This is the best article I’ve seen to date on the current state of this November’s election, including discussions on some of the key battleground states that my team is currently and likely going to be involved in. It’s refreshing to hear that candidates understand the moment, as we wait for Dem leadership to provide that vision on a larger scale.

It is well worth a read, particularly for anyone wondering where their donations might have the greatest impact this election season.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/05/25/can-the-democrats-take-back-the-senate

1. On the Nebraska Senate race, the GOP ran a plant in the Democratic primary -- a 78-year-old evangelical preacher who voted for Trump 3x. The plan was to have him win the Democratic primary and siphon off enough votes by inertia. The Dems recruited an actual Democrat (Burbank) to run in the primary. Despite a barrage of confusing texts sent out to try to trick Dems into voting for the preacher, Burbank won 90-10. She has to go through the motions of campaigning and then deciding she can't win, at which point she can take her name off the ballot.

I expect a court fight with the Secretary of State trying to keep her name on the ballot. There was a similar move to keep her off the primary ballot because she was not a bona fide candidate but the NE Supreme Court put her back on.

Osborn would be better than Ricketts by a mile. I'll give him about a 2/10 chance of winning if it's a true head to head match up.

2. The NE-2 House race has been interesting. Don Bacon (GOP) called it quits after surviving 5 very close races. The GOP nominee is an Omaha city councilman who's definitely MAGA.

The Democratic primary was wild. There were three top contenders. State Senator John Cavanaugh, whose father held the seat in the 1980's and early 90's. The Cavanaugh name is Democratic royalty in Omaha and he was the odds-on favorite. Long-time Democratic stalwart Crystal Rhoades (she has been elected to a variety of offices) was thought to be the principal threat to Cavanaugh. Then there is Denise Powell, whom I supported.

Powell is the founder of progressive PACs and had never run for office before. She raised more money than anyone else and fast. Early polls had her in the single digits.

There was national significance to the race. Cavanaugh occupies a deep blue district in Nebraska's legislature. If he won, the GOP Governor (a creep) would get to appoint his replacement for 2 years. The realistic fear was that if the Dems lost a seat in the officially non-partisan legislature that the GOP would have enough votes to overcome a filibuster that would return NE to a winner-take-all state and erase the famous "blue dot" that is Omaha and some its surrounding areas. There also was fear that there'd be the votes to gerrymander NE so that electing a Democrat to one of the three seats would be impossible.

It would be easy to do now with the recent Supreme Court decisions. You could split heavily Black north Omaha and throw half of it into the heavily GOP and rural Third District and give the Second District a swath of rural Nebraska and make all three districts R+10 or higher.

Anyway, Powell appears to have won. She's up on Cavanaugh by about 1100 votes (roughly 20K to 19K). There are about 6K Democratic ballots left to be counted but they'd have to break more heavily for Cavanaugh than any tranche so far.

There has been a lot of bitching and moaning about heavy PAC support for Powell. Some of it was pro-Dem worried about losing the Blue Dot. Latino PACs also ran ads for her. She's the daughter of Cuban and Chilean immigrants and speaks Spanish though she looks pretty white and speaks unaccented English.

There is a Trojan Horse GOP PAC called "Lead Left" which ran ads for her and against Cavanaugh. Apparently they think she'd be a weaker general election candidate than Cavanaugh but I don't think that's true. I think that any of the leading Dems would have won.

3. The biggest trend I see is that the political environment is favorable to outsiders. Maine and Michigan are two good examples of that. NE-2 also. There's a lot of "throw them all out" sentiment.

I've probably posted this before, but when I ran in Nebraska's nonpartisan legislative race in 2016 (the primary) I was shocked at the overlap between Sanders and Trump supporters. There was a huge sense of "we want something really different" and HRC was definitely not "something different." I sense a lot of the same now but with Trump playing the part of the Establishment. To the extent that people are worried about outsider candidates in the general election, if the mood is like it is now in November I'd expect them to do better than Schumer-approved "safe" choices.

--
"It's our blood and bones and these whistles and phones against Miller's and Noem's dirty lies."

Caveat: Politics are all about "in-the-moment".

Almost everything Trump and the GOP are saying and doing now indicate a likely blue wave come November, but there is high expectation of GOP attempts to disrupt the election results via numerous mechanisms. Leading into and beyond November, the Dems need to develop a plan to return voters into the Dem fold, by actually listening and enacting measures that will impact their lives.

1) MI Senate - Not a Michigander, but: Before the McMorrow revelations, she was the frontrunner. While Stevens has been the most vocal about the McMorrow revelations, El-Sayed has clearly benefited the most and is now in the lead. El-Sayed is running as a progressive, McMorrow more as a Midwest centrist, and Stevens as the Establishment candidate. It appears that many of McMorrow's scrubbed posts indicated she was more progressive in the past, so she's trying to broaden her appeal. Each candidate has some positive aspects, whether it be powerful connections (Stevens), playing off historical MI values (McMorrow), or running on the Progressive zeitgeist (El-Sayed). Since the MI primary isn't until August 4, we've got a long way to go. Yes, the race in November appears close at the moment, but I suspect it will trend Dem once the primary is over.

2) ME Senate - Yes, Platner can beat Collins in ME, and has been trending significantly lately, now that Mills has dropped out. A possibility of him losing in November is likely tied to whether there are any material revelations about his character forthcoming. Platner is endorsed by both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, so he's gaining significant New England bonafides. The GOP will need to pour a ton of money into this race for any chance.

3) NE Senate - Osborn definitely has a shot, but the Dem candidate clearly won't. The race has been moving closer to a Toss-Up recently. There are rumors the NE Dem party is working to assist Osborn in the race, so that's interesting. I'm skeptical that Osborn will consistently vote with Dems (I hope to be pleasantly surprised), but Osborn would clearly be better than Ricketts.

Other Senate races to watch:

- TX Senate - This race is currently a Toss-Up. There will be so much money and visibility on this race between Talarico and TBD (GOP runoff is May 26 between Paxton and Cornyn), and it will be a critical get if the Dems want to take the Senate.

- IA Senate - Of far less visible prominence is the IA Senate race, between Ashley Hinson (R) and the Dem winner of the June 2 primary (Turek vs. Wahls). This race used to be a Likely R seat, but has been trending closer and closer to a Toss-Up. The key to all this will be the Governor's race, between a really strong Dem candidate in Rob Sand and likely opponent Randy Feenstra (R). Sand is a charismatic and extremely well-liked politician in IA, and strong coattails on his part may well push the Dem Senate candidate to victory. As with TX, IA is a critical get for Dems to take the Senate.

None of these people are winning me over, especially Steyer, who just wants it so bad.