Ironically the big concern with some Virginia Democrats with 2025 is that there's a really good chance NONE of the three statewide candidates will be from NOVA. The opposite of 2021 when they were all NOVA based.
I honestly don't care about this as long as the Democratic slate is diverse; Spanberger, Rouse, and for the AG I really like that young looking guy that's actually much older than he looks (forgetting his name atm)
can you help keep us updated??.. very interested in the margins of all contested special elections coming this year; someone reported yesterday that Trump already is like negative -10 in approval rating
I think 270toWin does a great job of showing results in special elections, just click on the news tab, and since it’s today, it should at the top, or just under the Peters retirement article.
From RRH Elections: "IA-SD-35 is an R+7 (16/20) seat covering rural areas north of the Quad Cities around DeWitt, Clinton, and Maquoketa. Professional conservative activist Katie Whittington (R) should be a moderately strong favorite over school board member Mike Zimmer (D), but an upset could be a slight possibility if liberals are energized." https://rrhelections.com
Yeah, I thought Peters had another term in him and with Stabenow retiring thought he might stick around a bit for seniority reasons. See if Whitmer has any interest if she doesn't want to take the plunge in 28.
I’m hoping Senators are gaming this out, now. He should run for another term if he wants to but then his next re-election is 2032. He’ll be even older in a Pres year and more likely to want to retire. He’s better off retiring now during what will hopefully be a truly devastating midterm for the GOP.
Sure, but he's got to the best pure politician of the bunch, especially when it comes to interviews and public speaking. Will be an interesting primary to watch
The realist in me expects her to say "no" to the Senate in 2026 if she has Presidential ambitions. These days for us, the Governors mansions look like better launchpads than the US Senate. Barack Obama was the exception, rather than the rule.
I'm a little more skeptical/optimistic. I think Clinton and Harris each had their own bad hands to play that hurt them more than their gender but I would agree sexism is a political force/headwind.
I'm going to exercise caution with this as Trump was taking the steam away from the 2016 and 2024 presidential races.
A woman presidential candidate might be effective if she were a uniting figure like Barack Obama was in 2008 as long as she would bridge the divide between the polarizing sides.
Remember the circumstances under which the first Black presidential candidate won in the U.S. Trump is popular with a lot of idiots, but he brings chaos, and just as voters voted for a Black man to fix what white men had ruined almost to the point of a new Great Depression, they may well turn to a woman to fix what men ruined in the next 4 years. But either way, I don't see Democratic voters acting on the basis of anyone's sexism in our primary voting.
I think it is less "anti-washington" sentiment that makes this a problem and more just the crunch of having to pivot immediately from a Senate campaign to a presidential campaign and the endless charges from whoever the opponent is saying she will be too busy running for President to do anything for Michigan. If she doesn't want to run in 28 though she should go for it.
She could, but it's a lot easier to run a national campaign without a day job.
I didn't think she'd run, back when I thought Peters was going to stay in office. Now that that's changed, I have to change my thinking.
My best guess is that it comes down to the balance of her answer on two factors. (1) How badly does she want to stick around in politics if she cannot move up? Is a sideways job change desirable or would she rather retire? Is being a career politician worth it? (2) How strongly does she rate her chance at actually getting that promotion? Is it worth the costs to seeking that promotion if she can guarantee a senate seat?
I already made one wrong guess here, so I won't try making another. But that's what I'd expect the decision points to come down to.
Those are legit considerations I would have with myself in that position. But, there is one overarching one - Say fuck it all and go for becoming the first female POTUS. If this were Deal or No Deal, this is a no deal!!!
Those of us from the SSP days know her name well. We wanted to her run for Gov in 2010 and she said no, not the time. She said it again in 2014. Both were horrible midterm year elections and she knew to not waste her shine on crappy electoral years.
That woman has a plan and is thinking the long game.
I think his retirement was mostly expected from people behind the scenes. A lot of times, longtime pols retire in a cycle expected to be favorable to their party so they have a better chance at holding a seat. Jerry Costello did that in IL-12 a decade ago.
I wonder how much of this is the perceived failures or lack of success of Peters as Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chair in 2022 and 2024. Peters isn't that old, especially for a senator. In fact many individuals in their 70s run for office, especially for senate. He may have some underlying health issues, but barring that this may just be internal pressure to step down. 2026, unless some massive scandal or anomaly happens, should be a very favorable year for Democrats including in the senate and in swing states like Michigan. Perhaps we'll get more details later along with how the MI senate race now plays out.
I wouldn't call Peters time as senate chair a failure but others from what I've read see it as a failure or "perceived failure." There has been some frustration that the Wisconsin senate election in 2022 was very winnable and Mandela Barnes was neglected due to perceptions of being a weak candidate and thus didn't get nearly enough funding. Many would also point out a very winnable race in PA in 2024 that somehow more could have been done to win. Personally, I don't think Peters was a "failure" though I do think his time in this role was rather lackluster. He's no Howard Dean but he got the job done considering all the chaos in DC. The problem is his "perceived failure" which translates to what the DNC failed to achieve, even if much of that is beyond his control.
Frankly, I see problems with the DSCC as not unique to when Peters ran it.
There were problems with the DSCC even back in 2020 when it chose to endorse Sara Gideon's Senate campaign against Senator Susan Collins back in June 2019, months before the primary race was even held. According to Nathan Bernard, a reporter at the worker-owned magazine Mainer (when he was interviewed by CBS News), the DSCC's endorsement of Gideon's campaign killed her chances of unseating Susan Collins.
The DSCC can make plenty of errors. The way to deal with this is to be smart in when the right time to make the investment for a particular campaign. I'd prefer the primary process be dealt with where the Senate candidates themselves run their own campaigns and the DSCC comes in later, not earlier.
Many politicians stick around until they are no longer able to hold office anymore, but not all. He'll be retiring from politics at 68, having served 18 years in elected federal office and 25 years in total elected office.
We're in an era where senators' primary day job is confirming executive nominees and making last minute votes to avoid government shutdowns or debt limit implosions (where all the details are decided by someone else). Why stick around to do boring work that any other decent democrat can do basically the same thing and he can go enjoy retirement?
For this whole decade 2026 is the most promising one for a democrat in a swing seat/state to retire. Obviously we don't know the outcome yet, but nobody does when they're deciding whether or not to retire. It's as good a bet as he can count on to give his successor a better chance of being another democrat.
I expect Josh Well to win that primary in Florida; he's raised an impressive 300k(according to what I have been told); don't think anyone will actually beat Fine in the general, but the margins could tell us something
If Parrott wants to return to office, then a state legislative seat or a county level office (he lives in Washington County, which is mostly red except for Hagerstown) are available in 2026, as in MD these are mostly only up in midterm years.
But having lost last year by 6.3 points in a district that Harris won by 5.7, in an open seat in a not very good Dem year, I don't see him or any other Republican knocking off an incumbent in what will probably be a bluer year.
in Florida, since I have little hope left here, I want to see Moskovitz nominated for governor and Fried for Senate (if she is interested); otherwise, I wouldn't mind seeing Castor run for statewide office (Kathy); not sure but I am betting Jane Castor wins re-election
In Florida, is there some weakening of the GOP hold? The Republican supermajority in the state legislature has rejected DeSantis's call for a special session and is supporting its own immigration bill instead of one he has pushed.
There is no path to a D victory in Florida if we’re now consistently losing Miami-Dade by 10 - we need to be winning that county by 20 to even have a chance.
The demographic trends are still bad. My home district, FL-22 (Boca/Coral Springs/Parkland), was consistently one of the most D districts in the state; it’s now marginal. Given the people moving in and (perhaps just as importantly) the people moving out, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s R held by the end of the decade.
Agreed. The most vulnerable seats in Florida right now are not the ones held by Anna Paulina Luna and Maria Salazar, it's the seats held by Lois Frankel and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. The only scenario I can envision where Florida ceases to be a sponge for anti-tax cranks is if Trump's threat is actually acted upon and states have to take on their own disaster relief expenses independent from FEMA or the federal government. Until then, right wingers will continue to have it both ways....moving to Florida so that their fortunes are untaxed, and then demanding federal taxpayers foot the bill for rebuilding after every storm.
Will it? At this point Florida is so gone I'd rather it become a republican vote sink, with democrats leaving it for other states and republicans moving in. That helps our odds in other states.
But will that stop the anti-tax cranks from going there if they remain confident that federal disaster relief will always be there to make them whole in lieu of insurance?
All of them? Nah. More than today? Absolutely. There’s already some small signs of instability and in affordability in Florida real estate compared to 5-6 years ago, to say nothing of the 2000s and 2010s boomtimes
I think it's way too early for this assessment; let's see how Trump performs here in the second term; DeSantis is definitely less popular now than 2 years ago when he won re-election
Since you mentioned wanting Fried for the Senate, is she not suited for FL Democratic Party Chair?
I recall there were some successes Democrats had locally in FL that happened to occur in I believe the first year Fried was Chair. Unless I'm mistaken.
Fried may have an easier time fundraising and leading the FL Democratic Party with Trump in office vs Biden being in office but it’s still early to determine that.
Any locals here care to comment on McGreevey and his chances??.. New Jersey is the kind of state where I can see him actually winning.. other opinions welcomed
How are people noting the reaction of their friends/coworkers/family/etc to this past week?
I have been making a concerted effort to avoid following the actions of the current administration, but those actions are a downpour of horseshit into most of my non-political interests. It's an effusive rain of garbage that creeps into everything online. It's hard to avoid. I feel more exhausted from it after this one week than I was at the end of the prior four years of it.
Due to my attempt to avoid this I also avoid talking to people about it in my everyday life. As such I don't know how they're reacting to it. I'm also in more of a bubble than typical in that everyone I know is reliably left leaning, so there's limited information to gather there anyway.
But considering the endless deluge of exasperating headlines we're being bombarded with I am curious. How are the people in everyone's lives acting, the ones that don't care about or follow politics the way people here do? Are they ignoring it, are they remembering why he was so hated in his first term, do they think it's all nothingburgers that's being overhyped?
Normally I'd wait many months, but this past week in politics has been so exhausting to me I was wondering if it was having an early effect.
Doing the best we can. My wife and I talk every night about things we’ve seen in the news, especially trying to look past headlines to see what actually happened.
But it’s rough. It sucks we have to be subjected to this moment in history where the world is going to simply just have to touch the stove. It’s gonna suck.
I haven't had any conversations with Trump voters in the last week, but I think it's a pretty safe bet that almost 100% of the 49.9% is unmoved by anything they've seen. And, for that matter, that about 75% of the 49.9% has heard few or any details of what Trump has actually done in the last seven days. Hell, I'd wager 20% of the 49.9% think Biden is still President.
The comment was in reference to the controversial moves Trump has made in the past seven days and how plugged in his voters are to it. The kitchen table stuff you mention might be what ultimately tanks his popularity but it's not gonna hurt him in his first week.
OK my comment seems like I'm going nowhere related to your comment, but I swear it loops back at the end...
I like to mentally eyeball the country's electorate into three buckets. Four if we want to include non-voters.
The first bucket is reliable democratic voters.
The second bucket is reliable republican voters.
And the third bucket is people that are generally persuadable to vote for either party OR who has a fair enough tilt to either party but can be persuaded to not vote at all.
I don't think too long about how large each bucket truly is. It seems logical to expect that the D and R buckets are not equal in size. The overall composition is going to depend a lot on how strictly we define the people that can be persuaded to not vote instead of voting for their preferred party. Despite that, for simplicity I like to think of them as 40%-40%-20% or 33%-33%-33%, depending on the discussion. Both are almost certainly wrong, but for back of the envelope discussions I think these choices work well. For an election that has already happened I like the 40-40-20 grouping.
That in mind, I'd look at the 49.9% that voted for him slightly differently than you do. ~80% of that group is going to be die hard republicans, the vast majority of whom are now going to be MAGA. Those people (40% of the electorate) will never turn on him. He could come to their home, burn it down, promise to pay them for it but then sue them instead, and he would still have their support.
That group I expect to be wholly unmoved in any circumstances. Doesn't matter what he does, how bad the headlines are, if egg prices are $120/dozen. Doesn't matter. I don't think they'll change. But it's not the whole 49.9% that voted for him that are there.
I'm curious where the non-reliable voters are at. Reliable democrats and reliable republicans are going to react rather predictably to the next four years. What about the unreliable democrats and the true swing voters? What about the unreliable republicans?
A lot of our gains 2018-2022 were in some of that latter group becoming unreliable democrats instead of unreliable republicans. It looks like a decent part of our drop in 2024 was from them sitting out or crossing back over. Are they remembering why they shifted over to us before, are they blissfully not catching all the horrible headlines, do they think the headlines aren't that bad, etc.?
I won't challenge the breakdown of your buckets of voters. It's our information ecosystem that I suspect will keep Trump's coalition intact for the foreseeable future. The part of his voting coalition that spends their free time watching slip and fall videos on Tik Tok are definitely not plugged in to be critical of his first-week moves. The rest of his coalition is consuming media that will either dismiss or ignore entirely the controversial moves he's made.
Bottom line: I suspect there's a vanishingly small share of the 49.9% that is consuming any kind of critical reaction to Trump's opening week. The Trump voters who are reading The Atlantic or the New York Times, or watching network news, where critical reaction to Trump exists are almost all in the nonpersuadable bucket you describe. As for the rest, it's hard to see how exactly they are ever gonna hear a discouraging word about him in the media that they do consume. The cracks in the armor can only be expected to come if economic fundamentals (jobs, prices) noticeably falter. Autocratic behavior alone, no matter how severe, cannot be expected to dissuade them.
If they persist in doing things like send ICE to raid elementary schools that's going to filter through to folks who voted for him who have a problem with that type of enforcement.
Well, I hope you end up wrong but I can see ways that you could be right.
I don't think it changes your answer much, if at all, but I do want to clarify that I'm not so much hopeful of the last week changing people's minds purely on coverage being bad. Although that can factor. I'm thinking on the volume of stuff being covered.
I think society's biggest complaint with his admin is that there was a constant, seemingly daily, drop of "Big News" that was happening. Some stuff purely bad, like scandals. Some stuff announcements. Some stuff policy changes, that can be good or bad to an individual depending on their partisanship. The endlessness of it was exhausting. Seemingly even more exhausting for people that are only sorta into politics at most.
This past week has been that on overdrive. And seeping into so many other areas, not just traditional news media.
I would love to see her run for president in 2028.
I don’t understand some progressives wanting Pete Buttigieg to run for Peters’ seat— he’s not a native Michigander. Mallory McMorrow, Dana Nessel or someone else who has been in Michigan for quite a while would be better.
Because Buttigieg has national ambitions. The only way he has a prayer at getting either the top or second slot is if he becomes a Governor or a Senator. Mayor of South Bend, Indiana doesn't cut it. Especially in the "government is good" party.
I don't think any one thing is going to crush the GOP in 26 but weeks and weeks like this will wear people down and touch everyone at some point. People work in these sectors and use these things.
"Medicaid, Head Start, health centers say they're locked out of federal funding website"
There are also fewer conscientious people in the cabinet to jangle keys in his face to distract him from following through on irrational threats like last time.
The reporting on this has been so weak . . .this is a MAJOR constitituional crises. Trump is essentially trying to become a dictator his second week and Republicans are just "meh, he won the election . . .snicker snicker"
Republican wins: "They have a mandate, the people have spoken, everyone needs to come together and allow them to implement their policy agenda."
Democrat wins: "It's time for them to unite the country and work with republicans to find a way to compromise and implement the republican policy agenda."
The fun part is that these apply even when the republican wins with a minority of the vote or the democrat wins in the largest landslide this century.
Somehow the MSM and the political establishment have become allergic to ever declaring Democrats have a policy mandate. Seemingly every Dem win, no matter how large, is due to special circumstances of the moment, personal factors, campaign quality, or possibly GOP blunders or overreach.
of course but she'll be crisscrossing the country in support of the Democratic candidates way before any official announcement; her unofficial announcement was TODAY
She showed up on the View today, where she said NFW to a Senate run and regarding other runs for office, "I will never totally check out, but I might want to walk the Earth for a little while again, get reacquainted with my family.”
Regarding Buttigieg, I wonder if there's more enthusiasm for him in DC than in Michigan. His political skills are considerable as we know--he'll probably spend a lot of time talking with voters in the red parts of the state if he runs, which is the sort of appeal beyond the base that many say we need. But if he runs for Senate (or governor), he'll probably be under the suspicion that he's just using it as a stepping stone to That Higher Level Election, and that generally doesn't positively impress voters.
Keep in mind that when Buttigeg was Secretary of Transportation under President Biden's administration he ended up overseeing a lot of what Biden pushed for infrastructure investment, particularly in the transportation sector.
It's possible what Buttigeg had done in this aspect did impact MI, not just PA, WI, etc.
"I think she's automatically top tier(won't say more because of the rules)"
What rule is that? I don’t see Rules on any Downballot menu, nor do I get any meaningful result when I do a sitewide search of The Downballot. If there are Rules articulated, I would like to know what they are so I make sure to respect them.
Generally, discussion of 21st century Democratic presidential primaries--past, present, or future--is forbidden, which was also true of DKE and SSP. (Republican presidential primaries are OK for discussion here.)
This sounds like a rule designed to avoid reigniting the acrimony between the Hillary and Bernie camps. I understand the Israel–Palestine conflict is also to be avoid, for similar reasons.
Any other rules? Has The Downballot listed these anywhere? If so, I couldn’t find it.
Swing State Project, an elections analysis blog that David Nir started in 2003. It became part of Daily Kos ("Daily Kos Elections") in 2011, and in 2024 that was spun off into the Downballot.
California Secretary of State Shirley Weber just gave the green light for a campaign to gather signatures for a vote on California leaving the U.S. and becoming an independent country, per Newsweek.
A neat little trick in the VA Senate: a Dem accidentally (?) voted in a way to create a tie, forcing Lt. Gov. Winsome Sears to break it—and officially go on the record against contraception access, which is hardly helpful to her gubernatorial prospects. (Then the measure was revoted on with the entire Democratic majority in favour.)
I'm not sure what Obama won this district by, but I suspect more than 58% in both elections. Few places in the country swung as hard to the right in the Trump era as this Senate district.
The vote was 4,812 for Zimmer and 4,473 for Whittington. For perspective, in 2022, Cournoyer won 14,552-9,292. Obviously, take the win, but it seems like we could be poised for another misleading wave of special elections with slightly elevated Democratic turnout not necessarily reflective of the electoral reality.
I am a huge fan of Aaron Rouse; I'd support him if I lived in VA
He seems great - and provides some geographic diversity, too!
Ironically the big concern with some Virginia Democrats with 2025 is that there's a really good chance NONE of the three statewide candidates will be from NOVA. The opposite of 2021 when they were all NOVA based.
I honestly don't care about this as long as the Democratic slate is diverse; Spanberger, Rouse, and for the AG I really like that young looking guy that's actually much older than he looks (forgetting his name atm)
Yeah, though that’s not necessarily a bad thing
Iowa State Senate special election today. It will probably be a GOP hold, but could show if Iowa Democrats have any fight in them.
can you help keep us updated??.. very interested in the margins of all contested special elections coming this year; someone reported yesterday that Trump already is like negative -10 in approval rating
I'll do my best.
thank you
I think 270toWin does a great job of showing results in special elections, just click on the news tab, and since it’s today, it should at the top, or just under the Peters retirement article.
From RRH Elections: "IA-SD-35 is an R+7 (16/20) seat covering rural areas north of the Quad Cities around DeWitt, Clinton, and Maquoketa. Professional conservative activist Katie Whittington (R) should be a moderately strong favorite over school board member Mike Zimmer (D), but an upset could be a slight possibility if liberals are energized." https://rrhelections.com
thanks for the baseline; now let's wait and see on the results
What sort of voter turnout are you expecting?
Any link to the live count for the special election?
The Democrat is winning the Iowa Senate special election so far. 2 counties still outstanding.
The Democrat won and flipped the seat, 51.8% to 48.2%. The district was trump plus 21% in 2024.
That is awesome! Certainly deserving a celebratory shot of Balvenie.
Thanks👍
MI-SEN: Gary Peters is retiring.
https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2025/01/28/michigan-democratic-senator-gary-peters-will-not-run-for-reelection-to-us-senate-seat-2026/77985876007/
Love to see Nessel run; she's a straight bad ass
Yeah, I feel like the best candidates would be her or Whitmer.
agreed
Giiiiirrllllll, I’d donate as much as I can and force all of my friends to donate as well. MN gays for MI lesbians.
I think that’s partly why he’s retiring. This is a good changing of the guard situation.
A bit of a surprise. Whitmer would be the strongest possibility. If she’s interested.
Yeah, I thought Peters had another term in him and with Stabenow retiring thought he might stick around a bit for seniority reasons. See if Whitmer has any interest if she doesn't want to take the plunge in 28.
I’m hoping Senators are gaming this out, now. He should run for another term if he wants to but then his next re-election is 2032. He’ll be even older in a Pres year and more likely to want to retire. He’s better off retiring now during what will hopefully be a truly devastating midterm for the GOP.
That will probably lead to the primary for Governor thinning out.
Senator Pete??
There are stronger candidates than going with a newcomer to the state.
Sure, but he's got to the best pure politician of the bunch, especially when it comes to interviews and public speaking. Will be an interesting primary to watch
Whitmer is a better politician imo(no disrespect to Pete)
The realist in me expects her to say "no" to the Senate in 2026 if she has Presidential ambitions. These days for us, the Governors mansions look like better launchpads than the US Senate. Barack Obama was the exception, rather than the rule.
Absolutely agree with your comment; exactly my thoughts also
I assume that Governor Whitmer will run for the Senate since she is term limited.
I think she holds off and runs for the Office Which Shall Not Be Named
I think, if she's wise, she'll run for Senate.
I am not convinced of this; I think Trump could be historically bad in his 2nd term
I could obviously be wrong, but I think it will be some time before a woman is at the top of the ticket.
I'm a little more skeptical/optimistic. I think Clinton and Harris each had their own bad hands to play that hurt them more than their gender but I would agree sexism is a political force/headwind.
I'm going to exercise caution with this as Trump was taking the steam away from the 2016 and 2024 presidential races.
A woman presidential candidate might be effective if she were a uniting figure like Barack Obama was in 2008 as long as she would bridge the divide between the polarizing sides.
Remember the circumstances under which the first Black presidential candidate won in the U.S. Trump is popular with a lot of idiots, but he brings chaos, and just as voters voted for a Black man to fix what white men had ruined almost to the point of a new Great Depression, they may well turn to a woman to fix what men ruined in the next 4 years. But either way, I don't see Democratic voters acting on the basis of anyone's sexism in our primary voting.
She could possibly do both.
No doubt
If national sentiment weren't anti Washington right now, I would agree. It is. Her being a Senator hurts her national ambitions.
It’s been “anti-Washington” for as long as I can remember.
I think it is less "anti-washington" sentiment that makes this a problem and more just the crunch of having to pivot immediately from a Senate campaign to a presidential campaign and the endless charges from whoever the opponent is saying she will be too busy running for President to do anything for Michigan. If she doesn't want to run in 28 though she should go for it.
She could, but it's a lot easier to run a national campaign without a day job.
I didn't think she'd run, back when I thought Peters was going to stay in office. Now that that's changed, I have to change my thinking.
My best guess is that it comes down to the balance of her answer on two factors. (1) How badly does she want to stick around in politics if she cannot move up? Is a sideways job change desirable or would she rather retire? Is being a career politician worth it? (2) How strongly does she rate her chance at actually getting that promotion? Is it worth the costs to seeking that promotion if she can guarantee a senate seat?
I already made one wrong guess here, so I won't try making another. But that's what I'd expect the decision points to come down to.
Those are legit considerations I would have with myself in that position. But, there is one overarching one - Say fuck it all and go for becoming the first female POTUS. If this were Deal or No Deal, this is a no deal!!!
Those of us from the SSP days know her name well. We wanted to her run for Gov in 2010 and she said no, not the time. She said it again in 2014. Both were horrible midterm year elections and she knew to not waste her shine on crappy electoral years.
That woman has a plan and is thinking the long game.
I guess I was wrong
He has served his state well.
That does take some pressure off the Gov race primary
Does anyone read his retiring as a sign that he was facing some bad polling?
I have doubts Whitmer wants the job in any case. She seems to like being an executive.
Update: she says no to senate run
I think his retirement was mostly expected from people behind the scenes. A lot of times, longtime pols retire in a cycle expected to be favorable to their party so they have a better chance at holding a seat. Jerry Costello did that in IL-12 a decade ago.
He's only 66. He could have served several more terms. I'm actually glad he did it to open the pipeline but I'm wondering the reason.
Yeah, but I think he's just the rare pol who gets out before they're on hospice.
If anything, people peacing out in their mid-60s after under twenty years in DC should be celebrated!
Guy is literally a 'biker dude'; I am betting he just wants to 'ride to live' now; nothing more
I think it's pretty early in the cycle to retire from bad polling.
I don't think it's about polling this early
I don’t think polling had anything to do with it. It’s not like 2026 was going to be a midterm with a Democrat in the White House.
I wonder how much of this is the perceived failures or lack of success of Peters as Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chair in 2022 and 2024. Peters isn't that old, especially for a senator. In fact many individuals in their 70s run for office, especially for senate. He may have some underlying health issues, but barring that this may just be internal pressure to step down. 2026, unless some massive scandal or anomaly happens, should be a very favorable year for Democrats including in the senate and in swing states like Michigan. Perhaps we'll get more details later along with how the MI senate race now plays out.
Per Peters, he didn’t want to stay in elected office in Congress forever.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna189579
I think Peters did a terrific job at DSCC
Failure? They hung on to the senate in 2022 when everyone thought they were going to lose it.
I wouldn't call Peters time as senate chair a failure but others from what I've read see it as a failure or "perceived failure." There has been some frustration that the Wisconsin senate election in 2022 was very winnable and Mandela Barnes was neglected due to perceptions of being a weak candidate and thus didn't get nearly enough funding. Many would also point out a very winnable race in PA in 2024 that somehow more could have been done to win. Personally, I don't think Peters was a "failure" though I do think his time in this role was rather lackluster. He's no Howard Dean but he got the job done considering all the chaos in DC. The problem is his "perceived failure" which translates to what the DNC failed to achieve, even if much of that is beyond his control.
A “perceived failure”. Oh, politics.
Barnes was funded; I am tired of such Monday morning quarterbacking (not saying that you are doing it)
Frankly, I see problems with the DSCC as not unique to when Peters ran it.
There were problems with the DSCC even back in 2020 when it chose to endorse Sara Gideon's Senate campaign against Senator Susan Collins back in June 2019, months before the primary race was even held. According to Nathan Bernard, a reporter at the worker-owned magazine Mainer (when he was interviewed by CBS News), the DSCC's endorsement of Gideon's campaign killed her chances of unseating Susan Collins.
The DSCC can make plenty of errors. The way to deal with this is to be smart in when the right time to make the investment for a particular campaign. I'd prefer the primary process be dealt with where the Senate candidates themselves run their own campaigns and the DSCC comes in later, not earlier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chUCk-1NVaM
All states are different; you have to adjust the strategy depending on the state being analyzed
Many politicians stick around until they are no longer able to hold office anymore, but not all. He'll be retiring from politics at 68, having served 18 years in elected federal office and 25 years in total elected office.
We're in an era where senators' primary day job is confirming executive nominees and making last minute votes to avoid government shutdowns or debt limit implosions (where all the details are decided by someone else). Why stick around to do boring work that any other decent democrat can do basically the same thing and he can go enjoy retirement?
For this whole decade 2026 is the most promising one for a democrat in a swing seat/state to retire. Obviously we don't know the outcome yet, but nobody does when they're deciding whether or not to retire. It's as good a bet as he can count on to give his successor a better chance of being another democrat.
I think I'd make the same decision if I were him.
I expect Josh Well to win that primary in Florida; he's raised an impressive 300k(according to what I have been told); don't think anyone will actually beat Fine in the general, but the margins could tell us something
really hoping that Parrott keeps running and running and running.. And losing and losing and losing
If Parrott wants to return to office, then a state legislative seat or a county level office (he lives in Washington County, which is mostly red except for Hagerstown) are available in 2026, as in MD these are mostly only up in midterm years.
But having lost last year by 6.3 points in a district that Harris won by 5.7, in an open seat in a not very good Dem year, I don't see him or any other Republican knocking off an incumbent in what will probably be a bluer year.
in Florida, since I have little hope left here, I want to see Moskovitz nominated for governor and Fried for Senate (if she is interested); otherwise, I wouldn't mind seeing Castor run for statewide office (Kathy); not sure but I am betting Jane Castor wins re-election
In Florida, is there some weakening of the GOP hold? The Republican supermajority in the state legislature has rejected DeSantis's call for a special session and is supporting its own immigration bill instead of one he has pushed.
imo it all depends on Trump and how bad(or not so bad) he performs in the second term
There is no path to a D victory in Florida if we’re now consistently losing Miami-Dade by 10 - we need to be winning that county by 20 to even have a chance.
The demographic trends are still bad. My home district, FL-22 (Boca/Coral Springs/Parkland), was consistently one of the most D districts in the state; it’s now marginal. Given the people moving in and (perhaps just as importantly) the people moving out, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s R held by the end of the decade.
Who's moving out?
Agreed. The most vulnerable seats in Florida right now are not the ones held by Anna Paulina Luna and Maria Salazar, it's the seats held by Lois Frankel and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. The only scenario I can envision where Florida ceases to be a sponge for anti-tax cranks is if Trump's threat is actually acted upon and states have to take on their own disaster relief expenses independent from FEMA or the federal government. Until then, right wingers will continue to have it both ways....moving to Florida so that their fortunes are untaxed, and then demanding federal taxpayers foot the bill for rebuilding after every storm.
The continued collapse of Florida’s insurance industry seems a more immediate live threat to everyday life there than FEMA funding
which will benefit the Democrats
Will it? At this point Florida is so gone I'd rather it become a republican vote sink, with democrats leaving it for other states and republicans moving in. That helps our odds in other states.
But will that stop the anti-tax cranks from going there if they remain confident that federal disaster relief will always be there to make them whole in lieu of insurance?
All of them? Nah. More than today? Absolutely. There’s already some small signs of instability and in affordability in Florida real estate compared to 5-6 years ago, to say nothing of the 2000s and 2010s boomtimes
not that simple, but I get your point
I think it's way too early for this assessment; let's see how Trump performs here in the second term; DeSantis is definitely less popular now than 2 years ago when he won re-election
Too early? How many consecutive cycles of Florida trending redder than the rest of the country do you need to see before you're convinced?
Trump could be just the remedy is all I am saying; our state without a FEMA would be a 3rd World country imo
Wasn't Debbie Wasserman-Schultz redistricted to the new FL-25 whereas she previously served in FL-23 from 2013-2023?
Is the new FL-25 less or more blue than the previous FL-23?
That's one state where demographic creep *really* isn't helping. South Carolina would be a very distant second.
Since you mentioned wanting Fried for the Senate, is she not suited for FL Democratic Party Chair?
I recall there were some successes Democrats had locally in FL that happened to occur in I believe the first year Fried was Chair. Unless I'm mistaken.
I think she's doing a good job as State Party Chair; it's a very tough environment and she's the last Democratic candidate to win statewide
I don’t envy any Democrat being in Fried’s shoes.
Fried may have an easier time fundraising and leading the FL Democratic Party with Trump in office vs Biden being in office but it’s still early to determine that.
Any locals here care to comment on McGreevey and his chances??.. New Jersey is the kind of state where I can see him actually winning.. other opinions welcomed
It’ll be interesting to see how McGreevey does after so long out of the game. I’d be skeptical but a local like Paleo probably has a better idea
How are people noting the reaction of their friends/coworkers/family/etc to this past week?
I have been making a concerted effort to avoid following the actions of the current administration, but those actions are a downpour of horseshit into most of my non-political interests. It's an effusive rain of garbage that creeps into everything online. It's hard to avoid. I feel more exhausted from it after this one week than I was at the end of the prior four years of it.
Due to my attempt to avoid this I also avoid talking to people about it in my everyday life. As such I don't know how they're reacting to it. I'm also in more of a bubble than typical in that everyone I know is reliably left leaning, so there's limited information to gather there anyway.
But considering the endless deluge of exasperating headlines we're being bombarded with I am curious. How are the people in everyone's lives acting, the ones that don't care about or follow politics the way people here do? Are they ignoring it, are they remembering why he was so hated in his first term, do they think it's all nothingburgers that's being overhyped?
Normally I'd wait many months, but this past week in politics has been so exhausting to me I was wondering if it was having an early effect.
Doing the best we can. My wife and I talk every night about things we’ve seen in the news, especially trying to look past headlines to see what actually happened.
But it’s rough. It sucks we have to be subjected to this moment in history where the world is going to simply just have to touch the stove. It’s gonna suck.
I haven't had any conversations with Trump voters in the last week, but I think it's a pretty safe bet that almost 100% of the 49.9% is unmoved by anything they've seen. And, for that matter, that about 75% of the 49.9% has heard few or any details of what Trump has actually done in the last seven days. Hell, I'd wager 20% of the 49.9% think Biden is still President.
Price of eggs going up? Gas again over $3 per gallon? (at least where I live)
The comment was in reference to the controversial moves Trump has made in the past seven days and how plugged in his voters are to it. The kitchen table stuff you mention might be what ultimately tanks his popularity but it's not gonna hurt him in his first week.
With that, I agree.
But it’s the autocratic/erratic behavior that will cause the kitchen table issue
OK my comment seems like I'm going nowhere related to your comment, but I swear it loops back at the end...
I like to mentally eyeball the country's electorate into three buckets. Four if we want to include non-voters.
The first bucket is reliable democratic voters.
The second bucket is reliable republican voters.
And the third bucket is people that are generally persuadable to vote for either party OR who has a fair enough tilt to either party but can be persuaded to not vote at all.
I don't think too long about how large each bucket truly is. It seems logical to expect that the D and R buckets are not equal in size. The overall composition is going to depend a lot on how strictly we define the people that can be persuaded to not vote instead of voting for their preferred party. Despite that, for simplicity I like to think of them as 40%-40%-20% or 33%-33%-33%, depending on the discussion. Both are almost certainly wrong, but for back of the envelope discussions I think these choices work well. For an election that has already happened I like the 40-40-20 grouping.
That in mind, I'd look at the 49.9% that voted for him slightly differently than you do. ~80% of that group is going to be die hard republicans, the vast majority of whom are now going to be MAGA. Those people (40% of the electorate) will never turn on him. He could come to their home, burn it down, promise to pay them for it but then sue them instead, and he would still have their support.
That group I expect to be wholly unmoved in any circumstances. Doesn't matter what he does, how bad the headlines are, if egg prices are $120/dozen. Doesn't matter. I don't think they'll change. But it's not the whole 49.9% that voted for him that are there.
I'm curious where the non-reliable voters are at. Reliable democrats and reliable republicans are going to react rather predictably to the next four years. What about the unreliable democrats and the true swing voters? What about the unreliable republicans?
A lot of our gains 2018-2022 were in some of that latter group becoming unreliable democrats instead of unreliable republicans. It looks like a decent part of our drop in 2024 was from them sitting out or crossing back over. Are they remembering why they shifted over to us before, are they blissfully not catching all the horrible headlines, do they think the headlines aren't that bad, etc.?
I won't challenge the breakdown of your buckets of voters. It's our information ecosystem that I suspect will keep Trump's coalition intact for the foreseeable future. The part of his voting coalition that spends their free time watching slip and fall videos on Tik Tok are definitely not plugged in to be critical of his first-week moves. The rest of his coalition is consuming media that will either dismiss or ignore entirely the controversial moves he's made.
Bottom line: I suspect there's a vanishingly small share of the 49.9% that is consuming any kind of critical reaction to Trump's opening week. The Trump voters who are reading The Atlantic or the New York Times, or watching network news, where critical reaction to Trump exists are almost all in the nonpersuadable bucket you describe. As for the rest, it's hard to see how exactly they are ever gonna hear a discouraging word about him in the media that they do consume. The cracks in the armor can only be expected to come if economic fundamentals (jobs, prices) noticeably falter. Autocratic behavior alone, no matter how severe, cannot be expected to dissuade them.
If they persist in doing things like send ICE to raid elementary schools that's going to filter through to folks who voted for him who have a problem with that type of enforcement.
Well, I hope you end up wrong but I can see ways that you could be right.
I don't think it changes your answer much, if at all, but I do want to clarify that I'm not so much hopeful of the last week changing people's minds purely on coverage being bad. Although that can factor. I'm thinking on the volume of stuff being covered.
I think society's biggest complaint with his admin is that there was a constant, seemingly daily, drop of "Big News" that was happening. Some stuff purely bad, like scandals. Some stuff announcements. Some stuff policy changes, that can be good or bad to an individual depending on their partisanship. The endlessness of it was exhausting. Seemingly even more exhausting for people that are only sorta into politics at most.
This past week has been that on overdrive. And seeping into so many other areas, not just traditional news media.
Yes I've had friends text me about approval ratings and I'm like "don't even mention approvals until late February at the earliest"
The real scariness is not what is happening, but rather the strong possibility that a critical mass of "We the People" actively LIKE it.
Your percentage is too high, though your remarks may well be accurate.
MI Senate:
Gretchen Whitmer will NOT run for senate in 2026.
https://x.com/ec_schneider/status/1884269122994987300
That was fast
I would love to see her run for president in 2028.
I don’t understand some progressives wanting Pete Buttigieg to run for Peters’ seat— he’s not a native Michigander. Mallory McMorrow, Dana Nessel or someone else who has been in Michigan for quite a while would be better.
Because Buttigieg has national ambitions. The only way he has a prayer at getting either the top or second slot is if he becomes a Governor or a Senator. Mayor of South Bend, Indiana doesn't cut it. Especially in the "government is good" party.
We'll see how he does in the 2026 primaries.
His national ambitions are pipe dreams, even though I think he's a much more talented politician than anyone else I've seen recently.
He could serve as UN ambassador or Sec of state under the next presidential administration and that could serve as a launching pad.
And he’s not a progressive. Unless you stretch the definition so far as to render it meaningless.
I am hoping for Nessel; no problem with McMorrow; wondering if the Current LG gives this race a go(instead of Governor)
Well, she’s running for the top spot.
totally unsurprising
I don't think any one thing is going to crush the GOP in 26 but weeks and weeks like this will wear people down and touch everyone at some point. People work in these sectors and use these things.
"Medicaid, Head Start, health centers say they're locked out of federal funding website"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/medicaid-head-start-health-centers-trump-funding-freeze/
Frankly, this is why the "Deep State" is so important. It should be a bulwark against unconstitutional BS like this.
What is the deep state and how could it stop this?
There are also fewer conscientious people in the cabinet to jangle keys in his face to distract him from following through on irrational threats like last time.
The reporting on this has been so weak . . .this is a MAJOR constitituional crises. Trump is essentially trying to become a dictator his second week and Republicans are just "meh, he won the election . . .snicker snicker"
Funny how “he won the election” never applies to Democrats
Republican wins: "They have a mandate, the people have spoken, everyone needs to come together and allow them to implement their policy agenda."
Democrat wins: "It's time for them to unite the country and work with republicans to find a way to compromise and implement the republican policy agenda."
The fun part is that these apply even when the republican wins with a minority of the vote or the democrat wins in the largest landslide this century.
Somehow the MSM and the political establishment have become allergic to ever declaring Democrats have a policy mandate. Seemingly every Dem win, no matter how large, is due to special circumstances of the moment, personal factors, campaign quality, or possibly GOP blunders or overreach.
Which is why Josh Marshall always repeats that "DC is wired for Republicans" regardless of media political registration.
The problem is more that Democrats are allergic to declaring that they have a policy mandate.
Democrat win: "The Democrat cheated and didn't really win. We need to take our government back by force".
Trump could literally hand the VA-GOV race over to Abigail Spanberger if he continues doing what he's doing as POTUS.
he's already done that
Whitmer has telegraphed a presidential run today; I think she's automatically top tier(won't say more because of the rules)
I don’t expect her to announce a potential run until early 2027 after the 2026 midterms.
of course but she'll be crisscrossing the country in support of the Democratic candidates way before any official announcement; her unofficial announcement was TODAY
She showed up on the View today, where she said NFW to a Senate run and regarding other runs for office, "I will never totally check out, but I might want to walk the Earth for a little while again, get reacquainted with my family.”
Regarding Buttigieg, I wonder if there's more enthusiasm for him in DC than in Michigan. His political skills are considerable as we know--he'll probably spend a lot of time talking with voters in the red parts of the state if he runs, which is the sort of appeal beyond the base that many say we need. But if he runs for Senate (or governor), he'll probably be under the suspicion that he's just using it as a stepping stone to That Higher Level Election, and that generally doesn't positively impress voters.
Keep in mind that when Buttigeg was Secretary of Transportation under President Biden's administration he ended up overseeing a lot of what Biden pushed for infrastructure investment, particularly in the transportation sector.
It's possible what Buttigeg had done in this aspect did impact MI, not just PA, WI, etc.
"I think she's automatically top tier(won't say more because of the rules)"
What rule is that? I don’t see Rules on any Downballot menu, nor do I get any meaningful result when I do a sitewide search of The Downballot. If there are Rules articulated, I would like to know what they are so I make sure to respect them.
Generally, discussion of 21st century Democratic presidential primaries--past, present, or future--is forbidden, which was also true of DKE and SSP. (Republican presidential primaries are OK for discussion here.)
This sounds like a rule designed to avoid reigniting the acrimony between the Hillary and Bernie camps. I understand the Israel–Palestine conflict is also to be avoid, for similar reasons.
Any other rules? Has The Downballot listed these anywhere? If so, I couldn’t find it.
PS. What is SSP?
Swing State Project, an elections analysis blog that David Nir started in 2003. It became part of Daily Kos ("Daily Kos Elections") in 2011, and in 2024 that was spun off into the Downballot.
these are the only 2 as far as I know but that's A question for David (not me)
I should compile these! Those are the biggest ones, and the only topic-specific ones.
Thanks! I figure the rest just have to do with being civil and acting like a mensch.
Ehh we'll see.
California Secretary of State Shirley Weber just gave the green light for a campaign to gather signatures for a vote on California leaving the U.S. and becoming an independent country, per Newsweek.
https://x.com/allenanalysis/status/1884341706633392201
Pure performance art..stuff like this is a distraction
I think the U.S. could very well break up some time this century. Nothing lasts forever.
a waste of time and $$$
Blue State Secession efforts may be sprouting up over Trump's tyrannical rule. Hopefully Illinois considers the idea, as should any Blue state.
It's stupid and won't be productive at all for the Democratic party
A neat little trick in the VA Senate: a Dem accidentally (?) voted in a way to create a tie, forcing Lt. Gov. Winsome Sears to break it—and officially go on the record against contraception access, which is hardly helpful to her gubernatorial prospects. (Then the measure was revoted on with the entire Democratic majority in favour.)
https://x.com/Jaaavis/status/1884363940492370199
that's no accident (I am positive you already knew that)
Anything underlining Sear's socially conservative views can only help. Good job by the VA dems.
If you are a women of a certain age, please watch O’Donell tonight.
?
Who do you think will emerge as a "strong leader" of Dem Party going forward? Seems like a vacuum right now?
AOC and Crockett on the House side, Pritzker and Walz on the Gubernatorial front, and Warren and Murphy in the Senate.
If they want a strong leader who will appeal to the general public as a strong leader, perhaps they should go with Mark Milley.
Jeffries
Hey, nobody gonna mention Dems picked up the IA State Senate special in an upset: https://nitter.poast.org/PollTracker2024/status/1884443218764521788#m
Dems also overperformed in the MN special.
It's upthread
It was supposed to be an R-7 district and the Dem, Mark Zimmer, is up by 3.6 points.
Whoa!
This Iowa district is the successor of SD-49, which was held by Dem Rita Hart until 2018 and then Republican-held from then onwards.
I'm not sure what Obama won this district by, but I suspect more than 58% in both elections. Few places in the country swung as hard to the right in the Trump era as this Senate district.
The vote was 4,812 for Zimmer and 4,473 for Whittington. For perspective, in 2022, Cournoyer won 14,552-9,292. Obviously, take the win, but it seems like we could be poised for another misleading wave of special elections with slightly elevated Democratic turnout not necessarily reflective of the electoral reality.
But possibly reflective of a midterm reality.
Exactly