2026 Midterm Elections

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 103K
  • Politics 
heelinhell said:
I agree with your tautology, but I was asking your opinion about which Dem you think might be the most likely to win in November.

If you have no opinion about who would be the better candidate then I'm a bit perplexed as to why you have weighed in....but that's perfectly ok and no worries from me
Click to expand...
I am merely weighing in because I thought your logic was faulty. Individual ideologies for Senators barely matters any more. Except for the pains in the ass like Sinema and Fetterman.

Platner worries me, because he has Fetterman potential.
 
superrific said:
I am merely weighing in because I thought your logic was faulty. Individual ideologies for Senators barely matters any more. Except for the pains in the ass like Sinema and Fetterman.

Platner worries me, because he has Fetterman potential.
Click to expand...
Individual ideologies may not matter as much in terms of voting, but they absolutely matter in terms of messaging and in terms of getting voters to feel as if their voices/perspectives are heard.
 
Centerpiece said:
Does Jasmine keep her seat as Rep. if she loses the primary?
Seems to me a good option for Dems would be run Talarico in Senate race and keep Jasmine in the House. She’s been like a bulldog in that chamber. Seems to me that would be a win-win. Especially if Talarico wins in November.
Click to expand...
I think her district was gerrymandered and no longer exists. My guess is that the GQPers created a new friendly GQP district to eliminate Jasmine from Congress.
 
heelinhell said:
I think her district was gerrymandered and no longer exists. My guess is that the GQPers created a new friendly GQP district to eliminate Jasmine from Congress.
Click to expand...
Well that certainly stands to reason - well, not really - but I get it. I'd have to vote for Jasmine for Senate. Especially if it doesn't matter in the metrics which Dem runs against the Pub in November. Talarico is young and seems wet behind the ears in politics. Though I can see where some "Christians" who've been voting maga and Trump for 10 years may want an off ramp to get behind a "Christian" who actually espouses what Jesus of Nazareth was said to have said.
 
update on the Maine Senate race

Kent,

Today, a brand-new independent poll released by the University of New Hampshire showed two things:

1) In a general election match-up this November, I win against Susan Collins by 11 points. And we win independent voters by 9 points.

2) Meanwhile, my opponent in the Democratic primary, Janet Mills, is barely tied with Susan Collins. And what’s worse: Only 29% of independent voters support Mills.

It’s just more proof: Ours is the only campaign that can actually defeat Susan Collins in November. I know candidates say stuff like that all the time in primaries, but the numbers don’t lie anymore. It’s time to call it like it is.

What’s absurd is that, despite everything, Chuck Schumer still continues to put his thumb on the scale for Janet Mills. He continues to funnel her campaign money and resources through a “joint fundraising committee” and to try to strong arm people into not supporting our campaign.

Nominally, Chuck Schumer’s job is supposed to be to elect more Democrats to the U.S. Senate and do everything he can to fight back against the fascists trying to destroy our democracy. Here in Maine, he is doing quite the opposite.

Why? Corporations, billionaires, and special interests would rather have Susan Collins or another milquetoast corporate Democrat than someone willing to go down to Washington and actually fight to pass Medicare for All, dismantle ICE, or stop taxpayer-funded genocide.

I’ve spent the last 6 months crisscrossing the state of Maine, holding countless town halls and meeting voters across the political spectrum. These numbers do not surprise me. Mainers want change, and our incredible team of staff, volunteers, and donors like you are all-in to finally defeat Susan Collins and flip Maine blue.

We know what happens now, though. This good news for our campaign is about to be countered immediately by millions of dollars in attacks against us. Susan Collins, Chuck Schumer, and their corporate and special interest backers like AIPAC aren’t going to let us win easily.

I am ready for the fight. I hope you are too. There is simply too much on the line right now to allow ourselves to get complacent.

We’re probably just days away from new attacks. So now’s the time to dig deep. I’m going to be asking a lot from you in the coming days and weeks – your time, your energy, and your money. We have to be ready.

I cannot express enough what your support has meant to me, my wife, our family, and the entire team.

We are going to win this primary. We are going to defeat Susan Collins. We are going to flip Maine blue. And we are going to take back the Senate with Democrats who actually understand the gravity of the moment our country is facing.

Thank you – for everything.

In solidarity,

Graham Platner
 
Mundial said:
Is Graham Platner another Fetterman (i.e., a double agent) in the making?
Click to expand...
No. The only thing Platner and Fetterman have in common is being gruff white guys. If your political analysis goes beyond aesthetics, that’s where the similarity ends.

Fetterman’s shift happened after he won, driven by specific personal circumstances and ideological drift that had nothing to do with his presentation. Platner is a Sanders endorsed democratic socialist running explicitly on economic populism in a state where that message is demonstrably connecting, as shown in the polling.

If the concern is that unconventional candidates might disappoint once in office, the answer is accountability after the election, not defaulting to establishment candidates who the data shows are actually weaker in the general.
 
heelinhell said:
I agree with your tautology,
Click to expand...
It is not a tautology at all. Ask Nader supporters or anyone who voted for Bernie in a primary.

For instance, you could define better candidate in many ways. For instance, Fetterman is up in 2028. Let's hypothesize for a moment that Fetterman is 100% likely to be reelected. In that case, we'd be sure to win, but then we'd have a Fetterman. Let's suppose also there's a primary challenger cut from an Elizabeth Warren mold. She would be 75% likely to win, but if she does, we'd have another Warren.

It is by no means obvious which of these candidates is "better." In fact, I'd call this "the progressive's dilemma" (without trying to invoke any game theory analogies, as it is not a game theory problem). You can play it safe, take the guaranteed seat and then beat your head against the Fetterman wall . . . or you can take a chance, possibly lose the seat but the upside would be considerably higher.

I am saying that in Maine this year, I want the candidate with the highest % chance of winning the general. No tautology. Now, if the progressive IS the guy with the highest chance, then the dilemma disappears. That's Christmas in politics. It sometimes does happen (2008 presidential election, for instance) so it's not a distant dream.

In general, progressives hate this dilemma -- based on my ample experience. I mean, they should hate it, as it sucks. But the solution to the dilemma is not to erase it with fantastical claims about winning elections by motivating the base. That's just resolution of cognitive dissonance. I'm not saying you're doing that here, but I have come to be quite skeptical over time of the refrain that the progressive candidate is also the one most likely to win. As I said, that happens sometimes, but considerably less often than the reverse. So when I hear "progressive is the one most likely to win," I am suspicious and require convincing.
 
Paine said:
No. The only thing Platner and Fetterman have in common is being gruff white guys. If your political analysis goes beyond aesthetics, that’s where the similarity ends.

Fetterman’s shift happened after he won, driven by specific personal circumstances and ideological drift that had nothing to do with his presentation. Platner is a Sanders endorsed democratic socialist running explicitly on economic populism in a state where that message is demonstrably connecting, as shown in the polling.

If the concern is that unconventional candidates might disappoint once in office, the answer is accountability after the election, not defaulting to establishment candidates who the data shows are actually weaker in the general.
Click to expand...
1. I made the comparison originally. It has nothing to do with personal style. It has to do with the "no real elected office" thing.

2. Fetterman ran exactly as the progressive candidate in 22. He won the primary, won the general, and people had high expectations. I have a friend tied into Pittsburgh politics. He was a big Fetterman supporter (they went to each others' weddings a while back) but he has soured. He says word around town is that Fetterman was intentionally bait-and-switching.

I cannot vouch for the reliability of "word around town." I do think it's a bit too easy to just say, "he had a stroke and it changed who he is and that's why he's suddenly Manchin 2.0." That seems like a crutch.

3. The reason that Platner makes me think of Fetterman is simply this: they were both candidates with little track record who campaigned on being progressives. With Fetterman, we had only his words to judge him and that turned out to be misleading. I don't know much about Platner. Does he have a track record? Or is he a guy who has started saying all the right things fairly recently? If the answer is yes to that second question, I wouldn't necessarily conclude that he's a fraud or insincere -- but I would be suspicious.

Especially since we do know one thing about his political past: that Nazi tattoo. I don't want to make too big a deal out of that, and I'm not close to saying that it's disqualifying -- but again, when the record is so sparse, details that would be insignificant for others aren't as insignificant here. If it was revealed that Elizabeth Warren or Bernie had gotten Nazi tattoos a while back, it would be incredibly embarrassing to them but it wouldn't affect my estimation of them as politicians. They have a long record on which to stand.

Does this make sense? I don't think I'm going out on a limb here.
 
superrific said:
1. I made the comparison originally. It has nothing to do with personal style. It has to do with the "no real elected office" thing.

2. Fetterman ran exactly as the progressive candidate in 22. He won the primary, won the general, and people had high expectations. I have a friend tied into Pittsburgh politics. He was a big Fetterman supporter (they went to each others' weddings a while back) but he has soured. He says word around town is that Fetterman was intentionally bait-and-switching.

I cannot vouch for the reliability of "word around town." I do think it's a bit too easy to just say, "he had a stroke and it changed who he is and that's why he's suddenly Manchin 2.0." That seems like a crutch.

3. The reason that Platner makes me think of Fetterman is simply this: they were both candidates with little track record who campaigned on being progressives. With Fetterman, we had only his words to judge him and that turned out to be misleading. I don't know much about Platner. Does he have a track record? Or is he a guy who has started saying all the right things fairly recently? If the answer is yes to that second question, I wouldn't necessarily conclude that he's a fraud or insincere -- but I would be suspicious.

Especially since we do know one thing about his political past: that Nazi tattoo. I don't want to make too big a deal out of that, and I'm not close to saying that it's disqualifying -- but again, when the record is so sparse, details that would be insignificant for others aren't as insignificant here. If it was revealed that Elizabeth Warren or Bernie had gotten Nazi tattoos a while back, it would be incredibly embarrassing to them but it wouldn't affect my estimation of them as politicians. They have a long record on which to stand.

Does this make sense? I don't think I'm going out on a limb here.
Click to expand...
3. I would recommend that you dig a bit into Platner's history if you are interested. I find the impact his service in Iraq had on him and the disillusionment he felt coming home after the war to be a compelling account of someone's evolution in how they now have a different political world view.

Platner is making the case as a change candidate. Mills and Chuck Schumer make the case for playing it safe and keeping the status quo ( which has never beat Collins ). That is the choice
 
Paine said:
No. The only thing Platner and Fetterman have in common is being gruff white guys. If your political analysis goes beyond aesthetics, that’s where the similarity ends.

Fetterman’s shift happened after he won, driven by specific personal circumstances and ideological drift that had nothing to do with his presentation. Platner is a Sanders endorsed democratic socialist running explicitly on economic populism in a state where that message is demonstrably connecting, as shown in the polling.

If the concern is that unconventional candidates might disappoint once in office, the answer is accountability after the election, not defaulting to establishment candidates who the data shows are actually weaker in the general.
Click to expand...
Yes but see:

www.pbs.org

Maine Senate candidate Platner says tattoo recognized as Nazi symbol has been covered

Platner says he was unaware until recently that the image has been associated with Nazi police.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org

I never said they had similar ideology, just that there is the possibility that this could be a massive feint/long-con.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top