Dug a bit, and apparently this seat has literally never been held by a Republican; this is quite the misleading headline.
Her name is "Chasity", by the way, not "Chastity".
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Dug a bit, and apparently this seat has literally never been held by a Republican; this is quite the misleading headline.
Her name is "Chasity", by the way, not "Chastity".
I generally ignore anything from News Week, Raw Story, or the Daily Beast. They all do stuff like this. They twist facts to get a story where there is none.
This shit is exactly how things were reported in the runup to the 2024 election. Even if they don't fuck with the elections, I am confidently predicting the midterms are not going to be a blowout like people are hoping.
The Dems might, might, barely squeeze out a majority in the House. And then starts the age old game of having to capitulate to the 2-3 congresspeople who say they're Dems but vote with the GOP every time.
Not a snowballs chance in hell of Dems winning the Senate.
People are going to be hit with a truck of reality come the mid terms. Not that they'll learn anything. Next election will be the same shit of "we're totally going to win guys!" before fizzling into nothing.
If you are hoping for the midterms for justice to be served against this administration, keep dreaming. It's not going to happen. Ever. Trump will die before he ever sees the inside of a courtroom regarding Epstein. No matter who the next leadership is, they'll choose to move on without giving any consequences in the name of "unity".
And the people will grumble, and ultimately do absolutely nothing about it.
First of all, IF the Midterms actually happen unmolested by MAGA, it WILL be a giant blowout. MAGA only has a one vote lead, and literally EVERY special election has gone against Republicans badly.
The Manchurian DINOs are a realistic problem, and Dem leadership needs to strongly address the issue with those people. That will require NEW DEM leadership across the board.
And the Senate wasn't in contention before, but with MAGA being so universally reviled in this country, it's now in play.
And Trump probably won't see a jail cell due to Epstein, unless we suddenly get about a hundred smoking guns, including photos and videos. The evidence is too messed up, the chain of possession is destroyed, it has been under the control of MAGA, and NONE of it is trustworthy as evidence.
On the other hand, I believe that he will see a jail cell over his Insurrection and his Stolen Classified Documents, and a LOT of other stuff. Those prosecutions have been put on hold, but they aren't gone. When Trump is out of office, Jack Smith can refile, and start up right where he left off, and he seems highly motivated to do just that.
O
I hope your optimism is vidicated, but....
This specific race was for a deep-blue seat, prior to this race the Republican candidate had at best gotten 18%, and this time the republican got 38%, the most any republican has ever gotten for that state seat. Comparing Trump vote to state senate run seems to be apples and oranges for this district.
EVERY special election has gone against Republicans badly.
Well, except for the fact that not a single seat has been flipped. I suppose I can grant that the Republicans slipped 10-15 points in these races compared to the election where Trump was running, but of the three chances to actually flip a republican seat, none did anything.
On the senate, looking at the seats up, I could see maybe Georgia, NC, and Maine as potentially flippable, very remote chance of Texas... So 2-3 gains for the democrats at most. I don't think Senate is realistically in play, they need to flip 4 red seats to get even a simple majority, still well short of a filibuster proof majority and impossibly short of a veto-proof/remove president from office majority.
his Insurrection and his Stolen Classified Documents
While not 'dead' dead, the supreme court basically gave him a 100% pass on the insurrection, they basically declared that a president cannot be held criminally liable for anything while in office. The classified documents maybe but the supreme court can easily intervene and say the records are forever under the president's jurisdiction to classify as he pleases.
Yet another over performance by Democrats - this was a Trump +14 district that voted D+24 yesterday.
In fucking* Louisiana. I love how that's nowhere near the headline. Hilarious.
Democrat Chastity Verret Martinez has won the special election for Louisiana House District 60, defeating Republican challenger Brad Daigle by a wide margin in a district that supported President Donald Trump in 2024.
Take the wins where you can get them, but it's worth noting the vacated seat was held by a Democrat. This isn't a flip. The district traditionally learns blue at the local/state level, as per the article.
Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but the "oh my god those backwards Louisiana hicks actually voted for a Democrat?!" Narrative is needlessly divisive and kinda shitty. That district has been for years.
I think it's the huge margin for the win, and this:
Voters in Louisiana’s 60th House District, which covers parts of Assumption and Iberville Parishes, have historically supported Democrats at the state and local level, but have shifted toward Republicans in federal elections in recent years. Trump carried the district by a 56‑43 margin in 2024 against former Vice President Kamala Harris, according to calculations by The Downballot. In Assumption Parish, Trump received 67.17 percent of the vote to Kamala Harris’ 31.57 percent, while Iberville Parish was closely divided, with Trump at 49.6 percent and Harris at 48.87.
For iberville and assumption, in the presidential elections, support between R and D has moved within bounds of like, 2%, for the last 3 presidential elections.
In that same time frame, the maximum support a republican candidate for the 60th house of representatives has been 18.8%. Not margin, TOTAL.
Don't get me wrong. It's not bad news. But the reality of this outcome in this district is "No material shift in voting patterns in area over the last 20 years".

The only thing worse than vindictive, bigoted conservatives is vindictive, bigoted leftists who don't want to find ways to live alongside the stupid hicks.
At least they're stupid enough that they can be turned and manipulated to supporting better outcomes, but leftists holding a grudge do entire goddamn worldbuilding exercises around justifying hating everyone with a simple life and a simple mind.
(Go ahead and downvote me browser, while you do, think about what kind of biases you hold against people based on how you imagine their house and yard to look.)
in my experience, it's liberals, not leftists, doing that more often
In my experience there are a LOT of leftists who cling to the label without actually being more than a liberal with some angry outbursts.
It’s a pretty purple district and, although Trump won big in this district, they tend to vote blue for the local stuff, and this Democrat replaced an incumbent democrat.
There are a lot of really miserable, insufferable kids on Lemmy right now seething about this because it flies in the face of the "voting is useless, everything will be rigged" narrative that they push to validate not wanting to be involved.
Showing up at the polls is not our problem in the US, it's getting people involved enough to actually learn about and read what candidates represent. We had the largest voter turnout in US history over the last couple elections, but people basically voted at random because they tuned out of the political chaos.
It's far more clear this time around who is doing what to disrupt the status-quo in the US and I expect we're going to see a massive swing in the opposite direction between this November and 2028.
I am 99% sure it is a CCP effort. Been tracking it for like a year now. Hard to track because it's contagious.
For the love of God always call out doomers for being suspect. They're not here because they're feeling impending doom. They're here to make you feel impending doom.
Russia/Israel/CCP. Almost all of the doomers are voting doesn't work, why aren't you starting a civil war, the dems are just gonna gaza harder than the turnip, etc.
There are a lot of really miserable, insufferable kids on Lemmy right now seething about this because it flies in the face of the "voting is useless, everything will be rigged" narrative that they push to validate not wanting to be involved.
They don't want to be involved in the actual democratic process, but they reeeeally don't want to shut the fuck up about their irrelevant opinions.
I mean, Im on board with the message overall but I very much think people not getting to the polls is an issue. 90 million chose to sit out last general election. That is a HUGE problem IMO.
Because the DNC is emptying out the "victory fund" that neoliberals were stealing from state parties and hoarding to use to convince us to settle for neoliberals in the presidential...
The only reason Republicans are competitive for House/Senate majorities is for decades neoliberals sandbagged the party, and if you didn't play ball they bankrupted your entire state and let Republicans take it to punish you and set an example to get there states.
That's how Jeffries and Schumer got elected as majority leaders, going against them would hurt your constituents and the politicians. Whether you were ethical or not there wasn't really a choice.
That's been over for a year now
We're literally a year deep in the largest reinvesture of funds from DNC to state parties, which has let them all run at campaign pevels.
We keep "over performing" because for the first time in 30 years the goal is as many seats as possible instead of a very slim majority so nothing would get done.
Which is why billionaire owned media keeps pretending this is "over performing" and not just what would normally happen if the oligarchs weren't holding us back by shoving neoliberals down our throats.
But this is gonna keep happening, because it's a fundamental change to the party that caused it.
if you didn't play ball they bankrupted your entire state and let Republicans take it to punish you and set an example to get there states.
I don't think I follow the logic on this, most probably because I'm not sure which funds / fund pools you're referring to.
Could you explain what you mean a bit more ELI5 level?
Yeah, but like, its gonna come with some assumptions that we agree on stuff, and even a simplified version goes back 20 years. So this will be long, but as simple as I can make it.
2007 primary was mostly fair, there was a lot of finger on the scales and implied threats of ending careers for working with Obama. But the neoliberals didn't take him serious enough to really fuck with it.
That lead to Obama winning the primary, and the neoliberals from Bill's days who running the DNC to shit themselves. Because if Obama won, he'd name a DNC chair and that was the party.
So the DNC actively worked against Obama even in the general in 2007
Obama, rightfully pissed off made a stupid decision and allowed the neoliberals to hang onto the DNC. However he ran everything thru his own PACs and organizations. Which did a few things:
Bankrupt the DNC
Leave state dem parties to fend for themselves.
Leave the voting members of the DNC nowhere to turn, except double down on neoliberals and corpo. support.
So by the time 2015 runs around, the party is still broke, however the prior chair just gaslights everyone else at the DNC and keeps telling them it's fine.
In order to fund the DNC enough for the primary, a deal is reached with the Clinton campaign, where they funded the DNC in exchange for final say on anything the DNC said or did, essentially Hillary Clinton cut a check to buy the DNC
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/
But, instead of just cashing a check, Hillary also set up a system of "bundling" where you could (in one donation) write a check for the max to a candidate, max to the DNC, and max to all 50 state parties.
"To make it easy" just one single check, you could give to Hillary.
That money became the "Hillary Victory Fund":
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-leak-clinton-team-deflected-state-cash-concerns-226191
That money was then supposed to be broken down and distributed, which would have been very easy since they were maxing stuff out.
But neoliberals gonna neoliberal, so:
The victory fund has transferred $3.8 million to the state parties, but almost all of that cash ($3.3 million, or 88 percent) was quickly transferred to the DNC, usually within a day or two, by the Clinton staffer who controls the committee, POLITICO’s analysis of the FEC records found.
By contrast, the victory fund has transferred $15.4 million to Clinton’s campaign and $5.7 million to the DNC, which will work closely with Clinton’s campaign if and when she becomes the party’s nominee.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670
So anyone that would have given to state parties because they maxed at the DNC or candidate, gave to the victory fund which the DNC and candidate appropriated and used as a single bag of money.
This got passed to Biden, then to Kamala.
The only way your state party could get some crumbs, was appeasing that group of neoliberals. Go against them, and they'd give you start nothing. They didn't care if Republicans won, because the goal of neoliberalism is to never have enough power to do what voters want.
Now that the goal is "as many seats as possible" and the money is going where it was always supposed to, we're going to see massive swings like this election.
So like I said, it's long. But thats honestly as short as it could be and I had to leave a lot out
But is it an overperform? Looking back to 2011, the strongest performance by a GOP for this specific seat is 38%, and it was this election, the last GOP candidate had 18% before this...
For whatever reason, local and presidential elections can very much swing differently, and in this example it clearly looks like you can't read much of anything into the results since it has been different from presidential outcomes already..
Martinez campaigned on a platform focused on affordable insurance, stronger local infrastructure, and expanded access to health care, including mental health and substance-abuse services. She also focused on government transparency, support for public education, and advocacy for working families.
It's almost like if you focus on the stuff that's most important to the vast majority of voters, you'll get more votes. Hmm...
What's hilarious is that all feels like bottom of the barrel stuff, like we should just be doing that stuff by default.
That's why America is stuck in the mud, it goes forward in progress and back to revisionism. It gives with one hand and takes back with the other. This is why a two party system is fraught with paradox. More lines of ascension means more dialogue and progress moves more steadily forward instead of being jerked back and forth. One party is not the solution any but those in power should wish for. There is a reason no one is ruled by a monarchy anymore.
Yeah Republicans are still trying to pull back bullshit from the New Deal.
"Comfortably"? A 10% margin is considered a landslide. Martinez won by 24 points.
Blatant political bias by Newsweek.
I've been burned too many times for real predictions, but I hope we're about to need all new words for "blowout" soon.
Be aware: Newsweek spent the lead-up to the 2024 election telling us that we had nothing to worry about and that Harris was going to win.
This has been a consistent placating of the non-MAGAts.
Nothing is more poison to the MAGA brand than Trump being in office. It's why he lost the election in 2020. We saw the burning dumpster fire all around us and went NO THANKS
A third of us said no thanks, another third was all "yes, lemme lick more boot!", and the last third couldn't be bothered to pay attention.
Fuck every single protest non voter. This shit is as much on their shoulders as the maga faithful, the lazy pieces of shit.
Mostly I see people who were desperate to get rid of Trump in 2020 showing their short memories by going back to non-voting. I don't think the actual number of protest-non voters was very high.
Don't blame them at all though. The DNC is squarely to blame. They made a series of terrible decisions and ended up with a bad candidate running a bad campaign and thought they could still win solely on how shitty their opponent was.

While I don't want to dampen the enthusiasm to much, this State House district has voted Democratic since 2011. So not that much of a surprise, even though good.
Why miss the opportunity to say "bigly," and rub in that bastard's fascist face?
Uh, it's not a "big Donald Trump district" any longer.
This is the kind of result that the pedofile in chief will NOT consider a "honest" one. Just in case you were wondering.
Main stream media sucks so bad.