Minnesota has primaries on Tuesday. Despite it being a Democratic state, the districts are drawn so Democrat cannot win a majority. There are three Democratic, one swing, and four Republican. Democrat Angie Craig represents District 2, and she won by 5.3 percent. That would be 8.6 percent if you give her the votes that the Legal Marijuana Now candidate got. What will make it slightly easier for her to keep her seat is a third party candidate from the Constitutional Conservative Party, which I had not heard of. He is Thomas William Bowman. The Constitutional Conservative Party has John Habjan as a president candidate, and his priorities are limiting the federal government, spending less, not restricting guns, and stopping Muslim terrorists. Bowman is the only House candidate in Minnesota who is not a Democrat (DFL for Democratic-Farmer-Labor) or Republican. Don Samuels is challenging Ilhan Omar, and Samuels is the only primary challenger in Minnesota with a Wikipedia page. The seven districts not represented by Dean Phillips have incumbents running, and Democrat Betty McCollum is the only one without a primary challenger. Every district has a Democrat and a Republican, so they will be opposed in the general election. Hawaii has primaries on Saturday August 10, which will be the last primaries of the year not on a Tuesday. Both districts are safe Democratic. Ed Case has primary challenger Cecil Hale without a Wikipedia page, and Jill Tokuda does not have a primary challenger. Both districts have one Republican. Connecticut, Vermont, and Wisconsin also have primaries on Tuesday August 13.
Eh. While there is a need for a party to be in lockstep for close bills, I'm not opposed to protest votes on bills that are easily passes.
Cool....but protest for what? Purity? On a key legislative item that was then used by her opponent to beat her up?
The biggest thing is it hurts you in a primary if you can be pained as anti Democratic Party. It’s shown up in a number of these primaries. It wasn’t the only reason she lost but someone like Bush made a number of unforced errors that made her an easier target to defeat (which itself brought more money and support to her opponent).
Hey buddy, nice to see over here. I assume the next coach thread got stall. Anyway, I agree with you. Bush made some errors that gave her opponents an opening. As I said, other progressives like the squad .are sure to stay connected to their voters. She lost her base by not understanding the situation better. As such her opponent s Had an opening and used it to kill her.
LOL..... Sorry Larry.....too little, too late.....You really think we are stupid, I guess. Tough luck, you are going to be crushed in Maryland. Maryland U.S. Senate candidate Larry Hogan (R) is distancing himself from Donald Trump, criticizing the former president’s attacks on Kamala Harris’ identity as well as his running mate J.D. Vance’s criticism of “childless cat ladies,” Punchbowl News reports. Said Hogan: “I’m very disappointed by it. What we really need to do is focus on the issues. I have biracial grandkids, and we should never be focusing on race or gender or making fun of people or calling them names.
Montana is not looking good Montana Senate GE: 🟥 Tim Sheehy: 51%🟦 Jon Tester (inc): 45%@AmericanPulseUS | 8/10-12 | 538 RVhttps://t.co/1DfhywiRKA pic.twitter.com/sPZxFwmr0Z— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) August 14, 2024
The way politics has been nationalized is why Dems will have trouble in the Midwest plain states and Appalachia. Guys like Tester, Manchin and etc. I mean a former governor loss the other Montana senate seat last time and we use to have Tom Dashel in one of the Dakotas
I’ve never heard of this pollster. But Newsmax seems to use them a lot, which isn’t much of an endorsement.
Why are all those Republican states so undeveloped? Alabama, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Arizona, etc. Minnesota, Milwaukee, Indiana seem much better Republican states. But the rest looks like early 20th century. Is it because of bad Republican senators or its just the people? And their habits.
New Cook Political/BSG/GS Strategy polls, July 26-Aug 2US SenateMichigan: 🟦 Slotkin +8Wisconsin: 🟦 Baldwin +7Arizona: 🟦 Gallego +9Pennsylvania: 🟦 Casey +11Nevada: 🟦 Rosen +18GovernorNorth Carolina: 🟦 Stein +8— umichvoter 🏳️🌈 (@umichvoter) August 15, 2024
For the NC Governor matchup, the "weird" attack may be especially effective against the Republican candidate, because he is extremely weird.
A 'C' rated poll has it the opposite. #New Senate poll - Montana 🔵 Tester 49% (+5)🔴 Sheehy 44%RMG #C - 504 RV - 8/14— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) August 15, 2024
Is it too early to talk about the 2030/32 elections. The map is not getting kind to Democrats, we need to solidify some of those purple states to make up for census loses in solid blue states. Long-term forecast can be somewhat questionable due to the unreliability of the ACS, but at the moment the projection is fairly dire for Democrats. https://t.co/WVx97MxXOq pic.twitter.com/UkBGu6jzlR— Hunter📈🌈📊 (@StatisticUrban) August 20, 2024
“House Democrats’ largest super PAC got a $10 million cash infusion from Michael Bloomberg,” Politico reports. “That’s more than half the nearly $20 million House Majority PAC raised in July, according to a campaign finance report it filed Tuesday with the Federal Election Commission. The group ended the month with more than $105 million in the bank.”
I suppose it depends on what you mean by dire. For the House, making progress on gerrymandering could change the calculus there a lot faster than demographic trends. That's easier said than done, I know. But, for example, Michigan's congressional delegation has seen a net loss to the GOP of 2 seats/gain to the Dems of 2 seats after fairer redistricting. Here in Ohio, we're hellishly gerrymandered: 12 GOP to 4 Dem, but of course the state isn't remotely that right-leaning. North Carolina has a similar dynamic. Also, it's only truly dire for Democrats if you forget that states could change from their current political alignments. Remember when Virginia flipped blue and it was seen as such a shock? Recall when Colorado was purple? The reason some states lose population/representation and other states gain is (obviously) that people move around the country. The dire prediction for Democrats is based on the assumption that people moving to a different state has no effect on that state's political structure. I'm just guessing, but I'd assume that some of the people most likely to relocate are retirees and people with college educations moving for career opportunities or lifestyle decisions. The latter are going to lean Democratic. Why did Colorado and Virginia become solid blue states? Maybe the existing population became gradually more progressive. But I assume, too, that lots of progressive voters moved to those states. It wouldn't surprise me at all if, for example, North Carolina took a similar path over the next decade. So for the House, yeah, it could be a challenge, especially in gerrymandered states. But some of that shifting might make it possible for Dems to pick off GOP-leaning Senate seats, and start making states like GA and NC more Dem-likely in presidential elections.
It is definitely more easy to get the picture at the state level (Senate and EC impact) than at the Congresdional district level…unless we’re talking about 3-5 EV sized states. At the state/EC level, we’re seeing gains in places like AZ, NC, GA and TX that are moving toward the same level of partisanship found in tipping point states (PA and WI). This is actually very promising for Dems. GA and AZ should be roughly at the tipping point with WI and PA from this point going forward…or until they establish themselves left of WI and PA as the new tipping points. NC should be where GA and AZ were last election in 2024 and probably where WI and PA are in 2028. And TX is about one cycle behind NC. Those shifts don’t translate to electoral gains when they’re moving from 6 to 4 pts to the right of the tipping point states, hence the skepticism from people saying “I’ll believe Sun Belt State X is actually trending purple when I see election victories”. They do translate going from 4 pts right to 2 points right to 0. At the district level, where states are losing/gaining population and who they are losing/gaining is more important than their seat gains and losses. Change 2010-2020 at the county level: https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2021/dec/percent-change-county-population.html Rural counties are dying. And many of the counties where we have seen the biggest gains tend to be much more moderate. And in most cases (retiree belts excepted), the inbound migrants to those high growth counties are much more likely to be moderate or liberal than conservative. This POTUS election is easily more important than even the prior 2. The Senate is terribly skewed due to the small state influence and the Mancin, Tester and Brown Dem Senators in red states are dying out. We need to keep more hardcore conservatives out of SCOTUS and the federal judiciary. Conservative states are gonna do batshit things. But the office of POTUS is the guardrail to keep the country from truly autocratizing through 2028 at which point it will become appreciably more difficult to pull off.
If Illinois, New York and California had not lost any seats in the last Congressional reshuffle, Harris would have it in the bag. But for now, she has to win one of 3. put another waybarring a flip from an unexpected state, kamala harris HAS to win one of PA, NC, or GA in order to win the electionlord help us https://t.co/y6Qnrh0OZS pic.twitter.com/kekEvkglbZ— chris (@chrispy_kreeme) August 24, 2024
This is true. But there are two different effects and the tweet is only picking up one of the. Without IL, NY and CA (relatively) losing population 2010-2020 that was eventually recognized in the post 2020 redistricting process, the positive demographic effects in the Sun Belt that show AZ blue and NC and GA as tossups don’t exist. In an alternate world, PA may be the only true tossup and she’d need to go 1/1. She’s getting a 2020 seat allocation 4 years after the census. The electoral math using a 2010 seat allocation with state level demographics 4 years after that census would be much less favorable to her.