In two more days we’ll know how most of these races came out.
Cite?
Moderating:
Let’s dial back the deliberately provocative descriptions in P&E. You’re verging on trolling and have been cautioned several times to avoid doing this. You’ve suffered a previous suspension for doing this as well as a topic ban. Do it again and we must escalate moderation to stop these repeat offenses.
Meanwhile, here’s some news that isn’t about Michigan;
It appears I’ll be eating crow for dinner this Tuesday.
From the Siena website. Oh, man, I hope these prove to be correct!
Alaska:
U.S. Senate: Mary Peltola (D) 48% – Dan Sullivan (R) 46%
Iowa:
U.S. Senate: Josh Turek (D) 48% – Ashley Hinson (R) 47%
Kansas:
U.S. Senate: Adam Hamilton (D) 49% – Roger Marshall (R) 44% – David Graham (L) 4%
Maine:
U.S. Senate: Troy Jackson (D) 51% – Susan Collins (R) 45%
Michigan:
U.S. Senate: Abdul El-Sayed (D) 53% – Mike Rogers (R) 42%
Ohio:
U.S. Senate: Sherrod Brown (D) 49% – Jon Husted (R) 44%
Texas:
U.S. Senate: James Talarico (D) 50% – Ken Paxton (R) 43%
Something very odd and possibly sinister might be going on with Haley Stevens - one of her old friends posted that he couldn’t get ahold of Haley because “her fiancé took her phone away”. In response, her fiancé (not Haley herself!) says that he didn’t take it away, she just turned it off because she was getting too many calls:
More on Stevens’ weird fiancé:
Huh. Does he also insist on whisking her eggs for her?
Do you have the actual quote where he “explicitly went beyond Netanyahu’s government”? The rest of the “evidence” seems pretty slanted.
Thanks,
I imagine she’s getting a lot of nasty messages. I’d probably turn off my phone, too. It just means she doesn’t have a private line for her immediate family. (I have a landline, but she’s too young for that to be likely.)
When i went politicking, i bought a throwaway phone number. I suspect that these days, all politicians should have two numbers, one for professional stuff and another for close friends and family. But i suspect a lot of politicians aren’t good at separating their job from their life.
There’s a lot of Jewish groups talking about exactly that - it was a pretty staggering comment.
Calling out your claim that the only reason someone could be against El-Sayed is being a bad person, your dismissive rhetorical approach that there is no possible sane way to vote against him, your guilt by association except when it is someone you support, your abject failure to acknowledge how El-Sayed’s choices of what he has said and not said during this campaign have had a sizable number of long time Democratic voters feeling threatened.
I do not defend Stevens endorsement. And I understand why El-Sayed is being seen by some Jewish voters as antisemitic (and hint, it isn’t because absolute fealty to Israel is required.) I understand why someone would not want his perspectives to increase its strength in the party moving forward. I do not defend Stevens endorsement and I understand it. She made extreme demands and I strongly disagree with her. And El-Sayed chose not to respond with any diplomacy or recognition of why what she complains about resonates to many Jews including those of us very critical of Israel. He instead chose to go nuclear and attempt to publicly disinvite her from a unity event, you and the concerns you have have no place here. That hurts. I have heard hurt people hurt people?
Unity was possibly possible with a small olive branch instead of escalation. Maybe she would have rejected it. We will never know. But looking at this result and concluding that he did everything right, that there was no other way to have responded that might have had a better result? It is hard to conclude that unless one believes that pandering to Carlson and Uygar’s antisemitic support is the right … calculation … to make.
Once again. In this election it might be. Most there who find El-Sayed increasingly likely to be antisemitic himself and are worried about that will still hold their noses and vote for him as the less bad option.
But the impact of him and his at best blind eye to antisemitism if it supports him as a poster child voice for the Progressive side in the next two years will have huge divisive impact going forward. Over the cycle to come I see it as harmful. With magnitude that a Rogers win but Democratic Senate majority wouldn’t be.
If you want to read that criticism of El-Sayed as a defense of Stevens go ahead.
While those polls are obviously amazing for Democrats, the truly explosive stuff, IMO, is what Nate Cohn published in his piece accompanying them.
Basically, NYT/Sienna is using some pretty heavy weighting to try to avoid the problems they had in 2024. Nate claims this weighting would have improved those polls by 1.4%, on average. If you use their old weightings, however, you get these results:
Is it possible that the polling response issues are even worse than in 2024? Sure. But if they are more like 2022 or 2018 (when NYT/Sienna was pretty good) then it will be a Democratic bloodbath tomorrow.
ETA: And that D+10 in Kansas is actually in line with the WashPost poll from a few days ago that I (and others) dismissed as way too optimistic.
I don’t really have a problem with anything you’re saying here, if it were just about abstaining/refraining from supporting AES. All of that would be reasonable (though I would still strongly disagree). AES has made mistakes in his campaign and I hope he learns from them.
But voting for/endorsing Rogers? Over the issue of antisemitism? Bullshit. Insanity. Ludicrous. Immoral. Irresponsible. Irrational. Very, very wrong, and definitely worth condemning.
Fuck Stevens, she’s a bad person (or a profoundly delusional/unwell person). Same goes for anyone going along with her betrayal. I think it will turn out to be very few such people in the end, and if so, I’m very glad to see Stevens and those like her out of the party. They are bad people, or need profound help with whatever is making them unwell.
A democratic bloodbath feels right, based on 2025 VA/NJ results, special election results, primary results, and turnout results. Also the fact that races like SC, LA, MS, MT, etc are being funded like at least somewhat competitive elections.
Part of me feels like this is the (somewhat apocryphal) frog in the boiling pot. Where if any of these signs presented to a Republican operative earlier in the cycle, you’d have to nail the windows shut for their safety.
Meh. Not voting for is a half vote against. It is only a matter of degree. A passive cop out.
I’d vote for El-Sayed because I think the alternative is worse but I might not think that if Senate control was not possibly on the line. And I understand others who feel that risk is worth it. I strongly disagree with them, just like I strongly disagree with @Thing.Fish on Turek’s transphobic statements. But in both cases I get it. I don’t think either is a sign of mental illness. Or evil.
If I concluded his being elected would be more harm than good over the longer term I would not cop out and just not vote. I’d vote for whichever I felt was less bad.
I don’t have an NYT subscription, but I would love to read Cohn’s article. Can you, or anybody else, gift us a link?
Glad you brought up Turek - that’s a great comparison. Both voting for Turek and abstaining is a reasonable response, IMO, based on his transphobic statements (I would do the former).
Voting for or endorsing his opponent because of worries about transphobia would be batshit, irrational, irresponsible, and very wrong. Just like voting for or endorsing Rogers based on concerns about antisemitism.
Last night in Salina, Kansas, Roger Marshall told DJT that “This may be your last rally until your next re-election campaign in a couple of years!”
He said it with a grin, but of course the MAGAts in the crowd cheered.
Here is the link I used - not sure if the free views are used up:
ETA: This is the only quote specifically about Kansas:
and this