Wanted to save this discussion for the weekend crew:
Rural voters from 2021 to 2025 moved more Democratic than the state overall did in Virginia. Even Republicans took notice of what happened in their own backyard.
Spanberger makes inroads with rural Republicans unhappy with Trump
The governor-elect deviated from past Democrats’ strategies by spending time in deep-red rural Virginia.
The result was a rude awakening for some rural-state Republicans, who have long relied on large margins in these deep-red areas. “Last night, honestly, was an awakening for a lot of folks,” said Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.V.) Wednesday. “If you don’t pick up on what really happened last night, the margin of victory … then I think you’re living in a cave.”
Spanberger outperformed Kamala Harris’ margin in 48 of Virginia’s 52 rural localities. And according to exit polling, she won 46 percent of rural voters — an 8-point deficit to Republican rival Winsome Earle-Sears, and a 19-point swing from 2021 Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffe’s 27-point disadvantage.
Spanberger, the first woman elected governor in Virginia’s history, deviated from party orthodoxy by spending significant time campaigning in the deep-red rural pockets of the state, even as recently as last week. Her messaging there focused almost exclusively on the economic issues ailing rural America during the first nine months of the Trump administration, including the seismic impact of tariffs and the fallout on rural health care from Medicaid cuts.
The fact is that, counterintuitively, urban and particularly suburban voters really like it when politicians spend more time campaigning in rural areas. Ralph Northam did the same thing in 2017, and his rural numbers in the election were only so-so but he did superbly (by the standards of the time) in cities and suburbs.
It was the same way this year. Spanberger may have done better in rural areas than the extremely low standards of Harris or especially T-Mac, but she still didn't do that well there, and her truly impressive numbers were in the suburbs. If you compare Spanberger's results to Obama's from 2008, she underperformed him in most of the rural areas despite winning by 15 while Obama won by only 7. It was in the suburbs where she outperformed him by huge margins - Fairfax went from O+21 to S+47, Loudoun went from O+8 to S+29, Henrico went from O+12 to S+39, Chesterfield went from M+8 to S+17, etc.
There was a group, the 100 district project, that got candidates to run in all districts, including the ruby red districts. These candidates weren't delusional, they knew they were going to lose, but they ran anyway. They did get out talking with people in these rural areas, promoting Democratic values, and Spanberger campaigned with these candidates. It likely boosted her votes in areas where Democrats might be tempted to stay home.
I can't say one way or the other but if done right the advantage of statewide campaign coming into one of those districts coordinating with local candidates is you know what terf has been gone over or not and additional canvassers can focus on that.
I’m sorry, but I cannot believe any Democratic supporter can look at getting 46% of the rural vote and say she didn’t do that well there and the real impressive results were the suburban and urban areas. That’s not borne out in the data at all.
If you’re comparing to Obama 2008, you’re comparing entirely different party coalitions and changes that don’t show any of the recent electoral shifts that makes these stats less impressive than they first appear.
If we can get 46% of the rural vote we have a 55-45 Senate and a 250 seat House majority. This is a big freaking deal! We lost rural voters in the 2018 blue wave by 21 points 38-59. In 2025 we lost them by only 8! This is new and totally unheard of since Obama. The ramifications of which are exponential if Democrats can repeat it in 2026.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m always glad for urban and suburban shifts moving towards us, but the rural number shifts are astonishing and is the story of the 2025 elections, because it also happened in GA, PA and NJ and tbqh no one and I mean no one expected rural voters to come back to Democrats for any race and they came back in every race on election night.
It's very simple. Spanberger didn't get 46% of the rural vote. That stat is simply wrong. Exit poll crosstabs really shouldn't be relied on like this.
Just look at any precinct-level map of the results. Spanberger probably got around 35% of the rural vote, and less than 30% of the white rural vote.
Either that, or whoever did the exit poll has an extremely skewed definition of what a rural area is, that renders any analysis based on it useless.
EDIT: Thinking about this more, I suspect the latter is the issue here. Whoever did the exit poll probably just called everything in Virginia outside of NoVA, the Richmond area, and Hampton Roads as "rural". Which means that cities like Roanoke and Charlottesville are lumped in as "rural" even though they clearly aren't. Frankly, this makes any analysis that uncritically uses those exit poll numbers pretty much worthless.
On this map, Harris won cities 72-26, suburbs 56-41, and small towns 53-45. Trump won rural areas 67-32. The 2025 data in DRA is incomplete since it only includes votes cast on Election Day - hopefully it will be updated once the state has finished assigning early and mail-in votes to precincts.
Yeah even just the county maps tell the story (and certainly a more accurate one than exit poll crosstabs). You don't even have to go back to 2008, Spanberger did way worse with rural voters than Tim Kaine 2018 or Ralph Northam 2017, but she did do better than McAuliffe 2021 or Harris 2024. But the biggest movement, areas where Spanberger not only vastly outperformed McAuliffe and Harris but also exceeded Kaine '18, Northam '17, and even Biden '20 was in the suburbs, setting modern records for a VA Dem. NoVA, Stafford to Spotsylvania counties, almost 70% in Henrico and nearly 60% in Chesterfield my goodness...this while Earle-Sears was still over 70% in a ton of rural counties and even cracking 80% in the far southwestern ones.
I'd love to believe there's been a massive snapback in rural America but I'm not seeing it anywhere I look at Tuesday's results. What I am seeing instead is that we'd probably flip VA-01 even if the districts aren't redrawn, but not VA-05, where Spanberger was barely ahead of Harris in some counties. If there are to be shockers next year the evidence from this week points to red suburban seats like CO-05 being the targets.
With respect for all your hard work and informative posts, you're nuts.
I don't see how you can say there wasn't a rural snapback (and a sifnificant one).
Only a bare handful of counties in VA, NJ, PA, and GA COMBINED didn't move left. A lot of that is rural. Period. The GA candidates woukd have won WITHOUT metro Atlanta!
Most of those rural counties, particularly in Virginia, only moved to the left a little bit. The swings in suburban areas were much larger. And Georgia is an exceptional case because of how Republicans basically slept through the election.
I think the larger point is that her relative improvement in the rural areas was bigger. (Regardless of how you define rural. What's truly rural is always somewhat subjective.) Of course those baselines were much lower, meaning there were more voter that could flip. But it still belies the argument that those areas are gone forever and that we should just ignore rural voters and their concerns. Every State and district is different, but in many cases lowering the margin of loss in red areas is as important as juicing the blue ones.
Democrats mathematically had to have won around 45% of the white vote. The black vote was at 31.9% statewide. It will be closer in 2026, sure. But these results nonetheless point to solid D wins for Senate and Governor in a full turnout election nonetheless.
They shouldn't really be thought of as partisan political races; it was more a referendum on rising electricity prices than anything. The incumbents really had no argument besides trying to argue all of those price hikes were needed for a reliable grid (which is bullshit). I really wouldn't waste time trying to extrapolate for next year, although I think Ossof is the clear favorite.
Yes, These are partisan contests. And no, nothing suggests this kind of turnout pattern with a 22% rate can be extrapolated to 2026, which may well be another record setting midterm.
The mule rule. One needs to get to the county court and get back on a mule the same night. LOL
The county unit system, a kind of within state electoral college, used by Southern Democrats’ primaries, prevented a lot of possible consolidations. No small counties wanted to give up the units they had there. Until it gets ruled unconstitutional.
A lot of rural counties have no reason to be a separate entity anyway. Just wasting resources on higher administration costs per capita.
Thanks for the history. Didn't know that. When I lived in WV there was discussion about consolidating some counties, because they were set up based on a horse rule. Never happened but should have. That's a lot of tax money going to unnecessary county admin.
Question for people here: do you think Mamdani would have won if Harris was president? I feel like part of his appeal was that he was running against an unpopular democratic establishment. But I don’t think dems would be so down on their own party if Harris had won.
There was a piece in Politico where Mamdani said he didn’t even think he’d do well, and that wasn’t the point of why he ran. He ran so the DSA could expand their base in NYC, which very much appears to have happened — in addition to him winning.
I wouldn’t be so sure on that. Cuomo was the foil, Trump was the rocket fuel. If Cuomo still ran and Mamdani still ran, I can still see Mamdani winning with Harris as president due to Cuomo’s sexual assault accusations. Then again I could also see Lander getting the winning coalition as the left, but not too left flavour Democrats would likely choose if Harris beat Trump. I don’t think we can say anything with certainty, there’s so many possible hypothetical outcomes that depend on who actually would run.
He announced his candidacy before the 2024 election, so he very likely would have still run.
Given RCV and the genuine distaste people had for Cuomo, I think he might have become the nominee, but I don't know if he would have beaten Cuomo in the general as easily.
So this isn't directly related to elections, but I want to hear what you all think. Apropos of a discussion I recently had with a relative, how much do you think is a reasonable salary for the CEO of a large corporation (like, say, Ford or GM)? Most people on the left (including me) believe that salaries of corporate CEOs are too high, but I'm wondering what you all think is an appropriate salary for such a position.
I don't think it's a number but more a ratio that should be codified into law. I think somewhere between 20-40x the average workers salary is sufficient.
In the year I was born, 1958, the top marginal tax rate was 91%, and there were 24 progressively increasing rates getting there. Due to deductions, the super rich were paying a top actual rate of about 45%, but still 91% at the margin.
Okay Tesla, pay Elmo $1 trillion and the Treasury just got over $900 billion for expenditures for the public good, and Elmo gets $100 billion for rocket fuel to Mars.
The issue is not executive salary. But the idea that these dudes have the same marginal tax rates as, say, a mid-level law firm associate? Insane.
Idea I've been kicking around in my head - I am pretty dumb regarding money, but I think this is an understandable concept that would "sell" - every factor of 10 is a marginal rate bump. So, rises at $1M, $10M, $100M, $1B, etc. Even if each bump is just another 2 or 3% (I'd prefer 5%, at least for the $1M and $10M marks), that should be significant money without being so out of whack that "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" find the rates absurd.
Agreed. I don't have a problem with massive salaries for corporate execs - a brass ring isn't a bad thing - although I don't understand why even poorly performing execs get massive packages, but that's a different conversation. The issue, as you point out, is that they wind up paying the same effective tax rate as their secretary...
While I do have opinions on that, I wouldn’t mind the over compensation so much if tax rates (and covering stock options etc at full rates) went up sufficiently with income. If a CEO is going to earn $100m but pay 70% or 80% of that in taxes isn’t as bad.
The tough thing with “salary” as a measure here is so much of CEO compensation at public companies is in the form of stock. Which, if you think about their responsibilities. Makes a certain sense. Packages awarded one year might be worth much more when the shares finally vest. Bezos for instance at Amazon was infamously limited to the same 160k salary cap everybody else at the company had - but in practice he obviously made way way more.
Honestly the issue is more how pliant boards are when approving absurd comp packages that are divorced from actual performance. Tesla being a prime example
Stock compensation makes sense because of the role, but I've long felt that the time tables for it do not. So much of the corporate world right now is hyperfocused on chasing short to medium term results, rather than setting the business up for the longest terms of success.
I'd like to see some method to incentivize the C-suite roles specifically to look at the longer term. There's going to be real world holes in any idea here, but something where the compensation part of the stock is disadvantaged (or disadvantaged after exceeding a certain dollar threshold) for a long time, maybe a decade.
This was made worse by a nominally populist change that Clinton championed. Basically having a high base salary is penalized, but "performance" pay is exempt. This led to boards approving these absurd packages exec get now.
Honestly I think neither should be penalized or exempt but that’s just me. I don’t think it’ll solve the core issue of boards being pliant and a paucity of shareholder activists
I agree with Januslanitos that the biggest problem isn’t the pay, but the tax rate they pay on their salary (and to be honest for any form of wealth they acquire, shares of stock, property, jets, cars etc).
But if I had to put a number on it I’d say 10-25m a year would be fair for a CEO with tens of thousands of employees under them with a company making billions. But that should be the absolute max, no one needs more than that to afford to do anything or buy anything they could possibly want.
Probably about what it was in 1995, adjusted for average wage growth. Nothing in the economy was out of whack then, and corporate governance was no worse than it is now.
I blame Clinton, somewhat counterintuitively, for trying to cap CEO pay, but in a way that left a huge gaping loophole. When compensation was largely base pay then it grew more slowly. Now that's it's largely performance pay, it's much easier for execs to argue that they're "worth" whatever ridiculous amount they can get the compensation committee to green light.
Seattle Mayor: In a race that was part of the prediction contest -- With more ballots counted, Katie Wilson has reduced Bruce Harrell’s lead to 1.9% (4,300 votes) compared to the 8-point lead Harrell held on Wednesday. More results will be released on Monday.
Hahaha not the first time DDHQ has had to eat shit over their premature, overly aggressive "calls". Outrageous post-2020 to still be doing this stuff, we know the last batches of ballots can be wildly different. They haven't learned their lesson at all after previous retractions they've had to make.
They could theoretically push the filing deadline back. Just the other day, after the deadline passed, Pritzker again expressed interest in redirecting. I don’t see it happening but the chance it does happen is at least above 0
I hope you and Morgan are right that they can. I'm not sure if it creates another legal hurdle or not to create a new filing deadline after the old one passed. As Techno00 said above another benefit would be Chuy Garcia's plans to hand his seat over with no primary would go up in smoke.
I don’t think necessarily. I think they’ll change filing deadlines if they feel the need to change the maps as an equal move to Indiana changing theirs.
I have no idea how they fumbled it so bad. I know the PSC has got to be near the bottom of statewide office prestige, but it's a morale coup for state Dems.
They had no message . . ."vote for us, the guys who raised your rates by 25% over the past 4 years" was just a doomed message. And amidst such price hikes attempted dooming about renewables tanking the grid just fell flat, especially in a state that has a lot of clean energy jobs.
Kemp still spent $4 million on it. It was both poor GOP turnout, but also persuasion, like we saw in other states. Disproportionate black turnout does not account for a margin that massive by itself.
Democrats consistently stuck to affordabilty as an issue and pushed that the incumbent R's had voted six times to raise electricity rates. Dems also ran a strong GOTV operation. And we had help. "The Georgia Conservation Voters and allied groups emerged as major players, spending more than $3 million and contacting nearly 1.8 million voters through mailers, billboards, text programs and a digital campaign built around a blunt refrain: 'They Raised Your Bill.'” https://www.ajc.com/politics/2025/11/how-georgias-psc-races-are-already-changing-the-midterm-landscape/
I think it was messaging as much as anything else. The incumbents were well funded, but that doesn't matter if you can't articulate a reason to vote for you beyond the R next to your name. And the Dems had a very clear message since utility bills in GA have been skyrocketing.
Lots of new special elections coming up in December and the early months of 2026, plus a bunch to be called in states like New York, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Connecticut. I am wondering why it is taking so long to call elections to replace 4 GOP state reps in Missouri, one of them has been vacant since January, another in May, and two more in August. Is there concern about blowback from their legislative agenda, gerrymandering, and the general electoral picture?
After this week, the race that I'm most interested in is the Tennessee 7th congressional special election on December 2nd.
It's a long shot for Democrats to flip, but it's a long shot worth pursuing.
The Democratic nominee, Aftyn Behn, is trying her damn hardest. I decided to chip in with a donation to her campaign. If anyone else is able to do so, please consider it:
You're referring to yesterday's digest? I might suggest checking your "Promotions" tab (if you use gmail or the like) or "Spam" to see if it might have been filtered somewhere.
You find interesting things when you look through Virginia's precinct-level election results (*after* the early and mail-in votes have been assigned to their precincts).
For example, I just found that, possibly for the first time in any election since Mark Warner's landslide victory in 2008, a Democrat won a precinct in Rockingham County (the county that surrounds Harrisonburg, in the Shenandoah Valley). The precinct consists of the town of Massanetta Springs, a small town just outside of Harrisonburg that I assume is largely a bedroom community of it. This area has been slowly trending Democratic just like Harrisonburg itself has, but this is the first election where the precinct has actually flipped Democratic. Spanberger won it 52-48, and Hashmi won it as well. The Democratic Delegate candidate, Andrew Payton, narrowly lost it 51-49, while unsurprisingly Jay Jones was the worst-performing Democrat here, losing it 54-46.
This is important because it clearly shows that the Democratic influence of Harrisonburg is now spilling over into the nearby towns as well. This is the first step in the process of Harrisonburg becoming the next Charlottesville. Don't forget that Albemarle County (which surrounds Charlottesville) voted for Kerry by just 2 percent in 2004, while this year giving Spanberger 70 percent of the vote. The process has to start somewhere. And this is also a good sign for Democratic chances in HD-34 in the future. The Republican incumbent, Tony Wilt, had his closest-ever re-election this year, winning just 52-48, and better turnout in Harrisonburg plus a further softening of Republican support in the surrounding areas like Massanetta Springs would be enough to flip this seat blue.
That would be a huge mistake. They need to put Louise Lucas in charge of it - she clearly wants to go 10-1.
And frankly, after the huge wave in Virginia we got this year, Dems have no excuse not to go 10-1. It wouldn't be too difficult to draw one district that voted 75% for Sears, and then have every other district go 60-40 Spanberger.
Which is ironic - part of that was because of Rep. Zoe Lofgren not wanting a competitive district, but now there is speculation that she will retire anyway and be replaced with assembly speaker Robert Rivas.
Lofgren would not have gotten a competitive district in any case. The worst that would happen is that her district would have moved from 63% Harris to something like 59% Harris. Still 100% safe.
Here's a 9D-2R drawn quickly drawn by one of the more thoughtful/less partisan RRH Elections members, that doesn't baconmander or otherwise cut up the state too outrageously, and doesn't unpack NOVA:
Not bad, and the map could be easily made further safe by swapping some of the redder areas of Lynchburg and around Roanoke for Harrisonburg. The 10th could also be made safer by swapping some territory with the 11th.
The 2nd and 3rd are bizarre though. There's no need for the 2nd to include any part of the Virginia Peninsula, and it should include all of Norfolk. A VA Beach/Norfolk/Eastern Shore/small portion of Chesapeake district is just begging to be drawn.
I’ve drawn multiple 10-1 maps of Virginia, so I know it’s doable. It’s possible to draw a map where even Glenn Youngkin only won one district. All you have to do is turn VA-09 into as much of a Republican vote sink as possible.
Nebraska has appointed another state treasurer, effective this past Thursday. As some background, John Murante had been reelected in 2022 to a second term before resigning for a new job in 2023. Gov. Pillen then appointed Tom Briese, who was effectively the floor leader of the official nonpartisan and unicameral state leg (chair of the executive board). A more ring-wing former member of the state leg, Julie Slama, had been sounding out a primary run against him, so Briese says he's retiring to spend more time with his family. Pillen then announces Joey Spellerberg, then the mayor of Fremont, as the new treasurer the same day Slama launches her campaign and says he'll run in 2026 too. Both Spellerberg and Slama had been considered with Briese was first appointed. Regardless, NE has had three people serving as treasurer since the 2022 election with two unelected appointees.
I want to emphasize what an insanely good night Tuesday was for Onondaga County NY Democrats.
Sharon Owens won 74% of the vote in the open Syracuse mayoral race, which is just ridiculous. In 2013 Steph Minor as an incumbent only won reelection with 64% with no Republican opposition.
And in the county legislature, Democrats flipped five light blue suburban seats that we always contest and never win. And the margins were 10+ in all but the hardest district where Julie Abbott, who the NRCC tried to recruit to run against Mannion for NY-22, lost by four points. That is not normal around here in the land of downballot Republican strength. Democrats haven't had a majority in the county legislature since the 1970s, which is before I was born and before the current county government with an executive was set up in the 80s. We've been voting Democrat for president since 1992.
The Republican County Executive Ryan McMahon (who was not on the ballot) was running an ad running up to the election that felt like a reelection ad (but again, he's not on the ballot) where he urged us to vote for the "people that support him" or some such vague statement, but what he really meant was "vote Republican", but he didn't actually say Republican. When I saw it before the election I just figured he had too much money to throw around, now I think he was actually panicking. His whole electoral career, from city council to county legislature to county executive, is built on winning over downballot ticket splitters.
We need to be careful in acknowledging politicians like Flake and Cheney. They supported Harris because she wasn't Trump and for no other reason. As soon as Trump is gone, they will go back to being Republican and we will disagree on virtually everything they stand for.
Flake served in the Biden administration. I could maybe see him switching back if the traditionalists retook control, but not as long as MAGA types are running the party. There isn't much left of the traditionalist wing at this point anyway. Some of them now make up the right end of the Democratic coalition, some are retired or on their way out, and some have gone MAGA.
That's fine - they're Republicans. I appreciate it when they step in and point out the danger Trump and his minions pose to the country. I don't expect them to actually be Democrats and support all of our positions.
Jeff Flake became persona non grata in the Republican Party because of his outspoken criticism of Trump. That’s why he retired from the Senate in 2018. Unless his standing in the GOP has improved since then, his criticism of Trump will not have any sway with the Republican base.
New: James Talarico follows several adult film performers, escorts and OnlyFans models on Instagram, according to an Axios review.
His spokesperson JT Ennis said in a statement that "the social media team — including James — follows back and engages with supporters who have large followings and does not investigate their backgrounds. James has never subscribed to Only Fans or an escort service.”
Talarico’s spokesperson: "While James was unaware of how these women make money, he does not judge them for it and will not play into an effort to smear them for clickbait articles. That's exactly what his Christian faith calls him to do."
Alex Thompson
@AlexThomp
·
2h
Here are some of the accounts:
Alex Thompson
@AlexThomp
·
1h
The campaign said Talarico has messaged with only one of the accounts and shared a screenshot of the exchange, which was a simple "thank you" for an Instagram story in 2024 appearing to promote his political work.
If you're explaining, you're losing. The Democrats' only chance in Texas may be for them to have a squeaky-clean candidate. I don't see any good reason to gamble on Republican attack ads about this not working.
I'm a bit torn on this. I think his answer is good for society and I agree with it, but at this point winning is all that really matters, so if we think this could cost him even a point in GE margin, we probably need to turn our attention elsewhere. Good news here is that 1)this is happening over a year before the election and 2) we have a perfectly good alternative in Allred.
Yeah good points from you and others. Axios is beginning to stoop to Politico levels of sad — I’ve seen articles from them with the same “unnamed Democratic staffer” bullshit Politico likes to pull too.
I'm really not sure what type of voter bases their decision based on if a candidate followed a porn star or not, especially when the most likely opponent cheated on his wife.
I don't know how that works now, but in recent history, attacking others for your own weak points has worked for Republicans, and muddying the waters to try to make the two candidates both sullied could easily work to the advantage of the state's Republican lean.
most people that you reference are not the problem...rural texans who likely are raging hypocrites will still take Talarico to the wood shed over this...they are the problem
Hopefully Democrats have learned not to fall for bogus sex-related non-scandals like this. First was Katie Hill, whom the Republicans disgustingly accused of wrongdoing when in fact she was the victim of revenge porn. Then there was Susannah Gibson two years ago, whose completely consensual sexual activities with her husband were warped into another non-scandal that gave Republicans two unearned years in that seat (and luckily, that Republican was heavily defeated this year). Democrats need to circle the wagons around Talarico now to prevent him from being next. This absurd puritanism needs to stop immediately.
A big part of Talarico's claim to being a different type of Democrat is his emphasizing his Christian values. He should not win the primary. If he does, of course all Democrats should support him!
I just couldn't disagree more. Anybody with a stick up their ass enough to care was never going to vote Democratic anyway. We live in a new era of politics; the scandals of 20 years ago wouldn't make a dent now.
Just putting my opinion that I could not give a shit about this “controversy” and I think a lot of Trump leaning voters we need to get back may actually find this appealing: he sounds like a normal heterosexual guy. You can be Christian and still think hot women are hot.
Correct. Not because I have a problem with what he did - I couldn't care less. But because of the political effects. Allred is fine and can win if people don't want to vote Republican.
If you can't see how a politician as skilled as Talarico can not only survive this, but actually turn this into a positive, I don't know what to tell you. There is nothing about this that doesn't align with his Christian values, and his being able to pivot to point out Paxton's (or Trump's) actual sexual scandals will neuter the story. Who cares what Texas Republicans will say? They have scary things to say about every Dem. Talarico could go on Joe Rogan again this week and use this "story" to further appeal to young men. We need to stop assuming what swayable voters will think about every little thing. Too many did that with Trump in 2015/16, Trump after January 6th, and even as recently as this past week with the AG race in Virginia and the "terrible campaign" Sherrill ran in NJ. They will most likely vote their wallets first, and Talarico is an exceptional communicator on that and other issues of interest to voters.
Do you actually think this is immoral or are you just worried that others will?
There's nothing in Christianity that particularly prohibits this. Even some of the passages like the one about "adultery of the heart" are talking about your internal response, not a behavior.
I think all 12 people in rural Texas who could possibly vote for a Dem won't care about this. The other 199,988 people weren't considering any Ds, ever.
I don’t disagree about Talarico, but Susanna Gibson really deserved to lose that election, especially since she was just arrested for domestic battery a month ago (she says she’s innocent, but still, I’m glad we now have Democrat May Nivar in that seat instead of her).
I agree with Michael that the Christian aspect combined with this may pose a problem — but I also think this is overblown and I’ll add that Christianity in general has become far too puritanical about sex to begin with (and I am a Christian!)
That history goes back to at least the 16th century. This really cool show about sex in the Middle Ages gives the context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8JPN9tWVPQ&t=579s Things changed as a result of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation in response to it.
May I recommend a great British TV-series? "Coupling" is a rawer version of "Friends" and, imho, far more interesting and less insipid. A couple of modest examples:
Honestly this just makes him more relatable to male voters.
What makes this different from Christian Coalition types doing the same thing is that Talacio's brand of progressive Christianity doesn't demonize sex or promote policies that do so. Huge nothingburger.
As a Texas voter, I'll say this 1) speaking for myself, it doesn't faze me nor is it disqualifying for me. I haven't spoken with any activists about this, but I know a good number who are supporting Talarico over Allred because they felt Allred's campaign last time wasn't very active or present. 2) I donated to Talarico when he announced, and after finding out the author of this Axios piece is the same guy that co-authored that Biden book with Jake Tapper, I just donated again to Talarico's campaign. 3) I'm still voting for Talarico in the primary and hopefully in the general.
And so followers follow James Talarico and he follows them back.
Only in 2025, just like back in the 2010's, would there be such a "breaking news" story about following and unfollowing behavior. Like this is REALLY going to mean anything.
More evidence social media is distracting Axios and other media outlets who have nothing better to do than waste their time on nonsensical stories.
if this is just a "follow back", without any further engagement from Talarico, like private messages, there is absolutely no story there, and it wont even register with younger people, who know exactly how that works.
Now if there is evidence he is privately engaging with these individuals/getting services, then that's something entirely different.
Wanted to save this discussion for the weekend crew:
Rural voters from 2021 to 2025 moved more Democratic than the state overall did in Virginia. Even Republicans took notice of what happened in their own backyard.
Free read from Politico: https://archive.ph/4Jst2
Spanberger makes inroads with rural Republicans unhappy with Trump
The governor-elect deviated from past Democrats’ strategies by spending time in deep-red rural Virginia.
The result was a rude awakening for some rural-state Republicans, who have long relied on large margins in these deep-red areas. “Last night, honestly, was an awakening for a lot of folks,” said Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.V.) Wednesday. “If you don’t pick up on what really happened last night, the margin of victory … then I think you’re living in a cave.”
Spanberger outperformed Kamala Harris’ margin in 48 of Virginia’s 52 rural localities. And according to exit polling, she won 46 percent of rural voters — an 8-point deficit to Republican rival Winsome Earle-Sears, and a 19-point swing from 2021 Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffe’s 27-point disadvantage.
Spanberger, the first woman elected governor in Virginia’s history, deviated from party orthodoxy by spending significant time campaigning in the deep-red rural pockets of the state, even as recently as last week. Her messaging there focused almost exclusively on the economic issues ailing rural America during the first nine months of the Trump administration, including the seismic impact of tariffs and the fallout on rural health care from Medicaid cuts.
The fact is that, counterintuitively, urban and particularly suburban voters really like it when politicians spend more time campaigning in rural areas. Ralph Northam did the same thing in 2017, and his rural numbers in the election were only so-so but he did superbly (by the standards of the time) in cities and suburbs.
It was the same way this year. Spanberger may have done better in rural areas than the extremely low standards of Harris or especially T-Mac, but she still didn't do that well there, and her truly impressive numbers were in the suburbs. If you compare Spanberger's results to Obama's from 2008, she underperformed him in most of the rural areas despite winning by 15 while Obama won by only 7. It was in the suburbs where she outperformed him by huge margins - Fairfax went from O+21 to S+47, Loudoun went from O+8 to S+29, Henrico went from O+12 to S+39, Chesterfield went from M+8 to S+17, etc.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/11/6/2177781/-The-Virginia-100-District-Project-The-Results-Speak-for-Themselves
There was a group, the 100 district project, that got candidates to run in all districts, including the ruby red districts. These candidates weren't delusional, they knew they were going to lose, but they ran anyway. They did get out talking with people in these rural areas, promoting Democratic values, and Spanberger campaigned with these candidates. It likely boosted her votes in areas where Democrats might be tempted to stay home.
Reverse coattails?
benefits of a coordinated campaign.
I'm skeptical about how many votes the downballot candidates got for the governor's race.
I can't say one way or the other but if done right the advantage of statewide campaign coming into one of those districts coordinating with local candidates is you know what terf has been gone over or not and additional canvassers can focus on that.
I’m sorry, but I cannot believe any Democratic supporter can look at getting 46% of the rural vote and say she didn’t do that well there and the real impressive results were the suburban and urban areas. That’s not borne out in the data at all.
If you’re comparing to Obama 2008, you’re comparing entirely different party coalitions and changes that don’t show any of the recent electoral shifts that makes these stats less impressive than they first appear.
If we can get 46% of the rural vote we have a 55-45 Senate and a 250 seat House majority. This is a big freaking deal! We lost rural voters in the 2018 blue wave by 21 points 38-59. In 2025 we lost them by only 8! This is new and totally unheard of since Obama. The ramifications of which are exponential if Democrats can repeat it in 2026.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m always glad for urban and suburban shifts moving towards us, but the rural number shifts are astonishing and is the story of the 2025 elections, because it also happened in GA, PA and NJ and tbqh no one and I mean no one expected rural voters to come back to Democrats for any race and they came back in every race on election night.
It's very simple. Spanberger didn't get 46% of the rural vote. That stat is simply wrong. Exit poll crosstabs really shouldn't be relied on like this.
Just look at any precinct-level map of the results. Spanberger probably got around 35% of the rural vote, and less than 30% of the white rural vote.
Either that, or whoever did the exit poll has an extremely skewed definition of what a rural area is, that renders any analysis based on it useless.
EDIT: Thinking about this more, I suspect the latter is the issue here. Whoever did the exit poll probably just called everything in Virginia outside of NoVA, the Richmond area, and Hampton Roads as "rural". Which means that cities like Roanoke and Charlottesville are lumped in as "rural" even though they clearly aren't. Frankly, this makes any analysis that uncritically uses those exit poll numbers pretty much worthless.
Here's a quick-and-dirty sketch of how I would divvy up Virginia. Blue is cities, green is suburbs, purple is small towns, and red is rural areas.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/64abda64-675c-4c0e-af33-e5e9c0ea59b7
On this map, Harris won cities 72-26, suburbs 56-41, and small towns 53-45. Trump won rural areas 67-32. The 2025 data in DRA is incomplete since it only includes votes cast on Election Day - hopefully it will be updated once the state has finished assigning early and mail-in votes to precincts.
Yeah even just the county maps tell the story (and certainly a more accurate one than exit poll crosstabs). You don't even have to go back to 2008, Spanberger did way worse with rural voters than Tim Kaine 2018 or Ralph Northam 2017, but she did do better than McAuliffe 2021 or Harris 2024. But the biggest movement, areas where Spanberger not only vastly outperformed McAuliffe and Harris but also exceeded Kaine '18, Northam '17, and even Biden '20 was in the suburbs, setting modern records for a VA Dem. NoVA, Stafford to Spotsylvania counties, almost 70% in Henrico and nearly 60% in Chesterfield my goodness...this while Earle-Sears was still over 70% in a ton of rural counties and even cracking 80% in the far southwestern ones.
I'd love to believe there's been a massive snapback in rural America but I'm not seeing it anywhere I look at Tuesday's results. What I am seeing instead is that we'd probably flip VA-01 even if the districts aren't redrawn, but not VA-05, where Spanberger was barely ahead of Harris in some counties. If there are to be shockers next year the evidence from this week points to red suburban seats like CO-05 being the targets.
With respect for all your hard work and informative posts, you're nuts.
I don't see how you can say there wasn't a rural snapback (and a sifnificant one).
Only a bare handful of counties in VA, NJ, PA, and GA COMBINED didn't move left. A lot of that is rural. Period. The GA candidates woukd have won WITHOUT metro Atlanta!
How can 2 ppl looking at the same data reach such different conclusions re: rural snapback? Where is the delta?
Most of those rural counties, particularly in Virginia, only moved to the left a little bit. The swings in suburban areas were much larger. And Georgia is an exceptional case because of how Republicans basically slept through the election.
I think the larger point is that her relative improvement in the rural areas was bigger. (Regardless of how you define rural. What's truly rural is always somewhat subjective.) Of course those baselines were much lower, meaning there were more voter that could flip. But it still belies the argument that those areas are gone forever and that we should just ignore rural voters and their concerns. Every State and district is different, but in many cases lowering the margin of loss in red areas is as important as juicing the blue ones.
Here's a map comparing her win to Tim Kaine's 17 point win in 2018: https://nitter.poast.org/BruneElections/status/1987659860410765570#m
Perfectly illustrates my point. Spanberger did better in the cities and suburbs, while Kaine did better in the rural areas.
How big were Tuesday's Democratic wins in Georgia? As Greg Bluestein writes, the Democrats running for the PSC outperformed Harris’s 2024 vote share in 157 of 159 counties and won so big that they would have won even without the votes from the Atlanta area’s five deep-blue counties. https://www.ajc.com/politics/2025/11/how-georgias-psc-races-are-already-changing-the-midterm-landscape/
Republicans didn't show up. Georgia went from R +2 in 2024 to D +25 this year.
Obviously we are not getting anything close to that in 26.
https://x.com/TheMaineWonk/status/1986784720575738355?t=M1e330PXWpZrOlWcZEqimg&s=19
Democrats mathematically had to have won around 45% of the white vote. The black vote was at 31.9% statewide. It will be closer in 2026, sure. But these results nonetheless point to solid D wins for Senate and Governor in a full turnout election nonetheless.
They shouldn't really be thought of as partisan political races; it was more a referendum on rising electricity prices than anything. The incumbents really had no argument besides trying to argue all of those price hikes were needed for a reliable grid (which is bullshit). I really wouldn't waste time trying to extrapolate for next year, although I think Ossof is the clear favorite.
Uh, yes, they should? They were quite clearly partisan races, defined on partisan lights. "Don't Dem the lights" was literally the GOP slogan.
Yes, These are partisan contests. And no, nothing suggests this kind of turnout pattern with a 22% rate can be extrapolated to 2026, which may well be another record setting midterm.
Yeah. And worse, Trump’s margin of victory in GA last year dropped compared to where it was in 2016.
Considering all the recent-ish races that we lost because Dems “didn’t show up,” it’s nice to have the opposite happen for a change.
159 counties is ridiculous.
The mule rule. One needs to get to the county court and get back on a mule the same night. LOL
The county unit system, a kind of within state electoral college, used by Southern Democrats’ primaries, prevented a lot of possible consolidations. No small counties wanted to give up the units they had there. Until it gets ruled unconstitutional.
A lot of rural counties have no reason to be a separate entity anyway. Just wasting resources on higher administration costs per capita.
Thanks for the history. Didn't know that. When I lived in WV there was discussion about consolidating some counties, because they were set up based on a horse rule. Never happened but should have. That's a lot of tax money going to unnecessary county admin.
Question for people here: do you think Mamdani would have won if Harris was president? I feel like part of his appeal was that he was running against an unpopular democratic establishment. But I don’t think dems would be so down on their own party if Harris had won.
Without Trump as a foil, I doubt Mamdani wins the Democratic primary. Honestly, he might not even have run.
Somebody like Mike Gianaris might have hopped in but probably not Mamdani no
There was a piece in Politico where Mamdani said he didn’t even think he’d do well, and that wasn’t the point of why he ran. He ran so the DSA could expand their base in NYC, which very much appears to have happened — in addition to him winning.
I wouldn’t be so sure on that. Cuomo was the foil, Trump was the rocket fuel. If Cuomo still ran and Mamdani still ran, I can still see Mamdani winning with Harris as president due to Cuomo’s sexual assault accusations. Then again I could also see Lander getting the winning coalition as the left, but not too left flavour Democrats would likely choose if Harris beat Trump. I don’t think we can say anything with certainty, there’s so many possible hypothetical outcomes that depend on who actually would run.
He announced his candidacy before the 2024 election, so he very likely would have still run.
Given RCV and the genuine distaste people had for Cuomo, I think he might have become the nominee, but I don't know if he would have beaten Cuomo in the general as easily.
I agree.
I don't think he would have been able to amp the youth vote to the same extent. His primary win was pretty convincing though, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
So this isn't directly related to elections, but I want to hear what you all think. Apropos of a discussion I recently had with a relative, how much do you think is a reasonable salary for the CEO of a large corporation (like, say, Ford or GM)? Most people on the left (including me) believe that salaries of corporate CEOs are too high, but I'm wondering what you all think is an appropriate salary for such a position.
I don't think it's a number but more a ratio that should be codified into law. I think somewhere between 20-40x the average workers salary is sufficient.
It was 20-1 in the 1950s. Now it’s 280-1.
In the year I was born, 1958, the top marginal tax rate was 91%, and there were 24 progressively increasing rates getting there. Due to deductions, the super rich were paying a top actual rate of about 45%, but still 91% at the margin.
Okay Tesla, pay Elmo $1 trillion and the Treasury just got over $900 billion for expenditures for the public good, and Elmo gets $100 billion for rocket fuel to Mars.
Also, relatively high rate of unionization. In terms of economic inequality it was a golden age.
Really need to find a way to spur union growth. That's a much better, empowering strategy than "command economy" stuff.
As old as my father-in-law!
The issue is not executive salary. But the idea that these dudes have the same marginal tax rates as, say, a mid-level law firm associate? Insane.
Idea I've been kicking around in my head - I am pretty dumb regarding money, but I think this is an understandable concept that would "sell" - every factor of 10 is a marginal rate bump. So, rises at $1M, $10M, $100M, $1B, etc. Even if each bump is just another 2 or 3% (I'd prefer 5%, at least for the $1M and $10M marks), that should be significant money without being so out of whack that "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" find the rates absurd.
Agreed. I don't have a problem with massive salaries for corporate execs - a brass ring isn't a bad thing - although I don't understand why even poorly performing execs get massive packages, but that's a different conversation. The issue, as you point out, is that they wind up paying the same effective tax rate as their secretary...
While I do have opinions on that, I wouldn’t mind the over compensation so much if tax rates (and covering stock options etc at full rates) went up sufficiently with income. If a CEO is going to earn $100m but pay 70% or 80% of that in taxes isn’t as bad.
And Social Security tax on every last dime of income – no ceiling.
The tough thing with “salary” as a measure here is so much of CEO compensation at public companies is in the form of stock. Which, if you think about their responsibilities. Makes a certain sense. Packages awarded one year might be worth much more when the shares finally vest. Bezos for instance at Amazon was infamously limited to the same 160k salary cap everybody else at the company had - but in practice he obviously made way way more.
Honestly the issue is more how pliant boards are when approving absurd comp packages that are divorced from actual performance. Tesla being a prime example
Stock compensation makes sense because of the role, but I've long felt that the time tables for it do not. So much of the corporate world right now is hyperfocused on chasing short to medium term results, rather than setting the business up for the longest terms of success.
I'd like to see some method to incentivize the C-suite roles specifically to look at the longer term. There's going to be real world holes in any idea here, but something where the compensation part of the stock is disadvantaged (or disadvantaged after exceeding a certain dollar threshold) for a long time, maybe a decade.
This was made worse by a nominally populist change that Clinton championed. Basically having a high base salary is penalized, but "performance" pay is exempt. This led to boards approving these absurd packages exec get now.
You can argue that any salary is performance based. That was an idiotic loophole.
Honestly I think neither should be penalized or exempt but that’s just me. I don’t think it’ll solve the core issue of boards being pliant and a paucity of shareholder activists
This is a much more eloquent way of saying what I was trying to say above
I agree with Januslanitos that the biggest problem isn’t the pay, but the tax rate they pay on their salary (and to be honest for any form of wealth they acquire, shares of stock, property, jets, cars etc).
But if I had to put a number on it I’d say 10-25m a year would be fair for a CEO with tens of thousands of employees under them with a company making billions. But that should be the absolute max, no one needs more than that to afford to do anything or buy anything they could possibly want.
But you’re forcing those CEOs to settle for a mere Joe Manchin-size yacht,
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/10/02/21/48684515-10052853-image-a-97_1633204937625.jpg
…dooming them to never compete with Jeff Bezos. The horror and injustice!
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MRYEcushHjc/maxresdefault.jpg
Probably about what it was in 1995, adjusted for average wage growth. Nothing in the economy was out of whack then, and corporate governance was no worse than it is now.
I blame Clinton, somewhat counterintuitively, for trying to cap CEO pay, but in a way that left a huge gaping loophole. When compensation was largely base pay then it grew more slowly. Now that's it's largely performance pay, it's much easier for execs to argue that they're "worth" whatever ridiculous amount they can get the compensation committee to green light.
Haha he made this stupid exception for pay being “performance based”. Exceptions=loopholes.
Seattle Mayor: In a race that was part of the prediction contest -- With more ballots counted, Katie Wilson has reduced Bruce Harrell’s lead to 1.9% (4,300 votes) compared to the 8-point lead Harrell held on Wednesday. More results will be released on Monday.
Decision Desk had called for Harrell — I have a feeling they may regret that decision soon.
Yeah either they know how much else is out there or that was way premature
There are about 46K left to count. If Wilson gets the same percentage of the votes on Monday that she gt today, the race is very, very close.
"The firm Decision Desk HQ has rescinded their projection that incumbent Bruce Harrell would prevail over his challenger Katie Wilson in the Seattle mayor’s race. The firm . . . made the projection Thursday, Nov. 6, based on what they now say was incorrect information on the number of ballots remaining to be counted." https://www.kuow.org/stories/kuow-contractor-decision-desk-HQ-retracts-call-projecting-harrell-s-victory-in-mayor-s-race
Well there you go.
Hahaha not the first time DDHQ has had to eat shit over their premature, overly aggressive "calls". Outrageous post-2020 to still be doing this stuff, we know the last batches of ballots can be wildly different. They haven't learned their lesson at all after previous retractions they've had to make.
I'm not sure its fair to call it a premature call when they were given incorrect information.
Do you have a link to the updated live count for Seattle Mayor?
Just from media. Here is Seattle times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/katie-wilson-gains-on-bruce-harrell-as-mayors-race-goes-down-to-the-wire/
Here is a local source: https://westseattleblog.com/2025/11/election-results-fourth-round-cuts-harrells-lead-over-wilson-to-less-than-two-percent/
There is also a link to the NPR station that I included earlier.
I'm assuming any redistrcting this cycle in Illinois is off the table with the filing deadline passing?
Was wondering that myself. (It’d certainly put a dent in Chuy Garcia’s plans otherwise.)
Would appear so.
They could theoretically push the filing deadline back. Just the other day, after the deadline passed, Pritzker again expressed interest in redirecting. I don’t see it happening but the chance it does happen is at least above 0
I hope you and Morgan are right that they can. I'm not sure if it creates another legal hurdle or not to create a new filing deadline after the old one passed. As Techno00 said above another benefit would be Chuy Garcia's plans to hand his seat over with no primary would go up in smoke.
I don’t think necessarily. I think they’ll change filing deadlines if they feel the need to change the maps as an equal move to Indiana changing theirs.
So what's the story with the GA Public Sevices Commission elections that Dems won? Did the state GOP completely snooze on it?
That's pretty much the conclusion I've drawn.
It was D+25 electorate lol. So yes.
I have no idea how they fumbled it so bad. I know the PSC has got to be near the bottom of statewide office prestige, but it's a morale coup for state Dems.
They had no message . . ."vote for us, the guys who raised your rates by 25% over the past 4 years" was just a doomed message. And amidst such price hikes attempted dooming about renewables tanking the grid just fell flat, especially in a state that has a lot of clean energy jobs.
Ah yes, utilities costs. That's a solid reason considering the PSC's role.
Kemp still spent $4 million on it. It was both poor GOP turnout, but also persuasion, like we saw in other states. Disproportionate black turnout does not account for a margin that massive by itself.
Democrats consistently stuck to affordabilty as an issue and pushed that the incumbent R's had voted six times to raise electricity rates. Dems also ran a strong GOTV operation. And we had help. "The Georgia Conservation Voters and allied groups emerged as major players, spending more than $3 million and contacting nearly 1.8 million voters through mailers, billboards, text programs and a digital campaign built around a blunt refrain: 'They Raised Your Bill.'” https://www.ajc.com/politics/2025/11/how-georgias-psc-races-are-already-changing-the-midterm-landscape/
I think Ken Martin being DNC Chair has helped the Democratic Party become consistently on message and not veering off too much from it.
We are going back to the bread and butter topics. And it’s working as the election results are proof of this.
Democrats managed to win the 1st, 10th and 12th districts, with the 1st and 12th going around 57-43 trump and the 10th like 62-38 iirc
I think it was messaging as much as anything else. The incumbents were well funded, but that doesn't matter if you can't articulate a reason to vote for you beyond the R next to your name. And the Dems had a very clear message since utility bills in GA have been skyrocketing.
Lots of new special elections coming up in December and the early months of 2026, plus a bunch to be called in states like New York, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Connecticut. I am wondering why it is taking so long to call elections to replace 4 GOP state reps in Missouri, one of them has been vacant since January, another in May, and two more in August. Is there concern about blowback from their legislative agenda, gerrymandering, and the general electoral picture?
After this week, the race that I'm most interested in is the Tennessee 7th congressional special election on December 2nd.
It's a long shot for Democrats to flip, but it's a long shot worth pursuing.
The Democratic nominee, Aftyn Behn, is trying her damn hardest. I decided to chip in with a donation to her campaign. If anyone else is able to do so, please consider it:
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/aftyn-behn-website
And FWIW, the DNC is getting more involved in the race now, too.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/dnc-chair-campaign-democrat-running-deep-red-tennessee-house-special-e-rcna242589
Why don't I get the morning feed in my email? I have subscribed.
You're referring to yesterday's digest? I might suggest checking your "Promotions" tab (if you use gmail or the like) or "Spam" to see if it might have been filtered somewhere.
You find interesting things when you look through Virginia's precinct-level election results (*after* the early and mail-in votes have been assigned to their precincts).
For example, I just found that, possibly for the first time in any election since Mark Warner's landslide victory in 2008, a Democrat won a precinct in Rockingham County (the county that surrounds Harrisonburg, in the Shenandoah Valley). The precinct consists of the town of Massanetta Springs, a small town just outside of Harrisonburg that I assume is largely a bedroom community of it. This area has been slowly trending Democratic just like Harrisonburg itself has, but this is the first election where the precinct has actually flipped Democratic. Spanberger won it 52-48, and Hashmi won it as well. The Democratic Delegate candidate, Andrew Payton, narrowly lost it 51-49, while unsurprisingly Jay Jones was the worst-performing Democrat here, losing it 54-46.
This is important because it clearly shows that the Democratic influence of Harrisonburg is now spilling over into the nearby towns as well. This is the first step in the process of Harrisonburg becoming the next Charlottesville. Don't forget that Albemarle County (which surrounds Charlottesville) voted for Kerry by just 2 percent in 2004, while this year giving Spanberger 70 percent of the vote. The process has to start somewhere. And this is also a good sign for Democratic chances in HD-34 in the future. The Republican incumbent, Tony Wilt, had his closest-ever re-election this year, winning just 52-48, and better turnout in Harrisonburg plus a further softening of Republican support in the surrounding areas like Massanetta Springs would be enough to flip this seat blue.
Virginia Dems may only go for 2 seats in redistricting per the Senate Majority Leader
https://x.com/margaretbarthel/status/1986857618648768843?t=wDgKZZaLD9jW4-xmiqNMXA&s=19
Like...the 2 seats that Spanberger won, perhaps? Why don't they go for the 5th as well?
That would be a huge mistake. They need to put Louise Lucas in charge of it - she clearly wants to go 10-1.
And frankly, after the huge wave in Virginia we got this year, Dems have no excuse not to go 10-1. It wouldn't be too difficult to draw one district that voted 75% for Sears, and then have every other district go 60-40 Spanberger.
Dems are very risk averse and they don't want to offend the political class who would be shocked at dems for "overreaching".
Maybe a year ago that was true, but the passage of Prop 50 in California just completely destroyed this argument.
Even in California they played it safe with the districts.
Which is ironic - part of that was because of Rep. Zoe Lofgren not wanting a competitive district, but now there is speculation that she will retire anyway and be replaced with assembly speaker Robert Rivas.
Why in the world did Zoe Lofgren get her wish? I’ve never seen a good explanation.
Lofgren would not have gotten a competitive district in any case. The worst that would happen is that her district would have moved from 63% Harris to something like 59% Harris. Still 100% safe.
Well, Surovell could reasonably say that not every year is going to be 2025, and a more ambitious map does pose a potential dummymander risk.
But a two seat gain seems too timid. If 10-1 is maybe stretching a bit too thin, then 9-2 (a three seat pickup) seems doable?
Clearly the compromise position.
9-2 is extremely easy to make wave-proof. You can draw 9 seats that even McAuliffe won by close to double digits with two 75%+ Youngkin seats.
Here's a 9D-2R drawn quickly drawn by one of the more thoughtful/less partisan RRH Elections members, that doesn't baconmander or otherwise cut up the state too outrageously, and doesn't unpack NOVA:
https://davesredistricting.org/maps#viewmap::2d3fadd7-0bb1-47cf-a158-2c2b28c11a56
Not bad, and the map could be easily made further safe by swapping some of the redder areas of Lynchburg and around Roanoke for Harrisonburg. The 10th could also be made safer by swapping some territory with the 11th.
The 2nd and 3rd are bizarre though. There's no need for the 2nd to include any part of the Virginia Peninsula, and it should include all of Norfolk. A VA Beach/Norfolk/Eastern Shore/small portion of Chesapeake district is just begging to be drawn.
I’ve drawn multiple 10-1 maps of Virginia, so I know it’s doable. It’s possible to draw a map where even Glenn Youngkin only won one district. All you have to do is turn VA-09 into as much of a Republican vote sink as possible.
Nebraska has appointed another state treasurer, effective this past Thursday. As some background, John Murante had been reelected in 2022 to a second term before resigning for a new job in 2023. Gov. Pillen then appointed Tom Briese, who was effectively the floor leader of the official nonpartisan and unicameral state leg (chair of the executive board). A more ring-wing former member of the state leg, Julie Slama, had been sounding out a primary run against him, so Briese says he's retiring to spend more time with his family. Pillen then announces Joey Spellerberg, then the mayor of Fremont, as the new treasurer the same day Slama launches her campaign and says he'll run in 2026 too. Both Spellerberg and Slama had been considered with Briese was first appointed. Regardless, NE has had three people serving as treasurer since the 2022 election with two unelected appointees.
https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/11/03/nebraska-state-treasurer-tom-briese-resigns-pillen-appoints-fremont-mayor-joey-spellerberg/
I want to emphasize what an insanely good night Tuesday was for Onondaga County NY Democrats.
Sharon Owens won 74% of the vote in the open Syracuse mayoral race, which is just ridiculous. In 2013 Steph Minor as an incumbent only won reelection with 64% with no Republican opposition.
And in the county legislature, Democrats flipped five light blue suburban seats that we always contest and never win. And the margins were 10+ in all but the hardest district where Julie Abbott, who the NRCC tried to recruit to run against Mannion for NY-22, lost by four points. That is not normal around here in the land of downballot Republican strength. Democrats haven't had a majority in the county legislature since the 1970s, which is before I was born and before the current county government with an executive was set up in the 80s. We've been voting Democrat for president since 1992.
The Republican County Executive Ryan McMahon (who was not on the ballot) was running an ad running up to the election that felt like a reelection ad (but again, he's not on the ballot) where he urged us to vote for the "people that support him" or some such vague statement, but what he really meant was "vote Republican", but he didn't actually say Republican. When I saw it before the election I just figured he had too much money to throw around, now I think he was actually panicking. His whole electoral career, from city council to county legislature to county executive, is built on winning over downballot ticket splitters.
Need more of this to happen: repubs turning on trump... https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5596571-jeff-flake-donald-trump-criticism/?utm_campaign=TheHill-trending-stories&utm_source=ktla.com&utm_medium=thehill-cross-brand
Flake doesn't count. He supported Harris.
We need to be careful in acknowledging politicians like Flake and Cheney. They supported Harris because she wasn't Trump and for no other reason. As soon as Trump is gone, they will go back to being Republican and we will disagree on virtually everything they stand for.
Absolutely. But I'm saying that his continued opposition to Trump, while great in itself, is not noteworthy.
Flake served in the Biden administration. I could maybe see him switching back if the traditionalists retook control, but not as long as MAGA types are running the party. There isn't much left of the traditionalist wing at this point anyway. Some of them now make up the right end of the Democratic coalition, some are retired or on their way out, and some have gone MAGA.
I will never forgive him for being the deciding vote for Kavanaugh.
That's fine - they're Republicans. I appreciate it when they step in and point out the danger Trump and his minions pose to the country. I don't expect them to actually be Democrats and support all of our positions.
Jeff Flake became persona non grata in the Republican Party because of his outspoken criticism of Trump. That’s why he retired from the Senate in 2018. Unless his standing in the GOP has improved since then, his criticism of Trump will not have any sway with the Republican base.
New: James Talarico follows several adult film performers, escorts and OnlyFans models on Instagram, according to an Axios review.
His spokesperson JT Ennis said in a statement that "the social media team — including James — follows back and engages with supporters who have large followings and does not investigate their backgrounds. James has never subscribed to Only Fans or an escort service.”
https://x.com/AlexThomp/status/1987178250338983961
Not good. Could this theoretically hurt him?
Of course it theoretically could. The question is whether it actually would.
And I sure think it will. He doesn't look so Christian now, does he?
Talarico’s spokesperson: "While James was unaware of how these women make money, he does not judge them for it and will not play into an effort to smear them for clickbait articles. That's exactly what his Christian faith calls him to do."
Alex Thompson
@AlexThomp
·
2h
Here are some of the accounts:
Alex Thompson
@AlexThomp
·
1h
The campaign said Talarico has messaged with only one of the accounts and shared a screenshot of the exchange, which was a simple "thank you" for an Instagram story in 2024 appearing to promote his political work.
If you're explaining, you're losing. The Democrats' only chance in Texas may be for them to have a squeaky-clean candidate. I don't see any good reason to gamble on Republican attack ads about this not working.
I'm a bit torn on this. I think his answer is good for society and I agree with it, but at this point winning is all that really matters, so if we think this could cost him even a point in GE margin, we probably need to turn our attention elsewhere. Good news here is that 1)this is happening over a year before the election and 2) we have a perfectly good alternative in Allred.
In a day and age when the President hooked up with a porn star and sexually assaulted women while his wife was pregnant?
Yeah, no, this ain't hurting Talarico a bit. And Axios is kind of pathetic for doing such a lame "gotchya" piece.
Yeah good points from you and others. Axios is beginning to stoop to Politico levels of sad — I’ve seen articles from them with the same “unnamed Democratic staffer” bullshit Politico likes to pull too.
I'm really not sure what type of voter bases their decision based on if a candidate followed a porn star or not, especially when the most likely opponent cheated on his wife.
Feels pretty "meh" to me
I don't think your vote is at issue. But really, following escorts is meh?
The president is a sexual assaulter. Voters are a lot more open minded nowadays.
Yes, if they are Republican voters judging a Republican.
Or voting for the AG of Virginia
In the general election, yes. But Virginia is Democratic-leaning, and Texas...Besides, Jones lost loads of votes over that.
Most people who are on social media understand that following an account does not necessarily mean endorsing everything about that account.
Only the most deeply partisan conservatives will care, and they'll be pretending to care.
You want Republican attack ads on this?
Yeah? If anything it might highlight Paxton's actual sex scandals.
I don't know how that works now, but in recent history, attacking others for your own weak points has worked for Republicans, and muddying the waters to try to make the two candidates both sullied could easily work to the advantage of the state's Republican lean.
most people that you reference are not the problem...rural texans who likely are raging hypocrites will still take Talarico to the wood shed over this...they are the problem
If the problem didn't go past rural whites, that might not be a problem, but I surely believe it will.
Do you really think he has any idea who he is following back most of the time?
He ought to!
yes!
Don't give a crap.
Hopefully Democrats have learned not to fall for bogus sex-related non-scandals like this. First was Katie Hill, whom the Republicans disgustingly accused of wrongdoing when in fact she was the victim of revenge porn. Then there was Susannah Gibson two years ago, whose completely consensual sexual activities with her husband were warped into another non-scandal that gave Republicans two unearned years in that seat (and luckily, that Republican was heavily defeated this year). Democrats need to circle the wagons around Talarico now to prevent him from being next. This absurd puritanism needs to stop immediately.
By and large, the USA is a rather puritanical country. Just saying.
Puritanical and hypocritical, and that's the way it is.
💯
Look at Tim Murphy, Scott DesJarlais, and many, many others.
A big part of Talarico's claim to being a different type of Democrat is his emphasizing his Christian values. He should not win the primary. If he does, of course all Democrats should support him!
Following sexy models on IG isn't against Christian values; the dude isn't even married.
Your brand of Christianity is not at issue. Look, probably none of us personally give a shit about any of this. But that's totally beside the point.
correct! the point being truckloads of texans will tear him apart over this...this will not end well for him
I just couldn't disagree more. Anybody with a stick up their ass enough to care was never going to vote Democratic anyway. We live in a new era of politics; the scandals of 20 years ago wouldn't make a dent now.
Just putting my opinion that I could not give a shit about this “controversy” and I think a lot of Trump leaning voters we need to get back may actually find this appealing: he sounds like a normal heterosexual guy. You can be Christian and still think hot women are hot.
He shouldn't win the primary? Over this? I mean, I even buy the explanation but wouldn't care if I didn't.
Correct. Not because I have a problem with what he did - I couldn't care less. But because of the political effects. Allred is fine and can win if people don't want to vote Republican.
If you can't see how a politician as skilled as Talarico can not only survive this, but actually turn this into a positive, I don't know what to tell you. There is nothing about this that doesn't align with his Christian values, and his being able to pivot to point out Paxton's (or Trump's) actual sexual scandals will neuter the story. Who cares what Texas Republicans will say? They have scary things to say about every Dem. Talarico could go on Joe Rogan again this week and use this "story" to further appeal to young men. We need to stop assuming what swayable voters will think about every little thing. Too many did that with Trump in 2015/16, Trump after January 6th, and even as recently as this past week with the AG race in Virginia and the "terrible campaign" Sherrill ran in NJ. They will most likely vote their wallets first, and Talarico is an exceptional communicator on that and other issues of interest to voters.
I can see it, but it's no way a net positive for him to follow escorts, and Allred looks safer.
Do you actually think this is immoral or are you just worried that others will?
There's nothing in Christianity that particularly prohibits this. Even some of the passages like the one about "adultery of the heart" are talking about your internal response, not a behavior.
No, I personally couldn't care less.
say what you will but this will not play well in rural tx
I think all 12 people in rural Texas who could possibly vote for a Dem won't care about this. The other 199,988 people weren't considering any Ds, ever.
One big difference between Katie Hill/Susannah Gibson and James Talarico is that Katie Hill and Susannah Gibson were woman.
Just sayin'...as far as preachiness goes, puritanical Americans care a lot more about what women do.
I don’t disagree about Talarico, but Susanna Gibson really deserved to lose that election, especially since she was just arrested for domestic battery a month ago (she says she’s innocent, but still, I’m glad we now have Democrat May Nivar in that seat instead of her).
https://nypost.com/2025/10/01/us-news/virginia-democrat-who-live-streamed-herself-having-sex-for-money-arrested-for-domestic-violence/
Oh the horror... He looks at sexy pictures on instagram... Pass the smelling salts...
I agree with Michael that the Christian aspect combined with this may pose a problem — but I also think this is overblown and I’ll add that Christianity in general has become far too puritanical about sex to begin with (and I am a Christian!)
That history goes back to at least the 16th century. This really cool show about sex in the Middle Ages gives the context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8JPN9tWVPQ&t=579s Things changed as a result of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation in response to it.
I don't this is silly and will be even more silly if Paxton is their nominee.
May I recommend a great British TV-series? "Coupling" is a rawer version of "Friends" and, imho, far more interesting and less insipid. A couple of modest examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52771yKS3As
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpduBS_kNPQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hstPHM3R1dY
Honestly this just makes him more relatable to male voters.
What makes this different from Christian Coalition types doing the same thing is that Talacio's brand of progressive Christianity doesn't demonize sex or promote policies that do so. Huge nothingburger.
Good points all around.
For real. No man in America could run for office if hot IG follows was a disqualified
His explanation makes perfect sense, that they follow back accounts that have a lot of followers. Done and done.
Yes, but did he call his cousin his aunt?
As a Texas voter, I'll say this 1) speaking for myself, it doesn't faze me nor is it disqualifying for me. I haven't spoken with any activists about this, but I know a good number who are supporting Talarico over Allred because they felt Allred's campaign last time wasn't very active or present. 2) I donated to Talarico when he announced, and after finding out the author of this Axios piece is the same guy that co-authored that Biden book with Jake Tapper, I just donated again to Talarico's campaign. 3) I'm still voting for Talarico in the primary and hopefully in the general.
And so followers follow James Talarico and he follows them back.
Only in 2025, just like back in the 2010's, would there be such a "breaking news" story about following and unfollowing behavior. Like this is REALLY going to mean anything.
More evidence social media is distracting Axios and other media outlets who have nothing better to do than waste their time on nonsensical stories.
if this is just a "follow back", without any further engagement from Talarico, like private messages, there is absolutely no story there, and it wont even register with younger people, who know exactly how that works.
Now if there is evidence he is privately engaging with these individuals/getting services, then that's something entirely different.
Fair. I get your point.
Any politician’s agenda on social media does need to be scrutinized if it goes beyond the normal acceptable conduct.
Young people are less likely to be at issue, but they're not the majority of the electorate.