The Revolution Will Be Televised, at Least in Michigan

Voters went to the polls in five different states yesterday, and in the two big races of the day, it looks like the progressives pulled off a sweep. Here is a rundown of the most notable results:

U.S. Senate, Michigan: With around 94% of the vote in, the much leftier Abdul El-Sayed has 48.7% of the vote, as compared to 47.3% for the more centrist Haley Stevens. That is close enough that some outlets (AP, New York Times) have it too close to call, while others (NBC, Politico) have already given the win to El-Sayed. It is true that the outstanding votes are mostly in Wayne County (Detroit), which is the most Stevens-friendly portion of the state. However, it is also very, very hard to make up a gap of nearly 1.5% with only 6% outstanding—Stevens would have to take roughly 2 of every 3 remaining Democratic votes. So, we think NBC and Politico, among others, were right to call it.

Although El-Sayed and the Bernie wing of the Democratic Party got their win, it was not the smashing win that they and (most of) the polls predicted. Politico has a piece arguing that will lay the groundwork for more division and finger-pointing within the Democratic Party.

For our part, we're not persuaded by that analysis. The folks who supported El-Sayed tend to be more of the "fall in love" type of Democrats, while the folks who supported Stevens tend to be the more "fall in line" type. So, we expect that most Democrats will go all-in on El-Sayed, because he's now the only game in town when it comes to holding on to that seat. There really shouldn't be too many Stevens voters who decide to take their ball and go home because their candidate lost.

The bigger problem(s) for El-Sayed is that his position on Israel will cost him some Jewish votes (though those might be offset by the pro-Palestine folks who withheld their votes from Kamala Harris in 2024), and that he has said some things that won't play well with independents and centrists. In any event, big win or narrow one, it's now on him to prove that full-throated progressivism can sell, even in purple Michigan. If he loses, and in particular if that loss determines control of the Senate, THEN the finger-pointing will begin.

Incidentally, although Mallory McMorrow dropped out of the race, she still got 4% of the vote. That is a number that is going to give Democratic operatives nightmares, because it's the "not paying attention" vote that could end up sinking independent-but-basically-Democratic candidates in places like Montana and Nebraska. With that said, do not assume that, but for McMorrow, Stevens would have won. That is certainly possible, but McMorrow actually endorsed El-Sayed, so it's hard to know what her voters would have done, if they were paying attention (or if they were not able to waste their vote on a not-actually-running candidate).

There was only one Republican who qualified for the Senate race, and so it was already known that the GOP's standard-bearer will be former representative Mike Rogers. Rogers will have the difficult task of hugging Donald Trump close enough to keep the MAGA voters happy, but not so close as to scare off other Republicans and independents. In June, most polls gave El-Sayed a lead of a few points in a hypothetical matchup with Rogers. In July, the script flipped, and most polls gave Rogers a lead of a few points in a hypothetical matchup with El-Sayed. Four of the race raters have the matchup as a tossup, the other four have it tilt/lean D. So, it could obviously go either way.

MI-07: This EVEN district is a prime pickup opportunity for the Democrats. Rep. Tom Barrett (R) is running for reelection to a second term, and was unopposed yesterday. On the Democratic side, the progressives got their man in activist William Lawrence. Here again, the result was not a full-throated embrace of progressivism; Lawrence got 43.7% of the vote, while two moderate candidates (Bridget Brink, 28.8% and Matt Maasdam, 27.6%) split the rest of the ballots. As with El-Sayed, the establishment will line up behind Lawrence and, as with El-Sayed, it will be up to Lawrence to demonstrate that the progressive pitch can sell, even in a place that's purple.

Let us use this opportunity to observe that there obviously is a difference between a progressive Democrat and a more moderate Democrat, but sometimes that difference is blown way out of proportion. Take a look at the list of issues highlighted on Lawrence's webpage:

• Protect Social Security by raising the cap
• Affordable housing
• Health care for all
• Stabilize prices
• Moratorium on new data centers
• Protect the natural environment
• Hold polluters accountable
• End the Iran War
• Stop arms sales to Israel
• Diplomacy, not aggression
• Go after Jeffrey Epstein's accomplices
• Rein in ICE
• Ban stock trading by members of Congress

With only a few exceptions (Israel, health care for all, maybe the stock trading), that could just as easily be Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's platform. And nobody is ever going to confuse him with a progressive.

We got a helpful assessment of this race from a reader who is "on the ground," and thought we would pass it along. Here's E.D. in East Lansing, MI:

I just wanted to add a bit of nuance to your comments about the MI-07 house primary. I'm not actually sure that Brink and Maasdam are more electable than Lawrence. They can both be very credibly accused of carpetbagging, in that they literally moved here at the time they announced their candidacies (technically after, in Maasdam's case, although in his defense he lived only slightly outside the district before). They give bland, substance-free answers to questions and do not appear to have much of a ground game. Perhaps as a result, enthusiasm for them seems low. I can count on one hand the number of yard signs I have seen for the two of them combined, whereas there are Lawrence signs everywhere (admittedly, I live in the bluest part of the district). I'm sure that a blue wave would propel them to victory, but in the absence of one they'd probably fare similarly to our 2024 bland establishment candidate (he lost).

Lawrence, in contrast, has lived here for the majority of his life, actually answers questions he is asked, and has a truly incredible ground game. His campaign has already knocked on 100,000 doors and he is constantly out and about connecting with voters and just generally showing up for the community (e.g. when Republicans were holding SNAP hostage, Lawrence organized a food drive in front of Tom Barrett's office). Against an opponent like Barrett, who refuses to engage with voters, it's a stark contrast. It's probably true that there are going to be people who look at his résumé and decide that he's too progressive for them, but there are also going to be people who show up specifically to vote for him (including some people who are not particularly progressive, but are fans of his work opposing data centers; really, the issues he's campaigning on are more left-populist than progressive).

So yes, you can characterize it as "progressive vs. two moderates who are going to split the vote," but you can also characterize it as "strong grassroots campaign vs. astroturfed establishment campaigns." I'm not saying there's no risk in running a progressive candidate in our district right now, but given how much people hate the Democratic establishment at the moment, there's also risk in choosing either of the other candidates.

Thanks, E.D.!

Governor, Michigan: Now that we've addressed the two highest-profile races, we'll proceed in a more orderly fashion. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) is term-limited, so the seat's open. The Democratic candidate will be state Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, who leveled Genesee County Sheriff Chris Swanson yesterday, with 83.1% of the vote. Her opponent will be Rep. John James (R), who has twice failed in statewide runs, although those were for U.S. Senate, and this is for governor, so maybe things will be different. James took 50.1% of the vote, to 35.2% for self-funding businessman and perennial candidate Perry Johnson. Not a great showing against fairly weak competition. James does have the faux-redneck musician vote locked up, however, as he has been endorsed by both Kid Rock and Ted Nugent.

If you put stock in primary turnout—and that would not be unreasonable, since there were competitive races on both sides of the ballot—there were about 1.6 million Democrats who cast ballots in this election, as compared to about 950,000 Republicans. So, advantage Benson. The polls of a then-hypothetical-but-now-real James-Benson matchup have her leading anywhere from 2 points to 11 points, with most polls putting her lead around 5 points. There is, of course, every chance that Benson and El-Sayed will rise together, or will sink together.

Governor, Kansas: Another term-limited Democrat here, in this case Gov. Laura Kelly. State Sen. Cindy Holscher (D) won the right to try to succeed Kelly, claiming 48.6% of the vote, as compared to 38.8% for her state Senate colleague, Ethan Corson. On the Republican side, it will be the Donald Trump-endorsed President of the State Senate Ty Masterson, who tallied 43.2% of the vote to outpace businessman Philip Sarnecki. The third-place finisher was Insurance Commissioner Vicki Schmidt, who ran in the sane Republican lane. She got 13.7% of the vote, which says something about how well that sells in today's Republican Party.

Again taking note of vote totals, there were about 350,000 on the Republican side, and about 225,000 on the Democratic side. So, it would seem Holscher has her work cut out for her. There haven't been any polls so far, since there were so many plausible permutations, but those will come eventually. One of the race raters has it as a tossup, another six have it as tilt/lean Republican. That seems about right, given the political climate and the fact that Kansans do send Democrats to the governor's mansion (see Kelly, Laura). Holscher is going to build her campaign around her opposition to data centers, which is something that plays well on both sides of the aisle.

U.S. Senate, Kansas: Kansas also has a Senate election this year, which we probably won't be mentioning much after today. Sen. Roger Marshall (R) is running for reelection, and easily won renomination with 79.9% of the vote. The rest went to Pond Naramore, which sounds more like a D&D character than a real person.

Democrats came out of the woodwork to tilt at this particular windmill, and the fellow left standing once all the other Quixotes had fallen by the wayside was pastor and staunch moderate Adam Hamilton, who got 34.9% of the vote. There's only one poll of the race so far, and it's from a Democratic-leaning firm, so take this with many grains of salt. Anyhow, it said that Marshall will take 54% of the vote to 46% for Hamilton. That's still a win for Marshall but, if the poll has the right of it, it puts Hamilton within spitting distance of the Senator. Even if that is so, Hamilton would probably need a scandal of some sort to actually make the race competitive.

U.S. Senate, Virginia: This one is sort of the mirror image of the Kansas race, since it will be a sitting Democrat, in Sen. Mark Warner, facing off against a Republican challenger. That challenger is going to be Maj. Gen. Bert Mizusawa (ret.), who got just over half the vote in a three-way contest. Warner, incidentally, was unopposed yesterday.

Mizusawa almost seems like he was designed in CandidateCAD to be the dream GOP candidate. He is a veteran and a general officer in the state that is home to the Pentagon and several other major military facilities. He has served as a high-ranking functionary in both the legislative and executive branches. He has a bachelor's degree from West Point and a law degree from Harvard. He was part of the first Trump administration.

And yet, against the popular Warner, none of these things appear to be doing Mizusawa much good. The handful of polls of the race have all put Warner up by about 20 points. You can expect this one to stay in the Democratic column.

U.S. House: We don't get to zoom in on individual House races very much, because there are so many of them. The primaries do give us a chance to give a little attention to those districts that are competitive or are otherwise of interest. There were many such districts on the ballot yesterday, given that the states in question are home to about 35 million people. So, buckle your seatbelt.

KS-03: Kansas's Third District, at D+2, is the only competitive House district in the Sunflower State. The others are all double-digit Republican. The lesbian-Native-American-former-MMA-fighter Rep. Sharice Davids (D) has been representing the district for four terms and wants a fifth. She knocked off a somewhat leftier primary challenger, Sarah Preu, with 83.4% of the vote. Davids' Republican opponent will be Shawnee City Councilor Col. Eric Jenkins (ret.), who is running on a 100% MAGA platform. He took nearly 80% of the primary vote yesterday. In the end, Davids is a good fit for the district, and is heavily favored to win another term, despite the fairly slim partisan lean.

MI-03: This is a potentially swingy district, at D+4. Rep. Hillary Scholten (D) is running for reelection and was unopposed yesterday. Her opponent will be TV meteorologist Terri DeBoer (R), who is running on a very centrist platform that promises many things ("Better health care options!," "A stronger economy!," "Secure borders!") without proposing any particular policies for achieving those things. Barring a disaster, this one is surely safe for the blue team.

MI-04: Here, Rep. Bill Huizenga (R) will try to hold on to an R+3 district. He crushed primary challenger Phil Tanis yesterday, taking 85% of the vote. Tanis bragged that he collected no donations, hired no consultants, and sought no endorsements. He showed just how far that approach will get you. The Democratic challenger will be state Sen. Sean McCann, who won 65.7% of the votes on that side of the contest. His priority, per his website, is "GETTING THINGS DONE." Very helpful. Huizenga could be in danger if there's a blue wave, and if there are some blue coattails at the top of the ballot, but he's already won seven House elections, so probably not.

MI-08: This is an R+1 district held by a Democrat, Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet. She was unopposed yesterday, as she tries for her second term. Meanwhile, on the GOP side, there's some serious weirdness going on. Donald Trump endorsed Amir Hassan (R), who took just 33.2% of the vote to finish a distant second behind Thomas J. Smith with 50.4%. The weird part is that Smith suspended his campaign last month, and would not say yesterday whether he will accept his party's nomination, or will resume campaigning. Under these circumstances, you have to bet on the seat remaining in Democratic hands.

MI-10: This R+3 seat is being vacated by John James so he can run for governor. Donald Trump endorsed National Guardsman Michael Bouchard (R), and in contrast to MI-08, that did the trick, as Bouchard got 72.2% of the vote in a four-way race. He has virtually no platform; the most substantive plank is a recapitulation of MAGA propaganda about the border. The Democrat will be former prosecutor Christina Bertrand Hines, who took 47.0% of the vote in a three-way race. Her platform is a little more substantive than Bouchard's, but not a lot. Apparently, she will attack Bouchard as a carpetbagger who only recently moved to the district.

MO-01: At D+29, this one is not changing hands in November. It is of interest because it's another establishment vs. progressive battle. Representing the former is Rep. Wesley Bell (D). Representing the latter is former representative Cori Bush, who held this seat until being primaried by Bell in 2024. She lost again yesterday, taking just 36.9% of the vote, as compared to 59.2% for the Representative. So, in contrast to Michigan, the progressives did not get their way in Missouri (or in Washington; keep reading).

MO-02: In the recent mid-census redistricting, this district got a little safer for Republicans, moving from R+4 to R+6. Still, that's on the cusp of being competitive, so we'll note that Rep. Ann Wagner (R), who got 10 times as many votes yesterday as any of her primary challengers, will square off against West Point-educated helicopter pilot Fred Wellman. He's running on a platform that includes a blend of progressivism (e.g., "restoring ACA subsidies, reversing damaging Medicaid cuts, lowering the Medicare eligibility age, and creating a strong public option") and centrism (e.g., "Israelis and Palestinians have the same fundamental rights: to live in safety, raise their families in peace, and determine their own futures"). Wellman seems like a very strong candidate, but "R+6" and "7-term incumbent" are two pretty steep hills to climb.

MO-05: Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver (D) is in the middle of his tenth term representing this district. And he "won" yesterday, in that he was unopposed. His problem is that yesterday's sorta victory, at age 81, will probably be the last of his career. He is the main target of Missouri's mid-census gerrymandering, as his once-blue district is now R+9. The fellow who will likely send Cleaver to the unemployment line is state Sen. Rick Brattin (R), who hates abortion, gay people and drones, and who loves Jesus. He once got on the floor of the state Senate and said the Bible draws a clear distinction between "human beings," on one hand, and "homosexuals" on the other. So, he's a real prize, but in an R+9 district, those kinds of ideas will probably get it done.

VA-01: Rep. Rob Wittman (R), who has represented this R+3 district since 2007, is a top target for the Democratic Party this cycle. He was unchallenged yesterday, so the big news for him is that he's going to be up against county prosecutor Shannon L. Taylor. Consistent with her day job, she is running on a platform of vigorous law enforcement and locking people up. However, the people she wants to target are corrupt politicians, particularly those who are "caught stealing $10,000 in taxpayer funds, including not paying their taxes." Hm, wonder if she has anyone in particular in mind.

VA-02: This EVEN district is one that Democratic leadership is positively drooling over. Rep. Jen Kiggans (R) was unopposed yesterday, as she tries for a third term. The challenger will be U.S. Navy veteran Elaine Luria, who held this seat until being knocked off by Kiggans after the post-2020-census maps were drawn. If there is any sort of blue wave, or even a blue trickle, this is the sort of district that will be the first to change hands.

VA-05: At R+6, this is on the fringe of "swingy," but it's on the DCCC target list, so maybe they know something we don't. The incumbent is Rep. John McGuire (R), who won 84% of the vote yesterday in his quest for a second term. The bad news for the blue team is that only one Democrat has won this seat in the last 20 years. The good news is that the Democrat who pulled it off, Tom S.P. Perriello, won yesterday's primary, taking 79.8% of the vote. He's basically going to build his campaign around the argument that McGuire is out-of-touch and kind of corrupt.

VA-07: This is the D+2 seat that Trump nemesis Rep. Eugene Vindman (D) won in 2024. Vindman wants to keep his job, and faced no primary opposition. His opponent will be Doug A. Ollivant (R), who took a bit over half the vote in a three-way primary. That sets up a contest that may be unprecedented in U.S. history, pitting a lieutenant colonel against a lieutenant colonel. Ollivant's #1 issue is affordable energy; he wants to build lots of small nuclear reactors, so there will be power both for homes and for data centers. He also wants to harness wind power, which means Donald Trump's endorsement is presumably, well, gone with the wind. Vindman's seat is considered to be fairly safe, and we can see why.

WA-03: This R+2 district is the one represented by the Blue Dog Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez. She drives many Democrats nuts with her ultra-centrist rhetoric and her occasional non-party-line votes. But she votes the Democratic position most of the time, and she clearly knows how to work some black magick in a red district, since she's been elected twice already. Recall that Washington has a "top two, regardless of party" primary system; Gluesenkamp Perez is barely in first place right now, with 53% of the vote reported. She has 38.92% of the vote to 38.73% for Minority Leader of the State Senate John Braun (R).

Braun has Donald Trump's backing, and is a former Navy captain whose slogan is "Run a Tight Ship." Very creative. He is running the MAGA playbook, with a particular emphasis on the border and on "protecting" women's sports. There's also some local flavor, as he is in favor of culling sea lions to protect salmon. The totals above may suggest it's going to be a barnburner in November, and maybe it will be. However, we should point out that the third-place finisher, with 15% of the vote, is a Democrat. If most of those votes migrate to Gluesenkamp Perez in the general, she will be on easy street.

WA-05: Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R) wants a second term representing this R+5 district. He's probably going to get it; he took 48% of the vote yesterday to easily outpace the (likely) second-place finisher, former diplomat Carmela Conroy (D), who collected 20.8%. She wants to "end the tariff chaos," which is a pretty good pitch in a blue or purple district, but may not fly so well in an R+5 district.

WA-08: If Republicans are hoping to make a pickup in Washington State, this D+3 district is the other plausible opportunity. It's represented by Kim Schrier (D), who would quite like a fifth term. She took home 54.1% of the vote yesterday, as compared to 14.8% each for Republicans Spencer Meline and Trinh Ha. One of those two will squeak out a win once the votes are all counted, and then will surely move on to be trounced by Schrier in the general. Guess Republicans will have to look elsewhere for flips.

WA-09: Phew. One last House district. This one is D+22, and so isn't changing hands in November. However, it did feature yet another progressive vs. establishment battle. This one was the yin to MI-07's yang, as it had one establishment candidate in Rep. Adam Smith (D) and two progressives, Kshama Sawant and Melissa Chaudhry, to split the votes in that lane. On top of that, unlike in MI-07, there was also a Republican in the mix, in the person of Doug Basler. Again, thank Washington's jungle-primary system.

At the moment, Smith has 51% of the vote to 23.8% for Basler and about 12% each for the two progressives. So, it will undoubtedly be Smith against Basler in the general. Smith has occupied this seat since 1996, and is far and away the longest-serving member of the Washington House delegation. Further, Smith has beaten Basler before. In fact, he's beaten Basler five times (in 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022). So, you can feel free to bet the wealth of nations that Smith keeps his job.

Kansas Judges: And finally, we would be remiss if we did not mention the most notable ballot proposition of the night. Kansas Republicans wanted state Supreme Court justices to be elected, rather than appointed, with the obvious goal of making the Court more partisan in a Republican direction. After all, see how well that has worked with the U.S. Supreme Court.

It would seem the good people of Kansas have taken note of what happens when you make the courts as partisan as you possibly can, as the initiative was soundly defeated, with 62% of Kansans voting no, leaving just 38% who voted yes. Sorry, Kansas GOP.

And there you have it—certainly the biggest primary day left on the calendar this cycle. We're pushing our luck, length-wise and time-wise, so we're going to add one last election-related item and then call it a day. Well, a night, actually. (Z)

One Down... One to Go?

As we noted yesterday, the House Republican Conference has two Graham Platner-style headaches who are going to make it hard to hammer on the Democrats for supporting Platner, and who could put two semi-swingy R+5 districts at risk.

One of those two headaches is Rep. Chuck Edwards (R-NC), who was very creepy with his young, female staffers. He did not touch anyone, nor did he try to use his powers to coerce anyone, but his behavior was clear-cut sexual harassment, to the point that the House Ethics Committee recommended he be censured. That vote will likely still happen, and will make the censure official. What won't happen, however, is another term for Edwards. He ended his reelection bid yesterday.

This means that the NC-11 Congressional District Republican Executive Committee, participating in an activity that seems to be happening a lot these days, is going to have to schedule a meeting post-haste, and come up with a replacement candidate. There does not appear to be any informed speculation as to who the replacement might be. The person who represented the district before Edwards was elected was Madison Cawthorn; GOP officials are rather unlikely to choose him. Maybe they can dig up and run the corpse of Jesse Helms.

The Democrat in the race is farmer Jamie Ager. Well, OK, he calls himself a farmer, but he's really more like an agribusinessman. It's kind of like how Jimmy Carter, an Annapolis-educated Naval officer who owned and operated a massive agricultural enterprise, was underselling things when he called himself a peanut farmer. Anyhow, Ager is quite charismatic, and is sort of the non-sordid version of Graham Platner. He was also leaving Edwards in the dust, fundraising-wise. Given that the GOP is now going to have to scramble for a candidate, you can certainly see Ager winning this thing. And if he does, then he'll be on the NRCC's "target list" for every election cycle for the rest of his career.

The other headache, meanwhile, is Rep. Max Miller (R-OH). There have also been developments on that front. Unlike Edwards, Miller is refusing (thus far) to read the writing on the wall. So, in a very Nixonian move, he demanded yesterday that the House Ethics Committee investigate him. There is no chance they can do that before the election, so Miller is clearly depending on voters adopting the logic of "a guilty person would not demand an investigation into themselves."

Meanwhile, the Representative managed to dig his hole just a little deeper. Over the weekend, he posted a tranche of court documents to the Internet; the ostensible purpose was to support his version of events in terms of his dispute with/divorce from Emily Moreno. However, the documents included the name of their 3-year-old daughter, un-redacted, as well as a picture where that daughter was sans clothing. Miller's attorney took responsibility for the error, but does that really help much? It makes Miller look careless, and also like someone willing to sell out his daughter to save his career.

Miller's opponent in November, assuming he remains in the race, is union ironworker Brian Poindexter (D), who has many pictures of himself in a hard hat on his website and on social media. He's running a lefty-populist campaign. In fact, if we gave you a copy of his platform, and one of Sherrod Brown's (D) platform, and asked you to guess which was which, you'd probably have a hard time deciding. If Brown wins in November, and if he has some coattails, it's plausible he could bring Poindexter along for the ride. Especially if the badly wounded Miller stays on the ballot. (Z)

---

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