Am I a Moderate?

For all of the time I have spent on this blog (over 16 years of regular posting), I don't know that I've ever really talked about my own opinions on my holistic political philosophy in an article.  I've certainly given opinions on issues, even specific political issues (and lord knows I've been open about being a Democrat), but I don't know that I have actually written an article where I talk about my political philosophy.  I want to do that today, but I will start with a couple of provisos: I am not someone that is super comfortable using terms like leftist, progressive, liberal, neoliberal, and moderate as distinctive classes within the Democratic Party.  This is partially because I don't think that there are true, universal definitions of these words.  Go into any forum (Reddit or academic, it makes no difference) and you'll find that no one really agrees on exactly what would constitute one versus the other (and they are oftentimes used even in reputable online publications) interchangeably.

So let's start with some of the core philosophies that I believe in.  If I were a member of Congress and voted in a vacuum (i.e. my conscience without any real-world compromises) I would be a pretty liberal one.  I support same-sex rights, including transgender athletes in high school sports, I am pro-choice, anti-death penalty, and support affirmative action reforms & equal pay for women.  I am very pro-environment, including regulations in business and in some cases on personal choice (i.e. I support something like mandatory recycling and plastic bag bans), if it means helping the environment, and am in favor of significantly more gun control than is currently in place in our country.  I support universal healthcare, am deeply supportive of public schools (I don't support public funding for private schools, and don't support home-schooling at all), and think public school should be expanded into Universal Pre-K.  I support the legalization of marijuana, and back strong public safety nets like Social Security, Unemployment, and SNAP benefits for people who are struggling.

There are limitations on my belief system, however, and were I in Congress, I would not be the most liberal member, and likely would not be deemed an appropriate choice for the Squad.  I would not call myself either a Socialist or a Communist.  While I do support criminal justice reforms, I do not support the Defund the Police movement (even if I do think that we should take a largely mental health-based approach to certain crimes, particularly those involving drug addiction) and do not support the eradication of the prison system (though I would 100% sign up for eliminating the private prison system...I think all prisons should be run by either the local, state, or federal government).  I don't support universal student loan forgiveness, even though I do support some student loan reform (including free community college, and the ability to retire certain student loans if you have paid into them long enough).  I do not support ICE in its present state, and I think we need significant immigration reform in this country (and also believe we should pass the DREAM Act), but I would not characterize my belief system as advocating for an "open borders" policy.  And while I do think there are some industries that might make sense to have more government oversight (or a government option), specifically healthcare, that does not extend to something like groceries or housing, where I think the private sector should be the vast driver of movement, and the government should be more focused on regulating safety and equity in the industries rather than actively participating.

In most avenues of life, this would make me a pretty left-leaning person.  I would not be able to win with the above platform in North Carolina or Arizona, much less in a place like Texas or Utah.  I certainly would not be able to win the presidency (nor would I want it...I would in fact never run for a public office higher than a library board).  I would be considered a pretty liberal option if I were to run in a light blue state...except that's not entirely the case in 2026.  You could make an argument that in places like Minnesota, Michigan, & Wisconsin (where Peggy Flanagan, Abdul El-Sayed, and Francesca Hong are running), I'd be more moderate than the probable 2026 statewide candidate.  And it's not necessarily because of cherry-picking issues...it's because I'm pragmatic in a way these candidates are not that would define me as a "moderate."

Healthcare is a really good example of this.  I support universal healthcare, though I am more honest about it than a lot of politicians (universal healthcare in this country is not achievable without the middle class paying more even if we tax billionaires, especially if we still allow the private sector to still run employer-bought healthcare).  But I'm also very open to compromise on getting to universal healthcare.  I would support a public option, I would support adding in Hearing/Dental/Vision to Medicare, and I would support lowering the Medicare age to 60 or even 55.  All of these are not universal healthcare, but they are steps toward it, because I'm a pragmatist-universal healthcare is not popular enough to be affordable in its current state (i.e. you'd have to raise taxes or totally eliminate employer-bought healthcare) to be able to be realistic without taking baby steps like I just listed.  I don't view these as compromises-I view these as things we could actually achieve.

And that's because I live in the real world where (unless you can get a trifecta, and probably a big one), you need moderate Democrats or even Republicans to back a bill.  Even on that pretty progressive list of goals, that's possible.  For Dental/Hearing/Vision, there is compromise to be had in, for example, trying to make Medicare Advantage more affordable, so that more people can access it.  This is something you could probably get through a bipartisan Congress as there is some common ground with moderate Republicans like Susan Collins & Shelley Moore Capito.  It's not ideal (ideal would be adding it to the original Medicare so people pay less out of pocket, and certainly would also be less private interference with the program...which honestly feels achievable in a trifecta made up of moderate Democrats), but it would at least get things in the right direction.  It would be better than what we currently have, which is the primary point.

You see this with other issues ranging from minimum wage law to foreign aid...absolutists are winning primaries on both sides of the aisle, and are refusing to find that common ground which is where legislating (imperfect legislating, but legislating nonetheless) happens.  This move toward absolutism hurts people like Angie Craig & Haley Stevens, who have stayed moderate because that's what their House districts were, but also because it's where you can actually get something done.  I want action on issues, and even if you move it in inches...it's still movement.  In a world, though, where that compromise can be seen as backing a Republican standpoint (i.e. voting to make Medicare Advantage to be stronger is a betrayal of the Medicare for All movement)...it also makes it less likely that we get anything done.  And as I'm someone who cares first-and-foremost about making things better (no matter the pace), if that makes me a moderate now...I guess I'll have to wear that badge even if it feels like a silly way to pin it on me.

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.

5 Thoughts on the Graham Platner's Allegations

Well, I did not expect to get two political articles out in two days after a relatively long drought for them, but that's the way the political news crumbles sometimes.  Without further adieu, let's discuss the horrifying allegations faced by Graham Platner, the (present) Democratic nominee for US Senate in Maine.

Graham Platner (D-ME)

1. Graham Platner Must (and Will) Drop Out

For those unaware, Graham Platner, who has faced multiple scandals involving a Nazi tattoo, racist & sexist Reddit comments, physical abuse, and extramarital affairs, added to that list with an allegation of rape from Jenny Racicot, a 41-year-old woman who dated Platner on-and-off for two years.  Racicot, a registered Democrat, said that she was initially reluctant to come forward because she agreed with Platner's politics, but said "I'm just here to tell my story to give a clearer picture of who he is and the type of past he has."

Platner initially vehemently denied the allegations & refused to get out of the race, but that tenor had softened in a Twitter video he posted, where he said he would step back for a few days and consider what to do next (while still denying the allegations).  The deadline to drop out and be replaced (without any issue) by the state party is next Monday, and I'll be honest-Platner will be forced out sometime before then, I suspect within the next 48 hours.  Already an avalanche of US Senators and Senate candidates have issued statements asking for him to step aisde, and combined with flagging poll numbers & potentially soft fundraising numbers (he hadn't yet released his Q2 numbers, always a warning sign this far into the month), he will step aside, likely saying he's doing so "to not be a distraction," but nonetheless disappearing into political anonymity.  Either way-a week from now Graham Platner will not be the Democratic nominee for the US Senate.

Senate President Troy Jackson (D-ME)

2. Democrats Will Pick a Replacement-But Whom?

Under the pretty clear assumption that Platner will drop out of the race before the Monday deadline, Democrats will get to pick a replacement.  While Gov. Janet Mills would probably be the frontrunner for this if she hadn't run, she did run and turned in an underwhelming performance (and she also seems pretty much done with politics), so I doubt she's the candidate.  The same seems to be the case for Rep. Jared Golden, who is retiring at the end of this term, but otherwise would be our best candidate and could easily beat Collins.

Therefore, it's likely to be someone with a less obvious national profile.  The far left, including Hasan Piker, are making the argument that Platner represented their ideals and while he should go, they should get the opportunity to replace him with someone from their line (former Senate President Troy Jackson).  But Jackson has a relatively robust connection with Platner (there's literally video of Platner saying that he's "proud to share a stage with him") which Collins would pretty quickly weaponize against him, and also (on a personal level) I'm feeling pretty heartily burned by the Sanders/Khanna wing of the party (more on that in a second) so I honestly hope that they pick someone other than Jackson, though online sentiment (and for what it's worth, betting markets) seem to think he's the frontrunner.

Personally, I think you could make an argument that they could go with the second place finisher in the Maine gubernatorial race, which would be Dr. Nirav Shah, but he also is a first-time candidate and (again) the party should feel a bit burned there.  It honestly feels like the Democrats, given the charges against Platner, might pick a woman as his replacement (this was a big consideration when Al Franken resigned, and ultimately ended up being a good decision), though there are men who aren't first-timers and might be in the mix (Attorney General Aaron Frey and State House Speaker Ryan Fecteau being the top ones).  State House Speaker Sara Gideon, Rep. Chellie Pingree, or Secretary of State Shenna Bellows would all work...but they've all lost to Collins before, even though I think they'd all three go in potentially as favorites if they ran this time.  Ultimately this in some ways enters VP speculation (i.e. it's mostly a guessing game where no one knows how it turns out), but I'm going to throw in one additional name I'd be looking at if I was in the contest: current Senate President (and Jackson's successor to that office) Mattie Daughtry, who is young (she's 39), a woman, a longtime & respected state leader, and because she hasn't run statewide doesn't have any of the "far left vs. establishment" baggage many other candidates have.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)

3. Susan Collins Race Just Got Completely Changed

There was mixed opinion on whether or not Susan Collins would be happy or sad about this change, and I am going on record as saying that Collins was probably miserable when this leaked yesterday.  A good comparison is the 2012 race where Republicans begged Todd Akin privately to get out of the race (according to most reports State Treasurer Sarah Steelman was ready to take over for him as a replacement), but Claire McCaskill stayed silent and only tacitly spoke against him because she knew she'd lose to Steelman.  Collins is in the same boat-she clearly wanted Platner as her opponent, likely was aware of this story (or the rumors about it), and may well have had more ammunition about Platner in her research bag.

Now Collins will have to run against a different candidate, admittedly one who is less vetted & will start out with a cash disadvantage...but that will pretty quickly evaporate.  There's no evidence this close to the election that voters punish congressional replacement candidates (this is not a Biden/Harris situation), and as long as they don't pick someone with a similar scandal or who has strong ties to Platner, he likely will be a political asterisk by November.  Instead, Collins will have to run the kind of campaign she would've had to run in 2018-where the only option to send a message to Trump is to vote her out, and she has to convince Democratic voters why they should keep her against a candidate they'll like.  I have long-maintained that 2018 might be the only election cycle since she was first elected that Collins would've lost.  2026 could well become that case, and without Platner in the race, she becomes the mild underdog in my estimation.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) at a campaign rally
with Jackson (left) and Platner

4. The Left Needs a Reality Check (or a Time Out)

I've resisted so far in this article saying "I told you so" but I'm going to say it now less to be "that guy" and more because I think it needs to be underlined.  Platner, for starters, was always a bit of a silly choice for the US Senate.  He had no political background, had never held (or even run) for political office, and he was hardly a compelling speaker if you compare him to, say, Jon Ossoff or Beto O'Rourke.  His aesthetic and personal history became a weird sort of Rorschach test for people desperate to not run yet another long-tenured political officeholder against Collins.

But the scandals were obvious, and plentiful, and the fact that so many Democrats were willing to take the risks and ignore the giant red flags of a Nazi tattoo, assault allegations, and years of casual online racism & misogyny should reflect badly on them.  Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Martin Heinrich, Ro Khanna, David Hogg, and the hosts of Pod Saves America should be ashamed of themselves.  They will claim "no one could've seen this coming" but it was very, very obvious in the same way it's always obvious Trump will have more scandals, and either they are aggressively stupid (which they aren't...well, most of them aren't) or they genuinely don't have strong beliefs beyond winning power and influence.  They were willing to nominate a Nazi-tattooed man who had had rape allegation rumors surrounding him for months for the most consequential Senate race in the country, just because it might endear them to his far-left supporters.  I'm sorry, but that is exactly what people like Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, & Ted Cruz attempted to do in 2016 in glomming onto Trump, and they deserve to be uttered in that same breath after their behavior here.

Abdul El-Sayed (D-MI)

5. Will This Influence Any Other Races?

The DSA/Democratic Tea Party train has already left the station a bit in New York and Colorado, but honestly-so far that hasn't really caused an issue like Maine, where a swing state (and in this case, a flip) was made vulnerable by nominating a candidate that was politically toxic.  It's also not clear (to me) how much legs this story has, or whether or not people will associate Platner's candidacy with the people who carried water for him (i.e. the Bernie's and the Ro Khanna's) or if this will totally be put into the confines of the scandal.

But I am definitely watching Michigan right now.  Both for the US Senate and for the 7th district, we have a duplicate of this race-a more established Democratic woman, being portrayed as the favorite of the establishment, facing off against someone backed by the Sanders/Khanna wing of the party.  In both cases, if the party doesn't back Haley Stevens & Bridget Brink (and instead backs Abdul El-Sayed & William Lawrence), they're not necessarily (hopefully) going to have a scandal of this magnitude, but they are going to be coming into the general with a coalition that we were seeing in the past few days was falling apart in Maine post the the primary glow even without the recent Platner news, and could potentially take winnable races off of the map.

The Fallout of Mallory McMorrow's Exit

State Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-MI)

Yesterday, State Sen. Mallory McMorrow suspended her campaign in the US Senate primary in Michigan.  This isn't super surprising.  McMorrow started with a lot of promise in the race.  After going viral in 2022 for a speech attacking Republicans, McMorrow seemed like a rising star in the party, and I'll own that much of her campaign (in terms of quality) was considerably sharper than her other two opponents: Rep. Haley Stevens and Wayne County Public Health Director Abdul El-Sayed.  But McMorrow struggled in the race.  In an era where the conflict in Gaza disproportionately impacts Democratic primaries compared to the general electorate's concerns, McMorrow was stuck in the middle.  She did not receive money from AIPAC (which Stevens has), but she was not as ardently anti-Israel as El-Sayed, and she pissed off the far left by criticizing El-Sayed's campaigning with Hasan Piker, who has been accused by many (including me) for being a dangerous force within the party, and of trading in antisemitic dogwhistles.  In retrospect, McMorrow would've been better off still going for a promotion, but instead for Stevens' House seat and backing Stevens from the get-go while still getting a national platform in the process.

McMorrow's campaign has shown something challenging in the Democratic primaries, and something that could be a harbinger of things to come in the 2028 presidential election: there is not room for a candidate in-between a moderate establishment type (like Stevens) and a candidate who embraces the far left (like El-Sayed).  Her campaign was sharp, she ran it textbook, and much better than Stevens, who has struggled with being socially awkward in a number of public debates and El-Sayed, who seems to be an unserious candidate; while other top Senate candidates like Josh Turek, Roy Cooper, & Mary Peltola were featuring photos of them at parades & Independence Day events in their states on social media, El-Sayed had a video of him line-dancing in an American flag cowboy hat & skin-tight black v-neck to Taylor Swift's hit "You Belong with Me."  All-in-all, McMorrow felt like a really good compromise candidate-a true progressive who would push the Senate left while still being palatable enough to moderate audiences to win swing voters in a state that Donald Trump won in 2024.  But if there's a recurring theme in the Democratic Party in 2026, it's that no one wants compromise (except me-I endorsed McMorrow and donated to her campaign).

This now sets up a really interesting dynamic in the race though: a true one-on-one, no incumbent race between an establishment figure and a far left figure.  Other races like this have either A) not featured a race relatively light on scandal, which honestly this is (as far as I can tell, there's no actual scandal involving either Stevens or El-Sayed...people just don't like their politics or their approaches, but this isn't an Andrew Cuomo situation) or B) featuring an incumbent that people can say "throw them all out to!" in the way they did Diana DeGette & Adriano Espaillat (Stevens is a sitting member of Congress, but she's not a senator).

Aggregate public polling shows Stevens in a better (but not impenetrable) position, though El-Sayed has shown up in the lead in at least some public polling against Rep. Mike Rogers.  In terms of the primary, in the past few weeks there's been a lot of candidate or PAC-backed polling, but reading through the weeds it feels like El-Sayed has a lead, though a small enough one that McMorrow's supporters could make the difference if they break toward Stevens, and there's at least some polling to show they might.  This race has entered tossup territory, and it will be interesting to see how this turns out.

This is because there's a lot of vested interest from both sides for their candidates to win this race.  Stevens started that avalanche with an endorsement from Attorney General Dana Nessel immediately after McMorrow's exit (as well as powerful SuperPac Emily's List).  I would anticipate that at least some combination of Gretchen Whitmer, Gary Peters, Jocelyn Benson, Elissa Slotkin, & McMorrow herself will also get into the race, probably to endorse Stevens.  Whitmer's endorsement would be the most consequential-she's still popular (she'd have closed down this race had she won), and there's apparently a lot of bad will from El-Sayed's campaign against her in 2018.  If she backed Stevens, it'd be worth a few points in her direction.

But if you look to the presidential races of 2024, you also see some lines being drawn.  Chris van Hollen & Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez both have endorsed El-Sayed.  This is notable in particular for AOC, as she refused to get into the Maine Senate primary recently with another left-supported candidate (Graham Platner).  On the flip side, Ruben Gallego & Catherine Cortez Masto have both endorsed Stevens, and so has Nancy Pelosi, perhaps the most lauded establishment Democrat in the party.  It's pretty clear that if you're an establishment Democrat, you want Stevens, and if you are supporting the emerging Democratic Tea Party movement from the left, you want El-Sayed.

If you've read this blog very long, you'll guess where I stand, though I will own that (like McMorrow) I feel a bit adrift.  I am a relatively conventional Yellow Dog Democrat, but one who is probably considerably more progressive than most of the politicians I support, and I was excited we had looked like another Tammy Baldwin/Tina Smith-style liberal who can easily code as a moderate.  But I also care about who we are nominating-I don't like full-on litmus tests, especially in purple/red districts like this and I also don't approve of some of the public misogyny & coded xenophobia that is coming from El-Sayed's camp, and sometimes from him himself.  I also don't think someone who publicly supported "Defund the Police" is a good candidate in Michigan, and brings insane amount of risk with him.  I therefore am hoping for Stevens, even if (as of right now) I'd bet on El-Sayed ever so slightly...though there's a lot of game to play, and if Stevens pulled an Angela Alsobrooks (i.e. a candidate who closed well enough to win in what would've been seen as an upset a few weeks earlier) I wouldn't be surprised.

Diana DeGette and the Rise of the DSA in 2026

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO)

On Tuesday, Rep. Diana DeGette lost her primary bid for reelection, becoming already the fifth incumbent Democratic House member to lose her reelection bid in a primary to Democratic Socialist Melat Kiros.  This is on top of a near-record 58 incumbents in the House (24 of whom are Democrats) that will be leaving, setting the stage for (should the Democrats win the majority), a very different caucus for Hakeem Jeffries to lead than what he currently runs.  DeGette's loss, though, also opens up a lot of questions about the DSA's growing influence on the Democratic Party...a party they seem to openly despise.

I will start by saying, transparently, I've always really liked Diana DeGette.  Her predecessor in the House was Pat Schroeder, a legendary congresswoman who ran for President in 1988, and is one of my heroes (there's a framed photo of her hanging on my wall in this room), so I will own that part of this is biased in the sense that I am sad about this loss.  DeGette is a deeply reliable Democrat, very much someone you would've historically considered a liberal.  Her record on abortion rights is perfectly pro-choice, she is a strong advocate for gun control, and in particular, is a leading politician on healthcare issues (including Medicare for All).  She is not, as has been labeled on her, a "moderate" in any sense of the word.  Her voting record would be largely indistinguishable from, say, someone like Elizabeth Warren, whom most people feel pretty comfortable saying is a liberal.

DeGette's primary against Melat Kiros is largely predicated on just a few issues, because by-and-large their viewpoints were pretty much identical from a practical standpoint.  The biggest was around Israel.  DeGette's record on Israel has been called "mixed" but it's less mixed and more nuanced.  She has pretty consistently (since the attacks on October 7th) stated that she supports Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas, but has largely refused to vote for standalone bills providing funding to Israel due to the genocide (my word, not hers, which was also a sticking point) in Gaza.  It should be noted that DeGette did vote for a humanitarian bill in April 2024 that provided some funding to Israel as part of a compromise package with the House GOP, as it also provided funding to Gaza, Ukraine, & Taiwan.  173 Democrats voted for this bill, while 37 (and 21 Republicans) voted no (to match the comparison above, Elizabeth Warren also voted for this bill, as did noted Senate liberals like Tina Smith & Tammy Baldwin).

This was, by-and-large the only major issue that the two disagreed upon in the primary, and much was made over the fact that Kiros was considerably younger than DeGette (Kiros was born the year that DeGette entered Congress), but I will note that these DSA challenges oftentimes focus on just a handful of issues: Israel, age, & stylistic approaches to politics.  I will also own that I hate primaries largely based on style, especially in solid blue districts.  I say this as someone who already admitted to having a framed picture of a politician on my wall, but I think that ultimately the best politicians are ones who actually get the job done and I don't need my politicians to be flashy.  I am aware that on occasion you need to invest in a politician that feels like a national candidate, as I have learned from watching Al Gore & John Kerry lose that Americans will rarely pick someone on their merits if they don't want to go to a bar with them, but I don't need flashy politicians to be happy.  I want politicians who actually work in the real world, and do the job of getting their work done.  Like everyone, I approach my life with some complaints, and will complain on occasion (or more if it's the right audience)...but I hate people who are defeatists, and who just talk about their problems without actually fixing them, and so I have a lot of respect for people like a Diana DeGette, someone who has done the work, consistently putting out legislation to try to make the country better, without caring about their following on cable news or social media.

I also think that these primaries tend to gloss over the very real, sometimes glaring, faults of the challenger because they're younger and more exciting (because the media, and many grassroots people are more interested in flashy people, the latter in part because they're so angry and they want to feel seen through their politicians).  Kiros, for example, has made past statements refusing to condemn attacks at a Jewish Community rally in 2025 as being "antisemitic" even though they clearly were.  Combined with her campaigning with Hasan Piker, a noted far left figure with a large following who regularly trades in antisemitic language & conspiracy theories, a lot of the closing arguments were over Kiros not being strong enough on the rising tide of antisemitism in the far left, which you see pop up in things like the attacks on State Sen. Scott Wiener this past month (as well as in October 2024) in public protests that feel less about Wiener being pro-Israel (he's really not, he supports a two-state solution) and more so on Wiener being Jewish, as we see disproportionately large attacks on this issue against Jewish politicians.

Kiros is not the only far-left figure who has taken on an "establishment" (a more accurate if much vaguer term than "moderate" for someone like DeGette) and won while also having a host of controversial statements.  Darializa Chevalier recently beat Rep. Adriano Espaillat in New York, despite having said in the past that she doesn't believe in the prison system (even refusing to back prisons for murderers) and has called for the end of all deportation & an open borders policy with immigration even for those accused of crimes in the United States.  And we've spent way too much time on this blog this year talking about the many, many controversies of Abdul El-Sayed and Graham Platner, but know they're definitely an indication of this same wave of candidates.

Unlike El-Sayed or Platner, Kiros & Chevalier are in super blue districts-they are going to win and become congresswomen next year.  But I will own that it saddens me that the Democratic Party, which has a largely strong record of running serious-minded people, ones who are focused on actually making incremental and real improvements in the lives of Americans, are succumbing to challengers who seem less inclined to govern and more inclined to get the most likes on Twitter.  Also, as an historically yellow dog Democrat, it freaks me out to have multiple candidates for Congress I'd struggle to be able to vote for flying under our banner.  Diana DeGette was a good congresswoman, and I say that as a pretty progressive-minded person, one who actually took steps to pass legislation into law, and not just legislate through voice alone.  Kiros & Chevalier seem more like, well, Bernie Sanders-definitely making a principled stand, but one that never seems to go beyond that with little signed bills to their credit.

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.

Denise Powell and the Quest for 100 House Democratic Women

Denise Powell (D-NE)

This past week, in something of an upset, political consultant and Democratic activist Denise Powell pulled off a win over State Sen. John Cavanugh in the race for Nebraska's 2nd congressional district.  Powell, who was running mildly to Cavanaugh's right in the primary, was able to run a rather savvy campaign (on honestly a night where smart politics was winning in the Cornhusker State (the state also managed to get a clear one-on-one race for Dan Osborn's independent Senate bid) focusing on Cavanaugh's ability to stop redistricting in the state legislature (we'll get to a redistricting article shortly, but I haven't had the time to manage it).

Powell's win also puts her in a good position to be elected to Congress this fall.  Given the strong blue wave built off of a sluggish economy & unpopular war, an open-seat district that went for Kamala Harris by 4-points is going to be a sincere challenge for the Republicans to maintain.  Her win, taking the seat of Rep. Don Bacon also helps the math on not just a House majority, but also an historic benchmark that the party could well reach this fall, and something I wanted to talk about: getting 100 Democratic women into the US House.

For those who don't know, at one point (until the 1970's), the number of women in both House caucuses were roughly equal.  Democrats tended to have slightly more overall, but generally it was close to 50/50.  While the 1970's provided a sugar high (in large part due to the Democrats' support for the ERA), it wasn't until the wake of the Clarence Thomas hearings that the share of women in the House was always favored to the Democrats.  Since the start of the Clinton administration, the only times that the share has dipped below 65% were in the wake of the deeply red years of 1994 and 2004.  After the 2018 midterms, a reaction in many ways to the Women's March and the Trump administration, at least 70% of the House women have been Democrats every Congress.

All of this is to say that while at the start of this Congress there were only 30 Republican women (just under 14% of the caucus), over 44% of the House Democrats were women, a grand total of 97, just three shy of 100.  In that time, two women (Mikie Sherrill & Sheila Cherifilus-McCormick) have resigned while two women (Analilia Mejia & Adelita Grijalva) have since been elected.  Though there are a handful of openings, I find it unlikely the stars will align enough to ensure that the Democrats get to 100 before November.  After November, though, it's a different game, which we'll check out today by breaking out into four different categories.

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL)

1. Vulnerable Democratic Incumbent Women

It's worth noting that, in a normal year, we'd largely be sticking to no women in this category for Democrats.  Trump is wildly unpopular, and honestly with the 2024 maps, any Democrat that won probably also wins the general election.  This includes people like Nellie Pou, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, Laura Gillen, & Susie Lee, who saw Trump perform well in their districts in 2024.

But there was a lot of mid-decade redistricting, honestly to the point where I struggle to keep up, and that has left a handful of women in the lurch.  With the new lines, it seems probable that both Kathy Castor & Marcy Kaptur will be in the toughest races they've faced in a while, and both would be extremely vulnerable for reelection.  Julie Johnson is sure to win her seat if she wins her primary, which is no guarantee against former Rep. Colin Allred (Jasmine Crockett won this seat in her Senate primary even as she lost the state).  The Florida redraw that endangered Kathy Castor might also cost either Lois Frankel or Debbie Wasserman Schultz their seats, though the musical chairs here makes me think that they're both probably going to stay on, and the vulnerable Democrats are going to be Castor, Darren Soto, and Cherifilus-McCormick's seat going to Wasserman Schultz.  There's still a real possibility that they redraw Alabama to the point where Shomari Figures & Terri Sewell are in a member vs. member race...but I would assume Sewell's long history in the state would deliver it for her.

There will likely be at least a couple of vulnerable incumbents to primaries (Frederica Wilson, should she run, would be toward the top of the list given her age & health), so let's assume from this bucket that the Democrats lose four seats from their 97 (for example Castor, Kaptur, Cherifilus-McCormick, & Johnson) and that they'll need a net gain of 7 in our next three to hit 100.

State Rep. Jacqui Irwin (D-CA)

2. Open Seat Democrats

There are currently 21 retiring incumbent members of the 215 Democratic House caucus members (not counting delegates); there is also the seats of David Scott & Eric Swalwell, bringing this total to 23 given Scott has passed away and Swalwell has resigned.  Of those leaving office, nine are women, so this would bring us down to 84 House members.  But of course, at least some of the 23 seats will be filled by women.

We know, for example, that of the 5 open seats in Illinois (all safely blue) 3/5 of them have nominated a Democratic woman, for a net gain of one.  In the remaining 18 seats, only two (CA-14 & CA-26) seem like very clear paths for women to win.  There are 6 seats where Democratic women have a path (sometimes a good one) with a quality candidate already running for the office (CA-11, MN-2, NH-1, NJ-12, NY-7, & GA-13).  But even if we assume that women take 6 of these 8 seats, that would still leave the Democratic women down three here, bringing them down to 90 as currently none of the other remaining seats that are open are likely to go to Democratic women, as either there's a clear Democratic man who is the frontrunner (or in some cases, already the nominee) for the seat, or these are seats that were impacted by redistricting where a Democratic man will be replaced by a Republican.  So essentially to make this happen, Democratic women will need to net at least ten pickups to have a shot at 100.

LA County Chair Hilda Solis (D-CA)

3. Flip Opportunities (Redistricting)

Unless the Democrats are able to pull off a miracle in Virginia, let's assume the only state where Democrats have a clear shot at picking up due to mid-decade redistricting are in California (specifically the 1st, 6th, 41st, & 48th districts) and Utah's 1st district, all currently held by Republican men and all widely expected to be held by Democrats in January.

Utah will be a man (the only prominent Democratic woman in the race recently dropped out), but California will likely have a Democratic woman elected to the 41st (or the trickle down of this being that Linda Sanchez wins here and then Hilda Solis wins in the 38th...either way a net gain with Solis), and they have a solid option in the 6th & 48th, with the 1st probably headed to a Democratic man even if there is a Democratic woman in the race.  So let's assume here they get 2 more Democratic women, and we get back to 8 seats that need to be picked up in traditional Tossup seats.

Rep. Elaine Luria (D-VA)

4. Flip Opportunities (Pickups)

There are currently 20 seats held by Republicans that are considered Tossup/Lean D/Lean R by Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball.  In order for the Democratic women's caucus to hit 100 seats, they would need not just Dems to win in 8 of these seats, but they'd need to win with women.  That's a tall order, but not an impossible one.  Ten of these seats (AZ-6, IA-1, IA-3, NE-2, NJ-7, PA-8, PA-10, VA-1, VA-2, & WI-3) the Democratic woman is very clearly the frontrunner, and in six more (AZ-1, CA-22, CO-8, MI-7, MI-10, & NY-17) the Democrats have a prominent woman running.

Getting better news for Democrats, of the 6 seats that are considered Lean R (as opposed to Lean D/Tossup, much easier gets), only three (VA-1, PA-8 and NY-17) are ones where a woman isn't the clear or possible frontrunner (all of the others are men), and honestly I think that the Democrats are closer to Tossup for those seats than they are Lean R, especially NY-17.  If we assume a decent environment, one where, say 65% of these seats (or roughly 13/20 of these seats go to the Democrats), it's probable that we're looking at about 9 or so Democratic women flipping seats here...just enough to get them over the threshold.  As of today, unless redistricting throws further wrenches into the race (or the Democrats under-perform), I would wager that there will be 100 Democratic women in the US House come January.

Abdul El-Sayed and the Limitations of a Blue Wave

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed (D-MI)

This past weekend, the Michigan Democratic Party had their convention, where they nominated several candidates for major office, including Garlin Gilchrist for Secretary of State and Eli Savit (in something of an upset) for Attorney General.  The Senate race did not have a nominating component (the nominee will be chosen in the primary later this year), but that doesn't mean that the Democrats running weren't still speaking, and it was very clear which candidates had the most support.  Rep. Haley Stevens was literally booed at the convention, and as State Sen. Mallory McMorrow was leaving the stage, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed was already getting cheers from the crowd, with chants of "Abdul!" coming before McMorrow was gone from the podium.  Had the US Senate primary been decided by the convention, it's clear El-Sayed would become the Democratic standard-bearer to replace Sen. Gary Peters.

But conventions didn't decide this, nor should they (if you've read this blog for any length of time, you'll know that I think nominating conventions and caucuses are deeply undemocratic, and primaries choosing nominees is always preferable).  However, it's hard to ignore the clear momentum that El-Sayed has coming out of this with the base, and wonder what this could mean for the Michigan Democratic Primary, arguably the most competitive blue-held seat on the map in November (I think this is more at risk than Georgia).

While there is currently what looks like a blue wave approaching, Michigan is one of the swingiest of swing states in the country currently, and someplace the Democrats shouldn't be worried if they want to have the Senate majority, but polling shows that the race is close for the general election between all three of the Democratic candidates and presumed Republican nominee, former Rep. Mike Rogers (who just barely lost here in 2024).  Aggregate polling shows Stevens up over Rogers by 2-points, while he's up by less than a point over McMorrow, and up 2-points over El-Sayed.  None of these aggregates, it's worth noting, has either candidate above 45% of the vote.  This indicates to me that while this looks like a close race, it's one that will be decided by independents, likely people who have voted for Trump (at least once), but have been open in recent years to Joe Biden, Gary Peters, Elissa Slotkin, and especially Gretchen Whitmer.  If you want to win this, it'd be wise to pull a play from Whitmer's playbook: someone who is results-focused, charismatic, and willing to bend across the aisle when needed to get stuff done for the state even if they're generally reliable blue.

El-Sayed does not have that reputation.  While Stevens (as the moderate) has clear crossover appeal, and McMorrow's plain-spoken directness (and honestly her really impressive retail politicking skills) cover that she's nearly as liberal as El-Sayed (a similar tactic that James Talarico is employing in Texas), El-Sayed has a number of red flags that are going to make winning over Trump/Whitmer voters challenging.  He has actively courted the support of Hasan Piker, the controversial far-left activist who has faced increased scrutiny from those in the party who think he's an unhealthy addition to the coalition (it's worth noting that Elissa Slotkin, who successfully won a Senate seat while Donald Trump won her state last year, basically the definition of whom we should model a race upon, has refused to meet with Piker).  He has also vocally endorsed the "Defund the Police" movement, something neither Stevens nor McMorrow have backed.  Regardless of your opinions on this movement, this is not a popular one, certainly not in purple state Michigan.

I will own, because I've gotten comments on various platforms about Graham Platner, that unlike Platner I would be able to hold-my-nose and vote for El-Sayed even though I don't agree with him on everything.  But I do sincerely feel that he puts this seat not just at risk, but I think he would be the underdog.  Stevens is a generic Democrat (and a lousy campaigner), but she'd win the seat because it's a blue wave and she's a left-of-middle House member.  McMorrow is certainly to the left of the median Michigan voter, but she'd also be able to win this race, and given her talent and age (she's only 39), having a talented progressive representing a swing state would be a great way for us to prepare our bench for the 2030's & 40's.  She'd have six years to basically pull a Jon Ossoff (i.e. be known as a workhorse who's secretly more progressive than her public statements let on), but she seems capable of doing that.

But El-Sayed-I don't buy it.  This is, at best, a Keith Ellison situation-where a much-to-the-left of the state candidate wins based off of a large swath of voters electing him even though though they don't like him much (and lucking out to get into two midterms that were either blue or abortion-focused).  But Michigan is not Minnesota (hence why, even though I'm not voting for her in the primary, Peggy Flanagan doesn't really get this sort of scrutiny from me as I think she'd still win the general, even if it's by less than Craig would).  A blue wave is not magical, and sometimes people's stats-based analysis ignores that there are outliers, and usually those outliers in a wave have something in common.  In 2010, Sharron Angle & Ken Buck lost races that they were expected to win...because they were lousy candidates and the states weren't willing to go that extreme with more generic Democrats as options.  The same can be said for Andrew Gillum & Mandela Barnes, the former losing a state that the Democrats had just barely lost two years prior (just like Michigan) by running too far to the left and the latter losing Wisconsin (about as close to Michigan as you can get) in a big part because "Defund the Police" was used against him.  These four candidates all feel very similar to Abdul El-Sayed, who like Graham Platner, seems unusually vulnerable to lose the same voters that his opponent (in this case a pretty generic Republican in the form of Mike Rogers) can take advantage of; the only problem is that while Platner has continually proven through polling that Maine might just discard its past trends (i.e. Susan Collins closing well with moderate, Dem-POTUS favoring women), polls in Michigan back up the theory that El-Sayed could easily lose to Mike Rogers.  And if El-Sayed loses here...the Democrats' Senate majority dreams go up in smoke.

Kamala Harris and the History of Primary Frontrunners

Vice President Kamala Harris (D-CA)

I used to have a policy on this blog not to talk about the presidential primaries before the midterms, but on occasion I feel it's okay to break that rule, and that's when we're looking at the primaries from an historical context.  I wanted to discuss, specifically the Democratic primaries.  In my opinion, until someone proves otherwise, JD Vance as the sitting Vice President should be assumed to be the de facto Republican nominee.  While recent vice presidents Dick Cheney & Joe Biden have decided to (largely due to age) forego initial runs as sitting VP's, Vance is only 41-I cannot imagine a world where he declines to go for a promotion, no matter how unpopular Trump may be.

But for the Democrats, it's an entirely different story, though not one without a VP frontrunner.  If you look at aggregate national polling, while figures like Gavin Newsom, Pete Buttigieg, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are all doing well, the clear frontrunner at this point is former Vice President (and 2024 losing presidential nominee) Kamala Harris.  Harris in most aggregate gets between 24-27% of the vote, with the next best being Newsom getting between 19-21% of the vote.  This clear frontrunner status had me wondering-in the 21st Century, how often have the two major parties picked the clear national polling frontrunner this far out?  Basically what I'm asking is: based on history...is the race already over?

2000: 2000 is maybe the quintessential polling example where staying in front is the way to win.  Al Gore & George W. Bush, in terms of Gallup polling, never were behind ever.  In Gore's case, this translated into an insane dominance in terms of the primaries (he would win literally every state against Sen. Bill Bradley), while Bush would lose several contests, most famously New Hampshire, in his matchup with John McCain.  But in terms of polling-this race was basically decided well before the midterms, and would lend credence to Harris (and Vance) being the frontrunners.

2004: Bush was the incumbent at this point, so we'll focus exclusively on the Democratic side, and that's where we get a real question mark about Harris's seriousness in running for the nomination.  For much of the 2004 primaries (before the midterms), there were two names that dominated the cycle: Hillary Clinton & Al Gore.  Neither of these two would win the nomination in 2004, but that's mostly because they wouldn't even run for the seat (polling third place was Tom Daschle, who also wouldn't run).  There's still a question mark whether Harris (like Gore) will take one national election loss and admit that this isn't something she'll ever win.  In early 2003, when Gore & Clinton had both declined a run, the frontrunner would become Joe Lieberman...who also didn't win.  In fact, John Kerry wouldn't assume the spot of frontrunner until January 2004, after Howard Dean had spent much of 2003 as the frontrunner.

2008: As a lesson to anyone speaking too confidently about the nominations in 2028, 2008 is the race you should look to to give them a reality check.  The first race in decades to not feature a sitting president or vice president in the race was, by many pundits, already decided headed into the midterms-a subway series contest between NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani & Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.  In both cases, this would eventually fall apart, though each party took a different approach in whom they settled upon.  Clinton losing to Barack Obama would become the stuff of legend, an upstart beating Clinton in arguably the only presidential cycle she would've won, the people demanding a big change, while the Republicans would spend months flirting with figures like Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, & Fred Thompson after Giuliani failed to catch fire before settling for the second place finisher in 2008, John McCain, a storied figure in the party and the last real attempt the GOP would make to try and find common ground in the middle in a presidential primary (that it failed so spectacularly might be why they haven't done it since).

2012: Obama was the incumbent here, so we'll focus solely on the Republicans, and despite my personal memory saying otherwise, in 2010 the frontrunner was very much the guy who got the job: Mitt Romney.  Romney's lead was shaky throughout the year, with people like Chris Christie, Sarah Palin, & Mike Huckabee all threatening it (part of the reason Romney emerged victorious might be that Huckabee was the only one who actually ran), but with a really middling field, Romney took the nomination after most assumed he would throughout 2010.

2016: For the third time, the early polling leader was Hillary Clinton for the Democrats, and finally she would become the nominee.  Bernie Sanders never felt like a serious threat to Clinton in terms of national polling (for all of the "this primary was fixed" complaints on the left, Sanders never really had a chance nationally against Clinton), and Hillary sailed to the nomination, her biggest competition ending when Joe Biden decided not to run.  The Republicans, on the other hand, obviously had the mother of all upsets when Donald Trump (who wasn't even in hypothetical polling in 2014) came out of nowhere to upset the two frontrunners, Jeb Bush & Mitt Romney (again, Romney wouldn't even run, though he did flirt with it for a while into 2016).

2020: Trump was the president in 2020, so we stick solely to the Democratic side here, and we once again have a frontrunner who stayed that way.  While it feels (in retrospect) like Bernie Sanders got close because he (once again) did well in state results, nationally it was the same as 2016-the frontrunner, Joe Biden, led in virtually every poll unless they included two longshot candidates (Hillary Clinton & Michelle Obama).  Once again, being the frontrunner from the outset helped.

2024: And it would conclude that way in 2024.  Biden was the incumbent, so we stick to just the Republicans, but for many of them Donald Trump was the "incumbent" already and nominating him again was certain this far out.

Conclusion: Looking at this list, there were only four instances (both sides in 2008, and then the Dems in 2004 & the GOP in 2016) where the frontrunner got skipped.  While 2004 is unique (the frontrunners would refuse to run, which may be the case for Harris), the remainder it was because it was a well-known frontrunner whose support was built on sand once someone better came along.  That might be the case for Harris, and I suspect you're going to see her doing some party-building (lots of campaign stops in key states, listening tours, etc) if she wants to run to make sure that she does not fall into the same trap of Giuliani, Clinton, & Jeb Bush-being a frontrunner in name only.