Pretty much every data point shows the same thing — by and large, Americans don’t like the Democratic Party or their approach, they’re just extremely angry with the Republican Party at the moment.
This will likely lead to a good midterm outcome for Dems. Maybe they’ll even flip the Senate.
This will lead many to think they don’t need to make any major strategic adjustments heading into 2028. They will be wrong.
In the 2022 midterms, Democrats did better than expected — partially due to backlash to the Dobbs decision, partially due to the fact that midterm electorates are just demographically better for Democrats these days (more college educated, more politically engaged, etc.).
That, among other things, gave Democrats a false sense of confidence — “look, we bucked the historical trend of getting our shit rocked in a midterm in which we held the White House!” — and they didn’t do any of the course correction that was necessary ahead of 2024. Maybe it wouldn’t have mattered in terms of the 2024 outcome, but it was a mistake nonetheless.
We cannot make that same mistake with 2026 and 2028. The massive swings that we may see toward Democrats among less party-loyal groups like young voters and Latinos will not be permanent, nor even last in the medium-term. Maybe it’ll carry over into 2028 if voters are still super pissed at Trump, but — as @madrid_mike calls it — it’s more of a “dealignment” than a realignment among these types of party-fluid groups.
So don’t let Ken Martin or establishment Democrats or even leftists tell you that we don’t need to course correct as a party if we do well in November. That voters are buying wha we are selling. On most issues, including inflation, they’re not. They’re punishing Republicans, the party in power.
If we want to build a durable connection with more voters than we currently have in our coalition, we have to have hard conversations and take some (smart) risks.
Complacency will get us back to where we are now, sooner or later.
Now I’m gonna go outside it’s beautiful out.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨 A new poll from Zenith Research — on behalf of Common Defense, fielded from 6/11-14 among n=602 likely general election voters in Michigan — finds Democrat Abdul El-Sayed in a strong position in a matchup against Republican Mike Rogers.
In addition to having a higher vote share vs. Rogers than McMorrow or Stevens, El-Sayed brings unique coalitional advantages to the general election — and Stevens brings unique vulnerabilities.
🧵
The difference between El-Sayed and Stevens’ vote shares — 45% and 43%, respectively — appears to be due to Stevens’ relative unpopularity among voters who self-identify as “very progressive or liberal.”
31% of progressive/liberal voters hold a “strongly unfavorable” view of Stevens, with several saying they would stay home or vote third party if she was the Democratic nominee — including some citing her ties to AIPAC as the driving cause, which coincides with AIPAC taking a more active role in the campaign in recent weeks.
26% of very progressive/liberal voters say they would be undecided if Stevens was the nominee (4% of these voters say they would be undecided if El-Sayed was the nominee).
In matchups against Rogers, El-Sayed outperforms McMorrow & Stevens among very progressive/liberal voters, voters ages 18-29, renters & those who say they are more of a supporter of progressive causes/the progressive movement than the Democratic Party.
El-Sayed & McMorrow both outperform Stevens in “college counties” (Washtenaw, Ingham & Kalamazoo — home to UMich, Michigan State & WMU, respectively) and among independents.
McMorrow outperforms El-Sayed & Stevens among those who say healthcare is one of the two most important issues to their vote.
Stevens outperforms El-Sayed & McMorrow among Black voters and those who say they are more of a supporter of the Democratic Party than progressive causes/the progressive movement.
There’s been a dizzying amount of interest group super PAC spending & endorsements in this Tuesday’s 5 competitive Illinois congressional primaries — it’s been hard to keep track of
So here’s a cheat sheet for which notable groups & individuals are supporting (or opposing) whom:
Groups and individuals included in the chart:
— AIPAC shadow groups (United Democracy Project, Elect Chicago Women, Chicago Progressive Partnership, Affordable Chicago Now!)
— Pro-crypto super PACs (Fairshake/Protect Progress)
— Pro-AI super PACs (Leading the Future/Think Big)
— Congressional Progressive Caucus
— Justice Democrats
— Bernie Sanders
— Elizabeth Warren
— Congressional Black Caucus
For the people that (understandably) don’t want to zoom in, let’s break this out by category.
First, the candidates that AIPAC is spending for and against:
It’s a special election so caveats obviously apply — and Texas has been such a tease for Democrats for so long that I dare not venture to hope — but 2026 Blexas is on the table if Latinos shift anywhere near this much.
They flexed their political power for the first time in the June primary
A key reason those polls were so off was because Muslims were under-polled (difficult to get to take polls, due in part to post-9/11 wariness of giving away any personal info)
My likely voter model estimates them to make up 8% of the likely electorate (they make up 7% of registered voters).
I have not seen other pollsters release their weights of Muslim voters in NYC. They should. They are the sleeping giant of NYC electoral politics.
@amitsinghbagga and I spent extra time & money targeting sample in Muslim-heavy zipcodes in our July poll of the mayoral race, and we still struggled to reach even the bare minimum of a readable sample size (n=50) for a crosstab subgroup.