On Monday evening, Elon Musk filed with the FEC that his PAC is spending in 14 close congressional races, including 2 by me.
He's spending $444k in CA CD 45, half pro Steel, half anti Tran (the candidate's name). Also $530k in CD 41, again half pro Calvert, half anti Rollins. He isn't spending in my CD 47 (Min).
I would insert a chart of the others, but I can't seem to figure out how to do that from my phone.
Trump has outsourced much of his GOTV operations to Elon Musk and to the likes of Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA. As far as I can see, this is great news! What could possibly go wrong? (Savoring that thought with my second mug of morning coffee.)
I agree! And I am stunned by the surprisingly close polls we are seeing out of Florida and Texas, Iowa and even Alaska. If any of these states flip it will be a political earthquake. While I am not a betting man, I think Kamala just may take Florida. I’m even more confident that Deb Mucarsel-Powell kicks the reprehensible Rick Scott out of the Senate!
The state ill be watching on election night is NC. Polls close at 7:30 eastern and they count mail in before election day. If we notch a win there, I suspect it will be watching down ballot the rest of the night.
If Harris takes North Carolina, I’ll pour myself a shot of Balvenie. If she takes Florida as well, it’s likely to be multiple celebratory shots – and loud passionate shouts as well. Glad our closest neighbors live a ten-minute walk away.
If we hold the Senate in addition to flipping the House, I just might take Wednesday off. After all, we want an election victory that is well outside MoS (Margin of Steal).
Not clarified to me. It makes total sense for someone to fund opposition to a candidate who's leading within 5 points or so. So where's the "yet"? Having not yet spent the money donated by Musk, Calvert is down? So?
Rollins was not ahead in the polls back in 2022 and with this political environment where anti-Trump sentiment and pro-Harris sentiment high in CA, IMO it's bad optics for Musk to start getting involved in political campaigns this late. He's not proven to have the smartest political instincts, particularly with his disaster of an interview with Trump. I really am not concerned about anything Musk is doing to impact elections in competitive races like CA-41.
Also, Calvert is a weak GOP incumbent who since running for re-election in a new district that's a R+3 Lean Republican and growing in non-white demographics. He's doing little effort to appeal to these voters besides running a traditional conservative Republican campaign, being anti-choice with his support of the Dobbs decision and being anti-democracy with his signing of the lawsuit seeking to overturn the 2020 election.
If you're arguing that it's bad for Musk's business interests for him to support an extremist Republican Party, that ship sailed a long time ago. If you're arguing that his money isn't likely to produce results, OK, but it makes perfect sense for a right-wing extremist like him to concentrate on races that look close. I really don't understand your line of argumentation a lot of the time.
I am very hopeful that Democrats will flip most of these 17 House seats. Many of these Democratic challengers are receiving support from Simon Rosenberg’s Hopium community. I’ve included the poll numbers I’ve seen; strikingly, all except Mondair Jones are leading or even with the Republican incumbent.
Very encouraging to read today about Carl Marling receiving much-needed financial support!
o Amish Shah (AZ-01), +1
o Kirsten Engel (AZ-06), +1
o Adam Gray (CA-13), Even
o Rudy Salas (CA-22), +2
o George Whitesides (CA-27), +3
o Will Rollins (CA-41), +6
o Derek Tran (CA-45), Even
o Christina Bohannan (IA-01), Even
o Carl Marlinga (MI-10)
o Tony Vargas (NE-02), +5
o Sue Altman (NJ-07)
o Laura Gillen (NY-04), +3
o Mondaire Jones (NY-17), –5
o Josh Riley (NY-19), +3
o Janelle Bynum (OR-5), +2
o Janelle Stelson (PA-10), +1
o Mannion vs Williams (NY-22), +7
(Sorry about my untidy post. I don’t know how to format a table in a comment.)
I know very little about Mondaire Jones, but have seen some here express the view that he’s not a great candidate. But Jones has a tough opponent in Mike Lawler, reportedly one of the most bipartisan Republicans in the House.
Allegedly bipartisan. Like Susan Collins, it’s all about media presentation and only supporting or opposing stuff that already has enough votes for an GOP-favored outcome and rarely being the deciding vote.
While I am no great fan of Susan Collins, it must in fairness be said that she votes to confirm the vast majority of President Biden’s judicial nominations – and sometimes is the deciding vote.
That said, she was a fool not to vote against the ascendancy of Brett Kavanaugh..
Then again, Susan Collins also bankrolled the Iraq War. She wasn't exactly on the side of the argument when it came to ending the war, especially after the midterms.
The biggest problem in that district is the Republican Working Families Party plant that just barely beat Jones in their primary for the nomination. Jones has about 2% of the vote he won’t receive on the left, so his bar for victory is higher than most other swing seat Democrats sadly.
EricAZ had an article too on DK that AZ 2, the massive district that covers almost half the state including the Navajo, Hopi and Apache nations is close enough to be in play. I wouldn't have thought of flipping a seat beyond 1 and 6 in AZ. This would be precious to flip as Nez, the D, is Navajo, and the district includes ultra red Yavapai County (Prescott).
Tom lost by almost 8, and he was probably a stronger candidate than the recent loser of the Navajo Presidency. Against that, 2024 is a presidential year, and low propensity turnout in the district favors us. Also, it’s 2 years later and AZ, including parts of the district, is trending left. Also, despite his not winning his most recent tribal race, our challenger IS Navajo and IF there is a perceived chance of him winning that ought to be an energizing factor in native turnout. Also, 2 years of Crane may have given some of his prior supporters and some previously disengaged voters a disgust of his antics, see Boebert in the catercorner district.
This article came out a couple of days ago, but I don't remember it being posted here. The title is: Texas GOP investing in South Texas races as some Republicans worry about party's performance in November
It talks about some of the money problems facing the Texas GOP (at least the state party), and that some GOP county chairs (29 of them to be precise) are worried about their party's fundraising and voter outreach, as well as the lack of efforts to expand mail voting. The way the article is titled, I wonder if some of the chairs are upset about a South Texas focus on the part of the state party to the detriment of the rest of the state.
I'm under no illusions that GOP candidates will necessarily be hurting for money in Texas with Abbott having $51 million CoH and Patrick another $27 million CoH that both could easily contribute as needed.
As an aside, I've been around since the Swing State Project days, I just don't post or comment frequently.
Arizona ballots are mailed out three weeks from today. Nevada early voting starts four weeks from Saturday. The GOP is resetting their GOTV effort (which isn't that big to begin with) in both states.
There had been discussion a couple weeks ago about a federal investigation of OC (CA) supervisor Do and calls for him to resign. He represents western OC including Little Saigon.
It's now been reported that a week after the federal raid, he sold his house in Westminster (Little Saigon) and it's questionable whether he's still living in the district as the other home he owns that was raided is in North Tustin, not his district.
Needless to say, Do is Republican, and flipping this seat would solidify Democratic control of OC.
“Sen. Jon Tester’s (D-MT) reelection was already difficult. It just got a little harder,” Politico reports.
By the way, I got texted by him (undoubtedly, not personally, though that's how it was presented) a few weeks ago, asking for more of my money. I texted back that I had given all I was going to give, but did he want volunteers to text voters? My next text about a week later again asked for more money, so I texted back STOP. Not encouraging. I'll have a look at his website, but they ought to answer questions like that in reply texts.
I attended a virtual training yesterday to phone bank for Harris in swing states. I may need to look at Montana too since it's actually in my time zone vs. AZ (during the run-up to the election), NV or WI.
My brother has done texting on behalf of Harris and said they did have to read and reply to text for the campaign he was volunteering for. Most replies are canned, but they do have to be chosen based on what reply they got. I know he mentioned Black Voters Matter as a group he was working with.
FCC rules prohibit using a robo-texter to contact people without their consent. For this reason, when texting voters, campaigns have humans pressing the the actual button to "send," even though software & canned responses automate most of the process. However, for fundraising texts, campaigns most of the time technically have consent (if you give money or sign up for something and provide your phone number, there is usually a disclaimer that says you are giving them consent to text you, and campaigns can then sell your number), and so they can use a robo-texter without reading any responses. Most of the time, this is outsourced to consulting firms who aren't connected to the campaign. For this reason, it is best to just reply "STOP" to any fundraising texts (blocking the number doesn't work because robo-texters use multiple numbers & they can still sell your data to another campaign/PAC, while campaigns are legally required to remove you from their list if you reply "STOP") and only donate via actual campaign websites in races you know are competitive.
As far as I can find, the Tester campaign is not currently doing any text-banking (https://www.mobilize.us/bigskyvictory/ is a list of all of his events), but their website has a phone number you can reach out to if you have questions about donating or volunteering which presumably is monitored by actual humans (+1 406-272-2487).
Tucked at the very end of Politico's article is this caveat:
"There was no Green Party candidate on the ballot in Tester's 2018 race, when he won by 3.5 points. But there was a Libertarian candidate on the ballot who drew 2.9 percent of the vote."
It was proven last year that the Libertarian candidate didn't take votes away from the GOP candidates in Montana in all three of Tester's races because the math didn't add up which is why the GOP State Legislature in Montana had to shelve their bull shit version of ranked choice voting but only for Tester's election plan. I don't doubt Democrats would like to get the Green Party nominee off the ballot because he causes headaches for Tester, I also think this part sounds a little fishy:
"Barb replaced the original Green Party nominee after the primary winner dropped out of the race. The state Democratic Party argued that proper procedure was not followed, and that Barb should be booted from the ballot. Their efforts clearly underscored the threat they believe Barb could pose to Tester."
I accept Tester has a very tough race ahead of him and this one might be his toughest hence why he's being considered the underdog. However, I am not ready to write his political obituary. Montana is a hard state to poll and we don't yet have the best grasp on who is the newer electorate in the state of Montana that caused the state to now have two congressional districts. On one hand, one could argue that the state has moved much more rightward but you could also make the same case for Ohio and I have more confidence in Sherrod Brown's chances. I think it's easier to get a better sense of where the swing states are heading but states like Montana, Ohio, Florida and Texas with their Senate races, I think it's safe to treat them as super competitive outliers.
That's interesting analysis and worth the consideration of everyone who frequents this site, but it's hardly "proof":
"In the hypothetical scenario where Jones didn’t run and some of his supporters stayed home, Burns would have needed to win an even larger share of Jones’s remaining voters in order to net 3,563 votes. Let’s dive into the math. If only 90 percent of Jones’s supporters had turned out (9,339 voters), Burns would have needed to win them 6,451 to 2,888 (69 percent to 31 percent)."
We're talking about very small numbers of people. Netting 3,563 votes is easily what might have happened had the Libertarian not taken any votes.
But there's no "proof" that Burns, Rehberg or Rosendale would've easily secured the 3,563 votes had the Libertarian dropped out. They could've just sat it out. So it's hard to say if these Libertarian voters would've voted for Burns by default or had sat it out completely but what is proof is that Tester's campaign always knew it was about voter turnout and not relying on a third party candidate to tip the race in his favor as his Hail Mary to win elections.
"Fifty-four percent of respondents said they 'strongly' or 'somewhat support' the policy, including 86% of Republicans, 58% of independents, and 25% of Democrats."
They don't understand how that would damage the U.S. economy, but what they didn't ask is whether people support offering any path to citizenship for long-time residents who are undocumented but did not come here as children, which is what the previous amnesty provisions did and presumably what a new one would do. They did ask these things:
"Nearly nine in 10 Democrats and 52% of Republicans say they support a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children.
And both Democrats (55%) and Republicans (88%) support restrictions limiting the number of migrants who can claim asylum."
There have _always_ been restrictions on who could claim asylum. "I want asylum because there are no jobs in [Name of Country]" has never been a winning argument.
I got into it with a Trump supporter over this policy and deporting millions of workers over the weekend. I simply asked "Trying to figure out how deporting millions of workers and slapping across the board tariffs will help with inflation". and they said not to worry about either because "the new workers will pay taxes unlike the illegals and everything will be made here which will lower prices". A lot of it is just ignorance of basic economics and an emotional belief that everything will get better once the migrants are thrown out. I gave up then if someone does not understand scarcity or supply and demand no way to explain it without coming off as an asshole.
I'd like it if pollsters ask "would you be willing to place tariffs on goods if it raised the overall prices on all goods"
In the end, even an understanding of basic economics is meaningless - the point is to get rid of or subjugate minority groups to that the "correct social hierarchy" can be maintained (enforced).
Separate water fountains was economically stupid, too (honestly we could probably come up with hundreds of examples of racism and sexism having a deleterious economic effect), but people did it and supported it because white supremacy was the goal, and all other goals had to be subordinated to that goal. If everyone is poorer as a result, so be it.
The thing is, if there were a blanket amnesty for undocumented people currently in the U.S., I definitely don't think a majority would remain upset about that in 5 years.
People would be very upset because a few months after the first blanket amnesty, there would be a demand for another blanket amnesty to accommodate the tens of millions who swarmed the borders knowing that they were likely to get in on the next amnesty. The politics of illegal immigration are never gonna be anything but disastrous.
There has never been such a demand a few months later, ever. You're old enough to know that. There have been many years between amnesties. But of course you would bring up something like that.
The last real bill passed by Congress was in 1986; I'm not convinced that the next Congress will pass anything at all(the margins in Congress are too slim imo); but with certainty, there is no logistical way on earth to deport the numbers that Trump is spewing
In the end, it doesn't matter whether we have a blanket amnesty or mass deportations with virtually zero immigration, because unless those are accompanied by other forms of massive government oppression, there are still going to be female, gay, and Black people on TV.
The politics of immigration are not about the border. They're not about immigration. They're about people behaving contrary to "the way things ought to be." Like all fronts in the Culture Wars, they're a scapegoat, a way to avoid saying what the Culture Warriors really care about - the reinstitution of segregation, the subordination of women, and the eradication (or at least visible erasure) of anyone LGBTQ+.
It doesn't matter what you do about immigration or the border, one way or another - the Culture Warriors want the above and will continue to fight for it.
There's a faction of the electorate for whom the politics of immigration is about white supremacy. Whether or not they're a majority or not is open for debate, but there's a considerable faction for whom the concern is the border and a recognition that the situation on our southern border in recent years has been less than optimal. Conflate the two groups at your own electoral risk.
Tens of millions in a few months? Nothing has ever even approached that in our history. Best figures I can find says that there are ~47m people in the US that were born elsewhere. More than half of them are citizens. You're claiming that the number of non-citizens that would cross the border in just a handful of months would eclipse the number that have come here over the course of generations. It's absurd. It's not even logistically possible.
Using conservative hyperbole is wholly inappropriate. Especially with the use of the word "swarmed" in said hyperbole.
If the hypothetical "blanket amnesty" was enacted as discussed upthread, then no, I don't think a ten-figure influx of migrants anticipating the next amnesty is out of the question for the ensuing six months.
I think Republicans have planted their flag in the immigration/migrants are to blame for all that is wrong in the world mountain for at least the rest of the decade.
I got in a discussion in AZ with a woman in a T-shirt with "Make Arizona White Again" and I asked her exactly when Arizona was white? Before Biden. She had no concept of the indigenous people or that much of AZ was part of Mexico. And she was a 70 year old native Arizona. Fortunately, she doesn't vote.
It is incredibly weird that different pollsters are showing wildly different relative margins in those 3 states. Q has PA 5 points to the left of Wisconsin. InsiderAdvantage also dropped polls showing PA 4 points to the right of Wisconsin.
I'd consider it normal and in fact kind of good. It's exactly what we would expect with different polling methodologies. Different systems of collecting data and then processing that data should get different results. There should be random variance from poll to poll even within the same system.
Statistically speaking, +6 +5 and +1 across three states is a reasonably possible polling result from a reality where all three states have the same level of support.
Even though I can feel Skaje's judgement from my computer as I was doing it, I dug into the crosstabs of the Q Poll and compared it to the Marquette poll which showed Kamala up 5 (this was taken August 28-September 5 so mostly before and a little after the debate) and the big difference is the Independent number, the MU poll showed Kamala up 12 with Indies and the Q Poll had Trump +2 among Indies. The other big difference is Trump did much better with men in the Q poll, as he was +21 in the Q Poll vs +10 in the MU poll (Kamala was +19 and 18, respectively). Both polls had very Trumpy non-white samples as Q had it tied among white voters and MU had Kamala +2 among white voters. If it was tied among non-white voters, I think Kamala wins by at least 6 and it could go as high as 10, but that would be unlikely. They had different age breakdowns (for example Q had young voters as 18-34 and MU had it 18-29) so its a little difficult to get an apples to apples comparison in that area.
The WI Men # is the biggest one I've seen among men in ANY swing state by at least three points. The # for Women in all three states are higher than most (I've been seeing a lot of Harris+17 lately) but relatively consistent.
Here are my updated crude 31- and 14-day polling averages. I exclude GOP troll polls (Rasmussen, Trafalgar, etc), any polls released by partisan organizations, and some with really sketchy methods such as ActiVote. For the 14-day state averages, the number of polls is in parentheses.
AZ: 31-day T+1.2, 14-day T+0.8 (4)
GA: 31-day T+0.7, 14-day T+2.0 (5)
MI: 31-day H+1.9, 14-day H+2.0 (6)
NV: 31-day H+1.1, 14-day T+0.5 (2)
NC: 31-day T+0.1, 14-day H+0.3 (6)
PA: 31-day H+1.0, 14-day H+1.5 (6)
WI: 31-day H+3.3, 14-day H+1.8 (5)
US: 31-day H+3.4, 14-day H+3.3
Since the last time I ran this, Harris has gained in the 14-day national average but not in the swing states. This may in part be a function of which outfits are polling in the swing states relative to the nation. I don't see any evidence that Harris is actually slipping in Wisconsin, it's just a different group of polls than in the 31-day average. Most of the national polls since the debate show Harris up 4 or more.
Long overdue. This over time will be a positive for the economy both with consumers saving and spending depending on when they feel the time is right to spend more.
Yes, over time. I split up the word in two to address what you're observing.
Anyway, I'm not sure the Fed rate cut will make the most impact this month as we have less than two weeks left. For October, November, December, etc. the labor market will certainly be impacted more.
And as more Fed rate cuts come later this year, as long as they're being done carefully, it will allow the economy to grow at a normal, healthy way.
Well, too bad for those who need the interest rates high.
The interest rate cuts are going to be a boon for retailers as well. I was shopping at Macy's a few days ago and a woman had a conversation with the retail cashier about her concerns about inflation. I believe she was at Macy's Backstage where the items are priced lower than other Macy's products and chose this section of the location as she was cost sensitive.
There was a big risk in raising the interest rates high the way they've been for some time. Psychologically and financially, literally everyone has been waiting for prices to go down.
For anyone who wants to save money, now they should start having an easier chance at doing so. Financial advisors at many companies are going to have an easier time helping their clients plan for their future and retirement.
Yes indeed. In all fairness to Trump, he was putting up a fight for the union workers when he started calling manufacturing companies early on in his presidency to persuade them to keep jobs in the US. This ties into his America First agenda.
Musk though is just a filthy rich snob who was spoiled rotten as a kid and under his leadership at Tesla Motors has been notoriously anti-union (not to mention reports of racism happening at the company under Musk's watch). He's said in interviews that he considers himself moderate but he has no idea what he's talking about.
I think the Teamsters realizes that a number of its members are Trump supporters and Harris supporters. The decision to decline to endorse, while not ideal, makes sense in this environment if the goal is to not make a divide with the union member base.
After the 2024 election, Teamsters may change course as long as Trump may not likely factor as much in the 2026 and 2028 elections.
First time I ever heard of Pan Atlantic Research. Do we know much about their history overall or who sponsored or commissioned this poll? The numbers seem like a complete contradiction to earlier polls showing Harris leading in ME 2. Luckily for Golden, Maine has ranked choice voting, so even if these results are accurate, he could still win in the later rounds of voting.
It's interesting that the poll notes among the 9% of undecideds, they're more likely to be younger and registered independents or Democrats. Golden has antagonized many more left leaning voters and groups in the past but his defeatist remark about accepting a Trump victory vs Biden was quite vitriolic for many on the left. It's gonna be interesting to see if Golden can reconcile with his more left leaning constituents and pull off a victory. It wouldn't surprise me if he gets primaried by a more left leaning Democrat should he survive his next election.
The leadership knows Biden and Harris are very friendly to organized labor and Trump is not...but come ok guys. The Teamster membership is very conservative and mostly white men with only a high school diploma. The leadership ultimately decided it was better off not to piss the large majority of it's membership off, and it sounds like Harris knew this and more or less gave open approval for this tactic of neutrality in her meeting earlier in the week.
She opened their meeting saying she wants their endorsement but that she will treat them with the same respect and fairness regardless of whether she gets it or not.
Of course she will. I don't think that amounts to approval for their non-endorsement, though I could be wrong. But really, would anyone expect her to screw the teamsters because too many of them are politically idiotic or racist?
Individual groupings of states Council's are endorsing Harris;for instance, the Council consisting of Iowa,North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Michigan have formally done so(I imagine there are others)
On Monday evening, Elon Musk filed with the FEC that his PAC is spending in 14 close congressional races, including 2 by me.
He's spending $444k in CA CD 45, half pro Steel, half anti Tran (the candidate's name). Also $530k in CD 41, again half pro Calvert, half anti Rollins. He isn't spending in my CD 47 (Min).
I would insert a chart of the others, but I can't seem to figure out how to do that from my phone.
Trump has outsourced much of his GOTV operations to Elon Musk and to the likes of Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA. As far as I can see, this is great news! What could possibly go wrong? (Savoring that thought with my second mug of morning coffee.)
Yes, they are spending money because they realize we may be winning these races. I'm starting to feel like this could be a blue tsunami year.
I agree! And I am stunned by the surprisingly close polls we are seeing out of Florida and Texas, Iowa and even Alaska. If any of these states flip it will be a political earthquake. While I am not a betting man, I think Kamala just may take Florida. I’m even more confident that Deb Mucarsel-Powell kicks the reprehensible Rick Scott out of the Senate!
The state ill be watching on election night is NC. Polls close at 7:30 eastern and they count mail in before election day. If we notch a win there, I suspect it will be watching down ballot the rest of the night.
If Harris takes North Carolina, I’ll pour myself a shot of Balvenie. If she takes Florida as well, it’s likely to be multiple celebratory shots – and loud passionate shouts as well. Glad our closest neighbors live a ten-minute walk away.
If we hold the Senate in addition to flipping the House, I just might take Wednesday off. After all, we want an election victory that is well outside MoS (Margin of Steal).
If she takes Florida; I will be drunker than Cooter Brown that night!!!
Balvenie is my favorite too. A shot, though? That's more of a sipping Scotch, no? At any rate, if she wins NC, I'll be joining you...
This is also my game plan(solely focusing on NC; both margins and turnout data)
NC and Georgia, because some polling is showing Harris doing between in the former.
And yet despise Musk's contributions to the GOP, in CA-41, Rollins is leading in the polls, at least the most recent one I last saw.
Musk is going all over the place with his agenda. Not exactly with the best strategy.
I don't understand the "and yet."
Changed my original comment to clarify.
Unlike back in DK, this platform with The Downballot allows re-edits. :)
Not clarified to me. It makes total sense for someone to fund opposition to a candidate who's leading within 5 points or so. So where's the "yet"? Having not yet spent the money donated by Musk, Calvert is down? So?
Rollins was not ahead in the polls back in 2022 and with this political environment where anti-Trump sentiment and pro-Harris sentiment high in CA, IMO it's bad optics for Musk to start getting involved in political campaigns this late. He's not proven to have the smartest political instincts, particularly with his disaster of an interview with Trump. I really am not concerned about anything Musk is doing to impact elections in competitive races like CA-41.
Also, Calvert is a weak GOP incumbent who since running for re-election in a new district that's a R+3 Lean Republican and growing in non-white demographics. He's doing little effort to appeal to these voters besides running a traditional conservative Republican campaign, being anti-choice with his support of the Dobbs decision and being anti-democracy with his signing of the lawsuit seeking to overturn the 2020 election.
If you're arguing that it's bad for Musk's business interests for him to support an extremist Republican Party, that ship sailed a long time ago. If you're arguing that his money isn't likely to produce results, OK, but it makes perfect sense for a right-wing extremist like him to concentrate on races that look close. I really don't understand your line of argumentation a lot of the time.
I am very hopeful that Democrats will flip most of these 17 House seats. Many of these Democratic challengers are receiving support from Simon Rosenberg’s Hopium community. I’ve included the poll numbers I’ve seen; strikingly, all except Mondair Jones are leading or even with the Republican incumbent.
Very encouraging to read today about Carl Marling receiving much-needed financial support!
o Amish Shah (AZ-01), +1
o Kirsten Engel (AZ-06), +1
o Adam Gray (CA-13), Even
o Rudy Salas (CA-22), +2
o George Whitesides (CA-27), +3
o Will Rollins (CA-41), +6
o Derek Tran (CA-45), Even
o Christina Bohannan (IA-01), Even
o Carl Marlinga (MI-10)
o Tony Vargas (NE-02), +5
o Sue Altman (NJ-07)
o Laura Gillen (NY-04), +3
o Mondaire Jones (NY-17), –5
o Josh Riley (NY-19), +3
o Janelle Bynum (OR-5), +2
o Janelle Stelson (PA-10), +1
o Mannion vs Williams (NY-22), +7
(Sorry about my untidy post. I don’t know how to format a table in a comment.)
Is Jones just a bad campaigner? Any thoughts?
I know very little about Mondaire Jones, but have seen some here express the view that he’s not a great candidate. But Jones has a tough opponent in Mike Lawler, reportedly one of the most bipartisan Republicans in the House.
Allegedly bipartisan. Like Susan Collins, it’s all about media presentation and only supporting or opposing stuff that already has enough votes for an GOP-favored outcome and rarely being the deciding vote.
While I am no great fan of Susan Collins, it must in fairness be said that she votes to confirm the vast majority of President Biden’s judicial nominations – and sometimes is the deciding vote.
That said, she was a fool not to vote against the ascendancy of Brett Kavanaugh..
Fool or knave?
I'd say more calculating at best.
Then again, Susan Collins also bankrolled the Iraq War. She wasn't exactly on the side of the argument when it came to ending the war, especially after the midterms.
https://www.ontheissues.org/senate/susan_collins.htm
Voted NO on redeploying non-essential US troops out of Iraq in 9 months. (Dec 2007)
Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
He has the issue of explaining running in three different districts in three years.
It's really only 2. This is the same one he represented before redistricting.
Between his district hopping and his stabbing Bowman in the back he’s pissed a lot of people off.
He didn't "stab Bowman in the back". Bowman probably shouldn't have been so friendly with Jones' Republican opponent.
He wasn't very impressive in my district (parts of Brooklyn and Manhattan) 2 years ago. I voted for him, but he came in 3rd, I think.
The biggest problem in that district is the Republican Working Families Party plant that just barely beat Jones in their primary for the nomination. Jones has about 2% of the vote he won’t receive on the left, so his bar for victory is higher than most other swing seat Democrats sadly.
I'm pretty convinced he's not very good at politics
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/9/16/2270787/-Inside-Elections-Puts-Third-AZ-GOP-House-Seat-in-Play-Great-News-for-Harris-Gallego-and-Nez
EricAZ had an article too on DK that AZ 2, the massive district that covers almost half the state including the Navajo, Hopi and Apache nations is close enough to be in play. I wouldn't have thought of flipping a seat beyond 1 and 6 in AZ. This would be precious to flip as Nez, the D, is Navajo, and the district includes ultra red Yavapai County (Prescott).
One rater moved AZ-02 from Safe R to Likely R.
Is this O'Halleran's old territory?
Mostly, but the allegedly independent redistricting committee cut in Prescott (extremely red) and when O'Halleran ran in 2022, he lost to Crane.
How great would it be to beat Crane!
Tom lost by almost 8, and he was probably a stronger candidate than the recent loser of the Navajo Presidency. Against that, 2024 is a presidential year, and low propensity turnout in the district favors us. Also, it’s 2 years later and AZ, including parts of the district, is trending left. Also, despite his not winning his most recent tribal race, our challenger IS Navajo and IF there is a perceived chance of him winning that ought to be an energizing factor in native turnout. Also, 2 years of Crane may have given some of his prior supporters and some previously disengaged voters a disgust of his antics, see Boebert in the catercorner district.
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/09/16/texas-republican-party-south-texas-fundraising-outreach/
This article came out a couple of days ago, but I don't remember it being posted here. The title is: Texas GOP investing in South Texas races as some Republicans worry about party's performance in November
It talks about some of the money problems facing the Texas GOP (at least the state party), and that some GOP county chairs (29 of them to be precise) are worried about their party's fundraising and voter outreach, as well as the lack of efforts to expand mail voting. The way the article is titled, I wonder if some of the chairs are upset about a South Texas focus on the part of the state party to the detriment of the rest of the state.
If you hadn't already heard about the money problems the Texas GOP was having you can get a refresher here: https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/23/texas-gop-matt-rinaldi-republicans/
I'm under no illusions that GOP candidates will necessarily be hurting for money in Texas with Abbott having $51 million CoH and Patrick another $27 million CoH that both could easily contribute as needed.
As an aside, I've been around since the Swing State Project days, I just don't post or comment frequently.
Arizona ballots are mailed out three weeks from today. Nevada early voting starts four weeks from Saturday. The GOP is resetting their GOTV effort (which isn't that big to begin with) in both states.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/17/trump-american-pac-voter-turnout-operation-arizona-nevada
There had been discussion a couple weeks ago about a federal investigation of OC (CA) supervisor Do and calls for him to resign. He represents western OC including Little Saigon.
It's now been reported that a week after the federal raid, he sold his house in Westminster (Little Saigon) and it's questionable whether he's still living in the district as the other home he owns that was raided is in North Tustin, not his district.
Needless to say, Do is Republican, and flipping this seat would solidify Democratic control of OC.
It wasn't needless to say that he was a Republican. I hadn't assumed so. Thanks for the report!
You Gov Economist poll Harris by 4 largest lead to date https://x.com/umichvoter/status/1836404820338438574?s=61&t=5copDbz1aPl7ASsRCUclLg
Most recent AJC poll shows Trump leads in Georgia by 3 points. AJC historically is a fairly reputable pollster. What's our take on it?
https://x.com/AnthonyMKreis/status/1836380049781506348
AJC/University of Georgia Poll:
🔴Trump 47%
🔵Harris 44%
🟢 West 1%
Trafalgar can only find a 1-point Trump "lead" at 46-45, it'll be close but i like her chances.
Another poll of a state that’s too close for polling to tell us much about out who will win.
https://politicalwire.com/2024/09/18/green-party-candidate-stays-on-montana-senate-ballot/
“Sen. Jon Tester’s (D-MT) reelection was already difficult. It just got a little harder,” Politico reports.
By the way, I got texted by him (undoubtedly, not personally, though that's how it was presented) a few weeks ago, asking for more of my money. I texted back that I had given all I was going to give, but did he want volunteers to text voters? My next text about a week later again asked for more money, so I texted back STOP. Not encouraging. I'll have a look at his website, but they ought to answer questions like that in reply texts.
I attended a virtual training yesterday to phone bank for Harris in swing states. I may need to look at Montana too since it's actually in my time zone vs. AZ (during the run-up to the election), NV or WI.
Only blocking numbers ever works, and they're probably using a robo-texter or something, nobody's actually reading the texts back.
My brother has done texting on behalf of Harris and said they did have to read and reply to text for the campaign he was volunteering for. Most replies are canned, but they do have to be chosen based on what reply they got. I know he mentioned Black Voters Matter as a group he was working with.
FCC rules prohibit using a robo-texter to contact people without their consent. For this reason, when texting voters, campaigns have humans pressing the the actual button to "send," even though software & canned responses automate most of the process. However, for fundraising texts, campaigns most of the time technically have consent (if you give money or sign up for something and provide your phone number, there is usually a disclaimer that says you are giving them consent to text you, and campaigns can then sell your number), and so they can use a robo-texter without reading any responses. Most of the time, this is outsourced to consulting firms who aren't connected to the campaign. For this reason, it is best to just reply "STOP" to any fundraising texts (blocking the number doesn't work because robo-texters use multiple numbers & they can still sell your data to another campaign/PAC, while campaigns are legally required to remove you from their list if you reply "STOP") and only donate via actual campaign websites in races you know are competitive.
As far as I can find, the Tester campaign is not currently doing any text-banking (https://www.mobilize.us/bigskyvictory/ is a list of all of his events), but their website has a phone number you can reach out to if you have questions about donating or volunteering which presumably is monitored by actual humans (+1 406-272-2487).
Tucked at the very end of Politico's article is this caveat:
"There was no Green Party candidate on the ballot in Tester's 2018 race, when he won by 3.5 points. But there was a Libertarian candidate on the ballot who drew 2.9 percent of the vote."
It was proven last year that the Libertarian candidate didn't take votes away from the GOP candidates in Montana in all three of Tester's races because the math didn't add up which is why the GOP State Legislature in Montana had to shelve their bull shit version of ranked choice voting but only for Tester's election plan. I don't doubt Democrats would like to get the Green Party nominee off the ballot because he causes headaches for Tester, I also think this part sounds a little fishy:
"Barb replaced the original Green Party nominee after the primary winner dropped out of the race. The state Democratic Party argued that proper procedure was not followed, and that Barb should be booted from the ballot. Their efforts clearly underscored the threat they believe Barb could pose to Tester."
I accept Tester has a very tough race ahead of him and this one might be his toughest hence why he's being considered the underdog. However, I am not ready to write his political obituary. Montana is a hard state to poll and we don't yet have the best grasp on who is the newer electorate in the state of Montana that caused the state to now have two congressional districts. On one hand, one could argue that the state has moved much more rightward but you could also make the same case for Ohio and I have more confidence in Sherrod Brown's chances. I think it's easier to get a better sense of where the swing states are heading but states like Montana, Ohio, Florida and Texas with their Senate races, I think it's safe to treat them as super competitive outliers.
"It was proven last year that the Libertarian candidate didn't take votes away from the GOP candidates in Montana in all three of Tester's races"
I think that will come as news to most of us. Exactly how was that "proven"?
Glad you ask because I posted a diary about this last year where 538’s Nathaniel Radich did the math on the Libertarian candidate’s impact in all three of Tester’s races. He proves that even if the GOP candidate won the majority of Libertarian voters that still wouldn’t have been enough for Burns, Rehberg or Rosendale to beat Tester https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/4/11/2163133/-MT-Sen-538-Does-The-Math-Explaining-Why-The-MT-GOP-s-Plan-To-Screw-Sen-Tester-D-Might-Be-A-Bust
That's interesting analysis and worth the consideration of everyone who frequents this site, but it's hardly "proof":
"In the hypothetical scenario where Jones didn’t run and some of his supporters stayed home, Burns would have needed to win an even larger share of Jones’s remaining voters in order to net 3,563 votes. Let’s dive into the math. If only 90 percent of Jones’s supporters had turned out (9,339 voters), Burns would have needed to win them 6,451 to 2,888 (69 percent to 31 percent)."
We're talking about very small numbers of people. Netting 3,563 votes is easily what might have happened had the Libertarian not taken any votes.
But there's no "proof" that Burns, Rehberg or Rosendale would've easily secured the 3,563 votes had the Libertarian dropped out. They could've just sat it out. So it's hard to say if these Libertarian voters would've voted for Burns by default or had sat it out completely but what is proof is that Tester's campaign always knew it was about voter turnout and not relying on a third party candidate to tip the race in his favor as his Hail Mary to win elections.
That's a very different point. No, nothing that didn't happen can be proven 100%. So why did you try to claim above that it was?
https://www.scrippsnews.com/politics/path-to-the-white-house/scripps-news-ipsos-poll-majority-supports-mass-deportation-of-undocumented-immigrants:
"Fifty-four percent of respondents said they 'strongly' or 'somewhat support' the policy, including 86% of Republicans, 58% of independents, and 25% of Democrats."
They don't understand how that would damage the U.S. economy, but what they didn't ask is whether people support offering any path to citizenship for long-time residents who are undocumented but did not come here as children, which is what the previous amnesty provisions did and presumably what a new one would do. They did ask these things:
"Nearly nine in 10 Democrats and 52% of Republicans say they support a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children.
And both Democrats (55%) and Republicans (88%) support restrictions limiting the number of migrants who can claim asylum."
There have _always_ been restrictions on who could claim asylum. "I want asylum because there are no jobs in [Name of Country]" has never been a winning argument.
How reliable is Scripps?
I got into it with a Trump supporter over this policy and deporting millions of workers over the weekend. I simply asked "Trying to figure out how deporting millions of workers and slapping across the board tariffs will help with inflation". and they said not to worry about either because "the new workers will pay taxes unlike the illegals and everything will be made here which will lower prices". A lot of it is just ignorance of basic economics and an emotional belief that everything will get better once the migrants are thrown out. I gave up then if someone does not understand scarcity or supply and demand no way to explain it without coming off as an asshole.
I'd like it if pollsters ask "would you be willing to place tariffs on goods if it raised the overall prices on all goods"
In the end, even an understanding of basic economics is meaningless - the point is to get rid of or subjugate minority groups to that the "correct social hierarchy" can be maintained (enforced).
Separate water fountains was economically stupid, too (honestly we could probably come up with hundreds of examples of racism and sexism having a deleterious economic effect), but people did it and supported it because white supremacy was the goal, and all other goals had to be subordinated to that goal. If everyone is poorer as a result, so be it.
The thing is, if there were a blanket amnesty for undocumented people currently in the U.S., I definitely don't think a majority would remain upset about that in 5 years.
People would be very upset because a few months after the first blanket amnesty, there would be a demand for another blanket amnesty to accommodate the tens of millions who swarmed the borders knowing that they were likely to get in on the next amnesty. The politics of illegal immigration are never gonna be anything but disastrous.
There has never been such a demand a few months later, ever. You're old enough to know that. There have been many years between amnesties. But of course you would bring up something like that.
The last real bill passed by Congress was in 1986; I'm not convinced that the next Congress will pass anything at all(the margins in Congress are too slim imo); but with certainty, there is no logistical way on earth to deport the numbers that Trump is spewing
In the end, it doesn't matter whether we have a blanket amnesty or mass deportations with virtually zero immigration, because unless those are accompanied by other forms of massive government oppression, there are still going to be female, gay, and Black people on TV.
The politics of immigration are not about the border. They're not about immigration. They're about people behaving contrary to "the way things ought to be." Like all fronts in the Culture Wars, they're a scapegoat, a way to avoid saying what the Culture Warriors really care about - the reinstitution of segregation, the subordination of women, and the eradication (or at least visible erasure) of anyone LGBTQ+.
It doesn't matter what you do about immigration or the border, one way or another - the Culture Warriors want the above and will continue to fight for it.
There's a faction of the electorate for whom the politics of immigration is about white supremacy. Whether or not they're a majority or not is open for debate, but there's a considerable faction for whom the concern is the border and a recognition that the situation on our southern border in recent years has been less than optimal. Conflate the two groups at your own electoral risk.
Tens of millions in a few months? Nothing has ever even approached that in our history. Best figures I can find says that there are ~47m people in the US that were born elsewhere. More than half of them are citizens. You're claiming that the number of non-citizens that would cross the border in just a handful of months would eclipse the number that have come here over the course of generations. It's absurd. It's not even logistically possible.
Using conservative hyperbole is wholly inappropriate. Especially with the use of the word "swarmed" in said hyperbole.
If the hypothetical "blanket amnesty" was enacted as discussed upthread, then no, I don't think a ten-figure influx of migrants anticipating the next amnesty is out of the question for the ensuing six months.
My mother waited and got her visa and came here legally.
From where, how long was the wait, and what was the basis for the visa?
I think Republicans have planted their flag in the immigration/migrants are to blame for all that is wrong in the world mountain for at least the rest of the decade.
And probably more. They have wedded themselves to reactionary white supremacy and Christian bigotry.
I got in a discussion in AZ with a woman in a T-shirt with "Make Arizona White Again" and I asked her exactly when Arizona was white? Before Biden. She had no concept of the indigenous people or that much of AZ was part of Mexico. And she was a 70 year old native Arizona. Fortunately, she doesn't vote.
https://x.com/Blake_Allen13/status/1836442937774772466
Quinnipiac polls for PA, MI and WI
Harris +6% in PA
Harris +5% in MI
Harris +1% in WI
Also...
Casey +9% in PA
Slotkin +5% in MI
Baldwin +4% in W
It is incredibly weird that different pollsters are showing wildly different relative margins in those 3 states. Q has PA 5 points to the left of Wisconsin. InsiderAdvantage also dropped polls showing PA 4 points to the right of Wisconsin.
Weird, man.
Q's result is also consistent with Harris being +3 in both states, though.
I'd consider it normal and in fact kind of good. It's exactly what we would expect with different polling methodologies. Different systems of collecting data and then processing that data should get different results. There should be random variance from poll to poll even within the same system.
Statistically speaking, +6 +5 and +1 across three states is a reasonably possible polling result from a reality where all three states have the same level of support.
Interestingly they are not showing Dems doing way better in WI vs the other swing states the way other pollsters have.
Even though I can feel Skaje's judgement from my computer as I was doing it, I dug into the crosstabs of the Q Poll and compared it to the Marquette poll which showed Kamala up 5 (this was taken August 28-September 5 so mostly before and a little after the debate) and the big difference is the Independent number, the MU poll showed Kamala up 12 with Indies and the Q Poll had Trump +2 among Indies. The other big difference is Trump did much better with men in the Q poll, as he was +21 in the Q Poll vs +10 in the MU poll (Kamala was +19 and 18, respectively). Both polls had very Trumpy non-white samples as Q had it tied among white voters and MU had Kamala +2 among white voters. If it was tied among non-white voters, I think Kamala wins by at least 6 and it could go as high as 10, but that would be unlikely. They had different age breakdowns (for example Q had young voters as 18-34 and MU had it 18-29) so its a little difficult to get an apples to apples comparison in that area.
Gender Crosstabs:
Men - PA: Trump+13 / MI: Trump+10 / WI: Trump+20
Women- PA: Harris+22 / MI: Harris+19 / WI: Harris+19
The WI Men # is the biggest one I've seen among men in ANY swing state by at least three points. The # for Women in all three states are higher than most (I've been seeing a lot of Harris+17 lately) but relatively consistent.
This seems a lot more in line with what we might expect, as opposed to the other polls showing her doing better in Wisconsin than Pennsylvania.
Yes, based on previous experience. But there's no way to be sure.
Here are my updated crude 31- and 14-day polling averages. I exclude GOP troll polls (Rasmussen, Trafalgar, etc), any polls released by partisan organizations, and some with really sketchy methods such as ActiVote. For the 14-day state averages, the number of polls is in parentheses.
AZ: 31-day T+1.2, 14-day T+0.8 (4)
GA: 31-day T+0.7, 14-day T+2.0 (5)
MI: 31-day H+1.9, 14-day H+2.0 (6)
NV: 31-day H+1.1, 14-day T+0.5 (2)
NC: 31-day T+0.1, 14-day H+0.3 (6)
PA: 31-day H+1.0, 14-day H+1.5 (6)
WI: 31-day H+3.3, 14-day H+1.8 (5)
US: 31-day H+3.4, 14-day H+3.3
Since the last time I ran this, Harris has gained in the 14-day national average but not in the swing states. This may in part be a function of which outfits are polling in the swing states relative to the nation. I don't see any evidence that Harris is actually slipping in Wisconsin, it's just a different group of polls than in the 31-day average. Most of the national polls since the debate show Harris up 4 or more.
The Fed just did a .5% rate cut, and it sounds like at least one, possibly two, more are planned later this year.
I'm sure this will lead Nate Silver to increase Trump's odds to 75%.
Huh? Glad they made that cut, though.
Long overdue. This over time will be a positive for the economy both with consumers saving and spending depending on when they feel the time is right to spend more.
I had to read that twice to figure out what overtime you were talking about. Over time.
Yeah, this is unambiguously good news.
Yes, over time. I split up the word in two to address what you're observing.
Anyway, I'm not sure the Fed rate cut will make the most impact this month as we have less than two weeks left. For October, November, December, etc. the labor market will certainly be impacted more.
And as more Fed rate cuts come later this year, as long as they're being done carefully, it will allow the economy to grow at a normal, healthy way.
It's good news to most people who hear about it , except for those who profit from higher rates.
Well, too bad for those who need the interest rates high.
The interest rate cuts are going to be a boon for retailers as well. I was shopping at Macy's a few days ago and a woman had a conversation with the retail cashier about her concerns about inflation. I believe she was at Macy's Backstage where the items are priced lower than other Macy's products and chose this section of the location as she was cost sensitive.
Even restaurants are going to see more business.
I don't think it was long overdue, unless you wanted to be reading stories about currently runaway inflation as we head into the election.
There was a big risk in raising the interest rates high the way they've been for some time. Psychologically and financially, literally everyone has been waiting for prices to go down.
For anyone who wants to save money, now they should start having an easier chance at doing so. Financial advisors at many companies are going to have an easier time helping their clients plan for their future and retirement.
Weird contrast:
https://politicalwire.com/2024/09/18/most-teamsters-members-prefer-trump/
https://politicalwire.com/2024/09/18/workers-at-musks-companies-donate-to-harris/
Yes indeed. In all fairness to Trump, he was putting up a fight for the union workers when he started calling manufacturing companies early on in his presidency to persuade them to keep jobs in the US. This ties into his America First agenda.
Musk though is just a filthy rich snob who was spoiled rotten as a kid and under his leadership at Tesla Motors has been notoriously anti-union (not to mention reports of racism happening at the company under Musk's watch). He's said in interviews that he considers himself moderate but he has no idea what he's talking about.
I think the Teamsters realizes that a number of its members are Trump supporters and Harris supporters. The decision to decline to endorse, while not ideal, makes sense in this environment if the goal is to not make a divide with the union member base.
After the 2024 election, Teamsters may change course as long as Trump may not likely factor as much in the 2026 and 2028 elections.
New Hampshire UNH: Harris 54 Trump 43.
https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1817&context=survey_center_polls
Maine Pan Atlantic Research:
Harris 50 Trump 41. Trump up 49-42 in ME 2. Golden trailing 47-44.
https://panatlanticresearch.com/omnibus
First time I ever heard of Pan Atlantic Research. Do we know much about their history overall or who sponsored or commissioned this poll? The numbers seem like a complete contradiction to earlier polls showing Harris leading in ME 2. Luckily for Golden, Maine has ranked choice voting, so even if these results are accurate, he could still win in the later rounds of voting.
How many candidates are there?? Just curious
I'm only seeing 2 candidates(ranked choice means nothing then)
No there appears to be a write-in candidate, Diana Merenda, tho she appears to have no disclosed nor reported funding.
It's run by someone named Jason Edes, who claims to have been in business for 39 years(frankly, I've never heard of him or his firm)
I’ve seen Maine polls from them in previous elections.
It's interesting that the poll notes among the 9% of undecideds, they're more likely to be younger and registered independents or Democrats. Golden has antagonized many more left leaning voters and groups in the past but his defeatist remark about accepting a Trump victory vs Biden was quite vitriolic for many on the left. It's gonna be interesting to see if Golden can reconcile with his more left leaning constituents and pull off a victory. It wouldn't surprise me if he gets primaried by a more left leaning Democrat should he survive his next election.
If such a Democrat were to win a primary, they'd lose the general election in a landslide.
The Teamsters will NOT endorse either Presidential candidate this year. The Teamsters have previously endorsed Democratic candidates for President.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/18/teamsters-no-endorsement-harris-trump-presidential-election.html
I've never understood what their angle was with this monthslong game of courtship.
The leadership knows Biden and Harris are very friendly to organized labor and Trump is not...but come ok guys. The Teamster membership is very conservative and mostly white men with only a high school diploma. The leadership ultimately decided it was better off not to piss the large majority of it's membership off, and it sounds like Harris knew this and more or less gave open approval for this tactic of neutrality in her meeting earlier in the week.
Can you quote her to that effect? Anyway, I'm definitely glad they weren't invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention.
She opened their meeting saying she wants their endorsement but that she will treat them with the same respect and fairness regardless of whether she gets it or not.
Of course she will. I don't think that amounts to approval for their non-endorsement, though I could be wrong. But really, would anyone expect her to screw the teamsters because too many of them are politically idiotic or racist?
Not when Jimmy Hoffa was in charge.
And even after. They endorsed Reagan and Bush I. And sat out the ‘96 race.
https://thehill.com/business/4885098-teamsters-withhold-endorsement-2024/
Fuck them.
Well, considering the member polling, this was the good outcome.
The fact that they have a lot of bigoted members doesn't make Trump good for the interests of the union or the workers.
So they thought they'd prevent a split in the membership by copping out on endorsing anyone?
https://politicalwire.com/2024/09/18/west-coast-teamsters-endorse-harris/
Other state and local affiliates have followed:
https://x.com/Politics1com/status/1836570442603147555
https://x.com/LaurenHitt/status/1836535551991877743
Interesting that some of them are in very red states like the Dakotas. So where was the largest amount of opposition to endorsing Harris?
Individual groupings of states Council's are endorsing Harris;for instance, the Council consisting of Iowa,North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Michigan have formally done so(I imagine there are others)