As tempting as it is to say 'I told you so', we're going to need a lot of these Biden > Trump and Biden > X voters in 2028 and possibly even in 2026. We'll need to be ruthlessly pragmatic and do what needs to be done to bring these people back into the tent.
It's going to hurt everyone but Democrats should just let him run things into the ground. THIS is what the country wants and we should let them have it. It also drives the Right crazy when you tell them "I genuinely hope you get what you voted for".
Replies to this are a reminder of why I/P discussion is banned here. It quickly devolved into fruitless fighting over the topic.
Come on people, you've already sniped at each other over this topic on and off again at DKE and no one changed their mind. Just skip it. Especially since we're not supposed to talk about it.
Please please please can we not do this here? Please also note that I said the same thing to a pro-Palestinian poster a few weeks ago. This simply is not the place for this discussion...
GA is the first state to release full vote history for 2024. As a share of the citizen voting-age population, turnout rates went up for all groups compared to 2020 except Black Georgians.
Insurmountable IMO. Harris had LOTS of feet in the ground here, but she just didn't generate near Obama levels of enthusiasm in the black community. As I've been parroting before, a lot of it is the poison of social media. Liberals thought Trump questioning her blackness would hurt him but he's crazy like a fox and that bullshit permeated among a lot of AAs-I saw it on Instagram. The trans stuff didn't help either.
No it did not. Many Democrats keep forgetting how VERY socially conservative many African Americans are. BTW this is not the first time we've been burned in a Presidential Election over this. A major reason why Bush the Younger beat Kerry in Ohio in 2004 was because of anti marriage equality sentiment. Much of it coming from African American churches.
First, be realistic on the turnout differential. Black voters are a whole lot younger than White voters, such that even each age cohort has matching turnout rate, since young voters are less likely to vote than seniors, there is always a turnout differential. Baked in about 8-10pt, depending on the youth turnout rate. This year it is particularly large, as on age groups 40 or older, Black voters’ turnout is just slightly lower than White counterparts, younger Black voters turnout is 20pt lower than young White voters.
Second. Stop playing identity politics! It is not that Democrats put up a minority candidate there will be a huge upswing of sporadic voters in the same ethnic group.
It depends on who DeWine appoints. If he puts in a Republican like him, Brown would likely lose unless it's an epic midterm for us. There's talk he may put up Ramaswamy in order to get him out of the field and clear the path for his Lt. Gov in the Gov race.
There's also a not-insignificant chance that whoever DeWine appoints could lose a primary to much more conservative Republican, like what happened in Alabama in 2017.
I fear he would not win. He might be competitive in early polling but now he has the loser stink about him (as much as I love him). It’s hard to get past that voters just said no to him (like Martha McSally and Russ Feingold and many recent others).
And Gov. DeWine got to his position after previously having served two terms as US Senator, before losing to Brown. He's also been Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, and a US House member.
This really speaks to how empty the Dem bench is of populist liberals in places lik OH.
Brown will be 74 in 2026. The idea that we don't have anyone who fits his profile but is like 20-30 years younger is pretty disconcerting. More than anything Dems need to aggressively find liberal working class populists and get them to run for lower level offices.
95% agreed. While it is waaaaay too early to be predicting 2026 midterm elections, they don’t typically go well for the party in power. Especially for Trump bc he’s about to do a bunch of crazy shit. Brown can win in a good year and we’ve seen him do it three times.
The 5% I’m hesitant on is running losers. It’s not a plus, that’s for damn sure. When you’re done, you’re done. But, OH isn’t the type of state where we can let a bunch of local Dems fight it out in a primary and then the national Dems have to decide if the winner is worth the investment. We need someone donors think can win from Day 1 otherwise it turns into some 10-to-1 money blow out and we lose by 15%.
Unless OH Dems have some secret amazing politician we don’t know about, seems like Brown is the best chance we’ve got.
If he wants to run, then by all means go for it. Voters might end up having buyers' remorse in two years, and there may be no better person to take advantage of it than the one that they unwisely just voted out.
Still, he'll be 74 years old in 2026. Even if he returns to office, he can't run forever. I'm well aware of how tough Ohio has become but we need to build up a bench of candidates to take advantage of future changes in opinion or the electorate.
If you could humour my fantasy here: What would happen if we somehow pull a rabbit out of the hat and win the remaining uncalled races (i.e. all California, IA-01, and AK)? With Gaetz's resignation, the house would be 217-217. The vote for Speaker would then be tied. Would they make a compromise, or would they go without until the special election?
On a related fantasy: Matt Gaetz resigned his House seat. I would love to see the Senate reject his AG nomination – and America being rid of him for the foreseeable future. A better fit for Matt and his skill set might be ambassador to Tuvalu, Palau or North Macedonia.
"I am calling on the House Ethics Committee to preserve and share their report and all relevant documentation on Mr. Gaetz with the Senate Judiciary Committee."
. – Dick Durbin
“I can’t understand any situation under which we would deny ourselves access to full and complete information [in the House Ethics Committee report on Matt Gaetz]. Part of this is not only to determine fitness for the nominee, it’s also to protect the president. Because there may be information that the investigation would find forthcoming that would ultimately be an embarrassment to the president. So this is for all of the above reasons, we need to get access to everything.”
I mentioned this in yesterday's thread but strangely enough, there's one issue not mentioned which Gaetz has divided the GOP on: Marijuana.
Gaetz has argued for a pro-cannabis agenda since he originally got elected to the House back in 2016. If he's pissing off Republicans across the board in Congress, this issue happens to be one of them. Kevin McCarthy is certainly no exception.
But aside from this, Gaetz's agenda has been clear - Disruption.
CA-21 is still uncalled? Costa is one of my least favorite Democrats, but he is ahead by over 5000 votes. Are they waiting for many more votes to be counted? That part of California has really low turnout elections. CA-13 is closer, with Adam Gray 3765 votes behind Rep. Duarte. Maybe it is good to be cautious about calling races but at this point I think only CA-45 is really in doubt.
Thanks, David, to your commitment to staying and writing. It's critical that we ALLLLL remember that they won an election, which is a battle - they have not yet won the war. If you're interested, here are things that ALL of us can do today, whether we are in red, blue or purple areas.
Also it is too early to know for sure which California counties may flip. By the end of tomorrow more will have been counted. Early on it looked for a while that Orange had flipped back to the GOP but the later count has Harris ahead. Fun fact about CA-Senate: Steve Garvey is losing in both counties where he played baseball (L.A. Dodgers and S.D. Padres) but is ahead by a point in Orange County. Maybe that is because he never played for the Anaheim Angels?
Lmao😂 about Garvey (frankly I'd forgotten that he was running because the race was between Porter and Schiff in reality and frankly Schiff used a brilliant strategy to box Porter out) hoping Porter stays in political life
Katie Porter is considering her options after leaving the House. She has been rumored to be looking at CA-Gov in '26. Other options that would make sense are Attorney General or Insurance Commissioner among the statewide offices. It depends on who runs for which office. If Kamala Harris runs for Governor then it would be more likely that AG Rob Bonta would run for re-election. There are a lot of moving parts here. I am sure that Katie will stay involved in politics even if she is not running for office. Now Dave Min can deal with the headaches of getting re-elected in the swing district (CA-47).
CA- Lt Gov is elected separately. The current Lt Gov ,Eleni Kounalakis, is running for Gov, so that will be open. Eleni is termed out, so she does not have the option that AG Rob Bonta has of running for re-election.
Given how chaotic the homeowners and even auto insurance markets are in California, my advice to anyone who wants a political life beyond insurance commissioner is don't run.
Harris for Gov? No no no, she’s done. I guess you tell me bc you’re from CA but damn, that would be a sad vote. CA is blue enough to do it but what a kick in the teeth. I did my laundry the other day and found a Harris/Walz button while unloading the washer bc I left it in my pocket. Damn near started crying in the laundromat. She’s done and we’re moving forward, I hope.
Hell yeah Dayton, MN! The past decade for that city has been crazy. They used to be a cornfield town you only knew about if you drove the backroads in/out of Minneapolis to NW exurbs. Now, they have a freeway exit and we’re going to get a state house seat out of them someday soon. They’re much bluer than they should be at this point (only 10k population) but it’s all been 2nd ring suburb McMansion college educated type of growth.
Per Wiki, the population grew 55.5% from 2010-2020, 4671 to 7262 people. In 2023, it’s at 10157, a 39.9% increase in three years. All because we finally finished highway 610 and connected it to the freeway. It’s one of those, “Ah shucks, I love government planning and infrastructure” moments. That city will hopefully be netting Dems thousands of votes someday all because we built a road.
Breaking: Alex Jones’ Infowars has just been sold to pay part of his $1.5 billion defamation penalty after he for years falsely claimed that the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax. The purchaser: The Onion!
Under The Onion’s ownership, we can safely assume that "Infowars" election coverage and other news will skew considerably closer to reality.
For a while, I dreamed of what Newsmax might become if Dominion’s defamation lawsuit resulted in them becoming the new owners. I imagine Newsmax’s 2024 election would have been very different. But, alas, they settled out of court.
The article I read about it said they planned to turn it into a satirical site against conspiracy theories and extreme right wing nonsense. And, they made sure to work with the Sandy Hook families and get their backing. It’s like a fairytale ending on top of a nightmare.
The Onion is absolutely getting into heaven with this level of karma.
Pelosi filed for reelection this morning; at this rate, Wiener's going to be termed out of the State Senate by the time he can finally run for the promotion.
I wouldn't be surprised if she sticks around for another term after this one, but filing for reelection at this point is more pro forma than anything. It enables her to fundraise giant gobs of money. Considering the election results, there's presumably a lot of pressure on her to do that to help set us up for 2026.
If I were her I'd like to help organize a big Dem House win in 2026 (and it's close enough that we don't really need a "wave" to take it back). Then finally retire after that last crowning achievement.
I would hope when Pelosi ends up retiring that it won't be just Weiner running in the primary. I had this criticism of how the CA-12 race ended up being when Barbara Lee announced her run for the Senate.
Frankly, with San Francisco having already voting Mayor London Breed out of office and voting for the Measure to establish an Inspector General's office in city government, I would prefer the CA-11 race to be competitive in the primary process so San Francisco voters actually have more choices.
Also, just from knowing the liberal base of SF, they aren't unanimously fans of Weiner.
Some random election musings now that the dust has settled a bit..
- Even though the Nates are calling this election within the normal polling error, once again Trump was underestimated. We should be glad he can’t run again — I would literally add 3 points to any poll he’s in because people can’t figure out how to reach his low-trust voters.
- The awful early vote numbers from NV, AZ, FL turned out to be pretty indicative of the final result. Folks were wrong to wave that evidence away.
- We’ll have to wait one more cycle to see if this is a realigning election or not, but Trump may have just expanded the playing field for the near future by bringing NJ, VA, MN, NH within 5 points after relatively blowouts in 2020. No reason the next GOP nominee won’t make a serious play for them like we did for GA, AZ. People laughed at Trump doing events in these states but.. he narrowed the gap considerably.
It works two ways: Generic R might not bring out the Trump cultists, at least not in force, but there are still probably a substantial number of GOP-inclined voters who refuse to vote for Trump but would for others with the red branding not too closely associated with him. (Many of them of course wouldn't vote for Harris, either and so may not be winnable for any Dem.)
But I think that if states like those listed (which weren't all "within 5 points", but that's nitpicky) didn't go red this time then they probably won't in 2028--note GOP dropoffs from 2004-08 and 2016-20 in many states.
Yeah the margins in those states was even worse in 2016 but they proceeded to bounce back (we also didnt lose any surprise downballot races in those states). I think Trump carries unique strength but until Dems can punch their weight in the social media environment they are vulnerable in lots of places.
It was very easy to see that Florida was gonna be a dumpster fire based on early vote numbers and one really had to twist themselves into a pretzel to shrug off the Nevada early vote data as well. The fact that the early vote in so many Republican counties outperformed the total number of votes cast in 2020 was also a warning sign that once again Trump would outperform expectations. I think the biggest factor this cycle in why Trump's vote was underestimated was the swing in the nonwhite vote wasn't sufficiently factored into the polling models. It was no coincidence that the most heavily Hispanic states were the ones where the polls were the furthest off (Texas, Florida, Arizona).
If the Democrats continue to run campaigns where the managerial class is the target audience, then you can definitely put more states on the board for the 2028 battleground. The problem is that they now depend on the managerial class votes to even get their 226 electoral vote baseline. Minnesota would be as red as Iowa right now if they hadn't co-opted 3M and Best Buy executives from upscale suburbs into their coalition. And it's gonna be incredibly hard to wrestle back the industrial towns even if Trumpism 2.0 is an abysmal failure as, in just three Presidential cycles, the Democratic Party isn't even a consideration for millions of two-time Obama voters.
It was clear to me in 2016 that trading coalitions was gonna be an electoral loser, and it's only gotten worse since then given that diploma divide has crossed racial and ethnic lines....and as college enrollment overall plummets. There were only so many votes to be found by repeatedly doubling down on the managerial class, and Democrats found pretty much all of them they were gonna get in 2020. Governing always cleaves majority coalitions so there will be vulnerabilities in Trump's 2024 coalition, but right now it's very difficult to see how Democrats find their way back until a uniquely charismatic figure fosters the next generational realignment.
Yes although I think it would be beneficial that as Trump is being Trump, running against Trump shouldn't be the sole thing Democrats should think about heading to the 2026 midterms.
I think you should always offer a positive message but the reality is that turning the national campaign into a Trump referendum is the best strategy in my view
Agreed. I think though that at some point after Trump leaves office Democrats are going to have to realize that they can no longer run against Trump or Trumpism anymore if they want to ensure their viability towards voters.
But yes, there is going to be plenty of ammunition Democrats have with the 2026 midterms a bit over two years away.
The politics of health care is dicey but with costs continuing to spiral out of control and hospitals closing in smaller communities throughout the country, I think the issue gives Democrats an opening to be heard again by voters who have tuned them out completely, especially if Trump repeals any part of Obamacare.
Beyond that, Democrats are gonna have to accept that voters aren't gonna tolerate illegal immigration, so the yearslong effort to blur the lines by whatever means necessary have fallen flat and will continue to if they haven't learned their lesson.
Voters recoiling at overreach in one direction doesn't meant that they want an ideological activist agenda the other way. They were appalled at children being separated and put into cages, but that doesn't mean they want all border crossing decriminalized or that making that part of the Dem platform is a good idea. And I say that as someone who wants more (legal) immigration.
As for health care, that is not and is unlikely to be a GOP strength. They don't have to go for full Obamacare repeal to take the brunt of voter anger over higher costs and/or lesser service, given their previous record and that they won't be able to blame it on a Dem WH or either house of Congress.
Mark, you know I have great respect for your ability to predict elections.
However, I really wish you wouldn't call college-educated voters the "managerial class". Most of them are not managers (and there are plenty of managers who don't have a college degree). These people are doctors/nurses, lawyers, teachers/professors, accountants, scientists, engineers, tech workers, even finance people. I know plenty of these people, and many of them actively dislike the person whose job it is to manage them.
That being said, I agree that the trading of coalitions hasn't been great for us. If the trade was just college-educated voters for the WWC, that would've been fine, but when the Hispanic and Asian working class moves to right as well, that's a big problem for us.
The issue is - Democrats had little choice but to trade coalitions. The GOP has increasingly become the party of cultural conservatism and anti-immigrant nationalism.
Its why Trump could so easily cast off free trade as a defining GOP feature, or Josh Hawley, in bright red Missouri can run on antitrust issues. Because ultimately their voters really want to keep the current cultural tide at bay, limit immigration, and ban abortion.
But Democrats - the party where most cultural liberals reside and that was the favorite of non-whites (at least broadly) couldnt really turn its back on those cultural issues.
I would also note - this is the first time since 1980 that Democrats have had to run with an unpopular incumbent. Just like 2008 wasnt indicative of how elections going forward would go, neither was 2024.
The idea that we cant get back 2% of the vote in PA, and 1% in MI and WI seems a little overwrought.
One interesting thing is that young people are moving towards the GOP. It makes sense. For all of liberals concerns about Trump, ultimately his term was good for most people economically (peace and prosperity) and if you are young COVID likely meant you skipped school for a year too. Then they reached adulthood during Biden's term and wow, they cant afford rent or food. Bummer.
Plus liberals are now the fogey establishment (one reason we absolutely need to ditch all of these oldsters - get anyone over 60 out of leadership).
But this actually might make things a little easier for Dems to transition towards a more culturally populist message. So much of the drive for change that I mentioned above comes from young people - we needed to do student loan foregiveness, and maximal immigration policy, and focus on climate change to appease young college grads.
If they are already less liberal, then we can ignore them a little more in favor of doing things that are broadly more popular, but less popular with young college students.
Of course the problem doesnt entirely go away - young college students are still a big part of the coalition (as we are seeing with I/P) but it might help.
I get what you're saying but the danger comes with the multiplier effect. The more that upscale suburbanites define the Democratic base, the more we tend to speak to them exclusively. This is why Harris's closing message was limited to reproductive rights, preserving democracy, and fascism. They convinced themselves that the swing voter they needed to reach couldn't be reached with kitchen table issues, and that if they litigated kitchen table issues they'd risk risk losing the microscopic "Nikki Haley voter" demographic that they delusionally believed held the keys to the kingdom.
Beyond that, as Gretchen Whitmer pleaded with the Harris campaign last month to include more economic messaging in their advertising, several people here openly mused that that was a bad idea as it was too deferential to working-class whites and didn't stay on message about abortion rights.
This is the multiplier effect that compounds losses. First you lose the storyline...and then you make decisions that ensure the storyline remains lost by convincing yourselves that those you've lost are to be ignored moving forward.
And while you're technically right that bouncing back from 1-2% losses in just enough places to thread an Electoral College needle remains possible for a party whose coalition is in retreat, that strategy only works in cycles where you're unambiguously on offense. Typically, once places start trending against you, it gets harder to turn that tide once it's in motion. Until there's a complete overhaul in Democratic messaging, I don't see sustained growth in the coalition.
One thing that frustrates me about Democratic messaging is that much of the party seems unable to consistently put forth positive messages about what we stand for and have accomplished. Many of our most effective electoral arguments are about not letting Republicans get their way on issues like abortion or health care; even the ACA only really became an asset politically after Republicans nearly repealed it and we could run on "don't let them take it away".
That's especially so when we're in office and trying to defend it. We may have an easier time with messaging over the next few years as much of it will be devoted to criticising Republican policy and politicians, but while that might temporarily bring a significant number of voters back it won't make for "sustained growth". Absent a change in messaging--both in what we say and how and where we say it--at best we can get back into power only to go through the same "wash, rinse, repeat" cycle.
I mean . .I don't know about other places but Harris had tons of economic-focused ads here in Georgia (likely knowing the electorate here is more conservative on abortion). It definitely wasn't a "2014 Cory Gardner" campaign it's being made out to be.
It’s also a global phenomenon playing out in plenty of other countries, at that (Canada in particular, as the BC results show). So it’s something we need to adapt to because it’s not something we can reverse alone here.
I think this is a little too reductionist and simplified. Outside of immigration, the Biden Administration was the most WWC-friendly administration since at least LBJ, literally rejuicing entire rural and small-town areas through revitalized mnaufacturing via CHIPS and the IRA, building on the ACA and expanding health care access to the working class, and aiding unions including a billion-dollar pension bailout. Pretty progressive agenda for a coalition supposedly dominated by "Best Buy executives."
80% of the switch is due to vibes, and yes IMO Dems will need to engage in some Sista Souljah moments with the more extreme parts of their coalition on immigration, trans issues, and criminal justice, but I think that is eminently doable (already happening organically on the latter issue as Dems oust the post-Floyd LW DAs) and a lot of that will fade to the background anyway as voters again have to re-learn they actually don't like 90% of MAGA policy. Concurrently, we did much better below the POTUS line and the non-Trump elections are showing we can hold together a lot of the Obama coalition when Trump isn't on the ballot.
I don't disagree with you about the policy, but it was so poorly communicated that it was tantamount to a tree falling in the forest and nobody hearing it.
I mean, Biden & his admin were out doing ribbon cuttings, speeches etc. touting everything they were doing for the past 3 years but the media just ignored it. I'm honestly not sure what else they could've done. The press wanted Trump back so badly (and you can see it in the coverage of the Trump cabinet picks . .they fucking LOVE the "palace intrigue" of it all it's sick) & now they have their wish.
He narrowed the gap everywhere. I dont think an election where the incumbent has sub-40% approval is really going to be indicative of much. I wouldn't say this is a highwater mark for the GOP - they could win in 2028 and do well enough that Vance or whoever is highly popular in 2032.
I don't agree; imo Trump is unique in his vote getting abilities and even he is going to obtain less than 50% when all votes are counted; imo Vance will never lead the ticket (unless Trump dies in office)
Ehhhh I would not rule out Vance as the nominee. He's going to be Trump's pitbull and build up a lot of cred among the base. There also aren't any strong alternatives; DeSantis is a paper tiger. Haley's career with the GOP is dead. MAYBE Kemp manages to bob and weave enough if Trump leaves offices near W Bush approval levels (which I think is highly possible).
Of the 4 races DDHQ hasn't called (CA-13, CA-21, CA-45, AK-AL) I think Dems are definitely favored in 2 of them. Costa in CA-21 will almost certainly win and I'd much rather be Tran in CA-45 at this point. I wouldn't be surprised if Gray pulls it out in CA-13, but I'd rather be Duarte, and I'd much rather be Begich in Alaska (although I really, really hope Peltola can manage to win).
I have a sneaking suspicion that Gray wins in CA-13 - Merced results so far are oddly red (a 19-point shift from 2020?!). Guessing those late votes are quite blue. So, I'm guessing we end up at 215. But 214 is absolutely possible.
PA-Sen, I don’t care if the math is challenging or what’s still unknown but the fact that McCormick is still trying to stop votes from being counted does not convince he has this in the bag. You don’t try to stop counting votes if you’re that confident you won. https://x.com/maddymcdaniel14/status/1857099466811027501?s=46&t=NhLQrgM30BfZmjI73-3rMg
Its weird because the math is basically impossible at this point. 60k ballots outstanding with almost all of Philly in. Casey would have to win 72% of the vote to win. Its just not happening. Its just weird that McCormick is going this hard on challenging this stuff given that he's likely to be up by 15k or so when the counting gets wrapped up tomorrow.
One thing to keep in mind, and this is the part about the math being impossible argument I’m not overly convince by: Casey lead McCormick on early mail-voting 64-34 while McCormick lead with Election Day voting 55-43. 71% of the total vote is from Election Day whereas 28% is from early mail in voting. The McCormick campaign claims there is not enough votes from Philly for Casey to win yet he’s trying to stop votes from being counted and not just the ones from Philly. One possible scenario that no one has mentioned is that maybe the remains ballots are all over the state and not just from specific areas but are still Democratic because what is clear is that while Republicans may have done a little better with mail in voting, they still heavily prefer to vote in person. So it could be Dem voters, even in red and swingy counties like Bucks and Erie, are what breaks more towards Casey. I could be wrong but it’s just a thought.
In 2020, Tennessee had the largest Trump margin in absolute votes of any State. This year it's back to being Texas, followed by Florida, with Tennessee in third.
What’s up with the Pennsylvania Senate race? Early this morning, NBC and other sources were indicating that there were just over 80,000 votes to count. Now suddenly NBC shows there are 129,000 uncounted votes!
Worth noting: Decision Desk HQ has slightly different numbers from NBC, and shows Casey having reduced McCormick’s lead to 25,740 votes. However, they don’t post a figure for uncounted votes.
Agreed; there are way too many speculative numbers being thrown around; oh, fuck McCormick and his junior high school whining (apologies for the language but it's irritating to get constant whining from that hypocritical POS)
This spreadsheet - which based on some of the comments in the cells, seems to be based on actually calling the counties suggests its less than 60k now.
Makes sense to me. It’s a new evolution of their marketing tactics when it comes to election integrity. Money is almost unlimited in politics at this point so throw some attack ads at him. Get people pissed that an election could be “stolen” from them.
NBC's website shows a scattering of uncounted vote in multiple counties, but definitely not an outsized number from Philadelphia (11,000) or Allegheny (8,500) if the numbers are to be believed. They're showing 9,500 from Erie County, which is one of the largest numbers of remaining ballots.
Jon Ossoff wants Nikema Williams to step down as Georgia State Democratic Chair. Williams has declined, citing the fact that Harris won more votes than Biden.
The Young Georgia Democrats have also asked her to resign among 22 other Democratic candidates most of whom lost this year. They say fundraising was also subpar.
Hopefully they can figure this out considering that Ossoff is in for a very tough fight in two years, possibly against Brian Kemp himself.
Considering the environment, a 2.5 point loss isn't bad and i don't think there's anything a state chair could do about it. A lot of times these things are personal beefs and wanting "their guy" in place.
Then following the 2026 midterms, we have Raphael Warnock up for re-election in 2028. Very important to keep both him and Ossoff in office as they made history in GA.
I'd trust Ossof's office to not make reflexive stances like this in public if they didn't think it was a real issue. Williams is a classic ATL machine pol and I think they're better options on the table.
Trump beat Harris in GA by 2.2% points, which isn't exactly remarkable for the GOP when you compare 2016 where he beat Clinton in the state by 5.09% points.
With Trump being in office now, Ossoff still has the ability to get the edge in grassroots and fundraising now that he's an incumbent Senator. Remains to be seen what happens in the first two years while Trump is POTUS.
That is assuming that Kemp himself wants to be running for senate in an environment that will likely remain extremely toxic. Even if he does run, there's no guarantee that Trump or Musk will prop up a another batshit lunatic like Greene to run. Either way, 2026 should be a significantly more favorable environment for Democrats, perhaps even moreso than 2018 since there likely won't be the issue of Supreme Court votes like there was back then, only the possible preservation of the conservative majority. If Musk's behavior in response to vote for a new GOP senate majority leader is any indication tho, Trump, Musk and their allies will throw all the money and resources they can at Republicans they deem hostile and not sufficiently loyal, including Kemp.
Kemp clearly has presidential ambitions but I'm not sure the best route to that is being a Senator first in which you point out will be a very toxic environment.
She needs to step down. I like her as a congressmember but congressmembers should not be state party chairs. One of the main reasons is because she’s an elected federal official she is forbidden from fundraising for the state party. We have plenty of folks with talent who could step in who’d do a great job.
Why is a member of Congress also the chair of a state party? A swing state, no less. How does she have two full-time jobs and do them successfully? She isn’t even in GA most of the time!!! As if I haven’t shook my head enough the past fucking week at Democrats. Unacceptable. She needs to pick a job.
BREAKING: Democrat Janelle Bynum wins election to U.S. House in Oregon's 5th Congressional District, beating incumbent Lori Chavez-DeRemer. #APRaceCall at 12:47 p.m. EST. apnews.com/hub/election-2024
I share your sentiment about such (non?)voters. But I don't think this is the place to discuss that topic.
As tempting as it is to say 'I told you so', we're going to need a lot of these Biden > Trump and Biden > X voters in 2028 and possibly even in 2026. We'll need to be ruthlessly pragmatic and do what needs to be done to bring these people back into the tent.
the easiest way is for us to just Let Trump Be Trump imo
It's going to hurt everyone but Democrats should just let him run things into the ground. THIS is what the country wants and we should let them have it. It also drives the Right crazy when you tell them "I genuinely hope you get what you voted for".
well, I'd prefer he not meddle into things but we know his ego won't allow that and he's always going to double down
The question is who will they scapegoat when things go south? Because they sure as hell aren't going to accept the blame for it.
the in party always pays through the next election no matter if they want to or not
Replies to this are a reminder of why I/P discussion is banned here. It quickly devolved into fruitless fighting over the topic.
Come on people, you've already sniped at each other over this topic on and off again at DKE and no one changed their mind. Just skip it. Especially since we're not supposed to talk about it.
Please please please can we not do this here? Please also note that I said the same thing to a pro-Palestinian poster a few weeks ago. This simply is not the place for this discussion...
GA is the first state to release full vote history for 2024. As a share of the citizen voting-age population, turnout rates went up for all groups compared to 2020 except Black Georgians.
https://x.com/blfraga/status/1857014247386972435
Was this a GOTV failure of the Harris Campaign, or was the challenge insurmountable? Kamala Harris lost by 115,000 votes.
Not clear. But Georgia ended up closer than Nevada and Arizona, so a turnout equal to 2020 could have changed the outcome.
No. Matching 2020 level won’t be enough.
imo no
turnout failure
Insurmountable IMO. Harris had LOTS of feet in the ground here, but she just didn't generate near Obama levels of enthusiasm in the black community. As I've been parroting before, a lot of it is the poison of social media. Liberals thought Trump questioning her blackness would hurt him but he's crazy like a fox and that bullshit permeated among a lot of AAs-I saw it on Instagram. The trans stuff didn't help either.
No it did not. Many Democrats keep forgetting how VERY socially conservative many African Americans are. BTW this is not the first time we've been burned in a Presidential Election over this. A major reason why Bush the Younger beat Kerry in Ohio in 2004 was because of anti marriage equality sentiment. Much of it coming from African American churches.
First, be realistic on the turnout differential. Black voters are a whole lot younger than White voters, such that even each age cohort has matching turnout rate, since young voters are less likely to vote than seniors, there is always a turnout differential. Baked in about 8-10pt, depending on the youth turnout rate. This year it is particularly large, as on age groups 40 or older, Black voters’ turnout is just slightly lower than White counterparts, younger Black voters turnout is 20pt lower than young White voters.
Second. Stop playing identity politics! It is not that Democrats put up a minority candidate there will be a huge upswing of sporadic voters in the same ethnic group.
Would love to see Brown run in 2026. He outpaced the top of the ticket by nearly 8 points.
Imo he wins if he runs
He'll need a 2018-esque wind at his back to have a shot IMO.
I'm not convinced it would take nearly that much but I get your point (basically, it's a simple strategy; Let Trump Be Trump)
It depends on who DeWine appoints. If he puts in a Republican like him, Brown would likely lose unless it's an epic midterm for us. There's talk he may put up Ramaswamy in order to get him out of the field and clear the path for his Lt. Gov in the Gov race.
There's also a not-insignificant chance that whoever DeWine appoints could lose a primary to much more conservative Republican, like what happened in Alabama in 2017.
I fear he would not win. He might be competitive in early polling but now he has the loser stink about him (as much as I love him). It’s hard to get past that voters just said no to him (like Martha McSally and Russ Feingold and many recent others).
He lost a state race before and came back. Tim Ryan lost also and has never won a state race. Name me someone who would be stronger.
Lest we forget it took John Glenn THREE attempts to win statewide in the Buckeye State. This is hardly unusual there.
Flashback to 1974 BTW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3gThGnavc0
And Gov. DeWine got to his position after previously having served two terms as US Senator, before losing to Brown. He's also been Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, and a US House member.
This really speaks to how empty the Dem bench is of populist liberals in places lik OH.
Brown will be 74 in 2026. The idea that we don't have anyone who fits his profile but is like 20-30 years younger is pretty disconcerting. More than anything Dems need to aggressively find liberal working class populists and get them to run for lower level offices.
Tim Ryan is the closest. Maybe if guys like Joe Schiavoni want to come back to politics
Exactly. They won’t be able to win over a lot of lower middle class voters until they at least rhetorically pay homage to economic populism.
95% agreed. While it is waaaaay too early to be predicting 2026 midterm elections, they don’t typically go well for the party in power. Especially for Trump bc he’s about to do a bunch of crazy shit. Brown can win in a good year and we’ve seen him do it three times.
The 5% I’m hesitant on is running losers. It’s not a plus, that’s for damn sure. When you’re done, you’re done. But, OH isn’t the type of state where we can let a bunch of local Dems fight it out in a primary and then the national Dems have to decide if the winner is worth the investment. We need someone donors think can win from Day 1 otherwise it turns into some 10-to-1 money blow out and we lose by 15%.
Unless OH Dems have some secret amazing politician we don’t know about, seems like Brown is the best chance we’ve got.
I disagree with the entire post here
Can he go for governor?
He could. But I think his heart is in federal policy.
If he wants to run, then by all means go for it. Voters might end up having buyers' remorse in two years, and there may be no better person to take advantage of it than the one that they unwisely just voted out.
Still, he'll be 74 years old in 2026. Even if he returns to office, he can't run forever. I'm well aware of how tough Ohio has become but we need to build up a bench of candidates to take advantage of future changes in opinion or the electorate.
He is 72 right now. He will be 74 in two years. He could make it competitive but it's more likely I think he runs for DNC Chair.
If you could humour my fantasy here: What would happen if we somehow pull a rabbit out of the hat and win the remaining uncalled races (i.e. all California, IA-01, and AK)? With Gaetz's resignation, the house would be 217-217. The vote for Speaker would then be tied. Would they make a compromise, or would they go without until the special election?
Go on, Donald, please pick some more cabinet members from the House Republican Caucus. Go on, I dare you – you can do it!
Any Cabinet posts that Don Bacon or Mike Lawler could take?
On a related fantasy: Matt Gaetz resigned his House seat. I would love to see the Senate reject his AG nomination – and America being rid of him for the foreseeable future. A better fit for Matt and his skill set might be ambassador to Tuvalu, Palau or North Macedonia.
He's running for governor if he's rejected by the Senate (his father will fund him)
Right. If the 2024 election proved anything, it's that the most awful people in the world never go away.
these folks are indeed vampires hunting for another 'meal'
Staaaawwwppp! 🤣🤣🤣 If only the rest of us had their level of confidence. Imagine what we could do.
"I am calling on the House Ethics Committee to preserve and share their report and all relevant documentation on Mr. Gaetz with the Senate Judiciary Committee."
. – Dick Durbin
“I can’t understand any situation under which we would deny ourselves access to full and complete information [in the House Ethics Committee report on Matt Gaetz]. Part of this is not only to determine fitness for the nominee, it’s also to protect the president. Because there may be information that the investigation would find forthcoming that would ultimately be an embarrassment to the president. So this is for all of the above reasons, we need to get access to everything.”
. John Cornyn
He is really the perfect person to be governor of Florida. I can't think of a better match.
not to me
I mentioned this in yesterday's thread but strangely enough, there's one issue not mentioned which Gaetz has divided the GOP on: Marijuana.
Gaetz has argued for a pro-cannabis agenda since he originally got elected to the House back in 2016. If he's pissing off Republicans across the board in Congress, this issue happens to be one of them. Kevin McCarthy is certainly no exception.
But aside from this, Gaetz's agenda has been clear - Disruption.
It’s a non-issue. The GOP tried clutching their pearls to no avail bc weed is chill and fun and voters agree. The real issue is how much coke he does.
Agreed. Not praising Gaetz for doing this but he happens to have a better record on it than many Republicans in the House.
Those races have been called by other outlets.
Right now Decision Desk has 4 remaining races to be called - AK-AL, CA-13, CA-21 and CA-45.
So best case scenario (i.e. we pull out a miracle in the first two, and hold serve in the latter two) - it ends up 218-216 without Gaetz.
CA-21 is still uncalled? Costa is one of my least favorite Democrats, but he is ahead by over 5000 votes. Are they waiting for many more votes to be counted? That part of California has really low turnout elections. CA-13 is closer, with Adam Gray 3765 votes behind Rep. Duarte. Maybe it is good to be cautious about calling races but at this point I think only CA-45 is really in doubt.
Thanks, David, to your commitment to staying and writing. It's critical that we ALLLLL remember that they won an election, which is a battle - they have not yet won the war. If you're interested, here are things that ALL of us can do today, whether we are in red, blue or purple areas.
https://docjessdcw.substack.com/p/meeting-the-moment-things-to-do-today
Let's do something a little more positive today and make a list of places that flipped from Trump 2020 to Harris 2024.
I'll start:
Wolfeboro, NH
Dayton, MN
Warren, CT
Brooks, ME
Waite, ME
I hope we can maybe revisit this in the weekend open thread; it hopefully will draw more attention. ??
Also it is too early to know for sure which California counties may flip. By the end of tomorrow more will have been counted. Early on it looked for a while that Orange had flipped back to the GOP but the later count has Harris ahead. Fun fact about CA-Senate: Steve Garvey is losing in both counties where he played baseball (L.A. Dodgers and S.D. Padres) but is ahead by a point in Orange County. Maybe that is because he never played for the Anaheim Angels?
Lmao😂 about Garvey (frankly I'd forgotten that he was running because the race was between Porter and Schiff in reality and frankly Schiff used a brilliant strategy to box Porter out) hoping Porter stays in political life
Katie Porter is considering her options after leaving the House. She has been rumored to be looking at CA-Gov in '26. Other options that would make sense are Attorney General or Insurance Commissioner among the statewide offices. It depends on who runs for which office. If Kamala Harris runs for Governor then it would be more likely that AG Rob Bonta would run for re-election. There are a lot of moving parts here. I am sure that Katie will stay involved in politics even if she is not running for office. Now Dave Min can deal with the headaches of getting re-elected in the swing district (CA-47).
Agreed Porter should next run statewide; insurance Commission makes lots of sense(is LG on a ticket? In CA?)
CA- Lt Gov is elected separately. The current Lt Gov ,Eleni Kounalakis, is running for Gov, so that will be open. Eleni is termed out, so she does not have the option that AG Rob Bonta has of running for re-election.
Given how chaotic the homeowners and even auto insurance markets are in California, my advice to anyone who wants a political life beyond insurance commissioner is don't run.
Harris for Gov? No no no, she’s done. I guess you tell me bc you’re from CA but damn, that would be a sad vote. CA is blue enough to do it but what a kick in the teeth. I did my laundry the other day and found a Harris/Walz button while unloading the washer bc I left it in my pocket. Damn near started crying in the laundromat. She’s done and we’re moving forward, I hope.
Hell yeah Dayton, MN! The past decade for that city has been crazy. They used to be a cornfield town you only knew about if you drove the backroads in/out of Minneapolis to NW exurbs. Now, they have a freeway exit and we’re going to get a state house seat out of them someday soon. They’re much bluer than they should be at this point (only 10k population) but it’s all been 2nd ring suburb McMansion college educated type of growth.
Per Wiki, the population grew 55.5% from 2010-2020, 4671 to 7262 people. In 2023, it’s at 10157, a 39.9% increase in three years. All because we finally finished highway 610 and connected it to the freeway. It’s one of those, “Ah shucks, I love government planning and infrastructure” moments. That city will hopefully be netting Dems thousands of votes someday all because we built a road.
I love comments like these that provide local color.
Breaking: Alex Jones’ Infowars has just been sold to pay part of his $1.5 billion defamation penalty after he for years falsely claimed that the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax. The purchaser: The Onion!
Under The Onion’s ownership, we can safely assume that "Infowars" election coverage and other news will skew considerably closer to reality.
https://www.axios.com/2024/11/14/alex-jones-infowars-the-onion
If only the same thing could somehow happen to Fox...
For a while, I dreamed of what Newsmax might become if Dominion’s defamation lawsuit resulted in them becoming the new owners. I imagine Newsmax’s 2024 election would have been very different. But, alas, they settled out of court.
Very curious what they plan to do with it
Well, the fact that Sandy Hook parents are involved, and that "Everytown for Gun Safety" is one of the first sponsors, gives us some indication.
The article I read about it said they planned to turn it into a satirical site against conspiracy theories and extreme right wing nonsense. And, they made sure to work with the Sandy Hook families and get their backing. It’s like a fairytale ending on top of a nightmare.
The Onion is absolutely getting into heaven with this level of karma.
What are they actually buying here other than the Infowars domain name, an email list, and maybe some studio equipment?
Good question. "The deal includes Infowars' website, product inventory, customer lists, social media accounts, and intellectual property."
It’s also unclear how much they’re paying.
Given that the parents are involved, I suspect they wanted to prevent Infowars from just continuing on the same horrible track under other new owners.
Pelosi filed for reelection this morning; at this rate, Wiener's going to be termed out of the State Senate by the time he can finally run for the promotion.
I wouldn't be surprised if she sticks around for another term after this one, but filing for reelection at this point is more pro forma than anything. It enables her to fundraise giant gobs of money. Considering the election results, there's presumably a lot of pressure on her to do that to help set us up for 2026.
If I were her I'd like to help organize a big Dem House win in 2026 (and it's close enough that we don't really need a "wave" to take it back). Then finally retire after that last crowning achievement.
I would hope when Pelosi ends up retiring that it won't be just Weiner running in the primary. I had this criticism of how the CA-12 race ended up being when Barbara Lee announced her run for the Senate.
Frankly, with San Francisco having already voting Mayor London Breed out of office and voting for the Measure to establish an Inspector General's office in city government, I would prefer the CA-11 race to be competitive in the primary process so San Francisco voters actually have more choices.
Also, just from knowing the liberal base of SF, they aren't unanimously fans of Weiner.
Some random election musings now that the dust has settled a bit..
- Even though the Nates are calling this election within the normal polling error, once again Trump was underestimated. We should be glad he can’t run again — I would literally add 3 points to any poll he’s in because people can’t figure out how to reach his low-trust voters.
- The awful early vote numbers from NV, AZ, FL turned out to be pretty indicative of the final result. Folks were wrong to wave that evidence away.
- We’ll have to wait one more cycle to see if this is a realigning election or not, but Trump may have just expanded the playing field for the near future by bringing NJ, VA, MN, NH within 5 points after relatively blowouts in 2020. No reason the next GOP nominee won’t make a serious play for them like we did for GA, AZ. People laughed at Trump doing events in these states but.. he narrowed the gap considerably.
I disagree about this last part though; Trump is his own brand electorally, that brand is not transferable to generic R imo
It works two ways: Generic R might not bring out the Trump cultists, at least not in force, but there are still probably a substantial number of GOP-inclined voters who refuse to vote for Trump but would for others with the red branding not too closely associated with him. (Many of them of course wouldn't vote for Harris, either and so may not be winnable for any Dem.)
But I think that if states like those listed (which weren't all "within 5 points", but that's nitpicky) didn't go red this time then they probably won't in 2028--note GOP dropoffs from 2004-08 and 2016-20 in many states.
Yeah the margins in those states was even worse in 2016 but they proceeded to bounce back (we also didnt lose any surprise downballot races in those states). I think Trump carries unique strength but until Dems can punch their weight in the social media environment they are vulnerable in lots of places.
It was very easy to see that Florida was gonna be a dumpster fire based on early vote numbers and one really had to twist themselves into a pretzel to shrug off the Nevada early vote data as well. The fact that the early vote in so many Republican counties outperformed the total number of votes cast in 2020 was also a warning sign that once again Trump would outperform expectations. I think the biggest factor this cycle in why Trump's vote was underestimated was the swing in the nonwhite vote wasn't sufficiently factored into the polling models. It was no coincidence that the most heavily Hispanic states were the ones where the polls were the furthest off (Texas, Florida, Arizona).
If the Democrats continue to run campaigns where the managerial class is the target audience, then you can definitely put more states on the board for the 2028 battleground. The problem is that they now depend on the managerial class votes to even get their 226 electoral vote baseline. Minnesota would be as red as Iowa right now if they hadn't co-opted 3M and Best Buy executives from upscale suburbs into their coalition. And it's gonna be incredibly hard to wrestle back the industrial towns even if Trumpism 2.0 is an abysmal failure as, in just three Presidential cycles, the Democratic Party isn't even a consideration for millions of two-time Obama voters.
It was clear to me in 2016 that trading coalitions was gonna be an electoral loser, and it's only gotten worse since then given that diploma divide has crossed racial and ethnic lines....and as college enrollment overall plummets. There were only so many votes to be found by repeatedly doubling down on the managerial class, and Democrats found pretty much all of them they were gonna get in 2020. Governing always cleaves majority coalitions so there will be vulnerabilities in Trump's 2024 coalition, but right now it's very difficult to see how Democrats find their way back until a uniquely charismatic figure fosters the next generational realignment.
In your opinion, what would be the best way to move on from our seemingly too narrow appeal?
Only speaking for me; my strategy is simple; Let Trump Be Trump
Yes although I think it would be beneficial that as Trump is being Trump, running against Trump shouldn't be the sole thing Democrats should think about heading to the 2026 midterms.
I think you should always offer a positive message but the reality is that turning the national campaign into a Trump referendum is the best strategy in my view
Agreed. I think though that at some point after Trump leaves office Democrats are going to have to realize that they can no longer run against Trump or Trumpism anymore if they want to ensure their viability towards voters.
But yes, there is going to be plenty of ammunition Democrats have with the 2026 midterms a bit over two years away.
heh, fellow JVL/Bulwark reader!
The politics of health care is dicey but with costs continuing to spiral out of control and hospitals closing in smaller communities throughout the country, I think the issue gives Democrats an opening to be heard again by voters who have tuned them out completely, especially if Trump repeals any part of Obamacare.
Beyond that, Democrats are gonna have to accept that voters aren't gonna tolerate illegal immigration, so the yearslong effort to blur the lines by whatever means necessary have fallen flat and will continue to if they haven't learned their lesson.
Voters recoiling at overreach in one direction doesn't meant that they want an ideological activist agenda the other way. They were appalled at children being separated and put into cages, but that doesn't mean they want all border crossing decriminalized or that making that part of the Dem platform is a good idea. And I say that as someone who wants more (legal) immigration.
As for health care, that is not and is unlikely to be a GOP strength. They don't have to go for full Obamacare repeal to take the brunt of voter anger over higher costs and/or lesser service, given their previous record and that they won't be able to blame it on a Dem WH or either house of Congress.
Mark, you know I have great respect for your ability to predict elections.
However, I really wish you wouldn't call college-educated voters the "managerial class". Most of them are not managers (and there are plenty of managers who don't have a college degree). These people are doctors/nurses, lawyers, teachers/professors, accountants, scientists, engineers, tech workers, even finance people. I know plenty of these people, and many of them actively dislike the person whose job it is to manage them.
That being said, I agree that the trading of coalitions hasn't been great for us. If the trade was just college-educated voters for the WWC, that would've been fine, but when the Hispanic and Asian working class moves to right as well, that's a big problem for us.
What term would be better? I used to say "college boys" but I thought was more reductive and insulting.
Also our base has more college girls than college boys.
How about just "college-educated voters"? Or is that too cumbersome?
pretty simple imo
There seems to be an itch of disparagement that "college-educated voters" just won't scratch.
Is it that college folks are the "target" - or is it more "the group who is willing to listen?"
The issue is - Democrats had little choice but to trade coalitions. The GOP has increasingly become the party of cultural conservatism and anti-immigrant nationalism.
Its why Trump could so easily cast off free trade as a defining GOP feature, or Josh Hawley, in bright red Missouri can run on antitrust issues. Because ultimately their voters really want to keep the current cultural tide at bay, limit immigration, and ban abortion.
But Democrats - the party where most cultural liberals reside and that was the favorite of non-whites (at least broadly) couldnt really turn its back on those cultural issues.
I would also note - this is the first time since 1980 that Democrats have had to run with an unpopular incumbent. Just like 2008 wasnt indicative of how elections going forward would go, neither was 2024.
The idea that we cant get back 2% of the vote in PA, and 1% in MI and WI seems a little overwrought.
One interesting thing is that young people are moving towards the GOP. It makes sense. For all of liberals concerns about Trump, ultimately his term was good for most people economically (peace and prosperity) and if you are young COVID likely meant you skipped school for a year too. Then they reached adulthood during Biden's term and wow, they cant afford rent or food. Bummer.
Plus liberals are now the fogey establishment (one reason we absolutely need to ditch all of these oldsters - get anyone over 60 out of leadership).
But this actually might make things a little easier for Dems to transition towards a more culturally populist message. So much of the drive for change that I mentioned above comes from young people - we needed to do student loan foregiveness, and maximal immigration policy, and focus on climate change to appease young college grads.
If they are already less liberal, then we can ignore them a little more in favor of doing things that are broadly more popular, but less popular with young college students.
Of course the problem doesnt entirely go away - young college students are still a big part of the coalition (as we are seeing with I/P) but it might help.
imo your 60 number is ridiculous (getting where you are coming from but 60???)
I get what you're saying but the danger comes with the multiplier effect. The more that upscale suburbanites define the Democratic base, the more we tend to speak to them exclusively. This is why Harris's closing message was limited to reproductive rights, preserving democracy, and fascism. They convinced themselves that the swing voter they needed to reach couldn't be reached with kitchen table issues, and that if they litigated kitchen table issues they'd risk risk losing the microscopic "Nikki Haley voter" demographic that they delusionally believed held the keys to the kingdom.
Beyond that, as Gretchen Whitmer pleaded with the Harris campaign last month to include more economic messaging in their advertising, several people here openly mused that that was a bad idea as it was too deferential to working-class whites and didn't stay on message about abortion rights.
This is the multiplier effect that compounds losses. First you lose the storyline...and then you make decisions that ensure the storyline remains lost by convincing yourselves that those you've lost are to be ignored moving forward.
And while you're technically right that bouncing back from 1-2% losses in just enough places to thread an Electoral College needle remains possible for a party whose coalition is in retreat, that strategy only works in cycles where you're unambiguously on offense. Typically, once places start trending against you, it gets harder to turn that tide once it's in motion. Until there's a complete overhaul in Democratic messaging, I don't see sustained growth in the coalition.
One thing that frustrates me about Democratic messaging is that much of the party seems unable to consistently put forth positive messages about what we stand for and have accomplished. Many of our most effective electoral arguments are about not letting Republicans get their way on issues like abortion or health care; even the ACA only really became an asset politically after Republicans nearly repealed it and we could run on "don't let them take it away".
That's especially so when we're in office and trying to defend it. We may have an easier time with messaging over the next few years as much of it will be devoted to criticising Republican policy and politicians, but while that might temporarily bring a significant number of voters back it won't make for "sustained growth". Absent a change in messaging--both in what we say and how and where we say it--at best we can get back into power only to go through the same "wash, rinse, repeat" cycle.
I mean . .I don't know about other places but Harris had tons of economic-focused ads here in Georgia (likely knowing the electorate here is more conservative on abortion). It definitely wasn't a "2014 Cory Gardner" campaign it's being made out to be.
It’s also a global phenomenon playing out in plenty of other countries, at that (Canada in particular, as the BC results show). So it’s something we need to adapt to because it’s not something we can reverse alone here.
I think this is a little too reductionist and simplified. Outside of immigration, the Biden Administration was the most WWC-friendly administration since at least LBJ, literally rejuicing entire rural and small-town areas through revitalized mnaufacturing via CHIPS and the IRA, building on the ACA and expanding health care access to the working class, and aiding unions including a billion-dollar pension bailout. Pretty progressive agenda for a coalition supposedly dominated by "Best Buy executives."
80% of the switch is due to vibes, and yes IMO Dems will need to engage in some Sista Souljah moments with the more extreme parts of their coalition on immigration, trans issues, and criminal justice, but I think that is eminently doable (already happening organically on the latter issue as Dems oust the post-Floyd LW DAs) and a lot of that will fade to the background anyway as voters again have to re-learn they actually don't like 90% of MAGA policy. Concurrently, we did much better below the POTUS line and the non-Trump elections are showing we can hold together a lot of the Obama coalition when Trump isn't on the ballot.
I don't disagree with you about the policy, but it was so poorly communicated that it was tantamount to a tree falling in the forest and nobody hearing it.
I mean, Biden & his admin were out doing ribbon cuttings, speeches etc. touting everything they were doing for the past 3 years but the media just ignored it. I'm honestly not sure what else they could've done. The press wanted Trump back so badly (and you can see it in the coverage of the Trump cabinet picks . .they fucking LOVE the "palace intrigue" of it all it's sick) & now they have their wish.
I don’t like this comment but I think we need to listen to it.
He narrowed the gap everywhere. I dont think an election where the incumbent has sub-40% approval is really going to be indicative of much. I wouldn't say this is a highwater mark for the GOP - they could win in 2028 and do well enough that Vance or whoever is highly popular in 2032.
Also - VA and NJ ended up being a bit above 5%.
I don't agree; imo Trump is unique in his vote getting abilities and even he is going to obtain less than 50% when all votes are counted; imo Vance will never lead the ticket (unless Trump dies in office)
Ehhhh I would not rule out Vance as the nominee. He's going to be Trump's pitbull and build up a lot of cred among the base. There also aren't any strong alternatives; DeSantis is a paper tiger. Haley's career with the GOP is dead. MAYBE Kemp manages to bob and weave enough if Trump leaves offices near W Bush approval levels (which I think is highly possible).
I don't think so; we shall see
Republican Kevin Lincoln has conceded the CA-09 race to incumbent Democrat Josh Harder. Also, Decision Desk HQ projects the Harder win.
https://nitter.poast.org/KevinLincolnCD9/status/1856918732473295103#m
Dems pretty much guaranteed to have 213. 216 is the max.
Yeah I'm thinking Dems will end up at 214.
Of the 4 races DDHQ hasn't called (CA-13, CA-21, CA-45, AK-AL) I think Dems are definitely favored in 2 of them. Costa in CA-21 will almost certainly win and I'd much rather be Tran in CA-45 at this point. I wouldn't be surprised if Gray pulls it out in CA-13, but I'd rather be Duarte, and I'd much rather be Begich in Alaska (although I really, really hope Peltola can manage to win).
Agree. Which mean a 0 change in seats.
All the democrats that lost this closely should run again (and Peltola for Senate) imo
I have a sneaking suspicion that Gray wins in CA-13 - Merced results so far are oddly red (a 19-point shift from 2020?!). Guessing those late votes are quite blue. So, I'm guessing we end up at 215. But 214 is absolutely possible.
I thought CA-13 had more or less been called for Duarte?
No. Not yet.
76% votes are in. Gray is down by 2.4% points.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/california-us-house-district-13-results
PA-Sen, I don’t care if the math is challenging or what’s still unknown but the fact that McCormick is still trying to stop votes from being counted does not convince he has this in the bag. You don’t try to stop counting votes if you’re that confident you won. https://x.com/maddymcdaniel14/status/1857099466811027501?s=46&t=NhLQrgM30BfZmjI73-3rMg
Its weird because the math is basically impossible at this point. 60k ballots outstanding with almost all of Philly in. Casey would have to win 72% of the vote to win. Its just not happening. Its just weird that McCormick is going this hard on challenging this stuff given that he's likely to be up by 15k or so when the counting gets wrapped up tomorrow.
One thing to keep in mind, and this is the part about the math being impossible argument I’m not overly convince by: Casey lead McCormick on early mail-voting 64-34 while McCormick lead with Election Day voting 55-43. 71% of the total vote is from Election Day whereas 28% is from early mail in voting. The McCormick campaign claims there is not enough votes from Philly for Casey to win yet he’s trying to stop votes from being counted and not just the ones from Philly. One possible scenario that no one has mentioned is that maybe the remains ballots are all over the state and not just from specific areas but are still Democratic because what is clear is that while Republicans may have done a little better with mail in voting, they still heavily prefer to vote in person. So it could be Dem voters, even in red and swingy counties like Bucks and Erie, are what breaks more towards Casey. I could be wrong but it’s just a thought.
The math isn't impossible to close a 26,500-vote deficit with 60,000 remaining ballots. It's a long shot but it's not impossible.
It’s not about confidence it’s about taking care of business. He ran to win and his campaign is working to make sure that happens.
In 2020, Tennessee had the largest Trump margin in absolute votes of any State. This year it's back to being Texas, followed by Florida, with Tennessee in third.
What’s up with the Pennsylvania Senate race? Early this morning, NBC and other sources were indicating that there were just over 80,000 votes to count. Now suddenly NBC shows there are 129,000 uncounted votes!
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/pennsylvania-senate-results#senate-results
If accurate, this surely is good news for Senator Bob Casey’s prospects!
It’s baffling how often that number has changed. PA needs a way more transparent elections system
Worth noting: Decision Desk HQ has slightly different numbers from NBC, and shows Casey having reduced McCormick’s lead to 25,740 votes. However, they don’t post a figure for uncounted votes.
https://decisiondeskhq.com/results/2024/General/races/pennsylvania-us-senate-all-parties-general-election/
I’m hoping Stephen Mikalik will weigh in. He seems to have good sources and a good overview.
Agreed; there are way too many speculative numbers being thrown around; oh, fuck McCormick and his junior high school whining (apologies for the language but it's irritating to get constant whining from that hypocritical POS)
This spreadsheet - which based on some of the comments in the cells, seems to be based on actually calling the counties suggests its less than 60k now.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N7NOlleN9QbJzxffRdPT00MnqJ7lQy3ssa7vtIsQqhY/edit?gid=468071042#gid=468071042
Incidentally, sometime in the past couple of hours DecisionDesk called PA.
Correction: Just 9 minutes ago. 2:25PM ET.
I wish some official would make a definitive estimate at this stage.
PA-Sen, NBC News now says there’s an estimate of 129k votes left to count. Up from 82K. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/pennsylvania-senate-results
Also, GOP running ads attacking Casey for the recount? https://x.com/adimpact_pol/status/1857084294264484075?s=46&t=NhLQrgM30BfZmjI73-3rMg
Someone care to explain what’s going on here?
No idea. Operating in the dark without an official announcement
I'm not sure anyone involved with this actually knows enough to explain it.
Makes sense to me. It’s a new evolution of their marketing tactics when it comes to election integrity. Money is almost unlimited in politics at this point so throw some attack ads at him. Get people pissed that an election could be “stolen” from them.
Any idea where those votes are from? Seems important.
NBC's website shows a scattering of uncounted vote in multiple counties, but definitely not an outsized number from Philadelphia (11,000) or Allegheny (8,500) if the numbers are to be believed. They're showing 9,500 from Erie County, which is one of the largest numbers of remaining ballots.
I'm at the point of just watching and waiting; way too many speculative numbers being thrown around imo
Casey leads in Erie County grant it it’s 49.4 to 48.1. Who knows. I wasn’t surprised that Casey could still win Erie and Harris lose it.
Jon Ossoff wants Nikema Williams to step down as Georgia State Democratic Chair. Williams has declined, citing the fact that Harris won more votes than Biden.
The Young Georgia Democrats have also asked her to resign among 22 other Democratic candidates most of whom lost this year. They say fundraising was also subpar.
Hopefully they can figure this out considering that Ossoff is in for a very tough fight in two years, possibly against Brian Kemp himself.
https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2024/11/12/some-georgia-democrats-call-new-leadership-state-party/
Considering the environment, a 2.5 point loss isn't bad and i don't think there's anything a state chair could do about it. A lot of times these things are personal beefs and wanting "their guy" in place.
All things considered, I'm on Ossoff side; his race is an absolutely must win(no disrespect to Williams but he probably has his legitimate reasons)
Of course.
Then following the 2026 midterms, we have Raphael Warnock up for re-election in 2028. Very important to keep both him and Ossoff in office as they made history in GA.
I'd trust Ossof's office to not make reflexive stances like this in public if they didn't think it was a real issue. Williams is a classic ATL machine pol and I think they're better options on the table.
Regarding Ossoff:
Trump beat Harris in GA by 2.2% points, which isn't exactly remarkable for the GOP when you compare 2016 where he beat Clinton in the state by 5.09% points.
With Trump being in office now, Ossoff still has the ability to get the edge in grassroots and fundraising now that he's an incumbent Senator. Remains to be seen what happens in the first two years while Trump is POTUS.
That is assuming that Kemp himself wants to be running for senate in an environment that will likely remain extremely toxic. Even if he does run, there's no guarantee that Trump or Musk will prop up a another batshit lunatic like Greene to run. Either way, 2026 should be a significantly more favorable environment for Democrats, perhaps even moreso than 2018 since there likely won't be the issue of Supreme Court votes like there was back then, only the possible preservation of the conservative majority. If Musk's behavior in response to vote for a new GOP senate majority leader is any indication tho, Trump, Musk and their allies will throw all the money and resources they can at Republicans they deem hostile and not sufficiently loyal, including Kemp.
Kemp clearly has presidential ambitions but I'm not sure the best route to that is being a Senator first in which you point out will be a very toxic environment.
She needs to step down. I like her as a congressmember but congressmembers should not be state party chairs. One of the main reasons is because she’s an elected federal official she is forbidden from fundraising for the state party. We have plenty of folks with talent who could step in who’d do a great job.
Why is a member of Congress also the chair of a state party? A swing state, no less. How does she have two full-time jobs and do them successfully? She isn’t even in GA most of the time!!! As if I haven’t shook my head enough the past fucking week at Democrats. Unacceptable. She needs to pick a job.
BREAKING: Democrat Janelle Bynum wins election to U.S. House in Oregon's 5th Congressional District, beating incumbent Lori Chavez-DeRemer. #APRaceCall at 12:47 p.m. EST. apnews.com/hub/election-2024
AP now calls it when it's been obvious for days but they can't wait for something murkier in Penn senate