2026 Midterm Elections

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 144K
  • Politics 
Mulberry Heel said:
Oh, yeah, I'm not discounting race as a factor as well. I was just replying to the notion that she mainly lost because Biden passed a bunch of legislation that pissed off enough "moderate" or "average" Americans (lol) that they surged to the polls to vote for Trump. I doubt 90% or more of voters in 2024 could recall a single damn piece of legislation that Biden got passed. What beat Kamala was her race, gender, the GOP's (and their media outlets) incessant yelling about inflation and how they would fix it right away, and the usual culture war bullshit about immigrant hordes overrunning (white) America and transgender something something.

Most polls show that most Democratic positions on culture war and economic issues are actually quite popular (in some cases very popular) with Americans. The problem is that too often they can't sell it - too many Democrats today could screw up the messaging for giving away free ice cream - and the GOP being able to hammer Democrats relentlessly on culture war topics with often little to no pushback from either Democrats or the media. Republicans all too often set the narrative in our campaigns and Democrats spend their time playing defense and catch up. They're not losing elections because of whatever bills they're proposing or pushing.
Click to expand...
It’s not that the Democrats can’t sell moderate gun control or abortion rights as they were under Roe.

It’s that the bulk of “moderates” and “Independents” don’t give a shit about gun control or abortion rights, when push comes to shove.

Oh, they profess to support gun control, gay rights, abortion rights, environmental protections, banking regulations, etc.

But, in reality, they vote Magic R whenever the economy is squirrelly and a Democrat is in the White House.

If that means that Roe v Wade is overturned and the Republicans promise a tax cut, they’re good with gutting Roe, the EPA, CDC, NIH, etc.

Issues like gun control and pro-choice abortion rights are easily jettisoned if the price of eggs is too high.
 
BillOfRights said:
I disagree about Sharrod Brown being status quo. He is more pro-working class than any Republican and many Democrats. While not a populist, he's a man of and for the people. No chance to confuse him with Chuck Schumer types.
Click to expand...
That's good to know, but he's also 73 (and will turn 74 in November), has been in Ohio politics for a very long time, and lost his bid for a fourth term in 2024 by over 200,000 votes. He may well be more pro-blue collar and pro-working class than corporate Schumer types, but it's also going to be pretty easy for a younger GOP candidate to portray him, fairly or not, as an aging retread of tired, status quo DC politics. I don't doubt that he's a good man and was a good senator (no doubt he's much better than Vance or Vance's replacement), and he does have name recognition going for him, but appearances also matter, fairly or not. Hopefully if there's a blue wave he can ride it to victory, but given Ohio's hard-right, deep-red turn over the past decade it's going to be tough.
 
That said, is anyone projecting NE as a potential flip? I’d love to see Osborne win, but I’d have a hard time putting any eggs in that basket. Especially after watching Nebraska fans at March Madness.
 
lawtig02 said:
That said, is anyone projecting NE as a potential flip? I’d love to see Osborne win, but I’d have a hard time putting any eggs in that basket. Especially after watching Nebraska fans at March Madness.
Click to expand...
Very doubtful. Nebraska is pretty much a solid red state outside of Lincoln. All NE Republicans would have to do to win would be to run ads pointing out that the "independent" is really just a LibDem in disguise and that would probably be enough to sink them. There are several states this year where Democrats have a decent-to-outside chance of picking up a Senate seat, but Nebraska isn't one of them, imo.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
Very doubtful. Nebraska is pretty much a solid red state outside of Lincoln. All NE Republicans would have to do to win would be to run ads pointing out that the "independent" is really just a LibDem in disguise and that would probably be enough to sink them. There are several states this year where Democrats have a decent-to-outside chance of picking up a Senate seat, but Nebraska isn't one of them, imo.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I need to start tracking this more, but according to Cook, the hot races are GA, ME, MI, and NC. We should also be fighting for AK and OH. NE is among the 16 “Solid Republicans,” so this seems like a minor story.

 
lawtig02 said:
Yeah, I need to start tracking this more, but according to Cook, the hot races are GA, ME, MI, and NC. We should also be fighting for AK and OH. NE is among the 16 “Solid Republicans,” so this seems like a minor story.

Click to expand...
I think the Democrats will hold both Georgia and Michigan, if they don't then there will be no blue wave this year. I also think they've got a great chance to pick up seats in NC and Maine so long as Platner wins the Democratic nomination, I'm not sure that Mills can beat Collins for a variety of reasons. After that, though, it gets a whole lot harder. Ohio and Alaska are both normally deep red states, so Democrats have only an outside chance at best in either state. If they can win one of those then it will be a true blue tsunami type situation.

Democrats have a much better chance of winning back the House, where they only need to gain something like five seats, than they do the Senate. But certainly one can always hope for the best.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
I think the Democrats will hold both Georgia and Michigan, if they don't then there will be no blue wave this year. I also think they've got a great chance to pick up seats in NC and Maine so long as Platner wins the Democratic nomination, I'm not sure that Mills can beat Collins for a variety of reasons. After that, though, it gets a whole lot harder. Ohio and Alaska are both normally deep red states, so Democrats have only an outside chance at best in either state. If they can win one of those then it will be a true blue tsunami type situation.

Democrats have a much better chance of winning back the House, where they only need to gain something like five seats, than they do the Senate. But certainly one can always hope for the best.
Click to expand...
I agree. If we don't win the House, we're fucked. But the Senate is EXTREMELY important to be able to block judicial appointments. We already have dozens of utterly unqualified judges sitting on our federal trial and appellate courts. Every additional one who gets confirmed makes it that much harder to reestablish the rule of law.

And just to be clear, not all judges nominated by Trump have been bad, just as not all Biden judges were good. Burr and Tillis, as flawed as they are, have done a pretty good job of making sure the recent federal nominees in North Carolina have been capable and qualified. That is not happening in many states, especially Texas, and in certain circuits, especially the Fifth and the Eighth.
 
lawtig02 said:
I agree. If we don't win the House, we're fucked. But the Senate is EXTREMELY important to be able to block judicial appointments. We already have dozens of utterly unqualified judges sitting on our federal trial and appellate courts. Every additional one who gets confirmed makes it that much harder to reestablish the rule of law.

And just to be clear, not all judges nominated by Trump have been bad, just as not all Biden judges were good. Burr and Tillis, as flawed as they are, have done a pretty good job of making sure the recent federal nominees in North Carolina have been capable and qualified. That is not happening in many states, especially Texas, and in certain circuits, especially the Fifth and the Eighth.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree completely. I just think winning back the Senate is going to be very hard to do this year, and probably most years, as there are more red than blue states, unfortunately. It's not impossible, but Democrats really need for it be a massive blue wave to have a chance.
 
lawtig02 said:
Yeah, I need to start tracking this more, but according to Cook, the hot races are GA, ME, MI, and NC. We should also be fighting for AK and OH. NE is among the 16 “Solid Republicans,” so this seems like a minor story.

Click to expand...
Polls put Pelolta in the lead over Sullivan. Remember: Alaska's house representative is also a statewide office, and Petolta won statewide not long ago -- was it 2022?

My prognostications have so far been quite accurate. They were made a year ago, so I suppose I get some credit for that; on the other hand, "Pubs will lose because Trump will be epically unpopular after screwing everything up" is not exactly a revolutionary thesis.

But anyway, I've been saying that in wave elections, there's usually one race that nobody projected to be close a year out and then the wave party wins it. NE could be that state. Could be TX. I thought it would be IA, and while Polymarket puts decent odds on a Dem takeover, that race hasn't gotten much attention. Anyway, it could happen in one or more of those spots.
 
RockyMtnHoo said:
Even if the Dems pull a 51-49 Senate win, I’m worried that Fetterman will screw it up, make many votes 50-50, which is a Pub win.

But let’s get to 51-49 before worrying about that.
Click to expand...
Manchin and Sinema both tended to vote with the party on nominees. I see no reason for Fetterman not to. Voting for some horrible appellate judge has no impact on voters generally but really pisses off the party and could lead to -- well, exactly what happened to Sinema.
 
Zoo_View said:
It’s not that the Democrats can’t sell moderate gun control or abortion rights as they were under Roe.

It’s that the bulk of “moderates” and “Independents” don’t give a shit about gun control or abortion rights, when push comes to shove.

Oh, they profess to support gun control, gay rights, abortion rights, environmental protections, banking regulations, etc.

But, in reality, they vote Magic R whenever the economy is squirrelly and a Democrat is in the White House.

If that means that Roe v Wade is overturned and the Republicans promise a tax cut, they’re good with gutting Roe, the EPA, CDC, NIH, etc.

Issues like gun control and pro-choice abortion rights are easily jettisoned if the price of eggs is too high.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me, that job #1 for Democrats is to get religion on the economy in the minds of voters.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
I think the Democrats will hold both Georgia and Michigan, if they don't then there will be no blue wave this year. I also think they've got a great chance to pick up seats in NC and Maine so long as Platner wins the Democratic nomination, I'm not sure that Mills can beat Collins for a variety of reasons. After that, though, it gets a whole lot harder. Ohio and Alaska are both normally deep red states, so Democrats have only an outside chance at best in either state. If they can win one of those then it will be a true blue tsunami type situation.

Democrats have a much better chance of winning back the House, where they only need to gain something like five seats, than they do the Senate. But certainly one can always hope for the best.
Click to expand...
When it comes to Maine in poll matchups Platner is beating Collins by 7 points and Mills is tied with Collins. Platner is leading Mills by double digits despite Schumer putting his thumb on the scale and shoveling millions into the Mills campaign.

Platner is the young change candidate. Collins is ancient but Maine's Senator . Mills is ancient but the current Gov. If your choice was keep my current ancient Senator vs. voting for my ancient Gov to become a freshman Senator, why would I not stick with the deeply concerned and troubled Senator we already have ?

The June Dem primary will tell us whether this will be a change election come November.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top