If we should have any takeaway from 2018/2022 vs. 2020/2024, it's that extrapolating from midterm elections to presidential elections is foolish. Besides, why do you think there's such a high chance that NC would be the tipping point, rather than WI or PA or even GA or AZ?
Of course caution needs to be taken, but one can see general trends extend from midterms to POTUS years e.g. Iowa's conservative shift when Ernst won in 2014, or Arizona's D shift when Sinema won in 2018 (and Georgia's when Kemp barely won that same year).
Also Florida. DeSantis and Scott winning in 2018 basically told us that Florida was about to undergo a clear red shift, and DeSantis/Rubio landslides meant that it would be off the table entirely.
2024 the education alignment is almost perfect. All states and DC with adults Bac+% higher than Maine (35.3%) voted for Harris, except Utah; All below that voted for Trump, except New Mexico.
Of course most swing states are quite close to the cutoff. It is conceivable that the ones higher could swing back more, and the ones further below, Wisconsin, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, in that order, swing less. Nevada and New Mexico may even swing right.
Hence this map. It doesn’t mean to be the final outcome, just cutoff at right crossing 270.
DRA is using 2022 precinct geography, right? It might be needed to map 2004 precincts to 2000 census blocks, to use the relationship file to approximate 2020 blocks, and then to aggregate back to 2022 precincts.
I bet many users just loaded 2004 precinct ids as if they were 2022. Hence many will be mis-located or outright missing. Also some new 2022 precinct ids would be blank.
I see. The inability of assigning an absentee/early vote to a given precinct, seems really weird to me. Don’t the election authorities have to know which precinct ballot you would be voting on, when you go early voting or request a mail ballot?
Here in Georgia, the early in-person votes are handled the same way as the Election Day, once you check in, the ballot will be pulled according to your home precinct, even you could cast the early vote any EV location within county. (EDay vote would have to be cast in the home precinct). And as for mail votes, the ballot will be printed according to the home precinct. Actually the home precinct number is also printed and barcoded on the paper ballot. The post election reconciliation also lists out how many ballots were cast each type, supposedly matching how many voters checked in, or returned mail ballots, exactly for each precinct.
This is basics not that hard to implement. Thus the inability to allocate to precinct don’t look good for confidence in election security.
Per Politico, Dusty Johnson is jumping in for SD-Gov. I wonder if A) that means Rhoden isn’t going for a full term of his own and B) who would get in for the open at large seat
In the wake of the Mamdani shocker primary win + progressive victories elsewhere in NYC, I’m interested in numerous congressional and state legislative races that progressives may target. Who may progressives target? And with who? And are there other seats held by less progressive incumbents that progressives may be looking at outside of NYC? With who?
On the flip side, are there any progressive-held seats nationwide that centrist groups may target? With who? I know Omar is one, with Ryan Winkler considering a bid.
Finally, are there older or less effective Dems in general who may be facing grassroots primary challenges? Not asking who as so far most challenges have been relatively unknown.
The author of the Primary School newsletter (formerly known as Nick Tagliaferro) mentioned on Bluesky that State Sen. Gustavo Rivera was a possible pick for that seat. I’ve heard Bowman isn’t interested in NY-15, and given his baggage I’m not sure he’s the best pick for it.
I've actually soured a bunch on Jamaal Bowman and think we could probably do better. He has a bunch of baggage that would make the race about him, rather than about Torres and how much he sucks.
Agreed re Bowman. We don't need to relitigate Mr. Fire Alarm's record and views, with the added baggage of district-hopping (ask Mondaire Jones how that can have an impact, though unlike NY-17 the general election in 15 is unlikely to be competitive.)
I actually prefer Torres over Bowman. The latter totally screwed up his political career, and it was all his own bizarre doing. That said, I definitely do not want to see Torres run for governor of New York!
I very much do not, although that’s my progressive bias speaking. Torres is awful — I remember him threatening to run for governor and saying he’d rip up environmental regulations if he did.
Bowman did himself no favors but his voting record was mostly pretty good. Torres’ record is pretty awful, on the other hand, from what I’ve seen.
Bowman was shitty at constituent services and seemed to care more about garnering headlines than actual legislating. Exactly the type of progressive you DON'T want in Congress.
I think it would be wise not to over-interpret the NYC elections. NYC (and SF and Seattle) isn't a very good bell weather for the US as a whole, in ways somewhat analogous tonthe argument as to why Iowa isn't a good bell weather either. Neither are representative of the vast majority of districts but from opposite sides of the demographic and political spectra.
The actual vote in NYC has the caveats you mention. Although it is worth adding a caveat to the caveat that a lot of America lives in or adjacent to major cities. Those people in turn make up a substantial portion of our base. So it is not without meaning.
The second part is how people are reacting to the NYC primary. I can only speak anecdotally but in many corners of the internet I observe people are very happy with Mamdani's win. These are places with (mostly younger) people who are largely ignorant of the specifics of politics but follow the broader events. They know who is in charge and they are pissed off.
That second group of people is ecstatic right this. Obviously they are a bubble within the party but it's worth paying attention to how wings of the party are feeling. Generally we want to give every portion of the party something to be happy about with us. Something big enough to break through.
Yes, one of Mamdani's big wins, like AOC, is to energize young voters. I'm glad they're ecstatic and engaged. I hope they become a big voting bloc.
Urban voting across the US is mostly Dem, even in SC where I live, except Greenville. But it's not as left as NYC, SF, Seattle. I don't think Mamdani-flavored candidate would have had a chance in Detroit, Columbus, Denver, Atlanta, Texan cities, Florida cities, etc. Thus my caution.
I think Lean D is a fair rating given that (1.) the district has only been won by a Democrat once this century, and (2.) we don't know who either party will nominate yet.
I could easily see it shifting to Likely D well before the election, though.
Normally I'd agree with a Lean characterization in these type of districts, but 2026 will almost certainly be a wave year. Thus these type of districts should almost certainly swing our way, especially considering Harris won here. I'd also keep an eye on the 1st district in Nebraska. Big sleeper Trump only slightly overperformed there by a single point. Also Osborn won that district too.
Michael, i agree with you, based on experience and disappointment over the years. I suspect you and I (and a few others here) get to play the GenX experience card that others haven't been beaten with yet. Hopefully they won't be.
As a middle of the road millennial I've seen my fair share of disappointments too.
I wasn't old enough to care about politics during Clinton's two wins. I was just old enough to see all the craziness of the 2000 recount even if I had been too young to care about or really understand the election itself still.
Spanning ~2000-2024 there's been scant few years that I found encouraging. Obama's win in 2008 was the only unmitigated win. His 2012 win saw us fail to retake the house, and Biden's 2020 win was on the narrowest of grounds combined with a 50-50 senate. A relieving outcome but not one build up any kind of future looking confidence.
NJ Assembly: Given what seems like assured continued south jersey bleeding of support, it's more important for NJ Democrats to maintain a healthy majority unreliant on the South Jersey remnant. Andrew Macurdy is a former AUSA and mental health advocacy attorney in the AG of NJ's office, young, charismatic, and has raised at least 8 times more so far than previous nominee did entire time. The distirct voted Harris by 14 and Biden by 20, but has entrenched republican incumbents that keep holding on because Union County Dems have never really targeted this district. Suffice to say with the signature overperformance and uncontested primary win where he outpolled the republican nominees in raw votes (nj has two assemblypeople per district).
Worth a donation or if you're in the district a vote. linked article is from when he was only in the race a month.
Halfway through 2025, here's an analysis of Democratic performance in special elections so far and what it does and doesn't mean for 2026. (Oh, and look where they got their 2024 presidential data from.)
Democrats' showing in mostly special elections so far looks very promising for 2026. But specials may be losing their predictive power, so no reason for overconfidence.
Thanks very much! Why do they think they could be losing predictive power? I think what we've clearly seen is that results depend on who shows up. In 2022, a lot of voters angry about abortion bans showed up, and that blunted the Republican midterm edge quite a bit, whereas in 2024, all the once-every-4-years Trump voters showed up and quite a few normally Democratic voters finked out. Chances are, a larger number of infrequent Republican voters will show up for a midterm than for special elections on odd days, but we really don't know how many. Is that about predictive power, though? Do they have something more complex to say about that?
They say of 2024, "For example, the 2024 cycle doesn’t quite fit the pattern we described. Before the 2024 general election, Democrats were outperforming their 2020 results in special elections by about two points. But Republicans won the House popular vote by roughly the same margin as they had in 2022. What gives?"
The conclusion is, "Put simply, Democrats have become much better at showing up in special elections. This is both because of their newfound advantage with reliable voters, but also because a party’s base is often most fired up when the party is in the opposition.
So, yes, history and the data both suggest that Democrats are well-positioned heading into 2026. Midterm elections tend to have lower turnout than elections in presidential years, which could benefit Democrats, given their growing advantage among high-propensity voters.
But there’s a big difference between winning on a sleepy Tuesday in March and winning when tens of millions of voters head to the polls in 2026."
I think there's been too much recasting of 2024 as the "new normal" or predictive of the future, but we'll see. It is apparently true that Democrats' coalition for now seems to be well-suited for off years and specials, but one can wonder why swing or Independent leaning voters aren't showing up for Republicans. Maybe they don't like what they're seeing, or their shift to the right was only temporary and even last year wasn't as deep or potentially lasting as some pundits have said?
The cynic in me says that these special election results wouldn't be dismissed so readily by the pundit class if Republicans were outperforming Democrats rather than the reverse being the case.
That said, I do think that special elections are more likely to be predictive of midterm results rather than presidential ones—especially when one of the major parties is headed by a cult leader with a proven track record of being able to turn out low-propensity voting blocs.
Maine Senate race is Texas in reverse. Gillibrand is in charge of recruiting candidates and the only good thing she's done till now is that she didn't encourage Golden to jump in which was obliquely referenced in two reports like he wasn't able to gather support from the party apparatus because they dislike him. Dude hasn't even attended a Dem caucus meeting since 2020.
Jared Golden once worked for Susan Collins, so he’s never going to challenge her. Besides, ME-02 and Golden himself are significantly to the right of the state as a whole, which explains the tepid support from the state party. Dems can find a far better Senate candidate.
Maine has Janet Mills – she is definitely A-list. But to your larger point, yes, I definitely do wish the Dems’ Maine bench was deeper. It’s a complex purple state and more than a bit insular.
So there's the centrist lawyer running for NYC mayor as an independent (whose name I forgot), might he now get a second look from Cuomo (and Sliwa) voters hoping to stave off Mamdani?
Do you have any affirmative reason to consider him in particular? I'm not seeing why I would want to vote for him and increase the risk for any of the remaining non-Mamdani candidates, who are noxious, could win.
Lander was my #1. Had Cuomo become the Democratic nominee, I'm not sure whether I would have voted (probably, because I consider it a responsibility), and I don't know who I would have voted for. Not Adams and not Sliwa. I'm glad I don't have to make that decision.
Since Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic Primary this past Tuesday, this video may be the most important one to pay attention to with respect to 2026.
Mamdani explains why Trump voters in NYC and even NY State voted for Trump: It was because their economic issues were not being listened to. He listened to such voters concerns and he was laser focused on economics more than other issues.
While Mamdani’s candidacy and political views may be suitable for NYC, the focus on economics in his campaign is worth Democratic candidates and incumbents across their country paying attention to depending on overall political views of the voters.
OK, well, these voters are idiots, but if Mamdani has found the way to convince them the Democrats are better for working people than the Republican are - which they are, every fucking time since FDR - then, yeah, the rest of the party's candidates need to pay attention to this and emulate it, if it isn't too late now.
Chris Murphy and Ro Khanna have also been screaming the same thing. Talk about economics and don't move to the right on it like the re-awakened neoliberal class wants to while deemphasizing social issues. I immediately lose interest whenever a centrist pundit tries to blame Biden's tariffs or CHIPS or IRA for inflation. I don't believe that Biden had the capability to cause higher inflation and lesser growth in every other first world country. We had the best economy among our peers and I'll die on this hill. State subsidized industrial policy works and stops the hollowing of our industries.
No, and due to his work and the work of the Federal Reserve, this country had the strongest economy in the world. Whoever those centrist "pundits" are, they should go fuck themselves with a long, sharp implement!
It's never too late for the next election, but it's always too late for the last one.
To me this would refute the answer a lot of officials have opted for one "culture war" issues. It's not uncommon to hear person XYZ say that we lost because of shifting away from economic issues, and then they follow it up by spending an inordinate amount of time and focus on those exact social issues anyway. The only difference being that they're trying to adopt a stance that is closer to (but not the same as) republicans on it.
The answer isn't to moderate on social issues. The answer is to shut up about them and talk about economic issues instead. Relentlessly shift the topic whenever possible.
To the extent social issues are spoken of they should be linked into economics as much as possible. Looking back a decade ago, I think the political success of pushing for same-sex marriage equality was based on two factors, one of which was the economic factors related to marriage. (The other being to "keep government out of bedrooms.")
Don't moderate: change the topic to economic issues!
Yes, but as much as that is a legitimate concern it is one that is outside the scope of my ability to meaningfully influence. As such I don't make much accounting for it in my assessments here, even if it is a thing that merits worry.
I'm skeptical that someone preaching socialism can win over someone who looked at Trump and thought that was the message they were looking for. Problem for the DSA types is that not every "working people" see socialism as the answer. Sure were there some low info voters who bought Trumps spiel about inflation, maybe those voters are gettable but for the most part i think we lost people on cultural issues.
I tend to disagree with your last phrase. I think the difference was voters who were punishing Democrats for worldwide inflation, most of whom were so stupid they believed Trump's con that he would end inflation.
Most "working people" don't see socialism as the answer. The fact that Mamdani lost "working class" voters to Cuomo says it all. It was middle and upper income voters who put him over the top.
How are you sure middle and upper income voters are the reason why Mamdani got over the top?
As far as I am aware, when I saw videos of voters in NYC being asked by reporters (including those on MSNBC), they were talking about having to be concerned about paying rent per month. Middle and upper income residents of cities like NYC, San Francisco, etc. are also defined differently and have been this way since the tech boom in the 2010's. What used to be middle and upper income back in the 90's is no longer the case today.
Meanwhile, a billionaire investor who donated to Cuomo has just announced he'll donate to Mamdani.
James is probably referring to Cuomo doing better than Mamdani+Lander among <$30k incomes, but it's a little reductive to say "middle and upper incomes put Mamdani over the top" when Cuomo also won the most wealthy. You can't tell from this graph, but my guess from other exit polls would be there are confounding factors of age, race, and education that shape this distribution. This also, IMO, means it's a mistake to ascribe ideological aversion to socialism as a reason for this breakdown, when there are so many other effects at play.
Not saying this is the reason, but just as an example of what I mean, Cuomo did better among Black voters. Black Democratic primary voters are probably more Christian and religious than average, and might have been less inclined to vote for a Muslim. Or Mamdani had particular appeals to East and South Asian voters, who are more likely to be educated professionals. Ideology is important, but context, timing, and rhetorical focus are too.
I can’t comment on NYC but I know I’m Berkeley we have not to date in all of the years I’ve grown up here ever elected a Democratic socialist. And my recollection goes all the way back to when Shirley Dean was Mayor back in the mid 90’s.
Same with San Francisco, San Jose and other cities in the Bay Area. Richmond elected Gayle McLaughlin, a Green Party member, as Mayor years ago twice in 2006 and 2010 so it may be the only city in the Bay Area I can think of where Democratic Socialist could possibly get elected.
That said, I think the point I should emphasize is that Democrats need to be focused on the economy at all levels and how they are impacted while at the same time beating the GOP at the messaging game. Culture wars are a problem but competency and attention to detail on the job is also a bigger problem as well that needs to be paid attention to.
It's the idea that if the Democrats talked more about economic issues (as if we didn't talk about them a ton already) they would automatically win. I know Trump voters on NY state by the way, the idea that economic concerns are top of their list is ludacris. They want their guns. They don't like gays. They don't like blacks. They don't like Hispanic. They don't like trans people. They don't like the government. They don't like regulations. Mamdani and his ilk are deep in a blue bubble and would walk into a buzz saw if they stepped out of it.
How so? How Democratic socialism applies in an agenda towards economic issues or just focusing on economic issues in general?
We are in a complicated picture here but I have seen videos of NYCers in the younger generation who believe the Democratic Party is aloof to their problems. They are arguing rent is too high and wages aren’t keeping up with the cost of living. That’s a problem Democrats need to address head on.
Why the hell do we still insist on using there term democratic "socialism" if we have any intent on winning elections. That aside, our politicians talk about that all the time. They act on it all the time. They don't want elections all the time. Did Senator Brown not speak to these concerns? Of course not, he did. It doesn't matter. You know who spent a lot of time attacking high rent and freezing it? Mayor Bill Deblasio. He was deeply unpopular.
1) Democrats speak to economic issues.
2) we are the only party that actually provides real economic solutions for working people.
3) Republicans kick the ever living shit out of working people
4) the voters elect Republicans
5) I am not saying we should stop speaking on economic issues or that we shouldn't speak even more
6) I am saying it borders on delusion to think that it will solve our problem
7) this proposal is more or less that we should keep doing what we've been doing, for it will surely work this time even though it didn't in 2010, 2016, 2022, and 2024.
I am not arguing against what you are saying about using the term "Democratic socialism." Yes, what you are saying about Mamdani does seem to mirror a bit with what Bill DeBlasio did when he was running for Mayor back in 2013. He ended up being unpopular in the end.
However, I am mainly referring to the economic issues that Mamdani focused on in the primary, not his actual policy points and stances on the issues. Those need to be paid attention to.
We have a serious affordability crisis with rent being too high in cities like NYC as well as an inflation and economic stability problem (ex: tech layoffs). How it affects everyone per state may vary.
Yesterday, this Tweet message by Stella Pekarsky on the DownBallot’s Discord, calling for unity behind Walkinshaw, received two downvotes:
"Congratulations to @JamesWalkinshaw for his victory tonight. He ran a great campaign and I hope all Democrats will get behind him for the special election in September so we can send Donald Trump the biggest possible message from Fairfax."
Anyone have any idea what that’s about? Is there anything wrong with Walkinshaw as a candidate or with his campaign?
There were some hard feelings toward his candidacy because while Walkinshaw is an elected official - he serves on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisor (our local legislature) - he repeatedly emphasized the fact that he was at one point Gerry Connolly's Chief of Staff and most of the local "establishment" backed him.
Murkowski agreed to the bill after she got work requirement exemptions and a lot of pork for Alaska. We are dreaming if we think she chooses Democrats in a 50-50 scenario. That was 100% a power play to pressure Thune. This is the cornhusker kickback on steroids.
Although Collins might be concerned about some portions and vote "no" if it will pass without her vote. What happened to these two who, along with McCain, saved to ACA?
This happens with every major bill; I'm sorry but Alaska is just a huge welfare state and there's really no good reason that it should be a state at all.
I know Alaska is a welfare and earmarking state but this is another level of deal making. Alaska is excluded from almost every negative effect and also gets tax breaks in return.
It's geographic isolation and environment/topography mean it's in constant need of very heavy subsidizing to survive and it has a tiny and declining population. It's an important piece of land for geo-political purposes but so is Guam.
She's always going to make more sense as a republican than not.
As I said prior I was skeptical and remain skeptical she'd caucus with us. Although I am much less skeptical now than before.
Biggest takeaway in our favor for the future is that threats are only useful if the other party thinks you could follow through on it. If Thune thought there was a 0% chance Murkowski would ever leave his caucus, he'd have little reason to give her any serious concessions. That doesn't mean it has to be high. A policy exemption and a bunch of state focused pork should be "cheap" to a republican to give away, so the evaluation could easily be that it's a single digit percent chance of her leaving in the future.
Senate Republicans are refusing the Democrats’ request for a bipartisan meeting with the Senate Parliamentarian on using current policy baseline to pay for tax cuts.
“There is no need to have a parliamentarian meeting with respect to the current policy baseline because Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act gives [Lindsey] Graham — as Chairman of the Budget Committee — the authority to set the baseline.
“There is nothing to debate and we consider this matter settled.”
“As many of my colleagues have noticed over the last year, and at times even joked about, I haven't exactly been excited about running for another term. That is true since the choice is between spending another six years navigating the political theatre and partisan gridlock in Washington or spending that time with the love of my life Susan, our two children, three beautiful grandchildren, and the rest of our extended family back home. It's not a hard choice, and I will not be seeking re-election."
NOTE: I just wish Senator Tillis would first show spine by voting against this horrible budget bill. Better to be remembered standing up for principles!
Is Cooper more likely or less likely to jump in now?
On one hand it should be an easier election to win. On the other hand because of that it's less necessary to have him be our candidate in order to win. If he was on the fence it could lead him to conclude he can safely let someone else be our candidate.
I hope this encourages him to get off the fence and declare his candidacy. Because whoever is the GOP nominee will be even Trumpier than Ted Budd.
And if Cooper wins the open seat (and Anita Earls wins her race), us NC Dems are going to be pumped to show Budd and the SCONC GOP majority the door in 2028.
Less likely-with Tillis not running Cooper might (justifiably) think that he no longer needs to be running for Senate-I'd expect an imminent Presidential announcement and possibly an endorsement of Wiley Nickel from Cooper (unless Jeff Jackson or Rachel Hunt decides to jump in-Cooper would likely endorse one of them instead),
It depends on who Republicans nominate in 2026. If they nominate Mark Robinson or Michele Morrow, then I'm all for Cooper passing on 2026 and having him run for Senate in 2028 when Republicans have a less toxic nominee.
Unless someone in the GOP Congressional delegation gets in and clears the field, whoever the Republicans nominate likely will be the underdog, even if Cooper doesn't run.
In otherwords, even before Tillis's retirement, North Carolina was the inverse Maine-weak incumbent, and deep and ambitious Democratic bench-it was unlikely the field was clearing for Cooper to begin with.
I think it's a tossup with anyone but Cooper. I don't really see much of a bench in NC these days, except for Cooper, who absolutely would have cleared the field. We know that because he is currently keeping the field clear simply by not declaring his plans. Even Nickel has said he'd defer to him.
Also, I'm not sure Tillis is weak and Collins is so strong. Tillis would be weak in a primary but not the general. And Collins now has a hugely negative approval rating, per recent polling.
I am delighted to see this. If the race goes like it did with AZ and GA, Trump basically flipped a GOP seat because of his tantrums over the Big Bad Bill.
That's the downsize of North Carolinian Gubernatorial Elections being held in Presidential Election years.
If we should have any takeaway from 2018/2022 vs. 2020/2024, it's that extrapolating from midterm elections to presidential elections is foolish. Besides, why do you think there's such a high chance that NC would be the tipping point, rather than WI or PA or even GA or AZ?
Of course caution needs to be taken, but one can see general trends extend from midterms to POTUS years e.g. Iowa's conservative shift when Ernst won in 2014, or Arizona's D shift when Sinema won in 2018 (and Georgia's when Kemp barely won that same year).
It would be better to compare to other midterm years, though.
Also Florida. DeSantis and Scott winning in 2018 basically told us that Florida was about to undergo a clear red shift, and DeSantis/Rubio landslides meant that it would be off the table entirely.
And NY in 2022.
Not really, Florida was the closest state that Biden lost and Texas was the 2nd closest.
I think it's a contender for tipping point next time but who the hell really knows this far out.
It seems like a fairly unlikely one.
In this map. I will explain why it is possible.
2024 the education alignment is almost perfect. All states and DC with adults Bac+% higher than Maine (35.3%) voted for Harris, except Utah; All below that voted for Trump, except New Mexico.
Of course most swing states are quite close to the cutoff. It is conceivable that the ones higher could swing back more, and the ones further below, Wisconsin, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, in that order, swing less. Nevada and New Mexico may even swing right.
Hence this map. It doesn’t mean to be the final outcome, just cutoff at right crossing 270.
https://www.270towin.com/maps/7Vdly.png
DRA is using 2022 precinct geography, right? It might be needed to map 2004 precincts to 2000 census blocks, to use the relationship file to approximate 2020 blocks, and then to aggregate back to 2022 precincts.
I bet many users just loaded 2004 precinct ids as if they were 2022. Hence many will be mis-located or outright missing. Also some new 2022 precinct ids would be blank.
I see. The inability of assigning an absentee/early vote to a given precinct, seems really weird to me. Don’t the election authorities have to know which precinct ballot you would be voting on, when you go early voting or request a mail ballot?
Here in Georgia, the early in-person votes are handled the same way as the Election Day, once you check in, the ballot will be pulled according to your home precinct, even you could cast the early vote any EV location within county. (EDay vote would have to be cast in the home precinct). And as for mail votes, the ballot will be printed according to the home precinct. Actually the home precinct number is also printed and barcoded on the paper ballot. The post election reconciliation also lists out how many ballots were cast each type, supposedly matching how many voters checked in, or returned mail ballots, exactly for each precinct.
This is basics not that hard to implement. Thus the inability to allocate to precinct don’t look good for confidence in election security.
Per Politico, Dusty Johnson is jumping in for SD-Gov. I wonder if A) that means Rhoden isn’t going for a full term of his own and B) who would get in for the open at large seat
In the wake of the Mamdani shocker primary win + progressive victories elsewhere in NYC, I’m interested in numerous congressional and state legislative races that progressives may target. Who may progressives target? And with who? And are there other seats held by less progressive incumbents that progressives may be looking at outside of NYC? With who?
On the flip side, are there any progressive-held seats nationwide that centrist groups may target? With who? I know Omar is one, with Ryan Winkler considering a bid.
Finally, are there older or less effective Dems in general who may be facing grassroots primary challenges? Not asking who as so far most challenges have been relatively unknown.
I would love to see Jamaal Bowman challenge Ritchie Torres.
The author of the Primary School newsletter (formerly known as Nick Tagliaferro) mentioned on Bluesky that State Sen. Gustavo Rivera was a possible pick for that seat. I’ve heard Bowman isn’t interested in NY-15, and given his baggage I’m not sure he’s the best pick for it.
I've actually soured a bunch on Jamaal Bowman and think we could probably do better. He has a bunch of baggage that would make the race about him, rather than about Torres and how much he sucks.
Agreed re Bowman. We don't need to relitigate Mr. Fire Alarm's record and views, with the added baggage of district-hopping (ask Mondaire Jones how that can have an impact, though unlike NY-17 the general election in 15 is unlikely to be competitive.)
Okay - just need someone good so Ritchie can go on to his next gig at Fox “News.”
I don't like Torres, but would he really do something like that? If he did, he would end his future viability for any race as a Democrat.
I actually prefer Torres over Bowman. The latter totally screwed up his political career, and it was all his own bizarre doing. That said, I definitely do not want to see Torres run for governor of New York!
I very much do not, although that’s my progressive bias speaking. Torres is awful — I remember him threatening to run for governor and saying he’d rip up environmental regulations if he did.
Bowman did himself no favors but his voting record was mostly pretty good. Torres’ record is pretty awful, on the other hand, from what I’ve seen.
Bowman was shitty at constituent services and seemed to care more about garnering headlines than actual legislating. Exactly the type of progressive you DON'T want in Congress.
I think it would be wise not to over-interpret the NYC elections. NYC (and SF and Seattle) isn't a very good bell weather for the US as a whole, in ways somewhat analogous tonthe argument as to why Iowa isn't a good bell weather either. Neither are representative of the vast majority of districts but from opposite sides of the demographic and political spectra.
I'd separate it into two details.
The actual vote in NYC has the caveats you mention. Although it is worth adding a caveat to the caveat that a lot of America lives in or adjacent to major cities. Those people in turn make up a substantial portion of our base. So it is not without meaning.
The second part is how people are reacting to the NYC primary. I can only speak anecdotally but in many corners of the internet I observe people are very happy with Mamdani's win. These are places with (mostly younger) people who are largely ignorant of the specifics of politics but follow the broader events. They know who is in charge and they are pissed off.
That second group of people is ecstatic right this. Obviously they are a bubble within the party but it's worth paying attention to how wings of the party are feeling. Generally we want to give every portion of the party something to be happy about with us. Something big enough to break through.
Yes, one of Mamdani's big wins, like AOC, is to energize young voters. I'm glad they're ecstatic and engaged. I hope they become a big voting bloc.
Urban voting across the US is mostly Dem, even in SC where I live, except Greenville. But it's not as left as NYC, SF, Seattle. I don't think Mamdani-flavored candidate would have had a chance in Detroit, Columbus, Denver, Atlanta, Texan cities, Florida cities, etc. Thus my caution.
Don Bacon (NE- Omaha) is expected to announce his retirement from the House as early as Monday.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/06/27/congress/don-bacon-wont-seek-reelection-00430545
Yep; the others are Brian Fitzpatrick (the Susan Collins of the House), and the insufferable Mike Lawler.
Yeah, I know it's an overstatement. The resilience of both annoys me, though.
Pretty terrible stat for the state of our democractic republic.
Lean D. It's only about Harris +4.
Brett Lindstrom could make this tough if he runs but we’ll see
I don't think Reps will nominate a "moderate" if they even exist
It's Likely D in a Trump midterm. It was about +4.5D last year.
I think Lean D is a fair rating given that (1.) the district has only been won by a Democrat once this century, and (2.) we don't know who either party will nominate yet.
I could easily see it shifting to Likely D well before the election, though.
Normally I'd agree with a Lean characterization in these type of districts, but 2026 will almost certainly be a wave year. Thus these type of districts should almost certainly swing our way, especially considering Harris won here. I'd also keep an eye on the 1st district in Nebraska. Big sleeper Trump only slightly overperformed there by a single point. Also Osborn won that district too.
Let's be cautious. I don't think we can assume a big wave.
Michael, i agree with you, based on experience and disappointment over the years. I suspect you and I (and a few others here) get to play the GenX experience card that others haven't been beaten with yet. Hopefully they won't be.
Yeah, lots of scars. I've voted for Democrats for President every 4 years since 1984. Most of them lost.
As a middle of the road millennial I've seen my fair share of disappointments too.
I wasn't old enough to care about politics during Clinton's two wins. I was just old enough to see all the craziness of the 2000 recount even if I had been too young to care about or really understand the election itself still.
Spanning ~2000-2024 there's been scant few years that I found encouraging. Obama's win in 2008 was the only unmitigated win. His 2012 win saw us fail to retake the house, and Biden's 2020 win was on the narrowest of grounds combined with a 50-50 senate. A relieving outcome but not one build up any kind of future looking confidence.
Fair tho I doubt the situation right now will be worse than 2024. At the very least I am expecting numbers near or around 2018.
That is way too optimistic. Sure, it's possible, but we can't assume it.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/nebraska-republican-don-bacon-will-not-seek-re-election-congress-rcna215668
Don Bacon will not seek reelection.
NJ Assembly: Given what seems like assured continued south jersey bleeding of support, it's more important for NJ Democrats to maintain a healthy majority unreliant on the South Jersey remnant. Andrew Macurdy is a former AUSA and mental health advocacy attorney in the AG of NJ's office, young, charismatic, and has raised at least 8 times more so far than previous nominee did entire time. The distirct voted Harris by 14 and Biden by 20, but has entrenched republican incumbents that keep holding on because Union County Dems have never really targeted this district. Suffice to say with the signature overperformance and uncontested primary win where he outpolled the republican nominees in raw votes (nj has two assemblypeople per district).
Worth a donation or if you're in the district a vote. linked article is from when he was only in the race a month.
https://www.andrewmacurdy.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey%27s_21st_legislative_district
https://newjerseyglobe.com/campaigns/macurdy-has-enormous-94000-fundraising-haul-for-assembly-bid-against-munoz-and-matsikoudis/
Some of the wealthiest towns in the country in this district, in Somerset and Morris counties. Where moderate Republicanism still lives.
Halfway through 2025, here's an analysis of Democratic performance in special elections so far and what it does and doesn't mean for 2026. (Oh, and look where they got their 2024 presidential data from.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/06/27/democratic-special-election-gains/
Paywalled, of course. Could you summarize?
Democrats' showing in mostly special elections so far looks very promising for 2026. But specials may be losing their predictive power, so no reason for overconfidence.
Thanks very much! Why do they think they could be losing predictive power? I think what we've clearly seen is that results depend on who shows up. In 2022, a lot of voters angry about abortion bans showed up, and that blunted the Republican midterm edge quite a bit, whereas in 2024, all the once-every-4-years Trump voters showed up and quite a few normally Democratic voters finked out. Chances are, a larger number of infrequent Republican voters will show up for a midterm than for special elections on odd days, but we really don't know how many. Is that about predictive power, though? Do they have something more complex to say about that?
They say of 2024, "For example, the 2024 cycle doesn’t quite fit the pattern we described. Before the 2024 general election, Democrats were outperforming their 2020 results in special elections by about two points. But Republicans won the House popular vote by roughly the same margin as they had in 2022. What gives?"
The conclusion is, "Put simply, Democrats have become much better at showing up in special elections. This is both because of their newfound advantage with reliable voters, but also because a party’s base is often most fired up when the party is in the opposition.
So, yes, history and the data both suggest that Democrats are well-positioned heading into 2026. Midterm elections tend to have lower turnout than elections in presidential years, which could benefit Democrats, given their growing advantage among high-propensity voters.
But there’s a big difference between winning on a sleepy Tuesday in March and winning when tens of millions of voters head to the polls in 2026."
I think there's been too much recasting of 2024 as the "new normal" or predictive of the future, but we'll see. It is apparently true that Democrats' coalition for now seems to be well-suited for off years and specials, but one can wonder why swing or Independent leaning voters aren't showing up for Republicans. Maybe they don't like what they're seeing, or their shift to the right was only temporary and even last year wasn't as deep or potentially lasting as some pundits have said?
The cynic in me says that these special election results wouldn't be dismissed so readily by the pundit class if Republicans were outperforming Democrats rather than the reverse being the case.
That said, I do think that special elections are more likely to be predictive of midterm results rather than presidential ones—especially when one of the major parties is headed by a cult leader with a proven track record of being able to turn out low-propensity voting blocs.
We were crushing it in special elections heading into November 2024.
Worth mentioning that the story cites to the Downballot with a link to it.
Our democracy may literally depend on defeating Susan Collins and we have C-list candidates. This has to change. Just wanted to vent.
Maine Senate race is Texas in reverse. Gillibrand is in charge of recruiting candidates and the only good thing she's done till now is that she didn't encourage Golden to jump in which was obliquely referenced in two reports like he wasn't able to gather support from the party apparatus because they dislike him. Dude hasn't even attended a Dem caucus meeting since 2020.
Jared Golden once worked for Susan Collins, so he’s never going to challenge her. Besides, ME-02 and Golden himself are significantly to the right of the state as a whole, which explains the tepid support from the state party. Dems can find a far better Senate candidate.
But he had expressed interest in the Senate race and was hyped by pundits before he abruptly took himself out of contention.
I think Golden might run if Collins retired, but I stand by my prediction that he will never challenge her.
Maine has Janet Mills – she is definitely A-list. But to your larger point, yes, I definitely do wish the Dems’ Maine bench was deeper. It’s a complex purple state and more than a bit insular.
Is she running?
No indication yet.
Makes me worried about what folks are seeing in internals if no-one steps up.
Reports say she will run if no one else steps up. My only concern is her age. A younger Democrat would straight up get a boost due to their age.
I think Mills would defeat Collins if she runs. I hope she does - even if it’s just one or two cycles.
Bench is fairly deep. But they’re all running for governor
My guess is that one of the serious candidates will switch over from the governor race.
So there's the centrist lawyer running for NYC mayor as an independent (whose name I forgot), might he now get a second look from Cuomo (and Sliwa) voters hoping to stave off Mamdani?
Do you have any affirmative reason to consider him in particular? I'm not seeing why I would want to vote for him and increase the risk for any of the remaining non-Mamdani candidates, who are noxious, could win.
So much for party unity, huh. I guess unity only matters when certain ideologies are the winners.
Vote blue no matter who only applies for Blue Dogs.
I suspect a lot of Mamdani voters wouldn't have voted for Cuomo, though not sure who they'd vote for. Maybe Walden. Cuomo is pretty awful after all.
That doesn’t make it right the other way around though. We can’t afford not to elect Dems in this climate.
I additionally highly doubt Mamdani voters would have gone for Walden. Walden would be too centrist for the type that only vote progressive.
Lander was my #1. Had Cuomo become the Democratic nominee, I'm not sure whether I would have voted (probably, because I consider it a responsibility), and I don't know who I would have voted for. Not Adams and not Sliwa. I'm glad I don't have to make that decision.
That's possible. Does he have enough personal money or support to advertise much?
I would guess that he doesn't have a prayer.
NYC Mayoral Race And Trump Voters
Since Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic Primary this past Tuesday, this video may be the most important one to pay attention to with respect to 2026.
Mamdani explains why Trump voters in NYC and even NY State voted for Trump: It was because their economic issues were not being listened to. He listened to such voters concerns and he was laser focused on economics more than other issues.
While Mamdani’s candidacy and political views may be suitable for NYC, the focus on economics in his campaign is worth Democratic candidates and incumbents across their country paying attention to depending on overall political views of the voters.
https://youtube.com/shorts/lQM4A8HiJcg?feature=shared
OK, well, these voters are idiots, but if Mamdani has found the way to convince them the Democrats are better for working people than the Republican are - which they are, every fucking time since FDR - then, yeah, the rest of the party's candidates need to pay attention to this and emulate it, if it isn't too late now.
Chris Murphy and Ro Khanna have also been screaming the same thing. Talk about economics and don't move to the right on it like the re-awakened neoliberal class wants to while deemphasizing social issues. I immediately lose interest whenever a centrist pundit tries to blame Biden's tariffs or CHIPS or IRA for inflation. I don't believe that Biden had the capability to cause higher inflation and lesser growth in every other first world country. We had the best economy among our peers and I'll die on this hill. State subsidized industrial policy works and stops the hollowing of our industries.
No, and due to his work and the work of the Federal Reserve, this country had the strongest economy in the world. Whoever those centrist "pundits" are, they should go fuck themselves with a long, sharp implement!
Biden had a huge charisma and communication issue. Fix that and the border so Trump would have had no one to scapegoat and he would have lost badly.
It's never too late for the next election, but it's always too late for the last one.
To me this would refute the answer a lot of officials have opted for one "culture war" issues. It's not uncommon to hear person XYZ say that we lost because of shifting away from economic issues, and then they follow it up by spending an inordinate amount of time and focus on those exact social issues anyway. The only difference being that they're trying to adopt a stance that is closer to (but not the same as) republicans on it.
The answer isn't to moderate on social issues. The answer is to shut up about them and talk about economic issues instead. Relentlessly shift the topic whenever possible.
To the extent social issues are spoken of they should be linked into economics as much as possible. Looking back a decade ago, I think the political success of pushing for same-sex marriage equality was based on two factors, one of which was the economic factors related to marriage. (The other being to "keep government out of bedrooms.")
Don't moderate: change the topic to economic issues!
It's never too late for the next election when there are reasonably free and fair elections.
Yes, but as much as that is a legitimate concern it is one that is outside the scope of my ability to meaningfully influence. As such I don't make much accounting for it in my assessments here, even if it is a thing that merits worry.
As I’ve said countless times, elections are run by the states.
I'm skeptical that someone preaching socialism can win over someone who looked at Trump and thought that was the message they were looking for. Problem for the DSA types is that not every "working people" see socialism as the answer. Sure were there some low info voters who bought Trumps spiel about inflation, maybe those voters are gettable but for the most part i think we lost people on cultural issues.
I tend to disagree with your last phrase. I think the difference was voters who were punishing Democrats for worldwide inflation, most of whom were so stupid they believed Trump's con that he would end inflation.
There's some of that of course but i think our slide with Hispanics and folks of color has a lot to do with cultural issues.
Because what was so different from previous elections?
Most "working people" don't see socialism as the answer. The fact that Mamdani lost "working class" voters to Cuomo says it all. It was middle and upper income voters who put him over the top.
What income categories are you talking about, and where are the figures coming from?
How are you sure middle and upper income voters are the reason why Mamdani got over the top?
As far as I am aware, when I saw videos of voters in NYC being asked by reporters (including those on MSNBC), they were talking about having to be concerned about paying rent per month. Middle and upper income residents of cities like NYC, San Francisco, etc. are also defined differently and have been this way since the tech boom in the 2010's. What used to be middle and upper income back in the 90's is no longer the case today.
Meanwhile, a billionaire investor who donated to Cuomo has just announced he'll donate to Mamdani.
There's a graph from The Times going around breaking down vote share by median income, you can see it here: https://www.unpopularfront.news/p/what-it-took-to-win
James is probably referring to Cuomo doing better than Mamdani+Lander among <$30k incomes, but it's a little reductive to say "middle and upper incomes put Mamdani over the top" when Cuomo also won the most wealthy. You can't tell from this graph, but my guess from other exit polls would be there are confounding factors of age, race, and education that shape this distribution. This also, IMO, means it's a mistake to ascribe ideological aversion to socialism as a reason for this breakdown, when there are so many other effects at play.
Not saying this is the reason, but just as an example of what I mean, Cuomo did better among Black voters. Black Democratic primary voters are probably more Christian and religious than average, and might have been less inclined to vote for a Muslim. Or Mamdani had particular appeals to East and South Asian voters, who are more likely to be educated professionals. Ideology is important, but context, timing, and rhetorical focus are too.
I can’t comment on NYC but I know I’m Berkeley we have not to date in all of the years I’ve grown up here ever elected a Democratic socialist. And my recollection goes all the way back to when Shirley Dean was Mayor back in the mid 90’s.
Same with San Francisco, San Jose and other cities in the Bay Area. Richmond elected Gayle McLaughlin, a Green Party member, as Mayor years ago twice in 2006 and 2010 so it may be the only city in the Bay Area I can think of where Democratic Socialist could possibly get elected.
That said, I think the point I should emphasize is that Democrats need to be focused on the economy at all levels and how they are impacted while at the same time beating the GOP at the messaging game. Culture wars are a problem but competency and attention to detail on the job is also a bigger problem as well that needs to be paid attention to.
Yeah, that's wishful thinking and self aggrandizing.
Why?
It's the idea that if the Democrats talked more about economic issues (as if we didn't talk about them a ton already) they would automatically win. I know Trump voters on NY state by the way, the idea that economic concerns are top of their list is ludacris. They want their guns. They don't like gays. They don't like blacks. They don't like Hispanic. They don't like trans people. They don't like the government. They don't like regulations. Mamdani and his ilk are deep in a blue bubble and would walk into a buzz saw if they stepped out of it.
That makes intuitive sense to me.
Are you suggesting these are positions we should adopt? Were these people really going to vote for us anyway?
And if we do adopt these positions, how exactly are we different from the GOP? Why would they vote for us when they have the real deal?
I could be misunderstanding this. I just want to be clear here.
How so? How Democratic socialism applies in an agenda towards economic issues or just focusing on economic issues in general?
We are in a complicated picture here but I have seen videos of NYCers in the younger generation who believe the Democratic Party is aloof to their problems. They are arguing rent is too high and wages aren’t keeping up with the cost of living. That’s a problem Democrats need to address head on.
Why the hell do we still insist on using there term democratic "socialism" if we have any intent on winning elections. That aside, our politicians talk about that all the time. They act on it all the time. They don't want elections all the time. Did Senator Brown not speak to these concerns? Of course not, he did. It doesn't matter. You know who spent a lot of time attacking high rent and freezing it? Mayor Bill Deblasio. He was deeply unpopular.
1) Democrats speak to economic issues.
2) we are the only party that actually provides real economic solutions for working people.
3) Republicans kick the ever living shit out of working people
4) the voters elect Republicans
5) I am not saying we should stop speaking on economic issues or that we shouldn't speak even more
6) I am saying it borders on delusion to think that it will solve our problem
7) this proposal is more or less that we should keep doing what we've been doing, for it will surely work this time even though it didn't in 2010, 2016, 2022, and 2024.
DeBlasio was popular at first. He lost popularity because he became or was shown to be ineffective.
I am not arguing against what you are saying about using the term "Democratic socialism." Yes, what you are saying about Mamdani does seem to mirror a bit with what Bill DeBlasio did when he was running for Mayor back in 2013. He ended up being unpopular in the end.
However, I am mainly referring to the economic issues that Mamdani focused on in the primary, not his actual policy points and stances on the issues. Those need to be paid attention to.
We have a serious affordability crisis with rent being too high in cities like NYC as well as an inflation and economic stability problem (ex: tech layoffs). How it affects everyone per state may vary.
James Walkinshaw has won the Democratic nomination for VA-11!
Is that a surprise?
I'm not an expert on VA but I don't think so
Not really. He had a huge lead in the one straw poll that was done before the primary.
Cryptocurrency buys another Dem seat, sad to see
Didn’t know that. Wish one of the others had won then.
Yesterday, this Tweet message by Stella Pekarsky on the DownBallot’s Discord, calling for unity behind Walkinshaw, received two downvotes:
"Congratulations to @JamesWalkinshaw for his victory tonight. He ran a great campaign and I hope all Democrats will get behind him for the special election in September so we can send Donald Trump the biggest possible message from Fairfax."
Anyone have any idea what that’s about? Is there anything wrong with Walkinshaw as a candidate or with his campaign?
Firehouse insider primary decided by machine bosses is what I've heard. If it's true, he should face a competitive primary next year.
Thanks for replying. I don’t know the district. Are you saying that Walkinshaw was the choice of the local Democratic machine bosses?
There were some hard feelings toward his candidacy because while Walkinshaw is an elected official - he serves on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisor (our local legislature) - he repeatedly emphasized the fact that he was at one point Gerry Connolly's Chief of Staff and most of the local "establishment" backed him.
https://x.com/whstancil/status/1939166651053695245
https://x.com/TheTNHoller/status/1939304190238478520
Murkowski agreed to the bill after she got work requirement exemptions and a lot of pork for Alaska. We are dreaming if we think she chooses Democrats in a 50-50 scenario. That was 100% a power play to pressure Thune. This is the cornhusker kickback on steroids.
Anyone who believes Murkowski or Collins will come through at crunch time is deluding themselves.
Although Collins might be concerned about some portions and vote "no" if it will pass without her vote. What happened to these two who, along with McCain, saved to ACA?
She might want to get similar carveouts from a Democratic majority.
Trump would be President.
Understood. Which would make it less likely for her to change parties, rather than bargaining with Democratic Leadership as a Republican.
This happens with every major bill; I'm sorry but Alaska is just a huge welfare state and there's really no good reason that it should be a state at all.
I know Alaska is a welfare and earmarking state but this is another level of deal making. Alaska is excluded from almost every negative effect and also gets tax breaks in return.
Why is there no good reason that it should be a state?
It's geographic isolation and environment/topography mean it's in constant need of very heavy subsidizing to survive and it has a tiny and declining population. It's an important piece of land for geo-political purposes but so is Guam.
It doesn't have a declining population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Alaska
Historical population Census Pop. Note %±
1880 33,426 —
1890 32,052 −4.1%
1900 63,592 98.4%
1910 64,356 1.2%
1920 55,036 −14.5%
1930 59,278 7.7%
1940 72,524 22.3%
1950 128,643 77.4%
1960 226,167 75.8%
1970 300,382 32.8%
1980 401,851 33.8%
1990 550,043 36.9%
2000 626,932 14.0%
2010 710,231 13.3%
2020 733,391 3.3%
And if we think DC's taxation without representation is wrong, it would be wrong for Alaska, too.
So like Puerto Rico? Except that PR has a bigger and actually declining population?
She's always going to make more sense as a republican than not.
As I said prior I was skeptical and remain skeptical she'd caucus with us. Although I am much less skeptical now than before.
Biggest takeaway in our favor for the future is that threats are only useful if the other party thinks you could follow through on it. If Thune thought there was a 0% chance Murkowski would ever leave his caucus, he'd have little reason to give her any serious concessions. That doesn't mean it has to be high. A policy exemption and a bunch of state focused pork should be "cheap" to a republican to give away, so the evaluation could easily be that it's a single digit percent chance of her leaving in the future.
18-24 year olds were the LARGEST group in the NYC Mayoral Primary, followed by 25-29 year olds, followed by 30-34 year olds
https://x.com/umichvoter/status/1939316564777730387
Mhm, the city attracts more working age adults, so each age cohort 25-29, and onwards till 60, would have much more people than 18-24 yr olds.
18-24 may be just 500k in total population.
Given citizenship rate, lower registration rate, and only ~ 60% would be registered as Democrats, this seems to be some extraordinary turnout
HARDBALL BUDGET BS FROM SENATE REPUBLICANS
Senate Republicans are refusing the Democrats’ request for a bipartisan meeting with the Senate Parliamentarian on using current policy baseline to pay for tax cuts.
“There is no need to have a parliamentarian meeting with respect to the current policy baseline because Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act gives [Lindsey] Graham — as Chairman of the Budget Committee — the authority to set the baseline.
“There is nothing to debate and we consider this matter settled.”
https://nitter.poast.org/AndrewDesiderio/status/1939343859319726226#m
BUDGET CLAIMS FIRST CASUALTY: Thom Tillis
“As many of my colleagues have noticed over the last year, and at times even joked about, I haven't exactly been excited about running for another term. That is true since the choice is between spending another six years navigating the political theatre and partisan gridlock in Washington or spending that time with the love of my life Susan, our two children, three beautiful grandchildren, and the rest of our extended family back home. It's not a hard choice, and I will not be seeking re-election."
https://nitter.poast.org/igorbobic/status/1939375330277642587#m
NOTE: I just wish Senator Tillis would first show spine by voting against this horrible budget bill. Better to be remembered standing up for principles!
Per CNN, Tillis voted against the bill and announced he was not running for re-election a day later.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/06/29/politics/thom-tillis-not-seeking-reelection
Thom Tillis is retiring from politics!! He will not seek reelection.
Super!
Makes that race much easier in that case
LETS FUCKING GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mark Robinson! Rebulicans need you.
Michele Morrow would also be fantastic.
Lara Trump?
Only if she stands. Her. Ground. And does not. Back. Down.
Oh please! Robinson’s service to the Democratic Party is needed once again in 2026.
Is Cooper more likely or less likely to jump in now?
On one hand it should be an easier election to win. On the other hand because of that it's less necessary to have him be our candidate in order to win. If he was on the fence it could lead him to conclude he can safely let someone else be our candidate.
I hope this encourages him to get off the fence and declare his candidacy. Because whoever is the GOP nominee will be even Trumpier than Ted Budd.
And if Cooper wins the open seat (and Anita Earls wins her race), us NC Dems are going to be pumped to show Budd and the SCONC GOP majority the door in 2028.
Don’t forget the state’s 16 EVs.
Yes, I am 🙏 that we get those too.
Less likely-with Tillis not running Cooper might (justifiably) think that he no longer needs to be running for Senate-I'd expect an imminent Presidential announcement and possibly an endorsement of Wiley Nickel from Cooper (unless Jeff Jackson or Rachel Hunt decides to jump in-Cooper would likely endorse one of them instead),
Presidential?! Very unlikely, he would be 71 or 72 when 2028 kicks off.
That's seven years younger than Biden was in 2020.
It depends on who Republicans nominate in 2026. If they nominate Mark Robinson or Michele Morrow, then I'm all for Cooper passing on 2026 and having him run for Senate in 2028 when Republicans have a less toxic nominee.
Unless someone in the GOP Congressional delegation gets in and clears the field, whoever the Republicans nominate likely will be the underdog, even if Cooper doesn't run.
In otherwords, even before Tillis's retirement, North Carolina was the inverse Maine-weak incumbent, and deep and ambitious Democratic bench-it was unlikely the field was clearing for Cooper to begin with.
I'm not convinced of that. The NC Senate race will start out as Lean D if Cooper runs and Tossup with any other Democrat.
I think it's a tossup with anyone but Cooper. I don't really see much of a bench in NC these days, except for Cooper, who absolutely would have cleared the field. We know that because he is currently keeping the field clear simply by not declaring his plans. Even Nickel has said he'd defer to him.
Also, I'm not sure Tillis is weak and Collins is so strong. Tillis would be weak in a primary but not the general. And Collins now has a hugely negative approval rating, per recent polling.
I am delighted to see this. If the race goes like it did with AZ and GA, Trump basically flipped a GOP seat because of his tantrums over the Big Bad Bill.
I’ll give Tillis credit: He ended up serving just two terms in the Senate and didn’t stay institutionalized like Chuck Grassley.
Still amazes me that Chuck Grassley was first elected to the Senate on the night that *Ronald Friggin Reagan* was elected POTUS...
He can still do push ups though. /s