The Left Takes a Turn

Senate President Troy Jackson (D-ME)

This past weekend, in Maine, it appears that the race to replace Graham Platner as the Democratic nominee has come to a close.  In what essentially became a "runner-up" contest from the recent gubernatorial race, State Senate President Troy Jackson has won the nomination in all but technicality, to the point where two of his chief opponents (Secretary of State Shenna Bellows and Dr. Nirav Shaw) have already dropped out of the race.  This will hopefully end Platner as a public conversation piece (though I expect Collins to bring him up as often as possible, particularly given that Jackson and Platner had previously shared a stage together and endorsed each other's candidacies), but it also gives the Dems a genuine chance at the US Senate seat currently held by Collins, which is a must win not just for the 2026 majority, but honestly the 2028 & 2030 majorities as well.  Dems cannot afford to have a Senate seat from a state won by Clinton, Biden, and Harris be in the hands of a Republican, even a moderate one.

Jackson's win is also a win for the Bernie Sanders wing of the party.  While Sanders did not endorse in the Senate caucuses, he did endorse Jackson in the gubernatorial primary, and given that Jackson was a delegate for Sanders in 2016 (when most delegates from Maine were supporting Hillary Clinton), he is very much a victory for that camp in an election cycle where a number of Sanders-endorsed candidates have come out on top.  Jackson's victory is unusual because of the way it came about (a straight-up statewide primary may have resulted in a different result...he was always going to be helped by the convention/caucus approach), so you can't really read into it, but it is a victory for Sanders in his continued quest to create a legacy in the US Senate (and in shaping the Democratic Party in his image).

In the coming weeks, though, the Democratic Party will have three actual primaries that I think will set the tenor of what the Sanders wing (and the frequently associated, though not directly connected, DSA) will consider success in a cycle that has already resulted in major victories with people like Melat Kiros, Darializa Chevalier, & Brad Lander all beating incumbents to win House seats.  These three races, at least from public polling, have shown three races that have a decided Sanders/DSA branch vs. establishment branch (in all three races either Sanders or the DSA or both have endorsed against a more mainstream candidate), all of them appear to be (in somewhat limited polling) competitive, and in all cases they are marked by a truly nasty primary, way more vicious than you'd typically expect from a Democratic Party primary.  These races are the Wisconsin gubernatorial and the Michigan & Minnesota Senate primaries.  I thought it'd be interesting to take a look at the similarities and differences in these races, as they are all serving as canaries in the coal mine for the remainder of the midterms (and 2028).

Director Abdul El-Sayed (D-MI)

Michigan

Without a doubt, the biggest of these races is in Michigan, where we last discussed State Sen. Mallory McMorrow had just exited the race.  The contest has now become a one-on-one race between Rep. Haley Stevens and Health Director Abdul El-Sayed, with Stevens the favorite of the establishment and El-Sayed endorsed by figures on the far left like Sanders, Rashida Tlaib, & Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Based on pretty much all aggregate polling, I'd probably prefer to be El-Sayed in this race right now.  With the exception of the Detroit News poll (which, admittedly, is the most reputable poll in this race in the past few weeks), El-Sayed has had a marginal lead over Stevens.  But Stevens is closing well, and seems to have found a groove in the race.  For starters, she's been far less deferential to Bernie Sanders & his supporters than other Democrats in her position have been, referring to the "complaining class" as a related reference to them, and being shockingly on message.  She's also started to own the quirkiness of her personality as an asset, walking the fine line of embracing it & admonishing those who mock it.  This has resulted in maybe her best ad of the cycle which she takes a viral speech her opponents called "cringe" and turned it into a showcase of how she's passionate about her state, as well as El-Sayed having to actually apologize for how supporters have treated Stevens.  Stevens had the momentum, in my opinion; El-Sayed was caught off-guard by McMorrow dropping out and does not seem to be doing anything to gain support amongst Black voters, which Stevens has exploited.  The fact that Obama hasn't corrected anyone on the ad where it looks like he's endorsing Stevens is telling, and Stevens has made a point of showcasing her support for Biden/Harris in 2024 while El-Sayed was uncommitted, are both signs that Stevens is trying to drive this crucial voting bloc in Michigan.  If Stevens wins this race, the way that she was able to create energy for an establishment candidate and upend El-Sayed with the Sanders/AOC backing will be studied.  It also must be noted that a late-breaking endorsement from, say, Kamala Harris would probably be welcomed here, and I think would be a wise move from the risk-averse candidate (i.e. if Harris wants to be president in 2028, she needs to prove she can take some bets that pay off, especially after a badly-misjudged endorsement of Jasmine Crockett)

Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN)

Minnesota

While (one of) the candidates in the race may disagree, the Minnesota Senate race (unlike Michigan & Wisconsin) does not appear to be a race where the left-leaning candidate would put the seat at risk; either Rep. Angie Craig (the moderate) or LG Peggy Flanagan (the liberal) should be able to hold this seat in November given the national environment.  Craig has claimed otherwise, but I think she's wrong, even if margins may matter.  But the fight has gotten nasty (it's been overshadowed by Michigan, but it's become the meanest primary I can remember in DFL history this century in Minnesota), and it's not entirely clear who's winning given a dearth of quality polling.

Overall, like in Michigan, I'd rather be Flanagan than Craig.  She has the stronger hand (she's the DFL-endorsed nominee, which helps in terms of party structure, and has led in more polls), but I'll own that she's run a lousy front-facing campaign even if her organization with the party elite has been impressive; unlike Michigan where figures like Debbie Stabenow & Gary Peters have gone for Stevens, the powers-that-be in Minnesota seem to largely side with Flanagan save for one big name.  That name is Governor Tim Walz, who Flanagan was joined at the hip with in their first term (it's safe to say had Walz not kept this a partnership in the public eye she'd never have be in this position), but he has point-blank refused to back her in the primary, to the point where I have to assume he's probably going to actually vote for Craig in the privacy of a ballot box, pointing to signs that the two have had a major private falling out that will hopefully come to light after the election when Walz's memoir comes out because I am curious.

Craig's biggest mistake in the race was backing the Laken Riley Act, which at the time was dumb given she was no longer running in a swing House district general but instead a DFL primary, and if she loses it'll be because of that (if she hadn't taken that vote I think she'd be winning right now).  But Flanagan's fundraising has been pathetic-she has yet to beat Craig in a single quarter (in Q2 Flanagan's fundraising was roughly half Craig's, and honestly looked like she was running for a House seat it was so small), and Craig has been able to define Flanagan in the public eye quite a bit, particularly focusing on her time leading the fraud oversight that cost Tim Walz his chance at the nomination earlier this year.  I live in Minnesota, and until about a week ago I hadn't actually seen an ad directly from Flanagan, and that she started with an attack ad tells a tale that she's nervous.  There's been a lot of talk about how Amy Klobuchar will pick the runner-up here so they're both competing for Senate seats that they'll likely get, but I'll be honest-Flanagan has had the deck so stacked in her favor and still underperformed that if Craig wins the primary...I think Klobuchar picks somebody else (same goes for Craig if this race is decided by more than 8-points in Flanagan's favor).  All-in-all, Flanagan is the favorite, but not by what she should be, and Craig might be able to pull off a squeaker.

County Executive David Crowley (D-WI)

Wisconsin

Wisconsin had the biggest change-up in the past week, as first Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley dropped out of the race, then LG Sara Rodriguez (whom Crowley had endorsed) was involved in a financial scandal with one of her campaign managers mismanaging her funds, and she dropped out, allowing Crowley to come back in, this time with the endorsement of Gov. Tony Evers.  Crowley was a distant fourth before he dropped out (and Rodriguez was third), with DSA favorite State Rep. Francesca Hong and former LG Mandela Barnes both running for toward the top of the ticket.

It's unclear here exactly what Evers was thinking. In a perfect world, he would've chosen to run himself, if we're being honest, but logistically that can't happen (even if he would've instantly become the frontrunner).  Crowley had a great first 24 hours of fundraising (in a race where no one on either side has been a great fundraiser), but he's still dramatically behind, and it's hard to see incentive for either Barnes or Hong's supporters to abandon him when it looks like a two-person race.  It's also not clear why Evers (who once served alongside Barnes) has an issue with his former LG.  Barnes' past support for "Defund the Police" cost him in 2022 for the US Senate (hence I was initially hoping for Rodriguez, and would favor Crowley over either of these two), but losing a high-profile race isn't always a death knell, and I think Barnes could win in a bluer environment.  Part of me wonders if there's a scandal here that no one is bringing up but is a known secret, because it's honestly giving off those vibes as this can't just be personal dislike.  Decent electability isn't remotely the case for Hong, who is the most extreme candidate I've listed here, and is basically a guaranteed loss in November.

I think, at this point, that this race is headed to a nightmare, and I would wager that Hong is going to win at this point, meaning that Tom Tiffany is pretty much guaranteed to succeed Evers, who clearly retired in the hopes of handing off to another Dem in a blue wave year (same as Gary Peters above).  She's too extreme, and Tiffany is not a Marjorie Taylor Greene type that it'll be easy for her to vilify.  I personally see an easy path for Flanagan to win (even if it's only by 4-6 points) and El-Sayed might win, but Hong is a guaranteed loss in the same way Christine O'Donnell was in 2010.  After spending decades trying to get back a Democratic trifecta, the Wisconsin Democratic Party are going to to forego it because they seemed to confuse the electorate of Madison with a statewide electorate.

Conclusion

All-in-all, this looks like the DSA/Bernie wing is going to have three major victories coming up shortly after a solid one with Jackson.  I will note that, given I stuck my neck out and said that I could not vote for Graham Platner after decades of being an ardent yellow dog Democrat, I would vote for all of these candidates (Hong, specifically, I'd struggle with but ultimately choose to vote for, though either she or El-Sayed I don't think I could donate money to if we're being honest as that's a higher bar with me...I never gave money to Joe Manchin either)...I just have very ardent preferences in the primaries, and in both Michigan & Wisconsin I think that making the wrong move will cost us a seat we cannot afford to give up.  But that is the way this year is shaping up-a series of Democratic risks that the party seems hell-bent on taking.

Assessing the Democratic Tea Party

This blog is old (if you look far enough back, you'll find posts that go back over 20 years), but I only started writing regularly on it in 2012.  That means that, for the large part, I avoided most of the Tea Party movement that sprung up in the GOP during the Obama administration.  I have talked about this a lot, but essentially for those unfamiliar-the Tea Party movement, championed by figures like Sarah Palin & Glenn Beck, had Republicans essentially going after establishment or more traditionally moderate-to-conservative figures and supporting incendiary pols in the party, ones who were less general election-friendly, but appealed to a base that could not understand the appeal of President Obama.  Ultimately, this led to the 2016 election and the MAGA movement, which would elect Donald Trump to two terms in the White House.  But in its infancy, the Tea Party movement was shorthand for a gift to the Democrats.  In 2010 & 2012, five Senate races (in Nevada, Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, & Missouri) saw establishment figures, including long-time incumbent Richard Lugar, lose their primaries and in the general election, saw winnable seats go to the Democrats.  This was a big part of how the Democrats held the Senate for six of the eight years that Barack Obama was president...through mistakes made by the Republicans.

Until 2026, while Democrats have seen House races go poorly or be forfeited because of a left-wing candidate ousting a House member and then losing the general (most specifically OR-5 in 2022 and NE-2 in 2018, where wins by Reps. Kurt Schrader & Brad Ashford likely make those seats blue), mostly they've avoided this, even with the rise of a stronger left-wing.  Figures like Zohran Mamdani, Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, & Rashida Tlaib represent a leftist viewpoint on the national stage, but due to coming from deep blue seats, they all have kept these seats in Democratic hands.  This year, though, four races have come to the forefront that feel like they are truly serving as a harbinger of a Tea Party for the Democrats, complete with sacrificing winnable races (during a wave election) that could mean disastrous consequences, specifically for control of the US Senate.  I wanted to profile these races, and my read on both how likely it is that we get a truly bad candidate, and if they can win even with clear issues with their candidacy.

Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms (D-GA)

Georgia Governor

The Moderate Candidate: Jason Esteves & Geoff Duncan

The Far Left Candidate: Keisha Lance Bottoms

Their Credentials: This race is actually over, as Bottoms already won the primary (which is not yet the case for the remaining three contests), but for posterity Bottoms is a former Mayor of Atlanta, while Esteves is a State Senator and Duncan a former Lieutenant Governor (and former Republican).

What's the Problem?: Georgia has not elected a Democratic governor since 1998, and not because we've run total gadflies.  In fact, we've run decent candidates multiple times, but the state (even as they've shown a willingness to elect a Democrat to the US Senate) simply doesn't seem capable of going blue for the State House.  That felt like it was going to change this year, as both Esteves & Duncan have the sort of moderate profile that Raphael Warnock, Joe Biden, & Jon Ossoff used to get to victory in the Peach State.  But Bottoms won, and with her came a tumultuous time as Mayor of Atlanta (including spikes in crime, as well as a dip in popularity during the Covid shutdowns).  Bottoms is considerably more liberal than any of the three men I just name-checked, and would be the most liberal Governor of Georgia...ever?  Additionally, big city mayors generally struggle to win governor's races, and that's really her only calling card.

Can She Win?: Unlike the other candidates here, Bottoms' problems are more aesthetic/political than ingrained into her campaign (she is easily the most talented of the candidates in terms of ability).  She's actually run a successful major campaign before, and has been better about trying to unite Democrats, joining quickly with Jon Ossoff (who is expected to win) to try and ride his coattails to a victory.  The Republicans are also making a calculated error in a blue-trending state with a run-to-the-right primary runoff.  I think Bottoms might be able to ride the tide and become the first Black woman to ever be governor in November, even if I will own that Esteves or Duncan would be the heavy frontrunner by now while she's in a tossup race.

Graham Platner (D-ME)

Maine Senate

The Moderate Candidate: Janet Mills

The Far Left Candidate: Graham Platner

Their Credentials: Mills is a former two-term Attorney General and two-term Governor, the only Democrat to win statewide in Maine in over a decade.  Platner is an oyster farmer and a Marine veteran of the Iraq War & War in Afghanistan.

What's the Problem?: We have talked ad nauseam about Platner, and my distaste for his campaign here, but suffice it to say he is not ready for primetime, and was badly vetted before entering the race.  He has a history of racist, sexist, & politically damning rhetoric online, has voted multiple times for the woman, Susan Collins, he's now attacking (in many cases for things she did before he stopped voting for her), and as was revealed this weekend, maintained a dating app and romantic correspondence with 6-12 women during the early years of his marriage (which, I'll be honest, were in the past few years as Platner hasn't yet been married three years yet, so this is shockingly recent history and proof he appears to have cheated on his wife for most of his marriage).  Platner has maintained a healthy lead in the polls, to the point that Mills is not technically a candidate even though she's still on the ballot & has refused to endorse Platner yet, but with all of this fire, it seems inevitable that Collins (who is smart) hasn't shared the worst yet (keep in mind that not a single of the dozens of Republicans who ran against Donald Trump found the Access Hollywood video before he was the nominee...Collins likely has stuff Mills didn't).  For example, what was contained in those correspondences with potentially as many as a dozen women (including, theoretically, sexually explicit material or photographs) have not come to light yet...but certainly will given Collins' impressive election skills.

Can He Win?: Maybe, but I'm doubtful.  Polls show he can, and this might be a case where Maine voters (loathsome of Trump) want to send a message, and this is the only way they can.  I've maintained on this blog for some time that Collins likely would've lost had her race against Sara Gideon been in 2018 instead of 2020.  But Platner's candidacy is toxic, and he has done nothing to win over Collins voters; while Platner can win solely with Democratic voters (Biden & Harris both won Maine), he'll still need about 40-70k voters who voted for Collins in at least one of her 2008/14/20 races, and are therefore comfortable with splitting their votes if he wants to win.  It's hard not to look at the mountain of scandals that have engulfed Platner, and not think that Collins is saving the body blow for when it's too late for Platner to drop out (in the same way Claire McCaskill did to Todd Akin in 2012), and will be able to use that to keep those Biden/Collins & Harris/Collins voters on her side one last time.

Health Director Abdul el-Sayed (D-MI)

Michigan Senate

The Moderate Candidate: Haley Stevens...but also Mallory McMorrow

The Far Left Candidate: Abdul el-Sayed...but also Mallory McMorrow

Their Credentials: Stevens is a 4-term US congresswoman, while McMorrow is a State Senator (since 2019) and el-Sayed briefly served as Wayne County health director, as well as ran for governor in 2018.

What's the Problem?: This is a weird race because it started with a very clear differential between Stevens (viewed by many as the moderate, including Chuck Schumer who has not been shy about his preference for her candidacy) and McMorrow/el-Sayed, both of whom are from the left of the party.  But the far left itself seems to have coalesced around el-Sayed, leaving Stevens getting much of the moderate wing and McMorrow in a bizarre position where she has voters from across the spectrum.  This is in part because McMorrow is objectively the best candidate in terms of actual quality (she's relatable, good in a debate, and would be a national figure pretty quickly if she won), but also at this point it's clear that McMorrow and Stevens are splitting their vote, and polling shows certainly Stevens (and probably McMorrow) could win in 2026, whereas el-Sayed does the worst against Mike Rogers.

Can He Win?: No, I do not think el-Sayed can win this race.  Stevens has shown herself to be abysmal on the campaign trail, and McMorrow has not handled some controversy over old social media posts super well, but both are going to beat Mike Rogers in a wave election.  Michigan is too blue, and they are not controversial enough, to actually lose here, particularly against a guy who just lost a Senate race.  But el-Sayed's support of Defund the Police, his embrace of controversial figures like Hasan Piker, and his statements about the death of Ayatollah Khamenei all add up to a candidate that is not ready for primetime, and that can be easily attacked by the Republicans.  If he wins the primary, Mike Rogers would be the heavy favorite to flip this seat in November.

State Rep. Francesca Hong (D-WI)

Wisconsin Governor

The Moderate Candidate: Sara Rodriguez

The Far Left Candidate: Francesca Hong...and also Mandela Barnes

Their Credentials: Rodriguez & Barnes both served as lieutenant governor, with Barnes giving up the seat when he ran for the US Senate (unsuccessfully) in 2022.  Hong is a state representative first elected in 2020.

What's the Problem?: Hong is the most obvious problem here.  She's a Democratic socialist, one who has pushed to abolish the police, and even has espoused getting rid of the prison system entirely.  In a state as moderate as Wisconsin, this is tantamount to political suicide, and makes her totally unelectable.  I know this in part because of Mandela Barnes' embrace of the Defund the Police movement in 2022.  Hong is actually doing some favors to Barnes in the primary, in part making him look more moderate by comparison, but it's hard not to remember that while figures like John Fetterman, Raphael Warnock, & Mark Kelly were winning tough races in a theoretically red wave in 2022, Barnes lost to Ron Johnson, the only major Senate race that the Dems couldn't sink the basket on that cycle.  Rodriguez, who is polling in third right now (in an under-polled race, so it's hard to get a read if she's really that bad) is the clear moderate choice and would be able to beat Tom Tiffany & hold this seat...but again, she's in third, and it seems unlikely that the powers-that-be are going to try and save her.  It should be noted that Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley is also running, but unlikely to win and will probably play spoiler.

Can She Win?: Hong cannot-if she wins, Tiffany will flip the governor's mansion, and Evers strategically-timed retirement (similar to Gary Peters' above) will look like foolishness.  Barnes is slightly different-it's not clear whether this is a case of the Democrats being able to ride a weak candidate in a better cycle (like, say, John Thune or Dave McCormick for the Republicans) and get a win here, or if he's also totally toxic.  I wouldn't say this is a lost cause if he were to win, but I do think it makes it much harder than it would be with Rodriguez.

Democrats Risk Disaster in California

Sheriff Chad Bianco (R-CA)

We have not written a lot of political articles in the past couple of weeks (I have been on vacation, and been enjoying the rest & relaxation that I've been needing after months of pushing myself too hard at my real-life job), and so we're going to have a trio of them in the coming days as I catch up on some of the topics of the past few weeks.  We're going to start with a discussion of the California Governor's race, something that I've been ignoring given that I thought it would sort itself out...but like many Democrats, I feel like we've waited a bit too late, and are now entering catastrophe, even in a blue wave year.

California, due to term limits, will be electing a new governor in 2026 as incumbent Gov. Gavin Newsom will retire (and almost certainly in the process immediately start running for president in early 2027).  Given the state is one of the bluest in the nation, and Donald Trump's approval ratings are in the toilet, it would be a safe assumption to presume that Newsom will be succeeded by a fellow Democrat.  But California has a unique jungle primary system, one that allows an open-party primary where all candidates run, and the top two (without ranked-choice voting taking place) advance to the general election.

This has caused some consternation in the past, in particular in 2012.  That year, in a seat that was drawn to favor the Democrats (it was a mild blue district), the Democrats received collectively 48.5% of the vote, but given there were four Democrats running to the Republicans' two, Pete Aguilar, the Democratic frontrunner, came in third, and both the Republicans advanced in a district that Barack Obama would carry.  Two years later, Aguilar would stage a comeback, being one of only three Democrats to flip a seat in the otherwise red wave slaughter of 2014, and has held the seat ever since.  But it was a cautionary tale for the Democrats-the jungle primary process could easily backfire if too many Democrats ran, even in a blue constituency.

That is what appears to be happening in the governor's race this year.  The Republicans have two major candidates: Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and political commentator Steve Hilton.  Meanwhile the Democrats have over 20 candidates, eight of which (Xavier Becerra, Matt Mahan, Katie Porter, Tom Steyer, Eric Swalwell, Tony Thurmond, Antonio Villaraigosa, & Betty Yee) have all held major office in the past 15 years.  Polling has shown a pretty consistent story-with eight major Democrats in the race, the Top 2 spots have gone very consistently to Bianco & Hilton.  Bianco & Hilton in most cases barely get more than 14-16% of the vote a piece, but with Democrats struggling to hit the 15% marker, if you go solely by polling, the two Republicans are the frontrunners to be the next nominee.

Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA)

It's worth noting that "major" Democrats is a descriptor of their current or recent political positions, and not an indicator of their polling position, because if we're being honest, only three Democrats are "major" candidates in this race.  In recent polling, only Steyer, Swalwell, & Porter have gotten into the double digits, and in 2026, they are the only three candidates that have managed to beat Bianco or Hilton in at least one poll.  Most polling aggregates show Swalwell in the best position, followed by Porter, and then Steyer.  If a Democrat emerges from this race, it will be one of the three of them, and it's worth noting-if any of them is in a normal general election against either Bianco or Hilton, they'd crush and easily become the next governor.

Which is why a recent move to have a debate seemed like a great idea.  All three (plus the Republicans) had qualified, and voters (a consequential quarter of which are undecided) could hear from the candidates, and help a frontrunner emerge depending on who did the best.  But that was cancelled, and for really eye-rolling reasons.  Porter, Steyer & Swalwell (along with Bianco & Hilton) are all white, which is not the case for all five of the remaining major party Democrats.  If this was based off of just picking candidates, it would be a bad look, but these candidates are hardly without resources (Yee, Thurmond, & Becerra have all held statewide office, Villaraigosa & Mahan have been major city mayors).  If they can't connect enough to get at least 10% of the vote in an electorate as diverse as California's the debate committee (who was very forthright in who should be included based on polling) shouldn't be blamed.  That the losing candidates made this about race (when it wasn't-it was very much about who was the most likely to become governor based on polling) feels really stupid & disingenuous.  In the same way that Jasmine Crockett called out people who criticized her campaign as discriminating against a Black woman, this isn't about discrimination-it's about who pollsters have shown can win.  And none of these candidates can win.

And it's not like the powers-that-be didn't want a diverse candidate.  Democrats begged former Vice President Kamala Harris or Senator Alex Padilla to come in and clean up this race, but they refused.  But at this point, without a debate, it's time they come in to clean up regardless (along with Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, & Gavin Newsom).  We are getting darn close to the end of this primary, given how much of California's electorate votes by mail (the primary is June 2nd).  At this point, it's not obvious that any of the also-ran Democrats have enough sense to get out of a race where they are going to get less than 5% of the vote and look like fools.  Republicans seem to be loving this, and so far Donald Trump's team has had the good sense to ensure he won't endorse or point out the scam so that Hilton & Bianco continue to do roughly evenly with voters (though one wonders if the move by the Department of Justice to go after Swalwell might backfire in the way Trump's threats helped Adam Schiff in 2024).  The Democratic powers-that-be need to step in and help the Democrats in this race know who the frontrunner is (even if they have to pick between Porter, Swalwell, or Steyer themselves and make up a frontrunner), because there's an increasingly strong possibility that California is about to have a Republican governor if they don't.

5 Thoughts on the Minnesota Governor's Race

All right, I did not honestly expect my first day back at work to have not just a major political story, but a major one in my backyard which I can't possibly ignore, so we're going to dive right in and if it's news to you, well, I'll catch you up on what's happening in the Minnesota Governor's race.

Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN)

1. Walz's Retirement is about Trump

This morning, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D-MN), who rose to national prominence in 2024 as Kamala Harris's running-mate, has announced he will no longer seek reelection for a third term in Minnesota.  Walz had announced that he would run late last year, but for a variety of factors (some we'll get to now, some at #5 on this list), Walz has decided not to pursue a third term.

Walz's announcement comes on the heels of Republicans repeatedly attacking him on a scandal involving daycare fraud, a video of which went viral when YouTuber Nick Shirley claimed that daycares in Somali neighborhoods were taking money from the government.  This came on the heels of the Walz administration being reluctant to push against the nonprofit Feeding Our Future, which has ties to the Somali-American community (a prominent population in the Twin Cities), over fraud accusations, which eventually led to the Biden administration arresting and charging a number of people involved in this scandal.  Walz has stated (correctly) that they had pushed harder in 2025 against fraud, including at least one of the locations highlighted in Shirley's video, but this appeared to be a ballooning scandal, and GOP members of the Minnesota State legislature had pushed for Walz to resign.

Walz alluded (in part) to this scandal during his speech, so I'm going to chalk it up to (at least in part) why he stepped away, and I'll get to why I think there are more pressing reasons he did in a second, but I think it's worth noting that this is not similar to Joe Biden's reelection campaign last year.  This scandal was not going to hurt Walz enough to cost him reelection, and I think he knew that, which is why I think other things were going to be at play.  Some have compared Walz to Biden, so I want to state on record-I don't think Walz would've had any issue winning a third term with these scandals, and while they could've served as a distraction, had he run, he would've won (something I do not believe about Biden).

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)

2. Amy Klobuchar Would be the GOP's Worst Nightmare

It appears that Walz leaving will be a nightmare-in-disguise for the MN GOP, as US Senator Amy Klobuchar appears likely to enter the race.  Klobuchar is, by pretty much every major, the most popular politician in the state, likely the most popular politician in Minnesota since Arne Carlson in the 1990's, and would steamroll into the Governor's Mansion should she win.  Klobuchar's name has been thrown around frequently for the governor's race in the past, and it's not a surprise that she seems like she'll consider it.  It would also be historic-Minnesota has never had a female governor, a streak she would break if she were to run.

Given the impending blue wave, the MN GOP was always going to struggle in holding the split government (currently the Republicans have the State House while Democrats have the other two prongs of the trifecta), but with Klobuchar in the race, it'd be a lost cause.  In fact, with the Minnesota GOP looking like it could nominate conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell as their candidate, against Klobuchar this could be similar to the recent gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, where she would be in a position to win by 15-20 points, something that would decimate the remaining Republicans representing the exurbs and suburbs in the state (which is the only way they have a shot at a majority given how most of the population growth in the Gopher State has been in the Twin Cities in recent years).  By getting rid of Walz, the Republican Party could well have spelled their own doom in Minnesota, and given a woman who clearly still has national ambitions a blue trifecta that would be very attractive on a presidential ticket in 2028 or 2032.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

3. The Democratic Senate Leader Shadow Race Got Smaller

Klobuchar stepping away from the Senate (if she does, which seems awfully likely right now) would take a name out of the already small hat of candidates who could succeed Chuck Schumer as Democratic leader.  Schumer is not up for reelection until 2028, and given the collegial nature of the Senate (and that he seems poised to pickups seats in 2026), it's probable he stays as leader until then.  But Schumer is 75-years-old, and his popularity with the base has waned during Trump's second term.  Retirement seems probable in 2028, and even if he doesn't, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would be an even-bet (maybe even a favorite) to beat him in a primary that year.  Either way-that would set up a situation where the Senate leader position would be open for the Democrats.

Klobuchar would've been a solid bet for that job.  She's the Chair of Steering & Policy, and widely respected as an effective legislator.  If she steps away, it appears likely that the race to succeed Schumer (given many members of the leadership are also quite old) would go between the establishment choice of Brian Schatz (D-HI), progressive Chris van Hollen (D-MD), who has become a hero of the left, and underdog candidate Martin Heinrich (D-NM) who has not so subtly endorsed candidates like Graham Platner, Mallory McMorrow, & Peggy Flanagan, all of whom (if you believe reports) are not favorites of Schumer's (i.e. candidates who, if they win, are unlikely to go for Schumer's chosen successor of Schatz).  Klobuchar could've been a compromise candidate here, but with her gone, one wonders if we have a much messier race to follow Schumer.

Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN)

4.  The Senate Primary Just Got Wild

Speaking of Peggy Flanagan, if Klobuchar runs the Senate primary that is pitting her against Rep. Angie Craig would get significantly more complicated.  I should note that even if Klobuchar doesn't run (in which case I'd imagine this is a rather bloody primary between Secretary of State Steve Simon and Attorney General Keith Ellison...a primary uncomfortable enough that I would imagine Klobuchar is keeping that in mind as she weighs her options), this race was already tricky.  Flanagan has led in the one poll of the race (done almost a year ago...is there a GoFundMe I can sponsor to get another one?!?), but Craig has demolished Flanagan in fundraising, raising almost twice as much and with 3x more on-hand.

If Klobuchar runs, though, the math for both Flanagan & Craig gets tricky, as there's a Senate primary the entire state is running, and there's one that just Klobuchar is running.  Craig, in particular, feels attuned to Klobuchar's style of politics, and would be a likely contender to replace Klobuchar if she runs and wins.  I don't see a world where she would abandon her primary race (particularly given there's limited polling, so there's not a lot of public acknowledgement who is leading this race), but she might be more willing to step aside during Minnesota's powerful caucus endorsement process than just ignore it (as politicians, including Walz, have done in the past) given Flanagan is the favorite to get that endorsement.  Craig would not be the only candidate to be considered (I would imagine Secretary of State Steve Simon would also be in the conversation, and potentially a former/current high-ranking Klobuchar staffer), but it would be a potential second place prize, and one that both women have to be considering in the tricky math here.  It's also worth noting that if Klobuchar doesn't run for governor, Craig or Flanagan could consider switching races (something Craig might find intriguing).

I'll also note that Klobuchar not running changes the math on the Lieutenant Governor's race.  It's possible that Craig might consider this (though I doubt it), but I had assumed that Walz would pick someone like Melisa Lopez Franzen (who was initially running in the Senate primary but dropped out).  Now, with Klobuchar in, it's likely that she picks a male state legislator not from the Twin Cities (like State Sen. Aric Putnam) as her running-mate instead.

Gwen and Tim Walz

5. Ugly Day for Democracy

I talked about this above, but I don't think that the only reason that Walz is stepping aside is because of scandal-I also think it's because of the heinous, cruel treatment that he has personally received from the Trump administration.  Last year, one of Walz's closest friends & allies (House Speaker Melissa Hortman) was killed by a Trump supporter, and yet for months Trump has spread vicious conspiracy theories about Walz on Truth Social, saying that Walz was responsible for Hortman's death.  He had done this as recently as this weekend, with Hortman's own orphaned children begging Trump to stop spreading this hate speech.

It's hard not to wonder if this weighed on Walz's mind, having seen his friend killed by someone who was a professed Trump supporter, and then watching as Trump encouraged his supporters to spread dangerous lies about him and his family.  It's hard not to believe, in fact, that he did this in part because he was afraid of what Trump and his hate speech would do to his family.  This is an ugly reality-but it also feels like reality.  And it's a failure of the Democratic Party, in my opinion, that we were not able to protect him from this.

At the end of the day, Klobuchar will hold this seat for the Democrats, and I have confidence that Craig or Flanagan will hold the Senate seat.  Hell-they might even have won by more now that Walz is gone.  But it should scare the hell out of everyone that Trump was able to use violent hate speech and cruel lies to demonize the 2024 Democratic nominee for Vice President, someone who had telegraphed interest in a presidential run, into not seeking reelection to a seat he would've won.  Because this feels an awful lot like they were testing a playbook to use against our nominees in 2028 when they run to succeed him. 

Why the DGA is Playing Long Odds in the Midterms

State Sen. Lynne Walz (D-NE)

This past week, Democrats got two very strong candidates in a pair of ruby-red states in the South.  In Alabama, former US Senator Doug Jones decided to run against the man who beat him in 2020, Sen. Tommy Tuberville, setting up not just a rematch, but (as far as I can tell) the first gubernatorial general election to feature two US Senators since the dawn of the Republic (certainly since the passage of the 17th Amendment).  In Nebraska, former State Sen. Lynne Walz has set up an exploratory committee to run for governor; Walz was term-limited in 2024, but she held a district that went to Donald Trump by 33-points, a gargantuan achievement given the letter behind her name.

Jones & Walz are on top of a really impressive recruitment cycle so far for the DGA in states that Donald Trump won by more than 10-points in 2024.  From key state legislators in Alaska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, & South Carolina to former members of Congress in Florida to statewide officials in Iowa to prominent government officials in Ohio, the DGA has kind of knocked out of the park in terms of recruitment in states that Donald Trump won by a large enough margin that, well, Democrats are likely going to lose.  In the Obama era, and exacerbated even more so in the Trump & Biden eras, ticket-splitting, even for gubernatorial races (where voters are historically more willing to look at the other party than in federal contests), has started to go out of fashion.  So is there a purpose to getting candidates this quality into these races if they're just going to lose?

Since 2009, twelve states that Obama/Trump/Biden won by 10+ points still flipped to the other party in a gubernatorial election while they were in office: NJ-2009, ME-2010, MI-2010, PA-2010, NM-2010, WI-2010, IL-2014, MD-2014, MA-2014, KS-2018, KY-2019, and VA-2021.  Given that all fifty states have had elections 4+ times during that run, that's not a lot, and that number is inflated by President Obama's gargantuan win in 2008 (making swing states like Pennsylvania & Wisconsin just barely inch outside of the regular 10-point margin).  Since Trump first won, it's only happened three times: Laura Kelly, Andy Beshear, & Glenn Youngkin, an infinitesimal number of races (it's worth noting that Kelly is currently the DGA Chair and Beshear will be for 2026, so they picked the right candidates for this job if they want to get more red-state Democrats elected).

But those Trump numbers underline that there's more going on below-the-surface than what we're led to believe.  In 2018, for example, Democrats got shockingly close to winning the governorship of South Dakota.  Same with Mississippi in 2019, and on the flip side, Republicans nearly winning New Jersey in 2021 and Oregon in 2022.  These are all races that the party out of power was able to recruit a really good candidate, like we're seeing this cycle, and then hope the party with the clear advantage falters in the process (which it's too early to tell if that will happen).

When you hear of quality candidates like this, you oftentimes hear "even if they lose, they'll help down-ballot" which isn't wrong.  While Jack Ciattarelli was doing surprisingly well in the gubernatorial race of 2021 he'd ultimately lose, Republicans picked up 2 seats in the State Senate and 6 in the General Assembly.  Same in Oregon in 2022, where the Republicans picked up two State House seats and a seat in the State Senate.  Winning, though, matters more (Republicans picked up 7 seats and the majority in the Virginia General Assembly in 2021 on the coattails of Glenn Youngkin's statewide victory).

But ultimately none of these candidates are doing this out of the goodness of their heart-they want to win.  They want to pull off that Kelly/Beshear/Youngkin moment, and find a way to become the very rare red-state Democrat in modern culture.  And to be honest...my guess is one of them does it.  Even with long odds, betting this big this many times is a really good way to try to get at least one victory, which the Democrats will probably need to get a clear majority of the governor's mansions for the first time since 2009 (technically staying in seats that Haris won or lost by less-than-ten-points could get them to 27, but that would mean flipping New Hampshire & Vermont, which at this vantage point seems unlikely).  And in an era where Democrats are outperforming in special elections, and Trump is increasingly unpopular, voters wanting to give the other party a chance, particularly when it isn't in a federal race, could be back in fashion.  People like Walz & Jones usually lose, but a couple of them have won in the past decade, and I suspect we'll see at least one who does next year.

Could Shaheen & King Suffer the Sins of their Parents?

City Councilor Stefany Shaheen (D-NH)

Last night, eight Democratic senators banded together with all but one of the Senate Republicans (Rand Paul being the holdout) to put an end to the longest shutdown in government history.  In the process, they essentially got nothing more than a ceremonial nod to their chief concern-the skyrocketing premiums that are going to go into place as a result of this move for the Affordable Care Act, where millions of low-income and unemployed Americans will face the brunt of this burden.  The Democrats this morning tried to defend it, with people like Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) going on Fox News (always a good sign you know you did the wrong thing when you choose to lead off on Fox News with your decision as a Democrat) to state that this was needed, and they were the brave ones for ending the shutdown, but Democrats were appropriately livid at this mischaracterization.  This is a deal that could've been struck weeks ago, and as a result it looks like we shut down the government for nothing (because at this point, we did)...and it's likely that Democrats will bear most of the blame for this as a result, when in reality we were poised to take none of it.  Coming off of an historically strong blue wave election last Tuesday, this made the eight Democrats involved look like cowards.

But Democrats who want to punish these eight senators are in a weird, and seemingly coordinated position where that would be impossible.  For starters, none of these eight senators (Tim Kaine, Maggie Hassan, Jeanne Shaheen, John Fetterman, Jacky Rosen, Catherine Cortez Masto, Angus King, & Dick Durbin) are on the ballot in 2026-two of them are retiring, and the rest aren't up until 2028 or 2030.  The cynic in me wonders if this is partly the reason that Mark Warner, who was heavily rumored to be interested in the deal, ended up sitting it out (because he is running in 2026), but you can't blame Warner at this point given he did the right thing in the end, and everything before that is just negotiating gossip.  It's already confirmed that Shaheen & Durbin are retiring, and it's heavily assumed that Kaine, King, & probably Hassan will retire at the ends of their terms as well.  John Fetterman remains a wild card, but was already DOA in a Democratic primary in 2028 even if he does run, and so you're left with the two Democratic senators in Nevada who are betting (likely correctly) that in a purple state that no one is willing to destroy the careers of possibly the only Democrats who can hold those seats safely.  You could try to go after Chuck Schumer, and you should (even though he voted against the deal, only an idiot would believe that Shaheen, Kaine, & especially Durbin would do this if Schumer was truly against it), but again-Schumer is a likely retirement risk, and his primary isn't until 2028.  I expect an increasing amount of pressure on Democratic senators to ask for Schumer to step aside as leader (whether that goes anywhere is anyone's guess), but honestly-there's not a clear path for this anger to go toward...unless you want to make this a family affair.

A weird quirk this morning that I noticed when I was looking through Twitter was a post from Stefany Shaheen.  Shaheen is running for the open 1st district House seat in New Hampshire, and she stated that she did not support the deal, and would not vote for it if she was in office.  What's interesting, of course, is that Shaheen is not just a congressional candidate-she is also Sen. Jeanne Shaheen's daughter.  Shaheen is not the only one of these senators who has a kid running in 2026-Angus King's son Angus King III is also running for office (Governor of Maine), and it's hard not to wonder-could voters take out their anger on these senators' children as retribution since there's no practical way to punish the actual causes of this issue (i.e. their parents)?

Despite American politics being a family affair (for a country founded off of throwing out a monarchy, we sure do like our dynastic politics), there's not a lot of evidence for what I'm positing here (that King & Shaheen's children might bear the brunt of their parents' actions).  The most recent example of this was in 2024, when Rep. Rob Menendez endured a relatively close (for an incumbent) election in the wake of his father Sen. Bob Menendez being charged with (and eventually indicted for) conspiracy.  But the younger Menendez still won, and is proof that voters tend to be able to separate parent-and-child when it comes to this, even when it's a case where the child should shoulder some responsibility.  In 2004, Sen. Lisa Murkowski barely hung onto her office in the wake of her being appointed by her own dad (i.e. the quintessential nepotism senator), who was governor at the time, but she did win.  In fact, it was her father Frank (on an unrelated scandal) who ended up losing, this time to future VP nominee Sarah Palin.  In 2010, Rory Reid had to run alongside his unpopular (at the time) incumbent Sen. Harry Reid in Nevada when the younger Reid ran for governor, but despite his dad being the unpopular one, it was the younger Reid who lost, less because of his dad's sins and more because his father had a weaker opponent (and, let's be honest, his dad was the savvier pol).

Angus King III (D-ME)

So in some ways this might be new territory if it works, and I suspect that Shaheen & King's opponents are going to try to make it work.  In Shaheen's race, State Rep. Heath Howard (one of her opponents) called her out directly on BlueSky, saying "then why did your mom vote for it?" when she claimed that she disagreed with the deal.  Shaheen's chief opponent in the House race (DNC Vice Chair Maura Sullivan) stated  "Democrats should be standing firm, not surrendering when Americans' health is at stake."

The same was happening in King's race, and in a rather twisted way given what King's dad just did to his campaign.  One of his main opponents, House Speaker Hannah Pingree put out a pointed statement declaring "congressional Democrats cannot rely on a vague commitment by Republicans who have only ever sought to repeal the Affordable Care Act," a pretty direct attack on Sen. King's thinking this morning.  What makes this a bit eyebrow-raising is that Pingree's mother Chellie is (like Sen. King) also a member of Congress (she's in the US House), and made an equally pointed post, stating that this "deal" (she put deal in quotations) "that lets ACA credits expire fails the millions of families counting on us to keep their health care affordable."  While Shaheen & King are watching their parents torch their chances in left-leaning primaries, Rep. Pingree is doing her daughter a solid by standing up to these attacks, perhaps even winning the family name some points in a tough primary.

To close, I want to just say that I personally think (regardless of what statements the younger Shaheen & King put out in the coming days) it's totally fair to punish the kids in this situation, and I personally would not vote for them if I was in their states.  Unlike, say, Hannah Pingree, neither Stefany nor Angus III has ever held major public office before, and they are in large part running on the legacies of their parents' names.  If those parents are destroying those legacies, it's completely sensible for voters to ask "why would I give their kids a second chance if I wouldn't do so for their parents?"  As a result, and quite frankly as a steaming mad Democrat who is pissed that King, Shaheen, and the other six Democrats (along with Chuck Schumer's inaction) allowed us to get completely owned by Republicans and in the process deny healthcare to millions of Americans, I'm hoping both King and Shaheen have to watch their children lose elections they might have otherwise won were it not for their dereliction of duty.  It's the very least they should have to go through for how they betrayed their voters last night.

Andrew Cuomo and a History of Governors Who Ran for the House

Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY)

F. Scott Fitzgerald once said "there are no second acts in American lives," which is both a very quippy and cynical take from Fitzgerald (hardly is only one), and also completely false.  Look at pretty much any success story in America, and it almost always involves a second act, frequently a slightly less impressive one (unless you're Cher), constantly reinventing yourself so that your name stays in the papers.

So it should not be shocking to anyone that Andrew Cuomo, fresh off of a defeat for NYC Mayor that once looked like inevitable victory, is reportedly considering a run for Congress.  Cuomo's team, it should be noted, shot down the rumors pretty quickly (his spokesman said "I don't know where any of that came from, but everyone should put down the mojitos") but it wouldn't be the first time that a politician said no and changed their mind to mean yes, and indeed, one wonders if Cuomo would want to humiliate himself into running for another office.

After all, Andrew Cuomo's career is such a high peak and long slow decline that it's hard to imagine, even at 67, that it might be totally over without one last gasp.  A prominent member of the David Dinkins' administration when he was mayor, Cuomo rose to national prominence as HUD Secretary during the Clinton administration, but a verbal gaffe in 2002 (when he insulted Gov. George Pataki's handling of 9/11, which was basically the third rail of American politics during the Bush administration) led to him having to withdraw from the 2002 Democratic gubernatorial primary in disgrace.  In 2006 he ran successfully for Attorney General of New York (defeating both future congressman Sean Patrick Maloney as well as future US Attorney Jeanine Pirro), starting his first "second act" and became the savior of the 2010 gubernatorial race, holding the seat after the resignation of Eliot Spitzer put it in jeopardy.

Like all New York governors, he spent the next 12 years alternating between presidential ambitions and inevitable scandal, with the latter winning out when he had to resign due to sexual harassment allegations, which would also bring down his once likely victory in the New York mayoral contest earlier this year.  After two such scandals, one has to wonder what Cuomo might get out of being a member of Congress.  Going from the very public perch of being Governor of New York to being a back-bencher in the House of Representatives, particularly when you're at the age where most people are doting on their grandchildren and cashing in social security checks might be a question mark for some people.  But I have to feel like Cuomo is looking at this loss, and realizing that "loser" is going to be the opening line of his New York Times obituary...and his ego is not willing to give that up quite yet.

While it's far more common (and respectable) for governors to run for the US Senate than the US House (next year alone you have Janet Mills & Roy Cooper both attempting it), it's not entirely unprecedented for governors to run for the House, and in fact five of them have done so successfully in the past 50 years (before that, during the first half of the 20th Century, it was much more common to make that jump).  In a couple of those cases, the governor did so in a similar position to Cuomo-running for Congress after a loss or scandal.  Charlie Crist ran for (and lost) races for Senate and Governor before favorably running for the US House, while Mark Sanford had endured a very public extramarital affair scandal at the tail-end of his time as governor (which precluded him from considering a presidential run in 2012, which I suspect otherwise would've been in the cards).  The three other governors to do this (Bill Janklow, Mike Castle, & Joseph Brennan) all came from small states where their gubernatorial constituency wasn't that different from their House one, and so the transition made sense as they waited for higher office.

Because that's really what happens here-none of these men ended their House careers well.  Castle, Brennan, & Crist would eventually run for higher office, not being content with the oftentimes anonymous lifestyle of a member of the House (going from being the CEO of a state to being just one of 435 figures from the "other side" of the Capitol has to be rough), and in all three cases they lost their bids for a promotion.  Bill Janklow was forced to resign in disgrace after being charged with manslaughter, and Sanford eventually lost a House primary after being criticized by President Trump.  While Castle had a relatively distinguished career in the House (he served for 18 years) none of them ended up getting what they wanted from this-a career finale that felt worthy of being governor, and most of their time as members of the House reads as a curious asterisk (save Castle), rather than a true second act.

And Sanford is a good reminder to Cuomo-he could lose.  After all, that's what former Governor Sarah Palin did in 2022.  Palin, after a bizarre resignation as Governor of Alaska, was seen as a presidential frontrunner in 2012, a likely Senate candidate in 2016, and a probable Trump cabinet nominee during his first administration...but none of that ever materialized.  When she finally ran for the US House, she felt like the frontrunner (similar to Cuomo's mayoral bid) before losing to a young upstart Democrat.  If Cuomo runs, he won't have this race to himself (his ex-wife's cousin Jack Schlossberg is running, as are several members of the State Assembly, and possibly former Rep. Carolyn Maloney).  Best case scenario for Cuomo running is he ends up winning and spending his twilight years as a high-profile backbencher in the House...worst case scenario, like Palin, he gets yet another loss added to that obituary.

5 Thoughts on Last Night's Elections

All right, I'm a day late (yesterday got away from me so we're doing a Thursday evening article about Tuesday's election) and we have a lot of races to cover, so let's get started on what (and I don't say this lightly) might have been the most one-sided election night in America I've ever seen: the blue wave was a tsunami Tuesday evening.

Gov-Elect Abigail Spanberger (D-VA)

1. Democrats Win Governorships in Virginia, New Jersey

The biggest victories last night for the Democrats, at least in terms of partisan hierarchy, were twin gubernatorial victories in Virginia & New Jersey.  The two sometimes felt like twin victories given that both winners were Democratic women who flipped House seats in the 2018 midterms and came to Congress after careers in traditionally male-dominated government jobs (Mikie Sherrill was in the Navy, Abigail Spanberger in the CIA).  And both of the wins, despite a lot of hemming-and-hawing over polls (there were people who thought Sherrill, in particular was going to be in a tied-race due to late polling that ended up being cataclysmically wrong), were double-digit, comfortable mandates that came on the heels of Kamala Harris scoring lukewarm victories in these states last year.

Spanberger's win is the flip, and has garnered the most headlines, particularly accompanied with flips downballot for Lieutenant Governor & Attorney General, the latter with the Democratic nominee mired in scandal (as well as Spanberger being the commonwealth's first female governor).  Her victory also came with a double-digit seat gain for the Democrats in the Virginia General Assembly, and is the next step in an increasingly likely plan to do another mid-decade gerrymander, this time for the Democrats, that should result in the left getting a 4-seat gain in the Old Dominion.  Sherrill's victory, though, is also impressive-it comes on the heels of the two-term governorship of Phil Murphy, meaning this is the first time since the 1960's that the Democrats have won the New Jersey governor's mansion in three successive elections.  This puts the number of Democratic governors at 24, which means that they just need a net gain of two seats next year to gain a majority of the governorships for the first time since 2009 (i.e. something they could not pull off in Trump's first term).

Commissioner-Elect Alicia Johnson (D-GA)

2. Democrats Score Key Victories in Swing States

Perhaps more important if you're watching for some electoral college hope, Democrats also scored big victories in Georgia & Pennsylvania last night.  In Georgia, Democrats Peter Hubbard & Alicia Johnson both won landslide victories for seats on the Georgia Public Safety Commission, ousting two statewide Republicans.  This isn't as glossy of a victory as Spanberger or Sherrill's, but it may be more impressive-no Democrat has won a statewide, non-federal race in Georgia since 2006.  Given that Republicans are trying to hold the governorship after a 24-year-run next year, and not to mention they're trying to flip Sen. Jon Ossoff's seat, this is a really ominous sign for the GOP's chances, and indicates that Georgia, despite a fall-off last year for Kamala Harris, seems ripe for Democrats to start swinging to the left.

In Pennsylvania, Democrats also held onto three seats in the State Supreme Court, which means that the state (another of the Big 7 swing states) will be guaranteed to have a Democratic majority in 2028 during the next presidential election.  This is also coming off of a really bad night in 2024 (more than any of the Big 7, Pennsylvania in 2024 was a disappointment for Democrats given how poorly they did down-ballot, in particular losing Bob Casey's US Senate seat), so the Democrats needed a win.

It wasn't just the swing states, though, that went blue.  Even deep red states like Mississippi had great news-the Democrats were able to win two seats in the Mississippi State Senate, therefore breaking a supermajority in the upper chamber for the first time in years.

Mayor-Elect Zohran Mamdani (D-NY)

3. The Name is Mamdani....M-A-Y-O-R-A-L

Spanberger & Sherrill were the headlines Wednesday morning given their offices (governors become presidents, and both are names you'll likely start hearing for such positions in the future), but it's New York City's mayoral election that was front page news for most of the country.  In an upset that seemed impossible to imagine at the beginning of the year, New York State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, the telegenic 34-year-old Democratic Socialist who ran on an exclusively progressive agenda, defeated former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to lead the most important city in America.

Mamdani's victory is a huge one for the Democratic Left, and you saw figures ranging from elected officials like Bernie Sanders & Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to online influencers like Hasan Piker celebrating this win.  Mamdani's victory gives the left a rare opportunity to show what a self-described socialist approach might look like in America on a large scale, as Mamdani would be to the left of pretty much every governor in America (if he does well, it could open doors for the left to run on his legacy in other places...if he doesn't, it could hurt their cause given he'll be pointed to as an example of someone who got a chance & didn't work).  Mamdani's victory ensured that Andrew Cuomo, who had to resign in 2021 in disgrace, will end his career the same way his father did-losing a general election that he led in in early polls to a man who started the contest as a nobody.

I will also note, because it's become something of a debate on social media in the past 24 hours, that Mamdani's win is not, historically, all that impressive.  If you compare him to most Democratic nominees for NYC Mayor, he underwhelmed (those comparing him to the Obama 2008 campaign need to check themselves-Obama's race was far more of an achievement).  Of course, winning a landslide wasn't really his goal, and wasn't really possible.  He was running against a well-funded, well-known former governor, and because of his viewpoints, was unpalatable to large chunks of an electorate that normally favors a Democrat.  I honestly don't think it matters-winning margins when you're groundbreaking (and Mamdani's politics and youth do make him groundbreaking) matter less than just getting a win, but it has to be said that if the Democratic establishment had gone all-in on a more conventional Democrat without Cuomo's baggage (like, say, NYC City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams), it's possible Mamdani's campaign would've mirrored that of Omar Fateh's in Minneapolis: bigger-than-usual, but not a victory proper.

Mamdani's victory also is a bad look for Chuck Schumer, who (along with fellow Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand) refused to endorse the Democratic nominee in the race (and unlike Gillibrand, Schumer is a NYC resident, so he definitely voted on Tuesday).  Schumer has faced criticism for poor strategic approaches in recent months (particularly his tacit endorsements of candidates like Haley Stevens for Senate), but this is a bad look because it will come back to haunt him.  Not only has a man he refused to endorse just become mayor of the biggest city in his state, but he did so with the endorsement of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, seen as Schumer's likely primary opponent.  Schumer could've taken a play from Kathy Hochul (who gave Mamdani a reserved, but very real endorsement, and will probably escape a particularly robust primary challenge as a result), but didn't, and I suspect he may pay a bigger price for it than his inaction indicated.

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)

4. Proposition 50 Passes

Let's turn our attention to the 2026 midterms, but we don't have to crane our necks too far as the state of California is giving us a grand look.  Proposition 50 passed overwhelmingly last night in the Golden State, meaning that the gerrymandered maps that Gavin Newsom pushed to counter the gerrymandered maps in Texas will officially become the law, and part of 2026's math.  In California, it is likely that the Democrats will net another 4-5 additional seats.  Three of them seam near-certain after last night, with Ken Calvert, Kevin Kiley, & Doug LaMalfa all three now in districts that went for Kamala Harris by double digits (the kinds of seats it's basically impossible to win in a blue midterm), and Darrell Issa is now in a seat that Trump lost, albeit by 3-points.  The problem for Issa is that he's way too conservative to get crossover support, something that's not the case for David Valadao (in a Biden/Trump seat now, though one Biden won by much more than Trump), though Valadao also has to be nervous.

Calvert won't even run in the 41st district-much of his old district is in the 40th seat currently held by Rep. Young Kim (which was made much redder to shore up the other districts), setting up what will be the cycle's first member vs. member.  It won't be the last, though-in Texas, a special election to fill the seat of the late Rep. Sylvester Turner went to a run-off between County Attorney Christian Menefee and attorney Amanda Edwards.  Whomever wins this seat (the race will conclude in January) will surely run for reelection in a race against Rep. Al Green.  Member vs. Member races oftentimes get ugly (and are extremely rare outside of a year ending in "2"), so both are worth keeping an eye upon, particularly the one in Texas which will echo the ongoing narrative about age (Green is 78-years-old, both Menefee and Edwards are under 45).

Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME)

5. Nationwide Republicans Get Nervous...Even as Democrats Make a Massive Unforced Error

Former Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) last night proclaimed the Senate in play, and if this is the electorate (a huge if), she'd absolutely be right.  It's worth noting that most of the Virginia Assembly seats that flipped, to be fair, were in seats that either Harris won or Trump won by less than 5-points in 2024-the electorate was in some ways just giving Democrats the victories they needed down-ballot.  But the recalibration of, say, Hispanic voters back to Biden-era voting in New Jersey is a question mark for states like Texas, Nevada, & Florida next year which have Gubernatorial and/or Senate races up for reelection.

The single person that felt like she should be the most nervous last night, though, was Susan Collins.  If it's a case where hard-red areas aren't going blue (just getting a bit pink), but the blue/purple districts are abandoning Republicans en masse in the Trump 2.0 era, there is no candidate that feels more vulnerable under that scenario than Collins.  Collins has built most of her brand off of Democrats willing to split their ticket with her, and she can't win without that phenomena continuing in 2026.  One has to wonder if she's doing internal polling right now to make sure Graham Platner stays in the lead, given he is a uniquely toxic candidate she could exploit in a way that she won't be able to go against Janet Mills.

But it's also still anyone's game, as is evidenced down-ballot in the Pine Nut State, where Rep. Jared Golden's decision to retire yesterday made it all-but-certain that a different former governor, Paul LePage (i.e. the guy Mills beat in 2022) will flip the seat.  Democrats on the left have long-hated Golden, to the point they drove Matt Dunlap to challenge him from his left (possibly a contributing factor to his retirement), but now they'll get a red seat as a result.  If we're witnessing the rise of a Democratic Tea Party, they seem to be making some of the key mistakes that the Republicans made in 2010 & 2012.

Tim Walz Sets His Course

Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN)

Earlier this year, Kamala Harris announced that she would not be running for Governor (and has since been on a "burn every bridge book tour" that I don't know that I'm going to write about, but indicates to me that she has no intention of running for President in 2028, as this is not the kind of book tour you run if you eventually need campaign endorsements).  But her running-mate, up until this past week, had largely kept shy about what he planned to do next.  For a while, it looked like Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz might consider running for the US Senate (potentially even against his Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, who is running for the open seat currently-held by Tina Smith, and if you believe most local Minnesota gossip, has a complicated relationship with the man she spent most of his first two terms being quite close with).  But he declined.  Then it looked like he might retire in the wake of the death of his political ally & friend Melissa Hortman (for those unfamiliar with Minnesota politics, had Walz stepped aside, there's a strong possibility that Hortman would've run for the open Governor's race, potentially even with his endorsement).  But Walz this week announced that he will run for reelection, seeking an unprecedented third four-year term.

Minnesota, unlike most states, does not have a limit on the number of terms that the Governor can serve (it's one of only 13 states where that's the case).  But unlike places like Vermont, Texas, Wisconsin, & Iowa where this has been proven by longtime incumbents such as Terry Branstad & Tommy Thompson, Minnesota has never had a governor win a third term since the state went to four-year terms.  Orville Freeman was the last governor to successfully win a third term, but it was in the 1950's when the state only had two-year terms for the Governor.  Since 1962 (when they switched over to four year terms), no governor has successfully won a third term, and honestly...few have even considered or been eligible for one.

In the case of two governors (Arne Carlson & Mark Dayton), neither of them sought another term (Dayton's health was pretty bad by the time he was done so it's unlikely another campaign would've ben well-advised, Carlson likely could've won one as he remained popular, and certainly could've been a calming compromise in the insanity of the state's 1998 election).  Tim Pawlenty initially declined to run for a third term in 2010 (it's questionable whether he would've won one, but given the hard red wave that year it would have been a tossup, even against someone as formidable as Dayton), at the time focusing on a presidential campaign in 2012.  But when that fizzled, he took another stab at the nomination in 2018 for a third term...but in the MAGA era, couldn't even win the primary.

The most famous case of a Minnesota governor attempting a third term was in 1990, when Gov. Rudy Perpich went for what was really a fourth term, as Perpich had briefly been governor in the late 1970's when Wendell Anderson resigned to become a US Senator.  Tangent time: if you've read this blog for a while, you know I loathe the idea of people not referring to a partial political term as a "term" because term is not inherently a word that solely means a specific unit of time...that would be what the phrase "full term" is for, but I digress.  Suffice it to say that Perpich was attempting to do something that had never been done before-be elected to a third four-year term after winning in 1982 & 1986.

Perpich's election was fraught.  He had been in politics for 20 years (the Democrats hadn't had a ticket without him since 1970), and people were ready for a change, particularly in a down economy.  But the Republicans didn't nominate the popular-and-moderate State Auditor Arne Carlson, but instead businessman Jon Grunseth, who was ahead of Perpich for most of the campaign.  Grunseth, though, three weeks before the election, was caught in a massive sex scandal, where it was alleged that he had gone skinny-dipping with four teenage girls (one of which was his stepdaughter) in the early 1980's.  Grunseth initially refused to drop out, and Carlson started to wage a write-in campaign.  With the Republican vote split, it seemed like Perpich was going to accidentally get his third term despite being unpopular...until Grunseth was convinced to drop out, and in an era before widespread early voting which would've made this impossible, Carlson was put on the ballot and beat Perpich by 4-points.

Walz is not in the same position as Perpich.  He is considerably more popular (though less popular than he was before he unsuccessfully sought the governorship), and while Democrats might be tired of him, in the Trump Era it's unlikely that they'll throw him out for someone else, and indeed, the Republicans appear poised to nominate the man Walz defeated in 2022, Scott Jessen, again (though other candidates are running, Jessen is the biggest name so far).  Walz's decision makes what could've been an ugly primary between Secretary of State Steve Simon and Attorney General Keith Ellison (both of whom skipped the Senate race this year, likely with an eye on Walz retiring) a non-issue (at least until 2030, when Walz's running-mate could potentially be the most important name in the race, making Simon & Ellison's decisions not to go for the Senate look a bit like bad timing on their parts).

This also keeps the window open for Tim Walz in 2028's presidential race.  Walz made headlines in 2024 for stating he had "no intention to run for president" as one of the reasons Kamala Harris allegedly picked him, but anyone who has followed politics for a while knows that's something people say until they don't say it, and I expect Walz to heavily consider running for president.  In the past 100 years, we've had 24 losing VP candidates (not counting Walz), and 10 of them ended up running for the nomination, which sounds low until you remember that two of them (Charles Curtis & Charles McNary) died before the next election, and five others (Estes Kefauver, Lloyd Bentsen, Jack Kemp, Sarah Palin, & Paul Ryan) did not tamp down speculation they would run, even if they ultimately did not, essentially running a public opinion campaign even if they didn't run an actual one.

But to put some perspective on this for Walz, only two of those 24 (Walter Mondale & Bob Dole) would get the nomination, and neither of them would win the general.  You have to go back to 1920 for the last time a losing VP candidate (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) would eventually become president.  Walz's chances of making history in Minnesota as its longest-serving governor seem bright, but if he has his eye on redemption for 2024 on a national scale...he's got a lot of history to overcome.