I think it's OK to discuss the Democratic presidential primary calendar, but discussion of specific candidates or results for such elections from 2000 on (including prospective future ones) is not.
We were talking about the PresiDem primary calendar today in the Downballot Discord server, while carefully avoiding discussion of particular past or future candidates and results, and the admins didn't say anything.
If there's a problem here, some official clarification would be helpful.
There's a problem with the comment that started this subthread, but I get your meaning and agree. I think the primary calendar is OK to discuss, but not in relation to some kind of idea that Candidate X rather than Candidate Y should have won the Democratic presidential primaries in 2020, etc.
We’ve had multiple discussions before about presidential primary states and the talks about shifting states earlier in the primary process. As far as I remember, this was the one discussion that allowed.
The comment did directly discuss the 2020 primary.
Beyond that, I'd expect that they do not want us discussing it at all. Fact is that talking about the calendar inevitably leads to discussing primaries themselves, with people trying to hedge around the ban but still violating it in spirit. Which we know is not appreciated by the admins.
You certainly do. And if it weren't, I would push back against Wildthing's remarks, showing how this kind of discussion derails this site's focus on downballot races.
Minority progressives tend to do well, as I recall.
I think it's a fairly complex issue. Generational experiences, identity, inclusiveness, personal life experience, and particularly experience communicating with different groups are all factors.
I will allow discussions on the Democratic presidential primary *calendar*. But the leash will be extremely short. Comment above relitigating the 2020 Dem primary was deleted. It was also pretty racist. If people cannot stick to the calendar without anything else, then I'll shut down that discussion, too.
I hope for el-Sayed to win, but I really won’t mind if Stevens wins. We need to drop the drama and rally around whoever emerges.
Wisconsin is still a clusterfuck, so I might just ask my wife to mow me over with my truck the weekend before that primary and put me in a coma. Mostly joking on that.
I might not vote for either AES or Stevens in the primary, not as a protest but because I really think they both have some big weaknesses and I don’t know which candidate I prefer. I feel similarly about Farooqi and Moss in my MI-11 race. If anyone has thoughts I’m all ears. I am a lurker but I have really liked pragmatic SSP / DKE / Downballot analysis over the years.
Michigan is frustrating because this toxic primary could’ve been avoided had Gary Peters held out for one more term or at least got assurances from Whitmer or Dana Nessel that they would run for the seat. Same with Wisconsin, Evers retired without making sure AG Josh Kaul would run.
I don't blame Peters at all for retiring. He did exactly what senators should do: find a probable good cycle for our party after hitting mid 60s or later and take that as the cycle to let a new democrat take the seat.
I blame everyone else. Progressives for rallying around AES instead of a pretty-good candidate. The establishment for somehow picking the single least inspiring moderate in the entire state in the form of Stevens. McMorrow for failing to thread the needle down the middle and having to drop out. Stevens and AES for running when neither is truly the candidate we should want for Michigan, and it should be apparent to each of them even with the requisite ego for someone to run for federal office in the first place.
Personally I don't feel any fondness for AES but I feel a strong dislike for Stevens' unimpressive candidacy and strongly prefer AES as a result.
The bigger risk of not retiring after two terms in the Senate is the potential of Senators becoming institutionalized too much in the establishment system. And working in the Senate forever even through the age of say 78 and beyond. Of course, I don’t mind Senators being elected to three or four terms but the risk increases more after two terms.
Senator Pat Toomey also served just two terms, which I believe may have been a campaign pledge he originally did (unless I’m mistaken.). He’s now 64.
I agree with almost all of that but I think Stevens would be more easily able to win and hold the seat. El Sayed has never been attacked by a Republican and I think he would be far more vulnerable to a negative campaign.
A perfectly valid perspective. I'm not convinced by it -- I think Stevens is so thoroughly unimpressive that she's equally as weak as he is -- but it absolutely could be correct.
Thoughtful comment. I prefer Stevens, but in general am in alignment with you. It's too bad McMorrow couldn't have caught fire at some point as I think she's probably our strongest GE candidate. As I've said before, I think AES would probably win in this environment, but it's gonna be tougher than it has to be if/when he wins the primary (which I suspect he will)...
I hope this talk of “rallying around” Stevens should she win also gets applied to AES, or for that matter Hong, if they win.
Going to be honest, I am quite sick of hearing “vote blue no matter who” when a moderate or centrist wins, and “vote your values” or “I’m holding my nose for the Republican/not voting” if the left wing candidate wins, from the same people. Thankfully, that isn’t a position I’ve seen posters here take, you are all very good about supporting the nominee barring a Maureen Galindo-level situation - it’s more common in explicitly ideologically moderate circles. (If I have to see another fucking stupid opinion piece saying the DSA are a parasite or are an evil group trying to “hijack” the Democrats (as if that’s not what the center did when Clinton came around), explicitly trying to close the party to groups they don’t like. I don't like the DSA either but "big tent" does not only mean the center to the right. It means the left too.)
If moderates/centrists are willing to back AES or Hong if they win, I’ll do the same for Stevens or Craig.
Absolutely! Zero chance if faced with the choice I’d ever vote R or just not vote. Especially when “shitty candidate” here doesn’t mean “morally repulsive” in the way Cuomo or Platner, to give examples ideologically opposite, do.
Still worth hedging on who’s the best ticket leader
Hong/AES type candidates scare people for various reasons.
Fear of them not winning. Some folk have genuine concern that running candidates too far to the left will cost the Dems winnable seats. Especially in places that are swingy and not deep blue enclaves. And at this time, that is a risk we should not be taking. We need that check on Trump.
But I believe there is something else going on as well. And it isn't the fear they won't win, but the fear they will.
That is an entirely different proposition. If far left DSA candidates like AES/Hong, who are minorities no less, can win in swingy states, statewide, then what is the point of the more moderate centrist candidates in non-red turf?
It isn't better health care policy. Or a more moral & just foreign policy in the Middle East. Or a better plan to deal with global warming. Or get the money out of politics. Or returning democracy to the US Senate. Or making housing affordable.
The people and organizations who write big checks to moderate Dems do not want big, transformational type change. They like the system the way it is. As those checks, and our process itself, help ensure it does stay the same.
But if candidates like AES & Hong prove they can win in swing states, then that system will change, and PDQ (pretty darn quick). 2-3 cycles at most.
By 2030 you could be looking at a Dem President with a trifecta, and a big chunk of Senators & Reps who are either in the Bernie/Warren/AOC mold or are afraid of being primaried by someone who is. With the ability to draw new maps in redistricting. How do you like THEM apples?
In my view, the day is coming. It is inevitable. An increasing majority of Americans think the system is rigged towards the uber-rich. And red scare tactics and aversion to the "socialist" label is decreasing rapidly amongst younger voters of all stripes.
Frustration with the current system is growing. Every time a Dem trifecta fails to deliver, like Whitmer's did, that pressure builds. If it does deliver (Walz in MN, Pritzker in IL, and increasingly Newsom in VA and Hochul in NY post IDC post Mamdani), then that pressure disapates.
And even success can get overshadowed by rampant corruption and misdeeds that go unpunished.
Are we at a tipping point yet? IDK. In Dem enclaves, with a good candidate, a lot of times we are. And the more times the opposition cries wolf about the disaster that never happens if Mamdani or AOC types win, the less trepidation there will be about voting them in other places.
But one way to make sure we never reach that tipping point is to ensure the experiment never happens.
I don’t think we can chalk up AES’s success to disappointment in Whitmer’s second term. By all accounts, the vast majority of Democrats love her still. Jocelyn Benson is seen as extension of Whitmer and she seems on a glide path to the governor’s mansion now. If there were widespread disappointment in the state not being run progressively enough, why is the Senate race the one making the splash while the gubernatorial race is sleepy on the Democratic side?
AES isn't a DSA candidate or even identifies as a socialist. For the folks who believe that the socialist label is bad/hurts, it seems like a poor idea to converge certain candidates into that label and then blame them for the negative associations with it.
I'm sure you're right that people with money who oppose socialism do not want socialists to win, but the idea that progress is inevitable should have died with World War I, let alone World War II, and is something every rational person needs to put to bed. Nothing good will happen unless people work like Hell for it, and even then, it's far from guaranteed and will have to be defended forever. That's a fact, and history shows that.
I think you’re on to something. Spent 20+ years in the Badger State, and it ain’t all that. Miss some of it terribly, but not the progressive for me, not for thee BS.
I see so much bullshit about progressives not turning out for centrists, especially in the context of AES. It takes barely a minute to do some research and see that he endorsed Kamala in 2024 and, more relevantly, endorsed Gretchen Whitmer in 2018 after she defeated him in the gubernatorial primary.
And of course, we have Mamdani and the NYC mayors race. Several moderate Democrats, including Tom Suozzi, decided to endorse Cuomo over Mamdani, who won the nomination. Chuck Schumer couldn’t even make an endorsement in the race and id bet he’d be the first to start “tut tutting” about AES and his supporters backing Stevens in the general the second after she won the primary. I don’t know why progressives get all of the blame for not being team players when it’s a two way street. Well I kind of know why, but it’s still very annoying.
Progressives torpedoed Al Gore in 2000 with Ralph Nader and cost him the election. Some progressives attacked Hillary Clinton in 2016 and voted for Jill Stein or wrote in Sanders in 2016 and we just saw progressives attack Biden and Harris over a certain foreign policy issue in 2024. There is a huge difference between an election between a progressive and moderate Democrat and an election between a Democrat and a reactionary Republican.
While that was certainly a mistake, no one could reasonably have had the foresight that that vote would change the outcome of a future presidential election. Even if they did, it wouldn't have come to that point if people hadn't voted for Nader over Gore.
I’m curious about whether I hallucinated a poll in which Trump was in the mid 30s on approvals and only 15% “strongly approve” - if that’s even remotely true, look out below
One thing I've wondered is if a big part of the apparent AES surge in Michigan (to the extent that there is a surge in his favor) is due to a lot of voters getting tired of seeing pro-Stevens ads on TV all the time.
This happened to Raja Krishnamoorthi in the IL-Sen Democratic primary back in March. Raja went out to a massive lead in early polls because his campaign had a massive amount of money and ran a ton of TV ads. Voters started ignoring Raja's ads, and, once another candidate in the primary, that being Juliana Stratton, started running TV ads, Stratton surged in the polls and went on to win the nomination.
There are two massive differences in this analogy, however:
1) Most of Raja's ads were from his campaign. Stevens's campaign has run zero TV ads of its own, relying entirely on outside groups for massive ad buys.
2) In Illinois, there was a split in both the establishment and the progressive ranks that Stratton was able to use to her benefit. Michigan is a straight-up establishment vs. progressive contest.
I don't know if AES is still really surging. Maybe so, but since McMorrow dropped out there's been a lot less of the "he's got it wrapped up" talk. He might well win, but it may be close either way. And I agree with what others said that neither remaining candidate is ideal; following Maine with Michigan, IMO Schumer's interventions have lately probably done more harm than good, but the "Bernie knows best" mentality hasn't been much better.
If this theory is true, than another person who may recently have overdone it with TV ads is David Trone, for both MD-Sen 2024 and MD-06 2026. Maybe he should take the hint that we're tired of being beaten over the head with his ads every two years.
VA-4 - I have no reason to believe that Jennifer McClellan is in any real danger of losing renomination or re-election, but Kalshi mysteriously dropped their odds of a Democratic win in the general election to 64% at one point for a reason I completely don't understand.
I believe news refers to e.g. political spending by a prediction market's owner company, candidate positions on regulation of prediction markets, candidates or officeholder being caught using them, etc., not movement in market odds for specific wagers.
I don't agree with you. I believe all discussion of betting on politics, except when it's a campaign issue because a candidate did it, is off-limits, but the phrasing is ambiguous enough for your interpretation to be reasonable, so the mods should clarify and rephrase as needed.
My guess is what happened here is that they tried to add an independent to the odds, and that completely threw off the system. The person who made that Instagram post is the independent running. That independent is running way to McClellan's left, and there isn't even a Republican running. There's no reason to believe this guy has any chance of winning, though.
I just donated as well! As I said in a comment below, I think we should all also reach out to social networks and post on social media encouraging others to donate, too.
He's got to raise a lot of money fast, but it's doable if everyone who is progressive-minded chips in!
Kind of incredible that we went from choosing between two underwhelming candidates, to the winner imploding, to having arguably our best possible candidate.
The race he should have run in instead of Governor.
Here's to hoping for Sen. Troy Jackson (D-ME). I cannot describe what an enormous upgrade he'd be from Susan Collins. As a bonus, he is staunchly progressive, and supports Medicare for All (universal healthcare is a pet issue of mine -- I've been screwed a lot by the system as a type 1 diabetic.) I listened to part of his speech on MS NOW and I think he's stellar.
MI-07: New PAC that was created a week ago has begun spending big money on ads attacking Matt Maasdam and boosting Will Lawrence. The PAC is likely linked to GOP groups according to reporters.
I’ll concede that Hong probably is the candidate the GOP would like to face the most. I think she might have a sort of “Platner” (bear with me for a sec) effect to her: A high ceiling but a low floor.
It’s worth noting that these sorts of strategies don’t always go according to plan. If I recall correctly, Democratic groups tried to help boost Benny Moreno in Ohio because they viewed him as an easier candidate for Sherrod Brown to beat, and now we’re stuck with senator Moreno. And it’s been mentioned here that something similar happened with Trump in 2016… Yeah.
I feel like this strategy only really works if you’re in a relatively safe state and simply want to run up the margins (Maryland in 2022 and 2026), or if your nominee is comparatively moderate against the opponent you’re trying to prop up. Wisconsin isn’t a safe state, and Tom Tiffany definitely isn’t a moderate. Hong is already ahead of her opponents by a decent amount - this has the potential to backfire and enable her to win by a much more dominating margin, which would give her a stronger mandate to the nomination and (hopefully) make it easier to unify the democratic base.
I still think the political environment is too blue to say it’s anything more than a tossup. I’d be more concerned if current polling already had Tiffany at 50% or more, but so far everything’s within the margin of error.
Not ideal, obviously, but what else can you expect when the current crop of candidates is so weak? I’m not going to fault Hong for running a campaign that gets people excited when every opponent she’s facing has made some bad missteps, the most questionable being Evers’ decision to back and endorse a candidate who already dropped out instead of one of Hong’s two remaining opponents, personal grudges be damned.
Frankly it depends on how Hong manages her past “abolish the police” position, and whether or not she can keep the electorate focused on her popular policies regarding the economy and affordability. Given that we’re reentering back into active war with Iran, it might be easier than it would’ve been prior, especially if the average national gas price reaches past $5.
Abolish prisons, too. I'd have to hold my nose very hard to vote for someone with her record of extremely dangerous political positions, and I'm a socialist and a radical in the context of American politics.
The others cannot even come out against data centers, and that is almost a 90/10 issue amongst Dems, 70/30 amongst the GOP and around 80/20 with indies.
I mean, other than being a corporate schill, give me a reason that makes sense for that.
If you don't see how "defend the police and abolish prisons" will be a much larger issue than being on the wrong side of data centers, then I don't know what to say. I fear that she will bring down the entire Democratic ticket in a race that any normal Democratic candidate should win easily.
As far as we know this year, dozens of people have lost elections all across the nation for being on the wrong side of data centers; conversely, the person on the wrong side of abolishing prisons will be a member of Congress in January.
In a wave year a lot is possible. Pat Toomey was incredibly far to the right and still won a swing state because 2010 was a red wave year.
I still haven’t been following her closely even with all the discussion of her here. Has she been making her dumb statements recently? It’s a lot easier to recover from saying something five years ago than five months ago.
Looks increasingly likely that we’re stuck with her regardless. Hoping she plays better in a general election is what I’d suggest we lean towards.
Despote some on here continuing to pist it, she already walked back/reversed the defund the police from 5-6 years ago. I'd assume she will walk back the prison thing as well.
The problem is that she said these things and the GOP will run attack ads over and over on this. She can't unring that bell. Swing voters aren't going to give her a pass on this.
Santorum was first elected to a swing house seat in the Pittsburgh area in the early 90's and presented as much more moderate early in his career. He was even pro-choice when he was younger. I also suspect that he is another politician whose views changed during their career when he got into traditional Catholicism similar to JD Vance.
"shocked" might be too strong a word, given how blue the environment is shaping up to be, but she'll take a race that we should be running away with and put it in play and would be in very serious jeopardy in 2030...
We are going to go see the Odyssey! We love when conservatives get triggered at movies and shows casting black people, so we’ll watch it and the new Harry Potter series to support.
I am not touching Potter anymore. JK Rowling has become an extremely infamous transphobe — from what I’ve heard she is directly involved in getting funding for trans people pulled in the UK. She has gone on record saying if you financially support the series, you are supporting her views. No thanks.
As much as I loved it growing up A) Rowling has made it toxic and B) the original films are excellent and came out recently enough that I’m disinterested in a new take on the material
I too still like both the books and the original films, though so far I haven't attempted to follow anything post-Deathly Hallows, including Fantastic Beasts and the new series, though I understand it has a very good cast.
I'm not on board with the idea that Harry Potter should be extirpated from society or that one must sacrifice their progressive credentials if they read/watch it. As offensive as many of JK Rowling's beliefs are (and her whining when challenged about them only makes it worse), plenty of others closely involved with the series, including Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson, hold diametrically opposite views.
Right. The series itself is clearly a liberal work, too, even if one produced in a very Blairite context/definition of liberalism.
Beyond just Rowling (since I agree with you that it’s a good series that we shouldn’t pretend has always been bad just because she’s a thin-skinned shit person now) one reason I’ve never been interested in expansion material is that worldbuilding is her weakest aspect and vagueness about how the Wizarding World works works in the series favor - as does grounding it on the school and coming of age POV, and that her teenager characters are actually as dumb, brilliant, reckless, and whiny as actual teenagers.
Plus it’s a bit of a Marvel effect - endings are very hard, and like Endgame, Deathly Hallows is a very good and satisfying one. Sometimes you don’t need more story after it’s over
It's possible that the current wave of transphobia can be traced back to her. TERFism was already a thing in the U.K, but her late-2010s twitter posts helped amplify those voices and make them mainstream. If we think back to pre-2020s transphobia, a lot of it is, at least in the U.S, is what I would describe as biblical (i.e. that trans people are interfering with God's plan by transitioning). Since roughly 2020, in the U.S and especially the U.K (and much of the rest of the world), transphobia has shifted to the TERFy "protect women" argument, and the timing doesn't feel like a coincidence, considering she was far and away the most prominent cultural figure to be peddling that rhetoric. J.K Rowling, and all her TERFy friends, have likely changed the world in unforgiveable ways.
It's interesting how memory-holed the progression of rhetoric over 10 years can be. But I very much remember when that phrase TERF starting entering the wider parlance around trans rights issues. It was very much because there were radical feminists, i.e. feminists who sought emanciaption from men rather than equality with men, who did not seem trans women as part of their emancipitory project. Their voices were being elevated in the broader debate in part because they were really the only secular opponents of the trans rights movement. It was very much a thing then for trans rights activists to crash feminist meetings and make a scene if they were not welcomed. Such things were widely discussed on social media, etc., at the time.
I think Rowling rose to prominence in this debate precisely because she is not a radical feminist. The opinions that she used her fame as an author to platform were ones that expressed scepticism about trans inculsion in women's spaces on moderate feminist / equality grounds. Indeed this line of arguement - that sex-based women's spaces in sports, in institutional housing, etc. are needed on equality grounds - is far more widely held than the view that women need spaces free from oppression by men. It was indeed a pathway, at least in the UK, for the ultimately successful pushback on trans inclusion in women's spaces on the grounds that the equality act specifically protected sex-based characteristics. (The equality act does also consider gender transition a protected characteristic, but it was how to reconcile these two that was the question.)
I do also remember how the term TERF was increasingly thrown at people holding and expressing views that were in no way radically feminist. This mercifully ceased in the UK in 2021 when an employment tribunal ruled that a person could not be fired for "gender-critical beliefs". All sides of the debate starting referring to the position that sex rather than gender identity should control public accommodation as "gender-critical" and the term TERF largely faded, at least from the broader public discorce.
I find the term “gender critical” to be suspect, especially as pertains to the civil rights of trans people. It reminds me of racists who call themselves “race realists”.
Not necessarily accusing you of such beliefs, mind you. Just saying I am suspicious of the term.
Here in the UK, I've seen it used by both sides of the debate. And as I mentioned, it was popularised by a legal ruling. Though there may be some degree of biting sarcasm when trans rights advocates refer to gender criticals as such.
Good point on that, I hadn’t even known Rowling jumped the shark on vicious transphobia. I’ve been out of Potterworld since the 2011 release of Deathly Hallows 2 when I was in high school.
According to Google, the closest legit IMAX to me is an AMC theater in NYC. I am not even going to try to get tickets because I know I will not get them for some time/at all.
On the plus side, maybe this will push IMAX back to constructing actual massive IMAX theatres, instead of normal theatres with IMAX sound systems that they misleadingly call “the IMAX experience”.
For obvious reasons, the only race I'm interested today is Maine's Senate election.
While there are many important races this election cycle, winning Maine's Senate seat is by far the most important. Susan Collins's false brand of supposedly being a "moderate" has done immeasurable damage to our democracy. By inhabiting that role, she's been able to cover for Trump and the Supreme Court as they've wrecked our democratic institutions and guardrails. If she's allowed to continue her lies for another 6 years, she'll only make America worse.
Troy Jackson is officially the nominee now, and he's a great candidate. Even if he had serious flaws, I would still be supporting him.
So today, I made my first donation to his campaign, as he needs to raise money fast to match Susan Collins's warchest. If you can afford to donate, I would encourage you to do so, too. Here is the direct donation link from the Troy Jackson website:
Additionally, I think we should all try to get our various social networks to make a donation this weekend, too. I did my small part by making a post on BlueSky asking others to donate. I plan to send an email to progressive family members later today, too.
Now that Arizona’s primaries are over, I have a question for posters here.
Neither candidate for Governor has chosen their pick for the newly-created office of Lieutenant Governor. Who mights Hobbs pick? Who might Biggs pick?
Speaking of offices that are newly-created, I heard Los Angeles will soon have a County Executive position. I can imagine a lot of ambitious politicians would want the seat — anyone have any speculation about potential contenders?
As for races I’m watching, besides the obvious MI-SEN, I’m watching MI-13 (Shri Thanedar vs Donavan McKinney), MI-SD-1, 2, and 3 (3 big races where progressive upstarts are getting involved), the U Michigan Board of Regents race (I cannot say why as it is intricately tied to a banned topic, so I ask we not elaborate), MO-01 (very curious to see who will win given both candidates’ scandals), GA-13’s special (which is next week and has not a lot of attention), MI-07 (contested primary with ideological dimension), MI-AG and MI-SoS (I want to see how progressives Eli Savit and Garlin Gilchrist do), KS-Gov (relative lack of polling leading to a potentially interesting result), and WA-03 (curious to see how MGP fares in her primary), among others. (And while Kshama Sawant has zero chance of winning WA-09, I’m curious to see if her inexplicably not bad fundraising translates to anything.)
For Arizona there’s been a lot of smoke I’ve seen suggesting that Hobbs has wanted to pick a republican. No idea how true it is but I certainly hope not. I’d expect a moderate democrat. Her narrow win in 2022 combined with our not narrow 2024 loss will make her want to play it safe, I assume.
It’s stupid, IMO. But there’s a type of democrat that loves to trot out republicans in their cabinet or similar to prove their moderate credentials.
I think some people ignore the costs and have deluded themselves with this idea that we can return to the days of calmer politics if we reward republicans.
Of course, we’re in this mess right now because Obama appointed a republican to lead the FBI…
Right? I could get my head around it for Gubernatorial candidates in places like KY and KS to choose a moderate R as their running mate to try and outrun the states political lean, but in an environment this blue, with Latinos appearing to snap back (close to) their prior political splits, AZ-Gov should be a relatively easy hold for us this year and this is not something she needs to do....
Your username is quite accurate to the story. What did the GOP think would happen when they threatened to annex our neighbors/now former allies?
I have no idea what to even think of the whole Canada situation anymore. I feel like I've heard 20 different takes from 20 different people about what's going on. I certainly don't blame anyone for hating us, for what it's worth. As I've said before, I hold everyone who voted Trump in/didn't vote/voted third-party in seething contempt for this slow-motion disaster. I wouldn't be surprised if this boycott lasts many years beyond Trump, and frankly I think it should. Canada deserves better.
The vibe I get from a lot of them is they want to pretend Trump didn’t say anything and business as usual but, yeah, that’s not really possible. And other countries aren’t (and don’t think they should be) bound by the weird domestic media precedent that we all just ignore that Trump is bugnuts
I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of Canadians are absolutely done with this, and a recent Pew Research poll confirms we think less of the United States than we do of China. I suppose we should thank Trump for helping to split the conservative movement in Canada between patriots and those seditious elements who want to submit to his rule, as evidenced by the Albertan separatist campaign. It has also pushed us to forge stronger links with other nations for trade and defence.
The Gordie Howe Bridge was just opened between Detroit and Windsor with a Canadian-only ceremony. It should have been a moment to celebrate the close relations we have shared. Instead I feel like it already an anachronism. The next border infrastructure should be a wall.
44 percent of Canadians view China favourably, only 33 percent feel the same about the US. You will notice from the chart of all nations that it is not an either/or question, some countries like both, and others like neither. But the "like China more" camp is considerably larger.
I don't even blame you guys. What my country has done to you guys for absolutely no reason at all is appalling.
I wish there was something I could say or do, but I'm not sure if there even is anything. All I can say is that I support you guys boycotting us, and I'm from the place you're boycotting. I doubt that means much, but it's all I've got, unless you have a better idea.
Just keep voting, put pressure on your congressional delegation, and maybe look for Canadian products to buy once in a while. We make a pretty good maple syrup from what I've been told.
The alienation of our relationship with Canada is one of the top 10 things that Trump has done that fills me with white hot rage. He also took all the fun out of beating you guys for the Olympic hockey gold medal. The celebration was less joyous because of him.
One could argue that South Carolinas role in the nominating process has been reduced by going first, they're going to get the Iowa treatment. What say ye?
I have a slightly different question related to SC: if SC does end up getting knocked off the Dem primary calendar someday, which Southern state might replace them? Virginia? I saw some talk of them being a possibility. If not them, then who?
Louisiana should replace SC if it gets knocked off the primary calendar. The LA Democratic Party base getting fired up early on in the primary cycle would help the party organize better.
From what a LA-based user here some time ago had mentioned, good portions of the state where there are considerable numbers of black residents have lackluster turnout. I’m referring to cities and regions outside of the Baton Rouge-New Orleans parts of the state.
That's just the tip of the iceberg but not the real problem with the AL Democratic Party.
Back in the mid 2010's, the Democratic Party in the state was dealing with serious financial issues and was at the brink. AL was always a super red state but after Obama was elected as POTUS in 2008, everything went downhill for Democrats from there. It didn't help that the most vocal Democratic politician in AL, Rep. Artur Davis, spoke in support of Mitt Romney for POTUS back in 2012 (even after Davis spoke at the 2008 DNC Convention in support of Obama). Additionally, former Governor Don Siegelman never got pardoned by Obama when he was POTUS, which was absolute negligence even while he pardoned Chelsea Manning of all people only days before he left the White House.
Back in 2024, the AL Democratic Party Chair said the party's finances were better than before even while Democrats have struggled to field candidates credible enough to run. Doug Jones, who is running for Governor, was elected to the U.S. Senate in the 2017 special election but that only gave the state party a temporary boost.
That said, I think in the primary process AL as a state would ensure Democrats would challenge themselves to fire up the base, get them involved and register more voters. It would be good for the party to get invigorated energy so that about more than just a presidential primary and special election.
The issue with states like Virginia, Georgia, or North Carolina is that while they are more diverse, they are also much more expensive, which would make it hard for all but the most prominent candidates to be competitive there. The reason Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina go first is that they represent different parts of the Democratic base, and none of them are outrageously expensive to run a campaign in.
The media market is expensive, but it's compact enough that it reduces the amount of travel and campaign offices. Compare this Georgia, which also has an expensive media market, as well as a lot of second and third tier cities that are spread out across the state.
I just don't see that as a meaningful factor. The reduction in travel and campaign offices is not going to have any real impact on the cost of a campaign.
Plus, not to belabor the point, but: for multiple generations now and the foreseeable future, our presidential candidates will need to be able to raise and spend lots of money and travel a lot. Why would we want to give an advantage to candidates who struggle with that?
If we're smart we'd go with a southern state that is competitive.
All that organizing energy, money, and campaign staff should be invested into a state where we can actually win statewide. It's why I wish Georgia was ahead of SC.
If we're not going to pick purple states, then we should preference blue states before we preference red states. But we should pick purple states.
I know how a lot of people here feel about Bluesky and what's going on there (namely, that they're not fans) but I wanted to share this because I'm very curious and I'd like to see what you guys think.
Primary School author Kevin asked his followers on Bluesky which non-Senate races are they watching. Some interesting responses in there -- I'll highlight a few I saw that I was intrigued by:
- CT-Gov: A lot of people seem to think Josh Elliott could get closer than expected. He is apparently running a serious campaign -- and I know offhand that Lamont was involved in some controversial vetoes.
- NJ-2: One poster apparently lives near there and wants him out. I agree.
- WI-Gov was a popular one obviously, and GA-Gov was also mentioned.
- AK-AL was mentioned due to the possibility of an independent in Congress being elected there. (The poster also amusingly noted that Bill Hill sounds like the name of a character from a Fox animated sitcom that only lasted one season.)
- TN-9, as a test to see if the extreme gerrymander receives backlash.
- Some hyper-local races were also mentioned, including the Ward 5 runoff in Eugene, OR (between a moderate incumbent and progressive challenger) and the AZ Mine Inspector race (as a test of partisanship in AZ headed into future elections).
I recommend reading the whole thread, it's really interesting. For posters here though, I'll ask: what are your thoughts on the races/rationales shared in the various replies? And which races do you have your eye on that aren't Senate races?
I’m always curious how state legislature races hash out. Democrats here in WA for instance feel bullish about a breakthrough in picking off seats centered in Yakima for the first time off a Latino backlash, and a lot of progressive, but non socialist, incumbents in Seattle may be at risk in their top twos
Leftier challengers. And my view is that if you’re somebody who thinks Jamie Pedersen is insufficiently left wing then your probably the outlier, but Seattle gonna Seattle (especially Cap Hill)
Granted I’m a center-leaning suburbanite (and would not have voted for Wilson had I lived in the city, Harrell was a pretty good mayor and he’s actually had real jobs/not had his mortgage paid by his parents his whole life after dropping out of college) so take this with a grain of salt but my read is that Wilson so far has not done much to elicit controversy or excitement in either direction. That’s to her credit - boring and competent is good, especially for somebody that was a bit of a question mark coming into office
As a fellow center-leaning Seattle suburbanite, I agree with your assessment. I didn't understand the objection to Harrell and thought he had done a good job (and it's not like he's some MAGA Republican) but Wilson, in general, has been less terrible than I expected her to be.
I agree that "boring and competent" is good, and have had enough of strident boat rockers from either the left or the right.
As a center-leaning DC suburbanite, if I lived in the District I would have voted for Kenyan McDuffie over DSA darling Janeese Lewis George. But JLG does at least seem decently versed in city governance, with six years on the Council, and her base of support seems well spread and balanced throughout much of the city; she's not the product or tool of some narrow demographic or geographic clique.
I’m not familiar with AK Democrats like others here but since Mary Peltola is has cleared the field as a Senate candidate, an Independent candidate running for the House would be interesting.
The leading Dem candidate dropped recently, leaving the AK-AL race with only two candidates who have raised money, the incumbent Republican (Begich) and Indy Bill Hill.
I'm aware the Democratic candidate dropped out although because Bill Hill is in the race. I was mainly arguing that there are no other high profile Democrats like Mary Peltola (or even Tom Begich) who would have run in the AK-AL race.
I'm not sure how credible of a Democratic candidate Matt Schultz was before he ended his campaign. If say Peltola ran in the House race instead of for the Senate, the outcome for her would have been much different vs. Schultz.
Missouri, Endorsements: The St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Editorial Board announced it won't make any future endorsements in general elections. The P-D will continue to make endorsements in primaries, ballot measures, and nonpartisan elections (e.g. mayoral).
Honestly I suspect it's mostly a business decision. You alienate the subscribers who disagree and pursuade almost no one. Who, in 2026, is going to vote for the other party for some downballot race because of a newspaper endorsement?
"A grand jury on Friday returned a 12-count indictment charging Luke with criminal conspiracy to commit bribery, bribery and falsifying campaign committee reports. The charges stem from a monthslong investigation by the Hawaii attorney general’s office into allegations the lieutenant governor accepted campaign contributions from businessperson and lobbyist Tobi Solidum in exchange for helping advance a Covid-19 testing contract while she served as chair of the state House Finance Committee in 2022."
What happens next? Also, does the gubernatorial candidate choose the lieutenant governor in Hawaii, and if so, how bad a political hit is this for the governor?
Hawaii is a "shotgun marriage" state the gov and lt are selected in separate primaries but then have to run together as a single ticket I don't believe Gov Green and Lt. Gov Luke were viewed as close allies and i dont think her scandals ill have any effect on him
Green already chose a temporary successor, and that caused a big chain reaction when Green briefly left the state so the acting governor eventually became some finance guy.
The Senate President would be first in-line, then House Speaker, then it'd run thru the state cabinet offices, starting with the Attorney General. The people in these positions can decline taking up the LG's office, in which case the opening would be offered to the next person in line.
Currently, acting LG Keith Regan is the state Comptroller, who is 5th in line. I'd imagine that if Sylvia Luke were to resign at this point, she'd be fully replaced by Keith Regan.
I doubt Senate President Kouchi, House Speaker Nakamura, or AG Lopez (who is running the investigation) would take up the office, having already turned it down previously. I'm not sure about if Finance Director Colby would take up the position (he's the state's equivalent to Treasurer), but Regan's already doing part of the job and probably would do it for the remainder of the year if needed.
Oops..Please delete if it violates the rules..Sorry, just responding.
Democratic presidential primary talk is against the rules of this site, if I recall correctly.
I think it's OK to discuss the Democratic presidential primary calendar, but discussion of specific candidates or results for such elections from 2000 on (including prospective future ones) is not.
Are we? Can the admins weigh in? Does the primary prohibition include talk of the calendar?
We were talking about the PresiDem primary calendar today in the Downballot Discord server, while carefully avoiding discussion of particular past or future candidates and results, and the admins didn't say anything.
If there's a problem here, some official clarification would be helpful.
There's a problem with the comment that started this subthread, but I get your meaning and agree. I think the primary calendar is OK to discuss, but not in relation to some kind of idea that Candidate X rather than Candidate Y should have won the Democratic presidential primaries in 2020, etc.
We’ve had multiple discussions before about presidential primary states and the talks about shifting states earlier in the primary process. As far as I remember, this was the one discussion that allowed.
The comment did directly discuss the 2020 primary.
Beyond that, I'd expect that they do not want us discussing it at all. Fact is that talking about the calendar inevitably leads to discussing primaries themselves, with people trying to hedge around the ban but still violating it in spirit. Which we know is not appreciated by the admins.
I figure primaries before 2008 are no longer topics of rancorous debate and probably OK to discuss, as for example we've discussed the "Dean scream".
You certainly do. And if it weren't, I would push back against Wildthing's remarks, showing how this kind of discussion derails this site's focus on downballot races.
This post should be exhibit A as to why Progressives struggle to get African-American votes.
Minority progressives tend to do well, as I recall.
I think it's a fairly complex issue. Generational experiences, identity, inclusiveness, personal life experience, and particularly experience communicating with different groups are all factors.
I will allow discussions on the Democratic presidential primary *calendar*. But the leash will be extremely short. Comment above relitigating the 2020 Dem primary was deleted. It was also pretty racist. If people cannot stick to the calendar without anything else, then I'll shut down that discussion, too.
I hope for el-Sayed to win, but I really won’t mind if Stevens wins. We need to drop the drama and rally around whoever emerges.
Wisconsin is still a clusterfuck, so I might just ask my wife to mow me over with my truck the weekend before that primary and put me in a coma. Mostly joking on that.
I might not vote for either AES or Stevens in the primary, not as a protest but because I really think they both have some big weaknesses and I don’t know which candidate I prefer. I feel similarly about Farooqi and Moss in my MI-11 race. If anyone has thoughts I’m all ears. I am a lurker but I have really liked pragmatic SSP / DKE / Downballot analysis over the years.
My thought is that you should vote for whichever one you think has the best chance to win the general election. My guess is that it would be Stevens.
My thoughts too. Obviously, I agree with anonymouse's statements that we all need to back whoever wins the primary.
Michigan is frustrating because this toxic primary could’ve been avoided had Gary Peters held out for one more term or at least got assurances from Whitmer or Dana Nessel that they would run for the seat. Same with Wisconsin, Evers retired without making sure AG Josh Kaul would run.
I don't blame Peters at all for retiring. He did exactly what senators should do: find a probable good cycle for our party after hitting mid 60s or later and take that as the cycle to let a new democrat take the seat.
I blame everyone else. Progressives for rallying around AES instead of a pretty-good candidate. The establishment for somehow picking the single least inspiring moderate in the entire state in the form of Stevens. McMorrow for failing to thread the needle down the middle and having to drop out. Stevens and AES for running when neither is truly the candidate we should want for Michigan, and it should be apparent to each of them even with the requisite ego for someone to run for federal office in the first place.
Personally I don't feel any fondness for AES but I feel a strong dislike for Stevens' unimpressive candidacy and strongly prefer AES as a result.
I agree, Peters chose the right time to retire. My perfect world choice would have been Whitmer, but she didn’t want it.
The bigger risk of not retiring after two terms in the Senate is the potential of Senators becoming institutionalized too much in the establishment system. And working in the Senate forever even through the age of say 78 and beyond. Of course, I don’t mind Senators being elected to three or four terms but the risk increases more after two terms.
Senator Pat Toomey also served just two terms, which I believe may have been a campaign pledge he originally did (unless I’m mistaken.). He’s now 64.
There’s always another Senator.
I agree with almost all of that but I think Stevens would be more easily able to win and hold the seat. El Sayed has never been attacked by a Republican and I think he would be far more vulnerable to a negative campaign.
A perfectly valid perspective. I'm not convinced by it -- I think Stevens is so thoroughly unimpressive that she's equally as weak as he is -- but it absolutely could be correct.
Thoughtful comment. I prefer Stevens, but in general am in alignment with you. It's too bad McMorrow couldn't have caught fire at some point as I think she's probably our strongest GE candidate. As I've said before, I think AES would probably win in this environment, but it's gonna be tougher than it has to be if/when he wins the primary (which I suspect he will)...
I hope this talk of “rallying around” Stevens should she win also gets applied to AES, or for that matter Hong, if they win.
Going to be honest, I am quite sick of hearing “vote blue no matter who” when a moderate or centrist wins, and “vote your values” or “I’m holding my nose for the Republican/not voting” if the left wing candidate wins, from the same people. Thankfully, that isn’t a position I’ve seen posters here take, you are all very good about supporting the nominee barring a Maureen Galindo-level situation - it’s more common in explicitly ideologically moderate circles. (If I have to see another fucking stupid opinion piece saying the DSA are a parasite or are an evil group trying to “hijack” the Democrats (as if that’s not what the center did when Clinton came around), explicitly trying to close the party to groups they don’t like. I don't like the DSA either but "big tent" does not only mean the center to the right. It means the left too.)
If moderates/centrists are willing to back AES or Hong if they win, I’ll do the same for Stevens or Craig.
Absolutely! Zero chance if faced with the choice I’d ever vote R or just not vote. Especially when “shitty candidate” here doesn’t mean “morally repulsive” in the way Cuomo or Platner, to give examples ideologically opposite, do.
Still worth hedging on who’s the best ticket leader
Hong/AES type candidates scare people for various reasons.
Fear of them not winning. Some folk have genuine concern that running candidates too far to the left will cost the Dems winnable seats. Especially in places that are swingy and not deep blue enclaves. And at this time, that is a risk we should not be taking. We need that check on Trump.
But I believe there is something else going on as well. And it isn't the fear they won't win, but the fear they will.
That is an entirely different proposition. If far left DSA candidates like AES/Hong, who are minorities no less, can win in swingy states, statewide, then what is the point of the more moderate centrist candidates in non-red turf?
It isn't better health care policy. Or a more moral & just foreign policy in the Middle East. Or a better plan to deal with global warming. Or get the money out of politics. Or returning democracy to the US Senate. Or making housing affordable.
The people and organizations who write big checks to moderate Dems do not want big, transformational type change. They like the system the way it is. As those checks, and our process itself, help ensure it does stay the same.
But if candidates like AES & Hong prove they can win in swing states, then that system will change, and PDQ (pretty darn quick). 2-3 cycles at most.
By 2030 you could be looking at a Dem President with a trifecta, and a big chunk of Senators & Reps who are either in the Bernie/Warren/AOC mold or are afraid of being primaried by someone who is. With the ability to draw new maps in redistricting. How do you like THEM apples?
In my view, the day is coming. It is inevitable. An increasing majority of Americans think the system is rigged towards the uber-rich. And red scare tactics and aversion to the "socialist" label is decreasing rapidly amongst younger voters of all stripes.
Frustration with the current system is growing. Every time a Dem trifecta fails to deliver, like Whitmer's did, that pressure builds. If it does deliver (Walz in MN, Pritzker in IL, and increasingly Newsom in VA and Hochul in NY post IDC post Mamdani), then that pressure disapates.
And even success can get overshadowed by rampant corruption and misdeeds that go unpunished.
Are we at a tipping point yet? IDK. In Dem enclaves, with a good candidate, a lot of times we are. And the more times the opposition cries wolf about the disaster that never happens if Mamdani or AOC types win, the less trepidation there will be about voting them in other places.
But one way to make sure we never reach that tipping point is to ensure the experiment never happens.
CA not VA. Darn fat fingers.
I don’t think we can chalk up AES’s success to disappointment in Whitmer’s second term. By all accounts, the vast majority of Democrats love her still. Jocelyn Benson is seen as extension of Whitmer and she seems on a glide path to the governor’s mansion now. If there were widespread disappointment in the state not being run progressively enough, why is the Senate race the one making the splash while the gubernatorial race is sleepy on the Democratic side?
AES isn't a DSA candidate or even identifies as a socialist. For the folks who believe that the socialist label is bad/hurts, it seems like a poor idea to converge certain candidates into that label and then blame them for the negative associations with it.
Interesting. Are there substantive things that differentiate him from socialists?
I'm sure you're right that people with money who oppose socialism do not want socialists to win, but the idea that progress is inevitable should have died with World War I, let alone World War II, and is something every rational person needs to put to bed. Nothing good will happen unless people work like Hell for it, and even then, it's far from guaranteed and will have to be defended forever. That's a fact, and history shows that.
I think you’re on to something. Spent 20+ years in the Badger State, and it ain’t all that. Miss some of it terribly, but not the progressive for me, not for thee BS.
I see so much bullshit about progressives not turning out for centrists, especially in the context of AES. It takes barely a minute to do some research and see that he endorsed Kamala in 2024 and, more relevantly, endorsed Gretchen Whitmer in 2018 after she defeated him in the gubernatorial primary.
And of course, we have Mamdani and the NYC mayors race. Several moderate Democrats, including Tom Suozzi, decided to endorse Cuomo over Mamdani, who won the nomination. Chuck Schumer couldn’t even make an endorsement in the race and id bet he’d be the first to start “tut tutting” about AES and his supporters backing Stevens in the general the second after she won the primary. I don’t know why progressives get all of the blame for not being team players when it’s a two way street. Well I kind of know why, but it’s still very annoying.
Progressives torpedoed Al Gore in 2000 with Ralph Nader and cost him the election. Some progressives attacked Hillary Clinton in 2016 and voted for Jill Stein or wrote in Sanders in 2016 and we just saw progressives attack Biden and Harris over a certain foreign policy issue in 2024. There is a huge difference between an election between a progressive and moderate Democrat and an election between a Democrat and a reactionary Republican.
It wasn't the progressives who stole the election from Al Gore. There were 57 Democrats in the Senate when Clarence Thomas was confirmed.
While that was certainly a mistake, no one could reasonably have had the foresight that that vote would change the outcome of a future presidential election. Even if they did, it wouldn't have come to that point if people hadn't voted for Nader over Gore.
I’m curious about whether I hallucinated a poll in which Trump was in the mid 30s on approvals and only 15% “strongly approve” - if that’s even remotely true, look out below
It was Washington Post/Ipsos. It had him at 37% approve, 61% disapprove.
There were some polls in the spring where it was close to 2 to 1 disapprove v approve. I think a couple even got there.
33/66. 32/64. Thirty points under.
Pew yesterday put out 34 approve, 64 disapprove. Though the gap between strong feelings was narrower, with 26 SA and 49 SD.
Thank you!
One thing I've wondered is if a big part of the apparent AES surge in Michigan (to the extent that there is a surge in his favor) is due to a lot of voters getting tired of seeing pro-Stevens ads on TV all the time.
This happened to Raja Krishnamoorthi in the IL-Sen Democratic primary back in March. Raja went out to a massive lead in early polls because his campaign had a massive amount of money and ran a ton of TV ads. Voters started ignoring Raja's ads, and, once another candidate in the primary, that being Juliana Stratton, started running TV ads, Stratton surged in the polls and went on to win the nomination.
There are two massive differences in this analogy, however:
1) Most of Raja's ads were from his campaign. Stevens's campaign has run zero TV ads of its own, relying entirely on outside groups for massive ad buys.
2) In Illinois, there was a split in both the establishment and the progressive ranks that Stratton was able to use to her benefit. Michigan is a straight-up establishment vs. progressive contest.
I don't know if AES is still really surging. Maybe so, but since McMorrow dropped out there's been a lot less of the "he's got it wrapped up" talk. He might well win, but it may be close either way. And I agree with what others said that neither remaining candidate is ideal; following Maine with Michigan, IMO Schumer's interventions have lately probably done more harm than good, but the "Bernie knows best" mentality hasn't been much better.
If this theory is true, than another person who may recently have overdone it with TV ads is David Trone, for both MD-Sen 2024 and MD-06 2026. Maybe he should take the hint that we're tired of being beaten over the head with his ads every two years.
VA-4 - I have no reason to believe that Jennifer McClellan is in any real danger of losing renomination or re-election, but Kalshi mysteriously dropped their odds of a Democratic win in the general election to 64% at one point for a reason I completely don't understand.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DbDYokOtD-t/?igsh=cG83ZGxhcDA4NTg1
I personally view prediction market odds as almost completely useless for substantiative election analysis, and this is one reason why.
Aren't we not even allowed to talk about Kalshi or prediction markets? Like, isn't it against the rules?
Rule 4: https://www.the-downballot.com/p/the-downballots-community-rules-of
I believe news refers to e.g. political spending by a prediction market's owner company, candidate positions on regulation of prediction markets, candidates or officeholder being caught using them, etc., not movement in market odds for specific wagers.
I'll remember that going forward.
I don't agree with you. I believe all discussion of betting on politics, except when it's a campaign issue because a candidate did it, is off-limits, but the phrasing is ambiguous enough for your interpretation to be reasonable, so the mods should clarify and rephrase as needed.
My guess is what happened here is that they tried to add an independent to the odds, and that completely threw off the system. The person who made that Instagram post is the independent running. That independent is running way to McClellan's left, and there isn't even a Republican running. There's no reason to believe this guy has any chance of winning, though.
Troy Jackson wins the Democratic nomination for US Senate in Maine.
Jackson won with 566 votes to Pelletier's 5, with the remaining 30 presumably abstaining.
Kicked in a small donation to his campaign now that it's official. Hope others will do the same if you can as he's getting a late start fundraising.
I just donated as well! As I said in a comment below, I think we should all also reach out to social networks and post on social media encouraging others to donate, too.
He's got to raise a lot of money fast, but it's doable if everyone who is progressive-minded chips in!
I just donated to him.
Kind of incredible that we went from choosing between two underwhelming candidates, to the winner imploding, to having arguably our best possible candidate.
I can only assume that Collins is concerned.
I never would’ve imagined that we would emerge from this whole ordeal in a better position than we started
I am sure the DNC, Dem Senatorial Cmte, and Schumer''s PAC will kick in large ASAP.
But he is still way behind monetarily.
The race he should have run in instead of Governor.
Here's to hoping for Sen. Troy Jackson (D-ME). I cannot describe what an enormous upgrade he'd be from Susan Collins. As a bonus, he is staunchly progressive, and supports Medicare for All (universal healthcare is a pet issue of mine -- I've been screwed a lot by the system as a type 1 diabetic.) I listened to part of his speech on MS NOW and I think he's stellar.
I think Jackson did run for Gov. could be mistaken, though
Yes, he did.
WI-GOV: GOP increases their ad buy boosting Hong to nearly $4M.
https://www.wispolitics.com/2026/fri-am-update-rga-adds-another-six-figures-to-its-effort-to-boost-hong-in-the-dem-gubernatorial-primary/
MI-07: New PAC that was created a week ago has begun spending big money on ads attacking Matt Maasdam and boosting Will Lawrence. The PAC is likely linked to GOP groups according to reporters.
https://x.com/PatrickSvitek/status/2081014211468025963
https://x.com/allymutnick/status/2080709608176332882
I’ll concede that Hong probably is the candidate the GOP would like to face the most. I think she might have a sort of “Platner” (bear with me for a sec) effect to her: A high ceiling but a low floor.
It’s worth noting that these sorts of strategies don’t always go according to plan. If I recall correctly, Democratic groups tried to help boost Benny Moreno in Ohio because they viewed him as an easier candidate for Sherrod Brown to beat, and now we’re stuck with senator Moreno. And it’s been mentioned here that something similar happened with Trump in 2016… Yeah.
I feel like this strategy only really works if you’re in a relatively safe state and simply want to run up the margins (Maryland in 2022 and 2026), or if your nominee is comparatively moderate against the opponent you’re trying to prop up. Wisconsin isn’t a safe state, and Tom Tiffany definitely isn’t a moderate. Hong is already ahead of her opponents by a decent amount - this has the potential to backfire and enable her to win by a much more dominating margin, which would give her a stronger mandate to the nomination and (hopefully) make it easier to unify the democratic base.
Could be. I'll be shocked if she can win a general election, though.
I still think the political environment is too blue to say it’s anything more than a tossup. I’d be more concerned if current polling already had Tiffany at 50% or more, but so far everything’s within the margin of error.
Not ideal, obviously, but what else can you expect when the current crop of candidates is so weak? I’m not going to fault Hong for running a campaign that gets people excited when every opponent she’s facing has made some bad missteps, the most questionable being Evers’ decision to back and endorse a candidate who already dropped out instead of one of Hong’s two remaining opponents, personal grudges be damned.
Frankly it depends on how Hong manages her past “abolish the police” position, and whether or not she can keep the electorate focused on her popular policies regarding the economy and affordability. Given that we’re reentering back into active war with Iran, it might be easier than it would’ve been prior, especially if the average national gas price reaches past $5.
Abolish prisons, too. I'd have to hold my nose very hard to vote for someone with her record of extremely dangerous political positions, and I'm a socialist and a radical in the context of American politics.
The others cannot even come out against data centers, and that is almost a 90/10 issue amongst Dems, 70/30 amongst the GOP and around 80/20 with indies.
I mean, other than being a corporate schill, give me a reason that makes sense for that.
Because they think they're necessary for progress or something? But probably because of campaign contributions.
If you don't see how "defend the police and abolish prisons" will be a much larger issue than being on the wrong side of data centers, then I don't know what to say. I fear that she will bring down the entire Democratic ticket in a race that any normal Democratic candidate should win easily.
As far as we know this year, dozens of people have lost elections all across the nation for being on the wrong side of data centers; conversely, the person on the wrong side of abolishing prisons will be a member of Congress in January.
In a wave year a lot is possible. Pat Toomey was incredibly far to the right and still won a swing state because 2010 was a red wave year.
I still haven’t been following her closely even with all the discussion of her here. Has she been making her dumb statements recently? It’s a lot easier to recover from saying something five years ago than five months ago.
Looks increasingly likely that we’re stuck with her regardless. Hoping she plays better in a general election is what I’d suggest we lean towards.
Extremist Republicans can win in swing states; it's very unclear that extremist Democrats can.
Depends on your definition of extremist. If Toomey and Santorum were extremist, some would consider Sherrod Brown and Ralph Warnock to be extremists.
Some would consider Manchin an extremist. I don't think we care about them.
We won’t know unless we try!
That doesn't sound at all smart to me. But yeah, we may have to find out...
Despote some on here continuing to pist it, she already walked back/reversed the defund the police from 5-6 years ago. I'd assume she will walk back the prison thing as well.
The problem is that she said these things and the GOP will run attack ads over and over on this. She can't unring that bell. Swing voters aren't going to give her a pass on this.
Santorum in ‘94 also.
Yeah, a real fanatic.
Santorum was first elected to a swing house seat in the Pittsburgh area in the early 90's and presented as much more moderate early in his career. He was even pro-choice when he was younger. I also suspect that he is another politician whose views changed during their career when he got into traditional Catholicism similar to JD Vance.
"shocked" might be too strong a word, given how blue the environment is shaping up to be, but she'll take a race that we should be running away with and put it in play and would be in very serious jeopardy in 2030...
We are going to go see the Odyssey! We love when conservatives get triggered at movies and shows casting black people, so we’ll watch it and the new Harry Potter series to support.
I am not touching Potter anymore. JK Rowling has become an extremely infamous transphobe — from what I’ve heard she is directly involved in getting funding for trans people pulled in the UK. She has gone on record saying if you financially support the series, you are supporting her views. No thanks.
As much as I loved it growing up A) Rowling has made it toxic and B) the original films are excellent and came out recently enough that I’m disinterested in a new take on the material
I too still like both the books and the original films, though so far I haven't attempted to follow anything post-Deathly Hallows, including Fantastic Beasts and the new series, though I understand it has a very good cast.
I'm not on board with the idea that Harry Potter should be extirpated from society or that one must sacrifice their progressive credentials if they read/watch it. As offensive as many of JK Rowling's beliefs are (and her whining when challenged about them only makes it worse), plenty of others closely involved with the series, including Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson, hold diametrically opposite views.
Right. The series itself is clearly a liberal work, too, even if one produced in a very Blairite context/definition of liberalism.
Beyond just Rowling (since I agree with you that it’s a good series that we shouldn’t pretend has always been bad just because she’s a thin-skinned shit person now) one reason I’ve never been interested in expansion material is that worldbuilding is her weakest aspect and vagueness about how the Wizarding World works works in the series favor - as does grounding it on the school and coming of age POV, and that her teenager characters are actually as dumb, brilliant, reckless, and whiny as actual teenagers.
Plus it’s a bit of a Marvel effect - endings are very hard, and like Endgame, Deathly Hallows is a very good and satisfying one. Sometimes you don’t need more story after it’s over
It's possible that the current wave of transphobia can be traced back to her. TERFism was already a thing in the U.K, but her late-2010s twitter posts helped amplify those voices and make them mainstream. If we think back to pre-2020s transphobia, a lot of it is, at least in the U.S, is what I would describe as biblical (i.e. that trans people are interfering with God's plan by transitioning). Since roughly 2020, in the U.S and especially the U.K (and much of the rest of the world), transphobia has shifted to the TERFy "protect women" argument, and the timing doesn't feel like a coincidence, considering she was far and away the most prominent cultural figure to be peddling that rhetoric. J.K Rowling, and all her TERFy friends, have likely changed the world in unforgiveable ways.
It's interesting how memory-holed the progression of rhetoric over 10 years can be. But I very much remember when that phrase TERF starting entering the wider parlance around trans rights issues. It was very much because there were radical feminists, i.e. feminists who sought emanciaption from men rather than equality with men, who did not seem trans women as part of their emancipitory project. Their voices were being elevated in the broader debate in part because they were really the only secular opponents of the trans rights movement. It was very much a thing then for trans rights activists to crash feminist meetings and make a scene if they were not welcomed. Such things were widely discussed on social media, etc., at the time.
I think Rowling rose to prominence in this debate precisely because she is not a radical feminist. The opinions that she used her fame as an author to platform were ones that expressed scepticism about trans inculsion in women's spaces on moderate feminist / equality grounds. Indeed this line of arguement - that sex-based women's spaces in sports, in institutional housing, etc. are needed on equality grounds - is far more widely held than the view that women need spaces free from oppression by men. It was indeed a pathway, at least in the UK, for the ultimately successful pushback on trans inclusion in women's spaces on the grounds that the equality act specifically protected sex-based characteristics. (The equality act does also consider gender transition a protected characteristic, but it was how to reconcile these two that was the question.)
I do also remember how the term TERF was increasingly thrown at people holding and expressing views that were in no way radically feminist. This mercifully ceased in the UK in 2021 when an employment tribunal ruled that a person could not be fired for "gender-critical beliefs". All sides of the debate starting referring to the position that sex rather than gender identity should control public accommodation as "gender-critical" and the term TERF largely faded, at least from the broader public discorce.
I find the term “gender critical” to be suspect, especially as pertains to the civil rights of trans people. It reminds me of racists who call themselves “race realists”.
Not necessarily accusing you of such beliefs, mind you. Just saying I am suspicious of the term.
Here in the UK, I've seen it used by both sides of the debate. And as I mentioned, it was popularised by a legal ruling. Though there may be some degree of biting sarcasm when trans rights advocates refer to gender criticals as such.
Good point on that, I hadn’t even known Rowling jumped the shark on vicious transphobia. I’ve been out of Potterworld since the 2011 release of Deathly Hallows 2 when I was in high school.
Oh man I really wanna see it in IMAX but the only viewings at reasonable times (read: before 10 PM) only have the first two rows left
According to Google, the closest legit IMAX to me is an AMC theater in NYC. I am not even going to try to get tickets because I know I will not get them for some time/at all.
On the plus side, maybe this will push IMAX back to constructing actual massive IMAX theatres, instead of normal theatres with IMAX sound systems that they misleadingly call “the IMAX experience”.
The Odyssey is great, enjoy!
For obvious reasons, the only race I'm interested today is Maine's Senate election.
While there are many important races this election cycle, winning Maine's Senate seat is by far the most important. Susan Collins's false brand of supposedly being a "moderate" has done immeasurable damage to our democracy. By inhabiting that role, she's been able to cover for Trump and the Supreme Court as they've wrecked our democratic institutions and guardrails. If she's allowed to continue her lies for another 6 years, she'll only make America worse.
Troy Jackson is officially the nominee now, and he's a great candidate. Even if he had serious flaws, I would still be supporting him.
So today, I made my first donation to his campaign, as he needs to raise money fast to match Susan Collins's warchest. If you can afford to donate, I would encourage you to do so, too. Here is the direct donation link from the Troy Jackson website:
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/loc_tdj_fr_web
Additionally, I think we should all try to get our various social networks to make a donation this weekend, too. I did my small part by making a post on BlueSky asking others to donate. I plan to send an email to progressive family members later today, too.
If you are able to make a post similar to the one I made here, please do so: https://bsky.app/profile/awildlibappeared.bsky.social/post/3mrilergm7k2g
Let's all step up for Maine and help Democrats win back control of the Senate! We can't do it without defeating Susan Collins.
I have already donated $10 to Troy Jackson, for what it’s worth. I plan to donate again when able.
Now that Arizona’s primaries are over, I have a question for posters here.
Neither candidate for Governor has chosen their pick for the newly-created office of Lieutenant Governor. Who mights Hobbs pick? Who might Biggs pick?
Speaking of offices that are newly-created, I heard Los Angeles will soon have a County Executive position. I can imagine a lot of ambitious politicians would want the seat — anyone have any speculation about potential contenders?
As for races I’m watching, besides the obvious MI-SEN, I’m watching MI-13 (Shri Thanedar vs Donavan McKinney), MI-SD-1, 2, and 3 (3 big races where progressive upstarts are getting involved), the U Michigan Board of Regents race (I cannot say why as it is intricately tied to a banned topic, so I ask we not elaborate), MO-01 (very curious to see who will win given both candidates’ scandals), GA-13’s special (which is next week and has not a lot of attention), MI-07 (contested primary with ideological dimension), MI-AG and MI-SoS (I want to see how progressives Eli Savit and Garlin Gilchrist do), KS-Gov (relative lack of polling leading to a potentially interesting result), and WA-03 (curious to see how MGP fares in her primary), among others. (And while Kshama Sawant has zero chance of winning WA-09, I’m curious to see if her inexplicably not bad fundraising translates to anything.)
What’s everyone else interested in?
For Arizona there’s been a lot of smoke I’ve seen suggesting that Hobbs has wanted to pick a republican. No idea how true it is but I certainly hope not. I’d expect a moderate democrat. Her narrow win in 2022 combined with our not narrow 2024 loss will make her want to play it safe, I assume.
Perhaps John Giles or Jack/Jimmy McCain?
Looked it up and apparently Giles has been floated around a lot.
Please no McCains. I'm tired of nepotism.
Why so a republican can take over if something happens? Is she that worried about Biggs?
It’s stupid, IMO. But there’s a type of democrat that loves to trot out republicans in their cabinet or similar to prove their moderate credentials.
I think some people ignore the costs and have deluded themselves with this idea that we can return to the days of calmer politics if we reward republicans.
Of course, we’re in this mess right now because Obama appointed a republican to lead the FBI…
Right? I could get my head around it for Gubernatorial candidates in places like KY and KS to choose a moderate R as their running mate to try and outrun the states political lean, but in an environment this blue, with Latinos appearing to snap back (close to) their prior political splits, AZ-Gov should be a relatively easy hold for us this year and this is not something she needs to do....
-Hobbs could nominate Anna Tovar, Biggs could nominate Jake Hoffman
-I think El-Sayed, McKinney, Brink, Savit and Gilchrist will win their respective Michigan races
-The GA-13 race is not high profile because it's expected Marcye Scott will win easily and be a placeholder until January
Susan Collins in full-on retreat as Trump's new attack on Canada threatens her state
https://www.rawstory.com/susan-collins-canada/
Your username is quite accurate to the story. What did the GOP think would happen when they threatened to annex our neighbors/now former allies?
I have no idea what to even think of the whole Canada situation anymore. I feel like I've heard 20 different takes from 20 different people about what's going on. I certainly don't blame anyone for hating us, for what it's worth. As I've said before, I hold everyone who voted Trump in/didn't vote/voted third-party in seething contempt for this slow-motion disaster. I wouldn't be surprised if this boycott lasts many years beyond Trump, and frankly I think it should. Canada deserves better.
The vibe I get from a lot of them is they want to pretend Trump didn’t say anything and business as usual but, yeah, that’s not really possible. And other countries aren’t (and don’t think they should be) bound by the weird domestic media precedent that we all just ignore that Trump is bugnuts
I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of Canadians are absolutely done with this, and a recent Pew Research poll confirms we think less of the United States than we do of China. I suppose we should thank Trump for helping to split the conservative movement in Canada between patriots and those seditious elements who want to submit to his rule, as evidenced by the Albertan separatist campaign. It has also pushed us to forge stronger links with other nations for trade and defence.
The Gordie Howe Bridge was just opened between Detroit and Windsor with a Canadian-only ceremony. It should have been a moment to celebrate the close relations we have shared. Instead I feel like it already an anachronism. The next border infrastructure should be a wall.
I figured as such. This was all depressingly avoidable, and quite frankly we deserve this. Ugh.
Actually, how do Canadians feel about China? Not in comparison to the U.S. but in general.
This is the poll I referenced. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2026/07/15/people-in-many-countries-now-view-china-more-positively-than-the-u-s/
44 percent of Canadians view China favourably, only 33 percent feel the same about the US. You will notice from the chart of all nations that it is not an either/or question, some countries like both, and others like neither. But the "like China more" camp is considerably larger.
I don't even blame you guys. What my country has done to you guys for absolutely no reason at all is appalling.
I wish there was something I could say or do, but I'm not sure if there even is anything. All I can say is that I support you guys boycotting us, and I'm from the place you're boycotting. I doubt that means much, but it's all I've got, unless you have a better idea.
Just keep voting, put pressure on your congressional delegation, and maybe look for Canadian products to buy once in a while. We make a pretty good maple syrup from what I've been told.
The alienation of our relationship with Canada is one of the top 10 things that Trump has done that fills me with white hot rage. He also took all the fun out of beating you guys for the Olympic hockey gold medal. The celebration was less joyous because of him.
No shock here.
Trump demands and orders E. Jean Carroll refunds $5.6M he's already paid her
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-e-jean-carroll-2677253942/
...No.
What do you mean no.
Do you mean no shock about this?
This really doesn't have anything to do with downballot races. There are 1,000,000 places on the internet to talk about Trump doing insane shit.
One could argue that South Carolinas role in the nominating process has been reduced by going first, they're going to get the Iowa treatment. What say ye?
I have a slightly different question related to SC: if SC does end up getting knocked off the Dem primary calendar someday, which Southern state might replace them? Virginia? I saw some talk of them being a possibility. If not them, then who?
Louisiana should replace SC if it gets knocked off the primary calendar. The LA Democratic Party base getting fired up early on in the primary cycle would help the party organize better.
From what a LA-based user here some time ago had mentioned, good portions of the state where there are considerable numbers of black residents have lackluster turnout. I’m referring to cities and regions outside of the Baton Rouge-New Orleans parts of the state.
Alternatively, Alabama would be another choice.
Isn’t the state party in Alabama really corrupt and poorly run? I heard the Dem chair there attempted to purge multiple caucuses for opposing him.
That's just the tip of the iceberg but not the real problem with the AL Democratic Party.
Back in the mid 2010's, the Democratic Party in the state was dealing with serious financial issues and was at the brink. AL was always a super red state but after Obama was elected as POTUS in 2008, everything went downhill for Democrats from there. It didn't help that the most vocal Democratic politician in AL, Rep. Artur Davis, spoke in support of Mitt Romney for POTUS back in 2012 (even after Davis spoke at the 2008 DNC Convention in support of Obama). Additionally, former Governor Don Siegelman never got pardoned by Obama when he was POTUS, which was absolute negligence even while he pardoned Chelsea Manning of all people only days before he left the White House.
Back in 2024, the AL Democratic Party Chair said the party's finances were better than before even while Democrats have struggled to field candidates credible enough to run. Doug Jones, who is running for Governor, was elected to the U.S. Senate in the 2017 special election but that only gave the state party a temporary boost.
That said, I think in the primary process AL as a state would ensure Democrats would challenge themselves to fire up the base, get them involved and register more voters. It would be good for the party to get invigorated energy so that about more than just a presidential primary and special election.
https://www.al.com/wire/2013/04/the_alabama_democratic_party_a.html
The issue with states like Virginia, Georgia, or North Carolina is that while they are more diverse, they are also much more expensive, which would make it hard for all but the most prominent candidates to be competitive there. The reason Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina go first is that they represent different parts of the Democratic base, and none of them are outrageously expensive to run a campaign in.
NH is absolutely an expensive state to run a campaign in. Half the state lives in the Boston media market.
The media market is expensive, but it's compact enough that it reduces the amount of travel and campaign offices. Compare this Georgia, which also has an expensive media market, as well as a lot of second and third tier cities that are spread out across the state.
I just don't see that as a meaningful factor. The reduction in travel and campaign offices is not going to have any real impact on the cost of a campaign.
Plus, not to belabor the point, but: for multiple generations now and the foreseeable future, our presidential candidates will need to be able to raise and spend lots of money and travel a lot. Why would we want to give an advantage to candidates who struggle with that?
I mean....there's an argument for putting the bigger hurdles first so that only candidates who show their fundraising chops are competitive.
If we're smart we'd go with a southern state that is competitive.
All that organizing energy, money, and campaign staff should be invested into a state where we can actually win statewide. It's why I wish Georgia was ahead of SC.
If we're not going to pick purple states, then we should preference blue states before we preference red states. But we should pick purple states.
I say that primaries are different from caucuses.
I know how a lot of people here feel about Bluesky and what's going on there (namely, that they're not fans) but I wanted to share this because I'm very curious and I'd like to see what you guys think.
https://bsky.app/profile/reginageorgebush.bsky.social/post/3mriszbrtxc26
Primary School author Kevin asked his followers on Bluesky which non-Senate races are they watching. Some interesting responses in there -- I'll highlight a few I saw that I was intrigued by:
- CT-Gov: A lot of people seem to think Josh Elliott could get closer than expected. He is apparently running a serious campaign -- and I know offhand that Lamont was involved in some controversial vetoes.
- NJ-2: One poster apparently lives near there and wants him out. I agree.
- WI-Gov was a popular one obviously, and GA-Gov was also mentioned.
- AK-AL was mentioned due to the possibility of an independent in Congress being elected there. (The poster also amusingly noted that Bill Hill sounds like the name of a character from a Fox animated sitcom that only lasted one season.)
- TN-9, as a test to see if the extreme gerrymander receives backlash.
- Some hyper-local races were also mentioned, including the Ward 5 runoff in Eugene, OR (between a moderate incumbent and progressive challenger) and the AZ Mine Inspector race (as a test of partisanship in AZ headed into future elections).
I recommend reading the whole thread, it's really interesting. For posters here though, I'll ask: what are your thoughts on the races/rationales shared in the various replies? And which races do you have your eye on that aren't Senate races?
I’m always curious how state legislature races hash out. Democrats here in WA for instance feel bullish about a breakthrough in picking off seats centered in Yakima for the first time off a Latino backlash, and a lot of progressive, but non socialist, incumbents in Seattle may be at risk in their top twos
Curious about the Seattle point. At risk by who? Leftier/DSA challengers, or centrists?
And for that matter, what is the general opinion of Katie Wilson? Is said opinion affecting the races?
Leftier challengers. And my view is that if you’re somebody who thinks Jamie Pedersen is insufficiently left wing then your probably the outlier, but Seattle gonna Seattle (especially Cap Hill)
Granted I’m a center-leaning suburbanite (and would not have voted for Wilson had I lived in the city, Harrell was a pretty good mayor and he’s actually had real jobs/not had his mortgage paid by his parents his whole life after dropping out of college) so take this with a grain of salt but my read is that Wilson so far has not done much to elicit controversy or excitement in either direction. That’s to her credit - boring and competent is good, especially for somebody that was a bit of a question mark coming into office
As a fellow center-leaning Seattle suburbanite, I agree with your assessment. I didn't understand the objection to Harrell and thought he had done a good job (and it's not like he's some MAGA Republican) but Wilson, in general, has been less terrible than I expected her to be.
I agree that "boring and competent" is good, and have had enough of strident boat rockers from either the left or the right.
As a center-leaning DC suburbanite, if I lived in the District I would have voted for Kenyan McDuffie over DSA darling Janeese Lewis George. But JLG does at least seem decently versed in city governance, with six years on the Council, and her base of support seems well spread and balanced throughout much of the city; she's not the product or tool of some narrow demographic or geographic clique.
AK-AL:
I’m not familiar with AK Democrats like others here but since Mary Peltola is has cleared the field as a Senate candidate, an Independent candidate running for the House would be interesting.
The leading Dem candidate dropped recently, leaving the AK-AL race with only two candidates who have raised money, the incumbent Republican (Begich) and Indy Bill Hill.
I'm aware the Democratic candidate dropped out although because Bill Hill is in the race. I was mainly arguing that there are no other high profile Democrats like Mary Peltola (or even Tom Begich) who would have run in the AK-AL race.
I'm not sure how credible of a Democratic candidate Matt Schultz was before he ended his campaign. If say Peltola ran in the House race instead of for the Senate, the outcome for her would have been much different vs. Schultz.
Missouri, Endorsements: The St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Editorial Board announced it won't make any future endorsements in general elections. The P-D will continue to make endorsements in primaries, ballot measures, and nonpartisan elections (e.g. mayoral).
https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/editorial/article_0ce0f100-82ea-428c-b70e-05880156058f.html
Newspaper endorsements matter far less than they did a few decades ago, especially in partisan general elections.
But it's still a copout and a dereliction of duty to bow out of them, in my opinion, especially if they're going to continue to endorse in primaries.
Honestly I suspect it's mostly a business decision. You alienate the subscribers who disagree and pursuade almost no one. Who, in 2026, is going to vote for the other party for some downballot race because of a newspaper endorsement?
Yes, probably, but still a copout and dereliction of duty.
HI-GOV: Hawaii Lt. Gov. Sylvia Luke indicted on bribery charges
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/25/hawaii-lt-gov-sylvia-luke-indicted-bribery-01012225
"A grand jury on Friday returned a 12-count indictment charging Luke with criminal conspiracy to commit bribery, bribery and falsifying campaign committee reports. The charges stem from a monthslong investigation by the Hawaii attorney general’s office into allegations the lieutenant governor accepted campaign contributions from businessperson and lobbyist Tobi Solidum in exchange for helping advance a Covid-19 testing contract while she served as chair of the state House Finance Committee in 2022."
What happens next? Also, does the gubernatorial candidate choose the lieutenant governor in Hawaii, and if so, how bad a political hit is this for the governor?
Hawaii is a "shotgun marriage" state the gov and lt are selected in separate primaries but then have to run together as a single ticket I don't believe Gov Green and Lt. Gov Luke were viewed as close allies and i dont think her scandals ill have any effect on him
Green already chose a temporary successor, and that caused a big chain reaction when Green briefly left the state so the acting governor eventually became some finance guy.
If the LG resigns, they would be replaced based on a line of succession established by Hawaii law for vacancies in the LG position.
https://elections.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FS118BO001-Succession-to-Vacancies.pdf
The Senate President would be first in-line, then House Speaker, then it'd run thru the state cabinet offices, starting with the Attorney General. The people in these positions can decline taking up the LG's office, in which case the opening would be offered to the next person in line.
Currently, acting LG Keith Regan is the state Comptroller, who is 5th in line. I'd imagine that if Sylvia Luke were to resign at this point, she'd be fully replaced by Keith Regan.
I doubt Senate President Kouchi, House Speaker Nakamura, or AG Lopez (who is running the investigation) would take up the office, having already turned it down previously. I'm not sure about if Finance Director Colby would take up the position (he's the state's equivalent to Treasurer), but Regan's already doing part of the job and probably would do it for the remainder of the year if needed.