Green voted YES on the bill. I don’t believe retirement had anything to do with it but maybe anyone else can comment about Green and TN-07 more than I can.
Actually it was just June 9th that Green announced he would resign, effective right after the bill was done. But man it sure does seem like months ago...
So Republicans are down to a 219-212 majority (with 4 vacancies).
Doesn’t seem like Green intends to stay long in politics. He served in the TN House for five years and now he’s doing just over that amount here in the U.S. House.
He does have an MD and has been an executive at multiple healthcare companies.
Only the House is up in VA. Senate is 21D, 19R and that won't change. House is currently 51D, 49R and almost everyone expects the Democrats to pick up quite a few seats in November. Some hope for 60. Don't know about NJ.
What is our exposure in the VA senate due to candidates? Ghazala Hashmi is a state senator running for LG. Is there anyone else that I missed somewhere?
She won her senate district by a wide margin, so I assume it's safe in a special but I do not know the timing for that and how much of a headache it might be.
Hashmi's seat is safe and the Senate doesn't even meet until after she is sworn in as LG (so in the unlikely event her seat is lost, she'd still cast the tiebreaker). Spanberger and Jones aren't in the legislature.
If Hashmi wins in November, then a special election in her now (probably) safely blue seat will happen in December or January.
It would fall to the outgoing Youngkin to schedule it, but I doubt he'd let it slip past his term, and if Hashmi wins Spanberger is probably doing so as well, and she's not going to let Dems go through the legislative session down a seat.
For NJ, only the Assembly is up. The best Dem pickup opportunities are in Legislative Districts 8, 21, and 25.
LD-08 is an exact rematch of 2023, and it was the most competitive district in that election, with 1 Democrat and 1 Republican winning a seat. A Republican incumbent lost that year, who is running again, and the Democratic challenger who lost is running again. I think there is a good chance Democrats win both seats this time around.
LD-21 and LD-25 are both wealthy, suburban districts that have been trending Democratic in recent years. I don't have 2024 data offhand, but given the dynamics of the state, I'm going guess Harris probably won LD-21 and barely lost LD-25. Biden won both in 2020, winning LD-21 by a 58-40 margin.
The races were close in these districts in 2023, too, but the districts have entrenched incumbents. Assemblymember Nancy Munoz in LD-21 has held her seat for over 16 years, and her husband held it for many years before that...she won't lose easily, but I do believe Dems can find a way if the blue wave hits suburban NJ hard! And it helps that Mikie Sherrill has served as the Congresswoman for parts of both of these districts.
LD-01 and LD-02, which elected Democrats in the past, could also be pickup opportunities, but I think that only happens if the bottom falls out for Republicans. It's plausible to me that one of the more plugged in Dems running in LD-02 wins. So if I were to make a guess, I think Dems could pickup anywhere between 2 and 6 seats if Mikie Sherrill does in fact win with a 10%+ margin.
Can anyone explain what is going on with the vacant seat in the Michigan State Senate? I've read articles about Gov. Whitmer getting some flack about leaving it empty, is there a concern that it will flip to red? There are also a couple of open seats in the Missouri Legislature that have been open for a while.
Democrats criticized a Republican congressman for seeming to gloat about the negative effects of the GOP’s recently-passed budget megabill.
In a since-deleted post on X, Wisconsin Rep. Derrick Van Orden wrote an emphatic “YES!” in response to a post reading that the legislation meant that “17 million people just lost health care,” “18 million kids just lost school meals,” and “3 million Americans just lost food assistance.”
Van Orden later said his post was intended as a response to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt celebrating the bill’s passage. But many still called him out.
Elected Republicans haven’t figured out yet that only Trump is given a pass by voters for his cruelty. They want to emulate him so badly and are shocked when they get push back over doing exactly what he does. First Ernst, now Van Orden and I bet those 2 won’t be the last.
Kristi Noem’s killing of her kids’ puppy, and bragging about it in her book, was an application for a job in the new Trump Regime. Loudly and clearly, Noem said: "I have the cruelty it takes."
I have read more about Van Orden and his antics. He has a tendency to be a real ass and never seems to apologize or take any accountability.
However, considering the gravity of the impact on Trump’s bill on Medicaid, the weight on Van Orden’s re-election campaign may be different this time around.
I said this in the Discord, but Van Orden in many ways is a male version of Nancy Mace. Unhinged, self-promoting, constantly causing drama, but ultimately not very interesting as a politician.
Orden already risked his re-election chances the moment he signed this turd and it officially passed. The bill's gonna be a dead albatross hanging over the entire GOP for years to come.
A little Canadian content to end your Independence Day. Quebec will have to hold its next provincial election between now and next October. There are currently 5 major parties being polled. Due to a combination of first past the post, geographic concentration of votes, a governing party long in the tooth, and new leadership for the Liberal Party, I give you the following projection: https://338canada.com/quebec/
The Parti Quebecois, with 31 percent, is projected to get a majority of 69 out of 125 seats. The Liberals, running just behind at 27, is projected to get 41 seats, almost all of them locks because of their dominance on Ile-de-Montreal and in Gatineau. The Coalition Avenir du Quebec, currently with a supermajority, is expected to get 17 percent and be utterly wiped out. The remaining seats go to the reincarnated Conservative Party of Quebec and Quebec Solidare, a left-wing separatist movement. Seems like a recipe for chaos, no?
If the Parti Quebecois has a majority of seats in the provincial parliament they will be able to govern without chaos, but their policies might not be popular with the voters who gave them such a small share of the vote. I would think the most interesting thing about the election will be what happens to the CAQ and why it happens. Is it just the general unpopularity of ruling parties around the world, or something specific to La Belle Province?
Did they do a poor job before, with the obvious exception of chasing Anglophones away with their language policies, which hurt the Quebec economy but was their aim?
I’d say so yes. Part of their issue is being big tent besides sovereignty so you had in the 90s especially figures with wildly different economic views creating sclerotic policy (Andre Boisclair comes immediately to mind as the apex of this)
Pauline Marois badly fumbled their brief 2012-14 government too
I suppose anything is possible, but that would have been unthinkable a generation ago when they were the only two parties in the Quebec political system. I think a lot of the anglophone/allophone community would be rather upset at the Liberal working with the old enemy.
That's disturbing, of course, but it's also interesting, in that the National Weather Service radar showed that it was raining really heavily in New York City for at least a half hour, probably 40 minutes a couple of days ago when it hadn't rained at all and then finally rained a few tiny drops. That's the first time I've seen such inaccurate weather radar.
Unfortunately I think we'll see more and more of these as time goes on. It's going to be a true shit-show. I wonder how the Conservative Media Machine tries to spin them.
There won’t be that many people who join or vote for a party run by Musk if he decides to create one. This is just voters saying “yes, I’m mad at the choice I made and the system I decided to vote into power last year”, but when push comes to shove, 3rd party voting has been and almost always is minuscule.
That said, by all means continue and take the libertarian tech bros away from the GOP in 2026 elections. Hope he runs candidates everywhere.
In what I think is the unlikely event Musk makes a concerted effort to do that (though you never know with him), about the best he'll do is probably take away some of the GOP's newest voters.
But such voters may well fall away from the GOP anyway, or perhaps are already doing or have done so (which doesn't mean they'll end up in the Democratic fold.)
Yeah, the voter I’m describing is about the softest in terms of partisanship there is. Irreligious, “apolitical,” culturally libertine, hostile to postmodernist progressive cultural views but a very very bad fit for the religious right. I struggle to think how somebody as tryhard and genuinely reactionary on culture as JD Vance would appeal to them, but they def aren’t natural Democrats under the current coalitions
There are Libertarians who have mixed views in the general area that you are describing or who are more right leaning or rigid.
Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park are Libertarians but not right wing. They have said they want politicians with more middle ground, much like Musk but it's hard to know what they believe in sometimes.
It’s the Libertarian philosophy. Parker and Stone are although secretly, Musk acts and behaves like a hard core Libertarian.
When all three say they want middle ground, they really have no idea what they’re talking about. We have many such politicians in the Democratic Party.
Not middle round at all! Completely a loose cannon and having no idea what the hell he was doing. What DOGE represents to Musk isn't far off from how he treats his employees and fellow executives at Tesla. He's trying to pull shit like he's done in his business experience and with the same kind of aloof, cold and impulsive executive actions. Trump asked Musk to help and he delivered - With no real progress in cutting down the debt.
Anytime, Musk, Trey Parker and Matt Stone are talking about "middle ground," it's all about self-centeredness.
If Musk for the last year or two has been "middle ground", then I'd hate to see extreme right. And frankly any moves he makes to shift left, or back to the centre, aren't likely to be viewed as credible by most for a long time, if ever. His big complaint with GOP policy is probably that they didn't cut spending and (his) taxes enough.
I don't know what if any consistent philosophy the South Park guys have, though they've always seemed libertarian in the sense of supporting free expression and cultural envelope-pushing. They at least make fun of everyone across the political spectrum and have been doing so for 28 years.
Well, Musk didn’t show middle ground from the beginning when it came to trying to compromise with the SEC over tweets he wasn’t supposed to make. He’s consistently referred to the SEC as filled with assholes when they are really going by their prerogative as it relates to financial law violations. Same with acquiring Twitter and then not even getting middle ground on free speech.
As for Trey Parker and Matt Stone, I do not believe they are right leaning Libertarians. Besides being pro-free speech as you mentioned, they are also pro-marijuana and have made fun of why it’s been considered controversial.
You don't have to be left-wing to be in favor of legal marijuana. Barry Goldwater was always against restrictions on drugs, and that's a core libertarian principle.
I'm willing to bet at most 1/4 of the "very likely" and none of the "somewhat likely" actually would end up voting for this hypothetical third party.
Let's not forget that numerous multimillionaires and billionaires have tried to run for President as a 3rd party candidate in the past. So far, none of them have won.
I don't know what Musk's official position on women's issues in general but whether it be abortion or anything else in that sense, I don't see how he'd really care.
Knowing Musk's multiple ex-wifes/gf and many children through those marriages/relationships, one thing is for sure - He's not great with the ladies.
Exclusive / Former Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown weighs next political move
Eleanor Mueller
Congress Reporter, Semafor
He seems to be considering both the Senate and the Governor’s race. I think he'd have a better shot at winning the governorship since it's more localized. Vivek Ramaswamy is a radical right libertarian; he'd absolutely thrash the state. I read one of his books once – borrowed it from a MAGA friend –and he came off as a total ideologue.
Very interesting info that he’s considering the Senate race as well. Husted isn’t exactly a MAGA/Trump Republican (he’s also only been appointed, not elected and appointed Senators are extremely vulnerable, they’ve often lost) and could actually theoretically be more vulnerable than Moreno or Vance was when the GOP base likely stays home more than Democrats in 2026.
Husted is a blank slate that can easily be defined. He’s the old kind of Republican. Whereas Brown is the old kind of Democrat. I could see Vance/Moreno/Brown voters drawn only to the populist type of candidate. That said, it’s a huge risk because he’s lost, he’s fairly old (grassroots Democrats and average Dem voters are talking about age concerns far more than ever before) and a libertarian got 3% in 2024, so a 1 on 1 race likely would’ve seen his 4 point loss widen further. Ohio may just be too red now for any Democrat to win federally.
He’d probably have a much better chance to become Governor against Ramaswamy, but getting a Democratic majority in the Senate to block all of Trump’s extreme nominations in their tracks (and prevent any Supreme Court openings) is such a massive necessity that I’d lean preferring him to run for Senate though I think that even with a good Dem election year, he’s likely to sadly lose.
One benefit to Brown running for the Senate is he'd reenter the chamber with his seniority. The drawback, however, is that crypto will no doubt spend wads of cash to try and defeat him again.
How would crypto win if there's no comparable Senate candidate like JD Vance was back in 2022 or any such candidate to get the backing of Peter Thiel?
I don't know enough about the business scene in OH, but if there's any tech scene in the state, I don't see how it would compare to what exists in CA, NY and TX. Perhaps there's something I'm missing.
The crypto lobby wants no national regulatory laws going against them. With such margins, every Senator can exert great influence on legislation. Joe Manchin was elected by less than 300k voters.
There are good arguments for both. I don’t agree that he’s “likely” to lose the senate race in a good Democratic year. He won in 2006, 2012 and 2018. All good Democratic years. And the last on was after the state ceased being a swing state on the presidential level.
I kind of think he is. Talented incumbents win states or districts that are against their ideological lean until they lose once. Look at that Texas district after Stenholm finally lost.
Those are different scenarios. Stenholm was redrawn into a new district against another GOP incumbent. And Brown only lost by 3.5 in a state far less red than that Texas district.
I think he can win in 2026 but he would then have to run again in 2028 and that would be a much harder race for him. The difficulty with being Governor is that the GOP has a gerrymandered veto proof majority in the legislature so I don't think he would be able to do much. Both races have upsides and downsides.
There are no Vance voters - his performance was pathetic in 2022. Kari Lake, Doug Mastriano, Walker etc i.e MAGA types turn off Indies who prefer conservative policies but with a moderate tone.
The concurrent federal House of Representatives was 59-40 Republican. Ohio experienced a red wave like Florida and Texas, Roe. being overturned didn't help there. If anything, he should have overperformed Trump.
The Ohio GOP has done a good job of keeping the crazies from taking over the state party and they still win most of the suburban counties around Cleveland, Columbus and especially Cincinnati although those counties are getting bluer, especially around Columbus.
I think Dems have a good shot here actually. 2026 will be far less R-friendly than 2024 was most likely, and Vivek is weaker than both Vance and Moreno.
An interesting and fair read of the good and bad on the AZ-07 insurgent campaign of Democrat Deja Foxx from you AZRepublic that has started to get her national media attention in recent days.
She’s also touting an internal poll her campaign conducted showing her down 43-35 to Grijalva June 26-29th (side note: would love 1 independent poll here late in the campaign before election day). A previous unreleased poll taken by her campaign showed her down 41-10 on May 13-16th.
Of course salt to taste because it’s an internal, but I think the key here is similar to Mamdani even if the numbers are off: gaining momentum as the campaign goes on. Whether she actually will get anywhere close to that in 2 weeks is up to the voters to decide!
If she isn't as left wing as you want her to be, it's probably because she has statewide if not national ambitions. Arizona - unfortunately - is not Tucson politically nor demographically.
Age old advice that never gets old: Don’t believe everything you read/watch. Wait for a reputable news organization to report it because any scoop on this level (if true) is gold for clicks/shares and rumours would immediately be sought out to confirm/deny the legitimacy or lack thereof.
9 times out of 10, the “whoa look at the old clip resurfaced of person doing/saying something offensive, is it the end of their campaign” spreading on social media type of video posted on the internet is untrue and in the 1 in 10 cases it is true, it will be verified shortly, so there’s no need to jump the gun.
Sure! Osborn is a mechanic and labor leader who ran an independent campaign against Nebraska's senior senator Deb Fischer last year. Since there was no Democrat running, Osborn already had a lock on the non-Republican vote, and his economically populist message certainly helped too. The race went largely under the radar, but he only lost by seven points in a state Trump won by twenty (he even won two of the state's three house districts).
Illinois has seen quite a few democratic house retirements for 2026, with two reps retiring to run for senate (Kelly and Krishnamoorthi), and another (Jan Schakowsky) declining to run for reelection. It's also likely rep. Danny Davis will retire too, although he hasn't announced anything yet. All of the races, especially Krisnamoorthi's and Schakowsky's seats, are super packed with no clear frontrunners at this time. Anyways, these races are definitely worth looking at because competitive primaries in safe districts generally give us a good idea of which direction a party is headed in.
I've seen a lot of discourse over how the Democratic party is "leaderless" right now and how that's supposed to be a hinderance for Democrats in 2026, but I'm thinking about previous midterms after a Democratic presidential loss (specifically 2006 and 2018) and trying to think if we had a clear leader then even though we had fantasic perfomances in those midterms. Were Kerry and Clinton the clear "leaders" of the Democratic party at those times? Or was there someone else or a cohesive group of people who clearly led the party in those times? I wasn't old enough to remember 2006, but 2018 was the first election where I was eleigible to vote and I don't remember Clinton, or anyone else besides maybe Obama, being seen as the leader of the Democratic party at the time (although I may have just been too young and not following politics as closely as I am now). Similarly, did Republicans have a clear leader(s) in 2010 and 2014 in the run up to their midterm waves? This is making me wonder if it really actually matters whether we have a leader or not, because currently I don't think it does
I don't think it does, either. Pelosi was the leader in 2006, in my opinion, and she was so often the target of Republican attacks that she was often considered to be an electoral liability, but of course what was most important was how well she always counted votes and how effectively she whipped them.
After looking it up, I see that Pelosi had been minority leader since 2003. What made her more of a perceived Democratic party leader than Harry Reid at the time, and also more of a perceived Dem leader than Hakeem Jeffries or Chuck Schumer are now? (I'm assuming age may be the primary factor against Schumer). Was it just mainly her effectiveness as a House leader, and Republican attacks aiming the spotlight on her?
Reid was also a leader, but as I recall, Pelosi talked to the media a lot more and Reid, who was even much less of a public speaker than Pelosi, was much more of a behind-the scenes man. And Schumer, a leader? Don't make me laugh or curse. Also, age is not at all the main issue in regard to Schumer; ineffectiveness and collaboration are. Jeffries speaks well before Congress and in interviews but to date has broken through less into the public mind. Maybe he can create some kind of agreed-upon agenda for an incoming House majority and expound about it in rhymes.
What I wouldn’t give to have Reid still leader, alive and well. He and Pelosi were the only 2 Democrats who got it and understood power and how to use it brutally and effectively. Schumer is flailing and Jeffries is very green still.
I'm not sure Jeffries is less able to communicate than Pelosi; rather the reverse, if anything. But how much of great substance does he say, and with how much visibility?
I can only speak as a mid-20s Gen-Zer, but I don't see very much of Jeffries online (granted, though, my social media use consists of Twitter and YouTube, and Twitter increasingly less). I really only see him in news headlines, and I have to search his name in order to hear him speak. Algorithms have shown me Pete Buttigieg more than they've shown me Hakeem Jeffries. And when I have heard him speak, I wasn't particularly moved. I don't know if he has a greater presence on Instagram or TikTok.
It was the same with Pelosi, but I don't think we were quite at the same societal point where everything is communicated through video on social media. Maybe other people here see him more, but this is just one data point indicating that social media algorithms are not showing Jeffries to young, liberal, politically-informed audiences.
It isn't just algorithms and videos. Jeffres is very much establishment.
Early on in the first two months this year after Trump took office, when the base the Democratic Party base was pushing Democrats in the House and Senate to do more to stop Trump when not enough could be done. Jeffries felt the heat back home and even dealt with this in the midst of a book signing he was doing. He then did an interview and said he was being more challenged by "those from the left" almost in a defensive way. It's like he couldn't take the heat.
Frankly, Jeffries should be challenged for House Speaker if Democrats win control of the House this November. He's not the right person for the job in this environment.
I agree with your conclusions, but when you say he's "establishment," of course any Minority Leader or Speaker is part of the establishment by definition.
2018 we weren't perceived as having a leader. I remember many news pieces at the time saying we were "leaderless" then, and look how that turned out in that year's midterms.
Speaking from a strict viewpoint of whether we can do well in 2026, barring any gerrymandering or other GOP voter suppression antics I think our chances are pretty good. The Big Hideous Bill is extremely unpopular from what I'm hearing, the horrific effects it will have will very likely only make the GOP less popular, and if this Dem Tea Party (if it exists, which I think it does) is anything like the GOP variant, I actually think this grassroots energy could help us -- I'm Gen Z so I was too young for a lot of the real in-depth politics then, but from what I've read the GOP Tea Party energy not only powered the Republican takeover of 2010, but was actually able to flip some shocker seats that no one saw coming during its cycles (Chip Cravaack and Blake Farenthold to name a couple). This is on top of us being in an incumbent-unfriendly midterm year.
And as for 2028, I'll just leave everyone here with a question: who is the next Trump? Is there, or could there ever be, one? If, as I suspect, there is not a next Trump and the GOP ends up with a miserable presidential primary that alienates enough of the Trump base that several of them refuse to vote for the winner, the Dems may gain a boost from that as well -- with a strong candidate, of course, but Dem presidential primary talk isn't allowed here so we'll leave it at that.
As for 2028, I think Vance will try to be the next Trump, and at this very early stage is probably favored for the Republican nomination, but he's not Trump and as we've seen, Trump's level of support isn't transferable to anyone else.
No one will be another Trump. That’s it. Not even any of his children.
That said, there can be potential GOP presidential candidates in 2028 and beyond who may study Trump’s campaign and how he’s been able to fire up the MAGA base:
The problem is, Trump grew up in a much different era as a baby boomer with a father who had a very outdated, cruel, strict and rigid philosophy. That forever affected Trump and his outlook, not just Roy Cohn. If there was another GOP presidential candidate who talked like Trump, he sure as hell wouldn’t be like him. We’d likely have a Gen X or Millennial in the near future unless a younger baby boomer wants to run.
Yeah, the part about being leaderless doesn’t matter in the short term.
American voters for all their faults only focus on the party in power and don’t give 1 second of thought about the opposition. If they like what’s happening in their life they keep that party, if they don’t, they toss it. Millions of words of wasted ink by punditry and journalists and billions spent by think tanks on voters and trying to understand them, when this is the true simple explanation.
So Democrats don’t really need any leader right now. This is the 2 years set aside for the party to fight hard about what they want the Democratic Party to be. From left, right and centre. There’s no “let’s all get along” kumbaya coming together moment in order to fight back against Trump anytime soon. It’s going to be every person and every ideology for themself/ves.
Then, only after our voters decide who they want to lead us in the upcoming primary elections, that is when the party will finally start to have some answers about what Democratic voters want the party to be about. The future is in their hands and we’re just along for the ride.
I agree, I think Democrats across the spectrum will run their races tailored to their districts/states, with the general throughline/common theme being protecting democracy. A multitude of other policy points will also be leveraged (again, tailored to individual races). Individual groups may try to influence the Congressional primaries, but once nominees are elected, Ken Martin and the national party should just send money to state and local parties so they can win these tailored races. Right now I think this is the best way to accrue a big tent that won't ultimately fall in on itself when the 2028 primaries arrive.
Ken Martin's agenda seems to echo a bit what Howard Dean was trying to do back in 2005-2009 and he's done more than just make speeches on news channels.
I can't comment on what really is going on behind the scenes in DNC grassroots-wise. That said, with all the off-year and special elections Democrats are winning so far this year, I suspect Martin and the DNC leadership are trying to pay particular attention to races already won by Democrats.
I disagree. Though the Dems can flip the house and maybe(?) get 3 seats in the Senate, I thik they could much better, a tidal wave vs just a wave, if they had someone to clearly communicate a new way forward. Newt Gingritch did that with Contract for America and flipped Congress quite effectively in 1994. It could be mulitple people like the 2010 Tea Party, but the Dems need a plan and they need spokepeople for it. Won't be Schumer for sure, could be Jeffries, but he needs to get moving if so.
It’s boring chatter that gives people something to write about, which gives them jobs and gives them a paycheck. It’s a career to write about political winners and losers and find every angle of it.
The Dems had a solid league with Obama, Pelosi, Biden, and Hillary. Then, billionaire Trump came along and smashed things. We lost but kept trying with Biden, one of the oldest of old guard Dems and he won. We’re cycling through at this point and that’s normal. They’ve become a cult to Trump which, exacerbates the narrative.
The People Who Brought You Bill Clinton Want to Introduce You to the ‘Colorado Way’
One group is betting the state’s blend of libertarianism and progressivism can be packaged to appeal to voters who have drifted toward Trump over the past few cycles.
This group now praises Gov. Whitmer, but they previously criticized her for supporting targeted tariffs and pro-labor laws—while praising RFK not for his anti-Pharma stance, but for his vaccine record. Anyway, it's Politico writing about the Clintonian Third Way doctrine, so you have to take the good points along with the misleading ones.
R House Rep Mark Green just retired from Congress, just after FDJT signed the Big Bad Bill.
Green voted YES on the bill. I don’t believe retirement had anything to do with it but maybe anyone else can comment about Green and TN-07 more than I can.
He announced months ago he has another gig lined up and would retire as soon as the bill passed.
Actually it was just June 9th that Green announced he would resign, effective right after the bill was done. But man it sure does seem like months ago...
So Republicans are down to a 219-212 majority (with 4 vacancies).
Doesn’t seem like Green intends to stay long in politics. He served in the TN House for five years and now he’s doing just over that amount here in the U.S. House.
He does have an MD and has been an executive at multiple healthcare companies.
I’m curious about our offensive opportunities in the VA and NJ legislatures
Only the House is up in VA. Senate is 21D, 19R and that won't change. House is currently 51D, 49R and almost everyone expects the Democrats to pick up quite a few seats in November. Some hope for 60. Don't know about NJ.
What is our exposure in the VA senate due to candidates? Ghazala Hashmi is a state senator running for LG. Is there anyone else that I missed somewhere?
She won her senate district by a wide margin, so I assume it's safe in a special but I do not know the timing for that and how much of a headache it might be.
Hashmi's seat is safe and the Senate doesn't even meet until after she is sworn in as LG (so in the unlikely event her seat is lost, she'd still cast the tiebreaker). Spanberger and Jones aren't in the legislature.
If Hashmi wins in November, then a special election in her now (probably) safely blue seat will happen in December or January.
It would fall to the outgoing Youngkin to schedule it, but I doubt he'd let it slip past his term, and if Hashmi wins Spanberger is probably doing so as well, and she's not going to let Dems go through the legislative session down a seat.
For NJ, only the Assembly is up. The best Dem pickup opportunities are in Legislative Districts 8, 21, and 25.
LD-08 is an exact rematch of 2023, and it was the most competitive district in that election, with 1 Democrat and 1 Republican winning a seat. A Republican incumbent lost that year, who is running again, and the Democratic challenger who lost is running again. I think there is a good chance Democrats win both seats this time around.
LD-21 and LD-25 are both wealthy, suburban districts that have been trending Democratic in recent years. I don't have 2024 data offhand, but given the dynamics of the state, I'm going guess Harris probably won LD-21 and barely lost LD-25. Biden won both in 2020, winning LD-21 by a 58-40 margin.
The races were close in these districts in 2023, too, but the districts have entrenched incumbents. Assemblymember Nancy Munoz in LD-21 has held her seat for over 16 years, and her husband held it for many years before that...she won't lose easily, but I do believe Dems can find a way if the blue wave hits suburban NJ hard! And it helps that Mikie Sherrill has served as the Congresswoman for parts of both of these districts.
LD-01 and LD-02, which elected Democrats in the past, could also be pickup opportunities, but I think that only happens if the bottom falls out for Republicans. It's plausible to me that one of the more plugged in Dems running in LD-02 wins. So if I were to make a guess, I think Dems could pickup anywhere between 2 and 6 seats if Mikie Sherrill does in fact win with a 10%+ margin.
Can anyone explain what is going on with the vacant seat in the Michigan State Senate? I've read articles about Gov. Whitmer getting some flack about leaving it empty, is there a concern that it will flip to red? There are also a couple of open seats in the Missouri Legislature that have been open for a while.
WI-03 - Rep. Derrick Van Orden may have potentially risked his re-election chances significantly with this tweet.
He's the one who replaced long-time Democratic House Member Ron Kind in a R+3 district.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-rep-bashed-for-mistake-post-celebrating-millions-losing-healthcare/ar-AA1HWtqF?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=LCTS&cvid=7de050eaac8444e8aa92567f4eadd0d1&ei=11
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democrats criticized a Republican congressman for seeming to gloat about the negative effects of the GOP’s recently-passed budget megabill.
In a since-deleted post on X, Wisconsin Rep. Derrick Van Orden wrote an emphatic “YES!” in response to a post reading that the legislation meant that “17 million people just lost health care,” “18 million kids just lost school meals,” and “3 million Americans just lost food assistance.”
Van Orden later said his post was intended as a response to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt celebrating the bill’s passage. But many still called him out.
Elected Republicans haven’t figured out yet that only Trump is given a pass by voters for his cruelty. They want to emulate him so badly and are shocked when they get push back over doing exactly what he does. First Ernst, now Van Orden and I bet those 2 won’t be the last.
Kristi Noem’s killing of her kids’ puppy, and bragging about it in her book, was an application for a job in the new Trump Regime. Loudly and clearly, Noem said: "I have the cruelty it takes."
Let's see how long Noem lasts in Russia!
Not the first he’s done something like this. Maybe voters in his district will finally hold him to account next year.
I have read more about Van Orden and his antics. He has a tendency to be a real ass and never seems to apologize or take any accountability.
However, considering the gravity of the impact on Trump’s bill on Medicaid, the weight on Van Orden’s re-election campaign may be different this time around.
I said this in the Discord, but Van Orden in many ways is a male version of Nancy Mace. Unhinged, self-promoting, constantly causing drama, but ultimately not very interesting as a politician.
That about sums it up!
Hopefully Mace and Van Orden get the boot in 2026 with Van Orden more likely than Mace by comparison.
Mace’s district is only marginally redder than the 2018 version Cunningham won. Definitely an underrated flip opportunity.
Orden already risked his re-election chances the moment he signed this turd and it officially passed. The bill's gonna be a dead albatross hanging over the entire GOP for years to come.
I don't know about "years to come". American voters seem to forget everything really quickly except for their obsessions with race and prejudice.
Anything to help Democrats win more elections although I certainly don't want this to adversely affect citizens in need.
He was already in trouble given that he won by less than 4 in 2024. At this point I would be shocked if he won.
No wonder this is a Lean GOP district!
A little Canadian content to end your Independence Day. Quebec will have to hold its next provincial election between now and next October. There are currently 5 major parties being polled. Due to a combination of first past the post, geographic concentration of votes, a governing party long in the tooth, and new leadership for the Liberal Party, I give you the following projection: https://338canada.com/quebec/
The Parti Quebecois, with 31 percent, is projected to get a majority of 69 out of 125 seats. The Liberals, running just behind at 27, is projected to get 41 seats, almost all of them locks because of their dominance on Ile-de-Montreal and in Gatineau. The Coalition Avenir du Quebec, currently with a supermajority, is expected to get 17 percent and be utterly wiped out. The remaining seats go to the reincarnated Conservative Party of Quebec and Quebec Solidare, a left-wing separatist movement. Seems like a recipe for chaos, no?
If the Parti Quebecois has a majority of seats in the provincial parliament they will be able to govern without chaos, but their policies might not be popular with the voters who gave them such a small share of the vote. I would think the most interesting thing about the election will be what happens to the CAQ and why it happens. Is it just the general unpopularity of ruling parties around the world, or something specific to La Belle Province?
PQ has softened on some of its
More sharp edged elements the last few years so they’d probably do a decent job this time around
Did they do a poor job before, with the obvious exception of chasing Anglophones away with their language policies, which hurt the Quebec economy but was their aim?
I’d say so yes. Part of their issue is being big tent besides sovereignty so you had in the 90s especially figures with wildly different economic views creating sclerotic policy (Andre Boisclair comes immediately to mind as the apex of this)
Pauline Marois badly fumbled their brief 2012-14 government too
I don't know. The PQ is left of center, right? So can the Liberals work with them on domestic policy in QC, other than separatist stuff?
I suppose anything is possible, but that would have been unthinkable a generation ago when they were the only two parties in the Quebec political system. I think a lot of the anglophone/allophone community would be rather upset at the Liberal working with the old enemy.
Trump/Musk responsible for the deaths of some two dozen due to unforecast flooding.
https://bsky.app/profile/forbes.com/post/3lt7uqts2k326
That's disturbing, of course, but it's also interesting, in that the National Weather Service radar showed that it was raining really heavily in New York City for at least a half hour, probably 40 minutes a couple of days ago when it hadn't rained at all and then finally rained a few tiny drops. That's the first time I've seen such inaccurate weather radar.
Unfortunately I think we'll see more and more of these as time goes on. It's going to be a true shit-show. I wonder how the Conservative Media Machine tries to spin them.
Nearly 40 percent of Americans say they would back Musk’s third party if he creates one, poll finds
It comes after the world’s richest man claimed he would launch ‘the America Party’ in response to Donald Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/elon-musk-america-party-poll-b2782782.html
14% very likely
26% somewhat likely
38% not likely
22% unsure
There won’t be that many people who join or vote for a party run by Musk if he decides to create one. This is just voters saying “yes, I’m mad at the choice I made and the system I decided to vote into power last year”, but when push comes to shove, 3rd party voting has been and almost always is minuscule.
That said, by all means continue and take the libertarian tech bros away from the GOP in 2026 elections. Hope he runs candidates everywhere.
Placing a wedge between tech bro/Barstool types and MAGA is its own excellent outcome regardless of what else happens
In what I think is the unlikely event Musk makes a concerted effort to do that (though you never know with him), about the best he'll do is probably take away some of the GOP's newest voters.
But such voters may well fall away from the GOP anyway, or perhaps are already doing or have done so (which doesn't mean they'll end up in the Democratic fold.)
Yeah, the voter I’m describing is about the softest in terms of partisanship there is. Irreligious, “apolitical,” culturally libertine, hostile to postmodernist progressive cultural views but a very very bad fit for the religious right. I struggle to think how somebody as tryhard and genuinely reactionary on culture as JD Vance would appeal to them, but they def aren’t natural Democrats under the current coalitions
There are Libertarians who have mixed views in the general area that you are describing or who are more right leaning or rigid.
Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park are Libertarians but not right wing. They have said they want politicians with more middle ground, much like Musk but it's hard to know what they believe in sometimes.
Musk is "middle ground" in what world?
It’s the Libertarian philosophy. Parker and Stone are although secretly, Musk acts and behaves like a hard core Libertarian.
When all three say they want middle ground, they really have no idea what they’re talking about. We have many such politicians in the Democratic Party.
In what way was Musk "middle ground" as head of DOGE?
Not middle round at all! Completely a loose cannon and having no idea what the hell he was doing. What DOGE represents to Musk isn't far off from how he treats his employees and fellow executives at Tesla. He's trying to pull shit like he's done in his business experience and with the same kind of aloof, cold and impulsive executive actions. Trump asked Musk to help and he delivered - With no real progress in cutting down the debt.
Anytime, Musk, Trey Parker and Matt Stone are talking about "middle ground," it's all about self-centeredness.
If Musk for the last year or two has been "middle ground", then I'd hate to see extreme right. And frankly any moves he makes to shift left, or back to the centre, aren't likely to be viewed as credible by most for a long time, if ever. His big complaint with GOP policy is probably that they didn't cut spending and (his) taxes enough.
I don't know what if any consistent philosophy the South Park guys have, though they've always seemed libertarian in the sense of supporting free expression and cultural envelope-pushing. They at least make fun of everyone across the political spectrum and have been doing so for 28 years.
Well, Musk didn’t show middle ground from the beginning when it came to trying to compromise with the SEC over tweets he wasn’t supposed to make. He’s consistently referred to the SEC as filled with assholes when they are really going by their prerogative as it relates to financial law violations. Same with acquiring Twitter and then not even getting middle ground on free speech.
As for Trey Parker and Matt Stone, I do not believe they are right leaning Libertarians. Besides being pro-free speech as you mentioned, they are also pro-marijuana and have made fun of why it’s been considered controversial.
You don't have to be left-wing to be in favor of legal marijuana. Barry Goldwater was always against restrictions on drugs, and that's a core libertarian principle.
I'm willing to bet at most 1/4 of the "very likely" and none of the "somewhat likely" actually would end up voting for this hypothetical third party.
Let's not forget that numerous multimillionaires and billionaires have tried to run for President as a 3rd party candidate in the past. So far, none of them have won.
I would imagine that his party would have a strong libertarian flavor.
Libertarian on economics and probably drugs and guns, but probably nearly as bad on civil liberties as the GOP.
I don't know what Musk's official position on women's issues in general but whether it be abortion or anything else in that sense, I don't see how he'd really care.
Knowing Musk's multiple ex-wifes/gf and many children through those marriages/relationships, one thing is for sure - He's not great with the ladies.
Lie-bertarian, maybe. Musk is in favor of totalitarian business control of government and government control of people's data, at the very least.
https://www.semafor.com/article/07/03/2025/former-ohio-sen-sherrod-brown-weighs-next-political-move
Exclusive / Former Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown weighs next political move
Eleanor Mueller
Congress Reporter, Semafor
He seems to be considering both the Senate and the Governor’s race. I think he'd have a better shot at winning the governorship since it's more localized. Vivek Ramaswamy is a radical right libertarian; he'd absolutely thrash the state. I read one of his books once – borrowed it from a MAGA friend –and he came off as a total ideologue.
Very interesting info that he’s considering the Senate race as well. Husted isn’t exactly a MAGA/Trump Republican (he’s also only been appointed, not elected and appointed Senators are extremely vulnerable, they’ve often lost) and could actually theoretically be more vulnerable than Moreno or Vance was when the GOP base likely stays home more than Democrats in 2026.
Husted is a blank slate that can easily be defined. He’s the old kind of Republican. Whereas Brown is the old kind of Democrat. I could see Vance/Moreno/Brown voters drawn only to the populist type of candidate. That said, it’s a huge risk because he’s lost, he’s fairly old (grassroots Democrats and average Dem voters are talking about age concerns far more than ever before) and a libertarian got 3% in 2024, so a 1 on 1 race likely would’ve seen his 4 point loss widen further. Ohio may just be too red now for any Democrat to win federally.
He’d probably have a much better chance to become Governor against Ramaswamy, but getting a Democratic majority in the Senate to block all of Trump’s extreme nominations in their tracks (and prevent any Supreme Court openings) is such a massive necessity that I’d lean preferring him to run for Senate though I think that even with a good Dem election year, he’s likely to sadly lose.
One benefit to Brown running for the Senate is he'd reenter the chamber with his seniority. The drawback, however, is that crypto will no doubt spend wads of cash to try and defeat him again.
I don't think that we are going to have a problem with fundraising in 2026.
How would crypto win if there's no comparable Senate candidate like JD Vance was back in 2022 or any such candidate to get the backing of Peter Thiel?
I don't know enough about the business scene in OH, but if there's any tech scene in the state, I don't see how it would compare to what exists in CA, NY and TX. Perhaps there's something I'm missing.
Money, lots of money.
Sure but how would crypto’s influence in OH play out besides money as opposed to CA or VA, where Mark Warner is a tech-friendly Senator?
Yes on Ramaswamy’s race for Governor but I don’t see how crypto money would influence the Senate race. Unless perhaps JD Vance endorses Jon Husted.
The crypto lobby wants no national regulatory laws going against them. With such margins, every Senator can exert great influence on legislation. Joe Manchin was elected by less than 300k voters.
There are good arguments for both. I don’t agree that he’s “likely” to lose the senate race in a good Democratic year. He won in 2006, 2012 and 2018. All good Democratic years. And the last on was after the state ceased being a swing state on the presidential level.
I kind of think he is. Talented incumbents win states or districts that are against their ideological lean until they lose once. Look at that Texas district after Stenholm finally lost.
Those are different scenarios. Stenholm was redrawn into a new district against another GOP incumbent. And Brown only lost by 3.5 in a state far less red than that Texas district.
I think he can win in 2026 but he would then have to run again in 2028 and that would be a much harder race for him. The difficulty with being Governor is that the GOP has a gerrymandered veto proof majority in the legislature so I don't think he would be able to do much. Both races have upsides and downsides.
There are no Vance voters - his performance was pathetic in 2022. Kari Lake, Doug Mastriano, Walker etc i.e MAGA types turn off Indies who prefer conservative policies but with a moderate tone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Ohio_elections
That was more of a function of DeWine and co. being popular incumbents with tons of crossover appeal rather than Vance’s weakness as a candidate.
How did he perform so much worse than Trump 2020 and 2024 then?
He only ran a point behind Trump 2020. That was more a function of less MAGA turnout than anything.
The concurrent federal House of Representatives was 59-40 Republican. Ohio experienced a red wave like Florida and Texas, Roe. being overturned didn't help there. If anything, he should have overperformed Trump.
It was actually 56-43, and that was a function of Republicans in safe R races over performing more than anything.
The Ohio GOP has done a good job of keeping the crazies from taking over the state party and they still win most of the suburban counties around Cleveland, Columbus and especially Cincinnati although those counties are getting bluer, especially around Columbus.
Ramaswamy has a strong intellectual banter that Chris Christie said it best about - He talks like ChatGPT.
Otherwise, Ramaswamy is really hollow at the core and is really nothing more than a con artist.
Right, but Ohio is likely to vote for con artists on the Republican line.
Not denying that. Bernie Moreno was a basket case last year as a Senate candidate and unseated Sherrod Brown.
Still trying to process.
2026 won’t be nearly as good for Rs as 2024 was.
I think Dems have a good shot here actually. 2026 will be far less R-friendly than 2024 was most likely, and Vivek is weaker than both Vance and Moreno.
An interesting and fair read of the good and bad on the AZ-07 insurgent campaign of Democrat Deja Foxx from you AZRepublic that has started to get her national media attention in recent days.
https://archive.ph/cjDdM
She’s also touting an internal poll her campaign conducted showing her down 43-35 to Grijalva June 26-29th (side note: would love 1 independent poll here late in the campaign before election day). A previous unreleased poll taken by her campaign showed her down 41-10 on May 13-16th.
https://x.com/Deja_Foxx/status/1940073812382425207/photo/2
Of course salt to taste because it’s an internal, but I think the key here is similar to Mamdani even if the numbers are off: gaining momentum as the campaign goes on. Whether she actually will get anywhere close to that in 2 weeks is up to the voters to decide!
On the other hand, Grijalva is nowhere near as problematic as Cuomo
Or Hernández Jr., the apparent centrist candidate.
And even he’s not Cuomo
Aren't the Grijalvas longtime progressives?
I’ve heard Adelita is less so than Raul but still dramatically preferable to Hernandez Jr. (a centrist/likely downgrade).
She's been endorsed by Bernie Sanders for Congress. She's PLENTY "progressive."
I was not saying she wasn’t. I was just saying not as much as her father. And again, I was just quoting what I’ve heard anyway.
If she isn't as left wing as you want her to be, it's probably because she has statewide if not national ambitions. Arizona - unfortunately - is not Tucson politically nor demographically.
I didn’t even say I wanted her to be more progressive. Stop making assumptions.
Musk says 'America Party' is formed in US https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musk-says-america-party-is-formed-us-2025-07-05/
He said that he would only focus on a few House and Senate seats on X, so that he would be able to play the role of Manchin and Sinema.
Uh oh. It is on!
Bring it on Musk. If the goal is to piss off Trump more, please proceed.
Come on Musk, help Democrats in TX. *crosses fingers*
An old video of Mamdani making fun of Jewish people resurfaced online. Does this kill his prospects in November?
I’m not seeing this video on a search. Link?
I saw it on Threads, but it could be doctored or AI. That’s probably why it hasn’t gotten traction.
It sounds doctored. I went on X and sorted by new and saw nothing about it.
Not on X too, seems like fake news.
Age old advice that never gets old: Don’t believe everything you read/watch. Wait for a reputable news organization to report it because any scoop on this level (if true) is gold for clicks/shares and rumours would immediately be sought out to confirm/deny the legitimacy or lack thereof.
9 times out of 10, the “whoa look at the old clip resurfaced of person doing/saying something offensive, is it the end of their campaign” spreading on social media type of video posted on the internet is untrue and in the 1 in 10 cases it is true, it will be verified shortly, so there’s no need to jump the gun.
If Osborn runs for the senate again against Ricketts (it looks like he started an exploratory committee) and the open Illinois house seats
Context?
Sure! Osborn is a mechanic and labor leader who ran an independent campaign against Nebraska's senior senator Deb Fischer last year. Since there was no Democrat running, Osborn already had a lock on the non-Republican vote, and his economically populist message certainly helped too. The race went largely under the radar, but he only lost by seven points in a state Trump won by twenty (he even won two of the state's three house districts).
Illinois has seen quite a few democratic house retirements for 2026, with two reps retiring to run for senate (Kelly and Krishnamoorthi), and another (Jan Schakowsky) declining to run for reelection. It's also likely rep. Danny Davis will retire too, although he hasn't announced anything yet. All of the races, especially Krisnamoorthi's and Schakowsky's seats, are super packed with no clear frontrunners at this time. Anyways, these races are definitely worth looking at because competitive primaries in safe districts generally give us a good idea of which direction a party is headed in.
I've seen a lot of discourse over how the Democratic party is "leaderless" right now and how that's supposed to be a hinderance for Democrats in 2026, but I'm thinking about previous midterms after a Democratic presidential loss (specifically 2006 and 2018) and trying to think if we had a clear leader then even though we had fantasic perfomances in those midterms. Were Kerry and Clinton the clear "leaders" of the Democratic party at those times? Or was there someone else or a cohesive group of people who clearly led the party in those times? I wasn't old enough to remember 2006, but 2018 was the first election where I was eleigible to vote and I don't remember Clinton, or anyone else besides maybe Obama, being seen as the leader of the Democratic party at the time (although I may have just been too young and not following politics as closely as I am now). Similarly, did Republicans have a clear leader(s) in 2010 and 2014 in the run up to their midterm waves? This is making me wonder if it really actually matters whether we have a leader or not, because currently I don't think it does
I don't think it does, either. Pelosi was the leader in 2006, in my opinion, and she was so often the target of Republican attacks that she was often considered to be an electoral liability, but of course what was most important was how well she always counted votes and how effectively she whipped them.
After looking it up, I see that Pelosi had been minority leader since 2003. What made her more of a perceived Democratic party leader than Harry Reid at the time, and also more of a perceived Dem leader than Hakeem Jeffries or Chuck Schumer are now? (I'm assuming age may be the primary factor against Schumer). Was it just mainly her effectiveness as a House leader, and Republican attacks aiming the spotlight on her?
Reid was also a leader, but as I recall, Pelosi talked to the media a lot more and Reid, who was even much less of a public speaker than Pelosi, was much more of a behind-the scenes man. And Schumer, a leader? Don't make me laugh or curse. Also, age is not at all the main issue in regard to Schumer; ineffectiveness and collaboration are. Jeffries speaks well before Congress and in interviews but to date has broken through less into the public mind. Maybe he can create some kind of agreed-upon agenda for an incoming House majority and expound about it in rhymes.
Pelosi could communicate and Reid was tough and strategic. Jeffries and Schumer fall short on those counts.
What I wouldn’t give to have Reid still leader, alive and well. He and Pelosi were the only 2 Democrats who got it and understood power and how to use it brutally and effectively. Schumer is flailing and Jeffries is very green still.
I'm not sure Jeffries is less able to communicate than Pelosi; rather the reverse, if anything. But how much of great substance does he say, and with how much visibility?
I can only speak as a mid-20s Gen-Zer, but I don't see very much of Jeffries online (granted, though, my social media use consists of Twitter and YouTube, and Twitter increasingly less). I really only see him in news headlines, and I have to search his name in order to hear him speak. Algorithms have shown me Pete Buttigieg more than they've shown me Hakeem Jeffries. And when I have heard him speak, I wasn't particularly moved. I don't know if he has a greater presence on Instagram or TikTok.
It was the same with Pelosi, but I don't think we were quite at the same societal point where everything is communicated through video on social media. Maybe other people here see him more, but this is just one data point indicating that social media algorithms are not showing Jeffries to young, liberal, politically-informed audiences.
It isn't just algorithms and videos. Jeffres is very much establishment.
Early on in the first two months this year after Trump took office, when the base the Democratic Party base was pushing Democrats in the House and Senate to do more to stop Trump when not enough could be done. Jeffries felt the heat back home and even dealt with this in the midst of a book signing he was doing. He then did an interview and said he was being more challenged by "those from the left" almost in a defensive way. It's like he couldn't take the heat.
Frankly, Jeffries should be challenged for House Speaker if Democrats win control of the House this November. He's not the right person for the job in this environment.
I agree with your conclusions, but when you say he's "establishment," of course any Minority Leader or Speaker is part of the establishment by definition.
Yes by definition he is. But he's also feeding into the argument of his critics in the Democratic Party base that he's too establishment.
2018 we weren't perceived as having a leader. I remember many news pieces at the time saying we were "leaderless" then, and look how that turned out in that year's midterms.
Speaking from a strict viewpoint of whether we can do well in 2026, barring any gerrymandering or other GOP voter suppression antics I think our chances are pretty good. The Big Hideous Bill is extremely unpopular from what I'm hearing, the horrific effects it will have will very likely only make the GOP less popular, and if this Dem Tea Party (if it exists, which I think it does) is anything like the GOP variant, I actually think this grassroots energy could help us -- I'm Gen Z so I was too young for a lot of the real in-depth politics then, but from what I've read the GOP Tea Party energy not only powered the Republican takeover of 2010, but was actually able to flip some shocker seats that no one saw coming during its cycles (Chip Cravaack and Blake Farenthold to name a couple). This is on top of us being in an incumbent-unfriendly midterm year.
And as for 2028, I'll just leave everyone here with a question: who is the next Trump? Is there, or could there ever be, one? If, as I suspect, there is not a next Trump and the GOP ends up with a miserable presidential primary that alienates enough of the Trump base that several of them refuse to vote for the winner, the Dems may gain a boost from that as well -- with a strong candidate, of course, but Dem presidential primary talk isn't allowed here so we'll leave it at that.
As for 2028, I think Vance will try to be the next Trump, and at this very early stage is probably favored for the Republican nomination, but he's not Trump and as we've seen, Trump's level of support isn't transferable to anyone else.
I just recalled that Farenthold passed away a few weeks ago
No one will be another Trump. That’s it. Not even any of his children.
That said, there can be potential GOP presidential candidates in 2028 and beyond who may study Trump’s campaign and how he’s been able to fire up the MAGA base:
The problem is, Trump grew up in a much different era as a baby boomer with a father who had a very outdated, cruel, strict and rigid philosophy. That forever affected Trump and his outlook, not just Roy Cohn. If there was another GOP presidential candidate who talked like Trump, he sure as hell wouldn’t be like him. We’d likely have a Gen X or Millennial in the near future unless a younger baby boomer wants to run.
Yeah, the part about being leaderless doesn’t matter in the short term.
American voters for all their faults only focus on the party in power and don’t give 1 second of thought about the opposition. If they like what’s happening in their life they keep that party, if they don’t, they toss it. Millions of words of wasted ink by punditry and journalists and billions spent by think tanks on voters and trying to understand them, when this is the true simple explanation.
So Democrats don’t really need any leader right now. This is the 2 years set aside for the party to fight hard about what they want the Democratic Party to be. From left, right and centre. There’s no “let’s all get along” kumbaya coming together moment in order to fight back against Trump anytime soon. It’s going to be every person and every ideology for themself/ves.
Then, only after our voters decide who they want to lead us in the upcoming primary elections, that is when the party will finally start to have some answers about what Democratic voters want the party to be about. The future is in their hands and we’re just along for the ride.
I agree, I think Democrats across the spectrum will run their races tailored to their districts/states, with the general throughline/common theme being protecting democracy. A multitude of other policy points will also be leveraged (again, tailored to individual races). Individual groups may try to influence the Congressional primaries, but once nominees are elected, Ken Martin and the national party should just send money to state and local parties so they can win these tailored races. Right now I think this is the best way to accrue a big tent that won't ultimately fall in on itself when the 2028 primaries arrive.
Ken Martin's agenda seems to echo a bit what Howard Dean was trying to do back in 2005-2009 and he's done more than just make speeches on news channels.
I can't comment on what really is going on behind the scenes in DNC grassroots-wise. That said, with all the off-year and special elections Democrats are winning so far this year, I suspect Martin and the DNC leadership are trying to pay particular attention to races already won by Democrats.
I disagree. Though the Dems can flip the house and maybe(?) get 3 seats in the Senate, I thik they could much better, a tidal wave vs just a wave, if they had someone to clearly communicate a new way forward. Newt Gingritch did that with Contract for America and flipped Congress quite effectively in 1994. It could be mulitple people like the 2010 Tea Party, but the Dems need a plan and they need spokepeople for it. Won't be Schumer for sure, could be Jeffries, but he needs to get moving if so.
Two answers
It’s boring chatter that gives people something to write about, which gives them jobs and gives them a paycheck. It’s a career to write about political winners and losers and find every angle of it.
The Dems had a solid league with Obama, Pelosi, Biden, and Hillary. Then, billionaire Trump came along and smashed things. We lost but kept trying with Biden, one of the oldest of old guard Dems and he won. We’re cycling through at this point and that’s normal. They’ve become a cult to Trump which, exacerbates the narrative.
The People Who Brought You Bill Clinton Want to Introduce You to the ‘Colorado Way’
One group is betting the state’s blend of libertarianism and progressivism can be packaged to appeal to voters who have drifted toward Trump over the past few cycles.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/07/06/the-colorado-way-democratic-party-00370340
This group now praises Gov. Whitmer, but they previously criticized her for supporting targeted tariffs and pro-labor laws—while praising RFK not for his anti-Pharma stance, but for his vaccine record. Anyway, it's Politico writing about the Clintonian Third Way doctrine, so you have to take the good points along with the misleading ones.