Anyone know of a site that has town-level results for the ME-02 election? Maine's SoS hasn't released any results on their website yet, and the NYT has only the total results, not broken down by town. I'm interested to see if Golden's outperformance of Harris was uniform, or concentrated in certain areas of the district.
NYT did have it broken down by town before the ranked choice calculation happened. You may have to wait a bit for that to be figured into the town-level results..
Good morning! While the SoS here always seems to take their time, NBC has a useful breakdown by township. Even though these are not final, official results, they should help you answer your question.
And tbh, hand counting RCV for a week? That is soooo lame.
Did you see how Alaska did the RCV counting? Each scanned ballot choices are loaded in a single data file that opens to everyone, and in the end a click of the button, all rounds counted.
Democrats ALWAYS do much better in midterms than presidentials since Trump jumped into the political arena; was the exact opposite beforehand. Big opportunity for folks to organize for 2026 and make it 2006/2018 again!! 💙🇺🇲
Wonder if it'll change back in 2028 and later. But yeah, we need to organize big for 2026, focusing on turning out both what should be our naturally fired up base and swing voters who either realize they've been sold a bill of goods or are having inevitable "we didn't vote for THAT!" moments.
A theory I have, which I'm curious what you think about, regarding the drop off in Democratic turnout, especially in less competitive areas:
One of my relatively apolitical friends, neither completely tuned out, nor posting about / engaging with political content all the time, posted something a couple weeks before the election that in the past he would receive communications encouraging him to vote and giving information like where his polling place was or about early voting etc, but this year it was just fundraising, fundraising, fundraising and nothing asking for his vote. (We both live in Massachusetts.) I feel this experience was pretty common: people who seldom, if ever, give money to political causes were just deluged with texts asking for money. Absent any competitive race, this was their whole perception of the election campaign: one giant nonstop fundraising pitch that was impossible to unsubscribe from. This, needless to say, doesn't make you enthusiastic about voting or feel positive or excited about the Democratic party. Hence the drop in turnout.
Yup, receiving deluges of political texts is an almost literally life-draining experience. And as we saw this year (and I've believed for a long time), money doesn't make much of a difference, particularly in top-ticket races like the presidential race. It's notable that in the ads with Obama for the Harris campaign, he never specifically said why people should vote for Harris - he only asked for money. During the campaign, there was little difference between the Democratic Party and a giant telemarketing firm that was exempt from do-not-contact rules.
Yes - still getting the fundraising texts. This whole approach really needs to be addressed. It annoys people and potentially turns them off. Campaigns need to strike a balance between fundraising and organizing when contacting supporters. The doomsday texts really don’t help either are the few extra bucks they generate worth the hits to moral and message discontinuity?
Thankfully, I did not receive a single email, or text or call to my cell phone asking for money. Until I can withhold both my email address and cell phone, I refuse to donate through ActBlue or online.
I did, however, contribute in other ways, including writing hundreds of postcards to encourage people to vote in North Carolina and Michigan.
I have heard others say the same thing: that they would donate if they didn't have to give their phone and email. I'm pretty sure Federal law doesn't require these, so it could be an opportunity for campaigns.
With ActBlue you can avoid giving your phone number I'm pretty sure. I made a second email for donating this year, but I fucked up and didn't change the right fields in my account before donating. I fixed that for future donations, but I won't see how well it worked until future election cycles.
When someone sets up an Act Blue fundraising page, they get this message: "By default, donor emails and phone numbers are shared with the recipient(s) on your form. To change this setting for your form and give donors the choice as to whether or not they wish to share their contact information with the recipient(s), select Yes."
I suspect that candidate's and organization's pages do not click "yes" because they want to get your email and phone. Years ago, I set up my own page and clicked "yes." Those to whom I contribute get my name and address only (and they need that for FEC filings).
Still, I am overwhelmed by texts and emails for money. But I sometimes have donated to requests, in particular by DKE, so those recipients got my info and I could not prevent it.
Still, a simple google search for me gives it all away and I suspect that is true of all of us. With a name and address, almost anyone can find your email and phone number on the net with a fairly simple search. And with all the companies that have been hacked and had your data taken, I doubt Act Blue is much of the cause for the mass of texts and email solicitations. Indeed, the content of most solicitations I get show the sender knows nothing about me and it is just a mass distribution.
This is not intended as a rant reply and I am just as overwhelmed by the daily tasks of reporting spam and deletion. It's great you are helping campaigns without contributing money. My two-cents is just that it's not so much Act Blue but the people who set up the pages there and, indeed, the whole www.
If I understand you correctly, the only question is whether ActBlue is sharing the information with the recipient of the donation – but that ActBlue is still collecting our email address and cell phone number. My point is I don’t want to have to give that to ActBlue in the first place.
I understand. I just think it's unfair to assume the spam is caused by Act Blue. Remember too that they do not require a phone number. My guess is that they get an email so they can communicate with you but it does seem that they could make that voluntary.
Carr and Jones are both very beatable opponents but please for the love of all that is holy, we can't nominate Abrams a 3rd time. Thurmond is also a boring machine pol and not a crossover winner. McBath has what it takes.
The way to strengthen the Democratic Party is to rebuild the 50-State Strategy. This means from the grassroots up, focusing strongly on downballot races – both local and statewide – and never leaving any race unchallenged. (In the 2024 Election, Democrats failed to challenge more than one thousand state legislative seats.)
It also means picking the most suitable candidate, one who fits the local political climate, culture and issues. Ideally it also means having the wisdom to avoid hopeless and destructive internecine ideological battles.
Stacy Abrams had her chance, twice. It’s time to move on. That said, I will forever be grateful to Abrams for playing a decisive role in helping elect senators Warnock and Ossoff.
What is the partisan breakdown in Stefanik’s district? I thought I saw somewhere it was only R+4 but the post today doesn’t make it sound like that’s the case.
213 D called, CA-45 would be 214, CA-13 if it happens would be 215, IA-01 at GOP +0.2% isn't called yet but would have been on the path to 216. CO-08 at GOP +0.7% would have been 217 if we hadn't slid so hard in the district (Trump certainly flipped it). The 218th seat would have been PA-07 at GOP +1%. After that the other possibilities would have been PA-10 (GOP +1.3%), PA-08 (GOP +1.6%), NE-02 (GOP +1.8%). Our closest calls outside of uncalled races in CA are OH-09, ME-02, NC-01, OH-13, VA-07, NY-04, and OR-05.
Yeah the collapse in Adams County is distressing. Interestingly the suburbs west and south of Denver moved to the left slightly even as Adams bolted to the right. The other notable shifts in the state are Red shift in Pueblo and southern rural CO and left shift in SW CO and in Mesa County (Grand Junction). significant ground lost in the blue ski counties (Eagle and Pitkin). Frisch won Pueblo in his race outrunning Biden's 2 point margin in 2020 in the county. Douglas and El Paso both moved slightly to the left.
Yeah when I saw how badly things were going elsewhere I knew Caraveo was in trouble. Commission designed this district to be "Hispanic opportunity" only if Democrats could sustain 65%+ with them. By the time polls closed I was not shocked at all to see Trump over 40% in Costilla county. These areas dodged most of the red shift in 2020, seeing only tiny shifts because of how badly Trump bombed all over in Colorado (and honestly, how much of them already realigned in 2016, somewhat contrary to other trends that year), but it caught up to us this time. Lost the Dem state rep in Greeley too (though oddly enough both our Pueblo reps hung on). Almost lost the Adams County state senate seat which was Biden +15, depending on huge margins in Commerce City and Westminster to offset rural eastern Adams and Arapahoe counties (inane district, like many drawn by that commission).
Mesa moving left while Pitkin and Eagle moved right was not expected at all though. Douglas and El Paso holding the line is something, Democrats are absolutely going to tie these counties the next time we do well presidentially. Weird coalitions continuing to evolve. Republicans are hosed here regardless, they aren't getting the legislature back with Jefferson electing unanimous Dem delegations and Colorado Springs electing two Dem senators (!)
Probably up in the air at this point. Imagine most of the statewide officeholders and US house members besides DeGette will give it a look. Ken Salazar might also poke his head up again. The Republicans maybe Kent Thiry though happily, his RCV scheme went up in flames so maybe he does not think he can get through a GOP primary. One benefit to having Bobert in CO-04 is it's not a springboard for statewide office anymore like it was for Gardner.
It's a good summation, even if it comes with a trigger warning (the Loudoun numbers were the first genuine shock for me on that fateful night, leading me to log off - and metaphorically hide under the bed - shortly thereafter).
How high is the Hispanic population in Loudoun County? That was definitely not a factor in my calculation of that county's politics. I knew there were a lot of nonwhites but I figured most of them were embedded in the Beltway and would be uniquely averse to Trump...even more so than four years ago.
There's nothing to suggest Shapiro won't run again, and no good reason I know of to primary him. Casey may well deserve a political comeback, but for now that likely isn't it.
Talk of Casey up above made me notice that he was one of our last senators first elected in 2006. Next congress will see that class down to only Klobuchar, Whitehouse, and Sanders. For the class of 2008 it's Shaheen, Merkley, and Warner. Shaheen is old enough that I'm hoping she takes the opportunity to retire come 2026, giving Pappas a republican midterm as his chance to move up. If so we'd be down to Merkley and Warner. I don't see all that many names left for the house either.
Enormous back to back wave years for us and there's not many of the dems left that first won election to congress in either year.
If Youngkin runs he could be formidable even against an incumbent. Warner has never had blowout elections. I think if he runs no matter what it will he competitive.
Warner won 65-33 in 2008 and 56-44 in 2020. He barely won in 2014, but that's more the exception than the rule, and in a midterm with an unpopular Democratic president, which obviously 2026 won't be.
He can't expect to coast, but I'd think him a favourite even against Youngkin, who is wealthy and reasonably well liked, but quite likely not enough so to overcome an unpopular GOP administration and Congress, if that's the environment. Even if Warner didn't run I'd generically give Dems the edge.
From what I remember, Ed Gillespie didn’t do anything special in 2014. He just ran as a generic Republican, which is not surprising for a former RNC chairman.
The narrowness of Warner’s victory in 2014 was due largely to the usual phenomenon of the Presidents’s party suffering in midterm elections. This caused Kay Hagan to lose reelection in neighboring North Carolina that year.
Another factor was the downballot collapse of Dems in Appalachia that year. Mark Warner had always won southwest Virginia in his previous runs for office, but 2014 was the first time he lost there, getting 38% of the vote. This collapse in Appalachia caused Nick Rahall to lose reelection in West Virginia that year, while Warner held on due to his margins in the Urban Crescent.
Per the Gillespie camp, the campaign had a robust ground game and fundraising strategy which accounts for why the race was an unusual nail biter. If Warner was able to turnout voters and actually ran a campaign, his margins of victory would have likely increased.
Here's what was shared in a Politico article about Gillespie's campaign per his Senate campaign digital director. It illustrates that Gillespie did in fact run a strong ground game and had good fundraising.
Gillespie digital director Eric Wilson said the mainstream media was not paying attention as Gillespie attracted huge crowds for rallies, grew social media followers and built an impressive ground game.
“There were a series of indicators that were ignored,” he said.
The Gillespie team believes that the race closed late because of their early decision to husband resources.
During the summer, there was extensive back-and-forth among Gillespie’s top advisers about when to spend their money. Gillespie, a first-time candidate, was formerly chair of the Republican National Committee and has a huge fundraising network. But he always knew he’d be significantly outspent by Warner, a formidable fundraiser in his own right who happens to be the richest member of the Senate because he co-founded Nextel.
Agreed. Youngkin wouldn't be as DOA as similarly positioned Larry Hogan was but the Democrats would have to do something disastrously wrong as the opposition party for Mark Warner to be toppled in 2026. Even in an open seat, I'd like the Democratic candidate's chances over Youngkin in a Senate race.
It was nuts seeing the Democratic surge in the Class I Senate races climb ever higher after the 1994 wipeout. They had a really good year in 2000. An even better year in 2006. And an even better year than that in 2012. Before the 2018 election, it seemed entirely possible they'd have another amazing year but political gravity set in. Imagine a world where we had been defending Democratic Senate seats in Missouri, Indiana, Florida, North Dakota, and Tennessee this year. It seemed possible in late October 2018 that we might.
More from the Torres v. Hochul primary talk from yesterday:
Torres planning a listening tour of New York. Says his main issues with Hochul aren't on policy but her erratic governing style, citing the congestion pricing flip-flops, and her very low approvals.
He says Hochul may be the new Biden who is too unpopular to win. He says Lawler is stronger.
Hochul believes she contributed to the flips in the House races.
In any case I am not usually open to Democratic primaries unless there are very serious electability questions. Hochul suffers from several self inflicted issues but also a huge level of state level misogyny as well. I'm undecided about this.
On the Israel issue, by the by, both Hochul and Torres are 'pro Israel' if you really want to boil the issue down to black and white. Which is not advisable.
There’s a huge difference between them as to how they deal with those who disagree with them, and the priority they put on the issue. I’d like to see another candidate than Hochul, but certainly not this guy.
Yes. She halted it briefly before the election and then popped right back up after the election to bring it back. Suozzi, etc. were probably begging her.
And, by the way, if we want to talk about places where "Democrats have lost touch with the common man", congestion pricing would likely be a prime example of that.
It goes a little something like this, "Hi common man/woman, I'm a member of the city council. As far as you can tell, my main job seems to be standing on steps somewhere with 10 angry people behind me, grandstanding about problems. Good news, I've just voted in congestion pricing. Which means that for the privilege of getting up at 5:30 am to commute in terrible traffic to your crap job that doesn't pay you enough, you'll have to give the MTA fat cats $15 a day so that they can waste it like they waste billions of dollars a year. You're welcome, thank your local Democrat."
It's very difficult to believe that this would do much to actually make the subways better (billions upon billions are already spent and they are getting worse) and plenty of common people drive.
Boston's T was doing quite horribly as recently as last year. It still cost billions upon billions of dollars to function even at that unimpressive level. It needed even more funding. It got a partial infusion of funding to catch up on decades of lapsed maintenance — and new leadership, which was absolutely critical — and the system is doing far better right now, with further improvements planned through 2027 if the funding can be maintained to enable those improvements (not certain).
NYC's subway needs are far greater than Boston's and will consequently cost far more too. I wouldn't be shocked if the MTA could seriously benefit from a change in leadership, but often insufficient funding is the core issue facing these kinds of systems.
Completely disagree. It's wealthy New Jersyites bitching the most about contesting pricing. Modernizing NYC public transit helps the working class/working poor the most.
Not that I much trust position polls (they clearly make it look like voters are more liberal than they are) but they showed that the pause of the implication was about twice as popular as continuing forward with implementation. My pretty strong feeling is that this will be pretty unpopular in general with NY and NJ voters. Again, most folks would reasonably expect that this cost won't improve service much, as the MTA is deeply incompetent. We'd all better hope the MTA changes.
Hochul will suffer from misogyny, her own record, and general mediocre campaign abilities. Torres will suffer from his race, orientation, being from NYC and a former council member (which is something I personally take a dim view of). I suspect there is someone stronger than Hochul out there (James) but I don't think Torres is it.
I had always assumed she was planning for Governor someday but she could pretty easily waltz into the Mayor's job right now. It is a political dead end but being Governor of NY also feels like a bit of a cruddy job at the moment. It also occurs to me that being Mayor might have some pension benefits, but I'd need to research that. It's possible being AG counts toward her 20.
People shouldn’t shy away from primarying unpopular incumbents. If the Republicans nominate a remotely normal candidate, they can probably beat Hochul next time, and we can’t let that happen.
I’m from Illinois, and I keep thinking of 2014, when Pat Quinn was the least popular governor in the entire country but received no serious primary challengers and then lost to a Republican in the general who destroyed our state for 4 years. That could easily happen in New York, and we can’t risk it.
Could be I’m way off base, but I’ve always thought of Kathy Hochul and Eric Adams as semi-Republicans. Still, that’s a helluva lot better than the real ilk, especially the current MAGA mutations.
completely disagree with you; Trump will kill most '26 Republican governor nominees in almost all blue\purple states(watch Virginia in '25 for the swing)
I hope you’re right, but then in that case we should primary out Hochul because she’s bad at her job and shouldn’t be governor, and Torres (and most other Democrats in New York) would do a better job as governor and would win the general anyways. Either way, I can’t think of any reason why we shouldn’t try to primary her out.
Actually, as a Florida resident, I'd love to see the Republicans nominate him; even in Florida, he'd lose in '26(the paedophilia \drug addicted \frat boy thing is not attractive for the old farts who live here)I am one so I can say it🙃
Gaetz would probably be the most liable Republican Senate Candidate the GOP has had for years. He also has no appeal in Miami-Dade and would likely not win over independent and swing voters.
The important thing is that Democrats have a Senate candidate who is going to run and who has an ability to win over independent and crossover voters.
I'd like to believe this, but I thought Rick Scott was toxic the 1st time he ran for Governor (huge Medicare fraudster in a state with alot of elders). He's now been elected 4 times statewide.
I guess this election has just made me cynical about who the voters won't accept.
Of course, but then you'd have to posit that voters are more repulsed by sex crimes than financial ones, and then you have to remember who is going to be sworn in on Jan. 20th.
Although Gavin Newsom is termed out of office in 2026, he's already paying attention to the election results and working to ensure California doesn't leave out the voters who voted against Kamala Harris, especially in red regions in the state, when it comes to economic growth.
While I think Newsom should have done this long ago in his first term as Governor, nevertheless it's a step in the right direction as far as ensuring CA as a state still can serve those who aren't exactly blue voters.
I just put the CA-GOV tag because of what Newsom is doing now, not because of anything he has planned in the future elections wise. That said, regardless of what we think of his political venture in the future it's still a good political image to ensure that CA is for all Americans, not just liberal or conservatives. Hopefully if Newsom plays his cards right this can help Democrats fight the image that conservatives have made that the state isn't friendly for them to live in (cost of living is also a problem but that can't be resolved overnight). I'd like to see more Democrats statewide and in other states follow this strategy.
FYI, I am well aware Newsom has a tendency to pivot a lot with wherever the political environment ends up being. He was great at debating Ron DeSantis but in the end, what was this all about? Both he and DeSantis may be on the opposite ends of the political spectrum but they sure like to go for political attention a lot more than serving.
There is no automatic recount but any registered voter may request one. A voter may file a recount request within five days beginning on the 31st day after a statewide election.
Before going there, I'm estimating that there are more than 5K uncounted votes in CA-13. Many need cured and voters have until 12/3 to cure them. Some voters will have skipped downballot races and some will not cure their ballots so the 5K estimate is more than the number of actual voters we will see. Still, there is still plenty of hope for Gray catching up. Of note, in Merced County (the place with the most uncounted votes in CA-13), and LA and Orange Counties (CD-45), over half of the uncounted votes need cured or will not be counted.
This election is the ultimate proof of that timeless counterargument to "my vote doesn't matter". Clearly even in an 80 million population state, federal races are coming down to hundreds or dozens of votes...and it is entirely within the realm of possibility, admittedly unlikely, that these seats may be decided by 1 or 2 votes...your vote always matters.
Yup, Maine also I believe had incredibly close races for state rep (it would be interesting to see some type of case study on the country's closest races by not only raw vote margins but also percentage of margins as well)
When the dust settles, I hope The Downballot will compile a list of issues and downballot races that were decided by just a few votes / tiny fractions of a percentage. Both those we won and those we lost.
CA-45: There is an Orange update but nothing new from L.A. Derek Tran added 499 votes today, while Michelle Steel now has 460 more than before. That gain of 39 votes over the previous margin T+480 now has Derek at +519 total.
Yes, that is true. I believe the margin, now over 500 votes, will hold up. Every day's vote drop has increased the lead. L.A. is almost done; they have only conditional ballots and ballots needing to be cured. I believe that conditional ballots are cast by people registering to vote at a vote center on or before E-Day, maybe that didn't have identification?
Orange has more ballots left to count, but it has been consistent gains for Derek so I am not worried.
Anyone else think Jon Tester should attempt a Slade Gorton-style comeback in 2026 by challenging Sen. Steve Daines? Get his revenge for Daines recruiting Sheehy in the first place? He has NOTHING to lose, and comparing their 2 Senate voting records in terms of effectiveness would be easy and last time Tester won was a midterm ALSO with Trump in the Oval Office!! 💙🇺🇲
Has that ever succeeded in US history? A defeated incumbent senator running again and winning? Sure it worked for Trump and Grover Cleveland at the presidential level but I’m not sure. At any rate at the very least Tranel should have more than enough name recognition now too for a statewide run if she chooses to go for it.
Anyone know of a site that has town-level results for the ME-02 election? Maine's SoS hasn't released any results on their website yet, and the NYT has only the total results, not broken down by town. I'm interested to see if Golden's outperformance of Harris was uniform, or concentrated in certain areas of the district.
NYT did have it broken down by town before the ranked choice calculation happened. You may have to wait a bit for that to be figured into the town-level results..
Good morning! While the SoS here always seems to take their time, NBC has a useful breakdown by township. Even though these are not final, official results, they should help you answer your question.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/maine-us-house-district-2-results#house-results
Hope this helps. I presume you would have to open up the township breakdown for Harris–Trump in a separate tab.
Looks like even NBC News' map isn't showing the town breakdown. I thought they had it before.
And tbh, hand counting RCV for a week? That is soooo lame.
Did you see how Alaska did the RCV counting? Each scanned ballot choices are loaded in a single data file that opens to everyone, and in the end a click of the button, all rounds counted.
Democrats ALWAYS do much better in midterms than presidentials since Trump jumped into the political arena; was the exact opposite beforehand. Big opportunity for folks to organize for 2026 and make it 2006/2018 again!! 💙🇺🇲
Wonder if it'll change back in 2028 and later. But yeah, we need to organize big for 2026, focusing on turning out both what should be our naturally fired up base and swing voters who either realize they've been sold a bill of goods or are having inevitable "we didn't vote for THAT!" moments.
A theory I have, which I'm curious what you think about, regarding the drop off in Democratic turnout, especially in less competitive areas:
One of my relatively apolitical friends, neither completely tuned out, nor posting about / engaging with political content all the time, posted something a couple weeks before the election that in the past he would receive communications encouraging him to vote and giving information like where his polling place was or about early voting etc, but this year it was just fundraising, fundraising, fundraising and nothing asking for his vote. (We both live in Massachusetts.) I feel this experience was pretty common: people who seldom, if ever, give money to political causes were just deluged with texts asking for money. Absent any competitive race, this was their whole perception of the election campaign: one giant nonstop fundraising pitch that was impossible to unsubscribe from. This, needless to say, doesn't make you enthusiastic about voting or feel positive or excited about the Democratic party. Hence the drop in turnout.
Yup, receiving deluges of political texts is an almost literally life-draining experience. And as we saw this year (and I've believed for a long time), money doesn't make much of a difference, particularly in top-ticket races like the presidential race. It's notable that in the ads with Obama for the Harris campaign, he never specifically said why people should vote for Harris - he only asked for money. During the campaign, there was little difference between the Democratic Party and a giant telemarketing firm that was exempt from do-not-contact rules.
Yes - still getting the fundraising texts. This whole approach really needs to be addressed. It annoys people and potentially turns them off. Campaigns need to strike a balance between fundraising and organizing when contacting supporters. The doomsday texts really don’t help either are the few extra bucks they generate worth the hits to moral and message discontinuity?
I had to delete my personal email because they somehow got a hold of it. It was getting impossible to deal with the deluge of spam.
Thankfully, I did not receive a single email, or text or call to my cell phone asking for money. Until I can withhold both my email address and cell phone, I refuse to donate through ActBlue or online.
I did, however, contribute in other ways, including writing hundreds of postcards to encourage people to vote in North Carolina and Michigan.
I have heard others say the same thing: that they would donate if they didn't have to give their phone and email. I'm pretty sure Federal law doesn't require these, so it could be an opportunity for campaigns.
Marcus, I have taken the liberty of quoting your theory and comment and reposting on Hopium. Hope you’re ok with that. Your point is hugely important!
Go for it!
With ActBlue you can avoid giving your phone number I'm pretty sure. I made a second email for donating this year, but I fucked up and didn't change the right fields in my account before donating. I fixed that for future donations, but I won't see how well it worked until future election cycles.
When someone sets up an Act Blue fundraising page, they get this message: "By default, donor emails and phone numbers are shared with the recipient(s) on your form. To change this setting for your form and give donors the choice as to whether or not they wish to share their contact information with the recipient(s), select Yes."
I suspect that candidate's and organization's pages do not click "yes" because they want to get your email and phone. Years ago, I set up my own page and clicked "yes." Those to whom I contribute get my name and address only (and they need that for FEC filings).
Still, I am overwhelmed by texts and emails for money. But I sometimes have donated to requests, in particular by DKE, so those recipients got my info and I could not prevent it.
Still, a simple google search for me gives it all away and I suspect that is true of all of us. With a name and address, almost anyone can find your email and phone number on the net with a fairly simple search. And with all the companies that have been hacked and had your data taken, I doubt Act Blue is much of the cause for the mass of texts and email solicitations. Indeed, the content of most solicitations I get show the sender knows nothing about me and it is just a mass distribution.
This is not intended as a rant reply and I am just as overwhelmed by the daily tasks of reporting spam and deletion. It's great you are helping campaigns without contributing money. My two-cents is just that it's not so much Act Blue but the people who set up the pages there and, indeed, the whole www.
If I understand you correctly, the only question is whether ActBlue is sharing the information with the recipient of the donation – but that ActBlue is still collecting our email address and cell phone number. My point is I don’t want to have to give that to ActBlue in the first place.
I understand. I just think it's unfair to assume the spam is caused by Act Blue. Remember too that they do not require a phone number. My guess is that they get an email so they can communicate with you but it does seem that they could make that voluntary.
If I get another text message from a hysterical James Carville telling me how hopping mad he is it will be too soon.
Did the GOP do this, too?
of course
The Prospect has a fine article on one of Trump’s most noteworthy nominations:
"How Best to Utilize Tulsi Gabbard’s Unique Talents"
https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-11-21-how-best-to-utilize-tulsi-gabbards-unique-talents/
Carr and Jones are both very beatable opponents but please for the love of all that is holy, we can't nominate Abrams a 3rd time. Thurmond is also a boring machine pol and not a crossover winner. McBath has what it takes.
The way to strengthen the Democratic Party is to rebuild the 50-State Strategy. This means from the grassroots up, focusing strongly on downballot races – both local and statewide – and never leaving any race unchallenged. (In the 2024 Election, Democrats failed to challenge more than one thousand state legislative seats.)
It also means picking the most suitable candidate, one who fits the local political climate, culture and issues. Ideally it also means having the wisdom to avoid hopeless and destructive internecine ideological battles.
Stacy Abrams had her chance, twice. It’s time to move on. That said, I will forever be grateful to Abrams for playing a decisive role in helping elect senators Warnock and Ossoff.
I like Carter
What is the partisan breakdown in Stefanik’s district? I thought I saw somewhere it was only R+4 but the post today doesn’t make it sound like that’s the case.
R +8
What is the tipping point district in the House? I think PA-07 but I could be wrong.
Yes.
Yeah, NYT has them lined up in order of closeness here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/06/us/elections/results-house-races-tracker.html.
213 D called, CA-45 would be 214, CA-13 if it happens would be 215, IA-01 at GOP +0.2% isn't called yet but would have been on the path to 216. CO-08 at GOP +0.7% would have been 217 if we hadn't slid so hard in the district (Trump certainly flipped it). The 218th seat would have been PA-07 at GOP +1%. After that the other possibilities would have been PA-10 (GOP +1.3%), PA-08 (GOP +1.6%), NE-02 (GOP +1.8%). Our closest calls outside of uncalled races in CA are OH-09, ME-02, NC-01, OH-13, VA-07, NY-04, and OR-05.
Yeah the collapse in Adams County is distressing. Interestingly the suburbs west and south of Denver moved to the left slightly even as Adams bolted to the right. The other notable shifts in the state are Red shift in Pueblo and southern rural CO and left shift in SW CO and in Mesa County (Grand Junction). significant ground lost in the blue ski counties (Eagle and Pitkin). Frisch won Pueblo in his race outrunning Biden's 2 point margin in 2020 in the county. Douglas and El Paso both moved slightly to the left.
Yeah when I saw how badly things were going elsewhere I knew Caraveo was in trouble. Commission designed this district to be "Hispanic opportunity" only if Democrats could sustain 65%+ with them. By the time polls closed I was not shocked at all to see Trump over 40% in Costilla county. These areas dodged most of the red shift in 2020, seeing only tiny shifts because of how badly Trump bombed all over in Colorado (and honestly, how much of them already realigned in 2016, somewhat contrary to other trends that year), but it caught up to us this time. Lost the Dem state rep in Greeley too (though oddly enough both our Pueblo reps hung on). Almost lost the Adams County state senate seat which was Biden +15, depending on huge margins in Commerce City and Westminster to offset rural eastern Adams and Arapahoe counties (inane district, like many drawn by that commission).
Mesa moving left while Pitkin and Eagle moved right was not expected at all though. Douglas and El Paso holding the line is something, Democrats are absolutely going to tie these counties the next time we do well presidentially. Weird coalitions continuing to evolve. Republicans are hosed here regardless, they aren't getting the legislature back with Jefferson electing unanimous Dem delegations and Colorado Springs electing two Dem senators (!)
Who's the favorite for the dem nomination for governor there? Neguse?
Probably up in the air at this point. Imagine most of the statewide officeholders and US house members besides DeGette will give it a look. Ken Salazar might also poke his head up again. The Republicans maybe Kent Thiry though happily, his RCV scheme went up in flames so maybe he does not think he can get through a GOP primary. One benefit to having Bobert in CO-04 is it's not a springboard for statewide office anymore like it was for Gardner.
Mhm, decided by less than 8000 votes.
How Virginia Illustrates the 2024 Election.
https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/how-virginia-illustrates-the-2024-election/
It's a good summation, even if it comes with a trigger warning (the Loudoun numbers were the first genuine shock for me on that fateful night, leading me to log off - and metaphorically hide under the bed - shortly thereafter).
Lol I guess those early vote numbers were already included, damn internet rumors.
How high is the Hispanic population in Loudoun County? That was definitely not a factor in my calculation of that county's politics. I knew there were a lot of nonwhites but I figured most of them were embedded in the Beltway and would be uniquely averse to Trump...even more so than four years ago.
Bob Casey for Governor in 2026!
or Conor Lamb
Shapiro not running?
I sure hope he's still running. Do not need more 2026 uncertainty. Already stressed about the race to replace Whitmer.
There's nothing to suggest Shapiro won't run again, and no good reason I know of to primary him. Casey may well deserve a political comeback, but for now that likely isn't it.
It was a joke. It's too bad the seat won't be open though. It would be nice to see Sharrod Brown and Casey both attempt comebacks for governor.
Talk of Casey up above made me notice that he was one of our last senators first elected in 2006. Next congress will see that class down to only Klobuchar, Whitehouse, and Sanders. For the class of 2008 it's Shaheen, Merkley, and Warner. Shaheen is old enough that I'm hoping she takes the opportunity to retire come 2026, giving Pappas a republican midterm as his chance to move up. If so we'd be down to Merkley and Warner. I don't see all that many names left for the house either.
Enormous back to back wave years for us and there's not many of the dems left that first won election to congress in either year.
If Youngkin runs he could be formidable even against an incumbent. Warner has never had blowout elections. I think if he runs no matter what it will he competitive.
Warner won 65-33 in 2008 and 56-44 in 2020. He barely won in 2014, but that's more the exception than the rule, and in a midterm with an unpopular Democratic president, which obviously 2026 won't be.
He can't expect to coast, but I'd think him a favourite even against Youngkin, who is wealthy and reasonably well liked, but quite likely not enough so to overcome an unpopular GOP administration and Congress, if that's the environment. Even if Warner didn't run I'd generically give Dems the edge.
From what I have understood about the VA-SEN race in 2014, it was Ed Gillespie's candidacy that made the race more close in the end.
From what I remember, Ed Gillespie didn’t do anything special in 2014. He just ran as a generic Republican, which is not surprising for a former RNC chairman.
The narrowness of Warner’s victory in 2014 was due largely to the usual phenomenon of the Presidents’s party suffering in midterm elections. This caused Kay Hagan to lose reelection in neighboring North Carolina that year.
Another factor was the downballot collapse of Dems in Appalachia that year. Mark Warner had always won southwest Virginia in his previous runs for office, but 2014 was the first time he lost there, getting 38% of the vote. This collapse in Appalachia caused Nick Rahall to lose reelection in West Virginia that year, while Warner held on due to his margins in the Urban Crescent.
Yeah the biggest factor for Warner's close shave in 2014 was incredibly low turnout.
Per the Gillespie camp, the campaign had a robust ground game and fundraising strategy which accounts for why the race was an unusual nail biter. If Warner was able to turnout voters and actually ran a campaign, his margins of victory would have likely increased.
Here's what was shared in a Politico article about Gillespie's campaign per his Senate campaign digital director. It illustrates that Gillespie did in fact run a strong ground game and had good fundraising.
https://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/virginia-senate-ed-gillespie-mark-warner-112631
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gillespie digital director Eric Wilson said the mainstream media was not paying attention as Gillespie attracted huge crowds for rallies, grew social media followers and built an impressive ground game.
“There were a series of indicators that were ignored,” he said.
The Gillespie team believes that the race closed late because of their early decision to husband resources.
During the summer, there was extensive back-and-forth among Gillespie’s top advisers about when to spend their money. Gillespie, a first-time candidate, was formerly chair of the Republican National Committee and has a huge fundraising network. But he always knew he’d be significantly outspent by Warner, a formidable fundraiser in his own right who happens to be the richest member of the Senate because he co-founded Nextel.
the only thing mattered in 2014 was Obama six years in; Gillespie was straight Generic R(and he lost)
Agreed. Youngkin wouldn't be as DOA as similarly positioned Larry Hogan was but the Democrats would have to do something disastrously wrong as the opposition party for Mark Warner to be toppled in 2026. Even in an open seat, I'd like the Democratic candidate's chances over Youngkin in a Senate race.
I seriously doubt he runs for anything in 2026; dude is wanting the White House (it's as plain as day)
It was nuts seeing the Democratic surge in the Class I Senate races climb ever higher after the 1994 wipeout. They had a really good year in 2000. An even better year in 2006. And an even better year than that in 2012. Before the 2018 election, it seemed entirely possible they'd have another amazing year but political gravity set in. Imagine a world where we had been defending Democratic Senate seats in Missouri, Indiana, Florida, North Dakota, and Tennessee this year. It seemed possible in late October 2018 that we might.
at least in all those races we competed with great candidates for the state's they ran in(this year also)
More from the Torres v. Hochul primary talk from yesterday:
Torres planning a listening tour of New York. Says his main issues with Hochul aren't on policy but her erratic governing style, citing the congestion pricing flip-flops, and her very low approvals.
He says Hochul may be the new Biden who is too unpopular to win. He says Lawler is stronger.
Hochul believes she contributed to the flips in the House races.
In any case I am not usually open to Democratic primaries unless there are very serious electability questions. Hochul suffers from several self inflicted issues but also a huge level of state level misogyny as well. I'm undecided about this.
On the Israel issue, by the by, both Hochul and Torres are 'pro Israel' if you really want to boil the issue down to black and white. Which is not advisable.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/22/torres-hochul-governor-campaign-00191249
There’s a huge difference between them as to how they deal with those who disagree with them, and the priority they put on the issue. I’d like to see another candidate than Hochul, but certainly not this guy.
Didn't congestion pricing go into effect? Were they just waiting until after the election?
Yes. She halted it briefly before the election and then popped right back up after the election to bring it back. Suozzi, etc. were probably begging her.
And, by the way, if we want to talk about places where "Democrats have lost touch with the common man", congestion pricing would likely be a prime example of that.
Explain please?
It goes a little something like this, "Hi common man/woman, I'm a member of the city council. As far as you can tell, my main job seems to be standing on steps somewhere with 10 angry people behind me, grandstanding about problems. Good news, I've just voted in congestion pricing. Which means that for the privilege of getting up at 5:30 am to commute in terrible traffic to your crap job that doesn't pay you enough, you'll have to give the MTA fat cats $15 a day so that they can waste it like they waste billions of dollars a year. You're welcome, thank your local Democrat."
"Oh, I'll also, the congestion pricing won't actually make congestion much better and we'll need to raise the rates real soon. Again, you're welcome."
I'm not an expert on NYC, live very far away, but does the "common man" drive to work if they work in NYC?
I think that the common man takes the subway, bus, and/or train and would like them to run more efficiently.
Which is in large part what the congestion pricing would pay for
Or, it could just be another way for the folks who run the MTA to turn their 45 billion in unsustainable debt into 60 billion in unsustainable debt.
It's very difficult to believe that this would do much to actually make the subways better (billions upon billions are already spent and they are getting worse) and plenty of common people drive.
Public transit is expensive.
Boston's T was doing quite horribly as recently as last year. It still cost billions upon billions of dollars to function even at that unimpressive level. It needed even more funding. It got a partial infusion of funding to catch up on decades of lapsed maintenance — and new leadership, which was absolutely critical — and the system is doing far better right now, with further improvements planned through 2027 if the funding can be maintained to enable those improvements (not certain).
NYC's subway needs are far greater than Boston's and will consequently cost far more too. I wouldn't be shocked if the MTA could seriously benefit from a change in leadership, but often insufficient funding is the core issue facing these kinds of systems.
Completely disagree. It's wealthy New Jersyites bitching the most about contesting pricing. Modernizing NYC public transit helps the working class/working poor the most.
Not that I much trust position polls (they clearly make it look like voters are more liberal than they are) but they showed that the pause of the implication was about twice as popular as continuing forward with implementation. My pretty strong feeling is that this will be pretty unpopular in general with NY and NJ voters. Again, most folks would reasonably expect that this cost won't improve service much, as the MTA is deeply incompetent. We'd all better hope the MTA changes.
Hochul will suffer from misogyny, her own record, and general mediocre campaign abilities. Torres will suffer from his race, orientation, being from NYC and a former council member (which is something I personally take a dim view of). I suspect there is someone stronger than Hochul out there (James) but I don't think Torres is it.
If James doesn’t run for mayor I think she’ll run for governor.
I had always assumed she was planning for Governor someday but she could pretty easily waltz into the Mayor's job right now. It is a political dead end but being Governor of NY also feels like a bit of a cruddy job at the moment. It also occurs to me that being Mayor might have some pension benefits, but I'd need to research that. It's possible being AG counts toward her 20.
my take on James is simple, she only runs for Mayor to stop Cuomo; otherwise, she waits 'her turn' and runs for the most likely open seat after Hochul
Torres is also way too online.
People shouldn’t shy away from primarying unpopular incumbents. If the Republicans nominate a remotely normal candidate, they can probably beat Hochul next time, and we can’t let that happen.
I’m from Illinois, and I keep thinking of 2014, when Pat Quinn was the least popular governor in the entire country but received no serious primary challengers and then lost to a Republican in the general who destroyed our state for 4 years. That could easily happen in New York, and we can’t risk it.
Could be I’m way off base, but I’ve always thought of Kathy Hochul and Eric Adams as semi-Republicans. Still, that’s a helluva lot better than the real ilk, especially the current MAGA mutations.
Hochul is a Democrat no doubt. Adams seems like a secret Maga, only ran as a Democrat to get elected
Well, must admit I really started wondering when I saw who Governor Hochul first wanted to appoint to her State Supreme Court.
That's new York transactional stuff, you scratch my back I'll scratch yours.
completely disagree with you; Trump will kill most '26 Republican governor nominees in almost all blue\purple states(watch Virginia in '25 for the swing)
I hope you’re right, but then in that case we should primary out Hochul because she’s bad at her job and shouldn’t be governor, and Torres (and most other Democrats in New York) would do a better job as governor and would win the general anyways. Either way, I can’t think of any reason why we shouldn’t try to primary her out.
I am perfectly fine with a primary but I seriously doubt Torres ability to actually win against hochul
I wouldn't assume that Torres would win the general election.
I don’t believe that he would do worse than Hochul.
FL-01: Gaetz confirms what his wife and others implied, and won't return to Congress next year.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/22/politics/gaetz-not-rejoining-congress?utm_medium=social&utm_source=blueskyCNN&utm_content=2024-11-22T16%3A51%3A28
Good. That probably precludes him getting FL-Sen, too.
Hopefully Florida voters don’t buy what he’s selling and elect him their governor
Lol he just has to win a republican primary and they'll but it easily
I imagine that it’ll be a packed primary, and his geographic base isn’t the best. But I’d imagine him the frontrunner unless proven otherwise
The primary could be interesting if Trump endorses one candidate and DeSantis another.
Gaetz won't get DeSantis and I am not sure even Trump would endorse him for statewide (unless the alternative was a nontrumper)
Actually, as a Florida resident, I'd love to see the Republicans nominate him; even in Florida, he'd lose in '26(the paedophilia \drug addicted \frat boy thing is not attractive for the old farts who live here)I am one so I can say it🙃
Gaetz would probably be the most liable Republican Senate Candidate the GOP has had for years. He also has no appeal in Miami-Dade and would likely not win over independent and swing voters.
The important thing is that Democrats have a Senate candidate who is going to run and who has an ability to win over independent and crossover voters.
I'd like to believe this, but I thought Rick Scott was toxic the 1st time he ran for Governor (huge Medicare fraudster in a state with alot of elders). He's now been elected 4 times statewide.
I guess this election has just made me cynical about who the voters won't accept.
Rick Scott is nothing like Gaetz
Of course, but then you'd have to posit that voters are more repulsed by sex crimes than financial ones, and then you have to remember who is going to be sworn in on Jan. 20th.
The special primary for this seat will be on January 28 and the special election on April 1. (April Fool’s Day. Rather symbolic, no?)
CA-GOV:
Although Gavin Newsom is termed out of office in 2026, he's already paying attention to the election results and working to ensure California doesn't leave out the voters who voted against Kamala Harris, especially in red regions in the state, when it comes to economic growth.
While I think Newsom should have done this long ago in his first term as Governor, nevertheless it's a step in the right direction as far as ensuring CA as a state still can serve those who aren't exactly blue voters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT4-uPKUIGI&ab_channel=NBCBayArea
I hate to break this to you, but he's not doing this publicity stunt for any electoral reasons related to California.
I'd say more, but I think I'd be breaking the rules around here regarding certain primary elections.
Uh??what's so special about 2028 that could potentially get Newsom thinking this way?🤔
I just put the CA-GOV tag because of what Newsom is doing now, not because of anything he has planned in the future elections wise. That said, regardless of what we think of his political venture in the future it's still a good political image to ensure that CA is for all Americans, not just liberal or conservatives. Hopefully if Newsom plays his cards right this can help Democrats fight the image that conservatives have made that the state isn't friendly for them to live in (cost of living is also a problem but that can't be resolved overnight). I'd like to see more Democrats statewide and in other states follow this strategy.
FYI, I am well aware Newsom has a tendency to pivot a lot with wherever the political environment ends up being. He was great at debating Ron DeSantis but in the end, what was this all about? Both he and DeSantis may be on the opposite ends of the political spectrum but they sure like to go for political attention a lot more than serving.
CA 13: Duarte ups his lead from 194 to 210.
What's the recount process like in CA? Is it automatic when it's super close or does someone have to request it?
There is no automatic recount but any registered voter may request one. A voter may file a recount request within five days beginning on the 31st day after a statewide election.
Before going there, I'm estimating that there are more than 5K uncounted votes in CA-13. Many need cured and voters have until 12/3 to cure them. Some voters will have skipped downballot races and some will not cure their ballots so the 5K estimate is more than the number of actual voters we will see. Still, there is still plenty of hope for Gray catching up. Of note, in Merced County (the place with the most uncounted votes in CA-13), and LA and Orange Counties (CD-45), over half of the uncounted votes need cured or will not be counted.
This election is the ultimate proof of that timeless counterargument to "my vote doesn't matter". Clearly even in an 80 million population state, federal races are coming down to hundreds or dozens of votes...and it is entirely within the realm of possibility, admittedly unlikely, that these seats may be decided by 1 or 2 votes...your vote always matters.
California doesn’t break 40m in population.
ty for the correction.
Some races this cycle for state rep have been decided by 1 vote(with thousands cast in raw vote total)
Didn’t Minnesota just do two recounts with the margin in single digit?
Yup, Maine also I believe had incredibly close races for state rep (it would be interesting to see some type of case study on the country's closest races by not only raw vote margins but also percentage of margins as well)
Alaska too I'm thinking
Hear, hear!
When the dust settles, I hope The Downballot will compile a list of issues and downballot races that were decided by just a few votes / tiny fractions of a percentage. Both those we won and those we lost.
Now 220.
Maybe it's hopium but I'm actually somewhat confident or cautiously optimistic even..
Now 203.
CA-45: There is an Orange update but nothing new from L.A. Derek Tran added 499 votes today, while Michelle Steel now has 460 more than before. That gain of 39 votes over the previous margin T+480 now has Derek at +519 total.
This one seems to just keep trending our way; your take?
Yes, that is true. I believe the margin, now over 500 votes, will hold up. Every day's vote drop has increased the lead. L.A. is almost done; they have only conditional ballots and ballots needing to be cured. I believe that conditional ballots are cast by people registering to vote at a vote center on or before E-Day, maybe that didn't have identification?
Orange has more ballots left to count, but it has been consistent gains for Derek so I am not worried.
CA-13 on the other hand...
Landslide Derek pulling away.
Anyone else think Jon Tester should attempt a Slade Gorton-style comeback in 2026 by challenging Sen. Steve Daines? Get his revenge for Daines recruiting Sheehy in the first place? He has NOTHING to lose, and comparing their 2 Senate voting records in terms of effectiveness would be easy and last time Tester won was a midterm ALSO with Trump in the Oval Office!! 💙🇺🇲
Sherrod Brown is the one I'd like to see try this. Though Tester might have a shot too.
Him too with a capital H
Has that ever succeeded in US history? A defeated incumbent senator running again and winning? Sure it worked for Trump and Grover Cleveland at the presidential level but I’m not sure. At any rate at the very least Tranel should have more than enough name recognition now too for a statewide run if she chooses to go for it.
Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Washington), the last Republican to represent them in the Senate achieved exactly this.
Lost his seat 51% - 49% to Brock Adams (D) in 1986, then ran for the other seat in 1988 and WON 51% - 49% against future Gov. Mike Lowry (D). 💙🇺🇲
Yes it has more than once
North Dakota, with Kent Conrad in the 1990s.
Yes with a capital Y