I have a question for posters here. I asked this before, but I’m curious to know if anyone’s answers have changed since I last asked.
What are some reach seats that, in a hypothetical Dem wave, we may have a surprise shot at flipping? House, Senate, Governor, state legislative, cities, etc. What seats could become upsets in the right conditions?
Another question — which Dems and Repubs, in any seat in the country, federal, state, or local, might be most vulnerable to a primary challenge? Curious to know what people think here.
True reaches but I think all Colorado GOP seats sans CO-4 could hypothetically be exposed even if 3 and 5 are pretty unlikely. Boebert is weak for her district but it’s just too red, sadly.
Washington’s 5th is an edge case, especially since downballot Rs do much better than Prez toplines ever do. But in the right circumstances with enough juice in Spokane, Walla Walla and Pullman you could maybe get close enough for a one term rental. It’s a lot less conservative than it’s neighbor the 4th
Speaking of Boebert she might get primaried. She only got a plurality in last year’s primary and her carpetbagging hasn’t been well received in her district.
On the other hand Jeff Hurd could lose a primary too. He’s kind of moderate.
I think the obvious answer is NE Senate with Osborne. If the bottom falls out on the economy and rural hospitals shut down left and right I feel like Kansas could be a surprise squeaker if Kelly opts to run (But doubtful)
I'd also add NE-01 in that scenario. We have a lot more room to grow in Lincoln and Sarpy County and in the right environment, it's conceivable that we narrowly flip it. Nebraska has weirdly promising trends for us.
It would be possible to gerrymander Nebraska to produce a 3R-0D congressional delegation virtually every election. The problem with that for Republicans is doing so would require putting downtown Omaha in the same district as the western and northern part of the state, as well as splitting Lincoln between the other two districts. If there's a recession and a farm crisis next year (there's already warning signs of both), all three districts would be in danger of flipping to Democrats.
Has there been any indication that Gov. Kelly may run? Since she's 75 I'd think it unlikely, but then again Gov. Janet Mills running in Maine is still a possibility, and she's even older.
KY-6 comes to mind, although that would require a perfect storm of circumstances to flip to us.
If there's a massive Democratic wave bigger than 2018, we might end up with a 2-1 majority in Nebraska's U.S. House delegation, and Tom Emmer might be in danger of losing re-election.
Next year may be a good test of just how much Fitzpatrick's personal appeal has insulated him from national trends, but he's passed such tests before. I think we have several better opportunities in PA, against members who are less established and/or too far right for their districts--including Scott Perry who is kind of the reverse of Fitzpatrick and other veteran incumbents: the longer he's served the worse he does.
Feels like whether he wins or loses, it’s going to be his closest race ever. Like a 51-49 result either with Harvie the Democratic county commissioner flipping it or Fitzpatrick barely holding on.
I'd be absolutely shocked if it happened, but if we're talking the kind of night where we pick up 4+ senate seats I could imagine NH-Gov being on the table. Ayotte is keeping a low profile right now, and NH has only once ever kicked out a governor only two years in. But NH swings more with the national environment than most states. If we're having a really, really good night I could see it happening. Maybe.
I do see that as a real reach but not impossible as a shock surprise win. More realistically I'd count the senate seats we'd need some of to win the majority there to be the more plausible reach seats: TX, IA, and OH. None of them are particularly likely but if we're talking a D+8 kind of generic ballot, I could see them being really plausible.
NY-24 (Tenney, who is fairly extreme but unlikely to lose that vote sink)
R+10:
NY-21 (Elise Stefanik, likely vacating it to run for Governor)
NY-11 (Nicole Malliotakis, based in Staten Island and heavily Republican areas of south Brooklyn)
NY-23 (Nick Langworthy - I'm sorry, who? Extreme southwestern New York, very hard to imagine a flip.)
R+6:
NY-2 (Garbarino - rather Republican area of Long Island's South Shore, mostly in Suffolk County)
The next most Republican district in New York is NY-1 at R+4. It covers most of the North Shore of Suffolk County, Riverhead and the Hamptons and includes my alma mater for grad school, Stony Brook. I think we all agree it's in contention.
My feeling is that NY-1 is a tough nut to crack and that the next one to flip in a really big wave would probably be NY-2, but that depends on voting patterns, as it's possible for Long Island to remain more Republican than some other areas of the state. It's hard to imagine any of the other R+ seats in New York flipping, but it's worth going after NY-21 if it's an open seat, and almost all of these districts flipped previously, though some have been changed by redistricting since then.
Both the 1st and the 2nd were fairly close in the 2020 presidential election, and while our congressional candidates lost both in 2018 statewide dems won both seats.
If we see NY reverting to pre-2024 behavior those two could be more realistic reach seats, maybe?
We've already picked up two seats on LI in an environment redder than 2026 is likely to be, though at least one of them (NY-3) was something of a fluke or at least dependent on special circumstances and candidates (the George Santos mess and Tom Suozzi's personal appeal.)
The big problem in NY-21 is the counties along the St. Lawerence River have shifted right significantly. They make up a third of the votes in the district, which combined with the 40% of the vote that comes from 70/30 Republican counties in the mountains, means the Albany exurbs aren't enough.
What do you think of Mike Lawler's seat (NY-17). Cook rates it "Lean Republican" and it was one of the 17 Republican-held Congressional districts that That Biden won in 2020 and in 2022 he won his race by less than 1%.
The question is "reach" seats and NY-17 is very much on the target list for 2024, for the reasons you mention, I wouldn't call it a reach. If any of the other six R held seats in NY that michaelflutist outlined are even remotely close, NY-17 is flipping. If Lawler wins, we either don't flip the House or it's a ridiculously small majority.
After the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, I made a spreadsheet to see if the turnout percentages and swing to Dems of the midterm reflected that election, what House seats could end up in play.
Some of the unexpected seats are ones Dems have landed strong candidates for: NC-11, CO-05, and NY-01.
A few that are still being overlooked or don't have a strong candidate yet include OH-15 (which might get redrawn anyway), MO-02, and OH-10.
If Mike Turner retires, this election could finally be the year that Democrats flip OH-10, especially considering the nonsense Springfield, Ohio had to put up with during the recent election. I'd put that down as a seat to watch.
As for the Senate, a lot of states are just out of reach using that similar calculation, but after NC and ME, Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Alaska, and Texas would all be close. I think Kansas is another potential reach seat that Dems should target.
The presence of a Blue Wave or Tsunami will certainly be a factor, but Maine’s Senate seat is definitely high up on my list. Granted, Maine is a rather idiosyncratic state and Susan Collins has annoyingly often shown that she’s a survivor. But I do think Janet Mills has a chance to beat her. Mills is, in my mind, the clear exception that shows that, this time, the oldest candidate is the best challenger.
I think LA-Senate could fall into this category if John Bel Edwards (or another socially conservative Democrat) runs. An upset win here will require a huge backlash to the Big Beautiful Bill, which there is an outside chance of, given how reliant Louisiana is on Medicaid and other federal programs.
That makes sense, but LA is very right-wing, and I think it's a lot more likely that Bill Cassidy will lose to a Trumper because he once voted to convict Trump of fucking trying to kill any member of Congress a crazed mob wanted to attack.
⬆️"What are some reach seats that, in a hypothetical Dem wave, we may have a surprise shot at flipping? House, Senate, Governor, state legislative, cities, etc. What seats could become upsets in the right conditions?"
I always check out Cook Political Report to see what they say:
I usually assume the "toss-up" and "lean D" or "lean R" are in contention, especially if the incumbent is a freshman for House races (names are in italics). Lean Republican seats might be considered "reach" seats; any Likely Republican seats would definitely be considerered a surprise/stretch IMO.
Should any more house Republicans decide to retire, they might become a good candidate for a flip unless they are in "safe" GOP districts. IMO the GOP primaries tend to lead to the most MAGA candidate winning due to poor primary turnout. What Mitch McConnell referred to as "candidate quality issues" in the 2022 midterms.
If the retiring congressperson was considered a "moderate" (e.g., Don Bacon in NE) it is quite possible that a hard core MAGA (especially a conspiracy theorist) would be just "too much" for the district. That's one of the reasons why his now open seat is rated "lean Democrat".
In addition, there have been efforts since Trump's inauguration to tie some of the incumbent GOP candidates to their votes for the BIg Ugly bill and other unpopular GOP actions throughout the first 6 months of the Trump administration. Only time will tell if these efforts bear fruit.
For example, Activate America had "accountibility" postcard (and I believe phone bank) campaigns asking voters to call their GOP congress people. Their priority House races can be found here: https://www.activateamerica.vote/house. Their priority Senate races are Iowa, Maine, North Carolina and Ohio. I'm pretty sure there is a lot of overlap with Cook's "toss-up" and "lean" candidates and Swing Left's target list.
I'm not sure about any other state legislative races, but since VA is running Democrats in every House of Delegates district this year, there is potential for some surprise flips - especially in the 13 districts that didn't have a Democratic candidate running in 2023. (source for numbers: https://ballotpedia.org/Virginia_House_of_Delegates_elections,_2023)
I've spent some time working on an ideal Democratic gerrymander for California to implement. I figured I'd post it here and see what other people think of it:
The map targets CA-01 (LaMalfa), CA-03 (Kiley), Valadao (CA-22), Kim (CA-40), and Issa (CA-48), turning them all into districts Kamala Harris would have won in 2024 by at least 3.5%. In particular, CA-01 becomes a district Harris would have won by over 8%.
It also shores up the swing districts with Democratic incumbents. It turns CA-09 (Harder) and CA-13 (Gray) into seats Kamala Harris would have won in 2024, while also making CA-21 (Costa), CA-27 (Whitesides), CA-25 (Ruiz), and CA-45 (Tran) more favorable to Democrats. The only swing seat I couldn't make much more liberal was CA-47 (Min), as much of its turf is given to CA-45 and CA-40.
Also, as I've discussed previously, the map adds two new decisively AAPI plurality districts to the SF Bay Area: An SF-based district with just over 40% AAPI voters, and CA-16 in the South Bay. The additional district is needed as AAPI residents make up enough of the population to support 9 congressional districts, though population distributions make 7 the maximum possible. CA-15, which was previously a very slight AAPI plurality, is now white plurality but still has a significant AAPI population. It's possible to make CA-15 AAPI plurality, too, but I figure the second decisively AAPI district in the South Bay might appeal to a certain Democratic assemblymember who has been complaining about the redistricting effort...
There are some flaws to the map. Mainly, I didn't make certain areas especially neat, such as Sacramento. It's possible some previously fully Safe Dem districts would become vulnerable in a humungous red wave if that happens in the next 6 years, but I suspect they'd hold through 2030.
I wonder if Texas Republicans might propose an even more Republican-tilting gerrymander than the current proposal they're trying to ram through the state legislature (avenues for this would be either in a subsequent special session called by Abbott or by the state senate proposing a different map if the quorum busting by the TX House Dems fails one way or another). I haven't heard anything explicit from the Texas GOPers in that regard as of yet.
Texas Republicans could probably gerrymander Dems down to just three or four congressional districts without any significant dummymander risk if they wanted to go that far (four would probably be the minimum they could get comfortably away with: one Dem district in each of DFW, Houston, San Antonio/Austin, and El Paso; baconmandering El Paso might invariably be a dummymander). Going 38R-0D in Texas is physically possible, but it would be a massive dummymander risk for the GOP if Texas becomes anything close to a swing state.
---
Some redistricting news:
U.S. Rep. Blake Moore (R-UT) has publicly stated his opposition to mid-decade redistricting, although this is because a court case is ongoing in Utah as to whether that state's congressional district map (a 4R-0D Republican gerrymander in a state where virtually any fair map would produce a 3R-1D delegation) has to be redrawn, and one of the current congressional districts in Utah would have to be effectively eliminated in favor of an urban Salt Lake City-based district that would favor Democrats.
Jacobin magazine, influential in democratic socialist and hardline progressive circles, has come out against redistricting proposals in California and has praised the Texas Democratic quorum-busting attempt. Although this is not why Jacobin is opposing gerrymandering (they're against gerrymandering on principle), there's a couple of reasons why some on the left oppose a mid-decade redistricting in Democratic-controlled states: 1) they don't want the former AOC chief of staff who is running against Nancy Pelosi drawn out of Pelosi's district, and 2) they don't want the political power of areas of NYC that voted for Zohran Mamdani in the mayoral primary diluted to protect Hakeem Jeffries, Dan Goldman, and others from primary challenges and make AOC vulnerable to a primary challenge from the right.
A magazine named after the leaders of the Terror that followed the French Revolution and "ate its young" before influencing the worst excesses of Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism (particularly the Cultural Revolution) surely is not ever to be considered a loyal Democratic organization and therefore, I would think that any complaints they have about Democratic hardball should be dismissed.
That is an endemic feature of the left - and I mean everyone to the left of center, though it gets worse the farther along the spectrum you go - in general.
That's a rather broad generalization and not one that was true historically. The Bolsheviks certainly weren't afraid to manipulate the political process in Revolutionary Russia until they were in complete control. And Mao famously said "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun".
I lean socialist myself (I’m in favor of nationalizing public utilities, for one) and I detest Jacobin. They’re too puritanical for me, they’ve occasionally put out pieces that seem to sympathize with the Russian government, one of their former editor in chiefs repeatedly supported the Greens in general elections, and overall there are far better progressive news outlets out there (I especially love Democracy Now and The Nation, in particular).
While it’s unclear how soon a ruling from Gibson might come, a decision will likely be made within the calendar year. Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, whose office oversees elections in the state, has requested that electoral maps for the 2026 congressional elections be finalized by Nov. 1.
“I am mindful that time is of the essence,” Gibson said as she adjourned, telling attorneys that she will take their arguments under advisement.
We're now in another stage of seeing how far Texas Republicans are willing to go for Trump. For anyone interested in the legal background regarding Abbott's request to try and expel Texas House members, check out this link: https://youtu.be/Xpqog5BnQ48?si=Ph5KW-DcaPSrwc0W
It's an interview from CBS Austin with a Texas Constitutional scholar. At about the 7 min mark they discuss Abbott's request to the Texas Supreme Court. Among the hurdles is that the Supreme Court is not a fact-finding judicial body, which has to be done by a jury, and that to expel members you would have to prove they have no intention of ever returning.
The current Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court is Jimmy Blacklock, who previously served as general counsel to Abbott. Abbott appointed Blacklock to the court in 2018. In 2021 Blacklock authored a Supreme Court opinion that said the Texas Constitution (Art. 3, Sec. 10) enabled quorum-breaking. The opinion also stated that power to compel members back rests with the House. There's a potential off ramp if the court wants to take it; Abbott not being a member of the House has no standing to compel or punish members. The very next section in the constitution (Art. 3, Sec. 11), actually says the House determines punishment and can only expel by a vote of 2/3; it goes further in that section saying, "but not a second time for the same offence." So if you expel those House members for breaking quorum, then they get re-elected, you wouldn't be able to expel them for breaking quorum again?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the court decided against Abbott, for any of the reasons you’ve mentioned. Whereby the Republicans can throw up their hands and tell Trump: "Well, we tried." Except for Abbott and Paxton, and perhaps a few other MAGA acolytes, I do have the impression that Texas Republicans are not overly eager to be enacting this extreme gerrymander.
There is a Texas State Senate district 9 up for a special election on November 4 in the Fort Worth area. I don't know how it voted for Trump-Harris last year but in 2022 the Republican won it by a 60-40 split. If there is negative blowback about the gerrymandering, that would seem to be a litmus test for it.
Anna Bower wrote a good article about this recently in lawfaremedia. Just looking at the law and precedent, the republican lawsuits should be laughed out of court.
It will all come down to how hackish and partisan the TX Supreme Court wants to be.
This ruling if they side with Abbott (let’s just say I’d be shocked if they didn’t) and allow the redraw might cause enough of a backlash judicially to allow Democrats to sweep the State Supreme Court seats in 2026 to gain a crucial foothold in Texas statewide elected offices.
"Michigan state Rep. Joe Tate (D), who was the first Black speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives, said that he is suspending his U.S. Senate campaign..."
Part of me wonders if he’ll run for something else. I saw a news article mentioning him as a possible candidate for MI-12 (Tlaib’s seat) and I believe MI-13 (Thanedar’s seat).
Personally I think a Tlaib primary would be suicidal - Tlaib, whatever you think of her, apparently has stellar constituent services and is in a highly favorable district with a large Arab population, so I doubt she’s going anywhere. AIPAC tried and failed, for one.
Donavan McKinney is already challenging Thanedar, and honestly anyone else running there would just ensure Thanedar wins again, so unless Tate is stupid I don’t think that would be advisable either.
Already multiple candidates for AG: Mark Totten (former US Attorney for the WD and AG candidate), Karen McDonald (former circuit court judge and Oakland County Prosecutor - likely to get Nessel’s endorsement), and Eli Savit (Washtenaw County Prosecutor).
And Ingham County Clerk Barb Byrum is running for SoS, along with Deputy SoS Aghogho Edevbie.
In Michigan row offices are decided at state party conventions. Usually the candidate is chosen at a spring nominating convention and then formally nominated at the fall (post-August primary) convention. This gives the AG and SoS candidates much more time to campaign.
Note: LG is the Gov nominee’s choice (as a matter of practice). Although the LG nominee is (save for the 1990 election) usually of little consequence to the gubernatorial race outcome.
This solidifies the Democratic primary in MI-Sen as a three-way race between Stevens, McMorrow, and El-Sayed. This is a primary where any debates that are held will be absolutely critical.
I haven't followed baseball so closely since I threw out the old TV set some years ago and haven't been to any games this year. I suppose the problem isn't mainly the manager, but I doubt Cashman would be fired and a field manager is an easy target. I was talking to a friend of mine the other day about the so far poor results of the blockbuster pre-trade deadline transactions by the Yankees and reminiscing about how relievers who hadn't done much were heroes in great seasons like 1996 and 1998. The Yankees tried to get lightning in a bottle. Sometimes that happens; sometimes, it doesn't. But getting back to your question: The fact that the owner is no longer George Steinbrenner definitely decreases chances of a manager being fired, so are the fans calling for his head? If so, he'll definitely have to go. If not, even money at most.
My father was a huge Brooklyn Dodger fan and was never a baseball fan after they left. As a result, I never root for the Dodgers. But I'd still find it interesting to see a game in Chavez Ravine (or whatever they're calling it now) someday.
Quite a negative article about Bangladesh, but it sounds like the record of the interim administration is mixed, not purely good or purely bad: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c741qken2wvo
Some excerpts:
I think they buried the lede. At least politically, this sounds like it's the ballgame:
'Many credit the interim government with stabilising the country's economy and, contrary to fears, the banking sector has survived.
Bangladesh has met its loan obligations, kept food prices largely stable, and maintained robust foreign exchange reserves - currently at $30bn (£22bn) - thanks to remittances and international loans. Exports have also held steady.'
Instead, they concentrated on these criticisms, which certainly sound justified but are probably not what most people have uppermost in their minds as they struggle to put food on the table:
'[A]n leader from the Awami League alleges that the party's supporters are being silenced by not being allowed to contest the next poll - with most of its leaders in exile or in prison.
"The elections will not be inclusive without the participation of the Awami League," Mohammad Ali Arafat, former minister in Hasina's cabinet, tells the BBC.
In its latest report, the Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) said there had been an alarming rise in mob violence while extra-judicial killings and deaths in custody had persisted in the past year.
"We have overthrown an authoritarian regime, but unless we put an end to the authoritarian practices, we cannot really create a new Bangladesh," Iftekhar Zaman, the executive director of the TIB, said during the launch of the report earlier this week.'
I hope they work out a good way forward that solves these problems. I care deeply about people's rights, but if we should have learned anything from fucking Trump winning the popular vote after being convicted of felonies, it's that if voters think you can save them from fucking inflation, you win. And even more so if you have improved the economy and they believe that. I guess the key is, do they believe the interim government has improved their lives, as opposed to the American people's fucking stupid belief that Biden didn't save the country from a depression.
Is this news? It's being presented as new that Bernie Sanders favors Democratic gerrymandering as necessary under the circumstances: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzzzwpgCbis
I have a question for posters here. I asked this before, but I’m curious to know if anyone’s answers have changed since I last asked.
What are some reach seats that, in a hypothetical Dem wave, we may have a surprise shot at flipping? House, Senate, Governor, state legislative, cities, etc. What seats could become upsets in the right conditions?
Another question — which Dems and Repubs, in any seat in the country, federal, state, or local, might be most vulnerable to a primary challenge? Curious to know what people think here.
True reaches but I think all Colorado GOP seats sans CO-4 could hypothetically be exposed even if 3 and 5 are pretty unlikely. Boebert is weak for her district but it’s just too red, sadly.
Washington’s 5th is an edge case, especially since downballot Rs do much better than Prez toplines ever do. But in the right circumstances with enough juice in Spokane, Walla Walla and Pullman you could maybe get close enough for a one term rental. It’s a lot less conservative than it’s neighbor the 4th
I’m actually thinking CO-04 too. Boebert won by only 11, and by less than Jeff Crank in CO-05. And Douglas County is quickly trending leftward.
Speaking of Boebert she might get primaried. She only got a plurality in last year’s primary and her carpetbagging hasn’t been well received in her district.
On the other hand Jeff Hurd could lose a primary too. He’s kind of moderate.
I think the obvious answer is NE Senate with Osborne. If the bottom falls out on the economy and rural hospitals shut down left and right I feel like Kansas could be a surprise squeaker if Kelly opts to run (But doubtful)
I'd also add NE-01 in that scenario. We have a lot more room to grow in Lincoln and Sarpy County and in the right environment, it's conceivable that we narrowly flip it. Nebraska has weirdly promising trends for us.
Jeopardizing NE-01 is a big part of why it would be foolish for the Nebraska Lege to try and gerrymander NE-02.
It would be possible to gerrymander Nebraska to produce a 3R-0D congressional delegation virtually every election. The problem with that for Republicans is doing so would require putting downtown Omaha in the same district as the western and northern part of the state, as well as splitting Lincoln between the other two districts. If there's a recession and a farm crisis next year (there's already warning signs of both), all three districts would be in danger of flipping to Democrats.
It’s possilble if it’s split with NE-03.
Has there been any indication that Gov. Kelly may run? Since she's 75 I'd think it unlikely, but then again Gov. Janet Mills running in Maine is still a possibility, and she's even older.
KY-6 comes to mind, although that would require a perfect storm of circumstances to flip to us.
If there's a massive Democratic wave bigger than 2018, we might end up with a 2-1 majority in Nebraska's U.S. House delegation, and Tom Emmer might be in danger of losing re-election.
PA-01 (Fitzpatrick) shouldn't be a "reach" seat on paper, but the incumbent has proven surprisingly resilient.
If he falls, Dems are probably having a good, good night.
Next year may be a good test of just how much Fitzpatrick's personal appeal has insulated him from national trends, but he's passed such tests before. I think we have several better opportunities in PA, against members who are less established and/or too far right for their districts--including Scott Perry who is kind of the reverse of Fitzpatrick and other veteran incumbents: the longer he's served the worse he does.
Feels like whether he wins or loses, it’s going to be his closest race ever. Like a 51-49 result either with Harvie the Democratic county commissioner flipping it or Fitzpatrick barely holding on.
Yeah, I definitely think that Perry is more vulnerable than Fitzpatrick.
I'd be absolutely shocked if it happened, but if we're talking the kind of night where we pick up 4+ senate seats I could imagine NH-Gov being on the table. Ayotte is keeping a low profile right now, and NH has only once ever kicked out a governor only two years in. But NH swings more with the national environment than most states. If we're having a really, really good night I could see it happening. Maybe.
I do see that as a real reach but not impossible as a shock surprise win. More realistically I'd count the senate seats we'd need some of to win the majority there to be the more plausible reach seats: TX, IA, and OH. None of them are particularly likely but if we're talking a D+8 kind of generic ballot, I could see them being really plausible.
In New York, here are some very Republican House districts that are barely imaginable flips (handy reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_congressional_districts):
R+11:
NY-24 (Tenney, who is fairly extreme but unlikely to lose that vote sink)
R+10:
NY-21 (Elise Stefanik, likely vacating it to run for Governor)
NY-11 (Nicole Malliotakis, based in Staten Island and heavily Republican areas of south Brooklyn)
NY-23 (Nick Langworthy - I'm sorry, who? Extreme southwestern New York, very hard to imagine a flip.)
R+6:
NY-2 (Garbarino - rather Republican area of Long Island's South Shore, mostly in Suffolk County)
The next most Republican district in New York is NY-1 at R+4. It covers most of the North Shore of Suffolk County, Riverhead and the Hamptons and includes my alma mater for grad school, Stony Brook. I think we all agree it's in contention.
My feeling is that NY-1 is a tough nut to crack and that the next one to flip in a really big wave would probably be NY-2, but that depends on voting patterns, as it's possible for Long Island to remain more Republican than some other areas of the state. It's hard to imagine any of the other R+ seats in New York flipping, but it's worth going after NY-21 if it's an open seat, and almost all of these districts flipped previously, though some have been changed by redistricting since then.
Both the 1st and the 2nd were fairly close in the 2020 presidential election, and while our congressional candidates lost both in 2018 statewide dems won both seats.
If we see NY reverting to pre-2024 behavior those two could be more realistic reach seats, maybe?
Yes, if Long Island snaps back from being Trumpy and concentrating on being anti-immigrant and reflexively cop-supporting.
We've already picked up two seats on LI in an environment redder than 2026 is likely to be, though at least one of them (NY-3) was something of a fluke or at least dependent on special circumstances and candidates (the George Santos mess and Tom Suozzi's personal appeal.)
The big problem in NY-21 is the counties along the St. Lawerence River have shifted right significantly. They make up a third of the votes in the district, which combined with the 40% of the vote that comes from 70/30 Republican counties in the mountains, means the Albany exurbs aren't enough.
What do you think of Mike Lawler's seat (NY-17). Cook rates it "Lean Republican" and it was one of the 17 Republican-held Congressional districts that That Biden won in 2020 and in 2022 he won his race by less than 1%.
The question is "reach" seats and NY-17 is very much on the target list for 2024, for the reasons you mention, I wouldn't call it a reach. If any of the other six R held seats in NY that michaelflutist outlined are even remotely close, NY-17 is flipping. If Lawler wins, we either don't flip the House or it's a ridiculously small majority.
Exactly. I'm surprised it's not a tossup.
After the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, I made a spreadsheet to see if the turnout percentages and swing to Dems of the midterm reflected that election, what House seats could end up in play.
Some of the unexpected seats are ones Dems have landed strong candidates for: NC-11, CO-05, and NY-01.
A few that are still being overlooked or don't have a strong candidate yet include OH-15 (which might get redrawn anyway), MO-02, and OH-10.
If Mike Turner retires, this election could finally be the year that Democrats flip OH-10, especially considering the nonsense Springfield, Ohio had to put up with during the recent election. I'd put that down as a seat to watch.
As for the Senate, a lot of states are just out of reach using that similar calculation, but after NC and ME, Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Alaska, and Texas would all be close. I think Kansas is another potential reach seat that Dems should target.
The presence of a Blue Wave or Tsunami will certainly be a factor, but Maine’s Senate seat is definitely high up on my list. Granted, Maine is a rather idiosyncratic state and Susan Collins has annoyingly often shown that she’s a survivor. But I do think Janet Mills has a chance to beat her. Mills is, in my mind, the clear exception that shows that, this time, the oldest candidate is the best challenger.
I think LA-Senate could fall into this category if John Bel Edwards (or another socially conservative Democrat) runs. An upset win here will require a huge backlash to the Big Beautiful Bill, which there is an outside chance of, given how reliant Louisiana is on Medicaid and other federal programs.
That makes sense, but LA is very right-wing, and I think it's a lot more likely that Bill Cassidy will lose to a Trumper because he once voted to convict Trump of fucking trying to kill any member of Congress a crazed mob wanted to attack.
⬆️"What are some reach seats that, in a hypothetical Dem wave, we may have a surprise shot at flipping? House, Senate, Governor, state legislative, cities, etc. What seats could become upsets in the right conditions?"
I always check out Cook Political Report to see what they say:
https://www.cookpolitical.com/ratings/house-race-ratings
https://www.cookpolitical.com/ratings/senate-race-ratings
I usually assume the "toss-up" and "lean D" or "lean R" are in contention, especially if the incumbent is a freshman for House races (names are in italics). Lean Republican seats might be considered "reach" seats; any Likely Republican seats would definitely be considerered a surprise/stretch IMO.
In addition, here's the list of House candidates Swing Left thinks is flippable: https://swingleft.org/house#swingdistricts.
Should any more house Republicans decide to retire, they might become a good candidate for a flip unless they are in "safe" GOP districts. IMO the GOP primaries tend to lead to the most MAGA candidate winning due to poor primary turnout. What Mitch McConnell referred to as "candidate quality issues" in the 2022 midterms.
If the retiring congressperson was considered a "moderate" (e.g., Don Bacon in NE) it is quite possible that a hard core MAGA (especially a conspiracy theorist) would be just "too much" for the district. That's one of the reasons why his now open seat is rated "lean Democrat".
In addition, there have been efforts since Trump's inauguration to tie some of the incumbent GOP candidates to their votes for the BIg Ugly bill and other unpopular GOP actions throughout the first 6 months of the Trump administration. Only time will tell if these efforts bear fruit.
For example, Activate America had "accountibility" postcard (and I believe phone bank) campaigns asking voters to call their GOP congress people. Their priority House races can be found here: https://www.activateamerica.vote/house. Their priority Senate races are Iowa, Maine, North Carolina and Ohio. I'm pretty sure there is a lot of overlap with Cook's "toss-up" and "lean" candidates and Swing Left's target list.
I'm not sure about any other state legislative races, but since VA is running Democrats in every House of Delegates district this year, there is potential for some surprise flips - especially in the 13 districts that didn't have a Democratic candidate running in 2023. (source for numbers: https://ballotpedia.org/Virginia_House_of_Delegates_elections,_2023)
I've spent some time working on an ideal Democratic gerrymander for California to implement. I figured I'd post it here and see what other people think of it:
https://davesredistricting.org/join/fc17f3cc-94c8-451f-b0c1-fd41d04d40a8
The map targets CA-01 (LaMalfa), CA-03 (Kiley), Valadao (CA-22), Kim (CA-40), and Issa (CA-48), turning them all into districts Kamala Harris would have won in 2024 by at least 3.5%. In particular, CA-01 becomes a district Harris would have won by over 8%.
It also shores up the swing districts with Democratic incumbents. It turns CA-09 (Harder) and CA-13 (Gray) into seats Kamala Harris would have won in 2024, while also making CA-21 (Costa), CA-27 (Whitesides), CA-25 (Ruiz), and CA-45 (Tran) more favorable to Democrats. The only swing seat I couldn't make much more liberal was CA-47 (Min), as much of its turf is given to CA-45 and CA-40.
Also, as I've discussed previously, the map adds two new decisively AAPI plurality districts to the SF Bay Area: An SF-based district with just over 40% AAPI voters, and CA-16 in the South Bay. The additional district is needed as AAPI residents make up enough of the population to support 9 congressional districts, though population distributions make 7 the maximum possible. CA-15, which was previously a very slight AAPI plurality, is now white plurality but still has a significant AAPI population. It's possible to make CA-15 AAPI plurality, too, but I figure the second decisively AAPI district in the South Bay might appeal to a certain Democratic assemblymember who has been complaining about the redistricting effort...
There are some flaws to the map. Mainly, I didn't make certain areas especially neat, such as Sacramento. It's possible some previously fully Safe Dem districts would become vulnerable in a humungous red wave if that happens in the next 6 years, but I suspect they'd hold through 2030.
So, what do you all think?
I wonder if Texas Republicans might propose an even more Republican-tilting gerrymander than the current proposal they're trying to ram through the state legislature (avenues for this would be either in a subsequent special session called by Abbott or by the state senate proposing a different map if the quorum busting by the TX House Dems fails one way or another). I haven't heard anything explicit from the Texas GOPers in that regard as of yet.
Texas Republicans could probably gerrymander Dems down to just three or four congressional districts without any significant dummymander risk if they wanted to go that far (four would probably be the minimum they could get comfortably away with: one Dem district in each of DFW, Houston, San Antonio/Austin, and El Paso; baconmandering El Paso might invariably be a dummymander). Going 38R-0D in Texas is physically possible, but it would be a massive dummymander risk for the GOP if Texas becomes anything close to a swing state.
---
Some redistricting news:
U.S. Rep. Blake Moore (R-UT) has publicly stated his opposition to mid-decade redistricting, although this is because a court case is ongoing in Utah as to whether that state's congressional district map (a 4R-0D Republican gerrymander in a state where virtually any fair map would produce a 3R-1D delegation) has to be redrawn, and one of the current congressional districts in Utah would have to be effectively eliminated in favor of an urban Salt Lake City-based district that would favor Democrats.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2025/08/07/republican-rep-blake-moore/
Jacobin magazine, influential in democratic socialist and hardline progressive circles, has come out against redistricting proposals in California and has praised the Texas Democratic quorum-busting attempt. Although this is not why Jacobin is opposing gerrymandering (they're against gerrymandering on principle), there's a couple of reasons why some on the left oppose a mid-decade redistricting in Democratic-controlled states: 1) they don't want the former AOC chief of staff who is running against Nancy Pelosi drawn out of Pelosi's district, and 2) they don't want the political power of areas of NYC that voted for Zohran Mamdani in the mayoral primary diluted to protect Hakeem Jeffries, Dan Goldman, and others from primary challenges and make AOC vulnerable to a primary challenge from the right.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DNG4TSEBH-l/?img_index=1
https://www.instagram.com/p/DND-5x9N0f4/?img_index=1
A magazine named after the leaders of the Terror that followed the French Revolution and "ate its young" before influencing the worst excesses of Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism (particularly the Cultural Revolution) surely is not ever to be considered a loyal Democratic organization and therefore, I would think that any complaints they have about Democratic hardball should be dismissed.
It's insane to me, though, that such a radical magazine cannot grasp the concept of political power and the need to exercise it.
That is an endemic feature of the left - and I mean everyone to the left of center, though it gets worse the farther along the spectrum you go - in general.
But why? There's certainly nothing specifically leftist about not effectively exercising power!
I have no idea
That's a rather broad generalization and not one that was true historically. The Bolsheviks certainly weren't afraid to manipulate the political process in Revolutionary Russia until they were in complete control. And Mao famously said "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun".
I'm speaking more of this country, and in the modern era
The same is true of the right. The amount of seats republicans have thrown away with bad candidates is staggering.
They could have 60 senate seats if they consistantly nominated electable candidate in swing areas.
If they had done that, they'd be a different party. This is not a reasonable Republican Party.
I lean socialist myself (I’m in favor of nationalizing public utilities, for one) and I detest Jacobin. They’re too puritanical for me, they’ve occasionally put out pieces that seem to sympathize with the Russian government, one of their former editor in chiefs repeatedly supported the Greens in general elections, and overall there are far better progressive news outlets out there (I especially love Democracy Now and The Nation, in particular).
I far prefer The American Prospect, with the writings of David Dayen and Robert Kuttner, and many other excellent journalists and analysts.
https://prospect.org/
Utah argument was end of January:
While it’s unclear how soon a ruling from Gibson might come, a decision will likely be made within the calendar year. Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, whose office oversees elections in the state, has requested that electoral maps for the 2026 congressional elections be finalized by Nov. 1.
“I am mindful that time is of the essence,” Gibson said as she adjourned, telling attorneys that she will take their arguments under advisement.
It is now August.
Looks like the district could ruling could come “any day now.” It does seem like it will come soon:
https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2025/08/08/looming-redistricting-ruling-may-push-utah-into-spotlight/
Jacobin is for Tankies and Trots.
Texas Redistricting
We're now in another stage of seeing how far Texas Republicans are willing to go for Trump. For anyone interested in the legal background regarding Abbott's request to try and expel Texas House members, check out this link: https://youtu.be/Xpqog5BnQ48?si=Ph5KW-DcaPSrwc0W
It's an interview from CBS Austin with a Texas Constitutional scholar. At about the 7 min mark they discuss Abbott's request to the Texas Supreme Court. Among the hurdles is that the Supreme Court is not a fact-finding judicial body, which has to be done by a jury, and that to expel members you would have to prove they have no intention of ever returning.
The current Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court is Jimmy Blacklock, who previously served as general counsel to Abbott. Abbott appointed Blacklock to the court in 2018. In 2021 Blacklock authored a Supreme Court opinion that said the Texas Constitution (Art. 3, Sec. 10) enabled quorum-breaking. The opinion also stated that power to compel members back rests with the House. There's a potential off ramp if the court wants to take it; Abbott not being a member of the House has no standing to compel or punish members. The very next section in the constitution (Art. 3, Sec. 11), actually says the House determines punishment and can only expel by a vote of 2/3; it goes further in that section saying, "but not a second time for the same offence." So if you expel those House members for breaking quorum, then they get re-elected, you wouldn't be able to expel them for breaking quorum again?
The opinion in question:
https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1452658/210667.pdf
The way Republican judges have gladly overturned precedent to benefit Republicans it wouldn't surprise me if they decided in favor of Abbott.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the court decided against Abbott, for any of the reasons you’ve mentioned. Whereby the Republicans can throw up their hands and tell Trump: "Well, we tried." Except for Abbott and Paxton, and perhaps a few other MAGA acolytes, I do have the impression that Texas Republicans are not overly eager to be enacting this extreme gerrymander.
Please correct me if you think I’m wrong.
There is a Texas State Senate district 9 up for a special election on November 4 in the Fort Worth area. I don't know how it voted for Trump-Harris last year but in 2022 the Republican won it by a 60-40 split. If there is negative blowback about the gerrymandering, that would seem to be a litmus test for it.
Anna Bower wrote a good article about this recently in lawfaremedia. Just looking at the law and precedent, the republican lawsuits should be laughed out of court.
It will all come down to how hackish and partisan the TX Supreme Court wants to be.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a-legal-standoff-in-the-lone-star-state
This ruling if they side with Abbott (let’s just say I’d be shocked if they didn’t) and allow the redraw might cause enough of a backlash judicially to allow Democrats to sweep the State Supreme Court seats in 2026 to gain a crucial foothold in Texas statewide elected offices.
This was probably covered somewhere, but I don't remember seeing it and didn't remember he had been running for the U.S. Senate: https://politicalwire.com/2025/08/08/michigan-lawmaker-drops-out-of-senate-race/
"Michigan state Rep. Joe Tate (D), who was the first Black speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives, said that he is suspending his U.S. Senate campaign..."
Part of me wonders if he’ll run for something else. I saw a news article mentioning him as a possible candidate for MI-12 (Tlaib’s seat) and I believe MI-13 (Thanedar’s seat).
Personally I think a Tlaib primary would be suicidal - Tlaib, whatever you think of her, apparently has stellar constituent services and is in a highly favorable district with a large Arab population, so I doubt she’s going anywhere. AIPAC tried and failed, for one.
Donavan McKinney is already challenging Thanedar, and honestly anyone else running there would just ensure Thanedar wins again, so unless Tate is stupid I don’t think that would be advisable either.
Not sure what else he’d run for.
Secretary of State, LG, or AG...
Potentially. LG maybe, I haven’t heard much of that race.
I could see Benson adding Tate as her LG - in Michigan the candidate picks the LG and the convention rubber stamps the choice.
Row offices need some love
Already multiple candidates for AG: Mark Totten (former US Attorney for the WD and AG candidate), Karen McDonald (former circuit court judge and Oakland County Prosecutor - likely to get Nessel’s endorsement), and Eli Savit (Washtenaw County Prosecutor).
And Ingham County Clerk Barb Byrum is running for SoS, along with Deputy SoS Aghogho Edevbie.
In Michigan row offices are decided at state party conventions. Usually the candidate is chosen at a spring nominating convention and then formally nominated at the fall (post-August primary) convention. This gives the AG and SoS candidates much more time to campaign.
Note: LG is the Gov nominee’s choice (as a matter of practice). Although the LG nominee is (save for the 1990 election) usually of little consequence to the gubernatorial race outcome.
Yeah - a multi-candidate primary is definitely in Shri’s favor. Hopefully Tate looks elsewhere for his next run (if any).
This solidifies the Democratic primary in MI-Sen as a three-way race between Stevens, McMorrow, and El-Sayed. This is a primary where any debates that are held will be absolutely critical.
Did you guys hear about the Mothership Strategies scam/controversy?
That sounds like a science fiction plot element.
Cook moves MN Sen to likely D https://x.com/Mwilburn123/status/1954547956847124620
Seems overdue.
It is a quiet Sunday...so, as a New Yorker I ask you: over/under on whether Boone survives as Yankee Mgr for next season
I haven't followed baseball so closely since I threw out the old TV set some years ago and haven't been to any games this year. I suppose the problem isn't mainly the manager, but I doubt Cashman would be fired and a field manager is an easy target. I was talking to a friend of mine the other day about the so far poor results of the blockbuster pre-trade deadline transactions by the Yankees and reminiscing about how relievers who hadn't done much were heroes in great seasons like 1996 and 1998. The Yankees tried to get lightning in a bottle. Sometimes that happens; sometimes, it doesn't. But getting back to your question: The fact that the owner is no longer George Steinbrenner definitely decreases chances of a manager being fired, so are the fans calling for his head? If so, he'll definitely have to go. If not, even money at most.
thanks for your insight...big time Dodger fan here so what happens with the Yanks is always of some interest.
My father was a huge Brooklyn Dodger fan and was never a baseball fan after they left. As a result, I never root for the Dodgers. But I'd still find it interesting to see a game in Chavez Ravine (or whatever they're calling it now) someday.
Dodger Stadium!!
Quite a negative article about Bangladesh, but it sounds like the record of the interim administration is mixed, not purely good or purely bad: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c741qken2wvo
Some excerpts:
I think they buried the lede. At least politically, this sounds like it's the ballgame:
'Many credit the interim government with stabilising the country's economy and, contrary to fears, the banking sector has survived.
Bangladesh has met its loan obligations, kept food prices largely stable, and maintained robust foreign exchange reserves - currently at $30bn (£22bn) - thanks to remittances and international loans. Exports have also held steady.'
Instead, they concentrated on these criticisms, which certainly sound justified but are probably not what most people have uppermost in their minds as they struggle to put food on the table:
'[A]n leader from the Awami League alleges that the party's supporters are being silenced by not being allowed to contest the next poll - with most of its leaders in exile or in prison.
"The elections will not be inclusive without the participation of the Awami League," Mohammad Ali Arafat, former minister in Hasina's cabinet, tells the BBC.
In its latest report, the Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) said there had been an alarming rise in mob violence while extra-judicial killings and deaths in custody had persisted in the past year.
"We have overthrown an authoritarian regime, but unless we put an end to the authoritarian practices, we cannot really create a new Bangladesh," Iftekhar Zaman, the executive director of the TIB, said during the launch of the report earlier this week.'
I hope they work out a good way forward that solves these problems. I care deeply about people's rights, but if we should have learned anything from fucking Trump winning the popular vote after being convicted of felonies, it's that if voters think you can save them from fucking inflation, you win. And even more so if you have improved the economy and they believe that. I guess the key is, do they believe the interim government has improved their lives, as opposed to the American people's fucking stupid belief that Biden didn't save the country from a depression.
Is this news? It's being presented as new that Bernie Sanders favors Democratic gerrymandering as necessary under the circumstances: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzzzwpgCbis