Other Republicans Also Want the Darline Treatment

Donald Trump's magic keeps working. He got Darline Graham (Nordone) the GOP Senate nomination. She is no doubt a nice person, having spent her life helping blind people get training so they could find a job. Still, her only qualifications for the Senate are that her brother used to be a senator and Donald Trump wanted her to get the nomination. Trump went all out for her, stumping in South Carolina for her, and even spending some of his hard-earned PAC money. It is not at all clear why he did this since all the other candidates were very Trumpy and she may actually be the least Trumpy of them all. We don't know. And he probably doesn't either.

But his active and intense campaigning for Graham has made all the other Republicans running for office in tough environments jealous. They want the Darline treatment as well. One Republican strategist who wanted to remain anonymous said: "The message coming out of this is that obviously the president's support is still super powerful. The president's operation still has the ability to move the needle in a lot of these states." Trump doesn't really like campaigning for other people. He likes to be the star of every show and every rally. Whether he has the will and energy to stump for endangered Republicans elsewhere remains to be seen.

Another GOP strategist wondered why Trump would expend precious time and energy in a state that is safely Republican (and MAGA Republican at that) when there are MAGA allies like Mike Collins in Georgia, Ken Paxton in Texas and Michael Whatley in North Carolina who are in trouble.

Actually, there are two excellent reasons that Trump should not help Collins, Paxton, Whatley and some of the others. But we very much doubt he understands them. First, South Carolina was a primary. In it, Republican voters were asked to choose one Republican over another. Democrats played no role in the primary. In South Carolina, Trump was talking only to Republicans and they listen to him. In general election races, that is not true.

Second, if Trump shows up in Georgia, Texas or North Carolina, that will energize both Republicans and Democrats. That didn't matter in South Carolina but it definitely will in close races. Given the poor environment for Republicans now, going to Georgia or North Carolina might actually fire up Democrats more than Republicans and a visit would be a net negative. Of course, no staff member will dare tell him: "Sir, if you go to Texas to campaign for Paxton, that will cause him to lose." We also find it odd that some Republicans are asking for the "Darline treatment." If they are in a deep-red state or district, they don't need help. If they swing, having Trump show up is likely to be counterproductive as the Democrat will probably hold a rally at the same time to denounce him and fire up the Democrats' base. (V)

Top Republican Election Lawyer: The Mail-in Voting XO Will Hurt Us

Each party has a go-to lawyer for elections. For the Democrats it is Marc Elias. For the Republicans, it is Ben Ginsberg. Ginsberg was national counsel for the Bush-Cheney campaign twice and was the lead lawyer in the Florida 2000 recount fiasco. He has also worked for the RNC, the NRSC, the NRCC, the Swift Boat Veterans, and various other Republican groups. There is no doubt which team he is on. And he is very good at what he does.

He has now commented on Donald Trump's XO that is intended to kill off mail-in voting and which the Supreme Court seems likely to uphold when the case is heard on the merits—even though there is absolutely no legal or constitutional basis for the XO. Ginsberg said: "One thing is, I think you're going to see some blowback from Republicans in the coming weeks, because after all, Republicans are the older party and older folks like to vote by mail." Ginsberg also said: "And certainly vote-by-mail is important to people in rural areas. And thanks to Donald Trump, there are many more low-propensity voters in the Republican Party."

On Monday he added, "Republican operatives in the states know that putting up those barriers to that part of the Republican base makes Republican turnout less likely. So this is kind of a flawed political strategy wrapped in a rather vocally charged policy from the president."

Ginsberg obviously knows that the XO is patently illegal but that doesn't seem to bother him as much as the fact that it may actually hurt Republicans more than Democrats. A young Democrat in a city who doesn't get the absentee ballot he or she applied for can probably get to the polling place on Election Day if need be. An older person who has mobility issues and who lives in a rural area may not be able to do that, or may think it isn't worth the trouble. Marginal Republicans, who saved the day for Trump in 2024, may also think that standing in line to vote is just too much trouble, particularly when their Dear Leader is not on the ballot.

Despite Ginsberg's comments, Trump is pushing ahead with the legal process (undoubtedly against Ginsberg's better judgment) to get the judge's order blocking the XO lifted. If the process goes on another 3 weeks, voting will already have started in some states. Having the rules change after voting has started will be a humongous mess and although Ginsberg is somewhat retired, his services will be badly needed to help Trump sort it all out. (V)

And Now for Some Mail-in-Ballot Chess

There have been some developments in the case brought by the League of Women Voters (LWV) and other voting rights groups challenging Donald Trump's executive order to control how mail-in ballots are handled. As readers will recall, this case, and a case brought by 23 states titled California v. Trump, are in front of U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts. Talwani issued injunctions in both cases, with the LWV injunction applying nationwide and the other injunction only applying to the 23 state plaintiffs. On Monday, a majority of Supreme Court justices (the exact number of which is not known) overturned the injunction as to the states, finding that because the USPS had not issued a final order, the case was not yet "ripe" (i.e., sufficiently developed for the court to hear).

In the meantime, Talwani's injunction in the LWV case, which was put in place on August 11, had enjoined the USPS not only from implementing any new rules with respect to elections but also from "initiating or completing rulemaking" in response to the executive order. Nevertheless, the postal service issued what it called a "final order" with an effective date of August 21 and to be published on August 26. LWV filed an emergency motion on Tuesday to enforce the preliminary injunction, and late Tuesday night, Talwani agreed that the administration had violated the court's order. But she stopped short of granting the relief sought by LWV to nullify the final rule as to the midterm elections. Instead, she agreed with the defendants that because her order is still in place, the rule currently has no force or effect.

Then, Talwani did a couple of very clever things. First, she noted that in its emergency appeal to the Supreme Court in California v. Trump, the government "feigned compliance" with the order and lamented to the Court that their hands were tied to implement the XO and that they were being harmed "every day that the agencies are unable to take steps to carry out the Executive Order as to the November 2026 election." At the same time, they were preparing the final rule, effective August 21, to carry out the XO in direct violation of the court's order and their assertions to the Supreme Court. Talwani also noted that the Supreme Court believed their representations, which we now know were lies.

The next thing she did was to deny the remedies proposed by LWV. Instead, she suggested to the plaintiffs that they file an amended complaint as to the final rule, formally titled "Ballot Mail for Federal Elections." The defendants indicated that they would consent to that filing. She noted that the prior filings had challenged the XO itself, not the final rule. And, as an aside, she added this: "Defendants' violation of the court's order may ultimately inure to Plaintiffs' benefit, where, now that a Final Rule has issued despite the pendency of the injunction, Plaintiffs could choose to file an amended complaint reasserting their current, non-APA claims, but noting that the issuance of a Final Rule is no longer hypothetical."

This aside previewed what happened yesterday. On Wednesday, Talwani lifted the nationwide injunction in the LWV case, and LWV and the other plaintiffs filed their amended complaint challenging the Final Rule, which was published that same day by the USPS. In other words, the Supreme Court's reasoning for striking down her first injunction in the states' case—that the case was brought prematurely—no longer applies. Now, the plaintiffs can seek a new preliminary injunction of the Final Rule, which will no doubt be granted expeditiously.

One final thought as these machinations play out: District courts don't normally have to try to game the Supreme Court like this to get justice served or to prevent significant harm to our democracy. The evidence can no longer be denied that we have a Supreme Court majority that is willing to go increasingly further to sow chaos and put a thumb on the scales for Republicans in upcoming elections. We'll see how they handle the inevitable emergency appeal when they have to decide this issue on the merits. One other trick the Supremes have up their sleeve is to again rely on their selective application of the "Purcell principle" which cautions courts about changing rules too close to an election. Readers will recall that they invoked this rule in the summer of 2025 with respect to Texas gerrymandering, despite being months away from the primary, and then claimed it didn't apply to Alabama despite voting having already begun in that state. It would be an even greater abomination to reverse an injunction on the grounds that the case was brought too soon and then reverse the same injunction on the grounds that it's too late, but we're beyond being surprised by this Court. We're not beyond being disappointed and appalled, but no longer surprised. (L)

The Trade War with Canada Is Hurting Republican Candidates in Border States

Usually when we talk about problems in border states, we mean California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Not now. This time we mean Montana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio (which has a water border with Canada across Lake Erie), New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. The northern border is much longer than the southern border and there are many more elections in states along it than in states along the southern border. Donald Trump's trade war with Canada is threatening Republican candidates in many of those states.

The problem with the trade war is twofold. First, it is making many imports that Americans and U.S. companies have long depended on 50% more expensive. In some cases for businesses, that price increase makes the products they sell no longer competitive. Second, many U.S. exports to Canada are also 50% more expensive and Canadians are not buying them, hurting the U.S. companies and stores that sell them.

This puts Republican candidates in states and districts near the border in a bind. The Democrat in the race will be attacking the Republicans from sunrise to midnight for not reining Trump in and saying we need a Democratic Congress that will simply say: "NO!" to him and stop him. What's a Republican to do? Agree and say Trump was wrong to start the trade war? In nearly all cases that will bring down Trump's wrath on the candidate. Defend the trade war? That will anger the voters who are being hurt by it. There is no good solution.

A very few candidates, like Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), have de facto special permission to oppose the trade war and she can even vote against it if need be—as long as her vote doesn't matter. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) understands her situation very well and will explain it to Trump if he has to. But for the substantial number of other Republicans in northern border states, there is no permission note.

Jason Cabel Roe, a Michigan-based Republican strategist, said: "This escalation and the timing of it are problematic. It really undermines our messaging when we're trying to address affordability and we're already having to deal with the price of oil due to the war in Iran." For Democrats in the border states, it is a no-brainer to say: "Prices are already sky high and instead of trying to lower them, Trump is intentionally driving them even higher. We need a Democratic Congress that will rein him in."

There are two important Senate races where the trade war is becoming a major issue: Michigan and Ohio. Neither Republican candidate Mike Rogers nor Sen. Jon Husted (R-OH) wants to defend the policy, but they have to. Michigan and Ohio have more trade with Canada than any other states, so the effect is the greatest in two states with critical toss-up Senate races. In particular, the auto industry is tightly integrated across the border, with many parts going back and forth. Disturbing that flow has a major impact on the industry.

J.D. Vance is trying to help by traveling around the northern states saying that all the administration wants is fair trade. Of course, he doesn't mention that the item that killed the deal is Canada's refusal to give up its national sovereignty and agree to not make trade deals with other countries as Trump demanded. (V)

Both Dan Sullivans Made it to November

Alaska uses a top-four primary followed by a ranked-choice election in November. Mary Peltola (D), Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) and teacher Dan Sullivan have all qualified for the November ballot. The fourth slot is not definite yet, as the fourth- and fifth-place finishers are separated by only 43 votes with some votes still not counted in the sprawling state. The sled dogs are overheating in the hot summer and aren't moving as fast as usual to bring in the last ballots.

Should Dan Sullivan (1) be worried about Dan Sullivan (2), given the complexity of the ranked-choice voting? In a word, yes, due to exhaustion. Not voter exhaustion or candidate exhaustion, but ballot exhaustion.

A rational Republican who didn't know which Dan Sullivan was the senator and which was the teacher should mark one of them as #1 and the other as #2. If it is close, the not-yet-selected fourth-place candidate, who got about 1,000 votes in the primary, will be eliminated on round 1. Then teacher Dan will be eliminated in round 2, and all of his ballots should go to real Dan in the next round. Then it will be a straight two-way race between the Senator and Peltola.

However, not all voters are rational. Some of them may pick teacher Dan as #1 and fail to designate a number 2. This is called ballot exhaustion, and in that case, after the first round, the exhausted ballot is discarded and does not count for the senator.

Could this happen in practice? In the immortal words of Sarah Palin, "You betcha." There is even evidence of this. In the 2024 Alaska House race, 1.1% of the voters picked Democrat Eric Hafner. Maybe he was special in some way. Fine. One would have expected all of Hafner's voters to pick the only other Democrat on the ballot, Peltola, as second choice. That didn't happen. About one-third had Peltola as #2, about one-third were scattered over many candidates, and about one-third were exhausted—that is, there was no second choice. This means that most likely some fraction of the people voting for teacher Dan will not make a second choice and their ballots will be exhausted. Those are most likely votes intended for the Senator. In a close election, losing a few thousand votes could be enough to defeat Senator Dan. In 2022, something similar happened when Nick Begich, Sarah Palin and Mary Peltola were left after 1 round. Again, about 20% of Begich voters didn't have a second choice, so when he was eliminated, their presumably right-leaning ballots were exhausted.

Teacher Dan said he is a non-MAGA Republican. We have no idea if that is true (well, if you pressed us, we could make an educated guess). If the Democrats want to engage in a little rodent reproduction, they could run ads in Alaska for teacher Dan pushing him as a libertarian Republican who doesn't like Washington bossing Alaskans around, and who will vote in the Senate to reduce the size of the federal government. That might actually attract quite a few Republican votes. There could well be voters who actually know which Dan is which but who have a preference for a libertarian candidate over a MAGA candidate. Of course, if they are smart, they will mark the "other" Dan as #2, but the ads wouldn't point that out. The ads could even show a person marking the ballot for teacher Dan and immediately putting it in the ballot box with no second choice, to tacitly encourage people to exhaust their ballot. In a close election, every vote could matter. (V)

Billionaire Stanley Druckenmiller's Blistering Critique of Bessent Was Written by AI

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is actively trying to reduce interest rates, because that is what Donald Trump wants. Unfortunately, Bessent has no direct control over interest rates, so he is trying to do it indirectly. He is ordering the Treasury to buy back existing bonds on the secondary market. By reducing the supply of bonds on the market, investors will bid up the prices for the remaining bonds since many investors believe U.S. government bonds are the safest investment possible. Since the semiannual coupon payout on existing bonds is fixed, investors buying bonds at a higher price than it used to be are effectively getting a lower interest rate than investors who bought them at the old and lower price. When bonds are paying a lower interest rate than they used to, that tends to force all interest rates down. At least that is the idea.

Not all investors and financial experts like the idea of the treasury trying to fight the bond market. Some financial types think it is pointless for the government to fight the fundamentals. They believe that if bond prices are going down and yields are going up, the bond market is speaking to you and you should listen. It knows what it is doing better than you do.

Legendary billionaire investor Stanley Druckenmiller, who worked with Bessent at George Soros' fund management firm in the 1990s, and who is seen as Bessent's mentor, is one of those who strongly opposes Bessent buying up bonds. He published a scathing op-ed in The Wall Street Journal attacking his former pupil. The op-ed was called "Let the Bond Market Speak." The op-ed argues that with inflation at 3-4% and the federal deficit at 6% of GDP, investors are demanding a higher return, and trying to force down bond yields artificially is a pointless and foolish endeavor. The op-ed says the markets combine the wisdom of thousands of investors, much more than any one person, even a treasury secretary, has. It is a long and detailed argument that Bessent is foolish and will fail. Since Druckenmiller is a well-known billionaire with decades of market experience, it made a huge wave on Wall Street.

Only Druckenmiller didn't write the essay. An AI bot wrote it. Someone used Pangram, an AI detection tool, to unmask the op-ed as fake. When confronted with this observation, Druckenmiller admitted it and said he uses all the tools at his disposal, and that includes AI.

But there is a larger lesson here. AI has gotten so good that it can fool the editors at the WSJ and people on Wall Street. If that is so, it can certainly go the other way as well. Next time Bessent or any other federal official puts out a statement that can move markets or otherwise affect the real world, can people trust it? Can people believe the "author" even read the whole thing or agrees with it? Maybe the "author" just instructed an AI bot to "write a press release about the bond market or about energy prices or about vaccines or about the war in Iran, or about just about anything." With a few vague hints, a bot could churn out something plausible. What about a politician instructing an AI bot: "Figure out what polling says the people want about [X] and then write me a press release supporting [X]." Or instead of issuing a press release, the instruction could be to write a speech supporting [X], even though the politician knows nothing about [X] and just wants to say what the people want to hear. Or even better, tell the bot "Find the three issues people care most about and write me a speech supporting all three." This is probably not a good development for a democracy, but here we are. (V)

Many States Have Ballot Measures Affecting Elections and Democracy in November

Republicans are striking back. In the past, there have been numerous ballot measures in many states sponsored by Democrats or Democratic-leaning groups—for example, on abortion. Now Republicans are getting into the act and have gotten initiatives on the ballot in many states for things they like. These include voter ID, citizenship and direct democracy in general. Here are the main ones this year:

Voter ID

• Arizona: An amendment requiring voters to present government-issued photo ID to vote by any method
• California: A measure requiring in-person voters to show ID or give last four digits of SS or DL number
• Nevada: A measure requiring in-person voters to show ID or give last four digits of SS or DL number
• North Carolina: A measure requiring photo ID for voting by any method
• Ohio: A measure to put the law requiring photo ID for voting in the state Constitution

The measures that require photo ID for any method of voting mean that people who vote by absentee ballot will have to include a photocopy of some government-issued ID. This is hugely dangerous since anyone who gets a hold of that ID can impersonate the voter in the future using that ID.

Citizenship

• Alaska: A measure stating that only U.S. citizens can vote in any election
• Arkansas: A constitutional amendment stating that only U.S. citizens can vote in any election
• Kansas: A constitutional amendment stating that only U.S. citizens can vote in any election
• South Dakota: A constitutional amendment stating that only U.S. citizens can vote in any election
• West Virginia: A constitutional amendment stating that only U.S. citizens can vote in any election

It is already the case that one must be a U.S. citizen to vote in federal elections. However, in some states, localities can allow permanent residents who are not citizens to vote in local elections. All of these measures would ban that practice.

Democracy

• Alaska: A measure to repeal the top-four primary system and revert to what it was before.
• Maryland: A measure to allow the legislature to draw new (gerrymandered) district maps before 2028
• Massachusetts: A measure to adopt the California top-two nonpartisan primary system
• North Dakota: A measure to require constitutional amendments to get at least 60% of the vote to pass
• South Dakota: As North Dakota goes, so goes South Dakota. Same 60% rule here
• Utah: A measure requiring certain tax initiatives to get 60%
• Virginia: A measure to re-enfranchise all ex-felons automatically upon their release from prison

The measures requiring 60% of the vote for amendments were dreamed up by Republican state legislatures that don't think voters should have anything to do with making laws. That is the legislature's job and the legislators don't welcome any input or interference from, you know, the people. Raising the threshold makes it harder for measures to pass in the future. (V)

Republicans: The Upcoming Republican National Convention is a Sh** Show

Donald Trump dreamed up the idea of having a Republican national convention in a midterm year as a way to drum up support for Republicans. It reminds one of the big "state fair" he demanded on the Mall, and to which almost no one came. Like the fair idea, this one is not doing well either.

Insiders who know the details have described the convention, scheduled for Sept. 9-10 in Dallas, as a "trainwreck" or worse yet, a "sh** show." Trump bleated about it: "We are going to celebrate the GREAT AMERICAN COMEBACK, and the incredible successes of the American People who transformed our Country through the America First Agenda." For one thing, the NRCC is asking House members to buy a ticket for themselves and one other person for $25,000 and up per ticket. Some members are being asked to pony up $100,000. This is basically extorting Republican House members. Very few of them even want to go. Naturally, corporations that have business before the government are being "encouraged" to contribute as well.

There is also criticism of the dates, coming just before 9/11, which will no doubt enable lots of Muslim-bashing, despite a close Senate race in Michigan. Another problem with the timing is that Sept. 9 is the opening game of the NFL season, and that is likely to draw many voters away from watching the convention. On Sept. 9, the Seattle Seahawks will play the New England Patriots. On Sept. 10, the San Francisco 49ers will play the Los Angeles Rams.

The keynote speakers will be Donald Trump and J.D. Vance, naturally. While Democrats and independents are not likely to watch—not even those with no interest in football—they are likely to see clips from it or read about it afterwards. Since the entire menu will be red meat for the base, it is surely going to enrage Democrats and independents.

One Republican strategist said: "Nobody understands why we're doing a midterm convention. It's just another show that Trump is going to put on to remind the voters that he is sitting there, and maybe they don't want to be reminded of that." (V)

Musk Won't Stand Trial for Bribery

Elon Musk actively took part in the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court election—in a way that many lawyers think was illegal. Musk tweeted that he was going to give a talk in Wisconsin, with entry limited to people who had voted in the Supreme Court election. He also said he would hand out two checks for a million dollars each at the rally. Paying people to vote (or not vote) is illegal. When someone pointed this out to him, he changed that to saying admission would be limited to people who had signed a petition against activist judges. The petition campaign was simply a trick to collect e-mail addresses of people who skew Republican, since it is Republicans who generally thunder about activist judges—with no sign of irony despite the Supreme Court's project of overturning all jurisprudence it doesn't happen to like. Paying people to sign a petition might be legal since the petition didn't mean anything, but that doesn't erase his first statement. Many people called for Musk to be prosecuted for it.

On Tuesday, La Crosse County D.A. Tim Gruenke (D) announced that he was not going to prosecute Musk, despite the fact that Wisconsin's Election Commission voted 5-1 that Musk violated the state's bribery law. Gruenke said that he didn't think he could get a conviction. He said that requiring proof that one had voted in order to get into a town hall was not offering anything of value, and to qualify as a bribe, the person offering it has to offer something of value. As to the two checks for $1 million, Musk had said the lucky winners could be spokespeople for his campaign to defeat the Democratic candidate. A jury might see that as an offer to apply for a job and thus not illegal. (V)

Today's Senate Polls

The Cook Political Report rates Iowa as a tossup. If you click on "Iowa" in blue below (or on "Senate graphs" to the left of the map), you can see the polls and why Cook might think it will be close. One other factor here that hasn't been discussed much anywhere is the possible correlation between the open Senate race and open gubernatorial race in Iowa. There Cook and others have state Auditor Rob Sand (D) in the lead. For Sand to win and also Hinson, there would have to be a lot of ticket splitting in Iowa, and ticket splitting is getting increasingly rare. It could happen, of course, but it would still be unusual. (V)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Iowa	Josh Turek	41%	Ashley Hinson	45%	Aug 20	Aug 23	Suffolk U.

* Denotes incumbent

---

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