Two More Primaries This Week

New Hampshire is tenacious when it comes to having the first presidential primary, but doesn't seem to mind being third from last in midterm primaries. The Granite State holds its primary tomorrow, followed by The Ocean State (Rhode Island) Wednesday. Next Tuesday, the First State (Delaware) is the Last State and finishes the primary season.

New Hampshire has multiple elections this year. Let's take a look:

• Senate: Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) is retiring, so this is an open seat. Five Democrats have filed, including Rep. Chris Pappas (D-NH), who represents the eastern part of the state (Manchester, Portsmouth, Laconia). None of the others have ever held elective office and they are presumably just running on a lark. Pappas is widely expected to get the nomination.
  
  On the Republican side, it is even wilder and woolier. Eight people have filed, three of them have held elective office. John Sununu actually held the seat from 2003 to 2009. In 2008, he was nominated for reelection and lost to Shaheen. He is trying for a comeback. Scott Brown is also a former senator—from Massachusetts. During Trump 1.0, the president apparently wanted to get rid of him, so he sent Brown far away to be ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa. At least now Brown can claim some foreign policy experience. Tom Alciere is a former state representative (2000-2001), but has become a perennial candidate and has little chance. None of the others are serious. So it is the battle of the two former senators. All things considered, since this is New Hampshire, the guy who was a New Hampshire senator is surely the favorite over a guy who was a Massachusetts senator. Sununu raised $3.7 million but still has $2.7 million in the bank. He is pretty sure of the nomination and saving his pennies nickels for the general election. Polls also have Sununu ahead by about 35 points, so his decision makes sense.
  
  
• House: Pappas' district is open, of course, and eight Democrats have filed for the nomination. Winning the general election is not a sure thing, since NH-01 is D+2. One interesting candidate is Stefany Shaheen. If that name sounds vaguely familiar, it is because Stefany is the daughter of the retiring senator. She has many endorsements, including Sens. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), and many unions. Another candidate is Maura Sullivan, a former Obama official and vice chair of the New Hampshire Democratic party. She also has some high-powered endorsements, including Govs. Mikie Sherill (D-NJ) and Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) and a bunch of state legislators. In terms of money, Sullivan has raised somewhat more than Shaheen and is somewhat ahead in the polls, but this is probably the most competitive race in New Hampshire tomorrow.
  
  In NH-02, Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-NH) is running for a second term. She is being challenged by progressive state Rep. Paige Beauchemin (D), who is a nurse. This is another of those progressive vs. moderate races. It is like the Massachusetts Senate primary, except it is not. That one was a young moderate against an old progressive incumbent. This one is an older (47) progressive against a young (39) moderate incumbent. There are so many combinations here, it is hard to keep track. Despite the Democrats' desire for generational change, in Massachusetts the old progressive guy won. On Wednesday, we'll see how that works next door.
  
  
• Governor: Gov. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) wants another 2-year term. She has two primary challengers, Shaun Fife and Robert McClory, but she will win the primary easily. On the Democratic side there is no action at all. The only candidate is New Hampshire Executive Council member Cinde Warmington. The general election between Ayotte and Warmington could be interesting. Ayotte is an incumbent and much better known, but New Hampshire is a bluish state and in a blue wave, Warmington could possibly win. That said, New England states have a habit of electing moderate Republican governors (like Ayotte) from time to time. The most recent poll has Ayotte ahead 49% to 39%, so she is definitely the favorite and a Warmington win would be a big upset.

Now on to Rhode Island, a very boring state electorally.

• Senate: Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), a West Point and Harvard graduate, is running for reelection. He keeps his head down, focuses on constituent services and is very popular. An elder care worker, Connor Burbridge, and a perennial candidate, Luis Muñoz, filed but Reed doesn't even have to campaign against them. The only Republican who filed is Raymond McKay, a former member of the state GOP party committee and Senate candidate in 2024. He has raised $163,000 vs. Reed's $4.2 million. Needless to say, Reed will swamp McKay in November, probably by around the 33-point margin he got in 2020.
  
  
• House: In RI-01—the eastern part of the state, including Pawtucket, Newport, and much of Providence—Rep. Gabe Amo (D-RI) is running for a third term. He is unopposed in the primary and will easily defeat businesswoman Kellie Keenan, the only Republican to file, in November. Amo won by 31 points in 2024 and will win by a similar margin in 2026.
  
  In RI-02—the western part of the state including Cranston, Warwick, and a bit of Providence—Seth Magaziner (D) is also running for a third term (unopposed in the primary). He'll get it. The Republicans also have a contest, of sorts. Physician Stephen Skoly is running against registered foreign agent for Cuba Victor Mellor. Former NSA Michael Flynn has endorsed Mellor, who is Flynn's self-described chief of staff. You can't make this stuff up. Mellor has raised $606,000 to Skoly's $108,000, but polling is close. It hardly matters, though. Magaziner won by 16 points in 2024 and will likely win by a bigger margin in 2026.
  
  
• Governor: Gov. Dan McKee (D-RI) is running for reelection, but he isn't all that popular. He is being challenged in the primary by Helena Foulkes (62), who is the granddaughter of a former senator and niece of another former senator and an ambassador (her mother is a Dodd). She had a long career as a business executive at Goldman Sachs, Tiffany, CVS and Hudson's Bay. She was also president of the Harvard Board of Overseers. A young progressive she is not, but because McKee is rather unpopular, she has an excellent chance to beat him in the primary. Recent polls have her ahead of McKee by 15-38 points. The Republicans have a primary between former chairman of the Warwick Sewer Authority Aaron Guckian and actress Elaine Pelino. It won't matter.

What it amounts to is that primary season is ending on something of a whimper. We'll preview Delaware next week, because that is what we do, but—spoiler alert—it isn't going to be any more interesting than this pair. (Z)

Iran Is Taking Control of the Midterms

The leaders of Iran might yearn to go back to the 7th century, but their political instincts are definitely 21st century. They clearly want to hurt Donald Trump and fully understand that causing him pain in the midterms is a fine way to do it. As a consequence, they are renewing their attacks on Gulf Arab countries that are U.S. allies, causing those countries to ask Trump to help them. If the war widens, all the better for Iran. A major shooting war on Nov. 3 would be just fine with them.

In effect, by keeping gas prices high and the war constantly in the news, Iran can put pressure on Trump. If Iran manages to kill a few more American soldiers in the process, all the better from their point of view. There is almost nothing Trump can do about this—other than surrender and leave the Arab countries to their own devices, which almost certainly means becoming vassals to Iran. That won't work out well for the U.S. at all, but Trump doesn't care about the U.S. He cares about the Senate. If the Democrats get that, they can hold proper trials, with witnesses, evidence, and more for each impeachment.

To keep the war going, Iran keeps attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz and keeps exporting its own oil through the waterway, in defiance of the U.S. These actions have triggered the trigger-happy Trump into retaliating. On Saturday, for example, U.S. forces struck three Iranian crude oil tankers. CENTCOM Commander Adm. Brad Cooper said: "Let the message to the IRGC be clear: If you shoot at two of our ships, we will impose an even higher economic cost—taking out three of yours." Cooper doesn't (appear to) get it. Iran is not interested in the oil flow. It is interested in keeping the U.S. military actively shooting at it because the IRGC knows that Trump promised no more endless wars in the Middle East. By effectively tricking the U.S. into keeping an endless war in the Middle East going on, Iran hurts Trump in the midterms. Actually, Cooper, unlike Trump, probably does understand the geopolitics here. He is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and has a masters from the National Intelligence University in Maryland. He also studied national security policy at Harvard. But the four-star admiral is just executing the orders that come from the civilian leadership above him.

Arab diplomats see no way out. The U.S. is going to cause Iran to suffer economically, and the only thing Iran can do to even the score is prolong the war and make it as painful for Trump as possible.

J.D. Vance seems to be the messenger here. He said:

We really have two options here: We could leave, and the entire world would be way worse off because there would be no guaranteed access to oil and gas—by the way, the Gulf Arab countries are telling us that would be the worst thing in the world. Or we can accept the Iranians are going to shoot at ships like crazy people, and we're going to do what we have to do in order to ensure that their efforts don't lead to a worldwide energy crisis.

Neither of these options are good and by enumerating them, primary opponents are going to hang them around his neck in 2028.

Even people closer to the fire, and with more expertise in the geopolitics of the Middle East, are not optimistic. Alex Vatanka of the Middle East Institute said: "To say all Gulf economies are now hostages of Iran for the foreseeable future—regardless of the outcome of this war—is no exaggeration." And for the moment, Trump's fate in the midterms is also Iran's hostage. (V)

Trump's USPS Stunt Is Too Late

Earlier this year, Donald Trump signed an XO ordering the USPS not to deliver absentee ballots unless the recipient was on a federal list of approved voters—despite there not being any constitutional or legal basis for this at all. The USPS complied and drew up a 95-page plan on how it would obey. On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, a Barack Obama appointee, made a blistering ruling (for the third time) that the XO is unconstitutional because states run elections and the president has no role in them. She also said that carrying out the XO would exceed the USPS' statutory authority, which requires it to deliver all properly franked mail that meets the USPS' size, weight, and content requirements. Trump filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 2 hours after Talwani's ruling. Trump also appealed one of her earlier rulings to his buddies on the Supreme Court.

Now a technical problem has arisen. On Friday, North Carolina sent out the absentee ballots. What is the USPS going to do with them? Store them somewhere and not deliver them, even though a judge has forbidden the USPS from doing that? If the USPS doesn't deliver them, could the judge hold Postmaster General David Steiner in contempt of court? If the USPS does deliver them and the Supreme Court eventually decides, Constitution or no Constitution, Trump can do whatever he pleases, then what? Does the state have to send out new ones? Could North Carolina use one system and other states a different one? The courts don't like that. It could get very messy. Nine other states will be sending out ballots in the next 2 weeks. By then, the window for pulling off this stunt will be closed for 2026—if it hasn't already.

Ben Hovland, a former commissioner on the Election Assistance Commission (whom Trump fired in July) said: "It would be so outrageous to try to let this go into effect. It's hard to even imagine. It would be a break-glass moment for our democracy." Separate from the federalism issue, ballots have been printed, envelopes have been printed, people and machines are stuffing. There is no way the rules could change at this late date and have it work. Millions of people would be disenfranchised. There would be chaos.

Nevertheless, the Republican-controlled North Carolina Board of Elections got in a final shot just before the ballots went out. It issued new guidelines for handling elections, something that is sure to cause confusion. The new guidelines provide new reasons to disqualify a ballot, for example, if the signature does not match the name on the application. This can affect people who have changed their name recently—for example, through marriage or divorce. Another change voids a ballot that is returned by someone other than the voter or a close relative. Democratic Board member Siobhan Millen, who dissented from the decision, said: "It may not affect you as you're filling it out, but it affects whether your ballot counts—that's huge. So, an effort to say this is just a process thing, I think is incorrect."

Absentee ballots are especially important in Western North Carolina due to the damage to roads and infrastructure done by Hurricane Helene in 2024, not all of which has been fully repaired. The closer we get to Election Day, the bigger the chaos will be unless Trump's plan is shot down for good, and fast. (V)

Trump Says He Will Spend Up to $500 Million on the Midterms

Donald Trump is sitting on a pot of money worth $404 million, although Trump said it was worth $1 billion. Maybe he is counting his reputation for another $600 million. So far he has spent almost nothing to help Republican candidates. His only expenditure this year has been $827,000 for Sen. Darline Graham (R-SC). Many Republicans are carping about Trump being a cheapskate and not a team player. Now, Trump has said he will spend $400-500 million on the elections.

Take this with adequate sodium chloride. First, if Trump were really interested in spending big time, surely he would have started already, especially in Texas, where Ken Paxton is a poor fundraiser. Second, it may be too late, as early voting is about to start and it takes time to prepare ads and get them ready to go, unless the ad is just the candidate shouting: "My opponent is a communist." Third, many voters have seen enough and already made up their minds. No amount of negative ads will change that. Fourth, a lot of prime ad slots have already been purchased. It may not even be possible to spend that much for lack of inventory. Fifth, but really most important, Trump hates to spend money he controls on anyone except himself. Given a choice between spending it on candidates and just keeping it, his instinct is to keep it.

Trump could compromise, however, and spend money on ads—about himself, not the candidates. He also said that he would personally approve whatever spending there was and would direct it to candidates he believes will win. This is another way of saying that he prizes his batting average over control of the House or Senate. He also said he would make many campaign stops for candidates, although a number of candidates have said they don't want to be associated with him. If enough candidates say "no thanks," he might just decide to keep all the money himself. Not a difficult decision.

Karl Rove, who still knows a thing or two about Texas politics, said: "Time is running out. If the president wants to have Paxton win, he needs to be tossing a lot of money Paxton's way so that ads can be run that depict Talarico as the far-left winger that he is." It appears that Trump took notice. On Saturday, MAGA Inc. announced it would spend $10 million to help Ken Paxton. But Texas is a big state and if all it will spend is $10 million, it will be spread pretty thin. If the goal is to scare Paxton's opponent, James Talarico, it is not going to do the job. Talarico has raised $70 million this cycle. (V)

Democrats Have a Large Lead in Party Identification

There are a couple of indicators that give clues to the mood of the country. One is the generic House poll: For which party's candidate will you vote in the House of Representatives election? Another is party identification: Which party do you identify with or lean towards? Here is the graph of party ID over time:

A new Gallup poll gives the Democrats a big lead in party identification, 49% to 39% (including leaners). It also shows the number of people identifying as Republicans at a historical low. Does that presage a huge blue wave? We can definitely say: maybe. The correlation between party ID and winning the midterms is weak. There have been years like 1994, when the Democrats led in party ID but the Republicans flipped 54 seats. On the other hand, in 2018 the Democrats led in party ID and flipped 41 seats. What seems stronger is being the "out" party.

What the data don't measure, however, is enthusiasm, and the Democrats seem to have that this year. So it could be that the combination of being the "out" party, having a big party ID lead, and having more enthusiasm could be a harbinger of a major win in the House. Of course, there are many fewer seats that are competitive now due to all the gerrymandering, so a 30-seat gain in the House would be a massive landslide. (V)

Talarico Is Countering Trump's Midterm Convention

The Republican Party will be holding its first-ever midterm national convention Wednesday and Thursday in Dallas. Unlike the presidential nominating conventions, which have an important task—nominating (well, these days, coronating) the party's nominee for president—this one has no real function, other than shaking down Republican donors. A ticket at a roundtable with Trump goes for $250,000. Republican House members who want to attend the convention have to buy a $25,000 ticket and a second $25,000 ticket for someone else. It is not known how much Trump was charging Melania Trump to attend, but she turned down the opportunity to see her beloved spouse show off. Although Trump and J.D. Vance will headline it, there will be dozens of speakers. These include many Senate candidates in swing states and House candidates in competitive districts. It is doubtful that anyone other than dyed-in-the-wool MAGA supporters will watch the event.

Because the event will be in Texas, James Talarico decided to have some counterprogramming and do it in a way that might actually get more attention than the convention, which will be little more than a giant Trump rally. Talarico has organized a "Love Thy Neighbor" food drive to highlight the high cost of groceries. Last week, he said:

Next week, billionaire mega-donors and their puppet politicians will gather at a convention in Dallas to clink champagne glasses and toast their own corruption. They're paying $20,000 for entry to a Billionaire Ball celebrating corrupt tariffs, billionaire tax breaks, and a new forever war that are all driving grocery costs through the roof. We'll be doing something different. We're bringing Republicans, Democrats, and Independents together to collect groceries for our neighbors who have been screwed over by corrupt politicians.

What the project entails is mobilizing volunteers to collect, sort, and donate groceries to middle-class Texans who are struggling. It will run from yesterday to Sept. 9. There will be plenty of opportunity for people on both the collecting end and receiving end to talk about how they are having trouble staying afloat. The contrast between Talarico running a volunteer project to help feed hungry Texans and the billionaires in Dallas praising Trump will no doubt get plenty of good publicity for Talarico. (V)

The DCCC Has Given Super PACs Detailed Plans--in Public

Candidates and super PACs aren't supposed to coordinate, although the Supreme Court is working hard to break down that barrier. That way (usually Republican) megadonors, who are legally banned from giving a candidate more than $3,500 per election, can give tens of millions of dollars to super PACs and have them act as virtual extensions of the campaign. Both parties try to get around this, but the way the DCCC is doing it is very open. Just go to dccc.org/races and scroll down to see the 55 races the DCCC sees as potentially competitive.

Clicking on a race gives a detailed game plan for that specific race to any super PAC that wants to help out, without any actual coordination. It even tells what media to advertise in and when. This gives super PACs specific oppo research without having to do it themselves, and specific plans and how to use the supplied material best, including whom to target (e.g., white women, small business owners, independents, Jews, Latinos, etc.). Reading a website and then using that information is not illegal.

Here are a few excerpts extracted from the write-ups. Each of the excerpts below is just a few sentences from a much longer writeup, but these give the general flavor:

• FL-13: Anna Paulina Luna: Anna Paulina Luna is a corrupt Washington politician who has enriched herself in office. She invested up to $500,000 in an oil and gas exploration company owned by a donor, while sitting on a committee overseeing the oil and gas industry, prompting allegations of conflict of interest. She voted eight times for tariffs that have raised prices for household items and groceries for families and hurt small businesses. She voted to allow corporations to charge hidden fees and junk fees. And she supports the war in Iran that has caused the cost of gas to skyrocket.
  
  
• IA-01: Mariannette Miller-Meeks: On the very same day Miller-Meeks opposed capping the price of insulin at $35/month for seniors on Medicare, she received a campaign contribution from a PAC for the largest insulin manufacturer in the country. As health care and drug prices skyrocket, Miller-Meeks has taken over $680,000 from the drug and insurance industries—while giving them over $8 billion in special handouts. Worse, Miller-Meeks did not disclose renting a Washington home owned by two Pharma lobbyists—using over twenty five thousand of our taxpayer dollars to pay for it.
  
  
• OH-07: Max Miller (R-OH): Miller voted for a $4 trillion giveaway to billionaires and corporations and paid for it by kicking almost half a million Ohioans off of their health care and driving our utility bills higher and higher. Now he's cheerleading an unnecessary war in Iran that isn't making us safer, all while driving gas prices through the roof. Max Miller has hundreds of thousands of dollars in investments in companies pushing AI data centers, and then voted to expand tax breaks for data center developers and reduce regulations on AI.
  
  
• NJ-07: Tom Kean Jr. (R-NJ): Kean is one of the most active stock traders in Congress, making nearly 200 stock trades worth over $3 million while in office. Kean even broke the law multiple times when he failed to disclose his trades. Kean owns millions of dollars in big drug and insurance company stock and has voted to protect their profits while New Jersey families pay more. Kean broke voters' trust by completely disappearing from Congress for 117 days with no explanation for his absence, leaving his constituents with no representation in Congress. While he was gone, he missed 140 votes, including on important issues like the cost of living and the war in Iran—yet he continued to trade up to $600,000 in stocks while he was missing.
  
  
• NY-17: Mike Lawler (R-NY): Lawler was a lobbyist for monopoly utility companies. He's taken tens of thousands of dollars from the utility industry, then voted to hike our utility costs. Lawler took nearly half a million dollars from Big Pharma and insurance companies, while voting to let them raise New Yorkers' monthly premiums by as much as 50% and jack up the cost of prescription drugs. And he's voted 100% of the time with Trump, even when it raised our costs.
  
  
• PA-10: Scott Perry (R-PA): Perry voted against the bipartisan law to lower housing costs and stop Wall Street from buying single family homes. He was the only member of Congress from Pennsylvania, Democrat or Republican, to vote against this law. Instead he sided with his Wall Street donors who gave him more than $300,000. Perry is a tool of insurance companies. He took more than $72,000 from the insurance industry and voted to kick more than 22,000 people from Central Pennsylvania off of their insurance. Perry took more than $180,000 from energy companies and voted for policies that caused our electric prices to skyrocket.
  
  
• VA-02: Jen Kiggans (R-VA): Jen Kiggans voted for the largest cuts to Medicaid in history, which cut nearly $44 million from local hospitals, and could kick more than 21,000 people from Hampton Roads off their health insurance. Kiggans voted against a bipartisan bill to extend ACA tax credits, which caused insurance premiums to skyrocket. Kiggans' support of Trump's reckless war with Iran has increased energy and gas prices for Hampton Roads families.

The instructions to the super PACs are to go heavily into the corruption aspect in many cases and how it affects the voters. A lot of the descriptions are of the form "Congressman [X] took $[Y] from [Z] industry lobbyists and then voted for a bill that increased your food/healthcare/insurance etc. costs to please his or her corporate masters." Voters in both parties are strongly against corruption, so tying corrupt Republicans to the higher prices Americans are experiencing could be a good strategy. In other races, the proposed attack is that the incumbent is ignoring his or her constituents and just doing what Trump has ordered.

Super PACs are also being advised to go all in on attacking Republicans for supporting data centers and giving them big tax breaks so they can ruin the local environment, drive electricity and water prices through the roof, and take away your job.

Many of the pages also note the positive qualities of the Democrat in the race and how to pitch that. In some cases, there is video footage linked to the page that the super PAC can edit and use. In other cases, there are links to other resources. In a few cases, the full oppo research report is made available—for example, here is the full 158-page oppo report on Jen Kiggans.

We imagine that the NRCC is doing the same thing, but we don't know where it is. On the other hand, Democrats are not in bed with big industries as much as Republicans, so the corruption aspect may not work well for the red team. The focus there is probably more on how the candidate is a socialist/communist who wants to take your rights away, but that is just a guess since we can't find the NRCC page (if there is one). (V)

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick Made over $250 Million Last Year

Donald Trump's administration is stuffed with billionaires, but even for a billionaire, making $250 million in one year is impressive. And yet, in 2025, that is what Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick did. In his annual ethics filing, Lutnick wrote that he made at least $250 million in 2025, much of which was from selling his stock in Cantor Fitzgerald, a financial services company of which Lutnick was CEO. Its former headquarters were on the 101st to 105th floors of the North Tower of the former World Trade Center, clearly prime real estate. Lutnick was not present on 9/11, but all 658 of his employees who were present died, including his brother.

The very idea of a cabinet member making $250 million in one year boggles the mind and shows why Trump has been pooh-poohing Americans telling him they are not able to put food on the table and pay the rent in this economy. People like Lutnick have no trouble putting the finest caviar on the table.

Trump mostly associates with the very wealthy and has no idea what life is like for ordinary Americans. According to an AP article, Trump has already appointed 57 people worth over $100 million to his administration, including eight members of his Cabinet, three of whom—Linda McMahon, Doug Burgum, and Lutnick—are billionaires. In contrast, the administration of George W. Bush and Joe Biden each had five hectomillionaires. Barack Obama's had three.

These people are disconnected from real life in America and often have very different priorities than normal people. Their extensive holdings also often bring up conflicts of interest. Previous presidents did not seek out the ultra-wealthy the way Trump does. He sees extreme wealth as a sign that the person is brilliant and highly competent. But even if that is true in their industry, it doesn't mean that transfers to making public policy. For example, McMahon is secretary of education. She and her husband made their money from a company that was in the wrestling entertainment business. That doesn't automatically transfer into knowledge about educating the nation's children. Burgum is secretary of the interior. He made his money in software. That doesn't automatically transfer to managing the national parks, Fish and Wildlife, and negotiating with Native American tribes. (V)

Trumpism as an Export Product

There were regional elections in the German state of Saxony-Anhalt yesterday. The far-right AfD party came in first, far ahead of the #2 finisher, Friedrich Merz' CDU. This small state (pop. 2.1 million), in the former East Germany, is the power base of the AfD.

The AfD wants to ban immigration, has pushed a white nationalist rhetoric, and has repeated Nazi propaganda. It is also against helping Ukraine and sees Russia as a friend, not an enemy. The party also opposes mail-in ballots, constantly attacks the media as biased against it, and claims it has lost in the past due to voter fraud. While it doesn't really have a charismatic leader like Donald Trump, a lot of its program points line up well with Trumpism. The leaders don't talk about Trump explicitly, because he is deeply unpopular in Germany. Still, they use many of his ideas and program points.

The leaders of the mainstream parties have refused to form a coalition with the AfD. However, the AfD got only 39 seats in the state parliament and they need 42 for a majority. They can't govern alone and will need one of the smaller parties with at least 3 seats as a junior partner. There are two parties with 5 seats: the Left and BSW. The Left will never work with them, so it is up to BSW, which is a new left-wing authoritarian party that split off from the Left in 2024. It is economically socialist (wealth redistribution, anti-capitalism, etc.) but culturally conservative (anti-immigrant, anti-transgender, pro-traditional family, no more apologies for being a straight white male). It is also against globalization, anti-Ukraine, pro-Russia, and pro-China. Negotiations will begin today. It won't be easy but the alternative multiparty coalition won't be easy either. Maybe AfD can find a partner, maybe not, but the fact that they came so close has sent a shock all throughout Germany, Europe, and the world.

In France, a presidential election is scheduled for April 18, 2027. Incumbent Emmanuel Macron is term limited and ineligible. There will be at least seven parties competing in the election and perhaps as many as 16 candidates. If no candidate gets 50% + 1, there is a top-two runoff. Virtually all polling has fiery far-right extremist Marine Le Pen way ahead. In the most recent poll, she is at 35% with left-wing Jean-Luc Mélenchon second at 17% and the rest of the votes scattered. She wants to curb immigration and protect French identity. She also has no use for the European Union, although she says she would rather reform it than leave it. Trump has endorsed her, even after her conviction for embezzlement. Actually, he might even admire her grit for trying to get away with it. Of course, this is a national election, not an election in a small state, like in Germany.

Europe has a lot of problems now that require Europe-wide cooperation, including defense, energy security, climate change, and potentially fending off America. Groups and leaders like the AfD and Le Pen, who are narrowly focused on their own countries, with a Trump-like focus on immigration, are only going to make things worse. It is almost as if Europe agrees with Trump's divide-and-conquer strategy and is actively carrying it out. (V)

Vance Is Starting to Work on his 2028 Platform

J.D. Vance is very ambitious and dearly wants to be president. He knows the war in Iran—which he privately opposed—will be an anchor around his neck. Consequently, he is working on shaping a 2028 platform that will appeal to various demographics in the hope that his policy positions will overshadow his public support for the Iran war and the fact that he is a mean person with the charisma of a dead skunk.

His view is that women belong at home taking care of lots of babies who then grow up to be Republican voters. But how to express this as a policy position? He is a big supporter of a plan the administration is cooking up to take money away from working mothers and give it to traditional stay-at-home housewives. In the 1990s, HHS created a fund to help low-income parents (read: single mothers) afford child care so they could work and not be on welfare. What Vance champions is repurposing this money to give stay-at-home moms $9,000 per child per year to take care of the kids. The change simultaneously hurts (poor) working mothers and helps trad (house)wives.

This could be the main thrust of Vance's 2028 campaign: discourage women from taking paying jobs by paying them to stay at home with the kids. Back to the 1950s, via a different setting on the time machine. Vance once tweeted: "It turns out that normal Americans care more about their families than their jobs, and want a family policy that doesn't shunt their kids into crap daycare so they can enjoy more 'freedom' in the paid labor force."

About 74% of women with children under 18 have paid outside jobs and 26% are stay-at-home moms. The latter are Vance's primary target group. But there is a secondary—and much larger—target group: working class men who are competing with women for jobs. Getting women out of the labor force strengthens the position of men in sectors where both men and women work.

Of course if Vance runs on this, his wife, Usha, had better stay at home and not resume her career as a high-powered corporate litigator. Surely they can make it on his $235,100 salary. But the problem for his plan is that many other couples cannot make it on one salary alone. Prices are so high now that women work not so much for "personal fulfillment," but because they need the second income to live on. If the plan goes through and a woman has three children, the $27,000 she then gets from the government (tax free?) might be more than she can earn in a paid job and maybe she will indeed decide that the highly subsidized trad wife lifestyle is for her. Republicans bristle when Democrats want to give some favored group free taxpayer money, but are all for it when the money is going to their favored group, in this case, trad wives.

This plan is the direct opposite of what the Democrats want. They are for increasing the child care tax credit and generally making child care more affordable, so more women can work to help support their families. Many women understand that not having a job, work experience, or skills makes them completely dependent on their husband. If the husband misbehaves in any way or decides to trade them in for a newer model, they can't easily survive a divorce because how would they then support themselves? Husbands also understand this. So implicitly, the Vance plan shifts power from wives to husbands and causes economic grief for low-income single working mothers, few of whom vote Republican. What's not to like here? (V)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.
• Guidelines for questions (Saturdays) and letters (Sundays)

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger