2026 Midterm Elections Thread

[Pressure]

Yes, I do not believe these organizations should be putting their thumbs on the scale trying to influence primaries. It delegitimizes elections, which voters see as a problem for Democrats. The sole purpose should be to elect Democrat senators and congressmen in the general election.

Interesting. So what harm are they doing here?

AOC is not part of the leadership at the DCCC. If she were, I would agree that she shouldn’t be endorsing candidates. If you want to be part of those committees, like the Gillibrands of the world, then you should stay out of primaries.

Just seems odd. The primary purpose of these organizations is to maintain incumbents. Those same incumbents who by and large are involved in the fundraising for the senators or congressmen.

It seems you're putting arbitrary limitations on "leadership" to fit some other agenda. I'd rather you just come out and say it.


Or we can troll and I could say, isn't AOC part of leadership? She's a lead progressive. She's a leader on the house oversight committee. She's actively involved in policy making and party brand recognition.

Just seems odd. Particularly when we say party leadership is out of touched and not liked. Why does it matter who they endorse?

I personally think it's good leadership to put yiur opinions out on which candidates you prefer and possibly have a great chance of working with and pushing through an agenda.

In an ideal world that would keep you from having your Fettermans, Manchin, and sinemas.

The problem isn't party leadership endorsing candidates as much as it seems you just don't like party leadership.

 

[Loose]

Interesting. So what harm are they doing here?

A lot of harm, these organizations have delegitimized elections for democrats in the eyes of the public

Just seems odd. The primary purpose of these organizations is to maintain incumbents. Those same incumbents who by and large are involved in the fundraising for the senators or congressmen.

Yes in the general election not in democrat primaries

It seems you're putting arbitrary limitations on "leadership" to fit some other agenda. I'd rather you just come out and say it.

Um no

Or we can troll and I could say, isn't AOC part of leadership? She's a lead progressive. She's a leader on the house oversight committee. She's actively involved in policy making and party brand recognition.

AOC isn't even apart of these organizations

Just seems odd. Particularly when we say party leadership is out of touched and not liked. Why does it matter who they endorse?

Yes they're out of touch which is why they're trying to put their thumb on the scale to pick weak candidates in both Maine and Michigan

I personally think it's good leadership to put yiur opinions out on which candidates you prefer and possibly have a great chance of working with and pushing through an agenda.

Disagree

In an ideal world that would keep you from having your Fettermans, Manchin, and sinemas.

That's what both candidates in Michigan and Maine they're backing is

The problem isn't party leadership endorsing candidates as much as it seems you just don't like party leadership.

I dont think party leadership or committee should ever be influencing dem primaries, they're needed for the general election against Republicans

 

[MAKAVELI25]

I don't think I have an opinion on whether leadership should be endorsing candidates in primaries or not, but this Democratic leadership is compromised. The moves that Schumer/Pelosi have made in the past couple of years make me thing that they are more concerned with entrenching their own power than the overall success of the party. That nomination of Gerry Connolly to head the committee (I think Oversight) should earn them a permanent side eye on all their decisions.

I would have less concern over this if their decisions could be trusted, but I don't believe they can. My feeling is that they would prefer a scenario where:

1.) They were in the minority, but at least all the figures in leadership were hand selected by them

over a scenario where:

2.) Dems held the majority with a diverse set of ideologies in leadership.

For instance, if polls continue showing that Platner has the best shot of beating Collins, and Schumer doesn't change his endorsement, the conclusion I would personally take from that is that Schumer would rather lose with his candidate than win with someone who doesn't share his ideology. That is the definition of putting self over party.

 

[Loose]

I don't think I have an opinion on whether leadership should be endorsing candidates in primaries or not, but this Democratic leadership is compromised. The moves that Schumer/Pelosi have made in the past couple of years make me thing that they are more concerned with entrenching their own power than the overall success of the party. That nomination of Gerry Connolly to head the committee (I think Oversight) should earn them a permanent side eye on all their decisions.

I would have less concern over this if their decisions could be trusted, but I don't believe they can. My feeling is that they would prefer a scenario where:

1.) They were in the minority, but at least all the figures in leadership were hand selected by them

over a scenario where:

2.) Dems held the majority with a diverse set of ideologies in leadership.

For instance, if polls continue showing that Platner has the best shot of beating Collins, and Schumer doesn't change his endorsement, the conclusion I would personally take from that is that Schumer would rather lose with his candidate than win with someone who doesn't share his ideology. That is the definition of putting self over party.

These are some good sound arguments, I'll point out pelosi pushing for Henry cuellar who went on to win over Jessica cisneros was just as disastrous. It was rooted in clear corruption

 

[wire28]

I don't think I have an opinion on whether leadership should be endorsing candidates in primaries or not, but this Democratic leadership is compromised. The moves that Schumer/Pelosi have made in the past couple of years make me thing that they are more concerned with entrenching their own power than the overall success of the party. That nomination of Gerry Connolly to head the committee (I think Oversight) should earn them a permanent side eye on all their decisions.

I would have less concern over this if their decisions could be trusted, but I don't believe they can. My feeling is that they would prefer a scenario where:

1.) They were in the minority, but at least all the figures in leadership were hand selected by them

over a scenario where:

2.) Dems held the majority with a diverse set of ideologies in leadership.

For instance, if polls continue showing that Platner has the best shot of beating Collins, and Schumer doesn't change his endorsement, the conclusion I would personally take from that is that Schumer would rather lose with his candidate than win with someone who doesn't share his ideology. That is the definition of putting self over party.

That’s a pretty serious allegation @MAKAVELI25

 

[MAKAVELI25]

That’s a pretty serious allegation @MAKAVELI25

It's just my personal opinion as an observer. But let me ask you this, and obviously we are both speculating here.

Do you really think that Nancy Pelosi thought that Hakeem Jeffries was the most talented successor she could find to lead Dems in the house? Or did he just seem like a safe choice to continue her agenda?

What was it about Jeffries in particular, out of the whole Dem Caucus, that made her think he was the right choice?

 

[Loose]

It's just my personal opinion as an observer. But let me ask you this, and obviously we are both speculating here.

Do you really think that Nancy Pelosi thought that Hakeem Jeffries was the most talented successor she could find to lead Dems in the house? Or did he just seem like a safe choice to continue her agenda?

What was it about Jeffries in particular, out of the whole Dem Caucus, that made her think he was the right choice?

Fundraising. He's known for kissing corporate Fundraisers asses.

 

[MAKAVELI25]

Fundraising. He's known for kissing corporate Fundraisers asses.

This is true as well.

 

[wire28]

It's just my personal opinion as an observer. But let me ask you this, and obviously we are both speculating here.

Do you really think that Nancy Pelosi thought that Hakeem Jeffries was the most talented successor she could find to lead Dems in the house? Or did he just seem like a safe choice to continue her agenda?

What was it about Jeffries in particular, out of the whole Dem Caucus, that made her think he was the right choice?

She just probably thought she was anointing the next with a penchant for alliteration and the strength of Brooklyn behind him

 

[MAKAVELI25]

She just probably thought she was anointing the next with a penchant for alliteration and the strength of Brooklyn behind him

Hakeem has no charisma (obviously charisma is subjective), lol, comparing him to Obama is blasphemous.

Crowds reacted to Obama like a movie star, that is not the reaction that Hakeem gets.

 

[wire28]

Hakeem has no charisma (obviously charisma is subjective), lol, comparing him to Obama is blasphemous.

Crowds reacted to Obama like a movie star, that is not the reaction that Hakeem gets.

You know how old white people do when she heard this she was probably sold



But anyway unless somebody actually wants to take their jobs from them, the talk about replacing them is just some thing to pass the time on the internet

 

[MAKAVELI25]

You know how old white people do when she heard this she was probably sold



But anyway unless somebody actually wants to take their jobs from them, the talk about replacing them is just some thing to pass the time on the internet

It's a longshot, but we know that what most of these people care about is reelection. If voters loudly said that they would refuse to vote for anyone who backed Schumer or Jeffries, Im thinking that could change the tide in a primary.


But what do I know? Im just a blowhard who loves bringing up political history for no reason, "both sides" the moderate and progressive factions on HL, and has never made a thread that didn't flop

 

[wire28]

It's a longshot, but we know that what most of these people care about is reelection. If voters loudly said that they would refuse to vote for anyone who backed Schumer or Jeffries, Im thinking that could change the tide in a primary.


But what do I know? Im just a blowhard who loves bringing up political history for no reason, "both sides" the moderate and progressive factions on HL, and has never made a thread that didn't flop

The voters can barely get on the same page for a general election with Trump 2.0 on the ballot.

Hakeem is safe, the gavel is his in November. Charles was probably in most peril during the original shutdown but everybody forgot about that now so he’ll be good too.

Plus again somebody has to actually want to take on the onslaught of negative press from challenging them (after presumably a democratic landslide at that). I haven’t seen nobody showing off they cajones like that unless they moving in silence like the G in lasagna behind the scenes

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

Anyone in Texas have any insight on the Christian Menefee and Al Green race? How likely is it that Green is unseated?

A New Age for Houston Politics? - The American Prospect

The Democratic primary for Texas’s 18th Congressional District pits two generations of politicians—represented by Christian Menefee and Al Green—against each other.

prospect.org

Among the youngest cohorts of voting age, there’s a running online joke that they “should’ve been” buying real estate or investing in Bitcoin decades ago, before seemingly everything exploded in value, but instead, alas, they were fetuses.

Part of me wonders if Congressman Al Green, the long-serving 78-year-old now facing 37-year-old Christian Menefee in the primary for the newly drawn historically Black 18th Congressional District, might be feeling something similar. Maybe, if he’d been a little nicer to the crypto industry from his seat on the Financial Services Committee (a position he first nabbed way back in 2005), the super PAC Fairshake—backed in large part by the controversial “techno-optimist” Marc Andreessen’s venture capital firm—wouldn’t be spending $1.5 million to get him out of Congress.

Money is one thing, but that last-minute outside offensive doesn’t fully explain a 24-point favorability gap (52 to 28 percent), advantage to Menefee, the former Harris County attorney who just a couple weeks ago won the runoff to represent the 18th after it sat vacant for nearly a year. (Menefee won under its current boundaries, not the redrawn lines for the upcoming primary.)