Examining the Senator-to-Governor Trend

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL)

It is widely-expected this week that Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R), a first-term senator from Alabama who won his seat in 2020 by ousting incumbent-Sen. Doug Jones (D), will announce a run for governor at the age of 70.  Tuberville, most noted prior to his time in politics for a successful run as football coach at Auburn University, has been an atypical senator.  His most notable feats in office has been in denying a number of members of the armed forces promotions (as retribution for the Biden administration's position on abortion, though he eventually caved on this despite the Biden administration not changing their position on abortion), and a series of verbal gaffes that would rival Donald Trump in terms of their suspension from reality (he could not identify all three branches of government in an interview, for example).  Why Tuberville is trying to run for a much more strenuous job (governor, by-and-large, is a tougher job than US Senator in terms of sheer workload) at his age is beyond me, and speaks to perhaps the toxicity of the modern Senate...because he's not alone.

Tuberville has already been joined in his quest to leave the Senate for a governor's mansion by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO), who is running for the open Senate seat in the Centennial State.  It also appears increasingly probable that Bennet & Tuberville will add a third senator to their list of 2026 gubernatorial candidates when Marsha Blackburn, who has spent months telegraphing her interest in running in Tennessee, will get into the race (and if she doesn't, I would expect the state's junior senator Bill Hagerty to enter the contest).  Unlike Tuberville, who is up for reelection in 2026, both Bennet & Blackburn would not have to give up their seats if they lost (Hagerty would) since they just won reelection in 2022 & 2024, respectively, but like Tuberville, they would be heavy favorites in both the primary and the general election, so they would probably give up the seat regardless.

This is a pretty big number.  Despite every state having had at least 6 gubernatorial elections this century so far, only 10 US Senators (either sitting or former) have run for Governor of their state, and if you limit yourself to just sitting senators (which Tuberville, Bennet, Blackburn, & Hagerty all are), that number moves down to just 6 senators.  We'll talk about this in a second, but generally senator is a job that you lean into more in your old age, and one that is seen as the second act.  Just looking at the current US Senate, there are 12 former governors alone in the upper chamber, much less considerably more if you look at the past 25 years (or the fact that many incumbents like Steve Daines, Angela Alsobrooks, & Blackburn herself initially beat governors to get their jobs).  Admittedly there are more senators than governors (though senators always have longer terms, so it evens out), but by-and-large: governor-to-senator is a much more historically predictable path than senator-to-governor.

That being said, when you are a senator running for governor...your odds are pretty darn good that you're going to win.  Senators come with a wealth of fundraising options nationally (people still want to contribute to a US Senators campaign, especially if they're an incumbent), universal name recognition, and most of these races were won by the running senator.  Of the 10 senators who have run for governor this century (Frank Murkowski, Jon Corzine, Sam Brownback, Mark Dayton, Lincoln Chafee, David Vitter, Mark Begich, Mike DeWine, Kelly Ayotte, & Mike Braun), just two lost those races (Vitter & Begich).  Vitter's campaign is one of those ones that was really fun to follow at the time as he started out the heavy frontrunner-it was a Republican state, Obama was still in office, and he'd easily survive the 2007 prostitution scandal when he ran for reelection in 2010 (against a sitting incumbent member of the House, so hardly a gadfly opponent).  But Vitter struggled against attacks that actually stuck about the prostitution scandal that cycle, barely got through the first round of the jungle primary, and lost to a previously unknown (nationally) House Minority Leader John Bel Edwards.  Begich, on the other hand, had already lost a Senate race in 2014 when he ran for Governor in 2018, so he was going in with a limping hand before he lost again.

The rest, though, all won.  Not all of these governorships were successful, mind you-Murkowski & Corzine would both lose their reelection bids, and Chafee didn't run in 2014 because it was apparent to pretty much everyone that he would lose either in the general or a Democratic primary (he then went on to run one of the most idiosyncratic presidential primary races I've ever seen, but that's a story for another day).  But all of these candidates won, including former senators.  I would largely expect that trend to continue in 2026-I don't see a reason why Bennet, Blackburn, & Tuberville would lose their races (I don't even know which would be the most vulnerable...maybe Blackburn in a primary, but even that's a stretch).  Senator-to-Governor is a rare path, but it's one that's largely paved in gold in modern politics.

Before we close, I just want to note that Governor-to-Senator, the more common path, has not had anyone attempt to forge it this year (yet).  Govs. Brian Kemp, Laura Kelly, & Chris Sununu all turned down the chance to run as a challenger for their party for the Senate next year (Kelly is less surprising than the other two given her age, but all three were courted), while Tim Walz & Gretchen Whitmer saw open seat opportunities come-and-go in their state (opportunities they could've taken on a glide path if they'd so chose).  Democrats are still hopeful that they'll score a couple of challengers from the governor's mansion before this is done-Roy Cooper is seen as the #1 Senate recruit of the cycle (much of Kirsten Gillibrand's job is trying to get him to run in North Carolina...that she hasn't yet is why many, like me, think she's falling behind as DSCC Chair right now), and it appears that the door for Gov. Janet Mills (ME) to run against Susan Collins is cracking open again, as Mills looks to be open to the idea (a reader pointed this out to me on Twitter, but Mills could run for just one term and have her successor run to replace her in the Senate as well given they'd be a second term incumbent by then).  And it's worth noting that John Bel Edwards has been taking calls from Chuck Schumer about the Louisiana race.  But (to date) this cycle looks to be changing the tides on the Senate-to-Governor/Governor-to-Senate trends of the past century.

The One with the Secret Santa: Solving a Friends Mystery

I am currently rewatching Friends for the first time, from start-to-finish, in roughly a decade.  I have seen the show countless times though (from 1999-2010, I watched the show fully through pretty much every year...sometimes twice a year), and there are certain rituals I have.  Certain episodes get avoided (I hate when Ross cheats on Rachel...not wild about the aftermath of his saying "I take thee Rachel" either), while others get obsessed over.

Perhaps no episode, though, has me more curious than "The One With Chandler in a Box," the 8th episode of Season 4, because it gives us one of the few unsolved mysteries on the series.  While shows like Lost, Game of Thrones, and The Leftovers (all shows I am obsessed with) give you constant lore and things to discover, that's not the case for Friends, but there's a riddle in "The One with Chandler in a Box" that needs solving, and it revolves around a subplot of the friends doing Secret Santa.

At this point in the show, Phoebe & Monica have formed an ill-fated catering company, and both are recently unemployed so they need extra cash.  They propose to the group that they do "Secret Santa" where each of the six friends get a present for only one other person, and it's a surprise who gets whom (yes, Ross, I know how to use it correctly).  The show ends before they exchange presents, though, and it's never revealed in a future episode what the gifts are, so the show doesn't really tell us the answer of which name each person drew.  Bothered while watching this (and because this is how my brain works), I decided this was something I would take on-figuring out which name each person received.

There are four facts that are stated in the show that we can start out with in terms of clues.  First is that we know Phoebe has Rachel, because initially Chandler wants to trade with her for someone other than whom he has (Chandler's original name is never stated), and Phoebe is excited because Rachel is hard to shop for.  Later we learn that Ross has Monica, whom he is trying to swap for because he already bought her a Hanukkah present, and that Chandler doesn't have Ross (because he's trying to get him because he already bought a suitcase with the initials "RG" for Rachel).  The final clue we learn is that Joey does not have Chandler, because he tries to trade for him right before the end credits.

From this, though, we can infer a few more things.  Chandler asks to switch with Phoebe & Monica, so it is implied that he doesn't have either of them, so the only person he could possibly have is Joey.  This means that the only three unknowns are Phoebe, Joey, and Rachel.

Joey can't have Chandler, so he has to have Phoebe or Ross.  Doing some inferring, Monica can't have Ross, because if she did she would've switched when Chandler tried to get him from her.  As a result, we know she has to have either Phoebe or Chandler.  Rachel is the only person who has no hints.  None of the extended scenes solely on the DVD's reveal any other hints.

Using solely clues in the episode, here's what we know:

• Phoebe has Rachel
• Ross has Monica
• Chandler has Joey
• Joey has Phoebe or Ross
• Monica has Chandler or Phoebe
• Rachel has Ross, Phoebe, or Chandler

These are the only stated hints, and so there's no totally data-based way to figure out all six Secret Santa's.  However, you can get there if you make some inferences.  When Joey asks "who had Chandler, cause I need to trade?" Phoebe looks at Monica, and Monica grins.  If we take of this as a "canon in the show" moment, it would imply that Monica got Chandler (a slight stretch, as it's likely just an acting choice by Courteney Cox, but for resolution let's go with it).  That still leaves Joey & Rachel undecided.

However, if we assume (off-camera) that Chandler asked Rachel if she had Ross, because he'd asked everyone else (except for Joey, who was fighting with him), and she didn't switch with him, that would mean that Joey would have to have Ross by process of elimination...which would mean that Rachel has Phoebe.  So:

• Phoebe has Rachel
• Ross has Monica
• Chandler has Joey
• Joey has Ross
• Monica has Chandler
• Rachel has Phoebe

There-the next rewatch of Friends you will thank me for this!

The Path to a Democratic Majority

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

In a recent article in The New York Times, they talked about Chuck Schumer's path to a Senate majority in 2026, an already rocky proposition given how tough the map is, and how Schumer was "thinking outside the box" and "looking for political lottery tickets" in 2026 in hopes of securing a majority (or at least making his fight in 2028 easier).  One of the states that Schumer highlighted in the conversation was Mississippi, where Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R) is up in 2026.  I thought this was so odd (and unlikely) that I wanted to talk about what a Democratic Senate majority next year (which, to be fair, would be about as unlikely as it felt at this time in 2005, so it's not totally out of the question) would look like.

Though I'll talk in a minute about how I think that Schumer is incorrect about Mississippi, Schumer is 100% accurate about "thinking outside the box" and "looking for political lottery tickets."  In 2026, provided there are no unexpected vacancies or party switches (which there were in 2001, 2009, 2009 again, & 2017 this century, so don't totally discount that as an option), the Democrats would need to flip four US Senate seats in order to take the majority.  This is a gargantuan task.  Assuming that they hold all of their current US Senate seats (which will not be a walk-in-the-park given two Trump 2024 states, Michigan & Georgia, will be up next year), they'd still need four more seats.

The problem there is the map only really allows for two obvious pickup opportunities: Maine & North Carolina (Democrats badly dropped the ball in 2026 already by not getting Mandela Barnes & Bob Casey elected).  Despite some people thinking Sen. Susan Collins is invincible, I'd still put her at a tossup at this point (though DSCC recruitment for her seat has been pathetic), but she's in a seat that Kamala Harris won by 7-points last year, and unlike 2008 & 2020, there's no presidential election on the ballot to help her.  I have said this a few times, but in retrospect, I think the only point in her career Susan Collins would've lost was in 2018 (when she wasn't on the ballot).  2026 is, like 2018, a Trump midterm, and I think she's in a tough spot, which may be why she hasn't officially announced her reelection yet.  Though the DSCC doesn't have a quality candidate at this date, I do wonder if we'll have a late entry similar to Colorado in 2014 (Cory Gardner didn't get into the race until the tail end), and someone like Janet Mills or Chellie Pingree will be talked into pursuing this as a career capper moment, winning Collins' seat.

Maine is the only Harris state currently held by a Senate Republican across any cycle, but the Democrats have a clear path to a second seat as well-in North Carolina, which Harris only lost by 3-points.  Sen. Thom Tillis is pursuing a third term, and is likely to face a tough race.  One key "were they successful" metric for Kirsten Gillibrand at the DSCC is whether or not she gets Roy Cooper, the former two-term governor of the Tarheel State, into this race, and while he is apparently 50/50 on going for it...I still wager he runs, and wins the seat.  In a world where we get freshmen senators like Janet Mills & Roy Cooper (which will deservedly invite "why is DC so old?" thought pieces given they're both already eligible for Medicare), the Democrats would still be two seats short, and there'd be no obvious Harris seat to pickup.

Pickups, though, do happen as midterms can make unusual things reality.  Looking at the 2018 & 2022 midterms, admittedly, there's not a lot of evidence of this.  While there were incumbents like Phil Bredesen in Tennessee where the Democrats outran the previous POTUS race by double digits, not a single seat flipped in a state that was further apart than 10-points the previous presidential cycle (though Democrats did hold seats in Montana & West Virginia that fit this description in 2018).  You have to go back to 2010, when Republicans flipped three states (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, & Illinois) that had gone for Barack Obama by double digits in 2008.  Looking at the previous cycle, Montana would also fit this bill, going for Bush by 21-points in 2004 but then flipping to Jon Tester the following cycle.

So there's evidence of this, but not a lot of recent history.  It's worth noting that these were anomalies-WI/PA/IL all went back to Obama in 2012, and John McCain (barely) won Montana in 2008, so don't think that we can't have seats that might flip in states that are otherwise red.  But when you look at these states, they're ones with more elasticity than Mississippi, a state that does occasionally appear closer than, say, Idaho or Arkansas (other hard-red states), but that's only because it's so racially-polarized.  I've said this before, but if white voters in Mississippi were as blue as, say, white voters in Iowa or Indiana, it'd be a solid blue state.  But white voters in the South are much less malleable in the 21st Century, so if we're looking for a third and fourth seat, we're looking at states that are either swingier...or in the midwest/Great Plains region of the country with a less polarized white electorate.

That really leaves you with five states that make sense: Texas, Kansas, Iowa, Ohio, & Alaska.  Texas & Alaska were warming to the Democrats in 2020 (a much better year for the party) as Biden got within 5-points of winning there in 2020, and got exactly 10-points away in Alaska.  Both have also shown Democrats some hope in recent years-Alaska elected (statewide) Rep. Mary Peltola in 2022 (twice), while Beto O'Rourke came awfully close to flipping the Texas Senate seat blue in 2024.  Biden also got within 10-points of Iowa & Ohio, though these seem to be slipping further from the Democrats, and their best candidates (Auditor Rob Sand and Sen. Sherrod Brown) seem more interested in gubernatorial bids.  And then there's Kansas, which has drifted slightly bluer (and has a Democratic governor, albeit one too old to be seriously considering a Senate race, though she's younger than Janet Mills), but its biggest draw is the growing, college-educated Kansas City suburbs which is turning the state intriguingly pink.

These are the five states that I think a Democratic majority would be built within.  There's a possibility that an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats (like Dan Osborn in Nebraska) might sneak into the conversation, but if Schumer gets his lottery tickets, it'll be in those states.  Other states, like Mississippi, feel like a silly pipe dream.  A more plausible conversation would be if Gov. John Bel Edwards ran in Louisiana (he has reportedly met with Sen Schumer), but we've been to this dance a thousand times (not just the aforementioned Bredesen, but also everyone from Larry Hogan to Evan Bayh to Linda Lingle to Steve Bullock)...governor's races aren't the same as Senate races (also the problem with running Andy Beshear) if the state is super red, even with a quality candidate like Edwards.  Schumer's wrong to think that all lottery tickets are created equally.  If the Democrats win a Senate majority in 2026, it'd be built on either a very diverse state finally living up to that potential (Texas), a pink state finally giving us a random Mark Kirk or Heidi Heitkamp-style one-termer (Kansas & Alaska), or an ancestrally purple state having enough of the Trump tariffs and wanting to send a message (even if they still don't want to send a Democrat to the White House).

Marie Gluesenkamp Perez: Primary at Your Own Risk

Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA)

Being a swing district representative means that you are elevated from being a backbencher to far better-known than if you were in a safe district, and two swing district incumbents in the past couple of weeks have been making headlines for the same thing: a primary challenge.  In Washington, two-term Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez is facing repeated criticisms for her recent vote in favor of the SAVE Act, which has led to a left-leaning group to petition the Democrats of Pacific County (one of seven counties that Gluesenkamp Perez represents in Congress) to not pledge support for her reelection, and to allow for primary challengers against her.  Meanwhile, across the country in Maine, State Auditor Matt Dunlap is openly talking about running for Maine's 2nd congressional district...regardless of what Rep. Jared Golden does (including if Golden seeks reelection).

We've talked recently about both Jared Golden and the movement to primary Democratic incumbents (being led by DNC Vice Chair David Hogg), but this is something different.  Hogg's movement has been focused on primarying incumbents based on age, something that I have some qualms about but am definitely open to the conversation (even if, as I pointed out in the article, I think he's an inappropriate messenger for that movement), and for Golden, I talked about how I think that he should run against Susan Collins if he doesn't pursue reelection (rather than a run for Governor).  But here...I think it's right to call this what it is: lunacy.

One of the single biggest lies that a large part of the left perpetuates is the myth that "if you run a true liberal, people will vote for them."  This has been proven false time after time after time from parts of the country as geographically diverse as West Virginia to North Carolina to Wisconsin to Oregon.  In order to win, particularly as a Democrat, you need to run moderates in purple/pink districts in order to win.  And when you do find a candidate that can break through, you stick with them even if they occasionally vote against what you believe.

Based on the 2024 elections, there are currently 13 House Democratic incumbents up in 2026 that won seats that Donald Trump won in the election.  In addition to Gluesenkamp Perez & Golden, these include Adam Gray (CA-13), Josh Harder (CA-9), Kristin McDonald Rivet (MI-8), Don Davis (NC-1), Nellie Pou (NJ-9), Gabe Vasquez (NM-2), Susie Lee (NV-3), Tom Suozzi (NY-3), Marcy Kaptur (OH-9), Henry Cuellar (TX-28), and Vincente Gonzalez (TX-34)...they are joined by Jon Ossoff as the only Democratic senator up in 2026 who is running in a state Donald Trump won in Georgia.  It's worth remembering that these 14 incumbents exist on top of the reality that Republicans have the majority, and that in 2026, there's only four Republicans up for reelection in districts that Kamala Harris won: Susan Collins (ME) for the Senate, and Mike Lawler (NY-17), Don Bacon (NE-2), & Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-1) in the House.  So despite having 4x as many crossover voters, they still lost both houses, a testament to how much of an advantage Trump's support gives the Republicans as we look to the midterms.

I will acknowledge that not all of these incumbents are created equally.  Susie Lee, for example, has virtually no crossover support from Harris in her district (she won because Harris lost her district by less than any of the other districts, under a point, and so she just needed minimal incumbency advantage to get her victory).  Others, like Pou and Harder, possibly shouldn't be considered all that impressive since they represent historically blue districts that a stronger presidential nominee could've secured.  But for my money, all 14 of these members deserve a clear field for re-nomination-they've proven they can win in the worst of circumstances, and you don't throw that sort of tactical advantage out when you can't afford to do so (i.e. when you're literally already in the minority even with these incumbents).

I don't remotely support the SAVE Act.  I think Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden were cowardly for supporting it, and Gluesenkamp Perez, in particular, looks like she made a long-term mistake in backing the bill.  Her district is one of the extremely rare seats in Congress that Harris made gains on Biden's margin, and thanks to the burgeoning blue population in the Portland suburbs, this is a district I'd eye as a real potential for the 2028 Democratic nominee to win it.  At that point, it might be worth primarying Gluesenkamp Perez, because a blue district shouldn't be held by someone who backs something like the SAVE Act.

But not beforehand.  Gluesenkamp Perez is the only Democrat to win this district in recent history-Patty Murray, Bob Ferguson, Joe Biden, Maria Cantwell...they all lost it even while winning statewide by double digits.  She's more liberal than any Republican would be in her scenario, and a key vote on abortion, veterans' issues, & transportation.  I 100% think she deserves the criticism headed her way from this vote, and I support her getting criticized at town halls for it-that's how democracy works.  But to primary her from the left is idiocy, it's throwing away a hard-fought seat, one that will be crucial to the Democrats regaining a House majority next year.

The MAGA Riddle I'll Never Unlock

I have come to terms with the fact that, ten years into MAGA, I will never entirely understand the appeal of Donald Trump.  I think, even if you subtract his views (and I do think a lot of people have to do that when thinking about him, mostly because his views are so ephemeral that you couldn't consistently support him without ignoring how often he changes his mind), I still don't get why people find him appealing.  There are Republicans I can understand why people are "into them."  Nikki Haley has a girl boss persona that I could see people liking, same with John McCain being a war hero, or Mitt Romney being a devout family man.  Chris Christie is kind of clever, as is Kellyanne Conway, Mitch McConnell is smart, and there are figures on the right like Megyn Kelly & Ben Shapiro who are objectively attractive.  But Trump...Trump is none of those things.  He's not smart, he's not admirable, he's not attractive, and he barely qualifies as funny.  At best he is random, which maybe might be the appeal-his nonsense drives Democrats (like me) crazy, and the Republicans delight in that.

Which gets me to the point of this article that I've been kicking around in my head for a few weeks.  I have long given up on trying to understand Trump's appeal, but I have always kind of been curious about the MAGA concept's appeal, specifically when it comes bread-and-butter issues like the economy and healthcare.  Over the past few months, Trump's impact on the economy has been terrifying.  The day Trump took office, the Dow Jones was at 44,156.  In the months since then, it has dropped continuously, at one point dipping 7000 below that number, and is now 2000 points lower four months after the inauguration.  Our relationships with other countries, specifically longtime allies like Canada, are in the garbage, and the dollar hasn't had such a precarious position as the most important currency in the world since before World War II.  These are problems, it has to be noted, that were entirely caused by Trump-your 401k would be fine right now if Trump had literally just done nothing in the first few months of the year.

And yet if you watch Congress or the conservative press, none of this is something they are sharing with their base.  Issues like transgender sports, military service, and bathroom bills are regularly trumpeted by members of Congress, the Trump administration, and the GOP media operation.  The only major bill to be enacted by this Congress that wasn't the budget resolution was the Laken Riley Act, a bill that would allow easy deportation of immigrants charged with crimes like drunk driving or theft.  Regardless of your opinions of this bill (I wouldn't have supported it because it doesn't allow for due process), it's also a bill that very few MAGA voters will ever have to encounter.  Crime rates of immigrants are pretty much universally regarded by academics as being lower than that of American citizens, and there are 9x the amount of citizens in this country as immigrants.  Even if you support the Laken Riley Act, it almost certainly doesn't impact you.

It was one thing when MAGA voters cared about these issues but the economy was strong (like in the first couple of years of Trump 1.0 or most of the Biden administration), but the economy is weak now, and it is impacting you in a way it's impossible to deny if you base your life in reality.  You just need to look at your 401k or your bank account or your increasingly high bills to know that you are losing money, and struggling.  Medicaid, which provides healthcare to millions of Americans (including a lot of MAGA voters) is on the chopping block right now and could face serious cuts if the House Republicans have their way.  The thing that I will never understand about MAGA voters is that it appears they don't care about this, or don't care about it as much as punishing immigrants and transgender people first.

I am very proud that I support a party that supports transgender rights and that support Dreamers.  I would struggle to be a member of a party that doesn't support these issues.  But I will be transparent-I don't think about transgender and immigrant rights on a daily basis in the same way that MAGA voters clearly do given how much it consumes their social media & news.  Like a lot of Americans (though apparently not as many as I once thought), I think about things that impact my life first.  I am employed at a frequently-stressful white collar job, and run a single-income, single-family home on which I owe a mortgage (and am solely responsible for cleaning, maintaining, & repairing).  I have some health problems, ones that require me to take significant amount of time for exercise and diet.  I don't have student loans, but I do have a car payment I have to make every month, and am very active in a number of hobbies that take up a considerable amount of time.  I don't have children or a pet, but I will own that between my responsibilities, both the ones I can't escape and the ones I have put upon myself, I go to bed most nights tired and having lived a pretty full day where I didn't get everything done I likely needed to achieve.

I don't have time to worry about problems that don't impact my life.  It would be one thing if Republicans were just trying to ignore immigrants and transgender people...it's quite another when they're actively spending huge swaths of a finite amount of political capital to make their lives worse...while they are not addressing anything that might tangibly benefit themselves.  I say this a lot about MAGA, but "don't you have real problems?"  I support the DREAM Act and the Equality Act-I want the next Democratic president to pass them.  I would also be frustrated if they were the only things a Democratic trifecta had gotten done in the first 100 days of a new administration, as I would want at least some tangible impact to my immediate life if they were to take power (admittedly, the Equality Act would impact me specifically as a gay man, but you get what I'm saying).

It's the lack of self-awareness that I can't comprehend with MAGA voters.  They know they have less money now than when Trump went in office-all they have to do is look at their retirement accounts to find out.  They know that tariffs will cause prices to increase, and that it's unlikely that wages will rise at the same speed.  They know that a recession will put their jobs (and their family's jobs) at risk.  Is the trust so implicit in Trump's abilities that they can't comprehend that he doesn't actually intend to make their lives easier...or is it a case where they have never really encountered real-world problems (and formulated solutions to them) to the point where all they care about is demonizing people they don't know?  This aspect of MAGA will always be alien to me, because, like, I have real problems-I don't need to make some up while I'm trying to solve the ones I face every day.

We Need to Talk About John Fetterman

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA)

It is sometimes hard to understand noise when it comes to politics.  I write a lot about politics on this blog, and in particular what is happening in the world of the US Senate.  Since moving from having this blog be daily to having it be "occasionally" in 2025, I engage only in topics that feel huge (like retirements), or something (like our recent article about Emily's List) that I'm super passionate about discussing.  The conversation around Sen. John Fetterman's health and shift in policy position, though, is hard to discuss because, well, it's difficult to tell what is and isn't gossip.  However, it's gotten to the point where it feels like this major story should have an article devoted toward it (I want to get my thoughts into the world), and so here we are: let's talk about John Fetterman.

Sen. Fetterman's career in politics is fascinating, and increasingly similar to Sen. Kyrsten Sinema's, though far more tragically so in the Pennsylvania pol's case.  Unlike Sinema (who grew up deeply poor), Fetterman grew up relatively affluent, the son of an insurance salesman, living in a rich suburb with wealthy, conservative parents, eventually attaining an Ivy League education.  Like Sinema, his early career included a stint as a teacher, and he got into politics relatively young, serving as Mayor of Braddock, and he gained a consistent track record as a liberal early in his career (at one point, believe it or not, Kyrsten Sinema was most noted for being a member of the Green Party and actively hating Joe Lieberman).  During his 2016 Senate primary, he endorsed Bernie Sanders, the only major candidate in the Senate primary to do so, and ran to Rep. Conor Lamb's left in the 2022 Senate primary, coasting to the nomination in part due to Sanders' 2016/20 supporters strongly backing him (Sanders would endorse Fetterman in the race).  He was seen, like Sanders, as a sometimes off-beat pol, with unusual sartorial choices, but one who is hell-bent on making a difference through liberal policy-making.

But like Sinema, since joining the Senate, his most noted characteristic has been moderation, particularly in the wake of Bob Casey's loss in 2024 to now-Sen. Dave McCormick (Casey is a noted friend, and seemed publicly to be positioned as a mentor to Fetterman).  Sinema's move always felt a little bit like she was doing so out of prudence, trying to capitalize on her state being very purple, and thinking that this was the only way she could hold office (and after a while, the only way she could seem to grab influence in the Senate away from a power-broker like Joe Manchin).  Fetterman, though, appears to be suffering something worse than political miscalculation.  

According to a damning report in New York Magazine, the senior senator from Pennsylvania's mental health was severely questioned.  The article is worth reading in its entirety if you are interested, but to sum up-current & former staffers, including some on the record (rare in Washington in relation to a still very powerful sitting US Senator that you wouldn't want to piss off), have questioned Fetterman's mental and physical health in the wake of a stroke in 2022, which the article indicates was more serious than what was originally shown to the public.  The article describes a paranoid man, one who may not be taking his medications, and is indulging in conspiratorial thinking.  His former Chief of Staff Adam Jentleson wrote to Walter Reed Medical about his concerns that Fetterman "won't be with us much longer."  The article talks about Fetterman's issues with self-harm, his reckless driving (staff say they won't ride with him in the car), and his obsession with Twitter & other social media making his issues with clinical depression worse.  The article also went in-depth talking about what appears to be fissures in Fetterman's marriage to wife Gisele (a celebrity in her own right, and beloved by a lot of Democratic circles even more so than the senator) growing out of Fetterman's shift rightward on issues like Israel, with the article seemingly making at least part of this feel like a battle over Fetterman's views between his wife and his conservative father.  A follow-up article from Politico described Fetterman's current state as feeling isolated, with major political players in the state like Reps. Mary Gay Scanlon, Chrissy Houlahan, & Summer Lee saying they have not been in contact with their current senator.

Questioning the public health of politicians is not new, and something that you need to take with a grain of salt.  In recent years, we've seen this regularly for older politicians, including presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, & Joe Biden, as well as Dianne Feinstein & Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Sometimes this feels real (Trump & Feinstein, specifically, it's hard to deny) while other times (like Clinton) it was clearly meant to score political points.  The same week that Fetterman's article came out, another about former Rep. Yadira Caraveo's (who is running for her old seat in one of the most important House races on the map next year) struggles with mental health and mistreatment of staff (which felt almost interchangeable with Fetterman's) came out.  That Fetterman and Caraveo represent (or are trying to represent) crucial, majority-making seats in Congress should not be dismissed-these sorts of articles could be designed to hurt their political prospects, and help their opponents.

But with Fetterman...I believe there's fire with the smoke.  The New York Magazine article not getting rebuked strongly from the rest of the Pennsylvania delegation feels like a telltale sign, but more so does some of his public behavior.  He's missed more votes than any senator in recent memory, rivaling JD Vance (who was Vice President-Elect at the time), and was caught on video fighting with an airline pilot about wearing his seat belt.  This aligns with staffer concerns about his struggle to be interested in the job, and indulging in paranoid and conspiratorial behaviors (including in a meeting with teachers' union representatives), which would be in-line with someone who was not recovering properly from a stroke.  My personal thoughts are that Fetterman appears to be going through, at best, a deep crisis in his life (whether that's health-driven, driven by issues in his marriage, or just someone who doesn't understand the insane public scrutiny of being a member of Congress in a world with a 24/7 news cycle), and this is resulting in him not being able to handle the duties of a US Senator.  It also is not lost on me that Fetterman seems to be positioning himself for a party switch.  Despite a long history as a pretty consistent Democrat (far more so than Sinema or Manchin, who ultimately never joined the GOP), his public statements since Bob Casey's loss, and the fact that his biggest public defenders right now are his fellow Republicans like Dave McCormick, Tom Cotton, & Chuck Grassley, reads to me like someone whom Sen. Thune is courting to jump across the aisle (even if that's a long shot given much of Fetterman's political history).

Rep. Conor Lamb (D-PA)

Personally, I think Fetterman retiring early wouldn't be the worst thing.  His seat would be filled by Gov. Shapiro, so there'd be no risk of the seat flipping to a Republican in that regard, and we'd have a special election in the fall of November 2025 for the last three years of Fetterman's term where the Democrats would be favored.  This isn't ideal in terms of long-term planning for the seat.  In a perfect world, we'd get someone young into the race who could use this as a launchpad into a national political career, but Gov. Shapiro would feel pressured to pick someone loyal to him (i.e. someone like LG Austin Davis) or someone with a more established history in the state (like former Sen. Bob Casey) who could quickly assemble a campaign in the wake of a surprise exit from office.  Casey would make the most sense, but also at 65 is not a rising star...it's also not remotely old enough to assume Casey wouldn't try again in 2028 to stay in the Senate given he just ran for a seat that would've kept him in office until 2030.

The more likely scenario is that Fetterman spends much of the next three years being a perpetual pain in the ass for Democrats, then either running as an independent or, like Sinema, retiring after one term (I do think the party switch is a real possibility, one that would totally destroy any chance the Democrats have of taking the majority in 2026, but I don't think it's the most likely scenario-I think him staying a pain who caucuses with the Democrats like Sinema is likelier).  If Fetterman runs again as a Democrat, I don't think he wins a primary-the damage to his reputation with Democratic voters is too severe.  Rep. Conor Lamb, who got second place to Fetterman in 2022, has become much more vocal as a "now to Fetterman's left" alternative that even figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are warming toward, and I think, were he to run, he'd be the best candidate to beat Fetterman as he's the only one who might clear the field (and given he's only 40-years-old, Lamb would be able to recover from his 2022 loss to become a serious political force in the 2030's and even 2040's were he to take the general).

That is honestly where I think this will end.  But this feels like a volatile situation, and Fetterman comes across like an unwell man at this point.  History teaches me that a man in his situation either gets defenders from his party quickly or his staffers (and his family) right the ship by proving that these reports are wrong.  That so far none of that is happening feels like the biggest red flag in this entire conversation.

Will Emily's List Endorse in a Senate Primary?

Emily's List Founder Ellen Malcolm

The announcement this morning that Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL) will be entering the US Senate race from Illinois did something kind of monumental.  There are currently four open Senate races for the Democrats (the Republicans have just one open Senate race so far in ruby-red Kentucky), and with Kelly's announcement, three of those four races will feature credentialed (i.e. already hold high office) primaries pitting at least two female politicians against each other.  Minnesota (Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan vs. Rep. Angie Craig), Michigan (State Sen. Mallory McMorrow vs. Rep. Haley Stevens), and Illinois (Lt. Gov. Julianna Stratton vs. Rep. Robin Kelly...and possibly Rep. Lauren Underwood soon) will ensure that the freshman Democratic Senate class in 2026 will likely be a majority of women.  It also puts the organization Emily's List in a bit of a bind.

We talk about Emily's List a lot on this blog, but this is weirdly the first article where we've used the organization's name in the title (I can't believe it either), so I'll give you a little background if you're unfamiliar with it.  Founded by Ellen Malcolm, an heiress to the IBM fortune & a longtime Democratic political operative in 1985, Emily's List is one of the most important PAC's in US politics.  Malcolm started the company in reaction to the 1982 Senate elections, where she worked for Harriet Woods' campaign in Missouri (an extremely close race), and learned afterward that not only had not a single Democratic woman been elected to the Senate that year, but no Democratic woman had ever been elected to the US Senate of her own accord (ie either without being appointed or succeeding her husband into the office).  Malcolm attributed this to women not having access to funds, and made a point of endorsing pro-choice Democratic women for elections through her PAC, frequently endorsing early and getting involved with sometimes major dollar donations.  In 2024, for example, Emily's List spent millions in their quest to get Angela Alsobrooks elected to the US Senate over Rep. Dave Trone (which they were successful in doing).

Gender disparities still exist, even in Democratic politics where women have made great strides.  Currently only 34% of the Democratic Senators in Congress are women and 44% of the US House.  There is a very real possibility that in 2027, the House caucus could reach parity for the first time in American history (we'll likely talk a bit more about that when we get closer and I have a better read on the race, but recent endorsements of Democratic women in Arizona & Wisconsin show that Emily's List is coming to play there), and in gubernatorial elections Emily's List is already pushing hard for women in open seat elections in Virginia, New Jersey, Michigan, & New Mexico.  But the Senate...Emily's List, despite a plethora of women running for the Senate, has yet to endorse a single woman in the 2026 cycle, despite their slogan "early money is like yeast...it grows" where they try to get into races early to help their endorsees gain footing.

This is because while Emily's List regularly gets involved in competitive primaries where there's one woman and one (or more than one) man in the race, they don't generally endorse in races that involve two women.  In 2020, for example, they didn't endorse with Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, & Kamala Harris all running, and instead waited for all but Warren to get out of the race (when it was too late to make much of a difference).  The same was true last year for the race for the California US Senate seat, where Emily's List stayed out of the race between Reps. Katie Porter & Barbara Lee for the Senate...and in the process watched as Adam Schiff beat them both.  Emily's List's inability to wade into contentious primaries featuring multiple qualified women is basically ceding most of the discussion in the races in Michigan, Minnesota, & Illinois to other special interests.  They will surely endorse for the general election, but the primary is where most of the action is here (especially in Illinois & Minnesota), and they are not having their voices heard.

Which begs the question-are they going to get involved at all in the Senate primaries in 2026, or focus entirely on the House & Governor's races?  Every Democratic incumbent woman up in 2026 is retiring (it's admittedly just two women...Senate Class 2 is a cycle that the Democrats have phoned in due to a tough map and a bunch of guys who have been resistant to retire).  While a senator might change his mind, it's unlikely that we'll have another retirement, and Emily's List rarely goes after incumbents, especially incumbent senators, even if they're men.  In North Carolina, Maine, & Texas, the three best shots that the Democrats have of a pickup opportunity, no top tier female candidate has stepped forward to run, and Maine is the only one where that's conceivable.

But I do think that Emily's List could help the cause here.  The era that Malcolm founded the organization in, when women had very little access to funding, has definitely dwindled, as is evidenced by the number of qualified women already running for the Senate in 2026.  But it's not gone, and more so...there are states where this is a bigger deal than others.  If the Democrats want to win the US Senate majority in 2026, even if they win ME/NC/TX, they'd still need at least one more seat...and that will require them to go into pink or even red territory and get an upset.  The fields in places like Alaska, Kansas, Iowa, & Ohio are still forming, but it's probable that you'll need a diamond-in-the-rough, a state legislator or a row office-holder that can prove, like previous Emily's List endorsees Kay Hagan and Heidi Heitkamp, that they can take a Likely R race and turn it into a flip.  I suspect that Emily's List will have room to play in at least one of these contests to help push a female candidate from obscurity into a major office nomination...and if they're successful, a Senate majority.