I'm assuming the answer is no given previous elections where there was no significant write-ins but top 2 prevents any write in campaigns in CA and WA correct?
In California, a write in candidate has to file a write in form and be certified as a write in candidate. A voter can write in anybody they want, but unless they are on the certified write in list, they aren't tabulated.
In California, it's two weeks before election day.
I actually became quite familiar with the rules when I was a roving supervisor over 5 polling locations, and I got a call from a precinct inspector that a drunk wanted to write in all the characters from Fantasia and wanted to make sure they counted. After I heard he was threatening to smash the electronic voting machines if his characters weren't counted, I arrived at the location with police, he calmed down, voted and left.
It's 14 days prior to any election, primary or general. For most elections there is a list of qualified writeins at the polling place that nobody pays attention to.
An exception was in 2002 in Orange County when a judge, Ronald Kline, was unopposed on the ballot and found to have kiddie porn on the computer in his chambers. A massive write in campaign started and was promoted by every media outlet in SoCal, and he lost.
Interesting context thanks. Something to consider if the GOP gets the top 2 slots in CA-GOV. I know it's unlikely but if it does happen hope Dems rally around the top Dem vote getter with a write in campaign.
In all the years I worked the polls before CA got rid of precinct voting, there were exactly 3 voters where I had to diffuse bad behavior. Everyone else were great.
We typically got coffee and donuts delivered in the morning, a catered Persian dinner, pizzas multiple times, Thai takeout, and an English woman pulled up in a Bentley and set up afternoon tea at 3pm for poll workers and voters. I worked in a very affluent precinct.
The observers and canvassers (and candidates themselves for that matter) are far more likely to be a problem than the voters, at least in my experience.
I've worked polls since early 2018. In Pres years we can have as many as 7 election days with primaries and runoffs. Last year only 6.
I've had only 2 issues. A GOP poll watcher in 2024 and a voter in 2022 primary (i think) who was adamant and belligerent that Hugo Chavez had hacked our machines and manipulated the election. Didn't seem to care that Chavez has been dead for years already, lol.
In Massachusetts we have a police officer in every polling place, per state law. Which is perhaps a bit of a waste, since they mostly just sit in a corner and read a book, but it is nice to have an officer at your beck and call when situations like that occur.
As with last weekend, I’m going to list some races I’ve been interested in as of late, and why:
- NY-Gov: How vulnerable is Hochul? Given Stefanik’s recent behavior, is Hochul more or less favored? And how much better will we do in a bluer environment?
- MN-Gov: Will Walz retire? And who might run if he doesn’t? Steve Simon? Angie Craig? Peggy Flanagan?
- MN-05: Is Ilhan Omar still vulnerable to a primary challenge? She has fared poorly against challengers in the past, only barely winning. However, progressives are doing much better in primaries now, and Omar made the news for her handling of Trump’s racist attacks on Somalis. Nevertheless, Omar Fateh still lost the mayors’ race, and progressives lost their City Council supermajority. Could Omar still be taken out? Note that the challenger there is is quite weak.
- TX-Sen: If Crockett enters, what happens to Talarico? Has he still got a shot?
- IL-09: Is Biss still favored? Could Kat pull off an upset? If AIPAC gets involved, will Fine do better?
- NY-10: Will both Lander and Aviles run? If so, will Goldman benefit from a split ticket?
- Dallas Mayor: This is years away, but I’m curious to see who might run now that Eric Johnson is term-limited/became a turncoat Repub. Who might be interested?
- NC in general: Anderson Clayton is one of the best Dem chairs in the country. How well might we keep doing with her at the helm?
- Potential special elections/retirements: Much chatter has focused on potential GOP retirements, given the general sense of misery in the caucus. Who’s on retirement watch? Resignation watch?
- AZ-Gov: I’ve heard Katie Hobbs isn’t very popular. We are still in a pretty blue environment. Could that push Hobbs over the edge? Will an extremist GOP nominee like Andy Biggs help us?
- NY-17: My home district. Could we finally knock out Lawler? Or is he entrenched now?
- NY-SD-13: Jessica Ramos’ endorsement of Cuomo and fights with the left, combined with a strong primary challenger in State Assemb. Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas, may or may not have made her vulnerable. Notably, said challenger has both progressive and centrist support. What might happen here?
- NE-Sen: How might Dan Osborn fare in a bluer environment?
- IL-Comptroller: A crowded field has emerged here in this now-open seat. Who might win?
- IL-04: Is Patty Garcia a guaranteed winner? Or might an upset brew from Sigcho-Lopez or the other woman who just filed an an independent?
- Reach seats in general: After what happened in TN, what are some reach seats we could now gun for? Who are some candidates who might help flip these seats?
- AZ-02: Jonathan Nez did shockingly well here last year. He’s running again. What are his chances now? Could he once again juice the Native American vote?
- WI Redistricting: Might a more favorable map come out of this? If so, what seats might be more favorable?
- NY-11: On paper, this seat shouldn’t be winnable. However, ex-NYC Councilman Justin Brannan has been floating a bid here — and he has a support base in Staten Island. If he runs, might he do better? Or is he as screwed as anyone else?
- NY-AD-36 special: Mamdani’s seat. Will the local Dems try to appoint a centrist as their nominee to stick it to the DSA/WFP? Or will they find a candidate who avoids pissing off the left?
- DC Mayor: Will the left, or the center win here? The occupation has me thinking the former — am I wrong?
- HI-01: Could we finally knock out Ed Case? Or will a split field help him? Could we win even without a split field?
- CA-48: Issa is now quite vulnerable, and I believe we’ll win this one. But with who? And how likely is it we win here?
I have more but I’ll stop here to avoid overwhelming everyone.
NY-Gov, AZ-Gov, HI-01: few things benefit an unpopular incumbent quite like an even less popular president of the opposite party. I wouldn't quite call them safe but I'd be surprised by any of them losing.
MN-Gov: I'm terrible at making predictions but I get the sense that Walz enjoyed his greater prominence last year on the ticket, and he feels a desire to go on because of that. But I also get the sense that he feels content with his two terms as governor and would have retired if not for the first detail. The two sides are warring inside him and the winner will determine if he runs for a third term or enjoys retirement after a solid career.
IL-09: I think Biss is still favored, but his pathway to victory is less certain than before. I think Fine's chances are low but not quite zero.
TX-Sen: A lot will depend on if one of the three is able to build momentum and build up early coverage advantages. Talarico is doing amazingly on fundraising. We'll have a much better idea after we get some early polling after/if she announces.
NY-Gov: Hochul isn't vulnerable. Republicans are fooling themselves if they think that. She got caught napping last time in a bad environment and it was unexpectedly close, she's in active campaign mode now and hasn't been making the same stupid mistakes she did last time. So long as we take nothing for granted, this won't be close.
MN-Gov: If Walz retires, I can't see either Craig or Flanagan switching over. They both have solid paths to victory and have spent months in the race. I bet Erin Murphy would make another run for it, though.
HI-01: So long as Case shows weakness this cycle, I bet we knock him out in 2028 (or he chooses to retire.) People need to believe he can lose before the floodgates open and his challengers start getting real support. We could do it this cycle, but I'd put money on it happening by 2028.
I think Walz is boxed in right now. If he changed his mind now and retired it would it look like he’s caving into pressure from Trump while they are just starting up their ‘investigations’ of his administration. He probably shouldn’t have ran again since he seemed so indecisive for months and why run again if your heart isn’t in it and there’s clear voter fatigue.. He has stay the course now.
I was going off what I'd heard in the past. If her approval ratings have gone up, that's good -- I legitimately hadn't heard much of anything in a while.
I think Hobbs will benefit from the possibility of Hispanic voters swinging to her direction given what Trump and the GOP are doing to turn off these key demographics.
I remember someone describing him as being like (can't remember the exact quote, but something like this) a person who has a collection of human skin in his basement.
As a part time Arizonan, I would call the support for Hobbs lukewarm. She's a decent administrator, but isn't good at self promotion or campaigning. Republicans don't like her because she's a Democrat, and Democrats expect her to get more done, which she can't do with a Republican controlled House and Senate.
I believe she will easily get reelected if Republicans put up Biggs, and she will have more of a problem with a more normal Republican.
We've been winning in slightly lean Republican Arizona in statewide offices because Republicans have been choosing the most noxious candidate in the primary.
Campa-Najjar may be financially backed by his billionaire fiancée and staunch progressive Congresswoman Sara Jacobs in the primary to face Darrell Issa.
Hmm looking at her grandfather on Wiki, who is the co-founder of Qualcom, he has 1.2 billion and he def helped her get elected to congress. I doubt she has billions or even close to it, that's not to say she won't be filthy rich.
Well, Jacobs can enlist the help of her grandfather even if her wealth can't directly affected Campa-Najjar's campaign.
That said, Campa-Najjar may not need the help of Jacobs' grandfather. He was quite effective at fundraising for his 2020 House campaign against Darrell Issa even while Issa obviously had the upper hand in terms of winning CA-50 (it was after all the same district that Duncan D. Hunter occupied before being indicted and having forced to resign from the seat).
No chance Issa will win CA-48. He barely even won CA-49 back in 2016 against Doug Applegate and with the political environment increasingly against the GOP in 2026, I do not see how he pulls this off.
It’s simple - A Lean Blue seat just needs Democrats and Independents to turn out for the Democratic nominee and Issa is gone.
Marni Von Wilpert is said to the be the front runner. I'm being intro'd to Corinna Contreras. Brandon Riker was running in the old 41st and has transferred to the 48th. All of these in addition to Campa-Najjer look like solid candidates. I haven't dug into it yet so can't comment in depth.
NY-Gov: Hochul will win against any opponent, from Stefanik to Delgado. She's gaining credibility, not losing it.
MN-Gov: If Walz retires, Simon is the obvious candidate. Flanagan and Craig should stick to the Senate race.
MN-5: If Don Samuels with all of his funding can't oust Omar, neither can her current opponent.
TX-Sen: Crockett may be popular among Democrats, but many Democrats also know she isn't the best candidate for a statewide election in Texas. Talarico is already coalescing a lot of support and should continue to even if she enters.
IL-9: Biss has a wider coalition of support than Abughazaleh, and even if Fine has more money I doubt she'll knock out Biss or even Abughazaleh.
NY-10: The logical idea is for one of them to run, but it's still an uphill battle against a seemingly entrenched incumbent. Goldman's money and major support from the party already gives him an advantage without any challengers.
Dallas mayor: If Crockett loses the primary or general for Senate, I can see her running here. It would be a wider constituency - there are hundreds of thousands more people in Dallas then there are in her district.
NC: Cooper should somewhat easily win the Senate race next year as well as Earls for Supreme Court, and Budd could be defeated along with Stein winning re-election and Democrats holding the attorney general seat if Jackson runs against Budd.
Retirement watch: I suspect someone from Florida for sure - perhaps Greg Steube (FL 17) or even Cory Mills (FL 7). Rick Allen (GA 12), Mike Turner (OH 10), Bill Huizenga (MI 4), Jim Baird (IN 4), Burgess Owens (UT 4), either of Idaho's congressmen and Tom McClintock (CA 5) are on retirement watch. I think Nancy Mace (SC 1), Julia Letlow (LA 5) and Jodey Arrington (TX 19) could potentially resign early.
AZ-Gov: Depending on who the nominee is, Hobbs has varying degrees of certainty to be re-elected. She would win by 4-5 if Biggs is the nominee, it would be a tossup race with Hobbs slightly favored with Robson, and I feel that she could be in real danger if Schweikert pulls off an upset.
NY-17: Judging by the fact TN-7, a district Republicans have held since 1973, is becoming competitive, and that the *last* Republican before Lawler to hold this district was in 1989, combined with Biden's big win here and even Harris's win last year, Lawler can be defeated by a competent opponent - NOT Beth Davidson.
NY-SD-13: Considering Mamdani won her district, Ramos may be in for quite the fight against Rojas.
NE-Sen: Just like the Kansas 2014 race, I think Nebraska 2024 might have been a fluke, but I'm still optimistic that Osborn can get it in single digits.
IL-4: The Democratic nominee should easily win in any scenario in this district. She's got it.
Reach seats: Considering some items below this one, AZ-2 and NY-11 immediately come to mind. I think MD-1 even under the current map, as well as NC-3, NC-11, SC-1, FL-13 or FL-15, TN-5, KY-6, OH-9 (with Kaptur), OH-10 (I speculated above Turner may retire), OH-15, IN-1 and IN-2 under the new map, WI-1, MO-2, TX-10 (really - Eckhardt is a good candidate), TX-15 (same with Eckhardt - Pulido is a great recruit), TX-24, TX-35, MT-1, any Republican seat in Colorado, AZ-5 (with Biggs retiring of course), WA-5 (was in single digits in 2018), CA-40 (under the new map) and AK-AL (if Scott Kawasaki runs).
WI: If a new map comes out, it'll likely be a compromise that makes WI-3 blue and WI-1 red - but I also mentioned above WI-1 could be a reach target regardless.
NY-AD-36: Councilwoman Julie Won is very ideal - she endorsed Mamdani and represents Astoria.
DC: The left will win, with Janeese Lewis George.
HI-1: The split field will only help Case. I think Belatti is the stronger of his two challengers.
CA-48: Issa is done, period. His re-election bid is as helpless as Al Lawson's was in FL-2.
IL-4: I think the absence of a viable Republican challenge(r) makes it more likely that the election will be decided based on non-policy issues. Like, if all 3 candidates oppose Trump (although I don't think both independents will stay in the race), then it may be more likely that criticism about how Garcia got the nomination sticks. If she's not seen as someone likely to fight Trump in Congress, then the candidate who seems most likely to stand up to him would be much more likely to overcome pure partisanship.
About NY-10: is it normal for members of Congress to email their constituents every freakin day? I don't remember that from other Representatives, but Goldman is doing it, and I think it indicates that he's running scared.
Fetterman has been so awful that the prospect of a Conor Lamb campaign utterly thrills me—and Lamb's essentially a lump of unflavored oatmeal in the shape of a human!
Voters 46 - 38 percent approve of the way John Fetterman is handling his job as United States Senator, with 16 percent not offering an opinion. This compares to Quinnipiac University's January 10, 2024 poll when 45 percent of voters approved of the job Fetterman was doing, 42 percent disapproved, and 13 percent did not offer an opinion.
In today's poll, Republicans 62 - 21 percent approve of the way Fetterman is handling his job, while Democrats 54 - 33 percent disapprove. Independents are evenly split, with 43 percent approving and 43 percent disapproving.
In January 2024, Republicans 75 - 16 percent disapproved of the way Fetterman was handling his job, while Democrats 80 - 10 percent approved. Independents were mixed, with 42 percent approving and 43 percent disapproving.
"One-time Democratic darling John Fetterman flips the approval script as Republicans embrace him and Democrats give him low marks nearly two years after GOP voters wouldn't give him the time of day,"
I want to reiterate, I’m not supportive of him anymore, but as someone who read the whole article, it’s a very well researched piece. Of course they have to put some of what Platner previously wrote online in it and talk about his tattoo. There are real problems that used to matter more prior to Trump that Platner has as a candidate. Are they a problem still now? Regardless of how much of a problem it is, can he overcome it if he’s the nominee? No one knows for sure. His staff is a revolving door though, a key sign that normally means his campaign is finished.
The writer/s show exactly why so many of our voters and some people who never vote for our party are enthralled with him in ways no other Democrat is really effectively able to do: Connect with people and say what needs to be said. He’s 1000% right saying the nation needs to go to therapy from all the traumatic scars emotionally and physically people have undergone in the last quarter century. You don’t choose a rapist, convicted felon, racist, terrible human being as president twice, without being very sick. No one talks about it though.
Politico also included that part and the truth of how many wild turns his life took before he got help from the VA to start up an oyster business after serving in multiple wars as well as how against the wars he became as he served his country dutifully. It’s raw, it’s real and it’s fair. I normally would agree with you on Politco journalism, but this article isn’t something to complain about, this is exactly how we should want all journalists to act towards and cover all politicians and if they did, Trump wouldn’t be president right now.
At this point I’d rather go with him. The Democratic establishment no longer has any benefit of the doubt in my eyes. And I think Mills is pretty blah GE candidate. It’s a risk, but I’m willing to take it.
Both are risky for different reasons. Mills because she’s no longer a popular Governor and she’s pretty old, with age issues to the forefront of people’s minds from the Biden self destruction as president. There’s a risk that Democrats view her as Collins without the seniority and our base stays home while swing voters stick with the politician they’ve known for decades.
Platner is risky because of his baggage potentially alienating voters in a full scale Republican GOP attack ad campaign that hasn’t even started yet. He’s risky because he could blow up at anytime by saying something a seasoned politician would never say. He’s risky because he could turnoff general election voters so much that we get another 6 years of MAGA voting Collins.
There’s no safe option for Democrats here. The safe option was Troy Jackson, but he’s running for Governor. There’s choosing a well known old politician who is treading water in voting opinion statewide now, but was elected by double digits last time on the ballot or the unknown politician who could self destruct by one wrong phrase or moment any second with baggage that used to end campaigns that has never faced voters before.
It’s up to our voters to decide, which is more of a risk and tbqh: I have no fucking clue who is better or who is more risky.
The key difference for me between the two of them is that based on their stated positions, Platner actually is committed to doing what’s needed to pass the Democratic agenda while Mills, as someone who wouldn’t vote to abolish the filibuster, is not. Obviously Mills would be better than Collins, but having Mills instead of Collins would do nothing to make to easier to pass legislation like the For the People Act, the PRO Act, the Raise the Wage Act, a public option, or legalize abortion nationwide. Obviously we have to vote for the best candidate who can win the seat, but since it’s unclear whether that’s Mills or Platner I’d rather we vote for someone who actually would do what we want as a Senator, and Platner is more likely to be that person.
Everything you are saying about the article as far as the truth revealed does shed light into what Platner is dealing with and the system he is facing.
But Politico is making a doomsday headline and then the author tries to make a whole narrative based on what he believes:
“Platner really might be doomed. But pay attention to him anyway.”
That’s speculative. We do not know for sure Platner is doomed, whether it be in his Senate race or in life. He was able to get married, built a business and is working to reform himself. The article also meanders and continues on and on and on about Platner’s history to where I am thinking, “What’s the point? Get on with it.”
Quite frankly, Politico like many publications tends to go with a narrative but a certain point about the facts. This is why I always err on the side of caution when assuming Politico is really trying to tell the full truth.
That's why the headline qualifies with "might". Surely you understand there has to be some sort of hook to the title.
I really think people underestimate the extent to which the permissibility window for candidates has been dragged far, far into kookoo territory because of Trump and people he has allowed into Federal govt, like RFK jr. People don't really give a damn about affairs, text messages, tattoos anymore, not like they would have 15, 20 years ago... we have convicted and adjudicated criminals at the highest echelons of power disappearing US citizens. The tattoo is gonna get a pass.
It's all just soo speculative. That's my point, and the article goes overkill with it.
If I want deeper, true analysis on Platner, I'll get Andrew Callaghan of Channel 5 News to do real investigation as he would be able to blow Politico's reporting right out of the water. Or Futurism as the publication does great investigative work on difficult topics. With Politico, they are always speculative and go for clickbait headlines like this all the time.
Politico has also made headlines like this before with both Trump and Clinton only back in the 2016 presidential election and they really didn't make a difference:
Except with Hillary Clinton as she lost whereas Trump won, going against what Politico's original narrative was.
The purpose of a headline is to draw your attention! Yes, this means it is likely to be exaggeratedly dramatic, which often means doomsday or speculative.
But keep in mind that only rarely does the journalist get to choose the headline. In most cased, the headline is chosen by the desk editors. And for online publications, there is only one goal: maximize the number of clicks to the article – (and, of course, to the advertisements accompanying it).
For sure! Any publication, especially Politico, has to make a headline to grab attention even if it’s not created by the actual author himself. Any form of marketing even for retail products follows through a similar process.
This headline though came across to me as ugly when in reality it’s not so obvious. Graham Platner’s a human being and worked to overcome his issues even if he hasn’t completely been over them. Yes, as Politico observed he went through hell and had a complete distrust in the system.
My issue is just knowing the real truth instead of narrative framing Politico and others like it put on Platner. This has less to with my opinion on him.
So I've been collecting election results from the Pennsylvania elections this year, and looking ahead to the state senate races there in 2026. Democrats haven't been able to make a serious push to win control for a while, and I wanted to see if the results this year could portend enough Democratic victories to take control.
First, the most likely seat to change hands next year is, unfortunately, the 36th - that's the Lancaster County-based district that Democrats narrowly picked up in a special election earlier this year. And despite losing the two statewide judicial races by 13% overall, the Republican candidates nonetheless both won the 36th by about 5 percent. So unless something highly unusual happens here, I'm putting down the 36th as a likely Democratic loss.
However, the good news for Democrats is that there are still enough seats to take control even if we lose the 36th. Dems will need to pick up three seats to tie the chamber (which would give Dems control so long as the Shapiro/Davis ticket wins re-election, since Davis will break ties in favor of the Dems), and four seats to win an absolute majority. And as it happens, there are four seats that Democrats Neuman and Tsai won in their judicial races that are held by Republicans and up for election next year.
First is the 6th, in Bucks County. Currently held by Republican Frank Farry, it voted for Tsai by 6 and Neuman by 7. These are pretty much the only suburbs of Philly that aren't trending Democratic, but Dems still have a solid base here and Farry won by only 8% in 2022. Next is the 16th, based in upper Bucks County and Lehigh County. This one voted for both Democrats by 6% this year, thanks to softer-than-expected margins in upper Bucks as well as strong Democratic margins in the Macungies, populous Allentown suburbs. In 2022, the Republican incumbent here lost his primary to a more conservative challenger, who then won the general election by 8%, but that could leave an opening for Democrats here.
Next up is the 24th, which combines Democratic-trending suburbs of upper Montgomery County with some rural Berks County townships. Thanks to big margins in Montco and softer-than-expected Republican support in Berks, Tsai and Neuman won this district by 13 percent. And the Republican incumbent, Tracy Pennycuick, won by just 4 percent in 2022, so this is probably Democrats' top pickup opportunity next year. Finally, we have the 40th, based in Monroe County and going up to the Scranton area including Carbondale. This district voted for Tsai by 11 and Neuman by 10, while the Republican incumbent, Rosemary Brown, won this by 10% in 2022.
So Democrats basically need to win three of those four seats to tie the chamber, and all four to win an absolute majority. There are no other competitive seats - every other district is either solidly Democratic (i.e. voted for Tsai and Neuman by more than 20%), or voted solidly Republican this year.
It's tough to say. The 24th will be our easiest pickup, since it's just Trump +2.2. Since that will cancel out losing the 36th, we need to win two of the three other SDs - 6, 16, and 40. The 6th and 40th voted for Trump by about 6%, while the 16th went to Trump by 9%. We didn't win any districts in Virginia that went to Trump by that much, but the 13-point overperformance in Tennessee shows that those districts are winnable. It won't be easy, but it's definitely possible.
And I strongly agree with the idea of mid-decade redistricting in Pennsylvania if we do win a trifecta.
I’m surprised SD-36 wasn’t closer. It’s generally bluer than Lancaster County, and the Republicans only won it by about 3%. I’d bet that Shapiro flips Lancaster next year, and if that does happen, I like Malone’s chances.
Unfortunately, the 36th isn't really bluer than Lancaster County - it matches Lancaster County's partisanship pretty closely.
As for Shapiro flipping it, I do think that might happen if Mastriano is the Republican nominee again. But even if he does, we might still lose the 36th - after all, Republicans won a lot of state legislative districts in 2022 that Shapiro was winning simultaneously. A lot of people split their tickets then and will probably do again.
Once again, I'm going to draw inspiration from Techno00 and write about races I'm interested in, but I'm limiting myself to Governor and Senate for now. May edit it later.
CT-Gov: Elliott seems to be a lackluster primary challenger to Lamont. Is there a chance a bigger, stronger name can jump in, or does Lamont's institutional support assure him a primary and general victory? Additionally, does Stewart, Fazio or potentially McCaughey have the best chance as the Republican?
MD-Gov: Will Hale, Bouchat or Hershey win the Republican primary to face Moore, or will Hogan upend the race by attempting another comeback?
GA-Gov: I know she has vehemently denied rumors of a run for higher office, but after her resignation, something Marjorie Taylor Greene could do is win a statewide campaign. Not sure she would make it out of the primary with three statewide officials already in, though.
FL-Gov: Who will DeSantis handpick as his potential successor? His lieutenant, Jay Collins, his agriculture commissioner, Wilton Simpson, or even his wife, Casey? None of them seem to have enough support to defeat Donalds, either way. And will Angie Nixon jump in as well as Al Lawson attempting a comeback on the Democratic side?
TN-Gov: With Behn's surge, will a major Democrat try to run against Blackburn? My first bet would be on the state House leader, John Ray Clemmons.
MI-Gov: Will Dana Nessel join Benson, Gilchrest and Swanson? Will Republicans find someone to run against James other than Mike Cox?
WI-Gov: Who is the frontrunner in both primaries? Barnes and Tiffany have lead polling, but there seems to be doubts about both of their candidacies.
MN-Gov: We know Walz is facing concerns about his campaign, but who would be his general opponent? My bet is either on Demuth, Robbins or Lindell, but probably not Lindell.
CO-Gov, CO-6: If Bennet wins the primary and general and appoints Crow to his seat, who could run for Crow's seat?
AK-Gov: Will Murkowski make a late entry and upend the race, or stick to her Senate job? Her colleagues seem to be wanting to make an exodus to their states, like Tuberville, Blackburn and Bennet. Can she win against the already wide and growing field of Republicans?
VA-Sen: Will Republicans find a recruit to run against Warner, or is this race lost for them like Minnesota?
AL-Sen: Who is favored with Republicans? Marshall, Moore, Hudson, Murphy or Brooks, if he jumps in?
MS-Sen: Despite being a Schumer recruit, Colom doesn't really stand a chance against Hyde-Smith, does he?
LA-Sen: Is Cassidy really vulnerable in a primary, or does he have too many opponents at this point? Will a prominent state legislator like Royce Duplessis, who just lost the race for NOLA mayor, run for Democrats?
KS-Sen: Can Democrats convince Laura Kelly to run despite her age and her lack of enthusiasm like Janet Mills, or will she stick to her plan to leave politics?
All interesting. I can't see Marjorie Taylor Greene winning a Republican primary or a general election at this point, when we don't know what she is anymore. I'd be shocked if a Republican won the Connecticut governorship in the political climate that seems likely next year, but yeah, Lamont is very lackluster. In waves, though, lackluster people mostly ride on the crests.
Seriously, median voters give you such annoying whiplash. And isn't "white South Africans" a bit broad? I thought the administration said it was only granting asylum to Afrikaners (descendents of Dutch settlers).
That's actually quite a turnaround from 10 years ago when 53% thought we shouldn't accept any Syrian refugees and another 11% thought we should only accept Christian Syrians, according to a Bloomberg poll.
I suppose, literally speaking, "do not accept any Syrians" isn't inconsistent with "a variety of countries", since that variety could exclude Syria, but seeing the extreme form MAGA anti-immigration policy has definitely softened people on more moderate policies.
Summary: "Statistical patterns in Montgomery County show large, uniform shifts in vote share as turnout increases—anomalies associated with ballot-stuffing or digital allocation in established election forensic literature (Shpilkin, Udot, Klimek)."
This is from the Substack site of the Election Truth Alliance, which is described as follows:
"The Election Truth Alliance (ETA) is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization of statisticians, data scientists, cybersecurity specialists, and other experts committed to strengthening election transparency."
I really hope someone reads this link and responds. These folks sound scholarly, and I need to know whether their suggestions that the TN-7 election was likely stolen are well-founded. I know someone who thinks these folks are doing the most important work that's reported online.
I guess I have to sheepishly admit I find this type of analysis difficult to understand as a layperson…one of the things that keeps me interested and invested in politics and elections is the presumption that for the most part our elections are run fairly and are not centralized enough to be manipulated to the extent this can flip the outcome.
Very fair point but I find this kind of analysis to be a slippery slope towards doomerism and conspiracy theory. Again, I tread lightly as I am not a statistician, but I didn’t find the article clear enough to indicate a stolen election…this was always a reach district to have done so well in the first place.
I'm definitely aware that it was a huge reach, but if there was probably cheating, we need to know that, so we can protest and be aware of what our challenge is in higher-stakes elections. If something is likely true, the slippery slope is real and has to be taken into account.
Considering this group was trying to push the idea the 2024 presidential election was stolen, I don't really trust them to accurately represent data, much like analyze it objectively
To more specifically rebut the argument made in the post, higher turnout = more R is historically normal, especially in the South where Black voters tend to have lower rates of turnout than White voters, especially on off-year elections. To attempt to make this argument, they would need to look at data from Davidson County and past elections, and find that there is not large difference in turnout between majority White and majority Black precincts.
I wouldn't assume anything about that, especially after Trump said Musk gave him Pennsylvania. I appreciate your substantive take on their claims about the TN-7 election, though.
Musk "gave him Pennsylvania" by spending hundreds of millions on ads. It's pretty straightforward.
This sort of statistical anomaly analysis has been used to promote conspiracy theories about every Presidential election of my adult life. Even if they're right that a given county has unlikely shifts in it, (a claim I doubt to begin with,) they're over 3000 counties in the US, one of them is going to look funky. If you flipped a coin 3000 times there will be a sequence where there's a lot of heads. Zooming in on that you could say "look here, the coin must be weighted!" But in reality the lack of such sequences would be an indication of fake results, not their presence.
Likewise, every election is unique. In 2024 we had the big shift of non-white working class voters, due to the Trump campaign's economic messaging. If your model made assumptions based on "normal" racial voting patterns l, it could detect this shift as an "anomaly". Which hopefully is right, and those voters will return to their usual pattern. But it isn't indication of fraud. (This is the case with that claim about evidence of rigging in upstate New York. It's pretty obvious that it's just Hassids block voting.)
I remember when it was believed that opinion polling showed that the Russian-backed candidate had by rights lost in Ukraine during the Maidan protests. When they re-ran the election, he did lose, but many people were surprised that the margin was a lot closer than polls seemed to indicate. I remember thinking about the Zogby polls that predicted strong wins for Kerry in Ohio -and Florida- on Electjon Day, 2004 by comparison.
I recently read some political discussion on Reddit and it really amazes me how much better, nicer, more polite, and frankly more intelligent people are here. People actually make intelligent arguments here, back them up with sources, are realistic without being hopeless, etc. Thank you all for being such a great place to talk politics, especially in comparison to the cesspit of Reddit!
Hear, hear! I always learn something from the comments and discussions here on The Downballot – in addition to, of course, from the Digests themselves. Oh, and the podcasts/videos by David Nir & Aaron Rupar are stellar!
This isn't your 2003 era AOL chat spam. These are sophisticated LLM-linked bots posting comments and sucking up user engagement, time, resources and spreading misinformation. Its particularly bad on places like Reddit.
"As more AI-enabled tools are introduced, bots will become omnipresent. Organizations must invest in bot management and API security tools to manage the threat from malicious, automated traffic," Singh added.
Bad bots have already taken over in Ireland, where they account for 71% of traffic, and in Germany, where they account for 68%. Mexico, meanwhile, sees 43% of traffic generated by malicious bots, with the U.S. figure standing at 34%."
Grateful for this place, the coverage, the granular detail, and the expertise found here. Active moderation is also very helpful.
How would that affect things like the Internet Archive though? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't bots used by the IA to scrape/archive the internet? That also affects things like archive.ph, which I know people here use to bypass Politico/other news sites' obnoxious paywalls.
How does one prove this? Is it as easy as requiring commenters to check that box on some sites that says "prove that you're a human"?
If it's that easy, maybe TDB should start doing that. I value these conversations here with real people, and I wouldn't want an invasion of bots to ruin things here.
In fairness, I have read some good threads on Reddit regarding electoral politics. However, it’s also true that Reddit can be very hit-or-miss in this regard.
Like I said, zero-sum thinking. He believes that because he gave him something valuable, he should repay him whether by defection or retirement. He made it clear by trying to frame his prosecution as something inflicted on him by Democrats because he supports strong border control and not something done by FBI agents trying to sniff out foreign influence rackets (which it was). This has happened before. For goodness sake, the Abscam legwork (where almost all of the prosecuted were Democratic officials) was done under the Carter Administration and not for petty intra-party conflicts.
The smart-ass in me would retort "I thought this was an 'unconditional pardon' so what are you so mad about?"
I wouldn't be too optimistic considering the last Democrat elected mayor of Miami died in office 30 years ago, but given the recent Democratic performance, Higgins's overperformance in November, and the polling (Higgins 50 to Gonzalez 24), she may finally flip it.
I am going to be cautious but if I am not mistaken, in recent years Miami Mayoral races have been swingy. This still means it’s probably Democrats could win the race.
Miami may be one city but dealing with the reddest parts of Florida are another thing all together. If Jacksonville was able to flip to Team Blue in the last two years, there can be reason for cautious optimism.
You're thinking of the mayor of Miami-Dade County (the more powerful but lower profile job), not the City of Miami (who's mostly a figurehead and delegates to a city manager, but gets more press).
I can never understand how counties have their own mayors when cities do but having lived in Berkeley, CA most of my life, we do not have a Mayor of Alameda accounts. San Francisco has a Mayor but not San Francisco County. DAs yes.
The difference is that SF is a consolidated city/county. Berkeley is a city with a mayor and is part of Alameda County, which has supervisors but no mayor.
No wonder as a native born San Franciscan I grew up in a less complicated city of Berkeley!
Quite honestly, I have been more in touch with my local city council person than the supervisor in Alameda County that represents me, Nikki Fortunato Bas.
They're usually called a "county executive" to avoid the confusion with city/town mayors. (Or "county judge" in like TX and KY to be even more confusing!)
Florida has home-rule counties which set up their own charters and government structure, some limited taxing powers, subject to overriding by state legislation. Some 20 counties are home rule, but cover over 3/4 of the state’s population.
Of them, I only know Jax-Duval, Orange, and M-D (could have other ones I miss here) have a strong mayor-commission structure, separating elected executive and legislative bodies, pretty much like fed and state governments. Most other home rule counties have a unified executive-legislative commission which hires at will a professional administrator, more like most corporations.
The smaller non-home-rule counties, their governments are set up directly by state legislation, and governed by county commissions with powers only specifically delegated by state legislation.
I'm assuming the answer is no given previous elections where there was no significant write-ins but top 2 prevents any write in campaigns in CA and WA correct?
In California, a write in candidate has to file a write in form and be certified as a write in candidate. A voter can write in anybody they want, but unless they are on the certified write in list, they aren't tabulated.
I guess my next question would be if the deadline to get on the certified list is before or after the first round of the primary.
In California, it's two weeks before election day.
I actually became quite familiar with the rules when I was a roving supervisor over 5 polling locations, and I got a call from a precinct inspector that a drunk wanted to write in all the characters from Fantasia and wanted to make sure they counted. After I heard he was threatening to smash the electronic voting machines if his characters weren't counted, I arrived at the location with police, he calmed down, voted and left.
Just to clarify before the first round or the November election. Also what a story lol.
It's 14 days prior to any election, primary or general. For most elections there is a list of qualified writeins at the polling place that nobody pays attention to.
An exception was in 2002 in Orange County when a judge, Ronald Kline, was unopposed on the ballot and found to have kiddie porn on the computer in his chambers. A massive write in campaign started and was promoted by every media outlet in SoCal, and he lost.
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/02/us/judge-facing-pornography-charges-is-unopposed-on-ballot.html
Interesting context thanks. Something to consider if the GOP gets the top 2 slots in CA-GOV. I know it's unlikely but if it does happen hope Dems rally around the top Dem vote getter with a write in campaign.
We just did scenario training for poll clerks here. That would have been a good one!
In all the years I worked the polls before CA got rid of precinct voting, there were exactly 3 voters where I had to diffuse bad behavior. Everyone else were great.
We typically got coffee and donuts delivered in the morning, a catered Persian dinner, pizzas multiple times, Thai takeout, and an English woman pulled up in a Bentley and set up afternoon tea at 3pm for poll workers and voters. I worked in a very affluent precinct.
The observers and canvassers (and candidates themselves for that matter) are far more likely to be a problem than the voters, at least in my experience.
I've worked polls since early 2018. In Pres years we can have as many as 7 election days with primaries and runoffs. Last year only 6.
I've had only 2 issues. A GOP poll watcher in 2024 and a voter in 2022 primary (i think) who was adamant and belligerent that Hugo Chavez had hacked our machines and manipulated the election. Didn't seem to care that Chavez has been dead for years already, lol.
In Massachusetts we have a police officer in every polling place, per state law. Which is perhaps a bit of a waste, since they mostly just sit in a corner and read a book, but it is nice to have an officer at your beck and call when situations like that occur.
Write-ins are allowed in WA. The Republicans tried it last time when they were shut out of the LG but nothing really came of it.
Thanks was curious there too.
As with last weekend, I’m going to list some races I’ve been interested in as of late, and why:
- NY-Gov: How vulnerable is Hochul? Given Stefanik’s recent behavior, is Hochul more or less favored? And how much better will we do in a bluer environment?
- MN-Gov: Will Walz retire? And who might run if he doesn’t? Steve Simon? Angie Craig? Peggy Flanagan?
- MN-05: Is Ilhan Omar still vulnerable to a primary challenge? She has fared poorly against challengers in the past, only barely winning. However, progressives are doing much better in primaries now, and Omar made the news for her handling of Trump’s racist attacks on Somalis. Nevertheless, Omar Fateh still lost the mayors’ race, and progressives lost their City Council supermajority. Could Omar still be taken out? Note that the challenger there is is quite weak.
- TX-Sen: If Crockett enters, what happens to Talarico? Has he still got a shot?
- IL-09: Is Biss still favored? Could Kat pull off an upset? If AIPAC gets involved, will Fine do better?
- NY-10: Will both Lander and Aviles run? If so, will Goldman benefit from a split ticket?
- Dallas Mayor: This is years away, but I’m curious to see who might run now that Eric Johnson is term-limited/became a turncoat Repub. Who might be interested?
- NC in general: Anderson Clayton is one of the best Dem chairs in the country. How well might we keep doing with her at the helm?
- Potential special elections/retirements: Much chatter has focused on potential GOP retirements, given the general sense of misery in the caucus. Who’s on retirement watch? Resignation watch?
- AZ-Gov: I’ve heard Katie Hobbs isn’t very popular. We are still in a pretty blue environment. Could that push Hobbs over the edge? Will an extremist GOP nominee like Andy Biggs help us?
- NY-17: My home district. Could we finally knock out Lawler? Or is he entrenched now?
- NY-SD-13: Jessica Ramos’ endorsement of Cuomo and fights with the left, combined with a strong primary challenger in State Assemb. Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas, may or may not have made her vulnerable. Notably, said challenger has both progressive and centrist support. What might happen here?
- NE-Sen: How might Dan Osborn fare in a bluer environment?
- IL-Comptroller: A crowded field has emerged here in this now-open seat. Who might win?
- IL-04: Is Patty Garcia a guaranteed winner? Or might an upset brew from Sigcho-Lopez or the other woman who just filed an an independent?
- Reach seats in general: After what happened in TN, what are some reach seats we could now gun for? Who are some candidates who might help flip these seats?
- AZ-02: Jonathan Nez did shockingly well here last year. He’s running again. What are his chances now? Could he once again juice the Native American vote?
- WI Redistricting: Might a more favorable map come out of this? If so, what seats might be more favorable?
- NY-11: On paper, this seat shouldn’t be winnable. However, ex-NYC Councilman Justin Brannan has been floating a bid here — and he has a support base in Staten Island. If he runs, might he do better? Or is he as screwed as anyone else?
- NY-AD-36 special: Mamdani’s seat. Will the local Dems try to appoint a centrist as their nominee to stick it to the DSA/WFP? Or will they find a candidate who avoids pissing off the left?
- DC Mayor: Will the left, or the center win here? The occupation has me thinking the former — am I wrong?
- HI-01: Could we finally knock out Ed Case? Or will a split field help him? Could we win even without a split field?
- CA-48: Issa is now quite vulnerable, and I believe we’ll win this one. But with who? And how likely is it we win here?
I have more but I’ll stop here to avoid overwhelming everyone.
My thoughts on some of those:
NY-Gov, AZ-Gov, HI-01: few things benefit an unpopular incumbent quite like an even less popular president of the opposite party. I wouldn't quite call them safe but I'd be surprised by any of them losing.
MN-Gov: I'm terrible at making predictions but I get the sense that Walz enjoyed his greater prominence last year on the ticket, and he feels a desire to go on because of that. But I also get the sense that he feels content with his two terms as governor and would have retired if not for the first detail. The two sides are warring inside him and the winner will determine if he runs for a third term or enjoys retirement after a solid career.
IL-09: I think Biss is still favored, but his pathway to victory is less certain than before. I think Fine's chances are low but not quite zero.
TX-Sen: A lot will depend on if one of the three is able to build momentum and build up early coverage advantages. Talarico is doing amazingly on fundraising. We'll have a much better idea after we get some early polling after/if she announces.
NY-Gov: Hochul isn't vulnerable. Republicans are fooling themselves if they think that. She got caught napping last time in a bad environment and it was unexpectedly close, she's in active campaign mode now and hasn't been making the same stupid mistakes she did last time. So long as we take nothing for granted, this won't be close.
MN-Gov: If Walz retires, I can't see either Craig or Flanagan switching over. They both have solid paths to victory and have spent months in the race. I bet Erin Murphy would make another run for it, though.
HI-01: So long as Case shows weakness this cycle, I bet we knock him out in 2028 (or he chooses to retire.) People need to believe he can lose before the floodgates open and his challengers start getting real support. We could do it this cycle, but I'd put money on it happening by 2028.
I think Walz is boxed in right now. If he changed his mind now and retired it would it look like he’s caving into pressure from Trump while they are just starting up their ‘investigations’ of his administration. He probably shouldn’t have ran again since he seemed so indecisive for months and why run again if your heart isn’t in it and there’s clear voter fatigue.. He has stay the course now.
Katie Hobbs’s approval has generally been positive. You’re being very selective with the data if you think she is unpopular.
I was going off what I'd heard in the past. If her approval ratings have gone up, that's good -- I legitimately hadn't heard much of anything in a while.
I think Hobbs will benefit from the possibility of Hispanic voters swinging to her direction given what Trump and the GOP are doing to turn off these key demographics.
Plus, she'll probably get a whackdoodle opponent (e.g., Andy Biggs).
Blake Masters could take a crack at it:
To help Democrats of course.
I remember someone describing him as being like (can't remember the exact quote, but something like this) a person who has a collection of human skin in his basement.
As a part time Arizonan, I would call the support for Hobbs lukewarm. She's a decent administrator, but isn't good at self promotion or campaigning. Republicans don't like her because she's a Democrat, and Democrats expect her to get more done, which she can't do with a Republican controlled House and Senate.
I believe she will easily get reelected if Republicans put up Biggs, and she will have more of a problem with a more normal Republican.
We've been winning in slightly lean Republican Arizona in statewide offices because Republicans have been choosing the most noxious candidate in the primary.
Campa-Najjar may be financially backed by his billionaire fiancée and staunch progressive Congresswoman Sara Jacobs in the primary to face Darrell Issa.
She's a billionaire? Didn't know that.
Through her grandfather, billionaire businessman Irwin Jacobs.
Sara Jacobs has inherited her grandfather’s wealth but she’s otherwise quite progressive on a lot of issues.
Hmm looking at her grandfather on Wiki, who is the co-founder of Qualcom, he has 1.2 billion and he def helped her get elected to congress. I doubt she has billions or even close to it, that's not to say she won't be filthy rich.
Well, Jacobs can enlist the help of her grandfather even if her wealth can't directly affected Campa-Najjar's campaign.
That said, Campa-Najjar may not need the help of Jacobs' grandfather. He was quite effective at fundraising for his 2020 House campaign against Darrell Issa even while Issa obviously had the upper hand in terms of winning CA-50 (it was after all the same district that Duncan D. Hunter occupied before being indicted and having forced to resign from the seat).
https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2020/07/16/campa-najjar-reports-record-fundraising-1-million-for-battle-against-issa/
By all means, add more if you're so inclined!
No chance Issa will win CA-48. He barely even won CA-49 back in 2016 against Doug Applegate and with the political environment increasingly against the GOP in 2026, I do not see how he pulls this off.
It’s simple - A Lean Blue seat just needs Democrats and Independents to turn out for the Democratic nominee and Issa is gone.
I figured. My question was more, which Dem might win here?
So far Ammar Campa-Najjar has the biggest name recognition and ability to organize.
For anyone else, I cannot comment.
Marni Von Wilpert is said to the be the front runner. I'm being intro'd to Corinna Contreras. Brandon Riker was running in the old 41st and has transferred to the 48th. All of these in addition to Campa-Najjer look like solid candidates. I haven't dug into it yet so can't comment in depth.
NY-Gov: Hochul will win against any opponent, from Stefanik to Delgado. She's gaining credibility, not losing it.
MN-Gov: If Walz retires, Simon is the obvious candidate. Flanagan and Craig should stick to the Senate race.
MN-5: If Don Samuels with all of his funding can't oust Omar, neither can her current opponent.
TX-Sen: Crockett may be popular among Democrats, but many Democrats also know she isn't the best candidate for a statewide election in Texas. Talarico is already coalescing a lot of support and should continue to even if she enters.
IL-9: Biss has a wider coalition of support than Abughazaleh, and even if Fine has more money I doubt she'll knock out Biss or even Abughazaleh.
NY-10: The logical idea is for one of them to run, but it's still an uphill battle against a seemingly entrenched incumbent. Goldman's money and major support from the party already gives him an advantage without any challengers.
Dallas mayor: If Crockett loses the primary or general for Senate, I can see her running here. It would be a wider constituency - there are hundreds of thousands more people in Dallas then there are in her district.
NC: Cooper should somewhat easily win the Senate race next year as well as Earls for Supreme Court, and Budd could be defeated along with Stein winning re-election and Democrats holding the attorney general seat if Jackson runs against Budd.
Retirement watch: I suspect someone from Florida for sure - perhaps Greg Steube (FL 17) or even Cory Mills (FL 7). Rick Allen (GA 12), Mike Turner (OH 10), Bill Huizenga (MI 4), Jim Baird (IN 4), Burgess Owens (UT 4), either of Idaho's congressmen and Tom McClintock (CA 5) are on retirement watch. I think Nancy Mace (SC 1), Julia Letlow (LA 5) and Jodey Arrington (TX 19) could potentially resign early.
AZ-Gov: Depending on who the nominee is, Hobbs has varying degrees of certainty to be re-elected. She would win by 4-5 if Biggs is the nominee, it would be a tossup race with Hobbs slightly favored with Robson, and I feel that she could be in real danger if Schweikert pulls off an upset.
NY-17: Judging by the fact TN-7, a district Republicans have held since 1973, is becoming competitive, and that the *last* Republican before Lawler to hold this district was in 1989, combined with Biden's big win here and even Harris's win last year, Lawler can be defeated by a competent opponent - NOT Beth Davidson.
NY-SD-13: Considering Mamdani won her district, Ramos may be in for quite the fight against Rojas.
NE-Sen: Just like the Kansas 2014 race, I think Nebraska 2024 might have been a fluke, but I'm still optimistic that Osborn can get it in single digits.
IL-4: The Democratic nominee should easily win in any scenario in this district. She's got it.
Reach seats: Considering some items below this one, AZ-2 and NY-11 immediately come to mind. I think MD-1 even under the current map, as well as NC-3, NC-11, SC-1, FL-13 or FL-15, TN-5, KY-6, OH-9 (with Kaptur), OH-10 (I speculated above Turner may retire), OH-15, IN-1 and IN-2 under the new map, WI-1, MO-2, TX-10 (really - Eckhardt is a good candidate), TX-15 (same with Eckhardt - Pulido is a great recruit), TX-24, TX-35, MT-1, any Republican seat in Colorado, AZ-5 (with Biggs retiring of course), WA-5 (was in single digits in 2018), CA-40 (under the new map) and AK-AL (if Scott Kawasaki runs).
WI: If a new map comes out, it'll likely be a compromise that makes WI-3 blue and WI-1 red - but I also mentioned above WI-1 could be a reach target regardless.
NY-AD-36: Councilwoman Julie Won is very ideal - she endorsed Mamdani and represents Astoria.
DC: The left will win, with Janeese Lewis George.
HI-1: The split field will only help Case. I think Belatti is the stronger of his two challengers.
CA-48: Issa is done, period. His re-election bid is as helpless as Al Lawson's was in FL-2.
Very detailed comment! Thanks for the response - interesting analysis!
IL-4: I think the absence of a viable Republican challenge(r) makes it more likely that the election will be decided based on non-policy issues. Like, if all 3 candidates oppose Trump (although I don't think both independents will stay in the race), then it may be more likely that criticism about how Garcia got the nomination sticks. If she's not seen as someone likely to fight Trump in Congress, then the candidate who seems most likely to stand up to him would be much more likely to overcome pure partisanship.
I truly don't think the vast majority of voters in the district are aware of this and a solid chunk of those who do won't care by November.
About NY-10: is it normal for members of Congress to email their constituents every freakin day? I don't remember that from other Representatives, but Goldman is doing it, and I think it indicates that he's running scared.
Would be nice if he actually talked to his constituents on the street instead of just sitting at home in Tribeca
I think he had some kind of town hall at Hunter or something, but I don't remember. I don't pay a lot of attention to his emails.
https://www.spotlightpa.org/news/2025/12/fetterman-senate-seat-2028-reelection-primary-challenge-federal-government/
Despite only being halfway through his term, Sen. Fetterman is indeed weighing a 2028 retirement.
I wish he’d resign early so Shapiro can appoint an actual Democrat to the seat.
He won’t resign early for two reasons:
1. He hasn’t hit his pension yet, and won’t until January 2028. Maybe he will then.
2. He is rumored to hate Shapiro.
I didn't expect Fetterman to. I just said what I wish would happen.
He really dislikes Shapiro and he's not shy about it in his book either. Maybe Harris also wrote about it.
Well i guess jokes on him if he's gonna strugge for 3 more years because he doesn't like someone.
Which makes me like Shapiro a good bit more.
That would make it easier for Conor Lamb or whoever else emerges as a Democratic candidate in the primary.
Instinctively, Fetterman retiring would likely make it a more crowded primary as opposed to if he was primaried.
I heard Rep. Chris Deluzio was interested too.
Deluziol, Boyle, Dean etc. All have been rumored to be interested.
Fetterman has been so awful that the prospect of a Conor Lamb campaign utterly thrills me—and Lamb's essentially a lump of unflavored oatmeal in the shape of a human!
A large number of Pennsylvanians are certainly weighing retiring him.
PA-SEN 2028:
Fetterman's Approval Rating Dips Per Quinnipiac
You guessed it, the approval ratings are lower with Democrats vs. Republicans.
https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3933
.
.
.
Voters 46 - 38 percent approve of the way John Fetterman is handling his job as United States Senator, with 16 percent not offering an opinion. This compares to Quinnipiac University's January 10, 2024 poll when 45 percent of voters approved of the job Fetterman was doing, 42 percent disapproved, and 13 percent did not offer an opinion.
In today's poll, Republicans 62 - 21 percent approve of the way Fetterman is handling his job, while Democrats 54 - 33 percent disapprove. Independents are evenly split, with 43 percent approving and 43 percent disapproving.
In January 2024, Republicans 75 - 16 percent disapproved of the way Fetterman was handling his job, while Democrats 80 - 10 percent approved. Independents were mixed, with 42 percent approving and 43 percent disapproving.
"One-time Democratic darling John Fetterman flips the approval script as Republicans embrace him and Democrats give him low marks nearly two years after GOP voters wouldn't give him the time of day,"
added Malloy.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/experience/national-parks/2025/12/05/national-parks-free-entry-days-2026/87631147007/
This one nearly made me upchuck my breakfast oatmeal.
Trump is eliminating free national park admission in MLK Day and Juneteenth, but adding free admission on Trump's birthday.
You couldn't pay me to enter a national park on his birthday.
White only free admission.
Senator Tom Scott, Byron Donalds, and Wesley Hunt would of course be exceptions.
As well as Burgess Owens and John James
https://x.com/MattZeitlin/status/1996962069720031440?
https://x.com/27khv/status/1997021903786242370?
British politicians have started opening their speeches like Ted Cruz and our other politicians after using ChatGPT lmao.
Do we know what parties these British politicians are in?
Politico Magazine The Friday Read
Graham Platner Really Might Be Doomed. Pay Attention to Him Anyway.
The candidate embodies a quarter-century of raw American frustration. It’s the source of his strength — and potentially his downfall.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/12/05/graham-platner-maine-senate-collins-00677731
https://archive.ph/UZb9P
This write is top-notch, regardless of what you think about him. It's a detailed profile of Platner, styled like a biography.
And it’s Politico. More speculative banter.
Moving on.
Tbh it's more notable because it's coming from Politico which dislikes him and is favorable to Mills and Third Way groups.
I want to reiterate, I’m not supportive of him anymore, but as someone who read the whole article, it’s a very well researched piece. Of course they have to put some of what Platner previously wrote online in it and talk about his tattoo. There are real problems that used to matter more prior to Trump that Platner has as a candidate. Are they a problem still now? Regardless of how much of a problem it is, can he overcome it if he’s the nominee? No one knows for sure. His staff is a revolving door though, a key sign that normally means his campaign is finished.
The writer/s show exactly why so many of our voters and some people who never vote for our party are enthralled with him in ways no other Democrat is really effectively able to do: Connect with people and say what needs to be said. He’s 1000% right saying the nation needs to go to therapy from all the traumatic scars emotionally and physically people have undergone in the last quarter century. You don’t choose a rapist, convicted felon, racist, terrible human being as president twice, without being very sick. No one talks about it though.
Politico also included that part and the truth of how many wild turns his life took before he got help from the VA to start up an oyster business after serving in multiple wars as well as how against the wars he became as he served his country dutifully. It’s raw, it’s real and it’s fair. I normally would agree with you on Politco journalism, but this article isn’t something to complain about, this is exactly how we should want all journalists to act towards and cover all politicians and if they did, Trump wouldn’t be president right now.
At this point I’d rather go with him. The Democratic establishment no longer has any benefit of the doubt in my eyes. And I think Mills is pretty blah GE candidate. It’s a risk, but I’m willing to take it.
Both are risky for different reasons. Mills because she’s no longer a popular Governor and she’s pretty old, with age issues to the forefront of people’s minds from the Biden self destruction as president. There’s a risk that Democrats view her as Collins without the seniority and our base stays home while swing voters stick with the politician they’ve known for decades.
Platner is risky because of his baggage potentially alienating voters in a full scale Republican GOP attack ad campaign that hasn’t even started yet. He’s risky because he could blow up at anytime by saying something a seasoned politician would never say. He’s risky because he could turnoff general election voters so much that we get another 6 years of MAGA voting Collins.
There’s no safe option for Democrats here. The safe option was Troy Jackson, but he’s running for Governor. There’s choosing a well known old politician who is treading water in voting opinion statewide now, but was elected by double digits last time on the ballot or the unknown politician who could self destruct by one wrong phrase or moment any second with baggage that used to end campaigns that has never faced voters before.
It’s up to our voters to decide, which is more of a risk and tbqh: I have no fucking clue who is better or who is more risky.
Wish there was some sort of middle ground between the two in terms of age, style, substance etc.
You, me and almost every other Democrat share that wish. Sadly, that’s not a choice we have available.
The key difference for me between the two of them is that based on their stated positions, Platner actually is committed to doing what’s needed to pass the Democratic agenda while Mills, as someone who wouldn’t vote to abolish the filibuster, is not. Obviously Mills would be better than Collins, but having Mills instead of Collins would do nothing to make to easier to pass legislation like the For the People Act, the PRO Act, the Raise the Wage Act, a public option, or legalize abortion nationwide. Obviously we have to vote for the best candidate who can win the seat, but since it’s unclear whether that’s Mills or Platner I’d rather we vote for someone who actually would do what we want as a Senator, and Platner is more likely to be that person.
Great summary
When is the Maine primary? Is there tiem for another candidate to emerge?
Everything you are saying about the article as far as the truth revealed does shed light into what Platner is dealing with and the system he is facing.
But Politico is making a doomsday headline and then the author tries to make a whole narrative based on what he believes:
“Platner really might be doomed. But pay attention to him anyway.”
That’s speculative. We do not know for sure Platner is doomed, whether it be in his Senate race or in life. He was able to get married, built a business and is working to reform himself. The article also meanders and continues on and on and on about Platner’s history to where I am thinking, “What’s the point? Get on with it.”
Quite frankly, Politico like many publications tends to go with a narrative but a certain point about the facts. This is why I always err on the side of caution when assuming Politico is really trying to tell the full truth.
That's why the headline qualifies with "might". Surely you understand there has to be some sort of hook to the title.
I really think people underestimate the extent to which the permissibility window for candidates has been dragged far, far into kookoo territory because of Trump and people he has allowed into Federal govt, like RFK jr. People don't really give a damn about affairs, text messages, tattoos anymore, not like they would have 15, 20 years ago... we have convicted and adjudicated criminals at the highest echelons of power disappearing US citizens. The tattoo is gonna get a pass.
It's all just soo speculative. That's my point, and the article goes overkill with it.
If I want deeper, true analysis on Platner, I'll get Andrew Callaghan of Channel 5 News to do real investigation as he would be able to blow Politico's reporting right out of the water. Or Futurism as the publication does great investigative work on difficult topics. With Politico, they are always speculative and go for clickbait headlines like this all the time.
Politico has also made headlines like this before with both Trump and Clinton only back in the 2016 presidential election and they really didn't make a difference:
Except with Hillary Clinton as she lost whereas Trump won, going against what Politico's original narrative was.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-rhetoric-reality-214233/
The purpose of a headline is to draw your attention! Yes, this means it is likely to be exaggeratedly dramatic, which often means doomsday or speculative.
But keep in mind that only rarely does the journalist get to choose the headline. In most cased, the headline is chosen by the desk editors. And for online publications, there is only one goal: maximize the number of clicks to the article – (and, of course, to the advertisements accompanying it).
For sure! Any publication, especially Politico, has to make a headline to grab attention even if it’s not created by the actual author himself. Any form of marketing even for retail products follows through a similar process.
This headline though came across to me as ugly when in reality it’s not so obvious. Graham Platner’s a human being and worked to overcome his issues even if he hasn’t completely been over them. Yes, as Politico observed he went through hell and had a complete distrust in the system.
My issue is just knowing the real truth instead of narrative framing Politico and others like it put on Platner. This has less to with my opinion on him.
So I've been collecting election results from the Pennsylvania elections this year, and looking ahead to the state senate races there in 2026. Democrats haven't been able to make a serious push to win control for a while, and I wanted to see if the results this year could portend enough Democratic victories to take control.
First, the most likely seat to change hands next year is, unfortunately, the 36th - that's the Lancaster County-based district that Democrats narrowly picked up in a special election earlier this year. And despite losing the two statewide judicial races by 13% overall, the Republican candidates nonetheless both won the 36th by about 5 percent. So unless something highly unusual happens here, I'm putting down the 36th as a likely Democratic loss.
However, the good news for Democrats is that there are still enough seats to take control even if we lose the 36th. Dems will need to pick up three seats to tie the chamber (which would give Dems control so long as the Shapiro/Davis ticket wins re-election, since Davis will break ties in favor of the Dems), and four seats to win an absolute majority. And as it happens, there are four seats that Democrats Neuman and Tsai won in their judicial races that are held by Republicans and up for election next year.
First is the 6th, in Bucks County. Currently held by Republican Frank Farry, it voted for Tsai by 6 and Neuman by 7. These are pretty much the only suburbs of Philly that aren't trending Democratic, but Dems still have a solid base here and Farry won by only 8% in 2022. Next is the 16th, based in upper Bucks County and Lehigh County. This one voted for both Democrats by 6% this year, thanks to softer-than-expected margins in upper Bucks as well as strong Democratic margins in the Macungies, populous Allentown suburbs. In 2022, the Republican incumbent here lost his primary to a more conservative challenger, who then won the general election by 8%, but that could leave an opening for Democrats here.
Next up is the 24th, which combines Democratic-trending suburbs of upper Montgomery County with some rural Berks County townships. Thanks to big margins in Montco and softer-than-expected Republican support in Berks, Tsai and Neuman won this district by 13 percent. And the Republican incumbent, Tracy Pennycuick, won by just 4 percent in 2022, so this is probably Democrats' top pickup opportunity next year. Finally, we have the 40th, based in Monroe County and going up to the Scranton area including Carbondale. This district voted for Tsai by 11 and Neuman by 10, while the Republican incumbent, Rosemary Brown, won this by 10% in 2022.
So Democrats basically need to win three of those four seats to tie the chamber, and all four to win an absolute majority. There are no other competitive seats - every other district is either solidly Democratic (i.e. voted for Tsai and Neuman by more than 20%), or voted solidly Republican this year.
Surprised there isn't any competitive seats in the Pittsburgh area or anything west of Lancaster for that matter.
The only competitive seats in western Pennsylvania were already up for election in 2024. And Democrats whiffed on them.
It’s a miracle Democrats held the State House in 2024 elections. The damage in PA downballot could’ve been so much worse.
Are you looking at the data from the retention elections or actual head to head races?
This data is from the actual head-to-head races. Those are more representative of the partisan preference of an area than the retention races.
Great summary. What do you put our chances at? If we can take full control in PA next year, time for some mid-decade redistricting!
It's tough to say. The 24th will be our easiest pickup, since it's just Trump +2.2. Since that will cancel out losing the 36th, we need to win two of the three other SDs - 6, 16, and 40. The 6th and 40th voted for Trump by about 6%, while the 16th went to Trump by 9%. We didn't win any districts in Virginia that went to Trump by that much, but the 13-point overperformance in Tennessee shows that those districts are winnable. It won't be easy, but it's definitely possible.
And I strongly agree with the idea of mid-decade redistricting in Pennsylvania if we do win a trifecta.
I’m surprised SD-36 wasn’t closer. It’s generally bluer than Lancaster County, and the Republicans only won it by about 3%. I’d bet that Shapiro flips Lancaster next year, and if that does happen, I like Malone’s chances.
Unfortunately, the 36th isn't really bluer than Lancaster County - it matches Lancaster County's partisanship pretty closely.
As for Shapiro flipping it, I do think that might happen if Mastriano is the Republican nominee again. But even if he does, we might still lose the 36th - after all, Republicans won a lot of state legislative districts in 2022 that Shapiro was winning simultaneously. A lot of people split their tickets then and will probably do again.
Once again, I'm going to draw inspiration from Techno00 and write about races I'm interested in, but I'm limiting myself to Governor and Senate for now. May edit it later.
CT-Gov: Elliott seems to be a lackluster primary challenger to Lamont. Is there a chance a bigger, stronger name can jump in, or does Lamont's institutional support assure him a primary and general victory? Additionally, does Stewart, Fazio or potentially McCaughey have the best chance as the Republican?
MD-Gov: Will Hale, Bouchat or Hershey win the Republican primary to face Moore, or will Hogan upend the race by attempting another comeback?
GA-Gov: I know she has vehemently denied rumors of a run for higher office, but after her resignation, something Marjorie Taylor Greene could do is win a statewide campaign. Not sure she would make it out of the primary with three statewide officials already in, though.
FL-Gov: Who will DeSantis handpick as his potential successor? His lieutenant, Jay Collins, his agriculture commissioner, Wilton Simpson, or even his wife, Casey? None of them seem to have enough support to defeat Donalds, either way. And will Angie Nixon jump in as well as Al Lawson attempting a comeback on the Democratic side?
TN-Gov: With Behn's surge, will a major Democrat try to run against Blackburn? My first bet would be on the state House leader, John Ray Clemmons.
MI-Gov: Will Dana Nessel join Benson, Gilchrest and Swanson? Will Republicans find someone to run against James other than Mike Cox?
WI-Gov: Who is the frontrunner in both primaries? Barnes and Tiffany have lead polling, but there seems to be doubts about both of their candidacies.
MN-Gov: We know Walz is facing concerns about his campaign, but who would be his general opponent? My bet is either on Demuth, Robbins or Lindell, but probably not Lindell.
CO-Gov, CO-6: If Bennet wins the primary and general and appoints Crow to his seat, who could run for Crow's seat?
AK-Gov: Will Murkowski make a late entry and upend the race, or stick to her Senate job? Her colleagues seem to be wanting to make an exodus to their states, like Tuberville, Blackburn and Bennet. Can she win against the already wide and growing field of Republicans?
VA-Sen: Will Republicans find a recruit to run against Warner, or is this race lost for them like Minnesota?
AL-Sen: Who is favored with Republicans? Marshall, Moore, Hudson, Murphy or Brooks, if he jumps in?
MS-Sen: Despite being a Schumer recruit, Colom doesn't really stand a chance against Hyde-Smith, does he?
LA-Sen: Is Cassidy really vulnerable in a primary, or does he have too many opponents at this point? Will a prominent state legislator like Royce Duplessis, who just lost the race for NOLA mayor, run for Democrats?
KS-Sen: Can Democrats convince Laura Kelly to run despite her age and her lack of enthusiasm like Janet Mills, or will she stick to her plan to leave politics?
All interesting. I can't see Marjorie Taylor Greene winning a Republican primary or a general election at this point, when we don't know what she is anymore. I'd be shocked if a Republican won the Connecticut governorship in the political climate that seems likely next year, but yeah, Lamont is very lackluster. In waves, though, lackluster people mostly ride on the crests.
VA-SEN:
Mark Warner was only seriously challenged back in 2014 but in his first term in the Senate by Ed Gillespie, a GOP Washington insider.
Aside from this, I would say this is a Safe Democrat race considering Abigail Spanberger’s election results.
According to VPAP, there are three candidates running against Warner in Virginia. The most prominent of them is state Senator Bryce Reeves.
"The US should..."
Accept refugees from a variety of countries: 53%
Not accept any refugees: 19%
Only accept White South Africans: 3%
YouGov / Dec 5, 2025
MAGA thankfully continues their downward spiral, it seems.
I think those percentages in support are historically low in the post War era but Im open to being wrong.
53% is low, you mean?
Yes but a google search proved me wrong. Support for decreased immigration was actually significantly higher in the less polarized 90s. Go figure.
Seriously, median voters give you such annoying whiplash. And isn't "white South Africans" a bit broad? I thought the administration said it was only granting asylum to Afrikaners (descendents of Dutch settlers).
Nah British South Africans are also included in the program.
Oh, I thought they were excluding Anglos for some weird reason.
MAGA is too dumb to know the ethnic terms which is why they refer to White South Africans as Boers.
I wonder if the 3% included Elon Musk’s father Errol Musk, who seems to have forgotten his days as an anti-apartheid city councilman.
That's actually quite a turnaround from 10 years ago when 53% thought we shouldn't accept any Syrian refugees and another 11% thought we should only accept Christian Syrians, according to a Bloomberg poll.
I suppose, literally speaking, "do not accept any Syrians" isn't inconsistent with "a variety of countries", since that variety could exclude Syria, but seeing the extreme form MAGA anti-immigration policy has definitely softened people on more moderate policies.
GA-14: Attorney Jason Craig has entered the Republican primary, despite living about 40 miles outside of the district
Hi, everyone. I haven't seen any discussion of these things or Substack site here and would like your opinion: https://substack.com/home/post/p-180696714
Summary: "Statistical patterns in Montgomery County show large, uniform shifts in vote share as turnout increases—anomalies associated with ballot-stuffing or digital allocation in established election forensic literature (Shpilkin, Udot, Klimek)."
This is from the Substack site of the Election Truth Alliance, which is described as follows:
"The Election Truth Alliance (ETA) is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization of statisticians, data scientists, cybersecurity specialists, and other experts committed to strengthening election transparency."
I really hope someone reads this link and responds. These folks sound scholarly, and I need to know whether their suggestions that the TN-7 election was likely stolen are well-founded. I know someone who thinks these folks are doing the most important work that's reported online.
I guess I have to sheepishly admit I find this type of analysis difficult to understand as a layperson…one of the things that keeps me interested and invested in politics and elections is the presumption that for the most part our elections are run fairly and are not centralized enough to be manipulated to the extent this can flip the outcome.
Right, but what if that presumption is wrong?
Very fair point but I find this kind of analysis to be a slippery slope towards doomerism and conspiracy theory. Again, I tread lightly as I am not a statistician, but I didn’t find the article clear enough to indicate a stolen election…this was always a reach district to have done so well in the first place.
I'm definitely aware that it was a huge reach, but if there was probably cheating, we need to know that, so we can protest and be aware of what our challenge is in higher-stakes elections. If something is likely true, the slippery slope is real and has to be taken into account.
Considering this group was trying to push the idea the 2024 presidential election was stolen, I don't really trust them to accurately represent data, much like analyze it objectively
To more specifically rebut the argument made in the post, higher turnout = more R is historically normal, especially in the South where Black voters tend to have lower rates of turnout than White voters, especially on off-year elections. To attempt to make this argument, they would need to look at data from Davidson County and past elections, and find that there is not large difference in turnout between majority White and majority Black precincts.
I wouldn't assume anything about that, especially after Trump said Musk gave him Pennsylvania. I appreciate your substantive take on their claims about the TN-7 election, though.
Musk "gave him Pennsylvania" by spending hundreds of millions on ads. It's pretty straightforward.
This sort of statistical anomaly analysis has been used to promote conspiracy theories about every Presidential election of my adult life. Even if they're right that a given county has unlikely shifts in it, (a claim I doubt to begin with,) they're over 3000 counties in the US, one of them is going to look funky. If you flipped a coin 3000 times there will be a sequence where there's a lot of heads. Zooming in on that you could say "look here, the coin must be weighted!" But in reality the lack of such sequences would be an indication of fake results, not their presence.
Likewise, every election is unique. In 2024 we had the big shift of non-white working class voters, due to the Trump campaign's economic messaging. If your model made assumptions based on "normal" racial voting patterns l, it could detect this shift as an "anomaly". Which hopefully is right, and those voters will return to their usual pattern. But it isn't indication of fraud. (This is the case with that claim about evidence of rigging in upstate New York. It's pretty obvious that it's just Hassids block voting.)
I remember when it was believed that opinion polling showed that the Russian-backed candidate had by rights lost in Ukraine during the Maidan protests. When they re-ran the election, he did lose, but many people were surprised that the margin was a lot closer than polls seemed to indicate. I remember thinking about the Zogby polls that predicted strong wins for Kerry in Ohio -and Florida- on Electjon Day, 2004 by comparison.
Zogby had a weird model that gave undue weight to the results of the last election. In 2008, he had really good numbers for McCain as a result.
Politics
9 min read
Jasmine Crockett scrambles Democrats as she weighs a last-minute Texas Senate run
Good read on Texas politics, not just Crockett.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/12/07/politics/jasmine-crockett-texas-senate
Crockett: “I just thank god to be in a privileged position to the extent that I have choices.”
I have never heard a single Democrat ever say something like this to justify indecisiveness and last minute efforts.
If Crockett really believes this, then why didn’t she say so months ago?
There's a mistake not too far into the article - Marc Veasey is not from and does not live in Dallas
I recently read some political discussion on Reddit and it really amazes me how much better, nicer, more polite, and frankly more intelligent people are here. People actually make intelligent arguments here, back them up with sources, are realistic without being hopeless, etc. Thank you all for being such a great place to talk politics, especially in comparison to the cesspit of Reddit!
Hear, hear! I always learn something from the comments and discussions here on The Downballot – in addition to, of course, from the Digests themselves. Oh, and the podcasts/videos by David Nir & Aaron Rupar are stellar!
A majority of internet traffic, including comments and posts on reddit, are bots:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Internet_theory
https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2024/04/16/yes-the-bots-really-are-taking-over-the-internet/
This isn't your 2003 era AOL chat spam. These are sophisticated LLM-linked bots posting comments and sucking up user engagement, time, resources and spreading misinformation. Its particularly bad on places like Reddit.
"As more AI-enabled tools are introduced, bots will become omnipresent. Organizations must invest in bot management and API security tools to manage the threat from malicious, automated traffic," Singh added.
Bad bots have already taken over in Ireland, where they account for 71% of traffic, and in Germany, where they account for 68%. Mexico, meanwhile, sees 43% of traffic generated by malicious bots, with the U.S. figure standing at 34%."
Grateful for this place, the coverage, the granular detail, and the expertise found here. Active moderation is also very helpful.
Honestly it's time to make internet bots illegal.
How would that affect things like the Internet Archive though? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't bots used by the IA to scrape/archive the internet? That also affects things like archive.ph, which I know people here use to bypass Politico/other news sites' obnoxious paywalls.
It seems that any site could require that in order to post, one must prove oneself to be a human.
How does one prove this? Is it as easy as requiring commenters to check that box on some sites that says "prove that you're a human"?
If it's that easy, maybe TDB should start doing that. I value these conversations here with real people, and I wouldn't want an invasion of bots to ruin things here.
U.S. is only 34% compared to close to 70% in Europe?! Jesus. And I thought we had a bot-infested cesspool on social media
In fairness, I have read some good threads on Reddit regarding electoral politics. However, it’s also true that Reddit can be very hit-or-miss in this regard.
bryan metzger
@metzgov
Trump not too happy with Henry Cuellar after pardoning him.
https://x.com/metzgov/status/1997669816295973278
No quid pro quo for the amateur Wannabe King? Crocodile tears I shed!
Then why did he pardon Cuellar in the first place?
Like I said, zero-sum thinking. He believes that because he gave him something valuable, he should repay him whether by defection or retirement. He made it clear by trying to frame his prosecution as something inflicted on him by Democrats because he supports strong border control and not something done by FBI agents trying to sniff out foreign influence rackets (which it was). This has happened before. For goodness sake, the Abscam legwork (where almost all of the prosecuted were Democratic officials) was done under the Carter Administration and not for petty intra-party conflicts.
The smart-ass in me would retort "I thought this was an 'unconditional pardon' so what are you so mad about?"
So in other words, Cuellar is Trump’s kind of Democrat?
I’d like to see Trump pardon former AL Governor Don Siegelman. That would really PISS off the GOP, especially Karl Rove! ;)
I am curious about the election for Mayor of Miami. What are the chances that they’ll elect our Democratic candidate, Eileen Higgins?
I wouldn't be too optimistic considering the last Democrat elected mayor of Miami died in office 30 years ago, but given the recent Democratic performance, Higgins's overperformance in November, and the polling (Higgins 50 to Gonzalez 24), she may finally flip it.
I am going to be cautious but if I am not mistaken, in recent years Miami Mayoral races have been swingy. This still means it’s probably Democrats could win the race.
Miami may be one city but dealing with the reddest parts of Florida are another thing all together. If Jacksonville was able to flip to Team Blue in the last two years, there can be reason for cautious optimism.
You're thinking of the mayor of Miami-Dade County (the more powerful but lower profile job), not the City of Miami (who's mostly a figurehead and delegates to a city manager, but gets more press).
I can never understand how counties have their own mayors when cities do but having lived in Berkeley, CA most of my life, we do not have a Mayor of Alameda accounts. San Francisco has a Mayor but not San Francisco County. DAs yes.
Anyway, thanks for the info!
The difference is that SF is a consolidated city/county. Berkeley is a city with a mayor and is part of Alameda County, which has supervisors but no mayor.
No wonder as a native born San Franciscan I grew up in a less complicated city of Berkeley!
Quite honestly, I have been more in touch with my local city council person than the supervisor in Alameda County that represents me, Nikki Fortunato Bas.
They're usually called a "county executive" to avoid the confusion with city/town mayors. (Or "county judge" in like TX and KY to be even more confusing!)
That’s what Ben McAdams seemed to have been when he was Mayor of Salt Lake County prior to serving in Congress.
Florida has home-rule counties which set up their own charters and government structure, some limited taxing powers, subject to overriding by state legislation. Some 20 counties are home rule, but cover over 3/4 of the state’s population.
Of them, I only know Jax-Duval, Orange, and M-D (could have other ones I miss here) have a strong mayor-commission structure, separating elected executive and legislative bodies, pretty much like fed and state governments. Most other home rule counties have a unified executive-legislative commission which hires at will a professional administrator, more like most corporations.
The smaller non-home-rule counties, their governments are set up directly by state legislation, and governed by county commissions with powers only specifically delegated by state legislation.
The city of Miami, while sharply turning red since 2016, is far from the reddest part of the state.
In fact it went Harris over Trump by about 1pt. Of course it wasnt like HRC+40pt in 16, or Biden+19.
No idea of chances but just adding that Sen. Ruben Gallego was doing GOTV rallies today with Higgins.
What a team player. And Ruben Gallego hasn’t even finished his first year as Senator!
We can certainly count on him to help turn out the Hispanic vote wherever we need the help.