The Early Math Of The 2026 Midterms

Summary

GD POLITICS Podcast
Episode: The Early Math Of The 2026 Midterms
Host: Galen Druke
Guests: Jacob Hrabashkin (Inside Elections), Leah Escarinam (AP)
Date: February 2, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode serves as a "table-setting" for the 2026 midterms, providing an early look at where things stand in House and Senate races, the conventional wisdom according to betting markets and polling, and why history is a shaky guide in today’s volatile political climate. With elections just nine months away, Galen Druke and his guests dig into the numbers, assess the national environment, discuss "black swan" events, and identify bellwether races to watch.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Where Things Stand: The Lay of the Land

• House: Republicans currently control the House by a razor-thin margin. Democrats need to flip 5 seats to take back the chamber.
• Senate: Republicans have a “safer” margin; Democrats need to pick up 4 seats, but the target states are mostly redder territory.
• Polling: Democrats hold a 5-point lead on the generic congressional ballot. President Trump’s net approval is -14.

Quote:
“History is clear about the challenges for Republicans. The incumbent party has lost seats in the House in 20 of the last 22 midterm elections, with an average loss of 32 seats.”
— Galen Druke (01:19)

2. The "Conventional Wisdom" and Betting Markets

• According to Polymarket, Democrats have a 79% chance to retake the House, Republicans a 66% chance to hold the Senate.
• Jacob: Would “hold” on those odds for the House; sees current estimates as fair but not definitive.
• Leah: Cautions against overconfidence; notes unpredictability and the rise of historical aberrations.

Quote:
“So you're not holding, you're not buying, you're not selling. You're just saying, I'm going shopping.”
— Galen Druke to Leah (05:21)
“I'm going shopping.”
— Leah Escarinam (05:27)

3. The Impact of Black Swan Events & Historical Aberrations

• Discussion of how unforeseen events have repeatedly upended expectations:
  • Covid-19’s effect on 2020
  • The Dobbs decision’s boost for Democrats in 2022
  • The rarity and unpredictability of major shifts like 9/11 or Clinton’s impeachment
  • The difficulty of knowing, in real time, which events will prove transformative

Quote:
“Just because you're very unlikely to win the lottery in any given week, somebody is very likely to win the lottery every single week. It's the same thing with these kinds of big, game-changing events.”
— Jacob Hrabashkin (05:45)

Notable Moment:
Galen jokes, “So, sometimes what causes a rally around the flag effect is a terrorist attack, and sometimes it’s a blowjob,” regarding the impact of events on political environments.
— (12:03)

4. How Much Can We Trust the Historical Trends?

• Leah questions whether recent elections (esp. 2022) count as aberrations and whether unpredictability is the new normal.
• Jacob argues that while Dobbs was a clear turning point in 2022, the House margin was too small for Democrats to benefit more.

Quote:
“What we've seen, especially since 2016, is that if something could happen, it really could happen.”
— Leah Escarinam (15:12)

5. Odds and Races: Senate and House "Flippability"

Senate

• Jacob ranks the 10 most competitive Senate seats from least to most likely to flip:

  10. Minnesota (D) – least likely
  9. Texas (R)
  8. Iowa (R)
  7. Ohio (R)
  6. New Hampshire (D)
  5. Georgia (D)
  4. Alaska (R)
  3. Maine (R-Susan Collins)
  2. Michigan (D)
  1. North Carolina (R) – most likely

• The panel discusses why Susan Collins (Maine) remains formidable despite her state’s blue lean, and why seats like Michigan and Alaska are particularly volatile.

Quote:
“Susan Collins has won tough races before. She has a hold on that state's voters in a way that people don't give her enough credit for … I am not convinced yet that the Democrats have figured out how to beat her.”
— Jacob Hrabashkin (34:28)

House

• Leah highlights bellwether districts:

  • NC-1 (Don Davis, Democrat, in tougher redrawn seat)
  • PA-1 (Brian Fitzpatrick, GOP "white whale" for Dems)
  • Texas's 5 targeted redrawn seats
  • CO-8 (narrowly divided)
  • VA-2 (Jen Kiggans, signals on suburban shifts)

• Jacob identifies types of competitive seats:

  1. Majority-minority districts shifting right (Texas border, CO-8)
  2. Classic swingy suburbs (PA-7, NY-17, AZ-6)
  3. Well-entrenched incumbents in changing burbs (PA-1 Fitzpatrick, MI-4 Huizenga)
  4. “Reach” seats that portend a Democratic wave (e.g., Alaska’s at-large seat, “if Dems win, it’s a bloodbath for the GOP”)

Quote:
“If Democrats can find a way to hold onto [TX-35] by boosting turnout among Latino voters, like, to me, that's the signal, like this is turning into a bloodbath.”
— Jacob Hrabashkin (57:03)

6. How to Read the National Environment Right Now

• Generic ballot: Democrats up by ~5; but both polling error and history mean that margin is fluid.
• Special elections: So far, Democrats are overperforming the generic ballot, suggesting their midterm position may be slightly better than polling alone shows.
• Trump’s deep unpopularity may matter, but issue polling remains mixed.

Quote:
“What we have is special elections…Democrats have overperformed in those special elections by about a dozen points. And, you know, you can measure that in different ways, but kind of no matter how you slice it, Democrats have overperformed, which is exactly what you would expect historically…”
— Leah Escarinam (24:29)

• The group discusses whether pollsters may be overcorrecting for past polling misses (especially underestimating Republican turnout) and potentially underestimating Democrats this cycle.

Quote:
“From an enthusiasm and motivation perspective, Democrats are much more fired up. That's why you've got Democrats winning statewide elections in Georgia by 20 points because... the motivation imbalance really reared its head.”
— Jacob Hrabashkin (27:03)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Historical Aberrations:
  “It's really hard to know in the moment what a big shift or a huge historical moment is, especially, especially in 2026, because look at your news alerts. Seems like something huge is happening every day.”
  — Leah Escarinam (10:46)

• On the “Table Setting” Theme:
  “We've got most of the utensils and, you know, glassware on the table, but I don't think we have any food yet. So we're going to have to continue setting the table in the months to come.”
  — Galen Druke (60:32)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Setting the scene for 2026 midterms: 00:41–01:57
• Conventional wisdom & betting markets: 02:37–05:27
• Black swan events & historical aberrations: 05:45–14:11
• Debating 2022 as a historical aberration: 14:17–15:12
• Senate race rankings & deep dives: 30:32–45:41
• House bellwethers & types of competitive seats: 48:58–59:26
• Summary & closing reflections: 60:13–61:08

---

Tone

The episode balances deep data analysis and historical parallels with wry humor and conversational rapport. The host and guests aren’t afraid to nerd out (“not what I signed up for!”), toss around inside jokes (Galen’s “sometimes it’s a terrorist attack and sometimes it’s a blowjob” quip at 12:03), or reflect on the absurdities of today's political environment.

---

Summary Takeaways

• Early indicators suggest a Democratic lean in both chambers, but history can’t be blindly trusted—especially post-2016.
• "Black swan" events and late-breaking shifts still loom, making any forecast highly provisional.
• The races to watch are a mix: competitive new maps, swingy suburbs, and entrenched incumbents who buck trends.
• The polling picture right now slightly underrepresents Democratic overperformance in actual special elections, raising questions about possible errors in current models.
• Table-setting is just that—the main courses (actual races and results) are yet to come.

---

For more: www.gdpolitics.com – Paid subscribers get double episodes and exclusive chats.

Transcript

[A]

Um, my cat is trying to get into the microphone after waking me up at 3am that's fun.

[B]

Should we. Is the. Should we put her away?

[A]

No, she. You trust me, that won't help. That won't help. And any noises she makes will not be disruptive. Is this like, the mom who's, like, letting their kid, like, throw around the restaurant? That's me and my cat. Like, it's. You'll like it when you ask what's the most competitive Senate race? And, like, you get like, no. Yeah.

[C]

Hey, look.

[A]

Oh, she heard you.

[B]

Hello, and welcome to the GD Politics podcast.

[C]

I'm Galen Druke, and this is our start of the year table setting episode.

[B]

For the 2026 midterms.

[C]

Welcome to what will be a doozy.

[B]

Of an election year.

[C]

And by the way, the primaries begin.

[B]

In just 14 weeks.

[C]

Republicans begin with control of the House by the slimmest of margins. To flip the chamber, Democrats would need.

[B]

To gain five seats.

[C]

Republicans have a safer margin in the Senate, where Democrats would need to gain four seats. But in territory that is notably redder.

[B]

Than in the House.

[C]

In polls that ask Americans if they prefer Democrats or Republicans to control Congress, Democrats lead by 5 percentage points on.

[B]

Average when it comes to the president's.

[C]

Approval rating, he's at net negative 4 14, a rating that puts him just slightly below where Biden was at this point in his own historically unpopular presidency. History is clear about the challenges for Republicans. The incumbent party has lost seats in the House in 20 of the last 22 midterm elections, with an average loss of 32 seats. We didn't plan it this way, but we are also recording this episode as high quality polling from the New York Times shows that President Trump has given up his gains and then some, with the voters who powered his popular vote.

[B]

Victory in 2024, a group that tended.

[C]

To be younger, lower propensity, and less.

[B]

White than Republicans past coalitions.

[C]

Here with me to set the table are two dear friends of the pod. Deputy editor of Inside Elections, Jacob Hrabashkin.

[B]

Welcome to the podcast, Jacob.

[D]

Thanks for having me.

[B]

And also here with us is elections.

[C]

Reporter at the Associated Press, Leah Escarinam. Welcome, Leah.

[A]

Hello.

[B]

Are you guys ready for a midterm year?

[A]

I've been ready.

[D]

We've been in a midterm year, Galen. This is like November 2024.

[A]

People are finally catching up. I've literally had, like, three meetings this morning where I've been like, I've been wanting to talk about this for weeks, for months.

[B]

Well, this Is this is your moment, Leah. Here we are.

[A]

I know.

[B]

So I want to start by assessing the current conventional wisdom. And we can quibble over whether the betting markets represent conventional wisdom, but that's what I'm going to use as, as the conventional wisdom for our purposes this morning. There's a 79% chance, according to Polymarket, that Democrats win the House at those odds. Jacob, are you buying, selling or holding?

[D]

Do I think betting markets set aside the Democrats have an 8 and 10 shot of winning back the House? I would probably hold on that. I think that's probably a fair estimate of where things stand right now. It allows for a little variation in either direction. I don't think that it's a sure thing. I also don't think that this is a toss up. I think that the Democrats have a clear advantage heading into 2026 and there are still ways for them to muck it up. There's a long time before election day, still another nine months and change. So that's how, that's how I come down on this one.

[B]

Okay, we'll get into some of the details of how Democrats could muck it up or how Republicans could pull, I don't know, victory from the jaws of defeat. That's like not how the saying usually goes, but maybe rabbit out of a hat. Yeah, exactly. Uh, Leah, are you gonna be a more audacious better or are you also gonna hold?

[A]

I mean, you know me, I don't bet. Historically, the president's party loses seats in the House during the midterm. So if you're looking at history as your guide, then that would give Democrats an edge. But. Well, actually, before I go so into my butt, that's actually what Donald Trump recently said, right? Like he actually said it out loud, said something like, apparently presidents lose seats in the midterms. I don't know why that is. While he was talking to a group of Republicans and asked them him to figure out what was going on in the public mind. So that's, that's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is historical aberrations are something that we are pretty used to in 2026, 2025. Look at the 2022 presidential elections, which were not technically historical aberration. Republicans did pick up seats, but it was far fewer than what's average. And so if you're looking at, you know, this kind of new era of politics, opposed Trump politics, then who knows? Plus you have redistricting, which creates an entirely new like, set of calculus, set of Calculi to, to work through. So yeah, no, I, I don't bet. I don't bet.

[B]

So you're not holding, you're not buying, you're not selling. You're just saying, I'm going shopping.

[A]

I'm going shopping.

[B]

Okay, all right, all right, I, I like that. I mean, Jacob, you mentioned that there are things that could happen that could make the historical expectation not play out. Leah, you suggested the same. Like what are those things at this point, nine months out?

[D]

Well, Galen, if I knew that, I wouldn't be on this podcast. I would be on an island somewhere and I would be not staring down in a snowstorm here in DC Cause I would be much more pro betting market in that regard. But look, look, you, you don't have to look very far to the past to see these kinds of black swan events. As Leah was saying, you know, just because you're very unlikely to win the lottery in any given week, somebody is very likely to win the lottery every single week. And it's the same thing with these kinds of big kind of game changing events. So I can think of two right off the top of my head. The first one, Covid 192020 presidential election. We didn't know what was coming. I mean, by January we kind of knew there was something going on in Wuhan and that Japan had begun to shut things off. But I'll tell you, I went to Japan for a week and a half in late February of 2020. Right. We were still traveling internationally. We were still fully engaged in ways that became completely unthinkable just a few weeks into March. And that completely reset the 2020 presidential election. The Black Lives Matter protests after George Floyd was another big reset in that race and changed the entire structure of how all of that worked from what we were thinking it would look like in 2019. So that's one example. You've got the Dobbs decision coming down in the spring of 2022 that fundamentally reset in some real ways. The midterm elections that year gave Democrats a shot in the arm, a boost that allowed them to outperform historical expectations. Not turn it into a 98 or 2002 type election, but clearly change the calculus there. In 98 you had the Clinton impeachment that went south on Republicans. And in 2002 you had 9, 11. I think those are good examples of surprise things or big, big things that can happen that upend politics. And I'm not saying that any of those things are going to happen, but we have to keep in mind the possibilities that any of them could. So that's kind of the big picture kind of black swan events. I think if we're talking more about what has to happen for Republicans to get back in the game, I think there are a couple things. I think the Supreme Court probably has to rule against Trump's tariffs. I think if that happens, we're gonna see the markets shoot up considerably and the economy has to get better. Right. We're running out of time for that to happen. I think we're gonna get to a point later in the year, before election Day, but later than today, where voters perception of the economy is going to be baked in. But if things continue to improve and if they get better faster, there's a possibility that, you know, voters look at their, their wallets and their pocketbooks and their 401ks over the summer and as we head into fall and they don't feel as squeezed as, as they do right now. And I'm not saying that's gonna happen, but that's kind of the path that has to, that has to start to take place for voters to feel less economically pressured and more open, keeping Republicans in charge.

[A]

I have a thought, a thought that's, it's a question slash thought. But when we're doing the historical trends spiel, which we've all done already, like, we're like five minutes in, we've already done it. We've got the party in power, loses seats. It's happened three times in modern history. The Great Depression, the Clinton impeachment and 9 11. Right. Those are the three, three big ones. One of them always feels a little strange to me. Clinton impeachment, because that is in the grand scheme of history, did not. It's not going to have the same.

[B]

You mean it doesn't rival 911 or the great Depression? Leah?

[A]

Yeah, yeah, exactly. So is there a world in which you could have seen the Dobbs decision as one of those? Like if Democrats had held the house in 2022, would we say, well, that was the Dobbs decision and it could have been for the Dobbs decision for, for multiple other reasons, including, you know, where spending happens in individual races. All that's to say, it's really hard to know in the moment what a big shift or a huge historical moment is, especially, especially in 2026, because look at your news alerts. Seems like something huge is happening every day where if you took a lot of these and just made them like kind of singular events, you could imagine us in, you know, 2050 looking back and saying, oh, well, you know, it was one of those alerts that changed the dynamic for the midterms. But like, we just don't know.

[D]

I would quibble with that a little bit. I think that in the 22 elections, everyone was pretty much on the same page, that the Dobbs decision was the turning point. You know, I certainly gave a lot of talks and a lot of interviews around and after that time and how I would frame it was positing to my audience or whoever I was talking to, asking them, you know, do you think that the Dobbs decision rises to the level of The Great Depression, 9, 11, the Clinton impeachment? Because if it doesn't, then it's going to be a typical midterm. And if it does, it could look differently. And I think part of what happened is that the House was so narrowly divided after the 2020 election that there was really no wiggle room for Democrats. But I think Dobbs was so the political impact was so immediately apparent in all of the metrics that we look to, to assess national environment. But Leah, to your point about kind of the Clinton impeachment being a bit more of an aberration, you know, I know we're on Data Politics podcast, and so I'll just throw out there that Bill Clinton's approval rating November 1, 1998, according to Gallup was 66% approved, 30% disapprove.

[B]

So that's sometimes, sometimes what causes a rally around the flag effect is a terrorist attack and sometimes it's a blowjob.

[C]

Is that what you're saying, Jacob?

[D]

No, Galen, that's not what I'm saying at all. That's what you're saying.

[B]

That's what you're saying.

[A]

I think that's, I think that's one way to summarize it, you know, but.

[B]

Two, like I'm gonna, I'm gonna agree with both of you here in, you know, in typical amiable fashion, because when it comes to the Dobbs decision, we could all see that happen in real time in the polling, and the polling ended up being highly accurate in 2022. Looking at that, we could see that Republicans were favored to win control of the House, which is ultimately what happened, but not in a sort of blow away fashion.

[C]

And we, in the polling, what the.

[B]

Issue was that was sort of pissing off voters in a negative way towards Republicans.

[C]

We could also see what was pissing.

[B]

Off voters in a negative way towards Democrats.

[C]

But that was something that we could pretty much. There's a, there's a cause and effect that's quite clear.

[B]

And I think that the muted shift in seats held was a result of the Dom's decision.

[C]

When it comes to your other example.

[B]

Jacob, which is Covid, I think that is an example where it's really unclear what impact that had because first of all, the polls were really off in 2020. And so you kind of look back at the rest of the year thinking, well, were the polls accurate throughout? And I think even today someone would be hard pressed to tell you, like, would Donald Trump have won reelection if it weren't for Covid? I mean, I'm not equipped to answer that question. I think there are a lot of people who might suggest yes, but it's really unclear. And so in some instances it's obvious. In other instances, even after big events like COVID 19, some people look at that year and say after everything we went through, you know, a pandemic, historic level of social unrest, absolutely nothing changed when it came to a choice between Democrats and Republicans because the polls didn't look all that different between November of 2019 and November of 2020.

[D]

Democrats won two seats in Georgia.

[A]

I mean, well, the following.

[C]

That gets us into, yeah, that gets.

[B]

Us into what happened around January 6th and the, you know, denying the results of the 2020 election.

[A]

Can I just bring us a little bit to the, to the present just for a moment? Just for a moment. So beyond just like kind of debating like what could have been in history or what did happen in history, I think my question is should 2022 be considered when we are doing the historical spiel, should 2022 be considered one of those aberrations? And if it should be considered one of those aberrations, one of those hist. Didn't expect that to happen. Then we have one of those in the post Trump presidency. We have one just four years ago. And so I just think it's really important to go through, I mean it's exhausting in some ways, like to go through all the different scenarios, things that could happen. Because what we've seen in since especially 2016, is that if something could happen, it really could happen. You know, I love that if something.

[B]

Could happen, it really could happen. We are scarring on 2026. I want to just get the Senate on the table before we dive into much more of this because we are, we are going to the odds right now show that Republicans have a 66% chance of holding the Senate. Jacob, back to you, are you buying, selling or holding at those odds?

[A]

I.

[D]

I would probably buy at those odds. I think that's probably a little generous to Democrats at, at this particular juncture. I don't necessarily think it's too far off, but I think that a lot of Democrats have gotten a lot of good news on the Senate of late. But I don't want that to obscure the fact that the path is incredibly difficult. There are no gimmes, there are no easy races for the party this time around. They have to do a lot of difficult things to even be in the neighborhood of a majority. And that's a tough, that's a tough hill to climb. Still, at this point, if you're looking.

[A]

At individual states, Democrats have, I think they're competing in more states than I probably would have expected at the beginning of the cycle, given the map that we have right now, which gives them more options, more options to flip seats, to keep seats, whatever. But each of those states, what happens in Alaska? I mean, technically, like, yes, there's like a thread of what happens with all these races, with the national environment. We've seen that over and over. You know, we just almost got into the what if the Georgia special elections happened three months earlier argument a few seconds ago. But like, what each of those races depends on is just different candidates, different campaigns, different electorates. And it's really hard, it's really hard to figure out as a group which way that's going to go.

[D]

I mean, Democrats have to do some really difficult things. Primarily, you know, they have to flip, flip Senate seats in states won by the other party's presidential candidate two years prior. And that has not happened in eight years. You know, Democrats pick up Arizona in 2018. That was one. And you know, Republicans in 2010 were able to do it five times over. So Democrats kind of have to make that 2010 mark in the Senate to reclaim the majority. And that's difficult. 2010 was a huge year for Republicans. They picked up 60 seats in the House.

[B]

That was also a reaction to a really strong democratic year in 2008. So there was more ground, even fertile ground to pick up in a way because Democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate after the 2008 election. And so there were a lot more seats to lose.

[D]

Yes, there was plenty of fertile ground. I mean, Republicans pick up North Dakota, they pick up Arkansas, they pick up Indiana and then Illinois and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are the more difficult ones. But it's difficult even when you've got Mary Peltola in Alaska and Sherrod Brown and you've got maybe this bank shot opportunity in Texas. And maybe a glimmer of hope. In Iowa, you still have to beat Susan Collins. In Maine, you still have to win North Carolina, where Democrats haven't won a senate race since 2008 and continue to struggle in federal races. You know, the path is there, but the execution is the difficult part.

[B]

We are going to dig into the nitty gritty of the House and Senate and I'll ask you to rank some of these elections in terms of flippability or hold ability. But let's talk about the national environment for a little bit before we dig deeper there. Like I said, right now Democrats have a five point advantage on the generic ballot, which means that Americans prefer Democrats over Republicans by a moderate but clear margin. At this point in time, according to some analysis published by the Silver Bulletin, the empirical margin of error on the.

[C]

January polling average compared to the popular.

[B]

Vote is 5.7 points. So to contextualize that, you know, Democrats currently lead by about 5 percentage points. That could be anywhere between like an 11 point advantage for Democrats on actual election day to a basically even split on election day. However, if you put that average error aside for a second and just think about how much the opposition party usually gains between the beginning of the year and the end of the year. The Opposition party gains 2.5 points in the generic ballot on average between January and Election Day. So that would put Democrats closer to an eight point advantage. If we're looking at that historical context now, we usually are aggregating elections dating back to at least the 1970s when.

[C]

We'Re looking at this kind of stuff.

[B]

So I'm just curious, taking that historical perspective of 50 plus years and applying it to this moment, are there any other things that we should think about or just sort of say, you know, those, those averages sit well with me so far.

[D]

I would say this. This cycle's generic ballot has been relatively stable with a small but somewhat increasing Democratic advantage. Right. Typically in generic ballot polling, we see the party that just won the last election start out with a bit of an edge. People kind of sweep this under the rug because it never ends this way. But typically, the party that comes into power, voters give the benefit of the doubt to them. They start out with an advantage and they lose it over time. But if you go back and you look at generic ballot polling in, in the 2010 election, for instance, which again was kind of a bloodbath for Democrats, the Republicans didn't gain a sustained advantage until about summer of 2010. July of 2010 is when those two lines really begin to diverge in 2014, which was the second worst year for Democrats in recent memory, generic ballot polling was essentially all tied up until September of 2014. And then it expands again the influence of events. 2014, you had the botched Obamacare rollout that really hurt the president and Democrats, you had the Ebola scare that Republicans very successfully weaponized, and you had the rise of isis. And those three events combined to make a really terrible environment for Democrats late in 2014. 2018 is perhaps looks a little bit more like the situation we have now where Democrats had an advantage in the generic ballot pretty much from day one, and that remained relatively constant in the upper single digits from essentially the start of 2018 to election day. But 2022, again, you've got Republicans who have this advantage for most of the off year. And then, you know, you get to summer of the on year when the Dobbs decision hits, and all of a sudden the generic ballot is tied. And it's not really until September again that Republicans regain their footing. So I understand the value of averages, I understand the value of looking at a long term trend, and I do think that all things else held equal, you would expect the opposition party to continue to grow its advantage from the beginning of the year to the end of the year. But these are not impermeable to events happening. Voters are not set in their ways. And so while the most likely outcome is probably Democrats continue to gain ground, the ability of something to come along and change things shouldn't be discounted.

[B]

Leah, are you looking at anything else to assess the national environment? I mean, we're in a polling rich environment right now. Like I mentioned, we just got the New York Times, Siena University, no longer Siena College polling, if you pay close attention. Yeah, they've, they've been upgraded.

[A]

Huh?

[B]

And like I said, Trump's approval rating is net negative 14. Sometimes we think of these things, oftentimes we think of these things as a referendum on the incumbent. So, like, is the net negative 14 maybe an equally important indicator to the generic ballot polling? I think most, most people who look at history would say no, but like.

[C]

How should we think about that?

[B]

And then at the same time, when you look at some of this polling, while Trump is underwater on almost every issue except border security, when you pit Democrats and Republicans against each other on these issues, it's not as if Democrats sweep the field. I talked about this on a recent podcast with Gabe Fleischer, another friend of the pod. And so depending on which indicators you look at, you can tell a bit of a different story.

[C]

Is there a set of.

[B]

Is there a set of data that you think is best relied upon for these kinds of assessments?

[A]

What I like to do is at least so far, like, we can't guess what's going to happen. What has happened that is out of expectation so far this cycle, and so far what we have is special elections. And special elections aren't great to look at because they are special. And so it's not a perfect crystal ball, but so far, Democrats have overperformed in those special elections by about a dozen points. About a dozen percentage points. And, you know, you can measure that in different ways, but kind of no matter how you slice it, Democrats have overperformed, which is exactly what you would expect historically, right? Like, historically, you would expect the party in power to not do as well in elections after the presidential election. So that's just a fact, right? Like a fact. Something that's already happened. It's a really helpful guiding post, right? Like, it's. If it had been while Democrats are overperforming by 30 points, like, that would tell us something weird was happening. If it was, Republicans are overperforming by a dozen points, that would tell us something weird is happening. What we're seeing now is about what we expect. So we're just, like, still looking for weird things to happen.

[B]

You know, I have to disagree a little bit, Leah, because if the generic ballot has Democrats outperforming Republicans by about 5 percentage points right now, last fall it was, you know, 4 percentage points or so, but Democrats are actually overperforming in these special elections by a dozen percentage points. That does beg some sort of explanation for why the actual elections are turning out much better than generic ballot polling would suggest. And to your point, special elections are special. The electorate has a different composition than it will in the midterms. But do we want to get a little bit freaky here and say, like, are pollsters overcompensating for underestimating Republican performance in repeated presidential elections and maybe still basically using mechanisms that try to make sure they get enough Trump voters in the sample or in the weighted results that Democrats might be underestimated at this point? I mean, we saw a significant underestimation of democratic performance in 2025, which is why I bring that up. I'm. I'm not like a. A hopium peddler or whatever, and it's also not my job to give hope to Democrats. But there is a weird kind of conflict there between the generic ballot polling and the actual results in elections.

[D]

I don't think that even the people who put the most kind of stock into generic into special elections as a barometer would say that it's a one to one match between how special special election overperformance and popular vote performance in a midterm election. I think that they would argue there's a correlation, but I guess I'm not as perturbed or miffed by Democrats doing better in special elections on an absolute numbers basis than the generic ballot would have you believe. Simply because I think from an enthusiasm and motivation perspective, Democrats are much more fired up than Republicans. So the more that kind of motivation matters, which means kind of the more esoteric an election, the more that edge is going to show up. That's why you've got Democrats winning statewide elections in Georgia by 20 points, because nobody, you know, the public service commissioner election was so out of left field that it created the opportunity for that motivation imbalance to really rear its head.

[A]

Right? And it builds. You get like one win and then you kind of like, then a fundraising surge happens like what we saw in Tennessee, and that boosts a candidate. But I think that in terms of pollsters overestimating or underestimating what Democrats may or may not do in November, that does get into projection, right? Like that is literally a projection. What we know now is how voters feel about the issues. Now we know how they feel about Trump. Now we know Trump's approval rating. Now we have results from the past year. These are all things that we can analyze without having to kind of make projections about how somebody will feel in eight months.

[C]

Today's podcast is brought to you by you, the listeners. Without paid subscribers, GD Politics wouldn't exist. Your support means that we can continue making an independent podcast that's guided by curiosity, rigor, and a sense of humor. Paid subscribers get about twice the number of episodes, which I promise will be worth it in this midterm election year. You can also join the paid subscriber chat and connect your personal feed to your favorite podcast player so you get every episode right where you listen to podcasts. Becoming a paid subscriber to GD Politics is a great way to kick off 2026, so go check it out at gdpolitics. Com.

[B]

I'll see you there. Okay, let's get back into the nitty gritty, as I suggested we would. And we're going to start with the Senate. Democrats need to pick up four seats if they're going to win the chamber. According to race rating outfits like Cook and Inside elections, there are 10 Senate seats that are in play at all, meaning not solidly Republican or solidly Democratic. Four are currently held by Democrats. Georgia, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Minnesota. Six are held by Republicans. Maine, North Carolina, Alaska, Ohio, Iowa, and Texas, as we mentioned. That's suggestive of why this is a challenging environment for Democrats. So here's our task. I want to line up Those states, those 10 states from most likely to least likely to flip. And that is. This is not just, you know, for Democrats, of course, this includes for Republicans. Could flip a Democratically held seat, as those ratings suggest.

[A]

I like to view my role here as I think you should do the ranking, Jacob, because you are inside elections deputy editor analyst, and I should pick apart every single one of your states and give you every reason why you could be right or wrong.

[B]

Okay. All right, Leah, we can team up on that. So it's gonna be Leah and Galen versus Jacob, because I think Jacob really has an advantage here.

[D]

Not what I signed up for.

[A]

You didn't sign up. You didn't sign up for this.

[B]

This is by force. So, Jacob, please, from 1 to 10, rank the likelihood of those states flipping.

[D]

All right, here we go. So this is 10 to 1, 10 being least likely to flip, 1 being most likely to flip.

[B]

Okay.

[D]

All right, here we go. 10. Minnesota.

[B]

That's democratically held. Democrats would continue to hold it.

[D]

9. Texas.

[B]

Republicans hold it, likely to keep it.

[D]

8. Iowa.

[B]

Okay. Republican held.

[D]

Say 7. Here's where it starts to get a little dicey. 7. I'm gonna go Ohio.

[A]

Ooh. Okay.

[B]

Republican held.

[D]

6. I'm gonna go New Hampshire.

[B]

Okay, that is Democratic held.

[D]

Yeah. Five. I'm gonna go. Oh, man. This is where I start to get in trouble here. 5. I'm gonna go Georgia. And this is gonna be my spiciest pick.

[B]

Wow.

[A]

Ooh.

[B]

Jon Ossoff. So Democratically held.

[D]

Yeah. Four. I'm gonna go Alaska.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

Okay.

[D]

Yeah. Three. I'm gonna go Maine.

[B]

Okay.

[D]

Two, I'm gonna go Michigan. And one, I'm gonna go North Carolina.

[B]

Ooh. Okay, wait. This is spicy. I love this.

[A]

I have so many questions.

[B]

Okay, so North Carolina, likeliest to flip, currently held by Thom Tillis, a Republican. Michigan, second likeliest, currently held by a Democrat. And then I think I mentioned all of the other ones. Maine, also currently held by a Republican. So this is fun. Leah, you said you have some. Some quibbles, some questions.

[A]

No, I just. Okay, I have. I have several, but they're not quibbles. They are questions. I'm just asking for more information.

[D]

You're doing your own research.

[A]

I'm doing my own live research. Live. Why is Susan Collins not higher up your list? Because I do think the conventional wisdom is, again, historical trends. Right. She's a Republican in a state that Kamala Harris won, which no other Republican senator is.

[D]

Yes. She is the only senator to represent a state won by the other party's presidential candidate in the last election.

[A]

Yes.

[D]

Well, Leah Galen, there's an old saying in Tennessee, I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee, too, from your childhood in Tennessee. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, can't get fooled again.

[B]

For the uninitiated, that's a George W. Bushism.

[D]

It's actually it's the intro to a J. Cole song. Galen really? No, it's also a George for the younger listeners out there, George W. Bush was the president of the United States from 2001 to 2009, and he had a lot of notable quotables, one of which ends up in a very popular J. Cole song. Oh.

[B]

So here's here's here's what I'm trying.

[A]

Not letting you answer the question, except for the J. Cole song part.

[D]

Here's, here's what I'm trying to say here. Susan Collins has won tough races before. She has consistently won in a state that votes Democratic at all the other federal levels or, you know, Angus King, effectively a Democrat, votes Democratic for president. She has a hold on that state's voters in a way that people don't give her enough credit for, especially a set of voters that has trended Democratic but continues to vote for her older voters, especially older women in Maine, which is the oldest state in the country. And I am not convinced yet that the Democrats have figured out how to beat her. I think that they are dealing with two very different competing visions for how to beat Susan Collins in this primary of theirs between Governor Janet Mills and Graham Platner. The Mills angle is look at those voters that Susan Collins does the best among the voters, that she overperforms the most among the voters that form the bedrock of her winning coalition year in and year out. They like Janet Mills better than they like Susan Collins, and that all those people that Susan Collins speaks to, Janet Mills can speak to them better because she is as much or more authentically maintained she is as relatable or more relatable than Susan Collins. And she has the added benefit of being a Democrat in a Democratic leaning state. And so she's got universal name id, she's got two terms with governor under her belt, and she's the Way to go. Then you have the Graham Platner argument, which is throw the whole thing out of the window. Nominate somebody who's never held office before, who's got kind of a rough and tumble past, who talks saltily, who talks a lot about winning young men, talks about the destruction that the overseas wars wrought on a whole generation of Americans, of which he is a part, who is not afraid to get down and dirty and really stick it to Democrats and Republicans in a way that's unfamiliar. Those two are going to have to duke it out in this primary. Whoever emerges is gonna be real bloodied up. Susan Collins is in for a real fight, but I am not yet convinced that she is a goner, like some people are. Despite the lean of the state, I think that she stands a good chance of winning reelection, a better chance of winning reelection than a lot of people give her credit for. So that's why I put Maine lower than some of these other places.

[B]

Maybe the other thing, talking about good data, is that those two extremely different visions of the Democratic Party, when you match them up against Susan Collins today, neither of them is a clear winner.

[A]

Yeah, okay. Two words for you, Joe Donnelly. Two proper nouns. The reason I'm saying Joe Donnelly, for those of you who are not paying attention to the Indiana 2018 Senate race, it's because the Republican competitor was Mike Braun, who was politically unknown, now is governor. But, you know, you couldn't tell that in 2018. You couldn't tell that. You couldn't have known that that was what it was going to be. And what happened there is the tide just swept up Donnelly. How do we know that it's not just time? Like, it's not too hard?

[B]

The challenge is that the argument for why this is such a difficult map for Democrats in the Senate is that it is increasingly rare that states that vote one way in presidential elections vote another way in Senate elections. And that's why, as much as Democrats have their sights set on Alaska, Texas, Iowa, Ohio, et cetera, that there's reason for them to not get too excited. I think that it's difficult to apply that wisdom only to those states and then not apply it to Maine as well. At a certain point, the sort of partisanship just becomes too difficult. And Susan Collins is at a less popular time in her career. Clearly the sort of like, I'm super bipartisan and I'm always concerned shtick, or maybe that's her authentically, isn't holding up the same way that it has.

[D]

Yeah, look, I completely agree that eventually time runs out for a lot of these incumbents who have been able to rise above the weight of their state's politics. We saw that with Joe Donnelly, we saw that with Heidi Heitkamp, we saw that with Claire McCaskill in 2018, a good Democratic year. That was still not enough for them to get across the finish line. I'll say a couple things on, on that I think make Collins different. The first is that, and the most important is just a sense of scale, right?

[A]

Oh, yeah.

[D]

Donald Trump won Indiana in 2016 by 20 points and Joe Donnelly lost reelection by seven thereabouts in 2018.

[A]

Something like that. Yeah. It's amazing that you had that offhand, though.

[D]

Oh, I didn't. I looked it up, okay. I looked up the Trump number. I know. I know the Donnelly number because Donnelly and McCaskill both lost by about seven points in 2018. Kamala Harris won Maine by seven points in 2024. Maine is a blue leaning state, but it is not a rep. It's. It's not a Democratic state like Missouri or Indiana, where Republican states, you know, Maine, there's a floor for Republicans in Maine at about 43 to 45% of the vote. It doesn't take very much more than that to win now. You know, it's ranked choice, so you gotta get to 50. But Collins just starts from a different place, I think, than a Democrat in some of these, you know, states that Democrats like Montana and West Virginia were no longer able to hold often. The other thing I would say is that Collins has been around a lot longer as a senator than any of those other senators were. The reason why she continues to win is because she is an institution. She has been around for so long. Her parents were both major political figures. She is so authentically of the state in a way that I don't want to disparage Joe Donnelly's Indiana ness or Claire McCaskill's Missouri Ness or Joe Manchin's West Virginianist. But Joe Donnelly won in 2012 because, you know, the Republicans screwed up their primary and nominated a candidate who put his foot in his mouth. And Claire McCaskill won in 2012 for.

[A]

The same thing, same reason.

[D]

Susan Collins in 2008 ran against Tom Allen, who was the second district representative, represented half the state. And Obama won maine by like 5,000 points that year. And Susan Collins won by 5,000 points as well. I think she won by like 35 points in 2008. Obviously an incredibly different era. But she is just, she's got the secret sauce that I think Makes her competitive. I'm not saying she's going to win. I'm not saying she's going to run away with this thing. But I just. When I look at her versus all of the other Republican candidates on the map in these competitive races, she stands out. And she has to stand out because she's got the toughest state, but she stands out as just like at the very, very top of. Of what you're looking for in. In a. In a Senate candidate.

[B]

Okay. This has turned somewhat into a main focused podcast.

[C]

Oh, my gosh.

[A]

Don't mean to pull out the main flag. I have it right here.

[D]

That was all Leah's plan, literally.

[B]

Do I have other questions here? Like, why is Alaska likelier to flip than, say, I don't know, Ohio? Ohio.

[A]

Yeah, that was my second question.

[B]

Yeah. Maybe give us a little bit of an answer and then I want to get into the House for a second before we have to say goodbye.

[D]

Sure. Alaska and Ohio, I think, belong in the same tranche of states. In my mind, it's difficult to differentiate. You know, the gradations here. We have them rated both in the lean Republican category at Inside Elections. The reason why ultimately I put Alaska higher than Ohio. I think there are two things going on here. One is you're looking at trend lines. You're looking at recent performances. Both Mary Peltola and Sherrod Brown were on the ballot in their states in 2024. Sherrod Brown loses by about four points. Mary Peltola loses by two points. Both of those were incumbents in those races, I believe. You know, Alaska voted slightly more Republican than Ohio did for president, but they were roughly the same, roughly in the same neighborhood at the top of the ticket. So that is a helpful control as well. And Ohio is just. Ohio is moving to the right. Alaska, if you squint, is potentially getting better for Democrats. There are more encouraging signs for Democrats under the hood in Alaska than there are for Ohio. That's kind of one reason. The larger reason in my mind is cost. It's price fully engaged. Every second of TV is bought. Every piece of mail is dropped. Race in Alaska, you're probably looking at like $70 million, all in candidates and outside groups, 35 a piece a fully engaged. Every second of TV is bought. Every piece of mail is dropped. In Ohio. We don't know what that number is. I don't think it's a billion, but it's more than 500 million. The money just makes that a totally different ball game. There is a real potential for Republicans to do exactly what they did in 24 and come in and just absolutely bury Sherrod Brown in money. I mean, it was a crypto effort last time around. I don't know who it might be this time around, but the possibility of Democrats being just completely flooded and outgunned in Ohio is much more real than in Alaska, where you can't be outgunned because if you spend $35 million, you are doing the maximum amount of paid media spending that the state can handle.

[B]

Okay, wait, one more question before those were. That was a very good response. One more question before we get to the House, which is Michigan. That was actually number two in terms of flippability. It's currently held by Democrats. Of course, Democrats are duking it out in a hotly contested primary there right now. But in what we expect to be a blue leaning environment, why would Michigan be the second likeliest to flip? And from Democrat to Republican?

[D]

Okay, so thinking through this, there are basically four big points here. The first is the uncertainty about the Democratic nominee. So there's a highly contested primary that is not really engaged at all yet between Mallory McMorrow, the state senator, Representative Haley Stevens, and physician Abdul El Sayed. We don't know who the nominee is going to be. None of those three have really stood out from the pack. None of those were the first choices of the powers that be in D.C. who wanted Gretchen Whitmer to run. They wanted Pete Buttigieg to run. They wanted Kristen McDonald Rivett to run. We're getting down to kind of, you know, candidates who weren't the top picks here in Michigan. And the primary is very late. It's not until August. So uncertainty about the Democratic nominee and all three of them have baggage. Point two, Republicans know who their nominee is. It's going to be Mike Rogers. He ran for Senate last time. He came very close to beating Alyssa Slotkin. And he's going to have more money this time because he's the top race for Republicans now as opposed to being the number five or six race for them in the 2024 cycle. So he's already in general election mode. Democrats are still duking it out in the primary for another six months. Point three is you've got this really wonky gubernatorial race at the top of the ticket right now because Detroit, former Detroit Mayor Mike Dugan is running as an independent. He's got real money, he's got real name id. He's causing a real issue for Jocelyn Benson, who's probably gonna be the Democratic nominee. It just Scrambles the politics of the state to have a real three way race at the top of the ticket there.4. Michigan is just an incredibly evenly divided state. I mean, Trump won it by a whisker. Alyssa Slotkin won it by a whisker. Biden won it by a percentage point in 2020. Gary Peters won it by a point in 2020 as well. Trump won it in 2016. Republicans have had a really bad streak in Senate races, but the closeness of the state just really adds to the flippability there. And so I think you add all that up and Michigan I think could be a real problem spot for Democrats. It could be a real opportunity for Republicans on a night that could go south for them in plenty of other states across the map.

[B]

Okay, Jacob, you have acquitted yourself quite well here. We will, we'll have to meet back up at the end of the year and see how right you are. I am sure that I will ask you to do something similar another time before we get to election Day so we can, we can make some adjustments as we get more information. I think a lot of uncertainty is still baked into all of this. I want to turn to the House. Like I said, Democrats need to pick up five seats in order to win control of the chamber. According to cook, there are 18 toss ups in the House. According to Inside elections, there are 13 toss ups. I don't know that we're going to rank all of them also because I think a lot of people, including myself, won't immediately know what you're talking about when you just say the name of a House district in a state. So, Leah, why don't you pick maybe say, say. So Democrats need to pick up five seats. Why don't we say the five top five bellwethers for understanding sort of the direction that the House is headed in.

[A]

I'm going to start with two districts that I think you can think of in concert with one. Another 1 is the first district in North Carolina, Redrawn. Don Davis, Democrat, was elected in 2022. Yes. And was drawn into a tougher district in redistricting. I'm curious whether Republicans stay putting a lot of money into that district. If Republicans start to give up on that district at any point in the cycle, that's something to watch out for because that is a seat where at least the map makers drew it with the intention of it being a slightly more Republican seat. And so if that's not happening, that means something is not happening according to their expectations, which could mean a stronger performance by a Democrat. In that district, which could signal stronger performance by Democrats in other districts. On that same vein, I would look at a few Republican incumbents. I'm going to say Brian Fitzpatrick. If Democrats start putting money or keep putting money into Brian Fitzpatrick's seat. He's in Pennsylvania, has long overperformed other Republicans running in his district was, you know, the one Republican to vote against one big beautiful bill act. He's usually kind of like in, in Democrats purview, but he's kind of seen as a white whale right for Democrats. And I think if you start seeing Democrats put serious investment and serious money into trying to win that race, that's something to keep an eye out for to get a sense of whether Democrats think that they have a wave coming. Top two bellwethers if Democrats win any of the five targeted Texas seats that were redrawn mid cycle, that's a, that's something to keep an eye out for or if Democrats continue to put money in those districts, I would say say Colorado 8 because it's a district that super narrowly divided, super competitive and yet the, the incumbent has remained a pretty kind of like staunch supporter of the Republican Party and has kind of stayed close to Mike Johnson. And so I'm curious if he changes his tune at all at any point in the cycle. Those are my four. Let me think of a fifth. Let's just say. Jen Kaggins, Virginia too. If Democrats are having another surge in the suburbs, Virginia beach area, or if Republicans are able to win back that district which has been kind of flip flopping between the two parties for a little while now. I'm curious whether that's a sign of a bigger Republican success or Democrats.

[B]

I'm curious Jacob from for your perspective on if there is anything unifying the most competitive districts in the House this cycle, whether it's geography, demography in terms of race, ethnicity, if it's, I don't know, age seems to be, I don't know that there are, I guess there are parts of the country where there are a lot younger people and a lot older people. But the, the difference there is is generally less than say income, education or race. Are there certain types of districts that you're looking at?

[D]

Kind of. But there are almost too many different types of types to draw a consistent theme. I think you can certainly look and say there's a class of districts that are on the map because they have significant minority populations that have shifted heavily toward Republicans in recent years. So you've got your Texas districts, your south Texas districts like Texas 28, Texas 34, Texas 15 that are on the map because Texas Hispanics on the southern border have gone from being reliably Democratic to increasingly Republican. I would throw in a couple other seats there. Colorado 8 is another one. That's a plurality Hispanic district that Republicans were able to win with a Hispanic nominee in 2024. Arizona 1, Arizona 6. Not as Hispanic, but similarly decent sized Hispanic population in those districts. So that's kind of one tranche there. The second tranche, I would say, is the suburbs. There's been a tussle over the suburbs really, since the 2018 election when Democrats swept through and picked off a whole bunch of suburban seats that had swung very hard toward Republicans. And what we've seen over the last couple of years is Republicans slowly claw back those seats. They won a bunch of them back in 2020. They won a few more back in 2022, like Leo was saying about Virginia, too. And they kind of everyone kind of held serve more or less in 2024. But thinking about like, you know, you've got like an Arizona 6, which is the Tucson suburbs. You've got New York 17, which is, you know, Rockland County, Westchester county suburbs of New York. You've got Pennsylvania 7, which is, you know, kind of in that northeast Pennsylvania, Bethlehem Wilkes Barre, you know, that, that kind of area, Lehigh Valley. It's not like Millionaires Row Philly suburbs that like flipped in 2018 and never looked back. Right. We aren't talking about those kinds. We're not talking about, you know, the Mikey Sherrill, Montclair, you know, those kinds of super wealthy, highly educated, you know, Northern Virginia, Abigail Spanberger's old district, your Georgia, you know, Lucy McBath's district in Georgia that were the first to go in 2016 and 2018. And Republicans have not been able to win back. We're talking about kind of the next tranche of suburban and exurban districts, you know, Iowa 3, which is Des Moines and the Des Moines suburbs, in addition to a whole bunch of more rural areas, you know, parts of the country that Democrats won in 2018 and have struggled to keep a hold of since then. So, yeah, those are kind of the. That's kind of the other field here. And so I think you can kind of pick bellwethers from each of those to get a sense of how things are going. Right. If Republicans can win Texas 34 against Henry Cuellar, you know, that that would be a big deal, especially after Trump gave him a pardon, you know, if they can show that their strength among Texas Hispanics is now strong enough to oust a Democratic incumbent who is well liked because he is a Democrat. That's one thing. I think Pennsylvania 7 is kind of a classic bellwether district. It has voted very in line with state and, you know, national results in years past. So if you were to ask me kind of about control of the House. Right. I would say that one is kind of my go to for, you know, what's the bellwether for control of the House? Pennsylvania 7, which is freshman Republican Ryan McKenzie. You know, and then, and then you start to look further afield at like, what are the seats that if Democrats win, they're having even better nights. Right. So, you know, you look at Derek van Orden in Wisconsin 3, which is a Republican leaning seat that still has close elections in kind of western Wisconsin, Eau Claire lacrosse, that part of the state west of Madison, you know, I would include that one. I would say, you know, Leah, you're absolutely right. North Carolina 1, Ohio 9. If Democrats are holding on to those districts, that's another sign that Democrats are having a good night. And then you've got kind of the inoffensive suburban Republicans who have managed to hold on despite unfavorable political trends. So Fitzpatrick is one of those. Huizenga. Bill Huizenga in Michigan 4 is another one. Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo area Republican who is running for reelection in a seat that has trended away from Republicans. Rob Whitman in Virginia. That district could get sliced and diced, but he's another one that kind of has flown under the radar for many cycles even as this district has gotten more competitive. If those guys are losing, that's like another step up for Democrats. And then finally you've got like your reach seats. Like you've got Alaska and Arizona 2, which is like a rural north eastern Arizona. Tennessee 5, which is in, in kind of middle Tennessee, you know, places like that. Texas 35, which is a redrawn seat, Leah, that you mentioned that Republicans redrew in San Antonio to be more Republican. If Democrats can find a way to hold onto that by boosting turnout among Latino voters, like, to me, that's the signal, like this is turning into a bloodbath. And so, you know, you can kind of judge on a spectrum how far we are into wave territory based on which seats Democrats are winning.

[A]

Can I ask you where. And I, I'm also asking this because it's one of the earlier poll closing times. Um, not just because I'm curious, but where do you think Jen Kiggins falls.

[D]

In that, um, look, I. The Virginia redistricting potential scrambles, all of that. I mean, right. Right now, I think she's absolutely in that kind of. You know, I would put her maybe not as high as a PA7 in terms of like bellwether control of the House, but like, yeah, that's a seat that, like, if Democrats can't win that one with a former member of Congress on a good night for Democrats, you know, a year after they blew the doors off the hinges in the Virginia state level elections, that's a good sign for Republicans, if they can, if they can hold on. If they can hold on to that seat. But they're going to, they're going to try. Virginia Democrats are almost certainly going to go after Rob Whitman's district, Jen Kagan's district, and probably Bob Good's district as well. It remains to be seen if they also try and go for Morgan Griffith and Ben Klein who are in the western half of the state and represent the most conservative areas.

[A]

Like, I think if you're talking about some of the members who are going to be getting the most attention, like the most kind of like media attention throughout the election of what. I mean, I think Cuellar obviously is a big one in there, but I'd also throw at Mike Lawler who's, you know, been a regular kind of on. Yep. New York Republican, again, a suburban area. He's been a bit of a spokesman for a certain type of Republican. I think you'll probably hear a bunch about him. Valadao, I guess. But like, you know, it's. That's Dave Valadao is the Republic is in the Brian Fitzpatrick vein of white whale for Democrats. Valadao continues to win his district no matter the presidential performance, no matter how Democratic it gets.

[B]

I have a long list of questions here that we actually didn't get to, but that just means that we're gonna have to talk again over the next nine months. But I think we're going to leave our table setting there for today. We've got, we've got most of the utensils and, you know, glassware on the table, but I don't think we have any food yet.

[C]

So we're gonna, we're gonna have to.

[B]

Continue setting the table in the months to come. But Leah and Jacob, thank you so much for joining me today.

[A]

Thank you.

[D]

Always a pleasure.

[C]

My name is Galen Druke. Remember to become a subscriber to this [e-mail] and wherever you get your podcasts. Paid subscribers get about twice the number of episodes and can join in the paid subscriber chat and pass along questions.

[B]

For us to discuss on the show.

[C]

Most importantly, you ensure that we can keep making a podcast that prioritizes curiosity.

[B]

Rigor and a sense of humor.

[C]

Also, be a friend of the podcast and give us a five star rating. Maybe even tell a friend about us.

[B]

Thanks for listening and we will see you soon.