Nice to see you chiming in now and then Elliot, but most importantly, take the downtime with your family and your newborn. And it’s true we want fighters.
I start to cringe when I see the discussion about the Democratic Party and the question of progressives versus centrists. I cringe because the Republicans don’t have this struggle with inclusivity. They either follow Trump and project 2025 playbook, or they are eliminated from the discussion. all his antics make for great theater under which a few key people with a hell of a lot of money to inject into elections are taking over our democracy. Just the fact that this graph shows seven or eight different characters who are popular tells me nothing. they have a very positive likable brand, but they have not been able to form of cult of personality.
Interested in how Sen Chris Murphy and Chris Van Holland rate. Both possible presidentaial contenders but also two Senators who were previously viewed as moderates but came out swinging in 25 fighting Trump and are also promoting far more Progressive ideas as well. Curious what people think!
This is "nice". Indeed, much of your writing is encouraging in the face of every day's depressing news. Too encouraging, I think. I'd much rather you were just a little more pessimistic or perhaps realistically cautionary in your ledes and in your analysis. Sometimes you bury a little caution in your narratives, but most times it's a bit too much sunshine forecasting and analysis on an overcast day.
What say you respond to your nemesis, Nate Silver, and by extension to more downbeat though equally fair assessments.
Silver (June 29, 2026) "Is the vibecession real -- or is the survey broken?": "The conclusion is simple: the ICS cannot continue to ignore its sample’s skewed partisanship in the future. And people who write about consumer and voter sentiment shouldn’t ignore the problems either. President Trump is highly unpopular, and, in contrast to his first term, his economic numbers are worse than his overall ratings. But the Michigan survey exaggerates just how sour consumers are feeling about the economy – the vibecession is partly an artifact of bad data."
One does not have to be a Silver fanboy to nevertheless take his cold water analysis seriously. As the quant alt to Silver, we actually need you to be more responsive. Actually, we need you to be more coldly analytical, and far less encouraging. Liberalism, which extends beyond just the Democratic Party, needs to be terrified, not reassured into complacence. Right now, my vibe is that liberalism is either numb in the face of the totalitarian depredation of the Malignant Moron and his MAGA Cult aka the Republican Party Front or it is complacent because the vibe polling as Silver might put it assures them of a November Blue Wave. Let's assume rather that the very idea of elections, fair and uncoerced elections, are not a sure thing. Let's assume, too, that the forecast of a Blue Wave is a just a little too sunny. Let's just be cautiously pessimistic and act accordingly.
"The party’s left-leaning stalwarts and next-generation insurgents are more popular than its relatively more moderate wing" - isn't that basically the same as the kick the bums out midterm stuff?
The Democratic Party is not a cult marching in obedience to a single leader. The folks who can win elections in New York, might not in California's Central Valley. CA-22 may be an exception, where the progressive Democrat, Randy Villegas, got more votes than the moderate Dem. Villegas will be on the ballot with Valadao, a popular Republican, and looks likely to be the winner, because the Dems got 59% of the votes. Next CD over, a Blue Dog Democrat won 2/3 of the 58 % of the votes for Democrats, and will likely win in November.
Maybe a declared Democrat Socialist running for President in Iowa wouldn't win, but a guy who shares many of those values might. It's an error to assume that voters choose mainly on the basis of ideology.
I am v. frustrated by and worried about the words on offer - "fighter" or "moderate" is not an accurate representation of what people want to choose between. Fighting what or whom, please? "Fighting" is a fashion statement. Mamdami has some policies people want. So has AOC, but she has little power. So has Bernie, ditto. Per the interviews of the person writing under the nom de plume Patrice Mersault https://patricemersault.substack.com/p/part-2-i-crashed-a-republican-womens, Orange County, CA GOP women fall into 3 recognizable groups, Christian nationalists, MAGAts, and Mainline Republicans. The Mainliners have identical concerns to the rest of Americans except the MAGAts and Christian nationalists. Those concerns are, to quote him, "They worried about housing costs, inflation, grandchildren, and California's future. They were partisan, certainly, but not especially ideological. Republicanism seemed less a crusade than a habit, a community, and a worldview inherited over decades.." In reality, not "fight" or "moderate," these are the concerns of the American public. We all want a redistribution of access to resources, and in fact, not one group has yet found a way to limit the power of neoliberalism, or capitalism. Can we have some polls that look at the policy questions people want, not the verbal stances of individuals? How does anyone figure that once elected, senators and congressmembers can achieve the goals of fairness by fighting or being moderate?
It seems to me that we could be seeing some conflation between the two orthogonal axes Elliott identified previously (left/right and weak/strong). The left wing of the party is certainly speaking up more often these days, but I’m not yet convinced that will translate to strength in resisting Trump in ways that will actually matter in defeating the authoritarian threat we face. Forcefully advocating for potentially beneficial policies is a good thing, but it will take far more than that to stop the fascists. That’s where the weak/strong axis comes in. I don’t think we’ve fully identified the specific actions we will need our candidates and elected officials to take to prevent our slide into authoritarianism.
We have to understand that elections are a battle in a larger war we’re trying to win against the authoritarian threat. We saw this play out, quite painfully, post the 2020 election when Joe Biden came into office and did almost nothing to end the threat the Trumpian movement posed—and still poses—to the US. While we can never know the counterfactual, I have to wonder if we’d be in our current situation had he moved decisively when he could done so early in 2021.
Winning elections is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. I’m far more interested in not repeating the errors of the past and thinking that Election Day is some sort of end point. That’s why Elliott’s weak/strong axis intrigues me. I tend to look at it as proxy for leaders who are interested not only in gaining power, but in wielding it effectively afterward in pursuit of the real end point we will need to achieve in order to have a more durable democracy.
As someone who lives in purple WI, strength among the base is not as important as capability to get the 2% lean from the independents. We saw that in the very tight race between Ron Johnson (white, rural, R) and Mandela Barnes (black, Milw, D). Barnes lost in a nail-biter in the same race (see what I did there!) that Tony Evers (white, incumbent, D) won.
It is hard for minority leaders in the House and Senate to project strength. I recall when Republicans controlled the House going into the 2018 election, a lot of Democrats were criticizing Nancy Pelosi and saying they would not vote for her as Speaker if elected. The Democrats swept into power in the House, and who became Speaker? Nancy Pelosi, who spent the next four years as one of the most effective Speakers the House has ever seen.
Most House and Senate leaders are not good orators, and we should definitely not put them out front on the party's issues. They tend to do better on the boring everyday work of getting legislation passed and working behind the scenes. I also think that some of Schumer's political picks, such as Janet Mills, were failures from the start, and he and the Democratic committee should have stayed the heck out of the Maine primary race rather than putting forth a candidate, Janet Mills, who was lukewarm at the best about running, as doing so caused other people to drop out of the race, leaving Platner, which could be a problem come November.
So speaking of fighter-coded left candidates, have you done any polling on critical senate races? I’d be particularly interested in your take on Graham Platner. Nate Cohn has an article about his polling against Collins in the Times today. But I trust you more to give us the most meaningful way of looking at it.
Hi Nancy. Strength In Numbers doesn't do standalone statewide polls... yet. Cohn has Platner at +2, which I think is about right. Will have an election forecast out soon at fiftyplusone.news and that's pretty close to it.
Why do Democratic "centrists" insist on forcing an endless debate on the precise mathematical position of every Democrat on the ideological spectrum? It's tedious, useless, and of zero interest to Democratic voters who want lower prices and accountability for lawlessness and corruption.
Nice to see you chiming in now and then Elliot, but most importantly, take the downtime with your family and your newborn. And it’s true we want fighters.
I start to cringe when I see the discussion about the Democratic Party and the question of progressives versus centrists. I cringe because the Republicans don’t have this struggle with inclusivity. They either follow Trump and project 2025 playbook, or they are eliminated from the discussion. all his antics make for great theater under which a few key people with a hell of a lot of money to inject into elections are taking over our democracy. Just the fact that this graph shows seven or eight different characters who are popular tells me nothing. they have a very positive likable brand, but they have not been able to form of cult of personality.
And by fighting I mean fighting for policies which will improve people’s lives.
You have aptly described the reason for the rejection of party establishment figures. Voters want fighters.
Interested in how Sen Chris Murphy and Chris Van Holland rate. Both possible presidentaial contenders but also two Senators who were previously viewed as moderates but came out swinging in 25 fighting Trump and are also promoting far more Progressive ideas as well. Curious what people think!
This is "nice". Indeed, much of your writing is encouraging in the face of every day's depressing news. Too encouraging, I think. I'd much rather you were just a little more pessimistic or perhaps realistically cautionary in your ledes and in your analysis. Sometimes you bury a little caution in your narratives, but most times it's a bit too much sunshine forecasting and analysis on an overcast day.
What say you respond to your nemesis, Nate Silver, and by extension to more downbeat though equally fair assessments.
Silver (June 29, 2026) "Is the vibecession real -- or is the survey broken?": "The conclusion is simple: the ICS cannot continue to ignore its sample’s skewed partisanship in the future. And people who write about consumer and voter sentiment shouldn’t ignore the problems either. President Trump is highly unpopular, and, in contrast to his first term, his economic numbers are worse than his overall ratings. But the Michigan survey exaggerates just how sour consumers are feeling about the economy – the vibecession is partly an artifact of bad data."
One does not have to be a Silver fanboy to nevertheless take his cold water analysis seriously. As the quant alt to Silver, we actually need you to be more responsive. Actually, we need you to be more coldly analytical, and far less encouraging. Liberalism, which extends beyond just the Democratic Party, needs to be terrified, not reassured into complacence. Right now, my vibe is that liberalism is either numb in the face of the totalitarian depredation of the Malignant Moron and his MAGA Cult aka the Republican Party Front or it is complacent because the vibe polling as Silver might put it assures them of a November Blue Wave. Let's assume rather that the very idea of elections, fair and uncoerced elections, are not a sure thing. Let's assume, too, that the forecast of a Blue Wave is a just a little too sunny. Let's just be cautiously pessimistic and act accordingly.
"The party’s left-leaning stalwarts and next-generation insurgents are more popular than its relatively more moderate wing" - isn't that basically the same as the kick the bums out midterm stuff?
The Democratic Party is not a cult marching in obedience to a single leader. The folks who can win elections in New York, might not in California's Central Valley. CA-22 may be an exception, where the progressive Democrat, Randy Villegas, got more votes than the moderate Dem. Villegas will be on the ballot with Valadao, a popular Republican, and looks likely to be the winner, because the Dems got 59% of the votes. Next CD over, a Blue Dog Democrat won 2/3 of the 58 % of the votes for Democrats, and will likely win in November.
Maybe a declared Democrat Socialist running for President in Iowa wouldn't win, but a guy who shares many of those values might. It's an error to assume that voters choose mainly on the basis of ideology.
I am v. frustrated by and worried about the words on offer - "fighter" or "moderate" is not an accurate representation of what people want to choose between. Fighting what or whom, please? "Fighting" is a fashion statement. Mamdami has some policies people want. So has AOC, but she has little power. So has Bernie, ditto. Per the interviews of the person writing under the nom de plume Patrice Mersault https://patricemersault.substack.com/p/part-2-i-crashed-a-republican-womens, Orange County, CA GOP women fall into 3 recognizable groups, Christian nationalists, MAGAts, and Mainline Republicans. The Mainliners have identical concerns to the rest of Americans except the MAGAts and Christian nationalists. Those concerns are, to quote him, "They worried about housing costs, inflation, grandchildren, and California's future. They were partisan, certainly, but not especially ideological. Republicanism seemed less a crusade than a habit, a community, and a worldview inherited over decades.." In reality, not "fight" or "moderate," these are the concerns of the American public. We all want a redistribution of access to resources, and in fact, not one group has yet found a way to limit the power of neoliberalism, or capitalism. Can we have some polls that look at the policy questions people want, not the verbal stances of individuals? How does anyone figure that once elected, senators and congressmembers can achieve the goals of fairness by fighting or being moderate?
Excellent work!! Very insightful findings.
It seems to me that we could be seeing some conflation between the two orthogonal axes Elliott identified previously (left/right and weak/strong). The left wing of the party is certainly speaking up more often these days, but I’m not yet convinced that will translate to strength in resisting Trump in ways that will actually matter in defeating the authoritarian threat we face. Forcefully advocating for potentially beneficial policies is a good thing, but it will take far more than that to stop the fascists. That’s where the weak/strong axis comes in. I don’t think we’ve fully identified the specific actions we will need our candidates and elected officials to take to prevent our slide into authoritarianism.
We have to understand that elections are a battle in a larger war we’re trying to win against the authoritarian threat. We saw this play out, quite painfully, post the 2020 election when Joe Biden came into office and did almost nothing to end the threat the Trumpian movement posed—and still poses—to the US. While we can never know the counterfactual, I have to wonder if we’d be in our current situation had he moved decisively when he could done so early in 2021.
Winning elections is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. I’m far more interested in not repeating the errors of the past and thinking that Election Day is some sort of end point. That’s why Elliott’s weak/strong axis intrigues me. I tend to look at it as proxy for leaders who are interested not only in gaining power, but in wielding it effectively afterward in pursuit of the real end point we will need to achieve in order to have a more durable democracy.
As someone who lives in purple WI, strength among the base is not as important as capability to get the 2% lean from the independents. We saw that in the very tight race between Ron Johnson (white, rural, R) and Mandela Barnes (black, Milw, D). Barnes lost in a nail-biter in the same race (see what I did there!) that Tony Evers (white, incumbent, D) won.
Really excellent info and insight. Thank you.
Next time, you should include Mark Kelly...and Ruben Gallego. I'm curious how many have a position, and how they rate among the general population.
We will!
It is hard for minority leaders in the House and Senate to project strength. I recall when Republicans controlled the House going into the 2018 election, a lot of Democrats were criticizing Nancy Pelosi and saying they would not vote for her as Speaker if elected. The Democrats swept into power in the House, and who became Speaker? Nancy Pelosi, who spent the next four years as one of the most effective Speakers the House has ever seen.
Most House and Senate leaders are not good orators, and we should definitely not put them out front on the party's issues. They tend to do better on the boring everyday work of getting legislation passed and working behind the scenes. I also think that some of Schumer's political picks, such as Janet Mills, were failures from the start, and he and the Democratic committee should have stayed the heck out of the Maine primary race rather than putting forth a candidate, Janet Mills, who was lukewarm at the best about running, as doing so caused other people to drop out of the race, leaving Platner, which could be a problem come November.
Wonder how many respondents know Mamdani was born in Uganda? He is not eligible to run for President.
So speaking of fighter-coded left candidates, have you done any polling on critical senate races? I’d be particularly interested in your take on Graham Platner. Nate Cohn has an article about his polling against Collins in the Times today. But I trust you more to give us the most meaningful way of looking at it.
Hi Nancy. Strength In Numbers doesn't do standalone statewide polls... yet. Cohn has Platner at +2, which I think is about right. Will have an election forecast out soon at fiftyplusone.news and that's pretty close to it.
Why do Democratic "centrists" insist on forcing an endless debate on the precise mathematical position of every Democrat on the ideological spectrum? It's tedious, useless, and of zero interest to Democratic voters who want lower prices and accountability for lawlessness and corruption.
Is there a point here?
Search "Centrists" in the post
Exactly, Bob Fertik.