Hispanic/Latino candidate as well as the above hypothetical with Pew being true. Right now I wouldn’t put either race at Likely R yet.
For TX-23, I expect Gonzales to lose to Herrera in the primary, making it both an open seat and with a problematic to be polite (but realistically crazy, the dude is literally an insane MAGA, many of which lost 2022 races they shouldn’t have), Republican candidate as their nominee. We’d have a small opening in that scenario combined with the Pew poll being reality.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-passes-bill-resolve-shutdown-clash-punting-dhs-two-weeks-rcna256540
Senate passes funding bill 71-29. It strips funding from DHS for now but funds other departments.
DHS has a CR for two weeks.
Just two weeks? I’m sure Trump and Noem are really going to scramble to push their “immigration enforcement” agenda to be finished in two weeks before the funding runs out. /s
Races I’m interested in on the horizon:
1. The Texas state senate special tomorrow should be interesting. I’m not expecting an upset win here, but it might be a good test to see whether those ugly approvals for Trump in Texas are accurate.
2. The Michigan state senate special primary next week, followed by NJ-11 on Thursday. If I had to pick my favored candidates, I guess Chedrick Greene and Tahesha Way, but I don’t feel strongly about either primary.
3. March 3rd is the next big primary on the horizon. Hoping Talarico seals the deal in the first round and Paxton-Cornyn go to a runoff.
4. WISC on April 7th. It seems oddly quiet on that front. The past couple races seemed to really heat up after the New Years. I hope this doesn’t turn into a snoozer that allows Lazar to sneak through like Brian Hagedorn did in 2019. I think Taylor easily wins it in the end, though. Hoping she exceeds Crawford’s and Protasiewicz’s margins.
1. I actually expect an upset from the Democrat here. He did really well in November and is in a strong position. Depends on turnout, I guess.
2. I favor Greene in Michigan but probably Mallinowski in NJ.
3. Agreed. Also hope Green keeps his seat and Allred gets rid of Johnson (not that he was the best, but he's better than her IMO)
4. Taylor should be fine.
I don't think Taylor will win by the kind of blowout margins Protasiewicz and Crawford did, but WI Dems are still fired up. If Lazar keeps the seat Bradley is leaving, it's a black eye for Wikler's successor.
I wonder what the campaign spend for the WISC race will be this year.
Nice call on Texas! Earth-shaking win.
You called the Texas race!
I had a pit of dread in my stomach the moment Ben Wikler announced he was going to step down as Democratic Party Chair in Wisconsin. And so far according to fundraising in the state legislature my worry has been justified as we got annihilated in the Assembly and even though we did outraise Republicans in the State Senate, it wasn’t anywhere close to the margins we were used to.
He’s the only one who has managed to get voters and Democrats to care about these kinds of downballot races. I do think with Trump in office we can and hopefully will still win this race in April, but my inner “Dem in danger alarm” is going off constantly right now and I think it’s going to be way closer than most people expect. I also thought we’d win against Hagedorn and we didn’t. Lazar may just sneak a Hagedorn like win with Trump as president and without Wikler to consistently rally the troops.
This has been my biggest worry for the whole year for Democrats, a sleepy race, with a clear field for a Republican and no Wikler to fundraise and blanket the airwaves with ads about the upcoming election. We’re at more risk than people think and I’m very, very worried even with Taylor fundraising far outpacing Lazar.
I think it’s right to raise the alarm early about the race, though I don’t think we’ll lose in the end, or that it’ll be close. Fortunately, the party coalitions have shifted a lot since even 2019 such that there’s no way a Republican can get that kind of margin in Waukesha or Ozaukee counties anymore. Many of those Hagedorn suburban voters are now high-propensity Democrats. But some national efforts and a targeted robocall from Obama might go a long way here.
Counterpoints on Wikler and the fundraising disparities: I just don’t think party chairs are that impactful anymore. Wikler to me seemed to be more the beneficiary of wins from our new high-turnout coalition than anything special about himself. I’d say the same thing about Anderson Clayton here in North Carolina. She’s fine, but we didn’t hold up well downballot in 2024 because of her. We have Mark Robinson to thank for that. Second, incumbent party majorities will typically be able to raise much more just by being the ones currently in power. I’m not surprised Assembly Republicans outraised Democrats by a lot. It’d be a surprise if they did not. The NRSC and NRCC are outraising our committees by a lot due to this same phenomenon.
I disagree strongly about Wikler. Election wins don’t just happen because our voter base is now more educated. Wisconsin is not a Lean D state just because we have college educated voters support now. Wikler was organizing door knocking all the time, we started to finally have year round political conversations and efforts to talk with voters everywhere.
I remember him showing up to a town of 3000 to knock doors in the snow in February for the Supreme Court race in August. That’s what made us win so much in the state even in terrible years nationally for our party after the Scott Walker years. We started to get people to care about the party and not just the candidates come election time.
I also disagree strongly that Anderson Clayton is a beneficiary to this same thing. Alison Riggs won by 700 votes out of 5.5m votes when Trump won the state by 3. That doesn’t just happen and under the old party chair we would’ve lost every race except Governor and been wondering if NC was actually even turning purple.
In fact, I’d strongly argue the exact opposite of what you say: Party chairs matter, a lot, and way more than people think they do. Lastly, Democrats outraised Republicans in every single election after Ben Wikler took over, at every level of office, from Supreme Court to State Assembly.
Wisconsin Democrats raised $50m in 2024, Republicans raised $42m and Senator Tammy Baldwin won by .85% or 29k votes out of 3.3m cast while Trump won the state. If you don’t believe that slim fundraising advantage is what saved her, I really don’t know what else to say. Wikler mattered more than people give him credit for and we are going to miss him dearly.
Nothing uniquely good happened in Wisconsin in bad national years for the party that didn’t also happen in other swing states during the Trump era. Of “bad” years for us, we only have 2024 and debatably 2022 to compare. Swing state Democrats held up very well across the board in 2022, regardless of the perceived state party effectiveness. I chalk that up to our candidates’ superior quality and the typically atrocious opponents Republicans usually put up. If anything, Wisconsin was one of the biggest heartburns of the swing states in 2022 with Ron Johnson’s win.
2024 had the same thing. Tammy Baldwin’s win while Trump won the state was not unique. Three other Senate Democrats did so in Arizona, Michigan and Nevada. Democrats also won six statewide races in North Carolina. I think this is at least 90% due to the strength of our own candidates and the Republicans’ own weaknesses in choosing candidates.
I don’t think Wisconsin is a Lean D state in presidential elections. It might be in off-year elections and midterms nowadays, though. You can argue this is the case because of the new party coalitions where Trump voters don’t bother to vote when he’s not on the ballot.
This is not to say that party chairs aren’t relevant. They are. But outside of the potential sole exception of Allison Riggs’ race, I doubt it was determinative. Maybe that’s how I should have worded it initially. Party chairs will matter at the margins in recount-eligible races like that. They won’t swing a state ten points anymore like Kentucky Democrats used to do.
"They are. But outside of the potential sole exception of Allison Riggs’ race, I doubt it was determinative."
Anderson Clayton has always been about down ballot as well top-of-the-ticket races. The fact that she rallied enough voters to keep the AG, flip the LG and superintendent seats and lead a volunteer effort to cure provisional ballots that put Justice Allison Riggs over the top showed that good leadership matters.
The fact that NC Democrats won the SCONC seat fight (decided by a Trump appointed judge) pissed off NC Rs, who promptly shortened the cure period from 10 to 3 days and stole control of our state board of elections from the governor.
NC Republicans fear Anderson Clayton. And what they did last year will blow up on them this year. If Justice Anita Earls wins by a slim margin in Nov and maintains it after the 3 day ballot cure period -- they sabotaged themselves.
Why is Ben Wikler stepping down in Wisconsin? This state is absolutely crucial to Democrats – and it has finally been moving in the right direction, much of it thanks to Wikler’s immense efforts.
(I was really hoping he’d be the new DNC Chair, but no such luck.)
Maybe he is gonna run for something? (He said hopefully.)
I also wanted him for DNC Chair.
Does Wisconsin have an equally-skilled and dedicated replacement? Or at least a competent one?
https://www.fredericknewspost.com/news/politics_and_government/elections/cox-files-to-run-for-md-governor-with-krop-as-running-mate/article_e93bc106-82b7-510c-bb06-cfd3232c506d.html
Uhh..ok then
MD-Gov: Former state Del. and 2022 Republican nominee Dan Cox is running again. He might not make it out of the primary.
"Politico: Cait Conley, one of the frontrunners in the Democratic primary to unseat Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) has skipped out on every midterm election since at least 2007 — and registered as a Democrat only weeks before she launched her campaign.
Link to article: https://politico.com/newsletters/new-york-playbook-pm/2026/01/30/hochul-baits-blakeman-on-ice-00757950"
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/2017436233085944255
Welp, there goes my preferred candidate (unless she didn’t vote from overseas deployment). She has a really strong background as a candidate, but not voting is ridiculously easy for Republicans to attack in the general election. To be fair, I do think the blueness of 2026 carries any Democrat against Lawler, but she’s probably the riskier nominee.
Side note: why in the ever loving fuck did Democratic organizations not find out about this before backing her? This is such easy opposition research to find that even a child could figure out. Why don’t we ever fully vet our candidates, instead of going with the “looks good on paper, let’s support them”. How many times has that wound up biting us?
This isn’t the first or last time it has happened and it’s extremely frustrating to have our party continually drop the ball. We know Republicans are going to be looking at every aspect of our candidates, so why don’t we do the same? It makes no bloody sense.
I’m concerned that Beth Davidson will win now — she’s polled worse than Conley, and I’ve met her and she has zero energy. Do we even have a winner at this point?
Effie Phillips-Staley seems pretty cool
She's one of the two progressives. Mike Sacks is the other.
No idea who I'll vote for at the moment.
Democrats imo should try to recruit good inspiring candidates regardless of background, gender or race. They try too hard to find the right “white suburban military mom” and Conley's case has literally been reported to have been one of such recruits by Jason Crow who was tasked by Hakeem Jeffries. But we can be wrong and she’ll still win both the primary and the general very easily. Call it the Rahm Emanuel playbook.
Elaine Luria had been a literal Republican her entire life and still did pretty well.
There’s a difference between having 1st term Trump shake you from your previous political identity and only after 2nd term Trump changing your politics. There’s also a difference between not voting in midterm elections and suddenly shedding your previous ideology from the 1st Trump term.
Elaine Luria seems genuine, Cait Conley doesn’t fully pass the smell test. She could be a convert to Democrats, but not doing so for Trump 1 and not voting in midterm elections are such a huge red flag for me.
I’d be extremely interested to know who she voted for in 2024, 2020 and 2016. I have no problem welcoming voters after voting for Trump 2024, I have a big problem welcoming candidates to run to represent our party after doing that.
At the same time, maybe she’s been voting Democratic and just never changed her registration (not exactly a high priority for a 20 year military service member). I’ll support whoever wins the primary, but this primary is a mess now with no real “yes, they’re a Democrat who can win” obvious choice for primary voters.
It’s also worth noting, this could easily be a Republican/Lawler oppo dump trying to psyche Democrats out of nominating the candidate they’re most worried about facing. We all remember Janelle Stelson changing her party only just before her PA-10 run in 2024 and she’s turned out ok, so there’s a lot of factors to consider here for voters.
Conley doesn't remotely resemble the kind of candidate the party normally tries to back. She's more of a "netroots" type. My mother in law, establishment through and through, wants Davidson. Left wing local people I know prefer Conley.
Then why didn't she vote in 2018 and 2022?
I have no idea. Just saying she doesn't have the profile of a party pick, at all.
Ohh, that she definitely is. It has been reported by most major outlets. She was recruited by the Rep. Jason Crow. She is a part of “Hellcats”. A centrist alternative to the Squad.
People can vote from overseas, too. I can't imagine any good excuse.
Ehhhh they can, but it’s not exactly high on the to do list when you’re fighting other forces and trying to accomplish whatever mission is in front of you. If you’re not entirely focused on the task, you run a far greater risk of death. I give people a pass on that when fighting combat overseas.
Since 2007? Nope. Maybe for one or two elections.
That’s why I said if she was deployed overseas at that time. If not, no pass. If she’s in a foreign country for every election, I do give her that pass.
In her defense, military ballots are a pain in the ass to deal with on deployments. I had one of mine not even arrive in time after doing all the procedures for it on my end. However, New York’s laws on late-arriving military ballots are looser than most states. So she probably doesn’t have much of an excuse.
I'm new to this area, but I've been saying for a while that none of these people seem ready to take on Lawler, and this is exactly what I'm talking about. I still think it's notable so that none of the westchester county, or state officials jumped into this race.
TX-SEN:
James Talarico is interviewed on Politicon with James Carville and Al Hunt. I recommend checking it out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW68WKwqN6c
MI Gov - John James strikes me as the type who would drop out if Trump commands it, but if Perry Johnson and James both stay in, who wins the nomination?
The story is that Trump’s endorsement is conditional on Perry Johnson polling at 20% in the primary. Sounds like Dem groups need to run some ads to get those numbers up, just saying.
When Perry Johnson ran for MI Gov in 2022, he polled 5% in a Glengariff poll from late April (44% undecided), and 16% in Trafalgar poll from late March (12% undecided). Eventual nominee Tudor Dixon polled 2% and 3%.
WV-HD-1: Former NFL player and coach and WVU graduate Quincy Wilson is challenging state house majority leader Pat McGeehan as a Democrat. Today is the filing deadline.
As another example that right wing demagogues around the world just cannot learn new tricks, the delegates at the Conservative Party of Canada's convention gave Poilievre a 87% vote of confidence: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/livestory/pierre-poilievre-speech-conservative-convention-leadership-review-live-updates-9.7068829
He gave a speech prior to the vote which was well received by those in the conference room, but sounded all too similar to the ones he gave during the election campaign. I will be very interested to see if it moves the needle at all on his dismal personal ratings, as Prime Minister Carney currently leads him 52-24 in the preferred leader poll. It's one thing to convince 2500 die-hard party members who had the ability to go to Calgary that you are awesome, it's another to convince 25,000,000 Canadian voters.
Considering he managed to blow what should've been the easiest layup for the CPC in years, couldn't even convince the voters in his old riding to reelect him, and couldn't even keep his own back benchers from crossing the floor, I look forward to PP handing "The Natural Governing Party of Canada" their 4th consecutive win.
Fact check: 5th straight win, after 2015, 2019, 2021, and 2025.
Whoops you're right! For some reason I keep conflating the 19/21 elections
Tied for the Chretien-Martin run
Anyone have any information on who Matthew Pallares is? They are challenging incumbent David Holt in the OKC mayoral race
"according to this tt post James Talarico was supposed to run for governor but he changed his mind and decided to run for senate after meeting with Lis Smith"
https://x.com/josecanyousee/status/2017374611927929090
That makes sense. But the person in the video is a supporter of Crockett, so there's an incentive to criticize Talarico.
I kept looking for an ulterior motive. Thanks for providing it!
Which is disappointing since the state of the TX Dem field for governor is pretty underwhelming. I get Abbott seems formidable but he’s going for a fourth term and there has to be some fatigue from voters.
Talarico is arguably our best candidate in Texas. He's certainly our best candidate running for senate there. I'd much, much rather our strongest candidate run for the office with the highest potential for an upset win by us.
Talarico running for governor and Crockett as our nominee for senate means we lose both offices in the overwhelming majority of outcomes.
I agree with this. Use our best candidate (Talarico) in the race where he is most likely to win (Senate). There are so many different ways the Senate race can go as a result of the Republican primary, but both Cornyn and Paxton are much weaker than Abbott is.
nobody wants to go against a 100 million dollar war chest
I don't think any voter cares what office he was "supposed to" run for.
They’re freaked.
https://x.com/RenzoDowney/status/2017409873260982570
Trump with a SECOND post today backing
@LeighForTexas
ahead of the #SD9 runoff.
“The Radical Left Democrats are spending a fortune to beat a true MAGA Warrior, Leigh Wambsganss. You can win this Election for Leigh, who has my Complete and Total Endorsement.”
#txlege
Can’t read the name Wamsgans without thinking of Tom on Succession, which I thought just made it up to sound silly and stereotypically Midwestern.
Definitely that show’s co-best character. “Greg… are you asking for permission to blackmail me? Ok. I accept your blackmail.”
This Wambsgans also happens to be a media executive like Tom.
I see that name and think of and old time baseball player named Bill Wambsganss who made an unassisted triple play in the 1920 Worlds Series.
That is not a common family name...
There is early voting for special elections going on in New York City now, with Election Day on Tuesday, February 3. I had no idea one was in my State Assembly district and was informed by an email from the new Manhattan Borough President whom I voted for, Brad Hoylman-Sigal. You can read about the elections here: https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2026/01/frozen-four-guide-special-elections/410920/ Some brief excerpts:
"Assembly District 36
Candidates: Diana Moreno (D, WFP), Rana Abdelhamid (Queens for All), Mary Jobaida (People First)
What’s the deal?: It’s progressives vs. socialists in the race to replace Zohran Mamdani in western Queens."
This race has been discussed on The Downballot.
"Assembly District 74
Candidates: Keith Powers (D), Joseph Foley (R, C)"
This is my district. I'm sure the Republican will lose, but Hell if I don't go and vote for Powers myself! I figure to walk to 13th St. near Ave. C today, a rare day off for me between rehearsals, performances and appointments.
"47th state Senate District
Candidates: Erik Bottcher (D, WFP), Charlotte Friedman (R)
What’s the deal?: New York City Council Member Erik Bottcher decided to drop out of the incredibly crowded race to replace Rep. Jerry Nadler and took an easy glide path into the state Senate[.]"
This has been mentioned in passing here.
This one is in Buffalo, all the way on the other end of the state (I wonder if it's colder there today):
"61st state Senate District
Candidates: Jeremy Zellner (D), Dan Gagliardo (R, C)
What’s the deal?: Erie County Democratic Committee Chair Jeremy Zellner was nominated by the county party he leads to replace Sean Ryan in the state Senate. So sometimes it’s good to be the boss. Former Buffalo mayoral candidate India Walton called the process 'wildly unethical,' but this downtown district is a Democratic stronghold, leaving Republican Dan Gagliardo with a slim chance of victory."
And...it turns out that's not my Assembly district, after all...
"North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Delaware, NH, Iowa and Illinois have all now advanced to the next round of consideration to hold the First in the Nation Democratic primary (or to be one of the first 4 to 5 states in the early window) at the DNC Rules Committee meeting this morning."
https://x.com/MaeveReston/status/2017632985017946523
We can expect Jim Clyburn's retirement anyday now.🤣
I really like the idea of all of those states except for Iowa voting early. Maybe if Iowa redeems itself with Democratic wins in the gubernatorial and Senate races this year, I’d be for keeping them early.
Even then, only if they get rid of the caucuses, and I still wouldn't support them going early.
What happened to Nevada? NC, Georgia, Michigan, and Illinois are all pretty big states so I doubt they will be the first. Nevada is both a swing state and has a relatively small population.
Also Nevada is the only western state on (or not on) this list. NV and AZ are important western swing states. One should be among the early states to be considered. These swing states have large populations of Latinos and older voters, both groups are moving back to the Democratic party.
Sticking with non-coastal western states, New Mexico could be an interesting option too. While it isn't competitive, that does mean we can count on a friendly local government for implementation details.
Between Arizona and Nevada I'd prefer Arizona. Nevada has had too much party strife and struggles with past primaries to merit being (or staying) elevated. Plus the state has a very transient population and while it does add some much needed diversity to the calendar, we would get that same diversity from Arizona.
Nevada has the advantage of a larger Black and Asian population
That's fair, but I still prefer Arizona. Party competence does matter and Nevada has not been doing well on that front, even with many cycles as an early state to incentivize improvement.
A lot of people will focus on how big or expensive states are, but I don't care at all about that. If anything, I think it's useful to have a medium/not-cheap state first. Fact is, fundraising matters a lot, and being a good fundraiser from day 1 is important. The filtering effects of big/expensive is useful for us.
Going by state:
Michigan probably makes the best sense for us in selecting candidates that represent that overall party and are likely to be stronger in the most competitive regions. Demographically the state matches the overall US fairly well. Geographically it's in the region that has had many of the closest states for generations, and is a highly competitive state itself.
Illinois isn't a competitive state, but does have the geographic location, does have a truly major city. Demographically Illinois is a bit closer to what the democratic coalition looks like and a bit less like the US overall, which is not a bad trade off.
Georgia and North Carolina are both competitive and are strong representations of the newest parts of our coalition. Both make sense, but I'd prefer one of the midwestern states instead.
Despite being a NH resident, I don't think we make much sense to get the nod. Not representative of the overall party or the nation demographically, not in a competitive region, and only somewhat competitive itself. The only advantage NH has is that we already have the 1st primary, and overcoming that will be non-trivial. There's a real argument for the DNC just saying "fuck it" and making NH the first to ensure the appropriate media attention is there and that they don't have the headache of NH moving the primary earlier and earlier to meet local laws about being first -- with candidates going there and ignoring the official first state.
Iowa fucked up their caucuses and we have a real risk of hostile local governance to contend with. Like NH they do not represent the party or the country well demographically. They do not deserve it at all.
Delaware I'm not even sure how they got their name in the ring. Why would anyone consider them? It's a shorter commute for senators to go to a campaign event from DC, I guess.
Why do you prefer a Midwestern state?
Midwest has been the decisive region for presidential elections repeatedly. Even when it wasn't decisive, it was close, like in 2000 and 2004. It's really only 2008/2012 when it was neither decisive nor close, and that's more because Obama was preternaturally strong there.
If we could guarantee ourselves candidates that are stronger in the midwest, we'd be more likely to win. Unlike some other routes to having competitive advantages, trying to advantage a candidate that is stronger in the midwest still gives us candidates that align with our core party values.
Ohio was decisive in 2004.
Oh, right, I forgot. So really it was 2000 and 2008/2012, where the latter is in a good way.
SC also advanced and is still under consideration. It will likely always be in the mix because like NH it’s easiest to change the date around. Other states you have to get the legislatures to agree & fund earlier primaries.
Illinois should be able to do that without any issue.
Georgia (true swing, large black pop), Michigan (true swing, WWC, decent black pop) or North Carolina (red swing, emerging purple state, Dems gaining ground) would make the most sense to me for going first. The rest of them don’t really have any reason to for various reasons.
I agree.
Of that group, I'd vote for Delaware. Until we get rid of the popular vote, I don't think swing states should be early primary states, since it unfairly gives them more of a voice than the rest of us. My hot take is that DC should be an early primary state. It's small, easy to campaign in, would let sitting members of Congress attend votes while campaigning, has a diverse population, would give urban representation in the primaries, and would force all the candidates to take a strong position on statehood.
It's not about being fair; it's about nominating candidates that can win.
That is or should be the party's strategy, but giving disproportionate weight to small states like Delaware compounds the injustice of their disproportionate weight in the Senate and Electoral College.
You're making a pretty big assumption with that statement, which is that primaries held in swing states produce more electable candidates, but do they? I have a lot of arguments against that point, but first I'd like to hear your rationale. Why do you think letting swing states have the early primaries is more likely to nominating "candidates that can win?"
Because "generally" the party base in competitive states is more consciousness of producing electable candidates because they see the stakes in statewide races more than in deep blue states..
That's probably true, but I don't think we even need to look at that.
Our primary electorate in whatever state is broadly going to look more or less like the pool of voters that are willing to vote for our candidates in a general election. A punch to the left, on average, but not always and not usually by a wide margin.
In a red state, this doesn't help us much because those people can be far left or moderate or centrists and they'll still never approach the magical 50% number for general elections. In a swing state, that does matter: the people that somewhat accurately reflect the 50% of the electorate willing to consider us in e.g. Michigan are going to be good at getting us to 50%+1 in Michigan for exactly that reason.
I don't think there's any evidence to support that, and I have three counterarguments for you. First, if that was true, you'd expect the swing states to vote similar to each other in the primaries, because they're theoretically all trying to pick the most electable candidates. That doesn't happen, though. Look at 2020: of the six vaguely swingy states that voted on Super Tuesday or earlier, (NH, ME, MN, IA, NC, and NV,) they were more likely to vote like states around them than they were each other. Sanders did better in white, more northern states, and Biden did better in the South. For example, NC and TN voted almost exactly the same, but NC and NH were way different. If the party bases in both those states were more conscientious of electability, how can you explain the difference?
To me, the only way you can reconcile that is if you accept that people can have different ideas of what's electable. However, once you open the door to accepting that there are different ideas of electability, you admit that it's completely subjective, which is my second argument. Nobody knows what makes someone electable. Even if swing state voters want to produce electable candidates, if there isn't an agreed upon definition of what makes someone electable, then we have no reason to trust that those voters will actually succeed.
Lastly, look at (admittedly limited) data we have. Of the two swing states among the first four primary states in 2020, both voted for Sanders. Did Nevada and New Hampshire vote for him because they thought he was the most electable? We can avoid re-litigating the 2020 primary and still say that whatever their reasons, it seems dubious that electability greatly affected their decisions. In fact, early primary states have a bad track record of predicting who the nominee will end up being. There are simply too many candidates in modern presidential primaries to allow these states to crown a clear frontrunner, so it's actually the Super Tuesday states that wield more actual power, since the field has usually started to coalesce more by then.
I have more arguments, but it comes down to this: early primary states are bad at predicting the nominee, electability is inherently subjective, and there's no evidence that swing state voters are any different from ordinary voters. Saying swing states should go first because they're better at making decisions sounds good at first, but it just doesn't hold up. We all feel the impacts of elections and there's no reason to think that just because a state has an even blend of Dems and GOPers that makes their primary voters inherently more strategic. If that's the case and no state is inherently better at picking an electable nominee, then all that's left is fairness. While being an early primary state doesn't dramatically impact who the nominee will be, it very much impacts whether or not that state's issues get heard and addressed. Swing states get that in the general, so I think safe states should get it in the primary.
Talking about specific past and future democratic presidential primaries isn't allowed here. I think it's generally accepted that if we go back far enough it's OK, but 2020 was literally the most recent open primary we had so it's not going to be permitted regardless.
MI Senate:
Michigan Senate Majority Leader @WinnieBrinks endorses @MalloryMcMorrow for U.S. Senate
Now we’re talking. Who needs Schumer to push for the best candidate when the MI Democratic Party machine knows who is the right one?
Good